Size of Ancient Warriors

Off Topic
61

[quote]driveblock wrote:
A show on the National Geographic Cannel the other would have interested the people involved in this discussion. It was called the SEARCH FOR THE ULTIMATE SURVIVOR (or something close to that). It was about how home erectus became the dominant human species.

Fossil remains exist of a human sub-species know as Goliath that averaged 6-4. Neanderthals, if I remember my schooling correctly, were also large.
[/quote]

Great show, but it doesn’t say that Homo erectus became the ultimate survivor. (Actually they were saying we were the ultimate survivor.) That was just one species that is believed to have been on our ancestral tree. They actually talked about multiple branches that have lead to dead ends. Failed sub human lines.

Goliath (Homo heidelbergensis) is believed to have been a direct ancestor of humans. They were not only tall, but real thick. (Imagine a race of Andre the Giants.)

Now the Neadertals are not an ancestor, instead another failed line, although they have found hybrid human/neandertal species. They were shorter, but way thicker then us. (I think Berardi had an article about this.) They had the physique, but their culture was stagnant while the human culture was constantly advancing.

About much of what everyone else is talking about, most of ancient time had people averaging somewhere around five and a half feet. 6 feet tall was a giant during these times. This is absolutely due to nutrition, and people who lived during good times produced larger people.

I have heard of children growing taller in people who have moved to America. (Depending of where they are from.)

62

[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…

Who leaked the GH into the water in your town?

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]

People joke about GH in the water, but that kind of thing tends to happen in the small towns. I’m willing to bet your small town was surrounded by farms on all sides.

When I was in high school, all the small town schools had massive kids. I’m talking towns of one or two thousand people, and every single basketball team had at least one kid over 6’6", most had two. There was a thread on here awhile ago with a link to a video of a white kid doing all kinds of dunks, and people were saying he was a 5’10" soccer player. He wasn’t. He was from one of the towns near me, and he was about a head taller than me (I was about 6’). If I remember, the only time we played them, he was the third tallest guy on the team.

The theory was that whatever it was they were feeding the cows/pigs/giving to corn/whatever to make everything grow bigger ended up in the water and made the kids huge. I never really believed it when I was there, but since then, I’ve seen huge kids with short parents in small farming towns all over the place.

Just a thought, anyway.

63

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Professor X wrote:
elliot007 wrote:

im not sure i get what the debate is really about, does anyone think these guys were tiny? does anyone believe they were as big as arnold?

I think some are very much arguing that these guys were tiny and thusly “more functional”. Otherwise, why the thread?

Some have argued that they looked like this.

I see “Spartan” written all over that.

Or is it “Trojan”?[/quote]

Those are Athenians!

64

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I think some are very much arguing that these guys were tiny and thusly “more functional”. Otherwise, why the thread?[/quote]

That is not why I started the thread. I started the thread to prove that ancient warriors were not as big as some argue. I think most of them were small by modern standards because of nutrition. I also think that there is such a thing as being too big, especially in the biceps and chest.

This does not mean that I think small is functional, but it does mean that there is a point at which in increase in size is not gonna make you a better warrior and might actually work against you. I think that someone built like Steve Reeves or Reg Park, or even Arnold with smaller pecs, and perhaps even bigger(!) legs would be the optimal size. I don’t think someone like Ronnie Coleman would be very formidable as a warrior, maybe he can scare people off though.

As far as the statues of the Roman period are concerned, like the Hercules statue, I’d like to add the following. The statues were actually based on live models, so there was indeed a person who posed as “Hercules” after whose physique the statue was made. The “trick” the the ancient sculpters used, however, was to put a smaller head on the body, thereby making it appear bigger. I call it the Sergio Oliva effect.

So in short Prof. X, big is good because it correlates with strength, but there is a point of diminishing returns.

As for the person who said Arnold had to gain strength to be able to wield the 20lbs sword… I don’t think they used real swords for the movie…

65

[quote]Gl;itch.e wrote:
deanosumo wrote:
And as far as I know, talking about how big Achilles was is like asking how much Luke Skywalker can bench press.

he can force-push at least 3000lbs… . 3100lbs if he uses his arms to assist. …[/quote]

Yeah, but that’s with his force-shirt on. These younger Jedi get so much more out of their newer force-shirts than the old-timers like Yoda and Obi wan did, it isnt fair to compare. I mean, Anikin had to slay all those younglings and join the Dark Side in just a single-ply. They should all have to lift force-raw if you ask me.

66

[quote]PeteK wrote:

So in short Prof. X, big is good because it correlates with strength, but there is a point of diminishing returns.

As for the person who said Arnold had to gain strength to be able to wield the 20lbs sword… I don’t think they used real swords for the movie…[/quote]

That would depend on what you were training for and “fake swords” still weigh the same. You don’t make a movie sword out of plastic. It was a real sword that Blade was twirling around in the movie for most scenes. I know this because I own a copy of it. As far as “diminishing returns”, again we fall into another useless “functional” debate because most powerlifters don’t train to be basketball players. Would their size be a disadvantage on a basketball court? Possibly. Tennis players would probably not fair too well at benching 400lbs. I lift weights for strength and size. Even describing the action of being a “warrior” is limited thinking because anyone in the military will tell you that different people perform different jobs. Very few lab techs in the Air Force would do well as Navy SEALS. I train for what I want to be good at.

67

[quote]Professor X wrote:
You don’t make a movie sword out of plastic. It was a real sword that Blade was twirling around in the movie for most scenes. I know this because I actually am the real Blade from which the movie was based. [/quote]

I KNEW it!

68

[quote]Professor X wrote:
It was a real sword that Blade was twirling around in the movie for most scenes. I know this because I own a copy of it. [/quote]

[no comment necessary]

69

[quote]loppar wrote:

Although the weapons of the Roman legionary weren’t spectacularly different from their counterparts - oval/square wooden shield, gladius hispaniensis (short sword for stabbing), pila (javelin) - they were superbly trained and that made the difference on the battlefield.[/quote]

Actually, the weapons of the Romans were significantly different from their foes, at least when the were fighting the northern barbarian tribes. Said tribes favored a slashing sword, more like a broadsword. The Roman gladius was a stabbing weapon. Now, in a knife fight, it is much easier to kill someone by stabbing them than by cutting them, because any penetration of over two inches is quite likely to cause a serious wound, whereas a slashing attack could basically leave the victim with merely a large cut, unless a main artery is severed. The Romans knew this which is why they trained their soldiers to stab rather than slash, and it is written that the Romans not only persevered over the slower slashing weapons of their foes, but made sport of them.

70

One of the best sources for information on this is probably Vegetius. You can find his writings most anywhere, just do a google search

71

[quote]hedo wrote:
Just finished a book titled “The Age of the Gladiators” by Rupert Matthews. It’s a great read.

He claims the average Roman citizen stood 5’4". The average Gladiator about 5’8". The soldiers fell somewhere in between. Gladiators were chosen for size, strength and agressivness. The Armor, shield and sword of the soldier weighed in about 25 ibs. The Gladiators kit was heavier, about 40ibs.
[/quote]

Hoever, the soldier had to carry a hell of a lot more than his sword, shield and armor. The Romans soldier was a human pack animal.

72

[quote]kroby wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

He was not Hercules. He was impervious to mortal weapons due to his dipping into the river styx - except the heel where his momma held him during the dip. The strength of the gods was not apparent muscle-wise.

[/quote]

Thy myth of baby achilles is actually post homeric, meaning it was added to the Greek Canon well after the Illiad was written.

http://www.wordexplorations.info/Achilles-heel-story.html
Achilles - Wikipedia - skip down to the Birth section

To the ancient Greeks, Achilles was not invulnerable, just exceedingly skilled in battle, to the point that if he would have pissed on Bruce Lee from one inch away, it would blow bruce lee into another dimension. And Just to nip it in the bud before it gets asked, If Achilles and Chuck Norris had gotten into a fight, Chuck Norris’ beard would have been bitch slapped off his face by Achilles.

73

[quote]KBCThird wrote:
Gl;itch.e wrote:
deanosumo wrote:
And as far as I know, talking about how big Achilles was is like asking how much Luke Skywalker can bench press.

he can force-push at least 3000lbs… . 3100lbs if he uses his arms to assist. …

Yeah, but that’s with his force-shirt on. These younger Jedi get so much more out of their newer force-shirts than the old-timers like Yoda and Obi wan did, it isnt fair to compare. I mean, Anikin had to slay all those younglings and join the Dark Side in just a single-ply. They should all have to lift force-raw if you ask me. [/quote]

LOL

Spartan300, I say DOWN with the Athenians! Their unruly “rule”… and lack of discipline was the ruin of all Greece.

74

[quote]Jprocrastinator wrote:
kroby wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

He was not Hercules. He was impervious to mortal weapons due to his dipping into the river styx - except the heel where his momma held him during the dip. The strength of the gods was not apparent muscle-wise.

Thy myth of baby achilles is actually post homeric, meaning it was added to the Greek Canon well after the Illiad was written.

http://www.wordexplorations.info/Achilles-heel-story.html
Achilles - Wikipedia - skip down to the Birth section

To the ancient Greeks, Achilles was not invulnerable, just exceedingly skilled in battle, to the point that if he would have pissed on Bruce Lee from one inch away, it would blow bruce lee into another dimension. And Just to nip it in the bud before it gets asked, If Achilles and Chuck Norris had gotten into a fight, Chuck Norris’ beard would have been bitch slapped off his face by Achilles.[/quote]

You better hope Chuck Norris didn’t read that last statement. I’d suggest you apologize but it’s probably too late…you better just get ready for the roundhouse.

75

[quote]KBCThird wrote:
Gl;itch.e wrote:
deanosumo wrote:
And as far as I know, talking about how big Achilles was is like asking how much Luke Skywalker can bench press.

he can force-push at least 3000lbs… . 3100lbs if he uses his arms to assist. …

Yeah, but that’s with his force-shirt on. These younger Jedi get so much more out of their newer force-shirts than the old-timers like Yoda and Obi wan did, it isnt fair to compare. I mean, Anikin had to slay all those younglings and join the Dark Side in just a single-ply. They should all have to lift force-raw if you ask me. [/quote]

The real question is does that make him fuctional or “unfuctional”

76

This is what they looked like. Ancient warriors had a 10 pack not just a 6 pack.

77

[quote]AlphaDragon wrote:
…

Bowmen probabally wouldn’t matter as long as you are a good shot and can pull the darn thing back.

[/quote]

The English longbowmen had to be strong as hell to draw the bow.

They probably had a good bit of muscle.

78

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
…

Its like debating how big God’s arms measure. [/quote]

According to my daughter God is bigger than the Hulk and the Hulk is bigger than Jesus.

79

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
…

Its like debating how big God’s arms measure.

According to my daughter God is bigger than the Hulk and the Hulk is bigger than Jesus.[/quote]

I dont know man. Jesus is pretty ripped.

80

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Velvet Revolver wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
They say this is why William Wallace was so imposing. They say the size of the average English infantrymen was around 5 foot tall, and Wallace was a giant at…6’7 I think.

This just added to his legend- he was physically much larger than the average Englishman.

I would highly doubt that wallace actually stood out that high. He would have been such an easy target and stood out in battle to such a degree he wouldve been killed at sterling. Are you telling me a man that was a whopping foot and a half taller wouldn’t be an easy target?

The only reason comanding officers in midevil armies like him lived was because they could blend in with the commoners, same armour/clothing/swords.

Theres no doubt he was a big man, but I would say a fair guestimate to be was much smaller than 6’7. More like 5’10. That would still put him as a giant amoung men.

I read that book William Wallace where that author quoted wallace at 6’7.

There’s a couple sources:

William Wallace also grew up to become a powerful and sturdy young man, with a height of 6 foot 7 inches and a physique to match, he too was a giant of a man. It is often debated that it would have been impossible for such a man to exist in a time when the average height of a man was little over 5 feet.

However, to judge by the clothing and armour of the time it is clear to see that not only was Longshanks a towering figure, even by today’s standards, but so was William Wallace.

http://www.highlanderweb.co.uk/wallace/truth3.htm

This is the sword that is displayed at the Wallace Monument, near Stirling, Scotland. It is five feet long, which supports the legendary tales of the height of William Wallace - supposedly he was over 6’6" tall. In the 14th Century he was described as having the body of a giant, with a pleasing but wild look

http://www.magicdragon.com/Wallace/sword.html

Contemporary chroniclers say that William was a large, powerful man. He reportedly stood more than six and a half feet tall, - a veritable giant at a time when the average height of an infantryman was only slightly more than five feet.

According to the Scotichronicon, William Wallace “was pleasing in appearance but with a wild look ? a tall man with the body of a giant, broad-shouldered and big-boned” - six feet seven inches tall, during an era in which the average male was just over five feet in height.

Wallace’s claymore was as long as most men of the time were tall, and - like the legendary Ulysses - he carried a strongbow that he alone could draw.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1996/vo12no09/vo12no09_braveheart.htm

If the sword that is held in Scotland is indeed Wallace’s sword, then he must have been gigantic.

A 5 1/2 foot sword?

Not too mention that archers didn’t get into close quarters fights- they stood from a distance. So he was an easy target- for other infantrymen, whom he towered above.

Theres no way to know for sure, of course, but it seems pretty well documentd. It is nearly garaunteed that he was over 6’ tall though, and that alone makes him a foot taller than the men he was fighting.[/quote]

Hey,
theres no doubt in my mind that wallace was indeed one of the baddest soldiers to pick up a weapon. Remember, stories and ancedotes of his height are prolly greatly exaggerated.

Just use your own common sense. do you honestly believe a guy that stood nearly a foot and a half taller than the average man would have survided even one major battle, especially after he was such a marked man? He would have stood out to such a degree there would have been no way he lived past the battle of sterling.

Again, i would say he prolly was much bigger than your average guy. But to say he was 6ft 7 tall at a time when most men were 5ft I believe is a fairy tale. Even mel gibson poked fun at this legend about william wallace in the movie braveheart. I would say an educated guess would be to put him close to 6ft, give or take an inch or so. A 5 feet sword would not be that hard to weild for an strong 6ft tall man. Remember your average american soldier who is nowhere near as fit as wallace probably was is around the same height as him (6ft) and weilds gear that weighs anywhere from 80 to over 100 lbs, MUCH heavier than wallaces sword.

Again, I think common sense would prevail over sketchy documents that are 700 years old.