On Thu, 06 Jul 2000, Richard Sands wrote:
> I remember reading somewhere that the actual advantage of stirrups is
> the ability to stand up in the saddle - I think it's biggest advantage
> is for the more recent style of lancing (Lace War/Napoleonic era) where
> their main purpose was to ride down broken infantry, and the ability to
> throw their bodyweight behind the lance was a serious advantage.
> Probably it would also give more range to a swordsman on horseback, but
> since my swordfighting skills are limited to poor fencing, and I haven't
> ridden a horse in nearly twenty years, that could well be my imagination
There are of course stirrupless cavalry with metal armoured legs, and swordfighting was amply used.
My pet theory is that basically you can do mostly anything without stirrups that you can do with stirrups (not standing up in the saddle of course ;-). It is just more difficult and takes more training. It is also possible that in an anachronical joust between two riders, one with and one without stirrups, the one with would have an advantage.
I think the difference is like the difference between bows and crossbows. Neither is necessarily better than the other, but in essence anyone can pick up a crossbow and be reasonably accurate, while a bow takes more practice.
> ps Changed list!
Good!
-- Henrix
Powered by hypermail