Posts: 13,279
Threads: 102
Joined: May 2006
Reputation:
3
But was he 6 feet tall, in Roman feet, or modern feet? At 6 Roman feet, about his time, he would have been what between 5'7" and 5'9", I think...somewhere along those lines.
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Posts: 2,012
Threads: 52
Joined: Sep 2006
Reputation:
14
When dealing with measurements from artifacts, I would like to point out something on "remains". Having collected fossils for some time, I would like to draw an analogy. The preserved remains of ancient times represent only a tiny fraction of the total that was around at the time. Preservation was very unlikly, given the circumstances. It is very difficult to base rock solid extrapolations on a limited number of finds. This could mean the shield umbos could very well have had a greater differentiation in size then we now take for granted. The "freaks" (smaller and larger) have a low population density to begin with and looking at the odds against preservation, are much more likely to be excluded from the finds alltogether. So an umbo of 6" for the ham-fisted would make good sense. The point on the position of the handle as however also a good one to deal with discomfort if you choose not to alter umbo size from current evidence.
