Lietuvos istorijos studijos
Not a member yet
829 research outputs found
Sort by
Žalgiris: neatsakyti klausimai
Get PDFThe aim of the article is, on the basis of the hints found in the sources and Sven Ekdahl\u27s hypothesis, to look at the battle of Žalgiris (Grunwald) as a typical fight of medieval knights, the conceptions of the nature of which in historiography, ignoring the issues of tactics, are obviously outdated. And this, in its turn, leads to strongly emphasizing the necessity for more thorough investigations into tactics. Today it is recognized that critical studies of the battle of Grunwald started in the seventh decade of the 20th century only, because until that time images coming from national mythologies prevailed in the studies of the battle of Grunwald, which dictated conditions to the historians of the "scissors and glue" method who cut patterns from the Chronicle of Jan Długosz. The author of the critical turning point, Sven Ekdahl, made the following maxim: to get rid of the Chronicle of Jan Długosz, to carry out a systematic analysis of the sources, and to create a critical reconstruction of the battle of Grunwald that is independent of most various ideologems. Nevertheless, Sven Ekdahl\u27s hypotheses have not acquired a systematic form, which could create the new narrative of the battle of Grunwald. This, as well as gaps in critical science of history on the whole, determine the fact that images of the collective memory, which were much stronger influenced by and still are under the influence of works of art of the undisciplined imagination, have not been significantly affected. Sven Ekdahl has drawn the following most general conclusion: the role of the army of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the battle was not inferior in anything to the Polish army, and in some aspects it even surpassed the latter. Sven Ekdahl based this statement on the new sources, on the letter of 1413, in particular, which spoke directly about the maneuver of the army of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and participation of the Lithuanian party in trophy sharing. The latter subject is also supplemented with other aspects, especially with administration of the occupied castles of the Order and the eventual partition of the Order\u27s territory. Sven Ekdahl\u27s statements are "amortized" in Polish historiography from various aspects, and they are excessively glorified by the Lithuanians. Criticism is lacking in both cases because Ekdahl\u27s hints about the medieval tactics in the battle of Grunwald are disregarded. This means that the themes of the tactics of three corps ("drei Treffen"), the gonfanons, and wedge formations, which enable us to look anew both at the level, composition, formation of the army of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and its action in the battlefield. The sources unambiguously speak about three corps of the army of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania whose gonfanons could contain two major heraldic signs - Vytis (the State emblem of Lithuania - the White Knight astride a leaping stallion) and the Pillars of Gediminaičiai (one of the major symbols of statehood), as well as forming of corps in wedges. The quantity of the heavy mounted soldiers in the tactics of wedge is not decisive - to form spearheads of three corps or wedges the heavy mounted soldiers from the Duke\u27s elite could have sufficed Lithuania, especially having in mind Vytautas\u27 attempts to modernize the army of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania before the battle. Formation in three wedges allows us to imagine the "Lithuanian" phase of the battle in a different way, to interpret the riddle of the flags of Smolensk in a different way. They are thought to be flags of the third reserve wedge that remained in the battlefield. The mercenaries from the advanced post castles of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania who were armed best could have been in that wedge. Since Poles could have dominated among the mercenaries - at least the composition of the very garrison of Smolensk shows this and Długosz also knew about it - this brings sufficiently new aspects of interpretation into the motives of this chronicler of the glorification of the flags of Smolensk in the battlefield of Grunwald
Sovietų Sąjungos žurnalistų delegacijos vizitas į Suomiją ir Baltijos šalis 1937 metais: delegacijos vadovo Boriso Michailovo pranešimas Stalinui ir Molotovui
Get PDFThe article presents the leader\u27s of the USSR journalists\u27 delegation, Michailov\u27s, report to Stalin and Molotov on the July 19-August 10, 1937 visit to Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, which was found in the Russian State Archive for Social and Political History, Molotov\u27s Stock (f. 82, i. 2, r. 1020, p. 4-16). The document presented might seem to be complete propaganda, bloated with class struggle, and in general full of Marxist clichés. It is, however, an authentic testimony of the attitude formed by those in the highest circles of Soviet authorities towards the Baltic countries. The attitude became of high importance to those countries\u27 fate in just a few years. Soviet clichés notwithstanding, the document also reflects the internal and international situation of the countries. The visit itself was not just an ordinary fact of cultural ties but an action motivated by international political considerations, which has not been addressed in historical works yet.
The aim of the visit of the delegation under the lead of Michailov was to collect information about the Baltic countries, which was outside the reach through normal diplomatic channels. First of all, an attempt was made to perceive the mood of the population and to foresee any possible changes in the course of a potential war. There was also a goal to shift the attitude in favour of the Soviet Union. An attempt was made to show that the ongoing repressions did not hinder its active foreign policy, and did not prevent it from having close relations with the neighbouring countries. This visit, to a certain extent, could also have been a demonstration against Germany - an attempt was made to make it understand that the Soviets were influential in the Baltic region, and therefore, the expansionary politics had to be done in coordination with them.
The USSR journalists were favourably welcomed in the Baltic countries. They were received by the official representatives of the authorities, and by social and cultural organizations. The report as a historical source is supplemented by the memoirs of the member of the Soviet delegation Tichonov, published in 1964. Both sources as well as the press reports indicate that the welcome of the delegation was the warmest in Lithuania - a large part of its politicians as well as influential intellectuals still believed that Moscow would help Lithuania to regain Vilnius and retain Klaipėda. Left-wing intellectuals of the Baltic countries, among whom it is already possible to notice Justas Paleckis and Johanes Vares-Barbarus, leaders-to-be of the puppet governments of the 1940 occupation in Lithuania and Estonia, actively adjoined the delegations. This fact alone already testifies the after-effects of the visit
Dar vienas atsakymas į klasikinį istoriografijos klausimą: kodėl Abiejų Tautų Respublika vėlavo, palyginti su Vakarų Europa (apie Dariaus Žiemelio disertaciją)
Get PDFSakytinės istorijos galimybės sovietmečio ir posovietinės epochos tyrimuose (atminties kultūros ir istorijos politikos problematikos aspektas)
Get PDFThe Soviet epoch often imposes a professional challenge to a researcher due to the complexities of correct analysis and interpretation of the phenomena and processes of that epoch. All that was left by this epoch, which lasted almost half a century, was fragmentary, uninformative, and contradictory written sources which consciously mislead the researcher by not only preventing an answer to the question "what was it really like?", but also by trying to wrap the researcher in a spider web of reticence, Aesopian language, and open lies. The lack or fragmentation and uninformative nature of the written sources forces historians to use in their research the method of oral history interviews which offers many new perspectives. It could provide much help to the new generation of Sovietologists in Lithuania who adapt the potential method of interview primarily while preparing doctoral theses.
A wider use of oral history in Lithuanian historiography (not only by young historians) should be encouraged by the realization that the researchers of the past who use this "methodical tool" acquire a possibility to compose their own "ideal source" or a block of such sources that would be unique in a quantitative and qualitative sense, determining the process of a particular research and fundamentally influencing its insights, providing answers to the questions that are "suppressed" by other historical sources.
Good conditions for the development of oral history in Lithuanian historiography are created by a favourable conjuncture in Western historiography—Lithuanian historians have many opportunities to participate in the global academic discourse and contribute to the global research by trying to grasp the issues of the Soviet and post-Soviet epoch.
The evaluation of oral history possibilities in the field of research of the Soviet and post-Soviet epoch should include a bigger attention to the debates in the West which focus on the advantages and the disadvantages of this historical method and supplement these debates with insights from the Lithuanian perspective. A closer collaboration of historians and social scientists as well as significant financial investments aimed to support specific research projects and corrections in the evaluation of the production of humanitarian scientists are also very important aspects. The latter aspects of the politics of science have until now impeded the development of oral history in Lithuanian historiography.
The possibilities of oral history should be highly estimated while researching the specifics of the culture of memory that emerged in the Soviet epoch and the methods of politics of history which determined that specifics. The information acquired with the help of oral history often plays a crucial role in understanding the efforts of Soviet Party and political elite to create a model of culture of memory that could satisfy its needs as well as in trying to grasp an amount of freedom that a particular historian and all the professional community had in the face of the arsenal of the politics of history. The same applies to the analysis of the situation and activity of the cultural elite which fundamentally influenced the culture of memory and actively participated in the politics of history
Antrasis kryžiaus žygis ir jo kontekstai. - Rec.: Jonathan Phillips. The Second Crusade. Extending the frontiers of Christendom. New Haven-London: Yale university press, 2007. 364 p.
Get PDF
Juozo Jurginio kaimynų problematikos sprendimas
Get PDFK. Jablonskis stellte zum ersten Mal eine Frage über die Kategorie der sogenannten Heimnachbarn - der Fronbauern, welche im 14.-16. Jb. ihre eigene Wirtschaft auf dem Boden des Herrn besaßen. J. Jurginis setzte diese Forschung fort. Er hat festgestellt:
Die Schicht der Heimnachbarn entstand im 13.-14. Jb. aus den Freibauern einer Dorfgemeinde, welche ihre Alodialhufen verloren hatten.
Die Heimnachbarn verpfändeten sich den Kriegergutsbesitzern als Leibeigene und wohnten in seiner Nachbarschaft.
Die Hauptpflicht der Heimnachbarn war der Frondienst.
Dem Gewohnheitsrecht nach waren die Heimnachbarn die Leute (die Freien, d.h. nicht die Sklaven). Sie dürfen aber ihren Herrn nicht verlassen.
Als die Bauernschaft im 16. Jb. endgültig in die Leibeigenschaft fiel, verschmolzen die Heimnachbarn mit ihr
Tributalizmo koncepcija: S. Amino, J. Haldono ir H. H. Stahlio sampratų lyginamoji analizė
Get PDFBy this article, the author wants to revive discussion about Marxist schemas of social development and their applicability for constructing models of universal history. There are attitudes of three scholars presented in the current text: Samir Amin, who is known in the Western historiographical tradition as a main creator and promoter of the concept of the tributary mode of production; John Haldon, who paid quite much attention to the mentioned concept and dedicated his entire book to this issue; and Henri H. Stahl, who created an original alternative approach to the issue of tributalism.
The author rejects J. Haldon\u27s concept of mode of production as too narrow (in fact, J. Haldon identifies mode of production with mode of exploitation). The author proposes a wider definition of mode of production, which is based on the analysis of Karl Marx\u27s texts. According to the author, the most important elements of mode of production are the exploitative subject (it is defined by property of conditions of production, which realizes as a social power) and productive/obligatory unit, which can be manifested as a household of an individual direct producer or as a community. The author proposes the following principled classification based on his conception of mode of production:
A proprietor of land is a monarch/state, and a productive/obligatory unit is a community (of Asiatic/Slavonic type);
A proprietor of land is a monarch/state, and a productive/obligatory unit is a household of an individual direct producer;
Proprietors of land are private landowners, and a productive/obligatory unit is a community (of Asiatic/Slavonic type);
Proprietors of land are private landowners, and a productive/obligatory unit is a household of an individual direct producer.
The most important conclusions of the author\u27s are as follows:
H. H. Stahl\u27s statement that there were alternatives in the social development of precapitalist societies is definitely reasonable.
Keeping in mind controversies among the presented conceptions of tributalism, the author emphasizes that, at the moment, the question of the typology of antagonistic precapitalist societies remains open; so further researches and discussions are necessary.
As a point of departure for further researches and discussions the author proposes his principled classification of antagonisticprecapitalist societies based on criteria of an exploitative subject and a productive / obligatory unit