Would a society of smaller people be more successful...

Would a society of smaller people be more successful? They would have the same body as a person and the same intelligence, just in a body probably around 3 feet tall. They'd need much less calories to sustain themselves making them resistant to famine, and they would be able to have much more babies and a higher population. If they were ever in a war with normal sized people, they would have an advantage with ranged weapons like bow and arrows because they're much smaller so they're harder to spot and 6 foot tall people are so much easier to see and shoot.

Though they would be weaker and have a smaller stride length and be more sensitive to cold... But would the advantages outweigh the drawbacks?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=nXKBx67GzVo
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

They would also need an enormous food supply, because of their faster metabolisms and smaller stomachs, meaning they would burn through calories faster and not be able to carry as much at once.

In the animal world the bigger ones were the dominant.
Actually your size in modern warfare area wouldn't matter much.
You can negate the drawbacks of smaller size if
you have intelligence/the right means.

Pygmies exist and get shit on because they are physically weak

>only able to wield tiny weapons with huge compromises on power and/or effective range, both in melee and ranged combat (including firearms)
>very slow compared to normal humans

By the dawn of motorized vehicular combat, the crew compartment sizes could mean a slight advantage for the manlet mobiles.
Until that, every war would be a slaughter of the hobbits who would desperately try to outzerg the normal humans.

>Would a society of smaller people be more successful?
Those exist, see Pigmy people.

The whole part of war is to increase political influence/seize resources.
Coordinations,strategy,technology/gears,drill,moral of army is more important then size.War is more complex than the whole hur dur I have bigger cock I will win narrative.
Many times there wasn't even battle contact between the fighting sides,they just starved out the enemy,or ignored them to capture more important/more easily defendable places.
How did the conquistadors conquered the new word with only 150 man?

So you wanna shrink the pelvis and keep the cranium size. These people would only have c-sections for birth or die.

>How did the conquistadors conquered the new word with only 150 man?
They conquered people who were demoralized by an enemy that fit into the description of a superior race of their legends (god-like by their perspective). Also better equipment, this time because of technology, but sheer carrying/wielding ability can make plenty of difference.
The points you mentioned can be just as valid for both sides, but the other factors derived from size difference provide additional leverage for the normal-sized people.
In regards of medieval battles, the tiny people would have extremely limited options of dealing with a properly armored soldier, think about what weapons if took to deal with metal armor in medieval times. It usually involved either heavy pieces of metal swung around by muscular men, or large crossbows that needed to be carried around all day, or have them mounted on some sort of carriage, which in turn limits their numbers deployable in any given size of army.
The difference in power derived from muscle mass grows exponentially with height difference which makes the heavy melee approach subpar, resulting in extremely bad chances against a properly outfitted human army.

About fortifications and sieges:
The larger side can cut down trees much more efficiently, build siege engines faster, and depending on the army sizes and era of conflict, can perform any siege-related construction faster because of the great difference in muscle power (ancient armies sometimes built long dirt ramps to the top of walls)
Speaking of the complexity of warfare, if cranium sizes also scale with body size, we are now adding a vast difference in intellectual ability into the equation.
If not, then we are not only dealing with tiny combatants, but actually tiny combatants who have to carry and balance around a disproportionally large head around.
Hard to wage war where every single enemy is like a fucking space marine compared to a normal human.
Also this:

I didn't stated bigger size is a drawback.
Anyway,there are more efficent way to conquer than war,and even in war,there are more effective means to make the enemy harmless than just mere strength.
You don't need enormus power to operate a musket,but it's effective enough to take down a knight.And at the cost of training one knight you could equip and train at least 3-5 riffleman.Not even mentioning upkeep.And strentgh won't save you when a heavy armored soldier get entice into swamp/other hazardous area,actually it will be a drawback,and the lack of mobility will cause the demise.Strength/seize could be an advantage in the right situation,but there are more efficent/important factors in warfare than strentgh.

Of course, there are certain advantages derived from small size, for example in guerilla warfare.
A tiny person can hide in foliage more easily, can make just as effective traps (like the ones used in the Vietnam war), and have a bit better chance of not getting hit.
In ancient/medieval battles, they could also use more dense formations.

Still, when it comes to conflict between a small and large people's nations, the shorties would have in their best interest to avoid direct conflict, especially with infantry.
Even in later eras, a bigger gun has much more options in being deadly: in effective range, caliber, etc.

>tall people have bigger stomachs
>short people burn through energy faster
lol

>fit into the description of a superior race of their legends
Mexifag here. This is only a meme in the US. All those stories about Spaniards fitting descriptions of old gods have no truth to them.

Actually the reason was because they turned different tribes against each other and then only focused on capturing the important places.

*sigh
youtube.com/watch?v=nXKBx67GzVo

I don't understand what you are saying with this.
Also, I don't have sound on this device right now, may listen to that later.

Never mind.

sorry I mean since they can't have is much food in their stomach at a time, they burn through the amount of calories they can eat at once in a shorter amount of time

it's like owning a small dog

So a lighter car would need more petrol?

But euros were fucking small at that time

A car with a smaller gas tank has to stop to fill up more often, even if its more efficient.

What is Japan, Korea, Singapore and Taiwan.

This doesn't sound remotely true though. You could have fat short people just as easily as you can have fat tall people.

Do you have any source correlating stomach size to height?

Doesn't matter if they're weaker and slower, requiring less calories is a huge advantage. Also being able to sustain a higher population means more possible brains to create new inventions and such.

taller humans have longer arms and legs, can run faster and throw farther. being able to actually hunt is a bigger advantage than consuming less calories, it seems.

midgets can't chase deer.

Why are you assuming this hypothetical society OP talks about is a hunter-gatherer type one?

Humans don't hunt by chasing down an animal. They hunt by following it over a long distance until it overheats or gets worn out at which point it can be easily killed.

Humans don't hunt. Period.

>unless you a tribal monkey in africa

REALLY?????
WOW THAT'S A NEW FUCKING FACT!