[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Its like debating how big God’s arms measure. [/quote]
You had to bring Bruce Lee into this, didn’t you?
[quote]ShaunW wrote:
Also the V for Victory sign given by Churchhill at the end of WWII is actually a bit of an insult to the french, and back in the French-english wars if an English longbowman was captured, he’d have those 2 fingers cut off and then he was released - as these are the fingers which draw the bow and hold the arrow to the string - so you could say the french were ‘humanly’ destroying the then-longest range artillery known, and not carrying the cost of housing prisoners-of-war.
[/quote]
This is part about the urban legend about the origin of the word fuck and flipping the bird, so I’m kinda skeptical.
http://www.snopes.com/language/apocryph/pluckyew.htm
Is about the middle finger removal story.
This goddammed internet makes everything sooooo confusing. I read that the director of the second Conan wanted Arnie come in even bigger. So he came in 10lbs. heavier for that flick.
Everyone has different answers for everything these days. How much info on the internet is total abolute crap?
[quote]Massif wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Its like debating how big God’s arms measure.
You had to bring Bruce Lee into this, didn’t you?
[/quote]
But what about the one inch punch!!!
He would, like, fuck up every bodybuilder on here…
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Massif wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Its like debating how big God’s arms measure.
You had to bring Bruce Lee into this, didn’t you?
But what about the one inch punch!!!
He would, like, fuck up every bodybuilder on here…[/quote]
One inch punch? More like the one inch dick…
A strange thread this is.
While some individuals in the past may have been huge, surely the average person was smaller than today. We live in an era of prosperity where calories and protein are easy to come by. And humanity seems to be getting bigger by the generation. Who here isn’t taller than their father? And even some Japanese kids I see every day are taller than me, and I’m 6’2".
As for the comments about Arnold having trouble wielding a sword because he was too big- how strange, to be debating how an actor playing a fictional character from Hyperborea not being able to wield a sword well has some connection to the size of ancient warriors. I don’t get it.
And as far as I know, talking about how big Achilles was is like asking how much Luke Skywalker can bench press.
Still, a fun thread.
PS God’s arm size? 11 inches (cold) 13 inches (flexed). But FUNctional.
[quote]Boondoggler wrote:
Achilles was about 15 years old at the beginning of the Trojan War, and was of average size and height for a 15 year old BOY. He was exceptionally skilled, or so the Gods predicted, because he had never actually fought in a battle before the war.
So please stop debating how big he was. He was a boy.
the boomster
I was 6’5 210lbs at age 15. Just a thought…
[/quote]
Who leaked the GH into the water in your town?
I think we often overlook the use of the spear in ancient militaries. Prior to Rome, the spear was the weapon of choice. All those Greco-Roman scultptures were nothing more than the asthetic IDEAL of man. The manner in which battle is fought in a phalanx would require you to be short and thick as it required as much pushing as stabbing. This also gives you a more solid base when your front three lines is needing to hold its ground while facing a cavalry charge.
The other thing that I’m sure anyone that has served in the infantry can back me up with is the fact that what what defines a grunt is MARCHING FOR LONG DISTANCES. Shooting and fighting are nothing. HUMPING is what makes a grunt. However, 80# is probably a realistic number, I’ve heard tons of grunts talk 100# plus but that’s not true for any extended distance.
Mike
Prof X, I can tell you are very jealous of us functional guys. Granted, with the help of T-Nation, I’ve been trying very hard to become less functional and put on some usless muscle for the last few months. It has been very difficult due to my job.
I’m a modern day foot soldier. In my unit we have fat guys, big ass body builders, skinny little bastards, and everything in between. I’m guessing that in the past just like in todays army, being a good soldier had little to do with size. Discipline, integrity, motivation, intelligence, will to fight, and tons of other stuff would be more important.
Strenght and endurance are only needed to the point that you can accomplish the mission. That’s what fuctional strength means to me. Can I ruck 25 miles with a 100lbs ruck, into a vicious fire fight, kill the enemy, then climb the rope ladder into the exfil helicopter? If yes, than I am fuctionally strong and the other stats don’t matter.
Also, larger physical size may lend itself to leadership, but I doubt it would intimidate anyone on a battle field after the invention of bronze or iron weapons. The tip of a spear kills a big guy just as easy as a small guy. The Macadonians rolled over some much bigger, crazier opponents, just because they were more disciplined and fought with audacity.
I’m not sure if this post has anything to due with the thread anymore, but it was a long night and I need to unwind.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
But…but don’t many of these guys want to look like 15 year old boys? That makes you more “functional”, right?!
[/quote]
they were tough old boots.
[quote]deanosumo wrote:
And as far as I know, talking about how big Achilles was is like asking how much Luke Skywalker can bench press.
[/quote]
he can force-push at least 3000lbs… . 3100lbs if he uses his arms to assist. …
[quote]deanosumo wrote:
Boondoggler wrote:
Achilles was about 15 years old at the beginning of the Trojan War, and was of average size and height for a 15 year old BOY. He was exceptionally skilled, or so the Gods predicted, because he had never actually fought in a battle before the war.
So please stop debating how big he was. He was a boy.
the boomster
I was 6’5 210lbs at age 15. Just a thought…
Who leaked the GH into the water in your town?
[/quote]
You’d think that would be the case! I was such a freak of nature in middle school. I grew up in a pretty small town yet we still had 5 really good basketball players on our team 6’ or taller. I played point… we were unstoppable!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
But…but don’t many of these guys want to look like 15 year old boys? That makes you more “functional”, right?![/quote]
Anything useful to contribute?
[quote]ScrambyEggs wrote:
About the Conan reference, I thought it was the other way around. I thought Arnold had to do additional training and exercises to be able to swing the massive sword around in a controlled and comfortable manner.
Some of these 2 handed swords were 20lbs or so. Then add the length of the weapon applying leverage against you. To be able to swing that around with control is no small feat. Finally, imagine the muscle endurance to last in prolonged battles. Not a small task. I think the idea of a bunch of teeny weenies running around on the battle field is unlikely. They were probably in the back with the bows and slings.
[/quote]
Okay, the only swords that weighed any where near 20 pounds were called bearing swords and they were carried in parades for show only. Battle swords weigh between 1.5 - 4 pounds.
Get thee to a museum and check out real swords. The Met in NYC has a good collection, but the one in Graz, Austria is the best one with literally hundreds of examples of swords and armor. Armor did not weigh hundreds of pounds and swords did not weigh twenties of pounds. Let’s kill that little misconception right now.
Forensic investigation of ancient and medieval human remains shows that the average human in those times, in certain places, was shorter and smaller than the average American human of today. There were variations depending upon race, location and obviously food quality. Ancient people were not generally vegetarians, they had access to fish and fowl unless they were very poor. The Romans were known for their love of pork. Salted and smoked pork were part of a legionares marching rations. The ancient Greeks marched on dried fish. In addition, in a society that had no weekends off, there were about 130-150 festival/holy days during which there were massive sacrifices of goats, sheep, pigs, cows, birds, etc. Guess what they did with the meat? Only the choice bits (thigh bones wrapped in fat) were burned for the gods. The rest of it was shared out to the community. So they got their meat.
BTW, the weight of a legionaires armor depended upon when we’re talking about. The average loraca hamata (mail shirt) wieghs about 20 pounds. This is distributed fairly evenly over the body. The helmets (whether the early Montefortino types or the later Imperial Gallic types) generally weighed about 10 pounds, the scutum (shield) weighed about 20. So that’s fifty whole pounds. The lorica squamata (scale shirt) may have been a bit heavier but that depended upon whether the scales were made from horn, leather or metal. The lorica segmentata (shirt of segments) which most people associate with Roman soldiers weigh between 15 and 20 pounds. The rest of the soldiers kit (pickax, food, clothing, tent, bedroll, cookware, etc) added up to 80-100 pounds, much like our modern infantry has to carry. They didn’t usually march in armor, unless they were in unpacified territory or were expecting battle.
There is plenty of good info on this on the web as well as in books.
WMD
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
JimmyBoom wrote:
PeteK wrote:
I suppose Achilles wasn’t that big in real life after all!
I have seen this argument over the size of Achilles on this site over and over and over again.
Achilles was about 15 years old at the beginning of the Trojan War, and was of average size and height for a 15 year old BOY. He was exceptionally skilled, or so the Gods predicted, because he had never actually fought in a battle before the war.
So please stop debating how big he was. He was a boy.
the boomster
The guy was also part immortal, of course, being descended from a sea nymph. So debating about the size of Achilles’ muscles is kind of pointless when we don’t know if he existed, we’re only half sure that the war he was in ever happened, and Homer’s stories were passed down orally for generations, so the war may not have gone down as is claimed anyway.
Its like debating how big God’s arms measure. [/quote]
Some sense in all this Achilles talk… at last!!
He was in all probability a fictional character.
[quote]beta wrote:
. Second, and this is especially true with formation fighting (like the Romans took part in at the time), when adjacent soldiers are of different size, there is the probability that they don’t work all the well together. As such, having similar sized people makes things easier. For example, I am 6’, if the man to my right is only 5’6", he may not be able to adequately protest my head with his sheild (as was common practice in phalynx fighting[/quote]
Are you talking about the testudo here? Because in a phalanx the guy next to you isn’t protecting your head, he’s protecting your right side. The helmet protects your head. Romans stopped using phalanxes by the Republican period in favor of the maniple which was a much more flexible formation.
While the comments you make about size are true to an extent, the Romans were very impressed by the size and stature of Gauls and Germans and recruited many of them as auxiliiaries. Gauls and Germans were very large compared to most legionaires.
They had baggage trains with draft animals to pull wagons and siege equipment. Until the Marian reforms, that is, when they were made to carry most of their own equipment. Seige equipment were still drawn by draft animals even then.
Manpower was definitely a Roman advantage.
[quote]Along those same lines, the equipment Roman foot soldiers had to carry was not very heavy, and sword, sheild, some water, some dried meat and some almonds (after the invasion of the Andulusian penisula, at least).
[/quote]
In addition to that stuff, they also carried extra clothing, bedding, cookware, tents, pegs and ropes, the dolabra (pickaxe), 3 pickets (large stakes) for the camp wall they built every night while on campaign, a shovel and personal gear. Oh and bread. Wheat bread was preferred although barley bread was given as a punishment ration. It comes out pretty close to a modern infantrymans load.
[quote] And, you would be amazed at what relative small people can carry for long distances, go work with either the Korean or Bolivian armies for a few weeks, or just visit Guam.
[/quote]
Yup.
[quote]So, when it is all said, I don’t see ANY advantage to having larg(er) foot soldiers for an offensive army. Note: I am not commenting on gladiators, palace guards, catapult operators (who, undoubtedly had beasts of burden for their equipment), etc. For a real life example of this, check out some photos of any light infantry (Rangers are the best example) unit; all fit, muscular (by average American standards, but not necessarily by T-Nation’s), and relatively skinny (at 6’ they would be between 170-185#, 200# if they have been in for 6-10 years, maybe). Oh, and the average combat load carried by todays US Infantryman is in the neighborhood of 80# (more then any infantrymen has ever had to carry), and their marching loads can be over 120#.
[/quote]
The only comment I have here is to be careful of anachronism, that is assuming what works for and makes sense in a modern setting would not necessarily apply to the ancient/medieval worlds considerations.
Fair enough.
[quote]Boondoggler wrote:
deanosumo wrote:
Boondoggler wrote:
Achilles was about 15 years old at the beginning of the Trojan War, and was of average size and height for a 15 year old BOY. He was exceptionally skilled, or so the Gods predicted, because he had never actually fought in a battle before the war.
So please stop debating how big he was. He was a boy.
the boomster
I was 6’5 210lbs at age 15. Just a thought…
[/quote]
In the Iliad after Petroklos is killed Homer says “he (Achilles) threw his huge body on the ground”. But then again old Homer was writing at least 400 years after the fact AND he was telling a story.
[quote]Flop Hat wrote:
Prof X, I can tell you are very jealous of us functional guys.
[/quote]
Yes. Very.
[quote]aussie_jono wrote:
Professor X wrote:
But…but don’t many of these guys want to look like 15 year old boys? That makes you more “functional”, right?!
Anything useful to contribute?
[/quote]
Shouldn’t I be asking YOU that?