Size of Ancient Warriors

About the Conan reference, I thought it was the other way around. I thought Arnold had to do additional training and exercises to be able to swing the massive sword around in a controlled and comfortable manner.

Some of these 2 handed swords were 20lbs or so. Then add the length of the weapon applying leverage against you. To be able to swing that around with control is no small feat. Finally, imagine the muscle endurance to last in prolonged battles. Not a small task. I think the idea of a bunch of teeny weenies running around on the battle field is unlikely. They were probably in the back with the bows and slings.

Remember that there is a whole more that goes into the size of the ‘ideal’ warrior then just how big of a sword they can swing, especially when they are part of an invasionary force (and one that requires the majority of the force to move itself, on foot). First, there is the issue of food, armies eat a lot (understatement of the year), and bigger people (generally) eat more. Second, and this is especially true with formation fighting (like the Romans took part in at the time), when adjacent soldiers are of different size, there is the probability that they don’t work all the well together. As such, having similar sized people makes things easier. For example, I am 6’, if the man to my right is only 5’6", he may not be able to adequately protest my head with his sheild (as was common practice in phalynx fighting), plus, if we were breaching a door, I would have to crouch to maintain equal sheild height, if I were tasked with overhead cover.

Additionally, having a bunch of people of similar size makes outfitting them much easier (my platoon had two guys 6’5" and 300+#, do you have any idea how much effort it took supply to find the proper sized equipment (uniform, boots, body armor). Third, there is a rapid diminishing return on size in infantrymen. The extra (absolute) strength gained by the weight is 1. offset by technology (tools, such as swords, spears, battering rams, etc), 2. all that extra weight has to carried around (remember, infantry walks everywhere they go, unless they have a Bradley <which the Romans didn’t>) 3. If everyone is given, roughly, the same food ration, the bigger guys are likely to fatigue even more quickly, due to undernourishment, 4. Simple numbers overwhelm any advantage from one man’s size (ever watched ants tear apart a spider?).

Along those same lines, the equipment Roman foot soldiers had to carry was not very heavy, and sword, sheild, some water, some dried meat and some almonds (after the invasion of the Andulusian penisula, at least). And, you would be amazed at what relative small people can carry for long distances, go work with either the Korean or Bolivian armies for a few weeks, or just visit Guam.

So, when it is all said, I don’t see ANY advantage to having larg(er) foot soldiers for an offensive army. Note: I am not commenting on gladiators, palace guards, catapult operators (who, undoubtedly had beasts of burden for their equipment), etc. For a real life example of this, check out some photos of any light infantry (Rangers are the best example) unit; all fit, muscular (by average American standards, but not necessarily by T-Nation’s), and relatively skinny (at 6’ they would be between 170-185#, 200# if they have been in for 6-10 years, maybe). Oh, and the average combat load carried by todays US Infantryman is in the neighborhood of 80# (more then any infantrymen has ever had to carry), and their marching loads can be over 120#.

To sum it up, the ‘ideal’ foot soldier would be, 1. big enough to carry his gear and do his job effectively (knowing that no one soldier is expected to be Superman), 2. small enough to not be a waste of resources, and 3. just about the same size as everyone else in his unit.

They say this is why William Wallace was so imposing. They say the size of the average English infantrymen was around 5 foot tall, and Wallace was a giant at…6’7 I think.

This just added to his legend- he was physically much larger than the average Englishman.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
They say this is why William Wallace was so imposing. They say the size of the average English infantrymen was around 5 foot tall, and Wallace was a giant at…6’7 I think.

This just added to his legend- he was physically much larger than the average Englishman.[/quote]

What are you talking about? Mel Gibson is only 5’9 and everyone knows that if its in the movies…its gotta be true!

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Professor X wrote:
elliot007 wrote:

im not sure i get what the debate is really about, does anyone think these guys were tiny? does anyone believe they were as big as arnold?

I think some are very much arguing that these guys were tiny and thusly “more functional”. Otherwise, why the thread?

Some have argued that they looked like this.[/quote]

I am so sick of seeing pictures of those assfucks posted. The mere fact that I know they exist makes it tough to sleep at night…

And what’s with the one in the back? Is he wearing blackface?

Because it’s interesting.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Otherwise, why the thread?[/quote]

Right. Most people compare us to those who lived in Roman times or those who lived a few hundred years ago. The problem with this is they don’t take into account the terrible nutrition in those days.

[quote]Magarhe wrote:

Good post hedo, those height ranges are accurate for romans at the time. However, we humans have NOT grown. Italians are still pretty short. Especially if you go back one generation.

At the time of the Romans, the northern peoples (Germanians, Gauls, scandinavians) were much bigger.

There is plenty of evidence of very big people from those times and earlier, whole races of people who are averaging 6’6" … I realise some people think that isn’t that big, but for an AVERAGE, it is frikkin’ huge. Plus there must always have been the freaks who were exceptional, even the ones who were not suffering giantism.

People in general were about the same as now. People got bigger still around the year 1,000 … then people started shrinking again after about 1350 when this mini ice age kicked in.

People were much smaller from say 1850 to 1920 in industrial places because the food basically stunk and they were poor, and pollution. London for example, you couldn’t see the sky for all the smoke in the late 1800’s.

From the point of evolution, we have hardly changed one tiny bit in 30,000 years, let alone in 2,000 years. The only thing that has changed is diet, lifestyle and knowledge.

Nobody ever said Achilles was a giant of a man. He was never represented as being a giant of a man, just athletic and very skilled.

Given all the above, and the fact that people at the time would have been doing quite a lot of hard labour their whole life, and not everyone was starving or lacking in good food (meat, unpasteurised dairy etc…) and also their love of the Olympics, it is reasonable to assume SOME people must have been rather big. Could they compare to todays’ bodybuilders and all their science? maybe not … could they compare to the bodybuilders of the 1950’s? Quite possibly.

[/quote]

On the discovery channel they said you had to be over 6 foot to be a roman soldier… may or may not be true though

While Googling, I found that apparently the Roman measurement of feet would be different than ours today.

I read something where some guy was saying that the latin source text would mention VI feet, which would only be 5’9" or something.

However, this was from the writings of Vegetius (sp?) and apparently there was some question as to whether or not it was accurate.

Archeology would be another place to go looking for details…

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
They say this is why William Wallace was so imposing. They say the size of the average English infantrymen was around 5 foot tall, and Wallace was a giant at…6’7 I think.

This just added to his legend- he was physically much larger than the average Englishman.[/quote]

I would highly doubt that wallace actually stood out that high. He would have been such an easy target and stood out in battle to such a degree he wouldve been killed at sterling. Are you telling me a man that was a whopping foot and a half taller wouldn’t be an easy target?

The only reason comanding officers in midevil armies like him lived was because they could blend in with the commoners, same armour/clothing/swords.

Theres no doubt he was a big man, but I would say a fair guestimate to be was much smaller than 6’7. More like 5’10. That would still put him as a giant amoung men.

I read that book William Wallace where that author quoted wallace at 6’7.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Professor X wrote:
elliot007 wrote:

im not sure i get what the debate is really about, does anyone think these guys were tiny? does anyone believe they were as big as arnold?

I think some are very much arguing that these guys were tiny and thusly “more functional”. Otherwise, why the thread?

Some have argued that they looked like this.[/quote]

LOL, I bet they all have that same pose on their faces when they’re in their side-by-side tanning beds.

“We be gettin’ our tan on yo.”

Woah. I saw a guy in my gym today that looked just like the third guy from the left except his headband (this at the gym) was light blue. Same spiked hair and everything. I had a double take when I saw his face because it looked so weird from tanning.

And yeah, that kid looks like he is wearing black face.

What was this thread about?

Oh yeah. The swords in the time of Achilles (probably the same time as Mycenae or earlier) were very small…probably about 1.5 feet. They did not use them in the same way as more modern swords. They might have been used to stab an already wounded enemy who was down.

Its actually funny how the Greek heros fought. They had…sort of duals…with spears. Each man would have a spear and a large shield with a spike on the bottom. The two men would get within throwing distance and stick their shields in the ground and hide behind them. They would take turns popping out to throw a spear until one was hit.

None of the Greek heros or gods were depicted as being especially muscular looking, even Heracles. I guess they are kindof like Superman, strong, but not especially muscular.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
They say this is why William Wallace was so imposing. They say the size of the average English infantrymen was around 5 foot tall, and Wallace was a giant at…6’7 I think.

This just added to his legend- he was physically much larger than the average Englishman.[/quote]

I remember hearing something similar about George Washington, he was around 6’4 x 240 when the average Colonial was about 5’5 x 150.

I’ve also heard that Napoleon (Bonaparte NOT Dynamite) was actually quite tall. The British just dissed him by drawing him as a short man.

No proof…just speculation here:

I figure it has to do with what kind of job you had in the military:

If you were a pikeman, you’d have to be massively strong to wield the pike and to deal with the force of a charging horse/rider impacting your weapon and your body.

If you are infantry, it would be as noted before…average height/weight/but quick and agile.

If you were calvalry, I figure tall and lanky (but still strong due to armor wearing and weapon weilding) would be good. This would give you good reach with a melee weapon.

Bowmen probabally wouldn’t matter as long as you are a good shot and can pull the darn thing back.

[quote]PeteK wrote:

I suppose Achilles wasn’t that big in real life after all![/quote]

I have seen this argument over the size of Achilles on this site over and over and over again.

Achilles was about 15 years old at the beginning of the Trojan War, and was of average size and height for a 15 year old BOY. He was exceptionally skilled, or so the Gods predicted, because he had never actually fought in a battle before the war.

So please stop debating how big he was. He was a boy.

the boomster

point of interest re the bowmen - in the medievil times the English were under compulsion by Law that they must practice their longbow skills every sunday after church. The long bow being such a valuable weapon in the english army of the time.

In fact football (ie soccer) was banned for a period, as youths prefered to knock the ball around instead of shooting targets.

Also the V for Victory sign given by Churchhill at the end of WWII is actually a bit of an insult to the french, and back in the French-english wars if an English longbowman was captured, he’d have those 2 fingers cut off and then he was released - as these are the fingers which draw the bow and hold the arrow to the string - so you could say the french were ‘humanly’ destroying the then-longest range artillery known, and not carrying the cost of housing prisoners-of-war.

Back on thread, I travelled through the UK a few yrs ago, visited a few castles and museums - and one noticable point - all the heavy armour on display looked like it had been made for 12yr old kids - 150cms high a lot of the times. Anything bigger was rare.

And this wasn’t just the English, there were displays of Austrian, French, German armour, and short they all were back then.

[quote]JimmyBoom wrote:
PeteK wrote:

I suppose Achilles wasn’t that big in real life after all!

I have seen this argument over the size of Achilles on this site over and over and over again.

Achilles was about 15 years old at the beginning of the Trojan War, and was of average size and height for a 15 year old BOY. He was exceptionally skilled, or so the Gods predicted, because he had never actually fought in a battle before the war.

So please stop debating how big he was. He was a boy.

the boomster[/quote]

But…but don’t many of these guys want to look like 15 year old boys? That makes you more “functional”, right?!

[quote]Velvet Revolver wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
They say this is why William Wallace was so imposing. They say the size of the average English infantrymen was around 5 foot tall, and Wallace was a giant at…6’7 I think.

This just added to his legend- he was physically much larger than the average Englishman.

I would highly doubt that wallace actually stood out that high. He would have been such an easy target and stood out in battle to such a degree he wouldve been killed at sterling. Are you telling me a man that was a whopping foot and a half taller wouldn’t be an easy target?

The only reason comanding officers in midevil armies like him lived was because they could blend in with the commoners, same armour/clothing/swords.

Theres no doubt he was a big man, but I would say a fair guestimate to be was much smaller than 6’7. More like 5’10. That would still put him as a giant amoung men.

I read that book William Wallace where that author quoted wallace at 6’7. [/quote]

There’s a couple sources:

William Wallace also grew up to become a powerful and sturdy young man, with a height of 6 foot 7 inches and a physique to match, he too was a giant of a man. It is often debated that it would have been impossible for such a man to exist in a time when the average height of a man was little over 5 feet.

However, to judge by the clothing and armour of the time it is clear to see that not only was Longshanks a towering figure, even by today’s standards, but so was William Wallace.

http://www.highlanderweb.co.uk/wallace/truth3.htm

This is the sword that is displayed at the Wallace Monument, near Stirling, Scotland. It is five feet long, which supports the legendary tales of the height of William Wallace - supposedly he was over 6’6" tall. In the 14th Century he was described as having the body of a giant, with a pleasing but wild look

http://www.magicdragon.com/Wallace/sword.html

Contemporary chroniclers say that William was a large, powerful man. He reportedly stood more than six and a half feet tall, - a veritable giant at a time when the average height of an infantryman was only slightly more than five feet.

According to the Scotichronicon, William Wallace “was pleasing in appearance but with a wild look ? a tall man with the body of a giant, broad-shouldered and big-boned” - six feet seven inches tall, during an era in which the average male was just over five feet in height.

Wallace’s claymore was as long as most men of the time were tall, and - like the legendary Ulysses - he carried a strongbow that he alone could draw.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1996/vo12no09/vo12no09_braveheart.htm

If the sword that is held in Scotland is indeed Wallace’s sword, then he must have been gigantic.

A 5 1/2 foot sword?

Not too mention that archers didn’t get into close quarters fights- they stood from a distance. So he was an easy target- for other infantrymen, whom he towered above.

Theres no way to know for sure, of course, but it seems pretty well documentd. It is nearly garaunteed that he was over 6’ tall though, and that alone makes him a foot taller than the men he was fighting.

[quote]JimmyBoom wrote:
PeteK wrote:

I suppose Achilles wasn’t that big in real life after all!

I have seen this argument over the size of Achilles on this site over and over and over again.

Achilles was about 15 years old at the beginning of the Trojan War, and was of average size and height for a 15 year old BOY. He was exceptionally skilled, or so the Gods predicted, because he had never actually fought in a battle before the war.

So please stop debating how big he was. He was a boy.

the boomster[/quote]

The guy was also part immortal, of course, being descended from a sea nymph. So debating about the size of Achilles’ muscles is kind of pointless when we don’t know if he existed, we’re only half sure that the war he was in ever happened, and Homer’s stories were passed down orally for generations, so the war may not have gone down as is claimed anyway.

Its like debating how big God’s arms measure.

[quote]Achilles was about 15 years old at the beginning of the Trojan War, and was of average size and height for a 15 year old BOY. He was exceptionally skilled, or so the Gods predicted, because he had never actually fought in a battle before the war.

So please stop debating how big he was. He was a boy.

the boomster[/quote]

I was 6’5 210lbs at age 15. Just a thought…