Diaconescu, Marius (szerk.): Mediaevalia Transilvanica 1998 (2. évfolyam, 2. szám)
Relaţii internaţionale
The Relations of Vassalage 261 are relevant for the state of mind of its inhabitants. Thus, king Sigismund, together with other crusaders, crossed the Danube into Wallachia. He confessed this in later documents: "we unwillingly went back to our above-mentioned Wallachia, urged by pressing necessity'*6. But, instead of going across Wallachia, he was obliged to go down the Danube by ship. At the river mouth of the Prut, he sent the Transylvanian Voivode and some other barons back into the country to see to the kingdom's affairs. This crossing of the eastern regions of Wallachia by Stibor and his men was to be considered as a true act of bravery in the following year when the King rewarded them for their loyalty: "and he advanced without stopping towards our country Transylvania and prevented the Wallachians and other enemies of our kingdom from any evil plotting...”86 87 So, instead of crossing Wallachia whose suzerain he was supposed to be, Sigismund preferred a long journey on the sea: the Black Sea, the Aegean, the Mediterranean and the Adriatic. After being the guest of the Byzantine Emperor at Constantinople and after another three-month journey, he finally landed at Raguza and returned to Hungary. At that time Wallachia was being ruled by Vlad the Usurper, a ruler who had been enthroned by the Turks and was their loyal subject, as well as an enemy of Sigismund's. So the Romanian army loyal to Vlad opposed to the crossing of Wallachia by the rest of the Hungarian army. Thus, it was not Mircea's fault as he was probably in a similar, not very honourable position. He himself was very likely on the run either on water or somewhere in his own country. He was not even able to ensure protection to his suzerain88. The accusation of treason held against Mircea in the historiographical works on the crusades89 is unjust; in other words, both the current internal political situation and that at the Romanian borders should have been taken into account by the historians. accused Mircea of treason; I. Minea, op. cit. (see note 10), pp. 73-75 and 78 is even of the opinion that Mircea's army ensured the retreat of the crusaders; a presentation and comments on them are to be found in P. P. Panaitescu, Mircea cel Bătrân (see note 15), pp. 264-269. The Hungarian historiography exaggerates the role played by the Hungarians and accused the Romanians of being the first to cross back the Danube, without mentioning that the two armies withdrew together. It is said that, after the escape of the French army, the Romanians followed in their steps: A. Pór, Gy. Schönherr, Az Anjou ház és örökösei (1301-1439) (A magyar nemzet története, ed. S. Szilágyi, III), Budapest, 1895, pp. 430-432. The foreign historians who dealt with the battle of Nicople either ignored the Romanians' role or accused both the Hungarians and the Romanian auxiliary troops of running away from the enemy: Hammer, Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches, I, Pesth, 1834, I, p. 199 and A. S. Atiya, The Crusade from Nicopolis, London, 1934, p. 93 and idem, The Crusade in the Later Middle Ages, p. 454-455, stated that Mircea had ran away before Sigismund did. 86 DRH, D, I, p. 156: „ versus predictas partes nostras Transalpinas terga vertendo, retroflexos gressus invitis nutibus ... urgente adversitate facientibus”. Cf. ibidem, p. 163 87 DRH, D, I, p. 163: „qui abinde regrediens et versus partes nostras Transsiluanas protinus progrediens, ac omnem machinacionem perversam Walachis ac aliis regni nostri emulis precludens...“ 88 O. Iliescu, op. cit. (see note 60), p. 83, claims that an internal conflict followed the defeat of Nicople. We believe that the number of Mircea's followers increased after the Bulgarian Tzarate of Vidin had been transformed in pashalik, but the decissive role seems to have been played by voivode Stibor’s intervention somewhere between 1396 and 1397. 89 A. S. Atiya, The Crusade from Nicopolis (see note 85), pp. 93-94.
