05-28-2011, 12:54 PM
Mmmm... Personally, I have never bought the argument that people in the past were smaller than us. Maybe a small difference in the mean average of a population due to nutrition and genetic variations (if we assume that legionaries all have a common genetic background), but definitely not enough to justify a whole new set of fighting gear with different measurements. Furthermore, I know a good bunch of people who are 3 to 8 inches shorter than I am, and are lot bulkier with larger hands. These Roman soldiers were in shape and had a grain base diet, so their body must have accumulated more lipids and muscles than even a good number of us today. This in turn could, in some cases, make them bulkier, at least enough to make up for this "size difference".
We either:
1. have the shield construction wrong,
2. do not hold the shield the right way,
3. miss a small detail that was added on the shield/hand,
4. or it is possible that it did hurt them back then as much as it does us today. Firearm drills during the last 300 years (and even today) did/do have ways of holding a weapon that were/are sometimes awkward and do hurt your fingers, wrist and arm, during a prolonged march or use. It's part of using a weapon. And like all good soldiers, you suck it up and carry on!
Or, you may be right in a sense: if we make a broad assumption that some pieces of gear like shield bosses were made in different sizes to accomodate the user, than maybe we're facing a bias in the archaeological record. Pieces of gear with sizes that are on the outside range of a normal distribution (like a bell distribution graph) are discarded faster than the other sizes which are used until they fall apart/are recycled. It's like why collectors of WWII gear have an easier time finding uniforms made in very small sizes than normal sizes: it's not that soldiers were smaller in the 1940s, it's because the normal sizes were worn until they fell apart, while the smaller ones ended up in military stores and were seldom issued compared to the bigger sizes. OK, this whole thing is quite farfetched in a Roman setting, especially in regard to shield bosses, but it is just an example of how we must be careful in interpreting sizes vs use.
My two cents!
We either:
1. have the shield construction wrong,
2. do not hold the shield the right way,
3. miss a small detail that was added on the shield/hand,
4. or it is possible that it did hurt them back then as much as it does us today. Firearm drills during the last 300 years (and even today) did/do have ways of holding a weapon that were/are sometimes awkward and do hurt your fingers, wrist and arm, during a prolonged march or use. It's part of using a weapon. And like all good soldiers, you suck it up and carry on!
Or, you may be right in a sense: if we make a broad assumption that some pieces of gear like shield bosses were made in different sizes to accomodate the user, than maybe we're facing a bias in the archaeological record. Pieces of gear with sizes that are on the outside range of a normal distribution (like a bell distribution graph) are discarded faster than the other sizes which are used until they fall apart/are recycled. It's like why collectors of WWII gear have an easier time finding uniforms made in very small sizes than normal sizes: it's not that soldiers were smaller in the 1940s, it's because the normal sizes were worn until they fell apart, while the smaller ones ended up in military stores and were seldom issued compared to the bigger sizes. OK, this whole thing is quite farfetched in a Roman setting, especially in regard to shield bosses, but it is just an example of how we must be careful in interpreting sizes vs use.
My two cents!
Danny Deschenes
