There is the old theory that medievals were, on average, much shorter than we are. While more recent science has shown that the difference is much smaller than previously thought, the notion persists.

Of course, then as today, there were above-average height people. Some of them left behind beautiful armours. Here are a couple. I'd love to see more.

The first is a composite North German Heavy Field Armour from the armoury of Heinrich I, Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbuttel. It's dated 1549. The size of the greaves indicate some of its parts were meant for someone about 6 feet 4 inches.

The second is the harness of Ulrich IX von Matsch, dated to c. 1450. I'm not sure of the exact height, but you can see the difference in height in the pic of armours from Churburg below. Note: In that pic, it's displayed with a great bascinet that doesn't belong. The second pic shows it with a sallet that does.

---

 Attachment: 35.91 KB

North German Heavy Field Armour from the armoury of Heinrich I, Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbuttel

 Attachment: 90.83 KB

From the Churburg Castle Armoury.

 Attachment: 30.85 KB

Harness shown with sallet.

 Attachment: 48.29 KB

Catalogue text

Chad,

Good idea. I will look around for some pictures of some. The on that comes to mind is the 16th century suit that was later thought to be of John of Gaunt (which it clearly was not) and stands 6'9"

Philip de la Beche a mid 14th century noble was called a giant while living and from his effigy they have figured him close to 7 feet!

Ulrich IX's suit was the first thing I noticed in the picture when I saw it.... hard not to see it I suppose!

RPM

The armour on the left is 6 ft 9 in tall and first listed in the inventory in 1660 as armour for John of Gaunt, son of Edward III, but is now believed to have been a gift from the Duke of Brunswick (North German) to Henry, Prince of Wales, son of James I. The armour on the right is 37.5 in tall and is probably a trial piece for a lost armour of Charles I, but at earlier times were thought to have been either the armour of one of the murdered princes (Richard, Duke of York) or Jeffrey Hudson, the dwarf of Henrietta Maria, queen of Charles I.

(Description gathered from Google)


I took this photo at the Tower of London a few years ago.

---

 Attachment: 123.53 KB

Armour at left: 6' 9" next to a trial armour measuring 37.5"

If you check Manoucher's "Musée de l'armée" thread, you'll see King Francis' armiur - the man was 1,96m tall.

But the tallest ever must be this one :

[ Linked Image ]

Ok there's a catch, the small armours around it were made for children and young boys.

Still, the big one in the middle was made for a man about 2,60m tall, one Bartlmä Bon, from Riva, near Trent, who took part in a tourney in the presence of the Imperial family in Vienna in 1560 - probably under the patronage of Archduke Ferdinand II. Now kept where it belongs, in the Ambras castle.



And on the opposite end we have :
[ Linked Image ]

Made for Ruppert, a dwarf at the court of Duke Johan Casimir. Weights over 16 kg, fully functionnal. Veste Coburg.

So, firstly guys, I want to say hello. I'm new on myArmoury and I'm from Poland.

I don't have too great knowledge about swords and stuff, so expect that most time I would be probably asking questions
:blush:

Your site is great I must also say.

Anyway in the topic of tall armours: I don't believe in much smaller medieval folks. I've seen a works about common man height in the late XVIII century and it was about 166 cm - indeed then, height was low, but the conditions of life of common man then were really bad. Other factors probably too.

Germanic and Celtic people in antic could be as high as 177cm on average (many modern white populations are shorter).

It always irritate me in museums when guide talks something about tiny medieval man. Some small, most certainly children/dwarf armour is an example, and somewhat guide can't see logical connection with huge bihander sword in show casr nearby.

In the castle of Hochosterwitz they have an authentic armous of guards, and they all look in 170 - 182 range. Indeed shorter than modern white poeple, but not so drastically.
From less boring than my rants things - they also have armour of guy called "Hauptmann Schenk" his armor stands near the other armors, and his proportions are easily visible - not only he was 225cm, but also really powerfully builded. His leg was almost thicker thicker than my waist. Helmet was most impressive though... This guy had huge head.

Here's the link to the picture http://members.virtualtourist.com/m/p/m/336e60/ (sorry for that, not yet sure how to do link descriptions here)

IIRC, one of the reasons for the "small medieval men" myth is that modern curators sometimes displayed armour without proper understanding of how it fit the body. They might have all the pieces of an already mis-matched harness basically just stacked up on a wooden form. Theoretically, that could lead to a false impression of the size of the presumed wearer.

Here's another pic of the 6'9" harness in the Royal Armouries/Tower.

---

 Attachment: 35.03 KB

Here is a picture of what I mean with them having been a 'bit' thinner than we are today ........

Perhaps this was the extreme ??

Regards,

Russ

---

 Attachment: 109.45 KB

Russ,

I have recently started to believe that fighting men were not actually figured so extremely slender around the waist during those times. That wasp-waisted cuirass must have stemmed from the need for the whole thing to stay in place during extreme combat moves, and the need to get as much weight off the shoulders for enhanced upper body performance. Wasn't it around this time period that fighting techniques on foot were at their zenith of development? On the other hand, the Beauchamp effigy is also very tight around the waist, so maybe this was partially a concern much earlier on. It is very interesting to hypothesize about the various schools of thought on the functionality of armour through the ages, and their relevance to advances in armouring techniques.

A very snug fit almost requiring a corset seems like it would help put all the weight of a breastplate, faulds, and tassets squarely on the lower body, and keep it in place during a wide range of advanced combat moves. The exaggeratingly flared faulds seem like they would allow any range of footwork and leg movement, even letting a fighting man to do "the splits" if necessary, without much loss in coverage. Furthermore, taking all the weight of the cuirass off the shoulders would enhance blow strength and strike speed, and make the combatent less subject to upper body fatigue. However, I am also wondering how such a tight mid-section would affect breathing, as that would have a significant effect upon aerobic performance.

Anyone here have any thoughts on this?

Artwork of the period almost invariably shows men who look extremely thin by modern standards, but although the wasp-waist shown here might be close to the actual size of the wearer's waist, the other parts of the armour are probably significantly larger than the part of the body they protected, especially the head and chest--think of all the padding involved for liners and arming garments. That's what makes the waist size look so strange to us. As far as I know, the harness doesn't reflect the proportions of the wearer's naked body. Clad in his civilian clothes the wearer would probably just look like a thin but very fit man--a modern marathon runner or cyclist.

Just for curiosity's sake, here are two German paintings of St. Sebastian, ca. 1500-1510, superimposed over the wasp-waisted German armour of roughly the same period shown above:

---

 Attachment: 87.51 KB



 Attachment: 92.89 KB

One more--this one gives a particularly good idea of (probably idealized) proportion between waist, chest and hips of a muscular man of the period.

---

 Attachment: 92.26 KB

Russ,

Regional height in period varies as well, something to keep in mind when looking at those suits in particular. Italians tended to be shorter in period than say the northern Europeans. The averages I have seen vary but 5'6" seems pretty reasonable with one work arriving at this height going over a huge sample of actual remains. They broke it down by region not countries for the most part but it does seem that in England men tended to be a bit taller by an inch or so than the general average.

When I was working at the museum I noted that many of the German and northern European armours of 16th and 17th century I could put on while a 1560ish Italian suit I really liked the cuirass was too small around the waist, though I could put the helmet on and if it had not been for the narrow waist the chest area was quite sufficient I think. I am by no means hefty at about 6 foot 175-180 but my guess is that the issue here is regional size than average European size.

Something from a study done on the general survey of height over time I find interesting is that people after the medieval period began to diminish again in height, the lowest point seemingly in the industrial revolution. It was not until decades after this changed and people began to increase in height. The medieval period was actually a peak in height over the last hundreds of years if not longer but I cannot remember exactly. I want to guess that it was all the way into the BC era though.

Nathan,

Thanks for posting pictures if it. Last time I saw it I got pictures of me and my brother standing next to it.

RPM

Sean, Torsten,

I think that the waist of the shown harness probably was quite near to the actual size. Yes, they wore padding underneath, but as has been mentioned, that for example on the legs would be minimal. I have never, it must be stressed, seen this harness, so I cannot comment on it's overall proportions, but I think that this waist measurement is probably near to the actual size, and it seems to be tiny ! The last thing that one wants to do is restrict the wearers breathing capacity, but at the same time , the armour needs to be very close fitting, as there are few things worse, or more dangerous, than armour that moves independantly of it's wearer! Perhaps James Gillaspie, who has seen and studied items in the collection can shed some light on the matter?
Randall, that is an interesting observation regarding regional differences, and one that I had never really paid much attention to. It certainly needs to be looked into more thoroughly!
I am 6'2" tall, and as a child my ,mother was always going on about 'her boys' (my father included ! :D ), as my late father, my brother and I were all well over 6', and in the 1960's and '70's that was considered tall, but nowadays many people are well over 6'.... where were they when I was younger !? :wtf: I was the third tallest person in my school in 1970- 73 ! But today , 6' plus is not considered especially tall, even amongst my own age group.
I would like to know the waist measurements of the Maximillian (A.60.) and Sigismund ( A.62.) armours, which if memory serves me well enough, were 5'5" and 5'7" tall respectively, and are very slender in proportion.

Regards,

Russ

Getting back to the point of the thread, this (probably) last field harness of Henry VIII would have been much taller than it is mounted (he's been short shanked!), and this is by no means rare. The ‘gorilla’ look is a good tip-off that something is amiss. The famous harness of Friedrich the Victorious in Vienna (first pic) is very large, and mounted too short by a good three inches at the very least, last I saw. Museums (like the one the Mavtova armours are in, and the traveling Graz exhibition) often buy manikins all the same size, usually small enough to fit the smallest harness. Russ, I didn't have time to measure A 60, but A 62's was 249 mm across. It's not that hard to find an 18 year old with that sort of waist and average height, but as the years go by... It seems that the lifestyle of the 15th c. fighting man preserved it a lot longer.

---

 Attachment: 114.95 KB



 Attachment: 145 KB
[ Download ]

I believe I have read that some wore corsets to give them a nice waist ?

Lawrence