Zornhau: The simple cut?

[Bill Carew]

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.

Hi Ben,

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.

Cheers,

Bill

[Ben Michels]

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.

You probably know the manuals a lot better than I do, so I'm just going to make a few more points for consideration here.

1) The quote "Five strokes learn from the right side against the opposition." doesn't really imply the zornhau is offensive any more than it implies it is defensive. It just says 'learn it against the opposition'. Throwing a zornhau as a countercut is 'a stroke against the opposition'. Is there something else around it I'm not considering that reinforces the offensive view?

2) Using it defensively as the plays show doesn't make it not-a-stroke any more than striking at the sword with a krump makes it not-a-stroke. It's still a cut with force... if it wasn't you'd be liable to just get smacked by the incoming oberhau.

3) It is distinguished from the other meisterhau exactly because it is the only one that also does not break a specific guard. A named cut that displaces an oberhau while threatening with the point fits the generally held idea of meisterhau fine.

[Mike Edelson]

You probably know the manuals a lot better than I do, so I'm just going to make a few more points for consideration here.

Don't bet on it. I'm not very scholarly.

1) The quote "Five strokes learn from the right side against the opposition." doesn't really imply the zornhau is offensive any more than it implies it is defensive. It just says 'learn it against the opposition'. Throwing a zornhau as a countercut is 'a stroke against the opposition'. Is there something else around it I'm not considering that reinforces the offensive view?

2) Using it defensively as the plays show doesn't make it not-a-stroke any more than striking at the sword with a krump makes it not-a-stroke. It's still a cut with force... if it wasn't you'd be liable to just get smacked by the incoming oberhau.

3) It is distinguished from the other meisterhau exactly because it is the only one that also does not break a specific guard. A named cut that displaces an oberhau while threatening with the point fits the generally held idea of meisterhau fine.

All good points, but I have to wonder if we're overthinking this. The Zornhau is a hau, a hew. One cannot hew an opponent's sword, unless you is one of 'dem ninjers.

[Ben Michels]

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.

Hi Ben,

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.

Cheers,

Bill

Bill, all of this goes back to one of my original points. In the most basic sense, why would you use a zornhau against someone standing in a guard when there are so many ways to respond to it and arguably better cuts to throw? Unless someone is simply slow to respond or blatantly screws something up, there's an extremely high chance it is not going to land. In comparison, the vier versetzen have a reasonable chance of landing against their companion guards.

No, whether you hit someone with the edge or point doesn't really make too much of a difference as long as the final outcome is the same. Think about the journey, not the destination in this instance. If a zornhau is a fairly generic diagonal down oberhau, then zorn, zwerch, krump and schiel are explicitly described as breaking it... not to mention all of the other common concepts and techniques that can be used against a generic diagonal down oberhau. In direct contrast to this, something like a zwerch at an opponent standing in vom tag limits their viable responses severely. As you said, combat is chaos. Why throw a strike offensively that has so many viable responses when there are, overall, better options? This is my main question and why I started the thread. It is what caused me to question the zornhau as being as heavily offensive as most people view it.

If a zornhau is a generic downward diagonal blow with the long edge, then no, it is not only used defensively. Cory was able to provide a couple situations where you'd want to use it, such as feinting. All of the few obvious situations are, well, extremely situational though.

If I'm not making sense and it seems like I'm just repeating what I've already said, please let me know. I'll try to explain it in a different way.

[Ben Michels]

All good points, but I have to wonder if we're overthinking this. The Zornhau is a hau, a hew. One cannot hew an opponent's sword, unless you is one of 'dem ninjers.

Again, a krumphau is still a krumphau when struck against the sword.

[Michael Chidester]

I suppose I look at this a bit differently than the consensus that's developing here. A Zornhau is not a diagonal strike. A diagonal strike is a diagonal strike, and Liechtenauer would classify it as an Oberhau, nothing more. By the same token, a diagonal strike is not a Krumphau by default, a vertical strike is neither a Schaytler nor a Schiller, and a horinzontal strike need not be a Zwerchhau. These are just lines to cut on, whether you call them Oberhauen, Fendenti, or assign them numbers or letters. I call them father strikes generally, a term whose manual of origin I can't recall but which seemed very fitting. I also sometimes call them peasant strikes.

Within these four basic cuts (or eight, depending on your perspective) are hidden five masterstrikes. This is basic doctrine, but how are they hidden? The masterstrike is only revealed when you apply the proper gross movement with proper measure, in the proper time, with proper footwork and in the proper situation. Combine all of these elements with a diagonal cut, and then suddenly it becomes the Zornhau. Throw a horizontal strike with these elements in play and it becomes the Zwerchhau. And so on.

With respect to the Zornhau and Ben's original question, as I pointed out to him on IM last night, there's not a lot of material in the manuals to go on. I think there's sufficient support in Doebringer to say that all of the basic strikes can be thrown in zufechten, so that doesn't concern me much. The question of whether the Zorn as a countercut should be intended to strike the opponent or whether it should be intended to set up a thrust is a more troubling issue. Neither Doebringer nor Ringeck nor Danzig offer us any indication either way. They all simply tell you to wind the point into his face. However, then I remembered the other fragment of a gloss in Ringeck, which does seem to differentiate between the two. It speaks of throwing the Zornhau as a countercut followed by a few basic winds (the thrust, the abnemen, etc.), just like the others, but then goes on to mention in the same paragraph "Also know, that when one strikes at you, that you can use the Zornort alone." The Zornort alone would in this context seem to mean a Zornhau that is thrown directly into the thrust, as has been discussed in this thread. Given that it is separated from the standard Zornhau, I can only assume that the Zornhau is different, and so I teach that it should indeed be extended and thrown to the body (where the Zornort is kept closer and stops in front of the target).

[Mark W]

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.

Ain't that the truth. Just because it's a vertical oberhau doesn't mean it's a Scheitelhau.

Back to Zorn, in my opinion it seems that the texts imply that it's OK to throw a Zorn at Vom Tag, even if it is vulnerable to Zwerch and Krump and Zorn-ort. Like in Von Danzig where you "hew above boldy to his head", he counters with a zwerch and you fall on it, and hilarity ensures etc. Zwerch is faster and safer, but you want to keep him guessing of you can. If you have a REALLY fast Zorn (which I like to think I do), it becomes damn nigh impossible to target the hands with Krump.

Zornhau is "swordsmanship 101". Smack him in the head with it if you think you can get away with it. Usually for me that means against VT. Against the other Vier Leger, I feel it's far to risky.

Best regards,

-Mark

[Jake Norwood]

I don't think a Zornhau is just a diagonal cut. I think that the Zornhau is a mnemonic name for a littany of actions, most of which are contained in the "text of the zornhau." In short, Zornhau is the skilled use of a diagonal Oberhau against opposition, including the decision-tree of follow-ups associated with it.

Meyer shows us dozens of plays starting with a zornhau…although admittedly, Meyer's Zornhau is pretty clearly just a diagonal blow, now separated out from it's glossa.

The inclusion of so many plays where in the onset one is attacked with a zornhau suggest that it is a common opening technique as well. And Wallerstein's opening play assumes both parties have opened with a zornhau.

Dobringer (and others) emphasize not to strike at the sword, but at the opponent's body or head. This is in the preface on cutting generally, and so I have always assumed that it applied across all cuts unless specified otherwise (like stepping, etc.). Likewise, if you do not cut a zornhau with intent to strike a guy, he has no impetus to defend himself because no threat is presented…which means no real bind, no real winding, no real krieg.

OTOH, I don't really believe that 19 out of 20 opening diagonal oberhauen are going to land. That's what the text of the oberhau is for--the 19 out of 20 times that the other guy doesn't fall for my wicked speed.

It's a vorschlag and nachschlag thing…"no matter if you hit or miss," as Dobringer and others teach us.

Schiller, Schaytler, Zorn…these are all applications of the oberhau, more than just a cut with a given edge along a given line. IMO.

To Ben's original question: I think that the Zornhau *is* meant to hit the opponent, but that the masters knew it probably wouldn't.

Jake

[Mike Cartier]

with all this talk of meyer and Zornhau let me just give the master's words on Zornhau, its one of the most direct instructions on any strike available IMHO. he says...

"Zornhut to Langort to Wechsel"

beautiful isn't it?

[Jake Norwood]

It *is* beautiful, Mike.

It's also something that I *think* separates Meyer's use of terminology from that of the earlier JLT sources.

I think.

Jake