The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
The (Physical) Strength of Nations
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

bronze-age-museum

Here is how the cliodynamician Peter Turchin, in his book War and Peace and War (which I reviewed here), describes the outcomes of different pit-fight scenarios between the Romans and the Gauls:

Romans held no physical or technological advantage over the peoples they conquered. An average Roman was smaller and weaker than an average Gaul. In a one-to-one duel, an average Roman would most likely lose to an average Gaul. On the other hand, a hundred Romans could hold even against a hundred of Gauls, and ten thousand Romans would easily defeat a Gallic army many times their number.

Upon inquiry, it emerged that this assessment wasn’t backed up by statistical evidence:

Even so, the stereotype that Northerners are stronger than Southerners seems to be widespread in both fiction and more serious works:

Harry Turtledove - Give Me Back My Legions!:

Arminius smiled. “Well, maybe we would have.” He didn’t feel like arguing. But he also didn’t believe Chlodevegius. One German had an excellent chance against one Roman. Ten Romans had the edge on ten Germans. A hundred Romans would massacre a hundred Germans.

Stephen Williams – Diocletian and the Roman Recovery:

With the primitive, wandering farmer-warrior ethos in which each tribe was ready to expand into the space of its nearest neighbour, the Germans could recover quickly from all but the most punitive defeats. Man for man they were physically stronger than the Romans and certainly as brave: Their fierce fighting qualities had long compelled admiration: Tacitus, prophetically, saw in their warlike freedom a new reservoir of enormous energies which could have profound consequences for the Roman future.

But is it actually true?

This post is a quick survey of physical strength differences from an HBD perspective.

Race Differences in Physical Strength

1. Araujo, Andre et al. – 2010 – Lean mass, muscle strength, and physical function in a diverse population of men

strength-blacks-whites

Black diamonds – Blacks; Black triangles – Whites; Gray squares – Hispanics

Physical strength of Whites and US Blacks are really similar.

2. Dodds, Richard et al. – 2016 – Global variation in grip strength, A systematic meta-analysis

strength-grip-national

There are obvious “Flynn” effects with respect to strength as well as IQ – the developed countries are a lot stronger than Africa (which was represented by Nigeria), which suggests that possible Flynn gains to strength are on the order of 1-1.5 S.D.

3. Leong, Darryl et al. – 2015 – Prognostic value of grip strength

physical-strength-countries

physical-strength-regions

This is more interesting, and really quite striking. It would appear that the weakest men (South Asians) do not have a stronger hand grip than the strongest women (Europeans).

PS. So much for the Pakistani martial race theory…

Though seldom used in today’s context, it has been alleged that Pakistan Military believed in the concept of martial races, and thought that they would easily defeat India in a war, especially prior to the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. Based on this belief in martial supremacy, it was popularly said that one Pakistani soldier was equal to four to ten Hindus or Indian soldiers, and thus numerical superiority of the foe could be overcome… Defence writers in Pakistan have noted that the 1971 defeat was partially attributable to the flawed ‘martial races’ theory which led to wishful thinking that it was possible to defeat the Indian Army based on the theory alone.

4. Andersen Ranberg, Karen et al. – 2009 – Cross National Differences in Grip Strength among 50yo Europeans

strength-hand-grip-european-males

strength-hand-grip-european-females

Moreover, the Germanics really are significantly stronger than the Mediterraneans. The average Germanic seems to be around 15 years “younger” than the average Italian or Spaniard in terms of hand grip strength. These are remarkably big differences, around 1 S.D.’s worth. Average German, Swede, or Pole might have a 15 SQ (strength quotient) advantage over the average South European.

OTOH, the Italians and Spaniards also happen to be the two longest-lived European nations. (This is something of a pattern, too).

5. Mathieson, Iain et al. – 2015 – 8000 years of natural selection for height in Europe (see Razib Khan’s blog post)

europe-height-selection

Note that Central Europe Neolithic to Bronze Age and especially the Steppe strongly selected for height.

Even today, based on personal experience, you will observe many taller, burlier men in Germanic and Slavic Europe than you would in the Mediterranean.

Sex Differences in Physical Strength

For context, there is a ~2.5 S.D. difference in male and female grip strength.

1. Leyk, D. et al. – 2007 – Hand-grip strength of young men, women and highly trained female athletes (see Razib Khan’s blog post)

strength-male-female

2. There is also this famous graph which was making the rounds on Reddit a year ago.

male-female-grip-strength

Women have around 60% of the hand grip strength of men. Huge difference… but remarkably, seems to be about equal to the difference between developed Anglo-German/Slavic Europe and the Indian subcontinent!

PS. Why do so many of these studies focus on grip strength? Because it is easy to measure, changes the least as people age (hand grip is the last to go), and is exercised more or less universally.

The Strength of Nations

My best guess is that in terms of S.D.’s it goes something like this in terms of hand grip strength (Flynn! denotes members of those ethnicities that dwell in First World environments).

  • +1 Icelanders
  • +0.5 Steppe!East Asians (i.e.Mongols)
  • 0 Balto-Slavic-Germanics, Flynn!WestAfricans
  • -.5 East Asians
  • -1 Mediterraneans, Flynn!Indians, WestAfricans
  • -2 Indians

Explanations of Icelanders, Mongols, and Indians follow below.

Prominent Outliers

Two nations in particular seem to be superlative in terms of physical strength relative to their racial groups:

björnsson-clegane

Hafþór Björnsson (better known as The Mountain): World’s strongest man ever?

1. Icelanders, with a mere 300,000 people, dominate the world strongman competitions. They have won 9 Gold medals, more than any other country other than the US, which has won 11 (and has ONE THOUSAND times its population).

In January 2015, at the World’s Strongest Viking competition held in Norway, Hafþór carried a 10-metre-long (33 ft), 650-kilogram (1,430 lb) log for five steps, thus breaking a 1,000-year-old record set by Orm Storolfsson.

Unfortunately, Orm Storolfsson broke his back performing this feat. Still, considering that the Icelandic population one millennium ago was ten times lower at 30,000, and they had yet to be supercharged by bodily Flynn Effect, perhaps the human race was at its genomic peak of physical strength in Iceland 1,000 years ago.

Agriculture is more of an aerobic activity, so explosive physical strength may have been selected against ever since.

Icelandic women have also won four years of the past decade’s worth the Crossfit Games.

2. The Mongols, with just three million people, dominate sumo wrestling in Japan. (In fairness, the Japanese seem to be physically smaller than other East Asians, so they are probably weaker than Koreans and northern Chinese).

There is also the historical record of their military achievements.

Although these factors were mainly logistical and political, one consideration that is often neglected is that the ketogenic, steppe-forged Mongols may have also been physically stronger and more vital than their grain-eating bugman foes.

Jack Weatherford – Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World:

The Chinese noted with surprise and disgust the ability of the Mongol warriors to survive on little food and water for long periods; according to one, the entire army could camp without a single puff of smoke since they needed no fires to cook. Compared to the Jurched soldiers, the Mongols were much healthier and stronger. The Mongols consumed a steady diet of meat, milk, yogurt, and other dairy products, and they fought men who lived on gruel made from various grains. The grain diet of the peasant warriors stunted their bones, rotted their teeth, and left them weak and prone to disease. In contrast, the poorest Mongol soldier ate mostly protein, thereby giving him strong teeth and bones. Unlike the Jurched soldiers, who were dependent on a heavy carbohydrate diet, the Mongols could more easily go a day or two without food.

3. Conversely, the Indians really might be the physically weakest race:

Only 5 medals. Record-setting (3 in Beijing, 0-2 in all previous Olympics) but that’s still atrocious for a country of 1.2 billion people – even a poor and malnourished one. Michael Phelps alone has won almost as many Gold medals as India has done as a nation for as long as the Olympics existed.

But the reasons for this become clearer when you consider that the average Swedish or Polish woman is probably about as strong as the average Indian male. And the average Icelandic woman might even be outright stronger…

The Indians also accumulate the most body fat for every unit of BMI.

Of course malnutrition is still a factor. Once that is solved and India gets its bodily Flynn effect, the average Indian male will surpass the Swedish and probably the Icelandic woman. And given the much higher S.D. of men, the stronger Indian men will of course be much stronger than the European women.

 
Hide 456 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. you ever see The Mountain before he started juicing? Total beanpole.

    Some races may also respond better to steroids.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    ...didn't even have broad shoulders.

    https://sportshub.cbsistatic.com/i/r/2016/06/10/8aa84a67-6376-4f1c-b97e-7b641890db0b/thumbnail/770x433/f9bdafd692c9f390dcd2dea60f0d7ed9/bronsson061016.jpg

    BTW, I think the quote about Romans and Gauls was originally Napoleon's concerning the "Marmalukes."

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Yevardian says:

    You are missing the point. The Romans of which Caesar’s legions originated from following the Marian reforms usually came from the lower-classes of densely populated villages and towns and as such often grew up with unsanitary conditions, urban diseases, less meat in the diet and so on.
    Writers of the period unanimously agree that the Celts and Germans were taller and more handsome to look upon than the average Roman. Physical height = an obvious advantage in war.

    Your methodology here is unsound. Contemporary data taken from nation averages has little relevance for other peoples inhabiting the same area over 2000 years past.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yevardian
    Sorry, that came across as unnecessarily aggressive, I thought it was arguing the opposite at first. Interesting data, but one has to be cautious about applying to the distant past. Thracians were commonly noted to have red hair for instance, can anyone say that of Bulgarians today?

    I am surprised that Africans came through so poorly. India unsurprising.

    , @Dmitry

    Physical height = an obvious advantage in war.

    Your methodology here is unsound. Contemporary data taken from nation averages has little relevance for other peoples inhabiting the same area over 2000 years past.
     
    Why? In Ancient warfare, isn't it knowledge of all military historians that group organization, coolness and organization of supplies are the secret to victory (and at a higher level organization of tactics).

    Nobody is analyzing e.g. outcome of the Battle of Kannakh, because Carthage people (to reductio ad absurdum) were taller (or shorter) than Romans.
    , @Sergey Krieger
    Caesar regularly described heroic feats by his centurions like Scevae, Vorenus, Pulo, Crastinus, Baculus and so forth. Those were people of higher standing probably brought up on better nutrition and they handled Gauls and Germans handsomely.
    , @Herr Abubu
    Culture should of course be taken into account here. Never been particularly interested in basketball, but the greatest basketball nations outside of America seems to be countries like Serbia, Spain and Turkey. Serbs are a tall bunch, Spaniards and Turks aren't. They have the proper sports culture and tradition, though. Another tall population, the Dutch, are nothing special in basketball, whereas they have a very long tradition in football, where height is often a disadvantage. Brazilians are nowhere near as dominant in football as they were. Did their footballing genes change?

    As for strength, I live in Scandinavia, but am of Balkan background. Northern Europeans put a lot more emphasis on athletics than other Europeans. There's strong emphasis on sports culture here. And Icelanders from what I know are really obsessive about athletics, which is why they have such success in a lot of different sports. My generation of millennials are really upping the ante by using steroids. I've known kids who've used steroids since they were 15, some of them are professional athletes today.

    Really, though, the real strong guys come from Eastern Europe. It's easy to tell the different bone structure and musculature between native Scandinavians and Eastern European immigrants (from South and Center/North). Former generally are ectomorphic, latter generally mesomorphic. Important difference is the former keep themselves active for as long as they can while the latter prefer the Al Bundy lifestyle.

    Now, what about war? Obviously it's about a lot more than size. How do Northern Europeans compare to Chechens in terms of size and strength? The latter aren't small, but not famed for their size either, but fame deceives. I do know, though, that Soviet anthropology classified the "Caucaso-Balkan" race as the most masculine and muscular. No matter, I'm confident to say that putting Scandinavians up against Chechens would be like putting up boys against men.

    To make my point using another example, Afghanis aren't particularly big, and they are dirt poor and emaciated, but it hasn't set them back against any of the empires who've tried to conquer them ever since their conquest by Mongolo-Turkic tribes.

    Speaking of Roman wars against the Germans, they "struggled" with them for the same reason they struggled with the Persians, who are strangely never mentioned in this context although they were the real problem of the Romans, not the Germans. Germany was all forest and swamps, so it was a difficult terrain for a professional army. Arminius was trusted as a Roman lieutenant, and so was used as the guide into German territory, but used the Roman army's trust to trap them. Even the weather was against them: the Romans couldn't use their bows because of the heavy downpour.

    Teutoburg is a historical event heavily mythologized by the German national romantics—the German Thermopylae that never was. That's why it's so heavily acknowledged so much at the expense of Germanicus' successful invasion of Germany, which included the defeat of Arminius. Or the many other times the Romans obliterated German armies, such as the Battle of the Aquae Sextiae, lead by Gaius Marcus, the man who paved the way for Julius Caesar, where the Romans faced an army three times their size, yet lost only a thousand or so men to the 110k lost by the Germans.

    The Romans later returned with vengeance in their mind. This time, even though they were ambushed by the Germans again, they soundly defeated them. The Germans had no chance—were it not for Tiberius' paranoid and niggardly nature, in addition to his jealousy towards Germanicus, the Romans would have kept on subduing the Germans. The Romans would have settled for most of Germany instead of just the Rhineland.

    They had similar issues when it came to the Persians, so they used Armenia as a buffer zone. The Romans learned the lesson that the Americans won't: some territories, no matter the wealth and prestige of their conquest, are just not conquerable or worth conquering, not for reasons of mere strength, but because of the impossibility of administrating territories when there are issues like a large and difficult terrain, lack of urban development and a nomadic existence. Halfred Mackinder discusses this issue in his Geographical Pivot of History, which is an aspect of his work the Eurasianists don't seem to mention a lot.

    One last thing about the Romans, their infantry tactics revolved around outlasting the enemy. The extreme resilience of the Romans and their logistical and engineering genius was what made them conquer most things worth conquering as well as create the blueprint for European civilization.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Yevardian says:
    @Yevardian
    You are missing the point. The Romans of which Caesar's legions originated from following the Marian reforms usually came from the lower-classes of densely populated villages and towns and as such often grew up with unsanitary conditions, urban diseases, less meat in the diet and so on.
    Writers of the period unanimously agree that the Celts and Germans were taller and more handsome to look upon than the average Roman. Physical height = an obvious advantage in war.

    Your methodology here is unsound. Contemporary data taken from nation averages has little relevance for other peoples inhabiting the same area over 2000 years past.

    Sorry, that came across as unnecessarily aggressive, I thought it was arguing the opposite at first. Interesting data, but one has to be cautious about applying to the distant past. Thracians were commonly noted to have red hair for instance, can anyone say that of Bulgarians today?

    I am surprised that Africans came through so poorly. India unsurprising.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. But the reasons for this become clearer when you consider that the average Swedish or Polish woman is probably about as strong as the average Indian male

    Hmm, good, at least that reduces the threat from Indian rapists somewhat. They might just come in groups though.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Duke of Qin
    Might is an understatement. I think almost all reported cases of rape against Western tourists in India involve multiple assailants.
    , @Jake
    Moslem Indians do rape in packs quite often, just like other Moslems around women and boys who are not Moslem.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. @German_reader

    But the reasons for this become clearer when you consider that the average Swedish or Polish woman is probably about as strong as the average Indian male
     
    Hmm, good, at least that reduces the threat from Indian rapists somewhat. They might just come in groups though.

    Might is an understatement. I think almost all reported cases of rape against Western tourists in India involve multiple assailants.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    A particularly noxious recent case involved the rape and mutilation of a Latvian woman (Balts produce lots of strong men) in southern India (generally smaller and more timid than northern Indians) by a gang
    https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/030518/latvian-tourist-on-kerala-visit-drugged-raped-before-murder-2-arrested.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Dmitry says:

    Does ‘grip strength’ (which measures just a function of the hand) have a strong relation to actual individual strength in other areas (in terms of weight lifting or other strength talent)?

    Isn’t it possible that the genetic or environmental basis for hand strength will be different to those of a different muscle group (for example, differences in shoulder strength or thigh strength could have a different genetic and environmental basis, and be stronger in different nationalities than others)

    Also aren’t grip muscles one of the attributes most susceptible to environment factors (the reason weight-lifting as a training, exists).

    -

    2

    Is there a strong relation between weight lifting talent and individual fighting without weapons.

    E.g. Andrey Drachev, World Weightlifting Champion is easily killed when he was tricked into a street fight with a small but more skilled Muslim guy in Khabarovsk last year.*

    -

    3.

    Romans, even if individually, would be fighting with weapons.

    So the direct relation to grip strength would only be in relation to their grip of the sword.

    (Other things like aggression, speed, mental attributes and skill would be more relevant to combat with a weapon, than without a weapon).

    Isn’t the distinction with Roman from Northern people they genocided, that they were not individual fighters, but organized and group fighters.

    If Romans would lose in one-to-one, it is not because physical weakness (probably they were often better fed and stronger than the enemy, as they had more organized supplies), but because Romans had no individual fighting skill or experience.

    -

    *

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    Does ‘grip strength’ (which measures just a function of the hand) have a strong relation to actual individual strength in other areas (in terms of weight lifting or other strength talent)?
     
    I would imagine almost certainly so, but yes, it would be good to check.

    Is grip strength a predictor for total muscle strength in healthy children, adolescents, and young adults?

    Grip strength was strongly correlated with total muscle strength, with correlation coefficients between 0.736 and 0.890 (p < 0.01). However, the correlation was weaker when controlled for weight (0.485-0.564, p < 0.01). Grip strength is related to total muscle strength. This indicates, in the clinical setting, that grip strength can be used as a tool to have a rapid indication of someone's general muscle strength.
     
    ***

    Is there a strong relation between weight lifting talent and individual fighting without weapons.
     
    It seems very intuitive that more strength would very much translate into better fighting capability (with or without weapons), all else equal.

    Isn’t the distinction with Roman from Northern people they genocided, that they were not individual fighters, but organized and group fighters.
     
    Yes, they were very well drilled, hence why large groups of them dominated (a few exceptions regardless). I very much doubt they were stronger than their enemies.
    , @Greasy William
    that video is disgusting. Little man's syndrome run amok.

    Had the big guy been properly trained he'd have broken that smurf in half.

    Hitting the guy when he's already unconscious on the ground was vile. Fuck that guy.
    , @Father O'Hara
    Nice neighborhood.
    , @jimmyriddle
    The Romans kept their discipline in battle when things got tough. That's what made them superior (at least that's what I conclude from Caesar, Tacitus and Suetonius).

    It's a bit like African football teams - they can be physically imposing (although I notice that the Nigerians seem to be smaller than in the 90s). And when the game is going well they can play good football. But when they fall behind, they lose their shape. They chase the game and make bad mistakes.

    A good European, or South American, side will grind them down.
    , @RaceRealist88
    "Does ‘grip strength’ (which measures just a function of the hand) have a strong relation to actual individual strength in other areas (in terms of weight lifting or other strength talent)?"

    Of course. The deadlift.
    , @DNC
    In reply to your first paragraph, I think ( and the paper that Anatoly linked does seem to back me up ) that the grip strength/body strength relationship becomes much more scattered among those who are stronger than average. Overhand and alternating grips are the norm on heavy deadlifts as a way to bypass the limitations of forearm strength
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. neutral says:

    perhaps the human race was at its genomic peak of physical strength in Iceland 1,000 years ago.

    I am going with the safer assumption that such a feat of carrying that log did not occur 1000 years ago.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Yes, or that, LOL.
    , @SteveRogers42
    The Old Ones performed many feats of strength, mostly as an outgrowth of their daily lives of physical labor. Check out these two dainty flowers from the 19th Century:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Cyr#Reputation_as_a_strongman

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_MacAskill#Adult_career
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. @Dmitry
    Does 'grip strength' (which measures just a function of the hand) have a strong relation to actual individual strength in other areas (in terms of weight lifting or other strength talent)?

    Isn't it possible that the genetic or environmental basis for hand strength will be different to those of a different muscle group (for example, differences in shoulder strength or thigh strength could have a different genetic and environmental basis, and be stronger in different nationalities than others)

    Also aren't grip muscles one of the attributes most susceptible to environment factors (the reason weight-lifting as a training, exists).


    -

    2

    Is there a strong relation between weight lifting talent and individual fighting without weapons.

    E.g. Andrey Drachev, World Weightlifting Champion is easily killed when he was tricked into a street fight with a small but more skilled Muslim guy in Khabarovsk last year.*


    -

    3.

    Romans, even if individually, would be fighting with weapons.

    So the direct relation to grip strength would only be in relation to their grip of the sword.

    (Other things like aggression, speed, mental attributes and skill would be more relevant to combat with a weapon, than without a weapon).

    Isn't the distinction with Roman from Northern people they genocided, that they were not individual fighters, but organized and group fighters.

    If Romans would lose in one-to-one, it is not because physical weakness (probably they were often better fed and stronger than the enemy, as they had more organized supplies), but because Romans had no individual fighting skill or experience.


    -

    *
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpRpeHwANkQ

    Does ‘grip strength’ (which measures just a function of the hand) have a strong relation to actual individual strength in other areas (in terms of weight lifting or other strength talent)?

    I would imagine almost certainly so, but yes, it would be good to check.

    Is grip strength a predictor for total muscle strength in healthy children, adolescents, and young adults?

    Grip strength was strongly correlated with total muscle strength, with correlation coefficients between 0.736 and 0.890 (p < 0.01). However, the correlation was weaker when controlled for weight (0.485-0.564, p < 0.01). Grip strength is related to total muscle strength. This indicates, in the clinical setting, that grip strength can be used as a tool to have a rapid indication of someone's general muscle strength.

    ***

    Is there a strong relation between weight lifting talent and individual fighting without weapons.

    It seems very intuitive that more strength would very much translate into better fighting capability (with or without weapons), all else equal.

    Isn’t the distinction with Roman from Northern people they genocided, that they were not individual fighters, but organized and group fighters.

    Yes, they were very well drilled, hence why large groups of them dominated (a few exceptions regardless). I very much doubt they were stronger than their enemies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    It seems very intuitive that more strength would very much translate into better fighting capability (with or without weapons), all else equal.

     

    But as a parallel symptom of another underlying variable.

    For example, if we say health of the organism is an underlying variable. A healthy person might have higher cardiovascular stamina, be more aggressive, and be faster and have more explosive strength, and incidentally better at weight-lifting.

    But the weight-lifting strength would be the most irrelevant factor of those listed in e.g. a boxing fight.

    Weight-lifting strength would also be a useful symptom of boxing strength (if you were using it to select winners), as it will also correlate with things like physical weight (i.e. more direct determinants of the winner in the boxing fight).

    -
    As for group differences which are likely genetic, and distinguish people in the highest percentage - it can change dramatically on the particular activity.

    It seems intuitive that black people are - as a group - better at running (the joke that they are running from lions). But in fact group advantage in long-distance running has a different basis from group advantage in short-distance running.

    So Ethiopian populations will have a group advantage, other things equal, in 10,000 metre run, but a group disadvantage, other things equal, in 100 metre runs.

    Similarly, group advantages in weight lifting, could easily have a different basis from group advantages in e.g. punching strength and speed (that would be relevant in boxing fights).
    , @c matt

    It seems very intuitive that more strength would very much translate into better fighting capability (with or without weapons), all else equal.
     
    Like anything, there is a trade-off: more strength usually means diminishing quickness. In the video above, the smaller guy seemed quicker, so he was able to land the roundhouse. There is a reason defensive lineman are not usually quite as big as their offensive counter-parts; they need the extra quickness to get around them (and chase down QBs and running backs). Even if the strong men competitors can outlift football players, they may not be able to outfight them. Because of this strength/quickness trade off, you will not got an "all else being equal." At some point, there is the optimal balance.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. @neutral

    perhaps the human race was at its genomic peak of physical strength in Iceland 1,000 years ago.
     
    I am going with the safer assumption that such a feat of carrying that log did not occur 1000 years ago.

    Yes, or that, LOL.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Dmitry says:
    @Yevardian
    You are missing the point. The Romans of which Caesar's legions originated from following the Marian reforms usually came from the lower-classes of densely populated villages and towns and as such often grew up with unsanitary conditions, urban diseases, less meat in the diet and so on.
    Writers of the period unanimously agree that the Celts and Germans were taller and more handsome to look upon than the average Roman. Physical height = an obvious advantage in war.

    Your methodology here is unsound. Contemporary data taken from nation averages has little relevance for other peoples inhabiting the same area over 2000 years past.

    Physical height = an obvious advantage in war.

    Your methodology here is unsound. Contemporary data taken from nation averages has little relevance for other peoples inhabiting the same area over 2000 years past.

    Why? In Ancient warfare, isn’t it knowledge of all military historians that group organization, coolness and organization of supplies are the secret to victory (and at a higher level organization of tactics).

    Nobody is analyzing e.g. outcome of the Battle of Kannakh, because Carthage people (to reductio ad absurdum) were taller (or shorter) than Romans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Quality of soldiers still matters a great deal at times, something which the Prussians knew and was able to use to their advantage historically. And as suggested by the Mongol rampage, it can be of even world-changing significance at times.
    , @myself

    Why? In Ancient warfare, isn’t it knowledge of all military historians that group organization, coolness and organization of supplies are the secret to victory (and at a higher level organization of tactics).
     
    Though just an interested layman (as in, I read this stuff, that's all), the above is the overwhelming consensus of the professional experts (the actual soldiers and warriors) throughout human history.

    And not just in Ancient warfare, in conflict situations from the prehistoric (think tribal warfare in ancient Eurasia, fought with stone-tipped spears, clubs and simple bows) to the present day. Okay, maybe not really the supplies part for the prehistoric, but group coordination, keeping your wits, and directed, instead of wild, aggression always apply.

    Do stronger, faster, tougher (able to take more pain, function on less supply etc) soldiers, all things equal, ever hurt a military force? No, of course not, and no one has ever said that, far as I know.

    It's just that, provided you are not pitting "actual hobbits versus Uruk Hai" (okay, geeky reference, my apologies), sheer physical factors (brute strength, height, speed, endurance) have historically taken a far backseat to morale, organization, leadership, tactics and other "less quantifiable factors" in group fighting.

    I saw a documentary once, in which a Marine sergeant instructor was being interviewed. He said, in his estimation, that at least 95% of fully grown men, on the entire planet (this guy had in the past trained third-world conscripts), were able to be molded to be deployable infantrymen.

    "You give the Corps anyone, any skinny third-world kid, who's not clinically retarded. I literally don't care about his background. We take him and put him through the system. I can practically guarantee you a usable Marine private after we're done with him. That kid WILL make the cut - and it's my job to make it so". This is from memory - words to that effect.

    That was an eye-opening interview.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. @Dmitry

    Physical height = an obvious advantage in war.

    Your methodology here is unsound. Contemporary data taken from nation averages has little relevance for other peoples inhabiting the same area over 2000 years past.
     
    Why? In Ancient warfare, isn't it knowledge of all military historians that group organization, coolness and organization of supplies are the secret to victory (and at a higher level organization of tactics).

    Nobody is analyzing e.g. outcome of the Battle of Kannakh, because Carthage people (to reductio ad absurdum) were taller (or shorter) than Romans.

    Quality of soldiers still matters a great deal at times, something which the Prussians knew and was able to use to their advantage historically. And as suggested by the Mongol rampage, it can be of even world-changing significance at times.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    Quality of soldiers still matters a great deal at times, something which the Prussians knew and was able to use to their advantage historically. And as suggested by the Mongol rampage, it can be of even world-changing significance at times.

     

    Yes but quality of soldiers in the modern period is determined on things like their mental attributes, combat experience, tolerance of discomfort and cardiovascular stamina.

    Before the invention of fire-arms, there would be more physical determinants involved, although these are not always very clear (or related to weight-lifting). E.g. Greek phalanx requires pushing abilities. Medieval knights have to be good at beating people until their skulls are broken under metal helmets (perhaps while riding a horse), and the weight of the armor and weaponry matches more directly to weight-lifting. But in Roman warfare, the weight of the armor and weaponry is far less.

    , @Erik Sieven
    I always thought the Mongolian advantage was their mastery of horse-riding and superior logictic.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Dmitry says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Does ‘grip strength’ (which measures just a function of the hand) have a strong relation to actual individual strength in other areas (in terms of weight lifting or other strength talent)?
     
    I would imagine almost certainly so, but yes, it would be good to check.

    Is grip strength a predictor for total muscle strength in healthy children, adolescents, and young adults?

    Grip strength was strongly correlated with total muscle strength, with correlation coefficients between 0.736 and 0.890 (p < 0.01). However, the correlation was weaker when controlled for weight (0.485-0.564, p < 0.01). Grip strength is related to total muscle strength. This indicates, in the clinical setting, that grip strength can be used as a tool to have a rapid indication of someone's general muscle strength.
     
    ***

    Is there a strong relation between weight lifting talent and individual fighting without weapons.
     
    It seems very intuitive that more strength would very much translate into better fighting capability (with or without weapons), all else equal.

    Isn’t the distinction with Roman from Northern people they genocided, that they were not individual fighters, but organized and group fighters.
     
    Yes, they were very well drilled, hence why large groups of them dominated (a few exceptions regardless). I very much doubt they were stronger than their enemies.

    It seems very intuitive that more strength would very much translate into better fighting capability (with or without weapons), all else equal.

    But as a parallel symptom of another underlying variable.

    For example, if we say health of the organism is an underlying variable. A healthy person might have higher cardiovascular stamina, be more aggressive, and be faster and have more explosive strength, and incidentally better at weight-lifting.

    But the weight-lifting strength would be the most irrelevant factor of those listed in e.g. a boxing fight.

    Weight-lifting strength would also be a useful symptom of boxing strength (if you were using it to select winners), as it will also correlate with things like physical weight (i.e. more direct determinants of the winner in the boxing fight).

    -
    As for group differences which are likely genetic, and distinguish people in the highest percentage – it can change dramatically on the particular activity.

    It seems intuitive that black people are – as a group – better at running (the joke that they are running from lions). But in fact group advantage in long-distance running has a different basis from group advantage in short-distance running.

    So Ethiopian populations will have a group advantage, other things equal, in 10,000 metre run, but a group disadvantage, other things equal, in 100 metre runs.

    Similarly, group advantages in weight lifting, could easily have a different basis from group advantages in e.g. punching strength and speed (that would be relevant in boxing fights).

    Read More
    • Replies: @SteveRogers42
    An unusually large, strong man could wield heavier weapons and wear heavier armor than a smaller man. If he trained in combat from childhood, he would maximize his coordination and agility, as well as his strength potential. In an era of armored hand-to-hand combat, an athletic giant (think Shaq, rather than Andre the Giant) would be an incredible force multiplier.
    , @reiner Tor

    But the weight-lifting strength would be the most irrelevant factor of those listed in e.g. a boxing fight.
     
    Maybe, but there's probably a reason why there are weight groups in boxing. While they never become professional powerlifters, they do a considerable amount of weight training themselves.

    Also boxing is a highly unnatural way of fighting. Wrestlers will defeat boxers any workday and on the weekends and holidays, too. And with wrestling, strength matters probably more than with boxing. (Of course, being strong is never enough, but all else being equal, strength means a lot.)

    In ancient times stamina, a strong immune system, the ability to withstand cold, the ability to go hungry for days on end, etc. might all have been important, but a lot of these (like the part about cold or hunger) could've been overcome by better organization. A more developed civilization could provide its soldiers with better weapons or armor and shield, which was also very important in a fight.

    So on balance, the individual size and strength and other physical qualities of soldiers were often insignificant, but I'd be surprised if it never played any role at all. We know for sure that many campaigns of Genghis or Timur needed the ketogenic diets of their soldiers, so at least there are some examples.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Marcus says:
    @Duke of Qin
    Might is an understatement. I think almost all reported cases of rape against Western tourists in India involve multiple assailants.

    A particularly noxious recent case involved the rape and mutilation of a Latvian woman (Balts produce lots of strong men) in southern India (generally smaller and more timid than northern Indians) by a gang

    https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/030518/latvian-tourist-on-kerala-visit-drugged-raped-before-murder-2-arrested.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Marcus says:

    “Martial races” theory may have been flawed, but I think it had a reasonable basis: the northwestern subcontinentals tend to be bigger and probably consume more meat. Ofc size isn’t everything in war, hence the Marathas were the dominant power in India before the British.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SteveRogers42
    Didn't the Brits themselves come up with the "martial races" theory, favoring the Sikhs and Punjabis over the darker Southern crew?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Hindoo says:

    My beloved SLC24A5-drenched Caucasoid cousins from sub-Arctic climates,

    I love you.

    You are the light in our lives. I can’t imagine live on Earth or the International Space Station without you.

    Among other things:

    1. You provide us with lovable politicians like Justin Trudeau, Emmanuel Macron, Jeb Bush etc…
    2. You provide us with lovely ladies who star in amateur cuckold/hotwife porn with Big Black Cocks
    3. You provide us with lots of socio-politico-economic opportunities, not only in our own country, but also in yours
    4. You provide us with invaluable military/industrial technology
    5. You provide soldiers to fight in our wars

    I can’t thank you enough. Mooooahh Mooooahh Mooooahh

    You are AWESOME!!! Did you know that?

    I am a total White Survivalist. I desire the survival of the White race so that we may continue have such White porn babes such as Avy Scott, Angela White, Harmoni Kalifornia etc…

    For your encouragement, here is a website called The Cuckold Consultant [AK: Link removed] that helps, and provides guidance and counseling for husbands (read: White husbands) on how to turn their wives (read: White wives) in to sluts for other mens’ (read: Big Black Cocks’) man-tool.

    Please keep’em rolling, in Jesus’ name!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    There's something wrong with you.
    , @Hindoo
    With all due respect, Mr. Karlin,

    That was a non-NSFW site.

    I rest my idolatrous polytheistic case.
    , @SteveRogers42
    Gosh! Thanks for the good words! You're a pal!
    , @Hyperborean
    Maybe you should first make sure Hindu women aren't being entranced by nasheeds from love jihad minded Saracens before you advice other people.
    , @Pumblechook
    Lol these Indians, a most strange people
    , @seeing-thru
    You have a twisted and perverted mind, lusting for sex with women of other races. What is wrong with your own women? And why do you perpetually need to see porn - not up to the real thing? What you guys should be doing is working out in gyms to solve some of the physical weakness problems that you have. Perhaps, one day, your large country may even manage to earn a few gold medals in international sports. Are you not ashamed for your country of a billion that is unable to win even a single gold medal in international sports?

    Your whole goddamned country needs its ass kicked to rouse it out of its ancient slumber and to shake off all the filth and grime that it has accumulated from lack of physical, mental, ethical hygiene and lack of common sense.

    Now go away, start doing some push-ups, and try to turn into a real man from a gutter rat. Who knows, maybe your brain functioning might normalize as well from the improved circulation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Dmitry says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    Quality of soldiers still matters a great deal at times, something which the Prussians knew and was able to use to their advantage historically. And as suggested by the Mongol rampage, it can be of even world-changing significance at times.

    Quality of soldiers still matters a great deal at times, something which the Prussians knew and was able to use to their advantage historically. And as suggested by the Mongol rampage, it can be of even world-changing significance at times.

    Yes but quality of soldiers in the modern period is determined on things like their mental attributes, combat experience, tolerance of discomfort and cardiovascular stamina.

    Before the invention of fire-arms, there would be more physical determinants involved, although these are not always very clear (or related to weight-lifting). E.g. Greek phalanx requires pushing abilities. Medieval knights have to be good at beating people until their skulls are broken under metal helmets (perhaps while riding a horse), and the weight of the armor and weaponry matches more directly to weight-lifting. But in Roman warfare, the weight of the armor and weaponry is far less.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    Yes but quality of soldiers in the modern period is determined on things like their mental attributes, combat experience, tolerance of discomfort and cardiovascular stamina.

     

    Limiting the "modern" in this case to the blackpowder era, wouldn't stamina be pretty heavily coordinated to many markers of what we consider as strength? The guns aren't paperweights. The pack would be heavy. Each and every action is probably made easier with physical strength to assist it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @Dmitry

    Quality of soldiers still matters a great deal at times, something which the Prussians knew and was able to use to their advantage historically. And as suggested by the Mongol rampage, it can be of even world-changing significance at times.

     

    Yes but quality of soldiers in the modern period is determined on things like their mental attributes, combat experience, tolerance of discomfort and cardiovascular stamina.

    Before the invention of fire-arms, there would be more physical determinants involved, although these are not always very clear (or related to weight-lifting). E.g. Greek phalanx requires pushing abilities. Medieval knights have to be good at beating people until their skulls are broken under metal helmets (perhaps while riding a horse), and the weight of the armor and weaponry matches more directly to weight-lifting. But in Roman warfare, the weight of the armor and weaponry is far less.

    Yes but quality of soldiers in the modern period is determined on things like their mental attributes, combat experience, tolerance of discomfort and cardiovascular stamina.

    Limiting the “modern” in this case to the blackpowder era, wouldn’t stamina be pretty heavily coordinated to many markers of what we consider as strength? The guns aren’t paperweights. The pack would be heavy. Each and every action is probably made easier with physical strength to assist it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    To the extent that could carry the rifle of the era (perhaps needing at least average strength), and then stamina is required and tolerance of discomfort.

    Additional weight-lifting ability beyond carrying the rifle, supplies and ammunition, would be irrelevant surely? And cardiovascular stamina is then be more important.

    In modern armies - beyond reaching stamina and physical health requirements - the mental qualities of organization, bravery, skill, initiative are more determinants of the quality of the soldiers.

    -

    In contemporary special forces - it could seem many weight-lifting people, with their need of special diets, victim supplements and protein powders, would be unable to fulfil the qualification - which are not lifting weights, but rather crawling on the ground and putting your face in the mud and dirt (i.e. testing mental tolerance for discomfort).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eyesv9G3M_M

    , @Duke of Qin
    No, the "strength" advantage is primarily in anaerobic. Weightlifters and strongmen can, pound for pound, exert more total force. However for anything requiring sustained effort, aerobic exercise, energy efficiency is key. Strength is max burst output, endurance is sustained output over x period of time using y number of calories. Shouldering a 3kg rifle is as no harder for a farm boy draftee than it is for the Mr. Olympic. The latter however will find it much harder to carry that rifle and his pack over a long march because his extra mass will require much more energy for the same amount of effort.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. I’ve always humbly referred to my own people as “one of the strongest martial races to ever walk the Earth” so I agree with the pakis that such races exist, though they are certainly not among them, lol.

    My definition of a martial race would be people who are often tough on individual level and at the same time seem to be good at fighting and complex warfare. Mongolians are the easiest example indeed.

    Blacks are not a martial race for the same reason oxen or buffalos are not a martial race despite their strength.

    Chechens are a martial race for example – but unluckily for them, so are the Russians.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    Blacks are not a martial race
     
    There is a massive diversity in Africans; Hausa are martial. Igbo? Not so much.

    The invading Arab armies made mincemeat of both Byzantine and Persian armies; even when under-equipped and outnumbered almost two to one, but they couldn't break past the Nubians and had to settle for a pact.

    Peace.

    , @unpc downunder
    Pakistanis are quite tall and strong by subcontinental standards especially those from the mountainous regions near Afghanistan. More people in cricket playing countries like Australia and England would be aware of this because of Pakistani cricket players like Wasim Akram and Imran Khan. However, those outside the UK Commonwealth would probably assume Pakistanis are the same size as Indians.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Dmitry says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    Yes but quality of soldiers in the modern period is determined on things like their mental attributes, combat experience, tolerance of discomfort and cardiovascular stamina.

     

    Limiting the "modern" in this case to the blackpowder era, wouldn't stamina be pretty heavily coordinated to many markers of what we consider as strength? The guns aren't paperweights. The pack would be heavy. Each and every action is probably made easier with physical strength to assist it.

    To the extent that could carry the rifle of the era (perhaps needing at least average strength), and then stamina is required and tolerance of discomfort.

    Additional weight-lifting ability beyond carrying the rifle, supplies and ammunition, would be irrelevant surely? And cardiovascular stamina is then be more important.

    In modern armies – beyond reaching stamina and physical health requirements – the mental qualities of organization, bravery, skill, initiative are more determinants of the quality of the soldiers.

    -

    In contemporary special forces – it could seem many weight-lifting people, with their need of special diets, victim supplements and protein powders, would be unable to fulfil the qualification – which are not lifting weights, but rather crawling on the ground and putting your face in the mud and dirt (i.e. testing mental tolerance for discomfort).

    Read More
    • Agree: Tyrion 2
    • Replies: @Talha
    This sounds right, all of the special forces tests I've come across look for speed or the ability to do x push-ups, pull-ups, sit-ups, timed swimming, timed running, etc. I've never seen one asking how much someone can squat or bench. Of course I'm not an expert in this field, but when I was younger used to use those as a benchmark for my own exercise routine.

    I've never seen a huge SAS guy. Well built and athletic? Sure - but not muscle bound.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @Daniel Chieh

    Yes but quality of soldiers in the modern period is determined on things like their mental attributes, combat experience, tolerance of discomfort and cardiovascular stamina.

     

    Limiting the "modern" in this case to the blackpowder era, wouldn't stamina be pretty heavily coordinated to many markers of what we consider as strength? The guns aren't paperweights. The pack would be heavy. Each and every action is probably made easier with physical strength to assist it.

    No, the “strength” advantage is primarily in anaerobic. Weightlifters and strongmen can, pound for pound, exert more total force. However for anything requiring sustained effort, aerobic exercise, energy efficiency is key. Strength is max burst output, endurance is sustained output over x period of time using y number of calories. Shouldering a 3kg rifle is as no harder for a farm boy draftee than it is for the Mr. Olympic. The latter however will find it much harder to carry that rifle and his pack over a long march because his extra mass will require much more energy for the same amount of effort.

    Read More
    • Agree: Dmitry
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    All right, I see what you mean. Point conceded.
    , @Mikhail
    A US Korean War vet noted to me how relatively small ROK (South Koreans) personnel could do sand bag trench prep work all day at ease, much unlike the comparatively very well muscled brick shithouse US GIs.

    Training to lift the absolute max contradicts the best aerobic result. It's an art to blend speed, strength, stamina and flexibility.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Anonymous[392] • Disclaimer says:

    lol.

    No way white people are stronger than blacks. This is just another way for Anatoly to selectively look at data to show that White People Stronk!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    Anybody who has ever boxed or wrestled would agree that American whites and American blacks are about the same in strength, with whites probably being a little stronger.
    , @SteveRogers42
    In the Olympics, almost every medal in the shotput, discus, hammer throw, and Olympic weightlifting is won by Europeans, with the championship results skewing heavily in favor of the Eastern Euros.

    Between this, the Worlds Strongest Man competition, and the Crossfit championships, what other objective proof would you require?
    , @RaceRealist88
    "No way white people are stronger than blacks."

    Do you have any arguments to back this assertion?

    Whites are stronger than blacks, especially in weightlifting and powerlifting competitions. It's about somatotype and body levers. An endo soma (whites and Asians are more likely to be endos) is more conducive to strength competitions whereas meso/ecto somas (blacks) are more conducive to running competitions (it should also be noted that fiber typing seems to be correlated with somatotype, but this is just a random observation of mine).

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/06/03/black-white-differences-in-anatomy-and-physiology-black-athletic-superiority/

    The "blacks are stronger than whites" canard is false. It has no basis in reality. Just by observing somatotypes this assertion that blacks are stronger than whites is false.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/12/23/race-and-strength-on-the-big-four-lifts/

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/03/25/racial-differences-in-somatype/

    A good example is Mark Henry. Sure he's black, sure he's one of the strongest men to ever walk the earth. But look at his somatotype. He's a classic endo.

    , @jtgw
    West African blacks clearly excel in sprinting but there is no evidence they excel in strength.
    , @Ole Petersen
    We know you are an expert on this because you go to the movies and see how strong black guys are. They always win the fight, don't they1
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Talha says:
    @Dmitry
    To the extent that could carry the rifle of the era (perhaps needing at least average strength), and then stamina is required and tolerance of discomfort.

    Additional weight-lifting ability beyond carrying the rifle, supplies and ammunition, would be irrelevant surely? And cardiovascular stamina is then be more important.

    In modern armies - beyond reaching stamina and physical health requirements - the mental qualities of organization, bravery, skill, initiative are more determinants of the quality of the soldiers.

    -

    In contemporary special forces - it could seem many weight-lifting people, with their need of special diets, victim supplements and protein powders, would be unable to fulfil the qualification - which are not lifting weights, but rather crawling on the ground and putting your face in the mud and dirt (i.e. testing mental tolerance for discomfort).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eyesv9G3M_M

    This sounds right, all of the special forces tests I’ve come across look for speed or the ability to do x push-ups, pull-ups, sit-ups, timed swimming, timed running, etc. I’ve never seen one asking how much someone can squat or bench. Of course I’m not an expert in this field, but when I was younger used to use those as a benchmark for my own exercise routine.

    I’ve never seen a huge SAS guy. Well built and athletic? Sure – but not muscle bound.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    The most elite NATO soldiers - are considered units from a small Nepalese nationality called "Gurkhas", which were taken by the British empire for military purposes from the early 19th century.

    Externally not very scary, and not much larger than their master.

    https://media.pri.org/s3fs-public/styles/story_main/public/story/images/RTR2J1B1.jpg?itok=zPnNrbee
    , @Anon
    In a remarkable convergence with another UR story, I was just reading up on Einstein in Colombo, and he remarks on the relative toughness of the natives relative to their slight build: We rode on small one-man carriages drawn at trot by men of Herculean strength, yet of delicate build. about rickshaw pullers and the Colombo harbour was lively and bustling with workers of Herculean strength lifting cargo (a paraphrase). But the thing that amused me the most was: when he was in Japan, when he wrote a note of advice to a courier instead of a tip.

    Anyway, despite this, Sinhalese make pretty lousy soldiers, at least under their own commanders, and the reason for this is most probably temperament, an extremely important factor.

    edit: oops, article link: http://www.island.lk/index.php?page_cat=article-details&page=article-details&code_title=174223

    , @SteveRogers42
    From what I understand, the American experience in the Forever War has indicated that regular infantry, as well as SpecOps, needed to develop a lot more strength and power relative to their endurance component. Urban combat required a lot of explosive movement, rather than the long marches of yore.

    Although the training pipeline for such units as the SEALs still requires vast amounts of running, swimming, and cals, once the operators are in the Teams, they switch to personalized programs that are heavy on weightlifting, kettlebells, and grappling. Companies such as Mountain Tactical Institute and Tactical Barbell have arisen to meet this need.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Mr. Hack says:

    If you really want to talk about physical strength and voraciousness between the different nations, what about the Ukrainian Klitschko brothers? Their accomplishments in the world of heavyweight boxing are well documented and will not soon be matched:

    From 2 July 2011 to 15 December 2013 all major recognized Heavyweight belts were in the Klitschko family. Vitali Klitschko (born 19 July 1971) and Wladimir Klitschko (born 25 March 1976), collectively known as the Klitschko brothers are Ukrainian heavyweight boxers. During their peak years from 2004 until 2015, the Klitschko brothers were considered the most dominant heavyweight champions of their era, and amongst the most successful champions in boxing history.[1][2] After the retirement of boxing legend Lennox Lewis, the Klitschko brothers held all heavyweight boxing world titles.[3][4] Known for their exceptionally large frames and robotic boxing styles, the Klitschko brothers developed a style that utilized their athleticism and using their arm reach to break down opponents.[5][6]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klitschko_brothers

    BTW, they have always referred to themselves as belonging to the Ukrainian nation, not to some sort of a fictitious ‘third branch of the all Russian nation’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    Aren't they part Jewish? We all know how Ukrainians feel about that...
    , @Greasy William
    The Klit bros never demonstrated much physical strength in the ring. And they were both obvious juice heads.

    Wlad was a genuine all time great but Vitali's claim to greatness is LOSING to Lennox Lewis. He is the only "all time great" I can think of whose signature performance was a bloody and decisive defeat. Vitali was a tough guy but he was made of glass. The guy practically would get injured getting his hands taped.

    Wlad in his prime had 2 losses: against Corrie Sanders and against Lamon Brewster. I've seen both fights many times. Wlad could have fought those guys 1000 times each and the results would have always been the same. I would give Wlad 0 chance against prime Lewis, Holyfield, Tyson, Ali, Bowe and Holmes. He would also lose badly to guys like Douglas, Tucker and Witherspoon when those guys were on their games (which admittedly was pretty rare).

    Of course, either of them on their worst day are better than any Russian heavyweight ever, if that's what you are getting at. But mainly they just dominated a weak era.
    , @SteveRogers42
    And they aren't the only boxers from the former Eastern Bloc to regularly commit white-on-black atrocities against overconfident Children of the Sun. Povetkin, Chagaev, Maskaev in the heavyweights, GGG in the middles, and the unbelievably-skilled Lomacenko in the lights...the list goes on and on.

    My favorite is this guy -- and at 7 ft. and 330, his example has a direct bearing on the topic of this article:

    https://goo.gl/images/Lw6gdP
    , @Mikhail
    FYI, I heard one of the Kltitschkos (the one who is mayor) say in a US interview after the Soviet breakup, that he appreciated the Soviet period. Their dad was a Soviet military officer.

    That very same Klitschko recently said that Russo-Ukrainian relations should eventually their way out for the better.

    No small wonder why he got some flack during the Euromaidan uprising.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @Duke of Qin
    No, the "strength" advantage is primarily in anaerobic. Weightlifters and strongmen can, pound for pound, exert more total force. However for anything requiring sustained effort, aerobic exercise, energy efficiency is key. Strength is max burst output, endurance is sustained output over x period of time using y number of calories. Shouldering a 3kg rifle is as no harder for a farm boy draftee than it is for the Mr. Olympic. The latter however will find it much harder to carry that rifle and his pack over a long march because his extra mass will require much more energy for the same amount of effort.

    All right, I see what you mean. Point conceded.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Talha says:
    @Spisarevski
    I've always humbly referred to my own people as "one of the strongest martial races to ever walk the Earth" so I agree with the pakis that such races exist, though they are certainly not among them, lol.

    My definition of a martial race would be people who are often tough on individual level and at the same time seem to be good at fighting and complex warfare. Mongolians are the easiest example indeed.

    Blacks are not a martial race for the same reason oxen or buffalos are not a martial race despite their strength.

    Chechens are a martial race for example - but unluckily for them, so are the Russians.

    Blacks are not a martial race

    There is a massive diversity in Africans; Hausa are martial. Igbo? Not so much.

    The invading Arab armies made mincemeat of both Byzantine and Persian armies; even when under-equipped and outnumbered almost two to one, but they couldn’t break past the Nubians and had to settle for a pact.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @myself

    The invading Arab armies made mincemeat of both Byzantine and Persian armies; even when under-equipped and outnumbered almost two to one, but they couldn’t break past the Nubians and had to settle for a pact.
     
    In this case, it wasn't the tools, but the wielder's will, that mattered. Morale is always crucial.
    , @Steve-O
    The Byzantine and Sassanian empires had been ravaged by plague and warfare. The Arabs ca. 650 found two demographically drained empires and filled the vacuum.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @Hindoo
    My beloved SLC24A5-drenched Caucasoid cousins from sub-Arctic climates,

    I love you.

    You are the light in our lives. I can't imagine live on Earth or the International Space Station without you.

    Among other things:

    1. You provide us with lovable politicians like Justin Trudeau, Emmanuel Macron, Jeb Bush etc...
    2. You provide us with lovely ladies who star in amateur cuckold/hotwife porn with Big Black Cocks
    3. You provide us with lots of socio-politico-economic opportunities, not only in our own country, but also in yours
    4. You provide us with invaluable military/industrial technology
    5. You provide soldiers to fight in our wars

    I can't thank you enough. Mooooahh Mooooahh Mooooahh

    You are AWESOME!!! Did you know that?

    I am a total White Survivalist. I desire the survival of the White race so that we may continue have such White porn babes such as Avy Scott, Angela White, Harmoni Kalifornia etc...

    For your encouragement, here is a website called The Cuckold Consultant [AK: Link removed] that helps, and provides guidance and counseling for husbands (read: White husbands) on how to turn their wives (read: White wives) in to sluts for other mens' (read: Big Black Cocks') man-tool.

    Please keep'em rolling, in Jesus' name!

    There’s something wrong with you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hindoo
    Yes, my beloved Confucian friend.

    I am forgetting all the beautiful lovely yellow* ladies that also have an exclusive preference for LongSchlongs***



    Like this one: Super sexy - sex goddess slut

    Such as Kal Penn in Van Wilder, I would like to go down on this Japanese goddess and experience her love-canal juices, following the teachings of Master Laozi.

    * You know? The color Yellow ( पीला ) is considered auspicious in Sanatana Dharma.

    *** To be fair, the length of our schlongs are probably comparable.
    , @Yevardian
    Just typical example of 95% of Indians. They all use the same schtick when provoked, I've heard an earful even in formal meetings from such people. Though it was flattering to referred to as fully white I suppose.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Dmitry says:
    @Talha
    This sounds right, all of the special forces tests I've come across look for speed or the ability to do x push-ups, pull-ups, sit-ups, timed swimming, timed running, etc. I've never seen one asking how much someone can squat or bench. Of course I'm not an expert in this field, but when I was younger used to use those as a benchmark for my own exercise routine.

    I've never seen a huge SAS guy. Well built and athletic? Sure - but not muscle bound.

    Peace.

    The most elite NATO soldiers – are considered units from a small Nepalese nationality called “Gurkhas”, which were taken by the British empire for military purposes from the early 19th century.

    Externally not very scary, and not much larger than their master.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Perhaps soldiers selected by the British for personality.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_aZj2gGwNI

    , @Mr. Hack
    It doesn't appear that you're much of a fan of the Klitshcko brothers? How about the Ukrainian, Vasyl Lomachenko, who always appears ready to go to work draped underneath the Ukrainian Blue and Yellow.

    As of May 2018, Lomachenko is ranked as the world's best active boxer, pound for pound, by ESPN;[4] the Boxing Writers Association of America[5] and the Transnational Boxing Rankings Board;[6] and second by BoxRec[7] and The Ring.[8] He is also ranked by all of them as the world's best active super featherweight.[9][10][7][11] The Ring named Lomachenko as their Prospect of the Year in 2013; CBS Sports named him Boxer of the Year in 2016; HBO Sports named him Boxer of the Year in 2016 and in 2017;[12][13] the Boxing Writers Association of America and The Ring named him Fighter of the Year in 2017.[14]
     
    https://youtu.be/9gptWqO_ErI
    , @Talha
    Yeah Gurkhas are tough guys - very valuable pound for pound.

    Peace.
    , @Tyrion 2
    Gurkhas are not considered the most elite NATO soldiers at all, at least by anyone in the know. They don't even test as the best standard infantry regiment in the British Army. Indeed, sort of specialists like Royal Marines are certainly more effective. They are good, professional and intelligent blokes though; possibly as a result of their extremely low ratio of acceptance and IQ based acceptance exams.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Dmitry says:
    @Dmitry
    The most elite NATO soldiers - are considered units from a small Nepalese nationality called "Gurkhas", which were taken by the British empire for military purposes from the early 19th century.

    Externally not very scary, and not much larger than their master.

    https://media.pri.org/s3fs-public/styles/story_main/public/story/images/RTR2J1B1.jpg?itok=zPnNrbee

    Perhaps soldiers selected by the British for personality.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @Anonymous
    lol.

    No way white people are stronger than blacks. This is just another way for Anatoly to selectively look at data to show that White People Stronk!

    Anybody who has ever boxed or wrestled would agree that American whites and American blacks are about the same in strength, with whites probably being a little stronger.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    What does boxing have to do with physical strength, as in the big four lifts?
    , @AP
    Some Russian friends from university got into a brawl at a bar with some blacks. They said they were shocked at how the more muscular-looking black guys seemed a lot weaker than themselves.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. The Mongol, really Steppe advantage in warfare isn’t biological so much as ecological.

    Pastoralist economies can simply support more fighting men per unit of population than agricultural societies because the calorie-in/calorie-out ratio of livestock rearing is an order of magnitude better than farming grains. Farming is hard back breaking work that requires lots of manpower. Herding sheep and cattle can be accomplished by boys. Thus Steppe polities could in a fight bring much more of their available manpower to bear than settled civilizations. Basically half the men in a Steppe society can be brought into a battle without affecting the livelihoods of the rest. Large settled empires like Rome or China were never able to martial more than 1% of their total populations into their armies because that manpower was needed to farm for most of the year and the taxes could only pay for that amount. Even the most militarized small societies like Sparta or Prussia weren’t able to do better than 3% or so before modern industrial agriculture was availble to free up more men for the fight.

    Even worse is that the strategic initiative lies with the Steppe. More dangerous than retreating horse archers is the advantage of the Steppes in that their entire populations are mobile. If they feel that the strategic situation is bad, they simply pack up and move and bring their food along with them. For a settled army to campaign into the Steppe requires bringing long baggage trains requiring massive expenditures of money to supply an army so far from home only to find that the enemy wont even engage in a fight. Thus the only way to effectively fight Steppe polities prior to firearms was to fight like them, with cavalry centric armies designed to ride down their civilian populations and force them into a fight under suboptimal conditions. That is how basically Steppe nomads war with each other.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    I agree. The main advantage of the Steppe is logistical (above) and political (can strike, and typically succeeds best, during periods of state dissolution).

    I was venturing the idea that physical performance may not however have been entirely irrelevant.
    , @myself
    Wow, I think I may have read many similar sources to those of Duke of Qin.

    It must be pointed out, though, that sedentary states, if unified and therefore ready to fight, were almost never taken down by non-urban cultures. Most of their defeats throughout history involve them getting attacked during a period of infighting, civil war, internal turmoil and cultural weakness.

    Go ahead, research the historical pattern. You'll probably agree with me that it's the case.

    Also, sedentary states have ginormous populations and economic outputs compared to the semi-civilized and the outright barbarian.

    I even agree with the figures given - for the Roman, Persian and Chinese Empires (the truly big-time classical militarists) about 1% of the population would serve in the military during lulls, but growing to 3%+ during times of increased tension.

    These percentages are accurate. We are talking here of professionally-trained, mostly very heavily-armored, and very-well equipped and provisioned armies of regular, very long-service troops - so the classical war machines, for their day, were jaw-droppingly awesome.

    Put this in perspective: I personally love studying medieval warfare, and medieval armies world-wide. But the armies, of say medieval Europe, would have been mere small scouting forces when taken in a classical context! That's how much prowess and power the ancients had.

    Remember that a full 1% of say Rome's or Persia's population and economic output, let's not even mention China's vastness, would already be enough to crush, in a straight fight, almost any non-sedentary foe, and a good many medium settled states as well.

    1 out of 100 of something truly enormous is still . . . very damn frightening indeed.

    , @Sam J.
    "...Even worse is that the strategic initiative lies with the Steppe..."

    I agree with this somewhat but with agriculture you can get more people than with herding. I read, I can't remember where, maybe a William Hardy McNeill book????, that the way the Russians eventually controlled the people of the steppes was to carry pre-fab walls in wagons to throw up forts. The problem is no one really pursued the Mongols like the Americans did to the Indians on the plains. They used their agricultural surplus to constantly harass them never letting them rest until they ran them down. The same could have been done to the Mongols especially with the movable forts providing cover.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. @Duke of Qin
    The Mongol, really Steppe advantage in warfare isn't biological so much as ecological.

    Pastoralist economies can simply support more fighting men per unit of population than agricultural societies because the calorie-in/calorie-out ratio of livestock rearing is an order of magnitude better than farming grains. Farming is hard back breaking work that requires lots of manpower. Herding sheep and cattle can be accomplished by boys. Thus Steppe polities could in a fight bring much more of their available manpower to bear than settled civilizations. Basically half the men in a Steppe society can be brought into a battle without affecting the livelihoods of the rest. Large settled empires like Rome or China were never able to martial more than 1% of their total populations into their armies because that manpower was needed to farm for most of the year and the taxes could only pay for that amount. Even the most militarized small societies like Sparta or Prussia weren't able to do better than 3% or so before modern industrial agriculture was availble to free up more men for the fight.

    Even worse is that the strategic initiative lies with the Steppe. More dangerous than retreating horse archers is the advantage of the Steppes in that their entire populations are mobile. If they feel that the strategic situation is bad, they simply pack up and move and bring their food along with them. For a settled army to campaign into the Steppe requires bringing long baggage trains requiring massive expenditures of money to supply an army so far from home only to find that the enemy wont even engage in a fight. Thus the only way to effectively fight Steppe polities prior to firearms was to fight like them, with cavalry centric armies designed to ride down their civilian populations and force them into a fight under suboptimal conditions. That is how basically Steppe nomads war with each other.

    I agree. The main advantage of the Steppe is logistical (above) and political (can strike, and typically succeeds best, during periods of state dissolution).

    I was venturing the idea that physical performance may not however have been entirely irrelevant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Another topic which is interesting (not that I know anything about the topic) is the greater intelligence and organization level of the Romans compared to their contemporary nationalities.

    The extent of the disparity, and amount of generations it existed - seems something that would be statistically very improbable .

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Mr. Hack says:
    @Dmitry
    The most elite NATO soldiers - are considered units from a small Nepalese nationality called "Gurkhas", which were taken by the British empire for military purposes from the early 19th century.

    Externally not very scary, and not much larger than their master.

    https://media.pri.org/s3fs-public/styles/story_main/public/story/images/RTR2J1B1.jpg?itok=zPnNrbee

    It doesn’t appear that you’re much of a fan of the Klitshcko brothers? How about the Ukrainian, Vasyl Lomachenko, who always appears ready to go to work draped underneath the Ukrainian Blue and Yellow.

    As of May 2018, Lomachenko is ranked as the world’s best active boxer, pound for pound, by ESPN;[4] the Boxing Writers Association of America[5] and the Transnational Boxing Rankings Board;[6] and second by BoxRec[7] and The Ring.[8] He is also ranked by all of them as the world’s best active super featherweight.[9][10][7][11] The Ring named Lomachenko as their Prospect of the Year in 2013; CBS Sports named him Boxer of the Year in 2016; HBO Sports named him Boxer of the Year in 2016 and in 2017;[12][13] the Boxing Writers Association of America and The Ring named him Fighter of the Year in 2017.[14]

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    Quick question: did ANY of you tough talking Galician Neo-Nazis who invariably live in places like Canaduh actually go to fight for the Kiev putschists a la jihadis who volunteer in places like Syria??? What's the pure, un-Russified Ukrainian word for 'coward'?
    , @Dmitry
    You need to ask other users, not myself.

    I do not know very much about boxing (sadly I didn't have the appropriate television channel when I was growing up).

    Sure, it is a cool sport.

    Klitschko brothers are some legends of Ukrainian sports. But - like with Andrey Shevchenko - not sure how being awesome in a sport qualifies you as a politician.

    , @Greasy William
    Loma is a stud. I thought that he was Russian, not Ukrainian.
    , @SteveRogers42
    This guy's skills are jaw-dropping. I had always thought the two Sugar Rays were the last word in boxing skill until I saw Lomo. He is not only a defensive will-o-the-wisp, but a powerful and precise puncher with "bad intentions". Long may he reign!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Marcus says:
    @Mr. Hack
    If you really want to talk about physical strength and voraciousness between the different nations, what about the Ukrainian Klitschko brothers? Their accomplishments in the world of heavyweight boxing are well documented and will not soon be matched:


    From 2 July 2011 to 15 December 2013 all major recognized Heavyweight belts were in the Klitschko family. Vitali Klitschko (born 19 July 1971) and Wladimir Klitschko (born 25 March 1976), collectively known as the Klitschko brothers are Ukrainian heavyweight boxers. During their peak years from 2004 until 2015, the Klitschko brothers were considered the most dominant heavyweight champions of their era, and amongst the most successful champions in boxing history.[1][2] After the retirement of boxing legend Lennox Lewis, the Klitschko brothers held all heavyweight boxing world titles.[3][4] Known for their exceptionally large frames and robotic boxing styles, the Klitschko brothers developed a style that utilized their athleticism and using their arm reach to break down opponents.[5][6]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klitschko_brothers

    BTW, they have always referred to themselves as belonging to the Ukrainian nation, not to some sort of a fictitious 'third branch of the all Russian nation'.

    Aren’t they part Jewish? We all know how Ukrainians feel about that…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. @Mr. Hack
    If you really want to talk about physical strength and voraciousness between the different nations, what about the Ukrainian Klitschko brothers? Their accomplishments in the world of heavyweight boxing are well documented and will not soon be matched:


    From 2 July 2011 to 15 December 2013 all major recognized Heavyweight belts were in the Klitschko family. Vitali Klitschko (born 19 July 1971) and Wladimir Klitschko (born 25 March 1976), collectively known as the Klitschko brothers are Ukrainian heavyweight boxers. During their peak years from 2004 until 2015, the Klitschko brothers were considered the most dominant heavyweight champions of their era, and amongst the most successful champions in boxing history.[1][2] After the retirement of boxing legend Lennox Lewis, the Klitschko brothers held all heavyweight boxing world titles.[3][4] Known for their exceptionally large frames and robotic boxing styles, the Klitschko brothers developed a style that utilized their athleticism and using their arm reach to break down opponents.[5][6]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klitschko_brothers

    BTW, they have always referred to themselves as belonging to the Ukrainian nation, not to some sort of a fictitious 'third branch of the all Russian nation'.

    The Klit bros never demonstrated much physical strength in the ring. And they were both obvious juice heads.

    Wlad was a genuine all time great but Vitali’s claim to greatness is LOSING to Lennox Lewis. He is the only “all time great” I can think of whose signature performance was a bloody and decisive defeat. Vitali was a tough guy but he was made of glass. The guy practically would get injured getting his hands taped.

    Wlad in his prime had 2 losses: against Corrie Sanders and against Lamon Brewster. I’ve seen both fights many times. Wlad could have fought those guys 1000 times each and the results would have always been the same. I would give Wlad 0 chance against prime Lewis, Holyfield, Tyson, Ali, Bowe and Holmes. He would also lose badly to guys like Douglas, Tucker and Witherspoon when those guys were on their games (which admittedly was pretty rare).

    Of course, either of them on their worst day are better than any Russian heavyweight ever, if that’s what you are getting at. But mainly they just dominated a weak era.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack

    Vitali’s claim to greatness is LOSING to Lennox Lewis. He is the only “all time great” I can think of whose signature performance was a bloody and decisive defeat
     
    .

    Did you watch the fight? He was ahead on all scorecards going into the next round, and was raring to go. He was, in all honestly, inadvertently head butted by Lewis that caused the bleeding to his head. It's a shame that the match had to end in such an inconclusive manner. The fact remains, that for the next 10 years the brothers dominated the sport. If they were that 'mediocre' then somebody should have put them out of their misery, which never happened (and they fought a lot of fights). What about Lomachenko, what's wrong with him?...
    , @Vlad Karinski
    A negro always has an advantage over any other race (except maybe australian aboriginals) in skull thickness. His smaller brain and thicker skull can take more punishment than any other race. If a white boxer is going to beat negroes, he needs to know their weak points and take full advantage of them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Talha says:
    @Dmitry
    The most elite NATO soldiers - are considered units from a small Nepalese nationality called "Gurkhas", which were taken by the British empire for military purposes from the early 19th century.

    Externally not very scary, and not much larger than their master.

    https://media.pri.org/s3fs-public/styles/story_main/public/story/images/RTR2J1B1.jpg?itok=zPnNrbee

    Yeah Gurkhas are tough guys – very valuable pound for pound.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @Dmitry
    Does 'grip strength' (which measures just a function of the hand) have a strong relation to actual individual strength in other areas (in terms of weight lifting or other strength talent)?

    Isn't it possible that the genetic or environmental basis for hand strength will be different to those of a different muscle group (for example, differences in shoulder strength or thigh strength could have a different genetic and environmental basis, and be stronger in different nationalities than others)

    Also aren't grip muscles one of the attributes most susceptible to environment factors (the reason weight-lifting as a training, exists).


    -

    2

    Is there a strong relation between weight lifting talent and individual fighting without weapons.

    E.g. Andrey Drachev, World Weightlifting Champion is easily killed when he was tricked into a street fight with a small but more skilled Muslim guy in Khabarovsk last year.*


    -

    3.

    Romans, even if individually, would be fighting with weapons.

    So the direct relation to grip strength would only be in relation to their grip of the sword.

    (Other things like aggression, speed, mental attributes and skill would be more relevant to combat with a weapon, than without a weapon).

    Isn't the distinction with Roman from Northern people they genocided, that they were not individual fighters, but organized and group fighters.

    If Romans would lose in one-to-one, it is not because physical weakness (probably they were often better fed and stronger than the enemy, as they had more organized supplies), but because Romans had no individual fighting skill or experience.


    -

    *
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpRpeHwANkQ

    that video is disgusting. Little man’s syndrome run amok.

    Had the big guy been properly trained he’d have broken that smurf in half.

    Hitting the guy when he’s already unconscious on the ground was vile. Fuck that guy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    Had the big guy been properly trained
     
    That was the point.

    Agree on that being disgusting behavior; it’s a street fight, not a war.

    Peace.
    , @myself

    Hitting the guy when he’s already unconscious on the ground was vile.
     
    I would agree with you, but it would depend on who actually started the violence.

    Being either the aggressor or the defender changes the motivation, I think.

    In that fight, who struck first?
    , @Dmitry

    Hitting the guy when he’s already unconscious on the ground was vile. Fuck that guy.

     

    You're not a fan of how the football fans are practising?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvgnUW0lfzg

    , @lavoisier
    Hitting the guy when he’s already unconscious on the ground was vile. Fuck that guy.

    More than vile. More like deliberate murder it seems to me.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Marcus says:
    @Mr. Hack
    It doesn't appear that you're much of a fan of the Klitshcko brothers? How about the Ukrainian, Vasyl Lomachenko, who always appears ready to go to work draped underneath the Ukrainian Blue and Yellow.

    As of May 2018, Lomachenko is ranked as the world's best active boxer, pound for pound, by ESPN;[4] the Boxing Writers Association of America[5] and the Transnational Boxing Rankings Board;[6] and second by BoxRec[7] and The Ring.[8] He is also ranked by all of them as the world's best active super featherweight.[9][10][7][11] The Ring named Lomachenko as their Prospect of the Year in 2013; CBS Sports named him Boxer of the Year in 2016; HBO Sports named him Boxer of the Year in 2016 and in 2017;[12][13] the Boxing Writers Association of America and The Ring named him Fighter of the Year in 2017.[14]
     
    https://youtu.be/9gptWqO_ErI

    Quick question: did ANY of you tough talking Galician Neo-Nazis who invariably live in places like Canaduh actually go to fight for the Kiev putschists a la jihadis who volunteer in places like Syria??? What’s the pure, un-Russified Ukrainian word for ‘coward’?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Why?...did you, a big BadAss Putlerite go and fight in these inhospitable places? The Middle East is not Ukraine's to interfere in.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Talha says:
    @Greasy William
    that video is disgusting. Little man's syndrome run amok.

    Had the big guy been properly trained he'd have broken that smurf in half.

    Hitting the guy when he's already unconscious on the ground was vile. Fuck that guy.

    Had the big guy been properly trained

    That was the point.

    Agree on that being disgusting behavior; it’s a street fight, not a war.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Dmitry says:
    @Mr. Hack
    It doesn't appear that you're much of a fan of the Klitshcko brothers? How about the Ukrainian, Vasyl Lomachenko, who always appears ready to go to work draped underneath the Ukrainian Blue and Yellow.

    As of May 2018, Lomachenko is ranked as the world's best active boxer, pound for pound, by ESPN;[4] the Boxing Writers Association of America[5] and the Transnational Boxing Rankings Board;[6] and second by BoxRec[7] and The Ring.[8] He is also ranked by all of them as the world's best active super featherweight.[9][10][7][11] The Ring named Lomachenko as their Prospect of the Year in 2013; CBS Sports named him Boxer of the Year in 2016; HBO Sports named him Boxer of the Year in 2016 and in 2017;[12][13] the Boxing Writers Association of America and The Ring named him Fighter of the Year in 2017.[14]
     
    https://youtu.be/9gptWqO_ErI

    You need to ask other users, not myself.

    I do not know very much about boxing (sadly I didn’t have the appropriate television channel when I was growing up).

    Sure, it is a cool sport.

    Klitschko brothers are some legends of Ukrainian sports. But – like with Andrey Shevchenko – not sure how being awesome in a sport qualifies you as a politician.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Why is that? Do you feel that being a KGB operative somehow better qualifies one for the role of a politician? :-)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Mr. Hack says:
    @Marcus
    Quick question: did ANY of you tough talking Galician Neo-Nazis who invariably live in places like Canaduh actually go to fight for the Kiev putschists a la jihadis who volunteer in places like Syria??? What's the pure, un-Russified Ukrainian word for 'coward'?

    Why?…did you, a big BadAss Putlerite go and fight in these inhospitable places? The Middle East is not Ukraine’s to interfere in.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    I'm not Russian or a Putin supporter. It only seems natural, given their rhetoric, that the ultrationalists in Canada, US, etc. would leap at the chance to fight for the courageous Maidanist government and get to kill a few vatniki in the process, no? Cowaaardds!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Indians are too varied for averages to be meaningful. Pathans, Sikhs, Janjuas, Rajputs, Gurkhas etc. were all prized as soldiers by the British which would argue they had a higher than average grip strength. Wrestling was also a pretty popular sport in Punjab and Uttar Pradesh going back to the Mughal era and earlier. The reason for the lack of medals is more due to a cultural and official lack of interest in sports development. Unlike China and the USSR, the government never believed sporting success was necessary to promote the country. There is not much infrastructure or funding for the development of world class athletes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    Pathans, Sikhs, Janjuas, Rajputs, Gurkhas etc. were all prized as soldiers by the British which would argue they had a higher than average grip strength
     
    Why? What does grip strength in a population, have to do with Gurkhas' perceived abilities as soldiers (for the British military)? (They are gripping their rifles more strongly than other soldiers, or they can be used to unscrew difficult jars?)
    , @Marcus
    You and Talha probably know more about this than me, but I believe that the Bengalis (who had been the backbone of the East India Company's forces beforehand) were overrepresented among the Sepoy mutineers. So, while northwestern subcontinentals are probably more physically imposing than those from eastern or southern regions, there was a political motivation for the "Martial Races" theories: the Bengalis "betrayal." Before that, there was also no disparagement of the Bengalis' martial prowess, they had been regarded as highly reliable in the Company's wars with the Marathas and the Manchus.
    , @SteveRogers42
    This guy was a legend. He made his own infrastructure.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Gama
    , @JohnnyWalker123
    Tell me if I'm wrong, but don't the Pakistanis have ancestry similar to the Northwestern Indians? If Northwestern Indians are really strong (in comparison to the rest of the country), why do Pakistanis have weak grip strength?
    , @Bhupinder Singh
    We Sikhs will always win in wrestling over anyone else because we don't bathe for months before a fight and always win because our opponents usually die from olifactory overload.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @Mr. Hack
    It doesn't appear that you're much of a fan of the Klitshcko brothers? How about the Ukrainian, Vasyl Lomachenko, who always appears ready to go to work draped underneath the Ukrainian Blue and Yellow.

    As of May 2018, Lomachenko is ranked as the world's best active boxer, pound for pound, by ESPN;[4] the Boxing Writers Association of America[5] and the Transnational Boxing Rankings Board;[6] and second by BoxRec[7] and The Ring.[8] He is also ranked by all of them as the world's best active super featherweight.[9][10][7][11] The Ring named Lomachenko as their Prospect of the Year in 2013; CBS Sports named him Boxer of the Year in 2016; HBO Sports named him Boxer of the Year in 2016 and in 2017;[12][13] the Boxing Writers Association of America and The Ring named him Fighter of the Year in 2017.[14]
     
    https://youtu.be/9gptWqO_ErI

    Loma is a stud. I thought that he was Russian, not Ukrainian.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Watch the clip. What colors does he and his team display at each fight?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Mr. Hack says:
    @Greasy William
    The Klit bros never demonstrated much physical strength in the ring. And they were both obvious juice heads.

    Wlad was a genuine all time great but Vitali's claim to greatness is LOSING to Lennox Lewis. He is the only "all time great" I can think of whose signature performance was a bloody and decisive defeat. Vitali was a tough guy but he was made of glass. The guy practically would get injured getting his hands taped.

    Wlad in his prime had 2 losses: against Corrie Sanders and against Lamon Brewster. I've seen both fights many times. Wlad could have fought those guys 1000 times each and the results would have always been the same. I would give Wlad 0 chance against prime Lewis, Holyfield, Tyson, Ali, Bowe and Holmes. He would also lose badly to guys like Douglas, Tucker and Witherspoon when those guys were on their games (which admittedly was pretty rare).

    Of course, either of them on their worst day are better than any Russian heavyweight ever, if that's what you are getting at. But mainly they just dominated a weak era.

    Vitali’s claim to greatness is LOSING to Lennox Lewis. He is the only “all time great” I can think of whose signature performance was a bloody and decisive defeat

    .

    Did you watch the fight? He was ahead on all scorecards going into the next round, and was raring to go. He was, in all honestly, inadvertently head butted by Lewis that caused the bleeding to his head. It’s a shame that the match had to end in such an inconclusive manner. The fact remains, that for the next 10 years the brothers dominated the sport. If they were that ‘mediocre’ then somebody should have put them out of their misery, which never happened (and they fought a lot of fights). What about Lomachenko, what’s wrong with him?…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    1. Lomachenko is great. That's not in question. I'm not anti Ukraine.

    2. I didn't say the Klitschko's were mediocre. I said that they dominated a mediocre era, which they did. Wlad was decisively beaten by Sanders and Brewster and he would never have been able to beat those guys when they were at their best. Vitali would have destroyed Brewster but I don't know how he would have done against the Sanders that Wlad fought. Both Vitali and Wlad would have no chance whatsoever against Ali, Holmes, Tyson, Bowe, Lewis or Holyfield. Nor would they be expected to defeat guys like Witherspoon, Tucker or Douglas when those guys were on their games. What made the Klitschko brothers so dominant was the way they were able to tag team the division on top of the fact that they were in an exceedingly weak era. If the brothers were in their primes today, I would have both of them as underdogs against Joshua, Wilder and Fury. I don't think Wlad would even have beaten an old timer like Liston and I'm not sure that Vitali would have either.

    I do think they'd both beat prime Foreman though.

    The Klits are ATG's based on their dominance of their era, but they are unquestionably the weakest ATGs ever.

    3. Yes I've seen the Lewis fight. I saw it when it happened and have seen it many times since. First of all, that was Lewis at his worst. 2nd of all, it wasn't just one cut, it was multiple cuts because Vitali's defense is to block punches with his face and doing that against Lewis resulted in Vitali's face being turned into hamburger. 3rd, had the fight continued, Lewis finishes Vitali off in round 7.
    , @SteveRogers42
    Hack -- my recollection of that fight matches yours, FWIW.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Dmitry says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    I agree. The main advantage of the Steppe is logistical (above) and political (can strike, and typically succeeds best, during periods of state dissolution).

    I was venturing the idea that physical performance may not however have been entirely irrelevant.

    Another topic which is interesting (not that I know anything about the topic) is the greater intelligence and organization level of the Romans compared to their contemporary nationalities.

    The extent of the disparity, and amount of generations it existed – seems something that would be statistically very improbable .

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Who said anything about the greater intelligence as such of the Romans?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Mr. Hack says:
    @Greasy William
    Loma is a stud. I thought that he was Russian, not Ukrainian.

    Watch the clip. What colors does he and his team display at each fight?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Hopefully Karlin won't be annoyed we go so far offtopic - I'll insert the "more" tag anyway.

    What do you think about Shevchenko? - supernatural genius in AC Milan but failure in Chelsea.

    I'm personally feeling like this when remembering his goal highlights for AC Milan:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85XsmZdyZ6I

    E.g.:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hVr7k-Pirs

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Dmitry says:
    @Ali Choudhury
    Indians are too varied for averages to be meaningful. Pathans, Sikhs, Janjuas, Rajputs, Gurkhas etc. were all prized as soldiers by the British which would argue they had a higher than average grip strength. Wrestling was also a pretty popular sport in Punjab and Uttar Pradesh going back to the Mughal era and earlier. The reason for the lack of medals is more due to a cultural and official lack of interest in sports development. Unlike China and the USSR, the government never believed sporting success was necessary to promote the country. There is not much infrastructure or funding for the development of world class athletes.

    Pathans, Sikhs, Janjuas, Rajputs, Gurkhas etc. were all prized as soldiers by the British which would argue they had a higher than average grip strength

    Why? What does grip strength in a population, have to do with Gurkhas’ perceived abilities as soldiers (for the British military)? (They are gripping their rifles more strongly than other soldiers, or they can be used to unscrew difficult jars?)

    Read More
    • LOL: utu
    • Replies: @Ali Choudhury
    Well, if the "family" profession is soldiering, that would imply one was better able to cope with the physical demands of soldiering, be stronger than average and have higher grip strength than average.
    , @Anon
    Here is a real military application of grip strength, on the Indian subcontinent, no less: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarasandha#Fight_with_Karna

    Sorry, that was the best I could do.
    , @anonymous coward

    Why? What does grip strength in a population, have to do with Gurkhas’ perceived abilities as soldiers (for the British military)? (They are gripping their rifles more strongly than other soldiers, or they can be used to unscrew difficult jars?)
     
    Grip strength correlates very closely with testosterone and 'manliness' in general.

    (Our ancestors knew this, which is why they judged people based on the firmness of their handshake.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. utu says:

    On the other hand, a hundred Romans could hold even against a hundred of Gauls, and ten thousand Romans would easily defeat a Gallic army many times their number.

    Engels used examples like this one to argue his famous quantity into quality transformation:

    According to Engels, Napoleon “… describes the conflicts between the French cavalry, bad riders but disciplined, with the Mamelukes who, as regards single combat were better horsemen but undisciplined, as follows—Two Mamelukes were a match for three Frenchmen, 100 Mamelukes were equal to 100 Frenchmen, 300 Frenchmen could beat 300 Mamelukes, and 1,000 Frenchmen invariably defeated 1,500 Mamelukes”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  48. Hindoo says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    There's something wrong with you.

    Yes, my beloved Confucian friend.

    I am forgetting all the beautiful lovely yellow* ladies that also have an exclusive preference for LongSchlongs***

    [MORE]

    Like this one: Super sexy – sex goddess slut

    Such as Kal Penn in Van Wilder, I would like to go down on this Japanese goddess and experience her love-canal juices, following the teachings of Master Laozi.

    * You know? The color Yellow ( पीला ) is considered auspicious in Sanatana Dharma.

    *** To be fair, the length of our schlongs are probably comparable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Mr. Hack says:
    @Dmitry
    You need to ask other users, not myself.

    I do not know very much about boxing (sadly I didn't have the appropriate television channel when I was growing up).

    Sure, it is a cool sport.

    Klitschko brothers are some legends of Ukrainian sports. But - like with Andrey Shevchenko - not sure how being awesome in a sport qualifies you as a politician.

    Why is that? Do you feel that being a KGB operative somehow better qualifies one for the role of a politician? :-)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @Mr. Hack

    Vitali’s claim to greatness is LOSING to Lennox Lewis. He is the only “all time great” I can think of whose signature performance was a bloody and decisive defeat
     
    .

    Did you watch the fight? He was ahead on all scorecards going into the next round, and was raring to go. He was, in all honestly, inadvertently head butted by Lewis that caused the bleeding to his head. It's a shame that the match had to end in such an inconclusive manner. The fact remains, that for the next 10 years the brothers dominated the sport. If they were that 'mediocre' then somebody should have put them out of their misery, which never happened (and they fought a lot of fights). What about Lomachenko, what's wrong with him?...

    1. Lomachenko is great. That’s not in question. I’m not anti Ukraine.

    2. I didn’t say the Klitschko’s were mediocre. I said that they dominated a mediocre era, which they did. Wlad was decisively beaten by Sanders and Brewster and he would never have been able to beat those guys when they were at their best. Vitali would have destroyed Brewster but I don’t know how he would have done against the Sanders that Wlad fought. Both Vitali and Wlad would have no chance whatsoever against Ali, Holmes, Tyson, Bowe, Lewis or Holyfield. Nor would they be expected to defeat guys like Witherspoon, Tucker or Douglas when those guys were on their games. What made the Klitschko brothers so dominant was the way they were able to tag team the division on top of the fact that they were in an exceedingly weak era. If the brothers were in their primes today, I would have both of them as underdogs against Joshua, Wilder and Fury. I don’t think Wlad would even have beaten an old timer like Liston and I’m not sure that Vitali would have either.

    I do think they’d both beat prime Foreman though.

    The Klits are ATG’s based on their dominance of their era, but they are unquestionably the weakest ATGs ever.

    3. Yes I’ve seen the Lewis fight. I saw it when it happened and have seen it many times since. First of all, that was Lewis at his worst. 2nd of all, it wasn’t just one cut, it was multiple cuts because Vitali’s defense is to block punches with his face and doing that against Lewis resulted in Vitali’s face being turned into hamburger. 3rd, had the fight continued, Lewis finishes Vitali off in round 7.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    I disagree with your general predictions of how the Klitschkos would have done against masters of the past. The game has changed immensely since then. By mere size alone, the Klitschkos were much taller and bigger than any of the rivals that you mention. And I think that the overall physical strength of today towers over anything the old masters could conjure up. Like it or not, the 'butterfly and bumblebee' antics and finesse of the past are overshadowed by the size and strengh of today (at least in the heavyweight class), and you'll have to admit that the current crop of heavyweight greats look more like the Klitschko brothers than like Muhamed Ali or Tyson. We'll never really know. It's like in the chess world today, would Magnusson dominate Bobbie Fischer?...I think that the computer generated prognosis would give a decided nod to Magnusson, but I don't know?...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Anonymous[173] • Disclaimer says:

    Samoans?

    Vastly over represented in the NFL and infantry in Iraq.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  52. “The Chinese noted with surprise and disgust the ability of the Mongol warriors to survive on little food and water for long periods; according to one, the entire army could camp without a single puff of smoke since they needed no fires to cook.”
    Up to today there is this chinese habit of always drinking warm water and eating something every three hours or so. They seem to be quite dependent on constant cooking and heating.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gwynedd1
    The Mongols were probably just drinking their fermented mares milk.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Hindoo says:
    @Hindoo
    My beloved SLC24A5-drenched Caucasoid cousins from sub-Arctic climates,

    I love you.

    You are the light in our lives. I can't imagine live on Earth or the International Space Station without you.

    Among other things:

    1. You provide us with lovable politicians like Justin Trudeau, Emmanuel Macron, Jeb Bush etc...
    2. You provide us with lovely ladies who star in amateur cuckold/hotwife porn with Big Black Cocks
    3. You provide us with lots of socio-politico-economic opportunities, not only in our own country, but also in yours
    4. You provide us with invaluable military/industrial technology
    5. You provide soldiers to fight in our wars

    I can't thank you enough. Mooooahh Mooooahh Mooooahh

    You are AWESOME!!! Did you know that?

    I am a total White Survivalist. I desire the survival of the White race so that we may continue have such White porn babes such as Avy Scott, Angela White, Harmoni Kalifornia etc...

    For your encouragement, here is a website called The Cuckold Consultant [AK: Link removed] that helps, and provides guidance and counseling for husbands (read: White husbands) on how to turn their wives (read: White wives) in to sluts for other mens' (read: Big Black Cocks') man-tool.

    Please keep'em rolling, in Jesus' name!

    With all due respect, Mr. Karlin,

    That was a non-NSFW site.

    I rest my idolatrous polytheistic case.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Talha says:

    LOL! Pakistani grip strength!!! LOOOOL!

    Brothers gotta stop eating them laddoos!

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  55. Marcus says:
    @Mr. Hack
    Why?...did you, a big BadAss Putlerite go and fight in these inhospitable places? The Middle East is not Ukraine's to interfere in.

    I’m not Russian or a Putin supporter. It only seems natural, given their rhetoric, that the ultrationalists in Canada, US, etc. would leap at the chance to fight for the courageous Maidanist government and get to kill a few vatniki in the process, no? Cowaaardds!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    What do any of your insightful opinions about what Ukrainian ultranationalists in Canada might or might not do have to do with the Klitschko brothers or Vasili Lomachenko showing up to their professional fights donning Ukrainian national insignia?...
    , @in the middle
    I am not a Russian neither, but I really, really! Admire Mr. Putin,

    "The great Putin, Kicking ass, and taking names since 2000 A.D."
    No wonder He does not like Sodomites, i.e. Ukrainians!
    I have seeing videos of Ukrainians fighting the New Russians, and got their rear kicked hard. So don't give me this Ukrainian toughness.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Mr. Hack says:
    @Greasy William
    1. Lomachenko is great. That's not in question. I'm not anti Ukraine.

    2. I didn't say the Klitschko's were mediocre. I said that they dominated a mediocre era, which they did. Wlad was decisively beaten by Sanders and Brewster and he would never have been able to beat those guys when they were at their best. Vitali would have destroyed Brewster but I don't know how he would have done against the Sanders that Wlad fought. Both Vitali and Wlad would have no chance whatsoever against Ali, Holmes, Tyson, Bowe, Lewis or Holyfield. Nor would they be expected to defeat guys like Witherspoon, Tucker or Douglas when those guys were on their games. What made the Klitschko brothers so dominant was the way they were able to tag team the division on top of the fact that they were in an exceedingly weak era. If the brothers were in their primes today, I would have both of them as underdogs against Joshua, Wilder and Fury. I don't think Wlad would even have beaten an old timer like Liston and I'm not sure that Vitali would have either.

    I do think they'd both beat prime Foreman though.

    The Klits are ATG's based on their dominance of their era, but they are unquestionably the weakest ATGs ever.

    3. Yes I've seen the Lewis fight. I saw it when it happened and have seen it many times since. First of all, that was Lewis at his worst. 2nd of all, it wasn't just one cut, it was multiple cuts because Vitali's defense is to block punches with his face and doing that against Lewis resulted in Vitali's face being turned into hamburger. 3rd, had the fight continued, Lewis finishes Vitali off in round 7.

    I disagree with your general predictions of how the Klitschkos would have done against masters of the past. The game has changed immensely since then. By mere size alone, the Klitschkos were much taller and bigger than any of the rivals that you mention. And I think that the overall physical strength of today towers over anything the old masters could conjure up. Like it or not, the ‘butterfly and bumblebee’ antics and finesse of the past are overshadowed by the size and strengh of today (at least in the heavyweight class), and you’ll have to admit that the current crop of heavyweight greats look more like the Klitschko brothers than like Muhamed Ali or Tyson. We’ll never really know. It’s like in the chess world today, would Magnusson dominate Bobbie Fischer?…I think that the computer generated prognosis would give a decided nod to Magnusson, but I don’t know?…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William

    It’s like in the chess world today, would Magnusson dominate Bobbie Fischer?
     
    Yes. Easily.

    By mere size alone, the Klitschkos were much taller and bigger than any of the rivals that you mention. And I think that the overall physical strength of today towers over anything the old masters could conjure up.
     
    1. Physical strength isn't that important in boxing
    2. Neither Klitschko was particularly physically strong
    3. Fighters are bigger, taller, longer and hit harder (not necessarily stronger) which is why I have ranked the Klitschko's above guys like Johnson, Dempsey, Louis, Marciano and Frazier head to head. The Klitschko's would have been too big for those guys although I would favor a roided up Frazier over either of them.
    4. Douglas, Tucker, Bowe and Lewis all had similar dimensions to the Klits and the contemporary elite heavyweights, and this was in the 80s and early 90s.
    5. There has been a clear skills deterioration in heavyweight boxing. There are plenty of active heavyweights with the same physical dimensions as guys like Ali and Holmes and none of them have anything remotely close to the skills of those two guys. Compare Povetkin to Holmes and it is night and day.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Marcus says:
    @Ali Choudhury
    Indians are too varied for averages to be meaningful. Pathans, Sikhs, Janjuas, Rajputs, Gurkhas etc. were all prized as soldiers by the British which would argue they had a higher than average grip strength. Wrestling was also a pretty popular sport in Punjab and Uttar Pradesh going back to the Mughal era and earlier. The reason for the lack of medals is more due to a cultural and official lack of interest in sports development. Unlike China and the USSR, the government never believed sporting success was necessary to promote the country. There is not much infrastructure or funding for the development of world class athletes.

    You and Talha probably know more about this than me, but I believe that the Bengalis (who had been the backbone of the East India Company’s forces beforehand) were overrepresented among the Sepoy mutineers. So, while northwestern subcontinentals are probably more physically imposing than those from eastern or southern regions, there was a political motivation for the “Martial Races” theories: the Bengalis “betrayal.” Before that, there was also no disparagement of the Bengalis’ martial prowess, they had been regarded as highly reliable in the Company’s wars with the Marathas and the Manchus.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @Daniel Chieh
    Quality of soldiers still matters a great deal at times, something which the Prussians knew and was able to use to their advantage historically. And as suggested by the Mongol rampage, it can be of even world-changing significance at times.

    I always thought the Mongolian advantage was their mastery of horse-riding and superior logictic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Obviously, but this doesn't preclude a certain fitness advantage as well. In this case, the larger part of the advantage would be their horsemanship and archery allowing them to pick and choose their battles on their terms.
    , @myself
    The conventional answer is that the Mongolian grand strategic advantage was that they were a nomadic people, and so could devote a very large portion of the resources and manpower to war. Their diplomacy, spy-craft and assassination means were not inferior to their enemies'.

    Their strategic advantage was that their armies were led by inspired commanders like Chinggiz Khan, Subotai and others, and they were the most mobile and maneuver-oriented force the world had yet seen. They could concentrate power over vast distances and in totally unexpected places. Also, they could coordinate geographically disparate campaigns in order to accomplish an over-all result - the result set by their leaders at the level (see above), including Chinggiz Khan himself.

    Their operational advantages were their superbly developed logistics and message-delivery systems, allowing the above-mentioned deployed armies great coordination on campaigns, They could essentially set-up their enemies for total defeats in battles. No one could live off the land like they could - meaning very few supply problems.

    Finally, their tactical advantage was having excellent leaders at the level of battles and skirmishes, long practice fighting in formal units, drill, flexibility in responding to changing battle conditions, extreme morale (during their epoch of invinciblity), their individual mastery of their fighting skills - archery, horse-riding, lance, sword, axe/mace and lasso use , and their weapons, armor and general equipment, which was of uniformly high quality for the era concerned. (They had unlimited access to the huge workshops and smithies of China, after they conquered that country).

    I think I probably missed a few key advantages of the Mongols, but the above is an attempt at a start.

    Set beside all these game-changing factors, Mongolian ferocity, toughness, strength and endurance played some part in their success (they cannot have hurt one bit), but probably pale in significance.
    , @Hippopotamusdrome


    Mongolian advantage was ... superior logictic

     

    Superior logictic = no logistics. Horses graze steppe, soldiers survive off pillage. No supply train necessary.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Mr. Hack says:
    @Marcus
    I'm not Russian or a Putin supporter. It only seems natural, given their rhetoric, that the ultrationalists in Canada, US, etc. would leap at the chance to fight for the courageous Maidanist government and get to kill a few vatniki in the process, no? Cowaaardds!

    What do any of your insightful opinions about what Ukrainian ultranationalists in Canada might or might not do have to do with the Klitschko brothers or Vasili Lomachenko showing up to their professional fights donning Ukrainian national insignia?…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    You interject extraneous material to troll all the time. Turnabout is fair play, right?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @Erik Sieven
    I always thought the Mongolian advantage was their mastery of horse-riding and superior logictic.

    Obviously, but this doesn’t preclude a certain fitness advantage as well. In this case, the larger part of the advantage would be their horsemanship and archery allowing them to pick and choose their battles on their terms.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. “I was venturing the idea that physical performance may not however have been entirely irrelevant.”

    I think I have already mentioned it on this blog. I could imagine that differences in physical strength are not entirely irrelevant for economic success. Especially it might in part explain the fact that controlled for IQ Japan underperforms economical.
    Recently I have seen a documentary about a new school for sailors in New Guinea. The german instructor said one Melanesian can work as hard as three Filipinos, who seem to dominate the market for sailors internationally today.
    I have no idea what percentage of GDP in developed countries is dependents on physical strength today, but I would guess it is certainly higher that 5%. So a big enough difference strength between populations might actually matter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    I think I have already mentioned it on this blog. I could imagine that differences in physical strength are not entirely irrelevant for economic success. Especially it might in part explain the fact that controlled for IQ Japan underperforms economical.
     
    I can't imagine in a first world country, the average physical strength notwithstanding age structure has a meaningful effect on economic performance.

    Japan is a respectable #23 in GDP per capita on a nominal basis. But of course it's supposed to do better because it is smarter.

    20 Israel 40,258
    21 France 39,869
    22 United Kingdom 39,735
    23 Japan 38,440
    24 United Arab Emirates 37,226
    25 Italy 31,984
     
    However, it really lags the US which stands at $60,000 per capita. On a PPP basis, it does worse at #28. It could partially be explained by Japan's median age. It is the world's oldest country. Germany is younger by only a few months but at least has a lot of good quality immigration from the rest of the EU to replenish its workforce.

    Can Karlin explore Japan's laggardness? I know he has observations on Asian countries generally as part of a global review of wealth and IQ. Japan is one generation ahead of South Korea and Taiwan so it removes the "still too early to tell" explanation (e.g. South Koreans over the age of 50 are unskilled and unschooled so the economy is hobbled by a lack of good senior managers and experienced workers).

    Some thoughts building on comments and Karlin's posts.

    Curiosity - Japan seems like a country with curiosity but as Karlin has mentioned its per capita Nature Index contribution is about 1/2 of Germany.

    Social capital - Japan seems like a country with high social capital because of its cohesive social fabric but I don't know much about the sociological profile of Japan. Maybe they don't have civic associations, volunteer, talk with and help out their neighbors, etc.

    Hikikomori - "adults who withdraw from social life, often seeking extreme degrees of isolation and confinement". There are a lot of them in Japan. Among the most recent adult generation in affluent, urban East Asia a large percentage of men seem to have a mild form of Asperger's or something on the end of the spectrum. I associate mild Asperger's with a broader syndrome that includes low career ambition, just getting by in work and life, and not wanting to accomplish something big. I wonder if there is a way to calculate a national Aspie Quotient and the correlation with wealth among first world nations.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Very interesting data. My personal impression has always been that there are overall no big differences between any “caucasian” sub-populations. Also Subsaharan Africans seem to be pretty similar to Caucasians to me. East Asians seem to be the big expection being shorter and especially much more gracile than everybody else. The data above indicates that this is not a very accurate description, with China having pretty average scores in the Leong and Darryl et al. paper. Then again their data is height-adjusted, so absolute grip strength might still be very low. Still, being exceptional gracile would mean having exceptional low grip strength also adjusted for height.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous725
    The most comprehensive study on average human height would indicate the shortest heights can be found in South Asia and Southeast Asia, followed by sub-Saharan Africa and MENA. China is somewhere in the middle, comparable to Latin America. This means that, if anything, Leong understates South Asian underperformance in grip strength since they are on average the shortest ethnicity.

    https://elifesciences.org/articles/13410

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Marcus says:
    @Mr. Hack
    What do any of your insightful opinions about what Ukrainian ultranationalists in Canada might or might not do have to do with the Klitschko brothers or Vasili Lomachenko showing up to their professional fights donning Ukrainian national insignia?...

    You interject extraneous material to troll all the time. Turnabout is fair play, right?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    I don't know who's trolling whom here? The topic of this thread is "The (Physical) Strength of Nations'. I've included examples of three bona-fide Ukrainian bad asses in the world of professional boxing. What have you brought to the table so far?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @Dmitry

    Pathans, Sikhs, Janjuas, Rajputs, Gurkhas etc. were all prized as soldiers by the British which would argue they had a higher than average grip strength
     
    Why? What does grip strength in a population, have to do with Gurkhas' perceived abilities as soldiers (for the British military)? (They are gripping their rifles more strongly than other soldiers, or they can be used to unscrew difficult jars?)

    Well, if the “family” profession is soldiering, that would imply one was better able to cope with the physical demands of soldiering, be stronger than average and have higher grip strength than average.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Mr. Hack says:
    @Marcus
    You interject extraneous material to troll all the time. Turnabout is fair play, right?

    I don’t know who’s trolling whom here? The topic of this thread is “The (Physical) Strength of Nations’. I’ve included examples of three bona-fide Ukrainian bad asses in the world of professional boxing. What have you brought to the table so far?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dmitry

    Pathans, Sikhs, Janjuas, Rajputs, Gurkhas etc. were all prized as soldiers by the British which would argue they had a higher than average grip strength
     
    Why? What does grip strength in a population, have to do with Gurkhas' perceived abilities as soldiers (for the British military)? (They are gripping their rifles more strongly than other soldiers, or they can be used to unscrew difficult jars?)

    Here is a real military application of grip strength, on the Indian subcontinent, no less: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarasandha#Fight_with_Karna

    Sorry, that was the best I could do.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Talha
    This sounds right, all of the special forces tests I've come across look for speed or the ability to do x push-ups, pull-ups, sit-ups, timed swimming, timed running, etc. I've never seen one asking how much someone can squat or bench. Of course I'm not an expert in this field, but when I was younger used to use those as a benchmark for my own exercise routine.

    I've never seen a huge SAS guy. Well built and athletic? Sure - but not muscle bound.

    Peace.

    In a remarkable convergence with another UR story, I was just reading up on Einstein in Colombo, and he remarks on the relative toughness of the natives relative to their slight build: We rode on small one-man carriages drawn at trot by men of Herculean strength, yet of delicate build. about rickshaw pullers and the Colombo harbour was lively and bustling with workers of Herculean strength lifting cargo (a paraphrase). But the thing that amused me the most was: when he was in Japan, when he wrote a note of advice to a courier instead of a tip.

    Anyway, despite this, Sinhalese make pretty lousy soldiers, at least under their own commanders, and the reason for this is most probably temperament, an extremely important factor.

    edit: oops, article link: http://www.island.lk/index.php?page_cat=article-details&page=article-details&code_title=174223

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Yes, I’ve seen this in some diminutive people. My uncle (a homeopathic doctor) from Pakistan visits often. He is elderly and fit as a fiddle. Hand grip like a vice and his daily routine includes clean and jerks of 50 pounds. Pretty good for an octogenarian.

    Some people make great soldiers but need someone else to lead them. My Egyptian friends have mentioned it is a running joke among them that they make a fine fighting force as long as some Kurd, Turk, Albanian, etc is leading them.

    Peace.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dmitry
    Another topic which is interesting (not that I know anything about the topic) is the greater intelligence and organization level of the Romans compared to their contemporary nationalities.

    The extent of the disparity, and amount of generations it existed - seems something that would be statistically very improbable .

    Who said anything about the greater intelligence as such of the Romans?

    Read More
    • Replies: @animalogic
    Greater intelligence of Roman's per se ? I don't know.
    But in terms of military organisation, technology, engineering, political -military culture (& imagination) you could say the Romans had "intelligence".
    Their military also had very high physical standards. Legionaries went through a lengthy & tough training regime. Long full pack marches, sword practice with double weight swords (grip strength) , swimming, fatigues & any specialised employment ( ie blacksmith in get etc)
    Once trained a legionarie was expected to march (in full kit, inc armor) a 20 (?) mile day, then construct a full field camp (ie deep ditch, watchtowers, stakes etc) or indeed (if unavoidable) , stop & fight a battle.
    They weren't called Marius's mules for nothing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. jeppo says:

    Lactase persistence as an indicator of strength?

    The distribution of the lactase persistence phenotype, or the ability to digest lactose into adulthood, is not homogeneous in the world. Lactase persistence-frequencies are highly variable. In Europe, the distribution of the lactase persistence phenotype is clinal, with frequencies ranging from 15–54% in the south-east to 89–96% in the north-west.[3] For example, only 17% of Greeks and 14% of Sardinians are predicted to possess this phenotype, while around 80% of Finns and Hungarians and 100% of Irish people are predicted to be lactase persistent.[4]

    High frequencies of lactase persistence are also found in some places in Sub-Saharan Africa and in the Middle East. But the most common situation is intermediate to low lactase persistence: intermediate (11 to 32%) in Central Asia,[5] low (<=5%) in Native Americans, East Asians, most Chinese populations[2] and some African populations.[3][6][5]

    In Africa, the distribution of lactase persistence is "patchy":[7][8][3] high variations of frequency are observed in neighbouring populations, for example between Beja and Nilotes from Sudan.[9] This make the study of lactase persistence distribution more difficult.[6] High percentages of lactase persistence phenotype are found in traditionally pastoralist populations like Fulani and Bedouins.[3][10] It is absent in the Bantu of South Africa.[2]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  70. @Erik Sieven
    Very interesting data. My personal impression has always been that there are overall no big differences between any "caucasian" sub-populations. Also Subsaharan Africans seem to be pretty similar to Caucasians to me. East Asians seem to be the big expection being shorter and especially much more gracile than everybody else. The data above indicates that this is not a very accurate description, with China having pretty average scores in the Leong and Darryl et al. paper. Then again their data is height-adjusted, so absolute grip strength might still be very low. Still, being exceptional gracile would mean having exceptional low grip strength also adjusted for height.

    The most comprehensive study on average human height would indicate the shortest heights can be found in South Asia and Southeast Asia, followed by sub-Saharan Africa and MENA. China is somewhere in the middle, comparable to Latin America. This means that, if anything, Leong understates South Asian underperformance in grip strength since they are on average the shortest ethnicity.

    https://elifesciences.org/articles/13410

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Dmitry says:
    @Mr. Hack
    Watch the clip. What colors does he and his team display at each fight?

    Hopefully Karlin won’t be annoyed we go so far offtopic – I’ll insert the “more” tag anyway.

    What do you think about Shevchenko? – supernatural genius in AC Milan but failure in Chelsea.

    I’m personally feeling like this when remembering his goal highlights for AC Milan:

    [MORE]

    E.g.:

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    I don't think Karlin much minds people straying of topic...and since we're discussing the 'strength of nations' a conversation about certain sports figures, shouldn't be that far off topic. I used to follow professional soccer (football) in the states as a college student, when there was such a league in the US. The teams included mostly good local players with an infusion of older, great players from Europe and South America augmenting the lineups with their still occassional brilliant plays. I remember seeing an older Ace Ntsoelegoe and even Pele, grace the field with their presence. But that was a long time ago, and since those leagues have washed out, so has my interest in soccer.

    As for Shevchenko, well I think that his numbers speak for themselves. Everyone gets older and has to move on. I read up a little about him before commenting back and see that he was once a supporter of Yanukovych, so I question his veracity. On the other hand, I see that he wants his children to all be fluent in the Ukrainian language. A mixed-bag, like most people. :-)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @Dmitry
    Does 'grip strength' (which measures just a function of the hand) have a strong relation to actual individual strength in other areas (in terms of weight lifting or other strength talent)?

    Isn't it possible that the genetic or environmental basis for hand strength will be different to those of a different muscle group (for example, differences in shoulder strength or thigh strength could have a different genetic and environmental basis, and be stronger in different nationalities than others)

    Also aren't grip muscles one of the attributes most susceptible to environment factors (the reason weight-lifting as a training, exists).


    -

    2

    Is there a strong relation between weight lifting talent and individual fighting without weapons.

    E.g. Andrey Drachev, World Weightlifting Champion is easily killed when he was tricked into a street fight with a small but more skilled Muslim guy in Khabarovsk last year.*


    -

    3.

    Romans, even if individually, would be fighting with weapons.

    So the direct relation to grip strength would only be in relation to their grip of the sword.

    (Other things like aggression, speed, mental attributes and skill would be more relevant to combat with a weapon, than without a weapon).

    Isn't the distinction with Roman from Northern people they genocided, that they were not individual fighters, but organized and group fighters.

    If Romans would lose in one-to-one, it is not because physical weakness (probably they were often better fed and stronger than the enemy, as they had more organized supplies), but because Romans had no individual fighting skill or experience.


    -

    *
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpRpeHwANkQ

    Nice neighborhood.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. Mr. Hack says:
    @Dmitry
    Hopefully Karlin won't be annoyed we go so far offtopic - I'll insert the "more" tag anyway.

    What do you think about Shevchenko? - supernatural genius in AC Milan but failure in Chelsea.

    I'm personally feeling like this when remembering his goal highlights for AC Milan:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85XsmZdyZ6I

    E.g.:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hVr7k-Pirs

    I don’t think Karlin much minds people straying of topic…and since we’re discussing the ‘strength of nations’ a conversation about certain sports figures, shouldn’t be that far off topic. I used to follow professional soccer (football) in the states as a college student, when there was such a league in the US. The teams included mostly good local players with an infusion of older, great players from Europe and South America augmenting the lineups with their still occassional brilliant plays. I remember seeing an older Ace Ntsoelegoe and even Pele, grace the field with their presence. But that was a long time ago, and since those leagues have washed out, so has my interest in soccer.

    As for Shevchenko, well I think that his numbers speak for themselves. Everyone gets older and has to move on. I read up a little about him before commenting back and see that he was once a supporter of Yanukovych, so I question his veracity. On the other hand, I see that he wants his children to all be fluent in the Ukrainian language. A mixed-bag, like most people. :-)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @Dmitry
    Does 'grip strength' (which measures just a function of the hand) have a strong relation to actual individual strength in other areas (in terms of weight lifting or other strength talent)?

    Isn't it possible that the genetic or environmental basis for hand strength will be different to those of a different muscle group (for example, differences in shoulder strength or thigh strength could have a different genetic and environmental basis, and be stronger in different nationalities than others)

    Also aren't grip muscles one of the attributes most susceptible to environment factors (the reason weight-lifting as a training, exists).


    -

    2

    Is there a strong relation between weight lifting talent and individual fighting without weapons.

    E.g. Andrey Drachev, World Weightlifting Champion is easily killed when he was tricked into a street fight with a small but more skilled Muslim guy in Khabarovsk last year.*


    -

    3.

    Romans, even if individually, would be fighting with weapons.

    So the direct relation to grip strength would only be in relation to their grip of the sword.

    (Other things like aggression, speed, mental attributes and skill would be more relevant to combat with a weapon, than without a weapon).

    Isn't the distinction with Roman from Northern people they genocided, that they were not individual fighters, but organized and group fighters.

    If Romans would lose in one-to-one, it is not because physical weakness (probably they were often better fed and stronger than the enemy, as they had more organized supplies), but because Romans had no individual fighting skill or experience.


    -

    *
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpRpeHwANkQ

    The Romans kept their discipline in battle when things got tough. That’s what made them superior (at least that’s what I conclude from Caesar, Tacitus and Suetonius).

    It’s a bit like African football teams – they can be physically imposing (although I notice that the Nigerians seem to be smaller than in the 90s). And when the game is going well they can play good football. But when they fall behind, they lose their shape. They chase the game and make bad mistakes.

    A good European, or South American, side will grind them down.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Guy Lombardo
    Who said ancient Romans were the same as modern Italians?

    A lot of them are described as blue eyed, light haired.

    Reconstruction of Lucius Sulla

    http://www.luciuscorneliussylla.fr/image/fondsylla.png

    More likely, modern Italians are more similar to the ancient, pre-Indo European Etruscans, rather than the lighter, probably more northerly shifted Romans of the martial and ruling classes.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @Dmitry
    Does 'grip strength' (which measures just a function of the hand) have a strong relation to actual individual strength in other areas (in terms of weight lifting or other strength talent)?

    Isn't it possible that the genetic or environmental basis for hand strength will be different to those of a different muscle group (for example, differences in shoulder strength or thigh strength could have a different genetic and environmental basis, and be stronger in different nationalities than others)

    Also aren't grip muscles one of the attributes most susceptible to environment factors (the reason weight-lifting as a training, exists).


    -

    2

    Is there a strong relation between weight lifting talent and individual fighting without weapons.

    E.g. Andrey Drachev, World Weightlifting Champion is easily killed when he was tricked into a street fight with a small but more skilled Muslim guy in Khabarovsk last year.*


    -

    3.

    Romans, even if individually, would be fighting with weapons.

    So the direct relation to grip strength would only be in relation to their grip of the sword.

    (Other things like aggression, speed, mental attributes and skill would be more relevant to combat with a weapon, than without a weapon).

    Isn't the distinction with Roman from Northern people they genocided, that they were not individual fighters, but organized and group fighters.

    If Romans would lose in one-to-one, it is not because physical weakness (probably they were often better fed and stronger than the enemy, as they had more organized supplies), but because Romans had no individual fighting skill or experience.


    -

    *
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpRpeHwANkQ

    “Does ‘grip strength’ (which measures just a function of the hand) have a strong relation to actual individual strength in other areas (in terms of weight lifting or other strength talent)?”

    Of course. The deadlift.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SteveRogers42
    Pullups. Wrestling.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @Greasy William
    Anybody who has ever boxed or wrestled would agree that American whites and American blacks are about the same in strength, with whites probably being a little stronger.

    What does boxing have to do with physical strength, as in the big four lifts?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erik Sieven
    both boxing and strength (in terms of big four lifts) are related to rather big and dense bones
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @neutral

    perhaps the human race was at its genomic peak of physical strength in Iceland 1,000 years ago.
     
    I am going with the safer assumption that such a feat of carrying that log did not occur 1000 years ago.

    The Old Ones performed many feats of strength, mostly as an outgrowth of their daily lives of physical labor. Check out these two dainty flowers from the 19th Century:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Cyr#Reputation_as_a_strongman

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_MacAskill#Adult_career

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @Dmitry

    It seems very intuitive that more strength would very much translate into better fighting capability (with or without weapons), all else equal.

     

    But as a parallel symptom of another underlying variable.

    For example, if we say health of the organism is an underlying variable. A healthy person might have higher cardiovascular stamina, be more aggressive, and be faster and have more explosive strength, and incidentally better at weight-lifting.

    But the weight-lifting strength would be the most irrelevant factor of those listed in e.g. a boxing fight.

    Weight-lifting strength would also be a useful symptom of boxing strength (if you were using it to select winners), as it will also correlate with things like physical weight (i.e. more direct determinants of the winner in the boxing fight).

    -
    As for group differences which are likely genetic, and distinguish people in the highest percentage - it can change dramatically on the particular activity.

    It seems intuitive that black people are - as a group - better at running (the joke that they are running from lions). But in fact group advantage in long-distance running has a different basis from group advantage in short-distance running.

    So Ethiopian populations will have a group advantage, other things equal, in 10,000 metre run, but a group disadvantage, other things equal, in 100 metre runs.

    Similarly, group advantages in weight lifting, could easily have a different basis from group advantages in e.g. punching strength and speed (that would be relevant in boxing fights).

    An unusually large, strong man could wield heavier weapons and wear heavier armor than a smaller man. If he trained in combat from childhood, he would maximize his coordination and agility, as well as his strength potential. In an era of armored hand-to-hand combat, an athletic giant (think Shaq, rather than Andre the Giant) would be an incredible force multiplier.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @Marcus
    "Martial races" theory may have been flawed, but I think it had a reasonable basis: the northwestern subcontinentals tend to be bigger and probably consume more meat. Ofc size isn't everything in war, hence the Marathas were the dominant power in India before the British.

    Didn’t the Brits themselves come up with the “martial races” theory, favoring the Sikhs and Punjabis over the darker Southern crew?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    It would make sense, since the Brits are notorious for not wanting to get their own hands bloody and see their own children die.

    They had to know who to recruit from.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @Hindoo
    My beloved SLC24A5-drenched Caucasoid cousins from sub-Arctic climates,

    I love you.

    You are the light in our lives. I can't imagine live on Earth or the International Space Station without you.

    Among other things:

    1. You provide us with lovable politicians like Justin Trudeau, Emmanuel Macron, Jeb Bush etc...
    2. You provide us with lovely ladies who star in amateur cuckold/hotwife porn with Big Black Cocks
    3. You provide us with lots of socio-politico-economic opportunities, not only in our own country, but also in yours
    4. You provide us with invaluable military/industrial technology
    5. You provide soldiers to fight in our wars

    I can't thank you enough. Mooooahh Mooooahh Mooooahh

    You are AWESOME!!! Did you know that?

    I am a total White Survivalist. I desire the survival of the White race so that we may continue have such White porn babes such as Avy Scott, Angela White, Harmoni Kalifornia etc...

    For your encouragement, here is a website called The Cuckold Consultant [AK: Link removed] that helps, and provides guidance and counseling for husbands (read: White husbands) on how to turn their wives (read: White wives) in to sluts for other mens' (read: Big Black Cocks') man-tool.

    Please keep'em rolling, in Jesus' name!

    Gosh! Thanks for the good words! You’re a pal!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @Mr. Hack
    I disagree with your general predictions of how the Klitschkos would have done against masters of the past. The game has changed immensely since then. By mere size alone, the Klitschkos were much taller and bigger than any of the rivals that you mention. And I think that the overall physical strength of today towers over anything the old masters could conjure up. Like it or not, the 'butterfly and bumblebee' antics and finesse of the past are overshadowed by the size and strengh of today (at least in the heavyweight class), and you'll have to admit that the current crop of heavyweight greats look more like the Klitschko brothers than like Muhamed Ali or Tyson. We'll never really know. It's like in the chess world today, would Magnusson dominate Bobbie Fischer?...I think that the computer generated prognosis would give a decided nod to Magnusson, but I don't know?...

    It’s like in the chess world today, would Magnusson dominate Bobbie Fischer?

    Yes. Easily.

    By mere size alone, the Klitschkos were much taller and bigger than any of the rivals that you mention. And I think that the overall physical strength of today towers over anything the old masters could conjure up.

    1. Physical strength isn’t that important in boxing
    2. Neither Klitschko was particularly physically strong
    3. Fighters are bigger, taller, longer and hit harder (not necessarily stronger) which is why I have ranked the Klitschko’s above guys like Johnson, Dempsey, Louis, Marciano and Frazier head to head. The Klitschko’s would have been too big for those guys although I would favor a roided up Frazier over either of them.
    4. Douglas, Tucker, Bowe and Lewis all had similar dimensions to the Klits and the contemporary elite heavyweights, and this was in the 80s and early 90s.
    5. There has been a clear skills deterioration in heavyweight boxing. There are plenty of active heavyweights with the same physical dimensions as guys like Ali and Holmes and none of them have anything remotely close to the skills of those two guys. Compare Povetkin to Holmes and it is night and day.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Your opinions are sound and appear to be the result of much thinking (and you appear to understand the game better than I do). However, I do think that it's quite possible that the Klitschkos only boxed to the levels required for them to win. As you've stated the period included a lot of mediocre figthers. If the level was higher, from what I've seen, their level of skill could have also risen proportionately.

    Similarly, with Magnusson vs Fischer. Fischer was a great student of the game of chess and was always evolving and bringing the whole game up a notch too. I think that if he were still around, his own game would have evolved to even higher levels and he'd be more than a match for Magnusson.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @Anonymous
    lol.

    No way white people are stronger than blacks. This is just another way for Anatoly to selectively look at data to show that White People Stronk!

    In the Olympics, almost every medal in the shotput, discus, hammer throw, and Olympic weightlifting is won by Europeans, with the championship results skewing heavily in favor of the Eastern Euros.

    Between this, the Worlds Strongest Man competition, and the Crossfit championships, what other objective proof would you require?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    lol. Did you really just say crossfit?

    Maybe hipsterism hasn't reached Africa yet.

    Neither of those sports are things Africans probably even know about about much less practice.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. Bliss says:

    According to 23&me, genetic testing confirms that Africans are by far the strongest race and South Asians by far the weakest. With Europeans and East Asians in the middle:

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Thank you!

    This makes the most sense and is obvious, but HBDers and especially Anatoly have the habit of cherry picking data to show that white people Stronk!
    , @RaceRealist88
    The fact that you're extrapolating that from an association study done on Polish powerlifters is comical.

    Furthermore, "power athlete" does not mean "powerlifter" or "weightlifter"; they're nowhere to be found.

    Here's the paper you're referencing:

    http://sci-hub.tw/10.1519/jsc.0b013e31828155b5

    And here is a meta-analysis stating:

    Results of this meta-analysis show that US African American carriers of the ACE AG genotype (rs4363) were more than two times more likely to become a power athlete compared to carriers of the ACE preferential genotype for power athlete status (AA) in this population.

    http://www.systematicreviews.nl/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/genes_and_muscle_growth.pdf

    Not to mention how foolish it is to look for genomic associations as "gotchas" to actual functional strength competitions.
    , @Bill Williams
    23 and me analyze spit and send you back some boilerplate generalizations about your ancestry. They aren't an authority on anything!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. myself says:
    @Dmitry

    Physical height = an obvious advantage in war.

    Your methodology here is unsound. Contemporary data taken from nation averages has little relevance for other peoples inhabiting the same area over 2000 years past.
     
    Why? In Ancient warfare, isn't it knowledge of all military historians that group organization, coolness and organization of supplies are the secret to victory (and at a higher level organization of tactics).

    Nobody is analyzing e.g. outcome of the Battle of Kannakh, because Carthage people (to reductio ad absurdum) were taller (or shorter) than Romans.

    Why? In Ancient warfare, isn’t it knowledge of all military historians that group organization, coolness and organization of supplies are the secret to victory (and at a higher level organization of tactics).

    Though just an interested layman (as in, I read this stuff, that’s all), the above is the overwhelming consensus of the professional experts (the actual soldiers and warriors) throughout human history.

    And not just in Ancient warfare, in conflict situations from the prehistoric (think tribal warfare in ancient Eurasia, fought with stone-tipped spears, clubs and simple bows) to the present day. Okay, maybe not really the supplies part for the prehistoric, but group coordination, keeping your wits, and directed, instead of wild, aggression always apply.

    Do stronger, faster, tougher (able to take more pain, function on less supply etc) soldiers, all things equal, ever hurt a military force? No, of course not, and no one has ever said that, far as I know.

    It’s just that, provided you are not pitting “actual hobbits versus Uruk Hai” (okay, geeky reference, my apologies), sheer physical factors (brute strength, height, speed, endurance) have historically taken a far backseat to morale, organization, leadership, tactics and other “less quantifiable factors” in group fighting.

    I saw a documentary once, in which a Marine sergeant instructor was being interviewed. He said, in his estimation, that at least 95% of fully grown men, on the entire planet (this guy had in the past trained third-world conscripts), were able to be molded to be deployable infantrymen.

    “You give the Corps anyone, any skinny third-world kid, who’s not clinically retarded. I literally don’t care about his background. We take him and put him through the system. I can practically guarantee you a usable Marine private after we’re done with him. That kid WILL make the cut – and it’s my job to make it so”. This is from memory – words to that effect.

    That was an eye-opening interview.

    Read More
    • Agree: AaronB
    • Replies: @SteveRogers42
    I admire his confidence, but I think the ol' Sarge has his work cut out for him:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8LSnuGTO5w

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOO5s1mEXFU
    , @reiner Tor


    Why? In Ancient warfare, isn’t it knowledge of all military historians that group organization, coolness and organization of supplies are the secret to victory (and at a higher level organization of tactics).
     
    Though just an interested layman (as in, I read this stuff, that’s all), the above is the overwhelming consensus of the professional experts (the actual soldiers and warriors) throughout human history.
     
    Well, the ketogenic diet of nomads enabled them to stay alive in the winter without food. (By the way their horses were also way better adapted to the winter steppe, without much food, either.) They didn't need to organize supplies that much, because their supplies were carried in their bodies. If military historians are dismissing this, then they are just dismissing a very important explanation for nomads' success. For example it's impossible to understand Timur's campaigns against the Golden Horde without understanding the soldiers' and the horses' individual ability to withstand starvation in the winter.

    I'm also not sure which experts you're talking about. For example it's a well-known fact (mentioned by Martin van Creveld, to cite at least one expert dissenting from that alleged consensus), that modern militaries in the first half of the 20th century always preferred farm boys for soldiers. When farm boys were in short supply, they were going for blue collar workers, preferably from smaller towns or cities (these provided the backbone of the Germany armed forces in both world wars, though they were in somewhat shorter supply by 1939 than they had been in 1914), working class from big cities were the next (i.e. relatively low) on the list preferred soldiers, and only once the supply of these dried up (the working class was often protected from conscription during wartime because they were doing essential work in war production), did they resort to people with white collar backgrounds like clerks etc. These were usually thought to be the worst soldiers, and present-day first world populations are usually similar to these.

    Martin van Creveld mentions that nomads were always considered better soldiers on the individual level than even farm boys, and that hunter-gatherers were similarly considered more formidable warriors than any civilized soldier. The one disadvantage of these two groups was that they were often lacking in discipline, which was especially true of hunter-gatherers. However, if anyone could instill discipline into nomads, then he had a truly formidable army indeed, the two most famous examples being Genghis Khan and Timur. Hunter-gatherers were also lacking in numbers, which after industrialization started to become a problem for nomads as well. Until modern times nomads had enough numbers given their much higher ratio of warriors relative to their population.

    Marine sergeant instructor... said
     
    He would say that, wouldn't he? He's not going to say that the material he had to work with has deteriorated considerably from what they had back in the 1960s (soldiers are apparently often unable to properly squat), or that as a result soldiers are way worse now than they had been before.

    By the way there's a huge ideological push for saying that physical qualities like strength don't matter, because then they can say that women can be just as good soldiers as men, provided they go through the magic of the "system" and thus become disciplined. I have seen articles where various supposed experts (including active military officers and soldiers) all said how having female (Muslim, etc.) soldiers was the next best thing since sliced bread. It doesn't mean it's true.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @Talha
    This sounds right, all of the special forces tests I've come across look for speed or the ability to do x push-ups, pull-ups, sit-ups, timed swimming, timed running, etc. I've never seen one asking how much someone can squat or bench. Of course I'm not an expert in this field, but when I was younger used to use those as a benchmark for my own exercise routine.

    I've never seen a huge SAS guy. Well built and athletic? Sure - but not muscle bound.

    Peace.

    From what I understand, the American experience in the Forever War has indicated that regular infantry, as well as SpecOps, needed to develop a lot more strength and power relative to their endurance component. Urban combat required a lot of explosive movement, rather than the long marches of yore.

    Although the training pipeline for such units as the SEALs still requires vast amounts of running, swimming, and cals, once the operators are in the Teams, they switch to personalized programs that are heavy on weightlifting, kettlebells, and grappling. Companies such as Mountain Tactical Institute and Tactical Barbell have arisen to meet this need.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    Urban combat required a lot of explosive movement, rather than the long marches of yore.
     
    Excellent points. Soldiers who get helicopter dropped into an urban jungle are definitely different men than those of the past.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Mr. Hack says:
    @Greasy William

    It’s like in the chess world today, would Magnusson dominate Bobbie Fischer?
     
    Yes. Easily.

    By mere size alone, the Klitschkos were much taller and bigger than any of the rivals that you mention. And I think that the overall physical strength of today towers over anything the old masters could conjure up.
     
    1. Physical strength isn't that important in boxing
    2. Neither Klitschko was particularly physically strong
    3. Fighters are bigger, taller, longer and hit harder (not necessarily stronger) which is why I have ranked the Klitschko's above guys like Johnson, Dempsey, Louis, Marciano and Frazier head to head. The Klitschko's would have been too big for those guys although I would favor a roided up Frazier over either of them.
    4. Douglas, Tucker, Bowe and Lewis all had similar dimensions to the Klits and the contemporary elite heavyweights, and this was in the 80s and early 90s.
    5. There has been a clear skills deterioration in heavyweight boxing. There are plenty of active heavyweights with the same physical dimensions as guys like Ali and Holmes and none of them have anything remotely close to the skills of those two guys. Compare Povetkin to Holmes and it is night and day.

    Your opinions are sound and appear to be the result of much thinking (and you appear to understand the game better than I do). However, I do think that it’s quite possible that the Klitschkos only boxed to the levels required for them to win. As you’ve stated the period included a lot of mediocre figthers. If the level was higher, from what I’ve seen, their level of skill could have also risen proportionately.

    Similarly, with Magnusson vs Fischer. Fischer was a great student of the game of chess and was always evolving and bringing the whole game up a notch too. I think that if he were still around, his own game would have evolved to even higher levels and he’d be more than a match for Magnusson.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Polymath
    It's not "Magnusson", it's Magnus Carlsen. If 29-year-old Bobby were given a year to study modern developments, he would easily beat every current player except Carlsen and Caruana. It is debatable whether he could have upped his game to beat Kasparov, or Carlsen, I'd take either side of an even money bet there. It's a little too early to tell about Caruana but he has a chance to be on the same level.

    Grandmaster William Lombardy was Bobby's second in Reykjavik (and very important in his success, the two of them together out-analyzed the entire Soviet Union in the opening preparation and adjournments), and he was also Bobby's only significant teacher (he trained him from 1954 to 1957). During the last year of Bill's life (he died last October) I was very close to him and I learned a lot about Bobby that I didn't know. Fischer's outstanding quality as a chess professional was his systematic and scientific approach to absorbing all existing knowledge coupled with being harder-working than anyone else at the board and away from it. Kasparov and Carlsen match him in chess knowledge and intuition; Carlsen might be superior to the other two in pure talent but he has not been pushed to his maximum yet.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. @Mr. Hack
    If you really want to talk about physical strength and voraciousness between the different nations, what about the Ukrainian Klitschko brothers? Their accomplishments in the world of heavyweight boxing are well documented and will not soon be matched:


    From 2 July 2011 to 15 December 2013 all major recognized Heavyweight belts were in the Klitschko family. Vitali Klitschko (born 19 July 1971) and Wladimir Klitschko (born 25 March 1976), collectively known as the Klitschko brothers are Ukrainian heavyweight boxers. During their peak years from 2004 until 2015, the Klitschko brothers were considered the most dominant heavyweight champions of their era, and amongst the most successful champions in boxing history.[1][2] After the retirement of boxing legend Lennox Lewis, the Klitschko brothers held all heavyweight boxing world titles.[3][4] Known for their exceptionally large frames and robotic boxing styles, the Klitschko brothers developed a style that utilized their athleticism and using their arm reach to break down opponents.[5][6]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klitschko_brothers

    BTW, they have always referred to themselves as belonging to the Ukrainian nation, not to some sort of a fictitious 'third branch of the all Russian nation'.

    And they aren’t the only boxers from the former Eastern Bloc to regularly commit white-on-black atrocities against overconfident Children of the Sun. Povetkin, Chagaev, Maskaev in the heavyweights, GGG in the middles, and the unbelievably-skilled Lomacenko in the lights…the list goes on and on.

    My favorite is this guy — and at 7 ft. and 330, his example has a direct bearing on the topic of this article:

    https://goo.gl/images/Lw6gdP

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @Mr. Hack
    It doesn't appear that you're much of a fan of the Klitshcko brothers? How about the Ukrainian, Vasyl Lomachenko, who always appears ready to go to work draped underneath the Ukrainian Blue and Yellow.

    As of May 2018, Lomachenko is ranked as the world's best active boxer, pound for pound, by ESPN;[4] the Boxing Writers Association of America[5] and the Transnational Boxing Rankings Board;[6] and second by BoxRec[7] and The Ring.[8] He is also ranked by all of them as the world's best active super featherweight.[9][10][7][11] The Ring named Lomachenko as their Prospect of the Year in 2013; CBS Sports named him Boxer of the Year in 2016; HBO Sports named him Boxer of the Year in 2016 and in 2017;[12][13] the Boxing Writers Association of America and The Ring named him Fighter of the Year in 2017.[14]
     
    https://youtu.be/9gptWqO_ErI

    This guy’s skills are jaw-dropping. I had always thought the two Sugar Rays were the last word in boxing skill until I saw Lomo. He is not only a defensive will-o-the-wisp, but a powerful and precise puncher with “bad intentions”. Long may he reign!

    Read More
    • Agree: Mr. Hack
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Yevardian says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    There's something wrong with you.

    Just typical example of 95% of Indians. They all use the same schtick when provoked, I’ve heard an earful even in formal meetings from such people. Though it was flattering to referred to as fully white I suppose.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. @Ali Choudhury
    Indians are too varied for averages to be meaningful. Pathans, Sikhs, Janjuas, Rajputs, Gurkhas etc. were all prized as soldiers by the British which would argue they had a higher than average grip strength. Wrestling was also a pretty popular sport in Punjab and Uttar Pradesh going back to the Mughal era and earlier. The reason for the lack of medals is more due to a cultural and official lack of interest in sports development. Unlike China and the USSR, the government never believed sporting success was necessary to promote the country. There is not much infrastructure or funding for the development of world class athletes.

    This guy was a legend. He made his own infrastructure.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Gama

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @Mr. Hack

    Vitali’s claim to greatness is LOSING to Lennox Lewis. He is the only “all time great” I can think of whose signature performance was a bloody and decisive defeat
     
    .

    Did you watch the fight? He was ahead on all scorecards going into the next round, and was raring to go. He was, in all honestly, inadvertently head butted by Lewis that caused the bleeding to his head. It's a shame that the match had to end in such an inconclusive manner. The fact remains, that for the next 10 years the brothers dominated the sport. If they were that 'mediocre' then somebody should have put them out of their misery, which never happened (and they fought a lot of fights). What about Lomachenko, what's wrong with him?...

    Hack — my recollection of that fight matches yours, FWIW.

    Read More
    • Agree: Mr. Hack
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @RaceRealist88
    "Does ‘grip strength’ (which measures just a function of the hand) have a strong relation to actual individual strength in other areas (in terms of weight lifting or other strength talent)?"

    Of course. The deadlift.

    Pullups. Wrestling.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. myself says:
    @Talha

    Blacks are not a martial race
     
    There is a massive diversity in Africans; Hausa are martial. Igbo? Not so much.

    The invading Arab armies made mincemeat of both Byzantine and Persian armies; even when under-equipped and outnumbered almost two to one, but they couldn't break past the Nubians and had to settle for a pact.

    Peace.

    The invading Arab armies made mincemeat of both Byzantine and Persian armies; even when under-equipped and outnumbered almost two to one, but they couldn’t break past the Nubians and had to settle for a pact.

    In this case, it wasn’t the tools, but the wielder’s will, that mattered. Morale is always crucial.

    Read More
    • Agree: AaronB
    • Replies: @Talha
    Agree here, but in the case of the Nubians, it was both. The Arabs called them the “eye smiters” because of how accurately they could hit a man with their arrows from a distance. The Arabs had seen nothing comparable in any of the various people they had fought.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @myself

    Why? In Ancient warfare, isn’t it knowledge of all military historians that group organization, coolness and organization of supplies are the secret to victory (and at a higher level organization of tactics).
     
    Though just an interested layman (as in, I read this stuff, that's all), the above is the overwhelming consensus of the professional experts (the actual soldiers and warriors) throughout human history.

    And not just in Ancient warfare, in conflict situations from the prehistoric (think tribal warfare in ancient Eurasia, fought with stone-tipped spears, clubs and simple bows) to the present day. Okay, maybe not really the supplies part for the prehistoric, but group coordination, keeping your wits, and directed, instead of wild, aggression always apply.

    Do stronger, faster, tougher (able to take more pain, function on less supply etc) soldiers, all things equal, ever hurt a military force? No, of course not, and no one has ever said that, far as I know.

    It's just that, provided you are not pitting "actual hobbits versus Uruk Hai" (okay, geeky reference, my apologies), sheer physical factors (brute strength, height, speed, endurance) have historically taken a far backseat to morale, organization, leadership, tactics and other "less quantifiable factors" in group fighting.

    I saw a documentary once, in which a Marine sergeant instructor was being interviewed. He said, in his estimation, that at least 95% of fully grown men, on the entire planet (this guy had in the past trained third-world conscripts), were able to be molded to be deployable infantrymen.

    "You give the Corps anyone, any skinny third-world kid, who's not clinically retarded. I literally don't care about his background. We take him and put him through the system. I can practically guarantee you a usable Marine private after we're done with him. That kid WILL make the cut - and it's my job to make it so". This is from memory - words to that effect.

    That was an eye-opening interview.

    I admire his confidence, but I think the ol’ Sarge has his work cut out for him:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. myself says:
    @Duke of Qin
    The Mongol, really Steppe advantage in warfare isn't biological so much as ecological.

    Pastoralist economies can simply support more fighting men per unit of population than agricultural societies because the calorie-in/calorie-out ratio of livestock rearing is an order of magnitude better than farming grains. Farming is hard back breaking work that requires lots of manpower. Herding sheep and cattle can be accomplished by boys. Thus Steppe polities could in a fight bring much more of their available manpower to bear than settled civilizations. Basically half the men in a Steppe society can be brought into a battle without affecting the livelihoods of the rest. Large settled empires like Rome or China were never able to martial more than 1% of their total populations into their armies because that manpower was needed to farm for most of the year and the taxes could only pay for that amount. Even the most militarized small societies like Sparta or Prussia weren't able to do better than 3% or so before modern industrial agriculture was availble to free up more men for the fight.

    Even worse is that the strategic initiative lies with the Steppe. More dangerous than retreating horse archers is the advantage of the Steppes in that their entire populations are mobile. If they feel that the strategic situation is bad, they simply pack up and move and bring their food along with them. For a settled army to campaign into the Steppe requires bringing long baggage trains requiring massive expenditures of money to supply an army so far from home only to find that the enemy wont even engage in a fight. Thus the only way to effectively fight Steppe polities prior to firearms was to fight like them, with cavalry centric armies designed to ride down their civilian populations and force them into a fight under suboptimal conditions. That is how basically Steppe nomads war with each other.

    Wow, I think I may have read many similar sources to those of Duke of Qin.

    It must be pointed out, though, that sedentary states, if unified and therefore ready to fight, were almost never taken down by non-urban cultures. Most of their defeats throughout history involve them getting attacked during a period of infighting, civil war, internal turmoil and cultural weakness.

    Go ahead, research the historical pattern. You’ll probably agree with me that it’s the case.

    Also, sedentary states have ginormous populations and economic outputs compared to the semi-civilized and the outright barbarian.

    I even agree with the figures given – for the Roman, Persian and Chinese Empires (the truly big-time classical militarists) about 1% of the population would serve in the military during lulls, but growing to 3%+ during times of increased tension.

    These percentages are accurate. We are talking here of professionally-trained, mostly very heavily-armored, and very-well equipped and provisioned armies of regular, very long-service troops – so the classical war machines, for their day, were jaw-droppingly awesome.

    Put this in perspective: I personally love studying medieval warfare, and medieval armies world-wide. But the armies, of say medieval Europe, would have been mere small scouting forces when taken in a classical context! That’s how much prowess and power the ancients had.

    Remember that a full 1% of say Rome’s or Persia’s population and economic output, let’s not even mention China’s vastness, would already be enough to crush, in a straight fight, almost any non-sedentary foe, and a good many medium settled states as well.

    1 out of 100 of something truly enormous is still . . . very damn frightening indeed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Anonymous[152] • Disclaimer says:
    @SteveRogers42
    Didn't the Brits themselves come up with the "martial races" theory, favoring the Sikhs and Punjabis over the darker Southern crew?

    It would make sense, since the Brits are notorious for not wanting to get their own hands bloody and see their own children die.

    They had to know who to recruit from.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Anonymous[152] • Disclaimer says:
    @SteveRogers42
    In the Olympics, almost every medal in the shotput, discus, hammer throw, and Olympic weightlifting is won by Europeans, with the championship results skewing heavily in favor of the Eastern Euros.

    Between this, the Worlds Strongest Man competition, and the Crossfit championships, what other objective proof would you require?

    lol. Did you really just say crossfit?

    Maybe hipsterism hasn’t reached Africa yet.

    Neither of those sports are things Africans probably even know about about much less practice.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SteveRogers42
    Mat Fraser said "Crossfit".

    https://www.menshealth.com/fitness/a19598008/mat-fraser-fittest-man-crossfit-open-workout-18-5/

    My question stands. If they don't wrestle, or lift, or throw heavy objects, what then would your test of strength entail?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Anonymous[152] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bliss
    According to 23&me, genetic testing confirms that Africans are by far the strongest race and South Asians by far the weakest. With Europeans and East Asians in the middle:

    https://i1.wp.com/www.thehealthymelissa.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/actnsss.jpg

    Thank you!

    This makes the most sense and is obvious, but HBDers and especially Anatoly have the habit of cherry picking data to show that white people Stronk!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Well, "white people" plus Mongoloids dominate strength competitions, whereas Africans tend to dominate speed competitions.

    American blacks are also underrepresented in our Special Forces, which may be more of a cultural thing.
    , @RaceRealist88
    How does it make "the most sense" and how is it "obvious"?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. myself says:
    @Greasy William
    that video is disgusting. Little man's syndrome run amok.

    Had the big guy been properly trained he'd have broken that smurf in half.

    Hitting the guy when he's already unconscious on the ground was vile. Fuck that guy.

    Hitting the guy when he’s already unconscious on the ground was vile.

    I would agree with you, but it would depend on who actually started the violence.

    Being either the aggressor or the defender changes the motivation, I think.

    In that fight, who struck first?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    I've looked it up and apparently what happened is that the little guy started the fight with the big guy. The big guy was a weight lifting champion but by all accounts a bit of a gentle giant so the little guy, who is a professional MMA fighter, kept goading him until the big guy finally agreed to fight.

    The big guy died from his injuries and the little guy is still at large. The little guys older brother is currently serving a 4 year prison sentence for doing basically the same thing: he goaded an unaware bigger guy into a street fight and then killed him.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    Thank you!

    This makes the most sense and is obvious, but HBDers and especially Anatoly have the habit of cherry picking data to show that white people Stronk!

    Well, “white people” plus Mongoloids dominate strength competitions, whereas Africans tend to dominate speed competitions.

    American blacks are also underrepresented in our Special Forces, which may be more of a cultural thing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Duke of Qin
    No, the "strength" advantage is primarily in anaerobic. Weightlifters and strongmen can, pound for pound, exert more total force. However for anything requiring sustained effort, aerobic exercise, energy efficiency is key. Strength is max burst output, endurance is sustained output over x period of time using y number of calories. Shouldering a 3kg rifle is as no harder for a farm boy draftee than it is for the Mr. Olympic. The latter however will find it much harder to carry that rifle and his pack over a long march because his extra mass will require much more energy for the same amount of effort.

    A US Korean War vet noted to me how relatively small ROK (South Koreans) personnel could do sand bag trench prep work all day at ease, much unlike the comparatively very well muscled brick shithouse US GIs.

    Training to lift the absolute max contradicts the best aerobic result. It’s an art to blend speed, strength, stamina and flexibility.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SteveRogers42
    Very true. Functional strength is the Grail. Probably best exemplified by the top amateur wrestlers.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    I recall learning from Gurkha officers that Nepalese recruits, to be accepted into British Gurkha regiments, had to walk 200 miles and pass physical tests that native British recruits would pass after 18 months training. Possibly not such high standards for the Indian Gurkha regiments where the pay was less.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @Yevardian
    You are missing the point. The Romans of which Caesar's legions originated from following the Marian reforms usually came from the lower-classes of densely populated villages and towns and as such often grew up with unsanitary conditions, urban diseases, less meat in the diet and so on.
    Writers of the period unanimously agree that the Celts and Germans were taller and more handsome to look upon than the average Roman. Physical height = an obvious advantage in war.

    Your methodology here is unsound. Contemporary data taken from nation averages has little relevance for other peoples inhabiting the same area over 2000 years past.

    Caesar regularly described heroic feats by his centurions like Scevae, Vorenus, Pulo, Crastinus, Baculus and so forth. Those were people of higher standing probably brought up on better nutrition and they handled Gauls and Germans handsomely.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Mr. Hack
    If you really want to talk about physical strength and voraciousness between the different nations, what about the Ukrainian Klitschko brothers? Their accomplishments in the world of heavyweight boxing are well documented and will not soon be matched:


    From 2 July 2011 to 15 December 2013 all major recognized Heavyweight belts were in the Klitschko family. Vitali Klitschko (born 19 July 1971) and Wladimir Klitschko (born 25 March 1976), collectively known as the Klitschko brothers are Ukrainian heavyweight boxers. During their peak years from 2004 until 2015, the Klitschko brothers were considered the most dominant heavyweight champions of their era, and amongst the most successful champions in boxing history.[1][2] After the retirement of boxing legend Lennox Lewis, the Klitschko brothers held all heavyweight boxing world titles.[3][4] Known for their exceptionally large frames and robotic boxing styles, the Klitschko brothers developed a style that utilized their athleticism and using their arm reach to break down opponents.[5][6]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klitschko_brothers

    BTW, they have always referred to themselves as belonging to the Ukrainian nation, not to some sort of a fictitious 'third branch of the all Russian nation'.

    FYI, I heard one of the Kltitschkos (the one who is mayor) say in a US interview after the Soviet breakup, that he appreciated the Soviet period. Their dad was a Soviet military officer.

    That very same Klitschko recently said that Russo-Ukrainian relations should eventually their way out for the better.

    No small wonder why he got some flack during the Euromaidan uprising.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Here you can hear the Klitschko brothers lead the chearing Maidan crowds on, for yourself:

    Glory to Ukraine!
     

    Glory to the Heroes!
     
    https://youtu.be/VxfC519HWwE

    Vitalie's wife sings an old patriotic Ukrainian song. Sorry, the Klitschkos seem to have forgotten their copy of Skoropadsly's Edict proclaiming the unification of Ukraine with Russia, and therefore didn't make any direct quotations from that 'important' document. :-(

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. @Hindoo
    My beloved SLC24A5-drenched Caucasoid cousins from sub-Arctic climates,

    I love you.

    You are the light in our lives. I can't imagine live on Earth or the International Space Station without you.

    Among other things:

    1. You provide us with lovable politicians like Justin Trudeau, Emmanuel Macron, Jeb Bush etc...
    2. You provide us with lovely ladies who star in amateur cuckold/hotwife porn with Big Black Cocks
    3. You provide us with lots of socio-politico-economic opportunities, not only in our own country, but also in yours
    4. You provide us with invaluable military/industrial technology
    5. You provide soldiers to fight in our wars

    I can't thank you enough. Mooooahh Mooooahh Mooooahh

    You are AWESOME!!! Did you know that?

    I am a total White Survivalist. I desire the survival of the White race so that we may continue have such White porn babes such as Avy Scott, Angela White, Harmoni Kalifornia etc...

    For your encouragement, here is a website called The Cuckold Consultant [AK: Link removed] that helps, and provides guidance and counseling for husbands (read: White husbands) on how to turn their wives (read: White wives) in to sluts for other mens' (read: Big Black Cocks') man-tool.

    Please keep'em rolling, in Jesus' name!

    Maybe you should first make sure Hindu women aren’t being entranced by nasheeds from love jihad minded Saracens before you advice other people.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. myself says:
    @Erik Sieven
    I always thought the Mongolian advantage was their mastery of horse-riding and superior logictic.

    The conventional answer is that the Mongolian grand strategic advantage was that they were a nomadic people, and so could devote a very large portion of the resources and manpower to war. Their diplomacy, spy-craft and assassination means were not inferior to their enemies’.

    Their strategic advantage was that their armies were led by inspired commanders like Chinggiz Khan, Subotai and others, and they were the most mobile and maneuver-oriented force the world had yet seen. They could concentrate power over vast distances and in totally unexpected places. Also, they could coordinate geographically disparate campaigns in order to accomplish an over-all result – the result set by their leaders at the level (see above), including Chinggiz Khan himself.

    Their operational advantages were their superbly developed logistics and message-delivery systems, allowing the above-mentioned deployed armies great coordination on campaigns, They could essentially set-up their enemies for total defeats in battles. No one could live off the land like they could – meaning very few supply problems.

    Finally, their tactical advantage was having excellent leaders at the level of battles and skirmishes, long practice fighting in formal units, drill, flexibility in responding to changing battle conditions, extreme morale (during their epoch of invinciblity), their individual mastery of their fighting skills – archery, horse-riding, lance, sword, axe/mace and lasso use , and their weapons, armor and general equipment, which was of uniformly high quality for the era concerned. (They had unlimited access to the huge workshops and smithies of China, after they conquered that country).

    I think I probably missed a few key advantages of the Mongols, but the above is an attempt at a start.

    Set beside all these game-changing factors, Mongolian ferocity, toughness, strength and endurance played some part in their success (they cannot have hurt one bit), but probably pale in significance.

    Read More
    • Agree: melanf
    • Replies: @animalogic
    Agree too.
    Just to add: their bone reinforced bows were probably the best missile weapon prior to fire arms.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. Mr. Hack says:
    @Mikhail
    FYI, I heard one of the Kltitschkos (the one who is mayor) say in a US interview after the Soviet breakup, that he appreciated the Soviet period. Their dad was a Soviet military officer.

    That very same Klitschko recently said that Russo-Ukrainian relations should eventually their way out for the better.

    No small wonder why he got some flack during the Euromaidan uprising.

    Here you can hear the Klitschko brothers lead the chearing Maidan crowds on, for yourself:

    Glory to Ukraine!

    Glory to the Heroes!

    Vitalie’s wife sings an old patriotic Ukrainian song. Sorry, the Klitschkos seem to have forgotten their copy of Skoropadsly’s Edict proclaiming the unification of Ukraine with Russia, and therefore didn’t make any direct quotations from that ‘important’ document. :-(

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    Recalling the observation you made of Shevchenko.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. AP says:
    @Greasy William
    Anybody who has ever boxed or wrestled would agree that American whites and American blacks are about the same in strength, with whites probably being a little stronger.

    Some Russian friends from university got into a brawl at a bar with some blacks. They said they were shocked at how the more muscular-looking black guys seemed a lot weaker than themselves.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Because the external appearance will only have a positive correlation on a graph with fighting, and this correlation is likely becoming weaker all the time in America, where many weak men are doing weight-lifting in order to look strong aesthetically.
    , @ThreeCranes
    "were shocked at how the more muscular-looking black guys seemed a lot weaker than themselves [whites]"

    which is exactly what was stated in the article Anatoly cited. The authors said the the exact reason for this contradiction is a mystery and speculated that there was a difference in muscle "quality" between the more heavily, lean-muscle massed blacks and the overall higher functioning whites.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. @jimmyriddle
    The Romans kept their discipline in battle when things got tough. That's what made them superior (at least that's what I conclude from Caesar, Tacitus and Suetonius).

    It's a bit like African football teams - they can be physically imposing (although I notice that the Nigerians seem to be smaller than in the 90s). And when the game is going well they can play good football. But when they fall behind, they lose their shape. They chase the game and make bad mistakes.

    A good European, or South American, side will grind them down.

    Who said ancient Romans were the same as modern Italians?

    A lot of them are described as blue eyed, light haired.

    Reconstruction of Lucius Sulla

    More likely, modern Italians are more similar to the ancient, pre-Indo European Etruscans, rather than the lighter, probably more northerly shifted Romans of the martial and ruling classes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @myself
    Far as I know, there have always been a percentage of natural blonde, light-eyed people in the Mediterranean basin.

    They existed in Greece, the Balkans, the Italian peninsula, and Spain.

    As for the Romans, they weren't north Italian, nor south. They were middle Italians, living in the Latium plain.

    They probably were genetically similar to the Italians still in that region today, but with medium-dark brown hair and eyes. light skin and "classical" features (the strong, straight "Roman" nose, and so forth).

    North Italians are more German-admixtured, due to the influx during the Germanic Migrations. More blue-eyed blondes, for one thing. Pre-German North Italians probably looked like Romans.

    South Italians, for their part, have Moorish blood.
    , @melanf

    Who said ancient Romans were the same as modern Italians?
    A lot of them are described as blue eyed, light haired.
     
    As I remember, modern Italians Bellini, Verdi and Vivaldi were described as blue eyed, light haired.
    , @reiner Tor
    A lot of Italians look like this guy today, even in Southern Italy. Not all Italians look like Al Pacino.
    , @RaceRealist88
    How do the reconstructors know what the soft tissue looked like since soft tissue doesn't fossilize? Don't fall for facial "reconstructions", there are a few fallacies associated with facial "reconstructions":

    http://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/s1355-0306(03)71776-6
    , @Dante
    All Europeans are characterised by light pale pigment variable hair and eye colour and European facial features and the " ancient Romans " are not particularly that ancient when you consider Europeans today still retain much of the same characteristics as our Cro Magnon ancestors from forty thousand years ago.
    , @jimmyriddle
    We have genomes from ancient Rome.

    ISTR Razib Khan(?) blogging about this. The upshot was that modern Italians from Lazio are pretty much identical to ancient Romans.

    All the mass immigration from the Empire seems to have had little effect. The reason being that the city was a population sink.
    , @Anonymous Jew
    Interesting. The current view is that Ashkenazis are roughly 35-40% ancient Roman, with the mixing between the Levantine and Roman founding populations occurring soon after the Roman exile (70 AD). For being about 40% Levantine, Askenazis produce a suprising amount of people with blonde hair and/or blue eyes. (My full Ashkenazi wife has very Levantine features, dark hair but blue eyes).

    2,000 years ago the entire Mediterranean probably looked different, racially, than it does today. Many indigenous Levantine groups are quite fair (Google image "Sofi Tsedaka"). We even know from DNA studies of mummies that the ancient Egyptians were less Black than the modern Egyptians and were basically a Semitic people.
    , @Peter Jones
    Kind of looks like Boris Johnson.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Mr. Hack
    Here you can hear the Klitschko brothers lead the chearing Maidan crowds on, for yourself:

    Glory to Ukraine!
     

    Glory to the Heroes!
     
    https://youtu.be/VxfC519HWwE

    Vitalie's wife sings an old patriotic Ukrainian song. Sorry, the Klitschkos seem to have forgotten their copy of Skoropadsly's Edict proclaiming the unification of Ukraine with Russia, and therefore didn't make any direct quotations from that 'important' document. :-(

    Recalling the observation you made of Shevchenko.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. myself says:
    @Guy Lombardo
    Who said ancient Romans were the same as modern Italians?

    A lot of them are described as blue eyed, light haired.

    Reconstruction of Lucius Sulla

    http://www.luciuscorneliussylla.fr/image/fondsylla.png

    More likely, modern Italians are more similar to the ancient, pre-Indo European Etruscans, rather than the lighter, probably more northerly shifted Romans of the martial and ruling classes.

    Far as I know, there have always been a percentage of natural blonde, light-eyed people in the Mediterranean basin.

    They existed in Greece, the Balkans, the Italian peninsula, and Spain.

    As for the Romans, they weren’t north Italian, nor south. They were middle Italians, living in the Latium plain.

    They probably were genetically similar to the Italians still in that region today, but with medium-dark brown hair and eyes. light skin and “classical” features (the strong, straight “Roman” nose, and so forth).

    North Italians are more German-admixtured, due to the influx during the Germanic Migrations. More blue-eyed blondes, for one thing. Pre-German North Italians probably looked like Romans.

    South Italians, for their part, have Moorish blood.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikhail

    North Italians are more German-admixtured, due to the influx during the Germanic Migrations.
     
    They've names like Piero Gross
    , @DFH

    North Italians are more German-admixtured, due to the influx during the Germanic Migrations.
     
    Is there genetic evidence for this? Not that many Ostrogoths were involved in the Ostrogothic kingdom. Many historical migrations which seem even larger, judging from contemporary records, (e.g. Slavs in Greece or Magyars in Hungary) seem to have had little genetic impact.

    Maybe they are just more like Southern Germans because they are much closer to Southern Germany, and further from North Africa.
    , @ThreeCranes
    South Italians, for their part, have Moorish blood.

    I thought they have Greek blood since Syracuse and the lower parts or Italy were Greek colonies in the times of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.
    , @guy lombardo
    >As for the Romans, they weren’t north Italian, nor south. They were middle Italians, living in the Latium plain.

    This is true but those with the lighter hair or eyes ultimately trace those features to more northerly origins (invasions of Etruscan and other pre-IE territories by IE speakers).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. melanf says:

    Two nations in particular seem to be superlative in terms of physical strength relative to their racial groups:

    another example

    The Russian (actually-Dagestan) team won all the gold of the world MMA championship in Macau. Russian (Dagestan) athletes did not leave chances to any of rivals, having taken away all gold of tournament and having repeated success of the European championship. The winners were:
    to 61.2 kg – champion of Russia and the world Omar Nurmagomedov
    to 65,8 kg – the champion of Russia and the world Kurban Tagirov
    up to 70.3 kg-champion of Russia and the world Murad Ramazanov
    up to 77.1 kg-champion of Russia and the world Alibeg Rasulov
    up to 84 kg – two-time world champion, winner of the Russian super Cup Gamzat Hiramagomedov
    up to 93 kg – two-time world champion, champion of Russia, Cup of Russia Magomed Alkalaev
    over 93 kg – the champion of Russia and the world Amirkhan Sagadiev

    When several tribes from the North Caucasus win all the gold medals of the world championship – it’s impressive

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bliss
    I am guessing a bunch of young Dagestanis would win a street brawl against the same number of Russian Hooligans.

    Btw, I thought it was interesting how the Russian hooligans in the video above said how impressed and inspired they were by the notorious British football hooligans.

    For good or bad the brits, more specifically the English, in the UK and the US, have been the most influential people on the planet, for at least a couple centuries. Jews and Africans have also played prominent roles in the Anglosphere’s domination. I don’t see this state of affairs ending anytime soon.
    , @prosa123
    I'm going to guess that Dagestan's dominance in MMA is similar to the Dominican Republic's excellence in baseball. Not physical, but the result of high interest in the sports.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. Ilya says:

    My God! Incomparable bugman butthurt!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  113. melanf says:
    @Guy Lombardo
    Who said ancient Romans were the same as modern Italians?

    A lot of them are described as blue eyed, light haired.

    Reconstruction of Lucius Sulla

    http://www.luciuscorneliussylla.fr/image/fondsylla.png

    More likely, modern Italians are more similar to the ancient, pre-Indo European Etruscans, rather than the lighter, probably more northerly shifted Romans of the martial and ruling classes.

    Who said ancient Romans were the same as modern Italians?
    A lot of them are described as blue eyed, light haired.

    As I remember, modern Italians Bellini, Verdi and Vivaldi were described as blue eyed, light haired.

    Read More
    • Agree: reiner Tor
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. @RaceRealist88
    What does boxing have to do with physical strength, as in the big four lifts?

    both boxing and strength (in terms of big four lifts) are related to rather big and dense bones

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. @myself

    Hitting the guy when he’s already unconscious on the ground was vile.
     
    I would agree with you, but it would depend on who actually started the violence.

    Being either the aggressor or the defender changes the motivation, I think.

    In that fight, who struck first?

    I’ve looked it up and apparently what happened is that the little guy started the fight with the big guy. The big guy was a weight lifting champion but by all accounts a bit of a gentle giant so the little guy, who is a professional MMA fighter, kept goading him until the big guy finally agreed to fight.

    The big guy died from his injuries and the little guy is still at large. The little guys older brother is currently serving a 4 year prison sentence for doing basically the same thing: he goaded an unaware bigger guy into a street fight and then killed him.

    Read More
    • Replies: @myself

    so the little guy, who is a professional MMA fighter, kept goading him until the big guy finally agreed to fight
     
    Well, that changes things A LOT.

    So essentially, the small guy played the gentle big guy, deceived him via his small size, and set him up to murder him.

    Whoever the MMA fighter is, they should make an example out of him - come down on him like a ton of bricks.

    I am surprised law enforcement hasn't found him and thrown him into a cage yet.
    , @AP
    So the dead big guys are Russians and the little guys who killed them as Caucasians and the latter either have not been punished or been given light sentences. This in the Russian country.
    , @Dmitry
    It is one of the largest news stories of the last year, including in Western media.

    The Muslim is going to trial for murder - because he killed on video Andrey Drachev who is the weight lifting champion of Russia and the silver medal winner of the World Championships.

    From the video, at least, the fight seems to be fair - but there may be some unfair behaviour occurring before the fight.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. @Ali Choudhury
    Indians are too varied for averages to be meaningful. Pathans, Sikhs, Janjuas, Rajputs, Gurkhas etc. were all prized as soldiers by the British which would argue they had a higher than average grip strength. Wrestling was also a pretty popular sport in Punjab and Uttar Pradesh going back to the Mughal era and earlier. The reason for the lack of medals is more due to a cultural and official lack of interest in sports development. Unlike China and the USSR, the government never believed sporting success was necessary to promote the country. There is not much infrastructure or funding for the development of world class athletes.

    Tell me if I’m wrong, but don’t the Pakistanis have ancestry similar to the Northwestern Indians? If Northwestern Indians are really strong (in comparison to the rest of the country), why do Pakistanis have weak grip strength?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ali Choudhury
    Well, the non-martial races would make up most of the population across the sub-continent including the northwest. I wonder whether the historical martial races are genuine outliers, have not seen any studies on that.
    , @JohnnyWalker123
    The Punjabis and Pathan combined are over half of the population of Pakistan. Pakistanis have weaker grip strength than Indians and Bangladeshis.

    I guess it's possible that non-Punjabi, non-Pathan Pakistanis are extremely physically weak, but why would they be weaker than the Indian or Bangladeshi populations?
    , @Talha
    Biryani and laddoos...and too much ghulab jamun.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @Anonymous
    lol. Did you really just say crossfit?

    Maybe hipsterism hasn't reached Africa yet.

    Neither of those sports are things Africans probably even know about about much less practice.

    Mat Fraser said “Crossfit”.

    https://www.menshealth.com/fitness/a19598008/mat-fraser-fittest-man-crossfit-open-workout-18-5/

    My question stands. If they don’t wrestle, or lift, or throw heavy objects, what then would your test of strength entail?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. Bliss says:
    @melanf

    Two nations in particular seem to be superlative in terms of physical strength relative to their racial groups:
     
    another example

    http://www.respublic.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/ММА.jpg

    "The Russian (actually-Dagestan) team won all the gold of the world MMA championship in Macau. Russian (Dagestan) athletes did not leave chances to any of rivals, having taken away all gold of tournament and having repeated success of the European championship. The winners were:
    to 61.2 kg – champion of Russia and the world Omar Nurmagomedov
    to 65,8 kg – the champion of Russia and the world Kurban Tagirov
    up to 70.3 kg-champion of Russia and the world Murad Ramazanov
    up to 77.1 kg-champion of Russia and the world Alibeg Rasulov
    up to 84 kg – two-time world champion, winner of the Russian super Cup Gamzat Hiramagomedov
    up to 93 kg – two-time world champion, champion of Russia, Cup of Russia Magomed Alkalaev
    over 93 kg – the champion of Russia and the world Amirkhan Sagadiev
    "

    When several tribes from the North Caucasus win all the gold medals of the world championship - it's impressive

    I am guessing a bunch of young Dagestanis would win a street brawl against the same number of Russian Hooligans.

    Btw, I thought it was interesting how the Russian hooligans in the video above said how impressed and inspired they were by the notorious British football hooligans.

    For good or bad the brits, more specifically the English, in the UK and the US, have been the most influential people on the planet, for at least a couple centuries. Jews and Africans have also played prominent roles in the Anglosphere’s domination. I don’t see this state of affairs ending anytime soon.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Horace Smith
    The Africans have had no influence on the development of anything in the anglo world except destroying anything of value.
    , @churkas
    The russians would kalashnikov the parasit uncivilized and treacherous dagestanis
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. @Guy Lombardo
    Who said ancient Romans were the same as modern Italians?

    A lot of them are described as blue eyed, light haired.

    Reconstruction of Lucius Sulla

    http://www.luciuscorneliussylla.fr/image/fondsylla.png

    More likely, modern Italians are more similar to the ancient, pre-Indo European Etruscans, rather than the lighter, probably more northerly shifted Romans of the martial and ruling classes.

    A lot of Italians look like this guy today, even in Southern Italy. Not all Italians look like Al Pacino.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. Icelanders have been into picking up weights for a long time. There’s a bay with weight stones that you lift to prove strength.

    https://www.icelandtravel.is/attractions/djupalonssandur/

    Strength determined the fishermen salaries; measured on weight-stones, still visible down by the landing. The four stones named for their weight; Fullsterkur (Strong, 154 kg), Hálfsterkur (Halfstrong, 100 kg), Hálfdrættingur (Half-as-good, 54 kg) and Amlóði (Lightweight, 23 kg).

    Another site translates Amlóði as “useless” and says Hálfdrættingur was the minimum strength for a boat job, which seems more likely.

    PS – the Brits soon recognised who were the fighters and who weren’t in India – I’m sure the ‘martial race’ idea has a basis in reality. The early Brit officers and officials, contrary to today’s received wisdom, learned the languages and were interested in the culture – even if that interest was partly for self-interested reasons.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  121. @JohnnyWalker123
    Tell me if I'm wrong, but don't the Pakistanis have ancestry similar to the Northwestern Indians? If Northwestern Indians are really strong (in comparison to the rest of the country), why do Pakistanis have weak grip strength?

    Well, the non-martial races would make up most of the population across the sub-continent including the northwest. I wonder whether the historical martial races are genuine outliers, have not seen any studies on that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. myself says:
    @Greasy William
    I've looked it up and apparently what happened is that the little guy started the fight with the big guy. The big guy was a weight lifting champion but by all accounts a bit of a gentle giant so the little guy, who is a professional MMA fighter, kept goading him until the big guy finally agreed to fight.

    The big guy died from his injuries and the little guy is still at large. The little guys older brother is currently serving a 4 year prison sentence for doing basically the same thing: he goaded an unaware bigger guy into a street fight and then killed him.

    so the little guy, who is a professional MMA fighter, kept goading him until the big guy finally agreed to fight

    Well, that changes things A LOT.

    So essentially, the small guy played the gentle big guy, deceived him via his small size, and set him up to murder him.

    Whoever the MMA fighter is, they should make an example out of him – come down on him like a ton of bricks.

    I am surprised law enforcement hasn’t found him and thrown him into a cage yet.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @myself

    Why? In Ancient warfare, isn’t it knowledge of all military historians that group organization, coolness and organization of supplies are the secret to victory (and at a higher level organization of tactics).
     
    Though just an interested layman (as in, I read this stuff, that's all), the above is the overwhelming consensus of the professional experts (the actual soldiers and warriors) throughout human history.

    And not just in Ancient warfare, in conflict situations from the prehistoric (think tribal warfare in ancient Eurasia, fought with stone-tipped spears, clubs and simple bows) to the present day. Okay, maybe not really the supplies part for the prehistoric, but group coordination, keeping your wits, and directed, instead of wild, aggression always apply.

    Do stronger, faster, tougher (able to take more pain, function on less supply etc) soldiers, all things equal, ever hurt a military force? No, of course not, and no one has ever said that, far as I know.

    It's just that, provided you are not pitting "actual hobbits versus Uruk Hai" (okay, geeky reference, my apologies), sheer physical factors (brute strength, height, speed, endurance) have historically taken a far backseat to morale, organization, leadership, tactics and other "less quantifiable factors" in group fighting.

    I saw a documentary once, in which a Marine sergeant instructor was being interviewed. He said, in his estimation, that at least 95% of fully grown men, on the entire planet (this guy had in the past trained third-world conscripts), were able to be molded to be deployable infantrymen.

    "You give the Corps anyone, any skinny third-world kid, who's not clinically retarded. I literally don't care about his background. We take him and put him through the system. I can practically guarantee you a usable Marine private after we're done with him. That kid WILL make the cut - and it's my job to make it so". This is from memory - words to that effect.

    That was an eye-opening interview.

    Why? In Ancient warfare, isn’t it knowledge of all military historians that group organization, coolness and organization of supplies are the secret to victory (and at a higher level organization of tactics).

    Though just an interested layman (as in, I read this stuff, that’s all), the above is the overwhelming consensus of the professional experts (the actual soldiers and warriors) throughout human history.

    Well, the ketogenic diet of nomads enabled them to stay alive in the winter without food. (By the way their horses were also way better adapted to the winter steppe, without much food, either.) They didn’t need to organize supplies that much, because their supplies were carried in their bodies. If military historians are dismissing this, then they are just dismissing a very important explanation for nomads’ success. For example it’s impossible to understand Timur’s campaigns against the Golden Horde without understanding the soldiers’ and the horses’ individual ability to withstand starvation in the winter.

    I’m also not sure which experts you’re talking about. For example it’s a well-known fact (mentioned by Martin van Creveld, to cite at least one expert dissenting from that alleged consensus), that modern militaries in the first half of the 20th century always preferred farm boys for soldiers. When farm boys were in short supply, they were going for blue collar workers, preferably from smaller towns or cities (these provided the backbone of the Germany armed forces in both world wars, though they were in somewhat shorter supply by 1939 than they had been in 1914), working class from big cities were the next (i.e. relatively low) on the list preferred soldiers, and only once the supply of these dried up (the working class was often protected from conscription during wartime because they were doing essential work in war production), did they resort to people with white collar backgrounds like clerks etc. These were usually thought to be the worst soldiers, and present-day first world populations are usually similar to these.

    Martin van Creveld mentions that nomads were always considered better soldiers on the individual level than even farm boys, and that hunter-gatherers were similarly considered more formidable warriors than any civilized soldier. The one disadvantage of these two groups was that they were often lacking in discipline, which was especially true of hunter-gatherers. However, if anyone could instill discipline into nomads, then he had a truly formidable army indeed, the two most famous examples being Genghis Khan and Timur. Hunter-gatherers were also lacking in numbers, which after industrialization started to become a problem for nomads as well. Until modern times nomads had enough numbers given their much higher ratio of warriors relative to their population.

    Marine sergeant instructor… said

    He would say that, wouldn’t he? He’s not going to say that the material he had to work with has deteriorated considerably from what they had back in the 1960s (soldiers are apparently often unable to properly squat), or that as a result soldiers are way worse now than they had been before.

    By the way there’s a huge ideological push for saying that physical qualities like strength don’t matter, because then they can say that women can be just as good soldiers as men, provided they go through the magic of the “system” and thus become disciplined. I have seen articles where various supposed experts (including active military officers and soldiers) all said how having female (Muslim, etc.) soldiers was the next best thing since sliced bread. It doesn’t mean it’s true.

    Read More
    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    because then they can say that women can be just as good soldiers as men, provided they go through the magic of the “system” and thus become disciplined.
     
    Some women will be better candidates than most men as soldiers, - because modern warfare, the key distinguishing factor is psychological, and relevant psychological attributes can be found distributed in both population groups (although in different proportions).

    Many physically strong, externally people will break and become useless when confronted with a battlefield, although statistically it may be a lower number than for women.

    Other personalities can be tortured to death, and not lose their minds duing the process.

    The difficult part will be to find the mentally suitable soldiers. And this why in the future they will be using brain scans and assigning different roles based on the brain scans (that indicate level of fear, reaction to stress, cold heartedness, etc - many traits may be a little similar to psychopaths) .

    I'll copy some random links I had posted earlier on the Sailer forum (

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariya_Bayda

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia_Litvyak

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larisa_Litvinova

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalya_Meklin

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manshuk_Mametova

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalya_Kovshova

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kseniya_Konstantinova

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roza_Shanina

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandra_Samusenko

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya_Baramzina

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinaida_Portnova

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariya_Tsukanova

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandra_Boiko

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliya_Moldagulova

    , @myself

    because then they can say that women can be just as good soldiers as men
     
    I actually have never heard ANY serious soldier anywhere (emphasis on serious - no careerist, PC, SJW "right-think" mindset) say that females are proper raw material for soldiers. The man in the interview said males, after all.

    A skinny, third-world-raised fully grown man is still an adult man, after all.

    And the statistical over-lap, in terms of strength, between large samples of males and females, regardless of ethnicity or nutrition, is I believe very small - which is why very strong females are noteworthy, while very strong males are much less so. (We just take them for granted).

    , @myself

    I’m also not sure which experts you’re talking about. For example it’s a well-known fact (mentioned by Martin van Creveld, to cite at least one expert dissenting from that alleged consensus), that modern militaries in the first half of the 20th century always preferred farm boys for soldiers. When farm boys were in short supply, they were going for blue collar workers, preferably from smaller towns or cities (these provided the backbone of the Germany armed forces in both world wars, though they were in somewhat shorter supply by 1939 than they had been in 1914)
     
    The writer of whom I was thinking was John Keegan, though yeah I definitely respect Martin Van Creveld. (Let's not call either of these guys experts, and reserve that term for victorious commanders and good junior leaders.)

    As per Keegan, he broadly agrees with your statement above, but reversed the preference, in regards to recruiting pools.

    While farmers' sons made good soldiers, young men drafted from towns and cities, who worked in occupations like steel smelting, mining, construction, manufacturing and transport were the first preference.

    The pre-industrial equivalents, say in Medieval Europe, were black-smithing, mining, carpentry, logging (requiring tools, so were town-centric not "rural"), tanning, and large-scale droving.

    And the reason? While young men on the farms and the rural ares were obviously fit, the young men who worked physical occupations in cities and towns were also quite fit, educated and (maybe most importantly) already used to discipline, schedules, hierarchy and regimentation.

    Their urban lifestyles were already organized for efficiency, and streamlined for carrying out orders, from their bosses on the workshop floors, smithies and construction sites.

    So, while the outdoor life made for better individual warriors (hunting, trapping, survival skills), town and small city life made for better disciplined soldiers , and more crucially organized units.

    When we talk about city dwellers, don't think about fast-food munching service workers or white-collar desk jockeys, think rather physical manufacturing, construction, utilities maintenance, machinery operation, and plumbing/carpentry - requiring physical exertion AND at least trade-school level education.

    Since I only read, I just go by what seems reasonable. John Keegan seemed to make a good point in his writings about the classic preference for townsfolk as soldier material.
    , @Talha

    Martin van Creveld mentions that nomads were always considered better soldiers
     
    The Rashidun gave certain groups of people like this (Turkic tribes like Jarajma, groups of Daylamis and certain Arabs) exemption from the jizyah in lieu of help defending the borders. Assyrian cobblers, bakers and others that would be considered doughboys and a liability on the battlefield we’re not considered.

    Creveld is absolutely awesome on these subjects.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. @Dmitry

    It seems very intuitive that more strength would very much translate into better fighting capability (with or without weapons), all else equal.

     

    But as a parallel symptom of another underlying variable.

    For example, if we say health of the organism is an underlying variable. A healthy person might have higher cardiovascular stamina, be more aggressive, and be faster and have more explosive strength, and incidentally better at weight-lifting.

    But the weight-lifting strength would be the most irrelevant factor of those listed in e.g. a boxing fight.

    Weight-lifting strength would also be a useful symptom of boxing strength (if you were using it to select winners), as it will also correlate with things like physical weight (i.e. more direct determinants of the winner in the boxing fight).

    -
    As for group differences which are likely genetic, and distinguish people in the highest percentage - it can change dramatically on the particular activity.

    It seems intuitive that black people are - as a group - better at running (the joke that they are running from lions). But in fact group advantage in long-distance running has a different basis from group advantage in short-distance running.

    So Ethiopian populations will have a group advantage, other things equal, in 10,000 metre run, but a group disadvantage, other things equal, in 100 metre runs.

    Similarly, group advantages in weight lifting, could easily have a different basis from group advantages in e.g. punching strength and speed (that would be relevant in boxing fights).

    But the weight-lifting strength would be the most irrelevant factor of those listed in e.g. a boxing fight.

    Maybe, but there’s probably a reason why there are weight groups in boxing. While they never become professional powerlifters, they do a considerable amount of weight training themselves.

    Also boxing is a highly unnatural way of fighting. Wrestlers will defeat boxers any workday and on the weekends and holidays, too. And with wrestling, strength matters probably more than with boxing. (Of course, being strong is never enough, but all else being equal, strength means a lot.)

    In ancient times stamina, a strong immune system, the ability to withstand cold, the ability to go hungry for days on end, etc. might all have been important, but a lot of these (like the part about cold or hunger) could’ve been overcome by better organization. A more developed civilization could provide its soldiers with better weapons or armor and shield, which was also very important in a fight.

    So on balance, the individual size and strength and other physical qualities of soldiers were often insignificant, but I’d be surprised if it never played any role at all. We know for sure that many campaigns of Genghis or Timur needed the ketogenic diets of their soldiers, so at least there are some examples.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gT
    Correct, there are weight groups in boxing because a good, big guy will always dominate a good, small guy. So to make fights more even there are weight groups, this is the case even with MMA / UFC. The Klitschko's were always just average, very big guys who were able to better the good, smaller guys and they made boxing boring in the process.

    Heavy weight boxing should also have weigh limits to prevent the useless, skill-less giants from dominating the smaller guys. Mike Tyson was best at 95kg, he always struggled against the bigger blokes. Should have heavy weight, super heavy weight, super super heavy weight categories, etc.

    If you take 100 average blacks guys and train them up and take 100 average white guys and train them up the 100 blacks guys would always win in adverse conditions due to superior genetics (more explosive, higher bone density, etc). Icelanders might be strong but I haven't seen a white guy in the hundred meter Olympic final for a long time.

    In the video the smaller guy with weaker grip strength murdered the bigger guy with stronger grip strength. Its just down to training and conditioning. If the bigger guy had just 1 month's MMA training he would have broken the smaller guy in half. Conditioning can make small guys hard and strong, just like those Dagestan MMA fighters, it helps to be Muslim and not to drink and just train all the time, but anyone can be trained up in a few months to be able to give a good account of themselves.

    I recall reading that the Roman gladiators invariably carried some extra weight around the stomach region because a skilled, heavier gladiator was a better gladiator.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @Anonymous
    lol.

    No way white people are stronger than blacks. This is just another way for Anatoly to selectively look at data to show that White People Stronk!

    “No way white people are stronger than blacks.”

    Do you have any arguments to back this assertion?

    Whites are stronger than blacks, especially in weightlifting and powerlifting competitions. It’s about somatotype and body levers. An endo soma (whites and Asians are more likely to be endos) is more conducive to strength competitions whereas meso/ecto somas (blacks) are more conducive to running competitions (it should also be noted that fiber typing seems to be correlated with somatotype, but this is just a random observation of mine).

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/06/03/black-white-differences-in-anatomy-and-physiology-black-athletic-superiority/

    The “blacks are stronger than whites” canard is false. It has no basis in reality. Just by observing somatotypes this assertion that blacks are stronger than whites is false.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/12/23/race-and-strength-on-the-big-four-lifts/

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/03/25/racial-differences-in-somatype/

    A good example is Mark Henry. Sure he’s black, sure he’s one of the strongest men to ever walk the earth. But look at his somatotype. He’s a classic endo.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. @Bliss
    According to 23&me, genetic testing confirms that Africans are by far the strongest race and South Asians by far the weakest. With Europeans and East Asians in the middle:

    https://i1.wp.com/www.thehealthymelissa.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/actnsss.jpg

    The fact that you’re extrapolating that from an association study done on Polish powerlifters is comical.

    Furthermore, “power athlete” does not mean “powerlifter” or “weightlifter”; they’re nowhere to be found.

    Here’s the paper you’re referencing:

    http://sci-hub.tw/10.1519/jsc.0b013e31828155b5

    And here is a meta-analysis stating:

    Results of this meta-analysis show that US African American carriers of the ACE AG genotype (rs4363) were more than two times more likely to become a power athlete compared to carriers of the ACE preferential genotype for power athlete status (AA) in this population.

    http://www.systematicreviews.nl/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/genes_and_muscle_growth.pdf

    Not to mention how foolish it is to look for genomic associations as “gotchas” to actual functional strength competitions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. @Anonymous
    Thank you!

    This makes the most sense and is obvious, but HBDers and especially Anatoly have the habit of cherry picking data to show that white people Stronk!

    How does it make “the most sense” and how is it “obvious”?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @Guy Lombardo
    Who said ancient Romans were the same as modern Italians?

    A lot of them are described as blue eyed, light haired.

    Reconstruction of Lucius Sulla

    http://www.luciuscorneliussylla.fr/image/fondsylla.png

    More likely, modern Italians are more similar to the ancient, pre-Indo European Etruscans, rather than the lighter, probably more northerly shifted Romans of the martial and ruling classes.

    How do the reconstructors know what the soft tissue looked like since soft tissue doesn’t fossilize? Don’t fall for facial “reconstructions”, there are a few fallacies associated with facial “reconstructions”:

    http://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/s1355-0306(03)71776-6

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    I don't think they've got Sulla's skull, the reconstruction must be based on a bust (though it's of course questionable how secure any attribution can be).
    The info about skin tone, hair and eye color presumably comes from Plutarch's life.
    , @reiner Tor
    Sulla had sculptures of his head, so it might be based on those. Even the color might simply be based on the original color of the sculpture.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @RaceRealist88
    How do the reconstructors know what the soft tissue looked like since soft tissue doesn't fossilize? Don't fall for facial "reconstructions", there are a few fallacies associated with facial "reconstructions":

    http://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/s1355-0306(03)71776-6

    I don’t think they’ve got Sulla’s skull, the reconstruction must be based on a bust (though it’s of course questionable how secure any attribution can be).
    The info about skin tone, hair and eye color presumably comes from Plutarch’s life.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Or from the original painting of those sculptures.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. AP says:
    @Greasy William
    I've looked it up and apparently what happened is that the little guy started the fight with the big guy. The big guy was a weight lifting champion but by all accounts a bit of a gentle giant so the little guy, who is a professional MMA fighter, kept goading him until the big guy finally agreed to fight.

    The big guy died from his injuries and the little guy is still at large. The little guys older brother is currently serving a 4 year prison sentence for doing basically the same thing: he goaded an unaware bigger guy into a street fight and then killed him.

    So the dead big guys are Russians and the little guys who killed them as Caucasians and the latter either have not been punished or been given light sentences. This in the Russian country.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @RaceRealist88
    How do the reconstructors know what the soft tissue looked like since soft tissue doesn't fossilize? Don't fall for facial "reconstructions", there are a few fallacies associated with facial "reconstructions":

    http://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/s1355-0306(03)71776-6

    Sulla had sculptures of his head, so it might be based on those. Even the color might simply be based on the original color of the sculpture.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. @German_reader
    I don't think they've got Sulla's skull, the reconstruction must be based on a bust (though it's of course questionable how secure any attribution can be).
    The info about skin tone, hair and eye color presumably comes from Plutarch's life.

    Or from the original painting of those sculptures.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. I am amused to see that Poles and Lithuanians constitute Iceland’s biggest sources of immigrants by a considerable margin.

    Iceland 302,927 93.02%
    Poland 10,224 3.14%
    Lithuania 1,659 0.51%
    Denmark 915 0.28%
    Germany 910 0.28%
    Latvia 696 0.21%
    United Kingdom 614 0.19%
    United States 607 0.19%
    Philippines 558 0.17%
    Thailand 531 0.16%

    Russia 148 0.05%

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  134. Dante says:
    @Guy Lombardo
    Who said ancient Romans were the same as modern Italians?

    A lot of them are described as blue eyed, light haired.

    Reconstruction of Lucius Sulla

    http://www.luciuscorneliussylla.fr/image/fondsylla.png

    More likely, modern Italians are more similar to the ancient, pre-Indo European Etruscans, rather than the lighter, probably more northerly shifted Romans of the martial and ruling classes.

    All Europeans are characterised by light pale pigment variable hair and eye colour and European facial features and the ” ancient Romans ” are not particularly that ancient when you consider Europeans today still retain much of the same characteristics as our Cro Magnon ancestors from forty thousand years ago.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jon Halpenny
    I have never been in Scandinavia, however I visited Hamburg some years ago. It was noticeable that the people there were tall and well-built. In particular I noticed quite a few tall strapping young women, a few approaching 6 feet tall.

    Back In Heathrow, it was noticeable that native British people there were of smaller stature.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. Dmitry says:
    @reiner Tor


    Why? In Ancient warfare, isn’t it knowledge of all military historians that group organization, coolness and organization of supplies are the secret to victory (and at a higher level organization of tactics).
     
    Though just an interested layman (as in, I read this stuff, that’s all), the above is the overwhelming consensus of the professional experts (the actual soldiers and warriors) throughout human history.
     
    Well, the ketogenic diet of nomads enabled them to stay alive in the winter without food. (By the way their horses were also way better adapted to the winter steppe, without much food, either.) They didn't need to organize supplies that much, because their supplies were carried in their bodies. If military historians are dismissing this, then they are just dismissing a very important explanation for nomads' success. For example it's impossible to understand Timur's campaigns against the Golden Horde without understanding the soldiers' and the horses' individual ability to withstand starvation in the winter.

    I'm also not sure which experts you're talking about. For example it's a well-known fact (mentioned by Martin van Creveld, to cite at least one expert dissenting from that alleged consensus), that modern militaries in the first half of the 20th century always preferred farm boys for soldiers. When farm boys were in short supply, they were going for blue collar workers, preferably from smaller towns or cities (these provided the backbone of the Germany armed forces in both world wars, though they were in somewhat shorter supply by 1939 than they had been in 1914), working class from big cities were the next (i.e. relatively low) on the list preferred soldiers, and only once the supply of these dried up (the working class was often protected from conscription during wartime because they were doing essential work in war production), did they resort to people with white collar backgrounds like clerks etc. These were usually thought to be the worst soldiers, and present-day first world populations are usually similar to these.

    Martin van Creveld mentions that nomads were always considered better soldiers on the individual level than even farm boys, and that hunter-gatherers were similarly considered more formidable warriors than any civilized soldier. The one disadvantage of these two groups was that they were often lacking in discipline, which was especially true of hunter-gatherers. However, if anyone could instill discipline into nomads, then he had a truly formidable army indeed, the two most famous examples being Genghis Khan and Timur. Hunter-gatherers were also lacking in numbers, which after industrialization started to become a problem for nomads as well. Until modern times nomads had enough numbers given their much higher ratio of warriors relative to their population.

    Marine sergeant instructor... said
     
    He would say that, wouldn't he? He's not going to say that the material he had to work with has deteriorated considerably from what they had back in the 1960s (soldiers are apparently often unable to properly squat), or that as a result soldiers are way worse now than they had been before.

    By the way there's a huge ideological push for saying that physical qualities like strength don't matter, because then they can say that women can be just as good soldiers as men, provided they go through the magic of the "system" and thus become disciplined. I have seen articles where various supposed experts (including active military officers and soldiers) all said how having female (Muslim, etc.) soldiers was the next best thing since sliced bread. It doesn't mean it's true.

    because then they can say that women can be just as good soldiers as men, provided they go through the magic of the “system” and thus become disciplined.

    Some women will be better candidates than most men as soldiers, – because modern warfare, the key distinguishing factor is psychological, and relevant psychological attributes can be found distributed in both population groups (although in different proportions).

    Many physically strong, externally people will break and become useless when confronted with a battlefield, although statistically it may be a lower number than for women.

    Other personalities can be tortured to death, and not lose their minds duing the process.

    The difficult part will be to find the mentally suitable soldiers. And this why in the future they will be using brain scans and assigning different roles based on the brain scans (that indicate level of fear, reaction to stress, cold heartedness, etc – many traits may be a little similar to psychopaths) .

    I’ll copy some random links I had posted earlier on the Sailer forum (

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariya_Bayda

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia_Litvyak

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larisa_Litvinova

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalya_Meklin

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manshuk_Mametova

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalya_Kovshova

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kseniya_Konstantinova

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roza_Shanina

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandra_Samusenko

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya_Baramzina

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinaida_Portnova

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariya_Tsukanova

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandra_Boiko

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliya_Moldagulova

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    If women had "psychological strength" of any significance, they would have at least more than the most minimal of representation in top video gamers - where considerations of physical strength are completely absent and the primary considerations are decision-making under stress.

    Most presentations of "female soldiers" are gross exaggerations comparing vastly unequal quality of training; the presence and effect of hormones should not be understated, being far more akin to a brutal strike to the brain for one set of behaviors or another.
    , @Hippopotamusdrome
    Sure, I trust the Soviet Communist party is telling the truth about about wartime exploits of hero(ine)ism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. Escher says:

    The typical carb heavy and low protein Indian diet doesn’t help, I think.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  137. Dmitry says:
    @Greasy William
    I've looked it up and apparently what happened is that the little guy started the fight with the big guy. The big guy was a weight lifting champion but by all accounts a bit of a gentle giant so the little guy, who is a professional MMA fighter, kept goading him until the big guy finally agreed to fight.

    The big guy died from his injuries and the little guy is still at large. The little guys older brother is currently serving a 4 year prison sentence for doing basically the same thing: he goaded an unaware bigger guy into a street fight and then killed him.

    It is one of the largest news stories of the last year, including in Western media.

    The Muslim is going to trial for murder – because he killed on video Andrey Drachev who is the weight lifting champion of Russia and the silver medal winner of the World Championships.

    From the video, at least, the fight seems to be fair – but there may be some unfair behaviour occurring before the fight.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    he provoked a guy that he knew had no chance against him. If you watch the entire fight, it was clear he had already established his superiority but the big Russian was too proud to back out. When he knocked him down with the head kick the Russian was done and the next kick had the Russian out at which point he gave 3 or 4 shots to an unconscious man whose head was on the pavement. It was cold blooded murder.
    , @Anon

    It is one of the largest news stories of the last year, including in Western media.
     
    LOL, not the case.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. myself says:
    @reiner Tor


    Why? In Ancient warfare, isn’t it knowledge of all military historians that group organization, coolness and organization of supplies are the secret to victory (and at a higher level organization of tactics).
     
    Though just an interested layman (as in, I read this stuff, that’s all), the above is the overwhelming consensus of the professional experts (the actual soldiers and warriors) throughout human history.
     
    Well, the ketogenic diet of nomads enabled them to stay alive in the winter without food. (By the way their horses were also way better adapted to the winter steppe, without much food, either.) They didn't need to organize supplies that much, because their supplies were carried in their bodies. If military historians are dismissing this, then they are just dismissing a very important explanation for nomads' success. For example it's impossible to understand Timur's campaigns against the Golden Horde without understanding the soldiers' and the horses' individual ability to withstand starvation in the winter.

    I'm also not sure which experts you're talking about. For example it's a well-known fact (mentioned by Martin van Creveld, to cite at least one expert dissenting from that alleged consensus), that modern militaries in the first half of the 20th century always preferred farm boys for soldiers. When farm boys were in short supply, they were going for blue collar workers, preferably from smaller towns or cities (these provided the backbone of the Germany armed forces in both world wars, though they were in somewhat shorter supply by 1939 than they had been in 1914), working class from big cities were the next (i.e. relatively low) on the list preferred soldiers, and only once the supply of these dried up (the working class was often protected from conscription during wartime because they were doing essential work in war production), did they resort to people with white collar backgrounds like clerks etc. These were usually thought to be the worst soldiers, and present-day first world populations are usually similar to these.

    Martin van Creveld mentions that nomads were always considered better soldiers on the individual level than even farm boys, and that hunter-gatherers were similarly considered more formidable warriors than any civilized soldier. The one disadvantage of these two groups was that they were often lacking in discipline, which was especially true of hunter-gatherers. However, if anyone could instill discipline into nomads, then he had a truly formidable army indeed, the two most famous examples being Genghis Khan and Timur. Hunter-gatherers were also lacking in numbers, which after industrialization started to become a problem for nomads as well. Until modern times nomads had enough numbers given their much higher ratio of warriors relative to their population.

    Marine sergeant instructor... said
     
    He would say that, wouldn't he? He's not going to say that the material he had to work with has deteriorated considerably from what they had back in the 1960s (soldiers are apparently often unable to properly squat), or that as a result soldiers are way worse now than they had been before.

    By the way there's a huge ideological push for saying that physical qualities like strength don't matter, because then they can say that women can be just as good soldiers as men, provided they go through the magic of the "system" and thus become disciplined. I have seen articles where various supposed experts (including active military officers and soldiers) all said how having female (Muslim, etc.) soldiers was the next best thing since sliced bread. It doesn't mean it's true.

    because then they can say that women can be just as good soldiers as men

    I actually have never heard ANY serious soldier anywhere (emphasis on serious – no careerist, PC, SJW “right-think” mindset) say that females are proper raw material for soldiers. The man in the interview said males, after all.

    A skinny, third-world-raised fully grown man is still an adult man, after all.

    And the statistical over-lap, in terms of strength, between large samples of males and females, regardless of ethnicity or nutrition, is I believe very small – which is why very strong females are noteworthy, while very strong males are much less so. (We just take them for granted).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    the statistical over-lap, in terms of strength, between large samples of males and females, regardless of ethnicity or nutrition, is I believe very small – which is why very strong females are noteworthy, while very strong males are much less so. (We just take them for granted).
     
    The sample of physically strong women (in modern war only physical toughness and stamina is important, rather than weight-lifting strength), also having the mental attributes (no fear of death, etc), is getting smaller statistically.

    In future wars, first you will do a brain scan to find the population who have the mental attributes (no fear, cold under pressure) for a role, and then you will assign them to training for different roles.

    If you could see and understand their brain scans, someone like Portnova will not be suitable to employ in the kitchen.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinaida_Portnova
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. Dmitry says:
    @AP
    Some Russian friends from university got into a brawl at a bar with some blacks. They said they were shocked at how the more muscular-looking black guys seemed a lot weaker than themselves.

    Because the external appearance will only have a positive correlation on a graph with fighting, and this correlation is likely becoming weaker all the time in America, where many weak men are doing weight-lifting in order to look strong aesthetically.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. @Dmitry

    because then they can say that women can be just as good soldiers as men, provided they go through the magic of the “system” and thus become disciplined.
     
    Some women will be better candidates than most men as soldiers, - because modern warfare, the key distinguishing factor is psychological, and relevant psychological attributes can be found distributed in both population groups (although in different proportions).

    Many physically strong, externally people will break and become useless when confronted with a battlefield, although statistically it may be a lower number than for women.

    Other personalities can be tortured to death, and not lose their minds duing the process.

    The difficult part will be to find the mentally suitable soldiers. And this why in the future they will be using brain scans and assigning different roles based on the brain scans (that indicate level of fear, reaction to stress, cold heartedness, etc - many traits may be a little similar to psychopaths) .

    I'll copy some random links I had posted earlier on the Sailer forum (

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariya_Bayda

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia_Litvyak

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larisa_Litvinova

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalya_Meklin

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manshuk_Mametova

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalya_Kovshova

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kseniya_Konstantinova

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roza_Shanina

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandra_Samusenko

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya_Baramzina

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinaida_Portnova

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariya_Tsukanova

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandra_Boiko

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliya_Moldagulova

    If women had “psychological strength” of any significance, they would have at least more than the most minimal of representation in top video gamers – where considerations of physical strength are completely absent and the primary considerations are decision-making under stress.

    Most presentations of “female soldiers” are gross exaggerations comparing vastly unequal quality of training; the presence and effect of hormones should not be understated, being far more akin to a brutal strike to the brain for one set of behaviors or another.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    If women had “psychological strength” of any significance, they would have at least more than the most minimal of representation in top video gamers – where considerations of physical strength are completely absent and the primary considerations are decision-making under stress.

     

    This argument makes no sense. Top video gamers are a small proportion of men who usually need autistic spectrum disorders to become interested in the games (beyond how most of us play them, which is for a couple of hours of distraction). The role has no relation to fear, death, risk-taking, as it has no risks involved, and it has no relation to any real world situations. The people attracted to it may seem the opposite of those with relevant personalities for combat (if you want pre-filtering of people who would be suitable for combat, you might look at populations who do risk-taking hobbies and are attracted to risking their lives - people without normal levels of fear).
    , @Doug
    I don't have a dog in this fight, but I will note that the one athletic quality where women outperform men is in "fatigue resistance". It appears that at ultra-long distance running, the average women probably has higher capacity than the average man. Whether that translates into having better psychological resolve as a soldier is an open question.

    https://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article%20folder/fatigueUNM.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. Dmitry says:
    @myself

    because then they can say that women can be just as good soldiers as men
     
    I actually have never heard ANY serious soldier anywhere (emphasis on serious - no careerist, PC, SJW "right-think" mindset) say that females are proper raw material for soldiers. The man in the interview said males, after all.

    A skinny, third-world-raised fully grown man is still an adult man, after all.

    And the statistical over-lap, in terms of strength, between large samples of males and females, regardless of ethnicity or nutrition, is I believe very small - which is why very strong females are noteworthy, while very strong males are much less so. (We just take them for granted).

    the statistical over-lap, in terms of strength, between large samples of males and females, regardless of ethnicity or nutrition, is I believe very small – which is why very strong females are noteworthy, while very strong males are much less so. (We just take them for granted).

    The sample of physically strong women (in modern war only physical toughness and stamina is important, rather than weight-lifting strength), also having the mental attributes (no fear of death, etc), is getting smaller statistically.

    In future wars, first you will do a brain scan to find the population who have the mental attributes (no fear, cold under pressure) for a role, and then you will assign them to training for different roles.

    If you could see and understand their brain scans, someone like Portnova will not be suitable to employ in the kitchen.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinaida_Portnova

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. Dmitry says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    If women had "psychological strength" of any significance, they would have at least more than the most minimal of representation in top video gamers - where considerations of physical strength are completely absent and the primary considerations are decision-making under stress.

    Most presentations of "female soldiers" are gross exaggerations comparing vastly unequal quality of training; the presence and effect of hormones should not be understated, being far more akin to a brutal strike to the brain for one set of behaviors or another.

    If women had “psychological strength” of any significance, they would have at least more than the most minimal of representation in top video gamers – where considerations of physical strength are completely absent and the primary considerations are decision-making under stress.

    This argument makes no sense. Top video gamers are a small proportion of men who usually need autistic spectrum disorders to become interested in the games (beyond how most of us play them, which is for a couple of hours of distraction). The role has no relation to fear, death, risk-taking, as it has no risks involved, and it has no relation to any real world situations. The people attracted to it may seem the opposite of those with relevant personalities for combat (if you want pre-filtering of people who would be suitable for combat, you might look at populations who do risk-taking hobbies and are attracted to risking their lives – people without normal levels of fear).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    The people attracted to it may seem the opposite of those with relevant personalities for combat (if you want pre-filtering of people who would be suitable for combat, you might look at populations who do risk-taking hobbies and are attracted to risking their lives – people without normal levels of fear).
     
    Perhaps you could drop her in the Battle of Stalingrad - and there would be hardly any activity in the amygdala.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zft6qzWL1PA

    , @Daniel Chieh
    Total fearlessness is as useful as total painlessness, actually; there is a reason why it has evolved. Decision-making under stress, on the other hand, is a very relevant attribute, especially in a more g-loaded combat environment.

    My experience with women with less fear is NOT what you would want in a comrade. It's basically a form of masochism and will take you down with her.

    The ideal "female" soldier is a transsexual.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. myself says:
    @reiner Tor


    Why? In Ancient warfare, isn’t it knowledge of all military historians that group organization, coolness and organization of supplies are the secret to victory (and at a higher level organization of tactics).
     
    Though just an interested layman (as in, I read this stuff, that’s all), the above is the overwhelming consensus of the professional experts (the actual soldiers and warriors) throughout human history.
     
    Well, the ketogenic diet of nomads enabled them to stay alive in the winter without food. (By the way their horses were also way better adapted to the winter steppe, without much food, either.) They didn't need to organize supplies that much, because their supplies were carried in their bodies. If military historians are dismissing this, then they are just dismissing a very important explanation for nomads' success. For example it's impossible to understand Timur's campaigns against the Golden Horde without understanding the soldiers' and the horses' individual ability to withstand starvation in the winter.

    I'm also not sure which experts you're talking about. For example it's a well-known fact (mentioned by Martin van Creveld, to cite at least one expert dissenting from that alleged consensus), that modern militaries in the first half of the 20th century always preferred farm boys for soldiers. When farm boys were in short supply, they were going for blue collar workers, preferably from smaller towns or cities (these provided the backbone of the Germany armed forces in both world wars, though they were in somewhat shorter supply by 1939 than they had been in 1914), working class from big cities were the next (i.e. relatively low) on the list preferred soldiers, and only once the supply of these dried up (the working class was often protected from conscription during wartime because they were doing essential work in war production), did they resort to people with white collar backgrounds like clerks etc. These were usually thought to be the worst soldiers, and present-day first world populations are usually similar to these.

    Martin van Creveld mentions that nomads were always considered better soldiers on the individual level than even farm boys, and that hunter-gatherers were similarly considered more formidable warriors than any civilized soldier. The one disadvantage of these two groups was that they were often lacking in discipline, which was especially true of hunter-gatherers. However, if anyone could instill discipline into nomads, then he had a truly formidable army indeed, the two most famous examples being Genghis Khan and Timur. Hunter-gatherers were also lacking in numbers, which after industrialization started to become a problem for nomads as well. Until modern times nomads had enough numbers given their much higher ratio of warriors relative to their population.

    Marine sergeant instructor... said
     
    He would say that, wouldn't he? He's not going to say that the material he had to work with has deteriorated considerably from what they had back in the 1960s (soldiers are apparently often unable to properly squat), or that as a result soldiers are way worse now than they had been before.

    By the way there's a huge ideological push for saying that physical qualities like strength don't matter, because then they can say that women can be just as good soldiers as men, provided they go through the magic of the "system" and thus become disciplined. I have seen articles where various supposed experts (including active military officers and soldiers) all said how having female (Muslim, etc.) soldiers was the next best thing since sliced bread. It doesn't mean it's true.

    I’m also not sure which experts you’re talking about. For example it’s a well-known fact (mentioned by Martin van Creveld, to cite at least one expert dissenting from that alleged consensus), that modern militaries in the first half of the 20th century always preferred farm boys for soldiers. When farm boys were in short supply, they were going for blue collar workers, preferably from smaller towns or cities (these provided the backbone of the Germany armed forces in both world wars, though they were in somewhat shorter supply by 1939 than they had been in 1914)

    The writer of whom I was thinking was John Keegan, though yeah I definitely respect Martin Van Creveld. (Let’s not call either of these guys experts, and reserve that term for victorious commanders and good junior leaders.)

    As per Keegan, he broadly agrees with your statement above, but reversed the preference, in regards to recruiting pools.

    While farmers’ sons made good soldiers, young men drafted from towns and cities, who worked in occupations like steel smelting, mining, construction, manufacturing and transport were the first preference.

    The pre-industrial equivalents, say in Medieval Europe, were black-smithing, mining, carpentry, logging (requiring tools, so were town-centric not “rural”), tanning, and large-scale droving.

    And the reason? While young men on the farms and the rural ares were obviously fit, the young men who worked physical occupations in cities and towns were also quite fit, educated and (maybe most importantly) already used to discipline, schedules, hierarchy and regimentation.

    Their urban lifestyles were already organized for efficiency, and streamlined for carrying out orders, from their bosses on the workshop floors, smithies and construction sites.

    So, while the outdoor life made for better individual warriors (hunting, trapping, survival skills), town and small city life made for better disciplined soldiers , and more crucially organized units.

    When we talk about city dwellers, don’t think about fast-food munching service workers or white-collar desk jockeys, think rather physical manufacturing, construction, utilities maintenance, machinery operation, and plumbing/carpentry – requiring physical exertion AND at least trade-school level education.

    Since I only read, I just go by what seems reasonable. John Keegan seemed to make a good point in his writings about the classic preference for townsfolk as soldier material.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. Dmitry says:
    @Dmitry

    If women had “psychological strength” of any significance, they would have at least more than the most minimal of representation in top video gamers – where considerations of physical strength are completely absent and the primary considerations are decision-making under stress.

     

    This argument makes no sense. Top video gamers are a small proportion of men who usually need autistic spectrum disorders to become interested in the games (beyond how most of us play them, which is for a couple of hours of distraction). The role has no relation to fear, death, risk-taking, as it has no risks involved, and it has no relation to any real world situations. The people attracted to it may seem the opposite of those with relevant personalities for combat (if you want pre-filtering of people who would be suitable for combat, you might look at populations who do risk-taking hobbies and are attracted to risking their lives - people without normal levels of fear).

    The people attracted to it may seem the opposite of those with relevant personalities for combat (if you want pre-filtering of people who would be suitable for combat, you might look at populations who do risk-taking hobbies and are attracted to risking their lives – people without normal levels of fear).

    Perhaps you could drop her in the Battle of Stalingrad – and there would be hardly any activity in the amygdala.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    People without normal levels of fear might be prone to getting themselves killed, that's not ideal for combat either.
    I don't have military experience myself, but I doubt psychos of any kind make good soldiers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. @Dmitry

    The people attracted to it may seem the opposite of those with relevant personalities for combat (if you want pre-filtering of people who would be suitable for combat, you might look at populations who do risk-taking hobbies and are attracted to risking their lives – people without normal levels of fear).
     
    Perhaps you could drop her in the Battle of Stalingrad - and there would be hardly any activity in the amygdala.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zft6qzWL1PA

    People without normal levels of fear might be prone to getting themselves killed, that’s not ideal for combat either.
    I don’t have military experience myself, but I doubt psychos of any kind make good soldiers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    I predict that it varies with the battle-field and historical era.

    In a Roman battlefield, or in a Macedonian Phalanx, someone without fear of death, who runs ahead suicidally, could perhaps damage the discipline and shape of the formation.

    In WW1 the abnormal people who have no fear (and some even without disciple like example below) are usually remarked in a positive way.

    For example, I read in the article of English peace activist, Siegfried Sassoon, it writes:


    Sassoon's periods of duty on the Western Front were marked by exceptionally brave actions, including the single-handed capture of a German trench in the Hindenburg Line. Armed with grenades, he scattered sixty German soldiers:[7]

    Sassoon's bravery was inspiring to the extent that soldiers of his company said that they felt confident only when they were accompanied by him.[9] He often went out on night-raids and bombing patrols and demonstrated ruthless efficiency as a company commander. Deepening depression at the horror and misery the soldiers were forced to endure produced in Sassoon a paradoxically manic courage, and he was nicknamed "Mad Jack" by his men for his near-suicidal exploits.On 27 July 1916 he was awarded the Military Cross

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siegfried_Sassoon#The_Western_Front:_Military_Cross
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. Dmitry says:
    @Greasy William
    that video is disgusting. Little man's syndrome run amok.

    Had the big guy been properly trained he'd have broken that smurf in half.

    Hitting the guy when he's already unconscious on the ground was vile. Fuck that guy.

    Hitting the guy when he’s already unconscious on the ground was vile. Fuck that guy.

    You’re not a fan of how the football fans are practising?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. Dmitry says:
    @German_reader
    People without normal levels of fear might be prone to getting themselves killed, that's not ideal for combat either.
    I don't have military experience myself, but I doubt psychos of any kind make good soldiers.

    I predict that it varies with the battle-field and historical era.

    In a Roman battlefield, or in a Macedonian Phalanx, someone without fear of death, who runs ahead suicidally, could perhaps damage the discipline and shape of the formation.

    In WW1 the abnormal people who have no fear (and some even without disciple like example below) are usually remarked in a positive way.

    For example, I read in the article of English peace activist, Siegfried Sassoon, it writes:

    Sassoon’s periods of duty on the Western Front were marked by exceptionally brave actions, including the single-handed capture of a German trench in the Hindenburg Line. Armed with grenades, he scattered sixty German soldiers:[7]

    Sassoon’s bravery was inspiring to the extent that soldiers of his company said that they felt confident only when they were accompanied by him.[9] He often went out on night-raids and bombing patrols and demonstrated ruthless efficiency as a company commander. Deepening depression at the horror and misery the soldiers were forced to endure produced in Sassoon a paradoxically manic courage, and he was nicknamed “Mad Jack” by his men for his near-suicidal exploits.On 27 July 1916 he was awarded the Military Cross

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siegfried_Sassoon#The_Western_Front:_Military_Cross

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. DNC says:
    @Dmitry
    Does 'grip strength' (which measures just a function of the hand) have a strong relation to actual individual strength in other areas (in terms of weight lifting or other strength talent)?

    Isn't it possible that the genetic or environmental basis for hand strength will be different to those of a different muscle group (for example, differences in shoulder strength or thigh strength could have a different genetic and environmental basis, and be stronger in different nationalities than others)

    Also aren't grip muscles one of the attributes most susceptible to environment factors (the reason weight-lifting as a training, exists).


    -

    2

    Is there a strong relation between weight lifting talent and individual fighting without weapons.

    E.g. Andrey Drachev, World Weightlifting Champion is easily killed when he was tricked into a street fight with a small but more skilled Muslim guy in Khabarovsk last year.*


    -

    3.

    Romans, even if individually, would be fighting with weapons.

    So the direct relation to grip strength would only be in relation to their grip of the sword.

    (Other things like aggression, speed, mental attributes and skill would be more relevant to combat with a weapon, than without a weapon).

    Isn't the distinction with Roman from Northern people they genocided, that they were not individual fighters, but organized and group fighters.

    If Romans would lose in one-to-one, it is not because physical weakness (probably they were often better fed and stronger than the enemy, as they had more organized supplies), but because Romans had no individual fighting skill or experience.


    -

    *
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpRpeHwANkQ

    In reply to your first paragraph, I think ( and the paper that Anatoly linked does seem to back me up ) that the grip strength/body strength relationship becomes much more scattered among those who are stronger than average. Overhand and alternating grips are the norm on heavy deadlifts as a way to bypass the limitations of forearm strength

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. @Dmitry
    It is one of the largest news stories of the last year, including in Western media.

    The Muslim is going to trial for murder - because he killed on video Andrey Drachev who is the weight lifting champion of Russia and the silver medal winner of the World Championships.

    From the video, at least, the fight seems to be fair - but there may be some unfair behaviour occurring before the fight.

    he provoked a guy that he knew had no chance against him. If you watch the entire fight, it was clear he had already established his superiority but the big Russian was too proud to back out. When he knocked him down with the head kick the Russian was done and the next kick had the Russian out at which point he gave 3 or 4 shots to an unconscious man whose head was on the pavement. It was cold blooded murder.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    This is how the police are viewing the incident. He stupidly killed an internationally famous athlete (the weight lifting champion of Russia and the silver medalist in the world).

    However, from the video, it seems to me simply a fair fight, as a dual, in which both sides are active and voluntary participants.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. @Dmitry

    If women had “psychological strength” of any significance, they would have at least more than the most minimal of representation in top video gamers – where considerations of physical strength are completely absent and the primary considerations are decision-making under stress.

     

    This argument makes no sense. Top video gamers are a small proportion of men who usually need autistic spectrum disorders to become interested in the games (beyond how most of us play them, which is for a couple of hours of distraction). The role has no relation to fear, death, risk-taking, as it has no risks involved, and it has no relation to any real world situations. The people attracted to it may seem the opposite of those with relevant personalities for combat (if you want pre-filtering of people who would be suitable for combat, you might look at populations who do risk-taking hobbies and are attracted to risking their lives - people without normal levels of fear).

    Total fearlessness is as useful as total painlessness, actually; there is a reason why it has evolved. Decision-making under stress, on the other hand, is a very relevant attribute, especially in a more g-loaded combat environment.

    My experience with women with less fear is NOT what you would want in a comrade. It’s basically a form of masochism and will take you down with her.

    The ideal “female” soldier is a transsexual.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    Total fearlessness is as useful as total painlessness, actually; there is a reason why it has evolved. Decision-making under stress, on the other hand, is a very relevant attribute, especially in a more g-loaded combat environment.

    My experience with women with less fear is NOT what you would want in a comrade. It’s basically a form of masochism and will take you down with her.

    The ideal “female” soldier is a transsexual.
     

    Read real stories of the war. There have been Russian women who had more success confronting death than any of the Queen of England's Gurkas.

    This is historical reality, not conjecture about what one wants of hypothetical comrades in imaginary situations of hypothetical wars.

    The future issue that is very open and unknown, is about the proportion of personalities like this in different population groups, and weighting of different characteristics (or composition of characteristics which would be suitable for different roles - something which will vary a lot in different historical and technological eras).

    I will add some more stories below the "more" tag as well as the ones before. There are also documentaries on these, but I cannot find them at the moment in English (it seems American women were only baking cakes in this era).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariya_Bayda

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia_Litvyak

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinaida_Mareseva

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larisa_Litvinova

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_Kashcheyeva

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalya_Meklin

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manshuk_Mametova

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalya_Kovshova

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kseniya_Konstantinova

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roza_Shanina

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Morozova

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandra_Samusenko

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya_Baramzina

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinaida_Portnova

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariya_Tsukanova

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandra_Boiko

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliya_Moldagulova

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. Dmitry says:
    @Greasy William
    he provoked a guy that he knew had no chance against him. If you watch the entire fight, it was clear he had already established his superiority but the big Russian was too proud to back out. When he knocked him down with the head kick the Russian was done and the next kick had the Russian out at which point he gave 3 or 4 shots to an unconscious man whose head was on the pavement. It was cold blooded murder.

    This is how the police are viewing the incident. He stupidly killed an internationally famous athlete (the weight lifting champion of Russia and the silver medalist in the world).

    However, from the video, it seems to me simply a fair fight, as a dual, in which both sides are active and voluntary participants.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    He knew who he was. They used to train together when they were kids. The Russian was initially a wrestler but left wrestling for weight lifting.

    I don't know why you are defending a brutal, senseless murder. Maybe you have little man's disease yourself?
    , @German_reader
    How can it be fair when you hit a guy already lying on the ground several times...on the head? Even a layman knows that's potentially lethal force.
    Greasy's interpretation seems obviously correct to me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. @Hindoo
    My beloved SLC24A5-drenched Caucasoid cousins from sub-Arctic climates,

    I love you.

    You are the light in our lives. I can't imagine live on Earth or the International Space Station without you.

    Among other things:

    1. You provide us with lovable politicians like Justin Trudeau, Emmanuel Macron, Jeb Bush etc...
    2. You provide us with lovely ladies who star in amateur cuckold/hotwife porn with Big Black Cocks
    3. You provide us with lots of socio-politico-economic opportunities, not only in our own country, but also in yours
    4. You provide us with invaluable military/industrial technology
    5. You provide soldiers to fight in our wars

    I can't thank you enough. Mooooahh Mooooahh Mooooahh

    You are AWESOME!!! Did you know that?

    I am a total White Survivalist. I desire the survival of the White race so that we may continue have such White porn babes such as Avy Scott, Angela White, Harmoni Kalifornia etc...

    For your encouragement, here is a website called The Cuckold Consultant [AK: Link removed] that helps, and provides guidance and counseling for husbands (read: White husbands) on how to turn their wives (read: White wives) in to sluts for other mens' (read: Big Black Cocks') man-tool.

    Please keep'em rolling, in Jesus' name!

    Lol these Indians, a most strange people

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @Dmitry
    This is how the police are viewing the incident. He stupidly killed an internationally famous athlete (the weight lifting champion of Russia and the silver medalist in the world).

    However, from the video, it seems to me simply a fair fight, as a dual, in which both sides are active and voluntary participants.

    He knew who he was. They used to train together when they were kids. The Russian was initially a wrestler but left wrestling for weight lifting.

    I don’t know why you are defending a brutal, senseless murder. Maybe you have little man’s disease yourself?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    He knew who he was. They used to train together when they were kids. The Russian was initially a wrestler but left wrestling for weight lifting.

    I don’t know why you are defending a brutal, senseless murder. Maybe you have little man’s disease yourself?
     

    It is clearly a fair brawl, with two voluntary and active participants who could have left at any time they wanted. The security guards of the central department store even stopped them during the fight, asked them if they had any complaints - they both said no. And then the guards left, and they continued the fight.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. @Dmitry
    This is how the police are viewing the incident. He stupidly killed an internationally famous athlete (the weight lifting champion of Russia and the silver medalist in the world).

    However, from the video, it seems to me simply a fair fight, as a dual, in which both sides are active and voluntary participants.

    How can it be fair when you hit a guy already lying on the ground several times…on the head? Even a layman knows that’s potentially lethal force.
    Greasy’s interpretation seems obviously correct to me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    How can it be fair when you hit a guy already lying on the ground several times…on the head? Even a layman knows that’s potentially lethal force.
    Greasy’s interpretation seems obviously correct to me.
     
    I agree punches on the ground are unfair and from the legal perspective constitute some kind of involuntary homicide. But it is also typical in these fights (even on the sports level) and it is what all MMA fighters are trained to do.

    My view from the video is the overall circumstances of the fight were a fair "dual", in which both sides are active participants. The case is being prosecuted as a murder.
    , @myself
    If one man strikes another first, regardless of relative strength or skill, the other man is not obligated in society to walk away - it's no duel, simply self-defense on the part of the one attacked, even if he is larger and stronger, and his attacker weaker.

    By striking first, and striking some more, the attacker has initiated violence and committed murder - simple as that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. I don’t like big guys either, but I don’t think they deserve to be murdered

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    What does it have to do with big?

    Two idiots (one famous, one not) voluntarily made a kind of "duel" between each other in the street, continuing even after interruption by security. The important guy died and the loser MMA guy (perhaps unfairly) is going to prison.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. Anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:
    @Erik Sieven
    "I was venturing the idea that physical performance may not however have been entirely irrelevant."

    I think I have already mentioned it on this blog. I could imagine that differences in physical strength are not entirely irrelevant for economic success. Especially it might in part explain the fact that controlled for IQ Japan underperforms economical.
    Recently I have seen a documentary about a new school for sailors in New Guinea. The german instructor said one Melanesian can work as hard as three Filipinos, who seem to dominate the market for sailors internationally today.
    I have no idea what percentage of GDP in developed countries is dependents on physical strength today, but I would guess it is certainly higher that 5%. So a big enough difference strength between populations might actually matter.

    I think I have already mentioned it on this blog. I could imagine that differences in physical strength are not entirely irrelevant for economic success. Especially it might in part explain the fact that controlled for IQ Japan underperforms economical.

    I can’t imagine in a first world country, the average physical strength notwithstanding age structure has a meaningful effect on economic performance.

    Japan is a respectable #23 in GDP per capita on a nominal basis. But of course it’s supposed to do better because it is smarter.

    20 Israel 40,258
    21 France 39,869
    22 United Kingdom 39,735
    23 Japan 38,440
    24 United Arab Emirates 37,226
    25 Italy 31,984

    However, it really lags the US which stands at $60,000 per capita. On a PPP basis, it does worse at #28. It could partially be explained by Japan’s median age. It is the world’s oldest country. Germany is younger by only a few months but at least has a lot of good quality immigration from the rest of the EU to replenish its workforce.

    Can Karlin explore Japan’s laggardness? I know he has observations on Asian countries generally as part of a global review of wealth and IQ. Japan is one generation ahead of South Korea and Taiwan so it removes the “still too early to tell” explanation (e.g. South Koreans over the age of 50 are unskilled and unschooled so the economy is hobbled by a lack of good senior managers and experienced workers).

    Some thoughts building on comments and Karlin’s posts.

    Curiosity – Japan seems like a country with curiosity but as Karlin has mentioned its per capita Nature Index contribution is about 1/2 of Germany.

    Social capital – Japan seems like a country with high social capital because of its cohesive social fabric but I don’t know much about the sociological profile of Japan. Maybe they don’t have civic associations, volunteer, talk with and help out their neighbors, etc.

    Hikikomori – “adults who withdraw from social life, often seeking extreme degrees of isolation and confinement”. There are a lot of them in Japan. Among the most recent adult generation in affluent, urban East Asia a large percentage of men seem to have a mild form of Asperger’s or something on the end of the spectrum. I associate mild Asperger’s with a broader syndrome that includes low career ambition, just getting by in work and life, and not wanting to accomplish something big. I wonder if there is a way to calculate a national Aspie Quotient and the correlation with wealth among first world nations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon

    22 United Kingdom 39,735
    23 Japan 38,440
     
    But ... the quality of life in Japan is much, much higher. Low crime, high cohesion.

    Here's an everyday story of an upper-middle-class mother in North London, where terraced houses start at £1 million. But she's frightened to take her child to the local park.

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/04/the-gang-in-our-park-have-united-us-in-impotence/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. Dmitry says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    Total fearlessness is as useful as total painlessness, actually; there is a reason why it has evolved. Decision-making under stress, on the other hand, is a very relevant attribute, especially in a more g-loaded combat environment.

    My experience with women with less fear is NOT what you would want in a comrade. It's basically a form of masochism and will take you down with her.

    The ideal "female" soldier is a transsexual.

    Total fearlessness is as useful as total painlessness, actually; there is a reason why it has evolved. Decision-making under stress, on the other hand, is a very relevant attribute, especially in a more g-loaded combat environment.

    My experience with women with less fear is NOT what you would want in a comrade. It’s basically a form of masochism and will take you down with her.

    The ideal “female” soldier is a transsexual.

    Read real stories of the war. There have been Russian women who had more success confronting death than any of the Queen of England’s Gurkas.

    This is historical reality, not conjecture about what one wants of hypothetical comrades in imaginary situations of hypothetical wars.

    The future issue that is very open and unknown, is about the proportion of personalities like this in different population groups, and weighting of different characteristics (or composition of characteristics which would be suitable for different roles – something which will vary a lot in different historical and technological eras).

    I will add some more stories below the “more” tag as well as the ones before. There are also documentaries on these, but I cannot find them at the moment in English (it seems American women were only baking cakes in this era).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Rather than propagandized accounts, one of my closest friends actually happens to be a military officer/academic who has a role in integrating units, so I'm actually well familiar with the arguments for female soldiers and even then, its pretty much understood that women perform worse under combat.

    http://www.thelizlibrary.org/undelete/1110-GregorW.pdf

    The Services, especially the Army, have expanded the military occupational specialties (MOS) open to women purely as a part of the social concern for equality and have only paid lip service to combat readiness. . . . The Army’s own research indicates that the vast majority of women do not possess the lean mass necessary to meet the strength requirements for very heavy and heavy physical MOS’s.

     

    Further studies have shown that at heavy weapons with high recoil, there are aggregate statistics when trained women have only as much accuracy as an untrained male. Strength does still matter.

    The main counter from my friend(who does not think his role is useless, of course) is that there are a huge array of tasks in the military, even on the front-lines, where skills such as spotting, reporting and awareness are needed as much if not more than direct action/force, and even if women were relatively poorer than men at it, it still is better to have someone rather than no one doing it. That, I can concede to some extent, but its not considering the negative externality of adding women to units.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. Dmitry says:
    @German_reader
    How can it be fair when you hit a guy already lying on the ground several times...on the head? Even a layman knows that's potentially lethal force.
    Greasy's interpretation seems obviously correct to me.

    How can it be fair when you hit a guy already lying on the ground several times…on the head? Even a layman knows that’s potentially lethal force.
    Greasy’s interpretation seems obviously correct to me.

    I agree punches on the ground are unfair and from the legal perspective constitute some kind of involuntary homicide. But it is also typical in these fights (even on the sports level) and it is what all MMA fighters are trained to do.

    My view from the video is the overall circumstances of the fight were a fair “dual”, in which both sides are active participants. The case is being prosecuted as a murder.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    But it is also typical in these fights (even on the sports level) and it is what all MMA fighters are trained to do.
     
    I don't watch such sports (seems a bit primitive to me tbh), but that seems illogical...I'd expect all the more self-control and restraint from a professional MMA fighter because he must know how dangerous violence against an incapacitated opponent is. And the fight was so one-sided that there was no plausible reason for the Caucasian to get enraged either. I'd suspect it was premeditated, and I'd hope the killer gets locked away for a few decades at least.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. @Dmitry

    How can it be fair when you hit a guy already lying on the ground several times…on the head? Even a layman knows that’s potentially lethal force.
    Greasy’s interpretation seems obviously correct to me.
     
    I agree punches on the ground are unfair and from the legal perspective constitute some kind of involuntary homicide. But it is also typical in these fights (even on the sports level) and it is what all MMA fighters are trained to do.

    My view from the video is the overall circumstances of the fight were a fair "dual", in which both sides are active participants. The case is being prosecuted as a murder.

    But it is also typical in these fights (even on the sports level) and it is what all MMA fighters are trained to do.

    I don’t watch such sports (seems a bit primitive to me tbh), but that seems illogical…I’d expect all the more self-control and restraint from a professional MMA fighter because he must know how dangerous violence against an incapacitated opponent is. And the fight was so one-sided that there was no plausible reason for the Caucasian to get enraged either. I’d suspect it was premeditated, and I’d hope the killer gets locked away for a few decades at least.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Are duels to the death common in Russia? I hadn't heard so, but what do I know?
    , @Dmitry
    It is how MMA fighters are trained. (And yes MMA is a stupidly designed sport for sure, and someone who does it on concrete can expect what has happened - going to prison).

    As for the fight - it was not all one-sided, as they spend a lot of time wrestling on the floor. And they were allegedly wrestling each other even before the security camera footage has filmed them, which is why people complained, and security guards were called from the department store originally to talk to them (when they both tell the security guards that they are both happy and not fighting).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_xlzuLh1E8

    , @Greasy William

    I’d expect all the more self-control and restraint from a professional MMA fighter because he must know how dangerous violence against an incapacitated opponent is.
     
    Actually in MMA the fighters usually keep punching after the other guy in unconscious and only stop when the ref has broken them up. It is normal to see an unconscious fighter take another 3 to 5 shots before the referee finally pulls the other guy off. It drives me crazy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. Dmitry says:
    @Greasy William
    He knew who he was. They used to train together when they were kids. The Russian was initially a wrestler but left wrestling for weight lifting.

    I don't know why you are defending a brutal, senseless murder. Maybe you have little man's disease yourself?

    He knew who he was. They used to train together when they were kids. The Russian was initially a wrestler but left wrestling for weight lifting.

    I don’t know why you are defending a brutal, senseless murder. Maybe you have little man’s disease yourself?

    It is clearly a fair brawl, with two voluntary and active participants who could have left at any time they wanted. The security guards of the central department store even stopped them during the fight, asked them if they had any complaints – they both said no. And then the guards left, and they continued the fight.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @German_reader

    But it is also typical in these fights (even on the sports level) and it is what all MMA fighters are trained to do.
     
    I don't watch such sports (seems a bit primitive to me tbh), but that seems illogical...I'd expect all the more self-control and restraint from a professional MMA fighter because he must know how dangerous violence against an incapacitated opponent is. And the fight was so one-sided that there was no plausible reason for the Caucasian to get enraged either. I'd suspect it was premeditated, and I'd hope the killer gets locked away for a few decades at least.

    Are duels to the death common in Russia? I hadn’t heard so, but what do I know?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. Dmitry says:
    @German_reader

    But it is also typical in these fights (even on the sports level) and it is what all MMA fighters are trained to do.
     
    I don't watch such sports (seems a bit primitive to me tbh), but that seems illogical...I'd expect all the more self-control and restraint from a professional MMA fighter because he must know how dangerous violence against an incapacitated opponent is. And the fight was so one-sided that there was no plausible reason for the Caucasian to get enraged either. I'd suspect it was premeditated, and I'd hope the killer gets locked away for a few decades at least.

    It is how MMA fighters are trained. (And yes MMA is a stupidly designed sport for sure, and someone who does it on concrete can expect what has happened – going to prison).

    As for the fight – it was not all one-sided, as they spend a lot of time wrestling on the floor. And they were allegedly wrestling each other even before the security camera footage has filmed them, which is why people complained, and security guards were called from the department store originally to talk to them (when they both tell the security guards that they are both happy and not fighting).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    They were stopped and talked with twice for fighting - by the department store security guards (before the video), and then by the cops (at the beginning of the video). Both times, both of them said they were fine and happy.
    , @German_reader
    Even if it was a fair fight, that's not acceptable, the perpetrator must get a few years in prison at least, to send a message.
    It actually improves my view of Russia that the guy gets indicted for murder. In Germany there are frequently cases where the young and vibrantly diverse assault and kill people for trivial reasons and get off with ridiculously lax sentences. Just recently there was a case of a 19-year old "Ahmet" who beat and killed a German family father without any provocation at all (it was one of those "have you got cigarettes" aggro tours the Muslim underclass trash likes). The killer got a probationary sentence of two years, so he could literally kill someone without ever being sent to prison for it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. Dmitry says:
    @Dmitry
    It is how MMA fighters are trained. (And yes MMA is a stupidly designed sport for sure, and someone who does it on concrete can expect what has happened - going to prison).

    As for the fight - it was not all one-sided, as they spend a lot of time wrestling on the floor. And they were allegedly wrestling each other even before the security camera footage has filmed them, which is why people complained, and security guards were called from the department store originally to talk to them (when they both tell the security guards that they are both happy and not fighting).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_xlzuLh1E8

    They were stopped and talked with twice for fighting – by the department store security guards (before the video), and then by the cops (at the beginning of the video). Both times, both of them said they were fine and happy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. @Dmitry

    Total fearlessness is as useful as total painlessness, actually; there is a reason why it has evolved. Decision-making under stress, on the other hand, is a very relevant attribute, especially in a more g-loaded combat environment.

    My experience with women with less fear is NOT what you would want in a comrade. It’s basically a form of masochism and will take you down with her.

    The ideal “female” soldier is a transsexual.
     

    Read real stories of the war. There have been Russian women who had more success confronting death than any of the Queen of England's Gurkas.

    This is historical reality, not conjecture about what one wants of hypothetical comrades in imaginary situations of hypothetical wars.

    The future issue that is very open and unknown, is about the proportion of personalities like this in different population groups, and weighting of different characteristics (or composition of characteristics which would be suitable for different roles - something which will vary a lot in different historical and technological eras).

    I will add some more stories below the "more" tag as well as the ones before. There are also documentaries on these, but I cannot find them at the moment in English (it seems American women were only baking cakes in this era).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariya_Bayda

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia_Litvyak

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinaida_Mareseva

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larisa_Litvinova

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_Kashcheyeva

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalya_Meklin

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manshuk_Mametova

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalya_Kovshova

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kseniya_Konstantinova

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roza_Shanina

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Morozova

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandra_Samusenko

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya_Baramzina

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinaida_Portnova

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariya_Tsukanova

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandra_Boiko

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliya_Moldagulova

    Rather than propagandized accounts, one of my closest friends actually happens to be a military officer/academic who has a role in integrating units, so I’m actually well familiar with the arguments for female soldiers and even then, its pretty much understood that women perform worse under combat.

    http://www.thelizlibrary.org/undelete/1110-GregorW.pdf

    The Services, especially the Army, have expanded the military occupational specialties (MOS) open to women purely as a part of the social concern for equality and have only paid lip service to combat readiness. . . . The Army’s own research indicates that the vast majority of women do not possess the lean mass necessary to meet the strength requirements for very heavy and heavy physical MOS’s.

    Further studies have shown that at heavy weapons with high recoil, there are aggregate statistics when trained women have only as much accuracy as an untrained male. Strength does still matter.

    The main counter from my friend(who does not think his role is useless, of course) is that there are a huge array of tasks in the military, even on the front-lines, where skills such as spotting, reporting and awareness are needed as much if not more than direct action/force, and even if women were relatively poorer than men at it, it still is better to have someone rather than no one doing it. That, I can concede to some extent, but its not considering the negative externality of adding women to units.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    This is history of an actual war, of a kind of seriousness America has never experienced.

    I prefer looking at the real events of history, when there was a serious war, than opinions of friends in peaceful America, which did not seem relevant to the argument (nobody claims that women on average are a more suitable recruiting population than men).

    If you have evidence that e.g. Kovshova did not kill German soldiers, please post them.

    , @prosa123
    "Further studies have shown that at heavy weapons with high recoil, there are aggregate statistics when trained women have only as much accuracy as an untrained male. Strength does still matter."

    Here is a young lady from Norway, I believe she's only 17 years old in this video, shooting a ridiculously powerful rifle and doing so very, very well. If the average adult man without extensive firearms training tried to shoot this rifle he'd end up flat on his rear end with a bruised or even dislocated shoulder.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jA7To9l_jQ
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. @German_reader

    But it is also typical in these fights (even on the sports level) and it is what all MMA fighters are trained to do.
     
    I don't watch such sports (seems a bit primitive to me tbh), but that seems illogical...I'd expect all the more self-control and restraint from a professional MMA fighter because he must know how dangerous violence against an incapacitated opponent is. And the fight was so one-sided that there was no plausible reason for the Caucasian to get enraged either. I'd suspect it was premeditated, and I'd hope the killer gets locked away for a few decades at least.

    I’d expect all the more self-control and restraint from a professional MMA fighter because he must know how dangerous violence against an incapacitated opponent is.

    Actually in MMA the fighters usually keep punching after the other guy in unconscious and only stop when the ref has broken them up. It is normal to see an unconscious fighter take another 3 to 5 shots before the referee finally pulls the other guy off. It drives me crazy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    Sounds like a really primitive and barbaric sport, that should be prohibited.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. @Dmitry
    It is how MMA fighters are trained. (And yes MMA is a stupidly designed sport for sure, and someone who does it on concrete can expect what has happened - going to prison).

    As for the fight - it was not all one-sided, as they spend a lot of time wrestling on the floor. And they were allegedly wrestling each other even before the security camera footage has filmed them, which is why people complained, and security guards were called from the department store originally to talk to them (when they both tell the security guards that they are both happy and not fighting).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_xlzuLh1E8

    Even if it was a fair fight, that’s not acceptable, the perpetrator must get a few years in prison at least, to send a message.
    It actually improves my view of Russia that the guy gets indicted for murder. In Germany there are frequently cases where the young and vibrantly diverse assault and kill people for trivial reasons and get off with ridiculously lax sentences. Just recently there was a case of a 19-year old “Ahmet” who beat and killed a German family father without any provocation at all (it was one of those “have you got cigarettes” aggro tours the Muslim underclass trash likes). The killer got a probationary sentence of two years, so he could literally kill someone without ever being sent to prison for it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    It's not comparable to the cases you mention in Germany.

    Watch the whole video.

    These two guys are desperate to "duel" with each other in a "fair fight" (probably even part of some argument between MMA and weight-lifting). And they both pretend to be friends when the police talk to them, and then continue the fight afterwards.

    Duels were fashionable for centuries in Germany as well.

    The victim is no Pushkin, so I don't think the country and media has to cry that he has been killed in such a duel (even though the media was treating it as the loss of a great hero and champion). And neither for the Muslim MMA guy either.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. @Greasy William

    I’d expect all the more self-control and restraint from a professional MMA fighter because he must know how dangerous violence against an incapacitated opponent is.
     
    Actually in MMA the fighters usually keep punching after the other guy in unconscious and only stop when the ref has broken them up. It is normal to see an unconscious fighter take another 3 to 5 shots before the referee finally pulls the other guy off. It drives me crazy.

    Sounds like a really primitive and barbaric sport, that should be prohibited.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    These rules are from America (invented as UFC - ultimate fighting championship).

    The Japanese equivalent sport is K-1, which doesn't involve any fighting on the ground, and feels more civilized.

    -

    Probably the most talented K-1 champion (and greatest kickboxer ever) is from Belarus, Alexey Ignashov.

    But when he tried MMA, he was beaten by a Japanese wrestler, a completely very different sport with rolling around and kicking people's heads on the ground.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. Talha says:
    @reiner Tor


    Why? In Ancient warfare, isn’t it knowledge of all military historians that group organization, coolness and organization of supplies are the secret to victory (and at a higher level organization of tactics).
     
    Though just an interested layman (as in, I read this stuff, that’s all), the above is the overwhelming consensus of the professional experts (the actual soldiers and warriors) throughout human history.
     
    Well, the ketogenic diet of nomads enabled them to stay alive in the winter without food. (By the way their horses were also way better adapted to the winter steppe, without much food, either.) They didn't need to organize supplies that much, because their supplies were carried in their bodies. If military historians are dismissing this, then they are just dismissing a very important explanation for nomads' success. For example it's impossible to understand Timur's campaigns against the Golden Horde without understanding the soldiers' and the horses' individual ability to withstand starvation in the winter.

    I'm also not sure which experts you're talking about. For example it's a well-known fact (mentioned by Martin van Creveld, to cite at least one expert dissenting from that alleged consensus), that modern militaries in the first half of the 20th century always preferred farm boys for soldiers. When farm boys were in short supply, they were going for blue collar workers, preferably from smaller towns or cities (these provided the backbone of the Germany armed forces in both world wars, though they were in somewhat shorter supply by 1939 than they had been in 1914), working class from big cities were the next (i.e. relatively low) on the list preferred soldiers, and only once the supply of these dried up (the working class was often protected from conscription during wartime because they were doing essential work in war production), did they resort to people with white collar backgrounds like clerks etc. These were usually thought to be the worst soldiers, and present-day first world populations are usually similar to these.

    Martin van Creveld mentions that nomads were always considered better soldiers on the individual level than even farm boys, and that hunter-gatherers were similarly considered more formidable warriors than any civilized soldier. The one disadvantage of these two groups was that they were often lacking in discipline, which was especially true of hunter-gatherers. However, if anyone could instill discipline into nomads, then he had a truly formidable army indeed, the two most famous examples being Genghis Khan and Timur. Hunter-gatherers were also lacking in numbers, which after industrialization started to become a problem for nomads as well. Until modern times nomads had enough numbers given their much higher ratio of warriors relative to their population.

    Marine sergeant instructor... said
     
    He would say that, wouldn't he? He's not going to say that the material he had to work with has deteriorated considerably from what they had back in the 1960s (soldiers are apparently often unable to properly squat), or that as a result soldiers are way worse now than they had been before.

    By the way there's a huge ideological push for saying that physical qualities like strength don't matter, because then they can say that women can be just as good soldiers as men, provided they go through the magic of the "system" and thus become disciplined. I have seen articles where various supposed experts (including active military officers and soldiers) all said how having female (Muslim, etc.) soldiers was the next best thing since sliced bread. It doesn't mean it's true.

    Martin van Creveld mentions that nomads were always considered better soldiers

    The Rashidun gave certain groups of people like this (Turkic tribes like Jarajma, groups of Daylamis and certain Arabs) exemption from the jizyah in lieu of help defending the borders. Assyrian cobblers, bakers and others that would be considered doughboys and a liability on the battlefield we’re not considered.

    Creveld is absolutely awesome on these subjects.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. Dmitry says:
    @German_reader
    Even if it was a fair fight, that's not acceptable, the perpetrator must get a few years in prison at least, to send a message.
    It actually improves my view of Russia that the guy gets indicted for murder. In Germany there are frequently cases where the young and vibrantly diverse assault and kill people for trivial reasons and get off with ridiculously lax sentences. Just recently there was a case of a 19-year old "Ahmet" who beat and killed a German family father without any provocation at all (it was one of those "have you got cigarettes" aggro tours the Muslim underclass trash likes). The killer got a probationary sentence of two years, so he could literally kill someone without ever being sent to prison for it.

    It’s not comparable to the cases you mention in Germany.

    Watch the whole video.

    These two guys are desperate to “duel” with each other in a “fair fight” (probably even part of some argument between MMA and weight-lifting). And they both pretend to be friends when the police talk to them, and then continue the fight afterwards.

    Duels were fashionable for centuries in Germany as well.

    The victim is no Pushkin, so I don’t think the country and media has to cry that he has been killed in such a duel (even though the media was treating it as the loss of a great hero and champion). And neither for the Muslim MMA guy either.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. @Dmitry

    Pathans, Sikhs, Janjuas, Rajputs, Gurkhas etc. were all prized as soldiers by the British which would argue they had a higher than average grip strength
     
    Why? What does grip strength in a population, have to do with Gurkhas' perceived abilities as soldiers (for the British military)? (They are gripping their rifles more strongly than other soldiers, or they can be used to unscrew difficult jars?)

    Why? What does grip strength in a population, have to do with Gurkhas’ perceived abilities as soldiers (for the British military)? (They are gripping their rifles more strongly than other soldiers, or they can be used to unscrew difficult jars?)

    Grip strength correlates very closely with testosterone and ‘manliness’ in general.

    (Our ancestors knew this, which is why they judged people based on the firmness of their handshake.)

    Read More
    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @Anon
    But that correlation may not have precisely the same factor across major racial boundaries. Everyone knows the Gurkhas are pretty manly, whatever the average Nepalese grip strength is. (Incidentally I didn't see Nepal on Karlin's graphs but what is with Pakistani men having the grip strength of Bangladeshi women? Something weird there.)
    , @RaceRealist88
    Sure it does but grip strength does not equal overall strength.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. Dmitry says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    Rather than propagandized accounts, one of my closest friends actually happens to be a military officer/academic who has a role in integrating units, so I'm actually well familiar with the arguments for female soldiers and even then, its pretty much understood that women perform worse under combat.

    http://www.thelizlibrary.org/undelete/1110-GregorW.pdf

    The Services, especially the Army, have expanded the military occupational specialties (MOS) open to women purely as a part of the social concern for equality and have only paid lip service to combat readiness. . . . The Army’s own research indicates that the vast majority of women do not possess the lean mass necessary to meet the strength requirements for very heavy and heavy physical MOS’s.

     

    Further studies have shown that at heavy weapons with high recoil, there are aggregate statistics when trained women have only as much accuracy as an untrained male. Strength does still matter.

    The main counter from my friend(who does not think his role is useless, of course) is that there are a huge array of tasks in the military, even on the front-lines, where skills such as spotting, reporting and awareness are needed as much if not more than direct action/force, and even if women were relatively poorer than men at it, it still is better to have someone rather than no one doing it. That, I can concede to some extent, but its not considering the negative externality of adding women to units.

    This is history of an actual war, of a kind of seriousness America has never experienced.

    I prefer looking at the real events of history, when there was a serious war, than opinions of friends in peaceful America, which did not seem relevant to the argument (nobody claims that women on average are a more suitable recruiting population than men).

    If you have evidence that e.g. Kovshova did not kill German soldiers, please post them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
    , @Daniel Chieh
    A "real history" of events, for a given value of "real." The notion that Pavlichenko's numbers were padded or mythical is hardly even new, and it is obviously in the favor of the governments in question to manufacture such a myth, especially of lone kills. In contrast, the person who is considered the greatest sniper of history, Simo Hayha, stated that:


    I can only speak of my personal experiences during the Winter War and my later life, but in my personal case, there was absolutely not any actual 'confirmation' of those who I killed - indeed, contrary to the absurd myths that have built up around me, I wasn't even a 'sniper,' but rather a section leader of an infantry unit. I was not a lone wolf, lurking alone and picking off Soviet soldiers - just an infantryman who fought alongside my comrades in defence of our homeland.

    Nobody was keeping count. We were fighting a war, not shooting game - and the people I killed were people, not numbers.
     
    So no, as far as I am concerned, scientific controlled studies are far superior to ancedotal propaganda. it seems silly to even have to argue otherwise.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. Talha says:
    @myself

    The invading Arab armies made mincemeat of both Byzantine and Persian armies; even when under-equipped and outnumbered almost two to one, but they couldn’t break past the Nubians and had to settle for a pact.
     
    In this case, it wasn't the tools, but the wielder's will, that mattered. Morale is always crucial.

    Agree here, but in the case of the Nubians, it was both. The Arabs called them the “eye smiters” because of how accurately they could hit a man with their arrows from a distance. The Arabs had seen nothing comparable in any of the various people they had fought.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. Dmitry says:
    @German_reader
    Sounds like a really primitive and barbaric sport, that should be prohibited.

    These rules are from America (invented as UFC – ultimate fighting championship).

    The Japanese equivalent sport is K-1, which doesn’t involve any fighting on the ground, and feels more civilized.

    -

    Probably the most talented K-1 champion (and greatest kickboxer ever) is from Belarus, Alexey Ignashov.

    But when he tried MMA, he was beaten by a Japanese wrestler, a completely very different sport with rolling around and kicking people’s heads on the ground.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ragnar Lund
    MMA attracts lowbrow viewers with limited mental faculties and should not be spoken about on intelligent forums.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous coward

    Why? What does grip strength in a population, have to do with Gurkhas’ perceived abilities as soldiers (for the British military)? (They are gripping their rifles more strongly than other soldiers, or they can be used to unscrew difficult jars?)
     
    Grip strength correlates very closely with testosterone and 'manliness' in general.

    (Our ancestors knew this, which is why they judged people based on the firmness of their handshake.)

    But that correlation may not have precisely the same factor across major racial boundaries. Everyone knows the Gurkhas are pretty manly, whatever the average Nepalese grip strength is. (Incidentally I didn’t see Nepal on Karlin’s graphs but what is with Pakistani men having the grip strength of Bangladeshi women? Something weird there.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dmitry
    This is history of an actual war, of a kind of seriousness America has never experienced.

    I prefer looking at the real events of history, when there was a serious war, than opinions of friends in peaceful America, which did not seem relevant to the argument (nobody claims that women on average are a more suitable recruiting population than men).

    If you have evidence that e.g. Kovshova did not kill German soldiers, please post them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. myself says:
    @German_reader
    How can it be fair when you hit a guy already lying on the ground several times...on the head? Even a layman knows that's potentially lethal force.
    Greasy's interpretation seems obviously correct to me.

    If one man strikes another first, regardless of relative strength or skill, the other man is not obligated in society to walk away – it’s no duel, simply self-defense on the part of the one attacked, even if he is larger and stronger, and his attacker weaker.

    By striking first, and striking some more, the attacker has initiated violence and committed murder – simple as that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. @Dmitry
    This is history of an actual war, of a kind of seriousness America has never experienced.

    I prefer looking at the real events of history, when there was a serious war, than opinions of friends in peaceful America, which did not seem relevant to the argument (nobody claims that women on average are a more suitable recruiting population than men).

    If you have evidence that e.g. Kovshova did not kill German soldiers, please post them.

    A “real history” of events, for a given value of “real.” The notion that Pavlichenko’s numbers were padded or mythical is hardly even new, and it is obviously in the favor of the governments in question to manufacture such a myth, especially of lone kills. In contrast, the person who is considered the greatest sniper of history, Simo Hayha, stated that:

    I can only speak of my personal experiences during the Winter War and my later life, but in my personal case, there was absolutely not any actual ‘confirmation’ of those who I killed – indeed, contrary to the absurd myths that have built up around me, I wasn’t even a ‘sniper,’ but rather a section leader of an infantry unit. I was not a lone wolf, lurking alone and picking off Soviet soldiers – just an infantryman who fought alongside my comrades in defence of our homeland.

    Nobody was keeping count. We were fighting a war, not shooting game – and the people I killed were people, not numbers.

    So no, as far as I am concerned, scientific controlled studies are far superior to ancedotal propaganda. it seems silly to even have to argue otherwise.

    Read More
    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    We have a historical record, with examples of many Russian women who have distinguished combat service in a war which had a level of brutality America has never experienced (and whose population might potentially not survive).

    You mention one particular sniper who is recorded as killing over 300 German soldiers, that maybe they killed less? How does taking this single record, even if you want to reduce the numbers she killed, compare to the record of the average soldier?

    Because you need to argue that she was - and all the other women heroes of Great Patriotic War - a failures as a soldier, given our argument is nothing about population distributions, but about absolutes.

    For your argument to make any sense, you'll have to go over every one, and claim that their war record is below the average level.

    (Because if not, then their recruitment and combat record, you will have to acknowledge, was a success).


    In contrast, the person who is considered the greatest sniper of history, Simo Hayha, stated that

     

    But you are arguing the theory that people's war-records cannot be trusted, and therefore Simo Hayha has lost the status of a privileged source.


    And we have claims like...


    If women had “psychological strength” of any significance, they would have at least more than the most minimal of representation in top video gamers.
     
    Based on computer games.

    Most presentations of "female soldiers" are gross exaggerations comparing vastly unequal quality of training; the presence and effect of hormones should not be understated, being far more akin to a brutal strike to the brain for one set of behaviors or another.

     

    Except the war, was not America of 2018. It took decades in the Soviet Union before many of the women were awarded for heroism, as the bias was in the opposite direction than in America of 2018.

    Note again - we are not talking about the America of 2018 (An area of no interest to my posts).

    , @reiner Tor
    Can you provide a link to Häyhä’s quote? I could only find a Reddit comment.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. Mikhail says: • Website
    @myself
    Far as I know, there have always been a percentage of natural blonde, light-eyed people in the Mediterranean basin.

    They existed in Greece, the Balkans, the Italian peninsula, and Spain.

    As for the Romans, they weren't north Italian, nor south. They were middle Italians, living in the Latium plain.

    They probably were genetically similar to the Italians still in that region today, but with medium-dark brown hair and eyes. light skin and "classical" features (the strong, straight "Roman" nose, and so forth).

    North Italians are more German-admixtured, due to the influx during the Germanic Migrations. More blue-eyed blondes, for one thing. Pre-German North Italians probably looked like Romans.

    South Italians, for their part, have Moorish blood.

    North Italians are more German-admixtured, due to the influx during the Germanic Migrations.

    They’ve names like Piero Gross

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. DFH says:
    @myself
    Far as I know, there have always been a percentage of natural blonde, light-eyed people in the Mediterranean basin.

    They existed in Greece, the Balkans, the Italian peninsula, and Spain.

    As for the Romans, they weren't north Italian, nor south. They were middle Italians, living in the Latium plain.

    They probably were genetically similar to the Italians still in that region today, but with medium-dark brown hair and eyes. light skin and "classical" features (the strong, straight "Roman" nose, and so forth).

    North Italians are more German-admixtured, due to the influx during the Germanic Migrations. More blue-eyed blondes, for one thing. Pre-German North Italians probably looked like Romans.

    South Italians, for their part, have Moorish blood.

    North Italians are more German-admixtured, due to the influx during the Germanic Migrations.

    Is there genetic evidence for this? Not that many Ostrogoths were involved in the Ostrogothic kingdom. Many historical migrations which seem even larger, judging from contemporary records, (e.g. Slavs in Greece or Magyars in Hungary) seem to have had little genetic impact.

    Maybe they are just more like Southern Germans because they are much closer to Southern Germany, and further from North Africa.

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    Well, there were also Celtic invasions in ancient times, who took over all the northern Italy (and burned Rome, iirc?)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. Talha says:
    @Anon
    In a remarkable convergence with another UR story, I was just reading up on Einstein in Colombo, and he remarks on the relative toughness of the natives relative to their slight build: We rode on small one-man carriages drawn at trot by men of Herculean strength, yet of delicate build. about rickshaw pullers and the Colombo harbour was lively and bustling with workers of Herculean strength lifting cargo (a paraphrase). But the thing that amused me the most was: when he was in Japan, when he wrote a note of advice to a courier instead of a tip.

    Anyway, despite this, Sinhalese make pretty lousy soldiers, at least under their own commanders, and the reason for this is most probably temperament, an extremely important factor.

    edit: oops, article link: http://www.island.lk/index.php?page_cat=article-details&page=article-details&code_title=174223

    Yes, I’ve seen this in some diminutive people. My uncle (a homeopathic doctor) from Pakistan visits often. He is elderly and fit as a fiddle. Hand grip like a vice and his daily routine includes clean and jerks of 50 pounds. Pretty good for an octogenarian.

    Some people make great soldiers but need someone else to lead them. My Egyptian friends have mentioned it is a running joke among them that they make a fine fighting force as long as some Kurd, Turk, Albanian, etc is leading them.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. Talha says:
    @SteveRogers42
    From what I understand, the American experience in the Forever War has indicated that regular infantry, as well as SpecOps, needed to develop a lot more strength and power relative to their endurance component. Urban combat required a lot of explosive movement, rather than the long marches of yore.

    Although the training pipeline for such units as the SEALs still requires vast amounts of running, swimming, and cals, once the operators are in the Teams, they switch to personalized programs that are heavy on weightlifting, kettlebells, and grappling. Companies such as Mountain Tactical Institute and Tactical Barbell have arisen to meet this need.

    Urban combat required a lot of explosive movement, rather than the long marches of yore.

    Excellent points. Soldiers who get helicopter dropped into an urban jungle are definitely different men than those of the past.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. @JohnnyWalker123
    Tell me if I'm wrong, but don't the Pakistanis have ancestry similar to the Northwestern Indians? If Northwestern Indians are really strong (in comparison to the rest of the country), why do Pakistanis have weak grip strength?

    The Punjabis and Pathan combined are over half of the population of Pakistan. Pakistanis have weaker grip strength than Indians and Bangladeshis.

    I guess it’s possible that non-Punjabi, non-Pathan Pakistanis are extremely physically weak, but why would they be weaker than the Indian or Bangladeshi populations?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Maybe they mostly tested a bunch of Sindhis and Muhajirs like me - I had the most difficult time putting on muscle mass.

    Peace.
    , @jtgw
    Yeah there seems to be something wrong with the Pakistani sample. Genetically they ought to pattern close to Indians. Yes, Pakistan is poorer than India and might be more malnourished, but I don't see how that could cause them to be so many SDs weaker than Indians.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. Dmitry says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    A "real history" of events, for a given value of "real." The notion that Pavlichenko's numbers were padded or mythical is hardly even new, and it is obviously in the favor of the governments in question to manufacture such a myth, especially of lone kills. In contrast, the person who is considered the greatest sniper of history, Simo Hayha, stated that:


    I can only speak of my personal experiences during the Winter War and my later life, but in my personal case, there was absolutely not any actual 'confirmation' of those who I killed - indeed, contrary to the absurd myths that have built up around me, I wasn't even a 'sniper,' but rather a section leader of an infantry unit. I was not a lone wolf, lurking alone and picking off Soviet soldiers - just an infantryman who fought alongside my comrades in defence of our homeland.

    Nobody was keeping count. We were fighting a war, not shooting game - and the people I killed were people, not numbers.
     
    So no, as far as I am concerned, scientific controlled studies are far superior to ancedotal propaganda. it seems silly to even have to argue otherwise.

    We have a historical record, with examples of many Russian women who have distinguished combat service in a war which had a level of brutality America has never experienced (and whose population might potentially not survive).

    You mention one particular sniper who is recorded as killing over 300 German soldiers, that maybe they killed less? How does taking this single record, even if you want to reduce the numbers she killed, compare to the record of the average soldier?

    Because you need to argue that she was – and all the other women heroes of Great Patriotic War – a failures as a soldier, given our argument is nothing about population distributions, but about absolutes.

    For your argument to make any sense, you’ll have to go over every one, and claim that their war record is below the average level.

    (Because if not, then their recruitment and combat record, you will have to acknowledge, was a success).

    In contrast, the person who is considered the greatest sniper of history, Simo Hayha, stated that

    But you are arguing the theory that people’s war-records cannot be trusted, and therefore Simo Hayha has lost the status of a privileged source.

    And we have claims like…

    If women had “psychological strength” of any significance, they would have at least more than the most minimal of representation in top video gamers.

    Based on computer games.

    Most presentations of “female soldiers” are gross exaggerations comparing vastly unequal quality of training; the presence and effect of hormones should not be understated, being far more akin to a brutal strike to the brain for one set of behaviors or another.

    Except the war, was not America of 2018. It took decades in the Soviet Union before many of the women were awarded for heroism, as the bias was in the opposite direction than in America of 2018.

    Note again – we are not talking about the America of 2018 (An area of no interest to my posts).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Women are:
    * Physically much weaker than men (almost all women are weaker than the average man)
    * Physically more fragile than men
    * Emotionally more fragile than men
    * Will undermine unit cohesion
    * Impose costs on the military way out of proportion to the marginal (if not negative) value they add

    Here is Fred Reed on this, who has military experience: https://www.unz.com/freed/women-in-the-military-fiat-equality/

    The USSR was not the feminist exception you seem to think they were.

    Where we they most active in the ground forces? As snipers. The one sphere in which they can be somewhat competitive with men (women can be good at aiming guns). Never as infantry.

    This idea that things can be otherwise is I suspect a product of today's culture of asskicking babes on TV, RPGs where men and women differ only cosmetically, etc.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    If you read the paper, given that only "1 in 1000 women" had equal or more VO2 max(the gold standard for cardio fitness) compared to even the bottom percentile of men, arguing about the veracity of any particular myth is really as useful as disproving the existence of Zeus for all practical purposes.

    In this exceptionally fit ROTC Cadet population, considering 74,838 records, not one women achieved the male mean.
     
    And these were not unmotivated women.

    The ROI to disprove your particular unicorn is quite unfavorable; I can use the time to do more useful things like shitposting elsewhere.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. Dmitry says:
    @Greasy William
    I don't like big guys either, but I don't think they deserve to be murdered

    What does it have to do with big?

    Two idiots (one famous, one not) voluntarily made a kind of “duel” between each other in the street, continuing even after interruption by security. The important guy died and the loser MMA guy (perhaps unfairly) is going to prison.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    It could have been a hate crime, out of hatred against big people.
    It's an interesting case though, please inform us of the verdict when the trial's over.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. @Dmitry
    What does it have to do with big?

    Two idiots (one famous, one not) voluntarily made a kind of "duel" between each other in the street, continuing even after interruption by security. The important guy died and the loser MMA guy (perhaps unfairly) is going to prison.

    It could have been a hate crime, out of hatred against big people.
    It’s an interesting case though, please inform us of the verdict when the trial’s over.

    Read More
    • Agree: Dmitry
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    It could have been a hate crime, out of hatred against big people.
     
    Hate crimes against big people... under such a regime?


    https://cdn.img.inosmi.ru/images/23884/80/238848019.jpg

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. Dmitry says:
    @German_reader
    It could have been a hate crime, out of hatred against big people.
    It's an interesting case though, please inform us of the verdict when the trial's over.

    It could have been a hate crime, out of hatred against big people.

    Hate crimes against big people… under such a regime?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. Talha says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    Tell me if I'm wrong, but don't the Pakistanis have ancestry similar to the Northwestern Indians? If Northwestern Indians are really strong (in comparison to the rest of the country), why do Pakistanis have weak grip strength?

    Biryani and laddoos…and too much ghulab jamun.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. Talha says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    The Punjabis and Pathan combined are over half of the population of Pakistan. Pakistanis have weaker grip strength than Indians and Bangladeshis.

    I guess it's possible that non-Punjabi, non-Pathan Pakistanis are extremely physically weak, but why would they be weaker than the Indian or Bangladeshi populations?

    Maybe they mostly tested a bunch of Sindhis and Muhajirs like me – I had the most difficult time putting on muscle mass.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. @Dmitry
    We have a historical record, with examples of many Russian women who have distinguished combat service in a war which had a level of brutality America has never experienced (and whose population might potentially not survive).

    You mention one particular sniper who is recorded as killing over 300 German soldiers, that maybe they killed less? How does taking this single record, even if you want to reduce the numbers she killed, compare to the record of the average soldier?

    Because you need to argue that she was - and all the other women heroes of Great Patriotic War - a failures as a soldier, given our argument is nothing about population distributions, but about absolutes.

    For your argument to make any sense, you'll have to go over every one, and claim that their war record is below the average level.

    (Because if not, then their recruitment and combat record, you will have to acknowledge, was a success).


    In contrast, the person who is considered the greatest sniper of history, Simo Hayha, stated that

     

    But you are arguing the theory that people's war-records cannot be trusted, and therefore Simo Hayha has lost the status of a privileged source.


    And we have claims like...


    If women had “psychological strength” of any significance, they would have at least more than the most minimal of representation in top video gamers.
     
    Based on computer games.

    Most presentations of "female soldiers" are gross exaggerations comparing vastly unequal quality of training; the presence and effect of hormones should not be understated, being far more akin to a brutal strike to the brain for one set of behaviors or another.

     

    Except the war, was not America of 2018. It took decades in the Soviet Union before many of the women were awarded for heroism, as the bias was in the opposite direction than in America of 2018.

    Note again - we are not talking about the America of 2018 (An area of no interest to my posts).

    Women are:
    * Physically much weaker than men (almost all women are weaker than the average man)
    * Physically more fragile than men
    * Emotionally more fragile than men
    * Will undermine unit cohesion
    * Impose costs on the military way out of proportion to the marginal (if not negative) value they add

    Here is Fred Reed on this, who has military experience: https://www.unz.com/freed/women-in-the-military-fiat-equality/

    The USSR was not the feminist exception you seem to think they were.

    Where we they most active in the ground forces? As snipers. The one sphere in which they can be somewhat competitive with men (women can be good at aiming guns). Never as infantry.

    This idea that things can be otherwise is I suspect a product of today’s culture of asskicking babes on TV, RPGs where men and women differ only cosmetically, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    I don't doubt the physical differences and generally agree about women in the military, but what's the basis for "emotionally more fragile than men"? Is this based on studies about mental health, depression etc.?
    , @Dmitry

    Women are:
    * Physically much weaker than men (almost all women are weaker than the average man)
    * Physically more fragile than men
    * Emotionally more fragile than men
    * Will undermine unit cohesion
    * Impose costs on the military way out of proportion to the marginal (if not negative) value they add

    Here is Fred Reed on this, who has military experience: https://www.unz.com/freed/women-in-the-military-fiat-equality/
     

    It's not an issue of generalities. Generalities are useful for time-saving or in situations of lack of knowledge.

    E.g. In general women are significantly less intelligent than men, so if we are building a wunderwaffe we could bypass recruiting any women and save a lot of time.

    However, if you already knew in advance that Emmy Noether is going to be smarter than everyone here, then you should recruit her to build the wunderwaffe, regardless of belonging to a bypass category with far stupider people. The category is useful as heuristic.

    The physical issue I believe we have discussed above - in modern war, you would be usually selecting for stamina and toughness, in which case very few women would match the advanced levels required in top units of professional armies (but they could probably reach some minimum requirements of more ordinary units).

    For tank soldiers, they would not be strong enough to change the tracks on many tank models.

    In terms of recruitment, it's more efficient now to recruit only men (especially as there are more than too many recruits for the few wars in the world).

    But not so far away, when you can use a program to read relevant aspects of a people's psychology through brain scans - and search the population to find recruits with the relevant traits of less empathy, less fear, greater obedience, etc. Women with these traits (to the extent they can be found) - you can guarantee to be more effective in many roles, than men without these traits.

    As these traits themselves are quite rare, there will be pressure to recruit people with them - in fact even those (such as most women) who may far weaker in other requirements could be over-looked if they had rarer psychological traits.


    The USSR was not the feminist exception you seem to think they were.

    Where we they most active in the ground forces? As snipers. The one sphere in which they can be somewhat competitive with men (women can be good at aiming guns). Never as infantry
     

    I don't think was feminism, but shortage of human resources forced them in.

    And of the numbers entered into a quite a lot of roles there are example cases who have a good record.

    The snipers that were successful themselves in such a harsh environment - it's less because of aiming skills, and more because of their unusual psychological traits.

    Aside from snipers, you can search around and find different kinds of roles in the war.

    I'll the add some links as examples below to Wikipedia.

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%BE,_%D0%98%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F,_%D0%95%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0,_%D0%9C%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%88%D1%83%D0%BA_%D0%96%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0,_%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0,_%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0,_%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%BE,_%D0%98%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0


    This idea that things can be otherwise is I suspect a product of today’s culture of asskicking babes on TV, RPGs where men and women differ only cosmetically, etc.

     

    I don't think it is simply a fashionable discussion. People have had these discussions since the beginning of history. You can read people having our (or similar topic) discussion thousands of years ago, in Plato, or joking about it in Aristophanes.

    The advantage we have is an understanding now of statistics, or a better feeling for it.

    The future advantage (of the government) will be an understanding of the physically observable correlates of personality.

    It's already possible, from brain scans, to identity people who have an abnormal lack of empathy. The practical benefits of this for some roles are quite easy to find - if you can scan a population for this trait, you will have no problem identifying suitable job candidates to be executioners.

    Future militaries will have increasingly reliable and accurate technologies (and perhaps access to scan a database of the whole population) to identify people with certain traits - people without empathy, people who have unusually low fear responses, and perhaps even people with higher traits like obedience. Perhaps a psychopath (with too much impulsivity, etc) would not be desirable.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. @Anatoly Karlin
    Women are:
    * Physically much weaker than men (almost all women are weaker than the average man)
    * Physically more fragile than men
    * Emotionally more fragile than men
    * Will undermine unit cohesion
    * Impose costs on the military way out of proportion to the marginal (if not negative) value they add

    Here is Fred Reed on this, who has military experience: https://www.unz.com/freed/women-in-the-military-fiat-equality/

    The USSR was not the feminist exception you seem to think they were.

    Where we they most active in the ground forces? As snipers. The one sphere in which they can be somewhat competitive with men (women can be good at aiming guns). Never as infantry.

    This idea that things can be otherwise is I suspect a product of today's culture of asskicking babes on TV, RPGs where men and women differ only cosmetically, etc.

    I don’t doubt the physical differences and generally agree about women in the military, but what’s the basis for “emotionally more fragile than men”? Is this based on studies about mental health, depression etc.?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    I don’t doubt the physical differences and generally agree about women in the military, but what’s the basis for “emotionally more fragile than men”? Is this based on studies about mental health, depression etc.?

     

    Well he's discussing generalities, but it is not necessarily relevant if you are filtering for the relevant kind of mental illness.

    There are many mentally unstable and emotionally abnormal people that were successful in battlefields, especially with people mentally unbalanced in the sense of being suicidal, which includes some famous poets (for example, Lermontov was famous for bravery and apparent suicidal tendencies).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. bobby01 says:

    If you consider average weight of Chinese is about 20% less than Westerners, but only 5-6% shorter… China’s result is not bad.
    The weight adjusted result of Chinese men would be as good as (even slightly higher than) Europeans, and Chinese women would be a lot higher than Europeans.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  192. @Dmitry
    We have a historical record, with examples of many Russian women who have distinguished combat service in a war which had a level of brutality America has never experienced (and whose population might potentially not survive).

    You mention one particular sniper who is recorded as killing over 300 German soldiers, that maybe they killed less? How does taking this single record, even if you want to reduce the numbers she killed, compare to the record of the average soldier?

    Because you need to argue that she was - and all the other women heroes of Great Patriotic War - a failures as a soldier, given our argument is nothing about population distributions, but about absolutes.

    For your argument to make any sense, you'll have to go over every one, and claim that their war record is below the average level.

    (Because if not, then their recruitment and combat record, you will have to acknowledge, was a success).


    In contrast, the person who is considered the greatest sniper of history, Simo Hayha, stated that

     

    But you are arguing the theory that people's war-records cannot be trusted, and therefore Simo Hayha has lost the status of a privileged source.


    And we have claims like...


    If women had “psychological strength” of any significance, they would have at least more than the most minimal of representation in top video gamers.
     
    Based on computer games.

    Most presentations of "female soldiers" are gross exaggerations comparing vastly unequal quality of training; the presence and effect of hormones should not be understated, being far more akin to a brutal strike to the brain for one set of behaviors or another.

     

    Except the war, was not America of 2018. It took decades in the Soviet Union before many of the women were awarded for heroism, as the bias was in the opposite direction than in America of 2018.

    Note again - we are not talking about the America of 2018 (An area of no interest to my posts).

    If you read the paper, given that only “1 in 1000 women” had equal or more VO2 max(the gold standard for cardio fitness) compared to even the bottom percentile of men, arguing about the veracity of any particular myth is really as useful as disproving the existence of Zeus for all practical purposes.

    In this exceptionally fit ROTC Cadet population, considering 74,838 records, not one women achieved the male mean.

    And these were not unmotivated women.

    The ROI to disprove your particular unicorn is quite unfavorable; I can use the time to do more useful things like shitposting elsewhere.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    There was a long discussion of this issue on one of Karlin's posts called "Cville [something or other]".
    , @Dmitry
    How is that relevant? Your claim was that they cannot be soldiers. But in the most brutal war in history, there were quite a number of documented good soldiers.

    You can climb down the tree, and recognize a mistake in your claim was from a lack of thought about statistics.

    Obviously, on average, men will be a lot more successful, even in a modern fire-arms using battlefield, than women will be.

    At the same time, a list of famously successful female soldiers during the Great Patriotic War can be posted.

    How to reconcile the two points?

    There is no contradiction here - number of successful female soldiers in the war was vastly smaller than the number of successful male soldiers.

    Such a simple numerical difference of course doesn't imply you or I - for example - sent back in time to the war, would have been more successful on the battlefield, than was Roza Shanina.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. Bliss says:

    This list smacks of northern eurasian bias.

    Icelanders are strongest because they dominate a ridiculous fringe competition that is popular only in
    a tiny northwestern corner of Eurasia? Mongolians from the northeastern corner of Eurasia are right behind the Icelandic Vikings in strength just because they recently had a run of success in Sumo, a sport in which your competition are almost all japanese?

    Get real.

    Look instead at the most popular competitive sports which place a premium on strength such as American Football, Rugby etc and the heavier divisions of Boxing, Wrestling, MMA etc. Any objective observer can see that people of West African and Samoan ancestry dominate disproportionately.

    The Samoans are the strongest outliers of all. They have the highest bone and muscle density. Despite their tiny numbers (comparable to Icelandics) they are very disproportionately represented at the top levels of many strength sports: American Football, Rugby, MMA, Sumo, Wrestling etc

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erik Sieven
    "The Samoans are the strongest outliers of all. They have the highest bone and muscle density"
    Do they? They seem to be huge, but I am not sure about bone and muscle density
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. Dmitry says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    Women are:
    * Physically much weaker than men (almost all women are weaker than the average man)
    * Physically more fragile than men
    * Emotionally more fragile than men
    * Will undermine unit cohesion
    * Impose costs on the military way out of proportion to the marginal (if not negative) value they add

    Here is Fred Reed on this, who has military experience: https://www.unz.com/freed/women-in-the-military-fiat-equality/

    The USSR was not the feminist exception you seem to think they were.

    Where we they most active in the ground forces? As snipers. The one sphere in which they can be somewhat competitive with men (women can be good at aiming guns). Never as infantry.

    This idea that things can be otherwise is I suspect a product of today's culture of asskicking babes on TV, RPGs where men and women differ only cosmetically, etc.

    Women are:
    * Physically much weaker than men (almost all women are weaker than the average man)
    * Physically more fragile than men
    * Emotionally more fragile than men
    * Will undermine unit cohesion
    * Impose costs on the military way out of proportion to the marginal (if not negative) value they add

    Here is Fred Reed on this, who has military experience: https://www.unz.com/freed/women-in-the-military-fiat-equality/

    It’s not an issue of generalities. Generalities are useful for time-saving or in situations of lack of knowledge.

    E.g. In general women are significantly less intelligent than men, so if we are building a wunderwaffe we could bypass recruiting any women and save a lot of time.

    However, if you already knew in advance that Emmy Noether is going to be smarter than everyone here, then you should recruit her to build the wunderwaffe, regardless of belonging to a bypass category with far stupider people. The category is useful as heuristic.

    The physical issue I believe we have discussed above – in modern war, you would be usually selecting for stamina and toughness, in which case very few women would match the advanced levels required in top units of professional armies (but they could probably reach some minimum requirements of more ordinary units).

    For tank soldiers, they would not be strong enough to change the tracks on many tank models.

    In terms of recruitment, it’s more efficient now to recruit only men (especially as there are more than too many recruits for the few wars in the world).

    But not so far away, when you can use a program to read relevant aspects of a people’s psychology through brain scans – and search the population to find recruits with the relevant traits of less empathy, less fear, greater obedience, etc. Women with these traits (to the extent they can be found) – you can guarantee to be more effective in many roles, than men without these traits.

    As these traits themselves are quite rare, there will be pressure to recruit people with them – in fact even those (such as most women) who may far weaker in other requirements could be over-looked if they had rarer psychological traits.

    The USSR was not the feminist exception you seem to think they were.

    Where we they most active in the ground forces? As snipers. The one sphere in which they can be somewhat competitive with men (women can be good at aiming guns). Never as infantry

    I don’t think was feminism, but shortage of human resources forced them in.

    And of the numbers entered into a quite a lot of roles there are example cases who have a good record.

    The snipers that were successful themselves in such a harsh environment – it’s less because of aiming skills, and more because of their unusual psychological traits.

    Aside from snipers, you can search around and find different kinds of roles in the war.

    I’ll the add some links as examples below to Wikipedia.

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%BE,_%D0%98%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F,_%D0%95%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0,_%D0%9C%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%88%D1%83%D0%BA_%D0%96%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0,_%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0,_%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0,_%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%BE,_%D0%98%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0

    This idea that things can be otherwise is I suspect a product of today’s culture of asskicking babes on TV, RPGs where men and women differ only cosmetically, etc.

    I don’t think it is simply a fashionable discussion. People have had these discussions since the beginning of history. You can read people having our (or similar topic) discussion thousands of years ago, in Plato, or joking about it in Aristophanes.

    The advantage we have is an understanding now of statistics, or a better feeling for it.

    The future advantage (of the government) will be an understanding of the physically observable correlates of personality.

    It’s already possible, from brain scans, to identity people who have an abnormal lack of empathy. The practical benefits of this for some roles are quite easy to find – if you can scan a population for this trait, you will have no problem identifying suitable job candidates to be executioners.

    Future militaries will have increasingly reliable and accurate technologies (and perhaps access to scan a database of the whole population) to identify people with certain traits – people without empathy, people who have unusually low fear responses, and perhaps even people with higher traits like obedience. Perhaps a psychopath (with too much impulsivity, etc) would not be desirable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. Dmitry says:
    @German_reader
    I don't doubt the physical differences and generally agree about women in the military, but what's the basis for "emotionally more fragile than men"? Is this based on studies about mental health, depression etc.?

    I don’t doubt the physical differences and generally agree about women in the military, but what’s the basis for “emotionally more fragile than men”? Is this based on studies about mental health, depression etc.?

    Well he’s discussing generalities, but it is not necessarily relevant if you are filtering for the relevant kind of mental illness.

    There are many mentally unstable and emotionally abnormal people that were successful in battlefields, especially with people mentally unbalanced in the sense of being suicidal, which includes some famous poets (for example, Lermontov was famous for bravery and apparent suicidal tendencies).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    If you read the paper, given that only "1 in 1000 women" had equal or more VO2 max(the gold standard for cardio fitness) compared to even the bottom percentile of men, arguing about the veracity of any particular myth is really as useful as disproving the existence of Zeus for all practical purposes.

    In this exceptionally fit ROTC Cadet population, considering 74,838 records, not one women achieved the male mean.
     
    And these were not unmotivated women.

    The ROI to disprove your particular unicorn is quite unfavorable; I can use the time to do more useful things like shitposting elsewhere.

    There was a long discussion of this issue on one of Karlin’s posts called “Cville [something or other]“.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. Dmitry says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    If you read the paper, given that only "1 in 1000 women" had equal or more VO2 max(the gold standard for cardio fitness) compared to even the bottom percentile of men, arguing about the veracity of any particular myth is really as useful as disproving the existence of Zeus for all practical purposes.

    In this exceptionally fit ROTC Cadet population, considering 74,838 records, not one women achieved the male mean.
     
    And these were not unmotivated women.

    The ROI to disprove your particular unicorn is quite unfavorable; I can use the time to do more useful things like shitposting elsewhere.

    How is that relevant? Your claim was that they cannot be soldiers. But in the most brutal war in history, there were quite a number of documented good soldiers.

    You can climb down the tree, and recognize a mistake in your claim was from a lack of thought about statistics.

    Obviously, on average, men will be a lot more successful, even in a modern fire-arms using battlefield, than women will be.

    At the same time, a list of famously successful female soldiers during the Great Patriotic War can be posted.

    How to reconcile the two points?

    There is no contradiction here – number of successful female soldiers in the war was vastly smaller than the number of successful male soldiers.

    Such a simple numerical difference of course doesn’t imply you or I – for example – sent back in time to the war, would have been more successful on the battlefield, than was Roza Shanina.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    At the same time, a list of famously successful female soldiers during the Great Patriotic War can be posted.
     
    Most of the women in your list were snipers, aviators, medical personnel or irregular partisans though, that by itself is already some indication that women aren't suited for infantry combat.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. @Dmitry
    How is that relevant? Your claim was that they cannot be soldiers. But in the most brutal war in history, there were quite a number of documented good soldiers.

    You can climb down the tree, and recognize a mistake in your claim was from a lack of thought about statistics.

    Obviously, on average, men will be a lot more successful, even in a modern fire-arms using battlefield, than women will be.

    At the same time, a list of famously successful female soldiers during the Great Patriotic War can be posted.

    How to reconcile the two points?

    There is no contradiction here - number of successful female soldiers in the war was vastly smaller than the number of successful male soldiers.

    Such a simple numerical difference of course doesn't imply you or I - for example - sent back in time to the war, would have been more successful on the battlefield, than was Roza Shanina.

    At the same time, a list of famously successful female soldiers during the Great Patriotic War can be posted.

    Most of the women in your list were snipers, aviators, medical personnel or irregular partisans though, that by itself is already some indication that women aren’t suited for infantry combat.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Snipers are part of infantry. But there were some successful non-snipers.*

    I think we know the argument here doesn't make sense since the invention of firearms - there is no special ability to hold a gun and shoot it.

    A child (given a rifle) could be a successful soldier - if you found a suitably mature-thinking one.

    There are significant group differences in stamina and psychology between men and women, and there are cultural reasons not to allow them, like group cohesion or the societal dislike in risking women to death. But it is not a square circle.

    The existence of things like women mathematical geniuses or computer scientists, is surely something far more improbable in the history of the human race, than the existence of a woman who can shoot a rifle, run for medium distance, and not care about dying.


    -
    *
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_Kashcheyeva

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinaida_Samsonova

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Gnilitskaya

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valeriya_Gnarovskaya

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariya_Bayda

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. Dmitry says:
    @German_reader

    At the same time, a list of famously successful female soldiers during the Great Patriotic War can be posted.
     
    Most of the women in your list were snipers, aviators, medical personnel or irregular partisans though, that by itself is already some indication that women aren't suited for infantry combat.

    Snipers are part of infantry. But there were some successful non-snipers.*

    I think we know the argument here doesn’t make sense since the invention of firearms – there is no special ability to hold a gun and shoot it.

    A child (given a rifle) could be a successful soldier – if you found a suitably mature-thinking one.

    There are significant group differences in stamina and psychology between men and women, and there are cultural reasons not to allow them, like group cohesion or the societal dislike in risking women to death. But it is not a square circle.

    The existence of things like women mathematical geniuses or computer scientists, is surely something far more improbable in the history of the human race, than the existence of a woman who can shoot a rifle, run for medium distance, and not care about dying.

    -
    *

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_Kashcheyeva

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinaida_Samsonova

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Gnilitskaya

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valeriya_Gnarovskaya

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariya_Bayda

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    The use of women as standard combat infantry soldiers only happened though, during the First World War, in 1917, in the Kerensky Offensive - after the Russian army introduced all-women infantry battalions.

    The first all-women infantry battalion charged the German army in Krevo in July. In the first battle, 30 women soldiers were killed and 70 wounded (out of 190 women soldiers in first battle).* But the historians claim the battalion was otherwise successful during fighting over the following week.


    -
    *
    http://rus-istoria.ru/component/k2/item/372-mariya-bochkareva-kratkiy-biograficheskiy-ocherk-russkogo-voina

    , @Daniel Chieh

    I think we know the argument here doesn’t make sense since the invention of firearms – there is no special ability to hold a gun and shoot it.

    A child (given a rifle) could be a successful soldier – if you found a suitably mature-thinking one.
     
    This is increasingly spinning into nonsense.

    Modern war is not some situation where a child can pick up an AK-47 and be highly effective if all fear was removed from him(not even sure what is this magical mature-thinking is present). You could look up the war history in Rhodesia for the effectiveness of child soldiers where they fought trained white government soldiers, and this was largely a bush war, infantry against infantry. Essentially the child soldiers accomplished nothing except against the defenseless. Off the top of my head, their weaknesses included:

    1) Engaging too far. Child soldiers usually lacked patience to engage targets at a reasonable range, and therefore gave away their position far too early.

    2) Abysmal situational awareness. Child soldiers had terrible decision making in regards to what was defensible, or what wasn't.

    3) Terrible accuracy. Lack of discipline on the field reflected lack of discipline off the field, child soldiers did not practice avidly.

    Such child soldiers did not lack in rifles, nor in courage(many were drugged). They did not accomplish very much against trained soldiers, even with numerical superiority.

    In the end, the best African opposition came from tribes that were traditionally militant, such as the Zulu, largely using tactics similar to what worked historically, but updated for modern times such as close ambushes at ranges below 100 yards. As in many things, past performance is often the best predictor of future performance.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. Dmitry says:
    @Dmitry
    Snipers are part of infantry. But there were some successful non-snipers.*

    I think we know the argument here doesn't make sense since the invention of firearms - there is no special ability to hold a gun and shoot it.

    A child (given a rifle) could be a successful soldier - if you found a suitably mature-thinking one.

    There are significant group differences in stamina and psychology between men and women, and there are cultural reasons not to allow them, like group cohesion or the societal dislike in risking women to death. But it is not a square circle.

    The existence of things like women mathematical geniuses or computer scientists, is surely something far more improbable in the history of the human race, than the existence of a woman who can shoot a rifle, run for medium distance, and not care about dying.


    -
    *
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_Kashcheyeva

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinaida_Samsonova

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Gnilitskaya

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valeriya_Gnarovskaya

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariya_Bayda

    The use of women as standard combat infantry soldiers only happened though, during the First World War, in 1917, in the Kerensky Offensive – after the Russian army introduced all-women infantry battalions.

    The first all-women infantry battalion charged the German army in Krevo in July. In the first battle, 30 women soldiers were killed and 70 wounded (out of 190 women soldiers in first battle).* But the historians claim the battalion was otherwise successful during fighting over the following week.

    -
    *

    http://rus-istoria.ru/component/k2/item/372-mariya-bochkareva-kratkiy-biograficheskiy-ocherk-russkogo-voina

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    They cut their hair on arrival.

    http://diletant.media/upload/iblock/9ca/9ca4d0c4a05879949290d7c87d76f97c.jpg

    So they looked in the bootcamp.

    https://images.aif.ru/005/559/d900b59c84fe68b84dac9645741e6828.jpg

    http://izhlife.ru/uploads/posts/2015-02/1424330520_16920.jpg

    In Petrograd, where Second Company's of Women's death battalion was to defend Winter Palace. (They surrendered immediately after the shots of the Aurora.)

    https://www.ljplus.ru/img/o/l/old_fox/zb_zimnij.jpg

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. Dmitry says:
    @Dmitry
    The use of women as standard combat infantry soldiers only happened though, during the First World War, in 1917, in the Kerensky Offensive - after the Russian army introduced all-women infantry battalions.

    The first all-women infantry battalion charged the German army in Krevo in July. In the first battle, 30 women soldiers were killed and 70 wounded (out of 190 women soldiers in first battle).* But the historians claim the battalion was otherwise successful during fighting over the following week.


    -
    *
    http://rus-istoria.ru/component/k2/item/372-mariya-bochkareva-kratkiy-biograficheskiy-ocherk-russkogo-voina

    They cut their hair on arrival.

    So they looked in the bootcamp.

    In Petrograd, where Second Company’s of Women’s death battalion was to defend Winter Palace. (They surrendered immediately after the shots of the Aurora.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf
    What is the dispute? As I understand all agree that the woman on average is much worse at war than the man. But (according to the laws of statistics) among women there are soldiers of extra class who fight a lot better than the average man. Rosа Shanina in one case entered into battle (contrary to the order of senior officers) and captured two German soldiers. One this episode puts her above the average male soldier.
    , @Dmitry
    Offtopic, but from historical interest.

    There really exists video footage of the Women's Battalion of Death receiving its blessing in Moscow before the Kerensky Offensive.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jjJNavbU1k

    Also in parade

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AQ8jYn2IpU

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. @Mikhail
    A US Korean War vet noted to me how relatively small ROK (South Koreans) personnel could do sand bag trench prep work all day at ease, much unlike the comparatively very well muscled brick shithouse US GIs.

    Training to lift the absolute max contradicts the best aerobic result. It's an art to blend speed, strength, stamina and flexibility.

    Very true. Functional strength is the Grail. Probably best exemplified by the top amateur wrestlers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. @Daniel Chieh
    A "real history" of events, for a given value of "real." The notion that Pavlichenko's numbers were padded or mythical is hardly even new, and it is obviously in the favor of the governments in question to manufacture such a myth, especially of lone kills. In contrast, the person who is considered the greatest sniper of history, Simo Hayha, stated that:


    I can only speak of my personal experiences during the Winter War and my later life, but in my personal case, there was absolutely not any actual 'confirmation' of those who I killed - indeed, contrary to the absurd myths that have built up around me, I wasn't even a 'sniper,' but rather a section leader of an infantry unit. I was not a lone wolf, lurking alone and picking off Soviet soldiers - just an infantryman who fought alongside my comrades in defence of our homeland.

    Nobody was keeping count. We were fighting a war, not shooting game - and the people I killed were people, not numbers.
     
    So no, as far as I am concerned, scientific controlled studies are far superior to ancedotal propaganda. it seems silly to even have to argue otherwise.

    Can you provide a link to Häyhä’s quote? I could only find a Reddit comment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    The reddit comment is what I'm working from, though he's said similar things in person up until his death and mentioned he never ever counted his kills for obvious reasons of trying to survive and thought his legend was quite exaggerated. The most recent historical count by Risto Marjomaa puts his kills around 200, rather than 542 which was by a single source and almost certainly wartime propaganda.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. JM says:

    “Speaking generally, in these regions the women possess the vigour and might of men, and the men those of wild beasts. Indeed, they say that often times in campaigns the mightiest warrior among the Gauls has been challenged to single combat by a quite slender Ligurian and slain” Diodorus Siculus

    http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Diodorus_Siculus/5B*.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  205. melanf says:
    @Dmitry
    They cut their hair on arrival.

    http://diletant.media/upload/iblock/9ca/9ca4d0c4a05879949290d7c87d76f97c.jpg

    So they looked in the bootcamp.

    https://images.aif.ru/005/559/d900b59c84fe68b84dac9645741e6828.jpg

    http://izhlife.ru/uploads/posts/2015-02/1424330520_16920.jpg

    In Petrograd, where Second Company's of Women's death battalion was to defend Winter Palace. (They surrendered immediately after the shots of the Aurora.)

    https://www.ljplus.ru/img/o/l/old_fox/zb_zimnij.jpg

    What is the dispute? As I understand all agree that the woman on average is much worse at war than the man. But (according to the laws of statistics) among women there are soldiers of extra class who fight a lot better than the average man. Rosа Shanina in one case entered into battle (contrary to the order of senior officers) and captured two German soldiers. One this episode puts her above the average male soldier.

    Read More
    • Agree: Dmitry
    • Replies: @melanf
    In addition, Girl warriors were common among Scythians and related tribes.
    Archaeologist V. Gulyaev : "Our expedition found that in six of the 59 investigated burial mounds near the village of Thorns and Kolbino was buried armed young women from noble families. Next to them is a common set of weapons: a pair of Darts, a spear, a bow and arrows with bronze and iron tips. Then expensive jewelry of the Greek production and objects of purely female use-bronze mirrors, earrings, beads, spinners from clay and lead".
    It's not a parade weapon, but a combat weapon because some girls have war wounds on their bones.
    https://sheokhanda.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/scythian-warrior-woman.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. @reiner Tor
    Can you provide a link to Häyhä’s quote? I could only find a Reddit comment.

    The reddit comment is what I’m working from, though he’s said similar things in person up until his death and mentioned he never ever counted his kills for obvious reasons of trying to survive and thought his legend was quite exaggerated. The most recent historical count by Risto Marjomaa puts his kills around 200, rather than 542 which was by a single source and almost certainly wartime propaganda.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. melanf says:
    @melanf
    What is the dispute? As I understand all agree that the woman on average is much worse at war than the man. But (according to the laws of statistics) among women there are soldiers of extra class who fight a lot better than the average man. Rosа Shanina in one case entered into battle (contrary to the order of senior officers) and captured two German soldiers. One this episode puts her above the average male soldier.

    In addition, Girl warriors were common among Scythians and related tribes.
    Archaeologist V. Gulyaev : “Our expedition found that in six of the 59 investigated burial mounds near the village of Thorns and Kolbino was buried armed young women from noble families. Next to them is a common set of weapons: a pair of Darts, a spear, a bow and arrows with bronze and iron tips. Then expensive jewelry of the Greek production and objects of purely female use-bronze mirrors, earrings, beads, spinners from clay and lead“.
    It’s not a parade weapon, but a combat weapon because some girls have war wounds on their bones.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. @Dmitry
    Snipers are part of infantry. But there were some successful non-snipers.*

    I think we know the argument here doesn't make sense since the invention of firearms - there is no special ability to hold a gun and shoot it.

    A child (given a rifle) could be a successful soldier - if you found a suitably mature-thinking one.

    There are significant group differences in stamina and psychology between men and women, and there are cultural reasons not to allow them, like group cohesion or the societal dislike in risking women to death. But it is not a square circle.

    The existence of things like women mathematical geniuses or computer scientists, is surely something far more improbable in the history of the human race, than the existence of a woman who can shoot a rifle, run for medium distance, and not care about dying.


    -
    *
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_Kashcheyeva

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinaida_Samsonova

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Gnilitskaya

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valeriya_Gnarovskaya

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariya_Bayda

    I think we know the argument here doesn’t make sense since the invention of firearms – there is no special ability to hold a gun and shoot it.

    A child (given a rifle) could be a successful soldier – if you found a suitably mature-thinking one.

    This is increasingly spinning into nonsense.

    Modern war is not some situation where a child can pick up an AK-47 and be highly effective if all fear was removed from him(not even sure what is this magical mature-thinking is present). You could look up the war history in Rhodesia for the effectiveness of child soldiers where they fought trained white government soldiers, and this was largely a bush war, infantry against infantry. Essentially the child soldiers accomplished nothing except against the defenseless. Off the top of my head, their weaknesses included:

    1) Engaging too far. Child soldiers usually lacked patience to engage targets at a reasonable range, and therefore gave away their position far too early.

    2) Abysmal situational awareness. Child soldiers had terrible decision making in regards to what was defensible, or what wasn’t.

    3) Terrible accuracy. Lack of discipline on the field reflected lack of discipline off the field, child soldiers did not practice avidly.

    Such child soldiers did not lack in rifles, nor in courage(many were drugged). They did not accomplish very much against trained soldiers, even with numerical superiority.

    In the end, the best African opposition came from tribes that were traditionally militant, such as the Zulu, largely using tactics similar to what worked historically, but updated for modern times such as close ambushes at ranges below 100 yards. As in many things, past performance is often the best predictor of future performance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    However, you seem to agree with him that physical strength doesn't matter for soldiers any more. I think the "mature-thinking" part by Dmitry exactly meant that they'd avoid these three types of problem.

    To which an interesting thought experiment. Let's assume you are on a patrol with a comrade. You get injured. Does it matter how strong your comrade is? Does it matter if it's a 60kg reasonably lean and fit woman or an 80kg reasonably lean and fit guy? After all, if your comrade is not strong enough, he/she can always just leave you there...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. szopen says:
    @DFH

    North Italians are more German-admixtured, due to the influx during the Germanic Migrations.
     
    Is there genetic evidence for this? Not that many Ostrogoths were involved in the Ostrogothic kingdom. Many historical migrations which seem even larger, judging from contemporary records, (e.g. Slavs in Greece or Magyars in Hungary) seem to have had little genetic impact.

    Maybe they are just more like Southern Germans because they are much closer to Southern Germany, and further from North Africa.

    Well, there were also Celtic invasions in ancient times, who took over all the northern Italy (and burned Rome, iirc?)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. @Guy Lombardo
    Who said ancient Romans were the same as modern Italians?

    A lot of them are described as blue eyed, light haired.

    Reconstruction of Lucius Sulla

    http://www.luciuscorneliussylla.fr/image/fondsylla.png

    More likely, modern Italians are more similar to the ancient, pre-Indo European Etruscans, rather than the lighter, probably more northerly shifted Romans of the martial and ruling classes.

    We have genomes from ancient Rome.

    ISTR Razib Khan(?) blogging about this. The upshot was that modern Italians from Lazio are pretty much identical to ancient Romans.

    All the mass immigration from the Empire seems to have had little effect. The reason being that the city was a population sink.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Guy Lombardo
    No, there has never been any DNA taken from actual iron age romans of his kind. The Italians were unaffected by migrations from Arab countries, that is a fact. However, Italians may be descended from different tribes than the Romans, who are likely to have more northerly and ultimately intrusive origins as compared with the pre-indo european population (etruscans).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. dfordoom says: • Website

    but what’s the basis for “emotionally more fragile than men”?

    I’d have said emotionally more unstable, which I guess is sort of the same thing. I think female emotional instability is so obvious that it hardly needs proving. It’s why women are unsuited to any jobs that require judgment or rational decision-making.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  212. @Daniel Chieh

    I think we know the argument here doesn’t make sense since the invention of firearms – there is no special ability to hold a gun and shoot it.

    A child (given a rifle) could be a successful soldier – if you found a suitably mature-thinking one.
     
    This is increasingly spinning into nonsense.

    Modern war is not some situation where a child can pick up an AK-47 and be highly effective if all fear was removed from him(not even sure what is this magical mature-thinking is present). You could look up the war history in Rhodesia for the effectiveness of child soldiers where they fought trained white government soldiers, and this was largely a bush war, infantry against infantry. Essentially the child soldiers accomplished nothing except against the defenseless. Off the top of my head, their weaknesses included:

    1) Engaging too far. Child soldiers usually lacked patience to engage targets at a reasonable range, and therefore gave away their position far too early.

    2) Abysmal situational awareness. Child soldiers had terrible decision making in regards to what was defensible, or what wasn't.

    3) Terrible accuracy. Lack of discipline on the field reflected lack of discipline off the field, child soldiers did not practice avidly.

    Such child soldiers did not lack in rifles, nor in courage(many were drugged). They did not accomplish very much against trained soldiers, even with numerical superiority.

    In the end, the best African opposition came from tribes that were traditionally militant, such as the Zulu, largely using tactics similar to what worked historically, but updated for modern times such as close ambushes at ranges below 100 yards. As in many things, past performance is often the best predictor of future performance.

    However, you seem to agree with him that physical strength doesn’t matter for soldiers any more. I think the “mature-thinking” part by Dmitry exactly meant that they’d avoid these three types of problem.

    To which an interesting thought experiment. Let’s assume you are on a patrol with a comrade. You get injured. Does it matter how strong your comrade is? Does it matter if it’s a 60kg reasonably lean and fit woman or an 80kg reasonably lean and fit guy? After all, if your comrade is not strong enough, he/she can always just leave you there…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Fitness(including strength) impacts a lot of things; I agreed with Duke that explosive strength has limited utility and cardio generally matters more than strength. But being able to reach a target in time, being able to control burst, and the overall threat profile all have something to do with fitness.

    Even something like accuracy is physical on some level: reaction time(is something happening?), target distinguishment(Something is happening. Is it an enemy?) and execution of action(Something is happening. It is an enemy. I will shoot him.) is all affected by biological factors. We know there are gender differences because at least two of the three above have been tested for as part of intelligence testing.

    None of the above, of course, is as important as actually making anything akin to correct decisions, and on a larger level, the planning/tactical ability of the unit(war isn't really much of a singles activity). It doesn't matter how fast you can run if you are running in the wrong direction, for example.

    Which returns to the original point I made about the importance of decision-making under stress in combat, and why I indicated the lack of female pro-gamers suggested their weakness there and in SK, pro-gamers were indeed hired by the military in order to help design wargames so that suggests decision-making under pressure and speed to be valued by the military.

    Of course, of all of the above, drugged child soldiers led by dubious "commanders" are probably scraping the bottom of the barrel for competence on any level. Still quite good at murdering the defenseless, unfortunately.
    , @Dmitry

    However, you seem to agree with him that physical strength doesn’t matter for soldiers any more. I think the “mature-thinking” part by Dmitry exactly meant that they’d avoid these three types of problem.

     

    A physical requirement exists - but for practical purposes is not necessarily very high.

    During the Second World War, a lot of the time the soldiers were very weak (because of being underfed/underslept, etc), and yet still winning battles.

    The distinguishing traits (on the soldier level) were to an extent psychological.

    And the psychological traits that distinguished the soldiers were often deeply maladaptive ones from the perspective of civilian life (not caring about your own life, being able to ignore pain/discomfort, and having extreme obedience - even agreeing to many missions which were certain to kill you).

    -

    If you can't "test" the soldiers in battle, the difficult part will be know if they have the psychological traits to perform obediently during a deadly situation. And this is where the technological situation will improve, as the physically observable correlates of psychological traits will be understood.

    Interestingly, quite strange mentally people, like poets such as Lermontov have been unusually brave in war.

    -

    This story seems relevant.
    https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4285705,00.html


    One female soldier has performed successfully and attacked/killed the opponent, while another has been "hiding" inside a tree for hours.

    Aside from gender (or the strange case of these being women soldiers), the issue for recruitment technology will be to know in advance, who is the former and who is the latter.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dmitry
    It is one of the largest news stories of the last year, including in Western media.

    The Muslim is going to trial for murder - because he killed on video Andrey Drachev who is the weight lifting champion of Russia and the silver medal winner of the World Championships.

    From the video, at least, the fight seems to be fair - but there may be some unfair behaviour occurring before the fight.

    It is one of the largest news stories of the last year, including in Western media.

    LOL, not the case.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. @reiner Tor
    However, you seem to agree with him that physical strength doesn't matter for soldiers any more. I think the "mature-thinking" part by Dmitry exactly meant that they'd avoid these three types of problem.

    To which an interesting thought experiment. Let's assume you are on a patrol with a comrade. You get injured. Does it matter how strong your comrade is? Does it matter if it's a 60kg reasonably lean and fit woman or an 80kg reasonably lean and fit guy? After all, if your comrade is not strong enough, he/she can always just leave you there...

    Fitness(including strength) impacts a lot of things; I agreed with Duke that explosive strength has limited utility and cardio generally matters more than strength. But being able to reach a target in time, being able to control burst, and the overall threat profile all have something to do with fitness.

    Even something like accuracy is physical on some level: reaction time(is something happening?), target distinguishment(Something is happening. Is it an enemy?) and execution of action(Something is happening. It is an enemy. I will shoot him.) is all affected by biological factors. We know there are gender differences because at least two of the three above have been tested for as part of intelligence testing.

    None of the above, of course, is as important as actually making anything akin to correct decisions, and on a larger level, the planning/tactical ability of the unit(war isn’t really much of a singles activity). It doesn’t matter how fast you can run if you are running in the wrong direction, for example.

    Which returns to the original point I made about the importance of decision-making under stress in combat, and why I indicated the lack of female pro-gamers suggested their weakness there and in SK, pro-gamers were indeed hired by the military in order to help design wargames so that suggests decision-making under pressure and speed to be valued by the military.

    Of course, of all of the above, drugged child soldiers led by dubious “commanders” are probably scraping the bottom of the barrel for competence on any level. Still quite good at murdering the defenseless, unfortunately.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Males have simply evolved for combat:

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223959003_The_Importance_of_Physical_Strength_to_Human_Males

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Df8iLhSX4AAu25l.jpg

    Technology has mitigated some of these factors, but what was good 100,000s of years ago cannot be considered completely irrelevant now.

    Note to Ron Unz: funny things are happening when I try to post. It goes to another screen for a few seconds, and either fails to post or goes through.
    , @reiner Tor
    A couple year ago I read an article about a US journalist embedded with a US infantry platoon during Iraq 2003. She had run marathons, and considered herself reasonably fit. But on her first march during the war, she couldn't handle the backpack and maybe some body armor and helmet. She didn't have to carry weapons, so had a lighter load than the soldiers. After some time (maybe an hour; I'm writing off the top of my head and I'm lazy to look it up), she felt totally exhausted. A soldier noticed and politely asked her if she minded if he would carry her backpack. She barely had the strength to say a thank you...

    Obviously you don't need to be anywhere near professional powerlifter strength levels (it would be beneficial, if it weren't for the negative tradeoffs), but you need to be reasonably strong for a guy. Now a woman can reach that level, but for a woman it already comes at a price, because for the same strength level she'd be much closer to the (female) powerlifter level than a guy.

    The problem is that endurance at lower levels isn't totally antithetical to strength, by improving strength you can initially easily improve your endurance as well. Initially. For women, the "initially" means much lower levels than for guys.

    I guess the child soldiers didn't have a lot of body armor or even ammunition or whatever. They were disposable. But a well-trained soldier is worth way more than an untrained child soldier, and then not having the strength will be a problem, because a well-trained soldier without carrying ammo will be worth much less than one with a lot of ammo. Similarly, having a well-trained soldier wear body armor will be way more worthy than one without body armor, due to his higher life expectancy on the battlefield.

    I guess physical strength might mean less in the future, once we have things like robot infantry or very strong exoskeletons. But I think the discussion was originally about warfare in the past and present.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. AP says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    Fitness(including strength) impacts a lot of things; I agreed with Duke that explosive strength has limited utility and cardio generally matters more than strength. But being able to reach a target in time, being able to control burst, and the overall threat profile all have something to do with fitness.

    Even something like accuracy is physical on some level: reaction time(is something happening?), target distinguishment(Something is happening. Is it an enemy?) and execution of action(Something is happening. It is an enemy. I will shoot him.) is all affected by biological factors. We know there are gender differences because at least two of the three above have been tested for as part of intelligence testing.

    None of the above, of course, is as important as actually making anything akin to correct decisions, and on a larger level, the planning/tactical ability of the unit(war isn't really much of a singles activity). It doesn't matter how fast you can run if you are running in the wrong direction, for example.

    Which returns to the original point I made about the importance of decision-making under stress in combat, and why I indicated the lack of female pro-gamers suggested their weakness there and in SK, pro-gamers were indeed hired by the military in order to help design wargames so that suggests decision-making under pressure and speed to be valued by the military.

    Of course, of all of the above, drugged child soldiers led by dubious "commanders" are probably scraping the bottom of the barrel for competence on any level. Still quite good at murdering the defenseless, unfortunately.

    Males have simply evolved for combat:

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223959003_The_Importance_of_Physical_Strength_to_Human_Males

    Technology has mitigated some of these factors, but what was good 100,000s of years ago cannot be considered completely irrelevant now.

    Note to Ron Unz: funny things are happening when I try to post. It goes to another screen for a few seconds, and either fails to post or goes through.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Given that Cloudflare is running, I think Unz is getting d-dosed. It happens pretty often these days - Mr. Karlin can probably run down a list of sites labeled "alt-right" which keep getting hit by liberal organizations. There is a twitter handle that actually indicates their targets; I'm not sure as to the legality of such attacks given their willingness to admit to it. One would imagine that it is illegal.

    To the credit of Unz, no attack has managed to actually take down the site to any meaningful extent, although some content loss was inflicted once.
    , @Dmitry
    For English soldiers in the famous slaughterhouse of Battle of the Somme, there could have been included both famous athletes with incredible lung capacity, and guys who could have difficulty running 1 kilometer. The machine guns ate them both and turned them into meat without discrimination of heroic athletic ability or its opposite. What distinguished life and death - a kind of lottery of small factory manufactured pieces of steel pushed to over 1000 kph.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. @AP
    Males have simply evolved for combat:

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223959003_The_Importance_of_Physical_Strength_to_Human_Males

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Df8iLhSX4AAu25l.jpg

    Technology has mitigated some of these factors, but what was good 100,000s of years ago cannot be considered completely irrelevant now.

    Note to Ron Unz: funny things are happening when I try to post. It goes to another screen for a few seconds, and either fails to post or goes through.

    Given that Cloudflare is running, I think Unz is getting d-dosed. It happens pretty often these days – Mr. Karlin can probably run down a list of sites labeled “alt-right” which keep getting hit by liberal organizations. There is a twitter handle that actually indicates their targets; I’m not sure as to the legality of such attacks given their willingness to admit to it. One would imagine that it is illegal.

    To the credit of Unz, no attack has managed to actually take down the site to any meaningful extent, although some content loss was inflicted once.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  217. Polymath says:
    @Mr. Hack
    Your opinions are sound and appear to be the result of much thinking (and you appear to understand the game better than I do). However, I do think that it's quite possible that the Klitschkos only boxed to the levels required for them to win. As you've stated the period included a lot of mediocre figthers. If the level was higher, from what I've seen, their level of skill could have also risen proportionately.

    Similarly, with Magnusson vs Fischer. Fischer was a great student of the game of chess and was always evolving and bringing the whole game up a notch too. I think that if he were still around, his own game would have evolved to even higher levels and he'd be more than a match for Magnusson.

    It’s not “Magnusson”, it’s Magnus Carlsen. If 29-year-old Bobby were given a year to study modern developments, he would easily beat every current player except Carlsen and Caruana. It is debatable whether he could have upped his game to beat Kasparov, or Carlsen, I’d take either side of an even money bet there. It’s a little too early to tell about Caruana but he has a chance to be on the same level.

    Grandmaster William Lombardy was Bobby’s second in Reykjavik (and very important in his success, the two of them together out-analyzed the entire Soviet Union in the opening preparation and adjournments), and he was also Bobby’s only significant teacher (he trained him from 1954 to 1957). During the last year of Bill’s life (he died last October) I was very close to him and I learned a lot about Bobby that I didn’t know. Fischer’s outstanding quality as a chess professional was his systematic and scientific approach to absorbing all existing knowledge coupled with being harder-working than anyone else at the board and away from it. Kasparov and Carlsen match him in chess knowledge and intuition; Carlsen might be superior to the other two in pure talent but he has not been pushed to his maximum yet.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Sorry for the misspelling. I'm not so sure that Fischer couldn't beat Carlsen, given a whole year to study modern developments. I mean Carlsen is beatable, especially at the more rapid speed tournaments, and was even beaten by an aging (ancient?) Ivanchuk last year. And it's not like he puts his guard down or is uninterested in rapid speed chess. Full blown, I don't, know, but I suspect somebody out there beats him on occasion? You must be pretty good? My only claim to fame, is that I lasted for over 20 (30?) moves with a rated player of around 2000. I'm not really very good, and he must have been nice to me and I got a little bit lucky. :-)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. Dmitry says:
    @AP
    Males have simply evolved for combat:

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223959003_The_Importance_of_Physical_Strength_to_Human_Males

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Df8iLhSX4AAu25l.jpg

    Technology has mitigated some of these factors, but what was good 100,000s of years ago cannot be considered completely irrelevant now.

    Note to Ron Unz: funny things are happening when I try to post. It goes to another screen for a few seconds, and either fails to post or goes through.

    For English soldiers in the famous slaughterhouse of Battle of the Somme, there could have been included both famous athletes with incredible lung capacity, and guys who could have difficulty running 1 kilometer. The machine guns ate them both and turned them into meat without discrimination of heroic athletic ability or its opposite. What distinguished life and death – a kind of lottery of small factory manufactured pieces of steel pushed to over 1000 kph.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    It would have looked different though if they had reached the German trenches and engaged in close quarters fighting. Or think of the house to house combat in Stalingrad which involved actions like skull-crushing with spades and similar forms of close, personal killing. More athletic soldiers clearly have an advantage under such conditions.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    The greatest strategy is having an idiot for an enemy, is a saying that I've heard, and relevant to using formations to charge machine gun nests.

    Ultimately, I think what is important to explain is just this: soldiers are human assets in order to accomplish a goal in a physical realm, and their physical capabilities indicate what is reasonable and possible. To a more significant extent, modern warfare is really determined more by knowledge and strategy, to which physical abilities form a bedrock for, but cannot compensate for inadequate decision-making from commanders or for massive disparities in resources. This is true even of ancient warfare, for that matter, thus the commentary of Romans and Germanics.

    But the end of the day, a commander is always better off with higher quality assets, all other things equal: if he needed to charge a machine gun nests, its better for his goals to have all high cardio people because maybe then they can reach it first; if he needed to fight a long attrition of a firefight, its better to have high cardio people who can last longer; in just about any situation, having people who can potentially do more matters and helps - even if it won't save them(or him) from bad decision making or larger macro factors. Heck, if you just ran a team of vehicle mechanics, having stronger mechanics would help get more vehicles get fixed and you would be able to run more overtime with them.

    The psychological factors do matter, but the most significant ones are really just the ability to make meaningful decisions under fire(or general high pressure). The notion that soldiers are ideally unthinking automatons to execute orders at fatal risk is something I believe even Prussians avoided early on. Combat by definition is a highly unstable environment; it doesn't take a lot of reading(or any personal experience at all) to see how high stress drives people to act in all manners of genuine, hilarious stupidity. I have seen no evidence to see that women do better than men at this, and usually much worse; for that matter, most men do not do well at this anyway.

    Stability is really the most important aspect there, when things don't go according to plan(which is never).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  219. Dmitry says:
    @reiner Tor
    However, you seem to agree with him that physical strength doesn't matter for soldiers any more. I think the "mature-thinking" part by Dmitry exactly meant that they'd avoid these three types of problem.

    To which an interesting thought experiment. Let's assume you are on a patrol with a comrade. You get injured. Does it matter how strong your comrade is? Does it matter if it's a 60kg reasonably lean and fit woman or an 80kg reasonably lean and fit guy? After all, if your comrade is not strong enough, he/she can always just leave you there...

    However, you seem to agree with him that physical strength doesn’t matter for soldiers any more. I think the “mature-thinking” part by Dmitry exactly meant that they’d avoid these three types of problem.

    A physical requirement exists – but for practical purposes is not necessarily very high.

    During the Second World War, a lot of the time the soldiers were very weak (because of being underfed/underslept, etc), and yet still winning battles.

    The distinguishing traits (on the soldier level) were to an extent psychological.

    And the psychological traits that distinguished the soldiers were often deeply maladaptive ones from the perspective of civilian life (not caring about your own life, being able to ignore pain/discomfort, and having extreme obedience – even agreeing to many missions which were certain to kill you).

    -

    If you can’t “test” the soldiers in battle, the difficult part will be know if they have the psychological traits to perform obediently during a deadly situation. And this is where the technological situation will improve, as the physically observable correlates of psychological traits will be understood.

    Interestingly, quite strange mentally people, like poets such as Lermontov have been unusually brave in war.

    -

    This story seems relevant.

    https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4285705,00.html

    One female soldier has performed successfully and attacked/killed the opponent, while another has been “hiding” inside a tree for hours.

    Aside from gender (or the strange case of these being women soldiers), the issue for recruitment technology will be to know in advance, who is the former and who is the latter.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  220. @Dmitry
    For English soldiers in the famous slaughterhouse of Battle of the Somme, there could have been included both famous athletes with incredible lung capacity, and guys who could have difficulty running 1 kilometer. The machine guns ate them both and turned them into meat without discrimination of heroic athletic ability or its opposite. What distinguished life and death - a kind of lottery of small factory manufactured pieces of steel pushed to over 1000 kph.

    It would have looked different though if they had reached the German trenches and engaged in close quarters fighting. Or think of the house to house combat in Stalingrad which involved actions like skull-crushing with spades and similar forms of close, personal killing. More athletic soldiers clearly have an advantage under such conditions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  221. Dmitry says:
    @Dmitry
    They cut their hair on arrival.

    http://diletant.media/upload/iblock/9ca/9ca4d0c4a05879949290d7c87d76f97c.jpg

    So they looked in the bootcamp.

    https://images.aif.ru/005/559/d900b59c84fe68b84dac9645741e6828.jpg

    http://izhlife.ru/uploads/posts/2015-02/1424330520_16920.jpg

    In Petrograd, where Second Company's of Women's death battalion was to defend Winter Palace. (They surrendered immediately after the shots of the Aurora.)

    https://www.ljplus.ru/img/o/l/old_fox/zb_zimnij.jpg

    Offtopic, but from historical interest.

    There really exists video footage of the Women’s Battalion of Death receiving its blessing in Moscow before the Kerensky Offensive.

    Also in parade

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    Please stop spreading the ugly lie that women have value apart from their traditional roles as sex objects and birth machines. It is offensive and this board is supposed to be better than that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  222. @Dmitry
    Offtopic, but from historical interest.

    There really exists video footage of the Women's Battalion of Death receiving its blessing in Moscow before the Kerensky Offensive.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jjJNavbU1k

    Also in parade

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AQ8jYn2IpU

    Please stop spreading the ugly lie that women have value apart from their traditional roles as sex objects and birth machines. It is offensive and this board is supposed to be better than that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Rule of thumb to live by:

    Never, ever say anything about females that, were your mother to be in the same room at the time, she would kick the living snot out of you.

    Otherwise you're just posturing because your mother ain't around. Not respectable.

    Peace.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  223. Talha says:
    @Greasy William
    Please stop spreading the ugly lie that women have value apart from their traditional roles as sex objects and birth machines. It is offensive and this board is supposed to be better than that.

    Rule of thumb to live by:

    Never, ever say anything about females that, were your mother to be in the same room at the time, she would kick the living snot out of you.

    Otherwise you’re just posturing because your mother ain’t around. Not respectable.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    my mom doesn't count
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  224. @Talha
    Rule of thumb to live by:

    Never, ever say anything about females that, were your mother to be in the same room at the time, she would kick the living snot out of you.

    Otherwise you're just posturing because your mother ain't around. Not respectable.

    Peace.

    my mom doesn’t count

    Read More
    • LOL: Talha
    • Replies: @Talha
    And she'd kick the crap out of you for that statement too, if she didn't know the full context.

    May your mother live long and prosper - and may you never disappoint her.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  225. @Dmitry
    For English soldiers in the famous slaughterhouse of Battle of the Somme, there could have been included both famous athletes with incredible lung capacity, and guys who could have difficulty running 1 kilometer. The machine guns ate them both and turned them into meat without discrimination of heroic athletic ability or its opposite. What distinguished life and death - a kind of lottery of small factory manufactured pieces of steel pushed to over 1000 kph.

    The greatest strategy is having an idiot for an enemy, is a saying that I’ve heard, and relevant to using formations to charge machine gun nests.

    Ultimately, I think what is important to explain is just this: soldiers are human assets in order to accomplish a goal in a physical realm, and their physical capabilities indicate what is reasonable and possible. To a more significant extent, modern warfare is really determined more by knowledge and strategy, to which physical abilities form a bedrock for, but cannot compensate for inadequate decision-making from commanders or for massive disparities in resources. This is true even of ancient warfare, for that matter, thus the commentary of Romans and Germanics.

    But the end of the day, a commander is always better off with higher quality assets, all other things equal: if he needed to charge a machine gun nests, its better for his goals to have all high cardio people because maybe then they can reach it first; if he needed to fight a long attrition of a firefight, its better to have high cardio people who can last longer; in just about any situation, having people who can potentially do more matters and helps – even if it won’t save them(or him) from bad decision making or larger macro factors. Heck, if you just ran a team of vehicle mechanics, having stronger mechanics would help get more vehicles get fixed and you would be able to run more overtime with them.

    The psychological factors do matter, but the most significant ones are really just the ability to make meaningful decisions under fire(or general high pressure). The notion that soldiers are ideally unthinking automatons to execute orders at fatal risk is something I believe even Prussians avoided early on. Combat by definition is a highly unstable environment; it doesn’t take a lot of reading(or any personal experience at all) to see how high stress drives people to act in all manners of genuine, hilarious stupidity. I have seen no evidence to see that women do better than men at this, and usually much worse; for that matter, most men do not do well at this anyway.

    Stability is really the most important aspect there, when things don’t go according to plan(which is never).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  226. Talha says:
    @Greasy William
    my mom doesn't count

    And she’d kick the crap out of you for that statement too, if she didn’t know the full context.

    May your mother live long and prosper – and may you never disappoint her.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  227. The Flynn effect for strength is an interesting thing that wasn’t brought up here before. Here’s a piece of archeological excavation report from a 17th century Russian graveyard. The villagers would certainly have their strength impaired, not unlike today’s Nigerians.

    Everyone in the village had osteoporosis, including the kind that affects bones of the skull. The reason was likely nutrition (lack of calcium). Not uncommon were signs of periosteum inflammation, caused mostly by hypothermia, malnutrition and lack of vitamins in food. That was also the reason for poor healing of wounds and musculoskeletal system injuries.

    …Men are long-armed, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped. Faces are rather flat, massive jaws. Average height is 168.7 cm (5’6″). Thanks to plowing and walking, muscles that are responsible for work of shoulders and hips are well developed. Women: somewhat short-legged, long-armed, rather broad-shouldered (try carrying shoulder-yokes – you’ll understand). Height is about 155 cm (5’1″).

    https://radadar.livejournal.com/150667.html

    The blog title is “Dedicated to the lovers of the natural way of life” :)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    what's the average height for a properly nourished, ethnic Russian today? About 6'1?
    , @anonymous coward
    Nice horror story, but unfortunately unsourced and evidence-free.

    The observable and undeniable fact is that our ancestors managed to reproduce and build functioning, virile civilizations. We are dying out and surviving only by the scraps of what our ancestors built.
    , @reiner Tor

    The Flynn effect for strength
     
    This might have been true for some overpopulated Malthusian areas, but the trend is less clear. For example I have seen sacks used to store and transport wheat or flour in a Hungarian mill. The sacks could only be grabbed at their mouths, and the peasants threw them on their carts. They would've weighed something like 50-60 kilos, which is very close to their estimated body weights. They needed to be extremely strong (especially for their sizes, but even for bigger people today) to be able to grab those sacks and then throw them onto their carts. Present day populations would be unable to operate those carts, we'd need basically Olympic lifters or powerlifters to be able to do that.

    I read somewhere that in England during the industrial revolution, in a foundry there was a huge metal ladle, which for some distance had to be carried in hand by four people. More people couldn't access it, and there were handles for exactly four people. Those people had to be extremely strong by today's standards, I can't recall the weight of it, but it was very heavy, and today probably only groups of powerlifters and similar people could even attempt to lift it. The issue was, it was also extremely hot. So, English iron workers (probably only the very strongest of those were employed for this job) had to be extremely strong by today's standards.

    That's actually to answer the points raised about child labor in English factories in the early 19th century: where I read it (I can find the book if requested) it was mentioned that people working in these jobs started at the factory floor at a very early age as small children, and while initially given physically easier tasks, their workloads progressively increased. Since they were paid well, they could easily afford quality food (including meats and vegetables) and even feed their families, and their bodies adapted.

    It must be noted that many late 19th century strongmen started out as child workers in factories. So working at an early age might not have been so unhealthy as some people here seem to believe. Sitting at the school or in front of computers might produce less healthy humans. (Fortunately we have antibiotics and even better treatments for cancer, and so we live longer nevertheless.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  228. @Erik Sieven
    I always thought the Mongolian advantage was their mastery of horse-riding and superior logictic.

    Mongolian advantage was … superior logictic

    Superior logictic = no logistics. Horses graze steppe, soldiers survive off pillage. No supply train necessary.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    soldiers survive off pillage
     
    Even that requires a lot of organization, because the army needed to be moved around inhabited areas for pillage to be even possible. But for a long time, they didn't even need this.

    - they live off the milk or the meat of their horses (an average warrior had several horses with him, and could kill and eat one of those)
    - even when both milk and meat were in short supply, they could survive and be combat capable much longer than any other soldier, due to their ketogenic diets

    Now the second had something to do with the individual qualities of the soldiers (their ability to fight under conditions of starvation, when all other soldiers from other cultures would've been incapable of fighting).

    It must also be noted that their bows needed considerable strength levels to shoot. So even their strength was a factor.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  229. @Dmitry

    because then they can say that women can be just as good soldiers as men, provided they go through the magic of the “system” and thus become disciplined.
     
    Some women will be better candidates than most men as soldiers, - because modern warfare, the key distinguishing factor is psychological, and relevant psychological attributes can be found distributed in both population groups (although in different proportions).

    Many physically strong, externally people will break and become useless when confronted with a battlefield, although statistically it may be a lower number than for women.

    Other personalities can be tortured to death, and not lose their minds duing the process.

    The difficult part will be to find the mentally suitable soldiers. And this why in the future they will be using brain scans and assigning different roles based on the brain scans (that indicate level of fear, reaction to stress, cold heartedness, etc - many traits may be a little similar to psychopaths) .

    I'll copy some random links I had posted earlier on the Sailer forum (

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariya_Bayda

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia_Litvyak

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larisa_Litvinova

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalya_Meklin

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manshuk_Mametova

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalya_Kovshova

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kseniya_Konstantinova

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roza_Shanina

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandra_Samusenko

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya_Baramzina

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinaida_Portnova

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariya_Tsukanova

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandra_Boiko

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliya_Moldagulova

    Sure, I trust the Soviet Communist party is telling the truth about about wartime exploits of hero(ine)ism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  230. Florida man > all other men around the world

    We are living in the clown world of the 21st century. Florida man rules. The rest bends the knee.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  231. @Toronto Russian
    The Flynn effect for strength is an interesting thing that wasn't brought up here before. Here's a piece of archeological excavation report from a 17th century Russian graveyard. The villagers would certainly have their strength impaired, not unlike today's Nigerians.

    Everyone in the village had osteoporosis, including the kind that affects bones of the skull. The reason was likely nutrition (lack of calcium). Not uncommon were signs of periosteum inflammation, caused mostly by hypothermia, malnutrition and lack of vitamins in food. That was also the reason for poor healing of wounds and musculoskeletal system injuries.

    ...Men are long-armed, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped. Faces are rather flat, massive jaws. Average height is 168.7 cm (5'6"). Thanks to plowing and walking, muscles that are responsible for work of shoulders and hips are well developed. Women: somewhat short-legged, long-armed, rather broad-shouldered (try carrying shoulder-yokes - you'll understand). Height is about 155 cm (5'1").

    https://radadar.livejournal.com/150667.html
     
    The blog title is "Dedicated to the lovers of the natural way of life" :)

    what’s the average height for a properly nourished, ethnic Russian today? About 6’1?

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    what’s the average height for a properly nourished, ethnic Russian today? About 6’1?

     

    the average height of a man 178 centimeters, and the average height of a woman is 167 centimeters (though it's entire population, ethnic Russians possibly slightly higher)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  232. @Toronto Russian
    The Flynn effect for strength is an interesting thing that wasn't brought up here before. Here's a piece of archeological excavation report from a 17th century Russian graveyard. The villagers would certainly have their strength impaired, not unlike today's Nigerians.

    Everyone in the village had osteoporosis, including the kind that affects bones of the skull. The reason was likely nutrition (lack of calcium). Not uncommon were signs of periosteum inflammation, caused mostly by hypothermia, malnutrition and lack of vitamins in food. That was also the reason for poor healing of wounds and musculoskeletal system injuries.

    ...Men are long-armed, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped. Faces are rather flat, massive jaws. Average height is 168.7 cm (5'6"). Thanks to plowing and walking, muscles that are responsible for work of shoulders and hips are well developed. Women: somewhat short-legged, long-armed, rather broad-shouldered (try carrying shoulder-yokes - you'll understand). Height is about 155 cm (5'1").

    https://radadar.livejournal.com/150667.html
     
    The blog title is "Dedicated to the lovers of the natural way of life" :)

    Nice horror story, but unfortunately unsourced and evidence-free.

    The observable and undeniable fact is that our ancestors managed to reproduce and build functioning, virile civilizations. We are dying out and surviving only by the scraps of what our ancestors built.

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    Nice horror story, but unfortunately unsourced and evidence-free.
    The observable and undeniable fact is that our ancestors managed to reproduce and build functioning, virile civilizations. We are dying out and surviving only by the scraps of what our ancestors built
     
    .



    The average height of soldiers of the Russian army in the 18th and early 19th centuries 160-165 cm This height equalled the average height of the Europeans (men) in that era.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  233. @Daniel Chieh
    Fitness(including strength) impacts a lot of things; I agreed with Duke that explosive strength has limited utility and cardio generally matters more than strength. But being able to reach a target in time, being able to control burst, and the overall threat profile all have something to do with fitness.

    Even something like accuracy is physical on some level: reaction time(is something happening?), target distinguishment(Something is happening. Is it an enemy?) and execution of action(Something is happening. It is an enemy. I will shoot him.) is all affected by biological factors. We know there are gender differences because at least two of the three above have been tested for as part of intelligence testing.

    None of the above, of course, is as important as actually making anything akin to correct decisions, and on a larger level, the planning/tactical ability of the unit(war isn't really much of a singles activity). It doesn't matter how fast you can run if you are running in the wrong direction, for example.

    Which returns to the original point I made about the importance of decision-making under stress in combat, and why I indicated the lack of female pro-gamers suggested their weakness there and in SK, pro-gamers were indeed hired by the military in order to help design wargames so that suggests decision-making under pressure and speed to be valued by the military.

    Of course, of all of the above, drugged child soldiers led by dubious "commanders" are probably scraping the bottom of the barrel for competence on any level. Still quite good at murdering the defenseless, unfortunately.

    A couple year ago I read an article about a US journalist embedded with a US infantry platoon during Iraq 2003. She had run marathons, and considered herself reasonably fit. But on her first march during the war, she couldn’t handle the backpack and maybe some body armor and helmet. She didn’t have to carry weapons, so had a lighter load than the soldiers. After some time (maybe an hour; I’m writing off the top of my head and I’m lazy to look it up), she felt totally exhausted. A soldier noticed and politely asked her if she minded if he would carry her backpack. She barely had the strength to say a thank you…

    Obviously you don’t need to be anywhere near professional powerlifter strength levels (it would be beneficial, if it weren’t for the negative tradeoffs), but you need to be reasonably strong for a guy. Now a woman can reach that level, but for a woman it already comes at a price, because for the same strength level she’d be much closer to the (female) powerlifter level than a guy.

    The problem is that endurance at lower levels isn’t totally antithetical to strength, by improving strength you can initially easily improve your endurance as well. Initially. For women, the “initially” means much lower levels than for guys.

    I guess the child soldiers didn’t have a lot of body armor or even ammunition or whatever. They were disposable. But a well-trained soldier is worth way more than an untrained child soldier, and then not having the strength will be a problem, because a well-trained soldier without carrying ammo will be worth much less than one with a lot of ammo. Similarly, having a well-trained soldier wear body armor will be way more worthy than one without body armor, due to his higher life expectancy on the battlefield.

    I guess physical strength might mean less in the future, once we have things like robot infantry or very strong exoskeletons. But I think the discussion was originally about warfare in the past and present.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    A couple year ago I read an article about a US journalist embedded with a US infantry platoon during Iraq 2003. She had run marathons, and considered herself reasonably fit. But on her first march during the war, she couldn’t handle the backpack and maybe some body armor and helmet. She didn’t have to carry weapons, so had a lighter load than the soldiers. After some time (maybe an hour; I’m writing off the top of my head and I’m lazy to look it up), she felt totally exhausted. A soldier noticed and politely asked her if she minded if he would carry her backpack. She barely had the strength to say a thank you…

     

    They are elite professional soldiers, who spend years training and exercising and see this as a professional career, have probably an excellent diet. These soldiers might have the same health level of athletes.

    The average soldiers in the Second World War, were not necessarily having long training periods before combat, and often very badly fed and physically feeling very weak, and their favorite hobby was smoking cigarettes (if they were lucky enough to encounter them).

    Their health was not necessarily very important in the result. Generally if you read about the war, the determining factor is equipment, experience, tactics of the leadership, and all kind of ability to survive painful/stressful situations, living for days rolling in freezing mud, and even having sometimes suicidal obedience (psychology).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  234. @Hippopotamusdrome


    Mongolian advantage was ... superior logictic

     

    Superior logictic = no logistics. Horses graze steppe, soldiers survive off pillage. No supply train necessary.

    soldiers survive off pillage

    Even that requires a lot of organization, because the army needed to be moved around inhabited areas for pillage to be even possible. But for a long time, they didn’t even need this.

    - they live off the milk or the meat of their horses (an average warrior had several horses with him, and could kill and eat one of those)
    - even when both milk and meat were in short supply, they could survive and be combat capable much longer than any other soldier, due to their ketogenic diets

    Now the second had something to do with the individual qualities of the soldiers (their ability to fight under conditions of starvation, when all other soldiers from other cultures would’ve been incapable of fighting).

    It must also be noted that their bows needed considerable strength levels to shoot. So even their strength was a factor.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  235. melanf says:
    @Greasy William
    what's the average height for a properly nourished, ethnic Russian today? About 6'1?

    what’s the average height for a properly nourished, ethnic Russian today? About 6’1?

    the average height of a man 178 centimeters, and the average height of a woman is 167 centimeters (though it’s entire population, ethnic Russians possibly slightly higher)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    that includes elderly who may have shrunk and also young men who may not have finished growing. It also includes white trash Russians who may not have been properly nourished during growth. 178 centimeters is 5'10. There is no way the average ethnic Russian male is that short. That would make fully grown Russians slightly shorter than fully grown white Americans, which is impossible.

    A middle class and upper class Russian man of 25 who has been properly fed, how tall will he be on average?

    In Denmark the average is about 6'1. Russians would presumably be about the same.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  236. melanf says:
    @anonymous coward
    Nice horror story, but unfortunately unsourced and evidence-free.

    The observable and undeniable fact is that our ancestors managed to reproduce and build functioning, virile civilizations. We are dying out and surviving only by the scraps of what our ancestors built.

    Nice horror story, but unfortunately unsourced and evidence-free.
    The observable and undeniable fact is that our ancestors managed to reproduce and build functioning, virile civilizations. We are dying out and surviving only by the scraps of what our ancestors built

    .

    The average height of soldiers of the Russian army in the 18th and early 19th centuries 160-165 cm This height equalled the average height of the Europeans (men) in that era.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous coward
    You seem hellbent on missing my point. I wonder why.

    Look, we are dying out and the boundaries of our civilization are receding.

    It doesn't matter how tall they were. They built the civilization that we now don't even have the strength to maintain.

    Whatever it is they were doing, it was something right, and whatever it is we are doing now is something wrong
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  237. @Toronto Russian
    The Flynn effect for strength is an interesting thing that wasn't brought up here before. Here's a piece of archeological excavation report from a 17th century Russian graveyard. The villagers would certainly have their strength impaired, not unlike today's Nigerians.

    Everyone in the village had osteoporosis, including the kind that affects bones of the skull. The reason was likely nutrition (lack of calcium). Not uncommon were signs of periosteum inflammation, caused mostly by hypothermia, malnutrition and lack of vitamins in food. That was also the reason for poor healing of wounds and musculoskeletal system injuries.

    ...Men are long-armed, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped. Faces are rather flat, massive jaws. Average height is 168.7 cm (5'6"). Thanks to plowing and walking, muscles that are responsible for work of shoulders and hips are well developed. Women: somewhat short-legged, long-armed, rather broad-shouldered (try carrying shoulder-yokes - you'll understand). Height is about 155 cm (5'1").

    https://radadar.livejournal.com/150667.html
     
    The blog title is "Dedicated to the lovers of the natural way of life" :)

    The Flynn effect for strength

    This might have been true for some overpopulated Malthusian areas, but the trend is less clear. For example I have seen sacks used to store and transport wheat or flour in a Hungarian mill. The sacks could only be grabbed at their mouths, and the peasants threw them on their carts. They would’ve weighed something like 50-60 kilos, which is very close to their estimated body weights. They needed to be extremely strong (especially for their sizes, but even for bigger people today) to be able to grab those sacks and then throw them onto their carts. Present day populations would be unable to operate those carts, we’d need basically Olympic lifters or powerlifters to be able to do that.

    I read somewhere that in England during the industrial revolution, in a foundry there was a huge metal ladle, which for some distance had to be carried in hand by four people. More people couldn’t access it, and there were handles for exactly four people. Those people had to be extremely strong by today’s standards, I can’t recall the weight of it, but it was very heavy, and today probably only groups of powerlifters and similar people could even attempt to lift it. The issue was, it was also extremely hot. So, English iron workers (probably only the very strongest of those were employed for this job) had to be extremely strong by today’s standards.

    That’s actually to answer the points raised about child labor in English factories in the early 19th century: where I read it (I can find the book if requested) it was mentioned that people working in these jobs started at the factory floor at a very early age as small children, and while initially given physically easier tasks, their workloads progressively increased. Since they were paid well, they could easily afford quality food (including meats and vegetables) and even feed their families, and their bodies adapted.

    It must be noted that many late 19th century strongmen started out as child workers in factories. So working at an early age might not have been so unhealthy as some people here seem to believe. Sitting at the school or in front of computers might produce less healthy humans. (Fortunately we have antibiotics and even better treatments for cancer, and so we live longer nevertheless.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    I don't know what it is like in Hungary, but in America our high school boys are often shockingly frail looking. Look up anti gun douchebag David Hogg. Have you ever seen a Hungarian boy that frail?

    On the other hand, our pro athletes keep getting bigger and stronger. And even our frail, girly man, kids seem to be growing ever taller.

    , @Daniel Chieh
    We actually have studies to support this:

    Today’s men are not nearly as strong as their dads were, researchers say

    Surely to the delight of leftists everywhere.
    , @Dmitry
    Villagers of 17th century Russia, for example, would surely be far tougher in many areas (as a result of psychological brutalization), compared to modern men with a gym membership, and even able to do physical tasks you would not expect.

    At the same time, they were a lot smaller, less healthy and underfed, compared to modern men - expressed in all kinds of data like height, bone density, life-expectancy.

    So there are contradictions. If you leave the villagers alone in a difficult countryside environment, without food or water or buildings - we would surely predict the small and underfed villagers would survive better than the healthy, more physically developed modern people.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  238. @melanf

    what’s the average height for a properly nourished, ethnic Russian today? About 6’1?

     

    the average height of a man 178 centimeters, and the average height of a woman is 167 centimeters (though it's entire population, ethnic Russians possibly slightly higher)

    that includes elderly who may have shrunk and also young men who may not have finished growing. It also includes white trash Russians who may not have been properly nourished during growth. 178 centimeters is 5’10. There is no way the average ethnic Russian male is that short. That would make fully grown Russians slightly shorter than fully grown white Americans, which is impossible.

    A middle class and upper class Russian man of 25 who has been properly fed, how tall will he be on average?

    In Denmark the average is about 6’1. Russians would presumably be about the same.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Why would that be strange?

    This is indeed the average Russian height. I am 175cm myself and seem to be within the normal range of my cohort, including in historically better fed Moscow.
    , @Dmitry
    Aside from the generational issue (younger generation is getting taller), it obviously depends who you compare to.

    Some nationalities like Spain are a lot shorter - to the extent you notice on the street. I don't know if you been a lot of times in Spain? My emotion walking around where there are native Spanish, is like you are in a country of dwarfs.

    But then other nationalities like Hollanders/Netherlanders, will obviously be taller compared to Russian average. This might be true of some particular nationalities like Danish which are unusually tall.

    I get the impression there are a lot of giants in England, but then statistical data says average is only 178 cm.

    So categorize Russia in a European average category, similar to England or France, and this is supported by the data.

    , @Philip Owen
    I'm 5' 10" and in Saratov I am taller than most, not so much as in Wales but noticeably so. However, there is a sub group in the Russian population who are distinctly taller than others. But between 5' 8" and 5' 11" where I sit, there is a distinct gap. The same goes for the women. Saratov was originally populated by Mordovins who incline to height, so I am told. Don Cossacks and Germans were also early settlers. Muscovites and Ukrainians, the bulk of the population these days, arrived in the 19th and especially 20th C, the earliest settling on the Chernozerm from which the Germans were excluded. (Making German relative prosperity even more remarkable). There are lots of "Tatars" from those times too. Add Caucasians and Central Asians more recently. My guess is the the isolated rather tall group have Mordovin descent even if they are now naturalized Russians.

    In Eastern England, unlike Wales, I am no more than average height.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  239. @reiner Tor

    The Flynn effect for strength
     
    This might have been true for some overpopulated Malthusian areas, but the trend is less clear. For example I have seen sacks used to store and transport wheat or flour in a Hungarian mill. The sacks could only be grabbed at their mouths, and the peasants threw them on their carts. They would've weighed something like 50-60 kilos, which is very close to their estimated body weights. They needed to be extremely strong (especially for their sizes, but even for bigger people today) to be able to grab those sacks and then throw them onto their carts. Present day populations would be unable to operate those carts, we'd need basically Olympic lifters or powerlifters to be able to do that.

    I read somewhere that in England during the industrial revolution, in a foundry there was a huge metal ladle, which for some distance had to be carried in hand by four people. More people couldn't access it, and there were handles for exactly four people. Those people had to be extremely strong by today's standards, I can't recall the weight of it, but it was very heavy, and today probably only groups of powerlifters and similar people could even attempt to lift it. The issue was, it was also extremely hot. So, English iron workers (probably only the very strongest of those were employed for this job) had to be extremely strong by today's standards.

    That's actually to answer the points raised about child labor in English factories in the early 19th century: where I read it (I can find the book if requested) it was mentioned that people working in these jobs started at the factory floor at a very early age as small children, and while initially given physically easier tasks, their workloads progressively increased. Since they were paid well, they could easily afford quality food (including meats and vegetables) and even feed their families, and their bodies adapted.

    It must be noted that many late 19th century strongmen started out as child workers in factories. So working at an early age might not have been so unhealthy as some people here seem to believe. Sitting at the school or in front of computers might produce less healthy humans. (Fortunately we have antibiotics and even better treatments for cancer, and so we live longer nevertheless.)

    I don’t know what it is like in Hungary, but in America our high school boys are often shockingly frail looking. Look up anti gun douchebag David Hogg. Have you ever seen a Hungarian boy that frail?

    On the other hand, our pro athletes keep getting bigger and stronger. And even our frail, girly man, kids seem to be growing ever taller.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  240. @Greasy William
    that includes elderly who may have shrunk and also young men who may not have finished growing. It also includes white trash Russians who may not have been properly nourished during growth. 178 centimeters is 5'10. There is no way the average ethnic Russian male is that short. That would make fully grown Russians slightly shorter than fully grown white Americans, which is impossible.

    A middle class and upper class Russian man of 25 who has been properly fed, how tall will he be on average?

    In Denmark the average is about 6'1. Russians would presumably be about the same.

    Why would that be strange?

    This is indeed the average Russian height. I am 175cm myself and seem to be within the normal range of my cohort, including in historically better fed Moscow.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William

    Why would that be strange?
     
    Because everybody knows that Russians are tall.

    I've been around plenty of Russians. Are you seriously going to tell me that Russians aren't any taller than American whites?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  241. @Anatoly Karlin
    Why would that be strange?

    This is indeed the average Russian height. I am 175cm myself and seem to be within the normal range of my cohort, including in historically better fed Moscow.

    Why would that be strange?

    Because everybody knows that Russians are tall.

    I’ve been around plenty of Russians. Are you seriously going to tell me that Russians aren’t any taller than American whites?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  242. @Bliss
    This list smacks of northern eurasian bias.

    Icelanders are strongest because they dominate a ridiculous fringe competition that is popular only in
    a tiny northwestern corner of Eurasia? Mongolians from the northeastern corner of Eurasia are right behind the Icelandic Vikings in strength just because they recently had a run of success in Sumo, a sport in which your competition are almost all japanese?

    Get real.

    Look instead at the most popular competitive sports which place a premium on strength such as American Football, Rugby etc and the heavier divisions of Boxing, Wrestling, MMA etc. Any objective observer can see that people of West African and Samoan ancestry dominate disproportionately.

    The Samoans are the strongest outliers of all. They have the highest bone and muscle density. Despite their tiny numbers (comparable to Icelandics) they are very disproportionately represented at the top levels of many strength sports: American Football, Rugby, MMA, Sumo, Wrestling etc

    “The Samoans are the strongest outliers of all. They have the highest bone and muscle density”
    Do they? They seem to be huge, but I am not sure about bone and muscle density

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Seems like something worth looking into. They do seem like Bronze Age specimens.
    , @Bliss

    They seem to be huge, but I am not sure about bone and muscle density
     
    Samoans are Polynesians:

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304572609_Polynesian_Bones

    Polynesian people have an instantly recognizable phenotype characterized by a large bone and muscle mass.


    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1340554/pdf/bmjcred00238-0007.pdf

    Bone mineral content was significantly higher in Polynesian women than in Europeans,whether tested bv parametric or non-parametric analysis of covariance with age as the covariable (p<0O0001; see figure). The mean values were about 20% higher inPolynesians.


    Africans also have higher bone density:

    https://depts.washington.edu/bonebio/bonAbout/race.html

    The bone density is quite a bit higher in the African Americans. It is also higher in men than in women. Asian persons tend to have bone density that is as low or even lower than Caucasians. Hispanic people have bone density that is about the same or a little bit higher than Caucasians.

    https://depts.washington.edu/bonebio/bonAbout/ethnicBMD.gif
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  243. jtgw says:
    @Anonymous
    lol.

    No way white people are stronger than blacks. This is just another way for Anatoly to selectively look at data to show that White People Stronk!

    West African blacks clearly excel in sprinting but there is no evidence they excel in strength.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  244. jtgw says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    The Punjabis and Pathan combined are over half of the population of Pakistan. Pakistanis have weaker grip strength than Indians and Bangladeshis.

    I guess it's possible that non-Punjabi, non-Pathan Pakistanis are extremely physically weak, but why would they be weaker than the Indian or Bangladeshi populations?

    Yeah there seems to be something wrong with the Pakistani sample. Genetically they ought to pattern close to Indians. Yes, Pakistan is poorer than India and might be more malnourished, but I don’t see how that could cause them to be so many SDs weaker than Indians.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  245. @Erik Sieven
    "The Samoans are the strongest outliers of all. They have the highest bone and muscle density"
    Do they? They seem to be huge, but I am not sure about bone and muscle density

    Seems like something worth looking into. They do seem like Bronze Age specimens.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erik Sieven
    I would also be very interested in HBD-information on Australien Aborigines, Khoisans and Melanesians. Do they have maybe have some genetic advantage in any sport which hasn't been discovered because there so few of them and they live in such remote areas?
    , @Anonymous Jew
    Samoans and other Pacific Islanders are a varying mixture of the early Austronesian expansion (Filipinos/Malays et al) and the indigenous Austroloid populations (think black-skinned Australian Aborigines). Some populations look more Malay while others look more Austroloid. Australoids are, of course, much darker, have curly hair, large brow ridges, and facial hair. Malays/Filipinos are a subgroup of Southeast Asians and look more or less like other SE Asians (straight hair, no facial hair, etc). (Note their language family is Austronesian - same as Malays, Filipinos et al)

    There are a lot of theories for why they got so big and strong. Mixing two distant populations (Malays and Australoids) added some genetic variation to aid evolutionary change. One theory is that sailing across the Pacific required immense upper body strength. It's also interesting that animals confined to Islands often exhibit either gigantism or dwarfism. If I recall correctly, there are natives on Islands around the Philippines that are pygmy-like. So human populations in the Pacific have gone in both directions, size wise. Their stocky build could also be a partial adaption to cold since you'd be very exposed sailing thousands of miles across the Pacific Ocean in those little boats. When you're soaking wet and sailing you can get pretty cold, even in the tropics.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  246. @reiner Tor

    The Flynn effect for strength
     
    This might have been true for some overpopulated Malthusian areas, but the trend is less clear. For example I have seen sacks used to store and transport wheat or flour in a Hungarian mill. The sacks could only be grabbed at their mouths, and the peasants threw them on their carts. They would've weighed something like 50-60 kilos, which is very close to their estimated body weights. They needed to be extremely strong (especially for their sizes, but even for bigger people today) to be able to grab those sacks and then throw them onto their carts. Present day populations would be unable to operate those carts, we'd need basically Olympic lifters or powerlifters to be able to do that.

    I read somewhere that in England during the industrial revolution, in a foundry there was a huge metal ladle, which for some distance had to be carried in hand by four people. More people couldn't access it, and there were handles for exactly four people. Those people had to be extremely strong by today's standards, I can't recall the weight of it, but it was very heavy, and today probably only groups of powerlifters and similar people could even attempt to lift it. The issue was, it was also extremely hot. So, English iron workers (probably only the very strongest of those were employed for this job) had to be extremely strong by today's standards.

    That's actually to answer the points raised about child labor in English factories in the early 19th century: where I read it (I can find the book if requested) it was mentioned that people working in these jobs started at the factory floor at a very early age as small children, and while initially given physically easier tasks, their workloads progressively increased. Since they were paid well, they could easily afford quality food (including meats and vegetables) and even feed their families, and their bodies adapted.

    It must be noted that many late 19th century strongmen started out as child workers in factories. So working at an early age might not have been so unhealthy as some people here seem to believe. Sitting at the school or in front of computers might produce less healthy humans. (Fortunately we have antibiotics and even better treatments for cancer, and so we live longer nevertheless.)

    We actually have studies to support this:

    Today’s men are not nearly as strong as their dads were, researchers say

    Surely to the delight of leftists everywhere.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  247. Dmitry says:
    @Greasy William
    that includes elderly who may have shrunk and also young men who may not have finished growing. It also includes white trash Russians who may not have been properly nourished during growth. 178 centimeters is 5'10. There is no way the average ethnic Russian male is that short. That would make fully grown Russians slightly shorter than fully grown white Americans, which is impossible.

    A middle class and upper class Russian man of 25 who has been properly fed, how tall will he be on average?

    In Denmark the average is about 6'1. Russians would presumably be about the same.

    Aside from the generational issue (younger generation is getting taller), it obviously depends who you compare to.

    Some nationalities like Spain are a lot shorter – to the extent you notice on the street. I don’t know if you been a lot of times in Spain? My emotion walking around where there are native Spanish, is like you are in a country of dwarfs.

    But then other nationalities like Hollanders/Netherlanders, will obviously be taller compared to Russian average. This might be true of some particular nationalities like Danish which are unusually tall.

    I get the impression there are a lot of giants in England, but then statistical data says average is only 178 cm.

    So categorize Russia in a European average category, similar to England or France, and this is supported by the data.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  248. @Daniel Chieh
    Seems like something worth looking into. They do seem like Bronze Age specimens.

    I would also be very interested in HBD-information on Australien Aborigines, Khoisans and Melanesians. Do they have maybe have some genetic advantage in any sport which hasn’t been discovered because there so few of them and they live in such remote areas?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  249. Dmitry says:
    @reiner Tor
    A couple year ago I read an article about a US journalist embedded with a US infantry platoon during Iraq 2003. She had run marathons, and considered herself reasonably fit. But on her first march during the war, she couldn't handle the backpack and maybe some body armor and helmet. She didn't have to carry weapons, so had a lighter load than the soldiers. After some time (maybe an hour; I'm writing off the top of my head and I'm lazy to look it up), she felt totally exhausted. A soldier noticed and politely asked her if she minded if he would carry her backpack. She barely had the strength to say a thank you...

    Obviously you don't need to be anywhere near professional powerlifter strength levels (it would be beneficial, if it weren't for the negative tradeoffs), but you need to be reasonably strong for a guy. Now a woman can reach that level, but for a woman it already comes at a price, because for the same strength level she'd be much closer to the (female) powerlifter level than a guy.

    The problem is that endurance at lower levels isn't totally antithetical to strength, by improving strength you can initially easily improve your endurance as well. Initially. For women, the "initially" means much lower levels than for guys.

    I guess the child soldiers didn't have a lot of body armor or even ammunition or whatever. They were disposable. But a well-trained soldier is worth way more than an untrained child soldier, and then not having the strength will be a problem, because a well-trained soldier without carrying ammo will be worth much less than one with a lot of ammo. Similarly, having a well-trained soldier wear body armor will be way more worthy than one without body armor, due to his higher life expectancy on the battlefield.

    I guess physical strength might mean less in the future, once we have things like robot infantry or very strong exoskeletons. But I think the discussion was originally about warfare in the past and present.

    A couple year ago I read an article about a US journalist embedded with a US infantry platoon during Iraq 2003. She had run marathons, and considered herself reasonably fit. But on her first march during the war, she couldn’t handle the backpack and maybe some body armor and helmet. She didn’t have to carry weapons, so had a lighter load than the soldiers. After some time (maybe an hour; I’m writing off the top of my head and I’m lazy to look it up), she felt totally exhausted. A soldier noticed and politely asked her if she minded if he would carry her backpack. She barely had the strength to say a thank you…

    They are elite professional soldiers, who spend years training and exercising and see this as a professional career, have probably an excellent diet. These soldiers might have the same health level of athletes.

    The average soldiers in the Second World War, were not necessarily having long training periods before combat, and often very badly fed and physically feeling very weak, and their favorite hobby was smoking cigarettes (if they were lucky enough to encounter them).

    Their health was not necessarily very important in the result. Generally if you read about the war, the determining factor is equipment, experience, tactics of the leadership, and all kind of ability to survive painful/stressful situations, living for days rolling in freezing mud, and even having sometimes suicidal obedience (psychology).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jaakko Raipala
    You can argue that the outcome of WWII was already determined once the coalition against Germany included the United States, Britain and Russia with overwhelming industrial production and manpower advantages, but actually that just makes the case for quality of soldiers - Germany was able to get so far against overwhelming odds while the USSR suffered enormous casualties despite its strategic and material advantages.

    Despite the eventual loss, the German performance in World War II was awe inspiring and the Soviet performance was awful. If any general today was offered a time machine to recruit a division from the past, he would definitely consider WWII Germans and definitely not WWII Russians. The ideology and values that Germany had adopted under Hitler were actually good for fighting wars while the ideology and values adopted by Russia were not very good and Russia would have done better if it had national socialism instead of an ideology of throwing away men's lives in human waves while writing puff pieces about the exploits of female supersoldiers.

    Most of the world is still clearly under the same impression. Everybody wants their neighbor to adopt international socialism. Nobody wants their neighbor to adopt national socialism. Not many here would freak out if Russia adopted communism again - we might get another chance to make Greater Finland if Russia wrecks itself again. But everyone would freak out if Russia adopted national socialism.

    (Of course I will admit that extreme nationalism has some serious disadvantages, most notably the difficulty of making allies and finding agents and sympathizers in other nations, something that the communists were good at.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  250. @melanf

    Nice horror story, but unfortunately unsourced and evidence-free.
    The observable and undeniable fact is that our ancestors managed to reproduce and build functioning, virile civilizations. We are dying out and surviving only by the scraps of what our ancestors built
     
    .



    The average height of soldiers of the Russian army in the 18th and early 19th centuries 160-165 cm This height equalled the average height of the Europeans (men) in that era.

    You seem hellbent on missing my point. I wonder why.

    Look, we are dying out and the boundaries of our civilization are receding.

    It doesn’t matter how tall they were. They built the civilization that we now don’t even have the strength to maintain.

    Whatever it is they were doing, it was something right, and whatever it is we are doing now is something wrong

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH
    wtf, now I love malnutrition, infant mortality and dying of an infected scratch
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  251. DFH says:
    @anonymous coward
    You seem hellbent on missing my point. I wonder why.

    Look, we are dying out and the boundaries of our civilization are receding.

    It doesn't matter how tall they were. They built the civilization that we now don't even have the strength to maintain.

    Whatever it is they were doing, it was something right, and whatever it is we are doing now is something wrong

    wtf, now I love malnutrition, infant mortality and dying of an infected scratch

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  252. Dmitry says:
    @reiner Tor

    The Flynn effect for strength
     
    This might have been true for some overpopulated Malthusian areas, but the trend is less clear. For example I have seen sacks used to store and transport wheat or flour in a Hungarian mill. The sacks could only be grabbed at their mouths, and the peasants threw them on their carts. They would've weighed something like 50-60 kilos, which is very close to their estimated body weights. They needed to be extremely strong (especially for their sizes, but even for bigger people today) to be able to grab those sacks and then throw them onto their carts. Present day populations would be unable to operate those carts, we'd need basically Olympic lifters or powerlifters to be able to do that.

    I read somewhere that in England during the industrial revolution, in a foundry there was a huge metal ladle, which for some distance had to be carried in hand by four people. More people couldn't access it, and there were handles for exactly four people. Those people had to be extremely strong by today's standards, I can't recall the weight of it, but it was very heavy, and today probably only groups of powerlifters and similar people could even attempt to lift it. The issue was, it was also extremely hot. So, English iron workers (probably only the very strongest of those were employed for this job) had to be extremely strong by today's standards.

    That's actually to answer the points raised about child labor in English factories in the early 19th century: where I read it (I can find the book if requested) it was mentioned that people working in these jobs started at the factory floor at a very early age as small children, and while initially given physically easier tasks, their workloads progressively increased. Since they were paid well, they could easily afford quality food (including meats and vegetables) and even feed their families, and their bodies adapted.

    It must be noted that many late 19th century strongmen started out as child workers in factories. So working at an early age might not have been so unhealthy as some people here seem to believe. Sitting at the school or in front of computers might produce less healthy humans. (Fortunately we have antibiotics and even better treatments for cancer, and so we live longer nevertheless.)

    Villagers of 17th century Russia, for example, would surely be far tougher in many areas (as a result of psychological brutalization), compared to modern men with a gym membership, and even able to do physical tasks you would not expect.

    At the same time, they were a lot smaller, less healthy and underfed, compared to modern men – expressed in all kinds of data like height, bone density, life-expectancy.

    So there are contradictions. If you leave the villagers alone in a difficult countryside environment, without food or water or buildings – we would surely predict the small and underfed villagers would survive better than the healthy, more physically developed modern people.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  253. @Dmitry

    A couple year ago I read an article about a US journalist embedded with a US infantry platoon during Iraq 2003. She had run marathons, and considered herself reasonably fit. But on her first march during the war, she couldn’t handle the backpack and maybe some body armor and helmet. She didn’t have to carry weapons, so had a lighter load than the soldiers. After some time (maybe an hour; I’m writing off the top of my head and I’m lazy to look it up), she felt totally exhausted. A soldier noticed and politely asked her if she minded if he would carry her backpack. She barely had the strength to say a thank you…

     

    They are elite professional soldiers, who spend years training and exercising and see this as a professional career, have probably an excellent diet. These soldiers might have the same health level of athletes.

    The average soldiers in the Second World War, were not necessarily having long training periods before combat, and often very badly fed and physically feeling very weak, and their favorite hobby was smoking cigarettes (if they were lucky enough to encounter them).

    Their health was not necessarily very important in the result. Generally if you read about the war, the determining factor is equipment, experience, tactics of the leadership, and all kind of ability to survive painful/stressful situations, living for days rolling in freezing mud, and even having sometimes suicidal obedience (psychology).

    You can argue that the outcome of WWII was already determined once the coalition against Germany included the United States, Britain and Russia with overwhelming industrial production and manpower advantages, but actually that just makes the case for quality of soldiers – Germany was able to get so far against overwhelming odds while the USSR suffered enormous casualties despite its strategic and material advantages.

    Despite the eventual loss, the German performance in World War II was awe in