Yes, it's true that the data I see is not an actual historical measurement of physical strength, and so quantification of strength is only inferred. Thanks for

Yes, it's true that the data I see is not an actual historical measurement of physical strength, and so quantification of strength is only inferred. Thanks for calling me out on that. But basically, it seems to me that society in general was more active back then, whether you were a hunter-gatherer or a farmer, and that this decreased as more and more modern amenities came about (and truly accelerated after the Industrial Revolution). Here's a great summary: http://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article%20folder/history.html http://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article%20folder/history.html It is clear, however, that early childhood physical activity creates a foundation for adult physical fitness that is difficult to compete with. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2874089/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2874089/ When you have an entire society living that lifestyle due to circumstances, not by choice, you'll also have a much larger sample pool from which to draw exceptional warriors. That is my argument. And the farther you go back, the larger the source pool will be, simply due to the circumstances of how the world lived. It is interesting that the History of Fitness article guys claim that a society becoming lazy in general contributed to a loss in their overall fighting power. Can we prove it? OK, maybe we can't. But I'd posit that we can't say there is NO data out there to create better theories, as long as we acknowledge the possibility that we could be wrong.