Roman Cavalryman Height?

[Gaius Honorius Felix]

Hello,
I remember reading somewhere that there was a height requirement for being a legionary. It stated that the individual had to be 6 feet tall (roman measurement) which would be aproximately 5 foot 11 inches (current measurement). I forgot the source but I will look for it. Anyway, my question is was there a hieght requirement for roman cavalrymen? If so I would assume they would be smaller than legionaries because cavalrymen tend to be smaller. Thanks for any input.

[Arthes]

Greetings Gaius,
it was Vegetius that gave the heights for the Roman cavalrymen.
The earlier Legions insisted on a height of 6' then dropped it to 5'10" if I remember correctly.

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, or at least five feet ten inches. These requirements might easily be kept up in those times when such numbers followed the profession of arms and before it was the fashion for the flower of Roman youth to devote themselves to the civil offices of state. But when necessity requires it, the height of a man is not to be regarded so much as his strength; and for this we have the authority of Homer, who tells us that the deficiency of stature in Tydeus was amply compensated by his vigor and courage.
from: http://www.pvv.ntnu.no/~madsb/home/war/ ... e03.php#03


regards
Arthes

[Gaius Honorius Felix]

Thanks Arthes,
Im mostly curious because most of my family is of a shorter stature, myself being amongst the tallest at a whoping 5'10, give or take a little. Just to get an idea for possible impression that would look normal. Not sure if that made sense but thanks for the info.

[Pompeius Minus]

If so I would assume they would be smaller than legionaries because cavalrymen tend to be smaller.

...not to mention the fact that Roman cavalry horses were the size of ponies, and would have difficulty carrying a big man.

Height requirements don't seem to have been followed too closely in any age, except maybe in elite formations.

Vegetius is already referring to his ideal Romans as "the ancients", which tells you that he wasn't really close to the source. There's also the standard yearning for bygone times ("these requirements might easily be kept up in those times when such numbers followed the profession of arms and before it was the fashion for the flower of Roman youth to devote themselves to the civil offices of state..."), which tends to get in the way of objectivity.

[Arthes]

I posted this a little while back....luckily found it straight away.... :wink:
http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic. ... highlight=

It was considered that the height requirements were in Roman measurement.
1 Roman foot equals 11.65 English inches and one Roman inch is 0.97 of a modern inch.
So the actual height in modern terms would be around 5' 9.1/2" for 6'0"
and 5'6.1/3" for 5'10".
So you would be tall, but not overly so..... :wink:
The Legionary Cavalry were Elite troopers usually from good backgrounds - Equites etc, I thought they were generally taller than the average Pede or was that simply in the sense of 'looking down on the inferiors'...... :?: :roll:
regards
Arthes

[Gaius Honorius Felix]

Cool I would have been TALL?! (Im pretty short compared to my friends ) Anyway, I know that during the Napoleonic period they grouped troops of the same hieght together in companies so I would assume the romans did something similar. You wouldnt want a testudo with a vent in the middle would you?

[Pompeius Minus]

I know that during the Napoleonic period they grouped troops of the same height together in companies...

In the Napoleonic era they actually had both minimum and maximum height requirements. Grenadiers, guardsmen and heavy cavalry had a mimimum height, while skirmishers and light cavalry had a maximum height.

The height requirement for the grenadiers, i.e. the tallest soldiers, in Napoleon's imperial guard in 1815 was only 1.65 m or 5 feet 5 inches. This again makes me doubt that the Romans could find enough soldiers that were 5 feet 10 inches (modern measurements) or 1.77 m tall or above to fill all their first cohorts.

[Gaivs Antonivs Satvrninvs]

Hi,all.
Perhaps Napoleon thought 5'5" WAS tall.

[Spurius]

The issue of height has me curious! At 6'3" tall, would I have been out of place in a legion?

Did they have height broken down in ranks, as done in the 19th and 20th centuries?

My apologies if my questions are out of place, I am new to studying this era of military history.

[Gaius Honorius Felix]

Hi,all.
Perhaps Napoleon thought 5'5" WAS tall.

Rofl, probably...
I think the romans might have tried to group their troops in similar hieght groups but they might not have. And Spurius, you might look just a little out of place But im sure you would fit in with the gauls and germanic tribes, they tended to be taller.

[Rufus]

I think if you look at percent of legionares to actual population, it is not unreasonable to assume that they could find enough people of that height. And later on it was subject to change, and who knows, in desperate manpower shortage times(ie civil wars etc.) they probably would have been more laxed.

I always wonder if they just didn't practice better nutrition than they did during and after the dark ages.

[Casmin]

Perhaps we should keep in mind that human height did not rise incrementally from 2000 years ago to present day. There were ups and downs in height depending on various factors. If I'm not mistaken for example, during the 12th c. Renaissance the average height rose and then fell during the Little Ice Age due to poorer nutrition.

[Optio equitum]

The issue of height has me curious! At 6'3" tall, would I have been out of place in a legion?

Did they have height broken down in ranks, as done in the 19th and 20th centuries?

My apologies if my questions are out of place, I am new to studying this era of military history.

You would have stood for 2 legionares... :lol:

[Carlton Bach]

The issue of height has me curious! At 6'3" tall, would I have been out of place in a legion?

Did they have height broken down in ranks, as done in the 19th and 20th centuries?

My apologies if my questions are out of place, I am new to studying this era of military history.

Don't worry. These are practical questions and therefore excellent.

As to 'out of place', I don't know, but I suspect you'd certainly stand out. There were tall people in every age, so it's far from impossible, and men over a certain height and/or weight were always assigned to the infantry for practical reasons. If it really concerns you, you might want to opt for an auxiliary instead as Centls and Germans were on average taller than Italians. But these are averages - a tall Italian was plenty taller than a short German back then, too. Also, Roman soldiers were reasonably well-fed and had to meet physical minimum criteria, so I suspect when they could afford to be picky, they chose the big, strong and healthy candidates.

I doubt that legionaries were grouped into cohorts or centuries by size, though I wouldn't exclude the possibility of very tall men being posted into I Cohort, or called on for representative guard duty. I certainly would not want the added headache of picking a man with the right height as well as the right qualifications to garrison a given road post or supply dump.

[IMP GALLIENVS AVG]

There may have been some grotesquely tall Romans.. Emperor Maximinus I is reported to have been 8'3"! Imagine facing THAT on the battlefield! Would a Roman as tall as that be allowed to be a legionary??? Someone pointed out that the Testudo formation would be a little strange. :lol:

Andrew


http://img48.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ric00044sb.jpg
PIC: A silver denarius of Maximinus I, with him and 2 standards on the reverse. He usually has a huge, protruding nose and chin on his coinage. To relate to his height, here is a question... How tall were those Roman standards? Maybe we can see his height from the coinage if they are accurate.