: I have tried to present the arguments fairly and in balance, but my sentiments are strong and well-known and there will be no doubt in the reader's mind where I stand on matters. :)

: I did, however, give as much credence to the pro-medievalist view -- especially at the end -- as I could without seeming to contradict myself. This essay won't settle any Great Debates, but it may help to spur new discussion. People are welcome to post comments on Suite101 or here on the White Council.

: And I suppose people will view this essay as a rather harsh criticism of Peter Jackson. I have, from the very beginning, defended Jackson's right or privilege to interpret the story as he wishes. I have no doubts about his ability as a director, and I expect to enjoy the movies. But I have come to the conclusion that Jackson's Middle-earth will not be very close to Tolkien's world after all, despite the massive effort brought to bear on the project. He is simply heading (in my opinion) in the wrong direction.

: Hence, I suppose I may find myself on the outside of certain communities of opinion, but then, I'm no stranger to ostracism in that respect. :)

Who would scratch your name on a pot-sherd? Not I!

Of course there was a good deal in your article I would take issue with but there is one thing of fact I would like to comment on.

I understand your argument that pre-Mediaeval cavalry could be effective troops without the use of the stirrup, but you seem to be saying that these soldiers could use a couched lance technique. This is not strictly true.

The couched lance seems to have been developed in Western Europe in the latter part of the 11th century. This technique, where the soldier grips the lance shaft in the arm-pit, effectively transforms the horse and rider into a single weapon. The force acting through the lance comes directly from the momentum of the horse's forward motion not from the strength of the rider's arm. This technique requires stirrups and a built-up saddle with a high back-arch (cantle). A rider using the pad-saddle of the Macedonians or even the horned Romano-celtic saddle - who is dependent on the grip of his legs to retain his seat - would merely be ejected off the back of his horse if he tried it.

You are right in saying that an overarm stab is not the only method - or even a useful one with a long lance - that a pre-stirrup lancer could use.
The Macedonian Companion Cavalry of Alexander were, as you say, used as shock-cavalry, they used a long spear with a point at both ends (in case it broke) called a xyston. This and the later kontos (lance) used by Romano-Byzantine troops was used in two main ways: single-handedly - under arm (not tucked in the arm-pit) with the lance held low with the arm slightly bent, or two-handed (this required that the horse be able to respond to direction by the rider's leg-pressure), this usually meant that the lance was held crossways with the point to the left of the horse's head (both methods required a grip much closer to the lance's point of balance than a couched lance, the Macedonian second-line troopers must have been in some danger from the back-point of the front rank's spears!). In either case the lance was not held rigidly as is the use of the couched lance, thus it would have been possible for the rider to moderate any impact though his flexed arms so as not to unseat himself.
Not as efficient as the couched technique but more useful than landing on your fundament some way behind your speeding mount ;)