Bret Devereaux

I wonder how that question can be definitively answered. I bet @FlintDibble knows something about bone analysis.

This was my question. I have read that the better nutrition available in the colonies allowed US militiamen to be taller than stronger than British regulars. Obviously a different time period but we also see some people claim people were generally shorter back in the day 1/2

With Julius Ceaser saying Gauls were on average much taller than Roman Legionaries. How much of that is bigging up the Gaul's for his best selling book? I dunno, but still! A Roman had a lot of kit but also had 2 mules and a slave per 8 man team...

So if talking abt the Roman army, we know they were fed well & lots of meat There's a whole range of archaeological evidence, from human analyses to my favorite animal analyses. The army imported animals from afar, and had specialized animal husbandry and butchery methods

So to be clear, I'm not suggesting the soldiering classes were actively malnourished, merely that they probably did not have the ultra-protein-heavy-diets that, for instance, many modern fitness nuts do. And on that basis, I think assuming pre-modern supermen is unwise.

I'm no athlete or warrior, but isn't ultra-protein needed for extreme weights & muscle building, but less so for endurance? In a sense the military things we are talking abt require some muscle and a ton of endurance. So adequate protein and calories are needed, not an overload

Sure, but we're asking if a 5th cent. Ekdromos is significantly more fit than @MykeCole . My impression is that he eats well, and is pretty physically fit (admittedly, we have never met in person). And I just don't see the difference being huge, for the reasons above.

That's not to say you can't run or fight with an aspis, of course. Just that I am guessing that the 5th cent. Ekdromos was probably almost as tired as @MykeCole . Again, my argument is not that ancient warriors were worse than moderns, just that they aren't massively better.