- This topic has 2 voices and 8 replies.
-
Posts
-
Archaeologists uncovered and examined a skeleton from a medieval knight in England (from 1388). The study revealed the ordeals of such a life in the 14th century:"He appears to have survived for some time with a large arrowhead lodged in his chest, while the re-growth of bone around a dent in the front of his skull indicates that he had also recovered from a severe blow from an axe.He eventually died when he was struck by a sword that sliced through his nose and jaw. His reconstructed skull also indicates that he was lying on the ground when the fatal blow was delivered."Skeleton reveals violent life and death of medieval knight
They definitely lived rough back then. I wonder how many people could tolerate that today?Did the article say how tall the guy was?
The guy quoted in the article said, “”We believe he was aged between 18 and 26 when he died. He was about 5ft 7in tall and was well built, but he clearly had a hard life.”
That sounds about right. Frederick Barbarossa was considered a giant in the 12th century and he was only something like 6ft 2in tall. I am only an inch shorter than that.
I believe so. Charlemagne was also considered huge but we cannot be certain because his remains have never been positively identified that I am aware of. I don't even think it is known where Charlemagne was buried.Until relatively recently the average height of a man was only like 5'5" and women were below four feet. I read somewhere that the average height of the Union army was 5'6" and the confederates were even shorter. It has to do with nutrition. The occasional famines and lean years in times past stunted peoples growth. They were particularly unlucky if one of these bad times hit while they were in puberty because it would stop their growth completely.This article says shorter medieval men are a myth: Medieval ancestors measured up to our height standardsThis one says it is not and that average heights are cyclical: Tall Medieval MenThe second article corroborates the story of nutrition but says height declined after the 11th century and did not regain the previous high until the 19th century. If that is so how is the medieval warm period explained? It is known that agricultural output and population greatly increased between the 14th and 16th centuries, that would seem to imply greater access to food would it not?
I suppose it could be argued that the medieval warm period increased food production (and therefore overall population) but did not necessarily lead to diets that were conducive to physical growth. For that we'd have to look at a timeline of regional diets and try to match changes with differing heights.Seems to me that it should be relatively easy to determine trends in height, given the fact that we have remains of people through history. We could even use tombs as an indication of height...not to mention military records which may have height data.
I have done some more research and from what I can tell people were shorter in the Middle Ages but not significantly so. I guess that is one more myth blown out of the water. That begs the intriguing question of why there are so many short suits of armor extant? I wonder if the training of a medieval warrior stunted their growth in some way. The article here says that Sir Roger was only 5'7". Anecdotally, most of the original suits of armor I have seen seem to be fairly short like they were made for men around 5'6" or so. Some were made for adolescents but surely the vast majority of surviving armor did not belong to teenagers. I have seen the Black Princes adolescent armor and what he wore as an adult and their is a definite size difference although it is not huge.
I have the Black Princes adolescent armor and what he wore as an adult and their is a definite size difference although it is not huge.
Do you mean you "have" the armor as it it's sitting in your study as we speak?? Photos, scout, photos! How in the world did you just so happen to pick up some medieval armor?
