Nicolae Pătrașcu
Nicolae Pătrașcu | |
---|---|
Prince of Wallachia | |
Reign | December 1599–September 1601 (de facto October 1600) |
Predecessor | Michael the Brave |
Successor | Simion Movilă (1600) Radu Șerban (1601) |
Born | ca. 1580 |
Died | late 1627 (aged 47 or younger) Archduchy of Austria or Pressburg, Habsburg Hungary |
Burial | |
Spouse | Ana (Ancuța) Radulea |
Issue | Gavril Pătrașcu Mihai Pătrașcu Ilinca Leurdeanca |
Dynasty | Drăculești? |
Father | Michael the Brave |
Mother | Lady Stanca |
Religion | Orthodox |
Signature |
Nicolae Pătrașcu, Petrașco, or Petrașcu, also styled Nicolae Vo(i)evod (
With the strengthening of Michael's alliance with the
In 1602, the Wallachian crown went to
During the Thirty Years' War, which began after Ferdinand took the imperial throne in 1619, Nicolae and Radu Șerban joined a Habsburg coalition against Gabriel Bethlen's Transylvania. They themselves were chased out of Tyrnau by Bethlen's offensive, and both died of gout within seven years of each other, leaving the family in destitution. In the 1640s, Nicolae's son Mihai was asked by Wallachian Prince Matei Basarab to become his crown prince, but this request did not suit Habsburgs policies, and was dropped. Nicolae's widow and his daughter Ilinca were allowed passage, and repatriated both Princes' remains, which were buried together at Comana Monastery. Ilinca went on to marry a high-ranking boyar, Istratie Leurdeanu.
Name
In a document which uses the courtly language,
In Moldavia, the Prince was generally known as Neculai or Nicola,[7] although one Moldavian document of 1600 refers to him as Petru Vodă ("Peter the Voivode").[8] The derivative Pătrașcu appears in Nicolae's signatures in Neo-Latin, which style him as Nicolaus Petrasko Waiwoda[9] or Nicolaus Petrascus Waiwoda.[10] The registers of the Hof-Bibliothek, also kept in Latin, name him as Nicolaus Petrascus or Nicolaas Petrash.[11] In Tuscan sources, his name appeared more simply as Petraschi Vaivoda.[12] Some of the Romanian writs issued after his departure refer to him as Pătrașco Voevod, or merely as Jupan Necula.[13] Another early Romanian record, preserved by Nicolae's tombstone, cites him as Petrașco Niculae.[14]
Biography
Origins and early life
Various scholarly disputes surround the origins of Nicolae's father Michael the Brave, or Mihai Viteazul, who passed himself off as a son of
In the 16th century, Wallachia was a
Stanca, who had been previously married to Postelnic Dumitru of Vâlcănești, was a relative of the Buzești boyars.[23] She was also mother of Michael's daughter, Florica, who may have been born to another woman.[24] Historians disagree on whether Florica was born ca. 1585[25] or much earlier.[26] She was promised in marriage to several European monarchs, but eventually wed boyar Preda "Floricoiu" of Cepturoaia.[27] Stanca's brother was Dragomir of Cârțoclești, who was briefly Michael's Stolnic; this made her aunt of another boyar, Spatharios Balea, who acted as her caretaker.[28] Historians have often assumed that Stanca was the sister of Vornic Dragomir Dobromirescu, but later research proved that there was no relation between them.[29] Genealogist Constantin Gane also describes Stanca as the daughter of Logothete Radu of Drăgoești and a niece of Dobromirescu,[30] though other historians reject that hypothesis.[31]
Michael, rising to become
Nicolae followed his family to Bucharest, and probably lived with them in the princely court of Piața cu Flori. An oral tradition records that he owned two pet deer, which he raised on the castle grounds.[36] Michael grew somewhat estranged from his wife, and kept several official mistresses. One of these was Tudora, wife of the scribe Fiera Leurdeanu,[37] who gave birth to a daughter. Named Marula, she later became wife of Clucer Socol Cornățeanu.[38] One tradition refers to another Wallachian, the alleged son of Michael and brother of Nicolae, who ended up serving the Ottoman Empire as Hazar Pasha.[39]
Nicolae's stay in Bucharest ended in 1594, when Michael rebelled against the Ottoman Empire. Wallachia joined the
Becoming Prince
Michael eventually defeated the Ottoman intruders
Walther also suggests that Maria Christina's returning husband,
Some scholars argue that, at some point in 1598 or 1599, Nicolae was dispatched to Transylvania, enrolling at the
For several months, Michael oscillated between the Habsburgs, who demanded his total submission, and the Ottomans, from whom he could expect recognition as Transylvanian Prince. In his dealings with either side, he offered to send Nicolae as a hostage.[58] Meanwhile, Michael's reign in Wallachia was under threat, with a new offensive started by the Ottoman Army, which again tried to penetrate into Wallachia. The expedition notably included a pretender known as Cremonese Basarab, who was probably Nicolaus Bassaraba's son.[59] In early December, Michael ordered Nicolae back to Târgoviște by way of Bran, assigning him a 6,000-strong guard under the command of Pongrác Szennyey.[60] According to Gane, Stanca was made a regent, which allowed Michael to spend more time with his Transylvanian mistress, Velica Genga.[61]
Nicolae Pătrașcu was the reigning Prince of Wallachia between December 1599 and September 1601.[62] For this reason, Michael's unification of Wallachia and Transylvania is described by various historians as mostly a dynastic union.[63] According to Constantin Rezachevici, Nicolae was a full lord of his country, but his father was the "higher point of reference".[64] As noted by Iorga, Nicolae's "full and uncontested" rule over Wallachia was meant to free Michael's had in claiming the throne of Transylvania (where he was formally governor on behalf of the Habsburgs).[65] He was also using the separation of offices as an instrument against Rudolf's demands. In early 1600, when Rudolf demanded Nicolae as a hostage, Michael replied that this would mean statelessness for Wallachia.[66] Nicolae's reign over Wallachia was assisted by a Boyar Council. Andronikos Kantakouzenos, Nicolae's putative uncle, was reportedly his tutor;[67] he also managed the country's fiscal affairs, as Vistier, while Miroslav of Râfov was Logothete.[68] Șerban of Coiani, who would later play a significant role in Wallachian history, was Nicolae's Paharnic.[69] At least one document confirms that Radu Buzescu was the acting Postelnic.[70]
In Moldavia
From his campsite in Transylvania, Michael set his sights on
Michael led his combined Wallachian–Transylvanian force into a storming of Moldavia. His son reportedly joined in the effort, traveling with the
An interpretation of Nicolae's role in Moldavia is found in 18th-century variant of Letopisețul Cantacuzinesc, which claims that Michael ordered Radu Buzescu to arrange Nicolae's departure for Iași. The same source reports that Michael changed his mind as the expedition was starting, and instead placed Moldavia under a regency.[82] According to historian N. Grigoraș, the Moldavian move may have been vetoed by Stanca, although some of the Moldavian boyars had proved welcoming.[83] One contemporary account claims that Michael no longer wanted "his little son" as ruler of a "a borderland, for he was still fearful of Ieremia Voivode". As noted by Rezachevici, this may in fact refer to his awareness that the Polish army of Stanisław Żółkiewski was preparing the reconquest of Moldavia.[84] Under this Wallachian ascendancy, Moldavia's throne was most probably being prepared for Marcu Cercel.[85] The regency council which then emerged is generally believed to have comprised Andronikos, Hetman Udrea Băleanu, Spatharios Negrea, and Armaș Sava.[86]
By June 1600 Nicolae was also styling himself "ruler over the whole Country of Transylvania".[87] In July, Michael requested from Rudolf that he and Nicolae be recognized as joint rulers of all three countries, and that their dynasty, including female descendants, be left to rule "to the end of time". On September 12, Rudolf finally issued a writ recognizing Michael and Nicolae as lifetime governors of Transylvania and as Princes of the other two countries.[88] Over those months, however, Michael had lost Transylvania to an insurgency headed by the Imperial warlord Giorgio Basta, and assisted by the Hungarian nobility; Moldavia was also reconquered by the Poles and the Movilești (see Battle of Mirăslău, Moldavian Magnate Wars). He was forced back into Wallachia when the Poles began their march on Bucharest. Shortly before the battle of Bucov, he pledged to send Stanca and his children, including Nicolae, as hostages to Transylvania, hoping to secure a truce with Basta.[89] Michael obtained guarantees that his family would not be imprisoned by his enemies, the Transylvanian Saxons, but Basta denied his other requests, including that they would be dispatched to Făgăraș Citadel.[90]
As hostage
Despite the pledge, Michael was also very unwilling to send his family abroad, and procrastinated to October 1600. Florica only arrived on December 30, and Teodora, also promised as a hostage, never left Wallachia.[91] Nicolae finally presented himself at Lécfalva on October 16, accompanied by Archbishop Dionysus and Vistier Stoica Rioșeanu. All three pledged their loyalty to Rudolf and expressed criticism of Michael's policies.[92] On October 17, Nicolae and his mother were honored guests at Corona, on their way to a gilded imprisonment in the castle of Gilău (Gela).[93] In their dialogue with Michael, the Hungarians offered Gilău as a permanent family demesne.[94]
After Bucov, Simion Movilă took over Nicolae's throne, in what was in practice an alternative dynastic union between Wallachia and Moldavia.[95] Michael remained an exile, seeking to renew his fealty toward the Habsburgs. He departed for Vienna, where he was to seek additional support from Rudolf and made peace with Basta. This interval presented an opportunity for the Hungarian nobles, who denounced Basta and took control over much of Transylvania. Nicolae and Stanca, now their prisoners, were removed from Gilău and dispatched to the more secluded Făgăraș.[96] Some of Michael's supporters in Transylvania acknowledged in March 1601 that the family was healthy and satisfied, but a Mantuan report of April claimed otherwise.[97] Stanca later complained to her mother-in-law that the entire family had been mistreated, and other records suggest that their mobile possession were arbitrarily confiscated.[98] Michael tried to have them released into Rudolf's custody, and proposed that Nicolae become his ambassador in Prague.[99]
Despite his revival of the Holy League, Michael was having secret dealings with the Ottomans, to whom he sent a number of peace offerings in exchange for recognition as Prince. Again during the early months of 1601, he offered to send his son, "who is now kept under lock at Făgăraș", to Istanbul.[100] The Ottomans demanded Nicolae from the Hungarian nobles, their nominal allies. The request was denied, because Nicolae's captors expected to hold him as a leverage against Michael, and also because of Stanca's passionate opposition to the plan.[101] In August 1601, with Imperial backing, Michael was able to defeat the rebels at Guruslău. News of this pushed the Wallachian boyars into a successful anti-Movilești rebellion, which technically restored Nicolae on the throne. They sent envoys to Michael's camp, who also reached Făgăraș on their way.[102]
Nicolae's fortunes were overturned within a month, following Michael's killing on Basta's orders, at
Marcu Cercel also pledged his loyalties to the Empire. He followed Basta to Făgăraș, hoping to emerge as the Habsburg favorite for the Wallachian throne. A delegation of boyars supported him, while others noted that, at age eighteen, he was hardly competent; they preferred Șerban of Coiani for that position.[108] An avviso from May 1602 claims that Nicolae's candidacy was probably considered by a boyar faction, namely that supporting Wallachia's incorporation within the Empire.[109] By then, Nicolae had been moved to Făgăraș, and was faced with Moldavian demands for his extradition. These were ignored by Basta, who instead asked the Hungarian nobles that they return Nicolae's stolen assets.[110]
In exile
A
Between 1602 and 1611, the Wallachian throne was held by Șerban of Coiani, who took the regnal name of Radu Șerban. By 1608, Nicolae had returned to Transylvania, hoping to seal an alliance with its Prince,
The former Prince eventually settled in Tyrnau, to the west of Habsburg Hungary (in present-day Slovakia). From Tyrnau, he litigated over his father's remaining assets, which were still in the Empire's custody, and also demanded Kynsburg Castle, in Lower Silesia, which had been promised to Michael. In 1605, the Geheimrat recognized that Nicolae was owed 15,000 thaler from his father's possessions, but failed to enforce this ruling, leaving Nicolae to issue a formal protest to the Hungarian Diet of Pressburg.[125] In 1606, the Aulic Council settled his outstanding debt of 20,000 thaler, but he continued to be pressed by his creditors; six years later, he resold to Emperor Rudolf his father's golden necklace.[126] He had earlier declared this artifact lost.[127] Meanwhile, the burghers of Tyrnau issued complaints against their guest, accusing his retinue of excessive luxury and resource depletion.[128]
In 1610, Radu Șerban recognized Nicolae as a Postelnic. In this interval, Nicolae exchanged deeds over his father's village of
Șerban's effort was also assisted by Moldavia's Princess Elisabeta, on behalf of the Movilești. This final reconciliation ended badly for the Moldavians, as Elisabeta and her son Alexandru were dethroned and imprisoned by the Ottomans. Nicolae remained close to Gabriel Movilă, who became Prince of Wallachia in June 1618.[134] During that episode, Nicolae and Marcu Cercel again found themselves on opposite sides: frustrated in his attempts to obtain a Wallachian or Moldavian crown, Marcu had turned against his Habsburg backers. In his final years, he was one of Bethlen's trusted supporters.[135]
Final years
Nicolae ultimately married Radu Șerban's daughter, known as Ana or Ancuța Radulea, on July 10, 1618.[136] The wedding was blessed by a new Emperor, Matthias, who presented the couple with a silver chalice.[137] The scandal over Michael's inheritance peaked the same year, when Matthias ordered an Hofkriegsrat investigation into Michael's killing. The news were poorly received by Nicolae, who complained that the inquiry would open the record to "calumnies" against his father and cement Basta's depiction of the Prince as a "traitor".[138]
The issue was put on hold by the accession of Archduke Ferdinand to the imperial throne, an event which also sparked the
In February 1620, after having moved to Vienna, Nicolae lost his father-in-law to gout,[144] and inherited from him the assets of the Coiani boyars.[145] By then, Nicolae was again emerging as Ferdinand's favorite: the Empire would not assign him more money, but Michael's inheritance was paid up in land, houses, and salt.[146] Following the Habsburg–Transylvanian rapprochement, he began writing of his plan to regain Bucharest with Bethlen's help.[147] Nevertheless, he himself was immobilized by gout, turning his attention to less material pursuits, in particular reading. By 1626, attempting to alleviate his symptoms, he sought specialized care in Vienna. In his correspondence with Sebastian Tengnagel, he asked to receive books of grammar and theology from the Hof-Bibliothek, noting that he had "no other pleasure left".[148] He complained to Ferdinand's court of his insolvency, receiving backing from the Count Esterházy.[149]
Nicolae died of gout in 1627, either somewhere "in Austria"
Legacy
Nicolae's remains were finally exhumed by Ana in 1640, and taken to Wallachia together with Radu Șerban's (recovered from St. Stephen's Cathedral).[157] The reigning Prince Matei Basarab welcomed them in Bucharest, then buried them together in the shared necropolis of Comana Monastery. The epitaph, which probably dates from the late 18th century, commemorates both as heroes of the defense against Islam and "the Hungarian heretic".[158] Unusually, Nicolae and his family were regularly commemorated by a Moldavian church at Golia Monastery.[159] Their likeness remains preserved at Căluiu Monastery, in Oboga, which Michael furbished in 1593–1594. His heir is shown alongside his mother on the Căluiu naos, painted by a Master Mina.[160] Mihăilescu, who also writes that Prince Nicolae was a Wallachian version of Napoleon II, laments that his fate was otherwise "nearly entirely forgotten."[161]
The marriage of Nicolae and Ana produced two sons, Gavril and Mihai Pătrașcu, and a daughter, Ilinca (Elena). Gavril died in 1622, an infant or young child.
Mihai, who was also recognized as a Cup-bearer, stated a claim to his share of the Coiani inheritance, demanding in particular 4,000 Goldgulden pledged by the Empire to his maternal grandmother, Elena Șerban.[166] He was still attached to Vienna, with Ferdinand III forcefully keeping him on his entourage and considering him for the throne of Transylvania.[167] In 1643, he was trying to instigate a pro-Habsburg rebellion among the Romanians of Transylvania.[168] This prevented Prince Matei, whose sons Matei II and Mateiaș had both died, from adopting Michael the Great's grandson.[169] In 1654, formally released from Austrian service, Mihai made a final effort to regain Wallachia, counting on assistance from the Cossack rebels. He fell ill with the plague upon reaching Bohdan Khmelnytsky's court in Chyhyryn, and was recorded as dead by 1656.[170] One tradition suggests that he was the suitor for Domnița Ruxandra, daughter of Moldavian Prince Vasile Lupu and widow of Tymofiy Khmelnytsky.[171] Some scholars also argue that he is the Michael Vaivoda depicted in a 1651 engraving by Elias Wiedemann.[172]
By then, Ilinca had married Postelnic Istratie Leurdeanu. He was Fiera Leurdeanu's grandson, and son of the Logothete Stroe Leurdeanu. After his failure with Mihai Pătrașcu, Prince Matei hoped to adopt Istratie, but met opposition from the other boyars, and was ultimately discarded in favor of Diicul Buicescul.[173] Both Istratie and Stroe rose to prominence later in the 1650s, under the rule of Radu Șerban's natural son, Constantin Șerban, and then became noted as enemies of the Cantacuzinos.[174] Ilinca was still mentioned in 1656, and died childless some time after; Istratie was executed in December 1658 by a new Prince, Mihnea III.[175] His father survived him by twenty years. Tried for his role in the unlawful execution of Constantin I Cantacuzino (Nicolae's alleged cousin), he was pardoned and sent to a monastery, ending his life as Silvestru the Monk.[176]
Nicolae Pătrașcu enjoys recognition in modern-day Romania. Research into his biography was inaugurated by Alexandru Roman, on behalf of the Romanian Academy. In the 1880s, Roman obtained essential biographical documents relating to Pătrașcu and Ana Radulea, from the estate of György Majláth.[177] The Prince's tunic and cape were recovered from Comana and, by 1978, were on display at the National Military Museum.[178] Posthumous depictions include Constantin Vaeni's 1977 film, Buzduganul cu trei peceți, with Constantin Fugașin as a rambunctious Nicolae Pătrașcu (Victor Rebengiuc is Michael the Brave).[179]
Arms
Like all Wallachian Princes of the period, Nicolae used as his primary symbol the
Michael the Brave and Nicolae are both associated with another seal, first used on July 27, 1600. Its complex field has the Wallachian bird alongside the
Notes
- ^ Iorga (1934), pp. 76–77
- ^ Iorga (1934), p. 77
- ^ Neagoe, p. 197; Rezachevici (1998), p. 55
- ^ Iorga (1934), p. 77
- ^ Mihăilescu, p. 41
- ^ Simonescu, pp. 14–15
- ^ Rezachevici (2000), p. 10
- ^ Grigoraș, p. 9
- ^ Iorga (1934), p. 79
- ^ Cernovodeanu, pp. 219, 221
- ^ Tabvlae codicvm manv scriptorvm praeter graecos et orientales in Bibliotheca palatina vindobonensi asservatorvm, Vol. VI, pp. 79, 416. Vienna: Venum dat Caroli Geroldi Filius, 1873
- ^ Göllner, p. 77; Theodorescu, p. 206
- ^ Donat, pp. 217, 220, 225
- ^ Mihăilescu, p. 50
- ^ Gane, pp. 106–107, 138–139; Neagoe, pp. 200–201; Mihăilescu, p. 41; Rezachevici (1976), pp. 1989–1990; Stoicescu, pp. 64–65, 100; Theodorescu, pp. 8, 29–30
- ^ Mârza, p. 73; Rezachevici (1976), pp. 1989–1990; Stoicescu, p. 70
- ^ Gane, pp. 138–139; Ionașcu, p. 166. See also Rezachevici (1976), pp. 1989–1991; Stoicescu, p. 70
- ^ Gane, pp. 140–141; Stoicescu, pp. 70–71
- ^ Gane, p. 144; Iorga (1934), p. 77; Mihăilescu, p. 42. See also Rezachevici (1976), pp. 1990, 1991 & (2000), p. 10
- ^ Mihăilescu, p. 41
- ^ Mârza, p. 73
- ^ Rezachevici (1976), pp. 1990, 1991
- ^ Rezachevici (1976), pp. 1990, 1991; Stoicescu, pp. 35, 38, 40, 70, 172
- ^ Rezachevici (1976), p. 1990
- ^ Mârza, p. 73
- ^ Rezachevici (1976), p. 1990
- ^ Ionașcu, pp. 233–234; Neagoe, pp. 196, 201; Stoicescu, pp. 57, 108, 232. See also Gane, pp. 143–144, 146, 211; Rezachevici (1976), pp. 1990, 1991
- ^ Ionașcu, pp. 60, 125, 167; Stoicescu, pp. 30, 31, 53, 69, 70, 82, 99, 103, 254
- ^ Stoicescu, pp. 170, 171
- ^ Gane, pp. 138, 140–141
- ^ Ionașcu, pp. 165–167; Stoicescu, pp. 53, 82
- ^ Mihăilescu, p. 41
- ^ Mihăilescu, p. 41; Simonescu, p. 36
- ^ Simonescu, p. 36
- ^ Cazacu, p. 176; Gane, pp. 138–139; Neagoe, p. 201; Stoicescu, pp. 41, 64–65
- ^ Mihăilescu, pp. 41–42
- ^ Stoicescu, pp. 203–204
- ^ Gane, p. 142; Neagoe, pp. 196, 201; Stoicescu, pp. 161–162, 203–204, 206
- ^ Maria Frunză, "Începuturile publicisticii lui B. P. Hasdeu (România, 18 noiembrie 1858—26 ianuarie 1859)", in Anuar de Lingvistică și Istorie Literară, Vol. 20, 1969, p. 159
- ^ Mihăilescu, p. 42
- ^ Mihăilescu, p. 42
- ^ Mârza, p. 74
- ^ Mihăilescu, p. 42
- ^ Simonescu, pp. 14–15, 19
- ^ Simonescu, pp. 14–15
- ^ Mârza, p. 74
- ^ Mârza, p. 75
- ^ Mârza, pp. 74–75
- ^ Georgiță, p. 160
- ^ Georgiță, p. 159; Neagoe, p. 201
- ^ Georgiță, p. 163
- ^ Neagoe, p. 201. See also Gane, pp. 143–144
- ^ Mihăilescu, p. 42
- ^ Rădulescu, pp. 55–56
- ^ Mihăilescu, p. 42
- ^ Mârza, p. 75
- ^ Mihăilescu, p. 42
- ^ Mârza, pp. 74, 76–77
- ^ Rezachevici (1998), p. 58
- ^ Mihăilescu, p. 42
- ^ Gane, pp. 142–143
- ^ Mihăilescu, p. 42
- ^ Iorga (1934), p. 77; Neagoe, p. 196; Rezachevici (2000), pp. 5–6
- ^ Rezachevici (2000), pp. 6, 9, 10–11
- ^ Iorga (1934), p. 77
- ^ Mârza, p. 77
- ^ Cazacu, p. 178
- ^ Iorga (1934), pp. 76–78; Stoicescu, pp. 41, 72
- ^ Iorga (1934), pp. 76–78; Mihăilescu, p. 47; Stoicescu, p. 94
- ^ Iorga (1934), pp. 76–78
- ^ Gane, p. 159; Neagoe, p. 201
- ^ Grigoraș, p. 7; Neagoe, p. 201; Rezachevici (2000), pp. 6–7
- ^ Mârza, p. 76
- ^ Mârza, p. 76. See also Grigoraș, pp. 7–8
- ^ Rezachevici (2000), p. 8
- ^ Rezachevici (2000), p. 10
- ^ Cernovodeanu, pp. 70–72; Grigoraș, p. 9; Rezachevici (2000), pp. 9–10
- ^ Rezachevici (2000), pp. 6, 8
- ^ Rezachevici (2000), p. 8
- ISBN 973-9130-18-6; Rezachevici (2000), p. 9
- ^ Grigoraș, p. 9
- ^ Rădulescu, p. 56; Stoicescu, p. 36. See also Grigoraș, p. 9
- ^ Grigoraș, p. 9
- ^ Rezachevici (2000), p. 10
- ^ Grigoraș, p. 10; Mihăilescu, p. 47; Rădulescu, pp. 56–57; Rezachevici (2000), pp. 5, 10; Stoicescu, p. 37
- ^ Stoicescu, pp. 41, 75, 86, 100. See also Rădulescu, p. 56; Rezachevici (2000), p. 10
- ^ Mihăilescu, p. 42
- ^ Rezachevici (2000), p. 11
- ^ Gane, p. 144; Mârza, pp. 75–76, 77–80; Mihăilescu, pp. 42–43
- ^ Mârza, p. 78
- ^ Mârza, pp. 79–80
- ^ Mârza, p. 79
- ^ Mârza, pp. 79–80; Mihăilescu, pp. 42–43
- ^ Mârza, pp. 78, 80
- ^ Neagoe, p. 202
- ^ Mârza, pp. 77, 80; Mihăilescu, p. 43
- ^ Mârza, p. 80
- ^ Mihăilescu, pp. 43–44
- ^ Mârza, p. 77
- ^ Mârza, p. 76
- ^ Mârza, p. 76
- ^ Mihăilescu, p. 43
- ^ Mârza, p. 81
- ^ Mârza, p. 81
- ^ Gane, pp. 144, 210
- ^ Gane, p. 144
- ^ Iorga (1902), pp. VI–VII
- ^ Rădulescu, p. 57
- ^ Mârza, p. 82
- ^ Iorga (1934), p. 78
- ^ Gane, pp. 145–146, 211
- ^ Mârza, pp. 81–82; Mihăilescu, p. 43
- ^ Mârza, pp. 80–81
- ^ Mârza, p. 81; Mihăilescu, p. 43
- ^ Donat, p. 229; Mihăilescu, p. 43
- ^ Iorga (1934), p. 79; Mârza, p. 82
- ^ Iorga (1902), pp. LXXIII–LXXV
- ^ Gane, p. 211
- ^ Gane, pp. 201–209; Stoicescu, p. 94; Theodorescu, pp. 205, 207
- ^ Gane, p. 145; Ionașcu, p. 166; Mihăilescu, p. 43
- ^ Stoicescu, p. 31
- ^ Mârza, p. 82
- ^ Iorga (1934), pp. 79–80
- ^ Iorga (1934), pp. 78–80; Mihăilescu, pp. 43–46
- ^ Mihăilescu, pp. 43–46. See also Iorga (1934), pp. 78–80
- ^ Mihăilescu, pp. 44–45, 46
- ^ Iorga (1934), p. 79
- ^ Mihăilescu, p. 47
- ^ Donat, pp. 220, 225
- ^ Iorga (1902), p. CIV
- ^ Damaschin Mioc, "Știri de istorie a românilor în Letopisețul Brancovicesc", in Studii și Materiale de Istorie Medie, Vol. IX, 1978, pp. 136, 141
- ^ Gane, p. 211; Mihăilescu, pp. 47–48
- ^ Iorga (1902), pp. CXXVI–CXXXVI; Mihăilescu, pp. 47–48
- ^ Gane, pp. 179–181, 183; Mihăilescu, p. 48
- ^ Iorga (1902), pp. CXXXI, CXXXIII–CXXXIV, CXXXLX, CXL; Rădulescu, pp. 57–61
- ^ Mihăilescu, pp. 43, 47, 48. See also Cazacu, pp. 178–179; Gane, pp. 146–147, 210–212; Iorga (1902), p. CXXXIII; Neagoe, p. 196; Stoicescu, pp. 94, 206; Theodorescu, p. 205
- ^ Mihăilescu, p. 48
- ^ Mihăilescu, pp. 46–47
- ^ Mihăilescu, p. 48
- ^ Göllner, pp. 76–80; Theodorescu, pp. 205–207
- ^ Göllner, pp. 80–81
- ^ Iorga (1902), pp. CXXXLX–CXL
- ^ Göllner, p. 82
- ^ Mihăilescu, p. 48
- ^ Gane, p. 211
- ^ Mihăilescu, p. 48
- ^ Mihăilescu, p. 49
- ^ Mihăilescu, p. 49
- ^ Mihăilescu, p. 49
- ^ Gane, p. 212
- ^ Cazacu, p. 179
- ^ Mihăilescu, p. 49
- ^ Gane, p. 212
- ^ Slavici, p. 386
- ^ Slavici, pp. 385–386
- ^ Slavici, p. 386
- ^ Gane, pp. 211–213; Mihăilescu, pp. 48, 49. See also Theodorescu, pp. 206–207
- ^ Theodorescu, p. 207. See also Mihăilescu, p. 50
- ^ Grigoraș, p. 10
- ^ Rezachevici (1976), pp. 1990, 1991
- ^ Mihăilescu, p. 41
- ^ Gane, p. 212
- ^ Gane, pp. 212–213, 239
- ^ Donat, pp. 217, 229–230
- ^ Mârza, p. 74
- ^ Slavici, p. 386
- ^ Gane, pp. 213, 239; Slavici, pp. 387–390
- ^ Iorga (1902), p. CCIX
- ^ Gane, pp. 238–240; Ionașcu, p. 13; Iorga (1902), pp. CXIX, CCLIV; Slavici, pp. 386–387
- ^ Slavici, pp. 388–390
- ^ Gane, p. 301
- ^ Theodorescu, pp. 168–169
- ^ Gane, p. 240
- ^ Gane, pp. 213, 331–348; Ionașcu, pp. 18, 51; Stoicescu, pp. 181, 203–206
- ^ Stoicescu, pp. 206–207
- ^ Gane, pp. 344–345; Stoicescu, pp. 204–205
- ^ Gelu Neamțu, "Alexandru Roman, gînditor și istoriograf", in Marisia. Anuarul Muzeului Județean Mureș. Studii și Materiale, II: Arheologie, Istorie, Etnografie, Vol. VII, 1977, p. 160
- ^ "Aspecte din Muzeul Militar Central", in Revista Muzeelor și Monumentelor. Muzee, Issue 6/1978, p. 73
- ^ Eva Sîrbu, "În premieră. Buzduganul cu trei peceți", in Cinema, Vol. XV, Issue 8, August 1977, p. 24
- ^ Cernovodeanu, p. 45
- ^ Cernovodeanu, pp. 46, 218–219
- ^ Cernovodeanu, p. 46
- ^ Cernovodeanu, pp. 46–47, 220–223
- ^ Cernovodeanu, pp. 69–73. See also Grigoraș, p. 9
- ^ Cernovodeanu, pp. 70–71. See also Grigoraș, p. 9; Rezachevici (2000), p. 10
References
- Matei Cazacu, "Stratégies matrimoniales et politiques des Cantacuzène sous la Turcocratie (XVe–XVIe s.)", in Revue des Études Roumaines, Vols. XIX–XX, 1995–1996, pp. 157–181.
- Dan Cernovodeanu, Știința și arta heraldică în România. Bucharest: OCLC 469825245
- Ion Donat, Domeniul domnesc în Țara Românească (sec. XIV–XVI). Bucharest: ISBN 973-454-170-6
- Constantin Gane, Trecute vieți de doamne și domnițe. Vol. I. Bucharest: Luceafărul S. A., [1932].
- Mihai Georgiță, "Mihai Viteazul și creștinătatea sud-dunăreană", in Revista Crisia, Vol. XXXIX, 2009, pp. 153–171.
- Carl Göllner, "Beziehungen der Rumanischen Wojewoden Radu Șerban, Nicolae Petrașcu und Gaspar Graziani zur Milice chrétienne", in Revue des Études Sud-est Européennes, Vol. VI, Issue 1, 1968, pp. 71–83.
- N. Grigoraș, "De același sînge cu moldovenii", in Magazin Istoric, May 1975, pp. 7–10.
- I. Ionașcu, Biserici, chipuri și documente din Olt, Vol. I. Craiova: OCLC 935559527
- Nicolae Iorga,
- "Prefață", in Studiĭ și documente cu privire la istoria romînilor. IV: Legăturile Principatelor romîne cu Ardealul; de la 1601 la 1699. Povestire și izvoare, pp. I–CCCXIX. Bucharest: OCLC 895358710
- Legături descoperite de D. M. Beza cu mănăstirile Meteorele din Tesalia. Cu o notă despre Nicolae-Vodă Petrașcu, fiul lui Mihai. Bucharest: Monitorul Oficial & Cartea Românească, 1934.
- "Prefață", in Studiĭ și documente cu privire la istoria romînilor. IV: Legăturile Principatelor romîne cu Ardealul; de la 1601 la 1699. Povestire și izvoare, pp. I–CCCXIX. Bucharest:
- Radu Mârza, "Implicarea familiei în diplomație la Mihai Viteazul: practica trimiterii familiei proprii ca ostatică la partenerii politici", in Revista Bistriței, Vol. XII–XIII, 1999, pp. 73–83.
- Ștefan Mihăilescu, "Nicolae Petrașcu Voievod", in Studii și Materiale Privitoare la Trecutul Istoric al Jud. Prahova, Vol. II, 1969, pp. 41–50.
- Claudiu Neagoe, "'Uniuni dinastice' și proiecte matrimoniale între Țările Române în a doua jumătate a veacului al XVI-lea", in Argesis. Studii și Comunicări. Seria Istorie, Vol. XI, 2002, pp. 195–202.
- Maria-Venera Rădulescu, "Marcu, fiul principelui Petru Cercel (1583–1585). Cahle medievale descoperite la Cerbureni, jud. Argeș, și la Târgoviște, jud. Dâmbovița (Curtea Domnească și zona Bisericii Stelea)", in Muzeul Național, Vol. XXV, 2013, pp. 47–66.
- Constantin Rezachevici,
- "Viața științifică. Originea lui Mihai Viteazul. Dezbateri în cadrul Comisiei de genealogie și heraldică", in Revista Istorică, Vol. 29, Issue 12, December 1976, pp. 1989–1991.
- "Doi poeți, un personaj și adevărul. 'Banul Mărăcine' – un domn necunoscut", in Magazin Istoric, October 1998, pp. 53–58.
- "Mihai Viteazul: itinerarul moldovean", in Magazin Istoric, May 2000, pp. 5–11.
- Dan Simonescu, "Cronica lui Baltasar Walther despre Mihai Viteazul în raport cu cronicile interne contemporane", in Studii și Materiale de Istorie Medie, Vol. III, 1959, pp. 7–100.
- Ioan Slavici, "Nepotul lui Mihaiŭ-Voda Viteazul", in Vatra, Vol. I, Issue 13, 1894, pp. 385–390.
- N. Stoicescu, Dicționar al marilor dregători din Țara Românească și Moldova. Sec. XIV–XVII. Bucharest: Editura enciclopedică, 1971. OCLC 822954574
- OCLC 159900650