Diaconescu, Marius (szerk.): Mediaevalia Transilvanica 1998 (2. évfolyam, 2. szám)
Relaţii internaţionale
The Relations of Vassalage 275 been facilitated both by the Ottoman pressures on Wallachia and by the voivode’s own uncertain status in his country168. According to feudal customs, the homage was acknowledged several times. There is information on a new acknowledgement, which took place late in 1406 when the Romanian voivode and the Hungarian king met again169 170. On this occasion the vassalage contract was renewed and Mircea paid a new homage to King Sigismund. In the official paper given by the voivode to Tismana monastery there is mention that Mircea was on his way to Severin where he was to meet the king and was accompanied "by all fathers superior of the monasteries and all his boyards"110. It is known that custom required that, when taking the pledge of fidelity, the voivode had to be accompanied - conditions permitting - by the high estates (the church dignitaries and the nobility). The only reason for the presence of this suite can be the pledge of fidelity. Besides, the meeting is sure to have occasioned the settling of further details of common anti-Ottoman projects. Nevertheless, its main purpose seems to have been the pledge of fealty. On the other hand, the king had obtained recently the acknowledgement of fidelity from Steven Lazarevic, the Serbian despot and had initiated military measures against Hervoia, the great voivode of Bosnia171. Thus, the king was putting into practice his defense strategy of protecting Hungarian borders by means of buffer states. This part was to be played by the southern vassal states and the relations between Sigismund and Mircea during the period of crisis the Romanian ruler went through, i.e. 1394-1400 offered a model. It is very probable that a new homage was paid circa 1412. From 1408 to 1411 Mircea had developed an independent policy directed against Sigismund. During the negotiations that preceded the Lublau agreement of March 12th 1412, between the Hungarian and Polish kings, great attention was paid to the situation of Moldavia, a country which Sigismund had craved for a long time172. The treaty of Lublau stipulated only clauses referring to Moldavia. As far as Wallachia was concerned, the absence of any mention among Sigismund’s claims which met Poland's opposition, indicates the fact that, de iure et de facto, Wallachia as well as voivode Mircea was considered vassal by the Hungarian king. Taking into account the voivode's position during previous years, the king might have asked Mircea to renew his homage, at least by means of envoys. Thus, we know that a Wallachian delegation participated in the Conference of Buda, which followed the one of Lublin. Certainly, it is only a supposition with a great degree of probability. 168 Viorica Pervain, Din relaţiile Ţării Româneşti cu Ungaria (see note 20), p. 97, claimed that Mircea had a stable position in the country, otherwise Sigismund would have attempted to aproach Vlad, as he had done in 1396. We are more inclined to believe that Sigismund chose to trust Mircea rather than Vlad who was pro-Ottoman. 169 DRH, DRH, B, Ţara Românescă, I, p. 64. 170 Ibidem, loc. cit. 171 P. Engel, Magyarország és a török veszély (see note 27), pp. 279-280. 172 F. Constantiniu, Ş. Papacostea, Tratatul de la Lublau (IS martie 1412) şi situaţia internaţională a Moldovei la începutul veacului al XV-lea, in Studii. Revistă de istorie, tom 17, 1964, no. 5, pp. 1132 et passim.
