How tall was the average Roman Soldier

[jabames]

I have looked all over google, and it seems to me that they say about 5 feet to about 5 foot six; how much did the average Roman soldier weigh? Im talking about Legionaries from Rome or Italy, not Auxiliaries and the like, and what would their build be like?

[Sean Manning]

There is no way to be sure about build. After all, even modern armies (which are a lot more systematic about training and physical requirements than any ancient one) have a mix of very athletic and unathletic people. We know more about height: according to a study by Geoffrey Kron a set of 927 adult male skeletons buried in Italy between from 500 BCE to 500 CE would have averaged 168 cm (5'6") tall in life, so soldiers probably were at least that tall.

I think there is a statement in Vegetius that describes height requirements for soldiers (but there is no way to know if he is correct or to whom the requirement replied). Remember that it is in Roman feet which are smaller than US feet.

[Epictetus]

This is a very long thread, and some of it doesn't deal exactly with your question, but Were the Germans physically superior? has some some good information on the physiques of ancient peoples.

[Robert Vermaat]

There is no way to be sure about build.

I fully agree with Sean. After all, we do not have suffficient data about the Roman soldier from c. 500 BC top c. 500 AD, ranging from a tribesman from the central Italian hills to an Egyptian, a Briton, a Spaniard, a Syrian, not to mention volunteers from Germania to Persia and everyone inbetween. It's a good question but it's impossible to answer it with any scientific credibility.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

If you are limiting the question to solely Latins and perhaps Greeks....5'7" is a good guest-i-mate from what I have seen.
Of course, there is no bias to my opinion, whatsoever..none at all!

[jabames]

Yes, I was limiting it to only soldiers from Rome or Italy, I agree also that we cant fully know how they were built and soo on, but in my mind a full-blooded Roman soldier from Italy would be about Jet Li's size and height, Jet Li is a martial artist and actor if anyone doesn't know who he is, he's roughly 5 foot 7 and 145-150 pounds.

[M. Demetrius]

From what I've read, a Roman foot was 11 US inches, or 92% of a modern foot. Vegetius mentioned that 5' 10" (or 70") was the ideal height for a soldier, which yields 64.4", or 5' 4.5". My guess is that the physique Jet Li has is not the same as that of a man who regularly walked as much as 20 miles on a typical war day, with upwards of 70-90lbs of gear and armor. They felled trees to build various things, and managed to work long shifts, do some pretty amazing feats of engineering using all hand tools. I would venture they'd be bulkier like a laborer. not like a modern martial artist, certainly not lithe and slender like a dancer.

So my personal guess would be about 5' 6-8" and 175 lbs, not fat, but strong as he needed to be, and with well developed shoulder/arm muscles, thighs and calf muscles "hard as iron". But that's just my own idealistic mental image. There would be some variations, just as in the modern military. Some lighter, some heavier, some taller, some shorter, but all pretty darned tough.

That may be a flawed idea, but still, the math is sound.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I would say that fits my mental image too Dave. Looking at some of the reliefs, they are portrayed as fairly robust!

[Doc]

I agree with Sean and Robert that it is impossible to tell with absolute certainty. However, from what we know about the lives of legionaries, I think that what Dave described could be spot on. Those men did not look like underwear models or Arnold body builders BUT they were fit and strong.

The height I agree would vary. As an example, I am from Southern Italy. The average height amongst the males in my family from Southern Italy is between 5' 2" and 5' 7". However, one of my my uncles and I are 6'. I also have family in Rome where my uncle, his male children, and his brothers, are all between 5'9" and 6'2".

I am not saying that my family is living proof of the Roman era. However, being all Italians from those regions it is not unreasonable evidence.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I am not saying that my family is living proof of the Roman era. However, being all Italians from those regions it is not unreasonable evidence.

The same logic I use, more so for the Greeks!

[Vindex]

Those men did not look like underwear models ...

Damn

BUT they were fit and strong.

Yay!

I have had a very interesting chat with the human bone specialist where I work and the average for a "European" male is estimated to be about 5'7" and weight seems to be worked out by very complicated algorithms taken from the bones of the limbs where the estimated size of muscles can be determined (hence all this nonsense about "gladiators" and "specialist swordsmen" in the more wild archaeological reporting we seem to get too much of these days. LOL!)

(And - if you'll pardon the pun, my favourite hobbyhorse - I know it is not popular to say so but 5'7" and over 10st (175 pounds?) PLUS armour and weapons is FAR too much for a little 13 - 14 hh horse to carry all day... :wink: )

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Well, I'm sure the horses were just as tough as the men! (says a 5'7" person who weighs more than 10 stone, without armour...)
10 st = 140 Lbs is what I weighed when I was 17 -27 :wink:

[Sean Manning]

Just don't forget that not all Roman soldiers trained hard all the time. A soldier who was detached to work for the provincial government as a clerk, or an immunis clerk or supervisor, or a soldier whose centurion was cheap to bribe, would probably have had a different build than a soldier who had just finished several years of campaigning in Germania and building roads in Pannonia.

[Curtius Rufus]

Vegetius, Epitoma Rei Militaris, 1.5:

Proceritatem tironum ad incommam scio semper exactam, ita ut VI pedum uel certe V et X unciarum inter alares equites uel in primis legionum cohortibus probarentur. Sed tunc erat amplior multitude, et plures militiam sequebantur aramatam; necdum enim ciuilis pars florentiorem abducebat iuuentutem. Si ergo necessitas exigit, non tam staturae rationem conuenit habere quam uirium. (Et ipso Homero teste non fallitur, qui Tydeum minorm quidem corpora sed fortiroem armis fuisse significant.)

A height requirement of 5' 7" was recorded in 367, and the requirement was abandoned as impractical in the 5th century. Since you are inquiring about Italians specifically, that mostly limits the time frame to before the switch to local recruitment under Hadrian. In 165, Marcus Aurelius held dilectus in northern Italy for the formation of II and III Italica. In 193, II Parthica was partially raised in Italy. Dilectus were also held in northern Italy under Alexander Severus and Maximinus (c.231-38), and, later, IV Italica was recruited in Italy. The only legion with considerable numbers of Italians in its ranks, over an extended period, was II Parthica, owing to being based in Italy. Even the Praetorian Guard ceased accepting Italians after Septimius Severus disbanded the original unit.

As for the earlier period, there was a gradual decrease in the contribution from Italy. In the Rhine legions, for example, prior to 43, 80% of their recruits came from Italy. After that date, it drops to 43%. By the time of Trajan, most recruits were coming from areas such as Spain, although Italy was still providing some. I point this out because, with some of the evidence, it would be hard to distinguish between an Italian and a non-Italian, a legionaire or an auxiliary.

In regard to the above quote, Vegetius wrote in the 5th century. He definitely idealized the legions of the early Principate, and we do not know from where he drew his figures, so they should be approached with some scepticism. He states the ideal height was 5' 10" and that the cavalry alae and the 1st Cohort should be at least 5' 8". This is strange because the stature of auxiliaries of the alae and cohortes equitatae was sometimes quite small. A cavalry helmet found in Newstead, Scotland belonged to a trooper who was 5' 4" at the most. Similiarly, 2 cuirasses found in Corbridge, England have a girdle length suitable to someone of similiar build, however, we have no way of knowing whether these pieces belonged to legionaires or auxiliaries. We know that when Nero raised I Italica in 67, it contained men who were all Italian and all 5' 10" or taller, and it was considered special for that reason, therefore other legions doubtlessly contained men of lesser stature. Also, Vegetius states that shorter men of good build could be accepted since skill with arms was more important that mere height.

On the other hand, we may have a situation analogous to Grenadier units of the 18th century. These were elite units that had a height requirement, which was at times ignored. Since Vegetius specifically mentions the alae and the 1st Cohort, it is possible the requirement only applied to those elite units, and it may have similiarly been ignored. The bodies of two soldiers, found in a double grave at Canterbury, England measure 5' 8" and 5' 11". The later had indications of being particularly muscular. It is known, in this period, that service in the legions was an attractive career, and the Empire had no problem maintaining them with voluntarii, unlike the late Empire were 2 maimed lecti would be accepted in place of a healthy conscript. If there was a surplus of potential recruits in the early Principate, it is possible the legions may have been more selective about who was enrolled, which makes the above height requirements, while doubtful, at least possible.

As for the build of the average legionaire, throughout the history of the Roman state, the vast majority of recruits were drawn form rural areas. Even with the proletarianization of the army in the late Republic, the recruits were drawn from the rural proletarii, not the urban. Only in the east, during the Empire, were urban recruits consistently enrolled in any numbers. The ideal was always of the farmer soldier, so the average recruit would have had the build of the average farmer. Other vocations stated as providing good recruits include hunters, butchers and blacksmiths. So, the average legionaire would probably be described as much sinewy as muscled.

[Quintius Clavus]

Diet - what the Roman soldier ate and his daily caloric intake would also affect his size and build. There are studies out there which attempt to approach this subject. While Roman soldiers did consume meat (they were not vegetarians as a cursory reading of Caesar might lead one to believe), they did not eat nearly the quantity we moderns do. Jonathan Roth in hs book on Roman logistics may touch on the subject since he deals with transport - and foodstuffs would need to be transported, whether on the man or surpluses in the baggage train or on-the-hoof. I don't have access to my books which cite some of these studies, but IIRC, the average daily caloric intake for Roman soldiers was estimated to be a fair bit less than our modern one. This would be true of ancient people in general outside of the wealthy classes. Modern analyses of latrines in Roman forts have shown they were prey to several intestinal parasites, another way that they were "robbed" of the nutrition in the food they did consume. I'll dig around at home this weekend and find some of the citations I have - between books I own, material I've copied while doing research at Yale University, etc.