NSA Waster sizes...

[Eric Chisler]

Curious as to whether I should get the 35.25 or the 40 inch waster and why. I'm sure that it's probably just preference, but seeing as I have no experience I also have no preference besides doing things "right". Just seeing what some thoughts are. What about the "claymore" waster? Is it the right size for a beginner or a specialty sword?

-Eric

[Jaron Bernstein]

Curious as to whether I should get the 35.25 or the 40 inch waster and why. I'm sure that it's probably just preference, but seeing as I have no experience I also have no preference besides doing things "right". Just seeing what some thoughts are. What about the "claymore" waster? Is it the right size for a beginner or a specialty sword?

-Eric

Vadi says that your sword should be from your armpit vertical to the ground.

[Ken Dietiker]

Vadi says that your sword should be from your armpit vertical to the ground.

Sorry Jaron, but unless you or anyone else can show me otherwise, I believe that your statement is misleading and jumps to conclusion.

Vadi says that the "pommel should arrive under the arm", but he never specifies the armpit or exactly where under the arm, whether that's above, below, or at the elbow even. No word I see means "vertical" either.
However, like G. Silver, suggests that the proper length is different for everyone and is relative to an individual's size. For Vadi, it seems that the overall length, where "the pommel should arrive under the arm" is still within reasonable lengths. I myself am 5'8" and if I measure from the ground up to my elbow once, and my armpit second, I get a variation from about 42" to 50". Using Silver's method of measuring, I get a blade that is about 35". Add hilt and pommel for a total of around 10", and I would get a sword around 45" long, which for me is about right for a hand-and-a-half type of sword. Working backwards, and assuming that Fiore and Vadi were more fond of hand-and-a-half types of sword, I feel that Vadi may have meant under the arm as being between the armpit and the elbow (that's where 45" lands under my arm, half way).

Armpit length (50") gets me closer to later swords similar to what is depicted in Fechtschules, Meyer, etc.

Unfortunately in this Vadi is a bit too vague as to any specific measurement since "under the arm" leaves a lot to be desired, but he does add that "it is in his writing". Maybe it's in another book somewhere that we no longer have access to or just something we all missed in the translation and it's right under our noses.

[Jaron Bernstein]

You may be correct. We just moved so all my books are in boxes. I am thinking of the page where it shows the dagger length (essentially to the forearm) and sword dimensions (a cross as wide as the grip is long and the above listed length. Whatever it says on that page is what I was referencing if you have it handy.

[Andy Spalding]

You should go for what feels right for you. If you are going to go for the longer length, I recommend you should just go ahead and get the great sword. It is just as long as the 40 in bastard sword in blade length, but you get the advantage of having the longer hilt and pear pommel. Its just a freekin well made waster and both are good.

Not to mention you look like a real man when you swing around that beast.

[Jim Churches]

Eric,

I have used the 45" NSA waster for several years now and was very comfortable with it. Same for my wife. These are on their last legs now, and we recently ordered the 50" models. After about ten minutes of exercising and floryshing with the longer model, we both love them. It took a bit to find the new range (nicely longer!) and the angle (slightly different for lower guards), but once we did it seemed to be an improvement. I'm a huge fan of the Type XVIII anyway, so the longer blade length is a little more accurate here. The weight is a little more, but not cumbersome in any way. For note, both of us are of medium height and build (5' 6" and 5' 8"). In short, it's personal preference, but you won't go wrong either way. You'll likely feel more comfortable with the longer one if you're closer to 6', and the shorter one if you're under 5' 6". Enjoy and welcome.

[Ken Dietiker]

So, let's see. Vadi says exactly the same thing twice, once in the intro in Chapter Two;

"La spada vole avere iusta misura
vole arivare el pomo sotto el brazio..."

"The sword needs to have right measure
the pommel should to arrive under the arm..."

and again in the image of the sword on folio 27 Recto;

"La spada da conbatere in arme vole avere la sotoscrita forma cioe la sua longeza vole arivare el pomo sotto el bracio, tagliare quatro dita in punta, el suo manico vole eser de una spana. L'ezlo vol esere longo quanto e il manico de la spada, e vol esere aguzo do ogni lato, e similmente vol esere aguzo il pomo per possere ferire con ognuno de questi. "

"The sword for fighting in armor needs to have the form written below, its length should arrive below the arm, sharp four fingers at the point, its handle should be of one span. The hilt is as long as the handle of the sword, and should be acute (stabbing) on both ends, and similarly should be acute (stabbing) at the pommel to give injury with any of them."

The measure of a dagger is found later, only once, on folio 37 Verso where can also be found a drawing of a dagger on the bottom of the page.

"La longeza de la daga vol esere fin a el gomito con un taglio e dui cantoni, el manico vol esser d'uno somesso..."

"The length of the dagger should be ending at the elbow with one edge and two corners (triangular?), the handle should be of one "somesso"..."

(note: one "somesso" is a "hand", measured across the palm with thumb open in the form of an "L"; about 5 or 6 inches. Supposedly this is to leave room for a gauntlet and not be too tight a fit).

But that's it. I can't find any reference to armpits. Still, that comes out to our current agreement of 45 to 50 inches in overall length for the sword (with 35 to 40 inches of blade) and about 15 to 16 inches overall for a dagger (with at least 11 to 12 inches of blade).

That's all I got for the sword length info from Vadi, and a little from Silver, the rest is preference and interpretational needs/requirements of the individual I think. Maybe the "armpit" reference came from someone's translation found in a modern book?

[Ken Dietiker]

By the way, I have what I believe is a viable theory on why the shorter blade (35-36") is better, but it's not easy to describe via text. Will have to show it sometime...

[Eric Chisler]

Thanks for all of your helpful input, folks. Seeing as I'm 6' and fairly barrel-chested, I'm going to go with the longer one. I can't see how having a longer grip (more leverage[?]) can be a bad thing if the blade length is appropriate. I was more concerned with ARMA's three tier curriculum and the emphasis on starting with the longsword. I had figured the claymore represented more the "greatsword", and that's listed as a specialization in Tier 2.

I'm just trying to keep in the parameters of our learning structure, so that my instruction is complete, comprehensive and not backwards. If anyone has some reason I should start with the small(er) blade, speak now or forever hold your peace (Ken?)!

-Eric

[Corey Roberts]

I have both the NSA Hand and a Half 45'' and the NSA 49.5'' and have handled the Larger "Claymore" model as well. All are good, the 45" is a little faster and quicker but has less leverage, the Claymore is a big beast with lots of leverage but is slower, and the long model hand and a half is a good balance of both in my opinion. If you are 6' I would recomend getting one of the longer models.

[Ken Dietiker]

Yeah, I agree with what Corey says, sounds good for starters. At 6', go with the longer H&H. It's a good mix and you can mess with others as you encounter them.