Were the Germans physically superior?

[Robert Vermaat]

In this case, which may be the whole case with this topic, we have no idea who the "Romans" were-- probably mostly Germans! :lol:

Why? It's been quite a while the the idea was debunked that the Late Roman Army consisted mostly of Germans. 'Barritus' is not even a Germanic word (as was long thought), a 'barrus' being a elephant.

[Alanus]

True.
The Roman army did not consist of "mostly Germans," but the later (post-400) Roman army did not consist of mosty Romans. The figure I've heard-- coming from the innacuracies the History Channel-- was one Italian for every hundred somebody-elses, whomever they might be. The figure can't be fully accurate, considering its HC source; but it might not be far off. Considering the two large recruitments, circa 382-383, by both Gratian and Theodosius, a high percentage of new blood came from the Goths, Alans, Heruli, Vandals, Gepids... three fifths being Germans. But the case is an isolated decade in a Roman millenium.

[Robert Vermaat]

The figure I've heard-- coming from the innacuracies the History Channel-- was one Italian for every hundred somebody-elses, whomever they might be. The figure can't be fully accurate, considering its HC source; but it might not be far off.

1 in 500 Italians! Why just Italians? The Romans consisted of so much more peoples than just Italians. Well, maybe that figure might not be far off the mark, but it's useless when discussing the level of non-Romans in the Roman army.

Considering the two large recruitments, circa 382-383, by both Gratian and Theodosius, a high percentage of new blood came from the Goths, Alans, Heruli, Vandals, Gepids... three fifths being Germans. But the case is an isolated decade in a Roman millenium.

Isolated and again useless, because many of such 'recrcruitments', and others like them, consisted only of 'part-time' troops, who were only recruited for one campaign and dismissed afterwards. Germanic troops in the Roman army came from individual volunteers, drafted non-Romans settled within the Empire or from groups who were obliged by a treaty to provide troops.

[Alanus]

Actually, I said 1 in 100-- five times lower than 500. The term "Italians" came from the History Channel video, titled "The Roman Legions," and actually they claimed it was 1 in 1,000. How the HC people knew they were "Italians," I'm not sure. (Perhaps from diagnostic traces of spagetti sause.) :lol:

I actually agree, the point is useless and could be argued infinitum. However, in the higher ranks of the extremely-late, falling-over-the-cliff period, we see a lot of Richomeres, Ordovacers, Arbogasts, etc., while all the names of the Gauls, Syrians, and Greeks, who served at that time were recorded in fading ink.

The simple point I was trying to make, is that there had to be a significant number of Germans in the Roman military throughout the Imperial period. And-- exactly like you said-- it's impossible to tell the ethnicity of all the Roman soldiers through the ages, with the few exceptions of those with marked funery steles.

[Astiryu1]

It is a TV show but could Rome from HBO be accurate as far as Pullo's background story goes. Seems okay to me but I am no expert. That's why I ask.

[Alanus]

Dunno. :wink:

After my spagetti sauce comment, I'm passing the baton. :roll:

[Robert Vermaat]

Actually, I said 1 in 100-- five times lower than 500. The term "Italians" came from the History Channel video, titled "The Roman Legions," and actually they claimed it was 1 in 1,000. How the HC people knew they were "Italians," I'm not sure. (Perhaps from diagnostic traces of spagetti sause.) :lol:

Ah, my mistake. Or I must have (unconsciously) known that the HC said 1 in 1000 - that would have made my mistake pretty average. :roll:

I actually agree, the point is useless and could be argued infinitum.

Indeed!

However, in the higher ranks of the extremely-late, falling-over-the-cliff period, we see a lot of Richomeres, Ordovacers, Arbogasts, etc., while all the names of the Gauls, Syrians, and Greeks, who served at that time were recorded in fading ink.

Just Germanic individuals who made the army their career, or (in the later 5th c.) were influential due to their background. We also continue to hear Roman names next to these barbarian names (with Stilicho carrrying a Germanic name, but being born and raised 100% Roman). Still later and all the time in the East we al;so find Alanic and Persian names - same mechanism, even though we know for sure that the Army of the East was NOT full of Alans, Goths or Persians.

The simple point I was trying to make, is that there had to be a significant number of Germans in the Roman military throughout the Imperial period. And-- exactly like you said-- it's impossible to tell the ethnicity of all the Roman soldiers through the ages, with the few exceptions of those with marked funery steles.

We agree there. It's just so that many 'popular' tv shows keep repeating that old information that goes back to the 19th century...

It is a TV show but could Rome from HBO be accurate as far as Pullo's background story goes. Seems okay to me but I am no expert. That's why I ask.

No. Especially not for this topic which is 400 year later.

[Astiryu1]

Understood!

[Alanus]

back to you, Vortigern Studies

Good point on mentioning the names found in Eastern Empire's army.
Yet even then, it's impossible to judge ethnicity by a name. Aspar was an Alan (with a Gothic concubine), but his sons had good civilized Roman names.
(Then you have someone like me, 50% Italian with a Scottish surname. :roll: )

It seems that the physical superiority of Germans vs. Romans can be taken with whomever we perceive they may have been, but in truth we'll never really know. The spagetti sauce was cleaned from the plate too long ago.

[Simplex]

...this here seems to be another interesting article. I think I have not read it yet.
Anthropometric Decline of the Roman Empire?
Regional differences and temporal development of the quality of nutrition
in the Roman provinces of Germania and Raetia
from the first century to the fourth century AD
It's here:
[url:2sjzkqpw]http://eh.net/XIIICongress/Papers/Koepke.pdf[/url]
Greez

Simplex
EDIT: OOPS, this has already been mentioned on pg.2. I was at eliminating double files when I ran into it, 's been already on my computer for quite a time. hock: hock:
Ahhhmmm, while I was at it I found a couple of other papers that touch the subjects too:
[url:2sjzkqpw]http://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/59/1/komlos_baten.PDF[/url]
[url:2sjzkqpw]http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/propylaeumdok/volltexte/2010/525/[/url]
[url:2sjzkqpw]http://www.eco.rug.nl/~jacobs/jjdownload/Workshop14May-Koepke.pdf[/url]
[url:2sjzkqpw]http://www.wiwi.uni-tuebingen.de/cms/fileadmin/Uploads/Schulung/Schulung5/Paper/Koepke_Baten.pdf[/url]
[url:2sjzkqpw]http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/011002.pdf[/url]
[url:2sjzkqpw]http://www.meteohistory.org/2005historyofmeteorology2/11koepke_baten.pdf[/url]
Most of the stuff (if not all) is in English. Like I said -- I had no time to go through it yet. :oops:

[Alanus]

Siggi,

I read Kikola Koepke's artice until I discovered this:

"The population of the Roman provinces consists of many different ethnic groups. Did different ethnicities have different genetic height potentials? Physicians, human biologists and anthropologists recently found that genetic factors only play an inferior role for the average height of a population. Environmental determinants are much more important."

In other words, it's what and how well you eat during early childhood that determines your height. Example-- noble Spaniards were taller than the lower class; and the American Plains Indians had the tallest height in the world. (Said mom, "Eat your buffalo meat, and then you can go out and play!") :roll:

If Ms. Koepke is correct, then we are running circles on this present thread. :wink:

aj

[Robert Vermaat]

we are running circles on this present thread. :wink:

I think we are no matter how you put it, since we are now discussing height, which is of course not the same as physical strength. And that can't be measured from a few skeletal remains.

I think we should put this thread to rest or rename it in 'Were the Germans taller than the Romans?'

[Simplex]

Hi,
Alanus -- sometime may running in circles give you 360° of view :mrgreen: (---well, O.K. ---sometimes NOT!)
I ran into parts of this when I cleaned through my files, eliminating doubles. Ironically this brought more to light than a number of searches performed in the "net" . :roll: :oops:
As I said I simply had no time to read through what I had. Maybe half a solution is better than none, so I thought, regarding the time I had invested in vain before, while trying to dig a little deeper.
Robert, -- as far as I'm concerned I just can't keep up the time-consumation right now, so I will rest until I'll (accidentally ??) run into papers/informations that will bring us forward here.
Greez

Siggi

[Paullus Scipio]

Siggi,

I read Kikola Koepke's artice until I discovered this:

"The population of the Roman provinces consists of many different ethnic groups. Did different ethnicities have different genetic height potentials? Physicians, human biologists and anthropologists recently found that genetic factors only play an inferior role for the average height of a population. Environmental determinants are much more important."

In other words, it's what and how well you eat during early childhood that determines your height. Example-- noble Spaniards were taller than the lower class; and the American Plains Indians had the tallest height in the world. (Said mom, "Eat your buffalo meat, and then you can go out and play!") :roll:

If Ms. Koepke is correct, then we are running circles on this present thread. :wink:

aj

It is certainly true that throughout recorded history, heights ( and therefore proportionately, strengths) to an extent have fluctuated up and down, and among different populations - Europeans for example - early populations tended to be quite short ( e.g. archaic Greek males, c. 5'4"/1.6 m), with height increasing in Roman times, then declining again during mediaeval times, rising again in Renaissance/Age of Reason times, declining again with urban industrialisation, then climbing again in 20 th C. ( very broadly speaking, and subject very much to individual populations and their conditions). Clearly this up-and-down movement, and the fact that recorded history is too short a time for genetic effects to play much part tend to favour 'nutrition' as the key factor.)

Several studies point to 'dairy food/meat' as a key factor in better nutrition ( meat availability and the fact that dairy milk is fattier and more nutritious than human milk ), and hence increased height/strength. Clearly genetic factors play a part too, but overall, nutrition seems to be much more important.

[Alanus]

Gentlemen,

I'm certainly willing to put the subject to bed. First, I don't believe we should ever designate anyone as "physically superior;" and secondly, we don't even know who the "Romans" were if we consider the multicultural makeup of that army. Frankly, I'm half Italian, a second generation American. My Italian uncle was a thin 6'2" and my grandfather was short and stubby. I'm "average." (nuk, nuk, nuk) :lol: