[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
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.
I dont know man. Jesus is pretty ripped. [/quote]
HE MUST HAVED USED Biotest 
[quote]Velvet Revolver wrote:
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.
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. [/quote]
The average height of a male now is what…5’9? 5’10?
In 700 years, will most people deny that Shaquille O’Neal existed just because he’s 7’1 ?
It’s not an issue of whether or not wallace COULD have been tall, sure he COULD have been 6’7", but he probably wouldn’t have survived a single major battle, ESPECIALLY weilding a claymore.
I’m 5’10", and I can effectively weild a sword about the same size as Wallace’s, but I can tell you for certain that as an Anachronist (yes, I’m one of the dorks who wears armor and beats his friends with a big stick), the biggest, tallest guys are nearly ALWAYS the easiest to kill.
If I had to guess as to the “ideal” build, I’d say that I’m probably it - about 5’10", 200+ lbs. 30 lbs variation either way, and 3 inches height variation either way is still pretty much ideal. The shorter you are, the less you have to guard. If you’re HYOOGE like the legends say Wallace was, you’d be cut down below the knees before you could kill nearly ANYONE, unless A. they were all on horseback. B. you were INCREDIBLY fast and wore armor on your legs.
ESPECIALLY in armed combat, size isn’t as big a factor as most would think - speed and skill are the two most important factors, after that, strength. the best? average/small, fast, and strong. huge and rediculously strong? not particularly helpful.
[quote]WMD wrote:
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]
Hmmm your right! Actaully the sword I was thinking of is called Zweihander. They were actually used in battle, normally by front line shock troops to take out horses and finish off the rider. They list “The weight could range between 2.8 and 5 kg” with a max size of nearly 6 feet. However, most were 5ft ish and 2.5-3 kg. Still, that would feel pretty darn heavy after a while.
Here’s what i’m talking about. Bigger version of the claymore.
“The soldiers that used them were called “Doppels?ldner”. They were paid twice as much as the regular soldiers but they only had half as much chance of coming back on their own feet.”
Gotta love those odds ehh?
[quote]bundy wrote:
I was actually thinking what sort of training the Roman soldiers did 2000 years ago? Their armour weighed a bit I was told. [/quote]
Mainly marching, digging, swimming and practice with double weight equipment. Although their armor was a bit heavy, the reason they referred to themselves as “mules” was that they carried so much other equipment.
[quote]knewsom wrote:
It’s not an issue of whether or not wallace COULD have been tall, sure he COULD have been 6’7", but he probably wouldn’t have survived a single major battle, ESPECIALLY weilding a claymore.
I’m 5’10", and I can effectively weild a sword about the same size as Wallace’s, but I can tell you for certain that as an Anachronist (yes, I’m one of the dorks who wears armor and beats his friends with a big stick), the biggest, tallest guys are nearly ALWAYS the easiest to kill.
If I had to guess as to the “ideal” build, I’d say that I’m probably it - about 5’10", 200+ lbs. 30 lbs variation either way, and 3 inches height variation either way is still pretty much ideal. The shorter you are, the less you have to guard. If you’re HYOOGE like the legends say Wallace was, you’d be cut down below the knees before you could kill nearly ANYONE, unless A. they were all on horseback. B. you were INCREDIBLY fast and wore armor on your legs.
ESPECIALLY in armed combat, size isn’t as big a factor as most would think - speed and skill are the two most important factors, after that, strength. the best? average/small, fast, and strong. huge and rediculously strong? not particularly helpful.[/quote]
Knewsom,
Couldnt agree more, I think you and me are on the same page.
All one has to do is use common sense. Try and think of soldiers during that time. Understand how much of a marked man wallace truly was. There is no way a guy who was that tall would have blended in not just during battle times but during regular hours. He would have been cut down in battle easily. Your analogy about height in battle is a correct one as well. At that height, i just dont see how one could have survived. i dont see how he would have been cordinated to weild a sword and fight properly and fend of attack from opponents that much shorter and faster than him. Lets not forget he was a wanted man in the entire region of england. Hell, sharpshooters with bows would have been able to pick him out of a crowd easily had he been a whopping foot and a half taller.
Again, I think it just takes a little common sense thinking.
[quote]Soldierslim wrote:
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]
Its all relative. Exactly like truth. What we need are the facts. Theres probably 200 opinions out the for just one I-fact.
Another thing you must remember about william wallace-
The taller you are, the more arm span you have. He had greater reach. Box a fella taller then you sometime. You will appreciate reach. Also, would you get up close and personal with someone more then a foot and a half taller then you?
The english longbow took about 100 pounds of pressure to pull back.
John Henry-wether or not the story is true, the song states that he was 6’6" and weighed 245,broad at the shoulders and narrow at the hip.
Sampson (if your a beleiver) killed a lion barehanded and pulled down a house. Granted, his strength came from God, but I am guessing he wasn’t 5’3" and 125#
Jesus was a carpenter. carpenter’s are sometime freaky strong.
What about blacksmiths? watch some western movies. Blacksmiths have this nasty habit of being barrel-chested huuuuuggggeeee armed ogres. Kinda odd.
James Arness! he was sherriff! ancient warrior he was! he dwarfed john wayne even.
Betcha gehngis kahn wasn’t a little feller
[quote]BarneyFife wrote:
Another thing you must remember about william wallace-
The taller you are, the more arm span you have. He had greater reach. Box a fella taller then you sometime. You will appreciate reach. Also, would you get up close and personal with someone more then a foot and a half taller then you?[/quote]
Tyson was shorter than most of his opponents, didn’t give him much trouble. If you are shorter and much stronger, you can just fight a shit boring fight by clinching heaps and doing heaps of non-scoring punches in the side around the kidneys. That tires your opponent out, and when he’s exhausted you just bludgeon him until you knock him out or the ref stops it.
Worked for me, but my reactions weren’t fast enough to get to an elite level.
[quote]aussie_jono wrote:
BarneyFife wrote:
Another thing you must remember about william wallace-
The taller you are, the more arm span you have. He had greater reach. Box a fella taller then you sometime. You will appreciate reach. Also, would you get up close and personal with someone more then a foot and a half taller then you?
Tyson was shorter than most of his opponents, didn’t give him much trouble. If you are shorter and much stronger, you can just fight a shit boring fight by clinching heaps and doing heaps of non-scoring punches in the side around the kidneys. That tires your opponent out, and when he’s exhausted you just bludgeon him until you knock him out or the ref stops it.
Worked for me, but my reactions weren’t fast enough to get to an elite level.[/quote]
…also, as I previously mentioned, that extra reach isn’t ALL THAT important when fighting in armed combat. If I’m fighting a guy who’s a foot and a half taller than me, I know that his blows are pretty much only coming from ONE direction: above me. …meaning I really only have to worry about blocking on direction: UP.
I don’t have to worry about blocking my legs like I do when I’m fighting a squirrily little fucker like Bruce Lee… nooo sir. I block up high, wait for him to get a little tired from throwing those big powerful limbs around, attack once or twice to keep him moving and wear him out, wait for him to make that ONE WRONG MOVE, and then BLAM, a stick of rattan in the armpit, or upside the damn head.
Like I said before. Sheer size is NOT an advantage in armed combat - in hand to hand? perhaps, perhaps not, it depends on the situation. Evolutionarily, speed and agility ALWAYS beats size and strength, not because Bruce Lee could kick our asses, but because Bruce Lee could probably run a LOT faster, for a LOT further, and require a LOT less food. Efficiency is the bread and butter of survival.
[quote]knewsom wrote:
a squirrily little fucker like Bruce Lee…[/quote]
Oh man…SHIELDS UP
I saw on Discovery where they founf the complete skeleton of (what they believe) to be one of the first Olympic atheletes. After studying his bones, and making casts of them, the estimate he was about 5’6" and weighed about 170 lbs. He seemed to have very well muscled arms and shoulders and lower legs.
all ancient warriors were the exact same size and shape…in fact, all ancient warriors were clones of Bruce Lee…Bruce Lee went back in time, made a clone army, and taught them all to fight kik-street-fuk-ass jujitsu…things stayed this way until the advent of the modern rifle…
it’s all 100% true…look it up in your Bruce Lee history books (which is the real history that should be taught in schools, not that fake bullshit history that is forced upon everyone against there will, that other history is just theory, not fact like Bruce Lee history)…
[quote]DPH wrote:
all ancient warriors were the exact same size and shape…in fact, all ancient warriors were clones of Bruce Lee…Bruce Lee went back in time, made a clone army, and taught them all to fight kik-street-fuk-ass jujitsu…things stayed this way until the advent of the modern rifle…
it’s all 100% true…look it up in your Bruce Lee history books (which is the real history that should be taught in schools, not that fake bullshit history that is forced upon everyone against there will, that other history is just theory, not fact like Bruce Lee history)…[/quote]
I remember that. That all happened right after the “Functional Wars of 800bc”. As you can guess, the army of Bruce Lee won.
Hmm. Funnily enough, size,strength and agility are not that incredibly important in war-
The mongols thumped the brits- why? their horses had stirrups.
The romans thumped. well. EVERYBODY. Why? good tactics
In WW1, the germans did an awful lot of thumping. Why? Ever seen a Maxim Machinegun in action?
In WW2, the Germans did some more thumping. Poland, France, Russia (at first, till it snowed) Why? they had good strategy.
In one on one fighting, size and strength, agility and speed all come into play.
IF size doesn’t matter, why do so many sports have weight classes?
Someone mentioned that big limbs wear you out more. I don’t know if I fully agree with that. In my limited experience, a big man can swing a sledge or a hayhook a helluva lot longer then a “Tiny Tim” clone.
[quote]BarneyFife wrote:
Hmm. Funnily enough, size,strength and agility are not that incredibly important in war-
The mongols thumped the brits- why? their horses had stirrups.
The romans thumped. well. EVERYBODY. Why? good tactics
In WW1, the germans did an awful lot of thumping. Why? Ever seen a Maxim Machinegun in action?
In WW2, the Germans did some more thumping. Poland, France, Russia (at first, till it snowed) Why? they had good strategy.
In one on one fighting, size and strength, agility and speed all come into play.
IF size doesn’t matter, why do so many sports have weight classes?
Someone mentioned that big limbs wear you out more. I don’t know if I fully agree with that. In my limited experience, a big man can swing a sledge or a hayhook a helluva lot longer then a “Tiny Tim” clone.[/quote]
Reminder: Sports arent’ war OR combat. Even combative sports aren’t true combat. SCA fighting is closer to true armed combat, but it still leaves quite a few things out - like dishonorable crap (striking below the knee, for example).
Sure, in boxing and wrestling size is a HUGE factor. in a streetfight it is too, but the biggest factor is still skill and meaness. I’ve seen smaller dogs whip the SHIT outta bigger dogs simply because they’re meaner. There is of course a point where size difference is SUCH a huge factor that there’s practically no way one opponent can win without a serious weapon. (with dogs, a pit bull can hurt on just about any kind of dog, with the exception of a dog whose neck is significantly larger than the pitbull’s mouth - a smaller pit would have trouble with a large mastif)
Like I said - unarmed? hell yes, size is a HUGE factor.
Armed? skill and speed, no matter the weapon. (tactics fall under skill)
examples: In a knife fight: big strong slow guy versus fast skinny smaller guy - who wins? whoever is fastest.
In a shootout, old west style: whoever is fastest on the draw and has good aim wins.
in armed combat (sword and sheild), well, see previous examples.
As to endurance, give “tiny tim” a proportionately smaller sledge or hayhook, and see who outlasts who. who wins marathons? triathalons? the tour de france? some hyooge dude? NO.
As to endurance, give “tiny tim” a proportionately smaller sledge or hayhook, and see who outlasts who. who wins marathons? triathalons? the tour de france? some hyooge dude? NO. [/quote]
No disrespect intended here. A big fella swinging a 16 pounder for 8 hours still busts more rock then a tiny tim swinging an 8 pounder for 8 hours. A smaller hayhook doesn’t really matter, becuase there is still an 80 pound bale to be moved.
Technology is a big factor in weaponry fights though. A doubleaction revolver, like the peacmaker, against a single action only revolver would give the peacmaker advatage. If a feller is mighty fast with a sword, but the other feller has a spear, then the man with the spear has more reach. A mace isn’t probably as good as a broadsword, but a broadsword doesn’t work so well against chainmail, but a blunt blow transfers through chainmail. It’s all very relative. Most bouncers are pretty big individuals becuase of the intimidation factor, and becuase size does matter. I have yet to see an army ranger that is HUYUGE, yet they are some of the badest fellas around.
For anyone to survive multiple battles in ancient times, they were probably big, strong, fast and skillfull, and extremly lucky. No one factor can guarentee a victory.
Except for army rangers. I heard that they can swim up your toliet and cut your throat while taking a shit!
I have seen Napoleon’s armor in person at a museum and he was just over 5 ft. tall. I would also like to add that in general people were of smaller stature (average) the further back you go in history. Obviously the more diverse and healthy diet you get from the time you are a child drastically effects how big you get. And for the most part we have access to more food and a larger variety of foods than ever before in history.
true - one had to be VERY lucky to survive a battle, whether big and strong or small and fast.
either an 8lb hammer or a 12lb hammer can crush a skull just as easily - so I’m not sure that the rock crushing analogy pans out entirely, bro… for labor, however, size is an INCREDIBLE advantage - why african slaves in the south were bred for size and strength.
I"m also not so sure that chainmail was such great protection against a sword - even if it could prevent the slashing wound from the blade’s edge, It wouldn’t dampen the sheer FORCE of the 4-10lb blade concentrated into a very small area. A blow like this might not kill you on the spot, and wouldn’t cut you in half, but it’d snap a few ribs, and you’d probably die later of your injuries.
You’re quite right that technology is such a huge factor - yes, it can be overcome by skill, speed, and tactics, but in the end, technology is the BIGGEST factor.
Fight of the century: Bruce Lee vs. an Army Ranger!
