Ben Michels wrote:Bill - When I questioned if it is struck at the man or not I didn't mean is it struck with the point way offline or not. I meant it in the sense of 'if you don't end up bound, will your edge strike the man'. In how I explained in the original post, it wouldn't. Striking in such a way that you have the least movement required to sink the tip is great.
In the vor, I think we can use either and I think the circumstances will dictate what happens. I.e. hew toward the centre of his face - if our edge comes in close enough, we will strike with the edge. If he is slightly further away, our point will drop right in his face - thrust. If we hit with either... is he going to be able to tell the difference?
Indes, as a response to his oberhau, the canonical technique is to ram the point in his face with zorn-ort. This may be because the key priority is to ensure both defence with contact (binding-adhering to his threat-sword) and offence (the thrust). But again, if we mess it up, so long as we cover our line in the process... does it matter if the edge hits him in the head instead of finishing with the point?
Combat is chaos, and thinking that we can always dictate the measure so perfectly that we can ensure we always strike with precisely the part of the sword to precisely the part of the opponent we want is... wishful thinking. What we see in the 5 hews are gross motor actions that target one of the openings: they are effective with a reasonable margin of error either way across a spectrum of measures. Let me ask a question – why must the zornhau be an exact technique that must always be performed in the same way, and always hit with either edge or point, but never both depending on circumstances?
I’m all for questioning core assumptions, but when all is said and done, I see the techniques in the verse and (most especially) in the glossa as the physical expression of the underlying principles. I don't think the specific techniques called out where intended to be the *only* viable ones and thus never to be deviated from, just the ones that the authors thought best encapsulated the principle for mnemonic and learning purposes and were recommended. Hence why we see different examples used between sources such as Ringeck and PvD when describing steucke like the zucken. It's the principle underneath that matters, not the superficial technical expression.