Diaconescu, Marius (szerk.): Mediaevalia Transilvanica 1998 (2. évfolyam, 2. szám)
Relaţii internaţionale
258 Marius Diaconescu been several confrontations between Vlad's men, supported by the Turks, and Mircea's, assisted by the Hungarian troops64. The final confrontation, which led to the defeat of the Hungarian army and the death of its commanders, probably took place somewhere in the west of Wallachia65. The defeat of his small army upset Sigismund; therefore, in order that his plans for the Crusade should not be endangered, he went himself to Wallachia, accompanied by a considerably larger royal army66. On June 21st the King was in Braşov67. The royal campaign took place between July and August 1395. Both Vlad's followers and the Turkish army were chased away. The fortress of Tumu (Little Nicople), situated at the Danube, was conquered after a long siege. Here the king left behind a Hungarian garrison under the leadership of Hungarian noblemen68. It was a strategic device that ensured the guarding of a place often used for crossing the Danube. Of course that the presence of Hungarian lords in one of Mircea's fortresses offended his authority. But as Mircea was given back his throne with the assistance of the Hungarian King, the claims and the exertion of suzerainty attributes were de facto. The success of this campaign was made easier by the retreat of the main part of the Turkish army, which had fought in May. The withdrawal had also been dictated by some other strategic options of the sultan, a thing which he brought to Sigismund's attention in a letter sent later69. On their way back to Hungary the royal army crossed the mountainous region of Severin and Vlad’s followers, probably led by Vlad himself attacked the king70. The event is mentioned in documents which were meant to reward the 64 B. Câmpina, op. cit. (see note 18), pp. 263-266, claims that this contingent was sent to Dobruja and it was only on its way back that the Turks took them by surprise and eventually defeated them. But it is just a fanciful interpretation. A heavy attack beyond the Danube, according to the plan comprised in the document of Marc 7th concluded by Mircea and Sigismund, would have suposed a numerous army! 65 It is a probable location, proposed by Viorica Pervain, Din relaţiile Ţării Româneşti cu Ungaria (see note 20), pp. 101-102. 66 See ibidem, pp. 104-106. 67 P. Engel, KircUyitineráriumok (see note 36), p. 60. 68 DRH, D., I, pp. 154-158, 182. Hazai okmánytár,VII, Budapest, 1880, p. 438. Viorica Pervain, Din relaţiile Ţării Româneşti cu Ungaria (see note 20), p. 109, note 100, considers that Mircea’s reinstatement refers only to the retrocession of the fortess of Tumu to the Romanian voivode. However, the documents attest that Mircea reoccupied the throne under the protection of the Hungarian garrison and lords from Tumu. Moreover, this was the place where the Turks used to cross the Danube. 69 L. Thallóczy, Mantovai követjárás Budán, Budapest, 1905, pp. 77, 107-108: „Tu vadis vulgo dicendo et gloriando te quod me expulisti de campo, quod non fuit verum, quin imo propter quedam importantia maius pondus deliberavi me de campo levare...”. 711 Distorted memories of this event were preserved by collective memory. For example, the chronicler Johannes of Thurócz, probably inspired by a document from 1401 (I. Nagy, Sopron vármegye története, Oklevéltár, I, 1156-1411, Sopron, 1889, pp. 544-545; cf. E. Mályusz, Királyi kancellária és krónikaírás a középkori Magyarországon, Budapest, 1973, p. 7) related that Sigismund led a campaign in Wallachia against the Turks and the Romanians: Johaness de Thurócz, Cronica Hungarorum (see note 54). § 201, pp. 210-211. Mircea is not mentioned at all and the purpose of the campaign is presented in an altered manner.
