Were mounted camel archers actually a thing?

[mmcv]

We all love some camel archers trotting around our medieval deserts but has anyone any references to them being used as actual mounted troops (i.e. fighting from camel-back) particularly in the medieval period.

Anything I've come across so far (which is frankly pretty scant) seems to indicate they were used more for transport than combat and archers and spearmen would use them to manoeuvre around the battlefield, but then dismount to fight rather than fighting mounted.

A bit like later dragoons.

While many mounted warriors would have had camels, they seem to be more for baggage carrying. I suppose it's possible they sometimes rode them when their horses were out of use, or used them as a bit of a stampede to add weight and disruption to a charge, but certainly the "classic" mounted camel archer firing from camel-back there doesn't seem to be much on and certainly not as dedicated units given the horse was in most ways superior in the role.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

The Mideanites had camels with 2 crew one driving and the other an archer, but can't think of any others. It's not impossible though.

[Shedman]

Mark "Big Insect" Fry is your man for stuff like this and cataphract camels as well.

I researched camels for my 1840 Algeria project and found no evidence that camels were used in combat.

There are a few pieces of artwork representing camels in skirmishes but nothing in large battles or close combat.

My understanding, from reading various c19th French & British books, was that the camel was used in a strategic role.

It got them to the battlefield and then the troops either fought on foot or on horseback.

Have a look at Small Wars by Major C.E Callwell . He basically says that they are fine for getting to a battle but rubbish in a battle

[mmcv]

Yeah, that's my sense as well. I've been tinkering some more with homebrew Crusades rules and wondering if they were worth including. Tempted to represent them in a strategic role (letting some archers deploy further ahead) or as a fairly useless mounted mob that dismount into standard archers, giving the movement ability but not much for combat.

[mmcv]

The Mideanites had camels with 2 crew one driving and the other an archer, but can't think of any others. It's not impossible though.

I suspect that was probably because they didn't have access to usable horses at that time? Much like the ox and donkey-drawn "chariots" of the Sumerians and their ilk.

[Ithoriel]

The Midianite camels are from an Assyrian work. I suspect, though I have no proof, that this is Assyrian propaganda aimed at convincing ancient viewers the "We, the Assyrians, have thrashed those wretched Midianites so soundly that not only do they no longer have horses but are reduced to riding two to a camel!"

YMMV

[DecemDave]

This is a non answer since I have no idea of the research behind it but :

DBM used to allow mounting foot archers on Bactrian camels for Central Asian Turkish armies 550-1330AD

[FierceKitty]

Heath's book remarks on later Arabs (still BC) with very long thrusting swords (about 6 footers), which can only have been for reaching down from camels.

[mmcv]

Heath's book remarks on later Arabs (still BC) with very long thrusting swords (about 6 footers), which can only have been for reaching down from camels.

Interesting, which Heath is that? I've been reading through his one on the Armies of the Crusades and so far only seen mentions of camels for transport. Was tempted by Armies of the Dark Ages for an earlier perspective if it covers the region.

It seems strange to have such a long sword that early though. As far as I know, swords of that length don't really appear until medieval and later when the technology was sufficient to make them strong enough to hold that length, and regardless it seems a bit mad to waste so much metal on a long thrusting sword when a spear would near the same job, not to mention the weight of wielding something like that mounted. So if it did exist may have been more ornamental than practical?

[mmcv]

The Midianite camels are from an Assyrian work. I suspect, though I have no proof, that this is Assyrian propaganda aimed at convincing ancient viewers the "We, the Assyrians, have thrashed those wretched Midianites so soundly that not only do they no longer have horses but are reduced to riding two to a camel!"

YMMV

Those fools cannot even afford a chariot so they must ride their camels like it is one, har har har.

This is a non answer since I have no idea of the research behind it but :

DBM used to allow mounting foot archers on Bactrian camels for Central Asian Turkish armies 550-1330AD

Yeah, this does seem a somewhat more sensible approach to how they seem to have been used.

[FierceKitty]

Interesting, which Heath is that? I've been reading through his one on the Armies of the Crusades and so far only seen mentions of camels for transport. Was tempted by Armies of the Dark Ages for an earlier perspective if it covers the region.

It seems strange to have such a long sword that early though. As far as I know, swords of that length don't really appear until medieval and later when the technology was sufficient to make them strong enough to hold that length, and regardless it seems a bit mad to waste so much metal on a long thrusting sword when a spear would near the same job, not to mention the weight of wielding something like that mounted. So if it did exist may have been more ornamental than practical?

Or do I mean Duncan Head? My mistake. I agree that the sword seems an expensive choice for a job a spear could do well.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Or do I mean Duncan Head? My mistake. I agree that the sword seems an expensive choice for a job a spear could do well.

The sword is more flexible - jab and slash as opposed to jab only. It also has a parry which the spear lacks, but in essence you are right.

[mmcv]

The sword is more flexible - jab and slash as opposed to jab only. It also has a parry which the spear lacks, but in essence you are right.

If it's a six foot long sword from a mounted position I doubt you'll be doing much slashing or parrying. That's big and heavy, even two handed. The only way I could see that being practical would be if it was essentially just a long thin skewer, but that would be pretty breakable with the tech at the time compared to a stout spear.

[steve_holmes_11]

Ahh, the old WRG paradox: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, BUT we gamers love to make stuff up.

I used to enjoy the commentary beneath the old WRG army lists, with classics like.
    "Based on a temple bas relief, they are rated as regulars since all the carved figures are in step".

There's also the classic archeologist's projection.
    "Anything without an obvious function is labelled as 'ceremonial'".

But let's reverse the logic.
Those six-foot swords may have been ceremonial (Japanese and Europeans both created "compensating for something" sized parade swords).

I occasionally pull the leg of a gamer friend, by asking "How's the fantasy gaming going" when he mentions his bronze age armies.


Let's conclude with camerl archers.
I've seen Dromedaries with riders and don't think they would be a particularly good missile platform.
It seems more likely that the shooters would hop on and off to shoot.
And we all know that camels frighten the horses, so it's a handy way to avoid getting riddden down while skirmishing.

I suspect that just like the Camel Corps and Arab Revolt, the riders did most of their shooting while dismounted.

[mmcv]

Certainly, there's a lot of speculation and guesswork in historical gaming, that's part of the fun. I particularly enjoy ancients because you do have to tease out the details and think about what's reasonable and sensible given what we know so far. Even for more recent periods with their mountains of information and playing purely historical scenarios once the action moves away from the historical outcomes then you're essentially creating a fantasy version of what happened. But it would be pretty dull otherwise as we'd just be running simulations!

Certainly it seems sensible to allow camels to be treated differently, but more as a type of infantry transport. I may add a modifier to the charge test to make cavalry a bit more reluctant to charge camels though. I'm in two minds whether to model the mounting and dismounting aspects of it. I'll do that with knights because it was more of a big deal, but if these guys tend to just hop on and off as needed it probably makes sense to have them as slightly more mobile infantry, possibly without the means to evade and very little combat ability and just abstract the mounting and dismounting.