The great stirrup controversy began as a debate over the origins of "
feudalism". In 1887 Heinrich Brunner proposed that
feudalism was a side-effect of the development of mounted shock warfare by the Franks. It became the great stirrup controversy when in 1962 Lynn White Jr. proposed that it was the stirrup that produced both feudalism and cavalry. Though the controversy lingers in some quarters, Bernard Bachrach put the idea to rest in 1970 with a successful attack on many of White's (and Brunner's) basic points.
At present it seems clear that stirrups did not cause the invention of feudalism, and, in fact, they seem to be a convenience and not a necessity for mounted shock warfare.
Brunner's Theory:
In 1887 Heinrich Brunner published an article entitled "
Knights' Service and the Origins of Feudalism." Brunner used the undeniable fact that the early Franks had fought, using the
francisca, a long-handled axe, on foot. But, argued Brunner, by the battle of the Dyle, in 891, they fought on horseback alone. Thus, he reasoned, at some time between those dates the Frankish army had transformed itself from an infantry force to mounted cavalry.
Further, Brunner concluded, during the reigns of Charles Martel and his son Pippin III there was a change in social organization in France. For example Charles Martel had confiscated sizable amounts of church lands and distributed them to his leading supporters. And the "Saxon tribute", formerly payable in cattle, was changed by Pippin and made payable in horses instead.
Why? Prior to Charles Martel the Franks had raised their armies by calling on all free men to gather at a specified place, bringing their weapons with them. Now, the Franks had converted themselves into a mounted army.
He argued that the Moslems had fought on horseback at Poitiers. Charles Martel, Brunner felt, in spite of winning the battle, was so impressed by the fighting ability of the Moslem cavalry that he forced the Frankish army to become primarily a cavalry army.
But it was very expensive to support a mounted warrior. Foot soldiers were much cheaper.
So the church lands, Brunner decided, had been confiscated so that they could be given to suitable men to provide them the income needed to support themselves as mounted warriors. Thus, argued Brunner, a new class of landowners was formed and feudalism was born.
White's Idea:
In1962, in
Medieval Technology and Social Change, Lynn White Jr. successfully challenged Brunner's thesis. White argued that though it was true that feudalism arose out of military necessity, Brunner's details were wrong.
So what had caused the great shift in French military organization? White argued that
it was the introduction of the stirrup that made the use of the lance by cavalry possible. White argued that Charles Martel had recognized this and forced his army to change.
Cavalry had existed prior to this. What did not exist in France was the "couched" lance, carried under the arm by a mounted warrior charging full-speed directly at an enemy. The couched lance made possible
shock warfare.
In White's view, the simple stirrup had made mounted shock warfare possible. The new class of
chevaliers were the owners of the land granted to them by the King. They were the military elite. And in their creation feudalism was born.
Bachrach's Attack:
In a 1970 article ,Bullough was able to show that there was little evidence that the Frankish armies won their battles because of mounted shock tactics. And, even more to the point, stirrups are not found in 8th century graves, though other materials and weapons pertaining to a warrior's life are found.
in a long article entitled "
Charles Martel, Mounted Shock Combat, the Stirrup, and Feudalism", Bachrach attacked White's evidence directly. The Saxon tribute in horses was very small, perhaps being no more than the number of horses needed for the king's household. As for the evidence that the Frankish army had become cavalry based at all, Bachrach concluded that "there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that heavily armed horsemen engaging in mounted shock combat were the decisive element of their armies."
[DeVries 1992 p 108].
Having done this, Bachrach went further. He showed that
there is no mention of stirrups in inventories, literary sources, or military manuals of Charlemagne's reign. Evidently, he concluded, stirrups did not seem that important to the Franks of that time.
But what about the seizure of church lands and their distribution? Bachrach pointed out that this had been overinterpreted. It was a longstanding Frankish custom (predating their arrival in Gaul) of the
war leader to hand out gifts to his armed retainers. To do so, the war leader needed wealth to hand out. Bachrach noted, it was not only church lands that were taken, but moveable wealth of ordinary Franks was taken as well.
