Why the Late Introduction of Stirrups?

[Tachikaze]

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...

Actually, I would think that ease of mounting would be reason enough to develop them. The other benefits would be discovered as they experimented.

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.

[Sinner]

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.

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.

[Rosacrux]

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.

[Sinner]

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.

[Oleander Ardens]

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

OA

[DemonArchangel]

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.

[Papewaio]

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.