The size of knights

[Benjamin Parker]

According to the knight vs. samurai article real armor would have fit men who were just under six feet to six five. I also read that roman soldiers supposed to be six feet tall is that true? were the inches different than ours?

[Sal Bertucci]

That's not exactly what it said. Here's the exact quote.

Although, we can't discount physiology as a factor and this reasonably would be an advantage for the European (16th century samurai armor examples are sized for men around 5'3"-5'5", while European armor from the same period and earlier would fit men ranging from just under 6' to about 6'5"). Although, other evidence suggests average European heights in the 16th century were just above 5 feet.

These are examples taken from museums, but that doesn't mean that it's typical FOR EVERY PERSON.

[s_taillebois]

The dead at Towton averaged about 5'-7" although many may not have been of the titled class. On average the soldiers and others who went down with the Mary Rose were that same average of 5'7".
However there were some differences in the structure of the body, especially in the bone mass and protrusions of the arm. Those who likely used swords, bills and etc had bone structure on the arm of equal mass. Those who may have been archers had differential changes from the right to left arm. So although they may have been close to the modern height averages their build and general look may have been quite different.
Much of the easily available information on this manner of question could be obtained from the "Blood Red Roses" research on the dead at Towton.
Another source would be the Knight of Bes, for whom they have a relatively well preserved body (he was covered in honey and buried in a lead sheet-Lord knows why...) Medieval tomb effigies would be of limited value because accurate portrayal of the body wasn't that much of a concern to them. Or body proportions were distorted even further for such messages intended by cadaver tombs.
Another factor would have been the period, those knights (and others) of the Black Death Generation would have been very affected by their times conditions of epidemic and major famines. And keeping in mind not all Knights were of the landed orders, some may have been shorter than their compatriots due to poor diet, and etc.

[Brent Lambell]

It is also important to consider the type of individual you are examining. Diet has a serious impact on potential size and the aristocratic classes of European knights were definitely well fed from what I understand. The less fortunate classes surely dealt with some measure of malnutrition on a massive scale. Then you tackle the geographic question and look at the ethnic and cultural background and you get more variables to consider. Roman accounts make it clear that the Germanic tribesmen were known for being of a larger stock than their Mediterranean adversaries.

[Benjamin Parker]

Okay thanks what about the romans according to Vegetius they were supposed to be six feet tall minimum is that true?

[Sal Bertucci]

Well, the mounted cavalry did have a minimum height. This was b/c the didn't have stirrups, so the rider needed long legs so that they could grip the horse.

[Benjamin Parker]

Okay thanks could you tell me the source for that? what about infantry? I also remember reading that in the time of marius the minimum height for infantry was five ten is that true? also were roman inches different than ours?

[LafayetteCCurtis]

Well, a translation of Vegetius does mention that the cavalry and the men of the legion's first cohort were supposed to be six feet or at least 5'10" tall. It doesn't say much about the remaining cohorts, though. And of course it's always good to remember that the De Re Militari might not have been intended as a real military manual to be applied in the field--Vegetius goes into a great deal less detail than other Greco-Roman military writers and he conflates details from different periods in his description of the antiqua legio whom the soldiers of his own day ought to emulate (although this last mistake might not have been entirely his fault). So, in the end, the conclusions we can draw from his text are tentative at best--not definitive unless they can be corroborated with some other sources.

I'm not sure about the height in the time of Marius, since I haven't been able to find anything solid in my cursory search of Plutarch. Let me see if I can get some other information....

[Jay Vail]

Okay thanks what about the romans according to Vegetius they were supposed to be six feet tall minimum is that true?

A Roman inch and a Roman foot were shorter than the modern inch/foot.

[Benjamin Parker]

Okay thanks what about the romans according to Vegetius they were supposed to be six feet tall minimum is that true?

A Roman inch and a Roman foot were shorter than the modern inch/foot.

How much shorter?

[Benjamin Parker]

I also read that most museum examples of armor aren't real they're decorational and are done in three quarter scale the better to show off the craftsmenship

[Jon Pellett]

How much shorter?

A Roman foot is about a third of an inch shorter than a standard foot (according to the Internets). So six feet Roman would be about 5' 10" standard.

Cheers

[Benjamin Parker]

Thanks man

[CalebChow]

I also read that most museum examples of armor aren't real they're decorational and are done in three quarter scale the better to show off the craftsmenship

I think that was from Michael Crichton's book Timeline--I don't think that had any historicity to it, but I could be wrong.

[Jay Vail]

Okay thanks what about the romans according to Vegetius they were supposed to be six feet tall minimum is that true?

A Roman inch and a Roman foot were shorter than the modern inch/foot.

How much shorter?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Ro ... easurement