Why did Indo-European languages replace virtually all the indigenous languages of Europe?

Why did Indo-European languages replace virtually all the indigenous languages of Europe?

The beauty of it.

No really: these tribes came out of nowhere with a system of living not seen before by anyone in the region. Whether they willingly joined up with these newcomers or were slaughtered it did not matter. There were SO many of them who came. They had a lot of children too so their numbers swelled compared to everyone living in Europe at the time. It doesn't help that more waves of people descended from other Indo-Europeans moved into Europe after the initial wave.

redpill me on tocharians

Mobile pastoralists had an advantage in warfare compared to sedentary farmers. They might have also brought disease (the plague) with them, they likely were healthier due to their diet and the landscape of Europe appears already somewhat depopulated around that time.

Modern Europeans have around 20-50% ancestry from those steppe populations depending on location, so it's clear that the demographic impact was important too. It wasn't just a purely elite phenomenon but had significant populations moving around as well.

I also recommend The Oxford Handbooks on Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe if you can get your hands on them to get a really good overview of this period.

The white people who lived in western China. Some survive in Tajikistan while most were murdered or raped by chinks. The modern Uyghurs are partially descended from them (because of rape) and some still show it

Whites in ancient china fascinating. This would explain why ancient chineses were so advanced while modern chinese aren't

>redpill me
Fuck off.

literal retard

>20-50%

More like 6-50%

The natives were extremely submissive and weak.

Hence why most native genetics is passed down the mothers line and most Y-DNA is indo-european.

Then why were Sardinians so ferocious against the Romans?

Well, only Sardinians are that low. No need to include such an outlier in a general statement.

Technological innovations such as wheeled vehicles and horseback riding combined with an expansionist culture made for inevitable dominance over surrounding civilizations.

All attested documents of Tocharian originate from 6th-8th centuries AD in what is now the Xinjiang Uygur, mostly Buddhist texts written in the north Indian Brahmi alphabet. The designation 'Tocharian' is based on the now discredited theory that they were the Central Asian people known as 'Tokharoi' in Greek sources. The easternmost IE language, we do not know how this people arrived at such a distant land. It is also uncertain which IE subfamily it is most closely related to.

Archaeological evidence has identified the people as Caucasoid, and some mummies, which date variously from 1800 BC to AD 200, were found with plaids similar to those of the Halstatt culture.

Clackson, J., 2007. Indo-European linguistics : an introduction, Cambridge University Press.

Fortson, B.W., 2010. Indo-european language and culture : an introduction Second. ed, Wiley-Blackwell

danke schoen

How come Indo-Europeans didn't found much success against Afro-Asiatics? The only ones who managed to carve a state in MENA were the Mitanni.

Why are people who speak Indo-European so ashamed of their non-Indo-European ancestry?

The non-Indo-European Mesopotamians were too powerful

Because Afro Asiatics were civilized, Neolithic Europeans just had some stone monuments and overgrown villages ,with the exception of the ones living in the Balkans/Romania and of the islanders and Etruscans who did manage to developed civilizations and where conquered lately.

Central Europeans, Balkanians and the people in the British isles were conquered first, and they didn't have civilizations, except for Balkanians who had some sort of civilization back in 5000-3000 bc, but regressed back due to climate change.

Next were the Minoans who were conquered in 1450 bc by Mycenean Greeks.

Then the Neolithic people of Sicily and Southern italy who were conquered by the urnfield Italics during the late Bronze age (1350-1050 bc)

Then Etruscans in Central Italy managed to keep their language until they were conquered by the romans starting from around 390 bc.

The Sardinians who were assimilated by the Carthaginians starting from 500 bc (though they had already started using Phoenician alphabet back in 800 bc or earlier), and later the Romans, and the same happened to the Non Indoeuropean Iberians and Turdetani.

How come they didn't find much success against Kartvelians?

Persians conquered Mesopotamia and the Levant in 540 BC though

yep and they adopted the superior aramaic language.

Because they're on a fucking island?

And?

Lmao, the majority of ancient Chinese weren't Uyghurs, and calling them "white" is a bit of a stretch. They were closer to turks.

Uyghurs are a type of Turk.

>hating site culture
I would recommend that you return to Reddit whence thee came

> whence thou camest

>Admixture
Only Haplogroup matter, I1 Friend

>Haplomemes

You know that your cavemen, I1 friend

And that only R1b are Proto Indo-Europeans

It's not site culture, it's board culture, and board culture of a different board that crossboards here. So, fuck off back there, you cancerous piece of shit.

They are not "Turks" they are Turkic aka Ancient Chinks who raped white people in Central Asia. Very similar to Hazaras, Uzbeks, and Kazakhs