Page 11

            Karl Robert didn't succeed in gaining the Hungarian throne but in 1309. On the 9th of August 1307 Pope Clemens V. appointed Cardinal Gentile legate in Hungary and on 10th August the Pope confirmed the rights of Maria of Sicily and of her nephew Karl Robert proclaimed by his predecessor⁵². Legate Gentile proclaimed Karl king on 18th November 1308 in the presence of many dignitaries of the kingdom⁵³. But that was only the beginning of political stabilization. Transilvania couldn't be integrated into this process until the most prominent opponents to central authority, bishop Petrus and voivode Ladislaus, would give way.

            That the separatist policy of bishop Petrus and voivode Ladislaus wasn't tolerable any more is reflected by the excommunication of bishop Petrus pronounced by the archbishop of Kalocsa, in case Petrus  excludes voivode Ladislaus from the church only on holidays and Sundays. Ladislaus had occupied the Transilvanian possession of Almas belonging to Kalocsa and refused to recognize king Karl Robert of Anjou. The archbishop took back the excommunication of  bishop Petrus on 20 January 1307, but maintained it for others⁵⁴.

            A further illustration of the divisions within Transilvania is the action of the Chapter of Weissenburg (and of bishop Petrus, who is never explicitly mentioned) against a series of Transilvanian-Saxon deaneries belonging to its entire South-Transilvanian territory (8 January until 3 July 1309). The records of this legal action are preserved due to the conscientiousness of Cardinal Gentile, who sanctioned the proceedings. His representative there was Philippus of Sardinea, his generalauditor (president of an audient court). The records mention the dean of Muehlbach, the ministers of Muehlbach, Winz (Vintu de Jos, Alvinc), Deutsch-Pien (Pianu de Jos, Alsópián), Tschapertsch (Topîcea, Toporcsa), Omlas (Hamlesch, Amnas, Omlás), Reichau (Rahau, Rehó), Grosspold (Apoldu de Sus, Nagypold), Spring (Spring, Spring), Troschen (Drasov, Drassó), Piro (Birnbaum, Ghirbom, Oláhgirbó), Weingartskirchen (Vingard, Vingárd), Gieshuebel (Gusu, Kisludas), Toernen (Pauca, Pókafalva), the dean of Kozd (the territory of Schenk), the ministers of Stein (Grînari, Garád), Bekokten (Barcut, Báránykút), Langenthal (Valea Lunga, Hoszúaszó), Feigendorf (Micasasa, Mukeszásza), Abtsdorf (Tapu, Csicsóholdvilág), the dean of Kyzd (Keisd, Saschiz, Szászkézd), the minister of Neithausen (Netus, Netus), the dean of Crys (Kreisch, Cris, Keresd), the minister from Malmkrog (Malîncrav, Alamkerék), the dean of Klein-Kokel (Kis-Kükülló), the ministers of Peschendorf (Stejareni, Bese), Seiden (Jidvei, Zsidve) and Bonnesdorf (Boian, Alsóbajom) as being summoned. They were the representatives of  the seven Saxon deaneries of Muehlbach, Spring, Kozd, Kyzd, Gross- and Kleinkokel, Kreisch. But they couldn't attend, because the Transilvanian voivode Ladislaus prevented them.

            The Saxon ministers addressed the Pope via the Dominican friar Herricus. It is significant that the chapter of Weissenburg uses the sad evenets of 1277, when the Saxons had defended their rights against the despotism of bishop Petrus and the chapter⁵⁵ for offensive purposes, i.e. as an argument against the assertion of Goblinus and Nikolaus, comites (military leaders and supreme territorial judges) of Hermannstadt, that they had written a letter to voivode Ladislaus, in which they demanded safe conduct for the representatives of the Saxon ministers. The chapter accuses the Saxons of Hermannstadt (universitatis Cibiniensis) to have attempted in conjunction with the rebels against the holy Roman church (rebellium sanctae Romanae ecclesiae) to get hold of the Hungarian throne in the person of Otto of Bavaria (Hungarian king from 1305-1307)⁵⁶. The mentioned Saxons had also claimed, that the chapter and the bishop of Weissenburg were responsible for the detention of Otto (whom voivode Ladislaus had indeed captured). The chapter also asserts, that the leadership of the Hermannstadt-Saxons (Cibiniensis universitatis et communitas) had organized an armed attack against the cathedral of Weissenburg in alliance with the clergy of the Muehlbach deanery on 19 February 1309. It is evident that the chapter of Weissenburg uses slanderous arguments against the Saxons of Hermannstadt.

            Still it is true that the Transilvanian Saxons had favoured Otto of Bavaria against other applicants to the Hungarian throne (like Karl Robert of Anjou, favoured and supported by the Holy See). The position of the Weissenburg chapter absolutely reflects the policy of the theocracy which had governed Hungary under Andrew III. and against which Ladislaus IV had unsuccessfully fought. This position was inasmuch legitimate as it demanded a sovereign who would fight the so called "rebels against the holy Roman church", that is a monarch who would agree to share power with the theocrates,
51) Augustinus Theiner, Vetera Monumenta Historica Hungariam Sac- ram Illustrantia (Ancient Documents of Hungarian Ecclesiastical History), I  Vol., 1216-1352 (reprint of the edition 1859), Osnabrück 1968, pp. 397- 399, nr. 635.
52) Theiner, Vetera Monumenta ..., pp. 415 sqq., nr. 664; pp. 417- 421, nr. 665.
53) Idem, pp. 423-425, nr. 669 (dated 27 November 1308).
54) Beke Antal, Die Urkundensammlung des siebenbürgischen Kapitels (The Collection of Documents of the Transilvanian Chapter), in: Történelmi Tár (Historical Magazine), Budapest 1889, p. 579, nr. 58.
55)  See page 7 and 8. The records of the action of 1309 are published in: Monumenta Vaticana Hungariae, Acta Legationis Cardinalis Gentilis (1307- 1311), Budapest 1885, pp. 187sq. and in Urkundenbuch zur Geschichte der Deutschen in Siebenbürgen (Ub.), I, Hermannstadt 1892, pp. 239-292.
56) About Otto see Janos M. Bak, Königtum und Stände in Ungarn im 14.-16. Jahrhundert (Royalty and Orders in 14th to 16th Century Hungary (Quellen  und Studien zur Geschichte des östlichen Europa, Vol. VI), Franz Steiner Wiesbaden 1973, p. 15.

Page 12

thus guaranteeing the stability of the country. But the Weissenburg-chapter wasn't right in its undue taxation of its Saxons (we remind that the Saxons of Hermannstadt were subordinated to the primate in Gran (Esztergom), thus outside the jurisdiction of Weissenburg) and in its attempt to perpetuate this grievance. The answer of the Saxons to the accusations of the chapter was given by Bertoldus, the dean of Muehlbach and procurator of the Saxon ministers. The violence of Gaan (Johannes), the son of Alardus, in 1277 was an act of vengeance for the death of his father, which bishop Petrus was accountable for. Bertold underlines that there was concluded 'ultimate' peace (pax plena facta fuit) and that bishop Petrus had sanctified several churches and altars in the province of Hermannstadt and had performed other friendly holy actions there (evidently intended as a sign of peace). Bertoldus also rejects the accusation that the leadership of the Hermannstadt Saxons is resisting the Roman church or king Karl Robert (57). He also disclaims that the leadership of Hermannstadt had attacked the cathedral in Weissenburg in February 1308. The records of the action mention that the chapter of Muehlbach hadn't payed the tax in the last two and a half years, which points to the central issue of dissension between the seven Saxon deaneries and Weissenburg. The action was adjourned on 3 July 1309 till the end of September, never to be restarted again.

            It is striking that in the course of the action the main issue, taxation and tax-payments, is mentioned only once. The action centered in its first phase on the question whether voivode Ladislaus had really granted the representatives of the Saxons of Hermannstadt safe conduct to Cardinal Gentile or not. The only document produced in this respect on 5 May 1309 was a letter of the voivode to the Saxons of Hermannstadt dated 24 November1308, in which he insists on the payment of debts to the chapter of Weissenburg as a condition for settling the dispute. It is obvious that voivode Ladislaus didn't grant safe conduct, although the chapter of Weissenburg produced a number of witnesses (the bishops of Orod (Rom. Arad), Warad (Rom. Oradea) and other clergymen who asserted this. It also seems that the general auditor Philipp of Sardinea wasn't impartial and that the representatives of Rome had the intention of suppressing facts which might affect the reputation of the chapter of Weissenburg, who was, after all, the most important central of the church in Transilvania. This policiy is illustrated by the fact that Bertoldus, the  dean of Muehlbach, was replaced as procurator of the Saxon deaneries by Vagnolus de Meuania, secretary of the Holy See, exactly on 9 June 1309, the day on which the interrogation of the first witnesses of the Weissenburg chapter started. The declaration of Bertoldus, that he wouldn't recall revocaret his successor seems to indicate, that he was put under pressure. From a contemporary point of view his replacement was correct, because he was the chief of the most active among Saxon deaneries in the dispute with Weissenburg. One could therefore accuse him of being prejudiced (58).

            In the second stage of the action the chapter of Weissenburg made the attempt of proving that the Saxons of the county of Hermannstadt were accomplices of Otto of Bavaria, the rival of Karl Robert of Anjou. But they failed. The action was adjourned on 3 July 1309, certainly under the impression of the death of bishop Petrus on 1 July 1309 (59) but never resumed. With the death of bishop Petrus one major subjective obstacle to the normalization process of Hungary and Transilvania was eliminated. There still was voivode Ladislaus, whose position was considerably weakened:
- by the death of his major ally, bishop Petrus;
- by the coronation of Karl Robert of Ajou in the church of St. Mary in Buda on 15 June 1309 - not with the crown of the founder of Hungarian kingship, Stephen the Holy, which was in the possession of  the Transilvanian voivode Ladislaus, who rendered the crown only in 1310, after he had recognized king Karl Robert on 8 April 1310 (60);
- by the election of a new Transilvanian bishop by the chapter of Weissenburg in the person of Benedictus, the prior (61)

Page 13

of the Dominican monastery on the Isle of Pest (62). After voivode Ladislaus had informed the chapter of Weissenburg on 19. July 1309 that there was no impediment to the election of a new bishop (63), the chapter proceeded to the election and informed Cardinal Gentile on 24 July 1309 (64). The strong interest of the Saxon clergy to have the Dominican Bertoldus as bishop of Weissenburg and thus of Transilvania is reflected by the letter of the deans of Kisd,  St. Ladislaus, Grosskokel, Schelk, Spreng, Sebus (Muehlbach) and Warasio (Broos) to Cardinal Gentile to confirm the elected (65).  A document of Pope Clemens V. dated 28 March 1309, in which he asks the bishop of Warad to mediate in the tax-conflict between the chapter of Weissenburg and the archdeacon of Grosskokel on one side and Ulricus, the minister of Nadesch (Nades, Szásznádas) and his deanery on the other (66) illustrates the abuses of the Weissenburg chapter against the ministers under its subordination, which didn't cease even during the legal action presented above. Ulrich, minister in Nadesch, had complained to the Pope about the behaviour of the bishop of Weissenburg and of the archdeacon of Grosskokel when he together with his colleagues went to pay the annual tax. The two prelates were dissatisfied with the tax and arbitrarily increased the rate, in violation of the rulings of the Lateran Council and considerably exceeding the resources of the Nadesch church and of other churches of the deanery. The prelates still abusively occupied taxes contra iustitiam occuparunt and tried to exert armed force against the ministers. The Dominican Bertoldus of the Isle of Buda was in charge until 1318, when he died (67). During his office there is reported no conflict with the Transilvanian Saxons.

62) The Isle of Pest was also known as 'Isle of the Hares' (Lat. Insula Leporum) and its present denomination is 'Isle of Margaret'. The  Domi- nican monastery on the isle had been originally a nunnery founded by king Béla IV for his daughter Margaret, who became a member of the house, where she died in 1270. She was canonized (recognized officially as a saint). About the spiritually influent Dominican order in Transilvania see: Iványi Béla, Geschichte des Dominikanerordens in Sieben- bürgen und der Moldau (History of the Dominican Order in Transilvania and in Moldavia), in: Siebenbürgische Vierteljahrsschrift 1939, pp. 22-59, 241-256, 379-394; 1940, p. 25-40; Archiv des Vereins für Siebenbürgische Landeskunde 50 (1944), pp. 543-573. Recently Klaus Popa, Über Dominikaner in Europa. Aus der Geschichte des Predigerordens in Siebenbürgen (About Dominicans in Europe. From the History of the Preacher-Friars in Transilvania), in: Karpaten-Rundschau 30/29 July 1993, p. 6; Idem , Wiegendrucke als kulturgeschichtliches Zeugnis. Dominikanische Ordensliteratur in der Hermannstädter Brukenthalbibliothek (Incunabula - An Evidence of History of Civilization. Literature of the Dominican Order in the Brukenthal-Library in Hermannstadt), in: Karpaten-Rundschau 27/7 July 1994, p. 6; Idem, Siebenbürgisch-sächsische Geistliche des (14.), 15. und 16. Jahrhunderts im Ausland (Transilvanian-Saxon Clergymen of the (14th), 15th an 16th Centuries Abroad), in: Kirchliche Blätter (Hermannstadt), 24 (62), nr. 5, 6, 7, 8 (May, June, July, August) 1996, p.8.
63) Vetera Monumenta ..., like footnote 59.
64) Ub. I, nr. 316, p. 293.
65) Ub. I, nr. 317, p. 294. 66) Ub. I, nr. 315, p. 292 sq. 67) Andrew, the follower of Benedictus, is mentioned in a document dated 16 April 1318 (Beke (like footnote 54), p. 582, nr. 76). Pope John XXII. confirmed his election on the 1st of July 1319 (Vetera Monu- menta ..., p. 465 sq., nr. 704).

Page 14

             There is no mention of frictions with the Transilvanian-Saxons under the voivodes Andrew, Nicolaus and Dosa. Andrew is attested on 8 May 1315. He was followed by Nicolaus, who is present in the records on 6 September 1315. Dosa appears on 23 May 1317 as voivode of Transilvania (72). Dosa seems to have held this office until1321, because on 31 January 1322 there is mentioned his successor Thomas (73). 

68) Ub. I, P. 296sq., nr. 320; p. 298 sq., nr. 323. 69) Ub. I, p. 316, nr. 342. The discussion about whether the judicial seats of Mediasch, Schelk and Birthälm had really been separated by voivode Ladislaus or whether the Saxons only asserted this for uniting the province of Hermannstadt with the three entities and if the unification is an indication for colonization at a late stage (middle and second half of 13th century) is reflected by the study of Rudolf Theil,  Gehörten die "zwei  Stühle" seit dem Jahr 1224 zur Hermannstädter Provinz? Eine Studie (Were the "Two Seats" part of the Province of Hermann-stadt? A Study), in: Archiv des Vereins für siebenbürgische Landeskunde 12, 1875, pp. 257-269. See also Thomas NäglerDie Ansiedlung der Sieben- bürger Sachsen (The Colonization of the Transilvanian Saxons), Bukarest 1979, with bibliography to this subject on pp. 154-157. The question is also discussed by Otto Mittelstrass, Beiträge zur Siedlungs- geschichte Siebenbürgens im Mittelalter (Contributions to the Colo- nization-History of Mediaeval Transilvania), München 1961; Theobald Streitfeld, Über die sächsischen Grafen des Unterwaldes (About the 'Grafen' of the Unterwald), in: Forschungen zur Volks- und Landeskunde 23, Hermannstadt 1980. ('Grafen' were the supreme leaders of the Transilvanian- Saxon communities with powers of  administering local justice and with military authority. 'Unterwald' is the territory of the counties of Broos (Orastie, Szászváros), Mühlbach (Sebes-Alba, Szász-Sebes) and of Reuss- markt (Miercurea Sibiului)). See also Klaus Popa, Die Zwei Stühle Mediasch und Schelk (The two Counties Mediasch and Schelk) (MS). 69a) Ub. I, p. 323, nr. 350. About the document of privileges of Andrew II see pp. 4-5. 70) It was payed on St. Martin's day (11 November). 71) Ub. I, p. 332, nr. 354. 72) Ub. I, p. 314, nr. 339; for Nicolaus Ub. I, p. 317, nr. 343 and Fejér, VIII 1, p. 564, nr. 292; Idem, p. 100 sq., nr. 36. 73) Nagy Imre, Codex Diplomaticus Hungaricus Andegavensis (Docu- ments Related to the Hungarian Angevines), vol. II, p. 3, nr. 3.

Page 15

            Although Thomas was in charge of Transilvanian affairs for 20 years, which meant political stability, his rule wasn't very favourable for the Transilvanian Saxons. Because the voivode was a faithful follower of the king, having special merits in the struggle against and elimination of the kings' adversaries, he could also act abusively  by pretending that the interests of  the country required that. These special powers weren't to the ad- vantage of the Transilvanian Saxons, because the powers conjoined with the policy of bishop Andrew, whose election Pope John XXII. confirmed on the1st of July 1319 (74). Both, Thomas and Andrew, were in charge until the end of Karl Robert's rule: Thomas is mentioned for the last time on 8 May 1342 and bishop Andrew on 31 October 1341 (75). Although Pope John XXII (1316-1334) had estimated in 1317 the annual revenue of the church of Weissenburg to be 375 marks and decided that only half of this amount had to be given to the Holy See (76) bishop Andrew didn't observe this limit. The first confrontation of bishop Andrew with the Transilvanian Saxons is dated 23 December 1322, when Georgius, the minister of Frauendorf (Axente Sever, Asszonyfalva), presented to the Pope the complaints of the deanery of Schelk against the abuses of the bishop and against John, the archdeacon of Weissenburg. The two prelates are accused of  unjustly imprisoning, driving away, destituting ministers and depriving them of their goods. They ask for heavy services and duties: the bishop retained half of the tith (tenth part, Germ. Zehnt) and the archdeacon the third part, quotas which traditionally belong to the ministers. The prelates also demanded the 70th part of the ministers' money for the bishop's travelling expenses and a third for the archdeacon's, although the churches in question din't have the necessary incomes, because they were new foundations (adhuc sunt novella plantatio) (77). 

74) Vetera Monumenta ..., p. 465 sq., nr. 704. 75) Ub. I, p. 525, nr. 574; p. 518 sq., nr. 569. 76) DIR, C. Transilvania, veacul XIV, p. 253, nr. 243. How considerable the papal restriction was is shown by the fact that the despotic bishop Petrus annually payed 521.58 marks, but extorted by far more money from his diocesan subjects. Our calculations show that the amount which the church of Weissenburg  would have had to transfer to Rome shouldn't have exceeded 50 marks in 1309 and 45 marks in 1310 and 1311. But bishop Petrus had extorted 11 to 12 times more money from his subjects only for paying the annual rate of 522 marks (See Klaus Popa, Betrachtungen zur Art der Steuereinhebung des Weissenburger Kapitels für den heiligen Stuhl in den beiden ersten Jahrzehnten des 14. Jahhrunderts (Considerations about the Way the Chapter of Weissenburg levied for the Holy See in the First Two Centuries of the 14th Century) (MS)). 77) Ub. I, p. 368 sq., nr. 398. The formula 'novella plantatio' has given rise to controversional discussions. Our recent researches (see: Die Zwei Stühle Mediasch und Schelk (The two Counties Mediasch and Schelk) (MS)) reveal that there is at least a double reality behind 'novella plantatio': many rural communities bought their liberty from their former landlords, which brought about a reorganization of the deaneries of Mediasch and Schelk. Many prebends (i.e lands or tithes yielding the maintenance of a cleric, generally individual peasant communities) were decentralized, because there had taken place a process of incorporation and concentra- tion within one prebend  because of vacancy or absence of  pastors (attes- ted in the tax-records of the papal tax-collector Rufinus de Civinio (1317- 1320), Ub. I., p.324-330, nr.352).

Page 16

            The Pope commisioned the bishop of Olmuetz (Olomouc in Moravia, Czech Republic) with the enquiry. If the complaints of the Transilvanian-Saxon ministers were justified, the bishop should summon the Transilvanian bishop and archdeacon to the Holy See (then in the French town of Avignon) where they had to be present within three months. The arbitral award of the bishop of Olmuetz isn't documented, but the letter of king Karl to the leadership of Schelk dated 4 September 1323 in which he urges that they should determine their clergy to obey the bishop of Weissenburg, describes the chain of events. The bishop of Olmuetz had found out that the complaints of the Schelk-clergy were justified. The bishop and his archdeacon were summoned to the Holy See. Weissenburg reacted by excommunicating (78) the Schelk-clergy.

             The king was very unhappy about Georgius, the  pastor of Frauendorf, who had travelled to the Pope. The message of king Karl Robert to the Schelk leadership is significant, because it summarizes the principles which should guide the relations of :
- the king to the Transilvanian authorities (bishop and voivode);
- of the king to the Transilvanian-Saxon colonists;
- of the Transilvanian authorities to the Transilvanian Saxons.

The king also notifies that he had committed voivode Thomas to reestablish the order together with the Schelk leadership (commisisse magnifico viro Thomae vaivodae Transiluano aliqua vobiscum ordinandum). The king also condemns those Saxons, who complained or would complain against the Weissenburg-church at the Holy See (ipsos ... notificantes), because he as a matter of principle disapproves that prelates and churches of his realm be summoned outside his kingdom or implied in causes (quod nulla ratione pati volumus, quod praelati et ecclesiae regni nostri extra regnum nostrum ad longinquas partes citentur vel in causam attrahentur ...) (79). This attitude of the king was too rigid. He considered that voivode Thomas and bishop Andrew were trustworthy. But the course of events proved the king to be wrong.

             Now a few words about the career of Voivode Thomas. He is first documented in the position of comes de Zonuk et de Cibinio (supreme judge and military head of Zonuk (80) and the territory of Hermannstadt) on 14 January 1324 (81). The king further strengthened the position of Thomas by transferring royal (supreme) jurisdiction on 25 March 1324. He had revoked this power at the time when his opponent Ladislaus had been voivode. The king stresses in his document that he had nominated Thomas voivode on the outspoken wish of the king's faithful followers in Transilvania, also because of his unbroken fidelity and of his love of peace, like the accounts of the mentioned Transilvanians and the documents since then issued unmistakably illustrate (82).

             The next step of the king in strengthening his voivode Thomas was to confer the castle of Salgo in Southern Transilvania, which belonged to the unfaithful Johann, son of comes Corrardus of Thalmesch (Rom. Talmaciu, to the South-East of Hermannstadt), together with the latter's possessions (83). The king had previously (5 August 1322) guaranteed his royal protection to Nicolaus, the brother of Johann (84). But the ultimate aim of the king was the occupation of strategically important castles in southern Transilvania, which were owned by Saxon nobility. The new policy of Karl Robert towards voivode Thomas was met with a
growing opposition which lastly erupted in armed resistance.

Page 17

            The military expedition of Karl Robert to southern Transilvania started in June and ended at the beginning of September and is obviously related to the opposition which the Saxons of the province of Hermannstadt organized against the attempts of voivode Thomas to occupy further strongholds in southern Transilvania which were controlled by Saxon nobility. It was Henning of Petersdorf (Petersdorf, Péterfalva) (to the south of Muehlbach (Sebes, Szászsebes)) who organized armed resistance, which was crushed after the king's stay in Transilvania.

            The documented stations of Karl Robert on his Transilvanian campaign were: 17 June 1324 in the vicinity of Dewa (Deva) (85); 10 July, 16 July in the vicinity of Karácsonfalva (Craciunelu) on the lower course of the river Kokel (Tîrnava, Küküllö) (86), 25 July in the vicinity of villa Zeepmezeu (Schönau, Sona, Szépmezö) (87), 10 August in the vicinity of Scybinium (Hermannstadt) (88); 12, 14 August in the vicinity of Waras (Orastie, Szászvaros) (89).

            There are four documents which point at the fact that the armed revolt of Henning of Petersdorf occured after king Karl Robert had left the country. On 2 October 1324 voivode Thomas mentions quod cum ex praecepto Domini nostri regis, Caroli Dei gratia illustris regi Hungariae, una cum regni nobilibus ac aliis regnicolis partis Transilvaniae exercitum validum contra aemulos et infideles eiusdem domini nostri accessimus (90). The king gives on 10 October 1324 the following reason for his expedition: quod cum pro disponendis quibusdam regni nostri negotiis ad partes Transilvanas accessimus et de Tartarorum insidiis utputa Christi fidei hostium nostri et regni nostri inimicorum capitalium nobis providere praecavereque volentes, ...(91). No word about the Saxons causing the royal expedition, only about foes and disloyal subjects of the king or about the deceit of the Tartars as enemies of Christianity and as such the main enemies of the king. In the document of 21 December 1324, in which the king exempts the Transilvanian nobility from duties and taxes, from the obligation to lodge the voivode and to provide him with food because of their loyal services (obviously in the fight against the rebellious Saxons) the Saxons are mentioned as having followed the insidious advice of foes of royalty and had lapsed into disloyalty (92). That the main purpose of the royal expedition wasn't directed against the Transilvanian Saxons as such is expressed in a document dated 4 June 1327, which mentions that in 1324 the king had come to Transilvania to suppress the revolt and defiance of some against their natural Lord (dominum naturalis) (i.e. the king) (93).

85) Ub.I, P.385, nr.418.
86) Ub. I, p. 386, nr.419 and nr.420.
87) Ub.I, p. 386, nr.421.
88) Ub.I, p.386, nr.422.
89) Ub.I, p.387, nr. 423,424.
90) Fejér, Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ..., VIII 2, p. 589, nr. 275; Ub.I, p.388, nr. 426.
91) Ub.I, p.388, nr. 427.
92) DIR veacul XIV., C. Transilvania, vol. II (1321-1330) (Documents Concerning the Histrory of Romania, 14th Century, vol. II (1321-1330)), pp. 137-139, nr.303.
93) DIR, pp. 223-226, nr. 451. Page 18.

            The armed revolt of Henning of Peterdorf occured shortly before the 21 December 1324. Because of his defiant action and infidelity his landed property was at the disposal of the king, who donated it to the loyal voivode Thomas. But the latter decided to retrocede the property to Henning's relatives Nicolaus, son of Salomon, Nicolaus, son of Daniel and to the orphans of comes Henning for 200 marks of fine silver on 12 April 1325 (94). This document as well as the royal diploma of 21 December 1324 in favour of the Transilvanian nobility mention at least two battles of Hungarian forces against the Transilvanian Saxons. The voivode's document says that all Transilvanian Saxons had risen against their king (cum universi Saxones terrae Transilvanae ausu temerario contra domini nostri regispotentiam hostiliter unsurrexissent ...) under the leadership of Henning of Petersdorf. The king sent all Cumans (universos Cumanos) to assist voivode Thomas against the Saxons. In the battle which emerged between the Cumans and the Saxons comes Henning was killed (95). The royal diploma in favour of Transilvanian nobility mentions a battle which took place on open field with heavy losses, almost all combatants wounded and many prisoners on the Hungarian side and the ultimate victory (96). But it seems that the bloody battle with the array of the nobility was undecided, although the king speaks of victory. The information also proves that after the death of Henning of Petersdorf more Saxons rallied against the voivode and his allies, the nobility and that they succeeded in proving, if not their superiority, at least the efficiency of their military organization. The intention of the royal diploma for the Transilvanian nobility appears thus to be an implicit recognition that the nobility was the only ally of the king in Transilvania.

            The revolt of the Transilvanian Saxons was the immediate result of the king's policy of strengthening voivode Thomas' position as the only and supreme military leader in Transilvania. By investing Thomas with the office of comes, that is supreme military leader of the Hermannstadt-province, attested for the first time on 14 January 1324 (97), the Hermannstadt-Saxons were supposed to execute the orders and military strategy of the voivode. And because the intention of the king and the voivode to control all fortified places in southern Transilvania became obvious, comes Henning of Petersdorf certainly didn't allow troops of the voivode to move into his castle of Petersdorf (98). Thus the king had practically no success at all in the military integration of the Hermannstadt-Saxons in view of the Tratarian threat (99).

            The intentions the king attributed to Tartarians were in fact coming from Wallachia, the Transcarpathian province to the south of Transilvania, which had been under Mongolian (Tartarian) rule and became politically active after having gained independence. The king and voivode Thomas considered the influence of the new political entity to be counterproductive especially in the realm of faith.

94) Ub.I, nr. 431, 432, pp. 391 sq. and 392 sq.
95) Ub. I, p. 395 sq., nr. 432.
96) See footnote 92.
97) See footnote 81.
98) The stronghold is mentioned for the first time in 1309 (Ub. I, p. 288, nr. 314: sacerdos de sub castro Petri. Also on 22 January 1324: villa eorum de sub castro Petri (Ub. I, p. 380, nr. 412).
99) See the royal document of 10 October 1324 (footnote 91). Page 19.

            Just remeber the formulation "deceit of the Tartars as enemies of Christianity and as such the main enemies of the king" in the document of 10 October 1324 (100). One should also take into consideration that Karl Robert was a catholic sovereign and that the Romanians in Transilvania and in Wallachia were Greek Orthodox. The independent policiy of the new Wallachian principality, which also had an impact upon the Transilvanian Romanians, especially upon those in the Saxon province of Hermannstadt, could have undesirable consequences, even hamper the attempts of the Hungarian leadership to exert protective power over Wallachia. These two conflicting positions would dominate the relations of the two countries and determine Transilvanian life throughout the next 6 centuries.

100) See footnote 91.

• Go to title page

---

Dokument.../karlrob.htm/..                          Erstellt: 05.11.1996.                                 Letzte Änderung: 12.06.2004

---