Alternate stirrup developments?

Suppose stirrups (and the corresponding improvements in saddlery) are developed somewhat earlier. What might the consequences be if:

A. Some bright Roman comes up with them around 1 AD?
B. Some bright Greek/Persian comes up with them around 500 BC?
C. Some bright Assyrian comes up with them around 1000 BC?
D. Some bright Hittite comes up with them around 1500 BC?
E. Some bright Indo-European comes up with them around 2000 BC?

The Sarmatian tribes of Eurasia are believed to have employed a single stirrup as late as the First Century BCE. It was intended as an aid for riders to mount their horses. I don't know if this technology ever caught on with the Parthians.

Kaiphranos said:

Suppose stirrups (and the corresponding improvements in saddlery) are developed somewhat earlier. What might the consequences be if:

A. Some bright Roman comes up with them around 1 AD?
B. Some bright Greek/Persian comes up with them around 500 BC?
C. Some bright Assyrian comes up with them around 1000 BC?
D. Some bright Hittite comes up with them around 1500 BC?
E. Some bright Indo-European comes up with them around 2000 BC?

Click to expand...

1. Romewank
2. Persia/Macedon wank
3. Assyriawank
4. Hittitewank
5. Where? Indo-Europeans where spread out across half Eurasia!

Kaiphranos said:

Suppose stirrups (and the corresponding improvements in saddlery) are developed somewhat earlier. What might the consequences be if:

Click to expand...

Given that stirrups may be the most overrated technological development in history, probably not as much as people think.

A. Some bright Roman comes up with them around 1 AD?

Click to expand...

Riding may become a more popular mode of travel among the upper classes. In the medium term, this could affect how the Roman world's infrastructure works, but I don't think it will do so decisively. MIlitary applications will take a while because Rome has access to cavalry recruits from traditional backgrounds who will take time adopting the stirrup, but it might get popular faster in the cohortes equitatae and maybe some alae CR. Not likely big changes in the composition of the military or its application, but maybe different recruitment patterns in the medium term.

B. Some bright Greek/Persian comes up with them around 500 BC?

Click to expand...

This would be a lot bigger because stirrups require a firm saddle of some kind. Give the Greeks saddles and stirrups and you will see a much more effective caalry arm. Thessaly might come to play a more important role in Greek affairs. Quite possibly the symbolic importance of the hoplite may be undermined. I can imagine especially in Magna Graecia the mounted aristocrats taking on a much more important role in warfare. To Persia, I can't say, but I suspect not too much of a difference.

C. Some bright Assyrian comes up with them around 1000 BC?

Click to expand...

Also very interesting - it may get us earlier cavalry as a major arm and thus diminish the importance of chariotry. Different priorities in horsebreeding and training, and changed military budgets. With an earlier deelopment of shock cavalry (which is not a given), you might also see different infantry tactics. In the long run, this could undermine the perception of cavalry as a decisive arm.

D. Some bright Hittite comes up with them around 1500 BC?
E. Some bright Indo-European comes up with them around 2000 BC?

Click to expand...

Actually, I doubt the chariot horses of that era would be up to cavalry use.

carlton_bach said:

Also very interesting - it may get us earlier cavalry as a major arm and thus diminish the importance of chariotry. Different priorities in horsebreeding and training, and changed military budgets. With an earlier deelopment of shock cavalry (which is not a given), you might also see different infantry tactics. In the long run, this could undermine the perception of cavalry as a decisive arm.



Actually, I doubt the chariot horses of that era would be up to cavalry use.

Click to expand...

It would probably be a bit hard on the first-generation horses, I agree. But horsebreeding seems like it would happen eventually anyway, so why not start a little early? Especially given that the kings of that time tended to keep stables full of horses already, it shouldn't be too hard to start a breeding program.

In the long run, though, horsemen should be cheaper and more effective than the chariotry which formed the core of Bronze Age armies. Depending on exactly where and when the technology gets taken up, this might be a benefit the established states (Egypt, Hatti, Mitanni, Kassite Babylon, Assyria, etc.) or it might benefit the nomads and others on the fringes--Arameans, Kaska, Celts...