Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Jackson who wrote (119643)	7/7/2000 12:20:10 PM
From: EricRR	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579092

When were stirrups invented? scholar.chem.nyu.edu .... Stirrups, the resting places for the feet while mounted on a horse, were unknown in both antiquity and Roman times. [DeVries 1992 p 100] They seem to have been invented in China sometime before 477 AD. [White 1962 p 15] By the early Middle Ages they were well-known in China, Korea, India, and Japan. By the 7th or early 8th century they became known in Persia. Knowledge of stirrups then rapidly spread to other Arab lands and to Byzantium and quickly thereafter to France. [DeVries 1992 p 100] Stirrups provide a number of advantages to the horseback rider. They provide an easy way to mount a horse as contrasted to the earlier methods, either using a wooden stool or leaping directly on to the horse's back. [Gies & Gies 1995 p 55ff] Further, they provide lateral stability while mounted, and, in a particular advantage to mounted warriors, make it much easier to strike to the left or right with a sword while mounted without losing one's seat. The introduction of stirrups into western Europe roughly coincided with the rise of the Frankish mounted cavalry. As a result, several historians proposed that the rise of "feudalism" was caused by the introduction of stirrups. This, in turn, lead to the great stirrup controversy. Suffice it to say here that this proposal is now, after much examination of the evidence, considered to be wrong. [DeVries 1992 p 95ff]