Camels in Europe?

ninebucks

Banned
Surely after a few centuries, breeds of camels could be bred that would be more suited to colder, wetter Northern Europe?

I like the idea that it was the Roman roads that did in the camels prospects in Europe. Perhaps more camels would be a side-effect of a no-Rome TL?
 
Well, I'm no expert in camel farming, but I'd like to remind that camels failed to catch up not only in Slavic Russia heartland proper (which, it could be argued, has the same "fear of camles" thingy as Medieval Europe), but among Volga nomads too. Successive waves of nomads did have camels when they arrived to Volga basin, but they were inevitably losing it to universal adoption of horse (Kalmyks keep some camels until nowadays, but more as status symbols). So, something must be wrong with camels.
 
IIRC, wild camels are/were (not sure how many are left these days) specialized for living in dry areas, but they ranged from very hot to very cold areas, so Europe's cold weather wouldn't faze them... I wonder if the heavier rain and snow might not be a problem though; animals suited for cold dry areas don't do well when their hides get soaked...

That's a good question. Camels have heavy pelts which would protect them from the elements, so they'd probably do alright.
 
Surely after a few centuries, breeds of camels could be bred that would be more suited to colder, wetter Northern Europe?

I like the idea that it was the Roman roads that did in the camels prospects in Europe. Perhaps more camels would be a side-effect of a no-Rome TL?

I don't think that the European climate necessarily is a problem for camels, it's just that the advantages camels have over horses are generally related to arid climates and long distances. If a horse is more useful in your environment, you won't change to camels.

If the Mediterranean were infested by a mighty pirate empire and overland trade routes were more important, you might have seen camels. Likewise, without the Roman roads, camels might have been employed for longer trade routes. They were used extensively in Anatolia up to the modern era, even in areas where the climate is European.
 
Well, I'm no expert in camel farming, but I'd like to remind that camels failed to catch up not only in Slavic Russia heartland proper (which, it could be argued, has the same "fear of camles" thingy as Medieval Europe), but among Volga nomads too. Successive waves of nomads did have camels when they arrived to Volga basin, but they were inevitably losing it to universal adoption of horse (Kalmyks keep some camels until nowadays, but more as status symbols). So, something must be wrong with camels.

Nothing is wrong with them as a transport animal, but there is plenty wrong with them as a war mount. Even the denizens of the Arabian peninsula kept horses for purposes of war. The Volga basin is also relatively flat and amenable to roads, and for river transport - these weight against camels.

But I wouldn't discount habit and inclination - you've probably seen the stories about how Scandanavians in Greenland starved to death because they didn't eat fish...
 
:rolleyes: no, because the Romans didn't have access to potatoes, whereas Europe did have access to camels, and never made much use of them.

Well, where didn't they? They were used in Al-Andalus; the Ottomans apparently used them in their siege train to Vienna....

Northern Europe would never use them, but all of Europe isn't cold and wet.

Anyway, my point was that Europeans sort of had access to camels through a hostile neighbor; but this entailed setting up a perpetuating breeding population for an animal that was associated with the other. Doable, but the difference might not have been significant enough.

(Camels took a surprising amount of time to get established in North Africa, apparently. Hrmm.)
 
can camels be hitched to a plow or wagon? Wagons might be workable, but plows? Camels seem kinda tall and spindly, compared to a draft horse....
 
Dromedaries could have done fine in Mediterranean Europe, and Bactrian camels would have done fine on the steppes and grasslands of eastern Europe. I think that the main reason they weren't adopted on a large scale was that they didn't offer any major advantage over other animals. Mules (and horses to a lesser extent) were the standard beasts of burden in Mediterranean Europe, and with a relatively dense population and the Roman roads there was not a need for an animal that could travel long distances with little food or water, or one that could carry heavy burdens without pulling a cart.

Likewise, the eastern European steppes were excellent country for large numbers of horses, and there were a lot of rivers for bulk trade over longer distances.

Cultural prejudice could still have played a role, though, especially in Mediterranean Europe. I wouldn't be surprised if camels got a stigma there as being associated with Muslims.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
But I wouldn't discount habit and inclination - you've probably seen the stories about how Scandanavians in Greenland starved to death because they didn't eat fish...

It's a myth, while it was embrace by a popular author, there's absolutly no reason to believe it's true. All their West Scandinavian relatives Faroes, Shetlanders Icelanders and West Norvegians had diet rich in fish, but because their dunghills lacked fishbones some came to the conclusion that they didn't eat fish, just one problem, Klipfisk* is prepared through boiling, which make the bone decompose faster.

*Dried and salted cod, the most common way to preserve fish in Scandinavian in pre-modern time.
 
Nothing is wrong with them as a transport animal, but there is plenty wrong with them as a war mount.
OK, oxen, donkeys and mules are pretty useless as war mounts too. However, they all survived and thrived in different parts of temperate climate area as draft and/or farming animals. Why couldn't camels, if they don't have some serious flaw not revealed by this discussion?

But I wouldn't discount habit and inclination
Habit and inclination are plenty overrated. More often than not nations either adopt significant improvements in "ways of doing things" or lose to those who do. Besides, this argument does not work for Volga Nomads. Most of them arrived on those shores with camels in their train and almost all of them lost those beasts. You have to also take into accoun that Volga doesn't have that many navigable tributaries in it's middle and lower basin, so a lot of local trade was overland, so "waterway" answer doesn't really explain anything. "Roman Roads" answer has similar flaw for Mitteleuropa. There were no Roman roads there and riverine system leaves much to be desired, but neither Poles nor Czech nor Hungarians nor Germans adopted camels as trade movers.
 
I wonder if it isn't camels' notorious bad tempers that kept them from being widely used in Europe. They're well known for being grouchy, spitting, and biting. Plus, they tend to balk when urged to cross streams. Sure, mules can be stubborn, but camels outdo them in that. It's worth putting up with all that if you need to move goods across a vast dry desert, but if you don't, why bother? For another example, back in the really ancient times, people in the middle east tried to domesticate onagers (a type of wild burro), which were also notorious for being bad tempered... they dropped them in a flash when they got their hands on regular mules and horses...
 
OK, oxen, donkeys and mules are pretty useless as war mounts too. However, they all survived and thrived in different parts of temperate climate area as draft and/or farming animals. Why couldn't camels, if they don't have some serious flaw not revealed by this discussion?

Habit and inclination are plenty overrated. More often than not nations either adopt significant improvements in "ways of doing things" or lose to those who do. Besides, this argument does not work for Volga Nomads. Most of them arrived on those shores with camels in their train and almost all of them lost those beasts. You have to also take into accoun that Volga doesn't have that many navigable tributaries in it's middle and lower basin, so a lot of local trade was overland, so "waterway" answer doesn't really explain anything. "Roman Roads" answer has similar flaw for Mitteleuropa. There were no Roman roads there and riverine system leaves much to be desired, but neither Poles nor Czech nor Hungarians nor Germans adopted camels as trade movers.

Habit and inclination do matter, especially if there is a large capital outlay required to make a change. Why do Americans buy SUVs in such large numbers? Inclination. Buffalo is way healthier than beef, cheaper to raise, and better for the environment. Why no changeover?

I'm not sure where you're getting all this Volga nomad with Camels thing, but if they ended up in the middle of nowhere with only horses readily available, then that's an easy explanation. If there are no camel breeders around, it's too expensive to order them from Arabia. Also, mail-order catalogues hadn't been developed, nor had the internet. Now you could just go to camelsgalore.com.

A camel is more expensive than a donkey, ox, or mule, and if you don't need a huge load transported over a long distance then there isn't really a pressing need for them. The animals you mentioned are just more versatile - you can use them for plowing and carts - so the infrastructure for camel breeding would have been difficult to develop. If there had been a lot more long-distance overland trade, then it would have - as it did in Anatolia, with the same climate as Europe.
 
I'm not sure where you're getting all this Volga nomad with Camels thing, but if they ended up in the middle of nowhere with only horses readily available, then that's an easy explanation. If there are no camel breeders around, it's too expensive to order them from Arabia. Also, mail-order catalogues hadn't been developed, nor had the internet. Now you could just go to camelsgalore.com.

I think that the Volga nomads would have been using Bactrian camels, not dromedaries.
 
Camels can't be hitched to plows or wagons.
You are wrong. Click here to see wagon-pulling camel (reproduction from Olearius' Map of Volga; for all you 1632 fans out there, yes, that Olearius).
Habit and inclination do matter, especially if there is a large capital outlay required to make a change. Why do Americans buy SUVs in such large numbers? Inclination.
You could not be more wrong as far as SUVs vs. smaller cars are concerned. I owned and/or operated shitload of passenger vehicles of very different sizes and body styles. Sedans, wagons, SUVs, minivans, ranging in size from miserable (Pegout 106 and Russian knock-off of original Fiat 600) to excessive (Chev Suburban) and I can honestly tell you that nothing beats large tall vehicle as family hauler. European wagons are real bitches, as far as comfort of loading/unloading is concerned, hatchbacks and sedans are losing big time in available cargo volume. So, taking into account absence of punishing gas taxes and registration fees (you pay the same small yearly fee for Smart and Suburban in most NorthAm jurisdictions), owning and operating "tall wagons" makes a lot of sence for a family. However, it only took a year of punishing gas prices (although I do suspect that a lot of Europeans would not really call $1 per liter "punishing") for sales of SUVs to drop through the floor and sales of compact cars to go through the roof. So, your car-related example clearly proves that inclination plays second fiddle to economic advantages/disadvantages of certain behaviour.
Buffalo is way healthier than beef, cheaper to raise, and better for the environment. Why no changeover?
I'm not sure where have you got your comparative data on buffalo vs. cow cost-wise, but buffalo meat is generally more expensive in Canadian supermarket than organic beef. Would buffalo be cheaper to raise than organic cow, there are very good chances that buffalo meat would be cheaper (unless there's price-fixing buffalo mafia running the business).
I'm not sure where you're getting all this Volga nomad with Camels thing
Well, there's a breed named "Kalmyk Camel" I guess you would be able to figure out where Kalmyks live. And, BTW, their camel herds were ever-decreasing in 18-19th centuries, losing to horses and oxen.
, but if they ended up in the middle of nowhere with only horses readily available, then that's an easy explanation.
There's no such thing as "middle of nowhere with horses readily available". Successive waves were coming to Volga with camels (Kypchaks, Tatars, Kalmyks) and they were losing camels again and again. Besides, old Russian accounts of life on Lower and Middle Volga (Saratov and down the river) are chock-full of references to "camel caravans coming from Left Bank" and none of (previously camel-owning) Turkic inhabitants of Volga region re-introduced those animals to their households for centuries.
A camel is more expensive than a donkey, ox, or mule, and if you don't need a huge load transported over a long distance then there isn't really a pressing need for them.
Russia being very short on good roads is somewhat legendary thing and you are trying to convince me that sturdy animals with fantastic feed-to-load ratio and ability to eat anything, which could navigate any open space, would be ignored by economy of the country which hired thousands of nomads used to camels. Well, I'm not convinced, to put it mildly...
 
But what would really be interesting, is to have them brought over to the Americas. They'd do great in the Argentinian pampa, the Altiplano, not to mention the colder regions of the Western US.

This has actually happened many times and mostly failed. The first example I can think of is the Cariboo camels, which where brought over during the gold rush as a pack animal. The idea was abandoned because they frightened the stagecoach horses and they smelled terrible. They were released into the wild, where they died off pretty quickly.

For what it's worth, they were Bactrian camels...
 
I wonder if it isn't camels' notorious bad tempers that kept them from being widely used in Europe. They're well known for being grouchy, spitting, and biting. Plus, they tend to balk when urged to cross streams. Sure, mules can be stubborn, but camels outdo them in that. It's worth putting up with all that if you need to move goods across a vast dry desert, but if you don't, why bother? For another example, back in the really ancient times, people in the middle east tried to domesticate onagers (a type of wild burro), which were also notorious for being bad tempered... they dropped them in a flash when they got their hands on regular mules and horses...

Camels are actually not that bad tempered - that reputation comes from European travellers who generally had no idea how to operate one and managed to irritate them. I think it's basically just that they're essentially a truck and an economy car was all that's needed. Horses can be pretty difficult too - but if you know what you're doing it's not a problem.
 
The Bactrian camel is pretty different from the Dromedary - the latter is taller and faster, but the former is hardier. Bactrians pull carts but Dromedaries don't - I don't know the reason, but I have not ever heard of an Arabian camel pulling a cart. I'm guessing it's because they're taller and have a higher center of gravity, while also being less sure-footed.

Buffalo meat is more expensive because it isn't produced much - my point is that it's cheaper to produce Buffalo per pound than beef - probably most of the cost increase in your area is due to scale and travel distance.

There are certainly legitimate reasons for having a SUV, but a great number of people that own them don't - or have ones that are massive beyond necessity.

Kalmyks, Kypchaks and Tatars are all horse-nomads - while they might have acquired camels from Persia, that is not the basis of their economy.
Most likely they had camels for long-distance trade, and gave up keeping them as that trade was replaced by sea trade or cut off by Russia.

A camel has a greater feed-load ratio than a horse, but it's also less versatile. Horse nomads used their herds as war mounts, food, and just about everything - what would be gained by keeping camels unless you needed to conduct long-distance trade or travel in inhostpitable environments?

You are wrong. Click here to see wagon-pulling camel (reproduction from Olearius' Map of Volga; for all you 1632 fans out there, yes, that Olearius).
You could not be more wrong as far as SUVs vs. smaller cars are concerned. I owned and/or operated shitload of passenger vehicles of very different sizes and body styles. Sedans, wagons, SUVs, minivans, ranging in size from miserable (Pegout 106 and Russian knock-off of original Fiat 600) to excessive (Chev Suburban) and I can honestly tell you that nothing beats large tall vehicle as family hauler. European wagons are real bitches, as far as comfort of loading/unloading is concerned, hatchbacks and sedans are losing big time in available cargo volume. So, taking into account absence of punishing gas taxes and registration fees (you pay the same small yearly fee for Smart and Suburban in most NorthAm jurisdictions), owning and operating "tall wagons" makes a lot of sence for a family. However, it only took a year of punishing gas prices (although I do suspect that a lot of Europeans would not really call $1 per liter "punishing") for sales of SUVs to drop through the floor and sales of compact cars to go through the roof. So, your car-related example clearly proves that inclination plays second fiddle to economic advantages/disadvantages of certain behaviour.
I'm not sure where have you got your comparative data on buffalo vs. cow cost-wise, but buffalo meat is generally more expensive in Canadian supermarket than organic beef. Would buffalo be cheaper to raise than organic cow, there are very good chances that buffalo meat would be cheaper (unless there's price-fixing buffalo mafia running the business).Well, there's a breed named "Kalmyk Camel" I guess you would be able to figure out where Kalmyks live. And, BTW, their camel herds were ever-decreasing in 18-19th centuries, losing to horses and oxen.
There's no such thing as "middle of nowhere with horses readily available". Successive waves were coming to Volga with camels (Kypchaks, Tatars, Kalmyks) and they were losing camels again and again. Besides, old Russian accounts of life on Lower and Middle Volga (Saratov and down the river) are chock-full of references to "camel caravans coming from Left Bank" and none of (previously camel-owning) Turkic inhabitants of Volga region re-introduced those animals to their households for centuries.
Russia being very short on good roads is somewhat legendary thing and you are trying to convince me that sturdy animals with fantastic feed-to-load ratio and ability to eat anything, which could navigate any open space, would be ignored by economy of the country which hired thousands of nomads used to camels. Well, I'm not convinced, to put it mildly...
 
Buffalo meat is more expensive because it isn't produced much - my point is that it's cheaper to produce Buffalo per pound than beef - probably most of the cost increase in your area is due to scale and travel distance.

Buffalo also aren't wide spread because they really aren't as tractable as domestic cattle. They break fences with impunity, so you have to use very strong modern materials to contain them. They have a different social structure, so it's not easy to selectively breed them. Most of all, they don't instinctively submit to humans as cattle do. Buffalo aren't really all that aggressive, for a wild animal, but they are still unpredictable; if they take it into their head to run over you, they will (sure, individual cows might do so too, but with buffalo, it's a species wide thing). Plus, they aren't feedlot animals (which is what keeps the price of beef down... mass production)... bison are big grazers who need a lot of room...
 
Top