HORSES OF ANTIQUITY

[Atilla]

I might be wrong, but looking at the sizes of the horses in EB appear to be too large. I don't think they bred thoroughbred-size horses in antiquity. Elite cav horses in EB should be somewhere between the smaller horses and elite cav horses in the game. Let's discuss...

[Rad]

People were also shorter. Probably, considerably shorter

[athanaric]

People were also shorter. Probably, considerably shorter

No, not that much. Their size depended more on social status than it does today, though.
Horses, OTOH...

[QuintusSertorius]

No, not that much. Their size depended more on social status than it does today, though.
Horses, OTOH...

Precisely, aristocrats with a good diet rich in nutrients and secure, regular meals would have been taller and broader than the lower strata who might have to manage on a single meal a day and go hungry in lean times. In Hellenised societies, aristocrats would have access to the gymnasium as well.

[Rad]

No, not that much. Their size depended more on social status than it does today, though.
Horses, OTOH...

I think they were. Nutrition plays a great deal in growth and development. I'm taller than dad, dad was taller than grandpa, God rest his soul... A considerable difference in just a few generations.
Now, for all we know about Antiquity, a great deal of people struggled to survive. Of course the nobles had it good.
So, most soldiers being common people, I think the current horse to man ratio is OK. I don't think we have to represent nobles as taller.
BTW, I come from a country where the average man is six feet tall... so yeah... People in ancient times may not have been a lot shorter than you little guys, but they were shorter than me

[Sarkiss]

I think they were. Nutrition plays a great deal in growth and development. I'm taller than dad, dad was taller than grandpa, God rest his soul... A considerable difference in just a few generations.

nope, thats a common misperception. according to this logic your ancient ancestors were dwarfs. if not, than modern men should have all been well over 2 meters tall on average.
there is a slight average growth over the centuries (nutrition, living conditions etc) but it is nowhere near the scale one would assume from your conclusion.

[Rad]

nope, thats a common misperception. according to this logic your ancient ancestors were dwarfs. if not, than modern men should have all been well over 2 meters tall on average.
there is a slight average growth over the centuries (nutrition, living conditions etc) but it is nowhere near the scale one would assume from your conclusion.

Dwarfs, no. About half a foot shorter in average? Probably.
You think that Humanity made a constant progress in proper nutrition throught the ages? Nope... the first major difference I see was in the Modern period, especially around the Industrial revolution and afterwards. Just look at the Dutch... they had trouble getting enough men into their army because they were short and couldn't fill the height requirements... now, a nation of six footers.

[QuintusSertorius]

Nope, they had a variety of horse sizes, going right up to the giant Nisaean mounts of Persian kings.

[Rad]

Nope, they had a variety of horse sizes, going right up to the giant Nisaean mounts of Persian kings.

Exactly, that too.
Horses differ in size in game, check and see, Attila

[Atilla]

Rad:
"Exactly, that too.
Horses differ in size in game, check and see, Attila"

Yes, you are right, and I am keenly aware of this. There appears to be in general two sizes--thoroughbred and ponies--and the latter being too liberally used. For example semetic and north african (numidian) cultures have leaner and smaller horses. Larger horses depicted in the mod were very rare if they existed at all.

[Atilla]

One interesting fact while were on this topic: the reason ancients first had horses pull chariots instead of riding them was because they were bred big enough to carry people on their backs yet.

[QuintusSertorius]

So, most soldiers being common people, I think the current horse to man ratio is OK. I don't think we have to represent nobles as taller.

Soldiers weren't "common people", because the majority of the population couldn't afford the free time to train in the arts of war, nor the money to purchase their own arms and armour. Most soldiers were at the poorest of the yeoman farmer class, men who owned their own farm and could likely afford slaves to work their land for them.

Indeed, arming and training men at the state's expense was one of Philip of Macedon's innovations, and the reason he was able to field such large armies. It was also Marius' innovation much later on when the Roman state had depleted its traditional source of citizen-militia.

One interesting fact while were on this topic: the reason ancients first had horses pull chariots instead of riding them was because they were bred big enough to carry people on their backs yet.

Those "ancients" are in the Bronze Age, up to thousands of years before the period covered by Europa Barbarorum.

[Sarkiss]

Macedonian and Greece's mounts were not large. have a look at Alexander's legs on this depiction

oops, image doesnt work, it seems. added a link

[Sarkiss]

yep, it is only the last 2 hundred years or so that made a difference. i thought that you believed otherwise. sorry for misuderstanding of your father to son progression logic. the other factor that counters the 'linear progression' theory is that sons arent always taller than their elders.

interesting. never heard of that Dutch issue. the Dutch and other northern Europeans were always on average taller than the southerners and highlanders, iirc. geography also factors in, afaik. it is strange though, why would the hight requirements exceed national average (assuming we are talking of regulars here and not elite units that have different 'yard sticks')? you'll end up with the situation when the most males arent good enough.

[mediterraneo]

... the Dutch and other northern Europeans were always on average taller than the southerners and highlanders, iirc....

I don't have the quotes on hand, but I remember to have read about Robert Guiscard's northmen in southern Italy being shorter that their italian (lombard) and german (imperial) enemies, even if they were considered fiercer.
Obviously I'm talking of things well out of the EB timeframe, with the objective to context the highlighted "always". Height didn't have a linear development geographically, socially, in time...
But hey, I'm quite off-topic too. THe thread was for the horses!

[Sarkiss]

I don't have the quotes on hand, but I remember to have read about Robert Guiscard's northmen in southern Italy being shorter that their italian (lombard) and german (imperial) enemies, even if they were considered fiercer.
Obviously I'm talking of things well out of the EB timeframe, with the objective to context the highlighted "always". Height didn't have a linear development geographically, socially, in time...

imho, the effects of geography are hard to argue with. human biological development has a lot to do with the environmental conditions. and we do talk of an average (not individual variations) here, hence always.
as of your first observation, havent you yourself answered it? i.e. Lombards and Germans arent southerners by origin. the former is tought to have come from Scandinavia, afaik. that may explain.

sorry for the OT!

[Rad]

I read an article about it somewhere. It stuck in my memory lol.
Every military has height/weight requirements. I guess the Dutch had to keep up with the rest of Europe, and put their average aside.

[Sint]

A more recent example as well. Most Vikings were armed with a spear and a knife (seax). Plenty had small axes too... Why? Because swords are expensive and you pretty much use the other three weapons as everyday tools. Spears for hunting,

Well spears and polearms are actually superior in most situation when used against swords(space and armor playing a role),which is why it was as the primary weapon by many classes having access to swords.Samurai and knights being one example.

and axes for chopping wood.

Well you could use an axe used for wood choppig for killing ,but axes made for combat are different to those used as tools,usually having far thiner axeheads making them lighter.

[Rad]

Well spears and polearms are actually superior in most situation when used against swords(space and armor playing a role),which is why it was as the primary weapon by many classes having access to swords.Samurai and knights being one example.

Well you could use an axe used for wood choppig for killing ,but axes made for combat are different to those used as tools,usually having far thiner axeheads making them lighter.

Spears are cheap, easy to make, easy to use, especially in massed formations. They also give a reach advantage, against cavalry in particular. Those are their advantages. A skilled swordsman will almost always be more lethal, though.

My point about axes was that you could use the one you chop wood to chop a person, and you wouldn't be much less effective. No need for specialized axes if you can't afford it. That makes axes a people's weapon.

[athanaric]

A skilled swordsman will almost always be more lethal, though.

Against unarmoured people, certainly. Samurai and other knights went into battle very well-armoured though, which means swords weren't the most effective weapon against them, since you can't count on penetrating armour of that kind with a sword, only look for openings.

My point about axes was that you could use the one you chop wood to chop a person, and you wouldn't be much less effective. No need for specialized axes if you can't afford it. That makes axes a people's weapon.

While wood-copping axes are quite effective against individual people, their design isn't exactly ideal for battle where you want to be able to swing an axe lots of times and very quickly. You have to take into account the texture of your target material. After all, people aren't made of wood.
That said, of course I'd assume that a battle axe is still cheaper and easier to make than a decent sword, so you're not wrong, technically speaking.