This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.EquineWikipedia:WikiProject EquineTemplate:WikiProject Equineequine articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
Strange. Anyway I automatically discount the validity of any article using CE/BCE etc.. Just looks feeble and pointless. If it weren't a paint-job on an existing numbering system, one might take it all more seriously. There are plenty of existing alternatives, equally religious in origin. Claverhouse (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I could not care less, I am just fed up with the constant edit-warring over the issue. I'd be delighted if someone could help find more sources for the actual content. Montanabw(talk)05:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous User:69.211.136.97 has removed "apparently" from the statement "The stirrup was apparently invented in northern China in the first few centuries AD,". If this User, or any of us, has a note to add on this rather definite-sounding change, it would improve the entrey. --Wetman 23:09, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-Yes, I saw this on the history channel. But the word "Turkic" would mean that the Huns were the Xiongnu of Mongolia, which is disputed. Also, the first stirrup was invented around the
600-500 century BCE in Eastern China by the Chinese millitary, ideas based on assimilated Mongolian horse archers.
-intranetusa
No-one would dispute the authoritiveness of The History Channel. However, as with certain other grabbers of invention, such as the Islamics and the Americans, slowly the Chinese are being more and more credited with dubious origin. I see no reason to think stirrups weren't just as likely to have been invented by the Steppes peoples. Who were riding a lot more than most. Claverhouse (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the description of the Roman saddle tree, it is certainly not a necessary prerequisite for the development of stirrups and seems to be attributing more credit than is warranted here, not to mention the fact that the invention of the stirrup in its modern form in China, with the paired set in an inverted U shape, does not share any known ancestry from the Roman saddle tree. I'm modifying the text to reflect this. Meatwaggon (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted your edit. If you'd like to tag the Roman section with a "fact" tag, you may certainly do so, but a hard saddle tree was an absolute prerequisite for the development of the true stirrup (as opposed to a mere mounting or stability aid, such as the toe loop) because otherwise the weight of the rider's feet in the stirrups (particularly at speed, you use the stirrups to get up off the back of the horse to allow it to move more freely) can cause back injuries to the horse. There is certainly room to argue that the Chinese model may have given rise to the stirrup first, and I can tweak the text a bit, but bad wikiquette to just blank sections. Montanabw(talk)03:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is extremely poor argumentation. The very fact that there were (and are) treeless saddles with stirrups speaks against a "necessary" prerequisite. While it is certainly true that saddles with trees allow stirrups to be used to maximum benefit and that stirrups without trees can cause discomfort or injury to the horse, this by no means makes trees a logical, technical, or physical necessity for stirrups to be present. Not to mention the fact that your reference to support this fact is another wiki article on saddles, in which the only mention of treeless stirrups is itself an unsupported statement. Your statement here is patently false even on initial examination (on mere logical grounds alone), which is why I changed it. I am again changing the text to remove the incorrect "necessary prerequisite" statement. And I don't know what you're talking about wrt "blanking" sections. My edits are recorded so it is clear what was changed. Meatwaggon (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So ask for a source tag and give me a week or so to find a source (there are sources). Fair enough that you moved but did not blank the Roman material, I looked back at your edit and see that you did move it down the page. OK there. However, you do not appear to be challenging this from the point of view of either a rider or a historian, as far as I can tell, so if you are the expert, I would be delighted to see your sources. If not, then just use the {{fact}} tag on stuff you don't agree with and those of us who DO have the background and know what we are talking about will do further research on the claim. The link between a solid tree saddle and the stirrup in the modern world is documented, the Roman versus Chinese question will take some research, given that the stirrup did come out of Asia, a look at what they did with their saddles to support a stirrup is needed (they had to solidify the tree somehow, you'd have a horse with spinal injuries otherwise). The Romans did show up with the first solid tree saddle in the west, not sure where they got it, however. Will do some looking, but it will take some time. Please WP:AGF and just fact tag the stuff you question rather than remove it unless you can actually provide a source. Montanabw(talk)05:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is the original source of information about Sarmatian stirrups ? Article refer to website as the source of information, and on that website information is not attributed.Serg3d2 (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mounted warriors long precede stirrups. I wonder whether a early specific example of a Scandinavian stirrup could be produced. Museum or a book illustration? --Wetman23:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Here you are [1]. It's the second image from the top, and the caption says "mounted warrior grave with stirrups from Västmanland". The page is presented by the Swedish national historic museum, so the info is probably reliable. I'd love to include the images in Vendel Age article (which is a translation from the Historic museum's site), but I don't know about the copyright.--Wiglaf11:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wiglaf, since I don't know anything about the Wendel period, would you simply edit it into a statement in the article with the same footnote link? --Wetman16:56, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this is what you asked me to do. I have added some info on literary sources that I think are very interesting in connection to the stirrup. If you think some info is superfluous, don't hesitate to remove some.--Wiglaf18:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The only stirrup from the Vendel finds that I know of is from Vendel III, which is dated to the Eighth Century, not the Sixth. Unless someone has evidence of an earlier Scandinavian stirrup, this section needs to be amended. All the other evidence indicates that stirrups entered Europe in the Seventh Century with the Avars, so the idea that it popped up earlier in Sixth Century Scandinavia makes little sense.Thiudareiks (talk) 03:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you can point us to a source, this is worth looking into. I think you may be correct, but we need too see the source material. Montanabw(talk)05:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"...must be made of the strongest leather, and is therefore also suitable for use as a punitive strap." Oi! I suppose this seems perfectly "NPOV" to all you lot. I wonder how a Wikipedia article on rolling-pin will read... --Wetman10:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been a mishmash of redundant edits, passive voice, bad writing and screaming inaccuracies for a long time. A recent set of edits that blanked what minor contributions I had made prompted me to perform a long overdue cleanup. I may still have a typo or two, the prose may still fall short of brilliant and engaging, but at least now the piece is a little more in line with basic principles of classic horsemanship, is more accurate, and has a fairly thoroughly sourced history section. Montanabw06:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was just watching a program on the history channel (Modern Marvels: "Barbarian Battle Tech") and the narrator mentioned that the stirrup was invented in India circa 500 B.C. I thought this should be mentioned in the article and noted for its historical reference..
As a professional trainer, rider, FEI and USEF Judge, Course Designer and Steward, please understand that my comments regarding the primary reason that stirrups catch a rider's foot comes from years of active involvement in the sport from a broad background. I have witnessed these events on many occassions and my comments come from real life experience over more than 35 years. I am also an expert witness in equine related litigation and refer to this phenomena under oath in courts of law.
The primary reason a rider gets hung up in an accident is due to the stirrup's tendency to return to a position flat against the horse's sides. When this happens the opening of the stirrup quickly gets smaller as the stirrup turns back and this narrowing of the opening has the strong potential to catch the falling rider's foot whereby the rider's own body weight aids in lodging them in this 'closing door' effect. Incidents of stirrup that are too small and too large are secondary to the turning back consideration. The improper sizing of stirrups that result in causing accidents is not a design flaw. It is a mistake in making the initial purchase of the product or the ignorance of the user in riding with an improperly fit stirrup. The flaw is in the human usage and not the design of the basic stirrup.
My invention which has a name and can fairly be called by its name (MDC Intelligent Stirrups(R) greatly reduces this non ergonomic tendency.
I would like to point out that by your editing of the name of the invention to the term "Intelligent Stirrup", it could be construed that you are using a name that is convered under patent law in that MDC Intelligent Stirrup(R) is a copyrighted name and any like or similar usage of that term would lead another to consider if it were legally referring to the protected name MDC Intelligent Stirrup(R). It is for that reason that I believe referring to the patented protected name of this emanation of a new form of stirrup is justified and in proper usage.
I have answered in a bit more detail on your talk page. In short, you cannot promote your own invention on wikipedia, it does not allow advertising or independent research. Furthermore, you cite absolutely NO outside verification for your assertion that the "primary reason" is what you claim it is. I did remove any reference to your stirrup's name, my earlier edit in that respect was simply a good faith attempt to acknowledge that this design exists, but without promoting any one brand name. There are many reasons people get hung up in stirrups. Also, you need to read the whole paragraph, the second "design flaw" of the stirrup is related to the potential problems it can cause for the rider's foot, not being hung up. Montanabw(talk)23:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Montanabw(talk), what was 'unverifiable' about my change to the opening sentence? All I did was rearrange the opening paragraph so that the definition included the sorts of stirrups that are mentioned later in the article in the 'early development' section. Ashmoo (talk) 10:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking this to talk! :-) Toe loops were an early foot support of sorts, a predecessor to the stirrup, but they were not a stirrup -- even in their own time. So, it's important to not read more into the article than what is there. To be a stirrup inherently implies a flat base and support for the foot. A foot loop or toe loop is dangerous, and a good way for someone to be hung up and dragged if they fall off a horse, hence probably why the device was abandoned in favor of a stirrup with a solid base, which can still be dangerous enough as it is, but at least, more often than not, a falling rider loses a stirrup BEFORE falling off! Montanabw(talk)23:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I can see the 'toe loop' being excluded, but the initial sentence needs to define the topic from the most inclusive case. For example, according to the current definition the [this external image] is not a stirrup. And obviously the 'adjustable strap' part isn't required to meet the definition of a stirrup. The first sentence is actually defining the 'modern stirrup', not stirrups in general. Ashmoo (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that IS a stirrup. So I'll peek at the def and see if we can tweak it some more. And technically, yeah, the stirrup is attached to the saddle by a strap that is usually adjustable, the strap isn't the stirrup itself. Montanabw(talk)23:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being attached to the saddle is part of the definition of a stirrup, my problem was with the 'adjustable' part. A stirrup with a non-adjustable strap would still be considered a stirrup, wouldn't it? Ashmoo (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we have to do something with the claim that the earliest Viking stirrups are dated to the 6th century. The citation for this is from the Stockholm museum. The serious archeologists I cited on the Horses in Warfare page dispute this claim and discuss the whole dating problem in detail. (See. Curta). The Seaby treatise also dates these stirrups later. In particular Eric Christiansen's 2002 book - he himself being a Scandinavian - cites the earliest stirrup graves in Scandinavia to 820-890AD(CE).
Eravian (talk) 14:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I am having with reference #19 i.e. the Stockholm Museum is that I do not know how to classify it in terms of Wikipedia Primary, Secondary and tertiary sources (see Wikipedia: No original research page). When I go to the web page of the Stockholm Museum I cannot find the actual reference. As far as I know, the sources preferred by Wikipedia would be secondary sources attributable to scientists, actual people, working the field. Books and science journal articles which review the "state of the art", contain lots of references, discuss the work of others in the field and in turn their work is peer reviewed in proper scientific journals or by other books of similar nature would be the preferred sources. The Seaby article about Viking stirrups is a good example of a science journal article. Florin Curta works at the University of Florida, he is a well respected historian and archeologist. I do not know much about Eric Christiansen but his book "The Norsemen etc." does contain lots of references of other people's work. I would think it would be necessary to contact the Stockholm museum and find out who the person is who makes this claim about the age of those Viking graves with stirrups and in what peer reviewed or reviewable publication this assertion was published.Eravian (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No real argument from me on that. Probably the stuff in Stockholm is somehow linked to either a peer-reviewed journal article, or at least a press article. Be nice to find a permanent like if one exists. I know a lot of web sites for both universities and museums rearrange their web pages and then we have to go find everything again! (International Museum of the Horse did this, I wanted to scream because we had to fix dozens of articles...same material, different URL! Phooey!) I'm also not the one to have the time, unfortunately. I'm sure the grave goods has a source, somewhere. For now, maybe we can tag it with the "dead link" tag or something until such a time as someone cares enough to go a-hunting. Montanabw(talk)01:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I sent an E-mail to the general info address of the Stockholm Museum about a week ago asking for clarificattion by somebody competent on the issue. So far there has been no response. I have done this kind of thing before on other issues with various universities and they are usually nice enough to put you in contact with the appropriate professor, writer, expert. At any rate I'll look for more info on Viking stirrups on the web. There is no urgency but if nothing contradictory to Christiansen's claim i.e. 820 to 890AD can be found then we might just have to accept that. The peculiar thing is that Christiansen also speaks about graves with stirrups of "high ranking individuals". That part agrees with the claim in the article it is just the dates where serious differences exist. Clearly, they are talking about the same graves but dating them differently. That section of Christiansen's book is not available on Googlebooks, I actually came accross Christiansen's book in a book store, totally by chance. Maybe, I'll try to get a hold of it again, preferably in a library and look at his references to see where he gets his dates from and continue from there. Eravian (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I sent E-mails to the Stockholm Museum and to the University of Stocholm, Archeology Department asking about early Viking stirrup graves. Unfortunately, they did not answer. On the other hand, I was able to locate the relevant pages of Christiansen's book. I believe Christainsen to be an authoritative scientific source in regards to the Vikings and their history.
Here is what Christiansen writes about early Viking horse graves in its entirety (pages 175-176 of "The Norsemen in the Viking Age"):
HORSES:
A horse is a common simile for a ship in Scaldic verse (steed of the sea-leagues etc.) but seldom appears in its own right as a charger until later; some verse on the harrying of Scania by king Magnus in the 1040s includes horses ’hastening from the west’ and the king spurring his, in Funen. But war-horses were no new thing: Swedish chiefs had been mounted like Persian or Roman heavy cavalry even in the seventh century, and had apparently trained lighter armed horsemen and infantry to follow them in probing enemy lines with spears and arrows. (ref. Lund 1993 and 1994) Horses were included in the more elaborate burials of lowland Scandinavia, and at Stavrby near Middelfart they found a grave for two horses laid back to back between five dogs, perhaps a cenotaph for a dead lord. In 804, according to the Frankish Annals, king Godfred of the Danes was on the Schlei with his fleet ’and the whole equitatus of his kingdom’, a phrase which presumably means ’chiefs with horses’rather than ’horse brigade’, or cavalry. Whatever role mounted leaders had played in warfare before that was bound to diminish when sea-raiding increased; none of the earlier types of ship were built to transport horses, and even if they could have, it would have been a pointless additional risk. (ref. ARF, 804; and DLU, 217 for the Stavrby grave; for analysis of the tenth-century horses at Suderbrarup see D. Heinrich in SADO(1998), 249-257. They stood thirteen hands on average. See map 6 for these burials.)
However, from the 920s to the 980s many leading Danes were buried with military honours and equipped with stirrups, harness, bits and spurs, in what are called cavalry-graves. They are found in north Jutland, mainly south-west of Limfjord, and near the Belts and southern islands. Whether these were vassals or opponents of the Jelling kings, their families presented them as knights by status, if not by training, although opportunitiers for profitable horse-borne raiding from Jutland to the south were virtually none. It has been suggested that these herrenklub cavaliers were merely parading equipment which ’in the previous century would have been won by direct participation in battle or intensive Viking activity abroad’; (ref. Pedersen in MASS (1997), 132.) but it is easier to believe that the models were the armies of the Carolingians and Ottonians, which had ridden into Jutland in 815, 936 and 974. From the 840s to the 860s, horsemanship and status were brought together most intesely at the court of king Lewis the German, the arch-enemy of the Northmen, from whose hard-riding regime at their own doorstep they could have learned the supreme importance of equestrian prowess (ref. Goldberg (1999), Keefer (1996)) even before they embarked on raids overseas.
From the 850s onwards, getting horses became the means and one of the main ends of these raids. Etc. Etc.
The problem is that I do not see any mention of stirrups from the earlier graves. Unless somebody comes up with better references I would suggest that the earliest proven Viking stirrups are from between 920 and 980.
I also tagged the Vendel era page where these claims about early Viking stirrups are also made.
I found two more good sources about Vendel age graves. While both of these give detailed lists and descriptions of Vendel grave goods, no stirrups are mentioned in these graves.
Gwyn Jones, A History of the Vikings, page 39; Richard Hall, The World of the Vikings (2007). This latter one is beautifully illustrated and on page 21 it shows an actual depiction of the Rickeby grave in Vallentuna, Uppland, Sweden, which is the same area and same age as Vendel or Valsegarde but a much more recent and more careful and scientific excavation. The picture shows the warrior with Roman style helmet with a horse, dogs and other animals. The horse has only a head harness and nothing else on.
Having carefully reread Seaby's Viking Stirrups from England etc. I found only one sentence as to the earliest Scandinavian stirrups: The first main type...Scandinavian Type I... appears dated to the 8th century in Vendel grave III in Sweden....
Based on these sources (and I do not believe we'll be able to find sources contradicting these) I would suggest that the entire passage starting from "Stirrups reached Sweden....." to "...reflecting the importance of the horse during this time." be deleted. This entire passage has no references and the other claims about horses are not pertinent to stirrups. Another passage after the one about Charles Martel could be added, based on the Seaby treatise about Viking age stirrups in England and elsewhere in Northern Europe. Eravian (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and tweak it if you want, maybe DO add some cite for when we KNOW stirrups showed up in Scandanavia, just to avoid the stuff being reinserted. Just try to do good footnotes for everything and I'll be happy. If the prose is a bit rough, I'll go in and tweak it later. Sounds like you have good, solid research! Nice going! Montanabw(talk)03:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I compiled a European Archeology section from the sources I already cited before. Studied the Vendel grave question further. Another authoritative book Graham-Campbell, Jones: "The Viking World" also discusses these Vendel, Valsgarde graves in detail. They all agree on the beautiful helmets, ring swords, weapons, drinking glasses etc., but there is no mention of stirrups. In England a Vendel age grave mound called Sutton Hoo was excavated, a major find almost identical to the Vendel graves in Sweden. There is an excellent Wiki page on Sutton Hoo, and it is very clear that there were no stirrups there either at least not from the 6th or 7th centuries. So we just have to accept Seaby's word that the earliest stirrups in Scandinavia are from the 8th century, mind you, that is still the Vendel age. The Viking age officially starts in 796 or so with the first attack on an Anglo-Saxon monastery.
Curta's book, more accurately his chapter, is entitled "Early Avar-age stirrups and the Stirrup Controversy revisited". This might be added as a recommended reading about the Stirrup Controversy. He makes some very interesting and cogent points, shock warfare etc.
This observation might pertain to the stirrup controversy as well as to the horse warfare page. Besides Viking raids there were others at that time who were raiding the more developed yet more vulnerable western parts of Europe. The Magyars raided Germany, France, Italy even Spain and Byzantium from 896 to the 970s. They certainly had stirrups, light saddles, smaller mobile horses, were good archers from horse-back and were masters of the feigned retreat. In the South of Europe a new wave of Saracens (Moors, Arabs) were making raids. What would seem logical, and that is definitively the case in Germany that as a defensive measure central power of rulers was consolidated and possibly concurrently, heavier, better trained, more permanent cavalry was developed.
Bavarians, Germans for many years suffered many defeats at the hands of the Magyars but finally under Otto the Great they united and defeated the Magyars at the Battle of Lechfeld. After this battle Otto was crowned the first Holy Roman Emperor, while Magyars retreated to their home in the Carpathian Basin and not long after that accepted Christianity and founded their own Kingdom of Hungary. Unfortunately, there is not much English language literature studying the impact of Viking, Magyar and Saracen raids on the development of feudal Europe. Instead, there is much romantic glorification of Viking lore which from an English perspective is understandable, given the huge impact Vikings (Normans) had on English history.Eravian (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this may even be a little bit too detailed but at least it has all the references and links to Vendel etc.
A couple of remarks reflecting my thinking after all this research: The Avars and Vikings were totally unrelated peoples yet they shared something in common. They were both pagan warriors who followed the pagan custom of burying the warrior with weapons and even horses. That is what the archeologists are finding today. In Western Europe in the Merovingian age populations increasingly were becoming christian and burial customs changed with less emphasis on the grave goods and more and more on a decorative tomb. This may account for the relative scarcity of stirrup finds in those areas. On the other hand neither artistic representation of stirrups nor documentary evidence from that age (500-800AD) seem to suggest the wide adoption of stirrups, so we are left with what archeologists have actually found.
An interesting reference I found in one of these sources: One of the lesser northern French kings in the Merovingian age passed a law which forbade under penalty of death to sell, trade or give in any other way horses, supplies and most importantly chain-mail to Vikings. This document apparently somehow exists, it does not mention stirrups but emphasizes chain-mail.
In terms of warfare tactics and going back to my previous remarks of May 7th, I came across this excellent book by Jean W. Sedlar:
(She is a professor of history at the University of Pittsburgh): East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000-1500. The relevant chapter is "The Art and Practice of War". The cavalry tactics of the Byzantines is discussed, how they were able to defend a very long frontier against various nomadic invaders. From page 204 to 207 Magyar fighting tactics are discussed, and how this prompted the development of heavy cavalry in Germany in the 10th century in the area which became the Holy Roman Empire (This included Germany and Italy). She discusses in detail the use of stirrups by Magyar raiders into western Europe as well as fighting tactics.
It does seem to appear from her discussion that at least in this part of Europe, the area of the Holy Roman Empire, Magyar raids were a catalyst in the development of western style heavy cavalry.Eravian (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just speaking a person who rides and who also grabbed a history degree along the way to other things (rgrin), there is no question that the stirrup was revolutionary in its impact. It is neat what you have been finding out and I'm quite comfortable seeing you add relevant analysis to the article, I hope you don't object to my going in and doing some copyediting behind you. (I'm OK at creating original drafts, I'm better at copyediting...). Montanabw(talk)18:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where EXACTLY do you find stirrups on Indus seals? Have you seen the originals in the British Museum? I have, and I can't make out unicorns or horses among all the bovine anatomy. Archaeologists tell us that such animals are water buffaloes and Gaurs.
My contention would be that the stirrup was "introduced" into Indus culture by Hindu fanatics who want to prove that there were horses in Harappa, which would make it possible to show to all and sundry that the Indus vally culture was an "Arian" civilization and Sanskrit the oldest language of the world.
Reference: Witzel, Michael; Farmer, Steve (2000): Horseplay in Harappa. The Indus Valley Decipherment Hoax. Frontline 2000, October 13, 4–14. http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1720/17200040.htm, last accessed 19/02/2009.
G. Berkemer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.20.154.64 (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stirrups? I don't see stirrups in these seals. These animals look like horned animals, bovids or unicorns. And I would not say that the thing hanging in mid-body is a stirrup, specially since it does not hang from a saddle. It could be a penis though. --Error (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sections covering “History” to the “Great Stirrup Controversy” have a number of issues regarding its content, style, and use of proper attributions, which is unfortunate because this article seems to have some interesting insights into the history of the stirrup.
The history section of this article contains several explicit claims about the importance of the stirrup in the history of warfare, but there are no sources attributed to them, and the section under “The Great Stirrup Controversy” also suffers from the same problem.
Some of the information in these sections also seem incomplete, and should probably be expanded upon. The article briefly mentions the significance of “solid saddle trees” in the development of the stirrup, but does not go into this any further. There is also mention of modern “thermography studies” on horses and saddle type, and without further elaboration, it seems kind of irrelevant. Additionally, the source that is attributed to said studies does not appear to be authoritative.
The sections I’ve mentioned could also be written to higher standards, and overall, there is just a lack of attention to detail within the writing. There are instances where sentences that seem to be missing words, and there are also poorly structured sentences that sound awkward.
I compared this article’s history section to an article about stirrups in The Columbia Encyclopedia, and the two sources are somewhat consistent with each other. One difference I found between the two articles is that the Wikipedia entry states that the earliest evidence of a stirrup like device was found in India around 500 BC, while the encyclopedia entry states that there is some evidence of stirrups having been used in Assyria around 850 BC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HIST406-10cpaik (talk • contribs) 01:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to do some research and add citations, or even do some wordsmithing. This article is one of 3000 in wikiproject equine and we get a little backlogged, so help would be appreciated. I happen to be one of the people who added a lot of the content and did some of the expansion several years ago before wikipedia put as much focus on footnoting as it does now. Since then, we've missed some "drive-by" edits that need work, that's for sure. I have added sourced material, I've tried to footnote the newer stuff. So while your comments are well-taken, we also welcome constructive contributions. As for comparing to other encyclopedias, I can assure you that they are often less than accurate (the Assyrian info is just plain wrong) ...the stirrup material is also reviewed in a shortened form in the better-sources article horses in warfare, where you may find some source material that could be added here as well -- the rest of us at WPEQ just haven't had the time, frankly! Montanabw(talk)04:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The use of paired stirrups is credited to the Chinese Jin Dynasty and came to Europe during the Middle Ages."
"The earliest manifestation of the stirrup was a toe loop that held the big toe and was used in India, possibly as early as 500 BC." 71.212.230.89 (talk) 05:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CITE, please do not remove source material. If there is a problem with a source, tag it with an appropriate tag, indicating if the problem is a dead link, doubt about the veracity of the information itself, or if the problem is just that the source isn't ideal. Some of the work on this article dates back to 2006, when WP's sourcing criteria were not as strong as today. There is a place to improve the sources, but to wholesale and unilaterally throw out sources that at the time inserted had some indicia of reliability is not the way a collaborative process works. It is also important not to simply pile these sources in an external links section where they are separated from the content they referenced. Montanabw(talk)17:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"r. As a tool allowing expanded use of horses in warfare, the stirrup is often called the third revolutionary step in equipment, after the chariot and the saddle. " - If it is "often" called that, it shouldn't be too hard to find a source. Kdammers (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article overall could benefit from additional sourcing, but to pun a bit, we lack enough horses to pull all the wagons at WPEQ. If you'd like to do a bit of digging and help find some good sources, that would be very helpful! Montanabw(talk)17:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The comments on the Carolingean practice, which of course bear on the controversy, are anachronous in the section - it might be you prefer to sub-section them, or juggle the sequence of the paragraph. I also note there's a statue of Charlemagne or Charles the Bald in Metz Cathedral clearly showing the rider not using stirrups.
Another distinctive feature of Nordic practice is the use of long stirrup leathers, which allied with the smaller size of horse suggest the rider's feet may have been very close to the ground - which can help in turning at speed. OR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.51.204 (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 2 external links on Stirrup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
computersmiths.com is apparantly a private website and anything but a reliable source to WP standards. If noting better will be found, this "information" should be removed until reliable sources are available.--Chianti (talk) 10:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:SCHOLARSHIP, dissertations and theses can be used with care, with publication status in a journal and peer review, but Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. The one you added is a Masters paper. Has it been peer reviewed and been cited in other works to prove scholarly influence? If not, then it does not qualify as a reliable source according to policy. @Wikain:Qiushufang (talk) 00:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know(although I did not see the "Masters" part at first), I was looking for further sources to back some part, but I can't access the content. However the claims are non-controversial and Wikipedia already had pictures of some of these artifacts, like the Kushan divinity on the left. Should I add the templates back? They just made the article look clunky, but if it's needed, I'll do it. Wikain (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You could look for more reliable sources that say the same thing. The dissertation would have had to use other sources so you could look at what they cite. Things like the Kushan artifact should not be hard to find if they are not fringe. Qiushufang (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll definitely do that. However I'll wait until I have paywall access, finding good open sources in Google/Scholar is generally exhausting and too slow. Wikain (talk) 01:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikain: Do you have access to The Wikipedia Library? If not, you likely qualify for access because you have over 500 edits and an account over 6 months old. Many of the things you discover with a Google-Scholar search can be located and read through The Wikipedia Library without any other paywall access. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 05:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
