Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
I also believe they were inclusive at least initially and at least for women (concubines, arranged marriages, political/tribal alliances through marriage) and for potential male warriors that could strengthen their bands. I doubt they, who were probably not the largest ethnic population in the continent, could've done so much if they hadn't had the help of many integrated peoples and circumstantial allies. That does not mean they were egalitarian or "PC", but just that they had to accept outsiders and make large-scale alliances and compromises if they were willing to expand and win over adversaries that in many cases were actually more advanced than them (much like the Romans, Germans and Turks later did).
How i see late ie's, especially in western europe seems to me like a form of proto-feodalism. They had something like a cliens - patron relationship between the elite and the plebs. I dont think they were egalitarian at all and that there was some social mobility. Modern western male lineage just shows how much yamnaya related male ancestry have annihilate others, so certainly local men who were absorb in the community, even if they became warriors, could not be on the long term prolific lineage, meaning an elite. And of course there is the obvious, when you conquer another land, there's gonna be some remnants of the previous society, i dont know if those people were slaved or take as cliens in the long term, but see how ie's male lineage are so predominent ether in western and eastern europe, men had to suffer verry much of the situation.