More Talhoffer interpretation stuff!

Open to public view.

More Talhoffer interpretation stuff!

Postby Martin Wallgren » 15 Oct 2007 14:09

I have resently gone over my old groups interpretations of HT 1467 manual and done som more intence studies of the plates.

Here is our new defenitions of the difference between Unterhow and Wechselhow!

First unterhow!

Image
This plate shows two strikes. We have interpret the techniques as this. The man on the left attacks with a strike from above (Oberhow). The man on the right is in the threat The Fool (Alber). The right man defends through a displacement (Versetzen) with a strike from below with the short edge (Unterhow).

Then Wechselhow!

Image
On this plate a crashing strike (Surtzhow) and a changed strike (Vechselhow) is shown. Our interpretation of these strikes is like this. The Left man falls out to his left and strikes from above with the short edge. The man to the right counters this with a strike diagonally from the position on the picture with the long edge ending up in a ox (Ochs) on his right side.

Oppinions, thought and disagreements??
User avatar
Martin Wallgren
Major
 
Posts: 755
Joined: 12 May 2006 10:37
Location: Bjästa, Ö-vik, Sweden

Postby Richard Strey » 15 Oct 2007 14:40

Disclaimer: I don't have a copy of the manual here right now.
Have you considered the possibility that the actions displayed may not have anything to do with each other? I seem to remember that some plates do show "techniques" (the Zornort displaces a cut from above or whatever) and others show two unrelated actions (this is a cut from above and this is the Alber or whatever).
Edit:
Afterthought:
Indeed, I don't think the first two images are related in the way you say. If the right guy had been in Alber, he could have attacked the other's arms and not just go into some form of crown to recieve the blow. The range and timing is totally off for a Versetzen the way you describe it. Also, the Unterhau is performed using the long edge, watch the guy's right hand, the fingers are up.
Richard Strey
Staff Sergeant
 
Posts: 177
Joined: 15 Oct 2007 10:19
Location: Cologne, Germany

Postby Martin Wallgren » 15 Oct 2007 14:54

Yes we have considered that, but we work out of the presumption each plate is a technique or part of one.

As for the above we have disovered that many of the plates can be set togheter into drills where one plate is counterd on another and so forth. Alas the plates are not in order so we have to place them around and set them toghether in a new order to achive this. Though the original way it was compiled is not sertain so we can be doing a sort of restauration in this.

As an example we can put this plate.
Tafel 3
Image
Zorn ortt Im dröw. - Aber oberhow.
Her eis yet another situation. The left man gets in antd threathens with a wrthful point (Zorn Ortt) from the threat the Ox on his left side.The man on the right reacts with a displacement with a strike from above.
with the one above in order 3 - 2
User avatar
Martin Wallgren
Major
 
Posts: 755
Joined: 12 May 2006 10:37
Location: Bjästa, Ö-vik, Sweden

Postby Richard Strey » 15 Oct 2007 15:04

I daresay Talhoffer got you there. Look at the other manuals (Peter von Danzig, Ringeck): The Zornhau, followed by the Ort (thrust) threatens the guy who is doing the cut from above. Also, check the image: A displacement cut doesn't do much good once you have an inch of steel in your chest.
Switch the sentences and you've got it:
Right does an Oberhau, left counters with the Zornhau so that he gets his point in line during the bind and thrusts. If the opponent attempts to displace, he winds up to Ochs and continues to hit.
Richard Strey
Staff Sergeant
 
Posts: 177
Joined: 15 Oct 2007 10:19
Location: Cologne, Germany

Postby Paul B » 15 Oct 2007 15:19

knowing your assumptions is a good thing, but the strength of that lies in being able to play with them, or take on new ones. Try an interpretation with your basic assumption, and test it in your usual way, but then go back to the beginning and try different starting assumptions. Even if you think they will fail. You never know, and its good to have a "we tried that, but.." answer to detractors.

Unless we can say that Tallhoffer definately had a systematic approach to choosing what to illustrate (and when), then applying a single systematic assumption will lead your interpretations on a merry chase.
On the other hand, if you find that he DID, yay! Free PhD and publication deal.

Just me tup'ney worth
Last edited by Paul B on 15 Oct 2007 15:20, edited 1 time in total.
.... or I could be completely wrong.

Paul Bennett SG6 - Bradford (Won/Lost/Played) 0/1/1
Carpentry and wooden weapons:
http://www.historicarts.co.uk
User avatar
Paul B
Got Wood
 
Posts: 3694
Joined: 30 Mar 2006 17:26
Location: Marple, cheshire

Postby Stevie T » 15 Oct 2007 15:20

Image

For me the position of the body seems wrong for it to be any unterhau, or more particularly any strike from the left.

I may be completely wrong, as is often the case, but as his right shoulder leading, then I would expect that the strike is made from the right.

Also looking at the distance (which is worth little in medieval art at the best of times) an unterhau would have already made contact with the body, or why to such a defenseive position when he obviously has plenty of time to thrust or rake from alber.

IMHO I think it is more likely that he is being attacked by a vertical downward strike and is countering with a high angled zwerch with a left leg pass back to give himself distance and time.

But then I don't know much, don't have a translation of the text and MS near me so can't read what he says to go with it.
User avatar
Stevie T
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 6639
Joined: 21 Dec 2006 11:55
Location: Darlington

Postby Martin Wallgren » 15 Oct 2007 16:50

Richard Strey wrote:I daresay Talhoffer got you there. Look at the other manuals (Peter von Danzig, Ringeck): The Zornhau, followed by the Ort (thrust) threatens the guy who is doing the cut from above. Also, check the image: A displacement cut doesn't do much good once you have an inch of steel in your chest.
Switch the sentences and you've got it:
Right does an Oberhau, left counters with the Zornhau so that he gets his point in line during the bind and thrusts. If the opponent attempts to displace, he winds up to Ochs and continues to hit.


Well, I have found that T often have this in his manuals. He shows in the picture poth the result of the attack and the defence. So If the left guy is fast he will displace the zorn ortt. The Zorn ortt should not be confused with the Zornhow. As we interpret it. The Zornort in MHO is a extra forceful thrust. On another plate T shows the Zorn Ortt after it has been done. Here ...
Image
Das lang Zorn ortt. Darfür ist das geschrenckt ortt.

I have tested this in full speed freeplay. The speed you get in the blade when your opponent displace your Zorn Ortt makes wonders with your Sturtzhow. And the only realistic defence is a geshrenkt ortt (kind of a righthand ox).

Because if you do a unterhow with the short edge as a displacement you just give the opponent more velocity in his next strike as in plate 1.
User avatar
Martin Wallgren
Major
 
Posts: 755
Joined: 12 May 2006 10:37
Location: Bjästa, Ö-vik, Sweden

Postby Martin Wallgren » 15 Oct 2007 17:05

Stevie T wrote:Image

For me the position of the body seems wrong for it to be any unterhau, or more particularly any strike from the left.

I may be completely wrong, as is often the case, but as his right shoulder leading, then I would expect that the strike is made from the right.

Also looking at the distance (which is worth little in medieval art at the best of times) an unterhau would have already made contact with the body, or why to such a defenseive position when he obviously has plenty of time to thrust or rake from alber.

IMHO I think it is more likely that he is being attacked by a vertical downward strike and is countering with a high angled zwerch with a left leg pass back to give himself distance and time.

But then I don't know much, don't have a translation of the text and MS near me so can't read what he says to go with it.


I think we can ignore the distance thing here! Otherwise almost non of the plates would work. And if we want to take it in consideration he could be doing it with a movement backwards instead of forward.

The possition he cuts from is this...
Image
Right guy! (edited, I put left by misstake here before. This written to explaine the otherwise very confused following posts.)

... and he will end up int Vom Tach.


And he is in the middle of the strike. there is no Swerch because the text states Unterhow.
Last edited by Martin Wallgren on 16 Oct 2007 12:00, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Martin Wallgren
Major
 
Posts: 755
Joined: 12 May 2006 10:37
Location: Bjästa, Ö-vik, Sweden

Postby Martin Wallgren » 15 Oct 2007 17:08

Richard Strey wrote:Disclaimer: I don't have a copy of the manual here right now.
Have you considered the possibility that the actions displayed may not have anything to do with each other? I seem to remember that some plates do show "techniques" (the Zornort displaces a cut from above or whatever) and others show two unrelated actions (this is a cut from above and this is the Alber or whatever).
Edit:
Afterthought:
Indeed, I don't think the first two images are related in the way you say. If the right guy had been in Alber, he could have attacked the other's arms and not just go into some form of crown to recieve the blow. The range and timing is totally off for a Versetzen the way you describe it. Also, the Unterhau is performed using the long edge, watch the guy's right hand, the fingers are up.


There is a few of them on the net! Here is one... http://www.thearma.org/talhoffer/talhoffer1.htm
User avatar
Martin Wallgren
Major
 
Posts: 755
Joined: 12 May 2006 10:37
Location: Bjästa, Ö-vik, Sweden

Postby Stevie T » 16 Oct 2007 10:39

Martin Wallgren wrote:I think we can ignore the distance thing here! Otherwise almost non of the plates would work. And if we want to take it in consideration he could be doing it with a movement backwards instead of forward.

The possition he cuts from is this...
Image
Left guy!

... and he will end up int Vom Tach.


And he is in the middle of the strike. there is no Swerch because the text states Unterhow.


Okay, I'll go with the distance thing.

But how do you get he is the guy on the left in the this picture?

To me he looks more like the guy on the right.

Also unterhau, could it not be interpreted in this case as cut from underneath, starting in alber as the guy on the right, bring the blade backwards and over the top to strike with the short edge while stepping forwards with the left leg.

This would give a cut that started below, the short edge positioning as well as the obscure upper body position, and continuation in your illustrations.

Disclaimer: I am working from the assumption that this all happened hundreds of years ago, therefore everyone assumes a lot of stuff and can be challenged by my ill imformed assumptions. A weak form of pressure testing you may say.
User avatar
Stevie T
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 6639
Joined: 21 Dec 2006 11:55
Location: Darlington

Postby Stevie T » 16 Oct 2007 10:43

Also the guy on the left would then move from his Ox like position into the high Vomtag with the downward strike to the other side, he being about to step forward with his right leg.

Edit: Which would then mean the right guys short edge strike coming from below and behind would meet the left guys downward cut with his strong while striking the top of left guys head.
User avatar
Stevie T
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 6639
Joined: 21 Dec 2006 11:55
Location: Darlington

Postby Martin Wallgren » 16 Oct 2007 11:58

Stevie T wrote:
But how do you get he is the guy on the left in the this picture?

To me he looks more like the guy on the right.


You are of course right! My bad! I of course mean the guy in the right who stand in vechselhut.

Stevie T wrote:Also unterhau, could it not be interpreted in this case as cut from underneath, starting in alber as the guy on the right, bring the blade backwards and over the top to strike with the short edge while stepping forwards with the left leg.

This would give a cut that started below, the short edge positioning as well as the obscure upper body position, and continuation in your illustrations.


That´s kind of the unterhow I interpret in first plate.

Stevie T wrote:Disclaimer: I am working from the assumption that this all happened hundreds of years ago, therefore everyone assumes a lot of stuff and can be challenged by my ill imformed assumptions. A weak form of pressure testing you may say.


Witch is perfect because thats why I post here :) ! I need you guys to make my interpretations challanged!
Last edited by Martin Wallgren on 16 Oct 2007 21:17, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Martin Wallgren
Major
 
Posts: 755
Joined: 12 May 2006 10:37
Location: Bjästa, Ö-vik, Sweden

Postby Jeffrey Hull » 16 Oct 2007 19:59

Very interesting Martin. I appreciate what you are trying to achieve. 8)

I have a somewhat differing idea of the wechselhau, but I think your idea about it is worth considering.
Jeffrey Hull
 

Postby Martin Wallgren » 16 Oct 2007 21:23

Jeffrey Hull wrote:Very interesting Martin. I appreciate what you are trying to achieve. 8)

I have a somewhat differing idea of the wechselhau, but I think your idea about it is worth considering.


Thanx man!

It would be great if you could give me your take on the wechselhau!

The main reason why I interpret the wechselhau as a unterhow from my low left to my high right with the long edge ending in a ox on the right or geschrencht ortt is beacause in full speed training it is the only way I can get the blade up in time to verzetsen a sturtzhow and get into vor.

The sturtzhau here is the one Joachim Nilsson of ARMA Gimo had long discussions about a couple of years back on the ARMA forum.

Thanx for all your input in this!
User avatar
Martin Wallgren
Major
 
Posts: 755
Joined: 12 May 2006 10:37
Location: Bjästa, Ö-vik, Sweden

Postby Stevie T » 17 Oct 2007 09:46

Martin Wallgren wrote:I think we can ignore the distance thing here! Otherwise almost non of the plates would work. And if we want to take it in consideration he could be doing it with a movement backwards instead of forward.

The possition he cuts from is this...
Image
Right guy! (edited, I put left by misstake here before. This written to explaine the otherwise very confused following posts.)

... and he will end up int Vom Tach.


And he is in the middle of the strike. there is no Swerch because the text states Unterhow.


Just to display more of my ignorance; why is this not a form of Zwerch made from below?

To me it has many of the attributes of the Zwerch, especially in regard to positioning of the sword; Taking the opponents strike at his strong, striking with the short edge, with the hands held high.

As in other texts a zwerch can be made either horizontal or with the point down, couldn't it be possible to make a zwerch with the point high.

Also if the left leg step is a slope to the left this provides a stronger position for taking the force of the opponents downward strike and changes the line of attack to allow a less vertical strike to his left. Or the short edge hits his rigth at the neck, making it more of a Crump?

If your opponent then pushes through, being strong at the bind, then you can allow your defence to collapse to your right, still maintaining cover, and move underneath his arm to place your left arm across his chest, your left knee behind his right and throw him to the ground as you see in RIngeck and TH.
User avatar
Stevie T
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 6639
Joined: 21 Dec 2006 11:55
Location: Darlington

Postby Martin Wallgren » 17 Oct 2007 10:42

A swerch is with the edge and aimed at the upper blossen. But if you wanna I can call the strike in the picture a iverted shielhaow. Because thet sort of what I interpret it as.

Why well because in other plates he worh alot from that righthand ox, And as I have explained erlier Because of the speed the sturzhau comes with.
User avatar
Martin Wallgren
Major
 
Posts: 755
Joined: 12 May 2006 10:37
Location: Bjästa, Ö-vik, Sweden

Postby Jeffrey Hull » 17 Oct 2007 20:38

Martin Wallgren wrote:The main reason why I interpret the wechselhau as a unterhow from my low left to my high right with the long edge ending in a ox on the right or geschrencht ortt is beacause in full speed training it is the only way I can get the blade up in time to verzetsen a sturtzhow and get into vor.


I understand even better now, I think that is sensible. I want to try that myself. It seems similar to application of unterhau that becomes unicorn, as per Meyer.

Thanks,
Jeffrey Hull
 

Postby Martin Wallgren » 17 Oct 2007 20:48

Jeffrey Hull wrote:
Martin Wallgren wrote:The main reason why I interpret the wechselhau as a unterhow from my low left to my high right with the long edge ending in a ox on the right or geschrencht ortt is beacause in full speed training it is the only way I can get the blade up in time to verzetsen a sturtzhow and get into vor.


I understand even better now, I think that is sensible. I want to try that myself. It seems similar to application of unterhau that becomes unicorn, as per Meyer.

Thanks,


Please tell me of your results when you tried it in training. Would help me alot!

Thanx!
User avatar
Martin Wallgren
Major
 
Posts: 755
Joined: 12 May 2006 10:37
Location: Bjästa, Ö-vik, Sweden


Return to Johannes Liechtenauer Lineage

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest