Paired Stirrups invented in Assyria c. 700 BC

[robertp6165]

There are some important inventions that seem so simple in concept that one has to wonder why they weren't invented centuries before they came about in OTL. The stirrup is one of these. There is evidence that horses had been domesticated since possibly 4500 BC or thereabouts, and we know they were pulling chariots as early as 2,000 BC. Cavalry came into use among the steppe nomads before 1,000 BC, and Assyria was using mounted lancers and archers as early as 865 BC. Yet the first precursors of the stirrup only appear in India in the 4th century BC, and fully developed paired stirrups first seem to appear in China about 300 AD.

The stirrup is a relatively simple piece of technology, and it seems clear, at least IMHO, that the idea could have occurred to someone much, much earlier. So what if it had? Let's say that some Assyrian cavalryman in the army of Sennacherib gets the idea during the siege of Jerusalem in 701 BC. He makes a set and demonstrates them to the King, who is impressed and orders his cavalry equipped with them. The Assyrians use them in their campaigns in the succeeding years, and then gradually the technology spreads to other peoples as well...the Babylonians, Persians, Egyptians, Scythians, etc.

How does this affect history and especially warfare? Will the Greeks at Marathon be able to stand before the fearsome charge of the Persian Cataphracts, for example?

 

[bluestraggler]

I have always wondered about this. One of the much-cited causes of the downfall of the Roman Empire is the failure to invent the stirrup. However, surely the key to the Romans’ military success over the centuries was their use of infantry. The critical role of cavalry was in protecting the infantry’s flanks and in reconnaissance. In the later empire, cavalry played a vital role but essentially because of their mobility, not their striking power. BTW, Megas Alexandros seems to have managed pretty well without the stirrup.

 

[MrP]

IIRC, a reconstruction was made of a Republican-era Roman saddle a while back, and it's notably different from a modern one. Ah, pic here. A modern dressage saddle is here. Wiki on saddles, and on stirrups.

Speaking from personal experience, it's comfier and easier riding with a saddle than without, and this is improved even more when one has stirrups. In military terms, it all comes down to flexibility and utility. It's a lot easier to control a horse when one has the aids. And one can concentrate more on killing one's opponent than before. From the horse's pov, they distribute the rider's weight in a less onerous way - which is also militarily beneficial, since it increases the steed's working life, meaning remounts are less necessary, and decreasing training time.

Re Marathon: I take it TTL the Persian cavalry isn't withdrawn as IOTL. I can see heavy cavalry posing a threat to the Hellenic flanks . . . but certainly not to the front of the army. Horses are remarkably disinclined to charge bristling sharp sticks - hence the Napoleonic anti-cavalry defence of forming square.