Philippe Mousket's Chronique Rhimee and his "King from the land of Vlachs." Who is this guy?

[Romano-Dacis]

So basically Philippe Mousket mentions an interesting thing in his "Rhymed Chronicle." He mentions that in 1242 a "king from the land of Vlachs" defeated the Mongols, much to the resounding joy of all who heard the news. This would technically be the only European victory against the Mongols. Here are my sources:
http://www.raven-glass.com/vlad/romania/room6.html

http://books.google.ca/books?id=QOpo...Bias%22&pgis=1

http://d.scribd.com/docs/ylqkrrcicjs4fsftxsy.pdf

http://www.academie-villecroze.com/p...%20Tomescu.pdf

Mousket specifically writes: "Que li rois de la tiere as Blas" (the king from the land of Vlachs). He mentions that the Mongol army was defeated "at the passes" which I assume are the passes of the Carpathian mountains. Now, what is interesting is that French chronicles also wrote of the 2nd Bulgarian Empire as the Empire of Vlachs and Cumans, and Philippe Mousket personally wrote of Joannitsa/Kaloyan as "Et la seconde ot Jehanins Sires des Blas et des Comins" (John the IInd Sire of the Vlachs and Cumans). The complete phrase about the "King from the Land of Vlachs" is (in Romanian) "a venit veste despre tatari, cu mare bucurie in lumea toata, cum ca regele din tara vlahilor i-a invins la trecatori" ("news arrived of the tatars, with great joy of the whole world, about how the king from the land of vlachs defeated them at the passes.") [original French: des Tartares revint noviele / Ki partot le monde fu biele / Que li rois de la tiere as Blas / les ot descomfis a un pas]

So who was this guy? Was he:
a) The 2nd Bulgarian Emperor (who also ruled over a large number of Vlachs)
b) A Romanian/Vlach voievode from South of the Carpathians in modern Wallachia.
c) A Romanian/Vlach cneaz from the Terra Blachorum ("land of Vlachs", Southern Transylvania)
d) Complete made-up BS. Mousket was pissed that Europe got its ass kicked by the Mongols and he needed a hero.

[bushbush]

only god knows. Sources available really offer too little to get a concrete answer.

[Romano-Dacis]

Maybe, but we can at least make an educated guess. That's why I need help.
For instance, what do we know about the control of the 2nd Bulgarian Empire North of the Danube? Does it make sense to have Bulgarians fighting Tatars in the Carpathians? Did the Bulgarians even fight against the Tatars? C'mon, help me out guys.

[Carpathian Wolf]

But if we had to make an educated guess I think the answer is obvious.

[bushbush]

But if we had to make an educated guess I think the answer is obvious.

really? if you can come up an obvious answer out of one line in a chronicle, then I demand you to show everyone the time machine you have.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Provide an alternative.

[bushbush]

Provide an alternative.

just read the OP man. If you are going to convince people with ONE line in a chronicle, it's a difficult thing to do.

my educated guess is that it's more or less a propaganda move. With the string of defeats at the hand of Mongolians, people needed a lift. When the Mongols were withdrawing, some local leaders beat up some Tatars who lost contact with the main body. This little victory is passed on as a great one as a way to encourage more resistance against the invaders.

but honestly this is just all speculation. The battle itself has literally no description. Was it a battle of 5 vs 5 or 5000 vs 5000?

it's toooo vague

[Romano-Dacis]

What I'm wondering is if we can relate the leader to anyone else in the region. Is this the same Mishelav, the Vlach cneaz, mentioned by Rashed-ed-Din? Is this "Olaha", a vlach voievod from Moldavia? Is he Litovoi, Seneslav or Farkas (the three leaders mentioned in the Joanite Diploma of 1247)? Could it be the same Bazaramban (a Basarab dynast?) who was also recorded as fighting against the Mongols?

I doubt it's a propaganda move because it would be very strange for a French chronicler to praise Vlachs, who above all were the sworn enemies of the Franks and the 4th Crusade. It would be like Crusader sources praising Muslims for destroying the Mongols. This leads me to believe something serious victory did happen, but I find it hard to figure out what exactly.

[bushbush]

What I'm wondering is if we can relate the leader to anyone else in the region. Is this the same Mishelav, the Vlach cneaz, mentioned by Rashed-ed-Din? Is this "Olaha", a vlach voievod from Moldavia? Is he Litovoi, Seneslav or Farkas (the three leaders mentioned in the Joanite Diploma of 1247)?

wasn't Mislav defeated by the Mongols?

http://books.google.ca/books?id=YIAY...#PRA3-PA411,M1

p411

I don't know. We can only guess.

I doubt it's a propaganda move because it would be very strange for a French chronicler to praise Vlachs, who above all were the sworn enemies of the Franks and the 4th Crusade. It would be like Crusader sources praising Muslims for destroying the Mongols. This leads me to believe something serious victory did happen, but I find it hard to figure out what exactly.

well you have to take account into the spread of information at the time. People don't have cable tv broadcasting the war. The event arrived at the hand of chronicle writer may vastly be different from what actually happened on the ground. But it's too hard to know, only even there were some details left.

[Carpathian Wolf]

I'm wondering why you are so quick to assume the variant that is least likley. I don't want to over step with my statement but I took Romano Dacis' last option d) as more of a joke and no one would take it seriously and yet...

[Romano-Dacis]

bushbush, regardless of how sketchy the info was, why would he use it to praise the Vlachs of all people? They pretty much destroyed the 4th crusade. Most crusader troubadours didn't like Vlachs at all. Mousket therefore would be more likely to pin the success on, I dunno, at least someone who was Catholic, rather than "schismatic" Vlachs.

[bushbush]

bushbush, I realize the information was different, but even if the chronicler recieved sketchy information to begin with, why would he use it to praise the Vlachs of all people? They pretty much destroyed the 4th crusade. Most crusader troubadours didn't like Vlachs at all. Mousket therefore would be more likely to pin the success on, I dunno, at least someone who was Catholic, rather than "schismatic" Vlachs.

well if that's the information he got, he might as well wrote it down. But the alarmingly lack of details on the battle makes me wonder what happened to the information along the way.

but seriously though, we are making WILD guesses here from ONE line in a medieval chronicle.

i am there is a reason why history books didn't mention this little story much. It really has nothing concrete to draw upon.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Interesting that you seem to consider the validity of history to be a popularity contest.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Do we have any evidence on the size of the Mongol armies? How reliable is Mousket based on his general writings? Do we have any Mongol\local written material on this supposed battle?

Based on that information I could either a)Deny it, claiming that Mousket is an unreliable source and the lack of good other writings, b)Conclude it was a victory of the Vlachs against the Mongols... against c)a minor mongol party, based on the lack of historical accounts or anything stressing the strategical importance of this battle or d)a major Mongol defeat, based on my personal faith (?).

Praising someone for a victory might have as well stemmed from a victimhood complex. There were plenty of nasty histories about Mongols circulating all across Europe at the time, and even a minor victory would be buzzed up by some people as a great achievement. As it stands, I'm more tempted to believe it was a minor engagement without the relative importance of the early battles against King Bela and the Poles. Nothing really prevented them from almost reaching the Gates of Vienna earlier, and given their situation at 1242 it was most likely a retreat.

Though I'm still tempted to dismiss this as utter bollocks. Poles and Hungarians get defeated by Mongols, so to satisfy his ego he invents a battle using another people "more capable" of facing them, presumably based on bad Crusading experiences.

[bushbush]

Interesting that you seem to consider the validity of history to be a popularity contest.

popularity contest? :hmmm:

I am basing validity of history on evidence, which is next to none here. How do you expect historians to write anything if nothing is there?

their job is to study, not invent.

[Romano-Dacis]

Good point Voltaire: maybe Mousket was trying to save his own crusader ass by saying "ahh, but these Vlachs are such badasses, they even defeated the Mongols!" In this way he both saves face and provides a rousing tale in one stanza of his poem.

BTW, if it wasn't made clear, this was during the Mongol retreat in 1242. They were fighting the withdrawing Mongols at the passes of the Carpathians. I agree that it was probably a minor battle since the Mongols don't even mention it.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Well your explanation seems reasonable then.

[bushbush]

Good point Voltaire: maybe Mousket was trying to save his own crusader ass by saying "ahh, but these Vlachs are such badasses, they even defeated the Mongols!"

well, just another guess, out of so many guesses we can make. Maybe an UFO comes and used their mind-controlling device on Mousket to write the vlachs did it.

who knows?

[Carpathian Wolf]

popularity contest? :hmmm:

I am basing validity of history on evidence, which is next to none here. How do you expect historians to write anything if nothing is there?

their job is to study, not invent.

What did I invent?

Good point Voltaire: maybe Mousket was trying to save his own crusader ass by saying "ahh, but these Vlachs are such badasses, they even defeated the Mongols!" In this way he both saves face and provides a rousing tale in one stanza of his poem.

BTW, if it wasn't made clear, this was during the Mongol retreat in 1242. They were fighting the withdrawing Mongols at the passes of the Carpathians. I agree that it was probably a minor battle since the Mongols don't even mention it.

It is more probable the Mongols didn't mention it because of the rivalry between the successors' infighting and not wanting to lose face to one another than some Frenchman's European Union sentimentality.

Question remainds why would the Crusaders, enemy of the Vlachs praise them? Wouldn't they try to mark it off as "oh well they just got lucky"?

[bushbush]

What did I invent?

I don't think I said you invented anything.

It is more probable the Mongols didn't mention it because of the rivalry between the successors' infighting and not wanting to lose face to one another than some Frenchman's European Union sentimentality.

Question remainds why would the Crusaders, enemy of the Vlachs praise them? Wouldn't they try to mark it off as "oh well they just got lucky"?

both theories could be tested if the details of the battle survived. Otherwise, the existence of such battle is still questioned.

but I do buy Voltaire's theory a bit more. The Mongols were slaughtering everyone on the way. I could see why any european at the time gain a little satisfactions hearing the news of a VICTORY (finally) against the invaders. There is a motive inventing it to boost morale that's for sure.