Printable View
They're good for getting around the desert, anyway. And bow-toting Bedouin raiders on camelback apparently pestered both the Assyrians and ancient Judeans.
But (mostly strategic) mobility, and being odious to horses unused to them (using pack camels as a cavalry-distruption screen seems to have been a fairly popular underhanded trick), is pretty much what the animals' military contribution seems to have been.
But sometimes this must have changed. At least the arabs at the time of mohammed used them in battle AFAIK. Were they the first to do so systematically / in cohesive units?
They used them for transportation, not as battle mounts you know.
Given that round four millenia or so of people who, generally speaking, knew cavalry warfare like the back of their hand, only ever used camels as archery platforms at most, I think we can safely conclude the beasts just plain aren't too well suited for being war mounts.
My guesses for the reasons would include a rather inconvenient body geometry, the fact they're not actually all that fast, and above all the peculiarities of camelid psychology - namely, the whole sneering lot of them have a noted penchance for stubbornness, orneriness and regularly treating orders as suggestions, none of which are particularly desirable qualities in a war mount.
I for one would vote yes to camel archers, but no to warcamels. It seems they do fit historically as archer mounts if nothing else.
Yes, well seeing as we have limited model and unit space, including such an animal as a mount would be considered an unreasonable use of resources.
Foot
Thank you for the answers