Diaconescu, Marius (szerk.): Mediaevalia Transilvanica 1998 (2. évfolyam, 1. szám)
Stat
152 Tudor Sălăgean great revolt from 1316. Ladislau Kan, who did not have any kind of important relationships with the royal court, seemed to be obliged in the voivodal position by the Transylvanian nobility’s general convention. Initially, he was vicevoivode, being subordinated to the voivode Roland Borsa, who did not have any powerful position in Transylvania because he did not own properties in province. The nobility’s general meeting, the institution that decided (in ‘80s-‘90s) the province’s destiny, was formed only of noble men who owned properties in province. This is why the voivode Roland Borsa did not chair this kind of meeting, just similar ones in the Plain of Tisa, where he owned many properties. Andrew Ill's tentative to drive Transylvania under control, in 1290-1291, was based on the entering of two noble men in the nobility’s convention (Dionisie Banffy and Ugrinus Csak). This seemed to be one of the most important convention’s goals, on March 1291. In the years after 1301, the relationships between Ladislau Kan and the provincial nobility got worse because of the voivode’s tendency to build an “oligarchic” regime. b. During the bishop Peter (1270-1307), who started his career as Stephen V vice-chancellor, the Transylvanian church was a powerful support-institution of the provincial nobility aspirations, which was joined by the common anti-Saxon interests. The bishop Peter was also one of the most important Ladislau Kan ’s supporters. After Peter’s death, Ladislau’s tried to subordinate totally the bishopric of Transylvania, being helped by his son; this provoked an acute crisis in .his relations with the Church and, also, a general deterioration of his position. c. Through a conservative politics, Saxons from Transylvania (divided in two main categories: one from the “province Sibiu” and the other trying to get in this province) represented the most important factor of tension within the province. Their prosperity and extension’s tendency generated some conflicts with the administrative and ecclesiastic voivode authority, with provincial nobility, with Szeklers, and even with the royal power. The anti-Saxon ’s hostility was also one of the favorite elements that contributed at the Regnum’s political regime. d. The Szeklers played a less evident political role, but not less important. The voivode Ladislau made some efforts to assure their support. His vicevoivode, Ehelleus, was a noble Szekler from Arieş, who had relatives in other “chairs ”, too; also, the only nobility’s meeting mentioned clearly between 1301 and 1310 was the one from 1308 and took place near to Niraj (Neregh), a clear information about the Szeklers’ accepting inside. The compromise from 1310 marked the Szeklers’ return under the king’s authority; we did not have any information to attest their participation at the revolt started in 1316. e. Romanians. The epoch of Regnum Transilvanum was favorable for the Romanian element, represented in the provincial convention as a privilegiated group. Both the necessity of using all human and economical resources and the voivodal alliance’s orientation after 1301 contributed to that. There are some information that permit us to believe that Ladislau Kan had the Romanians’ support from the Country ofHaţeg. Making a bridge of relationships between the political organizations of the 9-10 centuries and the principality’s epoch, Regnum Transilvanum showed the persistence of some forms of self-government, of a distinctive individuality within the Hungarian Kingdom.
