|
Hogge Wild posted:I thought that Europeans were also short before the plague, and during the Little Ice Age. Malnutrition! As the Black Death hit Europe, the population size had reached the natural carrying capacity of Europe, as evidenced by the the bringing of marginal lands into cultivation (land that provides less food than is spent farming it) and numerous bread riots across the biggest population centers. In fact, the overpopulation that Europe faced by the 14th century made the Black Death or an another kind of epidemic of similar size a nigh on inevitability. There were just too many people. lollontee fucked around with this message at 07:41 on Jun 29, 2015 |
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 07:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 10:26 |
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Also on height, Romans weren't tiny as they're sometimes portrayed. Southern Europeans have tended to be shorter than Northern Europeans for quite a while, and they also wanted to enhance the barbarity of the barbarians so they always talked about how huge the Germans or whoever were. They probably were larger but not abnormally so. I don't have the data (I don't know if we have the data, all that cremation makes Roman bodies harder to find) but I suspect Romans and modern Italians are genetically about the same and there's not much average height difference. Maybe a couple inches but nothing significant. Hogge Wild posted:I thought that Europeans were also short before the plague, and during the Little Ice Age.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 08:22
|
|
|
I thought the main reason the East handled the Theme system not breaking down was due to the strong "core" compared to the west. Constantinople and the Emperor were the clear overlords of the Eastern Empire, and while there were powerful local landowners individually they couldn't compare to the power of the Emperor and the administration that still existed. In contrast during the early medieval period in the west there was no core city and overall ruler clearly in charge, while the "barbarian" kingdoms were built from the bottom up rather than the top down.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 08:23
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Yeah, they were shorter during the 17th century, I think someone posted a paper on that in the milhist thread. This was still the case into the nineteenth century. Both the British commanders at Jutland were shorter than George Costanza (Jellicoe was 5'5", Beatty was a towering 5'6").
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 08:50
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:This was still the case into the nineteenth century. Both the British commanders at Jutland were shorter than George Costanza (Jellicoe was 5'5", Beatty was a towering 5'6"). Ed: What's their social backgrounds? Would the have been likely to have been malnourished in childhood? HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 09:04 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 09:02
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:heeheeheehee that's adorable Jellicoe was the son of a merchant ship captain, Beatty was part of the Anglo-Irish ruling caste in Ireland. What made the difference probably was that they both entered the Navy's officer training program on the school ship Britannia at the age of 11 or 12, and the diet and conditions they lived in were hardly conducive to robust health. I found the weekly rations for the early Victorian Royal Navy, and although they aren't exactly what Jellicoe and Beatty would have eaten, they're reasonably representative: 7 lbs beef, 7 lbs hardtack biscuit, 3/4 lbs cheese, 3/4 lbs butter, 7 gallons beer, 3 1/2 lbs vegetables, 7/8 pint "spirits", 1 3/4 oz tea, 14 oz sugar, 7 oz cocoa.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 11:51
|
|
|
Also, syphilis tends to stunt your growth and they were in the navy from 11 or 12.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 12:20
|
|
|
Can anybody recommend some good books or articles on military logistics in the Roman Republic (or early empire)? I read one ages ago for Ancient Greece that was quite good but at the time I couldn't find any promising ones done for the Roman world. I think the one I read might have been this: http://www.amazon.com/Alexander-Great-Logistics-Macedonian-Army/dp/0520042727 As I recall the author detailing potential routes for Alexander's army based on geographical setting, e.g. foraging, access to fresh water, and the time it would take to pass an army of X thousand men walking at Y speed through a pass Z wide, etc etc. Even just some books on prevailing military doctrine in the roman republic would be fantastic, like a field manual for army placement in relation to hills or valleys, rivers, etc etc. Lastly, has anybody got any good articles or books on mining in the ancient world? I know the silver mines in Spain were absolutely brutal but I'd love to read more on the general metallurgical process for iron as well - mining (logistics and the physical extraction), transport, refinement, etc etc.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 12:51
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Roman penis size increased over time, as shown by the gradual shift to the spatha instead of the gladius. The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask / Tell > Ask me about Roman/Greek/other ancient history: Roman penis size increased over time, as shown by the gradual shift to the spatha instead of the gladius.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 14:04
|
|
|
The idea that height is genetically determined and was mostly depressed by malnutrition is a pretty simplistic and reductive view to take. For one thing, how "genetic" (that is, heritable) a trait is is always in flux, and is not informative due to the massive range of environments that any heritability study cannot capture. But more to the point, there are a multitude of differences between modern environments and the same environments in antiquity. Think of parasitic load, microbiological differences, and how all those factors of environment would interact with the genome (epigenetics.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:No. Height is mostly genetics and is driven down by malnutrition. Europeans were only unusually short for a fairly short time period during the Industrial Revolution. Peasants ate a pretty good diet and got plenty of exercise, they were generally quite healthy if you didn't have bubonic plague or whatever. This isn't completely true. By most modern standards anyone from the pre-modern era is much shorter and smaller then we are. If you ever get a chance try to put your hand around a legionary sword hilt. I can maybe put three fingers around one on a good day. Basically if we ever create time travel we will stick out like sore thumbs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
I don't understand the bit about putting 3 fingers around the sword hilt. I understood that you're trying to say we're big in comparison but I just can't visualise the example you've given. How would they have been held by a pre-modern soldier? e: Okay, the post a couple down cleared this up. I thought for some reason you were taking about the thickness of the hilt, not the length. I'm not familiar with the sword you're describing, I was picturing a normal Republican-era gladius with no finger-guard or whatever that thing is called, which doesn't really (to my recollection) have a short hilt. Sulla Faex fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:This isn't completely true. By most modern standards anyone from the pre-modern era is much shorter and smaller then we are. If you ever get a chance try to put your hand around a legionary sword hilt. I can maybe put three fingers around one on a good day. This is in fact mostly a function of 20th century nutrition and health care. At the start of the 20th century, the average adult man in the US was about 5'5" tall and weighed 150 pounds. Fans who go to places like Fenway Park in Boston, for example, have trouble fitting into the seats.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:This isn't completely true. By most modern standards anyone from the pre-modern era is much shorter and smaller then we are. If you ever get a chance try to put your hand around a legionary sword hilt. I can maybe put three fingers around one on a good day. Person with a relevant degree addressing the issue. In short, hand size is not really linked to height to begin with, and you have really big hands if you can only fit 3 fingers in a 3 3/4 inch grip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IN85FNc7ssw
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Person with a relevant degree addressing the issue. In short, hand size is not really linked to height to begin with, and you have really big hands if you can only fit 3 fingers in a 3 3/4 inch grip Hand size is very much linked to height. http://www.biomedscidirect.com/878/study_of_correlation_between_human_height_and_hand_length_in_residents_of_mumbai/articlescategories https://ispub.com/IJFS/3/2/7429 http://saspublisher.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/SJAMS-22D773-784.pdf http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v68/n2/full/ejcn2013220a.html This seems like straightforward common sense to me, too, so i'm wondering if there's something I'm missing. The taller you are, the bigger almost everything (ahem) tends to be, because we're built on a proportional body plan.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
I saw the armor of some British (English?) king or another from the 1400's or 1500's. The armor itself barely broke above 5 feet in height, and according to the museum he wasn't accounted a particularly short man for his day. People pre-20th century were shorter, on average, than people today.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
American colonists and post plague pre Little Ice Age Europeans weren't much shorter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:I saw the armor of some British (English?) king or another from the 1400's or 1500's. The armor itself barely broke above 5 feet in height, and according to the museum he wasn't accounted a particularly short man for his day. People pre-20th century were shorter, on average, than people today. Average male European height throughout the Early Middle Ages was 5'8". This is slightly taller than during the Roman period, where the average was about 5'6" (this is partially due to the broader range of peoples and cultures in the Roman Empire). It decreased slightly over time, to a low of about 5'5". On the whole, the public perception of a significant change in human height over time is largely a misunderstanding - nutrition plays the largest role in affecting height. Even when comparing the tallest average Europeans with the shortest (i.e. 21st century v. 18th century) we're talking about a five inch difference, which is similar to the average difference between men and women. http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/medimen.htm Kaal fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Average male European height throughout the Early Middle Ages was 5'8". This is slightly taller than during the Roman period, where the average was about 5'6" (this is partially due to the broader range of peoples and cultures in the Roman Empire). It decreased slightly over time, to a low of about 5'5". On the whole, the public perception of a significant change in human height over time is largely a misunderstanding - nutrition plays the largest role in affecting height. Even when comparing the tallest average Europeans with the shortest (i.e. 21st century v. 18th century) we're talking about a five inch difference, which is similar to the average difference between men and women. I've been amused in researching the history of American football. There are numerous articles crowing about the size of the linemen back in the 1890s. Yale, for example, dominated the league at that time by having a bunch of giants who were all of 5'10" tall and weighed as much as 175 pounds.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
Sulla-Marius 88 posted:Lastly, has anybody got any good articles or books on mining in the ancient world? I know the silver mines in Spain were absolutely brutal but I'd love to read more on the general metallurgical process for iron as well - mining (logistics and the physical extraction), transport, refinement, etc etc. http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Roman-Iron-Industry-Britain/dp/0752468650
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
How far did the ancient Egyptians explore? Why didn't they set up colonies?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
goose fleet posted:How far did the ancient Egyptians explore? Why didn't they set up colonies? Presumably they circumnavigated Africa. As for colonies, any place other than Egypt was inferior to Egypt itself so Egyptians had no interest in living anywhere else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I've been amused in researching the history of American football. There are numerous articles crowing about the size of the linemen back in the 1890s. Yale, for example, dominated the league at that time by having a bunch of giants who were all of 5'10" tall and weighed as much as 175 pounds. While the average has only slightly increased, the extremes, particularly in athletic endeavor, have dramatically shifted. People with far right on the bell curve bodies would once typically have little to no opportunity to apply them; people like Micheal Phelps might have been stuck farming for most of history but even more recently might not have been able to have access to swimming pools to discover their extreme specializations. Now more then any other time in history, if you have a very tall body you have the most opportunity to apply it to basketball, for example.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Ancient Egypt seems like it was a very inward looking and conservative society compared to, say, the Greeks. Their civilization centered around a river that was fantastic for producing food, which means there's not much incentive for colonies. And this is an immensely ancient and resilient civiization: Egyptian religion, for one, implies a very long-term view of an unchanging life. They had mummies for a reason. Upper and Lower Egypt was first unified before 3000 BC. This is not to say it's perfect continuity of civlization, and of course there's going to be change, upheaval, and migration, but Egyptians fought Assyrians before Athens and Rome were cities.
BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
Hateshput supposedly sent out Indian Ocean expeditions. Not that that was Terra Incognita, the Sumerians were trading with India as well, but they did try to see what was around them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:While the average has only slightly increased, the extremes, particularly in athletic endeavor, have dramatically shifted. People with far right on the bell curve bodies would once typically have little to no opportunity to apply them; people like Micheal Phelps might have been stuck farming for most of history but even more recently might not have been able to have access to swimming pools to discover their extreme specializations. Now more then any other time in history, if you have a very tall body you have the most opportunity to apply it to basketball, for example. Basketball? Psh, weak moderns. Tall men should properly be abducted to serve in a Prussian fetish regiment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:I saw the armor of some British (English?) king or another from the 1400's or 1500's. The armor itself barely broke above 5 feet in height, and according to the museum he wasn't accounted a particularly short man for his day. People pre-20th century were shorter, on average, than people today. See this is my point, it's become commonly accepted mythology. People have, generally, been getting larger over time but the difference is not that significant. I'll use my personal experience with different heights. I'm from the US, where the average height is 178 cm. I am 182, so that feels about right. Tall-ish but not anything special. I then lived in Korea, with an average height of 175. That also feels right, the experience was about the same as the US. Now China, with an average height of 169. That number isn't accurate to my experience, as I'm in south China and people here are a lot shorter than in the north. Say it's more like 164. That is a significant difference--I can almost always see both ends of any subway train I'm on and I rarely see anyone my height or taller (except for people under 25-ish, who haven't been malnourished and are noticeably taller). That's why I think even though there isn't a massive difference, it appeared as such in writing and we've gotten this impression. 165 vs 175 is not objectively that much but it can feel like a lot, especially if you're the 165 guy and the 175 guy has an axe. E: Asia's a good place to see the difference in nutrition too. Old people in Korea are the size of elementary schoolers, while their grandchildren are average American size. The grandchildren had food, the grandparents did not. Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 00:35 on Jun 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
sullat posted:Hateshput supposedly sent out Indian Ocean expeditions. Not that that was Terra Incognita, the Sumerians were trading with India as well, but they did try to see what was around them. Afaik Hatshepsut stands out in history as one of the more outward-minded pharaohs though. Her sending out multiple major trade expeditions seems to have been viewed by contemporaries as a big deal and very active foreign policy. Also Punt probably wasn't India, more likely Arabia or the Horn of Africa. It's reported as really far away because the Egyptians were apparently terrible sailors. As for why they didn't set up overseas colonies, why would they? Every aspect of Egyptian civilization was adapted to the Nile, the best agricultural land in the known world, so they focused their expansion on inching upriver into Kush/Nubia where all their technology and skills could be practically applied. The effort needed to conquer distant lands was better spent trading with them or occasionally raiding them for plunder.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
Reading this thread reminds of all the stuff I read about the Crusades for my thesis. Basically, reading the Islamic accounts of the Franks is pretty much the same as reading Roman accounts of the Germanic peoples: they're huge, hulking barbarians who are really good at killing people but not, you know, civilized.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
Mr.Morgenstern posted:Reading this thread reminds of all the stuff I read about the Crusades for my thesis. Basically, reading the Islamic accounts of the Franks is pretty much the same as reading Roman accounts of the Franks: they're huge, hulking barbarians who are really good at killing people but not, you know, civilized. Not surprising since they're basically the same people separated by not even a thousand years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 02:24
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Not surprising since they're basically the same people separated by not even a thousand years. Sound logic if ever there was any.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:This isn't completely true. By most modern standards anyone from the pre-modern era is much shorter and smaller then we are. If you ever get a chance try to put your hand around a legionary sword hilt. I can maybe put three fingers around one on a good day. You assume these (Spatha, Gladius, Viking) swords were used in a hammer grip, which apparently was not necessarily the case: http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=2478 Decius fucked around with this message at 06:33 on Jun 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 06:31
|
|
|
This looks perfect, thank you!
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 12:21
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:I saw the armor of some British (English?) king or another from the 1400's or 1500's. The armor itself barely broke above 5 feet in height, and according to the museum he wasn't accounted a particularly short man for his day. People pre-20th century were shorter, on average, than people today. We have one of the largest armor collections here in Vienna, and the shitload of suits that are on display here would fit visitors without a problem when it comes to height. Suits of my height (170cm) aren't so numerous. The smaller ones are either for kids or adolescents. Also paraphrasing Rodrigo with this, who suggested that people often mistake them for suits for fully grown men.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 13:04
|
|
|
How much of the armor is intact? What time period is this from? I'm curious about how much of the armor is made of materials that can decay and how much that changes over different varieties of armor and different times.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 13:41
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:We have one of the largest armor collections here in Vienna, and the shitload of suits that are on display here would fit visitors without a problem when it comes to height. Suits of my height (170cm) aren't so numerous. The smaller ones are either for kids or adolescents. Also paraphrasing Rodrigo with this, who suggested that people often mistake them for suits for fully grown men.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 13:52
|
|
|
aren't height measurements usually done by examining human remains from the period in question?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 14:07
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:aren't height measurements usually done by examining human remains from the period in question? You can look at certain types of record where heights are usually taken - military entrance is a common one.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 14:10
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:That's why I think even though there isn't a massive difference, it appeared as such in writing and we've gotten this impression. 165 vs 175 is not objectively that much but it can feel like a lot, especially if you're the 165 guy and the 175 guy has an axe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 14:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 10:26 |
|
physeter posted:Picked up from a Goldsworthy book: height difference and the psychological impact during close combat may have explained the ancient obsession with helmets. I mean, if you think about it, all you really need if enough random metal/leather to cover your head and not get in the way. But classical helmets were like Gothic cathedrals, festooned with all kinds of poo poo like feathers and horse tails and whatever else. The thought here is that it worked as a pure intimidation tactic, not because it made the guy look fierce, but because it made him look taller. I recall that tall helmets also had a defence benefit beyond pure intimidation, but the exact argument isn't coming to me. Something about how by making the person look a solid foot taller, it confuses the attacker and strikes tend to be a foot taller than they should be..?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 14:39
|
|