Cataphract Camels

[Mark G]

Is it April already?

Or did Pat really doubt the literal truth of an ancient source?

Must be April.

[Andreas Johansson]

[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.

This, BTW, is just the sort of thing Keegan spends a chunk of The Face of Battle arguing is physically impossible, and it's at the very least implausible if you pause to think a bit about it - are we to assume, that before the wall rose to eye level, camel riders forced their mounts to climb it? Eye level for a man on a camel is something like three meters* (10') - just how ridiculously large a number of corpses of men and animals would be needed to create wall that high and impassable between two entire armies? The angle of repose for mangled flesh is not very high.

So count another point for being careful about taking Herodian at face value.

* Depends, of course, on the size of the camel, the size of the man, and not least on the type of saddle used.  At the time and place, I believe a central seat would have been used, which tends to maximize the height. My source here is Bulliet's The Camel and the Wheel.

[Patrick Waterson]

So count another point for being careful about taking Herodian at face value.

Indeed, although I would be inclined to say more a case of being careful about taking Herodian's wording at face value.  I suspect that 'could not see each other' may signify 'could not see the bits one wished to poke' as opposed to 'completely blanked off from view'.  'Huge mounds' and 'heaps' are reminiscent of Caesar's description of the closing stages of his battle against the Nervii, and like the Nervii, the Parthians in this battle were particularly determined, imagining they were fighting against the treacherous Caracalla, and this determination may have driven them to attack even when the bodies began piling up inconveniently high.

For what it is worth, German troops in the Rzhev salient in the winter of 1942-3 encountered the same problem, with walls of Soviet corpses piling up and obstructing their view of the battlefield.  It does happen, Keegan notwithstanding, but rarely, and to make it happen requires an attacker with much more determination than sense.

[Erpingham]

The "piles of bodies" formula is found all over our period of interest, though, as Patrick says, not commonly.  I'd probably rather accuse Herodian of exaggeration in this  and think that the bodies of the dead were so thick they were an impediment than they were a literal depth in metres.

[aligern]

For ancient sources generally message is more important than exactly recording what happened. Generally the author is not present at the battle, has access to reports from only one side and even those reports are likely to be biaed, or restricted to a particular physical viewpoint. Modern accounts are subject to the same pressures, but have the advantage that they are expected to be an accurate record and so many other sources exist that the worst excesses and elaborations would be picked out. At least today we have some elements of history that are designed to give the unvarnished truth such as 'Official' histories and unit histories . Of course they often contain elements of bias. Official histories feel the need to mention every unit, for fear of crusty colonels objecting and minimise events such as battalions fleeing or refusing to move. Unit histories extend that natural bias. So lets not expect Herodian to be telling whole truth and nothing but the truth. I don't always agree with the DBM(M) lists, but they do set a high standard in terms of tgere being evidence for a oarticular type , mostly ringmastered by Duncan, I believe. There are a lot of pressures on list editors, plenty of enthusiasts who want their favoourite force up armed and up armoured. There is also a pressure to have diversity and interesting types, especially if there are models for them already. Also there is a need not just to default to certainty with very high barriers to entry and thus very anodyne lists. Many years ago...before many here were born, Phil Barker suggested ( now that's a euphism) that Hellenistic armies and Late Roman aemies were very good because of they had many different types of troops and could deploy the right skillset into the appropriate situation. That has, probably happily, become wargame orthodoxy and is the case with most sets of rules...having a variety of troop types helps. However, we do often end up with 'kampfgruppe'  armies which have just enough of everything to be flexible. The sources generally do not give us a view of armies as having multiple troop types on the field and working them in combination. Whereas it is ever so useful to have a couple of turcopole units in a Crusader army or Psiloi in a Caesarian army  they often have no, or very limited impact on a chronicled battle line engagement. We include them because it is wargames orthodoxy that one needs these units of bows, javelins, LI, LHI, odd LC that can scout and skirmish.  They add tactical nuance and colour. Hence I say there is enough to justify a small number of cataphract camels, they look good and there are nice figures and I have painted a unit.......Bring em on

[Andreas Johansson]

For what it is worth, German troops in the Rzhev salient in the winter of 1942-3 encountered the same problem, with walls of Soviet corpses piling up and obstructing their view of the battlefield.  It does happen, Keegan notwithstanding, but rarely, and to make it happen requires an attacker with much more determination than sense.

How high were those walls? I mean, obviously you can get a pile of corpses, but only so high and so steep. The particular case Keegan is arguing about are the main-height piles in some accounts of Agincourt.

There's a similar quote (by Ludendorff?) about WWI Germans sometimes having to clear away Russian corpses to free the field of fire for their machineguns - but presumably those machineguns were mounted pretty low to minimize their own exposture.

[RichT]

WW1 and WW2 examples are rather different, since eyelines were generally at or very near ground level (for infantry in trenches, foxholes etc).

Without wandering off into a discussion of literary tropes, piles of corpses, battles lasting the entire day (and the next day, and the next), barbarians who can't take cold steel etc etc are, to say the least, rather familiar from many ancient authors. If a Julius Caesar talks about a pile of corpses, it's worth trying to work out what he might mean. If a Herodian does, it might be worth just raising your eyebrows and moving on. 'Piles of corpses' probably just means 'a long hard fought battle'. It might be that 'cataphracts' also just means 'charging mounted types'. Ancient authors are as prone to inexactitude in military terminology as modern ones (how many times have you seen an APC, or an IFV, or even an armoured car, called a 'tank'?). But on the other hand, cataphract camels are at least as well attested as many other troop types so yes by all means, bring 'em on. Especially if they are already painted.

[Patrick Waterson]

For what it is worth, German troops in the Rzhev salient in the winter of 1942-3 encountered the same problem, with walls of Soviet corpses piling up and obstructing their view of the battlefield.  It does happen, Keegan notwithstanding, but rarely, and to make it happen requires an attacker with much more determination than sense.

How high were those walls? I mean, obviously you can get a pile of corpses, but only so high and so steep. The particular case Keegan is arguing about are the main-height piles in some accounts of Agincourt.

There's a similar quote (by Ludendorff?) about WWI Germans sometimes having to clear away Russian corpses to free the field of fire for their machineguns - but presumably those machineguns were mounted pretty low to minimize their own exposure.

I am not sure if anyone bothered to measure the piles/walls of dead Russians; my guess is that they would not have reached man-high for the reason Richard gives.  I mentioned Rzhev mainly to demonstrate that walls of corpses tend to result from an attacker who combines great determination and tactical disadvantage with an almost total disregard for casualties, which is also consistent with the circumstances in which Herodian's wall of dead - whatever its actual height - would have been created.

The "piles of bodies" formula is found all over our period of interest, though, as Patrick says, not commonly.  I'd probably rather accuse Herodian of exaggeration in this  and think that the bodies of the dead were so thick they were an impediment than they were a literal depth in metres.

This would be my own conclusion: that they were so high as to effectively prevent further interaction as opposed to completely cutting off sight.

Perhaps a better example than Rzhev would be the Battle of Dupplin Moor in AD 1331 in which a large Scottish army attacked along a narrow valley against a small English force holding the high ground at the end.  The Scots were slaughtered.  The Lanercost Chronicle states that "the pile of dead rising up from the ground was more than a spear's length in height," which gives us a measurement of sorts.

[Erpingham]

The Lanercost Chronicle states that "the pile of dead rising up from the ground was more than a spear's length in height," which gives us a measurement of sorts.

Another exaggeration, I feel. A "spear's length" in the 14th century would probably be eight to ten feet, depending on what was meant by a spear.  Speaking of a similar phenomenon at Agincourt (the two battles are surprisingly similar), Keegan tackles this from an observational and practical point of view and concludes the dead probably lay no more than three deep at Agincourt.  As we are not talking of a wall building exercise but a natural stacking phenomenon, the width of the pile of dead would make the top well out of weapon reach long before it reached a spears depth, let alone envisaging Scots spearmen scambling up to the top of such an unstable structure just to add themselves to it.  Turning back to our original example, it is unlikely that our camel riders are going to scale a pile of dead camels to keep fighting, so the chances of the pile being more than one camel deep are slight.

[Patrick Waterson]

As we are not talking of a wall building exercise but a natural stacking phenomenon, the width of the pile of dead would make the top well out of weapon reach long before it reached a spears depth, let alone envisaging Scots spearmen scambling up to the top of such an unstable structure just to add themselves to it.

This description from here may explain the process:

"As the flanking columns hurried on they were met by withering fire from Balliol's archers and recoiled back upon their own lines and into the main body. The press became so thick that many died of heatstroke or suffocation and the living had scarcely room to lift their weapons. Within a few minutes the mound of Scottish dead was several feet high. The few survivors, one of which was the last standing Highland schiltron division, tried to turn and flee down the hill. One chronicler described the ensuing scene as resembling a burial heap, into which the English poured flight after flight of arrows. The panic-stricken Scots tried to escape by climbing over one another, making the press worse as the formations behind blocked them in. It continued, according to one chronicler, "until the Scottish army had turned into a writhing heap nearly fifteen feet high", on which the English soldiers stood grotesquely, jabbing with their spears and swords at any sign of life beneath them."

More of a desperate scramble than a natural stacking phenomenon, but for me a satisfactory explanation.  Regarding Agincourt, I think Keegan is under the implicit impression it took place on firm ground with no shoving and tripping among French formations rather than the actual muddy day with crowding Frenchmen piling into and onto one another.  Treat Keegan's conclusions with care and a pinch of salt, and look carefully for his implicit assumptions.

Turning back to our original example, it is unlikely that our camel riders are going to scale a pile of dead camels to keep fighting, so the chances of the pile being more than one camel deep are slight.

But are they?  Camel 1 treads on a caltrop, drops, sheds its rider and both are dispatched.  Camel 2 walks over camel 1, treads on a caltrop, drops, and falls next to camel 1.  Camel 3 is urged over camels 1 and 2, gets to the other side, steps on a caltrop, drops and ends up on camel 2 (because there is a shieldwall of Roman infantry in the other direction).  This sort of thing would be happening along the line, so although the corpses would not necessarily stack at the point of maximum width of a sideways-lying camel, one can envisage the Romans steadily backpedalling, sowing caltrops as they go, and camels piling up one or two deep ahead of them.

When the Romans run out of caltrops and stand fast, there will no longer be free space for the camels to drop on the ground (which they anyway will not do unless maimed by close-combat weapons now that the caltrops are exhausted), so they have to drop on Romans (difficult) or other dead/dying camels (easier) - the net result is a sort of ramp of dead camels, shallow at the arrival end but deepening at the combat end.  Eventually it starts to cut off the Roman view of their opponents (I assume Herodian was writing from a Roman point-of-view) and renders access impossible for the remaining Parthians.  Such a terminus would probably need to be only about four or five camels deep, assuming Macrinus' Roman infantry were about 5' 6" tall on average.

[Andreas Johansson]

Regarding Agincourt, I think Keegan is under the implicit impression it took place on firm ground with no shoving and tripping among French formations rather than the actual muddy day with crowding Frenchmen piling into and onto one another.

Mud is supposed to make tall piles more likely? What?

[Patrick Waterson]

Mud is supposed to make tall piles more likely? What?

Mud allows close-packed armoured men to fall down unintentionally, often as not on top of each other, and more to the point leaves them unable to get up again.  Add a steady supply of additional armoured men with nowhere to go but over the muddy and hence slippery bodies of their comrades, and a 'multiple pile-up' seems inevitable.

[Erpingham]

Treat Keegan's conclusions with care and a pinch of salt, and look carefully for his implicit assumptions.

Don't worry I do.  But taking as literal truth a pile of dead 15 ft high?  Needs a whole sack full.  As to urging camels up a slope of dead camels 4 deep.......

[RichT]

Hang on.

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

So we are all agreed, aren't we? We are all treating Herodian's words with care and a pinch of salt, and looking carefully for his implicit assumptions. If not, we should be.

[Andreas Johansson]

Mud is supposed to make tall piles more likely? What?

Mud allows close-packed armoured men to fall down unintentionally, often as not on top of each other, and more to the point leaves them unable to get up again.  Add a steady supply of additional armoured men with nowhere to go but over the muddy and hence slippery bodies of their comrades, and a 'multiple pile-up' seems inevitable.

Mud is slippery, which militates against tall piles on at least three levels: it becomes hard to climb on top of a budding pile, if you do get on top you're more likely to slide off if you fall, and if you do manage to end up on the top the foundation is more likely to move laterally to make the top sink.