5 ms·

Nutrition in childhood, especially early childhood, is extremely critical to development. The average person historically was remarkably short, generally becaus

Nutrition in childhood, especially early childhood, is extremely critical to development. The average person historically was remarkably short, generally because of childhood malnourishment. Simply being properly nourished in childhood would have led to a huge height and weight advantage (also probably considerable advantages in brain development). Even into the 18th century the average height of an officer in the British military was about 8in more than that of the enlisted men. On top of that a knight would have eaten a lot more fat, meat, and vegetables than a peasant, who would have lived almost entirely on bread. This wouldn’t have left the peasant totally protein-starved because it was bread made from whole grains, but a knight would have been getting much better returns on their exercise throughout life due to their more varied diet.

barry-cotter 6y ago
> The average person historically was remarkably short, generally because of childhood malnourishment. I believe the average member of the House of Commons was visibly shorter than the members of the House of Lords at least through WWII. Certainly Americans were obviously taller than Europeans until after WWII. Even American slaves were taller and children were generally malnourished until about seven when they became capable of working. Adult height seems to have been unaffected reflecting just how rich the US was comparatively. Complete unfeeling bastards didn’t malnourish children enough to do permanent damage.
- lostlogin 6y ago
  This checks out - thanks. The below article makes mention of a fact that may complicate things though - big strong slaves were worth more. Presumably slave owners had this in mind so had an ulterior motive for feeding slaves better. It’s one bleak subject. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11718681_The_Heights_of_American_Slaves_New_Evidence_on_Slave_Nutrition_and_Health https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11718681_The_Height...
  - zrobotics 6y ago
    Super horrible, but consider that slaves were incredibly valuable. The middle class of farmers in the antebellum south would barely have been able to afford one, the plantation owners were stupendously wealthy. This, in part, explains why the south was able to wield such outsize political influence. Very bleak, but slave owners had a large economic incentive to make sure their slaves were fit for work (although that didn't cause qualms on other, more brutal forms of mistreatment). The only way they treated them well was in providing food, but that wasn't due to kindness but more from the same motivation to feed a team of draft horses well. It's tough reading, but some of the ledgers kept by plantation owners really drive the point home that they viewed slaves more akin to livestock than people. And they somehow justified what they were doing as christian and moral.
s1artibartfast 6y ago
Do You have a citation for the 8 inches claim? I found this interesting article while looking: Heights across the Last 2,000 Years in England: https://oro.open.ac.uk/53774/3/53774.pdf https://oro.open.ac.uk/53774/3/53774.pdf
- dodobirdlord 6y ago
  I believe it must have come from Height, Health and History by Roderick Floud, but I can't find a digital copy of that book to link, despite it being 30 years old. The closest thing I could find is another work citing Floud, and only with regard to the difference in height at the beginning of the 19th century. It gives "nearly 6 inches taller", but note that it's comparing 14-year-olds in 1800, when nutrition for the lower classes was on the upswing. > Floud et al. also showed that men who grew up in urban areas were shorter than men who grew up in rural areas, and that there were significant differences in the heights of men and boys from different socioeconomic backgrounds. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, 14-year-old boys attending the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst were nearly six inches taller than their counterparts in the Marine Society https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/6876106.pdf https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/6876106.pdf (bottom of page 101).
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    Really fascinating. It sounds like the interclass differences were greater then the variation within England over time.
nradov 6y ago
There certainly was a difference based on nutrition, but the English longbowmen still had to be quite strong. Those bows had heavy draw weights.
- dodobirdlord 6y ago
  The longbow armies of Wales and England were made up of yeomen, who were certainly well into the upper end of medieval society. There certainly weren't very many of them. There were only 5000-6000 at the Battle of Agincourt, and the loss of ~2500 of them 14 years later at the Battle of Patay crippled the ability of the English to field a substantial longbow army through to the end of the Hundred Years War.
questionfor 6y ago
Would the knight even have access to “bad” carbs / sugar in significant enough amounts to make them so fat that they’d be unfit for combat? It’s not like they can just get another carton of Pringles to finish off the dinner
- dodobirdlord 6y ago
  Medieval stereotypes about fat people seem to indicate that men who were fat generally got fat from alcohol consumption.

barry-cotter 6y ago

> The average person historically was remarkably short, generally because of childhood malnourishment. I believe the average member of the House of Commons was visibly shorter than the members of the House of Lords at least through WWII. Certainly Americans were obviously taller than Europeans until after WWII. Even American slaves were taller and children were generally malnourished until about seven when they became capable of working. Adult height seems to have been unaffected reflecting just how rich the US was comparatively. Complete unfeeling bastards didn’t malnourish children enough to do permanent damage.

lostlogin 6y ago
This checks out - thanks. The below article makes mention of a fact that may complicate things though - big strong slaves were worth more. Presumably slave owners had this in mind so had an ulterior motive for feeding slaves better. It’s one bleak subject. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11718681_The_Heights_of_American_Slaves_New_Evidence_on_Slave_Nutrition_and_Health https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11718681_The_Height...
- zrobotics 6y ago
  Super horrible, but consider that slaves were incredibly valuable. The middle class of farmers in the antebellum south would barely have been able to afford one, the plantation owners were stupendously wealthy. This, in part, explains why the south was able to wield such outsize political influence. Very bleak, but slave owners had a large economic incentive to make sure their slaves were fit for work (although that didn't cause qualms on other, more brutal forms of mistreatment). The only way they treated them well was in providing food, but that wasn't due to kindness but more from the same motivation to feed a team of draft horses well. It's tough reading, but some of the ledgers kept by plantation owners really drive the point home that they viewed slaves more akin to livestock than people. And they somehow justified what they were doing as christian and moral.

s1artibartfast 6y ago

Do You have a citation for the 8 inches claim? I found this interesting article while looking: Heights across the Last 2,000 Years in England: https://oro.open.ac.uk/53774/3/53774.pdf https://oro.open.ac.uk/53774/3/53774.pdf

dodobirdlord 6y ago
I believe it must have come from Height, Health and History by Roderick Floud, but I can't find a digital copy of that book to link, despite it being 30 years old. The closest thing I could find is another work citing Floud, and only with regard to the difference in height at the beginning of the 19th century. It gives "nearly 6 inches taller", but note that it's comparing 14-year-olds in 1800, when nutrition for the lower classes was on the upswing. > Floud et al. also showed that men who grew up in urban areas were shorter than men who grew up in rural areas, and that there were significant differences in the heights of men and boys from different socioeconomic backgrounds. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, 14-year-old boys attending the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst were nearly six inches taller than their counterparts in the Marine Society https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/6876106.pdf https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/6876106.pdf (bottom of page 101).
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  Really fascinating. It sounds like the interclass differences were greater then the variation within England over time.

nradov 6y ago

There certainly was a difference based on nutrition, but the English longbowmen still had to be quite strong. Those bows had heavy draw weights.

dodobirdlord 6y ago
The longbow armies of Wales and England were made up of yeomen, who were certainly well into the upper end of medieval society. There certainly weren't very many of them. There were only 5000-6000 at the Battle of Agincourt, and the loss of ~2500 of them 14 years later at the Battle of Patay crippled the ability of the English to field a substantial longbow army through to the end of the Hundred Years War.

questionfor 6y ago

Would the knight even have access to “bad” carbs / sugar in significant enough amounts to make them so fat that they’d be unfit for combat? It’s not like they can just get another carton of Pringles to finish off the dinner

dodobirdlord 6y ago
Medieval stereotypes about fat people seem to indicate that men who were fat generally got fat from alcohol consumption.