Height of a Roman Legionary

[Anonymous]

Could anyone tell me if there were any records of height restrictions in the roman armies. If so did they have to be above a certain height or below a certain height. cheers <p></p><i></i>

[Guest]

Salve,<br>
<br>
There were height requirements, though these could be waived when recruits were urgently needed. There was no maximum height. This question has popped up in several earlier threads, but here are the main sources once again:<br>
<br>
Suetonius, <i> Vita Neronis</i>, 19<br>
<br>
<i> ... Parabat et ad Caspias portas expeditionem conscripta ex Italicis senum pedum tironibus nova legione, quam Magni Alexandri phalanga appellabat...</i><br>
<br>
'...He also prepared for an expedition to the Caspian gates having levied a new legion from Italian recruits of six feet, which he used to call the phalanx of Alexander the Great...'<br>
<br>
Vegetius, <i> Epitoma rei militaris</i> 1.5<br>
<br>
<i> 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><br>
<br>
'I understand that always the tallness of recruits was pushed up 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 <i> alae</i> 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. ...'<br>
<br>
<i> Codex Theodosiana</i> 7.13.3<br>
<br>
<i> Idem AA ad magnum vicarium urbis Romae. In quinque pedibus et septem unciis usualibus delectus habeatur. Dat v kal mai Lupicino et Iovino conss</i> (27th of april 367).<br>
<br>
'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'<br>
<br>
NB, measurements are in Roman feet (either of 294mm or 332mm).<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=sandervandorst>Sander van Dorst</A> at: 7/1/02 12:10:13 pm<br></i>

[Anonymous]

Thanks for that, it was just what i wanted cheers <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

6 foot is considered tall. Now if the Roman legionaries averaged around 5'10" to 6', how tall would the Celts and Germans have been in order for battle records to state that the Romans were greatly intimidated by both the ferocity and <i> size</i> of the 'barbarians'? I was under the impression that the Romans were generally smaller in stature than their barbarian enemies. If the Roman legionaries were approximately 6 feet tall, that implies that the Celts and Germans were on average taller than 6 foot. Is this correct? <p></p><i></i>

[Guest]

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>

[Anonymous]

"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."<br>
<br>
Doesent that depend on the sharpness of the fruit? wander if any tests have ever been done? <p></p><i></i>

[Guest]

Salve,<br>
<br>
See <i> Blackadder goes forth</i>, episode <i> Goodbyee</i>.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Auxilia Said:<br>
"6 foot is considered tall. Now if the Roman legionaries averaged around 5'10" to 6', how tall would the Celts and Germans have been in order for battle records to state that the Romans were greatly intimidated by both the ferocity and size of the 'barbarians'?"<br>
<br>
Six Roman feet is less than six modern feet. From what I gather this equals roughly 5'8". This height is a bit more modest...especially for an Italian! <p></p><i></i>