War Wagons (Slingshot)

[Dangun]

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...

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?

[Patrick Waterson]

Who coined the term "war wagon"?

Not sure, but the Wikipedia entry and the use of the term as a title for a 1967 John Wayne film both indicate it was not coined by wargamers.

[Erpingham]

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.

[Duncan Head]

Who coined the term "war wagon"?

Not sure, but Oman was using "war-waggon", referring to the Hussites, in 1885.

[rodge]

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.

[Swampster]

Who coined the term "war wagon"?

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.

[Andreas Johansson]

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.

[Swampster]

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."

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.

[aligern]

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

[Swampster]

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

[rodge]

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.'

[Andreas Johansson]

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.

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.

I used to have that one on my wishlist, but I removed it after reading a lukewarm review. 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.)

[rodge]

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.

[Swampster]

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.