Talk:Stirrup

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.

	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.
B	This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance assessment scale

	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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): Medieval warfare task force (c. 500–c. 1500)

	This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Additional information: B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. Feel free to make short comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. This article is a vital article.

Contents 1 Chinese origin 2 Roman "Prerequisite"? 3 Stirrups in Scandinavian grave goods 4 Spankie-spankie 5 Cleanup 6 Stirrup invented in India.... 7 Primary reason stirrups catch a rider's foot.

[edit] Chinese origin

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

[edit] Roman "Prerequisite"?

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)

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)

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)

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)

Well it looks like you already found some of your sources. I'll wait for the rest of your research. Thx for the clarifications. Meatwaggon (talk) 09:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stirrups in Scandinavian grave goods

Mounted warriors long precede stirrups. I wonder whether a early specific example of a Scandinavian stirrup could be produced. Museum or a book illustration? --Wetman 23:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

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.--Wiglaf 11:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

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? --Wetman 16:56, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

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.--Wiglaf 18:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

[edit] Spankie-spankie

"...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... --Wetman 10:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, that one sneaked through! - DavidWBrooks 17:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

"They are frequently employed in cartoons as an instrument for inflicting cranial injury." Upon the stair 23:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

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. Montanabw 06:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stirrup invented in India....

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..

Thanks

That was a toe loop, it's mentioned in the article, somewhere, already. Montanabw 22:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Primary reason stirrups catch a rider's foot.

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 look forward to you comments.

Mdcohen 07:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

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)