Zornhau ort and the First Winden

[Jesse Eaton]

Since this conversation has spilled over onto YouTube, and I can't follow the weird way it posts replies, I'm resorting to moving it back here.

In reply to Dustin's comments on You tube, I present a wonderful image of a Zornhau from Goliath (it is from the Schielhau section as is evident from the fencer on the left).

http://www.schielhau.org/images/76.jpg

The fencer on the right is doing a Zornhau exactly as I show in the video. His left foot is twisted to the right and his right foot is behind with the upturned heel. He just hasn't completed the strike and he is cutting short in this case.

[Dustin Reagan]

I don't know of anyone else with quite this interpretation of the Zornhau-Ort from both Goliath & Paulus Kal, so, yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if I'm wrong. I believe that the zornhau portion of the zornhau-ort is done with a backwards passing step. Here is my argument to make the case:

First, let's look at the Paulus Kal Zornhau-ort.


Here are my assumptions about the combatants *before* the actions shown in the plate:

-Right starts from a standard vom-tag position, with left foot forward. He has cut an oberhau to Left's left opening, passing forward with his right leg.
-Right is aiming, distance-wise, to cut Left with the COP [center of percussion] of his sword.
-Left starts from a standard vom-tag position, with left foot forward.

These starting positions are pretty orthodox, and supported by the texts, per the standard advice on how to stand and how to perform cuts [with stepping, matching the leg with the side that the strike is thrown from, etc...pretty standard]. I can quote the relevant text if necessary, but I think we are all pretty much on the same page here?

Here are my interpretations of what is shown in the plate:

-Left has, in the Nach, passed back with his left leg while simultaneously cutting a zornhau to the centerline.
--He strikes Right's blade powerfully out of the centerline, ending with his point threatening the opponent, and his elbows half-bent, in a biomechanically stable position, poised to act.
-As soon as Right's blade is struck, Right withdraws his blade back to a more defensive posture.

My reasoning for the bolded part above:

-Left's body position appears to be in a "withdrawing" mode. This is obviously up to interpretation, but to me it looks as though he has just stepped back, into a back-weighted stance.
-The distance of the combatants.
--If Left had stepped forward [another explanation for why his right leg is in front], the distance would be much closer than what is shown, since Right was already collapsing the distance to be able to hit Left's opening with his COP.

Now let's look at the Goliath zornhau-ort plate:


My assumptions for the starting postures are the same as above, for the same reasons.

Here are my interpretations of what is shown in the plate:

-IMMEDIATELY following what is shown in Paulus kal:
-Left has now thrust his hands forward, up, and slightly to the left, while simultaneously shifting forward from the back-weighted stance shown in Kal. Notice the slightly forward leaning torso, and the raised back-heel.
-Right is leaning his torso back, away from the thrust.

Left is now biomechanically able to easily/effectively choose to make a short, very fast lunge with the right foot, or close the distance further by passing through with the left foot.

Based on the assumptions I listed above,the only way for Left's right leg to end up in front is either:

-A pass forward.
-A pass backwards.
-Stay still during the zornhau portion, then pass forward with the right leg during the ort portion.

Now, look at the distance. If Right was cutting at Left and was planning to close distance enough to hit Left with his COP, and Left passed forward with his right leg the combatants would be much much closer. Even if Left started with his left leg forward and stood still for the zornhau, then stepped in with a pass of the right leg for the ort [per Jesse's interpretation], the combatants would be much closer. At least close enough for Right to be able to hit Left on his upper opening with Right's COP. In my opinion, we don't see this distance. We a distance where Right has tried to close with a cut, but Left has stepped just barely out [or still very slightly within] Right's cutting distance.

If you do this with a partner, try each option and take a picture. Be sure that Right is actually trying to land a cut on Left's head/neck/shoulders.

-Pass backwards with the left leg while doing the zornhau portion, then stay still for the ort.
-Pass forwards with the left leg while doing the zornhau portion, then stay still for the ort.
-Stay still for the zonrhau portion, pass with the right leg for the ort.

In my opinion/experience, the first option ends up looking the closest [both distance and posture-wise] to what is shown in the plates above.

I believe the zornhau-ort is a concept/principle, not a absolute technique, so I think what you are doing is definitely a Zornhau. I just don't think it's exactly what is shown in the Goliath plates you initially linked...the Zornhau-ort and zornhau-winden plates.

[Colin Richards]

First Post

Firstly I must say that I do not often go on forums to discuss techniques as, even with good video backup you cannot really make any head way on the subject. Much better is to do it in person. I am only here because Jesse Eaton asked me to discuss my video's in the context of some research she is undertaking.

Secondly if we are going to get anywhere we have to take an academic approach. This means we have to define terms when or before we use them. One liners and dropped comments do not mean anything and so I will treat them as so. For example: statements like the following:
“Ochs is not designed to be held with the hips perpendicular to the line of engagement”.
Needs to be analysed as follows as this is dogmatic and not founded on any treatise proof that I know of. This sort of verbatim just makes the whole exercise useless IMHO. Therefore on reading that statement I will start the following in order to clarify:

Ochs? Who's och are we talking about? Yours, mine, Jesse's?
Who says I cannot hold the hips perpendicular to the line of the engagement?
Why?
What alignment of the hips do you allow? Why?
Does your alignment change according to circumstances?

And so on. A statement like this just ends up with the reader having to put 10 questions to find the answer to the riddle. It is tiresome and irritating.

The person making this statement would have to qualify the statement when it is made by saying:
In our version of the Och guard we do not align the hips perpendicular to the line of the engagement because of the following reasons.
Then the reasons should be given.

If the debate in this thread is of this one liner statement nature then I will not be here long.

Thirdly I have not time at the moment and I am ill and on very powerful anti-biotic so I will probably skip over some things that should be answered, this is not my normal approach. Please forgive me if I do skip something close to your heart, I just have no time to devote to this medium.

I would also just like to point out that my two video's are experimental and I say as much in both I think. The time we videoed them was the first time we had done them so they are a little rough to say the least. There are a result of similar research by Alex and Hans at Ochs Germany who stated to me that there is no stepping in the text for Zhornhau ort in Ringeck and in Lebkuchners Langesmesser [not read it lately though], for that matter there is non mentioned in the Shielhau either.

My research is on going and not final. My video's are trying to widen the view and think outside of the box. I like that approach and I have had some enlightenment from it. I also think that HEMA practitioners as a whole get stuck sometimes in a whole and we all need to re-analyse everything from time to time. This is my style of research which for some unknown reasons makes me very unpopular in many circles. I do not care about that I just wonder why.

All the best

Colin Richards
Author: Two books and one DVD!
Co-Organser 3rd World Wide Open Championship August 2012

[Mark W]

I'm more or less in agreement with Dustin here. I would like to add that another possible footwork is a passing step in place.It rotates the hip nicely and has the strike and foot in agreement as the images show. A passing step forward is possible if the opponent strikes from a bit out of range... certainly a possibility with an overly cautious opponent. I've been shown that scenario in kenjutsu FWIW.

IIRC Fiore's "zornort" is standing in place with a turn of the hips and no step, and of course that's OK by me too. The German manuals don't describe any footwork at all with the zornort, but that does't mean there isn't any. Basically, there are only so many ways to step. If there's footwork, there are a number of possibilities dependant on the situation (range, timing, terrain, etc). We never do the a technique exactly the same way twice anyway. I think the footwork is the least of the issue here since it's so variable.

Best regards,

-Mark

[Colin Richards]

Second Post

From Jesse's first post:

I am not just a Fiore guy. I teach in a multidisciplinary school and have to research many area's to do this. My current research areas are:

Fiore: All aspects
Ringeck: Longsword
Tower fechbuch 1.33
Back sword George Silver.
Viking Sword and Shield plus other weapon combinations.
Paulus kal and other Pole Axe

On some evenings at my 4 clubs I run 5 different disciplines simultaneously; Italian longsword, German longsword, Sword and shield, sword and buckler, Pole axe/Back sword [depending upon club]. In a complete session it might be as high as 7, warming up with Fiore dagger or wrestling or Codex Wallenstien dagger.

This means my research is diverse and I always have to see the other side of the coin when I think up a drill for Italian longsword and also German longsword. This leads me to analyse the concept of winding from both sides of the coin. I became dissatisfied with many of the interpretations of winding that I saw being taught by German school instructors. Their interpretations did not take into account how easy winding is to avoid if you simply interrupt the wind by bringing your swords strong into play and then according to circumstances, stepping in, the direction depending upon circumstances again, leading to a change of distance and therefore tactics.

My winding interpretation uses several approaches to try and solve the problem. Firstly it is a counter thrust with opposition [in the modern parlance] and therefore means that the pressure on the opponent is both forwards and to the side on his sword, this is not easy to disengage from as it looks. It also keeps the opponents sword in your strong, you do not progress down their blade further into their strong. This is the component I derived from my research into Fiore's Exchanging Points technique.

Secondly if they bring their swords strong into play by lifting the point, they are creating a large opening on their right side for you to enter with the pommel or maybe even a Zwerchau or some other technique appropriate to the situation. You are near this opening that they are creating.

Thirdly your hips are twisted in their direction [not easy to see on the video] to give you springboard to energise the next step through.

We have not yet explored the counters to this action. We will and post video's.

I agree with your comments on the upturned heal and would also recommend such. I just tend to be a bit lazy with these sort of things.

Colin Richards
Author: Two books and one DVD!
Co-Organser 3rd World Wide Open Championship August 2012

[Dustin Reagan]

If there's footwork, there are a number of possibilities dependant on the situation (range, timing, terrain, etc). We never do the a technique exactly the same way twice anyway. I think the footwork is the least of the issue here since it's so variable.

Absolutely agree.

That being said, in my experience footwork/distance is most often what people get wrong when first learning a technique. So, I like to begin any introduction of a technique with a set piece of footwork. As an added bonus, doing the zornhau-ort with a pass backwards means that even if the zornhau is bungled for some reason, the person in the Nach has opened distance and is still safe.

[Jesse Eaton]

Mark,

"A passing step forward is possible if the opponent strikes from a bit out of range", This happens quite often when my opponent is expecting my strike to put me into range, both in drills and freeplay.

"another possible footwork is a passing step in place" I have considered this also and I've seen it done this way. I think Mike Edleson does it this way. Maybe he'll way in on the subject. Another possible option is a short step back to ensure the distance is cleared and yet another way is a gathering step backward. Lots of ways to change the distance, and no definitive way to be certain. The sources just aren't that clear. But of course, that's part of what makes this so interesting .

Colin,

"I am only here because Jesse Eaton asked me to discuss my video's in the context of some research he is undertaking." Thanks

"Secondly if we are going to get anywhere we have to take an academic approach. This means we have to define terms when or before we use them." Agreed. Now we're talkin'! I'm from the school of analytic Philosophy, this is what I do

"The time we videoed them was the first time we had done them so they are a little rough to say the least" That's what it looked like to me, so I'm happy to help in adding in some refinements like the twist of the heal.

"This is my style of research which for some unknown reasons makes me very unpopular in many circles." No worries from me, I've studied with JC's ARMA AND Hugh Knight, two of the least popular people in the community, and learned quite a bit from both, especially Hugh. Reputation is irrelevant to me.

"I also think that HEMA practitioners as a whole get stuck sometimes in a whole and we all need to re-analyse everything from time to time" SO true!

And thanks for taking your time to be involved here, especially given your being sick. It is greatly appreciated.

Dustin,

I'm more inclined to agree with you on the Paulus Kal, though as I've argued on my previous thread about the PK series, I think it is Right who is backing up and both are changing the line of attack. Collins step to the left in the wind was some thing I looked into, in part, because of the Wiktenauer article on PK that showed multiple versions of it with more than one version apparently stepping into the wind rather than out from it. But to me, PK's strikes seem less dedicated, and backing up is more in line with what he's showing. Ringeck is more insistent on forward momentum, at least in the writing. When Wiktenauer's images for Ringeck are back up, I'll have to look more closely at the footwork. As Colin said, some times we get stuck in a particular interpretation...

"doing the zornhau-ort with a pass backwards means that even if the zornhau is bungled for some reason, the person in the Nach has opened distance and is still safe" Same is true with a simple, i.e. non passing step backward, or a gathering step backward, or an offline step...lots of options that are as quick or even quicker without taking our own Zornhau out of range...

[Dustin Reagan]

I'm more inclined to agree with you on the Paulus Kal, though as I've argued on my previous thread about the PK series, I think it is Right who is backing up and both are changing the line of attack. Collins step to the left in the wind was some thing I looked into, in part, because of the Wiktenauer article on PK that showed multiple versions of it with more than one version apparently stepping into the wind rather than out from it. But to me, PK's strikes seem less dedicated, and backing up is more in line with what he's showing. Ringeck is more insistent on forward momentum, at least in the writing. When Wiktenauer's images for Ringeck are back up, I'll have to look more closely at the footwork. As Colin said, some times we get stuck in a particular interpretation...

"doing the zornhau-ort with a pass backwards means that even if the zornhau is bungled for some reason, the person in the Nach has opened distance and is still safe" Same is true with a simple, i.e. non passing step backward, or a gathering step backward, or an offline step...lots of options that are as quick or even quicker without taking our own Zornhau out of range...

What about the Goliath plates, with which you first began the discussion?

Let's look at the first winden and go over some possibilies.


Right is obviously cutting oberhau at Left, and Left has obviously already performed the zornhau portion of the zornhau-winden.

Can you agree that the distance that they are at in this particular moment in time is out-of-range for Right's oberhau?

Now, give me a plausible set of footwork (for both parties) that results in this distance (which is just out of range for a cut, but a good range for a fast thrust).

Let's say Left had stayed still or moved forward with the zornhau (or passed in place as Mark mentioned above). They would be very close. Now Left does the winden, with a passing step (why? he is already more than close enough, right?). Right could do a simple backwards (non-passing) step to stay with his right leg forward...but a simple backwards step covers less ground than Left's passing step, so that doesn't explain the open distance.

Let's say Left did an offline step with the zornhau. Same problems as described above still apply.

Let's say Left does a simple step back (non-passing) with the zornhau. Now Left passes forward while winding. To achieve the distance shown, Right would have to be taking a simple backwards step. So this is an option, but I don't think it's a good option because of the fact that it's more difficult to get the hip swivel necessary to make a biomechanically strong zornhau with this sort of footwork. Also, simple step backwards to passing step forwards is slower than passing step backwards, short lunge forwards (at least it is for me).

I still think the most plausible, simplest explanation is:

Left passes backwards with zornhau, and then as soon as the blades clash (INDES), leans forward with the winden, into Rights still oncoming momentum from his oberhau. If Right tries to retreat, Left can easily chase after with a short lunge or a passing step.

If I'm missing an option that gets the combatants to the postures/distance shown in the Goliath zornhau-ort and zornhau-winden plates, let me know. Better yet, film it!

[Jesse Eaton]

"Can you agree that the distance that they are at in this particular moment in time is out-of-range for Right's oberhau?" No, I don't think it is. That's probably our sticking point. I don't think the perspective is clear enough for that conclusion. It's not even clear, by the text who has struck first. In the Zornhau ort sequence it is. In the Paulus Kal, The order of sequence is

Right Zornhau
Left Zornhau ort
Right displaces ort to his left
Left leaves of high (aka Zucken) and strike to the other side of the blade
Right again displace (and I think passes back)
Left steps in and winds up to right Ochs
and the play continues as a series...

this series is only slightly different, but the wind occurs on the other side of Rights blade, thus the taking off high and the zornhau ort is a separate action in this case. So, just looking at the glosa for the Winden:

That is when you strike him with a Wrath Strike, if he displaces and stays strong on the sword in the displacement, then also stay with your sword strong on his sword and drive upward with your arms and wind your quillons onto his sword going forward to his head and stab high into his face, if he becomes aware of the stab and (note in margin: with the short edge) drives up high with his arms, and displaces with the quillons, then stay standing with your hilt in front of your head and send your point below to the throat, or to the chest between his arms, as will be told later.

To me, it looks like that thrust is going strait for the throat. It's clearly not going directly into his face, it's already dipped below eye level. At this point there are any number of steps and footwork solutions that would get to this point. Right is just as likely stepping back as forward, though I think he has a very obvious reason for stepping back. If this is at the point where left is dropping his tip to thrust to the throat, and I think it is, right should be backing up and leaning away, the same way that the connected series occurs in PK. He's got three pounds of sharp steel staring him in the face and he's trying to deflect it away and get out of there before he loses his life. I think Right has proper motivation at this point for an "OH Shit" move! And when I've done this in free play and in sparring, this is what people usually do...Does that make sense?

[Dustin Reagan]

"Can you agree that the distance that they are at in this particular moment in time is out-of-range for Right's oberhau?" No, I don't think it is. That's probably our sticking point. I don't think the perspective is clear enough for that conclusion.

Personally, I think you are being a little disingenuous here, as the perspective in Goliath is very good, imo. But if you say you can't tell what the distance is here, so be it...We can't really have a meaningful discussion about this plate.