Schielhau of Doebringer

[Shane Smith]

I have found a varying movement left on the pass helps Ringecks zwerch and shielhau secure the line. Alot for the zwerch, a little for the shiel.

[Aaron Pynenberg]

Something else from Doebringer that really hits home is the statement, (I'm paraphrasing I don't have it in front of me know) to work in at your oppenents side and not straight at him.

This makes a ton of sense to me and I think is pretty significant. Many fighters make the mistake at coming into thier adversary's front-or straight ahead. Doing this does not give you an advantage, but if you come at him at an angle, you win reach and strength. This is equivilent again to my Police training and can be seen as the 21/2 cover position theory. (stay away from in front of the subject) -Aaron

[Jake_Norwood]

I agree, Aaron. In fact, I'd say that those situations when you wouldn't move to your opponent's side are few and far between--pretty much closing techniqes only...and most of them put on on the side some, too.

Jake

[philippewillaume]

PW stated:

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

hello
hum, i would tend to partially disagree
ringeck tell us clearly that he hands moves first. all finishes together but the hands move first
I would advise stepping as you strike -- otherwise your movements shall be the wide moves that HD warns against.


Das ist der text von vil gu°tter gemainer lere des langen schwerts.
Willtu kunst schowen, sich linck gen vnd recht mitt hawen. Vnd linck mitt rechtem, ist, das du starck gerst fechten.
Glosa.
Merck, das ist die erst lere des (12 r )langes schwertz; das du die hew von bayden sytten recht solt lernen hawen, ist, das du annders starck vnd gerecht fechten wilt. Das vernym allso: wenn du wilt howen von der rechten sytten, so sich, das dein lincker fu°ß vor stee. Häustu dann den ober haw von der rechten sytten, so folg dem haw nach mitt dem rechten fu°ß. Tu°st du das nicht, so ist der how falsch vnd vngerecht, wann deinv (12 v ) rechte syten pleibpt dahinden. Darum ist der haw zu° kurtz vnd mag sein rechten gang vndersich zu der rechten anderen sytten vor dem lincken fu°ß nicht gehaben. Des glychen: wenn du hawst von der lyncken sytten vnd dem haw nicht nachfolgest mitt dem lincken fu°ß, so ist der haw och falsch. Darum so merck, von welcher sytten du haust, das du mitt dem selbigen fu° ß dem haw nachfolgest. So magstu mitt der sterck alle dein stuck gerecht trybenn. Vnnd also süllen alle andere hew (13 r )och gehawen werden

This is the text about many good common lessons of the long sword
To show the art, you’re left going/towards and right with the strike. And the left with the right is how you fence strongly.
Glose
Mark, this is the first lesson of the long sword; that you are to learn how to strike correctly your blow from either side, so that you will fence with another/different force and precision. This goes like so: when you want to strike from the right side, be so that you left foot is in front. Strike you then with an oberhaw so your right foot follows after with the blow. Do not do this and the blow will be false and wrongful. As your right side stays behind it makes the blow shorter and it cannot have its rightful course under itself over the left foot (auf der anderer saiten von= over). On the same line when you strike from your left side and your left foot does not follow the blow, this is blow false as well. Hence mark, whatever the side you strike from, that you should follow the strike with the corresponding foot. So you may deliver your strike with strength and precision. And so all the other strike should be delivered.

[philippewillaume]

Yeap that why I posted it, and why I agreed with your conclusion, but they do not void and oppose the other jeffreys.
I think you are both correct.
You may do a cross step or nomal step. In fact I think you need to make what ever step so that the shape of the strike is correct.
i do not think that the stpe is important because it is not described with precission but the stilke is.


cheers.

[philippewillaume]

Hum
I am not too sure about that. (But we are in the realms of opinions here, so I do not think there is a clear-cut truth.

Going straight in or going to the side are just a way to claim the center line which in my opinion is all what Ringeck is about
Ringeck tell us that you need to know when to go against him and when to let him go by. So I tend to go straight in or move around according to what there.

The shiel break the long point and the plough. This is a strike that push you opponent from the centerline as you move forward.. you could say you use it to plough the central line open.

Well that’s how I see it any way?

[Jake_Norwood]

Hi Phillippe.

What is your take on how the schiel breaks the pflug? I have yet to see a fully satisfactory theory or interpretation on this.

Jake

[G.MatthewWebb]

Jake wrote: "I have yet to see a fully satisfactory theory or interpretation on this {the schielhau breaking the pflug]."


Mon Dieu!
<img src="/forum/images/icons/shocked.gif" alt="" />
What is wrong with Tobler's interpretation presented in text and photographs on page 131 of his Fighting with the German Longsword ?

Matthew Webb
Oklahoma City, OK
USA

[David Craig]

What is wrong with Tobler's interpretation presented in text and photographs on page 131 of his Fighting with the German Longsword ?

Matthew,

I know your question was directed at Jake, but I have a particular interest in this point as well. I think Tobler's book is outstanding, and it has helped me more than any other book that I've purchased. But his interpretation of that versetzen bothers me. It appears from the photos that his partner is holding pflug with the point aimed too high -- aimed over Tobler's head rather than pointing toward his face. If someone holds pflug in that way, there's no doubt that the versetzen as shown in the book would work fine. But with pflug held with the point lower, I don't see how a high schielhau ending in left ochs is going to successfully take my opponent's point offline, without risking getting changed through on or a double-kill.

Tobler's explanation of the schielhau makes perfect sense vs. an oberhau. But I'm not sure why he doesn't strike it lower to break pflug, ending in left pflug instead of ochs.
This does work if you can time it correctly. It forces your opponent's point offline and leaves you in excellent position for a thrust of your own.

David

[Jared L. Cass]

"But I'm not sure why he doesn't strike it lower to break pflug, ending in left pflug instead of ochs. This does work if you can time it correctly. It forces your opponent's point offline and leaves you in excellent position for a thrust of your own."

That's the way I do it as well (as taught by Bart at the international gathering). It works equally as well against an oberhau as against pflug. Against pflug or even longpoint a good step to ones right (the opponents left) is all it takes.

But, as has been mentioned befor against a zornhau...that the short edge should should hit the opponents right shoulder...I've never had much success with that version. Instead, if I aim for the opponents head or left shoulder using the same stepping as against a zorn and again "ending" in left pflug, it works great (in drill and in sparring).

At a longer distance as more of a versetzen than master strike, after getting the opponents point off line it's very quick and very easy to THEN thrust going from left pflug to extended left ox.

My two sense,

Jared L. Cass, ARMA Associate, Wisconsin

[G.MatthewWebb]

David,

You're right. Ben, "the opponent" in the photographs, is not aiming his sword tip at Christian's face. A rather non-threatening pflug interpretation indeed! If he lowered his point as you mentioned, Christian would need to alter the expression of the Schielhau.

Thanks for posting David (and Caspar)

Matthew Webb
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
USA

[G.MatthewWebb]

Oops! I meant to say thanks to David and Jared.

[Jake_Norwood]

Hi Matt.

My problem--and it is "my" problem--is that I have yet to see it work against an opponent who doesn't let me do it. All the other "five cuts" work fantastic on adversarial engagment. They're protective, fluid, efficient, and *safe* to perform. The executor is protected along the necessary lines of possible attack.

The schiller shown by Bart and the guys from Ochs in 2003, and Tobler (which are similiar, IRRC), really seems to be a transition from tag to left pflug (long edge up version). There's no suitable extension into long point or one of the upper hangers, there's no power, and there's really no strike (and certainly not one to the opponent's right shoulder!).

Meyer's version, illustrated, "ends" in a form of left ochs. This I have used with great success on many occasions...but not against Pflug, and Meyer doesn't claim that it works against pflug. Thus we can conjecture rather safely that these are two distinct versions of one cut. Or so it seems.

Thus my statement that I have yet to see a version of the schiller that breaks pflug acceptably, following the requirements of (1) adherence to text, (2) adherence to images (when we have them), and (3) actually works.

Phillippe, in the sister thread to this one, is trying to explain his version. Hopefully I get what he's talking about (even more hopefully it will be what I'm looking for). The thing I see in it at the moment (but it's very early in the discussion) is that I don't yet see any advantages to what he proposes over a simple zornhau. And there needs to be at least *some.* But then again, I don't think I've got what he's describing yet, either.

Jake

[Jeffrey Hull]

Well Jake, that is really the crucial question regarding just what is the Schielhau, or at least, how best it makes its particular one of the Vier Versetzen, coutering Pflug.

I would note Lindholm's effective if unorthodox version in his Ringeck book. It is pretty simple and useful. As he notes, his interpretation does distinguish squinter from thwarter or crumpler.

I would offer my aforesaid version, with step to left-side (either forth or cross-step behind) and thus strike with squinter to foe's right-side to couter his plough -- yet I do so with acknowledgement that it *breaks* that ward only by virtue of directly striking the foe high and not really engaging his sword, and that it really requires much speed in that before-time. You could also try to do this into a sort of Sturzhau (I think there is some fight-book equating of squinter and pouncer) and drive lower to stab foe between his arms. However, you may find any or all that unsafe, troublesome, or not to your liking at all.

I still am undecided about *the* Schielhau versus Pflug.

JH

[Jake_Norwood]

Hi.

Lindholm's schiller (p. 91) is exactly the one that bothers me for the afore-mentioned reasons. Yes, it's distinct, but I have yet to see it work or make it work against someone who didn't want it to.

Hmmm...I'll need to re-read this thread to better understand what you're proposing, Jeff.

Jake