Talk:Tabor (formation)

Huh?

I smell an urban legend somewhere here; probably because of Taborites. I've already fixed some bullshit in the intro. I will check further. `'mikka (t) 02:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poland/Ukraine

Military History Online suggests that the picture is of a "Cossack tabor", with references suggeting it's of the "Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth/Empire"... --Michael Noel Jones 19:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double Merge

I'm not exactly sure how we go about doing this, but Wagenburg and Laager need to be merged into this topic as all three are essentially the same thing. (This note has been reproduced on the talk pages of the relevant articles.) 70.17.204.76 00:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss it here (note left at two other articles). They indeed describe the same phenomena, only in different historical/geographical areas. The problem is, what is the best name - currently we have a south-african, german and polish/czech variants. Best solution would be a term used in English language... 'defence wagon formation'?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Also a section about Wild West may be incorporated there; see Wagon train. Yes, a commonly used english term is better to be found. I see eg wagon fort (not very many uses). `'mikka 21:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even the English-language terms really refer to particular subtypes of this tactic; I would suggest that something generally descriptive—"use of wagons as field fortifications", for example—may be more useful than a noun phrase, even if it makes for a longer title. Kirill Lokshin 02:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about a slightly truncated version: Wagons as field fortifications? The article itself then sectionned by term?--Dryzen 15:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm wouldn't NC prefer Wagons (field fortifications)? What about Wagon fortifications?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wagon fort is found 75 times by Google Books, so I guess, this is the best what we can get, and makes sense, too. And BTW plenty of material, Includin American history. BTW, tabor = laager = "camp" `'mikka 01:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... and about Goths as well! This is thye last straw that convinces me to go ahead with the merge. `'mikka 01:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created the stub of Wagon fort (btw, it turns out it was requested in MilitaryHistory wikiproject!), but the more I read of books, the more I am convinced that at least the Hussite's article must remain unmerged, because of its unique tactics. I don't know about Polish and Cossacks, but I see that the tradition of fortification of military camps by wagons (German: Feldlager) was quite common in medieval warfare. `'mikka 02:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand how is the Hussite invention any different from the rest. Sure, the tactics was modified by all armies to employ it, but the basic scheme was the same. Besides, it seems that the Polish/Cossack tabors were simply an effect of the evolution of the Hussite formation and its direct descendants (Hussites fought along the Poles against the Teutons and around that time the Poles started to use the wagon formations as well). I'm not sure if there is any link between the tactics used by the Czechs and a similar tactics used by the Mongols, but the concept was the same.

In short, I believe we should merge all the articles into Wagon fort, with a lengthy lead describing the various peculiarities and the evolution of the concept, and with sub-sections on various armies. //Halibu tt 08:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No objection. `'mikka 18:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support merger, updated tags.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: while I have no objections to merge, I still see that Hussites will eventually deserve a special page because there is LOTS of material about them: obviously they made an impression on their enemies by inginuous use of this tactics. `'mikka 17:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support merging wagenburg, tabor (formation), laager and wagon fort.

It may be best to merge into this article, since it has a long history and isn't as specific as "wagenburg", and then move to "wagon fort". History should probably be merged from wagenburg, since it is quite well developed. —Michael Z. 2007-07-14 15:50 Z

After some thinking, I begin opposing the multimerge. Wagenburg and tabor indeed speak about the same historical and very specific topic. On the other hand, laager and corrals of American Frontier settlers is quite different, both historically and tactically. So I guess there must be three articles: Wagon fort as main article with Tabor and Laager as important developments: the latter tow have virtually no overlap in content, and there is no reason to mechanically put them into one text. On the other hand Wagenburg and tabor are indeed prime example of a fork to be killed. `'Míkka 17:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The tactical differences establishes important distinguishing factors that cause me to also oppose the merger. I defer to Míkka's argument above. • Freechild'sup? 17:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely, seeing as all articles are under 9kb, and they're essentially the same article. Geosultan4 (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]