The military aspect brought out by Lynn White in his book “ Medieval Technology and Social Change ” is that, a direct causal relationship exists between the adoption of the stirrup for cavalry and ‘feudalism’ introduction and development in Carolingian France. The invention and introduction of the Stirrup was important because it improved the effectiveness of cavalry. The stirrup gave the horsemen stability, better control, and a much firmer base to help the individual push against, especially when swinging a sword. This increased the power of the rider behind the weapon. White proceeds to say that historically, the stirrup had catalytic influence as the requirements of new warfare mode endowed warriors with land to fight in a new and highly specialized way (Sloan, n. d.). Therefore, the cavalrymen in combat were given decisive advantage by using stirrup because they adopted it; and through it a social-political system was developed that provided armor for the cavalryman. In essence, by having a social-political system the leader in his retinue maintained only few ‘strong men.’ Naturally, the Carolingians were arming the ‘thugs’ with the most powerful weapons that were suitable for individual combat when engaging with masses.
The stirrup was important because it launched sweeping changes in both society and warfare and thus, managed to shift Europe’s balance of power. Maintaining a horse was expensive, and cavalry training was a tedious and long process. As such, in support of this, nobility was able to grant land to mounted warriors for their service. Land provided income to support the knight and the system of land holding was a key part when it came to feudalism. However, the knighthood was only ascribed to the limited men coming from ‘noble births’ and this is a sign of weak areas present in the military institution. The mounted warriors white talks were individual horsemen who were also part of an integrated fighting system. Indeed, the stirrup enabled new forms of warfare (Sloan, n. d.).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The success in warfare forms managed to change who rules and the policies to handle those who perished. Stirrup affected the food on the table, languages spoken, system of government in use and genetic makeup. Such changes were factors that contributed to the victory and fall of horsemen engaging in battle. The challenges they faced in accepting the changes were weighing down on their well-being. Furthermore, the fall of so many empires was due to the fact that supreme individualists insisted on fighting war as independent heroes. This is natural for this breed of warriors because they are able to shift to weapons; systems that provide them with powerful means of individual combat. Such means is known to enhance their superiority as individuals over their masses of civilians (Sloan, n. d.). Individualism in any warfare is not advocated because it limits others from engaging in warfare activities. Yet, the Roman legion dictates that for infantry to be effective, strict discipline and teamwork should be present for each person subordinating with the groups’ needs. Gothic victory was attributed to cavalry replacing infantry for technical military.
Evidence also shows that in France and other places such as cavalry, in the first place, supplanted infantry. Focus should also be given to the fundamental issue of relationships present in military institutions (army structures) to the social-political institution of societies creating them. Training is also an aspect that has been overlooked, yet untrained mass of horsemen leads to ineffective cavalry. The military matters brought up address the concept of new class of local magnates found in the military structure. These magnates managed to retain decisive power instead of letting it reside in the larger population. It is such moves that led to the fall of so many empires (Sloan, n. d.).
Reference
Sloan. J. (n. d.). “The stirrup controversy.”
