Diaconescu, Marius (szerk.): Mediaevalia Transilvanica 1998 (2. évfolyam, 1. szám)
Relaţii internaţionale
12 Marius Diaconescu half to the knights, with the exception of the land of Haţeg. The land of Litua is one and the same with Voivode Litovoi's principality (knezate), not with the land of Olt as sometimes it is interpreted. A resembling statute with Litovoi's principality had Seneslau's principality, on the left side of the river Olt. It is about two different types of domination. The king preserved his right as a direct suzerain over Litovoi's and Seneslau's principalities (knezates)45. These territories belonged to the Romanians, like before, in the circumstances of vassality to the Hungarian King46. The land of Severin and the principalities (knezates) of loan and Farcaş were donated to the knights, which is a proof of the fact that these were directly included under the royal ruling47. Obviously, the king was still the knights’ suzerain. The third category of relations includes the so-called Cumania, situated on the left side of the river Olt, south of the Carpathian Mountains. It was very well noticed the fact that the region of Cumania had to be conquered first48 and only then governed. So, the knights received the right to conquer a territory evidently circumscribed in the name of the king. Cumania had a totally different statute as compared to the other south-Carpathian territories over which, one way or another, the Hungarian suzerainty was exerted. It is interesting to emphasize the fact that the king preferred to keep his old suzerain-vassalic right for these territories, too. Only a part of them, as a result of the donation, had a different owner appointed by the king - the Knights Hospitalers. One cannot deny that these territories had a prior similar statute to those of the lands of Litua or of Seneslau. The only difference consisted maybe in a stronger effect of the Hungarian domination or in a loose territorial organism. The fact that in 1247 there is no evidence of a Banate of Severin, but only of a land of Severin (the same as in documents issued before the Mongolian invasion) shows the failure of the Hungarian authority of organizing a Banate here49. It is probable that the bonus mentioned in the previous period represented the royal authority in the region, meaning that they were on an intermediary position for the unstable relations with the leaders of the territorial formations in the region. This land of Severin appears as a clearly defined territorial entity, which excludes the principalities (knezates) of loan and Farcaş as well as that of Litovoi. It is rather closer to the territory of the Banate of Severin, territorially acknowledged in the next centuries, around the cities of Mehadia and Severin. This territory would become a property of the Crown in few years after the failure of the Knights Hospitalers' settlement. After 1260, for at least two decades, a steadfast series of banus of Severin began, which proves, in an incipient form, of course, the rooting of the royal authority. The re-establishment of the Banate of Severin takes 45 Ş. Papacostea, Românii în secolul al XlII-lea, p. 140, claims, without any foundation, that the superposition of the statutes of Seneslau's land with that of Litovoi's land "rather seems the expression of a desideratum of the royal power, of a plan to be fulfilled, than of a reality". 46 Ibidem, p. 80. 47 Ibidem, loc. cit. 48 Maria Hóiban, op. cit., p. 82. 49 Ibidem, pp. 84-85.
