There can be quite a difference in a few generations. My paternal grandfather, a WW1 vet, was 5' 8", my father was 6' 0", I am 6' 2" and both my sons are approx. 6" 4". I use to go out wit a girl that was 6" 1. I was only 19.
Canuck. My older brother emigrated to Canada 50 years ago (Stratford, Ontario). He's smaller than me (5' 7" or thereabouts) his Canadian wife is the same height as him. His Canadian born son is 6' 6'. I can only believe that it's something in the water. Pete
Hi everybody, Thanks very much... I thought it was a quite silly question, but I really appreciated your answers. Good topic. Yes, the Italian Army during the WWII had of course a large amount of farmers. Only few cities in the North, like Milan and Turin, were already industrialized. It's quite sad to think that today we almost lost our agricultural production...
Maybe is was just the big coat and the slouch hat. My dad was 6ft. I am 6ft. My oldest brother was 6'8" One thing to consider besides the food is the timing through the depression. Thousands of young men and older like my dad were born in 1912, 1913, 1914 and went into the bush chopping down trees in the mountains as there was no work in the city. Dad like many others were Aussie Rules Footballers, Basketballers and very fit however came back from this outdoor work in the snow built like brick outhouses. Joining up was thought as a better option. Overall there were talls but many short as well. A couple of photos of dad. Dad on the left and his two mates so two 6 footers and probably 5'10" Dad back row centre and his group. All this group is part of Dad's "C" company and all seem to be tall.
There probably is something to the idea that ANZAC troops were on aggregate physically more impressive than British troops. But it had little to do with them having been stout yeoman farmers and bushmen, which, as I suggested earlier, was (and remains) more myth than fact. (Indeed, the idea that country life is inherently healthier than urban life is itself something of a myth. Rural poverty has been endemic throughout history.) The real reason was probably that the overall quality of life in Australian and New Zealand towns and cities was much better than in Britain. Wages were higher, good food cheaper and more plentiful, and there was far less urban blight. The absence of squalid Victorian slums made for an urban population that was physically much healthier; infant mortality was much lower than in Britain, for instance. It's particularly significant that Australia and New Zealand were much more economically equal societies than Britain, with far less of their national wealth being funnelled to a disproportionately privileged elite. There's a connection here to other current threads about veterans and protestors that I will let readers make for themselves. Best, Alan
Back to the thread (kind of). I come from a pit village and most of the men (miners) were short but built like brick karzis. Wasn't that the reason for the formation of the WW1 'bantam' regiments? To rope-in the undersized blokes? I would have said your family's height was more the exception than the rule. As for your mate's 5' Kiwi wife - sounds like he was short-changed Cheers, Pete The 9th Bn Durham Light Infantry, 151st Infantry Brigade, 50th (Northumbrian) Division - originally the main area of recruitment being Gateshead and its surrounds - were known as the 'Gateshead Gurkhas' because of their deminutive size. Their original ranks contained a lot of miners! Best, Steve.
There probably is something to the idea that ANZAC troops were on aggregate physically more impressive than British troops. But it had little to do with them having been stout yeoman farmers and bushmen, which, as I suggested earlier, was (and remains) more myth than fact. (Indeed, the idea that country life is inherently healthier than urban life is itself something of a myth. Rural poverty has been endemic throughout history.) The real reason was probably that the overall quality of life in Australian and New Zealand towns and cities was much better than in Britain. Wages were higher, good food cheaper and more plentiful, and there was far less urban blight. The absence of squalid Victorian slums made for an urban population that was physically much healthier; infant mortality was much lower than in Britain, for instance. It's particularly significant that Australia and New Zealand were much more economically equal societies than Britain, with far less of their national wealth being funnelled to a disproportionately privileged elite. There's a connection here to other current threads about veterans and protestors that I will let readers make for themselves. Best, Alan Alan. I certainly note your points which are well made. I would say, however, that even our present day more urban society in NZ is closer to its rural roots than might be apparent from a reading of 'dry' statistics (no offence meant). At present, our freezer is well stocked with wild pork and venison all killed locally and without recourse to a butcher or supermarket. The rivers are full of trout and open to all to fish (which I do), as is the sea. My point being that it has always been so and many Kiwis, urban and rural, take advantage of this and are consequently 'closer to the land' despite being urbanised. Then there is the question of definition of 'rural' and 'urban'. We live on the outskirts of a city (which would barely rate as a 'town' in most European countries) and therefore classed as 'urban'. We are surrounded by bush which, as my freezer evidences, is teeming with things to eat as is the river just a hundred metres from the bottom of our garden. The nub is that the parameters used to measure rural and urban existence here are, and were, less well defined than in other parts of the world. The 'urban' Kiwi of WW2 would have been even closer to his rural roots than a statistical chart might suggest. Cheers, Pete
We're not really in disagreement, Pete; just expressing things in a slightly different way, I think. Towns and cities in Australia and New Zealand in the 1940s were less 'vertical' than in Europe, less blighted by the densely compacted slum quarters of the industrial revolution. Housing, hygiene, and food quality were better. Societies in which ordinary people had better access to clean living spaces and cheap nutritious food produced healthier citizens. These should be - and I hope are - points of pride. The image of ANZAC soldiers as rugged outdoorsmen expertly scanning the empty vistas with the keen eyes of hunters is, as I've tried to suggest, misleading, and more the product of national imagination than reality. The ANZACs weren't healthy because they were all bronzed bushmen. They were healthy because they'd created a clean and prosperous urban civilization - which, to my mind, is actually more impressive. Best, Alan
Canuck I bet you are more than civil to your two sons - as I am with my two at 6'4" and 6'2" Cheers Tom, That's why they invented firearms!
Canuck. My older brother emigrated to Canada 50 years ago (Stratford, Ontario). He's smaller than me (5' 7" or thereabouts) his Canadian wife is the same height as him. His Canadian born son is 6' 6'. I can only believe that it's something in the water. Pete Your brother should think about asking for a blood test! The water isn't that good.
Seriously, the 'what's in the water' comment may have some merit. I've read that from ww1 skeletal remains, the chemical composition of the bones can identify the nationality of the body and, in some cases, narrow down the place of birth of the skeleton to a few locations. Apparently, it can easily be determined if a body is British, European, North American, etc. It would be interesting to know what effect water, diet and lifestyle has on creating that chemical signature.
Spidge. Great snaps of your Dad and his mates. I see they're in typical Aussie pose - clutching bottles Pete