Topic: Hey The Romans Were Shrimps (Read 5831 times)

762 · « **Reply #20 on:** March 19, 2004, 09:07:58 am »

Quote:

Just watching the Discovery channel and they were doing digs at an ancient battlefield in Denmark(?) also known as Jutland or something. They determined the average size of the Roman soldier was just 5'1. The average size of the Germanic "giants" was 5'8. Wow I really knew they were smaller but not that much smaller...I'd have been a "giant" in those days...

This battle was an old one, one of the first encounters Rome had in the north when it was still a Republic. Not sure it's cool and refreshing but it makes me feel kinda cool...

Hexx could have been their king!

Alidar Jarok · « **Reply #21 on:** March 19, 2004, 11:29:56 am »

I heard that the lead piping in Ancient Rome contributed to a gradual decline in the hight of Romans until the end of the empire.

ActiveX · « **Reply #22 on:** March 19, 2004, 11:58:10 am »

Napoleon wasn't exactly a high society figure himself...

Rondo_GE · « **Reply #23 on:** March 19, 2004, 01:20:27 pm »

Sirgod, Ravok and Max...

Based on what I know about evolution (kind of like a hobby of mine) high protein diets (meat) are needed mostly for intelligence to fuel large brains...not for overall size. At least in mammals and it appears in dinosaurs.

The majority of "super sized" beasts were veggies...but really dumb. Baleen style Whales are omnivorous since all that goop they suck in is both plant and animal. -Size in super predators is directly related to the size of the game (availability) they use for food, modified by their style of hunting (as in hunting in social groups). In general primates have rarely attained anything large mostly because we are social and omniverous.

I am surprised about the size of Homo Erectus. It is actually still unproven that we came from their stock at all since many human-like hominids coexisted and we may not have found them all.

I don't know why the Romans were so small. Maybe it was the lead. Maybe not. Jeeze if the average was 5'1 then there must have been a whole mess of dudes under 5 feet...sorta like an army of dwarves or 8th graders.

I too wonder about size differentials in peoples especially over the generations. It seems to me size can change rapidly from one generation to the next and I don't know whether it is purely diet based (scarcity vs post scarcity) or some genetic "spring" that might be a function of adaptability. Another words were there is greater availability of food the species might ramp up the height just to consume it as did super predators would do to consume their larger prey. In this scenario genes would be the controlling factor in size, not diet. Hence food availability does not directly effect size; adaptability (and the genetic sub works) does. A subtle difference perhaps.

Just a theory though.

Also that might not obviate diet directly effecting sub size. Stunting and dwarfism but on the scale we are talking about it would seem unlikely. Roman civilization was pretty advanced so it couldn't be scarcity. maybe they simply didn't eat a lot ( a cultural thing perhaps) so they didn't trigger the "spring".

But our society is based on "consumerism". We eat a lot.

hmmmmmm

Sirgod · « **Reply #24 on:** March 19, 2004, 01:34:37 pm »

did you by any chance record that show? It has sparked my intrest to say the least.

stephen

Rondo_GE · « **Reply #25 on:** March 19, 2004, 02:01:31 pm »

'fraid not but this series is on all week as part of the "bloody roman" series.

Rondo_GE · « **Reply #26 on:** March 19, 2004, 02:24:13 pm »

Anyway some more on that particular episode.

They had some intertesting finds from the first battle (like a full face mask) that a Roman officer would wear. An eerrie looking thing that covered the whole face and made the officer look like a metal man.

They also went to another battle (dig) that happened during Augustus time. Apparently three legions (about 15,000 romans) got themselves trapped in a forest about in the same basic area that the older battle was fought. The battle lasted three days and the Germans used extremely effective guerilla style tactics rather than pitched warfare and slaughtered all 15,000 over three days. The stupid germans (no offense to any Germans on the board) made a mistake though and chopped off the head of the proconsul (general) and sent it back to Rome. Six years later when the Romans came back (and won) they found the skeletons of thousands of roman soldiers nailed to the trees throughout the forest. Jeeze, thats something out of Conan the Barbarian.

Here's one of the episodes, maybe the best one...
http://www.allyourtv.com/moviesspecials/c/moviesspecialscolosseum.html

Uh oh now i KNOW this aint cool and refreshing...

sorry

Sirgod · « **Reply #27 on:** March 19, 2004, 02:31:07 pm »

your all good Rondo, It's nice to be able too learn on this forum here. I've got to get Cable next month.

Stephen

Rondo_GE · « **Reply #28 on:** March 18, 2004, 11:31:17 pm »

Just watching the Discovery channel and they were doing digs at an ancient battlefield in Denmark(?) also known as Jutland or something. They determined the average size of the Roman soldier was just 5'1. The average size of the Germanic "giants" was 5'8. Wow I really knew they were smaller but not that much smaller...I'd have been a "giant" in those days...

This battle was an old one, one of the first encounters Rome had in the north when it was still a Republic. Not sure it's cool and refreshing but it makes me feel kinda cool...

Sirgod · « **Reply #29 on:** March 18, 2004, 11:34:34 pm »

That's interesting, Most of the peep's I've meet from here are alot taller then me. at my Peak I was 5' 11, But I'm only 5'10" now . I wonder if there's a Genetic or evolutionary reason for People getting larger over the years? and No , suppersizing at Miccy D's is not the reason.

Stephen

Maxillius · « **Reply #30 on:** March 18, 2004, 11:41:18 pm »

oddly enough, we're getting smarter, too. The IQ of the average 9 year old is about 130 now, as opposed to near 90 in the 30s

Tremok · « **Reply #31 on:** March 18, 2004, 11:53:07 pm »

Been to the San Jacinto monument (world's tallest momument tower). Had on display military uniforms they used during that time period. Would been a tight fit for the adverage teenage girl, I thought. Sam Houston must of truely been a monster, considering he was about 6'8.

Also, I think diet has alot to do with with size as well.

Ravok · « **Reply #33 on:** March 19, 2004, 05:15:21 am »

It has to do with diet and living conditions, They have found Homo Erectus averaged about six foot as well as other primitive humans afterward ( With the exception of the Neanderthals who's short stature is an adaptation to extreme cold.),
With better diet and living conditions It would seem that we are finally living up to our potential.

Alidar Jarok · « **Reply #35 on:** March 19, 2004, 11:29:56 am »

I heard that the lead piping in Ancient Rome contributed to a gradual decline in the hight of Romans until the end of the empire.

ActiveX · « **Reply #36 on:** March 19, 2004, 11:58:10 am »

Napoleon wasn't exactly a high society figure himself...

Rondo_GE · « **Reply #37 on:** March 19, 2004, 01:20:27 pm »

Sirgod, Ravok and Max...

Based on what I know about evolution (kind of like a hobby of mine) high protein diets (meat) are needed mostly for intelligence to fuel large brains...not for overall size. At least in mammals and it appears in dinosaurs.

The majority of "super sized" beasts were veggies...but really dumb. Baleen style Whales are omnivorous since all that goop they suck in is both plant and animal. -Size in super predators is directly related to the size of the game (availability) they use for food, modified by their style of hunting (as in hunting in social groups). In general primates have rarely attained anything large mostly because we are social and omniverous.

I am surprised about the size of Homo Erectus. It is actually still unproven that we came from their stock at all since many human-like hominids coexisted and we may not have found them all.

I don't know why the Romans were so small. Maybe it was the lead. Maybe not. Jeeze if the average was 5'1 then there must have been a whole mess of dudes under 5 feet...sorta like an army of dwarves or 8th graders.

I too wonder about size differentials in peoples especially over the generations. It seems to me size can change rapidly from one generation to the next and I don't know whether it is purely diet based (scarcity vs post scarcity) or some genetic "spring" that might be a function of adaptability. Another words were there is greater availability of food the species might ramp up the height just to consume it as did super predators would do to consume their larger prey. In this scenario genes would be the controlling factor in size, not diet. Hence food availability does not directly effect size; adaptability (and the genetic sub works) does. A subtle difference perhaps.

Just a theory though.

Also that might not obviate diet directly effecting sub size. Stunting and dwarfism but on the scale we are talking about it would seem unlikely. Roman civilization was pretty advanced so it couldn't be scarcity. maybe they simply didn't eat a lot ( a cultural thing perhaps) so they didn't trigger the "spring".

But our society is based on "consumerism". We eat a lot.

hmmmmmm

Sirgod · « **Reply #38 on:** March 19, 2004, 01:34:37 pm »

did you by any chance record that show? It has sparked my intrest to say the least.

stephen

Rondo_GE · « **Reply #39 on:** March 19, 2004, 02:01:31 pm »

'fraid not but this series is on all week as part of the "bloody roman" series.

News:

Topic: Hey The Romans Were Shrimps (Read 5831 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

762

Alidar Jarok

ActiveX

Rondo_GE

Sirgod

Rondo_GE

Rondo_GE

Sirgod

Rondo_GE

Sirgod

Maxillius

Tremok

TheBigCheese

Ravok

762

Alidar Jarok

ActiveX

Rondo_GE

Sirgod

Rondo_GE

Topic: Hey The Romans Were Shrimps (Read 5831 times)