Quote from: Cindy James on January 22, 2012, 01:06:56 AM
I remember going around the Tower of London and being amazed how short the armour was, and how big a certain section of it was 
I recall reading an article which discussed the medieval claims of height and the realities.
As you figured out, most people then were generally much smaller than now. But even more important was that armour was designed as much to give an impression as protect. Some military researches have even suggested that most armour was of little use and some actually hazardous.
The images of Henry VIII for example, generally protray him as a big powerful, dominating man. The reality was probably that he was a bit of a weed, could just as easily have had a weak, ineffectual personality and almost certainly with problem in the trouser department, not to mention genetics.
The article was actually written by a Scot, so that bears remembering. But it does fit in rather well with the realities, rather more than the image of a big, jack the lad. Hit with the ladies. Tough as nails, sort of thing.
Sorry, irrelevant to the subject in hand, but since we do seem to be drifting, my mind went there.
As for female height, I suggest that is only as important as we let it. Far more important from an appearance point of view is the shape of our bottoms and how we stand. If our shoulders are so wide that we need to appear fat to compensate, then so be it. Added to that, if we forget, as well all tend to do daily, that we each have a perfect right to be here and express ourselves, unharrissed, it can change our impressions of how e look.
Given the number of problem we are going to have to deal with, worrying about being a little overweight hardly seems a priority. After all, when any BMI over about 25 is reckoned to be overweight, then that applies to almost all of us anyway. It does, however, (in the case of the UK), help the NHS to demand more cash. Since they can complain about the numerous problems caused by dealing with overweight people.
