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.
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.
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
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.
Quote from: ianrs54 on 19 April 2021, 02:30:48 PM
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.
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
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
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.
Quote from: FierceKitty on 20 April 2021, 01:58:23 AM
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?
Quote from: Ithoriel on 19 April 2021, 05:29:51 PM
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.
Quote from: DecemDave on 19 April 2021, 05:38:28 PM
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.
Quote from: mmcv on 20 April 2021, 07:58:06 AM
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.
Quote from: FierceKitty on 20 April 2021, 08:06:41 AM
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.
Quote from: ianrs54 on 20 April 2021, 08:11:32 AM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: mmcv on 20 April 2021, 10:32:00 AM
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.
I think that's an excelent call.
I've played rules that had provision for dismounting, horseholders, moving dismounted, re-mounting, and it all seemed like a massive distraction.
Most of the recently written rules I've read do what you describe.
For the heavier shock types, dismounting is usually a permanent transition (they may also re-arm swapping lance for Poleaxe).
The more shooty types tend to remain mounted (Though creative players sometimes mix in some men on foot), move a bit quicker than foot skirmishers, but sacrifice some or all movement if they wish to shoot.
It's a lot less fuss, particularly for armies that had a lot of mounted infantry - quite a range: Elamites, Boers, Aussie Light Horse...
Yeah the dismount action for knights and other such heavier troops is a more permanent state, either forming a small foot unit of their own or joining a larger body of men as a heavier front line. Don't think there need to be horse holders as the knights would be accompanied by squires and the like in battle anyway so they would probably just follow on foot or take the horses back behind the lines. Same for some of the heavier Islamic cavalry which would sometimes fight on foot.
Don't want to go too mad.adding possibilities for every eventuality, unusual cases can be covered in scenario rules.
Nothing like a camel mounted gatling gun to spice things up.....
(http://www.navyfrogmen.com/images/camel.JPG)
That is a tad out of period though ;)
Quote from: GrumpyOldMan on 20 April 2021, 10:19:26 PM
Nothing like a camel mounted gatling gun to spice things up.....
(http://www.navyfrogmen.com/images/camel.JPG)
Who's the boss of all the camels?
I seem to remember the main reason for using camels was to make your opponents horse mounted cavalry very skittish.
Not that horses need much to make them skittish.
Quote from: Orcs on 21 April 2021, 02:44:27 PM
I seem to remember the main reason for using camels was to make your opponents horse mounted cavalry very skittish.
Not that horses need much to make them skittish.
Carry more than horses, faster over long distances than horses, and go longer between fuel stops.
All of which are great "Top trumps" for your baggage train or mounted infantry.
I have enough trouble imaging combat on horseback.
Trying to figure out whether it's possible on camels is way beyond me.
It seems to me that as far as mounted troops among the Islamic armies of the Middle Ages are concerned, the horse predominates, by a very long way indeed. My little knowledge is confined, more or less, to the Battle of Hattin and the fall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and I have yet to find examples of camel mounted-troops in the Ayyubid armies of that time although I am confident they were used for baggage, as draught animals and also for meat and milk.
On the other hand I'm aware of the existence of camel-mounted archers in other Muslim medieval armies. But I'm unsure about their tactical employment and as bows were certainly fired from horse back, I see no practical reason to prevent them being fired from the back of a camel. I suspect though, that camel-mounted troops were more of the nature of mounted infantry, rather like mounted crossbowmen who dismounted to fight.
I remember that quite ludicrously that the double mounted Midianite camel commandos were devastatingly effective in WRG 7th.
Quote from: flamingpig0 on 22 April 2021, 02:08:31 AM
I remember that quite ludicrously that the double mounted Midianite camel commandos were devastatingly effective in WRG 7th.
Probably cause Sue barker had some...
Since my previous non answer, I have been skimming me books and all I have so far is another non answer although this time it does support the idea of mounting on camels for mobility on campaign but not everyone fighting that way:
Aram's book on Khalid Bin Al-Waleed ("The Sword of Allah") p271 ISBN 978-0-954866-52-5
The main instruments that Khalid used to make his ambitious manoeuvres so successful were the fighting quality of the Muslims and the mobility of the army.....Though only part of the army was actual cavalry, the entire army was camel mounted for movement........
This is the army that overcame the non believer Arabs and went on to overrun most of the Middle East.
The book focuses on how generalship, strategy, manoeuvre, morale, terrain and deployment win battles. there is very little on specific weaponry. Sorry WRG
So you could certainly field tabletop camel mounted archers in this army much as you might field mounted dragoons in an ECW or Napoleonic one.
Quote from: DecemDave on 22 April 2021, 09:02:27 AM
Since my previous non answer, I have been skimming me books and all I have so far is another non answer although this time it does support the idea of mounting on camels for mobility on campaign but not everyone fighting that way:
Aram's book on Khalid Bin Al-Waleed ("The Sword of Allah") p271 ISBN 978-0-954866-52-5
The main instruments that Khalid used to make his ambitious manoeuvres so successful were the fighting quality of the Muslims and the mobility of the army.....Though only part of the army was actual cavalry, the entire army was camel mounted for movement........
This is the army that overcame the non believer Arabs and went on to overrun most of the Middle East.
The book focuses on how generalship, strategy, manoeuvre, morale, terrain and deployment win battles. there is very little on specific weaponry. Sorry WRG
So you could certainly field tabletop camel mounted archers in this army much as you might field mounted dragoons in an ECW or Napoleonic one.
Thanks, that's good to know. Arab Conquest is another on my long long todo list, especially since many of the later Arab forces can proxy for earlier and vice versa and it would be fun to get some Byzantines and Sassanids on the go.
I think treating as mounted infantry is probably the way to go. I'll probably class them as some form of Mob/Rabble (i.e. low combat ability) but otherwise as foot archers (possibly small) with a larger movement range. Then assume they're just hopping on and off to shoot without worrying too much about it.
I'm not sure I'd care to hop on and off. Camels are big.
Quote from: FierceKitty on 22 April 2021, 09:59:58 AM
I'm not sure I'd care to hop on and off. Camels are big.
They're fairly good at kneeling and staning up again while fully loaded, if properly trained.
Here's one that required the jockey to hop off.
I suppose the key consideration for a game design is whether dismounting makes a difference.
The mounted archers might remain mounted and plink away form their swaying saddles.
Or they might stop, hop off and shoot from terra firma.
If camel mounted archers were some kind of highly mobile LRDG/SAS type strike force, then hopping off causes some problems.
But if (as we appear to suspect), they weren't particularly quick, then a bit of a rush to the shooting point, followed by some rapid volleys on foot might be perfectly adequate.
The shooters will have their camels with them, whether sat on, or stood beside.
If you go in for horse worrying, then the effect is still there.
Which reminds me of something about Cyrus sticking his men behind a line of baggage camels to upset Croesus' scary impetuous cavalry.
Here's Wikipedia with mostly extracts from ancient historians - two suspect sources for the price of one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel_cavalry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel_cavalry)
Yeah, the idea would be light horse archers are zipping about the battlefield evading and harassing but have a generally shorter range than foot archers. I'm going for big battle abstraction over modelling every detail of the combat so in the scope of a turn it's probably fine to assume the camel mounted archers are moving to a good position then dismounting to fire.
Quote from: Shedman on 19 April 2021, 03:27:23 PM
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
This is one of those ongoing wargames topics - that rears its ugly, spitting, bad breathed, head every so often.
Earliest depictions of camels in warfare appear to be the Assyrian reliefs of mounted Midianite camel raiders (2 per camel) being 'seen-off' by Assyrian horse archers.
The archers on the camels are shown as loosing their bow whilst mounted.
You then see depictions in Seleucid/Successor armies of allied Aramaean camel riders - they of the very long swords - that also have bows. But whether they used the bow mounted is guesswork. These same camel warriors appear in later post Successor Hatran and other Aramaean/Syrian city-state armies through to the Parthian and Sasanian era. Palmyran city state military camelry appears to be spear armed with no bows (as were Middle Imperial Roman camel units). However, I think it is highly likely that the Palmyran & Roman camelry were more likely mounted infantry equivalents. There is a great depiction of a mail armoured camel lancer from gandhara - showing the saddel on the back of the camel hump - as we see today in modern camel racing. This is clearly a mounted offensive warrior. Hatrans & Parthians both seemed to have experimented with cataphract armoured camels - with no great success as the Roman Legionaries they were attacking just scattered caltraps across their front and the soft-feet of the camels was especially vulnerable to them.
You can read of camels being used by Arab Conquest Muslim armies using camels - but mainly as transports to the battlefield - although there is a Sasanian reference to the use of iron spikes as field defences to protect Sasanian infantry from arab horses and camel attacks. Central Asian Silk Road city states and certain chinese & tibetan armies used camels - but again it appears to be mainly as a mode of transport to allow infantry to keep up with the horse mounted arm of the armies.
From a wargames perspective the most 'insidious' representation of camels has appeared relatively recently with a plethora of almost invincible Tuareg and Beja type camel mounted armies, which I view a bit like the D'reg from the Terry Pratchett Disc-world novels and I quote:
" The D'regg are a cheerfully anarchistic desert tribe in Klatch who will fight anyone on general principles"!
NB: I did once fight against a HoTT D'regg army with the camels as knights and the foot warriors as Warband and an assortment of wild domesticated animals - chicken, sheep, goats & donkeys as Beasts - it was very effective.
And finally to the question ... did medieval 'Saracen' type armies use mounted camel archers? Personally I doubt it - I can find no references to them doing so.
I hope that is helpful
Mark
Very helpful, thank you!
I've also yet to find any references to it in period either, other than as transport and baggage.
Having seen how bloody awkward it is to get on & off camels close-up, and seen how precarious people look when perched upon the saddle when mounted, I find it difficult to imagine camels being used in any sort of frontline action.
Quote from: mmcv on 24 April 2021, 11:47:44 AM
Very helpful, thank you!
I've also yet to find any references to it in period either, other than as transport and baggage.
The closest visual depiction I can find, of a military camel, to the timeframe you refer to, is a very nice c.11th/12th century Byzantine mosaic in the cathedral at Palermo (the Palatine Chapel in Palermo's Norman Palace) of an unarmoured Arab lancer/spearman, with a shield on a camel. However, we are none the wiser from this depiction as to whether he is willing and able to fight mounted or is just using the camel as a means of transport.
There are Kushan ceramic bowls showing hunting scenes of bows being used from camel-back - there are also metal (silver) Sassanid plates showing kings hunting with bows from camel-back - but again no military depictions.
C19th English written accounts of the Sudan Wars state that both the Dervish and Beja were prepared to engage in mounted combat from camel-back - but that was with swords, spears and match-lock muskets.
Thanks Mark!
This quote is from Appian's Syrian War, an account of the Romans war against Antiochus III, describing the troops Antiochus fielded at the battle of Magnesia -
"There were also other mounted archers from the Dahae, Mysia, Elymais, and Arabia, riding on swift dromedaries, who shot arrows with dexterity from their high position, and used very long thin knives when they came to close combat."
That all sounds very plausible - especially the "long thin knives" as opposed to 6 feet long swords!
According to our old friend Wiki - "The first recorded use of the camel as a military animal was by the Arab king Gindibu, said to have employed as many as 1,000 camels at the Battle of Qarqar in 853 BC." Which was fought against the Assyrians and the 'Arabs' referred to were Midianites, back then.
Cyrus the Great used camels, with platforms and archers on their backs, as also quoted by Herodotus at the Battle of Thymbra against the Lydians. But they appear to have been used primarily as a means of disrupting the Lydian cavalry.
Personally I've always been of the view that compared to a horse a camel comes a pretty poor second. So having all camels, no matter how armed or motivated, depicted as 'mediocre' or 'inferior' or 'Poor' (whatever terminology your rules use) is probably sensible.
:D
I came across a rule set the other day that classified camels as "Bad Horse", which, given the character of camels, is a nice thought.
A bad horse designed by a committee?? :)
Similar to elephants and scythed chariots.
Camels appear to have features in a tiny number of victories where their particular qualities came to the fore.
Horse frightening, ability to force march through terrain considered impassable.
So, like elephants and scythed chariots, they've entered the world of ancient wargaming through the medium of army lists.
My observation about ancient warfare is that historians rarely describe weapons and tactics in the kind of detail that modern wargamers desire.
(I've probably posted this before).
A trip back to the classical world sees most male citizens with army experience, or nominally part of a militia.
These guys didn't need a detailed description of weapons and rations, or the progress of a typical military engagement.
So the tales were written to feature the unique details of that campaign.
It's a style that emphasizes the exotic and unusual.
The risk is creating an unbalanced view of some of warfare's mechanics.
Since the case has been reopened, the Parthian or Hatrene cataphract camels would make very little sense if they weren't intended for riding into action.