|
Rabhadh posted:This isn't true. The "horn" type saddle (I cant actually recall the proper name of it) used through out the world before the advent of stirrups was just as good for keeping the man on his horse during the charge. What stirrups did was give the man enough stability to fight effectivly from his saddle. Before your best bet was to charge in, try to poke a few dudes, break through his formation and not stick around. This is the reason for the development of huge 2 handed lances such as the kontos (translation is roughly barge pole).
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2011 18:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 20:57 |
|
|
canuckanese posted:I'm not 100% sure but I'm pretty sure by 1066 most people in Europe knew about the stirrup. I think the English defeat was mostly due to the fact that the English didn't have any cavalry at all, plus the fact that they had just fought a battle three weeks earlier against the Vikings and had to march south pretty rapidly to face the Normans. The English were actually holding their own at first but when the Normans started to fall back they broke ranks from the shield-wall and tried to chase them down, allowing the Norman cavalry to counterattack and slaughter the disorganized English infantry with relative ease. Rabhadh posted:Stirrups by that point in time had been well spread and the Anglo-Saxons had them too. However, the main battlefield tactic of the Anglo-Saxons was the shieldwall, and Hastings was pretty much the perfect battlefield for a shieldwall. They were sitting on top of a ridge and had only to hold the field until the Normans either starved, disease spread through their camp or the political situation in Normandy changed enough to warrant William having to go back. Thanks! I had always thought Hastings was won primarily because Harold's army was exhausted and couldn't keep their act together, I thought the stirrup thing was BS when I heard it. Just wanted to check.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2011 22:56
|
|