It is an interesting matter to contemplate & discuss – and, of course, to theorize…
A few further thoughts ...
While it does seem clear &, even with due caution mindful of the sources, fairly certain that
Maximinus was in size & stature notably above the
average mean, I think it not imprudent to remind ourselves too that in every population there are exceptions to averages and not all who manifest notable characteristics of such
type do so as result of disease or physical
defect. There are many cases where exceptional height, width, girth, stature,
innate physical strength and the like are simply genetic traits – which may or may not be even further punctuated through vigorous exercise..
Thus reflecting and held to our senses, we may yet ask whether such seems also possible or likely in the case of
Maximinus Thrax.
In
his case, we are actually led to contemplation of something beyond a merely genetic expression of such traits
primarily owing to the depictions of
his seemingly transfigured and distorted facial features – features which in their most amplified depictions more than a little suggest that the appearance of
his youth or early manhood described in the H.A. as “
..handsome in a manly way," have since undergone a dramatic transformation in another direction.
These two polar points of consideration, it seems to me, seem persuasive in the argument asserting a case of acromegaly,
even if the ‘apparent’
documentary representation of such transformation as communicated by the radical changes of visage in
his portraiture
over the period of his three years in which
his coins were struck, are completely unrelated to the progression and are nothing more than a series of unrelated accidents; a point in-itself which seems, I think, highly-probable.
As Numerianus has stated and asked – “
He imposed heavy taxes not to enrich himself but to pay his victorious army. Could this be the only reason raised such a hate against him?
Not adequate behavior could be the main reason.”
&nd as Gavignano has asked and postulated: “
Wouldn't a giant have been a person of great reverence, god-like in his gifts? … He would inspire incredible awe due to his strength and size.”
I would suggest that if we listen to the reports of Cordus (H.A.), we can surely hear the hearty laughter & enjoyments, the awe and appreciation of rough soldiers. It can hardly surprise us that such a
man (so described) would excite their base-humors and seem impressive in just such ways to them.
Would it be so more universally? I rather much doubt it, and seriously doubt it if it includes any ‘ugliness of distortion’ particularly to
his countenance.
It is not a superficiality that the sentiment was fairly universal I think among the ancient
Greeks and the (Greek-educated)
Romans that, as has once been succinctly said – “ugliness is itself an objection.”
My best understanding of the ‘popular’ resentment of
Maximinus, however, is that it
had root in
his ‘barbarianism’ – ‘
Thrax’ they called him (‘the Thracian’) – the first and perhaps underlying objection was a matter of bloodline, usurpation, social and cultural pretension. Seems easy enough to imagine how much the senatorial class particularly must have resented him and the relative ease with which they might raise common-accord with their view among the general populace, already disposed to resent him for
his heavy taxation and confiscations, etc.
I would think that the anomaly of
his size, stature and strength not only failed to give him any particularly reverential traits, but weren’t enough to stem the universal contempt in which he was ultimately held.
It seems (again, speaking solely for myself here), that fascinating as this particular question is
now regarding
his physical condition – to
his contemporaries it was little if anything more than a notable curiosity, albeit one which may have been exploited by some partisans one way and another, depending on their disposition towards the
man.
Best,
Tia
