I picked up Richard Holmes' book Redcoat.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Redcoat-British-Soldier-Horse-Musket/dp/0006531520
For about 50p in a charity shop. But on page 236 there is the passage
"In February 1859 Lieutenant Stourton of the 8th Hussars found that he could not get within cutting distance of a camel mounted adversary as his horse kept swerving (horses hated the smell of camels), when a helpful sergeant reminded him of his revolver; he brought down camel and rider with a single lucky shot."
Now I know that many ancient rules have some sort of -1 for horses facing camels (or similar) but I'm not sure where this is mentioned in the ancient literature. On reading this passage I was left wondering whether it was something that the first generation of wargames rule writers just knew because it was the sort of thing passed down within the regiment/family.
After all, I listened to tales of hiding from shellfire in a bombardment, in a knocked out tank in 1918 from a chap who did it. So those older than me could well have known veterans of the Sudan (looking at you here, Corporal Jones)
Sounds like you are onto something here Jim. There have been a number of threads about this over the years but all based on ancient sources. I wonder if there is evidence from the Ottoman wars in Europe as well now you have broadened the argument.
From Herodotus, Book I.80: "...the horse has a fear of the camel and cannot endure either to see his form or to scent his smell: for this reason then the trick had been devised, in order that the cavalry of Croesus might be useless, that very force wherewith the Lydian king was expecting most to shine. And as they were coming together to the battle, so soon as the horses scented the camels and saw them they turned away back, and the hopes of Croesus were at once brought to nought." (cited from the Project Gutenberg translation by Macaulay (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2707/2707-h/2707-h.htm#linknoteref-95)).
Modern tests have shown that it's not so much the smell of the camels, as the fact horses often react badly to anything strange or unusual, and that if they become acclimated to the smell of camels, they don't have a problem.
Never mind the effect of camels on horses; the most notable thing about the anecdote is that someone managed to hit something when firing his revolver! Just like the ancient authorities, the remarkable is recorded rather than the commonplace. ;)
Quote from: Adrian Nayler on Dec 25, 2025, 12:07 PMNever mind the effect of camels on horses; the most notable thing about the anecdote is that someone managed to hit something when firing his revolver! Just like the ancient authorities, the remarkable is recorded rather than the commonplace. ;)
To be fair, he was just too far away to hit him with his sword so it wasn't really Rooster Cogburn stuff ;)
Quote from: Sharur on Dec 25, 2025, 11:54 AMFrom Herodotus, Book I.80: "...the horse has a fear of the camel and cannot endure either to see his form or to scent his smell: for this reason then the trick had been devised, in order that the cavalry of Croesus might be useless, that very force wherewith the Lydian king was expecting most to shine. And as they were coming together to the battle, so soon as the horses scented the camels and saw them they turned away back, and the hopes of Croesus were at once brought to nought." (cited from the Project Gutenberg translation by Macaulay (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2707/2707-h/2707-h.htm#linknoteref-95)).
Modern tests have shown that it's not so much the smell of the camels, as the fact horses often react badly to anything strange or unusual, and that if they become acclimated to the smell of camels, they don't have a problem.
cheers, I knew I must have missed something
For an earlier discussion which provides some more anecdotes
https://forum.soa.org.uk/index.php?topic=1706.0
Dave Beatty's experiences as a cowboy, though they don't mention camels, are interesting.
Quote from: Jim Webster on Dec 25, 2025, 01:17 PMTo be fair, he was just too far away to hit him with his sword so it wasn't really Rooster Cogburn stuff ;)
From what I've read about revolver accuracy in real life as opposed to shooting competitions (in which my great uncle, by marriage, was the Sergeant-Major crack revolver-shot first prize-winner in the North Western Railway Rifles 1901-02 - Oh yes, I have connections to all the best regiments), one was most fortunate to hit anything even when close to. I often wonder whether 18th and 19th century cavalrymen may actually have followed the 17th century practice of touching the muzzle to their target before discharging. Just to be sure.
Some more older threads relevant to camels and horses:
Nubian camels v. Arab horse (https://forum.soa.org.uk/index.php?topic=8999)
A fair deal for camels? (https://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=8808)
The camel paradox again (https://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=4122.0)
The last of those was triggered by my reading Leo the Wise's advise that horses be familiarized with camels before a campaign less they be spooked in battle.
FWIW, the view I've come away with is that wargames rules shouldn't make camels very effective against cavalry. Yes, there are reports of camels spooking and beating cavalry, but there's also stories of the reverse (see the first thread above), and riding horses in battle seems to have been almost universally preferred over riding camels. Make the factors such that the horsemen typically win, but with a chance for an upset that provides fodder for post-game chatter about how Croesus' proud cavalry were humiliatingly routed by mere baggage-animals.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on Dec 25, 2025, 04:02 PMMake the factors such that the horsemen typically win
I think "win" may be the problem here. Rules tend to assume a winner and loser in a combat. My impression from the assorted historical claims and anecdotes was that, with unaccustomed horses, the main effect of camels was a lack of combat. Camels don't get a plus one, or horses a minus one, in a combat, but rather there is a chance that the combat simply will not happen, as the horses are reluctant to get close enough to the dromedaries to have a combat. So unless one is Lt Stourton with a revolver, or a horse archer, then it is perhaps some sort of mechanism such as "failure to charge" or similar at which we should be looking...
Quote from: Jim Webster on Dec 25, 2025, 01:17 PMTo be fair, he was just too far away to hit him with his sword so it wasn't really Rooster Cogburn stuff ;)
But he did bring down both camel and rider with one shot. Bold action sir!
As well as producing several popular wargames rulesets, Phil Barker was a competent horseman. Attached is a short article from Slingshot 299 where, amongst other musings, he provides his insight into the interaction between horses and camels.
Incidentally,during the development of DBMM, one of the playtest versions made camels into an infantry rather than a cavalry killer. An interesting experiment, but one that disappeared for good with the next iteration of the rules.
8)
Quote from: DBS on Dec 25, 2025, 08:41 PMQuote from: Andreas Johansson on Dec 25, 2025, 04:02 PMMake the factors such that the horsemen typically win
I think "win" may be the problem here. Rules tend to assume a winner and loser in a combat. My impression from the assorted historical claims and anecdotes was that, with unaccustomed horses, the main effect of camels was a lack of combat. Camels don't get a plus one, or horses a minus one, in a combat, but rather there is a chance that the combat simply will not happen, as the horses are reluctant to get close enough to the dromedaries to have a combat. So unless one is Lt Stourton with a revolver, or a horse archer, then it is perhaps some sort of mechanism such as "failure to charge" or similar at which we should be looking...
I disagree. The problem with the traditional approach is that camelry gets sought out as cavalry killers, something that seems to have happened about once in recorded history, assuming that Herodotos' account of the battle between Cyrus and Croesus is accurate (I have my doubts). If the expected result is stalemate, camelry will instead be sought out to prevent cavalry to close on a refused flank and similar, which doesn't seem any more historical.
Of course, if we distinguish on a rules level between horses accustomed to camels and ones not, it would make sense to make the probability of a stalemate higher for the latter. But given how rarely horse aversion to camels seems to have made a big difference, I don't think it should be the expected result. Or if it is, use unaccustomed horses as a scenario special rule, assuming that all horses in a tournament or pickup game that face camels have become accustomed during the campaign leading up to the battle.
We should, BTW, distinguish between camelry in the sense of men fighting from camels, and the use of camels as effectively stationary obstacles as by the Moors in Procopius. That the Byzantine horses at Mammes didn't want to close probably had at least as much with a general aversion to crashing into a stationary formation of something bigger than themselves as with those somethings being camels particularly.
Quote from: stevenneate on Dec 26, 2025, 01:23 AMBut he did bring down both camel and rider with one shot. Bold action sir!
In other words, the bounder shot the camel, not the rider... they should have fined him a crate in the Mess for that!
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on Dec 26, 2025, 09:14 AMThe problem with the traditional approach is that camelry gets sought out as cavalry killers, something that seems to have happened about once in recorded history, assuming that Herodotos' account of the battle between Cyrus and Croesus is accurate (I have my doubts). If the expected result is stalemate, camelry will instead be sought out to prevent cavalry to close on a refused flank and similar, which doesn't seem any more historical.
I do not think any of that argues against unaccustomed horses having a problem in closing with camels. It simply reflects the comparative rarity of unaccustomed horses coming up against camel formations in pitched battle. Regardless of the accuracy of Herodotos' reportage of Cyrus vs Croesos, arguably that is a credible circumstance for one such rare action: Cyrus has access to camels from his earlier conquests, Croesos has a) an army strong in cavalry, and b) probably no exposure to camelry. How many of Cyrus' other opponents meet both criteria? The Greeks do not go in much for cavalry, and the Saka probably have quite a bit of exposure to Bactrian camels. Ditto others on the eastern frontiers of the Persian kingdom.
So who comes a cropper later? Crusaders potentially, though only when they (and their horses) are new in the region; one suspects the Outremer brigade and Holy Orders, one established, are not bothered. Maybe Darius III should have tried camels vs Alexander, but no evidence that he did. Of course, any self respecting Arab is going to ride a horse, rather than a camel, in battle if he has one. The whole point of the Cyrus story is that the King of Kings is able to order the camels to be used as a stratagem, not leave it to individual warriors to choose what to ride into battle.
Arguably the problem only arises, outside of very specific historical scenarios, with the pernicious custom of ahistorical wargame matches. Which is why I would never play an ahistorical game... 8)
Given rules still model cavalry fencing on horseback on a static position, I think we shouldn't neglect the seeming inability of a horseman to reach the camel rider,whilst his head is in range to the camel rider
Quote from: Mark G on Dec 26, 2025, 11:50 AMI think we shouldn't neglect the seeming inability of a horseman to reach the camel rider,whilst his head is in range to the camel rider
We could also note that, unlike a lot of ancient and medieval cavalry, he seems to have gone into battle without a long pointy stick to give him more reach.
Quote from: DBS on Dec 26, 2025, 11:45 AMSo who comes a cropper later?
Leo the Wise claims that the Byzantines have "often" come to grief due to unaccustomed horses being spooked by camels, but provides no explicit examples.
The only post-Cyrus examples of camels spooking horses in battle in our period that anyone has brought up in previous threads are the two in Procopius, Moors against Byzantines at Mammes and against Vandals in an earlier battle, though these, as mentioned above, involve camels used as static obstacles rather than camelry proper.
The Byzantines at Mammes were recent arrivals from Constantinople, but one might have thought the Vandals, who'd been living in Africa for generations by then, would have had horses accustomed to camels, which is part of why I suspect that the camel-ness of the obstacles was of secondary importance.
So as far as historical matchups are concerned, there seems to be little call for a bonus for camelry against unaccustomed horses other than as a scenario rule for Cyrus v. Croesus.
(Oh, and I see that I cited the Leo passage as
Taktika 19§134 in a previous thread. The correct citation is
18§134.)
Quote from: DBS on Dec 26, 2025, 09:20 AMQuote from: stevenneate on Dec 26, 2025, 01:23 AMBut he did bring down both camel and rider with one shot. Bold action sir!
In other words, the bounder shot the camel, not the rider... they should have fined him a crate in the Mess for that!
I just ask myself, what would Harry Flashman have done? Seems that Lieutenant Stourton accidentally chose the correct option. Flashy would have heartily approved.
The classic discussion of camels is Major Leonard's book, The Camel, its uses and management (1894) You can get a copy from https://archive.org/download/camelitsusesand00leongoog/camelitsusesand00leongoog.pdf (https://archive.org/download/camelitsusesand00leongoog/camelitsusesand00leongoog.pdf)
He remarks that "... horses that have never seen or never been brought into contact with camels show a distinct dislike ... Of course they can be very soon broken of this habit ..." and compares a horse's reaction to that at its first sight of a train, tram, or bicycle.
Quote from: stevenneate on Dec 27, 2025, 01:10 AMQuote from: DBS on Dec 26, 2025, 09:20 AMQuote from: stevenneate on Dec 26, 2025, 01:23 AMBut he did bring down both camel and rider with one shot. Bold action sir!
In other words, the bounder shot the camel, not the rider... they should have fined him a crate in the Mess for that!
I just ask myself, what would Harry Flashman have done? Seems that Lieutenant Stourton accidentally chose the correct option. Flashy would have heartily approved.
Going by the comments about the inaccuracy of the revolver, he may have been aiming for the man and hit the beast.
At least he was a good enough swordsmen to have had a go with it - in the ACW the troopers were supposed to have been more likely to trim their own mount's ears than to hit the enemy.
Quote from: Swampster on Jan 21, 2026, 09:58 PMQuote from: stevenneate on Dec 27, 2025, 01:10 AMQuote from: DBS on Dec 26, 2025, 09:20 AMQuote from: stevenneate on Dec 26, 2025, 01:23 AMBut he did bring down both camel and rider with one shot. Bold action sir!
In other words, the bounder shot the camel, not the rider... they should have fined him a crate in the Mess for that!
I just ask myself, what would Harry Flashman have done? Seems that Lieutenant Stourton accidentally chose the correct option. Flashy would have heartily approved.
Going by the comments about the inaccuracy of the revolver, he may have been aiming for the man and hit the beast.
At least he was a good enough swordsmen to have had a go with it - in the ACW the troopers were supposed to have been more likely to trim their own mount's ears than to hit the enemy.
Mind you Lawrence admitted to shooting his own camel in the back of the head with his pistol when in a melee ;)
Though not involving camels, it is worth reading Churchill's account of his exploits at Omdurman (well, one of them - I think he wrote three). In this battle, because of a weak shoulder, he fought armed with a Mauser automatic, defending his horse much more effectively than his lance armed troopers could.