Romans are hobbits!!!

[Kroakie]

Is it just me or do the models of your units look a tad too small? Just go into battle and walk into a forest. See how big that tree is compared to your troops? It looks like a bloody skyscraper besides your men. A war elephant would look like Godzilla. Or view your city in 3D mode and compare your plebians to your buildings. A single step of a staircase would reach up to their knee. It's kind of distracting when the rest of the game aims so much at realism.

[Sinner]

Yah, it's something I noticed and just sighed about, ticking it off as another oddity of the game.

Of course, if the Romans were hobbits it would explain their preference for infantry... getting up on horseback would be quite difficult without ladders.

[Lord Ovaat]

Actually, I'm rather impressed with the authenticity of the "huge" trees. Remember, this would have been all virgin forest--uncut, 500-1000 years old. I've been in stands of native American Sugar Maple, Hemlock, White Pine, White Oak, etc. The boles (trunks) are straight as a poker, without any branches, for the first 100 feet or so in height, then the branches form the canopy that lets in almost no sunlight. The boles, by the way, are often five or more feet in DIAMETER. Now, these aren't Giant Redwoods, just normal Hemlocks that have survived for 500 years. But it is a real treat to see something like that. It reminds me of being in a cathedral, but far more spiritual. Yeah, I like the "big" trees. Good job, CA. (It was probably a mistake, and the devs are saying, "Man, we really screwed-up on size. Let's use that virgin tree thingy as an explanation.")

[Tamur]

(It was probably a mistake, and the devs are saying, "Man, we really screwed-up on size. Let's use that virgin tree thingy as an explanation.")

Hehehe! I've wondered about that, but having been to several places where the "standard" tree varieties are 80-100 feet tall, they're certainly not out of the question.

[CGS]

They might be hobbits, but it seems how tall you are is not related with how much land you can conquer

[Lonewarrior]

Give them some steroids

[Medieval Assassin]

Boo-hoo, complain...

[Silver Rusher]

Remember, at this time the Romans were smaller, no, MUCH smaller than Italians are now. Back then, their health wasn't as artificial as it is now (what I mean is, they didn't know as much about drinking milk and stuff to be tall, and that kind of thing)

[Jugurtha]

He he he, more political clap trap

"New research has shown some unexpected disparities between statures of Americans and Europeans, indicating that recent social changes and diet are major influences on adult height.

For British men, too, are outstripping their transatlantic rivals. At the time of the American Revolution, the average US male was two inches taller than his British counterpart. Today he is almost half an inch shorter.

America has eight million people with no job, 40 million individuals with no health insurance, 35 million living below the poverty line, and a population that exists mainly on junk food. There, the rise in average height that marked its progress as a nation through the 19th and 20th centuries has stopped and has actually reversed - albeit very slightly - in recent years. Many Americans are rich and do well anatomically as a result, but there is a large underclass that is starting to drag the country down the stature charts.

This discovery, which has been revealed through research that Komlos has assembled over decades, amounts to an assault on the values of the free market economy espoused by Americans and provides powerful support for those who back European ideas about universal healthcare.

Fluctuations in human stature are not new and have occurred regularly throughout history. Our early hunter-gatherer ancestors were tall and lean. Later, as farming spread across the world, dense populations learnt to live on only a few standard crops and suffered considerable nutritional neglect. The result was a decline in stature.

Similarly, climatic changes have had a profound effect on human height - a physical attribute that is now regarded by historians, scientists and economists as a key indicator of the health of any group of people living at any particular time and place. For example, during the Little Ice Age, in which temperatures plummeted across the world between 1300 and the mid-19th century, there was a noticeable decrease in human stature.

'There are two possible mechanisms for this observation,' said Professor Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum. 'Firstly, all mammals get shorter and rounder when climates cool. It is a physiological response to cold. Short, round bodies preserve heat better than tall cool ones.

'However, there is an alternative explanation for shrinking stature in bad weather. It means poor crops, and that in turn means malnutrition and, of course, the consequence of that is poor stature.

'Those tiny suits of armour that you see when you visit the Tower of London were worn by people who were badly nourished. During winter they would have only salt meat and a few vegetables to live on. That's not going to help you grow very well.'

Modern society now protects humans from such problems, though in recent years it has become clear that political factors are having some effect on nutrition levels and proper diet and therefore stature. And it is in this arena that Komlos has made his key discoveries.

Through painstaking investigations he has calculated the heights of men at different times over our recent historical past. This shows that, around 1850, Americans - blessed with Western technology that allowed its citizens to spread unstoppably across the United States - lived relatively fine lives that let its menfolk reach an average height of 5ft 9in. By contrast, Dutchmen were only able to reach about 5ft 7in.

By the early 20th century the average American man was still about the same height as his predecessor. But the average Dutchman had nearly caught up and was only about half an inch shorter.

But in the 20th century Americans were overtaken. The average US male is now about 5ft 10in. The average Dutchman is just over 6ft.

More importantly, the latter is continuing his rise in average height. The Americans have long since stopped growing and, according to some measures, may actually be getting smaller. 'In relative terms, Americans are certainly shrinking in comparison with Europeans,' says Komlos.

One possible explanation lies with immigration. As more Mexicans and Chinese enter the US, these individuals may lower the average height, it is argued. But statisticians dismiss this suggestion. During the 19th century the country took in millions of malnourished, and therefore small, people. Yet Americans remained the tallest people in the world at that time.

In fact, the very idea that various peoples are programmed, on average, to be short or tall is thrown into doubt by Komlos's work. Apart from a few rare races, such as African pygmies who are genetically programmed to have low stature, virtually everyone in the world has the potential to reach the same average height as the Dutch, and that includes the Mexicans, Chinese, Inuit, and other peoples who are not usually noted for their stature.

To achieve that status will require some arduous social engineering. The Dutch health service, with its magnificent support services for pregnant woman (quality of life in the womb is a key factor in determining future health and height) and its high-protein diets based on dairy food, will not be easy to emulate in a world whose population is now soaring towards seven billion."

I love clap trap, especially when it is supported by stats and research rather than conviction.

Still and all, health care systems aside, it does explain why Romans and other "civilised" peoples were generally speaking shorter than Barbarians. These were paradoxically, able to get a better diet than their more numerous and urbanised opponents. As the industrial revolution took hold it is a fact that averga height shrunk as people moved to the towns. During the first world war it was noted how much smaller British troops were than the French, not a nation renowned for their height. This was because most Britain was much more heavily industrialised than France at the time

[Lord Ovaat]

Any given set of statistics can be used to support or refute just about any arguement, depending on interpretation. For instance, the quote above,

One possible explanation lies with immigration. As more Mexicans and Chinese enter the US, these individuals may lower the average height, it is argued. But statisticians dismiss this suggestion. During the 19th century the country took in millions of malnourished, and therefore small, people. Yet Americans remained the tallest people in the world at that time.

entirely dismisses the obvious fact that the vast, vast majority of immigrants to the US during the later part of the 19th and early 20th Centuries were European, ie, Italian, German, Slav, etc. Height comparisons between an undernourished Slav and an undernourished Asia are, in the very least, misleading. And to automatically assume that you MUST be diminitive if malnourished is folly. Man, I live with these folks. My wife is of Eastern European descent. I've met her family, seen pics of the ancestors, etc. Believe me, these folks were not dwarfs. Most statisticians would close their minds to the possibility that one set of immigrants were different--in any way--from another. Sorry, but no matter how politically correct one wants to be, there's just no denying the fact that Europeans are taller than Asians and Central & South Americans--ON AVERAGE. That's not bias, or racial or ethnic preference. Just fact. But, in any event, this doesn't have much to do with the average size of a Roman circa 50 BC. Yes, BC, not BCE. Always wanted to say that somewhere, so there it is.

[Nelson]

Yes, BC, not BCE. Always wanted to say that somewhere, so there it is.

I'm an AD/BC man myself.