07-04-2002, 07:22 AM
Salve,<br>
<br>
There is little information available that can be used to establish an average height of legionaries. Written sources do not contain references to averages. The lengths described in Vegetius and the legal codes refer to minimum heights and do not indicate what the average was. Very little skeletal evidence has survived, in part due to the prevalent custom of cremating the dead rather than burying them. Skeletons of Roman soldiers survive from some sites (eg Velsen, Herculaneum, Kalkriese, Dura-Europos), but not in great numbers that would allow a meaningful statement about average height to be formulated. The Velsen soldier was over 1.90 and well above the extant minimum height requirements.<br>
<br>
The Germans and Celts were often described as big and powerful, but such statements can in part be attributed to creation of an image of Roman strength. There is simply less glory to be had from conquering fruit wielding pygmees. Enemy numbers and strengths can be inflated to glorify one's own deeds. Care was taken to select impressive looking captives to feature in triumphal processions, indicating an acute Roman understanding of propaganda. There is too little data available to check whether the written record is faithful or exagerating existing differences. Another factor to take into account is that placement of the tallest and most formidable looking in the front ranks was a practice attested in various sources. In this manner an enemy host might have appeared to have been of impressive giants because these would have been most visible while the more average height individuals were obscured from view. The inclination to assume from first impressions rather than checking up was exploited in order to intimidate and overawe opponents.<br>
<br>
There is more on height issues in this earlier thread.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>
<br>
There is little information available that can be used to establish an average height of legionaries. Written sources do not contain references to averages. The lengths described in Vegetius and the legal codes refer to minimum heights and do not indicate what the average was. Very little skeletal evidence has survived, in part due to the prevalent custom of cremating the dead rather than burying them. Skeletons of Roman soldiers survive from some sites (eg Velsen, Herculaneum, Kalkriese, Dura-Europos), but not in great numbers that would allow a meaningful statement about average height to be formulated. The Velsen soldier was over 1.90 and well above the extant minimum height requirements.<br>
<br>
The Germans and Celts were often described as big and powerful, but such statements can in part be attributed to creation of an image of Roman strength. There is simply less glory to be had from conquering fruit wielding pygmees. Enemy numbers and strengths can be inflated to glorify one's own deeds. Care was taken to select impressive looking captives to feature in triumphal processions, indicating an acute Roman understanding of propaganda. There is too little data available to check whether the written record is faithful or exagerating existing differences. Another factor to take into account is that placement of the tallest and most formidable looking in the front ranks was a practice attested in various sources. In this manner an enemy host might have appeared to have been of impressive giants because these would have been most visible while the more average height individuals were obscured from view. The inclination to assume from first impressions rather than checking up was exploited in order to intimidate and overawe opponents.<br>
<br>
There is more on height issues in this earlier thread.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>
