History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum Lockedquestion about scythian, turanian and samartian

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>
Author
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 884
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2008 at 00:18

"Istoria Romaniei Vol. II" that "the preferred weapon of free peasants was the bow. However, many peasants also fought mounted, which provided a degree of mobility that allowed them to catch up to fleeing enemies and harrass retreating enemy armies with ease."

Codex Bandinus:

"the Romanians are far more proficient riders than any of their neighbors"

 
Which includes Hungarians, Turks, Mongols.
 

Reyscherdorff also wrote that the Moldavian army had 100,000 horses, and that "the Moldavians... have a very agile style of warfare."

"the Romanians are warlike men... fighting on the attack mainly with the bow."

-Abatele Ruggieri



Edited by Carpathian Wolf - 13-Jul-2008 at 00:21
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2008 at 00:53
I don't see any references to the horse archery here at all.
 
A lot of European armies had good cavalry units, but almost no one had horse archers.
 
Rider doesn't mean horse archer. "Fighting with the bow on the attack..." Where there is horse archery again?
 
I'm afraid you just don't realize all the complexity of the art of the horse archery.
 
The references that the Romanians were more proficient riders than Tatars for example are just false.
 
Most of the Romanian army consisted of peasants, also called "Oastea mare" who fought on feet. Most of Romanian peasants simply could not afford to have a battle horse. The cavalry was formed on professional soldiers and boiars, but the number of it was insignificant compare to for example with Tatar cavalry.
 
By contrast all the life of Tatars was spent "on battle horses." So, even those references who say that Romanian peasants were better riders than Tatars are simply innacurate or just biased falsifications. In any case, even those references didn't mention a word about "horse back archery."
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 884
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2008 at 01:53

Actually the one quote i did post did mention horse archers specifically:

Grigore Ureche, in Letopisete, mentions the hit-and-run tactics the Moldavians used at Tannenberg, about how the riders rode away, firing their arrows at the enemy knights chasing them, then dismounted, shot out the horses from under the knights, and then charged them with spears.
 
 
The riders rode away firing their arrows. So Vlach horse archers. If there is any doubt it later mentions them dismounting and taking shots as well. So they also were good archers both on horse and dismounted.
 
Later they charged with a spear after they did such a thing. So efficiency with that may give us a clue as to why all these masterful steppe horse archers blunted their arrow tips once they reached those lands.
 
I don't realize the complexity? I think you don't realize history my friend. I gave you several sources on the topic and instead of discussing them you are playing samantics or being rude and mocking me.
 
Why is the refrence that they were better riders then the Tatars false? They beat them after all. In the 1200s, through the ages, Stefan Cel Mare, Mihai Viteazul. Maybe the Romanians weren't better horse archers but they used more varied tactics where as the steppe people were generally 'one trick ponies' (pun fully intended :p ). Horse archery isn't the end all be all of combat and anyone who argues such a notion comes off in the same silly manner as another online forum epidemic known as "katana fanboyism".
 
As for your claim of the peasants unable to have battle horses...well were the Mongols in Mongolia rich with gold? No. So it appeares there are situations where you can have a horse and it won't cost you an arm and a leg. I'll admit the Mongols (Or tatars whatever you want to name them) used more horse archers then any other military tactic, but the point is the Romanians also used it and at least to equal proefficiency. But the sources say they had the best riders in the area, but who knows maybe our enemies were just nice in attesting these attributes to us and decided to lie so that I could use their words in the future in an online history forum debate. LOL
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2008 at 03:19
Hmmmm...
 
Actually, I don't understand the point about bragging so much about the military superiority of Romanians in the Middle Ages.  It's true that there was a couple of very capable Romanian military leaders  who were able to inflict significant defeats on Hungarians, Tatars and Turks. However, most of the time Romanian principalities were dominated mostly by Turkey and than Hungary and Poland. Small principalities had a relatively weak military capabilities compare to their strong neighbors.
Even the most succesful Romanian princes were either killed or subdued to the stronger enemies in the end. Actually they were exceptions from the rule by themselves in the first place.
It just proves that unfortunately Romanian principalites were military not strong enough to protect themselves. And it doesn't support your conclusion that they were the "greatest" warriors in the area.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 884
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2008 at 03:35
Nobody is bragging about anything here benny boy, I was giving you examples that they were indeed as skilled as the people writing the chronciles say they are. Let's not confuse my words (on purpose?) anymore because it's getting old.
 
As for whom dominated who, we can discuss how John Hunyadi and his son Matei were Romanian. Transilvania was also more under Hungarian supervision then direct domination. The poles mingled a bit with the Moldavian throne but again domination is a strong word to use. As for "Wallachia" they paid a token tribute to be left alone. In any case all of those enemies even when "dominating" the Romanian lands did it by other ways then military. And those generals I mentioned weren't subdued. Vlad and Mihai were assassinated. Mircea and Stefan simply died of natural causes IIRC.
 
I never said they were the greatest warriors or anything of that matter. The chronicles and history speak for themselves, I have nothing I need to prove. You're poor comprehension of it is your problem not mine and I couldn't care less what your opinion was. You can make your own choices. But I do suggest (with all do respect of course) that you stick to talking about what you know or at least what you are interested in (Steppe) and quit telling me my own history. Or if you are going to debate at least offer something other then strawmen, sarcasm and scoffs.


Edited by Carpathian Wolf - 13-Jul-2008 at 03:37
Back to Top
Romano-Dacis View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 13-Jun-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Romano-Dacis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2008 at 03:48
The Romanian principalities were definitely able to hold its own against all their neighbors. That is why, unlike a nation like Bohemia, it was never annexed by a foreign power. In fact, the Romanian principalities are the only ones to have a continuous existence in Eastern Europe, with the exception of the big 3 empires (Russia, Austria, Turkey), as all other states were eventually incorporated into other political entities. This means that while Romania could hold on to its autonomy, its "more powerful neighbors" were swept underfoot of these empires. There is literally no other explanation except military prowness until the 17th century, at which point it is more a matter of diplomacy and playing one power against another.
 
Romanians were and still are viewed today by all experts in this field as very capable warriors. This is largely because every Romanian knew how to fight, at least with the bow, so it gave the Romanians huge leverage in comparison to most other armies, which had to rely on an elite unit to win the battle (knights, janissaries, spahis, dvor etc.).
 
It is pretty hard to say that Romania's strongest rulers were subdued. Of all of Romania's strongest princes (Mircea, Vlad Tepes, Stefan cel Mare, Mihai Viteazul) only Mihai accepted Habsburg suzerainty, but it was really more of an alliance since Mihai had already gone to war with and defeated the Ottomans before he ever signed a treaty with the Habsburgs, so it throws the whole "not strong enough to protect themselves" crap out the window. In fact, in 1604, at the end of the Long War treaty, Wallachia signed it as an independent state.
 
Basically, Romanians eventually accepted a vassality position (and we're talking in the late 15th century for Wallachia, mid 16th century for Moldavia) because it was cheaper than fighting a war. The devastation scorched earth tactics and Ottoman troops brought to the country was usually cheaper than whatever tribute the Ottomans asked for, and when it wasn't, the Romanians broke the relations successfully (ala Mihai Viteazul). The only exception was the Phanariot Era, but that was in the 18th century.


Edited by Romano-Dacis - 13-Jul-2008 at 03:50
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2008 at 04:10
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf Carpathian Wolf wrote:

The chronicles and history speak for themselves, I have nothing I need to prove. You're poor comprehension of it is your problem not mine and I couldn't care less what your opinion was. You can make your own choices. But I do suggest (with all do respect of course) that you stick to talking about what you know or at least what you are interested in (Steppe) and quit telling me my own history. Or if you are going to debate at least offer something other then strawmen, sarcasm and scoffs.
 
Well, I actually, with all due respect, have impression that your understanding of Romanian history is on a very basic level.
 
Claims that there is no Daco-Getae identity problem, that Sarmatians adopted Draco standards from Dacians, that Romanians called themselves Dacians in the 13th century etc. reveal that your knowledge of Romanian history needs at least substantial upgrade.
 
Though you have knowledgeble people on this forum who can help you with this. Smile 
 
Secondly, perhaps you just didn't realize that the large part of your posts are just meaningless, empty bragging about mythological achievements of Romanians aka Dacians defeating Batu-khan. That's why you don't need to get irritated when you see natural reaction to such nonsense.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 884
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2008 at 04:15
Well here is the problem with your impression, it's all confused.
 
Geto-Dacians are the same people and no one in the past disputed this. Only some historians today have played around with the idea.
 
I said the Dacian Draco was an invention by the Dacians and could have been constructed individually of the Sarmatian one. They served different purposes as I specified. Let me ask you this, have any Sarmatian Dracos been found closer towards Iran?
 
I never said Romanians called themselves Dacians in the 13th century. What I said was that the Romanians descended of the Dacians and both used horse archery. This was about the time when you were being sarcastic and not offering anything in return. AS well as my Greek/Hellenic example which you've ignored.
 
Secondly my posts were all replies to your questions. You asked about it I gave you an answer. What is irritating is your constant attempt to put words in my mouth. Go google "strawman fallacy" and perhaps you'll get it. Excuse my natural reaction to your irritating non sense likened to katana fanboyism. You live one little choice when you continue to put words in my mouth.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2008 at 06:00
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf Carpathian Wolf wrote:

Well here is the problem with your impression, it's all confused.
 
Geto-Dacians are the same people and no one in the past disputed this. Only some historians today have played around with the idea.
 
For some reasons those people are called Getae-Dacians but not simply Dacians in most sources. And the problem in fact exist.
 
To illustrate it again here is the article from online Britiannica
 
 

Getae people

Main

an ancient people of Thracian origin, inhabiting the banks of the lower Danube region and nearby plains. First appearing in the 6th century bc, the Getae were subjected to Scythian influence and were known as expert mounted archers and devotees of the deity Zalmoxis. Although the daughter of their king became the wife of Philip II of Macedon in 342 bc, the Macedonians under Philip II’s son Alexander crossed the Danube and burned the Getic capital seven years later. Getic technology was influenced by that of the invading Celts in the 4th and 3rd centuries bc. Under Burebistas (fl. lst century bc), the Getae and nearby Dacians formed a powerful but short-lived state. By the middle of the following century, when the Romans had gained control over the lower Danube region, thousands of Getae were displaced, and, not long thereafter, references to the Getae disappeared from history. Later writers wrongly gave the name Getae to the Goths.

 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf Carpathian Wolf wrote:

I said the Dacian Draco was an invention by the Dacians and could have been constructed individually of the Sarmatian one. They served different purposes as I specified. Let me ask you this, have any Sarmatian Dracos been found closer towards Iran?
 
Of course they were found there as well as in Southern Siberia. And when antique historians are writing about Draco standards they are writing about Sarmatians or Parthians.
 
And you did wrote that you think that Dracos were Dacian invention, then you changed your view.
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf Carpathian Wolf wrote:

I never said Romanians called themselves Dacians in the 13th century. What I said was that the Romanians descended of the Dacians and both used horse archery. This was about the time when you were being sarcastic and not offering anything in return. AS well as my Greek/Hellenic example which you've ignored.
 
Sorry, but it was me who was constantly saying that Dacians are the ancestors of the Romanians. By contrast you were saying that it were Dacians (Romanized) who fought with Mongols in the 13th century. Please reread the previous posts if you forgot it. Greek example is totally inapplicable here. Greeks has been keping the most important feature of the ethnic identity i.e. language up until this day, but no Dacian language exists now. Romanians are the result of intermixture of different people and not just a clear product of "Dacian" evolution. In fact, Romanians in the cultural sense are actually closer to ancient Romans because they kept their ancient Latin language but not Dacian. You ignored all that and said, that you yourself is the best proof that Dacians are alive now...
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf Carpathian Wolf wrote:

Secondly my posts were all replies to your questions. You asked about it I gave you an answer. What is irritating is your constant attempt to put words in my mouth. Go google "strawman fallacy" and perhaps you'll get it. Excuse my natural reaction to your irritating non sense likened to katana fanboyism. You live one little choice when you continue to put words in my mouth.
 
I never put words in your mouth, I just repeated and commented on what you wrote yourself.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 884
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2008 at 06:37
And where is the Britanica citation base itself in? From what? Geto-Dacian is just a terminology to encompass both names of the same people. As it is said the Dacians and latins used the term Dacian while the greeks used Getae.
 
And a Getic daughter was married to Philip II? Olympias?
 
Here is a question why would people confuse Getae and Goths? The Gothic kings claimed their blood was the same as Decebal who was a Dacian. Maybe that's why?
 
"Of course they were found there as well as in Southern Siberia. And when antique historians are writing about Draco standards they are writing about Sarmatians or Parthians.
 
And you did wrote that you think that Dracos were Dacian invention, then you changed your view."
 
I was refering to the Dacian Draco which has a different function then the Sarmatian one.
 
"Sorry, but it was me who was constantly saying that Dacians are the ancestors of the Romanians. By contrast you were saying that it were Dacians (Romanized) who fought with Mongols in the 13th century. Please reread the previous posts if you forgot it. Greek example is totally inapplicable here. Greeks has been keping the most important feature of the ethnic identity i.e. language up until this day, but no Dacian language exists now. Romanians are the result of intermixture of different people and not just a clear product of "Dacian" evolution. In fact, Romanians in the cultural sense are actually closer to ancient Romans because they kept their ancient Latin language but not Dacian. You ignored all that and said, that you yourself is the best proof that Dacians are alive now..."
 
Romanized Dacians ARE Romanians. The issue wasn't even the semantics you are bringing up but the tactics employed which were horse archery among other things which was kept from the Dacians to the later years when they were Romanized all through the medieval age and beyond.
 
Let me ask you this, do you think a Greek can understand Greek from 2,000 years ago? No, so the point is moot. Here is another example, the Mongols of today that are spread out all the way from western Russia to Mongolia itself, are they no longer Mongols because they mixed with slavs/turks/whatever else in the area?
 
"I never put words in your mouth, I just repeated and commented on what you wrote yourself."
 
Put it in nice little quotes like this message you just posted and i'll be more convinced.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2008 at 07:24
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf Carpathian Wolf wrote:

Let me ask you this, do you think a Greek can understand Greek from 2,000 years ago?
 
He can understand a lot of words and with some training he can understand most of it. It doesn't however changes the fact that language is Greek just the archaic form of it.
 
By contrast we know almost nothing about Dacian language today. But even if there was a text in Dacian modern Romanian wouldn't even understood a word because Romanian language is based on Latin and is very different.
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf Carpathian Wolf wrote:

No, so the point is moot. Here is another example, the Mongols of today that are spread out all the way from western Russia to Mongolia itself, are they no longer Mongols because they mixed with slavs/turks/whatever else in the area?
 
Mongols of today live in the Republic of Mongolia, they are not spread in Russia. There are Mongolic people in Russia like Kalmyks and Buriats, but they don't call themselves Mongols in the first place.
 
And yes, they are different from other Mongols due to the mixture with other people. Kalmyk language for example is not mutually intelligible with the language of Khalkha Mongols and it's partly due to the Turkic influnce on it.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 884
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2008 at 07:32
I don't see how the mixture of any of this conversation challenges anything i've said so far and it seems we've strayed very far away from the topic of conversation.
 
You want to say Getae and Dacians are different and so far you've offered only one source which doesn't even back itself up. Note that I asked you a question about it and you didn't reply to it. They are one in the same people.
 
You want to say the Dacians (Keep im mind I use Getae and Dacian interchangably) adopted the Draco from the Scythians (Because they had it before the Sarmatians were in the area), I want to say that the Dacian Draco though it looks similar to the steppe one had a different role and purposes and was created individually and not due to any influence.
 
You want to say the Dacians used horse acher tactics due to the Scythians. But you yourself also listed people who were not influenced by the steppe and developed it themselves. So it isn't impossible that the Dacians did the same. In any case it explains how the Dacians use horse archer tactics and best the Scythians at it. Their decendents in whatever shape or form exist today be they named Vlach or Romanian have through the ages used the horse archer tactic and i've provided you with several sources that state this and have shown their superiority in battle on many counts.
 
These are the lines of discussion I want to stick with, because they interest me. If you wish to discuss semantics, find someone else, respectfully. To me it's boring.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2008 at 07:50
You don't understand or you don't read my posts.
 
Firstly, you said that Scythians were Thracians. Then you said that Sarmatians adopted Dracos from Dacians, I said it was vice versa.
 
Then I said that it were Gaetaes who were famous for horse archery, which is natural because they lived in the lower Danube steppe region and were influenced by Scythians. But I'm not 100% sure about Dacians because there is some controvery whether those people were complitely the same or different.
 
The people I listed all copied they archery skills from the steppans except Assyrians, Japanese, and American indians.
 
Also where did you get information of Romanized Dacians using horse archery in th 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 12th, 13th centurty BC ?
 
How can you claim that Vlachs were able to keep Dacian horse archery? Where is the evidence that it's Dacian horse archery? You actually didn't provided any Vlach horse archery references at all, except the obsured passage from Ureche who lived 200 years after the battle of Tannenberg and simply wasn't the contemporary of the events. But  still this passage is very obscured and you failed to provide any other sources on this.
 
Also, again there are no any references which describe Valachian skills in the horse archery. All the famous battle won by Valachs were infantry battles where skillful use of terrain and ambushes were deployed to compensate numerical inferiority. Typical medieval Romanian warrior is foot soldier, usually a peasant, not a horse archer. By contrast, according to the antique sources horse archery was the main battle tactic of Getae. I don't see any correlation with Valachs in this regard.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2008 at 07:56
Just give me more detailed references about Wallachian horse archery and their tactics cause I'm very interested in this since so far I haven't encoutnered any.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Tyranos View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 246
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tyranos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2008 at 10:12
Originally posted by TarTar TarTar wrote:

what are the origins of scythian, samartian and turanian people?


Not sure what you mean on "Turanian", its actually an Etruscan name, but yet somehow managed to later be used by Turkish Nationalist umbrella term and to cover even an entire landmass. In any case, The Scythians and Sarmatians werent Turks, but some claim them to be outve some aganda.

Scythians and Thracians wouldve had some contact, but the two arent the same.
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2775
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2008 at 18:28
Scythian was a term applied to various peoples, we have to be careful when using it as peoples from Eastern Europe to Siberia have collectively been called Scythian at some point in time. It wouldn't be suprising if different languages were spoken across such a large geographical area.
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 884
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2008 at 22:57
"Firstly, you said that Scythians were Thracians. Then you said that Sarmatians adopted Dracos from Dacians, I said it was vice versa."
 
Firstly I stated that Herdotus said the Scythians were Thracic. I was mistaken, it was someone else and I admit I can't refind the source now. I even told you I don't agree with this. Then I argued that the Sarmatians may have adopted the Draco from the Dacians but then gave my opinion that since they had two very different functions it was quite possible that they developed independently of each other.
 
"Then I said that it were Gaetaes who were famous for horse archery, which is natural because they lived in the lower Danube steppe region and were influenced by Scythians. But I'm not 100% sure about Dacians because there is some controvery whether those people were complitely the same or different."
 
Let's fix your confusion between Getae and Dacians. Are there any sources of Romans refering to Getae? Or any source of the time that refers to two different entities of people? No. So there is no convtraversy such as this, only speculation.
 
"The people I listed all copied they archery skills from the steppans except Assyrians, Japanese, and American indians. "
 
Great and I stated that the Dacians may have copied from the Scythians but if they did it really is confusing how the Dacians who merely adopted horse archer tactic kept the Scythians out of their homeland. It makes more sense that perhaps the Dacians already had the tactic.
 
"Also where did you get information of Romanized Dacians using horse archery in th 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 12th, 13th centurty BC ?"
 
There was no such thing as Romanized Dacians in the 4th century BC and earlier. I think you're confused. But as horse archer Dacians and cavalry in general, we have the example of how they challenged Darius and harrassed him as he passed through the lands. We also know that the Dacians composed most of the missle cavalry in the Odrysian Kingdom. They would also fill this role in the Roman Legions.
 
"How can you claim that Vlachs were able to keep Dacian horse archery? Where is the evidence that it's Dacian horse archery? You actually didn't provided any Vlach horse archery references at all, except the obsured passage from Ureche who lived 200 years after the battle of Tannenberg and simply wasn't the contemporary of the events. But  still this passage is very obscured and you failed to provide any other sources on this."
 
Where/When else would the Romanians have adopted horse archery? The Pechengs and Cumans were a minority ruling class. You can't just train an entire population to suddenly become the experts in horse archery that would often best and route other horse archer militaries such as the mongols and turks. I did provide refrence to the Vlachs using horse archery but it is you that picks and chooses which source is good and which isn't. Perhaps Ureche was lying? But for what reason? You're just making up lame excuses.
 

Dlugosz wrote that the composite bow was the most popular weapon in the principalities, with nearly all peasants being proficient in its use. From the book Doculentele lui Stefan cel Mare by I. Bogdan, p. 348 we see quite clearly that the invading Ottoman army in 1476 was harrassed by Moldavian horsemen.

Konstantin Mihailovic, a person who accompanied Mehmed II against Vlad Tepes, states clearly that the Wallachians preferred hit-and-run tactics and continuous harrassment.

Ian Heath states in "Armies of the Middle Ages" that the Wallachians were very similar in arms to the Cumans.

Italian traveller Ioan Torzelo once again states that the Wallachians had a large troop of light cavalry, composed of 10-15,000 men who were "the bravest men in the world."

Wallachians once again used light skirmish cavalry at Varna, where they routed the Turkish army on their flank, and even chased them for miles, looted their camp, then went home loaded with booty.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/idsguy/WallachianHorseman.jpg

"Also, again there are no any references which describe Valachian skills in the horse archery. All the famous battle won by Valachs were infantry battles where skillful use of terrain and ambushes were deployed to compensate numerical inferiority. Typical medieval Romanian warrior is foot soldier, usually a peasant, not a horse archer. By contrast, according to the antique sources horse archery was the main battle tactic of Getae. I don't see any correlation with Valachs in this regard."
 
No refrences except the ones I listed. But perhaps they were all lying ;). And I never said horse archers were a the dominant element in the Romanian armies but they were an important one. Personally I find it that having a mostly horse archer military doesn't really get you much if the enemy has even a decent defensive position.
Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 884
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2008 at 22:59
Originally posted by Tyranos Tyranos wrote:

Originally posted by TarTar TarTar wrote:

what are the origins of scythian, samartian and turanian people?


Not sure what you mean on "Turanian", its actually an Etruscan name, but yet somehow managed to later be used by Turkish Nationalist umbrella term and to cover even an entire landmass. In any case, The Scythians and Sarmatians werent Turks, but some claim them to be outve some aganda.

Scythians and Thracians wouldve had some contact, but the two arent the same.
 
Yea pretty much. Turanian is a rather funny political notion that entitles "everything that rode a horse and shot a bow at any time is Turkish and should form Greater Turan with us." I found the elements of this idealology to be not much unlike some of the Nazi sentiments.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jul-2008 at 00:41
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf Carpathian Wolf wrote:

 
Where/When else would the Romanians have adopted horse archery? The Pechengs and Cumans were a minority ruling class. You can't just train an entire population to suddenly become the experts in horse archery that would often best and route other horse archer militaries such as the mongols and turks. I did provide refrence to the Vlachs using horse archery but it is you that picks and chooses which source is good and which isn't. Perhaps Ureche was lying? But for what reason? You're just making up lame excuses.
 

Dlugosz wrote that the composite bow was the most popular weapon in the principalities, with nearly all peasants being proficient in its use. From the book Doculentele lui Stefan cel Mare by I. Bogdan, p. 348 we see quite clearly that the invading Ottoman army in 1476 was harrassed by Moldavian horsemen.

Konstantin Mihailovic, a person who accompanied Mehmed II against Vlad Tepes, states clearly that the Wallachians preferred hit-and-run tactics and continuous harrassment.

Ian Heath states in "Armies of the Middle Ages" that the Wallachians were very similar in arms to the Cumans.

Italian traveller Ioan Torzelo once again states that the Wallachians had a large troop of light cavalry, composed of 10-15,000 men who were "the bravest men in the world."

Wallachians once again used light skirmish cavalry at Varna, where they routed the Turkish army on their flank, and even chased them for miles, looted their camp, then went home loaded with booty.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/idsguy/WallachianHorseman.jpg

"Also, again there are no any references which describe Valachian skills in the horse archery. All the famous battle won by Valachs were infantry battles where skillful use of terrain and ambushes were deployed to compensate numerical inferiority. Typical medieval Romanian warrior is foot soldier, usually a peasant, not a horse archer. By contrast, according to the antique sources horse archery was the main battle tactic of Getae. I don't see any correlation with Valachs in this regard."
 
No refrences except the ones I listed. But perhaps they were all lying ;). And I never said horse archers were a the dominant element in the Romanian armies but they were an important one. Personally I find it that having a mostly horse archer military doesn't really get you much if the enemy has even a decent defensive position.
 
Yes, I did also some research and I found references to Wallachian horse archers taking part in the battle of Nicopolis.
I think it was definitely Cuman influence, especially since the first gospodar dynasty in Wallachia was of Cuman origin. One source of yours also mentions Cumans.
It's very interesting indeed. I just didn't know that Cuman influences Wallachian military tactics so much, it indeed puts them in a very speical category.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 884
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jul-2008 at 01:32
Basarab (The name itself) is actually disputed as either Cuman or Dacian in origin. Basarab I himself didn't look Asiatic at all so at most his Cumanic origin ended with just his name. The Cumans were just a ruling class in Wallachia and Moldova for a time. They did not mix/mingle with the Romanized Dacian population because of religion. In any case Basarab as a Cumanic name is disputed and we have no chronicles attesting that he was Cumanic. The painted chronicle of vienna attests him to being a Vlach, the only document that speaks about his ethnicity.
 
You can think it is a Cumanic influence but you'd have to prove it. We know for a fact that Getae or Dacian or whatever you want to name them (even if they were different people they still are the ancestors of Romanians) used horse archery. So why would the suddenly stop and only pick it up once the Cumans came? That makes no sense.
 
I also find it funny that you are so quick to accept certain ideas and resist others so strongly. No no the Vlachs in no way could have used horse archery. Until proven wrong and now you throw the "yea but it was the Cumans!" non sense in.


Edited by Carpathian Wolf - 14-Jul-2008 at 01:52
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.074 seconds.