Stirrups. Who needs them?

14th cent. image of Christ leading Crusaders into battle (f. 37 (British Library))

Starting in the 1960s, an argument was made by technology historian and excellent writer Lynn White that feudalism was the natural result of Germanic warfare: soldiers on horseback wearing heavy armor fighting in formation in organized group charges. The maneuvering needed to undertake this, he contended, required saddles with stirrups, which at that time were thought to be introduced in Europe around the 8th century CE. And because these soldiers were central to medieval warfare in Europe, rulers rewarded them for their service, thus connecting the emergence of a feudal ruling class to the introduction of stirrups.

Due to the compelling presentation of Lynn's argument--his book is very well written and an enjoyable read, and so is highly recommended--this debate circulated amongst medieval military historians for some time. Yet through further historical study coupled with archaeological evidence and experimentation, the so-called "Great Stirrup Controversy" was laid to rest. Specifically, there is no evidence for the widespread introduction of stirrups into western Europe during the Germanic era when feudalism arguably arose, and numerous experimental archeologists have shown that stirrups are not actually required for the maneuvering undertaken by medieval knights. As such, the argument that ties exist between the introduction of the stirrup and the emergence of feudalism has been disproven.

To this day, however, some continue to support the idea that stirrups led to feudalism in Europe; I myself have seen the idea proposed in modern historical documentaries, by popular historians, and students, which just means that more education on the matter is important. So, if you wish to learn more about this debate, read the following books/articles in their listed order:

• Lynn White, “Stirrup, Mounted Combat, Feudalism, and Chivalry,” in Medieval Technology and Social Change (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962), 1-38.

• R.H. Hilton and P.H. Sawyer, “Technical Determinism: The Stirrup and the Plough,” Past & Present 24 (1963), 90-100.

• D.A. Bullough, “Europae Pater: Charlemagne and His Achievement in the Light of Recent Scholarship,” English Historical Review 85, no. 334 (January 1970), 59-105.

• Bernard S. Bachrach, “Charles Martel, Mounted Shock Combat, the Stirrup, and Feudalism,” Studies in Medieval & Renaissance History 7 (1970), 47-75.

• Philippe Contamine, War in the Middle Ages, translated by Michael Jones (Oxford: Blackwell, 1984), 179-184.

• Peter Connolly, “A Reconstruction of a Roman Saddle,” Britannia 17 (1986), 353-55.

• Kelly DeVries, Medieval Military Technology (Peterborough, ON: Broadview, 1992), 95-110.

• Ann Hyland, The Medieval Warhorse: From Byzantium to the Crusades (Stroud: Sutton, 1994).

• Matthew Bennett, “The Medieval Warhorse Reconsidered,” in Medieval Knighthood V: Papers from the Sixth Strawberry Hill Conference 1994, edited by Stephen Church and Ruth Harvey (Cambridge: Boydell Press, 1995), 19-40.

• Alex Roland, “Once More into the Stirrups: Lynn White jr. Medieval Technology and Social Change,” Technology and Culture 44, no. 3 (July 2003), 574-585.