"Relative or known heights of Saxons v Normans v Vikings" Topic

Hi Gents,

Would anyone know, or have thoughts on, the average heights or builds of Dark Age Anglo Saxons, Normans, Danes, Irish, Picts etc?

I've always assumed the Danes, Vikings to be these big burly fellows, but that's more anecdotal than anything. Any real data or relative contemporary documents?

Thanks for any input,
Bob

Pretty much the same as anyone in the western world. About 5'7" – 5'8". Compared to the average American male at 5'10".

I recently saw a study of Viking skeletons that seemed to think that Vikings were kind of androgynous. Their women were more manly, and the men were kind of girly.

That doesn't really answer your question, since it's an assessment within the group. They might still be big and tall compared to everyone else.

If I find it, I'll post a link.

I think assuming that a warrior culture has the same height as agricultural people would be an error. Just as monks and the clergy tended to be healthier, I would assume many of the warrior cultures to be the same, especially if they have a high protein diet. So, I think you would have a mixture of similar heights to ours and those that were bigger as well. Remember, 5' 9" or so is the current average height. There are a lot of folks smaller and taller and this to arrive at the average.

Maybe the question shouldn't be how tall or big they were but how small the folks they preyed on/fought were? Romans we know to be smaller; in the 5'4" to 5'5" range. Someone of our average height would be huge to them and I believe that barbarians were reported as being 'giants'.

Someone of our average height would be huge to them and I believe that barbarians were reported as being 'giants'.

Well of course they'd SAY that, no one is going to come home defeated and say "a bunch of midgets beat us up. Midget girls. Blind midget girls with a limp. They weren't even armed."

I'd have assumed that average modern heights would bear some reflection from the distant past? For example some of the tallest average heights in Europe are found among the geographic homeland of the Vikings.

During medical rotations I spent some time in an area which had a heavy Russian population and most of the patients I saw were quite big and sturdy folks..made my Italian/Irish/Cherokee mixed frame look sort of wimpy..

Wouldn't these geo-politico-cultural differences be at least the same, if not more pronounced at say 1000 AD?

A quick google didn't find it, but I'm sure I have seen a height comparison of British officers vs enlisted in 18th or 19th centuries. Comparative diet was suggested as the reason why officers were significantly taller.

A lot of height is attributed to diet. For instance, the 5'5" Roman mentioned above is the Classical Roman. they were not huge meat eaters so their protein consumption would likely be less than say the "giant" barbarians to their north and west. As Rome became more integrated with other cultures, the average height would almost certainly increase as they adopted other customs and diets.

A more easily measured example of this is the average height in Japan since the end of WWII. The diet and customs changed match that of the Americans with meat becoming far more plentiful and popular (affordable) than before.

In America in the late 1700s, the average height was probably 5'7" or 5'8". Geroge Washington was a hulking man at 6'2" tall. Abraham Lincoln in the 1860's would certainly be described as a giant at 6'4". George McClellan was noted to be about 5'4" or about average for a Classical Roman citizen.

All 3 groups came from the same stock of people from the north so they should all be around the same size.
They just came south and invaded at different times.

They have similar genetic backgrounds, but there may be some slight differences in average size between groups due likely to diet. Important to keep in mind that there will almost certainly be greater genetic and environmental variation within any of these groups than among them.

I've read that the first Europeans to arrive in North America were shorter than the natives. I think it really has to do with diet and health in general.

This paper on European Heights in the Early 18th Century might be of interest.

Druzhina
Illustrations of Soldiers

Interesting article, Druzhina, thank you.

" I think assuming that a warrior culture has the same height as agricultural people would be an error. Just as monks and the clergy tended to be healthier, I would assume many of the warrior cultures to be the same, especially if they have a high protein diet."

Yes and add to that the social stratification ensured that the same families had been better fed for generations and the reasons why they are bigger and stronger become clear.

The opposite is also demonstrable consider the Bantam battalions of WW1.

Viking Answer Lady summarises the available data for Scandinavians and the British neatly:
link
Her article cites the appropriate archaeological reports and provides a short bibliography if you wish to pursue it further.