ChatGPT:
I have read that the officers in the British army during the 18th-19th centuries (when commissions were purchased and almost entirely held by the upper class) averaged about 6 inches taller than the rank and file drawn from the lower classes. This would have been partly due to differences in diet but also genetics and perhaps other factors. Can you find any studies that give specifics on this? (or that refute it, if any do)
Thought for 31s
Yes—there are solid "anthropometric history" studies with hard numbers, but they mostly support a big height gap by social class among youths headed for commissions rather than proving that adult commissioned officers averaged ~6 inches taller than the rank and file.
What the best-documented evidence actually shows
1) Sandhurst cadets (elite/officer track) vs Marine Society boys (destitute/working-class)
This is the cleanest, most frequently cited comparison.
A major synthesis chapter on British height data reports that 14-year-old boys at the Royal Military Academy (Sandhurst) were "nearly six inches taller" than boys in the Marine Society in the early 19th century.
John Komlos's quantitative paper (using Sandhurst registers and Marine Society records) gives even more specific figures: the average difference was 16.3 cm (~6.4 in) at age 13, rising to 22 cm (~8.7 in) at age 16.
A later demographic/height paper summarizes this same result as a 10–22 cm gap between Marine Society boys and Sandhurst cadets (cohorts born late-18th/early-19th c.).
Interpretation: this is exactly the kind of magnitude you remembered (and bigger)—but it's primarily a class gradient in adolescent growth, not a direct officers-vs-enlisted adult comparison.
2) Adult socioeconomic gradients are usually much smaller than 6 inches
One reason the "officers averaged six inches taller than the men" claim raises a red flag is that once you look at broad adult populations, the class gradient tends to be meaningful but not enormous.
For example, the Jaadla et al. study (militia ballot lists, late 1790s) finds a socioeconomic gradient in height, but emphasizes that differences were "relatively small" in that adult context.
That doesn't refute "officers were taller"—it suggests that a six-inch adult average gap is unlikely as a general rule across the officer corps.
Do we have studies explicitly comparing officers to rank and file?
Some modern quantitative work does make that direct claim, though access can be gated:
A Cambridge/Core article on stature and socioeconomic status reports that officers were "significantly taller than rank and file," even after controlling for paternal occupation.
What I have in hand from open snippets doesn't give the exact inch/cm difference in the abstract view—but it confirms the direction and statistical significance in a dataset that explicitly distinguishes officers.
So, what's the best "specifics-based" answer to your claim?
If your memory is: "about six inches", the best-supported match is Sandhurst cadets vs Marine Society boys at ~age 13–16 (often ~6 inches at 13–14, sometimes larger by 16).
If your claim is: "adult officers averaged six inches taller than adult enlisted men", I have not (yet) seen an open, primary quantitative study that supports that exact magnitude as a general average; the wider adult literature makes that seem too large for a typical mean difference.
Handy citations to "file away"
If you want a small, reliable bundle to keep with your notes:
Floud & Harris (NBER chapter): "14-year-old Sandhurst boys nearly six inches taller…"
Komlos, "Height of Sandhurst Students…" (PDF): 16.3 cm at 13; 22 cm at 16.
Jaadla et al. (militia lists): class gradient exists; adult differences relatively small.
Inwood et al. (Cambridge Core): officers significantly taller than rank & file (controls applied).
If you later want to pin down an officers-vs-enlisted mean difference in inches for a specific war/decade (Napoleonic era vs late Victorian vs WWI), tell me which period you care about most, and I'll target the datasets that actually record rank + measured height together (service records / enlistment registers), rather than relying on class proxies.
Since we have been looking at differences pre- and post- industrialization and urbanization, I wonder if anyone has compared soldiers in different British regiments during the same time period? British regiments were generally raised in a specific county or region (Wales, Scottish highland, Scottish lowland) and so might reflect rural/urban differences -- with London in a class by itself -- in height of recruits?
Thought for 47s
Yes—people have compared heights across British military units and across regions, but with an important caveat: for the regular army, "regimental" differences often reflect recruiting policy and height standards (Guards seeking tall men, Marines accepting shorter men, etc.) at least as much as "county nutrition." For regional rural/urban contrasts, the cleanest evidence often comes from militia lists, which really were organized by county quotas.
1) Within the same period, do different corps/units show different average heights?
Yes, and the literature is explicit that selection differed by unit:
A recent quantitative/history paper summarizing selection mechanisms notes that specialized units targeted shorter or taller recruits; in the Floud–Wachter–Gregory British military sample, Marines were "noticeably shorter," while grenadiers, Guards, heavy cavalry, and other elite units targeted taller recruits—and it even notes that light cavalry could face maximum height standards (not minimums).
That's exactly the kind of "same time period, different units" comparison you have in mind—though it's more "corps/role" than "Welsh vs Highland" per se.
2) What about "county/region regiments" reflecting rural vs urban height?
This is plausible, but messy, because:
County/regional titles didn't always mean recruiting stayed local, especially in wartime.
Height requirements and recruiting targets could differ by regiment or company type (again: selection bias).
Surviving Description Books (which do record physical description, place of birth, etc.) exist, but are patchy for the Napoleonic-era regular army.
So the best scholarship usually tries to control for unit selection, or it shifts to data sources where geography is baked in.
3) The strongest "regional/county" evidence: militia (county-based)
If your real question is "London vs rural counties" (or Highlands vs Lowlands) in the same era, militia sources are often better than regular-army regiments.
Two especially relevant examples:
Dorset Militia Ballot Lists (late 1790s): these are county-administered lists with recorded heights, used by historians precisely because they give a broad county cross-section (with exemptions and thresholds noted).
Scotland Local Militia county comparisons (1817): an early published compilation explicitly titled "Statement of the sizes of men in different counties of Scotland, taken from the local militia"—i.e., directly county-by-county (including measurement distributions).
Those are tailor-made for the rural/urban and "four nations" comparisons you're thinking about, without having to assume a regiment is truly local.
4) What would a good "regiments-as-regions" study look like (and how it's done)
When modern scholars do try this with the regular army, they typically use records that contain:
Height
Place of birth
Place of enlistment
Regiment/unit
Sometimes occupation/age
That information is commonly found in service/attestation-style records and "description books" (when they survive).
Bottom line
Yes, there is evidence of meaningful height differences across units/corps in the same period—but much of it is selection by recruiters and regulations (Guards tall, Marines shorter, etc.).
Yes, there are ways to test regional rural/urban differences at the same time—but the cleanest, most "county-native" approach is often militia lists (Dorset-style) or the 1817 Scotland county compilation, rather than assuming regimental titles track birthplace.
If you tell me the window you care about most (e.g., 1793–1815 vs 1840s–1860s) and whether you want England-only or four nations comparisons, I can point you to the most relevant datasets/papers for that specific slice.
Tell me what the Marine Society was. Were those boys also bound for military positions as were the Sandhurst cadets?
The short answer is: yes, both groups were destined for military service—but at opposite ends of the social and institutional hierarchy. That is precisely why historians like comparing them.
What the Marine Society was
Marine Society was founded in 1756, during the Seven Years' War, as a philanthropic recruiting pipeline for Britain's maritime services.
Its purpose was to:
Take in poor, orphaned, or destitute boys (often from London)
Clothe, feed, and train them
Place them into service primarily as:
Royal Navy seamen
Royal Marines
Occasionally merchant shipping
The Society was explicit about its social mission: it was meant to turn "the idle and indigent youth of the metropolis" into useful servants of the state.
Who these boys were
Marine Society boys were typically:
From urban, working-class or underclass backgrounds
Frequently malnourished or stunted when admitted
Recruited very young (often 12–15 years old)
Bound for enlisted positions requiring physical endurance and discipline
The Society kept unusually good records—including measured heights—which is why they are gold mines for modern historians.
Sandhurst by contrast
Royal Military Academy Sandhurst (formally established in 1802, building on earlier institutions) trained boys who were:
From upper-class or upper-middle-class families
Financially supported by parents (fees, uniforms, preparation)
Destined for commissioned officer roles
Often preparing for service in the infantry, cavalry, or artillery
Sandhurst cadets were not charity cases; they were investments—families were purchasing education, status, and future commissions.
Were both groups "bound for military service"?
Yes—but in fundamentally different ways.
Marine Society boys Sandhurst cadets
Enlisted ranks Commissioned officers
Urban poor Social elite
Often coerced by necessity Voluntary, career-oriented
Physical labor expected Command and leadership expected
Minimal social mobility High-status pathway
So when historians compare their heights, they are not making a vague class contrast—they are comparing two cohorts both explicitly selected for military futures, but drawn from opposite social strata.
Why historians use this comparison
The comparison is powerful because it controls for intent (military service) while isolating class, nutrition, and early-life conditions.
When studies find that:
Sandhurst boys were ~6 inches taller than Marine Society boys at age 13–14,
that difference cannot be explained by "different ambitions" or "civilian vs military." Both groups were future soldiers. The gap reflects:
Childhood nutrition
Disease burden
Housing conditions
Family resources
Possibly long-term genetic sorting by class
In other words, it is a clean demonstration of how social inequality translated directly into physical development, even among boys all headed for national service.
A final, interpretive point (very much in line with your earlier essays)
The irony is striking:
The boys who would command Britain's armies and regiments were already physically marked as different from the boys who would man its ships and ranks—before training began.
Height here functioned much like grooming, accent, or bearing:
not merely biological,
but a visible embodiment of class privilege.
That is why the Marine Society vs. Sandhurst comparison keeps resurfacing in the literature—it makes inequality measurable in inches.
If you'd like, next we could:
Trace what happened later (did Marine Society boys catch up in height with age?), or
Compare naval vs. army height selection more closely, or
Tie this directly back to your "looking expensive" framework as applied to male bodies in uniform.
