Five secret strikes, and what else?

[Jeremiah Smith]

I kind a want to throw in my hat about this-though my view should always be taken as colored by my ignorance as a fairly new practitioner and scholar of the art. to sort of bring it back to Myles point, we all know that the 5 secret strikes are the main to do in the text, but my conjecture is to why, and why did high master JL decide that they needed to be taught. So my thinking goes like this, at the end of the 14th century beginning of the 15th it was fully expected that everyone capable of wielding a sword should know how to fence to the 4 openings. Much like in america today, basically everyone grows up and is instilled with the knowledge of how to stand and swing a baseball bat. this is why I think that long and short edge oberhau's and unterhau's are not really commented on accept to say how to step with strikes etc. because anyone who was anyone knew how to do that stuff and also how to defend themselves basically. What Lichtenauer (or whom ever is doing the gloss) is telling us is that yes a diagonal oberhau might be a bad peasant strike and it is probably going to be the first thing that someone who hasn't studied will throw at you (how many of us with new students know this first hand). so what is going on with the master cuts, is JL is letting us all know what the most effective and efficient way to deal with these strikes are. I.E. someone throws an oberhau at you, cut the Sh*t, stop it with your own, and then just to punish them for underestimating your skill, go ahead and stab them in the face. Or just to make it more painfully obvious what a skilled swordsman you are, why dont you just stop it in mid swing and then using his own energy, cut around his sword with your short edge and hit him in the temple.

back to part of the original question. the basics aren't covered, IMHO, in the early manuals because it was assumed that everyone came to a JLT school or master knowing how to throw cuts to the 4 openings and defend themselves against people of lesser skill.
however when you get down the line a hundred years or so, manuals start to give detailed descriptions of how one should throw these cuts, step with them and make sure that you know this before you start on zorn ort or zwerch

like i said only my observation and opinion,

[KeithFarrell]

Apparently I'm getting mixed up with source references. I could have sworn the "bad peasant's strike" thing was Codex Döbringer, but apparently not. Looks like I need to sit down for an evening and read my way through a few of the sources to re-acquaint myself with them.

I was right there with you, Keith. I'd have bet money it was in Döbringer, but I just checked and I was mixing up my references.

As for the basic question here regarding the Zornhau specifically, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to be bad when you throw it, more that peasants and buffaloes are going to throw it that way, but if you have the knowledge of the hidden strikes, you know better and can use it right. That'd be my take, anyway; I doubt they'd keep it in so many plays if it was really bad.

BTW, the Fiore "Villain's Strike" is nice to know about.

Jason

Looks like we are on the same page then, both in our mistaken assumption about the Codex Döbringer and our point of view regarding why the strike may have been termed a "bad peasant's strike." Good to know that I'm not alone

Which one is the Villian's Strike?

[Andreas Engström]

So, that being said, it should be noted that it is the HS 3227a that refers to the Zornhau as a "bad peasant's strike", and more precisely it is the Lindholm translation of the HS 3227a that translates it thus. I haven't had the opportunity to read any other translations of that source, but a different translation might describe it in a subtly different manner; that is something important worth bearing in mind! So, this one gloss calls it a "bad peasant's strike" and I don't recall any other gloss referring to it as such. That particular author (or rather, the person who dictated to that scribe) might have regarded it in a different manner from other masters. Ringeck for example has nothing negative to say about the Zornhau, he merely describes the useful techniques that can result from a Zornhau thrown or received.

Yep, it's from the Goliath as found on http://www.schielhau.org/. "The translation of the longsword chapter is based on Grzegorz Zabinsky's transcript. It was translated by Mike Rasmusson" - AFAIK the author uses really the disparaging "schlechter", "poorly" term . I wouldn't read it at face value though... I think he means that this is what it looks like, not that it works badly.

The anonymous author of the 3227a likes the Zornhau a lot, in fact, and describes it as a defensive strike to break oberhauen IIRC.

It is true that in modern German, "schlecht" almost exclusively means "bad".

This, however, is a rather recent development. In older usage, it just as often (even more often) means "simple" or "ordinary" (and not at all necessarily in a disparaging way, rather it may mean "simple and straight to the point, clear, not unnecessarily confusing").

It could also mean "straight" (as opposed to "curved"). In other contexts the word could also mean "few", in the context of money it could mean "cheap". In the context of a container it could mean "empty" or "near empty". It could also mean "flat" or "smooth" (as in having a smooth surface). In the context of a person it could mean "honest and straightforward".

Language is a tricky thing. I always preferred the option of interpreting the word in the above context as "simple and without unnecessary frills".

-Andreas

PS. If you want details and can read german, read the Grimm brothers' article on the word at http://germazope.uni-trier.de/Projekte/ ... id=GS10832, and the Mittelhochdeutsches Wörterbuch here: http://www.woerterbuchnetz.de/BMZ?lemma=sleht