Roumania Past and Present
J >> James Samuelson >> Roumania Past and PresentPages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27
Down to this period (the middle of the fourteenth century) we have been
necessarily compelled to speak loosely of the territories which were
overrun and held by the various barbarian races, for there is no clear
information concerning the limits of their occupation; but henceforward
our record will deal chiefly with Roumania as at present constituted.
The Wallacho-Bulgarian monarchy, whatever may have been its limits, was
annihilated by a horde of Tartars about A.D. 1250. The same
race committed great havoc in Hungary, conquered the Kumani, overran
Moldavia, Transylvania, &c., and held their ground there until about the
middle of the fourteenth century, when they were driven northward by the
Hungarian, Saxon, and other settlers in Transylvania; and with their
exit we have done with the barbarians.
[Footnote 126: He calls himself 'Calojohannes Imperator Blacorum et
Bulgarorum,' which Lauriani translates 'Kaiser der _Romaenen_ und
Bulgaren,' Emperor of the Roumanians, &c. In this and the preceding
letter the reader has illustrations of the bias which weakens the
evidence of alleged facts in Roumanian history. Those writers who are
unwilling to concede Roman descent to the people make no mention of such
expressions as that used by Innocent concerning their ancestry, whilst
the patriotic native historians use license in translation in order to
improve their position.]
[Footnote 127: In the Bull they are called 'Imperatores totius
Bulgariae,' which Lauriani (p. 56) unfairly translates 'Die Kaiser von
ganz Bulgarien und Romaenien' (Emperors of all Bulgaria _and
Roumania!_).]
CHAPTER XI.
FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE PRINCIPALITIES, BETWEEN THE MIDDLE OF THE
THIRTEENTH AND OF THE FOURTEENTH CENTURIES TO THE ACCESSION OF MICHAEL
THE BRAVE, A.D. 1593.
State of the country at, the close of the barbarian era--Foundation
of the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia--Traditions of Radu
Negru and Bogdan Dragosch--Historical evidence--Description of the
various rulerships in Wallachia in the thirteenth century--The
clans Liteanu and Bassarab--Mircea the Old--His history--The First
Capitulation (1393)--Character of Mircea--- Verses in his memory by
Bolentineanu (1826-1872)--John Corvin von Hunniad, Prince of
Transylvania--His history, character, and exploits--Vlad 'the
Impaler'--His cruelties--Capitulates to the Turks (1460
A.D.)--Moldavia--Its founders--Obscurity of
records--Stephen the Great--His history--His flight to
Niamtz--Verses by Bolentineanu--Recommends his son to capitulate to
the Turks--His character--Neagu Bassarab, founder of the Cathedral
of Curtea d'Ardges--His peaceful reign and works--- Radul
d'Affumati completes the cathedral--His death--Turkish
encroachments--Michael the Brave.
I.
When the title of barbarian immigration was ebbing in the Danubian
Principalities, it is natural to suppose that there must have remained a
very mixed population; and that, owing to the necessity for defence
against such ruthless invaders as we have described in our last chapter,
the inhabitants would congregate in various places under their ablest
leaders, and would fortify themselves in the best manner possible. This
was indeed the case, but until recently the historians of Roumania have
had little to guide them concerning the events of the period beyond
traditions which, though very interesting, are now gradually giving
place to recorded and authenticated facts.
Almost any history of the country which it is possible to find to-day,
narrates the rise of the Principalities after the following fashion: The
Daco-Roman colonists, historians say, fled into the Carpathian mountains
before the Goths and Huns, and for nearly a thousand years they retained
their nationality, from time to time making descents into the plains
from one or other colony which they had established, always, however, to
find new hordes of barbarians in possession. At length, when the great
wave of barbarism had subsided, one Radu Negru, whose name is translated
Rudolph the Black, the chief of the Daco-Roman colony of Fogaras in the
Carpathians, descended into the plains with his followers, according to
some writers in 1240 A.D., whilst others say in 1290, and,
first fixing his capital at Campu-Lung, and then moving it to Curtea
d'Ardges, where he built a beautiful cathedral, drove out the barbarians
who remained in Wallachia, and became the first Voivode of that
province. This is the tradition of the foundation of Wallachia.
About the same time, we are told, there dwelt in another part of the
mountains, to the west of Fogaras, a colony of Daco-Roman descendants,
namely, that of Marmaros or Maramurish, ruled over by one Bogdan, or
Dragosch. This chief, as the story runs, was once out hunting the
aurochs with a large following, accompanied by his dog Molda, and being
arrived in a beautiful country through which flowed a pretty stream, he
determined to settle there, called the river the Moldava, built a city
which he named Roman, reduced the inhabitants and their chiefs to
submission, and became the first Voivode of Moldavia.
Of late years these traditions have been subjected to the searching
light of criticism, sharpened in some cases by national or political
tendencies, and whilst the story of Radu Negru has fallen into
discredit, that of Bogdan has undergone considerable modification. The
very names of the heroes have been canvassed, and Radu, instead of
Rudolph, has been shown to mean 'joy' (as Bogdan Dragosch was the
God-given'), so that, instead of Radu Negru, we now sometimes meet with
the name of Negru Voda, or 'the Black Prince,' who, according to the
traditions of some parts of the country, is still believed to have
descended from the Carpathians, and to have freed the land from the
Tartar hordes.
II.
Thus far tradition. Roumania possesses no historical records of the
period, but the discovery of manuscripts in Hungary, Poland, and
elsewhere, has established certain facts that are beginning to serve as
a solid foundation upon which the early history of the country is being
based.
First, it is admitted that the plains and the slopes of the Carpathians
were inhabited by communities ruled over by chieftains of varying power
and influence. Some were banates, as that of Craiova, which long
remained a semi-independent State; then there were petty voivodes or
princes, as the Princes of Zevrin or Severin, Farcas, Seneslas, &c.; and
besides these there were khanates, called in French _kinezats_, and in
German _knesenschaften_ (from the Slav. _kniaz_, a prince), some of
which were petty principalities, whilst others were merely the
governorships of villages or groups of them. These are only a few of the
small rulerships, which are every day multiplied as the State records of
the neighbouring countries are being more and more carefully
investigated.
The names of prominent chieftains, too, are becoming clearer in the
obscurity of the period. In or about 1285 a Prince Liteanu conquered and
united three Wallachian principalities, and declared himself independent
of the crown of Hungary, which claimed suzerainty over the western part
of Wallachia. He was attacked by the Magyars under George Sowar, and
slain in battle, while his brother was taken prisoner and executed. Some
of the successors of this prince were more fortunate, and one of them,
Tugomir, succeeded for a time in securing his independence. The clan
_Bassarab_ was mentioned at even an earlier period, a ban of that name
having resisted the Tartars. Much confusion exists as to the origin of
this clan, and whilst some writers call Tugomir (just referred to) by
that name, others confound him with the Negru Voda of tradition.
Whatever may be the obscurity, however, in which their rise is buried,
it is certain that the Bassarab family gave many princes and rulers to
Wallachia, and, after intermarrying with other members of the ruling
classes, only became extinct about the year 1685.
In the mountains the state of affairs was somewhat different. There, no
doubt from their greater proximity to the centre of Magyar rule, the tie
between the petty princes and the Hungarian crown seems to have been
closer, and whilst some writers affirm that the Wallachs (or Roumanians,
as their countrymen like to call them) enjoyed privileges amounting to a
quasi-independence, the Austrian chroniclers maintain that they were
mere vassal retainers of the Court of Hungary. So, for example, they say
that Bogdan, ruler of Marmaros, broke his allegiance to the King Louis
of Hungary, and about 1359 descended, with a largo body of Wallachian
followers, amongst whom were his sons, into the lower lands of what was
already called Moldavia, and took possession of the country.[128]
Shaking ourselves free as far as possible from controversial questions,
we may state with safety, in regard to Wallachia, that for more than a
century after the wave of barbarian immigration had ceased to flow over
it, it resembled the condition of Independent Tartary of to-day; that
the number of its petty princes gradually diminished, one of them,
Vladislav Bassarab, having at length secured a great portion of the
country under his rule, and almost, if not completely, shaken off the
Hungarian yoke (1350-1376), until, under the reign of Mircea the Old
(1386-1418), a new enemy, the Turks, so far obtained the ascendency over
the country as to acquire permanent rights of suzerainty.
[Footnote 128: For the details of this controversy the reader is
referred to the recently published pages of Roesler and Pic, the first
an Austrian and the second a Slav writer.]
III.
Mircea, one of the heroes of Roumanian history, not only secured the
independent sovereignty, and called himself Voivode of Wallachia 'by
the grace of God,' but in 1389 he formed an alliance with Poland, and
assumed other titles by the right of conquest.[129] This alliance was
offensive and defensive with Vladislav Jagello, the reigning king, and
had for its objects the extension of his dominions, as well as
protection against Hungary on the one hand, and the Ottoman power on the
other; for the Turks, who during the fourteenth century had been waging
war with varying success against the Eastern Empire, were now rapidly
approaching Wallachian territory. Although Constantinople did not come
into their possession until the following century, Adrianople had
already fallen, the Turkish armies had overrun Bulgaria, and about the
year 1391 they first made their appearance north of the Danube.
At first the bravery of Mircea was successful in stemming the tide of
invasion. The reigning Sultan was Amaruth II., who sent an army against
him under the command of Sisman, Prince of Bulgaria, a renegade who had
married the daughter of the Sultan, and had taken the offensive against
the Christians; but he was signally defeated, and for a brief period
Wallachia continued to enjoy her independence. A year or two afterwards
Bajazet II., the successor of Amaruth, resumed the offensive, and this
time, finding himself between two powerful enemies, the King of Hungary
and the Sultan, Mircea elected to form an alliance with the latter, and
concluded a treaty with him at Nicopolis (1393), known as the 'First
Capitulation,' by which Wallachia retained its autonomy, but agreed to
pay an annual tribute and to acknowledge the suzerainty of the
Sultan.[130] This treaty is dated 1392; but according to several
historians Mircea did not adhere to it long, for he is said to have been
in command of a contingent in the army of the crusaders, and to have
been present at the battle of Nicopolis (1396), in which the flower of
the French nobility fell, and, when he found their cause to be hopeless,
once more to have deserted them and joined the victorious arms of
Bajazet.
Of the continued wars and dissensions in Wallachia, during the reign of
Mircea it is unnecessary to speak. He ruled with varying fortunes until
1418 A.D., and there is no doubt that the State was much better
organised for defence, although his wars entailed great misery upon the
peasantry. It is clear, not only from the Treaty of Nicopolis, but from
other records, that the general condition of the country somewhat
resembled that of England in the Saxon period. The prince was elected by
the boyards,[131] or barons spiritual and temporal, and by the nation
(probably through representatives), and there was a general Council of
State. There were probably freemen and serfs, although some writers
maintain that there was perfect equality until after Mircea's wars
commenced; then it is universally admitted that absolute slavery
existed.
It has been said that Mircea kept a standing army of about 18,000 foot
and 17,000 cavalry; but whether that was so or not, he certainly
maintained a force sufficiently well organised to cope with his powerful
adversaries the Turks and the Hungarians.[132] That these latter were
still a fierce and untamed race is very probable, as were, no doubt, the
followers of Mircea, and they committed ravages by their inroads, which
have caused modern writers to class them with the barbarians whose rule
had ceased. Whatever may have been his faults and vices (and his
desertion of the Christians at Nicopolis, and the number of illegitimate
children left by him, prove that he had both), his patriotism and
courage endeared him to posterity, and his deeds are commemorated in
the national poems of the present century. Here is a graphic picture of
MIRCEA IN BATTLE.
By D. BOLENTINEANU (1826-1872).
Countless hosts of Magyars desolate the lands,
E'en the sun in terror sees their roving bands;
But the aged Mircea, firm and undismayed,
With his braves, a handful, meets the furious raid.
Knows, full well, to save the homestead's all but vain,
Calmly still determines duty to maintain.
Ah! the days of heroes surely now are fled,
When, at duty's summons, Roumains nobly bled!
Speaks the hoary chieftain: 'Hearken, brothers all,
'Tis the will of God, as Roumain I should fall.'
Dedicate thy life-blood, saviour of a nation;
'Tis a puny flamelet in a conflagration.
What is one poor lifetime in th' eternal day?
'Tis a single blossom in a gorgeous May.
Ere the noble falcon to the Jaeger yields,
Casts he nest and offspring down into the fields.
Ere our arms or ankles should be locked in chains,
Lot us fall as heroes, die as free Roumains.
Ah! the days of heroes surely now are fled,
When, at duty's summons, Roumains nobly bled.
[Footnote 129: His full title was 'Mircea, D.G. Voivode of Wallachia,
Duke of Fogaras and Omlas, Count of Severin, Despot of the lands of
Dobrudscha and Silistria,' and, making allowance for the exaggerations
of a conqueror, it is clear that he must have ruled over an extended
territory.]
[Footnote 130: The substance of this treaty, which was reaffirmed in
later ones, will be found in Appendix II., with some data concerning its
history, for which, along with much other valuable information, we are
indebted to Prince Jon Ghika, the Roumanian Ambassador at St. James's,
and to Mr. White, our own Minister at Bucarest.]
[Footnote 131: The word 'boyard' originally meant soldier or warrior.]
[Footnote 132: One of his corps of cavalry were called 'Scutelnici' (or
substitutes), a term which we shall find applied to government serfs
later on; and Vaillant (vol. i. p. 185) says the term 'scutage' in
England was derived from the same source (_scutum_, a shield).]
IV.
Before referring to the events which were passing in Moldavia during the
period, it may not be out of place to say a few words here concerning
another hero, who, although he ruled in Transylvania, was a Wallachian
by birth, led the Wallachian armies against the Turks, and for a time
succeeded in checking their advance in Europe. This was John Corvinus,
as he is known to English readers, or, more correctly, Johann Corvin von
Hunniad, Prince of Siebenbuergen, who was born about the year 1368 in the
village of Corvin, in the Wallachian Carpathians. His father was a
Wallachian, some say of ancient family, and his mother a Greek, to whom
also a high ancestry is attributed. As his history was written by
flatterers in order to gain the favour of his son and successor, these
statements as to his high ancestry must be taken _cum grano salis_.
Johann was at first the captain of a small party of adventurers, having
served, as was the custom in those days, with a troop of twelve horse,
first under Demetrius, Bishop of Agram, and then for two years in Italy
under Philip, Duke of Milan. There he met Sigismund, King of Hungary,
who induced him to join his standard, and, as a reward for his services,
conferred upon him the estate of Hunnyades, from which he took his name.
Subsequently he rose from post to post, until he was appointed Viceroy
of Siebenbuergen (Transylvania), and eventually Regent of Hungary. In the
former capacity he formed an alliance against the Turks (about 1443)
with Vladislaus, King of Poland and Hungary,[133] and Vlad, Voivode of
Wallachia, and under his leadership the Christian armies frequently
encountered the Ottomans, notably on three occasions--at Varna under
Amaruth II. (1444) and Cossova (1448), in both of which encounters the
allies were defeated, and finally at Belgrade (1456), where the Turks
were completely routed. Various and conflicting accounts have been given
of these battles, and of Hunniades's conduct during the encounters. At
Varna, where Vladislaus was killed, the Poles charged Hunniades with
cowardice; but the facts are probably that he defeated the right wing of
the Turks, but that the temerity of Vladislaus caused the defeat of the
army and his own death. The same charge was brought against him by the
Poles in regard to the defeat at Cossova, but from his known bravery it
was no doubt equally groundless. At Belgrade the city was completely
invested by the Turks; but at the head of an undisciplined army
Hunniades forced his way into the city, and by a subsequent sally, in
which the Sultan Mohammed was wounded, he compelled the Turks to raise
the siege and withdraw in confusion. John Hunniades died in the same
year, and his son Matthias was elected to the crown of Hungary, over
which country he ruled for more than thirty years.
The character of John Hunniades is well worth a brief consideration. As
we have said, he was charged with cowardice by his Polish allies, but by
the Turks he was so dreaded that they gave him the name of the Devil,
and used it to frighten their children when they misbehaved themselves.
Many anecdotes, of which the following is one, are related of his
personal courage. After the battle of Cossova, whilst fleeing alone
through the Carpathians, he was captured by two brigands, who deprived
him of his arms. The cupidity of these men was aroused by a splendid
gold chain which he wore, and one of them snatched it from his neck.
Presently, however, forgetting the maxim that there is honour even
amongst thieves, the two bandits began wrangling for the possession of
the booty, and whilst they were so occupied Hunniades managed to recover
his sword, and, engaging them in fight, he ran one through the body,
whereupon the other fled.
If his biographers are to be believed, he must have been a remarkable
man. 'As fishes are used to the water,' says one, 'as the deer to the
forest glade, so was he adapted for the bearing of arms, a born leader
of warriors, and the field of battle was his life-element.' The nobility
of his bearing, another says, and his winning manner enabled him to
secure the affection of his soldiers, whilst his readiness to serve, his
piety and benevolence, and his shrewd policy, gained for him the
confidence of his superiors, the leadership of armies, and the highest
offices of the State. At his death he was universally mourned. Pope
Nicholas ordered the cardinals to perform a magnificent _requiem_ in his
memory, as the pious and successful defender of the Christian religion.
Even the Sultan Mohammed, whom he had just defeated--when George, Despot
of Servia, brought him what he thought would be the gratifying news of
the prince's death--lowered his head, and, after a long silence,
exclaimed, 'There never was, under any ruler, such a man since the
beginning of the world.'
As we have said, the Turks were so much afraid of Hunniades that they
are said to have given him the name of 'the Devil;' but the same
designation, as well as that of the Impaler, has also been bestowed upon
Vlad, a voivode of Wallachia, who was probably the ally of Hunniades,
and who, if one-tenth of what has been related of him be true, has a
much better claim to the title. He is represented to have been one of
the most atrocious and cruel tyrants who ever disgraced even those dark
ages. One day he massacred 500 boyards who were dissatisfied with his
rule. The torture of men, women, and children, seems to have been his
delight. Certain Turkish envoys, when admitted into his presence,
refused to remove their turbans, whereupon he had them nailed to their
heads. He burned 400 missionaries and impaled 500 gipsies to secure
their property. In order to strike terror into Mohammed II. he crossed
over into Bulgaria, defeated the Turks, and brought back with him 25,000
prisoners, men, women, and children, whom he is said to have impaled
upon a large plain called Praelatu. Notwithstanding his successes,
however, Vlad was at length compelled to submit to the Turkish rule, and
he concluded the 'Second Capitulation' at Adrianople (1460), in which
the tribute to the Porte was increased, but no other important change
was made in the terms of suzerainty.[134]
[Footnote 133: The two crowns had been united under him.]
[Footnote 134: To show what uncertainty hangs over the history of this
man, and in fact of the whole period, it may be mentioned that Neigebaur
and other writers make this treaty to have been signed between Vlad II.
and Mohammed III., who reigned 135 years later, whilst French writers
state that it was between Vlad V. and Mohammed II.; but they all agreed
as to the date 1460. Henke calls him Vlad III. He was universally named
the Impaler in consequence of a practice which is well known to our
readers through the so-called Bulgarian atrocities. A sharpened pole was
forced into the body of the victim, and the other end was then driven
into the earth, the unfortunate man, woman, or child being left to
writhe in agony until relieved by death.]
V.
For a century after the foundation of _Moldavia_, or, as it was at first
called, 'Bogdania,' by Bogdan Dragosch, the history of the country is
shrouded in darkness. Kings or princes are named, one or more of whom
were Lithuanians; two or three Bogdans, Theodor Laseu, Jurgo
Kuriotovich, Peter, Stephen, Roman, Alexander, &c., and some of them are
said to have been dethroned and to have reigned twice and even three
times, until at length a prince more powerful than the rest ascended the
throne, and by the prowess of his arms succeeded in establishing his
name and fame in history. This was Stephen, sometimes called the 'Great'
or 'Good,' but whether he deserved the latter title the reader will be
best able to judge for himself.
He came to the throne about 1456 or 1458, and reigned until 1504, and
his whole life was spent in wars against Transylvania, Wallachia (which
he at one time overran and annexed to Moldavia), the Turks, and Tartars.
Considered in conjunction with the acts of Hunniades and Vlad the
Impaler, those of Stephen present a tolerably faithful picture of the
condition of Roumania in the fifteenth century. We shall therefore ask
the reader to bear with us whilst we hurry through the leading events of
his life. Five years after he came to the throne, Stephen overran
Transylvania. In 1465 he married Eudoxia, a Byzantine princess, and two
years afterwards we find him at war with Matthias of Hungary (the son of
John Corvinus), by whom he was defeated at Baja. Between that time and
1473 he once, if not twice, defeated Radu (the brother of Vlad the
Impaler), King of Wallachia, and in 1475 he was at war with the Turks,
whom he defeated on the river Birlad, between Barnaba, and Racovica.
This battle he is said to have won by stratagem. He concealed a number
of men in a neighbouring wood, and when the battle was at its height
they were ordered to commence playing various instruments as though
another force were approaching, and this created such a panic amongst
the Ottomans that they gave way and fled precipitately, followed by
Stephen, who put many to the sword. In that year also Stephen again
defeated Radu and completely overran Wallachia. Having reduced it to
submission, he placed a native boyard on the throne as his viceroy, who
showed his gratitude to Stephen by rebelling and liberating the country
from his rule; but he was in his turn murdered by his Wallachian
subjects. In 1476 Stephen sustained a terrible defeat at the hands of
the Ottomans at Valea Alba (the White Valley), but eight years
afterwards, allied with the Poles, he again encountered this terrible
enemy. His army was at first forced to give way, and he is said to have
fled for refuge to Niamtz, where he had a castle, but his mother refused
him admission and bade him return to his army. Here is the story, with
its sequel, as it is told by the poet who has already once been quoted
(Bolentineanu):--