By Viorel Panaite | Institute for South-East European Studies of the Romanian Academy; University of Bucharest, Doctoral School of History

Historical Overview

The Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia (much later known as the Danubian Principalities or the Romanian Principalities) were established during the first half of the 14th century in the region of the Carpathian Mountains to the north of the Danube River.

The first significant encounters between Wallachia (in Turkish, Eflak) and the Ottoman Empire occurred during the reign of hospodar Mircea the Elder (r. 1386–1417), who was a pivotal figure in Wallachian history. Mircea initiated a period of intense conflict, marked by the first Ottoman raids across the Danube in the 1390s, culminating in the major campaign of Sultan Bayezid I (r. 1389-1402) in 1395. Mircea’s military alliance with the Hungarian king Sigismund of Luxemburg (r. 1387-1437) highlighted the principality’s reliance on external support to counter Ottoman aggression. The turning point came with Mehmed I’s campaign in 1417, which resulted in a peace agreement that formalized Wallachia’s status as a tributary state. This pact stipulated an annual tribute (kharadj) and the sending of noble hostages to the Ottoman Porte.

During the 15th century, Wallachia plunged into a period of factional infighting among rival claimants to the throne, which ultimately facilitated Ottoman control. The refusal of Vlad the Impaler (r. 1456–62; 1476) to pay tribute led to Mehmed II’s campaign in 1462, which marked a crucial turning point. The local nobles’ collective act of homage solidified Wallachia’s tributary status. Later chroniclers identified Basarab Laiotă (r. 1473–77, intermittently) as the first voivode to acknowledge his subordination to the Porte. He was engaged in a struggle for the throne with Mehmed II’s former appointee, Radu the Handsome (r. 1462–75, intermittently), and historians often confused him with his rival.

In the case of Moldavia (Boğdan), the process of homage-paying (închinare in Romanian sources) toward the Porte began in 1455–6, in the context of the Ottoman policy of extending the mastery over the Black Sea. Faced with Mehmed II’s threat, Petru Aron (r. 1451–57, intermittently) agreed to pay an annual tribute of 2,000 ducats. On 9 June 1456, in a moment when the sultan was on his way to conquer the city of Belgrade, an imperial sign (nișan) was enacted to the Ottoman officials by which the sultan confirmed the establishment of peace relations with Moldavia and guaranteed protection to the Moldavian merchants who would come to Edirne, Bursa, and Istanbul.

In 1457, Stephen the Great (r. 1457–1504) ascended to the throne and to secure his position, originally agreed to increase the tribute to 3,000 ducats. But once Stephen refused to pay the tribute, the sultan ordered a punitive campaign, but the Ottoman army was defeated in January 1475 at Vaslui. In July 1476, after meticulous preparations, Mehmed II secured a victory at Valea Albă, leading to peace negotiations. In 1480-81, an imperial charter (ahdname) was granted, but from the Ottoman perspective, it was a temporary peace agreement. A major campaign led by Bayezid II (r. 1481-1512) in 1484, which conquered key Black Sea ports like Kili and Akkerman, convinced Stephen to seek peace. The agreement of 1486 renewed the status of tribute-payer for Stephen’s Moldavia, implying the sultan’s protection. Consequently, he received Ottoman military assistance against the Polish invasion of 1497.

In the first part of the 16th century, significant shifts occurred in the power dynamics of Southeastern and Central Europe as the Ottoman Empire reached its peak. The Ottoman conquest of Belgrade in 1521 and the decisive victory at the Battle of Mohács in 1526 rendered Hungary, Wallachia’s primary ally, powerless. To counter Polish claims and Habsburg attacks, Süleyman Kanuni (r. 1520-66) resolved to establish definitive Ottoman control over the territories to the north of the Danube River by the end of the 1540s. Amidst this threatening environment, Radu of Afumaţi (r. 1522–29) and Wallachian nobles (boyars) initiated a permanent submission and a lasting peace with the Ottoman Porte. This pragmatic move aimed to safeguard Wallachia’s internal autonomy in exchange for political subordination and financial payments to the sultan.

A decade later, in 1538, Süleyman led a campaign against the hostile voivodePetru Rareș (r. 1527-38) of Moldavia. In September 1538, the capital Suceava capitulated, the voivode was sent into exile, and Moldavian nobles collectively paid homage to the Ottoman power. The sultan appointed Ștefan Lăcustă (r. 1538-41), a pro-Ottoman candidate, as the new voivode and bestowed upon him Ottoman symbols of authority, including an imperial diploma and a robe of honor. According to Ottoman chronicles, the 1538 campaign marked a definitive turning point, establishing Moldavia’s legal and political status as a tributary autonomous principality (province) within the Ottoman Empire. A few years later, the second conquest of Buda led to the transformation of Transylvania into a tributary principality in 1541.

Süleyman was the first sultan who asserted his rights as a landlord over Wallachia and Moldavia, as well as over Ragusa and Transylvania, indicating that their territories constituted the Well-Protected Domains and their inhabitants were his subjects. The tribute-paying princes (voivodes) were included in the Ottoman hierarchy of dignitaries, as governors (beǧ), being invested with imperial diplomas (berat)and ordered by hüküms (sultanic commandments). A new tributary prince was either elected by local nobles and subsequently confirmed by the Porte, or directly nominated by the sultan. The Porte made several attempts to replace Christian princes with Muslim governors in the 17th century, but it abandoned these plans due to military, financial, and political reasons. To maintain strict control over the Danubian Principalities, the Porte decided to appoint directly as tributary voivodes only from among the prominent Phanariot Greek families. This became a regular practice after 1711 in Moldavia and after 1714 in Wallachia, continuing until the revolt of Tudor Vladimirescu in 1821.

The historical study of Wallachia and Moldavia relies on a diverse range of narrative sources, including Ottoman, Wallachian, and Moldavian chroniclers, as well as Hungarian and Byzantine accounts. These sources often present conflicting perspectives. By synthesizing these diverse accounts with chancery documents, a comprehensive understanding of Wallachia’s and Moldavia’s transition from independent states to autonomous tributary principalities (provinces) within the Ottoman Empire, a status maintained for centuries, could be achieved.

Key Issues and Debates

The historical relationship between the Ottoman Empire and the principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia has been a subject of scholarly debate for a long time. This debate arises from conflicting interpretations of textual and material evidence, which have been further impacted by modern nationalistic perspectives. The three main issues revolve around whether the Ottomans conquered the principalities, their legal status as part of or separate from the empire, and the authenticity of alleged “treaties” that governed their relationship.

The question of conquest is a central point of contention in the debate on the relations between the Ottomans and the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia. However, most Romanian historians reject the idea of conquest. Some even argue from the opposite angle: “Why did the Ottomans not conquer the Romanian countries?” However, a closer look at Ottoman legal and military perspectives suggests otherwise. From the late 14th to the mid-16th centuries, Wallachia and Moldavia were considered part of the “Abode of War” (dar al-harb), meaning they were territories slated for conquest and incorporation into the “Abode of Islam” (dar al-Islam). While according to Islamic-Ottoman law, a territory was considered "conquered" regardless of whether it was taken by force of submitted voluntarily, in the case of Wallachia and Moldavia the Ottomans undertook extensive military campaigns. The Ottomans undertook extensive military campaigns (ghazavat) and launched frequent light cavalry (akıncı) raids to assert their authority. By the mid-16th century, after a long period of tribute-paying, the Ottomans had effectively conquered the principalities, invoking the “right of the sword” (kılıç hakkı). This is supported by Ottoman documents. For example, following the 1538 expedition, Süleyman Kanuni referred to himself as the “conqueror of the country of Moldavia” in a conquest letter (fetih-name). Similarly, in the imperial diploma of 1585 appointing Mihnea the Turkified (r. 1577-83; 1585-91), Sultan Mehmed III explicitly states that Wallachia “was conquered by the power of our swords.” It is also crucial to note that neither the Ottomans nor the locals consistently used the term “conquest” in a negative sense.  In their petitions (arz) submitted to the Ottoman Court during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the Moldavian–Wallachian power holders often invoked “the imperial conquest” (feth-i hakaniden berü) in order to retain or reassert ancient practices and governance, shielding their subjects from financial abuses by Ottoman authorities.

Another crucial debate revolves around whether Wallachia and Moldavia were situated within or beyond the Ottoman Empire. To answer this question, it is crucial to consider a wide range of sources. Additionally, it is important to differentiate between modern international law and medieval terminology, as well as between legal and political vocabulary. The Ottoman system of governance was by no means uniform throughout the empire. The majority was governed by the standard sancak system, which included territories that were directly administered by dividing them into feudal units (timars). Examples of such territories closer to the Danubian Principalities include Keffe, Silistre, Buda, and Temeșvar. Additionally, the empire also comprised various autonomous lands, communities, and provinces. Despite these variations in administration, government, and the extent of subordination and autonomy, all these regions collectively constituted the Ottoman Empire.

From the mid-16th century onward, Ottoman chancelleries employed two distinct types of terminology. On the one hand, they used terms that emphasized the principalities’ integration into the empire, treating them as any other province. These principalities were regarded as the sultan’s property (mülk-i mevrus), part of the “Abode of Islam” (dar al-Islam), and provinces of the Ottoman Empire (Memalik-i mahruse). These terms were employed to assert Ottoman authority and refute claims from rival powers such as the Habsburgs and Poland.

On the other hand, the Ottomans also employed terms that emphasized the principalities’ autonomy. These included the  “Abode of Tributary Protection” (dar üz-zimmet), freedom (serbestiyet), and privileged provinces (eyalat-ı mümtaze). These terms delineated the principalities’ financial, administrative, religious, and legal autonomy within the empire, a status akin to other privileged provinces. The local rulers frequently invoked these terms to seek the sultan’s protection from abuses perpetrated by other Ottoman subjects. This dual terminology is not contradictory; rather, it serves as a complementary framework. The autonomy of the principalities existed solely within the confines of the Ottoman Empire, not beyond it. Their self-governance was perpetually subject to the ultimate imperial authority, a status that was also internationally recognized through diplomatic means. Despite certain attempts to regain independence or seek protection under Christian sovereigns (a notable example being the rebellion of Michael the Brave from 1593 to 1601), the Wallachian and Moldavian princes and nobles gradually acknowledged that their supreme ruler resided in Istanbul, and their countries were ultimately under his dominion. Similarly, the European powers regarded Wallachia and Moldavia as provinces of the Ottoman Empire. Considering the Islamic-Ottoman perspective, the diverse historical and legal terminology can be collectively categorized under the term tributary-protected principalities (or provinces) to describe the legal and political status of Wallachia and Moldavia.

A significant question revolves around the existence of so-called “treaties” or “capitulations” that allegedly regulated the long-term legal status of Wallachia and Moldavia with the Ottoman Empire. This led to the myth of “old and long-term privileges” supposedly granted by the Ottomans to early Wallachian and Moldavian princes. However, the authenticity of these “old privileges” has been thoroughly questioned. Romanian historian Constantin Giurescu demonstrated that texts purportedly granted in the 14th and 15th centuries were actually apocryphal writings from the 18th century. Despite this revelation, the myth of “special treaties” has persisted, especially during the Communist regime, and these apocryphal texts continue to be cited in nationalistic works and textbooks. In reality, the Ottomans did not grant any long-term “special treaties” or “capitulations.” This practice contradicted Ottoman diplomacy, which was based on a system of temporary agreements. Until the mid-16th century, the Ottomans concluded temporary peace agreements, often referred to as “oaths” or “pledges” (ahd), with the Moldo-Wallachian princes, their validity depending on the sultan’s will. The prolonged customary practices between the Ottomans and the tributary principalities eventually became the basis for later codifications, which were then presented as “capitulations”.

The study of Southeastern Europe and its textual evidence underscores the necessity of adopting a critical approach to historical sources, devoid of nationalistic biases. It illustrates how historical narratives can be influenced by contemporary political and ideological agendas. By meticulously examining a diverse range of sources and comprehending the legal and political context of the era, we can transcend these myths and attain a more accurate and nuanced understanding of the intricate relationship between the Ottoman Empire and its Danubian tributaries.

Further Reading

Kárman, Gábor and Lovro Kuncević, eds. The European Tributary States of the Ottoman Empire in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2013.

The book explores the complex, often ambiguous relationship between the Ottoman Empire and its European tributaries (like Transylvania, Wallachia, Moldavia, Ragusa) during the 16th and 17th centuries. It examines how these polities maintained internal autonomy and distinct political identities.

Panaite, Viorel. “The Danubian Principalities.” In The Encyclopaedia of Islam. Three, edited by Kate Fleet, Gudrun Krämer, Denis Matringe, John Nawas, and Everett Rowson. Leiden: Brill, 2014.

Panaite presents briefly the status of tribute-payers North of the Danube with reference to Ottoman law of war and peace.

Panaite, Viorel. Ottoman Law of War and Peace. The Ottoman Empire and Its Tribute-Payers from the North of the Danube. Second Revised Edition*,* Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2019.

The book examines the legal and political status of Wallachia and Moldavia, in comparison with other tributary polities (such as Ragusa and Transylvania) within the pax ottomana system. It analyzes how Islamic law of war and peace, sultanic orders and customary norms defined their rights, duties, and power relations with the Porte from the 15th to 18th centuries.

Veinstein, Gilles and Mihnea Berindei. L'Empire ottoman et les Pays roumains, 1544-1545, Éditions de l'ÉHÉSS et Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute, Paris-Cambridge, Mass., 1987.

This work meticulously edits and analyzes a register of Ottoman official documents      correspondence from 1544–5 relating to Wallachia and Moldavia (the Romanian Principalities). It offers crucial primary source insight into the Ottoman administration, diplomatic relations, and concrete political and economic issues governing the Principalities' tributary status in the mid-16th century.

Wasiucionek, Michał. The Ottomans and Eastern Europe: Borders and Political Patronage in the Early Modern World, London-New York: Tauris, 2019.

This book proposes an incursion into the Wallachian and Moldavian world of the 17th century from the perspective of a global history, with the voivodes Matei Basarab and Vasile Lupu, for instance, being parts of the trans-borderland network between the Ottoman Empire, Poland, Russia, and the Crimean Khanate.