How tall were medieval knights?

[Martin Lubojacky]

Armour im museums realy seems to be made for short people. On the other side, excavated scelletons of so called Great Moravia soldiers were allegedly nearly 2 meters tall

[kronckew]

henry the eighth was over 6 ft. i hear that king edward of braveheart fame was also. H8's armour is HUGE.

roman legions had a 5 ft. 8 in. minimum (originally 5' 10", but dropped their standards later on)

read somewhere that the middle ages human would still be on our modern gaussian bell curve tho a bit towards the lower end rather than the mean.

a couple of the other sword forums have similar tho inconclusive discussions:

an excerpt from the metropolitan museum of art Arms and Armor—Common Misconceptions and Frequently Asked Questions

13. The size of armor indicates that people in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance were smaller.—In general, true.
Medical and anthropological research demonstrates that the average height of men and women has gradually increased over the centuries, a process that, for reasons of progressively better diet and public health, has accelerated during the past 150 years or so. The majority of surviving armors from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries appear to confirm these findings.

However, when trying to affirm such generalizations from armor, a number of factors need to be carefully considered. First, is the armor complete and homogeneous (i.e., do all parts belong together), thereby giving an accurate impression of the height of the original wearer? Second, even a high-quality armor, made to measure for a particular owner, can provide only an estimate of its former wearer's height with a margin of at least an inch or two (2–5 cm), since the overlap of the protections for lower abdomen (skirt and tassets) and thighs (cuisses) can only be approximated.

Indeed, armor comes in all shapes and sizes, such as armor for children or young men (as opposed to that for adults), and there are even armors made for dwarfs and giants (often found at European courts as "curiosities"). Moreover, then as now, other general factors have to be taken into account, such as differences in average body height between northern and southern Europeans for example, or the simple fact that there have always been people who were exceptionally tall or short when compared to their average contemporary.

Among the famous exceptions are royal examples such as Francis I, king of France (r. 1515–47), or Henry VIII, king of England (r. 1509–47). The latter's height of about 6 feet (180 cm) was commented upon by his contemporaries, and can be verified by the more than half-dozen of his armors surviving today (two of them in the Metropolitan Museum).

For an interesting contrast in the galleries of the Metropolitan Museum's Department of Arms and Armor, compare the (composite) German harness of about 1530 and the field armor attributed to Emperor Ferdinand I (1503–1564), of about 1555 (33.164). Neither armor is complete, and the sizes of the former owners are necessarily broad estimates, yet the differences in size and stature are remarkable: while the owner of the first armor was probably around 6 feet 4 inches (ca. 193 cm) tall, with his chest measuring about 54 inches (137 cm) in circumference, the owner of the latter harness, probably Emperor Ferdinand, does not appear to have measured more than about 5 feet 7 inches (170 cm) in height.

[fernando]

Most precious information contained in the links provided by Gav and Wayne.
Thanks for sharing.
I too beleive our ancestors were in average short guys, exception given to some well fed (?) nobility individuals and the traditional exuberation about our heroes, kings and so.
It is popularily spread that the sword of Dom Afonso Henriques (Portugal founding king) was so heavy that a common man could not bear it, but such sword never showed up and the king wasn't proven to be bigger than an average person.
Fernando

[kahnjar1]

The same appears to apply to Victorian era military uniforms. Most that I have seen will not fit the average person of today, so the comment above that states that stature has increased during the 20th and 21st centuries in my experience is largely correct. I assume that when we are talking of armor here, that we are talking (mainly) about English and western European suits?

[kronckew]

i've also read somewhere that the smaller stature of the 19th c. was a bit of a dip in the height stats due to avg. diet/environment being poor. i had my dad's navy uniform top from ww2 when i was younger, and could no longer fit it after i was about 15 and i was fairly small for my age then compared to others.

my university fencing teacher in the late 60's was a 5 ft. 4 in. hungarian ex cavalry colonel who was probably the fittest and meanest person to cross i've met. at the time he was about 70, and walked with a cane. not because he needed one, but because the NYC police objected to him carrying a sword. he got almost-mugged once. i hear the perpetrators only took two weeks to get out of hospital. the colonel must have been in a good mood.

[asomotif]

Maybe knights where like the jockeys in horseracing

[Battara]

Filipinos and Moros of the same time period were also short. They still are if they come from there today. I am too tall and American/Native American build to fit into my Moro armour. I am taller than my Filipino father.

[Amuk Murugul]

Originally Posted by kronckew

my university fencing teacher in the late 60's was a 5 ft. 4 in. hungarian ex cavalry colonel who was probably the fittest and meanest person to cross i've met. at the time he was about 70, and walked with a cane. not because he needed one, but because the NYC police objected to him carrying a sword. he got almost-mugged once. i hear the perpetrators only took two weeks to get out of hospital. the colonel must have been in a good mood.

Hullo everybody!
My apologies. Nothing to do with the topic at hand.
I just happened to browse through and came across the above statement, which aroused my curiosity (being a skeptic of 'coincidence').
The teacher's name didn't happen to be Joseph did it?
Once again, my apologies for being off-topic.
Best,

[kronckew]

Originally Posted by Amuk Murugul

Hullo everybody!
My apologies. Nothing to do with the topic at hand.
I just happened to browse through and came across the above statement, which aroused my curiosity (being a skeptic of 'coincidence').
The teacher's name didn't happen to be Joseph did it?
Once again, my apologies for being off-topic.
Best,

No, his name was Bela (de) Csajaghy. (see cc. my 1968 NYSMC yearbook page attached) i think he also coached at a few other places in NYC (like NYU woman's team) around that time. our team member, ira, that wrote the article was not known for his name spelling skills