THE RIVAL AND THE VASSAL OF CHARLES ROBERT OF ANJOU: KING VLADISLAV II NEMANJIĆ

Aleksandar Krstić

Keywords: Vladislav II Nemanjić, Stefan Dragutin Nemanjić, Charles Robert of Anjou, Medieval Serbia, Medieval Hungary

Cuvinte cheie: Vladislav al II-lea Nemanjić, Ștefan Dragutin Nemanjić, Carol Robert de Anjou, Serbia medievală, Ungaria medievală

When Vladislav, the son of Serbian Crown Prince Stephen Dragutin and his Hungarian wife, Princess Katalin, was born sometime around 1270, it looked like he would have splendid future. As the first-born prince, it could be expected that one day he would succeeded to the throne of his grandfather King Stephen Uroš I (1243–1276), that he would rule “all Serbian and maritime lands”, and that he would be listed, according to the usual custom, among the saint rulers of the Nemanjić dynasty when he left this world. However, the result of future events gave him a different role, so instead of becoming a protagonist, Vladislav was an episode player on the stage of Serbian medieval history.

It is generally considered that the marriage between Serbian Prince Dragutin and Katalin, the daughter of the Hungarian “younger king” Stephen was concluded, or at least agreed after the defeat of King Uroš I in the battle with the Hungarian forces in Mačva in the spring of 1268.¹ This certainly happened before 3th July 1271, at the time when Katalin’s father Stephen V (1270–1272) was already sitting on the Hungarian throne.² The Serbian Crown Prince got the same title as his father-in-low. In this way the institution of “younger king” passed from Hungary to the Serbian medieval state, in which it, although significantly transformed, lasted until 1371.³ Dragutin had expected that with the title he would also get a part of the Serbian state to govern. Serbian Archbishop Danilo II explicitly stated that such expectations existed at the Hungarian court, too. Furthermore, it can be assumed that the sharing of power and creation of the special Dragutin’s territory were among the conditions of the Serbian-Hungarian peace and marital agreement.⁴

Since King Uroš I systematically strived to centralize the kingdom and to degrade the previous appanages under the control of the members of the lateral branches of the Nemanjić dynasty,⁵ he did not want to hand over a part of the state to his heir Dragutin. The “younger king” eventually rebelled against his father with the Hungarian military assistance and overthrew him off the throne in 1276.⁶ Thus Vladislav, who was in early childhood, became the heir of the Serbian throne.⁷ It was the first important change that occurred in the life of the child, whose name should also announce his royal future.⁸ However, Stephen Dragutin ruled the Serbian state only for six years (1276–1282) and his rule was not sufficiently illuminated by the sources. He was certainly in close relationships with Hungary, as well with King Charles Anjou of Naples, who was the cousin of Dragutin’s mother Jelena (Helen). It seems that King Stephen Dragutin was included in Charles’ plans for organizing the wide anti-Byzantine coalition. In domestic affairs Dragutin, after the overthrow of his father, apparently tried to strengthen his position by relying on his mother. Queen Jelena received a particular territory in the south-western parts of the Serbian state, from the coastal region to the valley of the river Ibar, which she governed for more than three decades.⁹

At the beginning of 1282 the king had an accident when he fell off a horse and broke his leg. The injury appeared to be serious, and the king’s opponents among the nobility took advantage of the situation. In such circumstances, the king was forced to hand the Serbian throne over to his younger brother Stephen Uroš II Milutin. The handover of power took place at the assembly of Deževo in the spring of 1282, but the conditions under which the change at the throne was agreed remained rather vague. The main source for the assembly of Deževo was Archbishop Danilo II (1324–1337), who, as the loyal supporter of King Milutin, displayed events tendentiously, without providing the substance of the agreement. According to the hagiographic character of his work, Danilo II explained Dragutin’s decision to abdicate primarily by spiritual reasons, namely by the king’s repentance over his acting towards his father Uroš. The psychological condition in which Dragutin found himself after a serious injury could indeed have an influence on his decisions. On the other hand, by insisting on the story of God’s punishment and Dragutin’s repentance, Danilo II legitimized Milutin’s rise to power and the right of his lineage to the Serbian throne.¹⁰ According to King Dragutin’s claims a quarter of a century later, when he already was in perennial conflict with his brother, he had left the throne only temporarily, until he was healed.¹¹ Modern Serbian historiography mainly accepts the interpretation that is close to the narrative of the Byzantine historian Georgios Pachymeres. According to him, Dragutin’s demission of the throne was irrevocable, but it was agreed that Milutin would be succeeded by one of the sons of the former king Dragutin (which means, by the elder Vladislav or by the younger Urošic).¹² This interpretation is supported by the fact that until the end of the reign of Uroš Milutin in 1321 the problem of the heir to the throne remained open, which caused many complications, and multiple family discords within the Nemanjić dynasty. In any case, Stephen Dragutin retained the royal title¹³ and he was given a part of the country to administrate it. His area covered the northern parts of the Serbian state¹⁴, including a very important mining center in Rudnik, where precisely at that time the intensive exploitation of silver ore began.¹⁵ Dragutin provided a stable and substantial income that way.

The domain positioned in the neighbourhood of Hungary, with which Dragutin was firmly family and politically connected, soon enabled him the significant territorial expansion. In the second half of 1284, Hungarian King Ladislas IV (1272–1290) gave to his brother-in-low King Dragutin the regions of Mačva in northern Serbia and Usora and Soli in Bosnia, which were previously managed by Queen Mother Elizabeth. These territories represented the family appanage of the members of the Árpád dynasty or their relatives for a long time. Since Mačva was also named “Sirmia ulterior”, Dragutin was informally called the “king of Srem” by his Serbian contemporaries and posterior generations.¹⁶ At that time Ladislas IV was in military conflict with Dorman and Kudelin, the independent Bulgarian lords of Cuman origin, who ruled the regions of Kučevo and Braničevo at the right bank of the Danube.¹⁷ Transferring the aforementioned territories to Stephan Dragutin, the Hungarian monarch tried to strengthen the defence of the southern border, but also to tie his relative and neighbour more tightly, and in that way to increase the Hungarian influence in the Serbian state. According to his position, Dragutin was the largest vassal of his brother, the Serbian king, and at the same time he became (or remained) the vassal of his brother-in-low, the Hungarian king. Later in the same 1284, King Dragutin became also related with the Bosnian ruling family, by marrying the daughter Jelisaveta (Elisabeth) to Stephen I Kotroman, the son of Ban Prijezda.¹⁸

Obtaining Mačva, Usora and Soli, Dragutin’s domain was more than doubled. That significantly changed the position of King Dragutin and the center of his power. It is notable that since then he was residing, as far as is now known, primarily in the newly acquired possessions on the northern border of his realm. Dragutin placed his court in the town of Debrc on the Sava, and he also stayed in Belgrade, which for the first time in history, albeit temporary, came under the administration of one Serbian ruler.¹⁹ The brothers Milutin and Dragutin closely cooperated during next years. Together they eliminated the threat for the Serbian state which was represented by Dorman and Kudelin, and their lands Kučevo and Braničevo were joined to Dragutin’s state around 1292. In these fighting with Dorman and Kudelin, Dragutin was also supported by his Hungarian relative Andrew III in 1291/1292.²⁰ Thus, the increased territory of Dragutin stretched from Belgrade and Kosmaj mountain to the Iron Gates on the Danube and to the town of Ravno (nowdays Ćuprija) in the Morava valley. Removing the hostile neighbors and territorial expansion in the Danube region strengthened Dragutin’s position and enabled him to act more independently as a ruler.

At the same time, the process of weakening of royal power in Hungary and the rise of powerful oligarchs, with the creation of their independent and semi-independent areas, was advancing during the reign of the last Árpádian king Andrew III (1290–1301), who was faced with open pretensions of the Neapolitan Angevins to the Hungarian crown.²¹ This situation provided the opportunities and possibilities for Stephen Dragutin to strengthen the position of his family, as both the Hungarian king and his Angevin rivals tried to win him over to their side. The Angevins were maternal relatives of Dragutin²², but they were also connected through his wife Katalin, the sister of Neapolitan Queen Maria. King Dragutin and his son Vladislav supported the claims to the Hungarian crown of Charles Martel. That was the reason why he bestowed Vladislav the Duchy of Slavonia as the hereditary possession, and King Charles II of Naples confirmed this donation of his son on August 19, 1292.²³ By all accounts, it was a formal donation, because King Andrew III granted the Duchy of Slavonia to his mother Tomasina (1295) and his uncle Albertino Morosini (1298).²⁴ However, King Dragutin sought to legalize the right of his son to the possession of Slavonia on both sides, so in 1293, Vladislav got married to Constance, the granddaughter of Albertino Morosini.²⁵ The similar policy of cooperation both with the last Árpádian king and the Angevins, in order to increase the estates and to secure their own positions, also pursued some other magnates in Hungary and Croatia at the time (for example, The Slavonian ban Radoslav of Vodica, and even Paul of Bribir, the main pillar of the Angevin party).²⁶

When King Uroš II Milutin, after years of war, agreed with the Byzantines and by marriage to Princess Simonis became imperial son in law in 1299²⁷, the balance of power in Serbia generated from the Deževo agreement was fundamentally disturbed. Through the marriage to the Byzantine princess, King Milutin legalized conquests in Macedonia and significantly raised his international reputation, and it became clear that the priority in succession to the throne would have his offspring from this matrimony.²⁸ This afflicted the interests of Dragutin’s sons in the most direct way, and very soon led to the strife and military conflict between the royal brothers. Open war between Stephen Dragutin and Uroš Milutin broke out in 1301. At first, it looked like that King Milutin achieved some successes since in November 1301 he managed to occupy Rudnik, the important town and mining centre of King Dragutin. However, the fighting then flared up on Milutin’s territory, including the area of the mine Brskovo, today Mojkovac in Montenegro (1303).²⁹ Only fragmentary data have been preserved on that warfare, but it is known that the situation in Serbia was very confusing and variable, that anarchy and insecurity spread and that the neighbours were drawn in the conflict, indirectly or directly. Namely, at the same time the expansion of the Croatian ban Paul of Bribir and his brother Mladen started into Bosnia and the Serbian region of Hum.³⁰

Finding himself in the conflict both with Dragutin and the Bribirians, during the first decade of the 14th century King Uroš II Milutin developed a lively diplomatic activity in the West to reverse the situation in his favour. He sought the protection of Pope Benedict XI (1303–1304) and expressed his readiness to accept the Church union.³¹ The same offer, to convert into Catholicism with the whole country, the Serbian king also presented to the new Pope Clement V (1305–1314) in 1308.³² At that time, King Milutin expected the Pope to legalize the status of his son Stephen.³³ That had certainly been associated with the king’s plan to emphasize Stephen as the successor of the Serbian throne versus the descendants of Dragutin.³⁴ At the same time, Milutin made an alliance with Philip of Taranto, the uncle of Charles Robert (1306), and then with the titular Latin Emperor Charles of Valois (1308).³⁵ Although it was an evident anti-Byzantine alliance, Milutin’s later cordial ties with his father-in-law Andronicus II and the absence of any real will to carry out the ecclesiastical union with Rome show the real reasons of such Western policy of the Serbian king. They can be found in the current European developments – the plans of Charles of Valois and the Papacy for the restoration of the Latin Empire, and in Milutin’s on-going clashes with his brother and with the Bribirians over the territory of Hum.³⁶ It is certain that the changing of the church orientation would have caused a huge uproar in the country and turned many royal supporters against him, especially those from the ecclesiastical circles. This would certainly have been used by King Dragutin.

The position and actions of King Dragutin and his family during the decade of fighting over the Hungarian throne are only partially known, but from those few data the evolution of attitude and ambitions of the “king of Srem” can be seen. In the beginning, Dragutin and his wife Katalin supported the pretensions of their Neapolitan cousin Charles Robert. When the son of Charles Martel departed for Hungary in early 1300, his grandfather King Charles of Naples wrote to his “very dear sister”, Serbian Queen Katalin, to negotiate with the Hungarian barons and nobility in order to recognize Robert Charles as the king of Hungary.³⁷ During his fight for the Hungarian throne in the first years of the 14th century, Charles Robert stayed in the southern parts of the kingdom. According to Đura Hardi, Charles Robert took up residence with his royal household at the Cistercian monastery of Belafons (Bélakút) in Petrovaradin in Srem from the summer of 1301 until the first half of May 1304. The choice of Charles’ location was probably significantly influenced by his main local supporter and powerful overlord of the area Ugrin Csák. But another reason why this particular spot on the Danube was chosen to be king’s seat should be sought in the support of his cousin and neighbour Stefan Dragutin, too.³⁸

However, several years later, Dragutin came into conflict with the young Angevin king, who at that time still struggled to consolidate his position in Hungary.³⁹ It was mostly considered in historiography that Dragutin’s confrontation with the Hungarian monarch was the consequence of his alliance with the Transylvanian voivode Ladislas Kán, made in 1308. As it is well known, the Transylvanian voivode came into the possession of the crown of St. Stephen when he captured his former ally Otto of Bavaria. It was also believed that open fighting between Dragutin’s and the forces loyal to Charles Robert started no later than the spring of 1309. Actually, that happened at least a year and a half earlier. According to a charter of Charles Robert issued on October 13, 1307, the “king of Serbia Stephen” ravaged the territory of Srem and took the captives, wherefore the military detachments of Ugrinus Csák crossed the Sava, defeated the army of King Stephen, and also of palatine Tyuz, apparently Dragutin’s chief dignitary, and sent their flags to King Charles.⁴⁰ The alliance between Stephen Dragutin and Ladislas Kán was strengthened by the marriage between the voivode’s daughter and the son of the Serbian monarch.⁴¹ The sources don’t tell us the name of the Serbian prince who was married to Kán’s daughter, but it is believed that that was Vladislav, because an informed Serbian writer from the 14th century claimed that Dragutin intended the Serbian throne to his other son Urošic.⁴² However, Urošic became a monk and died at the young age, and today it isn’t known when it exactly happened.⁴³ In genealogical terms, Vladislav Nemanjić had the same rights to the Hungarian crown, which was in possession of his wife’s father, as well as Charles Robert of Anjou: Vladislav was the grandson, while Charles I was the great-grandson of King Stephen V. Admittedly, Maria, the grandmother of Charles was the elder, and Serbian queen Katalin the younger daughter of Stephen V, but the thing that primarily disqualified one Nemanjić to become the Hungarian ruler was his Orthodox faith.⁴⁴ The papal legate Cardinal Gentile condemned the marriage between the daughter of Ladislas Kán and the son of a “schismatic king” and put the Transylvanian voivode under the interdict at the end of 1309.⁴⁵ In the meantime, during the September of 1308, the Hungarian king stayed in Srem, which was most probably connected with Dragutin, i.e. with his alliance to Ladislas Kán.⁴⁶ It is possible that the fighting of Stephen Dragutin and his supporters with the adherents of Charles Robert in the areas of Srem and Valkó counties continued during 1308 and 1309. Namely, some documents from 1309 and 1310 mention the destruction which King Dragutin and his loyal men from Hungary did in Srem, but it is not clear whether this refers to the struggle which is discussed above and mentioned in the charter of 1307, or to the later conflicts.⁴⁷ However, faced with the ecclesiastical sanction, Ladislas Kán had to give up his grand plans, and to submit to Charles Robert in 1310.⁴⁸

Thus, because of the circumstances, Stephen Dragutin was in situation to simultaneously lead the fight on two fronts, in an effort to ensure the Serbian crown to one son (probably Urošic) and the Hungarian crown to the another son (apparently Vladislav). He continued the conflict with the Hungarian king during 1311 and 1312, after Ladislas Kán submitted to Charles Robert.⁴⁹ At the same time, his cause also had good perspectives in Serbia, where the majority of nobility abandoned King Uroš Milutin. However, with the help of mercenaries gathered from Byzantium and the other side, King Milutin had managed not only to suppress the rebellion among the nobility at the end of 1311 or during 1312, but likely to strike a blow to brother Stephen Dragutin.⁵⁰ The peace between the two Serbian kings, apparently concluded during 1312, shows that neither side won a decisive victory.⁵¹ The issue of the inheritance of the Serbian throne seems to remain open, as indicated by the formulation concerning future Serbian rulers in Milutin’s charters issued in those years⁵², and by the rebellion of his eldest son Stephen in 1314.⁵³ On the other hand, in his confirmation of King Milutin’s donation charter for the monastery of St. Stephen in Banjska (1314/16), Dragutin had to sign as “the former king”. This clearly shows his subjection to the younger brother as the only legal king at that time.⁵⁴

After settling with his brother, Dragutin intended to continue the fight in Hungary. In the summer of 1313 he was preparing the army to cross the river Sava, but he received an invitation from his brother and senior to join him in a campaign against the Croatian Ban Mladen II, who, after the death of Ban Paul in 1312, renewed expansion in Hum. King Dragutin suspended preparations for the war in Hungary, and sent military support to his brother. It seems that the military detachments of kings Milutin and Dragutin in the Littoral were led by their sons Stephen and Vladislav, who stayed in Dubrovnik in November 1313, in the span of ten days.⁵⁵ The following year, by all accounts, Dragutin officially reconciled with Charles Robert, whom he presumably met in Sremska Mitrovica in the early February of 1314.⁵⁶

Before his death, King Stephen Dragutin handed over the authority to his son Vladislav at the state assembly of their country. Informing King Milutin of the new situation, Stephen Dragutin, following the example of his ancestors, became a monk and died on March 12, 1316.⁵⁷ Settling the relations with the Hungarian ruler, who claimed the supreme right to a significant part of the country of Dragutin and Vladislav, probably involved taking the oath of the vassal fidelity of the new “king of Srem” to Charles Robert. However, the question is whether Vladislav II even arrived to formalize his position to the Hungarian crown, since King Milutin soon took the opportunity and detained his nephew.⁵⁸ Milutin occupied the whole territory of Vladislav, including the parts which Dragutin had received from the Hungarians.⁵⁹ The reaction of the Hungarian king was fast; Charles attacked the Serbian ruler and occupied the castle of Mačva on the river Sava early in 1317.⁶⁰ Serbian-Hungarian fighting in the provinces of Mačva and Srem continued the next year with the counter-offensive of King Milutin.⁶¹ Charles Robert also fit his confrontation with King Milutin into the framework of a broader anti-Serbian alliance. He made a pact with his uncle Philip of Taranto, and two Angevins had strong support from Pope John XXII in their action against the Serbian king. In the summer of 1318 Croatian Ban Mladen II for the third time occupied some parts of the Serbian territory.⁶² Probably the biggest part of possessions that were once ceded to king Dragutin, including Belgrade, was returned under the rule of the Hungarian crown during the great expedition of Charles Robert in August and September of 1319.⁶³ However, the Serbian-Hungarian military conflicts over the territories and possessions in the Danube and the Sava region continued in several occasions during the 14th century.⁶⁴

Removing his rebellious eldest son Stephen and nephew Vladislav as potential heirs to the crown, in the last years of his life King Uroš Milutin began to prepare his younger son Konstantin for future ruler.⁶⁵ However, at the time of the king’s death on October 29, 1321, the question of a successor was not definitively resolved. Turmoil in the country, which began even during Milutin’s illness and ruthless struggle for Serbian crown between half-brothers Stephen and Konstantin, ended in defeat and murder of the latter and the crowning of Stephen III Dečanski on January 6, 1322, enabled Vladislav II to escape from imprisonment.⁶⁶ Vladislav II took power in the territory of his father, relying on the local nobility, and maybe he had the help of the Hungarian king. Although he was not able to restore his father’s country to the full extent – Bosnian ban Stjepan II Kotromanić ruled Usora and Soli already in 1323⁶⁷ – for a few years Vladislav II managed to survive as a monarch. He organized his court with appropriate dignitaries and administrative apparatus, minted money⁶⁸, gave regal revenues in the lease to the citizens of Dubrovnik (Ragusa) and guaranteed them freedom of trade.⁶⁹ It seemed that the situation in the Serbian state was similar to that from the time of Milutin and Dragutin. However, the dispute between the two Serbian kings broke out in 1323 over the possession of Rudnik, an important mining centre that had a significant role in the previous confrontation of their fathers. Already at the end of 1323 King Stephen III Dečanski took over Rudnik, and then in 1324 the nearby fortress Ostrovica, also in the region of Rudnik, passed to him.⁷⁰ In 1325 or, more probably in 1326, King Stephen III succeeded to expel his cousin Vladislav II from the whole of his territory.⁷¹ Vladislav II had sought refuge in Hungary, where, according to the testimonies of the later Serbian chroniclers (the second part of 14th – the first part of 15th century), he remained until his death.⁷²

There is no later information of Vladislav II, who was about 50 years old when he was expelled out of his state. If the data of the Serbian chroniclers are true, then the claims of Mauro Orbini that Stefan Dečanski captured Vladislav and that he died in prison are false. In Orbin’s description of the struggles for the Serbian throne after the death of King Milutin there are other errors and inaccuracies (for example, that Vladislav was the son of Milutin, or that Konstantin died in a clash with Vladislav, and not with Stefan Dečanski). However, Orbin gave an interesting characterization of Vladislav II as incompetent ruler, useless and inexperienced in the art of war. This is why, according to Orbin, Vladislav, although a relative of the Hungarian king, did not enjoy good reputation in Hungary and didn’t received any help from that side.⁷³ It is not known how long he lived in Hungary, if he had any property in that country, when and how he died. Judging by the fresco portraits which were made after his death, Vladislav II did not live to an old age.⁷⁴ No one also knows what happened to his sons, who were mentioned in a letter of Vladislav from 1323.⁷⁵ In this way, the specific creation called the “country of King Stephen” disappeared after four decades of existing, and three generations of descendants of King Milutin ruled Serbia during its greatest period in the 14th century.

RIVALUL ȘI VASALUL LUI CAROL ROBERT DE ANJOU: REGELE VLADISLAV AL II-LEA NEMANJIĆ

Rezumat

Vladislav al II-lea (cca. 1270–după 1326) a fost fiul regelui sârb Ștefan Dragutin (1276–1282, m. 1316) și al reginei Caterina Árpád. Obligat să cedeze tronul fratelui său mai tânăr, Ștefan Uroș al II-lea Milutin (1282–1321), Dragutin și-a păstrat titlul regal și părțile nordice ale statului sârb. În anul 1284 a primit de la fratele său vitreg, regele ungar Ladislau al IV-lea, posesiunile ungare de la sud de Sava și Dunăre (Belgrad și Mačva). Ștefan Dragutin a susținut drepturile fiilor săi la tronul Serbiei, fapt pentru care s-a războit cu fratele său, Milutin, timp îndelungat (1301–1312). În același timp, l-a căsătorit pe fiul său Vladislav cu fiica voievodului Transilvaniei, Ladislau Kán, și și-a anunțat candidatura la tronul Ungariei. Deși acest fapt a determinat conflictul militar dintre Carol Robert și Ștefan Dragutin (1307–1313), pretențiile prințului sârb nu au pus serios în primejdie autoritatea tânărului rege Angevin. Vladislav al II-lea i-a succedat tatălui său la conducerea statului (1316), cel mai probabil ca vasal al regelui Carol Robert. Cu toate acestea, Vladislav a fost capturat în curând de unchiul său, Milutin, care a ocupat și teritoriile acestuia. Acest fapt a dus la conflictul dintre Milutin și Carol Robert și, după moartea regelui sârb, Vladislav al II-lea a refăcut, pentru un scurt timp, statul (1321–1326). Expulzat de fiul lui Milutin, regele Stefan al III-lea Dečanski (1321–1331), Vladislav al II-lea a fugit în Ungaria, unde cel mai probabil a și murit.

1. Mihailo Dinić, “O ugarskom ropstvu kralja Uroša I,” Istorijski časopis I (1948): 30–36; Sima Ćirković, “Srpske i pomorske zemlje kralja Uroša I,” in S. Ćirković ed., Istorija srpskog naroda vol. I (Beograd: Srpska književna zadruga hereafter SKZ, 1981), 352; John V. A. Fine, The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century to the Ottoman Conquest (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2009), 203; Gál Judit, “IV. Béla és I. Uroš Szerb uralkodó kapcsolata,” Századok, CXLVII/2 (2013): 481–483, 491–492. ↩︎
2. Augustinus Theiner, Vetera monumenta historica Hungariam sacram illustrantia, vol. I (Romae, 1859- Osnabrüsk 1968²), 303; Ćirković, “Kralj Stefan Dragutin,” Račanski zbornik III (1998): 13. ↩︎
3. Arhiepiskop Danilo II i drugi, Životi kraljeva i arhiepiskopa srpskih, ed. Đura Daničić (Zagreb, 1866), 13; Milka Ivković, “Ustanova, mladog kralja u srednjovekovnoj Srbiji,” Istorijski glasnik 3-4 (1957): 60-61, 71-72; Ćirković, “Srpske i pomorske zemlje,” 352; Ćirković, “Kralj Stefan Dragutin,” 12-13; Rade Mihaljčić, “Mladi kralj,” in S. Ćirković, R. Mihaljčić ed, Leksikon srpskog srednjeg veka, (Beograd: Knowledge, 1999), 413-414. On the other hand, Smilja Marjanović-Dušanić, Vladarska ideologija Nemanjića. Diplomatička studija (Beograd: SKZ, 1994), 50-51, claims that the title of “younger king” was introduced in Serbia under the Hungarian influence, but even before Dragutin’s engagement, because he was depicted as the heir of the throne in the fresco in the monastery of Sopoćani in 1265. For the substantial differences between the Hungarian and the Serbian institution of the “younger king”, see: Gál, “IV. Béla és I. Uroš,” 485-491. ↩︎
4. Danilo II, Životi, 13-16; Ivković, “Ustanova,” 60-61. ↩︎
5. Ćirković, “Srpske i pomorske zemlje,” 354-355; Ćirković, “Kralj Stefan Dragutin,” 13; Fine, The Late Medieval Balkans, 203-204. ↩︎
6. Danilo II, Životi, 15-19; Ćirković, “Srpske i pomorske zemlje,” 352-353, 355-356; Ćirković, “Kralj Stefan Dragutin,” 13-14; Sima Ćirković, The Serbs (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004), 48-49; István Vásáry, Cumans and Tatars – Oriental Military in the Pre-Ottoman Balkans, 1185-1365 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 99-100; Aleksandar Uzelac, “Kumani u srednjovekovnoj Srbiji,” Glasnik Istorijskog arhiva Valjevo XLIII (2009): 8-9. ↩︎
7. Vladislav was the firstborn son of Dragutin, which was testified by the documentary sources (Tadija Smičiklas, Codex diplomaticus Regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae. Diplomatički zbornik Kraljevine Hrvatske, Dalmacije i Slavonije, vol. VII (Zagreb: JAZU, 1909), 103) as well as by the portraits of Vladislav and his brother Urošic in the nartex of the church in Arilje in Western Serbia (the main endowment od King Dragutin) from 1296: Ivan Đorđević, “O portretima u Arilju: slika i istorija,” in Sveti Ahilije u Arilju: istorija, umetnost, Zbornik radova (Beograd: Republički zavod za zaštitu spomenika kulture, 2002), 140–141, 144; Dragan Vojvodić, Zidno slikarstvo crkve Svetog Ahilija u Arilju (Beograd: Stubovi kulture, 2005), 171, pl. 33. Therefore, S. Ćirković was wrong when he clamed that Urošic was the eleder son of King Dragutin: Ćirković, “Srpske i pomorske zemlje,” 496. ↩︎
8. Vladislav could get his name after the paternal uncle of his father, the former Serbian king Vladislav I (1234–1243), but also after his maternal uncle, the Hungarian king Ladislas (László) IV (1272–1290). ↩︎
9. Ćirković, “Srpske i pomorske zemlje,” 356; Ljubomir Maksimović, “Počeci osvajačke politike,” in Istorija srpskog naroda vol. I, 437, 439; Miloš Blagojević, “Srpsko kraljevstvo i ‚države’ u delu Danila II,” in V. J. Đurić ed., Arhiepiskop Danilo II i njegovo doba, Zbornik radova (Beograd: SANU, 1991), 143–145; Ćirković, “Kralj Stefan Dragutin,” 14–15; Miroslav Popović, Srpska kraljica Jelena između katoličanstva i pravoslavlja (Beograd: Pravoslavni bogoslovski fakultet, 2010), 44–54. Ivan Đurić, “Deževski sabor u delu Danila II,” in Arhiepiskop Danilo II i njegovo doba, 176–178, argues that Milutin had his domain after Dragutin came to the throne, but also that he had a royal title. However, the latter thesis does not seem likely. Cf. Marjanović-Dušanić, Vladarska ideologija, 119, n. 66. Vlada Stanković, Kralj Milutin (1282–1321) (Beograd: Freska, 2012), 68–69, goes a step further, bringing the assumption of the joint rule of the brothers and Queen Jelena in the entire period from 1276 to 1299, namely, that up to 1282 Dragutin had the supreme power and Milutin thereafter. The author based this hypothesis on, in our view, the wrong dating of Milutin’s marriage to the Hungarian Princess Elizabeth in the period from 1276 to 1284. For arguments that Milutin’s marriage to Elizabeth was concluded in the last decade of the 13th century, see: Aleksandar Uzelac, “O srpskoj princezi i bugarskoj carici Ani (Prilog poznavanju brakova kralja Milutina),” Istorijski časopis LXIII (2014): 33–39. ↩︎
10. Danilo II, Životi, 24–28, 106–107. Cf. Mihailo Dinić, “Odnos između kralja Milutina i Dragutina,” Zbornik radova Vizantološkog instituta (=ZRVI) III (1955): 52; Danica Popović, “Kult kralja Dragutina – monaha Teoktista,” ZRVI XXXVIII (1999–2000): 311–312, 324; Stanković, Kralj Milutin, 62–66. ↩︎
11. Olgierd Górka ed., Anonymi descriptio Europae orientalis: imperium Constantinopolitanum, Albania, Serbia, Bulgaria, Ruthenia, Ungaria, Polonia, Bohemia, anno MCCCCVIII exarata (Cracoviae: Sumptibus Academiae Litterarum, 1916), 34; Tibor Živković, Vladeta Petrović, Aleksandar Uzelac eds, Anonymi descriptio Europae orientalis. Anonimov opis istočne Evrope, kritičko izdanje latinskog teksta, prevod i filološka analiza Dragana Kunčer (Beograd: Istorijski institut, 2013), 124–125, 166, note CXL. ↩︎
12. Georgii Pachymeris de Michaele et Andronico Paleologo libri XIII, ed. I. Bekker, vol. II (Bonnae, 1835), 273; Dinić, “Odnos,” 50–56; Ivković, “Ustanova,” 66; Maksimović, “Počeci,” 438–439; Maksimović, “Kralj Dragutin u očima Vizantinaca,” Račanski zbornik, vol. III (1998): 100. On the other hand, there are different opinions. Leonidas Mavromatis, La Fondation de l’Empire Serbe: le kralj Milutin (Thessalonique: Center for Byzantine studies, 1978), 16–27, believes that the question of who was to succeed Milutin was not decided at Deževo. Ćirković, “Kralj Stefan Dragutin,” 17–19, considers that today we cannot find out the true nature of Deževo agreement. Đorđević, “O portretima u Arilju,” 142–144, points out that based on the preserved portraits of Dragutin’s sons in the monasteries of Đurđevi Stupovi (1282/83?) and Arilje (1296) one can’t conclude that Dragutin emphasized the hereditary rights of his offspring to the Serbian throne. Marjanović-Dušanić, Vladarska ideologija, 124–126, and Jovanka Kalić, “Kralj Dragutin između Đurđevih Stupova, Beograda i Arilja,” Račanski zbornik, III (1998): 32, concluded that Vladislav was depicted as the heir of the throne in the founder’s composition in the chapel of Đurdjevi Stupovi. According to Vojvodić, Zidno slikarstvo, 171, portraits of the sons of Dragutin and Milutin demonstrate that the issue of succession was not definitely solved in Deževo or in the next few decades, because neither of them was depicted as the heir to the throne. However, Vojvović claims that the iconographical context of the portraits of the princes shows that both Dragutin and Milutin tried to justify the rights of their sons to the Serbian throne. ↩︎
13. Dinić, “Odnos,” 53–56, argues that Dragutin didn’t “officially” have the royal title after his abdication in 1282. This conclusion is then accepted by several eminent Serbian scholars: Maksimović, “Počeci,” 438–439; Ćirković, “Kralj Stefan Dragutin,” 11. However, a number of sources (written, visual, numismatic) testify that after his abdication in 1282 Dragutin was considered the king, both in his land and outside of it (including the West), with due emphasis of the Milutin’s primacy: Marjanović-Dušanić, Vladarska ideologija, 118–126. ↩︎
14. Mihailo Dinić, Srpske zemlje u srednjem veku (Beograd: SKZ, 1978), 134–147; Maksimović, “Počeci,” 439; Blagojević, “Srpsko kraljevstvo i ,države,” 145; Ćirković, “Kralj Stefan Dragutin,” 19; Fine, The Late Medieval Balkans, 217–218; Popović, Srpska kraljica, 51–54. ↩︎
15. Mihailo Dinić, Za istoriju rudarstva u srednjovekovnoj Srbiji i Bosni, vol. II (Beograd: SANU, 1962), 3; Sima Ćirković, Desanka Kovačević-Kojić, Ruža Čuk, Staro srpsko rudarstvo (Beograd: Vukova zadužbina- Novi Sad: Prometej: 2002), 28, 34–35. ↩︎
16. Dinić, “Odnos,” 69; Dinić, Srpske zemlje, 132–133, 281; Jovanka Kalić-Mijušković, Beograd u srednjem veku (Beograd: SKZ, 1967), 66; Maksimović, “Počeci,” 441; Vásáry, Cumans and Tatars, 102–103; Sima Ćirković, “Zemlja Mačva i grad Mačva,” Prilozi za književnost, jezik, istoriju i folklor LXXIV 74/1–4 (2008): 5, 10–11; Đura Hardi, “Gospodari i banovi Onostranog Srema i Mačve u XIII veku,” Spomenica Istoriskog arhiva “Srem” VIII (2009): 77–78. ↩︎
17. Wenzel Gusztáv, Árpádkori új okmánytár. Codex diplomaticus Arpadianus continuatus XII (Pest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1874), 439; Györffy György, “Adatok a románok XIII. századi történetéhez és a román állam kezdeteihez,” Történelmi Szemle VII (1964): 14–19; Vásáry, Cumans and Tatars, 103–107; Aleksandar Uzelac, Pod senkom psa. Tatari i južnoslovenske zemlje u drugoj polovini XIII veka (Beograd: Utopija, 2015), 118–120, 204–205. ↩︎
18. Gregor Čremošnik, Istorijski spomenici Dubrovačkog arhiva, vol. III/1. Kancelarijski i notarski spisi 1278-1301 (Beograd: Srpska kraljevska akademija, hereafter SKA, 1932), 137; Vladimir Ćorović, Historija Bosne (Beograd: SKA, 1940), 207; Ćirković, “Unutrašnje borbe početkom XIV veka,” in Istorija srpskog naroda, vol. I, 450; Ćirković, “Kralj Stefan Dragutin,” 17; Jelena Mrgić, Severna Bosna 13-16. vek (Beograd: Istorijski institute, 2008), 60-63. ↩︎
19. Danilo II, Životi, 43-44, 47, 97; Dinić, Srpske zemlje, 46-47; Kalić-Mijušković, Beograd, 66-69; Kalić, “Kralj Dragutin,” 33-34; Sima Ćirković, “,Crna Gora’ i problem srpsko-ugarskog graničnog područja,” in Valjevo – postanak i uspon gradskog središta (Valjevo: Narodni muzej, 1994), 61-62. ↩︎
20. Danilo II, Životi, 114-122; Smičiklas, Codex diplomaticus, vol. VII, 309; Szentpétery Imre, Borsa Iván, Az Árpád-házi királyok okleveleinek kritikai jegyzéke. Regesta regum stirpis Arpadianae critico diplomatica, vol. II/4 (1290-1301) (Budapest: Magyar Országos Levéltár kiadványai, 1987), 124-125, no. 3951, 201, no. 4182; Dinić, Srpske zemlje, 97-98, n. 35; Maksimović, “Počeci,” 443, n. 28; Ćirković, “Zemlja Mačva,” 11; Aleksandar Uzelac, “Tatars and Serbs at the End of the Thirteenth Century,” Revista de istorie militară V-VI (2011): 11-13; Uzelac, Pod senkom psa, 205-210, believes that King Milutin married the Hungarian Princess Elisabeth the most probably in 1292, as a result of the Serbian-Hungarian cooperation against Dorman and Kudelin. ↩︎
21. Bálint Hóman, Geschichte des ungarischen Mittelalters, vol. II (Berlin: Verlag Walter de Gruyter, 1943), 222–235, 263–269; Pál Engel, The Realm of St Stephen. A History of Medieval Hungary 895–1526 (London-New York: I. B. Tauris, 2005), 110–111; Kristó Gyula, A feudalis szétagolódós Magyarországon (Budapest: Akadémia kiadó, 1979) 139–204. ↩︎
22. The degree of kinship of King Charles of Naples and his “dear cousins” Serbian Queen Jelena and her sister Maria has not been precisely determined. There is an assumption, still without final confirmation, that Queen Jelena was the daughter of the lord of Srem John Angelos and Matilda of Požega, the daughter of Margaret of Namur and Henri, Count of Vianden. Matilda was the niece of the Latin Emperor of Constantinople Baldwin II: Gordon McDaniel, “On Hungarian-Serbian Relations in the Thirteenth Century: John Angelos and Queen Jelena,” Ungarn-Jahrbuch, Zeitschrift für die Kunde Ungarns und verwandte Gebiete XII (1982–1983): 47–50. In that case, Jelena’s marriage to the Serbian king (sometime around 1250) primarily resulted from the Serbian-Hungarian relationships, and not from the Serbian-French, or the relations between Serbia and the Latin East, as it was considered in the earlier Serbian historiography. See also: Stanković, Kralj Milutin, 52–54. ↩︎
23. Smičiklas, Codex diplomaticus, vol. VII, 103–104; Vjekoslav Klaić, Povjest Hrvata od najstarijih vremena do svršetka XIX stoljeća, vol. I (Zagreb, 1899), 269–272, vol. II/1 (1900), 6–7; Ćorović, Historija, 213, 220–222; Dinić, “Odnos,” 51–52, 57, 66; Ćirković, “Unutrašnje borbe,” 450; Fine, The Late Medieval Balkans, 208; Đura Hardi, “Da li je u Mitrovici 1314. godine došlo do susreta, sremskog kralja’ Dragutina i ugarskog kralja Karla Roberta?,” Spomenica Istoriskog arhiva “Srem” 6 (2007): 104. ↩︎
24. Klaić, Povjest Hrvata I, 275, 285; Zsoldos Attila, Magyarország világi archontológiája 1000–1301 (Budapest: História. MTA Történettudományi intézete, 2011), 181–182. ↩︎
25. The envoys of King Stephen Dragutin and Queen Katalin, the Bosnian Bishop Basil (Basilio) and Ragusan Vita Bobaljević concluded the marriage contract with the Morosini family in Venice on 24th August 1293: Jovan Radonić, Dubrovačka akta i povelje, vol. I/1 (Beograd: SKA, 1934), 83–84; Ćirković, “Unutrašnje borbe,” 450; Ruža Ćuk, Srbija i Venecija u XIII i XIV veku (Beograd: Istorijski institut, 1986), 21–22; Popović, Srpska kraljica, 88; Ivana Komatina, Crkva i država u srpskim zemljama od XI do XIII veka (Beograd: Istorijski institut, 2016), 386–387. ↩︎
26. Klaić, Povjest Hrvata I, 272–274, II/1, 5–6; Nada Klaić, Povijest Hrvata u razvijenom srednjem vijeku (Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 1976), 417–421; Damir Karbić, “Šubići Bribirski do gubitka nasljedne banske časti (1322),” Zbornik Odsjeka za povijesne znanosti Zavoda za povijesne i društvene znanosti HAZU XXII (2004): 15. ↩︎
27. Dinić, “Odnos,” 56–58; Maksimović, “Počeci,” 445–447; Stanković, Kralj Milutin, 95–113. ↩︎
28. Pachymeres, vol. II, 273–274, 286; Dinić, “Odnos,” 58, 61–62, 67; Ćirković, “Unutrašnje borbe,” 449–450; Ćirković, The Serbs, 51–52; Maksimović, “Kralj Dragutin,” 100–101; Stanković, Kralj Milutin, 101–103, 105, 110–111, 117. ↩︎
29. Čremošnik, Kancelarijski i notarski spisi, 164; Monumenta Ragusina. Libri reformationum, vol. V, 1301–1336 (Zagrabie, 1897), 27, 58, 60, 68; Vladimir Mošin, Sima Ćirković, Dušan Sindik, Zbornik srednjovekovnih ćiriličkih povelja i pisama Srbije, Bosne i Dubrovnika, vol. I: 1186–1321 (Beograd: Istorijski institut, 2011) 341–347; Dinić, “Odnos,” 59–60; Dinić, Za istoriju rudarstva, vol. II, 4; Ćirković, “Unutrašnje borbe,” 451–452; Fine, The Late Medieval Balkans, 256–257. ↩︎
30. Mihailo Dinić, “Comes Constantinus,” ZRVI VII (1961): 5–10; Sima Ćirković, Istorija srednjovekovne bosanske države (Beograd: SKZ, 1964), 77–80; Ćirković, “Unutrašnje borbe,” 453–454, 460, 473; Siniša Mišić, Humska zemlja u srednjem veku (Beograd: DBR Publishing/Filozofski fakultet, 1996), 54–55. Karbić, “Šubići Bribirski do gubitka,” 17, 21–22. On the other hand, A. Uzelac and B. Radovanović pointed out that none of the Ragusan documents, which refer to the warfare in Serbia from 1301 to 1305, explicitly mentioned clashes between Dragutin and Milutin. The authors thus believe that some accounts and indications in those documents about the war between Milutin and Ban Paul of Bribir, Dinić wrongly attributed to the later fighting between Milutin and Dragutin. The Bribirians were the common enemies to both of the royal brothers at that time, and the open conflict between Dragutin and Milutin didn’t start until 1308: Aleksandar Uzelac, Bojana Radovanović, “Crkvena i svetovna politika kralja Milutina prema zapadnim silama početkom XIV veka – nekoliko novih zapažanja,” in Sveti car Konstantin i hrišćanstvo/Saint Emperor Constantine and Christianity, vol. I, ed. D. Bojović (Niš: Centar za crkvene studije, 2013), 602–603. Although some of this remarks could be true, the facts are that Rudnik passed from Dragutin’s to Milutin’s hands in 1301, and that it was returned to the elder brother after the conflict was over. ↩︎
31. Theiner, Monumenta Hungariae, vol. I, 410; Dinić, “Odnos,” 62; Popović, Srpska kraljica, 85. ↩︎
32. Augustinus Theiner, Vetera monumenta Slavorum meridionalium historiam illustrantia (1198–1549), vol. I (Roma: Typis Vaticanis, 1863), 127–130; Miodrag Purković, Avinjonske pape i srpske zemlje (Požarevac, 1934), 11–17. ↩︎
33. The Pope ordered his legates to influence the Serbian king in order to leave some part of his country to his “illegitimate” son: Uzelac, Radovanović, “Crkvena i svetovna politika,” 596, n. 21. Stephen was, by all accounts, born in some kind of morganatic marriage before Milutin asseded to the throne: Vizantijski izvori za istoriju naroda Jugoslavije, vol. VI (SANU: Beograd, 1986), 40–42, n. 82 (comentary of LJ. Maksimović); Smilja Marjanović-Dušanić, Sveti kralj – kult Stefana Dečanskog (Beograd: Balkanološki institut/Clio, 2007), 205–208, 211, 227–228, 260–261. ↩︎
34. It seems that Stephen became heir to the throne and replaced the old Queen Jelena in governing of Zeta and the other coastal regions already in 1306, and certainly before 1309: Dinić, “Odnos,” 62, 67; Ivković, “Ustanova,” 67; Marica Malović, “Stefan Dečanski i Zeta,” Istorijski zapisi LI (1979): 16–17; Blagojević, “Srpsko kraljevstvo i države,” 145–146; Marjanović-Dušanić, Vladarska ideologija, 129, 133–140; Marjanović-Dušanić, Sveti kralj, 225–232. ↩︎
35. Thallóczy Lajos, Barabás Samu, A Blagay-család oklevéltára. Codex diplomaticus comitum de Blagay (Budapest: MTA, 1897), 70–71; Mavromatis, La Fondation, 55–57, 123–136; Dinić, “Odnos,” 62; Ćirković, “Unutrašnje borbe,” 456; Stanković, Kralj Milutin, 123–124; Živković, Petrović, Uzelac, Anonymi descriptio, 32–39. ↩︎
36. Before the papal legates King Milutin justified himself that the union with the Catholic Church couldn’t be performed because of the fear of his mother (who, by the way, came from the Catholic family and was undoubtedly inclined to Catholicism) and his brother: Guillaume Mollat ed., Vitae Paparum Avenionensium, vol. I (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1914), 65; Purković, Avinjonske pape, 17; Dinić, “Odnos,” 67; Ćirković, “Unutrašnje borbe,” 455–457; Popović, Srpska kraljica, 96; Stanković, Kralj Milutin, 121–126. Insincere attitude towards the papacy provided Milutin very bad image in Anonymi descriptio Europae Orientalis, ed. Górka, 35; ed. Živković, Petrović, Uzelac, Radovanović, “Crkvena i svetovna politika,” 596–600. ↩︎
37. A month later, on 10th February 1300, Charles II informed the most important supporters of the Angevins in Hungary, among them King Stephen Dragutin and Queen Katalin, that his grandson Charles Robert departed for Hungary: Smičiklas, Codex diplomaticus, vol. VII, 363, 367; Ćorović, Historija, 215; Dinić, “Odnos,” 57. ↩︎
38. Đura Hardi, “Petrovaradin – the “Seat” of Charles Robert of Anjou,” in The Cultural and Historical Heritage of Vojvodina in the Context of Classical and Medieval Studies, ed. Đ. Hardi (Novi Sad: Filozofski fakultet, 2015), 139–168, esp. 161–168. ↩︎
39. Hóman, Geschichte, vol. II, 275–288; Engel, The Realm, 128–130; Kristó Gyula, Makk Ferenc eds, Károly Róbert emlékezete (Budapest: Európa Könyvkiadó, 1988), 15–20; Gyula Kristó, “I. Károly király főúri elitje (1301–1309),” Szazadok CXIII/1 (1999): 41–61; Đura Hardi, Drugeti: povest o usponu i padu porodice pratilaca anžujskih kraljeva (Novi Sad: Filozofski fakultet, 2012), 85–90. ↩︎
40. The charter records the merits of Matthew, Paul and Michael, the sons of Ugrin: …Dum Stephanus rex Servie partes regni nostri Hungarie, scilicet Syrmiam captivas abducendo, incendia committendo et spolia diversimoda exercendo devastaret, iidem favore fidelitatis et in nate bonitatis eorum accensi cum certis fidelibus magistri Ugrini ultra fluvium Zava transiendo, nec rebus nec persone percentes militari sua victoria et fideli famulatu validum exercitum eiusdem Stephanum regem devincentes et maiorem exercitus eius seu precessorem videlicet Tyuz palatinum debelando, vexilium eiusdem in Budam nobis transmiserunt…: Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára, Budapest, Diplomatikai fényképgyűjtemény (DF) 285245, the facsimile of the document from Slovenský národný archív, Bratislava (the archive of the Zay family); Kristó Gyula, Anjou-kori Oklevéltár. Documenta res Hungaricas tempore regum Andegavensium illustrantia, vol. II (1306–1310) (Budapest–Szeged, 1992), 112, no 247. ↩︎
41. Acta legationis cardinalis Gentilis. Gentilis bibornok magyarországi követségének okiratai 1307–1311, in Monumenta Vaticana Hungariae I/2 (Budapest, 1885), 371–373; Dinić, “Odnos,” 64–65; E. Szentpétery ed., Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum tempore ducum regumque stirpis Arpadianae gestarum I (Budapestini: Nap Kiadó, 1999²), 486; Kristó Gyula, “Laslo Kan i Transilvanija,” Studia historica ASH CXXXIV (1980): 21–22; Hardi, Drugeti, 90. There is an erroneous belief in the Romanian historiography that the daughter of Ladislas Kán was married to Stephen Uroș (later King Stephen III Dečanski), the son of King Stephen Uroš II Milutin: Nicolae Iorga, Histoire des Roumains et de la Romanité orientale, vol. III: Les foundateur d’état (București: L’Académie Roumaine, 1937), 183; Răzvan Mihai Neagu, Politica beneficială a papalității de la Avignon în Transilvania (1305-1378) (Cluj-Napoca: Editura Mega, 2013), 213. Based on that inaccurate identification, Tudor Sălăgean makes his conclusions on the SerbianTransylvanian alliance as the part of wider political cooperation in the context of the ambitious projects of Charles of Valois in Central-Eastern Europe: Tudor Sălăgean, Transilvania în a doua jumătate a secolului al XIII-lea. Afirmarea regimului congregațional (Cluj-Napoca: Academia Română, Centrul de Studii Transilvane, 2007), 309-312. ↩︎
42. That was stated by the continuator of the work of Danilo II: Danilo II, Životi, 357. The obstacle to this conclusion is the fact that Vladislav married Constance Morosini in 1293, and one her image was preserved, where she was titled as Serbian Queen. If that was not a later anachronism, it would mean that she was the wife of Vladislav as well after 1316: Dinić, “Odnos,” 65–66. ↩︎
43. He was buried in his father’s endowment in Arilje: Ljubomir Stojanović, Stari srpski rodoslovi i letopisi (Sremski Karlovci: SKA, 1927), 72–73; Dinić, “Odnos,” 65–66. ↩︎
44. Although he praised Dragutin as a friend of Catholics, Anonymous advocated the thesis of Angevins and the Catholic Church that only the descendants of the Neapolitan Queen Mary of Hungary were entitled to the throne, because she was the only daughter of Stephen V who remained in the Catholic faith, since her sisters were married to the “schismatics”: Anonymi descriptio, ed Górka, 54; ed. Živković, Petrović, Uzelac, 38, 125, 144. A particular issue is why Anonymous did not mention the conflict between Stephen Dragutin and Charles Robert, especially if his work was not finished in the spring of 1308, as O. Górka thought, but at the end of 1310, or at the beginning of 1311, as it was evidenced by Živković, Uzelac, Petrović, Anonymi descriptio, 51–64. ↩︎
45. Previously, the synod in Buda generally condemned all marriages that Catholics were entered into with heretico patereno, gazaro, scismatico vel alii fidei christiane contrario, maxime Ruthenis, Bulgaris, Rasis (=Serbs) et Littuanis: Acta legationis Gentilis, 371–374; Dinić, “Odnos,” 65, n. 54, 55; Sălăgean, Transilvania, 323–325. ↩︎
46. Kristó, Anjou-kori Oklevéltár II, 188, no 432; Dinić, Srpske zemlje, 283; Hardi, “Petrovaradin,” 151, 158, 164. ↩︎
47. On 2nd July 1309, the bishop of Srem Ladislas stated that he had put some of the documents in a safe shelter for the destruction and devastation of the villages and burning of churches which King Stephen of Serbia committed in the whole province of Srem: Monumenta Vaticana Hungariae I/2, 313; Kristó, Anjou-kori Oklevéltár II, 301, no. 685. On 2nd March 1310, Charles Robert awarded Paul of Gara for his loyalty with the possession of Drenovac in Požega County. Among other merits, he defeated and captured some Ikon, the son of Erard, who, as an ally of Serbian King Stephen, attacked possessions of Ugrin Csák in Srem and Valkó counties: Smičiklas, Codex diplomaticus VIII, 259–260; Klaić, Povjest Hrvata II/1, 11, 13; Dinić, “Odnos,” 64–65, n. 53. ↩︎
48. Ćirković, “Unutrašnje borbe,” 459; Kristó, “Laslo Kan i Transilvanija,” 21–22; Kristó, Makk, Károly Róbert emlékezete, 20–21; Engel, The Realm, 130; Hardi, Drugeti, 90–91, 127. Sălăgean, Transilvania, 325–326, points out that the marriage contract between the daughter of Ladislas Kán and the Serbian prince (who was the son of Dragutin, and not of Milutin as the author believes) wasn’t cancelled after voivode’s reconciliation with King Charles Robert. ↩︎
49. After the death of Vincent, the archbishop of Kalocsa, who was last mentioned as alive at the end of May 1311, the newly elected Archbishop Demetrius could not come to Rome for consecration until the end of 1312, because nobilis vir Stephanus, qui rex Servie in illis partibus nuncupatur, seized some property and rights of his church: Theiner, Monumenta Hungariae, vol. I, 442–443; Kristó Gyula, Anjou-kori Oklevéltár III (1994), 186, no 412; Ćirković, “Unutrašnje borbe,” 459–460, n. 29; cf. Engel Pál, Magyarország világi archontológiája 1301–1457, vol. I (Budapest: MTA, 1996), 64. ↩︎
50. Danilo II, Životi, 357–359; Dinić, “Odnos,” 69–70; Ćirković, “Unutrašnje borbe,” 458; Fine, The Late Medieval Balkans, 257–258; Aleksandar Uzelac, “Najamničke vojske kralja Stefana Uroša II Milutina,” Vojnoistorijski glasnik II (2011): 13–15, 22, 25; Uzelac, “Tatars and Serbs,” 16–17; Uzelac, Pod senkom psa, 251–253. ↩︎
51. At that time, Archbishop Nicodemus (1317–1324) was the abbot of the Serbian monastery Hilandar at the Mount Athos. At the behest of kings Milutin and Dragutin and the sabor (the diet), he went to Constantinople to inform the imperial court of the reconciliation achieved in Serbia. According to Nicodemus, the essence of the agreement was that “the brothers will be unique and rule together the entire Serbian lands according to the God’s words”: Ljubomir Stojanović, Stari srpski zapisi i natpisi, vol. I (Beograd: SKA, 1902), 22. At the end of 1312 and beginning of 1313 Rudnik was again in the possession of King Dragutin: Dinić, “Odnos,” 71–72; Ćirković, “Unutrašnje borbe,” 460; Dragić Živojinović, “Arhiepiskop Nikodim I,” Istorijski časopis XL (2011): 103–104. ↩︎
52. In the documents issued by the chancery of King Milutin it was not openly specified who was the heir to the throne. In some king’s charters as possible future Serbian ruler, in addition to his son and other relatives, nephewes were mentioned too: Mošin, Ćirković, Sindik, Zbornik, 444, 468; Dinić, “Odnos,” 76; Ivković, “Ustanova,” 66–67; Marjanović-Dušanić, Vladarska ideologija, 140–144, 149, and Sveti kralj, 233–235, also mentions the possibility that the agreement provided that Vladislav would inherit only his father’s land. ↩︎
53. Stephen’s rebellion against his father, which ended with his blinding and seven-year exile in Constantinople, most likely was the conceqence of the changing of his status as the heir to the throne after the reconciliation of Milutin and Dragutin: Dinić, “Odnos,” 76–79. S. Ćirković interpreted Stephen’s rebellion primarily as a reaction to the arrival of Despot Demetrius Palaiologos, the brother of Queen Simonis, in Serbia. It looked like that King Milutin was benevolent regarding the ambitious plans of Empress Irine to ensure the Serbian crown to her own son: Ćirković, “Unutrašnja politika kralja Milutina,” in Istorija srpskog naroda, vol. I, 462–465; Ćirković in Vizantijski izvori, 178–179, n. 56. However, it seems more likely that the young despot came to Serbia after Stephen’s rebellion and his removal from the candidacy to the throne. His elder brother Theodore, Margrave of Monferrato, also came to Serbia in 1316: Marjanović-Dušanić, Sveti kralj, 235–236, 239. Stanković, Kralj Milutin, 129–132, assumes that Milutin exiled Stephen to Constantinople due to his expectations of a descendant from the marriage with Queen Simonis. ↩︎
54. Mošin, Ćirković, Sindik, Zbornik, 471; Dinić, “Odnos,” 55, 71–72; Marjanović-Dušanić, Vladarska ideologija, 121, n. 74, 123, 127–128, 148, relying also on the numismatic sources, believes that Dragutin lost his king’s title only by the peace agreement in 1312. On the other hand, Đurić, “Deževski sabor,” 172-175, 191, believes that the term “former king” does not indicate Dragutin’s renunciation of the royal title and the crown, but his loss of the position of sovereign monarch in 1282. ↩︎
55. It is not known what Milutin with the help of Dragutin achieved in this fighting: Dinić, “Odnos,” 68; Dinić, “Comes,” 8-9; Ćirković, “Unutrašnje borbe,” 460; Hardi, “Da li je u Mitrovici,” 106; Marjanović-Dušanić, Sveti kralj, 235. ↩︎
56. King Charles stayed in Sremska Mitrovica (villa Sancti Demetrii) on 4th February 1314: Nagy Imre, Anjoukori okmánytár. Codex diplomaticus Hungaricus Andegavensis, vol I (1301-1321) (Budapest: MTA, 1878), 334; Dinić, “Odnos,” 73-74; Engel Pál, “Az ország újreagzesítése, I. Károly küzdelmei az oligarhák ellen (1310-1323),” Szazadok CXXII / 1-2 (1988): 104, 133, 137; Hardi, “Da li je u Mitrovici,” 101, 106-110; Hardi, Drugeti, 127. ↩︎
57. He was buried in the monastery Đurđevi Stupovi, which was built by his great-grandfather and the founder of the dynasty Stephen Nemanja. King Dragutin was the second founder or patron of the monastery. It seems that Dragutin, consistently insisting on his ties with Nemanja, in that way also wanted to emphasize the rights of his lineage to the Serbian throne: cf. Kalić, “Kralj Dragutin,” 35. There are different opinions among the scholars about the credibility of the story of Danilo II, according to which the dying monk Teoctist expressed a wish that his saintly cult should not be established: Danilo II, Životi, 49-52; cf. Ćirković, “Unutrašnja politika,” 472; Popović, “Kult kralja Dragutina,” 317-325; Marjanović-Dušanić, Sveti kralj, 135-139. ↩︎
58. [Pseudo]Brocardus (i.e. Guillaume Adam), Directorium ad passagium faciendum, ed. Ch. Kohler, Recueil des Historiens des Croisades, vol. II: Documents Arméniens (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1906), 437; M. Madii de Barbazanis, “Historia de gestis romanorum imperatorum et summorum pontificum,” in Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum III, ed. J. Schwandtner (Vindobonae, 1748), 643; Dinić, “Odnos,” 74; Ćirković, “Unutrašnja politika,” 472; Fine, The Late Medieval Balkans, 260–261. ↩︎
59. King Milutin leased revenues from the customs of the market places in Mačva and Lipnik in the Drina region to Ragusans: Smičiklas, Codex diplomaticus, vol. VIII, 543–544; Dinić, Za istoriju rudarstva, vol. I (1955), 46; Sima Ćirković, “Beograd pod kraljem Dušanom?,” Zbornik Istorijskog muzeja Srbije XVII–XVIII (1981): 41. ↩︎
60. Nagy Imre, Páur Iván, Ráth Károly, Véghely Dezső, Hazai okmánytár. Codex diplomaticus patrius, vol. I (Győr, 1865), 124; Nagy, Anjoukori okmánytár, vol. II, 69–70; Engel, Az ország újreagzesítése, 115, 127, 134–142, n. 123, 162; Hardi, Drugeti, 128. ↩︎
61. Georgius Fejér, Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis, vol. VIII/2 (Buda, 1832), 199–200; Nagy, Anjoukori okmánytár, vol. II, 128–129; Ćirković, “Beograd,” 40–41. ↩︎
62. Theiner, Monumenta Hungariae, vol. I, 830; Ćorović, Historija, 239; Bálint Hóman, Gli Angioini di Napoli in Ungheria 1290–1403 (Roma: Reale accademia d’Italia, 1938), 115–126; Dinić, “Comes,” 9–10; Ćirković, “Unutrašnja politika,” 473–474. Karbić, “Šubići Bribirski do gubitka,” 22–23, states that Mladen II acted primarily as the ally of Phillip of Tarento. ↩︎
63. Nagy Imre, Nagy Iván, Véghely Dezső, A zichi és vásonkeői gróf Zichy-család idősb ágának okmánytára. Codex diplomaticus domus senioris comitum Zichy de Zich et Vasonkeo, vol. I (Pest: Magyar Történelmi Társulat, 1871), 169–170; Nagy, Anjoukori okmánytár II, 93. On 2nd July 1320, Pope John XXII informed the German princes and Czech and Polish kings about the great success of the Hungarian king against the “schismatics”, and invited them to come to help him in that fight: Theiner, Monumenta Hungariae, vol. I, 470; Kalić-Mijušković, Beograd, 70–71, 359–360; Ćirković, “Beograd,” 41–42; Engel, Az ország újreagzesítése, 127, 138, 142; Engel, The Realm, 132, 134; Hardi, Drugeti, 128–130. ↩︎
64. Ćirković, “Beograd,” 42–45; Sima Ćirković, “O jednoj srpsko-ugarskoj alijansi,” ZRVI XLIV (2007): 414–417; Engel, The Realm, 134–135, 152. ↩︎
65. Ivković, “Ustanova,” 69; Sima Ćirković, “Vladavina Stefana Uroša III Dečanskog,” in Istorija srpskog naroda vol. I, 496; Marica Malović-Đukić, “Konstantin – sin kralja Milutina,” Istorijski zapisi III–IV (1985): 74–75; Branislav Todić, “Kralj Milutin sa sinom Konstantinom i roditeljima monasima na fresci u Gračanici,” Saopštenja XXV (1993): 12, 14, 17–22; Marjanović-Dušanić, Vladarska ideologija, 145–149. ↩︎
66. M. Madii de Barbazanis, “Historia,” 646; Danilo II, Životi, 155–159, 164–173; A. Davidov, G. Dančev, N. Dončeva-Panaiotova, P. Kovačeva, T. Genčeva, Žitie na Stefan Dečanski ot Grigorii Camblak (Sofia: BAN, 1983), 98–99; Stojanović, Stari srpski rodoslovi i letopisi, 49; [Pseudo] Brocardus, Directorium, 438; Malović-Đukić, “Konstantin,” 70; Sima Ćirković, “Vladavina,” 496–497; Ćirković, The Serbs, 62; Marjanović-Dušanić, Sveti kralj, 253–258, 261–262; Vladeta Petrović, “O tr’penie svetago kralja,” Istorijski časopis LIV (2007): 93–100. ↩︎
67. Mrgić, Severna Bosna, 66. Fine, The Late Medieval Balkans, 265, mixed the Serbian king and the Bosnian ban, so he was wrong when states that Stephen Dečanski had added “Bosnia and Usora” to his title in 1323 and “Soli” in 1324, suggesting that he occupied these regions. ↩︎
68. Sergije Dimitrijević, “Novčane emisije kralja Dragutina, Vladislava II i kralja Milutina,” Starinar XXVII (1976): 131–134, pl. III–V; Vujadin Ivanišević, Novčarstvo srednjovekovne Srbije (Beograd: Stubovi kulture, 2001), 242. ↩︎
69. In the letter to the count and the municipality of Dubrovnik from 25 October 1323, confirming that the Držić brothers paid the money they owed to him, Vladislav signed as rab Hristov gospodin Vladislav (“the servant of Christ, master Vladislav”). However, the phrase “kingdom of me” was repeated more than ten times in the document, and in the accompanying notes to this document from 1323 and 1325, the Ragusans explicitly titled Vladislav as a king. The fact that Vladislav on his only surviving document was not signed as the king, N. Porčić associated with his attitude towards Stephen III Dečanski: Nebojša Porčić, “Pismo kralja Vladislava II knezu i opštini dubrovačkoj (1323, oktobar 25),” Stari srpski arhiv I (2002): 33–36, 45. It seems that the royal relatives for a time coexisted relatively peacefully, since traders from Dubrovnik operated without disruption in both Serbian states during 1322 and 1323: Ćirković, “Vladavina,” 497. ↩︎
70. Monumenta Ragusina, vol. I: 1306–1347 (Zagrabie, 1879), 103, 105, 109, 115–116; Danilo II, Životi, 174; Dinić, Za istoriju rudarstva, vol. II, 4; Ćirković, “Vladavina,” 498; Marjanović-Dušanić, Sveti kralj, 258–260; Fine, The Late Medieval Balkans, 263–264. ↩︎
71. Even on September 19, 1326, in the will of the Ragusan Vito Bobaljević, Vladislav II was entitled as rex, who owed some money to this merchant: Ćirković, “Vladavina,” 498–499, n. 9. ↩︎
72. Stojanović, Stari srpski rodoslovi i letopisi, 72–73. ↩︎
73. Mauro Orbini, Il regno degli Slavi (Pesaro, 1601), 253–254; cf. Sima Ćirković, “Komentari i izvori Mavra Orbina”, in Mavro Orbin, Kraljevstvo Slovena, prevod Zdravko Šundrica (Zrenjanin: Sezam Book, 2006), 313. ↩︎
74. In the fresco “Family tree of the Nemanjić dynasty” in the monastery of Peć patriarchy, painted before 1337, Vladislav II was depicted as a grown man with a long brown beard and hair, while his brother Urošić was shown as a young beardless man, since he died young. In the same fresco, Stefan III of Dečani, who at the time of death in 1331 was about 55 years old, was depicted like Vladislav II, with long brown beard, while the kings Uroš I, Dragutin and Milutin were painted as old men with long grey beards. In the fresco of Nemanjić family tree in the monastery of Visoki Dečani, painted around 1347, Vladislav II looks much older: his beard is shorter than beard of Stefan Dečanski, but it is greyer. Kings Uroš I, Dragutin and Milutin were also portrayed as much older than Vladislav II and Stephen III of Dečani in the same fresco: Sima Ćirković, Vojislav Korać, Vojislav J. Đurić, Pećka patrijaršija (Beograd: Jugoslovenska revija, 1990), 138–139, 233; Branislav Todić, Milka Čanak-Medić, Manastir Dečani (Beograd: Muzej u Prištini, Mnemosyne: 2005), 146; Istorija srpskog naroda vol. I, pl. XXXIX–XL. ↩︎
75. Porčić, “Pismo kralja Vladislava,” 34, 36, 42. ↩︎

This paper is a result of the research project № 177029 funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Government of the Republic of Serbia.
Institute of History, Kneza Mihaila, 36/II, Belgrade, Republic of Serbia, e-mail: albited@gmail.com.