How tall were medieval knights?

kahnjar1 · 5th July 2010, 05:18 AM

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 · 5th July 2010, 05:41 AM

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 · 8th July 2010, 11:08 PM

Maybe knights where like the jockeys in horseracing

Battara · 9th July 2010, 03:15 AM

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.

fearn · 9th July 2010, 03:30 AM

Remember that we're seeing the armor that survived, not necessarily the armor the *used.*

We're also talking about museums, which have limited space and (hopefully) a wide, physically diverse audience. Unless there's a historical reason to show a big suit (for example, one from Henry VIII), I'd show a smaller suit. There's more room for other stuff around it, and more people can see more of it.

My microtuppence,

F

A Senefelder · 15th July 2010, 07:26 PM

A fair amount of European armour in museums is not displayed " properly ". By that I mean that it is simply on a stand to prop it up, not on a stand of the same dimensions as the original wearer for whom it was built so this tends to give a distorted view of height when looking at possed suits in museums. Diet had a great deal to do with height then as now. The upper classes ate much better than the lower classes and thus suffered much less from a wide array of issued induced by continuos poor diet including height. The upper classes were by and large on par with heights today, while the lower classes suffered somewhat in height as well as other issues produced by poor or limited diet. That being said weight in general or at least body mass seems to have been a bit lower if the sizes of surviving pieces are any indicator. I have owned several breast plates over the years that are of the correct height for some one of my height ( bottom edge of the breast plate at the height of the lowest rib of the rib cage ) but were very tight in the upper chest. Another feature that comes to light on many 15th and 16th century fine armours is that the calfs are very thin ( this being determined by the dimensions of the greaves ), something that would seem to not make sense given that some level of military service/training would be part of the users lifestyle. One explaination i've heard for this is the idea that this level of society seldom walked but rather road everywhere. A fair portion of the world today owns cars and drives most places, so one would expect to see the same result in modern humans but this does not seem to necessarily be the case so I find the above explaination suspect.

fearn · 15th July 2010, 08:18 PM

For the calves, I wonder if they are thin because they are being held on it part by the springiness of the metal, as opposed to slapping around as the wearer walked.

Not sure about the small chest thing, though. You'd think, given the mucking great weapons they were swinging, they would have rather large chests.

Fun stuff!

F

Amuk Murugul · 23rd March 2014, 05:10 AM

Quote:

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 · 23rd March 2014, 05:40 AM

Quote:

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

5th July 2010, 05:18 AM	#1
kahnjar1 Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND Posts: 2,786	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?

5th July 2010, 05:41 AM	#2
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,215	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.

8th July 2010, 11:08 PM	#3
asomotif Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 2,228	Maybe knights where like the jockeys in horseracing

9th July 2010, 03:15 AM	#4
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,272	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.

9th July 2010, 03:30 AM	#5
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	Remember that we're seeing the armor that survived, not necessarily the armor the used. We're also talking about museums, which have limited space and (hopefully) a wide, physically diverse audience. Unless there's a historical reason to show a big suit (for example, one from Henry VIII), I'd show a smaller suit. There's more room for other stuff around it, and more people can see more of it. My microtuppence, F

15th July 2010, 07:26 PM	#6
A Senefelder Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 214	A fair amount of European armour in museums is not displayed " properly ". By that I mean that it is simply on a stand to prop it up, not on a stand of the same dimensions as the original wearer for whom it was built so this tends to give a distorted view of height when looking at possed suits in museums. Diet had a great deal to do with height then as now. The upper classes ate much better than the lower classes and thus suffered much less from a wide array of issued induced by continuos poor diet including height. The upper classes were by and large on par with heights today, while the lower classes suffered somewhat in height as well as other issues produced by poor or limited diet. That being said weight in general or at least body mass seems to have been a bit lower if the sizes of surviving pieces are any indicator. I have owned several breast plates over the years that are of the correct height for some one of my height ( bottom edge of the breast plate at the height of the lowest rib of the rib cage ) but were very tight in the upper chest. Another feature that comes to light on many 15th and 16th century fine armours is that the calfs are very thin ( this being determined by the dimensions of the greaves ), something that would seem to not make sense given that some level of military service/training would be part of the users lifestyle. One explaination i've heard for this is the idea that this level of society seldom walked but rather road everywhere. A fair portion of the world today owns cars and drives most places, so one would expect to see the same result in modern humans but this does not seem to necessarily be the case so I find the above explaination suspect.

15th July 2010, 08:18 PM	#7
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	For the calves, I wonder if they are thin because they are being held on it part by the springiness of the metal, as opposed to slapping around as the wearer walked. Not sure about the small chest thing, though. You'd think, given the mucking great weapons they were swinging, they would have rather large chests. Fun stuff! F