where are the camels?

[MeinPanzer]

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?

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.

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.

[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.

[Ludens]

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?

[Reality=Chaos]

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)

[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.

[Reality=Chaos]

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.

[Reality=Chaos]

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 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?

[MeinPanzer]

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.

[Reality=Chaos]

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

[Barry Soteiro]

wouldn't the parthians or saka have camels drummers ?

[Hax]

wouldn't the parthians or saka have camels drummers ?

Camel..drummers?

[Dhampir]

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.

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.

[Barry Soteiro]

Camel..drummers?

yeah musicians.

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

[Ayce]

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

[Watchman]

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

[Dhampir]

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

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.

[Barry Soteiro]

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

[Dhampir]

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.

[Watchman]

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

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.

[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:

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.

[Barry Soteiro]

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.

[Uticensis]

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)?

[Tellos Athenaios]

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

[Uticensis]

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.

[MeinPanzer]

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.

[The Persian Cataphract]

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.