Introduction of the stirrup

[Jona Lendering]

A simple question, but I can not find the answer in one of my own books: when was the stirrup introduced? Where?

[Robert Vermaat]

Oww.. that'sin some circles a discussion with similar warning signs as the 'tunic colour debate' here on RAT. hock:
I think the conservative state of affairs is that the iron stirrup (the ones you can stand up in) was introduced by the Avars, 8th c. or thereabouts. But the simple stirrup loops (rope/string for support) may have been around far earlier.

[Carlton Bach]

The simplest ones are usually the toughest nuts to crack, as in this case. There are a remarkable number of clear, concise and mutually exclusive answers to the question, and the importance attached to it at one point doesn't help. I think it was Lynn-White who postulated that the introduction of the stirrup in the early 8th century created the military revolution that allowed the Carolingians to defeat the Arabs and conquer Europe. This is highly questionable, but still a widespread master narrative. I did my looking a couple years ago, so I'm probably not at the newest level, but what I found was more or less this:

The stirrup originates in Central Asia and may have existed as early as the first or second century AD. It was adopted by the Chinese during the Five Empires period, before the rise of the Tang dynasty, possibly in the fifth or sixth century AD. It is also often assumed, but to my knowledge never conculsively proven, that the Huns, Alans and Avars used stirrups, and that the Byzantines adopted them from there. At some point, the technology must have come from Central Asia, but we don't know when exactly. Its introduction into Western Europe is even more shaky. It is often taken for granted that Carolingian cavalry used them, but the only surviving example dating to the 8th century actually comes from Saxony, beyond the Empire's borders, and many 9th and even tenth-century illustrations do not show them. They only become universal in the high middle ages here, and North African cavalry often chose not to use them even then, while they were ubiquitous in the Middle East. Their introduction there is also somewhat unclear. Sassanian art does not show them, though it has been speculated that their light cavalry recruited from nomadic tribes may have used them. We have almost no evidence of early Islamic armies, but it appears that stirrups did not come into use in the world of Islam until the 8th or 9th century, through Persia. Again, some people have tried to explain the victory of the Persian Abbassids over the Syrian-based Umayyads by the former using stirrups, but such mechanistic explanations are always highly questionable.

So, would you take "in the course of the fifth through tenth century AD" as an answer?
:wink:

[Jona Lendering]

Oops, I was not aware that it was so complex. Anyhow, it is sufficiently late to be sure that I do not need to study them for my book on ancient battles, which was all I needed to know. :wink:

[Arthes]

Greetings,
According to one N. Vesselovsky, he excavated Sarmatian stirrups from graves in the Kuban region, dating to first century BC.
Unfortunately, these finds have never been confirmed.
I had heard a tale that the Hun stirrup derived from the Sarmatian stirrup and was probably a leather strap, with maybe a horn foot rest, knowing the Sarmatians?.
regards
Arthes

[FAVENTIANVS]

I've read about Northern India circa AD 100...

[Robert Vermaat]

Oops, I was not aware that it was so complex. Anyhow, it is sufficiently late to be sure that I do not need to study them for my book on ancient battles, which was all I needed to know. :wink:

Too bad, you'll have to, because there have been those who claimed that the Gothic victory at Adrianople was due to them using stirrups..

[Thiudareiks Flavius]

I think the best evidence still favours the idea that the Avars introduced them to Europe in around the late Seventh Century. The speculation that the Huns had stirrups and that they were therefore found, if only in rudimentary form, as early as the Fifth Century is undermined by two things - (i) the total lack of any evidence, images or reference to anything vaguely like a stirrup this early and (ii) the fact that it would be remarkable for a whole three hundred years to pass without any such evidence and then suddenly have archaeological, iconographic and linguistic evidence of stirrups suddenly appear in Europe all at once.

The most logical explanation of this sudden appearance of such evidence is that this marked the actual appearance of the stirrup and it didn't exist in Europe, in any form, earlier.

Strangely, despite the fact that the idea the Huns introduced them is based on no evidence at all and is purely (unfounded) speculation, several online encyclopaedias state that the Huns introduced them as fact. In the peculiar way something on a web page seems to harden into accepted fact, I've recently had people insist that there is evidence the Huns introduced them, and they get perplexed and confused when asked to actually produce this evidence (because it doesn't exist).

I'm sticking with the Avars and the Seventh Century until some actual evidence of an earlier introduction appears. Call me conservative if you like ... :lol:

[Jona Lendering]

Too bad, you'll have to, because there have been those who claimed that the Gothic victory at Adrianople was due to them using stirrups.

Yuck, yuck, yuck, and another yuck. :wink:

[Robert Vermaat]

My pleasure :lol:

[tlclark]

I'm sticking with the Avars and the Seventh Century until some actual evidence of an earlier introduction appears. Call me conservative if you like ... :lol:

I think when you look at this, this makes sense. There are tons of post 7th C. byzantine examples. I can think of none before. Likewise the Arab conquest has them. So that's the same time period.

Travis

[hoplite14gr]

I vote for 7th century too.
If a revolutionary millitary device or way suddenly appears people usually loose their consrevative traditionalism and adopt it.
If the Huns had the stirrup I can see no reason why the eastern Roman cavalry did not used them given the number of Hun mercenaries after Attila?
Surely the roman military traditions would be very adaptive if need be.
Kind regards

[Tasia]

Salve,

I've been doing a lot of research on ancient horses and horse tack and have come across a lot of information indicating that the stirrup was likely develop by the Chinese within the first three centuries. There have been references of stirrups in some form even earlier. Though it didn't seem to 'catch on' until it hit Europe much later.

I have a lot of interest in Roman horses and the Roman cavalry so am browsing through all the topics on this subject!

Tasia

[markusaurelius]

In "[amazon]Roman Cavalry Equipment[/amazon]" by I.P Stephenson & K.R Dixon

they state that the introduction of the stirrup to the west occured in the 6th to early 7th century by the Avars.

Of note on page 110

"Throughout the whole of the Imperial period the Roman cavalryman be he on horse or camel, was provided with a secure seat from which to fight. The lack of stirrups for most of the period under study is neither there nor there. The importance of the stirrup has been over-emphazised, as the Roman cavlaryman was perfectly able to engage in shock combat with spear and sword without them. Indeed it has been asserted that the main initial impact of the stirrup was to reduce fatigue on long distance rides."

[Tasia]

Salve!

That's a good book. I also have [amazon]Training the Roman Cavalry[/amazon] by Ann Hyland. Both books have been a great start to my studies. What I did find was there are a lot of theories through archaeology and research in Asia that the stirrup was quite possible used several hundred years before it caught on with the rest of the world. Especially across the Steppes regions.

This is a really informative link on some of the studies going on.

[url:q7becxmt]http://www.silk-road.com/artl/stirrup.shtml[/url]


Tasia