Average height of Scots

[Sinabhfuil]

There's a factoid floating around the internet that the average height of Scots dropped drastically due to the effect of World War I. Is there any basis to this?

[Guest]

I have never heard of it, and why just Scots. Anything's possible, but I doubt it?

Mike

[John_Hartley]

I would be surprised if it was to be true.

Firstly I can think of no logical reason why the war should interfere in genetics in such a way. And, second, average heights have been, literally, increasing over the last century. I am building a database of 6th Cheshires men and am currently at a point where I'm trawling Ancestry for service files. I was surprised just how short many of the these working class men were - in due course, I'll ask on the forum if anyone has a database of a battalion where the majority of original recruits were middle class so I can make a comparision.

[bill24chev]

The taller men would have a greater chance of having their head above the parapet so more likely to be a casualty, but would apply to soldiers from all countries. Unless of course the perceived aggression of the Scots made them more careless.

I can see the common sense/Darwinian logic but would need to see well research and tested Statistics before being convinced.

[seaforths]

The taller men would have a greater chance of having their head above the parapet so more likely to be a casualty, but would apply to soldiers from all countries. Unless of course the perceived aggression of the Scots made them more careless.

I can see the common sense/Darwinian logic but would need to see well research and tested Statistics before being convinced.

Two conflicting genes in our family. The beanstalks and the hobbits. I seem to have inherited the hobbit gene whereas other family members have inherited the beanstalk gene. I too have read of tall men being at risk in the trenches and if that be the case, I wonder how my granddad managed to survive. I have no service record but told that he pulled off his enlistment at 16 years of age because he was 6 feet in height. When he joined the police force in 1921, he was 6 feet 5 inches. Army life would not appear to have stunted his growth and can only assume he attained a little more height while serving. The beanstalk relatives born post war on the male side reached 6' 5" too.

I can only assume that the failure to reach full genetic height potential would be down to substandard living conditions that affected diet and that, as Mike pointed out, would not be restricted to Scotland.

[David Filsell]

Fact and factoid free I reckon.

[MartH]

John Terraine used to read an essay he had got from a Glaswegian steelworkers during the making of "The Great War". It appears that many grew upon joining the army grew several inches, since it was the first time in their life they had proper nutrition. I would think that happened all across the UK.

[Guest]

A useful reference point: 1st Bn Black Watch. Aug 1914. Average height of the Officers was 5 ft 9 1/2 inches and of the rank and file 5 ft 7 1/8th inches. Page 3 of the published history.

[mackem21]

I saw a report that was done just before the war comparing the size of public school boys to the working class,off memory over 70% of the public schoolboys were on or over the average size,the vast majority of the working class were under the average size and a fair proportion were suffering malnutrition.Nationality had nothing to do with it,it was poverty,living on bread and scrape and a few potatoes.

[Ron Clifton]

There is a memoir by a medical officer, though I cannot remember the exact source, where the officer confirms that many recruits from poor backgrounds grew at least a couple of inches in height, as well as increasing their weight and chest measurement, under the influence of Army food at regular intervals, combined with regular physical exercise and medical supervision.

Like MartH and Mackem21, I think that this was not linked directly to nationality. Prior to 1914 many men joined the Army to escape from poverty, especially in areas where good employment was hard to find.

Ron

[Sinabhfuil]

My own feeling is that this is pretty unlikely - perhaps the size of uniforms supplied in Scotland would be a guide?

The factoid that's roaming around the Web suggests that the big lads were more desirable by the army, I think.

On the point about nutrition, Deborah Cadbury's fascinating The Chocolate Wars mentions that a couple of years after George Cadbury established the village of Bournville (with its houses with vegetable gardens and orchards, light-filled and worker-merciful working conditions, gardening teachers, swimming pools (indoor and outdoor) and swimming instructors, school with school meals, etc, the children in Bournville were inches taller and pounds heavier than the cohort left behind in Birmingham.

[auchonvillerssomme]

A useful reference point: 1st Bn Black Watch. Aug 1914. Average height of the Officers was 5 ft 9 1/2 inches and of the rank and file 5 ft 7 1/8th inches. Page 3 of the published history.

That would only be valid if there was no minimum height restriction on enlistment, the minimum height for a regular was 5' 6".

[seaforths]

That would only be valid if there was no minimum height restriction on enlistment, the minimum height for a regular was 5' 6".

Was that height not lowered later? No pun intended.

[MBrockway]

A hypothetical case ...

Take a population.

Assume the natural mortality of that population is in no way correlated with the height of its members.

Split it into two sets based on a height criterion - i.e. the minimum height restriction on enlistment.

Have the taller set endure increased mortality due to warfare, while the shorter set endures the natural 'baseline' mortality.

Surely the outcome is that the average height of the population will decrease? More of the taller set have died. Or put another way, the smaller set have been protected from battle deaths.

I suspect the effect would be minuscule however (forgive the pun).

As regards this being more pronounced in Scotland, that hypothetically could be due to a greater proportion of the males of military service age being in the forces than other countries of the UK. I believe there is at least some evidence supporting that particular factoid.

Hypothetical cases aside, it does sound implausible to me (a Scot of 5'6") to be honest.

[Beechhill]

I'd certainly believe that the average population height (all ages, male/female) would be lowered noticeably following the loss of significant numbers of able men in their best age due to war casualties. This, however, would apply to all warfaring nations or regions.

[seaforths]

I have and am still of the opinion that it doesn't just apply to the Scots. If they did lower the height allowed at enlistment at some point would that indicate most of the tall ones had been killed and the war machine needed to be fed with the smaller men? Or, was it a case of the requirement increased coupled with the casualties suffered needing to be replaced causing them to possibly rethink the height of recruits.

[Black Jock]

That would only be valid if there was no minimum height restriction on enlistment, the minimum height for a regular was 5' 6".

A quick search through some service records of pre-war regulars, I have five men under 5'6" and one over 5'7".

[seaforths]

That's strange. I wonder then did they impose the restriction at the outbreak of war to deliberately select the taller men first thinking they would win through quicker and then perhaps they did reduce it later? They didn't bargain on static trench warfare whereby taller men were possibly at more risk of being killed or wounded. It would be interesting but likely no statistics as to whether those from deprived city areas in places like Glasgow, and possibly shorter, failed the enlistment on grounds of height whereas those from the countryside on a healthier diet were perhaps taller and more likely to pass.

The height thing is also genetic and having a very tall and very short gene in a family from the countryside and eating a healthier diet possibly meant that both would reach their full height potential whereas in different circumstances, the tall would still be shorter but still above the requirement and the short would be even further removed from the required height. A mix of poverty and genetics in certain areas affecting those of a mid height...surely it would have been more prevalent in England having more big cities and possibly more poverty stricken areas than Scotland?

[Muerrisch]

Infantry of the Line

Date/Minimum height

Pre war

5ft 3ins

7/8^th Aug 1914

5ft 3ins

27/28^th Aug 1914

5ft 3ins

11^th Sep 1914

5ft 6ins except ex-soldiers

11^th Oct 1914

5ft 5ins

23^rd Oct 1914

5ft 4ins

5^th Nov 1914

5ft 3ins

Feb 1915

5ft 2ins

May 1915

5ft 1in

31^st May 1915

5ft 2 ins

[MBrockway]

I have and am still of the opinion that it doesn't just apply to the Scots. If they did lower the height allowed at enlistment at some point would that indicate most of the tall ones had been killed and the war machine needed to be fed with the smaller men? Or, was it a case of the requirement increased coupled with the casualties suffered needing to be replaced causing them to possibly rethink the height of recruits.

Like you, I'm skeptical about this, but developing the hypothetical case I outlined above, if one population had a greater proportion of its taller males exposed to battle than another population, then one might expect a correspondingly greater reduction in that population's average height.

And I do seem to remember encountering 'factoids' that the proportion of the Scottish male population under arms was greater than that of England.

I'm sure any effect would be minuscule however and definitely not worth our efforts to corroborate it - LOL!

[seaforths]

I also wonder too if the guards regiments had a taller height requirement? If that was the case then their casualties must have been greater, based on the theory that very tall men were killed quicker and therefore very tall men would have to replace those so other regiments also suffering casualties would have to have shorter recruits. Eventually, that would lead to a lowering of height restrictions. I am curious too because one relative came back from Canada to enlist in 1914 and I duly have him arriving in Glasgow on 18th August 1914. However, he isn't enlisted until February 1916 - I have a theory he inherited the hobbit gene in the family and not the beanstalk gene my granddad had and they must have lowered the limits for him to get in eventually.

[Derek Black]

Have you been to Dundee? Still loadsa wee mannies there, must have been the hard life in the mills.....

[Ron Clifton]

I believe that the increase from 5' 3" to 5' 6" on 11 September 1914 was a temporary measure to stem the flood of early recruits which swamped the capacity of the depots. As Grumpy shows, it was progressively eased back to 5' 3".

Seaforths - the minimum height for the Foot Guards pre-war was 5' 8'. I don't know whether this was reduced later, but as they had terms of service of three years with the colours and .I.e in the Reserve, the need to replace casualties would have been less pressing.

Arms other than infantry had different height limits, mostly 5' 4" or more.

Ron

[seaforths]

Thanks Ron, I'm not quite sure how I managed to miss Grumpy's post. Reading that, William must have been awfy wee or it must have been due to something else. There is an indication that they might have taken him into the home service battalion before he was enlisted into the feeder battalion. But no official records exist (as far as I am aware for home service battalions).

I am surprised at the minimum height of the guards and thought that might have been a couple of inches taller at least or possibly have similar height requirements to the police.

Someone once told me that if you are taller than your father then his diet had been poor and he didn't reach his full height potential. I am skeptical of this too because a person could be short but carry a tall gene and pass that on.

I cannot see how this factoid thing works and on what their information is based as fact(oid) suggests it is a fact but how is it backed up with evidence set against statistics for the English for example? Seems more like a mythoid to me - that is my new word.

[MartH]

I think the height of a person in the Great War was more dependent on diet than genes, Height is a genetic trait with 20 - 40 % coming from diet, as I understand it 4 areas of DNA have been identified as impacting height but as of yet no single gene has been idnetified. All these studies are on modern people who have access to modern nutrition, so nutrition in the Great War probably had more of an impact. Since the GW we have had the impact of the Spanish flu which some researchers believe has stunted growth, and takes 3 generations for the impact to be discarded.