Wallachian Swords of the 15th Century: What Types?

[Samik]

Hello ,
I thought I would chime in on those pesky sabres . Usualy the knightly class (i.e. western shock cavalry) of the pre-Mohacs(1526) era hungary was equipped with longswords, pretty much like their germanic cousins. However sabres were a common weapon of the light cavalry long before any contact with Ottoman Turks happened (light cavalry usually consisting of Pechengs , later on Cumanians and Szekely (sic) which were semi-nomadic nations that resided in the lands of hungarian kings and fought pretty much like mongols).

If I may I would also disagree a little bit with you Jim (hope you dont mind ) that hungarian sabres were the direct descendants of Turkish sabres and only appeared in the course of 16th century. There is evidence both in form of antique weapons http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/disp...lbum=40&pos=57 (hope I can post this link from another "armoury" website , if not I will try to edit the post) and in heraldy http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikibook...%281466%29.jpg ( a rare 1466 Corvinus era coat of arms , that belongs to some hussar by the name of Peter). As you can see from the above examples the sabres had more in common with schiavonesca style swords than Kilij-proper ( I dont like to call the turkish sabres "kilij" , AFAIK its a generic term for sword , but whatever ). Note the handle and the presence of a "sword" pommel. Furthermore there is a nice example of a schiavonesca-style longsword alongside a similarly styled sabre http://www.tforum.info/forum/gallery..._295_18626.jpg

To determine the armament used by count Vlad III. is however a bit difficult. If he was the typical 15th century Wallachian nobleman like his father (and many other Hungarian ones) that served as a knightly/shock cavalry (again I dont like to use the term "heavy" , it somehow conveys clumsiness and slowness , which was not the case imho) it would look pretty much like this I guess http://www.hung-art.hu/kep/zmisc/far...2/hunyadi7.jpg

However from what little I know about Vlad's life , in his early youth he was sent together with his brother to Turkey as a hostage. There he was however trained in Ottoman way of war and Qur'an logic. I even think that his "comeback" arrival home was with an ottoman army ,in order to seize fathers kingdom and to become a sort of a pupper ruler for the ottomans (I am not sure on this story though I would welcome if somebody more familiar with Vlad's life could check it up). Thus one might argue that he could have access to Turkish weaponry, although the lack of evidence is preventing from making any such claims.


P.S: English is not my native language , so sorry for any errors

P.S.2: I am a new guy here , so please go easy on me and HELLO everyone

[Jim McDougall]

Hello Samik, and WOW, thats what I call an entrance!!!! Welcome

I absolutely do not mind you disagreeing, in fact the outstanding information you have presented beautifully orients our discussion (no pun intended) concerning whether Vlad's sword might have been a sabre of Ottoman form.

Excellent point on the ethnic diversity of Hungary in these times, and indeed there were varying nomadic tribes from the Steppes who certainly are known for using the developing sabre form. This truly is well placed information and in focusing on the Ottomans, had entirely overlooked the presence of these peoples in Eastern European kingdoms.

I know what you mean about the term 'heavy cavalry' or heavily armoured etc. and I think the best example I can think of that disproves that misconception were the Polish 'Winged Hussars', which of course is simply one example of European armoured cavalry. ...hardly slow, and definitely most formidable.

You are also quite right in the note regarding application of sword terms, which is also often extremely misleading, and there seems to be so many instances where a more detailed description is much more effective. It seems we have had debates on terminology so often, which seldom resolve any of the issues, but also prove interesting when new perspective or evidence is presented.

Again, I am so glad you joined us here, and thank you so much for the beautifully presented observations, links and perspective. I very much look forward to your continued participation in searching more into this puzzle.

All the very best,
Jim

[Samik]

Thank you for the warm welcome Jim!

As for joining this forum I have always wanted to do so long ago , but only recently discovered (well today to be precise) that I had to email Mr. Jones in order to register (silly me!). I would also like to thank you and the other forum members as you were one of the sources of inspiration for me in order to pursue further knowledge about the subject.

But enough with my rant, lets see if I (or somebody else) will try to dig some more about Vlad...(oh and Wallachian swords of the 15th century!)

Sorry for the interference

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Samik

Thank you for the warm welcome Jim!

As for joining this forum I have always wanted to do so long ago , but only recently discovered (well today to be precise) that I had to email Mr. Jones in order to register (silly me!). I would also like to thank you and the other forum members as you were one of the sources of inspiration for me in order to pursue further knowledge about the subject.

But enough with my rant, lets see if I (or somebody else) will try to dig some more about Vlad...(oh and Wallachian swords of the 15th century!)

Sorry for the interference

Not interference Samik!!! Participation, and thank you for the kind words.
We share knowledge and learn together here, and you are clearly a valuable addition to the group. Please rant away, you're right with us

All the best,
Jim

[Emanuel]

Hi Jim and all,

Nice topic Radu would have jumped on it in the past. As the apparently only Romanian on the board, I'll chime in for a bit. My understanding is that Valahian culture and arms and armour were subject to multiple spheres of influence in the 15th century. The examples I have seen in the military museum in Bucharest range from straight European blades to Ottoman blades. Axes and maces were also quite popular, and as Samik pointed out (welcome Samik) there is great similarity with Hungarian equipment. Armies were also drawn from the peasantry, so equipment was often rudimentary and agricultural implements were often used.

Vlad would have been at ease with both Western and Ottoman arms and armour. He may have hated Turks, but he would not have disregarded their technology. Until he actively opposed the Porte and stopped paying tribute, he even had Ottoman troops on loan.

I have lost much of my picture archives in the past, but I will try to track down some museum pics and dated examples.

I've often looked for a weapon type that was distinctly Romanian / Vlach / Dacian, but there isn't much besides the Dacian falx, and even that is a continuation of other tools and weapons (the rhomphaia, convex Thracian daggers, and others) rather than a local invention. Vlachs were not a particualrly warlike people and we did not develop a strong martial spirit. Our coniving Boers didn't help, preferring to pay tribute to the Porte rather than support a unifying prince.

Emanuel

[Samik]

Hi Emanuel ,

Thanks for your welcome as well.
As you happen to be a native to that part of world Im sure you are more versed in the history of Dracula than most of us. I would kindly ask you if you could elaborate a bit more (if its okay with you and not too much offtopic) on the relationship between the Ottoman Sultan , Vlad , his dad and Hunyady(hungarian regent/ruler at the time). It seemed to me (from reading some of the pseudofactual biography of Vlad) that there was some backstory and tension in the air both from hungarians and turks. I remember reading an article on Vlad from a Slovak historian that pointed out that the massacres and killings under Vlad’s ruling might partly come from the exaggaration of Ottoman and Hungarian chronicles. From what (little) I gather, he was somewhat reluctant to join either party and that "obstinacy" of his could be the cause of the infamous notoriety (sort of like a late medieval propoganda).

You might know Count Elizabeth Bathory from upper hungary , (Slovakia at present) , that had been accussed of murdering young women. However some of those accusations were overstatements ,that sometimes drifted to purely ridiculous claims such as the notorious habit of "bathing in virgins blood". Later on it became evident that the authors of those claims were some of Elizabeth’s peers looking for a way to put her behind bars and claim her (vast) property and riches. Personaly I see a bit of paralels with Vlad (not only in the fact that the Bathory lineage has roots from that part of balkans . Even Hunyady’s son Matthias Corvinus (that was nicknamed "Just") wasnt really a fan of Vlad’s and imprisoned him for some time IIRC. Imho origins on the matter might shed some further light on the topic (even if it touches it only lightly).

Furthermore you mentioned that Vlachs were not really a warlike folk. However Heat’s Armies of the Middle Ages , part 2 that focuses on eastern europe and balkans among other things (mind you a bit outdated source , the book was published in 1984, and even though its target audience is wargamers, still has some valid passages nevertheless) explicitly says " The Cumans and Wallachians were very similar in arms and appearance, and significantly the term 'Cuman' and 'Wallachian' are used interchangebly in 13th-14th century Hungarian sources." As far as Cumans/Cumanians (in their native tongue they called themselves "Kipcak", Hungarians called them "Kunó") are concerned I can tell you that they were a hell of a fighters/warriors (having a lineage and art of war coming right out of the eurasian steepe).

I am aware of the fact that during Vlad’s reign a lot could change ( The somewhat germanic Order of the dragon and whatnot), but despite this the lineage of Dracul/Dracula’s predecessors seems to have link to Bassarab (I not sure on this a checkup would be welcomed) which was a Cumanian ruler and most definetley a "saber-wielder"

P.S: excuse the somewhat awkward attempt in quoting the source, the book in mind is this http://www.spiritgames.co.uk/wgrulessin.php?UniqueNo=79

Cheers ,
Samuel

[Emanuel]

Hi Samuel,

Your comments are quite right. I'll comment quickly now and get back later with a detailed response.

Romanians generally think well of Vlad Tepes. His rule was characterized by relative fairness to peasants and the poor, stable laws, and a balance to the power of the Boier landowners. He is also well remembered for his sustained opposition to the Turks and his attempt to keep Valahia independent of the Ottoman Empire and the other European powers alike. A good reason to vilify him. I don't doubt some of his cruelty to his enemies, both foreign and Vlach, but I think the accounts of it exaggerated.

Cumans (a Turkic people) were indeed warlike, the reason a number of our rulers were of Cuman decent, or at least claimed such decent. But with the exception of the Ottoman wars, there were relatively few engagements with neighbours, mostly with Hungary, and generally focused on the unification of the three "Romanian" principalities, Transylvania, Valahia and Moldova.

More later...

[Elias Shereider]

Originally Posted by Samik

However from what little I know about Vlad's life , in his early youth he was sent together with his brother to Turkey as a hostage. There he was however trained in Ottoman way of war and Qur'an logic. I even think that his "comeback" arrival home was with an ottoman army ,in order to seize fathers kingdom and to become a sort of a pupper ruler for the ottomans (I am not sure on this story though I would welcome if somebody more familiar with Vlad's life could check it up). Thus one might argue that he could have access to Turkish weaponry, although the lack of evidence is preventing from making any such claims.

Yes Samik,

At the 14 years (its de 'Juvenis' age, a adult man in the XV) Vlad was retained by the Murad II in her court un the Ottoman empire for 4 years 1444-1448.
Vlad return to Vallachia in 1448 after the battle of KosovoJ with 30.000 Turkish soldiers to reign Vallachia in Mullads's name.

This indicates that his first sword was Turkish.

sorry for my bad english,

Elias

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Elias Shereider

Yes Samik,

At the 14 years (its de 'Juvenis' age, a adult man in the XV) Vlad was retained by the Murad II in her court un the Ottoman empire for 4 years 1444-1448.
Vlad return to Vallachia in 1448 after the battle of KosovoJ with 30.000 Turkish soldiers to reign Vallachia in Mullads's name.

This indicates that his first sword was Turkish.

sorry for my bad english,

Elias

Hi Elias, and welcome!!! I'm glad to see you here. I hope you will find the discussion intreresting, and add findings from your research on this topic as well.



While I still have been trying to catch up on the complexity of the history of these regions in these times, and am in complete admiration of the command of it by Samik, as well as Emanuel, I'm still not convinced that Vlad would have carried an Ottoman type sword.

It remains that the German influences in Wallachia were prevalent, and certainly the sword blades were as well. In "Hungary and the Fall of Eastern Europe 1000-1568" by David Nicolle (Osprey, 2001, p.26) the sword of Stephan the Great of Moldavia c.1480 is shown (also seen in post #5 here). It is a standard simple crossguard broadsword with blade believed possibly imported from Germany.
Though obviously suggested, not declared, the note is simply to show that these German blades were straight broadsword forms used apparantly extensively in these regions in these times, and by prominant figures. The influence and import of German arms and armour had prevailed for well over two centuries at this point, and certainly would have been well established.

While Vlad was held by the Ottomans, and certainly did receive training by them, it does not necessarily prove that he subscribed to thier styles and weaponry, despite various suggestions of his doing so by later accounts and particularly artistic interpretations.

I think one strong suggestion for the possibility of Vlad's use of a sabre is probably the noted influences of the Cuman (Kipchak) tribes in Hungary and their use of sabres is of course well known, as was that of other steppes tribes whose ethnic presence throughout these regions is established.
Since Vlads final reign was accomplished in the year of his death 1476 with the help of Hungary, perhaps that light have presented the potential for sabres at his disposal.

As always, looking forward to more from Samik, Emaneul and Elias and others who have far better understanding of this history than I, and thier thoughts.

All the best,
Jim

[Samik]

Hello Jim and everybody ,


Thanks Elias for the confirmation on Vlad's early life. Man being 18 years old and already leading an army is something. I am also looking forward for more info coming from you Emanuel .

Great observation on the weapon carried by Draculas' father Jim. And yeah the Cuman presence was quite heavy in the region. Like Emanuel pointed out , many Vlach rulers saw themselves as being descended from their bloodline ( we mention them so much in this thread that they must be spinning in their graves by now , but anyway they are a bit overlooked factor imo).

However one has to take into consideration that Vlad II was probably a western styled men at arms , using different tactics and weapons than the Cuman warriors. The reason behind him using a longsword as opposed to a sabre isnt just a thing of fashion. It is imho purely a practical one. Western knightly cavalry (or men at arms) were by no means only reserved to fighting from horseback, they often dismounted and fighted on foot , with the longsword providing an edge (pun intended) in hand to hand combat and for its better reach (as well as handling and power generation coming from the usage of both hands).

The evidence for such tactics are very apparent at Nicopolis where the French crusaders (after smashing through akinji light horse) ended up being trapped at anti-cavalry baricades (spikes coming from the ground and such) ;decided to dismount and had no problems dealing considerable damage to the ottoman footsoldiers (the real trouble came from the shower of arrows that was delivered by Sipahi's that managed to outflank them). Another great example of their versatility is a bit later painting depicting the battle of orsha ( IIRC coming from 1530’s, whlist the battle took place in the 1515)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...4-09-08%29.jpg


I cant stress how much that painting is important both for us arms and armour enthusiast , period military researchers and even HEMA community.( I would like to start a separate threat on this fabulous painting , but for now Dracula has bigger magnitude.) Notice the Polish men-at-arms (in maximilian-esque armour) not only guarding cannons/wagenburgen from behind but also being dismounted and placed on flanks and in between the canons themselves. You can see them fighting off the Muscovy Boyars , that are armed in a pretty much Tatar fashion. Which brings me back to those favourite Cumanians of ours.

They (Cumans) were much more comfortable shooting their bow from horseback and using a sabre as a reserve weapon in h2h combat or when in pursuit of fleeling (already broken) troops (pretty much like the Boyars of Muscovy , depicted at the splendid Orsha painting ). That was their "modus operandi". At this as a "nomadic horse nation" they excelled and earned their place beside (and high regard from) the hungarian king (they had as a ethnic minority priviledges that were preserved till 19th century)



(the guys on the right;the king depicted is Lajos the great; 14th century hungarian illuminated chronicle)
But I am sure you already know that by now

Hence one may conclude that longswords were the tools of men at arms (that like to rumble on foot as well) and the sabres are the weapon of choice for the nomadic cavalry (that liked to stay mounted and fighted at a distance; that however is a bit of oversimplification from my side , there are definetly exception but for the sake of our discussion I will leave it at that point , and might return to it in some other thread. ) I know that i might use the hungary as an example too much but I will take the liberty nonetheless and assume that Wallachia was no different, thus sabres being used by ethnic Cumans (that had probably their own smiths) and Vlach men at arms using western armament (there was AFAIK also a native Vlach light horse, I remember reading something on the web and in Heat’s book, ill post some more on the topic if it is desired and if I will be able to find it) .

At a side note , it is a general consensus that sabres are weapons coming from the steepe. I remember reading an article from a Polish-sabre fencer/historian/re-enactor Rick Orli (not sure if that is his proper name) that mentioned one viewpoint of his that changed my perception of the weapon. That was the fact that (from one of his articles on Polish sabre) the curve on the sabre actually helps one to THRUST better from horseback. (i am only paraphrasing , again i might look it up , see if I can find the article somewhere)

Anyway coming back to our herr Dracula. Like Jim mentioned the later paintings depict him somewhat erroneously in contemporary fashion with a fully developed hungarian (or polish or even a "westernish") sabre. I have even found a 17th century depiction of a Knight of the order of the dragon (that both tepes and his father were a part of; illustration from 'Histoire et Costumes des Ordres Monastiques done by Pierre Helyot)



As you can see most of such paintings are decades (well actually centuries) after Dracula's (and members of the order) death. Now I would like to come back to the sabre vs longsword issue (after a rather longish diverson , that served its purpose nevertheless imo). I have already mentioned that Vlad had recieved training from its Turkish captors. However I personally dont know what that training could specificaly consist of (if anyone does , please dont hesitate to contribute). Was he trained as a Sipahi cavalryman?...Did they even let him to get hold of a sabre in the first place? What if the training was only purely on "strategic" level only. Also remember that as a son of a knight Vlad would probably be instructed in the way of longsword very very early in his life (even well before 14 years of age). There is also a similar story about a son of a Serbian despot , being handed over to Tatars as a hostage a century (or two) ago before Vlad. I dont remember the dates or names (I might check it up if you wish), but he was also planned to be placed on serbian throne back as vassal for tatars. However further bio of his life (escaped the captivity and claiming fathers throne or something in similar lines) suggest that his "knightly" character was pretty much untouched (but one might also argue that tatars had different way of handling prisoners and thus their further vassals than the ottomans ). Answers to the questions about his training with ottomans as well as clarification if he could lean more to the knightly/men at arms way (like his father) might shed more light on it.
I remember reading a similar thread on SFi that discussed similar question about Dracula. One of the posters suggestion was that when Vlad was raiding/scouting he was armed with a saber , and on the other hand when he was going into an allout battle , he would arm himself with a longsword and western armour. I liked the suggestion but would argue at some points. For instance why would a nobleman(and a head of kingdom) have to engage in some skirmishing/raiding when a band of Cumans would do the job just fine? Secondly, why would he need to wield a sabre for such occasion? It is shown in both pictorial evidence (Niccole's work on medieval russians) and in Goliath fechtbuch that fencing/fighting with a longsword from horseback was perfectly normal and I dont see any particular reason why would he have to swap for a saber for such particular purpouse.

Sorry for diverting a bit off topic and focusing a bit too much on Vlad


Cheers ,
Samuel

Edit: Sorry Jim I wasnt able to resize the picture (its gigantic and it just takes ages). Also resizing it would imo just make it too.. intangible i guess. Instead I just posted the link to the wikipedia gallery. Sorry for the inconvenience

Edit 2 : This is the part of the painting that I had in mind (as one can get lost in the picture , as its ..simply big) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...attle_1514.PNG , notice the Polish men at arms "at work"

[Jim McDougall]

Excellent post Samuel!!!! and its fantastic the detail you include, well written and explained.
Any way you could resize that fabulous battle scene? I dont have cinemascope on my computer here so I get dizzy trying to scroll back and forth to read the text

Thanks so much, this topic gets better and better, and its great to finally begin to comprehend some of the complexity of this history.

All the best,
Jim

[pallas]

a tidbit on the vlachs not being a "warlike people"

the brothers peter, asen, and kaloyan who defeated the byzantines and refounded the bulgarian empire from 1185-1200 AD where vlachs and much of their infantry where also vlachs

[TVV]

Originally Posted by pallas

a tidbit on the vlachs not being a "warlike people"

the brothers peter, asen, and kaloyan who defeated the byzantines and refounded the bulgarian empire from 1185-1200 AD where vlachs and much of their infantry where also vlachs

Most of this is factually incorrect - the brothers Teodor and Asen were small nobles in the Roman Empire. They may have been of Vlach, Cuman or most likely Bulgarian origin - all we know is that they were Christians and that they were located in Moesia, which is nowadays Bulgaria, with their domains in the Hemus mountains.

Upon the success of their rebellion, they clearly demosntrated that the goal was the reestablishment of the Bulgarian state, as they were crowned as Bulgarian Tsars and Teodor assumed the name of Petar, which was the name of the last Bulgarian ruler in the 11th century. Nothing ever indicated that they thought of themselves as Vlachs, and the state they reestablished was clearly Bulgarian.

As for the infantry, I am afraid we have no certain figures to be able to claim one way or another. One needs to keep in mind that during the Middle Ages chroniclers had little interest in correctly identifying the ethnicity of their adversaries, and Eastern Roman chroniclers in particular used any names they thought were offensive enough. Petar and Asen's men are therefore called Bulgarians, Vlachs, Skythians, Barbarians, rebels, bandits, etc.

But it is correct to point out that the Vlachs of those times were anything but peaceful, and many of them most certainly served in the Bulgarian armies of the late 12th and early 13th centuries.

Regards,
Teodor