Were the Germans physically superior?

[Alanus]

Well, I think there is a consensus that the Romans believed Germans were taller and stronger than them. But how would they know? Did they measure the height of 1000 random citizens off the last census, then march across the limes and round up 1000 random male Germani? People like forming stereotypes about groups, but they aren't always reliable. Unless someone digs up a study of the height of Iron-Age Germans based on bones, I don't think we can say anything definite about which population was taller.

I agree with your other points.

I have always felt that Tacitus was reliable and not a writer of unfounded rumor. He may not have actually visited Germania but his father-in-law did, and that's how Tacitus got his info. As for Polybius? :?: We can better look to Vegetius, "What could the short Roman soldier dare to do against the tall German." (Veg. Epitome, I,i) Or perhaps we can ask Caesar who knew the Germans first-hand and up close-- "... owing the nature of the food, the regular exercise, and the freedom of life, nurses their strength and makes men of immense bodily stature." (Caes. de Bello Gallico, IV, 2)

I don't think these Roman authors were forming stereotypes, but rather they knew-- by looking with their own eyes-- that Germans were physically larger than they were. Also, I'm sure that archaeological comparisons have been made, but my personal library has mostly "the really old guys."

But, like I said earlier, largeness is not necessarily "superior." You can have the shale boulder, but I'll take the little gold nugget. :wink:

[Robert Vermaat]

I have always felt that Tacitus was reliable and not a writer of unfounded rumor. He may not have actually visited Germania but his father-in-law did, and that's how Tacitus got his info. As for Polybius? :?: We can better look to Vegetius, "What could the short Roman soldier dare to do against the tall German." (Veg. Epitome, I,i) Or perhaps we can ask Caesar who knew the Germans first-hand and up close-- "... owing the nature of the food, the regular exercise, and the freedom of life, nurses their strength and makes men of immense bodily stature." (Caes. de Bello Gallico, IV, 2)
I don't think these Roman authors were forming stereotypes, but rather they knew-- by looking with their own eyes-- that Germans were physically larger than they were. Also, I'm sure that archaeological comparisons have been made, but my personal library has mostly "the really old guys."

ALL classic authors used stereotype. Jona wrote a nice article about that, and Halsall also mentions it - it was that they meant to fool the audience, but it was what the audience axpected of the author. That why elephants were always smelly, and foreign lands always mountainous and heavily wooded (even if they were not and Romans knew that). I think that the savage large German is part of the same stereotype, which made humans less and less human the further they were from Roman territory.

Tacitus is not different. He described the Fenni as

"astonishingly wild and horribly poor. They have no arms, no horses, no homes. They eat grass, dress in skins, and sleep on the ground. Their only hope is in their arrows, which, for lack of iron, they tip with bone. The same hunt provides food for men and women alike; for the women go everywhere with the men and claim a share in securing the prey. The only way they can protect their babies against wild beasts or foul weather is to hide them under a makeshift network of branches. This is the hovel to which the young men come back, this is where the old must lie. Yet they count their lot happier than that of others who groan over field labour, sweat over house-building, or hazard their own or other men's fortunes in the wild lottery of hope and fear. They care for nobody, man or god, and have gained the ultimate release: they have nothing to pray for. What comes after them is the stuff of fables—Hellusii and Oxiones with the faces and features of men, but the bodies and limbs of animals." (Germania, 46).

[Alanus]

Thanks for that.

Yes, this is a version of the "given impression" by various authors. But what about Caesar who was writing about the very men he was dealing with at the time, many of whom were recruited as his cavalry after he lost the Aedui horsemen.

I can't remember exactly offhand, but I think it was Ward-Perkins who mentioned that the Mediterranean stature was smaller due to malaria, a disease you didn't get in the Hyrcinian Forest. The Hotchdorf Prince was well over six feet. The Cherchen Man was six foot six. I realize these two examples are not Germanic, but they lived and died outside the "frog pond" fringe, and they were substantially larger than even modern Italians.

Help! hock: I can't be the only one who believes that Italo-Romans were smaller in stature than northern barbarians. Somewhere, someone has a done a study of skeletal measuements, just as was done for the Hotchdorf Prince and Cherchen Man. :wink:

[Robert Vermaat]

Yes, this is a version of the "given impression" by various authors. But what about Caesar who was writing about the very men he was dealing with at the time, many of whom were recruited as his cavalry after he lost the Aedui horsemen.

Oh, I don’t think that the Germans were INFERIOR or something! They were evidently good warriors. But here we encounter a very difficult debate, because we just can’t make an ethnic difference between Gauls and Germans in that area at that very time.
Ceasar did, making the Rhine an ethnic border and we are almost completely certain today that this was absolutely incorrect. Caesar probably encountered tribes that he could not make Celts or Germans. Maybe on the basis of language (but don’t know that), but ethnically they must have been a mixed bunch.

Of course, making the Germans looking superior (physically at least) was pretext enough for him to get the Rhine accepted as a suitable border. Plus it fitted with the mindset of the people at home at the time.

Help! hock: I can't be the only one who believes that Italo-Romans were smaller in stature than northern barbarians.

Oh, I’m with you. But we’re talking Germans vs. Romans here, and ‘Romans’ were already a quite mixed bunch too, with not just Mediterranean soldiers in the ranks. Celts, Spaniards, Africans, Pannonians, whatever. And I just don’t accept that the Germans were taller and stronger than all of these. The Germans were not one pure group, either.

[Epictetus]

That quote about the Fenni is my favourite from Tacitus. One time I was joking with a friend, saying that the Fenni were Finns, and he said: “Hey! We have horses now!” :lol:

Back to Tacitus. I understand healthy scepticism, but I suppose that I am with the backlash against the school of ancient sources hyper-criticism. Some of the proponents of radical scepticism seem to think that no ancient writer can be trusted and they were all making up things out of their own imagination. Some things can be shown, with a high degree of confidence, to be fabrications. Speeches stuck in the mouths of people centuries removed from the writer are the best example.

Cornell says that “there is always a distinction to be drawn between the structural data on which it is based and the narrative superstructure.” The narrative superstructure can be quite extensive, such as with Dionysius of Halicarnassus who had a theme that Romans were Greek.

But do we have reason to believe that Tacitus’ statement that Germans were taller than Romans is a fabrication or was part of a “narrative superstructure”? So far I’m not seeing much that convinces me. To reject something he says we have to replace it with something of our own construction, which is coloured by our own prejudices just like their work was coloured with theirs.

I suppose that I am a believer in what the writers say as long as there is no concrete reason to doubt them. Even today, if this source is to be trusted, there are significant height differences among people in different areas of the world. (2 inches between modern Italians and Germans, if this is right!) In an era of comparatively less interaction and more regional differences in diet I think it is safe to assume that these differences would remain, or even be more pronounced.

If someone can show a reason why Tacitus should be disbelieved – such as studies on German remains of the same time period or a demonstration that tall Germans fit into some Roman belief system then I’ll change my tune. :wink:

[Simplex]

....just found the summary on the Stettfeld cemetary findings. Will take time to extract the essential lines and to translate them.
In the meantime:[attachment=0:9jthhqoq]<!-- ia0 populationSWgermany.jpg<!-- ia0 [/attachment:9jthhqoq]
Top line: From the cradle to the grave
Bottom line (rightward) : Development of the average (body) size in southwestern Germany from Late Stone Age till today. As for roman times a slight reduction of size is to be attested for both sexes [ in cm] -- probably caused by immigration from southern Europe.
Source: Joachim Wahl: Humans [ found no faster and better expression for this]-- From Individuals To Population in :Imperium Romanum -- Roman Provinces on Neckar, Rhine and Danube (Stuttgart 2005) pgs 344-348, pic 455
This paper also contains further References on anthropological research of crematorial remains.

Greez

Simplex

[Epictetus]

Well, this is good. If average height was 170 cm for Germans, and the Pompeii figures are accurate at 169 cm, there really wasn't much of a statistical difference.

[Arminius75]

I think that we are walking on circles here :wink: , not really, is very hard to keep a consensus when we have not an "absolut" statiscal source of a real "universe", there is a lot of human remains fron these periods, migration moments were a hard time with no so much food to eat and there is a lot of human remains with malnutrition with male adult skeletal under 1.65, but migration period were not an constatn "moving around" these peolples settled for long periods and have better chances to better foods, again we can see a GREAT mixture of "bloods" even italian population were a mixture of peoples there is not an absolut and homogeneous mediterranean "type" , tall people can be born on every place when are good food, good job, and another stimulus, i'm still believe about germans were taller than romans but, is very relative and not for a big difference, in fact Roman political propaganda were build to give more glory to their conquest " Savage, wild, stronger and taller mirfica corpore" stereotypes to create an idea...but romans do not live so far from germans, many germans live inside roman territories even on Rome so germans were not an unknow Hyperborea inhabitants, so romans can see for themselves a germanic population so Tacitus is not the only source...again i saw many roman armours and are tiny, heavy but tiny :mrgreen:

[Alanus]

Robert, David, and Jose,

I suppose even my own experiences have influenced my view. When I visited Germany, everyone seemed to be similar to my stature or taller. Recently, I spent almost a month in Italy, granted southern, but the average male was shorter than myself. Things like this stick with you, at least subliminally.

Answering David-- Where do we draw the line on the truthfullness of ancient authors? I'm not really sure, but I particularly believe the historicity of Ammianus Marcellinus, albeit his opinions were colored Roman. I chuckle at the observations of Herodotus. When I first read him years ago, he was considered a prefabricator rather than a historian. Then the Russians began a lot of digging, and suddenly Herodotus became a somewhat trusted historian again.

But as Robert said: the Roman legions, early on, had already incorporated Gauls, Germans, Pannonians (even Sarmatians, my addition). So even if we (me) assume the average Italian was short, the legions themselves had a taller average height. Then we add the auxillaries, which probablly had few midgets. :wink:

Jose mentions a good point-- there were even Germans in Rome itself. The palace guard of Augustus comes to mind. Obviously the inhabitants of the city knew for themseles what a German looked like. Were they whispering that Tacitus was full of crap? Maybe.

As I've said: I doubt Germans were physically superior; and if we could have a weaponless contest between Jet Li and Andre the Giant, I would still bet on Jet. :lol:

[Robert Vermaat]

Back to Tacitus. I understand healthy scepticism, but I suppose that I am with the backlash against the school of ancient sources hyper-criticism.

As am I. That backlash happened during the early 1970s and was directed against those who took every source literally. I think at the time it was quite healthy. But since that backlash, hisory has com a long way and the pendulum has swung back again.

Some of the proponents of radical scepticism seem to think that no ancient writer can be trusted and they were all making up things out of their own imagination. Some things can be shown, with a high degree of confidence, to be fabrications. Speeches stuck in the mouths of people centuries removed from the writer are the best example.

Well, that's quite harsh and you'd be hard put to find many of those among current historical viws. It's certainly not how I treat Tacitus.

Cornell says that “there is always a distinction to be drawn between the structural data on which it is based and the narrative superstructure.” The narrative superstructure can be quite extensive, such as with Dionysius of Halicarnassus who had a theme that Romans were Greek.
But do we have reason to believe that Tacitus’ statement that Germans were taller than Romans is a fabrication or was part of a “narrative superstructure”? So far I’m not seeing much that convinces me. To reject something he says we have to replace it with something of our own construction, which is coloured by our own prejudices just like their work was coloured with theirs.

Tacitus also had a theme, which is well-recognised, that of the loss of the Republic and loss of Roman values.
No, we need not see Tacitus' statements as farbrications, that's far too radical. But ancient historians are incomparable to modern historians in tthe way they wrote - they did not mean to write down facts for posterity, but with a reason: why things happened. It's no big leap from Tacitus to the early Christian historians of Antiquity.
Tacitus is also a man of his age in the way that he used stereotypes, like I wrote earlier. Ancient historians also never had a scientific need for fact-finding, as we have today. It was not expected of them and they did not seek it. Which means that obvious wrong statements were not willfull fabrications, but just how they used information available to them. And Finni without horses was just a fact that Romans recognised: the further away from me, the more savage they get. Even when WE know it's nonsense.

I suppose that I am a believer in what the writers say as long as there is no concrete reason to doubt them. [..]If someone can show a reason why Tacitus should be disbelieved – such as studies on German remains of the same time period or a demonstration that tall Germans fit into some Roman belief system then I’ll change my tune. :wink:

It's not a question of believing an ancient writer or not, but understanding how to read him. You have to try to understand where he came from, what his purpose of writing in the first place was, which knowledge was available to him, did he travel at all or rely on previous reports. That sort of stuff. Historial research. :wink:

[Simplex]

....not "my week", I suppose.
First, installing a new graphic card in my computer went wrong, being offline because of it being a simple waste of time....
second, the papers I remember on Stettfeld are not the one I found.
Alas, to keep things going I'll show a list on anthropological dates from "Peter Schröter: Anthropologie der Römerzeit/Anthropology of Roman Era, aus/from: Die Römer zwischen Alpen und Nordmeer/Romans between Alps and Northern Atlantic;
pp 177-181, here: p 179"
[attachment=0:1wyxgu8y]<!-- ia0 Körpergröße-Römerzeit-bild.jpg<!-- ia0 [/attachment:1wyxgu8y]
Bottom line: Abb./Pic. 148: Averaged data of some skulls' dimensions (in mm) and -indices as well as (over all) body sizes (in cm) of series from roman times (males) out of southern Germany and Denmark.
The last line is detailing the overall body size, whereas lines one and two are refering to the lenght of the skull and the width of it respectively. ( The numbers in parentheses seem to be referring to the numbers of clearly identified individuals)
The first column in referring to the cemetery at Stettfeld (both funerals and burials), a vicus that "went under" after 259/260 AD. The population is referred to here as being of a "mixed celtic-roman population.
( Reference: J.Wahl-- EDIT: Menschenknochen/Human bones. In: Das römische Gräberfeld in Stettfeld I/The roman cemetery of Stettfeld I;
Forsch. u. Ber. Vor.- und Frühgeschichte Baden-Würtemberg 29, Stuttgart 1988, pp 46-223)
The second and third column are referring to results from Danmark, the second attributed to burials up to 160 AD, the third to the times between 160 and 400 AD.
(Reference: B.J. Sellevold/U. Lund Hansen/ J.Balslev Joergensen--Iron Age Men in Denmark. Prehistoric Men In Denmark 3. Nord. Fortidsminder B 8, Kobenhavn 1984)
The fourth column is referring to the burial place(s) of the late roman castrum at Neuburg/Donau.
This fortlet is supposed to have had personel largely composed of germanic soldiers.
(Reference: G. Ziegelmayer--Die archäologischen Befunde/The archeological findings; in: E. Keller: Das spätrömische Gräberfeld in Neuburg an der Donau/ The late roman cemetery of Neuburg on the Danube. Materialh. Bayer. Vorgesch. A 40; Kallmünz 1979 pp 71-116)
Unfortunately that summary on anthropology of roman times is not very specific about the numerical distribution of the types found at Stettfeld.
Physical superiority of germanics !? Most likely so -- at least as far as sheer body size is concerned. :mrgreen:

Flogging a dead horse herewith ? :roll:
I hope not.

Greez

Siggi
EDIT: 20th of May 2010; added original title

[Alanus]

Siggi,

Thanks. I was hoping someone in our midst had info like this. Conjectural, interpretive; but as they say in the male potency ad on TV, "Size counts." :wink:

[Robert Vermaat]

The fourth column is referring to the burial place(s) of the late roman castrum at Neuburg/Donau.
This fortlet is supposed to have had personel largely composed of germanic soldiers.

Interesting, because they seem to have been shorter than the others...

[Simplex]

....good point, Robert ...
I think I'll have to look over that paper again, just in case I overlooked references as to the gender/descent/origin and/or more specific data of the contents of the burials mentioned herein.

Greez

Simplex

Maybe its was just the heavy armament they wore a lif long ?! :wink:

[Simplex]

....O.K., Robert --- you been asking for it ! :mrgreen:
Here's lotsa strange "tech terms" --- translated inpercievably , of course.
Original lines:

Um die Entvölkerung durch Tod und Abwanderung einigermaßen auszugleichen, mußte man im 3. und 4. Jahrhundert n. Chr. zunehmend Germanen in die Streitkräfte eingliedern und germanische Gruppen auf römischen Boden ansiedeln. Diese Zuzüge haben den ethnischen Charakter und die anthropologische Struktur der Grenzprovinzen verändert, auch wenn sie relativ rasch romanisiert wurden und mit der einheimischen Bevölkerung verschmolzen. In den Friedhöfen spätrömischer Grenzbefestigungen, etwa im Körpergräberfeld von Neuburg a. d. Donau, Lkr. Neuburg-Schrobenhausen, dem Bestattungsplatz der Besatzung des Kastells auf dem Neuburger Stadtberg, treten die neuen Verhältnisse recht deutlich zutage. Wie die archäologischen und anthropologischen Befunde belegen, haben hier Germanen die Reichsgrenze gesichert. Verheilte und unverheilte Kampfverletzungen sind allerdings ziemlich selten (Ziegelmayer 1979, 101 f.). Man nimmt an, daß die Gliederung des annähernd vollständig ausgegrabenen Gräberfeldes in drei aufeinanderfolgende Zonen sich ablösende germanische Garnisonen unterschiedlicher Herkunft widerspie-gelt (vgl. jedoch Pohl 1993, 109-111). Die spätantiken Neuburger Germanen (Ziegelmayer 1979; ders. 1988) ähneln weitgehend den frühmittelalterlichen Reihengräberleuten Süddeutschlands, und die anthropologischen Unterschiede innerhalb des Gräberfeldes erscheinen nicht größer als die zwischen frühmittelalterlichen Lokalbevölkerungen gleicher Stammeszugehörigkeit. Der durch einen mittellangen und mittelbreiten, schwach mesokranen Hirnschädel, ein mittelbreites, relativ hohes, dem Index nach mittelhochgesichtiges Gesicht sowie übermittelgroße bis große Körperhöhe gekennzeichnete Durchschnittstypus der Männer (Abb. 148) steht dem Reihengräbertypus nahe. Zweifellos mit dem schmalgesichtigen Reihengräbertypus identisch ist die als charakteristisch für die Männer der Zone l herausgestellte Merkmalskombination (Grab 74 und 88). Ihm lassen sich ohne weiteres Schädel aus Zone 3 anschließen (Grab 117, 124 und 129). Die für die Männer der Zone 2 typischen robusten, eher niedrig-breiten Gesichter (Grab 38 und 99) erinnern mehr oder weniger an jene cromagniden Prägungen, die in den frühmittelalterlichen Reihengräberpopulationen Mitteleuropas nicht ungewöhnlich sind. Nur wenige Schädel überschreiten die ohnehin künstliche Klassifikationsgrenze mesokran-brachykran (mittellangschädelig-kurzschädelig). Die erreichten niederen Grade der Brachykranie (Längen-Breiten-Indices zwischen 80,0 und 82,6) darf man zwanglos als die oberen Endglieder der natürlichen Variationsbreite der im Mittel mesokranen Neuburger Germanenpopulation bzw. des cromagniden Typus (Grab 38) auffassen.
Von den drei ethnischen Hauptkomponenten der provinzialrömischen Bevölkerung Süd- und Westdeutschlands, der einheimischen, der »römischen« und der germanischen, ist im Skelettmaterial nur die spätantike germanische einigermaßen sicher zu identifizieren, wie das Beispiel der Neuburger Serie gezeigt hat. Die Mittelwerte der Schädelmaße und der Körperhöhen früh- und mittelkaiserzeitlicher Bevölkerungsgruppen wie Stettfeld sprechen allenfalls für Zuwanderungen aus Gebieten des Reiches wie z. B. Gallien und Norditalien, die sich in anthropologischer Hinsicht kaum von der einheimischen Vorbevölkerung unterscheiden, und gegen einen höheren Anteil aus dem Mittelmeerraum stammender Bevölkerungselemente. So wie sich die germanischen Westgoten auf der Iberischen Halbinsel durch ihre relativ große Körperhöhe von der einheimischen spätrömischen Bevölkerung deutlich abheben (Lalueza-Fox 1998, 268), hätte eine starke kleinerwüchsige mediterrane Komponente die Körperhöhenmittelwerte provinzialrömischer Serien beeinflussen müssen. Immerhin zeigt die Häufigkeitsverteilung der Körperhöhen im mittelkaiserzeitlichen Stettfeld und im spätrömischen Augsburg zwei Gruppen an, eine von im Durchschnitt mittelgroßen und eine von großwüchsigen Männern, die vielleicht auf soziale bzw. ethnische Unterschiede in den beiden Populationen hinweisen (Wahl 1988b, 148 f.; 185; Ziegelmayer 1977, 531; 555).

So and now, ladies and gents my would-be translation:
To cope for depopulation through death and emigration large and by, in the 3er and 4th century one had to resort to incorporate increasing numbers of Germans into the armed forces and to settle germanic groups on roman soil. These immigrations changed the ethnic character and the anthropological structure of the frontier provinces, although they quickly got “romanized” and merged/melted with the local population. On the cemeteries of late roman fortifications, e.g. the burial field of Neuburg/Danube ( County: Neuburg-Schrobenhausen), which served as cemetery for the garrison of the castellum on the Neuburg town-hill, the new situation clearly shows. As shown by archeological and anthropological findings, Germans held/defended the frontier here. Healed and unhealed injuries, however, are pretty rare (Ziegelmayer 1979,101f). It is assumed that the structure of this cemetery – nearly completely excavated – in 3 successive zones reflect different Germanic garrisons from different origin replacing/relieving each other. ( compare nevertheless Pohl 1993,109-111).
These late antique Germans from Neuburg (Ziegelmayer 1979 and 1988) resemble (widely?/ by and large ?) the people in southwestern germanies’ “serial” graves (Reihengräber), and the anthropological differences inside this cemetery don’t seem to be larger than differences between
Local populations of the Early Middle Ages of the same tribal origin.
This average type characterized by a mid-sized ( both length and width) faintly mesocrane skull, a midsized, relatively high faced, --according to the index a middle-high-faced, aspect, as well as more-than-average-size up to large total body size of males (>pic 148, see post above)bears close resemblance to those (found) in the “serial burials”. Without a doubt identical with those slim-faced types from the “serial burials” is the combination of attributes clearly emphasized with the males from Zone I . (Grave Nos 74 and 88). Without further ado the skulls from Zone III can be included. (Graves Nos 117,124 and 129).
The males from Zone II typically exhibit robust, rather low-profile and broad (type of ?) faces
(grave 38 and 99) more or less remind of cromagnide types, not uncommon with the populations
on “serial burials” in Central Europe through the Early Middle Age. Only few skulls do transgress the
(artificial) classification boundary mesocrane-brachicrane (middle-long-skulled//short-skulled).
We can easily take the lower grades of brachycrany (Index-relation: Length-width between 80,0 and 82,6) as the upper confines of the natural variation of the (at average) mesocrane Germanic population of Neuburg respectively the cromagnic type ( Grave No 38).
Out of the 3 main ethnic components of the provincial-roman population of western and southern Germany, -- the local, the roman and the germanic, we can only identify the late antique germanic out of the bone material to a certain extent, as the example of the Neuburg Series has shown.
The average value of skull-sizes and total body sizes from of Early- and High-Empire population groups like at Stettfeld at best do indicate immigration from other regions of the Empire like Gallia and northern Italy, who under anthropological aspects rarely do differ from the local pre-population
and do speak against a greater portion of mediterranean elements of population.
As the Germanic Wisigoths did clearly differ from the late antique local population on the Iberian peninsula by their size (Lalueza-Fox 1998,268), a larger portion of smaller-sized mediterranean(-type)
(individuals) would have influenced the average magnitude of (overall) body-sizes in provincial roman
(statistical) series.
At any rate the frequency of distribution of overall body sizes at Stettfeld (High Empire) and Augsburg (Late Roman) does indicate two different groups, which may hint at social respectively ethnical differences inside both populations. (Wahl 1988b, 148f; Ziegelmayer 1977,531,555)

G. Ziegelmayer 1979: see my post above
G.Ziegelmayer 1988: Die Bajuwaren aus anthropologischer Sicht; Katalog Bajuwaren p249-257
E.Pohl: Der Neuburger Stadtberg und sein Umfeld am Übergang von der Antike zum Mittelalter (4.- 7. Jhd.) In: Tillmann/Rieder 1993; 109-132.
C.Lalueza-Fox 1998: Stature and sexual dimorphism in ancient Iberian populations. Homo 49,1998, 260-272.
Wahl 1988b: see my post above
G.Ziegelmayer 1977: Die menschlichen Skelette von St. Ulrich und Afra in Augsburg; In: J.Werner: Id Ausgrabungen in St. Ulrich und Afra 1961-1968: Münch. Beitr. Vor. Frühgesch. 23 (München 1977, 523-574.