Master strikes

[philippe willaume]

sorry you lost me there.
I though the discution was about saying that a Zorn can end up in weschel.

i understood that your opinion was yes in all the case to which I opposed that it was the case only if we are talking about meyer.
basically what m akes a zornh is that you stop in shuch way that you can thrust startigh after the cut.
so if the cut works it is not a zorn yet,

phil

[Herbert]

Why do you have the idea that a Zornhau ending in a lower Hängen is weak? Try some testcutting and then you see how weak it is! You strike out to your target and go in to the Hängen which results in a drawing cut. The effect is more than enough to split open any opponent.

When you strike in to the Hängen, you are in a better position because you pose a threat, can immediately stab and wind.
On the other hand, striking into the Wechsel or Nebenhut creates a big opening which can, especially at this moment, be exploited by Nachreisen or Ansetzen.

I think one strikes only into the Wechsel / Nebenhut when one intends to lure the opponent into an attack to counter with some Streichen etc. Otherwise you want your lines closed.

just my thoughts, I can be wrong

Herbert

[Jörg B.]

Striking directly into the Hengen shortens the reach of the cut and most important it exposes the center.

[philippe willaume]

Hello, herbert
if the at question was concerning me, personally think that you should strike to the hangen. (I think that is what makes it a zorn, provided it is with long edge)
Yes we will be losing in cutting power compared to cut to wechel or albet but that the amount of follow-through cutting is worth all the benefits you mention.

I think Randal problem was that he saw people striking directly to the plough with the extension of the arms.
If we take obata sensei tat cut can be very powerful but has some practical disadvantage fencing wise. If the power wise that foes a bit against what Ran said, on the rest I really agree with him


I am not sure if I understood joerg properly but I think he is saying that up to the position of the lagen ort a weschel ending or hengen ending develop the same poser. (With which I agree) so that it is really what constitute the “cut” and not the position you end up.
I think that is just a way to present thing
Where I do not agree with him is about the ending position of the Zornh. If we talk about meyer, the zorn can end up in hangen or weschel but if we talk about ringeck or vd it can really only end in a hangen if we want it to be a Zornh

Phil

[Herbert]

Phillipe, I didn't mean you because we agree on the Zornhau. The cutting power is more than sufficient when you cut into the Hängen. You loose a bit, but as you said, the possibilities you gain make more than up for that.

The cutting to the Hängen slightly shortens your reacht, true, but not much and you can or should make up for that with footwork. However, I don't see why a lower Hängen does leave the centerline unprotected. I'd say rather the contrary. Striking into the hängen does protect your centerline because thats where your point is.

I am a little bit confused here - did I get something wrong?

Herbert

[Jörg B.]

I am not sure if I understood joerg properly but I think he is saying that up to the position of the lagen ort a weschel ending or hengen ending develop the same poser. (With which I agree) so that it is really what constitute the “cut” and not the position you end up.

If the Zornhau hits, you end up in Langort.

If it's parried you end in a position similar to Langort *and you can move into another position e.g. a Hengen.*

If the Zornhau misses, it passes through langort, but ends in Wechsel.

Where I do not agree with him is about the ending position of the Zornh. If we talk about meyer, the zorn can end up in hangen or weschel but if we talk about ringeck or vd it can really only end in a hangen if we want it to be a Zornh

Meyer does not mention the Hengen as the end point, he explicitly says Zornhut-Langort-Wechsel (if the strike misses) or Zornhut -Langort (if the strike hits or is parried).

And Ringeck does not say anything about the Zornhau having to end in a Hengen either.

A Zornhau is just an Oberhau from the shoulder in the earlier sources. Only Meyer says it has to be diagonal.

[philippe willaume]

Regarding the zorn read as I said previous post on that subject.

It is implicitly said that it has to be a hangen.(or something between the plough and a hangen) as you have to thrust straight after.
In Ringeck, you never use the Zorn as a free strike and it does not break any guard.
You always use it to counter cut hence only two options either you hit or you bind (well I suspect the 3rd one is to die but what you are doing at tat stage is moot).
In a ringeck world, striking a zornh otherwise than that does not make sense.

Objecting to that is like objecting to the Zorn ending up in the weschel because ringeck, ved or lew do not mention it hence it is not possible.
Should we be inclined to believe that the Zorn can end up in weschel, it is not a leap of imagination to assume that either the alber implicitly includes the weschel or that the weschle is kind of the plough in Dobringer. (I do not subscribe to the theory but I accept the reasoning)


As for Meyer, it is way too late for may taste, and I just ave read it a few times but I have the same understanding as wolfgang.
Eg
“-Hi Randall,
the problem is, that Joachim Meyer is the only prime source to differ between "full" and "half" cuts, i.e. striking Zornhau to Wechsel or to a unteres Hengen”

[Jörg B.]

I give up...This is shown in 3 seconds sword in hand, talk seems to be futile.

[Grendel]

Agreed Jorg. Much easier to demonstrate than explain in words... which gives question to what the masters wrote as well. My thought is look at the words but judge from the body mechanics. Its moments like this i wish we had a more Fiore type system...... did i really just say that?

[Fab]

Why don't you guys borrow a mobile phone from a mate (as I suppose you're like me and don't give a damn about having the latest bit of technology, especially for things so futile like calling people) and take a few vids (the low quality will help reduce the size) of what you're trying to explain and upload them either to a ftp site or on youtube or whatever for instance ?

My 2 cents

[Jörg B.]

Sounds like a plan, Fab!

[philippe willaume]

Well
Are you taking mick, joerg ?
How the hell a video will make our point clearer?

The question is purely academic.
The point of discussion is not what it looks like. It is how do you call it.
You think a cut stops in the in longen ort and from there it can end up anywhere. After a few mails it quite clear that it was what every body meant.

The point being discussed it if it doesn’t not finish in hangen/Zornhort, what ever you whish to call it can we call it a Zornh.

You said yes in fact, a zorn that works will finish in weschel and that is true for any period and any master of the discussed tradition

Nay do I say, That is very true and incontestable for Meyer but we can not extent hat to ringeck VD or the 15th century glossators.


And for one to convince himself that it no the case one just has to answer those questions
If we places ourselves solely in VD and Ringeck (or lew and Von Speyer):

Does the weschel exist in Ringeck or VD?
NO is the answer to that.

Can we assimilate the weschel to a gard we find in VD or ringeck?
YES, if we have some flexibility on the definition of the albert ot plough. (which I have)

Do we have an example in those manual of usage of the Zorn that can end up in a weschel (or weschel like):
NO

Do we have and example where the zorn end up in a zornott/hengen or involve a position where delivering a thrust is involved)? YES all of them.
In fact in the sword section after the sowrd and buckler, Ringeck tells how the Zornott is great (and the solution to all problem global warming included).

Is the Zorn ending in a weschel compatible with that trusting ability ? NO

Are all the other strike presented as a counter to an attack, so we could extrapolate that the Zorn can be used in the same condition as those other strike?
YES however the other guard breaks guards/position so we are explicitly told that they can be used in oter way than to bind.

Does the zorn break any guards/possition?
NO, it is always used as a counter and there is no indication that it is to be used for something else.

Does that prevent cut to be made so that it end up in a weschel (or weschel like position)
NO, It seems that we just can not call those strike Zorn in that context.

So it seems pretty clear that exactly as we can not say because some serious religious theory have written that maria-magdalena was married to jesus after the bible was written, it need to be applied to the new testament.
We can not say that because Meyer writes that about the Zornh can be retrofited straight in what VD or Ringeck are saying.

phil

[Jörg B.]

Are you taking mick, joerg ?

No, I am not. Are you starting to get impolite, Philippe?

The point being discussed it if it doesn’t not finish in hangen/Zornhort, what ever you whish to call it can we call it a Zornh.

Of course you can, since the position a cut ends in is not relevant for how that cut is called, remember Oberhau and Unterhau?

A Zornhau is an Oberhau from the shoulder, it is that simple.

And yes, the Wechsel as a guard is not named explicitly in the earlier sources. However, this position was known to them, remember Talhoffers plate 2?
Or Ringecks Streyche, or his third play of the buckler?

What's the easiest way to arrive in that position?

[admin]

Good job keeping it polite chaps. And Philippe, please try to type clearer - I know you can speak and write English, but I give up on reading half your posts because they're such a mess!

[Stevie T]

A Zornhau is an Oberhau from the shoulder, it is that simple.

It's not that simple otherwise you wouldn't be able to strike an Oberhau from the shoulder. which I'm pretty sure you can

I get the impresssion the forward step with Oberhau comes slightly off line, to the opponents left, making the blow land slightly to the posterior of the opponents body. Mean while the Zornhau travels directly along the line bringing you in slightly closer making for stronger potential at the bind. Also when used as counter it better facilitates working inside the sword.

I'm afraid I only work from books but the archaeological skeletons from Towton and other sites would support this sort of interpretation.

Blissful in ignorance

Steve

[Andreas Engström]

A Zornhau is an Oberhau from the shoulder, it is that simple.

Possibly a bit too simple.. If that were the case, why would Ringeck again and again use sentences like "wenn er dir von siner rechten achseln oben ein will howen" and "Wen dü im von dener rechten achseln oben ein hawst"? If "Zornhaw" were the accepted term for an oberhau from the shoulder, why doesn't he use it like that? Why use the involved circumlocutions if a well-defined term exists?

In contrast, at every place Ringeck uses the term "zornhaw" it is always in a context where the tip threatens the opponent, and in a majority of cases is made as a defense against the opponent's oberhau. "Wer dir ober hawet, zornhaw ort im drawet", which doesn't happen in wechsel.

I suppose one could interpret Döbringer ("hie merke und wisse das lichtnawer / eynen o[e]berhaw slecht von der achsel / heisset der czornhaw / wen eynem itzlichem in syme gryme und czorne zo ist im keyn haw als bereit / als der selbe aberhaw slecht von der achsel / czum mane") as saying that a Zornhau is an oberhau from the shoulder. But I think you could just as easily interpret the passage the other way around, as an instruction to strike the zornhau from the shoulder.

That is, it is obvious that Döbringer means that a zornhau is an oberhau that should always be struck from the shoulder, but IMHO that doesn't necessarily mean that every oberhau struck from the shoulder is a zornhau. Every cat has claws, but not everything that has claws is a cat.

In the immediately following passage Döbringer also says "Doru[e]m meynt lichtnawer / wen dir eyner czu hewt / mit eynen obirhaw / so saltu du keyn im weder hawen den czornhaw alzo das dir mit dyme ort vaste keyn im schisset", which IMHO is a very clear instruction that the zornhau definitely should threaten the opponent with the tip.

My personal interpretation is that what makes an oberhau a zornhau is that it is struck from the shoulder, and that it sets up the ability to thrust immediately afterwards. If you cut your oberhau all the way to wechsel you have definitely lost the ability to thrust, and thus haven't made a zornhau, just an oberhau.

Note that I haven't read Meyer very much, and that I'm talking about zornhau in the "earlier" Liechtenauer tradition of Döbringer and Ringeck. Since my opinion about zornhau in the later tradition would be uninformed, I very firmly don't have one. It is quite possible that the less thrust-inclined Meyer has redefined his zornhau.

Regards
Andreas Engström

[philippe willaume]

Are you taking mick, joerg ?

No, I am not. Are you starting to get impolite, Philippe?

The point being discussed it if it doesn’t not finish in hangen/Zornhort, what ever you whish to call it can we call it a Zornh.

Of course you can, since the position a cut ends in is not relevant for how that cut is called, remember Oberhau and Unterhau?

A Zornhau is an Oberhau from the shoulder, it is that simple.

And yes, the Wechsel as a guard is not named explicitly in the earlier sources. However, this position was known to them, remember Talhoffers plate 2?
Or Ringecks Streyche, or his third play of the buckler?

What's the easiest way to arrive in that position?

Hello
No, taking the Mickey is not especially offensive and is equivalent in meaning and usage as “you are having a laugh, haven’t you.”
Now how you take it, is up to you (no innuendo intended of course).

On the second point
That is really what I would have expected as an argument for the opposed side.
That being said I have a problem to understand how what you are saying contradicts the statement you quotes (provide that you qualify that statement with the rest of the post it belongs to). It just re-enforces the points we agree on.

Even if we do not really give a toss about talhoffer (unless the weschel is mentioned in the 1443 edition) as I strictly restricted my comments to the acknowledged lichtanauer glossators of the 15th with whom he does not belong. (IE He is not in kal’s list and from 59 he is not quoting lichtanauer anymore but himself).
So he is clearly out of the debate if we are talking about 1459 and after editions. I mean Fiore has a weschel like guard and we do not include him.
On that topic of course other guards were known to VD and Ringeck but we are told explicitly to use only the one they mentioned.
As well the streichen or the weshelhaw can be done equally as easily from a proper alber or a plough (as opposed to a weschel-like version of these two) or a shrankut. It does not imply a weschel like position per se.

But in any cases, in my post above I already agreed to intrinsic existence of the weshel in Ringeck or VD. (Whether it is explicitly called weschel or not).
So we do agree on that point.

As well I have acknowledged that an oberhaw can end up in that weshel-like position. So we do agree on that point as well.

Since we are speaking of Ringeck sword and buckler, even the buckler’s piece from the zorn is used to counter an attack and it is not a free strike.
Like every other pieces that has zornh in it, this is a good case to show that the Zornh, in his mind, is only a counter. So you will either hit the guy or his blade hence you can not end up in a weschel/alber type of guards

And that is what we disagree on.
To debunk my statement, we need to find an example in those 4 books where:
-The Zornh is not used as a counter (i.e. is used to attack someone in a given position other than attacking us).
-The zornh is a counter that do not hit or if it bind is not immediately followed by a thrust.
- I would even be happy with a piece along the lines of Zorn him from top to bottom.

Please note that does not prevent me to agree with you on that it is not the case in Meyer, “Dobringer” or Thallofer. (as I have stated before).

Phil
Was that clear enough O great leader of the Italian prancing? (That is Matt, just to avoid confusion).

[Jörg B.]

Possibly a bit too simple..

Yup, maybe it's a bit too simple. But I can live with that very well.

If that were the case, why would Ringeck again and again use sentences like "wenn er dir von siner rechten achseln oben ein will howen" and "Wen dü im von dener rechten achseln oben ein hawst"? If "Zornhaw" were the accepted term for an oberhau from the shoulder, why doesn't he use it like that? Why use the involved circumlocutions if a well-defined term exists?

I don't know, I haven't talked to him about that.

In contrast, at every place Ringeck uses the term "zornhaw" it is always in a context where the tip threatens the opponent, and in a majority of cases is made as a defense against the opponent's oberhau. "Wer dir ober hawet, zornhaw ort im drawet", which doesn't happen in wechsel.?

*sigh* Yes, Wechsel does not threaten with the point, of course not. It's just the guard you recover to if the Zornhau does not hit.

I suppose one

That is, it is obvious that Döbringer means that a zornhau is an oberhau that should always be struck from the shoulder, but IMHO that doesn't necessarily mean that every oberhau struck from the shoulder is a zornhau. Every cat has claws, but not everything that has claws is a cat.

Heretical question: This might be an interesting thing to know, but does this knowledge improve your fencing?

In the immediately following passage Döbringer also says "Doru[e]m meynt lichtnawer / wen dir eyner czu hewt / mit eynen obirhaw / so saltu du keyn im weder hawen den czornhaw alzo das dir mit dyme ort vaste keyn im schisset", which IMHO is a very clear instruction that the zornhau definitely should threaten the opponent with the tip.

I will take a look at the passage in question again, but not today.

My personal interpretation is that what makes an oberhau a zornhau is that it is struck from the shoulder, and that it sets up the ability to thrust immediately afterwards. If you cut your oberhau all the way to wechsel you have definitely lost the ability to thrust, and thus haven't made a zornhau, just an oberhau.

Again, Wechsel is just the end position of a Zornhau if the cut misses (intentionally or unintentionally). Meyer says so, I am inclined to hold that true for the earlier sources as well, where the guard is not explicitly named (but rather implied in the 'Nebenhuten') and where a Wechselhau that starts from the very same position is mentioned (e.g. in Ringeck's s&b play #3) and shown (in Talhoffer's 1467 longsword plate #2). To me, this is far from coincidental.

Note that I haven't read Meyer very much, and that I'm talking about zornhau in the "earlier" Liechtenauer tradition of Döbringer and Ringeck. Since my opinion about zornhau in the later tradition would be uninformed, I very firmly don't have one. It is quite possible that the less thrust-inclined Meyer has redefined his zornhau.

Sure he has refined things.For him, a Zornhau is a diagonal Oberhau whereas his 'default' Oberhau is straight down, i.e. the 'old' Scheitelhau.

[Stevie T]

Having just read Jorg B's last post I can see why the German Tradition developed the way it did

Steve

[Jörg B.]

You don't mind to elaborate on that comment of yours, do you?