Were the Indo-Europeans practically mongols? Apparently, horses were particularly important to them. What caused their migration? Were they extraordinarily warlike?
>>504588
This isn't historically answerable as they didn't leave documentary records.
Linguistics is unable to answer your question.
Archaeology is unable to answer your question.
Your question is unanswerable.
It is highly likely the first Indo-Europeans were steppe nomads from the Russian steppe. We know that they invaded various locations throughout Eurasia, bringing their language and culture with them. The commonality of horse-related rituals, the wheel, animal husbandry, lactose tolerance, and bronze working suggests that these advantages were spread by Indo-Europeans, a warlike nomadic people.
>>504588
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Europeans#Culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_society
>>504588
>practically mongols
No mongols were practically indo euopeans. The indo europeans were the first "horse ridding baddies".
Based on ancient remains their domestication of horses may have started out not as a way for transportation but as a food source
>>504651
They originated near Samara russia along the volga river, they likely started to spread out across eurasia after their forest homeland changed to steppe because of climate change.
Their success was probably due to the domestication of the horse, advanced metal work and early large nomadic population based on animal husbandry
>>504676
We know that in India, Persia, and Anatolia the Indo-European speakers were warlike nomads that conquered those territories. If Indo-Europeans were peaceful farmers their language would not have spread as far as early as it did.
>>504693
We know that in India their ancestors produced warlike myths about them and were themselves warlike.
>3 PIE branches.
Nice evidence.
>If Indo-Europeans were peaceful farmers their language would not have spread as far as early as it did.
Nice assumption.
Nice.
Maybe cultural adaption and displacement?
Oh and we know that Greek is based on a massive substrate which means assimilation. So they're not so fucking warlike after all are they?
And then there's the German substrate…
Fuck me you're a dumb cunt.
>>504588
The oldest ever horse skeletons are found in modern Ukraine. If the indo-Europeans were using horses, then we can't find any evidence
>>504731
>We know French is based on a massive substrate which means assimilation. So the Franks were no so fucking warlike after all are they?
>>504731
Cultural adaptation of a language is usually done when a culture is invaded by another and their language is subsumed by that of the invaders. See Turkey and Hungary for examples, or the remnants of the Roman Empire.
>>504731
>ancestors
descendants
I apologise.
>>504753
Should be their language is replaced or absorbed by that of the invaders, not "subsumed"
>>504731
>Indo-Iranians were warlike
>Germanics were warlike
>Celtics were warlike
>Hellenics were warlike
>Hittites were warlike
>Slavics were warlike
>we have no evidence Indo-Europeans were warlike though, guess they just spread peacefully all over Eurasia.
>>504731
Why do you think having a substrate means they weren't warlike?
Neither Greek nor German have significant substrate anyway.
>>504588
The Irish Celts, Migrants (R1B) were in Ireland from at "least" 2000BC and came by boat.
It doesn't correspond to your image, also the British moved into Europe with trade.
>>507590
>It doesn't correspond to your image
How so?
>>507594
That Celtic migration from Central Europe was a lot later than 2000 BC.
>>507597
I don't see any dates on that image
>>507601
Then you're not doing your homework.
