Thread 76608966

How /fit/ were ancient warriors? What routine did Roman, conquistador, and crusaders use to stay in shape and could they outbench me?

>>76608966 (OP)
This guy gets into it in detail. He's batshjt insane and isn't much to look at but he's legitimately strong for his size and goes into details of some of the conditioning and combat techniques, primarily pankration, pygmakhia and kushti. Mostly in his Shorts/reels versus full length videos. https://youtube.com/@waryoga?feature=shared

>>76608966 (OP)
The ones you listed weren't particularly strong or adept, they were just different variations of grains slaves outfitted with the latest weapons technologies. They would have had adequate endurance and conditioning for the things they needed to do though. You'd need to go further back, prior to the agricultural revolution and before the human form started to degenerate to really be impressed

>>76608966 (OP)
Crusaders didn't really train. Most of them were secondborn nobles and peasants, with the nobles having basic combat training, and the peasants having no training at all. Similar thing with conquistadors.
Romans (roman soldiers, I assume) did train, mostly by marching, rucking, and moving in formation.
But none of those were especially strong people. Crusaders were evenly matched by arabs (who aren't exactly known for being muscular), conquistadors relied on technology, and romans sucked so badly that their nobility recruited foreigners (germans, mostly) for their bodyguards.
Now, if you look at military units known for strength, most of them recruited from borderland farmers. Frontiermen, basically, except that they had a mostly stable food supply. People who dabbled in all sorts of trades, cut down trees, cultivated land, and generally did what toadys strongmen do for training as part of their daily life.

>>76609067
>prior to the agricultural revolution and before the human form started to degenerate to really be impressed
from what ive seen in museums, its even less impressive anon. lets not be retarded on this matter

>>76609091
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TqxF5m9QV8
Ah yes museums, experts and the collectivization of truth and knowledge, ask them to show you what they've got locked away in their vast vaults anon or how much they've disposed of over the decades

>>76609086
>But none of those were especially strong people. Crusaders were evenly matched by arabs (who aren't exactly known for being muscular), conquistadors relied on technology, and romans sucked so badly that their nobility recruited foreigners (germans, mostly) for their bodyguards.
Crusaders BTFO arabs and Conquistadors still cut through mexicans like butter even without technological advantage. The Romans only 'sucked' when they became decadent and weak, they spent centuries before that beating everyone.

>>76609122
are you doing a bit or are you actually this fuckin gay?

>>76608966 (OP)
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/12ihmmr/comment/jftu5h2/

>tl;dr: they had normal pre-industrial physiques and couldn't outbench you unless you're weak or a woman

see pic related for a 19th century American soldier, then remember that ancient people had way less food and protein available

>>76609086
>Now, if you look at military units known for strength, most of them recruited from borderland farmers. Frontiermen, basically, except that they had a mostly stable food supply. People who dabbled in all sorts of trades, cut down trees, cultivated land, and generally did what toadys strongmen do for training as part of their daily life.
THEY RECRUITED CIRCUS STRONGMEN. THERE WERE ACTUALLY CIRCUS STRONGMEN.

>>76609146
Just how it is bro regardless of your gay science based tittok algorithm. Dr Weston A. Price figured this out a century ago, industrialization = degeneration

>>76609133
Wait, is this a joke? I legitimately can't tell. The Crusaders lost Jerusalum to Arabs, literally the #1 thing they cared about in the world. There were numerous crusaders that were EMVARRASSED by Arabs - the 5th they got slaughtered, the 7th was a decisive defeat. They lost numerous times.

The Conquistadors at no point did not have the technological advantage over Mexicans, and in diaries they literally wrote that without that advantage they had no hope of matching the natives man for man. Pretty much every expedition mentioned this numerous times.

Roman's didn't conquer from being strong individually. They weren't. They were nerds, engineers more than fighters. Organization beat strength.

Crazy that someone can be wrong about everything they said, Gen Z's understanding of history (aka Tik Tok reels and 0% actual first hand accounts)

>>76609205
>The Conquistadors at no point did not have the technological advantage over Mexicans, and in diaries they literally wrote that without that advantage they had no hope of matching the natives man for man. Pretty much every expedition mentioned this numerous times.
You are so full of shit. They NEVER wrote what you claimed.
They barely had technological advantage. They had like 2 muskets on their initial expedition and did most of their fighting with swords and spears.
After they were besieged in Mexico city, half dead, they finally broke out. Their powder got wet and their horses drowned. They formed up against a giant new Mexican army that came to meet them and went through them like nothing. What was their technological advantage?

>Wait, is this a joke? I legitimately can't tell. The Crusaders lost Jerusalum to Arabs, literally the #1 thing they cared about in the world. There were numerous crusaders that were EMVARRASSED by Arabs - the 5th they got slaughtered, the 7th was a decisive defeat. They lost numerous times.
You really can't focus on the topic at hand. In evenly matched combat the crusaders won. They lost because of logistics etc or extreme battlefield stupidity. Being unable to hold isolated cities far from home is a logistical problem.

>Roman's didn't conquer from being strong individually. They weren't. They were nerds, engineers more than fighters. Organization beat strength.
Now you are changing your tune. The point is it is Romans who conquered. You said they had to hire outsiders.

>>76609244
>What was their technological advantage?

Steel armor, steel swords and spears, horses and cavalry equipment. A Roman Legion, had it been teleported to 16th century Mexico, would have had a decisive technological advantage over the Aztec.

The victories in the 1st crusade were due to heavily armored western knights and men at arms defeating lighter equipped Arab foes that were busy fighting amongst themselves. When facing united Muslim foes that knew what to expect from Crusader forces, the Christians mostly got wrecked.

The Romans, by the by, also were much more heavily armored than most of their contemporaries when they conquered the Mediterranean. Men in steel chain mail formed up and punched through Greeks with linen armor, half naked Gauls, and various other assorted rabble. Even when they lost they inflicted terrible casualties, and there were always more Romans and socii to replace anyone their enemies killed.

All 3 examples show a similar trend though: well equipped, disciplined soldiers beating much larger armies and making massive gains. Almost nothing to do with raw strength, since no amount of muscle will stop a sword or an arrow but good armor will do it with ease.

>>76609244
>They barely had technological advantage. They had like 2 muskets on their initial expedition and did most of their fighting with swords and spears.
Steel weapons, steel armor, horses

>The point is it is Romans who conquered. You said they had to hire outsiders.
Read up on Roman auxiliaries. Also the peoples they conquered were integrated into the legions, that's why the Roman Empire could expand so fast.

>>76609200
Is that Jeff nippards great great great grandfather the science-based industrializer?

>>76609310
>Steel armor, steel swords and spears, horses and cavalry equipment.
They lost their horses. Most had cloth armor. They said the Mexican swords were as good as theirs.
So we are looking at a minimal if any advantage that lets 1500 men beat 100,000 in the field? No, that wasn't the reason.

>The victories in the 1st crusade were due to heavily armored western knights and men at arms defeating lighter equipped Arab foes that were busy fighting amongst themselves. When facing united Muslim foes that knew what to expect from Crusader forces, the Christians mostly got wrecked.
No, it was when the Christians were fighting themselves they got wrecked. On even footing they won.

>The Romans, by the by, also were much more heavily armored than most of their contemporaries when they conquered the Mediterranean. Men in steel chain mail formed up and punched through Greeks with linen armor, half naked Gauls, and various other assorted rabble. Even when they lost they inflicted terrible casualties, and there were always more Romans and socii to replace anyone their enemies killed.
This is true against barbarian tribes, not so much against their Italian contemporaries or Carthaginians.

>>76609320
>Read up on Roman auxiliaries. Also the peoples they conquered were integrated into the legions, that's why the Roman Empire could expand so fast.
I am talking about the Republic, when none of that was relevant and they beat everyone.

>>76609086
>romans sucked so badly that their nobility recruited foreigners (germans, mostly) for their bodyguards.
That's not why they recruited barbarians as their bodyguards. It's because being foreigners they had no loyalty other than their immediate benefactor, i.e. said nobleman.

>>76608966 (OP)
If they could make this statue, it's because they knew how a buff man looks like.
Regular footsoldiers probably wouldn't look like this, but certain gladiators, champions, athletes, well-fed higher classes, etc. did.

>>76608966 (OP)
Stories like The Iliad literally have people picking up boulders and shit so I've always considered all the Ancient Greek/Roman stuff a complete LARP based on the most exaggerated stories possible.
>>76609378
>they had no loyalty other than their immediate benefactor
Yeah that worked out really good

>>76609335
Lmao

>>76609205
>Roman's didn't conquer from being strong individually. They weren't. They were nerds, engineers more than fighters. Organization beat strength.
LOOOOL. Romans were the exact opposite of nerds. They were one of the most martial, rugged, patriarchal cultures to ever exist, and constantly made fun of Greeks, Persians, and Egyptians for being too effeminate.
They were hyper normies who expected you to have a decorated military career in order to be taken seriously. Crassus, the richest man of Ancient times, felt so insecure about not having military glory down his belt that he met his demise trying to conquer Parthia.
Augustus was also famously so insecure about not having seen the battlefield he basically invented what we know as propaganda to propagate fake stories about his prowess in battle to alter his image as a pipsqueak.

>>76608966 (OP)
The average Athenian rowing team had better times than Olympic rowers today. Training from birth has some serious effects on your bones and muscles that modern industrial man doesn’t get. They were way more fit than we are

>>76609367
Which battle specifically are you talking about for Conquistadors fighting with cloth armor. no horses, and no artillery or guns? If we're talking about a pitched battle between a small European force and a large Aztec army after La Noche Triste it surely must be Otumba.

But that can't be right, since (primary source alert!) Bernal Diaz del Castillo largely credits the victory to the Spanish cavalry and references an order that the infantry "thrust with their swords, and to pass them clear through the bodies of their opponents" (see https://www.jrbooksonline.com/Diaz/diaz_part1-ch9.htm).


As for the Romans, the Italians and Carthaginaians were the foes they struggled with the most. They defeated Carthage in the first 2 wars mostly by outlasting and outmobilizing them. They conquered Italy by adding defeated Italians to their army as socii allies, giving them a share of the loot. It's like Goku but with guido motherfuckers.

As for Crusades, let's look at the 2nd Crusade. The Holy Roman Emperor and the French King led armies against the Muslims.

>2nd Dorylaeum
German Crusaders ignore Byzantine advice, get casually btfo by Turkish horse archers
>Laodicea
German Crusaders ambushed, easily killed by Turks
>The Meander
French heavy cavalry fend off Turkish ambush while crossing the river
>Mount Cadmus
French army easily crushed by Seljuks, King flees into the night like a coward
>Damascus
Crusader remnants camp outside Damascus for a long weekend, then give up and go home

Not unreasonable to call these logistical or coordination problems, but also not exactly covering the Crusaders in glory here. If the Crusaders are super soldiers whose superior strength or aryan spirit or whatever leads them to massive victories, why are they getting repeatedly embarrassed by random Turks on the road to the Holy Land?

>pic related: conquistadors riding "dead" horses in shiny grey "cloth" armor

>>76609475
I'm talking about the individual soldiers, their average height was 5'6" and weight 155 lbs. They were tiny small Manlettes, just like modern day Greeks. Each encounter with the Germanic tribes (that eventually destroyed them) has the Roman's themselves going ON AND ON about how HUGE and muscular and physically imposing the Germans were. That's not how the Roman's won fights, they won because they dug trenches and made fortified camps EVERY SINGLE NIGHT. They'd spend days before a battle altering the terrain. They fight shoulder to shoulder, individual skill meant nothing.

>>76609244
Dumbass, they had metal armor + guns. It's literally what they're famous for. They also had horses which the natives of Mexico did not. Armor and Swords vs obsidian knives and underwear, I guarantee if I had Conquestidor equipment and you had a panther pelt and a spear I could 1v50 you. Mexicans didn't have swords, they didn't exist yet Mexicans are Aztecs mixed with Conquestidors.

I never said the Roman's hired outsiders that was someone else.

>>76609799
>I'm talking about the individual soldiers, their average height was 5'6" and weight 155 lbs. They were tiny small Manlettes, just like modern day Greeks. Each encounter with the Germanic tribes (that eventually destroyed them) has the Roman's themselves going ON AND ON about how HUGE and muscular and physically imposing the Germans were. That's not how the Roman's won fights, they won because they dug trenches and made fortified camps EVERY SINGLE NIGHT. They'd spend days before a battle altering the terrain. They fight shoulder to shoulder, individual skill meant nothing.
Romans were physically small compared to Gauls and Germanic tribes but they were not nerds. They were a pragmatic militaristic culture. They had contempt for sophisticated and learned Greek culture, which they saw as faggotry that would corrupt their morals.
>Greek culture will corrupt everything, once it arrives in Rome.
- Cato the Elder

>>76608966 (OP)
these threads are always made by dyels who go the gym for a few months, make no progress then start desperately asking to be "redpilled" on how the Spartans trained because they think it will make them look like the actors in that stupid 300 movie

>>76609533
>But that can't be right, since (primary source alert!) Bernal Diaz del Castillo largely credits the victory to the Spanish cavalry and references an order that the infantry "thrust with their swords, and to pass them clear through the bodies of their opponents" (see https://www.jrbooksonline.com/Diaz/diaz_part1-ch9.htm).
>All our artillery was lost, we had very few cross-bows, only twenty three horses, and our future prospect was very melancholy
Basically exactly what I said
Elsewhere talks about not having armor
>What would we not have given for defensive armour on this night! A morion, a helmet, or a breastplate, would have fetched any money.

>As for the Romans, the Italians and Carthaginaians were the foes they struggled with the most. They defeated Carthage in the first 2 wars mostly by outlasting and outmobilizing them. They conquered Italy by adding defeated Italians to their army as socii allies, giving them a share of the loot. It's like Goku but with guido motherfuckers.
The Romans continually defeated larger Italian armies. They didn't win with numbers advantage

>>76609799
>I guarantee if I had Conquestidor equipment and you had a panther pelt and a spear I could 1v50 you.
Well not you because you've never been in a fight in your life
Anyways. This is such a small souled bugman take which is why I am arguing against it. It's just le technology! If you have le better technology you win!
Explain how they won when all their powder was wet, guns gone, horses dead, no armor as I mentioned here >>76610484 Not to mention half starved and dead

>>76609180
>way less food and protein available
People really underestimate the malnutrition a lot of people in pre-industrial societies faced. Sure if you lived on the Mediterranean you might have a varied diet, but most lived on a diet of grains and vegetables. The idea that you'd eat meat every day or even on a regular basis was outlandish even for a lot of the wealthy.

>>76610040
It is all about diet. Mongols and Tatars invading China also were seen as huge compared to chinks, and even Europeans saw them as big muscular dudes.
It all boils down to diet.
British royal guards were called beef soldiers and were huge, because they ate a lot of meat.
While most people, military included since Roman times mostly ate grains.
While Germans, Vikings, Mongols and other hunter gatherer barbarians ate mostly meat.
Nowadays we are higher and bigger because now everyone eats mass produced meat daily.

>>76610494
They won with a cavalry charge. Their horses weren't dead when the Spanish rose them through the Aztec army, killed its leadership, and sent it to flight.

>>76611204
Ancient Germans were farmers. They had villages that the Romans burned, organized under kings that the Romans fought and negotiated with, and started really fucking up the Romans after the Germans embraced the teachings of Jesus Christ.

The Norse were mostly farmers. They did fishing as well, and vikingers would have eaten a lot of seafood, but they also were farmers that lived in villages and mostly ate grain.

Mongols were nomadic pastoralists. They mostly ate animal products, unlike the other two groups you mentioned. However, they weren't hunter gatherers. Mongol diéts were mostly mutton and horse dairy products, with horse meat and horse blood supplementing on fast cavalry pushes away from their flocks of sheep and mobile camps. Also they rode tiny horses and mostly were manlets.

Being tall and strong is a massive advantage in a 1 on 1 fight, but does very little in a battle. Battles and wars are won by logistics, equipment, morale, leadership, and luck far more than by sheer physical superiority.

In addition, hunter gatherers don't look like big muscular dudes either. As people who have to hunt for all their meat, and who do a lot of walking without access to consistent calories, they're also usually lither and sinewy. They also can't challenge settled people militarily. All other forms of food production generate way more food than just finding it in nature, and so the hunter gatherers get drowned in a wave of bodies or overwhelmed by elite warriors supported by taxes.

>>76611204
>It is all about diet.
To an extent. There's also genetic potential and predisposition. Germanics have always been the tallest of mankind.
>I have seen the Rus as they came on their merchant journeys and encamped by the Itil. I have never seen more perfect physical specimens, tall as date palms, blond and ruddy; they wear neither tunics nor kaftans, but the men wear a garment which covers one side of the body and leaves a hand free.
- Ahmad ibn Fadlan on the Rus (Germanic Norsemen)

>>76609490
yeah stop repeating dumb shit that pops out on your tiktok or yt shorts
>>76609067
>You'd need to go further back, prior to the agricultural revolution and before the human form started to degenerate to really be impressed
hunter gatherers were in terms of physical potential at about the same level as any other human in recorded history
you need to understand that our cognitive capabilities were by far the most important factor that trumped absolutely everything that /fit/ obsesses about

>>76609180
>see pic related for a 19th century American soldier, then remember that ancient people had way less food and protein available
Standard Weekly Rations (18th Century British navy sailor)
Bread/Biscuit: 7 pounds (one pound per day)
Salted Beef: 2 pounds (served on Tuesday and Saturday)
Salted Pork: 2 pounds (served on Sunday and Thursday)
Oatmeal: 1 pint per day on non-meat days
Peas: 1 pint per day on non-meat days (often made into a pease pudding)
Cheese: 6 ounces
Butter: 6 ounces
Sugar: 6 ounces
Rum: Half a pint (or other spirits on long voyages)
Beer: A gallon a day (in home waters)

>>76609180
That main response is so fucking reddit. Nigger acts likes carrying around 30+kg of equipment into battle would be bearable by thin sois. The Battle of Marathon was Athenians charging a Persian army from ranged to melee range. Weak fags could never.
Then he acts like Spartans be happy at avoiding multiple exercises sessions per day proves they hated exercise.

>>76609122
neolithic cultures were more intelligent than hunter gatherers though

>>76613335
what the fuck are you talking about? Physically active young men can carry stuff and run without looking like Heracles. Also those Athenians were mostly subsistence farmers, they can't develop professional athlete type bodies eating mostly grain and going hungry whenever shit gets tough.

>>76613300
a) those are sailor rations for the Royal Navy, near the height of its power. that's being provided and paid for by a state treasury of a modern state
b) even for those rations, sailors get about 9 ounces of meat per day. Not awful, but if you're bulking and not part of the too short to ride club you generally want quite a bit more than that
c) most ancient soldiers weren't full time. They only got army rations when they were in the army. The rest of the time they had to make due with what their shitty little farm grew, which means a lot less meat and a lot more chance of going hungry
d) armies, especially before the railroad, were usually pretty bad about actually getting the rations to their soldiers. most of the time they had to "forage", a euphemism for stealing whatever they could from local peasants. this was usually grain, since animals can be moved away from marauding soldiers a lot more easily than literal tons of wheat and barley

>>76609402
desu isn't the various greek and roman statues somewhat idealised depiction of the human body tho?

>>76608966 (OP)
Apparently they (knights) were comparable to modern pro rugby players. I'm sure they had weaker and smaller legs thoughbeit.

>>76615410
Greek statues yes. Romans did realistic depictions. Greeks were idealistic. Romans were pragmatic and matter-of-fact people.

>>76609122
>>76609067
true
>>76609091
We diminished in height by up to 7-9 inches from 5'10/6' - 5'6-5'3, we lost 20% of our bone density and lost 150cc in brain volume, when we switched to farming.

>>76609335
kek

>>76609799
>>76609205
You realise Aztecs were like 5'2 on average, malnourished and weak, had no dairy and a severe lack of meat so low protein diets. The Spanish were not only larger and healthier, but also better equiped.
Romans were also around 5'6-5'8 for men on average, which wasn't too disimilar to the rest of Europe at the time, although Germanics and Celts were slightly taller on average, it wasn't a huge difference.

>>76608966 (OP)
i would guess cause they were shorter and lighter weight they could walk very long distances with ease not to mention they had to walk everywhere anyways seems very comfy ngl

>>76609205
Crusades were a logistic nightmare where you basically left your own land unprotected

>>76615410
According to statuecels it is literally impossible to make a statue of a man with exaggerated muscles.

>>76609402
the only part of that statue that looks like me is the penis and the skin color

>>76616191
Aztecs were one of the ancient societies that ate pretty well, actually. They had easy access to food (corn produces high volume per square footage), high protein through beans, huitlacoche, fish, fowl, and the occasional human, and were in a semi-tropical environment so they had easy access to fruits and vegetables year round. The Spanish described them as both remarkably advanced and remarkably brutal.

>>76609067
people before agriculture and no technology, probably, were always starving - think african tribes-men.. they look like shit. But what youre probably thinking is the steppe nomads who conquered and genocided the farmers - they domesticated cattle, roamed around, fought each other, drank milk and were on average 10cm taller

>>76612333
Gravettians were taller and smarter than modern humans.

>>76613471
Maybe in Arabia but not in Europe.
>>76613577
Athenians trained every other month. They looked good by every depiction we have of them.
How much more testosterone would they have had being completely untouched by modernity?
People today take test to assist with building muscle. What if your test was doubled or tripled? How much stronger would you be from regular workouts?

>>76609205
The crusaders eventually lost Jerusalem because they were heavily outnumbered and relied on knightly orders which forbade having sex. Literally could not breed.
The crusaders were never defeated by a numerically inferior force head to head and the Arabs knew this and wrote about how much of a terror facing off against a German or an English knight was.
The conquistadors never ever said they weren’t a match man for man. They said the opposite.
Look at the skull of Pizarro, one of the shortest weakest men on the expedition, he looks like gigachad. Compare that to the skulls of the Aztecs and Incas, they look like that tranny shooter.
Conquistadors fought many battles outnumbered and alone and completely dominated those violent mongoloid spastics.

>>76609180
They didn’t have way less food and protein actually. Looking at the remains of certain groups we can see what they ate and get an idea by bone pitting of roughly how muscular they were.
Pre-modern man, well fed, which occurred often, was leagues ahead of modern man in strength and muscle.
The level of bone pitting the average Scythian Balt and Gaul had was on par with modern strongmen.

>>76609310
The Christians won battles outnumbered 15:1 when facing off against Arabs wtf are you talking about?

>>76609533
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cerami
Arabs can’t fight. Europeans really are super soldiers.
>outnumbered 50:1
>still win and kill a quarter of the Arabs

>>76617624
>Domesticated horses and oxen
>Nomad lifestyle
>No time for farming so only meat and milk
>Grow huge and mount horses
>Kill farmer cucks and fuck their wives to improve gene pool
>Develop philosophy
>Send your best to go spread their seeds over the world
God what a time for white men that was. Just imagine how fucking retarded and backwards the average jungle nigger had to be that they quite literally believed that gods themselves came to give them knowledge and whatnot, when whites first showed up.

>>76609533
Just post your hand and show everyone what we already know nigger. Arabs are dirty fucking people. They had their good battles, however, the "aryan spirit" and super soldiers youre jokingly referring to + excellent martial tactics allowed europens to win A LOT of battles while outnumbered more than 2x1. Alexander the great vs persia (Darius) is a perfect example of this. Siege of Vienna for example another example. Held the city for months with barely nothing because they refused to give up. Even muslim chroniclers couldnt understand why they wont give up and how they are still so vigorously fighting. Then when help arrived, they were STILL outnumbered 5-10x1 and they ran over muslims in such a way that they abandoned their posts before they even made contact.