Were the Germans physically superior?

[SigniferOne]

As far as I know a Roman soldier had to be at least 1,70 Metres to enter the Roman army.

That's highly improbable. Vegetius writes the following: (I.1):

We find the ancients very fond of procuring the tallest men they could for the service, since the standard for the cavalry of the wings and for the infantry of the first legionary cohorts was fixed at six feet

Now let's parse this statement carefully. First it says six feet, which seems alright, until we realize that these are Roman feet, which translates 5'8* in English feet. Second: we see that these were the tallest men the Romans could find...

A 5'6" typical Roman soldier seems reasonable. By contrast Gauls and Germans would've been at least 5'10" if not 6' or further.

[Epictetus]

Of course, this is a broader sample, but in The Natural History of Pompeii they claim that the human remains recovered show that the average male was 169 cm (5’6”) and the average female was 155 cm (5’1”). However, Estelle Lazer evidently points out that different studies on the height of Vesuvius’ victims have come up with different numbers.

It would be interesting to see similar studies on German remains from the same time period, if this was possible.

[ImperatorMachinarum]

I never suggested that you were. I suggested that the Illyrians were a creation of Yugoslav nationalism. I've read about the wish of Tito to create a Yugoslav ''ancestor-people" that could rival with the Romans, Celts and Germans as a large 'proto-European' tribe. I'm therefore not sure that 'THE Illyrians' existed, or that they, as I wrote, were a figment of 'Yugoslav imagination'.

Your suggestion is way off base. Albanians are most likely to support a lineage to Illyrians. Croatian, Serbian, Slovene, Macedonian, and Bosnian Muslim mainstream academia present very different histories, none of which are particularly motivated to rival Romans, Celts, or Germans as a tribe. In fact, most of these South Slavic people don't put themselves in any meaningful picture until the 6th century at the earliest, but mostly much later.

Finally, there was hardly ever an intense "Yugoslav" nationalism. You do realize that a bitter war was fought amongst the constituent peoples of Yugoslavia in the 1990s...and that the nation of Yugoslavia no longer exists?

:wink:

As for the physical superiority of the Germans, sorry, I don't buy it. The Roman Legions would probably have reflected a good mosaic of the constituent peoples of the Roman Empire, which spanned the spectrum of the European phenotype. Besides, Germans are by no means the tallest people in Europe nor necessarily the strongest. Can you really say that even today's Germans are stronger than Italians, Romanians, Irish, French, Croatian, or Serbian peoples?

I'd say the Germans were a bit more homogeneous than the Roman Legions, but markedly taller or stronger? Doubt it.

[Alanus]

Of course, this is a broader sample, but in The Natural History of Pompeii they claim that the human remains recovered show that the average male was 169 cm (5’6”) and the average female was 155 cm (5’1”). However, Estelle Lazer evidently points out that different studies on the height of Vesuvius’ victims have come up with different numbers.

It's a well-know fact that breathing tons of volcanic ash stunts your growth. :wink:

[Robert Vermaat]

Your suggestion is way off base.
Finally, there was hardly ever an intense "Yugoslav" nationalism. You do realize that a bitter war was fought amongst the constituent peoples of Yugoslavia in the 1990s...and that the nation of Yugoslavia no longer exists?
:wink:

It's by no means way off. Tito (remember him?) supported such historical interpretations and Yugoslav nationalism existed for sure, I can tell you that. Books about the Illyrians from the 1960s and 70s are a clear results from that wish for a 'pan-Jugoslav' people.
And yes, I realise the bitter history of former Yugoslavia since the death of Tito and the resulting break-up of the country.
Also, no reason to joke about that.

Albanians are most likely to support a lineage to Illyrians. Croatian, Serbian, Slovene, Macedonian, and Bosnian Muslim mainstream academia present very different histories, none of which are particularly motivated to rival Romans, Celts, or Germans as a tribe. In fact, most of these South Slavic people don't put themselves in any meaningful picture until the 6th century at the earliest, but mostly much later.

I know that, you dn't have to tell me. But apparently, following the earlier example of the Íllyrians', there are still those who want to see an almost pan-Europen group that preceded the later (identified) groups. I own a book in which some Slovenes try to sell off the idea that the Slovenes existed in Eastern to Southern Europe prior to the Celts (we're talking 500BC) , and that the Celts and Romans later 'just' arrived, but later went away, leaving the Slovenes in place, as they 'apparently' had existed before. The book then went on to deny a Slav migration, arguing that the Slovenes had always been there.

A bit like those who want to see Germans in Britain before the Romans. It's true! Such people exist!

[Alanus]

I'd say the Germans were a bit more homogeneous than the Roman Legions, but markedly taller or stronger? Doubt it.

I think the whole basis for this thread are the ancient Roman references that-- yes-- the Germans (and Celts) were taller (which equates with larger) than the Romans themeselves, meaning the Italians.

I had assumed we were discussing the early era, where writers such as Tacitus and Caesar mention that Germans were large. And we might assume they were using themselves as a yardstick. Then-- case in point-- the Germans were taller, bigger, probably from drinking too much milk and eating aurochs. :lol:

[ImperatorMachinarum]

It's by no means way off. Tito (remember him?) supported such historical interpretations and Yugoslav nationalism existed for sure, I can tell you that.
And yes, I realise the bitter history of former Yugoslavia since the death of Tito and the resulting break-up of the country.
Also, no reason to joke about that.

Tito sloganeered bratstvo i jedinstvo, translated in English as brotherhood and unity. Such superficial slogans did not resonate with constituent peoples whom were far more nationalist about their core ethnicity, as opposed to being committed to some Yugoslav nationalism. Much like Soviet nationalism, Yugoslav nationalism needed autocratic and repressive institutionalization in order to suppress Croatian, Serbian, Slovene, Montenegrin, Bosnian Muslim, and Macedonian desires for self determination...which is why Yugoslavia ultimately fell apart.

I guess we can agree to disagree. But I am fairly confident in my observations that Yugoslavia simply never commanded real commitment. Yugoslavia was an empty and ultimately impotent nationalism, paling next to the real passions of her constituent peoples. Today only a few nostalgic people really lament the passing of Yugoslavia. Most people have long moved on with their new countries, although it is a struggle.

But as William Wallace so boldly said on Braveheart, they have FREEDOM. :wink:

[Arminius75]

Going directly to the point, i give the answer to this question, were the germans physically superior?

1.- Yes they were tallest and Stronger even today, but no so far as a giant against a midget, above some one mention they were not so strong, well we need to see the bones of some indivuduals of these period we can see aspre bones with very strong tendons insertions, a high level of nitrogen on the bones, today nordic and slavic peoples are stronger than other europeans, just remember the power lifting contest, on this contests the american and europeans champions are form nordic extraction (german, scandinavian etc) slavs are ery strong and tall too but less homogeneous and always are the over the world top..is genetic (i practice power lifting and even here nordic extraction folks are the strongest, and here we can see people of all around the world)

2.-This NOT mean about a Superioroty of a "race" against another, there is only a race Homo sapiens sapiens there is only a few somatological differences, so we need to be careful when we talk about "superior" or "inferior"

3.-The germans could be stronger but were not invencible, this peoples had a very low life expectation, there is a lot of ilness, a hard way of life where only stringest survive and eve so no too confortable, against romans said on their chronicles barbarians were no so numerous, the original germanic armies were just a few warriors if you compare with the mediterranean armies with 10 000 warriors marching side by side for an example

4.-Life on cities were harder in terms of diet, those romans from Rome eat bread an vegetables rather than meat, many live under poverty by state assistence begin for a bread to survive, but their life expectance were better than those germanic from north, because a city life were almost more safe on many ways, but again, on those times life were a hell on every place

5.-Roman army were VERY heterogenus, were formed for many other "barbarians" even germanics, on republic times perhaps were italians but during the empire times many brabarians join the army first as auxuliar troops but then as regualr troopers, on late empire times there is a huge barbarian extraction soldiers on roman army, the collapse of Rome were fought by germans against germans on some places, there is a lot of celtic, illyrians, thracians, scythians, iberians ...a large etc....

6.- About th off topic Illyrian issue, Tito use every tool to keep the former Jugoslavija united, even their iron fist or ideological issues as the croatian illyrian claims, Today are the albanians who are still building their identity with the illyrians as basis, a polemic issue too, Illyrians were a so heterogeneus, the pannonias were so different on may aspects of those southern illyrians bt keeps some regular things on common...th poor illyrians were relegated by history and politics, if they were a venetians or a illyrian no body knows but Lausitz or Hallstatt were not celtic as many scholars claims and are close to illyrians or Venetics or as you prefer to call them ...prehaps they use a very different term to called themselves ...

7.-When nordic peoples enter into Europe these territories were not a desert place, continental germans are a mixture of peoples too, perhaps physically there is not too many differences, goths from Wielbark, Poland were different from those goths who remains on Sweden (yes another polemic issue but evidence suggest that, Wielbark were a scandinavian origin culture over local Oksywie culture who also sow scandinavian influence) and for the mixture with local peoples from those places where they came to live, many territoies were occupied on peace rather on a War basis, but war were always present...they mixed each other and began new cultural manifestations under a egular and traditional germanic basis ...well there is a lot of issue to talk......thats is what i love about these topics..... :twisted:

[Epictetus]

As a few people have mentioned, Tacitus says that the Germans were tall, but I think it interesting that he hedges his bets on their strength and endurance:

[The Germans’] physique, so far as can be said with their vast numbers, is identical: fierce blue eyes, red hair, tall frames, powerful only spasmodically, not correspondingly tolerant of labour and hard work, and by no means habituated to bearing thirst and heat…

Tacitus, Germania, 4

There is a note in my edition of Loeb that vaguely and unhelpfully says “skeletal remains confirm for Germans part of what he states."

[Alanus]

From my last post, Jose's post, and now yours above--

We are seeing a consensus that, yes, the Germans were bigger, taller, but not necessarily "physically superior" in what might be called the Long Run. Tacitus talks about endurance, or lack of it. And I recall that someone else said the same thing, maybe Polylbius.The issue is complicated by suseptibility to disease (from the "frong pond" to the south) and a generally short lifespan.

And where do we draw the line between the "Roman army" and the "barbarian hordes" they fought? We know that, early on, even before the Imperial era, that Germans were in the Roman army and that they tipped the balance into Roman favor. This is clearly illustrated by Caesar employing a Seubic cavalry to defeat Vercingetorix at Alesia. Whether we can call them "auxilliaries" or "mercenaries" is irrelevant. They were, for all practical purposes, IN the Roman army (even if only for a short time). :roll:

[Arminius75]

I like this way of discussion...but i need to ad a important issue when Tacitus talk about Phisically aspects of germans, i ám a power lifting enthusiast, after many years we noticed that: exist 2 kind of muscle fibers a "slow" and a "fast" (red or white) the slow is not strong but is very durable is the kind of fiber on a long distance runner and the "fast" are powerfull but just for a while (AdeninoSiTriphosphatus) , nordic people are champions on powerlifting but no so on marathon think on that, roman armies walk hundred of kilometers trough an irregular territories carrying a heavy equipment, germans were light on their weapons, the germanic atacks were a very strong clash but romans were very ressistant, a regular mediterranean soldier perhaps were a little dark skined guy with a skinny complexion but for sure were a machine walking and working, germans were taller and stronger but do not like long time works and enjoy fast assaults and hunts on their forests...well nothing is so absolute, well vikings were taller and stronger than their counterperts but even those big warriors do not enjoy a boring "Bersi" or "thrall" job :mrgreen:

[Alanus]

Jose,

Well, maybe you're right. I'm the Celtic type, a lot like the German type. ("The Campbells are coming, yah-hoot, yah-hoot") When I was an athlete, I set a record in the 40-yard dash, but I was one of the worst of distance runners. But there is a problem. My grandparents on my mother's side were "old country" Italians.

Kinda blows the wind out of the theory. hock: nuk-nuk-nuk

[Robert Vermaat]

As a few people have mentioned, Tacitus says that the Germans were tall, but I think it interesting that he hedges his bets on their strength and endurance:

[The Germans’] physique, so far as can be said with their vast numbers, is identical: fierce blue eyes, red hair, tall frames, powerful only spasmodically, not correspondingly tolerant of labour and hard work, and by no means habituated to bearing thirst and heat…
Tacitus, Germania, 4

There is a note in my edition of Loeb that vaguely and unhelpfully says “skeletal remains confirm for Germans part of what he states."

I'd be interested what remains those were!

Tacitus is also accused of making a political point here. He's comparing the physique of Romans, Gauls and Germans, and states (at least I think I recall that - correct me if I'm wrong!) that Gauls were taller than Romans (Italians) and Germans larger than Gauls. But was that not also a polital comparison? The Germans were to be portrayed as fiercer than Gauls, and hence more dangerous. But also as sort of 'more noble' than the Romans - to make a point about the political devolution that Tacitus wanted to address? I bet that Germans were taller than your average Mediterranean person, but at the same time I also bet that Tacitus never saw a crowd of Germans either. Germans did not 'all' have red hair!

[Alanus]

A point well taken. 8)

All of those authors-- Tacitus, Polybius, etc.-- had an agenda in which the German was the nobelest savage, with the Gaul as the diminsihing savage (no longer quite so fierce).

As far as red-heads (or blue-eyed blondes) go, all we have to do is look at an Iranian to find all these same features, or just go digging for mummies in Xinjiang Province, or take a photo of a kid in India.

My theory is that none of the above would be "physically superior" if it were not accompanied by a good diet, correct and protracted physical training, with maybe the correct gene thrown in. :wink:

[Sean Manning]

From my last post, Jose's post, and now yours above--

We are seeing a consensus that, yes, the Germans were bigger, taller, but not necessarily "physically superior" in what might be called the Long Run. Tacitus talks about endurance, or lack of it. And I recall that someone else said the same thing, maybe Polylbius.The issue is complicated by suseptibility to disease (from the "frong pond" to the south) and a generally short lifespan.

And where do we draw the line between the "Roman army" and the "barbarian hordes" they fought? We know that, early on, even before the Imperial era, that Germans were in the Roman army and that they tipped the balance into Roman favor. This is clearly illustrated by Caesar employing a Seubic cavalry to defeat Vercingetorix at Alesia. Whether we can call them "auxilliaries" or "mercenaries" is irrelevant. They were, for all practical purposes, IN the Roman army (even if only for a short time). :roll:

Well, I think there is a consensus that the Romans believed Germans were taller and stronger than them. But how would they know? Did they measure the height of 1000 random citizens off the last census, then march across the limes and round up 1000 random male Germani? People like forming stereotypes about groups, but they aren't always reliable. Unless someone digs up a study of the height of Iron-Age Germans based on bones, I don't think we can say anything definite about which population was taller.

I agree with your other points.