Why Indo-Europeans were so successful

>>1872697
They stole technology from the Egyptians, who were Black people.

File: his.png (95KB, 1581x223px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1581x223px

>>1872738

>>1872697
>Why Indo-Europeans were so successful
>"Comitatus was a Germanic--"

>>1872770
>>Comitatus is an Indo-European concept that predates Roman times
the literal word 'Comitatus' came from a Roman observation of the Germanic folk, but as a concept/social order was an Indo-European thing

>Why did a few tribes of horsemen living in a world of less than 6 million people expand so easily

>>1872738
lol no

File: Indo-European_branches_map.svg.png (108KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 400x400px

>>1872798
>as opposed to every other tribe, them, all the time, in some of the most bountiful areas of the planet
sounds like a good question to me

>"successful"
according to what metric? your opinions?

this is why /his/ needs "& humanities".

>>1872697
Masterrace.

>>1872859
expansion and prominence.

this is why "& humanities" sucks, it tries to questions even the most basic understandings.

>>1872879
but that's your opinion of "success". what about population count, average hours per work week, age of governing structure, number of skulls of enemies accumulated, or any other number of opinions as to what is "successful"?

why is yours inherently more important or correct?

>>1872896
>population count
an aid in survivability
>average hours per work week
reatrded
>age of governing structure
survivability
>number of skulls of enemies accumulated
prominence

>>1872905
>reatrded
well this is awkward

point still stands

>>1872905
"survivablity" could be considered "success" depending on who you ask. also, "retarded" is an opinion, as for "prominence", to whom? nobody will think having a large number of skulls is prominent unless they are a part of a culture that values lots of skulls, so you're basically arguing that indo-europeans are prominent to other into-europeans, in which case, duh.

do you know the difference between subjectivity and objectivity? I can explain it if you're confused.

>>1872922
>having a large number of skulls is prominent unless they are a part of a culture that values lots of skulls
well it would suggest that one is a good warrior.

to a group that wouldn't value longevity, sure, i suppose these things wouldn't be valued, but because of the. well, longevity, of the idea that longevity is valuable, this is the metric by which we judge success.

maybe there was a wonderful tribe of people long ago who valued short-lived things, but they were however short-lived, and are now inconsequential.

>>1872938
>well, longevity, of the idea that longevity is valuable
in your opinion, and regarding this opinion, there are african cultural groups that have lasted millennia longer than any coherent indo-european culture.

>but they were however short-lived, and are now inconsequential.
inconsequential to what? that's a term that requires a context.

this is why we need "& humanities". you are not sufficiently philosophically and linguistically educated to have discussions about history.

>>1872833
See: Mongols

>>1872961
>there are african cultural groups that have lasted millennia longer than any coherent indo-european culture
you might want to take a gander at the Bantu migrations across southern Africa, or the Afro-Asiatics across North Africa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantu_expansion
i don't think that Comitatus was the only means of success, but i wonder if it was for our sake.

>>1872969
elaborate

>>1872977
Steppe warriors BTFO settled farmers and hunter-gatherers until guns

>>1872975
you should think about discarding the word "success" altogether. the word "success" cannot be used quantitatively without falling into immediate subjectivity. it can only be used in an affirmative/negative way while holding objectivity, for example, "did mitt romney get elected for president? no, he was unsuccessful." this is an objective way to use the word "success".

"mitt romney is more successful than that hobo playing banjo by the river", is a subjective use of the word. The hobo might be happier, feel more fulfilled, might have fucked more women, who knows. It all comes down to your opinions.

>>1873008
I see.
While the title declared "Why Indo-Europeans were so successful" I elaborated with "what allowed for Indo-Europeans to become so successful, and spread from the Indian subcontinent to Ireland"

>>1872697

You mean from India to America.

>>1872697

If you want a model how Protoindoeuropeans assimilated huge areas, look at Ndebele expansion. A small warband of semi nomads created a large and constantly expanding ethnicity.

>>1872697
Horses and iron.

>>1874567
WE

>>1873001
>until guns
but then they got guns and still BTFO'd other people

>>1874804
WUZ

File: Indo-European-Language-Family-Map.png (127KB, 1027x649px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 1027x649px

>>1874804
COLONISTS


which is true

File: Apollo-11-moon-landing.jpg (504KB, 800x618px) Image search: [Google]

504KB, 800x618px

>>1872896
>what about population count, average hours per work week, age of governing structure, number of skulls of enemies accumulated, or any other number of opinions as to what is "successful"?

Europeans top the leader board in all those categories and more.