Why height is now a liability in modern combat

Height is no longer a weapon: the perfect soldier no longer stands 1.90 m

From classical Greece well into the Middle Ages, height was a weapon. A tall man added his reach to the sword's, and the momentum of the blow came down from above onto a shorter opponent. But war has changed. Telescopic sights are calibrated, camouflage shows no mercy to large bodies, and mobility rules. The perfect soldier is no longer the 1.90 m giant, but the medium-built man who consumes less, moves better and is harder to spot.

Logistics confirms it. The Vietnam War already showed that a shorter combatant not only had an advantage in the terrain, but also ate less, which simplified supply. A fact that in military economics weighs more than the nobility of one's lineage. The debate, however, is not closed: in hand-to-hand combat, a 1.90 m, 120-kilo frame is still a serious problem for a 1.70 m, 70-kilo skinny guy, even if the latter can draw a knife first.

The historical discussion does not help settle the matter either. While some recall that the Germanic barbarians defeated Rome not through military capability but through immigration, others point to battles such as Arbalo or the Lupia river, where the Romans, shorter in stature, defeated the barbarians. Height, like every other variable, depends on context.

So height has not ceased to be a factor, but it has lost its aura of nobility. In modern war, being tall is a logistical and tactical burden; in ancient times, it was a physical advantage. This is where the analysis gets stuck: the transition from one paradigm to the other is not complete, and hand-to-hand combat still gives reasons to the defenders of stature.