Diaconescu, Marius (szerk.): Mediaevalia Transilvanica 1998 (2. évfolyam, 1. szám)
Relaţii internaţionale
The Political Relations between Wallachia and Hungary 21 The Hungarian king considered that the Romanian voivode was unrightfully and unfaithfully ruling Wallachia101. The king considered himself the lawful master of the voivode: he claims that the latter rose against him "without fear and despising the fact that those who attempt to stand against their rightful lord prove to be openly against the divine laws"102. It is especially significant for Carol Robert's stand concerning the problem that he considered himself the lawful master of the voivode, according to some "divine” laws. The king's claims are framed within a classical perspective in the age. As the king saw things, Basarab had a similar statute to any of the subjects in his kingdom. He considered Wallachia as an integrate part of the Hungarian kingdom, which he, as king, had to distribute to one who was his faithful servant. The voivode, who did not acknowledge his suzerainty, was thus thought as a rebel and a traitor103. The absence of direct information forces us to only speculate about the subsequent evolution of the 1330 conflict. The relations between Carol Robert and Basarab I did not seem to better, because in the documents that mention the later military campaign, the unfaithful appellative persists as connected to the Romanian voivode's name. It is not impossible that the king, preoccupied with other foreign policy priorities, should have temporarily accepted the situation de facto. Indeed, Basarab's success marked an important moment in the state evolution of Wallachia and conferred it an independent statute, which could not be argued at that moment104. When studying this event, some cautions are strongly recommended as much in the Hungarian historiography, which minimizes the defeat of the royal army105, as in the Romanian historiography, which overstates the dimensions and significance of Basarab's victory106. Nobody can deny the fact that Basarab won a battle, but it was not the whole war. A war, in the sense of the, almost incessant pressure coming from the Hungarian royalty to impose the confirmation of its suzerainty. One unsolved problem is the statute of the Severin region after the failed military campaign from 1330107 108. Chronicon Pictum informs us that at the beginning of the campaign Severin was set free and Szécsi Dénes was invested as bonus of the Severin Banatem. Only in 1335 the Hungarian dignitary is mentioned in documents also in this position, which he owns until around 1341109. The absence of the mentioning of this position in the documents along with that of Great 101 DRH, D., I, p. 57: „... dictam terram nostrom Transalpinam in preiudicium sacri diadematis regii et noştri inßdeliter detinentes ...“. 102 DRH, D„ I, pp. 50-51: „... non verens, nec attendens, ut qui naturali domino resistere moliuntur, divinis dispositionibus manifeste videntur obviare...“. 103 DRH. D.. I, pp. 50-51:.....et se nostre maiestati sediciose et prodicionaliter opposuit...“. 104 P. Engel, Gy. Kristó, A. Kubinyi , op. cit., p. 77. 105 Gy. Kristó, Az Anjou-kor, pp. 84-85, Bertényi Iván, Magyarország az Anjouk korában, Budapest, 1987, p. 102. 106 See the notes 3, 4, 5, 6. 107 D. Onciul, Originea principatelor, p. 638, claims that Severin remained under the jurisdiction of the Hungarian king. 108 SRH, I, p. 497. 109 P. Engel, Archontológia, I, p. 32.
