Were Barbarians really taller than Roman Legions?

[Guest ParatrooperLirelou]

Found this ridiculous article on the Web.

http://www.wargamer.com/forums/tm.aspx?high=&m=559518&mpage=1

 

This reminded me of the stereotype that the Barbarians were way taller than the Romans by a large margin.We're talking about big height disparity-Roman Legions are often stereotyped as being 5"2-5"3 while Barbarians are often portrayed as being over 6"00 fet tall.

 

 

However several sources on the Web beg to differ.

 

MYTH EIGHTEEN: Celtic Height

 

A very common misconception exists about the height difference between the Hellenes and Romans on the one hand, and the Celts on the other. Archeological findings have discovered that there was no great height difference between the Celts and their more

[Northern Neil]

I believe some of this depends on what you regard as Roman. As is often the case, Wargamers tend to make vast generalisations (as well as inventing their own historical terms!), and the 'Roman Period' - even excluding its later Byzantine phase - extended over more than a millenium. The writer of the article refers to the period from Caesar onwards, and not late Empire units, so we can assume he means the Principate up to the reforms of Diocletian. Well trodden territory.

 

In which case, a lot of legionaries, with Roman citizenship and therefore Roman in every way that mattered during this phase of the Roman period, would have come from all parts of the Empire. The absurdly named Gaulish 'Barbarian Legions' referred to in the article would thus be peopled by Citizen Roman provincials. With such a mix of different European and Middle Eastern physical types present in the legions, I find it hard to believe that legionaries were uniformly shorter than their foes from outside the Empire.

 

As paratrooper Lirelou points out, archaeological evidence seems to suggest that Pompeiians were taller than modern Neapolitans. Also, Maximinus Thrax was said to be nearly seven feet tall.

[guy]

Here are my dissenting views:

 

The average size of Ancient men based on skeletal studies compared to the size of men in modern Naples:

 

Ancient Heraculum 169 cm (5' 6.5")

 

Ancient Pompeii 166 cm (5' 5.4")

 

Modern Naples 164 cm (5' 4.6")

 

None of these people are giants...which leads me to my next point:

 

It is unlikely that Maximinus Thrax was over 7 feet tall (or over the purported eight feet). The source for this is the Historia Augusta, hardly a reliable source. His size could have been exaggerated to emphasize his barbarian background. Maximinus lived to 65, highly unlikely for someone having gigantism or acromegaly in the Ancient world. (Think about the premature death of Andre the Giant in the wrestling world.)

 

Maximinus was the first emperor never to set foot in Rome, so it would be easier to create a mythology about his height.

 

I plan on writing about this further some day.

 

guy also known as gaius

Edited September 23, 2011 by guy

[Northern Neil]

As is often the case, Wargamers tend to make vast generalisations...

...Which, by the way, is not to knock wargamers, being one myself - or at least, someone who makes and buys wargaming material. Just as an aside, I often get round the 'uniform size' problem in my display units by mixing 25mm and 28mm figures, and also different makes. This achieves a nice slight variation in size one would expect from a real unit. Given that there may be a slight difference in average height during the early Empire in favour of Gauls and Germans, maybe a pleasing sense of authenticity could be arrived at by using the following ratios: Roman Army - two thirds 25mm, 0ne third 28mm. Gauls / Germans - the reverse.

 

Another factor to be considered is that childhood nutrition can effect height in a general population. Given that Gauls and lowland Britons all but had a civilization of their own, in which some hillforts seemed to have played a role in storing and distributing surplus food centrally, maybe there is something in the assumption we are discussing. At least, prior to the second century. Add to this the poor childhood conditions of many urban Romans, which probably made the legions attractive as for the first time in their lives they had regular meals and healthcare.

 

The sizes Guy gives indicates that central/southern Italians - generally - were and aren't, on average, giants. So, another question to be asked here is at what point were the legions no longer staffed predominantly by Italians? And to what extent did the presence of Northern Italians, with their part - gaulish makeup, mitigate the average height in the opposite direction to their Southern Italian comrades? Sorry, even more questions I'm afraid!

Edited August 26, 2011 by Northern Neil

[Melvadius]

It may not help working out differences in relative sizes but may be worth considering the fact that Vegetius, writing in the later Roman period in the 4th century AD while, arguing for a re-estalishment of ancient military traditions cited that traditionally men serving in the cavalry and the first cohort of the legions would be recruited if they were at least 5' 10" to 6' tall.

 

OK as with much of Vegiutus writing this was probably an 'ideal' rather than 'real' regulation and we are talking Roman as opposed to modern feet so probably men 5'8" - 5'10" (modern equivalent) were considered taller than the Roman 'norm'.

[Guest ParatrooperLirelou]

I believe some of this depends on what you regard as Roman. As is often the case, Wargamers tend to make vast generalisations (as well as inventing their own historical terms!)

 

I feel yah.

 

I'll chat over this in a PM I'll send you.

[caldrail]

The average Roman male was a modern 5'4", females an inch or two shorter.