Diaconescu, Marius (szerk.): Mediaevalia Transilvanica 1998 (2. évfolyam, 2. szám)
Relaţii internaţionale
266 Marius Diaconescu relations. These circumstances determined a certain amount of change in the relations between Mircea and Sigismund114. Therefore, the internal crisis in Hungary, where king Sigismund's authority was being contested again115, was probably the reason why Mircea directed his attention once again to the alliance with Poland. In the autumn of 1403, he reconfirmed the old agreements with the king of Poland116. However, in spite of his duplicity (undoubtedly meant to remain secret), Sigismund supported Mircea to regain his territories from Dobrudja and those surrounding Silistra in 1404117. During the first decade of the XVth century Mircea took advantage of the internal crisis in the Ottoman Empire118. His involvement in the struggle for succession must be correlated with a growing reticence in his relations with Sigismund. Mircea was able to stop without difficulty the plundering incursions of the akinjis at the south of the Danube, such as those that occurred about 1406 and 1407 nearby Silistra119. At this time Sigismund was more interested in problems of succession in Central Europe. But, even though his concern in the Ottoman issues had diminished, this did not prevent him from involving in the struggle for succession of Bâyezîd I's heirs. In 1407 he sent a message to sultan Celebi Siileymân120. Later, in 1407, he planned several campaigns to the south of the Danube together with his vassals and with the support of the Venetians121. Doubtlessly, Mircea the Old played a main part in the Christians' involvement in the Ottoman successoral problems. His increased authority over the regions situated on the Lower Danube caused his relations with his Sigismund to grow colder. Further proof is that the king withdrew Mircea’s authority over the Banat of Severin. During 1408 and 1409 the Banat was under the administration of Pipo de Ozora122. We cannot assign any motif to Sigismund's presence at Orşova, in 1409123. The climax of the alleged conflict between Mircea and Sigismund occurred around 1410. Earlier that spring, Transylvanian troops started a military campaign against the Romanians, "plunderers of our country" (presentis exercitus contra Volahos, depredatores regni)124. Even if the document was rather ambiguous, the campaign could only have been directed against the Romanians inhabiting Wallachia. Could the accusation of plundering refer to a Wallachian expedition 114 Ibidem, p. 279, claims that Mircea remained loyal to Sigismund till the former’s death (1418). As compared to the attention paid to the relations with Serbia and Bosnia, the author's approach to the role played by Wallachia in Sigismund's anti-Ottoman policy is extremely succint. 115 E. Mályusz, Zsigmond király (see note 3), pp. 47-54. 116 Hurmuzaki, Documente (see note 40), 1/2, p. 824. 117 DRH, D, I, no. 109, p. 178. Zs. okl. (see note 96), II/l, no. 3118, p. 367. 118 On Mircea's involvement see: Ş. Papacostea, La Valachie (see note 110), p. 23-33. 119 P. Ş. Năsturel, Une victoire du voivode Mircea l’Ancien sur les Turcs devant Silistra (c. 1407- ’408), in Studia et acta orientalia, I, 1957, pp. 239-247. 11 E. Mályusz, Zsigmond király (see note 3), p. 81. 121 Ş. Papacostea, La Valachie (see note 110), p. 27. P. Engel, Magyarország világi archontológiája 1301-1457,1, Budapest, 1996, p. 33. J. K. Hoensch (ed.), Itinerar (see note 36), p. 81; P. Engel, Királyitineráriumok (see note 36), p. ORtf, D„ I, p. 183.
