A question on the Zornhau

[Ryan Pynenberg]

I have seen the Zornhau performed in two different ways, and I was wondering if there was a perfered method.

The fist Zornhua is form "Secrets of German Swordsmanship" by Christian Tobler. It is basicly a change from Vom Tag to Pflug with your strong over the opponents strong. Then a thrust with the point to the opponent's face.

The second is how I have been practicing with my training partner Aaron Pynenberg. It is an oberhau (overhand) strike from Vom Tag to Alber. This motion is interupted by the opponent's blade. Your strong should again be over his. Then a second strike with the long edge to the opponent's head. This is accomplised with a step back of the left leg.(If you started with a strike from the right.)

I would appreciate any comments on these techniques. Thank you for your help.


Ryan Pynenberg
ARMA - Appleton

[James_Knowles]

Striking or countering?

If striking:

If your sword strikes nothing, it should go diagonally from Vom Tag to a low guard on the left. Your blade should strike the opponent with the "sweet spot," which is on the weak.

If you chose, you can continue the momentum through the Tail guard, and back up to Vom Tag or Ochs.

It's not called the "wrath" or "rage" strike for nothing; it carries a lot of power. Stopping at Pflug neither carries as much power nor jives with what I see in the manuals (granted, I'm familiar only with Ringeck, Wallerstein, and Talhoffer).

If countering an oberhau:

If you're using Zornhau to break your opponent's strike, such as Zorn against Zorn, you'll likely use your strong against his weak, though strong against strong works when you step in close.

Yeah, kind of situational.

Then a second strike with the long edge to the opponent's head.

That's one way, though not as quick as comming back up and striking with the short edge: down, up. There are also a lot of other things that can be done depending on the situation that are simple.

If my blade still has a lot of momentum and the situation right, I'll let the blade travel through tail, ochs, and strike the head with the short edge.

I just use that as an example of how situational things are. Pay attention to the dynamics of the blade and use its motion (or lack thereof) to your advantage.

Another example: if you strike Zorn and he breaks with another Zorn, you can counter his counter by going soft, letting your blade fall through Schrankhut, and striking above or below; or you can trap his arms with your right and disarm, throw, or simply smack him in the face with the pommel since it's in the neighbourhood. <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Randall Pleasant]

Ryan

First, one of the cuts you described is not a Zornhau. If you cut from Vom Tag to Alber you are making a very vertical cut, thus you are performing a Scheitelhau (see page 71 of Tobler), not a Zornhau.

Second, as James has already noted, a Zornhau does not stop in Pflug. A Zornhau is a powerful diagonal cut in which you try to cut your adversary in half. In the Zornhau to Zornhau technique described in Ringeck the goal is not to go over the adversary’s strong. Rather the goal is to cut your Zornhau in the timing of Indes so that your long edge not only possibly cuts the adversary (his face is the best target) but also impacts the inside flat of his incoming blade, thus displacing his Zornhau. If you fail to cut your adversary the displacement of his cut results in a bind, from this bind you wind and thrust. Take a look at the following image from Goliath, which is more realistic than pictures in Tobler’s book.



Note that in free play with wasters you <u>must</u> pull your counter Zornhau in order to not knock your training partner's teeth (please wear safety equipment). Thus, we often find ourselfs in the bind in a position very similar to that show on page 102 of Tobler's book. I would also suggest that you get a copy of “Sigmund Ringeck’s Knightly Art of the Longsword” by David Lindholm and Peter Svard (Paladin Press).

[Aaron Pynenberg]

Hey Ryan it's your training partner-These are good questions, bring these up as we train - The one part you have wrong in your question is that we have not been striking to the strong, but to the weak, off-setting the blade using your strong, while stepping and then following through, striking at the opening, with the stepping and such.

I think part of it too, is the fact that we have been sparring against each other so much that we start to, "work together" in an unconsious sort of way that inhibits the techniques. Thats part of why I was smacking you on the crown of the head with the schielhau's. I am always trying to work the techniques and not worry about keeping my srikes soft and such. I know it's not fun to recieve those blows but as Jake said in 1.0 class, " you should train like you had to fight for real, next week." or something like that.-anyway Ryan and I did recently order Talhoffer's book and Sigmund's as well. These should straighten out any crooks we might have.

[James_Knowles]

I second the Lindholm edition of Ringeck. To me it's much more a beginner book, arranged to be one. After struggling through Wallerstein and Talhoffer, it was a breath of fresh air to my newbie brain.

Talhoffer really is advanced stuff.

[Ryan Ricks]

i've heard tell that tobler's interpretation isn't the best. it seems like in the zorn vs zorn section he messes up the timing which results in an edge on edge hack. although older and wiser ARMA scholars than i will know for sure

ryan

[James_Knowles]

I've not seen the Tobler book, so I can't comment on it.

However, you're right. Countering zorn with zorn should not end up hacking edges.

When you counter, your edge will hit his flat. Note that it's not a 90-degree impact, but the edges certainly are not hacking at each other!

You shouldn't have to do anything special to make this happen, but I find it easier and safer to traverse a bit to the right.

My ignorant two bits.

[JeffGentry]

Hey Ryan
if you take a traversing step to your right to step offline of his cut and as you step you throw the zorn at the shoulder, neck junction it is one of the meisterhau and you will also protect yourself at the same time.

Ask Aaron to show you he know's it.

[philippewillaume]

Personally I would say that the actual shape of the zornh is debatable.

I would tend to disagree with Randall because in Ringeck it is not mentioned that it is a peasant strike or a diagonal cut. However it is in Goliath/VD (or lew and von speyer for that mater) but not in ringeck.

This is the german text
(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/strike (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 his blade and threaten to thrust at him

Whilst I am at disagreeing with Randall I think to strike a sheitel you need to have the hands high
Der schayteller mitt sinen stucken.
Der schaytler dem antlytz ist gefer.
Hie merck: der schaytler ist dem antlytz vnd der brust gefaerlich. Den tryb also: wen er gen dir stat jn der hu°t aulber, so haw mit der langen schnyde von der langeschayttlen oben nyder; vnd belyb (33 r)mit dem haw hoch mit den armen, vnd heng jm mit dem ort ein zu° dem gesychte.

The schaitel and its pieces
The shaitel endanger the visage/appearance
Here mark, the sheitel is dangerous to the face and the chest. It is done like so: when is going at you standing in the guard of the fool, then strike him with the long edge by/in the long parting/cut (schayttlen = scheitlen=to part/to cut I.e. vertically) top to below. And stay (Belyb=bleib)/and animate (belyb=beleben) high in the strike with the arm and hangs the tip at him, pointing to the face.


The trajectory ending up in the abler is kind of a the normal trajectory for a uberhaw as the first lesson says
Das ist der text von vil gu°tter gemainer lere des langen schwerts.
Willtu kunst schowen, sich linck gen vnd recht mitt hawen. Vnd linck mitt rechtem, ist, das du starck gerst fechten.
Glosa.
Merck, das ist die erst lere des (12 r )langes schwertz; das du die hew von bayden sytten recht solt lernen hawen, ist, das du annders starck vnd gerecht fechten wilt. Das vernym allso: wenn du wilt howen von der rechten sytten, so sich, das dein lincker fu°ß vor stee. Häustu dann den ober haw von der rechten sytten, so folg dem haw nach mitt dem rechten fu°ß. Tu°st du das nicht, so ist der how falsch vnd vngerecht, wann deinv (12 v ) rechte syten pleibpt dahinden. Darum ist der haw zu° kurtz vnd mag sein rechten gang vndersich zu der rechten anderen sytten vor dem lincken fu°ß nicht gehaben
This is the text about many good common lessons of the long sword
To show the art, your left going/towards and right with the strike. And the left with the right is how you fence strongly.
Glose
Mark, this is the first lesson of the long sword; that you are to learn how to strike your blow from either side, so that you will fence with another/different force and precision. This is goes like so: when you want to strike from the right side, be so that you left foot is in front. Strike you then with an oberhaw so your right foot follows after with the blow. Do not do this and the blow will be false and wrongful. As you right side stays behind it makes the blow shorter and it cannot have its rightful course under itself over the left foot (auf der anderer saiten von= over)


However I fully agree with randall when he says that the zornh is meant to strike your opponent. (Which may not be the case in VD lew and speyer).

I do not think that the shape of the blow varies if you are attacking or defending. It is the same trajectory (otherwise I think it would be mentioned).

As far as the trajectory is concerned I am not sure of the actual shape. I think it can be as Randall described or a more vertical strike IE with a more shallow angle (which is the one I prefer since I can control the centerline) there is pro and cons for each trajectory but all in all it white hat and hat white (French saying)
To be fair I do not think it matters that much, all the masterhaw are supossed to be variation on the oberhaw and unterhaw theme. So may be the shape does not matter that much as long as the effect are obtained


Phlip phlop

[Randall Pleasant]

Ryan wrote:
I've heard tell that tobler's interpretation isn't the best. It seems like in the zorn vs zorn section he messes up the timing which results in an edge on edge hack.

Ryan

I have to say that I do like Lindholm's book better than Tobler's. However, both books have weaknesses and strengths. If possible you should own and use both books. Regardless of which book you use remember that what is most important is not the interpretations and pictures of the authors, rather it is the words of Liechtenauer and Ringeck. I feel that I have gotten great milage using both books along with Goliath. The few images of Goliath have provide me with many times more information about correct body position and motion than all of the pictures and images of both books combined. In regard to the edge-on-edge stuff seen in Tobler's pictures of the Zornhau to Zornhau counter it appears to be a result of a lack of speed and intent and performing the cuts in a drawing manner by pulling the pomel down from the shoulder to the hip rather than reaching the arms out and torquing the hilt during the cut. When you perform the Zornhau to Zornhau counter with speed and intent while reaching out with your arms and torque the hilt it results in your true edge impacting the inside flat of the adversary's blade, setting it aside, and leaves your hands much higher in the resulting bind, not unlike what is seen in the picture from Goliath that I posted in my earlier message.

[Ryan Ricks]

hmm, yes, someone else from ARMA said to stick to ringeck and lichtenauer's words as much as possible while using that book. i think it might have been jamie felrath.

anyways, i'm certainly not gonna throw it out. it has some nice pictures and stuff, and of course as you say, lichtenauer and ringeck's words are reprinted in it.

however, i feel that i learned more in 2 visits to ARMA virginia beach than i could've learned in a year by studying from that book with no expert instruction.

ryan

[Randall Pleasant]

Philippe wrote:
Personally I would say that the actual shape of the zornh is debatable.
...

...in Ringeck it is not mentioned that it is a peasant strike or a diagonal cut. However it is in Goliath/VD (or lew and von speyer for that mater) but not in ringeck.

Philippe

On a general level I do agree with you as I think everything in Medeviel and Renaissance swordmenship is, always will be, and always should be debatable. On a more specific level I have to say that I think the Zornhau is the most well understood of all the cuts. While we may debate how to interact with our adversary during the Zornhau to Zornhau counter I think for most of us there is little doubt that a Zornhau is a diagonal cut. As to the proper angle I say just go with what feels best and most importantly, what works.

Also, I don't think we should completely consider either Ringeck, Doebringer, von Danzig, etc., in isolation. None of them were writing about "their" teachings, rather they were describing Liechtenauer's teachings. The clearest picture of Liechtenauer's teachings comes from studying all of their works.

[philippewillaume]

I do not think we disagree on the substance. i think we will have a different interpretations on how we do things because we have a slightly different approach.
Personally I think the 3 great type of approach have their own merits and drawbacks. Of course the one you choose will influence your interpretation.

Just for clarity
I would say
There is a multi manuals multi schools approach. From what i have understood, I think this is the generic arma approach, I.E using several manuals from several different master not necessary from the same school.

The multi manual but one school, I think this is what you are advocating here, Using several manual but restricted to the same lineage.

The mono-manual approach, which is the one I am doing: Studying only one manual using the other from the same tradition to clarify concepts but sticking to the original text for the physical implementation.

Hence on the different author, I slightly disagree with you, not on the fact that to get lichtanauer you need to use VD, ringeck, lew, speyer, dobringer, talhoffer (at least the 1443 edition) may be goliath (though the illustration seems to be early 1500 but the text is almost von dantzig verbatim and lew and speyer are very close) because well there is nothing from lichtanauer (though some suggest that it is possible that lichtanauer was in fact dobringer) but more on the tack of if this particular author wrote it like that this is because he meant it like that not because he missed something or in fact meant what the other authors meant. I think like in modern martial, each master probably had its own particular interpretation. (Ringeck in the intro tell us he interpreted Lichty verses)
Of course any mastrehaw or strikes that ringeck, vd,lew and von speyer share have to have similarity at least at the conceptual level. I think the logical link is more tenuous with dobringer and Meyer as they are not on from the same period (this can be argued about the Von speyer as well)

If we follow the text, Clearly VD (lew, seyer and the goliath) and Ringeck (and dobringer on that topic), do not say the same thing about the zorn.

Vd says to hit the blade and then trust to hit the man. He says that the strike is like a peasant strike.
Ringeck says to hit the man, if he paries and he is weak then thrust. No mention of the bad peasant strike at all.
Dobringer tells us it is an oberhaw delivered with strength and we trust if he parries and is weak.

You can do that for almost all the masterhaw.
I think that the fencing in VD, Lew, goliath, and speyer are very probably similar, the text is almost the same (In the speyer you can find some ringeck that is not in VD and lew so it possible that it a bit more in between).
I think ringeck style was closer to dobringer than it is from VD however there seems to be some differences between Dobringer and ringeck as well.

I am not saying that my position is the correct one and you should all convert. I am quite aware that in any of the 3 approaches there is a part of axiom-isation of certain parameters in order to construct the logical model. Each of our view is based on that.
one can not really disprouve that ringeck not in fact a lest precise version of VD nor one can prove that it is different based on sole facts.
It is true that there is enough similitude but it is true that is enough differences so it really depends on the way you look at it.

If your are trying do resurrect lichty it does not really matter if ringeck is different from VD what interest you is the similitude.

If you are trying to resurrect Ringeck, well you will be interested in doing what he says and disregard the other when there is conflict. (I think you need to rationalise what the differences is and why it is here though)

I hope I made some sense

[Ryan Pynenberg]

I want to thank everyone for their input. Shortly after posting my original question, I aquired a copy of David Lindholm &amp; Peter Svard's book. I highly recommend it to everyone! I was practicing the Zornhau as Jeff Gentry describes it in his posts here. My question was based around the fact that this doesn't quite fit in with Leichtenauer &amp; Ringeck's words about it being a danger with the thrust (what I am writing here may not make much sense - I am taking a lot of perscription drugs to deal with allergies this time of year - they tend to make my drowsy) The Lindholm book shows this is possible simply by using your left hand to thrust the pommel under the left elbow after the bind. This will put the point to your opponents face, then with a step of the lead foot, you thrust. I have been practicing both the strike and the thrust of the Zornhau and they have both proved very useful in sparring.

Thanks again to all who took the time to read and comment.


Ryan Pynenberg
ARMA - Appleton

[JeffGentry]

Well glad i could help Ryan

All the Meisterhau are designed to protect you and kill your opponent at the same time ask Aaron about the meisterhau, you have a good training partner i would suck his brain dry if i were you.