"If you look at the earliest Serbian list in "Eternal Empire", which is for the period 1300-1344, you will find there are no knights on offer at all, but you can choose up to 17 "superior", "armoured" cavalry (with lances).
Then for the middle army (1345-79) the choice suddenly jumps to a possible 14 "superior", "heavily armoured" knights (with lances) plus a possible 2 "average", "heavily armoured" western mercenary knights - so a total of 16 knights altogether is possible
The same is true for the later list (1380-1459)."
I then came across a Balkan history site that I felt was quite credible and useful. It says,
"Serbian Empire Army
The core of the army consisted of noble cavalry (Vlastela) armed with lance and bow in the Byzantine syle. These were increasingly supplemented by western style knights. Mostly Germans in Dushan’s reign. Light horse were provided by Hungarian, Cuman or even Tartar mercenaries. Later in the period Serbian lance armed Gusars took over this role. The infantry still included lightly armed javelin troops although the bow and crossbow became the most important infantry weapon in the 14th century. A western style charge by the armoured cavalry and knights was the main tactic with the infantry used to follow up."
http://www.balkanhistory.com/medieval.htm
So I have a number of questions following on from all this . . .
i) Early Serbian DAG army 1300-1344
a) the mounted Serbian noble cavalry (Vlastela) should have bows as well as lances. Then as the 14thC proceeded these bows were gradually replaced with crossbows. Maybe a "light spear, bow* and sword" designation would be a more accurate representation of these vlastela (as in Wallachian nobility, for example?)
b) apparently the Serbian light horse were known as "gusars" right across the period of the three Serbian lists in the DAG. Could this name be introduced? Could the term "vlastela" also be used, please?
ii) Middle Serbian DAG army 1345-1379, Later Serbian army 1380-1459
a) I think that there are far too many mounted knights available to these Serbian armies. Their social structure could not have possibly supported such a number. Maybe a maximum of 6 would be appropriate. But, in addition, the Serbian state had very lucrative mining operations within its territory which allowed its king to employ numerous mercenary knights from Germany, Hungary and Spain, so maybe the maximum allowable for this separate category of troops should be increased from 2 to 4 (making 10 mounted knights the maximum number possible)? Also, why should these mercenary knights only be classed as "average"? Maybe the shortfall in mounted
troops that would result from this change could be made up by introducing a new category of Serbian cavalry (both "armoured" and "protected") - these would be the Serbian equivalent of sergeants and attendants that appear in other western European medieval lists.
b) on what basis can the Byzantines legitimately be called allies in this first period (1345-1379)? Although Serbia did offer to send some troops to aid the Byzantines in the early 1340s, the main thrust of Stefan Dusan's campaigns after 1345 (to his death in 1355) was against the Byzantine Empire.
c) it might be better to remove the Bosnian nobles from the main part of the DAG list and classify the Bosnians as allies of Serbia with a full range of Bosnian troops to choose from. Bosnia was never incorporated into Serbian territory as far as I know and it existed as an independent state between 1377 and 1463. They did send troops to aid Serbia after 1355 and were present in very large numbers at the Battle of Kosovo 1389.
d) when were Tatars present in Serbian armies in this period (1345-79)? The main mercenaries seemed to have come from Germany, Hungary, Aragon and other parts of the Iberian peninsula.
e) shouldn't Serbian crossbowmen start to make an appearance in these lists?
f) why can you only choose one type of voynuk infantry in these armies? Shouldn't you be able to choose a mixture of spear and heavy weapon troops?
Thanks very much. I will give it a rest after this thread.
