The Stirrup and its effects on Chinese miltiary history

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
This is a very good read for those who like to study more on the subject of ancient Chinese militaries.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Here is a sample.

"If the stirrup were an item of the ordinary utilitarian sort, one would not be surprised at the paucity of the written material concerning it. But the stirrup has been claimed to be of enormous consequence in the history of warfare and, indeed, in social and institutional history. Lynn White, in his very provocative treatment of the stirrup, says its introduction marked the third significant phase in the use of the horse in battle, the first two phases being the chariot and the mounted rider. The stirrup was important because it provided the rider with a secure seat and enabled the horseman to become a better archer and swordsman; more importantly, it made possible the effective use of the lance in the charge. No longer was the rider in danger of being lifted from his horse on impact. The stirrup, therefore, "made possible mounted shock combat, a revolutionary way of doing battle."
 

Norfolk

Junior Member
VIP Professional
Until reading this article, I had been under the impression that the Avars were likely to have perfected the stirrup and its use, and that the Chinese had adopted it from the steppe nomads. Very interesting that the stirrup was already in full form and usage by the early 4th century A.D. at the latest in China itself.

It is also very interesting that the organization of Chinese civilization (and especially its centralized administration and bureaucracy) mitigated the effects that the stirrup had in the West militarily, socially, and well, helped to avoid the full-fledged Feudal system that formed in the West after the collapse of the western portion of the Roman Empire. Of course, in the West, the stirrup led to the political and social (and military) dominance of those few who could afford the expense of horse and armour, with all the military, political, and social consequences that followed through Feudal to early Modern times.
 

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
The difference in China vs. the West was that the Chinese central imperial bureaucracy controlled the blast furnaces (something that did not happen in the West until the Industrial Age). These blast furnaces along with other water powered machines---and not too long ago, History Channel ran a documentary that showed various ancient Chinese machines used for mass production---are used to produce not just metal stirrups, but swords, shields, spear heads, arrow heads, armor scales, and even the trigger mechanisms for crossbows.

The sheer monopoly of the imperial bureaucracy over the means of war production means that a feudal system cannot arise, although when China tends to be in a weaker, more chaotic state, you have warlords. But warlords are far more powerful than mere feudal lords because a warlord still controls vast tracts of territory as well as production. By controlling this ancient version of a military-industrial complex, the imperial bureaucracy maintains the top control of the empire. Similar systems are not possible even in nearby countries like Japan, which broke up into centuries of feudalism.

The imperial bureaucracy also controls the breeding and production of the large horses that were originally imported from Parthia. This, and the development of a heavy "shock" cavalry with armor, lances and daos (single edged swords) enabled the Han Dynasty to better the Huns, which rode mostly on small ponies carrying arrows.

Also the mass production-proliferation of the crossbow in China early, also negated the formation of any feudal Knight/Samurai structure, since any peasant can easily be trained to use a crossbow and kill them. As you can see with European history, the development of the crossbow has a very negative effect on the knights and the feudal system,which led to the Pope, under pressure from the feudal lords, to ban the use of the weapon by threatening excommunication.

The ancient Chinese cavalry formations are mostly manned by former Xiongnu and Xianbei (as in proto-Turkic/Mongolic/Tungusic peoples) under the employ of the imperal administration. However, it is easier to maintain cavalry armies in the north due to the grasslands, while southern Chinese armies to rely more on infantry.

The Three Kingdoms war show this discrepancy. The northern kingdom, the Wei (under Cao Cao and his sons) had a dominating control of the cavalry thanks to the factors mentioned above. The western Shu kingdom had some riders, coming from the West (proto-Turkic/Tibetan), but the eastern Wu kingdom are mainly infantry. However, whatever infantry the Wu had were pretty good, since here, the Wu had formally implemented the concept of "marines"---infantry soldiers that are trained to live in ships and fight on them, and are immune to being sea sick. These marines also practice amphibious assaults. The factor behind this is that the Wu kingdom is separated from the north by the Yangtze river, a fact that is underlined in the decisive battle of Chibi.

Much later, the Jin Dynasty (Jurchen/Xianbei heritage, proto-Manchu) had control of the north, and relied a heavy armored cavalry army that they pride for their invincibility. The Song Dynasty took measure of this by using special commandos trained to use huge swords called Zhammadao (Japanese: Zanbato) and Pudao that are literally used to chop down the horses and the riders---with very good effect.
 
Top