Medieval Ancestors Measured Up To Our Height Standards

The Times/British Archaeology ^ | 9-19-2005 | Norman Hammond

[blam]

September 19, 2005

Notebook: Archeology

Medieval ancestors measured up to our height standards

By Norman Hammond, Archaeology Correspondent

OUR ANCESTORS were as tall as we are, contrary to popular belief. Over the past five millennia the average height of men in Britain has remained stable at about 170cm (5ft 7in), and that of women at 160cm (5ft 3in). We may be surprised at how small the armour worn by the Black Prince or King Henry V was, but such giants on the battlefield were not physically large and were towered over by contemporaries of all classes.

“The enduring myth that people in the past were much shorter than we are today contains a small element of truth,” writes Sebastian Payne, chief scientist at English Heritage, in British Archaeology. “There have been small changes, and average height has increased by an inch or so over the past 50 years,” he says, attributing the increase to better health and nutrition.

The myth seems to stem from such things as low doorways on some medieval houses, and the small suits of clothes and armour in museums. But Dr Payne says that there are plenty of tall doors, and we simply don’t register “normally” sized outfits. “Recruits in 18th and 19th-century military records were considerably below today’s average heights,” he says, but adds: “Recruits are often from poorer families whose average height is less, and were often not fully grown.”

In the abandoned medieval village of Wharram Percy in Yorkshire, the churchyard has yielded hundreds of skeletons for analysis. There “ten-year-olds were around 8in shorter than children today: by the time they were fully grown they were nearly as tall as modern adults”.

A study by Charlotte Roberts and Margaret Cox, drawing together evidence of stature from skeletons across the country, shows that adult heights in both sexes have remained constant since the Neolithic era.

British Archaeology No 84: 51

[dsc]

"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.

[NotJustAnotherPrettyFace]

George Washington was over six feet tall.

[garandgal]

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.

[Morgan in Denver]

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.

[PeteB570]

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.

[PeteB570]

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.

[Tax-chick]

Our local historic site turned up about 50 soldiers on either side earlier this year.. We're closer to the North :-).

[Tax-chick]

Too small, too big, too tight or too loose. Never just right.

Good point :-).

[PeteB570]

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.

[Tax-chick]

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.

[Tax-chick]

Interesting. I wonder if they had thin legs to start with, or were showing the effects of hard marching and Army food.

[CompSciGuy]

Wrong!

Edward Longshanks was Edward I. He was the Great Grandfather of the Black Prince.

Cheers,
CSG

[R. Scott]

I’d be towering over the average Brit at 5’ 10”!

[CompSciGuy]

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

[CompSciGuy]

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)

[Jonah Hex]

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...

[Tax-chick]

Ping to post 116. How's your boy holding up? :-).

[LexBaird]

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.

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.;^)

[Calpernia]

>>>Medieval ancestors measured up to our height standards

Where is Steve Quayle's Giant Theory!!!!

[absolootezer0]

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.