Re: Even the ladies are allowed to drive these days
Voyna i Mor, I’m not disputing that a one inch difference is “about the same height”; my disagreement is with your statement that Nelson was “above average” height. The origin of the statistic that I’d linked to was Floud et al.’s study Height, Health and History, which
was based on an analysis of changes in the heights of poor boys recruited by the Marine Society of London between 1770 and 1870, and of men who were recruited by the Royal Marines and the British Army between 1740 and 1914
If there were minimum height requirements to join the Royal Marines or the British Army between 1760 and 1800, then that would skew that source for average heights; those recruits were drawn from the general population, though.
Other data were also noted in that work, including Komlos’ average heights for convicts and indentured servants born in England and transported to North America, which were presented in a table (by decades of birth, 1710 – 1759). Since Nelson was born in 1758, the 1750s data would be of greatest relevance: the average height was 67.79 inches (172.2 cm) for transported convicts born in the 1750s and 66.88 inches (169.9 cm) for transported indentured servants born in the 1750s, with both groups being taller than the 168.2 cm average at that link and Nelson’s height of 166.4 cm.
The heights in my last comment were in feet, inches, and lines (pieds, pouces, and lignes in the French case) because Napoléon’s height was physically measured with those units, and using those units preserves the precision that they represent. Since no degree sign was present and the discussion was about height, I don’t know why you thought that angular measure was involved. Any interested party will be able to use a search engine to find conversion factors if needed.
Why would I comment on your nick? It’s not a Boolean statement like “Nelson’s height was above average”.