War Wagons (Slingshot)

[Dangun]

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.

[Andreas Johansson]

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.

[Duncan Head]

I didn't get the impression from the texts sited that the wagons were anything other than regular wagons.

According to Ian Heath, the first Hussite war-wagons were ordinary peasant carts but later ones were purpose-built.

[Duncan Head]

This article and this one have some light to throw on Hussite wagon-warfare.

[Erpingham]

I think this is the best contemporary image of war wagons we have



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?

[Swampster]

.

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.

[Justin Swanton]

And... 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.

[Swampster]

I think this is the best contemporary image of war wagons we have



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.

[Erpingham]

This 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. 

[Dangun]

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.

[Erpingham]

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.

[Andreas Johansson]

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.

[Erpingham]

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 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.

[Duncan Head]

Either 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)
  

[Swampster]

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.

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.