Were knights in eastern europe a thing?

>>3274509
Yes, why would it be different?

>>3274516
Well I mean to be fair to OP it's usually very common for even a slightly different place to value different weapons or have a different general military strategy.

>>3274509

How could you have knights without chivalry?

What about Middle Eastern Knights?

>>3274536
They had cataphracts, but they weren't exactly knights in the European sense. They would still be nobility and wealthy-enough men to afford their gear, however.

>>3274509
No. Kingdoms like Hungary or Poland were backward shitholes well known for using clubs until 15 century and HRE didn't genocide them only out of compassion (that's it, only until they became mostly Protestant and abandoned such humanistic ideas).

File: kingdom of heaven.png (2MB, 1917x815px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1917x815px

>>3274536

Why wouldn't the Middle East have noblemen that liked swords?

>>3274509
Bogatyrs
>>3274536
Cataphracts

Define "knights".

Also
>cold war era definition of Eastern Europe

>>3274594

Hajnal line?

Mounted aristocratic warriors existed just about everywhere and these are often just called 'knights' out of convenience. In a more specific sense though, the concept of a 'knight' and 'knighthood' is only an aspect of Latin Christendom, and seemingly similar concepts in other regions like Russia should be distinguished from them. True knights did exist in places like Poland, Hungary and of course the Teutonic state, but not in the Orthodox world.

>>3274606
More like the halal line.

>>3274616
/thread

File: Russian Cavalry 1300-1375.jpg (111KB, 611x846px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 611x846px

In most slavic kingdoms knights were known as Boyars, they weren't exactly the same, but were typically large landholders with a recognized title of nobility by the King/Czar/Ban and fought as heavy cavalry.

In the Byzantine empire, during the system theme system, they had the cataphract cavalry, but these were professional soldiers. After the collapse of the theme system, they begun to depend on pronoiars (rented land holders), and the dynatoi (provincial nobles), which is sometimes interpreted as a Byzantine semi-feudal system.

I am not sure if in the Islamic world knights filled the same economic role as in Europe, but in terms of being heavy cavalry units, they were called fāris for Arabs, and Timariots for Turkics.

>>3274509
Of course, why wouldn't they? Although im not sure about Kiev rus and orthodox world in general
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zawisza_Czarny

>>3274616

Knights did exist in the orthodox world,in fact they were invented there and were known for the Byzantines as Cataphracts but as I said here >>3274632 they were not a separate economic class like in western european feudalism though it slowly did creep in with the pronoia system. Slavic Boyars were about the same thing though the economic system was a bit different.

What you mean to say is that the idea of monastic martial warrior did not exist in the Orthodox world, and this is true because monasticism in Orthodoxy means living an ascetic, hermits life completely detached from worldly matters.

>>3274594
maybe Orthodox Christians

Yes you dumb westerner.
Fratres militiæ Christi Livoniae

>>3274594
>Define "knights".
Guys fighting on horseback that also happen to be a form of low nobility.

>>3274536
Knights originated in the Iranian cataphracts

>>3274933
Knights originated in the ownership of horses.

>>3274554
Wut?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warfare_in_Medieval_Poland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Polish_Army
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Army_of_Hungary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hungarian_knights
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zawisza_Czarny

>>3275034
I think he was being sarcastic.

>>3274509
Yes. What is now Eastern Europe (excluding Russia and the Balkans) used to be heavily influenced by Germans pretty much until WW2 and the military/feudal structure reflected that.

>>3274682
You have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

>>3275986
Not Him but what a fantastic argument, good job.

In the Western sense no, but you did have heavy (noble) cavalry that was functionally identical when it came to warfare.

File: Die_drei_Bogatyr.jpg (271KB, 1200x795px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 1200x795px

>>3274509
bogatyrs.

read the byliny book

>>3275034
sarcasm yo...
the fucking autism

>>3274525
>How could you have knights without chivalry?

How can a door be a jar?

>>3274516
Because it's a different region with quite a distinct culture.

File: 1zezi4o.jpg (113KB, 742x565px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 742x565px

>>3274566
Noblemen on horse isn't really equivalent to knight. Atleast not in the medieval sense. If your talking about roman knights then they were originally a class which could afford to/had the right to fight in the cavalry which later on evolved into a powerful economical merchantish class which during the empire was turned into the primary bureaucratic class.

>>3274927
By that extremely useless definition Winston Churchill was a knight.

>>3276624
Sounds like the Mongol term baghatur

>>3276686
Churchill wasn't exactly low nobility.

>>3276753
Pompey the Great then.

>>3274509
The polish hussars were exactly that weren't they?
Also the ottoman sipahis were almost the same, they got a fief which would get redistributed after teir death from which they could get taxes and pay for their equipment with.
The european sipahis used mostly lances shields and javelins while the anatolian sipahis were horse archers.

>>3276767
>Pompey's father, Gnaeus Pompeius Strabo, was a wealthy equestrian from Picenum
Sure.

>>3276837
Which is why the definition anon gave is utterly meaningless.

File: Eurasian Cavalrymen-29.jpg (484KB, 1196x1646px) Image search: [Google]

484KB, 1196x1646px

>>3274509
Classic Western-European Style Knighthood stops at Poland/Hungary.

In Russian areas its more of a mix of landed nobles who were closest to Western European knights in addition to City State Elites who simply can afford horses.

There's also allied Nomadshit tribes whose nobles would show up as armored cavalrymen.

In addition cavalrymen in the Eurasian Steppes were horse archers.

File: Spahi.jpg (421KB, 1010x1325px) Image search: [Google]

421KB, 1010x1325px

>>3274536
The Middle East generally had no such thing as knights considering the lack of feudalism in Medieval Middle East.

The closest would be the concept of the Spahi, in which land was given to Cavalyrmen- usually of Turkic origin- instead of wages so they could remain as full time professional soldiers.

It was a carry-over from the Sassanid Savaran feudal cavalrymen.

>>3276842
Are you actually retarded?

>>3276823
>The polish hussars were exactly that weren't they?

No, they were a military unit. You didn't have to be a nobleman to be a hussar and we know many of them weren't. As a prosperous free peasant or burgher signing up and serving as a hussar towarzysz was one of the few semi-reliable ways to get ennobled after all.

>>3276891
> You didn't have to be a nobleman to be a hussar and we know many of them weren't. As a prosperous free peasant or burgher signing up and serving as a hussar towarzysz was one of the few semi-reliable ways to get ennobled after al
Sounds like bullshit.
>and we know many of them weren't.
So you can name few?

>>3274616
>but not in the Orthodox world.
I distinctly recall them being a thing in Wallachia.
Vlad loved knighting folk he liked.

>>3276921
Vlad the Impaler was a Catholic.

>>3276927
Debatable.
Besides, even if he were, his conversion would have happened before his second rule, which was short and didn't achieve much.
Also, we have records for the purchase of knightly amours by Radu Voda.

Speaking of the romanian states, Moldova had their own corps, the "viteji", which were knights in all but name.

>>3276861
Please elaborate on your reasoning.

Equites are standard in every civilisation

>>3274606
Classic irish eastern europe

they were in Bohemia and Poland don't know about the others

>>3276891
only rich nobles could become hussars
>>3276915
hussars were a thing in Poland since XVIth century, before that Poland had knights and even before them there was druzhina

>>3277142
>eastern europe
>civilisation

>>3274632
can you stop pushing "russia = entirety of slavdom" meme
boyars were only a thing in orthodox countries like moldova or russia, here in czechia and poland there were no such thing

>>3277434
boyars were a thing in wallachia too

>>3277491
what the fuck is wallachia
>>3277434
czechs are fags

File: anonisdumb.png (56KB, 300x211px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 300x211px

>>3277523
>knows what moldova is
>doesn't know what wallachia is
wew

>>3277559
what the fuck is moldova

>>3277244
>>3276915
>only rich nobles could become hussars
Read less Ogniem i Mieczen and read more historical research (I recommend Marian Kukiel's work on the ethnic and social make-up of hussar units) and sources.

We know for a fact there were non-nobles among the hussars since we have records of Sejm ennobling them (based on a Hetman's recommendation) for their service.

>>3277622
Lad, just off yourself now, please

The Mongols fought knights in Hungary. But maybe Hungary is/was Central Europe.

File: druzhinaa1.png (332KB, 678x939px) Image search: [Google]

332KB, 678x939px

>>3274509

They were literally the Eastern European equivalent:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druzhina

>>3275028
Knights originated in the combination of stirrups and Roman cataphracts.

>>3277733
>hungary
>anything but balkan

>>3277761
in case of Poland druzhina was not a knight equivalent but something that got replaced by knights later on

>>3277698
how the fuck could a commoner even afford armor, sabre, lance and two handguns required?

>>3277888
Nobles could be poor and commoners could be rich

>>3277761
It was literally the same everywhere

>richest and most powerful man had some guys protecting him
>he paid them by sharing some of his riches
>eventually the man became the king and the guys became the nobles (knights)

>>3277859
Hungary isn't Balkan by any means.

>>3277911
sounds like mafia

>>3277888
>commoners cannot be rich
>thinking all commoners are peasants
Are you American by chance?

>>3277918
if romania can be balkan, so is hungary

>>3277953
Romania is partially on the Balkan peninsula geographically, Hungary is not. Also Romania is overwhelmingly Orthodox. If Hungary is Balkan then so is Austria.

>>3277924
the mafia is a government

So why did cavalry function more as skirmishers/dragoons further east while the west focused heavily on shock tactics?

>>3277961
barely 5% of romania is in the balkans
and croatia is catholic and albania and bosnia are muslim while being balkan

>>3274509
I think they were called Boyars, yes.

>>3278014
Croatia is borderline Balkan, Hungary is not Balkan at all. What exactly does make them Balkan in your opinion? Is Slovenia also Balkan? Austria? Slovakia? Ukraine?

>>3274632
aren't Sipahi and Mamelukes the Turkic/Egyptian equivalent of knights? I think so...

>>3278017
>Russia = all of EE

>>3274632
russians used longswords?

>>3278021
slovenia is balkan because of yugoslavia
and hungary is balkan because of how hard they got turk'd
>>3278024
boyars existed outside of russia too

>>3278051
>how hard they got turk'd
You mean they got almost completely exterminated by the Turks and had to be resettled from the north.

>>3278051
>Slovenia is Balkan
t. retard

>>3278063
turks cant do anything right
>>3278065
>we wuz austrianz n sheeeit

>>3277933
>>3277898
Can't rich people become nobles?

>>3278084
You're a Serb aren't you.

>>3278102
Not really, that practice only emerged in the late 17th and 18th century, and was a total disaster because many Jews bought themselves into aristocracy.

>>3278106
no why

>>3278119
Because they're the ones claiming everyone in the world is Balkan.

>>3278023
>fucking slaves being the equivalent of knights

Sipahis are bit closer.

>>3277434
Boyars were a thing in Bulgaria as well, so pretty much MOST of Eastern Europe, and in case you haven't noticed most Slavs are orthodox

>>3278189
Not all Eastern Europeans are Slavs.

>>3277969
The east has flatter landscapes which enable them to maneuvre more.

>>3278084
The ottomans weren't attacking the common hungarian though.
What benefit could they get from killing random hungarians?

>>3278135
Those slaves had better lives than most egyptians though.
You shouldn't think that slavery=fucked up life full with whippings.

>>3276852

There was a kind of feudalism there, though, the iqta. It was just that it was often or usually a salary derived from land that you did not have any authority over beyond tributary taxation. The iqta would apply to any number of soldiery whether free fawaris, slave-warriors, or maybe tribal lords. Furusiyya or however you spell it had elements similar to the ideals of chivalry.

>>3277142
Equites aren't the same as the classic, medieval knight.
Equites is basically the default 'petty' noblemen who can afford to serve in the cavalry (which, as I've pointed out earlier in this thread, evolved into something quite different) while the concept of a knight is heavily dependent on the culture of feodal medieval europe. Not including the codes of conduct and romantic ideals that developed with and shaped what it meant to be a (chivalerous) knight is a huge error imo.

>>3277888
Trough trade, enterprise, heritage, spoils of war or just becoming the favorite of some rich fucker.

>>3277924
The mafia is a basically a state within a state so yes, like the mafia.

>>3278102
Sure they, can, depending on the laws of the land.
IIRC the roman empire was a plutocracy in the sense that nobility was something you aquired if you had amassed enough wealth when a census rolled around.

>>3276852
>lack of feudalism in Medieval Middle East.

Wait, so does that mean it was better to be an Arab Falahin (Spelling is probably butchered) than an English Peasant?

>>3278102
Sure.

In the PLC they could shell out money for equipment for themselves and two-three goons, join a hussar unit, serve valiantly in a war, ask the hetman to vouch for them and they'd get ennobled by parliament.

Which brings us back to >>3276891

>>3278907
Were Hussars regular military unit always ready for orders?
Were they get paid for their service?

>>3278965
The way hussar units (and in fact most PLC units*) worked was that a monarch or hetman (there were up to four hetmans in the PLC at a time) granted a document authorising someone (pretty much always a nobleman, ideally in good social standing in the area of interest) to recruit and command a unit of hussars from a particular area. The document usually stated what was expected in terms of equipment, number of men (typically 100-200), and when/where they are to be ready. The unit (via the commander) would answer to the monarch/hetman who organised it and is funding it.

The commander (rotmistrz) would go to his area of recruitment and, through social channels, find some volunteers from the local gentry to join as towarzysze ("comrades"). Each towarzysz would be expected to equip himself and two-three followers (pocztowi). IIRC the minimum was two but you were allowed to have more. These followers answered to their towarzysz. They'd also usually have servants around.

So basically a hussar unit (rota/chorągiew) was led by a rotmistrz who together commanded ~50 towarzysze, each of whom had two or more pocztowi for a total of (usually) a bit under 200 people. The towarzysze also elected a chorąży (banner-bearer) from among themselves who carried the unit banner and was considered the most senior towarzysz, and the rotmistrz would also usually name a second (and sometimes third) in command.

Theoretically units were paid every quarter with the money being given to the rotmistrz who distributed it to the towarzysze. In practice especially during wartime this could be very unstable, so very often commanders would cover expenses out of pocket and try to recover the money from the state institutions later.

>>3279283
(*the exception being "foreign-style" troops like arquebuisers or dragoons)

In peacetime the units were either dissolved ( or kept at ~25-50% strength. After all you could always re-recruit them (or maybe family members bearing the same equipment) since they had their own equipment. Still, the PLC was often quite slow to gather up its forces due to this.

In any case the rotmistrz was the guy responsible for keeping the unit at the required strength, who in theory could come and go as they please. Though obviously deserting in wartime could have dire social and possibly even legal consequences.

Anyway from this you can see that e.g. a guy from a rich merchant family joining a hussar unit as a towarzysz is in fact, at considerable expense (he has to equip himself and a few followers) a possible risk to himself, mingling with his local petty nobility. This

We don't know much about the followers / pocztowi (who were equipped the same as other hussars) but it's quite likely many of them were not nobles. They could be e.g. the younger relatives of a towarzysz or poor nobles, but they could also be some stout peasant boys from the village owned by the towarzysz's family. From many sources it seems poorer nobles preferred to be a proper towarzysz in a less prestigious unit (e.g. pancerni) with lower equipment requirements than serve as a pocztowy in a more prestigious unit. They could always move up to a more prestigious unit later after all.

>>3279343
>a guy from a rich merchant family joining a hussar unit as a towarzysz is in fact, at considerable expense (he has to equip himself and a few followers) and a possible risk to himself, mingling with his local petty nobility. This is a pretty good first step for the ennoblement which he would sometimes get for his service.*

tl;dr: social cohesion and such

In the Ottoman context, Sipahi were practically knights, only that their only claim to aristocracy was more through merit and not by blood - there are actually a few Sipahi families that served the Ottomans throughout the ages, but these are, as said, few, mostly because of the Ottoman fear of any aristocracy coexisting with the Sultan. Hence the easily disposable meritocratic system.

File: 627x0.jpg (127KB, 627x837px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 627x837px

>>3278214
yeah, you have romanians and aromanians and co., which are orthodox latins with slavic trappings, and hungarians and gagauz and stuff, which are settled steppeniggers surrounded by slavs, both of which mixed with slavs a lot, genetically.

So yeah, even as a non-slav east euro, i can say this place is pretty much slavs, with non-slavic enclaves in their midst.

>>3279283
>>3279343
Thank you for detailed answer.

>>3278189
>ignoring that Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Hungarians, Slovenians, Croatians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, Albanians and Greeks exist

>>3279428
No problem, I'm happy to share what I know.

Anyway it's quite a bit different from modern militaries. It's probably best to think about it as a funding, standardisation, and war-time organisation system more so than a centralised military in the modern sense.

After all in the PLC the state didn't really have a monopoly on force or militaries. Nobles were perfectly free to organise themselves and have private armies if they could afford to. The state wasn't so much creating a military as it was subcontracting it to the gentry.

>>3275034
t. autist newfag

File: image_1.jpg (106KB, 1867x1394px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1867x1394px

>>3274516
>Were knights in pre-Columbian Australia a thing?
>Yes, why would it be different?

>>3280034
*pre-Cookian

>>3274509
If you consider the Baltics to be Eastern European, then Estonia and Latvia had Teutonic knights. (later called the Livonian Order)

>>3280717
>If you consider the Baltics to be Eastern European
They ARE Eastern Europeans.

>>3276716
cognates, iirc. bog/bagh means god, so i think the terms meant holy warrior, or like anointed by god to fight or something like that

>>3280728
Nope.
We were Central European until 1918/1920, when we finally won our independence against the G*rmans.
But now, classifying us as "Eastern" doesn't work since we have nothing in common with Belarus or Ukraine. We can't be Northern since we have nothing in common with Iceland or the Faroes. We can't be Central anymore since we forcibly shed anything German. (and rightfully so)

>>3280783
You're baltic states. It's a s simple as that. No need to bunch you in with any others just because you happen to share a border with them. I mean Russia shared a border with Turkey but that doesn't mean that it used to be a part of MENA.

>>3279435
>Hungarians, CLithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, Albanians, Greeks
>slavs

>>3281068
You could argue that "Lithuanians" in some contexts refers to Ruthenians (they're usually called "Litvins")

The Ruthenian language (ancestor of Belarusian and Ukrainian) was never called "Ruthenian" at the time. It was called "Russian" (pycки eзыкъ) in Lithuania and "Lithuanian" (Литoвcкий язык) in Russia.

>>3277434
Since when did anyone include Poles and Czechs when talking about medieval eastern Europe? Both were firmly central European.

>Central Europe

no such thing

>>3281545

Nobody is every going to buy this
Ever

File: 51iZoqEV30L._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (41KB, 333x499px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 333x499px

this may be the defining factor between west and east knights. how much of it was upheld in the western sphere is up to debate. did the east have anything comparable?

>>3274509
The Mongols fought the polish/hungarian knights and decimated them the first time. They got better tho about 70 years later, the reverse happened.

>>3281545
What you call "central" europe is the west of eastern europe. Central europe is Germany.

>>3279283
>>3279343
very interesting, was anything similar done in the west?

>>3281545
Bullshit. Both were strictly in "western" aka catholic sphere. Medieval Eastern Europe is meme.

>>3274553
To be quite honest, the Iranians had their cataphracts acting in the same capacity and roles as European knights would.

>minimum had to be freemen of noble standing
>frequently participated in jousting, hand to hand combat, and dueling tournaments
>organized feudally
etc...

>>3283049
No Roman influence though.

>>3274536
>>3274553
>>3276852
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furusiyya