where are the camels?

I like EB a lot, but I feel there is one important point overlooked. The camel cavalry that was avaible in Vanilla. I especially found this annoying with the saba. They were surrounded by bedouin tribes that used camels extensively. The bedouins were independent, but they did often fight for the sedentary arabians. Now I know camels were a bit overpowered in vanilla (I mean I've actually sent cataphracts running with a bedouin charge) but for arabians not to be able to use camels as a military unit just isn't right in my opinion. trained war Camels, are still highly frightening though. they won't shy away from battle and can kick and bite (and a camel bite can break a fully grown man's arm) Horses don;t like them either. And they were after all the beast of choice for the bedouins (as pack animals, or for camel races, or for battle). Not only would this give the saba a bit more versatility, but it would be in character too. Are we going to find them in 1.1? (african bedouins used them as well, so pehaps, some of the sahara bordering provinces could well have them)

Oh man!!!!
I am gonna get some popcorn and a few beers and enjoy this man' s slow and painful death by the angry mob that will follow!
Send him to the arena and let him be stamped under the hoofs of LS wearing camels :2thumbsup:

The camels were mainly used for carrying baggage and supplies rather than as war mounts.

I've always wondered why the camels were missing, same with the lorica segementa armor... and where are the ninja arcani guys?

Heh.

No offence, but it seems this topics keeps cropping up again and again, just like the Lorica Segmentata topic, and the Gaesatae one, and some others I can't remember right now.

And the EB team's answer is always the same - in a nutshell, there are no records of camels being used extensively for warfare in the EB time period. And it doesn't seem it was practical to use them for that purpose.

EDIT: Beaten to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strategos alexandros

The camels were mainly used for carrying baggage and supplies rather than as war mounts.

---

What he said, sure there were a few camel riders in battle, but they were far too rare to make into a unit.

Oh my God.:wall: Is this the first this month?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maximus Aurelius

Oh my God.:wall: Is this the first this month?

---

No, it is the last hopefully.
But there are a bunch of guys waiting to post the first one for April. Whoever manages to be the first gets a baloon.

It's a pity there aren't any mod-specific smilies available. Imagine a camel smilie or a Gaesatae smilie...

:viking:

Well... he's only wearing a helmet.

There's never been a mention of camels used as warmounts in historical sources until the Arab conquest in the 7th century.

However Herodutus mentions camels as the savoiur of Darius the First's invasion of the Scythians c.512 BC. Under attack from the tribemen, he ordered the camels used for supplying his troops to be placed at the point of attack. The unusual smell froced the Scythian horses to lose their composure and save his failed plan. :laugh4:

"Kill them all. God knows his own."
- Albigensian leader during their 13th century crusade against 'heretics'

TSSSk. Why be so sarcastic about it. Probably the main reason why there are no such records is the fact that it was mainly bedouins who used them. them being nomads who used them for pretty much everything. I'm sure the arabian sedentary cultures as such didn't really use them as such. Of the sedentary arabians we know not a lot, and from those cultures we know the northern arabians (the nabateans for example) the best. Of pre islamic southern arabian culture very little is known, at all, due to lack of sources. Same goes for the bedouins. The fact that we do not know any sources that say anything about this, is not very relevant here, since there is so much more we do not know about the saba culture, than that we do know of it. There is for example, little to nothing known about wars whithin southern arabia. What we know about southern Arabia is what cultures that surrounding them. And unfortunately neither the Greeks nor, preceding them the persians had much interest in internal arabian squables. IMO it would not be ahistorical at all to admit camels in certain regions. It would be speculation, yes, but it would be very plausible IMO that nomadic tribes, who were later reknown for the very fact that they rode camels, would ride camels to war in these times. Especially since the bedouins left next to no evidence of the fact that they were even there. Their history was oral, and them being nomad meant they would not have left very many significant traces from an archeological point of view.

Perhaps instead of shooting me down, you could wonder, would not camels give the saba more character, versatility. And since we no so little of the saba to begin with it might even be perfectly accurate as well. Of course there are next to no mentions of camels in battle. Historically the saba never ruled territory directly threathening the main powers of the period. Historically they were confined to southern Arabia and ethiopia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fallen851

I've always wondered why the camels were missing, same with the lorica segementa armor... and where are the ninja arcani guys?

---

Not sure if this is a serious question but I'll give it a serious awnser anyway:
camels were mainly used to ride to battle, or to carry bagage. However in EB's timeframe they were only used very rarely in battle. Most of the time it was a (failed) experiment.

LS dates mostly from after our timeframe. Though LS was used very rarely at the end of the time-frame. LS however never was the most common type of body armor.

The Arcani? Well you call them ninja's themselves. Rome never had any ninja like units. Nor did ninja's themselves ever take part of battles. Arcani never even existed. The Arcani are probably meant to be Areani. Spelling mistake aside, the Areani weren't ninja's either. They were roman agents who scouted for enemy armies or did some spy work IIRC.

and the monthly camel thread is here! :laugh4:
I'm still waiting the slingers one, hurry up guys!

How about this? There are not more slot spaces. Here :beam:

I'm not going away until someone gives me a really GOOD argument. The fact that they are not in historical sources, is only a good argument for the northern arabians. Lack of written evidence doesn't mean it wasn't there. Especially with the saba. Southern Arabia was too far away for the persians and the greeks. they only went there to trade, there were no military expeditions into the south of the arabian peninsula. My point is that those people who might have used camels for battle tend to be nomadic, and live in very inhospitable territories no-one but them is interested in anyway. They were not interesting enough to write much about, and writing wasn't exactly a top priority for those that lived in the desert. The northern and southern arabians might have been kin, but culturally and linguistically they were very different. The southern arabians spoke another language (though both were semitic languages) Northern Arabians were also far moer heavily inflyenced by those who lived around them. For large parts of the time they were under the rule of a different people, and when they did have independent kingdoms, they either did not last very long, or were vassals to the dominant powers of the middle east (in this case the ptollies and the seleukids) . Southern Arabia on the other hand was an isolated mercantile powerhouse. They shipped goods from India, and traded them up and down the red sea, or shipped them across the deserts in caravans. The region had natural resources in the form of frankincense and other aromatics as well. They had contact through trade with the dominant cultures of the time, but it was limited to trade over large distances. Though the southern Arabians did write, most of this writing has been utterly lost because they did not have durable things to write on (they wrote on dried palm leaves for example) and only tiny fragments of those texts remain. Camel cavalry could well have been used there. As I said before the saba historically never went further then southern Arabia and ethiopia, so no one would have known much abot their military either. They might well have used Camels in battle without anyone else knowing (or really caring for that matter) once you get out of the south of Arabia and Africa, you are already being ahistorical, so why not let them have camels. It is plausible they used them, and it would make them even more fun to play with.

Camel cavalry need not be abundant in any case, since it would be bedouins fighting for the saba, so maybe only a few arabian province (and perhaps a few african ones as well) have them, because those provinces have a larger amount of bedouins living in the territory, this would make perfect sense I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Respenus

How about this? There are not more slot spaces. Here :beam:

---

weak. The saba have one or two units that could well be substituted for them.

Which ones? :juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strategos alexandros

Which ones? :juggle2:

---

The archer spearmen or the red sea light infantry units. both are very decent units, but especially the archer-spearmen unit (which is supposed to be a bedouin unit at any rate) seems to be a prime suspect.
or the arabian light cavalry, They are supposed to be bedouins too, and though I'm sure they probably had horses, these were a luxury item, since a horse, though very useful, is not nearly as well adapted to the desert life as a Camel and needs far more water, which is a scarce commodity in the desert, and therefore valuable. To get a large band of horseman in the field, a bedouin tribe needs to be very powerfull, as the resources needed to maintain such a number of horses would be very significant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reality=Chaos

weak. The saba have one or two units that could well be substituted for them.

---

Swapping units that have historical evidence for a unit that has no historical basis except for speculation? Likely...

The two slots taken up by the fantasy giant hammer wielding Gaels and British No-dachi Kensei could be made available for fantasy camel units. Oops, I'm being naughty again...

GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

*cries himself to bed*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Admetos

Swapping units that have historical evidence for a unit that has no historical basis except for speculation? Likely...

---

All history is based on speculation. ALL of it. I do not see anything wrong with speculating about a culture like the one in southern Arabia. Most things we know of that area has either come from archeological digs (and those not very often) and, well... speculation. And the things we do know are far and few between. If I were talikng about a culture that would be half as well documented as the southern arabian culture I would stop this argument right here and now. Discarding something because it's not in any source from the region, whilst knowing that there are next to no sources to use is ridiculous historically speaking. All you can say is, that you don't know if it was there, because there is too little known about the region. And it is especially because of this that it could be done easily and without changing the game too much, or be too ahistorical. once you go beyond your homeland territories and Africa, the whole Saba faction becomes ahistorical instantly, and I don't hear too many moans about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

*cries himself to bed*

---

Hax at his intellectual best. :shame:

EDIT: @Reality=Chaos: If there was a strong chance that camels were used in warfare, I'm 99.9% sure they'd be included. I'm sure a member of the EB team can allaborate more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elmetiacos

The two slots taken up by the fantasy giant hammer wielding Gaels and British No-dachi Kensei could be made available for fantasy camel units. Oops, I'm being naughty again...

---

Damn. I'm really dissapointed in a lot of you people. This has nothing to do with fantasy. In which case the whole saba faction shouldn't really exist. The Saba'yn never were a player in this timeframe anyway. It's also one of the hardest factions to actually know things about. What I am saying COULD very well be hsitorical truth. Truth is; way too little is known about the saba, for it to be an accurate faction anyway. so what's the problem with actually making an educated guess as to how it might have been. I DO NOT want an uberpowerful Camel unit, and this is not about wanting that, this is about giving the saba more flavour.
This is how it could be. A camel unit is just as susceptible to spearmen, it is slightly slower than regular cavalry, they would however scare horses. They could be light cavalry for all I care. They would add an interesting twist to the saba unit roster. Alternately they could be a regional unit that is only avaible in a few (this should be rare) provinces. Mainly in southern Arabia, and the sahara region. Not all desert provinces need have them either. Some of those provinces might for example be dominated by a sedentary population, which keeps the bedouins away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reality=Chaos

This has nothing to do with fantasy. In which case the whole saba faction shouldn't really exist.

---

Saba are a fantasy faction? You learn something new everyday...

If you really think that camels were used in battle, then you're going to have to come up with sources to prove your claim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lynchius

There's never been a mention of camels used as warmounts in historical sources until the Arab conquest in the 7th century.

---

This is wrong. Livy explicitly mentions Nabataean archers riding dromedary camels in the battle of Magnesia in 190 BC.

Quote:

---

Of pre islamic southern arabian culture very little is known, at all, due to lack of sources. Same goes for the bedouins. The fact that we do not know any sources that say anything about this, is not very relevant here, since there is so much more we do not know about the saba culture, than that we do know of it. There is for example, little to nothing known about wars whithin southern arabia.

What we know about southern Arabia is what cultures that surrounding them. And unfortunately neither the Greeks nor, preceding them the persians had much interest in internal arabian squables.

---

This is a bizarre statement to make, considering that we actually have a sizeable corpus of information from pre-Islamic southern Arabia, including accounts of warfare. We may have extremely limited historiographical sources related to pre-Islamic southern Arabia, but the epigraphical and lyric sources we have are quite extensive. To say that there is "little to nothing known about wars within southern Arabia," let alone "what we know about southern Arabia is what cultures surrounded them" is ridiculous.

Quote:

---

IMO it would not be ahistorical at all to admit camels in certain regions. It would be speculation, yes, but it would be very plausible IMO that nomadic tribes, who were later reknown for the very fact that they rode camels, would ride camels to war in these times. Especially since the bedouins left next to no evidence of the fact that they were even there. Their history was oral, and them being nomad meant they would not have left very many significant traces from an archeological point of view.

---

We in fact know quite a bit about pre-Islamic Arabian warfare due to epigraphy relating to war and a rich lyric tradition which often celebrated the heroic achievements of warriors. We know from late pre-Islamic poetry that the camel was only used in warfare in tandem with cavalrymen, and it is no surprise therefore that we find a depiction of a cavalryman with an unarmed camelrider fighting with an infantryman with a shield on a 3rd or 2nd C. BC bowl from Mleiha. Taken directly from D.T. Potts' article "Some issues in the study of the pre-Islamic weaponry of southeastern Arabia:"

Quote:

---

As Rehatsek
noted over a century ago, 'warriors were
so careful to fight with horses unexhausted
by fatigue that each man rode on a
camel ... and led the horse which he was to
ride in the battle, without any load by his
side ... whilst even the saddle was placed on
the camels, so that the horse should arrive
quite unfatigued on the battlefield' (Rehatsek, Notes on some old arms: 229. Cf. Macdonald
MCA. Was the Nabataean Kingdom a
“Bedouin State”? ZDPV 107 1991: 103.).
In South Arabia 'rkbt/'frs'm "persons
mounted on horses"' (Beeston AFL. Warfare in ancient South Arabia.
London: Qahtan: Studies in old South Arabian
Epigraphy, 3: 1976: 11.), were distinguished
from "s'd/rkb "mounted warriors",
who are clearly. .. different from cavalry,
[and] we must infer that they were
mounted on camels' (Beeston, Warfare: 12.). These, however,
were mounted infantry who simply rode to
battle on camelback, dismounting before
they engaged in combat.

---

Quote:

---

Perhaps instead of shooting me down, you could wonder, would not camels give the saba more character, versatility. And since we no so little of the saba to begin with it might even be perfectly accurate as well. Of course there are next to no mentions of camels in battle. Historically the saba never ruled territory directly threathening the main powers of the period. Historically they were confined to southern Arabia and ethiopia.

---

Simply put, your impression of ancient Arabia and its archaeology is inaccurate. The EB Sabaeans have drawn from a lot of direct archaeological evidence which is not at all insignificant in relating to this culture in the last centuries BC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reality=Chaos

I'm not going away until someone gives me a really GOOD argument. The fact that they are not in historical sources, is only a good argument for the northern arabians. Lack of written evidence doesn't mean it wasn't there. Especially with the saba. Southern Arabia was too far away for the persians and the greeks. they only went there to trade, there were no military expeditions into the south of the arabian peninsula. My point is that those people who might have used camels for battle tend to be nomadic, and live in very inhospitable territories no-one but them is interested in anyway. They were not interesting enough to write much about, and writing wasn't exactly a top priority for those that lived in the desert. The northern and southern arabians might have been kin, but culturally and linguistically they were very different. The southern arabians spoke another language (though both were semitic languages) Northern Arabians were also far moer heavily inflyenced by those who lived around them. For large parts of the time they were under the rule of a different people, and when they did have independent kingdoms, they either did not last very long, or were vassals to the dominant powers of the middle east (in this case the ptollies and the seleukids) . Southern Arabia on the other hand was an isolated mercantile powerhouse. They shipped goods from India, and traded them up and down the red sea, or shipped them across the deserts in caravans. The region had natural resources in the form of frankincense and other aromatics as well. They had contact through trade with the dominant cultures of the time, but it was limited to trade over large distances. Though the southern Arabians did write, most of this writing has been utterly lost because they did not have durable things to write on (they wrote on dried palm leaves for example) and only tiny fragments of those texts remain. Camel cavalry could well have been used there. As I said before the saba historically never went further then southern Arabia and ethiopia, so no one would have known much abot their military either. They might well have used Camels in battle without anyone else knowing (or really caring for that matter) once you get out of the south of Arabia and Africa, you are already being ahistorical, so why not let them have camels. It is plausible they used them, and it would make them even more fun to play with.

Camel cavalry need not be abundant in any case, since it would be bedouins fighting for the saba, so maybe only a few arabian province (and perhaps a few african ones as well) have them, because those provinces have a larger amount of bedouins living in the territory, this would make perfect sense I think.

---

I'll give you a good argument. This mod belongs to the people who made it possible, and if they don't want to put in camels (or LS, flaming pigs, or a map to China) it's their right. If you want camels I suggest you either make them yourself or find a mod that has them. Because it looks like they will never find their way into EB.:whip:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

This is wrong. Livy explicitly mentions Nabataean archers riding dromedary camels in the battle of Magnesia in 190 BC.



This is a bizarre statement to make, considering that we actually have a sizeable corpus of information from pre-Islamic southern Arabia, including accounts of warfare. We may have extremely limited historiographical sources related to pre-Islamic southern Arabia, but the epigraphical and lyric sources we have are quite extensive. To say that there is "little to nothing known about wars within southern Arabia," let alone "what we know about southern Arabia is what cultures surrounded them" is ridiculous.



We in fact know quite a bit about pre-Islamic Arabian warfare due to epigraphy relating to war and a rich lyric tradition which often celebrated the heroic achievements of warriors. We know from late pre-Islamic poetry that the camel was only used in warfare in tandem with cavalrymen, and it is no surprise therefore that we find a depiction of a cavalryman with an unarmed camelrider fighting with an infantryman with a shield on a 3rd or 2nd C. BC bowl from Mleiha. Taken directly from D.T. Potts' article "Some issues in the study of the pre-Islamic weaponry of southeastern Arabia:"





Simply put, your impression of ancient Arabia and its archaeology is inaccurate. The EB Sabaeans have drawn from a lot of direct archaeological evidence which is not at all insignificant in relating to this culture in the last centuries BC.

---

Thanks for correcting me. I was maybe a bit stuck on the historiographical side of the sources. As for the archeological discoveies. Point me in the right direction please. The arabian peninsula has always been a fascination of mine. My knowledge of islamic arabia is however far more extensive. I read quite a lot of literature about this area, but even the more recent historical authors, seem to think that there is very little known about the place. This could of course be one of those things, where historians and archeologists don't work well together (as strangely often seems to be the case) I'm all for learning more about it. So do please tell. As for the camels. They were obviously used (according to your sources, which I assume to be correct), although not for charging into an enemy as such. this might be a bit dificult to put into game terms. The mounted archers sound more promising.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maximus Aurelius

I'll give you a good argument. This mod belongs to the people who made it possible, and if they don't want to put in camels (or LS, flaming pigs, or a map to China) it's their right. If you want camels I suggest you either make them yourself or find a mod that has them. Because it looks like they will never find their way into EB.:whip:

---

Well that is a good reason. I am not trying to piss anyone off though. I am just giving a suggestion. It's not my fault that half of you react as a bunch of adolescents. I'm trying to give some input, which I am trying to argue for in a reasonable way too. I'm not trying to force them to do anything. I just was rather pissed of at all the pavlov reactions of a lot of the members. I'm trying to actually be constructive. Unlike some others choose to be sarcastic about it, because they automatically assume that I am wrong without giving any arguments and that's just a bit nasty IMO. This no attack vs the EB team (whom I love desperately for making this mod) it is an attack against those that are slating me without actually responding to my posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reality=Chaos

Thanks for correcting me. I was maybe a bit stuck on the historiographical side of the sources. As for the archeological discoveies. Point me in the right direction please. The arabian peninsula has always been a fascination of mine. My knowledge of islamic arabia is however far more extensive. I read quite a lot of literature about this area, but even the more recent historical authors, seem to think that there is very little known about the place.

---

What are you looking for? Information on warfare, lyric poetry, epigraphy, or just plain archaeology?

Quote:

---

This could of course be one of those things, where historians and archeologists don't work well together (as strangely often seems to be the case) I'm all for learning more about it. So do please tell.

---

The lack of general information is probably due to the fact that the study of pre-Islamic Arabia, its culture, and its languages is, and has been for more than a century now, contained within a small and insular group of academic researchers. Non-academic texts are often hard to find, and even the academic texts are usually harder to track down than those of other areas of study.

Quote:

---

As for the camels. They were obviously used (according to your sources, which I assume to be correct), although not for charging into an enemy as such. this might be a bit dificult to put into game terms. The mounted archers sound more promising.

---

Mounted archers were employed by northwestern Arabs, like the Nabataeans, but they were far removed from the southern Arabians. I agree that a Nabataean camel archer unit is justified in the EB timeframe, but any sort of Sabaean unit is not.

No don't you start offending the science of history!!!
History isn't based on speculation and wild guesses. No educated guesses okay, but certainly not speculation.

Now camels were used. But verry exceptional. They aren't really the ideal mounts for warfare. They might scare away horses, but what does it matter? The horses outrun them with ease anyway. And everything else concerning them and logic, them and evidence, them and references,...speak against their inclusion. Especially over other attested units. Sabaeans and other proto-arabians just never really used them. Some civilization did though. But usually they were rare or an experiment of a particular general.

Could we please stop ridiculing the OP? He's asking a valid question. If you haven't got anything to add to the discussion, then don't add it.

As for the original question, the fact that we don't know much about Arabia in this time isn't a license to speculate. Whenever camels do appear in warfare, they seem to have been mostly used as transport rather than battle mount. You can off course add such a unit on the basis that it is physically possible, but so, then why were camels used so little? The probable answer is that, for one reason or another, they don't make very good battle mounts. It would also require several models to create such a unit (as the camel needs a model as well), and there is very little model space left in EB. Does that answer your question?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

What are you looking for? Information on warfare, lyric poetry, epigraphy, or just plain archaeology?





The lack of general information is probably due to the fact that the study of pre-Islamic Arabia, its culture, and its languages is, and has been for more than a century now, contained within a small and insular group of academic researchers. Non-academic texts are often hard to find, and even the academic texts are usually harder to track down than those of other areas of study.



Mounted archers were employed by northwestern Arabs, like the Nabataeans, but they were far removed from the southern Arabians. I agree that a Nabataean camel archer unit is justified in the EB timeframe, but any sort of Sabaean unit is not.

---

Well I'd like information on all of the mentioned bits really.

I do have access to academic works (I have just finished my Bachelor in history, with a minor about Islamic culture, and I'm going to do a master on Islam in the modern world) but most of these are bout the islamic period. Those reverences to pre-islamic culture are sadly short. I've always been very interested in pre- islamic culture though (I tend to get fascinated by those obscure parts of history that are still mostly blank)

Thank you, MeinPanzer. You said most of what I wanted to say.

Also, in the threads I've read on the public forum, I've seen a lot of (well-intentioned I'm sure) fans virulently attack people asking these questions. There's no reason to do this, as he had a legitimate question, albeit an oft-repeated one. A proper response might have been to link him to old threads, not to attack him.

--

Reality=Chaos:

For the most part, even during the conquest period in the 7th century A.D., Camels were not used as battle mounts. Even at Magnesia, I would contend they were used as archery platforms rather than a true force of traditional mounted archers. Most of the episodes in Arabian history where 'camel soldiers' are depicted (including a very beautiful Assyrian relief), they are generally being ambushed.

The practical reason the camel is not used as a mount of war proper is that it really only has two speeds: a lumbering walk, and a breakneck run. Keeping a few camels around to frighten horses was a common practice, but actually mounting soldiers on them to fight is usually a no-go. Most arabs would ride their camels to battle, then dismount and get on their horses for the actual fight. This way, their prized war horses were not weighted down with baggage or in any way overly stressed and tired before a battle. Many other cultures did the same thing with mules, or rotated out horses, etc.

If you want more specifics, please let me know. I'm sorry you were attacked when you came here, and hope you attribute this to overzealous fans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

No don't you start offending the science of history!!!
History isn't based on speculation and wild guesses. No educated guesses okay, but certainly not speculation.

Now camels were used. But verry exceptional. They aren't really the ideal mounts for warfare. They might scare away horses, but what does it matter? The horses outrun them with ease anyway. And everything else concerning them and logic, them and evidence, them and references,...speak against their inclusion. Especially over other attested units. Sabaeans and other proto-arabians just never really used them. Some civilization did though. But usually they were rare or an experiment of a particular general.

---

I study it myself, and I consider it an essential and very important for humanity in general. It is however like trying to solve a puzzle with many pieces missing. And the more pieces that are missing the more speculation is needed to fill in the blank spots. I certainly belief that history as an occupation is very important. By calling it a science however, you are going a bit too far I think. I mean a historian can never actually prove anything. I think whilst practising history a healthy dose of post-modernism should be added. As for the sources, I will believe you there, but please, point me in the direction on to where I can find them (I'm genuinely interested in this stuff)

History is ALL about speculation, but it is all about educated speculation that has logic to it. If it weren't all about speculation, the paradigms in history would hardly change at all. speculation grounded on evidence is what history all about, and it's also the reason that we keep progressing in the search to complete the puzzle. If it weren't for speculation we wouldn't bother with history at all. And I'm convinced that we SHOULD study it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Urnamma

Thank you, MeinPanzer. You said most of what I wanted to say.

Also, in the threads I've read on the public forum, I've seen a lot of (well-intentioned I'm sure) fans virulently attack people asking these questions. There's no reason to do this, as he had a legitimate question, albeit an oft-repeated one. A proper response might have been to link him to old threads, not to attack him.

--

Reality=Chaos:

For the most part, even during the conquest period in the 7th century A.D., Camels were not used as battle mounts. Even at Magnesia, I would contend they were used as archery platforms rather than a true force of traditional mounted archers. Most of the episodes in Arabian history where 'camel soldiers' are depicted (including a very beautiful Assyrian relief), they are generally being ambushed.

The practical reason the camel is not used as a mount of war proper is that it really only has two speeds: a lumbering walk, and a breakneck run. Keeping a few camels around to frighten horses was a common practice, but actually mounting soldiers on them to fight is usually a no-go. Most arabs would ride their camels to battle, then dismount and get on their horses for the actual fight. This way, their prized war horses were not weighted down with baggage or in any way overly stressed and tired before a battle. Many other cultures did the same thing with mules, or rotated out horses, etc.

If you want more specifics, please let me know. I'm sorry you were attacked when you came here, and hope you attribute this to overzealous fans.

---

No that's OK, there's always some people that go a bit too far. I can take some stick:sweatdrop: Thanks for the info. I know about camels. I actually saw one run in Morrocco, damn they are fast. The only thing that bothers me a bit, is that the arabians should have some benefit from having the beaties around during war. Incorporating a dismounting unit in the game would be utterly impossible, or if not, waaay to complicated for a single unit. Perhaps the movement of the armies on the campaign map could be influenced? I'd like specifics. As I said earlier I'm really intereted in the subject. Perhaps you could PM me some stuff?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reality=Chaos

Well I'd like information on all of the mentioned bits really.

I do have access to academic works (I have just finished my Bachelor in history, with a minor about Islamic culture, and I'm going to do a master on Islam in the modern world) but most of these are bout the islamic period. Those reverences to pre-islamic culture are sadly short. I've always been very interested in pre- islamic culture though (I tend to get fascinated by those obscure parts of history that are still mostly blank)

---

To begin with, the Journal of Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy has lots of scattered but up-to-date information on epigraphy and archaeology, including a few articles specifically related to warfare (most notably that one by D.T. Potts I quoted further up), and it is available online through Blackwell Synergy, which is available through many university databases. If you're looking for epigraphical information, the Corpus des Inscriptions et Antiquités Sud-Arabes is the most comprehensive work I have been able to find. I've only been through a few volumes thoroughly, but I have been able to find a few very interesting inscriptions relating to royal hunts and commemorating successful campaigns in warfare which date to the first few centuries AD.

A few notable publications on warfare:

Lichtenstadter I. Women in the Aiyam al-‘Arab: A study of female life during wafare in preislamic Arabia. London: Royal Asiatic Society Prize Publication Fund, 14: 1935.

Beeston AFL. Warfare in ancient South Arabia. London: Qahtan: Studies in old South Arabian Epigraphy, 3: 1976.

Macdonald MCA. Was the Nabataean Kingdom a “Bedouin State”? ZDPV 107 1991.

Thanks a lot mate:2thumbsup: Now I can get down to the uni library and see if they have some:book: for me.

wouldn't the parthians or saka have camels drummers ?

Quote:

---

wouldn't the parthians or saka have camels drummers ?

---

Camel..drummers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reality=Chaos

All history is based on speculation. ALL of it.

---

What the hell? Are you saying I'm working to get a PhD in speculation? I'm no philosophy student.:furious3:

But seriously, all History is based upon evidence. Where no evidence exists, no history exists. There is no speculation involved. Speculation is not an historiographical activity.

If you want camels in EB, go find the sources that show that they were common enough to warrant the time and effort the team would have to put in to add them to the mod. A mention of them at one battle is not enough evidence to show that they were regularly used.

If they were common, someone would have written about them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Camel..drummers?

---

yeah musicians.

At least didn't the achaemenids had a camel corps ?

On a side note, why don't Slavs have Bear Cavalry? :charge: Everybody knows the tribes of the northern east used bears :smash:

https://img223.imageshack.us/img223/...4643993mg2.jpg

That's some pretty anachronistic weaponry there though. I mean, sabres didn't turn up before like 7th-8th century AD. :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

That's some pretty anachronistic weaponry there though. I mean, sabres didn't turn up before like 7th-8th century AD. :book:

---

Yes, but the PPSh was developed by Sabean inventors around 137 BCE, well within EB's time frame. It is conceivable that they would have made their way into Slavic lands.

Didn't the swedish tryto use mooses ? But they were too afraid of the sounds of guns N:laugh4:

Also on camels...

In the years after the Mexican War, the US Army tried to create a camel corps in the American South-West, but they found that horses unaccustomed to camels are deathly afraid of them--must be the smell.

So, assuming there are camel units, you wouldn't want to recruit camel mercs as Rome and then pair them up with Imperial cavalry.:no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gertrude

Didn't the swedish tryto use mooses ? But they were too afraid of the sounds of guns N:laugh4:

---

Under Carolus XI there was indeed formed and experimental squadron to test the feasibility of the concept. Neither the riders nor the animals proved very cooperative however, and after a number of bruises and broken bones among the former the project was quietly discontinued.

There were occasions where camelry was used in the manner of shock cavalry, as opposed to being merely an elevated archer's platform or in situ tactical transportation for warriors; Our earliest evidence for this usage, especially when it came to disrupting conventional cavalry formations, are recorded in the battle of Thymbra 547 BCE, where Cyrus The Great improvized by using his baggage dromedaries to scare away the Lydian heavy horse, while Cyrus' heavy cavalry majorly consisting of Medes, struck at the weak spots between the wings and the centre, causing a tremendous rout. We may take this with a pillar of salt; The richest details of this battle stem from Xenophon's "Cyropaedia", which at parts is a homage to Cyrus The Younger and at parts semi-fictitious. The usage of camelry, at all, was irregular in the Achaemenid armed forces.

However, evidence for armoured camelry armed and equipped like cataphracts appear in the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE, and were a prominent force on behalf of the Parthians during the battle of Nisibis, 217 CE, where Artabanus IV emerged victorious against Macrinus. This sort of armoured camelry could have been a staple unit in the Parthian client city of Hatra as well as the Syrian client-kingdom of Palmyra. Check out Herodian:

Quote:

---

Herodian IV.14.3 - Nisibis, AD 217:

Meanwhile Artabanus was upon them with his vast and powerful army
composed of many cavalry and an enormous number of archers and
cataphracts who fought on camels, jabbing with long spears.

Herodian IV.15.2-3 - Nisibis, AD 217:

The barbarians caused heavy casualties with their rain of arrows and
with the long spears of the kataphraktoi on horses and camels, as the
wounded the Romans with downward thrusts. But the Romans had easily
the better of those who came to close-quarters fighting. And when the
size of the cavalry and the numbers of the camels began to cause them
trouble they pretended to retreat and then threw down caltrops and
other iron devices with sharp spikes sticking out of them. They were
fatal to the cavalry and the camel-riders as they lay hidden in the
sand, not seen by them. The horses and the camels trod on them and fell
onto their knees and were lamed, throwing the riders off their backs.
As long as the eastern barbarians are riding on horses or camels they
fight bravely; if they dismount or are thrown they are easily taken
prisoner because they do not resist in close-quarters fighting. And
further, they are hindered from running away by the loose folds of
their clothes hanging around their legs.

---

MeinPanzer should be able to recognize this. In fact, he stresses the exact same thing here:
http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtop...r=asc&start=20

This is what you get when you search for Herodian and "camel cataphract". I suppose great minds think alike.

Otherwise, the reader may find the relevant passages here:
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/he..._book4.htm#C14
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/he..._book4.htm#C15

So clearly camels could indeed be used as shock mounts. What we do not have any evidence of is however a barding for camels; The Tehran National Museum does allegedly have a caparison, but it is dated 15th century CE and by those standards could be anything from a Timurid construct or White/Black Sheep Turkish or even early Qizilbash/Safavid. Very odd finding as by the Timurid advent, heavily armoured cavalry had resurged (Which is reflected upon in Medieval Iranian art and miniatures with a high figure of cavalry armed and armoured like Tarkhan champions). In the cases where we do find camelry at all, in the mentioned arts, is exclusively as a platform for musicians, beyond their usage of logistics, which was the main usage of these animals in war.

So, I'm not completely against camelry at all, in fact history attests of novel and improvized usage of these animals, sometimes even decisively, but their sparse historical usage has given them a rather low assessment priority. It might change sometime in the future, but I wouldn't get my hopes up.

Thanks a lot The Persian Ctaphract for your detailed answer. I'm happy to learn that hope is not lost for a future EB2 camel unit.

I know significant numbers of camels would not have been used in war during EB's timeframe, and I wouldn't want camels in EB (I din't even use them in vanilla.)

But PersianCatapract is right, the late Roman sources are full of examples of camels used in North Africa. Just off the top of my head, Ammianus Marcellinus gives an account of when Lepcis was attacked by a Libyan tribe called the Austoriani. I dug up my English translation of Ammianus, and here is the relevant part:
"The people of Lepcis were so terrified by this sudden disaster, and, to forestall any further mischief from the insolent barbarians, begged the protection of Romanus, who had lately been promoted to command in Africa with the rank of count. But when he arrived with his troops and was asked to help the town in distress, he replied that he would not take the field unless he was furnished with abundant supplies and 4,000 camels."
This is the late fourth century, but the point is, the Romans probably started at some point using camels for desert warfare. Why else would a commander need 4,000 of them, unless for war or to carry baggage (and if he needed them for baggage, how did he get his army to Lepcis in the first place)?

Lepcis or Lepki is, however, easily reached by sea?

True, that's a good point. As the commander in Africa, he would have his headquarters in Carthago, so he could have gone by sea or land, I suppose its uncertain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract

There were occasions where camelry was used in the manner of shock cavalry, as opposed to being merely an elevated archer's platform or in situ tactical transportation for warriors; Our earliest evidence for this usage, especially when it came to disrupting conventional cavalry formations, are recorded in the battle of Thymbra 547 BCE, where Cyrus The Great improvized by using his baggage dromedaries to scare away the Lydian heavy horse, while Cyrus' heavy cavalry majorly consisting of Medes, struck at the weak spots between the wings and the centre, causing a tremendous rout. We may take this with a pillar of salt; The richest details of this battle stem from Xenophon's "Cyropaedia", which at parts is a homage to Cyrus The Younger and at parts semi-fictitious. The usage of camelry, at all, was irregular in the Achaemenid armed forces.

However, evidence for armoured camelry armed and equipped like cataphracts appear in the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE, and were a prominent force on behalf of the Parthians during the battle of Nisibis, 217 CE, where Artabanus IV emerged victorious against Macrinus. This sort of armoured camelry could have been a staple unit in the Parthian client city of Hatra as well as the Syrian client-kingdom of Palmyra. Check out Herodian:



MeinPanzer should be able to recognize this. In fact, he stresses the exact same thing here:
http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtop...r=asc&start=20

This is what you get when you search for Herodian and "camel cataphract". I suppose great minds think alike.

Otherwise, the reader may find the relevant passages here:
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/he..._book4.htm#C14
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/he..._book4.htm#C15

So clearly camels could indeed be used as shock mounts. What we do not have any evidence of is however a barding for camels; The Tehran National Museum does allegedly have a caparison, but it is dated 15th century CE and by those standards could be anything from a Timurid construct or White/Black Sheep Turkish or even early Qizilbash/Safavid. Very odd finding as by the Timurid advent, heavily armoured cavalry had resurged (Which is reflected upon in Medieval Iranian art and miniatures with a high figure of cavalry armed and armoured like Tarkhan champions). In the cases where we do find camelry at all, in the mentioned arts, is exclusively as a platform for musicians, beyond their usage of logistics, which was the main usage of these animals in war.

So, I'm not completely against camelry at all, in fact history attests of novel and improvized usage of these animals, sometimes even decisively, but their sparse historical usage has given them a rather low assessment priority. It might change sometime in the future, but I wouldn't get my hopes up.

---

That's right, I completely forgot Nisibis - thanks for bringing it up. I also completely omitted the imperial Roman Dromedarii who were employed down to the 5th c. AD. Though details of their armament are practically nonexistant, it seems very likely they were used in at least a limited close-combat role.

However, do you think that Thymbra is a good example of camels used as "shock cavalry"? I don't think the description of the battle actually implies that they entered close combat, but were just used as a repulsive barrier.

No, Thymbra is not a good example at all; It is one of the so-called "Cyropaedic anomalies" and the entire works have pitted the arms of this supposed "Cyrus The Great" into the late Achaemenid age, when the military machine had undergone several reforms. Xenophon was particularly infatuated with cavalry, as he does reveal in a number of occasions in both the Anabasis and the Cyropaedia (Which of course is reflected by his own work on horsemanship) and during an age where the Achaemenid cavalry arm began to transform into a more able shock apparatus, it is natural to think that the camelry, would have been deployed to meet the advancing Lydian cavalry; The advantages behind such a deployment, especially if the wind blew from behind the camel-mounted troops could potentially cause a more dangerous rout to the Lydian heavy horse.

Of course, the camels may merely have been deployed as a "static" element on the front. In fact, it is what is propagated for in the classics. Details on Thymbra are rather sketchy, and as a whole a unique battle where the deployment of troops appear odd. Cyrus deploys a formation resembling a square, cavalry on the wings and with his chariots to the rear. Croesus deploys his lancers to envelop the Persian formation, but they panic, and the cavalry dismounts; The Persians dispatch them easily by sending out shield-bearers, and the chariots completing the rout of the Lydian horse, while Cyrus sends out his heavy cavalry and supporting mounted troops to attack at the fresh gaps in the Lydian formations, while the archers pelt the Lydian centre with arrows. It smells like Gaugamela... Oddly enough. Cyrus draws out Croesus troops, forcing them to over-extend (In fact, tempting them to out-flank him... Much thanks to his squared center) their own lines, foils their movement, neutralizes them, and at the same time deploying his own cavalry causing the rout. More oddly is that the emphasis on advancing is actually put on the Lydians, which must have been a ripe target as a whole for the Persian archers.

I think in retrospect that the improvized camelry may have been deployed to the fray with the Lydian cavalry, albeit in a later stage; Otherwise Cyrus would have lost the advantage of surprise. Of course, any other perception is valid.