the master strikes of Liechtaneur

[Jaron Bernstein]

That makes sense. Enough that I will try it out in class this week. Jeff the younger is on to my twitching tricks after all. <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Casper Bradak]

One possibility, mentioned by Bart Walchak, if I remember correctly, is that this technique uses the defense of the opponent to cause the blade of the foil to flex around his and strike his face with the flat, rather than displacing his blade and smacking him, before the follow on rebounding strike. That would make it primarily a school technique though. Just another possibility.
Also, you probably shouldn't ever rely on your first strike to end it.

[M Wallgren]

Because you can often very safely assume that a strike will be deflected. If he protects himself against an edge blow you may lose the initiative. If you are rebounding twice as fast because of the flat strike, however, you'll hit an opening very quickly. And a flat strike still sucks, trust me...

Jake

This looks very simillar to something Joachim and I found in Talhoffer 1467, concerning sturzhau.

[Jake_Norwood]

Do expound!

Jake

[Joachim Nilsson]

Jake wrote:

Do expound!

Alrighty then! <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

Martin is referring to the first two plates in Talhoffer 1467 (I will delve further into this within a moment so bear with me).

Jake, you remember the personal correspondance you and I had concerning the Sturzhau and our interpretation of it? I always envisioned further correspondance and explanations being made but... well, life intervened. Anyway, what Martin is hinting at is in direct relation to that.

The plates he is referring to is plate 2 and 3 (in the Mark Rector translation). We have found that they actually are in sequence (albeit in decending order; i.e. plate 3 is followed by plate 2). This would mean that the fighter on the left [in plate 3] transitions from Vom Tag into Zornort and thrusts at the right fighter, who in turn (perhaps by overreacting) displaces this with an Oberhau. That action would then put the right fighter in Wechsel (as shown in plate 2). Now we come to the good part: When the right fighter displaces the Zornort by striking on the flat, the fighter on the left uses the momentum from that blow, steps back out and whips his sword around and hits the right fighter with his short edge -thus performing a Sturzhau.

It is still our firm belief that Sturzhau is a cut (as the techniques very name implies) and not a thrust. Talhoffer already have a thrust launched froma position similar to that which one ends up in when performing the Sturzhau -this he calls the Geschrenkt Ort. It is displayed on plate 4. Today I also found an attack closely resembling Talhoffer's Sturzhau in Vadi's Arte Gladitoria. That one is called the roverso fendente and is descibed as a cut with the short edge.

We have been able to perform the above series in both free-play, technique training as well as sparring. With wooden wasters and sparring swords. In half speed and full speed, full force. We have also been able to perform (our version of) the Sturzhau in Zufechten by making a passing step with the right foot and then feinting a regular Oberhau, and then making another passing step with the left leg and whipping the sword around into a Sturzhau. These attacks were also successfull and we managed to hit each other on several occasions. Despite starting a couple of meters apart.

I know the Sturzhau actually deserves a discussion of its own and I apologize for hijacking this thread. But I think the reason that Martin brought it up here is because he is searching for a connection between Talhoffer and Meyer (as opposed to a connection, or tradition, between Talhoffer and Ringeck.) We actually have a few theories that Talhoffer actually might be anti-Ringecktechniques techniques, but that is something we'll have to explore further before stating anything publicly.

This whole explanation of our interprattion of Sturzhau was actually brought to your attention a bit prematurely as we had intended to present our finding in a more formal manner; i.e. article or HTML-based presentation featuring text, pics and videos. We've hinted at this project in this thread over at myarmoury.com: http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=3755

Best regards,

[Jake_Norwood]

Hi Joachim.

I remember that discussion now. I am still of the opinion that the sturzhau is a thrust...but less so than before.

Meyer says of the Sturzhau:

Sturzhauw
Obwohl dieser Hauw ein Oberhauw ist, unnd dafür geachtet das zwischen diesem und jenem ein geringer underscheidt sey, wirdt doch dieser darumb der Sturzhauw genant, das er im durchhauwen alweg oben ubersturzt, das die spitz dem widerpart gegen seinem gesicht kompt in Ochsen, und wirt den mehrertheil im gang oder zufechten gebraucht.

Plunge Strike
Although this strike is an Over Strike, be aware that between one and the other lies a minor difference, from which comes this strike's name of Plunge Strike, that one strikes through by plungeing from above, and that the point comes against one's opponent's face from the Ox, and can thus be executed from the start or pre-fencing.

(Rassumussen translation)

I confess that by leading the point in such a manner he *could* be directing a cut with reference to the point...but the most simple explanation is the thrust.

Second, while your interpretation of Talhoffer plates 3 and 2 is certainly functional (similar techniques appear all over meyer, for example), it doesn't fit the text. The swabian reads "Wechsselhow" (Wechselhau), not "Wechsel." The fighter on the right is perfroming (or about to perform) a cut which is described in Meyer and which is not simply the end of a zornhau, as you propose. Finally, I don't know of any other place in Talhoffer where sequential plates are in reverse order.

That being said, although I think your argument/interpretation of Talhoffer is off, I think you may still be on to something in your interpretation of the sturzhau. It's not a cut that I personally like, but JC is quite fond of it...I know it can be performed, and it does make sense that something called a "hau" would be a cut or blow, not a thrust. And your "Geschreckt ort" argument likewise supports that proposal...which makes sense also.

Jake

[Joachim Nilsson]

Meyer says of the Sturzhau:


In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sturzhauw
Obwohl dieser Hauw ein Oberhauw ist, unnd dafür geachtet das zwischen diesem und jenem ein geringer underscheidt sey, wirdt doch dieser darumb der Sturzhauw genant, das er im durchhauwen alweg oben ubersturzt, das die spitz dem widerpart gegen seinem gesicht kompt in Ochsen, und wirt den mehrertheil im gang oder zufechten gebraucht.

Plunge Strike
Although this strike is an Over Strike, be aware that between one and the other lies a minor difference, from which comes this strike's name of Plunge Strike, that one strikes through by plungeing from above, and that the point comes against one's opponent's face from the Ox, and can thus be executed from the start or pre-fencing.

(Rassumussen translation)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I confess that by leading the point in such a manner he *could* be directing a cut with reference to the point...but the most simple explanation is the thrust.

All I see in that text is a reference to a cut. It makes no sense whatsoever to call a thrust a cut. The German text seem to be very clear when it comes to calling techniques and actions by their correct names. The Mayer manuscript is also separated from the Talhoffer manuscript by almost 100 years.

Second, while your interpretation of Talhoffer plates 3 and 2 is certainly functional (similar techniques appear all over meyer, for example), it doesn't fit the text. The swabian reads "Wechsselhow" (Wechselhau), not "Wechsel." The fighter on the right is perfroming (or about to perform) a cut which is described in Meyer and which is not simply the end of a zornhau, as you propose.

Not that I'm to jump to conclusions but you seem to have misread what I wrote quite grossly. I know the text says Wechselhau. I have not disputed that fact in the least. I was referring to Wechselhut, which is the position one usually launches the Wechselhau from, is it not? Maybe I should have been more clear about the transitionary state of the position he was in... I don't know how you do your cuts, but when I perform a simple oberhau I usually end up in Wechsel. From where I can launch a Wechselhau if I so wish. But that was not the point I was trying to get across since I was referring to the Sturzhau part of that plate. I have not proposed that it is simply the end of the Zornhau -I just stated where the right fighter is at when the Sturzhau hits him.

I'm slightly offended by your assumption since Martin and I would never push for an interpretation of ours unless it has been thoroughly researched and fits with both text and pictures and unless we have been able to perform the techniques with intent and in full speed. Which we have.

Finally, I don't know of any other place in Talhoffer where sequential plates are in reverse order.

Really? The more Martin and I study Talhoffer the more we find. Just because the manuscript, in its present state, may seem cryptic and jumbled it does not mean that that's the state it was in when it first was concieved. According to one of our colleagues, Björn Sollander, the 1467 edition have in fact been reproduced some six to eight times between 1467 and the 1600's. That would leave plenty of room for the pages, and possible sequences, to become jumbled up, would it not? Talhoffer's 1467 blossfechten halfswording plates, for instance, are full of sequential techniques. This becomes quite obvious as soon as you delve deeper into the material.

One thing with Talhoffer's plates that people often seem to overlook, or outright miss, is the double pedagogy that's present in his plates. Take for instance plate 3: The text says "Zorn ortt im dröw - Aber oberhout" and implies that the Thrust of Wrath is countered by a cut from above. Yet the picture shows the tip of the sword belonging to the swordsman performing the Zornort fully embedded in the chest of the fighter on the right. This is what I mean with double pedagogy. The text says one thing and the picture shows what happens if you screw up on your defence. This occurs in several plates throughout the manuscript. A very clever time, space and money saving solution if I may say so. Many modern manufacturers of study material could learn a thing or two from Talhoffer.

That being said, although I think your argument/interpretation of Talhoffer is off,

Could you please elaborate further what you're hinting at...

It's not a cut that I personally like, but JC is quite fond of it...I know it can be performed, and it does make sense that something called a "hau" would be a cut or blow, not a thrust. And your "Geschreckt ort" argument likewise supports that proposal...which makes sense also.

Okay, now I'm confused. This is contradictory. First you state that the Sturzhau is a thrust and then you admit it is a cut.

[Jake_Norwood]

Hey Joachim.

First, it looks like you're still a little aggrivated from another thread. Slow down on any negative assumptions/impressions you get from anything I'm writing or have written. End of disclaimer.

All I see in that text is a reference to a cut. It makes no sense whatsoever to call a thrust a cut. The German text seem to be very clear when it comes to calling techniques and actions by their correct names.

I see what you're saying. I'll admit right away that I see the word "point" and I think "thrust." That's one of my core assumptions here. OTOH, the statement "Although this strike is an Over Strike, be aware that between one and the other lies a minor difference" makes a whole hell of a lot more sense the way you describe it. So don't get upset...you're reaching me here--and I'm coming over to your side bit by bit...but old assumptions die hard.

The Mayer manuscript is also separated from the Talhoffer manuscript by almost 100 years.

Whoa! It seems like first you're saying that Meyer describes a cut, then implying that Meyer and Talhoffer could be talking about different things because of a 100 year gap. Is that right? If so, it weakens the argument that you're (successfully) using to convince me. Clarify if I'm off here.

Not that I'm to jump to conclusions but you seem to have misread what I wrote quite grossly. I know the text says Wechselhau. I have not disputed that fact in the least. I was referring to Wechselhut, which is the position one usually launches the Wechselhau from, is it not? Maybe I should have been more clear about the transitionary state of the position he was in... I don't know how you do your cuts, but when I perform a simple oberhau I usually end up in Wechsel. From where I can launch a Wechselhau if I so wish. But that was not the point I was trying to get across since I was referring to the Sturzhau part of that plate. I have not proposed that it is simply the end of the Zornhau -I just stated where the right fighter is at when the Sturzhau hits him.

Calm down, bro. Gotcha. That was not clear before, but makes perfect sense now. And yes, I generally end in Wechsel as well. So we're on the same page here.

I'm slightly offended by your assumption since Martin and I would never push for an interpretation of ours unless it has been thoroughly researched and fits with both text and pictures and unless we have been able to perform the techniques with intent and in full speed. Which we have.

Now, see, that's what I'm talking about. Offended. About what now? I didn't suggest any such thing more than I suspose that you would say the same about me. My previous understanding of the Sturzhau--what you propose is simply geschrenckt ort--works great. This is an argument over terminology, not technique.

I mean, I could be offended that you're offended, but that's just dumb, now. I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone but myself. If my arguments lose to yours (which again, seems to be the case), then I'm glad because I've learned something. I'm not trying to "win" here.

In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, I don't know of any other place in Talhoffer where sequential plates are in reverse order.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Really? The more Martin and I study Talhoffer the more we find. Just because the manuscript, in its present state, may seem cryptic and jumbled it does not mean that that's the state it was in when it first was concieved. According to one of our colleagues, Björn Sollander, the 1467 edition have in fact been reproduced some six to eight times between 1467 and the 1600's. That would leave plenty of room for the pages, and possible sequences, to become jumbled up, would it not? Talhoffer's 1467 blossfechten halfswording plates, for instance, are full of sequential techniques. This becomes quite obvious as soon as you delve deeper into the material.

Now see, you're working with information that I didn't have. That changes things a lot. So, point conceeded. Likewise, Talhoffer is hardly my "speciality," or even something that I've truly studied. I've read it and tried to interpret it on many occassions (I get better every time), but it sounds like you've done more work. I'm trying to benefit from that work...not contradict it. But if my limited set of knowledge or information causes me to disagree, don't take it personally. Let me know what you've got (as you just did), and I'll be a happier man for it.

One thing with Talhoffer's plates that people often seem to overlook, or outright miss, is the double pedagogy that's present in his plates. Take for instance plate 3: The text says "Zorn ortt im dröw - Aber oberhout" and implies that the Thrust of Wrath is countered by a cut from above. Yet the picture shows the tip of the sword belonging to the swordsman performing the Zornort fully embedded in the chest of the fighter on the right. This is what I mean with double pedagogy. The text says one thing and the picture shows what happens if you screw up on your defence. This occurs in several plates throughout the manuscript.

Now see, that's one of the things that always frustrated me about Talhoffer...the seeming contradictions. Interesting theory. I'll have to look at it all differently now.

In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That being said, although I think your argument/interpretation of Talhoffer is off,


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Could you please elaborate further what you're hinting at...

I was primarily referring to the sequence of plates and the wechsel thing, which have been cleared up now. Forget it.

In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's not a cut that I personally like, but JC is quite fond of it...I know it can be performed, and it does make sense that something called a "hau" would be a cut or blow, not a thrust. And your "Geschreckt ort" argument likewise supports that proposal...which makes sense also.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Okay, now I'm confused. This is contradictory. First you state that the Sturzhau is a thrust and then you admit it is a cut.

No, today I admit that it's probably a cut. Yesterday I was referring to the cut that you refer to as sturzhau. I'm not (and never have) insinuating that the cut doesn't exist or isn't effective--just that I didn't believe that it's called sturzhau.

We've been missing each other in the goals of this discussion. I've been arguing terminology, and I think you've been worried about technique. Your arguments have largely settled my end of the discussion (IOW, I think you're right). I still have to sit and digest it and practice it some before I feel fully convinced, but that's on me.

Anyway, Joachim, I respect your research and practice of RMA tremendously. Don't think otherwise. If I question, it's because I want to understand. If I argue, it's because there are loose ends that make me uncomfortable. We're all learning.

And please don't make me take this appeasing tone again. We're both adults and (I hope) respect each other. I should never worry about you getting "offended" at a scholarly discussion.

Jake

[Joachim Nilsson]

Hey Jake,

First, it looks like you're still a little aggrivated from another thread. Slow down on any negative assumptions/impressions you get from anything I'm writing or have written. End of disclaimer.

Duly noted. *calming down* I should also know better than to engage in online discussions on those days when I've woken up on the wrong side of the bed. Luckily, your disclaimer works like magic. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

I see what you're saying. I'll admit right away that I see the word "point" and I think "thrust." That's one of my core assumptions here. OTOH, the statement "Although this strike is an Over Strike, be aware that between one and the other lies a minor difference" makes a whole hell of a lot more sense the way you describe it. So don't get upset...you're reaching me here--and I'm coming over to your side bit by bit...but old assumptions die hard.

Aaah. <img src="/forum/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" /> That's good to hear! And yes, I fully agree that old assumptions die hard. Very hard. I can assure you that if things were the other way around: That I was arguing for Sturzhau being a thrust -you would have to beat (or cut?) it out of me. Literaly.

Whoa! It seems like first you're saying that Meyer describes a cut, then implying that Meyer and Talhoffer could be talking about different things because of a 100 year gap. Is that right? If so, it weakens the argument that you're (successfully) using to convince me. Clarify if I'm off here.

Slightly off. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> Methinks I wasn't fully awake when I penned that part. <img src="/forum/images/icons/blush.gif" alt="" /> Please ignore that sentence in my last post. I wasn't expressing myself quite clearly. Bad case of thinking too many thoughts while trying to get a point across. Which is hard to do over the 'net sometimes. So, here goes: What I was trying to say was that despite the fact that the two manuscripts are separated by almost a hundred years I'm of the opinion that Meyer and Talhoffer are talking about the same thing: a cut. Whilst Talhoffer is very German and direct in his manner handing you a picture and one lonely word; "Sturzhau" more or less saying "Here's my thing. Take it or leave it!", it seems to me that Meyer is trying to expound further by conveying what the position you end up when you have performed the cut looks like. The only problem with Meyer being that he is a bit hazy in his description. Hm, kinda like me when I engage in online discussions. <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" /> But... uhm... I think you've gotten my point already. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

Calm down, bro. Gotcha. That was not clear before, but makes perfect sense now. And yes, I generally end in Wechsel as well. So we're on the same page here.

Ah. Then I'm snug as a bug. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

what I'm talking about. Offended. About what now? I didn't suggest any such thing more than I suspose that you would say the same about me. My previous understanding of the Sturzhau--what you propose is simply geschrenckt ort--works great. This is an argument over terminology, not technique.

I mean, I could be offended that you're offended, but that's just dumb, now. I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone but myself. If my arguments lose to yours (which again, seems to be the case), then I'm glad because I've learned something. I'm not trying to "win" here.

Yes, you are completely right. Bad judgement call on my part. I apologize for that. In retrospect: I wasn't offended as in "That son-of-a-beep! I am gonna challenge him in a duel to the death!". It was more along the lines of me being in a grumpy morning mood and your post catching me slightly "off guard", that's all. I will end this post with a disclaimer of my own that I hope will clarify any seemingly and ill-willed mischievious reactions on my part. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

Now see, you're working with information that I didn't have. That changes things a lot. So, point conceeded. Likewise, Talhoffer is hardly my "speciality," or even something that I've truly studied. I've read it and tried to interpret it on many occassions (I get better every time), but it sounds like you've done more work. I'm trying to benefit from that work...not contradict it. But if my limited set of knowledge or information causes me to disagree, don't take it personally. Let me know what you've got (as you just did), and I'll be a happier man for it.

Aah, that explains a lot. You see, I have tremendous respect for you and the work you have done, and from that I simply assumed that you had as much, if not even more, knowledge on the subject than I.

I would really love to bring these findings of ours forth into the light even more than it's possible on this forum. We haven't really decided which way to go yet though. The absolutely best way would be to first sit down with you, or anyone interested, in person and discuss and then don the training gear and go outside and go at it to further enhance what we mean. Now, that's not currently possible so right now, in an attempt to bridge the Atlantic Ocean that separates us, we are currently considering two options for presentation of the material and our interpretations:

1) An online article containing text on techniques as well as our theories on Talhoffer himself and what he was about. This would be supplemented by a plate, photograph and videoclip presentation of our interpretations. I envision the clip showing the techniques first at full speed, and then at half speed and the pictures would be snapshots taken with a thumbnail program from the most appropriate parts of the clips.

2) Basically the same deal but on a "multi media" CD, i.e. an HTML presentation looking very much like the possible online article. These CDs would then be distributed to anyone interested in the material at a "self-serving cost", covering the prise of a CD-RW disc and the postage.

Either way, the more I think about it, the more the project grows. And I have no illusions: It's an humungous project. I am still determined that that is the best way to go at the moment. Simply because that would get the material out to as many as possible in the easiest way. Have no doubt though: I would jump at an opportunity to come to the States and show our ideas in person. But right now my personal finances does not allow me to indulge in such ventures. <img src="/forum/images/icons/frown.gif" alt="" />

Anyway, any thoughts, ideas and tips on how to best go about it are very welcome.

Now see, that's one of the things that always frustrated me about Talhoffer...the seeming contradictions. Interesting theory. I'll have to look at it all differently now.

Yes, it took us quite some time to figure that one out too. I think I have to give Martin credit for that one since it was his background as an artist that made him attentive to that. I'm going to try to start compiling notes on our theories and ideas and if you like I could make a small list of techniques that we have found to be in sequence.

Also: whether these contradictions are due to the manuscript being carlessly handled through the years, or Talhoffer himself being cryptic on purpose to guard his craft -I do not know. I'm inclined to believe in the former theory though, sicne the latter one contradicts another of our theories concerning Talhoffer and why he shows certain techniques and whatnot.

No, today I admit that it's probably a cut. Yesterday I was referring to the cut that you refer to as sturzhau. I'm not (and never have) insinuating that the cut doesn't exist or isn't effective--just that I didn't believe that it's called sturzhau.

Point taken.

We've been missing each other in the goals of this discussion. I've been arguing terminology, and I think you've been worried about technique. Your arguments have largely settled my end of the discussion (IOW, I think you're right). I still have to sit and digest it and practice it some before I feel fully convinced, but that's on me.

Once again I think you are correct. I guess we suffered one of the back-sides of internet communication. But now that we're clear on that -it's all good. <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

Anyway, Joachim, I respect your research and practice of RMA tremendously. Don't think otherwise. If I question, it's because I want to understand. If I argue, it's because there are loose ends that make me uncomfortable. We're all learning.

I am humbled. Truly. I likewise have great respect for your research and pratice. In fact, whenever I catch anyone of my students musing over Meyer I always say: "Get in contact with Jake" and try to send them your way (as you have a much better grasp of the Meyer material than I do). I don't know if they have payed any attention and followed my advice though. But that's students for you. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> What else can you do? Except hit them with swords and other related weaponry of course. <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" /> I for one hope for continued discussion.

And please don't make me take this appeasing tone again. We're both adults and (I hope) respect each other. I should never worry about you getting "offended" at a scholarly discussion.

No, you definately shouldn't. And you won't have to in the future either. Now we both know were we are at. I guess I've have had one too many personal discussions with Martin. He's a close personal friend of mine and since he knows me and my character like the back of his own hand, I can usually get as "dramatic" as I want with him. In the future I should bear in mind that not everyone on the internet knows what makes me tick. <img src="/forum/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" /> I do have a tendency to come on a bit strong when I'm involved in a discussion where I'm trying to get my views across. Especially on the internet.

And thus I think it's time for my disclaimer:

When discussing things IRL that I'm very passionate about I tend to get a bit excited and animated. This often carries over into my attemps at online scholarly debates and such, and therefore I might come off a bit too strong at times. I am also quite the hothead and carry a sackload of pride. And as we all know: proud men are easily offended and quick to (perhaps unwarranted) anger. The pride I will keep, but the anger issues I will try to deal with. "Shackle the beast" so to speak. Furthermore, if anyone have percieved my behavior as slightly irratic and off since my return to the forums -they have not done so without undue cause. The past four months I have suffered some major setbacks in my personal life that has affected me down to the very core of my being. I'm still trying to cope with these problems on a daily basis and that battle sometimes makes me somewhat overly defensive and paranoid. (I will not delve deeper into my personal problems here on the forum, but it might be possible for the curious to get answers via personal correspondance.) I hope this clariefies and explains most of my behavior and attitudes that I may sport at times. I try my best to be as humble as I can, but sometimes my demons get the better of me. <img src="/forum/images/icons/crazy.gif" alt="" />

Best regards,

[Jake_Norwood]

Awesome.

This is another thread de-railing, but have you looked over my Meyer Dagger material, unfinished as it is?

Jake

[George Turner]

So if I'm following this right then on plate 3 the man on the right (who I'll call Bob) is wounded by the thrust from the man on the left (who I'll call Adam, just to alphabetize them) explaining the blood on Bob's chest in plate 2, and that during the displacment from above, or as a result it, the thrust the thruster (Adam) twitched around to strike from above with his false edge.

That makes sense to me. In Jake's class on Meyer we were twitching true and false to Bob's left ear, right hip, left hip, and sometimes instead of progressing over to strike the right ear we'd naturally take the last twitch over the top and down vertically onto the head. So you're saying that that vertical twitch cut has a name, sturzhau, or plunging cut.

It looks you could mirror the action (left/right) if you interchange the two plate positions of Bob and also change him from a vom tach over the shoulder on the right to a vom tach on the left, so the same basic motion would apply. The initial thrust from the man on the left (Adam) is now made with crossed hands as in plate 2, Bob's displacement coming down from his left shoulder instead of his right, and the resulting twitch around into a downward false-edge plunging cut ending in the posture with uncrossed hands, shown much as in plate 3 (the thrust now a become a cut and the cut a thrust), with Bob's sword by his lower right leg instead of his left.

So beyond the potential symmetry of application, there's another thing that strikes me about the two plates. I can't decide if three precedes two or two precedes three because I think they form a continuous loop with multiple possible entrances. So reset your thoughts back to the two original plates.

Talhoffer Plate 2
Talhoffer Plate 3

First off, we're on plates 2 and 3 of Talhoffer. If I was writing a sword manual I would try to progress from the common to the unusual, so we might be looking at something beautifully basic. The guy on the right (Bob) is probably going from Vom Tag over the shoulder to wechssel or vice versa, depending which way you sequence the plates. I''m assuming he's going back and forth between them like a wind-up sword monkey, an action you might expect in the opening of a book.

Let's start out at plate 3, the thrust against Bob's vom tach (over the shoulder) or similar guard. Bob strikes down to displace the thrust, so Adam twitches his blade clockwise (looking in the plane of the the plates) and passes forward with his left foot to strike down with the false edge, a sturzhau, as Bob ends in wechssel, bringing us to the positions of plate 2. Since after the sturzhau (plunging strike) Adam can pump his arms to thrust Bob, Bob must clear Adam's point threat yet again, this time striking up from wechsselhut back into vom tag, moving from the intial position shown in plate 2. Bob performs this but as he contacts Adam's blade, or prior, Adam reverses his previous move and twitches his blade counter-clockwise (again in the plane of the plates) while passing forward with his right foot to cut up from underneath and then thrust at Bob again, as Bob reaches vom tag (over the shoulder) and bringing us back to plate 3. To clear this thrust Bob strikes from vom tach to wechssel and Adam twitches back while stepping forward to complete the sequence, returning to plate 2 in an infinite loop.

Bob is swinging vom tag to wechssel and back and Adam is twitching between sturzhau and his thrust (following a sweep up from below), walking forward or back as required, but probably forwards, forcing basic Bob to back up to avoid the blows and thrusts of twitching Adam.

I don't know how the original Talhoffer is laid out, but if this is an infinite loop then having both plates simultaneously visible would make for a handy teaching tool, and showing how to twitch to maintain a threat in the face of the most basic actions would seem to make sense as something at the beginning of the book.

[Joachim Nilsson]

Awesome.

Great! <img src="/forum/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" /> Continue! More input! <img src="/forum/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/icons/tongue.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" />

This is another thread de-railing, but have you looked over my Meyer Dagger material, unfinished as it is?

I'll try not to make it de-rail too far. <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" /> Where can this dagger material of your be found? You've peaked my interest. <img src="/forum/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" /> Especially since it just so happens that Martin and I have been working a lot with Talhoffer's dagger and would like to.... well, expand the horizon.

[JeffGentry]

Hey Guy's

I am still not seeing the Struzhau, I am hearing Zeckrur described very well.


In Meyer he say's


"Although this is an over strike, be aware that between one and the other lies a minor diffrence , from which come's the plunge strike's name Plunge strike that one strike's through by plunging from above , and that the point comes against the opponent's face from ox, and can thus be executed from the start or pre-fencing"

(Italic's are mine)

I have been of the opinion for awhile that this is simply a "thrust cut", by that i mean you stand in ochs and thrust out not trying to stab your opponent with the point, letting it go by and cut him, similar to sawing or Plunging the clogged toilet .

These are just my opinion and are subject to change anytime and without notice.

Jeff

[Joachim Nilsson]

Hi George,

Thank you for your very interesting and insightful reply.

So if I'm following this right then on plate 3 the man on the right (who I'll call Bob) is wounded by the thrust from the man on the left (who I'll call Adam, just to alphabetize them) explaining the blood on Bob's chest in plate 2, and that during the displacment from above, or as a result it, the thrust the thruster (Adam) twitched around to strike from above with his false edge.

Yes, Bob is indeed wounded by Adam and the counter against the thrust is indeed beaten by the Sturzhau. However, what you percieve as blood is something we have always percieved as an ink blob. But it is a very intriguing thought that perhaps it is blood. Judging from the depth to which Adam's point seem to penetrate Bob's chest in plate three, it does not look like an outright lethal wound. And with that in mind Bob could very well be up and about and fighting despite his wound in plate 2.

We also have the "double pedagogy aspect" to consider. The text on plate 3 states that the thrust is displaced by Bob's Oberhau. Yet the picture clearly shows Adam's tip firmly embedded in Bob's chest. Why is that? That does not really signal a successfull counter. IOHO, what Talhoffer actually says is: "Here is a good opening attack: the Zorn Ortt. With this you can provoke the enemy to take action or else he will feel the end of your sword. On the other hand, to counter the Zorn Ortt -smack it aside with an Oberhau. That is what I mean with my text. Now, if you look at the illustration you can see what will happen if you fail to discplace the Zorn Ortt." This "mis-matching" of text and pictures appear more than once throughout Talhoffers 1467 fechbuch, and Martin and I believe that it is T's way of both guarding his secrets as well as saving time, space and money.

One thing to keep in mind concerning sequential techniques in Talhoffer: When a technique in one plate is connected with a counter or what have you in another plate, the illustrator seems to have been inconsequential with the depiction of the fighters. That is: they sometimes change appearance, hairstyles and even clothing even though the techniques indeed can be connected.

I suspect this to be in line with the possible deliberate crypticness of Talhoffer. In order to protect his secrets and keep his fechtbuch for "authorized personell only" the connections between different plates have been somewhat camouflaged (by for instance varying personal appearances with the individual fighters) so that mere casual glances at his fechtbuch does not reveal all its secrets. Either that (slightly conspiratory) theory or a much simpler truth: The artist, being an artist, did not want to draw the same two boring characters over and over.

But, I am digressing and am not, in all probablility, making too much sense right now. This part of the discussion (which I would be happy to expound on further in an article or in private) is better suited for more casual discussion and ehrm... speculation. We do have a lot of ideas and theories concerning Talhoffer and his manual and why it looks the way it does.

It looks you could mirror the action (left/right) if you interchange the two plate positions of Bob and also change him from a vom tach over the shoulder on the right to a vom tach on the left, so the same basic motion would apply. The initial thrust from the man on the left (Adam) is now made with crossed hands as in plate 2, Bob's displacement coming down from his left shoulder instead of his right, and the resulting twitch around into a downward false-edge plunging cut ending in the posture with uncrossed hands, shown much as in plate 3 (the thrust now a become a cut and the cut a thrust), with Bob's sword by his lower right leg instead of his left.

Yes, the actions can indeed be mirrored. With one thing in mind: The terminology changes.

The Zorn Ortt becomes, when performed with crossed hands, the Geschrenkt Ortt. And the Sturzhau becomes in fact more or less a Schielhau. I imagine that the results would still be the same though.

Concerning the symmetry and the infite loop: Yes, I definately see that too. It is there. I also agree that the sequence could begin with either plate. There is a definate possibility for that train of thought.

I would also like to throw something else into the mix. Something I've been "holding back" on and kept for future discussions. Our interpretation of the sequence does not end at plate 2 or 3. Take a good, long look at plate 1. <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" /> I think it is pretty safe to assume that right about now you are thinking: "Whoa! A third sequential plate!" <img src="/forum/images/icons/tongue.gif" alt="" /> Then we not only have a loop -have have an entire series of exchanged attacks and counters.

Our interpretation is as follows (with the plates in decending order 3-2-1):

3) Here we are in Zufechten and Adam makes a passing step with his right foot and opens with a Zorn Ortt, either to harass or pose a serious threat to Bob. Bob displaces this with a forceful Oberhau.

2)Having displaced the Zorn Ortt Bob has ended up in Wechselhut. Adam uses the momentum created from the displacement, whips his sword around while making a passing step with his left foot, and tries to hit Bob with his short edge -thus performing a Sturzhau.

1)Bob has all his wits about him though and quickly counters the incoming Sturzhau with a Wechselhau (or Unterhau as the text states), forcefully smacking Adam's blade aside. Once again Adam takes advantage of this and disengages with a passing step backwards away from Bob's threat while simultaneously launching an Oberhau to Bob's head.

The reason I haven't brought the first plate into the discussion until know is that I am having some trouble fully reconciling our interpretation with the Bob's right hand is depicted. <img src="/forum/images/icons/crazy.gif" alt="" /> Martin assures me though that it is all well and good.

Now, if I have made this thread de-rail totally I deeply apologize to moderators and users alike. George left such an intriguing answer though, and I simply could not let it remain unanswered. Is there perhaps some way to extract our posts from this thread and put them into a new one that would be devoted to discussing Talhoffer and his Sturzhau and other techniques?

Best regards,

[Roger Soucy]

I have what is perhaps a very simple and novice question to this whole issue. I haven't been doing this long, and I haven't sat down to examine the manuals in depth as of yet, but as an artist, there's something that occurs to me.

It may just be a stylistic approach, or something very common, but in the plates 2 &amp; 3 the guy on the right is 2 different people, while the guy on the left seems to be the same guy. I have noticed that in a few of the manuals the example combatants are different in every plate, but with this particular pair of plates the artist seems to have gone to great detail in showing the combatants. (note that in many of the meyer plates the combatants change occasionally, but only between 3 or 4 different people.)

The guy on the left's costume (clothes/hat) appear to be the same in both plates. However, the guy on the right is different in face, hair, and costume (as well as possibly damage to the sword unless that's just a mark from the copy). As well, the wound on the right combatants chest is on the opposite side as it would be if it were from the other plate.

It seems to me to be a great deal of detail to go to and then get something incorrect such as the location of the wound. As I said, the different combatants may be a stylistic thing, or simply that the artist sketched the plate on another day when another combatant was available, but the wound location strikes me as an obvious and simple oddity. (note also what appears to be a very odd grip by the right fighter in plate 3.)

Really, just an observation. If a technique works in theory and practice at speed, then I'm more than willing to accept it.

edit: I just read Joachim's last post about the appearance of the fighters in Talhoffer, and I think the camouflage idea an interesting one. As well the differences as a stylistic approach (though if that was the case he would likely change the swords form as well as they seem rather plain and he uses the same ~6 swords throughout). However, where it seems that the combatants change in virtually every plate, it seems further odd that in this pair of plates (2 &amp; 3) the left combatant does not change. I also add the possibility that perhaps the artist drew one plate per day and the models he was using were different every day as well as their clothes.