Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post - Wallachian Swords of the 15th Century: What Types?

Emanuel · 20th July 2009, 04:54 PM

Looks like I've been missing out on a lot of fine discussion. Work keeps me busy... I need a history refresher as well. Thanks Gonzalo for your great post, I'm impressed. I'll only correct a few mentions.

Iancu de Hunedoara (1387 - d. 1456) was contemporary with Vlad II Dracul (1390 - 1447). Iancu supported Vladislav II to the Valahian throne (hence your confusion with Vlad II, very similar names

). You are quite right about the assassination of Vlad II and his elder son Mircea.

In 1442, Sultan Murad II requested that Vlad III Tepes and his younger brother Radu reside in Constantinople as political hostages. They stayed there until 1447, when Vlad III, aged 17, was given an Ottoman cavalry and infantry contingent to take the Valahian throne from Vladislav II. His first reign was short-lived, since the boiers still backed Vladislav II and helped him retake the throne. Tepes finally cemented his claim to the throne in 1456, and began his famous assault on the boier nobility.

Vlad III stopped paying tribute to the Porte towards 1460, and formed an alliance with Matei Corvin (son of Iancu de Hunedoara) of Hungary, backed by the Pope. After initial successes, Tepes is once again "betrayed" by the boiers, who support Radu - now backed by Sultan Mehmet II.
In 1462 Tepes marches north into Transilvania to rendez-vous with Matei Corvin and his forces. Corvin decides to annul the alliance with Tepes and "arrests" him. Vlad III is taken as a political hostage, and for the next thirteen years resides in Budapesta. In that time he marries a second time to a cousin of Matei Corvin. In 1475-76 he returns to the Valahian throne for a very short period. He either dies in battle in Bucharest at the end of 1476 or is assassinated, depending on the sources.

There are paintings of him in western and eastern dress. Once again I don't think he discriminated too much in his choice of arms. Valahian armies at the time were mostly drawn from the peasantry and equipment was improvised. The boier nobility provided the cavalry, and they could be expected to have better equipment, although not necessarily standard.

In the time of Mircea the Old (1355, 1418), Valahian tactics relied heavily on archer corps. Arms manufacture was somewhat limited, and much was supposedly purchased from the Saxons of Transilvania. As I stated earlier, the collection in the National Military museum demonstrate the contemporary use of both western swords (Stefan the Great) and curved sabres.

My statement that Valahians were not warlike is based on the fact that they never developed a cohesive martial tradition similar to that of Poland and Hungary. One point in favour of this is the apparent lack of development of sword typology, as is seen in Polish and Hungaryan sabres. Later in the 16th and 17th centuries, eastern weapons become more prevalent. By the 18th and 19th centuries, western European, particualrly French and German, become dominant. Teodor, I totally agree with your statement about Vlachs participating in Bulgarian and other armed conflicts in the 11th-13th centuries, but we are talking here about the 15th. There is documented Vlach presence far south of the Danube early on in the second millenium. IIRC there was a town known as Vlachopolis (Blachopolis) somewhere north of Constantinople...I'll check the source on that. Those Vlach populations that did not move back north of the Danube were more or less assimilated by other ethnicities and nationalities. The Aromanians and the Mechedons in Bulgaria and Greece, the Vlasky in Serbia, for example.

One of Romania's national mythos is the fighting peasant who responds to the Lord's (as in ruler) call to fight off invaders. Much of Romanian/Valahian military history is rooted in defense against foreign incursion rather than expansionist policy. Hence, my characterisation of Vlachs as not "warlike"...perhaps not the most appropriate word as most peoples at the time had to be warlike to survive...

Samuel, one cannot really distinguish between Cuman and Valahian actions and tactics in the 15th century. By that time Cumans had throroughly mixed with local populations in Valahia as well as surrounding countries (there were large Cuman populations in Hungary as well). People were thoroughly mixed then, with many Valahians, Hungarians and Bulgarians inter-marrying. There is still some pretty feisty debate about Iancu de Hunedoara and Matei Corvin, and the family's mixed Hungarian-Vlach origins. Given this mixed history, I'm saddened by the century-old Romanian-Hugarian political and cultural confrontation.

Emanuel

20th July 2009, 04:54 PM	#22
Emanuel Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,242	Looks like I've been missing out on a lot of fine discussion. Work keeps me busy... I need a history refresher as well. Thanks Gonzalo for your great post, I'm impressed. I'll only correct a few mentions. Iancu de Hunedoara (1387 - d. 1456) was contemporary with Vlad II Dracul (1390 - 1447). Iancu supported Vladislav II to the Valahian throne (hence your confusion with Vlad II, very similar names ). You are quite right about the assassination of Vlad II and his elder son Mircea. In 1442, Sultan Murad II requested that Vlad III Tepes and his younger brother Radu reside in Constantinople as political hostages. They stayed there until 1447, when Vlad III, aged 17, was given an Ottoman cavalry and infantry contingent to take the Valahian throne from Vladislav II. His first reign was short-lived, since the boiers still backed Vladislav II and helped him retake the throne. Tepes finally cemented his claim to the throne in 1456, and began his famous assault on the boier nobility. Vlad III stopped paying tribute to the Porte towards 1460, and formed an alliance with Matei Corvin (son of Iancu de Hunedoara) of Hungary, backed by the Pope. After initial successes, Tepes is once again "betrayed" by the boiers, who support Radu - now backed by Sultan Mehmet II. In 1462 Tepes marches north into Transilvania to rendez-vous with Matei Corvin and his forces. Corvin decides to annul the alliance with Tepes and "arrests" him. Vlad III is taken as a political hostage, and for the next thirteen years resides in Budapesta. In that time he marries a second time to a cousin of Matei Corvin. In 1475-76 he returns to the Valahian throne for a very short period. He either dies in battle in Bucharest at the end of 1476 or is assassinated, depending on the sources. There are paintings of him in western and eastern dress. Once again I don't think he discriminated too much in his choice of arms. Valahian armies at the time were mostly drawn from the peasantry and equipment was improvised. The boier nobility provided the cavalry, and they could be expected to have better equipment, although not necessarily standard. In the time of Mircea the Old (1355, 1418), Valahian tactics relied heavily on archer corps. Arms manufacture was somewhat limited, and much was supposedly purchased from the Saxons of Transilvania. As I stated earlier, the collection in the National Military museum demonstrate the contemporary use of both western swords (Stefan the Great) and curved sabres. My statement that Valahians were not warlike is based on the fact that they never developed a cohesive martial tradition similar to that of Poland and Hungary. One point in favour of this is the apparent lack of development of sword typology, as is seen in Polish and Hungaryan sabres. Later in the 16th and 17th centuries, eastern weapons become more prevalent. By the 18th and 19th centuries, western European, particualrly French and German, become dominant. Teodor, I totally agree with your statement about Vlachs participating in Bulgarian and other armed conflicts in the 11th-13th centuries, but we are talking here about the 15th. There is documented Vlach presence far south of the Danube early on in the second millenium. IIRC there was a town known as Vlachopolis (Blachopolis) somewhere north of Constantinople...I'll check the source on that. Those Vlach populations that did not move back north of the Danube were more or less assimilated by other ethnicities and nationalities. The Aromanians and the Mechedons in Bulgaria and Greece, the Vlasky in Serbia, for example. One of Romania's national mythos is the fighting peasant who responds to the Lord's (as in ruler) call to fight off invaders. Much of Romanian/Valahian military history is rooted in defense against foreign incursion rather than expansionist policy. Hence, my characterisation of Vlachs as not "warlike"...perhaps not the most appropriate word as most peoples at the time had to be warlike to survive... Samuel, one cannot really distinguish between Cuman and Valahian actions and tactics in the 15th century. By that time Cumans had throroughly mixed with local populations in Valahia as well as surrounding countries (there were large Cuman populations in Hungary as well). People were thoroughly mixed then, with many Valahians, Hungarians and Bulgarians inter-marrying. There is still some pretty feisty debate about Iancu de Hunedoara and Matei Corvin, and the family's mixed Hungarian-Vlach origins. Given this mixed history, I'm saddened by the century-old Romanian-Hugarian political and cultural confrontation. Emanuel Last edited by Emanuel; 20th July 2009 at 06:52 PM.