Found out the growth of a person during the Middle Ages

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

Looking at the exhibitions devoted to the Middle Ages, you catch yourself thinking about "historical" discomfort. Let's say two components: the museum exhibits really real archaeological finds (not reconstructions), and the comments presented under the exhibits describe the realities of that time. Then three inevitable questions arise.

The first - the size of medieval armor suggests that the height of the "standard" knight did not exceed 140 cm. Accordingly, we make allowances for his weight, maneuverability and combat equipment. But is it really so?

The second - military uniforms (sword, spear, hammer, shield, etc.) demonstrates that the average height of a knight should be 168-173 cm, but not 140 cm. Otherwise, the sword turns into a staff.

The third is about the "historical" museums themselves. In most cases, we can observe reconstructed objects, that is, the formalized representations of historians about the objects of that time, but not the objects themselves belonging to the era of the Middle Ages.

In other words, if the average height of a warrior was 130-140 cm, then this means that in the 12-13th centuries A. D. there was a completely inexplicable decrease in human growth. Indeed, at the turn of the first millennium, the average height of a European reached 170-173 cm and even slightly higher. In addition, the Romans who lived during the reign of Caesar-Nero were taller and more massive than their modern descendants.

Indicative in this respect is the story of the daughter of a German burgomaster, described in a medieval chronicle. The girl took everyone - she was beautiful and well-behaved, and they gave a dowry for her, only her height was too great - the same 170 centimeters.

In this logic, a modern adult man among the illustrious companions of King Arthur would look like Gulliver. But the whole evolution shows that people are constantly growing. From century to century. People are getting taller. The average height of a person increases by one centimeter every fourteen years. Accordingly, the size of the chest and the parameters of the legs change. In the last 150 years alone, we have grown by more than 20 centimeters. The average height of a homo is 180 cm for men and 175 cm for women. And this figure is growing every year. More than ten percent of the adult male population is over 190 centimeters tall. However, it was in the Middle Ages that a strange decline was observed, the causes and consequences of this process seem to be unclear.

What could be the explanation?

1. Suppose that there was no decrease in human growth in the Middle Ages. On the contrary, there was an acceleration, sometimes even cases of gigantism. Let's take the decline of the Roman Empire - the 5th century AD as a starting point. The average height of a person, judging by the data of scientists, was close to 170-172 cm for men and 164-165 cm for women. We will assume that from this period, the process of increasing growth has been continuously going on, at a rate that is not inferior to the modern one. Then we get at the turn of the first millennium the average height of men is 210-220 cm, for women - 192 to 198 cm. But this is not so. It turns out that at that time a certain physiological process was launched, which led to a loss of average height that way by 30-40 centimeters. In principle, from a biological point of view, this phenomenon is explainable, since there are 3 main restrictions on the size of terrestrial creatures, especially mammals.
2. The bodies of animals are supported by skeletons, which must be strong enough to support their weight. The problem is that with increasing overall body size, bone size must increase exponentially. This extra volume requires that muscles, blood vessels and organs such as the heart and lungs also increase accordingly, with the result that many of the soft organs of the body will simply be crushed by their own weight.
3. Large creatures have a problem with even circulation of blood to all parts of the body. gravity makes it gather at the feet. The heart, again, must expand exponentially in order to meet the circulation requirements of large organizations. On the other hand, the Earth was already going through a period of gigantism of living nature. It didn’t seem to apply to people. And the explanation for this may be even simpler - the size of the planet itself has changed. The attraction was weaker, the rate of atmospheric circulation was faster. After the volume of the Earth became more significant, the need for gigantomania disappeared, and "unnecessary" species of animals and plants became extinct. But what if the size of the Earth also changed during the heyday of the Middle Ages? Not as globally as at the end of the Mesozoic, but still …
4. The larger the animal, the lower the ratio of its body surface to mass, it is more difficult for them to cool by giving off heat to the environment. And unlike whales, terrestrial giants are threatened with banal overheating. If our assumption is correct and, let's say, at the turn of the millennium, there was a slight correction in the size of the Earth towards its increase, then along with the physics of the planet, the physiology of its inhabitants, including homo, also changed. By the way, the reason for the decline of the militant Scandinavian "civilization" is also known: the climate has changed corny. Horticulture flourished in Greenland, fruits were grown, and the British Isles were home to lions, which are still considered the symbol of the islanders to this day. And such metamorphoses cannot be explained solely by the change in the geography of the magnetic poles and ocean currents. By the way, the latter must have its own rational reasons.
5. Now let's turn our attention to historical museums from a business point of view. What is easier - to exhibit a real thing unearthed in medieval strata, or to present a reconstruction? Layout by views, of course. We dismiss the presentation as contrived by historians. From what was actually found, what do we see: traces of battles? holes? Dents? There is none of them. As there is no armor on the battlefields, but the Middle Ages is a time of constant wars, conflicts, the creation of the first empires. Where are the traces of grandiose battles, except for the statements of court chroniclers and monks?

Let's go back to physics and physiology. We have: a tall hypothetical warrior 182cm, weight 90kg. Equipment set: comforter, underguard, chain mail, helmet with shoulder strap, handcuffs, shoulder pads, knee pads, greaves. Iron sword and shield. Any biologist or even a doctor will say that with regular training, health is enough for a maximum of 5 minutes of combat, the helmet greatly narrows the field of view to 90-100 degrees. Overheating of the body, poor circulation, risk of stroke and hormonal imbalance, problems with veins. When crossing, the speed is 2-3 km per hour in steps, in reality a one-time crossing is 4 km, then rest is necessary. So battles in the form that historians present to us are simply unrealistic.

And the last thing. The first mentions of armor and knights in our "modern" understanding are found … by Cervantes in Don Quixote. Then came historical descriptions, battles, empires, absolutist monarchies. So knights and chivalrous romance may turn out to be an invention of a Spanish writer. And the displayed armor in museums - without dents, holes and traces of battles - is not that children's costumes - although this cannot be ruled out - but examples of a kind of medieval "high" fashion. It is impossible to dress, but how to “sew” is clear.