I was reading a book the other day entitled (if I recall correctly) "The UNOFFICIAL Legionary's Handbook" which seemed to be a mixture of humour and fairly accurate information relating to first century AD legionary life.
I seem to recall that one of the criteria to be accepted into a legion was a height of 5'10"... can anyone confirm if this was a fact? Or was it just humour?
Thanks,
-R
--------
Ross
[url="http://galeforcearmoury.blogspot.com"] Working on a segmentata.[/url]
I am soooo resisting saying, "Just tall enough to see over the scutum". But that would be, well, you know.
Remember that a Roman foot is about 11 inches of our feet, Six Roman feet are 66", that is, 5'6" US.
Vegetius recorded that 5'10 (Roman)was the ideal minimum height, but you can be pretty sure that when the need was great, shorter people were surely accepted into the army.
I don't think there was any such exact height criteria expected for a legionary, but anyone being too short or too tall to perform well with their unit would be excluded from service.
I think we should base the limit on common knowledge and artifacts of human remains found claimed to be Roman soldiers. In ancient times, people were limited to certain nutrition's, so the average height wasn't as tall as today's average. Romans were considered at the time shorter than the average person, and those barbarians were considered by the Romans as giants. I would think that the average Roman was no taller than 5'10". I hope this answers much,
Worthwhile measurements were recorded from nine crania and ten mandibles associated with the crania. Of these, eight were male skulls, and two female. The cephalic indices of the male ranged from 70.0mm to 78. 1mm, with a mean of 75. 1mm. The mean cephalic index compares well with the 74.4mm (Belgae), 75.6mm (Dobunni), and 75.7mm (Brigantes) of the Romano-British period (Goodman & Morant 1940). The mean also compares very well with the male Romans from Great Caster-ton - 75.0mm (Denston 1970).
The reconstructed stature of four females ranged from 1.543m (5ft 0¾in) to 1.613m (5ft 3½in) with a mean of 1.562m (5R 1½in). The stature for the males ranged from 1.619m (5ft 3¾in) to 1.803m (5ft 11in), with a mean of 1.714m (5ft 7½in). The mean stature for the males is 6mm (¼in) shorter than that for the males at Great Casterton - 1.720m (5ft 7¾in), and 38mm (1½in) in excess of the 1.676m (5ft 6in) of males from Maiden Castle (Trevor 1954). The mean of 1.562m (5ft 1½in) for the females is 32mm (1¼in) more than the 1.530m (5ft 0¼in) for the combined
Now, if we knew which part of the skull was being measured...
Note also that the Roman skeletons at Great Casterton are cited as being on average 5' 7¾". This is also a common height from the other sources I have found, which I'll post once I've finished my searching.
A report on remains from a suburbia in Rome puts the average male Roman height from a 1st/2nd C necropolis at 166.6 cm (just over 5' 6" I believe).
Quote:I was reading a book the other day entitled (if I recall correctly) "The UNOFFICIAL Legionary's Handbook" which seemed to be a mixture of humour and fairly accurate information relating to first century AD legionary life.
Roman soldiers were not average for Roman society, and, thus, cannot be considered in the light of average statistics. I have heard that the Velsen soldier was anywhere from 6' 1" to 6' 5".
"In war as in loving, you must always keep shoving." George S. Patton, Jr.
Quote:Roman soldiers were not average for Roman society, and, thus, cannot be considered in the light of average statistics. I have heard that the Velsen soldier was anywhere from 6' 1" to 6' 5".
How so can Roman legionaries not be considered average for Roman society? Since they themselves were just regular citizens who decided to enlist. Legionaries were not a hereditary class. And yes we do have examples of soldiers, being above average height, such as the Velsen soldier, though wasn't he considered to be a local auxiliary soldier rather than a true Roman citizen (whom the vast majority were of Italian orgin)
Greetings, A pair of Caligae from CUT are very large somewhat larger then European 47 UK 13 although relatively narrow, I believe there's also a large carbatina(again 13)in the British Museum, if foot size is in anyway related to physical height these were tall men, but at least as far as shoes go rare.
I think average foot and head size today is higher then in the roman world generally with both men and women being smaller on average, local living conditions and health during childhood are likely to have a greater or lesser effect though, so it doesnt suprise me that the Germans for example were considered taller (ie town living as opposed to rural farmers).
The minimum height for enlistement and does this reflect the average height of the male population though is a good question, here I can only give examples of more recent times, in 1914 the enlistment minimum height was around 5'6"(AEF were taller at 5'7" minimum) for the major combatants however this was reduced pretty rapidly as casualties mounted eventually dropping as low as 5' by mid war or earlier.
Perhaps the situation is this the Average Roman soldier is taller or above average height then the Average roman Male poulation, but this probarbly wouldnt be noticable unless you have a large body of men together it would also allow a certain standardisation of kit, a few shoe sizes for example would likely fit the majority of a unit allowing easier mass production and supply.
Ivor
Ivor
"And the four bare walls stand on the seashore. a wreck a skeleton a monument of that instability and vicissitude to which all things human are subject. Not a dwelling within sight, and the farm labourer, and curious traveller, are the only persons that ever visit the scene where once so many thousands were congregated." T.Lewin 1867
My understanding is that Romans were considerably shorter than your average Briton and that the average 'current' Britain is 5'9" (2011) so I would guess that the average legionary was significantly shorter than a current 5'9".
"This table, now in the Museum of Lepcis Magna, was used for measures: you can see the Punic cubit of 51.5 cm, the Roman foot of 29.6 cm, the Ptolemaic cubit of 52.5 cm, and their subdivisions."
Based on this a six foot roman would be 69.9 inches tall or 5ft 10 inches approx, at least in Lepcis Magna...
Ivor :wink:
Ivor
"And the four bare walls stand on the seashore. a wreck a skeleton a monument of that instability and vicissitude to which all things human are subject. Not a dwelling within sight, and the farm labourer, and curious traveller, are the only persons that ever visit the scene where once so many thousands were congregated." T.Lewin 1867
Based on this a six foot roman would be 69.9 inches tall or 5ft 10 inches approx, at least in Lepcis Magna...
Ivor :wink:
...is 177,5 cm
Ah yes thoughs new fangled measurements keep creeping in dont they
Ivor
"And the four bare walls stand on the seashore. a wreck a skeleton a monument of that instability and vicissitude to which all things human are subject. Not a dwelling within sight, and the farm labourer, and curious traveller, are the only persons that ever visit the scene where once so many thousands were congregated." T.Lewin 1867
