Medieval Kingdoms Total War: Voivodate of Wallachia

[Wallachian]

Which faction are we referring to here? The Basarabs did not split between Draculesti and Danesti until the XVth century. If we are talking about the first starting faction beginning 1212 it should have neither of those names since neither of them existed in 1212. The Draculesti are 200 years away.

[Visarion]

You know what? You are right! It isn't fair that the Polish Duchies have so many playable factions while the Vlach Kenazates have none, especially because of the great importance that the Vlach factions had throughout the ages. And the continous denigration of their name, identity and deeds by censure and only allowing certain posts that fit some member's views. It is disgusting! Enough! Down with the sickness! I am free! I have freedom of speach and to tell my opinion freely and without fear of retribution! I propose due to relevant sources the Vlach Kenazates, Terra Lytua ruled by Bezerenbam and later Lytuoy, ruler of Terra Lytua, vassal of the Hospitallers, vassals of Hungary and co-ruler of Banate of Severin together with the Hospitallers, Transalpina of Mislau and Seneslau, Terra Bozza or Burzenland ruled by the Teutones, Maramaros ruled by Vlach Voievodes that ruled over numerous Knyaz since 1199 until 1383 and participated in the subjugation of the Tartars-Mongol-Moldavian alliance establishing Moldavia, together with the Hungarian Crown and Szeklers, the Cuman Bazaraads, overlords of the Vlachs that came from nowhere, the Jasz of Jassy, The Cumans of Moldavia, the Bolokhovians between Dniester and Dnieper, the Vlach-Slav-Turco-Sarmatians of Halych that used the Ius Valahorum similar to Maramaros, probably the Vlachs of Maramaros migrated from Galicia during their administration of the area under Hungarian suzeranity and tutelage, the Asen Dynasty of Cumans and Pechenegs of Dobrudja or Karvuna, the Cumans of Baragan Plain, the Vlachs and Pechenegs of Terra Valahorum et Bissenorum, later Dukedoms of Amlas and Fogaras, the Hunyads of Hatzeg, the Szeklers of Terra Siculorum, Szeklerland or Szekelyfold, the Bulgarians of Burnaz Field next to Vidin, north of the Danube, the Vlachs of Strasinet, vassals of different Polish-Lithuanian factions, the Tauro-Scythae Bordini living in Terra Bordini, between Szeklers and Crimea, the Galician Brodniks, Brodniki or Brodnici, and the Transylvanian Hungarians of Gyula. While we are at it, add also the Morlachs or Istrians of Croatia and Dalmatia, the Aromanians of Thessaly, the Megleno of Macedon and the Vlachs of the Banate of Vojvodina. You know what!? Add the Saxons of Hermannstadt, Klausenburg, Nosnerland, Terra Zeurino or Zewriniensis, Campo Longo and Kronstadt as well. The Byzantines of the old Greek colonies too! Add the Khazars (Cozari), the Moldavian Csangos (Ceangai) speaking a language similar to that of the Hungarians and Szeklers and the Gok-Oghuz (Gagauzi) of the Bessarabian Autonomous Region of Gagauzia and the Bulgars of Budjak as well in the mix. Oh did I mention that communities of Slavs still lived in the rural areas alongside Vlachs? Add them too in the mix! There we have it, ladies and gentleman! The "Vlach" Kenazates! Note the sarcasm. Oh did I mention that Lytuoy ruled over Terra Lytua, vassal of the Hospitallers, vassals of Hungary defending Severin with Vlachs, Cumans, Saxons and Hungarians as inhabitants? He was a true freedom fighter wasn't he? And that the ruling class was Slav and Turkic? I don't think I have. Note: Ivanko Bazaraad. That sure sounds like a Vlach righ!? History is stolen from us people! Don't you see the evidence! It makes me sick! Oh and did you know that in fact, Hungary was ruled by a Vlach, Janos Hunyadi was actually Iancu de Hunedoara and Mathias Corvin or Corvinus was Matei Corbul. Hunedoara probably comes from the old Vlach saying Unde Doare? The original phrase was Unde Doare Mama? We have evidence stating that the Vlach nobility of Hatzeg was privileged and that many Vlachs were allowed to keep their domains there and in Fogaras as well so he must have been a Vlach! It's logic!!! The nonsense! And they say he was half Greek and Hungarian from his mother's side and half Cuman and Vlach from his father's. Yeah even his grandfather's name was misspelled Vajk, they mean Voicu right? I mean even the Moldavians state that Mathias was in fact Vlach, they called him Mateias. That's why Stefan cel Mare si Sfant didn't kill him! Plus he was a Saint! He built so many churches and helped so many familes, so many infertile nobles by blessing their wives with children, a true Ghenghis Khan! Maybe Ghenghis was Vlach too, possibly Gheorghe Hainul. They write history as they please!!! Oh and most likely Ivanko Basarab was in fact Ioan Branza, misspelled, damn Immigratian Evidence Agencies! Yeah he probably came from the area between Dniester and Dnieper where he ruled over the castles with a multitude of towers and knight tournaments of the Bolohoveni, the people were called thus because of the large boulders from the river banks, meaning Bolovani, a Vlach word, after the nomads invaded. Yeah and Moldavians were not ruled and protected by the Pechenegs, Cumans and later Tartars, no, Bender, citadel and port of Dniester, near Bilgorod was built by them and the original name was Bem Des. Yeah and Bilgorod was not built by Greeks and bought by the Italians from the Tartars, it was a gift from the Vlachs, they had so many ports and castles, why keep another. Yeah and Greeks named it wrong, Mavrocastron, the Black Citadel, it was white! Cetatea Alba! What the hell! Get an eye exam people! Well they spelled it wrong in the first place, it was Mai Vreau un Castron (de Lapte cu Mamaliga) {si Sare}.

[Wallachian]

What is this copy-pasta incoherent wall of text? Not even sure what exactly you are trying to say, please use paragraphs as it is unreadable.

I stated the facts that it is fantasy to call a faction Bazarad-Dracula, one of them being a name that appears 200 years later. Also, there is nothing wrong with the name Vlach Knezates since the rulers were of various mix including cuman, slav and vlach. That does not really change anything since there were mixed populations. In the same document of Rashid-al-Din that Bezernbam is mentioned we also have mention of the land of Cara-Ulag and the Ulags (Vlachs). So what exactly do you see wrong with the use of the faction name Vlach Knezates to represent all these statelets? Since this faction is meant to become the Principality of Wallachia it's only natural.

Just because there were vlachs and cumans living in Bulgaria we do not call the faction Asen Tsardom but Bulgarian Tsardom.

[Darios]

This thread makes for some painful reading.

[Visarion]

If nobody writes nothing... contradict me... if you can...

[FrozenmenSS]

This thread makes for some painful reading.

+1

[warman222]

Okay Visarion, I'm getting really sick of your constant post spam. I've told you at least twice before and you were doing good for awhile but you need to stop post spamming literally DOZENS of posts in 3 or 4 threads at a time. We get it, you really like Wallachia but I'll be honest you were like the only one vouching for them to be a starting faction. I thought there were more cause you post so much! You have no respect for what the team or myself have to say and you have complete disregard for the basic ing ToS rule of no double posting. The Bazard/Wallachia/whatever was a dubious inclusion at best that we shouldn't of done. I'm just throwing that out there. I hate to break it to you, but the most famous part of Wallachia history was Vlad the Impaler. While factions will always have their underrated qualities and we try to give love to every faction, there's a reason why England, France, Aragon, etc, why those factions were the big players while Wallachia's biggest achievement was slightly delaying the real superpower of the Ottomans. I know you're passionate and I know you want to help but you are not being helpful in the slightest and are just getting on my nerves.

Do not post spam again.

[Visarion]

Point taken. Sorry for my rude behaviour. I was just trying to make people bring evidence of their statements not only express their desires and their revolt regarding other people's opinions. Sorry for not respecting the forum rules all the time but some threads were long dead and I had something interesting to say, at least in my opinion about the subject discussed there or had limited options from my mobile phone, like copying text and so on. If I am to be banned, punished and so on I understand and accept whatever consequences of my actions and disciplinary solutions. I will not spam again. I didn't knew what spamming was to be honest before you accused me of doing it. As you said people criticise me for being against the classic belief that the Wallachians are the descentents of the Dacians and the Romans and only that. As you said better have the faction start somewhere in the steppes as the Bazaraads than not being playable at all. And yes I would have liked that my conationals contradicted me by using sources and proposing other alternatives than not participating at all. Yeah I would have liked having a dialogue much better than a really lonely and depressing monologue. I took in consideration every bit of information and I proposed every method that crossed my mind only to have at least one of the Vlach factions as playable. I will not post about this faction again. The fact that I am of a Romanian nationality makes me indeed too emotionaly involved and I may exagerate by acting with my feelings instead of being unbiased. It's the best and the only option for me it seems.

[Darios]

As you said people criticise me for being against the classic belief that the Wallachians are the descentents of the Dacians and the Romans and only that.

I definitely do not believe in this romantic 19th century theory. The origins of Wallachians/Romanians is a lot more complicated than that. At the same time, I really don't want to get into this topic.

The fact that I am of a Romanian nationality makes me indeed too emotionaly involved and I may exagerate by acting with my feelings instead of being unbiased. It's the best and the only option for me it seems.

This is why Total War fans from Eastern Europe are not taken very seriously by others (including CA). They feel that we become too emotionally involved when it comes to our own 'people'. It is not really our fault (as CA and most mods) tend to either go off of a pop-culture stereotypical version of history or simply ignore the region all together. For example, according to CA in Total War Attila, Dacia was Celtic and Germanic during late antiquity. At the same time, it is necessary to be respectful in presenting our views and opinions. For us, it is more complicated because there are only scattered mentions of Vlachs throughout the Middle Ages until the founding of Wallachia.

[Wallachian]

Okay Visarion, I'm getting really sick of your constant post spam. I've told you at least twice before and you were doing good for awhile but you need to stop post spamming literally DOZENS of posts in 3 or 4 threads at a time. We get it, you really like Wallachia but I'll be honest you were like the only one vouching for them to be a starting faction. I thought there were more cause you post so much! You have no respect for what the team or myself have to say and you have complete disregard for the basic ing ToS rule of no double posting. The Bazard/Wallachia/whatever was a dubious inclusion at best that we shouldn't of done. I'm just throwing that out there. I hate to break it to you, but the most famous part of Wallachia history was Vlad the Impaler. While factions will always have their underrated qualities and we try to give love to every faction, there's a reason why England, France, Aragon, etc, why those factions were the big players while Wallachia's biggest achievement was slightly delaying the real superpower of the Ottomans. I know you're passionate and I know you want to help but you are not being helpful in the slightest and are just getting on my nerves.

Do not post spam again.

What is even funnier is that Vlad the Impaler is definitely not the most successful Voivode from Wallachia, his reign was only for 6 years and in fact many of his greatest field military successes were achieved when he was fighting as a general in the Hungarian army (after his second reign). There are other .more successful Voivodes in Wallachia which had more power and had more of an impact internationally. That being said you can not compare a small country in poor eastern Europe to power houses in the west such as France and Aragon.

Point taken. Sorry for my rude behaviour. I was just trying to make people bring evidence of their statements not only express their desires and their revolt regarding other people's opinions. Sorry for not respecting the forum rules all the time but some threads were long dead and I had something interesting to say, at least in my opinion about the subject discussed there or had limited options from my mobile phone, like copying text and so on. If I am to be banned, punished and so on I understand and accept whatever consequences of my actions and disciplinary solutions. I will not spam again. I didn't knew what spamming was to be honest before you accused me of doing it. As you said people criticise me for being against the classic belief that the Wallachians are the descentents of the Dacians and the Romans and only that. As you said better have the faction start somewhere in the steppes as the Bazaraads than not being playable at all. And yes I would have liked that my conationals contradicted me by using sources and proposing other alternatives than not participating at all. Yeah I would have liked having a dialogue much better than a really lonely and depressing monologue. I took in consideration every bit of information and I proposed every method that crossed my mind only to have at least one of the Vlach factions as playable. I will not post about this faction again. The fact that I am of a Romanian nationality makes me indeed too emotionaly involved and I may exagerate by acting with my feelings instead of being unbiased. It's the best and the only option for me it seems.

I don't think anyone here accused you of anything like that nor did anyone say that the Wallachians were only descendants of Dacians and Romans. Where did you even get that from? This was a discussion purely about a faction name and whether to use a generic faction name (my suggested approach) or a specific faction name (your approach). There is no conflict here at all, just different opinions which is fine.

[Visarion]

Given the fact that there are factions called Hazaraspids, Salghurids, Ghurids, Bavandids, Eldiguzids and so on Bazaraads is an option as a name.

[lion8000]

Wallachian Poor eastern Europe??? So you're saying that all eastern European countries are poor, like Byzantine, Bulgaria and so on?

[Bobi_TWR]

Wallachian Poor eastern Europe??? So you're saying that all eastern European countries are poor, like Byzantine, Bulgaria and so on?

If this is not sarcasm i will be depressed

[lion8000]

Yes I was sarcastic.

[Wallachian]

Well this is XIIIth century, other than Epirus the Byzantines did not even exist in Eastern Europe as most of Greece was in Crusader hands. And within the mod timeframe both of these states get wiped out by the Ottomans leading to economic stagnation and exploitation, so yes compared to Western Europe we do have a widening of the gap during this period.

[lion8000]

And what about Bulgaria which defeated several times the Latins. Emperor Ivan Asen II defeated the Empire of Thessalonica in the Battle of Klokotnitsa. The royal court of Epirus and Theodore himself were captured and Theodore was blinded.Bulgaria at that time became the supreme power in the Balkans. In order to commemorate the battle, the Bulgarian emperor had an inscription carved in one of the marble columns of the Church "Holy Forty Martyrs" in the capital of the Bulgarian empire Great Tarnovo. Among all existing documents the text of this inscription is the most accurate evidence of the outcome and the aftermath of the battle: "In the Year of the World 6738 (1230), third indiction. John Asen in God Christ true Tsar and sovereign of the Bulgarians, son of the old Tsar Asen, raised from the foundations and decorated with art this holy church in the name of the Holy 40 Martyrs, with the help of whom in the twelfth year of my reign when this temple was being decorated. I made war in Byzantium and defeated the Greek army and captured their Tsar, Kyr Teodore Komnenos, together with all his bolyars. And I occupied all of his land from Odrin (Adrianople) to Drach (Dyrrhachium), Greek and also Albanian and Serbian; and the towns around Constantinople and this very town were ruled by the Frizes (Latins), but they also subjugated to my empire; because they had no other Tsar but me and thanks to me they spent their days, because God ordered this, because without Him neither a deed, nor a word is done. Glory to Him forever, amen." The ruler of Thessalonica Manuel Komnenos Doukas became his vassal. And he has more achievements, for example with the Latin empire.

[Wallachian]

Of course Bulgaria had some great victories but by the XIVth century it was splintered in 3 states and then conquered by the Ottomans. As you said it was a power in the Balkans for a period of time. Compare this with for example the Kingdom of Aragon which had territories spanning from Spain, to Naples, Sicily and Greece during the XIVth century and by the end of the XVth century it became the Spanish Empire with territories on 3 continents. This is the comparison that warman was talking about. Also, the time period of Vlad the Impaler (1456-1462) is what we were talking about and at that time there was pretty much nothing in the Balkans other than the Ottomans and a few little states.

[Darios]

The XIII Century is when Eastern Europe began to be faced with a series of calamities that resulted in the large socio-economic and stability gap between it and Western Europe.

- The Fourth Crusade (The sacking of Constantinople and the splintering of the Roman Empire into a plethora of weak successor states)
- The Mongol Invasion (Set off political chaos between the royal and nobility in Hungary; Russia put under the Mongol yoke)
- The Rise of the Ottoman Empire (Loss of independence for Balkans peoples; Dhimmitude; the Crimean-Nogai Slave Trade)

All the while, places as Spain and England were consolidating into stable kingdoms, ready to take advantage of the situation and in a few centuries time - become some of the most powerful empires in the world. Even Russia, the greatest power in Eastern Europe, was set back a couple of centuries due to Mongol rule as well as the Tatar (Ottoman encouraged) slave raids on its southern steppes which amounted to a demographic disaster.

This is what Wallachian was referring to when he spoke of "poor Eastern Europe."

[Visarion]

Guys I wanted to ask. With all respect for Tsardoms. Are there any sources for those troops armed with halberds and bows? I mean you can't really see them somewhere else. And one more thing. Did there really exist troops, regular ones armed with those large, two handed maces? I mean is there something written specifying this. Out of pure curiosity. Not trying to influence anything here really. Not any more. Que sera sera. And with all respect for this team as well. I know that at Baia, Moldavian cavalerists dismounted and faced the Hungarian elite with large axes in the burning city but from large axes to great maces is a huge difference. And also except for the mentioning of the Curteni at Grunwald dismountig, firing, killing the horses undernith the knights and then mounting again with lighting speed to charge them is there any other reference to troops armed with both spears and bows? And what other troops would you add just to help Ltd. finish and properly representing the Wallachians and hoping Moldavians too in the future. He was very cooperant, understanding and kind and answered all my PM's, reading, judging and appreciating my work of a lot of lonely days and nights spent in more than a few months of searching and finding solutions for our nation to be represented as well, properly and unbiased in this revolutionary mod made by true experts. Also did the Curteni at Grunwald fought with bows and spears, mounted and dismounted or how? And where there troops using both the lance and the bow when mounted? Any unique units, like the Rus that used both bows and large axes or something like that? Did they still used any sica or falx like weapons? Were there any troops armed with the spatha sword, mounted or dismounted!? Did Radu I had full armoured halberdiers in the 14th century just because he was depicted as such? What were those Venetian 10,000 scale suits of armour used for? What type of cavalry? Did they used medieval picks? Poleaxes? Poleswords? Did those troops depicted in churches of bowmen wielding the greatsword as a second weapon really existed? Where the Moldavian halberdiers of 15th century highly proffesional troops or just militia? How often was the unique Moldavian sabre used and at what troops. Help me out here brothers! Please! How where the early Bolokhovians, Berladniks and Bordini armed and what was their fighting style? What was their degree of culture, organisation, warfare and defensive system? Was their network of citadels between Dniester and Dnieper really present? What do you know about Onut, Strasinet, Sipenit? What other nations lived amongst them? How was the bulk of the army armed? The Moldavian Nemesi, Razesi, Mazili, Plaiesi, Strajeri/Graniceri, Serbi/Vecini, Vanatori din Neamt, Voinici, Viteji, Calarasi, Curteni, Lefegii. How were they armed? How did they fought? Proffesional troops, militia? Ranks. Social class. Relevant sources? Did there really exist elite Strajeri troops? Was the Garda Spatarului, Garda or Straja Portarului an elite separate corps or adjuvant to the Garda Domneasca. Did there exist elite foot guard troops as well or just mounted? What about those Spatarei? Separate troops as well? Did the Dregatori had own troops like the Boieri or fought alongside the Voivode? Those Slujitori bulk militia cavalerists of the Boieri noble servants really existed? Did they train them. Did they fought on the battlefield as well, the Boieri or just sent servants. Only land owners or merchants as well? How should the mounted and dismounted Targoveti be represented, were they permanent, paid troops during Mircea. Is there any source, had they received horses from the Royal Stables instead of bringing their own? Any cannons, engineers, masons? Any naval force. How did the Oblocitasi fight. Did they? Where they a naval force or just river sailors? Any other troops you might add? Also very important. What do you know about Maramaros? Did the elite Moldavian Viteji came from there? Where they lancers or just horse archers? Any other relevant elite troops? Any sources with the transition from Maramaros forces to Moldavian ones. What was the degree of autonomy and Hungarian influence. For Wallachia, any elite troops from Fogaras and Amlas? Did the Basarab Voivodes receive any troops from there? Do you know anything about the Danesti using Bulgarian and Byzantine allied troops and mercenaries? What was the degree of cohesion between the troops of Dan and Fruzin? Thank you very much for your time in advance, the most valuable resource. Also how much did it differ the troops of Basarab and Vladislav Vlaicu, Radu I and Mircea? Danesti and Draculesti? Dragos, Bogdan, Alexandru cel Bun, Stefan cel Mare. What reforms? What innovations? When? Why? How? Why did Mircea and the Danesti start recruiting merchenaries and proffesional soldiers and why and how did Stefan cel Mare and Vlad Tepes reform the army introducing new nobility, nobilimea mica of Mosneni, Nemesi, Razesi, Mazili and so on. Also were the Viteji and Calarasi proffesional soldiers or simply trusted nobles, the elite few, selected veterans? Same for Voinici in opposition to the simple Ostean. Help me out people! Do get involved. We are Legion! We are Legion for We are Many. Acum ori niciodata uniti-va frati romani! Desteapta-te romane din somnul cel de moarte! Croieste-ti alta soarta!


Edit: Did Stefan had Hussars and what's the deal with Satele Hanesti? Any cavalry armed with polearms? Any crossbowmen that used spears, halberds or polearms as secondary weapons? Also Straja Spatarului, Garda Portarului separate from Garda Domneasca?

[Wallachian]

The halberd was quite common by the XVth century, there are plenty of paintings showing troops using halberds. Some are armoured some are not armoured. There was no rule determining that halberdiers should be armoured or not.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

However, I don't know any unit that has a halberd and a bow. You may be referring to the one that has a partisan and a bow. Historically, pretty much every soldier had both a bow and another weapon. Usually a bow and a spear or a bow and an axe etc. Soldiers used to shoot their arrows, then drop the bow and pick up the spear or polearm or something like that. Mod engines don't really allow for that so it's the best we can do. Even the monastery images you posted show all the saints having both bow and another weapon. The one we chose is the partisan

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The mace known as the 'maciuca' was literally the most common weapon that peasants used. It was literally a wooden club with nails in it, due to the fact that they were usually just pieces of wood they were very unwieldy and had to be used with two-hands. The club was pretty much a universal peasant weapon. Just google the word 'maciuca' and you will see it definition. http://www.upm.ro/facultati_departam...TM5_Part59.pdf

There definetly was no sicas or falx weapons. That stuff is ancient weaponry long gone. But there were scythes and sickles and axes and other agricultural elements.

The 10,000 Venetian armour was probably an exageration but they would have been worn by the boieri and the princely guard, all heavy cavalry. There is no way of knowing exactly. No one knows, we just make assumptions and educated guesses based on the best evidence we have.

Again, a lot of the cavalry had both spears and bows, most depictions have them using both. But there is really no hard and fast rule. In the XVIth century they even had lances and arquebuses

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

If you really want to do good research i suggest going to antique book stores and get 'Istoria Militara a Poporului Roman' Vol II and Vol III. These books were published by the military in the 1980s and include detailed descriptions of troops and weaponry. You will just have to ignore some of the obligatory idiotic communist language in the book.