Lindholm/Ringeck's Zornhaw

[joelthompson1]

Question on the notion of using the zornhaw as a counterstrike without passing forward as you strike. This book shows the zornhaw used against an incoming zornhaw by leaning into the strike rather than passing forward into it. Then after engaging your opponent's blade, you step forward with your thrust, still using your leading foot. Never passing forward.
Do you prefer this method, or do you prefer passing forward (with a traverse?) with your own zornhaw to deflect the incoming zornhaw and bring your blade into action that way?
I originally learned the pass forward with traverse method, and admittedly am having trouble learning this Ringeck method.

[Joachim Nilsson]

It's not su much "Ringeck's" method, as it's David's own. From what I've been told he likes to "stay put" quite often. Me, I like to traverse with my Zornhau. Prefarably towards the flank of the enemy.

[joelthompson1]

"Staying put" does seem rather un-Liechtenauer, doesn't it? Even with the following thrust, it's just not that aggressive to me.

[Randall Pleasant]

Joel

I really like Lindholm's book, I think it is the best on the market and I think every ARMA member should have a copy. However, I really do not like the Zornhau related images in Lindholm's book. In addition to not taking a passing step the cuts are also shown as being performed by pulling the hilt down rather than by torqing the hilt (cutting by pullng the hilt down is also seen in the pictures of Tobler's book). For example, consider that the following image from Goliath represents roughly the same action as seen in the left image on page 35 of Lindholm's book. In the Goliath image we see that the man on the left did take a passing step and his hands are at the height of his head and his arms are extended, this suggest that he torqued his hilt during the cut. Although his blade is drawn flat to the viewer, the man's left hand suggest that he is winded his false edge against the other man's blade as he is thrusting. I would suggest studying from both Lindholm's book and Goliath at the same time. There are a lot of little details in the Goliath images that can make a big difference in understanding Liechtenauer and Ringneck.

<img src="http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Goliath/29.jpg" width="500" height="400" />

[JeffGentry]

Hey Ran

I agree with what you said, i think for purely a zornhau we need to look more at the figure on the right of that picture, seeing it is a zornhau against zornhau illustration, the guy on the left is indeed doing his follow up attack after the zornhau.

Here is what the text say's.
"Glosa The wrath strike counter's all high strike's with the point. And it is indeed nothing other than a bad peasant strike. Deploy it thus: when you come to him in the pre-fencing: if he strike's to you from his right side high to the head, then to this also strike from high on your right(note in margin: in the weak on the sword) wrathfully displacing with him on his sword, if he is then weak on the sword, then aim to shoot ahead with the point and stab to his face, or attack the chest between the arm's."


Jeff

[Randall Pleasant]

Jeff

The man on the right in the Goliath image does indeed give us some good information. It is clear that he did not pull his hilt down during his Zornhau. The angle of his left foot also suggest that he step off line to his right when he made his passign step.

[Mike Sega]

Most zornhau that I have attempted without moving either forward traverse or back step timed to my opponent, have resulted in me being hit, usually a very palpaple hit. I think the practice of stopping when one gets a strike to the arm or hand encourages such stationary practices. Saprring until the hit is head, body, or a solid shoulder or upper arm would probably prove effective at disproving this stationary fighting styles worth. When using a zorn to counter act a zorn, I would like to find myself to my opponents left and perhaps even behind him a little. Otherwise I would strike nach with a back step. The idea is that you shouldn't stop after that zorn. You should throw two or three strikes after that depending on circumstances.

My two cents.

[Joachim Nilsson]

Joel Thompson wrote:

"Staying put" does seem rather un-Liechtenauer, doesn't it? Even with the following thrust, it's just not that aggressive to me.

It sure does. Moreover, it's biomechanically unsound. It puts you in a very weak position.

In David's defence though, I have to say that he does have that short disclaimer in his book regarding his interpretations in general and specifically his footwork.

[joelthompson1]

Ran makes a good point about pulling the hilt down. In practicing this technique, we had problems not only pulling the hilt down but tending also to pull the hilt in towards the body. It was awkward trying to extend and make good contact with a fully generated zornhau from the other guy without passing forward. If you make contact on his strong, it's really difficult to make the thrust without drawing the blade back first. And of course if you do that, you make yourself wide open to his counter(s). Contacting the weak was better, but even here you really want to wind up a bit for that thrust.
I think we'll probably play with this one a bit more and then put it in our back pocket. Thanks for the feedback.

[jeremy pace]

While i fully agree that the passing step offline to your opponent is obviously the more martially sound method. I have been practicing it both ways. The zornhau, IMO, is meant to be done as a reactionary attack (otherwise your opponent being familiar with this Master Strike will just counter with a zorn of his own and succeed in the cut most of the time.) but, as great a technique as it is it is not impervious to a counter.... its just that most often these counters result in a mutual kill. I prefer not to have just one manuver in a situation so i use both. It seems to me (and i will admit it may very well be that i just fight with the same 4-5 people over and over that are familiar with it) that while the other method, being Lindholm's interpretation, is more difficult to pull off, it does set them up rather nicely for those same follow up attacks.

For instance:
Assume that you and your opponent are both wielding identical longswords and have been studying from the same master (fechtbuch). He aims a shot high to your leading shoulder (the left) you counter by passing forward and offline in a zorn that not only strikes him in the face killing him instantly but also intercepts his incoming blade at the strong of your own and is deflected leaving him dead and you unharmed...... but wait. He has a brother! (who by the way has also the same sword and studied the same manual) Who has watched the fight with a trained swordsman's eye and wants revenge. After a few mutual attacks weighing eachothers actions and responses he launches an attack at that same shoulder EXPECTING you to counter with your masterfully done zornhau his intentions just a fake that he hardly commits any real force to hoping to step out and to his right feeding you his point as you commit to the counter. But you sir are no novice. Expecting a deception with such an obvious attack you connect with the flat binding that cut to the shoulder without the passing forward step so now he is in position for a thrust to the head. You have done your master proud.

These are just my views on 2 cuts that while i find the second not necessarily masterful (as Lindholm also points out. Saying he is unsure why such a simple manuver is considered a master cut) is similar enough to the 1st to fake an opponent into thinking it is a master strike. IMO, the most important aspect to a swordsman is unpradictability. Move slow when he expects a lightning thrust and he will overcompensate every time. Bind weak when he expects to overpower you with strong. Et cetera .....
Again, not wanting to argue the point that the 1st method is the correct interpretation. Just that the 2nd is a clever variation. <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

[JeffGentry]

Hey Jeremy

In Doebringer he call's them "5 hidden strike's", Ringeck actualy call's it "The text on the 5 strike's".

Also if you look at Ringeck's text on Vier Versetzen(4 displacment's) the Zornhau isn't listed among them as being used to break a gaurd and attack, I think it is more a first strike or a reactionary strike, there are a number of thing's you can do from it though.

Jeff

[philippewillaume]

Hello
First I would say that David&amp;#8217;s zornh is a possible interprestaion. If we read VD strictly it fits. And ringeck tells us to stike and then follow with the foot of the same side
Personally is do not think it is what Ringeck means but It&amp;#8217;s a possible interpretation.

My view that you have to step on the side you strike (or go back with the foot opposite to the side you strike).

My answer to Jeremy situation would be it does not matter if he is feinting and plans to have a light contact and do something elses.
We should always strike at our opponents and not his sword and we should strike so that he cannot change through. (And do not pay to much attention to what you opponent does). So as long as he cut it does not really matter
I think that is what makes it a masterhaw.

Jeff I think the zornh is strike by default, you only do something else because you are forced to. (But I think the 4 other masterhaw are just a different way to finish the zorh).

phil

[jeremy pace]

Agreed, but what i meant was not necessarily to "strike" at the sword, but initiate the bind to intercept his strike and feed him the point..... it is difficult to describe motion that in combat speed happens almost simultaneously in a step by step process. If we lived closer i could just show you! <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

Also, let me state that I prefer practicality over "historical authenticity" because i think such a statement borders on the pretentious. Too many charlatans and psuedo masters use the term to confuse the public. If it works show me. Put it to the test of combat. Saying all strikes should be done to the body and not at the sword is fine, but on just about every demonstration video ive ever seen people do it. I believe in looking at the principal behind things not the exact action because over time that action can be mutated and changed depending on who reads it. If the text says do not strike to the sword and then later in another area says strike to the sword in this circumstance then look at why. Not the how. Figure out the how on your own. The principal of not attacking the sword is sound.... you want to kill the wielder not the blade. But, we use many principals and techniques that do just that. Binding, deflection, sword taking, half swording..... watch the videos of John demonstrating halfswording. Wouldnt this be the same principal? Getting the sword out of the way to make a strike towards the body? I have tried the above mentioned technique and it works..... that proves its validity in my book. Until someone can show me otherwise that is the method i follow.

Besides, you miss my point. Pick apart what i say all you want but the idea behind it is thus: why have 1 technique you always use when you can have 2 similar to fool your adversary?

[philippewillaume]

Hello
Jeremy, I was not really trying to pick apart what you were saying. I just you&amp;#8217;re your example to explain what I was meant.
For me if it does not work practically, it is not historical this is as simple as that.

It seems that I am bound to get it from both sides, people who are using manual complain when I says that an interpretation is not practical or just does not work (ie there is something we do not understandquiteyet).
And people who have a more hands on approach complain that I stick to the manual.

I do not agree with david&amp;#8217;s interpretation because I find it too narrow in term of practical application but I can not say it is either incorrect or impractical.
What he does works in certain situation (not enough situations for my taste or if you want I think the concept is applicable to a small range of situation but that&amp;#8217;s me).
AS you said it what VD says but Ringeck does not and it is Ringeck that I follow.
Hence my position

As far as putting it to the test, that is precisely what I do and that precisely because of sparring that I have come to the conclusion that I have reached so far.
In fact it is sparing that pushed me in to look in the manuals (after I looked if there was a fencing group close to where I live). The problem I had was that against someone less experienced or less physically gifted you would win with a comfortable margin ( i.e. a fair amount of clean kill) but if the difference of level get narrower double kill or finger of the dead kill started to become a fair proportion of the hit) so I looked for system and method to prevent that to happen.
I spar with people from other organization/groups and one of my regular partners is (until recently firmly) in the camp of the multi sources/natural fighting style and made every attempt to find gaps in what I was doing. That does not prove that what I am doing is inherently better than a multi-manual approach, it just mean we are trying to be as thorough as we can and that we consider sparing an integral part of the study.
Of course I would love to spare/train with, you the more people you train with the more you can refine your findings.

I just cannot fathom why you seem to assume that if I am right you necessarily are wrong or why a hands on approach has to be opposed to and intellectual approach. The way you do thing and the way I do things are not mutually exclusive.
I have stated several time that I though what Arma is doing as historically accurate as my single manual approach.
Ie we have the same amount of bread to cover you are using several jam jar and use only one.

My point was if you do the move you describe it couldn&amp;#8217;t be a Zornhau because you are loosing the purpose of the strike. Ie from a Zorh you will have a set of consequences and it is to create that set of consequences that you are using the Zhorn.
If I think the way you do it, is working or not, has nothing to do with it. In fact a similar concept is covered with the abzetsen against the master using a Crump but that is not the point. Basically if you can not hit him either with the strike or as you finish the piece with the thrust (which is just an extension of the hands low or high according is he is strong or weak at the end of the stike) you are not doing a Zornh.

[jeremy pace]

"Basically if you can not hit him either with the strike or as you finish the piece with the thrust (which is just an extension of the hands low or high according is he is strong or weak at the end of the stike) you are not doing a Zornh. "

Well i am in agreement with you on this. My point was that even if you do the Zhorn 100% correctly there is still the possibility they could forsee it and hit you. Does the Zhorn always work? Niet. You can be outtimed, distanced, or as my example tricked into a mutual kill. I think we agree on this subject Szab it is just the ever present human misinterpretation. Let me explain a little further:
When i first started studying the manuals i took the idea of the Zornhau directly from this sites essays on the mastercuts. I was amazed and felt completely enlightened. I have been swordfighting for years but this relatively simple approach had so much merit i used it constantly. Well, my opponents began to adapt. After a while the success rate declined due to the above mentioned reasons. And also because i wasnt the only one doing the technique. I had to find ways out of it myself when someone pulled off a perfectly timed zorn. Then one day a new Gentleman by the name of John Stewart came by who said our zorn was wrong. He had Lindholm's book and was following that interpretation only (as you yourself do studying out of one text to master it) well we put it to the test and i found it to be very faulty for the reasons listed in this thread. I refused to use it after he left. It was complicated and unbalancing and most importantly did not feel natural...... but. It LOOKS kind of like a Zorn. It sets them up for the same thrusts minus the triangle step. I still use the stepping zorn i first learned and that i consider the TRUE masterstrike about 98% of the time. But if i fake a zornhau and do Lindholm's version instead i find it makes my opponent doubt even if it doesn't hit him. So i teach both. Simple as that.

And for the record. I do respect you and the method you use. I am studying from simply Ringeck right now and find it very effective against almost everyone. But, i think swordfighting is really a reactive art. When someone does something youv'e never seen and cant expect you have to adapt. I treat the padded as if it were real steel and i never want to be hit. When we spar it is very agressive and often painful but mainly to pride. <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" /> But thanks for your thoughts sir. I just wanted to relate my approach a little. I did not expect it to be a well recieved idea you were just the only one to take the bait. <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />