The "Sturzhau"

[Roger N]

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.

Unfortunately, I don't have the time to get into the whole topic right now. Just briefly, I am not sure I follow you here, Francesco. I assume you are referring to how I interpret the kreutzhauw with the halber stangen? If so, I do believe that Meyer does not like us crossing our arms with the staff, which is why you need to add the "wechselhut" to the cross cutting. You simply are too weak in that stance and it becomes very obvious when using a halberd as you will be unable to cross cut. I don't think it is so much a question of balance points as it is of dynamic rotational points that can at different times be placed at either hand or anywhere inbetween them. The Wechselhut is vital to give you proper options on what angle to strike through and to give you the power you need.

Mair seems to describe a rather short and light staff, and is from what I understand quite different in style so I am not sure we can compare them two.

A bit of off-topic though.

I'll get back to the Stürtzhauw later.

[Mike Ruhala]

---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.

Do you mean the one in his glossary?

A Wrath Cut or High Cut followed by bringing the weapon into the Ox.

That's a pretty vague description but I don't think I agree with it.

---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.

It's a very vague description and it doesn't explicitly say the sturtzhauw is a short edge strike either, though like you I believe it is. My interpretation of the sturtzhauw is informed by the better description from the dusack section. Both 1.53v.1 and 1.57r.4 describe describe a cut that precedes the sturtzhauw and I see this as consistent with the dusack material. Like I said, without the preliminary action what's the difference between a kronhauw and a sturtzhauw?

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

It does help. Maybe someday I'll get really ambitious and make some videos of my own.

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 cuts from guard to guard so I don't see any inconsistency with 2.22r at all, if you strike a sturtzhauw you should end in an stier-like position. 2.23r1 seems to strengthen my argument. Meyer teaches a lot of cuts that are preceded by complex actions, the sturtzhauw is one of the simpler ones. In some cases I do believe the preliminary actions are just "setting the stage" for his description of the cut but in other cases they seem to be part of the "gambit." Again I have to point back to the "what's the difference between a sturtzhauw and kronhauw?" thing.

---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.

Meyer's full of variation and he's also long dead, there's much we'll never know for sure.

---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.

I think we both agree there's a close relationship between ochs and the sturtzhauw. How is getting stabbed in the face directly from ochs safer than getting stabbed in the face from a sturtzhauw? Personally I can generate a lot more force with a sturtzhauw than I can with a simple thrust from ochs plus the sturtzhauw is a higher percentage technique, at least for me.

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!

This brings us back to 1.14v.1, Meyer says "so that the point comes against the opponent's face" and 2.9r.1 "the tip of your weapons points back at your opponent's face." Also, in his 1560 the weird armored guy who's doing a belly flop on the man lying on the seesaw appears to have a falling buff on his burgeonet.

---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.

Schulefechten with guns and armor would be pretty weird!

[Keith P. Myers]

Hey Mike

Do you mean the one in his glossary?

---Well yeah. Sorry. I didn't have the book right in front of me.


without the preliminary action what's the difference between a kronhauw and a sturtzhauw?

---I agree not much. But maybe the Kronhauw drops straight down while the Sturz has an arc to it?


2.23r1 seems to strengthen my argument. Meyer teaches a lot of cuts that are preceded by complex actions, the sturtzhauw is one of the simpler ones.

---Mike, you are certainly free to interpret it any way you want. I'm not here to change your mind if it is already made up. I'm just presenting my interpretation. And to me, saying "do an Oberhau that shoots around into the Sturz" certainly seems to mean that the Oberhau and the Sturz are two different things.



How is getting stabbed in the face directly from ochs safer than getting stabbed in the face from a sturtzhauw? Personally I can generate a lot more force with a sturtzhauw than I can with a simple thrust from ochs plus the sturtzhauw is a higher percentage technique, at least for me.

---Who said anything about stabbing to the face from the Sturzhaw? What I was talking about was the short edge strike to the head. I stated that several times.




This brings us back to 1.14v.1, Meyer says "so that the point comes against the opponent's face" and 2.9r.1 "the tip of your weapons points back at your opponent's face."

----Here we have an issue with translation and interpretation. The word in German is "gegen." Probably the most literal translation is "opposed to." So you could render it "against" or opposite of." Paulus Hector Mair says in many of his plays something like "stand with your right foot gegen the opponent." So we could translate this as "stand with your right foot againt the opponent" or "stand with your right foot opposite the opponent" and mean the same thing. I don't think anyone would assume that we meant by the first one that you should stand with your right foot on the opponent's chest. Its the same thing here. "the point comes against the opponent's face" could just as well have been translated "the point comes opposite the opponent's face. It doesn't mean it was a thrust.

Also, in his 1560 the weird armored guy who's doing a belly flop on the man lying on the seesaw appears to have a falling buff on his burgeonet.

----I think you're doing quite a "stretch" on that one! I've gone back and looked at that illustration. The detail of the original is so poor that it just looks like a indistinct blob. I don't get a helmet out of it at all, let alone being able to say it has a falling buff.

[Mike Ruhala]

---Mike, you are certainly free to interpret it any way you want. I'm not here to change your mind if it is already made up. I'm just presenting my interpretation. And to me, saying "do an Oberhau that shoots around into the Sturz" certainly seems to mean that the Oberhau and the Sturz are two different things.

Hopefully we'll get a chance to meet up in person at an event sometime. I plan on attending Longpoint 2012 for sure and depending on what my training schedule looks like this year I'd like to get out to train and fight with a few different clubs around the country this year. I don't entirely disagree with your interpretation, just the matter of the preliminary blow, and it'd be a lot easier for me to show you why I say that than to try to explain it. Actually that's why I usually stay out of technique-oriented threads, I thought this one was interesting because I've been working with the sturtzhauw a lot lately and I was also curious about that "schulefechten" angle.

"the point comes against the opponent's face" could just as well have been translated "the point comes opposite the opponent's face. It doesn't mean it was a thrust.

I'm undecided as to whether it's a cut or a thrust, I do prefer the thrust but that's a personal thing.

----I think you're doing quite a "stretch" on that one! I've gone back and looked at that illustration. The detail of the original is so poor that it just looks like a indistinct blob. I don't get a helmet out of it at all, let alone being able to say it has a falling buff.

The high comb gives it away. It is a an unclear image but to me it looks like the slit of an ocular. Really the biggest mystery is what in the world are they doing???

[Roland Warzecha]

"Sturzhau" translates as "plunging strike." The earliest mention that I am aware of is from Lignitzer's plays for the Sword & Buckler.

As a sidenote:

I have come to believe that I.33 repeatedly makes use of this kind of blow. In fact, it is now my standard blow to strike from Left Shoulder aswell as from over the head. It allows for more reach and can be lifted over the opponent's shield. It may result in a blow or in an oberstich. The end position is comparable to the ward of Ochs in many respects.

However, unlike in longsword, I never rotate the sword in its blade axis to turn the short edge forward. In the ward with the single sword at my left shoulder, I rather shift my thumb to the inside of the hand grip and alter the way I hold the sword. Thus I can strike a plunging blow directly from the ward using the same edge I would use for a standard left diagonal blow.
The plunging blow struck from left shoulder uses almost the same attack line as a right oberhau, I also step forward and right.

This blow is also part of some of the most important manouvers in I.33.
You can see it illustrated in my buckler poster, figure 4a. If necessary, the hilt could be lifted higher for an oberstich. Then it would resemble ochs a lot.
Here is the according manuscript plate.

All the best,
Roland

[Keith P. Myers]

Hi Roland!

Thanks for the feedback! I never thought to consider that move as a Sturzhau. I just thought the angle noted in the manual was due to "artistic license" on the part of the artist, and that the blow was a standard Oberhau. But it makes sense as you describe it. I guess I should have said in my original post "The earliest mention by name that I am aware of is from Lignitzer's plays for the Sword & Buckler."