A real life Stone Age battle

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: [/COLOR]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
 


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...
 
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?
 
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. :)
 
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/public...ion_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

vRAichh.png
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
moore2moore,

others have thoroughly and thoughtfully debunked this statement
Where ???

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.
 
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.
 
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."
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
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.
 
Last edited:
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.

corded_ware_man_on_horse.jpg


Milan said:
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.
 
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
 

This thread has been viewed 45129 times.

Back
Top