They data could show that average height in 1300 was 5'5" and average height in 1700 was 5'3".
"Does not sound right - every knight's armor I have ever seen is built for smaller men - and they would have been the ones to live a "good" life.
They data could show that average height in 1300 was 5'5" and average height in 1700 was 5'3"."
I'm glad someone brought this up. In his novel "TIMELINE" Michael Chrichton presents the point that the versions of armor that are on display from the period in question are primarily display pieces. This is similar to a scale model of an object for a trade show or retail display. Working armor, if it spent ANY time ouside unattended would rust to dust in little or no time (considering the metalurgy of the period). Additionally a good bit of armor was produced by the process of "ceur bolli" or boiled leather. When vegetable tanned leather (tanic acid from bark as the primary chemical treatment) is boiled, then pressed into a form and left to dry in the form, it becomes UNBELEIVEABLY hard. Hard enough to stop a sword slash or a glancing lance blow (layer it and let panels slip and you have a very viable and light armor system). It would not likely stop a crossbow bolt sporting a long thin iron tipped point, but that is a whole 'nother gear situation. Finally, it was inexpensive relative to the protection it provided.
Yeah, I know I am referring to a novel, but Chrichton has references....honest. I just don't have them with me.........
Let me check my notes....
ka-klick!
Cheers!