Roumania Past and Present by James Samuelson (lightweight ebook reader .TXT) 📖

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 Jäger 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 Siebenbürgen, 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 Siebenbürgen (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