Ad Astra Awards
Ad Astra Journal
Science library
White book
University rankings
Who's who
Theses and dissertations
Ad Astra association
Press releases
Funding opportunities
>> Românã

Sorin Bulboaca. . Raporturile dintre puterea centrala si institutia baniei din Tara Romaneasca si cea din Transilvania in secolul al XVII-lea. In Veniamin Ciobanu (ed.), Raportul putere centrala - factori politici interni reflex al statutului juridic al Principatelor Romane sec. XVII-XVIII, volum unic, rezultat al unui grant CNCSIS, pp. 96-139. . Editura Junimea, 2006.

Abstract: The comparative analysis of the institution of banat in the banat of Lugoj and Caransebes and in Oltenia, points out a multitude of similarities, but also significant differences for the evolution in time of a Romanian institution. The comparative study of the institution of banat in Oltenia and Banat has in view the XVIth-XVIIth centuries, the period of existence of the banat of Lugoj and Caransebes.
First, it is important to highlight the resemblances or similarities between the two banats. Both in Transylvania and in Tara Romaneasca the ban was one of the most important high officials. As hierarchic order, the ban of Craiova was, from the end of the XVth century onwards, the first of the Wallachian high officials. Almost all the bans of Lugoj-Caransebes were part of the princely council of Transylvania, without enjoying the prestige and power of some of the bans of Craiova. Still, some of the bans of Lugoj and Caransebes achieved dynastic alliances with rulers of Tara Romaneasca. This is the case of ban Nicolae Cherepovici, whose daughter, Elena, married in 1563 with the ruler of Tara Romaneasca, Petru cel Tanar (1559-1568).
Like the ban of Lugoj-Caransebes, the great ban of Craiova had similar administrative and judicial attributions: he was watching on the changes occurred in the landed mastership, he was looking after the keeping of order on the feudal domains, he was providing the integrity of boyar's patrimonies. Having the consent of the ruler, the ban of Craiova (like the ban of Lugoj-Caransebes if he was having prince's approval) could confiscate the fortune of the one who made oneself guilty of "betrayal". The ban of Craiova could punish by death the guilty persons, while the bans of Caransebes-Lugoj did not possess this right (being a prerogative of the prince of Transylvania). In case the decision of the bans of Caransebes-Lugoj was not pleasing them, the boyars had the right to make appeal to the ruler's judgment; similarly, the persons unpleased of the solution given by the judgment chair of the ban of Lugoj-Caransebes could make appeal at the princely Table.
Both the ban of Lugoj-Caransebes and the great ban of Craiova were disposing of important military prerogatives, each of them commanding to a personal army, recruited from the region upon which they were exerting their attributions. Of typical feudal nature, the personal army of the ban of Oltenia was formed of people of his suborder, like the courtiers known as "slaves". The army of the ban of Lugoj-Caransebes was formed firstly of garrisons of the citadels Caransebes, Lugoj and Jdioara.
The ban of Lugoj and Caransebes had in suborder one or several deputy bans, with whom he was closely co-operating, while the great ban of Craiova was being helped in the administration of Oltenia by the county bans or small bans, executors of his commands.
There is also a series of differences between the institution of banat in the banat of Lugoj and Caransebes and the one in Tara Romaneasca. First, in Wallachia, at the end of the XVth century and at the beginning of the XVIth century, the position of ban was transmitted hereditarily, in the family of the boyars Craiobesti who controlled for a few decades the political life of the country. On the other hand, in the banat of Lugoj and Caransebes, the institution of banat never became a hereditary institution, the bans having been appointed by the princes of Transylvania, who chose among their trustworthy people, many times among the Romanian nobles in the respective region.
The ban of Lugoj-Caransebes was disposing only of the revenues of his own estates and perhaps of one third of the judiciary fines, while the bans of Craiova were disposing of multiple sources of revenue, proceeded from: feudal rent levied to dependent peasants, from judiciary fines that were applied, from the internal custom duties existent on their areas, from granting high offices in their suborder. On the other side, some bans of Lugoj-Caransebes (like Andrei Barcsai or Albert Lonay etc.) benefited from princely gifts, as a reward for the faithful services.
The bans of Caransebes-Lugoj did not possess a personal court, as it was the case of the great bans of Craiova, who were surrounded by "a ban's council", different from the ruler's council, formed of officials who had to fulfill the same obligations as the ruler's officials similar to them. If the institution of banat in Eastern Banat disappeared in 1658, once with the Ottoman conquest, in Oltenia the great banat of Craiova was abolished only in 1831.

Keywords: bans, Banat, comparative, study



© Ad Astra 2001-2013