ББК 63.

3(0)4 Рум; УДК 94(498)

Commentarii
M. Coman

LAND, LORDSHIP, AND THE MAKING OF WALLACHIA

The new state was conceived based on an original idea, rooted only in the local tradition. This is
an example of spontaneous state making. The ruler reigned over «the entire Wallachian land» and,
for the first time in the East, emerged a national idea similar to the Western territorial one, on which
the modern states are founded [...] Thus, on the dawn of modernity, Wallachians came out with the
idea of the modern state1.
One can hardly find a clearer and more concise account of the making of medieval Walla-
chia than the above cited description written by Nicolae Iorga, undoubtedly, the most authorita-
tive figure in Romanian historical studies. Iorga merged in a single, articulate narrative, three
different theses, some of which had already been largely accepted in the scholarship, while
others were formulated for the first time: 1) the contention that the state was predominantly,
if not exclusively, locally rooted, which implicitly denies any significant external influence;
2) the claim that Wallachia was, from its very beginning, a territorial, modern state; 3) the as-
sertion that early Wallachia was more similar to the Western than to the Eastern polities of
the same period. These three ideas are obviously correlated, shaping what arguably could
be defined as the «dominant paradigm» of Romanian medieval studies for almost a century.
The ideological grounds of this paradigm, which played a major role in its design and its dis-
semination, are not too difficult to grasp. The paradigm of a self-made, modern, western-like,
early Wallachia was very appealing to a nationally conditioned historiography, which not only
emerged simultaneously with the modern Romanian state, but also played an important role
in the shaping of it2. Iorga’s account reconciles both the Romanian national pride, empha-
sising that the medieval state is the outcome of an internal evolution, as well as its modern
westernizing aspirations. Thus, the lasting success of this interpretative paradigm is mainly

1
Iorga N. Sârbi, bulgari şi români în Peninsula Balcanică // Studii asupra Evului Mediu românesc / Ed. Şerban
Papacostea. Bucureşti, 1984. P. 61.
2
For an English introduction into Romanian historiography see: Boia L. History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness.
Budapest, 2001.

2012. № 1 (11). Январь—Июнь 79

 Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana

due to its ideological seductiveness, rather than to the arguments brought to its support. As
this paradigm subjugated the entire historical research, almost every newly published study
endorsed it3. Nevertheless, what seemed to be a continuous multiplication of arguments was
essentially an illusion, since the new studies were from the very beginning placed within the
same paradigm, building on a circular line of reasoning.
My article aims to challenge the dominant paradigm on a specific, apparently minor, point:
the claim that the making of Wallachia is the result of an internal evolution that stands out as a
distinctive case of state formation in late medieval Central and Eastern Europe. My contention
is that the contrast between medieval Wallachia and its non-Romanian neighbours, differ-
ence emphasised by the analogies with Western European states of that period, was founded
more on historians’ preconceptions than on a close analysis of the primary sources. In order
to argue this point, I will structure my article into two sections. The first one comprises an
analysis of the analogies proposed by previous scholars between the making of Wallachia and
other examples of medieval state formation. In this view, I will scrutinize both the positive
comparisons, which emphasize the similarities, as well as the negative ones, which focus on
the dissimilarities. The second part of the article is a brief epilogue, where I intend to suggest
some new approaches on the topic, from a more meaningful comparative viewpoint, by taking
into account recent scholarship on late medieval state building.

The making of Wallachia as primary state formation

A scholar browsing through the Romanian historical literature would be astounded by
the over-recurring references to the autochthonous origins of the medieval states, not only
of Wallachia and Moldavia, but also of Transylvania4. Thus, the medieval state is generally
viewed as the outcome of a local evolution, a gradual growth from smaller to bigger poli-
ties, bearing almost no influence from the neighbouring kingdoms and empires. An excellent
example of this narrative of state formation is Alexandru Buzescu’s account from his book
on the origins and development of lordship in Romania, published in 19435. Right from the
introduction Buzescu asserts emphatically: «the [Wallachian] lordship has exclusively Roma-
nian origins, function and destiny». Accordingly, Buzescu assumes that the foundations of the
medieval state had been set on the smaller polities, named cnezate and voievodate, which, in
turn, are considered to have an autochthonous, Romanian, origin, despite their Slavic name6.
The next step in the evolution towards the medieval state had been the unification of these

3
There is, however, a significant difference between historians that explicitly supported this interpretative paradigm and
those who, reluctant to reconsider the broader image, preferred to engage in narrowly approaches on specific topics. For
the later approach see: Pippidi A. La originile Ţării Româneşti // Revista istorică. 2008. Vol. 19. P. 5–20; Andreescu Şt.
Exarhatul. Geneza instituţiei în Ţara Românească şi Moldova // Revista istorică. 2008. Vol. 19. P. 21–27.
4
The identity of Transylvania within the medieval kingdom of Hungary is still a point of debate among Romanian
scholars. Recent scholarship has split into two main interpretations, which view Transylvania either as a province having
its own identity and, sometimes, its own political aspirations (see Tudor Sălăgean), or as nothing more than a region
within the Hungarian kingdom (see András Kovács). Nonetheless, both these theses depart from Ştefan Pascu’s previous
nationalistic interpretation, which considers medieval Transylvania a state in nuce, whose political development had been
stopped by the Hungarian expansion.
5
See: Buzescu A. Domnia în Ţările Române până la 1866. Bucureşti, 1943.
6
In support of the Romanian origins of these polities, Buzescu quotes Ioan Bogdan’s, Nicolae Iorga’s, George Fotino’s
and I. V. Gruia’s previous opinions, asserting that: «these polities have an original, autochthonous, Romanian character
and their origins must be searched beyond the Romanian-Slavic contacts» (see: Buzescu A. Domnia... P. 22).

80 Петербургские славянские и балканские исследования

 M. Coman. Land, lordship and the making of Wallachia

smaller polities. Buzescu views this process as «natural», admitting only reluctantly that it
might have been a violent one. According to his interpretation, the cnezate and the voievodate

Commentarii
were forms of polities common to all the lands inhabited by Romanians. Nonetheless, the
evolution towards state formation ended with two medieval polities, Moldavia and Wallachia,
while in Transylvania the same process was obstructed by the Hungarian Kingdom7. At the
end of his sketchy reconstruction, Buzescu acknowledges «a slight Byzantine influence» on
the Wallachian lordship, transmitted through Bulgaria and Serbia. This design of the making
of Wallachia is shared, with minor differences, both by the scholars that shaped Buzescu’s in-
terpretation, such as Ioan Bogdan8, Nicolae Iorga9, Dinu C. Arion10, Constantin C. Giurescu11,
as well as by those who succeeded him, such as Barbu Câmpina12, Andrei Oţetea13, Petre
P. Panaitescu14, Ştefan Ştefănescu15, Radu Popa16, Dinu C. Giurescu17, Nicolae Stoicescu18,

7
The question that has bothered the Romanian scholarship — why Moldavia and Wallachia were two different states
instead of one? — makes sense only if viewed from within this evolutionist paradigm. Thus, the «natural» political instinct
would have been for all Romanian polities to be integrated into a single state. Accordingly, the existence of two medieval
states was considered an anomaly due to some disturbing factors (see, for instance: Panaitescu P. P. De ce au fost Ţara
Româneascǎ şi Moldova ţǎri separate? // Revista Fundaţiilor Regale. 1938. Vol. 5. P. 560–577).
8
See: Bogdan I. 1) Originea voevodatului la români. Bucureşti, 1902; 2) Depre cnezii români. Bucureşti, 1903.
9
See: Iorga N. Histoire des roumains et de la romanité orientale. Vol. 3: Les Fondateurs d’état. Bucharest, 1937.
10
See: Arion D. C. 1) Cnezii români. Bucureşti, 1938; 2) Încercare asupra domeniului eminent din Principatele Munteniei
şi Moldovei în secolele XIV–XV // Închinare lui Nicolae Iorga cu prilejul împlinirii vârstei de 60 de ani / Ed. Constantin
Marinescu. Cluj, 1931. P. 12–23.
11
See: Giurescu C. C. Istoria românilor / Ed. Dinu C. Giurescu. Bucureşti, 2007.
12
See: Câmpina B. Le problème de l’apparition des états féodaux roumains // Nouvelles Études d’Histoire. 1955. Vol. 1.
P. 181–207. — Although Câmpina fits into the same interpretative paradigm, asserting that «les états féodaux roumains ne
sont que le résultat d’une evolution organique, enfin arrivée à son terme», he essentially admits the role played by external
influences on Romanian state formation, such as Russian, Bulgarian and Hungarian ones. Obviously, the emphasis put on
the «beneficial» Russian influence was mostly due to the political context of the 1950’s. According to Câmpina’s Marxist
scheme, the «feudal» conditions necessary for state formation existed already from the 10th century, but, due to the Cuman,
Pecheneg and Mongol invasions, the entire process had been delayed for four centuries.
13
See: Oţetea A. La formation des états féodaux roumains // Nouvelles Études d’Histoire. 1965. Vol. 3. P. 87–104. —
Oţetea’s article is an overview of Romanian scholarship on medieval state formation from the 1950’s and early 1960’s.
According to Oţetea, the three main ideas shared by all scholars of this period were: 1) state formation in Wallachia,
Moldavia and Transylvania was a single process; 2) medieval states emerged as the outcome of four century gradual growth,
from the 10th to the 14th century; 3) state formation was directly determined by the feudal socio-economic relationships.
14
See: Panaitescu P. P. Introducere la istoria culturii româneşti. Bucureşti, 1969. — Although Panaitescu maintained the
same views on the Wallachian state formation both before and after the Second World War, he became more rigid in applying
the Marxist interpretative scheme in the 1960s. Thus, one might notice the impact that the Marxist historical literature had
on Panaitescu’s writings. See, for instance, the Polish collective work on the beginnings of the Polish state published in
1962 (Początky państwa Polskiego: Księga tysiąclecia. T. I–II / Red. K. Tymieniecki, G. Labuda, H. Łowmiański. Poznań,
1962), and reviewed by Panaitescu two years later in: Studii. Revista de istorie. 1964. Vol. 17. P. 177–182.
15
See: Ştefănescu Şt. 1) Ţara Românească de la Basarab I «Întemeietorul» până la Mihai Viteazul. Bucureşti, 1970;
2) Tradiţia daco-romană şi formarea statelor româneşti de sine stătătoare // Constituirea statelor feudale româneşti / Ed.
Nicolae Stoicescu. Bucureşti, 1980. P. 9–24.
16
See: Popa R. 1) Les recherchés archéologiques dans le problème de la formation des états médiévaux roumains //
Revue Roumain d’Histoire. 1973. Vol. 12. P. 41–59; 2) Premisele cristalizării vieţii statale româneşti // Constituirea statelor
feudale româneşti. P. 25–39. — Radu Popa, who insists on the value of archaeological sources, also underlines the necessity
to analyse state formation as a lengthy process, lasting for four centuries. In both articles Radu Popa defines state formation
as a gradual evolution from simple to more complex polities.
17
See: Giurescu D. C. Ţara Românească în secolele XIV–XV. Bucureşti, 1973.
18
See: Stoicescu N. Descălecat şi întemeiere în istoria Ţării Româneşti // Revista de istorie. 1980. Vol. 33. P. 43–61. —
Stoicescu argues against the thesis of the Transylvanian initiative in the making of Wallachia (the Negru Vodă thesis), but
he is nonetheless very careful to preserve the idea of the close connections between the Romanians from Transylvania and
those from Wallachia. The result is a hybrid thesis according to which Wallachia emerged as the result of an internal political
development, which nonetheless had been nourished by the constant demographic movements from Transylvania.

2012. № 1 (11). Январь—Июнь 81

 Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana

Sergiu Iosipescu19 or Şerban Papacostea20. Even those historians, such as A. D. Xenopol21 or

Gheorghe Brătianu22, who credited the late tradition according to which the making of Walla-
chia was initiated by the Romanian Transylvanian refugee Negru vodă, fit into the same pattern
of internal growth. Except that instead of a local, Wallachian, development, they viewed the
medieval state as the outcome of a broader, Romanian, evolution. Nevertheless, from the point
of view of this analysis, the difference is irrelevant, as all these scholars underplayed the role
external influences had on the making of Wallachia. Thus, Romanian scholarship emphasises
the local roots of Wallachia, viewing the medieval state as an organically developed polity.
Subsequently, the influences exerted by the Golden Horde, by the Hungarian Kingdom, by
Bulgaria, by Serbia and by the Byzantine Empire are either regarded as insignificant, or viewed
as disruptive interferences, aiming to hinder the state building, but sometimes having the op-
posite effect of accelerating the process. There are, however, several scholars who departed,
although not always explicitly, from this interpretative scheme, such as Dimitrie Onciul23 or
Virgil Ciocîltan24, albeit their views have remained marginal in the scholarship25.
In the anthropological literature this kind of local, organic, political development is usually
labelled as «primary state formation» and it is illustrated by extremely few cases, such as those
of Mesopotamia or Ancient Egypt26. Anthropologists consider all other states as «secondary»
formations, directly influenced by the polities from the first category. Thus, viewed from an
anthropological perspective, the Wallachian case reveals its implausible exceptionality: a state
19
See: Iosipescu S. Românii din Carpaţii Meridionali la Dunărea de Jos de la invazia mongolă (1241–1243) până la
consolidarea domniei a toată Ţara Românească. Războiul victorios purtat la 1330 împotriva cotropirii ungare // Constituirea
statelor feudale româneşti. P. 41–95.
20
In his earlier contributions, Şerban Papacostea seems to support the evolutionist interpretation, although he was more
interested in the geopolitical changes of the 13th and 14th centuries that facilitated the emergence of medieval Wallachia (see
the monograph: Papacostea Ş. Românii în secolul al XIII-lea. Bucureşti, 1993, or the collection of articles: Papacostea
Ş. Geneza statului în Evul Mediu românesc. Bucureşti, 1999). Nonetheless, in a recent contribution, Şerban Papacostea
has approached the making of Wallachia from a different angle, interpreting Basarab I’s political action as a centrifugal
movement within the kingdom of Hungary (see: Papacostea Ş. Prima unire românească: Voievodatul de Argeş şi Ţara
Severin // Studii şi materiale de istorie medie. 2010. Vol. 28. P. 9–24). Although the two interpretations do not formally
exclude each other, I believe that viewing Basarab I as a rebellious borderland baron of the Hungarian kingdom significantly
devalues the thesis of the internal growth.
21
See: Xenopol A. D. Istoria românilor din Dacia Traiană / Ed. I. Vlădescu. Bucureşti, 1925. Vol. 3. P. 11–35. — There
is one paragraph where Xenopol seems to suggest that the Transylvanian elite that founded Wallachia had been influenced
by the political organization of the Hungarian kingdom (see: Xenopol A. D. Istoria românilor din Dacia Traiană. Vol. 3.
P. 47). Nonetheless, in the end, Xenopol chose to emphasize the ethnical communion between the Transylvanian dominant
elite and the Wallachian subjects, while he left largely unexplored the idea that the feudal foundations of the new state
were of Hungarian origins.
22
See: Brătianu Gh. Tradiţia istorică despre întemeierea statelor româneşti / Ed. Valeriu Râpeanu. Bucureşti, 1980.
23
Dimitrie Onciul considered medieval Wallachia a successor state of the second Bulgarian Empire (see Onciul’s
writings collected by Aurelian Sacerdoţeanu in: Onciul D. Scrieri istorice. Bucureşti, 1968). Onciul’s thesis is the only
clearly articulate alternative interpretation to the dominant scholarly view on Wallachia state formation, which emphasises
the local political development. Probably due to this reason, his views on Wallachia as a successor state of the Bulgarian
Empire have been largely dismissed by Romanian scholars.
24
Virgil Ciocîltan’s contention is that early 14th century Wallachia was part of a political «constellation» depending on the
Golden Horde (see: Ciocîltan V. Mongolii şi Marea Neagră în secolele XIII–XIV. Bucureşti, 1998). Thus, through a sound
argumentation, Virgil Ciocîltan substantiates an idea previously suggested by Petre P. Panaitescu, see below footnote 32.
25
On Virgil Ciocîltan’s footsteps, Matei Cazacu has recently described in positive terms the role Mongols played in
the making of Wallachia (see: Cazacu M. O controversă: Thocomerius — Negru Vodă // Revista istorică. 2008. Vol. 19.
P. 49–58).
26
The distinction between primary and secondary state formation, outlined for the first time by Morton Fried, has
become a topos of the anthropological literature on state formation (see, for instance, Barbara Price’s or Robert Carneiro’s
writings). For an introduction on this topic see: Origins of the State: The Anthropology of Political Evolution / Ed. by
R. Cohen. Philadelphia, 1978.

82 Петербургские славянские и балканские исследования

 M. Coman. Land, lordship and the making of Wallachia

emerging solely as the result of internal development, owing little if anything to the Mongol,
Latin (Hungarian) and Slavic-Byzantine cultural and political models placed in its vicinity.

Commentarii
Nonetheless, despite its implausibility, this interpretation of the making of Wallachia has domi-
nated the Romanian scholarship for more than a century due to its ideological versatility. The
idea of a locally rooted state fitted both the national paradigm, which emphasized the ethnical
dimension of state-building, as well as the Marxist one, which underlined the repressive nature
of the state. Both nationalist and Marxist scholars, no matter if they viewed the medieval state
as the political articulation of a medieval nation or as a repressive structure aiming to control
the means of production, favoured the idea of the internal political growth27.
Significantly, both the nationalist and the Marxist theoretical frames essentially make
impossible any meaningful comparative approach, since analogies serve only to illustrate
the same, irreversible, historical laws28. In consequence, the few analogies used by scholars
who remained within the limits of the national paradigm or of the Marxist vulgate should
be viewed rather as rhetoric devices than as analytical tools. The inventory of these pseudo-
comparisons is not too extensive and the following list, although incomplete, is suggestive
enough to capture the rhetorical purposes of these analogies: 1) equating the relation between
the Hungarian king and the Wallachian lord with the one between the French and the Eng-
lish kings aimed to enhance the prestige of medieval Wallachia and to endorse the idea of
its sovereignty29; 2) arguing that the Wallachian lords acknowledged only the religious and
not the political authority of Byzantium on the basis of Basil I of Muscovy’s correspondence
with the Constantinopolitan patriarch played a similar role, aiming to support the sovereignty
thesis30; 3) describing the meeting between Nicolae Alexandru and Louis the Great using the
Western feudal phrase «hommage en marche», intended to underline the balance of power
existing between the Wallachian lord and the Hungarian king31. Evidently, in the absence of

27
To the Marxist historians Barbu Câmpina and Ştefan Ştefănescu, already quoted above, one might also add Henri H.
Stahl, arguably the most original Marxist Romanian sociologist and historian, and Daniel Chirot, whose book on Wallachia
integrates this case study into Immanuel Wallerstein’s theoretical model (see: Stahl H. H. Les anciennes communautés
villageoises roumaines. Paris, 1969; Chirot D. Social Change in a Peripheral Society. New York, 1976).
28
Obviously, I did not take into consideration the analogies between Wallachia, Moldavia and Transylvania. Although
the national discourse highlights the similarities between these three polities, this approach is not actually a comparative
one, as Wallachia, Moldavia and Transylvania are considered to be the result of a single historical process.
29
This analogy followed two directions. The first one emphasizes the Wallachian lords’ vassalage to the Hungarian kings
for the Transylvanian feuds, as the English kings had been vassals to the Capetians for the overseas fiefs. Accordingly
Wallachia, as England, preserved its sovereignty as it was not part of this feudal contract (for this line of reasoning see:
Iosipescu S. Despre unele controverse ale istoriei medievale româneşti // Revista istorică. 1979. Vol. 32. S. 1959–1978).
Nonetheless some scholars admitted that the Hungarian king claimed sovereignty over the entire Wallachia and that
the Wallachian lords had to acknowledge, at least in certain circumstances, this claim. However, these moments were
considered irrelevant and different analogies had been proposed to demonstrate that such an acknowledgement did not
impede on Wallachia’s sovereignty; see I. C. Filitti’s comparisons with the relationships between the king of Hungary /
the German Emperor; the king of Poland / the king of Bohemia. Filitti’s closing quotation from Hugo Grotius shows his
conception of sovereignty as a trans-historical idea (see: Filitti I. C. Despre Negru Vodă. Bucureşti, 1924. P. 12–13). For
a reinterpretation of the relations between the Hungarian kings and the Wallachian lords see: Diaconescu M. The Political
Relations between Wallachia and the Hungarian Kingdom during the Reign of the Anjou Kings // Mediaevalia Transilvanica.
1998. Vol. 2. P. 5–42.
30
For this analogy see: Pop I.-A. Geneza medievala a naţiunilor moderne. Bucureşti, 1998. P. 206. In contrast to this
shallow comparison, see the insightful analogy between the Russo-Byzantine and Wallacho-Byzantine ecclesiastic
relationships suggested by Lydia Cotovanu: Cotovanu L. Alexis de Kiev et de toute la Russie — Hyacinthe de toute la
Hongrovalachie: Deux cas parallelles? // Închinare lui Petre Ş. Năsturel la 80 de ani / Ed. Ionel Cândea, Paul Cernvodeanu
şi Gheorghe Lazăr. Brăila, 2003. P. 531–554.
31
See: Iosipescu S. Contribuţii la istoria domniei principelui Radu I şi a alcătuirii teritoriale a Ţării Româneşti în secolul
al XIV-lea // Studii şi Materiale de Istorie Medie. 2010. Vol. 28. P. 25–48.

2012. № 1 (11). Январь—Июнь 83

 Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana

the comparative framework necessary for an in-depth analysis, these rhetoric analogies had no
significant impact on the understanding of the medieval Wallachian state building. A second
type of analogy is the insightful parallel that might have stimulated a comparative approach, but
it never went beyond the initial correlation. Although considerably more suggestive and thought
provoking than the rhetoric analogies, these intuitive comparisons came to a similar ending,
since they also failed to materialize into fully articulate analyses. For instance, Panaitescu’s
suggestion that the Argeş voievodate gained ascendancy over the other Wallachian polities due
to the Mongol protection, as it was the case of Muscovy among the Russian principalities, was
not taken further and even its author later abandoned this hypothesis32. Similarly, Iorga’s unde-
veloped and somehow enigmatic comparisons between the early Wallachian counties and the
judicaturae from Sardinia33 or his analogy of the pair states Moldavia /Wallachia and Castile/
Aragon34 have not been pursued. The third type of analogy, the genuine analytic comparison, is
particularly uncommon in Romanian scholarship and, in addition, it is mostly negative. Thus, it
seems to be a reverse rapport between the distance from Wallachia and the nature of the analogy,
as the negative comparisons come from the immediate vicinity of Wallachia as the positive ones
from more distant places. Evidently, one of the reasons for discarding regional analogies was
the desire to preserve unhindered the thesis of the internal growth of the state. In consequence,
even the analytic and insightful analogies had the same function, meaning to endorse the domi-
nant interpretative paradigm. A concise scrutiny of these analogies, both positive and negative,
will illustrate how they reinforce the idea that the making of Wallachia was the outcome of the
natural, locally rooted, political evolution of the Romanian society.
The analogy that had the most enduring impact on Romanian scholarship was the parallel
between land (the Slavonic zemlia and the Romanian ţeară) and the Medieval Latin notion of
terra. Most scholars simply used this analogy rhetorically or intuitively, without substantiating
the apparent equivalence between the two notions. There are, however, two exceptions.
Always up-to-date with the latest Western scholarship, Gheorghe Brătianu seized the
importance of Otto Brunner’s book, «Land und Herrschaft» 35, shortly after it was published,
and applied his analytical model to the making of Wallachia. Thus, according to Brătianu,
early Wallachia should be viewed as a «community of right», a terra similar to the ones ex-
isting in medieval Germany36. Brătianu’s suggestion, although still viewing the building of
Wallachia in terms of land rather than lordship, had the potential to shift the analysis from the
territorial to the social state formation. Unfortunately, his approach was largely disregarded,
although several scholars referred to Brunner following in Brătianu’s footsteps37. Moreover,
32
See: Panaitescu P. P. Mircea l’Ancien et les Tatares // Revue Historique du Sud-Est Européen. 1942. Vol. 19.
P. 438–448. — In his last monograph, «Introducere la istoria culturii româneşti», Panaitescu reversed his initial theory arguing
that Basarab unified the Wallachian polities in a fight against the Mongols. For the scholarly disputes on this topic see the
above quoted monograph by Virgin Ciocîltan. However, Virgil Ciocîltan’s analysis is focused on the Golden Horde and
not on Wallachia, therefore the Mongol influence on Wallachian state formation remains a topic to be studied. The model
for such an analysis could be Donald Ostrowski’s book «Muscovy and the Mongols: Cross-Cultural Influences on the
Steppe Frontier, 1304–1589» (Cambridge, 1998).
33
See: Iorga N. Le Caractère Commun des Institutions du Sud-Est de l’Europe. Paris, 1929.
34
This analogy suggested by Iorga is mentioned by Gheorghe Brǎtianu, one of his former students (see: Brǎtianu Gh.
Sfatul domnesc şi adunarea stărilor în principatele române. Bucureşti, 1995).
35
Brunner O. Land und Herrschaft: Grundfragen der territorialen Verfassungsgeschichte Südostdeutschlands im
Mittelalter. Vienna, 1939.
36
See: Brătianu Gh. Sfatul domnesc... P. 24–25.
37
For instance, Valentin Georgescu quotes Otto Bauer (sic!) apud Gheorghe Brătianu, see: Georgescu V. Instituţiile
statelor româneşti de-sine-stătătoare // Constituirea statelor feudale româneşti. P. 214.

84 Петербургские славянские и балканские исследования

 M. Coman. Land, lordship and the making of Wallachia

Brunner’s theoretical approach was later used to reinforce the interpretation of early Walla-
chia as institutioneller Flächenstaat, and not as Personenverbandsstaat. Thus, in the 1990’s

Commentarii
Stelian Brezeanu suggested a different analysis of the Wallachian case through the lenses
of Brunner’s theory38. In contrast to Brătianu, who actually used «Land und Herrschaft» to
question the dominant interpretation of the making of Wallachia, Brezeanu’s analysis sup-
ports it. Thus, Brezeanu proposes a typology that distinguishes the «archaic lands», which
existed from the fourth to the 9th century, from the «feudal lands», which lasted from the 9th
to the 14th century, and from the «political lands» that emerged in the 14th century. Only the
first two types of lands, archaic and feudal, actually fit into Brunner’s pattern of terra, while
the so-called «political lands», which include medieval Wallachia, are nothing but territorial
states. Thus, regrettably, Gheorghe Brătianu’s attempt to exploit Otto Brunner’s book in order
to open a debate in the Romanian scholarship on the making of Wallachia failed. Part of this
failure might be due to Brătianu himself, who stood out in the Romanian scholarship: highly
academic, soundly argumentative and, mostly, deliberately uncontroversial. As a result, some
of Brătianu’s ground-breaking ideas passed unnoticed, as it was the case with his viewpoint
on a different analogy for early Wallachia, the Swiss one, firstly proposed by his magister,
Nicolae Iorga.
In 1930 Nicolae Iorga gave two lectures at the University of Berne exploring the analogies
between the Romanian and the Swiss history39. The first paper was entitled «Sempach and
Posada: the fight for liberty of the fourteenth century peasantry» and explored an idea Iorga
had already referred to in other contexts40. Thus, Iorga interprets the two founding moments
of the Swiss and the Wallachian state building, the battles of Sempach and Posada, as tes-
timonies of the innate strength of the medieval peasantry. The common feature both battles
shared was the same result of the confrontation between a feudal army, Hungarian and Aus-
trian, and a communal militia of peasants, Wallachian and Swiss. Moreover, Iorga integrates
the comparison between the two battles into a broader analogy between medieval Wallachia
and Switzerland, both viewed as communal polities of peasants. By placing peasantry at
the foundations of Wallachia, Iorga was entirely consistent, since he constantly defined the
state as a community of peasants. He persisted in this interpretation despite the archaeologi-
cal discovery of Basarab’s tomb in the 1920s, which revealed a sumptuous, knightly lord41.
Nonetheless, Iorga continued to argue that «although Basarab’s sepulchre resembles the tomb
of a crowned Western knight, it is, despite all these, the tomb of a ruler of peasants»42. Iorga’s
analogy had a large echo and the Sempach/Posada parallel became a topos in the Romanian
scholarship43. However, with one, noteworthy exception, none of the scholars that referred to
this analogy went beyond Iorga’s suggestions.

38
See: Brezeanu St. Model european şi realitate locală în întemeierile statale medievale româneşti. Un caz: terra
Bazarab // Revista de istorie. 1994. Vol. 5. P. 211–232.
39
See: Iorga N. Deux conférences en Suisse. Berne, 1930.
40
For earlier references to this analogy see: Iorga N. Evoluţia ideii de libertate. Bucureşti, 1928. P. 142–143.
41
After the archaeological discoveries from Argeş, Iorga slightly modified his interpretation accepting that the Wallachian
lords were rather similar to the Latin nobility than to Romanian peasantry (see: Iorga N. Histoire des roumains. Vol. 3.
P. 220–221). Nonetheless, with regard to state formation and to the nature of early Wallachia, Iorga maintained his previous
interpretations.
42
See: Iorga N. Deux conférences en Suisse. P. 7–8.
43
See, for instance: Minea I. Războiul lui Basarab cel Mare cu regele Carol Robert (noiembrie 1330) // Cercetări istorice.
1929–1932. Vol. 5–7. P. 336; Ştefănescu Şt. Ţara Românească de la Basarab I «Intemeietorul» până la Mihai Viteazul.
Bucureşti, 1970. P. 33.

2012. № 1 (11). Январь—Июнь 85

 Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana

The exception is the same Gheorghe Brătianu who approached the Swiss-Wallachian analogy
from a different angle: the methodological one. In his book on Wallachian and Moldavian state
formation, Brătianu reopened the debate on the value of late traditions as historical sources44. As
many of Brătianu’s contributions, this reinterpretation was stimulated by a recently published
book on William Tell’s legend and the foundation of Switzerland45. Although Brătianu’s core
argument is purely methodological — both William Tell’s and Negru Vodă’s legends should be
considered valid historical sources on the beginnings of the two medieval states — he also delves
into the analogy between the two societies. However, in contrast to Iorga, Brătianu refutes the
egalitarian, communal thesis, emphasizing instead that both medieval Wallachia and Switzerland
were ruled by an upper class that fitted into the Western, feudal and knightly, pattern. Accord-
ingly, for the Wallachian case study, Brătianu identifies a Western pattern of state formation
transmitted through Hungary. Significantly, Brătianu makes no reference to Iorga’s previous
article on Sempach/Posada, avoiding thus to challenge explicitly his professor’s views. Thus,
his analytic suggestions, which could have stirred a debate on the widely shared interpretation
on the making of Wallachia, were largely overshadowed by Iorga’s views.
The idea of an organically developed territorial state had such an enduring success as it
makes use of an important topos of Romanian historical literature: the sense of isolation.
Thus, for most of their history, Romanians’ affinities seem to have lain outside the region
they belonged to geographically. To give only one example, for a long period the Romanians
of the early middle ages were viewed as an island of Latinity encircled by a sea of Slavs46.
This sense of geographical misplacement visibly reflects the modernizing aspirations shared
by most Romanian scholars in the 19th and the 20th century. Iorga’s claim that early Wallachia
was unlike any of its neighbouring states, resembling instead to the Western polities from
the same period, is just another illustration of this topos. The key argument in Iorga’s thesis
was the twofold difference that set apart medieval Wallachia from the Byzantine-Slavic states,
such as Bulgaria or Serbia. According to Iorga’s views Wallachia was a territorial and national
state, while medieval Bulgaria and Serbia were lordships with imperial aspirations47. Thus,
following in Iorga’s footsteps, most Romanian scholars underlined this double distinction that
differentiated Wallachia from its southern neighbours. In consequence, the Bulgarian and Ser-
bian influences on the Wallachian state formation, which can easily be traced, were constantly
underplayed. For instance, although historians acknowledged the numerous Bulgarian and
Serbian influences on the chancery, they nonetheless considered this institution an «original»
Wallachian one48. Similarly, the Byzantine influence on the making of Wallachia was largely
44
See: Brătianu Gh. Tradiţia istorică...
45
Naef H. Guillaume Tell et les trois Suisses. Lausanne, 1942.
46
For the ideologically conditioned (re)interpretations of the relationship between Romanians and early Slavs in the
Romanian scholarship see: Curta F. The Changing Image of the Early Slavs in the Romanian Historiography // Südost-
Forschungen. 1994. Bd. 53. S. 235–276.
47
This thesis is mentioned by several of Iorga’s writings, but the most explicit development can be found in: Iorga N.
Le Caractère Commun des Institutions du Sud-Est de l’Europe. Paris, 1929. P. 26.
48
See: Lascaris M. Influences byzantins dans la diplomatique bulgare, serbe et slavo-roumaine // Byzantinoslavica.
1931. Vol. 3. P. 500–510; Ionescu D. Contribution à la recherche des influences byzantines dans la diplomatique roumaine //
Revue Historique du Sud-Est Européen. 1934. Vol. 11. P. 128–150; Bogdan D. P. L’influence byzantine dans les textes
slavo-roumains // Actes du VIe congrès international d’Etudes byzantines. Paris, 1948. Vol. 1. P. 283–284; Ionescu Nişcov T.
Contacts entre la diplomatique serbe et la chancellaire princière de la Valachie pendant les XIVe et XVe siècles // Bulletin
de l’Association Internationale d’Études du Sud-Est Européen. 1972. Vol. 10. P. 281–284; Cazacu M. La Chancellerie des
principautés valaque et moldave (XIVe–XVIIIe siécles) // Kanzleiwesen und Kanzleisprachen im östlichen Europa / Hrsg.
von Christian Hannick. Köln, 1999. S. 87–127.

86 Петербургские славянские и балканские исследования

 M. Coman. Land, lordship and the making of Wallachia

underestimated, as the setting of the metropolitan seat and the presence of the Byzantine high
clergy in Wallachia were simply viewed as the acknowledgment of an already established state.

Commentarii
Iorga’s captivating formula, Byzance après Byzance, implicitly plays down any significant Byz-
antine influence on Wallachia, throughout the 14th and the 15th centuries, the period of the state
formation49. Again, Iorga’s impact on the scholarship was considerable, and the historians who
studied the Byzantine influence on Wallachia, such as Valentin Georgescu or Andrei Pippidi,
focused their analysis primarily on the post-Byzantine period50. As a consequence, the study of
Byzantine-Slavic influence on early Wallachia was mainly confined to art or literature51, while
its impact on political thought and state institutions was mostly overlooked.
In conclusion of this brief scrutiny of the analogies proposed by previous scholars in order
to explore the making of Wallachia, I would like to highlight three ideas. Firstly, the analogies
are extremely few, implicitly reinforcing the thesis of medieval Wallachia as the outcome of
local political development, a case of primary state formation. Secondly, the comparisons
were generally used to close arguments, not to initiate debates. Thus, Romanian scholars
turned to analogies in order to corroborate already established conclusions, rather than ques-
tion generally accepted interpretations. Thirdly, any external influence on the making of the
state was minimized, as early Wallachia was viewed as an original, articulate polity, able to
absorb such influences without modifying its core identity.

Epilogue. Questioning the Paradigm52

Methodologically, the analogies I have summarized in the first part of the article have
two major shortcomings: they never actually examined the implicit grounds of the dominant
scholarly paradigm and they did not place Wallachia in a broader comparative view. In this
brief epilogue, I aim to address these two flaws by suggesting some new lines of inquiry
on the making of Wallachia. The starting points of my critique are some recent contributions
to the late medieval state formation, such as those of Hendrik Spruyt, John Watts and Andrzej
Buko, as well as the theoretical framework outlined by the sociologist Michael Mann.
Since the making of Wallachia was viewed as a gradual growth, from lower to higher forms
of political organization, scholars vigilantly scrutinized the primary sources in order to find
the polities from which the state progressively evolved. Archaeological findings, Hungarian
charters, papal documents and even German poems were brought into play in order to map the
political grounds in which Wallachia was rooted53. Nonetheless, despite the positive results of

49
See: Iorga N. Byzance après Byzance. Bucharest, 1935.
50
In this regard, Valentin Georgescu’s first phrase of the chapter studying the Byzantine impact on early Wallachian
lordship is suggestive: «From a political viewpoint, neither Wallachia, nor Moldavia, were states of a Byzantine design».
The chapter, otherwise very well written, ends with an emphasis on the political originality of the Wallachian state, which
shaped the Byzantine model into a profoundly innovative way (see: Georgescu V. Bizanţul şi instituţiile româneşti până la
mijlocul secolului al XVIII-lea. Bucureşti, 1980; see also Pippidi A. Tradiţia politică bizantină în ţǎrile române în secolele
XVI–XVII. Bucureşti, 2001).
51
See, for instance: Turdeanu E. La littérature bulgare du XIV siècle et sa diffusion dans les pays roumains. Paris, 1947.
52
Most of the ideas I have included in this epilogue had been developed and argued in my PhD thesis, «The Medieval
Frontiers of Wallachia», supervised by Professor Andrei Pippidi, which I successfully defended at the University of
Bucharest, in March 2012.
53
For the 13th century South-Carpathian polities see the above mentioned monograph by Şerban Papacostea, «Românii
în secolul al XIII-lea». For the debate on Ottokar of Styria’s poem mentioning an allegedly Wallachian lord, see: Cristea O.
Captivitatea lui Otto de Bavaria. Câteva consideraţii // Secolul al XIII-lea pe meleagurile locuite de români / Ed. Adrian
A. Rusu. Cluj-Napoca, 2006.

2012. № 1 (11). Январь—Июнь 87

 Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana

this research effort, the entire argument is undermined by the missing of a crucial link. None of
the identified 13th century polities can be directly associated with any of the political actors that
shaped 14th and 15th century Wallachia. Thus, the Basarabs, the dynasty that built Wallachia,
suddenly emerged in sources in the second decade of the 14th century. Traditionally, Basarab
is considered to be Seneslau’s descendant, a 13th century Wallachian local lord attested by a
Hungarian charter. However, no written evidence substantiates this hypothesis. Considering
the scarcity of written sources on early Wallachia, one might turn to archaeology to find a
connection between Seneslau and Basarab. Unfortunately, the archaeologists, the same as the
historians, took for granted the idea of the continuity between 13th century polities and the
14th century Wallachian state. Hence, their interpretations are not always to be relied on, as
some of their conclusions are based on unsubstantiated premises54. Therefore, a re-evaluation
of the archaeological findings might shed some light on early Wallachia, as it was the case
with the recent shifting on the formation of medieval Poland suggested by Andrzej Buko55.
Nonetheless, in order to effectively contribute to a better understanding of the Wallachian state
formation, archaeology must renounce to a rigid pre-conceived interpretative framework.
Historians, in their turn, should question the assumptions on which previous interpretations
had been grounded, by framing the Wallachian case in a broader comparative perspective on
late medieval state building. In this regard, I consider the next three premises worth reconsider-
ing: 1) state building loses ground during periods of conflict; 2) the evolution of state power
is linear, although it alternates periods of ascends, with phases of descends or stagnation;
3) late medieval and early modern success of the sovereign state over competing polities was
inevitable. Although none of these premises had been explicitly formulated in the Romanian
scholarship, they are implicitly laid at the foundations of the dominant interpretative para-
digm. Thus, due to the numerous conflicts caused by the Ottoman pressure and by the internal
struggles for throne, the period post-1420 has commonly been considered a period of decay in
the history of Wallachia. Accordingly, the golden age of state power was placed at the begin-
nings of the Wallachian state. Certainly, the image of an already consolidated state suddenly
emerging in the 14th century fostered the thesis of a long period of previous, imperceptible,
gradual growth. Nevertheless, what if the premise of this line of reasoning is false? What if
state building and conflicts can actually coexist? This is precisely John Watts’ main contention
54
See, for instance, the intricate interpretation advanced by the archaeologist Nicolae Constantinescu with regard to
Argeş, Basarab’s first documented court. Although Nicolae Constantinescu claims a direct continuity throughout the 13th
and the 14th centuries, thus linking directly Basarab to Seneslau, he actually fails to provide a conclusive material evidence
for the existence of a thirteenth century laic edifice at Argeş. Therefore, the connections between the 13th century church
and the fourteenth century church and princely court has yet to be elucidated (see: Constantinescu N. 1) La residence
d’Argeş des voivodes roumains des XIIIe et XIVe siècles. Problèmes de chronologie la lumière des récentes recherchés
archéologiques // Revue des études sud-est européennes. 1970. Vol. 8. P. 5–31; 2) Curtea de Argeş 1200–1400. Asupra
începuturilor Ţării Româneşti. Bucureşti, 1984). It is worth noting that although in his previous articles, Constatinescu
explicitly referred to a Seneslau phase at Argeş, in his final monograph he reluctantly admitted that he was unable to find
the remains of the 13th century court, but nonetheless he continued to postulate its existence. Constantinescu’s frail argument
is that a church was necessarily placed nearby a laic structure.
55
According to the traditional interpretation, Poland was the outcome of a gradual process of political consolidation that
lasted from the 7th to the 9th century, a period in which the ancestors of the early Piasts rulers slowly increased their authority
in the detriment of the regional tribal communities. However, using more precise dating techniques such as dendrochronology,
Andrzej Buko convincingly challenged this view, arguing that the tribal strongholds were built considerably later and, thus,
instead of pre-dating by several generations they are almost contemporary to the rise of the Piasts. Therefore, Buko’s scenario
of the making of Poland replaces the previous two-century long, gradual development with the image of an abrupt growth
at the beginning of the 10th century (see: Buko A. Unknown Revolution: Archaeology and the Beginnings of the Polish State
// East Central and Eastern Europe in the Early Middle Ages / Ed. by Florin Curta. Ann Arbor, 2005. P. 162–180). A similar
scenario for Wallachia seems to me far more plausible than the widely accepted evolutionist thesis.

88 Петербургские славянские и балканские исследования

 M. Coman. Land, lordship and the making of Wallachia

in his recent book on late medieval polities56. Therefore, if we reconsider 15th and 16th century
conflicts, including the Ottoman pressure, from the viewpoint of state building, we might ar-

Commentarii
rive to an entirely different conclusion. Thus, even though conflicts undoubtedly weakened the
Wallachian lords’ despotic power, they almost certainly increased their infrastructural power.
This distinction within the concept of power, suggested by Michael Mann57, helps us to escape
the linear pattern of state evolution. Although 16th century Wallachian lords’ decision power
was significantly more restricted than that of their 14th century predecessors, their implemen-
tal power was considerably improved. Finally, following in Hendrik Spruyt’s footsteps, we
might also attempt to avoid interpreting 14th century Wallachia from the sole perspective of
the sovereign state, turning instead our attention to the Basarabs’ internal competitors58.
Evidently, these research suggestions imply a reassessment not only of the history of the
14th century Wallachia, but of the 15th and early 16th century as well. The core contention of
my argument is precisely that Wallachian state formation was not a 13th – early 14th century
process, but a phenomenon that began in the 14th century and continued until the mid-sixteenth
century, when it entered a different phase. Such an analytic shift will also extend consider-
ably the documentary base for the analysis of the Wallachian state formation. As a result, the
hypotheses and the assumptions on which the dominant interpretative paradigm is grounded
might be replaced with argumentative constructions. But, most importantly, this new approach
could finally elude the national and Marxist paradigms to which the subject of the making
of Wallachia was confined for more than a century. As a result, avoiding both the illusion of
exceptionality and the historicism chimera, Wallachia could find its appropriate place in the
larger scholarship of late medieval state formation.

Резюме
Едва ли можно отыскать более ясное и четкое объяснение возникновения средне-
векового Валашского государства, чем то, что принадлежит перу Николае Йорги, без
сомнения, самой авторитетной фигуры румынской исторической науки. В одном строй-
ном изложении Н. Йорга соединил воедино три тезиса, частично уже широко распро-
странившихся в науке, частично сформулированных впервые: 1) Валашское государство
имело по преимуществу, если не исключительно, местные истоки — тезис, имплицитно
отвергавший сколько-нибудь значительное внешнее влияние; 2) Валахия с самого начала
являлась территориальным государством нового типа; 3) первоначальное Валашское
государство имело больше сходства с западными, нежели с восточными политическими
образованиями современной ему эпохи. Как видно, эти три идеи кореллировали друг с
другом, формируя то, что, пожалуй, можно было бы назвать «доминирующей парадигмой»
румынской медиевистики в течение почти столетнего периода. Идеологические основа-
ния этой парадигмы, сыгравшие основную роль в ее оформлении и распространении,
распознать нетрудно. Модель самостоятельно сформировавшегося, развитого Валашского

56
See: Watts J. The Making of Polities. Europe, 1300–1500. Cambridge, 2009.
57
See: Mann M. The Sources of Social Power. Vol. I. A History of Power from the Beginning to AD 1760. Cambridge, 1986.
58
See: Spruyt H. The Sovereign State and its Competitors: An Analysis of Systems Change. Princeton, 1994. — Although
Spruy’s analysis is focused on the Western competitors to late medieval sovereign states, such as urban leagues and
independent communes, I think his overall argument against the view of the territorial state as an inevitable outcome of
historical development is also valid for Wallachia. Thus, by carefully inquiring into 15th century charters and by interpreting
archaeological findings usually neglected as they did not fit into the established narrative (as the impressive 14th century
noble court from Polata, Gorj), at least some of the Wallachian rivals to the Basarabs’ state structure could be identified.

2012. № 1 (11). Январь—Июнь 89

 Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana

государства, типологически близкого государствам Западной Европы, была весьма со-

блазнительной для национально-ориентированной историографии, которая не только
возникла одновременно с современным Румынским государством, но и играла важную
роль в его оформлении. Нарисованная Н. Йоргой картина подкрепляла как румынскую
национальную гордость, подчеркивая, что средневековое государство было результа-
том внутреннего развития, так и современные устремления к вестернизации. Таким
образом, продолжительный успех этой интерпретационной парадигмы был в большей
степени обеспечен ее идеологической привлекательностью, нежели научными аргу-
ментами, выдвигавшимися в ее поддержку. Так как эта парадигма подчинила себе весь
ход исторических разысканий, то почти каждое вновь появлявшееся исследование
служило ей подтверждением. Однако казавшееся постоянным умножение аргументов
в ее пользу было в сущности иллюзорным, так как новые исследования с самого на-
чала оказывались в рамках заранее заданной парадигмы, основываясь на шедшей по
кругу аргументации.
Цель нашей статьи заключается в том, чтобы поставить под сомнение данную пара-
дигму в отдельной, возможно, не самой значительной, точке — в утверждении, что Ва-
лахия является результатом внутренней эволюции, выделяясь как особый случай форми-
рования государственности в позднесредневековой Центральной и Восточной Европе.
Мы убеждены в том, что различие между средневековой Валахией и ее не-румынскими
соседями, различие, подчеркиваемое аналогиями с западноевропейскими государствами
той эпохи, базировалось в большей степени на предвзятых мнениях историков, нежели
на непосредственном анализе первоисточников. Чтобы обосновать данный тезис, мы
структурировали нашу статью в виде двух разделов. В первом разделе содержится
анализ аналогий между формированием Валахии и другими примерами формирования
средневековой государственности, предлагавшихся предшествующими исследователя-
ми. При этом мы рассматриваем как те сравнения, которые подчеркивали сходства, так
и те, которые, напротив, были сфокусированы на расхождениях. В результате мы могли
убедиться в том, что, во-первых, круг аналогий был чрезвычайно ограничен. Тем самым
имплицитно усиливался тезис о средневековом Валашском государстве как о результате
локального политического развития, случае первичного формирования государственно-
сти. Во-вторых, сравнения обычно использовались для того, чтобы закрывать полемику,
а не инициировать ее. Таким образом, румынские ученые обращались к аналогиям,
чтобы подкрепить уже полученные выводы, а не для того, чтобы подвергнуть сомнению
общепринятые интерпретации. В-третьих, любое внешнее влияние на формирование
государства минимизировалось, так как первоначальная Валахия рассматривалась как
оригинальная, уже сложившаяся полития, способная абсорбировать внешние влияния,
не меняя при этом свою коренную идентичность.
Вторая часть статьи представляет собой краткий эпилог, в котором мы намереваемся
предложить некоторые новые подходы к данной теме, приняв во внимание новейшие ис-
следования в области изучения формирования позднесредневековой государственности.
В этом отношении мы считаем заслуживающими пересмотра следующие три положе-
ния: 1) государственное строительство теряет почву в периоды конфликтов; 2) эволюция
государственной мощи является линейной, хотя и чередует периоды подъема с фазами
упадка или стагнации; 3) победа монархического государства, сложившегося в позднее
Средневековье и раннее Новое время, над конкурирующими политическими формами
была неизбежна. Хотя ни одно из этих положений не было эксплицитно сформулиро-

90 Петербургские славянские и балканские исследования

 M. Coman. Land, lordship and the making of Wallachia

вано в румынской науке, они имплицитно присутствовали в основах доминирующей

интерпретационной парадигмы.

Commentarii
Так, ввиду многочисленных конфликтов, вызванных османским давлением и внутрен-
ней борьбой за трон, период после 1420 г. обычно рассматривался в истории Валахии
как период упадка. Соответственно золотым веком государственности считалась ранняя
история Валашского государства. Конечно, представление об уже консолидированном
государстве, быстро заявившем о себе в XIV столетии, благоприятствовало тезису о пред-
шествовавшем длительном периоде его постепенного незаметного роста. Однако, что
если предпосылка, лежавшая в основе данного хода рассуждений, ошибочна? Что если в
действительности государственное строительство и конфликты могли сосуществовать?
Пересмотрев конфликты XV–XVI вв., включая османское давление, с точки зрения
государственного строительства, можно прийти к совершенно иным выводам. Хотя
конфликты, несомненно, ослабляли деспотическую власть валашских господарей, по-
следние почти определенно наращивали свою власть в том, что касалось инфраструк-
туры управления. Это различие в концепции власти, предложенное Майклом Манном,
помогает нам уйти от линейной модели развития государственности. Хотя власть
валашских господарей XVI в. в области принятия решений была значительно более
ограниченной, чем власть их предшественников в XIV в., их исполнительная власть
значительно усилилась. Наконец, мы могли бы также попытаться уйти от интерпретации
Валахии XIV в. исключительно с точки зрения развития монархической власти, обра-
тив вместо этого наше внимание на внутренних соперников Басарабов. Очевидно, что
предлагаемый подход подразумевает пересмотр истории Валахии не только в XIV сто-
летии, но и в XV – начале XVI в. Суть нашего рассуждения заключается как раз в том,
что формирование валашской государственности случилось не в XIII – начале XIV в.,
а являло собой процесс, начавшийся в XIV в. и продолжавшийся до середины XVI в.,
когда он вступил в другую фазу.
Перевод с английского Д. Е. Алимова

Данные о статье
Статья написана при поддержке Румынского национального исследовательского совета
(CNCS-UEFISCDI, IDEI, номер проекта PN-II-ID PCE-2011-3-0309).
Автор: Коман, Мариан, доктор истории, научный сотрудник Института истории имени Н. Йорги
Румынской академии наук, Бухарест, Румыния, commarian@gmail.com
Название: Land, Lordship and the Making of Wallachia [Земля, власть и образование Валахии]
Резюме: Цель статьи заключается в том, чтобы поставить под сомнение доминирующую парадигму
формирования валашской государственности в румынской науке в отдельном пункте — в утвержде-
нии, что Валахия является результатом исключительно внутренней эволюции, выделяясь как особый
случай формирования государственности в позднесредневековой Центральной и Восточной Европе.
Данный тезис об исключительности базировался в большей степени на предвзятых мнениях истори-
ков, нежели на непосредственном анализе первоисточников. Первый раздел статьи содержит анализ
аналогий, предлагавшихся предшествующими исследователями, тогда как вторая часть является
кратким эпилогом, где предлагаются некоторые новые подходы к теме. Круг аналогий, предлагав-
шихся исследователями к валашскому случаю, крайне ограничен, чем имплицитно усиливался тезис
о средневековой Валахии как о результате локального политического развития. Кроме того, сравнения
обычно использовались для того, чтобы закрывать полемику, а не инициировать ее, а любое внешнее
влияние минимизировалось, так как первоначальная Валахия рассматривалась как оригинальная сло-
жившаяся полития, способная абсорбировать внешние влияния, не изменяя при этом свою коренную
идентичность. Во второй части статьи мы предлагаем некоторые новые подходы к теме, с точки зрения
более осмысленного сопоставления. В этом отношении мы считаем заслуживающими пересмотра

2012. № 1 (11). Январь—Июнь 91

 Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana

следующие три положения: 1) государственное строительство теряет почву в периоды конфликтов;

2) эволюция государственной мощи является линейной, хотя и чередует периоды подъема с фазами
упадка или стагнации; 3) победа нового типа государства, сложившегося в позднее Средневековье и
раннее Новое время, над конкурирующими политическими формами была неизбежна. Формирование
валашской государственности случилось не в XIII – начале XIV в., а являло собой процесс, начавшийся
в XIV в. и продолжавшийся до середины XVI в., когда он вступил в другую фазу.
Ключевые слова: политогенез, средневековая Валахия, XIV век, династия Басарабов, сравни-
тельный подход

Information about the article

This article was written with the support of the Romanian National Research Council (CNCS-UEFISCDI,
IDEI, project number PN-II-ID PCE-2011-3-0309).
Author: Coman, Marian; Ph. D. in History, «Nicolae Iorga» Institute of History of the Romanian Academy,
Bucharest, Romania, commarian@gmail.com
Title: Land, Lordship and the Making of Wallachia
Summary: The present article aims to question the dominant paradigm of Wallachian state making in
Romanian scholarship on a specific point: the claim that the state was the result of an exclusively internal
evolution that stands out as a distinctive case of state formation in late medieval Central and Eastern Europe.
This exceptionality thesis was founded more on historians’ preconceptions than on a close analysis of the
primary sources. The first section of the article comprises an analysis of the analogies proposed by previous
scholars, while the second part is a brief epilogue, where I suggest some new approaches on the topic. The
analogies that scholars have proposed for the Wallachian case are extremely few, implicitly reinforcing the
thesis of medieval Wallachia as the outcome of local political development. In addition, the comparisons
were generally used to close arguments, not to initiate debates and any external influence was minimized, as
early Wallachia was viewed as an original, articulate polity, able to absorb such influences without modifying
its core identity. In the second part of the article I suggest some new approaches on the topic, from a more
meaningful comparative viewpoint. In this regard, I consider the next three premises worth reconsidering:
1) state building loses ground during periods of conflict; 2) the evolution of state power is linear, although
it alternates periods of ascends, with phases of descends or stagnation; 3) late medieval and early modern
success of the sovereign state over competing polities was inevitable. Wallachian state formation was not
a 13th – early 14th century process, but a phenomenon that began in the 14th century and continued until the
mid-sixteenth century, when it entered a different phase.
Key words: state making, medieval Wallachia, 14th century, Basarab dinasty, comparative approach

References
Andreescu, Ştefan. Exarhatul. Geneza instituţiei în Ţara Românească şi Moldova, in Revista istorică.
2008. Vol. 19. P. 21–27.
Arion, Dinu C. Cnejii (chinejii) români: Contribuţii la studiul lor. Bucureşti: Tipografia Revista Geniului,
1938. 245 p.
Arion, Dinu C. Încercare asupra domeniului eminent din Principatele Munteniei şi Moldovei în secolele
XIV–XV, in Marinescu, Constantin (ed.). Închinare lui Nicolae Iorga cu prilejul împlinirii vârstei de 60 de
ani. Cluj: Editura Institutului de Istorie Universală, 1931. P. 12–23.
Bogdan, Damian P. L’influence byzantine dans les textes slavo-roumains, in Actes du VIe congrès inter-
national d’Etudes byzantines. Paris: École des Hautes Études, 1948. Vol. 1. P. 283–284.
Bogdan, Ioan. Depre cnezii români. Bucureşti: Carol Göbl, 1903. 32 p.
Bogdan, Ioan. Originea voevodatului la români. Bucureşti: Carol Göbl, 1902. 17 p.
Boia, Lucian. History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness. Budapest: Central European University
Press, 2001. 285 p.
Brătianu, Gheorghe. Tradiţia istorică despre întemeierea statelor româneşti / Ed. Râpeanu, Valeriu.
Bucureşti: Editura Eminescu, 1980. 295 p.
Brǎtianu, Gheorghe. Sfatul domnesc şi adunarea stărilor în principatele române. Bucureşti: Editura
Enciclopedică, 1995. 328 p.
Brezeanu, Stelian. Model european şi realitate locală în întemeierile statale medievale româneşti. Un caz:
terra Bazarab, in Revista de istorie. 1994. Vol. 5. P. 211–232.

92 Петербургские славянские и балканские исследования

 M. Coman. Land, lordship and the making of Wallachia

Brunner, Otto. Land und Herrschaft: Grundfragen der territorialen Verfassungsgeschichte Südostdeut-
schlands im Mittelalter. Vienna: Baden, 1939. 512 s.
Buko, Andrzej. Unknown Revolution: Archaeology and the Beginnings of the Polish State, in Curta, Florin

Commentarii
(ed.). East Central and Eastern Europe in the Early Middle Ages. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan
Press, 2005. P. 162–180.
Buzescu, Alexandru. Domnia în Ţările Române până la 1866. Bucureşti: Cartea Românească, 1943. 333 p.
Câmpina, Barbu. Le problème de l’apparition des états féodaux roumains, in Nouvelles Études d’Histoire.
1955. Vol. 1. P. 181–207.
Cazacu, Matei. O controversă: Thocomerius — Negru Vodă, in Revista istorică. 2008. Vol. 19. P. 49–58.
Cazacu, Matei. La Chancellerie des principautés valaque et moldave (XIVe– XVIIIe siécles), in Han-
nick, Christian (ed.). Kanzleiwesen und Kanzleisprachen im östlichen Europa. Köln: Böhlau Verlag, 1999.
S. 87–127.
Chirot, Daniel. Social Change in a Peripheral Society. New York: Academic Press, 1976. 179 p.
Ciocîltan, Virgil. Mongolii şi Marea Neagră în secolele XIII–XIV. Bucureşti: Editura Enciclopedică,
1998. 299 p.
Cohen, Ronald (ed.). Origins of the State: The Anthropology of Political Evolution. Philadelphia: Institute
for the Study of Human Issues, 1978. 233 p.
Constantinescu, Nicolae. La residence d’Argeş des voivodes roumains des XIIIe et XIVe siècles. Problèmes
de chronologie la lumière des récentes recherchés archéologiques, in Revue des études sud-est européennes.
1970. Vol. 8. P. 5–31.
Constatinescu, Nicolae. Curtea de Argeş 1200–1400. Asupra începuturilor Ţării Româneşti. Bucureşti:
Editura Academiei, 1984. 170 p.
Cotovanu, Lydia. Alexis de Kiev et de toute la Russie — Hyacinthe de toute la Hongrovalachie: deux cas
parallelles?, in Cândea, Ionel; Cernvodeanu, Paul; Lazăr, Gheorghe (ed.). Închinare lui Petre Ş. Năsturel la
80 de ani. Brăila: Editura Istros, 2003. P. 531–554.
Cristea, Ovidiu. Captivitatea lui Otto de Bavaria. Câteva consideraţii, in Rusu, Adrian A. (ed.). Secolul al
XIII-lea pe meleagurile locuite de români. Cluj-Napoca: Mega, 2006. P. 61–76.
Curta, Florin. The Changing Image of the Early Slavs in the Romanian Historiography, in Südost-Forsc-
hungen. 1994. Bd. 53. S. 235–276.
Diaconescu, Marius. The Political Relations between Wallachia and the Hungarian Kingdom during the
Reign of the Anjou Kings, in Mediaevalia Transilvanica. 1998. Vol. 2. P. 5–42.
Filitti, Ioan C. Despre Negru Vodă. Bucureşti: Cultura Naţională, 1924. 39 p.
Georgescu, Valentin. Bizanţul şi instituţiile româneşti până la mijlocul secolului al XVIII-lea. Bucureşti:
Editura Academiei, 1980. 296 p.
Georgescu, Valentin. Instituţiile statelor româneşti de-sine-stătătoare, in Stoicescu, Nicolae (ed.). Consti-
tuirea statelor feudale româneşti. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei, 1980. P. 209–250.
Giurescu, Constantin C. Istoria românilor / Ed. Giurescu, Dinu C. Vol. 1. Bucureşti: Editura All, 2007. 454 p.
Giurescu, Dinu C. Ţara Românească în secolele XIV–XV. Bucureşti: Editura Ştiinţifică, 1973. 496 p.
Ionescu Nişcov, Traian. Contacts entre la diplomatique serbe et la chancellaire princière de la Valachie
pendant les XIVe et XVe siècles, in Bulletin de l’Association Internationale d’Études du Sud-Est Européen.
1972. Vol. 10. P. 281–284.
Ionescu, Démètre. Contribution à la recherche des influences byzantines dans la diplomatique roumaine,
in Revue Historique du Sud-Est Européen. 1934. Vol. 11. P. 128–150
Iorga, Nicolae. Evoluţia ideii de libertate. Bucureşti: Ministerul de Instrucţie, 1928. 290 p.
Iorga, Nicolae. Le Caractère Commun des Institutions du Sud-Est de l’Europe. Paris: J. Gamber, 1929. 138 p.
Iorga, Nicolae. Deux conférences en Suisse. Berne: [s. n.], 1930. 24 p.
Iorga, Nicolae. Byzance après Byzance. Bucureşti: Institute d’études byzantines, 1935. 272 p.
Iorga, Nicolae. Histoire des roumains et de la romanité orientale. Vol. 3. Les Fondateurs d’état. Bucureşti:
Academia Românǎ, 1937. 424 p.
Iorga, Nicolae. Studii asupra Evului Mediu românesc / Ed. Papacostea, Şerban. Bucureşti: Ed. Ştiinţifică
şi Enciclopedică, 1984. 459 p.
Iosipescu, Sergiu. Contribuţii la istoria domniei principelui Radu I şi a alcătuirii teritoriale a Ţării
Româneşti în secolul al XIV-lea, in Studii şi Materiale de Istorie Medie. 2010. Vol. 28. P. 25–48.
Iosipescu, Sergiu. Despre unele controverse ale istoriei medievale româneşti, in Revista istorică. 1979.
Vol. 32. P. 1959–1978.

2012. № 1 (11). Январь—Июнь 93

 Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana

Iosipescu, Sergiu. Românii din Carpaţii Meridionali la Dunărea de Jos de la invazia mongolă (1241–1243)
până la consolidarea domniei a toată Ţara Românească. Războiul victorios purtat la 1330 împotriva cotropirii
ungare, in Stoicescu Nicolae (ed.). Constituirea statelor feudale româneşti. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei,
1980. P. 41–95.
Lascaris, Michael. Influences byzantins dans la diplomatique bulgare, serbe et slavo-roumaine, in Byzan-
tinoslavica. 1931. Vol. 3. P. 500–510.
Mann, Michael. The Sources of Social Power. Volume 1. A History of Power from the Beginning to AD
1760. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. 549 p.
Minea, Ilie. Războiul lui Basarab cel Mare cu regele Carol Robert (noiembrie 1330), in Cercetări istorice.
1929–1932. Vol. 5–7. P. 321–341.
Naef, Henri. Guillaume Tell et les trois Suisses. Lausanne: Spes, 1942. 123 p.
Onciul, Dimitrie. Scrieri istorice. Ed. Aurelian Sacerdoţeanu. Bucureşti: Editura Ştiinţifică, 1968. Vol. 1.
720 p. Vol. 2. 560 p.
Ostrowski, Donald. Muscovy and the Mongols: Cross-Cultural Influences on the Steppe Frontier, 1304–
1589. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. 329 p.
Oţetea, Andrei. La formation des états féodaux roumains, in Nouvelles Études d’Histoire. 1965. Vol. 3.
P. 87–104.
Panaitescu, Petre P. De ce au fost Ţara Româneascǎ şi Moldova ţǎri separate?, in Revista Fundaţiilor
Regale. 1938. Vol. 5. P. 560–577.
Panaitescu, Petre P. Introducere la istoria culturii româneşti. Bucureşti: Editura Ştiinţifică, 1969. 397 p.
Panaitescu, Petre P. Mircea l’Ancien et les Tatares, in Revue Historique du Sud-Est Européen. 1942. Vol.
19. P. 438–448.
Panaitescu, Petre P. Recenzie la «Początky państwa Polskiego: Księga tysiąclecia», in Studii. Revista de
istorie. 1964. Vol. 17. P. 177–182. Papacostea, Şerban. Românii în secolul al XIII-lea. Bucureşti: Editura
Enciclopedică, 1993. 188 p.
Papacostea, Şerban. Geneza statului în Evul Mediu românesc. Bucureşti: Editura Corint, 1999. 294 p.
Papacostea, Şerban. Prima unire românească: voievodatul de Argeş şi Ţara Severin, in Studii şi materiale
de istorie medie. 2010. Vol. 28. P. 9–24.
Pippidi, Andrei. La originile Ţării Româneşti, in Revista istorică. 2008. Vol. 19. P. 5–20.
Pippidi, Andrei. Tradiţia politică bizantină în ţǎrile române în secolele XVI–XVII. Bucureşti: Corint,
2001. 393 p.
Pop, Ioan Aurel. Geneza medievală a naţiunilor moderne. Bucureşti: Editura Fundaţiei Culturale Române,
1998. 230 p.
Popa, Radu. Les recherchés archéologiques dans le problème de la formation des états médiévaux rou-
mains, in Revue Roumain d’Histoire. 1973. Vol. 12. P. 41–59.
Popa, Radu. Premisele cristalizării vieţii statale româneşti, in Stoicescu, Nicolae (ed.). Constituirea statelor
feudale româneşti. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei, 1980. p. 25-39.
Spruyt, Hendrik. The Sovereign State and its Competitors: An Analysis of Systems Change. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1994. 288 p.
Stahl, Henri H. Les anciennes communautés villageoises roumaines. Paris: C.N.R.S., 1969. 254 p.
Ştefănescu, Ştefan. Ţara Românească de la Basarab I «Intemeietorul» până la Mihai Viteazul. Bucureşti:
Editura Academiei, 1970. 176 p.
Ştefănescu, Ştefan. Tradiţia daco-romană şi formarea statelor româneşti de sine stătătoare, in Stoicescu,
Nicolae (ed.). Constituirea statelor feudale româneşti. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei, 1980. P. 9–24.
Stoicescu, Nicolae. Descălecat şi întemeiere în istoria Ţării Româneşti, in Revista de istorie. 1980. Vol. 33.
P. 43–61.
Turdeanu, Emil. La littérature bulgare du XIV siècle et sa diffusion dans les pays roumains. Paris: Librairie
Droz, 1947. 188 p.
Tymieniecki, Kazimierz; Labuda, Gerard; Łowmiański, Henryk (ed.). Początky państwa Polskiego:
Księga tysiąclecia. Poznań: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1962. T. I: Organizacja polityczna. 428 s.;
T. II: Społeczeństwo i kultura. 368 s.
Watts, John. The Making of Polities. Europe, 1300–1500. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
466 p.
Xenopol, Alexandru Dimitrie. Istoria românilor din Dacia Traiană / Ed. Vlădescu, Ion. Vol. 3. Bucureşti:
Cartea Românească, 1925. 236 p.

94 Петербургские славянские и балканские исследования