You know I've been wondering about this and am interested of others' thoughts.
We know that the average height of a man in the middle ages (even in the 18thc.) was significantly less than today. What does this tell us about sword proportions, indeed maybe our vertically challenged brother collectors are experiencing a more historically accurate feeling when they wield their weapons.
I bring this up because the AVERAGE difference in height would not have been small. I think that many of these guys stood around 5,5'. Any thoughts? Jeremy

Out of curiousity, could you supply a source(s) citing that the average height of a man during that period was significantly less than today? It's a subject that is really interesting.

Thanks much!

To start, I'll admit that I'm no expert on these matters, but that I've done a fair amount of research.
*********

I think it should be pointed out that while the average height of medieval europeans was shorter than the current average among westerners, the average height among the higher classes (knights, most soldiers, etc.) was much, much closer to the modern one.

You see, height has two major factors; genes and nutrition. Now, in the middle ages, people had pretty much the same genetic material as we do today, whereas their diet included a lot less protein, again, on average. However, everybody from the king down to the gentry ate a lot better than the peasants. So, the relatively small percentage of the population that actually went into battle was pretty darned close to the size of modern westerners, and was from ancient times to the advent of 'common' soldiery.

So, that explains the lower average height, but what about very small armor? Well...

Most of the armor that medieval heights was guessed from was, more often than not, 3/4 scale display armor, made that way to save metal. The reason this smaller armor is so pervasive is because real armor generally did not survive to modern times, if only because it was repeatedly passed on from owner to owner, until it got so outdated or beaten up that it was salvaged for its steel. The few surviving suits of armor of the 'full' size (like the suits that the various King Henrys left in their name in england) demonstrate a height in the same range as modern western men.


So, the vast majority of short people weren't soldiers or swordsmen (and therefore skew the average quite a bit), most examples of 'small' armor are actually demonstration pieces, made for anything but wearing, and most dead combatants from roman to late medieval battles had the same height as modern western men. This would lead me to believe that most medieval swordmen were in the same 5'8"-6'2" height range as most modern sword owners are.

Now, if you're talking about peasant conscripts, then perhaps it would be likely that they would be rather short, but they weren't the ones that most swords were made for, at least before the 1400s.

From my recollection of the graph shown in the book on the archaeology/forensic study of the Battle of Towton, the average hights of people in England, at least, tended to differ over time. The Roman-era skeletons that have been uncovered show a fairly short average... 5'4" to 5'5" for men as I recall. However, Anglo-Saxon England had a MUCH taller average, around 6' or there abouts for males. Feudal England lost stature, to average in the 5'6" to 5'7" range, while modern Englishmen tend to be around 5'9" or so. Again, this is from a graph in a book not in my hot little hands, but I believe my remembrance to be approximately accurate.

The bodies found from the battle also reveal a broad range of sizes, from one chap who was rather short at around 5'2" or so, to a tall likely looking fellow of 6' or 6'1", so all sizes were obviously present at the battle, and probably fairly representitive of England of the mid-15th Century.

What it shows is a definite change over time... but not necessarily towards greater hight as we may think it ought to, since the Anglo-Saxons towered over both their predecessors as well as their successors, even the modern ones. And while the averages may change back and forth over time, I believe that an anthropologist or forensic scientist will tell us that the extremes do not.

Gordon Frye

IIRC, the average height of the bodies examined in the mass graves after the battle outside Visby in 1361 was 169.7 cms (5'7"), the majority of the dead being Gotlandic farmers of varying ages. The average height of male bodies found in the 14th/15th cemetery in medieval Stockholm, Sweden, is 172 cms (c. 5'8"), this being townspeople of all classes. As the medieval figures are about 4" (or c. 6%) shorter than the average Swedish male today, I don't think this will result in any significant difference in weapon size. Actually, there are enough variation within each weapon type to make any such comparison very hard.

Just a penny worth of things wot I 'ave seen.

The RA in Leeds does have a number of display cases with armour from mid 16th to early 17th where the user is big, very big, 6'5" in one case. There is one set of heavy Horse armour that has had the leg pieces extended with extra lames. I know this is somewhat later than some of the other caes but the same general principle holds, some people eat better than others!

Here's a web page with links to some sources on the height of Europeans in medieval times: http://historymedren.about.com/b/a/112443.htm

And here's another discussion: http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Number=292913574

I read something a few weeks back about the archaeological dig in northern Germany that has unearthed the remains of significant numbers of Roman and Germanic warriors of the First Century AD. As I recall the Romans averaged only about five foot two, while the Germanic tribesmen were closer to five foot eight. I need to find that source again.

Thanks everyone for your responses,
I must confess that my assertion of an average lower height is based on heresay and seeing documentaries over my life about this or that historical group including Roman times, Christ's time, and even the American pioneer period.
In visiting historical sites of interest, even as late as 1860 one notices the miniture nature of furniture and doorways. I guess maybe people didn't need as much room or they always ducked before entering a house but this does not seem likely to me.
I will say that I do not believe there would have been a noticable difference in regards to height between classes in the Medieval period, well I will narrow that down to the High Middle Ages (1100-1300)
All of this aside it is interesting to hear of others knowledge about the dynamic nature of height over the ages. I assumed that people got progressively taller, but now that I think about it this does'nt make sense. Thanks again everyone. Jeremy
.

In either the "Celtic Warrior" or "Germanic Warrior", there is a reference to average height. It was prox. 5'4" for a typical Roman and abt. 5'7" for the average "Barbarian" warrior. Something like that.

Too bad I can not recall the page number and exact volume, but in one of those two books it is mentioned.



Thanks.

OK, found it.


Celtic Warrior on page 20, under "Apperance, Dress and Equipment". Osprey Books.


Just as an aside, I can not recall the source. But another hobby is colonial America. And due to the higher intake of protein, [beef, pork, chicken] the average "backwoodsman" was almost a head taller than his "cousin" from Britian.

Can't remember the volume, but point being diet does have a major impact. Modern cultures also reflect this too.

Americans consume lots more protein than other countries. Plus if I remember right the "Germanic" blood lines are the largest single group in the USA. No, can't remember that source either. "Scoth/Irish" are next. Which of course would include a strong dose of Viking blood lines as well.


Thanks.

You call burgers and fries "better nutrition"?? :eek:

Oh no, there are many tiny vietnamese running around here. I don't see any of their young ones getting any taller. The only thing fast food has is calories. That will only make you fat. For nutritional value you want to eat freash, whole foods. Fish and rice is more like it.

A key thing I haven't seen anyone point out yet is that infant and childhood nutrition affect height alot more than later nutrition does. Historically (and today) children are the ones that suffer the most from food shortages and outright famine. Even if they are fed a fair portion of the limited food, they are more affected than the adults are. So extrapolating, if weather or war or whatever causes a few lean years out of every five over a period of a 50 years (for example), then almost everyone alive will have suffered some malnutrition as a child and therefore have experience stunted growth to some degree.