SoA Forums

https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/24319166.metal-detectorist-finds-magical-medieval-ring-field/

There was me thinking it was gold and unadorned....

Quote from: Erpingham on May 14, 2024, 01:54:05 PMReally, for relevance, we do need more on the military significance of camelids.  For example, were camels more important logistically than in combat?

For example, the apparent variations in Roman auxiliary employment - some attestations have the odd dromedarius listed at then end of an infantry century, at least one has the chap tacked onto a cavalry turma.  Are they scouts in ones or twos to give combat units a better recce capability in certain locations, or are they perhaps the pack camel master riding a lead animal, as opposed to an otherwise undistinguished (in terms of attestation) soldier leading a string of pack mules on foot in other units?

I am also reminded that at Hatra there is (or was before Daesh terrorists moved in) a suspected depiction of a one and a half humped camel - ie a cross breed of Arabian and Bactrian.  Hatra was probably one of the cross over points - local animals are dromedaries of course, but some Bactrians may have made it to the very end, as it were, of the "Silk Road" (if one does not get too hung up on the accuracy of the concept per se).

Quote from: Ian61 on May 14, 2024, 08:28:08 AMDespite the nod at the start to the S.American branches the article only really deals with Old World camels. I wonder if there is also anything going on in S.America that the Jordan Times has not noted. Likely perhaps to be in the Spanish speaking news. These are all very interesting animals.

All good points.  After all, there were llamas at Troy in the Bronze Age, as documented in a certain epic portrayal of the Trojan War...

a dangerous assumption

at least we aren't talking about cameltoes

indeed but I will leave that to others....

Readers who have noted some of my past writings and comments here will know I have an interest in "Well known facts of history" that are, in fact, of dubious authenticity and often made up or misinterpreted by later authors.  I'm tempted to produce a short piece for Slingshot on a few. To keep it short, I'll avoid anything about longbows (you could write an entire book on longbow myths) and will stick to military history.  Just as a taster, here is a list by Dirk Breiding, famed arms & armour expert, from an article he wrote in 2010

• Only knights wore armor—Wrong
• Armor was so expensive, only princes and the high nobility could afford it—Wrong
• If armor is (highly) decorated, it is for ceremonial use, not for war–Wrong
• Armor is extremely heavy and renders its wearer virtually immobile (and, by implication,
anyone wearing armor had to have almost super-human strength)—Wrong
• Knights had to be hoisted into their saddles with cranes—Wrong
• It took years to make a single armor—Wrong
• Wearing armor makes it dificult to go to the toilet—Wrong
• The military salute originated from the raising of a visor—Very doubtful
• Women never fought or wore armor—Not entirely true
• Only knights were allowed to carry swords—Not entirely true
• Armor became obsolete because of firearms—Not true without qualiication

Some of these I expect will make the article, along with other recent favourites like the houndscull and the Battle of Lake Peipus.  But, if anyone has their own favourites, please flag them up, preferably with a debunking reference

Incidentally, if anyone likes the idea and wants to apply it for a different period (like Classical warfare) or even tackle the related but narrower topic of wargamer history v. actual history, I'm sure they'd make a great article too.

Quote from: Erpingham on May 14, 2024, 01:54:05 PMReally, for relevance, we do need more on the military significance of camelids.  For example, were camels more important logistically than in combat?

With the camel I would say that they were far more important logistically, but what about the horse?

Yes the horse was vital on the Mongol battlefield, if without the horse transporting people to the battle, feeding them, providing the logistical backup, would there even have been a battlefield for the horse to be important on?

We wargame battles far more than we wargame logistics. But I remember reading about Arthur Wellesley's campaigns in India where nothing happened until he'd got enough bullocks to underpin his next move forward
I suspect he would have regarded the bullock as more important than the horse 

Really, for relevance, we do need more on the military significance of camelids.  For example, were camels more important logistically than in combat?

No mention of the now extinct North American camel.