where are the camels?

[Reality=Chaos]

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)

[Matinius Brutus]

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

[Strategos Alexandros]

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

[Olaf The Great]

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.

[fallen851]

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

[Maximus Aurelius]

Oh my God. Is this the first this month?

[Matinius Brutus]

Oh my God. 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.

[Visitor13]

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

[Reality=Chaos]

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.

[Moros]

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.

[beatoangelico]

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

[Respenus]

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

[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.

[Visitor13]

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.

[Lynchius]

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.

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

[MeinPanzer]

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.

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.

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:"

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.

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.

[Reality=Chaos]

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.

[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.

[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)

[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?

[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]

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?