Diaconescu, Marius (szerk.): Mediaevalia Transilvanica 1998 (2. évfolyam, 2. szám)
Relaţii internaţionale
256 Marius Diaconescu of the Turks, Mircea asked Sigismund's support to regain his throne. The king sent a body of troops led by banus István Losonci to Wallachia to restore Mircea's rule54. The chronicler's chronological error (he dated the event at 1420), is amended by a document in which, on April 6th 1395, king Sigismund ordered magister Gregorius of Beclean to start out immediately together with the army sent to Wallachia under the command of the ex-banus and survey the display and equipping of the troops55. As for this campaign, there is additional information to be found in the Chronicle of the Abbey of Saint-Dennis56. To sum up, the Hungarian campaign of April 1395 took place only as a consequence of the Ottoman military campaign which had succeeded in dethroning Mircea and replacing him with Vlad, a more submissive ruler. Another argument in favour of the above-mentioned date of the event is the mobilization of the Hungarian army led by the King himself in the summer of 1394 and the subsequent approach of the Wallachian borders57. A comprehensive analysis of the chronologically safe sources (we refer here mainly to the Latin ones), proves beyond doubt that both the battle of Rovine and the sultan's campaign in Wallachia took place in the autumn of 1394, not in the spring of 1395. Indeed, the subsequent unfolding of the events makes evident that the Ottoman military campaign in Wallachia took place in the autumn of 1394, and the battle of Rovine on October 10th, as the Serbian chronicles put it. Bâyezîd I's incursion in Wallachia was not meant to be repressive - it was merely a part of the imperial strategy meant to bring under control the expansionist tendency of some of the conquered territories. Mircea had proved to be a troublesome neighbour; therefore, in 1393, after having conquered and settled along the Danube banks, the Turks wanted to consolidate their position. The Turkish chronicles acknowledged the difficult character and the uncertain outcome of the battle of Rovine, giving way to exaggerated interpretations on the part of certain historiographers58. These historians are continually forgetting that winning a battle does not necessarily mean winning the war. It is highly recommendable that proportions should be kept59. Subsequent events confirmed beyond any doubt the true winners, i.e. the Turks. With the help of some of the boyards, they installed on 54 Johannes de Thurócz, Chronica Hungarorum, (ed. Elisabeth Galántai et Julius Kristó), I, Budapest, 1985, §212, pp. 224-225. 55 DRH, D, I. no. 93, pp. 149-150. 56 Chronique du religieux de Saint-Denys, contenant le regne de Charles VI, de 1380 a 1422, ed. M. L. Bellaguet, in Collection de documents inédits sur l’histoire de France, série: Histoire politique, II, Paris, 1840, p. 388, apud V. Pervain, Din relaţiile Ţării Româneşti cu Ungaria (see note 20), p. 101, note 62. 57 The king stayed in the region of Timişoara from September 12lh to October 13th 1394: J. K. Hoensch (ed.), Itinerar (see note 36), p. 60; P. Engel, Királyitineráriumok (see note 36), p. 60. 58 N. Constantinescu, Puncte de vedere (see note 53), pp. 783-802. In spite of the historian's arguments - to which we subscribe - the date of May 1395 belongs to historiography only: M. Maxim, Ţările Române şi Inalta Poartă. Cadrul juridic al relaţiilor romăno-otomane în evul mediu (hereafter referred to as: Ţările Române). Bucureşti, 1993. p. 211. 59 It was mainly during the communist period that historian talked about "a glorious battle", an "unforgettable victory": Istoria României, 11, p. 368; B. Câmpina, op. cit. (see note 18), p. 259; Şt. Ştefănescu, op. cit. (see note 21), p. 52; A. Diţă, loc. cit. (see note 22); etc.
