Were the Indo-Europeans bad at civilization? How did they get big in the first place?

>doesn't include Scythians, Sogdians, other Iranian peoples in R1a

Oh, sorry I forgot some Proto-Turks and literally whos

>haplomemes

I would compare PIE peoples to Turkic-Mongolic peoples, who were almost entirely occupied with war and pastoralism. Both PIE and Turko-Mongols conquered settled populations, replaced the warrior aristocracy with their own, and let everything run almost exactly as it had before, with some changes.

I1 master race BTFO R1b plebs.

Except that ancient semitic (middle eastern) religion adored fuclibg rocks, trees and statues and considered that the god was inside them. In Mesopotamia if you captured the idol you captured the God. On the opposite side ancient iranians were against representing gods.

If scythians are proto-turks, amerindians are proto-unitedstatians.

I don't get the Scythian worship.
They didn't do anything.

Turko-Mongols actually adopted pastoralism through contact with Proto-Iranians on the Steppes. For thousands of years, Turks were confined to a small area of the Eurasian Steppes until their large, disruptive population movements displaced or assimilated the Scythians.

people like to associate romans with r1b but forget the fact that romans didn't exist before they've merged with etruscans and other european civilizations.

wut

ancient Greeks had a lot of E1b, and still do. It's more major than either of the R1 branches.

>indoeuropeans conquer already existing, developed civilizations
>Rome, Greece, India, Iran, pinnacles of culture

>indoeuropeans conquer savages with no culture or settle in void places
>lol slav(e)s
>lol paddies
>lol snowniggers

Indeed. IE were niggers. Muh need of a priestly caste, muh solar king and other evolian/guenonian/traditionalist memes are just to justify their place in society like brahmans in India despite the substrate society being superior.

Not surprised altaics are their related cousins. Same niggerish behaviour

Same user here

> Another thing: IEs liked the tangible, rather than the abstract.
Semites and middle easterners were the same

>They had polytheistic nature gods, while "neolithic" people had an abstract monotheism: Abrahamism came from the Mideast. Abrahamism took over Europe only after IEs mixed with indigenous neolithics.
Abrahamism is posterior. Plus abrahamic theology is very limited and primitive. Also mostly based on a PIE heresy, zoroastrianism (good god vs evil god, angels because only one god, etc). Also abrahamism is explicitly materialist. It has more emphasis on today's life and believes in resurrection of the flesh. Ancient semites had similar material gods. Ancient arabian religion praised the gods in this life, for material benefits and protection and they were depicted anthropomorphically, just as ancient Canaan and Hebrews.

>Shaivism was prominent in Dravidian India, which had less IE and more neolithic blood than the north.
Yes. But...
> So it seems to me that the neolithics (who all descend from the ancient Mideast)
[citation needed]
Shaivism is a modern definition, wheter Shiva is a native god or syncretism is not known. Ancient indian (pre PIE) religiousness was probably more tantric, still different of modern tantra.

>were probably more alike to our current mode of civilization than the IEs.
What do you mean?

> 1. Do you agree with my characterization (of IEs being less abstraction oriented)?
No. I say they were niggerish.

> 2. How did IEs get big in the first place? Was it just horses? Metal? Other stuff we don't know about?
Imo horses, chariot, wheel, metal, berserkers (PIE), militarism.

but the iranians come later than the mesopotamians by over 1000 years.

Unless you can show me that these things occurred contemporaneously, it doesn't argue against what I said.

Moreover, there was a huge "neolithic" genetic element in Iran anyway, so this behavior would have had to have happened before mixing with the neolithic people in the south. In other words, it would've had to have been from the IEs back in Kazakhstan.

I have a hard time understanding what people mean when they say Indo-European. Sometimes they use it to refer to a a bunch of different groups with a similar language and culture, other times they'll use it to describe some big civilization.

I always thought it referred to a common distant ancestor. Like sharing neanderthal blood or something.

>> So it seems to me that the neolithics (who all descend from the ancient Mideast)
>[citation needed]

It's really true, if you look it up. I can't really find the sources because this is off the top of my head from accumulated knowledge. The entire area of the middle east was covered by neolithic people.

They all migrated outward, and are now major parts of the autosomal ancestry of all Indians, Caucasians, and Europeans. And of course, themselves.

>>were probably more alike to our current mode of civilization than the IEs.
>What do you mean?

I mean that they lived a settled life.

>> 2. How did IEs get big in the first place? Was it just horses? Metal? Other stuff we don't know about?
>Imo horses, chariot, wheel, metal, berserkers (PIE), militarism.

I still don't know of neolithic cultures had metal weapons. If they didn't, it explains IE dominance perfectly. If they did, I think it's more complicated.

I also find it interesting that India and Caucasia resisted the IE movements while Europe did not. Caucasia in particular, since it was right in the middle of it all.

>How did they get big in the first place?
Horses

Not even worth replying to.

PIE brought the plague for the first time in Europe, that's how they "on"

@3122396
Not even worth replying to

A people doesn't reach supremacy because of a material thing such as a metal or a tool. You can't say the IE peoples dominated "because of metal" of "because they had the chariot". That metal and those chariots didn't just fall out of the sky and happen to land on the IE peoples. The IE peoples invented it and created it for a reason. What i'm trying to say is that the IE peoples came to dominate because they had a certain spirit that caused them to do what they did. It's more crucial to understand their religion, than to understand the physical manifestations of their culture such as tools.

Why did you reply then, faggot?

Indoeuropeans didn't invent metals, fuckwit

I thought this thread was gonna be retarded autism but you actually make a good point

>ancient Greeks had a lot of E1b, and still do. It's more major than either of the R1 branches.

Greek = G