VILLA WELLMER ASSOCIATION

Radu I of Wallachia
Deciphering a mysterious coat of arms from
the Universal Armorial of herald Gelre

Tiberiu Frăţilă-Felmer
2017
 2

he Universal Armorial of herald Gelre was created starting with

year 1370 by Flemish chronicler Claes Heynenszoon. His alias was
Gelre while serving as herald in the service of Duke William I of
Guelders, who was a relentless traveller and a stern supporter of
the Teutonic Order. Gelre managed to leave in posterity one of the
most important medieval roll of arms, meticulously painting on 121 sheets of
parchment no less than 1755 coats of arms from across Europe, focusing on
the area he knew best: Netherlands-Rhineland. For the eastern side of the
continent, it is very likely that he benefited of information provided by
knights fighting alongside the Order in Oriental Prussia against Lithuanian.
When returned, they reported to Duke William, as perhaps the knight-errant
Daniel of Merwede, who made no less than five expeditions with the Teutonic
knights. During the first (1359) he visited Constantinople and Bulgaria, and in
the fourth (winter 1365-66) he travelled through Wallachia, Hungary and
Poland.1 As consequence, it's very likely that Gelre painted parts of his
armorial, and perhaps the entire chapter dedicated to Hungary, in connection
with one of the several anti-Lithuanian Crusades carried in joint venture with
the Teutonic Order. We will use this important idea later on in this paper.
Silent witness to politic and military events within Duchy of Guelders and
abroad, it is certain that Heynenszoon received updated information in a
greater extent than his fellow heralds. However, we see in his armorial how
for the most of Eastern Europe’s coats of arms, names of individuals and fiefs
are written in a fanciful manner, with many mistakes. This makes us believe
that the initial data have been degraded by transmission from one person to
another, each having different nationality and different degrees of education.
Moreover, Flemish translation worsened things further. Even when Gelre
procured the heraldic information himself, for example in England, where he
accompanied his patron for investiture as Knight of the Garter, phonetics
created him some difficulties. Since the nineteenth century, three different
scholars2 tried to put order in the Gelre armorial, identifying coat of arms,
names, fiefdoms and territories. Using the main edition of Paul Adam-Even
(1971), we will discuss several coats of arms from our area of interest.
1
Werner Paravicini, Die Preussenreisen des Europäischen Adels, Teil 1, Jan Thorbecke Verlag Sigmaringen, 1989, pg. 52.
Contribution of Daniel de la Merwede was celebrated by herald in the fourth chapter of the Armorial (“Praise for brave
knights”), where are depicted eight coat of arms, the fourth belonging to knight Daniel (site wappenwiki.org/index.php/
Gelre_Armorial_Folio_14). Paravicini states that Gelre himself “travel between 1362 and 1387 at least five times to
Prussia” (Idem, pg. 139).
2
V. Bouton (Paris/Brussels, 1881-1905), K. Regel (Netherlands, 1885), P. Adam-Even (Neuchatel, Paul Attinger, 1971).
 3

From file 52 (verso) to file 55 (front), counting from no. 500 to 547, we
find the arms of the king of Hungary and his vassals. Between years 1370 and
1382 Hungary and Poland were part of a personal union under the sceptre of
Louis I the Great, so it’s no surprise to find listed here Polish knights. On file
52 is drawn the coat of arms of king Louis (marshalled Anjou-Hungary,
Poland, Arpad-Hungary, and Croatia) followed by his main vassals. Browsing
the list we will try to set also the hypothetical time frame when the herald
painted the coats of arms in this chapter. Top eight emblems belong to some
well known armigers, dukes from Central-North Europe. None of these
blazons need discussion, as they are undisputed. The only problem consists in
some really questionable links between the noted armigers and king Louis as
their overlord (below: file 52 verso in the Universal Armorial of herald Gelre).
 4

First (no. 501) are placed the arms of one duke of Masovia (at Gelre:
H'toge van d' Masovia). This duchy was placed in the mid-northern region of
Poland and in the thirteenth century had a history of its own. In the eyes of
Claes Heynenszoon, the ruler of Masovia and member of Hungarian-Polish
establishment was one of three different people: Siemovit III, member of the
House of Piast, Masovian branch, was Polish vassal between 1351-70, and
independent after king Casimir III's death. He never formally submitted to
king Louis until his death (1381). However, our Flemish herald definitely was
aware that around 1373-74, Siemovit's two sons, Janusz and Siemovit IV the
Younger, started as co-rulers in given parts of Masovia: the former in Warsaw
and the latter in Rawa. In traditional Polish heraldic style, both brothers
shared the coat of arms of House Piast: gules, eagle displayed silver. Duke
Janusz became one of the king Louis' friends and faithful since year 1373,
when he pledged allegiance for his part of dukedom. Siemovit IV strongly
opposed Angevin intercession in Poland, and reluctantly became Louis' per-
sonal vassal only for a very short interval, between the deaths of his father
and the king's (1381-82). From this complicated situation, Adam-Even choose
to attribute the Masovian coat of arms to Siemovit IV, the adversary of king
Louis, instead of much friendlier Janusz.
Next on page we find the arms of the dukes of Brieg/Brzeg (no. 502, Hrt'
v'n Brige). Louis I of Brieg was a Piast from the Silesian branch, a long-lived
and capable administrator of his dukedom between 1358-98. He was a nominal
vassal of the Luxemburg’s from Bohemia, and is no proof, except his Polish
descent and the joint participation in 1372 to the anti-Lithuanian crusade, of
any feudal connection with Louis of Anjou. Gelre clearly placed his coat of
arms in this chapter due to this conjecture. In addition, let's note the European
stature of the Silesian duke, who was called by his contemporaries both “the
Righteous” and “the Shrewd”.
Further we see the arms of the duke of Munsterberg (no. 503, Hrt' v'
Munsterberch). Bolko III of Munsterberg/Ziębice (1358-1410), ruled over a
small dukedom in the North of Lower Silesia. He sold gradually most of his
posses-sions and didn't have direct links with Hungary. His presence in the
armorial in the chapter dedicated to Hungary and Poland is probably due to
his membership to the Silesian Piasts, like some of his other cousins (i.e.
Konrad of Oels or Rupprecht of Leignitz).
 5

Duke Vladislav II of Opeln/Opole (no. 504, Hrt' v' Rusen en v'n Napel)
started as vassal of Bohemia for the inherited dukedom of Opole, but his
entire political life was closely linked with Louis of Anjou. He was raised and
educated at the Hungarian Court, becoming an effective count palatine in
Buda (1366-72), then governor of Halych-Volhynia (also Ruthenia or Rus,
1372-78, therefore the appellation used by Heinenszoon), count palatine of
Poland and later governor of Kujavia.
Konrad II the Grey of Oels/Oleśnica (no. 505, Hrt' vn'd Ulzen) was along
Bolko III of Munsterberg/Ziębice an unimportant member of Silesian House
of Piast and, as the former, not linked politically to the king Louis of Anjou.
Schweidnitz/Świdnica (no. 506, Hrt' van de Zwiednits) was a Silesian
dukedom ruled in time of Gelre Armorial compilation by Anna von Habsburg,
widow of the last independent Piast ruler, Bolko II the Small (d. 1368). Maybe
his alliance from 1345 with Louis of Hungary and Cazimir of Poland was
materialized by a form of allegiance, as it was the medieval custom, so is
natural for having his coat of arms alongside the Hungarian-Polish king.
Next is depicted (no. 507, Troppau) the coat of arms of duke John I of
Troppau-Ratibor/Opava-Racibórz, scion of the bastard line of Bohemian Pre-
mislid House, who co-ruled his dukedom between 1367-77 with his half-
brothers Nicholas III, Wenceslas and Přemysl. They were part of Bohemia’s
feudal establishment and they had no political ties with Hungary-Poland.
Rupprecht I of Liegnitz/Legnica (no. 508, Hrt' v Liegenits), nephew of
Louis I of Brieg, was a Silesian Piast who ruled his dukedom in the time frame
1373-1409, having as co-ruler his brother Wenceslas II. His political interests
covered only the intestine struggles within Silesia and equally had no ties with
Louis of Anjou.
Thomas of Saint Georgen (no.509, Grave v. Sunte Jorien) was a Hunga-
rian noble issued from a Northern branch of Hont-Pázmány clan. His family
domains were circumscribed to three castles, St. George/Sväty Jur, Bösing/
Pezinok and Eberhard/Malinovo, situated North of Bratislava. His father
Peter was the first mentioned with the title of count, when holding the office
in Bereg County (1360). Thomas was raised at the Angevin Court together
with his brother Peter the Younger and both were mentioned in 1363 as king
Louis' familiares. In king's service, count Thomas was diplomat, toll adminis-
trator, and between 1375-78 castellan of Holič. Next he was appointed master
 6

of treasury (1378-82) and count of Nitra (mentioned in 1382). After Louis'

death, he reached his carrier's peak as Ban of Croatia (1384-85) in the turbu-
lent years of struggle for the Hungarian throne's succession.
Armorial’s folio 52 ends with two empty shields. Maybe Gelre anticipated
painting further coat of arms for other unmentioned Silesian duchies, i.e.
Teschen and Breslau.
On folio 53 (front) are only five coat of arms. Plain logic says that here
will follow the rest of Hungary's main allies and vassals, other than Silesian
dukes. Let's see if so the case is. First is painted the blazon attributed to
Bartosz Wezenborg (Baris v. Desenberch). He was one of the staunch suppor-
ters of the Angevin personal union between Hungary and Poland. For his
loyalty, he was appointed governor of Kujavia (sometimes after 1372, until
1377). Meanwhile, he was renowned for personal, long-lasted feud against the
Teutonic knights marauding the Polish countryside. This attitude brought
him shortly Western Europe's wrath and king Louis' disgrace. The proposed
arms – black bull passant on golden shield, differs slightly from Wezenborg
true ones according to Józef Szymański: black bull passant guardant3.
Apparently the list of high-ranked vassals and associates is over and now,
along with Bartosz, starts the group of Polish nobles. But it is not the case. Of
the rest of 38 emblems, only 20 belong to Szlachta families, as identified by
Alfred Znamierowski in his “Herbarz Rodowy” (“Noble families’ armorial”).
And not in ordered succession. We would expect the others to be Hungarian,
Slovak, Croat, etc. It doesn’t happen. On next pages, (folio 53 verso, 54 front)
come down surprisingly some German knights, four of them certainly from
Saxony: Otto von Zeschau (no. 515), Bernhard von Zedlitz (no. 516), Magnus
von Loeben (no. 521) and Bernhard von Wiltberg (no. 539). Another, Otto
von Sliven (no. 524), is a knight from Brandenburg. They could be Hungarian
vassals only by personal allegiance to king Louis the Great, without involving
their homelands. Or is more than that?
Werner Paravicini started to clarify the situation by comparing armorials
Bellenville, Gelre and the Roll of Lithuanian Crusade from 1385 (Ehrentisch-
verzeichnis), observing the high number of identical shields4. Along with the
3
Józef Szymański, Herbarz średniowiecznego rycerstwa polskiego (Armorial of the Polish medieval knights), Warsaw, 1993.
pg. 15. on web.archive.org/web/ 20040407115241/http://akromer.republika.pl:80/herbarz_bellenville.html.
4
W. Paravicini, Die Preußenreisen des Europäischen Adels, Teil 1, (Beihefte der Francia, 17/1), Sigmaringen (Thorbecke)
1989, ISBN 3-7995-7317-8.
 7

alluring hypothesis of Claes Heinenszoon personal participation in anti-

Lithuanian crusades, it is credible to link the Hungarian-Polish chapter of the
armorial to these military events. And comparing the dates when the majority
of the listed armigers were both contemporaries and in connection with Louis
of Anjou, the most plausible Prussian campaign is the one from year 1372.
Bartosz' crest is followed by one which Gelre attributes to Her Uulric
Zwaert (zwart = black, dark). Bershammar Armorial clarifies things identify-
ing for this shield one bearer named Ulrich Schoof (alias Schaffosch). The
noble stem Schaf/Scof was a Lower Silesian family of German (Frankish)
descent, with land owned North of Sudetes Mountains, in Alt Kemnitz/Stara
Kamienica5. History recorded Gotsche (Gotthard?) Schaf around year 1381 as
vassal of Schweidnitz for his Burg Kynast/Cojnik. Schaf blazon was paly of
eight, argent and gules. The one Schaf mentioned by Gelre, Ulrich the Black,
was holding at the time the nearby castle of Kinsberg/Ciechanowice, also as
Schweidnitz' vassal. He was probably involved in one of the Hungarian-Polish
crusading campaigns, based on the old alliance treaty from 1345.
Next shield, no. 512 is described by Gelre as Her Staeffen v. d. Wekere).
The armiger was identified by Adam-Even as an anonym carrier of the Polish
herb Olobok (Holobok), counting on Gelre to continue the display in logical
order of other Polish knights. But as we saw, it's not the case, even with the
one before, Ulrich Schaf. In addition, the Holoboks and their plethora of
Polish-Ruthenian in-laws sharing the same herb were not the only European
bearers of gules, a fish (salmon) silver head couped bendy. For example, the
same arms in the Swiss “Züricher Roll” belong to Swabian Aeschach House
from Lindau (no. 353).
As already shown, beginning with folio 53 it is useless to further track a
geographical systematization for this chapter. Maybe we should look closer to
the text and rely more on translating and interpreting the Middle Flemish
Staeffen v. d. Wekere. Apart from Steffen, who clearly is the Christian name
Stephen, wekere is not a fief name, but a surname with two variants: weker/

5 Paravicini and Clemmensen identified this coat of arms as belonging to stem Schaffgotsch alias Schoff from Lower Silesia.
Ghyczy Pál added in his work, Gelre herold czimerkönive (The Armorial of herald Gelre), 1904, that Ulrich was member
of one Schaffgotsch branch named Dallwitz. Wikisource states in article Schaffgotsch, das Grafengeschlecht, Genealogie
that Ulrich was mentioned in year 1369 as Burggraf of Kinsberg/Hrozňatov. Due to name Ulrich and the chronic absence
of Hungary's main vassals from the South, in my work Basarab House of Wallachia. Heraldic and genealogical study,
2016, www.academia.edu, I considered this coat of arms a misrepresentation to one of the most important vassals of king
Louis of Anjou, the count of Celje/Cilly. I was utterly wrong and I make here the necessary amends.
 8

waker = night vigil6, or weken = soft, weak7. Accordingly, the owner of the
shield may well be the count Stephen II Lackfi (1367-1397), Ban of Croatia
(1372-74) and voivode of Transylvania (1373-76), known protégé and
favourite of king Louis the Great. Other option is the last Tsar of Serbia,
Stephen Uroš V Nemanjić (1355-1371), known also as Nejak (the Weak), due to
his glaring kindness and diffidence, unusual in those brutal, bellicose times.
He was also a reluctant vassal of Louis the Great since the 1350's. The
problem consists in the difficulty to tie any of those two medieval leaders with
the salmon silver head couped depicted by Gelre with its respective crest:
golden crown, a moor's head sable crowned with golden wing on a twist of
pearls. It's true, both of them had red shields with argent charges, but with
totally different heraldic beasts: Lackfi – a flying dragon, Uroš – a double-
headed eagle.
In this mixed succession of high nobles, petty vassals
and regional neighbours, the next coat of arms (no. 513) is
of particular interest, because in my opinion it could des-
cribe for the first time in a Western armorial the
personal coat of arms of a voivode of Wallachia. It is
blazoned azure dimidiated by barry of six, argent and
gules (see beside). The crest shows a fish sable supporting
a semi-circular plume of the same issuing from a golden
crown, lambrequins of ermines (counter-ermine).
The armiger, noted by Heinenszoon as Her Raeskin v. Scoonavaer, was
identified by Adam-Even as Raczek Wloskowic of Moravia. But I don't think
that is necessarily true. Moravia was led by the House of Luxembourg, who
ruled the wealthy and peaceful Bohemian kingdom, which is having two
separate chapters in the armorial, on files 33 and 68-69. Its wise king Charles
IV didn’t support the Prussian crusades, nor uphold his subjects to participate.
The same marshalled arms from no. 513 are found within the
Burgundian Bershammar Roll, largely using Gelre as inspiration, but there
they are attributed to Raczek de Vleskovic, alias Derslawiz.8 At Gelre, the
Middle Flemish name Scoonavaer is in fact a rebus. It is based on theme
6
According to the historical-etymological dictionary De Geïntegreerde Taal-Bank (GTB) – Historische woordenboeken op
internet – Instituut voor de Nederlandse taal, on site gtb.inl.nl
7
According to http://www.etymologiebank.nl/trefwoord/weken, word from Middle Flemish.
8
See http://wappenwiki.org/index.php/Bershammar_Armorial_Folio_214.
 9

scoon, who refers to cleanliness, beauty, or, metaphorically, to glory or even

in-laws. Aver meant around 1200’s9 scion, descendant. Together, we read
glorious scion. If we consider the variant vader instead of vaer we have
directly father in law (formed just like the French beau-père). Anyway, the
possible results seem to be rather a surname linked to some noble
connection, and not an indication of fiefdom, as we saw previously at no.
512.10 Instead, Wloskowic/Vleskovic is obviously stating ethnicity as włosko
in Polish means Italian (by extension latinophone), in Slovakian means
mountains and in Czech translates directly as Wallachia. Together with the
belonging suffix -ovič, the name considered by Adam-Even turns in
ethnonym: the Wallachian or the Mountaineer.
The editor identified Raeskin with an unknown knight from Moravia.
This solution must have been suggested by the existence of the Valašsko/
Wallachia region in Southern Moravia and the further presence at no. 517 of a
coat of arms belonging to a knight of certain Moravian extraction (Zlín area),
John of Mezerice/Valašské Meziříčí11. The weakness of his theory consists of
the minor political relevance of the Vlach region in Moravian fourteenth
century, not to mention the absence of any formal leader with knightly
stature amid this population of transhumant shepherds. Instead, in the last
quarter of the fourteenth century Wallachia – the Carpathian state – was
nominally under Hungarian suzerainty, a good reason for placing its ruler at
the end of what it would be in any case a Hungary-Poland great vassal’s list.
As for explaining Derslawiz in Bergshammar Armorial, we can think of
German der Slawisch (the Slavonian), individual belonging to the Orthodox
Rite who used the Slavonic tongue in church service. This was true at that
time in Serbia, Bulgaria, Wallachia and Moldavia. In conclusion, we can
translate the whole as Radu of Wallachia, the Schismatic (from Catholic
perspective). If the armiger in question would have arise from an old German
colonization in Moravia, as Adam-Eden presumed, he could not be described
by Bergshammar as Slawisch. In the time frame when the armorial was

9
See http://www.etymologiebank.nl/trefwoord/aver.
10
The Honorary Table Panel (Erhentischtafel), armorial from Oriental Prussia occasioned by the military campaign from
1385, indicates one Racz von Schonanger who, according to Werner Paravicini (op. cit., page 141), could be the same with
Raeskin van Scoonavaer. Schönanger is the old name of today’s village Orlóv (Borowa) in Poland. Let’s mention that
according to site Germans from Russia Heritage Society, http://www.grhs.org/vr/vc-other.htm, this German colony was
founded only in 1783.
11
Adam-Even, backed by Paravicini (op. cit., page 141), placed as Moravian the coat of arms attributed in Belleville Armorial
(folio 61r, no. 9) to Jan van Valezau (uncertain localization), a sun gules on silver (at Gelre, no. 533, golden) shield.
 10

compiled, voivode was Radu I from the Princely House of Basarab. The
distorted Raeskin derived from his name, as that Bershammar’s Raczek is in
fact Radek/Radu.
One more indication that Heinenszoon knew precisely which historical
character wanted to describe as Raeskin v. Scoonavaer is shown in the crest.
The fish is the emblem of Făgăraș dukedom, region from which originates
Radu's family, the House of Basarab. The earliest heraldic symbol of Făgăraș
preserved to date is a very frail seal dated 1413 and sheltered by the
Hungarian archives showing two fish superposed on a plain field.

The coat of arms of the city of Făgăraș

It is hard to determine the exact moment when the information regarding

this name and the respective coat of arms would have reached Gelre. The
heraldic information might be provided by knights who opposed Radu in 1377
and 1382, if not recorded personally by the herald during his Oriental trips.
According to Romanian historiography, Radu I succeeded his brother,
Vladislav I Vlaicu. Lack of descendants of the latter made the former ruler of
Wallachia sometimes around 1374-77. Radu was born from the marriage of
voivode Nicholas Alexander with lady Mary Lackfi, descendant of the family
who produced several voivodes of Transylvania and bans of Croatia, including
Stephen II Lackfi mentioned before.
Radu’s life as successor apparent could take, according to the mores of
the time, several directions: plotting to overthrow the regnant prince, beco-
ming a monk as proof his lack of political ambitions, staying in his relative’s
service or turning to a knight-errant in search of his own Grail. Lacking
historical data, we don’t know what choice the young Radu made, but most
likely he remained at home. The best evidence of him being a loyal subject is
the very reign of Vladislav Vlaicu, full of difficult moments externally, but
 11

smoothly carried out internally. Radu could anytime become the leader of a
pro-Catholic political faction, close to Hungary. If he ever acted outside the
established framework, we would have heard from Hungarian historical
sources, but they remain silent. This fraternal loyalty, rather unusual in that
time of personal ambition, suggests even a temporary absence from public
life, maybe secluded in a monastery. An argument would be the strange name
Godon attributed to the Wallachian prince in year 1377 by a Hungarian text, a
name consonant with the monastic Gideon. On the other hand, to write by
mistake “Godon” instead of “Rodon", name similar phonetically in Hungarian
with Radan, is would be easy for a chancellery scribe. Radan(us) was the
name Radu was known for by the Venetian diplomacy.
Whatever the case, his dynastic loyalty was rewarded sometime around
1372, when Vlaicu associated him as co-ruler, ensuring the throne succession
in absence of direct descendants from his marriage with lady Ana. 1374 is the
last year when we have documentary proof that Vladislav Vlaicu was alive.
The change of reign took place without any commotion and Radu showed from
the beginning that he was a deserving successor.
Radu I was consistent to claim his praised ancestry through coinage, using
the Basarab coat of arms, barry of eight dimidiated by plain field12, on both
versions of deniers preserved from him. Type I introduces a good number of
heraldic charges in the shield’s senester field. The most frequent symbol is the
monogram Θ. Other logos are the fleur-de-lys, a two-petal flower shaped as
Greek? Iota (erroneous fleur-de-lys?), and a bow without arrow shaped like a
D (clumsy representation of Θ?).

Radu I deniers (type I). Only the first version appears on Slavonic legend’ coins, the rest only on issues
with Latin legend

12
Discussion of the true colors of the Basarab coat of arms is made in Tiberiu Fratila-Felmer, Basarab House of Wallachia.
Heraldic and genealogical study, www.academia.edu/30095489.
 12

All these less used charges are placed on the obverse of coin issues
bearing Latin legend. This interesting exclusivity should have significance in
itself, linked maybe to the circulation area of coins. Not even in this particular
case we don’t think that logos are in fact mint marks. They are all heraldic
symbols related to certain political moments from which we did not received
information. Genealogist Octavian Lecca observed over a century ago the
widespread custom of Romanian noble family members to alter, sometimes
radically, their inherited coat of arms, “even from father to son”13. Given that
in the medieval world the arms talk about the armigers who actually bear
them, cadency was justified by need for individualization, by biographical
stages covered, or, as the predecessor of prince Radu I have done, by histo-
rical moments deserving to be remembered. From there to engraving them as
comprehensible rebuses on the material with the widest circulation in the
country – the currency – was only one step.
We suspect that the result of such biographical developments must have
been Radu I issue of deniers type II (with knight), with a Western-style design
never encountered before in Wallachian mints. On the obverse is engraved for
the first time the complete Basarab achievements of arms, blazoned shield,
helmet and crest, a correct composition in terms of heraldic proportions. The
issuer appears on the reverse standing in suit of armor, lance in his right hand
and Basarab shield in his left. The arms on the obverse, Latin legend reading
on both sides † MONЄTA RADOWI TRANSALPINI and the slender figure on
the reverse are details that show the appearance in the Wallachia's mint of a
master engraver who could comply with the blazoning rules of Western
chivalry. But he could mostly mirror the voivode’s desire to be perceived in a
certain way, in a well defined moment of his political career, and to invest in
this image.

Denier type II Radu I (with knight), Latin legend

13
Octav-George Lecca, Familiile boereşti române. Istoric şi genealogie (Romanian boyar’s families. History and
genealogy), Publishing House. Minerva, Bucharest 1899, p. XLIII.
 13

This breath of west-European air in a country committed to Balkan-

Byzantine ties is consistent with one of the very few historical data we have
about Radu I, briefly noted in the „Cronaca Carrarese” of Gatari brothers14:
„(MCCCLXXVII) It was therefore in Hungary a great battle
between the Holy majesty king Louis and Radan, prince of
Bulgaria, the non-believer; that is they were forty thousand
men on each side and it was a great killing of non-believers
and Christians, but more of non-believers; and it was close
for the king to be defeated, because the Signoria had given to
non-believers ten thousand horses’ armors, and the ten
thousand armed like this charged towards the king Louis’
person and were close to capture him; but God’s help was
felt there and handed power and victory to king Louis, so
non-believers were scattered and many were killed and
captured; about this victory the king of Hungary wrote to
the lord of Padua, being certain that any of his victory will
rejoice him” (our translation from Italian).
The text informs us that in 1377 king Louis the Great carried out a
military expedition to Wallachia to subdue Radan the non-believer. It’s not
surprising to see the name of Radu styled as prince of Bulgaria. Perhaps he
retained the control over Badin, former Hungarian Banat of Bulgaria, control
established de facto under his brother’s rule. In that year, king Louis was
absorbed by an anti-Lithuanian crusade in Galicia and Lodomeria, but took
advantage of the large number of western knights gathered under his
Christian flag to resolve some personal issues with the unruly neighbor. In
order to have justification for using military resources approved by the Pope
for the anti-Lithuanian crusade against fellow Christian Wallachians, he duly
depicted Radu in his propagandistic reports as a non-believer.
However, Radu was well prepared for the eventuality of attack, buying
Venetian weapons and armors for 10.000 horses, a possible exaggeration that
does not diminish the voivode’s merit of thinking, order, and pay for a heavy
cavalry unit as strategic shock force. The purchasing cost must have been
14
L. A. Muratori, Giosue Carducci, Vittorio Fiorini, Rerum italicarum scriptores: raccolta degli storici italiani dal
cinquecento al millecinquecento, vol. XVII, pg. 145 (text from Cronaca Carrarese by Gatari brothers), digitized by
Internet Archive, 2011.
 14

enormous, comparable nowadays with the equipment of a regiment of tanks,

but at least timing was good. First, Radu took advantage of a moment when
Venice was in good relations with Wallachia’s Byzantine ally and in bad ones
with the Hungarian foe. Then he had diplomatic resources to enter into
negotiations with Signoria, maybe through his Bosnian relatives, and, most of
all, he had in treasury the needed silver. According to the chronicler, the
charge of Wallachian heavy cavalry, excellently equipped in the most western
style, had been close to capture the Angevin king himself. Although the result
of the battle has been praised as favorable to Hungarians, the campaign’s
goals had not been reached at all. In the letter sent to his ally from Padua,
letter advertised and copied in Cronaca by Gatari, king Louis enumerate that
year’s successes of the Lodomerian crusade, being surprisingly but eloquently
silent of what happened in Wallachia. More than that, for finally obtaining
some political results there, five years later king Louis was forced to split
again his Western crusaders, targeting a large army towards Radu's country.
King's bellicose persistence made the latter to negotiate, and considering the
issue of deniers with Angevin lily and the mention of Raeskin v. Scoonavaer/
Racz von Schonanger (Paravicini's identification) amid the participants in the
1385's Prussian crusade, it’s very possible that the voivode swore a formal
allegiance towards Hungary in 1382, the last year of king Louis' life.
But why would Gelre assign to Radu the Wallachian a coat of arms so
similar to the Angevin king? For answering this very good question we should
consider closer the military events from 1377 and 1382. Echoes of the epic
clenching between crusaders and Wallachian iron-clad cavalry may have
reached the heralds Gelre and Bershammar, hence the presence in armorials,
bottom of the list of great kingdom’s vassals, of that mysterious Her Raeskin
Scoonavaer alias Raczek de Vleskovic Derslawiz with his coat of arms azure
dimidiated by argent-gules stripes. This emblem must be noted by some
Polish or Czech opponents fighting on crusaders side, and passed over later to
Heynenszoon. The heraldic insignia would be visible from afar, most certainly
being a battle-flag. A Hungarian banner proudly waved in battle by Romanian
foes? Peculiar indeed. For explaining this, we should go back in time for half a
century.
In 1330 king Charles Robert, first Angevin king of Hungary, invaded
Wallachia in order to reassert suzerainty over the land ruled by a much too
 15

independent voivode, Basarab I (1315-1352). After a campaign which seemed

more like a promenade in a deserted territory, he was finally ambushed in a
mountainous region and severely defeated in what is called today the Battle of
Posada (9-12 November). During the four-day slaughter, king Charles Robert
saved his life by changing outfit with one of his retainers. This one was killed,
and the Romanians were taking possession of an excellent trophy: the king’s
blazoned war equipment. Information about this painful loss is offered by
Chronicum pictum Vindobonenses (Illuminated Chronicle of Vienna)
(c.1360)15.
Being aware of the symbolic importance of such action, especially for a
warlike and arrogant knight as the king was, it’s likely that Basarab displayed
since then the blazoned outfit bearing Hungary-Anjou arms as his own, as
this was the undeniable right of the winner according to the knightly custom
in medieval Europe. Thomas Robson’s “British Herald” fully reminds us
this16. It is true, the practice was also to capture the defeated, as the victor was
entitled to wear his insignia only until the loser was ransomed by his kin. But
if he would never being ransomed, but ran instead, abandoning his knightly
symbols? It would not being rightful for the winner to bear for good that
splendid manufactured arms as reminder of perpetual blame for the king's
cowardice?

The Angevin shield and probable alteration of the battle trophy

15
Tudor-Radu Tiron, At the border of two worlds. Hungarian and Polish Influences upon the Wallachian and Moldavian
Mediaeval Heraldry (fourteenth-sixteenth centuries) in Genealogica & Heraldica. Proceedings of the XXXth
International Congress of Genealogical and Heraldic Sciences, held at Maastricht, 24-28 September 2012,
s’Gravenhage, Stichting De Nederlandse Leeuw, 2014. underlines at pg.346: “Seeing the disaster of his army, the
monarch changed his blazoned armor with one of his magnates, who lost his life in order to insure the retreat of his
sovereign (Rex autem mutauerat armorum suorum insignia quibus induerat Deseu filium Dyonisii, quem putantes esse
regem crudeliter occiderunt’)”.
16
Thomas Robson, The British Herald, vol. III, Harvard College Library, 1917, page X: „In the days of chivalry, it was
considered lawful that the victor, upon making captive any gentleman or warrior of higher degree, might assume and bear
the shield of arms of his prisoner, enjoying it till regained by the vanquished; and the acquiring of coat armor by such
feats of valor was considered more honorable than hereditary bearings, which descend alike to the cowardly and the
brave.”
 16

Proud and defiant, prince Basarab I did not

intend at all to step into king Charles Robert's
shoes. Small changes were to be made to the
blazoned artifacts, especially considering a
combat buckler hardly hit and scratched by
adverse weapons and a torn royal battle-flag. For
example, if the field with red stripes would be
refurbished because it coincidentally reminded
the own Basarab coat of arms, the golden lilies of
Anjou would be removed or covered, leaving only
the azure, which was the same with an equal
familiar tincture, the heraldic blue of the Balkan
title of despot. The final result was a slightly
altered Anjou-Hungary arms, who meet the
conviction expressed long ago by Roma-nian
numismatist Octavian Iliescu supported by heraldist Dan Cernovodeanu17
about the existence at the Prince’s Court of Argeş of a coat of arms looking
close to the Angevin one. (beside: king Charles Robert’s battle-flag painted in
„Chronicum Pictum Vindobonenses”, on Wikipedia)
If the battle-flag spotted by crusaders during their clashes with Radu I
and his heavy cavalry was the one lost by Charles Robert in that 4 day’s battle
from 1330, as we presume, that relic banner carried a special symbolism for
Wallachian forces, as did for other nations in Europe the St. George's flag, the
Oriflamme, or the Dannebrog. For Wallachia, the old Anjou-Hungary banner
was the proof of state sovereignty, reminding the decisive victory against the
former suzerain, and it was an element of utmost importance for boosting in
battle the troop’s moral for several generations.

The supposed battle-flag with dexter lance of Radu I spotted by crusaders in 1377, very likely a piece
from the Angevin trophy captured by Basarab in 1330

17
Dan Cernovodeanu, Ştiinţa şi arta heraldică în România (Heraldic science and art in Romania), Scientific and
Encyclopedic Publishing House, Bucharest, pg.67.
 17

As we saw, Radu I did not used the praised banner as personal coat of
arms. He resorted for this to the old Basarab arms, sometimes with a perso-
nal cadency, being it the Θ (theta) monogram or other logo, as shown on his
type I deniers. But in the battle heat, this was the only knightly insignia
remarked by his opponents and subsequently the only one who was advertise
in the Western heraldic world through the Gelre herald's care.
In conclusion, my opinion is that Radu I double encounter with Western
crusaders, if not Claes Heinenszoon himself, raised his European awareness
and shaped his image as valiant knight, armiger and Balkan imperial glorious
scion, Scoonavaer. After all his political and military deeds, he ended to style
himself, including on some ducats minted during his reign, not just voivode,
but Io Radu, great voivode. Unfortunately, on his accession he was already
aged, closer to the end than the beginning of life. If he had a longer reign, due
to his military prowess, administrative performance and political relevance in
this part of the world, the one who was called by Italian chroniclers Radano,
prinzipe di Bulgaria, infidele18, and by a German one Pancraz der Weise19,
would have been certainly known in Romanian historiography as Radu the
Great. This cognomen was attributed finally to one of his homonym grand-
grandson from the sixteenth century. However, largely due to the error made
by the monks drafting the Tismana monastery Commemorative list, Radu I
was called sometimes Radu Negru (the Black), being confused without
historical arguments with Thocomerius Negru voivode, the legendary founder
of the Wallachian state. Even this confusion shows the huge prestige enjoyed
by Radu the Wise in his country, decisively marking its history, although he
ruled just about a decade.

18
In Cronaca Carrarese by Galeazzo and Bartolomeo Gatari. Apparently, Radu, prince of Bulgaria, unfaithful, kept
Vladislav I preemi-nence over the Badin Tsardom, being known also for his Orthodox faith who made him unfaithful in
the Catholic Europe’s eyes.
19
Pankraz the Wise, named like this in the Eberhard Windeck chronicle Book of Emperor Sigismund, written 1430-39. The
name derives from Radu’s position as Ban of Severin (Ban Rad = Pankraz), and the honorable epithet the Wise attests his
European prestige. The same chronic, showing a predilection for merging titles and names, mentions Mircea voivode as
Merzeweidan.