Armor, was Dress sizes was My testimony whyNOT to control food
Robin
> In a message dated 3/31/05 8:46:24 AM, aimeel73@s... writes:Yes, we noticed the same thing on a recent trip in Europe. And I don't think
>
> << My ten year old son would be able to fit in the armor
> itself, maybe, but his size 9s would *not* fit in
> those tiny shoe like covers, lol. Amazing.
it's all due to it just being "display armor". We saw armor that had really
been used in jousting tournaments, and I would barely have fit in it (I'm
5'7"). In the Tower of London, they have the armor of many of the kings
dating back hundreds of years. Sure, Henry VIII's is noticeably large, but
many of them are quite small. They also have the biggest and smallest suit
of armor there - the big one is pretty darned tall, so obviously they did
have some tall folks back then. The smallest was made for a young prince.
It turns out that people haven't been getting taller and taller on a steady
continuum from ancient times. Apparently, European human heights reached an
apex in around 800 AD, then shrunk again until they hit bottom around the
17th century. So suits of armor from around the 1500's to 1600's will be
noticeably smaller than humans today, while those from earlier times tend to
be closer to our current size and one from the late 1600's on get
progressively larger (with individual variations, of course) .
Blue Skies,
-Robin-
[email protected]
In a message dated 3/31/05 11:33:48 AM, tri_mom@... writes:
<< So suits of armor from around the 1500's to 1600's will be
noticeably smaller than humans today, while those from earlier times tend to
be closer to our current size and one from the late 1600's on get
progressively larger (with individual variations, of course) . >>
Genetics don't change that fast. Military technology does, though.
When were guns in use in European battles?
There's an important factor. Until then, individual bits of armor (not whole
suits) were used by anyone who could find the pieces, and were used up.
After the 1600's, armor just wasn't very useful anymore because of guns.
The Jamestown inventories talk about breastplates and chain mail. The chain
mail turned out to be worthless against arrows, I think. I don't remember
them bothering with legs and arms and gauntlets. Just helms and breastplates.
Same with Conquistador armor in the Southwest. Some full suits at first, but
it was wildly impractical and there were lots of breast/backplate, and helmets.
Full suits of armor are for sword and axe and pike battles. By the late 17th
century it's mostly guns and cannons.
(I got Keith to read this and he adds that medical advances by made it less
crucial to have heavy armor. By Napoleonic times it was easier to "heal" than
prevent some kinds of wounds, like arrows in legs, so body armor stayed in use
longer than other types.)
Sandra
<< So suits of armor from around the 1500's to 1600's will be
noticeably smaller than humans today, while those from earlier times tend to
be closer to our current size and one from the late 1600's on get
progressively larger (with individual variations, of course) . >>
Genetics don't change that fast. Military technology does, though.
When were guns in use in European battles?
There's an important factor. Until then, individual bits of armor (not whole
suits) were used by anyone who could find the pieces, and were used up.
After the 1600's, armor just wasn't very useful anymore because of guns.
The Jamestown inventories talk about breastplates and chain mail. The chain
mail turned out to be worthless against arrows, I think. I don't remember
them bothering with legs and arms and gauntlets. Just helms and breastplates.
Same with Conquistador armor in the Southwest. Some full suits at first, but
it was wildly impractical and there were lots of breast/backplate, and helmets.
Full suits of armor are for sword and axe and pike battles. By the late 17th
century it's mostly guns and cannons.
(I got Keith to read this and he adds that medical advances by made it less
crucial to have heavy armor. By Napoleonic times it was easier to "heal" than
prevent some kinds of wounds, like arrows in legs, so body armor stayed in use
longer than other types.)
Sandra
the_clevengers
--- In [email protected], SandraDodd@a... wrote:
climate changes between those two times, including "the Little Ice
Age", plus population density changes from urbanization, etc.
The difference in just a few generations of Japanese, among others,
show what a big change can be brought around by differing diets in
the same genetic pool.
Blue Skies,
-Robin-
>times tend to
> In a message dated 3/31/05 11:33:48 AM, tri_mom@c... writes:
>
> << So suits of armor from around the 1500's to 1600's will be
>
> noticeably smaller than humans today, while those from earlier
>It wasn't genetics, I think it was nutrition mostly. There were big
> be closer to our current size and one from the late 1600's on get
>
> progressively larger (with individual variations, of course) . >>
>
> Genetics don't change that fast.
climate changes between those two times, including "the Little Ice
Age", plus population density changes from urbanization, etc.
The difference in just a few generations of Japanese, among others,
show what a big change can be brought around by differing diets in
the same genetic pool.
Blue Skies,
-Robin-
Schuyler Waynforth
--- In [email protected], SandraDodd@a... wrote:
who everyone thinks are genetically short can grow really, really
tall. In Japan the introduction of easy sources of protein for
everyone has made them a population with 6 footers. And my cousin, a
good Nebraska boy with lots of meat and potatoes at just the right
time is 6'10. His dad is 6'4 and his mom is about 5'8. It is
genetics, to some extent, but it is much more about what you eat and when.
Schuyler
>tend to
> In a message dated 3/31/05 11:33:48 AM, tri_mom@c... writes:
>
> << So suits of armor from around the 1500's to 1600's will be
>
> noticeably smaller than humans today, while those from earlier times
>It isn't necessarily genetics, it's food. Given the right food people
> be closer to our current size and one from the late 1600's on get
>
> progressively larger (with individual variations, of course) . >>
>
> Genetics don't change that fast. Military technology does, though.
who everyone thinks are genetically short can grow really, really
tall. In Japan the introduction of easy sources of protein for
everyone has made them a population with 6 footers. And my cousin, a
good Nebraska boy with lots of meat and potatoes at just the right
time is 6'10. His dad is 6'4 and his mom is about 5'8. It is
genetics, to some extent, but it is much more about what you eat and when.
Schuyler
Pam Tellew
***It isn't necessarily genetics, it's food. Given the right food people
who everyone thinks are genetically short can grow really, really
tall
***
I knew a woman who was born into a family of six kids. The first three had
been born in England post WWII, during heavy food rationing. The second
three were born in the US in the 1950s and were six inches taller than the
older siblings.
Pam T.
who everyone thinks are genetically short can grow really, really
tall
***
I knew a woman who was born into a family of six kids. The first three had
been born in England post WWII, during heavy food rationing. The second
three were born in the US in the 1950s and were six inches taller than the
older siblings.
Pam T.