Iversen wrote:The article from 2011 points to a problem which also has puzzled me during my researches - namely the scarcity of information about the weapons of the Yamnaya. In ordinary tombs they might put a small dagger of copper or a copper-arsenic alloy - not even one of bronze, which they hadn't acquired yet. Even in VIP graves they would rather put a heavy fillsize oxcart than a sword. And they left their steppes before the chariot was invented, so apart from the mobility the got from their horses it isn't obvious whether they really had any advantage in weaponry.
But their migrations to Europe gave nevertheless rise to quite warlike local cultures. How come?
My thoughts - mobility, reconnaissance through trade and the advantage of timing can be very important.
You attack when the enemy is weak (most attackers are predators at heart, not noble). Perhaps dynastic struggles, weak harvest, disease, recovering from another war, army elsewhere attacking some other settlement.
Steppe peoples have often used ambush, feinted retreats and mobility to overwhelm enemies, sometimes in smaller groups. Mobility is key.
Trade may have been important too for knowledge and raw materials. Without metal, armour is restricted to wood and leather but would need a lot of work which a sedentary people might not bother with for the bulk of military (levee).
The Mongols (a much later people) are probably worth investigating as they are better documented, although they did have gunpowder and siege weapons later on.
As I understand, the Vikings used traders' knowledge and mobility in a similar way but on sea.
Being mobile allowed them access to goods and raw materials such as metals, hard stone (obsidian?), a variety of woods and bones that a sedentary people might not have ready access to.
These aggressors didn't have very vulnerable bases, so they could concentrate on raids and wars with less concern for their families, flocks, homes and other resources.
If domination occurred, it could have happened in waves over decades or centuries, gradually chipping away.
Another possibility is tax. Many settled cultures ratchet up tax on the poorest. Eventually there's no point working or farming and joining invaders can be a better option. I can't find it now, but I remember an account of a Roman who ended up in Attila's camp and was happier to be there than subject to arbitrary taxation. Often invaders lightened taxation to make revolts less likely.
Rome split - due to tax, usury, corruption, political power in the hands of a self-serving elite
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_secessio_plebisLastly, skill at arms:- co-operative hunting and herding is good training for war. Predators would be defended against, hunted and killed for prestige. All good practice. Settled peoples don't do so much (odd wolf).