Were the Germans physically superior?

[Epictetus]

Well, whether or not this subject is retired, I still enjoyed the discussion. We've went off on tangents here and there and may not have come to a definitive conclusion, but there were a lot of interesting points made. Often getting lost and driving around the countryside is more enjoyable than finding your destination.

[Alanus]

David,

True. The discussion is/was a pleasant one; and we did discover some interesting points.

[Taff Simon]

Now back to the topic.
Were the Germans physically superior?

How about the ones with arthritis?
What about German midgets?
How about "mentally challenged?"
What about over-weight ones?
How about the "skinny as a rail" ones. :wink:

I had a dig near Dachau in 2008...some Hallstatt and La Tene buildings......Villa Rustica and then in the early Medieval/Migration period a new village with associated gravefield turned up. We had about 220 graves with a mixture of mainly late Roman and Bajuvarian individuals (as interpreted from the gravegoods).In one corner we had 3 warrior burials - I think they each had a Seax, whilst 2 had a shield and I think 2 had spearheads buried with them (going from memory). What was weird was that 2 were seriously under height and the other was a giant, very strong (Initially I thought the leg bones were from a horse burial) but his head never really grew, and he reached adulthood with what can only be described as a pin head. Unfortunately the grave had been much disturbed.

The report on the site can be found here....

http://www.singularch.de/referenzen/ber ... ericht.pdf

I have also recently found evidence of Spina Bifida in an individual from the same period in Erding, near Munich.Got a photo of the skele if anyone is interested.

[Astiryu1]

I have read (though I have forgotten where) that size and muscular structure was/is dictated by diet (meat,starches,etc.) and exercise (um... being a warrior). The article stated that most warriors were of the same basic physical structure was due to the similar habits and lifestyles of the (let's face it) more well fed classes. I wouldn't think that sitting around the hearth many warriors would go hungry. The alcohol (mead,beer and wine?) would also introduce carbohydrates into the diet as well. I always ate a good helping of noodles or rice the night before a martial arts event/demonstration for extra energy myself. :wink: Eventually this would catch on in their respective societies as well don't you think?

[M. Demetrius]

Wasn't the primary diet composed of grains, supplemented by seasonal vegetables and whatever meat/fish could be found? That would be a high carbohydrate diet automatically.

[Robert Vermaat]

All posts about human evolution are now a new topic in OT.

[Abe]

In the contrary. The Roman soldiers were genetic freaks. Looking at paintings of the times you will see a sinewy type musculature that is very rare today. Not like an athlete of today but a specimen of a huge amount of conditioning. However, whoever the original Romans were they were definitely physically superior to the Germans and others. They usually were outnumbered in battle and prevailed with physical force.
Their weaponry including the vaunted gladiolus was over rated. Short sword because it was cheaper to make.Some 'experts' say it suited their formations. The Greeks,Macedonians formations did not utilize this. The Romans succeeded using brute force and usually getting surrounded quite easily. Leaders such as Caesar just mesmerized and brain washed his men to fight to the death. It worked.
His accounts of the Germans and Caesar is known to be accurate in such things were that they were weak and scrawny. Looking at their battles you can see that the Germans were usually easily destroyed in spite of outnumbering the Romans.
Unfortunate that German historians painted incorrect pictures of history and over blown the Tuetoberg Forrest battle. That was one battle, After this the Germans were humiliated time and time again. This is reality.
Now the later Roman Army was made up of mostly Germanic.Celtic and others. The Original Romans were no more because they assimilated themselves into oblivion.
Another fact: Italians are not Romans anymore than Britons are. There are some genetics involved but no more than anywhere else in Europe. In fact the ancient Romans had great musculature but with facial features that were not very attractive at all.. Modern day Italians do not look anything like them thankfully so.
Another fact: Ancient Hebrews killed more Roman soldiers and civilians than any other group.
For some reason this fact was swept under by German historians, who were the main writers of the Roman history books that we have known.

[M. Demetrius]

Wow! That's a very long list of "facts", Abe. Could you provide any documentation to support a few of those?

The Romans defeated most of their foes because of superior tactics, and because they did not seek towards individual glory in battle, but stayed together in their fighting units. Many of the tribal societies they fought(Germanics, Gauls, Britons, et al.) fought to show their "champion" was better than the other tribe's "champion". That didn't do much when the Romans refused to come out of ranks and do individual combat. It had nothing much to do with their "genetic freakism", just training and tactics, and keeping a cool head.

German historians, who were the main writers of the Roman history books that we have known.

I guess, then, Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, Polybius were all Germans?

[Valerian Pertinax]

Seconded.

Also, for being a master of brainwashing and mesmerizing, Caesar sure faced a lot of mutiny and dissent from his legions.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Indeed....

[M. Demetrius]

Abe, you said "gladiolus".
[attachment=6144]220px-Gladiolus_7-19-06_2012-12-25.JPG[/attachment]

But you probably meant "gladius", right?
[attachment=6145]ah2005.jpg.w300h103.jpg[/attachment]

I think any civilization would have made short work of any army wielding the gladiolus! :-D On the other hand, there would have been plenty of available flowers for the funeral service.... 8)

[Lyceum]

Gladiolus lit means little sword and was actually used, esp in colloquial Latin, though it often meant...well...you can guess, if the word for scabbard came to mean lady bits...well

Wow! That's a very long list of "facts", Abe. Could you provide any documentation to support a few of those?

The Romans defeated most of their foes because of superior tactics, and because they did not seek towards individual glory in battle, but stayed together in their fighting units. Many of the tribal societies they fought(Germanics, Gauls, Britons, et al.) fought to show their "champion" was better than the other tribe's "champion". That didn't do much when the Romans refused to come out of ranks and do individual combat. It had nothing much to do with their "genetic freakism", just training and tactics, and keeping a cool head.

German historians, who were the main writers of the Roman history books that we have known.

I guess, then, Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, Polybius were all Germans?

I agree about your comment on the "facts", however I wouldn't dismiss said posters comments automatically, even if I wouldn't agree either:

"genetic freakism" well no (though the differences between the Romans and modern populations is fact), but we know from osteoanalysis that they generally had much better diets and medical care, this is important. Also as for not breaking ranks, sure this is very important but so was individual fama think about the spolia opima (probs originally optuma), the various coronae for being first over a wall, saving a comrade etc. I'd say the Roman soldier was superior in every fashion, including one on one. Diet, training and gear make a LOT of difference. Plus they had swords in large numbers, frightening weapon...

German historians: Well obviously he's not talking about Tacitus etc but it is important to consider how these have been interpreted vs the original cultural tropes. German Historiography stinks of what Hans Gehrke calls "intentionale geschichte" and I'd bear this in mind, there have also been some studies precisely on the reception of Roman historiography in this area that are worth reading, the most famous are: Tacitus’s “Germania” From the Roman Empire to the Third Reich By Christopher B. Krebs and Herwig Wolfram's The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples.

I also came across an excellent volume published by OUP in the library once which touched on this sort of stuff, I can't remember the title and its really frustrating, Rome and the Germans? Rome and the Germanics? The Germanic Peoples and Rome?

Its a fascinating subject and well worth diving into, I don't think we should shoe horn this kind of stuff because it was articulated by an overly zealous first time poster without citations or logic.

EDIT: Also realised that besides the intellectual history viewpoint it might be handy to recommend something on the Roman ethnographic tradition itself, like Emma Dench's "Romulus' Asylum" which has a great chapter and and an extensive bibliography.

[M. Demetrius]

Of course -olus, -ulus is a diminutive, the most famous probably caliga Caligula. It just struck me funny, that's all, and no disprespect intended.

Modern era German historians, of course! There are many. Ancient German historians, well, in a forest-dwelling 1st Century mostly illiterate culture, there may have been some, but their oral histories did not survive the millennia.

[Lyceum]

I just can't resist pointing out a dirty Latin word, ha.

Indeed they had their singing, Tacitus mentions it, unsurprisingly some modern historians have taken these 3 lines of Latin into representing a whole lost oral culture, which is hilarious the level of supposition involved. Actually I think the first of the books I cited deals with this too, I can't remember.

This *almost* makes me want to do some more Roman history. *Almost*.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Well, I had always head the term for the scabbard was Vagina....the term for the gladius meant male anatomy.