Moldavia/Wallachia - historical discussion

[cegorach]

All right this is the right place to argue.

I will present my opinions soon. :book:

[cegorach]

All what I want to say can be shortened two several points

1 - Balcan principalities were not the defenders of Europe, because they didn't stand in Ottomans way and didn't have enough resources ( money and manpower) to do it,

2 - Hungary and Hapsburg empire were the countries which truly stopped Ottoman advance,

3- Poland, Russia, Venice and others were involved but only from time to time even if their victories could mean a lot e.g. Chocim 1621, Chocim 1673, Veinna 1683, Parkany 1683 for Poland, Lepanto 1571 for Venice,

4- Wallachia/Moldavia were primary interested in their own survival and independence when it was possible to reclaim it not in some crusades or other enterprises far beyound their resources,

5 - these states were mostly buffor countries between Poland and the Ottoman Empire rarely independent, mostly Ottoman or Polish vassals ( or both at the same time),

6 - One of major factors in lack of major conflicts between Poland and the Ottomans was the fact that it was very hard to supply any larger armies moving through Moldavia e.g. Chocim campaign in 1621, or Moldavian campaign in 1693,

I can add more if you ask me. :book:

Regards Cegorach :laugh4:

[gugul]

All what I want to say can be shortened two several points

1 - Balcan principalities were not the defenders of Europe, because they didn't stand in Ottomans way and didn't have enough resources ( money and manpower) to do it,

2 - Hungary and Hapsburg empire were the countries which truly stopped Ottoman advance,

3- Poland, Russia, Venice and others were involved but only from time to time even if their victories could mean a lot e.g. Chocim 1621, Chocim 1673, Veinna 1683, Parkany 1683 for Poland, Lepanto 1571 for Venice,

4- Wallachia/Moldavia were primary interested in their own survival and independence when it was possible to reclaim it not in some crusades or other enterprises far beyound their resources,

5 - these states were mostly buffor countries between Poland and the Ottoman Empire rarely independent, mostly Ottoman or Polish vassals ( or both at the same time),

6 - One of major factors in lack of major conflicts between Poland and the Ottomans was the fact that it was very hard to supply any larger armies moving through Moldavia e.g. Chocim campaign in 1621, or Moldavian campaign in 1693,

I can add more if you ask me. :book:

Regards Cegorach :laugh4:

Well i agree with most of your points but the Romanian contribution to the Anti-ottoman effort was not neglijable, as it may be understood from your post, at least not until the end of 16th (with some exceptions) century when both were both "tamed" by the Turks, and sometimes by the Poles.
The battles fought against the Ottomans are an amazing example of what can be done with inadequate resources BY resourceful men. Themselves detroyed or tied up large portions of the Ottoman army and by this act did contribute to the defense of Europe.
Romanian history books are a bit too old and too biased(as most school history books are) and sometimes potray them as the "Saviours of Europe" or something like that. That is ofcourse, an untrue statement. They did contribute to the defense of Europe but were limited by their unstable political situation(constant civil wars, mainly because of foreign powers each supporting their candidate), and their limited resources.
Will one of the principalities be added into the PMTW(for RTW)?
I know that there is a limit of 21 factions and adding them would eliminate another faction. But just for curiosity, what faction WOULD we give up if the Romanians would be added? If it is France, Spain or Poland.... there is no problem, it's logical, BUT if they are replaced by some even less important faction than i really hope the issue is debatable.
Cheers!:)

[Cronos Impera]

Fact: If you include Moldavia or Wallachia as a faction you will
a) Gain my support and expect a five-star researcher and traiter ( I've gained experience during my EB colaboration)
b) Help you implement traits, faction description for Wallachia or Moldavia + unit list and stats
c) Historical Justice + make romanian fans proud and happy
d) Provide a more detailed picture of the Balkans
e) Build a VH faction like Numidia in Vanilla RTW

So Cegorach, :charge: :knight: the razes and hussars make a fine team when it comes to modding.
Fact 2: History
a) Mihai Viteazul ( creator of the first great balkan power-1600-and nemessis of the Ottoman Empire)
b) Constantin Brancoveanu ( patron of the arts, beheaded at Constantinopole for betraying the Ottoman Empire, along with his entire family)
c) Dimitrie Cantemir ( author of The Rise and Fall of the Ottoman Empire)

Historical figures of global importance

[Inal_the_Great]

Maybe slightly off topic but I have to disagree with the first post.

Hungarians were not the ones who stoped Turks; Spanish (at sea) and Austrian would be more correct imho.

[Dromikaites]

All what I want to say can be shortened two several points

1 - Balcan principalities were not the defenders of Europe, because they didn't stand in Ottomans way and didn't have enough resources ( money and manpower) to do it,

It really depends what period of time we're talking about. Wallachia and Moldova were considered important enough to warrant the "undivided attention" of 2 out of the 3 most important Turkish sultans in history. Bayazid I Yldirim (=the Lightning) and Mehmed II Fatih (=the Conqueror) led in person their troops into Wallachia (Bayazid I and Mehmed II) and Moldova (Mehmed II). None of the invasions ended up successfully. The Turks wasted on those occasions 3 of their largest armies which could have been used against other targets.

Besides the 3 above-mentioned attempts to gain control over Wallachia and Moldova, the Turks tried time and again to conquer the two with zero success. Each time the Ottoman empire would throw armies conservatively estimated at 50,000 - 60,000 men strong, each time losing at least half of those soldiers. Again that ment less troops for the other theaters of war.

Due to the net "score" in favor of Wallachia and Moldova against the Ottomans the two countries were never annexed. They remained autonomous and not very reliable vassals during the times the Ottomans were strong (paying tribute was less costly than being victorious but left with a devastated country) while at times they were independent or only nominal vassals. Bottom line, they were always something the Ottomans needed to worry about.


2 - Hungary and Hapsburg empire were the countries which truly stopped Ottoman advance,

Well, I'd say they were among the countries which stopped the Ottoman advance. Just to put the things into perspective, in 1526 the Hungarian kingdm is wipped out. However the Ottomans are left with an overextended right flank represented by Wallachia, Moldova and the newly independent Principalty of Transylvania. For example from 1525 till 1529 on the throne of Wallchia sat a king (Radu of Afumati) who fought 20 (!!!) victorious battles, most of them against the Turks. While a lot of those were probably just defeating Ottoman raiding parties that gives an idea about the kind of pain in the butt Wallachia was for the Turks.



4- Wallachia/Moldavia were primary interested in their own survival and independence when it was possible to reclaim it not in some crusades or other enterprises far beyound their resources,
He, he, it was enough for keeping the Ottomans busy elswhere, diverting important resources from the Central-European theater of war. From 1595 till 1599 Michael the Brave, king of Wallachia brought the war to the Ottomans, giving them a taste of how it feels to be on the receiving end. His actions triggered several revolts in the Balkans, giving the Turks some additional headaches and preventing them from pushing towards Vienna (which was first besieged in 1529).


5 - these states were mostly buffor countries between Poland and the Ottoman Empire rarely independent, mostly Ottoman or Polish vassals ( or both at the same time),
Yes, they were vassals indeed but the word doesn't actually tell the story. Both countries were not exactly obedient vassals. They were paying tribute (or not) but for the majority of the time that's all that was to it. Most of the times the kings pursued their own foreign policies. I've already mentioned that the Ottomans never managed to defeat them in a decisive battle. It was equally hard for the Poles to really control those countries for any meaningful period of time.


6 - One of major factors in lack of major conflicts between Poland and the Ottomans was the fact that it was very hard to supply any larger armies moving through Moldavia e.g. Chocim campaign in 1621, or Moldavian campaign in 1693,
Poland was not the main target for the Ottomans to begin with. The Ottomans were interested in controlling the major trade routes, hence their push towards the center of Europe instead of, for instance, trying to invade Italy. Besides, the 17th century is when the weaknesses of the Ottoman empire become manifest. A Turkish army drilled and equipped like the European ones of the time would probably not have failed to take Vienna. During the 15th and 16th centuries however, when the Ottomans were really strong, any direct conflict between the Ottomans and the Poles wasn't possible because of Wallachia and Moldova being in the way.

[Prince Cobra]

All what I want to say can be shortened two several points

1 - Balcan principalities were not the defenders of Europe, because they didn't stand in Ottomans way and didn't have enough resources ( money and manpower) to do it,

2 - Hungary and Hapsburg empire were the countries which truly stopped Ottoman advance,

3- Poland, Russia, Venice and others were involved but only from time to time even if their victories could mean a lot e.g. Chocim 1621, Chocim 1673, Veinna 1683, Parkany 1683 for Poland, Lepanto 1571 for Venice,

4- Wallachia/Moldavia were primary interested in their own survival and independence when it was possible to reclaim it not in some crusades or other enterprises far beyound their resources,



1. Totally disagree (not because I'm Bulgarian). The Ottoman Turks had a lot of casualties during conquering the Balkan peninsula. Yes, the Balkan countries were weak but they stopped the Turks for a while. The Christians even defeated once the powerful sultanate in Plocnik. And Ottomans lost precious time the strongest fortress on the Balkan peninsula Constantinople was conquered in 1453 and some countries countinued to fight till XVIth century. That's not very short period of time. In comparison the kingdom of Goths fell under Arabic control for less than 10 years.
And by the way Balkan countries was truly the shield of Europe- in 674-678 the Byzantines and in 717-718 the Byzantines and their Bulgarian allies defeated the Arabic forces... Without the Balkan countries the Europe wouldn't be thee same
2. and 3. Not only these two countries. Yes, they were occassionally helped(by Russia, Poland, Venice, Spain and etc.) but when needed. These battles were one of the most important esp. Lepanto and Vienna. I'm totally sure that without any help the Hapsburg would have lost the wars against The powerful Turkish empire
4. Every country is interested in their own survival. These showed their best- the example of Michael the Brave is very good. They didn't lost their state.
6. The lack of resources: factor but it wouldn't be enough to save Vienna and Central Europe.

[Prince Cobra]

Will one of the principalities be added into the PMTW(for RTW)?
I know that there is a limit of 21 factions and adding them would eliminate another faction. But just for curiosity, what faction WOULD we give up if the Romanians would be added? If it is France, Spain or Poland.... there is no problem, it's logical, BUT if they are replaced by some even less important faction than i really hope the issue is debatable.
Cheers!:)
I'm sorry but they weren't a major power. They were founded in XIII-XIV century and by the time they became more than unstable principalities the Ottomans had come and you know the rest..Bad luck

[Cronos Impera]

I'm sorry but they weren't a major power. They were founded in XIII-XIV century and by the time they became more than unstable principalities the Ottomans had come and you know the rest..Bad luck
Bad luck indeed:embarassed: .But we have regional and world powers in-game. The Romanian Principalities faught against overwhellming odds. All neighbouring powers ( The Otoman Empire, the Hapsburg Empire, even Poland and The Russian Empire wanted the Romanian principalities erased from the map. The Romanian principalities ware constantly under threat even from "Christian" neighbours. The Otomans ware hardly a threat compared to the Hapsburgs. Poland even made peace with the Otoman empire because of threats from Russia and Prussia. Michael the Brave had to unite the principalities because the polish-contolled Moldavia and hapsburg-controlled Transylvania signed peace with the Otomans and Wallachia was in danger of loosing its independence. The poles wanted peace with the Otomans because of conflicts with the austrians.

[gugul]

I'm sorry but they weren't a major power. They were founded in XIII-XIV century and by the time they became more than unstable principalities the Ottomans had come and you know the rest..Bad luck
Where did i say that they were a major power?

[Inal_the_Great]

Take out Georgians put in Romanians. :2thumbsup:

[YanTraken]

I propose Eskimo!!! :elephant:

[beauchamp]

:laugh4: Eskimo, Basque or Finnish lol

[Inal_the_Great]

Ok Eskimo all the way!! ~:cheers:

[Prince Cobra]

Where did i say that they were a major power?
Sorry, I misunderstood you.

[Voevod al Moldovei]

hello

the other points had been cleared up except for the lack of resources which were plentiful in the era of stefan the great since he had 2 fortress towns on the black sea and also the trade route from asia ran through the principalities according him enough resources to continue fighting through the whole of his reign. it is only after these ports were conquered and the sea allowed other trade routes from Asia did the wealth of the principalities wither

another point is that the true downfall of the principalities came from weak leadership and social organisation because the boyars were stronger than the kings, they did not pay taxes and they ruined the countries with civil war making the countries very poor an weak. The turkish monopoly on the economy also didn't help since all the livestock grain and other products were sold at very low prices with no negotiation. in fact the only sector that did flourish was the pig trade :laugh4:

The countries were further weakened by the phanariot kings who were first of all greek and second only interested in robing the country.

thus it is no surprise that moldova especially and the other principalities were raped by the empires

and what can we do my friends it seems the westerners had never considered the Balkans with much friendship or affection which i can say is more than undeserved

[Dromikaites]

hello

the other points had been cleared up except for the lack of resources which were plentiful in the era of stefan the great since he had 2 fortress towns on the black sea and also the trade route from asia ran through the principalities according him enough resources to continue fighting through the whole of his reign. it is only after these ports were conquered and the sea allowed other trade routes from Asia did the wealth of the principalities wither

The thing is that wether Wallachia and Moldova should be or shouldn't be in a game depends of the time frame of that mod. It makes sense to have them from 1320 till 1711 (when the Russian-Moldavian alliance is defeated at Stanilesti by the Ottomans). From 1711 till 1821 they cease to have an independent foreign policy so therefore they can be safely excluded from any mod about the 7 years war or the Napoleonic campaigns.


another point is that the true downfall of the principalities came from weak leadership and social organisation because the boyars were stronger than the kings, they did not pay taxes and they ruined the countries with civil war making the countries very poor an weak. The turkish monopoly on the economy also didn't help since all the livestock grain and other products were sold at very low prices with no negotiation. in fact the only sector that did flourish was the pig trade :laugh4:
Yeah, the sad thing is the 2 countries were screwed much more by their incompetent leaders than by the external enemies.


The countries were further weakened by the phanariot kings who were first of all greek and second only interested in robing the country.
It is true many of the Greek kings form 1711 till 1821 (when the last one was removed from the throne by an uprising) were indeed interested only in robbing the country since they had paid huge sums for buying the throne. However that happened not because they were Greeks but because they had paid lots of money to the Ottomans in order to become kings. Don't forget that we ended up with Greeks on the throne because of not very competent leaders and because of a flawed Constitution: before the Greeks (1711 - 1821) anybody could be a king as long as:
1) he was related to the royal family (including the illegitimate children) and
2) there were enough noblemen (boyars) willing to support him with their armies.
That flaw (allegedly designed to allow the best candidate to become king) actually resulted in lots of civil wars or coups and in many weak kings, toys in the hands of the noblemen who had put them on the throne.

So it's not the Greeks and the Ottomans who destroyed the 2 countries, they only took advantage of the "good work" done by our ancestors :)


thus it is no surprise that moldova especially and the other principalities were raped by the empires
They were "raped by empires" only when they were weak because of poor leadership, bad management and civil wars. When Wallachia and Moldova were strong, the Ottomans, the Hungarians and the Poles were learning the hard way not to mess with them.


and what can we do my friends it seems the westerners had never considered the Balkans with much friendship or affection which i can say is more than undeserved
The "westerners" for instance supported Stephen the Great or Michael the Brave with money and troops because they were impressed with their victories against the Ottomans. The attitude of the powers of the time depended only on how competent were the Romanian kings. Weak kings "begged" to be invaded or taken advantage of. Strong kings commanded respect. It's as simple as that.

[Voevod al Moldovei]

even the great kings were betrayed

Mihai was betrayed by the hungarians who on the battlefield fled before even fighting and stefan never had any allies except Vlad Tepes who was in prison most of the time. These kings and others asked for crusades but their reply was never granted or granted too late and the romanians won on their own.

The phanariots were allowed in power because the turks saw that the romanian kings were never loyal and that whenever a crusade appeared they defected to the christian side or that they always conspired to revolt thus the turks put "reliable men in charge"

P.S. your post seemed totally unecessaary sometimes since you were agreeing with me:2thumbsup:

[Inal_the_Great]

Might be a silly question so pls forgive me but what will be the factions name in the game? "Romania?" or just Wallachia maybe?

[Cronos Impera]

Wallachia or Moldavia. Wallachia is most likely.

[Voevod al Moldovei]

ha Moldavia was the biggest of the three so it should take prominence but hey as long as see one of them in the game im happy

Do you think they would include Moldavia in the Medieval 2:TW i mena they can't have that many other factions to include i mean what was the point of Argon they had no historical significance

[Dromikaites]

even the great kings were betrayed

Mihai was betrayed by the hungarians who on the battlefield fled before even fighting and stefan never had any allies except Vlad Tepes who was in prison most of the time. These kings and others asked for crusades but their reply was never granted or granted too late and the romanians won on their own.
Please keep in mind this thread is about Wallachia and Moldova being relevant for a Pike & Musket mod. My point is a mod for the 16th and 17th century without Wallachia, Moldova and Transylvania would be quite inaccurate at capturing the dynamics of eastern Europe and the Balkans.

As for betryals and such, that was the rule at the time all over Europe. Machiavelli wrote "The Prince" in 1532 and you can get an idea about the politics in the 16th century.



The phanariots were allowed in power because the turks saw that the romanian kings were never loyal and that whenever a crusade appeared they defected to the christian side or that they always conspired to revolt thus the turks put "reliable men in charge"
The Ottomans were able to appoint the Fanariotes (Greeks from an area of Istanbul called Fanar/Fener) on the thrones of Wallachia and Moldova because that was no Romanian king able to replicate the deeds of their predecessor like Mircea the Elder, Vlad III Dracula (Vlad the Impaler), Stephen the Great or Michael the Brave. The Ottomans had tried to replace Stephen the Great with puppets but it didn't work. As simple as that.

It was normal for the Ottomans to try. It was normal for the Greeks to try to make a quick buck by buying the throne and robbing the countries blind afterwards. It was the Romanian kings' and noblemen's fault they've eventualy succeeded.


P.S. your post seemed totally unecessaary sometimes since you were agreeing with me:2thumbsup:
Well, we do agree on the relevance of the Romanian countries for the timeframe of the mod. Our opinions seem to be diferent when it comes to the causes why the 2 countries ceased to be relevant in the 18th century.

[cegorach]

Very interesting discussion !

Still there is one thing I must add:

The faction list in PMTW for MTW 2 will be based on this from PMTW for MTW VI, so there will be no Aragon etc.
Still there are things you should consider from my point of view like
- I will need more than one italian state ( most likely Genoa, although I would like more than one), I will need Scotland and Sweden ( rather obvious why) and other things.

Moldavia will appear ( this will represent Wallachia as well) only if I find the space, let us hope the MTW 2 engine will allow more than 21 factions to be added...

Regards Cegorach :book: