? What is ad hominem about that? I just doubt your expertise in the field of history. Or more precisely to see what you can actually conclude from single sources. And I made various points on why I don’t share your interpretations and assess that you can’t conclude them from these sources.
The right response would be to either acknowledge the critique or bring forward additional points or sources that are more explicit and reliable to support your initial statements. But instead you attack me. And to make it very clear:
Are explicit or implicite ad hominem attacks, alleging some general generalist questionable behavior from my side I precisely DIDN’T. I was actually very specific why I questioned the source and the very specific interpretation on it. And I also treated the other, more reliable sources accordingly to their implicated meanings. I didn’t wanted to shout it from the rooftops then that you did generalize from a very specific rejection of a very specifc interpretation of a very specific source to an general treatment THEN. But now I kinda feel forced to justify myself. And THIS is actually an ad hominem attack (from your side against me), though it is an implicite one.
Maybe you could now stop these attacks, and btw alleging someone else to be ad hominem when he/she isn’t is also an ad hominem attack.
Doubting someone else experience in a field isn’t an ad hominem attack. It’s just a normal response if you see someone making obvious mistakes when they (implicitely) claim to be experts or at least would get to the “right/true” results. I was doubted various times on various subjects and I never reacted offended or assaulted. The best way to reat to that is just to show the expertise IF you have it. Accusing the other of “assaulting” you generally only makes things worse, showing that you are actually NOT as confident in the subject as you tried to impose earlier. Ofc sometimes the accusations are so weird that you can’t even respond to them. But then you don’t have to.
But the points you are trying to make here are very specific and against the common knowledge of camel warfare. That doesn’t mean they are wrong, but we need more than one very unreliable source from someone who wrote it down years later and only got indirect information himself. It’s not built on a very firm ground. That’s what I try to explain to you. I’m sorry if you had to spend a lot of time to only find an unreliable source for that. But that’s maybe because the thing you are looking for was just not the common use of camels in warfare.
I also want to remind you that, though you forced me to react to your accusations you still haven’t brought out a single point against my takes about the general utilization of camels in warfare. Which is in respect to melee engagements that they were usually only used for transport and dismounted before the “riders” engaged in battle.
However, the sources of @Estevao9543 are way more specific and possibly more reliable. So if it’s ok I would lie to respond to them now.
Especially the second one is interesting.
This is very interesting indeed. One possible interpretation from the common knowledge that usually the camel riders dismounted to engage in melee battle it could be seen as an act of courage to NOT dismount. It’s surely not the only way to interpret that source, but definitely one possible.
Which means in respect to the game that Borno/Sudanese could get a Camel UU with extra armor, designed to be a more “tanky” variant of the comonly used camel riders. This could be an interesting addition to the game with actual reliable historic sources to justify the design and artistic representation in the game.
I find this very interesting and insidefuly historic source that gave me additional and usable information about the utilization of camels. Especially in Africa. And I’m looking forward if you can find more.