3 ms·

> So if you find a sword, it's a pretty safe bet the person who wielded it was taller than average for the time period. > If this is accepted, it follows that

by jjk166 2y ago

> So if you find a sword, it's a pretty safe bet the person who wielded it was taller than average for the time period. > If this is accepted, it follows that the average Greek male was in fact likely less well nourished, and the skeletons examined by Angel may well belong in the absolute upper percentile." These statements are saying the same thing. Whether you look at the remains of soldiers and overestimate the average for the population or you look at the population and underestimate the average for soldiers, the delta should be the same either way. > Perhaps they were taller by a couple of centimeters, but it strains credulity that it would amount to any more than that. The difference between ancient and modern heights is only a couple of centimeters. > For, as a rule, hoplites were freeholders and yeomen -- military service was a matter of social class and social standing -- they were not conscripted and sorted as though they were 18th century Austrians or Prussians: "Tall men to the halberdiers, short men to the artillery, giants to the Potsdam Giants." That wasn't the way of the Hellenes, and they wouldn't stand for it. The historical record is very clear on this point. Setting aside for the moment that we're talking about the bronze age, so centuries before the Hellenes, the fact is that those freeholders and yeomen were a small fraction of the population that was, as a rule, well off compared to the average man and far more likely to be the descendant of other men of this class. Their height was not selected artificially but naturally. This was likely even more extreme in the bronze age which appears to have had a more feudal structure.

A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
- I believe you may have misinterpreted the quote. Here's how I understand it: What they surmise is that the examined skeletons were ostensibly the population-wide average ([X]), but by virtue of their elaborate burials, likely belonged to the better-nourished upper classes, making the actual population-wide average height ([Y]) significantly shorter. We can infer that soldiers were, if perhaps not as short on average as [Y], nevertheless not substantially taller than [X]. - By all credible accounts male stature in the Bronze and Iron ages in Greece was roughly 162-167cm on average. Today it's ~179cm. https://www.worlddata.info/average-bodyheight.php https://www.worlddata.info/average-bodyheight.php That's a hell of a lot more than just "a couple of centimeters." Even if we go wild and suppose that the average height back then, in a specially selected warrior caste, was 170cm, there's still a nearly 10cm difference. More than a couple. In fact, more than a standard deviation. I suppose it depends on what you mean by "modern." In a 19th century Greek population, the average stature was doubtless quite low...
- jjk166 2y ago
  No, I understand the quote the same way. I am saying X (the height of warriors in the society) is significantly taller than Y (the average for all members of the society). X very likely is still significantly below the modern average. Modern world average male height is 173 cm. Bronze age average was 167 cm. The difference between 167 and 173 is within margin of error the same as the difference between 165+/-2 and 170. For context, 10 cm is the difference between modern male Italians and Dutch, two populations with similar standards of living in relatively close geographic proximity.
  - A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
    Point is, it's very likely that we don't know what Y truly was, because the data we have, from tombs where the upper classes are very plausibly heavily overrepresented, is not from a statistically average population-wide sample. In which case, it is likely that warrior heights are not any taller, on average, than what's already in that data. (i.e., warrior heights not any taller than generic upper-class male heights.) In any case, 167cm is probably an over-estimate. The latest research puts the average at 163.1. (And again this perhaps skews high rather than low.) For a snapshot, see: https://i.ibb.co/FXZjNSL/Bronze-Age-Height.png https://i.ibb.co/FXZjNSL/Bronze-Age-Height.png In Greece today the average height is nearly 1.8m. So there is a big difference that can't really be handwaved away. You're right about the global average, but, in HEMA practitioners who might investigate the historical use of weapons, I'd bet that the average height is also around 1.8m! We might learn a thing or two if we give a 1.63m Filipino swordmaster a Naue II sword, but it's unlikely that a sword made for a 1.63m Greek is going to be a good fit for somebody 20cm taller. Come to think of it, that would be a fun experiment.

by jjk166 2y ago

A_D_E_P_T 2y ago

- I believe you may have misinterpreted the quote. Here's how I understand it: What they surmise is that the examined skeletons were ostensibly the population-wide average ([X]), but by virtue of their elaborate burials, likely belonged to the better-nourished upper classes, making the actual population-wide average height ([Y]) significantly shorter. We can infer that soldiers were, if perhaps not as short on average as [Y], nevertheless not substantially taller than [X]. - By all credible accounts male stature in the Bronze and Iron ages in Greece was roughly 162-167cm on average. Today it's ~179cm. https://www.worlddata.info/average-bodyheight.php https://www.worlddata.info/average-bodyheight.php That's a hell of a lot more than just "a couple of centimeters." Even if we go wild and suppose that the average height back then, in a specially selected warrior caste, was 170cm, there's still a nearly 10cm difference. More than a couple. In fact, more than a standard deviation. I suppose it depends on what you mean by "modern." In a 19th century Greek population, the average stature was doubtless quite low...

jjk166 2y ago
No, I understand the quote the same way. I am saying X (the height of warriors in the society) is significantly taller than Y (the average for all members of the society). X very likely is still significantly below the modern average. Modern world average male height is 173 cm. Bronze age average was 167 cm. The difference between 167 and 173 is within margin of error the same as the difference between 165+/-2 and 170. For context, 10 cm is the difference between modern male Italians and Dutch, two populations with similar standards of living in relatively close geographic proximity.
- A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
  Point is, it's very likely that we don't know what Y truly was, because the data we have, from tombs where the upper classes are very plausibly heavily overrepresented, is not from a statistically average population-wide sample. In which case, it is likely that warrior heights are not any taller, on average, than what's already in that data. (i.e., warrior heights not any taller than generic upper-class male heights.) In any case, 167cm is probably an over-estimate. The latest research puts the average at 163.1. (And again this perhaps skews high rather than low.) For a snapshot, see: https://i.ibb.co/FXZjNSL/Bronze-Age-Height.png https://i.ibb.co/FXZjNSL/Bronze-Age-Height.png In Greece today the average height is nearly 1.8m. So there is a big difference that can't really be handwaved away. You're right about the global average, but, in HEMA practitioners who might investigate the historical use of weapons, I'd bet that the average height is also around 1.8m! We might learn a thing or two if we give a 1.63m Filipino swordmaster a Naue II sword, but it's unlikely that a sword made for a 1.63m Greek is going to be a good fit for somebody 20cm taller. Come to think of it, that would be a fun experiment.