It was recently pointed out to me that this illustration does not depict a Kurtzhauw (Short cut).

To understand my mistake, consider this passage:

This is a stealthy action that goes through against your opponent, and is done thus: When your opponent cuts at you from above, then act as if you intended to bind on his sword with the Crooked Cut, that is with the short edge; but forego this, and quickly go through under his sword; strike with the short edge and crossed arms over his right arm at his head; thus you have caught his sword with the long edge and executed the Short Cut, and you stand at the end of it as shown by the figure on the right in the small scene on the upper left in Image B.

It sure sounds like the Kurtzhauw is what’s being shown, but also consider this passage from the beginning of chapter 5:

The other cuts with which one neither parries nor hits, such as the Short Cut and Failer, etc. are nor a core component of combat but only allowed per accidens or circumstantially, to deceive the opponent, provoke him, make him angry, and to drive him out of his advantage, which generally does not happen without risk, since they do not incorporate any parrying.

If the Kurtzhauw “neither parries nor hits”, then the Kurtzhauw is actually when you perform this part of the passage: “act as if you intended to bind on his sword with the Crooked Cut, that is with the short edge; but forego this, and quickly go through under his sword”. Which means the illustration shows the next step after the Kurtzhauw.

This brings us back to one of the fundamental problems with interpreting Meyer’s text. It often appears as if it is giving us definitions when in fact he is giving us examples.