Acquiring Romanian Sources

[mircea]

Sorry for the very late reply I had some full weeks, with work and searches and seems that finding a good apartment is way harder than I thought

Basically because it was seen as cowardly and lack of bravery. And i think gunpowder was somehow associated with the devil aswell, so part was superstition. Actually, it was the same for the Turks. When it first appeared they were reluctant to start using it because of the association with the fire and brimstone of hell.

Here's the quote in Romanian:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Pentru moldoveni, se credea ca "e un lucru de ocara sa foloseasca aceasta unealta (pusti, n. V. J.) impotriva dusmanului, la care nu ajungi nici prin mestesugul razboiului si nici prin vitejie" , de aceea armele de foc portative se gaseau doar in dotarea corpurilor de vanatori si a lefegiilor.

I completely forgot about this assertion in Cantemir's Descriptio Thanks Wallachian

Perhaps Dogaru was correct in separating the boyars from the Court, but incorrect in lumping them in the Assembly (the country’s general raising to arms). In between or above the Assembly might have been more accurate.

As I said before I agree with Dogaru's statement that the boyars were separate from the Voievod's Court. The boyars had their own little courts on their estates and that is where they resided. Only the greatest boyars which had functions in the state called 'dregatorii' would have stayed at court and of course if they were part of the Princely Council. Again, I also agree with them being placed in the country's general raise to arms. The boyars had the obligation to come to arms along with their retinue and the people from their estates whenever the Voivode requested them to. Other than that they would have stayed at their estates. Perhaps the truth is in between, the closest boyars to the Voivode that were part of his retinue would have been at arms but the vast majority would have been not.

I think that we may operate under the wrong assumption that the entire Oastea cea mica was a kind of permanent or semi-permanent organization, when in fact both Curteni and Boyars with their servants (Curteni or slugile boierilor) were called to arms just in moments of danger, and were expected to serve the Prince till the end of the campaign.
By comparison, Oastea cea mare was called just in moments of serious danger, playing an immanently defensive role, and being called for relatively short periods of time, in order to advert serious economic damage.
On the other hand, there were a few corps were permanently (mercenaries) or semi-permanently (Plaiesi/Potecasi[border guards] and part of the later Slujitori [Calarasi de margine]) under arms.

What evidence do we have of (some) curteni wearing mail? I’m happy to support it if it’s there. Do we have actual evidence of different types of curteni: some heavier with mail, lance shield; others lighter as unarmoured horse archers? Or is this supposition?

Unfortunately, information are too lapidary to draw a clear conclusion, although material remains and the few literary informations suggest a somewhat widespread use of chain mail and a simpler type of brigandine.

According to Laonic Chalcocondil the shield used by Romanians were “large, long, similar to those used by tatars”. The heavy armours of XVIth century were rarely used, the Romanian boyars and curteni often used chain mails (often enforced with lamellar appliqués) and sometimes cuirasses. Heavy armors were mostly used by important military leaders or foreign mercenaries. In 1377, Radu I of Wallachia commanded from Venice 10,000 heavy armors for its soldiers. The poorer soldiers often used cuirasses made of rigid leather and filled with pieces of cloth and other textile materials. The Saxon geographer Georg Reciherstorffer, as well as the Italian Anton Verancsics relates that the “heavy cuirasses are very rare, only the richer (probably exaggerated) have steel helmet and chain mail, as cuirass the use cloths filled with cotton or flax, 3-4 digits thick.” In 1569, the Moldavian ruler Alexandru Lapusenanu ordered chain mails, while 1574, the boyar Albu Golescu is represented on its tombstone wearing chain mail and steel helmet (calotte type).

Source: Istoria Militara a poprului Roman

I’m going to throw a potential spanner into all of this now. In Vlad the Impaler supplement for Warhammer Historical, Dan Minculescu has an interesting take on the breakdown of a Wallachian/Moldavian army, esp the cavalry. Aside from the Royal Guard which is only available if the prince is present, the top-down order is: Viteji, Curteni, Boieri, Calarasi. This is how they are described:

Viteji (0-1 unit): Viteji were wealthy landowners directly responsible to the Voievod, from whom they held their hereditarily transmitted domains. They fought on horseback and were the most loyal and dependable of the Voievod’s troops. Equipment: hand weapon, light armour, thrusting spear, heavy mace, shield and horse. May wear heavy or partial plate armour. Viteji are eastern shock cavalry. Me: their profile is superior to other troops.


Me again: interestingly, in the link you provided to the History of the Romanian Protection Services, the Braves (Viteji) appear: “Romanian Guard was led by a chief magistrate who had the privilege of wearing the sword prince. Prince bodyguard consisted of small or middle nobility and free peasants "caftan" (ennobled) by rule. In Moldova, Prince companions are sometimes called "brave", reflecting the recruitment of fighters among the elite.”

Could it be feasible that the viteji make a quantum leap from peasantry to companions of the Prince, rather than up to lesser boyar status alongside curteni? The above quote seems to say this, and is the way Minculescu has it in his army list for Warhammer. Or is it more likely there were 2 tiers of viteji: those promoted from peasantry for bravery to lesser boyar status; and those promoted from the nobility for bravery to companion (of the Prince) status? Sort of a ‘greater’ and ‘lesser’ viteji! It is interesting that the greater nobility (greater boyars) are not included as part of the Prince’s bodyguard in the above quote – were they deemed too untrustworthy? Certainly makes sense, given their reputation. Later on, the document goes on to mention the mercenaries who were also used as an alternative Guard, which supports what we’ve been saying so far.

The name of Viteji (literary: The braves) was used for two different, and probably unrelated categories. The first category of Viteji appears in late XIV-early XVth century in Moldova, being included among the prominent members of Prince's Council (Sfat), but separated from the senior boyars. Curiously, sometime in early XV century these Viteji vanish from records, probably being assimilated in the mass of senior boyars.
Decades later, during the second half of Stefan Cel Mare's reign, Viteji reappear as a social-military category, but this time as peasants raised to the status of boyars for bravery.

You may read more about this here:
http://www.scritube.com/istorie/Vite...or92147183.php
http://analeleputnei.ro/wp-content/u...in-Craescu.pdf

Evidence for the last part? Here is how Minculescu has the Lefegii for Warhammer:
Lefegii: Literally ‘mercenaries’ or ‘paid men’, lefegii nonetheless formed the bulk of the Small Host, acting both in the field and in garrisons, and were mostly foreigners – Transylvanians, Hungarians, Poles, Germans and others. Equipment: hand weapon and light armour. May have thrusting spear or halberd. May have shield. May have composite bow and 0-2 units of lefegii may have crossbow or handgun. May wear heavy armour. May be mounted infantry.

The latter statement is more than controversial, with few Prince's possessing the necessary wealth to pay large mercenary armies, among them Despot Voda, Petru Cercel or Mihai Viteazul. Furthermore, a significant part of mercenaries were in fact locals (oaste in dobanda), with foreigners forming mostly specialist corps (guards, artillery, arquebusiers).

Me again: the heavy infantry crop up repeatedly in army lists as voinici or similar, well armoured with various polearms; I’m surprised that you see them as a sprinkling of sorts, and secondary to the numbers of handgunners for instance. Or have I misunderstood?

The term voinci is generally used with the meaning of soldiers (including both mercenaries as well as Princely or Boyar servants), and mostly as infantrymen. Only later the term is replaced with dorobanti and other categories of infantry.


Here is how I have the list currently, subject to further change:


IV/65. Wallachian or Moldavian. 1330AD-1504AD.
1 x Voievod General with Guard (3Kn or Cv), 1 x Boieri (Cv), 3 x Curteni and Viteji (Cv or LH), 1 x Calarasi (LH), 1 x Lefegii Heavy Foot (Bd or Sp) or Lefegii Handgunners or Crossbowmen (Ps or Cb), 4 x Tarani (Bw or Ps), 1 x Tarani (Bw or Ps or Ax).

[/QUOTE]
Now I noticed that your list refers to the period until 1504, Well, in this case Prince Guard (Garda Domneasca) should be depicted as mostly including minor boyars, ennobled for bravery.
At the same time you could represent a part of Curteni as CV, and another part as LH.

That being said, I like this list. It's not bad at all but 25% of armoured strike cavalry is too much. You can have plenty of cavalry but most of it light. Overall id say you should have probably have less than 10% of the army as heavy armoured. Depends what you mean by armoured strike cavalry. If its just leather or padded armour that's fine.

I totally agree with your statement While most of the Oastea cea Mica served as cavalry, it was mostly light and medium (horse lance/archers)

Ah, yes. This makes sense. If history shows that a unit fought tactically as Cv, then in DBA it is Cv, irrespective of the nuances of its equipment. As a general rule, these units fighting as Cv on the battlefield, tended to wear more armour and be equipped for combat better than skirmishers (LH). So *if* a unit of Curteni fought tactically as cavalry (and for this purpose was generally equipped with spear and shield, and wore armour from padding up to chain in the same unit for instance), then in DBA terms they would be Cv. A skirmish role tactically (for which they would have less armour & equipment), and they are probably LH in DBA. There would need to be evidence of units of Curteni fighting tactically as Cv (with appropriate equipment, as above) - otherwise they're Superior Light Horse, which in DBA just gets lumped in with all the other LH. IT'S MORE ABOUT *FUNCTION* THAN EQUIPMENT IN DBA.

I think it may be a little hard to give a clear answer considering that the function on battlefield was very fluid, depending mostly on the needs of the moment. As far I can see, probably inclusion of Curteni in (lighter) CV category is the best way of mirroring their versatility on the battelfield.

In regard to cavalry to infantry ratio, I would suggest a similar or slightly greater ratio to the one in Polish armies, or more exactly around 35% to maximum of 40%

Yes, I've finished editing now.

The clincher it would seem is evidence for some units of curteni/viteji fighting as Cv, not just as LH. Mircea seems to indicate that Muresanu may hold the key to this, as that was his source for his article (linked to high up above).
My copy will be arriving in the next few days - but extracting the information will be difficult for me.
I'm quite satisfied with everything else.

That sounds great

Speaking of miniatures found this really nice painted one of Vlad the Impaler

It costs $435 which seems very steep! But i guess wargaming is a very expensive hobby.

Interesting but expensive, very expensive

I've since tracked a copy of Rosetti's book on eBay, but the price is ridiculously high - like most books from this seller. $240!!! So I'll keep looking.

Cheers
[/COLOR]

I thinki it would be easier to download it from here:
http://digitool.dc.bmms.ro:8881/R/XE...83?func=search

[snowcat]

Thanks Mircea, have read through this quickly twice - will go though in detail with replies soon.

Better luck finding that apartment too.

Oh and I already have a pdf copy of Rosetti, but I'm a bit of a book fanatic.

[snowcat]

I have limited time at the moment, but one thing I want to comment on initially is the cav:inf ratio. 35%-40% cav works out at about a 5:7 mounted:foot ratio for DBA.
Now it depends what you mean by this. Are you looking literally at numbers of mounted vs infantry in these armies, and not their relative combat strength proportionate to the army (ie percentage of effective units in the army)?
In DBA the number of men represented by an element is usually higher for infantry than mounted (ignoring skirmishers for the moment), yet the combat strength is 'an element' (or unit) of Kn or Cv or LH or Sp or Bd or Bw, etc. An element of spearmen might represent 500-600 foot warriors, while an element of cavalry 250-300 horsemen. So although numerically less horsemen are present compared with spearmen, their combat value proportionate to the whole army is equivalent to 1 element each (out of 12 for DBA).
So, with this in mind, do you still believe the ratios should be shifted from mounted 6:6 infantry, to 5:7 in favour of infantry? In 'unit' terms, you would then be saying that more than half (approx 60%) of the army's units should be infantry.

If your answer to the above is 'yes'...

What this appears to do is reduce the allowance for separate boyars from the general's element. With only 5 mounted elements to now play with, even 1 of these as Cv (or Kn) represents 20% of the mounted arm being armoured strike cavalry instead of LH. Another element like this would be 40% = too much surely. Until now I've been at pains to separate the boyars from the general - but perhaps this was unnecessary and even unrealistic. On those occasions when the boyars deployed separately from the voievod (possibly always except for those in his bodyguard), were they on their own or under the command of a subordinate general? I ask because the immediate larger form of DBA is BBDBA (Big Battle DBA) - the more complex game is DBMM. Now in BBDBA you take the basic 12 elements and multiply by 3, producing 3 commands, each with a general element. So with the following adjusted list:

IV/65. Wallachian or Moldavian. 1330AD-1504AD.
1 x General with Boyars or Mercenary Guard (Cv or Kn), 3 x Curteni and Viteji (LH), 1 x Calarasi (LH), 1 x Lefegii Heavy Foot (Bd or Sp) or Lefegii Handgunners or Crossbowmen (Ps or Cb), 5 x Tarani (Bw or Ps), 1 x Tarani (Bw or Ps or Ax)

- we could multiply this by 3 for a BBDBA army with 3 commands: the commander in chief (voievod) could take the Kn Mercenary Guard for his element, and the other 2 generals could take boyars (Cv) for theirs. That still puts the boyar/men at arms (strike cavalry) percentage at 8.34% of the army.

So the question here is: is the mounted 5:7 infantry unit ratio correct? And if so, could the boyars be linked with a general's element to maintain the 'not more than 20%' of all mounted in the army (DBA or BBDBA) being armoured strike cavalry?

If the answer is 'yes', in one respect (linked Cv/Kn to General) this is starting to more closely resemble the current DBA army list.)

Cheers

PS Note that in the list above I made the Lefegii compulsory. This may not be correct. Should they be optional, or should lefegii usually be represented in a Wallachian/Moldavian army for this period? Like the boyars, I have put them at that equivalent 8.34% of the army (eg 1 unit out of 12).

[Wallachian]

Hey mate, again im tight with time so i will have to keep my reply short. The 5:7 ration sounds fine to me since cavalry was quite numerous. Definetly keep the 20% armoured cavalry ratio so you can merge the boyars with the princely bodyguard.

About the Lefegii they start becoming more and more important from the mid XVth century onwards. So depends on your timeline. They shouldn't necessarily be compulsory.

Speaking of miniatures found a few more interesting ones.

Here's a cool one of Vlad the Impaler in chainmail armour







And here's a very nice miniature of a Lefegii captain from the army of Michael the Brave at the end of the XVIth century/early XVIIth century

[snowcat]

Hi again.

Thanks for the feedback. Nice figurines too. The lefegii makes me think of a Russian for some reason.

Once more into the breach dear friends...

Here is the latest official list followed by my latest version of it (closest to it yet):

Official IV/65. Wallachian or Moldavian. 1330AD-1517AD.
1 x General (Cv or Kn), 4 x boyars & viteji (LH), 6 x archers (Bw or Ps), 1 x rustici (Wb or Ax) or voynuks (Bd) or archers (Ps).

Proposed IV/65. Wallachian or Moldavian. 1330AD-1517AD.
1 x General with Lefegii or Boieri Mari Guard (3Kn or Cv), 3 x Curteni & Viteji (LH), 1 x Calarasi (LH), 1 x Lefegii Voinici with polearms or spears (Bd or Sp) or Lefegii Crossbowmen or Handgunners (Cb or Ps) or Tarani spearmen (Ax) or Tarani ‘rustici’ (Wb), 6 x Tarani archers (Bw or Ps).

Notes:

All curteni & viteji are classed as LH - the same as Serbian hussars in DBA/DBMM. I mention this as their equipment was very similar, minus the bows. Considering the Serb hussars are more limited to a fast strike role (without bows) and are classed as LH, it follows that the Romanian light cavalry, similarly armed & armoured (albeit for a few with better armour) + bows, consequently must also be LH. There is nowhere to maneuver on this one - simply not enough is known about more heavily armoured curteni/viteji fighting in separate units as armoured cavalry, versus just being among the better equipped of the multi-functional LH.

And a reminder that Curteni LH and Calarasi LH are quite different from each other (though effectively 'dumbed down' to the same unit type in DBA): in the more detailed game (DBMM) Curteni are Superior LH (well equipped and not adverse to charging disordered enemy), while Calarasi are Fast LH skirmishers (lightly equipped for skirmishing, and a little faster for it, and less keen on fighting).

Tarani 'rustici' are those peasants fighting in quick moving warbands with improvised weapons (scythes, etc). Tarani spearmen are better equipped peasants (spear, shield, padded or leather armour) serving as quick moving (but less solid) spearmen.

Cheers,
Paul

[snowcat]

As always, around the next corner, there's a different interpretation.

This, from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldavian_military_forces


"Under the reign of Stephen the Great, all farmers and villagers had to bear arms. Stephen justified this by saying that "every man has a duty to defend his fatherland"; according to Długosz, if someone was found without carrying a weapon, he was sentenced to death.[1] Stephen reformed the army by promoting men from the landed free peasantry răzeşi (i.e. something akin to freeholding yeomen) to infantry (voinici) and light cavalry (hânsari) — to make himself less dependent on the boyars — and introduced his army to guns. In times of crises, The Small Host (Oastea Mică) — which consisted of around 10,000 to 12,000 men — stood ready to engage the enemy, while the Large Host (Oastea Mare) — which could reach up to 40,000 — had all the free peasantry older than 14, and strong enough to carry a sword or use the bow, recruited. This seldom happened, for such a levée en masse was devastating for both economy and population growth. In the Battle of Vaslui, Stephen had to summon the Large Host and also recruited mercenary troops.
In the Middle Ages and early Renaissance, the Moldavians relied on light cavalry (călăraşi) which used hit-and-run tactics similar to those of the Tatars; this gave them great mobility and also flexibility, in case they found it more suitable to dismount their horses and fight in hand-to-hand combat, as it happened in 1422, when 400 horse archers were sent to aid Jagiellon Poland, Moldavia’s overlord against the Teutonic Knights. When making eye-contact with the enemy, the horse archers would withdraw to a nearby forest and camouflage themselves with leaves and branches; according to Polish chronicler Jan Długosz, when the enemy entered the wood, they were "showered with arrows" and defeated.[2] The heavy cavalry consisted of the nobility, namely, the boyars and their guards, the viteji (lit. “brave ones”, small nobility) and the curteni — the Court Cavalry (all nominally part of the Small Host). In times of war, boyars were compelled by the feudal system of allegiance to supply the prince with troops in accordance with the extent of their manorial domain.
Other troops consisted of professional foot soldiers (lefegii) which fulfilled the heavy infantry role, and the plăieşi, free peasants whose role was that of border guards: they guarded the mountain passes and were prepared to ambush the enemy and to fight delaying actions."


So here the curteni and viteji are the boyars' guards, and all heavy cavalry, while the light cavalry are calarasi and provided by local tribes and regions...

Does anyone really know???

The above interpretation would then look something more like this:

IV/65. Wallachian or Moldavian. 1330AD-1517AD.
1 x General with Lefegii or Boieri Guard (3Kn or Cv), 1 x Boieri with Curteni & Viteji (Cv), 3 x Calarasi (LH), 1 x Lefegii Voinici with polearms or spears (Bd or Sp) or Lefegii Crossbowmen or Handgunners (Cb or Ps) or Tarani spearmen (Ax) or Tarani ‘rustici’ (Wb), 6 x Tarani archers (Bw or Ps).

I have to admit it makes a lot of sense to me. It shows the corps of light cavalry that gets referred to, recruited from surrounding regions, portions of which were sometimes sent as mercenaries to allies, and in large enough numbers overall for the state(s) to 'rely' on them. It keeps the household nobles more closely together, and in much smaller numbers (seems logical: lesser boyars serving at courts of greater boyars serve them directly as followers in war; greater boyars serve the voievod who has his own personal guard as well).

Or to preserve the lower numbers of Cv:
IV/65. Wallachian or Moldavian. 1330AD-1517AD.
1 x General with Boieri (Cv), 4 x Calarasi (LH), 1 x Lefegii Voinici with polearms or spears (Bd or Sp) or Lefegii Crossbowmen or Handgunners (Cb or Ps) or Tarani spearmen (Ax) or Tarani ‘rustici’ (Wb), 6 x Tarani archers (Bw or Ps). The notes would refer to the Boieri including curteni & viteji. The only loss here is the lefegii guard for the General, as I didn't want that 1 element to possibly include so many things: boieri, curteni, viteji, lefegii. As only the voievod (of all generals present) would have a mercenary guard option historically (to my knowledge), it seems acceptable for this to be removed from the 'dumbed-down' DBA list.

I have copies of Dlugosz and Rosetti on the way, and in the meantime I'm translating the section on "Romanian military organization in the golden age of the great army (second half of XIV century - first half of the sixteenth century)" from Muresanu.

Cheers.

[snowcat]

As I am translating (with the limitations of software) the above mentioned section of 'Organizarea militara romaneasca in epoca de glorie a oastei celei mari (a doua jumatate a secolului al XIV-lea)' of Istoria Militara a Poporului Roman, Vol II (pg 32-79), I would really appreciate if someone (Wallachian?, Mircea?) could correct the English translation where it clearly goes wrong. This will take me some time, as this evening I only translated 5 pages and I now have square eyes!

If interested, I can post Word documents (too much to post on this forum) in the original Romanian and English translation.

Cheers

[Wallachian]

Hey mate yeah feel free to post it, but I won't be able to access it for a few days as I only have internet access on my phone. I will have to get back to you regarding your previous post.

[snowcat]

Thanks. I'll let you know when both documents are done. At approx 5 pages (all hand typed, line by line) per day, it'll take a couple of weeks anyway.
When they're ready, I'll let you know, and we can sort out how I send you the Word docs.



Cheers

[vasiooo]

I tried to make a history tread of romanian states from Transilvania.
I axed on Maremures Voevodship but i find scarce resurces ,ahiologi is inexistent maybe because now vast part of country is in Ukraine .
About UNG and Bereg Voevodship is even more scarse .
I tried to found rightings about preAnonimus cronicle but Romanian Arhiology don't like dark age ,Walahian you know something about 400 - 1000 period ,a good book ,a sience one ,no nationalistic ?

[snowcat]

Wallachian: PM sent re Muresanu.

[snowcat]

Just sent 2 more PMs to your reply, but I really can't make sense of the PM system here - did you receive them? It says I have 0 messages in my Sent Items (which is absurd).

[Giumbix]

you have to enable savind sent PM's. go to: my account>edit options, at private messaging section tick the box at "Save a copy of sent messages in my Sent Items folder by default"

[snowcat]

Ah, thanks. Cheers.

[snowcat]

Welcome back Wallachian!

Any luck with new 'old' books over there?
I see a 3rd gallery of images has appeared under your profile.

[Wallachian]

Thanks mate. Yes I finally bought Istoria Militara a Poporului Roman vol II and also got vol V from antique book dealers. Got a few other great history books but unfortunately the weight limit for my luggage meant that i had to leave some of them behind to be posted to me.

Indeed I got a third part to my gallery of images. As I was saying I visited the Military History Museum in Bucharest and took stacks of photos (pretty much of every exhibit worth taking a photo) which means I stayed there for about 4-5 hours going level by level from the stone age all the way to the present day.

Now that I have vol II it means I can look at your translations and compare them with my copy of the book which makes it a lot easier as I still haven't got around to that.

[snowcat]

Would love to see some more photos!

And it will be amusing (for both of us) to see how far *off* the translated section from Muresanu is!!

Cheers

[Wallachian]

Yeah I'm quite behind with uploading all the photos. I still have a few medieval photos to put up, plus I want to create another album with all other photos from Dacian, Roman, early modern and modern exhibits. I'm just struggling for time at the moment, haven't even opened any of the books i bought :/

[snowcat]

I know how it feels.