Were they right? Was the stirrup really one of the most important

>>1869686
No, it wasn't that important, and it's been overrated by armchair historians who, if they've ever ridden a horse to begin with, could only learn to do it with stirrups.

You can learn to mount and ride a horse into battle, even pull off complicated maneuvers and shock tactics, without one. There were cavalry in history who, despite knowing of them, preferred to forego any stirrups whatsoever, such as the Moorish jinete.

>>1869723
>Le high backed saddle cuckman.
>Le European development is only one important man.
It was a game changer in the east because most -if not all- cavalrymen there were goddamn horse archers.

>>1869686
stirrup allowed for the full force of the horse to be transferred into a lance more efficiently, theres a big benefit for recurve bow firing, but I'm not familiar with that one.

Its pretty important in general for making horse riding easier.

>>1869732
Horse archery long predates the stirrup

>>1869686
No, I've been hearing that meme since highschool history class and it's wrong.

>>1869736
Sure.

But the stirrup made it fuck easier. Especially when you have to stand on bent legs and act as your own shock absorber to stabilize your aim.

In addition it made mounting horses less of a chore.

>>1869732
The Ancient Near East got along fine with high backed saddles or just riding bareback and still managing to field excellent lancer and horse archer cavalry. All the stirrup did was make it less exhausting to ride all day.

>>1869735
>thousands of pounds of force can be exerted by a thin strip of iron, leather, or wood

The only thing that helps with a lance charge is how secure the rider is in his saddle (and how securely attached that saddle is to the horse).

>>1869767
There's a big gap between "game changer" and a convenient tool. It's like gushing over the difference between wearing a sword on a slung baldric or on a belt.

>>1869780
>The only thing that helps with a lance charge is how secure the rider is in his saddle (and how securely attached that saddle is to the horse)

You mentioned nothing about posture and cupping the lance, and you excluded the use of stirrups in the posture to maximize force while minimizing recoil when hitting.

I can only assume you're completely wrong.

>>1869780
>There's a big gap between "game changer" and a convenient tool.
>Greatly improves horse archery.
>"Convenience."

>>1869780
Did the Near East go back to not using stirrups? Didn't think so.

God the contrarianism in this site is getting really pathetic.

>>1869791
You're free to make that mistake to protect your own ego, but that changes nothing. Posture and lance grip all ultimately boil down to making the rider as secure in his seat as possible.

>>1869809
Daily reminder stirrups also greatly increased lance length. Prior to it, you had to hold it in a "barge pole" position with two hands, usually near the middle to balance the thing. With stirrups you can couch it all the way near to the bottom with fearing tipping over.

>>1869809
Its taking advantage of being tethered to the horse in general, the stirrups do indeed allow the rider to hold a posture more adapted to straightening his body into the lance cup.

However this is not the statement you made, you said:

>The only thing that helps with a lance charge is how secure the rider is in his saddle (and how securely attached that saddle is to the horse).

Which is incorrect, as posture of the rider is by far the most important.

If you sat straight up on the horse and tried colliding your lance, you'd either fall off the horse, break something, or have minimal effect on your target. This is evidence enough alone to provide the benefits of posture to channel force into the lance, it doesn't just secure you to the seat.

Why did it take so long for people to figure out how to make a loop to put your feet through? Why is this even such a big deal?
Lmaoooo

>>1869803
>>Greatly improves horse archery.
Said no one but those who never fired a bow from horseback. It's not a question of difficulty, but of posture and which requires less stamina to maintain. The difference was minimal.

>Did the Near East go back to not using stirrups? Didn't think so.
Because the Near East adopted the stirrup as part of the military culture of Central Asian nomadic Iranian and Turkic tribes.

>>1869835
>Which is incorrect, as posture of the rider is by far the most important.
Posture is part of what makes a rider secure in his seat. I didn't distinguish the two, and this is a nitpick glossing over the fact that the stirrup only helps one's posture while casually riding. It doesn't have an effect on the posture one has to take while actually charging with a lance.

>>1869829
Daily reminder that Alexander's cavalry used huge lances further from the middle despite not having stirrups.

File: avanti6to.jpg (114KB, 1012x622px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1012x622px

>>1869874
>Daily reminder that Alexander's cavalry used huge lances further from the middle despite not having stirrups.
ALEXANDERS FUCKING CAVALRY LITERALLY INVENTED THE "BARGE POLE" GRIP.

>>1869874
>Imma horse rider btw.
>Lol have you fired an arrow from horseback
You're credibility is wearing thin, m8.

>Because the Near East adopted the stirrup as part of the military culture of Central Asian nomadic Iranian and Turkic tribes.
...who were horse archers.

Surely if it stirrup made things difficult for these people, they wouldve ditched them right? But they didn't. One wonders why.

When was the stirrup invented?

Did the greeks and romans use them? The persians? How do you even stay on a horse and not crush your nuts without stirrups?

>>1869803
>Did the Near East go back to not using stirrups? Didn't think so.
That's like asking if the Near East go back to not using curved swords. The stirrup was widely adopted as steppe military traditions were spread throughout Asia. That was how it came to the Carolingians as well. The stirrup makes a lot of things easier to learn on horseback, but it wasn't a gamechanger. That argument was originally made anyway about the rise of heavy cavalry and feudalism in Europe, and I don't recall anyone making the same point about Asian cavalry.

Persian heavy cavalry, nomadic horse archers, Chinese horse guards, none of these were much different after the spread of the stirrup, and their societies hardly changed because of it. The stirrup then is hardly on the same level as the printing press.

>>1869836
Only casuals use stirrups anyway, ride like a real man without them.