|Stefan Pascu: A History of Transylvania|
Pascu, p. 73:
THE LATE MIDDLE AGES (pp. 73 - 95)
[In the 14th to the 16th centuries, Transylvania] became an increasingly autonomous element in the Hungarian kingdom, through the consolidation of its own political and administrative institutions and because of its role in blocking the expansion of the Ottoman Empire.
Transylvanian autonomy was manifested primarily in the consolidation of the voivodate.
Pascu describes the history of Transylvania from the period of the Dacians on as if it had been an autonomous unity, on the basis of the Roman and Dacian, later Daco-Roman and Rumanian people and the traditions and political institutions of these "autochthonous populations". This is totally wrong: there are no reports about Daco-Romans and archaeological finds, in any case after the 3rd century A.D., do not indicate the existence of such a population. From the 10th century on, Transylvania was populated by Hungarians and belonged to the kingdom of Hungary. As was shown above, the Rumanians appeared there in the 13th century.
Until this point, Pascu's way of presenting events and circumstances resulted in a totally distorted description of history: the arguments for the existence and continuity of "Daco-Romans" are by far not sufficient and an analysis of all relevant facts excludes this theory. (Moreover, there are also circumstances which indicate where the Rumanian language and people developed.) The theories about a Rumanian population in Transylvania before the 13th century do not stand up for a critical analysis in the light of available documents, as well as of the river- and placenames. These theories are mainly constructed by projecting the situation in the 14th - 16th centuries back three to four centuries earlier. Here, there was no question of "interpreting" the past, since this notion implies some truth left, even if interpreted in a subjective way.
From the 14th century on, Pascu's selective presentation gives also, in general, a false picture of the history of Transylvania, although it is now possible to apply Roberts' statement: "the historian is the organizer and interpreter of the past, not merely its recorder" (Paul E. Michelson, in the Foreword to Pascu's History of Transylvania, p. XI).
If a history textbook from the former Czechoslovakia writes a half sentence about János Hunyadi, who "temporarily stopped the Turkish conquest of Hungary," 113 this is not wrong, although it may scarcely be considered good history-writing. Similarly, if Pascu re-iterates in this chapter several times the "increasing autonomy" of Transylvania, this is not false, but Pascu's description is still misleading since he suggests that the causes of this are to be sought in the Rumanian - different from the Hungarians - population of the territory.
The princes of Transylvania were assigned by the Hungarian king, and were mainly Hungarians - as it appears also from the enumeration of the names of several princes from that period: Toma Széchenyi, the Lackfis, the Csákis, Ladislaus of Losoncz (Pascu, pp. 73 - 74). They were most of the time the son of the king or noblemen from Hungary west of Transylvania, who had their estates in central or western Hungary and some of them also stayed mostly outside Transylvania (in such cases, the vice-voivode ruled there).
In 1442, when Iancu of Hunedoara, the son of a family of Romanian knezi from southern Transylvania, ascended to the position of voivode, the country was in a unique position. It constituted a kind of center of gravity for Tara Româneasca and Moldavia in their efforts to create a powerful anti-Ottoman bloc.
The origin of the family of Johannes Hunyad or Johan Hunyad - to use the name which appears in a German text given by Pascu on p. 79 - is not entirely clear. According to certain sources, the oldest known members were the Serbian princes (cnez-es) Radoslav and Serb who, as many of the other cnez-es, were settling Rumanians into Hungarian territory. 114 His father, Vojk, was a knight in the court of the Hungarian king Sigismund, who gave him in 1409 the castle of Hunyad in south-western Transylvania, as a recognition for his services and his bravity. Vojk's wife, the mother of Johannes (János), was a Hungarian woman and János was their first son. He was for a short time the captain of Ujlaki, the ban of Macsó, and served as a soldier on the estates in southern Hungary of the Serbian reigning prince Brankovic. In 1428, he became the knight of king Sigismund and married Horogszegi Szilágyi Erzsébet, whose father was his colleague in the service of prince Brankovic. In 1433, he followed king Sigismund to Italy and stayed with him until the death of the king in 1437. 115 In 1439, king Albert made him the ban (local ruler) of Szörény (Severin), and under the next king, Ladislaus I (I. Ulászló), he became the captain of Nándorfehérvár (today Belgrade) and in 1440, the voivod of Transylvania.
The year after the loss [at Varna in 1444], Iancu's alliance turned defeat into a fine victory, again with support by Tara Româneasca. It is therefore not surprising that this great military leader overcame the opposition of the Hungarian nobility and was chosen governor of Hungary, establishing himself as the true ruler of the Hungarian kingdom.
János Hunyadi fought several battles with the Turks and after the battle at Varna (1444), he was elected member of the Hungarian government of seven men. He was extremely popular in the entire Hungary, and among all social classes, and also abroad, especially in the Balkan peninsula. After the lost battle with the Turks at Varna on November 10th, 1444, when king Ladislaus (Ulászló) died in the plague, Hunyadi was forced to flee. He reached Muntenia, and was put into prison by the voivode Vlad Dracul. Only after the Hungarian noble order threatened Vlad Dracul with war did he release Hunyadi. 116 In 1446, László, the son of king Albert, was elected the Hungarian king, and because he was only a child, Hunyadi was appointed governor until the king had reached his majority. Hunyadi drove away voivode Vlad Dracul and made Dan to voivode. Dracul then attacked, with Turkish assistance, voivode Dan, but Hunyadi defended him successfully. However, voivode Dan did not show worthy of Hunyadi's confidence: in 1448, Hunyadi started another Balkan offensive against the Turks, but was defeated, because of the treason of voivode Dan, at Kosovo Polje.
It is obvious that the assertion: Hunyadi "overcame the opposition of the Hungarian nobility" gives a fundamentally false picture of János Hunyadi. He was "the idol of the Hungarian middle nobility." 117 He was a Hungarian leader and hero, whose main concern was to secure his country, Hungary, from the attacks of the Turks. The core of his army were always the Transylvanian Hungarian and Szekler soldiers. The Serbian historical songs call him Szibinyányi Jánk (in Hungarian spelling) or Johan the Szekler; and also the popular legends of Moldavia (Moldova) use this name. In the Arumanian historical songs he is called Iencio Ungurul (John the Hungarian) as well as Iencio Secuiul (John
Map 8. - The estates of János Hunyadi in 1456. (From J. Held, "Hunyadi János pályája" [The Vocation of János Hunyadi], in História [History], Budapest, XV, 1, 1993, p. 14.) the Szekler). 118
He was also one of those Hungarian nobles who possessed the largest number of castles and estates. In 1446, his private possessions in Hungary amounted to 28 castles and fortresses, 57 towns, about one thousand villages and 2.354.000 hectares of land. Most of this was east of the river Tisza (Theiss) and in Transylvania 119 (see map 8). He used this enormous wealth to the maintenance of an army, providing a significant part of the material necessities in the fight against the Turks.
The description given by Pascu about the policy of János Hunyadi and the fight against the Turks in the 15th century (pp. 75 - 78) is extremely subjective. The presentation of Hunyadi as a Rumanian hero whose aim was to achieve a unity of Transylvania, Muntenia and Moldavia, is baseless and anachronistic.
Under Iancu's leadership, a much closer unity was forged among the three Romanian countries, since he in fact controlled them.
[about János Hunyadi's successfull fight against the Turks in 1456.]
thanks to the support of the great masses of peasants, Romanian knezi, burghers, and petty nobles and to the fact that the clear object of the struggle was to defend and strengthen the cooperation among the peoples of southeastern Europe and the interrelations of the three Romanian lands.
The expression "the three Romanian lands", of which one is Transylvania, is often used by Pascu. This is wrong. Transylvania was in the period in question not a Rumanian land. It was not Rumanian, neither legally: it was part of the Hungarian kingdom and was ruled by lords chosen by the Hungarian kings; nor historically: as we have seen, before the 13th century, there is no evidence whatsoever of any Rumanian settlement there, and even from that century, only three Rumanian villages are known. It was not Rumanian as regards its population: this was mainly Hungarian (including the Szeklers) and German; the Rumanians were, although increasing in numbers, in the minority. If one asks when the number of the Rumanians reached that of the other nationalities together (i.e., 50% of the population), this was around the year 1700. However, this does not imply that the territory was then a "Rumanian land." Transylvania was and is also today, with a Rumanian majority, a territory in which different ethnic and linguistic groups are living, as in so many areas in southeastern Europe.
János Hunyadi controlled the voivodes of Muntenia and Moldavia, as did the Hungarian kings since they organized their territories in the 13th century, - they were in other words the vassals of the Hungarian king. These voivodes have, of course, wanted to become independent and had to balance between three powers: Hungary, Poland, and the expanding Turkish Empire. On many occasions, they fought together with the Turks against Hungary. In 1438, an army of Turks, Rumanians and Serbs attacked Transylvania across the Iron Gate, and their leader was Vlad Dracul, voivode of Muntenia. They plundered and devastated Szászsebes (Rumanian Orastie), Gyulafehérvár (Alba Iulia) and Küküllovár (Cetatea de Balta) and left, according to contemporary sources, with 70.000 prisoners. 120 As mentioned above, p. 76, János Hunyadi was in 1444 put into prison by Vlad Dracul, and in 1448, the Turks won the battle at Kosovo Polje, to a large extent because of the treason of voivode Dan of Muntenia. At the beginning of the rule of king Mathias, Vlad Tepes made a raid into the Barcaság (Rumanian Tara Bârsei), devastating also the suburbs of Brassó (Rumanian Brasov). He believed that the Saxons were hiding a pretender of his voivodate; it was on this occasion that he ordered a number of Saxons be impaled in front of a church, while he ate breakfast. 121 Pascu does not mention this, although the event is shown on the jacket illustration of his book: "Vlad the Impaler at breakfast, surrounded by spiked burghers. A Strasbourg woodcut of 1500."- Another cause of this incursion was probably that Tepes wanted to punish the Saxon merchants of Sibiu and Brasov who did not respect his orders to restrict their trade in the peripheric marketplaces. The aim of this order was, of course, to protect the interests of the Muntenian merchants. 122
Vlad Tepes was destituted by the boyars surrounding him, because of his extreme cruelty, and his younger brother, Radu, was made voivode. Without any supporters, Tepes was forced to flee. In the hope of getting help from king Mathias, he fled to Transylvania. However, voivode Stefan of Moldavia obtained a letter written by Tepes in Rasinari to the Turkish Sultan, saying that he would help him to occupy Transylvania if the Sultan put him back as voivode in Muntenia. Stefan sent this letter to king Mathias, who then arrested Tepes and kept him im prison for ten years. 123 According to Istoria României. Compendiu, 1974, p. 131, this letter was a forgery made by the Saxons, who wanted to revenge the incursion of Tepes some years earlier. However, this textbook states that it was not only the nobles who were dissatisfied with Vlad Tepes: "His too harsh methods have estranged also the masses, who hade hoped much from the voivode opposed to the boyars."
The characterization of Vlad Tepes by a Rumanian textbook of history is not without interest:
A complex and contradictory personality, Vlad Tepes has been denigrated by some because of his coarse character and not sufficiently balanced temper. Others have praised his heroism in defending the country and because of his efforts to put an order in a society in anarchy. These are beyond doubt merits which cannot be contested or underestimated, since his actions have delayed the establishment of Turkish domination over the Rumanian lands by more than three quarters of a century. 124
It is relevant for the relations - as we have seen, by far as friendly as Pascu pretends - between Transylvania and the Rumanian voivodates, that at about the same time, the Moldavian voivode Stefan plundered the county of Háromszék (Rumanian Trei Scaune). His aim was to force the prince of Transylvania to hand over voivode Petru Aron, whom Stefan drove away. 125
In 1479, the Transylvanian armies, led by the voivode Istvan Báthory and by Pavel Chinezul (Paul the Knez), count of Timisoara and a descendant of Romanian knezi, won a great victory at Cîmpul Piîuii [sic]. 126
Pascu does not mention some important facts in this connection: The son of Vlad Tepes, Vlad Tepelus, joined a Turkish army and was fighting in this battle together with the Turks, against the Hungarian army led by István Báthori, and Pál Kinizsi, the prince of Temesvár (Timisoara), called by Rumanian historians "Paul Chinezul". 127 Kinizsi's origin was of practically no significance in the period in which this man was living. On the other hand, the fact that a voivode of Muntenia fought on the side of the Turks against Transylvanian armies is of great significance. The princes of Muntenia and Moldavia fought for their own power, against the Turks, against Hungary, and - against one another.
In the late 14th and the early 15th century, both Poland and Hungary tried to get control over the estuary of the Danube. Without going into details of this question, we quote only Serban Papacostea about János Hunyadi: "After a series of Hungarian and Polish actions and counter-actions, Iancu de Hunedoara installs a Hungarian garrison in Chilia, securing thus what was the main aim of his actions in Moldavia" 128 The same author reveals (p. 908) in this connection also the fighting between the two Rumanian voivodates in the 15th century:
In the place of Hungary, which was now occupied on other fronts, Tara Româneasca comes to the scene with claims on Chilia, which led to fierce battles between those two Rumanian countries, until the Turks, in 1484, occupied the estuary of the Danube.
The expanding Turkish Empire caused great concern in 15th century Europe and efforts were made to throw back the Turks. At the same time, Catholic leaders endeavoured to unite the Eastern Orthodox Church with the Catholic Church. An agreement was reached in 1439 in Florence, where the union of the two Churches was proclaimed and the Catholic Powers promised military action against the Turks. Between 1440 and 1444, king Vladislav I reigned in both Hungary and Poland, and the two powers started an offensive against the Turks, in which the chief military leader was János Hunyadi. In the year 1443, the anti-Ottoman coalition won great victories, but in the following year, it was defeated at Varna, where also king Vladislav died.
János Hunyadi started then a new attack against the Turks, in alliance with the Albanian leader George of Castrioti (whose Turkish name was Skanderbeg), but they were defeated at Kosovo Polje in 1448.
János Hunyadi contributed substantially to the culture of Transylvania: the Catholic Cathedral of Gyulafehérvár (Rumanian Alba Iulia) had an addition built on, receiving its present day shape. Hunyadi built the churches in Magyarorbó, Szentimre, and Tövis (Rumanian Gârbau, Sântimbru, and Teius), and he financed much of two churches in Kolozsvár (Cluj). 129 All these were Catholic and, consequently, Hungarian or Saxon.
The description given by Pascu about the Economic Development (pp. 78- 84) is largely adequate, but here too, as in discussing the development of the towns, one must add a clear indication about the nationality of those who introduced and practiced the trades. Of course, this aspect was of no great importance in the age in question, but it is not insignificant that the economic development in general was led by people who immigrated from Western
Europe, particularly by Germans. The only hint at this in Pascu's text is the following, but even this is misleading:
The workers were mostly local people, either freemen or serfs, though some were imported from Germany and Slovakia. Since the foreign workers had more experience, they were used for the more demanding tasks (p. 81).
All industry, commerce, even more developed viticulture - in general, all trades except agriculture and the raising of animals - were introduced into Transylvania by Germans (Saxons, later Swabians, Walloons, etc.).
Social Stratification (p. 84).
There was still a free Romanian peasantry as late as the fifteenth century, in Tara Fagarasului, Tara Hategului, Tara Maramuresului, and the Banat...[...] At least two things explain the survival of these autonomous Romanian communities: first, the authorities' desire to involve the local population in defending the frontiers against Turkish assaults; and second, the close relations between the Transylvanian Romanians and the Romanians on the Muntenian and Moldavian slopes of the Carpathians.
As pointed out above, the Rumanians living in the above-mentioned areas were brought in by "the authorities" - i.e., the Hungarian kings, with the main aim to defend the frontiers, beginning with the second half of the 13th century. No organized Rumanian areas existed there before the 14th-15th centuries, as Pascu's expression "survive" would suggest.
These frontier districts were the first to be populated by Rumanians and are since that time the most purely Rumanian areas in Transylvania. One would believe that the names of these "tari" are Rumanian. But are they? Pascu does not give any information about this question.
The name of the Banat derives from the designation of the territory between 1716 and 1778 in the Latin language: Banatus Temesiensis and this was borrowed by German, Hungarian, Serbian and Rumanian. Fagaras derives from Hungarian Fogaras. The etymology from Rumanian fag "beech" has been proposed, but is not acceptable. The first mention is from 1291: Fogros. It was possibly a personal name; in any case, the original word in two syllables developed into a word with three syllables in Hungarian: Fogaras. This name was borrowed by the Rumanians: Fagaras, and the Germans: Fogarasch. - Hateg has no sense in Rumanian; it derives from Hungarian Hátszeg, in 1276/91: Hatzak. Hungarian hát: (approximately) "ridge of a hill" and szeg "corner, angle, nook". - Maramures: from Hungarian Máramaros, which was originally the name of a small river: 1231/1397: Maramors. The etymology of this name is not clear; it may be connected with Indoeuropean *mori "sea". 130
Thus, not a single of those Rumanian tari has an original Rumanian name.
The origins of the names of "the more significant Rumanian districts" in the 14th century
However, a few names have no decisive significance, and the above mentioned names may happen by chance to be of Hungarian origin. For reliable conclusions, it is necessary to investigate a larger number of areas inhabited by Rumanians. We take the map facing p. 220 in Voievodatul Transilvaniei, vol. I: "The politico-administrative organization of Transylvania in the 14th century." It appears that no Rumanian villages of any significance existed in Central and Eastern Transylvania. In other areas, the map shows small, round patches of "the more significant Rumanian districts," of a diameter of about 10 kilometers or less. These are, from the North towards the South, shown in the following table:
|Name of "Rumanian district"
||First mentioned (year, name)
||Actual Hungarian name
||1271: villa Megyes
||Hung. arany "golden" + meggy "morello"
||Hung. erdo "forest"
||Sl. *ruda "or"
||1264: villa seu terra Querali
||Hung. király "king" német
||1349: Kouray 1378: Kewar
||H. ko "stone" vár "castle"
||13th cent: Zeplac
||H. szép "beautiful" lak "home"
|Valcau (today Valeni)
||1213: villa Vulchoi 1291-94: Wolkou
||Czech vlkov "wolf"
||H. bölény "bison"
|1271: terra Obruth
||Abruttus? trans-mitted by Hungari-an or Slavic
||Ancient name, cf. Greek Krisos
||(detached fr Ginta 1552)
||Hung. kápolna "chapel"
||Hung. halom "hill" ágy "valley"
||H. csúcs "top"
||1417: Ribita (Cyrillic letters)
||Sl. ribica "little fish"
||Sl. dobra, H. jó "good"
||Hung. pers. name
||" + vár "castle"
||H. hát "ridge" szeg "angle,
||Czech komnata "room"
||1334: sacerdos de Lucas
||Sl. lug "swamp, bog; grove"? personal
||Sl. pers. name + H. sebes "fast"
||1245: Malembach 1300: Sebus
||H. szász "Saxon" + sebes "fast"
||Serb. brza "fast"
||Old Turk. *qara suy "black water"
||1407: poss. Almas
||H. alma "apple"
||Hung. pers. name + d
||1223: poss. regalis Elyad
||H. pers. name + d
Table 2. - The origins of the names of the "more significant Rumanian districts" (Pascu) in Transylvania in the 14th century.
* Rum. Amlas < Hungarian omlás "crumbling soil; eroding hill or mountain".
Out of these 30 names (mostly of villages), 16 (or 17) are of Hungarian origin, and 7 derive from Slavic; one contains a Slavic personal name and Hungarian sebes; one derives from Turkish. Two are ancient names handed down by Slavs, and the etymologies of three (or two) are uncertain. At least 21 were borrowed by Rumanian from Hungarian. Not a single of these 14th-century villages in which (also) Rumanians lived in that period and which later became the most characteristic Rumanian areas in Transylvania has an original Rumanian name.
The 10 Saxon territories given on this map (as also those given on a similar map in vol. III, p. 394) have German names, some of which were borrowed by the Rumanians; in other cases, they borrowed the Hungarian name.
The eight Szekler territories have all original, Hungarian names, of which five are on the map listed in their Rumanian form (borrowed from Hungarian) and three in their original, Hungarian form.
Although Pascu's map (Voievodatul..., I, facing p. 220) shows 30 "Rumanian districts" and only 10 Saxon and 8 Szekler territories, it clearly indicates the low number of the Rumanians in the 14th century. The Saxons and the Szeklers lived in administrative organizations called szék, which included areas of different extension, with a number of villages and towns. What Pascu calls "districts" of the Rumanians were in reality mostly single villages. Rumanian districts were created from the 15th century on, around royal fortresses built along the southern frontier in Hátszeg (Rumanian Hateg), Krassó-Szörény (Rumanian Caras-Severin) and Fogaras (Rumanian Fagaras). It was king Ladislaus V in the mid-15th century who united the two first-mentioned territories into one administrative unit. 131
Pascu, p. 93 (about the peasant revolt in 1437-1438):
By this time the revolt involved large numbers of Romanian and Hungarian peasants from all over Transylvania...
Pascu gives the names of the leaders of the peasant revolt in Rumanian - in the English text: "Gheorghe Doja, a Szekler peasant" (in the 16th century), Pavel of Voivodeni, Anton the Great of Buda. This may be accepted, under the condition that it is made clear for the reader that these names were translated by the author and that all of them were Hungarian named Dózsa György, Vajdaházi Pál, Budai Nagy Antal. This lastmentioned name is translated in a misleading way; "the Great" used to be applied to strong leaders, political or military, but in this case Nagy (Hungarian nagy "big, great") was simply the family name of the person, a common name among Hungarians even today. The only Rumanian peasant leader was Mihail the Romanian from Vireag.
More important is the question of the numbers of Rumanians among the revolting peasants. The social circumstances suggest that the proportion of Rumanian peasants who took part in this uprising was less than their proportion in the entire territory: It is true that the Catholic Church was, in the 15th century, able to impose the tithe on those of Orthodox faith, as stated by Pascu on p. 89, but only in the case of those peasants who were living on the estates of the Church, and there were very few Rumanians among such peasants. Those of them who were settled on the estates of the nobles, did not pay the tenth but the quadragesima (1/40). Most of them lived in this time under the rule of their cnezes and voivods. Except those (few) who were living on the estates of the Church, the Rumanians had thus no reason to revolt against the nobility. 132
The peasantry was by king Nagy Lajos (Ludwig the Great) in 1365 taken from the rule of the officials of the king (ispán) and put under the nobles' jurisdiction. In the first decades of the following, 15th century, the nobles deprived the peasants from the right of free moving. Moreover, the Transylvanian bishop, George Lépes, was in those times in constant conflict with the Saxons and somewhat later also with the nobles because of the tenth. This was increased, and, moreover, Lépes required it to be paid in new money of a higher value. The payment of this was, because of increasing economic burdens and general poverty, but also as a consequence of Hussite ideas, denied by entire villages. The Church did not take into consideration the poverty but fought fiercely against Hussitism, giving harsh punishments. Many priests left their parishes; the Church authorities closed many churches and denied religious services. These were shortly the causes and the background of the revolts.
Lépes tried to force also the Saxons to pay a tax, but, being aware of their rights and privileges, they locked the doors of their towns and did not let in any tax-collector.
114 A történeti Erdély Historical Transylvania , red. M. Asztalos, Budapest, 1936, p. 211.
115 The data about János Hunyadi are taken mainly from Erdély története The History of Transylvania , B. Jancsó, Cluj-Kolozsvár, 1931, pp. 75 - 80.
116 B. Jancsó, Erdély története The History of Transylvania , Cluj-Kolozsvár, 1931, p. 76.
117Erdély rövid története A Short History of Transylvania , red. B. Köpeczi, Budapest, 1989, p. 201.
118Jancsó, 1931, p. 77.
119 A történeti Erdély Historic Transylvania , red. Miklós Asztalos, Budapest, 1936, p. 212; J. Held, "Hunyadi János pályája" The Vocation of János Hunyadi , História, Budapest), XV,1, 1993, p. 14; Stefan Pascu, Voievodatul Transilvaniei120 Erdély rövid története A Short History of Transylvania , red. B. Köpeczi, 1989, p. 200.
121 Jancsó, 1931, p. 81.
122 Istoria României. Compendiu The History of Rumania. Compendium red. Stefan Pascu, 3rd edition, 1974, p. 131.
123 Jancsó, 1931, pp. 83- 84.
124 Istoria României. Compendiu The History of Rumania. Compendium , M. Constantinescu, C. Daicoviciu, S. Pascu (red.), Bucharest, 1969, p. 160; in the 3rd edition (1974), red. by S. Pascu, p. 132.
125 Jancsó, 1931, p. 81. - Without going into details, we quote here a description in a recent essay by H.-R. Patapievici, which gives a good idea about the conditions in those times: "According to Bolintineanu, 'the Rumanians are more cruel against each other than the Turks are against them'. This austere sentence generalizes something which only a few people know today, namely a similar observation attributed to Stefan cel Mare Stephen the Great .. . which says that 'the Muntenians are for us as are the Turks' (in a speech addressed to his people in Bistrita, on 20 June, 1473). I don't think that this is a metaphor. The animosity between the Moldavians and the Muntenians is richly proved by both parts. Typical for the relations of Stefan with the Rumanians on the other side of the Milcov i.e., in Muntenia are armed encroachment and plundering. Stefan plunders the Rumanians with the same sentiments with which he robs the Szeklers, without making any 'patriotic' distinction between them." H.-R. Patapievici, Politice, Bucharest, 1996, p. 74.
126 Right: Câmpul Pâinii, Hungarian Kenyérmezo; at the river Mures, near Orastie (Hungarian Szászváros).
127 A történeti Erdély Historical Transylvania , red. M. Asztalos, 1936, pp. 215 and 219.
128 Serban Papacostea, "Relatiile internationale în rasaritul si sud-estul Europei în secolele XIV- XV." The International Relations in the East and South-East of Europe in the 14th- 15th centuries , in: Revista de Istorie129 Jancsó, 1931, pp. 79 - 80.
130 These data were taken mainly from Suciu, vol. I,1967; and vol. II, 1968; and Lajos Kiss, Földrajzi nevek etimológiai szótára131 Jancsó, 1931, p. 88.
132 Ibid., p. 71.
|Stefan Pascu: A History of Transylvania|