Lietuvos istorijos studijos
Not a member yet
829 research outputs found
Sort by
Diplomatija ir samdinių verbavimas Žalgio mūšio išvakarėse
No full textDuring the months preceding the battle of Žalgiris (Tannenberg/Grunwald) the diplomatic activity of the countries involved was intense. After the successful campaign of the Teutonic Order against Poland in 1409 an armistice was concluded on 8 October between Grand Master Ulrich von Jungingen and King Jagiello (Jogaila) of Poland and the war was postponed until the end of St John\u27s Day in 1410. The truce did not include Grand Duke Vytautas and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. An arbitration had to be announced by King Venceslas of Bohemia on 9 February 1410 at the latest.
In the meantime, in December 1409, Jagiello and Vytautas met at Brest-Litowsk in order to discuss and prepare a campaign against Prussia after the end of the armistice. Ulrich von Jungingen for his part concluded a treaty against Poland with King Sigismund (or Sigmund) of Hungary, vicarius generalis of the Holy Roman Empire.
According to a Prussian chronicler the arbitration of King Venceslas was pronounced in Prague on 8 February 1410. It was clearly in favour of the Teutonic Knights and was therefore not accepted by the Polish delegates who left the Bohemian capital in anger.
Sigismund now decided to replace his brother Venceslas as a mediator and arranged a meeting with Vytautas in the Hungarian city of Klismark (the German name; in Hungarian Kesmark, in Polish Kiezmark, today Kežmarok in Slovakia). He obviously tried to break up the Polish-Lithuanian union by offering the Lithuanian Grand Duke a king\u27s crown, but without success. He also got in contact with Jagiello, who dwelled nearby in the town of Nowy Sącz on the Polish side of the border.
The most important result of the negotiations in Klismark was the decision to meet again in the Prussian city of Thom (Polish: Torwi) in June, before the end of the truce between Prussia and Poland. It was expected to be a most important meeting between the Grand Master of the Teutonic Order, the Lithuanian Grand Duke and the Kings of Poland and Hungary. Ulrich von Jungingen got this message by the king\u27s emissary on 11 May and immediately stopped the preparations for an intended surprise attack on Poland on 1 June. He had regarded such an attack as legitimate, because the Poles had rejected the arbitration by King Venceslas, and had for that purpose secretly recruited 1,800 mercenaries. Now his war machinery had been brought to a standstill by his mighty ally.
However, neither the kings of Hungary and Poland, nor the grand duke of Lithuania appeared in Thom, where Ulrich von Jungingen expected them to come in mid-June.
The most fateful consequence of the decision in Klismark and the broken-off preparations for a surprise attack on Poland on 1 June 1410 influenced the recruitment of mercenaries by the Order. The Grand Master had started a recruiting campaign, but stopped it immediately after receiving the message from Sigismund on 11 May. Two weeks later, however, he ordered the Order\u27s emissary, who dwelled in Prague, to recruit 900 mercenaries so that they would be in Prussia before the end of the truce on St John\u27s Day.
These two weeks with contradictory orders caused a catastrophe for the Teutonic Knights. Many mercenaries, who originally had expected to be enrolled in the Order\u27s army, were so disappointed and angry because of being refused that they instead offered their war service to the king of Poland. The total number of those soldiers who then changed sides is not known, but a letter to the Grand Master tells at least about two big troops of Bohemian mercenaries. There might have been more.
Another consequence of the postponed recruiting campaign, which was resumed partly on 24 May and fully at the beginning of June, can be deducted from the information in the Payment book of the Teutonic Order (Soldbuch). That important source shows evidence that about 2,000 mercenaries arrived too late to join the main army when it marched from Thorn at the beginning of July in order to stop the expected intervention. It is obvious that Ulrich von Jungingen had reactivated his recruiting campaign too late. He had relied in vain upon the promises of Sigismund and then had to face the fatal consequences of that policy.
We may thus conclude that the mighty Teutonic Order in Prussia had been thrown down from the peak of power within a few weeks, because its military planning, preparations and possibilities were undermined in the diplomatic battle for power. Some thousand mercenaries had arrived too late or had offered their war service to the king of Poland instead of to the Grand Master of the Order. This is surely one of the most important facts when looking for the causes of the disastrous defeat of the Knights on 15 July 1410, even when considering other facts like the disadvantageous location of the battlefield, the unfavourable position of the sun (dazzling the troops of the Order) or the feigned retreat of a part of the Lithuanian army. No wonder that the Order even years later bitterly complained about the role of King Sigismund during the months preceding the battle
Lietuvos vokiečių kolonizacijos misija 1942-1944 metais: Reicho dovana ar „meškos paslauga"? - Rec.: Arthur Hermann. Litauendeutsche als Kolonisten in Litauen 1942-1944. Annaberger Annalen. Nr. 17, 2009, S. 237-284
Get PDFSugrižtantys numirėliai: ,,netradicinė" laidosena Lietuvos Viduramžių senkapiuose
No full textThe paper analyses unconventional burials in Christian Lithuania in the 14th-17th centuries. The burials contain either headless or limbless bodies buried with face downwards or on their side; such inhumations are not to be attributed as occasional or entirely exceptive ones. These burials in substance do reflect the continuity of some certain pagan burial rituals and traditions.
The great number of so-called unconventional inhumations in medieval Lithuania depict the permanent co-existence of both pagan post-existential concepts and rituals and the new Christian ones; such manner of beliefs is significant for a religiously syncretic society.
Burial in unconventional position has been understood as an alleviation for the dead spirit on its way to the other world. Such rituals are also to be related with necrophobic beliefs as a way of avoiding the return of ineligible dead.
The decollated individuals are to be related not with conventional burial traditions, but with desecrative exhumation, caused by the fear of the returning dead. According to Lithuanian folklore, such were untimely passed-away or greatly sinful persons. In Christian societies such posthumous decollations correlated with fight against vampires or with persons which caused pestilences.
As the main reason of unquiet spirits, herewith of burials on the face or on a side of the body, should be determined an amiss, unexpected death. The great number of weapons in prone male burials presuppose attributing the latter as the graves of warriors fallen in battle.
Unconventional burial traditions gradually vanished due to entrenchment of Christian concept of post-existence as well as due to burials in churchyards and sanctified cemeteries
Bendra idėja ir lemtis: Lietuva, Latvija, Estija. - Rec.: Butkus Zenonas. Baltijos valstybių vienybės idėja ir praktika 1918-1940 metais. Lietuvos užsienio politikos dokumentai. 1918-1940 metai. Vilnius: LII leidykla, 2008
Get PDFApie originalią nuomonę, nepatogius klausimus ir vertimų problemas. - Rec.: Snyder T. Tautų rekonstrukcija. Lietuva, Lenkija, Ukraina, Baltarusija 1569-1999. Vilnius: Mintis, 2008. 416 p.; Jekelčyk S. Ukraina. Modernios nacijos gimimas.
Get PDF
Paelbio slavų ir vakarų baltų užkariavimų modelis baltų genčių christianizacijos požiūriu
Get PDFIn the article there is the comparison of the pattern of the conquest of the Polabian tribes (including Polish Pomeranian areas) to that one of the Western Baltic tribes. Chronologically the conquest of the Polabian Slavic lands began already during the period of the first dynasty of Otton-Liudolfings (the first half of the 10th century), but the occupation itself, however, was over only in the middle of the 12th century. The lands of the Polabian Slavs were the target of occupation not only for the Saxons, but for Denmark and Poland as well (11th-12th centuries). Poland targeted all its energy towards the conquest of the Polish Pomeranian areas meanwhile Denmark, especially from the beginning of the 11th century, was trying to take hold of the Southern Seaside of the Baltic Sea. All these conquests had several important characteristics in common: 1) the establishment of the institutions of church and their incorporation into the church layers of the conquerors; 2) the implementation of the fiscal policy in the conquered lands; 3) the demand for the conquered tribes to observe the norms of Christian life, not separating this from the obedience to the conquerors.
However, the nobility of the Polabian tribes (including Polish Pomeranian tribes) were yet granted some social, and what is most important, some political rights. It is true that historians are still arguing about what kind of structures they were and if there were any of them at all before the conquest began. One way or the other, it is evident, that the top of the nobility of the Polabian Slavs were granted certain political rights. These rights were determined by their vassal dependence on the Saxon earls, Polish dukes and Danish kings. However this right enabled separate ruling dynasties, which were entrusted the right of the fiscal policy, to be formed. Thus Pomeranian Dukes and the local Dukes of the Polabian Slavs became "their own" rulers towards their subordinates, if they had received the right of the Patronage in Church, became the donators of the monasteries. In this case, the political elite, while collaborating with the conquerors, were able to guarantee their minimal political and social rights.
In the relationship to the Baltic tribes we can observe similar but yet different processes). Till the 12th century the Western Baltic tribes used to be the expansion target of the Polish Dukes and most often Danish kings. From the end of the 12th century the German elite of the Saxony and Polabian areas began to interfere between them. Since the foundation of the local military Orders of Knights didn’t yield good results, the Polish Dukes, related to the political elite of Saxony and Brandenburg, invited the German Order to come. The German Order took over the pattern of the conquest of the Polabian Slavic tribes (similarly to Saxons the German Order began to build the systems of castles in the conquered territories etc.). But at this point a distinct difference from the conquest of the Polabian Slavs appears. The nobility of the Western Baltic tribes (Prussian, Curonian, Semgallian and finally Ugric Livonian tribes in Livonia), contrary to the nobility of the Polabian tribes, were not granted any political rights. The establishment of the Church structures and the fiscal policy were kept in the hands of the German Order. The German Order enforced their laws on them as well. Thus, neither local political elite nor local dynasties were formed there. The local elite could expect just certain social concessions, which were limited after each uprising.
In Prussia (as in Livonia) the German Order related the obedience to the adaptation of the norms of the Christian life to the local conditions. Loyal to the Order were considered only those, who not only observed the norms of the Christian life, as it had been agreed on in the Castle of Christburg and later put in the shape of certain laws, but those, who will loyally serve their conquerors and perform their duties. Of course, the military service to the conquerors could be performed only by the local elite, but it was forbidden to seek for the higher posts.
Thus, the German/Livonian Order were executing the political and the social coercion in the conquered lands, meanwhile in the Polabian lands the social coercion towards their subordinates was executed by the local political elite, having received from the Saxons (from Poles in Pomeranian and from the Danish in the island of Rugen) the right to manage all local matters, including the ones related to the tax policy. The nobility of the Prussians, Livonians, Semgallians and Curonians were deprived of all this. In this aspect the conquest of Eastern Coast of the Baltic Sea was different from that one of Polabian Slavs and Pomeranian. In its turn the process of Christianization was influenced by that. This, by the way, is applicable to the process of Christianization of Lithuania, the efforts to prove this have already been made. However, in Lithuania there was the encounter with the state, not with the tribal society, and this aspect undoubtedly changes everything
,,Kurti tęstinumą": diskusija apie antrajį istorikų suvažiavimą, įvairias renginio supratimo strategijas, bendruomenės kūrimo darbą, ,,istorinį džiazavimą" ir ateities planus
No full text-Skaitytojų dėmesiui siūloma diskusija apie antrąjį Lietuvos istorikų suvažiavimą, vykusį 2009 m. rugsėjo 10 - 12 dienomis Klaipėdoje. Apie istorikus sutelkusį renginį, praeities tyrinėtojų bandymus kurti gyvą bendruomenę ir atliepti šiandienos visuomenės poreikius kalbėta pirmajame diskusijų klubo susitikime 2009 m. spalio 1 d. Vilniuje. Šis diskusijų klubas - Nepriklausomybės metais subrendusios Vilniaus universiteto istorikų kartos pastanga prisidėti prie viešojoje erdvėje vykstančių svarstymų įvairiais klausimais, susijusiais su Lietuvos humanitarine kultūra, tautine ir europietiškąja tapatybe, valstybingumo ugdymu. Iniciatyvą maloniai sutiko paremti „Kultūros barų", "Naujojo Židinio-Aidų" ir "Lietuvos istorijos studijų" redakcijos - suteikė diskusijų klubui galimybę pasisakyti šių žurnalų puslapiuose. Šioje diskusijoje dalyvavo Istorijos instituto direktorius Rimantas Miknys, Europos humanitarinio universiteto prorektorė Irena Vaišvilaitė, Vilniaus universiteto Istorijos fakulteto bendruomenės atstovai Marija Drėmaitė, Aurelijus Gieda, Rimvydas Petrauskas, Nerijus Šepetys ir Aurimas švedas
Disertacija sovietmečio istorijos tema apie šiandienos Lietuvos visuomenę (apie Valdemaro Klumbio daktaro disertaciją „Lietuvos kultūrinio elito elgsenos modeliai sovietmečiu")
Get PDFŽinutės apie Žalgirį atsiradimo Bychowco kronikoje aplinkybės
Get PDFDie Tannenbergserzählung der Chronik von Bychowiec liefert eine Version, die den Sieg nur den Litauern zuschreibt. Die Forschung von R. Jasas hat die Leitungsarbeit von Albrecht Gastold in der Schreibung dieser Chronik bewiesen. Jetzt ist es möglich, über sein Verhältnis auch zu dieser Erzählung zu sprechen.
Es gibt in manchen Abschriften der kurzen Redaktion der litauischen Chroniken eine Eintragung über die Tannenbergschlacht, berichtend über den polnischen König Jagiello und den litauischen Großfürsten Witold. Sie kam als eine Annaleneinschrift der russischen Chroniken. Der Begriff "die kurze Redaktion der litauischen Chroniken" ist sehr relativ: er bedeutet meistens die entstandenen in Smolensk Abschriften, welche über die Ereignisse in dem Großfürstentum Litauen, aber auch in Russland, berichten. Man kann etwa zwei Zweige nachweisen, wo die "litauischen" oder die "russischen" Nachrichten überwiegen. Sogar in dem "litauischen" Zweig besitzen nicht alle Handschriften die Tannenbergserzählung.
Die Entstehungszeit der kurzen Redaktion ist die Mitte des 15. Jahrhunderts. Es gibt aber keine Abschrift solcher Chronologie. Im 2. Jahrzehnt des 16. Jahrhunderts entstand die mittlere Redaktion der litauischen Chroniken. Wenn die kurze Redaktion in den Skriptorien des orthodoxischen Bistums von Smolensk von den russischen Mönchen geschrieben ist, so schrieben die mittlere Redaktion die ruthenischen Laien unter der Leitung des litauischen Machtbesitzers Albrecht Gastold. Er hat sich am Ende des 15. Jahrhunderts in der Krakauer Universität gebildet und die lateinische, auch die polnische, Sprache beherrscht. In den Jahren 1514–1519 war er der Statthalter von Polozk, 1519–1522 - von Trakai, von dem Jahr 1522 bis zum Tode (1539) - der Statthalter von Vilnius und der Kanzler. Es wurde eine litauische nationale Chronik nach dem Muster der polnischen Chroniken geschaffen. Das war die Zusammenarbeit der Personalskriptorie von A. Gastold und der großfürstlichen Kanzlei. Zum Grund kamen da zwei Werke - die sogenannte Chronik der litauischen Großfürsten (die phantastische pseudohumanistische Herrschergeschichte der "römischen Herkunft") und die Überarbeitung der kurzen Redaktion der litauischen Chroniken (meistens die Einschriften der russischen Thematik wegschaffend). In diesem zweiten Teil erhob sich das Bild eines Nationalhelden - Witold des Großen. Paradox: hier fehlte die Einschrift seiner größten Tat - der Tannenbergbericht.
Das größte Werk Albrechts Gastold als eines gebildeten Staatsmannes ist die Redaktionsleitung des 1. Litauischen Statuts - einer Kodifizierung des litauischen Rechtes, wo auch die ersten Romanisierungsversuche auftreten. Diese Arbeit dauerte es in den Jahren 1522–1529. In der ersten Hälfte dieser Jahrstrecke entstand auch die dritte - erweiterte - Redaktion der litauischen Chroniken (sie ist nur aus der einzigen Handschrift - der sogenannten Chronik von Bychowiec - bekannt). Diese Redaktion schilderte Witold als den zweiten (neben Jagiello) Taufers Litauens und vereinigte damit die nichtergänzte Werbung des Großfürsten um die Königskrone. Hier wurde auch die Tannenbergschlacht beschrieben und Witold als der Hauptsieger gezeigt.
Schon in der mittleren Redaktion finden wir einen "Ahnen" Albrechts Gastold als "den Heerführer des Großfürsten Gedimin". In der erweiterten Redaktion tauft sich in der Regierungszeit des Großfürsten Algird auch ein Gastold. In der Tannenbergschlacht nimmt der Großvater Albrechts Johann Gastold teil. In diesem Chronikstück ist die Schlacht als die Tat des einzigen litauischen Heeres geschildert. Johann Gastold steht in ihr als ein Nebenheld bei Witold dem Großen