Wallachian Swords of the 15th Century: What Types?

TVV · 19th July 2009, 11:18 PM

Quote:

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

Gonzalo G · 20th July 2009, 02:47 AM

I don´t think the ´heavliy armored´europeans from this period and place (Wallachia) were not distinct from the turks or indians, since the armour of the common soldier, cavaly or infantryman, seems to be consisted mainly by maille and plaques or scales, just as the turkish armour was. Only a few nobleman apparently had plaque armour, and not many enough to form a special corps in their armies, with tactics adapted to this kind of armour. I agree with Samik, since I think the first magyar sabre model from Kronckew came probably from the avars and not the turks, and it was an old model already in the 15th Century in Hungary, judging by those found in the exhumations of graves from the 10th Century in the area of Hungary, according with Oakeshott. Some of them are very similar with the one attributed to a Charlemagne´s property. This sabers are the result of a much earlier influence from the east, and not necessarily from the turks. The second sabre from Krockew is turkish style, with the yelman and the languets.

The poor Bram Stoker confussed (and mixed) Vlad II Dracul with his son, Vlad III Tepes, which is typical of the occidental misunderstanding about the history of Central Europe and the orient.

Mircea or Mirça the Old, father of Vlad II Dracul, is represented in a statue (or coffin sculpture) with a straight sword. Jancu of Kunedouara or Iancu Hunedoara, ruler of Transylvania, is represented in a statue with a straight sword medieval european style, and with a plaque armour. Just remember that Jancu was contemporary to Vlad II and III. In fact, according with some historians, he participated in some way in the killing of Vlad II and Mirça II, his eldest son, commited by orders of Jan Hunyadi of Hungary (general of the new hungarian king, Vladislav III, Who had just broked a peace treaty with the turks), and some nobleman and saxon merchants from Wallachia.

Jancu also latter appointed Vlad III Tepes as governor of Wallachia, in which post he only stayed for a month, since the King of Hungary removed him as soon he began to impale the enemies of his dinasty (some nobleman and the merchant saxons, allied with the hungarians), according with the same historians. You have to take on account that the hungarian and german sources do not agree in the enumeration of facts with the wallachian-rumanian historians, since Hungary had historic pretentions to rule at least part of the area of actual Rumania (Transylvania and Wallachia, mainly), meanwhile the princes or voivodas from at least Wallachia, fought all time very hard to maintain their sovereignty and independence from both the hungarians and the ottoman turks, not doubting in using temporary alliances with one or another, according with the political or military needs of the moment. For this reason, you can find many contradictions in the enumerations of the historical facts surrounding all this wallachian dinasty, including the facts of Vlad III´s death, since some historians say he was assesinated, and others that he died in battle . And despite the confussions of Bram Stoker, Vlad Tepes only born and lived some years in exile in Transylvania but he and his family are assimilated mainly to Wallachia´s history, and his castle was constructed in the last principality. The history of this period is not, as many want to describe, the history of Europe Christendom against the Muslim Ottoman (the good and the evil), but the history of feudal lords (christian or not), trying to extend their personal dominions to the expense of other´s. Religion always served as a pretext or as a mean to gain political power.

The area (the Balkans, Hungary, Transylvania, Moldava, Wallachia, Bulgaria et al) neverthless, had oriental influences from early many different ways. Huns were there for a period, but they seem to have used straight swords. Magyars and Mongols (Tatar turko-mongols, to be more precise) were other latter influence over them. Maybe the kazar empire had also a role in this, but I still have no information about the type of swords used by the kazars. Earlier turkish influences, not ottoman, cannot be discarded. The blaci from Transylvania are said to be originally the Vlakhs, or also the Bulaqs, another turkish group. The siculi or Székelys moved from Hungary to Transylvania from the 12th Century onwards and were from probable turkish origin. The bulgars established an empire before the 15th Century with the help of oriental ethnic groups, carrying more oriental influences. The Qumans-Kipçak, form turkish origins, and it seems with the probable inclusion of a small contingent from iranian origins (please see István Vásáry, Cumans and Tatars. Oriental Military in the Pre-Ottoman Balkans 1185-1365, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2005) were also present. The pechengs, also from a turkish origin, also settled in Hungary. In fact, those areas are geographically european, but racially and culturally are a mixture of european and oriental elements, though in their political and militar strugle to be independent sovereign states they were european-orientated at the end, even though in the Balkans some muslim population remains to this day.

According with some sources, the one who arrived with a turkish army and ruled as a puppet, was Vlad III´s brother, Radu, and not Vlad. Following this sources, Vlad and his brother were hostages with the turks as a result of a Vlad II´s secret treaty with them, which was the cause of his killing when hungarians discovered it. And meanwhile Vlad escaped from the turks and ran to Wallachia, his brother the young Radu ´The Handsome´, was acused of having a strange intimate relation with the sultan, who latter enthroned him for a short period of time in which Wallachia declined into the service of the ottoman turks. Vlad was appointed governor of Wallachia for the first time (he was governor of Wallachia three times, according with the same sources) by Jancu, and not by the turks. Matías Corvinus was the king who deprived Vlad III from his corporal liberty, though he was not strictly ´incarcerated´ or jailed, but ´arrested´, as he lived having a castle and it´s surroundings as limits for his movements, and was treated princely.

I have seen representations of Vlad III with a plaque armour and a straight sword, but I think this representation was not made during his life (I have only a video with some of this representations, not the kind of images to bring to this discussion). Maybe the straight sword was a symbol of the anti-turkish resistance and a christian element of identity. Stefan the Great was cousin of Vlad III, and they, along with Matias Corvinus, son of Jancu of Kunedouara, lived together in the same castle for several years before they were kings. If Stefan´s sword is straight, it can give us a clue to answer this point.There is also a painting in the Esterházy castle representing Vlad III armed with a sabre, turkish style, but it was made in the 17th Century. It seems that all, but one, were representations made after his death.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo...s_painting.jpg

It seems that the charges and countless stories agains Vlad III were propeled by the hungarians and germans, who were united in their interests over Wallachia. And also by the turks, as he was their implacable enemy. But the version of Vlad III Tepes enthroned by the sultan, is contradictory with the ferocity he always showed against them, which finally earned him the support of the King of Hungary and the Pope during his last mandate. The enemies of Vlad III, were not exempted of making alliances and peace treaties, or the paying of tributes to the ottoman turks, even against christian princes or kings. Germany, in fact, established a friendship alliance with the ottoman at least to the end of the WWI, against christian european countries. All comes to politics and power.

Sorry if I am a little chaotic in my writting, but I don´t have enough time online to make corrections, and I don´t have more bibliographical references at hand in this moment.
Regards

Gonzalo

PD: The brothers Teodor and Asen are called ´roman´ (christian) in some old sources. In others, they are not. Please see the same book from Vásáry. It seems history has been muddled by political interests, then and now.

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

Emanuel · 20th July 2009, 05:33 PM

I took a history book out of storage and will scan relevant pics tonight.

In the meantime, here is a painting of Mihai the Brave (1558-1601). Notice the sabres and the garb.

Contemporary and later sources variably show him wielding axe, mace or sabre. I've never seen him portrayed with straight sword though.

Emanuel · 20th July 2009, 05:51 PM

Here is a 17th century sword, having belonged to Constantin Brancoveanu (1654 - 1714).

Emanuel · 20th July 2009, 07:04 PM

One quick thought that came to mind. Both Vlad Tepes and his predecessors are documented to have used guerilla and ambush tactics, since invariably they were faced with larger armies.

Basarab I defeated the Hungarian king Charles I in 1330 by ambushing his large forces in a mountain pass.

Vlad Tepes led a night attack agianst Mehmet II near Targoviste in 1462, and continually harassed his superior troups during his retreat.

The oral history I got from parents and family and the little history I read often re-iterates the theme of Dacian and later Vlach armies resisting invasions in the Carpathian mountains.

TVV · 20th July 2009, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emanuel

Here is a 17th century sword, having belonged to Constantin Brancoveanu (1654 - 1714).

Very nice sword, even thougbh it is much later than the discussed period. The blade looks like those blades with the Virgin Mary, for which Astvatsaturian claims were produced in Constantinople. There is a similar one I think in the catalogue for Rizsrad Janiak's collection.
It makes sense that high quality sabre blades with Christian symbols were produced for nobles from Orthodox and Catholic countires, whose aramament was under ehavy Eastern influence, such as Russia, the Danube Principalities and Poland.
Regards,
Teodor

Gonzalo G · 21st July 2009, 01:44 AM

Sorry, Teodore, I read more carefully your statements about the brothers Peter and Asen in home, and you are right. At first, I understood that you said they were roman, but you didn´t. Yes, they were were members of the provincial nobilty in the Roman Empire, though not from roman origin.

You see, I have but a very small time online, sometimes I read too quickly and make a likewise too quick response post, or I save some web pages in my PC, I read them latter in home, and days after I answer in the the forum...just to find that then, somebody says, "hey, that was already answered in the post number 3!!"...I must be more careful, since confusions and writting mistakes are multiplied in this rush.

I agree with all your statements from that post. Though when I answer maybe I will find that you already answered to my previous note. My apologies.
Regards

Gonzalo

20th July 2009, 04:54 PM	#3
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.

20th July 2009, 05:33 PM	#4
Emanuel Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,242	I took a history book out of storage and will scan relevant pics tonight. In the meantime, here is a painting of Mihai the Brave (1558-1601). Notice the sabres and the garb. Contemporary and later sources variably show him wielding axe, mace or sabre. I've never seen him portrayed with straight sword though. Attached Images

20th July 2009, 05:51 PM	#5
Emanuel Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,242	Here is a 17th century sword, having belonged to Constantin Brancoveanu (1654 - 1714). Attached Images

20th July 2009, 02:47 AM	#2
Gonzalo G Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Nothern Mexico Posts: 458	I don´t think the ´heavliy armored´europeans from this period and place (Wallachia) were not distinct from the turks or indians, since the armour of the common soldier, cavaly or infantryman, seems to be consisted mainly by maille and plaques or scales, just as the turkish armour was. Only a few nobleman apparently had plaque armour, and not many enough to form a special corps in their armies, with tactics adapted to this kind of armour. I agree with Samik, since I think the first magyar sabre model from Kronckew came probably from the avars and not the turks, and it was an old model already in the 15th Century in Hungary, judging by those found in the exhumations of graves from the 10th Century in the area of Hungary, according with Oakeshott. Some of them are very similar with the one attributed to a Charlemagne´s property. This sabers are the result of a much earlier influence from the east, and not necessarily from the turks. The second sabre from Krockew is turkish style, with the yelman and the languets. The poor Bram Stoker confussed (and mixed) Vlad II Dracul with his son, Vlad III Tepes, which is typical of the occidental misunderstanding about the history of Central Europe and the orient. Mircea or Mirça the Old, father of Vlad II Dracul, is represented in a statue (or coffin sculpture) with a straight sword. Jancu of Kunedouara or Iancu Hunedoara, ruler of Transylvania, is represented in a statue with a straight sword medieval european style, and with a plaque armour. Just remember that Jancu was contemporary to Vlad II and III. In fact, according with some historians, he participated in some way in the killing of Vlad II and Mirça II, his eldest son, commited by orders of Jan Hunyadi of Hungary (general of the new hungarian king, Vladislav III, Who had just broked a peace treaty with the turks), and some nobleman and saxon merchants from Wallachia. Jancu also latter appointed Vlad III Tepes as governor of Wallachia, in which post he only stayed for a month, since the King of Hungary removed him as soon he began to impale the enemies of his dinasty (some nobleman and the merchant saxons, allied with the hungarians), according with the same historians. You have to take on account that the hungarian and german sources do not agree in the enumeration of facts with the wallachian-rumanian historians, since Hungary had historic pretentions to rule at least part of the area of actual Rumania (Transylvania and Wallachia, mainly), meanwhile the princes or voivodas from at least Wallachia, fought all time very hard to maintain their sovereignty and independence from both the hungarians and the ottoman turks, not doubting in using temporary alliances with one or another, according with the political or military needs of the moment. For this reason, you can find many contradictions in the enumerations of the historical facts surrounding all this wallachian dinasty, including the facts of Vlad III´s death, since some historians say he was assesinated, and others that he died in battle . And despite the confussions of Bram Stoker, Vlad Tepes only born and lived some years in exile in Transylvania but he and his family are assimilated mainly to Wallachia´s history, and his castle was constructed in the last principality. The history of this period is not, as many want to describe, the history of Europe Christendom against the Muslim Ottoman (the good and the evil), but the history of feudal lords (christian or not), trying to extend their personal dominions to the expense of other´s. Religion always served as a pretext or as a mean to gain political power. The area (the Balkans, Hungary, Transylvania, Moldava, Wallachia, Bulgaria et al) neverthless, had oriental influences from early many different ways. Huns were there for a period, but they seem to have used straight swords. Magyars and Mongols (Tatar turko-mongols, to be more precise) were other latter influence over them. Maybe the kazar empire had also a role in this, but I still have no information about the type of swords used by the kazars. Earlier turkish influences, not ottoman, cannot be discarded. The blaci from Transylvania are said to be originally the Vlakhs, or also the Bulaqs, another turkish group. The siculi or Székelys moved from Hungary to Transylvania from the 12th Century onwards and were from probable turkish origin. The bulgars established an empire before the 15th Century with the help of oriental ethnic groups, carrying more oriental influences. The Qumans-Kipçak, form turkish origins, and it seems with the probable inclusion of a small contingent from iranian origins (please see István Vásáry, Cumans and Tatars. Oriental Military in the Pre-Ottoman Balkans 1185-1365, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2005) were also present. The pechengs, also from a turkish origin, also settled in Hungary. In fact, those areas are geographically european, but racially and culturally are a mixture of european and oriental elements, though in their political and militar strugle to be independent sovereign states they were european-orientated at the end, even though in the Balkans some muslim population remains to this day. According with some sources, the one who arrived with a turkish army and ruled as a puppet, was Vlad III´s brother, Radu, and not Vlad. Following this sources, Vlad and his brother were hostages with the turks as a result of a Vlad II´s secret treaty with them, which was the cause of his killing when hungarians discovered it. And meanwhile Vlad escaped from the turks and ran to Wallachia, his brother the young Radu ´The Handsome´, was acused of having a strange intimate relation with the sultan, who latter enthroned him for a short period of time in which Wallachia declined into the service of the ottoman turks. Vlad was appointed governor of Wallachia for the first time (he was governor of Wallachia three times, according with the same sources) by Jancu, and not by the turks. Matías Corvinus was the king who deprived Vlad III from his corporal liberty, though he was not strictly ´incarcerated´ or jailed, but ´arrested´, as he lived having a castle and it´s surroundings as limits for his movements, and was treated princely. I have seen representations of Vlad III with a plaque armour and a straight sword, but I think this representation was not made during his life (I have only a video with some of this representations, not the kind of images to bring to this discussion). Maybe the straight sword was a symbol of the anti-turkish resistance and a christian element of identity. Stefan the Great was cousin of Vlad III, and they, along with Matias Corvinus, son of Jancu of Kunedouara, lived together in the same castle for several years before they were kings. If Stefan´s sword is straight, it can give us a clue to answer this point.There is also a painting in the Esterházy castle representing Vlad III armed with a sabre, turkish style, but it was made in the 17th Century. It seems that all, but one, were representations made after his death. http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo...s_painting.jpg It seems that the charges and countless stories agains Vlad III were propeled by the hungarians and germans, who were united in their interests over Wallachia. And also by the turks, as he was their implacable enemy. But the version of Vlad III Tepes enthroned by the sultan, is contradictory with the ferocity he always showed against them, which finally earned him the support of the King of Hungary and the Pope during his last mandate. The enemies of Vlad III, were not exempted of making alliances and peace treaties, or the paying of tributes to the ottoman turks, even against christian princes or kings. Germany, in fact, established a friendship alliance with the ottoman at least to the end of the WWI, against christian european countries. All comes to politics and power. Sorry if I am a little chaotic in my writting, but I don´t have enough time online to make corrections, and I don´t have more bibliographical references at hand in this moment. Regards Gonzalo PD: The brothers Teodor and Asen are called ´roman´ (christian) in some old sources. In others, they are not. Please see the same book from Vásáry. It seems history has been muddled by political interests, then and now.

20th July 2009, 07:04 PM	#6
Emanuel Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,242	One quick thought that came to mind. Both Vlad Tepes and his predecessors are documented to have used guerilla and ambush tactics, since invariably they were faced with larger armies. Basarab I defeated the Hungarian king Charles I in 1330 by ambushing his large forces in a mountain pass. Vlad Tepes led a night attack agianst Mehmet II near Targoviste in 1462, and continually harassed his superior troups during his retreat. The oral history I got from parents and family and the little history I read often re-iterates the theme of Dacian and later Vlach armies resisting invasions in the Carpathian mountains.

21st July 2009, 01:44 AM	#8
Gonzalo G Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Nothern Mexico Posts: 458	Sorry, Teodore, I read more carefully your statements about the brothers Peter and Asen in home, and you are right. At first, I understood that you said they were roman, but you didn´t. Yes, they were were members of the provincial nobilty in the Roman Empire, though not from roman origin. You see, I have but a very small time online, sometimes I read too quickly and make a likewise too quick response post, or I save some web pages in my PC, I read them latter in home, and days after I answer in the the forum...just to find that then, somebody says, "hey, that was already answered in the post number 3!!"...I must be more careful, since confusions and writting mistakes are multiplied in this rush. I agree with all your statements from that post. Though when I answer maybe I will find that you already answered to my previous note. My apologies. Regards Gonzalo