Acquiring Romanian Sources

[Wallachian]

I am glad that Mircea has finally joined this thread because I would say he is the foremost expert on romanian military history on total war center. Especially since the other expert Romano-Dacis hasn't been on the forum for more than a year.

Mircea, indeed i agree that digital library is a veritable gold mine. I have only scratched it's surface. I plan on downloading all the books and uploading them onto scribd. This should help snowcat with his issues aswell. But this won't happen for a while due to lack of time/good internet connection.

Although not very exactly, curteni & slujitori are somewhat similar to the English yeomans, in the way that both were servants but were also expected to take the field in case of war.

Hmm I would have thought that the Razesi/Mosneni were more like the English yeomans. As in they are free landholding peasants. Or maybe I misunderstand the term yeoman. Weren't the yeomans just simple people that had very small landholdings so they weren't landless.

I am still a little confused re where the curteni slot in with the boieri mici and the viteji for instance. Interestingly, in 'History of the Romanians', Dogaru divides the Great Host into 2 sections: the Court and the Country's Assembly. What may surprise you is that he positions the Boieri as part of the Country's Assembly, called upon for the country's general raising to arms, along with the Tarani below them. They are not part of the Court, whereas the guard, curteni, viteji and lefegii (plus the artillery) are. What do you think of this?

Actually that does not surprise me. The boyars are definetly not part of the permanent army and they are not part of the court. Basically, the boyars had their lands and manors where they resided and were only called upon when the general raise to arms was sounded. They had the obligation to come to the rally point with their servants and the peasants that worked on their lands. The princely guard and the lefegii are part of the small host as they are always under arms so not part of the great host. The rest I agree with.

Below is a summary army list for DBA (the wargame by Phil Barker) that I'm putting together. The first section is a breakdown of combat/unit types based on type/function, combining to total 12 elements (bases of units) for the game. The proportions become a little abstracted when dealing with a strict 12 elements, but that's the way it is for the game. The really pertinent part though, for my posts here, is the Notes section that follows beneath. I invite you both to read it and pull it apart based on your greater understanding. It is where I'm currently at re these armies, and is my work-in-progress.

IV/65. Wallachian or Moldavian. 1330AD-1504AD.

1 x Voievod General with Guard (3Kn or Cv), 1 x Boieri (Cv), 3 x Curteni and Calarasi (LH), 1 x Calarasi (LH) or 1 x Lefegii Heavy Foot (Bd or Sp), 4 x Tarani (Bw or Ps), 1 x Tarani (Bw or Ps or Ax), 1 x Tarani (Ps) or Lefegii Handgunners or Crossbowmen (Ps).

Notes:

The Voievod was the head of state, with absolute power. His Guard consisted of the palace guard and his personal guard - usually highly paid professional mercenary (mostly foreign, usually German or Bohemian) men-at-arms wearing chain and partial-plate armour, weapons including lance, sword, axe and mace - but also the most loyal Boieri (boyars) who could be trusted to guard the Voievod in battle.

Boieri were the landowners - from the wealthiest great boyars (boieri mari) directly responsible to the Voievod himself, to the lesser boyars (boieri mici) who owned villages, responsible to the great boyars above them - plus their sons and followers. Boieri mari fought as heavy cavalry, with access to chain and partial-plate armour in German-Hungarian style or the popular Italian (esp Venetian), depending on what they could afford. Weapons included lance/spears, bows, axes and the mace.

Curteni were lesser boyars (or only courtiers) (among *or immediately below* the boieri mici) with military and administrative duties at the various courts (of the Voievod and the great boyars), plus their sons and followers (see calarasi). They could be called on to swell the Voievod's standing army - of mercenary mounted guards and mercenary footsoldiers - with larger numbers of swift cavalry, armed with spear, bow and shield, but with little armour. Some curteni were originally peasants, rewarded for their bravery - as viteji (brave ones) - on the battlefield. (Alternatively, these viteji were not promoted as curteni, but rather shared a similar yet separate status alongside them, with differing peacetime roles.) Their (curteni) duties ranged from being the envoys of the Voievod and great boyars, to scouting and disordering roles on the battlefield. They were also known to feign retreat and dismount in woodland in order to shoot from ambush. Calarasi were the peasant servants of the curteni, similarly armed, and followed the curteni into battle, fighting in (their own units with their own leaders or in units led by curteni captains).

Lefegii (other than a Voievod’s personal or palace guard) were mostly paid mercenary foot, usually foreigners (Transylvanians, Hungarians, Poles, Germans, and others), often well armoured (mix of leather, chain and partial-plate, with or without shields) and equipped with spears, polearms, crossbows or handguns. These served as garrison troops in major towns and citadels, joining the army on campaign - additional lefegii were recruited specifically for campaigns, esp foreign invasion.

In times of foreign invasion, the landowning peasants and commoners would also be called upon. These Tarani (peasants/villagers) were combat trained and highly mobile, some wielding spears, axes and scythes, some with light armour (padded or leather) and shields; but mostly archers (arcasi), more lightly equipped and given to skirmishing with their bows. Note that Tarani Ps includes those armed with axes and other melee weapons (not just bows) suited to laying ambushes in mountains and woods. Tarani Ax and Bw represent those who fought/shot more closely clumped together as battlefield units, including those better equipped.


Please let me know your thoughts!
Cheers
Paul

Excellent job on the DBA. Honestly I agree with pretty much everything you wrote. I especially agree with your discussion of the viteji, which are a class very simillar to the curteni. They are usually lumped together in terms of social class with the difference being that the viteji were commoners raised to a higher status due to the proven valour in battle. Other weapons used could be halberds and heavy maces (known buzdugan or maciuca, which were basically large clubs with spikes nailed into them, quite cheap but deadly weapons, look at the Macemen in the Wallachian Preview).

[snowcat]

Thanks. Again, encouraging to know I'm going in the right direction. I'll come back to this in a day or so and query a couple of things I've written above - but for now I've found a way to unlock those locked pdfs, so all can now be OCR'd and translated.
Chat soon.
Paul

[mircea]

Hi Mircea

Excellent to have you join in this thread. Thanks.

Glad to be of help

I spent approx 3 hours last night translating (with Google Translate, not ideal) my OCR- converted Word version of the original pdf-scan of 'Curteni si Slujitori' by Stoicescu. 19 pages done - only 360-odd to go! Sadly, some of the translation is a bit dodgy too, which makes reading comprehension a struggle at times.

Wow, that sound like hell I know cause I did the same, and it took me a while. Nonetheless, if you have issues with some phrases, don't be afraid of asking

I am still a little confused re where the curteni slot in with the boieri mici and the viteji for instance.

Curteni were always small boyars, and with the time, some of them will manage to rise to the status of great boyars, especially in 16th century. On the other hand, while all Curteni were (small)boyars, not all (small) boyars were curteni, just the officeholders.
Viteji are very similar in function and social rank to Curteni, with the main difference being that they were commoners who were ennobled and appointed officeholders due to bravery in battles.

Interestingly, in 'History of the Romanians', Dogaru divides the Great Host into 2 sections: the Court and the Country's Assembly. What may surprise you is that he positions the Boieri as part of the Country's Assembly, called upon for the country's general raising to arms, along with the Tarani below them. They are not part of the Court, whereas the guard, curteni, viteji and lefegii (plus the artillery) are. What do you think of this?

I think that Dogaru refers mainly to the situation in Transylvania, were the nobles, Transylvanian Saxons and peasants were called to arms (universalis exercitus generaliter proclamati) only in cases of significant danger, like after the battle of Nicopole. In Moldova and Wallachia, boyars and their retinue (boyars' servants) were called to arms together with Curteni, viteji, voinici, lefegii (joldunari in Moldova) and hinsari.

Below is a summary army list for DBA (the wargame by Phil Barker) that I'm putting together. The first section is a breakdown of combat/unit types based on type/function, combining to total 12 elements (bases of units) for the game. The proportions become a little abstracted when dealing with a strict 12 elements, but that's the way it is for the game. The really pertinent part though, for my posts here, is the Notes section that follows beneath. I invite you both to read it and pull it apart based on your greater understanding. It is where I'm currently at re these armies, and is my work-in-progress.

IV/65. Wallachian or Moldavian. 1330AD-1504AD.

1 x Voievod General with Guard (3Kn or Cv), 1 x Boieri (Cv), 3 x Curteni and Calarasi (LH), 1 x Calarasi (LH) or 1 x Lefegii Heavy Foot (Bd or Sp), 4 x Tarani (Bw or Ps), 1 x Tarani (Bw or Ps or Ax), 1 x Tarani (Ps) or Lefegii Handgunners or Crossbowmen (Ps).

The tentative list looks very good, although I would have a few suggestions:
Curteni should be medium cavalry, better armed and protected compared to Calarasi. Or even better, considering that the timeframe includes just the 14015th centuries, I recommended scraping Calarasi and replacing them with Viteji and Hinsari.
Tarani could be renamed as Mosneni (Wallachia) and Razesi (Moldova), representing the free peasants.

Curteni were lesser boyars (or only courtiers) (among *or immediately below* the boieri mici) with military and administrative duties at the various courts (of the Voievod and the great boyars), plus their sons and followers (see calarasi). They could be called on to swell the Voievod's standing army - of mercenary mounted guards and mercenary footsoldiers - with larger numbers of swift cavalry, armed with spear, bow and shield, but with little armour. Some curteni were originally peasants, rewarded for their bravery - as viteji (brave ones) - on the battlefield. (Alternatively, these viteji were not promoted as curteni, but rather shared a similar yet separate status alongside them, with differing peacetime roles.) Their (curteni) duties ranged from being the envoys of the Voievod and great boyars, to scouting and disordering roles on the battlefield. They were also known to feign retreat and dismount in woodland in order to shoot from ambush. Calarasi were the peasant servants of the curteni, similarly armed, and followed the curteni into battle, fighting in (their own units with their own leaders or in units led by curteni captains).

Curteni were lower boyars, and during 15th century and early 16th represented the main military category of the country, numerically far superior to mercenaries, which are starting to be used on a wider scale from mid 16th century.
Calarasi (together with Dorobanti) were to so called Slujitori, a category created in late 16th century to supplement or replace the Curteni as both functionaries as well as soldiers. Unlike the Curteni which were part of the landed gentry, Slujitori were landless freemen which revived the right to settle on state's lands in exchange for administrative and military services.

Lefegii (other than a Voievod’s personal or palace guard) were mostly paid mercenary foot, usually foreigners (Transylvanians, Hungarians, Poles, Germans, and others), often well armoured (mix of leather, chain and partial-plate, with or without shields) and equipped with spears, polearms, crossbows or handguns. These served as garrison troops in major towns and citadels, joining the army on campaign - additional lefegii were recruited specifically for campaigns, esp foreign invasion.

Often, mercenaries filled certain military roles, such as crossbowmen, lancers or especially fire armed infantry, or formed the guard of the prince.
Among the princes that used a larger number of mercenaries in 15th century are Dan II, Vlad Dracul and Vlad Tepes (Impaler).

I am glad that Mircea has finally joined this thread because I would say he is the foremost expert on romanian military history on total war center. Especially since the other expert Romano-Dacis hasn't been on the forum for more than a year.

Thank you for compliment, but there are also other excellent experts on this topic, such as Dromi or you

Mircea, indeed i agree that digital library is a veritable gold mine. I have only scratched it's surface. I plan on downloading all the books and uploading them onto scribd. This should help snowcat with his issues aswell. But this won't happen for a while due to lack of time/good internet connection.

I think that a number of these are already on scribd or issuu. Nonetheless, the idea with creating an kind of repository of knowledge is very good, and I'll try to help.

Hmm I would have thought that the Razesi/Mosneni were more like the English yeomans. As in they are free landholding peasants. Or maybe I misunderstand the term yeoman. Weren't the yeomans just simple people that had very small landholdings so they weren't landless.

I was rather referring to the fact that they served as lower clerks as well as in the military.

According to wikipedia:
Yeomen filled many roles from the Middle Ages through to the 19th century. They were often constables of their parish, and sometimes chief constables of the district, shire or hundred. Many yeomen held the positions of bailiffs for the High Sheriff or for the shire or hundred. Other civic duties would include churchwarden, bridge warden, and other warden duties. It was also common for a yeoman to be an overseer for his parish. Yeomen, whether working for a lord, king, shire, knight, district or parish served in localised or municipal police forces raised by or led by the landed gentry.

The yeoman also comprised a military class or status (usually known as in the third order of the fighting class, between the squire and the page). In contemporary feudal continental Europe, by contrast the divide between commoners and gentry was far wider: though a middle class existed, it was not as well respected or esteemed as the contemporary yeoman of England.

Excellent job on the DBA. Honestly I agree with pretty much everything you wrote. I especially agree with your discussion of the viteji, which are a class very simillar to the curteni. They are usually lumped together in terms of social class with the difference being that the viteji were commoners raised to a higher status due to the proven valour in battle. Other weapons used could be halberds and heavy maces (known buzdugan or maciuca, which were basically large clubs with spikes nailed into them, quite cheap but deadly weapons, look at the Macemen in the Wallachian Preview).

A special kind of mace, called topuz represented a sign of authority, sometimes used by the Prince as well as major dignitaries.

[snowcat]

Glad to be of help


Wow, that sound like hell I know cause I did the same, and it took me a while. Nonetheless, if you have issues with some phrases, don't be afraid of asking

Will do, thanks.

Curteni were always small boyars, and with the time, some of them will manage to rise to the status of great boyars, especially in 16th century. On the other hand, while all Curteni were (small)boyars, not all (small) boyars were curteni, just the officeholders.
Viteji are very similar in function and social rank to Curteni, with the main difference being that they were commoners who were ennobled and appointed officeholders due to bravery in battles.

Excellent; I understand this better now.

I think that Dogaru refers mainly to the situation in Transylvania, were the nobles, Transylvanian Saxons and peasants were called to arms (universalis exercitus generaliter proclamati) only in cases of significant danger, like after the battle of Nicopole. In Moldova and Wallachia, boyars and their retinue (boyars' servants) were called to arms together with Curteni, viteji, voinici, lefegii (joldunari in Moldova) and hinsari.

Dogaru specifically divides the boieri apart from the Court for Moldavia, Wallachia and Transylvania – not just the latter. It’s a very detailed table on pg184 of the book I mentioned. So I think the jury is still out on this one.

The tentative list looks very good, although I would have a few suggestions:
Curteni should be medium cavalry, better armed and protected compared to Calarasi. Or even better, considering that the timeframe includes just the 14015th centuries, I recommended scraping Calarasi and replacing them with Viteji and Hinsari.

Re medium cavalry. DBA classes are made primarily according to battlefield role. Which of Cv and LH best describes the curteni/viteji:

CAVALRY, representing the majority of ancient horsemen, primarily armed with javelins, bows or other missile weapons but combining these with sword or lance (Cv), and also light chariots (LCh) with 2 animals and 1-2 crew. They usually started combat with close range shooting, using rapid archery or circulating formations to concentrate a mass of missiles, but charged when that would serve better or to follow up an advantage. They could destroy or drive away psiloi or auxilia, ride down foot bows caught at a disadvantage, and force other foot to retire or even destroy them. Not as committed to the charge as knights, they could retire out of range of archery or to breathe their horses between missile attacks on pikes or spears. They were outmatched in hand-to-hand combat by knights, but, being more agile and having missile weapons, were in less danger from light horse, elephants or scythed chariots. A few armies such as the Byzantines used deep formations with lance-armed cavalry in front and bow-armed behind, depicted as double-elements with lancers in the front row (6Cv).
LIGHT HORSE, including all light horsemen (LH) or camel riders (LCm) who skirmished in dispersed swarms with javelin, bow or crossbow and would not charge unshaken enemy; such as Numidians, Huns, Parthian horse archers, Late Roman “Illyrians” or Equites Sagittarii, genitors or border staves. They typically fought by sending a constant stream of small parties to gallop past shooting several times at close range, then return to rest or change ponies while others took their turn. The boldness engendered by their near invulnerability, the point-blank range and their continuous rapid shooting made them as effective against most foot as much larger numbers of foot archers and more so than cavalry in formation and lacking their large numbers of spare mounts. They did not charge until fatigue, casualties or disorder made the enemy incapable of resisting. If charged, they evaded shooting behind them, ready to turn on an over-confident pursuer. They detested foot archers, who outshot and outranged them, and artillery, who made their rally position unsafe. They were unlikely to destroy solid foot with good shields and/or armour unless these had an open flank, but could greatly hamper their movements. They were often used for wide flanking movements behind the enemy, operating semi-autonomously rather than under close control, so are permitted extra movement out of contact and are not affected by distance from the general.

Note that Lesser boyars & Viteji have always been classed as LH in all DBx systems. I’m inclined to maintain this. What specifically distinguishes the curteni as being Cv (like the rest of the boieri, esp the boieri mari) and not LH? ie leather armour, shield, lance on the surface appears to signify Cv, but only if their battlefield role matches their equipment. As a general rule (and Mongols are an example of this in that they have both), Cv are those horsemen keen to charge enemy after some skirmishing (and are usually more heavily armoured and offensively equipped to support this); LH prefer to keep skirmishing until the enemy is severely disordered before charging flanks, etc. Curteni & Viteji could be represented as Cv or (Cv or LH). What evidence do we have to say that curteni & viteji were Cv (keen to come to grips with the enemy - possibly following some skirmishing - in formations more suited to fighting) and not LH (zipping around everywhere in dispersed skirmishing swarms)? I admit that if *all* curteni/viteji are carrying a lance and a shield, it's not conducive to LH skirmishing! Perhaps some curteni/viteji were equipped this way, and others more lightly, like LH? Or not? Were the LH specifically the Hansari type that Dogaru describes?

Re Hinsari – do you mean hansari? This means ‘hussar’. Dogaru states that this term refers to the special corps of light cavalry attested to during the 15thC in all the Romanian countries and paid by shares of loot during the campaigns. Dogaru distinguishes the hansari from the curteni – but does not describe the battlefield role or troop type of the curteni. Nor do the hansari appear on his detailed table of military troops. The closest is the szekelers – are these the hansari he refers to as a special corps of light cavalry? Why didn’t he call them hansari then? I’ve also read elsewhere that ‘hansari’ was a 16thC+ term. ?? I’m skeptical of this term at the moment. It also starts to look a bit ugly if I use too many ‘native words’ in an abbreviated army list, esp if some have precious little difference in battlefield/game terms, esp for a 12 element representation of thousands of men. So which of these are seriously distinct from each other: boieri, curteni, viteji, hansari? And which begin to blur more than a little?

Tarani could be renamed as Mosneni (Wallachia) and Razesi (Moldova), representing the free peasants.

I chose Tarani as it is not region-specific, unlike mosneni and razesi which are. Also, this is one word to describe one thing instead of two. And I didn’t want to get into things like rumani and vecini either for similar reasons.

Curteni were lower boyars, and during 15th century and early 16th represented the main military category of the country, numerically far superior to mercenaries, which are starting to be used on a wider scale from mid 16th century.<snip>.

I presently have curteni numbering 25% to 33% of a typical Great Host, outnumbering Boieri 3:1 – 4:1, and outnumbering the Prince’s Guard the same. Is this enough? I also have the total possible lefegii at 25% of the army: Prince’s Guard + heavy infantry + crossbow/handgunners; although as little as 8% could be taken: just the Prince’s Guard. Is this close enough? Or should lefegii maxima be reduced by eg combining heavy infantry and crossbow/handgunners within 1 element option (8%) instead of 2 (16%)? In this case (1 element) the general chooses (in addition to his Guard) whether his 1 element of lefegii will be heavy infantry or crossbowmen or handgunners. Which way do you prefer?

Similarly, should the Boieri element (8%)(not the curteni/viteji/hansari etc) be separate (numerous enough and tactically distinct) from the general (the Prince and his Guard)? I think they should, but am open to suggestions. The current official DBA army list has the general and greater boyars combined as 1 element – but it does not appear to recognise the mercenary guard of the Prince. The latter is not mentioned, even in more detailed DBx lists, such as DBMM. So I’m suspecting a lack of knowledge on the author’s part here rather than a reason to exclude them, or subsume them and all the greater boyars into 1 element: the “general’s bodyguard”. But again, I’m open to suggestions. Do you think the greater boyars should be included with the general’s element and his guard (mercenary of otherwise)? Or represented more separately as I’ve done it?

Often, mercenaries filled certain military roles, such as crossbowmen, lancers or especially fire armed infantry, or formed the guard of the prince.
Among the princes that used a larger number of mercenaries in 15th century are Dan II, Vlad Dracul and Vlad Tepes (Impaler).

I note you did not include halberdiers/spearmen – heavy infantry. And why “especially” infantry with firearms? Because it was a more modern, rare, non-Romanian invention?

Here's an alternative list:

IV/65. Wallachian or Moldavian. 1330AD-1504AD.

1 x Voievod General with Guard (3Kn or Cv), 1 x Boieri (Cv), 2 x Curteni and Viteji (Cv or LH), 2 x Hansari (LH), 1 x Lefegii Heavy Foot (Bd or Sp) or Lefegii Handgunners or Crossbowmen (Ps), 4 x Tarani (Bw or Ps), 1 x Tarani (Bw or Ps or Ax). I would add a note to this that Curteni & Viteji can dismount as Bw.


What do you think?
Thanks again. I feel like I'm making progress.

Cheers
Paul

[snowcat]

Quick update: just got Ace Translator and have tested it with a chunk of text from Curteni si Slujitori. Waaaaaaay better than Google Translate, and while probably not the best translator available, it doesn't give me any of the problems I've experienced to-date. So I expect to be able to translate these pdfs much quicker (and a little more accurately) now. In the meantime, I hope I haven't scared Mircea off...

[mircea]

Quick update: just got Ace Translator and have tested it with a chunk of text from Curteni si Slujitori. Waaaaaaay better than Google Translate, and while probably not the best translator available, it doesn't give me any of the problems I've experienced to-date. So I expect to be able to translate these pdfs much quicker (and a little more accurately) now. In the meantime, I hope I haven't scared Mircea off...

I hope that the new translator helps although I do not have to much of confidence in translators
In what concerns the second part, not only you you had not scared me off, but I have to say that I'm quite intrigued by this topic, with the main problem being just the general lack of time. Nonetheless, I hope that I'll manage to get some more spare time latter this weekend, and thus properly reply to your inquire

[Wallachian]

Re Hinsari – do you mean hansari? This means ‘hussar’. Dogaru states that this term refers to the special corps of light cavalry attested to during the 15thC in all the Romanian countries and paid by shares of loot during the campaigns. Dogaru distinguishes the hansari from the curteni – but does not describe the battlefield role or troop type of the curteni. Nor do the hansari appear on his detailed table of military troops. The closest is the szekelers – are these the hansari he refers to as a special corps of light cavalry? Why didn’t he call them hansari then? I’ve also read elsewhere that ‘hansari’ was a 16thC+ term. ?? I’m skeptical of this term at the moment. It also starts to look a bit ugly if I use too many ‘native words’ in an abbreviated army list, esp if some have precious little difference in battlefield/game terms, esp for a 12 element representation of thousands of men. So which of these are seriously distinct from each other: boieri, curteni, viteji, hansari? And which begin to blur more than a little?

Yes, hinsari or hansari are the same thing. The spelling difference is due to a grammar reform that occured in Romania after 1990. It's actually the letters â and î which are pronounced the same but â is used if the letter is inside a word and î is used is if it is at the beginning. So what used to be hînsari is actually now hânsari.

And yes the hânsari are derived from the hussars. They appeared in the late XVth century in the Principalities as the Southern Balkan states were overrun by the Ottomans and the South Slav people like the Serbs moved north and served in the armies of the Principalities against the Ottomans. A unit of hânsari was recorded to have been used by Stefan the Great at the Battle of Vaslui in 1475. Later in the XVIth century the Principalities devolped their own corps of hânsari with native horsemen.

I note you did not include halberdiers/spearmen – heavy infantry. And why “especially” infantry with firearms? Because it was a more modern, rare, non-Romanian invention?

Because the Romanians were very reticent in adopting firearms. Simillar to the Ottomans they associated the fire and smoke with brimstone and hell so they considered it unholy. Also, they believed it was more valiant to face your enemy with hand to hand weapons and with bows. That is why the Romanian armies still had bows all the way up to late XVIIth century. The first firearm troops in the Principalities were foreign mercenaries. The Voivodes realised the potential of firearms so they hired these mercenaries to complement their armies. By the XVIth century the natives finally started using firearms aswell but by this time it was the age of the great mercenary armies.

[snowcat]

Interesting re the psychology behind the resistance to using the firearms. Ta for that.

Re the hansari/hinsari - due to the dating you can see why I do not want to use that term. As calarasi simply means light cavalry (or light horsemen) I think it is a safer choice, irrespective of it becoming a class category within the slujitori in the 16thC (and in this case it simply refers to folks fighting mounted, not on foot). Hansari is a little more specific and based on a Renaissance light cav type - the Hungarian hussar, the first written records of which appear in 1432. So it makes more sense to me to stick with calarasi as a general term for the light cavalry in the 14th & 15thC.

And I'm very glad all my DBxing hasn't scared Mircea off - it would some others!

I'm mostly curious about the Curteni/Viteji being Cv or LH. How were they armoured? Padding? Leather? More? Or less? The answer may well be contained in what you define as Medium cavalry, and how those units perform on the battlefield. Again, the above distinctions between Cv and LH should serve as qualifiers and eliminators respectively.

And is the modified army list any closer to the perceived historic record of Wallachian/Moldavian armies 14-15thC than the original list I proposed? Are there aspects of it you don't understand - such as the DBx terms? I'm happy to explain/expand on anything.

Cheers

[mircea]

[FONT=Verdana]
[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]Dogaru specifically divides the boieri apart from the Court for Moldavia, Wallachia and Transylvania – not just the latter. It’s a very detailed table on pg184 of the book I mentioned. So I think the jury is still out on this one.

Not only that I don't have a good opinion of Mircea Dogaru, but in this issue he is contradicted by much more renowned historians, such as Radu Rossetti, Constantin Daicovicu, or the authors of the monumental Istoria Militara a Romanilor. In all these source, the boyars are included among the corps of the Small Host (Oastea cea Mica). Further, Dogaru's opinion is contradicted by a very notable event: the battle of Razboieni (1476). While in the first part of the campaign the Moldovean prince Stefan cel Mare commands the entire army of the principality (Oastea cea Mare), using it to repel and crush the Tatar invasion, but later on, after having to discard the peasants to protect their own homes, the the prince is forced to battle the Turks with just the court army (Curteni) and the boyars.

Re medium cavalry. DBA classes are made primarily according to battlefield role. Which of Cv and LH best describes the curteni/viteji:

While the equipment and weaponry of curteni varied quite widely, but from what I have read, they served as horse archers, with secondary role of shock cavalry or sometimes as dismounted archers/infantry, being equipped with bows, mail, and a variety of cold weapons (swords, scimitars, maces, lances).
On the other hand, Calarasi, and probably poorer Curteni/Viteji were more lightly equipped, serving as fast horse archers as well, but less equipped for close combat.
Overall, cavalry, especially the horse archer type played a significant role in the Romanian armies of Middle Ages, with this evolution being the result of the habitation nearby steppe civilizations, and consequently the need to counter their frequent raids.

[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]Note that Lesser boyars & Viteji have always been classed as LH in all DBx systems. I’m inclined to maintain this. What specifically distinguishes the curteni as being Cv (like the rest of the boieri, esp the boieri mari) and not LH? ie leather armour, shield, lance on the surface appears to signify Cv, but only if their battlefield role matches their equipment. As a general rule (and Mongols are an example of this in that they have both), Cv are those horsemen keen to charge enemy after some skirmishing (and are usually more heavily armoured and offensively equipped to support this); LH prefer to keep skirmishing until the enemy is severely disordered before charging flanks, etc. Curteni & Viteji could be represented as Cv or (Cv or LH). What evidence do we have to say that curteni & viteji were Cv (keen to come to grips with the enemy - possibly following some skirmishing - in formations more suited to fighting) and not LH (zipping around everywhere in dispersed skirmishing swarms)? I admit that if *all* curteni/viteji are carrying a lance and a shield, it's not conducive to LH skirmishing! Perhaps some curteni/viteji were equipped this way, and others more lightly, like LH? Or not? Were the LH specifically the Hansari type that Dogaru describes?

While not specifically dealing with Curteni, hopefully this small review of dispel some confusions.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...80#post4473780
As a conclusion, in my (informed) opinion I would say that Boyars represent the standard shock cavalry (with breastplate, mail, steel helmet, lance and bows), Curteni represent the dual role medium horse archer/shock cavalry (with mail, bows, cold weapons), while poorer Curteni/Viteji and Calarsi represent the standard light horse archer cavalry/pursuit cavalry.




Re Hinsari – do you mean hansari? This means ‘hussar’. Dogaru states that this term refers to the special corps of light cavalry attested to during the 15thC in all the Romanian countries and paid by shares of loot during the campaigns. Dogaru distinguishes the hansari from the curteni – but does not describe the battlefield role or troop type of the curteni. Nor do the hansari appear on his detailed table of military troops. The closest is the szekelers – are these the hansari he refers to as a special corps of light cavalry? Why didn’t he call them hansari then? I’ve also read elsewhere that ‘hansari’ was a 16thC+ term. ?? I’m skeptical of this term at the moment. It also starts to look a bit ugly if I use too many ‘native words’ in an abbreviated army list, esp if some have precious little difference in battlefield/game terms, esp for a 12 element representation of thousands of men. So which of these are seriously distinct from each other: boieri, curteni, viteji, hansari? And which begin to blur more than a little?

[FONT=&quot][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]I presently have curteni numbering 25% to 33% of a typical Great Host, outnumbering Boieri 3:1 – 4:1, and outnumbering the Prince’s Guard the same. Is this enough? I also have the total possible lefegii at 25% of the army: Prince’s Guard + heavy infantry + crossbow/handgunners; although as little as 8% could be taken: just the Prince’s Guard. Is this close enough? Or should lefegii maxima be reduced by eg combining heavy infantry and crossbow/handgunners within 1 element option (8%) instead of 2 (16%)? In this case (1 element) the general chooses (in addition to his Guard) whether his 1 element of lefegii will be heavy infantry or crossbowmen or handgunners. Which way do you prefer?

If we are to use the example of the battle of Vaslui, prince Stefan cel Mare commanded an army of almost 50,000 men, of which c. 40,000 Moldavians and c.9,000 foreign troops (Poles, Hungarins and c.5,000 szekelers). While the percent of 25% mercs is quite accurate starting from mid to late 16th century, it was much lower in 15th century, probably around 15%. In regard to the number of Curteni, their number in Moldova was over 10,000 by early 16th century, so around 20-25% of the Great Host, with the number of Great Boyar significantly lower, probably no more than 10%. The rest was represented by peasants, with a part of them mounted. Once again, these are estimates made upon what I have read so far, so their are no more than informed guess estimates.

Similarly, should the Boieri element (8%)(not the curteni/viteji/hansari etc) be separate (numerous enough and tactically distinct) from the general (the Prince and his Guard)? I think they should, but am open to suggestions. The current official DBA army list has the general and greater boyars combined as 1 element – but it does not appear to recognise the mercenary guard of the Prince. The latter is not mentioned, even in more detailed DBx lists, such as DBMM. So I’m suspecting a lack of knowledge on the author’s part here rather than a reason to exclude them, or subsume them and all the greater boyars into 1 element: the “general’s bodyguard”. But again, I’m open to suggestions. Do you think the greater boyars should be included with the general’s element and his guard (mercenary of otherwise)? Or represented more separately as I’ve done it?

While Curteni played a significant role in the defense of princely courts, nonetheless the Prince was protected by a personal guard, which included local and foreign mercenaries, with the share of the latter growing significantly over the centuries.
If you would like to find more, I think you'll find interesting this document:
http://www.spp.ro/content/Istoria%20...0romanesti.pdf p.9-12

I note you did not include halberdiers/spearmen – heavy infantry. And why “especially” infantry with firearms? Because it was a more modern, rare, non-Romanian invention?

The spear was quite a frequently used weapon in Romanian armies, while at the same time, Romanians used war scythes that somewhat resembled halbards. Nonetheless, probably some of the mercenaries also used spears or halbards, just that they were not organized in separate halberdier/spear units.

In regard to firearms, the most frequently quoted reason for the relative lack of firearms is the cost of these, as well as the fact that the most common enemies (Tatars and Ottomans) were also not massively equipped with this type of weapons. On the other hand, some princes had a large number of artillery guns, especially during mid 16th century. It is said that Ioan Voda cel Viteaz (1572-1574) had no less than 80 guns, ranging from small culverines to large siege cannons, while at 1531, Moldavian prince Petru Rares had a number of ribauldequin guns, with 6 to 8 barrels each.

Here's an alternative list:

IV/65. Wallachian or Moldavian. 1330AD-1504AD.

1 x Voievod General with Guard (3Kn or Cv), 1 x Boieri (Cv), 2 x Curteni and Viteji (Cv or LH), 2 x Hansari (LH), 1 x Lefegii Heavy Foot (Bd or Sp) or Lefegii Handgunners or Crossbowmen (Ps), 4 x Tarani (Bw or Ps), 1 x Tarani (Bw or Ps or Ax). I would add a note to this that Curteni & Viteji can dismount as Bw.

My only suggestions are to hike to 3 the number of Curteni and Viteji (Cv), scrap the Hansari and replace them with Calarasi (or maybe Calareti = horsemen), and leave just 1 unit of Lefegii Handgunners.

Because the Romanians were very reticent in adopting firearms. Simillar to the Ottomans they associated the fire and smoke with brimstone and hell so they considered it unholy. Also, they believed it was more valiant to face your enemy with hand to hand weapons and with bows. That is why the Romanian armies still had bows all the way up to late XVIIth century. The first firearm troops in the Principalities were foreign mercenaries. The Voivodes realised the potential of firearms so they hired these mercenaries to complement their armies. By the XVIth century the natives finally started using firearms aswell but by this time it was the age of the great mercenary armies.

I have to say that I have rarely encountered this assertion and I would be really interested of its source.

[snowcat]

Thanks for the detailed reply Mircea - I'll dig into it shortly.

Cheers

[Wallachian]

I have to say that I have rarely encountered this assertion and I would be really interested of its source.

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.

If you're interested check out these articles. Very comprehensive and informative:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://cetateaneamtului.ro/tehnica.html
http://www.akademia.ro/articole.php?view=26

[snowcat]

Not only that I don't have a good opinion of Mircea Dogaru, but in this issue he is contradicted by much more renowned historians, such as Radu Rossetti, Constantin Daicovicu, or the authors of the monumental Istoria Militara a Romanilor. In all these source, the boyars are included among the corps of the Small Host (Oastea cea Mica). Further, Dogaru's opinion is contradicted by a very notable event: the battle of Razboieni (1476). While in the first part of the campaign the Moldovean prince Stefan cel Mare commands the entire army of the principality (Oastea cea Mare), using it to repel and crush the Tatar invasion, but later on, after having to discard the peasants to protect their own homes, the the prince is forced to battle the Turks with just the court army (Curteni) and the boyars.

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.

While the equipment and weaponry of curteni varied quite widely, but from what I have read, they served as horse archers, with secondary role of shock cavalry or sometimes as dismounted archers/infantry, being equipped with bows, mail, and a variety of cold weapons (swords, scimitars, maces, lances).
On the other hand, Calarasi, and probably poorer Curteni/Viteji were more lightly equipped, serving as fast horse archers as well, but less equipped for close combat.
Overall, cavalry, especially the horse archer type played a significant role in the Romanian armies of Middle Ages, with this evolution being the result of the habitation nearby steppe civilizations, and consequently the need to counter their frequent raids.

While not specifically dealing with Curteni, hopefully this small review of dispel some confusions.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...80#post4473780
As a conclusion, in my (informed) opinion I would say that Boyars represent the standard shock cavalry (with breastplate, mail, steel helmet, lance and bows), Curteni represent the dual role medium horse archer/shock cavalry (with mail, bows, cold weapons), while poorer Curteni/Viteji and Calarsi represent the standard light horse archer cavalry/pursuit cavalry.

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?

Either way, it sounds as if leaving 3 elements of Curteni & Viteji as Cv or LH represents this best. ie the player chooses some/all of the 3 elements as Cv or LH as he sees fit. This represents the dual-role flexibility you are talking about.

If we are to use the example of the battle of Vaslui, prince Stefan cel Mare commanded an army of almost 50,000 men, of which c. 40,000 Moldavians and c.9,000 foreign troops (Poles, Hungarins and c.5,000 szekelers). While the percent of 25% mercs is quite accurate starting from mid to late 16th century, it was much lower in 15th century, probably around 15%. In regard to the number of Curteni, their number in Moldova was over 10,000 by early 16th century, so around 20-25% of the Great Host, with the number of Great Boyar significantly lower, probably no more than 10%. The rest was represented by peasants, with a part of them mounted. Once again, these are estimates made upon what I have read so far, so their are no more than informed guess estimates.

While Curteni played a significant role in the defense of princely courts, nonetheless the Prince was protected by a personal guard, which included local and foreign mercenaries, with the share of the latter growing significantly over the centuries.
If you would like to find more, I think you'll find interesting this document:
http://www.spp.ro/content/Istoria%20...0romanesti.pdf p.9-12

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:
Garda Domneasca: Royal Guard (0-1 unit): The Voievod’s bodyguard, all professional warriors handsomely paid. Voievods preferred to rely on mercenaries rather than on the not always trustworthy loyalty of the boyars. Most were foreigners, usually Germans or Bohemians. Equipment: hand weapon, heavy armour and shield. Mounted guards have thrusting spear and may upgrade to lance. Dismounted guards may have thrusting spear or halberd. May have partial or full plate armour.
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.
Curteni: Court boyars. The curteni were boyars with military and administrative duties at the various courts (the Voievod’s and those of the great boyars) and were grouped in units in accordance with their place of service during peacetime. Equipment: hand weapon, composite bow, light armour, shield and horse. May have thrusting spear. May wear heavy or partial plate armour. Curteni are eastern shock cavalry.
Boieri: The country’s nobility, boyars owned villages. Due to the difficult nature of the country’s terrain, they commonly fought on foot, but sometimes, especially on the offensive, they fought as cavalry. Equipment: hand weapon, light armour, shield. May wear heavy armour. May have thrusting spear. Dismounted boyars may have double-handed weapon. Mounted Boieri are eastern shock cavalry.
Calarasi: Light horse. These ubiquitous horse archers were often armed with spears, and were a fixture of both Moldavian and Wallachian armies, Great Host and Small Host alike. Equipment: hand weapon, composite bow, shield and horse. May have thrusting spear. May wear light armour. Calarasi are skirmishers.
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 spear was quite a frequently used weapon in Romanian armies, while at the same time, Romanians used war scythes that somewhat resembled halbards. Nonetheless, probably some of the mercenaries also used spears or halbards, just that they were not organized in separate halberdier/spear units.

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.
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?

In regard to firearms, the most frequently quoted reason for the relative lack of firearms is the cost of these, as well as the fact that the most common enemies (Tatars and Ottomans) were also not massively equipped with this type of weapons. On the other hand, some princes had a large number of artillery guns, especially during mid 16th century. It is said that Ioan Voda cel Viteaz (1572-1574) had no less than 80 guns, ranging from small culverines to large siege cannons, while at 1531, Moldavian prince Petru Rares had a number of ribauldequin guns, with 6 to 8 barrels each.

My only suggestions are to hike to 3 the number of Curteni and Viteji (Cv), scrap the Hansari and replace them with Calarasi (or maybe Calareti = horsemen), and leave just 1 unit of Lefegii Handgunners.

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).

The Guard could be mercenaries or a mix of middle nobility and viteji (if we accept the idea that at least *some* ‘braves’ formed the Prince’s companions). Fully armoured mercenary men-at-arms would best be depicted as Kn(knight) while boyar/viteji guard would more likely be best represented as Cv(cavalry) depending on interpretation of equipment and behaviour.

So where are we on the viteji? What do you think of Minculescu’s version of things? And everything else above…! Again, looking forward to your (Mircea & Wallachian) thoughts.

Cheers!

[snowcat]

BTW, have just purchased this book:
Mureşanu, Camil, Istoria Militară a Poporului Român. Vol. 2. Epoca de glorie a oastei celei mari. A doua jumătate a secolului al XlV‑lea – prima jumătate a secolului al XVI‑lea, Bucharest, Ed. Militară, 1986
And copies of these 3 others are being purchased for me as well:
Dogaru, Mircea, Dracula, Împaratul Rasaritului: Gandirea Politica şi Practica Militara in Epoca lui Vlad Ţepeş, Bucharest, Ed. Albatross, 1998
Rosetti, Radu, Gen., Istoria Artei Militare a Românilor, Bucharest, Ed. Corint, 2003
Stoicescu, Nicolae, Curteni şi Slujitori: Contribuţii La Istoria Armatei Române, Bucharest, Ed. Militară, 1968


The library grows!
(Luckily that translator I now have is doing a decent job!)

[snowcat]

Anything to add/dismiss on the post above the last one?

Plus I've now updated the army list to restrict the number of curteni & viteji that can be armoured cavalry with spear and shield:

IV/65. Wallachian or Moldavian. 1330AD-1504AD.
1 x Voievod General with Guard (3Kn or Cv), 1 x Boieri (Cv), 1 x Curteni and Viteji (Cv or LH), 2 x Curteni (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).

This still permits up to 25% of the army's 'units' to be armoured strike cavalry of one form or another. Is this still too generous? (Note that in the original and current version of the 'official' DBA army list there is only 1 element of Cv - that of the General with his greater boyars.) So this is still 3 x the number of strike cavalry than the official list.

A more conservative option would be to combine the armoured Curteni & Viteji with the separate Boyars to bring the percentage of strike cavalry down to 16.67% of the army. It would look like this:

IV/65. Wallachian or Moldavian. 1330AD-1504AD.
1 x Voievod General with Guard (3Kn or Cv), 1 x Boieri and armoured Curteni/Viteji (Cv), 3 x Curteni (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).

Note: in the expanded form of the game (DBMM) the non-armoured Curteni would be LH(S) - Superior Light Horse, better armed and willing to charge disordered enemy. Calarasi would be LH(F) - Fast Light Horse, quicker but disinclined to fight.

Thoughts?


I missed out on the Rosetti book from the above shortlist - luckily I have the pdf of it via Wallachian.


Cheers

[Wallachian]

Hey mate

Sorry for replying late but Im very busy with research for the mod and university work. Damnn how did u get your hands on paper copies of all those books? Do you have any links where you got them from please?

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.

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?

Either way, it sounds as if leaving 3 elements of Curteni & Viteji as Cv or LH represents this best. ie the player chooses some/all of the 3 elements as Cv or LH as he sees fit. This represents the dual-role flexibility you are talking about.

Again this one is very difficult to assess because the equipment wasn't too standardised. While we try to standardise it for the purposes of our games (be it miniature or video games) the truth is they probably weren't as standardised. You would have probably had in the same unit Curteni with little or no armour and some curteni with chainmail or even the odd breastplate. But generally the Curteni were light cavalry Id say. That is why I completely agree with you placing them in the LH or Cv categories. Definetly wouldn't place them as Kn.

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.
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?

I quite agree with Minculescu's description of the mercenaries. There would have been so many types of Lefegii/mercenaries, some heavier, some lighter etc. I wouldn't say that the Voinici were less in number than the handgunners. Honestly don't think that many handgunners were used until the XVIth century.

Do you happen to have that Warhammer book in pdf format by any chance? Would be very interested in reading it,I remember I saw it in a Games Workshop about 5 years ago but back then couldn't afford to buy it.


Also about the armies, a thing to note is that the designations were very fluent and changing. Sometimes terms were used interchangebly, that is why we have confusions sometimes. For example, a person could be referred to as Curtean by someone or as a Viteaz by someone else. I dont think there were exact definitions by the book of what each consisted. That's why we have to make compromises.

The Guard could be mercenaries or a mix of middle nobility and viteji (if we accept the idea that at least *some* ‘braves’ formed the Prince’s companions). Fully armoured mercenary men-at-arms would best be depicted as Kn(knight) while boyar/viteji guard would more likely be best represented as Cv(cavalry) depending on interpretation of equipment and behaviour.

As Minculescu said the Guard was prefered to be foreign, but I think a mix of mercenaries and nobles are fine. The men at arms are good as Kn but the boyar guard could go either way. If you put them as Cv it means you put them in the same category as the very lightly armoured curteni, could be a problem there. But its up to you.

Plus I've now updated the army list to restrict the number of curteni & viteji that can be armoured cavalry with spear and shield:

IV/65. Wallachian or Moldavian. 1330AD-1504AD.
1 x Voievod General with Guard (3Kn or Cv), 1 x Boieri (Cv), 1 x Curteni and Viteji (Cv or LH), 2 x Curteni (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).

Note that this still permits up to 25% of the army's 'units' to be armoured strike cavalry of one form or another. Is this still too generous?

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.

[snowcat]

Hey mate

Sorry for replying late but Im very busy with research for the mod and university work. Damnn how did u get your hands on paper copies of all those books? Do you have any links where you got them from please?

Hi, no problem - another excellent and informative reply from you as usual.

I scored the books from Andrei at Cartea de Citit. I bought the Xenopol book from him a few weeks back, and recently supplied him with a shortlist of 4 key books I wanted. He had the Muresanu (even though Vol 2 wasn't on his online store) and tracked down 2 of the other 3 for me. The original webstore that had the Rosetti book is in error - they don't really have it at all. I highly recommend Andrei: http://www.carteadecitit.ro/

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 completely agree.

Again this one is very difficult to assess because the equipment wasn't too standardised. While we try to standardise it for the purposes of our games (be it miniature or video games) the truth is they probably weren't as standardised. You would have probably had in the same unit Curteni with little or no armour and some curteni with chainmail or even the odd breastplate. But generally the Curteni were light cavalry Id say. That is why I completely agree with you placing them in the LH or Cv categories. Definetly wouldn't place them as Kn.

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 quite agree with Minculescu's description of the mercenaries. There would have been so many types of Lefegii/mercenaries, some heavier, some lighter etc. I wouldn't say that the Voinici were less in number than the handgunners. Honestly don't think that many handgunners were used until the XVIth century.

This is in line with what I was familiar with.

Do you happen to have that Warhammer book in pdf format by any chance? Would be very interested in reading it,I remember I saw it in a Games Workshop about 5 years ago but back then couldn't afford to buy it.

No, mine's a book. I got mine from Warhammer Historical for 5GBP + shipping (3GBP I think). http://www.warhammer-historical.com/...t_Battles.html (scroll down)

Also about the armies, a thing to note is that the designations were very fluent and changing. Sometimes terms were used interchangebly, that is why we have confusions sometimes. For example, a person could be referred to as Curtean by someone or as a Viteaz by someone else. I dont think there were exact definitions by the book of what each consisted. That's why we have to make compromises.

They don't make it easy, do they.

As Minculescu said the Guard was prefered to be foreign, but I think a mix of mercenaries and nobles are fine. The men at arms are good as Kn but the boyar guard could go either way. If you put them as Cv it means you put them in the same category as the very lightly armoured curteni, could be a problem there. But its up to you.

Yes, as with all things in DBA, each category combines all differentiated sub-categories from the larger game. So Cv includes everything from the heaviest armoured Mongol Bodyguard or Timurid Tarkhan hero down to Roman auxiliary cavalry or a Germanic/Gallic mounted warrior in chain or less, with a shield and spear. I also allow the option for Kn or Cv not just for the armour and equipment differences between the more Western Men at Arms and the more Eastern Boyar, but also the behaviour. You could argue that Vlad's night attack on the Turks was perhaps indicative of hard-charging Kn than Cv who might prefer more manever, even skirmishing a little first. (Speculative, I know.) So either way really.

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.

Yes, this has been bugging me. It is probably the very reason why Phil Barker restricted the Cv to only 1 element out of 12 = 8.34%. And for this reason, my last suggestion may be 'safer': grouping any 'armoured' (chain or better) Curteni/Viteji in with the already separated Boyar element. That still gives the army a cavalry percentage of 16.67% which seems reasonable (and necessary IMO to separate the Boieri from the Guard), if slightly generous, and isn't as radical a departure from the current thinking of Phil Barker.

However, if there is evidence to support some units of Curteni/Viteji fighting tactically as cavalry (not skirmishing LH), irrespective of how standardised their armour or even weapons were, then the previous list would be best. I should point out that in DBx only Kn are *true strike cavalry*. Cv are more about maneuver. Again, I should stress that in DBA, classifications are primarily based on battlefield function - equipment is secondary.

IV/65. Wallachian or Moldavian. 1330AD-1504AD.
1 x Voievod General with Guard (3Kn or Cv), 1 x Boieri (Cv), 1 x Curteni/Viteji (Cv or LH), 2 x Curteni (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).
I still prefer this list, even though it offers up to 3 x the cavalry than the original list by Phil Barker.

Thank you once again - your insights are invaluable.

PS Get yourself one of those Warhammer Vlad's while they're still on that ridiculous special!

[snowcat]

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.

[snowcat]

I should probably add that I bought the Warhammer Vlad book + their Art of War book for 10GBP, plus another 10GBP for express shipping (so approx $30 total for 2 books & shipping). They arrived within a week in mint condition.

[Wallachian]

Hi, no problem - another excellent and informative reply from you as usual.

I scored the books from Andrei at Cartea de Citit. I bought the Xenopol book from him a few weeks back, and recently supplied him with a shortlist of 4 key books I wanted. He had the Muresanu (even though Vol 2 wasn't on his online store) and tracked down 2 of the other 3 for me. The original webstore that had the Rosetti book is in error - they don't really have it at all. I highly recommend Andrei: http://www.carteadecitit.ro/

Excellent, sounds like he's serious about delivering quality service so i will definetly check it out. What im interested the most is Vol 2 of Istoria Militara as I know that is the most comprehensive of all. Also, i really struggle to read ebooks, prefer paper copies any time.

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 see, well in that case I would tend to have them as LH mostly. In the end they were close to the light cavalry spectrum than the heavy one.

No, mine's a book. I got mine from Warhammer Historical for 5GBP + shipping (3GBP I think). http://www.warhammer-historical.com/acatalog/Warhammer_Ancient_Battles.html (scroll down)

Awesome, it is so cheap! I think it's worth getting even though i'm not into wargaming just for the historical information.

Yes, as with all things in DBA, each category combines all differentiated sub-categories from the larger game. So Cv includes everything from the heaviest armoured Mongol Bodyguard or Timurid Tarkhan hero down to Roman auxiliary cavalry or a Germanic/Gallic mounted warrior in chain or less, with a shield and spear. I also allow the option for Kn or Cv not just for the armour and equipment differences between the more Western Men at Arms and the more Eastern Boyar, but also the behaviour. You could argue that Vlad's night attack on the Turks was perhaps indicative of hard-charging Kn than Cv who might prefer more manever, even skirmishing a little first. (Speculative, I know.) So either way really.

Well the Night Attack was a lightning hit and run raid. Definetly not with heavy cavalry, the way I see it it he would have used mostly lightly armed cavalry to allow him a quick escape once he reached his objective of killing the Sultan. It was never meant to be a full fledged battle.

Yes, this has been bugging me. It is probably the very reason why Phil Barker restricted the Cv to only 1 element out of 12 = 8.34%. And for this reason, my last suggestion may be 'safer': grouping any 'armoured' (chain or better) Curteni/Viteji in with the already separated Boyar element. That still gives the army a cavalry percentage of 16.67% which seems reasonable (and necessary IMO to separate the Boieri from the Guard), if slightly generous, and isn't as radical a departure from the current thinking of Phil Barker.

Yes, 8.34% is a much more realisting figure. The cavalry percentage can be higher but it just can't be heavy cavalry.

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.

[snowcat]

Sounds like you would be more inclined to go with the conservative version:
IV/65. Wallachian or Moldavian. 1330AD-1504AD.
1 x Voievod General with Guard (3Kn or Cv), 1 x Boieri or Curteni/Viteji (Cv), 3 x Curteni (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).

Re the Warhammer book, I highly recommend it. It has lots of info on the Turks, Hungarians, Moldavians, Wallachians and others. Really sets the period.

Re the statuette you found - would look very nice on display. A little too 'romantic' for my taste - I prefer the plainer, more grim and brooding look.

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