Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Were the Germans physically superior?
#16
Different races usually have different hieghts, probably traits passed down from the founding members of that particular group. That is how we get such variety in human height. On a side note, not all gallic nobility were tall; my french side of the family is all under 5'10 (I do have the family tree going back a log,long time). My italian side of the family has a great variation in size, from 5'0 to 5'10; why I dont know. I think i am starting to ramble so i'll save you all from myself.
~~Gavin Nugent~~

Who told you to die! Keep fighting!

If anyone knows of anything in Long Island, New York please tell me.
Reply
#17
I know that problem...
BUT in the first cent. BC and AD you have for example the burials in East Germany which are mostly not romanized.

I know that the pure race-discussion is not worth for getting a closer look,
but I would like to know anyway have tall most people have been in that period.

I guess most of the highness comes anyway from sort of food,
as far as I know for some years now youth in Japan has grown very tall.
Which most medicines base on the change of food.
So somebody most not have been born somewhere, he most have lived somewhere to grow tall and have a good health.
So at least it would be interesting to know how tall they have been anyway...
but you cannot only compare them that I admit.
Susanna

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.musica-romana.de">www.musica-romana.de

A Lyra is basically an instrument to accompaign pyromanic city destruction.
Reply
#18
I remember reading an article which stated that a chiropodist (foot doctor) had identified that people in the Uk of Celtic origin had a certain bone of the foot which was of a different shape than that of those of a non Celtic ..ie English ( German ) origin.

This was said to be of use to archaologists when studying bones of UK burrials.

I wonder if the Italic races had a similar difference ? If so the weat can be sorted from the chaff height wise :roll:
Conal Moran

Do or do not, there is no try!
Yoda
Reply
#19
Some family's hieght is genetically hardwired, some like mine have a certain hieght that they will not grow past. On the topic of foot bones, that is interesting but what about people of mixed backgrounds? Speaking of feet here is a life lesson: Never drop a computer tower on your foot. It hurts like hades and could break your foot. I digress...
~~Gavin Nugent~~

Who told you to die! Keep fighting!

If anyone knows of anything in Long Island, New York please tell me.
Reply
#20
i tend also to believe that they must have been taller but not bulky in general due to nutrition reasons. Though they would have the tendency to become big if feeded correctly.

Even today with so many centuries and mixtures of races passed, people still have differences. I am 1,78. Im considered as normal height guy and most of my friends are shorter than me. There are offcourse many tall people but the average is about 1,75. On the other hand when i visited east Ukraine i felt like midget with people standing like towers beside me with huge necks and wide shoulders and an average of 1,90. I mean i thought how i would feel as a mediteranean in ancient years facing those huge guys. They would level me with their hands only :lol: .
aka Yannis
----------------
Molon lave
Reply
#21
Don’t forget genetic breading. In some cultures, women prefer taller men while others prefer same size. This can also be a contributing factor of height differential in cultures.
Steve
Reply
#22
Also medieval armour sizes are a good indicator i heard japanese armour was commonly made for the hight of 5 ft 5 (but not always) and the average european set was like 6 ft 4 or something
PS last post for me guys and girls ill be off to military training tommorow so hopefully there will be some more interesting discusions like this going on when i get back in 3 months
[Image: hegbanner38ju14tq.jpg]
Josh
Reply
#23
Quote:Also medieval armour sizes are a good indicator i heard japanese armour was commonly made for the hight of 5 ft 5 (but not always) and the average european set was like 6 ft 4 or something
PS last post for me guys and girls ill be off to military training tommorow so hopefully there will be some more interesting discusions like this going on when i get back in 3 months

Good luck.
Steve
Reply
#24
Thank u in the short time ive been posting here ive learned alot and i think what alot of what you guys do is great for our european heritage and good luck too you all
[Image: hegbanner38ju14tq.jpg]
Josh
Reply
#25
Quote:As far as I know a Roman soldier had to be at least 1,70 Metres to enter the Roman army. Well, thats not very short for that timeperiod.
And if the Germans were taller, as discribed, means they were commonly
at least 1,80-1,90 Metres what I doubt a little for that time.
Romans had much better food and more variety of food...

There are some skeleton-founds of Romans and Germans, practical would be to simply collect those founds and compare them.


Hi

Take a look at this pdf:

http://www.meteohistory.org/2005history ... _baten.pdf


"Migrants from the Mediterranean to Central Europe (especially Roman soldiers and officers, as well as
administrative staff) turned out to be 4 cm shorter than the rest of the population. But skeletons that could be
identified as “Germanic migrantsâ€
Soren Larsen aka Nithijo/Wagnijo
Reply
#26
Very interesting,

thank you very much ;-) )
Susanna

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.musica-romana.de">www.musica-romana.de

A Lyra is basically an instrument to accompaign pyromanic city destruction.
Reply
#27
Conal said:

Quote:I remember reading an article which stated that a chiropodist (foot doctor) had identified that people in the Uk of Celtic origin had a certain bone of the foot which was of a different shape than that of those of a non Celtic ..ie English ( German ) origin.

I remember reading something along those lines too, and I think
I've managed to find it online:

http://www.archaeology.co.uk/ca/timelin ... t/feet.htm

Current Archaeology 144, August 1995
Reply
#28
I would say that the author rather jumps to conclusions. That the one type of foot is Celtic and the other Saxon is far from proven. It ould for instance be that the 'Celtic' foot type is actually of pre-Celtic origin. That the foot of the people of Brittany is similar is simply assumed, while that is an important aspect, crucial to the theory.
drsrob a.k.a. Rob Wolters
Reply
#29
Is important to note many things:
1.-There is not Races, there is only one Homo Sapiens Sapiens, all diferences are somatological types into ONE and only ONE race
2.- The nordic types were always more taller and stronger than another europeans but this is not an "superiority manifestation"
3.- Some sources tell us about the roman soldiers with 1.70m. but archaeology show us another thing,just look on a museum an roman "Panoplia" are very thiny in comparation with modern standars
4.- Roman soldiers do not eat too much meat because the belief of a relation between meat and a bad attitude or a agressive attitude, eat just a little no more, and becasue were very expensive too feed an so large army on so many fronts ...
5.-Germanic peoples eat a lot of meat and old beer (Not Ale or Pilsener i though) eat a lot of bread and cereals, were healthy but no so healthy as today, there is a lot of desseases and only the stronger survive
6.- The city life on roman times were horrible, a city were not exactly a clean place, manypoor people living together, with no a good diet, surviving on little spaces, on the "barbarian" towns the people had more space and were no so large population to feed and to keep healthy.....as today when i see city peoples and healthy farmers...but is very subjetive, on the field many people are sick and died young ....on roman times there is not a "magical formula" to a good way to :wink: live
Järnvarg - José L. Díaz - Archaeologist[color=#0000FF]
Reply
#30
Well, i think first of all Roman soldiers might had come from diferent places, not just italian peninsula, so their size (if we consider nationality) can vary. As well, the selection was pretty good (at least 170 cm high and a decent physical shape). They had a harsh training, constant activities and eat regulary. I think that a legionar of 175 cm, with 10 years in the army, constant training and several campagnies fight against diferent enemies will be able to fight with success, 1 on 1 vs. any other 180 cm tall enemy, germanic or others, who had obviously less training and experience.
Germans, with couple exceptions, (as Arausio, but there too because of stupidity of a roman comander) wasnt a match for roman army for a long time. Just later, when the empire start to crumble because its own internal problems and when germans start to be somehow "romanized" (especialy from military point of view). That was the main reason of their later succes, and not simply a possible physical superiority of them, as being taller (even if, agree, several cm. taller can count in such fights, but count as well the stamina, skills, experience, weaponry and even psychology).
Razvan A.
Reply


Forum Jump: