Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Were the Germans physically superior?
#1
Were the Germans (and Celts) really physically superior to the Romans as it is often assumed? What do the primary sources say? Do we have archaeological evidence for superior height and strength? And what are the reasons for their superiority?
Stefan (Literary references to the discussed topics are always appreciated.)
Reply
#2
I'm not a Doc, but for me it doesnt has to do with race or physically taller than other, but environment & life style! etc., ...

The Iberians were not that taller than Germans, but were stronger that Romans
  
Remarks by Philip on the Athenian Leaders:
Philip said that the Athenians were like the bust of Hermes: all mouth and dick. 
Reply
#3
Quote:I'm not a Doc, but for me it doesnt has to do with race or physically taller than other, but environment & life style! etc.,

Hm, hope that I am now not misunderstood. I am not at all interested in any theories of alleged racial superiority or inferiority, just the plain fact if the German warriors were on average taller an stronger than their Roman counterparts or at least perceived so by Roman writers like Caesar and Tacitus.
Stefan (Literary references to the discussed topics are always appreciated.)
Reply
#4
'superior' is a problematic term, even if we are just talking physique.

There is certainly evidence that Germanic people were, on average, taller than Italians or Spanish. Average heights for men ranges in the 170s in some sites, and 6-foot-plus skeletons don't really raise eyebrows among excavators. However, these are averages, and a tall Italian easily topped a short German. Also, 'Roman' soldiers increasingly were actually Rhinelanders, Gauls, Belgae, Pannonians, Raetians and Illyrians - populations with very similar average body types to the Germanic nations, so 'Roman' is not automatically 'Italian'.

The thing is, taller is not the same as better. It is not a bad thing on the battlefield to have the reach and drop, but is it really that decisive?

Second, we don't know about bulk. It is quite likely that retinue warriors and aristocrats, fed on the Germanic (and Celtic) high-status diet of ample protein and animal fat, bulked out a lot and built up plenty of muscle. On the other hand, it is unlikely that these people ever were anywhere near as numerous as literature makes them oput to have been. Studies of skeletal evidence from Germania indicates that the majority of people lived a life of deprivation, with regular occurences of malnutrition, probably in winter/spring. It is quite possible that, at least in bad times, the Germanic warriors facing the legions looked more like modern-day Somalis than the Conanesque figures of legend. And climate data indicates times in Germany were not great in the first few centuries AD.

The Romans, on the other hand, probably came from a reasopnably well-fed population. Legions did not recruit from the poorest if they could help it (if there is anything to Vegetius' criteria, they couldn't have - you don't find that body type among the chronically malnourished). So we can assume that, while the Roman army probably did not consist of exceptionally tall or bulky men (the Roman diet was not rich in animal protein, in fact it may well have been deficient in that regard in many areas south of the Alps), it would not have consisted of scrawny runts, either.

Finally, we should keep in mind that the Romans *liked* bulk. Look at the athletes and gladiators depicted in their art (not the Greek copies, the Roman originals). So we can assume safely that though Roman soldiers may not have looked like that, many must have wanted to, and worked on it. That phenotype was not unknown in the ancient world.

So, taller yes, bigger maybe, superior - depends on your definition. But a Germanic warrior brought up in the household of a lord, with the genetic predisposition to grow, say, 6'3", trained to war from youth and fed on meat and beer, must have been a sight to see. You don't really need many of those to start a legend, I guess.
Der Kessel ist voll Bärks!

Volker Bach
Reply
#5
mistake, I searched for the sentence in Bellum Gallicum but could not find them
AKA Inaki
Reply
#6
Quote:IIRC when Caesar was about to fight Ariovistus, in order to raise the fighting spirit of his legionaires he said something like "yes, the Germans are tall, but slim and badly built, and they can´t bear fatigue"
Angus McBride obviously read that.
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Reply
#7
I suggest you must also consider the "anglers tale" aspect of writers describing a defeated foe.

(a) The Germans were tall thin & scrawney and we chinned them easily

or

(b) The Germans were massive and strong and we defeated them in hard battle through our greater forebearance and stamena.

Spin Spin Spin.
Conal Moran

Do or do not, there is no try!
Yoda
Reply
#8
In “Conquest of Gaulâ€
Steve
Reply
#9
Yes I read somewhere that the germans often mocked the romans of there small stature before a battle
[Image: hegbanner38ju14tq.jpg]
Josh
Reply
#10
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.
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
#11
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.

I don't think that would be practical. How would you be able to tell the difference between the bones of a Roman, a Gaul, or a German? You could hardly base it on the location of the burial alone, and once you limit yourself to those skeletons clearly identifiaed by the circumstances of the excavation as Roman or Germanic, the numbers are fairly small.

Averages point that way, of course, but in the end I don't think the material proves more than 'Southern Europweans were shorter than Northern Europeans'.
Der Kessel ist voll Bärks!

Volker Bach
Reply
#12
Read Arthes' post in this thread:
link from old RAT

Also, Matt Amt has said a number of times that the average height was something like 5'5", I think from Roman military burials?

There is also an Italian archaeologist claiming to have measured all Roman skeletal remains in Europe, and puts the average height at 5'2". If you can find his name let me know.
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Reply
#13
Hmm interesting but it is a fact some races are bigger than others for instance our maori nieghbours across the sea are natural big
[Image: hegbanner38ju14tq.jpg]
Josh
Reply
#14
You can tell the difference by the founds lied down by the burial.
This is something most archaeologists do...
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
#15
Quote:You can tell the difference by the founds lied down by the burial.
This is something most archaeologists do...

No, you can't. You can tell the funerary culture someone comes from. For the first century, when we at least have a likelihood of an ethnically relatively hjomogenous recruitment reservoir for the legions, most Romans were not inhumed, so most Roman skeletal material does not come from formal burial contexts. By the second and third centuries, when inhumations become more common, Roman burial rites only indicate that the person in question was part of Romanised culture. Germanic burials for the early parts of the Empire are, by contrast, relatively conclusive, though with the establishment of the Grossstämme and kingdoms we get a similar problem - Germsanic grave goods only tell you that the person inhumed here thought of him- or herself as part of a Germanic community, not that he or she was born that way. By the sixth century, we have Romanic populations adopting Germanic names and social structures even in places like Aquitaine and Italy. I would argue that a similar phenomeon in the federate settlement areas is quite likely at an earlier stage.

People *have* thought this through.
Der Kessel ist voll Bärks!

Volker Bach
Reply


Forum Jump: