Jason Michael Snider A MILITARY ANALYSIS OF KEY RIVER FORTIFICATIONS GIVEN TO THE TEUTONIC ORDER IN THE BANAT OF SEVERIN MA Thesis in Comparative History, with a specialization in Late Antique, Medieval, and Renaissance Studies. Central European University Budapest June 2019 CEU eTD Collection A MILITARY ANALYSIS OF KEY RIVER FORTIFICATIONS GIVEN TO THE TEUTONIC ORDER IN THE BANAT OF SEVERIN by Jason Michael Snider (Hungary) Thesis submitted to the Department of Medieval Studies, Central European University, Budapest, in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Master of Arts degree in Comparative History, with a specialization in Late Antique, Medieval, and Renaissance Studies. Accepted in conformance with the standards of the CEU. ____________________________________________ Chair, Examination Committee ____________________________________________ Thesis Supervisor ____________________________________________ Examiner ____________________________________________ Examiner CEU eTD Collection Budapest June 2019 A MILITARY ANALYSIS OF KEY RIVER FORTIFICATIONS GIVEN TO THE TEUTONIC ORDER IN THE BANAT OF SEVERIN by Jason Michael Snider (Hungary) Thesis submitted to the Department of Medieval Studies, Central European University, Budapest, in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Master of Arts degree in Comparative History, with a specialization in Late Antique, Medieval, and Renaissance Studies. Accepted in conformance with the standards of the CEU. ____________________________________________ External Reader Budapest June 2019 CEU eTD Collection A MILITARY ANALYSIS OF KEY RIVER FORTIFICATIONS GIVEN TO THE TEUTONIC ORDER IN THE BANAT OF SEVERIN by Jason Michael Snider (Hungary) Thesis submitted to the Department of Medieval Studies, Central European University, Budapest, in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Master of Arts degree in Comparative History, with a specialization in Late Antique, Medieval, and Renaissance Studies. Accepted in conformance with the standards of the CEU. ____________________________________________ External Supervisor CEU eTD Collection Budapest June 2019 I, the undersigned, Jason Michael Snider, candidate for the MA degree in Comparative History, with a specialization in Late Antique, Medieval, and Renaissance Studies declare herewith that the present thesis is exclusively my own work, based on my research and only such external information as properly credited in notes and bibliography. I declare that no unidentified and illegitimate use was made of the work of others, and no part of the thesis infringes on any person’s or institution’s copyright. I also declare that no part of the thesis has been submitted in this form to any other institution of higher education for an academic degree. Budapest, 01 May 2019 __________________________ Signature CEU eTD Collection Abstract Castles are pieces of material culture that reflect meanings for their builders in terms of function and take on further meanings and functions for their users throughout the lengths of their individual biographies. The Danuban castles of the Iron Gates region of Caraș- Severin and Mehedinți Counties in modern day Romania were built at separate times for separate defensive purposes. However, during the course of the 1420’s and into the 1430’s, these fortifications took on a more cohesive meaning for their inhabitants (which became the Teutonic Order from 1429 to about 1435), and for their overall sovereign, King Sigismund of Hungary (r. 1387-1437). During these two decades, these castles took on the function of a castle chain meant to be used as a combined protective wall on the Kingdom of Hungary’s Danube frontier against encroaching Ottoman forces. This work proposes to examine the quality of this chain by focusing on the military characteristics of selected individual links. Given the success of the Ottoman invasion of 1432, it becomes necessary to see if there is a “weakest link”. CEU eTD Collection i Acknowledgements I would like to thank my supervisor József Laszlovszky for his guidance and advice while I have been making my way through the difficult and sometimes confusing graduate level of my education. I would also like to thank him for his great patience for my quirky and solitary working habits. I am in further debt to Cristian-Nicolae Gaşpar because of his help in exposing me to excellent sources in Romanian which I would have overlooked, yet have become significant for this thesis, as well as his advice in dealing with the baffling public transportation systems between Hungary and the Iron Gates region of Romania. Finally, I would be completely mistaken if I did not thank my mother for supporting my effort to go back to school as an older adult and follow a path in learning that others have rarely understood in me. CEU eTD Collection ii Table of contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 4 Methodological Organization ............................................................................................ 4 The Sample Set .................................................................................................................. 6 Sources ................................................................................................................................. 10 Chapter One - Background ...................................................................................................... 14 1.1. Basic History ............................................................................................................ 14 1.2. Historiography .............................................................................................................. 20 1.2.1. Academic Interest in the Historical Events ............................................................ 20 1.2.2. Academic Interest in the Castles (Archaeology).................................................... 22 Chapter Two - Basic Geography of the Iron Gates and Castle Locations ............................... 24 2.1. Basic Geography of the Region and Strategic Importance ........................................... 24 2.1.1. Topographical Features .......................................................................................... 24 2.1.2. Geology .................................................................................................................. 25 2.1.3. The Dams ............................................................................................................... 27 Chapter Three - Garrison Analysis from the Sources .............................................................. 29 3.1. Troop Strength of Individual Castles. ........................................................................... 29 3.2. Command Structure Within These Castles ................................................................... 31 3.3. The Men. ....................................................................................................................... 33 3.3.1. The Argument ........................................................................................................ 33 3.3.2. General Background on Troop Composition. ........................................................ 34 3.3.3. The Sources. ........................................................................................................... 35 Chapter Four - Military Analysis of the Selected Castles........................................................ 40 4.1. General Military Objectives of Castles. ........................................................................ 40 4.1.1. Typology Dictates Function. .................................................................................. 40 4.1.2. Analytic Structure to be Applied. .......................................................................... 41 4.2. Severyn. ........................................................................................................................ 44 4.2.1. Defendability. ......................................................................................................... 44 4.2.2. Offensive Operations. ............................................................................................ 49 4.3. Zynicze .......................................................................................................................... 52 4.3.1. Defendability. ......................................................................................................... 53 4.3.2. Offensive Operations. ............................................................................................ 56 4.4. Dranko .......................................................................................................................... 57 4.4.1. Defendability. ......................................................................................................... 58 4.4.2. Offensive Operations. ............................................................................................ 61 4.5. Sand Ladislaen .............................................................................................................. 61 4.2.1. Defendability. ......................................................................................................... 62 4.2.3. Offensive Operations. ...........................................................................................