how were manlets treated in antiquity?

>>1799954
They were taken in as jesters or made fun of all the time. So, not rly well I would imagine.

>>1799954
pretty sure everyone was a manlet back then. Even Augustus was like 5'7''

>>1800000
Checked

Have you got a source.

>>1799954
Well men in ancient times were shorter on average, but being "short" is rather vague seeing as our height has changed. That being said, I'm sure with the harsher the time period the more frowned upon they were.

>>1800006
Throughout Antiquity and the Middle Ages, 5'7 was the average male height, in Mainland Europe.

>>1800023
What did they consider manlet back then?

>>1800006
eh, I forget where i read that specifically but he was cited as short.
>Suetonius (Augustus 79) describes the emperor as "remarkably handsome and of very graceful gait even as an old man; but negligent of his personal appearance...eyes clear and bright...teeth small, few and decayed; his hair, yellowish and rather curly; his eyebrows met above the nose...with body and limbs so beautifully proportioned, one did not realize how small a man he was, unless someone tall stood close to him." Most of the more than 250 extant portraits of Augustus idealize him dramatically. The unprecedented length of his reign, his popularity during his lifetime and deification shortly after his death, plus the tendency of most later emperors to identify with him are factors that guaranteed an abundance of portraits of this man.

>>1800024
your dads dick Xd

File: 4376546587.jpg (8KB, 251x201px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 251x201px

>>1800000

Alexander the Great was very short
Augustus was short compared to the other Romans (that were famously short)

So, I guess they did alright.

>>1800000
>>1800028
augustus wasn't 5' 6" his freedman said he was 5' 6" to disprove accustations he was short

he was a 5' 4" turbomanlet and one of the most powerful people to ever walk the earth

why can't lanklets accept that manlets used to rule the world
>>1800021
>That being said, I'm sure with the harsher the time period the more frowned upon they were.
in antiquity and medieval periods class and rank was by far the only thing that mattered

>>1800000
>>1800006
Quints doesn't need a source, dumbass.

>In the past, they were trying to learn
>They never will

>>1801201
>He was short of stature (although Julius Marathus, his freedman and keeper of his records, says that he was five feet and nine inches in height)
that's roman feet and inches btw so 5' 6"

File: IMG_1856.jpg (47KB, 607x608px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 607x608px

>>1799954
I imagine it was something like this
https://youtu.be/zxNp6MMVXUU

File: dis lil slav is a threat, lmao.jpg (23KB, 585x392px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 585x392px

How times have changed.

File: bagh_nakh_death_of_afzal_khan.jpg (412KB, 844x1144px) Image search: [Google]

412KB, 844x1144px

They BTFO'd lanklets on a regular basis of course.

File: 1475999738271.jpg (318KB, 1200x960px) Image search: [Google]

318KB, 1200x960px

>>1799954

Pic a number. He will protect you, the others with try to kill you. Choose wisely.

>>1800000
CHECKED

>>1801222
everyone but me gotta learn

>2And there was a man named Zacchaeus, a chief tax collector, who was very wealthy. 3He was trying to see who Jesus was, but could not see over the crowd, because he was small in stature. 4So he ran on ahead and climbed a sycamore tree to see Him, since Jesus was about to pass that way. 5When Jesus came to that place, He looked up and said, “Zacchaeus, hurry down, for I must stay at your house today.” 6So Zacchaeus hurried down and welcomed Him joyfully.
Luke 4:2-6

Jesus loves even manlets. ;_;

>>1801399
so jesus was a nice guy after all

>>1801399
that's so sad

>>1801375
Either 6 or 2.
6 looks like he could fuck the all up, 2 looks like an Albanian so he's bound to have a gun, and some spare kidneys.

>>1799954
Whatever you call manlet was average back then. Someone over a decade ago showed me a translated article calling america, "a land of giants." Americans were giants back in the day by European standards.

>>1802211
further evidence that manlets ALWAYS win

>>1802247
Its funny because I met someone who loves keep medical records of american families and early forms of identification. And by american i mean north south and central. And theres a strange paradox that is more apparent in latin american peoples. A lot of people have grandparents and great grandparents from the 1800s that measured over 6'4. Yet their heights today hover around 5'7 and 5'8.

In reality 5'3-5'9 is rather more practical for military today. As most battles are fought from a distance and brute strength is not really needed. And size provides a larger area so probability of being shot increases with height.

>>1802301
further evidence that manlets ALWAYS win

>>1799954
is /his/ just a board of manlets?

>>1802388
everything worthwhile in the world is made by manlets

why should it be any different with this board?

>>1802356
Some of the greatest men in history have had a height from 5'2-5'6.

Legend has it. And its an informal thing forgotten by time. But the american ancestors were ruthless. You know how some people bred slaves to be stronger? Well they also bred themselves to be stronger. Rumors is that they loved duels, loved to pick fights with the strongest slaves, and loved to fight bulls. Part of their recreation was to punch the hell out of bulls see if they could kill it. Myth was that some men could knock out bulls with a punch in the head. Ofcourse these things go forgotten because of cruelty and the inheritence of cruel, unjust, sanguine violence it leaves their descendants. But pre planned marriages were very common.

>>1802420
nate turner was 5' 7"

>>1802434
Height has nothing to do with smarts.

>>1802499
how come most great men are manlets then huh

>>1802507
It's called compensation. Manlets need to heavily compensate their lack of genetic capabilities in order to survive, so they spend their time studying and applying knowledge.

File: 1376203-mussolini2.jpg (76KB, 643x913px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 643x913px

De Re Militari
Flavius Vegetius Renatus
Book I, section IV: "Their Size"

>We find the ancients very fond of procuring the tallest men they could for the service, since the standard for the cavalry of the wings and for the infantry of the first legionary cohorts was fixed at six feet, or at least five feet ten inches.

>>1802538
>Manlets need to heavily compensate their lack of genetic capabilities in order to survive, so they spend their time studying and applying knowledge.
most people don't need to do anything in order to survive or they live in a culture where height isn't an advantage

also many great manlets have come from cultures where they'd be considered tall

the real answer is that most people have been manlets and getting born smart is a numbers game

>>1802507
Probably because the shorter men had to use their smarts since brute strength was not an option they had, however, absolute control was.

>>1799954
Well the Romans were manlets whose superior autism of fighting in tight formation allowed them to dominate the celt and germanic chads so there's that.

>>1802499
>>1802507
Lanklets are born into wealth, which makes them smart but neurotic and weak-willed (like Kafka and Rachmaninoff)

Manlets are born poor and need to be ruthless and aggressive to get ahead in life, hence why they become tyrants and conquerors

>>1802560
The roman foot and the english foot were different measuring systems. Roman foot being smaller.

>>1802587
yeah this is the same shit that happened with
>>1801278
at least 5' 6" does not a lanklet make

>>1802566
>>1802585
except many great manlets were born relatively rich (alexander, caesar, napoleon)

>>1802617
>napoleon
>manlet
can we stop this meme? napoleon wasnt really a manlet. james madison was the true 18th-19th century manlet.

>>1802619
5' 7" is manlet and he was a manlet compared to his contemporaries

by that logic caesar and tamerlane weren't manlets because they were taller than their peers

>>1800000
>5'7''
>manlet
You are only a manlet if you are under 5'7"

>>1802638
t. 5'8"

File: 912de548dfc46590b3c97f274f36de6b.jpg (48KB, 427x604px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 427x604px

Rasputin was barely taller than a little old Babushka. Never let anyone tell you manlets can't achieve anything.

>>1802638
170cm is literally manlet

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Organization_of_Short_Statured_Adults
>>1802667
how mad is this lanklet lol

>>1802650
I am 5'8,5" (1,74 cm, fuck shitty american system), but would fuck up all of you anyway

>>1802667
name one thing lanklets have achieved lol

File: very high quality pepe.jpg (469KB, 697x667px) Image search: [Google]

469KB, 697x667px

>>1802681
>he adds the extra half inch
5'11 king of manlets here, stay mad. i can literally beat you by putting my hand on your forehead and extending my arm. also, dont use commas where periods should be. it's 5'8.5".

>>1802716
>i am taller than you, so i am stronger
as long as you are not a meter bigger than me, I would fuck you up in seconds. I fought 2 guys about 6'2 last week, fucked both up. You fat fuck, you are noting mate

>>1802758
>manlet squeaking with rage

>>1802758
say that to my face not online see what happens

>>1802758
>fat fuck
t. mad manlet
i am a well-versed boxer. one strike from my fist to your jaw (which are parallel in height) would BTFO you for years to come.
>i fought 2 guys about 6'2
you mean 5'9? manlets have no sense of distance or size, if they did they would know they're inferior.

>>1802619
>james madison
>5' 4"
i have immediately lost all respect for america as a country

>>1802799
at least washington was 6' clean, and lincoln was 6'4/

>>1802815
and they were both terrible leaders

turbomanlets and lanklets need to stand aside and let the manlets run things ;)

>>1802769
>>1802772
>>1802784
you guys are noting than keyboard warriors. don't act tough in the internet when you are not tough in real life.

>>1802834
how about you don't act angry on the internet and expect people to be intimidated lol

>>1802826
washington was no lanklet, he was pretty /fit/. lincoln and obama are real lanklets. also teddy roosevelt wasnt a manlet or lanklet but he was the greatest.
>>1802834
practice what you preach, shortstack, practice what you preach.

File: 1459814878168.jpg (101KB, 853x543px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 853x543px

>>1800000
Historic digits there, my friend.

>>1802567
If I go with my plan of becoming a history teacher after I retire, and I am directly quoting you on this to teach Roman history

>>1802849
what was roosevelt i'm getting anything from 5'8"-5' 10"

>>1802876
id bank on him starting out as taller but with injury and cartilage loss from age, he probably shrunk some. lets put him at the median 5'9 then, which i dont personally consider manlet.

>>1802886
>“Teddy Roosevelt was forty-two years old when he became President, and his physical measurements (recorded the following year) showed how robust he had become: height 5 feet, 8 inches, weight, 185 pounds; chest, 42 inches; collar, size 16.5; hat, size 7.5; shoes, size 9.5.”
i lied i just wanted to point out that he was a manlet

>>1802895
oh dang, i guess he was a manlet. +5 points. i now have more respect for our lesser counterparts.

>>1802915
>185lbs is lesser
post you are weight

>>1802930
he was an fat. i am 160 proper weight for my height.

>>1802935
>160lb weakling talking about "proper weight"
>this is what strengthlets actually believe

>>1802716
5'9 is king manlet, everyone in between to 6'0 is medium height, effectively caught in a limbo between tall and short.

Diet is the most important /on average/ for height. For most of history the Nobels ate well sense birth, and were taller then the plebs anyways, underscoring their 'aparent' supioriorty and god(s) given rights to rule.
.
Someone is going to aurge diet doesn't equal height advantage, but it does, deal with it, Google is your friend and it's well established.

>>1803552
are you dyslexic

>Someone is going to aurge diet doesn't equal height advantage
diet is dictated by culture

>>1803552
What are genes?

File: majorcope.gif (2MB, 500x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x240px

>>1803552

>>1799954
>manlets

>>>/fit/

>>1803360
>6'0 is medium height
5'6" and below is turbomanlet
5'7"-5'10" is regular manlet
5'11"+ is lanklet

File: Charlemagne.jpg (26KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 300x300px

>most of the europe is 5'6
>be 6'4

Charlemagne was absolutely based

>>1805045
>there has been literally one great lanklet in the entirety of world history
exception that proves the rule

File: Pakal+head+sculpture[1].jpg (75KB, 540x720px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 540x720px

>>1805045
>average Maya is 5'2
>Pakal the Great was supposedly 7 feet tall

>>1799954
It was always preferable to be taller and stronger, but I think nowadays is the height (lel) of the manlet hatred meme.

>>1805090
that doesn't mean being tall or strong was always preferable

>>1805096
When was it not?
Even during the most obvious and detached ivory tower aristocracy, where pale skin was considered pretty and it was thought of as vulgar to be very muscled, people still preferred tall, fit men, and in fact at that time it was thought to be connected with virtue. That is, you'd see a tall man, and expect them to also be courageous, smarter, a leader, etc.

>>1805105
if the group has no tall or strong members then being tall or strong isn't preferable compared to being a member of the group

see romans, mongols, etc.
>Even during the most obvious and detached ivory tower aristocracy
yeah but etiquette and breeding were seen as more important than being tall or strong

maybe you're saying that given a choice between an ideal person that's tall and an ideal person that's short tall is better but it's not a given that an ideal person can be tall

>>1805115
Of course that a beautiful learned strong tall rich courageous and overall virtuous person with a missing thumb is better than the average man, but he'd be better still if he wasn't missing that thumb.
That is what I meant about height, it was always preferable to be taller than otherwise, and given the choice between two equal men you'd like more the taller one, and expect more of them.

This has always been the case, height has always been a good quality, and I just suggested that now more so than before people take notice of it, because now more so than before everyone has the opportunity to be fit, healthy, educated, rich, because of how cheap and affordable food is, the free time we all have to work out, the availability of information and education, the social and economic ladders being very easy to climb when compared to the past, etc. Now more so than before you have two guys who are comparable or equal in all manners except height, and more often have to use exactly height to separate them and judge one superior.

>>1805122
>Of course that a beautiful learned strong tall rich courageous and overall virtuous person with a missing thumb is better than the average man, but he'd be better still if he wasn't missing that thumb.
i'm not saying that being tall makes you ideal

the ideal for aristocracies was good breeding and manners above all else, beauty and talent and whatever were secondary

there are many cultures where being average with good proportions makes you ideal, see alcibiades

if it isn't possible to be tall then it isn't preferable

>>1805122
>because now more so than before everyone has the opportunity
i mean you're saying that like that's a given most cultures did not have equal opportunity so the main preference was rank and breeding

>>1805130
You are repeating what I say as if you are refuting me.

>>1805158
>because now more so than before
cultures in the past did not have equal opportunity in any shape or form so it's incorrect to say "now more so than before"

being tall is 6'0" or slightly below

being taller in many cultures meant being 5'7", see tamerlane, caesar, etc

that is what i meant when i posted this
>>1805096
i now realise that i shouldn't have tried to address your retarded points head on

>>1805170
>cultures in the past did not have equal opportunity in any shape or form so it's incorrect to say "now more so than before"

How is it incorrect to say it, when you yourself state it?
Now more than before we use smartphones, because we used zero smart phones, with them not being invented and all that. It is a correct statement.

>>1805211
Now more so than before is different from now more than before

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/more_so#English

more so implies the difference is in degree rather than in absolute terms; ie smartphones were used in the past but to a lesser extent

>>1805219
So you claim that several hundred years ago, two similar people, of similar skill, status and virtue, with one of them being tall and the other short, would not be judged whatsoever by their height?

>>1802566
Since when does height equate strength, people with a mesomorph somatotype are biologically the strongest people, but they're mainly of medium height.

File: usain bolt.jpg (37KB, 590x350px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 590x350px

Manlets have ALWAYS been irrelevant.

>>1804940
I've meant to say to 5'10, my mistake.

>-5'10"

177 centimeters is two centimeters above world average, even above North American average.

File: 1474896810296.jpg (136KB, 1000x706px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1000x706px

>>1805221
yes if they were of different groups they would be judged as members of their groups before any other characteristics

>two similar people, of similar skill, status and virtue
i also think that this scenario is highly unlikely
>>1805224
all great civilisations have been manlet civilisations

when will lanklets learn?
>>1805227
>world average
yeah but at that point 5' 5" is within average range

>>1805233
I am obviously talking about two people where all is equal but height, being judged by height.
You continue to strawman me in your responses, while also moving the goalpost away from my original claims.

When other, more important things are equal, height is considered. Always was, always will be.
It is more important than eye color, or voice tone, or similar such things, so you can't cop out saying it is the least relevant.

>>1805238
i'm just saying it's unlikely to the point of impossibility

my point is in many cultures it would be impossible to be what we consider tall therefore they couldn't be preferred for it

like this is my point which you challenged we are discussing this;
>>1805096

>>1805250
>my point is in many cultures it would be impossible to be what we consider tall therefore they couldn't be preferred for it

Why "what we consider"? In most cultures throughout history it was impossible to be what we consider intelligent or wise, since those dumbasses don't even know how much a chocolate bar costs, or how to operate a camera, or drive a car.
What we today consider tall is irrelevant, they had a consideration of tall and short, and tall was preferred, regardless of what it meant in centimeters.

>>1805260
you're posting in a manlet thread

by your logic 5' 7" is tall because people in the past considered it tall

>>1805265
No, by your strawman it is so.
By my logic 5'7 used to be tall. It isn't tall today.

>>1805267
that's not how the term manlet works

don't redefine commonly used terms

>>1805268
Manlet isn't a mathematical equation, is is a function of what is perceived to be short.

>>1805270
go tell /fit/ that, see what happens

>>1805275
So your argument is "/fit/ told me so"?
I think I'll mark that as a win for me.

>>1805278
your definition of manlet is one that nobody else uses so i think YOU lost

>>1805288
I think you will find that more people believe manlet to mean a short man, than do whatever /fit/ memes you have been indoctrinated with.

>>1802711
Reach Valhalla, conquer the north and east of Europe, destroy armies as mercs in the middle east.

Thats just one group, they jews that invent stuff tend to be pretty beanstalky too

>>1805233
indos get allot of their genetics of proto negroids (pigmees) that moved there.
>im 1,88 cm, feels good

>>1805336
>average viking height was 170cm
stop claiming manlet achievements lanklets
>>1805347
t. low caste

>>1804916
>diet is dictated by culture
Or by the thai military government, since they actually plan on increasing the average height of the Thai people through nutrition by 10 cm or so.
In 30 years we may see if this works, I think eating more than blank rice definetely will help.

>>1802638
you're a manlet if below 6 foot desu

>>1802758
top of your class in the seal navy too?