Having just read the article in Slingshot 320 regarding war wagons. I had two questions...
I didn't get the impression from the texts sited that the wagons were anything other than regular wagons. Is the museum photo in the article an actual war wagon or a reconstruction? What is the evidence that they were purposefully built "war" wagons?
And... why didn't they just shoot the horses and stop the damn things moving?
The texts sound almost comical, in the sense that we are led to believe that the enemy just stood there and let these horse drawn carts slowly divide up or encircle troops. Something is wrong with this picture.
More broadly, we should be suspicious of any wonder weapon that no one else ever imitated.
Wonder-weapon or not, Hussite wagons were imitated by various of their neighbours.
It's funny, though, how rules tend to treat them like their own completely separate thing. You'd think they'd be pretty much the same as a wagon laager.
Quote from: Dangun on October 30, 2018, 02:23:02 AMI didn't get the impression from the texts sited that the wagons were anything other than regular wagons.
According to Ian Heath (http://warfare.tk/WRG/Middle_Ages_2-130-Hussite_War-Wagon_c1430.htm), the first Hussite war-wagons were ordinary peasant carts but later ones were purpose-built.
This article (http://archiv.uni-nke.hu/downloads/aarms/docs/Volume9/Issue2/pdf/08.pdf) and this one (http://www.etd.ceu.hu/2014/bena_samuel.pdf) have some light to throw on Hussite wagon-warfare.
I think this is the best contemporary image of war wagons we have
(http://historie.lusa.cz/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/0630.jpg)
This is obviously the static version - note the tent and horses placed in the centre. Two of the wagons seemed to be modified with panels underneath, presumably for artillery (note the gun on the ground far left). The wagons, and the wheels of the wagons, are tied together. The leftmost wagon has its canvas or leather cover rolled back. Note the two wagons at the back appear to be unmodified supply or transport wagons, one containing guns, the other swords.
None of these have the loopholes sides, crenellated side tops or side access ramp seen in the common reconstructions. Presumably there is textual evidence elsewhere, aside from the quotes Chris used, that describes this. They would fit in within central European tendencies for war wagons and siege equipment seen in manuals like Bellifortis.
On the subject of the mobile, enveloping, wagons, do we know how common this tactic was, rather than using the wagons as a static fortification?
.
Quote from: Dangun on October 30, 2018, 02:23:02 AM
Having just read the article in Slingshot 320 regarding war wagons. I had two questions...
I didn't get the impression from the texts sited that the wagons were anything other than regular wagons. Is the museum photo in the article an actual war wagon or a reconstruction? What is the evidence that they were purposefully built "war" wagons?
And... why didn't they just shoot the horses and stop the damn things moving?
The texts sound almost comical, in the sense that we are led to believe that the enemy just stood there and let these horse drawn carts slowly divide up or encircle troops. Something is wrong with this picture.
More broadly, we should be suspicious of any wonder weapon that no one else ever imitated.
Part of the issue for the Christian opponents is that the Hussites would tend to outnumber them in shooters. The horses would need quite a lot of shooting directed at them for it to be effective and meanwhile the Hussites are shooting back. When faced by massed shooting, the idea would be to unhitch and move the horses to safety anyway. The later use of protected horses (e.g. by the Poles) allowed the wagons to remain hitched either for opening a gap in the wagonburg or to allow the army to move off under fire.
Attacks could be made to stop the wagons before getting into the desired position - in http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/docpage.cfm?docpage_id=4385 Berlichingen kills the leading teamster to halt the column.
Their use at this battle and the Wenzenbach shows a continuity over a century. At Mohacs, the Hungarians didn't use them despite the advice of the Polish officer on the general staff. This may have been in part due to the lack of experience of fighting the Ottomans in pitched battle- the Hungarians hadn't done so since Hunyadi's time. It may also have been due to the two main issues with the wagons. The enemy needed to be drawn close to them if the wagons were to be actively used rather than as a defensive bastion. And, as at Wenzenbach, if the enemy had superior gun power, the wagons were vulnerable to bombardment. In favourable conditions, their use continued for long after our period.
I think finding a happy medium for them in a set of rules is difficult. They were capable of moving into position during the time frame of a battle, but I think the amount of manoeuvring allowed in rules may be too much. Where they are distinguished from a set-up wagon laager in the rules, there is the decision to be made as to which type is allowed.
As for being imitated, they did end up being used by Poles, Germans, Russians and Turks as well as the Hussites. Of these, all but the Germans and Bohemians were still using them into the 17th and even 18th century, including some manoeuvre in the face of the enemy rather than just as a set-up laager.
Quote from: Dangun on October 30, 2018, 02:23:02 AMAnd... why didn't they just shoot the horses and stop the damn things moving?
If they were pulled by horses the wagons would have a speed closer to chariots than ox carts (I don't know why we have the common conception that they lumbered around at 2mph). Moving at speed they couldn't be accurately targeted by archers or guns and could quickly encircle an infantry formation before it had time to react.
Quote from: Erpingham on October 30, 2018, 10:03:44 AM
I think this is the best contemporary image of war wagons we have
(http://historie.lusa.cz/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/0630.jpg)
This is obviously the static version - note the tent and horses placed in the centre. Two of the wagons seemed to be modified with panels underneath, presumably for artillery (note the gun on the ground far left). The wagons, and the wheels of the wagons, are tied together. The leftmost wagon has its canvas or leather cover rolled back. Note the two wagons at the back appear to be unmodified supply or transport wagons, one containing guns, the other swords.
None of these have the loopholes sides, crenellated side tops or side access ramp seen in the common reconstructions. Presumably there is textual evidence elsewhere, aside from the quotes Chris used, that describes this. They would fit in within central European tendencies for war wagons and siege equipment seen in manuals like Bellifortis.
On the subject of the mobile, enveloping, wagons, do we know how common this tactic was, rather than using the wagons as a static fortification?
The best picture I know of showing the wagons moving is the Schlacht im Walde https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/1502_Die_Schlacht_im_Walde_anagoria.JPG
This also shows fairly plain wagons without crenellations etc. Heath bases a drawing with them on a German ms. though he doesn't say which. IIRC, the side access ramps may be mentioned in the Hussite rules.
The modern reconstructions with a hinged lid seem rather fanciful to me.
QuoteThis also shows fairly plain wagons without crenellations etc.
A good example of the fold-down side though which you see in some models. These seem mainly two-horse vehicles.
Quote from: Swampster on October 30, 2018, 10:45:29 AM
As for being imitated, they did end up being used by Poles, Germans, Russians and Turks as well as the Hussites.
Can you expand on how frequently they were used excluding the Hussites.
Do you mean, on occasion they were used by the Poles, Germans, Russians and Turks, or do you mean, they were usually a core third or the army for Poles, Germans, Russians and Turks?
Either way I wonder what mysterious force of geography meant no one else thought they were worth imitating.
The image from swampster suggests they were a minor / fringe part of the battle illustrated.
Quote from: Dangun on October 30, 2018, 12:22:17 PM
The image from swampster suggests they were a minor / fringe part of the battle illustrated.
The image is from a battle in 1502 near Nuremberg, so long after the Hussites.
Quote from: Dangun on October 30, 2018, 12:22:17 PM
Either way I wonder what mysterious force of geography meant no one else thought they were worth imitating.
I think we may have to do with a nomenclatural force rather than a geographic one: or least it's unclear to me how the wagon fortifications used by the Safavids or Moghuls essentially differed from those used by the Ottomans.
But if there was a mysterious force of geography, it was hardly the only one. Consider the couched lance, which became universal in Europe but made little if any inroads elsewhere.
I've done a bit of research on the painting of the battle. The battle seems to have multiple names including "Battle before the gates of Nuremberg" and "Kirchweih von Affalterbach" and took place on 19th June 1502. The best English description online I could find was in this (http://kriegsbuch.blogspot.com/search/label/German%20Armies) series of blog posts.
The wagonberg we see is one of two in the Nuremberg forces and consisted of 40 wagons. The reason why it is moving is not tactical - it has been broken by enemy cavalry and is in retreat.
The battle itself seems to have been rather complicated, with a number of subsidiary actions. Although the wagonberg has been overcome, the larger part of the Nuremberg army (with the other wagonberg) is only just appearing on the field, having been detached to Affalterbach. Another Nuremberg force is sortieing from the town.
Quote from: Dangun on October 30, 2018, 12:22:17 PMEither way I wonder what mysterious force of geography meant no one else thought they were worth imitating.
No-one except for
every single one of the Hussites' neighbours, you mean?
The war-wagons were primarily a way to protect Hussite infantry from the more numerous German and Hungarian cavalry, surely. They are therefore less attractive, as a primary arm, to armies that rely on cavalry themselves (the Muscovites, for instance, or the Turks, or the French) or have infantry who don't think they need protecting (the English, the Swiss). They are also, as has been said, vulnerable to superior quantities of missile fire, especially artillery, and are of limited use in rough country.
Defensive wagon forts to protect flanks, camps, or specific parts of an army (the Janissaries, say) are of course common. The distinctive features of the Hussites seem to be:
- Purpose-built wagons
- Promotion to a main arm of the army
- Alleged offensive use (at least the first of the article is linked to above suggests that offensive use was not in fact common)
Quote from: Dangun on October 30, 2018, 12:22:17 PM
Quote from: Swampster on October 30, 2018, 10:45:29 AM
As for being imitated, they did end up being used by Poles, Germans, Russians and Turks as well as the Hussites.
Can you expand on how frequently they were used excluding the Hussites.
Do you mean, on occasion they were used by the Poles, Germans, Russians and Turks, or do you mean, they were usually a core third or the army for Poles, Germans, Russians and Turks?
Either way I wonder what mysterious force of geography meant no one else thought they were worth imitating.
The image from swampster suggests they were a minor / fringe part of the battle illustrated.
I neglected to include the Hungarians. There is a report of them using 9000 wagons 'used to encircle the enemy in battle'. They are described as forming key parts of the lines for Poles, Russians and Turks though it is not easy to tell how many are specialised wagons and which are simply transport wagons. The Ottoman
tabu cengi wagons were apprently custom built, not simply impressed transport wagons. They were a key part of the janisssary defensive position and remained important until the late 17th century. The Turks apparently would at times manoeuvre their wagons. The Persians and Moghuls also copied them. See, e.g. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=JgfNBKHG7S8C&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=tabur+cengi&source=bl&ots=ttfoabChW0&sig=AhAa0rO2HxvqhxkgyMcrS9DT2VQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi3haORrK7eAhWKCcAKHT8NDbkQ6AEwCHoECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q=tabur%20cengi&f=false for a description of what a key part of Ottoman tactics the wagons became, including their occasional use offensively.
The later Polish and Russian versions seem to have been protected whether intended solely for transport or if intended primarily to be manned with shooters. Each of these armies used wagons as a standard part of the army - the Poles and Russians in particular using them to great effect on the steppe.
The picture of the Schlacht im Walde is useful for showing what the wagons looked like and that they were not a pre-assembled wagon laager. I wouldn't place any relevance on where they are as this picture is not really an attempt to portray an accurate battle. Remember as well that the wagons were prevented from reaching their intended place by the enemy attack. Also, if they are on the fringe, that doesn't mean that they are playing a minor role. The Hungarians used a 'scorpion' tactic of using the wagons on the flank to block in the enemy.
Some pictures of the Battle of Wenzenbach of around the same date show the destroyed wagons in place in front of the defenders.
I think the 'mysterious force of geography' is probably, well, geography. There are larger areas of flat terrain where they would be useful - not so much because of the ease of moving the wagons as that they provided cover for the infantry which terrain features might provide elsewhere. The need was presumably sufficient to make the construction of specialised wagons worthwhile, though even in W. European there were times where a more improvised laager was of use.
Additionally, for most of the adopters, they fought frequently against armies with large numbers of light cavalry. The Germans initially adopted them because the Hussites used them and their original tactics had failed. That they were still a force to be reckoned with is clear from von Berlichingen's account.
Quote from: Erpingham on October 30, 2018, 02:10:06 PM
The wagonberg we see is one of two in the Nuremberg forces and consisted of 40 wagons. The reason why it is moving is not tactical - it has been broken by enemy cavalry and is in retreat.
Though it was attempting to move into position before breaking. I don't think, though, that it was being used to actually attack the enemy, but rather to try to take up a forward defensive position.
Who coined the term "war wagon"?
If it was a wargamer, I am concerned that it affects how we read history because in a certain corner of the world whenever we see wagon lagers defended, we read WAR WAGON and get excited by the exotic.
Defending wagons or using wagons in a defensive position as per Anthony's image is probably incredibly common. Possibly about as common as moving supplies around in a wagon. i.e. very.
But, as Duncan puts it...
Quote from: Duncan Head on October 30, 2018, 02:11:49 PM
The distinctive features of the Hussites seem to be:
- Purpose-built wagons
- Promotion to a main arm of the army
- Alleged offensive use
... This does not sound very common at all. I doubt this was commonly imitated by all of the Hussite neighbours. As Duncan observed, even the article sited suggests that the Hussite's offensive use was rare.
If War Wagons are not a thing outside of wargaming, it would help to be more specific about what we are actually suggesting when we make a historical claim, or else I for one get lost as to what we are imagining.
Alternatively, if War Wagons were just unique-to-Hussite scenario rules and not unit types, would there be much to talk about?
Quote from: Dangun on October 31, 2018, 08:18:17 AM
Who coined the term "war wagon"?
Not sure, but the Wikipedia entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_wagon) and the use of the term as a title for a 1967 John Wayne film both indicate it was not coined by wargamers.
The use of baggage wagons in a defensive array was common enough on medieval battlefields - the Hussites were building on a long tradition. They had even been used as deliberately to strengthen the army's position, rather than just defending themselves such as Campaldino 1289, Mons-en-Pevele in 1304 and probably Crecy 1346.
The big change regarding the Hussites have been bullet pointed by Duncan. Hussite wagons became adapted military vehicles, with dedicated crews and weaponry. They could move into action and deploy (and apparently Hussite wagon units had worked methodologies for doing so). Previously, wagon fortifications had to be built prior to an action. They became central to, rather than ad hoc additions to, tactics.
As to whether only Hussites did this, we'd need to look further. Certainly, the Nuremberg battle in 1502 that we've discussed features modified vehicles, a move to take up a position as part of the action (albeit unsuccessful) and armed vehicle crews.
Even if they are mainly a Hussite thing, I'm not sure why that should exclude them as a subject of interest.
Quote from: Dangun on October 31, 2018, 08:18:17 AM
Who coined the term "war wagon"?
Not sure, but Oman was using "war-waggon", referring to the Hussites, in 1885.
Hussites were hired by the Hungarian general Janos Hunyadi against the Turks and brought the wagonburg/wagenbergen tactics with them. Presumably Hunyadi saw the benefit against an army that was primarily cavalry (as had the Hussites). However, the Turks learned fast.
Chase thinks the Turks adopted the tactic (described as the Tabor) in the 1440s, specifically at the second battle of Kosovo in 1448 where the Kapıkulu corps occupied a wagonburg at the centre of a staked and entrenched Turkish line.
Uyar and Erickson in 'The Military History of the Ottomans' (http://psi424.cankaya.edu.tr/uploads/files/Uyar%20and%20Erickson%20(eds_),%20A%20Military%20Hist%20of%20the%20Ottomans.PDF)
show that by the mid 15thC the Turks had a special formation 'The Hearth of Artillery Wagoners which was not only in charge of the artillery but was responsible for forming the tabor in battle order.
Quote from: Dangun on October 31, 2018, 08:18:17 AM
Who coined the term "war wagon"?
Quote from: Duncan Head on October 30, 2018, 02:11:49 PM
The distinctive features of the Hussites seem to be:
- Purpose-built wagons
- Promotion to a main arm of the army
- Alleged offensive use
... This does not sound very common at all. I doubt this was commonly imitated by all of the Hussite neighbours. As Duncan observed, even the article sited suggests that the Hussite's offensive use was rare.
Well, the neighbours are all using purpose built wagons.
They are a key part of the tactics of the Hungarians, Ottomans, Poles and Russians. Sometimes they are a key part of the German tactics.
The Hungarians and Ottomans are definitely noted as using them offensively. I'm less familiar with the Russians and Polish.
The Hussites wagons are generally a larger proportion of the army but even this changes with time, with more use of cavalry and probably infantry fronted by pavises*.
The difficulty is partly down to the intention generally being to deploy them before the battle to form a laager. This doesn't seem, on the face of it, any different to the improvised use of wagons elsewhere.
However, the key difference seems to be that whereas an improvised laager was generally there for when things were going badly, when a wagonburg was used the enemy was deliberately drawn towards it where protected shooters - often supported by artillery - could hopefully mow down the enemy.
There must have been something sufficiently different about the tactics that the use is specifically stated to be learnt, usually from Hussite instructors. The Ottomans apparently had a specialist unit.
*This being a different conversation which I think may have been on this forum and certainly has been on the DBMM yahoo group.
Quote from: Swampster on October 31, 2018, 10:28:13 AM
The Hussites wagons are generally a larger proportion of the army but even this changes with time, with more use of cavalry and probably infantry fronted by pavises*.
...
*This being a different conversation which I think may have been on this forum and certainly has been on the DBMM yahoo group.
In the Bohemo-Thuringian army rented out to the archbishop of Cologne for the Soester Feud in the 1440s, the same infantry had both wagons and pavises. Presumably they could fight either from the wagons or on foot as circumstances demanded.
These guys were principally armed with crossbows and ended up being classified as Bw (X) in the DBMM lists. At Wenzenbach a couple generations later the pavises are still present but the men behind them appear to have been mostly pikemen. This
ought be Pk (X) in DBMM terms but for unclear reasons Phil instead had all Bohemians replaced by Landsknechte at this date.
Keeping my wargamer hat on, I remain somewhat puzzled that war wagons and other wagon fortifications work very differently in many rulessets. (I believe it's the DBMM Post-Mongol Russian list that allows
the same wagons to be fielded as either War-Wagons or Temporary Fortifications, with quite different game effect.) If Duncan's list of differences is accurate, it seems to me they should differ in being more mobile and numerous, and perhaps more efficient thanks to being purpose-built, but largely work the same in combat.
Quote from: Dangun on October 31, 2018, 08:18:17 AM
Who coined the term "war wagon"?
The term would seem to be Anglo-Saxon ' wig-waegn' , though that is used in a translation of Orosius and refers to Pharaoh's chariots.
Going back to the geographical significance, Piccolomini does say "Bohemia, with its broad and level fields, offers good opportunities to align carts and wagons, to spread them apart, and to bring them together again." Another chronicle says "The Bohemians, among who you would find much level ground and few ditches, enclose their cavalry and infantry within wagons."
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on October 31, 2018, 12:26:31 PM
In the Bohemo-Thuringian army rented out to the archbishop of Cologne for the Soester Feud in the 1440s, the same infantry had both wagons and pavises. Presumably they could fight either from the wagons or on foot as circumstances demanded.
The Hussites also carried some pavises with each wagon though perhaps only enough to cover gaps between the wagons initially.
The Pechenegs also have the option of fielding the same wagons as WWg or TF.
Using baggage waggons for defensive purposes is , as someone said, a commonplace. The Helvetii fall back to them against Caesar, IIRC Boadicea's mob die around their wagons. Germanus, a Justinianic general in Africa instals his unsteady infantry in a line of beggage wagons.
The Visigoths in the fourth and early fift century have wagons with coverings of skins and possibly other adaptations to fighting.tgat make their wagon circle more than just an ad hoc defence.
Pechenegs have a wagon leaguer adapted for defence with stakes and mobile barriers that allowed cavalry to retire into the ring and emerge from it. Warriors with specialist weapons such a hooks on long poles for catching opponents who rode too close.
Hussites seem to have moved wagons on the battlefield only when caught on the move by the enemy abd thus taking the devision to keep going. Can we really call that an attacking useage,
The Ottomans used wagons, but I would be really interested to hear of examples of them ir others using wagons that moved on tge battlefield. Turks formed wagon defences and manned them with missile infantry and cannn, but they stayed still in the battle, probably for the same reason that Babur used wagons amd palisades in India, that their missile infantry would have had a thin time against masses of cavalry, or in Babur's case opposing elephants.
So is there evidence of war wagons actually moving during the fighting? It would have been really difficult to keep a line of ambulant wagons together especially drawn by long trains of oxen.
Roy
Piccolomini's description does involve them moving on the battlefield in a tactical way, not simply to escape.
All I know of the Ottomans moving their offensively is that it says so here https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=JgfNBKHG7S8C&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=tabur+cengi&source=bl&ots=ttfp1dufR2&sig=qo6aSiWyOhx_ophXA20JKyadc6I&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi-lPC4zLHeAhUPXMAKHTvrC7AQ6AEwCHoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q=tabur%20cengi&f=false
Does anyone have the book to check the reference?
The difficulty of moving them on the battlefield seems to be the thing which the Hussites had made progress on and why others tended to need Bohemians to teach them.
Quote from: Swampster on October 31, 2018, 09:19:17 PM
The difficulty of moving them on the battlefield seems to be the thing which the Hussites had made progress on and why others tended to need Bohemians to teach them.
A good observation. Nobody really needed Bohemian guidance just to show them how to draw up a wagon laager. Accustoming drivers to follow leaders and cooperate while on the move, and coordinated formations of vehicles to surround and/or slice through enemy lines, would have required some expertise.
Quote from: Swampster on October 31, 2018, 09:19:17 PM
All I know of the Ottomans moving their offensively is that it says so here https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=JgfNBKHG7S8C&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=tabur+cengi&source=bl&ots=ttfp1dufR2&sig=qo6aSiWyOhx_ophXA20JKyadc6I&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi-lPC4zLHeAhUPXMAKHTvrC7AQ6AEwCHoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q=tabur%20cengi&f=false
Does anyone have the book to check the reference?
No sadly but Warfare in Eastern Europe, 1500-1800 edited by Brian Davies says 'On some occasions the Ottomans also used their tabur offensively as a slow mobile fortress'.
Doubt it was ever used to cut the enemies 'T' however in the open field. In fact I struggle to visualise how this would be used; any ideas?
If anyone has Firearms: A Global History to 1700 by Kenneth Chase there is reference to this on page 97.
The main reference is in; Emanuel Constantin Antoche, ''Du Tabor de JanZ ˇ izˇka et de Jean Hunyadi au Tabur C¸ engi des Arme´es Ottomanes: L'art Militaire Hussite en Europe Orientale, au Proche et au Moyen Orient (XV–XVII sie´cles),'' Turcica, vol. 36, 2004, 104–106, 110–116.'
Quote from: rodge on November 01, 2018, 10:54:52 AM
No sadly but Warfare in Eastern Europe, 1500-1800 edited by Brian Davies says 'On some occasions the Ottomans also used their tabur offensively as a slow mobile fortress'.
I find myself wondering if a tactical or operational offensive is meant.
QuoteDoubt it was ever used to cut the enemies 'T' however in the open field. In fact I struggle to visualise how this would be used; any ideas?
If anyone has Firearms: A Global History to 1700 by Kenneth Chase there is reference to this on page 97.
I used to have that one on my wishlist, but I removed it after reading a lukewarm review (https://muse.jhu.edu/article/182477). I'm suddenly feeling the impulse to re-add it.
(To summarize the review very briefly, Morillo says that Chase presents an excellent array of facts in the service of a deeply flawed analytic framework.)
I wonder if the 'offensive' means the use of the wagons as a screen on the march, we know the Muscovites amongst others did this. So operational makes sense.
There is a reference (somewhere) to wagons full of stones being unleashed downhill on the enemy, but the formation is a defence/offence weapon
to me, luring enemy cavalry within range (in the ottoman case by feigned retreat) then letting their hubris pull then onto the guns and close combat weapons.
Quote from: rodge on November 01, 2018, 10:54:52 AM
The main reference is in; Emanuel Constantin Antoche, ''Du Tabor de JanZ ˇ izˇka et de Jean Hunyadi au Tabur C¸ engi des Arme´es Ottomanes: L'art Militaire Hussite en Europe Orientale, au Proche et au Moyen Orient (XV–XVII sie´cles),'' Turcica, vol. 36, 2004, 104–106, 110–116.'
The Antoche article is available here http://poj.peeters-leuven.be/content.php?id=578725&url=article&download=yes
It is mostly in French.
Quote from: Swampster on November 01, 2018, 12:39:18 PM
It is mostly in French.
Merde. Over to the linguists then. Thanks for the link.
Roy has checked Antoche's book pages 104–106, 110–116 (the foot note info) and it seems there is no mention of the Turks using a tabor offensively.
There are two major problems for wagon forts operating on the move .
Firstly once you put artillery into the wagonburg it becomes incredibly difficult to fire and move. Even quite light fifteenth century guns are clumsy and heavy and need powder and balls, ramrods, sponges, the thingy what routs out burning wadding from the barrel, buckets of water and so on.
Secondly, any disruption of the line of wagons screws up anything moving behind the blockage and a gap will appear in the line . If an opponent gets both sides of the waggon then it can be mobbed and overwhelmed.
There is plenty of evidence for stationary wagon forts and lots of logic, it provides an effective way to incorporate immobile artillery and harden up troops such as arquebusiers that would find it difficult to resist horsemen, but are dangerous to cavalry if the horse are stalled in front of them. Plenty of logic and plenty of source material for wagons stationary on the field of battle, but not much for wagons moving tactically. That does not prevent an army moving forward aggressively and placing its tabor in the face of the enemy.
Roy
I found this quote from George Gush's Renaissance Armies interesting. It post dates our period but it does reflect an evolved Tabor model
In emergency, the tabor could even be used in the attack. To escape a surprise by stronger forces, the wagons, packed with infantry, were formed into several small columns and driven full-tilt at the enemy centre, the cavalry riding on the flanks and exploiting the break-through. This actually worked on more than one occasion, though at the cost of losing the slower-moving artillery.
As I know very little about 16th-17th century Poles I'll leave it to others to expand.
One other thing I noted when checking Delbruck's account of war wagons was he notes that the Hussites are recorded as using offensive tactics with a wagonberg at the battle of Klattau in 1426 according to a report by Andreas of Regensberg. I don't know if anyone has access to that.
I'd love to know where he found the source for that (seriously).
It is 'crossing the T'!
If it ever happened it must have been some sight...
Hi there
I have seen a wonderful you-tube clip from a movie showing war-wagons moving to quickly deploy - from column to line.
When the first wagon moved to its desired position the second would drive to a position slightly behind it such that the horses were now behind the cart of the first wagon relative to the enemy and were thus protected by it.
The third would likewise from up on the second, and so on down the line which would be gently stepped as the enemy saw it.
The deployment was completed remarkably quickly and if it reflected historical practice you could imagine the horse teams being unhitched from their now covered protection or perhaps left in place if there was a need for a quick move to new position.
The movie was not in English and I think about the Hussites - somebody with good searching skills might be able to find it.
This is not the movie I was thinking of, but is pretty cool anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMVGUm-J1zQ
Regards
David F Brown
You have to love communist era historic movies.
Especially the medieval ones
Quote from: evilgong on November 03, 2018, 01:11:37 AM
Hi there
I have seen a wonderful you-tube clip from a movie showing war-wagons moving to quickly deploy - from column to line.
When the first wagon moved to its desired position the second would drive to a position slightly behind it such that the horses were now behind the cart of the first wagon relative to the enemy and were thus protected by it.
The third would likewise from up on the second, and so on down the line which would be gently stepped as the enemy saw it.
The deployment was completed remarkably quickly and if it reflected historical practice you could imagine the horse teams being unhitched from their now covered protection or perhaps left in place if there was a need for a quick move to new position.
The movie was not in English and I think about the Hussites - somebody with good searching skills might be able to find it.
This is not the movie I was thinking of, but is pretty cool anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMVGUm-J1zQ
Regards
David F Brown
Love it!
Great stuff
Here is a helpful diagram of how they did it.
(https://weaponsandwarfare.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/b3181bf32eee0915c3537486367a41f6.jpg?w=584&h=490)
Note the upper picture of a more deliberate deployment shows the baggage wagons in the centre and the maze-like interior as described in one of the sources quoted in the Slingshot article
A couple of wagons draw up in that style in this clip around the 7 minute mark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0GWk-5aF4E&t=417s
Later on, you can see the staggered effect which results.
Quote from: evilgong on November 03, 2018, 01:11:37 AM
Hi there
I have seen a wonderful you-tube clip from a movie showing war-wagons moving to quickly deploy - from column to line.
When the first wagon moved to its desired position the second would drive to a position slightly behind it such that the horses were now behind the cart of the first wagon relative to the enemy and were thus protected by it.
The third would likewise from up on the second, and so on down the line which would be gently stepped as the enemy saw it.
The deployment was completed remarkably quickly and if it reflected historical practice you could imagine the horse teams being unhitched from their now covered protection or perhaps left in place if there was a need for a quick move to new position.
The movie was not in English and I think about the Hussites - somebody with good searching skills might be able to find it.
This is not the movie I was thinking of, but is pretty cool anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMVGUm-J1zQ
Regards
David F Brown
No replica weapon was harmed in the making of this film. ;)
The extra wooden panels on the sides of the wagons are interesting: I had thought them to be pull-up protection for the crews, but in the films they just hang at the sides like spaced armour.
Does anyone know what their actual purpose was?
My guess would be that they would stop penetration by crossbow bolts and offer some protection against gunpowder weapons. I should think that melee weapons might also be able to smash in the sides of a standard wagon.
They may also have been a way of making it harder to climb the sides of the wagon, especially as the top of the wheels are covered.
Various modern reconstructions show the use of loopholes and similar, but I think that would make close-in defence of the wagons difficult if the sides are too high to see over. (Though one of the period illustrations linked to before has the under-wagon protection which can be fired through, which would help).
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on November 03, 2018, 09:20:55 PM
No replica weapon was harmed in the making of this film. ;)
The extra wooden panels on the sides of the wagons are interesting: I had thought them to be pull-up protection for the crews, but in the films they just hang at the sides like spaced armour.
Does anyone know what their actual purpose was?
Spaced armour would work 8)
The illustrations also seem to show the wagons as 'open' rather than with the sides pulled up and locked in place, so we may be on to something here, gentlemen.
I think Jim is right: spaced armour would work, and Peter's observations about these side panels being crossbow-bolt stoppers and a hindrance to climbers and side-smashers are spot on. Knights with a good run-up might have been able to thrust lances through the sides of a standard wagon, but not through these shock-absorbent side panels and the side of a wagon.
The system would be rather less useful against artillery, but then it did not initially need to protect against artillery.
The wooden panels are drawn from real images - they can be seen in the Nuremberg examples we examined earlier in the thread. It may come down to how sturdy the underlying structure is. We assume they are all heavy plank-sided wagons, but baggage wagon of the time could be open framed or have wicker panels between the frames, both of which would need reinforcement if modified for war-wagon use.
The crenellations and loopholes may be a retro-fit from later developments e.g. type seen in the famous Hausbuch illustrations, which were more specialised.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Hausbuch_Wolfegg_51v_52r1_Heerzug.jpg)
Note incidentally the baggage wagons with their built up wicker sides.
This article (http://www.medievalists.net/2019/01/wagenberg-war-wagons/) may be of interest. Doesn't say a huge amount we haven't covered on Hungarian examples but there is some stuff on Ottoman use.
A poll: should war wagons be allowed to move after deployment?
Quote from: Dangun on January 29, 2019, 01:52:53 AM
A poll: should war wagons be allowed to move after deployment?
I would say yes, provided their troop quality was above average.
This is something of an abstraction, based on the reported ability of Hussite war wagons to act offensively and in particular Zizka's breakout at Kutna Hora. Ordinary/average war wagons in most armies can be presumed to be parked at deployment in such a way that they have no option but to stay there (inspanned etc.). Superior war wagons can remain harnessed up for movement or can be re-harnessed during the action; their crews know what they are doing and their officers can direct the necessary movements.
That would entirely depend on your game scale.
Quote from: Dangun on January 29, 2019, 01:52:53 AM
A poll: should war wagons be allowed to move after deployment?
Depends on the wagon. The Roman anti-elephant wagons moved to counter Pyrrhos' elephants, according to Dionysios (20.2.4):
QuoteWhen the king had ordered the elephants to be led up to the part of the line that was in difficulties, the Romans mounted on the pole-bearing waggons, upon learning of the approach of the beasts, drove to meet them.
Noticed this (http://www.etd.ceu.hu/2014/bena_samuel.pdf) while looking at late medieval infantry. Interesting for the amount of Bohemian tactical manual of Vaclav Vlcek quoted, which I don't think was discussed earlier.