Statuette of an Alchon (Hephthalite) horseman

[Dangun]

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?

[Duncan Head]

Do 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:

The 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:

However, several of the horses carried gene variants associated with short-distance sprint performance, which suggests the Scythians favoured horses with an aptitude for speed

[Andreas Johansson]

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.

[Dangun]

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.

[Andreas Johansson]

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".

[Dangun]

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.

[Jim Webster]

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.

[Erpingham]

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

[Jim Webster]

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

[Erpingham]

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.

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 

[Duncan Head]

I'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.

[Andreas Johansson]

That would not be good for White's stirrups causes feudalism idea.

I confess I thought that idea pretty much dead anyway.

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.

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.

[Erpingham]

Anyway, 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