Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 86

Thread: How is it possible for I1 to exist?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points
    I1a3_Young's Avatar
    Join Date
    03-05-17
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    516
    Points
    7,688
    Level
    26
    Points: 7,688, Level: 26
    Level completed: 23%, Points required for next Level: 462
    Overall activity: 2.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I1 Z63*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H5b1

    Ethnic group
    Basically British
    Country: USA - Arkansas



    How is it possible for I1 to exist?

    I1 and I2 branched about 27,500 years ago.

    From 27,500 ybp to 4600 ybp, the population containing I1 males was isolated or "bottle necked." This is known because all I1 have about 300 of the same mutation which is radically different than the other ydna hgs that I've read about.


    How is this possible in Europe, considering 27.5k ybp was an ice age, then a warming, then the LGM (presumed forced migration). Everything I've seen about Europe's population and cultures have shown spreading, mixing, and replacing with a certain predictability. None of the other haplogroups had this isolation.

    What part of Europe could these I1 have been in during the ice ages and in between? What caused them to come out of isolation 4600 ybp? Did they maintain a territory through strength but refuse to invade others until overwhelmed by R1b expansion?

    How could the I1 mesolithics survive the incursion of neolithic farmers and maintain yDNA continuity? Was the neolithic farmer mixing after 4600 ybp?


    Perhaps there were many I1 groups and only one small group survived, and all of that one small group would have the 300 mutations. But if that were true then it would mean the others were 100% wiped out. I find that as unlikely as one group surviving unmixed for the long period of time. It's absolutely mind boggling that any yDNA hg could maintain isolation in a highly contested Europe for about 23,000 years.

  2. #2
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsRecommendation First Class
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,329
    Points
    110,111
    Level
    100
    Points: 110,111, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Sometimes it is just pure luck, or developing one or two advantages mutations to give it a bit more chance in the right time. Haplogroup C wasn't that lucky, though used to be more popular in Europe than I1.
    Be wary of people who tend to glorify the past, underestimate the present, and demonize the future.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    18-04-14
    Posts
    697
    Points
    2,968
    Level
    15
    Points: 2,968, Level: 15
    Level completed: 73%, Points required for next Level: 82
    Overall activity: 6.0%


    Country: Poland



    Quote Originally Posted by I1a3_Young View Post
    I1 and I2 branched about 27,500 years ago.
    Simply they are not so old. It is humbug.
    I1 the youngest estimated age of common ancestor is 3180 years.

  4. #4
    Banned Achievements:
    31 days registered250 Experience Points

    Join Date
    13-04-17
    Posts
    283

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I-Z63
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H5c

    Ethnic group
    Bošnjak
    Country: Yugoslavia



    Well I'm glad I'm not the only one who's confused about this. It does sound pretty crazy but apparently there are no other explanations yet.

  5. #5
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,232
    Points
    41,171
    Level
    62
    Points: 41,171, Level: 62
    Level completed: 64%, Points required for next Level: 479
    Overall activity: 7.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    I2 replaced all I*, except 1 man, ancestral to I1

  6. #6
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points
    I1a3_Young's Avatar
    Join Date
    03-05-17
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    516
    Points
    7,688
    Level
    26
    Points: 7,688, Level: 26
    Level completed: 23%, Points required for next Level: 462
    Overall activity: 2.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I1 Z63*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H5b1

    Ethnic group
    Basically British
    Country: USA - Arkansas



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    I2 replaced all I*, except 1 man, ancestral to I1
    I think this is very likely. Then somehow, there was a massive resurgence of I1 in the central and north central Europe which founder-effected Scandinavia.

    The I1 expansion there would have been nearly as impressive as the European R1b expansion, but the R1b tree began with a much larger group. If this is the case, then it seems "lucky" for I1 to have done what it has.

  7. #7
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three Friends1 year registered5000 Experience Points
    IronSide's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-10-16
    Age
    24
    Posts
    883
    Points
    8,064
    Level
    26
    Points: 8,064, Level: 26
    Level completed: 86%, Points required for next Level: 86
    Overall activity: 71.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2c2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    T2e1

    Country: United Arab Emirates



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Many Mesolithic and Neolithic lineages disappeared (or significantly reduced) after the arrival of PIE speakers, C1a2-V20 and H2 almost don't exist in Europe anymore, the majority of G2a branches that were not assimilated by Indo-Europeans are confined to mountainous regions and Mediterranean Islands in low numbers, the two most numerous I2 subclades (I2a1b-CTS10228 and I2a2a-L801) are young and are associated with the Slavic and Germanic expansions in the Migration Period of the early middle ages, if you remove these two subclades the frequency of I2 in mainland Europe would significantly drop.

    Haplogroup A1a* (M31) has been found in Finland, Norway and eastern England. This subclade is normally found along the west coast of Africa (Guinea-Bissau, Cape Verde, Mali, Morocco) and could have come to Europe during the Paleolithic. Indeed a few percent of sub-Saharan admixture was found among ancient DNA samples from Mesolithic Scandinavia tested by Skoglund et al. (2012). If this lineage survived in low numbers since the Paleolithic, then why couldn't a branch of Haplogroup I that would give rise to I1 later ?

    I1 expanded during the Bronze age, my personal opinion is that I1 was assimilated early by the Corded Ware IE advance, but that alone isn't enough to give it this frequency, most I1 men today probably descend from a a lucky man that rose to prominence in the early Bronze Age and that allowed him and his progeny to increase their numbers and become a founding lineage in proto-Germanic society. a romantic story of survival and rise to power.

    R.I.P Old Europe ... their only sin was fighting against a horde of horse riding screamers with bronze weapons .. a deadly mistake.

    Something I noticed, the ancient Iberians (who were not Indo-European) worshipped a Horse taming god (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberians#Art_and_religion), they must have realised that taming horses was the only way to resist Celtic incursions, maybe that was the reason they survived while others didn't.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points
    I1a3_Young's Avatar
    Join Date
    03-05-17
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    516
    Points
    7,688
    Level
    26
    Points: 7,688, Level: 26
    Level completed: 23%, Points required for next Level: 462
    Overall activity: 2.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I1 Z63*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H5b1

    Ethnic group
    Basically British
    Country: USA - Arkansas



    So this mystery I1 survivor and progenitor....shall we call him I1 Abraham or I1 Ghengis Khan?

    Anyhow, it is remarkable for I1 to have "ridden the wave" and actually come out ahead from the other expansions into Europe.

  9. #9
    MarkoZ
    Guest


    In stochastic population growth models it is fully expected that a few paternal markers would rise to prominence at the expense of others. This has nothing to do with metal age rapists.

    Many population growth processes can be approximated by Zipfian law. It explains haplotype frequencies very well:

    http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/07/07/022160
    Last edited by MarkoZ; 06-06-17 at 00:29.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points
    I1a3_Young's Avatar
    Join Date
    03-05-17
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    516
    Points
    7,688
    Level
    26
    Points: 7,688, Level: 26
    Level completed: 23%, Points required for next Level: 462
    Overall activity: 2.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I1 Z63*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H5b1

    Ethnic group
    Basically British
    Country: USA - Arkansas



    Quote Originally Posted by MarkoZ View Post
    In stochastic population growth models it is fully expected that a few paternal markers would grow to prominence at the expense of others. This has nothing to do with metal age rapists.

    Many population growth processes can be approximated by Zipfian law. It explains haplotype frequencies very well:

    http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/07/07/022160
    Funny that they mention Ghengis Khan in the abstract which I had also just mentioned. I don't think it's unusual for any haplogroup to rise to prominence. It's unusual that I1 seemed to have been swept up in the wave of invasion by other people, and somebody translated a previous position of weakness to one of lasting power (from a gene pool perspective).

  11. #11
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,741
    Points
    242,560
    Level
    100
    Points: 242,560, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    4 out of 4 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by IronSide View Post
    Many Mesolithic and Neolithic lineages disappeared (or significantly reduced) after the arrival of PIE speakers, C1a2-V20 and H2 almost don't exist in Europe anymore, the majority of G2a branches that were not assimilated by Indo-Europeans are confined to mountainous regions and Mediterranean Islands in low numbers, the two most numerous I2 subclades (I2a1b-CTS10228 and I2a2a-L801) are young and are associated with the Slavic and Germanic expansions in the Migration Period of the early middle ages, if you remove these two subclades the frequency of I2 in mainland Europe would significantly drop.

    Haplogroup A1a* (M31) has been found in Finland, Norway and eastern England. This subclade is normally found along the west coast of Africa (Guinea-Bissau, Cape Verde, Mali, Morocco) and could have come to Europe during the Paleolithic. Indeed a few percent of sub-Saharan admixture was found among ancient DNA samples from Mesolithic Scandinavia tested by Skoglund et al. (2012). If this lineage survived in low numbers since the Paleolithic, then why couldn't a branch of Haplogroup I that would give rise to I1 later ?

    I1 expanded during the Bronze age, my personal opinion is that I1 was assimilated early by the Corded Ware IE advance, but that alone isn't enough to give it this frequency, most I1 men today probably descend from a a lucky man that rose to prominence in the early Bronze Age and that allowed him and his progeny to increase their numbers and become a founding lineage in proto-Germanic society. a romantic story of survival and rise to power.

    R.I.P Old Europe ... their only sin was fighting against a horde of horse riding screamers with bronze weapons .. a deadly mistake.

    Something I noticed, the ancient Iberians (who were not Indo-European) worshipped a Horse taming god (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberians#Art_and_religion), they must have realised that taming horses was the only way to resist Celtic incursions, maybe that was the reason they survived while others didn't.
    I agree with much of what you wrote, but Corded Ware had nothing to do with horse riding warriors with bronze weapons. The early Corded Ware groups barely even had any copper and what they had wasn't very good. They certainly didn't have a lot of copper weapons. Metal weapons slowly infiltrated as time went on. Neither did BB have bronze. Again, just some copper, and as we can tell from the examination of grave finds, in a recent paper as well as in prior ones, not weapons, and inferior to Iberian Beaker copper.

    As for horse riding, there's no actual evidence for that at all to my knowledge, just a lot of supposition and conjecture. Corded Ware didn't have many horses; their wagons were pulled by oxen. To the best of my recollection the earliest evidence of any kind for horse riding is to the east and quite a bit later. It did indeed spread quickly, but this tendency to conflate periods and ignore chronology isn't helpful; people writing on the internet and even published authors have done a great disservice to scholarship by making these kinds of errors.

    What happened to Middle Neolithic Central and Northern Europe imo is in large part because of climate change reducing the population and causing changes in subsistence strategy. Given the latest dates showing earlier pastoralism in some areas of Central Europe than on the steppe, that subsistence strategy may have moved into the steppe, not out of it. Of course, further research and better dating might change that picture, so I'm no wedded to it.

    Still, I think the picture is clear that in some places steppe admixed populations moved into almost empty landscapes, as in the far northeast, while in others they encountered much reduced populations, populations reduced not only by climate change and low crop yields and the resulting increase in known disease, but also by plague, a plague that the newcomers either brought with them or that went slightly ahead of them, and to which they probably had more resistance.

    The same type of events helped to bring down Rome and the greatly weakened the Byzantine Empire.

    Ed. Just to be clear, I'm by no means saying that there wouldn't have been violent conflict. I'm just saying that the narrative isn't, imo, quite what has been sold.


    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  12. #12
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    Promenade's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-01-16
    Posts
    288
    Points
    4,459
    Level
    19
    Points: 4,459, Level: 19
    Level completed: 53%, Points required for next Level: 191
    Overall activity: 2.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-U106 R-L1
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1e

    Country: USA - New York



    Is European Y-dna C even found among any modern groups or is it completely gone?

  13. #13
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    30-03-11
    Posts
    246
    Points
    9,303
    Level
    28
    Points: 9,303, Level: 28
    Level completed: 93%, Points required for next Level: 47
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Spain - Asturias



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Promenade View Post
    Is European Y-dna C even found among any modern groups or is it completely gone?
    Yes, Survivor descents have been found in modern Europe. There is a interesting case in Alt Palancia, Castellon with modern C1a2 and ancient D (M) mtDNA.

  14. #14
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three Friends1 year registered5000 Experience Points
    IronSide's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-10-16
    Age
    24
    Posts
    883
    Points
    8,064
    Level
    26
    Points: 8,064, Level: 26
    Level completed: 86%, Points required for next Level: 86
    Overall activity: 71.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2c2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    T2e1

    Country: United Arab Emirates



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    I agree with much of what you wrote, but Corded Ware had nothing to do with horse riding warriors with bronze weapons. The early Corded Ware groups barely even had any copper and what they had wasn't very good. They certainly didn't have a lot of copper weapons. Metal weapons slowly infiltrated as time went on. Neither did BB have bronze. Again, just some copper, and as we can tell from the examination of grave finds, in a recent paper as well as in prior ones, not weapons, and inferior to Iberian Beaker copper.

    As for horse riding, there's no actual evidence for that at all to my knowledge, just a lot of supposition and conjecture. Corded Ware didn't have many horses; their wagons were pulled by oxen. To the best of my recollection the earliest evidence of any kind for horse riding is to the east and quite a bit later. It did indeed spread quickly, but this tendency to conflate periods and ignore chronology isn't helpful; people writing on the internet and even published authors have done a great disservice to scholarship by making these kinds of errors.

    What happened to Middle Neolithic Central and Northern Europe imo is in large part because of climate change reducing the population and causing changes in subsistence strategy. Given the latest dates showing earlier pastoralism in some areas of Central Europe than on the steppe, that subsistence strategy may have moved into the steppe, not out of it. Of course, further research and better dating might change that picture, so I'm no wedded to it.

    Still, I think the picture is clear that in some places steppe admixed populations moved into almost empty landscapes, as in the far northeast, while in others they encountered much reduced populations, populations reduced not only by climate change and low crop yields and the resulting increase in known disease, but also by plague, a plague that the newcomers either brought with them or that went slightly ahead of them, and to which they probably had more resistance.

    The same type of events helped to bring down Rome and the greatly weakened the Byzantine Empire.

    Ed. Just to be clear, I'm by no means saying that there wouldn't have been violent conflict. I'm just saying that the narrative isn't, imo, quite what has been sold.
    Alright, I stand corrected on the Bronze weapons thing, as for horses, even if it is a conjecture as you say, I believe its a very reasonable one, using a bottom up approach, all daughter cultures that developed from Indo-European speakers glorified the horse, it is inconceivable for Corded Ware people not to have horses, maybe a shortage of that beautiful animal but not complete absence.

    I agree with the rest, except the plague part, if the newcomers did bring a plague that they were immune to, then it must have affected the men more than the women, for some reason female lineages survived more than male ones.

  15. #15
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three Friends1 year registered5000 Experience Points
    IronSide's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-10-16
    Age
    24
    Posts
    883
    Points
    8,064
    Level
    26
    Points: 8,064, Level: 26
    Level completed: 86%, Points required for next Level: 86
    Overall activity: 71.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2c2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    T2e1

    Country: United Arab Emirates



    Quote Originally Posted by Promenade View Post
    Is European Y-dna C even found among any modern groups or is it completely gone?
    If you care, even H2 still survives in Europe https://www.familytreedna.com/public...frame=yresults

    six people in western Europe, notice how different their str results to turkish and caucasian sampels, to make sure that they are not recently related to them and indeed date to the neolithic.

  16. #16
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,741
    Points
    242,560
    Level
    100
    Points: 242,560, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by IronSide View Post
    Alright, I stand corrected on the Bronze weapons thing, as for horses, even if it is a conjecture as you say, I believe its a very reasonable one, using a bottom up approach, all daughter cultures that developed from Indo-European speakers glorified the horse, it is inconceivable for Corded Ware people not to have horses, maybe a shortage of that beautiful animal but not complete absence.

    I agree with the rest, except the plague part, if the newcomers did bring a plague that they were immune to, then it must have affected the men more than the women, for some reason female lineages survived more than male ones.
    Your bolded statement is very accurate. The same thing happened in the New World, although of course that was different because the difference in technology was indeed extreme.

    That's why I added that there probably was violent conflict as well. I just think a lot of the narrative has been romanticized.

    What may also have happened is that more women than men were included by the newcomers because more men made the migration than women to some degree, although I think the Reich Lab rejoinder to the latest paper analyzing the X chromosome indicates it wasn't as extreme as some people have proposed. The daughters of these women would have had a lot better chance for survival because of the genes of their fathers, a far better chance of survival than the daughters of the native fathers.

    This part is obviously conjecture on my part as well, not fact like what's in the graves and other sites of the Corded Ware and BB people versus the people of MN Europe. Hopefully, as we get more and more samples, the scientists will be able to model better what happened.

  17. #17
    Banned Achievements:
    31 days registered250 Experience Points

    Join Date
    13-04-17
    Posts
    283

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I-Z63
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H5c

    Ethnic group
    Bošnjak
    Country: Yugoslavia



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    I think the horse thing in warfare is exaggerated. The horse is mostly useful for transportation, I don't see why you kill someone easier if you're on a horse or not. To me it seems like it's pretty easy to mess someone up on a horse cuz they're an even bigger target who's less agile and you can kill the horse or injure it then the horse freaks out and might even do the killing for you. Just throw a spear at it or something shoot it with bow and arrow. Now horseback mounted archery that is a big advantage.
    Having metal weapons would be a huge advantage against primitives who don't even have metallurgy.

  18. #18
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsRecommendation First Class
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,329
    Points
    110,111
    Level
    100
    Points: 110,111, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Apsurdistan View Post
    I think the horse thing in warfare is exaggerated. The horse is mostly useful for transportation, I don't see why you kill someone easier if you're on a horse or not. To me it seems like it's pretty easy to mess someone up on a horse cuz they're an even bigger target who's less agile and you can kill the horse or injure it then the horse freaks out and might even do the killing for you. Just throw a spear at it or something shoot it with bow and arrow. Now horseback mounted archery that is a big advantage.
    Having metal weapons would be a huge advantage against primitives who don't even have metallurgy.
    Sure, skilful infantry knew how to deal with cavalry. However, warriors on horses have quite few advantages. They can move distances much quicker and carry more food and weapons. On battle field they could quickly outmaneuver infantry and mount surprise quick attack. With head on collision mass and speed of cavalry could kill infantry even without using weapons. Cavalry was often used to break defensive lines of infantry. Think blitzkrieg.

  19. #19
    Banned Achievements:
    31 days registered250 Experience Points

    Join Date
    13-04-17
    Posts
    283

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I-Z63
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H5c

    Ethnic group
    Bošnjak
    Country: Yugoslavia



    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    Sure, skilful infantry knew how to deal with cavalry. However, warriors on horses have quite few advantages. They can move distances much quicker and carry more food and weapons. On battle field they could quickly outmaneuver infantry and mount surprise quick attack. With head on collision mass and speed of cavalry could kill infantry even without using weapons. Cavalry was often used to break defensive lines of infantry. Think blitzkrieg.
    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.

  20. #20
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,232
    Points
    41,171
    Level
    62
    Points: 41,171, Level: 62
    Level completed: 64%, Points required for next Level: 479
    Overall activity: 7.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    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

  21. #21
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points
    I1a3_Young's Avatar
    Join Date
    03-05-17
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    516
    Points
    7,688
    Level
    26
    Points: 7,688, Level: 26
    Level completed: 23%, Points required for next Level: 462
    Overall activity: 2.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I1 Z63*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H5b1

    Ethnic group
    Basically British
    Country: USA - Arkansas



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Apsurdistan View Post
    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.

  22. #22
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsRecommendation First Class
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,329
    Points
    110,111
    Level
    100
    Points: 110,111, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    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.


  23. #23
    Banned Achievements:
    31 days registered250 Experience Points

    Join Date
    13-04-17
    Posts
    283

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I-Z63
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H5c

    Ethnic group
    Bošnjak
    Country: Yugoslavia



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    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

  24. #24
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,741
    Points
    242,560
    Level
    100
    Points: 242,560, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    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/hors...-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.

  25. #25
    Banned Achievements:
    31 days registered250 Experience Points

    Join Date
    13-04-17
    Posts
    283

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I-Z63
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H5c

    Ethnic group
    Bošnjak
    Country: Yugoslavia



    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    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.

    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.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •