Digest Number 166

From: Andrew Barton <AndrewBarton_at_...>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 18:23:42 -0400

> Lacking the stirrup, cavalry's usual

roles were either as skirmishers, or to beat up light infantry and attempt to hit the heavier infantry formations from the flank or rear. Since the cavalry couln't pack as much punch in their charge without stirrups, and given the usual massive numerical advantage that the foot formations had, it was probably more or less a given that it was pointless for the cavalry to charge head-on into solid infantry formations.

Oh, the stirrup argument. I suppose it's on-topic here ...

There were many ancient armies that used cavalry in a strike role before any of the usual dates for the invention of stirrups. The best known examples are Alexander's Companion Cavalry, others are Sarmatians both independently and in Roman service.

Most of the -psychological- effect of a cavalry charge takes effect before contact.

Also, the present-day British Household Cavalry stay on by having sheepskins strapped to their horses, and wearing long leather boots with the insides of the thighs roughened. They only use stirrups at all because the sergeants yell at them if they don't (source, a wargaming friend who serves in that unit). It's my conclusion that stirrups only become important when riders are wearing metal armour on their legs.

Andrew