Diaconescu, Marius (szerk.): Mediaevalia Transilvanica 1998 (2. évfolyam, 2. szám)
Relaţii internaţionale
272 Marius Diaconescu partes Transalpinas" (to be compared with: "per dictas partes Transsiluanas")154 155 156- This meaning is further confirmed by the fact that sometimes the same chancery emphasized it: "our parts of Wallachia" ("adpartes nostras Transalpinas")'55. The royal official position also results from the title that accompanied Sigismund's name in certain official acts. Mircea was the king's voivode in Wallachia (vaiuoda nostro Transalpino). After the summer campaign in 1395, he mentioned that he gave him back his rule (suo dominio restituto)'56. However, there was obviously a certain discrepancy between Sigismund's claims as a suzerain and Mircea's submission. His obedience varied in time according to a few factors such as: the intensity of the Ottoman pressures, the Hungarian internal political crises and the Hungarian-Polish relations. Firstly, we should take into consideration the question of the homage. There is firm evidence on the pledge of fealty in a deed dating from March 7th 1395157.Even if at first sight it seems to be a treaty of military alliance concluded on equal terms158, there are some clues that indicate the submission of the Romanian voivode. For example, there had been a deed acknowledging the vassalage159 before the above-mentioned one because the present engagement was done "under the faith and oath taken previously by us and our barons, as it is the custom" ("sub fide et iuramento nostris et baronum nostrorum, per nos prius debite prestitis"). Therefore, sometime before March 7th 1395 - or maybe the very same day - Mircea and his barons had paid homage to Sigismund. Two months before, the same kind of pledge of fealty had been solicited by Sigismund from Steven, Voivode of Moldavia, but the latter swore falsely. We cannot ignore the possibility of an anterior pledge, either taken personally or by means of envoys. Thus, in the preamble of the mentioned document of March 7th , Mircea stated that ever since they had first met the King had not only shown him exceptional benevolence but had also given his friendly support, especially against the Turks. Let alone the tactful and courteous language, it is most probable that Mircea and Sigismund had already established relations and there is evidence of a pledge of fidelity taken before 1395. 154 DRH, D, I, no. 74, pp. 120-121; no. 91, pp. 145-146 etc. 155 DRH, D, I, no. 99, p. 155; no. 101, p. 163 etc. 156 DRH, D, I, p. 182. 157 DRH, D, I, pp. 138-142. 158 At least this is the opinion of Romanian historiographers: A. D. Xenopol, op. cit. (see note 4), p. 82, claimed that this document attested the end of the vassalage relations and is evidence for the emancipation of Wallachia! N. Iorga, Istoria Românilor (see note 7), III, p. 249, was also of the opinion that Mircea was treated as an ally and not as a vassal! Viorica Pervain, Din relaţiile Ţării Româneşti cu Ungaria (see note 20), pp. 97-98, although commenting on the document, mentioned only the "bringing of Wallachia in the Hungarian sphere of influence", without further detailing the issue. Şt. Ştefânescu, op. cit. (see note 21), p. 49, claimed that the Hungarian king had tried to approach the Wallachian voivode because of Mircea's alliance with Poland and of the imminent Ottoman threat [sic!]. On the other hand, the Hungarian historiographers mention that Mircea pledged fidelity at Braşov: B. Hóman, Gy. Szekfű, Magyar történet, II, Budapest, 1942, p. 341; J. Horváth, Magyar diplomácia, magyar diplomáták. Magyar külpolitika századai, Budapest, 1942, p. 132. 159 The existence of this pledge of fidelity was emphasised by P. P. Panaitescu, Mircea cel Bátrán (see note 15), pp. 195 and 253.
