Yes! Frankly, putting stirrups on a saddle hardly seem like a big technological leap. It's far more likely that there was this prevailing attitude, that ONLY A PUSSY WOULD USE THEM!
Actually, stirrups spread pretty quickly when they turned up. The Irish, however, do seem to have taken exactly the attitude you cite, but, then, that’s the Irish.
I regret only that I cannot like this essay more than once.
The sheer amount of nonsense spewed by historians who have never held a sword let alone thought seriously about military affairs is staggering for exactly the reasons you point out. Counter examples are apparently no barrier to such nonsense from people who can't think systemically or actively look for reasons a theory might be wrong.
Thank you and yes. A deep and abiding problem of academic disciplines is that individual academics typically pay no penalty for being wrong in company.
Can I say, I love everything about this post. Little did I know that there was so much to be said about stirrups. I learned a lot. And this is why I am on this site and reading your Substack.
I feel your pain Lorenzo! I’m an accomplished horsewoman who (used to) charge around on horses with nothing but a halter on and could jump bareback (on wide half-draft horses, don’t reccomend doing it on throughbreds). Most historians (I count myself as one) can’t tell a Shetland from a Clydesdale and have barely patted one, let alone ridden one. They tell this lie to CHILDREN and it is rife through my kids history books on horses.
It has long since been forgotten since the last of our real Calvary men have gone to their eternal reward, but the visual of hundreds of 1 tonne horse and riders charging at you was just one element. The sound of hooves would have been deafening and you’d feel them before you saw them. A thousand tonnes of horsefliesh charging makes the earth tremble. It would have been a full sensory overload. if I was an infantry man facing that down, I’d want brown pants as part of my uniform…
That historical myth was really strange to me lol. Especially that Alexander's the great use of shock cavalry is iconic. And cataphracts are as iconic as as roman legion in the middle east .
P.s. however as a beginner horse rider it boggles my mind how they did it
Comanches even managed to do it without the saddles!
As a very advanced horse rider who bombed around bareback on ponies and later in life extensively competing in an Olympic sport that originated with US and European calvaries it all seems quite feasible to me.
@Lorenzo Warby Xenophon's 400BC treatise on training war horses, "On Horsemanship," might also shed some definitive light on the subject.
“Warfare under the Anglo-Norman Kings 1066-1135” published in 1997 makes a similar argument. The author claims the superiority of cavalry during that time period is due to the fact that armies were a lot less professional than they were in Antiquity, and would break more easily when faced with cavalry charges. A solution by Norman kings was to dismount some of their knights (who were experienced warriors) to stiffen the infantry line.
The requirement, from Edward I onwards, to have free males in the Kingdom of England practise at the archery butts every Sunday was a form of drilling. English kings then found longbowmen incredibly useful. Unless you are Edward II and fail to protect said archers from the Scottish cavalry (at Bannockburn). After that, English knights regularly dismounted to protect the flanks of the archers, who also had stakes and billmen to protect their front. You see this at Crecy, Poitiers, Najera and Agincourt.
So, Genghis Khan was a great organiser and skilled general. He unified the Mongols after a period of intense internal warfare: so, lots of skilled, hardened warriors.
Pastoralists exploding out of the grasslands (or equivalents) and conquering was a recurring pattern: Huns, Arabs, Berbers, Avars, Magyars, Turks …
Genghis Khan was just a bit better at everything that counted.
The whole stirrup thing was "spoke as gospel" in my grad school days as a Medievalist in the mid-70's. In retrospect, it's funny to see how absolutely no one exercised any practical experience in making these statements. By way of parallel, I remember hearing Sigmund Eisner lecture on Chaucer's "Treatise on the Astrolabe," his point being that Chaucer had provided us with a pretty fair instruction manual. To prove the point, Eisner constructed his own "astrolabe" by following Chaucer's instructions - he held his construction up during the lecture - and it worked just fine. A "smart man with practical experience."
Some time ago, I was thinking about the Royal Canadian Mounted Police facing the groups of protestors in Canada, and I had the thought that strong willed protestors could control the horse by grabbing the reins/bridle, somewhat removing control from the rider. But via a query to my horse owning neighbor, she indicated that riders also control their horses via their knees, so a horse would or could still over power someone holding his bridle when properly guided by the rider's knees. [Of course the RCMP also had the aid of stirrups.]
I am still not quite clear on how a group of (pretty brave) guys with spears or lances could stand their ground against a man/horse combo bearing down on them? Did they plant the lances in the ground and crouch low to avoid riders' spears or swords? Did they hold them in their arms/hands (with or without some additional gripping aid)? Did they also have shields?
What about corresponding armour or shields on the horses? [Also agreeing horses would not want to impale themselves when they saw the sharp pointy things.]
Yes, they braced their spears or pikes. Depending on circumstances, that could be on the ground. There was also a lot of drilling under the Greeks and especially Romans and, after Maurice of Nassau reintroduced Roman drill, European forces.
Drilled troops beat undrilled troops in set-piece battles. Making things as automatic as possible helps mightily.
Shieldwall tactics could also work. A culture of honour where you were embedded with folk who knew you personally and you had lots of connections with also worked.
Over time, there was a tendency to develop horse armour, but that was mainly against arrows and crossbows.
The practical tests of the proposition show that, in fact, when it came to charging with a lance, stirrups weren’t a huge advantage. An advantage, certainly, and that mainly before and after, but for the actual charge-to-contact, not so much. Hence over a millennia of lance-charging cavalry before stirrups.
"Before the stirrup, horses were ineffectual in battle because the rider had nothing with which to hold him securely to the horse."
Didn't seem to be a problem for the Comanche, who developed into the most horse-dependent and capable tribe after the Spanish introduction of horses.
.. and here, I thought this was going to be about gynecology.
They say gynecologists weren't effective until the introduction of the speculum, which occurred centuries after stirrups were introduced.
Yes! Frankly, putting stirrups on a saddle hardly seem like a big technological leap. It's far more likely that there was this prevailing attitude, that ONLY A PUSSY WOULD USE THEM!
Such are the ways of the warrior class.
Actually, stirrups spread pretty quickly when they turned up. The Irish, however, do seem to have taken exactly the attitude you cite, but, then, that’s the Irish.
https://www.seanpoage.com/stirrup-less-charges-shocking/https://www.seanpoage.com/stirrup-less-charges-shocking/2/
Yeah, but weren't they also down on armor for a bit too? Or is that another myth?
No, that too. The Irish, what can you say?
I regret only that I cannot like this essay more than once.
The sheer amount of nonsense spewed by historians who have never held a sword let alone thought seriously about military affairs is staggering for exactly the reasons you point out. Counter examples are apparently no barrier to such nonsense from people who can't think systemically or actively look for reasons a theory might be wrong.
Thank you and yes. A deep and abiding problem of academic disciplines is that individual academics typically pay no penalty for being wrong in company.
Can I say, I love everything about this post. Little did I know that there was so much to be said about stirrups. I learned a lot. And this is why I am on this site and reading your Substack.
Me too!
I feel your pain Lorenzo! I’m an accomplished horsewoman who (used to) charge around on horses with nothing but a halter on and could jump bareback (on wide half-draft horses, don’t reccomend doing it on throughbreds). Most historians (I count myself as one) can’t tell a Shetland from a Clydesdale and have barely patted one, let alone ridden one. They tell this lie to CHILDREN and it is rife through my kids history books on horses.
It has long since been forgotten since the last of our real Calvary men have gone to their eternal reward, but the visual of hundreds of 1 tonne horse and riders charging at you was just one element. The sound of hooves would have been deafening and you’d feel them before you saw them. A thousand tonnes of horsefliesh charging makes the earth tremble. It would have been a full sensory overload. if I was an infantry man facing that down, I’d want brown pants as part of my uniform…
Great point about the frightening sensory overload, ta. (I have never ridden a horse, but I read a lot and have friends who have.)
It is very reassuring to have support from actual horse folk. (I ran a draft past a friend who is a horsewoman.)
Thank you for clarifying!
That historical myth was really strange to me lol. Especially that Alexander's the great use of shock cavalry is iconic. And cataphracts are as iconic as as roman legion in the middle east .
P.s. however as a beginner horse rider it boggles my mind how they did it
Comanches even managed to do it without the saddles!
The Comanche never skipped leg day.
As a very advanced horse rider who bombed around bareback on ponies and later in life extensively competing in an Olympic sport that originated with US and European calvaries it all seems quite feasible to me.
@Lorenzo Warby Xenophon's 400BC treatise on training war horses, "On Horsemanship," might also shed some definitive light on the subject.
i spent an entire year of covid riding every evening to kill boredom at my parents farm. Every single day. At some point you unironically
start to "become one with the horse".
Now imagine these men who lived their entire lives riding, to do pratically everything.
The level of horsemanship of the average Commanche/Mongol must have been higher than any olympic equeateian athlete.
“Warfare under the Anglo-Norman Kings 1066-1135” published in 1997 makes a similar argument. The author claims the superiority of cavalry during that time period is due to the fact that armies were a lot less professional than they were in Antiquity, and would break more easily when faced with cavalry charges. A solution by Norman kings was to dismount some of their knights (who were experienced warriors) to stiffen the infantry line.
The requirement, from Edward I onwards, to have free males in the Kingdom of England practise at the archery butts every Sunday was a form of drilling. English kings then found longbowmen incredibly useful. Unless you are Edward II and fail to protect said archers from the Scottish cavalry (at Bannockburn). After that, English knights regularly dismounted to protect the flanks of the archers, who also had stakes and billmen to protect their front. You see this at Crecy, Poitiers, Najera and Agincourt.
As a former horseman i always enjoy seeing a good article on horse-related stuff. Good stuff!
So if it wasn't stirrups, was the Genghis advantage solely to do with Genghis and the Mongols going all-in on horse archers?
No other society could field such high numbers of skilled mounted units?
So, Genghis Khan was a great organiser and skilled general. He unified the Mongols after a period of intense internal warfare: so, lots of skilled, hardened warriors.
Pastoralists exploding out of the grasslands (or equivalents) and conquering was a recurring pattern: Huns, Arabs, Berbers, Avars, Magyars, Turks …
Genghis Khan was just a bit better at everything that counted.
The whole stirrup thing was "spoke as gospel" in my grad school days as a Medievalist in the mid-70's. In retrospect, it's funny to see how absolutely no one exercised any practical experience in making these statements. By way of parallel, I remember hearing Sigmund Eisner lecture on Chaucer's "Treatise on the Astrolabe," his point being that Chaucer had provided us with a pretty fair instruction manual. To prove the point, Eisner constructed his own "astrolabe" by following Chaucer's instructions - he held his construction up during the lecture - and it worked just fine. A "smart man with practical experience."
Who would have thought stirrups would be so controversial. Small inventions have broad implications.
I've got a few people to send this to.
Excellent.
Thank you for an informative piece - I had heard this idea thrown around a lot...
Some time ago, I was thinking about the Royal Canadian Mounted Police facing the groups of protestors in Canada, and I had the thought that strong willed protestors could control the horse by grabbing the reins/bridle, somewhat removing control from the rider. But via a query to my horse owning neighbor, she indicated that riders also control their horses via their knees, so a horse would or could still over power someone holding his bridle when properly guided by the rider's knees. [Of course the RCMP also had the aid of stirrups.]
I am still not quite clear on how a group of (pretty brave) guys with spears or lances could stand their ground against a man/horse combo bearing down on them? Did they plant the lances in the ground and crouch low to avoid riders' spears or swords? Did they hold them in their arms/hands (with or without some additional gripping aid)? Did they also have shields?
What about corresponding armour or shields on the horses? [Also agreeing horses would not want to impale themselves when they saw the sharp pointy things.]
Yes, they braced their spears or pikes. Depending on circumstances, that could be on the ground. There was also a lot of drilling under the Greeks and especially Romans and, after Maurice of Nassau reintroduced Roman drill, European forces.
Drilled troops beat undrilled troops in set-piece battles. Making things as automatic as possible helps mightily.
Shieldwall tactics could also work. A culture of honour where you were embedded with folk who knew you personally and you had lots of connections with also worked.
Over time, there was a tendency to develop horse armour, but that was mainly against arrows and crossbows.
A pike is around 20 feet long. A few ranks of pikemen gives a mass of nasty points quite far from those holding them.
I posted a link to this essay on my Facebook site.
Thank you.
Could writers be exaggerating for effect. Stirrups are a huge advantage.
The practical tests of the proposition show that, in fact, when it came to charging with a lance, stirrups weren’t a huge advantage. An advantage, certainly, and that mainly before and after, but for the actual charge-to-contact, not so much. Hence over a millennia of lance-charging cavalry before stirrups.