# How physically fit were soldiers in the past compared to today? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 5, 2012, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-physically-fit-were-soldiers-in-the-past-compared-to-today/636802 "2012-10-05T13:35:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Donnerwetter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b2d939/32.png) [@Donnerwetter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Donnerwetter)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-physically-fit-were-soldiers-in-the-past-compared-to-today/636802/1 "2012-10-05T13:35:45Z")
When I watch documentaries about the military, it’s obvious that these are exceptionally fit young man (and women): They can run and walk long distances, carry huge amounts of gear, tackle brutal confidence courses, can do lots of pushups, pullups, situps, swim in full gear etc. etc. I was wondering how professional soldiers from the past would compare to this. How would (a) a Roman legionnaire, (b) a British infantryman in 1815, © a US Army soldier in 1880 (to give just a few examples) would compare to a modern day Royal Marine or US Marine if they were to enter a physical fitness competition against each other? I’m aware that there are cooks, clerks and barbers in every army, but this is about the men who do the actual fighting, but on the other hand, not necessarily only about what we today call special forces. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-physically-fit-were-soldiers-in-the-past-compared-to-today/636802/2 "2012-10-05T13:39:17Z")
One thing that is different from hundreds of years ago is today’s soldiers get better nutrition and medical care. ---
**Author:** ![Donnerwetter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b2d939/32.png) [@Donnerwetter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Donnerwetter)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-physically-fit-were-soldiers-in-the-past-compared-to-today/636802/3 "2012-10-05T13:55:05Z")
Good point. On the other hand, unless nutrition is blatantly insufficient, that’s not a big issue. And medical care usually isn’t that much of a concern for healthy young men. Of course, breaking an ankle could have crippled you for life 250 years ago. ---
**Author:** ![lazybratsche](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ba8739/32.png) [@lazybratsche](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lazybratsche)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-physically-fit-were-soldiers-in-the-past-compared-to-today/636802/4 "2012-10-05T14:06:37Z")
Nutrition really was blatantly insufficient for most of the population. And childhood diseases were ubiquitous. The “healthy young men” were exceptions. This only indirectly answers your question, but the average soldier in the Civil War was [5’ 8" and weighed only 143 pounds](http://www.civilwarhome.com/themen.htm). I recall seeing similar vitals for WW2 draftees (but my google-fu is weak this morning…) Basically they were seriously scrawny dudes. After training, long marches, and lots of physical labor (i.e. digging trenches), they’d be strong in a wiry sort of way. But even then, malnutrition and disease has historically killed more soldiers than actual combat. Go back more than 50 years, and you won’t find many soldiers that look like modern body builders. ---
**Author:** ![Si\_Amigo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/si_amigo/32/2877_2.png) [@Si\_Amigo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Si_Amigo)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-physically-fit-were-soldiers-in-the-past-compared-to-today/636802/5 "2012-10-05T14:11:13Z")
I would think that soldiers entering the military 200 years ago were in much better shape than they are today due to the more hard scrabble life that the majority of people were forced to endure. Kids back then had to go fetch there own water, do chores and had diseases culling out the herd. If you made to 16 you were most likely pretty tough compared to today’s video game playing recruits. Still, mileage will vary;there are tough guys in every generation. ---
**Author:** ![Shmendrik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee7513/32.png) [@Shmendrik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shmendrik)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-physically-fit-were-soldiers-in-the-past-compared-to-today/636802/6 "2012-10-05T14:13:26Z")
> [@Donnerwetter](#): > > Good point. On the other hand, unless nutrition is blatantly insufficient, that’s not a big issue. And medical care usually isn’t that much of a concern for healthy young men. Of course, breaking an ankle could have crippled you for life 250 years ago. William L. Shirer, when discussing Hitler Youth and other related Nazi programs: > [@William L. Shirer](#): > > The young in the Third Reich were growing up to have strong and healthy bodies… I thought of that later, in the May days of 1940, when along the road between Aachen and Brussels one saw the contrast between the German soldiers, bronzed and clean-cut from a youth spent in the sunshine on an adequate diet, and the first British war prisoners, with their hollow chests, round shoulders, pasty complexions and bad teeth - tragic examples of the youth that England had neglected so irresponsibly in the years between the wars. Of course, that was his anecdotal observation, and I’d think many newly captured POW’s would appear to have “round shoulders”. I don’t know whether the statistics actually bear him out on this point. ---
**Author:** ![Sicks\_Ate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Sicks\_Ate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sicks_Ate)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-physically-fit-were-soldiers-in-the-past-compared-to-today/636802/7 "2012-10-05T14:16:17Z")
I don’t remember which actor it was from ‘Band of Brothers’, but I saw a picture of him standing next to the man he portrayed in the show. Granted, the gentleman was old and probably not as tall as he once was, but there was a _huge_ difference in stature. Physiques like David Schwimmer’s at that time would probably have been considered huge. Edit: Goddamn, BoB was good. Haven’t thought about it for a long time. Gonna have to watch it again this winter. ---
**Author:** ![Donnerwetter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b2d939/32.png) [@Donnerwetter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Donnerwetter)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-physically-fit-were-soldiers-in-the-past-compared-to-today/636802/8 "2012-10-05T14:18:03Z")
It’s true that in the past mainly dirt poor people enlisted. But one has to assume that in general, once they had been inducted, the military took care to feed them (this is, of course, very generally speaking). This was BTW one the main reason for social reform in the 19th century: The military noticed that a large number of conscripts was unfit for duty because they had to work 12, 14 hours every day or more under horrible conditions since they were young children. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-physically-fit-were-soldiers-in-the-past-compared-to-today/636802/9 "2012-10-05T14:19:34Z")
> [@Si\_Amigo](#): > > I would think that soldiers entering the military 200 years ago were in much better shape than they are today due to the more hard scrabble life that the majority of people were forced to endure. Kids back then had to go fetch there own water, do chores and had diseases culling out the herd. If you made to 16 you were most likely pretty tough compared to today’s video game playing recruits. Still, mileage will vary;there are tough guys in every generation. I think this is the case. There people had to walk almost everywhere they went in life, carrying anything with them. Their general health may not have been as good as in modern times, but the average level of physical fitness would exceed that found today. ---
**Author:** ![Rocketeer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rocketeer/32/4437_2.png) [@Rocketeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rocketeer)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-physically-fit-were-soldiers-in-the-past-compared-to-today/636802/10 "2012-10-05T14:29:31Z")
From what I’ve read about the Civil War, there’s no doubt in my mind that Civil War soldiers were tough sunsabitches. ---
**Author:** ![lazybratsche](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ba8739/32.png) [@lazybratsche](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lazybratsche)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-physically-fit-were-soldiers-in-the-past-compared-to-today/636802/11 "2012-10-05T14:34:44Z")
We should be careful about what we are comparing. It’s true that in the modern world we’re mostly soft, overweight, and not physically fit. But the modern military won’t take you if you’re seriously unfit, or they’ll whip you into shape. Comparing average dudes today to average dudes 150 years ago, the older guys would be more “physically fit” in terms of endurance or toughness, but they’ll be pretty sickly and scrawny. Modern average dudes will be healthier, heavier, but weaker. Comparing average army dudes today to average army dudes 150 years ago, the modern soldier will have much better nutrition and health (both in childhood and while they serve), better physical training, so you’ll have lots of 180-lb slabs of muscle. Not so much with your 140 lb scrawny farm boy during the Civil War. They’ll be tough in some sense, but my WAG is that they’d have less strength and endurance than a modern soldier. ---
**Author:** ![lazybratsche](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ba8739/32.png) [@lazybratsche](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lazybratsche)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-physically-fit-were-soldiers-in-the-past-compared-to-today/636802/12 "2012-10-05T14:46:52Z")
> [@Donnerwetter](#): > > It’s true that in the past mainly dirt poor people enlisted. But one has to assume that in general, once they had been inducted, the military took care to feed them (this is, of course, very generally speaking). The historical armies did their best to feed the soldiers, but they still had to rely on the few foods that could be stored. [In the civil war, that was mostly hard tack, corn meal, and some occasional salt pork](http://www.civilwaracademy.com/civil-war-food.html). Beans or any kind of fruit or vegetable was practically a luxury. Supply chains could only just barely supply enough to keep scurvy at bay in well-supplied units. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-physically-fit-were-soldiers-in-the-past-compared-to-today/636802/13 "2012-10-05T14:56:20Z")
Go to Mexico and take a look at the physical health of your average village person. Yes, they are tough and used to a lot of hard work. But they aren’t slabs of muscle either, working all day every day takes a lot out of you. But if your main qualification for being a solider is being able to hump a pack 20 miles a day in the heat and dust, and then stand in a line with a spear, then that’s enough ---
**Author:** ![Jim\_s\_Son](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19adc/32.png) [@Jim\_s\_Son](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jim_s_Son)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-physically-fit-were-soldiers-in-the-past-compared-to-today/636802/14 "2012-10-05T15:05:35Z")
My understanding is that from the time of Roman legions under Marius in 100 BC to today, the maximum weight a combat soldier can carry is about 70 pounds. Today’s soldiers are better fed and have better medical care but I think old soldiers had a wiry toughness superior to today. E B Sledge in his memoir of Marines in WW2 “With The Old Breed” talks about one Marine with 25 years service would use a wire brush to clean his testicles in his morning shower. ---
**Author:** ![Zsofia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/7bcc69/32.png) [@Zsofia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zsofia)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-physically-fit-were-soldiers-in-the-past-compared-to-today/636802/15 "2012-10-05T15:38:56Z")
> [@lazybratsche](#): > > Nutrition really was blatantly insufficient for most of the population. And childhood diseases were ubiquitous. The “healthy young men” were exceptions. > > This only indirectly answers your question, but the average soldier in the Civil War was [5’ 8" and weighed only 143 pounds](http://www.civilwarhome.com/themen.htm). I recall seeing similar vitals for WW2 draftees (but my google-fu is weak this morning…) Basically they were seriously scrawny dudes. After training, long marches, and lots of physical labor (i.e. digging trenches), they’d be strong in a wiry sort of way. But even then, malnutrition and disease has historically killed more soldiers than actual combat. Go back more than 50 years, and you won’t find many soldiers that look like modern body builders. That cracked me up in the recent _Captain America_ movie - I expect the average Depression-fed Army private looked a lot more like pre-Super Soldier Steve Rogers than otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-physically-fit-were-soldiers-in-the-past-compared-to-today/636802/16 "2012-10-05T15:45:23Z")
In World War 1, about [29%](http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/NeuropsychiatryinWWIIVolI/appendixa.htm) of U.S. draftees were judged unfit for service. In World War 2, with a more thorough and demanding exam, it was something like[35%](http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percent_of_military_draftees_were_rejected_in_wwii). However, the figure for Korea was [47%](http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1128993/index.htm). I can’t find a cite for the Vietnam era, but either military standards got a lot tougher during the first half of the 20th Century, or the average Joe was getting in worse and worse shape. ---
**Author:** ![gazpacho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6f9a4e/32.png) [@gazpacho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gazpacho)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-physically-fit-were-soldiers-in-the-past-compared-to-today/636802/17 "2012-10-05T15:45:52Z")
> [@lazybratsche](#): > > This only indirectly answers your question, but the average soldier in the Civil War was [5’ 8" and weighed only 143 pounds](http://www.civilwarhome.com/themen.htm). 5’8" and 143 is a BMI of 21.7 smack dab in the middle of normal. ---
**Author:** ![Shmendrik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee7513/32.png) [@Shmendrik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shmendrik)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-physically-fit-were-soldiers-in-the-past-compared-to-today/636802/18 "2012-10-05T15:54:59Z")
> [@gazpacho](#): > > 5’8" and 143 is a BMI of 21.7 smack dab in the middle of normal. The middle of normal for what? ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-physically-fit-were-soldiers-in-the-past-compared-to-today/636802/19 "2012-10-05T15:55:53Z")
A random sampling off the Internet. [Dental State of British Recruits](http://www.vlib.us/medical/dentrecruit.htm) > [@](#): > > Very many recruits appeared for voluntary enlistment at the beginning of the war who were being rejected on account of defective teeth, and who with suitable dental treatment would have been accepted for general service. At first there was a tendency to relax the dental standard, but instructions on this point had to be cancelled, owing to the bad state of teeth of men sent as drafts to units in the field. [Too Fat to Fight (pdf)](http://cdn.missionreadiness.org/MR_Too_Fat_to_Fight-1.pdf) > [@](#): > > During World War II, the military discovered that at least 40 percent of rejected recruits were turned away for reasons related to poor nutrition. Stunted growth from inadequate nutrition and poor health was so common that the young men who made it into the military during World War II were more than an inch and a half shorter, on average, than young American men today. And a good overall look in pdf format: [EVOLUTION OF MILITARY RECRUIT ACCESSION STANDARDS](http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&ved=0CGMQFjAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.175.3255%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=yAFvUL73OLGQ0QHor4BY&usg=AFQjCNHDb5qcUMvU8RMimHCY15UMty2qcw&sig2=PP5MIrICmUt-qmgxJlzigw) > [@](#): > > During the first 4 months of [WWI] mobilization, roughly one in three men were rejected on physical grounds, but the rejection rate dropped to one in four during the following months. As Too Fat to Fight indicates, the problem with today’s youth is obesity rather than malnutrition. Undoubtedly a first in all history. ---
**Author:** ![gazpacho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6f9a4e/32.png) [@gazpacho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gazpacho)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-physically-fit-were-soldiers-in-the-past-compared-to-today/636802/20 "2012-10-05T15:58:51Z")
> [@Shmendrik](#): > > The middle of normal for what? For the size and weight of people. Seriously 5’8" is not scrawny 143 pounds is not scrawny. It is just not overweight. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-physically-fit-were-soldiers-in-the-past-compared-to-today/636802.md?page=2)