Polen während der Herrschaft von Bolesław III. Wrymouth
Bolesław III. Wrymouth (auch bekannt als Boleslaus III. Der Wurmmund polnisch: Bolesław III. Krzywousty ) ( 20. August 1086 [1][2] - 28. Oktober 1138), war zwischen 1102 und 1107 Herzog von Kleinpolen, Schlesien und Sandomierz und zwischen 1107 und 1138 in ganz Polen. Er war das einzige Kind von Prinz Władysław I. Herman und seiner ersten Frau Judith, Tochter von Vratislaus II. Von Böhmen.
Bolesław begann im letzten Jahrzehnt des 11. Jahrhunderts zu herrschen, als die Zentralregierung in Polen erheblich geschwächt wurde. Władysław I Herman fiel unter die politische Abhängigkeit des Pfalzgrafen Sieciech, der der eigentliche Herrscher des Landes wurde. Unterstützt von ihrem Vater, vertrieben Boleslaw und sein Halbbruder Zbigniew Sieciech im Jahre 1101 nach einigen Jahren des Kämpfen endgültig aus dem Land. Nach dem Tod von Władysław I Herman im Jahre 1102 wurden zwei unabhängige Staaten gegründet, die von Bolesław und Zbigniew regiert wurden.
Bolesław versuchte, Pommern zu gewinnen, was zu einem bewaffneten Konflikt zwischen den Brüdern führte, und zwang Zbigniew, das Land zu verlassen und militärische Hilfe vom deutschen König Henry V. Bolesław zu suchen, der Zbigniew bestrafte, indem er ihn blind machte. Diese Aktion löste bei Fans von Zbigniew Empörung aus und führte zu einer politischen Krise in Polen. Bolesław gewann erneut die Gunst seiner Untertanen mit öffentlicher Buße und pilgerte zum Kloster seines Schutzpatrons Saint Giles in Ungarn.
Bolesław gründete wie Bolesław II., Der Großzügige, seine Außenpolitik auf die Aufrechterhaltung guter Beziehungen zu Ungarn und Kiewer Rus, mit denen er durch Ehe und militärische Zusammenarbeit enge Beziehungen knüpfte, um die politische Abhängigkeit von Deutschland und seinem Vasallen zu brechen. der König von Böhmen, der in schwachen Momenten der polnischen Politik gezwungen wurde, in Schlesien Tribut zu zahlen. Diese Allianzen haben es Bolesław ermöglicht, das Land 1109 effektiv vor der Invasion zu verteidigen. Einige Jahre später nutzte Bolesław geschickt die dynastischen Auseinandersetzungen in Böhmen, um den Frieden an der Südwestgrenze zu gewährleisten.
Bolesław widmete die zweite Hälfte seiner Herrschaft der Eroberung Pommerns. Im Jahre 1113 eroberte er die nördlichen Festungen entlang der Noteć, die die Grenze zu den Pommern verstärkte. In den folgenden Jahren unternahm er Schritte zur Eroberung Pommerns. Die Lösung des Konflikts mit dem Heiligen Römischen Reich ermöglichte es Bolesław, Westpommern unterzuordnen und Danziger Pommern zu integrieren. Die in drei Etappen durchgeführten Militärexpeditionen endeten in den 1120er Jahren mit militärischen und politischen Erfolgen. Die Integration der neu annektierten Länder ermöglichte es Bolesław, Kirchen zu bauen, und begann mit der Umwandlung Pommerns. Bischof Otto von Bamberg bestätigte die Christianisierung Pommerns ab 1123.
In den 1130er Jahren beteiligte sich Bolesław an dem dynastischen Streit in Ungarn. Nach einer unerwarteten Niederlage musste er mit Deutschland eine Vereinbarung treffen. Der Kongress von Merseburg von 1135 befasste sich mit Fragen der Woiwodschaft Pommern, der schlesischen (wahrscheinlich auch polnischen) Souveränität und der Vorherrschaft des Erzbistums Magdeburg über die polnische Kirche.
Bolesław war zweimal verheiratet. Seine erste Ehe mit der kiewischen Prinzessin Zbyslava gab ihm eine Ausrede, um militärisch in die inneren Angelegenheiten Russlands einzugreifen. Nach ihrem Tod heiratete Bolesław eine deutsche Adlige, Salomea von Berg, die in gewisser Weise zu Änderungen in der polnischen Außenpolitik führte: In der zweiten Hälfte seiner Herrschaft versuchte der Prinz, die diplomatischen Beziehungen zu seinem westlichen Nachbarn wiederherzustellen. 19659010] Seine letzte und vielleicht bedeutendste Handlung war sein Testament und sein Testament, das als "Das Erbfolgegesetz" bekannt war. In diesem Fall teilte er das Land unter seinen Söhnen auf, was zu einer fast 200-jährigen feudalen Fragmentierung des polnischen Königreichs führte.
Bolesław III. Wrymouth wurde bis in das 19. Jahrhundert von der Historiographie als Symbol politischer politischer Bestrebungen anerkannt. [4] Er bestätigte auch die Unabhängigkeit des polnischen Erzbistums Gniezno trotz eines zeitweiligen Versagens in den 1130er Jahren. Trotz unbestrittener Erfolge hat er schwerwiegende politische Fehler begangen, vor allem gegen seinen Halbbruder Zbigniew aus Polen. Das Verbrechen gegen Zbigniew und seine Buße zeigen Bolesławs großen Ehrgeiz sowie seine Fähigkeit, einen politischen Kompromiss zu finden. [5]
Childhood [ edit
Situation Polens in den 1080er Jahren edit ]
Im Jahr 1086 drohte die Krönung von Vratislav II. Zum König von Böhmen und seine Verbindung mit László I., König von Ungarn, der Position des polnischen Herrschers, Prinz Władysław I. Herman. 19659018] Daher wurde Władysław I. im selben Jahr gezwungen, den einzigen Sohn von Bolesław II. Mit dem kühnen und rechtmäßigen Erben des polnischen Thrones, Mieszko Bolesławowic, von der ungarischen Verbannung zurückzurufen. Nach seiner Rückkehr akzeptierte der junge Bolesławowic die Oberherrschaft seines Onkels und gab seinen erblichen Anspruch auf die Krone Polens als Gegenleistung für den Nachfolger ab. [8] Im Gegenzug gewährte Władysław I. Herman seinem Neffen den Bezirk Kraków. [9] Die Situation wurde für Władysław I Herman durch den Mangel eines legitimen männlichen Erben weiter erschwert, da sein erstgeborener Sohn Zbigniew aus einer von der Kirche nicht anerkannten Gewerkschaft stammte. [10][11] Mit der Rückkehr von Mieszko Bolesławowic nach Polen, Władysław I normalisierte seine Beziehungen zum Königreich Ungarn sowie zu Kievan Rus (die Ehe von Mieszko Bolesławowic mit einer Prinzessin von Kievan wurde im Jahre 1088 arrangiert.) [12] Diese Handlungen ermöglichten es Herman, seine Autorität zu stärken und weitere internationale Spannungen abzubauen Angelegenheiten. [13]
Geburt von Bolesław. Name und Spitzname [ edit ]
Das Fehlen eines rechtmäßigen Erben blieb jedoch Władysław I. ein Anliegen und 1085 sandte er zusammen mit seiner Frau Judith von Böhmen reiche Geschenke eine lebensgroße Statue eines Kindes aus Gold für das Benediktiner-Heiligtum von Saint Giles [14] in Saint-Gilles, Provence, die um Nachwuchs bettelt. [15][16] Die polnischen Gesandten wurden von dem persönlichen Kaplan der Herzogin Judith, Piotr, geleitet. [17]
Das Geburtsdatum von Bolesław ist eng mit dem Tod seiner Mutter Judith verbunden. Diese Tatsache wird durch zeitgenössische Quellen belegt:
Gallus Anonymus im Cronicae et gesta ducum sive principum Polonorum berichtete, dass Herzogin Judith am Tag von König Sankt Stephan von Ungarn [18] (dessen Fest seit dem 11. Jahrhundert gefeiert wurde) geboren wurde 20. August). Die Gesundheit der Herzogin erholte sich jedoch nie von der Geburt und starb am in der Nacht der Geburt Christi [18] (d. H. 24. bis 25. Dezember). Gallus notierte das Jahr nicht in seiner Chronik.
Cosmas von Prag schrieb in seiner Chronica Boëmorum ("Chronik der Böhmer") in lateinischer Sprache, dass Bolesław drei Tage vor dem Tod von Judith geboren wurde in VIII Calends of January (25. Dezember) von 1085. [19]
Der Kalendarz krakowski sagte, dass Herzogin Judith am 24. Dezember 1086 verstarb und [20] nur darauf hinwies Im selben Jahr wurde Bolesław geboren. [21]
Der Nachruf der Abtei von Saint-Gilles meldete den Tod von Judith am 24. Dezember 1086. [22]
Der Rocznik kapituły krakowskiej (eng verwandt mit dem Kalendarz krakowski ) setzte den Tod von Judith am 24. Dezember 1086 ein. [23]
Der Historiker August Bielowski gründete Bolesław am 26. Dezember 1085 und der Tod seiner Mutter zwei Tage später, am 28. Dezember. Ihm zufolge hat Gallus Anonymus zwei Fehler begangen. Zunächst schrieb der Sonntag nach der Geburt des Herrn am [...] Sonntag der Geburt falsch. Zweitens verwechselte er den Tag des Heiligen Stephanus (26. Dezember) mit den Feierlichkeiten von König Stephan von Ungarn (20. August). Beide Korrekturen führen zum Geburtsdatum von Bolesław am 26. Dezember. Diese Theorie wurde durch die Tatsache gestützt, dass der 28. Dezember 1085 auf einen Sonntag fiel.
Oswald Balzer wies die Theorie von Bielowski zurück und wies darauf hin, dass Judiths Tod in der Nacht vom 24. auf den 25. Dezember und Bolesław wurde am 20. August vier Monate zuvor geboren. Wenn Judith in der Nacht vom 24. auf den 24. Dezember starb, gibt es möglicherweise Abweichungen bei der Bestimmung des genauen Datums des Ereignisses. Alle bekannten Quellen, die den Tod von Judith gestellt haben, hätten dann Recht. Gallus schrieb, dass Judith kurz nach der Geburt eines Sohnes starb. Spätere Quellen interpretieren dies als Tod bei der Geburt, und Cosmas von Prag folgte dieser Tatsache, obwohl er die Informationen nicht aus erster Hand erhielt. Daher würde sein Fehler zu diesem Punkt führen. Das von Gallus als Geburtsdatum von Bolesław angegebene Geburtsdatum wäre dagegen der 20. August. In der mittelalterlichen Tradition begann das Jahr am 25. Dezember. In diesem Fall muss aus den Berichten von Cosmas geschlossen werden, dass Bolesław noch 1085 geboren wurde. Diese Angaben standen jedoch im Widerspruch zu den Berichten des Kalendarz krakowski der das Jahr 1086 angab von den Autoren der Kalendarz als "regina polonia" ( Königin von Polen in lateinischer Sprache), und dieser Titel könnte am 15. Juni mit der Krönung ihres Vaters als König von Böhmen und Polen in Verbindung gebracht werden 1086 (nach Cosmas). [25][26] Karol Maleczyński wies die Argumente von Balzer zurück, der das von Cosmas gegebene Datum der Krönung von Vratislav II akzeptierte. [19] Die meisten Forscher weisen jedoch darauf hin, dass die Krönung am 15. Juni 1085 stattgefunden habe. so konnte Judith ein Jahr zuvor Königin genannt werden. [6] [7]
Karol Maleczyński stellte fest, dass der Tod von Judith in der Nacht vom 24. auf den 25. Dezember 1085 stattfand und Bolesław wurde vier Monate zuvor am 2 0 August Die Forscher fanden heraus, dass das Datum, das vom Rocznik kapituły krakowskiej (24. Dezember 1086) angegeben wurde, das gleiche war, das von Cosmas (25. Dezember 1085) festgelegt wurde. Der Unterschied im Jahr lässt sich mit den unterschiedlichen Stilangaben erklären, gefolgt von Cosmas, der das Jahr laut julianischem Kalender am 1. Januar und zu Weihnachten ( Nativitate in Latein) am 25. Dezember begann. Für Maleczyński berücksichtigt Kazimierz Jasiński diesen Kalenderunterschied nicht, der nur in der Zeit vom 25. bis 31. Dezember auftritt. [27]
Der Archäologe Wojciech Szafrański erneuerte die Theorie von Bielowski: Judith von Böhmen starb am 28. Dezember 1085 und Bolesław wurde zwei Tage zuvor am 26. Dezember geboren. Nach Angaben von Szafrański verwendete Cosmas den Begriff VIII Calends of January ohne ein bestimmtes Datum. In der Chronik von Gallus sollte jedoch gelesen werden, dass Judith am Weihnachtstag aber am Sonntag in der Oktave von Weihnachten starb. [24] Unter Verwendung eines solchen erweiterten Zeitbereichs stellte der Ermittler fest ermittelte die Geburt von Boleslaw im Fest des heiligen Stephanus (26. Dezember). [28] Aus diesem Grund ist das von Bielowski angegebene Datum von 1085 seiner Ansicht nach richtig. Jasiński wies jedoch auf die Schwachstellen der Argumentation von Szafrański hin, weil Gallus über die Oktave geschrieben hatte, insbesondere über die Weihnachtsnacht, aber der Ermittler berücksichtigte nicht alle anderen Quellen sowie die Erfolge der Genealogieforschung. [24]
Marian Plezia argumentierte, dass Bolesław am 2. September 1085 oder 1086 geboren wurde. [29] Laut Gallus wurde auch der Tag von König Stephan von Ungarn am 2. September gefeiert. [30] Jasiński hielt diese Theorie für richtig unbegründet. In Polen wird das Fest von König Stephan von Ungarn durch den Kalendarz krakowski und den Kalendarz Kodeksu Gertrudy am 20. August gezeigt. Wenn Bolesław am 2. September geboren wurde, würde Gallus wahrscheinlich darauf hingewiesen werden, dass dies der Tag nach der Feier des Heiligen Giles (1. September) war, der als Fürsprecher seiner Geburt bezeichnet wurde. [29]
Kazimierz Jasiński hat den Tod von Judith in der Nacht vom 24. auf den 25. Dezember 1086 [31] und die Geburt von Bolesław vier Monate zuvor, am 20. August, angeordnet. [32] Hier stimmt er den Befunden von Balzer zu. Er stützte seine Ansichten mit weiteren Argumenten: Alle Quellen basieren auf dem vermissten Rocznika kapituły krakowskiej und der nächste bekannte Text dieser Quelle bezieht sich auf Ereignisse im Jahr 1086. [33] Cosmas schrieb seine Chronik einige Jahrzehnte Später profitierte wahrscheinlich von mündlicher Tradition und konnte einen Fehler machen, als er das Jahr platzierte. Seine Berichte, die Bolesław drei Tage vor dem Tod seiner Mutter zur Welt brachten, stellten eine recht kurze Zeit dar. [34]
Heute ist die Ansicht sowohl von Jasiński als auch von Balzer weithin anerkannt, dass Bolesław am wahrscheinlichsten ist wurde am Tag von König Stephan von Ungarn am 20. August 1086 geboren. [35]
Bolesław III. Wrymouth, von JB Jacobi (1828).
Nach Cosmas von Prag wurde Bolesław nach seinem Onkel, Bolesław II. der Großzügige, benannt. Władysław I Herman hatte keinen Grund, seinen erstgeborenen, legitimen Sohn nach seinem Bruder zu benennen, versuchte jedoch auf diese Weise die ehemaligen Verbündeten seines Vorgängers zu beschwichtigen. [36]
Bolesławs Spitzname "Wrymouth" (pl: Krzywousty ) erschien in polnischen und lateinischen Quellen des 13. Jahrhunderts: Genealogii płockiej (Criwousti) [37] und der Roczniku świętokrzyskim młodszym (Crzyvousti) [1945]. Der Ursprung dieses Spitznamens geht vermutlich auf das 12. Jahrhundert zurück und hängt mit einigen physischen Merkmalen des polnischen Herrschers zusammen, die zur Zeit seiner Herrschaft bemerkt wurden. [36] Wahrscheinlich begann er nach 1114 auf diese Weise zu benennen, weil Gallus Anonymus in seiner Chronik erwähnte es nie. [38] In der Kronice książąt polskich und Kronice polsko-śląskiej wurde Bolesław durch das lateinische Adjektiv qualifiziert. Curvus dessen Bedeutung unklar bleibt. Gemäß dem 14. Jahrhundert Kroniki o Piotrze Włostowicu wurde der Prinz bucklig (lat .: gibbosus ) oder hatte einen krummen Mund. [36][39] Der Chronist des 15. Jahrhunderts, Jan Długosz, schrieb:
Er hatte einen Mund auf einer Seite, der leicht gebogen war, und dazu wurde er Wrymouth genannt. Dies verzerrt jedoch sein Gesicht nicht und fügt ihm sogar einen gewissen Charme hinzu. [40]
1974 wurde in der Kathedrale der Heiligen Jungfrau Maria in Płock, wo Bolesław laut Tradition begraben wurde, ein archäologisches Forschungsprojekt durchgeführt. Ein Sarg wurde entdeckt, der die Knochen von 16 Männern und Frauen enthielt. Einer der Schädel eines Mannes, der im Alter von 50 Jahren starb, hatte einen deformierten Unterkiefer. [41] Es gibt eine Hypothese, dass diese Überreste zu Bolesław gehörten. Gegner dieser Theorie deuten darauf hin, dass der Prinz viele Jahre nach seinem Tod auf diese Weise benannt wurde, und sein Zeitgenosse Gallus erwähnte keinen physischen Defekt des Helden seiner Chroniken. Die Verteidiger der Hypothese argumentieren, dass die Arbeit von Gallus die Merkmale eines Panegyrikers zu Ehren von Bolesław aufweist, weil der Chronist seine körperlichen Schwächen nicht erwähnte. Es wird auch spekuliert, dass der Knochenschaden infolge von Geburtskomplikationen auftrat, die einige Monate später zum Tod seiner Mutter führten. [42]
Der Spitzname von Boleslaw wurde auch in anderen Fällen erklärt Wege. Einer Legende nach schlug Boleslaw sein Gesicht gegen eine Wand, nachdem er die Unterwerfung seines Vaters gegenüber den Deutschen und Tschechen beobachtet hatte. [43] Laut Jan Długosz litt der Prinz in seiner Jugend an einem Geschwür, das die Deformität seines Gesichts verursachte. 19659065] Laut älterer Historiographie erhielt er den Beinamen Wrymouth für seine Meineid. [45][46]
Early Years [ edit ]
Nach Bolesławs Geburt änderte sich das politische Klima im Land. Die Position von Bolesław als Thronerben wurde durch die Anwesenheit von Mieszko Bolesławowic, der zu diesem Zeitpunkt bereits siebzehn Jahre alt war, bedroht und war außerdem im Einvernehmen mit Władysław I. Herman selbst der erste Nachfolger. Wahrscheinlich war es diese Situation, die den Untergang des jungen Prinzen Mieszko im Jahre 1089 auslöste. [47] Im selben Jahr wurde Wladyslaw I Hermans erstgeborener Sohn Zbigniew in ein Kloster im sächsischen Quedlinburg geschickt. [48] Dies legt nahe, dass Wladyslaw I Herman beabsichtigte, Zbigniew zu befreien, indem er ihn zum Mönch gemacht hatte, und beraubte ihn somit jeder Nachfolge. [49][50] Dies beseitigte zwei Anwärter auf den polnischen Thron, sicherte das Erbe des jungen Bolesław und verringerte die wachsende Opposition gegen Wladyslaw I. Herman bei den Adligen. [51] Kurz nach seinem Aufstieg wurde Władysław I. Herman jedoch von den Baronen gezwungen, die faktischen [1945947] Regierungsrollen an den Pfalzgrafen Sieciech aufzugeben. Diese Wendung der Ereignisse war wahrscheinlich darauf zurückzuführen, dass Herman den Thron den Baronen schuldete, von denen der mächtigste Sieciech war. [52] [53]
Around the Zeit Władysław I heiratete erneut. Die auserwählte Braut war Judith-Maria, Tochter von Kaiser Heinrich III. Und Witwe von König Solomon von Ungarn, die sich nach ihrer Hochzeit Sophia nannte, um sich von Władysław I Hermans erster Frau zu unterscheiden. Durch diese Ehe gewann Bolesław drei oder vier Halbschwestern, und so blieb er der einzige rechtmäßige Sohn und Erbe. Es wird vermutet, dass die neue Herzogin Sieciech aktiv bei der Übernahme des Landes unterstützte und dass sie seine Geliebte wurde. [52][54]
Position von Sieciech in Polen [ edit
Im Jahre 1090 Die polnischen Streitkräfte unter Sieciechs Kommando gelang es, die Kontrolle über Danzig Pommern zu übernehmen, wenn auch nur für kurze Zeit. Großstädte wurden von polnischen Truppen besetzt und der Rest wurde niedergebrannt, um den zukünftigen Widerstand zu verhindern. Einige Monate später führte jedoch eine Rebellion einheimischer Eliten zur Wiederherstellung der Unabhängigkeit der Region von Polen. [55] Im darauffolgenden Jahr wurde eine Strafexpedition organisiert, um Danzig Pommern zu erholen. Der Feldzug wurde in der Schlacht an der Wda entschieden, wo die polnischen Ritter trotz der Hilfe böhmischer Truppen eine Niederlage erlitten. [56]
Empfang von Juden in Polen im Jahr 1096, Gemälde von Jan Matejko.
Die Kindheit von Prinz Bolesław fand statt In einer Zeit, in der eine massive politische Migration aus Polen stattfand, [57] aufgrund der politischen Repressionen von Sieciech. [58][59] Die meisten Eliten, die zu politischen Flüchtlingen wurden, fanden in Böhmen einen sicheren Ort. Eine weitere Konsequenz von Sieciechs politischer Verfolgung war die Entführung von Zbigniew durch Sieciechs Feinde und seine Rückkehr aus dem Ausland im Jahre 1093. [59] Zbigniew flüchtete in Schlesien, eine Hochburg des negativen Gefühls sowohl für Sieciech als auch für seinen nominellen Mäzen Władysław I. Herman. 19659083] In Abwesenheit von Sieciech und Bolesław, die von Ungarn gefangengenommen und in Gefangenschaft gehalten wurden, unternahm Fürst Władysław I. eine Strafexpedition nach Schlesien, die erfolglos blieb und ihn zwang, Zbigniew als legitimen Erben anzuerkennen. [59] In 1093 Władysław I. unterzeichnete ein Gesetz zur Legitimierung, das Zbigniew die Abstiegsrechte von seiner Linie gewährte. Zbigniew wurde auch das Thronrecht erteilt. Nach der Flucht von Sieciech und Bolesław aus Ungarn wurde eine Expedition gegen Zbigniew vom Pfalzgrafen unternommen. Ihr Ziel war es, den Legitimierungsakt für nichtig zu erklären. Die Teilnehmer trafen sich 1096 in der Schlacht von Goplo, wo Sieciechs Truppen die Anhänger von Zbigniew vernichteten. Zbigniew selbst wurde gefangengenommen, erlangte jedoch ein Jahr später, im Mai 1097, durch das Eingreifen der Bischöfe seine Freiheit wieder. [61][62] Gleichzeitig wurden seine durch das Legitimierungsgesetz garantierten Rechte wiederhergestellt. [63]
Gleichzeitig begann um 1096, um die Zeit des Ersten Kreuzzuges, eine große Migration von Juden aus Westeuropa nach Polen. Die tolerante Herrschaft von Władysław I Herman zog die Juden an, die sich ohne Einschränkungen im gesamten Königreich niederlassen durften. Der polnische Prinz kümmerte sich sehr um die hebräische Diaspora, da er seinen positiven Einfluss auf das Wirtschaftswachstum des Landes verstand. [64] Die neuen jüdischen Bürger erlangten während der Herrschaft von Bolesław III. Bald Vertrauen bei den Heiden.
Teilung des Landes [ edit ]
In Anbetracht der Missbilligung seines Vaters und nachdem er die Pläne von Sieciech und Herzogin Judith-Sophia entdeckt hatte, gewann Zbigniew einen Verbündeten in dem jungen Fürsten Bolesław. Beide Brüder forderten die Übergabe der Zügel der Regierung. Es ist jedoch schwer zu glauben, dass Bolesław zu diesem Zeitpunkt unabhängige Entscheidungen traf, da er erst 12 Jahre alt war. Es wird postuliert, dass er zu diesem Zeitpunkt lediglich ein Spielball des Machtkampfes des Barons war. Władysław I. Herman stimmte jedoch zu, das Reich zwischen den Brüdern aufzuteilen, [65] um jedem seine eigene Provinz zu gewähren, während der Fürst - Władysław I selbst - die Kontrolle über Mazovia und seine Hauptstadt in Płock hielt. Władysław behielt auch die Kontrolle über die wichtigsten Städte wie Wrocław, Kraków und Sandomierz. [66][67] Die Provinz von Zbigniew umfasste Großpolen einschließlich Gniezno, Kuyavia, Łęczyca Land und Sieradz Land. Bolesławs Territorium umfasste Kleinpolen, Schlesien und das Land von Lubusz. [68]
Die Teilung des Landes und die Erlaubnis von Bolesław und Zbigniew zur Mitregulierung beunruhigten Sieciech die Brüder zusammen. Sieciech verstand, dass die Teilung des Landes seine Position untergraben würde. [69] Er leitete eine militärische Beilegung des Problems ein und erlangte die Unterstützung des Fürsten. [70] Die Position von Władysław I wird als mehrdeutig angesehen, wenn er sich für eine Unterstützung entschieden hat Sieciechs Sache statt seiner Söhne. [71]
Kampf gegen Sieciech [ edit ]
Als Antwort auf Sieciechs Vorbereitungen gingen Bolesław und Zbigniew eine Allianz ein. Dies fand auf einer beliebten Versammlung oder Wiec in Breslau statt, die von einem Magnaten namens Skarbimir aus der Familie Awdaniec organisiert wurde. Dort wurde beschlossen, den derzeitigen Vormund von Bolesław, einem Adligen mit Namen Wojslaw, der mit Sieciech verwandt war, zu entfernen und eine Expedition gegen den Pfalzgaden zu veranlassen. Später, im Jahr 1099, trafen die Armeen des Pfalzgrafen und Fürsten Hermann die Streitkräfte von Zbigniew und Bolesław in der Nähe von Żarnowiec am Fluss Pilica. Dort besiegten die Streitkräfte von Bolesław und Zbigniew Sieciechs Armee, und Władysław I. Herman musste Sieciech dauerhaft aus der Position des Pfalzgrafen entfernen. [69] Im selben Jahr schloss Bolesław zu Weihnachten einen kurzlebigen Frieden mit Böhmen. Die Vereinbarung wurde in Žatec geschlossen. [72] Laut Cosmas wurde Bolesław zum Miecznik (de: Schwertträger ) seines Onkels Bretislaus II., Herzog von Böhmen, ernannt. Dem jungen Fürsten würden außerdem jährlich 100 Stück Feinsilber und 10 Talente Gold als Tribut an Böhmen gezahlt (es handelte sich um das Land Schlesien, für das er Władysław I Tribut zollte). [73]
Die Rebellenstreitkräfte wurden dann weiter in Richtung Sieciechów (19659102) gerichtet, wo die Pfalz sich versteckte. Unerwartet kam Prinz Władysław seinem belagerten Favoriten mit einer kleinen Streitmacht zu Hilfe. Zu diesem Zeitpunkt beschlossen die Fürsten, ihren Vater abzusetzen. Die Opposition schickte Zbigniew mit einem bewaffneten Kontingent nach Masowien, wo er die Kontrolle über Płock übernehmen sollte, während Bolesław in den Süden verlegt wurde. Die Absicht war die Umzingelung ihres Vaters, Fürst Władysław I.. Der Fürst sagte dieses Manöver voraus und sandte seine Truppen nach Masowien zurück. In der Umgebung von Płock wurde die Schlacht schließlich zusammengeführt und die Streitkräfte von Władysław I wurden besiegt. Der Prinz wurde daraufhin gezwungen, Sieciech aus dem Land zu verbannen. [75] Der Palatin verließ Polen um 1100/1101. [69] Es war bekannt, dass er sich in den deutschen Ländern aufhielt. Schließlich kehrte er nach Polen zurück, spielte jedoch keine politische Rolle mehr. Möglicherweise wurde er geblendet. [53]
Erste Regierungsjahre ]
Kampf um die Vorherrschaft (1102–06) [] ] 19659109] Die polnische Teilung zwischen Bolesław (rot) und Zbigniew (grün)
Władysław I Herman starb am 4. Juni 1102. [76] Das Land wurde in zwei Provinzen aufgeteilt, die jeweils von einem der Söhne des verstorbenen Fürsten verwaltet wurden. Die Ausdehnung jeder Provinz ähnelte den Provinzen, die die Fürsten von ihrem Vater drei Jahre zuvor erhalten hatten. Der einzige Unterschied bestand darin, dass Zbigniew auch Mazowien mit seiner Hauptstadt Płock kontrollierte und so den nördlichen Teil des Königreichs regierte. Bruder Bolesław regierte seinen südlichen Teil. [77] Auf diese Weise wurden zwei praktisch getrennte Staaten geschaffen. [78] Nach einigen Historikern versuchte Zbigniew, die Rolle des Princeps zu spielen Damals war Bolesław erst 16 Jahre alt. Weil er noch zu unerfahren war, um seine Gebiete selbständig zu leiten, hatte der um ihn versammelte lokale Adel großen Einfluss auf die politischen Angelegenheiten, einschließlich seines Lehrers Skarbimir aus der Familie Awdaniec. [80] Sie führten getrennte Richtlinien sowohl intern als auch extern. Sie suchten Allianzen und manchmal waren sie Feinde voneinander. So war es bei Pommern, auf das Bolesław seine Ambitionen ausrichtete. Zbigniew, dessen Land an Pommern grenzte, wollte gute Beziehungen zu seinem nördlichen Nachbarn aufrechterhalten. Bolesław, der bestrebt war, seine Herrschaft auszuweiten, organisierte mehrere Razzien in Pommern und Preußen. [76] Im Herbst 1102 organisierte Bolesław eine Kriegspartei in Pommern, bei der seine Streitkräfte Białogard plünderten. [30]
As Die Pomeraner schickten Vergeltungskriegsparteien in polnisches Territorium, aber da Pommern an Zbigniew grenzte, zerstörten diese Razzien das Land des nicht verschuldeten Fürsten. Um Bolesław unter Druck zu setzen, verbündete sich Zbigniew daher mit Bořivoj II. Von Böhmen, dem er versprach, als Gegenleistung für seine Hilfe zu zahlen. [80] Indem er sich mit Bolesławs südlichem Nachbarn verbündete, wollte er Bolesław zur Aufgabe zwingen Überfälle in Pommern. Bolesław dagegen verbündete sich mit Kievan Rus und Ungarn. Seine Ehe mit Zbyslava, der Tochter von Sviatopolk II. Iziaslavich im Jahre 1103, sollte das Bündnis zwischen ihm und dem Fürsten von Kiew besiegeln. [82] Bolesławs erster diplomatischer Schritt bestand jedoch darin, Papst Paschal II anzuerkennen, der ihn in einen starken Widerstand stellte das Heilige Römische Reich. Ein späterer Besuch des päpstlichen Legaten Gwalo, Bischof von Beauvais, brachte die kirchlichen Angelegenheiten in Ordnung und erhöhte auch den Einfluss von Bolesław. [83]
Zbigniew lehnte die Teilnahme von Bolesław und Zbyslava ab. Er sah diese Gewerkschaft und das Bündnis mit Kiew als ernsthafte Bedrohung an. Dank der Bestechung [84] setzte er sich deshalb dafür ein, dass sein Verbündeter Bořivoj II. Von Böhmen in die Provinz Bolesław einmarschierte, um angeblich die polnische Krone zu beanspruchen. [85] Bolesław revanchierte sich mit Expeditionen in Mähren 1104–05, was den jungen Prinzen nicht brachte nur die Beute, aber auch das Bündnis von Pomeranians und Zbigniew aufzulösen. [86] Bei der Rückkehr der Armee wurde ein von Żelisław befehligter Teil von den Böhmen besiegt. Bolesław, der den anderen Teil der Armee befehligte, konnte sie nicht besiegen. Skarbimir konnte dank Bestechung Bořivoj II aufhalten. Mit viel Geld kehrte der böhmische Herrscher in seine Heimat zurück und schloss mit Böhmen einen kurzlebigen Frieden. Dann beendete Bořivoj II sein Bündnis mit Zbigniew. [84] Um das Bündnis Pommerns und seines älteren Bruders zu lähmen, führte Bolesław 1103 mehrere Angriffe auf das nördliche Land (die Schlacht von Kołobrzeg, wo [87] besiegt wurde) und 1104–05 endete mit Erfolg [88]
Die Intervention von Bolesław in den dynastischen Streit in Ungarn führte ihn in eine schwierige politische Situation. Zunächst unterstützte er den Prätendenten Álmos und marschierte nach Ungarn, um ihm zu helfen. Während der Belagerung von Abaújvár im Jahr 1104 änderte Álmos jedoch seine Meinung und führte Friedensgespräche mit seinem Bruder und seinem Rivalen King Coloman, zu diesem Zeitpunkt der Verbündete von Zbigniew. Bolesław zog seine Truppen aus Ungarn zurück und schloss 1105 mit Coloman einen Vertrag ab. Es wurde damals entschieden, dass Bolesław Álmos nicht gegen das Bündnis Coloman-Zbigniew unterstützte. Darüber hinaus brach der ungarische König seine Vereinbarungen mit dem böhmischen Königreich. [89] Der dynastische Streit zwischen Bořivoj II. Und seinem Cousin Svatopluk in Prag verursachte die Intervention von Bolesław und seinem Verbündeten König Coloman zur Unterstützung von Svatopluk mit dem Hauptziel ihn auf dem böhmischen Thron. [90] Eine neue Rebellion von Álmos zwang Coloman und seine Armee jedoch, Ungarn zurückzubringen. Bolesław beschloss auch, sich zurückzuziehen. Svatopluk versuchte die Stadt alleine zu meistern, erlitt jedoch eine komplette Niederlage. Sein Versuch, die Macht in Böhmen zu ergreifen, war erfolglos. [91]
Ebenfalls im Jahr 1105 schloss Bolesław mit seinem Halbbruder eine Vereinbarung, wie sie nur wenige Jahre zuvor bei ihnen stattgefunden hatte Die Stiefmutter Judith-Sophia (die im Austausch gegen reichliche Länder [[dower] landete, sicherte ihre Neutralität in Bolesławs politischem Wettbewerb mit Zbigniew [88]). Der in Tyniec unterzeichnete Vertrag war ein Kompromiss der beiden außenpolitischen Brüder; es wurde jedoch keine Vereinbarung über Pommern getroffen. [92] Ein Jahr später endete der Vertrag, als Zbigniew sich weigerte, seinem Halbbruder in seinem Kampf gegen Pommern zu helfen. Während der Jagd wurde Bolesław unerwartet von ihnen angegriffen. In der Schlacht hätte der junge Prinz beinahe sein Leben verloren. Böhmen nutzte die Beteiligung Bolesławs an den pommerschen Angelegenheiten als Entschuldigung und griff Schlesien an. The prince tried to re-established the alliance with his half-brother, without success.[93] The effect of this refusal was the rapprochement to the Bohemian Kingdom in 1106. Bolesław managed to bribe Bořivoj II and have him join his side in the contest against Zbigniew and shortly after formally allied himself with Coloman of Hungary. With the help of his Kievan and Hungarian allies Bolesław attacked Zbigniew's territory, and began a civil war for the supreme power in Poland.[94] The allied forces of Bolesław easily took control of most important cities including Kalisz, Gniezno, Spycimierz and Łęczyca,[95] in effect taking half of Zbigniew's lands. Through a mediation of Baldwin, Bishop of Kraków, a peace treaty was signed at Łęczyca,[96] in which Zbigniew officially recognized Bolesław as the Supreme Prince of all Poland. However, he was allowed to retain Masovia as a fief.[97]
Sole Ruler of Poland[edit]
First Expedition to Bohemia and exile of Zbigniew[edit]
In 1107 Bolesław III along with his ally King Coloman of Hungary invaded Bohemia in order to aid Svatopluk in gaining the Czech throne. The intervention in the Czech succession was meant to secure Polish interests to the south.[98] The expedition was a full success: on 14 May 1107 Svatopluk was made Duke of Bohemia in Prague.[99]
Later that year Bolesław undertook a punitive expedition against his brother Zbigniew. The reason for this was that Zbigniew had not followed his orders and had refused to burn down one of the fortresses of Kurów near Puławy.[100] Another reason was that Zbigniew had not performed his duties as a vassal by failing to provide military aid to Bolesław for a campaign against the Pomeranians. In the winter of 1107–08 with the help of Kievan and Hungarian allies, Bolesław began a final campaign to rid himself of Zbigniew. His forces attacked Mazovia and quickly forced Zbigniew to surrender. Following this Zbigniew was banished from the country and with his followers, took refuge in Prague, where he found support in Svatopluk.[101] From then Bolesław was the sole lord of the Polish lands,[95][102] though in fact his over-lordship began in 1107 when Zbigniew paid him homage as his feudal lord.[96]
In 1108 the balance of power in Europe changed. Svatopluk decided to paid homage to Emperor Henry V and in exchange received from him the formal investiture of Bohemia. At the same time King Coloman of Hungary was under attack by the combined forces of the Holy Roman Empire and Bohemia. Svatopluk also directed an attack to Poland; in this expedition took part Zbigniew and his followers. Bolesław avoided a direct confrontation because he was busy in his fight against Pomerania. Now, the Polish-Hungarian coalition decided to give help and shelter to Bořivoj II.[101] Later that year, Bolesław and Coloman made a new expedition against Bohemia. This expedition was prompted by the invasion of the German-Bohemian coalition to Hungary (siege to Pozsony Castle)[103] and the fact that Svatopluk, who owed Bolesław his throne, didn't honor his promise in which he returned Silesian cities seized from Poland (Racibórz, Kamieniec, Koźle among others) by his predecessors.[104] Bolesław then decided to restore Bořivoj II in the Bohemian throne. This attempt was unsuccessful[96] as a result of the attack of the Pomeranians. Bolesław was forced to bring his army to the north, where could repelled the invasion. Thanks to this situation, Bořivoj II failed to regain the throne.[103]
Polish-German War of 1109[edit]
In response to Bolesław's aggressive foreign policy, German king and Holy Roman Emperor Henry V undertook a punitive expedition against Poland in 1109.[105] In this fight, Henry V was assisted by Czech warriors provided by Svatopluk of Bohemia. The alleged reason for the war was the exile of Zbigniew and his restoration. Bolesław received an ultimatum from the German King: he abandoned the expedition against him only if Zbigniew was restored with half of Poland as a rule, the formal recognition of the Holy Roman Empire as overlord and the payment of 300 pieces of fine silver as a regular tribute.[106] Bolesław rejected. During the negotiations between Germany and Poland, the Polish ruler was in the middle of a war against Pomerania. On the west side of the Oder river, Henry V hurriedly gathered knights for his expedition against Poland.[106] Before the fight ended in Pomerania, the German troops have been able to approach Głogów.[107]
The military operations mainly taken place in southwestern Poland, in Silesia, where Henry V's army laid siege to major strongholds of Głogów, Wrocław and Bytom Odrzański. At this time along with the defense of towns, Bolesław was conducting a guerrilla war against the Holy Roman Emperor and his allies. He reportedly defeated the expedetion at the Battle of Hundsfeld on 24 August 1109,[106][108] although the existence of this battle is doubted by historians because it was first recorded about a century later.[109][110]
Second Expedition to Bohemia[edit]
In 1110 Bolesław undertook an unsuccessful military expedition against Bohemia. His intention was to install yet another pretender on the Czech throne, Soběslav I,[111] who sought refuge in Poland. During the campaign he won a decisive victory against the Czechs at the Battle of Trutina on 8 October 1110;[112] however, following this battle he ordered his forces to withdraw further attack against Bohemia. The reason for this is speculated to be the unpopularity of Soběslav I among Czechs as well as Bolesław's unwillingness to further deteriorate his relations with the Holy Roman Empire. In 1111 a truce between Poland and the Holy Roman Empire was signed which stipulated that Soběslav I would be able to return to Bohemia while Zbigniew would be able to return Poland.[113] Bolesław probably also agreed with the return of his half-brother as a result of pressure from the many supporters of the exiled prince in 1108, who according to the reports of Gallus Anonymus was surrounded to bad advisers (in this group unfavorable to Bolesław was probably Martin I, Archbishop of Gniezno[114]). Once in Poland, Zbigniew could claim the sovereignty over his previous domains at the instigation of this group. The first step towards this was his presence in the Advent ceremonial (which was forbidden to him by Bolesław after recognizing him as his overlord in Łęczyca in 1107),[115] which is reserved only for rulers. Zbigniew arrived surrounded by attendants, being carried before him a sword. This could be perceived by Boleslaw as an act of treason[116] and caused a definitive breach in their relationship, under which Zbigniew was the vassal and Boleslaw the ruler.[117] Probably these factors influenced Bolesław's decision of a terrible punishment to Zbigniew: a year later, in 1112, he was blinded on Bolesław's orders.[118]
Excommunication[edit]
Martin I, Archbishop of Gniezno.
The blinding of Zbigniew caused a strong negative reaction among Bolesław's subjects. Unlike blinding in the east, blinding in medieval Poland was not accomplished by burning the eyes out with a red hot iron rod or knife, but a much more brutal technique was employed in which the condemned's eyes were pried out using special pliers. The convict was then made to open his eyes and if they did not do so, their eyelids were also removed.
Contemporary sources don't provide clear information if Bolesław was indeed excluded from the community of the Church.[119] Is generally believed that Archbishop Martin I of Gniezno (who was a strong supporter of Zbigniew) excommunicated Bolesław for committing this crime against his half-brother.[120] The excommunication exempted all Bolesław's subjects from his oath to obedience. The prince was faced with a real possibility of uprising, of the sort that deposed Bolesław the Bold. Seeing his precarious situation Bolesław sought the customary penance that would reconcile the high priesthood. According to Gallus Anonymus, Bolesław first fasted for forty days and made gifts to the poors:
(...)He slept in ashes and sackcloth, among the streams of tears and sobs, as he renounced communion and conversation with people.[121]
It's possible that Bolesław decided to celebrate a public penance as a result of the negative public response to the blinding of Zbigniew. His intention with this was to rebuild his weakened authority and gain the favor of Zbigniew's supporters.[122] Punishment of blinding was used in medieval Europe to the rebellious nobles. This act of Bolesław against his half-brother could be received by the Polish society as a breach of the principle of solidarity among the members of the ruling dynasty, accepting the foundation of public order.[123]
Ruins of the Abbey of Saint Giles in Somogyvár, Hungary.
According to Gallus, Bolesław also sought and received forgiveness from his half-brother. In the next part of his penance, the prince made a pilgrimage to Hungary to the Abbeys of Saint Giles in Somogyvár and King Saint Stephen I in Székesfehérvár. The pilgrimage to the Abbey of Saint Giles also had a political goal; Bolesław strengthened his ties of friendship and alliance with the Arpad dynasty.[124] Following his return to Poland, Bolesław even traveled to Gniezno to pay further penance at the tomb of Saint Adalbert of Prague, where poor people and clergy received numerous costly gifts from the prince.[125] Only after this the excommunication was finally lifted.[126] Following his repentance the Polish prince made a vague commitment to the Church.[127]
About Zbigniew's death there are not preserved information. In the obituary of the Benedictine monastery in Lubiń dated 8 July 1113 was reported the death of a monk in Tyniec called brother Zbigniew. Historians believed that he could be Bolesław's half-brother. The information marked that his burial place was in the Benedictine monastery of Tyniec.[128]
Conquest and conversion of Pomerania[edit]
Map of Pomerania including the island of Rugia (17th century).
The separation of Pomerania during the reign of Casimir I the Restorer contributed to the weakening of the Polish state, and subsequent rulers during the second half of the 11th century weren't able to unite all the lands that once belonged to Mieszko I and Bolesław I the Brave. All attempts made to reconquer this area failed. Only after defeating Zbigniew and repelling the claims of Bohemia against Silesia in 1109, Bolesław III Wrymouth was able to direct the expansion to the West, which he intended to return to Poland.[129]
Strengthening the Polish-Pomeranian borders[edit]
The issue of conquest of Pomerania had been a lifelong pursuit for Bolesław III Wrymouth. His political goals were twofold; first – to strengthen the Polish border on the Noteć river line, second – to subjugate Pomerania with Polish political overlordship but without actually incorporating[130] it into the country with the exception of Gdansk Pomerania and a southern belt north of river Noteć which were to be absorbed by Poland. By 1113 the northern border has been strengthened. The fortified border cities included: Santok, Wieleń, Nakło, Czarnków, Ujście and Wyszogród. Some sources report that the border began at the mouth of river Warta and Oder in the west, ran along the river Noteć all the way to the Vistula river.[131]
Before Bolesław III began to expand in Gdańsk Pomerania (Pomerelia), he normalized his political relations with Bohemia. This took place in 1114 at a great convention on the border of the Nysa Kłodzka river.[104] In addition to Bolesław also assisted Bohemian princes of the Premyslid line: Vladislaus I, Otto II the Black and Soběslav I. The pact was sealed by the marriage of Bolesław (a widower since his wife Zbyslava's death[132]) with Vladislaus I and Otto II's sister-in-law, the German noblewoman Salomea of Berg.[133]
The conquest of Gdańsk Pomerania[edit]
After being normalized his relations with Bohemia, Bolesław directed his efforts against Prussia, and in 1115 he made a victorious expedition, ravaging their tribal lands. As a result, the north-east border was at peace, which allowed to freely prepare the invasion to Gdańsk Pomerania.[134] The conquest of this part of the Pomeranian lands (made during 1115–19), crowned a long-time struggle of previous Polish rulers. The result was the complete incorporation of the territories on the Vistula River, including the castellany of Nakło, to Poland.[135][136] Northern borders were established Polish Duchy probably on the line along the rivers Gwda and Uniesta (in later times currents of these rivers were the boundary between Pomerania and the Oder Slavic). It's also possible that the border ran along the Łeba.
The local rulers of the conquered Gdańsk and Słupsk were removed from power and replaced by Polish nobles. Bolesław also introduced Polish clerical organization, which was made in order to protect his interests in that territory. However, these areas refused to follow the church organization. The incorporation to the Polish Church occurred only during 1125–26 at the time of the visit of Papal Legate Gilles, Cardinal-Bishop of Tusculum.
Rebellion of Skarbimir[edit]
During Bolesław's Pomeranian campaign a formidable rebellion led by Count Palatine Skarbimir from the Awdaniec family began. The rebellion was quelled by the prince in 1117[137] and the mutinous nobleman were blinded as punishment. The conflict between Bolesław and the Awdaniec family is difficult to explain due to the lack of sources. The cause was probably the growing influence of the family, the ambition and jealousy of Skarbimir against Bolesław and his increased popularity.[138] Another probable factor was the desire to put Władysław II, Bolesław's first-born son, as the sole ruler after his death or also Boleslaw's fears to lose his position, as it was in the conflict with Sieciech.[138] It was also suggested that Skarbimir entered in contacts with Pomeranians and Vladimir II Monomakh, Grand Prince of Kievan Rus'.[139] Medieval historiography also associated the rebellion with the Law of Succession issued by Boleslaw. The problem with the principle of inheritance appeared between 1115 and 1116 (after the birth of his second son Leszek, first-born from his second marriage). According to one hypothesis Skarbimir objected the adoption of the statute who changed the traditional Polish succession customs.[140] In the suppression of the rebellion played a major role Piotr Włostowic of the Labedz family, who replaced Skarbimir as Count Palatine.[138] Defeated, Skarbimir received a minor punishment from Bolesław.[141] The rebellion of Skarbimir also rested importance to the conquest of Gdańsk Pomerania.[142]
Intervention of Kievan Rus'[edit]
Probably in the rebellion of Skarbimir intervened the Rurikid ruler Vladimir II Monomakh and his sons. In 1118 Monomakh incorporated Volhynia to his domains and expelled his ruler, Yaroslav Sviatopolkovich,[142] who sought refuge firstly in Hungary,[143][144] then in Poland.[145] In Yaroslav's place, Monomakh put his son Roman as a ruler of Volhynia, and after his early death in 1119, replaced him with another son, Andrew, who in 1120 invaded Polish territory with the support of the Kipchaks tribe. A year later, Bolesław with the exiled Yaroslav (who was his brother-in-law),[146] organized a retaliatory expedition to Czermno.[143][147] After this, for several years Bolesław intervened in the dynastic disputes of the House of Rurik.[142]
During the 1120s the Kievan princes continue their expeditions against Poland. The neutrality of the neighboring Principality of Peremyshl was attributed to Count Palatine Piotr Włostowic,[148] who in 1122 captured Prince Volodar.[149] A year later Bolesław intervened again in Volhynia, where he wanted to restore Yaroslav. The expedition (aided by the Bohemian, Hungarian, Peremyshl and Terebovl forces) failed due to the death of Yaroslav and the stubborn resistance of the besieged Volodymyr-Volynskyi, aided by Skarbimir's supporters. This failed military expedition led to disturbances in the Polish-Hungarian-Halych alliance.[142][147][150]
Conquest of Western Pomerania[edit]
In 1121 (or 1119[151]) Pomeranian Dukes Wartislaw I and Swietopelk I were defeated by Bolesław's army at the battle of Niekładź near Gryfice.[152] Polish troops ravaged Pomerania, destroyed native strongholds, and forced thousands of Pomeranians to resettle deep into Polish territory.[153] Bolesław's further expansion was directed to Szczecin (1121–22). He knew that this city was well defended by both the natural barrier of the Oder river and his well-built fortifications, like Kołobrzeg. The only way to approach the walls was through the frozen waters of a nearby swamp. Taking advantage of this element of surprise, Bolesław launched his assault from precisely that direction, and took control of the city. Much of the population was slaughtered and the survivors were forced to paid homage to the Polish ruler.[154]
A further step is probably fought battles on the western side of the Oder River, where Boleslaw had addressed areas to the Lake Morzyce (now the German Müritz). These areas were outside the territorial scope of Pomeranians. In parallel with the expansion of the Polish ruler to the west continued the conquest of these lands by Lothair, Duke of Saxony (and future Holy Roman Emperor). According to contemporary sources, a Saxon army approaching from above the Elbe River in the direction of today's Rostock. They conquered the Warinis, Circipanes, Kessinians and part of the Tollensers tribes.[155] The expansion led by the two rulers was probably the result of earlier unknown agreements. This was the first step for the later Christianization of Pomeranian lands.[156]
In 1122 Bolesław finally conquered Western Pomerania, which became a Polish fief. Duke Wartislaw I was forced to paid homage to the Polish ruler, paying an annual tribute of 500 marks of fine silver[157] and the obligation to give military aid to Poland at Bolesław's request.[158][159] In subsequent years the tribute was reduced to 300 marks.[160] This success enabled Bolesław to make further conquests. In 1123 his troops even reached to Rügen, but didn't mastered these areas.[154]
According to modern historiography, Bolesław began to pay tribute to Emperor Henry V, at least from 1135. Is believed that the amount was 500 marks of fine silver annually. It's unknown why Bolesław began to paid homage to Henry V, as the sources do not mention any reference about the Polish ruler being tributary of the Holy Roman Empire in the period 1121–35.[161]
Christianization of Western Pomerania[edit]
In order to make Polish and Pomeranian ties stronger, Bolesław organized a mission to Christianize the newly acquired territory. The Polish monarch understood that the Christianization of the conquered territory would be an effective means of strengthening his authority there. At the same time he wished to subordinate Pomerania to the Gniezno Archbishopric. Unfortunately first attempts made by unknown missionaries did not make the desired progress.[162] Another attempt, officially sponsored by Bolesław and led by Bernard the Spaniard, who traveled to Wolin during 1122–23, has ended in another failure.[163] The next two missions were carried out in 1124–25 and 1128 by Bishop Otto of Bamberg (called the Apostle of Pomerania). After appropriate consultation with Bolesław, Bishop Otto set out on a first stage of Christianization of the region in 1124. In his mission Otto stayed firstly at Bolesław's court, where he was provided with appropriate equipment, fire and several clergymen for his trip to Pomerania.
The Bishop was accompanied throughout his mission by the Pomeranian ruler Wartislaw I, who greeted him on the border of his domains, in the environs of the city of Sanok.[164] In Stargard the pagan prince promised Otto his assistance in the Pomeranian cities as well as help during the journey. He also assigned 500 armored knights to act as guards for the bishop's protection,[159] and obtain the baptism of the elders tribal leaders.[165] Primary missionary activities were directed to Pyrzyce,[159] then the towns of Kamień, Wolin, Szczecin and once again Wolin.[154][166] In the first two towns the Christianization went without resistance. In Kamień the task was facilitated by the intercession of Wartislaw I's own wife and dignitaries.[165] At Szczecin and Wolin, which were important centers of Slavic paganism, opposition to conversion was particularly strong among the pagan priests and local population. The conversion was finally accepted only after Bolesław lowered the annual tribute imposed on the Pomeranians.[160] Four great pagan temples were torn down and churches were built in their places.[154] Otto's mission of 1124 ended with the erection of bishoprics in Lubusz for Western Pomerania and in Kruszwica for Eastern Pomerania (Gdańsk), which was subordinated to the Archbishopric of Gniezno.[167]
In 1127 the first pagan rebellions began to take place. These were due to both the large tribute imposed by Poland as well as a plague that descended on Pomerania and which was blamed on Christianity.[160] The rebellions were largely instigated by the old pagan priests, who had not come to terms with their new circumstances. Wartislaw I confronted these uprisings with some success, but was unable to prevent several insurgent raids into Polish territory. Because of this Bolesław was preparing a massive punitive expedition that may have spoiled all the earlier accomplishments of missionary work by Bishop Otto.[168] Thanks to Otto's diplomacy direct confrontation was avoided and in 1128 he embarked on another mission to Pomerania. Wartislaw I greeted Otto at Demmin with some Polish knights. This time more stress was applied to the territories west of the Oder River, i.e. Usedom, Wolgast and Gützkow,[169] which weren't under Polish suzerainty.[170][171] The final stage of the mission returned to Szczecin, Wolin and Kamień.[154] The Christianization of Pomerania is considered one of the greatest accomplishments of Bolesław's Pomeranian policy.
In 1129 Bolesław concluded with Niels, King of Denmark an alliance directed against Wartislaw I and the attempts of Lothair III, King of Germany to subordinate Western Pomerania. In retaliation for the sack of Płock by Wartislaw I in 1128, Polish-Danish troops taken the Western Pomeranian islands of Wolin and Usedom.[172]
At end of the 1120s Bolesław began to implement an ecclesiastical organization of Pomerania. Gdańsk Pomerania was added to the Diocese of Włocławek, known at the time as the Kujavian Diocese. A strip of borderland north of Noteć was split between the Diocese of Gniezno and Diocese of Poznan. The bulk of Pomerania was however made an independent Pomeranian bishopric (whose first Bishop was one of the participants in the missionary expedition and former Polish royal chaplain, Adalbert[173][174]), set up in the territory of the Duchy of Pomerania in 1140, and after Bolesław had died in 1138 the duchy became independent from Poland.[170]
The project of Archbishop Norbert of Magdeburg[edit]
During the 1130s a project was designed by Norbert, Archbishop of Magdeburg, under which Pomerania would be divided between two dioceses subordinated to the Archbishopric of Magdeburg. At the same, he revivied the old claims about Magdeburg's ecclesiastical sovereignty over all Poland. A first Bull was prepared already in 1131, but never entered into force.[175] Despite adversity, Norbert continued his actions to subdue the Polish Church during 1132–33. For the Polish bishops, a call was made in the Curia.[176]
The Polish bishops didn't appear before Pope Innocent II, which resulted in the issuing of the Bull Sacrosancta Romana[177] in 1133, which confirmed the sovereignty of the Archbishopric of Magdeburg over the Polish Church and the projected Pomeranian dioceses. The formal privilegium maius was the culmination of Norbert's efforts.[178] Bolesław, trying to save his past efforts in Pomeranian politics, opted for his submission at Merseburg in 1135.[179]
Conquest of Rügen and alliance with Wartislaw I[edit]
To consolidate his power over Pomerania Bolesław conducted in 1130 an expedition to the island of Rügen. For this purpose, he concluded an alliance with the Danish duke Magnus Nilsson (his son-in-law[180]) who provided him with a fleet in exchange for support in his efforts to obtain the Swedish throne. The fleet of Magnus transported Polish troops to the shores of the island of Rügen. However, the intended battle on the island never happened, because the Rani at the sight of the Polish-Danish combined forces recognized Bolesław's overlordship.[181]
After the successful invasion to the Danish capital, Roskilde in 1134 Bolesław formed an alliance with Wartislaw I of Pomerania against King Eric II of Denmark (an ally of Emperor Lothair III). The role of the Polish prince was limited only to aid the House of Griffins, not due while the real interest in Danish affairs. The Danish, after repelling the first attack, in retaliation led an expedition which led to their expansion into the lands of Pomerania.
Congress of Merseburg[edit]
Political Background[edit]
In 1125 Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor and King of Germany, died. His successor, Lothair of Supplinburg, has been embroiled in disputes over his inheritance. For the Imperial crown, he became involved in the affairs of the Papacy. In 1130 there was a double election to the Apostolic See. Lothair supported Pope Innocent II, hoping in this way to secure his own coronation.[182] Contrary to was expected, Lothair's Imperial coronation didn't end his disputes against the contenders for the German throne.[183]
In 1130 Bolesław controlled the areas situated on the left bank of the Oder river on the island of Rügen. Germany also wanted to control these lands, but the internal political situation and the involvement in the civil war in Hungary, however, didn't allow an armed conflict. The Bull Sacrosancta Romana of 1133 give the Archbishopric of Magdeburg sovereign rights over the Pomeranian dioceses instituted by Bolesław.
The death of King Stephen II of Hungary in 1131 led the country into civil war between two claimants to the throne: Béla the Blind (son of Álmos, Duke of Croatia) and Boris (the alleged son of King Coloman). Boris sought the help of the Polish ruler, who hoped for a closer alliance with Hungary and cooperation with the Kievan Rus' princes (Boris was a son of a daughter of Vladimir II Monomakh). However, Bolesław overestimated his strength against Béla, who counted with the support of almost all his country. The Polish army faced the combined forces of Hungary, Bohemia, Austria and Germany in the Battle of the Sajó river (22 July 1132), where the coalition had a complete victory over the Polish prince, who was forced to retreat.[182]
The success in Hungary was used by the Bohemian ruler Soběslav I, an Imperial vassal, who during 1132–34 repeatedly led invasions to Silesia.[149] The issue over the property of Silesia was subjected to the decision of Lothair III.
Preparations for the Congress[edit]
In February 1134 Soběslav I of Bohemia and dignitaries of King Béla II of Hungary, together with Bishop Peter of Székesfehérvár went to Altenburg, where they presented their allegations against the Polish ruler. They asked the intervention of the Holy Roman Empire (preliminary requests occurred two years earlier). Lothair III accepted the request, acting as an arbitrator in the dynastic disputes in Central Europe.[184]
At the same time Béla II and Prince Volodymyrko of Peremyshl undertook a military expedition against Poland. The combined forces occupied Lesser Poland, reaching to Wiślica. Shortly after, Bolesław received a summons to the Imperial court at Magdeburg on 26 June 1135. Playing for time, however, he only send deputies. The emperor sent another delegation and requested a personal appearance of the Polish ruler, setting a new date on 15 August 1135, this time in Merseburg.[185] Bolesław realized that without an agreement with Lothair III he couldn't maintain the control over the newly conquered lands on the west side of the Oder and the island of Rügen.[182]
Even before the Congress of Merseburg was performed, Bolesław persuaded one of ruling princes of Western Pomerania, Ratibor I to make an expedition against Denmark. It was a clear expression of ostentation to Emperor Lothair III because the King of Denmark was a German vassal. The fleet formed by 650 boats (with 44 knights and 2 horses) attacked the rich Norwegian port city of Kungahälla (now Kungälv in Sweden).[186]
Provisions of the Congress[edit]
The Congress took place on 15 August 1135. During the ceremony, Emperor Lothair III recognized the rights of the Polish ruler over Pomerania. In retribution, Bolesław agreed to paid homage for the Pomeranian lands and the Principality of Rügen,[187] with the payment of 6000 pieces of fine silver from these lands to the Holy Roman Empire; however he remained fully independent ruler of his main realm, Poland. With Bolesław's death in 1138, Polish authority over Pomerania ended,[188] triggering competition of the Holy Roman Empire and Denmark for the area.[170] The conflict with Hungary also ended, with Bolesław recognizing Béla II's rule. The agreement was sealed with the betrothal of Bolesław's daughter Judith with Béla II's Géza (this marriage never took place). In case of the Bohemian-Polish dispute the Imperial mediation failed. Bolesław argued he must be treated as a sovereign ruler, who wasn't the case of Soběslav I, an imperial vassal. Lothair III, unable to come to an agreement with the Polish ruler, proposed to discuss the matter in subsequent negotiations.
The Congress ended with church ceremonies, during which Bolesław carried the imperial sword. This was an honor granted only to sovereign rulers.[186] An indirect goal of Polish diplomacy was the successful invalidation of the Papal Bull of 1133 and the recognition of metropolitan rights of the Archbishopric of Gniezno at the Synod in Pisa in 1135. On 7 July 1136 was issued the protectionist Bull[189]Ex commisso nobis a Deo[190] under which Pope Innocent II confirmed the unquestioned sovereignty of the Archbishopric of Gniezno over the Polish dioceses.[191][192]
Last years and death[edit]
Normalization of relations with his neighbors[edit]
After entering in the imperial sphere of influence, Poland normalized his relations with Bohemia at the Congress of Kłodzko on 30 May 1137 (the so-called Peace of Kłodzko), but the details of this agreement are unknown.[193] This treaty was confirmed in the town of Niemcza, where Władysław, the eldest son of Bolesław, stood as godfather in the baptism of Wenceslaus, Soběslav I's son.[194]
Sarcophagus of Bolesław III in Płock Cathedral.
In the last years of his life, Bolesław's main concern was to arranged political marriages for his children in order to strengthen his relations with neighboring countries. In 1137 Bolesław reinforced his relations with the Kievan Rus' with the marriage of his son Bolesław with Princess Viacheslava, daughter of Vsevolod, Prince of Pskov. In the year of his death, by contrast, finally normalized his relations with Hungary through the marriage of his son Mieszko with Princess Elizabeth, daughter of King Béla II.[193]
Death[edit]
Bolesław III Wrymouth died on 28 October 1138, probably in the town of Sochaczew.[195] There are no records about the circumstances of his death. 12th century sources didn't provide information about his place of burial. It was only in the 15th century, when Jan Długosz recorded that the Prince's tomb was in the Masovian Blessed Virgin Mary Cathedral in Płock. However, he didn't show from where he took this information. Presumably the chronicler took this report from the lost Rocznik mazowiecki. Wawrzyniec Wszerecz, Canon of Płock during the 16th–17th century, wrote that Bolesław was in a common coffin at the Cathedral, where the remains of his father Władysław I Herman and several other Piast Masovian rulers were also placed.[196]
Marriages and Issue[edit]
Bolesław was married twice:
Zbyslava (c. 1085/90 – c. 1114[197]), his first wife, was a member of the Rurikid dynasty. She was the daughter of Sviatopolk II Michael, Prince of Polotsk (1069–71), of Novgorod (1078–88), of Turov (1088–93) and Grand Prince of Kiev (1093–1113). The marriage was probably concluded in 1103[198] with the purpose to obtain future military help from Kiev in the fight against Zbigniew. This union also notoriously limited the attacks of the Princes of Galicia and Terebovlia against Poland. Until Zbyslava's death the relations between Poland and the Principality of Galicia–Volhynia remained friendly.[199]
Salomea (c. 1093/1101 – 27 July 1144), his second wife, was a German noblewoman. She was the daughter of Henry of Berg-Schelklingen, Count of Berg. The marriage took place in January or February 1115.[200] This union was motivated by the current political situation, on the occasion of the signing of a peace treaty between Poland and Bohemia. Salomea came from a powerful and influential family, who, after the death of Emperor Henry V in 1125, as a result of the support of the opposition in Germany, lost their political influence at the court of Lothair III.[201]
In older historiography Adelaide, daughter of Emperor Henry IV, was erroneously considered as another wife of Bolesław. The information about this stated that after the death of Zbyslava, Bolesław married her in Bamberg in 1110. This report is provided by Jan Długosz and Archdeacon Sulger. This view was challenged by Oswald Balzer.[202]
Issue of Zbyslava of Kiev[edit]
Władysław II the Exile (1105 – 30 May 1159), the only son of Bolesław and Zbyslava, was Prince of Kraków, Silesia, Sandomierz, eastern Greater Poland, Kuyavia, Western Pomerania and Gdańsk Pomerania (1138–46).[203] Gallus Anonymous wrote that the heir of the Polish throne was born in the winter of 1107–08, but omitted the gender and name of the child. The Rocznik świętokrzyski and Rocznik kapitulny recorded Władysław's birth in 1105.[204][205]
A daughter [Judith?][206] (c. 1112 – after 1124), married in 1124 to Vsevolod Davidovich, Prince of Murom. Her filiation is doubtful, because in Russian chronicles was only noted that Vsevolod's wife came from Poland;[207][208] she probably could be either Bolesław and Zbyslava's daughter or a member of the Awdaniec family as daughter of Skarbimir.[209]
Older historiography attributed another child born from the marriage of Bolesław and Zbyslava. In addition to Władysław II and the unnamed daughter was also added an unnamed second son. Gallus Anonymous wrote that this son was born around 1107–08.[210] According to Oswald Balzer, he died shortly after birth.[211] However, Karol Maleczyński believed that he never existed, pointed that probably the sources who provided the year of 1105 as Władysław II's date of birth (Rocznik świętokrzyski and Rocznik kapitulny) could be made a mistake.[212]
Issue of Salomea of Berg[edit]
Leszek (1115/16 – 26 August before 1131), the eldest son of Bolesław and Salomea. He probably died in infancy.[212][213]
Ryksa (1116 – after 25 December 1156), eldest daughter of Bolesław and Salomea, in 1127 she married with to Danish prince Magnus Nilsson, future King of Västergötland. This union was made to obtain Danish support for Poland in the war against Germany, but in 1134 Denmark took the side of Germany in the conflict. After Magnus' death in 1134, Ryksa returned to Poland. Later she married with Volodar Glebovich, Prince of Minsk and Hrodno; this marriage was concluded in order to obtain an ally in the Polish war against Hungary. Her third marriage was with King Sverker I of Sweden.[214][215]
A daughter (before 1117/22 – after 1131),[216] betrothed or married[217] in 1131 to Conrad, Count of Plötzkau and Margrave of Nordmark.[218]
Casimir, known in historiography as the Older (9 August 1122 – 19 October 1131), according to sources (like Rocznik kapituły krakowskiej), he died aged 9.[214][219] Jan Długosz in his chronicle wrote that he was born from the marriage of Bolesław and Adelaide,[220] the Prince's supposed second wife.
Gertruda (1123/24 – 7 May 1160), a nun at Zwiefalten (1139).[221]
Bolesław IV the Curly (c. 1125 – 5 January 1173), Prince of Masovia and Kuyavia (1138–46), of Kraków, Gniezno and Kalisz (1146–73), of Sandomierz (1166–73),[222] married aged 12 with Viacheslava, daughter of Vsevolod, Prince of Pskov.[223][224] Jan Długosz reported his birth in 1127 as the second son born from Bolesław and Adelaide.[225]
Mieszko III the Old (1126/27 – Kalisz, 13 March 1202), Duke of Greater Poland (1138–1202), of Kraków (1173–77, 1190, 1199–1202), of Kalisz (1173–1202), of Upper Gdańsk Pomerania (1173–1202) and Kuyavia (1195–98),[226] around 1136 married to Elizabeth, daughter of King Béla II of Hungary. The marriage was concluded as one of the provisions of the Congress of Merseburg.[224]
Dobroniega Ludgarda (1129 – by 1160), after her father's death she was married by her mother Salomea[227] around 1146–48 to Theodoric I, Margrave of Lusatia,[228] who later repudiated her.[224]
Judith (1130 – 8 July 1175), betrothed in 1136 to Prince Géza, son of King Béla II of Hungary; however the marriage never took place and in 1148 she married to Otto I, Margrave of Brandenburg.[229][230]
Henry (1131 – 18 October 1166), Duke of Sandomierz (1146–66),[231] according to Jan Długosz he was born in 1132. Further mention of him was made in his chronicle by 1139, describing the division of the country in districts.[232] Karol Maleczyński placed his birth between 1127 and 1131. During his father's lifetime Henry didn't play an important political role. He died in 1166 in battle against the Prussians, unmarried and childless.[224]
Agnes (1137 – after 1182), around 1140–41 she was a proposed bride to one of the sons of Grand Prince Vsevolod II of Kiev. This union was to ensure the support of Kiev in the dispute between Salomea's sons and Władysław II, their half-brother.[233] At the end, the marriage never took place and she married around 1149–51 to Mstislav II, Prince of Pereyaslavl and Grand Prince of Kiev since 1168.[234][235]
Casimir II the Just (1138 – 5 May 1194), Duke of Wiślica (1166–73), of Sandomierz (1173–94) of Kraków (1177–94), of Masovia and Kuyavia (1186–94),[236] for a long time considered a posthumous child, and for this reason not included in his father's testament.[229]
Older historiography attributed another two daughters from the marriage of Bolesław and Salomea: Adelaide and Sophia.[237] Adelaide (c. 1114 - 25 March before 1132), was the first wife of Adalbert II the Pious, eldest son of Leopold III, Margrave of Austria. Modern historians denies that she was a daughter of Bolesław.[213][238][239] Sophia (d. 10 October 1136), was probably the mother of Mateusz, Bishop of Kraków.[240][241]
Ancestry[edit]
Ancestors of Bolesław III Wrymouth
Statute of Succession (Testament of Bolesław III Wrymouth)[edit]
The Senioral Principle[edit]
His own experiences during his youth probably motivated Bolesław to make a division of his domains between his surviving sons. At the trustee of his provisions was appointed the faithful Count Palatine Piotr Włostowic. In his testament, also known as the "Statute of Succession", Bolesław introduced in Poland the Senioral Principlein an effort to keep the unity of the state and to prevent the struggle for power among his sons.[242] This regulation about the succession came into force after Bolesław's death, although is unknown the exact date of his establishment.[243] It's believed that his creation could happen in 1115 or 1116, after the birth of a son Leszek, or after the suppression of the rebellion of Skarbimir (in 1117).[244] Sources indicate that the original document about the succession was established in 1137. The Statute was nullified in 1180 but restored by Pope Innocent III in 1210 after a petition of the Silesian rulers;[245] however, historians challenge the approval of the Statute by the Pope in the absence of any other information.[242]
The "Senioral Principle" established that the eldest member of the dynasty was to have supreme power over the rest and was also to control an indivisible "senioral part": a vast strip of land running north-south down the middle of Poland, with Kraków its chief city.[246] The Senior's prerogatives also included control over Pomerania, a fief of the Holy Roman Empire. Sources showed a discrepancy in terms of the power exercised by the Senior Duke. Pope Innocent III talked about Primogeniture, while Wincenty Kadłubek refers to both Seniority and Primogeniture. Kadłubek combined in one sentence the two systems, i.e. inheritance of supreme power in individual districts, where Primogeniture was in force. Among historians, there is a view that Bolesław not established Seniority, but Primogeniture that belongs exclusively to Władysław II and his descendants.[247] A fact who supported this hypothesis was the coverage and nature of power exercised by Bolesław IV the Curly in 1146.[248]
Division of the Polish state[edit]
Division of the Polish state in 1138:
Seniorate Province.
Pomeranian vassals under the rule of the Seniorate Province.
Sandomierz Province of Henry.
Bolesław divided his domains into the following provinces:
The Seniorate Province (with his capital Kraków) was supposed to be non-inherited and indivisible.[246][249] It consisted of Lesser Poland, Sieradz and Łęczyca, the western part of Kruszwica and Kuyavia,[250][251] the eastern part of Greater Poland, Kalisz, Gniezno and Gdańsk Pomerania.[252]Western Pomerania as a fief would remain under the control of the Princeps.[253]
Władysław II received the Silesian Province, comprising Silesia, with his capital Wrocław and the Lubusz land.[254] He probably received this domain already between 1124 and 1125 after his marriage with Agnes of Babenberg.[255] As the eldest son, he became in the first Senior Duke (or Princeps).[256]
Bolesław IV received the Masovian Province, with his capital in Płock and eastern Kuyavia.
Mieszko III received the Greater Poland Province, composed of the remaining western parts of Greater Poland, with his capital in Poznań.
Henry received the Sandomierz Province, composed of eastern Lesser Polish territories centered around the city of Sandomierz and the Bug River to the north, with his capital in Lublin.[254][257]
Salomea of BergBolesław's widow, received Łęczyca or Sieradz-Łęczyca[258] as her dower. After her death, these lands were to be included in the Seniorate Province.
Casimir II, Bolesław's youngest son, wasn't included in the Testament, because he was born after his father's death or shortly before.[254]
Among medievalists there is a view that the Statute only provide the inheritance of Bolesław's descendants in the first generation (i.e. his sons). After their deaths, their lands were to be included in the Seniorate Province. However, the later fights between them made the provinces transformed into a hereditary domains.[259]
Feudal division of Poland[edit]
The "Senioral Principle" was soon broken, leading to a period of nearly 200 years of Poland's disintegration,[260] also known as feudal fragmentation, a phenomenon common in medieval Europe.[261] Among others countries who were affected by this are Russia, Hungary, and Germany. This was a time of internal struggles that caused the weakening of the Polish state and the enormous growth of internal development, culture, and improving the situation of the broad masses of the population. Distribution of the then princely rights by contemporary historiography also had a good side, which include: the reconstruction of the political system in the new economic fundamentals and increasing responsibility for the fate of the country placed upon its upper echelons.[262]
Organization of the Polish state during Bolesław's rule[edit]
Representation of the tripartite social order of the Middle Ages: oratores "those who pray" (cleric), bellatores "those who fight" (knight), and laboratores "those who work" (workman: peasant, worker, member of the lower middle class); miniature by Aldobrandino di Siena in the Li Livres dou SantéFrance, 13th century.[263]
A warrior preparing his crossbow. At the end of the 11th century, the army began to make crossbows.
A detailed knowledge of the internal organization of the 12th century Polish state is impossible. There are no documents from this period and the reports of chroniclers showed problems about a real knowledge of the principality's management.
Bolesław divided his domains into provinces, districts and grods (a type of fortified village or castellany). Within them remained the Opole.[264] Territorial scope of the province corresponded to the laters Dzielnica. It's believed that 6–7 provinces were created: Masovia, Silesia, Greater Poland, Kraków, Sandomierz, Kalisz-Łęczyca[265] and Pomerania (from the lands of Gdańsk Pomerania).[266] During Bolesław's reign attempts were made to organize the borders areas marches following the German model. Among the marches corroborated in the available sources are: Głogów, Gdańsk and probably Lubusz.[267] Probably Bolesław had a number of well-maintained castles that served in the political, economic and administrative spheres.
The State's nature during the Piast dynasty was patrimonial. The Ducal court (Latin: curia ducis) was a center of power, which belonged to the reigning family (along with a separate court by the Duchess), after them came the secular and Church dignitaries and subjects, next to lower officials, chivalry and courtly princely members and chaplains.[268] The most important office at the court of Władysław I Herman and Bolesław was the Count Palatine (also known as Voivode).[269] The Count palatine (Latin: comes palatinus) included major command of the military expeditions (in place of the ruler), defense of the State, supervision of the administration (as head of the Ducal court), control and appointment of the heads of the castellanies and the exercise of the courts. The Count Palatine Office was abolished in 1180.[265] Already during the reign of Mieszko II Lambert saw the development of Polish bureaucratic apparatus. The Collector (Latin: camerarius), managed the economy of the ducal court. Another specific offices in the Ducal court the Cześnik (cup-bearer), the Stolnik (esquire), the Strażnik (guard), the Miecznik (Sword-bearer), the Koniuszy (Master of the Horse) and the Łowczy (Master of the Hunt). During Bolesław's reign appeared the office of the Chancellor, who directed the work of the court offices and the Ducal chapel[270] (Latin: capella), which consisted of a bunch of secular and religious duties.[271]Michał Awdaniec was a chancellor at this time. Also belonged to the central government the Treasurer, the Mint Master and others.[266] Also during the rule of Bolesław the structure of the state was closely linked to the organization of the Polish Church. The church was subject to the ruler, which had the right of Investiture.[272]
The Ducal court was in contact with the subjects via the castellanies, who were managed by the Naczelnik or Town Chief (Latin: princeps terrae). He had sovereignty over the castellanies or Grods (Latin: comes),[265] while the castellans (Grod rulers) should exercise the local civil authority, getting benefits from the public, organizing the defense and probably exercising the courts. Under the direct obligation of the ruler are the Bailiff, the Żupan (Gastald), the Minters, the Celnik (Tax collector) and collectors.[266] All important functions in the principality are held by the nobility.[273] The Castellan belonged to the group of nobles, officials and ministerialis. Some had served directly to the ruler, others held the offices, while the role of others are of food shortages.[271] The Margraves (who are in charge of the border areas) were directly subordinate to the Polish ruler and had greater power than the Provincial chiefs.[267]
At the end of the 11th century waned this princely organization. Was replaced with the Western European model of troops consisting of chivalry. The Latin term militeswhich had been used to determine the soldiers came to be called the category of Knights and warriors who could afford to keep a horse.[274] Polish armed forces in Bolesław's times are composed of three types of forces: the Princely army (Oddziału nadwornego), the Lords army (Drużyny możnowładców) and the militia (Pospolite ruszenie), composed of branches of small feudal lords and peasants[275] (according to other views the militia adjutant troops were powerful and also composed by clergy and laity[276]).
The Princely army consisting of his nobles -at the end of the 11th century, the so-called "New People" (pl: Nowi Ludzie): tribal chiefs, local leaders and opolne rulers who aspired to participate in government, sent their sons to the Duke's court, where he was accompanied the ruler-.[277] Bolesław's personal guard was probably chosen by himself, using an invocation which was written in the Chronicles of Gallus Anonymous:
A young people, with great manners and high birth, by at my side constantly in battle, with me accustomed to hardships![278]
The nobles maintained their own army, which consisted of poor knights supported by peasants. They also are responsible for their armament. Among the equipment used by them was a wooden weapons (like spear), blunt weapons (like club), cutting weapons (like sword) and belching weapons (like crossbow, bow and arrow, sling), and the so-called protective equipment (shield, helmet, armor).[279] These armies over time become larger than the princely one, the most notorious example from this was Sieciech.[280] During the constant conflicts at the beginning of the 12th century, the nobles invoked the militia, particularly of endangered lands. The whole militia was divided into branches, which were given the names of their native districts (for example, the Kruszwiczan hordes[281]). In the case of an armed conflict to a greater weapon are invoked independent branches composed by peasants (for example, during 1109).[276]
In addition to the nobles (who were tied to the ruler and his court) and warriors the Polish society in Bolesław's times also consisted of free peasants and servants (attached to his place of residence). A distinct social group were the free people, the so-called guests (Latin: hospites) -who do not own property-, the warriors (Latin: milites gregarii) who had farms and are counted into the common people. At the end of the social scale are the slaves (brańcy of war, or their descendants). There are little difference between them and the free peasants, but their duty to their master was higher.[282] Non-free population was also used for personal services or to work on the land in favor of the ruler.[283]
All aspects of life in the State were regulated by the Ducal Judge (Latin: ius ducale). He covered all the rights of the Duke, in relation to the subjects or property, the enforcement of a variety of benefits, dues and ministries.[284] The expanded state apparatus and the church maintained by benefits from the population producing material goods. The main burden of the tax rests on the lowest social class: the peasantry (Latin: heredes, rustici ducis, possesores).[285] Up to them to submit certain levies, tithes, and other forms of taxes like the Podworowe (in the form of a cow, which consisted of the entire village), Podymne (for every house), Poradlne (for each piece of land), Narzazu (for grazing pigs in the woods), the Stacji or Stanu (who allow the maintenance of the Duke's court) and the posług komunikacyjnychwho regulated the transport ways in the country and was divided in three main taxes: Przewód ("the cable"), Powóz ("the carriage") and Podwód ("the wagon"). Other minor taxes involved hunting, military, guards (who custodied the Grods), taxes on regalia and criminal penalties. In addition, subjects were required to repair roads, bridges, construction and maintenance of castles.[266][284]
Seals and coinage[edit]
Bulla discovered in Głębokie (2002).
Bulla discovered in Ostrów Tumski (2005).
Of the five oldest preserved seals from Polish rulers four were discovered in various places during 2002–06, while one of more than 100 years ago.[286] Polish archaeologists made further discoveries in Głębokie (2002), in Ostrów Tumski (2005), in Gniezno (2005) and in an undisclosed location in the village of Susk near Sierpc, 32 km. from Płock (2006).[287][288] The first preliminary studies suggested that the seals could belonged to Bolesław III Wrymouth. They are made of lead, a durable material, with a diameter of 36–40 mm.[287] The lead seals are used at that time in European courts and are from the Bulla tipe.[289] Seals are known in municipal and military orders. Occasionally, in the most important documents (acts) were used golden bullas.[290]
The discovered bullas from Bolesław's reign fall into two major types, differing in the form of writing:
Type I: extended stored on the obverse in the genitive, with the Latin word sigillum.
Type II: short and around the bulla.
One example from both type of seals came from the relationship with St. Adalbert, where he emphasizes his pontifical recognition (in type I) and in the crosier, with the gesture of the imposition of hands, clearly visible in the seals after restoration (in type II).[288] The use of the genitive seals in Poland came from the 12th century, a phenomenon (unprecedented), with its only then monetary equivalent in the denarius with the Latin legend: Denarivs ducis Bolezlai.[291][292] At the end of Bolesław's reign returned to the staid mold inscriptions with the Latin legend: Dvx Bolezlavus. According to S. Suchodolski the bullas were used for the authentication of princely documents like letters, privileges, judgments, etc.,[293] and by T. Jurek, they could also be used to secure the business arrangements (like buy of doors, chests, reliquaries).[288]
In October 2006, the Poznań Society of Friends of Learning has confirmed that the discovered bullas during 2002–05 belonged to Bolesław III Wrymouth.[290]
Boleslaw's protective bracteate.
Denarius with the legend ADALBIBVS.
Denarius with "cavalry" cross of Sieciech.
During Bolesław's reign appeared a two-sided denarius, which was denominated the foreign coin (Polish: monetą obcą). The first known denarius from this time bears the Latin legend Bolezlav. For the others most commonly used coins bears the Latin inscription Bolezlavs, denarivus, dicis Bolezlai with St. Adalbert in the reverse. Another type of coins didn't have legends. They differ mostly came from the weight: they were much lighter, punched for purely economic purposes.[294]
In this time was also modeled mainly on the Magdeburg technique a bracteate, who was one of the oldest in Europe. There are two types of bracteates who dated from Bolesław's reign:
The type II shows in both sides before Bolesław and St. Adalbert, who put his hand over the ruler in a gesture of protection. The legend shows the Latin inscription Bolezlaus Adalbertus. This bracteate initially was considered a way of penance from Bolesław for Zbigniew's blinding.[295] Was probably minted in Kraków around 1127.[296]
The type I is less frequent. Showed St. Adalbert in episcopal robes, holding a crozier and Gospel. Legend of the coin determines the form of the Archbishop of Gniezno.[297] Further studies have shown that the coin was minted between the period of the Congress of Merseburg (1135) and Bolesław's death (1138). It's now called the protectivesince illustrates the protection of St. Adalbert to the Polish ruler, who after his homage to the Holy Roman Empire in 1135 only recognizes the saint as his protector. It's one of the few examples of political propaganda in the coin's legend.[298] According to A. Schmidt this was an Archbishop's coin which was minted in Gniezno, probably in 1135.[298]
In addition to the two presented bracteates from Bolesław's there is one, which is now counted among the oldest known in numismatics. This bracteate was found in Brzeg (in Gmina Pęczniew) and preserved almost the 2/3 part of the whole weight of 0.61 g and a diameter of 27 mm. The coin shows the figure of the ruler with crown, sword in hand and an outstretched hand. Initially, was believed that showed Władysław II the Exile. Further studies, included by A. Mikolajczyk, identified this image with Bolesław III Wrymouth. Among researchers, however, today, there are discrepancies about what ruler showed the coin, because the inscription preserved is incomplete.[298]
Princely mints are mostly located in Wrocław, Płock, Gniezno and Kraków. In that time also existed private mints, such as Palatine Sieciech, who placed them in Sieciechów and near Kraków.[294]
Church foundations[edit]
It was customary between the 12th century ruling families a wide-ranging religious activities like donations in the benefit of the Church. The main objective was to spread Christianity. This was to include show religious rulers in the face of God, church hierarchs, clergy and society. Bolesław wasn't the exception, and he wasn't not only a predatory warrior, a cunning politician and a diplomat; he was also a patron of cultural developments in his realm.
Like most medieval monarchs, he founded several churches and monasteries. Among the most important of which are:
Benedictine Abbey of the Holy Cross (Święty Krzyż).
The pious Duke Bolesław founded in Łysa Góra an Abbey dedicated to the Holy Trinity with monks of the Order of St. Benedict.
Stored documents from about 1427 (called the świętokrzyskie dokumenty pergaminowe) confirm the history of the Bishop, adding that the co-founder of the monastery was the knight Wojsław.[299]
St. Giles-Church in Inowłódz, founded in 1138.
The St. Giles-Church in Inowłódz was built in the Romanesque style. According to a modern plate inscription (presumably from the 17th century) this temple was built in 1082 by Władysław I Herman. However, modern research revealed that the foundation of the Church was probably during the 12th century (at the latest from 1138) and the founder was Bolesław.[300]
The Collegiate Church of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Ostrów Tumski was founded thanks to the donations of Haymo, Bishop of Wrocław and comes Wojsław in 1120, following the reports of the 15th century Rocznika głogowskiego.[301] Modern scholars believed that the founder was Bolesław (T. Lalik), or the foundation was made by Bishop Haymo and Wojsław with the consent of the Duke (H. Gerlic) or was a foundation made by Bishop Haymo and Bolesław (T. Jurek). In earlier studies of the history of Silesia existed the opinion that Bolesław founded the Collegiate as a gesture of gratitude for the loyalty and bravery of the people of Głogów and also as a way of penance for Zbigniew's blinding.[302]
The Benedictine Abbey in Tyniec according to some hypotheses was also founded by Bolesław. In 1124 the Papal legate issued the confirmation of the goods received from the Abbey's estates.[303]
The Abbey of Lubiń was restored during 1137–38 by Bolesław and the Awdaniec family.[304]
The Wawel Cathedral was completed during Bolesław's reign. In 1118 Bishop Maurus was buried there.[305]
The Canons regular of St. Augustine in Trzemeszno was probably founded by Bolesław. Evidence of this was in a document issued by Mieszko III the Old in 1145.[306]
Abbey of Zwiefalten, Germany.
The connection of Bolesław and his second wife Salomea with the Swabian monastery of Zwiefalten was well known. The detailed description of Berthold of Zwiefalten was the only evidence of the cultural, artistic and religious development of the 12th century Polish court:[307]
The Polish Duke Bolesław sent the black cover choirs black, sewn white oxen [...] the gold, the silver, and the tablecloths, and especially in the most numerous of any kind of valuable furs to this monastery more than seventy grzywna. Salomea, his wife, sent gold woven stole, two alb knitted silk and silver pitcher with four grzywna on the box of ivory studded with gold, to draw up the choir covers his red coat decorated with gold stripes, and another coat on for the Mass all interwoven gold, dissuaded gold stripes and bottom trimmed with red frames, which according to the custom of the people is decorated with golden stars, curtain wall, one with a silk frames, the other adorned with white lions and the third red in the white list, [...] a hand from Saint Stephen the Martyr [...]a large piece of the Holy Cross, a tooth from Saint John the Baptist, a tooth from Saint Pancras, a tooth of Saint Cecilia, some of the blood of Christ, milk of the Virgin Mary and a chain of Saint Peter. In addition, one hundred pounds of silver, one gold appliqué alb, a cross gold weighing more than four fine gold, a silver gilt chalice, a silver plated pitcher of nearly six fines, a stole embroidered with gold, together with a scarf, a belt, a dalmatic all woven of gold, with the value of fifty and more brands, one black tunic with gold appliqué, a scarf and a cloth interwoven with gold, which together can have a value of twenty grzywna, a curtain wall, knitted silk, one box of ivory, one beautiful crystal vessel, three horses, two ounces of gold, two coats, one of which [...] ermine, a bishop's miter with gloves, on four fine and three coats of other goodies.
The same source mentioned that the golden cross donated to the monastery was made by master Leopard, who worked for the Polish ruler during 1129–37.[308]
The Reliquary of 1113 is an example of the artistic development during Bolesław's rule; was made during the penitential journey to the tomb of Saint Adalbert in Gniezno Cathedral after the blinding of Zbigniew, according to the reports the Gallus Anonymous:[125]
The evidence of the great work of goldsmiths, Bolesław had made on a relic of the Saint, as a testimony to his devotion and penance. Half coffin contains in itself 80 grzywna, the purest gold, not counting the pearls and precious stones that probably matched the value of the gold.
The Reliquary contained the head of Saint Adalbert. At the end of the 15th century was melted in order to make a new one. According to the notes of 1494 had the form of octagonal shrine. The side walls have the shape of squares and were separated by small columns, which were based on the figures of saints or prophets. The monument was decorated with 8 pearls and 40 sapphires.[309]
Polish historiography during Bolesław's reign[edit]
Stone in honor of Gallus Anonymous in Wrocław.
During his rule, Bolesław wanted the history of the Piast dynasty to be written. This task was assigned to an unnamed Benedictine monk (who had been incorrectly named as Gallus Anonymous[310][311]). Modern research, however, suggests that the monk was a Venetian.[312][313]
His Chronica Polonorumwritten in Latin, was made between 1112 and 1116.[314] The history of the State (Latin: gesta ducum) was made describing the fate of the rulers. The Chronicle covers the history from legendary times until 1114.[315] Composed of three parts, this unfinished literary work justified the right of the Piasts to rule over Poland. The Chronicle also explain many controversial events that were placed under the responsibility of the rulers, and give a full explanation about their policy.[316][317]
See also[edit]
^Oswald Balzer was in favor of 1086 as the year of birth, in bases of the records of the oldest Polish source: Roczniki Świętokrzyskie and Rocznik kapitulny krakowski; O. Balzer: Genealogia Piastówp. 119.
^K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych PiastówPoznań: 2004, pp. 185–187. ISBN 83-7063-409-5.
^M. Plezia: Wstęp[in:] Gallus Anonymus: Cronicae et gesta ducum sive principum Polonorumpp. 27–31.
^M. Spórna, P. Wierzbicki: Słownik władców Polski i pretendentów do tronu polskiegop. 65; S. Trawkowski: Bolesław III Krzywousty [in:] A. Garlicki (ed.): Poczet królów i książąt polskichp. 80; R. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polski średniowiecznejvol. Ich, p. 158.
^S. Trawkowski: Bolesław III Krzywousty [in:] A. Garlicki (ed.): Poczet królów i książąt polskichp. 89.
^ abO. Balzer's genealogy doesn't mention the coronation of Vratislav II, but he places the traditional date given by the chronicles of Cosmas of Prague (15 June 1086) to the coronation of the first King of Bohemia; O. Balzer: Genealogia Piastówp. 108. V. Novotny indicates that the Synod of Mainz took place in late April or May 1085; V. Novotny: Ceske dejiny. Diiu I cast 2. Od Bretislava I do Premysla IPrague 1912, p. 245. He believes that Vratislav II's coronation as King of Bohemia and Poland took place on 15 June 1085, after the synod, and not in 1086, as reported by O. Balzer and Cosmas of Prague. Compare to W. Mischke: Poland Czech kings crown (in Polish) [available 24 August 2009]pp. 11–12, 27–29.
^ abCosmas of Prague affirmation about the coronation of Prince Vratislav II as King of Poland is disputed by many historians. Medievalists consider it a mistake of the chronicler; G. Labuda: Korona i infuła. Od monarchii do poliarchiiKraków: 1996, p. 13. ISBN 83-03-03659-9. A detailed argument over the supposed coronation of Vratislav II was presented by W. Mischke: Poland Czech kings crown (in Polish) [available 24 August 2009]pp. 11–29. M. Spórna and P. Wierzbicki believe that message of Cosmas is authentic. As King of Poland, Vratislav II stemmed from the emperor's claim to sovereignty over the Polish homage (fief indirect, second-degree); M. Spórna, P. Wierzbicki: Słownik władców Polski i pretendentów do tronu polskiegop.496.
^R. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polski średniowiecznejvol. I, pp. 127–128.
^M. Spórna, P. Wierzbicki: Słownik władców Polski i pretendentów do tronu polskiegop. 353; M. K. Barański: Dynastia Piastów w Polscep. 175.
^R. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polski średniowiecznejvol. Ich, p. 130.
^O. Blazer didn't include the mother of Zbigniew in the list of Władysław I Herman's wives. Jan Wagilewicz named her Krystyna; O. Balzer: Genealogia Piastówp. 107. T. Grudziński believes that by 1080, Władysław I Herman was still unmarried. In contrast, many historians stated the Zbigniew's mother was the first wife of Prince Władysław I; K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych PiastówPoznań 2004, p. 164. ISBN 83-7063-409-5. Today it is widely accepted that the mother of Zbigniew was Przecława, a member of the Prawdzic family; see A. Nawrot (ed.): Encyklopedia HistoriaKraków 2007, p. 738. ISBN 978-83-7327-782-3.
^M. K. Barański: Dynastia Piastów w Polscep. 178.
^Strengthening the Polish situation in the first years of the rule of Władysław I, he could refuse to pay tribute to Bohemia for Silesia. M. K. Barański: Dynastia Piastów w Polscep. 179.
^The cult of Saint Giles began to expand rapidly in Europe during the first half of the 11th century. Polish lands went through the clergy, or pilgrims going to Saint-Gilles and Santiago de Compostella; K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywoustypp. 14–15.
^Władysław, by the grace of God Prince of the Polans, and Judith, his legitimate wife, send to Odilon, the venerable Abbot of Saint Giles, and all his brothers humble words of profound reverence. Learned that Saint Giles was superior to others in dignity, devotion, and that willingly assisted [the faithful] with power from heaven, we offer it with devotion these gifts for the intentions of had children and humbly beg for your holy prayers for our request. Gallus Anonymus: Cronicae et gesta ducum sive principum Polonorumvol. I, cap. XXX, pp. 57–58.
^12th century chronicles mentions that at the coffin of St. Giles was a golden image of some form. J. ed. Vielard: La guide du pèlerin de Saint-Jacques de Compostelle, XII-wieczny przewodnik pielgrzymów ST. GillesSt. Giles 1938; M. K. Barański: Dynastia Piastów w Polscep. 179.
^K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywoustyp. 13.
^ abGallus Anonymus: Cronicae et gesta ducum sive principum Polonorumvol. II. cap. I. p. 62.
^ abKosmasa Kronika Czechów.vol. II, cap. XXXVI, pp. 77–78.
^In 1637, on the tombstone of Judith at Kraków Cathedral was placed the date of her death as 24 December 1082, in clear contradiction to all known sources. O. Balzer: Genealogia Piastów.p. 104.
^O. Balzer: Genealogia Piastów.p. 119.
^K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastów.p. 165, footnote 59, p. 172.
^K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastów.p. 167.
^ abcK. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastów.p. 166.
^O. Balzer: Genealogia Piastów.p. 103.
^Wincenty Kadłubek in his writings gave to Judith and Władysław I Herman the titles of Queen and King. W. Kadłubek: Kronika polska.vol. II, cap 22, pp. 81–82.
^K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastów.p. 166. Compared with K. Maleczyński: W sprawie daty urodzin Bolesława Krzywoustego."Kwartalnik Historyczny", nº50, pp. 442–445.
^The date was widely supported by the investigator, for which he advocated to A. Bielowski against K. Jasiński. Pros: K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastów.p. 166.
^ abK. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastów.p. 186.
^From 1686 to 1939 the day of King Stephen of Hungary was celebrated on 2 Septemberafter which was transferred on 16 August. Official website of the Parish of St. Stephen in Warsaw: Święty Stefan, Król, 969–1038 (in Polish) [retrieved 13 July 2014].
^K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastów.pp. 164–165, 168.
^K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastów.pp. 185–187.
^K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastów.p. 167, 185.
^Cosmas often uses the Latin term tertio die to determine a short period. K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastów.pp. 186–187.
^O. Balzer: Genealogia Piastów.p. 119; K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastów.pp. 185–187.
^ abcK. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastówp. 184.
^K. Jasiński: Przydomek Bolesława Krzywoustego [in:] Genealogia. Studia i materiały historycznevol. VI, p. 143.
^K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywoustypp. 342–343.
^Monumenta Poloniae Historica (Pomniki dziejowe Polski)vol. III, p. 68, 457, 626, 765.
^Jan Długosz: Jana Długosza kanonika krakowskiego Dziejów polskich ksiąg dwanaścievol I, p. 422. (in Polish) Archived 16 April 2012 at the Wayback Machine [retrieved 23 July 2014].
^According to the researchers there was a pathological malformation, called Mandibular Condylar Hyperplasia. M. Spórna, P. Wierzbicki: Słownik władców Polski i pretendentów do tronu polskiegop. 66.
^R. Jaworski: Bolesław Krzywousty, w: Władcy Polski (dodatek do Rzeczpospolitej)p. 11.
^J. Machnicki: Przewrotna historia Polski - do 1795 rokup. 30.
^Jan Długosz: Jana Długosza kanonika krakowskiego Dziejów polskich ksiąg dwanaścievol I, p. 537. (in Polish) Archived 16 April 2012 at the Wayback Machine [retrieved 23 July 2014].
^E. Kowalczyk: Krzywousty - skaza moralna czy fizyczna"Kwartalnik Historyczny", nr 101, pp. 3–14.
^Another view is shown by K. Jasiński, who argued that is more likely he received this nickname for a physical defects than inmoral conduct. K. Jasiński: Przydomek Bolesława Krzywoustego [in:] Genealogia. Studia i materiały historycznevol. VI, pp. 138–146.
^The poisoning of Miesko Bolesławowic is attributed to Sieciech. M. Spórna, P. Wierzbicki: Słownik władców Polski i pretendentów do tronu polskiegop. 353; Ł. Piernikarczyk: Palatyn Sieciech (1080–1100) (in Polish) [retrieved 13 July 2014].
^Zbigniew, after the birth of Bolesław, was sent to learning for a future clerical post in Kraków Cathedral. Behind his removal from court was probably Duchess Judith, mother of Bolesław. K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywousty.pp. 22–23.
^P. Ksyk-Gąsiorowska: Zbigniew[in]: Piastowie. Leksykon biograficznyKraków 1999, p. 72. ISBN 83-08-02829-2.
^R. Grodecki believes that the banishment of Zbigniew to Quedlinburg Abbey was thanks to Count Palatine Sieciech and Duchess Judith-Sophia; R. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polski średniowiecznejvol. Ich, p. 129.
^The opposition, who supported the rights of Mieszko Bolesławowic and Zbigniew, demanded the legal recognition of the two princes as pretenders to the throne. S. Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowieczep. 117.
^ abR. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polski średniowiecznejvol. Ich, p. 128.
^ abŁ. Piernikarczyk: Palatyn Sieciech (1080–1100) (in Polish) [retrieved 13 July 2014].
^K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywoustyp. 30.
^S. Szczur believes that the plans of Sieciech to impose the Polish administration by force allowed the rapid integration with Poland; S. Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowieczepp. 117–118.
^M. Spórna, P. Wierzbicki: Słownik władców Polski i pretendentów do tronu polskiegop. 445.
^M. K. Barański: Dynastia Piastów w Polscep. 182.
^K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywoustyp. 26.
^ abcdR. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polski średniowiecznejvol. Ich, p. 129.
^In the return of Zbigniew to Poland also involved Bretislaus II, Duke of Bohemia; M. K. Barański: Dynastia Piastów w Polscepp. 182–183.
^L. Korczak: Władysław I Herman [in]: Piastowie. Leksykon biograficznyKraków 1999, p. 65. ISBN 83-08-02829-2.
^The release of Zbigniew took place during the consecration of Gniezno Cathedral; M. K. Barański: Dynastia Piastów w Polscep. 183.
^R. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polski średniowiecznejvol. Ich, p. 131.
^M. Bałaban: Historia i literatura żydowska ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem historii Żydów w Polscevol. I-III, Lwów 1925, p. 72.
^According to K. Maleczyński, Bolesław and Zbigniew received separated districts already in 1093, and the first actual division of the Principality took in a few years later; K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywoustypp. 34–35. In 1093, Władysław I admitted, inter aliato give Kłodzko to Bolesław (hypothesis presented by G. Labuda). R. Gładkiewicz (ed.): Kłodzko: dzieje miasta. Kłodzko 1998, p. 34. ISBN 83-904888-0-9.
^S. Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowieczep. 119.
^Zbigniew he should rule over Mazovia after the death of his father. This district, along with the towns inherited by Bolesław (Wroclaw, Krakow and Sandomierz) had to ensure the future control and full authority over the state. R. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polski średniowiecznejvol. I, pp. 131–132.
^Historians presented different views on the division of the country. R. Grodecki think that first division took place during the reign of Władysław I (in 1097–98) and the second after his death in 1102, under the arbitration of Archbishop Martin I of Gniezno. R. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polski średniowiecznejvol. I, pp- 131–135. G. Labuda believes that the division occurred around 1097, but only when Bolesław had completed 12 years. G. Labuda: Korona i infuła. Od monarchii do poliarchiiKraków:1996, pp. 16–69. ISBN 83-03-03659-9. K. Maleczyński placed the date of the first division around 1099. J. Wyrozumski: Historia Polski do roku 1505Warszaw 1984, p. 101. ISBN 83-01-03732-6.
^ abcS. Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowieczep. 120.
^M. K. Barański: Dynastia Piastów w Polscep. 184.
^These events are described, inter alia, in the publication of Zdzisław S. Pietras, "Bolesław Krzywousty". See Z. S. Pietras: Bolesław KrzywoustyCieszyn 1978, pp. 45–60.
^The excuse for this conflict by Władysław I was the absence of regulation in the payment of tribute to Bohemia. For Bretislaus II, was the lost of Kamień and Barda. K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywoustyp. 28.
^Kosmasa Kronika Czechówvol. III, cap. IX, p. 97.
^P. Jasienica: Polska Piastówp. 116.
^Z. S. Pietras: Bolesław Krzywoustyp. 58.
^ abP. Jasienica: Polska PiastówWarsaw 2007, p. 117.
^Stanisław Szczur: Historia Polski: Średniowiecze – Krakow, 2008, pp.121
^K. Maleczyński:Bolesław Krzywousty: Zarys Panowania, Krakow: 1947, pp. 53–56.
^T. Manteuffel believed that Zbigniew tried to play the role of tutor of his younger half-brother. See T. Manteuffel: Polska wśród nowych państw Europy [in:] T. Manteuffel (ed.), Polska pierwszych Piastów. Państwo, społeczeństwo, kultura.p. 34. S. Szczur felt that the issue was a matter of overlordship. S. Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowiecze.p. 121. R. Grodecki thought that the principle of Seniorate was most accepted. The equality of both rulers came only in 1106. R. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polski średniowiecznejvol. I, pp. 135–136. A different view is presented by G. Labuda, who pointed out that Zbigniew maintained the equality of rule between both districts since the division of 1102. G. Labuda: Korona i infuła. Od monarchii do poliarchiipp. 16–17.
^ abM. K. Barański: Dynastia Piastów w PolsceWarsaw 2008, p. 193.
^M. K. Barański: Dynastia Piastów w PolsceWarsaw 2008, p. 194.
^S. Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowieczep. 121.
^M. K. Barański: Dynastia Piastów w PolsceWarsaw 2008, pp. 193–194.
^ abM. K. Barański: Dynastia Piastów w PolsceWarsaw, 2008, p. 195.
^R. Drogi: Państwo Czeskie Przemyślidów (historia Czech, cap. III, t. 1) (in Polish) [retrieved 13 July 2014].
^M. Spórna, P. Wierzbicki: Słownik władców Polski i pretendentów do tronu polskiego. Krakow, 2003, pp. 62.
^M. K. Barański: Dynastia Piastów w Polscepp. 195–196.
^ abM. Spórna, P. Wierzbicki: Słownik władców Polski i pretendentów do tronu polskiegop. 62.
^M. K. Barański: Dynastia Piastów w Polscep. 196.
^M. K. Barański: Dynastia Piastów w Polscepp. 196–197.
^M. K. Barański: Dynastia Piastów w Polscep. 197.
^K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywoustypp. 59–60.
^M. K. Barański: Dynastia Piastów w Polscepp. 198–199.
^M. K. Barański: Dynastia Piastów w Polscep. 199.
^ abR. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polski średniowiecznejvol. Ich, p. 137.
^ abcS. Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowieczep. 122.
^K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywoustyp. 65.
^R. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polski średniowiecznejvol. I, pp. 136–137.
^The date was given by Cosmas of Prague. At the news of the rebellion Bořivoj II (who was in the Congress of Merseburg) complained to Emperor Henry V and request his intervention. Z. S. Pietras: Bolesław Krzywousty. Cieszyn, 1978, pp. 90–91
^K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywoustyp. 68.
^ abM. K. Barański: Dynastia Piastów w Polscep. 201.
^M. Spórna, P. Wierzbicki: Słownik władców Polski i pretendentów do tronu polskiegop. 63.
^ abM. K. Barański: Dynastia Piastów w Polscep. 202.
^ abR. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polski średniowiecznejvol. I , p. 141.
^Wincenty Kadłubek: Kronika polskavol. III, cap. 18, pp. 133–138. See also K. Kmąk: Wojna polsko-niemiecka 1109 (in Polish) [retrieved 15 July 2014].
^ abcK. Kmąk: Wojna polsko-niemiecka 1109 (in Polish) [retrieved 15 July 2014].
^M. K. Barański: Dynastia Piastów w Polscepp. 203–204.
^Wincenty Kadłubek describes this battle following the reports of Gallus Anonymus. However, at the end of the 19th century, historians recognized Kadłubek's relate as unreliable, as reflected, inter alia, [in:] S. Orgelbrand: Encyklopedia Powszechnavol. XII, Od Polska do Rohanp. 406.
^M. Kaczmarek, "Bitwa na Psim Polu"in: Encyklopedia Wrocławia, Wrocław 2000
^M. K. Barański: Dynastia Piastów w Polscep. 207.
^Tomasz Ga̜sowski, Jerzy Ronikier, Zdzisław Zblewski: Bitwy polskie. LeksykonEditorial Znak, 1999.
^Probably in this treaty was stipulated that Zbigniew received Sieradz as a fief. P. Ksyk-Gąsiorowska: Zbigniew[in:] S. Szczur, K. Ożóg (ed.), Piastowie. Leksykon biograficznyp. 75.
^Z. Dalewski: Rytuał i polityka. Opowieść Galla Anonima o konflikcie Bolesława Krzywoustego ze Zbigniewemp. 25.
^Z. Dalewski: Rytuał i polityka. Opowieść Galla Anonima o konflikcie Bolesława Krzywoustego ze Zbigniewempp. 39–40.
^Z. Dalewski: Rytuał i polityka. Opowieść Galla Anonima o konflikcie Bolesława Krzywoustego ze Zbigniewemp. 13, 46.
^Z. Dalewski: Rytuał i polityka. Opowieść Galla Anonima o konflikcie Bolesława Krzywoustego ze Zbigniewemp. 38.
^The date of Zbigniew's blinding is disputed. Cosmas of Prague favored the year 1110 (Kosmasa Kronika Czechówvol. III, cap. XXXIV. p. 115); for the year 1111 are in favor L. Giesebrecht: Wendische Geschichte aus den Jahren 780–1182p. 176 and M. Gumblowicz: Zur Geschichte Polens im Mittelalter. Zwei kritische Untersuchunden über die Chronik Baldwin Gallus. Aus dem Nachlass des Verfassers herausgegebenp. 94; for the year 1112 are in favor O. Balzer: , p. 117, S. Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowieczep. 124 and T. Tyc: Zbigniew i Bolesław [in:] Arcybiskup Marcin i Gnieznop. 23; for a time between 1112 and 1113 are in favor R. Grodecki, [in:] Gallus Anonymous: Kronika polskapp. 28–29, M. Plezia, [in:] Gallus Anonymous: Kronika polskap. 38; and for the year 1113 is in favor K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywoustypp. 70–75.
^Z. Dalewski: Rytuał i polityka. Opowieść Galla Anonima o konflikcie Bolesława Krzywoustego ze Zbigniewemp. 144.
^T. Tyc: Zbigniew i Bolesław [in:] Arcybiskup Marcin i Gnieznopp. 30–40.
^Gallus Anonymus: Cronicae et gesta ducum sive principum Polonorumvol. III, cap. XXV, p. 158.
^Z. Dalewski: Rytuał i polityka. Opowieść Galla Anonima o konflikcie Bolesława Krzywoustego ze Zbigniewemp. 145; K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywoustypp. 76–77.
^Z. Dalewski: Rytuał i polityka. Opowieść Galla Anonima o konflikcie Bolesława Krzywoustego ze Zbigniewemp. 183.
^R. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polski średniowiecznejvol. Ich, p. 142. According to Maleczyński, any agreement between Bolesław and King Coloman was signed during this trip. Witnessing this was Bolesław's later pilgrimage to the tomb of Saint Adalbert of Prague, where he gave numerous gifts to the clergy and mint commemorative coins. K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywoustyp. 77.
^ abGallus Anonymus: Cronicae et gesta ducum sive principum Polonorump. 161.
^During the Hungarian pilgrimage, according to Gallus Anonymous in his Chronicle: (...)despite the fact that he ruled over some no principality, but over a great Kingdom (in terms of Bolesław III Wrymouth) and that he was in uncertain peace, from various hostile Christian and pagan peoples, they entrusted themselves and their Kingdom in defense of the power of God(...). This piece, which focuses on devotion to the care of the Apostolic See of lands belonging to the Prince (following the rerms of the previous Dagome iudex), has not been approved by Polish medievalists. Gallus Anonymus: Cronicae et gesta ducum sive principum Polonorump. 159.
^K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywoustyp. 77.
^M. Spórna, P. Wierzbicki: Słownik władców Polski i pretendentów do tronu polskiegop. 501; B. Snoch: Protoplasta książąt śląskichp. 13.
^S. Arnold: Historia Polski do połowy XV wiekup. 29.
^Western Pomerania, rich principality ruled by Wartislaw I. The confluence of the Oder river and the lands of the lower and upper areas were also a matter of interest to German and Danish margraves, so Bolesław must be also interested in them. S. Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowieczep. 124.
^R. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polski średniowiecznej, vol. I, pp. 143–144.
^According to O. Balzer, Zbyslava of Kiev died between 1109 and 1112. O. Balzer: Genealogia Piastówp. 121.
^Richeza and Sophia of Berg, Salomea's sisters, are the wives of Vladislaus I and Otto II the Black, respectively. S. Trawkowski: Bolesław III Krzywousty [in:] A. Garlicki (ed.) Poczet królów i książąt polskichpp. 80–89.
^K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywoustypp. 141–142.
^K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywoustyp. 158.
^In 1116 there was another great expedition to Eastern Pomerania. Bolesław had a difficult victory, but didn't join this area to Poland. A. Marzec: Bolesław III Krzywousty[in:] S. Szczur, K. Ożóg (ed.), Piastowie. Leksykon biograficznyp. 81.
^The Rocznik kapituły krakowskiej indicates in 1117 that voivode Skarbimir rebelled against Bolesław and was blinded.
^ abcB. Snoch: Protoplasta książąt śląskichp. 17.
^K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywoustypp. 157–158.
^This theory is supported, among others, by M. K. Barański: Dynastia Piastów w Polscep. 202; J. Bieniak: Polska elita polityczna XII wieku (Część II. Wróżda i zgoda)[in:] Kuczyński K. (ed.), Społeczeństwo Polski średniowiecznejvol. III, pp. 51–52. Others historians, however, believed that the origin of Skarbimir's rebellion as a result of an Act of Succession as only speculative. S. Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowieczepp. 127–128. The theory of J. Bieniak is further criticized by M. Dworsatschek: Władysław II Wygnaniecp. 37.
^M. Spórna, P. Wierzbicki: Słownik władców Polski i pretendentów do tronu polskiegop. 64.
^ abcdK. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywoustypp. 212–214; A. Jóźwik: Grodzisko w Czermnie (in Polish) [retrieved 17 July 2014].
^Members of the Rostislavich branch of the Rurikid dynasty, Princes Volodar and Vasilko gained political autonomy at the end of the 11th century and beginning of the 12th century and fought for their independence from Kiev, but, unable to stop the combined forces of Grand Prince Sviatopolk II of Kiev and King Coloman of Hungary, finally were defeated and Vasilko was captured and blinded. J. Ochmański: Dzieje Rosji do roku 1861p. 50.
^ abS. Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowieczep. 125. Jan Długosz placed this event in 1122 and again in 1134, where his reports about the kidnapping story appears Volodar captured by Piotr Włostowic. The chronicler mistaken the name of the kidnapped Volodar with Yaropolk. Jan Długosz: Jana Długosza kanonika krakowskiego Dziejów polskich ksiąg dwanaścievol. Ich, p. 499, 521–523. (in Polish) Archived 16 April 2012 at the Wayback Machine [retrieved 17 July 2014].
^For this date is in favor J. Spors [in:] J. Spors: Studia nad wczesnośredniowiecznymi dziejami Pomorza Zachodniego XII-połowa XIII w.p. 119.
^E. Rymar: Rodowód książąt pomorskichp. 98.
^I. Ihnatowicz, A. Mączak, B. Zientara: Społeczeństwo polskie od X do XX wiekupp. 55–56.
^ abcdeO. Baranowska: Pomorze Zachodnie – moja mała ojczyznapp. 40–42.
^K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywoustyp. 154.
^K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywoustyp. 155.
^One mark of silver was equal to 240 denarii. A. Czubinski, J. Topolski: Historia PolskiOssolineum 1989, p. 39.
^R. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polski średniowiecznejvol. I, pp. 144–145.
^ abcL. Fabiańczyk: Apostoł Pomorzap. 39.
^ abcJ.W. Szymański: Książęcy ród Gryfitówp. 381.
^K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywoustypp. 155–156.
^R. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polski średniowiecznejvol. Ich, p. 145.
^L. Fabiańczyk: Apostoł Pomorzapp. 34–35.
^L. Fabiańczyk: Apostoł Pomorzap. 38.
^ abJ. Kłoczowski: Młodsza Europa. Europa Środkowo-Wschodnia w kręgu cywilizacji chrześcijańskiej średniowieczap. 35.
^According to sources Otto christianized even the towns of Gartz, Niekładz, Kłodkowo, Kołobrzeg and Białogard. K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywoustyp. 176.
^M. Spórna, P. Wierzbicki: Słownik władców Polski i pretendentów do tronu polskiegop. 64; J. Krzyżaniakowa: Rola kulturalna Piastów w Wielkopolsce [in:] R. Heck (ed.), Piastowie w dziejach Polskip. 181.
^R. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polski średniowiecznejvol. Ich, p. 147.
^L. Fabiańczyk: Apostoł Pomorzapp. 52–54.
^ abcKyra Inachim: Die Geschichte PommernsHinstorff Rostock, 2008, p. 17, ISBN 978-3-356-01044-2
^Norbert Buske: PommernHelms Schwerin 1997, p. 11, ISBN 3-931185-07-9
^The Polish-Danish expedition to the island of Wolin and Usedom is mentioned by Saxo Grammaticus. E. Rymar: Rodowód książąt pomorskichp. 98.
^R. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polski średniowiecznejvol. I, pp. 148–149.
^On 14 October 1140 Pope Innocent II formally invested Adalbert as Bishop of Pomerania in Wolin. The Bishopric was erected in 1124 in Wolin by Wartislaw I and Otto of Bamberg. E. Rymar: Rodowód książąt pomorskichpp. 102–103.
^Archbishop Norbert tried to take over the Bishopric of Poznań and incorporated under the suzerainty of the Archbishopric of Magdeburg. K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywoustyp. 301.
^K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywoustyp. 303.
^Ph. Jaffé: Regesta pontificum Romanorum ab condita Ecclesia ad annum post Christum natum MCXCVIIIcap. Ich, p. 860, nr 7629. Text of the Bull Sacrosancta Romana was published [in:] Codex diplomaticus majoris Polonia, vol. 1, nr 6 (in Latin) [retrieved 19 July 2014].
^K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywoustypp. 303–304.
^R. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polski średniowiecznejvol. I, pp. 151–153.
^Around 1127, Magnus married Ryksa, Bolesław's eldest daughter
^E. Kosiarz: Wojny na Bałtyku X-XIX w.p. 38.
^ abcW. Czapliński, A. Galos, W. Korta: Historia Niemiecp. 138.
^W. Czapliński, A. Galos, W. Korta: Historia Niemiecp. 137.
^L. Fabiańczyk: Apostoł Pomorzap. 68.
^L. Fabiańczyk: Apostoł Pomorzap. 69.
^ abL. Fabiańczyk: Apostoł Pomorzap. 70.
^The hypothesis about the Polish ruler paying homage to Germany was undermines by K. Maleczyński, who pointed that in this way Bolesław retained the sovereignty over his Pomeranian lands. The Annals of Magdeburgwhich reported this information, added a note with the year 1113 (Congress in Merseburg), who is considers reliable. It shall give the fact that any other German or Bohemian sources doesn't mention this event. K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywoustypp. 239–246. On the other hand S. Szczur, referring to the Annalsindicates that the Polish prince acknowledged the sovereignty of the Emperor not only for Western Pomerania and Rügen, but also for Poland. S. Szczur: Historia Polski - średniowieczep. 126.
^Kyra T. Inachin: Die Geschichte Pommerns, Hinstorff Rostock2008, p. 17, ISBN 978-3-356-01044-2: "Mit dem Tod Kaiser Lothars 1137 endete der sächsische Druck auf Wartislaw I., und mit dem Ableben Boleslaw III. auch die polnische Oberhoheit."
^The authenticity of the only known copy of this Bull is disputed. According to K. Maleczyński this was a forgery made after 1139. He believes that the 7 July 1136 issued document for the Archbishopric of Gniezno indeed was only a privilege, as evidenced by not only by the names of the Cardinals signed there, but also by the fact that the Bull bears the stamp who originally belonged to Pope Innocent II. This document, however, later widened at the law firm of Gniezno new church property as collateral against greed lay people, hence the current text can even deviate significantly from the original 1136 text. K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywoustypp. 309–310, 311. Compare [with]: K. Maleczyński: W kwestii autentyczności bulli gnieźnieńskiej z r. 1136.reprint, [in:] K. Maleczyński: Studia nad dokumentem polskimpp. 170–188. The authenticity of the Bull, in turn, was defended by H. Łowmiański: Początki Polski: polityczne i społeczne procesy kształtowania się narodu do początku wieku XIVvol. VI, cap. 1, pp. 337–343; There is also a summary of the sources of the years 1937–1975.
^Ph. Jaffé: Regesta pontificum Romanorum ab condita Ecclesia ad annum post Christum natum MCXCVIII.. Cz. I. s. 872, nr 7785. Tekst bulli Ex commisso nobis a Deo opublikowany został, [w:] Codex diplomaticus majoris Polonia, T. 1, nr 7 (łac.). [dostęp 16 grudnia 2009].
^L. Fabiańczyk: Apostoł Pomorzap. 71.
^At the same time fell a plan to appoint two other Pomeranian dioceses. R. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polski średniowiecznejvol. Ich, p. 152.
^ abS. Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowieczep. 127.
^R. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polski średniowiecznejvol. Ich, p. 154.
^L. Fabiańczyk: , p. 74.
^K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastówpp. 187–188.
^A wide scientific discussion over the death of Zbyslava was presented in the work of K. Kollinger. See K. Kollinger: The problem of food in 1109, Zbyslava's death and the Polish-Kievan alliance in 1102–1114, pp. 42–46 (in Polish) [retrieved 13 September 2009].
^O. Balzer: Genealogia Piastówp. 121; K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastówp. 189.
^K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywoustyp. 312.
^O. Balzer indicates that marriage of Bolesław and Salomea was concluded in 1113. O. Balzer: Genealogia Piastówpp. 122–123. K. Maleczyński, however, believes that this marriage took place in late March–July 1115. K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywoustyp. 313. K. Jasiński was in favor of J. Bieniak, who indicates that the marriage occurred in the first two months of 1115. K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastówpp. 190–191.
^K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywoustypp. 313–314.
^O. Balzer: Bolesław III Krzywoustypp. 122–123.
^P. Jasienica: Polska Piastówp. 127; A. Marzec: Bolesław III Krzywousty[in:] S. Szczur, K. Ożóg (ed.), Piastowie. Leksykon biograficznyp. 84; S. Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowieczep. 132.
^K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywoustyp. 314.
^K. Jasiński: Rodowód Piastów śląskichcap. I, pp. 57–58.
^According to Latopis hipacki (the only reliable early source who mentioned her), doesn't give her name. In older literature, however, was assumed that her name was Judith, for example J. Żylińska: Piastówny i żony Piastów. pp. 99, 113. M. Spórna and P. Wierzbicki, however, confirmed the existence of this daughter but her name is unknown; see M. Spórna and P. Wierzbicki: Słownik władców Polski i pretendentów do tronu polskiegopp. 501–502.
^This hypothesis was formulated by J. Bieniak and supported by K. Jasiński. K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastówp. 207.
^Gallus Anonymus: Cronicae et gesta ducum sive principum Polonorumvol. II, cap. 40, p. 108.
^O. Balzer: Genealogia Piastówpp. 135–136.
^ abK. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywoustypp. 315–316.
^ abK. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastówp. 209.
^ abK. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywoustyp. 316.
^K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastówp. 211, 214.
^K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastówpp. 217–218; O. Balzer, Genealogia Piastów2nd edition, Kraków 2005, p. 270, placed her birth around 1118.
^It's possible that there was no actual marriage -The Annalista Saxo uses the phrase "was married to" (in Latin desponsata fuit in the sentence: Huic desponsata fuit filia ducis Polanorum); GH Pertz: Annalista Saxon in Chronica et annales Aevi Salici (Monumenta Historica Germaniae) (in Latin), vol. VI. p. 768. [retrieved 19 May 2014].
^K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastówpp. 217–218.
^K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastówp. 222.
^Jan Długosz: Jana Długosza kanonika krakowskiego Dziejów polskich ksiąg dwanaścievol. Ich, p. 499 (in Polish) Archived 16 April 2012 at the Wayback Machine [retrieved 21 July 2014].
^K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastówp. 246.
^K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastówpp. 224–228.
^ abcdK. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywoustyp. 317.
^Jan Długosz: Jana Długosza kanonika krakowskiego Dziejów polskich ksiąg dwanaścievol. I, pp. 509–510 (in Polish) Archived 16 April 2012 at the Wayback Machine [retrieved 21 July 2014].
^K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastówpp. 234–235.
^K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywoustyp. 334.
^K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastówpp. 251–253.
^ abK. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywousty, p. 318.
^K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastówpp. 255–258.
^K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastówpp. 248–249.
^Jan Długosz: Jana Długosza kanonika krakowskiego Dziejów polskich ksiąg dwanaścievol. Ich, p. 509, 535–536 (in Polish) Archived 16 April 2012 at the Wayback Machine [retrieved 21 July 2014].
^K. Maleczyński says she was engaged to Yaroslav Vsevolodovich. K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywoustyp. 318.
^K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastówpp. 261–263.
^Among historians who refuted her Piast origin are Stanisław Kętrzyński, Karol Maleczyński and Gerard Labuda. See: K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastówp. 208.
^K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywoustyp. 315.
^This view was formulated by J. Bieniak. He also pointed that Sophia and Bishop Mateusz would belonged to the Leszczyców family. See also K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastówp. 223.
^K. Maleczyński points out that there is no way to resolve the issue of Sophia's parentage. The Rocznik świętokrzyski dawny reported Sophia's death on 10 October 1136, while the Obituary of Zwiefalten from the manuscript of Cividale recorded her death on 11 October 1136, naming her a Polish princess. Thus, Sophia could be Bolesław's daughter, or a close relative. K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywoustyp. 316.
^ abS. Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowieczep. 128.
^G. Labuda: Testament Bolesława Krzywoustego [in:] A. Horst. (ed.), Opuscula Casimiro Tymieniecki septuagenario dedicatap. 178; J. Bieniak: Polska elita polityczna XII wieku (Część II. Wróżda i zgoda)[in:] Kuczyński K. (ed.), Społeczeństwo Polski średniowiecznejvol. III, p. 52.
^S. Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowieczep. 127. According to J. Bienak the Testament was drawn up during the Christmas celebrations of 1117. J. Bieniak: Polska elita polityczna XII wieku (Część II. Wróżda i zgoda)[in:] K. Kuczyński (ed.), Społeczeństwo Polski średniowiecznejvol. III, pp. 51–52. The theory of Bienak was criticized by M. Dworsatschek. M. Dworsatschek: Władysław II Wygnaniecp. 37.
^K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywoustyp. 302. The abolition of the Seniorate Principle occurred during the Congress of Łęczyca in 1180. In that meeting, the Lesser Poland domains were given to Casimir II as hereditary fief. R. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polski średniowiecznejvol. Ich, p. 183. The decisions of the Congress were further approved by Pope Alexander III on 28 March 1181. A. Bielowski (ed.): Monumenta Poloniae Historica (in Polish), p. 401, compare editor 1, p. 401.
^ abA. Śmiech: Testament Bolesława Krzywoustego (in Polish) [retrieved 22 July 2014].
^E. Rymar: Primogenitura zasadą regulującą następstwo w pryncypat w ustawie sukcesyjnej Bolesława Krzywoustego"Śląski Kwartalnik Historyczny Sobótka", no 1 (48), pp. 10–15, 1993.
^Issues about the principate-seniority rules after Bolesław's death were further revised in the publication of A. Śmiecha, Testament Bolesława Krzywoustego. In Statut o sukcesji władzy w Polsce the author presents the views of Polish medieval studies. A. Śmiech: Testament Bolesława Krzywoustego (in Polish) [retrieved 22 July 2014]. See also [in:] S. Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowieczep. 128.
^M. Kantecki argued that Bolesław described the heritability of the Seniorate Province. This view was supported by W. Kętrzyński. The arguments of M. Kantecki met with criticism between contemporary medieval studies. E. Rymar: Primogenitura zasadą regulującą następstwo w pryncypat w ustawie sukcesyjnej Bolesława Krzywoustego"Śląski Kwartalnik Historyczny Sobótka", no 1 (48), pp. 4–5, 1993.
^P. Jasienica: Polska Piastówp. 127.
^Modern medievalist historians pointed that Sieradz and Łęczyca were not included in the territorial district of the Seniorate Province. A. Śmiech: Testament Bolesława Krzywoustego (in Polish) [retrieved 22 July 2014].
^A. Marzec: Bolesław III Krzywousty[in:] S. Szczur, K. Ożóg (ed.), Piastowie. Leksykon biograficznyp. 84; K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywoustyp. 328.
^S. Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowieczep. 132.
^ abcR. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polski średniowiecznejvol. Ich, p. 155.
^G. Labuda: Korona i infuła. Od monarchii do poliarchiip. 18.
^G. Labuda believes that Bolesław established the Seniorate Province, which had in turn passed to all his sons, according to seniority, along with a senior district. G. Labuda: Testament Bolesława Krzywoustego [in:] A. Horst (ed.), Opuscula Casimiro Tymieniecki septuagenario dedicatap. 193.
^According to modern medievalist historians, Henry would receive his domains only in 1146. A. Śmiech: Testament Bolesława Krzywoustego (in Polish) [retrieved 22 July 2014]. G. Labuda believed that Bolesław divided the country between three and not four sons: Władysław II, Bolesław IV and Mieszko III. G. Labuda: Testament Bolesława Krzywoustego [in:] A. Horst (ed.), Opuscula Casimiro Tymieniecki septuagenario dedicatap. 193.
^K. Buczek: Jeszcze o testamencie Bolesława Krzywoustego"Przegląd Historyczny", no 60, pp. 621–639; G. Labuda: Testament Bolesława Krzywoustego [in:] A. Horst (ed.), Opuscula Casimiro Tymieniecki septuagenario dedicatap. 193.
^S. Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowieczep. 130.
^With this view is disagreed E. Rymar. See E. Rymar: Primogenitura zasadą regulującą następstwo w pryncypat w ustawie sukcesyjnej Bolesława Krzywoustego"Śląski Kwartalnik Historyczny Sobótka", no 1 (48), pp. 9–10, 1993.
^S. Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowieczep. 131.
^B. Zientara: Władysław II Wygnaniec[in:] Poczet królów i książąt polskichp. 90.
^Cleric, Knight and Workman Li Livres dou Santé France, late 13th century Sloane 2435, f.85 [retrieved 24 July 2014].
^The division within the provinces on castellanies and opole as smaller territorial units, presented by R. Grodecki. R. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polski średniowiecznejvol. Ich, p. 199.
^ abcS. Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowieczep. 150.
^ abcdJ. Topolski (ed.): Dzieje Polski do roku 1501pp. 141–142.
^ abS. Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowieczep. 151.
^T. Lalik: Społeczne gwarancje bytu [in:] J. Dowiat (ed.), Kultura Polski średniowiecznej X-XIII wp. 145.
^S. Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowieczepp. 149–150.
^T. Lalik: Społeczne gwarancje bytu [in:] J. Dowiat (ed.), Kultura Polski średniowiecznej X-XIII wp. 146.
^ abR. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polski średniowiecznejvol. Ich, p. 197.
^T. Lalik: Społeczne gwarancje bytu [in:] J. Dowiat (ed.), Kultura Polski średniowiecznej X-XIII wp. 147.
^M. K. Barański: Dynastia Piastów w Polscepp. 240–250.
^I. Ihnatowicz, A. Mączak, B. Zientara: Społeczeństwo polskie od X do XX wiekup. 65.
^Sources didn't provide the amount of this different groups. T. M. Nowak, J. Wimmer: Historia oręża polskiego 963–1795p. 67.
^ abL. Ratajczyk (ed.): Historyczny rodowód polskiego ceremoniału wojskowegop. 351.
^I. Ihnatowicz, A. Mączak, B. Zientara: Społeczeństwo polskie od X do XX wiekup. 47.
^Gallus Anonymus: Cronicae et gesta ducum sive principum Polonorumvol. III, cap. 23, p. 149.
^T. M. Nowak, J. Wimmer: Historia oręża polskiego 963–1795p. 20, 22.
^T. M. Nowak, J. Wimmer: Historia oręża polskiego 963–1795p. 66.
^Gallus Anonymus: Cronicae et gesta ducum sive principum Polonorumvol. II, cap. 5, p. 69.
^M. K. Barański: Dynastia Piastów w Polscepp. 250–256.
^S. Arnold: Historia Polski do połowy XV wiekup. 37.
^ abS. Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowiecze.pp. 152–154.
^M. K. Barański: Dynastia Piastów w Polscep. 251.
^The first seal, on basis of detailed research, was assigned to Władysław I Herman. M. Andrałojć, W. Andrałojć: Nie śniło się historykom (in Polish). [retrieved 26 July 2014]; F. Piekosiński: Najdawniejszy dokument polski, Wiadomości Numizmatyczno-Archeologicznevol. IV, 1899–1902. p. 493.
^ abS. Suchodolski: Nowe (mazowieckie) znalezisko bulli Bolesława Krzywoustego i problemy ołowianych pieczęci we wczesnośredniowiecznej Polsce, p. 1 (in Polish). [retrieved 26 July 2014].
^ abcM. Andrałojć, W. Andrałojć: Bulle księcia Bolesława Krzywoustego (in Polish) [retrieved 26 July 2014].
^The Bulla is the seal of the highest rank. Originally from ancient Rome, in the Middle Ages was commonly used in offices and in the zones with Byzantine cultural influence, including the Principalities of Kievan Rus': the oldest preserved Bulla from this area are dated already from the second half of the 10th century, including the Bulla of Duke Sviatoslav. M. Andrałojć, W. Andrałojć: Nie śniło się historykom (in Polish) [retrieved 26 July 2014].
^ abM. Andrałojć, W. Andrałojć: Nie śniło się historykom (in Polish) [retrieved 26 July 2014].
^S. Suchodolski: Denar w kalecieill. nr 16.
^S. Suchodolski: Nowe (mazowieckie) znalezisko bulli Bolesława Krzywoustego i problemy ołowianych pieczęci we wczesnośredniowiecznej Polsce, p. 2 (in Polish) [retrieved 26 July 2014].
^S. Suchodolski: Nowe (mazowieckie) znalezisko bulli Bolesława Krzywoustego i problemy ołowianych pieczęci we wczesnośredniowiecznej Polsce, p. 3 (in Polish) [retrieved 26 July 2014].
^ abW. Garbaczewski: Polska: Epoka denarowa w mennictwie polskim (in Polish) Archived 2 February 2012 at the Wayback Machine [retrieved 26 July 2014].
^In older literature, there was a view that classified this bracteate with the name of penitential. W. Garbaczewski: Polskie monety kruszcowe od X wieku, p. 6 Archived 23 August 2013 at the Wayback Machine (in Polish) [retrieved 26 July 2014]; M. Gumowski: Podręcznik numizmatyki polskiejp. 25.
^According to A. Mikołajczyk this bracteate was minted only in 1135. M. Folwarniak: Pierwsze polskie brakteaty. Poglądy na ich temat w ujęciu historycznym (in Polish) [retrieved 26 July 2014].
^W. Garbaczewski: Polskie monety kruszcowe od X wieku, p. 6 Archived 23 August 2013 at the Wayback Machine (in Polish) [retrieved 26 July 2014]
^ abcM. Folwarniak: Pierwsze polskie brakteaty. Poglądy na ich temat w ujęciu historycznym (in Polish) [retrieved 26 July 2014].
^K. Micorek: Świętokrzyskie Millenium (in Polish) [retrieved 27 July 2014].
^Kościół św. Idziego w Inowłodzu (in Polish) [retrieved 27 July 2014]
^Modern research debated the time of the foundation during 1120–26. The first known source who mentioned the Collegiate was from 1218 (13th century), where mentioned the first Provost, Peter. H. Podolińska: Kościół grodowy (I) na Ostrowie Tumskim - historyczny świadek Obrony Głogowa (in Polish) [retrieved 27 July 2014].
^H. Podolińska: Kościół grodowy (I) na Ostrowie Tumskim - historyczny świadek Obrony Głogowa (in Polish) [retrieved 27 July 2014].
^M. Gronowski: Opactwo Benedyktynów w Tyńcu. Założenie klasztoru. Spór o fundatora Opactwa (in Polish) Archived 23 March 2014 at the Wayback Machine [retrieved 27 July 2014].
^S. Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowieczep. 183.
^Z. Świechowski, E. Gawlikowska-Świechowska: Sztuka polska, Romanizmp. 64.
^Z. Świechowski, E. Gawlikowska-Świechowska: Sztuka polska, Romanizmp. 93.
^J. Żylińska: Piastówny i żony Piastówpp. 100–101; B. Snoch: Protoplasta książąt śląskichp. 41.
^Z. Świechowski, E. Gawlikowska-Świechowska: Sztuka polska, Romanizmp. 328.
^Z. Świechowski, E. Gawlikowska-Świechowska: Sztuka polska, Romanizmpp. 327–328.
^16th century Bishop and historian Marcin Kromer believed that the author was Gallus due to the assumption that the monk came from Provence, France.
^M. Plezia: Nowe studia nad Gallem-Anonimem[in:] H. Chłopocka (ed.): Mente et litteris. O kulturze i społeczeństwie wieków średnichpp. 111–120.
^D. Borawska: Gallus Anonim czy Italus Anonim"Przegląd Historyczny", no 56, pp. 111–119; T. Jasiński: Czy Gall Anonim to Monachus Littorensis?"Kwartalnik Historyczny". Nein. 112, cap. 3, pp. 69–89.
^See also R. Sidorski: Kierunek: Wenecja!. Wywiad z Tomaszem Jasińskim (in Polish) [retrieved 27 July 2014]. An extensive discussion on the origin of Gallus Anonymous was concluded by Polish medievalists. See W. Mischke and others: Kronika życia naukowego (in Polish) [retrieved 27 July 2014].
^This dates are suggested by M. Plezia in the introduction to her 2003 book. According to the author, the work is probably developed between 1112 and 1116. Gallus Anonymus: Cronicae et gesta ducum sive principum Polonorump. 14.
^M. Plezia in the introduction to the Chronicles of Gallus suggested that the work stopped in 1113. Gallus Anonymus: Cronicae et gesta ducum sive principum Polonorump. 20. Contemporary medievalists assumes that the Chronicle of Gallus Anonymous has been brought to 1114. Behind that advocated, among others, K. Jasiński, which dates back to Zbyslava's death in 1114. K. Kollinger: Ruskie posiłki dla Bolesława III Krzywoustego w 1109, śmierć Zbysławy i trwałość sojuszu polsko-ruskiego w latach 1102–1114.
^S. Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowieczepp. 199–200.
^P. Jasienica: Polska Piastówpp 133–136.
References[edit]
Sources[edit]
Gallus Anonymous: Cronicae et gesta ducum sive principum PolonorumKraków 1923.
Wincenty Kadłubek: Kronika polskaWrocław 2003.
Cosmas of Prague: Kosmasa Kronika CzechówWarsaw 1968.
Jan Wikarjak (ed.): Pomorze Zachodnie w żywotach OttonaWarsaw 1979.
Полное собранiе русскихъ лѣтописей, изданное по Высочайшему повелѣнiю Археографическою Коммиссiеюvol. 1, Лаврентiевская и Троицкая лѣтописиСанктпетербургъ 1846.
Полное собранiе русскихъ лѣтописей, изданное по Высочайшему повелѣнiю Археографическою Коммиссiеюvol. 2, Ипатiевская лѣтописьСанктпетербургъ 1843.
Полное собранiе русскихъ лѣтописей, изданное по Высочайшему повелѣнiю Археографическою Коммиссiеюvol. 7, Летопись по Воскресенскому спискуСанктпетербургъ 1856.
Online sources[edit]
Marcin Bielski: Kronika polska (in Polish), Kraków 1597, [retrieved 28 July 2014].
August Bielowski (ed), Monumenta Poloniae Historica (in Polish), vol. II, Lwów 1872, [retrieved 28 July 2014].
Papal Bull Ex commisso nobis a Deo in: Codex diplomaticus majoris Polonia (in Latin), vol. 1, nr 7, [retrieved 28 July 2014].
Papal Bull Sacrosancta Romana in: Codex diplomaticus majoris Polonia (in Latin), vol. 1, nr 6, [retrieved 28 July 2014].
Gallus Anonymous: Kronika polska (in Polish), Wrocław 2003, [retrieved 28 July 2014].
Jan Długosz: Jana Długosza kanonika krakowskiego Dziejów polskich ksiąg dwanaście (in Polish), vol. I, Kraków 1867, [retrieved 28 July 2014].
G. H. Pertz: Annales Magdeburgenses (Monumenta Germaniae Historica) (Monumenta Germaniae Historica) (in Latin), vol. XVI, Hannover 1859, [retrieved 1 July 2011].
G. H. Pertz: Annalista Saxo w: Chronica et annales aevi Salici (Monumenta Germaniae Historica) (in Latin), vol. VI, Hannover 1844, [retrieved 28 July 2014].
Collective work: Monumenta Poloniae Historica (in Polish) (Polish historical monuments), vol. III, Lwów 1878, [retrieved 28 July 2014].
Bibliography[edit]
S. Arnold S: Historia Polski do połowy XV wiekuWarsaw 1968.
O. Baranowska: Pomorze Zachodnie – moja mała ojczyznaSzczecin 2001.
M. K. Barański: Dynastia Piatów w PolsceWarsaw 2006.
J. Bieniak: Polska elita polityczna XII wieku (Part II: Wróżda i zgoda), [in:] K. Kuczyński (ed.): Społeczeństwo Polski średniowiecznejvol. III, Warsaw 1985.
D. Borawska: Gallus Anonim czy Italus Anonim [in:] "Przegląd Historyczny", nr 56, 1965.
K. Buczek: Jeszcze o testamencie Bolesława Krzywoustego [in:] "Przegląd Historyczny", nr 60, 1969.
W. Czapliński, A. Galos, W. Korta: Historia NiemiecWrocław 1990.
Z. Dalewski: Rytuał i polityka. Opowieść Galla Anonima o konflikcie Bolesława Krzywoustego ze ZbigniewemWarsaw 2005.
D. Dąbrowski: Genealogia MścisławowiczówKraków 2008.
J. Dowiat (ed.): Kultura Polski średniowiecznej X-XIII w.Warsaw 1985.
M. Dworsatschek: Władysław II WygnaniecKraków 2009.
L. Fabiańczyk: Apostoł PomorzaSzczecin 2001.
L. Giesebrecht: Wendische Geschichte aus den Jahren 780–1182Berlin 1843.
R. Gładkiewicz (ed.): Kłodzko: dzieje miastaKłodzko 1998.
A. F. Grabski: Polska w opiniach obcych X-XIII w.Warsaw 1964.
R. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polski średniowiecznejvol. I, Kraków 1995.
M. Gumblowicz: Zur Geschichte Polens im Mittelalter. Zwei kritische Untersuchunden über die Chronik Baldwin Gallus. Aus dem Nachlass des Verfassers herausgegebenInnsbruck 1898.
M. Gumowski: Podręcznik numizmatyki polskiejKraków 1914.
I. Ihnatowicz, A. Mączak, B. Zientara: Społeczeństwo polskie od X do XX wiekuWarsaw 1979.
S. Helsztyński: O Gallu Anonimie i jego dziele [in:] Gall Anonim, Wielkie czyny Bolesława KrzywoustegoWarsaw 1948.
Ph. Jaffé: Regesta pontificum Romanorum ab condita Ecclesia ad annum post Christum natum MCXCVIIIcap. 1, Leipzig 1885.
P. Jasienica: Polska PiastówWarsaw 2007.
K. Jasiński: Przydomek Bolesława Krzywoustego [in:] Genealogia. Studia i materiały historycznevol. VI, Poznań-Wrocław 1995.
K. Jasiński: Rodowód Piastów śląskichKraków 2007, cap. I.
K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych PiastówPoznań 2004.
T. Jasiński: Czy Gall Anonim to Monachus Littorensis? [in:] "Kwartalnik Historyczny", no 112, cap 3, 2005.
J. Kłoczowski: Młodsza Europa. Europa Środkowo-Wschodnia w kręgu cywilizacji chrześcijańskiej średniowieczaWarsaw 2003.
L. Korczak: Władysław I Herman[in:] S. Szczur, K. Ożóg (ed.): Piastowie. Leksykon biograficznyKraków 1999.
E. Kosiarz: Wojny na Bałtyku X-XIX w.Gdańsk 1978.
E. Kowalczyk: Krzywousty – skaza moralna czy fizyczna [in:] "Kwartalnik Historyczny", nr 101, 1994.
J. Krzyżaniakowa: Rola kulturalna Piastów w Wielkopolsce[in:] R. Heck (ed.): Piastowie w dziejach Polski. Zbiór artykułów z okazji trzechsetnej rocznicy wygaśnięcia dynastii PiastówWrocław 1975.
P. Ksyk-Gąsiorowska: Zbigniew [in:] S. Szczur, K. Ożóg (ed.): Piastowie. Leksykon biograficznyKraków 1999.
G. Labuda: Korona i infuła. Od monarchii do poliarchii, Kraków 1996, ISBN 83-03-03659-9.
G. Labuda: Testament Bolesława Krzywoustego [in:] A. Horst (ed.): Opuscula Casimiro Tymieniecki septuagenario dedicataPoznań 1959.
H. Łowmiański: Początki Polski: polityczne i społeczne procesy kształtowania się narodu do początku wieku XIVvol. VI, cap. 1, Warsaw 1985.
J. Machnicki: Przewrotna historia Polski – do 1795 rokuKielce 1999.
K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III KrzywoustyWrocław – Warsaw – Kraków – Gdańsk 1975.
K. Maleczyński: Studia nad dokumentem polskimWrocław 1971.
K. Maleczyński: W kwestii autentyczności bulli gnieźnieńskiej z r. 1136 [in:] Prace Wrocławskiego Towarzystwa Naukowegoserie A, nr 2, Wrocław 1947.
K. Maleczyński: W sprawie daty urodzin Bolesława Krzywoustego[in:] "Kwartalnik Historyczny", nr 50, 1936.
T. Manteuffel: Polska wśród nowych państw Europy [in:] T. Manteuffel (ed.): Polska pierwszych Piastów. Państwo, społeczeństwo, kulturaWarsaw 1968.
A. Marzec: Bolesław III Krzywousty [in:] S. Szczur, K. Ożóg (ed.): Piastowie. Leksykon biograficznyKraków 1999.
A. Nawrot: (ed.) Encyklopedia HistoriaKraków 2007.
V. Novotný V: České dějiny. Dílu I. část II, Od Břetislava I. do Přemysla IPrague 1912.
T. M. Nowak, J. Wimmer: Historia oręża polskiego 963–1795Warsaw 1981.
J. Ochmański: Dzieje Rosji do roku 1861Warsaw – Poznań 1974.
F. Piekosiński: Najdawniejszy dokument polski. Wiadomości Numizmatyczno-Archeologicznevol. IV, 1899–1902, p. 493.
Z. S. Pietras: Bolesław KrzywoustyCieszyn 1978.
M. Plezia: Nowe studia nad Gallem-Anonimem, [in:] H. Chłopocka (ed.): Mente et litteris. O kulturze i społeczeństwie wieków średnichPoznań 1984.
M. Plezia: Wstęp [in:] Gallus Anonymous: Kronika polskaWrocław 2003.
J. Powierski: Data konsekracji katedry gnieźnieńskiej (1 maja 1099) na tle sytuacji politycznej Polski, Rusi i krajów sąsiednich [in:] "Roczniki historyczne", 1994.
L. Ratajczyk L. (pod red.), Historyczny rodowód polskiego ceremoniału wojskowego, Warszawa 1981.
E. Rymar: Primogenitura zasadą regulującą następstwo w pryncypat w ustawie sukcesyjnej Bolesława Krzywoustego[in:] "Śląski Kwartalnik Historyczny Sobótka", cap. 1, nr 1 (48), 1993.
E. Rymar: Rodowód książąt pomorskichSzczecin 2005.
B. Snoch: Protoplasta książąt śląskichKatowice 1985.
J. Spors J: Studia nad wczesnośredniowiecznymi dziejami Pomorza Zachodniego XII-połowa XIII w.Słupsk 1988.
M. Spórna, P. Wierzbicki: Słownik władców Polski i pretendentów do tronu polskiegoKraków 2003.
S. Suchodolski: Denar w kalecieWrocław 1981.
S. Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowieczeKraków 2002.
J. W. Szymański: Książęcy ród GryfitówGoleniów – Kielce 2006.
Z. Świechowski, E. Gawlikowska-Świechowska: Sztuka polska, Romanizmvol. I, Warsaw 2005.
J. Topolski (ed.): Dzieje Polski do roku 1501Warsaw 1993.
S. Trawkowski: Bolesław III Krzywousty [in:] A. Garlicki (ed.): Poczet królów i książąt polskichWarsaw 1978.
T. Tyc: Zbigniew i Bolesław[in:] Arcybiskup Marcin i GnieznoPoznań 1927.
J. Wyrozumski: Historia Polski do roku 1505, Warsaw 1984.
B. Zientara: Władysław II Wygnaniec[in:] A. Garlicki (ed.): Poczet królów i książąt polskichWarsaw 1978.
J. Żylińska: Piastówny i żony PiastówWarsaw 1975.
Online bibliography[edit]
M. Andrałojć, W. Andrałojć: Bulle księcia Bolesława Krzywoustego (in Polish) [retrieved 28 July 2014].
M. Andrałojć, W. Andrałojć: Nie śniło się historykom (in Polish) [retrieved 28 July 2014].
O. Balzer: Genealogia Piastów (in Polish), Kraków 1895 [retrieved 28 July 2014].
R. Drogi: Państwo Czeskie Przemyślidów (historia Czech, cz. III. 1) (in Polish) [retrieved 28 July 2014].
M. Folwarniak: Pierwsze polskie brakteaty. Poglądy na ich temat w ujęciu historycznym (in Polish) [retrieved 28 July 2014].
W. Garbaczewski: Polska: Epoka denarowa w mennictwie polskim (in Polish) [retrieved 28 July 2014].
W. Garbaczewski: Polskie monety kruszcowe od X wieku (in Polish) [retrieved 28 July 2014].
M. Gronowski: Opactwo Benedyktynów w Tyńcu. Założenie klasztoru. Spór o fundatora Opactwa (in Polish) [retrieved 28 July 2014].
K. Kmąk: Wojna polsko-niemiecka 1109 (in Polish) [retrieved 28 July 2014].
K. Kollinger: Ruskie posiłki dla Bolesława III Krzywoustego w 1109, śmierć Zbysławy i trwałość sojuszu polsko-ruskiego w latach 1102–1114 (in Polish) [retrieved 13 September 2009].
B. Kozłowski: Śmierć księcia Zbigniewa, oślepionego przez Bolesława Krzywoustego (in Polish) [retrieved 2 September 2009].
W. Mischke and others: Kronika życia naukowego (in Polish) [retrieved 28 July 2014].
W. Mischke: Polska korona królów czeskich (in Polish) [retrieved 28 July 2014].
Ł. Piernikarczyk: Palatyn Sieciech (1080–1100) (in Polish) [retrieved 28 July 2014].
H. Podolińska: Kościół grodowy (I) na Ostrowie Tumskim – historyczny świadek Obrony Głogowa (in Polish) [retrieved 28 July 2014].
J. Prajzner: Numizmatyka: Katalog polskich monet obiegowych. Monety 1916–2010 (in Polish) [retrieved 28 July 2014].
S. Orgelbranda encyklopedja powszechna (in Polish), vol. 12, Od Polska do RohanWarsaw 1902, [retrieved 28 July 2014].
J. Serafin: Pomniki Głogowa (in Polish) [in:] J. Sadowski (ed.): Encyklopedia Ziemi Głogowskiejvol. XLIII, Głogów 2001, [retrieved 28 July 2014].
R. Sidorski: Kierunek: Wenecja!. Wywiad z Tomaszem Jasińskim (in Polish) [retrieved 28 July 2014].
S. Suchodolski: Nowe (mazowieckie) znalezisko bulli Bolesława Krzywoustego i problemy ołowianych pieczęci we wczesnośredniowiecznej Polsce (in Polish) [retrieved 28 July 2014].
A. Śmiech: Testament Bolesława Krzywoustego (in Polish) [retrieved 28 July 2014].
No comments:
Post a Comment