Talk:Great Stirrup Controversy

Comment
Since Tolstov and Rubin (Zeitschrift fuer alte Geschichte 1955) claim fully armoured cavalry appeared in Central Asia at least as early as the 5th century BCE, it would perhaps be better to change the last sentence of this article by omitting the 3rd century BCE. Instead, before the beginning of the Common Era, in the Achaemneid Period, or something like that.Koechlyruestow (talk) 12:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A 1955 study in German is not very convincing. Provide the source material.  Also "fully armoured" has nothing to do with stirrups.   Montanabw (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge with The great stirrup controversy
Different article about the same subject Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You gotta be kidding me. Done.   Montanabw (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Referencing
The referencing in this article is quite messy and inconsistent - I will try to clean it up. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Full citation for Morillo article
|pages=202Note that I tried to integrate him into this multivolume work, and he produced a chapter. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 13:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Laws of Physics
Slapped a dubious tag to alert everyone working on this article that the notion that a high-cantled saddle and/or development of spurs had anything to do with the effectiveness of lance blows is a violation of the known laws of physics! ;-) . Whether or not the stirrup was the catalyst for all the cultural changes White claims is, of course, debatable, but the ability to use weapons differently was a clear change attributable to the support that stiirrups provide.  Keep in mind that the development of the treed saddle was a Roman invention about 200 CE, and if merely making the cantle higher somehow improved a rider's ability to use impact weapons, they would have figured that out in short order.  All a high cantle alone will do for a rider is keep them in the saddle a wee bit longer until they are either propelled high enough from the seat to slide off the back or, if totally wedged into something where they can't slide off backward, then they will have their back broken! Sourcing this might be a bear, though  might know where to look.   Montanabw (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem with the "dubious" note is that it is ambiguous. You suggest that the truth of the statement is in error, because it is contrary to the laws of physics. But we have no WP:RS (that I am aware of) that is cited to support your assertion.
 * "Dubious" could also question whether the writers made the statement. I assume, however, that is not your intention.
 * FWIW, I rather doubt that nay of these historians had ever raised a lance or jousted themselves. They may not even have actually ridden a horse. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 19:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would agree that a lot of historians may never even have ridden a horse, let alone used medieval weapons, FWIW. I am not taking any position on White, per se, I am only speaking from the viewpoint of being a horse rider myself and one who has taught people to ride. The treed saddle was necessary before stirrups that had significant weight-bearing use could be effective; stirrups without a treed saddle will create pressure points that injure the horse's back if they carry a lot of weight (as recent studies of "treeless" saddles, racing saddles and bareback pads with stirrups have demonstrated).  A treed saddle without stirrups is an improvement over a pad, providing more support to the rider, but if the rider cannot get off the horse's back (by rising in the stirrups), their mobility has limits. Basically, there have not really been any fundamental improvements in core saddle design since the solid saddle tree  and the stirrup came together.  I'll leave it to MilHist to look at the correlations of dates with weapons technology. ;-)   Montanabw (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Editors here will have to do some digging for proper scholarly RS-quality sourcing, but the only footnote there now is one to White at the end of the paragraph, and that being "f, 2, 7" none of which supports the earlier sentence about reenactment. see here .  My guess is that the comment about reenactment came from here (though not footnoted) and though interesting, that author does not fully understand the use of a stirrup, based on his explanation of how they are used (if he uses stirrups the way he claims they are used, then he's not riding properly).  Bottom line is that the combination of a solid tree saddle and the stirrup were BOTH needed for certain methods of riding, and some weapon use or development probably stemmed from this, and while I think White oversimplified, I'm not going to get all up in arms (pun intended) about it, I'll let those of you with the MIlHist background wrestle with the weaponry stuff. That said, from a horsemanship standpoint, this source does not meet our RS criteria, but he does cite some sources that look useful (his oversimplification is annoying, though) and  he accurately states, "...they integrated mounted warriors, stirrups, saddles with high pommels and cantles, and lances into a new fighting system..."  If you are source-hunting, I liked this critique better than some of the others; the author acknowledges the significance of the stirrup, but debunks other myths, and this discussion is also useful, at least in sources cited, though I totally cringed when he stated 'it was the cantle and pommel of the saddle in which the knight was strapped..." Um, no, only an idiot  "straps" themselves onto a horse (!). Also found this, FWIW.   Montanabw (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Could I suggest that one of the obvious things to do with this article is to get it into the correct order? Re-enactor criticisms of White's theory come before the statement of the theory.  Happy to do that re-ordering, but want to be sure I don't cut across what someone else has planned. The final section fits awkwardly with the rest and could do with better integration.  I would recommend DeVries & Smith Medieval Military Technology Chapter 3 "The Stirrup, Mounted Shock Combat, Chivalry and Feudalism" as a discussion of the theory and critiques.  He even explains who Brunner was, who turns up unreferenced in the final section. Monstrelet (talk) 09:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no objections to a bold mopup and copyedit, go for it!  Montanabw (talk)  18:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Ditto. I agree. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 20:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, done. I've left nearly all the text (some has gone because it repeats the lead) but placed it in a new order.  Critiques now all appear in the same place and sections can be added (e.g. Bachrach's article from 1970's, which is a major counter argument not yet mentioned).  Not perfect - please fiddle with - but I think a structure like this follows a logical progression and has greater development potential.Monstrelet (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nicely done, except, the lead is supposed to briefly summarize the entire article, thus there should be repetition f the main points. See MOS:LEAD. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * True enough, but what you had here was the lead summarising the thesis, then a "Background section" which contain virtually the same and some other stuff which should have been elsewhere in the article. It is not the lead which was at fault (it's quite a good summary whoever wrote it)but an unnecessary article section. Glad you liked it generally. Please feel free to extend the counter-arguments section - I'll put the Bachrach para in if no one does it first but it won't be immediately.  Regarding resolving the issue of the re-enactor objections which led to this section, I'm afraid I don't have any references that can help there. You may find something in the writings of Mike Loades, who does have a penchant for staging experiments on weaponry.Monstrelet (talk) 06:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My recommendation here is to ignore the lead for now and just work on the body text, as a veteran of several GANs and FACs, I can tell you that the lead is the LAST thing to work on in an article improvement drive because it will inevitably change as material in the body changes. Other than removing blatent inaccuracies, it is not something to argue about at this point.  Just leave it as is and make sure that everything mentioned there IS in the body text with a source.   Montanabw (talk)  18:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What is clearly lacking in this article is any mention of the theory ever having been positively recieved/supported by anyone. If White was absolutely alone on one side of the debate it would surely not have become elevated to the status of a "Great Controversy", so who were/are White's supporters? Where are the academic brawls about this issue? A controversy isn't a Controversy without at least one good intellectual fist-fight. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears to be accepted in many circles from much of my reading, the article is just top-heavy on the critical side.  Montanabw (talk)  18:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Part of the issue is that, although White's theory is still mentioned, the current academic consensus seems to be that he was wrong. So, although the theory must have gained considerable support originally, it is now mentioned in a critical context or in a critique of "technological determinism"Monstrelet (talk) 10:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

article title
It seems the only sources for the article title is a website, and "Stirrup controversy" is a violation of our rules agains using controversy in a title. It needs a descriptive title, such as 'stirrups in medieval warfare"  DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * No, this article is about the controversy, well-known in academic circles, over White's thesis that, basically, the stirrup created feudalism. This article is only about that academic deabate, it isn't about stirrups in medieval warfare, per se, which are somewhat covered at stirrup, Horses in warfare, and Horses in the Middle Ages Montanabw (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There are lots of sources, and there are more in the external links. this seems to be a good solid academic debate, but outside of those circles I would think it not a hot topic of contention.  I think it is best described in the present title.  7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 20:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A wider question might be whether "Great Stirrup Controversy" is actually a known name for this debate. The use of capitals does suggest a phrase is being quoted, yet no reference to that phrase is given. Ideally, reference to this being the common name should be provided.  Alternatively, "White's stirrup thesis" would focus the debate on this thesis (despite being 50 years old, the thesis is still regularly covered in histories of Medieval warfare, even if only to dismiss it, so notability isn't an issue).Monstrelet (talk) 09:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Through usage the phrase "Great Stirrup Controversy" (GSC) has effectively become an actual name for this issue. If one says "great stirrup controversy" to any competent historian specializing in the Medieval era they will immediately recognize that one is referring to White's thesis and the subsequent debates around it. It is just as "legitimate a title for this topic as "Watergate" has become the title of the events around and following the burglary at Democratic National Committee headquarters in 1972 that resulted in Nixon's resignation. Thus "Watergate" is more than just about the burglary itself. Similarly "GSC" refers not only to White's thesis as such but also the subsequent debate.
 * A few quotes:
 * "Finally, it seems the evolution of the feudal system and the seizure of land was far more complex and gradual than White's theory implies. The Great Stirrup Controversy as it became known has now been laid to rest by most scholars." (my emphasis)
 * "An aristocratic class emerged that received land for its service in the cavalry. Others, on the opposite side of what is known as the Great Stirrup Controversy, argue that this interpretation of events is baseless." (my emphasis) (this source is behind a paywall)


 * Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Roger that there you have nailed, with quotes, the fact that this is a title used in academic debate ergo it is a legitimate title. I suggest you use these citations in-line in the article to demonstrate common usage. Monstrelet (talk) 12:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would do so if I was a historian but I'm just a Wikignome with reasonable Google-fu. (Tip to improve Google-fu: Avoid plain vanilla Google searches, use Google Scholar to look for hardcore RSes.) I'm also rather busy preparing for university exams, my time on WP will be rather limited until early in June. Anyone else is of course more than welcome to use the sources I found - not only for the article title of course - the SciAm article is a fairly decent review of the topic. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, done it. Needs a page number for the Farndon, ideally. I'll see if I can get it through preview. Monstrelet (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Sawyer and Hayes' critique
"Sawyer and Hayes' critique

In an April 1963 review of White's book, the scholar Peter Hayes Sawyer, of the University of Birmingham, and R.H. Hilton, were quick to point out...."

Shouldn't the title then read "Sawyer and Hilton's critique"? Heavenlyblue (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Has to be. I'm just going to go ahead and change it.    Heavenlyblue (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)