Cataphract Camels

[Andreas Johansson]

Acc'd wargamer received wisdom, Parthian armies sometimes included cataphract camels, and the WRG lists identify them as probably specifically Hatrene.

Now, I started looking around a bit on the 'Net, and the only primary source that seems to be getting cited is Herodian IV.14.3 and IV.15.2, the translations of which are rather disturbingly discordant - I can't seem to find the Greek original online - but the impression I get is that only the riders' were armoured. Below are three translations of IV.14.3, the first two credited to Loeb - don't ask me why they differ - and the third to Edward C. Echols:

"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."

Meanwhile Artabanus was upon them with his vast and powerful army composed of many cavalry and an enormous number of archers and armoured riders (kataphraktous), who fought from the backs of camels with long spears, avoiding close combat.

Macrinus thus received the office of emperor not so much because of the soldiers' affection and loyalty as from necessity and the urgency of the impending crisis.

While these events were taking place, Artabanus was marching toward the Romans with a huge army, including a strong cavalry contingent and a powerful unit of archers and those mail-clad soldiers who hurl spears from dromedaries.

The first does call the riders "cataphracts", but the other two suggest that that's an unhelpful translation of kataphraktous (which just means "armoured", acc pl). Since the first says they jab with their spears and the third say they threw them, one suspects that the second, which just says they fought with them, is the most literal on that point.

For (the first half of) IV.15.2 the following are credited to respectively Loeb and Echols:

The barbarians caused heavy casualties with their rain of arrows and with the long spears of the heavily-armed knights (kataphractōn) on horses and camels, as they wounded the Romans with downward thrusts.

The barbarians inflicted many wounds upon the Romans from above, and did considerable damage by the showers of arrows and the long spears of the mail-clad dromedary riders.

Both give the impression only the riders are armoured - at the least, they don't explicitly mention camel (or horse) armour.


So, I guess my questions are, does anyone know of another source for Parthian or Hatrene cataphract camels, does anyone have access to the Greek, and does that give any greater reason for assuming armoured camels than the above translations?

The whole of the Echols translation is online here.

[Duncan Head]

I think I have the Loeb Herodian volume at home, but I see that I wrote a while ago on dbmmlist:

"kataphraktous te apo kamelon exothen makrois dorasin"; "armoured riders who fought from the backs of camels with enormous spears" in the Loeb, more literally "cataphracts who fought from camels", the word "riders" doesn't appear; and in the battle-scene "ton kataphrakton apo te hippon kai kamelon", "(of) the kataphracts on horses and camels".

I don't know of any other evidence - I think Herodian is the only source, and this the only occasion, for the camel-cataphracts. The idea that the "Parthian" camel-cataphracts at Nisibis might have been Hatrene was Nigel Tallis', I believe, based on the importance of camels in Hatrene art (as in this article for instance) though I don't think any are shown as armoured; and, I believe, by the idea that the then king of Hatra received some sort of additional title about this time that might be a Parthian reward for his help in this battle.

[Andreas Johansson]

Thanks

So indeed armoured riders on unspecified camels (and horses).

Is exothen a form of our old favorite otheo "push", and is "jabbing" therefore closer to the mark than "hurl"?

[Duncan Head]

Thrust or jab would be my guess, especially with "great" spears.

As to whether "kataphraktous" should be read as closer to "armoured men" or "cataphracts as a troop-type", I would incline to the latter, noting for instance usages like Arrian Taktika 4.1, where we are told that the "kataphraktos" has both horse and horseman covered in armour. But it is by no means explicit.

[Andreas Johansson]

If cataphracts as a troop-type is meant, I find it surprising men on horses and men on camels are considered the same troop-type*.

The Greek Word Study Tool over at Perseus refuses to accept exothen as a form of any verb (it can apparently mean "from without" or "outsider"), but exotheo can mean "thrust out".


* It would however fit nicely with my old idea that DBMM Camelry (S) and Camelry (O) should be respectively Knights (I) and Cavalry (I) on camels, just as we have Light Horse (I) on camels.

[Paul Innes]

That's a shame - I have some rather nice Navigator Miniatures 'camelphracts'...

[Mark G]

When I did mine, I put armoured riders on unarmoured camels.

The colours work out well too.

And the armoured camels' occasionally turn up as part of a baggage train for various forces needing a camp.

[Andreas Johansson]

I did, BTW, eventually find an online Greek version of Herodian. Google was uncharacteristically unhelpful in locating it, despite that it's at Google Books! The relevant passages are at pp122-123.

[Dangun]

Both give the impression only the riders are armoured - at the least, they don't explicitly mention camel (or horse) armour.

But the fact that the translation describes only the riders as armoured and not the rider+camel package would imply, that if intentional, the translator believed or suspected that only the rider was armoured.

Whether that's justifiable from the Greek, I have no idea.

[Nick Harbud]

Back in the Jurassic period of ancient wargaming I seem to remember some statement to the effect that cataphract camels could only ever be EHCm and that SHCm are not possible due to the additional weight of armour needed to cover such a large beast. 

I am not sure of the maths behind this statement, having never tried to measure the outside surface area of a camel.  (They can be vicious brutes and all the one around here have MERS.) However, its load carrying capacity is approximately twice that of a pack horse.

[Andreas Johansson]

It may be that  metal armour for a camel would be unfeasibly heavy, but I can't believe textile armour would.

Overheating may be more of a concern, but given that armoured elephants have been used that doesn't seem very likely either.

[Patrick Waterson]

Whatever armour the camels had seems to have done little for them in sustained melee:

[4.15.4] On the first and second days the two armies fought from morning until evening, and when night put an end to the fighting, each side withdrew to its own camp, claiming the victory. On the third day they came again to the same field to do battle; then the barbarians, who were far superior in numbers, tried to surround and trap the Romans. The Romans, however, no longer arranged their divisions to obtain depth; instead, they broadened their front and blocked every attempt at encirclement.

[4.15.5] So great was the number of slaughtered men and animals that the entire plain was covered with the dead; bodies were piled up in huge mounds, and the dromedaries especially fell in heaps. As a result, the soldiers were hampered in their attacks; they could not see each other for the high and impassable wall of bodies between them. Prevented by this barrier from making contact, each side withdrew to its own camp.

The old wargames counter to a nomad army of having a line of troops all the way across the table seems to have worked for the Romans.  The fact that the dromedaries 'especially' fell in heaps suggests either they were unarmoured or that their armour had weaknesses which left them vulnerable compared to the horses of the Parthian cataphtacts.

The alternative explanation that the camels dropped from heatstroke is not implied by Herodian's text.  His account suggests the Romans were successful in close combat for other reasons.

[4.15.2] The barbarians inflicted many wounds upon the Romans from above, and did considerable damage by the showers of arrows and the long spears of the mail-clad dromedary riders. But when the fighting came to close quarters, the Romans easily defeated the barbarians; for when the swarms of Parthian cavalry and hordes of dromedary riders were mauling them, the Romans pretended to retreat and then they threw down caltrops and other keen-pointed iron devices. Covered by the sand, these were invisible to the horsemen and the dromedary riders and were fatal to the animals.

[4.15.3] The horses, and particularly the tender-footed dromedary, stepped on these devices and, falling, threw their riders. As long as they are mounted on horses and dromedary, the barbarians in those regions fight bravely, but if they dismount or are thrown, they are very easily captured; they cannot stand up to hand-to-hand fighting. And, if they find it necessary to flee or pursue, the long robes which hang loosely about their feet trip them up.

It is conceivable even likely, that these caltrops were the main cause of camel (and horse) losses, as once down even an armoured camel would be vulnerable.  Herodian seems to imply that the caltrops 'and other keen-pointed iron devices' were the main cause of Parthian losses; 'fatal to the animals' could mean indirectly rather than directly fatal, as instant death from stepping on a caltrop seems unlikely.  It does however seem to imply that the camels were armoured, on the basis that their point of vulnerability is the foot.

[Andreas Johansson]

It does however seem to imply that the camels were armoured, on the basis that their point of vulnerability is the foot.

That seems a stretch. Irrespective of camel armour or lack thereof, the caltrops had the major advantage of letting the Romans hurt the camels without being in range of the riders' long spears.

[RichT]

I can't parse exothen either - I would assume exotheo.

Because it says 'cataphracts thrusting long spears from camels' I would vaguely incline towards armoured men rather than a cataphract troop type. Though from a practical standpoint, given the relative sizes of camel and rider, armouring the rider and not the camel would seem like a waste of effort. Maybe Herodian isn't using precise terminology anyway - maybe by 'cataphracts' he just has in mind 'hard charging mounted types', rather than anything specific about armour. He just says their long robes stopped them running away, not their armour. Who knows?

[Patrick Waterson]

It does however seem to imply that the camels were armoured, on the basis that their point of vulnerability is the foot.

That seems a stretch. Irrespective of camel armour or lack thereof, the caltrops had the major advantage of letting the Romans hurt the camels without being in range of the riders' long spears.

True, although one has to wonder how long unarmoured camels or, for that matter, horses, would survive within pilum range.

Maybe Herodian isn't using precise terminology anyway - maybe by 'cataphracts' he just has in mind 'hard charging mounted types', rather than anything specific about armour. He just says their long robes stopped them running away, not their armour. Who knows?

He says the same of unarmoured Parthians in IV.11.6; these were nobles invited to a wedding by Caracalla (who had promised to marry the daughter of Artabanus IV) and treacherously attacked and massacred.  Do we conclude that Herodian's Parthians never wore armour or that they wore their robes whether armoured or not?

Incidentally, Herodian mentions: "Naturally they did not have their quivers and bows with them; what need for weapons at a wedding?"  Large spears are conspicuous by their omission.  In Alexander Severus' Persian campaign (the Sassanids having replaced the Parthians) one of the three Roman armies is pounced on by the Persians:

"The king attacked it unexpectedly with his entire force and trapped the Romans like fish in a net; firing their arrows from all sides at the encircled soldiers, the Persians massacred the whole army." - Herodian VI.5.9

Again, no spears, and the implication that everyone has a bow (cf. VI.5.4, "They use the bow and the horse in war, as the Romans do, but the barbarians are reared with these from childhood, and live by hunting; they never lay aside their quivers or dismount from their horses, but employ them constantly for war and the chase.")  Interesting is that Herodian's Romans also use the bow and horse in war, despite Alexander Severus' army apparently consisting mainly of shielded infantry.

What the above indicates (at least to me) is that one should perhaps be careful about taking Herodian's wording at face value.