The "Sturzhau"

[Keith P. Myers]

Hi Guys!

Here is another one to get your New Year started off right!

"Sturzhau" translates as "plunging strike." The earliest mention that I am aware of is from Lignitzer's plays for the Sword & Buckler. Based on that, I've always considered it to be a strike to the head with the short edge from above. Picture it going over and behind the opponent's buckler as he lifts it up. In his book containing his translation of Joachim Meyer, Jeffrey Forgeng seems to interpret it a bit differently. He says it is a Wrath cut or High cut followed by bringing the weapon into the Ochs. He seems to miss the idea of a cut, or at least a threatened cut, with the short edge. I see where he gets this impression from reading Meyer's Longsword. It seems to suggest that the Sturz is preceded by the Oberhau:

1.14v.2: Although this cut is a High Cut, and so considered because there is not much difference between the two, yet this is called the Sturzhau because in cutting through, it always plunges over above so that the point comes against the opponent's face in the Ox. It is most used in the approach or onset.

---To me, Meyer seems to be saying that the Sturzhau is a type of High Cut/Oberhau, not that it follows an Oberhau.

1.36r: when you approach your opponent with the Sturz, if you hold and keep the point toward him, this Sturz is called the Ochs, since it threatens a thrust. From there you can lay on as soon as you can reach your opponent......

----Here he points out that you have to "hold" the Sturz in place for it to be an Ochs, not that it pulls back into the Ochs.

1.53v.1: when you come near him, slash through before him up toward your left (should be right?) so that your blade shoots around over your head in the Sturz against his left. Menace him as if you intended thus to strike at his left

---Regardless of the direction, notice that this one says that the blade "shoots around over your head in the Sturz." In other words, it goes up and circles around to come "plunging" back down again into an Ochs position.

1.57r.4: At the onset before actually coming within range, cut through beside your right so that your weapon shoots over in the Sturz, step forward with your right foot, let your sword go around your head and gather in the air for a high stroke from the Tag, but cross your hands and threaten to strike him with the short edge.

---Picture this one starting from the right Wechsel position. Then throw the blade up and forward with the short edge so that it "shoots over in the Sturz". This is the same line as the Oberhau. Just with the short edge instead of the long edge. As the cut is going forward, step forward with your right foot and cut all the way through the diagnonal line in front of you. Now let the momentum naturally carry your sword up to the vom Tag position.

The way I interpret it, for the Longsword the Sturz is an opening move that gets the opponent to hesitate or move back as you set up your follow on strike. Here is my interpretation of the Sturzhau with the Longsword:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DT5yFCs0 ... AAAAAAAEAA


If we look at Meyer's Dussack, this interpretation is reinforced. The Sturz is clearly a short edge strike:

2.6r.1: Meyer's Cutting Drill with the Dussack with the right foot forward: cut with an extended arm from your right through the vertical line from above so that your dussack shoots into the left Stier as it runs back through by your left side. From there cut right back thru the vertical line upwards with the long edge so that your dussack shoots back around your head through the Sturz into the right Stier.

---The Stier is the Dussack equivalent of the Ochs, but obviously there is no Oberhau that precedes the Sturz. The upward strike ends by circling around the head and dropping down with the short edge into the Stier/Ochs position.

2.22r: concerning the Stier posture of the dussack: this posture is not unlike the Sturz, and is one of the best postures from which all kinds of techniques can be executed

2.23r.1: do an Oberhau and cut so strongly that your dussack shoots back around over your head into the Sturz, that is into the left Stier.

----These two make it clear that the motion of dropping down into the Stier/Ochs from above IS the Sturzhau.

So it seems that as far as Meyer is concerned, the Sturz with the dussack does not have to be an entry move and is synonomous with moving into the Stier guard during an exchange. So obviously it does not have to be preceded by an Oberhau as Dr. Forgeng has suggested in his book. With the Longsword, the movement bringing the arms forward before breaking the wrists across to strike with the short edge is the same as the beginning of an Oberhau, but the intention is not to do a full Oberhau prior to the Sturz.

[Keith P. Myers]

Now here it is from Paulus Hector Mair:

Longsword 59: From a right Mittelhut follow outward with your right foot and strike Sturzhaw quickly through in front of the opponent. Then step in with the left and strike to his right ear.

Longsword 77: From a right foot forward stance, strike a high one with the Sturzhaw to his left side. Then follow outward with your left foot and grab your blade near the schilt with your right hand to cut through his face.

Again, nothing here to imply that you do an Oberhau first as part of the Sturz. But we do see it used only as an entry technique as in Meyer.

Shortstaff 12: When you go to close with the opponent, strike in freely from the Sturzhaw double towards him so that you come before the opponent standing with your left foot forward, your right hand at your hip and your staff’s point opposite his face. Then immediately follow outward with your right leg and thrust your long point to his throat.

Shortstaff 18: Hold yourself as follows at this closing. Strike inward with the Sturzhau towards him, then set your left foot forward and thrust your foremost point to his face.

Once again, nothing here to suggest doing an Oberhau prior to the Sturz. So my premise is that a Sturzhau is a downward motion towards the head or face that threatens to hit with the short edge. There is no need to throw an Oberhaw as a lead in.

What do you guys think?

[Mike Ruhala]

Meyer often describes cuts that seem a lot more like plays to me and I believe the sturtzhauw is a two step attack rather than a strike you throw directly. The way I see it the sturtzhauw begins with a scheidelhauw thrown either as a feint or clearing stroke that is followed by a thrust or cut to the face using the short edge to wrap around the opponent's blade. That's probably clear as mud in text but it's a simple, continuous motion when executed... too bad I don't have a video. Meyer specifically says that the sturtzhauw is mostly used as an opener in both his longsword and dusack sections but it can work when the fur is flying too since the scheidelhauw can often be used as a parry and that will initiate the process.

The sturtzhauw is actually one of the techniques that makes me think Meyer was using molinets in some fashion and as it happens I was taught a means of closing distance with the saber that's very similar in concept, the main difference is that I was shown a true edge cut to various possible targets as the finishing stroke.

Another interesting note; IIRC Jeffery Hull said that "pounce cut" might be a better translation than "plunge cut." While they imply similar things I think the "pounce cut" carries over more of a sense of closing distance rather than just stabbing sort of downwards.

[Keith P. Myers]

Hey Mike!

I believe the sturtzhauw is a two step attack rather than a strike you throw directly. The way I see it the sturtzhauw begins with a scheidelhauw thrown either as a feint or clearing stroke that is followed by a thrust or cut to the face using the short edge to wrap around the opponent's blade.

---Then you are essentially interpreting the technique like Jeffrey Forgeng notes it in his book. As I pointed out above, there are problems with that interpretation. Clearly, the action with the Dussack is not a two step motion, and there is nothing in Paulus Hector Mair to suggest a two step motion. In fact, that two step motion would not work very well with the staff.

[Francesco Lanza]

Keith, this is exactly how I have always seen this blow too. The Sturtz itself is that plunging short edge blow, but you can in fact add a long edge oberhau before it: I garnered this interpretation from the Dusack starting drills which neatly explain why it IS preceded by a regular oberhau - it is just two separate blows.

How so? The sequence is as follows: you hurl a zorn, you let it go down to left wechsel, and from left wechsel you let the blade rotate on his own momentum upwards clockwise on you left and then over your head in the Sturtz. It is simple, effective and can be used in a LOT of ways, like combining it with a suppressing parry, sweeping away the enemy blade. Point is, it is not REQUIRED to precede it with a zorn. There are examples in the book in which Meyer attacks with the plunge without any other blow.

Roger Norling is on your same wavelenght regarding the fact it does not work well with a staff, but onestly I never could see why. It simply does since any weapon, no matter how heavy, rotates over its balance point almost weightlessly.

[KeithFarrell]

Talhoffer has a Sturzhow in his 1467 manual that looks precisely like what you have explained:



This is precisely how I do my Sturzhow without having read through Meyer, so I have to agree with you that it is a very useful strike!

[Keith P. Myers]

Hi Francesco!

but you can in fact add a long edge oberhau before it: I garnered this interpretation from the Dusack starting drills which neatly explain why it IS preceded by a regular oberhau - it is just two separate blows.

---I agree! I didn't mean to imply that it couldn't be preceded by an Oberhau. Only that, like you pointed out, the Sturz is separate from that Oberhau. I guess I should also point out in fairness to Mike Ruhala, (I was pressed for time when I intially responded)....Meyer does what Mike is describing a lot as far as a short edge strike to the head from various set ups and in various devices. But he never seems to give it a name. He clearly says that with the Longsword the Sturz is used at Zufechten. So I tend to think if he intended for that blow that happens in the Handarbaiten stage to be called a Sturz, he would have said so. But.... I am not entirely convinced of that myself. After all, the same blow with the Dussack is called a Sturz, and it isn't used only in Zufechten. Now, Paulus Hector Mair does the same thing....he delivers a downward short edge blow to the head in the Handarbaiten stage with both the Longsword and Dussack...and he calls it a Schiller! Mair uses the same terminology that we use for the Meisterhau blow, but as a generic term for any short edge blow to the head. Meyer doesn't do this, he just seems to leave that particular blow nameless. So we could call it a Sturz by default, or call it a Schiller like Mair does. But that's a whole other discussion!


Roger Norling is on your same wavelenght regarding the fact it does not work well with a staff, but onestly I never could see why. It simply does since any weapon, no matter how heavy, rotates over its balance point almost weightlessly.

---I think the Sturz itself works fine with the staff, its just the two step Oberhau/Sturzhau motion at Zufechten that seems a bit awkward to me when you try to include it that way in PHM's descriptions with the Shortstaff.

[Keith P. Myers]

Talhoffer has a Sturzhow in his 1467 manual that looks precisely like what you have explained:

Ah! Thanks for that Keith! I haven't looked at the older sources for awhile and had forgotten about that one!

[Mike Ruhala]

---Then you are essentially interpreting the technique like Jeffrey Forgeng notes it in his book.

You've brought this up before, what exactly are you talking about? Are you saying there's a better translation than Forgeng's available or do you have some other Forgeng book that's an interpretation of his translation?

In the meantime these two translations seem to be in agreement,

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.

Plunge Cut
Although this cut is a High Cut, and so considered because there is not much difference between the two, yet this is called the Plunge Cut because in cutting through, it always plunges over above, so that the point comes against the opponent's face in the Ox; and it is most used in the Approach or Onset.

As I pointed out above, there are problems with that interpretation.

I see variations, which are very common in Meyer, not problems. This is probably something that's a lot easier to discuss face to face with the book and swords in hand.

Clearly, the action with the Dussack is not a two step motion,

Again, I really don't see it. In fact the first place I checked after reading the vague sturtzhauw description in the longsword section was the sturtzhauw from the dusack section,

In the Onset, step and deliver a High Cut from your right, going back through beside your left, so that your dusack shoots back around above your head, or plunges over, such that after plunging around, the tip of your weapon points back at your opponent's face, not unlike the left Steer, except that you must thrust the point further forward from you toward your opponent's face. It has its name from this plunging over, otherwise it is essentially just a High Cut.

I don't see how that's not a two step action. He goes on to describe a method of executing many of these "combos" in a row to close distance on your adversary.

Going by your video we're more or less in agreement with how you're executing the final motion of the sturtzhauw from 0:25 to 0:30. I also agree that a sturtzhauw is not an oberhauw that yanks back to ochs as you say at 1:27 to 1:31; Meyer cuts from guard to guard and in this case cutting a sturtzhauw should leave you in an extended ochs position like you demonstrate.

Where we differ is on the point of whether or not an oberhauw precedes the sturtzhauw. I agree that an oberhauw thrown with the short edge is a very sturtzhauw-like action but at the same time Meyer keeps saying he wants it to be after an oberhauw that brings the blade down beside you then up around your head and finally into that short edge oberhauw we agree on.

You actually demonstrate a good reason to begin this technique with an oberhauw at 0:58 to 1:04, since you didn't do anything to deal with his blade the guy in the plaid could have easily taken your arm or stabbed you in the face when you threw a direct sturtzhauw. If you had cleared that with an oberhauw first you'd have a comparatively safer attack that would be much like using schielhauw against pflug.

I guess I can kind of see why you're trying to extract the "purest" form of the sturtzhauw out of the "combo" but how a technique is used is at least as important as how it is executed in isolation. For instance what's the practical difference between a kronhauw and a sturtzhauw if you remove their respective preliminary actions? They're both short edge oberhauws.

If you don't mind my asking how does your interpretation of sturtzhauw here relate to what you said earlier about Meyer's sturtzhauw?

He has purposefully changed some techniques and plays to make them more workable in the "schulefechten" environment. For instance, he changed thrusts to the face from Ochs into Sturzhau.

I never understood how the sturtzhauw was more "schulefechten" than a thrust from ochs.

[Keith P. Myers]

Hey Mike!

You've brought this up before, what exactly are you talking about? Are you saying there's a better translation than Forgeng's available or do you have some other Forgeng book that's an interpretation of his translation?

---I'm not talking about his translation. I'm talking about his interpretation. If you look up the Sturzhau in his index in the back of the book, he gives his own brief description of it. That is his interpretation, independent of his translation of Meyer's text.

In the meantime these two translations seem to be in agreement,

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.

Plunge Cut
Although this cut is a High Cut, and so considered because there is not much difference between the two, yet this is called the Plunge Cut because in cutting through, it always plunges over above, so that the point comes against the opponent's face in the Ox; and it is most used in the Approach or Onset.

---I agree with you. As I noted above, I think the problem comes in how you interprete this passage. Meyer says that the strike is an Oberhau that strikes through by plunging over from above. He does not say you do an Oberhau first, and then the Sturzhau. The Sturzhau IS an Oberhau, just with the short edge instead of the long edge.


I see variations, which are very common in Meyer, not problems. This is probably something that's a lot easier to discuss face to face with the book and swords in hand.

---That's why I posted video. I figure that's at least a step closer to face to face.

Clearly, the action with the Dussack is not a two step motion,

Again, I really don't see it. In fact the first place I checked after reading the vague sturtzhauw description in the longsword section was the sturtzhauw from the dusack section,

In the Onset, step and deliver a High Cut from your right, going back through beside your left, so that your dusack shoots back around above your head, or plunges over, such that after plunging around, the tip of your weapon points back at your opponent's face, not unlike the left Steer, except that you must thrust the point further forward from you toward your opponent's face. It has its name from this plunging over, otherwise it is essentially just a High Cut.

I don't see how that's not a two step action. He goes on to describe a method of executing many of these "combos" in a row to close distance on your adversary.

---If you are going to count that as a two step action, then you still have a problem. Because that is different than how you noted with the Longsword. So it wouldn't be consistent. And if you are going to conclude from that passage that it is a two step motion, then how do you reconcile it with the other Dussack passages?

2.22r: concerning the Stier posture of the dussack: this posture is not unlike the Sturz, and is one of the best postures from which all kinds of techniques can be executed

2.23r.1: do an Oberhau and cut so strongly that your dussack shoots back around over your head into the Sturz, that is into the left Stier.

---Neither of those suggest a two step motion. Note that the second passage above says to do an Oberhau that shoots back around INTO the Sturz. That suggests to me that the Oberhau and the Sturz itself are considered two different things. Both passages equate the Sturz to the Stier position. So I interpret that to mean that the dropping motion from above that ends in the Stier IS the Sturz.


Meyer keeps saying he wants it to be after an oberhauw that brings the blade down beside you then up around your head and finally into that short edge oberhauw we agree on.

---He doesn't say that in all cases. So if you are going to define the whole thing as the Sturz, then you are making Meyer inconsistent.



If you don't mind my asking how does your interpretation of sturtzhauw here relate to what you said earlier about Meyer's sturtzhauw?

He has purposefully changed some techniques and plays to make them more workable in the "schulefechten" environment. For instance, he changed thrusts to the face from Ochs into Sturzhau.

---This goes back to what I said earlier in this thread:
"Meyer does what Mike is describing a lot as far as a short edge strike to the head from various set ups and in various devices. But he never seems to give it a name. He clearly says that with the Longsword the Sturz is used at Zufechten. So I tend to think if he intended for that blow that happens in the Handarbaiten stage to be called a Sturz, he would have said so. But.... I am not entirely convinced of that myself. After all, the same blow with the Dussack is called a Sturz, and it isn't used only in Zufechten. Now, Paulus Hector Mair does the same thing....he delivers a downward short edge blow to the head in the Handarbaiten stage with both the Longsword and Dussack...and he calls it a Schiller! Mair uses the same terminology that we use for the Meisterhau blow, but as a generic term for any short edge blow to the head. Meyer doesn't do this, he just seems to leave that particular blow nameless. So we could call it a Sturz by default, or call it a Schiller like Mair does. But that's a whole other discussion!"

---My premise was that any time you see that short edge strike to the head in the Handarbaiten stage, whether we call it a Sturz or a Schiller, you could replace it with a thrust to the face from the Ochs position and the device would still work just fine. By doing the short edge strike to the head, the device becomes a bit safer for practicing with someone who isn't wearing a fencing mask. After you pointed out the fact that early in his book Meyer recommends doing some practicing in armour, it occured to me that might include the open face helms we associate with the Landsknechts. In which case, targeting the top of the head/helm with the short edge blow rather than thrusting into your partner's exposed face would be a lot safer!

---But I'd also like to point out to those (not Mike) that seem to think that Meyer is "only schulefechten".....if you recognize and acknowledge the relationship between that short edge blow to the head and a thrust to the face, then you can easily switch from the short edge blow back to the thrust for any "ernstfechten." So Meyer has not "tamed" his swordsmanship for practice as a hobby. He has just come up with a training method to allow one to learn more effectively.