Diaconescu, Marius (szerk.): Mediaevalia Transilvanica 1998 (2. évfolyam, 1. szám)
Relaţii internaţionale
24 Marius Diaconescu does not forget to mention their action even in 1359, from "the time when Alexander Basarab,..., did not want to acknowledge us as his lawful lord'"2'. He was probably paying the deed of the unfaithful Romanians who betrayed the voivode in the moment of another rebellion with donations, to strengthen their attitude. The mention of the voivode's rebellion in the past tense shows that during that moment, 1359, the two sides were not in conflict any longer121 122. Determining the voivode to accept the quality of subject of the Hungarian king again probably happened before 1358, when Louis I issued the commercial privilege in favour of the Braşov merchants, according to which they were free to bring their goods over the territory between Ialomiţa and Siret, without paying the custom duty123. The decree of granting the privilege to the Braşov merchants was possible because of a certain weakening of the Mongolian domination and the expansion of the Hungarian authority towards the region of the Danube springs. It is framed within the general commercial policy of the Anjou Hungary, actively interested in its implication in the eastern trade124. The document could be released in the circumstances in which the Romanian voivode, the direct ruler of this territory, was the king's subject125. The Braşov merchants' freedom of trading in Wallachia was an essential component of the relationships between Wallachia and the kingdom of Hungary during the 14th to the 16th centuries126. The confirmation of these liberties by the Romanian voivodes had been a constant request of the Braşov people. It is claimed that the privilege granted to the merchants by Louis provoked the Wallachian voivode's opposition and a new outburst of their conflict in the following year, 1359127 128. There is an argument which contradicts at least the date of the outbreak of the conflict: from the document issued in favour of the Romanian boyars who had betrayed Vladislav "in the time when he did not acknowledge us as his lawful lord1,128 does not result that there was a conflict going on at the moment. It if had been, it would have certainly been mentioned, at least using the epithet our unfaithful etc. The document refers to the period in which the voivode did not confirm the king's suzerainty as to an event already passed, not as to a present one. The rebellion began before the starting of the campaign against the citadel of Zara, to which the boyars took part, so before 1356. It ceased, in a mysterious context today, before the releasing of this donation document and, more than probably before granting the commercial privilege from 1358. 121 Ibidem, pp. 73-74: „... qui eo tempore, quo Alexander Bazarade, .... nos pro domino naturali recognoscere renuebat...“. 122 In this context, Ş. Papacostea's statement, începuturile politicii comerciale, p. 14, according to which the conflict between the Romanian voivode and Hungarian king would have outbroken in 1359 is inaccurate. 123 DRH. D„ I, p. 72. 124 Ş. Papacostea, începuturile politicii comerciale, p. 11. 125 The document determined a series of contradictory opinions: Ş. Papacostea, începuturile politicii comerciale, p. 13, the note 15. 126 Ibidem, loc. cit. 127 Ibidem, p. 14. 128 DRH. D„ I, p. 73.
