The statutes of the Transylvanian Romanians from Făgăraș (1508): a historical perspective and a comparison with the Transylvanian Saxon and Szekler customary laws

The document known as Statutele Făgărașului (The Statutes of Făgăraș), issued on 15 May 1508, can be considered a monument of old Romanian legislation. The Latin original document was published for the first time in 1885 (in Hungary) and then in 1921 (in Romania). Over the years several authors have translated short parts of the text, which they considered to be of interest for their own research, but a full translation into modern languages was never made until now. Our study solves this problem, rendering in the annex the full transcription and translation of The Statutes of Făgăraș. First, I offer a brief presentation of the historical evolution of the medieval Land of Făgăraș (Țara Făgărașului) from the 14th century until 1508, the year of the document’s issuance. Then I explain how the historical framework facilitated the preservation of the Romanian legal traditions and practices, and we indicate the various articles of the Statutes which reflect specific aspects pertaining to the way of life and the customary law of the Romanians – nobles or lowborn – from Făgăraș. Last but not least, I made a comparison between The Statutes of Făgăraș and the customary laws of the Saxons and Szeklers from Transylvania in the same timeframe.The document known as Statutele Făgărașului (The Statutes of Făgăraș), issued on 15 May 1508, can be considered a monument of old Romanian legislation. The Latin original document was published for the first time in 1885 (in Hungary) and then in 1921 (in Romania). Over the years several authors have translated short parts of the text, which they considered to be of interest for their own research, but a full translation into modern languages was never made until now. Our study solves this problem, rendering in the annex the full transcription and translation of The Statutes of Făgăraș. First, I offer a brief presentation of the historical evolution of the medieval Land of Făgăraș (Țara Făgărașului) from the 14th century until 1508, the year of the document’s issuance. Then I explain how the historical framework facilitated the preservation of the Romanian legal traditions and practices, and we indicate the various articles of the Statutes which reflect specific aspects pertaining to the way of life and the customary law of the Romanians – nobles or lowborn – from Făgăraș. Last but not least, I made a comparison between The Statutes of Făgăraș and the customary laws of the Saxons and Szeklers from Transylvania in the same timeframe

Kilka spostrzeżeń na temat bitwy pod Rovinami (1395)

The battle of Rovine between Mircea the Elde (the hospodar of Wallachia) and Bayezid I (the sultan of the Ottoman Empire) is a conventional term created by historians. In reality, it probably took place near the Wallachian capital of Argeş and on the river of the same name („na rowinach” or „in the ramparts”). The commonly accepted date, May 17, 1395, should be also treated conventionally. This is the date of the death of Constantine Dejanović Dragaš, who was killed at the time, but it is not known whether he died exactly on the day of the battle or later. In addition, it is likely that the battle did not last one day - one Ottoman source even speaks of a week. The news about the outcome of the battle is also contradictory. It was not resolved, both armies suffered very heavy losses, but they separated and retained their fighting ability. Bayezid I had enough forces to attack Nikopol and finally liquidate the Tsar of Bulgaria. Mircea retreated to Transylvania and joined his forces with Sigismund of Luxembourg's troops, with whom he recaptured Little Nikopol, or Turnu. The political situation of Wallachia after the battle of Rovine is unclear - almost all sources speak of the conclusion of peace and the payment of tribute by the hospodar. In reality, however, Mircea lost power in his capital to Vlad the Usurper. It is unclear whether Vlad was put on the throne by Bayezid I, or whether he took advantage of Mircea's difficulties and made some deals with the sultan. There is also no source basis for the claim that he was put on the throne by the Poles. The Polish royal couple, other than accepting the tribute document, did absolutely nothing about it.Bitwa pod Rovinami między hospodarem wołoskim Mirczą Starym a sułtanem Bayezidem I to termin umowny skonstruowany przez historyków. W rzeczywistości bitwa miała miejsce „na rowinach” czyli „w szańcach” prawdopodobnie niedaleko stolicy Wołoszczyzny Argeş i nad rzeką tejże nazwy. Powszechnie obecnie przyjętą datację 17 maja 1395 roku też należy traktować umownie. Jest to data śmierci Konstantyna Dejanowicia Dragasza, który poniósł śmierć w bitwie, nie wiadomo jednak czy zmarł dokładnie w dniu bitwy, czy jakiś czas później. Ponadto najprawdopodobniej bitwa nie trwała jeden dzień, jedno z osmańskich źródeł mówi nawet o tygodniu. Wiadomości na temat rezultatu bitwy też są sprzeczne, bitwa nie została do końca rozstrzygnięta, obydwie armie poniosły bardzo duże straty, ale rozeszły się i zachowały zdolność bojową. Bayezid miał dostatecznie dużo sił, by zaatakować Nikopol i dokonać ostatecznej likwidacji tyrnowskiego carstwa bułgarskiego. Mircza wycofał się do Siedmiogrodu i połączył swe siły z siłami Zygmunta Luksemburczyka, z którymi odbił krótko potem Mały Nikopol czyli Turnu. Niejasna jest sytuacja polityczna Wołoszczyzny po bitwie pod Rovinami, niemal wszystkie źródła mówią o zawarciu przez hospodara pokoju i opłacie trybutu. W rzeczywistości jednak Mircza stracił władzę w swej stolicy na rzecz Vlada Uzurpatora. Nie jest jednak jasne czy Vlad został osadzony na tronie przez Bajezida I, czy wykorzystał trudności Mirczy i czy zawierał z sułtanem jakieś układy. Nie ma też żadnych podstaw źródłowych do twierdzenia, że został wprowadzony na tron przez Polaków. Polska para królewska, poza przyjęciem dokumentu hołdowniczego nie uczyniła zupełnie nic w jego sprawie

Armia wielkiego wezyra Kara Mustafy wobec ludności atakowanych obszarów Węgier i Austrii podczas wyprawy wiedeńskiej 1683 r. w świetle wybranych źródeł osmańskich

The aim of the article is to analyze the methods of the Ottoman army under the command of Grand Vizier Kara Mustafa and the Tatars supporting him against the people of the Hungarian and Lower Austrian areas during the Turkish expedition to Vienna in 1683. The primary sources are the accounts of chroniclers (Silahdar Mehmed aga of Fyndykla, Jebedji Hasan Esiri) and historians (Husein Hezarfenn, defterdar Sari Mehmed Pasha) of the Ottoman era. Important relations are included into the grand vizier's letters to the residents of the Hungarian city of Sopron and Vienna. These reports show that Ottoman forces sought to capture some cities and Vienna itself without a fight, counting on their surrender. They also succeeded in winning over some Hungarian magnates hostile to the Habsburgs (Imre Thököly, the Batthyanych and Draskovics families). However, terror was mainly used against the local population, which meant the extermination of prisoners of war - military (so-called „tongues”) and civilians, as well as the taking of women and children into slavery („jasyr”). Chroniclers report, among other things, cases of rewarding Ottoman soldiers and Tartars in exchange for supplied captives, who were later murdered. There are numerous reports on the destruction of occupied areas, mass looting and rape of women and boys. The attacked areas were almost completely destroyed and the population decimated. According to calculations, between 80,000 and more than 100,000 residents were killed or taken prisoner during these events.Celem artykułu jest analiza metod postępowania armii osmańskiej pod dowództwem wielkiego wezyra Kara Mustafy i wspierających go Tatarów wobec ludności z obszarów Węgier i Dolnej Austrii podczas tureckiej wyprawy na Wiedeń w 1683 roku. Podstawowymi źródłami są relacje kronikarzy (Silahdar Mehmed aga z Fyndykły, Dżebedżi Hasan Esiri) i historyków (Husein Hezarfenn, defterdar Sari Mehmed Pasza) z doby osmańskiej. Ważnymi przekazami są listy wielkiego wezyra do mieszkańców węgierskiego miasta Sopron i Wiednia. Z relacji tych wynika, że siły osmańskie dążyły do opanowania niektórych miast i samego Wiednia bez walki, licząc na ich kapitulację. Udało się także pozyskać niektórych możnowładców węgierskich wrogo nastawionych do Habsburgów (Imre Thököly, rody Batthyanych, Draskovicsów). Wobec miejscowej ludności stosowano jednak przede wszystkim terror, który oznaczał eksterminację jeńców – wojskowych (tzw. „języków”) i cywili oraz branie kobiet i dzieci w niewolę (jasyr). Kronikarze relacjonują m.in. przypadki nagradzania żołnierzy osmańskich i Tatarów w zamian za dostarczanych jeńców, których potem mordowano. Liczne są informacje o niszczeniu zajmowanych obszarów, masowych rabunkach i gwałtów na kobietach oraz chłopcach. Atakowane obszary zostały niemal całkowicie zniszczone a ludność zdziesiątkowana. Jak wynika z obliczeń, podczas tych wydarzeń zginęło lub zostało wziętych do niewoli od 80 do ponad 100 tysięcy mieszkańców

On the empresses of the Latin Empire (1204–1261) (5). Marie of Brienne

Abstract. The article represents the fifth part of the series “On the Empresses of the Latin Empire (1204–1261)”. This one is dedicated to Marie of Brienne, wife of Baldwin II. She was the daughter of John of Brienne and Berengaria of Castile. Marie was betrothed to and then married Baldwin II in 1240 and became empress of the Latin Empire. After the birth of her son Philip (around 1243), she went to France and to the estate of the Courtenay family in Flanders. There she managed the lands on her husband’s behalf. After being exiled to the Latins from Constantinople in 1261, she settled in Naples and probably died there in 1275. Perhaps she was buried in the church of St. Denis in Paris. The author divides her life into four periods that determine her career. The most important periods in her life were the years 1240–1261. The text is based mainly on documentary, sphragistic and sparse chronicle sources. Marie of Brienne has not had an independent biography.Abstract. The article represents the fifth part of the series “On the Empresses of the Latin Empire (1204–1261)”. This one is dedicated to Marie of Brienne, wife of Baldwin II. She was the daughter of John of Brienne and Berengaria of Castile. Marie was betrothed to and then married Baldwin II in 1240 and became empress of the Latin Empire. After the birth of her son Philip (around 1243), she went to France and to the estate of the Courtenay family in Flanders. There she managed the lands on her husband’s behalf. After being exiled to the Latins from Constantinople in 1261, she settled in Naples and probably died there in 1275. Perhaps she was buried in the church of St. Denis in Paris. The author divides her life into four periods that determine her career. The most important periods in her life were the years 1240–1261. The text is based mainly on documentary, sphragistic and sparse chronicle sources. Marie of Brienne has not had an independent biography

Snake Island in the Romanian and Ukrainian narrative in the International Court of Justice

In 1948 Romania ceded Snake Island to the Soviet Union, which established a 12-mile maritime zone around the island. After the collapse of the USSR, the island was incorporated into Ukraine. Romania recognized that the island belonged to Ukraine, but a long-running dispute began between Ukraine and Romania over the delimitation of the shelf and the exclusive economic zone. Snake Island became part of this dispute because Ukraine considered it a reference point for the delimitation of the maritime waters. Romania strongly disagreed and referred the dispute to the International Court of Justice in The Hague. Both countries presented their arguments not only from the legal, but also historical point of view. They drew completely different conclusions from the same historical sources while presenting their interpretations of the past regarding Snake Island. The dispute ended when the ICJ announced its verdict on February 3, 2009. Both countries accepted it.In 1948 Romania ceded Snake Island to the Soviet Union, which established a 12-mile maritime zone around the island. After the collapse of the USSR, the island was incorporated into Ukraine. Romania recognized that the island belonged to Ukraine, but a long-running dispute began between Ukraine and Romania over the delimitation of the shelf and the exclusive economic zone. Snake Island became part of this dispute because Ukraine considered it a reference point for the delimitation of the maritime waters. Romania strongly disagreed and referred the dispute to the International Court of Justice in The Hague. Both countries presented their arguments not only from the legal, but also historical point of view. They drew completely different conclusions from the same historical sources while presenting their interpretations of the past regarding Snake Island. The dispute ended when the ICJ announced its verdict on February 3, 2009. Both countries accepted it

Political activities of Sophronius Vrachanski

The beginning of the 19th century was a difficult period for the Bulgarian population, caused by a deep crisis in the Ottoman Empire and another Russo–Turkish war of 1806–1812. During the conflict, the former bishop of Vratsa, Sophronius, together with a circle of activists, undertook political action to support the Russian military effort and help the civilian population fleeing the horrors of the war. This action ultimately ended in failure, as it was not possible to obtain autonomy for the Bulgarians, but the political program they developed was an important stage in the formation of the native national liberation movement. Thanks to his achievements, Sophroniy is known in Bulgarian historiography not only as a priest and one of the codifiers of the modern Bulgarian language, but also as a political activist.The beginning of the 19th century was a difficult period for the Bulgarian population, caused by a deep crisis in the Ottoman Empire and another Russo–Turkish war of 1806–1812. During the conflict, the former bishop of Vratsa, Sophronius, together with a circle of activists, undertook political action to support the Russian military effort and help the civilian population fleeing the horrors of the war. This action ultimately ended in failure, as it was not possible to obtain autonomy for the Bulgarians, but the political program they developed was an important stage in the formation of the native national liberation movement. Thanks to his achievements, Sophroniy is known in Bulgarian historiography not only as a priest and one of the codifiers of the modern Bulgarian language, but also as a political activist

Neo-Ottoman memory of the „New Turkey"

The article aims to present the process in creating of neo-Ottoman memory policy under the rule of the Justice and Development Party (AKP), which remains in power since 2002. In the first two decades of the 21st century, Turkey underwent a thorough transformation, including the replacement of elites, the undermining of the ideological foundations of the Kemalist republic, as well as the redefinition of Turkish nationalism and the state identity. The key element of these changes was the ongoing rehabilitation of the Ottoman Empire – relegated by the republic to the position of episode in the history of the Turks. As a result of creation of the the so-called "Turkish-Islamic synthesis" in the 1980s, as well as the development of social nostalgia for the former empire in the following decade, the new politics of memory, meeting this nostalgia, achieved spectacular success. However, it was conducted in a top-down manner, with great care taken to ensure that the content appearing in the public sphere was consistent with the intentions of the new power elite. This new memory, however, did not remove the republican heritage – its absorption became a key factor strengthening the legitimacy of “New Turkey” – monumental  project of political and identity transformation.Artykuł ma na celu przedstawienie procesu, w którym powstała właściwa rządzonej od 2002 r. przez Partią Sprawiedliwości i Rozwoju (AKP) neoosmańska polityka pamięci. W pierwszych dwóch dekadach XXI w. Turcja przeszła gruntowną transformację obejmującą wymianę elit, podważenie ideologicznych fundamentów kemalistowskiej republiki, a także redefinicję tureckiego nacjonalizmu i tożsamości państwa. Kluczowym elementem tych zmian była dokonująca się rehabilitacja Imperium Osmańskiego – przez republikę zdegradowanego do roli epizodu w dziejach Turków. Na skutek wykształcenia się w tzw. „Syntezy turecko-islamskiej” w latach 80., a także rozwoju społecznej nostalgii za dawnym imperium w kolejnej dekadzie, nowa polityka pamięci, wychodząca naprzeciw tej nostalgii odniosła spektakularny sukces. Prowadzona była jednak w sposób odgórny, z dużą starannością o to, aby pojawiające się w sferze publicznej treści, zgodne były z intencjami nowej elity władzy. Ta nowa pamięć, nie usunęła jednak dziedzictwa republikańskiego – jego asymilacja stała się kluczowym czynnikiem wzmacniającym legitymizację wielkiego projektu transformacji politycznej i tożsamościowej, który określany jest mianem „Nowej Turcji”

Lesson for the future climate migration. A study of relocation and development of new settlements in urban peripheries based on spatial dispersion of forced migrants in Serbia between 1991 and 2021

Climate migrations are going to affect the spatial structure in many regions of the world. We are now able to research long-term displacement and its spatial effects. Using the example of Serbia and the 30-year history of migration after the conflicts connected with the collapse of the former Yugoslavia, the article analyses the accompanying processes. The aim of this article is to study the spatial effects of long-term (forced) migration. The research is based on sociological and spatial planning methods, i.e. statistical data, geospatial information and institutional document analysis. The analyses show social and spatial trends in migration and settlement formation in Serbia between 1991 and 2021.Climate migrations are going to affect the spatial structure in many regions of the world. We are now able to research long-term displacement and its spatial effects. Using the example of Serbia and the 30-year history of migration after the conflicts connected with the collapse of the former Yugoslavia, the article analyses the accompanying processes. The aim of this article is to study the spatial effects of long-term (forced) migration. The research is based on sociological and spatial planning methods, i.e. statistical data, geospatial information and institutional document analysis. The analyses show social and spatial trends in migration and settlement formation in Serbia between 1991 and 2021