I don't grasp the rationale with the thick gut strings.
Then, why should pressing thick gut strings on the board, or bowing them, need any bigger effort?
The string action was set quite high because the thickness of the string would otherwise vibrate against the fingerboard.
Two factors are involved with bass frequencies on strings:
a. The thicker the string, the less length it requires to play a low frequency tone. This also requires a good deal of tautness in the string.
b. Inversely, the longer the string, the less thickness it requires to play that same tone. The string is also less taut.
Only the a. option was workable. To use longer strings to avoid the thickness issue wasn't practical. They had to make the strings thicker. The thicker they are, the tighter the string has to be. The tighter the string is, the more exaggerated its vibration. The more exaggerated the vibration, the higher up the action has to be to give it room to vibrate. The higher the action, the more force required to stop the strong against the fingerboard.
Does that answer your question? I might be misinterpreting what you're asking.
As for modern period instruments, gut strings for basses now are far superior than gut strings of the 18th and 19th centuries. They don't even make gut strings like that anymore. And the thickness issue isn't nearly as big a deal with violins than basses because, obviously, violins don't need to go so low.
