Cases where war wagons caused their users to decisively lose the battle?

[No Bias FTW]

I think this is the common understanding: wagons were one of the most important arms in warfare history, carrying supplies and providing ready-made fortifications on the march. Despite them requiring more resources to build and operate than smaller carts (and both probably having low flexibility - pack animals by themselves can travel up rugged passes, for instance), the longevity of their presence on the battlefield - including something like the laagers during the 19th Century - shows that their values were recognized.

Fun illustration below:


Yet, virtually all weapons have disadvantages that could be exploited - even super weapons. With the Hussites, I am told that one of the ways to subvert the weapon would be to lure the soldiers from their wagon fort. I am interested to know, however, if there were battles where the wagons and their accessories were much more directly responsible for the defeat of the users. Are there any cases where the enemy was smart enough to commit subterfuge, quickly lighting the wagons carrying gunpowder on fire and causing a catastrophic chain reaction throughout the makeshift fortification?

[Sar1n]

The weaknesses of heavy wagons, especially for wagon fort tactics, is that they restrict the mobility and dictate the composition, equipment and battlefield tactics of the army using them. In a sense, their opportunity cost.

The best example of this is battle of Hiltersried. A raiding, nearly 2000 troops strong including 400 cavalry contingent, Hussite army was attacked by significantly smaller force of approx. 300 cavalry, 600 foot troops and few hundred peasant militia. Hussites attempted to form a wagon fort, but doing this quickly in battlefield conditions require well trained drivers. In this battle, one of them failed to line his wagon properly in time, which attackers exploited to create a breach and basically trap the Hussites inside the fort. Result, over 1200 Hussites killed and 300 captured, while Germans lost only 10 knights and approximately 130 other troops.

[Akar]

I can't believe I never realized that war wagons were actually used outside of fiction before this

[conon394]

The weaknesses of heavy wagons, especially for wagon fort tactics, is that they restrict the mobility and dictate the composition, equipment and battlefield tactics of the army using them. In a sense, their opportunity cost.

The best example of this is battle of Hiltersried. A raiding, nearly 2000 troops strong including 400 cavalry contingent, Hussite army was attacked by significantly smaller force of approx. 300 cavalry, 600 foot troops and few hundred peasant militia. Hussites attempted to form a wagon fort, but doing this quickly in battlefield conditions require well trained drivers. In this battle, one of them failed to line his wagon properly in time, which attackers exploited to create a breach and basically trap the Hussites inside the fort. Result, over 1200 Hussites killed and 300 captured, while Germans lost only 10 knights and approximately 130 other troops.

"battle of Hiltersried" Sounds like just a fortified camp in the normal way would have served them better.

[Sar1n]

"battle of Hiltersried" Sounds like just a fortified camp in the normal way would have served them better.

They were on the move, not encamped. Wagon fort could be deployed quickly if the troops were properly trained, which is why it became cornerstone of Hussite tactics, but one screwup could doom it.

I can't believe I never realized that war wagons were actually used outside of fiction before this

Battle of Kutná Hora should blow your mind. It's a first, and probably only, documented case where war wagons were used not as field fortifications but pretty much as tanks.

[No Bias FTW]

Thank you for sharing these highly amazing cases, Sar1n!

[Dick Cheney.]

While my answer will not feature war wagons, I would like to offer you and others another interesting case study.


The Battle of Watling Street (61AD)



By almost every conceivable measure, The Battle of Watling Street was a decisive military victory for the Romans. Some 80,000 Britons, out of an original force of 100,000-200,000 people, are estimated to have been killed during the battle. In this quite one-sided affair, the Romans may have been outnumbered by 10:1, yet they were able to prevail due to the thick forest on both flanks and a narrow defile that nullified the Britons' numerical advantage. Once the better armed and better trained Romans broke the charge of the Britons, they then pushed the Britons into their own baggage train. The masses of wagons, pack animals, women, noncombatants, and goods behind them prevented the Britons from fleeing the field. Tacitus, our primary source for this battle, tell us that no one was spared. Everyone, including animals, women, and children were slaughtered. As a result of this great defeat, and the huge losses suffered, the brave and charismatic leader of the Britons, Boudica, is also believed to have committed suicide. Roman rule in Britain would also go on without major British rebellion for the next 300 years.

If you're wanting a decisive and historical military defeat caused by wagons then, the Battle of Watling Street might just be a cool place to start.

[conon394]

A good example of an offer battle that should have been declined. I guess unless her logistics were collapsing or her hold on the force was tenuous there really is no good reason to have walked into the battle.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Suetonius had the fourteenth legion with the veterans of the twentieth, and auxiliaries from the neighbourhood, to the number of about ten thousand armed men, when he prepared to break off delay and fight a battle. He chose a position approached by a narrow defile, closed in at the rear by a forest, having first ascertained that there was not a soldier of the enemy except in his front, where an open plain extended without any danger from ambuscades. His legions were in close array; round them, the light-armed troops, and the cavalry in dense array on the wings. On the other side, the army of the Britons, with its masses of infantry and cavalry, was confidently exulting, a vaster host than ever had assembled, and so fierce in spirit that they actually brought with them, to witness the victory, their wives riding in waggons, which they had placed on the extreme border of the plain.

Boudicea, with her daughters before her in a chariot, went up to tribe after tribe, protesting that it was indeed usual for Britons to fight under the leadership of women. "But now," she said, "it is not as a woman descended from noble ancestry, but as one of the people that I am avenging lost freedom, my scourged body, the outraged chastity of my daughters. Roman lust has gone so far that not our very persons, nor even age or virginity, are left unpolluted. But heaven is on the side of a righteous vengeance; a legion which dared to fight has perished; the rest are hiding themselves in their camp, or are thinking anxiously of flight. They will not sustain even the din and the shout of so many thousands, much less our charge and our blows. If you weigh well the strength of the armies, and the causes of the war, you will see that in this battle you must conquer or die. This is a woman's resolve; as for men, they may live and be slaves."

Tacitus Annales, 14, 34-35

Boudicca'a authority was crumbling, although she had had several great victories on her side,

So she risked the battle to convince the tribes that she was THE MANLIEST WOMAN there to lead the army.

A Vercingetorix in this siuation would have had the freedom to reject battle and wait for another ambush battle.

[conon394]

Suetonius had the fourteenth legion with the veterans of the twentieth, and auxiliaries from the neighbourhood, to the number of about ten thousand armed men, when he prepared to break off delay and fight a battle. He chose a position approached by a narrow defile, closed in at the rear by a forest, having first ascertained that there was not a soldier of the enemy except in his front, where an open plain extended without any danger from ambuscades. His legions were in close array; round them, the light-armed troops, and the cavalry in dense array on the wings. On the other side, the army of the Britons, with its masses of infantry and cavalry, was confidently exulting, a vaster host than ever had assembled, and so fierce in spirit that they actually brought with them, to witness the victory, their wives riding in waggons, which they had placed on the extreme border of the plain.

Boudicea, with her daughters before her in a chariot, went up to tribe after tribe, protesting that it was indeed usual for Britons to fight under the leadership of women. "But now," she said, "it is not as a woman descended from noble ancestry, but as one of the people that I am avenging lost freedom, my scourged body, the outraged chastity of my daughters. Roman lust has gone so far that not our very persons, nor even age or virginity, are left unpolluted. But heaven is on the side of a righteous vengeance; a legion which dared to fight has perished; the rest are hiding themselves in their camp, or are thinking anxiously of flight. They will not sustain even the din and the shout of so many thousands, much less our charge and our blows. If you weigh well the strength of the armies, and the causes of the war, you will see that in this battle you must conquer or die. This is a woman's resolve; as for men, they may live and be slaves."

Tacitus Annales, 14, 34-35

Boudicca'a authority was crumbling, although she had had several great victories on her side,

So she risked the battle to convince the tribes that she was THE MANLIEST WOMAN there to lead the army.

A Vercingetorix in this siuation would have had the freedom to reject battle and wait for another ambush battle.

Than as now still sucks to a professional women. Always pegged as weak if you are not aggressive and be aggressive and then your a B-t-h. Still Suetonius was in a hard spot the 2nd legion never followed orders. His men must have been tired and he presumably still had to cover the refugees from Londinium. Should have waited him out.

[Cyclops]

I think this is the common understanding: wagons were one of the most important arms in warfare history, ...

Absolutely not.

There are specific instances where war wagons have been useful, but they are the exception not the rule. As mentioned above they probably fall into a subset of field fortifications, required a dedicated technical arm and examples are "quirky" instances that did not completely change warfare in their region or across military techs at the time or afterwards, in the way that say stirruped cavalry, field artillery or air forces have.

They had some utility in Eastern European steppe warfare under the early modern Russian states, and a short period in Bohemia when the Hussites (also using handguns serving inspired religious leaders) enjoyed some decades of independence from German feudal overlords.

Also 200,000 Britons in one field? I guess they were fed by migrating African swallows dropping coconuts.

[conon394]

Absolutely not.

I was assuming he was leaning heavy on the " carrying supplies" part to really make that statement work. Thus the weakest point in Engels the Logistics of 'Alex the great..." is trying to write wagons out of it.

edit: also on Dick Cheney's negative side would not add any army that because some victorious part got distracted looting the baggage/wagons and not reinforcing the rest of the still fighting army?

Also 200,000 Britons in one field? I guess they were fed by migrating African swallows dropping coconuts.

My favorite color is Blue, no...

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Where ist the Monster? Behind the rabbit?

Edit:

Even in quite modern times wagons played an important role as defensive obstacles.

Battle of Blood River - Wikipedia

[conon394]

How many Monty Python jokes can you add till you are in OT posting trouble from the mods?

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

As Long as you talking in the Post ontopic too endless.

[Dick Cheney.]

I think we can also add the Battle of the Carts (335BC) to this discussion. I am not familiar with this battle, but apparently Alexander the Great may also have ran into some war wagons while he was campaigning in Thrace. In this battle, recorded by Arrian, wagons and carts were used as suicide vehicles against the Macedonian phalanx.

The artist's image below shows mountain tribesmen hurling wagons loaded with stones at the Macedonian phalanx as it tries to advance its way up a mountain.



Some very quick thinking by Alexander, however, seems to have saved the day. Members of the phalanx were told to break formation, run to their left or right, and simply let the carts though. Those still caught in the Macedonian phalanx who could not disperse were told to crouch down and form a shield wall. Apparently, the carts slid harmlessly over the Macedonians who were crouching beneath their shields. No one was killed.

On the general topic of war wagons then, I lean towards the side that says they were not effective weapons of war. Had they been a serious and frequent challenge to ancient and medieval armies, we would have seen many sides copy their use or deliberately devise other weapons and tactics to be used against them. Alexander’s quick thinking in Thrace could not have been planned or well thought-out, and there is some real debate with historians as to how a shield wall with the Macedonian phalanx could have actually worked. Nevertheless, infantry maneuvering against war wagons (as with chariots, cavalry, missiles, and elephants) appears to have been possible. The great advantage of war wagons, if used as offensive weapons at all, appears to have been generated more from the element of surprise and surprise tactics, and not from a revolution in arms.