try riding a horse without stirrups or a saddle. If you can do that, now grab a pole and try to push a friend around with it. Try to put your weight into ANY task without a point of leverage anchoring you to the horse (or harness attached to the horse, in this case.)
WTF horsemen did before it was invented? How were they even riding a horse?
>What did it do exactly?
Created a domino effect of depravity that led us to skitzo-tier info warfare on a Mongolian basket weaving image board dedicated to weapons.
Are you moronic, you think stirrups stopped the impact of a Lance from throwing a rider. Charging cav existed for a thousand plus years before the stirrup. Stirrups allowed better control and allowed you o stand in the saddle helping horse archers. But let's not forget the parthian shot existed long before stirrups as well. They are a majorly overrated invention. Cavalry had been dominant on and off for periods before the stirrup.
>X existed in the hands of small number of top tier professionals >therefore Y which vastly improves X and enables more regular joes to learn X is "overrated"
Black person IQ
Pre-medieval cavalry was rarely shock cavalry,, and usually acted as skirmishers. The first real shock cavalry were cataphracts who generally used lances two handed as spears, rather than couched lances to deliver the weight of the horse to a target.
Not to mention ancient horses weren't large enough to be shock cavalry horses until larger breeds were selectively bred.
>What did it do exactly?
Created a domino effect of depravity that led us to skitzo-tier info warfare on a Mongolian basket weaving image board dedicated to weapons.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: all this graph shows is which countries are full of idiots that would try to search for MLP porn on pornhub of all places, instead of using the much better dedicated sites.
>all this graph shows is which countries are full of idiots that would try to search for MLP porn on pornhub of all places
But you're assuming the consequence here. What's to say the concentration of searches on sites other than pornhub in Slavic nations isn't stronger? Not enough data exists to support your statement.
Allowed riders to spend less time and effort staying on the horse and more time and effort killing people from atop said horse, thus improving manifold the efficiency and effectiveness of cavalry
Lean into sabre strokes, carry more armour and kit, pick up riding faster, have more riders in the population than just "people good with horses", ride longer on horseback, etc etc
I've read that riders had to hold lances in two hands before the invention of stirrups. That's counter intuitive. Aren't stirrups freeing the hands as you can hold on to horse with your legs and not the other way around?
Have you ever ridden a horse?
If you ever had, your question would be answered. Everything is more difficult without stirrups. Getting on, staying on, shifting your body position, not getting tired, leaning into your attacks or dodging other attacks, jumping the horse.
You know how in the context of a rifle you talk about "points of contact"? similar story.
>saddle
one point of contact, you can really only throw things or run people over. >saddle that ties under the horse
Now you can actually hold yourself down by grabbing the saddle, and this effectively lets you use a lance without just flying off the back of the horse.
Being able to use reigns with the same hand is a big part of this. >stirups
this allows you to shift your weight backwards and forwards on the horse
You can now fire arrows backwards, you can swing a heavy weapon like a cavalry sabre, you can use a lance which is far longer than an infantry spear.
As a person who rode horses quite a bit, it always boggles my mind it took such a long fricking time to come up with the stirrup. Imagine buttholes just plopped on the horse holding on with they knees and fighting like that, lmao. And all through the classical period thats just what they did and why cavalry didn't really have the impact it later did.
Why the frick didn't someone figure it out earlier? The technology was there practically ever since someone first sat on a horse.
>Why the frick didn't someone figure it out earlier? The technology was there
The assault rifle could have been made in time for WW1 if someone had gotten the idea too. Just because it is possible does not mean it'll happen.
We had access to all of the components of smokeless powder at a commercial scale in the 1700s, around the same time metalworking lathes first starting being produced commercially, we could've made assault rifles in time for the Civil War.
"when the solution is found, it is often simple"
I see it happen all the time even today, anon. "Obvious" solutions are never as obvious as they appear to be in hindsight.
Also, we 20th century Western Bloc humans are accustomed to the rapid increase in information technology and relative peace we've enjoyed in this period, and it is unthinkable to us that centuries can pass with comparably glacial pace of technological development. But it really *was* that way back then.
Perhaps someone did come up with the stirrup before the earliest example we know of, perhaps many people all over the world did in fact invent the stirrup-equivalent. However the invention just did not survive the wars or famine or natural disasters of the period.
Before the stirrup was discovered I wonder how many nameless badass ancient warriors accidentally fell off their horses and crippled themselves or even died.
I have researched Persian warfare for a while, from around 500 BC to 1000 AD, and the stirrup significantly reduced the amount of training required to use Heavy weapons like lances and maces without having to cling to the horse for dear life with their knees. Thanks to the stirrup, less training was required to effectively use weapons, which in theory meant more fieldable cavalry.
>What did it do exactly?
Try to draw a 60-pounfd bow with no stirrups. You'll figure it out.
Basically it lets you stand slightly, flex your knees, and use them as shock absorbers for a steadier shot at the canter; you can also use your back and legs properly to draw the bow instead of tearing your shoulders to frick on a half-poundage weapon.
The lances thing came later. Before stirrups, spear-armed cavalry sucked and was mostly guys with javelins and a backup sword. Without the stirrup there's not much hitting power difference between an archer and a jackass with a javelin. After? the archer pulls way ahead.
>Crossbow
A Stone Age technology that existed before anything that even the most Sino-fellatory source would call "China", while the first examples found are from a bog in Europe. Possible crossbow nuts go as far back as the Mesolithic.
>Trebuchet
Chinese didn't use the critical improvement, a counterweight and trip lever (as opposed to just having a hundred guys yanking on a rope) for centuries.
>thumbring
Not used in the Proto-Indo-European cultures because we had a different draw style and primarily used self-bows. Current evidence suggests it propagated out of Central Asia, and only showed up in China when they copied it.
>Stone Age technology
The Chinese were the ones to take the crossbow and make it semi-auto
>Chinese
probably one of the least interesting siege engine invented by the Chinese. take this switchblade siege ladder, for example. folds down for convenient under-castle storage when not is use
>only showed up in China when they copied it
thank you for pointing out the superiority of Chinese culture was so compelling that they assimilated the Mongols, who conquered the rest of the world, so completely that most people wouldn't even think the Mongols were part of the Yuan Dynasty until you told them
>following hundreds of pony artists >Ukraine war happens >half of them say they cant post because they need to evacuate or won't be able to post due to the occupation >the other half say they cant take commissions from americans because payment processors are down
poor animals, i would not want to let me carry around on the back of an animal. They are meant to be free.
Walk with your own feet and accept the limitations of your human body.
Allows riders to brace themselves to put greater force behind their attacks, specifically with lances but also in melee. The lance rest further revolutionised the amount of kinetic energy a lance could deliver to disgusting levels.
Better stability for the rider and the ability to put more leverage into a blow. Imagine the difference between hitting something while sitting in a chair vs standing up. It wasn't absolutely necessary for shock cavalry - high cantle saddles allowed that and came first, but the combination of saddle and stirrup made it more effective
It allowed you to put your foot in the thingy
now you don't fall off when doing 360° no scope bow and lance shots
gave the rider leverage and gave them a greater range of motion
try riding a horse without stirrups or a saddle. If you can do that, now grab a pole and try to push a friend around with it. Try to put your weight into ANY task without a point of leverage anchoring you to the horse (or harness attached to the horse, in this case.)
WTF horsemen did before it was invented? How were they even riding a horse?
Cлyжy coвeтcкoмy coюзy!
>How were they even riding a horse?
by clamping onto the horse with their legs. riders had arched leg bones as a result.
They didn't fight on horseback.
They used chariots.
they rode to the battle field and hopped off.
They relied on their saddles having to stay on the horse. Stirrups are cool but they have been overblow by pseuds, and this thread is full of pseuds
>Never ridden a horse.
Are you moronic, you think stirrups stopped the impact of a Lance from throwing a rider. Charging cav existed for a thousand plus years before the stirrup. Stirrups allowed better control and allowed you o stand in the saddle helping horse archers. But let's not forget the parthian shot existed long before stirrups as well. They are a majorly overrated invention. Cavalry had been dominant on and off for periods before the stirrup.
midwit
>X existed in the hands of small number of top tier professionals
>therefore Y which vastly improves X and enables more regular joes to learn X is "overrated"
Black person IQ
Go back to physics 101
Pre-medieval cavalry was rarely shock cavalry,, and usually acted as skirmishers. The first real shock cavalry were cataphracts who generally used lances two handed as spears, rather than couched lances to deliver the weight of the horse to a target.
Not to mention ancient horses weren't large enough to be shock cavalry horses until larger breeds were selectively bred.
>What did it do exactly?
Created a domino effect of depravity that led us to skitzo-tier info warfare on a Mongolian basket weaving image board dedicated to weapons.
Anon... Is that graph real?
how are we double Canada wtf man
Because our thing is dogs, horsefricker.
Leafs would rather eat the horse than eat them out.
HOLY FRICK! It is real.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Frick I am glad the US is third lowest the fact Canada crushes us though is shameful.
The canadian bronies use vpns to bump our numbers up
>There's Tanzanian bronies
Just fricking nuke the planet already.
I would think Colombia would rank higher what with all the donkey fricking.
Look up My Little Donkey numbers
thread status: derailed
Slavic horse status: railed
Witnessed, and beastialitypilled
Czeched!
Ria ria hungária! Thak that upper hungary!
i didn't know barney had russian and canadian descent.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: all this graph shows is which countries are full of idiots that would try to search for MLP porn on pornhub of all places, instead of using the much better dedicated sites.
Say it all you want, but post metrics to back your claim if you want someone to believe it.
>all this graph shows is which countries are full of idiots that would try to search for MLP porn on pornhub of all places
But you're assuming the consequence here. What's to say the concentration of searches on sites other than pornhub in Slavic nations isn't stronger? Not enough data exists to support your statement.
That's fricking funny
>tfw the only scandi country not on the list
>Canada is pure
discarded immediately as obvious fiction
Im going to religiously spam this in reply to every vatnik poster i see. Thank you for this wonderous gift anon.
I thought Columbia would be higher with their penchant for fricking literal ass
>Putin started the war to capture all ukrainian pony artists
It revolutionized your moms sex dungeon
Allowed riders to spend less time and effort staying on the horse and more time and effort killing people from atop said horse, thus improving manifold the efficiency and effectiveness of cavalry
this, but also it allows the rider to lean into attacks.
Lean into sabre strokes, carry more armour and kit, pick up riding faster, have more riders in the population than just "people good with horses", ride longer on horseback, etc etc
It just adds up
I've read that riders had to hold lances in two hands before the invention of stirrups. That's counter intuitive. Aren't stirrups freeing the hands as you can hold on to horse with your legs and not the other way around?
Think about staying balanced without being able to use your feet.
Have you ever ridden a horse?
If you ever had, your question would be answered. Everything is more difficult without stirrups. Getting on, staying on, shifting your body position, not getting tired, leaning into your attacks or dodging other attacks, jumping the horse.
Fricking the horse...?
quintessentially /k/
You know how in the context of a rifle you talk about "points of contact"? similar story.
>saddle
one point of contact, you can really only throw things or run people over.
>saddle that ties under the horse
Now you can actually hold yourself down by grabbing the saddle, and this effectively lets you use a lance without just flying off the back of the horse.
Being able to use reigns with the same hand is a big part of this.
>stirups
this allows you to shift your weight backwards and forwards on the horse
You can now fire arrows backwards, you can swing a heavy weapon like a cavalry sabre, you can use a lance which is far longer than an infantry spear.
i thought mongolian invasions were without stirrups. How did they do it?
Minmaxed training and doctrine research, and got all the cavalry perks
As a person who rode horses quite a bit, it always boggles my mind it took such a long fricking time to come up with the stirrup. Imagine buttholes just plopped on the horse holding on with they knees and fighting like that, lmao. And all through the classical period thats just what they did and why cavalry didn't really have the impact it later did.
Why the frick didn't someone figure it out earlier? The technology was there practically ever since someone first sat on a horse.
>Why the frick didn't someone figure it out earlier? The technology was there
The assault rifle could have been made in time for WW1 if someone had gotten the idea too. Just because it is possible does not mean it'll happen.
We had access to all of the components of smokeless powder at a commercial scale in the 1700s, around the same time metalworking lathes first starting being produced commercially, we could've made assault rifles in time for the Civil War.
>we could've made assault rifles in time for the Civil War.
Reminds me of this video i got linked on a re-enactment forum https://youtu.be/8WY7y1tSjQc
"when the solution is found, it is often simple"
I see it happen all the time even today, anon. "Obvious" solutions are never as obvious as they appear to be in hindsight.
Also, we 20th century Western Bloc humans are accustomed to the rapid increase in information technology and relative peace we've enjoyed in this period, and it is unthinkable to us that centuries can pass with comparably glacial pace of technological development. But it really *was* that way back then.
Perhaps someone did come up with the stirrup before the earliest example we know of, perhaps many people all over the world did in fact invent the stirrup-equivalent. However the invention just did not survive the wars or famine or natural disasters of the period.
not sure on warfare proper but it did allow for a more comfortable position for long sprints
Made it easier to rapidly mount and dismount, made it easier to stand in the saddle and made it easier to lean to one side without falling.
Before the stirrup was discovered I wonder how many nameless badass ancient warriors accidentally fell off their horses and crippled themselves or even died.
Go ride a horse, you'll know practically instantly.
I have researched Persian warfare for a while, from around 500 BC to 1000 AD, and the stirrup significantly reduced the amount of training required to use Heavy weapons like lances and maces without having to cling to the horse for dear life with their knees. Thanks to the stirrup, less training was required to effectively use weapons, which in theory meant more fieldable cavalry.
Calvary went from stabbing with spears with around 60psi pentrative force to charging with couched lances delivering 3,000psi.
Charge with lances.
It let you hold on with your feet AND knees rather than knees alone. This kept the rider in the saddle letting them hit harder without falling off.
>What did it do exactly?
Try to draw a 60-pounfd bow with no stirrups. You'll figure it out.
Basically it lets you stand slightly, flex your knees, and use them as shock absorbers for a steadier shot at the canter; you can also use your back and legs properly to draw the bow instead of tearing your shoulders to frick on a half-poundage weapon.
The lances thing came later. Before stirrups, spear-armed cavalry sucked and was mostly guys with javelins and a backup sword. Without the stirrup there's not much hitting power difference between an archer and a jackass with a javelin. After? the archer pulls way ahead.
>crossbow
>trebuchet
>thumb ring
>stirrups
>rocket artillery
>handcannon
>landmines
Have you thanked China today?
>Crossbow
A Stone Age technology that existed before anything that even the most Sino-fellatory source would call "China", while the first examples found are from a bog in Europe. Possible crossbow nuts go as far back as the Mesolithic.
>Trebuchet
Chinese didn't use the critical improvement, a counterweight and trip lever (as opposed to just having a hundred guys yanking on a rope) for centuries.
>thumbring
Not used in the Proto-Indo-European cultures because we had a different draw style and primarily used self-bows. Current evidence suggests it propagated out of Central Asia, and only showed up in China when they copied it.
>Stone Age technology
The Chinese were the ones to take the crossbow and make it semi-auto
>Chinese
probably one of the least interesting siege engine invented by the Chinese. take this switchblade siege ladder, for example. folds down for convenient under-castle storage when not is use
>only showed up in China when they copied it
thank you for pointing out the superiority of Chinese culture was so compelling that they assimilated the Mongols, who conquered the rest of the world, so completely that most people wouldn't even think the Mongols were part of the Yuan Dynasty until you told them
>they assimilated the Mongols
Hahahahahahahahahaha
The Han have been everyone's b***h for centuries. Don't make us come get you all addicted again.
>yet didn't innovate using any of these weapons, and the Europeans innovated warfare for the rest of the world.
rly jan jan?
Made it easier for people to stay on the horse while doing other shit.
Wtf
read first sentence again
>following hundreds of pony artists
>Ukraine war happens
>half of them say they cant post because they need to evacuate or won't be able to post due to the occupation
>the other half say they cant take commissions from americans because payment processors are down
poor animals, i would not want to let me carry around on the back of an animal. They are meant to be free.
Walk with your own feet and accept the limitations of your human body.
Allows riders to brace themselves to put greater force behind their attacks, specifically with lances but also in melee. The lance rest further revolutionised the amount of kinetic energy a lance could deliver to disgusting levels.
Better stability for the rider and the ability to put more leverage into a blow. Imagine the difference between hitting something while sitting in a chair vs standing up. It wasn't absolutely necessary for shock cavalry - high cantle saddles allowed that and came first, but the combination of saddle and stirrup made it more effective