Camels: A horse's worst nightmare?

[CountArtha]

Cataphracts.

If you want maxed-out heavy cavalry, you use camels.  They're bigger than horses and so they can carry more weight - armor for example.  They also afford the rider an advantage when engaging lancers on horseback because they would be higher and an overhead spear thrust is more awkward and has less reach than an underhand thrust.

They're also bigger targets though. That's got to be taken into consideration as well. And I'm not sure, but aren't some horses faster than any camel?

I'm pretty sure all horses are faster than any camel, but that's not the idea of using a camel.  It's a larger, more powerful animal and can be more heavily armored.  You sacrifice mobility for staying power.

 

[Kasimir]

If you want maxed-out heavy cavalry, you use camels.  They're bigger than horses and so they can carry more weight - armor for example.  They also afford the rider an advantage when engaging lancers on horseback because they would be higher and an overhead spear thrust is more awkward and has less reach than an underhand thrust.

I was interested to see how big camels actually are, so I did a google search for an idea, and the figures I got were generally around 700-1500 lbs (I think for Bactrian camels) and another larger breed around 1300-2100 lbs. Big animals, certainly, but on average not bigger than horses.

My other question, why would you need an overhead spear thrust to thrust up? Why not just use an underhand thrust and aim it higher?

I'm pretty sure all horses are faster than any camel, but that's not the idea of using a camel.  It's a larger, more powerful animal and can be more heavily armored.  You sacrifice mobility for staying power.

I think staying power is the issue - not from being a larger, more powerful animal or being more heavily armoured, but general durability. Horses have delicate digestive systems for their size (and how much eating they must do), they are also far less resistant to heat, need water more regularly, etc. In a lot of terrain, the camel has more staying power from sheer hardiness.

 

[FrisianDude]

He means when you are holding the spear with the pointy side going out the side of your grip with your pinky. Like a reverse grip on a knife, but with a spear. And yes, it is awkward, but I still see no use for it haha.

I know exactly what he means and it is not awkward. It's a really easy motion. It might get awkward when you want to hit someone on the the other side of your horse, but then less so then when trying to use it underhanded.

 

[CountArtha]

But what if you've got a shield and you're wearing a cuirass with armored shoulder pauldrons?

 

[guilemaster]

He means when you are holding the spear with the pointy side going out the side of your grip with your pinky. Like a reverse grip on a knife, but with a spear. And yes, it is awkward, but I still see no use for it haha.

I know exactly what he means and it is not awkward. It's a really easy motion. It might get awkward when you want to hit someone on the the other side of your horse, but then less so then when trying to use it underhanded.

I'd say it is pretty awkward when compared to a regular grip. To get the correct amount of power necessary to do much of anything, I'd think it'd be a pretty awkward motion, especially compared to a motion you're more used to. And as CountArtha said before, pauldrons would probably make this much more awkward. But I've never tried it like that, so I'm not so sure about that.

 

[Kvedulf]

He means when you are holding the spear with the pointy side going out the side of your grip with your pinky. Like a reverse grip on a knife, but with a spear. And yes, it is awkward, but I still see no use for it haha.

I know exactly what he means and it is not awkward. It's a really easy motion. It might get awkward when you want to hit someone on the the other side of your horse, but then less so then when trying to use it underhanded.

I'd say it is pretty awkward when compared to a regular grip. To get the correct amount of power necessary to do much of anything, I'd think it'd be a pretty awkward motion, especially compared to a motion you're more used to.

Aside from the fact that it is generally accepted that hoplites used the spear like that on foot.  And there is iconographical evidence of early medieval knights using their spears like that from horseback. And I think there's also iconography of Romans and Gauls using the spear overarm from horseback. Yes it has its drawbacks, but then so does using a spear underarm.

Cheers
Kvedulf

 

[guilemaster]

He means when you are holding the spear with the pointy side going out the side of your grip with your pinky. Like a reverse grip on a knife, but with a spear. And yes, it is awkward, but I still see no use for it haha.

I know exactly what he means and it is not awkward. It's a really easy motion. It might get awkward when you want to hit someone on the the other side of your horse, but then less so then when trying to use it underhanded.

I'd say it is pretty awkward when compared to a regular grip. To get the correct amount of power necessary to do much of anything, I'd think it'd be a pretty awkward motion, especially compared to a motion you're more used to.

Aside from the fact that it is generally accepted that hoplites used the spear like that on foot.  And there is iconographical evidence of early medieval knights using their spears like that from horseback. And I think there's also iconography of Romans and Gauls using the spear overarm from horseback. Yes it has its drawbacks, but then so does using a spear underarm.

Cheers
Kvedulf

Hey yeah, you're right. I think I do remember hearing about Hoplites using them like that sometime. But a standard grip is a little more natural for the wrist, wouldn't you say? They probably had to have discipline and training to teach themselves to hold it naturally like that.

 

[CountArtha]

By "iconographical evidence," do you mean pottery?  'Cause that's basically the equivalent of using a Western as "evidence" that people regularly fanned their revolvers at hip elevation at thirty yards.

 

[Kvedulf]

Fair enough.  But  the theory is widely accepted.  Of course, that's not the best argument.  As to the realism of the events painted on Greek pottery, that's always a good discussion.  But it's some of the best and often the only evidence we have for some things, including how you hold a spear in a hoplite formation.
And the evidence for riders using the grip during the Middle ages is mostly in illustrations in period books, usually bibles.  I think the bayeaux tapestry also shows riders using their spears overhand, could someone confirm that?  Overhand vs underhand is a really touchy subject, so lets be careful that we don't completely derail the forums over it.

However, back on topic, using an overhand spear thrust to thrust upward, such as using it from horseback to stab up at at the rider of a camel, (the scenario in question) would be incredibly awkward.  However, switching to an underhand grip and thrusting up wouldn't be much of a problem.

Cheers
Kvedulf

 

[Kasimir]

I think the bayeaux tapestry also shows riders using their spears overhand, could someone confirm that?

A quick image search.

I think they did both.

Anyway, while we are debating how awkward it is to use a spear overarm on horseback, I still see no reason for a horseman to need an overarm thrust to strike a camel rider, thrusting underarm just seems far more practical in that scenario.

 

[CountArtha]

Didn't the Normans use throwing spears at Hastings?

 

[Kasimir]

They used spears, both for throwing and thrusting.

 

[Kvedulf]

Thanks for that Kasimir.  And I just realised that we've both been arguing the exact same point, that thrusting underarm at a camel rider is more practical.

By-the-by who makes those camel cataphracts and what's the historical background of them?

Cheers
Kvedulf

 

[happy51591]

i think it is still depends on rider how to use his mount effectively but camels are not really much effective in war compare to horse cause of its speed. Camels are really slow compare to a Stallion warhorse except the only good thing about the camel is his endurance, can be emergency food if needed or a temporary tent, low maintenance and really cheaper than the warhorse. 

 

[butscrew]

Have you guys seen a camel fight? It is frigging nasty, the guy who got the crap beaten out of him had to go to hospital. Their feet can crush a human skull and their bite can disembowel a person. I think that last one is more of a wives tale told by camel herders but still they have big teeth.

 

[CryoNomad]

I'm surprised nobody mentioned how much easier it is to feed and water an army of camels over horses.

Also here is a very good side by side of the two animals in behavior and training that could be applied to military advantages if you can make the mental jump.

http://camelphotos.com/CamelVsHorses.html

EDIT: He also mentions the horse's reactions upon seeing his camel, and has to warn horse riders on trails he travels not to come close for their safety. The anti-cav stories seem to be true. He also mentions traveling with friends on his camel only if their horses have been trained to be "Camel Friendly" otherwise he's forced to use a horse.

 

[Llew2]

That's a really cool site. Guy seems to know his stuff. 

 

[kweassa]

i think it is still depends on rider how to use his mount effectively but camels are not really much effective in war compare to horse cause of its speed. Camels are really slow compare to a Stallion warhorse except the only good thing about the camel is his endurance, can be emergency food if needed or a temporary tent, low maintenance and really cheaper than the warhorse.

Camels are as fast as horses. The only reason camels never really 'caught on' was there was no need to use camels when there were already horses, which made for easier accomodation, training, handling, breeding, and could adapt to every terrain including the desert. Basically a camel cavalry is a poorman's version of horse cavalry.

Have you guys seen a camel fight? It is frigging nasty, the guy who got the crap beaten out of him had to go to hospital. Their feet can crush a human skull and their bite can disembowel a person. I think that last one is more of a wives tale told by camel herders but still they have big teeth.

Horses aren't exactly pushovers, either. They are by fay one of the most dangerous animals when unbroken and untrained.

 

[AWdeV]

He means when you are holding the spear with the pointy side going out the side of your grip with your pinky. Like a reverse grip on a knife, but with a spear. And yes, it is awkward, but I still see no use for it haha.

I know exactly what he means and it is not awkward. It's a really easy motion. It might get awkward when you want to hit someone on the the other side of your horse, but then less so then when trying to use it underhanded.

I'd say it is pretty awkward when compared to a regular grip. To get the correct amount of power necessary to do much of anything, I'd think it'd be a pretty awkward motion, especially compared to a motion you're more used to.

Aside from the fact that it is generally accepted that hoplites used the spear like that on foot.  And there is iconographical evidence of early medieval knights using their spears like that from horseback. And I think there's also iconography of Romans and Gauls using the spear overarm from horseback. Yes it has its drawbacks, but then so does using a spear underarm.

Cheers
Kvedulf

A bit off-topic, but in a video I saw on youtube a plausible theory supporting the notion that hoplites used their spears underhanded was given. The man in the video namely had a linothorax, which he made himself, as accurately as possible. The linothorax had a few rows of scales covering his gut, but the armour didn't cover the armpit at all. The scales would reinforce the cuirass underneath. The reason he came up with was that hoplites (including enemy hoplites) used their spears underhanded, which would be more of a threat to the gut. The fact that the armpit was uncovered also doesn't corroborate with an overhand attack. An overhand attack would namely leave the armpit extremely vulnerable, whereas the shoulders als were protected. 

 

[Garluch]

That camel stereotype doesn't apply to horses alone. The damn things smell as though they have been through the digestive system of a marsh critter and are of a nasty disposition to boot. I, a human, also have a natural repulsion to them. I can't say I've ever specified myself as being human before...