Early North European Bronze Age vs. Urnfield Culture

[RogerCooper]

Recent genetic studies have shown that the Indo-European expansion was very much a conquest. In Britain, there was almost a 90% population replacement. The guys who built Stonehenge are not the ancestors of the modern British. Even where there was not near total population replacement, there was language replacement. It is hard to explain such large-scale language replacement without a conquest. There was not a change population density as occurred earlier when farmers out of the Middle East subsumed Europe's native hunter-gatherers.

What the Indo-Europeans had was the mastery of the horse and a hereditary military caste. In terms of Triumph, Bad Horse & Battle Taxi facing Rabble.

[David Kuijt]

Recent genetic studies have shown that the Indo-European expansion was very much a conquest. In Britain, there was almost a 90% population replacement. The guys who built Stonehenge are not the ancestors of the modern British. Even where there was not near total population replacement, there was language replacement. It is hard to explain such large-scale language replacement without a conquest. There was not a change population density as occurred earlier when farmers out of the Middle East subsumed Europe's native hunter-gatherers.

What the Indo-Europeans had was the mastery of the horse and a hereditary military caste. In terms of Triumph, Bad Horse & Battle Taxi facing Rabble.

That's a common view, but it is inaccurate. The population of the British Isles was very small before the development of agriculture. It is completely unsurprising that the percentage of genetic material from the hunger-gatherer period is a very small part of the current population.

The prehistory of Western Europe is complex, with multiple cultural distinctions based upon burial practices, pottery, technology (copper first, then bronze, then very much later iron). To view all those transitions as conquest waves is quite simply not borne out by archaeology. In fact, viewing any of those transitions as a simple conquest wave is inaccurate.

Further, most of the Indo European and Proto-Indo European migrations into central and western Europe were already largely in place hundreds and thousands of years before the introduction of horses to the military elite. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_migrations . Chariot Warfare didn't really exist before 1600 or so BC, and was strongly concentrated in the Fertile Crescent thereafter. Bad Horse had to wait until the Assyrians in the 8th century or so. The vast majority of I-E and Proto I-E languages were mostly in place thousands of years before that.

Indo-European_expansions.jpg (1.99 MiB) Viewed 5060 times

[RogerCooper]

As it says in the article you cited.

During the Chalcolithic and early Bronze Age, the EEF-derived cultures of Europe were overwhelmed by successive invasions of Western Steppe Herders (WSHs) from the Pontic–Caspian steppe, who carried about 60% Eastern Hunter-Gatherer (EHG) and 40% Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer (CHG) admixture. These invasions led to EEF paternal DNA lineages in Europe being almost entirely replaced with EHG/WSH paternal DNA (mainly R1b and R1a). EEF maternal DNA (mainly haplogroup N) also heavily declined, being supplanted by steppe lineages,[179][180] suggesting the migrations involved both males and females from the steppe. The study argues that more than 90% of Britain's Neolithic gene pool was replaced with the coming of the Beaker people,[181] who were around 50% WSH ancestry.[182] Danish archaeologist Kristian Kristiansen said he is "increasingly convinced there must have been a kind of genocide."[183] According to evolutionary geneticist Eske Willerslev, "There was a heavy reduction of Neolithic DNA in temperate Europe, and a dramatic increase of the new Yamnaya genomic component that was only marginally present in Europe prior to 3000 BC."[80

In Britain, the culture which preceded the Bell Beaker folk were farmers, who were sufficiently numerous and organized to build megalithic monuments (such as Stonehenge). What is telling is that British Neolithic graves contain no weapons, unlike the Beaker folk. Similarly in the Indus Valley, IVC sites are notorious for not having weapons or fortifications. All in all, the Yamnaya-derived cultures seems to have had a considerable military superiority over their neighbors. That doesn't mean they fought mounted, as even the operational superiority of horse riders would have given them the advantage.

Older books of European pre-history tended to downplay the early Indo-Europeans as conquerers, due to 19th & 20th century racists using the "Aryans" as a justification for their murderous ideologies. Recent, genetic analysis has made it clear that there was a very definite population replacement. This wasn't a Mongol-style invasion, instead we see the results of year after year of local raiding.

[David Kuijt]

In Britain, the culture which preceded the Bell Beaker folk were farmers, who were sufficiently numerous and organized to build megalithic monuments (such as Stonehenge). What is telling is that British Neolithic graves contain no weapons, unlike the Beaker folk. Similarly in the Indus Valley, IVC sites are notorious for not having weapons or fortifications.

Could be -- but burial practices without weapons doesn't imply cultures without weapons.

All in all, the Yamnaya-derived cultures seems to have had a considerable military superiority over their neighbors. That doesn't mean they fought mounted, as even the operational superiority of horse riders would have given them the advantage.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not saying you're wrong -- I'm saying there are other reasonable explanations for their expansion that have nothing to do with using horse riders in combat. Just to choose one easy one, from the Wikipedia page on the Yamnaya:

[...] The Yamnaya horizon is the visible archaeological expression of a social adjustment to high mobility – the invention of the political infrastructure to manage larger herds from mobile homes based in the steppes.[21]

Mobile, pastoral societies have had the advantage over sedentary ones throughout history up until the introduction of massed gunfire. That's more than enough to explain the expansion of the Yamnaya culture without giving them the use of horse riders in combat.

I do appreciate your initiating this discussion, though. For one thing, the surge in DNA testing seems to have brought a bunch of new information into play -- I won't be surprised over the next decade to see some very new takes on old information. Before DNA testing we could plot the expansion of cultures and technologies; now we are starting to have real data on peoples. And also, in reading about this stuff just now, I found the following: (from the Wikipedia page on the domestication of the horse)

Horses interred with chariots

The least ancient, but most persuasive, evidence of domestication comes from sites where horse leg bones and skulls, probably originally attached to hides, were interred with the remains of chariots in at least 16 graves of the Sintashta and Petrovka cultures. These were located in the steppes southeast of the Ural Mountains, between the upper Ural and upper Tobol Rivers, a region today divided between southern Russia and northern Kazakhstan. Petrovka was a little later than and probably grew out of Sintashta, and the two complexes together spanned about 2100–1700 BCE.[1][2] A few of these graves contained the remains of as many as eight sacrificed horses placed in, above, and beside the grave.

In all of the dated chariot graves, the heads and hooves of a pair of horses were placed in a grave that once contained a chariot. Evidence of chariots in these graves was inferred from the impressions of two spoked wheels set in grave floors 1.2–1.6m apart; in most cases the rest of the vehicle left no trace. In addition, a pair of disk-shaped antler "cheekpieces," an ancient predecessor to a modern bit shank or bit ring, were placed in pairs beside each horse head-and-hoof sacrifice. The inner faces of the disks had protruding prongs or studs that would have pressed against the horse's lips when the reins were pulled on the opposite side. Studded cheekpieces were a new and fairly severe kind of control device that appeared simultaneously with chariots.

All of the dated chariot graves contained wheel impressions, horse bones, weapons (arrow and javelin points, axes, daggers, or stone mace-heads), human skeletal remains, and cheekpieces. Because they were buried in teams of two with chariots and studded cheekpieces, the evidence is extremely persuasive that these steppe horses of 2100–1700 BCE were domesticated. Shortly after the period of these burials, the expansion of the domestic horse throughout Europe was little short of explosive. In the space of possibly 500 years, there is evidence of horse-drawn chariots in Greece, Egypt, and Mesopotamia. By another 500 years, the horse-drawn chariot had spread to China.

That's certainly enough burial evidence for chariots (or battle taxi, in Triumph) in the army list for those dudes. Or, as I suspect, I'm going to have to create an army list for those dudes, if I don't already have one that covers them!

[David Kuijt]

That's certainly enough burial evidence for chariots (or battle taxi, in Triumph) in the army list for those dudes. Or, as I suspect, I'm going to have to create an army list for those dudes, if I don't already have one that covers them!

I haven't found anything that looks like the Sintashta culture in the army lists -- looks like a new army list should be created for it.

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

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

Seems to be more likely Battle Taxi than Chariot in Triumph classification, with short arrows, probably short bows, and no composite bows (bows were likely just wood).

[David Kuijt]

Whoah -- looks like we need another army list as well: BMAC (Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex).

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bactria%E ... al_Complex

With contacts with the Harappan civilization and others.

[RogerCooper]

You need a Yamnaya or Kurgan army list for those early steppe-dwellers.

[David Kuijt]

You need a Yamnaya or Kurgan army list for those early steppe-dwellers.

Ya, there's half a dozen cultures that I could add, I think, in that network. But some of them (and that might include the Kurgans) are going to be difficult. For example, I have two army lists nearly complete for the Wari Empire and their Tiwanaku adversaries in pre-Inca Peru. But I'm unable to finish them, or their Moche predecessors. I have enemies list, start date, end date, invasion, maneuver, topography, -- everything. Except any data points on how they fought. Nothing. They didn't draw pictures of warriors like the Maya. There are no surviving weapons, no descriptions of warfare. Until someone discovers some weapon caches, the Wari Empire and Tiwanaku Empire are going to stay unfinished.

[RogerCooper]

Even when you know their weapons, that often tells little about how they fought. I recently read a detailed military analysis of Cortes's conquest of Mexico. The Aztecs basically fought as individuals, without formed lines and with no effective central command. Operationally they were leaderless rabble. There warriors looked fearsome, but lost open-field battles to small numbers of Spanish soldiers who fought in coordinated fashion.

[David Kuijt]

Even when you know their weapons, that often tells little about how they fought.

Very true. My point was the reverse: if I don't have any information about their weapons, I can't even venture a guess.

I recently read a detailed military analysis of Cortes's conquest of Mexico. The Aztecs basically fought as individuals, without formed lines and with no effective central command. Operationally they were leaderless rabble. There warriors looked fearsome, but lost open-field battles to small numbers of Spanish soldiers who fought in coordinated fashion.

Hm. Given our recent long discussion on guns, I won't get into this one with you, but I suggest you might look at other sources with regard to the Aztecs. They had a complex leadership structure and fought battles with planning, organized ambushes, and strategic and military planning that would have been the envy of most Medieval and earlier Feudal structured armies. Here's a start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_warfare

But your original point is quite correct -- guys with mail tunics and simple helmets and spears and round shields are rated as Raiders (Vikings, Dailami), Heavy Foot (lots of armies), Elite Foot (Vikings, Anglo-Saxons), Warband (earlier Anglo-Saxons), Bad Horse (Vikings on Horses), Knights (Early Scandinavians on Horses).

With that said, Bow Levy is pretty obvious for people who have arrows of only half a meter length. Certainly not Skirmishers, who are a reaction to enemy formed units. Rabble are easy for any primitive culture. Horde doesn't really fit with a nomadic people -- unless we can establish a nomadic-sedentary mix or partnership, or a nomadic ruling class over a sedentary subject class. Better close-order foot is unlikely without finds of infantry (non-noble) armor. And then the glory of the earliest Battle Taxis in the army list.