Posted on Apr 10, 2019
General Pulaski Didn't Let His Small Stature Hold Him Back
311
2
3
2
2
0
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/videos/category/history/general-pulaski-didnt-let-his-small-stature/?utm_source=smithsoniandaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20190410-daily-responsive&spMailingID=39403275&spUserID=ODU1Njc2OTExOTgxS0&spJobID= [login to see] &spReportId=MTUwMDkzMDcyMwS2
It seems to me that large size in a warrior can be a detriment in modern warfare. Once upon a time, when men fought by brute force alone, a large stature was necessary to overpower an enemy. Well, generally. I'm sure there were smaller, more agile warriors who could slip under the powerful thrusts of larger men but armies loved their tall leaders. They could see them at the head of battle. However, with the advent of highly accurate weapons with significant range, being "large" simply makes you a large target. Of the 2nd Lieutenants I knew in Vietnam, I well remember how the smallest were the most likely to emerge from battle unscathed. Of course, I wasn't making a scientific study of the data. It just seemed that way to me. How about you? Have you observed the same thing or something different?
It seems to me that large size in a warrior can be a detriment in modern warfare. Once upon a time, when men fought by brute force alone, a large stature was necessary to overpower an enemy. Well, generally. I'm sure there were smaller, more agile warriors who could slip under the powerful thrusts of larger men but armies loved their tall leaders. They could see them at the head of battle. However, with the advent of highly accurate weapons with significant range, being "large" simply makes you a large target. Of the 2nd Lieutenants I knew in Vietnam, I well remember how the smallest were the most likely to emerge from battle unscathed. Of course, I wasn't making a scientific study of the data. It just seemed that way to me. How about you? Have you observed the same thing or something different?
General Pulaski Didn't Let His Small Stature Hold Him Back
Posted from smithsonianmag.comPosted in these groups: 
American History
Military History
American History Military History
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
Same height as Pres. James Madison. Due to nutrition, early childhood illnesses, and lack of modern medicine, it was not uncommon for men to be 5'4".
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Great post. Alexander the Great wasn’t noted for being of large stature or impressive looking. When Darius left the field of battle Alexander confronted the queen and her consorts. They assumed the larger more impressive looking fellow was Alexander and mistook one of Alexander’s Generals for the famed leader.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google