How tall was the average Samuri? -- myArmoury.com

Sammy Jackson · Posted: Sun 27 Apr, 2008 10:57 am Post subject: How tall was the average Samuri?

Hi guys! i got into a debate last night that esculated to an arguement of the average hieght of a Samuri, any know how tall they were? on average?

allso just a side question, they seemed to be kinda "chunky" even though they were in good shape, did they just not embrace the greek thinking about athletics?

thanks guys

p.s a sorce would be good if you can find one that helps answer these thoughts!

Sam

Grayson C. · Posted: Sun 27 Apr, 2008 11:08 am Post subject:

Probably a few inches shorter than your average Nite.

Werner Stiegler

Shayan G · Posted: Sun 27 Apr, 2008 12:15 pm Post subject:

The average height of people in the Edo Period (1603–1867) was 156 centimeters for men, and 145 centimeters for women, about 5 feet 1 1/2 inches for men, 4 feet 9 inches for women.

http://www.sumitomo.gr.jp/english/discoveries/special/84_02.html

Hope that helps!

Ross Tippin · Posted: Sun 27 Apr, 2008 6:13 pm Post subject:

Average height for male Japanese from the medieval through Edo periods appears to have been about 158 cm (5'2").

http://www.yale.edu/leitner/Bones.pdf

(see table 6)

By comparison, the average height for men in Medieval (1200-1500 AD) England was 5'7.5" (171.5 cm). (can't find source, but remember reading it).

Here's a source for Europe in general between the 1st and 18th centuries:

http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/uni/wwl/koepke%20...lennia.pdf

Average male height seems to have varied between 169cm and 172 cm (5'6.5" an 5'7.75") during this period. (The paper breaks the averages down further by region.)

Another paper by Richard Steckel ( http://ssh.dukejournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/28/2/211 ) shows that between the 9th and 11th centuries the average male in Northern Europe was 173.4cm (5'8.27"), but declined to about 167 cm (5'5.5") by the 17th and 18th centuries.

As for weights, these are much harder to find. Japanes soldiers in WWII averaged 158cm and weighted 117 lbs. Since medieval Japanese were about the same height, their weights were likely similar.

As for medieval Europeans, US soldiers in the civil war averaged 5'8.25" and weighed 146 lbs for northerners and 143 lbs for southerners on induction into the army. Since people back then were about the same height as medieval europeans and lived a mostly agricultural lifestyle, medieval weights were probably similar.

Note that the upper classes in medieval Europe and Japan were probably better nourished and somewhat taller than the average. (Nobles in Medieval and Early Modern Europe appear to have been about 5'9" on the average.)

Bennison N · Posted: Mon 28 Apr, 2008 12:08 am Post subject:

Well... This looks like it's becoming another "Samurai vs. Knight" thread.

Something that may explain why Samurai don't appear overly athletic... Excessive muscle development causes "muscle memory"... A big no-no for Eastern Martial Arts. Slower movement and rapid fatigue also results from too much muscle. People with larger musculature are unable to utilise the tendons in movement, and this results in a plateau in ability. Eastern Martial Artists do not want to be overly large, relying instead on technique. An example you may want to research is the Pak Mei (Bai Mei) style of Southern Chinese Martial Arts. I know it isn't Japanese, but the techniques for this school include compressed breathing and use of tendons for power.

The bigger they are, the harder they fall.

Sammy Jackson

Thank you guys very helpful.

i didnt think theyd be tall.. but not do short. thanks

Christopher H · Posted: Mon 28 Apr, 2008 3:56 am Post subject:

I'm not sure where to begin, so I'll keep this brief...

First of all weight training is utilised by nearly all high level athletes these days and due to their increases in strength, speed and power (due to their resistance training) world and olympic records are continually broken...

Competing motor engrams (reasonably well accepted model for 'muscle memory' in the scientific community) could be an issue in rehabilitating people with brain injury or disease but in the movement of people with healthy brains - especially athletes - they are really a non issue... strength training improves athletic performance... it's as simple as that - even in people with brain conditions the body of literature suggests that performance in activities is either not affected (strength was not an issue for the task) or is improved.

I really don't know what you mean about not being able to use the tendons in movement... are you referring to the elastic storage of energy within the tendon as part of a stretch shortening cycle? Strength training has been shown to improve this too.

Myths like these circulating in an age when peer reviewed scientific research is just a click away... Sad

Shayan G · Posted: Mon 28 Apr, 2008 8:18 am Post subject:

I think he was saying that if you overdevelop your muscles using just weightlifting or similar repetitive motions, the muscles aren't properly trained to execute the techniques without fighting themselves instead of working together.

In my martial arts lifetime, though admittedly a short 8 years, I've seen MANY huge muscular fellows be outclassed in terms of punching strength precisely because they were fighting their own inflexible muscle.

Lifting 200kg and surviving a fight are two very different skill sets, in short, and as far as surviving violent encounters goes, muscle is relevant but not as much as a proper balance of speed, timing, technique, mindset, and FINALLY strength.

One last tidbit: at one memorable 1st Dan blackbelt test, I saw a 9 year old girl break two boards a 16 year-old boy twice her size couldn't manage. Size matters, but not nearly as much as skill.

Elling Polden · Posted: Mon 28 Apr, 2008 11:23 am Post subject:

You do not have to be thin to be strong. Unelss you are a body-builder, (like the greeks, who worked out beacuse beeing fit was high status) you are not likely to be thin or or have defined muscles even if you are quite strong.
Eating well means that you have a layer of body fat. Body builders try to avoid this so that the muscles will show, but working men, or weight lifters, typically would not. The same would go for fighting men. They eat well, beeing from privileged backgrounds, and work out a lot.

As for height, it certianly has a impact. Taller people have longer reach and more body mass. While short people might slip under the guard, a taller person could simply move into them, and push them over.

The tallest guy in our club is 207 cm... (6ft 9in) and the shortest girl 153cm (5ft 1in)... That is more than half a meter difference...

Jeremy V. Krause · Posted: Mon 28 Apr, 2008 11:58 am Post subject:

Hi Elling, j

That's an awsome picture! Laughing Out Loud

Jeremy

Bennison N · Posted: Mon 28 Apr, 2008 7:17 pm Post subject:

Elling seems like a guy who has thought about this. I like how he put it.

Ken Speed · Posted: Mon 28 Apr, 2008 7:23 pm Post subject:

All,

It seems to me that when early Japan is discussed there is a tendency to look at given elements in isolation. So people talk about swords or martial arts or pottery in a way that divorces that subject from the context of the rest of early Japan.

What is amazing about the early Japanese is not so much what they achieved but how they achieved so much with so very little. If you look at the traditional crafts of Japan it will become evident that many very different crafts use many of the same few materials in their creation. Charcoal, clay, straw, sand, paper, bamboo appear again and again and the reason for that is that the Japanese had very little with which to work.

Much the same can be said of the diet of the early Japanese. Farmland was limited, farming techniques were hideously labor intensive and so food was scarce. Not to mention food preservation techniques were very limited. Given such circumstances it isn't surprising that the Japanese were physically small. The Chinese referred to Japan as The Land of the Dwarves.

Small stature however doesn't necessarily mean weak and just because the early Samurai didn't look like bodybuilders doesn't mean they weren't strong. I would imagine that weight training would have seemed very strange to them inasmuch as their way of doing things was to generate strength from their entire body and bring it to bear on a single point as opposed to to the idea of isolating a muscle or muscle group.

The martial traditions stressed practice to improve technique and strength but their idea of practice far surpasses ours today. They would think nothing of practicing the same technique daily for the length of their martial career. Certainly age would erode physical abilities eventually but even as strength failed technique would continue to improve.

Finally it should be remembered that even if one were a Samurai it didn't necessarily mean that one was an accomplished swordsman or martial artist.

Regards,

Ken

Ben C. · Posted: Mon 28 Apr, 2008 8:54 pm Post subject:

I think a lot of people of falling for the myths of strength and bodybuilding training that are often propagated among the traditional/less athletic martial art communities. First of all competitive bodybuilders do not train to become strong or athletic and should never be used as a comparison. Of course many are incredibly strong but the focus of their training is to look as big/cut as possible for the purpose of their posing contests.

Shayan G · Posted: Tue 29 Apr, 2008 6:49 am Post subject:

I'm not quite sure what you're contending.

James Barker · Posted: Tue 29 Apr, 2008 7:18 am Post subject:

Man this is a really odd debate I think is easy to solve; look to the UFC today and in the past; it is as close to open fighting as you will get today. The UFC went to weight classes for a reason; tall in shape men dominated the sport. Size is an advantage.

Why even talk about body builders; they are not fighters they just lift weights and take steroids. If you are turning this into a European vs Asian thread what do body builders have to do with Knights? There was no power lifting in the middle ages.

Shayan G · Posted: Tue 29 Apr, 2008 7:23 am Post subject:

I certainly have no intentions of making it European vs Asian. Western trainers say the say thing,as i iterated earlier: train technique and flexibility just as much as muscle, and you'll be golden. Train only muscle, and you'll be inflexible and half useless. Muscle isn't bad, imbalance is.

Elling Polden · Posted: Tue 29 Apr, 2008 8:51 am Post subject:

The point about bodybuilderes was not one of japan vs europe. It was simply an observation that having body fat does not mean that you are not fit, and applies equally to both cultures.

Neither does it mean that ALL samura or knights where chubby. However, ulike modern athletes, who have fairly regulated diets, and know what puts on fat, the good ol' boys just ate "power food". Staying slim would simply not be a priority. Unless you plan on spending lage amounts of time struting your stuff at the Agora, covered in olive oil...

Christian Henry Tobler · Posted: Tue 29 Apr, 2008 9:12 am Post subject:

Hi James,

James Barker · Posted: Tue 29 Apr, 2008 10:26 am Post subject:

Shayan my comments were not directed at you specifically I meant "you" and in all posting on the thread.

Christian you make a relevant point about weapons I was strictly talking grappling/martial arts since that is where the topic seemed to be heading.

On the weight training issue I know you see plenty of men doing physical exercises in the past but without steroids and other many modern items no one is going to look like one of those weight lifting freaks who does posing competitions; ever read in a health magazine what they subject themselves too for that look WTF?!

I just find the backlash of "size does not matter" goes a bit too far; being a big man was a big deal in the middle ages. While skill is always most important size on top of skill and physical fitness is a major advantage especially in the realm of grappling.