Tsardoms Total War - FACTION PREVIEW: Principality of Wallachia

[cocobongoclub-DJ]

Good job, both models and skins are gorgeous...

[Wallachian]

well to be honest I first had the same thought! ally with Serbia! Romanians and Serbians have always been friends and brothers and never fought each other... I remember being proud of my Romanian brothers in highschool when the history teacher told us that Romania was invited by other countries in the Balkans to participate in dividing the lands of Serbia but refused and Serbia sent us a letter saying that this is what true friends are for! . .but this is just a game... still I will try to ally with Serbia while playing as Wallachia to have a strong ally in the Southwest and concentrate on other fronts, trying to unite the Romanian Principalities! can't wait!

it's true Romanians and Serbians have rarely had any differences, which is pretty rare for neighbouring countries. although, the Romanians did have a shameful moment when they let the US use their airfields to bomb Belgrade but that's politics...

Judging by the map I imagine the game would be pretty difficult for Wallachia, having to face a powerful Hungary on one side and Bulgaria on the other. Which is exactly as it should be

[peterruskov]

OMG ,this Light Cavalry are one of the best looking units i ever see in M2.

[Kara Kolyo]

Great work as always. Killing Krali Marko at Rovine will be fun!

[tavix]

I ll save all my army for Hungary , Transilvania will be free!

[ST. Toma]

Hail!
Just some notice:
The units are great (the word buzdugan came from the Magyar/Hungarian word, buzogány meaning mace, in the Balkans, and this word came from the Pecheneg word, buzghan)
The description fault, that Ruthens and Valahs wasn't the inhabitants of Transylvania. Valahs appaered in Transylvania in 1200, as nomad shepherds and mercenaries. Ruthens never lived in Transylvania, just in Máramaros, and there they appaered firstly in 1238-40, because of the Tatar invasion.
The world Transalpina or Havasalföld in Hungarian sources (meaning the plain or region over the mountains [Carpathians]) didn't come from Basarab's journey, but from the geographical view of the middle ages. The Hungarians said, that Wallachia is over the Southern Carpathians (as Transylvania means region over the forests, because it is eastward from the royal forests). And the nobility of Wallachia and Moldavia had Turkic (Cuman, Tatar) and Slavic (Bulgar, Kievan) origin, Just see the names: Basarab (Cuman), Vaicu (Pecheneg) etc.
Fogaras was never the part of Wallachia, it is Transylvania, owned by the king of Hungary. It was the first territory in the Carpathian basin which was settled by Valahs from Wallachia in around 1200. Later some Wallachian princes (who were the vassals of Hungary) got Fogaras as feudal possessions, but not as their own region.

You can say, that I am Hungarian, so I hate Romanians and other silly things, but it is not true. I just want to help you.
Congrat for the units and continue working!

[Wallachian]

Ok, ST Tomam there's really no point in arguing whether the Valahs were the inhabitants of Transylvania. Historians from Romania and Hungary have been arguing over this and trying to prove their view for centuries so I don't think a few people talking about it on a forum would solve anything.

And yes, while it is currently accepted that the Basarab family was of Cuman origin, that doesn't mean all the nobility of Moldavia and Wallachia was of the same origin. That's a very big generalization...

Anyway, we're all entitled to an oppinion, i respect yours but i definetly do not agree with it!

[Romano-Dacis]

Hail!
Just some notice:
The units are great (the word buzdugan came from the Magyar/Hungarian word, buzogány meaning mace, in the Balkans, and this word came from the Pecheneg word, buzghan)

The word is found in Turkish as well. www.dexonline.ro gives the Romanian etymology of the word from Turkish.

The description fault, that Ruthens and Valahs wasn't the inhabitants of Transylvania. Valahs appaered in Transylvania in 1200, as nomad shepherds and mercenaries. Ruthens never lived in Transylvania, just in Máramaros, and there they appaered firstly in 1238-40, because of the Tatar invasion.

This sort of discussion is reserved for the Vestigia Vetustasis. I think you're wrong on this and have plenty of evidence for it, but I won't get into that discussion here. There are certainly plenty of threads in the VV where you can see the arguments presented by both sides. Needless to say even Hungarian historians don't say 1238-1240 but put the date significantly earlier.

The continuity of the Romanians in the region in any case is irrelevant. When we are referring to the events in the description (i.e. late 13th century) the Romanians were already an important demographic factor, as were the Ruthenians. Maramures is considered part of the Transylvanian area, and it was historically part of the Voievodship of Transylvania. The exact laws and edicts, like the one from 1290, greatly affected the Romanians and did cause Basarab's exodus.

I don't see Romanians posting on Magyar Mod about their completely ridiculous portrayal of Wallachia and Moldavia ("Cuman Camp 1" and "Cuman Camp 2" as region capitals; give me a break!)

And the nobility of Wallachia and Moldavia had Turkic (Cuman, Tatar) and Slavic (Bulgar, Kievan) origin, Just see the names: Basarab (Cuman), Vaicu (Pecheneg) etc.

This is a bit like saying that Vlad Dracula was a Slav because his name was Vlad. The origin of Basarab has also been discussed in the VV. Needless to say, every single contemporary source, every royal document and charter, always refers to Basarab as Romanian.
-"Bazarab infidelis Olahus noster"
-"Basarab Olacus et filii eiusden"
-"Bazarab filium Thocomerius scismaticum olachis nostris"

There is no definitive evidence that any Romanian ruler or nobleman was of Cuman or Pecheneg extraction. It doesn't even make sense when you consider that Basarab came from Southern Transylvania, whereas the Cumans were settled in Central Hungary after evacuating Wallachia and Moldavia due to the Tatars.

There were certainly rulers of Cuman ethnicity, like Ladislaus IV "The Cuman" of Hungary, but in that case we have concrete evidence. In Basarab's case, the evidence that he was Cuman is mostly interpretative and circumstantial.

Fogaras was never the part of Wallachia, it is Transylvania, owned by the king of Hungary. It was the first territory in the Carpathian basin which was settled by Valahs from Wallachia in around 1200.

It was a territorial possession of the Basarab family and that is the way territorial demarcations work in the Middle Ages. Therefore, the description is correct. Your claim on "settled by Valahs" is again factually suspect but I won't get into that.

You can say, that I am Hungarian, so I hate Romanians and other silly things, but it is not true. I just want to help you.

You're welcome to believe whatever you wish, but I am already very familiar with all of your arguments and found most of it to be factually incorrect.

Hungarians say "Romanians were South of the Danube, not in Transylvania." Bulgarians say "Romanians were North of the Danube, not in Bulgaria." Russians say "Romanians were North of the Danube... but not in Moldova." If I were to put all of these theories head-to-head I would come to the insane conclusion that Romanians didn't exist anywhere, came from everywhere, and paradoxically exist today.

I leave the closing remarks to the historian Coriolan Opreanu:

"Still, nowhere else has anyone defied reason by stating that a Latin people, twice as numerous as any of its neighbors of different ethnic-linguistic origins, is only accidentally inhabiting the territory of a former Roman province, once home to a numerous and strongly Romanized population, but to which the contemporary inhabitants are allegedly not related in any way. Those attempting to scientifically demonstrate the absurd are free to do so."

[Ampra]

Hungarians say "Romanians were South of the Danube, not in Transylvania." Bulgarians say "Romanians were North of the Danube, not in Bulgaria." Russians say "Romanians were North of the Danube... but not in Moldova." If I were to put all of these theories head-to-head I would come to the insane conclusion that Romanians didn't exist anywhere, came from everywhere, and paradoxically exist today.

And thats why we are friends We both came from everywhere , and force other to except us here

But if anyone can say that have origins deep in the past along side Greeks are Romanians

[Romano-Dacis]

Well anyway, this thread should be about units, not historical debates.
Recently someone asked me if Wallachia's unit composition was perhaps too weak on anti-cavalry units. A primary concern was the lack of medium spearmen, and his belief that the mosneni archers wouldn't properly work with their spears against cavalry units; that most of them would be slaughtered in the initial charge while holding their bows and another 1/4 of the would die from swords before they pulled out their spears.

To me it seems we have some alternatives:
1) The player might be forced to use different tactics for different factions. For instance, a cavalry charge could be absorbed by watchmen or Wallachian light cavalry interceptors, and then when the enemy cavalry is stuck they are attacked by Wallachian infantry. Wallachia has a strong selection of units effective against armor (serfs, macemen, armas guards, voievod's hunters [? maybe even mosneni archers]) for such a purpose. I know, not every faction plays the same.
2) We could make the mosneni archers from being "archers with spears as secondary weapons" to being "spearmen with bows as a secondary weapon." They of course still would be more lethal with bows than in melee. The problem is the AI would then be unable to use them properly (maybe?).
3) We could make a "mosneni spear warband" which would be just like the mosneni but armed with spears and shield... a simple substitute.

I kind of like it the way it is. A Wallachian player will be forced to fight in a different fashion. There is a reason why the Romanian word for warrior (razboinic) is derived from a Slavic term for raiders and we reflect this better by making the Wallachians a more offense-based army rather than a static spear wall. We will see balancing of factions before it is released, tweaking unit numbers and stats.

Concern was also raised about the term "warband", and it was hoped that the Romanian infantry formations would not be too loose, as implied by such a name. I think Wallachia's mosneni have the same deployment and formation types of Serbian or Bulgarian medium infantry units. The "warband" is only designed to signify their method of recruitment, as mosneni came to the battlefield recruited in a "ceata" (lit. "warband") from a village (see def. 2 from the Romanian dictionary).

The preview is again only designed to highlight modeling, textures, unit rosters, and descriptions. We appreciate any constructive feedback or suggestions from you, our beloved fans (though certainly "AWESOME!!!" is good feedback as well).

[2Shy]

Great Preview . Awearsome units.Keep the good work
But personaly I think that the macemen have TOO BIG maces-they are at least half a man hight!!!And horse archers swords are too big for horse archers-it would be more historical accurative to me something more like dagger(I may be wrong ofcorse ).I mean they are horse archers not a swordsmen!!!

[Scarrus]

The description fault, that Ruthens and Valahs wasn't the inhabitants of Transylvania. Valahs appaered in Transylvania in 1200, as nomad shepherds and mercenaries.

I agree with you. The Wallachians came from the steppes. To be more exact they were nomads very specialised in growing animals and speaking latin

But deep down inside you I know you know that we trully came from mars


BTW. Nice mod, looking forward to it

[phoenix[illusion]]

Great Preview . Awearsome units.Keep the good work
But personaly I think that the macemen have TOO BIG maces-they are at least half a man hight!!!And horse archers swords are too big for horse archers-it would be more historical accurative to me something more like dagger(I may be wrong ofcorse ).I mean they are horse archers not a swordsmen!!!

well, first of all, that should look big. those are two handed maces, carried by two hands, and it was probably very big and massive. It looks strange cause we never seen in any faction those maces, and we know how ordinary maces supposed to look like, and this is a big one. anyways, maybe mace of unit with upgrade should be a little bit scaled.
and about that horsearchers. that were Wallachian units that carried bows and arrows, and besides that, longsword, which has name by it's length. it's just m2tw mistake that they put knives as secondary weapon to all horsearchers m2tw is not historical accurate. many horsearchers had powerful weapon like maces, sabers, swords etc.

[Visarion]

about the swords horsemen carry: in the ancient times Sarmatian riders even had two-handed swords called gladius! what is so strange about horse archers having longswords? all the nomad horse archers had longswords or sabers!

[2Shy]

well, first of all, that should look big. those are two handed maces, carried by two hands, and it was probably very big and massive. It looks strange cause we never seen in any faction those maces, and we know how ordinary maces supposed to look like, and this is a big one. anyways, maybe mace of unit with upgrade should be a little bit scaled.
and about that horsearchers. that were Wallachian units that carried bows and arrows, and besides that, longsword, which has name by it's length. it's just m2tw mistake that they put knives as secondary weapon to all horsearchers m2tw is not historical accurate. many horsearchers had powerful weapon like maces, sabers, swords etc.

Ok m8t - I'm not going to argue .But I think ( I can have personal opinion , right? ) that in not upgraded version the macemen would be easy target-i mean great atack +bonus vs armour but no armour or shield?!?But in other hand Wallachia have other great armour units to balance .
Once again great units !

[phoenix[illusion]]

Ok m8t - I'm not going to argue .But I think ( I can have personal opinion , right? ) that in not upgraded version the macemen would be easy target-i mean great atack +bonus vs armour but no armour or shield?!?But in other hand Wallachia have other great armour units to balance .
Once again great units !

mate, you've seen too much non historical units or you are too influenced by western medieval units. this is made by great research of Romano-Dacis, and it is fully accurate, and that is the first thing in Tsardoms mod, there's no non-historical unit. Problem is that when we speak of medieval units, everybody thinks of Western type (probably cause of films, game etc.). This unit is actually levy unit, cheap peasants (non-upgraded), and Wallachians preferred fighting with big maces. It has it's own good sides and bad sides. And about two-handed weapons, they are very good for defense, it's our problem that we see it only as attack type weapon. I saw fight between two handed axeman and hand axeman with shield. and guess who win? two handed axemen. technique is the real key to success. An that was series of great vikings, which noblemen carried two handed axes, while infantry hand axe and shield. The only lack of defense with 2handed weapon is against arrows, but they were far away from first rows in battles. first rows were mostly shielded units
btw tnx

[2Shy]

Take it easy man-it's not healty to be so nervous .I did't say thay they were historicaly inacurative(if you want see my 2 posts) .If the reasurcher say so-I will trust him too .Once again - exellent work (and please be more happy and calm ) !

[phoenix[illusion]]

Take it easy man-it's not healty to be so nervous .I did't say thay they were historicaly inacurative(if you want see my 2 posts) .If the reasurcher say so-I will trust him too .Once again - exellent work (and please be more happy and calm ) !

hh, i really don't know how you got to conclusion that i'm angry or something. i'm just serious, nothing more, rarely putting smiles on forums, only when i'm joking with some team mates.
well, i wasn't angry at all, i've accepted that comment about maces, and yet, i replied that they were heavy and two handed (two hands needed for them to carry) and they should look like that, maybe a bit smaller. but when you said about longswords, that they look big, and that they were not used by horsemen, i've replied with comment as that you don't know too much history and that you've pretty much influenced by western units. and later when you replied as "two handed weapon with no armor", that put me in sure doubt that you have some history lack (no offense, my opinion). Well, still not your fault, i really didn't know that until i was working on Wallachian faction. But still, about that macemen, many Romanians replied as "true unit of Wallachia", while you're post was like "those units looks silly, they don't stand a chance with no armor and shield. why are they included?"
And i didn't feel insulted. Instead, i felt like you've insulted work of Romano, who put a really great effort on researching them

[Grof]

great units fellas. Really like the cavalry units.

[MeAgain]

Great units!! Now I know what people were talking about, those maces are scary beasts. The faction dscription is also good. Will there be (or have you considered) some kind of bonus for 'uniting' the Romanians? Maybe, something in the form of ancillary (like a title) or something?