How did they do it?
>>931802
horses
>>931802
Do what? Expansion? General success?
>>931816
Go on
>>931826
>Expansion?
This
>>931826
>General success?
This
chariots in the case of the indo-iranians
>>931826
>Do what?
This
>muh lactose tolerance
They walked
Its not like it happened overnight
>>931835
According to most historians with relevant knowledge on the subject of domestication, horses were initially domesticated on the Steppe north of the Black Sea.
Think of the Spanish conquest of the Incas, for example. The guns of those conquistadores were almost useless, but they must have had a way to defeat the natives with so few troops. While armour and superior weaponry played a part, horses were probably the primary factor that allowed them to conquer so easily, as they were essentially protected from the stone spears of natives while they had the high ground and could attack from above.
Same thing with the Steppe people. They were the first to have access to domesticated horses, so they could expand very easily with little ability by native people of other lands to resist.
Guns, Germs, an Steel touches on this a bit.
White jeans
>>932956
But cavalry wasn't invented until after 1000 BC
>>932989
have i missed something?
>>931802
Chariots.
>>933057
Early horses were too weak to support riders. They used chariots
>>933057
>>933194
The Sumerians developed the "battle wagon", a kind of precursor to the chariot, that was drawn into battle by oxen and served as a platform for archers. But it was only with the invention of the spoked wheel and the domestication of the horse, both by Proto-Indo-Europeans, that a truly mobile weapon was developed, the two-man chariot. We tend to think of chariots as impractical weapons, but when there was nothing better they utterly dominated the battlefield, able to defeat many times their number of infantry. Combine this with teh much great mobility of the civilian population that horses allowed, and it was easy for the PIE people to expand rapidly over huge areas. The Secondary Products Revolution did the rest, allowing them to replace the aboriginal people in Europe and Iran thru an incremental population growth advantage, and the small and strictly local cultures of the conquered people was unable to compete with the widespread and prestigious PIE culture and language, ensuring the assimilation of most of the unconquered remnant, such as the Irish who had adopted a Celtic culture despite no archaeological evidence of a Celtic invasion there.
https://youtu.be/xuqI7yid3ew
>>933310
Horses formed a large part of the diet of the early PIE people. And even small horses can be used to pull a wagon, if you use enough of them. The chariot is a sophisticated machine, you have to have all the precursor technology before you can build one.
>>933321
>>933194
Not just small but also skittish. Fine to ride around on, maybe, but not in battle.
>>933330
Yeah but you still need wheels for a chariot...
I mean we have people from the area being buried with warrior gear, horses and some horse tack 1000 years before the chariot appears in the middle east.
14 hands tall IIRC.
>>933333
>Yeah but you still need wheels for a chariot...
The Sumerians invented the wheel thousands of years earlier. PIE people had been using cattle and horses as beasts of burden for centuries before they invented the spoked wheel that makes chariots possible.
>>933378
Sumerians invented it lik 3000 BC. didn't they?
>>933387
~3500BC. Nearly 2000 years before the PIE people exploded across history.
>>933392
I always thought PIE expansion started 4000 BC. My bad.
>>933394
PIE culture has very deep roots that long predate their mass expansion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan
>>933097
Inaccurate map, chariots reached in Sardinia since at least 900 bc.
>>933445
I think you mean incomplete, not inaccurate, since the map gives no date for Sardinia at all.
>>933333
Milk and cheese.
They walked mostly, you fat, lazy cunts.
I know what follows will have whiffs of nazi propaganda, but I swear this is not my intention.
Were the indo-europeans a "master race"? Their language, culture, and probably a good deal of their genetic material spread far and wide, from Ireland to the Bengal. When they settled down, they went to give birth to Hittite, Vedic, Persian, Hellenic and Roman civilization among others.
Why aren't these people talked about more?
>>936098
They had some better technology than the people they invaded, thats why they became dominant. Not because of race.
Why does everyone always assume that when a people are successful its because of their race. Theres a billion reasons that come before that.
>be basque
>some Indo-European nigger barges into my home
>say haixo
>he starts speaking in his fucking atrocious barbarian talk and squats to take a shit all over the floor
Why are all Indo-Europeans just fucking niggers?
>>936109
>They had some better technology than the people they invaded, thats why they became dominant.
And why did they have better technology? It fell out of the sky?
>>936119
They got lucky with their area of settlement. The Steppe allowed for the mass raising and domestication of horses and spurred the invention of horse related technology. Same way that people near rivers usually come up with better farming tech first.
>>936143
>They got lucky with their area of settlement.
>t. Jared Diamond
Fuck off with your historical determinism.
>>936152
>I disagree with your position
>Instead of coming up with a valid counter-argument let me instead tell you to fuck off
>>936165
All right.
Out of the thousands of tribes who wandered around the steppe, why the indo-europeans?
>>936170
>Indo-Europeans
>A single tribe
The Indo-Europeans were a massive collection of peoples with a similar language and culture, not a single tribe. As for why them and not some other group in the area? Why were the people of Sumer the first great urban society and not some other river people. The amount of historical factors that lead to this are probably numerous and, unfortunately, probably not knowable. The Indo-Europeans were probably in the right place, at the right time, to take advantage of the circumstances available to them. That's not to say that maybe some character of their people or culture, or maybe some string of great leaders among them, similar to how the history of Europe would be very different if the Romans weren't who they were, when they were, where they were, with who was leading them at the time, but to suppose that they had some sort of genetic superiority to the people they conquered is a bit ridiculous, when from a strictly biological stand point, their genetic make-up is going to be almost identical to the people they are conquering, might as well say every great conquering civilization is part of some master race, from the Semites to the Mongols, to the Chinese to the Bantu.
>>936119
Because they area they lived called for the invention of that tech. Endless plains makes people domesticate horses and invent chariots.
>>936152
Oh sorry, it's because theyre the white aryan master race of course.
>>936266
>The Indo-Europeans were a massive collection of peoples with a similar language and culture, not a single tribe
The Proto-Indo-Europeans, however, were.
>>936266
>Why were the people of Sumer the first great urban society
Because we have evidence of them doing it. The majority of human experience is lost in the sands of time.
>>936081
This
>>932132
>move
>have children
>repeat
>>936266
>to suppose that they had some sort of genetic superiority to the people they conquered
I blame Western Imperialists for this. They got so used to utterly overpowering inferior natives in distant lands that they forgot all the great empires of old triumphed over their equals, not over subhuman beasts. So naturally they assumed all conquering people must have been racially superior to their neighbors.
>>936499
>utterly overpowering inferior natives
>subhuman beasts
>t. person who knows nothing about colonialism
>>933455
It's both inaccurate and incomplete you ignorant reddit cunt
