Zornhau: The simple cut?

[Ben Michels]

Alright, I spent 3 hours tonight hoping Jake would call me, Chidester would get on AIM or someone like Cory Winslow would get on facebook so that I could question this before making a fool of myself on the forums. Michael finally obliged me.

Short: Is the zornhau meant to cut your opponent?

Long: No really, is it? I was looking at a couple sources tonight trying to figure out how to go about starting a club project. I noticed in Ringeck and in Goliath there is absolutely no mention of the zornhau being a cut towards an opponent. Zornhau was taught to me as a diagonal cut downwards towards the opponent's shoulder/head. Along with that, it's also used to counter an oberhau because you can hit the other guy while displacing his oberhau! Awesome! Now where in the manuals does it ever describe the zornhau as a cut towards the man and not simply towards the blade? I asked Michael to quickly look over his pile of source material, knowing that my pitiful two wasn't too great of a test, and he couldn't find any mention of it either.

Zornhau is always described as a cut towards an incoming oberhau meant to displace it followed by a thrust to the face or breast. This implies, to me, that the cut is never even intentionally aimed at the opponent. Nowhere does it say 'If you don't hit him with the edge, wind and thrust'... it's always just 'wind and thrust'.

Watching videos, I know that most people will use the 'zornhau' as an opening cut. Is it a zornhau as the manuals describe it if it isn't meant to seek a bind to set up for a thrust or just an oberhau? This is getting into semantics, but something that isn't a master strike shouldn't be referred to as one.

Additionally, is there any consistent reason to throw a zornhau at someone as an opening strike when there are 4 other strikes specifically meant to break the guards? This seems to support more that the zorn is just a counterstrike to an oberhau.

Additionally-ally, is this already understood by the most of you and I'm just way behind?

[Cory Winslow]

We taught two classes today and just finished filleting yesterday's catch, so I didn't have any time to get online until now.

As far as I can remember, in the "mainstream" early sources (Ringeck, VD) we are not explicitly told to perform the Zornhau as a hew to the opponent, but it is implied. In VD we are told that the zornhau is nothing but a simple peasant's hew, suggesting that it is cut with the natural downward diagonal angle that an angry uneducated man will most likely hew, which would surely be to the head of the opponent. Despite this, only plays where the Zornhau is used from the nach are described, in my opinion because it was perceived as common knowledge that you can use it in the Vor.

In Talhoffer 1467 the Zornhau is implied for use in the Vor with the messer (plate 228).

There are probably more early mentions of it, but I can't think of any off-hand right now.

At any rate, Joachim Meyer makes it quite clear that the Zornhau is a diagonal hew to the ear which can be used in the Vor.

[Ben Michels]

Thanks for pointing that out, Cory.

What makes a zornhau different than a diagonal oberhau?

What about the last point I made? Say someone is standing in vom tag. Why would you throw a zornhau instead of a zwerchau? Or in any of the guards when there is another meisterhau described as ideal for breaking it? The only obvious reason I can think to throw a zorn offensively is to then faint.

[Cory Winslow]

I'm not sure that there is any difference between a Zornhau and a diagonal oberhau. There could be something with the Zornhau looking more wrathful, but I've never read anything definitive.

There are plenty of reasons to use a Zornhau in the Vor, depending on what you want to do. Just cutting to the opening, using a failer or durchwecheln, hewing with extra strength, unpredictabily, or pretty much anything else that can utilize the hew would be fine.

[Mike Edelson]

I'm with Cory on this, and this is also why when I'm teaching or explaining the art I'm always careful to point out that the manuals should not be used in isolation to reconstruct the basics of the system--they are simply not enough, nor were they meant to be. These manuals were written for people who already knew how to use a sword (we are told this very clearly), and a downward diagonal cut is as basic a strike as you can get. There would be zero need to mention it in the manuals except how it used within the system to work in the bind.

As far as the word zornhau vs a diagonal oberhau, I think it's the same thing, but zornhau implies you know what happens if your blade hits steel intead of flesh.

[Martin Wallgren]

I think of all the five as reactions, a vorschlag diagonally is just an oberhau, but made as a reaction to your foe it is a Zornhau.

//Martin

[Bill Carew]

Good topic. Well worth discussion, as the zornhau is a primary JLT action (I mean that both in the sense of, a key action and also, a 'primal' action in so far as it is basic, instinctive, powerful and reliable under pressure). The difference between the zorn in the hands of a master, and a peasant, is simply skill, timing, execution and placement.

The zorn as described in the early sources is, as already noted, called out as a response to a general oberhau thrown at us. Despite the fact we are not told to aim the hew at the opponent, I belive it is entirely in keeping with Liechtenauer's system to strike the hew at the man, just with the point infront of his face rather than edge at his ear. All of the 5 hews, as I understand them, can and should be aimed at the body of the opponent (the only exception off the top of my head is striking the krump to the flat of the blade against a master). Thus, the 5 hews are *always* a threat and always have the potential to wound/disable/stop the opponent in a single action.

Now, as noted, in PvD the instruction is to strike along his sword. All the early sources make it clear we thrust into his face if he is weak. There is nothing incompatible here with hewing at the opponent and thrusting against weakness, if you think about the way you hew. Instead of aiming the edge at the opponent's ear as you might in the vor, when using the zornort as counter-response-defensive action indes we simply hew in with the zorn in such a way that the point of the sword chops in toward and right at his throat or face so that our blade will meet his blade. Our point will be driving in toward his face in the same motion (this is where I differ to some others, who perform zornort almost as two actions - zorn/bind well short of his face, then thrust forward. I attempt to combine the two). The way we do it, you are basically executing the zornort as a chopping thrust from vom Tag - so if he does not manage to *immediately* displace your point away with strength as the blades contact, he is immediately stabbed in the head/throat at the conclusion of the zorn action - there is no separate thrust following a bind, the thrust is happening already as the bind is made, hence why the thrust will hit if he is weak at the immediate moment the blades meet (if he isn't, and he is strong, we roll on to the next plays, winding and abnahmen, and on it goes).

Does that make sense? As to the other question, would we ever strike zorn in the vor as the opening attack? Sure, why not? We're never told not to are we?

Cheers,

Bill

[Ben Michels]

Just as a note, some of the questions I've asked and will be asking are purely meant to further discussion as they're things I'm thinking about. They're not necessarily things I'm set in believing.

I'm with Cory on this, and this is also why when I'm teaching or explaining the art I'm always careful to point out that the manuals should not be used in isolation to reconstruct the basics of the system--they are simply not enough, nor were they meant to be. These manuals were written for people who already knew how to use a sword (we are told this very clearly), and a downward diagonal cut is as basic a strike as you can get. There would be zero need to mention it in the manuals except how it used within the system to work in the bind.

This makes sense and I know it's the same logic we use for things like footwork and general body mechanics, but another extremely simple cut is explained. Scheitelhau is specifically explained as a vertical cut aimed at the head or chest. Surely if zornhau is simple enough to just start explaining what to do from a bind, then scheitelhau should present a similar situation?

In fact, all of the starting advise about the 5 master cuts tell you where to aim the sword at the onset and how it will end up hitting him. The zornhau follows the same convention in telling the reader that it is a counterstrike to an oberhau followed by a thrust to the face.

The zorn as described in the early sources is, as already noted, called out as a response to a general oberhau thrown at us. Despite the fact we are not told to aim the hew at the opponent, I belive it is entirely in keeping with Liechtenauer's system to strike the hew at the man, just with the point infront of his face rather than edge at his ear. All of the 5 hews, as I understand them, can and should be aimed at the body of the opponent (the only exception off the top of my head is striking the krump to the flat of the blade against a master). Thus, the 5 hews are *always* a threat and always have the potential to wound/disable/stop the opponent in a single action.

As to the other question, would we ever strike zorn in the vor as the opening attack? Sure, why not? We're never told not to are we?

Bill

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.

Sure, you're not told not to... but the thread has establish that some simple things are implied in the manuals. As was noted above, the zornhau is called 'a simple peasant's strike'. Except when used as the manual describes it, a counterstrike to an oberhau followed by a thrust, it would seem like they viewed it as less than ideal. You are not told not to do a lot of things in the manuals.

[Ben Michels]

As an aside, Jake Norwood was talking to us and posting on the pendant forums earlier last year about core assumptions and how they should be questioned if something doesn't fit. I have always simply assumed that a zornhau would nail someone with the edge and would be thrown as an offensive strike. I've certainly read the text before, but it hit me last night while trying to put together some charts. I wanted to start each chart with each of the five strikes, naturally began with zornhau and went '.... wait.... the manuals never describe it as starting anything...'.

I understand that there are things not shown or described in the manuals, but the best evidence that has been presented to support the zornhau also being an offensive cut to an opponent in pre-Meyer german longsword has been, no offense Michael or Bill, 'why not? it's so simple it wouldn't have to be shown'. Is it not possible that this assumption could be incorrect? The fact that it is described in Meyer as just that does kind of knock the idea around a bit, but I still think it's worth considering.

[Mike Edelson]

This makes sense and I know it's the same logic we use for things like footwork and general body mechanics, but another extremely simple cut is explained. Scheitelhau is specifically explained as a vertical cut aimed at the head or chest. Surely if zornhau is simple enough to just start explaining what to do from a bind, then scheitelhau should present a similar situation?

Scheitelhau is not just a vertical cut, but one with the hands held high. That's not a cut I've ever seen in any other system.

I understand that there are things not shown or described in the manuals, but the best evidence that has been presented to support the zornhau also being an offensive cut to an opponent in pre-Meyer german longsword has been, no offense Michael or Bill, 'why not? it's so simple it wouldn't have to be shown'. Is it not possible that this assumption could be incorrect? The fact that it is described in Meyer as just that does kind of knock the idea around a bit, but I still think it's worth considering.

Yeah, it's possible, but I think it would be a matter of semantics, meaning that the system would still have a diagonal oberhau but it would not be called Zornhau.

And, also, we are told to use Zornhau offensively in the texts, just not directly. "Five strokes learn from the right side against the opposition." There is also the fact that Zornhau is a strike, not an absetzen. It is not distinguished from the other meisterhau, which all have both defensive and offensive applications. I think the reason Zornhau is not mentioned directly in an offensive context is that it does not break a specific guard.