03-30-2010, 09:11 PM
Hi,
...maybe this could shed a little light into anthropometric issues:
http://eh.net/XIIICongress/Papers/Koepke.pdf
I faintly remember reading a review some time ago on the papers that dealt with the graveyard of Stettfeld (D , NNE of Bruchsal) where there were 2 easily distinguishable types of individuals which, together with the appearances of their skulls could point towards a (smaller) romanesc and (taller) gemanesc type. IIRC the first type was well below 170 cm and the other type decidedly taller (at average ?).
So does this bring us a bit forward in answering the question of physical superiority in a (generally) satisfying way ?
I don't think so.
Was there an effective superiority ? Can we measure it ? Do we have a benchmark for it ?
Well, I think it depends on the context.
Germans, to my knowledge, did not participate in sportive events in those times, so this can't work as a benchmark or whatsoever.
Were they superior in everyday life ? No, except from a small number of "noble" individuals ,they regularly suffered from manutrition really bad, --- this already has been mentioned.
Where they superior in military life ?
It depends. When given a "fair" chance (= no malnutrition, weapons- and tactical drill) they may have had advantages, but, seriously,
do we think that the average roman legionary at the time when they first met german tribes in combat, was not an "elaborate product"
of some 450 years of constant adjusting/evolving of fighting techniques to suit their "corporal appearance" ?
So I wont't bet a nickel on the physical superiority of these Germans.
But what about "motivational superiority" ?
Greez
Simplex
...maybe this could shed a little light into anthropometric issues:
http://eh.net/XIIICongress/Papers/Koepke.pdf
I faintly remember reading a review some time ago on the papers that dealt with the graveyard of Stettfeld (D , NNE of Bruchsal) where there were 2 easily distinguishable types of individuals which, together with the appearances of their skulls could point towards a (smaller) romanesc and (taller) gemanesc type. IIRC the first type was well below 170 cm and the other type decidedly taller (at average ?).
So does this bring us a bit forward in answering the question of physical superiority in a (generally) satisfying way ?
I don't think so.
Was there an effective superiority ? Can we measure it ? Do we have a benchmark for it ?
Well, I think it depends on the context.
Germans, to my knowledge, did not participate in sportive events in those times, so this can't work as a benchmark or whatsoever.
Were they superior in everyday life ? No, except from a small number of "noble" individuals ,they regularly suffered from manutrition really bad, --- this already has been mentioned.
Where they superior in military life ?
It depends. When given a "fair" chance (= no malnutrition, weapons- and tactical drill) they may have had advantages, but, seriously,
do we think that the average roman legionary at the time when they first met german tribes in combat, was not an "elaborate product"
of some 450 years of constant adjusting/evolving of fighting techniques to suit their "corporal appearance" ?
So I wont't bet a nickel on the physical superiority of these Germans.
But what about "motivational superiority" ?
Greez
Simplex
Siggi K.
