[Steve Fabert]

Continuing my reading of "Blood Red Roses", I have reached the chapter where the subject of physical evidence of lifestyle is discussed. Based on bony evidence of 'robusticity' the authors concluded that the pile of dead fighters unearthed at Towton were about as thick & active/inactive as a group of medieval clerics unearthed at a monastery not many miles away. So this particular small group of troops did not differ in any statistically discernible manner from a bunch of 'Friar Tucks'. Their ages ranged from late teens to late forties (by estimate). So the assumption that there were no chunky monkeys among them is highly speculative. Not disproven, but plainly not supported by this source of physical anthropological evidence.

[Hadrian Coffin]

Hello,

Reading this thread, I have to say that I agree here with Zach and Dan.
There are periods in which great exception to any sort of rule would of course exist, and in a wide topic like this one, that will create a problem. What is true for Roman Gladiators is not necessarily applicable to American Civil War soldiers, and vice-versa.

The fact, however, is that we still have a year on year rising obesity problem (in the UK). People today, largely and particularly in cities, lead far more sedentary lifestyles. Even in the country, however, there are tractors, automobiles, and horses (owned by a wider stretch of classes). To top that off, and most importantly, I would suggest we have an easier access to foodstuffs.

My specialty is Anglo-Saxon, and I cannot comment widely outside of this, but to Ben's comments above, I would say that I think there is a difference in the alcohol. For most of the medieval period, the vast majority of the population were peasant/tenant farmers/labourers. These people had active lifestyles, but had little/limited access to foodstuffs. Ann Hagen has argued that the specific reason for drinking as much as people did was to meet a basic caloric load. If we look at what was drunk by the masses, though, it isn't like for like. Alu (Ale) which was the primary drink of this class is not exactly like any modern alcohol/beverage at all. First the ABV was, from what evidence we have, very low typically under 3% and dropping to 1-2% regularly. Further this could, and was occasionally, mixed with "water from springs and deep wells" this would reduce alcohol content by volume even further. Second, the ale that was made would have more complex carbohydrates than say a modern Lager Beer... More in line with an English Bitter or Cask Ale.
This, particularly if it was a major part of your subsistence diet and making up a major part of your non-protein consumption, not make you fat.. and certainly not obese.

It is difficult to prove any of this without a specific case study, which would then only be relevant to a specific time/place, I can say anecdotally (as Zach put it) that it seems very unlikely there were many obese people at all. In my first Masters degree, years ago, looking at European clothing... I remember most of what does remain in garment form being quite small. Trousers often had sub 30" waists and chest sizes in tunics would be in line with a modern 36" or 38" at a push. Again anecdotal, but looking at the apex of society, most later mail shirts etc I can think of are of a fairly small size by modern standards.

I would think the comments regarding minimum size/weight in say the Roman Army has more to do with the fact that so few people among the lower classes had basic nutrition and was a prevention against anemic and malnourished soldiers.
I would argue we think about this differently today as in modern militaries, we have the opposite problem. A study that came out this year suggested that the U.S. Army had to cut 15% more troops due to having too high a BMI than they had in the previous year.

This isn't to say everyone throughout history was thin, physical diversity and differential responses to the same diet would be as diverse then as it is today.. Certainly there would still have been some thicker or more overweight people, I would just suggest fewer. I do not reenact, nor personally know anyone who does, but I agree here again with Dan and the OP, why not incorporate diet and lifestyle choices into a portrayal of the past? Old recipes exist, and it can be quite fun to try and replicate what 'they' ate and drank. Walking, running, exercise, well those are just good habits regardless.

Best,
Hadrian

[Ben Joy]

[Philip Dyer]

[Leo Todeschini]

Essentially we do this for fun or personal interest or ....or ...or

We all have our own reasons for doing what we do and whatever sex, colour, shape, age, fitness level or whatever may or may not come into it and that has to be a personal decision or perhaps partly of the group you are part of.

Personally I am not keen on seeing pot bellied mid fifties soldiers in large quantity - it doesn't look right to me, but equally having a mouth full of white teeth and a complete lack of smallpox scars is also not right. It is not right that not one person on the field has a chronic limp from a badly set leg or has his nose cut off from some minor criminal act, but we accept that. Where d we draw the line?

I have been part of groups that would not let older or overweight men (no women) appear on the field - looks great, but not so inclusive. I have spent time with groups that have women on the field in combat roles and 300lbs men at arms - doesn't look great, but is very inclusive for all.

If a black guy sees only white men he will not see people of his colour as having any part in that nations history even though he is now part of that nation - that seems wrong.

So my gut feeling is that soldiers on the whole were youngish and fit (the guy in Blood red roses with the mashed and healed jaw was mid forties when he died) and that if we want to portray a proper field army we should aspire to that, however not at the cost of everyone else who wants to play.

Tod

[Ben Joy]