How is it possible for I1 to exist?

I'm not very knowledgeable on this subject I'm speaking from an average dummy perspective. I'm just trying to point out that some comments in the thread are exaggerating this idea that warriors on horses or cavalry could easily defeat infantry warriors. There are advantages but there are disadvantages too. Advantage covering long distance, one on one battle with spears, axes and swords, you don't have a big advantage if you're on a horse. Even without weapons a guy on foot especially more than one guy could easily pull you off that horse.
Plus I highly doubt there were organized army battles of this sort going on during the so called Indo-European expansion into Europe. Where's any evidence of that?

However Eurasian steppe warriors with horseback mounted archery were like the special forces cavalry. They were really good and really made use of the horse in warfare. And they practically lived on the horse. Using the compound bow and the attack and retreat attack again strategy. As it's well known the Mongol Empire had huge success with that.

Skilled horsemen are a massive advantage. Mobility aids in scouting, tactics, and supply train. A few horsemen alone might not defeat a whole group of infantry but can 10 infantry fight 5 infantry plus 5 horsemen?

Mounted warfare is a very serious business but not all cultures made use of it. Alexander famously used cavalry tactics to force open a lane and rush the opposing commander/king to force a retreat.

The bigger a battle, the more important to have a mobile unit of flanking horsemen. Have you even been up close to a horse as it gallops past? It's a bit scary without mounted warriors trying to kill you. I've seen trained horsemen put 2.5m lances on a target as small as a coin as they gallop past full speed. You could not pay me enough to try and fight one of those guys while I was on foot and they were mounted.

And if the battle moves unfavorably for the horsemen, they can just run away while infantry units don't have the same option. Using the mobility factor alone to choose favorable fights is a very big advantage.
 
domestication of the horse was a long and gradual process
we know Khvalynsk culture already had an affinity to horses and they probably knew very much about the behaviour of horse herds and maybe also knew how to influence or drive such horse herds
this affinity to horses spread all over the steppe
the first changes in size of horses indicating domestication however is 4.5 ka in the Carpathian Basin in the late Vucedol area
maybe the central European Bell Beaker had some of these horses when they spread into northwestern Europe
we know the horse-drawn charriot developped in Sintashta 4 ka
these horses where well-trained for their job but it is still not a proof that they were ridden, on the contrary it is proof that efficient use of horses was only possible with chariots
We have to keep in mind that original horses were very small. Google "Przewalski horse" or Mongolian horse. That's why they were not used to pull wagons. If anything they could only be used to ride them. Because of the size they were easier to tame, mount and ride by people. Anthony sees first horse riding at Botai culture 4,000 years BC or so.
At the time of first chariots, horses were bigger and stronger, by selective breeding.

3130D0EE00000578-0-image-a-10_1455451912389.jpg
 
If you're that terrified of a horse that's your opinion. I'll throw a guy off a horse like a sack of potatoes. I'm much smarter than an 800lbs dumb animal and I can run circles around that thing. It's not a freakin tank. Give me a good sling shot and I'll fight a horse mounted guy, let alone like a bow and arrow or a good spear. Throw a knife or hatchet at it even a rock. I THREW AN APPLE in a horses face when I was a kid and it totally flipped out started galloping and freaking out lifting its upper lip and stuff.

Btw dude.. I never said there are no advantages to horseback warfare. I merely pointed out that some comments in here are romantizing things we know so very little about way out of proportion. It just starts to sound childish like some kid who just watched an action movie. I mean there's nothing wrong with that if you're being sarcastic and funny.

Let's make horseback great again! lol
 
Gentlemen, this may all be very true, but not even the most rabid purveyors of this version of the Indo-European migrations would contend that the kind of mounted warfare you're describing was in existence in the time in question. The equipment for it wasn't developed until at least a thousand years in the future, sometimes two thousand years.

"The first use of horses in warfare occurred over 5,000 years ago. The earliest evidence of horses ridden in warfare dates from Eurasia between 4000 and 3000 BC. A Sumerian illustration of warfare from 2500 BC depicts some type of equine pulling wagons. By 1600 BC, improved harness and chariot designs made chariot warfare common throughout the Ancient Near East, and the earliest written training manual for war horses was a guide for training chariot horses written about 1350 BC. As formal cavalry tactics replaced the chariot, so did new training methods, and by 360 BC, the Greek cavalry officer Xenophon had written an extensive treatise on horsemanship. The effectiveness of horses in battle was also revolutionized by improvements in technology, including the invention of the saddle, the stirrup, and later, the horse collar."

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

By all means research it in the academic journals, but that's the gist of it.
Indeed, horses seem to have been used very early for transport. Then, the idea surfaced to use them to pull light chariots in battle. The first evidence for a light, spoked-wheel chariot wheel was found in Sintasha in 2000 BC., long after the movement of the Indo-Europeans into Central and Northern Europe, although even then there's debate as to whether it was actually a war chariot.

"Horses were probably first used to pull chariots in battle starting around 1500 BC. But it wasn't until around 900 BC that warriors themselves commonly fought on horseback. Among the first mounted archers and fighters were the Scythians, a group of nomadic Asian warriors who often raided the ancient Greeks.For Greeks who had never before seen a person on horseback, the first sight of these riders racing toward them while firing volleys of arrows must have been truly terrifying. Some modern scholars wonder if early sightings of strangers on horseback might have inspired the Greek myths about the legendary half-man, half-horse beings called centaurs."

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/hor...horses-shaped-us/warfare/riding-into-battles/

Why would the Greeks, an Indo-European culture derived from Mycenaenas, be so in awe of horse mounted warriors if they'd had it all along. As I said, the lifestyle, fighting techniques etc. of groups like the Scythians have been imposed by some onto people who lived 2,000 years earlier.
 
We have to keep in mind that original horses were very small. Google "Przewalski horse" or Mongolian horse. That's why they were not used to pull wagons. If anything they could only be used to ride them. Because of the size they were easier to tame, mount and ride by people. Anthony sees first horse riding at Botai culture 4,000 years BC or so.
At the time of first chariots, horses were bigger and stronger, by selective breeding.

3130D0EE00000578-0-image-a-10_1455451912389.jpg

That looks basically like a donkey... I wonder how fast it can run

You could drop-kick someone off of that mule or tackle him. Or jump on it behind the rider now you got his back how vulnerable is he then? Wouldn't wanna be in that position.
 
It is pretty bad ass to be on a horse swinging some intimidating weapon, no doubt about that.

But it's not a magical invulnerable super weapon.
 
We have to keep in mind that original horses were very small. Google "Przewalski horse" or Mongolian horse. That's why they were not used to pull wagons. If anything they could only be used to ride them. Because of the size they were easier to tame, mount and ride by people. Anthony sees first horse riding at Botai culture 4,000 years BC or so.
At the time of first chariots, horses were bigger and stronger, by selective breeding.

3130D0EE00000578-0-image-a-10_1455451912389.jpg

like humans the size of horses varies
the size of the horse depended on the climate and the amount of food available

Anthony mentions that first size variation of horses indicating some degree of selection and domestication occurs in the Carpathian Basin 4.5 ka
that fits well with the first horses trained for chariot warfare 500 years later

he argues that 'cheeckpieces' found in the steppe indicates the horses were ridden earlier
but not everyone agrees with that
 
Gentlemen, this may all be very true, but not even the most rabid purveyors of this version of the Indo-European migrations would contend that the kind of mounted warfare you're describing was in existence in the time in question. The equipment for it wasn't developed until at least a thousand years in the future, sometimes two thousand years.

I wasn't implying the IE were chivalric mounted masters, I was going off topic with Apsurdistan about general cavalry capabilities in the modern sense, as he is comparing himself in battle to mounted fighters.

A typical female teen-aged barrel racer around here would probably take him down :) He should come to a rodeo here and see if he can convince a cowboy or cowgirl to a duel :)

Even barring the lack of mounted combat, horses are a great tool. They are great for transport, supply chains, and scouting - all critical to success of any military or benign large scale operation.
 
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30405-Tracing-the-genetic-origin-of-Europe-s-first-farmers

This was the thread discussing the find of the earliest I1 found. It's in Hungary in the LBK culture, but was the only one found among mostly G2a and another I*. Autosomally I think this I1 was mostly EEF.

I read that no samples of the Funnel Beaker DNA have been obtained. The maps of that zone and the time period could probably solve the I1 mystery if enough samples are discovered.
 
I wasn't implying the IE were chivalric mounted masters, I was going off topic with Apsurdistan about general cavalry capabilities in the modern sense, as he is comparing himself in battle to mounted fighters.

A typical female teen-aged barrel racer around here would probably take him down :) He should come to a rodeo here and see if he can convince a cowboy or cowgirl to a duel :)

Even barring the lack of mounted combat, horses are a great tool. They are great for transport, supply chains, and scouting - all critical to success of any military or benign large scale operation.

I agree.

Now that's a rodeo event I'd like to see. :)
 
Me too... but someone would get seriously hurt and it wouldn't be me.

I'm a cowboy.... gonna steal the horse I ride
And I'm wanted.... dead or alive
 
That looks basically like a donkey... I wonder how fast it can run

You could drop-kick someone off of that mule or tackle him. Or jump on it behind the rider now you got his back how vulnerable is he then? Wouldn't wanna be in that position.
See, first horses were used only for transportation. This horses can trot 50 km a day with a man on their back and weapons. Even if these warriors fight on foot and use horses only for transport, they will outmaneuver infantry and come to the battle rested, unlike infantry marching to the fight for few days and being exhausted. American Indians used horses like this at the beginning. Just ride them to the battle or for a sneak attack far away.

Cavalry existed around the world pretty much till WW2. If it wasn't effective in a battle it would have been dropped long time ago like chariots, right? In reality..., I would love to see you standing there in front of few thousand strong cavalry galloping at you, ground is literally shaking, the roar of hoofs is getting closer and closer, and this immense mass of horses and men is going to hit you soon with speed...
 
See, first horses were used only for transportation. This horses can trot 50 km a day with a man on their back and weapons. Even if these warriors fight on foot and use horses only for transport, they will outmaneuver infantry and come to the battle rested, unlike infantry marching to the fight for few days and being exhausted. American Indians used horses like this at the beginning. Just ride them to the battle or for a sneak attack far away.

Cavalry existed around the world pretty much till WW2. If it wasn't effective in a battle it would have been dropped long time ago like chariots, right? In reality..., I would love to see you standing there in front of few thousand strong cavalry galloping at you, ground is literally shaking, the roar of hoofs is getting closer and closer, and this immense mass of horses and men is going to hit you soon with speed...

Of course until vehicles were invented and became widely used. That's why the word horsepower is still used.

And obviously I wouldn't just stand there. I'd use a horse whistle that works like a dog whistle.
 
Me too... but someone would get seriously hurt and it wouldn't be me.

I'm a cowboy.... gonna steal the horse I ride
And I'm wanted.... dead or alive

Whoa..all this time I thought the lyrics went "On a steel horse I ride"...lol.
 
I would love to see you standing there in front of few thousand strong cavalry galloping at you, ground is literally shaking, the roar of hoofs is getting closer and closer, and this immense mass of horses and men is going to hit you soon with speed...

that is iron age, it didn't exist in bronze age
 

This thread has been viewed 39573 times.

Back
Top