Printable View
I have been researching inventions and when they appeared. One that has always bothered me is the invention of the stirrup for horses. History generally places it as appearing somewhere between 200 BCE and 200 CE, perhaps first used by the Sarmatians.
The stirrup seems like such a simple concept, especially for mounting a horse. What took everybody so long to come with the idea?
Many people were use to the old way of controlling with the legs and this new method, like many new methods wasn't deemed popular. The north africans were using stirrups about a 50 years before poiters but the franks didn't( not in any real number any way)
Many hated guns when they appeared in the 14th century but within few centuries they were dominating the battle field and had to be respected.
The irish light horse were riding without stirrups till the late 16th century but coming against an opponent with stirrups, it comes as a disadvantage. The man lacking stirrups will have a better chance of going to ground when the clash of battle commences as the enemy can have better balance and stability in the saddle.
The full stirrup was introduced by the Avars. The toe stirrup was used in India...Imagine falling off and losing your big toes?? ~:eek:
......Orda
I don't have anything to back this up but I've always just assumed it get harder to get on horse as the armor became heavier. Light Cavalry didn't need stirups to mount a horse while a heavy knight did.
I've wondered, too. It's like the wheel, How do you NOT invent it? I suspect that what happens is that such ideas are tried but fail to catch on for a variety of good reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tachikaze
Perhaps the increasing size of domestic horses finally made them difficult to mount. Or maybe a switch in control technique made stirrups more agreeable. If the reins are used to steer instead of the rider's legs and knees, the ability to stand in the saddle may have become more apparent. I should add that I do not ride so I am speculating without personal experience.
Striup is consider by modern historians to be an invention of the Perisans, or greeks in Asia minor, ~ between 200 BC to 200 AD, However David Nicolle, A fore most leading historian in these areas claims it is acutally ~ 400 AD and Perisan.
Years ago, they actually taught it was the mongols, but that is certianly not Correct as the Late Romans had Stirups, as we can see them painted on old mosics, and on statutes of the time.
fenir
I'm too fat to mount a horse (besides for never having gone horse riding and loving the taste of horse in White Castle Burgers) so there.
I suppose inventing the wheel and stirrup was kind of like inventing the computer, who would have ever thought that thousands of switches, working in conjuction through electrical signals, could eventually be compiled into simple binary numbers, which could eventually create more complex "normal" calculations, then be able to create text on a screen which allows it to create massive and stunning visual graphics, when even still all it is are thousands of tiny jolts of electricity making colors dance around on your screen. Often times thinking out of the box is difficult, especially 5000 years ago when the box still wasn't invented... ~:joker:
Well, Stirrups first show up in CHINA
(you Eurocentric fools)
There's a very interesting read here by a guy who does medieval jousting reenactments, whose practical experience indicates that a lot of common assumptions about stirrups are somewhat incorrect. As the author notes, few archeologists or historians have any real practical equestrian skills, in particular those involved with mounted combat.
The author and others have had no problems jousting without stirrups, eg. being able to knock down a 200 pound quintain without being unhorsed. It seems that the saddle and horseman's weight is far more important than stirrups and the weight of the horse. The stirrup aids with control and would be useful in close combat where it would make dragging a rider to the ground more difficult, but has little direct effect on the actual moment of impact during a lance charge.
The theory he suggests about the stirrup is that it allowed the rider to more easily rise from his seat, something useful to help alleviate the strain of riding over long distances, but more importantly for mounted combat it also helped to provide a stable 'platform' while the horse is moving, something that would be of great use to a horse archer. As he comments, it's noteworthy that the stirrup appears to have originated among cultures known for their mounted archery.
His comment about a 'page' being accidentally struck by a lance at a jousting display, and getting thrown back some 15 feet made me smile considering the lack of impact of the charges in MTW.
Actually, I would think that ease of mounting would be reason enough to develop them. The other benefits would be discovered as they experimented.Quote:
Originally Posted by lonewolf371
There is a lot of dispute to the Sarmatian vs. Chinese origin of stirrups. Early Chinese examples often have only one, presumably for mounting.
The advantage of stirrups for archery is very significant. In the days before stirrups, lances were often used for overhand thrusting, not cradled across the lap. This technique minimizes the benefits of stirrups.
The lances used by the Sarmatians were described by the Greeks as 'barge poles' implying a longer and heavier weapon, that would make overhead thrusting awkward if not impossible. In his Aenid, Virgil also refers to a cavalry display at a funeral, with riders couching their lances, indicating that the technique wasn't unknown centuries before the invention of the stirrup.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tachikaze
If from the experience of modern jousters we are to accept that built-up saddles are the key to effective couched charges, rather than stirrups, then there's evidence from the Roman era that implies again that the couched charge long predates the stirrup: the four-horned Roman military saddle and saddles shown on Trajan's Column with high pommels and cantles, for example, exactly the sort of saddle design that would increase the effectiveness of a couched charge given modern experience.
Stirrups definitely aid mounted missile combat, whether archery or firing an Ak-47 - I recall seeing a short clip years ago showing a Mongolian horseman riding at full speed, standing in his stirrups with his upper body effectively rock steady, despite the rise and fall of the horse, firing his rifle at a series of targets as they galloped past. Stirrups also aid close-quarters combat, allowing the rider to again stand in the stirrups, thus granting greater flexibility of movement to dodge blows or extend reach, plus adding height and therefore impact to his own blows, etc. So if anything, stirrups would be more important to overhead thrusting than couched charges.
Overhead thrusting was probably used because it allows the rider to more easily strike to either side - avoiding the need to lift the weapon over the horses head - and to fight at closer quarters than might be possible wielding a spear underhand, without having to shorten your grip and thus unbalancing the weapon. Once a spear becomes too long, its weight would make it unwieldy for overhead thrusting, however at the same time it becomes more effective for couched charges since you can strike the target while still out of reach of his weapon.
Some time ago we have had an interesting discussion here about shock cavalry without stirrups and couched saddles... some people seemed to find it completely arkward that there was actual shock cavalry, operating with shock cavalry tactics (charging en masse with full gallop head on into the enemy formation, for instance) before the invention of the stirrup and the couched saddle and lance.
Shows only that people tend to dismiss actual evidence to fit the facts to their own opinion (theory, whatever).
The Heteroi (Companion) cavalry of Philipos and Alexander is supposed to be the first true shock cavalry in history, and they definitely had no stirrups or couched saddles.
Likewise, the Thessalian cavalry (that was medium cavalry, but also used shock tactics) and it preceeded the Macedonian cavalry by several decades.
Yup, a couched charge is possible riding bareback with little reduction in effect if the rider has the the strength to hold tight - the author of the link I posted above mentions doing just that after a girth strap snaps. You would have a greater chance of being unhorsed - hence no doubt why the saddle was eventually invented and adopted since it reduced that chance - but they wouldn't have used the couched charge if it didn't provide an overall military advantage.
I blame Hollywood, according to them much of history is incorrect and only they can tell you the truth. ~:rolleyes:
Well I and Angadil are working hard on a Sarmantian faction and we be digged some nice things up:
On a tapestry form the a "scythian" Kurgan of Paszyrk from the third century one can see a unarmored rider with a very interesting saddle; A saddle which seems to be very well suited to give a stable platform to a lancer...
And one should not forget that whe have a nice metalwork from Hallstatt where four riders with very long lances carry them under the arm, seemingly charging. A lying enemy soldier get's also pierced by one of the riders.
Looks very like a couched lance technique if you ask me...
It is in german but contains some good pics of celtic cavalry:
http://science.orf.at/science/urban/77405
Enjoy it ~:cheers:
Cheers
OA
Well, couching a lance isn't unreasonable, as SOMEONE would have figured out it was better than overarm for charging. Unfortunately it takes a well-trained and physically strong horseman to pull something like that off. A weaker/untrained horseman would be better off going overarm.
How many weak marines do you know?
The cavalry where rare enough that you aren't about to bother with weak riders... and they wouldn't last long either.
Also the training that some of these people went through would be considered quite brutal by todays standards (not necessarily better results... we now understand the need for varied diet, recovery time etc).
Also it takes more strength to lift overhead and it is less stable... try lifting a barbell from waist, to chest and then to overhead... you will realise pretty quickly that it gets progressively harder... higher center of mass requires more muscles involved... more muscles including the smaller stabilisers which are normally far larger in fit people then weak ones.
Overhead fighting requires more strength not less.
Waiting for all the sailors, airborne/paras, etc to reply. ~;) ~:pQuote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
It's also not just official training... given the lack of modern comforts and conveniences, these guys would have grown up being physically conditioned simply from their daily lives. In general we're incredibly lazy nowadays compared to even a handful of generations before us - we now drive or use public transport instead of walking, have powered machinery to lift and carry for us instead of muscle power, etc.
Of course, that's not saying they were all physical supermen, you'd get variations just like today, but where any form of selection is taking place the chosen recruits will already be physically fit.
As a note, as any serious rider will tell you, riding a horse is a great way to condition the body, especially when you practically live on horseback as some cultures did and a few still do.
I believe before the stirrup (as we know it) there was a simpler device that was just a strap around the horse's midriff that the rider hooked his toes into.
As warfare changed the need and use of the stirrup evolved from the simple "toe strap" for balance of the horse archer /light spearman to the stirrup in conjunction with the highbacked cantel/pommel of the saddle to help absorb the shock of the heavy couched lance and keep the rider from being unhorsed. Like most inventions, I'm sure there was a lot of trial and error. Also, if you look at most warfare inventions through the ages, there's a relunctance to accept new ways initially. For example, during the American Civil War the use of the repeating lever action rifle and Gatling gun was repressed by those in charge of the Union armories. They felt their soldiers would waste ammunition by firing too rapidly. I don't think it would be too far a stretch to imagine that using the stirrup, at first, was considered "less manly" or some such nonsense.
@Hasokawa Tito: As I said I'm right know doing with Angadil a indepth research about the Scythians and Sarmantians, and there is one piece of art were I'm heavily inclined to recog. a "stirrup". As you said, straps could have been used easily before, and I confess that I think that it is possibly the case of the piece of art cited above...
Cheers
OA
Well, at moment of impact, mr. overarm will fare better than mr. couched if something (censored)s up.