Diaconescu, Marius (szerk.): Mediaevalia Transilvanica 1998 (2. évfolyam, 2. szám)
Relaţii internaţionale
The Relations of Vassalage 273 Between 1389 and 1392 several Hungarian-Turkish encounters took place at the borders with Serbia or Bosnia160. Steven Lazarevic, Serbia's Despot, was the Turks' vassal and ally. In 1392 Sultan Bâyezîd I sent a message to the Serbian leader asking him not to submit to the Hungarian King, as the Bulgarian Tzar and others had done, but to remain his vassal161. The message attests that Sigismund had created a defensive system based on the relations of vassalage with the southern states. Thus, if the Bulgarian tzar from Tâmovo had paid homage, we think it most probable that Mircea the Old would have done the same. Even if the term "and others" is not clear, we are inclined to believe that it refers to the Romanian voivode. Wallachia was situated between the Bulgarian Tzarate and the Hungarian Kingdom. The anti-Ottoman defensive system created by Sigismund included not only the Bulgarian tzar but also Mircea. The acknowledgement of fealty, presumably by means of envoys, was probably made in or before 1392. There were two possible moments for this action. One is the period extending from January to April 1391, when the king was present in Transylvania, close to the Wallachian border, at Sibiu (February 17th -26^ and March 6lh -9th )162. The second was in early May 1392 when the King was present atTimişoara before the campaign in Serbia. The first period seems more probable. The king's longer stay in Sibiu was motivated by several reasons among which there seems to have been the homage of the Romanian voivode. The acknowledgement of fealty in 1391 is indirectly related by the chronicler Johannes de Thurocz according to whom, during the queens' rule, Wallachia and Moldavia would have left the Hungarian sphere of influence. “That one, in the fourth year, after having been crowned, renewing his wapens, started the expedition in order to tame those peoples'’163. It is possible that in May 1392 only an exchange of messages had taken place. Thus, we should interpret accordingly a note from Massaria de la Pera's accounts (dated June 17th , 1392) referring to the Romanian voivode's letter "pro bonis novis Hungarie"i(A . It is time to refer back to the deed of March 7th, 1395, which was the starting point of our discussion on the homage because a reevaluation of its significance is absolutely necessary. The respective document seems to be an additional act to the homage, meant to stipulate clearly Mircea's military obligations related to Sigismund's offensive anti-Ottoman policy. Romanian historiographers have been using the following terms: "military alliance", "treaty of 1611 P. Engel, A török-magyar háborúk (see note 38), pp. 562-575. A chronological table of the battles is to be found at p. 577. 161 Lebensbeschreibung des Despoten Stefan Lazarevic von Konstantin dem Philosophen in Auszug herausgegeben und übersetzt von M. Braun, Göttingen, 1956, p. 11. 162 J. K. Hoensch (ed.), Itinerar (see note 36), p. 55; P. Engel, Kirátyitineráriumok (see note 36), p. 57. 163 Johannes de Thurocz, Cronica Hungarorum (see note 54), p. 209, § 200: „dum res Hungarice femina duce gravi fluctuabant guerra, Moldauani pariter et partes Transalpine reginali dedignato sceptro necdum resipiscentes regi Sigismundo favebant. Ille igitur quarto, postquam coronatus est, anno renovatis armis illos domandi gratia agressus est.“. 164 N. Iorga, Acte şi fragmente (see note 108), III, p. 3.
