Schielhau of Doebringer

[Jeffrey Hull]

Hey Guys:

I had posted this as a reply at another thread which now seems abandoned, so I thought I would repost it to try to get attention for it here:

Please note what Doebringer teaches of Liechtenauer's *Shilhawe* or *squinter*, as per Lindholm's translation from the bilingual PDF:

* (28V) This is regarding the Squinting strike [Shilhawe]
The squinting strike [Schiler] breaks what
the “buffalo” or a fool strikes or thrusts, he
who tries to change [Wechsel]; the squinting
strike [Schiler] robs him of it. Do a
squinting strike [Schil] if he comes to short
the changing through [Durchwechsel] defeats
him. Do a squinting strike [Schil] to
the point and take the neck without fear.
Do a squinting strike [Schil] to the upper
head if you wish to endanger the hands.
Strike a squinting strike [Schil] to the right
(probably the opponent’s right side, but it
could be your own as well), this is how you
wish to fence. The squinting strike [Schil] I
do praise, if it does not come too slowly.
Glossa. Here note and understand that the
squinting strike [Schiler] is an upper strike
[Oberhaw] from the right side using the
back edge on the sword, which is called the
left side, and it goes in a squinting way and
is sent to one side with a step to the right
with the sword and hand turned.*

So Doebringer may suggest here the possiblity of full or hop-step to one's left side (or perhaps cross-step behind oneself) to allow driving of a sort of clipping-thrust from above, thus to foe's right side, that may be called *Shilhawe*. This is incidentally similar to what I advocated as a way to do Siber's squinter.

Some may not agree with this interpretation of squinter, but I have found that it works, and it would seem that Doebringer describes such. BTW, I know that the quite workable squinter which Lindholm advocates in his Ringeck book is rather different from what I am suggesting here. Also, I suspect that Meyer students may not agree.

Anyway -- simply looking for comments about all this.

Thanks!

JH

[JeffGentry]

Hey Jeff

So Doebringer may suggest here the possiblity of full or hop-step to one's left side

If you look at the bottom of your post it clearly say's "it goes in a squinting way and is sent to one side with a step to the right with the sword and hand turned.*"

I am a little confused about stepping left or crossing your feet what make's you think that?

Jeff

[David Kite]

I have to agree with Jeff (Gentry) that Doebringer describes a Schiller from your right. Though I do feel your (Jeff Hull) interpretation is sound as far as its practicality, what the text explicitly describes is from your right to the opponent's left.

When I practice my Meisterhau, I practice all of them from the right and from the left (except obviously Schaitler), and so I feel your interpretation of Schiller from the left is again, perfectly valid as far as practical application, it's just not what's stated in the text. Unless I'm just misreading something. <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

David Kite
GFS, ARMA in IN

[Jeffrey Hull]

I appreciate the differing viewpoints.

Doebringer may be referring to the foe's right regarding steps and strikes, as the wording is broad enough for this. If so, then this changes the perspective, and would make it such that fighter could step to left as he strikes -- though perhaps stepping to one's own right is really the way to do it. However, the descriptions still seem to me to indicate that the strike shall land upon foe's right hence fighter's left.

The Schielhau seems a difficult one for consensus. <img src="/forum/images/icons/confused.gif" alt="" />

JH

[JeffGentry]

hey Jeff

However, the descriptions still seem to me to indicate that the strike shall land upon foe's right hence fighter's left.

Actualy if you do the schil when they strike and you displace it, It may depending on the strength of the displacement go to there right for the simple fact that they move that side into the strike when cutting from right to left i have used this to my advantage more than once.

I am right handed so i look at everything from the first strike it is a rare occasion when my first strike is from my left.

Ringeck tell's us "the art goes wild when a left hander strike's from the right side. It is the same for a right handed from the left side."

Doebringer tell's us this "Hear what is bad; do not fence above left if you are a right hander. And if you are a left hander then leave the right behind and fence rather from high left to low"

I think it depend's on whether your left or right handed and howhard you want to strike.


Jeff

[philippewillaume]

hello lads
I may be totally out here but

If the way we step was the important bit, I think they probably would have told us.
I think what the focus is the shape/effect of the strike.

So I think Jeff and Jeffrey are both right. You see I do not think it is mutually exclusive.

I think Jeffrey argumentation does not really hold water (no disrepect or slander intended. (I will develop the counter argument as to why I think that in a separate post) but his conclusion is correct (IE I agree with him that is) in saying that you may end up with your right foot over to the left of the original centerline.
(Though I would say, it is not a thrust it is a strike.)

If we go back on the how to strike, we move the hands first and the foot follows.
So basically we will end up with foot where it need to be so that the structure of the shiel is correct. That may be to our right or to our left; it will depend of the shape of the strike of the opponent.

VD, lew, speyer tell us to hit the head but ringeck tells us to hit the left shoulder of our oppoenets.
In it self it is not a diriment as it can be done with eth right foot stepping on our right or on our left.

I think what matter is to arrive in the position like Meyer picture of the scheil.
The this the quasi perpendicular position of the arm and the body and the extended arms and the wrist position when striking with the short edge that gives the strength to withstand a buffalo blow. So you may have to lean more into the blow hence a movement to the left.

I hope you were able to make sense of that&amp;#8230;.
Cheers philippe

[philippewillaume]

Hello jeffrey

I think the problem with the way your demonstration is built is that you are using the merkverse to oppose the glose.

Strike a squinting strike [Schil] to the right
(probably the opponent&amp;#8217;s right side, but it
could be your own as well), this is how you
wish to fence.

Opposed to
Glossa. Here note and understand that the
squinting strike [Schiler] is an upper strike
[Oberhaw] from the right side using the
back edge on the sword, which is called the
left side, and it goes in a squinting way and
is sent to one side with a step to the right
with the sword and hand turned.*


And the gloss is here to explain what the merkverse means. So if are to go with something it is more likely to be the glosses, which is usually less esoteric and not designed to rhyme so I think that weaken your argument (if I make sense)

Personally I would hav translated whis is called the left side by which is taking the left side (genamt=genehmen as opposed to genamen) but I find David,s 14 cent German much better than mine.

In any case, Ringeck clearly tell use that we are attacking the our oppoenet right side
&amp;#8230; tryb also: wan er dir eben ein hawet (31 v ) von siner rechten sytten, so haw och von dener rechten sytten mit der kurtzen schnyden mit vff gerechten armen gen sinen hawe jn die schwech sines schwerts vnd schlag jn vff sinen rechten achsel
&amp;#8230; goes like so: when he strikes you accordingly, so strike as well from your right side towards his blow with the short edge and with extended arms in the weak of his sword and strike him onto the right shoulder.


Phil &amp;#8220;pedantic frog&amp;#8221;

[Jeffrey Hull]

JG quotes and states:

*Doebringer tell's us this "Hear what is bad; do not fence above left if you are a right hander. And if you are a left hander then leave the right behind and fence rather from high left to low"

I think it depend's on whether your left or right handed and howhard you want to strike.*

I meant not to be unclear about this: I would schielhau from the right-side, as HD seems to tell us, probably best facilitated as described by HD by the over-shoulder version of Tag, as shown in Danzig fight-book and unpublished *Fecht und Ringerbuch* (Glasgow-1508).

So I agree with you about the starting point, I just think it tends to land on the left, so that it ends up being different from yet still similarly effective to Zwerchhau against Oberhau, as per HD's comparison. Otherwise, as I must again credit Lindholm for pointing out in Ringeck book (as I recall), the Schielhau ends up being rather pointless if it just ends up being Zwerchau by another name -- that is, the former would tend to land upon left as the latter tends to land upon right, from the fighter's point of view.

JH

[Jeffrey Hull]

PW stated:

*If we go back on the how to strike, we move the hands first and the foot follows.*

I would advise stepping as you strike -- otherwise your movements shall be the wide moves that HD warns against.

JH

[Jeffrey Hull]

PW stated:

*In any case, Ringeck clearly tell use that we are attacking the our oppoenet right side
&amp;#8230; tryb also: wan er dir eben ein hawet (31 v ) von siner rechten sytten, so haw och von dener rechten sytten mit der kurtzen schnyden mit vff gerechten armen gen sinen hawe jn die schwech sines schwerts vnd schlag jn vff sinen rechten achsel
&amp;#8230; goes like so: when he strikes you accordingly, so strike as well from your right side towards his blow with the short edge and with extended arms in the weak of his sword and strike him onto the right shoulder.*

So that seems to lend credence, if not necessarily to the idea of fighter stepping left, then certainly to the idea of fighter striking left which be foe's right, by doing Schielhau to counter a possible Oberhau.

JH

[David Craig]

then certainly to the idea of fighter striking left which be foe's right, by doing Schielhau to counter a possible Oberhau.

To paraphrase Christian Tobler in Fighting with the German Longsword, he describes using the schielhau against a "buffalo's" oberhau (opponent striking from Tag on the right against your left, you are in Tag on the right), as jamming the strike by inserting your blade between his blade and his head/neck, and hitting him on the right shoulder. So if his interpretation is correct, and it appears to match Ringeck perfectly, you are indeed striking at the opponent's right.

But according to this interpretation, and others that I've seen, you still step offline to your right as normal (assuming you strike from the right of course), while twisting your body somewhat sideways to end up in the "squinting" position.

David

[JeffGentry]

JH

So that seems to lend credence, if not necessarily to the idea of fighter stepping left, then certainly to the idea of fighter striking left which be foe's right, by doing Schielhau to counter a possible Oberhau.

I am not sure why if you take a step with the right foot you are striking at the opponent's left.

Although you could do it to the left, if you want to.


Ringeck

when he strikes you accordingly, so strike as well from your right side towards his blow with the short edge and with extended arms in the weak of his sword and strike him onto the right shoulder.*

Doebringer: "Do the squinting strike to the point and take his neck without fear"

When you do the squinter you have to do a displament/deflection to his weak with your strong that's what make's it work if you do it this way he will have to recover his point before he can hit you.

If you do this and use a small traverse step with the right foot and push his weak out with your strong, You will be able to the hit the opponent's right shoulder/neck/head when you displace his sword/strike and he will give you his right shoulder when he step's forward or back, don't be leary of closing with your opponent.


Jeff

[Jeffrey Hull]

PW wrote:

*(Though I would say, it is not a thrust it is a strike.)*

Agreed, it should be as much a *hewing* as you can make it, but practically speaking, sometimes it may end up becoming something of a thrust, if not a sort of Sturtzhau, depending upon how the clash develops. I just thought I should clarify that idea.

JH

[Jeffrey Hull]

JG wrote:

*If you do this and use a small traverse step with the right foot and push his weak out with your strong, You will be able to the hit the opponent's right shoulder/neck/head when you displace his sword/strike and he will give you his right shoulder when he step's forward or back, don't be leary of closing with your opponent.*

You have a good point here which reminds us that getting *within* the strike of the foe helps to deal with it to our vantage.

JH

[JeffGentry]

JH

You have a good point here which reminds us that getting *within* the strike of the foe helps to deal with it to our vantage.

This is one big thing i have realy noticed with Dobringer/Lichtenauer, they seem to me to realy stress getting inside the opponent's point and winding.

As opposed to a Zornhau it is blocked so i twitch, they seem to say stay on the block(opponent's sword you don't let him withdraw to cutt) drop the hilt and step forward and stab them, I can see how if you stay on your opponent's sword(winding) and inside there point you would be pretty safe from cutt's and with practice you can realy keep the point threat there all the time.

a good example is R. Vom tag, to schiller, withdraw your sword only to L. Ochs, thrust to long point, withdraw to R. plow, thrust to Longpoint, step back to L. Plow.(in a fight this is dependant on what you want to do and what your opponent does do, this is an example)

Me saying it is easy enough, Me doing it is a whole other matter. <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

Jeff