ÁRPÁD KOSZTIN
THE DACO-ROMAN LEGEND
PART III.
VI
Transylvania between the Mongol Invasion
and the
Beginning of the Turkish Menace
Transylvania recovered substantially
during the two decades following the Mongol invasion. Its internal order
was peaceful. Its situation changed after 1260, when Béla IV. gave it to
his son, István. Transylvania suffered on account of the almost endless
discord between father and son. Béla IV. died in 1270, and his son ascended
the throne as István
V. István ruled only two years,
1270 ‑ 1272. In spite of his short ruling period, he did not forget about
Transylvania. He rewarded the Székelys of Kézd for their bravery against
the Tatars. They were settled on a depopulated area of Torda County, in the
surroundings of Torockó.
After his death, he was succeeded to the
throne by his son, László IV.,who was called Kun László;
(1272‑1290). Under his rule, life in Transylvania was characterized by
disorder and anarchy. The royal rule and laws were replaced by the law of
the club and despotism.
The cathedral of Gyulafehérvár was attacked
and burned down by the Saxons on February 21, 1277. Kun László defeated
the invading Cumanians at Hódmezővásárhely in 1282. The defeated Cumanians
fled to the Nogaj Tatars. While beating a hasty retreat, they devastated
Transylvania.
They returned in 1285 with the Nogaj
Tatars. The Cumanians got as far as Pest. They were again defeated by the
Royal Army. As a repeat performance, escaping from the king's troops they
withdrew with large booty across Transylvania. On their way out they found
time to destroy Beszterce and Kolozsvár. At the fortress of Torockó they
were caught and badly beaten by the Székelys. The Székelys also destroyed
another group, before they could leave Transylvania.
The Cumanian raids did not end despite their
defeat by the Székelys. The Pope proclaimed a Crusade against the
Cumanians. The decisive battles of the war between the Crusaders and the
Cumanians were fought in Transylvania. The anarchy and chaos did not end
until the death of László IV. in 1290.
László IV's successor, Endre III.
(1290‑1301) travelled across Transylvania in 1291. He convoked the
Parliament along with the Transylvanian estates at Gyulafehérvár. In a
document he reinforced the nobles, the clergy, and the Saxons in their
rights.
Endre published another notable document, in
which he mentions the Vlachs along with the nobles, Székelys and Saxons.
Several Rumanian historians came to the false conclusion that the Vlachs
possessed equal rights with the Hungarians, Székelys and Saxons and were
considered an emancipated nation during the period that the House of Árpád
ruled, and they participated in the political and constitutional life of
Transylvania as well.
The historical facts, however, show that the
participating Rumanians in the assemblies were witnesses rather than
legislators. They were supposed to testify to whether it was the truth or
not, that the properties of Fogaras and Szombathely really belonged to
Master Ugrin. The assembly in question was not legislative but judicial.
In the next year Vlachs, were not invited to the Parliament where
Transylvanian nobles, Székelys, Saxons, and indeed the Cumanians
participated.
The document of Endre III., dated 1293,
casts light upon why the Rumanians were not invited to the Hungarian or to
the Transylvanian Parliaments. “Being forced by the regime's interest, with
the agreement of the magnates, we order that all the Vlachs, residing on
anybody's property, should be driven back to our royal property named
Székes. Exempted are those sixty households, who were authorized to settle
down by László IV, in Fülesd and Énőd, on the properties of the chapter of
Gyulafehérvár.”
This document shows – without the
slightest doubt – that only the king and persons authorized by the king
could give the immigrating Rumanians permission to settle down. At this
time only the churches and bishops were allowed to colonize. The
landowners did not yet have the right to harbor Rumanian immigrants.
On the basis of the above mentioned
documents, it may be stated that the Rumanians were very small in number
under the rule of the House of Árpád. Therefore, because of this fact, they
could not be equal to the other three nations of Transylvania, the
Hungarians, the Székelys and the Saxons. As we have already mentioned in
Chapter 4., Megleno-Rumanians and Arumanians came from the Balkans and
occupied the area of Cumania from which those 40,000 Cumanian families were
settled in Hungary; they then spread over the entire Cumania.
The newly settled people were Greek‑Catholic
(Orthodox) with Slavonic liturgy. King Károly Robert founded the
voivodeship of Ungro‑Vlachia in 1324, based on the Cumanians, Germans and
resettled Hungarians in addition to the immigrated Vlachs. The name of
Ungro‑Vlachia changed later to Muntenia, in Hungarian: Havaselve
(Havasalföld). The first voivode of the voivodeship was Basarab, who was
already in 1324 “Wallachia's only great voivode and ruler”.
Lajos the Great (1342‑1382) organized the
feudal voivodeship by the name of Kara Bogdania, the later Moldavia. It was
located in the northern territories of Cumania, between the eastern slopes
of the Carpathian mountains and the right bank of the Prut River. By the
request of Lajos the Great, the Pope founded the third Catholic episcopacy
at Curtea de Argesen, in Havasalföld (Wallachia), in 1382.
According to the order of January 29,
1322 by King Károly Robert, the abbacy of Kerc
was placed under the protection of the King due to the “evil attacks”.
In Chapter IV. of her book, Maria Holban
dealt in detail with the argument, which had taken place between the
Transylvanian Bishop and the provost of Szeben. The provost was supposed to
fill the provostship's recently vacated position. On pages 262 - 263,
Holban explained in detail that the abbacy of Kerc had not been endangered
by the peasants or by the actions of the Rumanian Greek‑Catholics. The
Transylvanian Archbishop sent an encyclical letter on November 14, 1343, in
which he encouraged the people to hand back the abbacy's stolen properties
and other goods, and advised them not to interfere in the affairs of this
abbacy (situated on the farthest border of the Hungarian kingdom). Not even
from this letter may one conclude that the Rumanians rioted against the
abbacy.
Maria Holban also demonstrated that the
abbacy of Kolozsmonostor had been attacked by Rumanian and Hungarian
peasants from the neighboring estate, not by those who had been living on
the abbacy's property. Why were only the Hungarian Catholic abbacies the
targets of riots and peasant revolts? Why were only the abbacies of Kerc
and Kolozsmonostor attacked? Why didn't the peasants turn against Rumanian
churches, monasteries or abbacies?
Another very important question can be
asked. Why did Maria Holban write about the Rumanian‑Hungarian,
Transylvanian‑Rumanian‑Hungarian connections of the 13th‑14th centuries?
Why did she not write about such connections, for example, in the
10th‑11th or the 11th‑12th centuries? This would be more relevant in the
efforts to prove the Daco‑Roman Continuity Theory.
On the basis of the 1332 and 1337 Papal
Tithe Collector's list, in his work mentioned above, Péter Pál Domokos
(p.60) showed the religious composition of the people living in Transylvania
on the territory of the Transylvanian Bishopric. By that time, the rule of
the Árpád's had just ended with the rise of the Anjou House. According to
these data, 310,000 Hungarian Székelys, 21,000 Saxons and 18,000 Rumanians
lived in Transylvania [61]. The low number of Vlachs suggests that they
could not have been present among the conquered or surrendered people in
the time of Árpád's conquest of Hungary, and could scarcely have had any
cultic places or church organizations. Even if they had been present, their
number would have been insignificant. With the knowledge of these data we
have to dispute the statement of the Rumanian historian Radu Popa. He said
that during the 11th and 12th centuries “...headquarters, fortified courts,
chapels and small monasteries, serving as spiritual centres [62] had been
built by Roman Kenez families” in Máramaros, Fogaras, Bihar, Bánság
and Hátszeg (Hunyad county). The statement's indefensibility was also felt
by the author, who added: “...these wooden buildings were rebuilt as stone
and brick buildings during the 13th-14th centuries.”
As regards Máramaros, any such building is
excluded by the fact that the Rumanians did not immigrate there until the
last quarter of the 13th century. The old Russian chronicles tell us that
László IV. (Kun László), being afraid of another Mongol invasion, asked for
help from Rome and Constantinople in 1284‑85. After evaluating his request,
a large army was sent to him by Constantinople from the Ibar region, (in
present day Serbia). These Vlachs, fighting together with the Hungarians,
defeated the Mongols in the upper Tisza valley. Since they did not want to
return to their homeland, the king settled them in Máramaros.
We know from a document dated 1335, that
Mikola's son, voivode Bogdan settled with his Rumanians in Máramaros as
frontier guards against the Mongols. They emigrated from here to Moldavia
in 1348; moving slowly towards the south, they met the Rumanians living in
Wallachia.
Beginning with the early 15th century, they
occupied the territories which later (after 1859) were called Rumania (the
United Principalities) and became a politically distinct nation. That is
the reason why the Rumanian cultic places appeared 2‑3 centuries later
than the Hungarians'. Radu Popa's statements would probably be true, if he
had referred to the Ibar Region in Serbia. It may be enough to refer to
Romulus Dianu's work, in which he said that the monastery in Peri (Körtvélyes)
in Máramaros county, had been built in 1391, at the end of the 14th
century, and was a donation of voivode Dragos [63]. In the same
writing of Romulus Dianu, the author mentions that the Transylvanian
Greek‑Catholics (Orthodox) were considered schismatics – heretics – by the
“Papal Princes”. “The Bishops of Buda forbade the Rumanians the building
of churches in the towns. This sentence of 1279 had a binding force of law
until 1848” [64]. It is our duty to stop here, and enlighten Dianu's
superficial reasoning and baseless assertions.
It can be determined that Buda did not have
any bishops, not even one. Philip of Fermo, Papal legate convoked a council
in the Castle of Buda in September, 1279. Dianu might have been referring
to this event. The council's primary goal was the correction of the life
and morals of the Polish‑Hungarian churchmen and laymen, “...in order to
protect the Catholic faith and clerical freedom” [65].
Dianu sarcastically condemned the “Papal
Princes” and the “Bishops of Buda“. The plain truth is that Philip was
Bishop of Fermo, therefore he did not live in Hungary, nor was he a
Hungarian. He was neither “Papal Prince” nor “Bishop of Buda“. The
council's verdict “...dealt mainly with the third estate, its tasks and the
observance of the church services.” Paragraph No. 126. deals really with
the schismatical priests and the authorization of the houses of prayer and
chapel buildings they wanted to erect, but not in the form as presented by
Dianu. He wrote that “the Bishop of Buda had forbidden the Rumanians to
build churches in the cities.” Such a resolution was not passed by the
council. The resolution did not say a word about the Rumanians. It
simply ordered that a schismatical priest should not be allowed to “deliver
divine service” in the Catholic Church, and that the schismatics could only
build their temples with the authorization of the diocesan bishop. There
is no word of Rumanians, cities or prohibition of church buildings. The
resolution disposed of the building of houses of prayer and of chapels, not
churches. According to Dianu, the resolution had binding force of law
until 1848. If this had been true, “schismatical” Rumanian churches could
not have been built – for example – in Kolozsvár in 1797, in Marosvásárhely
in 1811-1814, etc.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
VII
Transylvania During the Times
of the Turkish Expansion
During the reign of Nagy Lajos
(1342‑1382), a menacing power appeared in the Balkans, the Ottoman Turks.
Turks endangered Hungary as well as the whole of Central Europe. Realizing
the danger, the King paid special attention to Transylvania. He stayed
there from April to August 1366. He strengthened the Charters of the seven
Saxon Seats. He visited every important place in the Székely
territory.
Under the reign of Nagy Lajos (Louis the
Great), the number of Vlachs increased considerably. He permitted the
Vlachs to settle not only on the royal, episcopal and prebendal properties,
and ruled that also the cities and the landowners should have the right
to allow immigrating Vlachs to settle. In July of 1366, the Parliament
gathered in Torda.
According to the royal document, which summarized the orders of the
Parliament, the public security was in constant jeopardy. The public law and
order were extraordinarily bothered by the Vlachs, living in chaotic
circumstances. The King gave officials a free hand to kill off the
“evil‑doers”.
The King visited Transylvania in 1377 for
the last time. He convinced the Saxons in Brassó to reconstruct Törcsvár,
and to always take care of the fort's
defenses. In return, he transferred the authority over the villages of the
Barcaság from the Székely sheriff to Brassó. He donated Erdőfelek (Feleacu)
with its Vlach dwellers to the city of Kolozsvár. He took all these actions
knowing that Transylvania was the south-eastern stronghold of the Hungarian
Empire, the supporting pillar of the Hungarian power politics towards the
Balkans. After the death of Lajos the Great, his oldest daughter, the
eleven‑year‑old Maria inherited the Hungarian throne, but the king's widow,
Elizabeth ruled. She was killed by some aristocrats, who were dissatisfied
with her rule.
Maria, fiancee of the Prince of Luxembourg,
was imprisoned. Zsigmond led his armies to free his fiancee. In 1387,
he was crowned the Hungarian king by the nobles, faithful to Maria
(1387‑1437).
These events prompted the Wallachian voivode,
Mircea, and the Moldavian voivode, Peter, to break away from the Hungarian
kingdom and surrender to the Polish king (1380). One of Zsigmond's tasks
was to get the voivodes back in line. Mircea surrendered on his own, while
Stefan, who followed Peter as the Moldavian voivode, was forced to
surrender.
The period of Zsigmond's reign was
critical in the history of Transylvania. During the first decade of his
reign, the Turks conquered the Balkans. A little later, the Turks started
to threaten, and then annexed the Vlach voivodeships.
After the Battle of Rigómező (Kosovo),
(1389) the Bulgarian, Serb and Bosnian rulers, still cooperating with the
Hungarians, had to realize that their power and country could be saved only
if they maintained good relations with the Turks. The neighboring Rumanian
voivodeships also had to engage in the way of equilibrium politics. The
Turks first annexed Wallachia, and somewhat later Moldavia. This
circumstance led to further deterioration in the relations between the
Rumanian voivodeships and Hungary.
In 1396, in the battle of Nikápoly,
Zsigmond's army of 90.000 men was defeated by Sultan Bajazid's army. After
this battle, the Rumanian voivodes showed more willingness to maintain
better relations with the Turks than the Hungarian king – because of
religious reasons. The Turks required only political submission, taxes, loot
and in case of war, troops to support. They did not attack the religion of
the voivodeship's people. They did not want to convert them to
Mohammedanism. The proviso of the Hungarian king's assistance and aid was
all the time the conversion to the Roman‑Catholic Church. The Hungarian
Anjou kings' diplomacy always sharply opposed the Greek Orthodox religion.
Lajos the Great's every effort tended towards the conversion of the
Greek‑Orthodox Vlachs, in a peaceful way if possible, to recognize the Papal
authority and unite them with the Roman‑Catholic Church.
The Hungarian kings committed themselves to
the spread of Roman‑Catholicism so deeply, that Catholicism was considered a
“Hungarian religion” by the people of Eastern‑Europe and the Balkans, at
least after King Imre's reign (1196‑1204) [66].
In order to gain their goodwill, the Vlach
voivodes turned the Turks' attention to Transylvania. The first Turkish
army broke into Transylvania in 1420, under the instigation of Dan,
Wallachian voivode. The Székelys and the Saxons resisted, but were defeated
by the Turks’ numerical superiority. The Turks destroyed Brassó and ravaged
the Barcaság and Háromszék. (The Barcaság was inhabited by Saxons, Háromszék
by Székelys.)
The Hungarians started to take precautions
against the Turks in the period that came after the Battle of Nikápoly. They
fortified the southern borders. At the news of the Turkish approach the
forts' significance, primarily the ones capable of harboring large groups of
people, grew among the defending Székelys and Saxons. Where there were few
forts, a whole range of Székely and Saxon church fortresses formed a defense
line [67]. There are no reports about Vlach churches having been included
among these.
The fortified castles and churches saved the
material possessions of the village people in addition to the protection of
their lives. Within the walls, the defending families had their own
chambers where they could put their valuable goods and food in a safe place.
Although the presence of Vlachs was a fact
at the beginning of the 13th century in the Southern‑Carpathian area, there
are no data regarding fortification of Vlach churches or castles. It all
points to the fact that the small number of Vlachs, who had just recently
became farm hands, were used only as soldiers for defending the castles of
the landowners.
The appearance of the Turkish Army on the
southern borders of Hungary brought about different kinds of fortresses
(royal, noble, and peasant). The fortified churches and castles played an
important role in the country's defense. Thick, high, stone walls,
bastions and towers were built around the churches, turning them into real
fortresses. The building of Transylvanian forts, and the fortification
of the stone churches meant defense for the Vlach voivodes, too. They were
given a chance to increase their strength. Among the owners of castles in
Transylvania, we can also find several Wallachian and Moldavian voivodes. As
vassals of the Hungarian kings and the Transylvanian voivodes, several of
them were given castles in Transylvania, as will be shown in the next
chapter.
VIII
Transylvanian Fiefs of Vlach (Rumanian)
Voivodes;
Rumanian Cultic Places
In the 13th‑16th centuries, the
voivodes of neighboring Wallachia (Havaselve) and Moldavia were vassals of
the Hungarian king, sometimes also of the Transylvanian vajda, with
shorter or longer interruptions. (Transylvania, before it developed into a
Principality, was governed by Hungarian royal governors, vajda-s [voivodes]).
In the Feudal System the lord gave an estate to his vassal who enjoyed
the benefits of it as long as he fulfilled the obligations of the
relationship. The feudal lord counted on the vassal's services in peace,
as well as in wartime. The vassal was obliged to give military service in
addition to the mandatory hospitality and taxes, paid mainly in agricultural
products and animals.
We have to survey the contemporary history
of Wallachia and Moldavia to get more information about the allegiance
between the Vlach voivodes and the Hungarian kings.
The Mongol invasion in 1241 basically
changed the political conditions in south-eastern Europe. The Tatars
entrenched themselves in the western and north‑western coastal districts of
the Black Sea, in the former principality of Kiev, in Moldavia, and in the
eastern territories of the second Bulgarian Empire. They swept away the
Cumanians, and destroyed most of Hungary. After they settled down in the
territories mentioned, they continued to raid their neighbors, Hungarians
and Vlachs alike [68].
Béla IV. tried to keep the Mongols far from
the borders of Hungary. In Transylvania, he reorganized the Székely
borderguard units. He built strong fortresses, and made efforts to
strengthen the southern borders. In Szörény, the power of the bán
(warden of the southern approaches of Hungary) proved to be weak in
keeping the Tatars away. That is why the King donated the Banate of
Szörény,
with its neighboring territories, to the Johannite Order of Knights, and
considered the whole of Wallachia to be his fief. The papacy agreed with
the Hungarian King's southern expansion. With the Hungarian expansion, the
Pope cherished the hope of further Roman‑Catholic gains.
The
Turk menace, however, approached. The Turks secured a firm foothold on the
Balkan Peninsula, and also endangered the security of Wallachia. The
voivodes of Wallachia built up family ties and friendly relationships with
the Bulgarian and Serb rulers. The Turk expansion could have been stopped
only by an alliance of the South Eastern European peoples. The Papacy and
the Hungarian foreign policy – influenced by religious considerations,
were obstacles to such unity.
Lajos the Great's Catholicizing foreign
policy on the Balkans, with the unquestionable intention towards the
political influence behind it, brought only sham results. With his
campaigns he only weakened the people of the Balkans and made it easier for
the Turks to expand towards the yet free Balkan states, as well as towards
Hungary.
Greek‑Orthodoxy successfully resisted the
Hungarian Catholicization In 1359 the first Greek‑Orthodox arch-bishopric
was founded in Wallachia. The Greek Kritopulos Hiakintos was named the
head of this, and he called himself the Archbishop of Ungro‑Vlachia, i.e.
of Havasalföld (Wallachia). The foundation of the first Wallachian
archbishopric was soon followed by the establishment of the Greek‑Orthodox
episcopacy of Szörény. Orthodox monastery buildings were constructed.
Abbay Nicodim, who immigrated from Serbia to Wallachia, founded the
monastery of Vodita and later the famous monastery of Tismana.
In the 13th century, the northern part of
the other Vlach province, Moldavia, developed as part of the principality
of Kiev. Later it belonged to the sphere of the principality of Galicia.
The Mongols subjugated most of the Russians. Moldavia was also under Mongol
dominance, from where the Tatars often broke into and robbed throughout the
Transylvanian cities.
In 1345, Lajos the Great, whose reign made
possible the country's military strengthening, cleaned Moldavia of the
Mongols. When the Tatars were ousted, the King organized a military border
zone for the defense of Transylvania. The center of the new frontier zone
was Baia. Dragos, the voivode of Máramaros, who participated in the
fighting, was placed at the head of it. He was the first voivode of
Moldavia under the federal authority of the Hungarian King. Moldavia lived
under such authority until 1359, when voivode Bogdan came into power.
Bogdan ousted voivode Balk, vassal of the Hungarian King and founded the
first independent Vlach principality.
In this period, the territory of Moldavia
became well defined. The international trade played a very important role
in its strengthening. The Hungarian King as well as the Polish King was
interested in the security of such trade. The tax income and material
interest, related to such commerce made understandable the ambitions of the
Hungarian and Polish kings toward the feudal rule of Moldavia.
Since Poland could more firmly enforce its
influence over Moldavia because of its geographical location, after the
death of Bogdan, those in power in Moldavia soon recognized the suzerainty
rights of the Polish king. The rulers of Moldavia protected themselves
with the well tested methods of Wallachia against the Catholicizing
ambitions of the Polish kings. They, like the Wallachian rulers, organized
the Greek‑Orthodox Church. The first monastery was built with the financial
assistance of the ruler Peter Musat (1375‑1391) in Neamt. The construction
was carried out by the monks of the Serbian Archbishop, Nicodim, who had
already established the basis of the cloistered life in Wallachia. [69]
In both voivodeships, the Vlach leadership
helped with the organization of the Greek‑Orthodox Church against the spread
of Catholicism, and the political influence of the Hungarian and Polish
kings, for the defense of their country's independence. They spared neither
their monetary nor political assistance. In exchange and recognition, the
Orthodox Church rendered strong assistance against the discordant feudal
aspirations and popular movements.
The kenézships and voivodeships were united
by Basarab, who was already in 1324 “the only voivode and ruler of all
Wallachia“. He also occupied the Banate of Szörény. He came into conflict
with King Károly Robert, who had been his suzerain and had supported his
wars against the Mongols. The King started a military campaign against
Basarab, but was badly beaten in 1330, near the village of Posada. Even
though the castle of Szörény remained in Hungarian hands, Basarab's victory
ensured the Wallachian independence.
A couple of years later, Basarab could not
avoid joining the Hungarian King again, due to the looming Mongol danger.
After the death of King Károly Robert, the feudal relationship was restored
with the kings' successor, Lajos the Great.
During the time of Basarab's grandson,
Vladislav, the Hungarian‑Wallachian relationship further improved. The King
gave the castle of Szörény to Vladislav and donated the estates of
Transylvanian Fogaras and Omlás to him. Vladislav recognized the Hungarian
King as his suzerain. At the cost of feudal relationship, the Wallachian
reigning prince, even as vassal of the King, gained a foothold into the
Eastern part of Hungarian Transylvania with his household; nobles, serfs and
slaves.
The development of both principalities was
markedly hindered by the Turkish advance and conquests. Almost immediately
after the establishment of the states, the fight against the invading Turks
began.
After their victorious battle of Rigómező (Kosovo-polje)
in 1389, the Turks posed the most immediate danger to Havasalföld (Wallachia),
whose voivode was Mircea cel Batrân (Old Mircea). In 1394, a large Turkish
army began to occupy Havasalföld under the leadership of Sultan Bajazid.
Mircea could not defeat the Turks, but repulsed them in the famous battle of
Rovine. Mircea withdrew and escaped to Transylvania, where he formed an
alliance with Zsigmond of Luxembourg (1368‑1437, Hungarian king from 1387)
in Brassó to push back the Turks. Under the terms of the treaty, Mircea
recognized Zsigmond and the Hungarian kings in general, as his
suzerain.
In the meantime, the Turks annexed
Havasalföld (Wallachia) and appointed a pro‑Turk voivode. Zsigmond,
fulfilling the conditions of the treaty, hastened to the help of Mircea.
They together defeated the pro‑Turk voivode in 1395. Mircea regained his
position.
King Zsigmond gathered an army of crusaders
in 1396. He tried to oust the Turks from the Balkan Peninsula, but was
badly defeated at Nikápoly
.
Mircea pulled back his troops north of the Danube and prepared himself to
fend off the Turkish attack. He was successful. He defeated the Turks two
times, in 1397 and 1400.
The Turks occupied two fortresses of Mircea,
the fortress of Turnu Magurele and Giurgiu along the Danube in 1416. In
spite of the new Turkish pressure, due to other pressing problems, King
Zsigmond neglected his previous alliance. He used all his might to carry
out his Western plans. Mircea made a pledge to pay yearly taxes to the
Turks – the independence of Havasalföld (Wallachia) ended. Turkish raids
occurred more frequently along the Hungarian borders. The Turks conquered
Fort Galambóc in 1428, and Fort Szendrő in 1439.
The Turks now menaced the other Vlach
voivodeship also, Moldavia. Voivodes Alexandru cel Bun (Alexander the Good,
1400‑1432), and Petru Aron (1451‑1457) were fighting the Turks with
alternating luck. Finally, in 1456, voivode Aron declared Moldavia a
country under the authority of the Turks. Moldavia became the feudal
principality of the Turks.
Voivode Stefan cel Mare (Stephen the Great,
1457‑1504) did not resign himself to the situation. In one and a half
decade, he made Moldavia one of the most important states of southeastern
Europe. In his foreign policy, he aimed to ensure Hungarian and Polish
help against the Turks. [70]. He defeated the Turkish army with Hungarian
and Polish assistance in 1475 at Vaslui, but was defeated in 1476 near
Razboien. After his loss, he marched to the north behind the line of strong
Moldavian castles. Facing the united Rumanian-Hungarian army, the Sultan
retreated. He even had to give up Havasalföld
(Wallachia).
Eight years later, a war broke out between
the Hungarian king, Mátyás (Mathias) (1458 - 1490) and the German Emperor.
King Mátyás was forced to conclude a peace treaty with the Turks, who,
profiting from the occasion, immediately annexed the two big trade centers
of Moldavia, the cities of Chilia and Cetatea Albǎ.
Voivode Stephen was still able to destroy
two Turkish armies in 1485 and 1486, but he could not achieve more
significant results. The forces of Moldavia were not enough to resist the
military might of the strengthened Turkish Empire. The ruling prince made
efforts to establish an anti‑Turk coalition. He started negotiations with
King Mátyás. Mátyás gave him two Transylvanian forts, Csicsó and Küküllővár,
to flee to in case he was defeated in a battle. Thus another Rumanian
ruler, with all his household, nobles, serfs and slaves, won a foothold in
the eastern part of Transylvania.
King Mátyás died in 1490. The country was in
decay. In spite of the Hungarian help, voivode Stephen recognized the
Polish king as his feudal lord.
During the time of Stephen's descendants the
Turkish pressure increased. There were twenty‑six transfers of sovereignty
in the principality during a hundred‑year period. There were only two
extraordinary persons among the rulers. Petru Rareş (1527‑1538), ally of
János Szapolyai and Ioan Vodǎcel Viteaz (voivode John the Gallant), who
ruled between 1572 and 1574. John liberated Brǎila in Havasalföld (Wallachia).
The Sultan, being afraid of an uprising of the Christians living south of
the Danube against the Turkish rule, sent 100.000 armed men to Moldavia.
After courageous fights, Voivode John was forced to capitulate. Despite the
treaty, the Turks massacred the prisoners of war and killed the reigning
prince. We have already pointed out that Lajos the Great donated the
properties of Fogaras and Omlás to Vladislav, the Voivode of Havasalföld (Wallachia).
Fogaras and Sebesvár were owned by Mircea cel Bǎtrin. On the basis of the
treaty with king Mátyás, the owner of Csicsóvár and Küküllővár was Stephen
the Great. Later, his successor, Petru Rareş, inherited his possessions.
The Hungarian king János I. (1526‑1540)
donated the entire Beszterce area with the Radna Valley to Petru Rareş, in
addition to the forts of Csicsóvár and Küküllővár. The voivode founded an
Orthodox Episcopacy on his fief at Rév. The Bishops came from Moldavia,
and governed this Church between 1523 and 1561. – The Rumanian Orthodox
Church of Barcarozsnyó (Rum. Rîşnov) was built with the help of the
Wallachian ruler in the 14th century. Mihai Viteazul (Michael the Gallant,
1593‑1601) restored it.
The construction of a stone church began in
Brassó in 1495, with the help of Vlad Cǎlugǎrul, Wallachian Voivode. Between
1519 and 1521, this church was enlarged with the assistance of Neagoe
Basarab. Aron Vodǎ, Moldavian ruler, decorated its walls with frescos in
1594. The building, erected in the courtyard of the church, included the
old Rumanian School. The school building replaced an older wooden
structure, and was built in 1597 with the monetary help of Aron Vodǎ. The
teaching was in Slavonic (the language of the Rumanian Orthodox Church)
before 1559, then it was changed to Rumanian. The building of Rumanian
churches and monasteries continued in Transylvania with the help and
financial assistance of the voivodes of the two Rumanian lands.
Finally, we have to remember that István
Báthory (1533–1586), Transylvanian ruler, founded the Orthodox Episcopacy of
Gyulafehérvár. According to a decree of the Parliament, the bishop was
elected by the Rumanian priests and approved by the ruler. The bishop asked
– after having received the approval of the voivode – the Wallachian
Orthodox bishop of Târgovişte to consecrate
him. After 1577, the Rumanian Orthodox Bishop of Gyulafehérvár named
himself the Orthodox Archbishop of Transylvania. Every Rumanian Orthodox
priest in Transylvania was placed under his authority.
In the light of these historical facts, it
may be stated that the Carpathians did not make pose an obstacle between the
Rumanians living in Moldavia, Wallachia and Transylvania. The present day
community of Rumanian historians tries to forge an argument for the theory
of Vlach continuity in Transylvania from the fact that Rumanian voivodes,
who were in a difficult situation because of the Tatar and later the Turkish
attacks, were helped by the Hungarian kings. Most of the time, this help
included granting of temporary possession of land, in exchange for their
services as vassals of the Hungarian Kingdom, and safe haven in times of
defeats and temporary setbacks. Rumanian historiography dares to elevate
the well documented vassal relationship of the voivodes of the two Rumanian
states and Hungary, that is the Transylvanian vajda-s and the
Hungarian kings, to the level of “political orientation” and “wider trade
relationships”.
It would be enough to mention only one
example to refute this statement. Voivod Mircea cel Bǎtrîn stayed in the
Transylvanian city of Brassó as a refugee on March 7, 1395. He wanted to
make an alliance with his feudal lord, the Hungarian King, Zsigmond of
Luxembourg, against the Turks. He had a place to which to flee, because
the Wallachian voivodes had had access to the fiefs of Fogaras and Omlás
for more than a hundred years. In return for the use of the estates, the
voivodes, as vassals, had to fulfill several services for their masters.
There is no other way to understand this relationship. It is possible that
in retrospect, and by using today’s standards, these centuries of
Hungarian‑Vlach relationship were a painful period in the history of the
Rumanian people, but this cannot constitute the basis or cause for
deliberate falsification of history.
Radu Popa refers to excavations in
Transylvania carried out in 1964‑65 (p. 7.). He states that – although the
written sources do not mention Rumanian semi‑autonomous kenézships and
voivodeships until the 13th, and especially the 14th centuries – in
Máramaros, Fogaras, Bihar, Bánság and Hátszeg, a feudal Rumanian society had
existed. According to Mr. Popa, the objects, discovered in the excavations
gave evidence of Rumanian court chapels, and small monasteries from the 11th
and 12th Centuries. The construction was financed with the money of the
Rumanian kenéz families. In the 13th‑14th centuries, these
buildings were reconstructed in stone and brick like everywhere else in
Europe.
Popa, however, did not give any evidence of
the existence of these church centres in the 11th‑12th centuries. He could
not prove that such buildings had been financed by the Rumanian kenéz
families. He did not have any data about the names of the leaders of the
church centres. He was unable to name a single place where these supposed
11th and12th century chapel or monastery ruins could have been
found, even though he was referring to official documents. If person- and
place names did not exist in those official documents – then what did they
contain?
Popa´s assumptions serve only one goal: to
date back the origin of the cultic places built in Transylvania during the
13th and 14th centuries to the 11th‑12th centuries, from which period there
are no relics of Rumanian origin. He passes over the fiefs and the
senior‑vassal relationship between the Hungarian kings, Transylvanian
vajda-s (later princes), and the Wallachian and Moldavian voivodes.
However, these well documented historical facts – not the alleged Daco‑Rumanian
Continuity – were the reason that the Carpathian Mountain Chain never stood
as a dividing line between the Wallachian, Moldavian and Transylvanian
Rumanians, either from the South or from the East.
The comparison of construction dates of the
Hungarian and Rumanian cultic places presents important evidence against
the Theory of Continuity.
Let us review the construction dates of the
cultic places (churches) in the Transylvanian cities:
(Rumanian place-names in brackets.)
Place:
Hungarian:
Rumanian:
(Catholic)
(Orthodox)
Arad (Arad)
1139
1865
Beszterce (Bistrita)
1288
19th century
Bethlen (Beclean)
15th century
19th century
Bonchida (Bontida)
13th century
18-19th cent.
Brassó (Braşov)*
1223
1495
Fogaras (Fǎgǎraş)
16th century
17th century
Fugyivásárhely (Oşorheiu) 13th century
18th century
Gyulafehérvár (Alba‑Iulia) 11th
century
1600‑1601
Kolozsvár (Cluj-Napoca)
12th century
1796‑1797
Lugos (Lugoj)
15th century
1759
Marosvásárhely
14th century
1750
(Tîrgu‑Mureş)
Nagyenyed (Aiud)
14th century
20th century
Nagyszeben (Sibiu)
12th century
17th century
Nagyvárad (Oradea)
1093
1784
Piskolt (Pişcolt)
14th century
1869
Temesvár (Timişoara)
1323
1936
Tövis (Teiuş)
13th century
17th century
Vizakna (Ocna Sibiului)*
13th century
16th century
Note:
the churches marked with * were
built by Moldavian or Wallachian voivodes
as vassals of the Hungarian King on their feudal lands in
Transylvania.
Several Other ancient Hungarian Church
Constructions:
Place:
Built in:
Alvinc (Vinţu de Jos)
13th century
Aranyosgerend (Luncani)
1290
Árapatak (Araci)
14th century
Boroskrakkó (Cricǎu)
13th century
Bögöz (Mugeni)
13th century
Csíkménaság (Armǎşeni) 13th
century
Érmihályfalva (Valea lui Mihai)
1284
Gelence (Ghelinţa)
1245
Gernyeszeg (Gorneşti)
13th century
Kerc (Cîrţa)
1202
Kisdisznód (Cisnǎdoara) 12th
century
Kistorony (Turnişor)
13th century
Kolozsmonostor (Mǎnǎştur) 1059‑1063
Magyarvista (Viştea)
13th century
Marosnagylak (Noşlac)
1298
Nagycsűr (Şura Mare)
13th century
Nagydisznód (Cisnǎdie) 13th
century
Réty (Reci)
11th century
Székelyszáldobos (Doboşeni) 13th
century
Torda (Turda)
12th century
Vadász (Vînǎtori)
13th century
Other
Rumanian Church Constructions in Transylvania:
Place Name
Built in:
Alsolugas (Lugaşu de Jos) 18th
century
Bánlaka (Banlaca)
1700
Demsus (Densuş)
13th century
Füzesmikola (Nicula)
1700
Kristyor (Criştior)
1404
Lesznek (Lesnic)
14th century
Lippa (Lipova)
14th century
Nagylupsa (Lupşa)
1421
Oravicabánya (Oraviţa)
1872
Pártos (Partoş)
14th century
Ribica (Ribiţa)
1417
Szelistye (Sǎlişte)
18th century
Sztrigyszentgyörgy (Streisînghergiu) 1313
Zeykfalva (Streiu)
13th century
It is interesting to see when the Rumanian
churches of Havasalföld (Wallachia)
and Moldavia were built.
HAVASALFÖLD (WALLACHIA)
Place Name
Cultic Place Built in
Buzǎu
Episcopal church 1500
Cǎciulata
Cozia‑monastery 1388
Cîmpulung Muscel Negru Voda
monastery 14th century
Curtea de Argeş ruler's
church 14th century
Horezu
Varatec monastery 17th century
Piteşti
ruler's church 17th
century
Rîmnicul Sǎrat monastery‑church
1691
Snagov
Snagov monastery 14th century
Tismana
monastery
14th century
Tîrgovişte
ruler's church 15th
century
MOLDAVIA
Place Name
Cultic Place Built
in
Arbore
church
16th century
Bacǎu
church
15th century
Cotnari
church (ruins)
15th century
Dolheştii Mari
church
1450
Galaţi
fortified church 15th century
Hîrlǎu
church
1492
Iaşi
church
1495
Piaţra
St. János church 1498
Probota
monastery
16th. century
Putna
monastery
1466‑1470
Rǎdǎuţi (Bukovina) church
14th century
Siret
church
1384
Suceviţa
church
1584
Vaslui
church
1490
Vînǎtor Neamţ
monastery
1375
Voroneţ
monastery‑church 1488
On the basis of these data, it can be
concluded that the Hungarian Christian churches (monasteries, abbacies)
appeared at the beginning of the 11th century in Transylvania. The first
church of the Rumanian population – the one in Demsus – was built towards
the end of the 13th century, almost three hundred years after the first
Hungarian churches that is, after the Magyar homecoming.
The oldest Wallachian and Moldavian
Christian churches (monasteries) were built in the second half of the 14th
century. Numerous structures, however, did not follow the first church
buildings until the second half of the 15th, and later centuries. This
leads to the conclusion that the Vlachs, infiltrating Transylvania at the
end of the 12th century and at the beginning of the 13th century, lived
under better, more advanced conditions than those of their brothers living
on the northern shore of the Danube. This is also in accordance with the
fact that the Vlachs founded their states several centuries later than the
neighboring peoples.
Referring to the history of the
Transylvanian Christian cultic places, we have only pointed out the
circumstances that are enough to prove the untenability of the Theory of
Continuity. We do not desire to praise or to disparage anyone or anything.
We only want to state and prove that those, who consider Hungarians to be
later arrivals, have proclaimed war upon the historical facts. Our work
proves that the Hungarians made Transylvania theirs on their own. They
fused the people they found there with themselves. We support the belief
that Saint Stephen was an outstanding ruler. According to the opinion of
his times, as well as judged by present day standards, he was a European
authority and an apostle of Christianity. He was the first European ruler
canonized by the Roman‑Catholic Church.
The Theory of Daco‑Roman Continuity is
untenable and baseless, among other things, because it ignores the basic and
decisive question of Christian cultic places in the 10th‑12th centuries.
Using the construction dates of the
Christian cultic places, the existence, or the lack of them, we wanted to
prove the falsehood of such doctrines. These doctrines, born of political
considerations, show a totally misconceived idea of the ethnic picture of
the Carpathian Basin in the first half of the 10th century. “...they revise
the Carpathian Basin's political and ethnical relationships in the 10th
century by false data and basic errors.”[71] The romantic legend of the
Daco‑Roman‑Rumanian Continuity serves only political purposes without any
scientifically acceptable proof.
REFERENCES
61. Domokos, Pál
Péter: op. cit. p. 60.
62. Popa, Radu:
op. cit. p.7.
63. Dianu, Romulus:
Transilvania eterna. Transilvania, 80/8, p. 61.
64. Dianu, Romulus:
op. cit. p.60
65. Pauler, Gyula:
op. cit. Vol. II. p. 357.
66. Bellér, Béla:
Nagy Lajos és a pápaság. (Louis the Great and the Papacy.) Vigilia, Vol. 49, 1.,
p. 7.
67. B. Nagy, Margit:
Várak, kastélyok, udvarházak, ahogy a régiek látták. (Fortresses, castles,
manor-houses, as Seen by our Ancestors.)
Kriterion Könyvkiadó, Bukarest, 1973, p. 20.
68. Biró, Sándor: op.
cit. p. 19.
69. Biró Sándor: op.
cit. p. 27.
70. Biró, Sándor: op.
cit. p. 53.
71. Kristó, Gyula:
op. cit. p.64.