Diaconescu, Marius (szerk.): Mediaevalia Transilvanica 1998 (2. évfolyam, 1. szám)
Relaţii internaţionale
18 Marius Diaconescu November 1324, thus after almost half a year, the castle owner of Mehadia is certified82. The 1324 document appreciates the repeated deputations performed by the beneficiary of the diploma. These deputations could take place any time from the coronation of the king or from the initiation of Basarab's activity as voivode of Wallachia! We can only presume a date ante quem: 1324. The deputations sent to the Romanian voivode can be rather considered as negotiations meant to make his collaboration sure, or at least to obtain his neutrality in the conflict the king had with the oligarchy, quite close to the boundaries of Wallachia. The denomination of Basarab as a voivode faithful to the king shows the fact that the problem of clarifying the relations with Carol Robert had not yet been actual. A short time before, the king had accomplished the establishment of the regime in his kingdom. After solving the internal problems, it is possible that the king should have started the reassessment of the relationships with the traditional vassals of the Hungarian Crown83 84. The relations between the power which claimed suzerainty on the basis of the inheritance from the Arpadian crown and the voivode of a country constituted as a result of the unification of the territories previously subjected to the Hungarian king became tense only at this moment! The true nature of the relations between the Hungarian king and the voivode of Wallachia is revealed only during the next year, 1325, when Basarab is called "faithless towards the holy royal crown" (sancte regie corone infidelerrif* and praised by a rebel from Hungary. Basarab's power was obviously overbid when the rebel glorified him and asserted that it was greater than that of the king. This attitude accounts for the position the Wallachian voivode gained because of his rebel stand against the Hungarian king. Undoubtedly, Basarab I, the founder of Wallachia wished to acquire independence from the Hungarian Crown. Carol Robert's claims must be understood as a continuation of the political line adopted by the Hungarian kings in the past who were suzerains of the Romanian state formations rulers south of the Carpathians. The Romanian State, by its voivode's actions, proved independence in its manifestations, from a new position, even of force, towards the former suzerain power. Basarab's rebellion did not instantly modify the situation of vassality to the Hungarian king from the foreign policy perspective85. Pope John XXII, in a letter from 1327, still placed him under Hungarian jurisdiction, as he considered that the lands over which he was ruling were still situated within the Hungarian kingdom86. 82 AO, Vm, no. 320. Maria Holban's entire demonstration, op. cit., pp. 130-140 is not justified. 83 Gy. Kristó, Az Anjou-kor, p. 80, correlates the question of the relationships with Basarab to that of those with the Bulgarians. 84 DRH, D„ I pp. 37-38. 85 Gy. Kristó, Az Anjou-kor, p. 81, places a certain foray of the Tartars in Hungary with the support of the Romanian voivode in 1326 and claims that after its defeat Basarab became a vassal of the Hungarian king. Based on the far-fetched interpretation of the documents from 1329 about Szécsi Dénes and the Mehadia citadel (mentioned above) and from 1327 (the one sent by the Pope), the assumption is not founded on viable arguments. 86 „... in terns tibi subiectis in regno Hungarie cons istent ibus..DRH. D.. I, p. 39.
