A new article at http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp290_horse_rider_statuette.pdf (http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp290_horse_rider_statuette.pdf)shows an "Iranian Hun" horseman, probably 5th century AD, a very interesting piece I hadn't see before.
For comparisons see:
http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=3436.0
http://warfare.ga/Ancient/Gandhara-Cosmetic_lids.htm?i=1
http://pro.geo.univie.ac.at/projects/khm/?language=en
Could he be clad in mail?
Anybody want to guess what the loop on the rider's back was for?
Interesting, thanks :)
I'm not sure how Jäger concludes the donor can't be the rider?
(And I note that Jäger treats the Alchons as a subset of the Hephthalites, where e.g. Rezakhani treats them as two separate groups. We're probably in for continued terminological confusion.)
Steven - yes, I thought it looked very much like a mail shirt. Hard to be sure, though, the patterning is neither very clear nor entirely consistent.
David - I'm guessing it's a candlestick-holder or something like that - to do with the function of the statuette but not connected to its real-life model.
Andreas - I still don't really have a coherent model of the relations between the various "Iranian Hun" groups. If anything the modern trend seems to be towards treating the Alchon as separate to the Hephthalites, but since we know so little about the origin of either group, it is very hard to be certain.
What do you make of the lack of stirrups?
The article makes quite a big deal about it, but I wonder given the level of abstraction whether we can be certain that they just weren't omitted?
I am not sure where we would expect to see a stirrup strap on a sculpture like this.
Its true that the artist has gone to the trouble of including other details of the harness, but the artist did get the proportions of the horse horribly wrong.
Or indeed are we sure that the loops under the arches of the rider's feet is not a stirrup?
Quote from: Dangun on September 25, 2019, 08:37:05 AMOr indeed are we sure that the loops under the arches of the rider's feet is not a stirrup?
It's possible, I suppose, that they are poorly-depicted stirrups, especially if we consider the possibility that leather loop stirrups preceded metal ones. But they don't really look like it, and the position of the legs and feet does not really suggest stirrups.
I suspect it may just be that, as the author implies, the figure is just a bit too early for stirrups.
For what it's worth as a comparison, the Swat Bowl (http://warfare.tk/6-10/Central_Asia-117.htm) also shows "Iranian Hun" horsemen without stirrups.
Quote from: Duncan Head on September 25, 2019, 08:53:18 AM
I suspect it may just be that, as the author implies, the figure is just a bit too early for stirrups.
Can anyone recommend a good book on the history of stirrup introduction?
I am quite interested in this topic.
Quote from: Dangun on September 26, 2019, 02:24:29 AM
Can anyone recommend a good book on the history of stirrup introduction?
I am quite interested in this topic.
Rather worryingly I realise that I too would be very interested in such a book as well... (which thought had never occurred to me before reading this post)
Quote from: Dangun on September 26, 2019, 02:24:29 AMCan anyone recommend a good book on the history of stirrup introduction?
I don't think there is such a book.
Lynn White's "Mediaeval Military Technology and Social Change" is the most influential, but that was written back in the 1960s and there has been a lot of archaeology since then. There have been articles and books arguing for and against White's viewpoint, but I am not aware of any definitive study. Someone should write one.
There is https://www.academia.edu/15491198/Development_of_Saddle_and_Stirrup for a recent summary, but it's very short.
Lots of work still to be done, I think. For instance I was just reading Farrokh on the Sassanians recently, and he illustrates the stirrups in the Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum as evidence that the Sassanians had adopted the stirrup in their last century; but there's a review of Nicolle's Sassanian book by St John Simpson of the BM (https://www.academia.edu/3573076/Review_David_Nicolle_Sassanian_armies_the_Iranian_empire_early_3rd_to_mid_7th_centuries_AD_Stockport_1996) suggesting they "lack reliable provenance or dating evidence". And I'm not aware that anyone has tried to tie these into the Arabic (Tabari?) account of iron stirrups being adopted to replace wooden ones "in the time of the Azraqites" - who were active in central Iran a few decades after the Sasanians fell.
Quote from: Duncan Head on September 26, 2019, 09:30:50 AM
Someone should write one.
I'm looking forward to adding a third book by Duncan Head to my library. ;)
Quote from: Duncan Head on September 26, 2019, 09:30:50 AM
I don't think there is such a book....
There is https://www.academia.edu/15491198/Development_of_Saddle_and_Stirrup for a recent summary, but it's very short.
One thing I thought was interesting from the link Duncan kindly provided, was that it connected the appearance of stirrups with the genetics or emergence of larger and faster horse breeds. The idea being that smaller horses move so much slower that the benefit of stabilising stirrups is less significant.
Maybe there is already a book on that topic?
Quote from: Dangun on September 29, 2019, 10:53:04 AM
One thing I thought was interesting from the link Duncan kindly provided, was that it connected the appearance of stirrups with the genetics or emergence of larger and faster horse breeds. The idea being that smaller horses move so much slower that the benefit of stabilising stirrups is less significant.
Interesting - are larger horse breeds necessarily faster? Furthermore, my impression was that cavalry speeds depend more on tactics and formations than on the maximum possible speed of the mount itself. Any thoughts on that?
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on September 29, 2019, 06:38:06 PM
Quote from: Dangun on September 29, 2019, 10:53:04 AM
One thing I thought was interesting from the link Duncan kindly provided, was that it connected the appearance of stirrups with the genetics or emergence of larger and faster horse breeds. The idea being that smaller horses move so much slower that the benefit of stabilising stirrups is less significant.
Interesting - are larger horse breeds necessarily faster? Furthermore, my impression was that cavalry speeds depend more on tactics and formations than on the maximum possible speed of the mount itself. Any thoughts on that?
the problem here is that the large breeds are bred to pull vehicles etc rather than for speed so there probably isn't a direct correlation
Depends what we mean by "large". Hayashi in the linked article says (pp.72-73):
QuoteM A Littauer said it was unnecessary to use stirrups on riding because the horses in Scythia on the northern coast of the Black Sea were average 135cm tall like ponies (Littauer 1981:104). This is applicable to the horses in the Xiongnu and the Huns.
Hayashi is suggesting, or repeating a suggestion, that you don't need stirrups to ride the small pony-like horses of the early nomads. This might imply that you might want stirrups to ride larger horses - but (a) I can't see that he explicitly says so, and (b) "larger" in this case need not mean very large in any absolute sense.
Are larger breeds faster? Well, racehorses have longer legs than Shetland ponies.
Quote from: Duncan Head on September 29, 2019, 09:19:58 PM
Hayashi is suggesting, or repeating a suggestion, that you don't need stirrups to ride the small pony-like horses of the early nomads. This might imply that you might want stirrups to ride larger horses - but (a) I can't see that he explicitly says so, and (b) "larger" in this case need not mean very large in any absolute sense.
Sure, he doesn't explicitly say so. But if you don't need stirrups for small horses, it is a fairly obvious implication that perhaps you need them for bigger horses. If he did not intend that implication it would have been far simpler to say stirrups have nothing to do with horse speed/size or just not bring it up at all. Admittedly I know very little about the topic, so I probably don't know the context.
Given that the faster the horse, the higher the cost of falling off, it doesn't seem unreasonable... but it is an implication.
Do we know when horses were larger? Not ponies? Or just simply capable of "charging" with 150kg of gear?
Quote from: Dangun on September 30, 2019, 12:31:29 PMDo we know when horses were larger? Not ponies? Or just simply capable of "charging" with 150kg of gear?
We know that some of the Pazyryk horses were larger than the Scythian 135cm (just over 13 hands) "pony" size given, as early as the 5th century BC, long before stirrups:
Quote from: Argent at https://lra.le.ac.uk/bitstream/2381/10247/1/ArgentThesis%5B1%5D.pdfThe size of the larger horses, close to 150 cm. tall as measured at the withers, surprised the original archaeologists, as they seemed larger than the horses that were known in the region at that time (Rudenko 1970: 56-57). They were thus assumed to be imports
We know that Nisaian horses around the same date weren't "small", and Sarmatian and Parthian horses were big enough to carry heavy-armoured riders at speed without stirrups. In short, the whole connection between stirrups and larger horse breeds looks weak to me.
And https://blog.britishmuseum.org/horses-a-scythians-best-friend/ suggests that Scythian horses may have been quite fast, weakening Hayashi's bigger=faster idea:
QuoteHowever, several of the horses carried gene variants associated with short-distance sprint performance, which suggests the Scythians favoured horses with an aptitude for speed
One function at least of stirrups is clearly more relevant to taller horses: helping the rider to mount. Some early stirrups were unpaired, suggesting that mounting aid might be the original function.
Quote from: Duncan Head on September 30, 2019, 01:38:13 PM
We know that Nisaian horses around the same date weren't "small", and Sarmatian and Parthian horses were big enough to carry heavy-armoured riders at speed without stirrups. In short, the whole connection between stirrups and larger horse breeds looks weak to me.
And https://blog.britishmuseum.org/horses-a-scythians-best-friend/ suggests that Scythian horses may have been quite fast, weakening Hayashi's bigger=faster idea:
So do you think...
If stirrups were not associated with larger/faster horses, and heavily armoured riders were very possible without stirrups, then is the significance of stirrups broadly overstated.
Perhaps they are only an incremental improvement and not a game-changer?
This would fit with why stirrups appeared so much later than horse domestication did?
(Just thought bubbles.)
Trouble is that while possibly only an incremental improvement, they are a close-to costless improvement.
Apparently not thought cost-effective by all, though; in the 19C Sahel, even elite armoured cavalry might forgo proper stirrups for toe-loops, and lighter cavalry may have none at all. This must argue for "incremental improvement".
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on October 02, 2019, 05:35:21 AM
Apparently not thought cost-effective by all, though; in the 19C Sahel, even elite armoured cavalry might forgo proper stirrups for toe-loops, and lighter cavalry may have none at all. This must argue for "incremental improvement".
That would not be good for White's stirrups causes feudalism idea.
I remember reading somewhere that the advantage of stirrups is that it is easier on the legs when riding for long distances, or just sitting on a horse drifting along at the speed of your livestock. It allows the legs to relax, supported by the stirrup
Apparently they're of more use to nomad livestock herders than soldiers.
Quote from: Jim Webster on October 02, 2019, 09:37:29 AM
I remember reading somewhere that the advantage of stirrups is that it is easier on the legs when riding for long distances, or just sitting on a horse drifting along at the speed of your livestock. It allows the legs to relax, supported by the stirrup
Apparently they're of more use to nomad livestock herders than soldiers.
Though horse soldiers probably spend more time riding long distances than fighting.
I think we may be getting somewhere with stirrups. Remmebering that the initial reaction of Byzantine cavalry on their introduction was that real cavalrymen do not need stirrups; the combat advantages are not all that apparent. The fact that stirrups eventually became the norm suggests that the non-combat advantages were realised and appreciated. Eventual use of stirrups by cavalry of all horse speeds and sizes suggests that they were not especially useful with regard to any particular speed or size, although it might be possible to trace a progression of spread of use in either or both categories.
We might also examine the actions of cavalry before and after the use of stirrups; the Byzantines and Franks are perhaps useful examples. although hedged about with other considerations. The Byzantine cavalry appears to have operated much the same before as after the introduction of stirrups; the introduction of klibanophoroi, a reincarnation of the cataphract concept, presumably being as dependent on stirrups as the original cataphracts themselves. The Franks are more interesting: up to Tours, they dismounted to fight. In Charlemagne's time, they turned into a largely cavalry army. It may be that the stirrup helped them keep their seat in battle, although this may have been more to do with the type of saddle used (not the Roman four-horned variety) and, most importantly (given that North African riders with rudimentary saddles were nevertheless expert horsemen) a growing familiarity with what it took to ride a horse and use one in battle. Hence the Frankish stirrups=cavalry equation seems to be more of a post hoc ergo propter hoc assumption than genuine cause and effect, because the change to cavalry is better explained by the change in authority (building an empire and needing armies which can travel faster and further and fight predominantly mounted opponents) and institutions (Charlemagne's imperial system).
The rise of stirrup-using cavalry in the West may conceivably have reflected genuine combat advantages conferred by the item. The question is why similar advantages are not apparent among societies which traditionally used cavalry. This leads me to adopt Jim's thinking that it was the non-combat advantages (reduction of wear and tear on horse and rider) which secured the stirrup's place in use and history.
Quote from: Erpingham on October 02, 2019, 09:52:11 AM
Quote from: Jim Webster on October 02, 2019, 09:37:29 AM
I remember reading somewhere that the advantage of stirrups is that it is easier on the legs when riding for long distances, or just sitting on a horse drifting along at the speed of your livestock. It allows the legs to relax, supported by the stirrup
Apparently they're of more use to nomad livestock herders than soldiers.
Though horse soldiers probably spend more time riding long distances than fighting.
Now this is something I wonder about as well
I remember reading about the British army retreat at Mons and the author commented that British cavalry rode for a period, then marched on foot leading their horses for a period, then rode again.
French cavalry always rode everywhere
Apparently the difference was that the British cavalry horses were in far better condition and the actual distance travelled by them wasn't that much less than the French managed
QuoteI remember reading about the British army retreat at Mons and the author commented that British cavalry rode for a period, then marched on foot leading their horses for a period, then rode again.
This was indeed standard British practice and it is laid out in 19th century cavalry manuals I've read. I'm not sure how common it was in our period. It does feature in George Shipway's novel Imperial Governor, though :)
Quote from: Erpingham on October 02, 2019, 01:14:32 PMI'm not sure how common it was in our period.
It was presumably unnecessary if you had multiple horses, like steppe nomads; you'd just swap to another one for a while.
Quote from: Dangun on October 02, 2019, 09:34:27 AM
That would not be good for White's stirrups causes feudalism idea.
I confess I thought that idea pretty much dead anyway.
Quote from: Jim Webster on October 02, 2019, 09:37:29 AM
I remember reading somewhere that the advantage of stirrups is that it is easier on the legs when riding for long distances, or just sitting on a horse drifting along at the speed of your livestock. It allows the legs to relax, supported by the stirrup
I've heard a number of things claimed as "the" advantage of stirrups, so hearing a new one inspires a certain amount of skepticism.
I mean, it may very well be true that they make long rides more comfortable, and it may equally be true they make it easier to swing a sword without falling off*, but it doesn't follow that either of those, or any other, was the one advantage that always and everywhere prompted their adoption.
Quote from: Duncan Head on October 02, 2019, 01:29:40 PM
It was presumably unnecessary if you had multiple horses, like steppe nomads; you'd just swap to another one for a while.
A variant common in Europe would be having one riding horse and another for fighting.
Anyway, for what it's worth, my take would be that stirrups don't revolutionize anything (least of all Europe's social structure), but they offer a range of incremental benefits.
* I read somewhere, possibly in Gaebel's Greek cavalry book, that saddles and stirrups help the bad cavalryman more than the good one; they don't so much allow you to do stuff that couldn't be done without them as decrease the level of horsemanship required.
QuoteAnyway, for what it's worth, my take would be that stirrups don't revolutionize anything (least of all Europe's social structure),
Has anyone believed White's theory since the 1970's? It was actually disputed at the time of publication, though somehow it caught the zeitgeist and entered popular history. Later, it became a classic example of faults of technological determinism. For some of the 20th century and early 21st century arguments, see the wikipedia article Great Stirrup Controversy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Stirrup_Controversy)