Diaconescu, Marius (szerk.): Mediaevalia Transilvanica 1998 (2. évfolyam, 2. szám)
Relaţii internaţionale
260 Marius Diaconescu Steven (Ştefan I)79, the Moldavian voivode who fought against Sigismund in the winter of 1395. The year 1396 was dominated by the preparations for and the unfolding of the anti-Ottoman crusade which ended in the disaster of Nicople. The crusade had been initiated by the Hungarian king who had succeeded in summoning Western forces for the great confrontation after several years (1393-1396)80 of embassies sent to West European countries. The French, German, Burgundian etc. knights gathered at Budapest; then they joined the Hungarian army at Timişoara in August 1396 and left for Vidin and Nicople passing through Orşova. The Transylvanian troops, which was part of the Hungarian army, led by the voivode and consisting of Transylvanian noblemen81, headed to the Danube cutting across Wallachia. Mircea accompanied Stibor, Voivode of Transylvania. Assisted by his army and the Turks, Vlad the Usurper tried to prevent them from advancing. The result of the battle was uncertain. In the end, Stibor and Vlad entered a tournament, which was won by the Transylvanian voivode82. The victory made it possible for the Transylvanian troops to head for the Danube passing among an army loyal to Vlad but which respected the rules of the contest. This success must have increased the number of Mircea's followers because he reached the place of destination with at least 1000 soldiers83. It is probable that the fortress of Tumu (LittleNicople) got conquered again by Stibor who left there a Hungarian garrison84. The Battle of Nicople from September 25th 1396 ended up disastrously for the crusaders85. The subsequent adventures of those who took shelter in Wallachia 79 P. P. Panaitescu, Mircea cel Bătrân (see note 15), p. 260. 80 L. Thallóczy, op. cit. (see note 69), pp. 22-26. J. K. Hoensch, Kaiser Sigismund (see note 3), pp. 81-83. 81 The Transylvanian army was not composed of a majority of Romanians, as P. P. Panaitescu claims, Mircea cel Bătrân (see note 15), p. 273, but of Hungarian noblemen. The Hungarian feudals were present in a much larger number than the Romanian ones. The nobility stmcture does not mirror the ethnical structure of Transylvania. 82 DRH, D, I, p. 162. 83 Mircea's 10,000 soldiers alleged to have participated at the Crusade, a figure proposed by A. S. Atiya, The Crusade in the Later Middle Ages, London, 1938, p. 440, note 7, is exaggerated. Equally, the 8,000 proposed by Gy. Rázsó, op. cit., p. 417. The whole Romanian military potential was hardly bigger than this. Taking into consideration that, at the time, Mircea was not ruling, one could not expect his troops to comprise more than his loyal boyards and some soldiers raised from his properties in Transylvania. An historiographical overall view on the number of participants at the Crusade in: L. Veszprémi, A Nikápolyi hadjárat értékelése az újabb hadtörténetírásban, in Hadtörténelmi Közlemények, 111, 1998, no. 3, pp. 605-607. 84 B. Cámpina's assertion, op. cit. (see note 18), p. 269, that Vlad would have tolerated a Hungarian garrison between 1395 and 1397 is wrong. Documents attest beyond all doubt that the fortress was conquered in the autumn of the year 1395. 85 This subject has enjoyed much attention from the part of the historiographers. It is interesting to bring forth the discrepancies among opinions and manners of presentation of the role played by each and every member of the crusaders' camp. The historians' bias exaggerated the role played by the combatants from their native countries and understated the others' performance. For instance, on commenting certain sources from that period, Romanian historiography overstates the military capacity of Mircea the Old's army but ignores their withdrawal from the battlefield: A. D. Xenopol, op. cit. (see note 4), p. 84, praises Mircea for his strategic retreat and oposed the opinion of those who
