Login

06-12-2002, 02:08 AM

Hello all, 
 
I'm interested in the collective knowledge of everyone here regarding a big a "head scratcher" in Roman History that I ran into.... 
 
From childhood onward I've always been interested in History and have seen many forts and suits of armor and castles in Europe, North America etc etc. Pretty much everywhere I went the tour guide told us that the reason that the doorways were so low, the beds so short, the medieval armor so small, was because people back then were just much shorter than we are today.(made sense at the time) 
 
If logic dictates we would assume then the further back in history we go the smaller things/people should have been. Then I'm glancing through a Peter Connolly book on the Roman Legionnaire and how the minimum requirements to join were being 5' 10"!!! Now that in my opinion is not that short! huh?? 
 
If this is true and not a typo and everyone was even shorter in Ancient times(than in the medieval times) than the height restrictions would have eliminated many many people from joining, which doesn't suit Roman recruitment style IMO. 
 
So this goes out to everyone who's seem Roman architecture, helmets etc etc. Is this stuff small? or what the heck went on in the middle ages?? 
 
 
cheers 
Markus 
 
P.S My theory is two fold. Either Peter Connolly(a reputable Roman enthusiest) is wrong, or there is some difference between races. IE. perhaps the Romans were a taller people than all the Europeans who later built castles and forts etc...... 
 
P.P.S Or perhaps diet and nutrition lacked in the dark/medieval days as opposed to the more prosperous Antiquity?

06-12-2002, 02:29 AM

Well, Caesar writes that the Gauls and Germans his army faced during his Gallic campaign were on average larger than the Roman legionaries. I get the impression that the Romans were in general smaller in stature than many other European peoples who were the founders of many European medieval nations. Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/uauxilia.showPublicProfile?language=EN>Auxilia</A> at: 6/12/02 5:02:04 am

06-12-2002, 05:22 AM

The same 'paradox' occurred to me a while ago. I eventually found a reference that the Romans had two linear measurment systems. The official system for heights (I can't recall the actual name) used a 'foot' which was shorter than our imperial/american foot. So a 5' 11" roman was actually about 5' 5" (165cm) by todays standards. Try www.covert-it.com for converting roman feet to modern feet/inches.

***Praefectusclassis*** · 06-12-2002, 05:28 AM

There's been an earlier thread about tall Romans and small Medieval people, but I can't seem to find it now. Anyway, the Roman measures become slightly less impressive when you realize a Roman foot is a bit smaller than an English one, the Roman being about 29.6 cm. Davies by the way suggests that from Suetonius mention of the 6-feeters in Legio I Italica means that that was very unusual and that the average recruit was probably slightly smaller. And there appear to have been different height regulations for different units: soldiers in the alae and the Ist cohort of a legion were supposedly taller. The troops in the Praetorian guard had to be tall too, in the time of Hadrian it is recorded that a man was rejected for service in the Guard and had to join an Urban Cohort when it was found that he was only five Roman feet six inches tall. A later passage from the Theodosian Code states that the normal minimum in AD 367 was five Roman feet seven inches. This may have something to do with the lowered attractiveness of joing the army and the resulting lower standards. 
 
See: R.Davies, 'Joining the Roman Army', in: idem, Service in the Roman Army (Edinburgh 1989) Greets 
 
JasperEdited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ujasperoorthuys.showPublicProfile?language=EN>Jasper Oorthuys</A> at: 6/12/02 7:51:46 am

Gregg · 06-12-2002, 06:47 AM

It can all be more than a bit confusing. Keep in mind that the Roman descriptions of Germans and "Celts" tended to fit the established stereotypes of Northern barbarians, even among those with first-hand experience. 
 
Current scientific theories (as I understand them) suggest that an individual's size is determined 90% by heredity and 10% by external factors. The northern barbarian warriors faced by the Romans may have been made up of a tribal warrior elite and nobility, who would have been better fed and probably healthier from birth than the average tribal "serf" classes. These healthy individuals, whose diet probably contained a very high concentration of animal protein, may have been able to reach the optimum height of their "ethnic group" (not "race," which is a myth). By the above calculation, if the average height of a German or Gaulic "serf" was 5' 1", the height of the healthy, well fed warrior elite would have been about 5' 7". 
 
These numbers are just arbitrary, as I have no idea what the "average" height of barbarians from that period may have been, or if anyone has ever done studies on existing skeletons to determine this. I should think, however, that since the Romans tended to immolate their dead, determining the height of the "average" Roman of this period would be somewhat difficult. 
 
However, I have quite a bit of hearsay info (that is, I can't find references for it, it's drawn entirely from my admittedly faulty memory and therefore is of dubious value) that might nevertheless be of some interest. I remember reading some years ago that after the Second World War the amount of meat protein in the Japanese diet increased dramatically, and the height of the average Japanese adult consequently increased by something like a foot. 
 
I've also read (and this I can reference) that the average height of an English male in the Middle Ages was 5ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ 6Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¾". 
 
I also heard (this again from memory) that the "average" size of Migration-era Germans (and I'm not sure if this applies to the warrior elite of just your average Herm barbarian) was between 5' 2" and 5' 4". 
 
I've also heard that the average Viking (and again, I'm not sure if this was the warrior or farmer, though in that culture at least there may not have been any difference) averaged about 5' 7", the same height as the average American serviceman in World War II. 
 
From what I recall (and here I'm just being lazy as I could just reach over and look up the reference), according to Vegetius the desirable height for a legionary in the early Empire and possibly the Republic was 6 Roman feet (5ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ 10ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â

06-12-2002, 07:38 AM

Salve, 
 
The height of the Roman soldier whose skeleton was found at Velsen was over 1.90. Research of skeletal remains from Italy in the Naples region showed that average adult height was a couple of inches over the present day average (Dyson, Community and society in Roman Italy). 
 
The sources for regulation stature of Roman troops in Vegetius and the legal codes. 
 
 Epitoma 1.5 
 
 Proceritatem tironum ad incommam scio semper exactam, ita ut VI pedum vel certe V et X unciarum inter alares equites vel in primis legionum cohortibus probarentur. Sed tunc erat amplior multitudo, et plures militiam sequebantur armatam; necdum enim civilis pars florentiorem abducebat iuventutem. Si ergo necessitas exigit, non tam staturae rationem convenit habere quam virium. ... 
 
'I understand that always the tallness of recruits was required to be to a regulation height in such a way that those of six feet or at least five foot ten inches were approved for service in the horsemen of the alae or in the first cohorts of the legions. But then there used to be a greater number, and many did military service: since not yet was the civil service taking away the flower of the youth. If therefore necessity demands it, it is good to take into account not so much height as strength. ...' 
 
The taller recruits were selected for elite units, while those below the standard could apparently serve in other units. 
 
 Codex Theodosiana 7.13.3 
 
 Idem AA ad magnum vicarium urbis Romae. In quinque pedibus et septem unciis usualibus delectus habeatur. Dat v kal mai Lupicino et Iovino conss (27th of april 367). 
 
'The same emperors to the great vicar of the city of Rome. A levy must be held of those of five feet and seven inches. On the fifth day before the kalends of may when Lupicinus and Iovinus were consul' 
 
The text does not specify that these conscripts are to serve in elite formations and may give an indication of what was considered desirable for average troops. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=sandervandorst>Sander van Dorst</A> at: 6/12/02 9:41:54 am

Goffredo · 06-12-2002, 07:42 AM

Are you assuming people get taller as time progresses? Is that a fundamental law of nature? "If medievals were short (go to any castle and check out beds and of course armour) then the ancients must have been equal in height or shorter, certainly not taller!" Is that the statement and source of paradox? 
 
There might even be confusion as to what the absolute lenght of a roman foot, but that should have been accounted for sometime ago and I don't expect real suprises. The romans standarized things quite a bit so the absolute length of a roman foot should be easy to check. I would be surprised to hear there is a real debate here. Am I wrong here? Anyone? 
 
My suggestion is instead to refer to studies that have "checked the bones" and consider only theories based on good data and with much wisdom (furniture and armour size are very telling but they are also biased). I am not an expert but I am convinced that systematic studies of bones of ancients throughout history have interesting and, above all, non banal things to say. The romans burned their dead? Not always and then there is Pompei and other finds. The fellow found with his pet dog in the shipwreck find in Pisa was quite tall and apparently not german. I was witness to a dig of an ancient grave yard in my home town in Vicenza of an intact male skelton late empire or high medieval period. I didn't have a tape measure and didn't want to bother the archeologists (I was a sneak-in univited guest) but the skelton certainly looked LONG and I bet my family jewels he would NOT have fit in the medieval beds in the castles on display in the province of my city! But single cases are not the basis of scientific accounts. Pompei offers a large sample set and is significant. But even Pompei might have a bias! (see the post script)Always check for biases. 
 
Of course height correlates with nutrition as well as other things (diseases in youth during development stages hence hygiene.), and this is not an exciting discovery of 21st century science! There is no paradox and never was. I knew the average height of the european population did not change montonically (i.e. went up and down, not just up up and up) over history ever since I was 13, a hell of a long time ago. 
 
Being a medival Lord did not necessarily garantee that the person was healthy or tall. The medieval world was also colder and that certainly had an influence in the health of the general population, Lords included. The very fact the population of europe decreased only to increase later means something, doesn't it? No paradox. 
 
And as everyone should know the statistical parameter called "average" does not describe the "tails" of fluctuations around the average. The average calculated using the upper class might be different from that of the farmers or slaves, and all can be affected by climate, hygiene, disease, you name it. The roman army standarized recruit selection? I have read they did. What was the selection interval? Vegetius says this and that. Fine. Where is the paradox? 
 
p.s. "Romans" but from where? Latins from the City, Southern Italics, Tuscans, Northern Cisalpine Gauls, southern Gauls, northern Gauls, Illyrians, Syrians, Iberians? Different genes, different diet, different climate and diseases. 
Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ugoffredo.showPublicProfile?language=EN>goffredo</A> at: 6/12/02 3:43:05 pm

06-12-2002, 10:37 AM

From what I've heard, the misconception about medieval people being short comes from the fact that some of the armour found were actually display models, made somewhat smaller for reasons of cost and time of manufacture. 
Northern people are generally blond and tall and southern people usually short and brown. That's a fact of life. I think it was exactly the same then. The statue of the dying gaul and several others. depicting "barbarians" do not show short people but tall, strong individuals with distinctly "non-latin" features. Actually that dying gaul looks so french it's frightening.. E EM 
I am also thinking about two magnificent statues of Dacian nobles in the Louvre museum. Here again: tall, athletic men, with distinct "northern" features (vertical brow, strong eyebrows and short straight nose). 
Granted, living conditions were worlds apart between slaves and masters. The bodies found at Herculaneum demonstrarted that clearly. The body of a slave had fused vertebrae and clear signs of malnutrition and total lack of health care. The skeleton of a young noble woman was on the contraty that of a healthy, well fed, well cared for person, with perfect teeth. (No sugar then...). 
I don't know whether it's relevant but I am 1,73 meters tall, that's about regulation size for a legionary. When I was young, I was a little above average in a crowd. Now I am down to about ear high. Younger generations are definitely taller, no doubt because they're well fed --too much sometimes-- and well taken care of. 30 years ago in France, six footers were rare. Now they're commonplace among teenagers.

06-12-2002, 11:06 AM

Hearsay warning! 
I can't remember exactly where I read this but, for what it's worth, here goes: 
Some five to ten years ago there was an excavation of a medieval (ca.1200, I believe) burial ground at Svendborg, Denmark. There was quite a stir when it was discovered that the avarage height of the men was about 180 cm (barely 6"). It was suggested that that was because of diet (Svendborg is a coastal town: Fish-protein). I would think that the short stature of people was maybe something that started in the late middle ages, with urbanisation and restrictions on hunting, etc. I'm reasonably sure that by the renaissance there was a marked difference in height of the different classes, presumably because of diet. 
I tend to think of "ancient" peoples as not that different from us, so that might explain some of my bias :-)

Goffredo · 06-12-2002, 12:17 PM

The most important fact of life that dominates in that corner of the eurasian continent called europe is that people and genes have been mixing for some time, even before written history (prehistory). To insist in thinking, even implicitely as most people do, that the fall of rome was the beginning of a momentous influx or tidal wave of new genes is false as the invading barbarians were far less numerous. The gene mixing was and IS a constant of this part of the world ever since pre-historic times, way before the Franks, the Visigoths, or anyone else 1500 years ago decided to seduce a "roman" woman or rest with a "roman" adonis. 
 
The "romans" of Rome were not all short and dark skinned simply because the gene pool was already quite varied. Italy in particular had been invaded many times before Rome and northern genes had already arrived. To even think romans as short and dark skinned is ridiculous. Was Pompey not a roman simply because he was blonde and didn't have olive skin? I have said this before and will repeat it until hell freezes over if necessary. 
 
Regards the statement that "northerners are tall and southerners are short" is a "fact of life", I feel the variables and the history involved are far more complex than this funny phrase does justice. 
Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ugoffredo.showPublicProfile?language=EN>goffredo</A> at: 6/12/02 2:19:21 pm

06-12-2002, 01:41 PM

Salve, 
 
The blond or reddish hair, rutilae comae, mentioned by Tacitus in Germania 4 was not always natural. A hair dye used by Romans was called spuma Batava or Batavian foam (Martialis, Epigrammata 8.33) and Iulius Civilis, leader of the Batavian revolt grew his hair and beard as well as dying it red according to Tacitus Historiae 4.61 (text and translation). Plinius the Elder also records use of sapo, a Gallic invention used by Germanic men to colour their hair. 
 
 Naturalis Historia 28.51 
 
 Potest et sapo, Galliarum hoc inventum rutilandis capillis. Fit ex sebo et cinere, optimus fagino et caprino, duobus modis, spissus ac liquidus, uterque apud Germanos maiore in usu viris quam feminis 
 
' Sapo ('soap') is also useful, an invention of the Gauls to dye hair red. It is made from tallow and ash, the best from goat fat and beechwood ash, in two manners, one solid and one liquid, both of which are in greater use by the Germanics by men than women' 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=sandervandorst>Sander van Dorst</A> at: 6/12/02 3:42:48 pm

06-12-2002, 02:07 PM

Pompey was a cisalpine gaul. Just looking at his busts will show you that. That man was a Celt if there ever was one. 
The fact that northern Europeans are tall and blonde and southern Europeans short and brown --statistically speaking-- is a fact. 
And yes, you can also find tall, blonde people in latin countries. I even met some tall blonde and red haired flemish looking people in Syria. 
But I am afraid that you'll have more chances finding tall, blonde people in Stockholm than in Palermo, or even in Milan or Torino. 
Besides, Goffredo, what you describe in the north african type, not the latin type. 
Also, if the noble and fashionable roman ladies bought blonde wigs made from german women's hair, obviously it's because statistically they had brown hair and the Germans had blonde hair. That's a fact.

Goffredo · 06-12-2002, 02:42 PM

Your insistence troubles me slightly. A fact. 
But at least there is agreement that the roman Pompey was a celt. Another fact. But then maybe he just dyed his hair! 
 
By the way I personally think the busts I have seen (many, believe me) of romans, male or female, do not look very much like the stereotypical italian types that one sees in the movies or in those parts of Italy that migrated to North America (where many movies are made). This is not a fact, just a personal impression not unlike who recognizes in the statue of the mortally wounded galatian the likes of his next door neighbour. 
 
cheers Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ugoffredo.showPublicProfile?language=EN>goffredo</A> at: 6/12/02 6:00:45 pm

TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS · 06-12-2002, 03:07 PM

Dyeing hair blonde, uhmm... The same thing happens right now in Roma and in Italy (even if for older ladies and less during these last years). That's a thing about the women I've never understood: personally I prefer them if brown or black haired 
 
Ualete, 
 
Titus Sabatinus Aquilius

06-12-2002, 04:01 PM

I saw an evoutionary timeline in a book titled Strange Stories and Amazing Facts that showed how the heights of people have cycled over the milennia. I don't think the racial contexts were taken into consideration, though. 
 
I do remember people of medieval times being shown on the timeline as averaging 5'5" in height while their antecedants were taller. 
_________________________________________________ 
VTINAM MODO SVBIVNCTIVO NVNQVAM MALE VTARIS 
_________________________________________________

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me