09-08-2006, 03:48 PM
Earlier this discussion concentrated on "hard" stirrups, after acknowledging "soft" stirrups--I assume in the form of a simple leather loop--left few artifacts. Does that mean the soft stirrups didn't exist or that we have let the potential availability of artifacts drive our scholarship?
Were soft stirrups good for anything other than helping mount? Or were they perhaps helpful to ease the legs during a long ride.
I assume, they could not be stood in for fighting or archery, that's why hard stirrups were eventually adopted. Hard to believe harness makers and riders would opt for a more complicated article if the simpler one worked better. Is that a safe assumption?
Were soft stirrups good for anything other than helping mount? Or were they perhaps helpful to ease the legs during a long ride.
I assume, they could not be stood in for fighting or archery, that's why hard stirrups were eventually adopted. Hard to believe harness makers and riders would opt for a more complicated article if the simpler one worked better. Is that a safe assumption?
"Fugit irreparabile tempus" (Irrecoverable time glides away) Virgil
Ron Andrea
Ron Andrea
