A question on the Zornhau

[John_Clements]

Hi

Interesting observations.
What our approach in ARMA seeks to do is comprehend the essence of overall fighting skills in the period more holistically by understanding all of the fighting methods we can from any and all source literature—while in the process remaining aware of the difficulties and limitations of such reconstructions.

Re the Zorn, as a diagonal strike recognized as the strongest cut. Because the blow is also natural and almost instinctive, we are told how for “anyone in his anger and rage no other strike is as ready.” In Döbringer its “nothing else but a poor peasant strike”, meaning more or less one based on power alone and easily telegraphed in its delivery. I think we should consider that the Zorn is not really any sort of “bad” peasant blow, just a natural more instinctive strike. Is it really described as a “bad” blow by peasants or more as a blow by “bad peasants”? I think it is the latter, since the cut is one known for its strength and simplicity, being the most obvious and natural strike to make (recall Ringeck’s’ comment about “buffels” who “usurp mastery with strength”). Consider also that Zornhau (sometimes known as the “cut of wrath”) was also called the Vater Streich or “father strike” (perhaps because it resembled in some way the disciplinary swats of an angry parent or perhaps because it is the “parent” of all other cuts?).

JC

[Aaron Pynenberg]

Hello all,

I echo Ryan's thanks for all the replys-what an active community we have! I am simply amazed at all the effort, dedication and good will put out through ARMA. ARMA-Appleton has been hard at work committing all the basics to memory and working through all these movements together. I have been working with John's new study guide, (excellent!) and have found further insight into the Art. Thanks again! Aaron Pynenberg

[Jeffrey Hull]

Oh hey, I read with interest about "bad" strike, or strike used by "bad" peasants.

I would point out only what Nietzsche maintained (he was both philosopher & philologist), that if we are talking about the word "schlecht", then often in older pre-1600s German that means not "bad" but rather "simple" or "plain" -- not meant to be negative. I myself have found this a resonable meaning/translation at times in Ringeck's commentary of Liechtenauer. However, one must be careful, as "schlecht" can also be an alternate spelling of "schlag", hence meaning instead "strike".

So anyway, some thoughts on that.

JH

[philippewillaume]

Hello Jonh, jeff...
Here is the verses
(19 r )Das ist der zorn haw mitt sinen stucken.
Wer dir ober hawet, zorn haw ort im dröwet.
Glosa.
Daß vernym also: wann dir ainer von siner rechten sytten oben ein hawet, so haw einen zorn haw mitt der langen schniden och von diner rechten achslen mitt im starck ein. Ist der dann waich am schwert, so schüß jm den ort für sich lang ein zu° dem gesicht. Vnnd träw im zu° stechen.

This is the Zornhaw and its pieces
He who strikes high, the point of the Zornhaw lurks/threatens (dröwen=drohen) (it can be droehen to bang to hit)
Glose
That goes like so: when one strikes at the head /at the top from his right side, so hew him in (einhauwen) a Zornhaw with the long edge and from the right shoulder with a powerfull one at him (in dem starck eyin= do one strongly/grandly) at him Should he be weak at the sword so shoot the point to his face, along blade and threaten to thrust at him

It is in VD, lew and speyer where the zornh being nothing more than a peasant strike
Wer dich oberhawt zoren haw ort dem drawt
Glosa / Merck der zorenhaw pricht mit dem ort alle oberhaw / und ist doch anderß nicht / wenn ein slächter pauren slagk / und den treib also / wenn du mit dem zů vechten zu ym kumst / haut er dir denn von seiner rechten seitten oben ein zů dem kopff / So haw auch von deiner rechten seitten von oben an alle vor saczung / mit im zornigklich ein auf sein swert / Ist er denn waich öm swert / so seüß im den ort gericht für sich lanck ein / und stich im zů dem [13 v] gesicht oder der prüst / So secz im an

Dobringer just says that it is an oberhaw from the shoulder with strength
Glosa / hie merke und wisse das lichtenawer / eynen o[e]berhaw slecht von der achsel / heisset der czornhaw / wen eyryitzlichem in syme gryme und czorne.
I would translate it like that (though eyryitzlichem is a tad tricky)
Here note and know that for lichty an oberthaw srtiken from the shoulder/is call zorn when delivered/coated/pledged (eit-schillinc) with unkid sap (seim grim) and wrath


As John and you said, I think the meaning of /und ist doch anderß nicht / wenn ein slächter pauren slagk/ is that it is a “natural strike” i.e. a strike from someone with little education.
And I am quite convinced that this is what VD calls the zornh. I have the suspicion that it is what ringeck refers as the strike of the buffalo. It is not necessarily antonymic. I think it two application of the same principle

I think that type of strike if aimed at the body is easily countered either by a scheitle (as per ringeck or by a straighter zornh.
I do not think it make a lots of difference that you plan to stop in a plough if you do not connect or if it is just a plain swing the sheitelhaw will connect early in the trajectory of the blow. Having a straighter strike (ie with a shallow angle) and you aiming at the man seems more optimised than a more angled strike.


But if aimed at the sword and stopping in a plough/lower hanging as VD advised, I think it is a better way to proceed because we will end up too far apart hence the changing through and counter winding will not be that advantageous.

Any thoughts ?
Philippe.

PS about the 3 approaches, I think we need the three types of approaches if nothing else one keeps the two other honest. I think any of those have limitations and drawbacks but they all their value as well (and should be profitable for each other).

cheers