How did they do it?

...before chariots were invented, and possibly even before horses domesticated.

What's with this question?
There doesn't need to be an answer other than Europe having no capability to defend itself vs. the genocidal eastern horde on horseback.

It's like wondering about how Aztecs could conquer some absolutely unknown and weak tribe in Mexico.

In South Asia there were climatic reasons which weakened the Indus Valley Culture and made it easy to take over.

Cavalry wasn't invented until 1000 BC

Completely wrong. They had horses and they rode them in the 4th millenium BC.
I don't even need to link proof because it's such a well known fact.

Domestic horses =/= cavalry

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalry#Origins

You're arguing about semantics. Anyway the genocidal horde on horseback did in fact roll over Europe 5000 years ago and you were trying to confuse people into thinking that they didn't.

They didn't ride them, they used them to pull carts, but not chariots at most.

But that's wrong. Horseback riding predates the wheel even.

Proofs?

Bampf chariots helped, they actually took Egypt at one point.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyksos

Maybe the weather was actually good in central asia/ the eurasian steppe for like a couple decades and they had a massive population boom.

Maybe it was something about their religion or social structure.

Maybe it's literally just genetic strength, the first real prerequisite.

>Indo-Iranian

this is probably a misnomer.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Iranians

>The Proto-Indo-Iranians are commonly identified with the descendants of the Proto-Indo-Europeans

so the Proto-Indo-Iranians are identified with, literally, Indo-Europeans.

Fucking hell, what a goddamn clusterfuck. Just call them Aryans.

Britons had chariots btw. Like, they brought them with along.

>Britons had chariots btw.
Yes
> Like, they brought them with along.
No

>Indo-Iranian
When will this meme end?

>Britons had chariots

Yes, since what year, and what type of chariot are we talking about?

Also that map is not accurate, North Africa and Sardinia introduced horse drawn chariots around the late bronze age

they totally did bro that's how the chariot spread

do you think you can just roll a chariot through the Sea of Brittany?

We know for a fact that the Proto-Indo-European speakers domesticated horses and knew of the wheel (in fact, horses were probably the most important animal to them; one of the earliest attested religions is the PIE horse cult). Both from archaeological evidence, of which there is plenty, and also from comparative linguistic reconstruction, as many words relating to horses & horse training can be traced directly back to PIE and their etymologies show patterns consistent with domestication. Although they probably didn't ride them for transportation for at least a couple centuries, and there's no precise date for domestication -- the timeline is murky.

We really do not know whether the spread of the Indo-Europeans was military or peaceful. People have been arguing about that for decades, and will continue doing so for decades, maybe forever. Any honest summary will acknowledge the uncertainty here.

that's some mighty fine agriculture in that image there

We do not know if chariots were used in the britsh islands before 500 bc, the first evidence for its presence on the islands is from that period onwards we don't have prior evidence so we don't know if the first Indoeuropean speaking people that came there actually used them, most likely not.

>bronzeworking

Bronze working was first developed in the Near east, not by Indoeuropeans who learned it much later than Sumerians and Egyptians and other non Indoeuropeans around Eurasia

Technically speaking the expansion of the United States over native land was as peaceful as it gets.
But in reality expansion over settled land is always militaristic.

he said *fancy* bronze working

What? No it's not. You can't throw absolute statements around like that if you're going to talk anthropology. Peaceful migration is certainly a thing; remember that the Indo-Europeans didn't sweep over Europe in one massive wave, it was a process that took centuries -- millennia, really. And much of the land was pretty sparsely populated, since a lot of Europe can't support a particularly large population without agricultural advances like domesticated sheep, horses, cattle, the plow, the wheel ...

Plenty of scholars take the idea seriously that the IE cultures spread gradually and largely assimilated the less numerous native peoples instead of wiping them out. I mean, nobody's suggesting that it was absolutely peaceful, we're talking about thousands of separate events and many migratory waves which only seem connected to each other in retrospect, so yeah, there almost certainly was *some* violence, but the idea that it was this MASSIVE INVASION isn't universally accepted by any means.

There has never been such an event as peaceful replacement. Probably impossible because of human nature.
And Europe wasn't some sparsely settled wasteland back then.

They worshipped stronger gods.

The Sky Father struck down their enemies' pitiful rock spirits and tree gods, and in thanks they built for him great temples, and sacrificed many horses.

Honour your gods, and you will never fall.