traits of a Roman legionary

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Well, maybe more robust, but not necessarilly taller! :wink:

Definately in better health than your average pleb, that would be a certainty. But they would all be different I imagine, as all humans are. Somewould be arrogant, thieves, thugs. Others may be more intelligent or capable of making a go of themselves in civilain life....without being outright bandits....farmers, shop keepers even?

Depends on their ability to handle their money.....

[John M McDermott]

Well, maybe more robust, but not necessarilly taller!

Minimum height was 5' 7" Roman. Some units had 6 footers.

They also favored country boys. (hunters and herdsmen)

Also there was an odd desire that they have long, supple fingers. (Dexterity?)

[Decius]

caligae + military belt...and think that would fit

[Primvs Pavlvs]

Proffesional soldiers (Non-REMF) have a special air about them that others do not.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

6 Roman feet being a bout 5'7" - 5'8" if I remember correctly.....

[Tiberius Clodius Corvinus]

Hi all,

I wonder if this trait-thing is really helpful in reality. I think we all have certain expectations how soldiers look like, but this seems to me more a product of "Hollywood", as soldier-looking guys are casted to express military. then looking at images of an individual (real soldier) in uniform and the same person in civil clothing the military impression just fades away.

[Marcus Mummius]

Caligae? There is a definite mention (Petronius' Satyricon?) about the writer being robbed of his dagger(?) by a veteran who was wearing caligae. I guess that means an unarmed veteran was a tough opponent for a civilian armed with a dagger.

I remember reading about a soldier that got beaten up by a harbour worker too

[John M McDermott]

6 Roman feet being a bout 5'7" - 5'8" if I remember correctly

I misstated. It was 5' 10" Roman and 5' 7" in our height. They also had 6 foot (Roman) cohorts.

[Kate Gilliver]

I wouldn't worry too much about the height since it's an ideal. Nero's so-called 'phalanx of Alexander' may have started off with taller recruits (Suet. Nero 19) but whether the army ever actually imposed the height regulations Vegetius (1.5) or the Theodosian Code (7.13.3) mentions is another matter.

As for what soldiers looked like, I'm with Carlton and Matthew. Some soldiers probably looked like a 21st century perception of what a Roman soldier should have looked like; some probably looked like a 21st century perception of what a Roman clerk should have looked like.

[John M McDermott]

I wouldn't worry too much about the height since it's an ideal. Nero's so-called 'phalanx of Alexander' may have started off with taller recruits (Suet. Nero 19) but whether the army ever actually imposed the height regulations Vegetius (1.5) or the Theodosian Code (7.13.3) mentions is another matter.

As for what soldiers looked like, I'm with Carlton and Matthew. Some soldiers probably looked like a 21st century perception of what a Roman soldier should have looked like; some probably looked like a 21st century perception of what a Roman clerk should have looked like.

Uhhhhh! This could stimulate quite a discussion. I believe there is a sound proposition that Roman soldiers would have been a picked lot, not just a cross section of Roman society. After all, they were well paid and there were relatively few of them demographically speaking.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

So you think only tall people would have made it in?
True, they were required to meet certain criteria, but also they would need numbers to meet emergencies as in the case of the second punic wars.
And short people are quite capable of out-shining taller people in any area, so height would not be a necessity. You just have to beat it into their heads to make them understand it, which takes longer due to the requirement to bring it down to a normal altitude..... :wink:

[John M McDermott]

So you think only tall people would have made it in?
True, they were required to meet certain criteria, but also they would need numbers to meet emergencies as in the case of the second punic wars.
And short people are quite capable of out-shining taller people in any area, so height would not be a necessity. You just have to beat it into their heads to make them understand it, which takes longer due to the requirement to bring it down to a normal altitude.....

Well, this makes sense to us, but we are dealing with the Romans. There is this thing floating around about the height requirement. So, what do we do, just ignore it and say it wasn't so, or come up with other objectively viewable data to the contrary?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I think perhaps it was a wish list more than the reality.
Most Romans were smaller than their northern neighbours the Gauls.
Once conquered and allied, the were highly desireable as body guards
i.e. Caesar and his mounted guard.

But the Romans themselves would not have suddenly stopped their citizens from joining the legions be cause they were shorter than the Gauls and Germans.......they didn't need the height to conquere them in the first place......

How tall was Caesar? Tall, for a Roman, but he was probably shorter than most gauls..... 8)

[Paullus Scipio]

Before this discussion of height requirements becomes too dichotomised, I recall that the male average height during the early Roman Empire was around 5ft 7 inches (1.675 m), to the best of our knowledge, so the height limit set was essentially 'average or over', not a hard requirement in peacetime. No doubt like other limits such as age, in times of war or other recruitment stress, this limit was relaxed, so we shouldn't be too pedantic about it........

[Hibernicus]

I have found that it is best to group soldiers by height.

A tall man with short men to either side is vulnerable to attack from the oblique.... he sticks up!

I would try to arrange the fighters by height, shorter to the front and right, taller to the rear and left.