Chariots

[Malthus]

Cuneiform would basically die out at some point during the Sassanids. Hieroglyphs.

In both of those cases, there existed other writing systems which basically took over. There was no time-interval between the dying-out of Egyptian Hieroglyphs and the adoption of alphabetic writing - as the Rosetta Stone attests. 

Where do the Mongols fit in to this?  The "sea peoples?"  Just because the Chatti fought naked with clubs doesn't mean that all "barbarian" groups did.

It isn't a question of fighting "naked with clubs", but rather of fighting in a typically "heroic" manner - of which the Iliad gives such a notable example.

"Heroic" fighting retains elements of "primitive" (again, scare quotes indicates I'm not making a value judgment) - namely, fighting as a form of individual self-expression. The hero shouts his lineage, then selects an opponent of equal status and performs great feats of arms (or not), by which he displays his worth and character. This is a mark of a society with low levels of social organization - like the medieval knight, who is carrying the products of a material culture far in advance of (say) the Assyrians but whose noble ideals of fighting (however rarely they are practiced in actual fact) are closer to those of the Iliad, while the Assyrians are more "like us" in military terms.

In contrast, more highly organized societies tend to fight in a more cold-blooded manner, where winning is more important than individial self-expression. The Mongols are an example of this. For all their "barbarism" (here used as a value-judgment) the Mongols were a very highly organized society indeed - albeit one with a great structural weakness in terms of leadership (leading to its collapse). Mongol armies fought "to win" and cared little or nothing for 'heroic display' of the Iliad sort in fighting.   

You see exactly the same development in Greece itself. Later Greek city-states did not fight like in the Iliad, but with phalanxes - organized formations in which "individual heroic effort" was not the point, but rather organized effort (hence part of the hilarity in watching the movie "300").

[The Brain]

It is not mirth that grips him. Merely a heightened sense of things.

[The Minsky Moment]

"Heroic" fighting retains elements of "primitive" (again, scare quotes indicates I'm not making a value judgment) - namely, fighting as a form of individual self-expression. The hero shouts his lineage, then selects an opponent of equal status and performs great feats of arms (or not), by which he displays his worth and character. This is a mark of a society with low levels of social organization - like the medieval knight, who is carrying the products of a material culture far in advance of (say) the Assyrians but whose noble ideals of fighting (however rarely they are practiced in actual fact) are closer to those of the Iliad, while the Assyrians are more "like us" in military terms.

That's how the chansons may have represented knightly combat, but I would question that they actually fought that way.

[Malthus]

"Heroic" fighting retains elements of "primitive" (again, scare quotes indicates I'm not making a value judgment) - namely, fighting as a form of individual self-expression. The hero shouts his lineage, then selects an opponent of equal status and performs great feats of arms (or not), by which he displays his worth and character. This is a mark of a society with low levels of social organization - like the medieval knight, who is carrying the products of a material culture far in advance of (say) the Assyrians but whose noble ideals of fighting (however rarely they are practiced in actual fact) are closer to those of the Iliad, while the Assyrians are more "like us" in military terms.

That's how the chansons may have represented knightly combat, but I would question that they actually fought that way.

Exactly. Hence, "however rarely they are practiced in actual fact" in my post.

[alfred russel]

I assume chariots were effective. Otherwise, why would people use them for centuries? But I have trouble buying this. What a nightmare it would be just to travel across Europe in a chariot without roads, never mind fighting a battle on ground that wasn't a grazed open field. Also, languages aren't culture. If there was a simple trick of warfare that enabled indo european language speakers to conquer others, other groups would have picked up on it before they moved across most of eurasia.

Well, it was reasonably simple-the Kassites picked up on it, and conquered Babylonia. The migration of Indo-Europeans into the steppe and border zones triggered a huge out flux of people, often perused and mixed with Indo-Europeans; this was basically the exact same process that would continue up until the Mongols.  We have something pretty close to an actual model of this with the Cimmerian invasion of the South Caucasus in the Classical period.

I don't think we are just talking about chariots- we are talking about wagons as well, mass mobility of a type not possible before. 

Languages are very closely related to culture in this period.  Most of the oldest Indo-Europeans ethnoyms are based on the ability to perform the correct sacrifices to the various Gods, and maintaining the classic Indo-European class structure.  The Proto-Indo-Europeans would franchise out across the steppe, taking on traits of conquered peoples along the way. 

Honestly, AR, a lot of this is as close to fact as you can get in the pre-literate Copper Age.  There's a ton of physical, genetic and linguistic evidence.  Check out "The Horse, The Wheel and Language."

The problem is of course that's all theoretical.  There is no concrete proof of this.  Since these people were illiterate nobody wrote it down, and artifacts from six thousand years ago are hard to come by.  Proof is in linguistic comparisons and circumstance evidence.  Still it's held up pretty well.  And it makes sense.  It's not the only theory of PIE expansion though.

I think there's a generally accepted narrative at this point, of a migration from the west of the Urals, near the urheimat of the Uralic peoples, towards the Northern Caucasus, with various peoples (first the Hittites and allied Anatolian groups, then the proto-Germans and Tocharians, then the Satemized Indo-European peoples who reflect linguistic contact with the North Caucasus).  This is associated with the spread of the R1a haplotype and the Kurgan culture.

I wanted to respond earlier, but I didn't have the time (and still don't to do so properly). But I disagree, for many reasons. Just tossing a few out, language changes are much more complex than conquest. It doesn't make sense (to me at least) that the Indo European language range was conquered by a PIE speaking peoples into an empire spanning much of the PIE range, that then imposed its language. And if that didn't happen in a short period of time, then why would a PIE speaking people be able to expand so quickly militarily? If the chariot gave a major competitive advantage in wartime, then it would have been learned by the people the PIE speakers were conquering if they were spreading over generations.

Also, in the historical era language changes have not always followed conquest. For example, my understanding is that the Neo Assyrians, speaking Akkadian, conquered Aramaic speaking peoples, but ended up assuming their language after transporting them around the empire as captives/slaves. Maybe the PIE speakers were not great conquerers but easily enslaved (a much earlier version of "harvesting the steppe" which gave us the word "slave" from "slav").

[alfred russel]

What I love about this forum is that while it turns cruel and nasty about the most mundane topics, toss out a hardcore nerd concept and the forum becomes serious and informative.

[Razgovory]

Well noone knows why there was a language shift, but we are fairly certain certain it happened.  It's more then just a few words were transmitted across the world.  There is a similarity in the whole structure in language.  Nobody is suggesting a unified empire conquering the world, but waves of immigrants and conquerors expanding.  The very first Indo-European language to be recorded in writings is Hittite.  They certainly fit the bill of guys riding around on chariots conquering stuff.

[alfred russel]

Well noone knows why there was a language shift, but we are fairly certain certain it happened.  It's more then just a few words were transmitted across the world.  There is a similarity in the whole structure in language.  Nobody is suggesting a unified empire conquering the world, but waves of immigrants and conquerors expanding.  The very first Indo-European language to be recorded in writings is Hittite.  They certainly fit the bill of guys riding around on chariots conquering stuff.

The Hittites were something like 2000 years after the indo european languages began to expand. I don't think you can derive anything from the behavior of them.

[Malthus]

If the chariot gave a major competitive advantage in wartime, then it would have been learned by the people the PIE speakers were conquering if they were spreading over generations.

I'm not sure this is true. Certain styles of warfare are not easily acquired - for example, the settled agricultural-based enemies of the Mongols rid not easily acquire Mongol-style light cavalry tactics, because those skills went along with the Mongol lifestyle.

Certainly settled peoples *can* adopt light cavalry, and the empires of Egypt, Hittites and Mycenaens *did* - but at great expense and bother.

[Razgovory]

Well noone knows why there was a language shift, but we are fairly certain certain it happened.  It's more then just a few words were transmitted across the world.  There is a similarity in the whole structure in language.  Nobody is suggesting a unified empire conquering the world, but waves of immigrants and conquerors expanding.  The very first Indo-European language to be recorded in writings is Hittite.  They certainly fit the bill of guys riding around on chariots conquering stuff.

The Hittites were something like 2000 years after the indo european languages began to expand. I don't think you can derive anything from the behavior of them.

They may have been around longer without knowing how to write,   I should point out that the language group was expanding before chariots and that they didn't expand all at once.  This was a process that took several thousand years.  It seems unlikely that these people were simply taken as slaves to places as far away as France to India and then manage to replace the language of their ruling classes and everyone else in the their society.

[PDH]

What I love about this forum is that while it turns cruel and nasty about the most mundane topics, toss out a hardcore nerd concept and the forum becomes serious and informative.

Fuck you.

[alfred russel]

I'm not sure this is true. Certain styles of warfare are not easily acquired - for example, the settled agricultural-based enemies of the Mongols rid not easily acquire Mongol-style light cavalry tactics, because those skills went along with the Mongol lifestyle.

Certainly settled peoples *can* adopt light cavalry, and the empires of Egypt, Hittites and Mycenaens *did* - but at great expense and bother.

The Mongols are in some ways a case in point: they conquered an enormous territory very quickly, but today the range of Mongolian speakers is roughly Mongolia. They didn't have the manpower or the staying power to leave such an imprint. That contrasts with the Romans, or the Spanish in the new world. But those cultures stayed around in their conquered territories for centuries, and it is difficult to imagine a pre literate political entity surviving for such a time. The Native Americans of the plains are somewhat fascinating: they did not have horses before the Spanish arrived, but by the time europeans began significant encounters with them a couple of centuries later, horses and expert horsemanship were defining parts of their cultures. Cultures can adopt quickly.

I actually wouldn't disagree with you regarding horsemanship: probably there was a catalyst for much of eurasia speaking indo european languages, and that seems a reasonable one. I just am suspicious about the influence of chariots and wagons that spellus was talking about and the certainty of knowing anything during this time period. If all historical records were lost, someone might notice that indo european languages are the predominant language of North and South America, Australia, and Europe as well as much of Africa and Asia. Maybe this would then be attributed to highly effective amphibious chariots from 3000 BC.

[alfred russel]

They may have been around longer without knowing how to write,   I should point out that the language group was expanding before chariots and that they didn't expand all at once.  This was a process that took several thousand years.  It seems unlikely that these people were simply taken as slaves to places as far away as France to India and then manage to replace the language of their ruling classes and everyone else in the their society.

Raz, I wasn't making a serious proposal that is how the language spread.

[Razgovory]

I'm not sure this is true. Certain styles of warfare are not easily acquired - for example, the settled agricultural-based enemies of the Mongols rid not easily acquire Mongol-style light cavalry tactics, because those skills went along with the Mongol lifestyle.

Certainly settled peoples *can* adopt light cavalry, and the empires of Egypt, Hittites and Mycenaens *did* - but at great expense and bother.

The Mongols are in some ways a case in point: they conquered an enormous territory very quickly, but today the range of Mongolian speakers is roughly Mongolia. They didn't have the manpower or the staying power to leave such an imprint. That contrasts with the Romans, or the Spanish in the new world. But those cultures stayed around in their conquered territories for centuries, and it is difficult to imagine a pre literate political entity surviving for such a time. The Native Americans of the plains are somewhat fascinating: they did not have horses before the Spanish arrived, but by the time europeans began significant encounters with them a couple of centuries later, horses and expert horsemanship were defining parts of their cultures. Cultures can adopt quickly.

I actually wouldn't disagree with you regarding horsemanship: probably there was a catalyst for much of eurasia speaking indo european languages, and that seems a reasonable one. I just am suspicious about the influence of chariots and wagons that spellus was talking about and the certainty of knowing anything during this time period. If all historical records were lost, someone might notice that indo european languages are the predominant language of North and South America, Australia, and Europe as well as much of Africa and Asia. Maybe this would then be attributed to highly effective amphibious chariots from 3000 BC.

The thing is, we have very good evidence that horses were domesticated in Caspian-Pontic steppes.  In fact, we have evidence that this was probably the very first place where horses were domesticated.  This is also where it is theorized that this hypothetical people also lived.  We do know the PIE people had horses and horses would be a great ace in the hole for expansion.  Can it be proven?  No.  But it's a good bet.  It fits the evidence and gives us reason for the extraordinary spread of Indo-European peoples. 

Nothing at this time can said for sure.  In fact, a great deal can't be said for sure in much later periods.  Even things that a written down are sometimes suspect.  As I pointed out with the Battle of Kadesh, both sides claimed victory.  Sometimes I think that people take ancient writings with out enough criticism.  Take for example the Sea Peoples.  Who the Sea People were is unknown. The Egyptians were somewhat vague and contradictory.  They combined formulaic expressions to describe a new enemy.  It's likely they misidentified some of them or just didn't know who some of them were.  Ramesses  III's boasts of defeating the Sea People is taken at face value despite the fact the Sea People didn't seem to have left.  They stayed around and settled in Egypt.  That doesn't sound like the cataclysmic defeat of a civilization destroying horde of barbarians.   The Kings of Egypt had a bad habit of just making shit up.  I imagine there are entire campaigns and wars that were simply omitted because the Pharaoh lost.

[Razgovory]

They may have been around longer without knowing how to write,   I should point out that the language group was expanding before chariots and that they didn't expand all at once.  This was a process that took several thousand years.  It seems unlikely that these people were simply taken as slaves to places as far away as France to India and then manage to replace the language of their ruling classes and everyone else in the their society.

Raz, I wasn't making a serious proposal that is how the language spread.

Oh.  Damn you and your lawyer trickery.