Kilka spostrzeżeń na temat bitwy pod Rovinami (1395)

The battle of Rovine between Mircea the Elde (the hospodar of Wallachia) and Bayezid I (the sultan of the Ottoman Empire) is a conventional term created by historians. In reality, it probably took place near the Wallachian capital of Argeş and on the river of the same name („na rowinach” or „in the ramparts”). The commonly accepted date, May 17, 1395, should be also treated conventionally. This is the date of the death of Constantine Dejanović Dragaš, who was killed at the time, but it is not known whether he died exactly on the day of the battle or later. In addition, it is likely that the battle did not last one day - one Ottoman source even speaks of a week. The news about the outcome of the battle is also contradictory. It was not resolved, both armies suffered very heavy losses, but they separated and retained their fighting ability. Bayezid I had enough forces to attack Nikopol and finally liquidate the Tsar of Bulgaria. Mircea retreated to Transylvania and joined his forces with Sigismund of Luxembourg's troops, with whom he recaptured Little Nikopol, or Turnu. The political situation of Wallachia after the battle of Rovine is unclear - almost all sources speak of the conclusion of peace and the payment of tribute by the hospodar. In reality, however, Mircea lost power in his capital to Vlad the Usurper. It is unclear whether Vlad was put on the throne by Bayezid I, or whether he took advantage of Mircea's difficulties and made some deals with the sultan. There is also no source basis for the claim that he was put on the throne by the Poles. The Polish royal couple, other than accepting the tribute document, did absolutely nothing about it.Bitwa pod Rovinami między hospodarem wołoskim Mirczą Starym a sułtanem Bayezidem I to termin umowny skonstruowany przez historyków. W rzeczywistości bitwa miała miejsce „na rowinach” czyli „w szańcach” prawdopodobnie niedaleko stolicy Wołoszczyzny Argeş i nad rzeką tejże nazwy. Powszechnie obecnie przyjętą datację 17 maja 1395 roku też należy traktować umownie. Jest to data śmierci Konstantyna Dejanowicia Dragasza, który poniósł śmierć w bitwie, nie wiadomo jednak czy zmarł dokładnie w dniu bitwy, czy jakiś czas później. Ponadto najprawdopodobniej bitwa nie trwała jeden dzień, jedno z osmańskich źródeł mówi nawet o tygodniu. Wiadomości na temat rezultatu bitwy też są sprzeczne, bitwa nie została do końca rozstrzygnięta, obydwie armie poniosły bardzo duże straty, ale rozeszły się i zachowały zdolność bojową. Bayezid miał dostatecznie dużo sił, by zaatakować Nikopol i dokonać ostatecznej likwidacji tyrnowskiego carstwa bułgarskiego. Mircza wycofał się do Siedmiogrodu i połączył swe siły z siłami Zygmunta Luksemburczyka, z którymi odbił krótko potem Mały Nikopol czyli Turnu. Niejasna jest sytuacja polityczna Wołoszczyzny po bitwie pod Rovinami, niemal wszystkie źródła mówią o zawarciu przez hospodara pokoju i opłacie trybutu. W rzeczywistości jednak Mircza stracił władzę w swej stolicy na rzecz Vlada Uzurpatora. Nie jest jednak jasne czy Vlad został osadzony na tronie przez Bajezida I, czy wykorzystał trudności Mirczy i czy zawierał z sułtanem jakieś układy. Nie ma też żadnych podstaw źródłowych do twierdzenia, że został wprowadzony na tron przez Polaków. Polska para królewska, poza przyjęciem dokumentu hołdowniczego nie uczyniła zupełnie nic w jego sprawie

Kwestia tzw. Powstania Konstantyna i Frużyna w bułgarskiej literaturze naukowej

oai:ojs.pressto.amu.edu.pl:article/1414The present article demonstrates the main points made in the discussion on the co-called uprising of Konstantin and Fruzhin, raised in Bulgarian academic literature over the last one hundred fifty years. The overview of the proposed approaches (which concern, amongst other, such issues as when and where the rebellion broke out, how large forces where involved in it and when it came to an end) leads the author of the study to the conclusion that there is an urgent need for the academic world to develop (balanced and more closely connected with the results of the academic discussion) a vision not only of the topical issue itself but also of the whole first quarter of the century after the battle of Nicopolis.The present article demonstrates the main points made in the discussion on the co-called uprising of Konstantin and Fruzhin, raised in Bulgarian academic literature over the last one hundred fifty years. The overview of the proposed approaches (which concern, amongst other, such issues as when and where the rebellion broke out, how large forces where involved in it and when it came to an end) leads the author of the study to the conclusion that there is an urgent need for the academic world to develop (balanced and more closely connected with the results of the academic discussion) a vision not only of the topical issue itself but also of the whole first quarter of the century after the battle of Nicopolis

Nowa lista uczestników zjazdu monarchów w Budzie w 1412 r.

The article presents a previously unpublished list of participants in the 1412 royal summit organised by Sigismund of Luxembourg in Buda, found in the manuscript kept in the Universitätsbibliothek Leipzig, Ms 1309. Attention is paid to the manuscript’s content, the place and time of its origin and its provenance. The richest source for reconstructing the summit’s participants, the list contains almost twice as many personal names as the other list known to date, is preserved on a folio held in the Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár, DL 39277. The final part of the article is an edition of the list, with an attempt at identifying persons listed therein.Artykuł przedstawia niewydaną dotąd listę uczestników zorganizowanego przez Zygmunta Luksemburskiego zjazdu monarszego w Budzie w 1412 r., znajdującą się w rękopisie Universitätsbibliothek Leipzig, Ms 1309. Uwagę poświęcono zawartości rękopisu, miejscu i czasowi jego spisania oraz proweniencji. Jest to najbogatsze źródło do rekonstrukcji uczestników zjazdu, zawiera blisko dwukrotnie więcej nazw własnych niż znana dotąd inna lista, zachowana na karcie przechowywanej w Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár, DL 39277. Do artykułu dołączono edycję listy, z możliwie pełną identyfikacją występujących tam postaci

Kamienieccy herbu Pilawa : z dziejów kariery i awansu szlachty polskiej do 1535/1536 roku

The book entitled The Kamieniecki family, bearers of the Pilawa coat of arms. The history of the career and advancement of the Polish nobility until 1535 / 1536 is devoted to the Kamieniecki family – Polish magnates of the late medieval period and the early modern period. The author presents the path of their career, the journey to the top both in the political as well as economic sense. The progenitor of the Kamieniecki family was Klemens of Moskorzew, bearer of the Pilawa coat of arms (late 14th century). He was descended from petty nobility whose influence was small at that time. However, owing to the work in the chancery of Spytek of Melsztyn, whose support was courted by King Władysław Jagiełło, they built their own faction and paved the way to a career in the royal chancery. As a deputy chancellor of the treasury and a staunch supporter of the Polish ruler he received many grants. He received the Dobczyce demesne and Kamieniec, which soon became the heart of the estate of the descendants of Moskorzewski and who hence came to call themselves Kamieniecki, as a token of the appreciation for the defence of Wilno against army of the Teutonic Knights. However, the son of Klemens, Marcin, followed a different path. He distanced himself from the Jagiellonians and, as a consequence of his refusal to participate in the Turkish expedition, the Dobczyce demesne was confiscated from him. It was only thanks to the intercession of high-ranking noblemen (probably Piotr Szafraniec, his father-in-law) and thanks to the fondness felt by Jagiełło toward Marcin’s father that he was allowed to keep Kamieniec. Marcin Kamieniecki’s policy brought about a profound crisis of the family which it managed to overcome (and return to the glory of the Moskorzewski period) only after almost fifty years. This difficult path was began by Marcin’s brother, Piotr. He returned to the thing owing to which the Kamieniecki built their position, that is to the collaboration with the ruling dynasty. He participated in the confederation of Spytek of Melsztyn, and above all he supported Władysław Warneńczyk during his stay in Hungary and two expeditions against Turkey. Piotr’s efforts resulted in the reclamation of Dobczyce. This was a token of the appreciation for his assistance in Hungary. Piotr’s brother, Henryk, also contributed to the restoration of the position of the Kamieniecki family but he devoted himself to the reconstruction of the estate which declined during Marcin’s time. Despite the fact that his engagement in politics was marginal, it was even in these isolated cases that he supported the Jagiellonians. As a result of this he received the Sanok castellany from the king. Therefore Piotr and Henryk laid the foundation on which the position of the family could be built by the sons of Henryk, and the latter were successful at it. It is the last generation of the Kamieniecki family which is presented in this book – the brothers: Mikołaj, Jan, Marcin, Henryk – achieved the greatest success by not only making reference to the glory that the family enjoyed during the time of Klemens Moskorzewski but by surpassing these achievements. Mikołaj Kamieniecki was promoted to the rank of one of the most trusted people of the subsequent rulers: Jan Olbracht, Aleksander, Zygmunt Stary. In 1503, for the first time in Polish history, he was nominated a crown hetman. He became famous by engaging in numerous skirmishes with Moldovans and especially by the successful expeditions to Pokucie in the years 1506 and 1509. Mikołaj’s brothers followed in his footsteps and made a career in the military. Jan became a captain of horse, whereas Marcin held the office of a vicecampiductor, which corresponded with the role of a field marshal. Henryk, who also made a military career, perished during the Battle of Wiśniowiec in 1494. The Kamieniecki family played a significant role in the foreign policy of the Polish state, especially in the policy associated with Hungary and Moldavia. The latter policy was engaged especially by the “last” generation of the Kamieniecki family, which was to a great extent a result of the offices that they held, that is the offices of the “field” marshal and the grand crown hetman, and the political situation of the country at that time. One should also emphasise the significant engagement of Klemens of Moskorzew in the issues associated with the Teutonic Knights. He made a name for himself not only by his defence of Wilno against the army of the Teutonic Knights who supported Witold but also by his participation in the negotiations with the Order of the Teutonic Knights and the signing of a peace treaty in Raciążek. The development of the estate of the Kamieniecki family was strictly associated with the status of the family and during the course of a hundred years this status oscillated in a sinusoidal manner. For whereas Klemens of Moskorzew, owing to his work in the chancery and the merit that he earned during his stay in Wilno, managed to build up a considerable estate consisting of the Dobczyce demesne, the Kamieniec demesne and a number of houses in Kraków, his son Marcin, who entered the path of conflict with the monarch, betrayed him almost completely. Only the subsequent generations made an effort to rebuild the lost estates. A special role in the expansion of the estates by the “last” generation of the Kamieniecki family was played by the awards which were presented to them for valour in combat and the merit demonstrated on the fields of battle. As Marcin Kamieniecki held the office of a “field” marshal, and Jan was captain of horse of the permanent defence, these grants concentrated especially in Ruthenia. Therefore the new centre of the estate was established near Załoźce in Podolia and it was there that the economic interest of the family was concentrated throughout the course of the subsequent centuries. However, the royal grants in that region were not the only reason for such a turn of events. Due to the constant borrowing of money from the Boner family, a well-known family of bankers, the debt that the Kamieniecki incurred from this family forced Marcin first to sell Książ Wielki and then to hand over the Kamieniec castle. Thus the Kamieniecki lost the heart of their estate. Therefore just as the acquisition of Kamieniec by Moskorzewski became a symbolic “beginning” of the Kamieniecki family, this economic incident – the loss of the castle – in a way closes and highlights this chapter of the history of the Kamieniecki which was described in the present dissertation

Szafrańcowie herbu Stary Koń : z dziejów kariery i awansu w późnośredniowiecznej Polsce

"Genealogię rodziny Szafrańców można obecnie wywieść od schyłku XII w. Do niedawna jednak ich przodkowie byli mylnie identyfikowani (na podstawie błędnej interpretacji źródeł z XIV i XV w.) z przedstawicielami rodu Toporów* i 2. Badania J. Kurtyki problem ten w dużym stopniu rozwiązały, zestawił on bowiem genealogię Starych Koni do końca XIII w. Dało mu to podstawy do odrzucenia tezy — z czym należy się zgodzić — zakładającej wspólne pochodzenie rodu Starych Koni i Toporów. Nie znalazł jednak bezpośrednich antenatów „pierwszego Szafrańca” (Piotra (1) Szafrańca występującego w źródłach od 1372 r.), których można by połączyć z pokoleniem panów z Niedźwiedzia z końca XIII w. Dowiódł jednak, że ci ostatni byli niewątpliwymi protoplastami rodziny Szafrańców." (fragm.

Political history of Wallachia in XIV and XV centuries

Dzieje polityczne Wołoszczyzny w XIV i XV w. - streszczenieCelem tej pracy jest ukazanie historii Wołoszczyzny w XIV i XV w. Autor stara się udzielić odpowiedzi na pytanie, czy w tym okresie kraj ten mógł stać się państwem w pełni niezależnym. Pierwsza część tej pracy, będąca równocześnie wprowadzeniem, dotyczy zagadnień geograficznych i etnicznych. Kwestie etniczne dotyczą przede wszystkim pochodzenia ludu, który dał początek narodowi rumuńskiemu, czyli Wołochów. Poprzez skonfrontowanie trzech głównych teorii na ten temat autor stara się wskazać najbardziej prawdopodobną. Druga część opowiada o dziejach politycznych Wołoszczyzny. Z kolei w tej części można wyróżnić dwa okresy: pierwszy od początków państwa, do objęcia rządów przez największego z wołoskich hospodarów Mirczę Starego i drugi do momentu śmierci Włada Palownika, kiedy to Wołoszczyzna stała się krajem uzależnionym przez Turcję. Dzieje polityczne Wołoszczyzny w okresie, którego dotyczy ta praca to czas walki o własny byt państwowy, a później o jak największą możliwą niezleżność. Najważniejszymi postaciami są Mircza Stary, jego syn Wład Diabeł i wnuk Wład Palownik, zwany też Drakulą. Głównym problemem przez, który tak ciężko było wołoskim książętom wywalczyć niepodległość było położenie geograficzne ich kraju. W początkowym okresie głównym zagrożeniem dla Wołoszczyzny były Węgry, kraj będący hegemonem w Europie Środkowo-Wschodniej. W drugiej połowie XIV w. na Bałkanach pojawiają się Turcy, którzy przez całe późne średniowiecze parli na północ anektując kolejne regiony. Na drodze ich ekspansji znalazła się również Wołoszczyzna. W takiej sytuacji hospodarowie musieli wykazać się wielkim talentem politycznym i szukać wsparcia u któreś z walczących ze sobą bałkańskich potęg a czasami nawet na dworze Jagiellonów. Ci, którym zabrakło zmysłu politycznego szybko tracili tron, a często i życie. Dlatego właśnie kolejnym problemem jaki uniemożliwił Wołoszczyźnie stanie się niezależnym państwem były spory dynastyczne wewnątrz panującej dynastii Basarabów.Political history of Wallachia in XIV and XV centuries – SummaryThe aim of this thesis is to show the history of Wallachia in the XIV and XV centuries. The author tries to answer the question whether, in this period the country could become a fully independent state. The first part of this work, which is at the same time the introduction, concernes geographical and ethnic issues. The main topic of discussion about ethnics is origin of the people who gave birth to the Romanians – Vlachs. By confronting the three main theories about this the author tries to prove the most probable. The second part treats about the political history of Wallachia. This section can be divided into two periods: the first since the beginning of the state to take the rule by the greatest of the Wallachian hospodars Mircea the Great and the second to the death of Vlad the Impaler when Wallachia became dependent from Turkey. Politica history of Wallachia in the period covered by this thesis is the time of fight for own existence as a state and later for the greatest possible independence. The main characters are Micea the Great, his son Vlad Dracul and grandson Vlad the Impaler, also known as Dracula. The main problem by which it was hard to fight for the independence for the rulers of Wallachia was the geographical location of their country. In the initial period, the main threat for Wallachia were Hungary, the country which was hegemonic in Southeastern Europe. In the second half of the fourteenth century in the Balkans appeared The Turks, who throughout the late Middle Ages pushed north annexing other regions. On the way of their expansion was also Wallachia. In such situation hospodars had to demonstrate great political talent and seek support from any of the warring Balkan powers and sometimes even on the Jagiellonian court. Those who lacked a sense of political rapidly losing throne, and often life. ASnother problem that prevented Wallachia from become an independent state were dynastic disputes within the ruling dynasty of Bassarabs