Diaconescu, Marius (szerk.): Mediaevalia Transilvanica 1998 (2. évfolyam, 2. szám)
Relaţii internaţionale
The Relations of Vassalage 281 identifications based on the neighbouring properties and on the previous owners of the respective lady's properties. Romanian historians considered her a member of the Cilli family192 or of the Bánffy family193. Elemer Mályusz, a Hungarian historian and expert in the matter, considered her a member of the Láckfi family194. This identification is worth more credit than the others. Accordingly, Mircea's marriage took place before 1397 when this renowned family became disloyal to the king. Viewed in this light, Mircea's matrimonial relation can be considered a diplomatic move - common practice at the time - meant to ensure him better support at Sigismund's court. 4. Conclusions The relations of vassalage between Sigismund of Luxemburg, king of Hungary and Mircea the Old, voivode of Wallachia are obvious. We can identify some of the classic features of vassalage such as: the homage, which was probably rendered about four times; the vassal's auxilium, inscribed in the deed of March 7th 1395 and put into practice on the occasion of the crusade of Nicople; the suzerain's auxilium, put into practice for several times in the battles against the Turks; the revocable properties in Hungary given by the king to the Romanian voivode. According to the suzerain, the vassal was bound to pay a tribute as a token of acknowledgement of his suzerainty. Documents do not offer any information on the payment of tribute during this period195, but it is not impossible that it was paid or kept by Mircea as a financial support for defending the boundaries. As a consequence of his pledge of fealty and of the acknowledgement of vassalage, Mircea was given several revocable domains in Transylvania. Sigismund claimed homage by virtue of his Angevine legacy. Wallachia - represented by its ruler - was vassal to the Hungarian crown, represented by king Sigismund of Luxemburg196. Thus, the participation of both suzerain and vassal in the anti-Ottoman campaigns has to be interpreted from this perspective. Mircea preferred the Hungarian suzerainty to the Ottoman, even if there was a moment when he considered this possibility (still, it could have been only a maneuver in order to 192 P. P. Panaitescu, Mircea cel Bătrân (see note 15), p. 50. 193 I. Pataki, op. cit. (see note 17), p. 428.1. A. Pop, Stăpânirile lui Mircea (see note 24), p. 692. 194 E. Mályusz, Zsigmond király (see note 3), p. 112. 195 By way of contrast, there are indisputable data on the fact that, in the following period, the Wallachian voivodes (Mircea’s successors) paid tribute to the royal treasury: DRH, D, 1, pp. 404-406. 196The epithet "one and only lord” in the Wallachian sovereigns' denomination (and Mircea's as well) does not express a statal independence but represents one of the diplomatic formulas by which the existence of an associate sovereign is confirmed in the XIVlh-XVlh centuries; this is done on the purpose of stating the full rights of the ruler versus the limited or yielded rights of the associate ruler. The denomination can be traced back to the titles of the Byzantine emperors and was borrowed by the Bulgarians and Serbians as well: E. Vîrtosu, Ce înseamnă „domn singur stăpănitor" în titulatura domnească a Ţării Româneşti şi a Moldovei’’, in Analele Universităţii „C. I. Parhon“ Bucureşti, seria Ştiinţelor sociale, Istorie, 9, 1957, pp. 45-58. In spite of the author's demonstration, the advocates of the full independence of Mircea the Old still use this false argument.
