Skip to comments.
Medieval Ancestors Measured Up To Our Height Standards
The Times/British Archaeology ^
| 9-19-2005
| Norman Hammond
Posted on 09/19/2005 3:32:59 PM PDT by blam
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 161-179 next last
To: Fruit of the Spirit
"It always amazed me how they could have wielded those huge swords."
One thing is that they're not as heavy as they look, and another is that you can use the weight of the pommel to rotate the blade when cutting, which takes a lot less power than waving the whole thing around.
101
posted on
09/19/2005 11:38:06 PM PDT
by
dsc
To: blam
George Washington was over six feet tall.
To: Tax-chick
It's a trial for historical costumers, because uniforms of say, the WWI era, have to be cut very differently from the originals if today's actors or reenactors are going to wear them.Hubby and I collect WWI & WWII items. The WWI uniforms are TINY...oddly so (we have quite a few). I'm 5'4"; 125 lbs; and can barely get my arms and shoulders into the mens' uniforms.
Occasionally, at a very large show we will see a larger-sized uniform; they are so rare they command $1000, or so.
Even the larger sized WWII uniforms are more expensive, as most are what we would consider a small or medium today.
HOWEVER, I have WWI & WWII Red Cross nurse uniforms that fit me perfectly. I think that mens' frames have changed far more than those of women.
To: muir_redwoods
Perhaps, I guess anything is possble. I am just remembering the ones I'vce seen in various museums, such as Ft. Hays museum in Kansas that has leftover unitforms of both Indians and Military that are all smaller. All the Civil War uniforms I remember in museums are smaller as well.
To: nuconvert
Ever since I hit 6'3" I've tried to get a few more inches by drinking more cold beer.
The bad part was I had a bunch of long dry spells where cold beer was unavailable. Maybe that was what did it, the break in treatment.
Anyway, I'll continue trying.
To: Tax-chick
Other than the uniforms it is hard to find pictures of troops with their cloths off until WW II. There were a bunch of pictures of the Civil War prisoners but they had been starved.
There is one picture of a British Infantry unit on the move in the desert of Iraq in WW I. They are wearing shorts and just walking along at a good pace. That picture has the biggest collection of "Twiggy" like bird legs I've every viewed in one place.
To: blam
Our local historic site turned up about 50 soldiers on either side earlier this year.. We're closer to the North :-).
107
posted on
09/20/2005 4:03:17 AM PDT
by
Tax-chick
(Start the revolution - I'll bring the tea and muffins!)
To: El Gato
Too small, too big, too tight or too loose. Never just right.Good point :-).
108
posted on
09/20/2005 4:04:44 AM PDT
by
Tax-chick
(Start the revolution - I'll bring the tea and muffins!)
To: muir_redwoods
Does your height/pace measurement take into account the shorter step of a soldier under his combat load? Add in armor, sword, shield, helmet and everything else and his stride would be a bit shorter.
To: garandgal
I think that mens' frames have changed far more than those of women. Interesting. Could be that men's diets have changed more than women's ... or that men, having a great potential height (on average) than women, show the effect of dietary improvement more.
110
posted on
09/20/2005 4:11:44 AM PDT
by
Tax-chick
(Start the revolution - I'll bring the tea and muffins!)
To: PeteB570
Interesting. I wonder if they had thin legs to start with, or were showing the effects of hard marching and Army food.
111
posted on
09/20/2005 4:13:12 AM PDT
by
Tax-chick
(Start the revolution - I'll bring the tea and muffins!)
To: Kiss Me Hardy
Wrong!
Edward Longshanks was Edward I. He was the Great Grandfather of the Black Prince.
Cheers,
CSG
112
posted on
09/20/2005 4:16:24 AM PDT
by
CompSciGuy
("A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." - Winston Churchill)
To: RightWinger
Id be towering over the average Brit at 5 10!
113
posted on
09/20/2005 4:17:54 AM PDT
by
R. Scott
(Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
To: Lion Den Dan
One of the most compelling reasons that small armour remains in museums is that it was handed down through the generations. Obviously if you were much taller than grandpa (because he was merely a freeman who became a 'knight' while you were born and bred in such a caste (with all the nutrition to boot)) his armor wouldn't fit, but it being part of your inheritance you'd keep it around. These pieces ended up in museums because they were held by these private collectors, and finally donated. The stuff that was bigger just got used til it rusted to bits. Besides the steel suit was just the best form of armour. Most of the cannon fodder wore chain maille, leather, or at best padded armour.
Cheers,
CSG
114
posted on
09/20/2005 4:29:39 AM PDT
by
CompSciGuy
("A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." - Winston Churchill)
To: LexBaird
A steel suit is pretty set as to who can wear it. They were fitted at the shop by the armourer (the best were in Norther Italy and Southern Germany). There is only so much give in these suits. The decorative things we see in museums are thin and for show. They would have been gilt, as well as jewel encrusted for pomp and circumstance. War armour was plain, and had a medium thickness, so to not be too heavy nor too weak. Jousting armour was thick and heavy, but meant for jousting and the impact of two charging horses. These armours are recreated today by skilled smiths who have studied what little evidence we have via excavations (like the Wisby find), museum pieces, and the artwork of the middle ages. If anyone is interested in links PM me, I'd be happy to point out some nice sites/books.
Cheers,
CSG
(Who has his own hot, heavy, steel suit at home)
115
posted on
09/20/2005 4:40:46 AM PDT
by
CompSciGuy
("A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." - Winston Churchill)
To: blam
Interesting... I'm 6'0", but my twelve-year old son is already 6' 1"! It scares me when I consider he's likely not hit his growth spurt yet.
Luckily he's a good-natured kid, since he over towers all his middle-school classmates and some of his teachers. I worry, though, when I see some of the older girls start taking interest in him...
116
posted on
09/20/2005 5:16:21 AM PDT
by
Jonah Hex
(Go. Hunt. Kill Skuls.)
To: Campion
Ping to post 116. How's your boy holding up? :-).
117
posted on
09/20/2005 5:35:55 AM PDT
by
Tax-chick
(Start the revolution - I'll bring the tea and muffins!)
To: CompSciGuy
There is only so much give in these suits. True, but still more range than most people expect.
The decorative things we see in museums are thin and for show. They would have been gilt, as well as jewel encrusted for pomp and circumstance.
There is highly decorated parade armor, but there also is the heavily fluted Maximillian plate armor that was both practical, and of lighter weight.
![](http://www.arms-armor.cz/read/pardubice/2a.jpg)
War armour was plain, and had a medium thickness, so to not be too heavy nor too weak. Jousting armour was thick and heavy, but meant for jousting and the impact of two charging horses.
Many people see these suits, and think they were typical, as opposed to the munitions grade stuff worn in battle. Less of the battle stuff is around in museums, compared to the jousting and tourney stuff.
(Who has his own hot, heavy, steel suit at home)
As do I. I suspect for the same reason.;^)
118
posted on
09/20/2005 7:12:43 AM PDT
by
LexBaird
(tyrannosaurus Lex, unapologetic carnivore)
To: blam
>>>Medieval ancestors measured up to our height standards
Where is Steve Quayle's Giant Theory!!!!
119
posted on
09/20/2005 7:13:58 AM PDT
by
Calpernia
(Breederville.com)
To: Post-Neolithic
wouldn't ceremonial armour also tend to be armour of the way high ups in the aristocracy, who wouldn't have had the armour comissioned until they were in their seat of power and were older? i've noticed that people tend to shrink as they get older, which may be a contributing factor.
120
posted on
09/20/2005 7:26:55 AM PDT
by
absolootezer0
("My God, why have you forsaken us.. no wait, its the liberals that have forsaken you... my bad")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 161-179 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson