PDA

View Full Version : A real life Stone Age battle



Tomenable
26-02-16, 16:22
This is how battles could look like also in Mesolithic and Early Neolithic Europe:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BzqwOBneC4

Papua New Guineans are currently at the Early Neolithic level of technology.

=========================

And here an article about the Neolithic transition in New Guinea:

"Was Papua New Guinea an Early Agriculture Pioneer?":

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/06/0623_030623_kukagriculture.html

Tomenable
26-02-16, 17:03
If you watch the video, you will see that they fight in very loose formations.

They would be totally unable to repulse a charge by PIE cavalry or chariots.

Fire Haired14
26-02-16, 18:55
This is how battles could look like also in Mesolithic and Early Neolithic Europe:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BzqwOBneC4

Papua New Guineans are currently at the Early Neolithic level of technology.

=========================

And here an article about the Neolithic transition in New Guinea:

"Was Papua New Guinea an Early Agriculture Pioneer?":

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/06/0623_030623_kukagriculture.html

Fascinating stuff. I don't know how much of that was warefare and how much was 50/50 lets kill each other/lets fight. I don't think the producers or whatever want to show lots of blood and dying people, so maybe this was the best they could do. Talk about imbetmising the "dumb savage". Holy crap.These are the type of people Spanish and British meet in America. And my history book is totally right to criticize them down for saying Native Americans were less civilized and savages. Yeah, British and Spanish just had their own interpretation of civilization, it wasn't any better :).

Angela
26-02-16, 18:55
If you watch the video, you will see that they fight in very loose formations.

They would be totally unable to repulse a charge by PIE cavalry or chariots.

What cavalry and chariots? Those didn't exist until long after the first PIE incursions. Do we really have to go over all those papers again?

As for New Guinea, refresh my recollection, do they have copper metallurgy, cities, extensive trade etc? Is there anything similar to Tripolye culture? That's who the PIE people would have encountered, remember.

Fire Haired14
26-02-16, 18:57
What cavalry and chariots? Those didn't exist until long after the first PIE incursions. Do we really have to go over all those papers again?

As for New Guinea, refresh my recollection, do they have copper metallurgy, cities, extensive trade etc? Is there anything similar to Tripolye culture? That's who the PIE people would have encountered, remember.

What about Funnel Beaker? That's mostly who Corded Ware interacted with.

Angela
26-02-16, 19:50
Fascinating stuff. I don't know how much of that was warefare and how much was 50/50 lets kill each other/lets fight. I don't think the producers or whatever want to show lots of blood and dying people, so maybe this was the best they could do. Talk about imbetmising the "dumb savage". Holy crap.These are the type of people Spanish and British meet in America. And my history book is totally right to criticize them down for saying Native Americans were less civilized and savages. Yeah, British and Spanish just had their own interpretation of civilization, it wasn't any better :).

It depends which Native Americans we're discussing, yes? There's a world of difference between the Aztec and Inca Empires with their agriculture, metallurgy, cities, monuments, astrologers etc., and the more simple cultures of the Caribbean and most of North America and the Amazon etc.

Of course, the Aztecs combined a rather advanced civilization with a fierce warrior culture and human sacrifice. They were no match for "Guns, Germs and Steel", however.

Have you read that book? You should, it's excellent, and explains a lot.

I can also recommend two excellent movies about the encounter between Europeans and the "Native Americans". You can see the savagery on both sides. The score of "The Mission", by Ennio Morrione, is absolutely fabulous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Robe_%28film%29

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mission_%281986_film%29

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zS6bmm921G8 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mission_%281986_film%29)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvWaD-NErlY

Tomenable
26-02-16, 20:46
the Aztec and Inca Empires with their agriculture, metallurgy, cities, monuments, astrologers etc.

The Aztecs and the Inca mostly had gold metallurgy, which was useless in warfare. Most of their weapons were quite similar to those used in the video from the OP. I know that they had copper, but it rather wasn't extensively used in warfare. So weapons would be quite similar. True - Aztec armies were better organized than those warriors from the video in the OP, but many of their enemies were not (which is why the Aztecs formed such an empire).

Cities - granted, large fortified settlements could put up some resistance.

I'm not sure if New Guineans have fortified settlements, but I suppose they do (because tribal warfare is very common).

A fortified settlement (not very large, but overall structure is similar to Trypillian "cities"):

https://evolution-institute.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/walled_village.jpg

Reconstructed Trypillian "cities" (or mega-villages - what defines a city?):

[images moved to the post below, no need to post the same thing twice]

bicicleur
26-02-16, 20:57
What about Funnel Beaker? That's mostly who Corded Ware interacted with.

it is funny, DNA has shown most - if not all - of Funnel Beaker people were replaced by corded ware people

yet there are no signs of violence between corded ware and neolithic people
there are signs of violence between corded ware and HG in northeastern Europe, where there were no farmers

archeology describes contacts between neolithic NW Europe and corded ware as 'friendly'

it is an enigma

bicicleur
26-02-16, 21:03
What cavalry and chariots? Those didn't exist until long after the first PIE incursions. Do we really have to go over all those papers again?

As for New Guinea, refresh my recollection, do they have copper metallurgy, cities, extensive trade etc? Is there anything similar to Tripolye culture? That's who the PIE people would have encountered, remember.

PIE chariots, yes, cavalry no, that is for Asyrians or Scythians
and the Chariots, they were invented by Sintashta, but the moment they had seen them, and got horses to pull them, the Asyrians and the Egyptians, the Chinese and the Seima-Turbino, and whoever else could, used them as well

it strikes me that Indo-Iranians overpowered BMAC,
but alltough they had horses and chariots and bronze weapons and they had known warfare at home, they left the cities and citadels of BMAC intact
they were masters in the field, controlled the pastures, the farming land and the trade routes
even the irrigation fields, of which those Indo-Iranians coming from the northern steppes knew nothing about, remained intact
and the BMAC elite, they remained in their walled cities and citadels, powerless

bicicleur
26-02-16, 21:08
The Aztecs and the Inca mostly had gold metallurgy, which was useless in warfare. Most of their weapons were quite similar to those used in the video from the OP. I know that they had copper, but it rather wasn't extensively used in warfare. So weapons would be quite similar. True - Aztec armies were better organized than those warriors from the video in the OP, but many of their enemies were not (which is why the Aztecs formed such an empire).

Cities - granted, large fortified settlements could put up some resistance.



did they have bronze or something similar, because pure copper weapons are useless as well ?

Tomenable
26-02-16, 22:11
Angela,


What cavalry and chariots? Those didn't exist until long after the first PIE incursions.

Didn't they already master horseback riding by that time (and probably used horses in wars)?

BTW, I wasn't talking just about first PIE incursions, but about entire IE expansion, including Bell Beakers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmHXBXG7Loo

And as Bicicleur wrote, they did have chariots. Which played the same role as cavalry.


As for New Guinea, refresh my recollection, do they have copper metallurgy

Probably not (because the island lacks copper ores) but what difference would it make? Probably not so great a difference.

There is some qualitative advantage, but Copper Age (Chalcolithic) weapons are not so much better than Neolithic ones.

In fact, during the Copper Age most of weapons (blades / points) were still being made of stone, wood and bone, rather than of copper.

Surely some axes (and spearpoints / arrowheads) were made of copper, but stone axes aren't so much worse than copper axes.


cities

Tripolye cities are often considered to be rather a kind of "mega-villages" (though it all depends on how one defines a city):

http://i.imgur.com/qLRN5Ed.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/cDvoGPy.jpg


extensive trade etc?
Extensive trade does not count in battle, so it's irrelevant here. But they (New Guineans) have some trade for sure!

For example - the video in the OP says, that New Guinean warriors are smoking cigarettes - they surely acquired them via trade.


Is there anything similar to Tripolye culture? That's who the PIE people would have encountered, remember.

Triploye culture was just in one region - what about e.g. Megalithic cultures in Western Europe? Very different.


It depends which Native Americans we're discussing, yes?Here some good websites (you will see many similarities with the video in the OP):

"New World Images from the 1500's":

http://www.floridahistory.com/de-bry-plates/

"DeSoto's Arkansas Trails":

http://www.floridahistory.com/arkansab.html

A Native American warrior:

http://www.floridahistory.com/standing-man.jpg

Native Americans attacking a fortified town of another tribe:

"War before civilization": https://evolution-institute.org/blog/war-before-civilization/

https://evolution-institute.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/attack.jpg

And here some New Guineans again (war boats similar to Native American canoes):

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pl&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.paranormalne.pl%2Ftopic%2F39732-kto-zjadl-antropologa-michaela-rockefellera%2F

http://i61.tinypic.com/25oxf2d.jpg


There's a world of difference between the Aztec and Inca Empires with their agriculture, metallurgy, cities, monuments, astrologers etc., and the more simple cultures of the Caribbean and most of North America and the Amazon etc.

The Aztecs and the Incas did have metallurgy - but it was limited to gold, or to gold and copper. They did not have bronze, IIRC. And when it comes to copper, they rather didn't use it extensively in warfare. Gold is by definition useless in warfare - they produced other gold items, but not weapons. Their weapons were not that much different than, and not that much technologically superior to, those used by New Guineans, I think. The Aztec army was certainly very well organized, but many of their neighbours didn't have such disciplined armies (which is why the Aztecs conquered them).


The score of "The Mission", by Ennio Morrione, is absolutely fabulous.

Indeed - and the last battle scene shows that those Guarani Indians were using similar weapons as New Guineans:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F54dhf98qgg

Goga
27-02-16, 04:09
PIE chariots, yes, cavalry no, that is for Asyrians or Scythians
and the Chariots, they were invented by Sintashta, but the moment they had seen them, and got horses to pull them, the Asyrians and the Egyptians, the Chinese and the Seima-Turbino, and whoever else could, used them as well

it strikes me that Indo-Iranians overpowered BMAC,
but alltough they had horses and chariots and bronze weapons and they had known warfare at home, they left the cities and citadels of BMAC intact
they were masters in the field, controlled the pastures, the farming land and the trade routes
even the irrigation fields, of which those Indo-Iranians coming from the northern steppes knew nothing about, remained intact
and the BMAC elite, they remained in their walled cities and citadels, powerless
I don't know what kind of fantasy story you're talking about but BMAC was older than Sintashta, by hundreds of years.

Everything what folks of Sintashta knew they learned from the Aryan BMAC folks. BMAC predates Sintashta...


+ War chariots were invented in the Near East, with disk / cross-bar wheels, later evolved into spoke-wheeled chariots ....

Goga
27-02-16, 04:43
+ How can BMAC be overpowered by Indo-Iranians, when the fact is that BMAC WAS Indo-Iranian? BMAC = East Iranid, period. Show me some evidence that BMAC was attacked from North! It was actually vice versa, some BMAC folks migrated into the Steppes, later on they were assimilated. Archeology, such as the Mesopotamian pottery in the Steppes etc. is showing that the Steppes were influenced by the Aryan culture of BMAC.

Fire Haired14
27-02-16, 06:05
+ How can BMAC be overpowered by Indo-Iranians, when the fact is that BMAC WAS Indo-Iranian? BMAC = East Iranid, period. Show me some evidence that BMAC was attacked from North! It was actually vice versa, some BMAC folks migrated into the Steppes, later on they were assimilated. Archeology, such as the Mesopotamian pottery in the Steppes etc. is showing that the Steppes were influenced by the Aryan culture of BMAC.

Settle down man. No one thinks Middle Easterners are inferior. Indo Iranian languages came from Europe, it's not a big deal. The distant origin of your language isn't everything that your people are.

bicicleur
27-02-16, 09:33
+ How can BMAC be overpowered by Indo-Iranians, when the fact is that BMAC WAS Indo-Iranian? BMAC = East Iranid, period. Show me some evidence that BMAC was attacked from North! It was actually vice versa, some BMAC folks migrated into the Steppes, later on they were assimilated. Archeology, such as the Mesopotamian pottery in the Steppes etc. is showing that the Steppes were influenced by the Aryan culture of BMAC.

Read the book, The horse, the wheel and the language by David Anthony, chapter 14, 15 and 16.
I don't know any more detailed account than this.

Oh, and we know who was on the steppe first, we have their DNA.

And then, there is the linguistic evidence.

Goga
27-02-16, 12:35
Read the book, The horse, the wheel and the language by David Anthony, chapter 14, 15 and 16.
I don't know any more detailed account than this.

Oh, and we know who was on the steppe first, we have their DNA.

And then, there is the linguistic evidence.That book is very bad written and it's more science fiction than Harry Potter books/stories.

Of course we know who lived in the Steppes. Mongoloid/Europoid folks. That's not a secret. Look at the Russians. Look at their ancient bones. Those who live there lived always there. But that has nothing to do with the Aryans.


DNA is saying that there was a migration from South into North.
But those who migrated into north were assimilated and their DNA was heavily diluted by the locals.


What linguistic evidences? Nobody in the Steppes speaks Indo-Aryan as their native language. Their languages has nothing to do with Avestan etc. Languages close to Avestan live on the Iranian Plateau...

Goga
27-02-16, 12:49
Settle down man. No one thinks Middle Easterners are inferior. Indo Iranian languages came from Europe, it's not a big deal. The distant origin of your language isn't everything that your people are.My people speak an unique Aryan language close to Avestan that nobody speaks. Ancient Iranid/Mesopotamian religios books are written in that language.

Nobody native to Europe has the same native language as my people. Iranid language was NEVER native to Europe. People in Europe has NOTHING to do with IRANID language. Iranid language was never part of Europe.

Russian, Turkic or other languages of the Steppes are not even remotely as close as my nativelanguage to the ancient Aryan languages like Avestan.



There is no evidence that proto-Indo-Iranian came from Europe at all.

DNA is saying that there was a migration from the South into North. That's a fact. From Y-DNA to au-DNA.


I know very well who my people are. Descendants of the mighty Medes, by culture (Iranid), race/DNA (Iranid, closely related to other Iranid people like Persians and Alanians), language (Iranid), religion (Iranid), homeland (Zagros has been native homeland of the Medes too, Iranid) etc. My people are from all view of points allround Iranid people.



Settle down who are you people. Who are your people? Or don't you know who your people are? Otherwise you were never that confused...

Tomenable
27-02-16, 14:02
did they have bronze or something similar, because pure copper weapons are useless as well ?

I don't think pure copper weapons are useless (as long as they are axes, arrowheads or spearpoints - because copper swords would be useless indeed). They are just not so much better than stone ones. And when it comes to the Aztecs and the Incas - I may be wrong, but AFAIK they did not have bronze (only pure copper). Producing bronze requires mixing copper with tin, and I'm not sure if there even were tin ores in Mexico and in the Andean Region ??? Either they didn't have access to any tin at all, or just didn't figure out that it is good to mix it with copper. But the Aztecs did have very good stone - obsidian. They produced very sharp obsidian blades, which could even cut off a horse's head (not to mention an unarmoured human head).

Bronze allowed the development of real swords. Copper could only be used to make daggers, axe blades, spearpoints, arrowheads.

But during the Copper Age, copper surely was precious and expensive - so most of weapons were still made of other materials.

For example, I would not waste my copper to make arrowheads, when I can use cheaper stone to make almost as good ones.

Tomenable
27-02-16, 15:36
But the Aztecs did have very good stone - obsidian. They produced very sharp obsidian blades

This two-bladed club with obsidian blades was the deadliest of Aztec close-combat weapons (link):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atEKhfxdA9A#t=5m52s

=================================

Aztec Jaguar warrior versus Zande warrior:

The actual duel starts at 31:34 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atEKhfxdA9A#t=31m34s


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atEKhfxdA9A

The Zande had iron weapons, unlike the Aztecs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zande_people#/media/File:Richard_Buchta_-_Zande_throwing_knives.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zande_people#/media/File:Richard_Buchta_-_Nyam-Nyam_Warriors,_from_The_History_of_Mankind,_Vol.II I,_by_Prof._Friedrich_Ratzel,_1898.jpg

Angela
27-02-16, 17:32
@Tomenable,

Your interest seems to be mainly Corded Ware. In that regard, the point is that the Corded Ware people didn't have bronze weapons either, not until the very end of the Corded Ware period. All they had was copper, and not very much of that either. Neither did they have "cavalry" or mounted warriors; that's a much later development, which required the invention of the stirrup. As has been pointed out, chariots were invented a thousand years later and far to the east.

We've discussed all of this numerous times, with all the relevant citations. You can find them through the search engine if you didn't save them. As Bicicleur has pointed out, there isn't even evidence of much violent conflict as far as the advance of Corded Ware is concerned.

You can't transpose technology into different time periods and locations. Whatever happened in central Europe had very little to do with a large advantage in weapons technology, other than the horse giving them more mobility.

The New World encounter is a totally different thing altogether. The Europeans not only had steel in terms of swords, they had guns and even canon for goodness' sakes. This was hardly a "fair fight". Then add in mass epidemics and it was over.

Tomenable
27-02-16, 21:02
Neither did they have "cavalry" or mounted warriors; that's a much later development, which required the invention of the stirrup.

Angela, there was pre-stirrup cavalry as well. Stirrups were invented very late, only in Late Antiquity.

Hannibal's famous cavalry at Cannae (which encircled the Romans) didn't have stirrups. Parthian Cataphracts at Carrhae didn't have stirrups. Native Americans at Little Big Horn didn't have stirrups either, yet they were excellent mounted warriors. Cavalry doesn't need stirrups. Stirrups increase stability in saddle (reducing the risk of getting unhorsed), but they are not indispensable.

The use of various types of cavalry in warfare long predated (by centuries or millennia) the invention of the stirrup.


The New World encounter is a totally different thing altogether. The Europeans not only had steel in terms of swords, they had guns and even canon for goodness' sakes.

They also had cavalry, which was crucial for Spanish victory over the Aztecs (more so than guns, since Cortes didn't have many of them). The Spanish force under Hernan Cortes which attacked the Aztec Empire, had just as many crossbows as guns.

But the majority of Spanish soldiers under Cortes, actually fought with swords and shields. According to a book by R. Tomicki, "Tenochtitlan 1521" ("Historical Battles" series), at the beginning of the siege of Tenochtitlan, the Spanish army comprised:

Rodeleros ------- ca. 70%
Cavalrymen ----- ca. 10%
Gunmen --------- ca. 10%
Crossbowmen --- ca. 10%

Rodeleros fought as close-combat heavily armoured infantry, using swords and round shields (bucklers):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodeleros

They were the "backbone" of the Spanish force. And of course there were thousands of Native Mexican allies.

Here I wrote more about this:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31265-What-Are-Slavic-countries?p=465691&viewfull=1#post465691

As for the Aztecs - their weapons comprised (according to Tomicki's Polish-language book mentioned above):

Offensive arsenal of Aztec warriors included a javelin-thrower (atlatl), a spear (tepuztopilli), a trident (tlatzontectli), a wooden club (or "club-sword"), edges of which had blades made of obsidian (macuahuitl) as well as its larger version, a two-handed sword (macuahuitzoctli), a mace (cuauhololli), a sling (tematlatl), a kind of a long pike, and a bow (tlahuitolli) with arrows.

Aztec spearheads and arrowheads were made of stone (obsidian, etc.), bone or fishbones.

Especially dangerous were Aztec swords - macuahuitl and macuahuitzoctli - which could cut off a head.

Initially the Aztecs were terribly afraid of horses but later on they learned how to try fighting cavalry, using long pikes.

Defensive arsenal of Aztec warriors included a round shield (chimalli), which was so strong that it could sometimes even protect against crossbows, ichcahuipilli (a gambeson or a leather armour) - according to Spanish accounts it was hard to pierce it with a sword. They were also wearing coats or capes called ehuatl, as well as painted helmets made of wood and shaped to resemble heads of snakes, eagles or jaguars, and also animal skins. There were some differences in clothes - depending on status and rank of warriors.

Tenochtitlan had a standing army of regulars numbering 10,000 "Brave People". In wartime they formed elite units or were officers leading levy units. Military training for each Aztec man in schools called telpochcalli was compulsory.


Then add in mass epidemics and it was over.Well, Indo-European expansions were also supported by yersinia pestis, and by epidemic diseases that it caused.


there isn't even evidence of much violent conflict as far as the advance of Corded Ware is concerned.

Times when Corded Ware peoples advanced into Scandinavia are known as "the age of crushed skulls":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corded_Ware_culture#Swedish-Norwegian_Battle_Axe_culture

This does not sound like a very peaceful time. :smile:

bicicleur
27-02-16, 21:53
Times when Corded Ware peoples advanced into Scandinavia are known as "the age of crushed skulls":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corded_Ware_culture#Swedish-Norwegian_Battle_Axe_culture

This does not sound like a very peaceful time. :smile:

While Swedish writer Herman Lindqvist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Lindqvist_(journalist)) has referred to this as the "Age of crushed skulls", there is no indication that this was an especially violent time, and most of the "crushing" happened post-mortem in the ground.[dubious (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disputed_statement) – discuss (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Corded_Ware_culture#Dubious)] The "battle-axes" were primarily a status object. There are strong continuities in stone craft traditions, and very little evidence of any type of full-scale migration, least of all a violent one.

DNA has proven large migrations and replacement though.

Tomenable
27-02-16, 21:55
Bicicleur,

[Dubious - discuss] means that the statement is unsourced, so those claims to the contrary remain unsupported.

Wikipedia tends to be edited by people who reject sweeping migrations and prefer "Paleolithic continuity theories".

An average wikipedia contributor is similar to Goga. :smile:

Angela
27-02-16, 22:28
I don't care how many warriors the Aztecs had or how good they were; there's no way they could have competed against steel swords, guns, canon, and disease. This is not an appropriate comparison.

The warfare to which you're referring in Europe is not in Central Europe, it's in the far northeast. (see Bicicleur's post) You were discussing what happened in central Europe when partly steppe descended PIE speaking peoples came into contact with MN farming cultures.

I haven't yet seen anything to indicate that these people at that time, and in that place, had bronze weapons. They did have horses, although not many have been found for early periods. Perhaps they rode them. However, I've read the literature for years, including David Anthony. Nowhere have I seen any proof that they were using the horses for mounted warfare. I don't consider, well, they could have, to be scientific proof. Nor am I aware of anything in the archaeological record indicating large scale warfare in central Europe. That doesn't mean there wasn't a large influx of new people.

They did have an advantage in that the horses gave them added mobility. Their subsistence strategy was no doubt more advantageous given the change in the climate. The plague they carried may have preceded them by a number of years; it can travel in food packs, trade items like furs etc., as we know from the Middle Ages and the disease epidemics which ravaged the Native Americans. The population in Central Europe seems to have undergone various boom and bust cycles dependent on soil depletion, erosion, climate change etc. It may have been a perfect storm for central Europe, as the Bronze Age Collapse was a perfect storm for the palatial civilizations of the Aegean in particular but also to some degree for the Near East. That's not to say there wasn't some violence, of course.

We have plenty of factors to consider. My only objection is that you are proposing a mythic, simplified version of events which conflates events from distant times and places and which isn't supported by any real evidence.

Tomenable
27-02-16, 23:08
I don't care how many warriors the Aztecs had or how good they were; there's no way they could have competed against steel swords, guns, canon, and disease. This is not an appropriate comparison.

In fact what really doomed the Aztecs was their oppressive rule over neighbours.

A lot of warriors from other tribes joined the Spaniards in their fight against the Aztecs.

The Aztecs came close to totally destroying Cortes and his army after "La Noche Triste".

Subsequent Spanish victory would have been impossible without Native support.


Nowhere have I seen any proof that they were using the horses for mounted warfare.

But what kind of evidence supporting this notion do you expect to show up ???

Assuming they were using horses for mounted warfare, what proofs should we find?

Fire Haired14
28-02-16, 00:18
My people speak an unique Aryan language close to Avestan that nobody speaks. Ancient Iranid/Mesopotamian religios books are written in that language.

Nobody native to Europe has the same native language as my people. Iranid language was NEVER native to Europe. People in Europe has NOTHING to do with IRANID language. Iranid language was never part of Europe.

Russian, Turkic or other languages of the Steppes are not even remotely as close as my nativelanguage to the ancient Aryan languages like Avestan.



There is no evidence that proto-Indo-Iranian came from Europe at all.

DNA is saying that there was a migration from the South into North. That's a fact. From Y-DNA to au-DNA.


I know very well who my people are. Descendants of the mighty Medes, by culture (Iranid), race/DNA (Iranid, closely related to other Iranid people like Persians and Alanians), language (Iranid), religion (Iranid), homeland (Zagros has been native homeland of the Medes too, Iranid) etc. My people are from all view of points allround Iranid people.

The distant origins of your language doesn't matter!! The reason you're so hyped up, is because you think it does matter. It doesn't.

bicicleur
28-02-16, 00:33
Bicicleur,

[Dubious - discuss] means that the statement is unsourced, so those claims to the contrary remain unsupported.

Wikipedia tends to be edited by people who reject sweeping migrations and prefer "Paleolithic continuity theories".

An average wikipedia contributor is similar to Goga. :smile:

ok, but is there any indication then that these crushed skulls are due to warfare?
are there other injuries apart from crushed skulls?
are there arrow- or spearpoints found in bodies?

MOESAN
28-02-16, 00:39
it is funny, DNA has shown most - if not all - of Funnel Beaker people were replaced by corded ware people

yet there are no signs of violence between corded ware and neolithic people
there are signs of violence between corded ware and HG in northeastern Europe, where there were no farmers

archeology describes contacts between neolithic NW Europe and corded ware as 'friendly'

it is an enigma


It seems correct: I red the Corded settlements in some parts of the Netherlands took the worst (sandy) places, without destroy the Funnelbeaker settlements (often megalithic in these regions if I don't mistake). So maybe some respect to equal forces? or complementary economy habits?

MOESAN
28-02-16, 00:55
Apparently, Celts horsemen had NO stirrup. Maybe the populations having managed to ride without stirrup seemed having had better cavalry? Mor free in their body moves? The role of stabilizator of stirrup would have been taken by specific saddles?
For Romans cavalry I don't know. Someones said the Celts cavalry took often the strong side over Roman cavalry, before Rome incorporated German horsemen as auxilliaries.
Could somebody confirm or infirm it?

Fire Haired14
28-02-16, 01:26
Anyone who crushes human heads with an axe has potential for actual violence :). Those axes were invented to harm humans. Using them on dead humans isn't the same as cutting up dead animals with knifes. Crushing, even dead humans, with an axe is sometype of reference to violence. Violence is in the head-smahser's mind in some shape or form. I'm not convinced "Post-Mordom Head-crushing isn't evidence of lots of violence".

Goga
28-02-16, 02:15
The distant origins of your language doesn't matter!! The reason you're so hyped up, is because you think it does matter. It doesn't.
Huh, what do you mean? Kurdish language is very closely related to Avestan. Of all living languages in the world Kurdish is the closest language to Avestan. If you don't believe me compare Gorani dialect of Kurdish language to Avestan. Also, Avestan is almost identical to Sanscrit. Ancient Aryan religious books (like Zoroastrian) were written in Avestan!

Language is very important. Language = identity. Thousands of my people die yearly for our language and to persevere our language. To us it is a matter of life and death. Those who forget their language assimilate and vanish.


You can also link a language to different ancient cultures.

Kurdish, Persian etc. are Middle Eastern languages evolved in the Middle East. Those Middle Eastern Aryan languages are not from Europe. In Europe native folks spoke NEVER an Middle Eastern Aryan language such Avestan, Kurdish or Persian as their native language. Maybe some spoke it, but they brought that language as immigrants. Middle Eastern Avestan was NEVER part of Europe, Kurdish was never part of Europe etc.


Lets come back to the Medes. One might ask, what is so special about the Medes? Well the Middle Eastern Medes were the founders of the very first Aryan Empire (Middle Eastern empire) on this planet ever. Stretched from the Zagros Mountains far into to SouthCentral Asia. Nor the Middle Eastern Hittites, neither the Persians, not even the Middle Eastern Aryan Mittani, but the Medes found the very first Aryan Empire in the world. Later it was taken away by the Persians.
Deioces and his son Phraortes are the historic founding fathers of the very first Aryan Empire ever, the Median Empire. Before and after the Medes the Aryans were never as dominant again.

Like the Kurds, the Medes were children of sun and fire. They spoke a West Iranid language. That language was not from Russia, lol. Otherwise why Russians don't speak a West Iranid, Median language. Medes: the people of Magi, the people of Mithraism, the people of Zurvan, the people of the 'laws of the Medes and Persians'. The people of Cyaxares who destroyed the Semites in Mesopotamia. (He is buried in Kurdistan btw.) The Medes were more legendary than their ancestors the Mitanni.


So tell me dude, what have Russians or the Mongoloid Turkic tribes in East Russia have to do with the first Aryan Empire, the Media Empire, Median language, Median culture, religion, history and their Kings?

With all due respect, in Europe only Italians (the Roman Empire) and the Greeks (Alexander the Great) have such a great history as the Aryans in the Middle East. Other Europeans don't have any history at all. Ivanko, Russian, Slavonic folks have no ancient history at all. 2000 years ago they lived like savages in the marshes..


So language is everything. Language is past and future. Those who found the first Aryan Empire spoke, like Kurds, a West Iranid language and lived in the Zagros Mountains. Not Russian, not Slavic, not Baltic, but West Iranid. In the Zagros, the Middle East! And West Iranid language were NEVER native to Europe, because no native population in the Steppes speaks Aryan/Iranid language as their native language.


The language I speak, my native language was spoken by Keyxesrew (Cyaxares) who defeated the Semties in southern parts of Mesopotamia and made the Aryan (Median) Empire (Middle Eastern) even greater. And Middle Eastern Kurds are descendants of the Middle Eastern Medes. My ancestors were the Medes. This is very easy to understand. I'm very proud of the history of my race, so proud as a peacock (angel).


So, who (tf) were your ancestors...?





BTW, Google translate has Kurdish now. Thank you Google, keep the Aryan (West Iranic) language of the Medes alive!

Tomenable
28-02-16, 03:02
Goga, you disrespect all other peoples and their histories, yet expect everyone to respect you.

I very much support the Kurdish independence movement, but I also hope that other Kurds don't behave like you.

Why are you so defensive and so hostile at the same time. And what are you even arguing about ???

This thread is NOT about Kurds, for goodness' sakes. And we are not ISIS, so stop being so hostile.

BTW, your disrespect for the continent which hosts you is pathetic. You just claimed most of Europe has no history.

Tomenable
28-02-16, 03:10
Thousands of my people die yearly for our language and to persevere our language.

Kurdish female heroes die fighting ISIS (meanwhile what are Kurdish men doing in the EU, and in the internet?):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybcsRbhnpnc

http://supportkurds.org/kurdistan/

In case if a Kurdish woman is trapped by ISIS, surrendering is no option, because that would be worse than death:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwSOAfBWGOA

1/3 of Kurdish forces fighting ISIS are women. And among Middle Eastern refugees in Europe 4/5 are men !!!

What does it say about Middle Eastern men?


2000 years ago they lived like savages in the marshes.

And 2000 years ago Middle Easterners were not savages in the marshes, but they are now.

"On the left - the Middle East 4000 years ago; on the right - the Middle East today":

http://s15.postimg.org/dtsvxl82z/Middle_East.png

Are you really so proud that your region relatively (compared to others) declined over time ???

Goga
28-02-16, 03:25
Goga, you disrespect all other peoples and their histories, yet expect everyone to respect you.

I very much support the Kurdish independence movement, but I also hope that other Kurds don't behave like you.

Why are you so defensive and so hostile at the same time. And what are you even arguing about ???

This thread is NOT about Kurds, for goodness' sakes. And we are not ISIS, so stop being so hostile.

BTW, your disrespect for the continent which hosts you is pathetic. You just claimed most of Europe has no history.Somebody else started to talk about BMAC, Sintashta etc.. Not me..



Thank you for your support. But it doesn't help. Kurds have to fight against the Turks and Semites for their own country and reclaim it back which belonged to our ancestors the Medes. We will defeat our enemies, no doubt about that. Nobody can defeat 50 million Kurds in Kurdistan. Even genocides against the Kurds won't help. maybe in the 20th century you could genocide, 2, 6 million people. But to genocide 50 million people on their native land in the 21st century is just impossible!


Don't put something into my mouth what I didn't tell. Alexander the Great was an European. The Roman Empire was an European Empire. Italians are great European people who have huge ancient European history. So Europe has ancient history, but people in Northern Europe and especially Balto-Slavic folks don't have any ancient history at all. Where were they at the time of Socrates or Julius Caesar? They lived in the marshes. That's a fact! But today Russians (Slavonic Ivanko folks) are making great history. They are a superpower now at the moment. But the point is that Russians don't have any ancient history. That's all. I'm not trying to insult anybody.


Europe has a GREAT history. History of Europe and Western civilization is based on the ancient Greeks, like Plato, Socrates, Aristotle who in turn were influenced by the Iranid philosophy. but Iranid (Aryan) philosophy found its roots in the Mesopotamia (Sumerians). Listen, I don't consider Iranid philosophy superior, maybe the Chinese philosophy is even older and more superior…


My point is, even if you don't have ancient history, don't try to steal history of other ancient people. Balto-Slavonic folks were never Aryan and never will be. But at ths moment of time Slavic Russians are much more powerfull than Aryan folks combined (Kurds + Persians). That's also a fact...

Goga
28-02-16, 03:31
Brave Kurdish women die fighting ISIS (meanwhile what are Kurdish men doing in the EU, and in the internet?):


1/3 of Kurdish forces fighting ISIS are women. And among Middle Eastern refugees in Europe 4/5 are men !!!

What does it say about Middle Eastern men? Instead of supporting their women, they come here to rape our.
They are immortal! They will never be forgotten in Kurdish history. They’re more brave than I'm. I did nothing for Kurdistan (money is nothing), while they are giving their lives for Kurdistan. I hope 1 day I can give just 1% back to my people of what those warriors gave.

I was not born in Kurdistan. I was born in the USSR. I'm not a warrior or a fighter, I'm an intellectual. I have other qualities. And I do hope that someday Kurdistan can use my qualities…

Tomenable
28-02-16, 03:57
but people in Northern Europe and especially Balto-Slavic folks don't have any ancient history at all.

What do you mean by history, though? Only written history?

Before written history, there was prehistory and archaeology. Now archaeogenetics also helps uncover the past.

We do have prehistory plus some Ancient archaeology. And genetic origins: we did not sprung out of the ground.

Celts & Germanics have more ancient history only because they lived closer to Greeks and Romans, who described them.

Ancient Celts didn't have a writing system and Germanics also started using writing (runes; Sagas) only later.


Somebody else started to talk about BMAC, Sintashta etc.. Not me.

Nobody here claimed that Sintashta or BMAC were Slavic-speakers or Baltic-speakers - or ethnically Balto-Slavs.

We just wrote about geographical locations and geographical points of origin.

You seem to be thinking that if someone came from what is now Russia, they must have been Slavic-speakers.


Kurds have to fight against the Turks and Semites for their own country and reclaim it back

I wish all the best to Kurds, they really deserve to have their own independent homeland.

Goga
28-02-16, 04:00
And 2000 years ago Middle Easterners were not savages in the marshes, but they are now.

"On the left - the Middle East 4000 years ago; on the right - the Middle East today":

http://s15.postimg.org/dtsvxl82z/Middle_East.png

Are you really so proud that your region declined so much over time ???Lol, true and you re right.

But some folks in the Middle East were savages, are savages and always will be savages. You just have to look to the Arabian Peninsula. That's not 'my' part of the Middle East.


That's because the whole world is supporting the Turks and the Semites against the Aryans in the Middle East.
Who is helping the Turks to kill Kurds? Who is giving the Turks airplanes, tanks, missiles and other weapons to kill Kurds? The whole world! Who created Semitic Al-Qaeda, Daesh and attacked the Kurds? Who is giving those Semites the weapons? Semitic Jews, the USA and the rest of the world.

Kurds don't have friends but the mountains. We are surrounded by the enemies and we are fighting against the whole world for centuries. But we're still standing. Untill the last Kurd on this planet we're not defeated. Other races and other languages would vanish. But Kurds are still alive and live on their ancestral homeland. And we re going to will this battle we are fighting against the whole world.

So don't worry, buddy. The ancient prophecies are talking about the return of the Medes. The Kurds/Medes will make their comeback on the world stage again. Once Kurds will reclaim the homeland of their ancestors back, West Asia will flourish again. Not sure about Arabia thought. My folks are not really interested in Arabia or the Semites.…

Goga
28-02-16, 04:20
What do you mean by history, though? Only written history?

Before written history, there was prehistory and archaeology. Now archaeogenetics also helps uncover the past.

We do have prehistory plus some Ancient archaeology. And genetic origins: we did not sprung out of the ground.

Celts & Germanics have more ancient history only because they lived closer to Greeks and Romans, who described them.

Ancient Celts didn't have a writing system and Germanics also started using writing (runes; Sagas) only later.



Nobody here claimed that Sintashta or BMAC were Slavic-speakers or Baltic-speakers - or ethnically Balto-Slavs.

We just wrote about geographical locations and geographical points of origin.

You seem to be thinking that if someone came from what is now Russia, they must have been Slavic-speakers.
By history I mean a great human civilization, a dominant empire if you want, (to the known world) that changed the course of humanity, the way of thinking of the known civilized world. And not only militarily (like Genghis Khan did), but through philosophy, art, science, laws, restructuring the civil society to influence/evolve the whole human race.


Some folks on this site believe here that the ancestors of Balto-Slavic people came to Asia and found Aryan civilizations in Asia. If that was a case, why didn't they found any advanced civilization in their own homeland before Aryans in West Asia and why don't they speak the languages of the advanced Aryans civilizations of West Asia, like languages of the Zoroastrian books, Avestan etc.
When you do colonize a country you are teaching the colonized one your own language. And the colonized one are starting to speak the language of their colonizers. English, Spanish is spoken outside Europe.

Ancient Aryans spoke Iranid languages, like Avestan, Kurdish (Median) and Persian. Ancient Aryan civilizations were found by these languages. West Iranian languages were official languages of the Aryan civilizations. Not PIE, not proto-Indo-Iranian, but just plain West Iranian. The Medes were Aryan people. That's a fact. They didn't speak proto-Indo-European or proto-Indo-Iranian. During the Aryan Empire folks in that Empire didn't speak Russian, Balto-Slavic or even proto-Indo-Iranian. They spoke just West Iranian. If Aryans came from the Russian Steppes, why people don't speak Iranic languages like the true Aryan folks during the Median Empire? Like English and Spanish in Europe and English & Spanish in the New World...

Tomenable
28-02-16, 04:27
We are surrounded by the enemies (...) But we're still standing.

Poles have always lived between Russians and Germans, with whom our relations were more often hostile than peaceful.

We know how it is to be surrounded by the enemies.

Ever heard of the Partitions of Poland-Lithuania? Or about the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact? There are more such episodes.


Kurds don't have friends but the mountains.

You can consider me a friend of Kurds. I'm also a friend of Tibetans and Uyghurs, who are under Chinese occupation.

But what can we do about this ???

The world just ignores Tibet and Xinjiang, because China is too powerful. You have the same problem with Turkey.

But the collapse of Iraq and of Syria created an opportunity for the Kurds.

Goga
28-02-16, 04:38
Poles were always located between Russia and Germany. We know how it is to be surrounded by the enemies.



You can consider me a friend of Kurds. I'm also a friend of Tibetans and Uyghurs, who are under Chinese occupation.

But what can we do about this ???

The world just ignores Tibet and Xinjiang, because China is too powerful. You have the same problem with Turkey.

But the collapse of Iraq and of Syria created an opportunity for the Kurds.Poles have access to the sea. Poland could trade withwhole world through the sea. With Scandinavia etc. Kurds are trapped and haveno gate to the world. We've only mountains.
But I think when Great Kurdistan will be established (very soon, sooner than you think) we will border the Caucasus Mountain, Georgia and Armenia. Georgians and Armenians will become our door (corridor) to the civilized world.


Turks and Turkey are priority now. To make our homeland flourish Turks have to be totally defeated. And that is already happening. We are defeating them, this proces has already been started. Those Turks who will still oppose the Kurds will go back to their homeland, where they came from 1000 years ago, back to the Altai. Those who will stay will become Greeks, Georgians, Armenian again..



But this topic is not about the Kurds. It was not my intention to derail it....

Tomenable
28-02-16, 04:39
If that was a case, why didn't they found any advanced civilization in their own homeland before Aryans in West Asia

It is like asking why for example Eskimos have no plantations of bananas and no vineyards in their lands.

Northern Euorope has had a harsh, cold climate, which was not favourable for early developments in agriculture or civilization.

Those things were doomed to be invented in warmer climates of the South, read "Guns, Germs and Steel".


their homeland, where they came from 1000 years ago, back to the Altai.

Actually they probably came from the Lena River basin (assuming that the Dinglings were the Proto-Turks):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dingling

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lena_River

Later the Dinglings migrated south to Mongolia and the Eastern Altai, and became one part of the Xiongnu:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiongnu

Some of them could also join the Xianbei: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xianbei

After the Xiongnu confederacy disintegrated, they formed the Tiele people, a union of several Turkic tribes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiele_people

Goga
28-02-16, 05:26
It is like asking why for example Eskimos have no plantations of bananas and no vineyards in their lands.

Northern Euorope has had a harsh, cold climate, which was not favourable for early developments in agriculture or civilization.

Those things were doomed to be invented in warmer climates of the South, read "Guns, Germs and Steel".
True, if climate conditions are not really helpful to create a civilization, then folks don't have any urge to overcome those harsh conditions and found an Empire. The only thing what they want is to survive, then it's not part of their DNA to start a huge project for establishment of a great Empire. If you don't do it at home, you won't learn a different way and you will never be able to use that 'different way' outside your habitat, outside your box.

A hunter/gatherer from North would never migrate into the South and teach the Southern how to be a farmer/agriculturalist. A hunter/gatherer from North could only teach Southerners how to be a hunter/gatherer and can learn from Southerners how to become a farmer. Farming was born in the South, that's why people from the South learned people in the North how to farm.


The very first advance 'urban' civilizations were born in the Mesopotamia (with the Sumerians). I don't know why? Maybe because of the climate, maybe hand of GOD/Aliens like the Sumerians told us? I think that the Sumerian were lucky enough to adapt to their habitat, the Mesopotamia. From there it spread to other people. That's how people from the Mesopotamia learned all other folks how to organized your tribe, city, land, race, society.

People in the North never found/created an advanced Empire, therefore they would not be able to create an advanced urban empire/civilization somewhere else, because they wouldn't know how do it. No knowledge at all.

They simply don't have any "know-how".


Civilizations started from the Mesopotamia and spread into all directions.


But harsh conditions can make people stronger, smarter and resourceful. Normally people try to survive. And to survive people have to be creative. Think about the Egypt. It's a desert, but people became smart enough to irrigate their desert lands with the water from the Nile River. Although, I'm sure they learned the irrigation from the Mesopotamia.


People have always to fight against the nature. But nature is much stronger than human race. So people have to adapt to the nature, nature will never adapt to people. No matter where you live, in North or in South...

arvistro
28-02-16, 11:52
It is not that much about creating. Steppe has always been about savages establishing their control over advanced civilizations.
Were Turks who arrived of higher civilization than Byzantium? Yet, today Byzantium's territories speak Turkish. And Attila vs Rome? Czingis Khan vs Persians and rest of the world?

Angela
28-02-16, 16:19
It is not that much about creating. Steppe has always been about savages establishing their control over advanced civilizations.
Were Turks who arrived of higher civilization than Byzantium? Yet, today Byzantium's territories speak Turkish. And Attila vs Rome? Czingis Khan vs Persians and rest of the world?

Indeed. That's the pattern repeated over and over again. The pastoralists of the periphery live in tension with the civilized, agricultural core. As the core comes under stress, climatic, societal etc., they attack. The civilization crumbles and then has to be rebuilt, sometimes as a synthesis of both peoples and subsistence strategies. Regardless, much knowledge and progress is usually lost. It's a pity but it seems to be inevitable.

This is the case not only with the Indo-Europeans but with Semitic speakers. Scholars have made the argument that the Old Testament story of Cain and Abel, where God rejects the sacrifice of the fields and prefers the animal sacrifice of the shepherd is just the propaganda of pastoralists explaining why God favors them over the Canaanites. There are versions of the story all over the Middle East.

See:
http://rationalisingthebible.blogspot.ie/2010/10/story-of-cain-and-abel-in-mythology.html

And so it continues today. People still taking sides based on the ancestors with whom they identify. It's rather disheartening.

Lest any believers be offended, I learned of all this not from atheistic university professors, but from very devout Roman Catholic theologians. :)

Tomenable
29-02-16, 14:51
Steppe has always been about savages establishing their control over advanced civilizations.

This is only partially true, and IMO a kind of an over-simplification.

Steppe peoples also played a positive role, acting as major agents exchanging inventions and ideas between Europe, West Asia, East Asia and South Asia. Eurasian exceptionality (compared to the Americas or Africa) was because the steppe worked as a "highway" connecting major civilizations of Eurasia. Jared Diamond also noticed that Steppe was a "highway" allowing long-distance contacts.

The Bronze-to-Iron Age Scythian civilization once extended from the Black Sea all the way to the Altai Mountains:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260249780_Climate-Induced_Changes_in_Population_Dynamics_of_Siberian _Scythians_700-250_BC


(...) Siberian Scythians in the remote outskirts of the Eurasian Steppe had access to fine Chinese silk, Persian rugs, and Greek pottery [Rudenko, 1970; Polosmak, 2001; Parzinger, 2006]. Their prosperity allowed them to have slaves, possess lavish golden outfits weighing many kilograms, and elaborate their burials with mummified bodies, dozens of horses, and wooden chambers replicating dwellings. (...) The archaeological artifacts decorated with distinctive animal-style art of Scythians found in burial sites remain the best evidence confirming the existence of interconnected cultural communities across the Eurasian Steppe. Mobility associated with horseback riding was the key element to the wealth and social development of these tribes [Levine et al., 2003]. The Scythian economy heavily depended on livestock breeding (horses, cattle, sheep, and goats). The Siberian Scythians inhabited mountainous landscapes that offered diverse seasonally used vertical pastures. Multiple lines of archaeological evidence demonstrate vertical seasonal migration of Scythian horse breeders in central Asia based on settlement pattern.

(...)

The term "Siberian Scythians" refers to seminomadic tribes occupying the heart of Eurasia: Altai-Sayan Mountains during the first millennium B.C. Broadly, these tribes were a part of the Scythian world reaching from the Black Sea region to Lake Baykal over 4000 km and thriving for about 800 years. It was a very dynamic time across this vast geographical region designated the Eurasian Steppe and dominated by the economic strategies of mobile pastoralism. Royal families and local elites controlled and facilitated south-north and west-east trading routes on a truly global scale [Jacobson, 1995]. (...) Three distinctive episodes of Altai climate change appear to be tracking three major cultural phases of the Siberian Scythians advancement: (1) 700 – 480 B.C., coldand highly variable climate; (2) 480 – 360 B.C., mild warm climate and stable environmental conditions; and (3) 360 – 250 B.C., turbulent cold climate with amplified decadal variability.

(...)

High adaptation to climate combined with high mobility may have motivated dispersal of the Pazyryk people to explore and conquer new environments. Overall, climate variability reliably tracks Pazyryk population growth between 750 and 520 B.C. and then again from 340 to 275 B.C. Enhanced climate variance leads to dispersal of the population and southward migration across the Altai. A brief cold episode at 360 - 350 B.C. resulted in relocation and concentration of the Pazyryk population in the south-eastern Altai. The last contraction of Pazyryk populationoccurred in warm decades before 250 B.C., after which mortuary evidence of Pazyryk population disappeared from the Altai landscape. The decrease in density of kurgans datedwith tree rings may point to the dispersal of the Pazyryk population from the Altai, which began during warm decades of the first millennium B.C. (280 - 240 B.C.). There may be more than one plausible scenario of Scythian routes for withdrawal from the Altai.

(...)

The total number of Scythian structures surveyed within Altai's river basins varies between 64% and 45% of total registered archaeological and historical structures. This is strong evidence for high occupational density of Siberian Scythians in the studied area. Burial grounds of Siberian Scythians follow a common landscape pattern: rows of kurgans and stone enclosures associated with them were established on grasslands overlooking rivers (Figure 7A). A typical cemetery would have over a dozen kurgans organized in a single row, extended family assembly (Figure 7). Each kurgan has a dualor group burial (three to four human skeletons); single burials are a less common feature of the cemeteries [Kubarev, 1991; Derevyanko and Molodin, 2000]. Besides kurgans of commoners, this part of the Russian Altai has large kurgans of Pazyryk warriors (Ak-Alakha-3) and higher noble elite (Pazyryk-5).

(...)

Overall, the burial grounds of Siberian Scythians are more spatially dense than burials of any other groups inhabiting Altai from 5000 B.C. to the present day. The high number of Scythian kurgans suggests a large population size. The modern rural population of the Russian Altai [RF-FSSS Statistics, 2011] is 149,409 people with 2.2 per km2 population density (Russian Census 2002). This is 50,000 people (one third) more than a century ago (Russian Census 1923) near the end of the Little Ice Age and long before modern technological impact on the Altaic nomadic population. If we assume that settlement patterns of the historic Altai population are similar to the Scythian pastoralists, as was demonstrated in studies on Bronze-Iron Age pastoralists of Kazakhstan and Mongolia [Frachetti, 2008; Houle, 2010], a feasible approximation of the lower bounds of Siberian Scythian population size is roughly 100,000 people (comparable to Altai nomadic population in the early twentieth century). However, because the Scythian burials far outnumber the modern and historical nomadic cemeteries, the upper bounds are more realistic in this case: ~260,000 people and higher (100,000 multiplied by 2.6, the average number of people buried in Scythian kurgans). (...)

Here about a Late (Iron Age) Scythian man from the Volga region (Mathieson 2015):

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-scythian.html

Identical-by-State (IBS) similarity:

Lithuanian 0.645247
Estonian 0.645233
Latvian 0.645024
Russian_Kostroma 0.644946
Irish 0.644902
Orcadian 0.644792
Norwegian 0.644754
Belorussian 0.644727
Swedish 0.644667
Polish 0.644664
Austrian 0.644639
Danish 0.644587
English_Cornwall 0.644556
Belgian 0.644552
Scottish_Argyll 0.644548

===================================

Check also:

http://i.imgur.com/vRAichh.png

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?195464-Scythian-Autosomal-DNA

http://i.imgur.com/vRAichh.png

Tomenable
29-02-16, 15:19
In the Americas, major civilizations were separated from each other by mountains, deserts and jungles.

In Eurasia, major civilizations (in the west, south and east) were all connected by the Eurasian steppe.

laetoli
02-03-16, 12:22
They would be totally unable to repulse a charge by PIE cavalry or chariots.

Fascinating video, thanks. I think it would be difficult to take a chariot over that terrain but horses would have certainly swung the balance in favour of the PIE fighters. Bronze weaponary might also have helped.

Best wishes

moore2moore
02-03-16, 20:22
If you watch the video, you will see that they fight in very loose formations.

They would be totally unable to repulse a charge by PIE cavalry or chariots.

I don't mean to pile on, as others have thoroughly and thoughtfully debunked this statement. But do you see what I mean when I talk about examples of ubermensch fantasies?

Keep in mind too, that horses alone will not win a battle for the possessor. The armies of the Roman Republic and the early empire largely eschewed cavalry in favor of a strong infantry. They destroyed numerically superior forces -- of cavalry -- again and again, for example, at the Battle of Tigranocerta. Tactics matter.

Toward the late empire, the army adopted cataphracts into their armies, which paved the way for medieval knights. But for hundreds of years, infantry was king.

Tomenable
02-03-16, 23:09
moore2moore,


others have thoroughly and thoughtfully debunked this statementWhere ???


Keep in mind too, that horses alone will not win a battle for the possessor.

You are wrong, they will.


the armies of the Roman Republic and the early empire largely eschewed cavalry in favor of a strong infantry.

After the catastrophic defeat at Carrhae the Romans started increasing the cavalry component, though:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carrhae

By the way - Neolithic people had no such a thing as "strong infantry" (by which you mean heavy infantry).


for example, at the Battle of Tigranocerta.

At Tigranocerta it was cavalry vs. cavalry. Thracian and Gallic cavalry in Roman service defeated Armenian cataphracts.

Here is the description of that clash:

"(...) But when he [Lucullus] saw that the mail-clad horsemen, on whom the greatest reliance was placed, were stationed at the foot of a considerable hill which was crowned by a broad and level space, and that the approach to this was a matter of only four stadia, and neither rough nor steep, he ordered his Thracian and Gallic horsemen to attack the enemy in the flank, and to parry their long spears with their own short swords. (Now the sole resource of the mail-clad horsemen is their long spear, and they have none other whatsoever, either in defending themselves or attacking their enemies, owing to the weight and rigidity of their armour; in this they are, as it were, immured). (...)"

Roman infantry also took part, but the decisive role in defeating cataphracts was played by Thracian-Gallic horsemen.


Toward the late empire, the army adopted cataphracts into their armies

The Romans did not invent cataphracts, though - they copied this formation from their eastern neighbours.

Ultimately, cataphracts - heavily-armoured horsemen with long lances and / or bows - originated in the Steppe.

The first recorded use of cataphracts was in year 530 BC by Queen Tomyris in her battle against Cyrus II:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomyris

Scythian and Massagetae horsemen under Tomyris utterly defeated the Persians, and Cyrus II was killed in battle:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great#Death

The Persians adopted cataphracts from their Steppe enemies - Cyrus the Younger started using them on a large scale.

The Seleucid Empire also used cataphracts - they won the day e.g. in the battle of Panium in 200 BC. Parthian, Palmyrene, Mithridatic and Sassanid Empires, etc. were all using cataphracts - and the Romans adopted cataphracts from those guys.

The first confirmed appearance of cataphracts in the Roman Army was in 130 AD - they were not yet Roman citizens, but ethnically Roxolani mercenaries recruited by Rome following the 117 AD treaty between Emperor Hadrian and Roxolani King Rasparaganus. Later the Romans started creating their own, native units of cataphracts, in which Roman citizens served. In the 210s AD the Romans already had many units of cataphracts, and developed a specialized type of cataphracts called clibanarii (clibanarii were used to fight enemy cavalry, cataphracts were used to fight enemy infantry - there were differences in training and tactics between them).

The Romans also had for example sagittari clibanarii, who were heavily-armoured horse archers.

In the Middle Ages cataphracts continued to be used by the Byzantine Empire until at least 1204 AD, maybe longer.

But "Western-style" knights proved superior to cataphracts during the crusades and Latin-Byzantine wars.


But for hundreds of years, infantry was king.

Infantry was most definitely the backbone, but not king.

In World War 2 infantry was also the backbone, but Tank Divisions were kings.

Tank Divisions delivered "decisive blows" in key spots of the front, due to mobility combined with punching power.

Tomenable
03-03-16, 00:01
Note that cataphracts originated in pre-stirrup era. And that was actually their greatest weakness.

Stirrup made heavy cavalry much more efficient. But it made not much difference for light horsemen.

Tomenable
03-03-16, 00:25
There is an Ancient Chinese source called the "Six Secret Teachings", which tells us a lot about the roles played by chariots, cavalry, infantry, etc. in Ancient warfare: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Secret_Teachings

Excerpts from the "Six Secret Teachings" below:

=====================

King Wu asked Tai Gong: "What about battle chariots?"
Tai Gong replied: (...) In general, in chariot battles, there are ten types of situations on which demise is very likely and eight on which victory can be easily achieved."
King Wu asked:"What are the ten fatal situations like?”
Tai Gong replied:”If after advancing, there is no way to withdraw, this is a fatal terrain for chariots.
Passing beyond narrow defiles, to pursue the enemy some distance, this is terrain which will exhaust the chariots.
When the land in front makes advancing easy, while that to the rear is treacherous, this is terrain that will entrap the chariots.
Penetrating into narrow and obstructed areas from which escape will be difficult, this is terrain on which the chariots may be cut off.
If the land is collapsing, sinking, and marshy, with black mud sticking to everything, this is terrain which will ‘labor’ the chariots.
To the left is precipitous while to the right is easy, with high mounds and sharp hills. This is terrain contrary to the use of chariots.
Luxuriant grass runs through the field, and there are deep, watery channels throughout. This is terrain which thwarts the use of chariots.
When the chariots are few in number, the land easy, and one is outnumbered by enemy infantry, this is terrain on which the chariots may be defeated.
To the rear are water filled ravines and ditches, to the left deep water and to the right steep hills. This is terrain on which chariots are destroyed.
It has been raining day and night for more than ten days without stopping. The roads have collapsed so that it is not possible to advance or to escape to the rear. This is the terrain that will sink the chariots.
These ten are deadly terrain for chariots. Thus they are the means by which the stupid general will be captured and the wise general will be able to escape."
King Wu asked:"What about eight conditions of terrain that result in victory?"
Tai Gong replied:"When the enemy’s ranks - front and rear - are not yet settled, strike into them.
When their flags and pennants are in chaos, their men and horses frequently shifting about, then strike into them.
When some of their officers and troops advance while others retreat; when some move to the left, others to the right, then strike into them.
When their battle array is not yet solid, while their officers and troops are looking around at each other, strike them.
When in advancing, they appear full of doubts, and in withdrawing they are fearful, strike them.
When the enemy’s whole army are suddenly frightened, all of them rising up in great confusion, strike into them.
When you are fighting on easy terrain and twilight has not ended, strike into them.
When, after traveling far, at dusk they are camping and their whole army are terrified, strike into them.
These eight situations constitute conditions in which the chariots will be victorious.
If the general is clear about these ten fatal situations and eight situations where victory is almost certain, then even if the enemy surrounds him on all sides - attacking with one thousand chariots and ten thousand cavalry from the front and the flanks - he will invariably be victorious."
"Excellent!" said King Wu.

King Wu asked Tai Gong: "When chariots and infantry engage in battle, one chariot is equivalent to how many infantrymen? How many infantrymen are equivalent to one chariot? When cavalry and infantry engage in battle, one cavalryman is equivalent to how many infantrymen? How many infantrymen are equivalent to one cavalryman? When chariots and cavalry engage in battle, one chariot is equivalent to how many cavalrymen? How many cavalrymen are equivalent to one chariot?"
Tai Gong replied: "Chariots are the wings of the army, the means to penetrate solid formations, to press strong enemies and to cut off their flight. (...) after the masses of the army have been arrayed in opposition to the enemy, when fighting on easy terrain, the rule is that one chariot is equivalent to eighty infantrymen, and eighty infantrymen equal to one chariot. One cavalryman is equivalent to eight infantrymen; eight infantrymen is equivalent to one cavalryman. One chariot is equivalent to ten cavalrymen; ten cavalrymen is equivalent to one chariot.
The rule for fighting on difficult terrain is that one chariot is equivalent to forty infantrymen, and forty infantrymen are equivalent to one chariot. One cavalryman is equivalent to four infantrymen; four infantrymen are equivalent to one cavalrymen. One chariot is equivalent to six cavalrymen; six cavalrymen are equivalent to one chariot.
Now chariots and cavalry are the army’s strong weapons. Ten chariots can defeat one thousand men; one hundred chariots can defeat ten thousand men. Ten cavalrymen can drive off one hundred men, and one hundred cavalrymen can drive off one thousand men. These are the approximate numbers."
King Wu asked: "What are the numbers for chariot and cavalry officers and their transformation?"
Tai Gong replied: "For the chariots - a leader for five chariots, a captain for ten, a commander for fifty and a general for one hundred.
For battle on easy terrain five chariots comprise one line. The lines are forty paces apart, the chariots from left to right should be ten paces apart, with detachments sixty paces apart. On difficult terrain the chariots must follow the roads, with ten comprising a company and twenty a regiment. Front to rear spacing should be twenty paces, left to right six paces, with detachments thirty-six paces apart. If they venture of the road more than two li in any direction, they should return to the original road.
As for the number of officers in the cavalry: a leader for five men; a captain for ten; a commander for one hundred; a general for two hundred.
The rule for fighting on easy terrain: Five cavalrymen will form one line, and front to back their lines should be separated by twenty paces, left to right four paces, with fifty paces between detachments.
On difficult terrain, the rule is front to back, ten paces; left to right, two paces; between detachments, twenty-five paces. Thirty cavalrymen comprise a company; sixty form a regiment. For ten cavalrymen, there is a captain. In action, they should not move out of the range of one hundred paces, after which they should circle back and return to their original positions."
"Excellent!" said King Wu.

=====================

And a further fragment from the Six Secret Teachings about chariots:

=====================

"(...) As for the basic numbers when employing the army, if commanding ten thousand armed soldiers the rules for [the various types of equipment and their] employment are as follows.
Thirty-six Martial Protective Large Fu-hsu Chariots. Skilled officers, strong crossbowmen, spear bearers, and halberdiers - total of twenty-four for each flank [and the rear]. The chariots have eight foot wheels. On it are set up pennants and drums which, according to the Art of War, are referred to as 'Shaking Fear.' They are used to penetrate solid formations, to defeat strong enemies.
Seventy-two Martial-Flanking Large Covered Spear and Halberd Fu-hsu Chariots. Skilled officers, strong crossbowmen, spear bearers, and halberdiers comprise the flanks. They have five foot wheels and winch-powered linked crossbows which fire multiple arrows for self protection. They are used to penetrate solid formations and defeat strong enemies.
One hundred and forty Flank-supporting Small covered Fu-hsu Chariots equipped with winch-powered linked crossbows to fire multiple arrows for self-protection. They have deer wheels and are used to penetrate solid formations and defeat strong enemies.
Thirty-six Great Yellow Triple-linked Crossbow Large Fu-hsu Chariots. Skilled officers, strong crossbowmen, spear bearers, and halberdiers compromise the flanks, with 'flying duck' and 'lightning shadow' arrows for self-protection. 'Flying duck' arrows have red shafts and white feathers, with bronze arrowheads. 'Lightning's shadow' arrows have green shafts and red feathers, with iron heads. In the daytime they display pennants of red silk six feet long by six inches wide, which shimmer int he light. At night they hang pennants of white silk, also six feet long by six inches wide, which appear like meteors. They are used to penetrate solid formations, to defeat infantry and cavalry.
Thirty six Great Fu-hsu Attack Chariots. Carrying Praying Mantis Martial warriors, they can attack both horizontal and vertical formations and can defeat the enemy.
Baggage Chariots [for repelling] mounted invaders, also called 'Lightning Chariots.' The Art of War refers to their use in 'lightning attacks.' They are used to penetrate solid formations, to defeat both infantry and cavalry.
One hundred and sixty Spear and Halberd Fu-hsu Light Chariots [for repelling] night invaders from the fore. Each carries three Praying Mantis Martial knights. The Art of War refers to them as mounting 'thunder attacks.' They are used to penetrate solid formations, to defeat both infantry and cavalry... [continues to other equipment that has nothing to do with chariots] ..."

=====================

And from another Ancient Chinese source - Wuzi attributed to Wu Qi (aka Wu Ch'i):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuzi

Excerpts:

=====================

Marquis Wu asked: "In general are there methods for taking care of the chariots and cavalry?"
Wu Ch'i replied: "Now the horses must be properly settled, with appropriate grass and water and correct feeding so as to be neither hungry nor full. In the winter they should have warm stables, in the summer cool sheds. Their mane and hair should be kept trimmed and their hooves properly cared for. Blinders and ear protectors should be used so as to keep them from being startled and frightened. Practice their galloping and pursuit, exercise constraint over their advancing and halting. Men and horses must be attached to each other; only thereafter can they be employed. "
"The equipment for the chariots and cavalry - such as saddles, bridles, bits, and reins- must all be complete and durable. Normally, the horses do not receive their injuries near the end of the battle but invariably they are injured at the start. Similarly, they are not injured so much by hunger as by being overfed. When the sun is setting and the road long, the riders should frequently dismount for it is better to have the men weary than to overlabor the horses. You should always direct movements so as to keep some strength in reserve against the enemy suddenly turning on us. Anyone who is clear about this can traverse the realm without hindrance."

Greying Wanderer
04-03-16, 20:43
If you watch the video, you will see that they fight in very loose formations.

They would be totally unable to repulse a charge by PIE cavalry or chariots.

Yes, very important imo.

Angela
04-03-16, 20:52
Not that anybody seems to be listening, but there were no chariots until 2000 BC, long after the events in Central Europe bringing steppe related people, and far to the east I might add, and other than wishful thinking, no "cavalry" either. Riding the horses might have been another matter.

You can't just willy nilly move technology to whatever place and time suits the agenda.

Greying Wanderer
04-03-16, 21:18
Not that anybody seems to be listening, but there were no chariots until 2000 BC, long after the events in Central Europe bringing steppe related people, and far to the east I might add, and other than wishful thinking, no "cavalry" either. Riding the horses might have been another matter.

You can't just willy nilly move technology to whatever place and time suits the agenda.

I agree about the chariots but

http://36.media.tumblr.com/b84e92f4860570b2aefa4a9b4bc27920/tumblr_msv5l30SI91rm3fh1o1_1280.jpg

Numidian cavalry, famously effective with both Carthage and Rome: no stirrups and no saddles or bridles either.

There are written references as well but literally carved in stone on Trajan's column.

The big difference is they weren't very good as melee cavalry - hand to hand fighting - so no charging to contact (i assume because of the lack of a solid seat) so they mostly fought by charging in, throwing javelins and then away again - similar to the PNG battle but on horseback.

Numidians don't prove anything about the PIE but they disprove the idea (edit: the PIE) couldn't have had effective *light* cavalry.

My guess re. the Numidians versus the PNG guys would have been a massacre - charge in fast, PNG run away, javelin in the back, all over in ten minutes.

That also doesn't prove anything about PIE as it depends how ppl like the C-T fought. If they had lots of archers they would have had longer range but if they were mostly spear guys they wouldn't have been able to do much against fast javelin cavalry.

Like I say, no proof but the possibility is there.

#

edit2

from what i've seen a lot of the first work on this came from later era cavalry officers when cavalry would have been swinging heavy swords around or couching lances and needed a secure seat not to fall off - centuries past the time they rode in, threw a javelin and rode away again.

#

edit

@Moesan

Regarding your earlier point about Celtic cavalry - they also had light javelin throwing cavalry so presumably they might not have had stirrups but IIRC (not 100% sure) they also had heavier melee cavalry with stirrups.

Milan
04-03-16, 21:18
Ironically according to legend the ancient people thought that Amazon woman invented the cavalry,matriarchal societies,how can we imagine a "warfare" from 2000 B.C even chariots,mounted "PIE" horseman and compare it to the middle ages,military tactics tend to change,Latin-Byzantine wars you might think about the siege of Constantinople but this was naval siege mostly by Venetians,then the Hussars have their origins in South-East Europe from there spread to Poland and wider Europe not from steppe,the stirrups were brought to Europe by the Avars most probably,Turkic people and their Iranic neighbors in the steppe were good horseman also the word kobyla in our language seem to be Turkic borrowing compare Latin caballus.

bicicleur
04-03-16, 22:27
Steppe peoples also played a positive role, acting as major agents exchanging inventions and ideas between Europe, West Asia, East Asia and South Asia. Eurasian exceptionality (compared to the Americas or Africa) was because the steppe worked as a "highway" connecting major civilizations of Eurasia. Jared Diamond also noticed that Steppe was a "highway" allowing long-distance contacts.


I think that they contributed a lot to the spread of the iron age, the source of which is yet unknown.

bicicleur
04-03-16, 22:43
Not that anybody seems to be listening, but there were no chariots until 2000 BC, long after the events in Central Europe bringing steppe related people, and far to the east I might add, and other than wishful thinking, no "cavalry" either. Riding the horses might have been another matter.

You can't just willy nilly move technology to whatever place and time suits the agenda.

I don't think horse riding was important anywhere before the invention of the war chariots.
The Afanasievo and Corded Ware spread seem to have been done with oxens and wagons and without much violence.
In the Suvurovo expansion there was violence, but it seems to be related with climatic changes and a fight for acces to the Danube marshes which contained winter fodder for cattle. Cattle needed winter fodder, horses were capable to look after themselves. The suvorovo people carried a lot of horse figurines in their status symbols, but there is no proof of actual horses carried into the Balkans at that time. Yet there must have been herds of horses in the Pontic steppe by that time, probably mainly for milk and meat.
There was clear social stratification amongst IE people though, and there were client-host relations in which ambitious men could grow. Somehow IE people were able to dominate other people as did the Cernavoda Suvorovo descendants.
I think IE people were trained fighters, but they didn't use violence against people who were willing to submit to their IE hierarchical system. They gave people a change to be part of their society, albeit starting at the bottom. That was their strength.

First horseback warriors would be the Scythians with their composite bows. But Mitanni 1500 BC and soon after Asyrians already had the composite bow but they were using them on chariots.

Milan
05-03-16, 00:11
This thing was squashing all the way to India

Sarissa

It was introduced by Philip II of Macedon and was used in his Macedonian phalanxes as a replacement for the earlier dory, which was considerably shorter.
Macedonian phalanx protected with cavalry and light-armed troops from the sides.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Makedonische_phalanx.png
The invention of the sarissa is credited to Philip II, father of Alexander the Great. Philip drilled his soldiers, whose morale was at first low, to use these formidable pikes with two hands. The new tactic was unstoppable, and by the end of Philip's reign controlled the whole of Greece, and Thrace.


His son, Alexander, used the new tactic across Asia, conquering Egypt, Persia and the Pauravas (northwest India), victorious all the way. The sarissa-wielding phalanxes were vital in every early battle, including the pivotal battle of Gaugamela where the Persian king's scythe chariots were utterly destroyed by the phalanx, supported by the combined use of companion cavalry and peltasts (javelineers).During his later campaigning, Alexander gradually reduced the importance of the phalanx and the sarissa, as he modified his combined use of arms to incorporate 'Asian' weapons and troops.
Subsequently, a lack of training and too great a reliance on the phalanx instead of the combined use of arms (Alexander's and Philip's great contributions) led to the final defeat of Macedon by the Romans at the Battle of Pydna. Part of the reason for the rapid deterioration of the sarissa's ability was that, after Alexander, generals ceased to protect phalanxes with cavalry and light-armed troops, and phalanxes were destroyed too easily by flank attacks owing to the sarissa's tactical unwieldiness. The sarissa was gradually replaced by variations of the gladius as the weapon of choice.Only Pyrrhus of Epirus was able to maintain a high standard of tactical handling with armies based around the sarissa, but with the dawn of the manipular system, even he struggled for his victories.

Tomenable
05-03-16, 12:41
Angela,

There is evidence of domesticated horses and of horseback riding in both Corded Ware and Bell Beaker cultures.

Only supporters of the Anatolian PIE hypothesis and scholars with anti-migratory bias tend to deny these facts.

http://s12.postimg.org/jy6nth8kt/corded_ware_man_on_horse.jpg


This thing was squashing all the way to India

In the battle of Panium in 200 BC Seleucid cataphracts charged "this thing" from behind, and utterly defeated it.

So as you can see even phalanx was defenceless as long as they had no protection of the flanks and the rear.

Alexander the Great had excellent cavalry troops which prevented outflanking by Persian cavalry in each battle.

bicicleur
05-03-16, 13:43
Angela,

There is evidence of domesticated horses and of horseback riding in both Corded Ware and Bell Beaker cultures.



which evidence precisely?

Csepel Bell Beaker folks brought horses from the Hungarian Puszta steppes into Central and Western Europe after 2500 BC

IMO Csepel Bell Beaker are the frist R1b-P312

Milan.M
05-03-16, 14:00
Angela,

There is evidence of domesticated horses and of horseback riding in both Corded Ware and Bell Beaker cultures.

Only supporters of the Anatolian PIE hypothesis and scholars with anti-migratory bias tend to deny these facts.





In the battle of Panium in 200 BC Seleucid cataphracts charged "this thing" from behind, and utterly defeated it.

So as you can see even phalanx was defenceless as long as they had no protection of the flanks and the rear.

Alexander the Great had excellent cavalry troops which prevented outflanking by Persian cavalry in each battle.
Why do you find all people biased that doesn't agree with your own theory?

Seleucid was himself of Macedonian descent and behind the phalanx was neither Philip or Alexander the one that mastered this formation but Ptolemaics in the battle of Panium,the Successor Kingdoms of Macedon's empire they tried expanding upon the design, creating pikes as long as 6.75 m (22.1 ft), but all of these ideas were eventually abandoned in favor of the battle-tried Philippine-Alexandrian sarissa,they were both using them,Seleucids were not something else neither from different military "school" he of course knew how to fight and what tactics he should use btw against their buddies Ptolemaics but as you can see that this Phalanx made their way to India the Persian chariots were utterly defeated by them over and over again,the cavalry was important thing too but not much more then the Peltast i can mention the Thracian Agrianes and their great contribution to Alexander victories,they were javelin throwers and an elite unit of Alexander the Great's light infantry,they were protecting the Phalanx.It is military formation in which all of them have contributio,all historians give them credit that they contributed the most for Macedonian victories but you deny this?somehow you think that the cavalry is superior to anything else.
Don't understand you what cataphract has to do with early Indo-Europeans in Europe?

The reliance on cavalry as a means of warfare in general lies with the ancient inhabitants of the Central Asian steppes in early antiquity, who were one of the first peoples to domesticate the horse and pioneered the development of the chariot. Most of these nomadic tribes and wandering pastoralists circa 2000 BC were largely Bronze-Age, Iranian populations who migrated from the steppes of Central Asia into the Iranian Plateau and Greater Iran from around 1000 BC to 800 BC. Two of these tribes are attested based upon archaeological evidence: the Mitanni and the Kassites. Although evidence is scant, they are believed to have raised and bred horses for specific purposes, as is evidenced by the large archaeological record of their use of the chariot and several treatises on the training of chariot horses.The one founding prerequisite towards the development of cataphract cavalry in the Ancient Near East, apart from advanced metalworking techniques and the necessary grazing pastures for raising horses, was the evolution of selective breeding and animal husbandry. Cataphract cavalry needed immensely strong and endurant horses, and without selectively breeding horses for muscular strength and hardiness, they would have surely not been able to bear the immense loads of armor and a rider during the strain of battle.The Near East is generally believed to have been the focal point for where this first occurred.

If there was much of horseman culture in what is now Poland why would you adopt a Hussar cavalry introduced by Serbian and Hungarian merchants?however they contributed for the decisive victory in the battle of Vienna against Ottomans.

Early "Proto-Cossack" groups are generally reported to have come into existence within the present-day Ukraine in the mid-13th century as the influence of Cumans grew weak though some have ascribed their origins to as early as the tenth century.Some historians suggest that the Cossack people were of mixed ethnic origins, descending from Russians, Ukrainians, Moldavians, Poles, Turks, Tatars, and others who settled or passed through the vast Steppe.However some Turkologists argue that Cossacks are descendants of native Cumans of Ukraine, who lived there long ago before the Mongol invasion.
I will again however for this Nomadic warfare give credit to Iranic and Turkic speaking people of the steppe who knows if there was others among them? Later we have the Cumans.
They had always contact with South East Europe firstly with Thracians then other groups of people "meeting" in present Ukraine Black sea region somewhere.
In my opinion Nomadic warfare is good for raiding or plunder as they raid and retreat but for something durable you need infantry as well more mixed military formation,while all of them are important,i don't know why we should make so much big deal of cavalry?

Tomenable
05-03-16, 14:59
which evidence precisely?

There appears to be some. Biomechanical analysis of the tibial midshaft geometry and a cross-sectional analysis of femoral midshafts show that Corded Ware males were most likely frequently riding horses. However, there is no such evidence when it comes to skeletons of CW females. It shows that probably horse riding/herding responsibilities fell to CW males and more sedentary, home-bound agricultural and child-rearing responsibilities fell to CW females. The comparison was between CW males and Early Bronze Age males, as well as between CW females and EBA females. And the result is that CW females were not more mobile than EBA females, but CW males were. However, IMO they should have been comparing CW females to Neolithic females - not to EBA females. Because EBA females could actually be involved in some horseback riding.

Then of course we have horse bones and evidence of horse sacrifice at burial and settlement sites throughout the Corded Ware culture. On the other hand you have people like Jurgita Žukauskaitė, an author with an anti-migrationist bias who wants to see Balts as some of the most indigenous peoples of Europe and therefore claim that horse bones from Central European Corded Ware were of domesticated horses, but horse bones from East Baltic Corded Ware were of wild horses - and that horses were only used as food resources. But she does not explain why she thinks so.


Why do you find all people biased that doesn't agree with your own theory?

With what theory exactly ???

You are talking about Late Antiquity, and the thread is about Neolithic and Early Metal Ages.

Your posts are Off-Topic here. Neolithic people did not have any phalanxes.


If there was much of horseman culture in what is now Poland why would you adopt a Hussar cavalry introduced by Serbian and Hungarian merchants?

Again - this is totally Off-Topic. This thread is not about the Early Modern Era, or about Serbia, Hungary or Poland. But Hussar cavalry used by Serbians was a type of light cavalry, while Winged Hussar which developed in Poland was a type of heavy cavalry. Those were totally different types of cavalry, with only the same name. Besides, Polish armies relied heavily on cavalry already during the Early Middle Ages, under the Piast dynasty. Do you think that the history of cavalry began with Hussars, or what?


Early "Proto-Cossack" groups are generally reported to have come into existence within the present-day Ukraine in the mid-13th century

Where did you take this info from ???

I have never heard about any Cossacks existing before the 15th or even 16th centuries.

And Cossack was not an ethnicity - it was a mode of living (essentially it means "Pirate").

Tomenable
05-03-16, 15:20
I will again however for this Nomadic warfare give credit to Iranic and Turkic speaking people of the steppe

Zaporozhian Cossacks from Ukraine in the 16th-17th centuries were never famous for "Nomadic warfare".

Quite the contrary - they were famous for infantry, wagon forts and naval warfare (piracy) in the Black Sea.

When you think Cossacks, you have in mind Russian cavalry troops of the 18th-20th centuries, apparently.

Here mid-17th century Cossack infantry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD6UkzJs9h0#t=2m38s


Don't understand you what cataphract has to do with early Indo-Europeans in Europe?

In this context we aren't talking about cataphracts, but horse warriors similar to Native American cavalry:

And with similar weapons as Native Americans - except for guns - so spears, javelins, bows, axes, maces, etc.:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tLNzOqFi80

Milan.M
05-03-16, 15:52
With what theory exactly ???

You are talking about Late Antiquity, and the thread is about Neolithic and Early Metal Ages.

Your posts are Off-Topic here. Neolithic people did not have any phalanxes.



Again - this is totally Off-Topic. This thread is not about the Early Modern Era, or about Serbia, Hungary or Poland. But Hussar cavalry used by Serbians was a type of light cavalry, while Winged Hussar which developed in Poland was a type of heavy cavalry. Those were totally different types of cavalry, with only the same name. Besides, Polish armies relied heavily on cavalry already during the Early Middle Ages, under the Piast dynasty. Do you think that the history of cavalry began with Hussars, or what?



Where did you take this info from ???

I have never heard about any Cossacks existing before the 15th or even 16th centuries.

And Cossack was not an ethnicity - it was a mode of living (essentially it means "Pirate").

Yes likewise in Neolithic times we have not reported cavalry either.
You know that you are not right,but whatever make you happy i better stop right there.
About the Cossacks it is their reconstructed history,yes it was not ethnicity but it has been argued as i know that they descent from those previous Nomads living there they didn't vanished,many names has been proposed about their origin and that will be in which language? but i can tell you that Hussar/Gusar mean "pirate" in fact.

Milan.M
05-03-16, 16:04
With what theory exactly ???

You are talking about Late Antiquity, and the thread is about Neolithic and Early Metal Ages.

Your posts are Off-Topic here. Neolithic people did not have any phalanxes.



Again - this is totally Off-Topic. This thread is not about the Early Modern Era, or about Serbia, Hungary or Poland. But Hussar cavalry used by Serbians was a type of light cavalry, while Winged Hussar which developed in Poland was a type of heavy cavalry. Those were totally different types of cavalry, with only the same name. Besides, Polish armies relied heavily on cavalry already during the Early Middle Ages, under the Piast dynasty. Do you think that the history of cavalry began with Hussars, or what?



Where did you take this info from ???

I have never heard about any Cossacks existing before the 15th or even 16th centuries.

And Cossack was not an ethnicity - it was a mode of living (essentially it means "Pirate").
We have no evidence in Neolithic time of cavalry either,it was about warfare it is off-topic.
You know you are not right,but whatever make you happy i better stop there.
It is their reconstructed history,they believe they descent from the previous nomads that lived there as those people did not vanished,in which language mean pirate,in turn i can tell you that Hussar/Gusar mean "pirate'.

Angela
05-03-16, 16:17
Tomenable:

"Then of course we have horse bones and evidence of horse sacrifice at burial and settlement sites throughout the Corded Ware culture."

How does that have anything to do with horse riding? Plus, to the best of my recollection there are actually very few horse burials in Corded Ware.


"There appears to be some. Biomechanical analysis of the tibial midshaft geometry and a cross-sectional analysis of femoral midshafts show that Corded Ware males were most likely frequently riding horses. However, there is no such evidence when it comes to skeletons of CW females. It shows that probably horse riding/herding responsibilities fell to CW males and more sedentary, home-bound agricultural and child-rearing responsibilities fell to CW females. The comparison was between CW males and Early Bronze Age males, as well as between CW females and EBA females. And the result is that CW females were not more mobile than EBA females, but CW males were. However, IMO they should have been comparing CW females to Neolithic females - not to EBA females. Because EBA females could actually be involved in some horseback riding."


I was going to ask for a citation, but it doesn't really matter. This is not enough to build a case for horseback riding in Corded Ware, much less using horses for warfare. I'm not saying it couldn't be the case, but so far it's total speculation so far as I can see.

All your other examples are from much later periods and different places.

Tomenable
05-03-16, 16:39
Many scholars such as Marsha Levine also claim that there is no evidence of horse-riding in Yamnaya culture.

But it all depends on what level/degree of evidence does one expect.

There is also not much evidence of horse-riding from Bell Beaker, at least not from early sites of that culture.

LeBrok
05-03-16, 17:19
We have no evidence in Neolithic time of cavalry eitherIt doesn't need to be cavalry to give an advantage in warfare. Horse helped mobility a lot. Warriors who rode horses for transportation only, could mobiles more troops from far away and in much shorter time, and transport more weapons, than warriors on foot.

If it come to fighting on horses, even the smallest ones, Mongols were the masters. Combination of mobility, speed and composite bow. They could have learnt it from Scythians, and Scythians from steppe people before them.

Milan.M
05-03-16, 18:52
It doesn't need to be cavalry to give an advantage in warfare. Horse helped mobility a lot. Warriors who rode horses for transportation only, could mobiles more troops from far away and in much shorter time, and transport more weapons, than warriors on foot.

If it come to fighting on horses, even the smallest ones, Mongols were the masters. Combination of mobility, speed and composite bow. They could have learnt it from Scythians, and Scythians from steppe people before them.
True they were experts,in my opinion the conquest might have started with Mongols but they absorbed many people with them with further conquests this steppe confederation in turn will find many dynasties after it's dissolution,the remnants of the Cumans were no exception as they were fleeing from the Mongols other join perhaps,this people were called "blondes" by most of their neighbors but speaking Turkic language.

The steppe people or "confederation" in my opinion was consisted of various people,they were expert horseman they have adopted siege engines and catapults for fortified cities also,they had their golden age,
but can we compare all this to PIE people and did the language spread that way is another matter,however it did i will be happy to know.

Greying Wanderer
05-03-16, 22:06
@Milan M


In my opinion Nomadic warfare is good for raiding or plunder as they raid and retreat ... i don't know why we should make so much big deal of cavalry?

That is exactly the reason imo. Not organized cavalry armies conquering adjacent peoples but the steppe equivalent of Numidians or Sioux raiding and forcing adjacent populations to move away (edit) and then moving into the vacated territory.

Numidians etc aren't proof but they disprove the idea the PIE couldn't have had effective *light* raiding cavalry before stirrups as Numidians were famously effective (as light skirmish cavalry) and yet didn't have/use stirrups, saddles or bridles.

#

edit

or maybe Comanche are a better example as they became so mixed with captives from their raiding.

Tomenable
11-03-16, 21:10
Some interesting data here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jivaroan_peoples

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/War_deaths_caused_by_warfare.svg

Source: Lawrence Keeley, "War Before Civilization: the Myth of the Peaceful Savage".

Fire Haired14
11-03-16, 23:58
Some interesting data here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jivaroan_peoples

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/War_deaths_caused_by_warfare.svg

Source: Lawrence Keeley, "War Before Civilization: the Myth of the Peaceful Savage".

We'll they're not counting thugs, gangsters, etc.

Angela
12-03-16, 02:01
I'm not very romantic about primitive peoples, or any peoples, actually, so I'm certainly no believer in the whole "Noble Savage" idea.

On the other hand, are "modern" European descent people peace loving, love your neighbor types? Let's take a look at the 20th Century as a whole. How many people died in Europe during World War II? 40 million? A lot of them were killed by their fellow citizens, whether in Germany, Eastern Europe or Russia. It wasn't even warfare where at least the contest is somewhat equal. It was the starvation, deportation, and murder of unarmed men, women, children, babies. Then Europe did it again in the Balkans. Or look back toward World War I. How many millions died because of that conflict?

I don't understand these kinds of comparisons. Does anyone really think it's over for good, that we in western society have turned some sort of page?

I still think in rather Biblical terms; it's all those years of religious education. :) All humans bear the mark of Cain, although perhaps it's fainter in some than in others.

Tomenable
13-03-16, 00:57
Let's just say that we have neither improved nor become worse since the Stone Age when it comes to violence. ;)

BTW - here about Neolithic massacres in Germany: https://www.academia.edu/2397827/SACRIFICING_LINEARBANDKERAMIK_A_COMPREHENSIVE_STUD Y_OF_THE_LINEARBANDKERAMIK_MASSACRE_VICTIMS_FROM_T ALHEIM_SCHLETZ-ASPERN_AND_HERXHEIM

Fire Haired14
13-03-16, 01:51
On the other hand, are "modern" European descent people peace loving, love your neighbor types? Let's take a look at the 20th Century as a whole. How many people died in Europe during World War II? 40 million?

Look at the Western world today. They let in millions of foreigners, give charity to people around the world, condemn those who hate foreigners, are crazy about human rights, etc. Western countries are definitely peace loving, actually they're too peace loving.

No one is saying the altruism in western countries is genetic. So, I'm not talking about Europe in 1940s, I'm talking about Europe today. Everyone has capability for extreme violence. But, Western society today in 2016 has reached a point of basically a Utopian society. The chances of Germany and France ever going to war again are 0/10000. We might never see another war between western countries ever agian.


I don't understand these kinds of comparisons. Does anyone really think it's over for good, that we in western society have turned some sort of page?

Western society has definitely turned a page. We live in unprecedented wealth, peace, and entertainment.

Angela
13-03-16, 02:21
Look at the Western world today. They let in millions of foreigners, give charity to people around the world, condemn those who hate foreigners, are crazy about human rights, etc. Western countries are definitely peace loving, actually they're too peace loving.

No one is saying the altruism in western countries is genetic. So, I'm not talking about Europe in 1940s, I'm talking about Europe today. Everyone has capability for extreme violence. But, Western society today in 2016 has reached a point of basically a Utopian society. The chances of Germany and France ever going to war again are 0/10000. We might never see another war between western countries ever agian.



Western society has definitely turned a page. We live in unprecedented wealth, peace, and entertainment.

You're dangerously naive, Fire-Haired. You may not be saying it's genetic. You may not constantly be interpreting and disseminating information to make invidious comparisons between whites and non-whites, between Europeans and African tribesmen, between western hunter-gatherers and Neolithic farmers, but others are; they've been doing it for years.

What happens if the wealth goes? Another depression or worse? What happens if more and more refugees flood into an impoverished Europe? Europeans thought World War I was going to be the war that ends all wars. There was another one in a generation. After WWII, I also believed that Europeans would never again descend to those depths. The Balkan War proved I was wrong. We have members of this Board who still justify it. Do I want it to happen? Of course not. You just never go wrong thinking the worst of people.

It need not be something that starts in the west, either. What if North Korea launches nuclear weapons, or Iran gets them and uses them? Do you think they care whether Europeans and Americans want peace? Do you know who Chamberlain was? He came back from Munich with a written guarantee from Hitler that he'd be satisfied with Czechoslovakia. Churchill was denounced and derided as a warmonger for saying it meant nothing. How did that go? It's like the, imo, idiotic unilateral disarmament movement in Europe in the 20th century. Yes, indeed, give up all your weapons and trust in the good will and peaceful intentions of other countries.

Lunacy.

@Tomenable,

Yes, I know. You've posted it about ten times. We get it.

Tomenable
13-03-16, 02:30
The chances of Germany and France ever going to war again are 0/10000.

But didn't people think like this also in the 1920s ???

Fire Haired14
13-03-16, 02:45
Angela, you don't have to prove to me or anyone European countries fight each other. BTW, I'd rather be genetically violent than peaceful, so I have no stake in this. Japan is more peaceful than any European country. I'm not making this a white vs non-white thing. I'm just pointing out the obviousness that European countries right now are more peaceful than lots of tribal groups, and that it's because of culture/circumstance.


But didn't people think like this also in the 1920s ???

It's differnt this time :)

Tomenable
13-03-16, 03:30
Multiple post. Deleted.

Tomenable
13-03-16, 03:37
Multiple post. Deleted.

Tomenable
13-03-16, 03:38
Something about Trypillian, Yamnaya, Corded Ware, etc. weaponry can be found here: V. I. Klochko, "The Weaponry of the Pastoral societies in the context of the Weaponry of the Steppe - Forest-steppe Communities: 5000-2350 BC":

https://repozytorium.amu.edu.pl/bitstream/10593/4646/3/V.I.K.167-195.pdf

It was published as part of this book: https://repozytorium.amu.edu.pl/bitstream/10593/4597/3/1-10Edid%2BCONT.pdf

And also about weapons of Catacomb culture: Victor I. Klochko, Sergey Z. Pustovalov, "The Warfare of the Northern Pontic Steppe – Forest-steppe Pastoral Societies: 2750-2000 BC (Catacomb culture)":

http://www.myslenedrevo.com.ua/en/Sci/Archeology/BalticPonticStudies/Vol02.html

And here about warfare in Corded Ware culture (starts on page 308):

https://books.google.pl/books?id=gcGSn0eVs2oC&pg=PA309&lpg=PA309#v=onepage&q&f=false

Tomenable
28-03-16, 12:35
More about New Guinean warfare - some tribes dress as monsters to scare their enemies:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmgIZEAodtI

http://s8.postimg.org/bwubtp2v7/Asaro_Ghosts.png