Looks like Vlad came back to life with the help of Modern technology, just wanted to share this cool pic with you guys But here is also Nicolao Episcopo Modrusiensi Description again, since this reconstruction is based on it: “In fact, he was not very tall, but with large limbs, which impressed of power. His stern look was terrifying; нe had a large and aquiline nose with distended nostrils; on his thin and slightly reddish face were planted his wide open gray-green* eyes with prominent lashes ** that were framed by thick black eyebrows, which made his appearance look threatening. Besides that, his cheeks and chin were shaved, except the upper lip (mustache). The swollen forehead increased the size of his head. A bull’s neck was supported by broad shoulders upon which swung his dark curly hair***, which fell down from his head.”

* Glaucos - pale greenish blue or gray-blue color. ** Cillia from the cilium - lashes or upper eyelids (supercilium - eyebrows) *** Subnigri - dark; for example, in Greece, the word is used to denote a dark reddish or light brown hair. Credit: https://www.instagram.com/royalty_now_/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t723simyVy8&t=63s&fbclid=IwAR3WTId87BJ8VqEkmeRIyedz0JENy-i1MN_QiBlwIXs7om1p9EvFjE-Lh64 Vlad Țepeș Drăculea, famously known as Vlad Dracula, was a true Romanian historical figure who is now remembered due to literary fiction and myths rather than historical facts. But who was the real man behind the legend? Was he really a cruel and bloodthirsty demon? Stephan the Great, Vlad’s cousin and an equally larger-than-life Romanian historical figure, tells a part of his story to his son and his playmates. The film is based on the novel “Crucified Between Crosses” by Vasile Lupașc Sfinteș, and it is a commissioned project produced between 2019-2020 in partnership with Vasile Lupașc Sfinteș and the Blacksmiths’ Tower museum in Sighișoara. It won the first prize for Best Animated film at RATMA International Film Festival and it is currently playing at the Blacksmiths Tower museum in Sighișoara as a permanent part of their exhibition.

ENG: The contents of the letter of Vlad Voivode Dracula dated December 1, 1457, Rukar. † Iω Vlad voivode and lord of the whole land of Ugrovlakhia, our Excellency writes to the good friends of our Excellency, the advisers of Brasov and everyone in Tsar-Byrsei, therefore we offer an honorable bow to the great and small, as to our good friends. You are aware of what was entrusted to us by our lord and elder brother Mikhail Silagi, we want to stand on that and, taking on faith and on the soul of our excellency, and maintain a good peace with you, and let all paths remain free, and let your people also go to us to buy and sell freely, without worries and without any losses, as you would walk on your own land. Therefore, let our people also go to you freely, without a single loss, as our lord and brother Mikhail Silagi instructed. If we agree on that, as long as he wants to keep peace with you, then for now we will also become. And God will grant you joy. Written in Rucker, the month of December 1 ________ RU: Содержание письма Влада воеводы Драгули от 1 декабря 1457 , Рукар. † Іω Влад воевода и господин всей земли Угровлахийской, пишет наше превосходительство добрым приятелям нашего превосходительства, советникам Брашова и всем в Цара-Бырсей, потому великим и малым всечестный поклон приносим, как нашим добрым приятелям. О том вам известно, что было поручено нам господином нашим и старшим братом Михаилом Силаги, на том хотим стоять и, принимая на веру и на душу нашего превосходительства, и поддерживать мир добрый с вами, и пусть остаются все пути свободными, и да ходят и ваши люди к нам покупать и продавать свободно, без забот и без всяких потерь , как то ходили бы вы по своей же земле. Потому пусть ходят и наши люди к вам свободно, без единой потери, как и поручил наш господин и брат Михаил Силаги. Иль на том условимся, покуда желает он с вами мир держать, то пока и мы станем. И дарует вам Бог радости. Писано в Рукер, месяца декабря 1. ____________ Original in church slavonic: † Іѡ Влад воевода и господинь въсеи земли ѹгровлахíискои, пишет господство ми добрим прїателем господства ми, паргарем ѿ Брашов и въсем Брьсѣном, по том велицим же и малим вьсеч(ь)стное поклоненїе прїносим, како моим добрим прїателем. Ѡ сем да е вѣдомо господствѹ ни, іaко варе що ми е порѹчил господина ми и старѣиши брат Михаил Силади, на том хочѹ стоіaти, и прїимам на верѹ и на дѹшѹ господства ми, да имам мир добрь съ вами, како да сѹ слободна въсѧ пѹтища, да ходет и ваше люде къ нам кѹповати и продавати слободно, без ни една гриж(ѫ) и без пагѹбѫ, како да би ходили ѹ ваше землѣ. Такожде да ходет и наше людїе къ вам слободни, без ни една пагуба, како ми е порѹчил господинь ми и брат Михаи Силади. Али на том приимам, докле хоче ѡн съ вами дръжати мир, до толѣ и азь. И богь ви ѡвеселит. Ние ѹ Рѹкел, месеца дек. а҃. † Іω Влад воевода, милостью божьей господин.

Vlad Tepes and his internal politics Abstract: When he came for the second time at the helm of Wallachia, Vlad the Impaler took a series of measures aimed at strengthening the central authority. Seeking to annihilate the anarchic tendencies of the great boyars, the vindictive descendant of the Bessarabians “from the beginning set up a regime of terror”, inaugurating his new reign by massacring those opposed to the political line promoted by him. Thus, the consolidation of the central power and the economic development, carried out by Vlad the Impaler, allowed the mobilization of all the forces available to Wallachia in order to stop the Ottoman expansion and prevent the disappearance of the Romanian South-Carpathian statehood, and not only (because his reckless deeds of arms saved from extinction the other two Romanian countries, Transylvania and Moldova, as well as the whole central and western European Christianity), a goal successfully achieved by the vigorous descent of the Dracula Bessarabians, who proved to be the right man at the right place, and providentially appeared just then, when there was greater need of him, as God made it possible whenever the Romanians faced great difficulties in their long and troubled existence. ___________ When Vlad Țepeș(1) came to the helm of the Romanian Country for the second time, he took a series of measures that aimed at strengthening central authority(2). Seeking to curb the anarchic tendencies of the great nobility (tendencies which were, in practice, the cause of the instability of the reigning power and, implicitly, of the weakening of the medieval Romanian state south of the Carpathians), the noble descendant of the Basarab "installed from the beginning a regime of terror "(3) (Dracula "being, moreover, very familiar with the models of oriental despotism " (4) ), inaugurating his new reign by massacring those opposed to the political line he promoted.To implement his audacious projects, Vlad Țepeș formed his ruling council (the composition of which, moreover, he would constantly change, a measure that was a "specific feature " (5) during his reign, since, having had to cooperate 'with the [mostly] cunning, wicked and self-interested landlords, Dracula showed prudence and wisdom' (6) ) from among his closest friends, most of whom came from the ranks of the small landlords or even from among the commoners (7) , who had distinguished themselves by qualities dear to the harsh lord, who particularly valued loyalty and bravery. It is significant in this respect that the four royal deeds which mention the names of the members of his Divan (issued on 16 April 1457, 5 March 1458, 20 September 1459 and 10 February 1461) (8 ) show that only approx. 23 noblemen enjoyed this honour. "Of these, only three managed to hold office during the entire government of the tumultuous and unpredictable Vlad Voda" namely: the wise Voico Dobrița, Iova (commiss [great commiss] and vistier [great vistier]) and Cazan of Sahac. All the others were removed and replaced from their positions in the council under more or less clear conditions " (9). Another relevant aspect is that only Manea Udriște (who was related to the prince) and commissioner Gherghina were representatives of the great Boierimi, the majority of Vlad Țepeș's advisors being recruited from among the natives belonging to other social categories (10). Other names on the list of Dracula's officials include Linart the stolid (actually "Leonardus notarius Brasoviensis" [i.e. "Leonard, the notary of Brasov" or "the notary of Brasov"], who had been Vlad Draco's trusted man and whom Vlad the Impaler thus rewarded for the faith he had shown to his father (11), then Moldovan the backbender and Bratul of Milcov (who joined Vlad Țepeș when he was a wanderer in Moldavia) (12). Therefore, "it is worth noting that in this period in which the self-consciousness of our people was formed, the consciousness of continuity, of the unity of origin and culture of all the inhabitants of the three principalities (Romanian -

n.n.T.C.), in the Kingdom Council (of the Romanian Country - n.n.T.C.) entered - symbol of the unity of the nation - and Transylvanian or Moldavians (like those mentioned above - n.n.T.C.), people who had proved their faith in the family and ideal of the Draculists " (13). If in 1457, in the supreme forum of the Romanian Country, there were six boyars who held a specific dignity and six who were not entrusted with a specific function, in 1461 eight had a rank and only two did not (14). Of course, this evolution of the composition of the ruling council of Targoviste, shows us, in practice, an obvious consolidation of the authority of Vlad Țepeș, who, not being forced to make any concession to the great nobles, will keep with him only those who were necessary (15). In fact, "apart from a loyal group of the great Boierie, the lord sought to gather around him a number of 'braves' (16) , a social category he had raised among the Boierie for military merits " (17). The famous punishments ordered by the uncompromising Dracula were carried out with the help of a special body of servants set up around 1460 (18 ). The members of this new institution ("armășia") were called "armășei" and were headed by a armaș (great armourer), the first known dregător to hold this position being Stoica (19). Because Dracula relied mainly on the small nobility, the free peasantry and the townspeople (20) to achieve his objectives, he took (in favour of the representatives of these social categories and, implicitly, in order to ensure the economic development of the South-Carpathian Romanian state) some measures that had an obvious protectionist tinge, among them the establishment of border fairs (21), which, in the unyielding vision of the Romanian voivode, were to become fixed, unique and obligatory points in the conduct of commercial transactions with the merchants of Transylvania, an initiative that resulted in the outbreak of a veritable war between Dracula and the truculent patriciate (22) of the prosperous Saxon towns of Brasov and Sibiu (23). The special interest shown in the flourishing of the social-economic life of his country is also demonstrated by the fact that Vlad Țepeș encouraged and supported an intense activity of clearing of secular forests (such as Codrii Vlăsiei (24) ), in order to increase the arable area of the medieval Romanian South-Carpathian state, knowing that "the greatest weight in the economy of those times belonged to agricultural production " (25). As a consequence, the number of human settlements in his era would increase significantly (the majority of the village population now lived in the plains), the measures taken by Vlad Țepeș in this respect being aimed at strengthening the rural environment, as this was the main source of the armed forces of the time (26). The policy promoted internally by Vlad Țepeș also boosted the development of fairs and commercial settlements in Wallachia (27). Under Vlad Țepeș's rule, mining, crafts and trade also flourished, thanks in particular to the climate of security established, the particularly harsh punishments applied to offenders under his command resulting in an increase in the movement of goods and a remarkable development of trade routes (28). It is also known that Dracula, in order to boost trade with a view to the economic development of his country (which would have resulted in the financial resources needed to fight the anti-Ottoman war), also minted coins (29). The first monetary issue of his time is an anepigraphic (i.e. without any inscription) silver "ban", the reverse of which shows a tailed star in the shape of the letter "S", i.e. a comet (30). The fact that, according to astronomical data, on 8 June 1456, the famous Halley's comet appeared in the sky of Europe (which could be seen for a whole month) led specialists to conclude that Vlad Țepeș was influenced in the choice of the image for the reverse of the coin issued by his command, at the very beginning of the second of his reign, precisely by this rare and interesting astronomical phenomenon, "a

disturbing image, apparently unique in European numismatics of the time " (31). Thinking of Dracula's uniqueness in our history, but also in the universal one, we cannot but notice the amazing link between the evolution of his political-military career and the mentioned astral phenomenon, which, while at that time instilled a terrible horror in the population of Europe, for him represented a "celestial" sign under which he managed to defeat (and kill) his rival (Vladislav II) (32), and to ascend to the throne of his ancestors (33). The second monetary issue due to Vlad Tepes is a ducat (34) minted, in all probability, between 1459 and 1461(35). The only example of this coin issue discovered to date (36) is inscribed on both sides with images inspired by the Byzantine iconographic tradition. On the obverse, the image of Vlad the Impaler with a beard, seen from the front, is standing, wearing a crown and holding a long cross in his right hand, and in the left hand the crucifix " (37), basically "the representation typical of the Byzantine emperor, in his double role of defender of Christianity and holder of the power of universal aspiration " (38). On the reverse is depicted 'the bust of Jesus Christ, seen [again] from the front, blessing with his right hand and holding the Gospel to his breast with his left' (39). In practice "this image was also taken from the Byzantine iconographic tradition, being the representation on coins of the rex regnantium, i.e. the hierarchical head of all Christian sovereigns " (40). The placing together on the same coin of the two effigies, certainly on Vlad Tepes' initiative, leads to the conclusion that we are dealing with "a crusading dukedom, the Romanian lord considering himself the direct heir of the old Byzantine crusading traditions and, therefore, the main Christian adversary of the Semiluna, after the disappearance of Iancu de Hunedoara " (41). If from the point of view of foreign policy, Vlad Țepeș did nothing more than act in accordance with the line drawn by his ancestors, his anti-Ottoman stance was a traditional one (the son of Vlad Dracul being particularly noteworthy due to the exceptional international conjuncture [but, of course, also as a result of his extraordinary personality], which led to the emergence of an oversized legend that quickly spread beyond the borders of his country), On the domestic front, this valuable nephew of the great Mircea was a trailblazer, clearly stating the content of his political programme right from the beginning of his second reign, which he exercised over the Romanian Country, when in a letter sent to the people of Brasov on 10 September 1456, he wrote to them that "think that when a man or a lord is strong and strong, he can make peace as he wishes; but when he is powerless, another stronger will come upon him and do with him as he will "(42). Thus, while before him Romanian rulers sought to achieve a balance by promoting collaboration with the representatives of the ruling class or even accepting its tutelage, "Drăculea" promoted a totalitarian rule, subordinating his programme of government to the anarchic and cunning boierime through a series of extremely harsh measures. Thus, the consolidation of the central power achieved by Vlad Țepeș allowed the mobilisation of all the forces available to Wallachia in order to stop the Ottoman expansion and prevent the disappearance of the Romanian statehood in the South Carpathians, and not only (because his daring deeds of arms saved the other two Romanian countries, Transylvania and Moldova, from extinction, and even the whole of Central and Western European Christianity), an objective successfully achieved by the valiant descendant of the Basarabes of Dracula, who proved to be the right man in the right place, providentially appearing precisely when he was most needed, just as God made this possible whenever the Romanians faced great difficulties in their long and troubled existence. The restriction of the privileges of the nobility in the mountains did not go unchallenged by the latter,

as Vlad Tepes was confronted throughout his rule with a series of of plots and even armed revolts of varying degrees of magnitude, initiated by the fickle representatives of the ruling class south of the Carpathians. In particular, the application of the "prădalicii " (43) provoked real rebellions of some great lords, such as that of Albu "the Great " (44), which took place in the spring of 1459 (45). He was the son of Albu Toxabă, who had been "the first royal advisor and the real political leader of the country in the time of Alexandru Aldea " (46) and, therefore, an adversary of Vlad Dracul, father of Țepeș (for which the villages of Glodul and Hința were confiscated) (47), Albu the Great (and his relatives), dissatisfied with the implementation of the severe measure mentioned above, rose up to fight against Vlad Țepeș, who, however, will drown this rebellion in blood (48), after 23 April 1459 (49). The participants in the plot hatched by Albu cel Mare, led by him, were sentenced to death and their possessions were confiscated (50). It seems that this rising up of the nobility was closely linked to the "outbreak of the crisis with Brașov, in the winter of 1458-1459, and the reappearance of Dan (the Younger - n.n.T.C.) at the border " (51), because "it seems that Vlad Țepeș decided to liquidate the potential candidates to the throne who were in the country, among whom was Stanciul, uncle of Nicolaus Olahus (52), "caught in the trap" of "Dracula" and killed with an axe " (53). Of course, "some of those targeted, such as Stefan (Stoian), Olahus' father, escaped with their lives, while others - such as Albu "the Great" - took up arms " (54). About the "uprising" of the boyars, which broke out and took place in 1459, we also learn from a hrisov, dated 1 April 1551 (55), in which it is recorded that "in the days of Vlad Voda, there was a boyar named Albul cel Mare (...), who rose to be lord over the head of Vlad Voda, and Vlad Voda went out with an army against him and seized him and cut him and all his lineage " (56). The specification that "the boyar Albu cel Mare "rose to be lord" implies a kinship of his ancestors with the royal house of Wallachia, the only legal basis for his claim " (57). However, "it is difficult to accept such a hypothesis in the absence of conclusive documents, Albu cel Mare not being the only boyar who tried to usurp the power of the lord without being descended from the legitimate lineage, so the logical argument is not sufficient and convincing " (58). The partisans of the Danes (the other main branch of the Basarab dynasty), like all those dissatisfied with the policies promoted by Țepeș, who managed to escape with their lives, took refuge in Transylvania, from where they continued to work against him. As we have seen, however, a good number of the nobles collaborated with Dracula, even if only a few of them turned out to be his sincere followers.Basically, in 1459, Vlad Țepeș decisively defeated the great nobility of the mountain nobility, which was necessary "in order to be able to (. ...) to face the Muslim fury " (59), because for this "it was necessary at least that order and peace reign in his country, so that only a thought and a heart could rise against the pagan. And indeed, Vlad (Vlad the Impaler - n. n. T. C.) had now reached his goal, and with some haste " (60). Vlad the Impaler's domestic policy was, moreover, very well characterized (even if sometimes with exaggerations when referring to certain aspects) by the Byzantine historian Laonic Chalcocondil (61), who said of Dracula that after "he came to the reign, he first made a personal guard, not separated from him; afterwards, summoning one of his lords, whom he might have thought capable of taking part in the treason for the change of lords, he would slander and impale him and all his household, himself, children, wife and servants, so that I have heard that he alone of all men, as many as we know, came to make a great slaughter of men. In order to strengthen his reign (it seems) to have killed in a short time as many as twenty

thousand men, women and children; for surrounding himself with a number of chosen and devoted soldiers and trabantis (mercenaries - n.T.C.), he gave them money and wealth with all the wealth and situation of those killed, so that in a short time he came to a radical change and this man completely overthrew the organization of Dacia (62) (Romanian Country - n. n. T. C.). And the peons (63), not a few of whom he thought to have some interference in public affairs, not ruthlessly killing any of them, he killed them in very great numbers " (64). Apparently not exactly favourable to Vlad Țepeș, this portrait painted by the Greek chronicler is, in practice, no different from that of a typical monarch even for Western Europe at that time, when princes, kings and emperors sought in every way to strengthen the central power of their states by restricting the privileges of the ruling class (65). Also Chalcocondyl is the one who captures in his work the real reasons behind the "atrocities" committed by the fierce Romanian prince, noting that when "he thought he had his rule of Dacia (Romanian Country - n.n. T.C.) fully consolidated, he was thinking of renouncing the emperor (the sultan - n.n. T.C.) " (66). The reasons were therefore political, "this cruelty [having] also a reason of state, for when he felt in control of the situation, Vlad the Impaler unleashed the anti-Ottoman war " (67). As we have already stated (in footnote 63), "by peons, the Byzantine chronicler refers to the Hungarians, [which is probably] also proof that some of them held important positions in Wallachia, a fact that can be explained by the political condition of this state at the time. The rather obscure style of the same author shows that 'Vlad' punished the Peons 'with the knowledge of the emperor', i.e. of the Turkish sultan, in order to gain his confidence, but also out of the desire 'that only in this way would he strengthen his rule, so that he would not be in trouble when the leading men of Dacia (the Romanian Country - n.n.T.C.) revolted again and brought the Peons to his aid as allies'. It is possible that the peons in this context were in fact the Saxon merchants with whom the viceroy was in conflict. Since they were also from Transylvania, and the author was a long way from the events, the confusion is explainable "(68). In conclusion, Dracula, "a stranger to pity and worship "(69), put all his ability, as well as "his terrible nature, at the service of his country and, after cleansing it of its inner evils (...), he set himself against the degradation into which the Romanian Country had fallen " (70). ______________________ 1) Also known as Dracula, Ladislau The Magnificent, Vlad the Third, Vlad III the Impaler was the son of Vlad II the Dragon (in turn the illegitimate son of Mircea the Elder [who ruled the medieval Romanian state of South-Carpathia between 1386-1418], he ruled Wallachia between 1436-1442 and from 1443 to 1447 [History of the World in Dates, Romanian Encyclopedic Publishing House, Bucharest, 1972, p. 567]) and, therefore, grandson of the great Mircea, he reigned over "Ungrovlahiei" (the name of Wallachia in internal documents written in Slavonic) on three occasions, namely from October (before 17-19) to early November (certainly after 31 October) 1448; from July (before 3) 1456 to November (before 26) 1462 and from October (after 7)/November (before 📷 to the end of December 1476, possibly even to the beginning of January (certainly before 10) 1477 (Constantin Rezachevici, Encyclopedia of Romanian Lords. Cronologia critica a domnilor din Țara Românească și Moldova, vol. I [XIV-XVI centuries], Editura Enciclopedică, Bucharest, 2001, p. 101, 103, 115, 117, 801, 802). 2) This 'objective was also present in the minds of other European monarchs of the time, such as Matthias Corvinus, King of Hungary, or Louis XI, King of France' (Istoria Românilor, vol. IV, Editura Enciclopedică, Bucharest, 2001, p. 350). Matthias Corvin ruled the Hungarian Kingdom between 1458-1490 (History of the World in Dates, p. 564), and Louis XI of

Valois ruled the French Kingdom from 1461-1483 (Ibid, p. 558). 3) History of the Romanians, vol. IV, p. 351. 4) Ibid. 5) Radu Ștefan Ciobanu, In the footsteps of Vlad Țepeș, Sport-Turism Publishing House, Bucharest, 1979, p. 137. 6) Ibid. 7) Ibid, p. 137-138. 8 ) Documenta Romaniae Historica B. Romanian Country, vol. I, Editura Academiei R.S.R., București, 1966, no. CXV, p. 199 and 200; no. CXVII, p. 202; no. CXVIII, p. 203-204; no. CXX, p. 205 and 206. Divan = term of Turkish origin, which in the Ottoman Empire designated a council with political, administrative, military and legal powers, made up of the highest dignitaries of the state; this term is also found in Wallachia and Moldavia, where it referred to a council made up of representatives of the great landed gentry and high dignitaries who took part, alongside the ruler, in the running of the country (syn: Sfat domnesc); by extension, meeting of the divan; by generalization, hall in which the members of the divan gathered (dexonline. ro/definition/divan) 9) Radu Ștefan Ciobanu, op. cit. p. 137. 10) Ibid. Among the members of the ruling council of Vlad Țepeș's time, who were not part of the top feudal lords, we can mention the following: "Ștefan or Stepan Turcul, Codrea vornic, Galeș vornic, Dragomir Țacal, Pătru stratornic (or postelnic - n. n.T.C.), Stan of Negru vornic, Radul stratornic, Tocsaba stolnic, Burcea stolnic, Burciu spătar, Oprișa paharnic, Sava comis and vistier etc.". (Ibid.). 11) Ibid. 12) Ștefan Andreescu, Un moldovean printre dregătorii lui Țepeș, in "Magazin istoric", no. 6, Bucharest, 1972, p. 84. 13) Istoria militară a popolo român, vol. II, Editura Militară, Bucharest, 1986, p. 260-261; G. D. Florescu, The State Divans of Wallachia. I. (1381-1495), Bucharest, 1943, p. 165-175; Nicolae Stoicescu, Vlad Țepeș, Editura Academiei R.S.R., Bucharest, 1976, p. 52-53. 14) Radu Ștefan Ciobanu, op. cit. p. 137. Hrisov of 16 April 1457: 'Codrea vornic, Oprea logofăt, Moldovan spătar, Buda stolnic, Milea paharnic and Iova comis, Manea Udriște, Dragomir Țacal, Voico Dobrița, Stan al lui Negru, jupan Duca, Cazan al lui Sahac' (Documenta Romaniae Historica B. Țara Românească, vol. I, no. CXV, p. 199 and 200). Hrisov of 10 February 1461: 'jupan Galeș vornic, jupan Cazan logofăt, Buriu spătar, Iova vistier, Oprișa paharnic, Linart stolnic, Gherghina comisic and Radul stratornic, jupan Voico Dobrița, jupan Stepan The Turk" (ibid., no. CXX, pp. 205 and 206). Among the advisers of Țepeș were also the cupbearer Stoica and the stolnic Tocsaba 15) Radu Ștefan Ciobanu, op. cit., p. 137-138. Regarding Vlad Țepeș's relations with the nobility, see the entire subchapter (entitled The Boers) of Ibidem (p. 127-139), as well as the subchapter Vlad Țepeș and the Boirs, in chapter II of Ștefan Andreescu, Vlad Țepeș Dracula between legend and historical truth, 2nd edition, Editura Enciclopedică, Bucharest, 1994, p. 86-96. 16) In the Middle Ages, in the Romanian Countries, the term "valiaz" was used to designate a person who belonged to a category of landowners, similar to the knights of Western Europe and having special military duties. Our voivodes raised many of their soldiers, who distinguished themselves on the battlefield, among the ranks of the valiant, particularly from the second half of the 15th century and, especially, by Stephen the Great and Vlad the Impaler (Tiberiu Ciobanu, Glossary, in Ștefan cel Mare și Sfânt și sa strălucita victorie de Vaslui obținută împotriva turcilor otomani, Editura Eurostampa, Timișoara, 2015, p. 633). 17) Ștefan Andreescu, op. cit. p. 95. 18) Now the armaș is mentioned for the first time in Wallachia, in Moldavia this dregătoria being attested for the first time on 13 March 1489 (Istoria României in data, Editura Enciclopedică Română, Bucharest, 1971, p. 99). 19) Radu Ștefan Ciobanu, op. cit., p. 138.20 Istoria militară a popolo român, vol. II, p. 260. 21) Ibid, p. 258. 22) Here with the meaning of the ruling class of the Saxon towns in Transylvania (Tiberiu Ciobanu, op. cit., p. 536). 23) Military History of the Romanian

People, vol. II, pp. 258-259. 24) Name of the forests that once covered a vast region in southern Romania, including the territory of Bucharest and today's Ilfov County (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codrii_Vlăsiei). 25) Radu Ștefan Ciobanu, op. cit., p. 102-103. 26) Ibid. 27) Ibid, p. 103-105, 113, 123-126; Ștefan Andreescu, op. cit., p. 97. 28) Radu Ștefan Ciobanu, op. cit., p. 113-119. 29) Ștefan Andreescu, op. cit., p. 63. 30) Ibid. 31) Ibid. 32) He ruled Wallachia from December (after 4) 1447 until 1456 (between 15 April and 3 July), with a brief interruption between October (before 17-19) and early November (after 31 October) 1448, when the throne was occupied by Vlad Țepeș in his first reign (Constantin Rezachevici, op. cit., p. 801). 33) Ștefan Andreescu, op. cit., p. 63; Jean Delumeau, Fear in the West (14th-18th century). O cetate asediată, vol. I, Editura Meridiane, Bucharest, 1986, p. 118-119. 34) In the Middle Ages, in Wallachia, the 'ducat' was a silver coin, weighing about one gram and worth three 'bani'. (the name given to coins that circulated in the present-day territory of Romania over time and whose value varied according to the ages and regions; a small coin, initially of silver, then of brass, having the lowest value [Tiberiu Ciobanu, op. cit.366]), whose prototype (model) was the Venetian silver ducats, minted since 1202 (Ibidem, p. 431). 35) Ștefan Andreescu, op. cit., p. 99. 36) At Târgșor (in Prahova county), 'i.e. in the place where Vlad the Vodka built a church (...) and where there was, in the 15th century, a royal court' (Ibidem). 37) Ibid. The term 'cruciferous globe' refers to a Christian symbol of authority, which was used in the Middle Ages but is still found on some coins and in iconography today. It represents a globe on which a cross is placed, used as a royal insignia for coronation in several monarchies in Europe. This was particularly the case in the Holy Roman Empire of the Germanic German Nation, where it was designated as the "imperial globe". The cross on the globe symbolises God's dominion over the whole world. The globe, in the hand of the emperor, also signifies the divine origin of the power he wielded. Even more symbolically, in medieval iconography, the size of the objects represented their relative importance in this respect, with the cross being huge and the orb really small, all symbolising God's priority over human affairs. The term derives from the Latin phrase "globus cruciger" (made up of the words "globus", i.e. "sphere, globe", and "cruciger" [in turn made up of the noun "crux, crucis", i.e. "cross", and the verb "gero, gerere, gessi, gestum", i.e. "to bear"], a word meaning "cross-bearer") and has the meaning of "cross-bearing globe" (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globus_cruci-ger). 38) Ștefan Andreescu, op. cit., p. 99. 39) Ibid. 40) Ibid. 41) Ibid; Octavian Iliescu, "Ducații necunoscuți emiși de doi voievozi ai Țării Românești în secolul al XV-lea", in "Buletinul Societății Numismatice Române", years LXXVII-LXXIX (1983-1985), Bucharest, 1987, p. 268-278. Crescent = part of the disc Moon, in the shape of a semicircle, illuminated by the Sun during one of the phases of the star; Moon seen in the phase of the first and last square; symbolic sign of Islam, representing the Moon in the growth phase, in the shape of a "sickle"; figurative, Ottoman Empire; Turks, Muslims; Islam, Mohammedanism (dexonline.ro/definition/-semiluna). 42) Documenta Romaniae Historica D. Relations between The Romanian Countries, vol. I, Editura Academiei R.S.R., Bucharest, 1977, p. 458-459; Eudoxiu de Hurmuzaki, Documente privitoare la istoria românilor, vol. XV/1, Bucharest, 1911, p. 46. 43) In the Middle Ages, in Wallachia, the right of the lordship to take the property of those who died without male descendants; landed property passed to the lordship on the extinction of male descent of the owner (dexonline.ro/definition/prádalică). This old legal provision ("by which the estate of the Hicleni nobles could be taken" [Radu Ștefan Ciobanu, op. cit, p. 128]) is, however, documented as being

applied only in the time of Țepeș, references to it appearing in the hrisov issued on 20 September 1459 (Documenta Romaniae Historica B. Țara Românească, vol. I, no. CXVIII, p. 203-204). 44) He was so named in order not to be confused with his younger brother Albu the Vizier, who had taken refuge in Brasov and was in the entourage of the pretender to the reign Dan III the Younger (Radu Ștefan Ciobanu, op. cit, p. 129-130; Pavel Chihaia, Ctitorii ale voievozilor Drăculești, in Din cetățile de scaun ale Țării Românești, Bucharest, 1974, p. 73). 45) For the dating of the rebellion of Albu "cel Mare" in 1459, see Pavel Chihaia, op. cit. 46) Ștefan Andreescu, op. cit., p. 91. Alexandru I. Aldea was one of the sons of Mircea the Elder and ruled the Country Romanian between February-March 1431 and December 1436 (Constantin C. Giurescu, Dinu C. Giurescu, Scurtă istorie a românilor, Editura Științifică și Enciclopedică, Bucharest, 1977, p. 392; Istoria României in data, p. 454). 47) Ștefan Andreescu, op. cit., p. 91. 48) This revolt against Țepeș "cannot, however, be considered a bohemian uprising, with massive participation, but only an action of an isolated group that did not manage to attract enough adherents" (Radu Ștefan Ciobanu, op. cit., p. 128-129). 49) Ibid, p. 299. This fact emerges from a letter bearing this date, from which we learn about a series of nobles who were executed following the rebellion led by Albu "the Great". Among them was Codrea, a great mountain nobleman who had been a vornic in Vlad the Impaler's Council and who had, as the above-mentioned letter shows, valuable objects in Brasov, estimated at 3,000 gold florins, which were claimed by the King of Hungary, Matthias Corvinus (Eudoxiu de Hurmuzaki, op. cit., vol. XV/1, doc. no. XCI, p. 52). In the official act, issued on 16 April 1457, Codrea still appears among the members of the prince's divan (Documenta Romaniae Historica B. Țara Românească, vol. I, CXV, p. 199 and 200), but in the one drawn up on 5 March 1458 he is no longer on the list of the dregătorilor (Ibidem, no. CXVII, p. 202), "which proves that he had probably already fallen into disgrace at that time" (Ștefan Andreescu, op. cit., p. 92). 50) According to the Germanic Histories, the punishment was Vlad Țepeș ordered "that a great nation be destroyed, from the smallest to the most important - children, friends, brothers, sisters - and he had them all impaled" (Ioan Bogdan, Vlad Țepeș and the German and Russian narratives about him. Critical study with five portraits, Bucharest, 1896, p. 91-92; Constantin I. Karadja, Incunabule* povestind despre cruelimile lui Vlad Țepeș, in the volume Inchinare lui Nicolae Iorga cu acclejul occasione dell'împliniatura di età di 60 anni, Editura Cartea The term "incunabulum" refers to a copy of a book printed in the early years of the introduction of printing (invented in 1440 by the German printer Johann Gutenberg [1400-1468]), more precisely before 31 December 1500. By extension, the term is used to designate a copy that is one of the earliest printed copies; a very old and precious book. It comes from the Latin incunabulum, meaning 'cradle, beginning, origin, place of origin, place where someone was born', here meaning 'book of beginning' (en.wi-kipedia.org/wiki/Incunabulum; dexonline. ro/definition/incunabul; dexonline.ro/definition/Gutenberg). 51) Ștefan Andreescu, op. cit. p. 91. 52) Nicolaus Olahus was a high Catholic prelate (he held, successively or even simultaneously, the following ecclesiastical offices: bishop of Zagreb, bishop of Eger, archbishop of Strigonium and primate of Hungary, cardinal), statesman (he held, successively or even simultaneously, the following political-administrative offices: Royal Secretary and Counsellor, Chancellor, Regent and Governor General of Habsburg Hungary], great feudal nobleman, invested by Charles V (Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation between 1519-1556 [History of the World in Dates, p. 561], with the title of baron) and scholar (theologian, historian, philosopher and writer) of

Romanian origin, who lived between 1493-1568 (Encyclopedic Dictionary, vol. V, Editura Enciclopedică, Bucharest, 2004, p. 36). 53) Ștefan Andreescu, op. cit. 54) Ibid. Nicolaus Olahus "equated his father's name (Stoian - n.n.T.C.) with that of Stephen, who was highly honoured in Hungarian society" (Istoria Românilor, vol. IV, p. 351), because the founder of the Hungarian Kingdom and its first king was called Stephen. This is Stephen I the Holy, who reigned between 1000/1001-1038 (History of the World in Dates, p. 564). 55) Stefan Andreescu, op. cit. p. 90. 56) Documents on the History of Romania, B. Țara Românească, veacul al XVI-lea, vol. III, Editura Academiei R.P.R., București, 1952, doc. no. III, p. 4; Documenta Romaniae Historica B. Țara Românească, vol. V, Editura Academiei R.S.R., București, 1983, doc. no. III, p. 6. 57) Ștefan Andreescu, op. cit. 58) Radu Ștefan Ciobanu, op. cit., p. 129 59) Ibid., p. 169; Alexandru D. Xenopol, Istoria românilor din Dacia Traiană, 3rd edition (edited by I. Vlădescu), vol. IV, Cartea românească Publishing House, Bucharest, 1924. 60) Ibidem; Radu Ștefan Ciobanu, op. cit., p. 169. 61) Laonic Chalcocondil lived between 1423 and 1470 or, according to other specialists, he died "much later, only around 1490" Ștefan Andreescu, op. cit. p. 197). 62) Reference to Wallachia, because the Byzantine chronicler constantly used the ancient name "Dacia" to name the Romanian South-Carpathian state (Radu Ștefan Ciobanu, op. cit., p. 172). 63) "Peoni" is the name given to the Hungarians by the Greek-Byzantine historian Laonic Chalcocondil, in his work Historical Expositions. The Rise of Turkish Power, the Fall of the Byzantine Kingdom. Hungary also calls it 'Peony' and Transylvania 'Peonodacia' or 'Dacia of the Peons', proving himself to be very knowledgeable about both ethnic realities (i.e. the fact that the predominant population of this country was and is the Romanian one, which he calls "if"), as well as the political status of Transylvania, under the rule of the Hungarian Kingdom, i.e. the "peons" (Tiberiu Ciobanu, Glossary, in op. cit., p. 538). 64) Laonic Chalcocondil, Expuneri istorice. The rise of Turkish power, the fall of the Byzantine kingdom (Romanian edition by Vasile Grecu), Editura Academiei R.P.R., Bucharest, 1958, p. 283. 65) Istoria Românilor, vol. IV, p. 350.66 Laonic Chalcocondil, op. cit. 67) Istoria Românilor, vol. IV, p. 351.68 Ibid. 69) Alexandru D. Xenopol, op. cit., edition I, vol. II, part II, Tipo-Litografia "H. Goldner", Iași, 1889, p. 293. 70) Ibid.

A letter dated November 11, 1476 by Stefan Bathory, commander-in-chief of the royal detachment in Wallachia, who wrote from the camp near Bucharest, where he informed the gentlemen and the council from Brasov about the progress of the military campaign. Sapientes ac circumspecti amici nostri honorandi. Hiis novitatibus avisare possumus, quod deo nobis propitio perfidum Bosorab de regno Transalpino expulimus. Et iam ipsum regnum pro maiori parte apud nos et, quia omnes boiarones nobiscum sunt demptis duobos, qui similiter in brevi sunt venturi. Sicque erecto uno bono castello in Thergavischya ad Bokoryschya divertimus, cui in propinquo sumus. Ceterum committimus vobis, quatenus forum victualium videlicet tantum modo panes et avenam post nos mittere, et viam illam citissime praeparare debeatis. Nec secus facturi. Ex castris gentium regalium prope ipsam Bokoryschya in festo beati Martini episcopi et confessoris, anno et cetera LXXmo sexto. Huius enim relatoris vestrique congaudii remunerationem venerabilii magnifico Thomae secretario nostro et archidiacono Chongradiensi benigne contulimus. Comes Stephanus de Bathor, iudex curiae regiae maiestatis, supremusque capitaneus gentium regalium in Transalpinis et cetera. On the reverse side, to whom it is addressed: Sapientibus ac circumspectis magistro civium, iudici, iuratisque consulibus civitatis Cibiniensis, amicis nobis honorandis.

The First Reign of Dracula - Investigation of the Boyar Conspiracy Original in Russian: http://samlib.ru/l/lyzhina_s_s/dracula_ziznvzrosl_1448.shtml Annotation: Dracula's first reign turned out to be so short that sometimes this period is simply forgotten-not mentioned in biographical articles or on monuments. It would seem that one month spent in power does not allow for anything, so it can be ignored, but Dracula managed enough during this time. He found out the names of the boyars, who betrayed his father and older brother, and about how everything was found out, and who exactly was in the list of traitors, we will talk in this article... To begin with, let us outline the situation in which Dracula found himself when he first ascended the throne. On the ruins. Autumn 1448. Dracula entered the Romanian capital of Targoviste with Turkish troops on loan from the Sultan. Almost 2 years had passed since Dracula's father and older brother were killed, but our hero had not forgotten anything and was eager for revenge, and above all he wanted to free the throne from the Romanian prince Vladislav, whom he had never seen, but knew a lot about him. Vladislav had a direct connection to the murder of Father Dracula, because he put on the Romanian crown after the events of December 1446 - after Janos had come to Romania with an army of mercenaries and ordered the beheading of Father Dracula. It is possible to change power without bloodshed, but Janos wanted to kill father Dracula in order to give his protégé Vladislav a quiet rule, and the latter did not hesitate to step over the corpse and he was undoubtedly to blame for that. The nobles were also to blame for this, for handing over Dracula's father to Janos Hunyadi and then burying his elder brother alive, and the second murder was committed for the same reason as the first - so that Vladislav could sit more comfortably on the throne. Of course, thinking about all this, Dracula himself was seething with hatred, but in 1448, when he captured Targoviste, there was no one to take revenge on. The town was half-empty, as all the nobles had left for fear that the Turks, who had come with Dracula, would rob them. The palace mansions were also deserted. The only thing left there was Vladislav's traces of his stay, who in two years had time to renovate the rooms and rearrange the furniture to his liking, which made the mansion look not quite as it was remembered by Dracula, who had been away from home for a long time. He did not find the servants he knew, because they, too, when they heard about the Turks, scattered and hid. Even Dracula's stepmother, who (let me remind you) was called Koltsuna, was absent. She was no longer in Targoviste, but in a certain monastery and was preparing to take the veil. With her lived her son - the youngest brother of Dracula, the future prince Vlad Monk, who at that time was not even 7 years old. After a while this Vlad will also find himself in the veil, but he will escape from the cloister, go on a wandering journey and even compete with Dracula for power, but for now he disappeared from the sight of his older brother, just like everyone else. It turned out that Dracula, having returned to his native places, found himself on the ruins of the life he led before his departure for Turkey. What to do in such a situation? First of all, gather information about what has happened here lately - Janos's invasion, the traitor boyars, etc. Dracula, at the beginning of his first reign, knew about these events only in general terms, while he needed details and, of course, names. Clearly, Janos Hunyadi and Vladislav were at the top of that list of names, but beyond that... It was difficult to find witnesses immediately who could tell which of the Romanian nobles supported Janos and Vladislav, because (I remind you) all possible witnesses ran away, afraid of the Turks, and Dracula was anxious to know the truth, and then he ordered to raise the archives of the state chancellery. Dracula's Investigation Many people know the anecdote in which Dracula

invites the Romanian nobles to a feast and asks: "And tell me, kind people, how many sovereigns do you remember? And at the same time explain why sovereigns change on the throne, while you are still in your seats". This anecdote is directly related to the investigation of the boyar plot, which Dracula conducted in the autumn of 1448, because even then our hero saw that the boyars are suspiciously long-lived, and decided to examine this circumstance more closely. When Dracula ordered to lift the archives, he was first of all interested not in the content of the documents, but in their output data. Due to his position, he was well acquainted with the rules of drawing up state papers and therefore knew that at the end of each letter there is usually a list of nobles who were present when it was drawn up. These lists were very important, because they included only people who were in the princely council or occupied court positions, so that by reading any state paper, one could know the "composition of the government" under the prince. If one took several documents with dates distant from each other, one could trace how the composition of the government changed during the change of princes. This is exactly what Dracula did - he compared which of the nobles who served his father, began to serve Vladislav, and which did not - and here our hero had reason to think: "My father died, Vladislav ascended the throne, and many of the boyars sat in the sovereign's council, and continued to sit. In addition, some of them received new positions at court, and some - new estates. The question is - for what services?!!!" In this article we will try to reproduce the course of the investigation, which was carried out by Dracula, that is, we will calculate the boyars-traitors. Contrary to popular belief, from the 15th century, quite a lot of documents on the history of Romania, including - princely letters and decrees, and with them survived the names of the boyars. So it is possible to act. List of traitors In the anecdote about the long-lived boyars, which I mentioned above, it is said that Dracula in response to his question (how many sovereigns do you remember?) heard impressive numbers. Some of the boyars remembered 20 sovereigns, and some - 30, and even if this is an exaggeration, inherent in all anecdotal stories, but it reflects the essence. In those days, it was normal for a Romanian boyar to serve 2 or 3 sovereigns in his career, and the rest, as luck would have it. The average length of a boyar's POLITICAL life was 15 years, but it could also be longer. There were dynasties among Romanian boyars. For example, when looking at the letters of 1420-1450 you can clearly see the change of generations in the princely council: - In the 1420s the boyar Borcia, and in the 1430s the boyar Radul Borchev (i.e., Borchev's son) - In the 1420s the boyar Khanesh, and in the 1430s the boyar Stanchul Honoy (son) - In the 1420s the boyar Mircea, and in the 1430s another boyar Stanchul, who is called "Mircea's brother - In the 1420s the boyar Utmesh, and in the 1450s the boyar Koiko Utmeshov (son) - In the 1420s the boyar Krestia, and in the 1450s the boyar Kazan Kretsul (son) - Boyar Nagril in the 1420s, and boyar Stan Nagril (son) in the 1450s - In the 1430s boyar Radul Sahakov, and in the 1450s boyar Kazan Sahakov (brother of Radul) There were also cases when two boyar brothers sat on the council at the same time: - In the 1420s-1440s the boyar Stanchul and his brother Yurchul - In the 1440s-1450s, the boyar Mane Udrisce and his brother Stoyan And yet the council under the Romanian prince was not like the House of Lords in the English parliament, to which one entered by birthright. In the Romanian prince's council, the people who were present were usually determined by the prince's own will, so their seats were by no means guaranteed, and the boyars did their best to wriggle out of them. Quite naturally, it was those boyars, who were not part of the "dynasty", who were twiddling their thumbs the most. There was no one to rely on for

these "loners", so they had to quickly adjust to changing conditions. The list of nobles who betrayed Dracula's father consists of such opportunists: 1) Tudor owes his rise to Dracula's father, but in December 1446 he still preferred to go over to Vladislav's side. 2) Mane in the mid 1420s was in charge of the princely table at Prince Dan, in 1437-1446 sat on the council of his father Dracula and for a time was even the manager of the court. He was rewarded for his treachery by Vladislav by becoming head of the stables, a position he held until 1456. 3) Stanciul in the 1420s was a member of the council of duke Radu the Bald, then of Dan, then of Alexander Alda, in the early 1440s of Dracula's father, and when this boyar defected to Vladislav, he became a steward of the court and held that position until 1456. 4) Jurchul - Stanchul's brother, passed from sovereign to sovereign together with his brother, sat on the council, and did not hold any special posts. 5) Dimitar owed his career to the father of Dracula, whose post he held as head of the cavalry, but in December 1446 he defected to Vladislav, thanks to which he retained his post until 1456. 6) Michael under Dracula's father served as a scribe in the prince's office, and under Vladislav he headed the office. 7) Niegoe shortly before the events of 1446 got into the council of Dracula's father. He did not manage to get attached to the new prince, so he easily replaced him with another one, i.e. Vladislav, who had been in charge of the princely table until 1453 (not 1456). Also mentioned in the charter of August 5, 1451 as a recipient of grants from Vladislav. This is the list Dracula had to get during the investigation in the autumn of 1448. Perhaps there were other names as well. We do not know this because 450 years later we have at our disposal far fewer letters and decrees than Dracula had at his disposal when he raided the archives. However, looking ahead, it should be said that in 1456, when Dracula came to power for the second time, the list of traitors expanded, as the investigation continued, and in 8 years (from 1448 to 1456) there were new documents that showed that Vladislav showered favors on the former servants of Father Dracula. So, the continuation of the list of traitors: 📷 Radu was briefly a cupbearer for Prince Dan in the late 1420s, was chief tax collector for Prince Alexandru Aldea in the 1430s, held the same position for Father Dracula in the mid 1440s, and held the position of bedmaster for Vladislav in the 1450s. Also mentioned in the charter of August 5, 1452 as the recipient of grants from Vladislav. 9) Vleksan Florev in the early 1420s sat on the council of Radu Lysyi, in the 1430s - with Aleksandru Alda, in the early 1440s - with his father Dracula, and Vladislav mentioned in the charters of August 5, 1451 as the recipient of grants. 10) Tatul Srebul sat on the council of Dan in the late 1420s, Alexander Aldea in the first half of the 1430s, then passed to Dracula's father and then betrayed him, so he was ennobled by Vladislav in two letters of grant: from July 1451 and from 5 August 1451. 11) Sherban held the position of chief tax collector for Dracula's father. Vladislav mentioned as a recipient of grants in two letters of endowment: from August 5, 1451 and from September 30, 1454 (or 1455). 12) Bade in the early 1420s sat in the council of Radu Lysyi, in the early 1430s was chief steward of the court of Dan, then served as head of the stables at his father Dracula, and Vladislav is mentioned in the letter of August 5, 1452 as the recipient of grants. As can be seen from this list, the political life of the Romanian nobles was well documented and this makes us look very differently at the famous anecdote about Dracula asking the nobles, "How many sovereigns do each of you remember?" If Dracula was really asking this question to this or that boyar, it was not out of curiosity, for the answer was already known. Moreover, if any of the boyars had lied, Dracula would have been able to catch the liar, because he had the documents on

hand. If the question "how many sovereigns do you remember?" was still asked, it should have been understood as follows: "Do you remember my father, whom you yourself gave to the Hungarian to be killed? And do you remember my older brother, who was buried alive by you? Was it not for these services that Vladislav appointed you to good positions and gave you estates?" Unfortunately, we can only guess how the roles were distributed among the conspirators. Apparently, the main work was done by Radu and Sherban, because of all the boyar-traitors they escaped from Dracula the longest, and therefore - they did something after which they could not count on forgiveness even theoretically. These two were hiding in Transylvania in Brasov, and retribution did not come upon them until the spring of 1460, when the other traitors had long since been executed (staked). Witnesses for the prosecution Once again I would like to remind you that all this information is given to us by charters, i.e. written sources, and for the real investigation Dracula needed not only material evidence, but also living witnesses, which, in the end, were found. In judicial practice, a scheme is often used in which one of the criminals testifies against his accomplices in exchange for the dropping of all charges. Dracula's investigation also used such a scheme. The Boyar Mane Udrische (not to be confused with the other Mane) and his brother Stoyan turned from defendants into witnesses - that is why these boyars cannot be included in the general list of traitors. Although these two betrayed Dracula's father, but then sincerely repented and on their own initiative, to repair the damage, helped Dracula himself to come to power. From these very repentant traitors Dracula learned who of the nobles behaved during the events of December 1446. It is a pity we do not have Mane and Stoian's written testimony - it would be interesting to read. The list of the faithful In this story it is also important to note that however long the list of traitors is, there were some servants in Father Dracula's entourage who remained loyal to him. For example, a boyar named Nan (Nanul) was among the faithful, although his previous biography did not suggest such noble behavior at all. In the 1420s he sat in the council of Radu the Bald, then was cupbearer of Dan, in the early 1430s he was in the council of Alexandru Aldea, then served the father of Dracula. In short, he survived many sovereigns and could easily have served Vladislav, but he never became a traitor. Another worthy example is the boyar Stanchul Honoi. This boyar rose at the height of Dracula's father and remained grateful to his prince for favors to the end - he did not exchange him for another. So did the boyar Semyon, who all his life was in charge of the princely table at the court of Dracula's father. It was Dracula's father who elevated Semen, for which the boyar remained loyal to the end. Another example is Radul Borchev. As previously mentioned, he was a noble boyar whose father also once sat on the princely council. Radul himself rose in the reign of Prince Alexander Aldea, then began to serve Dracula's father, but did not go to the service of Vladislav. One may also note another boyar, whose name was Nan Pascal. His fate is similar to that of another Nan. At the end of 1420th he sat in the council of Dan, then - in Alexandru Aldea, then - in father Dracula, however he did not become the traitor, though he was not used to the change of power. Neither in the letters of Vladislav, nor later are these boyars mentioned. Perhaps they died at the same time as Dracula's father and his elder brother, in December, 1446. If so, then happy memories to them!

About how it was possible to lose your head or sit on a stake under Vlad Voivode Dragul. A very valuable document has come down to us and has been preserved in two copies, in Latin from April 2, 1459, from the city of Felidior (Marienburg) and in Slavic from April 5, without a year, but also presumably 1459, since the letters are identical. Letter of Dan III dated April 5, 1459. Dan informs about the patronage of his king Matiyash, gathers around the dissatisfied current ruler of Wallachia Vlad Dragua, willfully take away the bread from the Wallachians and grants the judges and the council of Brasov the goods of Wallachian merchants (who will try for years to regain at least some of them to live, begging and asking for it), stored on the territory of Brasov. Dan did this allegedly as compensation for the" damage " caused by Vlad's punitive campaign aimed at suppressing coups d'etat , which constantly have a beginning in Transylvania. In the lower edge on the left is signed-The letter is written Ioldya\ Ioldea. † Iѡ Dan voivode, lord of all the land of Ugrovlakhia. We write that King Mathias sent us and we reached the land of Tsar-Byrsey and the judge and advisers of Brasov and the elders of Tsar-Byrsey came to us, and they complained, their hearts were bleeding, and complained to us about what Dracula, our enemy, had done to them, who no longer had faith in our lord king and surrendered to the Turks. According to his name , it is true that he was taught such a thing from the devil*. All the merchants from Brasov and from the lands of the Tsar-Byrsi, who came to the Wallachian lands in peace, he seized all of them, took away their goods and cattle, but they were not enough for him, so he seized those people and put them on a stake, soon alone. But even those people were not enough for him, but he went again, and gathered three hundred boys from Brasov and Tsar-Byrse, who were in Targovishte and in all the trading cities of Wallachia, and he gathered them, some on a stake, and others on fire. And he secretly recalled his people who were in Brasov to Wallachia. And the people of Brasov came to us and spoke to us from merchants from Wallachia who had goods in Brasov, telling us that the inhabitants of Brasov had locked up their goods, and begged us to give them advice on how to act. And when we took everything into account and understood, and after consulting well with our boyars about everything, we held a speech before the advisers of Brasov and said that those goods should be withdrawn and paid to people and the dead, and it is never necessary to pay for this goods to Wallachia. And these goods, which belong to the merchants of their Wallachia, will never be paid for by the Brashovians. Written on the day of April 5. † Iѡ Tribute to the governor, by the grace of God, sir. (Letter in Romanian: „Io Dan voevod, Domn a toată Țara Ungrovlahiei. Să se știe că m-a trimes Craiul Mateaș și am venit în Țara Bârsei, și venit-au județul și pârgarii din Brașov și oamenii bătrâni din Țara Bârsei, care ni s-au plâns, cu inima însângerată ni s-au plâns de cele ce a făcut Drăculea, vrăjmașul nostru, cum el n-a ținut credință stăpânului nostru Craiului și s-a dat turcilor. Acest lucru l-a făcut, cu adevărat învățat de Dracul. Și pe toți neguțătorii din Brașov, din Țara Bârsei, câți s-au fost dus cu pace în Țara Românească, pe acei oameni pe toți i-a prins și le-a luat avutul; dar nu s-a putut sătura numai cu avutul acelor oameni, ci i-a prins pe acei oameni și i-a tras în țapă, pe 41 de inși. Nu i-a fost destul cu acei oameni, ci s-a îndrăcit și mai tare și a adunat 300 de băeți din Brașov și din Țara Bârsei, cari se aflau la Târgoviște și prin toate târgurile din Țara Românească; pe aceștia deci i-a adunat și pe unii i-a pus în țapă, iar pe alții pe foc. Și pe oamenii săi ce erau din Brașov, el i-a chemat pe ascuns la sine. Și-au venit pârgarii din Brașov și mi-au spus despre partea acelor oameni că neguțătorii din Țara Românească au avere la Brașov, iar pârgarii le-au oprit averea și m-au rugat pe mine să le dau povață. Și când am

auzit și am înțeles Domnia mea, am chibzuit bine cu boerii mei și mi-am spus cuvântul meu pârgarilor: să ridice acea avere și să-și plătească avutul oamenilor și al celor morți, iar averea aceea să nu se plătească niciodată din Țara Românească. Marfa, care este a neguțătorilor din Țara Românească, să nu se plătească niciodată din Brașov. Scris-am Aprilie în 5. Io Dan Voevod, din mila lui Dumnezeu Domn.” ) * Trying to beat the words, the nickname given by the enemies to Vlad's father from the original version of Dragul to Dracul, "devil", and later the son was given the nickname Dracula ("son of the devil")by the enemies, and therefore writes Dan, from Dracula is taught, that is, from the Devil is taught. Meaning that even the name fits, because, apparently, the devil taught him everything himself. * Considering the population of Brasov, according to the surviving censuses, as one of the largest cities in Transylvania and Wallachia, as well as the entire population of Wallachia, it is impossible to find 300 boys from Brasov and Tsar-Byrsei in Wallachia, especially in a short time, so that they do not have time to leave after learning about this. There is at least a very gross exaggeration here. Later, when the gentlemen from Transylvania tried to make the story more plausible, explaining what 300 boys from Transylvania did in Wallachia, to everything, a painfully even figure, they wrote something else in other sources : they came for training. In fact, it is assumed that a couple of people from their families were executed with merchants from Brasov, so the figures grew and reached Dan, who was sitting in Transylvania then, in such an improbable format. Which was good for Dan. In itself, such treatment of the arrogant and arrogant Brashovians, who had never considered the voivodes of Wallachia and the decrees of those, was incredible; to receive such a rebuff for the first time in history was a shock for them. And then , forgetting about all their attempts, starting with Hunyadi since 1447 , they, in turn, will be very offended at the voivode and, since they cannot respond by force, they will try to exaggerate everything to an incredible size and spread it as actively as possible in order to arouse pity and find patronage. But the voivode Dragul was also afraid of Korvin Matiash himself. Speaking about the Wallachians, nowhere in the Wallachian documents, as well as talking about other neighboring countries , but who had no motivation in spreading rumors, this does not occur in Moldovan, Bulgarian documents, and this is quite a bright event, if it were on such a scale, 100% would have echoes everywhere. That is, the exaggeration is more than obvious, but how many people were actually executed remains in question. In addition to the fact that this is the first serious rebuff to Brasov's participation in almost all power coups in Wallachia, this letter is also valuable to others. This letter is not only about another betrayal of Matiyash , another secret plots, about another attempt to kill Vlad Draguli, because that is what Dan III will come with an army to Wallachia for. This letter is about how to dream and edit different things. The dreamer remained a dreamer, and the ruler remained a ruler. Condemning the voivode of Vlad for the treaty with the Turks concluded at the beginning of his reign, Dan III himself will not be able to successfully conduct one small battle, thus becoming the most shameful voivode in the history of Wallachia. This document also tells how Dan III and Matiyash have been preparing a coup for years, plotting to destroy such a wayward, painfully independent and strong, and therefore so unloved by them, Vlad Dragul voivode . Dan very actively insinuated himself into the confidence of the Brashovians, especially after the campaign of 1457, in which the voivode Dragul taught a lesson to those in Transylvania who sheltered applicants for the throne of Wallachia right at its borders, and did not respond to requests and pleas not to do so for years . Dan wanted to rule so much that he gathered all

the discontented around him, pressed on pity and cultivated their resentment, promising them mountains of gold. It is significant not only the attitude towards the current voivode of Wallachia itself, it is obviously visible in the letter itself, but the fact that Dan already called himself the voivode and lord of Wallachia, without even being such yet. Few people allowed themselves this, being in other countries (and he was 20 km from Brasov, in Feldioara), the lords wrote simply "voivode and lord", and here Dan boldly calls himself "voivode and lord of the whole land of Ugrovlakhia". 1459, the year when the voivode Dragulya just returned from a campaign in Serbia, where he was able to defeat 18,000 Turks with 5,000 Wallachians and Hungarians, all this so that the Hungarian government could influence the lands of Serbia that were left without a despot, so that the Turks would not get the lands. And this is the gratitude Vlad Voevoda received from Matiyash, not for the first time. Voivode Vlad Dragulya went through a lot already by 1459, rumors probably informed him about the conspiracy. Even then, given Dan's statement and the early history, Dragulya did not particularly trust the king. And the nominal reason for the preparation of the overthrow of the legitimate ruler, long before the events of 1459, was the agreement with the Turks at the beginning of the reign. Dan condemns the fact that at the very beginning of his reign, having neither a normal army, nor funds, nor outside help, the voivode did not oppose the entire Porte, the entire Ottoman Empire with one "little Wallachia", but preferred to pay tribute so that he had time to collect both the army, and the forces, and the means himself. Dan himself, in fact, could not hold a sword tightly, he fantasized so much about his domination that, in the end, he lost his head. Such a weak and inexperienced dreamer as Dan III, only hoped, like all inexperienced voivodes from the very beginning, for help in the murder of Vlad Draguli by Hungarians. Dan the third asked the Brasovs to give him people and equipment, and they helped him with this. But Matiyash did not want to openly go against the Draguli, there would be too powerful an enemy, Matiyash, like any coward, liked to act surreptitiously, was afraid openly. Then Dan had to go with a detachment to Wallachia himself. Of course, he couldn't stand a minute. Before he was executed as an enemy of the country, a conspirator who attempted to kill the ruler, they dug a hole for him and even had mercy so much that they read a funeral prayer. Only then will Dan's head be cut off. Quite deservedly. Thanks to such gentlemen as Vladislav Dan, Dan III, who thought only of getting ahead of the line of succession to power and killing their relatives, it will be very difficult for Wallachia in many aspects. This desire for power will be played by even weaker people, like Corvinus, probably the most cowardly ruler of Hungary.

The whole truth about the "execution after the feast" or "bloody Easter" RU Source: http://samlib.ru/.../dracula_ziznvzrosl_1456_1462_kazn.shtml Annotation: This execution, carried out by Dracula, is famous because it became mass - there were many boyars on the stakes. It is known that Dracula previously invited these nobles to a feast and there announced his sentence. Sometimes it is said that it was a feast in honor of the feast of Easter. But is it true? And how many people ended up being executed? Some sources say 20,000, others say 500, and still others say even less... ____ When it comes to "execution after the feast" or "bloody Passover," there is such a confusion of statements that one might think of the words of the famous song about the crow and the cheese, or even paraphrase the words of that song: Oh, maybe it's Easter, Or maybe not on Easter The Romanian sovereign has decided To punish the traitors. He executed a whole town, Or perhaps twenty thousand, Or perhaps even less. Only five hundred. By and large, all the confusion arises from the fact that in studies on this subject historians rely on sources that deserve very little credibility. One can only wonder how seriously (literally seriously) historians treat pamphlets about Dracula, because the date of execution of boyars historians "established" by pamphlet 1463 and Beheim's poem, although these texts are not even historical works, but works of literature. Researchers have suggested that the author of the pamphlet and the author of the poem follow a strict historical chronology in their stories. What is the basis of this assumption - a mystery, but since these texts episode with the mass execution of the boyars is mentioned shortly before the events of 1460, the execution was automatically attributed to the year 1459. That is all the reasoning. However, some historians like Stoichesku still have a conscience and write "presumably 1459", but Cazacou does not assume anything, but simply states as if Dracula himself told him that everything happened in 1459. In fact, the execution took place no later than 1457, but we will talk about this later, but first let's look at the sources in reverse chronology to see how much of this story is contrived. History of fiction 100 years after the execution The later source, telling about the execution, are Romanian chronicles of the 16th century. That is they were created approximately 100 years after the mentioned execution happened. In addition, in those days, chroniclers often based their "historical" story on various oral legends, which are actually rumors. One person told to another, another to a third, another to a fourth, and as a result we have the effect of a spoiled telephone. So what did the story of the execution turn into 100 years after it took place: "On Easter day, when all the inhabitants (of the town of Targoviste) were celebrating and dancing, he (Dracula) seized everyone. He put the adults on stakes around the city; and he forced the young men together with their wives, boys and girls, all to work in the castle (Poenar) right in their festive clothes until the clothes turned to rags and they were naked." What is noteworthy, the story of Easter and the fortress Poenar is only in the annals, created (remember) 100 years after the events described. In the accounts of Dracula's contemporaries we do not find anything of the kind, which means that all these details are late inventions, as well as the claim that a whole city fell victim to the massacre. Halkocondyl's story. Slightly closer to the truth are the notes of the Greek historian Laonica Chalcocondylus, since he was a contemporary of Dracula. However, Halkokondil received information about Dracula while at the court of Mahmoud Pasha, one of the first persons of the Turkish state - and at a time when Dracula had already become famous as an implacable enemy of the Turks. It is clear that the Greek historian at the court of Mahmoud Pasha could not tell anything good about Dracula. Halkokondil himself understood it and tried to treat

the stories he heard impartially, but you can filter the dirt as much as you like and you will still get dirt. Is it any wonder that Halkocondyl's account of Dracula's execution came out as follows: "He (Dracula) summoned one by one the noble lords of the country involved in the change of princes, and afterwards - destroyed them together with their families, put them to the stake together with their children, wives, servants... He killed about twenty thousand men, women and children. Note the number - 20,000!!! But other sources speak of a much smaller number of those executed - about 500 people. Michael Beheim's story The poem of Michael Beheim, like Halkocondylus who was a contemporary of Dracula, also tells about the execution, but this story, paradoxically, is slightly more credible than Halkocondylus' notes. In his poem Beyham does not even hide his intention to vilify Dracula and calls him "the most fierce of lords" and "the worst beast of all time," but it is Beyham who says that the number of victims of the execution was 500. This is surprisingly small compared to the number mentioned in Halcocondil. Here is the paradox - Halkocondyl, who wants to be unbiased, talks about 20,000 executed, while Beheim, despite his best efforts to smear Dracula, mentions a much smaller number, although it would be more logical to the opposite - the detractor should talk about 20,000 and the objective narrator about 500. So it turns out that the number 500 is more reliable after all. And now, to make it clear, let's quote Beheim: "And Dracul had summoned "to a feast of the noblest nobles, ... He asked the chosen lords, who remembered how many warlords of Wallachia; and each one said, as best he could, the number of rulers and the term and the term of their earthly inheritance. And so there were not a few governors were remembered for sure; The young man and the old man the number was not the same; whoever came to mind, but the exact number is still a mystery; try to go through them all! One said three dozen, another said two dozen. Not finding an answer, the young man reduced their number to seven In front of the noblest men; their song was sung. "Whose fault is it," recited Dracul. has so many rulers changed in this poor country. so many rulers changed, as it has been hitherto? "For this ruinous disgrace. you must be judged severely." "The eldest and the youngest, and all, without exception; and he has put five hundred of the most noble men five hundred of the most noble men. (Quoted from a translation by V. Mikushevich, published in 2007 by publishers "Enigma" in the supplement to the novel by B. Stoker "Dracula. Stoker's novel "Dracula"). From a document from 1463. There is also a pamphlet from 1463 which tells about the life of Dracula. This work, like Beheim's poem, cannot be called a historical work either, since the principle of impartiality and objectivity is not observed there. It should be noted that Beheim was actively drawing information from this document, so that information from the pamphlet of 1463 largely coincides with the poem: "He (Dracula) summoned the boyars and all the nobles of his country to his feast, and when food was brought, he turned to the oldest nobleman, asking how many rulers of the country he remembered. The grandee told him that he remembered very many. The same question was put to the other guests, young and old, asking them to count how many rulers they remembered. One answered that he remembered fifty, another thirty, twenty, and twelve, and there was not a single person who remembered less than seven princes. And the prince ordered them all to be put on a stake. All in all five hundred people." From the princes' letters of the 15th century And now, finally, let us turn to the most reliable sources. These are the princely charters, which, as mentioned in another article, had one interesting feature - at the end of the charter was supposed to indicate all the boyars, who were present at the drawing up of this document. That is why, studying the charters, you can trace how the

composition of the boyar council changed from year to year and from prince to prince, and thus calculate who and when Dracula was executed. Scientists, of course, tried to analyze the charters, but the analysis turned out rather strange. The first letter under consideration is dated April 16, 1457. That is, Dracula wrote it 8 months (!!!) after he came to power. For these 8 months could be executed many people, but historians for some reason do not allow this possibility and say - if someone from the boyars indicated in this Letter is not specified in subsequent documents, it means that these boyars became victims of the famous execution. However, the lists of boyars in Dracula's charters almost do not differ - the same people are mentioned everywhere, so that researchers, despite all their efforts, can count no more than 4 so-called "executed". Something does not add up here. At the same time, there are letters patent of Dracula's father and letters patent of Prince Vladislav, who took the Romanian throne after Dracula's father was killed. Why not include the letters of those princes in the analysis and trace which of the boyars who served Dracula's father defected to Vladislav and which did not? It makes sense to do this, because the sources telling of the mass execution that Dracula arranged mention that the purpose of the execution was to punish traitors. Romanian chronicles of the 16th century say that Dracula decided to arrange an execution on Easter, after he learned about the circumstances of his elder brother's death - it turned out that he was killed by boyars, or rather buried alive. The notes of Halkocondylus say that Dracula did not just execute the boyars, but those who were "involved in the change of princes. Finally, in Beheim's poem and in the pamphlet of 1463 it is said that Dracula paid attention to a strange fact - the princes on the throne change, but the boyars in the princely council remain the same. Everything points to the fact that it is necessary to analyze not only the charters of Dracula, but also the charters of previous princes, and then we get an interesting list of 12 boyars who served Dracula's father, and then switched to the side of Prince Vladislav. (Recall that Vladislav ascended the throne at the patronage of the Hungarian nobleman Janos Hunyadi, who had beheaded Dracula's father). When Dracula asked during the feast how many princes each of the present boyars remembers, this question carried in itself quite concrete accusation of betrayal: "And tell me, my dear ones, how did it happen that my father was executed by the Hungarians, and you were in favor of the Hungarian protégé? And this is not the first time you have easily exchanged one sovereign for another. How many times has it been?" If you analyze the letters, the correct answer is as follows - each boyar for his political career changed the prince an average of 2-3 times, but there were record-breakers. For example, among those who served Dracula's father, and then switched to Vladislav, there is boyar Stanchul, who survived 5 princes. The list of the boyars that Dracula executed is: 1) Tudor owes his elevation to Dracula's father, but in December 1446 he defected to Vladislav. 2) Mane (not to be confused with another boyar named Mane Udrische) in the mid 1420-ies was in charge of the princely table of Prince Dan, in 1437-1446 sat in the council of Dracula's father and for some time was even a court administrator. At Vladislav he became chief of the stables, a position he held until 1456. 3) Stancul was in the council of Prince Radu the Bald in the 1420s, then of Dan, then of Alexandru Alda, and in the early 1440s of Dracula's father. Then this boyar came over to Vladislav, who made him the administrator of his court, a position he held until 1456. 4) Yurchul, Stanchul's brother, passed from sovereign to sovereign together with his brother, sat on the council, and held no special posts. 5) Dimitar owes his career to Dracula's father, who had held the position of head of cavalry, but in December 1446 went over to

Vladislav, thanks to which he retained his position until 1456. 6) Niegoe shortly before 1446 got into the council with Dracula's father. He easily succeeded this prince to Vladislav, at whom he held the position of head of the princely table until 1453. Also mentioned in the charter of August 5, 1451 as the recipient of grants from Vladislav. 7) Vlescan Florev in the early 1420s sat on the council of Radu Lysyi, in the 1430s - with Aleksandru Alda, in the early 1440s - with his father Dracula, and Vladislav mentioned in the charter of 5 August 1451 as the recipient of grants. 8 ) Tatul Srebul in the late 1420s sat in council with Dan, in the first half of the 1430s with Alexandru Aldea, then passed to Dracula's father and then betrayed him, so he was ennobled by Vladislav in two letters of grant: from July 1451 and from August 5, 1451. 9) Bade sat on the council of Radu Lysyi in the early 1420s, was chief steward of the court of Dan in the early 1430s, then served as head of the stables for Dracula's father, and is mentioned to Vladislav in the charter of August 5, 1452 as a recipient of grants. All these boyars are no longer mentioned in Dracula's letter of April 16, 1457, mentioned earlier. Moreover, these boyars are no longer mentioned anywhere at all. They are not mentioned neither in the subsequent charters of Dracula, nor in the charters of the Romanian princes who ruled after Dracula. Disappearance from the political scene of as many as 9 people cannot be a mere coincidence. It is possible to assert with confidence that by April 16, 1457 these boyars already were not alive. Separately it is necessary to tell about Michael, who under Dracula's father served as a clerk in princely chancery, and under Vladislav headed the chancery. The scribe Michael, having fled from Dracula to Transylvania, died there of his own accord. Dracula did not execute him, as he did not have time to catch him, but in one of his letters to the citizens of Brashov he mentions him and calls him an enemy: "There are among you (Brashovians) my enemies... I have forgiven all, but I do not forgive them." So Dracula clearly intended to execute Michael, and mentally carried out this execution. Two more boyars, who had betrayed Dracula's father and defected to Vladislav, were executed in 1460. They too took refuge from Dracula in the Transylvanian city of Brasov, where one of the pretenders to the Romanian throne was residing at the time, and began to serve this pretender. So here are two more traitors: (10) Radu was briefly a cupbearer for Prince Dan in the late 1420s, was chief tax collector for Prince Alexandru Aldea in the 1430s, held the same position for Father Dracula in the mid 1440s, and held the position of bedmaster for Vladislav in the 1450s. Also mentioned in the charter of 5 August 1452 as the recipient of grants from Wladyslaw. 11) Sherban held the post of chief tax collector for Dracula's father. Vladislav mentioned as the recipient of grants in two charters: on August 5, 1451 and September 30, 1454 (or 1455). Conclusions Now it remains for us to sum up the results of our historical investigation. It turns out that the victims of the most famous execution which was organized by Dracula, became not the whole city (as it is written in the Romanian annals) and not 20 000 people (as writes Halkocondyl) and even not 500 people (as writes Beheim and one more unknown pamphleteer), but much less. Dracula executed a dozen boyars, and even if we assume that Dracula also executed the boyars' servants, it is unlikely that the number of those executed would be in the hundreds. By dozens, yes, but not by hundreds, much less by thousands!

Dracula and the Boyar Mane Udrische Original in Russian: http://samlib.ru/.../dracula_ziznvzrosl_1448_1456_boyarin... Annotation: Of all of Dracula's associates, it is Mane Udrische who is the most interesting figure. The fate of this boyar deserves to be told separately, and the reason is not only that it was Mane who helped Dracula to become prince for the second time. Before us is a very unusual person - the traitor, who suddenly came to his senses and corrected the consequences of his betrayal. It's not every day, you have to admit... To begin with, it is necessary to clarify how to call this boyar correctly, because in some books, they try to hide the unsoundness of his nickname and write "Udrische". All this is ridiculous because in the original Romanian letters of the 15th century, drawn in the Slavonic language, this boyar is listed as Udrische - without any "t" - so most likely, the nickname is based on the ancient Slavic verb "drill". (note: this google translated, so don't worry about his name, it will keep changing) There is no need to be surprised, because in the Middle Ages unsound names were quite common. Suffice it to recall one of the close associates of Ivan the Terrible, a high-ranking oprichnik, called Vasily Dirty. In the Service of Father Dracula The first information about the boyar with the nickname Udrishche is found in the charter, issued no later than 1445, so we can say with certainty - this man made a career thanks to Dracula's father. Mane Udrische is mentioned in the charter together with his brother Stoyan (aka Stoyka). Both brothers are named as participants in the princely council. Sometimes this charter is dated 1439-1440, which means that Mane Udrisce could have begun service not in the 1440s, but earlier - soon after Dracula's father became prince - or even earlier, that is, at a time when Dracula's father was living with his family in Sighisoara and was only a candidate for the throne. In the Middle Ages in Romania, it was customary for any candidate for prince to gather around him a handful of trusted men from the boyar milieu to help him conduct affairs concerning politics. These people had no money or connections, but they had useful talents, such as the ability to speak well, strategic thinking, the ability to write things down on paper, etc. If the candidate became prince, all his assistants, who until then had served for free, received positions at the court, land, and other favors. Among the confidants of Dracula's father who gathered in Sighisoara may have been Mane Udrisce, but even if he came to the service several years later, it can still be said that Dracula himself remembered "Uncle Mane" from his childhood. There is also no doubt that in the 1440s Mane Udrisce with his younger brother Stoyan though established in the princely council, but did not play a serious role there. The position of the two boyars can be shown by recalling the rules, according to which the medieval Romanian charters and edicts were composed. Not only that the text had to list all the boyars, who were present at the princely council on the day of the publication of the charter, but it was also required to keep the order of listing - the more noble person, the closer to the beginning of the list. That's why the fact that Mane Udrisce and his brother in the charter of Dracula's father are mentioned at the very end of the list says a lot. Betrayal Of course, Mane Udrische considered himself destitute, and he was not willing to accept that. He wanted to continue his career, and brother Stoyan probably held the same opinion, but both brothers understood that it was unlikely to expect new favors from Father Dracula. Then came the memorable events of December 1446, when the Hungarian Janos Hunyadi came to Romania with an army, had Dracula's father beheaded, and installed Vladislav on the vacant throne. Mane Udrische supported the Hungarian protégé, and did him some very valuable service, because Mane's influence in the princely council increased dramatically. In all Vladislav's letters

where Mane Udrische is mentioned, this boyar is always the first in the list of council participants. He was the last, and now he is the first! Such changes do not just happen! As for Stoyan, he became the head of the cavalry along with another boyar - Dimitar. Awakening of Conscience With the change of prince, Mane's career ambitions were satisfied. Manet became the most influential boyar in the council, and a higher position simply did not exist. This man's thoughts were no longer preoccupied with material concerns and, quite naturally, switched to the spiritual. In the letter of January 2, 1450 it says that Mane Udrische gives a watermill to the monastery called Kozya. What caused such generosity is not specified, and this is quite strange, because the same letter tells in great detail the story of how the boyar Kazan and his brother Radu decided to make a gift to the monastery. Kazan and Radu wanted abbot Joseph to include their entire family, namely their father Radul, their mother Stana, Kazan and Radu themselves, and their late brother Sahak, in the "monastery memorial". Kazan and Radu asked for "eternal remembrance" for themselves and their kin, and in return they gave a watermill and "a place under the cell" so that one of the monks could live near the mill and watch over it. In the charter it is reported that Kazan and Radu have asked sovereign Vladislav to certify this agreement between them and the monastery, so that the next abbot will remember who should be remembered - in general, a lot of details, and in this heap somehow strange looks a single phrase that another watermill donates boyar Mane Udrische. One gets the impression that the idea of the donation occurred to Mane suddenly when, while attending the council, he heard Kazan and Radu's request. "Well, and from me, add the mill," probably said Mane, who suddenly wanted to do a good deed, but what sins he sought to atone for with this beneficence, he did not say. To Dracula for forgiveness Apparently, the gift of the mill did not help much, and his conscience continued to plague Manet, so that no later than 1455 he began negotiations with Dracula. That the initiative in these negotiations came from Manet and not from Dracula is almost certain, for we know how Dracula felt about Janos Hunyadi, the murderer of his father - a reconciliation never took place. So why would Dracula seek reconciliation with any of the traitor boyars? Dracula had no reason to negotiate with Mane Udrische, but Mane had a reason - an unsettled conscience. I want to remind that this boyar got into the princely council thanks to Dracula's father, and although after that Mane's career growth slowed down, it was not a sufficient reason for the careerist to condemn Dracula's father to death. Probably in 1446 Manet Udrisce thought otherwise, but after 8 or 9 years, having received all the material benefits he wanted, he changed his mind and decided to rectify the consequences of his long-time betrayal - to return the Romanian throne to the rightful heir, i.e. Dracula. From a purely practical point of view, it was more advantageous for Mane not to do anything, because the risk was serious: 1) Who knows how Dracula would behave at the first meeting - maybe just seeing a traitor, would cut him down and would not listen to anything; 2) Vladislav could have found out about the negotiations with Dracula, and then Mane would have been executed; 3) The coup d'état could have failed, in which case Mane would also have paid with his head. And yet this boyar decided to act - he sought out Dracula, who was at that time in Moldavia or Transylvania, repentantly bowed his head to him and offered help. In the service of Dracula. The fact that negotiations really took place is not doubtful, because of all the boyars who betrayed father Dracula, Mane Udrisce and his brother Stoyan were the only ones mentioned in the letters of Dracula himself. The other traitors (12 people) are not mentioned by Dracula even once. They are not mentioned in the letters of subsequent sovereigns. These

boyars simply disappeared, and what happened to them is clear - they were put on a stake. So why did Mane Udrishe and Stoyan escape this fate? There is only one answer - they helped Dracula to regain power and told about the details of the boyar conspiracy, which could not be found out by studying the archives. It is also important that Mane Udrisce with his brother Stoyan repented in time, because it is obvious that in the autumn of 1456, when Dracula had already overthrown Vladislav, the remaining boyar traitors also tried to beg for forgiveness. The 12 previously unrepentant conspirators were shedding tears and saying they were sorry, but it was too late. Mane Udrische and Stoian repented beforehand - no later than 1455 - and therefore survived. Secret agent for the recruitment of the boyars It is not known how Mane's conversation with Dracula took place when the boyar came to the son of his former sovereign for the first time, but the outcome is known. Dracula agreed to accept help from Mane, but set a condition: "I will no longer forgive any of my father's traitors - I forgive only you and your brother - so if you pull any of Vladislav's boyars to my side, pull only those who have recently entered his service and have not stained themselves with betrayal. Manet returned to the Romanian court and began to conduct "subversive activities" there - he spoke with several boyars from the princely council, offering to go into the service of Dracula. As Mane had promised his new lord, he spoke only to the new boyars, and eventually recruited several. These boyars are mentioned in Dracula's letters of commendation: 1) Kazan Sahak, the same one who in 1450 gave a watermill to the Kozia monastery, and he got his nickname from the name of his deceased brother. Some researchers write that Kazan served as head of the Chancellery of Prince Alexander Aldea in 1431-1436, as well as his father Dracula in 1445, but in the charters of those times Kazan is mentioned without a nickname, so it is likely that the head of the Chancellery was another boyar with the same name, and Kazan Sahakov to Vladislav did not serve anyone. 2) Stan Naegrev - the son of boyar Naegrev, who served as head of the cavalry of prince Dan. Stan Naegrev served no one before Vladislav. 3) Duka - he descended from a Greek family. He served no one before Vladislav. The subversive activities of Mane continued until the spring of 1456, and then the preparation for a coup d'état began. In a letter dated April 15, 1456, drawn up shortly before Vladislav was overthrown by Dracula, there remains evidence that Mane Udrische was not present at the council that day. Instead of Mane, his son Dragomir Udrisce sat there, and the boyar himself apparently went to Dracula in Transylvania to give an account of the work done and to discuss all the details of the impending seizure of power one last time. Further Fate Dracula came to power in August 1456, and the boyar Mane Udrische is mentioned for the last time in a charter dated April 16, 1457. His younger brother Stoyan is mentioned for the last time on September 20, 1459. Researcher M.Cazacu in his book "Dracula" hints that these boyars disappeared from the charters because they were executed, but it is unlikely that Cazacu is right. One must not forget that Mane Udrische and his brother in the second half of the 1450s were already in a respectable age. Both were under 60 years old, and Dracula was a vigorous ruler, constantly going on campaigns, so it is likely that the elderly boyars simply could not cope with the pace and decided to retire. Another argument for a peaceful departure has to do with the fate of Mane's estates. If Dracula had executed this boyar, he would have confiscated his land, but this did not happen. It is known that Mane's son Dragomir inherited the estates. Dragomir is not mentioned in Dracula's charters, but is mentioned by Radu the Beautiful, as well as by subsequent sovereigns.

ENG: About Vlad's sister, Alishandra. We don't know much about her, there are only 2 letters mentioning her, one where it mentioned that she married a boyar from Prahova (You can find that letter in Corpus Draculianum vol 1) and this one were it mention that Vlad gave her 2 villages. Part of the letter of the voivode Radu Șerban dated January 20, 1604. By the Grace of God, IW Radu voivode and lord of all the land of Ungrovlakh, grandson of the late IW Basarab voivode, our Lordship gives these commands to our Lordship's servant Ventla from the Great village and to his brothers and his sons, all how many God will give him. So let them have a Great village and with everything from the field, and from the forest and the reservoir, and with all the countryside, and with a vineyard, with everything near it, and with a mill, and from crops to feed , and from grazing, and from the forest, so they have everything to everything and the village is all out, with everything from the field, and from the forest, and from the reservoir , and from the whole area, and with everything near it. Therefore, we say that the above-mentioned villages were inherited by Dan Spatar and Voynya Vornik, the progenitors of our Lordship's servant, Vintila Wisternik from Seten. The above-mentioned villages, Veliko Selo and Vylkana, were bought by the late Vlad voivode Tepes , and for the village that is called Veliko Selo, he paid 280.000 aspr, and for the village of Vylkana obache 800.000 aspr. And after the late Vlad the voivode Tepes gave these villages as a dowry to his sister Alishandreya, the ancestor of Dan Spatar and Voini Vornik, both ancestors of the servant of our Lordship, which was discussed above. Later, when the days of our lordship came, our Lordship's servant Vintila wisternik from Seten and his brothers complained to us that the document on the ownership of the above-mentioned villages was spoiled and darkened. And they came to our lordship , and our subject presented old documents about the right of his family to the land under the former lords. And we saw a document about the purchase and inherited right to the lands named by our subject Vintila from the Great village and his brothers. Then we read all their documents on the inheritance right at the grand council of our lordship in front of all the venerable zhupans, first the document of the late voivode Radu, as evidenced by the certificate that the late Vlad voivode Tepes bought the above-mentioned villages, and then gave as a dowry to his sister Alishandreya, the ancestor of Dan Spatar and Voyni Vornik, the ancestor of Vintila and his brothers. And after that, the letter of Mircea voivode with a ban, which was given to spatar (...and Voynya ...) vornik, the ancestor of Vintila, ... * Badilov ... on ... the name of Voika, and with Vlad, and with Rada, and with Radu stolnik from Myrsha, and with Radu logofet from Chiungask. *The image shows another letter of Radu Șerban from 1605, Tisman. _______ RU Часть грамоты воеводы Раду Щербана от 20 января 1604 года. Перевод группы Воевода Валахии XV века Влад Цепеш Дракула. Матерью Божьей IW Раду воевода и господин всей земли Унгровлахийской , внук покойного IW Басараба воеводы, дает наша светлость сие повеления слуге нашей светлости Вентиле от Велика села и братьям его, и сыновьям его, всем, скольких ему Бог даст. Так да имеют они Велико село и с хотаром всем от поля, да от леса и водоема , да со всей сельской местностью, и с виноградником, со всем близ того, и с мельницей, и с посевов подать, и с выпаса , и с леса, да имеют ко всему и Вылкана село все, со всем хотаром от поля, и от леса, и от водоема, и от местности всей , и со всем близ того. Потому мы то велим, что вышеупомянутые села наследованы были Даном спатарем и Войней ворником, прародителям слуги нашей светлости, Винтилы вистерника из Сэтень. Вышеназванные деревни, Велико село и Вылкана, были куплены покойным Владом воеводой Цепешем , и за село, что зовется Велико село, заплатил он 280.000 аспр, а за село Вылкана обаче 80.000 аспр. А после покойный Влад воевода Цепеш

названные села отдал в качестве приданного своей сестре Алишандреи , прародительнице Дана спатаря и Войни ворника, оба предки слуги нашей светлости, о котором шла речь выше. Позже, когда настали дни нашей светлости, то слуга нашей светлости Винтила вистерник из Сэтень и братья его пожаловались нам, что документ о праве владения вышеназванными селами испорчен и помрачен. И пришли они к нашей светлости , и предъявил наш подданный старые документы о праве своей семьи на землю при прежних господарях. И увидели мы документ о покупке и наследованном праве на земли названные нашего подданного Винтилы от Велико село и братьев его. Тогда прочили мы все документы их о наследном праве на большом совете нашей светлости перед всеми почтенными жупанами, сперва документ покойного воеводы Раду, поскольку свидетельствует грамота о том, что купил вышеназванные сёла покойный Влад воевода Цепеш, а потом подарил в качестве приданного своей сестре Алишандреи, прародительнице Дана спатаря и Войни ворника, прародитель Винтилы и его братьев. А после грамоту Мирчи воеводы с запрением, который получил Дан спатарь(… и Войня …) ворник, прародитель Винтилы, … * Бэдилов … на …имени Войка, и с Владом, и с Радой, и с Раду стольником из Мырша, и с Раду логофетом из Чиунгяска. *Нечеткий оригинал. *На изображении другая грамота Раду Щербана от 1605 года, Тисмана.

ENG: ... you can meet us and our people yourself and properly receive us, treat us and become an enemy of our enemies... Translation of the document dated September 6, 1456. This document is very important, in my opinion, because it characterizes the voivode Vlad from the side that is already familiar to us. This document is unfairly bypassed, describing it in the works (Florescu, Andreescu, Cazacu, Bogdan and others) as a "contract of loyalty", "oath of allegiance" to the king of Hungary and this translates the topic. But this treaty is special, firstly, it clarifies why the voivode invaded the territories of Transylvania every time they sheltered the pretenders to the throne of Wallachia right at the borders of Wallachia and helped them. Because it was spelled out in the contract, " when it comes to the Turkish threat or it comes to harboring our enemies, we will arrive on the territory of Hungary and in your lands, you can meet us and our people yourself and properly receive, treat and become an enemy of our enemies." And here, in this context, the claims of the authors of a number of works about the basis on which the voivode arrives with an army in search of his enemies on the territory outside his country become immediately incomprehensible, because it is clear – on the basis of a contract, and this , as we see, is not just a recognition of vassalage, but an agreement between the parties. Secondly, the treaty is also interesting because the voivode sets conditions (!), that is, on what conditions he agrees to help the Hungarians and Saxons, " you can meet us and our people yourself and properly receive, treat and become an enemy of our enemies, then (!) we will also have to act with our people in your defense against the Turks and against your other enemies and help you fight back with our own forces. You yourself will have to protect us from all rebels as long as we are in your lands, and also if we or our people on your border or on your lands suffer any damage from the outside, then you will be responsible for that(!)". Thus, the "document of recognition of vassalage", which is standardly called by many historians, is no longer just a recognition, because we are talking about the voivode Tepes himself, it is already a contract, or even a list of conditions on which the voivode agrees to cooperate, on which the voivode agrees to pay the fee. And as we know, neither the Brasovians, nor the Saxons, nor the Magyars practically never respected this agreements (constant enemies and pretenders, conspiracies and empty promises), but the voivode is reproached for non-compliance in almost all historical works (although there are quite a few facts of non-compliance). Thirdly, the voivode knew perfectly well how both the Saxons and the Brashovians behaved and act, this is because of the death of his father and brother, the numerous conflicts of the previous voivodes of Brasov, many voivodes wrote about it, reproached the Brasovians for infidelity and non-compliance with the contract, therefore, in my opinion, the voivode is very politically correct in this regard in the document with the phrase : "relying on the Saxons and the loyalty of all the citizens of Brasov and the lands of the Țara Bârsei (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burzenland), who until now have tried in every way to show their strong loyalty," which also reflects his character. In general, this document very clearly reflects the personality of the voivode Vlad Draguli Tepes, who even in the agreement on the acceptance of vassalage manages to dictate his clear conditions and demand their fulfillment as a prerequisite for the fulfillment of his duties. *** IO Vlad voivode of the Transalpine countries, Duke of the lands of Fagerash and Amlash*, assure everyone of the following and declare to everyone who reads this document, bearing in mind the merits of some voivodes from the Mircea family, our father and brothers*, who have always and everywhere faithfully served the kings of Hungary and their sacred crown and have committed themselves with a good

intention to protect the glorious Catholic faith* and to create benevolent towards it, that we also intend to tread in their footsteps and their deeds in to continue this rule of Wallachia*, which we hasten here to convey to everyone that we wish our most noble lord Vladislav, the King of Hungary, Bohemia, Dalmatia, Croatia and other lands, the ruler of Austria, our highly revered master in his young years* to recognize and show and prove our loyalty to him, and to bow our head and the heads of our subjects before him, placing us under his care and protection in the name of our lord king. Because of the Turkish threat in the face of our lord the king, relying on the Saxons and the loyalty of all the citizens of Brasov and the lands of Țara Bârsei, who have tried in every way to show their strong loyalty until now, and under the oath of loyalty and the inviolable oath of the Brasovians , and George the judge, the goldsmith Gaspar and another Gaspar the elder, the butcher, Tes, the judge from Rishnov, all the mentioned citizens will have to come to us instead of the elders of Țara Bârsei, taking into account everything According to the above, under the oath and before the face of our Lord, we have duly decided the following, that when only and every time in the course of time*, when it comes to the Turkish threat or it comes to harboring our enemies, we will arrive on the territory of Hungary and in your lands, you can meet us and our people yourself and properly receive them, treat them and become an enemy of our enemies*, then we will also have to act with our people in your defense against the Turks and against your other enemies and help you to repel them with our own forces*. You yourself will have to protect us from all rebels as long as we are in your lands, and also if we or our people on your border or on your lands suffer any damage from the outside, then you will be responsible for that. In addition, since we will fulfill this just as sincerely or even better than our previously mentioned predecessors, and we want to keep everything that you have decided, and everything that was agreed upon, reliably, we would like to add that everyone and anyone who wants to come to our lands according to the law and justice or wishes to*, let them not pay a fee and freely , without any obstacles, tread on our lands, as well as no one who arrives according to the law, should not be captured instead of the wrongdoer; but if the customs duty is not properly collected from someone, he will have to receive it from us or our officials. All the above-mentioned and all previously agreed, as regards the procedure for paying the fees to be paid by us, all this we, in the name of faith and loyalty , by the decision of our lord the King and for the Brasovians and elders of the lands of Țara Bârsei, without compulsion, impose on ourselves and promise to pay, in order to pay tribute to the Lord and humanity, and we undertake to inviolably and faithfully observe everything that is decided until our death, which we certify here with our signature and seal. Given in Targovishte, on the Monday before the feast of the Nativity of the Virgin in the year 1456. **** * On September 10, 1456, Amlash will no longer be mentioned in the title of voivode, who will be introduced as "Duke of the land of Fagerash", and by March 14, 1457, Fagerash will also disappear from the title. * The voivode emphasized his kinship with Mircea the Great, noting especially his father and brothers, probably thereby separating the representatives of the Danesti and Dragulesti families. * (var. Fratrum \fratris in Bogdan). It is unclear who exactly the governor meant by noting "brothers". This could also mean the voivode's older brother, Mircea, who, according to a number of assumptions , shared the rule with his father and was killed together with their father during a brutal massacre in 1447, or the voivode means "brothers" from the Mircea family, i.e. in a broader sense. * From this context, Bogdan draws conclusions about the possible change of faith by the voivode.

Stoicescu believes that in this version we are talking about the standard wording when accepting vassalage. * Stoicescu and Minea suggest that the phrase "in adepcione prima huius Valachie dominacionis "should be translated as" on the first ascent to the throne of Wallachia", however, the authors of the Corpus Draculianum edition would rather prefer the option "primarily \ initially when ascending to the throne of Wallachia". Until 1960, the text of this document was the reason to believe that in 1456 the first reign of the voivode Vlad Tepes began. Having come to rule in 1448, the governor enjoyed the support of the Turks, which was contrary to the policy of Hungary , because the rulers of the latter could not consider it necessary to mention that short period of rule in the new document recognizing vassal dependence on Hungary, probably considering that period insignificant. * The mention of the age of Vladislav Postumus, who at the time of signing the document was 17 years old, and thus he was considered old enough at that time, may enter as an indication of the political debate that may have arisen at that time about his age, or be considered as an outdated formulation of the description of the king's minority: from the point of view of the nobility, Vladislav could be considered insufficiently experienced to rule the state. This moment can be interpreted in such a way that the Brashovians adopted a similar attitude to the inexperienced king and used it in correspondence with Vlad, presenting themselves as the heads of the territory of Transylvania, and not the young king and his court. Another interpretation is that this text can thus reflect the political situation of that time as a whole: Hunyadi dies on August 11, with which the young king then gets the opportunity to unite the rule of the countries, which he eagerly and hastened to do. * The expression, "quandocunque et quocienscunque temporum in processu", which is often found in Hungarian documentation. *The same expression is used in documents No. 4 and No. 6 in the Corpus Draculianum edition. * Most likely, they mean verbally agreed rules, who from Transylvania and under what conditions was allowed to enter freely, and who had to pay the customs fee. _____ RU: ...можете вы нас и людей наших сами встретить и должным образом принять, попотчевать и неприятелем неприятелей наших стать... Перевод документа от 6 сентября 1456. Наконец-то и я внесу лепту, готов наш перевод документа, очень важного, на мой взгляд, поскольку характеризует воеводу Влада с уже знакомой нам стороны. Незаслуженно обходят стороной данный документ, обрисовывая его в работах (Флореску, Андрееску, Казаку, Богдан и прочие), как «договор верности», «присяга верности» королю Венгрии и на этом переводят тему. Но данный договор особенный, во-первых, он проясняет , почему воевода вторгался на территории Трансильвании каждый раз, когда они укрывали претендентов на трон Валахии прямо у границ Валахии и помогали им. Потому что это было прописано в договоре, «когда дело станет касаться турецкой угрозы или речь зайдет об укрывании неприятелей наших, то мы на территорию Венгрии и в земли ваши прибудем, можете вы нас и людей наших сами встретить и должным образом принять, попотчевать и неприятелем неприятелей наших стать». И тут, в данном контексте, становятся сразу непонятными претензии авторов ряда работ о том, на каком основании воевода прибывает с войском в поисках своих неприятелей на территории вне его страны, ведь ясно – на основании договора, а это , как видим, не просто признание вассальной зависимости, но договор между сторонами. Во-вторых, интересен договор и тем, что воевода ставит условия (!), то есть на каких условиях он согласен оказывать помощь венграм и саксам, «можете вы нас и людей наших сами встретить и должным образом принять, попотчевать и неприятелем неприятелей наших стать, тогда (!) и мы должны будем против турок и против других ваших неприятелей выступить со своими людьми в вашу защиту и своими силами помочь вам дать тем отпор. Сами же вы должны будете, покуда мы в ваших

землях будем, нас от всех мятежников ограждать, а также в случае, если мы или лю��и наши на границе вашей или на землях ваших понесем какой-либо урон извне, то за то вы будете ответственными(!)». Таким образом, стандартно именуемый многими историками «документ признания вассальной зависимости» уже не просто признание, ведь речь идет о самом воеводе Цепеше, это уже договор, или даже перечень условий, на которых воевода согласен на сотрудничество, на которых воевода согласен уплачивать сбор. А как мы знаем, ни брашовяне, ни саксы, ни мадьяры не соблюдали этот договор практически никогда (постоянные неприятели и претенденты , заговоры и пустые обещания), а вот воеводу в несоблюдении упрекают почти во всех исторических работах (хотя фактов несоблюдения довольно мало). В-третьих, воевода прекрасно знал , как ведут и вели себя и саксы, и брашовяне, это и смерть его отца и брата, это и многочисленные конфликты предыдущих воевод Брашовом, многие воеводы о том писали, упрекали брашовян в неверности, несоблюдении договора, не понимали, почему же обещанное не соблюдалось, и потому воевода, на мой взгляд, очень политкорректно иронизирует на этот счет в документе фразой : «полагаясь на саксов и верность всех горожан Брашова и земель Цара-Бырсей, которые доныне всяко старались свою крепкую верность показать», что также отражает его характер. В целом, этот документ очень ярко отражает личность воеводы Влада Драгули Цепеша, который даже в договоре о принятии вассальной зависимости умудряется диктовать свое четкие условия и требовать их исполнения, как обязательное условие исполнения им своих обязанностей. Ранее на русском его не было, теперь вы можете его сами оценить, перевод принадлежит группе Воевода Валахии XV века Влад Цепеш Дракула. Мы, Влад воевода стран Трансальпийских, герцог земель Фэгэраш и Амлаш*, заверяем всех нижеследующим и заявляем всем, кто прочтет данный документ, памятуя о заслугах некоторых воевод из рода Мирчи, нашего отца и братьев*, которые всегда и везде верой и правдой служили королям Венгрии и их священной короне и себя благим намерением обязали славную католическую веру защищать* и себя к ней доброжелательными сотворить, что намерены и мы по следам их ступать и дела их в этом правлении Валахией* продолжать, о чем спешим здесь донести до всех, что желаем мы благороднейшего господина нашего Владислава, короля Венгрии, Богемии, Далмации, Хорватии и других земель, правителя Австрии, нашим высоко почитаемым господином в его молодые годы* признавать и нашу верность ему показать и доказать, и склонить свою голову и головы наших подданных перед ним, передавая нас под его заботу и охрану во имя господина нашего короля. Из-за турецкой угрозы перед лицом нашего господина короля, полагаясь на саксов и верность всех горожан Брашова и земель Цара-Бырсей, которые до ныне всяко старались свою крепкую верность показать, и под присягой верности и нерушимой клятвой брашовян , причем Георгий судья, златокузнец Гаспар и другой Гаспар старший, мясник, Тес, судья из Рышнова, все упомянутые горожане должны будут прибыть к нам вместо старейшин Цара-Бырсей, с учетом всего вышесказанного, под клятвой и присягой и пред лицом Господа нашего постановили мы должным нижеследующее, что когда только и каждый раз по ходу времени*, когда дело станет касаться турецкой угрозы или речь зайдет об укрывании неприятелей наших, то мы на территорию Венгрии и в земли ваши прибудем, можете вы нас и людей наших сами встретить и должным образом принять, попотчевать и неприятелем неприятелей наших стать*, тогда и мы должны будем против турок и против других ваших неприятелей выступить со своими людьми в вашу защиту и своими силами помочь вам дать тем отпор*. Сами же вы должны будете, покуда мы в ваших землях будем, нас от всех мятежников ограждать, а также в случае, если мы или люди наши на границе вашей или на землях ваших понесем какой-либо урон извне, то за то вы будете ответственными. Кроме того, поскольку мы сие столь же душевно или даже лучше, чем наши ранее упомянутые предшественники исполним, и все то, что вы постановили, и все то, что было

условлено, мы желаем блюсти надежно, то хотели бы мы добавить, что каждый и любой, кто по закону и справедливости в наши земли прибыть пожелает либо пожелают*, пусть не платят сбора и свободно , без каких-либо препятствий , по нашим землям ступают, равно как и ни один, кто прибудет по закону, не должен быть пленен вместо беззаконника; но если с кого-то таможенный сбор станет недолжно взиматься, должен будет тот от нас или наших должностных лиц его получить. Все вышеупомянутое и все ранее оговоренное, что касается порядка уплаты нами подлежащих сборов, все это мы, во имея веры и верности, по решению нашего господина короля и для брашовян и старшин земель Цара-Бырсей , без принуждения на себя возлагаем и платить обещаем, дабы отдать должное Господу и человечеству, и все постановленное до нашей смерти нерушимо и преданно блюсти беремся, что и заверяем здесь нашей подписью и печатью. Дано в Тырговиште, в понедельник перед праздником Рождества Богородицы в год 1456. * 10 сентября 1456 года Амлаш перестанет упоминаться в титуле воеводы, который представится, как «герцог земли Фэгэраш», а к 14 марта 1457 года исчезнет из титула и Фэгэраш. * Воевода подчеркнул свое родство с Мирчей Великим, отмечая особо своего отца и братьев, вероятно, тем самым разделяя представителей рода Данешть и Драгулешть. * (вар. Fratrum \fratris у Богдана). Кого именно имел воевода ввиду, отметив «братья», неясно. Здесь мог подразумеваться и старший брат воеводы, Мирча, который по ряду предположений разделял правление с отцом и убитый вместе с их отцом в ходе жестокой расправы в 1447, либо воевода имеет ввиду «братья» из рода Мирчи , т.е. в более широком смысле. *Из данного контекста Богдан делает выводы о возможной смене веры воеводой. Стойческу же полагает, что в данном варианте речь идет о стандартной формулировке при принятии вассальной зависимости. *Стойческу и Минеа предполагают, что фразу „in adepcione prima huius Valachie dominacionis“ стоит переводить, как «по первому восхождении на трон Валахии», однако, авторы издания Corpus Draculianum предпочли бы скорее вариант «первостепенно \ изначально при восхождении на трон Валахии». До 1960 года текст данного документа был основанием полагать, что в 1456 году началось первое правление воеводы Влада Цепеша. Придя к правлению в 1448 году воевода пользовался поддержкой турок, что шло вразрез с политикой Венгрии , потому правители последней могли не считать нужным упоминать тот короткий период правления в новом документе признания вассальной зависимости от Венгрии, вероятно, рассматривая тот период незначительным. * Упоминание возраста Владислава Постума, которому на время подписания документа было 17 лет, и тем самым он считался по тем временам достаточно взрослым, может вступать в качестве указания на возможно возникшие в тот период политические прения насчет его возраста или же рассматриваться в качестве устаревшей формулировки описания несовершеннолетия короля: с точки зрения знати Владислав мог считаться недостаточно опытным для правления государством. Данный момент можно интерпретировать так, что брашовяне переняли подобное отношение к неопытному королю и использовали его в переписке с Владом, преподнося именно себя в качестве глав на территории Трансильвании, а не юного короля и его двор. Другая интерпретация заключается в том, что данный текст может таким образом отражать и политическую ситуацию того времени в целом: Хуньяди умирает 11 августа, с чем юный тогда король получает возможность объединения правление странами, что он с нетерпением и поспешил сделать. *Выражение, «quandocunque et quocienscunque temporum in processu», которое часто встречается в венгерской документации. *То же выражение используется документах №4 и №6 в издании Corpus Draculianum. *Скорее всего, имеются ввиду устно оговоренные правила, кому из Трансильвании и на каких условиях разрешалось свободно въезжать, а кто должен был платить таможенный сбор. ________ Original in Latin: «Nos Vlad partium Transsiluanarum vaivoda et dominus terrarum de Fogaras et Omlas memoriae commendantes tenore praesentium significantes

omnibus quibus expedit universis quia considerantes nonnullorum de generatione Merche vaivodarum patris et fratrum nostrorum servitia, quae ipsi ac ubique legibus Hungariae et sacrosanctae eorum coronae fideliter exhibuerunt1) ac se deffensione ortodoxae fidei catholicae gratas et acceptas reddiderunt. Nos eorum vestigia et actus imitari volentes in adeptione prima huius Valachiae dominationis pro maiori experientia serenissimo principi domino domino Ladislao Hungariae, Bohemiae, Dalmaciae, Croaciae et cetera regi duci Austriae, domino nostro gratiosissimo sua in iuventute nostram fidelitatem ostendere et facere volentes caput quoque nostrum et nostrorum omnium in sinum et protectionem suae serenitatis inclinantes prae timore Turcorum in persona ipsius domini nostri regis ad Saxones et fidem omnium civium de Brassouia et provinciae Burchiae commorantium perfecta fide confidentes atque Brassouiensium sub fide et iuramento firmissimo Georgium quondam iudicem, Gasparum Aurifabrum et alterum Gasparum Magnum carnificem ac Thes iudicem de Rasnaua in personis cunctorum seniorum dicto de Burchia ad nos venientes cum ipsis sub iuramento et fidei deo debita disposuimus et ordinavimus, ut quandocumque et quotienscumque in processu temporum prae timore Turcorum aut expulsione nostrorum inimicorum ad partes Hungariae et ipsorum in medio devenire contingeris ipsi nos et nostros suscipiant, pie tractant, nutriant et inimicis nostris inimici sint et nos contra Turcos et aliorum ipsorum inimicorum potentias viribus et potentiis in deffensione resistere debeamus et iam ipsi quousque ipsorum in medio fuerimus ab omnibus illicitis hominibus deffendere et si aliqua dampna nos et nostri inter ipsos aut sub metis ipsorum extra patiamur de hiis respondere debeant. Praeterea quemadmodum ipsis priores nostri praedecessores fecerunt in bonis sic vel melius facere volentes et quidquam ipsi concluserunt debito fine ea omnia firmiter tenentes insuper addimus, ut quicumque vel quiscumque iusti ad has nostras partes venerit vel venerint nisi tributa persolvat pacifice ac omni sine impedimento ambulat, ita etiam quod iusti pro iniustis non arestantur, sed si aliquis aliquid accessus habuerit id coram nobis aut nostris deputatis officialibus acquirat. Haec omnia praemissa et alia quae debito ordine pertinent ad fidem et fidelitatem observandum dicto domino nostro regi ac ipsis civibus de Brassouia et senioribus de Burchia sponte asumpsimus et promittimus in fidem deo debitam et humanitatem usque mortem nostram inviolabiliter firmiter tenere harum literarum nostrarum et testimonio sigilii nostri quo utimur mediante. Datum in Tergouistia feria secunda proxima ante festum nativitatis virginis Mariae, anno domini millesimo quadringentesimo quinquagesimo sexto».

ENG Letter from the Voivode Vlad Draguli Tepes of March 14, 1457. *** By content: This letter finally clarifies the political situation between Wallachia and Transylvania, which became the cause of the conflict in 1457 and later. However, to understand the situation, it is worth reading first two other documents, the first, the agreement between the parties, the terms of assistance, the second, the document of the request for help from the voivode. This document follows in this chain the third, interesting from the point of view of the conflict. After the voivode did not receive an answer, according to the agreement, he goes to the lands where the applicants for the throne of Wallachia and their accomplices are hiding. According to the agreement, if you remember, the party on whose land the applicant and his people are hiding, preferably, betrays (meets the voivode as a friend) intruders, or does not interfere with their search. Probably, the governor did not meet any assistance in Transylvania, which is not surprising, given this attitude. Having crossed the Turnu-Rosu pass and arriving at the places where the aforementioned gentlemen were hiding, but faced with complete indifference, the voivode made an attempt to persuade Transylvania to reckon with itself. The result of this was the burned villages of Kasholts, Khosman and Nou Romyn near the very Sibiu. For decades, Transylvania, which had been shaking the nerves of the governors of Wallachia, was literally shocked by such an act, unprecedented in its kind, so that echoes of indignation reached us in the form of pamphlets, legends, stories, where from year to year, from decade to decade, the number of “innocents” increases, just like the number of "victims". In those stories, it comes to the point where the death toll during that period significantly exceeds even the number of all who lived at that time in one of the largest cities in Transylvania, Brasov. What exactly prompted the governor to take such a decisive, long-needed step? Was it the indirect participation of Transylvania in all the coups in Wallachia?, the murder of his family?, an attempt on his own murder?. It is unlikely that the voivode was so restrained and patient that, having come to power “without any help,” he concludes a strong peace with Transylvania and approaches it very responsibly. This letter is also very interesting, with a phrase that some historians even interpret as a threat: “If you don’t want even more, then immediately inform us so that we can rule and govern”. However, from the point of view of the choice of vocabulary, "quod nos regere et gubern {are p} ossemus" is completely neutral and, speaking figuratively in modern words, has the following content: the voivode, being a ruler, will be able to begin to regulate the current situation only when he finds out about the further political course of his neighbor, Transylvania, and does not want to be in the dark about that, therefore he asks to inform about his decision. There is nothing else in this phrase, "reign and govern", "herrschen und lenken", in any translation, that is, to be the ruler and therefore to control the situation. For all that, few people focus on the fact that they tried to kill the governor in Transylvania when he needed help. They also pay little attention to the fact that the voivode expresses, albeit tactfully within the framework of necessary diplomacy, about his attitude to the origin of the applicant: “his infringement on our right of the true (!) Heir”, “a monk from Wallachia who calls himself a son voivode ", the latter is twice specially indicated. Given these moments, I personally cannot understand why Vlad The Monk is definitely considered the illegitimate child of Dragul, when among his sons his father is not mentioned anywhere in the documents, not even once, and one of the sons frankly says that the Monk is an impostor. In my opinion, Vlad Monk is another Neagoe Bassarab, of which, as we remember, there were plenty of them. With only one commander Dragulya Tepes, duplicated Mirchi, Vlada and

forged documents suddenly appeared. Letter from the governor Vlad Draguli Tepes dated March 14, 1457. *** Noble, prudent and far-sighted men, advisers, fathers, brothers, our sincerely dear friends and neighbors, as you remember, and you should be well aware of that, there is a commitment between us, and vows backed by unshakable loyalty have been taken; and these obligations and vows must not be violated by anyone and never, while we are alive, at any time, which we personally specifically pointed out to you in a letter. From our side of evil, we did not do you and did not intend to start that. But today a rumor has reached us and we have learned about all that, that at a secret council you were with the people of a monk from Wallachia, who calls himself the son of a governor *, settled their affairs; Moreover, Peter Gereb * from Virishmort, and Peterman *, the son of the noble Peterman, who were neighboring with you, took part in this. You were personally promised to transfer all the fees to you in Rukar and Brail for a long time, promising that Wallachia's income. * Remember the time when I wandered and arrived in your lands *, you then did not let me into your council, but instead, out of loyalty to the noble lord, the governor of these lands, Vladislav entrusted the noble men John Gereb from Wingard and Nicholas from Salzburg to capture us in the city of Joaju and to end us. But by the will of God, we ourselves were able to return our lands without any help *, but with you, we made a strong peace and thus made your enemies ours. Today we fully understand that you support a monk from Wallachia, who calls himself the son of a governor, and his people in an encroachment on our right to be a true heir, and we also understand what bad consequences for us everything can lead, since you are already Advice with him, and he, having made his way to Amlash, remained there, and is there to this day by your own will. Therefore, with this letter we ask each and every one of you that in the name of the God and according to the commandments of the Catholic faith, as well as for the sake of maintaining fraternal peace and friendship between us, after reading our letter, you will certainly write to us or report back, whether you wish further observe the order established by us and you in writing and be loyal to it. If you do not wish that more, then immediately inform us, so that we can rule and govern. Given in Targoviste on the second day after the feast of Blessed Pope Gregory, in the year 1457. Vlad, Commander of the Transalpine lands, your faithful brother, son and friend in everything. Comments: * Identity of Vlad the monk is speculative only. * Peter Gereb * from Virishmort was a judge and head of Sibiu in 1467, later he was executed in the city square because of his participation in the uprising against Corwin considered bloodthirsty). Peterman was a wealthy Sibiu merchant from Wallachia, Kampulung; the city was located on the trade route from Rukar to Brasov. The German-speaking community living there maintained close relations with Sibiu. * Fees from you in Rukar were the most important source of income for Wallachia, therefore they were never the object of donation or lease. Braila Port, located on the Danube, was the country's most important port and was of exceptional importance for trade in the western Black Sea region. The decision of the self-appointed claimant to take away the income from the country and give it to Transylvania was also unprecedented, his desire to curry favor was painfully strong. * After an unsuccessful attempt to regain legal power in November 1448, the voivode fled to Moldavia. However, there is no evidence that he was present at the court of Bogdan II. Perhaps he found refuge among the Moldovan boyars who were supporters of his family. Later, the voivode is forced to move to Transylvania, after Vladislav finds himself in the same situation as many voivods before him and therefore loses the support of the Hungarians. * Joaju (Rom. Geoagiu, ung. Algyógy) is located in the Hunedoara

Sudce, where the Hunyadi family owned vast estates and were surrounded by numerous supporters. The authors of the book Corpus Draculianum contradict themselves, first they write that the Hungarians removed Vladislav because of his pro-Ottoman policy, and then that the murder of the governor could have been ordered by Hunyadi, so that, literally: “Hunyadi wanted to prevent Vlad's attack on Vladislav, so as not to violate the truce with by the Ottomans ". Several different statements. And why would Vlad even then be in Joaju, "where the Hunyadi family owned vast estates and were surrounded by numerous supporters." Honestly, I am alarmed by the attempt of the authors of the book to constantly challenge the words of the voivode in the documents (I often notice in the comments, they say, “the voivode is misleading,” or “in fact, the reason was something else, and not indicated by the voivode” (they apparently, instead of the governor, they know much better what was the cause of what was in the 15th century, in this case the same example, after all, everything is written in black and white, who attempted and why) and suppose “their own” version. I do not know the purpose of such comments. An example, one of the many about challenging, openly refuting the words of the voivode in his letter with his statement, is the commentary on the phrase “But by the will of the Lord we ourselves were able to return our lands without any help.” In the commentary to this phrase, the authors of the aforementioned publication, the governor is accused of lying, citing a completely empty formal oath to Postumus in March 1456 and arguing that (as it turns out, it was not Hunyadi who wanted to kill, as they had previously stated) with the help of Hun eadi. In support of the versions, documents are cited that are not evidence of the indicated facts, even indirectly. In some comments, the authors of the publication accuse the voivode of issuing an ultimatum without offering any negotiations, and this is for this phrase: “Therefore, with this letter we ask each and every one of you that in the name of the Lord and according to the commandments of the Catholic faith, and also for the sake of maintaining fraternal peace and friendship between us (!), after reading our letter, you certainly wrote or reported to us (!) whether you want to continue to observe the order established by us and you in writing (!) and be loyal to it. If you do not wish that more, then immediately inform us, so that we can rule and rule. " I don’t know how even softer it is possible to write after an attempted murder, after a betrayal and a secret conspiracy, the ruler who previously concluded an agreement with you asks you to inform us about your preference in actions. I cannot understand what the authors are pursuing with such comments. _____________________ RU Письмо воеводы Влада Драгули Цепеша от 14 марта 1457 года, перевод группы Воевода Валахии XV века Влад Цепеш Дракула. *** По содержанию: Данное письмо окончательно проясняет политическую ситуацию между Валахией и Трансильванией, ставшую причиной конфликта и в 1457 , и позже. Однако, для понимания ситуации стоит прочесть сначала два других документа, первый, договор между сторонами, условия содействия, второй, документ просьбы о помощи от воеводы. Данный документ следует в этой цепи третьим, интересным с точки зрения конфликта. После того, как воевода не получил ответа, согласно договору, он отправляется в земли, где укрываются претенденты на трон Валахии и их пособники. Согласно договору, если помните, сторона, на чьей земле скрывается претендент и его люди, предпочтительно, выдает (встречает воеводу , как приятеля) злоумышленников, либо не препятствует их поиску. Вероятно, воевода не встретил никакого содействия в Трансильвании, что и неудивительно, учитывая подобное отношение. Переправившись через перевал Турну-Рошу и прибыв в места укрывательства перечисленных господ, но столкнувшись с полным безразличием, воевода предпринял попытку убедить Трансильванию считаться с собой. Результатом этого стали сожженные

деревни Кашольц, Хосман и Ноу Ромын близ того самого Сибиу. Десятилетиями трепавшая нервы воеводам Валахии Трансильвания была в буквальном смысле шокирована таким поступком, беспрецедентным в своем роде настолько, что отголоски возмущения дошли до нас в виде памфлетов, сказаний, рассказов, где из года в год, из десятилетия в десятилетие, и число «невинно убиенных» становится все больше, и смерти все краше. В ряде рассказов доходит до того, что число погибших в тот период значительно превышает даже численность всех, живших на тот момент в одном из самых крупных городов Трансильвании, Брашове. Что же именно подвигло воеводу на такой решительный, давно нужный шаг? Было ли то косвенное участие Трансильвании во всех переворотах в Валахии, убийство его семьи, покушение на его собственное убийство. Вряд ли, воевода был настолько сдержан и терпелив, что, придя ко власти «без всякой помощи», заключает крепкий мир с Трансильванией и очень ответственно к тому подходит. Данное письмо очень интересно и фразой, которую некоторые историки даже трактуют как угрозу: «Ежели не желаете того более, то тотчас сообщите нам, дабы мы могли властвовать и править». Однако, с точки зрения выбора лексики, «quod nos regere et gubern{are p}ossemus» вполне нейтральна и , если говорить переносно современными словами, имеет следующее содержание: воевода, будучи правителем, сможет начать регулировать сложившуюся ситуацию , лишь тогда, когда узнает о дальнейшем политическом курсе своего соседа, Трансильвании, и не желает быть в неведении о том, потому просит сообщить о своем решении. Ничего другого в данной фразе нет, «reign and govern», «herrschen und lenken», в любом переводе, то есть, быть господарем и потому управлять ситуацией. При всем, мало кто акцентирует внимание на том, что воеводу пытались убить в Трансильвании, когда ему нужна была помощь. Также мало акцентируют внимание и на том, что воевода высказывает, пусть и тактично в рамках необходимой дипломатии, о своем отношении к происхождению претендента: «его в посягательстве на наше право истинного (!) наследника», «монаха из Валахии, кто величает себя сыном воеводы», последнее дважды особо указывается. Учитывая данные моменты, я лично не могу понять, почему Влада Монаха определенно считают внебрачным ребенком Драгула, когда среди сыновей его нигде не упоминается в документах самого отца, ни разу, а один из сыновей откровенного говорит, что Монах самозванец. На мой взгляд, Влад Монах очередной Нягое Бассараб, которых на деле, как помним, было полно. Только с одним воеводой Драгулей Цепешем внезапно появились и дублированные Мирчи, Влады и поддельные документы. Письмо воеводы Влада Драгули Цепеша от 14 марта 1457 года. *** Знатные, благоразумные и дальновидные мужи, советники, отцы, браться, наши искренне дорогие друзья и соседи, как вы помните, а о том должно вам быть хорошо известно, есть между нами обязательства , и даны клятвы, подкрепленные непоколебимой верностью; и сие обязательства и клятвы недолжно никому и никогда, пока мы живы, в любое время нарушать, на что мы вам лично особливо в письме указывали . С нашей стороны зла мы вам не творили и не намеревались то начинать. Но нынче дошел до нас слух и мы обо всем том узнали , что на тайном совете с вами были и дела свои улаживали люди монаха из Валахии, кто величает себя сыном воеводы*; пуще того, принимали в том участие и Петер Гереб *из Виришморта, и Петерман *, сын знатного Петермана, соседствующие с вами. Вам лично пообещали надолго передать все сборы с вам в Рукаре и Брэиле , посулив тем доходы Валахии.* Припомните же то время, когда скитался я и в ваши земли прибыл*, не пустили вы тогда меня в совет свой, но вместо этого вы из преданности знатному господину ,воеводе тогда этих земель , Владиславу поручили знатным мужам Иоанну Геребу из Вингарда и Николаю из Зальцбурга нас в граде Джоаджу пленить и с нами покончить. Но по воле Господа смогли мы сами без всякой помощи земли свои вернуть*, а с вами же мы заключили крепкий мир и тем сделали ваших неприятелей нашими. Нынче мы всецело разумеем то, что вы поддерживаете монаха из

Валахии , кто сыном воеводы себя величает, и людей его в посягательстве на наше право истинного наследника, а также понимаем и то, к каким худым последствиям для нас все может привести, раз вы уж и совет с ним держите, и он , в Амлаш пробравшись , там и остался , и там доныне находится по вашей же собственной воле. Потому сим письмом просим мы всех и каждого из вас о том, чтобы во имя Господа и по заповедям веры католической, а также ради поддержания между нами братского мира и дружбы, вы, прочтя наше письмо , нам непременно ответ написали или доложили, желаете ли далее соблюдать письменно установленный нами и вами порядок и быть тому преданными . Ежели не желаете того более, то тотчас сообщите нам , дабы мы могли властвовать и править. Дано в Тырговиште на второй день после праздника блаженного папы Григория, в год 1457. Влад, воевода земель Трансальпийских , ваш верный брат, сын и слуга во всем. Знатным, благоразумным и дальновидным мужам, бургомистру Освальду, судье и советникам Сибиу, всем нашим мужам саксам из Семиградья, нашим искренне уважаемым друзьям и соседям. ___________________________________________________________________________ Комментарии: *Идентификация личности Влада монаха лишь предположительная. * Петер Гереб *из Виришморта был судьей и главой Сибиу в 1467 году, позже его казнят на городской площади из-за его участия в восстании против Корвина (последнему, выходит, отмечу от себя, можно так поступать с заговорщиками и претендентами на власть и не считаться кровожадным). Петерман же был богатым торговцем Сибиу родом из Валахии , Кымпулунг; город располагался на торговом пути от Рукара в Брашов. Проживавшее там немецкоязычное сообщество поддерживало тесные отношения с Сибиу. *Сборы с вам в Рукаре были самым важным источником дохода для Валахии , потому они никогда не выступали объектом пожертвования или аренды. Порт Брэйла, расположенный на Дунае, был самым важным портом страны и имел исключительное значение для торговли в западно-черноморском регионе. Решение самозваного претендента отнять доход у страны и подарить его Трансильвании также было беспрецедентным, больно сильным было его желание выслужиться. * После неудачной попытки вернуть законную власть в ноябре 1448 года , воевода бежал в Молдавию . Однако, нет никаких доказательств того, что он присутствовал при дворе Богдана II. Возможно, он нашел прибежище среди молдавских бояр, которые были сторонниками его семьи. Позже воевода вынужден перебраться в Трансильванию, после того, как Владислав оказывается в той же ситуации, что и многие воеводы до него и потому лишается поддержки венгров. *Джоаджу (рум. Geoagiu, ung. Algyógy) расположен в судце Хунедоара, где семья Хуньяди владела обширными владениями и была окружена многочисленными сторонниками. Авторы книги Corpus Draculianum противоречат себе , сначала пишут, что венгры убрали Владислава из-за его проосманской политики, а потом, что убийство воеводы мог заказать Хуньяди , чтобы, дословно: «Хуньяди хотел предотвратить нападение Влада воеводы на Владислава , чтобы не нарушать перемирие с османами». Несколько различные утверждения. Да и зачем бы Владу вообще тогда находиться именно в Джоаджу, «где семья Хуньяди владела обширными владениями и была окружена многочисленными сторонниками». Меня, честно, настораживает ко всему попытка авторов книги постоянно оспорить слова воеводы в документах (не раз то замечаю в комментариях, мол, «воевода вводит в заблуждение», или «на деле же причиной было иное, а не указанное воеводой» (они, видно, вместо воеводы куда лучше знают, что же причиной чего и было в 15 веке , в данном случае тот же пример, все ведь черным по белому писано, кто покушался и зачем) и предположить «свою» версию. Бессмысленно то. А вот какова цель подобных комментариев мне неизвестно. Примером, одним из многочисленных об оспаривании , откровенном опровержении слов воеводы в письме своим утверждением, является и комментарий к фразе «Но по воле Господа смогли мы сами без вс��кой помощи земли свои вернуть». В комментарии к данной фразе авторы вышеупомянутого издания обвиняют воеводу во

лжи, приводя основой совершенно пустую формальную присягу Постуму марта 1456 и утверждая, что (как оказывается, уже не Хуньяди убить хотел, как ранее ими было заявлено) с помощью Хуньяди. В поддержку версий приводятся документы, не являющиеся доказательствами указанных фактов даже косвенно. В некоторых комментариях авторы издания обвиняют воеводу в том, что он выставил ультиматум, не предлагая никаких переговоров, и это к данной фразе : «Потому сим письмом просим мы всех и каждого из вас о том, чтобы во имя Господа и по заповедям веры католической, а также ради поддержания между нами братского мира и дружбы (!), вы, прочтя наше письмо , нам непременно ответ написали или доложили, (!)желаете ли далее соблюдать письменно установленный (!)нами и вами порядок и быть тому преданными. Ежели не желаете того более, то тотчас сообщите нам , дабы мы могли властвовать и править». Уж не знаю, как еще мягче можно написать после покушения на свое убийство, после предательства и тайного заговора, правитель , заключивший ранее с вами договор, просит вас сообщить о вашем предпочтении в действиях. Не могу понять, какую цель преследуют авторы такими комментариями.

ENG:

Document of the ruler and governor Vlad Draguli Tepes of July 26, 1460.

*** Wise and farsighted advisors, our highly respected brothers and friends. You need not be afraid of our agreement with our people in the land of Fagerash, your province*, for we wish to observe every term of the treaty of peace concluded and agreed with you concerning you and your people; especially you have nothing to fear, because you also, if it seems true to us, according to your wise reasoning do not break the treaty. But also observe the old law and the old tradition and do not wish to give this land of Fagarashia any help or support. And on the other hand, if you should happen to give them refuge in your lands, you will thereby neither support your promises to us nor your agreement with them, but on the contrary, you will violate your treaty, whereas we wish everything that we have signed with you, and you have been sincere in it, to be lawful, inviolable and unshakable. Therefore, just as we do not hinder your people in any of their undertakings, so do you not hinder our people, whom we have sent to our aforementioned possessions, or in any other way hinder them.

This document was given on the Saturday before the feast of the holy Apostle James, in the year 60. Vlad the Voivode of the Transalpine Lands. To the wise and prudent men, judge and counselors of Brasov, our highly esteemed brothers and friends. __________________________________________________________ *From this passage we can assume that some of the campaigns in Transylvania were not carried out by the Voivode himself.

________________ RU:

Документ господаря и воеводы Влада Драгули Цепеша от 26 июля 1460.

*** Благоразумные и дальновидные советники, наши высокоуважаемые братья и друзья. Не стоит вам бояться того, что мы с людьми нашими в землях Фэгэраш, крае вашем, имеем уговор*, ибо желаем мы соблюдать каждое условие из заключенного и согласованного с вами договора о мире в отношении вас и людей ваших; особливо нечего вам бояться, ведь и вы, если нам верно сие представляется, по мудрому разумению вашему договор не нарушаете. Но еще блюдите старый закон и давнюю традицию и сей земле фэгэрашской не желайте оказывать ни помощи, ни поддержки. А ко всему прочему, случись так, что вы оным укрытие в своих землях дадите, то тем самым вы ни подкрепите ни свои обещания нам, ни с ними согласие, но напротив договор свой тем нарушите, в то время как мы все, о чем с вами договор заключали, и были вы в том, казалось, искренними, желаем хранить законным, неукоснительным и непоколебимым. Посему, как мы незыблемо людям вашим ни в едином их начинании не препятствуем, так и вы нашим людям, коих мы в наши вышеупомянутые владения отправили, ни препятствуйте, ни какими другими способами не мешайте*.

Документ дан в субботу перед праздником пресвятого апостола Иакова, в год 60. Влад Воевода земель трансальпийских. Мудрым и б��агоразумным мужам, судье и советникам Брашова, нашим высокопочитаемым братьям и друзьям. __________________________________________________________ *Из данного отрывка можно предположить, что часть кампаний в Трансильвании не осуществлялись воеводой самолично.

ENG: From March 28, 1458 to July 4, 1458, Targovishte. Vlad Dragulya Tepes, the voivode, sends his man Ivan Polivar to Brasov with a confidential letter to the Brasovs, in which he demands that his enemies, Mikhail Logofet and Pardoi, be expelled from their lands, The Brasovans call themselves friends of the voivode, but in fact they give shelter to his enemies. "Iw Vlad the voivode and lord of all the land of Ugrovlakh, we write to our friends, our Brasoveans advisers. For that sake, we send the faithful boyar and servant of our lordship Ivan Polivar, and he will utter a message to you, believe him, that is truly speech from the lips of our lordship and may the lord give you joys. And again I appeal to your grace, as to my good friends: that there is between you Mikhail Logofet and Pardoi, enemies of our lordship; our lordship has forgiven everyone, but those I do not forgive; and how our lordship does not want to forgive them, so you can drive them away from yourself, if you are called friends of our lordship, so there will not be those in your lands. Iw Vlad voivode, Mother of God lord ", NOTE: It is worth mentioning that the historian Cazacu (his book is posted in the group) added that having escaped, Mikhail, being the head of the archives of the voievode's office, the keeper of the seal, could take with him all the records from the archives, including about taxable lands in Wallachia, so that the voivode Vlad would have had a very difficult time in the early years, as it took a full year to record all data for taxation again. This assumption can also explain the fact that the voivode did not start writing letters in letters immediately after coming to power. One can only imagine how this affected Wallachia that year and how difficult it was without these data. However, these are only assumptions, Cazacu did not provide confirmation of his words on the sources. _______ RU: От 28 марта 1458 до 4 июля 1458, Тырговиште. Влад Драгуля Цепеш воевода отправляет своего человека Ивана Поливара в Брашов с доверительным письмом брашовнам, в котором требует изгнать со их земель ��го врагов-Михаила логофета и Пардона, поскольку зовутся брашовне приятелями воеводы , а на деле дают кров его врагам. " Iw Влад воевода и господин всей земли Угровлахийской, пишем мы приятелям нашим советникам брашевским. Того ради посылаем верного боярина и слугу нашей светлости Ивана Поливара, д изречет к вам он послание, да верьте вы, то есть истинно речь из уст нашей светлости и дарует Господь вам радости. И снова обращаюсь я к вашей милости, как к моим добрым приятелям: о том, что есть помежду вас Михаил логофет и Пардои, враги нашей светлости; наша светлость всех простили, а тех не простили; и как наша светлость не желает их прощать, так и вы их да отвадите от себя, если зоветесь приятелями нашей светлости, да не будут те в землях ваших. Iw Влад воевода, Матерью Божьей господин", † Прїателем господства ми, палгарем ѿ Врашов. † Іѡ Влад воевода и господинь въсеи земли угровлахіискои, пишет господство ми пріателем господства ми, пръгарем Брашевским. Сего радї послахмо верна болѣрина и слѹгѫ господства ми Ивана Поливаръ, да елика изречетъ къ вам, да верѹете, понеже сѫт истинни, изь устъ речи господства ми. И Богъ ��и веселит. И паки говорѧ вашеи милости, какото моим добрим прїателем, тѹзи помежду вас Михаил ѿ Фет и Пардои,мои вражмаши. Азъ въсех простих, а тех не пращам, да како их азъ не щѫ да их простим, тако и вие да их ѿпъдите ѿ вас, аще сте пріатели господства ми. И да не бѫджт ва вашеи ѡбласти. Стоит упомянуть о том, что историк Казаку добавил, что сбежав, Михаил , будучи заведующим архивами канцелярии господаря, хранителем печати, мог забрать с собой все записи из архивов , включая и о налогооблагаемых землях в Валахии, так, что воеводе Владу пришлось бы очень сложно в первые годы, так как потребовался целый год, чтобы снова зафиксировать все данные для налогообложения. Это предположение может объяснять и то, что в грамоты воевода стал писать не сразу по пришествии к власти. Можно только представить, как это сказалось на Валахии в

тот год и как сложно пришлось без этих данных. Однако, это лишь предположения, подтверждения своим словам на источниках Казаку не привел.

The Crusader Vlad and the organization of his country's army and its defensive system When we refer to the remarkable merits of Vlad Țepeș's head of state and army [1], we cannot ignore his takeover of a politico-military conception that has its origins in the old Byzantine imperial crusade tradition, Dragula being indisputably the first of our voivodes who rose to fight against the Ottoman Turks after the entry of Byzantium into the rule of Sultan Muhammad II the Conqueror [2]. Of course, this takeover was also made because he considered himself the legal continuator of the anti-Ottoman struggle of the Byzantine basilicas (emperors) and the great Romanian rulers, especially after the death of Iancu de Hunedoara [3], "the last great European crusade" [4]. Thus, edifying for the pro-crusade politico-military thinking of Vlad Țepeș is also the “crusade duchy [5]” discovered at Târgșor (in Prahova county), ie in the place where Vlad built a church (…) and where there was, in the 15th century, a royal court ”[6]. The currency was struck, in all probability, between 1459-1461, in this case being a second monetary issue made during the reign of Vlad Tepes [7], because, wanting to intensify trade for economic development of the country (which resulted in the procurement of the financial resources necessary to fight the anti-Ottoman struggle), the Romanian voivode was also concerned with this aspect. The only copy of the respective monetary issue, discovered so far, the silver duchy mentioned above, has on its two facets images inspired by the Byzantine iconographic tradition. On the obverse, there appears the face of Vlad Ţepeş with a beard, seen from the front, standing, wearing a crown [on his head] and holding a long cross in his right hand, and the cruciferous globe in his left ”[8], practically“ the typical representation of the Byzantine emperor, in his double position of defender of Christianity and holder of the power of universal aspiration ”[9]. On the reverse is shown "the bust of Jesus Christ, seen [all] from the front, blessing with his right hand, and with his left holding the gospel to his chest" [10]. Practically "this image was also taken from the Byzantine iconographic tradition, being the representation on coins of rex regnantium, ie the hierarchical top of all Christian sovereigns" [11]. Putting the two effigies together on the same coin, certainly on the initiative of Vlad Ţepeş, leads to the conclusion that we are dealing with “a crusade duchy", the Romanian lord considering himself the direct heir of the old Byzantine crusade traditions and , therefore, the main Christian adversary of the Crusent [12], after the disappearance of Iancu de Hunedoara ”[13]. It is interesting to mention the fact that the first coin struck by Vlad Țepeș was a “penny” of anepigraphic silver (ie without any inscription) on the reverse of which appears a star with a tail in the shape of the letter «S», so a comet. The fact that, according to astronomical data, on June 8, 1456, the famous comet Halley (which could be seen for a whole month) appeared in the sky of Europe, led the specialists to conclude that Vlad Ţepeş was influenced in choosing the image for the reverse of the coin. issued from his order, right at the beginning of the second of his reigns, precisely by this rare and interesting astronomical phenomenon, "disturbing image, as it seems unique in the European numismatics of the time" [14]. Considering the uniqueness of Dracula in our history, but also in the universal one, we cannot fail to notice the amazing connection between the evolution of his politico-military career and the mentioned astral phenomenon, which, while at that time instilled a terrible horror in the population. For Europe, it was for him a "heavenly" sign under which he managed to defeat (and kill) his rival (Vladislav II [15]) and ascend to the royal throne of his ancestors [16]. Aiming to consolidate and protect the royal authority and the economic and socio-political bases of the anti-Ottoman resistance and “preparing the reopening of the war

with the Ottoman Empire to ensure state independence and restore the territorial unity of Wallachia, Vlad Țepeș took numerous measures to strengthen the court army (The permanent army- nnTC), the backbone of the "great army", making full use of its revenues for its reorganization, endowment and training, according to the requirements of the time ”[17]. Dragula was also concerned with hiring a large number of specialized fighters from the sister countries (ie Transylvania and Moldova - nnTC), especially those trained in the campaigns of Iancu de Hunedoara, giving a similar status to the soldiers in the country "[18 ]. At the same time, he "raised and strengthened in military positions faithful and talented people (…), chosen with discernment, according to the value criterion" [19]. In the time of Vlad the Impaler, the country's "small army" (as well as its personal guard) consisted of mercenaries, viteji(Braves)[20], courtiers and servants or princely servants, while "the great army" ( mobilized only in case of great danger) was composed of all those able to bear arms and fight (mostly of them, these being inhabitants of villages, but also of fairs and cities, which, "unlike the guard the lord [as well as the army of the courtiers, the troops of the princely servants and the troops of mercenaries], an elite army, were inhomogeneously armed, that is, each came with the weapon he had in the household ”[21]) [22]. In fact, Dragula is the first Romanian ruler, since Mircea the Elder, who raised to battle all those capable of wielding a weapon, an act of great courage that proves his ability to maneuver large masses of people on the battlefield [ 2. 3]. Constantly in a categorical and overwhelming numerical inferiority to the Ottoman invaders he had to face [24], Vlad Țepeș always resorted to a series of measures aimed at a "consistent application of the strategy of the struggle of the whole people (specific to the Romanians - nnTC), he destroying everything in the way of the invading army - thus depriving it of any logistical support in the invaded territory - and triggering bold actions of harassment, the latter - the prelude to a decisive battle - must undermine the combative potential of to the enemy and to decisively weaken his morale ”[25]. Relevant to the care given to military matters is the fact that according to tradition, after the end of any of the battles in which he took part, Dragula (who was a good fighter himself instilling in the whole army a spirit of order and discipline" [26], as well as great courage and love for the country to the point of self-sacrifice), he personally searched each fighter and “who was wounded in the face, gave him great honor and made him brave, [but] who was struck in the back , he ordered that he be put (put - nnTC) on the stake ”[27]. Being "agile and as good as possible in military affairs" [28], a fact recognized even by his enemies, the Ottoman Turks [29], Vlad Țepeș " enlarged and strengthened the military institution promoting peaseants to small rank boyars , exempt them from taxes and benefits in exchange for military service, thus cementing ties with the majority class of the time - the peasantry - a class that understood to serve with devotion the one who defended it from the abuses of the great nobility "[30]. Therefore, "the peasant soldiers of Vlad [Țepeș] defended the entire land of Wallachia, from the Danube, where the Ottoman fleet could not be controlled, until the mountains transformed into a natural fortress of resistance" [31], and Dracula "He himself, as an example of bravery and heroism, often fighting in the front lines, personally leading the attacks on enemy camps, established himself as a valiant defender of his country's independence, [as] a great lord and army commander, [he being] one of the the most brilliant leaders of the Romanian people ”[32]. Vlad Țepeș also paid special attention to the defensive system of his country (as, moreover, was normal in the context of his anti-Ottoman policy), he strengthened it with new cities of refuge, fortresses on

the probable directions of invasion and fortified monasteries ”[33]. Dracula proceeded both to repair, enlarge, strengthen and even raise the foundations of some fortresses, and to "build or rebuild the defensive walls" [34] of some monasteries, such as Cozia, Govora, Tismana, Snagov and Comana [ 35]. Among the fortresses rehabilitated, consolidated and enlarged by the worthy Romanian voivode is the fortress of Poienari (on the upper course of the river Argeș), which, between April-May 1457, he renovated and expanded, which was done according to Povestirilor about Vlad Ţepeş and the forced labor of a significant number of boyars and townspeople from Târgovişte (along with their families), who had plotted against him (these are the ones who took part in the murder of his older brother, Mircea]) [ 36]. The next is the fortress of Bucharest (on the river Dâmbovița), where, in order to monitor the Danube line (given that the fortress of Giurgiu had been occupied by the Turks), he ordered the construction of a strong fortress (which was built in the current area). center of Bucharest, now the well-known archeological ensemble "Curtea Veche"), which is considered the most important plain fortification erected by Dracula (practically, it rebuilds, expands and strengthens the fortress existing here since the time of his grandfather, of Ungrovlahia ”Mircea the Old) [37]. In fact, the first definite documentary attestation of Bucharest dates exactly from the time of Vlad Țepeș, more precisely from 1459, when, through the deed of September 20 (“true birth certificate of our Capital today” [38]), the great Romanian ruler it exempts donations and strengthens the property rights of some inhabitants [39]. The document, very damaged, was discovered around 1900 [40], it represents, more precisely, a deed that strengthened, through the signature of the fierce voivode, an act of sale-purchase of some estates from Ponor (locality today in the county Mehedinti). The act concludes with the following text: "It was written on September 20, in the city of Bucharest, in the year (according to the" Byzantine era "- nn TC) 6968 (ie 1459 [according to" our era "- nn TC]), Io Vlad voivod, by the mercy of God, sir ”[41]. Also, on the last line of this document is mentioned the name “Bucharest [42]. If we take into account the large number of documents written on the orders of Vlad Ţepeş from his residence in Dâmboviţa, we can conclude that, starting with 1459, he led the affairs of the state here, practically Bucharest (or Dâmboviţa Fortress, as it was also called urban settlement at that time) becoming (along with Târgoviște) the second capital of the Romanian south-Carpathian state [43]. Finally, another fortress built by Vlad Țepeș is the fortress of Frumoasa, which, being located on the valley of the river Vedea (right on its bank), "controlled the access road coming from the Danube ford, from the right Zimnicea locality ”[44]. This "fortification, with an area of ​​2.5 ha, consisted of three rows of waves and two ditches arranged concentrically, the central wave, square in plan with a side of 43 m, carrying the wooden structure of the palisade [45], and the other two were of the simple type, having a rectangular route (the second) and trapezoidal (the outer one) ”[46]. Vlad Țepeș also ordered the expansion of the military constructions of all voivodship residences [47], such as the one in Târgovişte (at that time the largest urban settlement in the country and the main royal residence) [48], where, among other things, he “rebuilt the walls of the fortress with Transylvanian stonemasons” [49] and at the same time, “it seems to have been erected [by his command] and the famous tower of Chindia” [50], which was built , initially, for military purposes, the building serving as a guard point, and later it was also used as a fireplace, as well as for storing the country's treasure [51]. By investing large sums of money in the construction of solid buildings, made of stone and brick, Vlad Ţepeş made both the city and his royal court in Târgovişte to

have a truly princely appearance [52]. "The repair and enlargement of the walls of the royal court made it much stronger and, from now on, to be called a 'fortress'" [53] (on this occasion the royal palace was extended here, erected in a first form by Mircea the Old) [54]. In this sense, the opinion of Ştefan Báthory [55] (the supreme commander of the Transylvanian troops sent to Wallachia by King Matia Corvin to help Vlad Ţepeş to return for the third time to his reign) is also relevant. 1476, he visited Târgoviştele (after it was occupied by the army led by the Transylvanian “captain” and Dracula) and, at his sight, he stated that it was “a real fortress” [56], his opinion being an informed one, because where he came from, the art of building large fortifications was well represented, "and the notions of the military were much more precise." Referring to the exceptional qualities proved by Vlad Ţepeş as organizer of the defense of his country, and not only, as well as as a fighter with a gun in his hand and a leader of the army on the battlefield, a great specialist in military history in the eighteenth century , the Frenchman M. de Follard, appreciated them as remarkable, which is why, in his vision, the brave Romanian prince proved to be "one of the greatest captains (army leaders - nn TC) of his century" [58] , bringing as the main argument for this cataloging his famous victory obtained after his unprecedented and daring night attack, executed on 16/17 June 1462 on the camp of the huge Ottoman army near Targoviste (led by the conqueror of Constantinople, Sultan Muhammad of II), a battle that entered the popular tradition and historiography under the name of "Night Attack" [59]. ________________________ [1] Also nicknamed Dragula, Vlad III Ţepeş was the son of Vlad II Dracul (in his turn illegitimate son of Mircea cel Bătrân [who ruled the medieval Romanian state in the South Carpathians between 1386-1418 - History world in data, Romanian Encyclopedic Publishing House, Bucharest, 1972, p. 567], he ruled Wallachia between 1436-1442 and from 1443 to 1447 [Ibidem]) and Mrs. Anastasia (one of the daughters of Alexander the Good [Virgil Ciocâltan, Between the Sultan and the Emperor: Vlad Dracul in 1438, in “Revista de istorie”, XXIX, No. 11, Bucharest, 1976, pp. 1777, 1782], the lord of Moldavia between 1400-1432 [History of the world in data, p. 569]), he being, therefore, nephew of the two great voivodes, who completed the Romanian statehood in the south and east of the Carpathians. Dracula ruled over "Ungrovlahia" (the name of Wallachia in internal documents written in Slavonic) three times, namely from October (before 17-19) until the beginning of November (certainly after October 31) 1448; from July (before 3) 1456 to November (before 26) 1462 and from October (after 7) / November (before 📷 until the end of December 1476, possibly even until the beginning of January (certainly before of 10) 1477 (Constantin Rezachevici, Encyclopedia of Romanian Lords. Critical Chronology of the Lords of Wallachia and Moldova, vol. I [XIV-XVI Centuries], Encyclopedic Publishing House, Bucharest, 2001, pp. 101, 103, 115, 117, 801 , 802). [2] Mehmed II ruled the Ottoman Empire between 1444-1446 and 1451-1481 (History of the World in Dates, p. 567). [3] Remarkable politician and brilliant leader of the Romanian army, who lived between 1407-1456 and held high dignities in the Kingdom of Hungary, including that of regent or governor general of Hungary (between 1446-1453), he being the main promoter of the struggle of Christendom against the expansion of the Ottoman Empire, which he led, practically, between 1441-1456. Also, Iancu de Hunedoara was the father of the most important king of Hungary, Matia I Corvin, who reigned between 1458-1490 Tiberiu Ciobanu, «Fortissimus athleta Christi», Iancu de Hunedoara 555, Eurostampa Publishing House, Timișoara, 2011, p 15-28, 118, 192-193). [4] Ioan-Aurel Pop, The name of the family of King Matthias Corvinus: from period sources to contemporary historiography, in "Studies and materials of

medieval history", XXVI, Bucharest, 2008, p. 138. Regarding the related aspects of the “imperial idea” in Romanian, see also Dumitru Năstase, The imperial idea in the Romanian Lands. The genesis and its evolution in relation to the old Romanian art (XIV-XVI centuries), Athens, 1972; Petre Ș. Năsturel, Considérations sur l’idée impériale chez les Roumains (Considerations on the Imperial Idea in Romanian), in “Byzantina”, tom. V, Thessaloniki, 1973, pp. 397-413. [5] In the Middle Ages, in Wallachia, the "duchy" was a silver coin, weighing about one gram and worth three "money" (the name given to coins that have circulated over time on the territory of today Of Romania and whose value varied according to epochs and regions, small coin, initially silver, then copper, having the lowest value [Tiberiu Ciobanu, Glossary, in Stephen the Great and Saint and his brilliant victory in Vaslui against the Turks Ottomans, Eurostampa Publishing House, Timișoara, 2015, p. 366]), whose prototype (model) was the Venetian silver duchy, beaten since 1202 (Ibidem, p. 431). Stephen the Great was "great voivode and lord" of Moldavia from April 14, 1457 to July 2, 1504 (History of Romania in data, Encyclopedic Publishing House, Bucharest, 1971, p. 457). Being the son of Bogdan II (who ruled the eastern Romanian-Eastern Carpathian state from October 12, 1449 to October 15, 1451 [Ibidem]) and the nephew of Alexander the Good, he was closely related to Dracula [they were primary cousins] , because the mother of the latter, Mrs. Anastasia, was in turn the daughter of Alexander the Good and, therefore, sister (at least in paternal line) with the father of Stephen the Great (Virgil Ciocâltan, op. cit., p. 1777 , 1782). [6] Ştefan Andreescu, Vlad Ţepeş Dracula between legend and historical truth, second edition, revised, Encyclopedic Publishing House, Bucharest, 1998, p. 99. [7] Ibidem. [8] Ibidem. The term "globe cruciger" refers to a Christian symbol of authority, which was used in the Middle Ages, but which is still found on some coins, as well as in iconography. It represents a globe on which is placed a cross, used as a royal insignia, for coronation, in several monarchies in Europe. This is especially the case of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, where it was designated as the "imperial globe". The cross on the globe, which symbolizes God's dominion over the entire world, is much larger than the globe, suggesting God's priority over human affairs. The globe, in the hand of the emperor, also signifies the divine origin of the power he exercises. The term comes from the Latin phrase "globus cruciger", consisting of the words "globus", meaning "sphere, globe", and "cruciger" [composed in turn from the noun "crux, crucis", meaning "cross" and the verb "gero , gerere, gessi, gestum ”, meaning“ to carry ”], which means“ bearer of the cross ”) and has the meaning of“ bearer of the cross ”(ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globus_cruciger). [9] Ştefan Andreescu, op. cit., pp. 99. [10] Ibidem. [11] Ibidem. [12] Part of the Moon's semicircular disk, illuminated by the Sun during one of the phases of the star; The moon seen in the phase of the first and last square. Symbolic sign of Islam, representing the Moon in the rising phase, in the form of a "sickle". Figuratively, the Ottoman Empire, the Turks, the Muslims; Islam, Mohammedanism [13] Ştefan Andreescu, op. cit., pp. 99; Octavian Iliescu, Unknown Duchies issued by two voivodes of Wallachia in the 15th century, in the “Bulletin of the Romanian Numismatic Society”, years LXXVII-LXXIX (1983-1985), Bucharest, 1987, pp. 268-278. [14] Ştefan Andreescu, op. cit., p. 63. [15] This was the son of Dan II the Brave (who ruled over Wallachia between 1420-1431, with four interruptions [History of the World in Data, p. 567]), who in turn had him as father on Dan I (who ruled the medieval Romanian state in the South Carpathians between 1383-1386 [Ibidem]), considered to be the father of Dăneşti, one of the two main branches of the princely dynasty of the Bessarabians, along with that of the Drăculeşti Vlad

Dracul, Vlad Țepeș's father, but who generally refers to the descendants of Mircea cel Bătrân). Vladislav II ruled between 1447-1456, with a brief interruption in the autumn of 1448, when the throne of Targoviste was first occupied by Vlad the Impaler (Ibidem, p. 568). In unknown circumstances, Vladislav II was executed by order of Dracula, on August 20, 1456 (after his defeat and capture following the battle of Târgșor [Prahova County], which took place before this date), finding- and eternal rest at Dealu Monastery (Constantin Bălan, Dealu Monastery, 2nd edition, Meridiane Publishing House, Bucharest, 1968, pp. 6-8, 24). [16] Ştefan Andreescu, op. cit., pp. 63; Jean Delumeau, Fear in the West (14th-18th century). A besieged fortress, vol. I, Meridiane Publishing House, Bucharest, 1986, pp. 118-119. [17] The military history of the Romanian people, vol. II, Militară Publishing House, Bucharest, 1986, p. 259. [18] Ibidem: Ioan Bogdan, Documents regarding the relations of Wallachia with Brasov and with Hungarian Country in sec. XV-XVI, vol. I, Bucharest, 1905, p. 99. [19] The military history of the Romanian people, vol. II, p. 259. [20] In the Middle Ages, in the Romanian Lands, the term "brave" meant a person who belonged to a category of landowners, similar to the knights of Western Europe and having special military tasks. Our princes raised many of their soldiers, who stood out on the battlefield, among the brave, especially from the second half of the fifteenth century and, especially, by Stephen the Great and Vlad the Impaler (Tiberiu Ciobanu, op cit., p. 633). [21] Radu Ştefan Ciobanu, In the footsteps of Vlad Țepeș, Sport-Turism Publishing House, Bucharest, 1979, p. 123. [22] Istoria Românilor, vol. IV, Editura Enciclopedică, București, 2001, p. 352; The military history of the Romanian people, vol. II, p. 259; Radu Ştefan Ciobanu, op. cit., pp. 119-123. [23] Ibidem, pp. 123; Tiberiu Ciobanu, The Night Attack, in From Rovine to Călugăreni. Great victories of the Romanian armies over the Ottoman Turks, Eurostampa Publishing House, Timișoara, 2014, p. 68. „In addition to the numerical increase of the soldiers who depended directly on the reign - mercenaries, servants, heroes, courtiers his army, mercilessly punishing those who did not respect his dispositions ”(Istoria Românilor, vol. IV, p. 352). Honestly and strongly "impressed by this discipline" (Ibidem), the Grand Vizier Mahmud Pasha * himself stated in the summer of 1462 that if Dracula had a larger number of fighters he "could reach great power" ( Laonic Chalcocondil, Historical Exhibitions: The Rise of Turkish Power, The Fall of the Byzantine Empire (Romanian edition by Vasile Grecu), RPR Academy Publishing House, Bucharest, 1958, p. 289). * Nicknamed the "Greek" (probably due to his origin), Mahmoud Pasha was the son-in-law of Sultan Muhammad II the Conqueror and Grand Vizier (the first counselor and his deputy) between 1455-1467 and 1472-1473 or, according to another opinion, between 1456 -1468 and 1472-1474 (Mustafa Ali Mehmed, History of the Turks, Scientific and Encyclopedic Publishing House, Bucharest, 1976, p. 383; ro.-wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmud_Pașa). [24] Dracula never had more than 30,000-32,000 fighters (Military History of the Romanian People, vol. II, p. 263) and this only by decreeing the general mobilization, on this occasion being recruited all men and young people from his country, capable of carrying weapons, "from 12 years upwards" (the magazine "Trajan's Column" [edited by BP Hasdeu], NS, IV, Bucharest, 1883, p. 36). [25] The military history of the Romanian people, vol. II, pp. 272-273. [26] Ibidem, pp. 259. [27] The Slavo-Romanian chronicles from the XV-XVI centuries. Published by Ioan Bogdan (critical edition by P. P. Panaitescu), R.P.R. Academy Publishing House, Bucharest, 1959, pp. 207-208. [28] Foreign travelers about the Romanian Lands, vol. I (edited by Maria Holban), Scientific Publishing House, Bucharest, 1968, p. 176. [29] "The results of his reorganization and training of the army and his qualities as a

military commander were appreciated even by his fiercest opponents, and Turkish chroniclers regarded him as" famous among his peers and in his craft. to lead armies. He was also unique in serdaria (ie in command, this word coming from the term "serdar" * - nn TC), a second like him not being in the land of the ghiauri ", Sultan Mehmed II himself (ie Muhammad II- the Conqueror - nn TC) “considering him a brave man, and praising him to others” ”(Military History of the Romanian People, vol. II, p. 260; Turkish Chronicles on the Romanian Lands, vol. I [compiled by Mihail Guboglu and Mustafa Ali Mehmed], RSR Academy Publishing House, Bucharest, 1966, p. 199). Ghiaur = pejorative name (ie unfavorable, derogatory, contemptuous), used by the Turks to designate those of a religion other than the Mohammedan, in Turkish meaning "unbeliever" (Tiberiu Ciobanu, Glossary, in Mircea cel Batran the most agile of Christian principles », Eurostampa Publishing House, Timișoara, 2013, p. 188). * The generic name, in the Ottoman Empire, of the commander-in-chief of a large Turkish expeditionary military corps (Idem, Glossary, in Stephen the Great and Saint and his brilliant victory at Vaslui against the Ottoman Turks, p. 593). [30] The military history of the Romanian people, vol. II, p. 259-260. [31] Ibidem, p. 283. [32] Ibidem, p. 283-284. [33] Ibidem, p. 260. [34] Ibidem. [35] Ibidem. [36] Gheorghe I. Cantacuzino, Poienari Fortress, 15th-16th centuries, in “Studies and researches of ancient history”, tom. XXII, no. 2, Bucharest, 1971, pp. 263-289; Maria Ciobanu, Nicolae Moisescu, Radu Ștefan Ciobanu, Poienari Fortress, Sport-Turism Publishing House, Bucharest, 1984; The military history of the Romanian people, vol. II, pp. 88-89; Radu Ştefan Ciobanu, op. cit., 109-112. [37] Panait I. Panait, The Citadel of Bucharest in the 14th and 15th centuries, in “Revista Muzeelor”, no. 4, Bucharest, 1969, pp. 310-318; Radu Ştefan Ciobanu, op. cit., pp. 103-105; Ştefan Andreescu, op. cit., pp. 97; Gheorghe I. Cantacuzino, Problems of the relations between the beginnings of the medieval urban settlements and the princely courts from Wallachia, in “Studia Valachica”, Târgovişte, 1970, pp. 104-105. [38] Ştefan Andreescu, op. cit., p. 94. [39] H. Chircă, Historical-Philosophical Commentary on the Chrysostom of September 20, 1459, in "Studies", vol. XII, no. 5, Bucharest, 1959, pp. 5-7; Radu Olteanu, Bucharest in dates and events, Paideia Publishing House, Bucharest, 2002, p. 14. [40] Ibidem; H. Chircă, op. cit., p. 5-7. [41] Ibidem; Radu Olteanu, op. cit., p. 14. According to the “Byzantine era”, the date of “Creation” is the year 5508 BC. Often encountered in the form of "years since the creation of the world" or "years since the building of the world" or "years since Adam", this chronology was officially used in the Byzantine Empire (by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople) and other churches. Orthodox from 692 to 1728. In the Romanian Lands, it was used mainly until the middle of the eighteenth century, being gradually replaced, until the middle of the nineteenth century, with "our era" (abbreviated "en"), which we count from the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is why the abbreviation "AD" is used. Because the "Byzantine era" is considered to be 5508 years older than "our era", in order to transpose the years of the "Byzantine era" into the years of "our era" this difference of years must be taken into account, using operations. subtraction or addition, depending on the situation(ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Era_bizantină). [42] Radu Olteanu, op. cit., p. 14; H. Chircă, op. cit., p. 5-7. [43] Radu Ştefan Ciobanu, op. cit., p. 105. In fact, Dracula spent four of the more than six years of his reign “in the city of Bucharest”, preferring it to the royal residence in Târgoviște, this, especially, out of the desire to be as close as possible of the Danube, in order to be able to better supervise the movements of the Turks (Radu Olteanu, op. cit., p. 14; H. Chircă, op. cit., p. 5-7). [44] The military history of the Romanian people,

vol. II, p. 90; Radu Ştefan Ciobanu, op. cit., p. 123. [45] Wooden fence or "wall", used in the past as a defense structure; fortification element, used in older defensive arrangements, consisting of thick and long poles, knocked to the ground, tied together with planks, ropes, ropes (tree branches, tree branches, etc.) etc. and having between the spaces braids of twigs, sometimes also a filling of beaten earth. The height of a palisade could be up to three meters. Synonym: (rarely today) lever ((ro.wiki-pedia.org/wiki/Palisadă; dexonline.ro/definiție/palisade). [46] The military history of the Romanian people, vol. II, p. 90. „The ditches (fortress from Frumoasa - n.n. T.C.) had oblique walls, with a maximum width of 8-12 m; the difference between the wave coast and the ditch wire was between 6 and 10 m. Outside the central palisade there was a platform, approx. 3-3.5 m, on which the defenders of the fortress circulated. For the construction of the central palisade, two ditches were dug with a depth of 1-1.30 m, on the bottom of which were fixed, in an oblique position, thick oak poles, at a distance of 0.15-0.25 m from each other . Between the rows of stakes, at different levels of them, thick beams and beams were fixed, horizontally or obliquely, thus compartmentalizing the skeleton of the palisade, which was then covered with beaten earth ”(Ibidem). [47] Gheorghe I. Cantacuzino, op. cit., p. 104-105; Istoria militară a poporului român, vol. II, p. 90; Ştefan Andreescu, op. cit., p. 97; Radu Ştefan Ciobanu, op. cit., p. 123. [48] ​​Ştefan Andreescu, op. cit., pp. 97; The military history of the Romanian people, vol. II, p. 260; Radu Ştefan Ciobanu, op. cit., pp. 123-126; Nicolae Constantinescu, Cristian Moisescu, Royal Court of Târgovişte, 2nd edition, Meridiane Publishing House, Bucharest, 1969. Royal and capital residence between 1396 and 1714, Târgoviște held for more than three centuries the status of the most important economic, political center -military and cultural-artistic of Wallachia, currently being the city-municipality of residence of Dâmbovița County, administrative-territorial unit from the central-southern part of the country, more precisely from the central-northern area of ​​the Romanian geographical-historical region Muntenia (ro .wikipedia.org/wiki/Târgoviște. [49] The military history of the Romanian people, vol. II, p. 260. [50] Ştefan Andreescu, op. cit., p. 97. [51] Also known as the "Chindia Tower", it is currently part of the "Royal Court" Historical Monument Ensemble and measures 27 meters in height and 9 meters in diameter. Between 1847-1851, the tower was completely restored by the rulers of Wallachia, Gheorghe Bibescu (who ruled between 1842-1848 [History of the world in data, p. 568]) and Barbu Știrbei (who ruled between 1849-1853 and 1854). -1856 [Ibidem]), the current form being due to the first one, including its elevation by about 5 meters compared to the initial construction. The Chindia Tower is the most important tourist attraction in Târgoviște and, at the same time, the symbol of the city, specific elements of the building being present on the coat of arms of the respective city, both at the top and at the bottom. In fact, now, the tower is also the most important tourist attraction of the entire Dâmbovița County, currently hosting the exhibition entitled "Vlad the Impaler - Dracula, legend and historical truth", which presents documents, weapons and objects from the reign of the fierce Romanian voivode, but also maps with the surroundings of those times. From an administrative point of view, the Chindia Tower is under the tutelage of the “Curtea Domnească” National Museum Complex in Târgoviște. There are two hypotheses regarding the origin of the name of the tower, but there is no consensus on this fact. The first claims that areas in the vicinity of the tower were places of feasting, called "chindii", hence the origin of the name. It has also been suggested that its name comes from the word "chindie", an archaism meaning "sunset", a time of day when soldiers

defending the tower were required to give the signal that the five gates of the city were closed. After this moment, it was forbidden to enter or leave the city throughout the night, and the inhabitants had the obligation not to drive on the streets and not to maintain outdoor fires, which would have made the city visible from a great distance (ro.wikipedia .org / wiki / Turnul_Chindiei). [52] Radu Ştefan Ciobanu, op. cit., pp. 125. [53] Ibidem, pp. 124. [54] Ibidem. [55] This is Stephen I Báthory of Ecsed, who was a prominent member of the powerful Hungarian noble family Báthory. He lived between 1430-1493 and held the position of voivode of Transylvania from July 1479 to January 1493 (History of Romania in dates, p. 461; History of the Romanians, vol. IV, p. 807). Very ambitious, he will be appointed, in 1471, by Matthias Corvinus as a judge of the Royal Court (ie royal judge, in which capacity he was the king's legal deputy [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_royal]), holding this high position until his death. Due, however, to his warlike nature (warriors - nn TC), along with the cruelty he had shown countless times (especially to the Szeklers, whose committee [governor] had been for a time - nn TC), István (Ştefan - nn TC ) Báthory will end up being dethroned in 1493 "(Cristian Ioan Popa, The Battle of the Field of Bread [October 13, 1479]. From the universality of the medieval lied to the recovery of national heroes, in" Terra Sebus. Acta Musei Sabesiensis "[ Yearbook of the Municipal Museum „Ioan Raica” from Sebeş], No. 2, Sebeş, 2010, p. 276), dying shortly afterwards (see also en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ştefan_Báthory_de_Ecsed). The special merit of Stephen I Báthory was that together with the Timiș counties, Pavel Chinezu will obtain, on October 13, 1479, on Câmpul Păinii (near Orăştie), a brilliant victory over the Turks who had invaded Transylvania (Military History of the People). Romanian, vol. II, pp. 334-337). * Famous for his Herculean strength, for his extraordinary skill in handling weapons of all kinds, especially the sword, usually he "fighting with two swords at once" [Antonio Bonfini, Rerum Hungaricarum decades quatuor cum dimidia, Buda, 1770, p. 639]) and for his remarkable qualities as an army leader, Pavel Chinezu was a Romanian from Banat, who lived between 1432-1494 and held a number of high positions in the political-administrative and military hierarchy of Hungary, among which the leadership of the entire province of Banat and the supreme command of the troops from the south of the Hungarian Kingdom were counted (at one point, he was appointed by Matthias Corvinus at the head of all the military forces of the Hungarian Crown), which he exercised from 1478 until his death. sa (Tiberiu Ciobanu, Pavel Chinezu and his great victory on the Field of Bread against the Ottoman Turks, Eurostampa Publishing House, Timişoara, 2014, p. 15-42). [56] Radu Ştefan Ciobanu, op. cit., p. 125-126. [57] Ibidem, p. 126. [58] M.de Follard, Histoire de Polybe (Istoria lui Polybius), II, Paris, 1727, pp. 49-50. Polybius = Greek politician and historian, who lived between 200-120 BC. and he was an unconditional admirer of Rome, compiling a vast history (in 40 books) of the Roman Republic (and of the states which came into contact with it, practically a universal history), which entered historiography under the title of General History, which deals with the events that took place between 220-146 BC. (Dominique Vallaud, Historical Dictionary, translated by Nicolae Șarambei, Artemis Publishing House, Bucharest, 2008, p. [59] For information on the development of the sultanate campaign in the summer of 1462, undertaken north of the Danube, as well as details on the "Night Attack", see Tiberiu Ciobanu, The Great Sultanate Campaign in the Summer of 1462 undertaken in Wallachia and the Night Attack ”, In Vlad Țepeș and“ The Night Attack ”555, Eurostampa Publishing House, Timișoara, 2017, pp. 99-172; Sultan's campaign = large-scale military action led personally by the sultan.

From the Order of the Dragon to Dracula - Constantin Rezachevici [Professor Constantin Rezachevici is chief researcher at the Nicolae Iorga National Institute of History, a member of the Romanian Academy, and Professor with the Faculty of History at the University of Bucharest. He is author of The History of the Neighbouring Countries and the Romanian People in the Middle Ages (1998).] ___________ The name “Dracula” has witnessed periods of both brilliance and fame. It became famous in the second half of the fifteenth century through the actions of Vlad Tepes (Dracula), ruler of Wallachia (1448, 1456- 1462, 1476).i It has continued to exist, although less known, through his legitimate descendants, the noble family Dracula of Sintesti and of Band, established in Transylvania between the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries. Families that originated from Vlad’s marriage to a close relative of the Hungarian King Matias Corvin in February of 1462 can provide an explanation of the Szekely ancestry wrongly attributed to Vlad Tepes and his literary metamorphosis the vampire Count Dracula. As a result of the novel of Irish writer Bram Stoker, the name “Dracula” has obtained universal fame during the modern epoch. The origin of the name “Dracula” has a very interesting history, very different from what has been commonly believed. For a long time, many theories have existed about its genesis, ranging from the claim by Grigore Nandris that it was the genitive Slavonic form meaning “the son of Dracul” (Vlad Dracul was the ruler of Wallachia from 1437-1442 and 1444-1447) to the false connection with a coincidentally similar Romanian word “dragulea”, meaning the dear one or lover.ii All these theories are connected to the starting point of this name exclusively for Vlad Tepes, until this popular name, meaning “son of Dracul” became confused with the Romanian word “Dracul”, meaning “the devil” (Andreescu 149-50). To clarify matters, Dracula (Draculea) has represented from the beginning a new popular Romanian form (from the name Vlad Dracul) applied to Vlad Dracul’s famous son Vlad Tepes (Andreescu 156, Stoicescu 201), while the nickname given to Vlad by the Turks was “Tepes”, the Romanian word for impaler. Even before Vlad Tepes’ reign in Romania, the boyar Albu had called Vlad Dracul (which was a nickname known outside of Romania), simply Draculea (Andreescu 150-51), the popular exclusively Romanian name. The Venetian messenger Bartholomeo de Jano and his contemporary Greek chroniclers Leonicos Chalkokondyles and Critobul of Imbros have also called him Draculea (Andreescu 154-55). Even Iancu of Hunedora, who executed him, made mention on December 17, 1456, of “infidelem Drakwlam wayvodem” (Documenta 461). In the end, the Turkish chronicler Asakpasazade, referring to the year 1442, calls Vlad Tepes “Dracula” instead of “Draculea” (Cronici 88), while the Serb janissary who wrote from 1496 to 1501, called him “voievodul valah Dracula” (Calatori 125), which in English means the Wallachian prince Dracula. It is clear that Draculea (Dracula) was a popular nickname for Vlad Dracul, meaning a person belonging to the Order of the Dragon. For his son, Vlad Tepes, the name “Dracula” became through affiliation an alternative, not only a nickname, with the side effect of increasing his bad reputation, with its diabolical meaning, even though originally, in his father’s days, “Dracul” did not have a malevolent meaning. Vlad (the father) had obtained the nickname “Dracul” in connection with his receiving the Order of the Dragon from Hungary’s king Sigismund of Luxembourg, at Nürnberg around February 8, 1431. The German name for this order was “Drachenordens,” and in Latin “Societatis draconistarum.” The Order of the Dragon, which some confuse with a decoration, was really an institution, just like the other chivalric orders in medieval times.iii As a model, Sigismund of Luxembourg took

the Order of St. George (Societas militae Sancti Georgii) created by the king of Hungary Carol Robert of Anjou (1308_1342) in 1318. Its statute from 1326 requires the protection of the king from any danger or plot against him; the symbol of the Order of the Dragon was a red cross on a silver field and a black mantle. With the exception of the last object, these are also found in the new order. In a battle with the anarchical Hungarian nobles and in the background of the other battles for the possession of Bosnia, Sigismund of Luxembourg and the queen Barbara Cilli created the Order of the Dragon on December 12, 1408, mainly meant to protect the king and his family, with the help of a big part of the Hungarian nobility, led by the families of Gara and Cilli. The statute of this Order of the Dragon, elaborated by the chancellor of the Hungarian court, Eberhard, bishop of Oradea, maintained only in a copy from 1707 and published in a Hungarian edition in 1841, has remained almost unknown, even to the investigators of this problem. The analysis of this important document shows that the order aimed at defending the cross and at the destruction of its enemies, symbolized by the ancient Dragons (Draconis tortuosi) with the help of St. George. The battle was against the Turkish pagan armies and the husits, who were outside the Orthodox nations who were faithful to the cross and to King Sigismund (Romanians etc). Barons, priests and leaders of the kingdom gathered below the sign of the dragon, submitted to the cross and proclaimed loyalty to King Sigismund and the queen. The members who founded the order were 24 nobles of the kingdom, led by the despot Stefan Lazarevici, the leader of Serbia, among whom were Nicolae of Gara, the Hungarian prince, Stibor of Stibericz, the prince of Transylvania, Pipo of Ozora, the Ban (local ruler) of Severin etc, in general great local noblemen. They were all engaged in serving with loyalty no matter the price, the royal couple, their family and their friends. The symbol of the order was, after the statute of 1408, a circular dragon with its tail coiled up around its neck. On its back, from the base of its neck to its tail, was the red cross of St. George, on the background of a silver field. According to the first Medieval encyclopedist, Isidor of Seville, it was a “serpens,” a dragon that lives on land. As the years went by, the Order of the Dragon expanded, including two classes, a superior one, whose symbol was a dragon being strangled with a cross stretched out on its back, which, especially from the late fifteenth century to the seventeenth century surrounded a family coat-of-arms. Sometimes foreign members were allowed in, but only as allies, who did not have to take the oath of eternal loyalty to King Sigismund of Luxembourg, for example, the king of Poland, Vladislav Jagiello, his former brother-in-law Vitautas (Witold), the great duke of Lithuania, King Henry the fifth of England, the members of the Italian families Carrara, della Scala and leaders of Venezia, Padova and Verona. During the life of King Sigismund, from 1408 to 1437, the Order of the Dragon became the most important noble political association in Hungary, loyal to the king, the main political force in the kingdom, second to the king. Immediately after being established, it served as a model for the setting up in 1409 of the Spanish order of Calatrava. Into this prestigious European chivalic institution, which was symbolized by the dragon, was admitted the aspirant to the Wallachian throne, Vlad (Dracul) in February 1431, in his position of vassal of Sigismund of Luxemburg, according to the statute of the Order. Admission was into the superior

class of the order. The symbol of this class evolved up to 1431 in two phases: the first one, as it has been reminded earlier, was a dragon with a cross drawn on his back, between its wings, from the base of the neck to its tail and lasted from 1408 to 1418; the second one, until the death of Sigismund of Luxembourg, was completed with another cross perpendicular to the coiled up dragon, having on the equal sides of the cross the writing “O quam misericors est Deus” (vertical) and “Justus et paciens” (horizontal). This sign was worn on a sash, like in the portrait of Dichters Oswald von Wallenstein in 1432. The necklace of the order was made of two gold chains joined by the sign, a Hungarian cross with a double bar above the coiled up dragon. But on the seal, another dragon was represented, with a big body, with dented wings, not coiled, only two feet with a free tail, with a very small Greek cross on its chest. Sigismund of Luxembourg himself introduced in 1433 the seal for the Order of the Dragon of this type, one of the last seals he made as a Roman-German emperor. Unfortunately, the symbol that Vlad Dracul had wasn’t kept. But the elements of the symbol of the Order of the Dragon on his royal seal of 1437 clearly show that Vlad Dracul was the possessor of the Order of the Dragon necklace: the Hungarian double cross, instead of the Latin cross; the dragon illustrated on the reverse of the six silver and bronze coins that were beat by Vlad at Sighisoara in Transylvania (or after his occupation of the Wallachian throne) is similar to the dragon in Paolo Uccello’s picture, St. George and the dragon; and the coat-of-arms from the episcopacy built by him at Curtea de Arges. Furthermore, he transformed the dragon from the seal to his personal coat-of-arms, not directly but as an original heraldry composition. This coat-of-arms was carved from stone, and represented the dragon attacking a lion, the headed snake, the dragon, emerging victoriously from this battle, therefore illustrating metaphorically Psalm 90 (“You will step on lions and on vipers and walk over lion cubs and snakes”). This phrase’s purpose was to symbolize the victory of Christianity and that of Vlad Dracul over his enemies. In this case the dragon was a benefic symbol, and the picture of Vlad with his name (Dracul, Draculea-Dracula) had a positive meaning which was only common in Wallachia during his reign. The spreading of the image of the dragon by Vlad Dracul through the large circulation of seal, small coins and heraldic stone carving had a powerful impression on its Romanian subjects. This was increased by the Order of the Dragon necklace, which no other Romanian ruler had worn, and even more so the ceremonial costume of the Order of the Dragon knights - red garments and green mantle. Thus, Vlad Dracul, the father of Vlad Tepes, has forever remained in a bond with both versions of his nickname. This paradox has been interpreted incorrectly. The dragon of the order with the same name was not an evil element during the fifteenth century, but a positive symbol of knighthood. The dragon choking itself with its own tail, which in Occidental St. George heraldry and iconography, from where it originates, represented the defeated Satan, becomes, in the absence of the saint and of the cross, a Christian chivalry order of positive significance. The circular dragon, strangled by its own tail, is represented on the coat-of-arms of many noble families in the Hungarian kingdom who were the descendants of some of the knights who were part of the Order of the Dragon during the reign of Sigismund, until the seventeenth century. This supports the fact that the Order of the Dragon enjoyed great prestige throughout the first half of the fifteenth century. In Transylvania, it also appeared in the coats-of-arms of the families

Bathory, Bocskay, Bethlen, Szathmary, Rakoczi and many others, even though the Order of the Dragon had lost its importance after the death of Sigismund of Luxembourg in 1437 and it practically disappeared with the demise of the members who had been admitted by him. Over five millennia of the dragon’s universal existence, it went through many transformations until the fifteenth century and it was known as a fabulous creature, sometimes with the head of a vulture, other times like the animal represented on the Order of the Dragon, with the body of a snake and the wings of a bat. The European Dragon had a lot of sources: Greek mythology (dracon), Roman_Greek tradition, Celtic mythology, the Bible, the Apocalypse, the lives of saints and Oriental influences. During pre- Christian times, the dragon often had a beneficial meaning (often connected with fecundity) and perpetuated in folklore until the late Middle Ages. However, in literature, culture and clerical Christianity, starting from Bibical text, it takes on a different role, and in the fifth century it becomes a symbol of Satan -- “draco iste significat diabolum” (Le Goff 58). This dragon, identified with Satan, was defeated and was dominated by spiritual forces but was not killed; rather, according to the symbolism of Celtic folklore, at some extent, “they even became allied with it” (Le Goff 45), by numerous saints and bishops of the Occident. In the art of Roman influence, the crutch of the bishop often has a defeated and twisted dragon at its tip. Both St. Michael and St. George, whose cult began to spread from the Bizant during the eighth and throughout the tenth, and respectively eleventh centuries, defeated the dragon physically in a fight. In Occidental heraldry, the physical strength of the dragon was said to have been in his head, but also in its big and strong tail, which in the nineteenth century was considered the illustrative element of the dragon. All this European clerical and folklore heraldry, strengthened in a millenary existence (from the fifth century to the fifteenth century) can be identified in the basic illustration of the Order of the Dragon, the snake-like dragon that is strangling himself with his own tail, which, according to tradition, is twisted three times around the dragon’s neck, signifying that he had been subdued by means of Christian spiritual powers, and the dragon with big paws and wings was the symbol of the one who was defeated by the Saints Michael and George. However, we must also remember the fact that, despite the fact that it had been defeated and subdued, the snake-like dragon and the flying dragon still were evil and the symbols of Satan. In the Romanian space to which Vlad Dracul and his son Vlad Tepes belonged, the dragon, named “balaur”, a thraco_dacian word, or “zmeu”, a slavonic word, had its roots in geto-dacian antiquity, whose military flag was representing a snake with the head of a wolf, included the large category of dragons used as flags, which one finds from the times of the Greeks and Romans until the fifteenth century. This divinity represented on the “geto-dacian” flag, became known in the time of the Roman ruling of Dacia as “draco” (in Romanian “drac” (meaning devil). Along with Christianity, it spread all throughout Europe, and came to symbolize Satan. However in pagan terms, as the Romanian historian Vasile Parvan observed, “out of all the Romance languages, the Romanian language was the only one in which ‘draco’ has the meaning of an evil spirit, demon or devil, whereas in others, the word only has the meaning of snake or dragon” (228-30). In Romanian folklore, even the snake, which in certain conditions, has the ability to turn into a dragon, has a strong malefic meaning. If “Dracul” and “Draculea” have a positive meaning in connection with the Order of the Dragon during Vlad Dracul’s time and later on during

Vlad Tepes’ reign, the same words have an exclusively negative, diabolical meaning, synonymous to the Romanian word “dracul” (the devil), without doubt in connection to the bloody and law_enforcing character of Vlad. In 1459, the aspirant Dan III, accused his rival “Draculea” (Vlad Tepes) of collaborating with the Turks, aided and guided by the devil (Tocilescu 71-2), and in 1460 mentioned “the law-offender and barbaric tyrant, unfaithful and the devil that is Vlad Voievod” (Harmuzeki 53). During Vlad Tepes’ captivity in Hungary (1462-1475), the representative of the pope in Buda, Nicolaede Madrussa, declared that he saw “their tyrant Dracul, a name which they [Romanians] use for the Devil” Papacostea (164). In 1486, the author of the Novel about Dracula voievod, translated in Russian, referred to “Dracula in Romanian, and in our language - devil, that’s how evil he was” (Panaitescu 200, 207). Although Vlad Tepes and his descendants have never used the symbol of the Order of the Dragon, he has inherited the nickname of his father Draculea/Dracula, which has become a family name (outside the country). And his successors in Transylvania, the Dracula (Draculea) family kept this name until the seventeenth century, settling in the sixteenth century among the “secui,” not far from the place where in 1897, Bram Stoker, located the setting of his novel and the Transylvania castle of “Count Dracula.” This way, over a long period of time, from the name of a small pagan deity (Greek, dracos, Latin draco), by means of the name of the Order of the Dragon (in German Drachenordens, Latin Societas draconistarum) to the fifteenth century Romanian nickname of Dracul/Draculea from which the nickname and then the family name, Dracula, comes and was used in 1897 by Bram Stoker, at the suggestion of the Hungarian Jewish orientalist, well known scholar of his time (Florescu & McNally 142-3). If the Order of the Dragon did not exist, with all its symbols and its being awarded to a Romanian Ruler, the name “Dracula” would not be famous today. _____ Works Cited: Andreescu, Stefan. Vlad Tepes (Dracula) intre legenda si adevar istoric. Bucharest, 1976. Calatori straini despre tarile romane. Bucharest, 1970. Cronici turcesti privind tarile romana. Bucharest 1966. Documenta Romaniae Historica. Bucharest, 1977. Florescu, Radu & Raymond McNally. In cautarea lui Dracula. Bucharest, 1992. Harmizachi, Eudoxiu. Documente privitoare la istoria romanilor. Bucharest, 1911. Le Goff, Jacques. “Cultura ecleziastica si sultura folclorica in evul mediu.” Pentru un alt evmediu, II. Bucharest, 1986. Nandris, Grigore. “A Philological Analysis of Dracula and Romanian Place-names and Masculine Personal Names in -a, -ea.” The Slavonic and East European Review. 36 (1959): 370-77. Panaitescu, P P (ed), Cronicile slavo-romane din sec. XV-XVI publicate de Ion Bogdan. Bucharest, 1959. Papacostea, Serban. “Cu privire la geneza si raspandirea povestirilor despre factele lui Vlad Tepes.” Romanoslavica 13 (1966). Parvan, Vasile. “Contributii epigrafice la istoria crestinismului daco-roman.” Studii de istoria culturii antice. Bucharest, 1992. Stoicescu, Nicolae. Vlad Tepes. Bucharest, 1976.