Aww, come on. Knights were a race of 220cm tall 180kg supermutants who also knew poetry and had 5 meter tall swords and power armor from WH40k except without a power source because they were so strong. And yes, they could crush not one skull but 10 skulls within their fist. And the fact about Vikings that everyone gets wrong is that they didn't have horns on their helmets! They had horns on their heads!
And when did I say they were huge supermench on huge horses? I think it's entirely reasonable to think they were about the same size as modern men. Overall nutrition in the Middle Ages may not have been that good, but these guys were on the top of the dung heap. They had access to the best available. As far as the horses go, I probably overstated the size difference, but the fact is nobody really KNOWS how big the horses the knights rode were. Hardly any of the armor has survived, and estimating the size of the horse from its armor is an inexact science anyway.
Okay, let's go through this. Trevnor said he, at 6'4" and 240 pounds might weigh the same as a knight might have. I responded by saying that no, 6'4" and 240 would have been FUCKING HUGE and nowhere near the average. Let's go with the MODERN average height of a male. 1.763 m (5 ft 91⁄2 in). Trevnor is well above the modern average. There is ZERO evidence to suggest that Knights where, on average, well above average in size compared to their peers. The difference between 5' 9" and 6' 4" is pretty massive. Now let's look back a couple of centuries. On the whole, we have grown SLIGHTLY taller as time has we entered the modern era. I was establishing that no, Trevnor is well outside the average range, even in modern times. I think this has been made clear now? Further, when providing my weight estimates, I used a 180 lb man as the example, which is also above average, especially for someone 5'7". To summarize, Trev would be considered a hulking brute, medieval knights weren't Trev sized on average, horses can carry more than the stupid people Sheeps is angry with, medieval war horses were not much (if at all) different in size than the modern riding horse. Now, you said: Which contradicts what we have established and seems to indicate that you think the horses were larger, as were the people. You say that the armor was "display armor" and 3/4 the size, but I have never heard this claim before in my visits to museums or my amateur research into medieval armor. Where are you getting this information? If you ever get the chance, check out Henry VIII's armor. He was considered quite large, first in height and then later as he gained in girth. He was 6'2". Armor from his 20s Armor from 1540 6'2" is STILL considered quite tall, compared to most men.
Never been described in that way before, but I suppose it does apply. It would also explain why sometimes old women will cross the street when I'm walking on the sidewalk....
When I visited the Tower of London (which by the way I highly recommend if you're ever in London) I saw some of that 3/4 display armor. I think I also saw that suit of Henry VIII's. They had a couple suits from one of the Henrys. I forget which one. One of them was on a pretty large looking armored horse . You still haven't convinced me that knights were all 5' 7". As I said before, I know the average man was smaller, but the knights would have had better nutrition. Kinda like football players today. I still think 5' 9" (modern man sized) is a reasonable assumption. And also again, the people in Sheephuggers OP are being stupid.
Iirc, average men's height here is ~180cm or so. Dunno. And even back in the day there were tribes that were in general taller than others. Germans were often regarded as tall and romans as especially short, etc.
Whatever they say, I'ma gonna mount that horse, as many times as I want too and there's nothing wrong with that.
Either way that's way fucking smaller than 6'4". I was using 5'9" 180 pounds as my average. Your comments are still off base, because the horses weren't huge, and neither were the knights. Trevnor would be considered quite large, and his size would be remarked upon, just like Henry VIIIs was at 6'2". Burden of proof is on you. I've provided multiple links and sources. All you have provided is opinion.
Now I want to get a set of Knight's armor, just so people in the future would say "Holy fuck that guy was huge"
For the love of.... I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT 6'4" KNIGHTS. I said "they weren't little guys", which I think was a reasonable statement considering they were born and bred for fighting. We're not talking about the rank and file medieval fighting men here, we're talking knights. The elite fighting troops. You apparently have this giant pet peeve and you're projecting things on me that I never said. I was AGREEING with y'all's line of reasoning in my original post, I just got a little off topic with the horse size thing (which I admitted I may have been wrong on). I really don't get the rage.
That's the point though. 5'7" to 5'9" is average. Of course there were taller knights, but that wasn't the average. I never said they were midgets, just that someone 6'4" is way over average, just like it is today. Over 6' and 240 pounds would have been abnormal, whether you were noble or not. Just because you were nobility (not all knights were) does not mean you were over 6 feet. The frustration comes from trying to show sources that show that people and horses were just like we are today and having it dismissed because... I don't know why. You don't believe my sources? People are, on average, slightly taller. There have always been "curiosities" who drastically exceed the average, but they are not the average.
I'm not ignoring your sources. In fact, I haven't said anything to contradict them. I'm simply extrapolating from them. I've been very clear the whole time that I was talking about knights. Not the average medieval man, or even average medieval fighting man. Knights. As in, the guys who have enough money to buy a set of full plate (which was a pretty small percentage of even the cavalry troops). For the last time, I don't feel its unreasonable at all to think that that sort of dude (relatively rich, has nothing to do but train and fight all the time) would be somewhat larger and heavier than the norm of his time. Again, in my OP I was AGREEING with you guys.
I have to agree with Guppy here. Besides access to fatty and nutritious food in abundance due to their special position as aristocracy or nobility. Knight was a very high social status in a society, after all. These were the guys that were given the cream from the top so that they'd with their limited numbers keep the peasants in check as well as the neighboring counts, barons and their ilk. Back in the day, historically when people were largely starving or at least suffering from malnutrition, it was considered a sign of status to have a bit of 'extra chin' and so. Of the people in general it would be the knights and merchants who'd make up the bulk of the tallest end of the height range of people. Men at arms, serfs and laborers often making up the shortest end.. A lucky and/or hard working peasant could be reasonably well fed although for most peasants their nutrition would be very simple, lacking in nutrients and variety. Just saying, if we had knights today, they'd have their own personal mechanics, a small airstrip and their own jet fighter or bomber, plenty of cash and a nice car, a nice and big house and so forth as an analogue to the past. Typical knight had a whole set of servants and the likes to help them get on the horse, carry and maintain their supplies and weapons and so. Nobles. Not exactly the type to get hungry other than on campaigns. As for the horses, I bet that the non-noble cavalry and light cavalry had the happiest horses since they'd carry the lightest of riders. But the point was that there was never a need to reduce the weight of knights because of suffering or injury caused to their horses.
