Schielhau: The most difficult of the meisterhau´s

[M Wallgren]

It is something like that!

Yep, we have found its more of a follow up. You can also feint a normal Diagonal oberhau, to get the opponent started the switch attacside. This is the way it has worked for us.

It is vital that your sparring weapon is balanced as a a sword from the timeperiod of H.T. Otherwise this gets almost to hard to execute. The sword doesn´t get fast enough.

You should be shure of the distanse and timing in this to open with it, otherwise you should stick to a more conventional opening. But in sparring it is worth trying as to learn a new trick if you should go up against a advesory who is bigger, stronger and slower than you!

It is also a good lay-up for a Geschrenkt ortt (trust from the right ochs)

Cheers

Martin

[Joachim Nilsson]

The Sturzhau can be used in Zufechten without any other blows being delivered first. Or rather: When in Zufecthen (and while leading with the left foot) take a small step towards the enemy with the right foot and feint a Zornhau. As soon as the enemy reacts to this and tries to counter with a Zornhau of his own, you quickly step 45 degress to you left by taking a big step with you left foot while simultaneously whipping the sword around into a Sturzhau. This gives the possibility of catching him "off guard" and from the opposite side of where he was expecting you to attack, hitting him in his upper right opening (side of head, neck/throat, shoulder).

It is a risky move though.

Edit: I just noticed that Martin has already mentioned this. So never mind.

[Jaron Bernstein]

Thanks. We are hosting John C. this weekend so I will get a chance to try it out with the others at the seminar. <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Casper Bradak]

I get your point here but I think you simplify "in absurdum". If we don´t define we could skip the terminology on meisterhau all togheter and call all the guards just "a guar

No, you don't. I'm differentiating these two specific techniques by use, not by side, that's all.

In this case I think there is a major difference between a "shiller" and a "sturzhau", The "Shiller" ending with the right foot forward and the "ochs" on the left side of your body and the arms not crossed, the "Sturtzhau" ending in with the left foot forward and the arms crossed in the right "Ochs". To me that´s as different as a "Zwerhau" to a "krumphau". But as long as we can sort them from eachother in some way, (calling the "Sturzhau" a "leftyshiller" or what ever we want) it´s fine.

Yeah, it's different, one is on the left, one is on the right. You're not giving the zwerchhau a different name when using it to strike from either side, and it's every bit as different, the only difference between the zwerch and sturz/schiller is the vertical/horizontal plane. The real difference I'm advocating here is use. I'm saying I can perform a sturzhau on either side, and a shiller on either side. It's all about context.

Could you soecify what you mean with later? When do you belive the art was at it´s best? The Example I made I took from the 1467 Hans Talhoffer fechtbuch. Is that late in your oppinion? Talhoffer and Ringeck was almost temporary and could have met, at least in theory.

By later I mean at a point in time nearer us. The later manuals obviously break down into more specific terms what were once transitory positions, combination attacks, etc. Thus, I think that it is possible that what once was a shiller was broken down into a schiller on the left and sturzhau on the right. But again, as far as Meyer is concerned, I believe he is simply giving examples and does not mean to say that if you do it on the right it's a sturzhau, and on the left it's a schiller. I believe you can do them both on either side, just like a zwerchhau, etc. It's a matter of application.

[Jake_Norwood]

But again, as far as Meyer is concerned, I believe he is simply giving examples and does not mean to say that if you do it on the right it's a sturzhau, and on the left it's a schiller. I believe you can do them both on either side, just like a zwerchhau, etc. It's a matter of application.

I agree that the sturzhau and the schiller are *different* techniques, although whether or not they'd be performed on both sides is another issue (meaning I'm not convinced one way or the other). What are the proposed differences other than form, which we've already gone over?

My initial proposal:

The Schiller, one of the Meisterhaue, is primarily used to deflect an oncoming oberhau and hit with an immediate shot to the head or right shoulder in more or less one motion. In some forms it also breaks pflug (though I'm unconvinced as to how)

The Sturzhau, not a meisterhau but rather a technique listed in Talhoffer and Meyer, appears to be most effective as a follow-on strike following a strong bind or deflection, much like twitching around with a zwerch to the other side, except that it is a descending short-edge strike even though the left foot leads upon completion (which is often, but certainly not universally, different from most other short-edge strikes, which usually end with the right foot forward).

Anything to add?

Jake

[Casper Bradak]

The Schiller, one of the Meisterhaue, is primarily used to deflect an oncoming oberhau and hit with an immediate shot to the head or right shoulder in more or less one motion. In some forms it also breaks pflug (though I'm unconvinced as to how)

The Sturzhau, not a meisterhau but rather a technique listed in Talhoffer and Meyer, appears to be most effective as a follow-on strike following a strong bind or deflection, much like twitching around with a zwerch to the other side, except that it is a descending short-edge strike even though the left foot leads upon completion (which is often, but certainly not universally, different from most other short-edge strikes, which usually end with the right foot forward).

That's exactly what I'm saying, the real difference is how you use it. The only real difference of opinion I have is that they can both be done on each side without effecting wether it's a sturz or a schiller, though I do agree each one has a preferable side (just not an "only" side), hence the targeting/footwork is up to you. Sturzhau = cut, Scheilhau = mastercut.

[M Wallgren]

That's exactly what I'm saying, the real difference is how you use it. The only real difference of opinion I have is that they can both be done on each side without effecting wether it's a sturz or a schiller, though I do agree each one has a preferable side (just not an "only" side), hence the targeting/footwork is up to you. Sturzhau = cut, Scheilhau = mastercut.

I disagree that they could be done on both sides. I do agree that the Sturzhau is not called a meisterhau.

Is your point that you want to simplify the terminolgy?

Or do you think that our interpretation of the sturzhau is wrong?
If that is the case, how do you do the Sturzhau?

The terminology we use is not our own, it is Hans Talhoffers. Is your point that Ringeck and Döbringer did the strike but had no name for it.

Please bear with me, I don´t get your meaning.

[ChrisThies]

Hello Martin,
I used an Oakeshott type XIIIA. Perhaps if I'm good a local Santa will bring me a type XVA for Christmas <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" /> !

You (and Joachim) have provided two feasible sturzhauw scenerios that differ in that one is initiated immediately following blade contact, and the other is initiated in absence of blade contact:
1) As a nachreisen action (as Jeff pointed out above), where blade contact was avoided (therefore I guess this particular sturzhauw application could be considered a type of durchwechseln). So you basically winden (in the upper blossens only) from a von tag to a sturzhauw.
and,
2) Following blade contact (either full intent zornhaus from both opponents, or perhaps a feint zornhau from one) you are again winden from that initial von tag - now executed zornhau - to a sturzhauw, and you may again be winden in only the upper blossens, or perhaps now even dipping into your lower right blossen as you winden to sturzhauw, all of this situationally dependent upon the force/type of blade contact.

I chose to compare the short edged sturzhauw to a long edged krumphau in my impromptu test cutting because I was trying to see which half-arm cut [i.e. a half-arm cut that would keep one hands high and thus further away from the opponents menacing wechselhaw [unterhaw] of Talhoffer plate 2 scenerio] - would be the better cut. But now I better understand the context of your feasible applications, that the opponents wechselhaw (of plate 2) was superceded by a zornhau. Thanks, because now I see specifically - in your sturzhauw examples that were responding to an opponents initial zornhau - how a sturzhauw might provide more defensive benefit (with its slightly higher, right ochs hand position) over the hand/hilt position of the long edged krumphau. I was thinking along the lines that 'my opponent has his sword is in his lower left blossen, so I'll leap to his right and strike his upper right blossen'. So even if the cutting potential of the sturzhau were to be less than another optional half-arm blow, situationally I could see it still being the better option based upon its inherent defensive ability.

When cutting I did sense from my lack of success that perhaps I was missing some part of the equation. So I did execute some sturzhauws and long edged krumphaus starting from a right tail guard, with basically the same results. So I guess I'll just have to practice more.

[M Wallgren]

Hi Chris!

Put it on yor list:D

Well Joachim and I had the oppurtunity last night to play around a little bit, (normally we are 400miles appart) as I am visiting in his area. We did focus a bit on the Sturzhau as to get more to say here in this topic. A thing we have forgot to say is what happens when you have your senarion B).

The momentum of the sword defending with a zornhau gives your sturtzhau a lot of power. This is very hard do get a feeling of in solodrills, but with a partner you will feel it. Take care when you do it because if you dont pull your Sturzhau a little bit your buddy will get hurt.

But yes you got our interpretation right. As stated above sturzhau is not a meisterhau. But it is a very usefull trick. Especially when so many swordfighters learn the Liechtenauer school of fencing and get somewhat predictable before the get very experinced.

cheers...

Martin

[Jake_Norwood]

As stated above sturzhau is not a meisterhau. But it is a very usefull trick.

This is a very common thing throughout the manuals, I belive. Lots of little tips and tricks--only by looking at the bigger picture do we get "principles." Liechtenawuer's Zetl is all about principles. The commentaries are tricks and techniques that demonstrate the principles. Other masters, such as Talhoffer and Meyer, include other tricks and tips that fit into sets of principles less emphasized by L. I think that the sturzhau is in that realm.

Jake

[ChrisThies]

Hello Martin.
Thanks to the effort of many, Lindholm's translation of Doebringer (now available in the ARMA manuals section) also provides a citeable 'storczhaw' referrence (page 57, 48 Recto, of online translation). I believe it supports the sturzhauw interpretation (ala Talhoffer &amp; Meyer) that you &amp; Joachim have divulged to us.

[Jake_Norwood]

Damn...I've been working with that translation for weeks...how did I miss that!

Jake

[Casper Bradak]

I disagree that they could be done on both sides. I do agree that the Sturzhau is not called a meisterhau.

Is your point that you want to simplify the terminolgy?

No. I guess you could say I think it's possible you're overspecifying the terminology though.

Or do you think that our interpretation of the sturzhau is wrong?
If that is the case, how do you do the Sturzhau?

No. I think your interpretation is as valid as mine.
I don't think you're doing it wrong, but in my opinion, the sturzhau can be done in more ways than your ideas allow (specifically, on both sides).

The terminology we use is not our own, it is Hans Talhoffers. Is your point that Ringeck and Döbringer did the strike but had no name for it.

No. They apparently used that name, and the terminology was apparently rather wide spread. Given that it was used by many masters over a possible couple hundred years period, you shouldn't set the technique in stone without specifying a master. I believe that if you guys are right, it's more likely that you're right about it but from a specific master, not about the technique in general.

[Jake_Norwood]

Hi Casper.

On what account do you think Martin is overspecifying? I agree that the masters may mean more than what they depict (the Schiller, according to Meyer and Mair, frex) can be done from both sides. Presumably the sturzhau can too (though I'm fuzzy on how it might work). Is that what you're saying? If so, sure. OTOH, we don't (yet) have the sturzhau described as being something that works from both sides...or at least somehting that is called that.

But I do think that the schiller and the sturz are different in form not just function, and I think that the images and text supports this.

Jake

[Brian Hunt]

Just a real quick post from Mair on "The 'Schiller haw' from both sides", plate #4 in the longsword section. This is not a complete transcription and translation, but it discusses the way to strike a "schiller haw" which I assume is a schielhaw, but may not be because schiller=schimmer=shimmer or gleam.

German transcription:

Item wann du mit dem Zufechten zuo dem mann kombst, so setz deinen linggen schengel hinfür, das die kurtz schnaid unden gewandt sey, tritt mit dem rechten fouss hinnach, und wend deinen knopff under deinen rechten arm, setz ihm den ort an.

rough German translation:

"Note, when you with the approach to the opponent come, then set your left leg to the front, that the short edge shall be turned under, pass forward with your right foot, and turn your pommell under your right arm, then set the point onto (to/against) him."

Latin Transcription:

Quum in adversarii conspectum gladiando accesseris, levum propone conversa acie brevi inferne, dextro consequere flecteque nodulum ensis tui sub dextrum brachium directo in eum mucrone.

the Latin translates roughly as

"When you approach wielding a sword before your opponent, place the left foot before with the short edge turned down, follow with the right foot, and wind the pommel of your sword under your right arm directing the point into him."

I am posting this here since we are discussing the schielhau and the sturzhau. It was commented on at the sword forum, when I posted this there, that this looks more like a sturzhau than a schielhau, and we have the word schiller, instead of sheil.

T. Stoeppler said:

after having read this a second time, i am a little intrigued why the pommel is being moved BELOW the right arm - It sounds more like a Sturzhau, which is clearly a transition to a thrust.

Hope this doesn't further confuse the issue, but there it is.

Brian Hunt
GFS