Postby ChrisThies » Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:47 am
Before noticing this particular thread I was just about to reply to your "Posta di Bicorno/Unterhau connection" thread in regards to this same - Schielhau/Bicornio - possible connection! Which became apparent to me after viewing the 'Jorg Wilhalm' images (posted by J. Norwood) and related text responses (by H. Heim & you) on "The schiller strike" thread. BUT, the difference is that I do not agree/see that the '1467 Talhoffer' plate 1 (right figure) and these 'Jorg Wilhalm' (right figure) are possibly downward blows/cuts.
The '1467 Talhoffer' plate 1 text states, "...The swordsman on the right cuts from below." And although I am not familiar with the source of 'Jorg Wilham' images, and do not know if they have any accompanying text, I do believe that the simple bio-mechanics of the right hand position shown (either supinated or over-supinated) would - in a downward blow of intent - very likely result in (or be prone to) a disarming of the right hand account the force of the blow would be transferred to the weakest part of the grip (the fingers rather than the palm of hand).
I propose that not only are these actions most likely upward blows, but also that the most natural/likely start position for these particular upward blows would be the low (left) Schiller. For instance, perhaps prior to the image frame the right figure(s) had initiated a Schiller which failed to make contact/bind with opponent's blade - perhaps opponent was in a Pflug, saw the
Schiller coming [telegraphed perhaps?], so he then winds from Pflug to Vom Tag in order to execute an Oberhau or Schietelhau - so now the best course of action for the figure on the right is to Unterhau (from his failed Schiller technique) against the opponent's Vom Tag action.
How does this compare to your downward blow theory?
{Good fencers make good neighbors}
Christopher Thies
