Introduction of the stirrup

[Dan Howard]

Indeed it has been asserted that the main initial impact of the stirrup was to reduce fatigue on long distance rides."

I was under the impression that the stirrup was developed to help horse archers stand in the saddle while firing. It certainly seems to have originated in areas dominated by horse archers.

[Tasia]

"Indeed it has been asserted that the main initial impact of the stirrup was to reduce fatigue on long distance rides."


And boy does it do that too!

I ride bareback all the time, but once in awhile I splurge and put on a bareback pad that has small stirrups. It makes a huge difference in reduce the ache in your legs/hips when you ride for a long time.

One thing I really notice about riding with stirrups vs. riding without is 'bracing'. When you joust the Quintain with stirrups you can easily brace against the impact.

However not using stirrups you have to really clinch with your thighs so you don't go sliding off the back.

I'd imagine it would be similar for cavalry using spears against the enemy. Have the bracing power would do a lot keeping them mounted and they wouldn't have to use so much leg power.

Stirrups would also greatly aid in standing for archers. You can do that bareback - it'd be similar to posting bareback - which is a killer to do.

Tasia

[falco]

I always wondered how pre-stirrup cavalry could be so effective..until I got the chance to try a Roman saddle...that is a solid seat!
Steve

[Eleatic Guest]

http://www.silkroadfoundation.org/artl/stirrup.shtml

Evidence of stirrups popped up in the 4th century AD simultaneously in China and the adjacent steppe.

Who exactly invented the stirrup invented remains unclear:

Thus one finds from the fourth century onward, in North China, in northeast Asia, along the Yalu, farther south into Korea, and even into Japan, the appearance of a particular type of stirrup: oval, flat, and with a rather long handle, with either a wooden core covered by gilded bronze or iron plate or one forged entirely from iron.26 Unfortunately, the consideration of the early history of the stirrup does not bring us any closer to establishing where it was invented, since it seems to appear at the same time among the Chinese and their northern neighbors.

As early as 1926 A. von Le Coo pointed out that, on the basis of conjecture, it is as reasonable to say that the stirrup was the invention either of a mounted people who sought with it to make riding less tiring, or of a people unused to riding who sought thereby to obtain quickly the skills necessary to meet the needs of cavalry warfare."' White brands this remark by Le Cog as a priori speculation,28 but his own conclusion that it was a Chinese invention rests on no more solid foundation than does the opinion of other scholars that it was the nomad's skill with the horse which led to the improvement of equestrian gear, including the stirrup."' At this point, we are not much further along in the solution of the problem than was Le Coq in 1926.

[Peroni]

I'd imagine it would be similar for cavalry using spears against the enemy. Have the bracing power would do a lot keeping them mounted and they wouldn't have to use so much leg power.

The Roman light cavalry, I'm sure would not have attacked in a straight-on lancer type attack. They would more than likely be using the spears as a stabbing weapon. Therefore no leaning back and bracing yourself is required.

Heavy cavalry using a longer and sturdier lancea may have used the shock tactic of a full on charge but you would;

a. have no protection from your shield side

b. more likely lose the life of your mount!

It would make a lot more sense to attack with your shield side facing the enemy and use your spear accross the horses body to make stabbing attacks at the enemy. But you have to keep your shield side to the enemy.

A colleague of mine is an ex Royal Household Cavalryman, and he agrees.
The Household Cavalry are still trained in lance and sword.

Regards,

[Dan Howard]

One thing I really notice about riding with stirrups vs. riding without is 'bracing'. When you joust the Quintain with stirrups you can easily brace against the impact.

But upon impact the feet go forward and upwards - i.e. out of the stirrups. The stirrup has little effect on a couched lance charge and doesn't affect the amount of force you can deliver very much, but they do help stabilise the rider during and after impact. Stirrups are generally very over-rated by scholars and certainly had little to do with the so-called heavy cavalry "revolution" of the Middle Ages. The saddle is much more important for heavy cavalry ("shock") tactics.

[ambrosius]

Heavy cavalry using a longer and sturdier lancea may have used the shock tactic of a full on charge but you would;

a. have no protection from your shield side

b. more likely lose the life of your mount!

Sure, but that's why cataphracts evolved so that both man and horse
were armoured.

It would make a lot more sense to attack with your shield side facing the enemy and use your spear accross the horses body to make stabbing attacks at the enemy. But you have to keep your shield side to the enemy.

A colleague of mine is an ex Royal Household Cavalryman, and he agrees.
The Household Cavalry are still trained in lance and sword.

Regards,

But the household cavalry don't use shields, either, do they? :wink:


Ambrosius

[ambrosius]

[But upon impact the feet go forward and upwards - i.e. out of the stirrups. The stirrup has little effect on a couched lance charge and doesn't affect the amount of force you can deliver very much, but they do help stabilise the rider during and after impact.

It seems to me that the only way you could use stirrups to add the
weight of the horse to the weight of the rider on impact with a lance is
if you leant forwards in the saddle, pushing down and backwards with
the stirrups. But you'd need stirrup straps that were long enough
and were positioned far enough back on the saddle that you could
swing your legs backwards on impact. That could add some of the
weight of the horse to the rider, but I don't know if it was ever done.

Ambrosius

[Peroni]

But the household cavalry don't use shields, either, do they?

No! I was referring to the traditional use of lance and sword!
i.e. You stab to your left side and slash to the right side. You wouldn't want to cut off your mounts' ears!

Regards,

[Dan Howard]

It seems to me that the only way you could use stirrups to add the weight of the horse to the weight of the rider on impact with a lance is if you leant forwards in the saddle, pushing down and backwards with
the stirrups. But you'd need stirrup straps that were long enough and were positioned far enough back on the saddle that you could swing your legs backwards on impact. That could add some of the weight of the horse to the rider, but I don't know if it was ever done.Ambrosius

If you look at the Bayeux Tapestry you see the opposite occurring. The legs are forward of the saddle and the knees are almost straight.

[ambrosius]

But the household cavalry don't use shields, either, do they?

No! I was referring to the traditional use of lance and sword!
i.e. You stab to your left side and slash to the right side. You wouldn't want to cut off your mounts' ears!Regards,

Ah, but that's what the cataphract mount's chamfron and neck armour
are for. You can slash either side and not worry about your horse. 8)

As for the household cavalry - or any any others not carrying shileds -
it really wouldn't matter which side they turned to the enemy. Though,
I guess it would actually pay them to keep the right side to the
enemy, wouldn't it? At least that way, they'd have a greater reach to
parry with their own swords against an enemy sword.

Ambrosius

[ambrosius]

It seems to me that the only way you could use stirrups to add the weight of the horse to the weight of the rider on impact with a lance is if you leant forwards in the saddle, pushing down and backwards with the stirrups. But you'd need stirrup straps that were long enough and were positioned far enough back on the saddle that you could swing your legs backwards on impact. That could add some of the weight of the horse to the rider, but I don't know if it was ever done.Ambrosius

If you look at the Bayeux Tapestry you see the opposite occurring. The legs are forward of the saddle and the knees are almost straight.

That's right. Which confounds most people's ideas of the Norman cavalry
charging with couched lances - at least, at Hastings, where they were
riding uphill, with unarmoured horses, into a massed infantry shield-wall.
In fact, what Mike Loades (historical weapons expert) says is that the
Normans at Hastings were riding slowly uphill to the Saxon line and then
either throwing their lavelins/spears into the enemy or holding them
'overarm' to stab downwards over the shiled-wall - which you can also
clearly see them doing on the Bayeux Tapestry. The Normans probably
only used the couched lance against other charging cavalry or against
isolated infantry - in both cases, on the flat, rather than uphill, as was
the case at Hastings. But yes, the Normans seem to have relied on the
cantle of the saddle for adding weight to their impact with a lance, rather
than stirrups. As you say, stirrups can stabilise you and prevent you
falling out of the saddle 'sideways' on impact, but if they are forward
of the rider, there's no way you can use them to drive into the enemy by
adding weight from the horse. That could only work mechanically if you
lean forwards and push your legs back into stirrups that could swing
behind you in the saddle.

Ambrosius

[Peroni]

Ah, but that's what the cataphract mount's chamfron and neck armour
are for. You can slash either side and not worry about your horse.

As for the household cavalry - or any any others not carrying shileds -
it really wouldn't matter which side they turned to the enemy. Though,
I guess it would actually pay them to keep the right side to the
enemy, wouldn't it? At least that way, they'd have a greater reach to
parry with their own swords against an enemy sword.

Only if you lost your primary weapon, your spear. I would still rather use a shield to protect myself than a blade!

The Chamfrons rarely covered the horses ears.

[ambrosius]

As for the household cavalry - or any any others not carrying shields - it really wouldn't matter which side they turned to the enemy. Though, I guess it would actually pay them to keep the right side to the enemy, wouldn't it? At least that way, they'd have a greater reach to parry with their own swords against an enemy sword.

Only if you lost your primary weapon, your spear. I would still rather use a shield to protect myself than a blade!

I'm afraid you seem to be moving the goalposts a bit, here. We're talking
about household cavalry, who don't have a shield and whose primary
weapon is their sword. Of course, you could expand the discussion to
include 17/21st lancers, who's primary weapon is a lance (spear) but
they don't (didn't) carry shields either. So we need to decide who we
are discussing. I guess you are talking about Roman cavalry again, now.
But the point about cataphract lancers was that they didn't give a stuff
which side they faced the enemy with, as both they and their horses
were armoured. And if they were using heavy two-handed lances for
charging the enemy, then they would be unable to hold a shield (which
they didn't need in any case because of their armoured arms & legs).
I thought we'd found Roman chamfrons that had ear-flaps for the front
of the ears (to protect them from the swords of the enemy) which would
also give them protection against a glancing blow from your own sword.

Ambrosius

[Peroni]

Yes sorry, I missed your point about it being the Household Cavalry. :oops:

No, it wouldn't matter which side. Slash to the right and stab to the left. That's how they are trained to this day.


The leather chamfron from Newstead did have ear flaps at the front, but not substantial enough to stop a cut to the ears from the rider. Here's a reconstruction. The ears are still free to move about.



The metal chamfrons from Straubing etc don't seem to have any ear protection. This may be because they were designed for hippika gymnasia as opposed to full combat.

regards,