Scale of Celts and Germans

[Kikaz]

Is it possible to increase the size of the Germans and Celts for EB2 or is that hard-coded? Anyway, I bring this up after reading this scholarly essay: http://stevequayle.com/Giants/W.Europe/W.Europe.Index.html
As an aside, all of the references are on page thirteen. So perhaps it would be accurate to have Celts and especially Germans stand at least a foot above everyone else? Anyway, I hope the EB team will consider it.

[desert]

I'm pretty sure you can't scale them.

And Celts weren't THAT much taller!

They had more body mass and maybe were 3-5 inches taller on average, but not a foot!

[Kikaz]

I'm pretty sure you can't scale them.

And Celts weren't THAT much taller!

They had more body mass and maybe were 3-5 inches taller on average, but not a foot!

The Germans were taller than the Celts though, so maybe they'd be near a foot taller.
Perhaps if not make all the Germanic and Celtic units taller, maybe only make some of them taller (not sure exactly which tribes were tallest though I do know some warbands were made up of the largest members of the tribe.) But of course if you can't change the scale of the units, than you can't visually represent this anyway...

[cmacq]

please lock or rid this without delay.


CmacQ

[antisocialmunky]

... that reminds me that I need to go and rescale my Imperial Cohorts .

[Kikaz]

It seems that my thread should be under the EB2 section as it sort of a suggestion, sorry, kinda new to the forums here... Anyway, could a mod please relocate it? thanks

[Tellos Athenaios]

I took a peek at the 'paper' you presented (to me it seems to be mostly a collection of depictions rather than a coherent piece of its own, though) but it combines everything from 4th century B.C. to 17th century A.D. (and probably more). Plus most of the examples cited seem to suffer from the hear-say-syndrome: the authors of the original works in which those (bold) claims appear are in turn people who turned to other sources.

Not to mention that for generalized statements of this kind sources of this utterly qualitive nature are a particular poor basis for any claim whatsoever, because they focus on insignificant examples: even a mean value (an aggregrate already!) is statistically of very little value without other quantitive values like the standard deviation and the 'error margin' used.

Or if to put it differently:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/correlation.png (http://xkcd.com/552/)

[Aurgelmir]

lol the last post here....really :sweatdrop:


But i have to say that they found skeletons(in german regions) that where 10 till 20cm higher then the average roman...thats something

Like me,i was born in sachsen(germany),and i look as one :beam:(2m tall over 100k and really red long hair).The wierd thing is that allmost all of my old friends have more or less the same height............

What can i say the german gene......:laugh4:(joke..before the flaming begins)

But the same as the Scandinavian people,the average men there where much taller then arabian folks.

So i have to conclude some taller units would be nice(hey...when you dont give them (much) armor,let them look like the undertaker lol)

[seienchin]

I think its obvious, that the average of the population of northern europe were taller than the average mediteran people at that time (And still today^^). Its been proofed by skeletons etc.
But I think for the purpose of a game it is neglegtable :book:

PS: If you are from modern sachsen , than you have nothing in common with the saxons of older times and have probably baltic ancestors... ;)

[Aurgelmir]

As far as i know,my fathers opa came from north poland.


As i write this...lol something changed the resolution here hm? lol


But i think that the average healthy german was taller then the average roman


srry seienchin i cant read your post well.....something happend to my sesolution here when i was typing

[The Persian Cataphract]

With all due respect to all sensibilities, and those who are properly educated in the noble science known as anthropology, the thread author propagates for utter rubbish. We might as well as increase size for the Iranian nomads solely based on the fact that their staple diet being meat contributed to a more imposing physique and thus setting a precursor for warlike qualities. This is bollocks.

Indeed, I would second the motion of closing this thread with utmost speed. Arbitrary categorization fits into one paradigm, and that paradigm is to trivialize history; we may as well as follow Roman testimonials of Persians having poor stamina, and have no units whatsoever given the attirubute "Hardy", in spite of the fact that the country has reared horse-archers for centuries and utilized physically challenging maneuvers such as the "Parthian Shot".

The scale of our units is fine as it already is.

[A Very Super Market]

A foot would be too much, and a gross generalization. Men in this time period usually did not get enough nutrition to grow to 6 feet, especially barbarians. I would say that the current scale is fine, as I think celts and Germanians are a bit taller than the Romans and Greeks.

Oh, and the site is rather rubbish.

[Kikaz]

please lock or rid this without delay.


CmacQ

really, somewhat ignorant, I'd say...


I took a peek at the 'paper' you presented (to me it seems to be mostly a collection of depictions rather than a coherent piece of its own, though) but it combines everything from 4th century B.C. to 17th century A.D. (and probably more). Plus most of the examples cited seem to suffer from the hear-say-syndrome: the authors of the original works in which those (bold) claims appear are in turn people who turned to other sources.

Not to mention that for generalized statements of this kind sources of this utterly qualitive nature are a particular poor basis for any claim whatsoever, because they focus on insignificant examples: even a mean value (an aggregrate already!) is statistically of very little value without other quantitive values like the standard deviation and the 'error margin' used.

Or if to put it differently:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/correlation.png (http://xkcd.com/552/)

Correlation does not deny causation either, and quantitative data so necessary to satisfy the modern western world is oft times rare when researching the ancient world. Steve's research does contain quantitative data, although due to some organizational problems it can be hard to find (Those that archaeologists recovered "from the second period of La Tene," he reports, "are about 96 inches long." And, he adds, without providing any figures, "the latest swords are still longer.") though this particular passage does contain a mixture of qualitative and quantitative data, it is but an example.
I'm not saying that these essays are canon, but I am saying that they should at least be interpreted for what truths they hold and that they should simply encourage further research.


lol the last post here....really :sweatdrop:


But i have to say that they found skeletons(in german regions) that where 10 till 20cm higher then the average roman...thats something

Like me,i was born in sachsen(germany),and i look as one :beam:(2m tall over 100k and really red long hair).The wierd thing is that allmost all of my old friends have more or less the same height............

What can i say the german gene......:laugh4:(joke..before the flaming begins)

But the same as the Scandinavian people,the average men there where much taller then arabian folks.

So i have to conclude some taller units would be nice(hey...when you dont give them (much) armor,let them look like the undertaker lol)

Living proof. Throughout history many regions throughout the world have always had a taller populace, which is all I'm asking be represented.


With all due respect to all sensibilities, and those who are properly educated in the noble science known as anthropology, the thread author propagates for utter rubbish. We might as well as increase size for the Iranian nomads solely based on the fact that their staple diet being meat contributed to a more imposing physique and thus setting a precursor for warlike qualities. This is bollocks.

Indeed, I would second the motion of closing this thread with utmost speed. Arbitrary categorization fits into one paradigm, and that paradigm is to trivialize history; we may as well as follow Roman testimonials of Persians having poor stamina, and have no units whatsoever given the attirubute "Hardy", in spite of the fact that the country has reared horse-archers for centuries and utilized physically challenging maneuvers such as the "Parthian Shot".

The scale of our units is fine as it already is.

If Iranian nomads were indeed taller than by all means why not represent them so (I can't vouch for that being a fact as I haven't really researched them)? How do you see the proper representation of height as an attempt to trivialize history, and how is their any arbitration of the fact that Germanic people were/are tall? Roman testimonials should at least be taken to contain a grain of truth (they are definitely not always true); And, I fail to see how Rome's views of Persians having a lack of stamina has anything to do with the stamina of their horses (nor do I necessarily accept Rome's view that the Persians lack stamina).


A foot would be too much, and a gross generalization. Men in this time period usually did not get enough nutrition to grow to 6 feet, especially barbarians. I would say that the current scale is fine, as I think celts and Germanians are a bit taller than the Romans and Greeks.

Oh, and the site is rather rubbish.

Actually many skeletons have been found (in specific regions) that are six feet or more (diet isn't everything). The organization, specifically, of that section of the site is indeed rubbish, but some information can still be gleaned from it. Sometimes the Celts and Germans do appear taller in-game but sometimes they don't, it seems to be an illusion

all I suggest is the diversification of heights and I'm met with straw-men and ignorance... On a few's part...

[A Very Super Market]

And? Random stuff will happen. It isn't like everybody had to be a certain height. 6 feet is a possibility, and a higher possibility in barbarians and Romans. However, there isn't enough randomization in units to get guys that are slightly taller in-game, and it seems like a waste of time to me. As for completely 6-foot tall guy units, there is little historical evidence for that, and little gameplay reason as well. A slight morale decrease to units they are fighting?

[Kikaz]

And? Random stuff will happen. It isn't like everybody had to be a certain height. 6 feet is a possibility, and a higher possibility in barbarians and Romans. However, there isn't enough randomization in units to get guys that are slightly taller in-game, and it seems like a waste of time to me. As for completely 6-foot tall guy units, there is little historical evidence for that, and little gameplay reason as well. A slight morale decrease to units they are fighting?

My point is that the Celts and more so, the Germans have/had higher amounts of taller people, and in the ancient world, were described as being taller by every "writing" people who took care to make note of their height; And, if it isn't too difficult, to represent this in-game for the same purpose that one would care to have the proper symbol written on the shield of a spartan. Gameplay wise, it does seem that this is taken into account already.

[cmacq]

really, somewhat ignorant, I'd say...

As its against my nature, I've not lightly made this call, through no lack of knowing.

From the link you posted, on which you’ve founded your theory, for example;

Maximilian
Those who profess the Aryan theory hold that the Celtic race, particularly its Germanic branch, is vastly superior to all others. "Only white peoples, especially the Celtic, possess true courage, love of liberty and the other passions and virtues which distinguish great souls," proclaimed the German historian Christoph Meiners (1745-1810). Meiners is generally regarded as a founder of this racial theory.101 Julien-Joseph Virey (1775-1846), a disciple of Meiners, asks: "What would our world be without the Europeans? Powerful nations, a proud and indomitable race, immortal geniuses in the arts and the sciences, a happy civilization. The European, called by his high destiny to rule the world, which he knows how to illumine with his intelligence and subdue with his courage, is the highest expression of man and at the head of the human race. The others, wretched horde of barbarians, are, so to say, no more than its embryo."102 In other words, the true Aryans see themselves as "supermen," and they regard "all the other species of men (for there are four or five different kinds) to be naturally inferior to the whites."103 All these peoples who are not light of skin and blond they classify as "subhumans."

Again please lock or rid this thread without delay.


CmacQ

[Macilrille]

Or at least regard it for what it is, a triviality.

I would also like to add, in case you do not know it already, that for info about prehistoric Germania/Scandinavia, Cmaq and I are the people to turn to in this forum.

Now for the skeletal evidence it does indeed seem that at least in the Danish evidence it points to an average height of just under 6' (183 cm for us civilised people), in fact it is AFAICR 181 for RIA and GIA. It then goes to 178 in the Viking Age and then down through the middle ages to just over 5' in the 19th century before reversing and being back to 181 these days and rising. The numbers may be incorrectly remembered, but the trend is there and it is not important for the point I am going to make.

For are they representative? What we have found is mostly warrior graves, warriors were the upper class, upper class eats better, ie it means that they are on average taller. When we get to the viking and middle ages where we have evidence for all classes it is very evident that the aristocrats have an average height of 183 Cm or even taller (the Hvide family of Danish historical fame seems to have had an average height of about 188- 190-ish), while the peasants and/or thralls are at about 155-160-ish.

Get my point? ...

Now, to my mind there is little doubt that barbarian warrior aristocrats were indeed taller on average than Romani and Graeculi. But... it is rather the racial/nationalist overtones implied in such that makes me want to not ever include this in EB to a greater extent than it already is. Personally I like to watch authentic German Newsreel clips on Youtube. Try going there and see the rampant nationalism (of ignorant Neonazis, Russians and Americans) evidenced in thousands of those comments. There is no need to cater or bow to that trend. None whatsoever, keep it as it is I say, no übermensch in EB (except of course all those in phalanxes who are definately too superhuman for my taste ;-))...

So if no lock on the thread, at least regard it as triviality or musings. Not something to be included in EB.

Note that I am in fact a Danish patriot/nationalist; I love my country, I am just not ignorant. In fact I consider myself quite enlightened, others may disagree ;-)

[seienchin]

As its against my nature, I've not lightly made this call, through no lack of knowing.

From the link you posted, on which you’ve founded your theory, for example;

Maximilian
Those who profess the Aryan theory hold that the Celtic race, particularly its Germanic branch, is vastly superior to all others. "Only white peoples, especially the Celtic, possess true courage, love of liberty and the other passions and virtues which distinguish great souls," proclaimed the German historian Christoph Meiners (1745-1810). Meiners is generally regarded as a founder of this racial theory.101 Julien-Joseph Virey (1775-1846), a disciple of Meiners, asks: "What would our world be without the Europeans? Powerful nations, a proud and indomitable race, immortal geniuses in the arts and the sciences, a happy civilization. The European, called by his high destiny to rule the world, which he knows how to illumine with his intelligence and subdue with his courage, is the highest expression of man and at the head of the human race. The others, wretched horde of barbarians, are, so to say, no more than its embryo."102 In other words, the true Aryans see themselves as "supermen," and they regard "all the other species of men (for there are four or five different kinds) to be naturally inferior to the whites."103 All these peoples who are not light of skin and blond they classify as "subhumans."

Again please lock or rid this thread without delay.


CmacQ
OH come on :dizzy2::dizzy2::dizzy2:
Were saying that the average north european was taller than average greek or romans and you come with the racial theory :inquisitive:
Nobody is saying, that they are freedom loving super humans. They are just taller! :book:
And that is something you can, unlike the stamina of ancient persians, prove by skeletons.
I think you slightly take the topic to serious...:juggle2:
Or if somebody would say something against israels politic would you call him a nazi?

[Macilrille]

I do not think that any Nazis have found their way here or even plays EB, no. But there is no need to include in the game something that encourages those with such leanings. The tendency these past 10- 15 years is a rise in such combined with more and more ignorance (as encouraged by "history" such as that on Battles), why should EB encourage such? If the height differential (much less than a foot) is included, EB should do its good job of actually include also the reasons for such to discourage racial spouting.

There is also still the fact that the skeletal evidence we have is not likely very representative, see my above post.

"Or if somebody would say something against israels politic would you call him a nazi? "

Come on please... be serious. If so, then I am a Nazi, though others have at times called me Danish Nationalist Racist and Zionist, cause I argue against Hamas and fundamentalism...

[Tellos Athenaios]

Correlation does not deny causation either, and quantitative data so necessary to satisfy the modern western world is oft times rare when researching the ancient world.

Yes but lack of evidence (which is what it essentially boils down to) is not a good foundation for making a decision based on qualitative, subjective (to a certain extent all evidence is subjective, but qualitative descriptions suffer it more) loose statements of which there are surprisingly few within our time period? (Height is a very subjective experience, for example: ever been amazed at how small a certain place or room turned out to be whereas when you were only 4-5 years old things looked much more vast by comparison?)


Steve's research does contain quantitative data, although due to some organizational problems it can be hard to find (Those that archaeologists recovered "from the second period of La Tene," he reports, "are about 96 inches long." And, he adds, without providing any figures, "the latest swords are still longer.") though this particular passage does contain a mixture of qualitative and quantitative data, it is but an example.

OK. First we should probably consider that different troop types may have preferred different sword types and lengths and that swords come with a strong cultural value (consider the importance this particular weapon has in sagae, or indeed even in map making). Second, I think you have missed my earlier point (previous post): say an extensive study 'proves' that the average Northern European male is 1.86m tall. So? How many European males are actually 1.86m tall, now as we speak? I can give you the answer already: exactly 0. That is math, or rather the math behind this type of distribution.

Now suppose that the standard deviation is 2.6cm. (Which would already indicate that this particular fictitious study wasn't anything comprehensive as 2.6cm is a rather large value, but for the sake of argument...) Then it follows that ~65% of all Northern European males would be in between 1.80m and 1.91m tall. And ~95% would be in between 1.77m and 1.94m tall.

See? With figures like the standard deviation you can tell a lot more, with a lot better accuracy. (Because as shown earlier, the mean value isn't much of a yardstick by itself.)

[Aurgelmir]

OH come on :dizzy2::dizzy2::dizzy2:
Were saying that the average north european was taller than average greek or romans and you come with the racial theory :inquisitive:
Nobody is saying, that they are freedom loving super humans. They are just taller! :book:
And that is something you can, unlike the stamina of ancient persians, prove by skeletons.
I think you slightly take the topic to serious...:juggle2:
Or if somebody would say something against israels politic would you call him a nazi?

Its a shame that my english skills are somewhat terrible...really.

1.Why are people on this forum,almost always starting about plotical/racial(shit),when someone speaks of germans....the topic doesn't even matter anymore...lol

2.I have learnt.....smart(wanna be smart) people,are(mostly!!) ignorant...because they all think there sources are the best...Then again where does there info come from??.Nobody can actually know what happend back there...because of the lack of TIMEtravel(lol).And the info what is found is put together with suggestions and inmagination.

3.And again....we only wanted to discus the height of northern people.And then....jesus(read the posts above)...You guys wanting to close the thread...by reading your posts....yeah it should be(ingnorant posts)

4.And this is not the only topic here seienchin...try to read other intresting topics here....they almost all get fucked up by someone(the one that thinks he is the smartest,he may be,but don't get lectural on us) pls
And i'm not speaking of everyone here...so

Now close it before the german barbarian with a personal dissorder in me wants to find the posters here...:smash:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Clearly the Celtic and Germanic warriors were taller than their Roman counterparts it was surely an issue of diet. If one looks at the Mycenaean Warrior aristocracy of 1200 BC one sees an average height of 210cm/8 feet in a population of Greek extraction.

Again, if one looks at the graves of 6th Century Anglo-Saxons and Romano-Britons one sees a difference of about 2 inches.

Overall, given that the average Roman soldier was at least 5'4 and the 1st Cohort was supposed to be made up of men 5'9 and over, I doubt that the difference was more than 4 inches on average. That's enough to make an impression, certainly, but it's not that huge a difference.

[Goth47]

I'm pretty sure you can't scale them.

And Celts weren't THAT much taller!

They had more body mass and maybe were 3-5 inches taller on average, but not a foot!

It is possible to rescale them for RTW (have made a unit of 6 1\2 footers in the past)using 3ds max , its possible to make them into giants if you wanted to, the only problem is its a bit technical and there are alot of units to rescale, it would be a large amount of work .

Goth

[Publius Aelius Hadrianus]

In the empire the roman army had an average of six feet or at least five feet ten inches.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Actually, I think you'll find that was the First Cohort, average for the Roman army was, irrc around 5'6-7. The Roman ate mostly carbohydrates, they tended to be stocky rather than tall.

[Publius Aelius Hadrianus]

Actually, I think you'll find that was the First Cohort, average for the Roman army was, irrc around 5'6-7. The Roman ate mostly carbohydrates, they tended to be stocky rather than tall.

I took that info form Vegetius. But he´s late empire

[Aemilius Paulus]

Actually, I think you'll find that was the First Cohort, average for the Roman army was, irrc around 5'6-7. The Roman ate mostly carbohydrates, they tended to be stocky rather than tall.
It is true, I have always read that Romans and especially their legionaries were on average noticeably shorter than the other ethnic groups around them. It was both genetic and due to the diet. Italians to this day are not renowned for their height. According to some of the books I have read, it supposedly had quite some influence on their fighting style as well.

Six feet seems impossibly high even for Germanic tribes for me. Seriously, people of those times were much shorter than today. Remember Napoleon? He was not short five feet, six inches was average for his day. I remember reading some historical text on the Bible and New Testament, and it mentioned that the houses in Judea of that time were incredibly low by today's standards. People were shorter back then. Phillipvs' figure seems pretty credible to me. And I myself would go with even slightly lower figure, such as five feet five inches.

[Publius Aelius Hadrianus]

It is true, I have always read that Romans and especially their legionaries were on average noticeably shorter than the other ethnic groups around them. It was both genetic and due to the diet. Italians to this day are not renowned for their height. According to some of the books I have read, it supposedly had quite some influence on their fighting style as well.

Six feet seems impossibly high even for Germanic tribes for me. Seriously, people of those times were much shorter than today. Remember Napoleon? He was not short five feet, six inches was average for his day. I remember reading some historical text on the Bible and New Testament, and it mentioned that the houses in Judea of that time were incredibly low by today's standards. People were shorter back then. Phillipvs' figure seems pretty credible to me. And I myself would go with even slightly lower figure, such as five feet five inches.

Marius had set up 5'10 as the minimum height.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Marius had set up 5'10 as the minimum height.

According to Vegetius?

[Publius Aelius Hadrianus]

According to Vegetius?

Hi

I cannot say for sure. Vegetius in his De Re Militare says that the Alae and infantry of the first cohort had an average of 6 or at least 5´10.
hat info, about Marian, i found here (http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/romeweapons/p/RomanArmy.htm) but it´s souces may have to be verified.

[desert]

It is possible to rescale them for RTW (have made a unit of 6 1\2 footers in the past)using 3ds max , its possible to make them into giants if you wanted to, the only problem is its a bit technical and there are alot of units to rescale, it would be a large amount of work .

Oh, I didn't know that. Ok.

But anyway, any height differences between "barbarians" and Romans/Greeks/weopd are addressed in the increased defense skills of barbarian units.

[A Very Super Market]

I always thought that was to make them more vulnerable to missile fire, while keeping overall defense relatively similar.

[Aurgelmir]

They have indeed increased defensive skills,but not much armor...
I would not dare to take a sweboz army online against the romani or hellenes,dont get me wrong i really like the sweboz and there campaign,but online against a good player...no chance

[MeinPanzer]

It is true, I have always read that Romans and especially their legionaries were on average noticeably shorter than the other ethnic groups around them. It was both genetic and due to the diet. Italians to this day are not renowned for their height. According to some of the books I have read, it supposedly had quite some influence on their fighting style as well.

Six feet seems impossibly high even for Germanic tribes for me. Seriously, people of those times were much shorter than today. Remember Napoleon? He was not short five feet, six inches was average for his day. I remember reading some historical text on the Bible and New Testament, and it mentioned that the houses in Judea of that time were incredibly low by today's standards. People were shorter back then. Phillipvs' figure seems pretty credible to me. And I myself would go with even slightly lower figure, such as five feet five inches.

As with many discussions of this sort, I am guessing that almost no one is drawing from solid, dependable data. So, if anyone wants to establish that northern Europeans during EB's timeframe were taller on average than Greek or Roman men, I would recommend they present some average data from burial excavations.

This is one area of study that Geoffrey Kron has been working on. In his article "Anthropometry, Physical Anthropology, and Ancient Health (Historia. Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, 54, 2005: 68-83), he challenges many assertions like those made in this thread.

To sum up his findings based on averaging data from hundreds of male skeletal remains found in late Iron Age and Roman-era cemetaries, ancient nutrition in ancient Greece and Italy was for the most part very good, and the average height of individuals in the Classical, Hellenistic, and Roman periods was not surpassed after antiquity until the late 19th or early 20th century in almost all parts of Europe. Let me quote a full excerpt relating directly to the EB timeframe. His findings found that the average height for a Hellenistic Greek male was 171.9 cm (p. 72):


The nutrition of the Hellenistic Greeks seems to have been only slightly inferior and closely matches many reasonably affluent 20th century industrialized societies. In addition ot the Welsh of the 1980s, we can add Muscovites and Parisians in the 1960s, measured at 171.8 and 172 cm respectively, a national survey of Danes from 1972 yielding a mean height of 172 cm, a survey of Belgian conscripts in 1969 yielding a height of 172.4 cm, and two sizable samples collected during World War II in Great Britain giving average heights of 170.76 cm and 171.04 cm respectively. Close matches are also provided by 19-20 year old Belgian conscripts in 1953 (171.7 cm), approximately 18 year old Northern Italian conscripts in 1965-6 (172 cm), and 18.5 year old Dutch conscripts in 1930 (172 cm), 20 year olf Swedish conscripts in 1910 (171.7 cm), and 19 year old Swiss conscripts in 1957 (172.1 cm). (P. 77).

[Aemilius Paulus]

As with many discussions of this sort, I am guessing that almost no one is drawing from solid, dependable data.
Well, of course not. We have all read hundreds of books on history and we cannot remember every title and author. This is Internet. Some of us have a life. Others, like me, do not have much of a life, but are still too busy to spend an hour looking for that information. Especially considering how casually the discussion began.

[MeinPanzer]

Well, of course not. We have all read hundreds of books on history and we cannot remember every title and author. This is Internet. Some of us have a life. Others, like me, do not have much of a life, but are still too busy to spend an hour looking for that information. Especially considering how casually the discussion began.

If you can't back up your assertions, why post at all? While a statement like "this is the internet" might explain the level of discussion, it doesn't excuse contributing to it.

[Aemilius Paulus]

If you can't back up your assertions, why post at all? While a statement like "this is the internet" might explain the level of discussion, it doesn't excuse contributing to it.
You are right. But if you go back through my history of posts, you will notice that I almost always make the longest posts. That is normal for me. Unlike the vast majority of people, I never post classic spam. The only material I might post that is considered "spam" is something that is slightly off-topic or not altogether too appropriate (such as politics in the EB forum or Frontroom for instance).

Rant aside, I am going to look for those books. But really, what is the point? Those books are only available in paper. I will tell you the name and the author of the book, but what will that give you? So anyway, I will try to look for some online sources.

[MeinPanzer]

You are right. But if you go back through my history of posts, you will notice that I almost always make the longest posts. That is normal for me. Unlike the vast majority of people, I never post classic spam. The only material I might post that is considered "spam" is something that is slightly off-topic or not altogether too appropriate (such as politics in the EB forum or Frontroom for instance).

Rant aside, I am going to look for those books. But really, what is the point? Those books are only available in paper. I will tell you the name and the author of the book, but what will that give you? So anyway, I will try to look for some online sources.

It will give some substance to your post my backing up your assertions. "I read it in a book" doesn't say anything, but citing a specific publication, physical or digital, does. And providing information on books only available in physical copies allows anyone interested to get a hold of those books and check for themselves, which is the entire reason for providing references in the first place.

[kekailoa]

Jesus Christ!!!!

The guy who opened this thread obviously has very little historical background, believing that giant Celt/German rubbish, and while it is probably true that the Celts and Germans were on average somewhat bigger than Romans, it is not that huge of a deal.

I've seen the website he's talking about, and it's full of white supremacy bullshit (excuse my language) and to take that seriously, you need to get into a real school with a real history program and learn some real history.

This is becoming ridiculous, like The Persian Cataphract said, and is not worthy of any more discussion. If someone wants to have a serious conversation about ancient nutrition and physical differences between racial backgrounds, then open a new thread and have some solid evidence or at least a real argument.

[Aemilius Paulus]

allows anyone interested to get a hold of those books and check for themselves.
Alright. I am going to allow a brief post for myself. EDIT: Fail. Nothing is harder for me than to write something briefly. I thought this post was going to be short, but obviously it is not.

Seriously, how many people go out and buy some obscure book I have read JUST because they have heard me cite it. The probability is one to ten million. That is why I never cite my data unless someone specifically requests of me. And that is why i am still sceptical of citing data, even if someone does ask.


All that aside, here is an excerpt from one of my books (The Logistics of the Roman Army at War [264 B.C.- A.D. 235], by Jonathan Roth):

Surprisingly (to me), this books states that Romans and Greeks was 162 to 171 cm. The Roman Army did have a height requirement, which varied depending on the unit. Cavalry, first cohorts and Praetorian Cohorts had the highest standards, in terms of height. Vegetius does indeed say that the requirement was 173-178 cm, or 5"10-6".




However, that requirement is only for auxiliary cavalry and first cohorts. Vegetius seemed to imply the cavalry had to be six feet, while the 1st cohorts had to be five feet ten. Another "however" is that Vegetius was obviously not a primary source. He was from the Late Roman times. He was also seemingly neither a true historian nor a soldier. All he is to us is merely someone who survived. Doubtlessly, he was not among the most qualified of his time, despite his apparent brilliance. This paragraph was out of the book, BTW. Not any single book anyway.

[MeinPanzer]

Alright. I am going to allow a brief post for myself. EDIT: Fail. Nothing is harder for me than to write something briefly. I thought this post was going to be short, but obviously it is not.

Seriously, how many people go out and buy some obscure book I have read JUST because they have heard me cite it. The probability is one to ten million. That is why I never cite my data unless someone specifically requests of me. And that is why i am still sceptical of citing data, even if someone does ask.

You're right, probably no one buys a book because you cite it. But many people probably go to a library and get a book to check it out, whether a public library or one attached to a university or college. This is, for instance, exactly what I do when I want to check something out. Even if your local library doesn't have the book you're after, there is almost always an interlibrary loan program at your disposal (whether you know it or not) to get a hold of it.

[Novellus]

For myself, I like seeing the sources not as much for review, but it sounds more researched than just saying "I read this in a book somewhere".

Also, the source can be verified as well should there be any argument. If anything, it actually helps one's case if the source is provided.

[Aemilius Paulus]

But many people probably go to a library and get a book to check it out, whether a public library or one attached to a university or college. This is, for instance, exactly what I do when I want to check something out. Even if your local library doesn't have the book you're after, there is almost always an interlibrary loan program at your disposal (whether you know it or not) to get a hold of it.
Heh. I myself am a library junkie. I go to the central library branch in my city/town (it is somewhat in between) and check out the maximum of 15 per time, with an interlibrary loan a necessity every time. Then I come back in two and a half weeks and repeat. I myself almost never buy books. I also visit the local university library as well, but on a less regular basis. No interlibrary loans there :no:

So yes, I am well aware.

BTW: just discovered that the minimum height for a normal legionary was 5 foot 5, a standard that stood for most of Middle/Late Republic to Early/Mid Empire.

[Frostwulf]

Didn't bother with the Website, but if it is one of those ridiculous racist sites you should investigate things like that first before posting it.

As for the subject:

By what handiwork, said they, by what strength could men, especially of so puny a stature (for, as a rule, our stature, short by comparison with their own huge physique, is despised of the Gauls), hope to set so heavy a tower on the wall? Book2, 30
Does a first hand account count for anything?

[Macilrille]

Notice I stopped posting here long ago, as did Cmaq, we have both read thousands of pages of Iron Age Denmark/Germania...

Lock the thread.