The camel paradox again

[Erpingham]

Much better to leave history alone and analyze why the Springboks are the greatest rugby team in the world. 

Sadly, Justin, we are governed by barrack room rules - no religion, no politics, no sport.  Otherwise, I'm sure all English members would love to chat about it with you.

[Dangun]

But returning to the spooking of horses by camels, for all that it's a commonplace evidence of its military effect seems to be rare. Again, can anyone think of any other actions beyond the three mentioned in the OP where its reported to have been important?

But 3 pieces of corroborating evidence across multiple authors and multiple theatres is pretty good as far as literary evidence goes for the period. Consider by contrast how many of our "facts" are single source.

[Duncan Head]

Baladhuri and others have Beja camels fleeing from noisy horses:

Arriving in al-Ma'din, he [Al-Qummī] conveyed provisions in ships from al-Qulzum to the land of the Beja. He then proceeded to a sea-coast, called 'Aydhāb, where the ships met him. With these provisions he and his followers were strengthened and fed until they came to the castle (qal'ah) of the king of the Beja (malik al-bujah). Al-Qummī attacked his numerous men on camels fastened with girths. Al-Qummī brought bells and put them on his horses. As soon as the camels heard the bell sounding, they ran away with the Beja men over hills and valleys.

At Qadisiyyah, Persian horses flee from camels disguised as elephants:

Al-Qa'qa's kinsmen attacked on that day in groups of ten footmen, on camels that were covered and veiled and with their horses surrounding and protecting the camels. Al-Qa'qa ordered them to attack the Persian horses between the two battle lines, simulating elephants. The Muslims did to the Persians on the Day of Aghwath what the Persians had done to them on the Day of Armath. These camels were not able to withstand anything, yet the Persian horses took  fright and fled. The horses of the Muslims pursued them, and when the other Muslim troops saw this they followed their example. On the Day of Aghwath, the Persians suffered from the camels  more than the Muslims had suffered on the Day of Armath from the elephants.

[Andreas Johansson]

Thanks Duncan. I think Qadisiyyah has to count against the idea that camels should generally defeat or discomfit horses, though, as the elephant disguise was apparently necessary.

Maybe we should have a more general horse-spooking stratagem that can be differently realized?

But 3 pieces of corroborating evidence across multiple authors and multiple theatres is pretty good as far as literary evidence goes for the period. Consider by contrast how many of our "facts" are single source.

I don't think Xenophon counts as a separate source for Cyrus v. Croesus, so I make that two authors and two theatres rather than multiple.

More importantly, though, evidence of exactly what? I see no particular reason to doubt Prokopios that Byzantine horses were spooked by camels at Mammes, but was this a typical thing, the sort we should make the most probable to happen on the tabletop? Solomon's army was neither the first nor the last shipped in from Europe to North Africa, but it's apparently the only one we hear of having its horses spooked by camels to a battle-relevant extent.

[Erpingham]

Thanks Duncan. I think Qadisiyyah has to count against the idea that camels should generally defeat or discomfit horses, though, as the elephant disguise was apparently necessary.

On the subject of fake elephants, this legendary battle might be of interest

A strange story of camels at war is reported by Ctesias of Cnidus, a 5th century B.C. Greek. Legendary Assyrian queen Semiramis (ruled 824 B.C. to 811 B.C.) sought to conquer India. Knowing that Indian rajahs fielded powerful war elephants (not available in Assyria) she ordered the secret construction of hundreds of dummy elephants made of stuffed ox hide. Inside each was a man to work the artificial trunk, and a camel to move it. Indian cavalry horses, familiar with elephants, charged them boldly, but were spooked by the unfamiliar camel scent. When real Indian elephants advanced, they tore the dummy elephants apart.  The army of Semiramis was crushed and she fled in disgrace.

I'm sure the classicists can turn up the actual reference in Ctesias.

[RichT]

I'm sure the classicists can turn up the actual reference in Ctesias.

Ctesias' story is known (AFAIK) through Diodorus:

Diod. 2.16.8 "Observing that she was greatly inferior because of her lack of elephants, Semiramis conceived the plan of making dummies like these animals, in the hope that the Indians would be struck with terror because of their belief that no elephants ever existed at all apart from those found in India." Followed by details of their construction.

Diod. 2.17.1. f. "When the boats and the beasts had been prepared in the two allotted years, on the third she summoned her forces from everywhere to Bactriana. And the multitude of the army which was assembled, as Ctesias of Cnidus has recorded, was three million foot-soldiers, two hundred thousand cavalry, and one hundred thousand chariots. There were also men mounted on camels, carrying swords four cubits long, as many in number as the chariots. And river boats which could be taken apart she built to the number of two thousand, and she had collected camels to carry the vessels overland. Camels also bore the dummies of the elephants, as has been mentioned; and the soldiers, by bringing their horses up to these camels, accustomed them not to fear the savage nature of the beasts. A similar thing was also done many years later by Perseus, the king of the Macedonians, before his decisive conflict with the Romans who had elephants from Libya. But neither in his case did it turn out that the zeal and ingenuity displayed in such matters had any effect on the conflict, nor in that of Semiramis, as will be shown more precisely in our further account."

Diod 2.18.6. f. Semiramis wins an initial battle; "and then she left sixty thousand men to guard the pontoon bridge, while with the rest of her army she advanced in pursuit of the Indians, the dummy elephants leading the way in order that the king's spies might report to the king the multitude of these animals in her army. Nor was she deceived in this hope; on the contrary, when those who had been despatched to spy her out reported to the Indians the multitude of elephants among the enemy, they were all at a loss to discover from where such a multitude of beasts as accompanied her could have come. However, the deception did not remain a secret for long; for some of Semiramis' troops were caught neglecting their night watches in the camp, and these, in fear of the consequent punishment, deserted to the enemy and pointed out to them their mistake regarding the nature of the elephants. Encouraged by this information, the king of the Indians, after informing his army about the dummies, set his forces in array and turned about to face the Assyrians.

Diod. 2.19.1. f. "Semiramis likewise marshalled her forces, and as the two armies neared each other Stabrobates, the king of the Indians, despatched his cavalry and chariots far in advance of the main body. But the queen stoutly withstood the attack of the cavalry, and since the elephants which she had fabricated had been stationed at equal intervals in front of the main body of troops, it came about that the horses of the Indians shied at them. For whereas at a distance the dummies looked like the actual animals with which the horses of the Indians were acquainted and therefore charged upon them boldly enough, yet on nearer contact the odour which reached the horses was unfamiliar, and then the other differences, which taken all together were very great, threw them into utter confusion. Consequently some of the Indians were thrown to the ground, while others, whence their horses would not obey the rein, were carried with their mounts pell-mell into the midst of the enemy. Then Semiramis, who was in the battle with a select band of soldiers, made skilful use of her advantage and put the Indians to flight. But although these fled towards the battle-line, King Stabrobates, undismayed, advanced the ranks of his foot-soldiers, keeping the elephants in front, while he himself, taking his position on the right wing and fighting from the most powerful of the beasts, charged in terrifying fashion upon the queen, whom chance had placed opposite him. And since the rest of the elephants followed his example, the army of Semiramis withstood but a short time the attack of the beasts; for the animals, by virtue of their extraordinary courage and the confidence which they felt in their power, easily destroyed everyone who tried to withstand them. Consequently there was a great slaughter, which was effected in various ways, some being trampled beneath their feet, others ripped up by their tusks, and a number tossed into the air by their trunks. And since a great multitude of corpses lay piled one upon the other and the danger aroused terrible consternation and fear in those who witnessed the sight, not a man had the courage to hold his position any longer."

Opinions as to the historical veracity of this account vary (well to be honest they don't vary much...). The dummies are said to have been built to frighten the Indians rather than their horses, and to train the Assyrian horses - frightening the Indian horses was a happy accident.

[Erpingham]

Opinions as to the historical veracity of this account vary (well to be honest they don't vary much...). The dummies are said to have been built to frighten the Indians rather than their horses, and to train the Assyrian horses - frightening the Indian horses was a happy accident.

I don't think anyone thinks this is anything but legend (but we have not heard from Patrick yet ) but it does help us build the picture of a widespread belief in the ancient world about camels and horses (and in this instance, elephants).  Semiramis and Perseus use camels in disguise to familiarise horses to elephants.  This won't work because, as the Indians show, horses can tell the difference between disguised camels and elephants. But a model of familiarisation in camp leading to reduced problems on the battlefield seems to underlie the thinking.

[Patrick Waterson]

Semiramis appears to equate to Queen Sammuramat, wife of Shamshi-Adad V of Assyria (r.809-792 BC*), who after his death ruled Assyria in her own right, or at least through her own charisma, much like Zenobia of Palmyra.

*Or 811-808 BC.  Assyriologists are still unsure exactly when Shamshi-Adad V died or Adad-Nirari III succeeded.

Little survives from her reign, but it is noteworthy that subsequent Assyrian rulers adopt large four-horse chariots and parasols, both indicating Indian influence.

In the city of Ashur she raised an obelisk, inscribed:

Stele of Sammuramat, queen of Shamshi-Adad, King of the Universe, King of Assyria, Mother of Adad Nirari, King of the Universe, King of Assyria, Daughter-in-Law of Shalmaneser, King of the Four Regions of the World.

Note how between generations šar kibrāti erbetti (king of the four quarters) is replaced by šar kiššati (king of the universe).

These details suggest a flowering of Assyrian expansion under her reign and a campaign as far as India.  The lack of a subsequent triumphal inscription proclaiming world conquest suggests the Indian expedition did not go well.  So Diodorus' account contains an apparent kernel of historical fact.

Semiramis and Perseus use camels in disguise to familiarise horses to elephants.  This won't work because, as the Indians show, horses can tell the difference between disguised camels and elephants. But a model of familiarisation in camp leading to reduced problems on the battlefield seems to underlie the thinking.

Surprise (or preparation) seems to be the key to the stratagem.  Once Semiramis' deserters let the cat out of the bag, or the elephant out of the room, the Indians were well able to deal with it (apart from their impulsive cavalry, but then nobody had yet worked out a way of telling the horses).

[RichT]

Yup so there are two features to model, if you really want to model this nonsense

- horse-scaring ability of camels and elephants
- camel and elephant proofing of horses

The first is built in and gives all camels and elephants +1 (or forced morale test, or whatever is appropriate) against cavalry in their vicinity (defined however you like) by default.
The second is a trait or attribute that must be purchased at a points cost, and represents either horses already familiar with camels/elephants, or trained by some means to become familiar. It could be limited by army list. So you can choose to upgrade your cavalry (all or some) to 'camel trained' or 'elephant trained', but at a cost in points.

Downside being as mentioned earlier that this might require (in competitions etc) camel-proofing cavalry when they may never meet camels, but that's just a choice you have to make, and the cost and effect should both be low.

Non points based rules like DBA require a different approach (like stratagems, as mentioned).

[Erpingham]

But this does plunge us into the "what are army lists for/what do they represent?" set of questions.  I suppose they can be seen as a set of constraints on army composition based on knowledge of their historical prototype.  If so, we might perhaps approach the question by looking at the historical evidence and placing armies into three camel proofing categories

Endemic - horses and camels co-exist in the culture, so are familiar with one another
Trained - a special familiarisation training is recorded
Untrained - there is no evidence that the army ever met a camel or, if they did, took measures against them

Endemic would be free - its not a quality sought, bought, consciously developed.  Trained could be paid for and might be limited only to a model of a historical army that had it, rather than a generic version of that army.  Untrained its tough but you grin and bear it and try to avoid camels.

[Dangun]

I see no particular reason to doubt Prokopios that Byzantine horses were spooked by camels at Mammes, but was this a typical thing, the sort we should make the most probable to happen on the tabletop?

No idea. 
I have ridden horses and I have ridden camels. I am not fond of either and have no idea how they might interact.
It just seems like hard work to try and refute something for which we have at least two, maybe more, corroborating pieces of evidence.
Single sources make easier targets.

I'd agree it does feel a bit scenario-rule-like.

Perhaps another line of attack is to look for examples of engagements where horse and camel got a long happily?

[RichT]

Endemic would be free - its not a quality sought, bought, consciously developed.  Trained could be paid for and might be limited only to a model of a historical army that had it, rather than a generic version of that army.  Untrained its tough but you grin and bear it and try to avoid camels.

Historically I agree - either you have the ability (or effect) or you don't. But in game terms, I think advantages should always carry a cost or a corresponding disadvantage, so as to produce fair competition and to provide player choice. It would be reasonable though to make camel-proofing built in (though costed) for camel-using and camel-exposed armies, optional for historically camel-proofed ones, and not an option for others.

Having dealt with camel-proofing there are then all the other myriad factors (dust, sun, breakfast, eclipses etc etc) that may have slightly affected the course of a battle to be factored in...

I'm not a chrome fan (as may be obvious), but in this case the simple solution seems to be to give all elephants and camels bonuses against all cavalry, and to give superior quality units bonuses against all enemies; then the quality bonus cancels the camel penalty, thus representing, abstractly, camel-proofing.

[Andreas Johansson]

I'm not a chrome fan (as may be obvious), but in this case the simple solution seems to be to give all elephants and camels bonuses against all cavalry, and to give superior quality units bonuses against all enemies; then the quality bonus cancels the camel penalty, thus representing, abstractly, camel-proofing.

I have two problems with this:

1) The reason Cyrus felt he needed the camel trick was, or so we're told, that the Lydian cavalry was superior to his. If we're to reproduce this battle (other than as a sequence of bad dice splits for Croesus), camels need to be able to defeat superior cavalry.

2) We're back at the question why, if camels were reliably excellent against horse, why their usage is so rare. Nobody seems to have even tried to reproduce Cyrus' trick. Almoravids conquering Morocco quickly enough abandoned camelry for cavalry, despite keeping camels as pack animals. The Arabs Qadisiyyah evidently thought disguising the camels was necessary to spook the Persian horses.

[RichT]

camels need to be able to defeat superior cavalry.

Every time, or just with greater likelihood? Camels will be better against superior cavalry than inferior cavalry are. Again it comes down to what 'reproducing a battle' means - if it means having all the same events in the same sequence, then it's not a game. As a simulation it might be worth doing, but no existing rules are even vaguely close to a simulation (at least not a bottom up design for cause one).

We're back at the question why, if camels were reliably excellent against horse, why their usage is so rare.

So two possibilities - it didn't happen, or at least it didn't happen in the way described. Camels sometimes had some success against horse and some historian later wrote an account stressing the cameliness of the camels as the cause of the chaos. Doesn't mean this is necessarily the real, only or most improtant explanantion, and the whole truth is irretirevably lost to us.

Or other possibility - cultural, economic, geographical etc factors mean adopting camels wasn't as easy as picking them from an army list. Lots of apparently brilliant weapons systems in antiquity weren't widely adopted by their enemies, or only ineffectively. If legions are so brilliant against phalanx, why didn't Hellenistic kingdoms all immediately re-equip their armies as legions (there were only a few half hearted efforts)? Camels are I imagine (knowing little abut it, but having seen them on TV) considerably less amenable and convenient creatures than horses, even if they are available, which they usually aren't.

Or short answer, dunno...

[Erpingham]

There are plenty of anecdotes out there about camels on the internet - arab, North African, Australian.  Perhaps if people are truly interested in the pros and cons they could do a trawl.  From my quick reading, camels are considered quite bright and have a good memory (forget elephants - for desert users, the camel is the animal that never forgets).  They are complicated animals that have to be treated correctly to get the best out of them.  They are very good at long distance endurance and can "cruise" at a steady pace but are slower than horses at full speed and can only sustain it for a short time.  Horses are considered more agile.    These may contribute some ideas to why horses were the prefered cavalry mount, or maybe not.

Overall, though, I think we can see a general underlying belief that the smell of camels upset horses in the ancient world but how much that was actually tested as opposed to assumed is a different question.  The scattered anecdotes may hide a wider set of occurences which had no perceived effect on the course of battles, or there could have been unrecorded camel familiarisation training going as routine in areas where camel and horse units coincided which meant it wasn't an issue.