Historians consistently underestimate the strength and sheer "badass-itude" of premodern peoples. It's a reminder that historical volk are alien creatures, with

Historians consistently underestimate the strength and sheer "badass-itude" of premodern peoples. It's a reminder that historical volk are alien creatures, with a bewitching external similarity that belies their internal lives, outlook, and abilities. The example fresh in my mind was the old "official" military historian estimate for the upper bounds of the English longbow draw weight, which was ballparked in the hundred-something range maximum. Archeology later showed that the actual English bows had draw weights well over two hundred pounds, more than twice the earlier maximum possible estimate. We've seen similar things with muscle-powered weapons in the ancient world. Historians earlier posited that bladed weapons would have been largely ineffective against Parthian armor, then archeology shows how some ungodly Roman beast shoved his gladius through 4mm of bronze/iron composite. What's the reason for the consistent overestimation? In my opinion, we operate from the standpoint of an extremely long-lived and risk-averse civilization. Therefore, changing our bodies - through training, scarring, and other means - is largely seen as neurotic if it damages overall health. This would have been an alien outlook to many premodern peoples - permanently impinging the usage of one's thumbs would have been a small cost for being a solider able to swing through plate, or fire an arrow with killing power at three hundred yards. We need to remember that what we see as important is not always what the human species has seen as important. Indeed, you can see this today, even among different polities of the same country.