Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Why the Late Introduction of Stirrups?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Isn't she pretty in pink? Member Rosacrux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    RTW sucks big time!
    Posts
    1,348

    Default Re: Why the Late Introduction of Stirrups?

    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.
    CHIEF HISTORIAN

  2. #2
    Squirrel Watcher Member Sinner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    390

    Default Re: Why the Late Introduction of Stirrups?

    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.
    Last edited by Sinner; 08-19-2004 at 14:18.

  3. #3
    Member Member Oleander Ardens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    1,007

    Thumbs up Re: Why the Late Introduction of Stirrups?

    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
    "Silent enim leges inter arma - For among arms, the laws fall mute"
    Cicero, Pro Milone

  4. #4
    (Insert innuendo here) Member Balloon Bomber Champion DemonArchangel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Washington D.C
    Posts
    3,277

    Default Re: Why the Late Introduction of Stirrups?

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat View Post
    China is not a world power. China is the world, and it's surrounded by a ring of tiny and short-lived civilisations like the Americas, Europeans, Mongols, Moghuls, Indians, Franks, Romans, Japanese, Koreans.

  5. #5
    The Black Senior Member Papewaio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    15,677

    Default Re: Why the Late Introduction of Stirrups?

    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.
    Our genes maybe in the basement but it does not stop us chosing our point of view from the top.
    Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
    Pape for global overlord!!
    Quote Originally Posted by English assassin
    Squid sources report that scientists taste "sort of like chicken"
    Quote Originally Posted by frogbeastegg View Post
    The rest is either as average as advertised or, in the case of the missionary, disappointing.

  6. #6
    Squirrel Watcher Member Sinner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    390

    Default Re: Why the Late Introduction of Stirrups?

    Quote Originally Posted by Papewaio
    How many weak marines do you know?
    Waiting for all the sailors, airborne/paras, etc to reply. ~:p

    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.

  7. #7
    Hope guides me Senior Member Hosakawa Tito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Western New Yuck
    Posts
    7,914

    Default Re: Why the Late Introduction of Stirrups?

    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.
    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." *Jim Elliot*

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO