Diaconescu, Marius (szerk.): Mediaevalia Transilvanica 1998 (2. évfolyam, 2. szám)
Relaţii internaţionale
The Relations of Vassalage 249 the Turks16. In the line of the same ideological doctrine, Iosif Pataki referred to "cordial" or "friendly" relations17. Barbu Câmpina approached the subject from a materialist-dialectic perspective; therefore, in spite of his biased opinion, he only mentioned relations of "close alliance" between Mircea the Old and Sigismund18. Similarly, in his study on Mircea the Old's foreign policy, Dinu C. Giurescu mentioned the "good relations" between the two rulers even if he previously admitted their tensioned nature19 20. Mrs. Viorica Pervain's analysis of the Wallachian-Hungarian relations at the end of the XIV'h century211 focused only on the military campaigns against the Turks viewed in the light of a "political-military cooperation". Ştefan Ştefanescu was foretelling early in the years ‘seventy’ the changing direction in the historian’s way of seeing the facts and the historical events. In his opinion21, it was Sigismund the king who, given the Ottoman danger, made the proposal of concluding an alliance to the Wallachian voivode (?!). During the Ceauşescu era, the political prescriptions would change radically, especially during the ’80 years. As a consequence of the historians' exacerbated patriotic feeling, the interpretations were distorted not only by censorship but also by the authors' own convictions, being so exaggerated that they bordered the ridicule. In this respect we may quote A. Diţă's contribution (opinion resumed in other studies as well) from the volume dedicated to the 600lh anniversary of the Wallachian voivode’s coming to the throne. The author referred to the document of March 7lh of Braşov, claiming that Mircea the Old "obliged Sigismund of Luxemburg to sign a treaty of alliance, ... from which all formulations which might have indicated a status of vassalage had been deliberately purged. Still, a very vague allusion entitles us to believe that, on tactical grounds, the Romanian voivode had also accepted a purely formal suzerainty, in order to appease the king's selfpride”22 [sic!]. N. Constantinescu, author of a digest monographic work on Mircea the Old, used rather ambiguous terms, denying the existence of the vassalage; moreover, he accused Sigismund of expansionist intentions and that "in his 16 Istoria României, II, [1962], Bucureşti, p. 366. 17 I. Pataki, Ceva despre relaţiile Ţării Româneşti cu Ungaria la sfârşitul veacului al XIV-lea, in SMIM, II, 1957, pp. 421-428. 18 B. Câmpina, Lupta Ţării Româneşti împotriva expansiunii otomane (1335-1415), in idem, Scrieri istorice, I, Bucureşti, 1973, pp. 262 et passim. 19 Dinu C. Giurescu, Politica externă a Ţării Româneşti sub Mircea cel Bătrân, in V. Cândea, Dinu C. Giurescu, M. Maiiţa, Pagini din trecutul diplomaţiei româneşti. Bucureşti, 1966, pp. 62 et passim. 20 Viorica Pcrvain, Din relaţiile Ţării Româneşti cu Ungaria la sfârşitul veacului al XIV-lea (hereafter referred to as: Din relaţiile Ţării Româneşti cu Ungaria), in AIIA, Cluj-Napoca, XVIII, 1975, pp. 89- 115. 21 Şt. ŞtetUnescu, Ţara Românească de la Basarab I "întemeietorul" pînă la Mihai Viteazul, Bucureşti, 1970, pp. 49-52. 22 A. Diţă, 17 mai 1395, o dată importantă în istoria universală - victoria românească de la Rovine, in voi. Marele Mircea Voievod, ed. by I. Pătroiu, Bucureşti, 1987. p. 302.
