04-24-2006, 07:40 PM
'superior' is a problematic term, even if we are just talking physique.
There is certainly evidence that Germanic people were, on average, taller than Italians or Spanish. Average heights for men ranges in the 170s in some sites, and 6-foot-plus skeletons don't really raise eyebrows among excavators. However, these are averages, and a tall Italian easily topped a short German. Also, 'Roman' soldiers increasingly were actually Rhinelanders, Gauls, Belgae, Pannonians, Raetians and Illyrians - populations with very similar average body types to the Germanic nations, so 'Roman' is not automatically 'Italian'.
The thing is, taller is not the same as better. It is not a bad thing on the battlefield to have the reach and drop, but is it really that decisive?
Second, we don't know about bulk. It is quite likely that retinue warriors and aristocrats, fed on the Germanic (and Celtic) high-status diet of ample protein and animal fat, bulked out a lot and built up plenty of muscle. On the other hand, it is unlikely that these people ever were anywhere near as numerous as literature makes them oput to have been. Studies of skeletal evidence from Germania indicates that the majority of people lived a life of deprivation, with regular occurences of malnutrition, probably in winter/spring. It is quite possible that, at least in bad times, the Germanic warriors facing the legions looked more like modern-day Somalis than the Conanesque figures of legend. And climate data indicates times in Germany were not great in the first few centuries AD.
The Romans, on the other hand, probably came from a reasopnably well-fed population. Legions did not recruit from the poorest if they could help it (if there is anything to Vegetius' criteria, they couldn't have - you don't find that body type among the chronically malnourished). So we can assume that, while the Roman army probably did not consist of exceptionally tall or bulky men (the Roman diet was not rich in animal protein, in fact it may well have been deficient in that regard in many areas south of the Alps), it would not have consisted of scrawny runts, either.
Finally, we should keep in mind that the Romans *liked* bulk. Look at the athletes and gladiators depicted in their art (not the Greek copies, the Roman originals). So we can assume safely that though Roman soldiers may not have looked like that, many must have wanted to, and worked on it. That phenotype was not unknown in the ancient world.
So, taller yes, bigger maybe, superior - depends on your definition. But a Germanic warrior brought up in the household of a lord, with the genetic predisposition to grow, say, 6'3", trained to war from youth and fed on meat and beer, must have been a sight to see. You don't really need many of those to start a legend, I guess.
There is certainly evidence that Germanic people were, on average, taller than Italians or Spanish. Average heights for men ranges in the 170s in some sites, and 6-foot-plus skeletons don't really raise eyebrows among excavators. However, these are averages, and a tall Italian easily topped a short German. Also, 'Roman' soldiers increasingly were actually Rhinelanders, Gauls, Belgae, Pannonians, Raetians and Illyrians - populations with very similar average body types to the Germanic nations, so 'Roman' is not automatically 'Italian'.
The thing is, taller is not the same as better. It is not a bad thing on the battlefield to have the reach and drop, but is it really that decisive?
Second, we don't know about bulk. It is quite likely that retinue warriors and aristocrats, fed on the Germanic (and Celtic) high-status diet of ample protein and animal fat, bulked out a lot and built up plenty of muscle. On the other hand, it is unlikely that these people ever were anywhere near as numerous as literature makes them oput to have been. Studies of skeletal evidence from Germania indicates that the majority of people lived a life of deprivation, with regular occurences of malnutrition, probably in winter/spring. It is quite possible that, at least in bad times, the Germanic warriors facing the legions looked more like modern-day Somalis than the Conanesque figures of legend. And climate data indicates times in Germany were not great in the first few centuries AD.
The Romans, on the other hand, probably came from a reasopnably well-fed population. Legions did not recruit from the poorest if they could help it (if there is anything to Vegetius' criteria, they couldn't have - you don't find that body type among the chronically malnourished). So we can assume that, while the Roman army probably did not consist of exceptionally tall or bulky men (the Roman diet was not rich in animal protein, in fact it may well have been deficient in that regard in many areas south of the Alps), it would not have consisted of scrawny runts, either.
Finally, we should keep in mind that the Romans *liked* bulk. Look at the athletes and gladiators depicted in their art (not the Greek copies, the Roman originals). So we can assume safely that though Roman soldiers may not have looked like that, many must have wanted to, and worked on it. That phenotype was not unknown in the ancient world.
So, taller yes, bigger maybe, superior - depends on your definition. But a Germanic warrior brought up in the household of a lord, with the genetic predisposition to grow, say, 6'3", trained to war from youth and fed on meat and beer, must have been a sight to see. You don't really need many of those to start a legend, I guess.
Der Kessel ist voll Bärks!
Volker Bach
Volker Bach
