Keith P. Myers wrote:---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!