Roumania Past and Present Part 13

Ah! the days of heroes surely now are fled, When, at duty's summons, Roumains n.o.bly bled.

[Footnote 129: His full t.i.tle 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 Amba.s.sador 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 subst.i.tutes), 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 s.h.i.+eld).]

IV.

Before referring to the events which were pa.s.sing 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 Siebenburgen, 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 _c.u.m 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 Siebenburgen (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 leaders.h.i.+p 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 s.n.a.t.c.hed 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 n.o.bility 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 leaders.h.i.+p 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 t.i.tle. He is represented to have been one of the most atrocious and cruel tyrants who ever disgraced even those dark ages. One day he ma.s.sacred 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 establis.h.i.+ng his name and fame in history. This was Stephen, sometimes called the 'Great'

or 'Good,' but whether he deserved the latter t.i.tle 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 grat.i.tude 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):--

'Blows are heard resounding at the outer gate.

'Tis the hour of midnight; whose the voice so late?

"Hasten, dearest mother"--ha! that well-known sound-- "From the host I'm driven, bleed at every wound!

Fearful was our fortune, terrible the fray, Scattered all my army, fled they in dismay.

Mother, open quickly; infidels pursue, Icy is the night wind, purple blood their cue."

"Ha! what say'st thou, stranger? Stephen's far away, Dealing death, strong-handed, where he stands at bay.

Of him the mother I; such my son is he.

Be thou who thou may'st, my son thou canst not be.

(Yet can Heaven have fated, dealt this fearful blow?

Can his soul be craven, quail before the foe?) If in truth thou'rt Stephen, faint returning home, Not within these portals shalt thou ever come.

Hasten to thy brave ones; for thy country fall; Then maternal love with wreaths shall deck thy pall!"

Once more Stephen rallies; l.u.s.ty sounds his horn; Heroes flock around him on the battle morn.

Fierce and dire the slaughter; on that glorious day Falls the Moslem chivalry like the new-mown hay.'

Notwithstanding the great victory which he obtained, the Moslem power was too strong for him, and he is found, before the century's close, allied with them against Poland, to whose sovereign he had but a few years previously sworn fealty, and into which he now made a raid. In 1504 he died a natural death, and it is said that before his decease, either from fear of the Turks, or distrusting the power of his son Bogdan, he advised the latter to make a permanent treaty with the Porte, which he did shortly after his death.[135] The most favourable traits in Stephen's character seem to have been his courage and patriotism, notwithstanding the story which is told of his flight to Niamtz. Like Mircea, he organised an army which is estimated at about the same strength, with the addition of irregular troops. That he was pious after a fas.h.i.+on is most likely, but that he also practised the tyrannic cruelties of his age is undoubted. Shortly after his advent to the throne, the Tartars entered his dominions, carrying fire and sword everywhere, but they were eventually repulsed and driven out by Stephen.

In the course of this campaign he took a son of the Tartar chief prisoner, and when envoys came to treat for his liberation he ordered the prince to be decapitated in their presence, a deed which may have been justified as a lesson to the ruthless tribe who had invaded his country. Not content with this, however, he impaled all the envoys but one, whose nose and ears he cut off, and sent him back to his master in that dreadful condition. 'But,' adds the chronicler, 'Stephen, who was a man of his period, only regarded this act as a manifestation of zeal in the faith. Shortly afterwards he built the monastery of Putna, dedicated it to Jesus and the Virgin, and caused to be transported thither the wooden chapel which Dragosch had constructed at Volovitz.' 'These were the ordinary practices of the age,' remarks another commentator; 'and if such treatment was reserved for the high and n.o.ble, one may guess what was the fate of the humble.'

[Footnote 135: For the terms of this treaty see Appendix II.]

VI.

What that fate was may easily be imagined by anyone who follows the narrative of the wars which devastated the land. But, before treating of the condition of the country and the customs of the period, we must refer to one or two voivodes whose rule was pacific, and whose energies were directed to the promotion of civilising influences. Concerning these, too, we have the trustworthy records already cited in our description of the cathedral of Curtea d'Ardges. One of them was Neagu Ba.s.sarab,[136] the other John Radul, known as Radul d'Affumati, and both were voivodes of Wallachia.

The first-named, Neagu, came to the throne either in 1511 or 1513, and died a natural death in 1520, a rare event in those days. He was conspicuously a man of peace in a country and age of war and bloodshed, and was eminently pious and benevolent. He repaired several churches, restored the cathedral of Tirgovistea, roofed other churches with lead, both in and out of Wallachia, and built the beautiful cathedral of Curtea d'Ardges, the erection of which, as we have heard, was attributed by tradition to Radu Negru, the reputed founder of Wallachia. The tablet in his memory has already been referred to elsewhere. In war he never took any personal part, and, as we have already remarked, he died peacefully in his bed.

He was followed on the throne by 'Radu the Monk,' who met with the usual fate, having been slain by the Turks; and this prince was succeeded by the Radu d'Affumati above named, a nephew of Nyagu (1522), who occupied the throne for seven years.

War, war was still the cry; he had numerous vicissitudes during his short reign; partic.i.p.ated in the defeat of the Hungarians and Poles in the battle of Mohacs, 'which witnessed the slaughter of a king, seven bishops, five hundred n.o.bles, and twenty thousand soldiers; not only laid open the whole country to the inroads of the Turks and established them for nearly a century and a half in its capital, but changed the reigning dynasty of Hungary and introduced for the first time a German sovereign to the Hungarian throne.'[137] Radu was dethroned, and in his attempt to leave the country he was seized by two of his n.o.bles and decapitated. During part of his reign, however, Wallachia enjoyed some tranquillity, and Radu continued the works begun by his uncle; amongst others, as we know, he completed the cathedral of Ardges.

After the battle of Mohacs the Turks began to encroach more openly upon Roumanian (Moldo-Wallachian) territory. They occupied and fortified Braila, Giurgevo, and Galatz; interfered in the election of the princes, in one or two instances securing the appointment for men whose sole claim to the crown was their willingness to pay a heavy bribe. One of those was a Saxon Lutheran of Transylvania, who was, however, a favourable example of the princely race. He was elected Voivode of Moldavia about 1580, and built a church for the Lutherans. In addition to the intrigues for the voivodes.h.i.+p, internecine wars broke out between the two Princ.i.p.alities, and the boyards made lawless raids upon one another. In these civil broils the Turks intervened, adding to their own influence, and rendering the princes more and more subservient to their will. This state of things lasted until the end of the sixteenth century, when another hero, Michael the Brave of Wallachia, restored tranquillity and independence to the Princ.i.p.alities, and raised them for a season in the esteem of surrounding nations. As his victories were solid, and the heroic age in the early history of Roumania may be said to have closed with his death, we feel justified in making more than a pa.s.sing reference to his exploits and career, more especially as in so doing we shall also be able to present a trustworthy account of the condition of society in his day.

[Footnote 136: Called also Nyagor, Negoje, Nyagoe.]

[Footnote 137: Paget, vol. ii. p. 8.]

CHAPTER XII.

THE TIMES AND CAREER OF MICHAEL THE BRAVE.

The state of society--Greater and lesser boyards--Taxation and oppression of the peasantry--Immorality of the boyards--The priesthood--Officers of State--Cla.s.ses of peasantry--Rise of the towns--The soldiery--Aggressions of Turks and Tartars--Michael the Brave--His rise to power--Accession to the throne (1594)--Remonstrances with the Porte--Alliance with Hungary and Poland--Ma.s.sacre of the Turks--Anecdote--Conspiracy against Michael quelled--The Turks attacked and routed on the Danube--Invasion of Wallachia by Achmed Pasha--His defeat--Michael swears fealty to Sigismund of Transylvania--Second Turkish invasion by Sinan Pasha--Determined stand of Michael at Giurgevo--Retreat of Michael and battle of Kalugereni--Defeat of Sinan--Retreat of Michael--Occupation of Wallachia by Sinan--Michael and his allies take the offensive--Flight of Sinan and slaughter of the Turks at Giurgevo--The Turks expelled--Peace in Wallachia--Intrigues of Michael--Accession of Andreas Bathori--Invasion and conquest of Transylvania by Michael--His triumph--Michael, Prince of Transylvania--Further intrigues--Invasion and conquest of Moldavia--Michael in the zenith of his power--Feud with the n.o.bles--Michael encounters them at Miriszlo--Their Austrian ally, General Basta--Defeat and flight of Michael--Anecdote--Continued misfortunes of Michael--Pet.i.tions the Emperor--Is permitted to visit him--Recall of Sigismund Bathori--Michael reinstated by the Emperor--Invades Transylvania in alliance with Basta--Defeat of the n.o.bles at Gorozlo--Quarrels of the victorious generals--Basta determines to remove Michael--Employs a Walloon officer to a.s.sa.s.sinate him--Michael murdered in his tent (1601)--Flight of his boyards--The German Court refuses to reward Basta's treachery.

I.

As the state of the northern Danubian territories before the foundation of the Princ.i.p.alities has been compared by us to the present condition of what is called Independent Tartary, and at a subsequent period to that of the early Saxons, so in the reign of Michael the Brave (1593-1601 A.D.) the state of society resembled that of England under the Norman kings; indeed, there is a remarkably interesting agreement in some of its phases. As in England there were greater and lessor barons, so in Moldo-Wallachia there were greater and lesser boyards. These seem to have possessed all the rapacity of our robber barons, with but little of their _reputed_ chivalry. They oppressed the peasantry, who since the time of Vlad the Impaler were to a large extent serfs, with unbearable taxes, and endeavoured on all occasions to s.h.i.+ft the burdens of the State upon those whose shoulders were the least able to bear them. One of these imposts was the poll-tax, similar to that which gave rise to Wat. Tyler's riots in the time of Richard II., but which, strange to say, still survives in Roumania, to the dissatisfaction of all her right-minded citizens.

[Ill.u.s.tration: EQUESTRIAN STATUE MICHAEL THE BRAVE AT BUCAREST.

(FROM A PHOTOGRAPH BY FRANZ DUSCHEK.)]

Besides the poll-tax, there was the 'Standard gift' (Poklon), which was levied at the installation of the Voivode; the Easter present; the extra tax (_ajutori?a_), which was raised when the other taxes ran short.

Moreover, there were taxes in kind on malt, salt, fish, cattle, and horses, payable to the prince. The landlord (boyard) was ent.i.tled to land and pasturage tax, the tenth of the earth's productions, feudal service, bee, pig, and sheep taxes, and in addition to these a rate was levied upon bees, pigs, tobacco, wine, and sheep, for the benefit of the prince.[138] Whilst these imposts and the extraordinary levies and ravages of war often reduced the whole of the peasantry to the most abject poverty, bordering on starvation, the boyards lived in comparative ease, and led a life of immorality and self-indulgence.

Concubinage widely prevailed, and many boyards had, besides their legitimate wife, ten or a dozen mistresses. They appear to have been gradually growing in influence, and the greater boyards filled all the chief offices of State as well as the leading military posts in the districts. Personal distinctions existed also, the leading boyards being allowed to wear long beards, a practice which was forbidden to the lesser boyards.