Knight Height

Not that user but people in the Middle Ages were shorter than people in 21st Century America.

I believe the average height of an English male was about 5'7".

People anywhere from 5'5 to 6'8 do armored combat today.

>economist.com/node/17722650

>The men whose skeletons were unearthed at Towton were a diverse lot. Their ages at time of death ranged widely. It is easier to be precise about younger individuals, thanks to the predictable ways in which teeth develop and bones fuse during a person's adolescence and 20s. The youngest occupants of the mass grave were around 17 years old; the oldest, Towton 16, was around 50. Their stature varies greatly, too. The men's height ranges from 1.5-1.8 metres (just under five feet to just under six feet), with the older men, almost certainly experienced soldiers, being the tallest.

>This physical diversity is unsurprising, given the disparate types of men who took the battlefield that day. Yet as a group the Towton men are a reminder that images of the medieval male as a homunculus with rotten teeth are well wide of the mark. The average medieval man stood 1.71 metres tall—just four centimetres shorter than a modern Englishman. “It is only in the Victorian era that people started to get very stunted,” says Mr Knüsel. Their health was generally good. Dietary isotopes from their knee-bones show that they ate pretty healthily. Sugar was not widely available at that time, so their teeth were strong, too.

Thanks.

Wouldn't being a tall freak be a disadvantage

I could see a bunch of grunts ganging up on an outrageously tall fighter because of the perceived threat he may exude.

>youtube.com/watch?v=sLDG9vyAyzc
>no one will ever look at you like that woman is looking at him
why live

Spends how tall, in sport fighting being lithe and larger is a reach advantage without the losss in stamina and smaller guys tend to be able to go forever even if a bigger guy would be better starting fresh (assuming customized equipment).

You can get away with being pretty short as long as you possess prowess.
Richard III was 5'5, skinny, and scoliotic. Despite this he was a warrior king who lead troops into battle personally. At his final battle he lead his household knights across the fields directly to his foe Tudor. He struck dead the standard bearer with his lance, then unhorsed a giant with the broken remains. Tudor was pulled back into his troops to safety while Richard tried to cut a path to him with a battle ax. He was cut off from his own troops though, and so "King Richard, alone, was killed fighting manfully in the thickest press of his enemies".

There are advantages and disadvantages. You are a bigger target, but you have more reach, etc.

>The average medieval man stood 1.71 metres tall—just four centimetres shorter than a modern Englishman
Holy shit. I thought the anglos were a tall race

If he's 6'1", she's not 5'10", maybe 5'8"

Yeah, and John of Bohemia was blind but it didn't stop him either

And the malets universally lose. Height and reach and weight of blow are insurmountable advantages when both combatants are equivalently trainined.

Bare minimum for a competent fighter nowadays is ~6'2". Extrapolating back into history, if you were under 5'10", you shouldn't bother to learn to fight.

>native americans had the right idea. manlets weren't warriors, but were basically feminized and kept as assistants to the females back in the village while men hunted and fought. Imagine a world where by virtue of being a genuine man you'd automatically have a small stable of trained sissies to do housework and suck your dick if the woman isn't in the mood.

>Extrapolating back into history, if you were under 5'10", you shouldn't bother to learn to fight.

I'm quite sure people were shorter back those days.

Yes, and? Most people were shorter. And most people shouldn't fight. QED

Eh I like'm both for their foolhardy bravado.

"God forbid the Bohemian king ever flees from battle. Instead, take me to the place where the noise of the battle is the loudest. The Lord will be with us. Nothing to fear. Just take good care of my son."

"God forbid that I retreat one step. I will either win the battle as a king, or die as one."

Both had ample chance to flee, but neither took it. Choosing the romanticized death over what can be perceived as ignoble cowardice. Richard of course had thrown in all his cards with the cavalry charge and probably wouldn't have been able to put together another army. He might have just preferred death over exile in Europe again.

A knight, all his might
at a height just about right?

Go low, need not grow
Short Sir Mo swings a good blow

Or high, a tall guy
Lady Mai might with you lie

OP, as you see
Just go be a man like me.

5'10" is average in a setting with decent supply of food and modest understanding of nutrition. 5'10" is bretty tall for a medieval setting.

>And the malets universally lose.
You've never watched HEMA.

From where do you get that? They are average to tall if compared to the world, medium height if you compare them to Europe, than also has the Tallest people in the world (along some nilotic tribes, that's it).

...

>Most people were shorter. And most people shouldn't fight

If most people were shorter those days, meaning most people being drafted or volunteered for war are shorter than today's standards.

Unless you have a documents to prove the Western Nations foot soldiers are 5'10 above.

Must I say that shorter people were quite an asset during any wars? Aside from the fact that they are a smaller target and therefore can easily seek for cover? They're a breath of fresh air when it comes to logistics - shorter means less clothing to sew and less food consume - more people to fit into transport.

It's foolish to say that only "tall" people are capable of fighting. After all, determination comes from one's will and courage - not physical characteristics.

>5'10" is average in a setting with decent supply of food and modest understanding of nutrition
>tfw in my home country, men used to come up to my 5'10 father in the street and offer to fight him for being a tall bastard

Indonesia, right?

t. manlet

thetallestman.com/burghauptmannschenk.htm

Dude allegedly fragged more than 200 foes in battles

Nope. Glasgow

>Must I say that shorter people were quite an asset during any wars?
Was the reason Australians were considered Empire's finest soldiers?

>less than 14% of American males should be allowed to fight.

Consider that in a feudal time, most people were far shorter than todays average.

Need I remind you of the Gurkhas: a fighting force comprised almost entirely of 5'3" devil men.

I'd say 5'8 would be a good height for your story (my grandpap was 5'8 and he got to shank a few Germans during WW2).

>They are average to tall if compared to the world,
Yeah, considering that the typical african or asian are manlets. You know, they bring the average down.
>medium height if you compare them to Europe
Could be, but it's still fairly short compared with other germanic speaking euros

Some of the best longsword fencers in the world are in the 5'7-5'8 range.

And what about the others?

What are you asking?

Dunno, details about them since you're probably more knowledgable on the topic than I am?

The average height in the UK during WW2 was about 5'7 to 5'8. It was probably similar in Germany and the US.

The height-boom is pretty recent, and people weren't malnourished back then like they might have been in medieval times. Could it be exposure to hormones through the food industry, especially milk?

>shortest REASONABLE height for a plain male human knight?

Knighthood is a just a class of nobility; knights could be any height.

Anton Kohutovic, Ties Kool, Kristian Ruokonen and Axel Pettersson are all in the 5'10 height range or shorter. They're the elite European fencers.

Historical armor thread

...

...

>Right: The Virgin Knight
>unsure of himself
>unkempt appearance
>unembellished helm to fit in
>padded feet are awkward and ill-fitting
>wears a shield for protection
>prays to return home safely
>unsure of whether he will get into heaaven
>uses a mace to counter armor

>Left: The Chad Crusader
>total confidence
>armor is wholly unblemished; even the blood of his foes does not stick to it
>helm is fitted with a glorious top-ornament so saracens know who's the boss
>wears mail over whole body for fashionable protection
>his perfect faith in God is the only shield he needs
>prays to fight and die in service to heaven
>has never committed a sin in his life
>defeats armored enemies with half-swording or by putting a knife through the eyes

Just the master race.

...

...

...

...

Yes, but they're black and they will leave the army significantly richer.

They're Asian.

My favorite style

>US avg male is about 5'10
it's like bait, except OP really wants to believe this

Sorry to reply to this bait, but it's true.
>The average American height for men is 177 cm or 69.7 inches, which is approximately 5 foot 10 inches tall. (for white males*).
Of course it varies by country: in the Netherlands, it would be weighted more towards the 6' range.

Yes, average people. Knights were not average.

They were generally fed better, ate more, and thus grew taller and more muscular.

5'10" is a reasonable height for a knight who is tall but not impressively so.

It turns out that the height disparity between the lower and noble classes during nearly every period of Medieval history was a mere .6 centimeters on average.
econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/47594/1/574888918.pdf
That doesn't discount your point concerning their superior physiques and nutrition, however.

You've ruined the meme.

Congratulations.

You tell me.

youtube.com/watch?v=sB7FP0v6bY4

The New Zealanders had absolutely no cohesion. You don't send one guy to take on someone of that size.

Ruined by greentext