Diaconescu, Marius (szerk.): Mediaevalia Transilvanica 1998 (2. évfolyam, 2. szám)
Relaţii internaţionale
The Relations of Vassalage 277 campaign led by István Losonci and then by the king himself), during the winter of 1396-1397 (Stibor's campaign against Vlad), in 1397 and 1399 (preparatives of the royal army on hearing rumours about Turkish incursions in Wallachia), in 1404 (the same aims) and in 1416 (in order to support Mustafa). Likewise, auxilium, as a vassal obligation, was put into practice on the occasion of the crusade of Nicople, when Mircea and his contingent were treated as auxiliary troops of the Hungarian king. We have already mentioned that the participation in the anti-Ottoman crusade had been also mentioned in the deed of March 7th 1395. There is no doubt that Mircea or any other Romanian contingent was not involved in a direction other than the anti-Ottoman front. Mircea's main part in the system of buffer states created by Sigismund was to defend the frontier with the Turks. An important issue of the relations of vassalage between the Hungarian kings and the Romanian voivodes is the latter's exertion of authority over some Hungarian territories from Transylvania. Romanian historians have been repeatedly stating that the Hungarian kings' right of suzerainty was a direct consequence of the Romanian rule over those possessions and that it was acknowledged only in relation with the respective matter. Particularly after 1918, Romanian historians considered Mircea a unifier of Romanian territories, antecessor of Michael the Brave who was to unite Wallachia, Transylvania and Moldavia in 1600. During the communist era, the subject was overstated and the true nature of Mircea's properties in Transylvania was distorted. This type of interpretations has continued after 1989 as well176. At first, we have to admit that Mircea's possessions - the Land of Făgăraş, the Amlaş, the Banat of Severin, the fortresses of Bologa and Bran - were included in the Hungarian kingdom. The Wallachian voivode's right of ownership granted at different times had never meant their separation from the jurisdiction of the Hungarian king. They were mere revocable feudal properties assigned to Wallachian voivode on different occasions. This type of ownership is called "pro honore" in Hungarian historiography, in other words the right of possession was entirely up to the king and lasted only as long as the beneficiary performed certain engagements or services in favour of the king177. The "pro honore" properties could be neither inherited nor subject to any commercial transactions. On the other hand, the temporary owner enjoyed all the advantages of ownership, i.e. the right of collecting taxes, of judging, of donating parts of the domain to his own vassals, etc. So Mircea was granted only a revocable right of possession on the properties in Transylvania. It should also be mentioned that the Hungarian king's 176 I. A. Pop, Stăpânirile lui Mircea (see note 24), pp. 685-693; idem, Autoritatea domnească (see note 25), pp. 4-11, 14. N. Edroiu, Mircea cel Mare şi Transilvania, in voi. Marele Mircea Voievod, ed. by I. Pătroiu, pp. 181-190; idem, Posesiunile domnilor Ţării Româneşti şi Moldovei în Transilvania (secolele XJV-XVI). Semnificaţii politico-sociale şi cultural-istorice, in voi. Istoria României. Pagini transilvane, Cluj-Napoca, 1994, ed. by acad. Dan Berindei, pp. 45-62; etc. 177 The most important features of the right of possession called "pro honore" are presented by P. Engel, A Honor (A magyarországi feudális birtokformák kérdéséhez), in Történelmi Szemle, 81, 1981, no. 1, pp. 11-19; Idem, Honor, vár, ispánság. Tanulmányok az Anjou-királyság kormányzati rendszéről, in Századok, 116, 1982, no. 5, pp. 880-920.
