HISTORICAL ANNALS
LXXIX 2013
KRZYSZTOF KWIATKOWSKI (Toruń)
New Research into the Battle
of Grunwald/Tannenberg/Žalgiris.
Attempt at an Overview
I. Introduction
Over three years have elapsed since the six-hundredth anniversary of the Battle
of Grunwald/Tannenberg/Žalgiris1, celebrated with great fanfare (especially in Poland), which allows us to take a preliminary look at publications on the July battle of 1410. Certainly, this text is neither the first2 nor the last that attempts to
make an overview of the literature on the phenomenon of Grunwald. At present,
so-called “Grunwald historiography” itself is worth subjecting to analysis, for the
research, social, political and cultural context of various subjects related to the
battle make it possible for us to regard Grunwald studies as a par excellence cul I deliberately use in the title, as in my other publications, the triple name of the battle
(Grunwald/Tannenberg/Žalgiris), emphasising that the memory of this battle has been kept alive
in three linguistic and cultural areas: Polish, German and Lithuanian.
1
Cf. K. Ożóg, ‘O naukowym plonie 600. rocznicy bitwy pod Grunwaldem w historiografii,’
Kwartalnik Historyczny 112 (2013), no. 1, pp. 115–138; S. Jóźwiak, ‘Review of Research on
the Battle of Grunwald (15th July 1410) in Historical Studies over the Past Half-Century,’ Quaestiones Medii Aevi Novae 18 (2013), pp. 281–302. It seems right to refer to some earlier overviews
of the state of research on the 1409–1411 conflict, cf.: S. Jóźwiak, ‘Rozwój badań nad wielką
wojną polsko-litewsko-krzyżacką (1409–1411) w historiografii ostatniego półwiecza,’ Komunikaty
Mazursko-Warmińskie 2009, no. 2 (264), pp. 209–223; S. Jóźwiak, K. Kwiatkowski, S. Szweda,
S. Szybkowski, ‘Wstęp,’ in: iidem, Wojna Polski i Litwy z zakonem krzyżackim w latach 1409–1411,
Malbork, 2010, pp. 11–34, here: pp. 18–33. An overview of the most recent Lithuanian publications (to 2011) is given by T. Baranauskas, ‘Bitwa pod Grunwaldem w pracach historyków
litewskich,’ Annales Universitatis Paedagogicae Cracoviensis (henceforth: AUPC) 99, Series:
Studia Historica XI, 2011 (Bitwa pod Grunwaldem w historii i tradycji Polski i Litwy, ed.
J. Rajman), pp. 75–91, here: pp. 87–90 (an abridged Lithuanian version of the text: idem,
‘Žalgirio mūšis Lietuvos istorikų darbuose,’ Istorija 81 [2011], no. 1, pp. 23–35); but a Belarusian (including Russian-language publications) perspective on Grunwald research before 2010 is
offered by Р.Б. Гагуа, ‘Грюнвальдская битва в отечественной и зарубежной историографии,’
Беларуская Думка: штомесячны навукова-тэарэтычны і грамадска-публітыстычны часопіс
2010, no. 8, pp. 58–67; of similar overview character is the last part of the article by S. Ekdahl,
‘Бітва пад Танэнбергам і яе эначэнне ў гісторыі ордэнскай дэяржаы,’ Беларускі Гістарычны
Агляд/Belarusian Historical Review 17 (2010), nos. 1–2 (32–33), pp. 3–41, here: pp. 31–40.
2
Krzysztof Kwiatkowski
2
tural phenomenon, with its own circumstances, dynamics, or even structure. This
cultural “entanglement” of the science of history in the sphere of Grunwald studies is clearly evident in a great number of publications: on the battle itself, the
war of 1409–1411, and – more broadly – on Polish-Lithuanian-Teutonic Order
relations, as well as the studies of collective memory which appeared on the occasion of the six-hundredth anniversary of the battle.
Among the significant number of various publications, popularising, didactic,
museum-exhibition, pedagogical and methodological, occasional, artistic, literary,
historiographic, cultural, cinematographic or journalistic, reprinted or based on
sources – including many popular science texts – academic historical, source and
archaeological works constitute only a part, by no means the largest, of the most
recent literature written in the aftermath of the six-hundredth anniversary of the
July battle of 1410. Although many of them discuss “Grunwald/Tannenberg/
Žalgiris” as a phenomenon of collective memory, the overall impression remains
of the abundance and richness of all the “anniversary studies.”
The present review includes, apart from the studies that meet the requirements
of academic publications, also those popular science texts which were prepared by
researchers connected with institutionalised learning, i.e. scholars associated with
research centres, research and didactic institutions, or museum organisations. The
inclusion of these texts was motivated predominantly by their great number. The
remainder of the huge amount of popular science literature has not been taken into
consideration here.3
A significant part of the vast literature that has already accumulated around the
six-hundredth anniversary celebrations has been published in collective post-conference volumes.4 At the same time (mainly in 2010 and 2011), there was published
E.g.: W. Mikołajczak, Grunwald 1410. Krok od klęski, Zakrzewo, 2007; idem, Bitwa pod
Grunwaldem, Zakrzewo, 2010; idem, Grunwald 1410. Bitwa która przeszła do legendy, Zakrzewo, 2010; A.B. Велько, М.В. Мартинович, Грюнвльдская битва 1410, Минск, 2010;
А.Е. Тарас, Грюнвальд 15 июля 1410 года, Минск, 2010 (2nd ed.: 2011); В.В. Новосельский,
Великая война 1409–1411 годов. Грюнвальдская битва, Мінск, 2010; for some smaller publications, see: S. Patlewicz, ‘Bitwa pod Grunwaldem na tle wielkich bitew średniowiecznych,’
in: Grunwald. Walka 600-lecia, ed. A. Chylak, M. Horodniczy, Warsaw [2010], pp. 75–85;
M.K. Ochęcki, ‘Grunwald 15 lipca 1410 – taktyka i uzbrojenie,’ in: Wokół Grunwaldu. 600-lecie bitwy pod Grunwaldem, ed. D.A. Rymar, Gorzów Wielkopolski, 2010 (Archiwum Państwowe
w Gorzowie Wielkopolskim, Muzeum Lubuskie w Gorzowie Wielkopolskim, Muzeum Wojska
Polskiego w Kołobrzegu), pp. 16–19; S.A. Wisłocki, ‘Wybrane elementy polskiej logistyki
przygotowań do wojny z Zakonem Krzyżackim 1409–1410,’ Bieżuńskie Zeszyty Historyczne 24
(2010), pp. 23–36; M.M. Grzybowski, ‘Z Czerwińska pod Grunwald,’ ibid., pp. 19–22;
R. Romański, ‘Grunwald 1410: początek końca zakonu krzyżackiego,’ in: N. Cawthorne,
Największe bitwy w historii, transl. S. Patlewicz, Warsaw, 2008, pp. 49–54.
3
4
The anniversary “celebration” took mainly the form of various meetings of the research
milieu, ranging from small, local symposia (e.g. Sulejów, 23 April, 2010; Santok, 22 June, 2010;
Żyrardów, 30 March, 2011), and bigger sessions (e.g. Vienna, 20–21 May, 2010; Lublin, 27 May,
2010; Olsztyn, 2 June, 2010; Kaunas, 2 June, 2010; Warsaw, 8 June, 2010; Ostrowiec
Świętokrzyski, 10–11 June, 2010; Krakow, 25 June, 2010; Potsdam, 2–3 July, 2010; Hrodna,
New Research into the Battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg/Žalgiris
3
an extensive array of essays, articles and valuable contributions in academic collective publications and periodicals of various types.
The present review, however, includes only the publications on the battle itself
or of special importance to the research on it – thus, the abovementioned categorisation into “Grunwald studies” and “around Grunwald studies,” with the first
being studies of the events of 15 July, 1410, and the latter including mainly studies of source criticism which contribute to our knowledge about the sources to the
research on the battle. I have tried to include all the academic literature (together
with the selected part of popular science texts) known to me, written on the occasion of the anniversary celebrations. It is worth noticing here that I have in mind
not only texts published in 2010 and later, but also those from 2008–2009, issued
in anticipation of the approaching anniversary.5 The subjects of “Grunwald” itself
and “around Grunwald” taken together (and inextricably interwoven) make a sophisticated collection of interrelated issues, which represent various level of complexity. Fulfilling the requirements of at least an introductory systematisation,
I have based the present review on seven identified types of anniversary publications; each type is described in a separate part of the article.
The autumn of 2013, when I was preparing the present text, and the time distance of forty months that had elapsed since the six-hundredth anniversary of the
Battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg/Žalgiris, do not mark the end of the publication of
texts inspired by the celebrations of 2010.6 Yet, I had to determine a cutoff date.
8–9 July, 2010), to large international conferences lasting several days (Malbork–Krakow, 24–26
September, 2010; Vilnius, 21–23 October, 2010; Sankt Petersburg, 22–24 October, 2010).
5
I have omitted these works that, although they appeared recently in Polish translation, have
no changes in the content of their original editions, e.g. M. Jučas, Žalgirio mūšis, 4th ed., Vilnius, 1999 (Polish translation: Grunwald 1410, trans. J. Jurkiewicz, Krakow, 2010); cf. also an
occassional edition: i d e m, Žalgirio mūšis. Žalgirio mūšio 600 metų jubiliejui (1410–2010),
Vilnius, 2009, and its English translation: The Battle of Grunwald. In commemoration of the
600th anniversary of the Battle of Grunwald in 1410, Vilnius, 2009. I have also omitted reissues
of older publications, although taking into account all commentaries, bringing them up to date,
see, for instance: A. Nadolski, Grunwald. Problemy wybrane, 2nd ed., ed. T. Poklewski-Koziełł,
M. Żemigała, Wodzisław Śląski–Łódź, 2010 (afterword by W. Świętosławski, pp. 243–247);
A. Nadolski, Grunwald 1410, 3rd ed., Warsaw, 2013; recently also under a new title: Bitwa
grunwaldzka 1410, Warsaw, 2013.
Aside from the papers discussed below in greater detail (see, footnote 7) from the MalborkKrakow conference, there is still no Polish translation of S. Ekdahl, Die “Banderia Prutenorum”
des Jan Długosz – eine Quelle zur Schlacht bei Tannenberg 1410, Göttingen, 1976 (cf. Lithuanian translation: Jono Dlugošo “Prūsų vėliavos” žalgiro mūšio šaltinis, Vilnius, 1992); its advertisement, see idem, ‘Diplomatie und Söldnerwerbung vor der Schlacht bei Žalgiris,’ Lietuvos
istorijos studijos (henceforth: LIS) 25 (2010), pp. 48–60, here p. 48 and note 5; according to
the information I was given in October 2013 by Szymon Drej, Director of the Museum of the
Battle of Grunwald at Stębark (Muzeum Bitwy pod Grunwaldem w Stębarku), translation works
was suspended for two years but the project has not been altogether laid aside. There is another study of the battle itself by S. Ekdahl still waiting to be published: ‘Battlefield Archaeology at Tannenberg (Grunwald, Žalgiris). Physical Remains of the Defeat of the Teutonic Order
in Prussia in 1410,’ Journal of Conflict Archaeology (in print), and some other articles: ‘Agitacja żołnierzy zaciężnych Zakonu Niemieckiego przed planowanym atakiem na Polskę w dniu
6
Krzysztof Kwiatkowski
4
I made my choice fully aware of the need to supplement my approach in the near
future.
II. ATTEMPTS AT ANALYTICAL COMPREHENSIVE APPROACHES
Among the analytical works devoted to the topic of Grunwald in a strict sense,
and at the same time attempting a comprehensive approach to the issues of the
battle, we should first mention the articles by the principal historian of Grunwald/
Tannenberg/Žalgiris, the Swedish scholar Sven Ekdahl.7 In his detailed analytical
study published in 2009, S. Ekdahl takes up a subject fundamental to an analysis
of the course of the battle itself, namely the problem of the routes taken by both
sides of the conflict to position their troops in the battlefield, and then offers his
suggestions as to the location of battle events.8 He is the first to present in a comprehensive way the hypothesis about the deployment of the camp of the Polish
king on 13 July, near a Teutonic Order’s courtyard at Vierzighuben (nowadays
Polish: Wierzbica), from where the monarch was to start with his troops in the
1 czerwca 1410 roku. Przyczynek do historii bitwy pod Grunwaldem,’ Rocznik Olsztyński 19
(original: ‘Die Söldnerwerbungen des Deutschen Ordens für einen geplanten Angriff auf Polen
am 1. Juni 1410. Ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte der Schlacht bei Tannenberg,’ in: Beiträge zur
Militärgeschichte des Preussenlandes von der Ordenszeit bis zum Zeitalter der Weltkriege, Marburg, 2010, pp. 89–102); ‘Obraz Jana Matejki “Bitwa pod Grunwaldem” w świetle opisu bitwy
według Jana Długosza,’ Rocznik Olsztyński 19; Der “Thorner Tag” am 17. Juni 1410,’ Rocznik
Działdowski 9 (2014). There is also another study worth attention being prepared for print at
the moment: M.A. Janicki, ‘Co Jan Długosz wiedział o miejscu stoczenia bitwy grunwaldzkiej
i jaki ma to wpływ na jej rekonstrukcję?,’ Średniowiecze Polskie i Powszechne 5 (9), 2013.
7
It should be noted, however, that not all of them have been published yet, despite the three
years that have passed since the main academic events associated with the anniversary celebrations. This refers to the paper “Probleme und Perspektive der Grunwaldforschung,” delivered by
S. Ekdahl at Malbork on 24 September, 2010, at the academic conference “Grunwald – Tannenberg – Žalgiris 1410–2010. Historia – Tradycja – Polityka.” The volume was to also include
several texts by other authors on various aspects of the Grunwald battle (in the order of their
appearance: W. Paravicini, “Vom Kreuzzug zum Soldzug. Die Schlacht bei Tannenberg und das
Ende der Preußenfahrten des europäischen Adels”; K. Kwiatkowski, “Zagadnienia wojny 1409–1411
w świetle najnowszych badań”; B. Możejko, “Udział Gdańska w wielkiej wojnie z Zakonem
Niemieckim”;S. Kwiatkowski, “Społeczeństwo pruskie wobec Zakonu po 1410 r. Pokolenie,
które przeżyło Grunwald”; S. Gouguenheim, “Das Echo von Tannenberg in der französischen
Königreich im 15. Jahrhundert”; R.R. Trimonienė, “Ripples about the Battle of Grunwald in
Czech and Hungary: Lithuanian dimension”; S. Szybkowski, “Polscy starostowie w Prusach po
Grunwaldzie”; M. Walczak, “Inscenizacja triumfu. Bitwa grunwaldzka w świetle tradycji propagandy wojennej w średniowieczu”; I. Skierska, “Pieśń ‘Bogurodzica’ i jej miejsce w świadomości
Polaków”; K. Bracha, “Święto wiktorii grunwaldzkiej w kaznodziejstwie polskim późnego
średniowiecza”; K. Gudmantas, “Obraz bitwy grunwaldzkiej w tzw. Kronice Bychowca” (the
Lithuanian version of the paper was published in 2011, see footnote 44 below).
S. Ekdahl, ‘Aufmarsch und Aufstellung der Heere bei Tannenberg/Grunwald (1410). Eine
kritische Analyse,’ in: Krajobraz grunwaldzki w dziejach polsko-krzyżackich i polsko-niemieckich
na przestrzeni wieków. Wokół mitów i rzeczywistości, Olsztyn, 2009, pp. 31–103, here pp. 31–57.
8
New Research into the Battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg/Žalgiris
5
early morning of 15 July, heading east to Mühlen (Mielno), and while marching
through Seemen (Samin), was to meet the troops of the grand master in the neighbourhood of the village of Grünfelde (Grunwald). Thus, the historian suggests that
the royal troops reached the fields of Grunwald from the south west (more precisely: from the west-southwest), and the Teutonic Order’s troops came to Tannenberg (Stębark) from the north west via Marwalde (Marwałd) and Frögenau
(Frygnowo). This new concept forms the starting point for presenting an equally
innovative hypothesis about the positioning of the troops before the battle; here
the Swedish historian departs from the widely accepted proposal, firmly rooted in
the literature on the subject, by Johannes Voigt, illustrated with maps by the Prussian Colonel Fischer in the 1840s. According to S. Ekdahl, the grand master’s
troops deployed facing south-south-west, while royal troops were facing northnorth-east. An important element of Ekdahl’s new hypothesis of the deployment
of the troops during the main action on the battlefield remains the position of the
sun in its apparent daily path across the Earth on 15 July, 1410 – since the sun’s
rays were to significantly determine the observation capabilities of the combating
sides, especially the commanders. The grand master, fearing a battle at midday
with the sun in their eyes, sought to begin hostilities as soon as possible. S. Ekdahl
also attempts to characterise the terrain on the battlefield he located, presenting
those elements of the fight that could be derived from available source materials.
This, in many aspects thorough, study is supplemented by rich cartographic and
pictorial material.9 This concept opposes that of Stefan M. Kuczyński, based on
the abovementioned presentations by J. Voigt and Col. Fischer, which crystallised
in the 1950s and then were altered in certain aspects by Andrzej Nadolski (for the
last time in the early 1990s). According to this version, the royal troops approached
the prospective battlefield from the south east, through the region of Ulnau (Ulnowo) and Lodgau (Łogdowo), and stood marshalled in combat formation facing
west-north-west, and the combat itself was to be fought mainly in the area that in
Polish is called “The Valley of the Great Stream” (“Dolina Wielkiego Strumienia”,
a small depression in the terrain running almost along the meridian to the south
east of Stębark).
There is a need to consider another article by S. Ekdahl here, namely his postconference text constituting the main synthesis of the battle itself, especially in its
military aspect.10 Here, the author focuses mainly on the methods of conducting
collective combat operations, once again expressing his opinion of the superiority
of the “Continuation” of a Pomezanian judicial vicar’s chronicle and the “Battle
Chronicle” (Cronica conflictus). He also calls for further research into the mate Ibid., Kartenanhang, ills. 1–48, pp. 61–102 and ills. 49–51 in the form of loose appendices
to the volume.
9
10
S. Ekdahl, ‘Quellenaussagen über die Taktik in der Tannenbergschlacht,’ in: Tannenberg
– Grunwald – Žalgiris 1410. Krieg und Frieden im späten Mittelalter, Wiesbaden, 2012, pp.
285–300; see a review of the volume: T. Jurek, Roczniki Historyczne 78 (2012), pp. 304–308;
K. Kwiatkowski, Ordines Militares. Colloquia Torunensia Historica. Yearbook for the Study of
the Military Orders (henceforth: OMCTH) 17 (2012), pp. 222–226.
Krzysztof Kwiatkowski
6
rial relationship between the latter and the Annales by Długosz.11 The Swedish
historian presents his own opinions on the possible composition of the combative
units of the fighting sides, with attention paid to detached reserves. An important
element is his comments on the casualties of the battle; considering the place-bound
nature of chronicle narratives in this regard, the author puts forward a thesis about
the intentional actions of King Władysław II who wanted, in his opinion, to spare
the Polish Crown troops as much as possible.12
There are several other articles by S. Ekdahl devoted to “tactical” issues, focusing on the military operations of the troops of Grand Duke Alexander Vytautas
(Aleksander Witold), especially on the question of his feigned retreat (as he is
inclined to think, to a certain extent) or actual escape from the battlefield in the
first phase of the clash. His article published in 2010, in English,13 together with
an updated version of his Lithuanian-language text of 199914 offer a certain recapitulation of many of his studies, published since 1963.15 In both these studies the
author points out the low reliability of Długosz’s description of the actual flight
of a large number of the grand duke’s warriors from the battlefield. At the same
time he draws attention to the special attitude of Polish modern historians towards
Długosz’s Annales; because of the great authority of the chronicler, they have accepted his narrative without questioning it seriously.16
At the same time, however, on the basis of his own analyses of the chronology of the
royal troops’ movements in northern Mazovia, S. Ekdahl recognises the need to relativise the
accepted absolute superiority of the “Battle Chronicle” over Długosz, for it is possible that the
latter gives us sometimes more accurate information than the older source, see: S. Ekdahl, ‘“In
crastino, die sancti Procopii”. Überlegungen zu einer falsch interpretierten Datumsangabe in der
Cronica conflictus,’ in: In tempore belli et pacis. Ludzie – miejsca – przedmioty. Księga
pamiątkowa dedykowana prof. dr. hab. Janowi Szymczakowi w 65-lecie urodzin i 40-lecie pracy
naukowo-dydaktycznej, Warsaw, 2011, pp. 561–568.
11
Ekdahl, ‘Quellenaussagen,’ pp. 297–299.
12
S. Ekdahl, ‘The Turning Point in the Battle of Tannenberg (Grunwald/Žalgiris) in 1410,’
Lituanus. The Lithuanian Quarterly Journal of Arts and Sciences 56 (2010), no. 2, pp. 53–72.
13
S. Ekdahl, ‘“Lietuvių pabėgimas” iš Žalgirio mūšio [“The Escape of the Lithuanians” from
the Grunwald Battle], in: Kaip tai atsitiko Didžiajame mūšyje… Žalgirio atodangos / Jak to było
podczas Wielkiej Bitwy… Odsłony Grunwaldu / How this happened in the Great Battle… Exposé
of Grunwald, Vilnius, 2010, pp. 33–41; this is a more recent version (with the updated literature
on the subject) of: ‘“Lietuvių pabėgias” Žalgirio mūšyje,’ in: S. Ekdahl, Žalgiris. Šiandienos
žvilgsnis. Trys paskaitos Vilniuje [Žalgiris. Modern perspective. Three lectures in Vilnius], Vilnius,
1999, pp. 13–34, published also in German: Die “Flucht der Litauer” in der Schlacht bei Tannenberg,
Lietuvių kultūros institutas / Litauisches Kulturinstitut, Lampertheim, 1999, pp. 145–168.
14
15
It is S. Ekdahl’s research and studies that have contributed most to the knowledge of these
matters. The starting point for the reflections on the operations of Alexander Vytautas’s troops
in the Battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg/Žalgiris was the publication of an anonymous letter, previously unknown, to the grand master and its analysis in the context of the battle (S. Ekdahl,
‘Die Flucht der Litauer in der Schlacht bei Tannenberg,’ Zeitschrift für Ostforschung 12 [1963],
pp. 11–19) which triggered a vivid discussion at the time.
16
Ekdahl, ‘The Turning Point in the Battle of Tannenberg,’ p. 55; idem, ‘“Lietuvių pabėgimas”
iš Žalgirio mūšio,’ pp. 34, 36–37; idem, ‘“Lietuvių pabėgias” Žalgirio mūšyje,’ pp. 15, 18–19;
New Research into the Battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg/Žalgiris
7
Recently, S. Ekdahl has published a whole array of studies the majority of
which, although they do not directly concern the July battle, bring up questions
closely related to it. We should especially mention an article (in four languages)
devoted to the diplomatic activity and recruiting actions undertaken in spring 1410
by both sides of the conflict.17 The prosopographic study published in the part two
of the edition of Teutonic Order’s “Payment book” (Soldbuch), which presents
almost 150 participants of the Grunwald battle from among over 800 mercenaries
fighting for the Order in 1410 and in early 1411 will be highly important for future
research into the Teutonic Order’s mercenary troops.18 The Swedish historian devoted a separate study to the questions of recruitment of mercenaries by the
king.19
A significant part of S. Ekdahl’s discussed new findings and concepts is presented in his popular science articles.20 A separate essay by the Swedish scholar
on the importance of the Grunwald battle in a wider context, published in Belarusian in 2010, also includes a review of his own studies and publications addressed to the Belarusian academic milieu.21 And finally, it is impossible to omit
idem, ‘Die “Flucht der Litauer”,’ pp. 150–151, 156–157.
17
Ekdahl, ‘Diplomatie und Söldnerwerbung,’ pp. 48–60; idem, ‘Набор наемников перед
Грюнвальдской битвой 1410 г. в контексте политики и дипломатии эпохи,’ Studia Slavica
et Balcanica Petropolitana / Петербургские славянские и балканские исследования (henceforth: SSBP) 2010, no. 2 (8), pp. 17–24; idem, ‘Politics, Diplomacy and the Recruitment of
Mercenaries before the Battle of Tannenberg – Grunwald – Žalgiris in 1410,’ in: The Military
Orders, vol. 5: Politics and Power, Farnham, 2012, pp. 329–336; idem, ‘W przededniu bitwy
grunwaldzkiej. Dyplomacja i werbowanie żołnierzy zaciężnych w czerwcu 1410 r.,’ in: Wojna,
pamięć, tożsamość. O bitwach i mitach bitewnych, Warsaw, 2012, pp. 81–89 and 169–175
(notes). From the perspective of the Grunwald discussion, analyses of the Teutonic Order’s
mercenary troops are important, presented in a concise introduction to: Das Soldbuch des Deutschen Ordens 1410/1411. Die Abrechnungen für die Soldtruppen, ed. S. Ekdahl, vol. 2: Personengeschichtlicher Kommentar und Indices, Köln–Wien, 2010, pp. 1–12, here pp. 5–9. It is an
important addendum to the introduction to: Das Soldbuch des Deutschen Ordens 1410/1411. Die
Abrechnungen für die Soldtruppen, vol. 1: Text mit Anhang und Erläuterungen, Köln–Wien,
1988, pp. 1–22.
See the note above.
18
S. Ekdahl, ‘Polnische Söldnerwerbungen vor der Schlacht bei Tannenberg (Grunwald),’ in:
Non sensistis gladios. Studia ofiarowane Marianowi Głoskowi w 70. rocznicę urodzin, Łódź,
2011, pp. 121–134, with an attempt at determining the scale of Polish recruitment action in the
spring of 1410, and an array of arguments to demonstrate that the king had recruited a large
number of mercenaries from Bohemia, Silesia, Lusatia, and especially Moravia. Cf. also: idem,
‘Der 1. Thorner Frieden (1411) im Spiegel der Söldnerfrage,’ OMCTH 18 (2013), pp. 67–79.
19
20
S. Ekdahl, ‘Das politische Umfeld und die Schlacht bei Tannenberg,’ in: Tannenberg/
Grunwald 2010. Gesammelte Beiträge, Wien, 2010 (Miscellanea Ordinis Teutonici 1), pp. 18–28;
edited and expanded version in: ‘1410. Die Schlacht bei Tannenberg. 600. Gedenkjahr,’ in:
Ostdeutsche Gedenktage 2010. Persönlichkeiten und Historische Ereignisse, Bonn, 2010, pp.
288–298; a broader context is to be found in the English version: ‘Prologue. The Battle of Tannenberg and its political circumstances,’ Journal of the Monastic Military Orders 4 (2012), pp. 11–28.
21
Ekdahl, ‘Бітва пад Танэнбергам,’ pp. 3–41 (see note 2 above); this is an enlarged and
revised edition of his older article: ‘Die Schlacht von Tannenberg und ihre Bedeutung in der
Krzysztof Kwiatkowski
8
the 2010 Polish translation of his critical analysis of the sources of the Grunwald
battle which, although it was published with updated references to include more
recent literature on the subject, presents Ekdahl’s opinions from the early 1980s
in its main body.22
The study by Alfredas Bumblauskas has remained an important voice in the
Grunwald discussion.23 In this text, the Vilnius scholar takes a stand on the concept
of S. Ekdahl. When making a general analysis of source material, he emphasises
the fragmentary character of the historical documentation pertaining to the military
aspects of the battle and poses a question about their actual adequacy to the war
practices of the late Middle Ages. Next, he calls attention to a certain “entanglement” of the research which is clearly demonstrated, in his opinion, by the discussion about the 1963 publication by the Swedish historian, which was positively
accepted by Lithuanian scholars and only with great reserve by Polish ones. The
Lithuanian historian favourably refers to Ekdahl’s concept of the route followed
by the king’s troops on its way to the future battlefield from a camp near Vierzighuben (Wierzbica) and takes a positive approach to the hypothesis about the
position of the sun as a factor determining the deployment of the troops for the
battle by the grand master.24
Geschichte des Ordensstaates,’ in: Žalgirio laikų Lietuva ir jos kaimynai, Vilnius, 1993 (Acta
Historica Universitatis Klaipedensis 1), pp. 34–64 (ibid., pp. 90–33, a Lithuanian translation:
‘Žalgirio mūšis ir jo reikšmė Ordino gyvenimui’), which, in turn, is a rewritten version of even
older publication: ‘Die Schlacht von Tannenberg und ihre Bedeutung in der Geschichte des
Ordensstaates,’ Deutsche Ostkunde 35 (1989), no. 2 (Der Deutsche Orden. Beiträge zu seiner
Geschichte), pp. 63–80. See also the following encyclopaedic entries: idem, ‘Tannenberg, Battle
of (1410),’ in: The Crusades. An Encyclopedia, ed. A.V. Murray, vol. 4, Santa Barbara–Denver–
Oxford, 2006, pp. 1145–1146; idem, ‘Tannenberg, bataille de,’ in: Prier et combattre. Dictionnaire européen des ordres militaires au Moyen Âge, ed. F. Chartrain, Paris, 2009, p. 895.
S. Ekdahl, Grunwald 1410. Studia nad tradycją i źródłami, transl. M. Dorna, Krakow,
2010 (original version: Die Schlacht bei Tannenberg 1410. Quellenkritische Untersuchungen, vol.
1: Einführung und Quellenlage, Berlin, 1982). There will be, however, no second volume, although one was announced some time before 2010; S. Ekdahl promised (Бітва пад Танэнбергам,
p. 32) a publication of the supplement to the first part in the form of a collection of studies and
articles. It probably will be published after the publication of the remaining anniversary essays
(for the articles waiting to be published, see note 6 above).
22
23
A. Bumblauskas, ‘Žalgiris: neatsakyti klausimai’ [Žalgiris: questions with no answers], LIS
26 (2010), pp. 59–93.
Many of these reflections were published also in the form of popular science articles in
Ukrainian: A. Bumblauskas, ‘Кому найбiльше була потрiбна Грюнвальдска битва? Чи були
зацiкавленими у битвi Польща i Ягайл?,’ in: “Грюнвальдска битва – битва народiв”.
Науково-популярне видання, Kиïv, 2010, pp. 49–59; idem, ‘Якої величини вiйска зiйшлися
в битвi?,’ in: ibid., pp. 91–104 (a Lithuanian translation of these texts in: Žalgirio mūšis – tautų
mūšis [The Battle of Grunwald – the Battle of Nations], Vilnius, 2011). The role of the Ruthenians is emphasised in the same volume by the Belarusian historian I.[A.] Mарзалюк, ‘Бiлоруси
i смоленцi в Грюнвальдскiй битвi’ (pp. 105–106); idem, ‘Битва: роль смоленських полкiв’
(pp. 117–120), and Ukrainian scholar Б. Черкас, ‘Схiднi хоругви ВКЛ у битвi – втiкачi чи
звитяжцi?’ (pp. 120–122).
24
New Research into the Battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg/Žalgiris
9
There is another article to be included in the in-depth studies of the Grunwald
issues, namely an essay by Jerzy Rajman.25 Contrary to its title (“Were the ecclesiastical chroniclers able to describe the “great battle?””), which may connote
a source analysis, the text is historical, and military historical in its main character.
Raising the question of the competence and ability ecclesiastical chroniclers to
present the course of the battle, the author thoroughly analyses three “extended
chronicle narratives,” written by members of the clergy: Cronica conflictus, the
“Continuation” of the Pomezanian judicial vicar’s chronicle, and Annales by Jan
Długosz. In general, J. Rajman subscribes to the vision of the battle presented by
Andrzej Nadolski, and discusses selected elements of it.
A more holistic view on the war of 1409–1411, although in part analytical and
in part synthetic, is offered by Jan Szymczak.26 Not only does he present the course
of events, but also the military structures of both sides of the conflict, offering an
overview of the weapons and armaments used in the battle, and discusses where
their armaments come from and what were social foundations of the organisation
of the troops. The image of battle he constructs is almost entirely based on the
concepts of A. Nadolski. He also made some remarks on the subject in his popular science article devoted to the operations of the king’s troops during the whole
Prussian expedition.27 In the same volume, another scholar from Łódź, Tadeusz
Grabarczyk, presents a general survey of military events, together with two main
concepts on the routes of both sides to the future battlefield.28 As he rightly notices, “both concepts of the march towards Grunwald and deployment of the troops
have their strong and weak points,” so he anticipates that the discussion “will take
long time.”29
The group of researchers interested in the Grunwald subject has recently been
joined by a French medievalist, Sylvain Gouguenheim. As an active participant of
the “Grunwald debate” (i.a. at the Kraków-Malbork conference), he published
a monograph devoted to the battle.30 He presents a general view of the war
of 1409–1411, although with an evident focus on the July battle. The description
of the conflict is accompanied by a survey of the sources and a detailed presentation of the troops of both sides, including the questions of number, composition,
25
J. Rajman, ‘Czy duchowni kronikarze potrafili opisać “wielkie starcie”’? Uwagi o bitwie,
liczebności i stratach obu armii w świetle źródeł i nowszej historiografi i polskiej,’ AUPC 99
(2011) (Bitwa pod Grunwaldem w historii i tradycji Polski i Litwy), pp. 26–74.
26
J. Szymczak, ‘W 600-lecie wielkiej wojny z Zakonem Krzyżackim (od Łęczycy 17 VII
1409 do Torunia 1 II 1411),’ in: Na znak świetnego zwycięstwa. W sześćsetną rocznicę bitwy
pod Grunwaldem, vol. 1: Studia, Krakow, 2010, pp. 13–40.
27
J. Szymczak, ‘Działania wojenne wojsk sojuszniczych w kampanii grunwaldzkiej 1410 r.,’
in: Grunwald 1410. Materiały z sesji popularnonaukowej z okazji obchodów 600-lecia bitwy pod
Grunwaldem. Sulejów, 23 kwietnia 2010 r., Sulejów, 2010, pp. 59–75.
T. Grabarczyk, ‘Bitwa na grunwaldzkich polach,’ ibid., pp. 77–89.
28
Ibid., pp. 77–78.
29
S. Gouguenheim, Tannenberg 15 juillet 1410, Paris, 2012 (on the battle itself: pp. 96–165);
see a review by S. Jóźwiak, OMCTH 18 (2013), pp. 307–309.
30
Krzysztof Kwiatkowski
10
organisation, methods of collective and individual combat, intelligence operations.
All this he discusses on the basis of Polish and, in part, German literature. The
primary value of Gouguenheim’s monograph lies in looking at the Grunwald clash
not only from a certain historiographical perspective but also cultural distance.
Although in a majority of his analyses the author follows the more recent historiography, broadly accepting the concepts of S. Ekdahl, many of his detailed observations and resulting suggestions are quite original, and his knowledge of latemedieval cultural formations makes it possible for him to attempt to interpret some
of the mental aspects of the battle in new contexts. The question of what the
people who were fighting in the Grunwald battle thought and how they understood
their own presence in that place seems to be no less important than what they
fought with and what manoeuvres they performed.
A similarly comprehensive approach to the problems of the 15 July 1410 battle
was followed by the Belarusian historian and arms and armour expert, Jury M. Bochan (2010), who in his description of the course of the battle mostly follows
A. Nadolski’s theories, but presents his own concepts on individual aspects,
­emphasising, among other things, the leading military function of Grand Duke
Alexander Vytautas and the separateness of his troops from the Polish Crown
troops, being at the same time a supporter of the concept of the actual flight of
the Lithuanian-Ruthenian warriors from the battlefield.31 The study does not directly refer to S. Ekdahl’s new proposals, thus it remains peripheral to the mainstream debate on the Battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg/Žalgiris, although it is a valuable
contribution to the military issues from the perspective of an expert on eastern
arms and armour.
Among the attempts at a comprehensive approach towards the Grunwald problems there is also a publication written by my own hand, a fragment of the book
I am preparing with Sławomir Jóźwiak, Adam Szweda and Sobiesław Szybkowski
on the Polish-Lithuanian-Teutonic Order conflict of 1409–1411. An analysis of
issues related to the July battle is presented in four subchapters of a larger volume
devoted to the Prussian expedition of the summer of 1410;32 while, in line with
the concept of the whole monograph, my primary purpose was to present the vital
issues of Grunwald, based on the analysis and juxtaposition of opinions and concepts present in previous literature on the subject. My overriding goal was to throw
light on both the stronger and weaker links of these issues.33 The publication is
supplemented by an edition of sources partially important to the Grunwald discussion.34
Ю.М. Бохан, Ваяры Грунвальдскай бітвы, Мінск, 2010 (on the battle itself: pp. 158–186);
see a review by А.В. Федорук, in: Ukraina Lithuanica. Студії з історії Великого князівства
Литовського, vol. 2, Київ, 2013, pp. 277–286.
31
32
K. Kwiatkowski, ‘Wyprawa letnia 1410 roku,’ in: S. Jóźwiak, K. Kwiatkowski, A. Szweda,
S. Szybkowski, Wojna Polski i Litwy z zakonem krzyżackim, pp. 238–563, here: pp. 374, 384–451.
Ibid., pp. 386–387.
33
K. Kwiatkowski, ‘Neue Quellen aus dem Kreis des Deutschen Ordens zum Krieg von
1409–1411,’ part 1, Zapiski Historyczne 75 (2010), no. 4, pp. 67–111 (a letter concerning mer34
New Research into the Battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg/Žalgiris
11
III. STUDIES IN SOURCE CRITICISM
The celebrations of the six-hundredth anniversary of the Battle of Grunwald/
Tannenberg/Žalgiris have borne fruit in the form of a whole array of publications
that, due to the dominant hermeneutic reflection on written sources, should be
categorised as source-critical. I have already defined them above as “around Grunwald studies,” since they do not directly touch on the subject of the battle itself.
To a large extent, these studies offer a reflection on the methodology of historicocritical research presented by S. Ekdahl in the first volume of his 1982 publication,
in which the Swedish scholar shifted the centre of gravity of historical research
towards a more thorough and complex analysis of source material, mainly written
sources.35 A separate group within this type of publication is made up of studies
devoted to one of the most important sources of the Grunwald battle, that is the
vexillological historiographic Banderia Prutenorum. Krzysztof Stopka in his synoptic essay, written as the introduction and commentary to a facsimile edition of
Chorągwie Prusaków (Banners of the Prussians) describes the codex that lists (at
present) 56 vexillae, or banners, of the Teutonic Order’s troops, analyses the problem of authorship and successive stages of editing process, concluding his study
with a presentation of the fate of the manuscript, description of its edition and
assessment of its historical and cognitive value.36 The same subject has been
brought up by the esteemed researcher of medieval vexillae, Jan Ptak.37 A general
presentation of the codex is completed with important vexillological analyses. The
author regards the Banderia as a potential historical source for the analysis of
structure and organisation of the grand master’s troops, although he remains conscious of the question about “the completeness and quality of its information.”
Bringing up the issue of standards of knightly and courtly culture mirrored by the
Banderia, J. Ptak formulates important insights into the disputable number of banners exhibited in Wawel Cathedral in 1411.
The Banderia Prutenorum has become the focus of interest also of Marek A.
Janicki. As a historian who has been interested in the so-called “Grunwald tradition” in the areas of medieval and early-modern literature and Polish culture for
some time, he undoubtedly remains the main continuator of the “source criticism”
initiated by S. Ekdahl. The author penetratingly investigates all the available source
material pertaining to the Banderia.38 He examines in great detail historical sourccenary contingents of the Teutonic Order organised in the late spring of 1410, see: ibid.,
pp. ­88–89).
Ekdahl, Die Schlacht bei Tannenberg 1410, pp. xx, 66–68.
35
K. Stopka, ‘Na wieczystą rzeczy pamiątkę i symbol. Banderia Prutenorum: dzieło, autorzy,
losy,’ in: Banderia Prutenorum, Krakow, 2009, pp. 13–60 (English version: ‘For Perpetual Memory and Symbol. Banderia Prutenorum: the work, the authors, its fate,’ in: ibid., s. 61–95).
36
37
J. Ptak, ‘Banderia Prutenorum. Pogrunwaldzka pamiątka w kulturze polskiej,’ in: Bitwa
grunwaldzka w historii, tradycji i kulturze 1410–2010, Kielce, 2010, pp. 77–100.
38
M.A. Janicki, ‘Liczba chorągwi grunwaldzkich zawieszonych w katedrze wawelskiej.
W związku z nową edycją Banderia Prutenorum Jana Długosza i notą Klemensa Drzewickiego
Krzysztof Kwiatkowski
12
es supporting the fact of exhibition of these trophy vexillae in Wawel Cathedral
after 1411. His reflections ultimately led him to the conclusion that ca. 1422 there
were 44 Grunwald ensigns in Wawel, including two which were damaged later on.
Długosz ordered 46 banners to be placed in the 1448 codex, and ten were added
at a later date. M. Janicki also examines the relations between the information
included in Banderia Prutenorum and Długosz’s Annales from the perspective of
chronology of subsequent versions of both sources. He emphasises the dynamics
of the process of gathering knowledge about the Grunwald banners and the battle
itself by Długosz, and the fact that this knowledge evolved with the passing of the
years till the death of the chronicler, and was reflected in subsequent editorial
changes in both works. Numerous remarks of M. Janicki on other sources important for the Grunwald discussion are also worthy of notice.39
Some minor observations, valuable for the “around Grunwald” discussion, about
Długosz’s works are made by Jan Szymczak who, after analysing the terminology
pertaining to arms and armour used by the chronicler, indicated his great randomness and arbitrariness in this matter.40 There is another essay that should be mentioned in the context of research into the fate of the Grunwald trophy vexillae, by
a Lithuanian historian Vydas Dolinskas, who presented the history of Vilnius cathedral church as a place of commemoration of the military victories of the Grand
Duchy of Lithuania.41
Late medieval Lithuanian-Ruthenian sources and their narratives about the Battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg/Žalgiris are the focus of interest mainly of Lithuanian
scholars. Thus, Edvardas Gudavičius has recently returned to his older studies of
the so-called Bychowiec Chronicle and its description of the July battle of 1410,
making an analysis of the circumstances under which the Grunwald fragment was
included in the so-called “short redaction” of the Lithuanian chronicles from ca.
mid-fifteenth century, and then in the youngest, third redaction, carried out under
the supervision of Albertas Goštautas in the 1520s, which has been preserved in
only one copy, a manuscript known as the Bychowiec Chronicle.42 The author
demonstrates the extent to which the motifs developed in the chronicle reflected
the historical awareness and political beliefs of the Lithuanian-Ruthenian elite associated with the Goštautas family.
w “Kalendarzu katedry krakowskiej”,’ Rocznik Biblioteki Narodowej 42 (2011), pp. 115–201.
39
M.A. Janicki, ‘Grunwald w tradycji polskiej od XV do XVII wieku,’ in: Na znak świetnego
zwycięstwa (as in note 26 above), pp. 89–154.
40
J. Szymczak, ‘Broń biała w dziełach Jana Długosza,’ in: Non sensistis gladios (as in note
19 above), pp. 415–425, here: pp. 415–420, 422.
V. Dolinskas, ‘Vilniaus katedra – karinių pergalių minėjimo ir įamžinimo vieta’ [Vilnius
Cathedral – the place of celebrations and commemoration of war victories] in: Kaip tai atsitiko
Didžiajame mūšyje (as in note 14 above), pp. 87–99 (with an abstract in Polish and English).
41
E. Gudavičius, ‘Žinutės apie Žalgirį atsiradimo Bychowco kronikoje aplinkybės’ [Circumstances under which the account of Bychowiec Chronicle of the Grunwald Battle was written],
LIS 26 (2010), pp. 22–58.
42
New Research into the Battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg/Žalgiris
13
The research by E. Gudavičius is seconded by Kestutis Gudmantas who concentrates his attention on the accounts of the battle of 15 July 141043 in five
treatises by Enea Silvio Piccolomini (De situ et origine Pruthenorum, De viris
illustribus, De dictis et factis Alphonsi regis, De Livonia [et de Pruthenis], and
two redactions of De Europa). According to the Lithuanian scholar, they constitute
an important context and make a point of reference for two sixteenth-century texts:
Bellum Prutenum by Jan of Wiślica and the abovementioned Bychowiec Chronicle.
Another study by the historian, devoted to the account of the Battle of Grunwald/
Tannenberg/Žalgiris in the Bychowiec Chronicle is much more analytical. The author examines the circumstances under which this most comprehensive description
of the battle to be found in all the redactions of the Lithuanian-Ruthenian chronicles was written, and attempts to present its source basis – the core of this study
is a thorough critical analysis of the chronicle account of the 1410 Prussian expedition.44
Another group of source-critical studies is composed of texts devoted to the
phenomenon of the perception, interpretation and meaning attached to the Grunwald battle in medieval and early modern Ruthenian writings. Of similar character,
in part analytical and in part source-critical, is an article by a Belarusian historian,
Henadz’ Sahanovič, dealing with the topic of how Orthodox Ruthenians were used
by the Teutonic Order for propaganda purposes.45 A large part of the study is devoted to the question of the presence of information about the Battle of Grunwald/
Tannenberg/Žalgiris in Ruthenian and Lithuanian-Belarusian annals, and provides
enough data to draw the conclusion that, to the Eastern Slavic Orthodox people,
the battle of July 1410 remained, both in the fifteenth century and later, an episode
of little importance – the Rus territories did not feel threatened by the Teutonic
Order. The similar subject of the presence of the Battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg/
Žalgiris in Belarusian written and oral evidence has been broached by Juriy M.
Mikulski.46 Both these studies clearly demonstrate that the concept of the “historical importance” of the Grunwald battle for Orthodox Rus, strongly present in
the modern Belarusian literature on the subject, has no confirmation from contemporary sources. Ruslan B. Gagua presents, on the basis of the relevant literature,
a fairly accurate survey of important source materials (including their editions –
43
K. Gudmantas, ‘Penki tekstai apie Žalgirio mūšį’ [Five texts on the battle of Grunwald],
Senoji Lietuvos literatūra 30 (2010), pp. 373–390.
44
Idem, ‘Bychoveco kronikos pasakojimas apie Žalgirio mūšį. Šaltiniai ir kontekstas’ [Story
of the battle of Grunwald in the Bychowiec Chronicle. Sources and context], Senoji Lietuvos
literatūra 31 (2011), pp. 65–90.
45
G. Sahanovič, ‘Tannenberg und die ostslawische orthodoxe Welt,’ in: Tannenberg – Grunwald – Žalgiris 1410 (as in note 10 above), pp. 309–320.
Ю.М. Мiкульскi, ‘Грунвальдская бiтва 1410 г. y старабеларускай традыцыi,’ in:
Вялiкае княства Литоўскае i яго суседзi ў XIV–XV стст. Сапернiцтва, супрацоўнiцтва,
урокi. Да 600-годдзя Грунвальдскаǔ бiтвы, Мiнск 2011, pp. 92–121.
46
Krzysztof Kwiatkowski
14
until 2009), but his remarks are mostly of surveying character47 and are addressed
to the local, Belarusian milieu.
All the source-critical studies analysed above concerned the “positive level” – in
this classic convention historical texts are regarded by researchers as carriers of
positive information (reliable and true) about events from the past, which are available (can be extracted) to a researcher equipped with a comprehensive hermeneutic
apparatus. There is also, however, a “narrative level”, which in the humanities was
noticed by the radical approach of modernism and developed by postmodernist
scholars – on the one hand, historical texts are regarded not as the evidence of
described events but as a (unintentional) source of information about their authors,
environment and various aspects of the reality in which they lived, while on the
other, as narrative pieces of evidence in themselves, the forms of which, their
individual elements and contents, are interrelated and reciprocally defining; thus
they create coherent narrative wholes that fulfil the communicative functions their
authors wanted them to fulfil, but do not necessarily provide adequate and truthful
information about the actual past events. Many (and presumably a majority in
Poland) historians are sceptical of the narrative concept of historical sources, and
remain firmly convinced of the possibility of the “reconstruction” of the past (the
term is most frequently used in publications on the Battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg/
Žalgiris). Contrary to their fears, this method of research, if carried out in a methodologically disciplined way, allows us to perceive the source texts exploited by
“classic” researchers in new contexts and aspects, and thus to broaden significantly “classically” understood source criticism and the knowledge of those texts
built on it. This, in turn, can considerably enhance their interpretation in the “classic” paradigm.
This trend is represented within the Grunwald discussion by the study by HansHenning Kortüm. In his research into medieval warfare and military technology,
he refers to the research apparatus of anthropology, and cultural and literary
studies,48 posing weighty questions about medieval battles, also relevant to the
Battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg/Žalgiris.49 The author focuses mainly on the ways
in which medieval military confrontations were described and narrated. He emphasises the fact of, among other things, narrative multiplication by the victorious side
of the number of enemies killed, along with the simultaneous reduction of their
own losses, while pointing out that the battle in question was interpreted not only
by its victors. A timely question in humanistic writings (including historical ones)
Р.Б. Гагуа, ‘Источники дла исследования Грюнвальдской битвы 15 июля 1410 года,’
SSBP 2010, no. 2 (8), pp. 91–118.
47
Cf. his recent study devoted to the phenomenon of war and military violence in the Middle Ages: H.-H. Kortüm, Kriege und Krieger 500–1500, Stuttgart 2010; for a review of the book,
see: M. Prietzel, H-Soz-u-Kult, 02.02.2011 (http://hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/ rezensionen/2011-1-076, last visited on: 10 October 2013).
48
H.-H. Kortüm, ‘Die Tannenbergschlacht im Kontext der spätmittelalterlichen Kriegs- bzw.
Schlachtgeschichte,’ in: Tannenberg – Grunwald – Žalgiris 1410 (as in note 10 above),
pp. ­89–101.
49
New Research into the Battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg/Žalgiris
15
about the ways of dealing with defeat is posed in the context of the particularly
important observations of Reinhart Koselleck who remarks that the defeated side
usually generated much greater analytical potential than the victorious one.50
­H.-H. Kortüm concludes his study with the reflection that it will never be possible
to “reconstruct” the July battle of 1410, like many other military confrontations,
in its “unpresentable wholeness” (“undarstellbare” Totalität) for we are dealing here
with a fragment of reality which is subject to the principle of non liquet (literary:
“it is not clear”).51
Martin Clauss also deals with Grunwald in a similar narrative convention. In
his valuable historico-cultural study, he analyses medieval military defeats in the
context of their perception, interpretation, reinterpretation, “mastering” (Bewältigung) and presentation.52 The Polish historian Barbara Kowalska focuses on cultural aspects similar to the interests of these two German researchers and broaches the subject of formulas and contexts, presenting the sacred in Długosz’s relation
of the 1410 Prussian expedition, including the description of the Battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg/Žalgiris.53 The author indicates the image constructed by the
chronicler of the monarch as a person who throughout the whole expedition remained connected to the sacred, and remarks that all the narrative entireties pertaining to those interactions include many topical elements. The article by Larisa
M. Arzhakova, in which the author presents the phenomenon of the strong influence of political and ethnic-national relations in the nineteenth and twentieth century on the course and content of academic discourse on the subject of Grunwald,
including the question of participation in the battle of members of individual ethnic groups on the victors’ side, has the character of a cross-cultural study.54 Noticing the constant “politicisation” of the Grunwald debate, although taking place in
new contexts, the Petersburg scholar makes a number of remarks about the perception of the battle by its contemporaries which determines the source-critical value
of the study. Of a non-uniform character, as regards the research paradigm, is the
R. Koselleck, ‘Erfahrungswandel und Methodenwechsel. Eine historisch-anthropologische
Skizze,’ in: Historische Methode, München, 1988 (Beiträge zur Historik 5), pp. 13–61 (the same
text is in: idem, Zeitschichten. Studien zur Historik, Frankfurt a. Main, 2003, pp. 27–77; translated into Polish as: Warstwy czasu. Studia z metahistorii, trans. K. Krzemieniowa, J. Merecki,
Warsaw, 2012, pp. 20–66, here: Chapt. 5, pp. 57–66).
50
Kortüm, ‘Die Tannenbergschlacht,’ pp. 98–101.
51
M. Clauss, Kriegsniederlagen im Mittelalter. Darstellung – Deutung – Bewältigung, Paderborn–München–Wien–Zürich, 2010 (Krieg in der Geschichte 54).
52
B. Kowalska, ‘Sacrum w Długoszowym opisie bitwy pod Grunwaldem,’ in: Klio viae et
invia. Opuscula Marco Cetwiński dedicata, Warsaw, 2010, pp. 107–121.
53
54
Л.М. Аржакова, ‘К вопросу об этнических аспектах Грюнвальдской битвы,’ SSBP
2010, no. 2 (8), pp. 25–32; eadem, ‘К вопросу об этнических аспектах Грюнвальдской
битвы,’ in: Судьбы славянства и эхо Грюнвальда: Выбор пути русскими землями и народами
Восточной Европы в Средние века и раннее Новое время (к 600-летию битвы при
Грюнвальде/Танненберге), Санкт-Петербург, 2010, pp. 16–21.
16
Krzysztof Kwiatkowski
study by Vilnius historian Žydrūnas Mačiukas,55 presenting the way in which
Długosz described (mainly in his Annales) the actions undertaken by Grand Duke
Alexander Vytautas during the summer expedition of 1410. The essay has attributes
both of a narrative analysis (or source criticism, in the “classic” approach) and of
verifying reflections to establish “objective reality” as to the leading role of the
hospodar in the field of battle.
The “anniversary Grunwald discussion” also contains an amount of studies in
meta-source criticism – pertaining not to texts (communications) about the battle,
but those which are known or are presumed to have been communicated on the
Grunwald field on 15 July, 1410. Their significance derives not only from the fact
that they accompanied military struggles (as a peculiar customary “supplement”)
but also from their role as factors determining the behaviour and actions of individuals and groups of people in the field of battle due to their strong influence on
the combatants’ mentality. The musicologist Damian Konicki, drawing (frequently
without being aware of it) on a sequence of older publications, presents and juxtaposes two pieces of music associated with the Battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg/
Žalgiris: the Old Polish Bogurodzica (“Mother of God”) and Middle High German
Christ ist erstanden (“Christ is Risen”).56
IV. ISSUES OF COMMAND AND METHODS
OF COLLECTIVE COMBAT
There are also studies that broach the topic of historical military issues, paying
special attention to the conduct of collective combat and ways of leading a battle
(command in the battlefield). One aspect particularly worth noticing is the question
of command in the Grunwald battle as analysed by Mariusz Bartnicki who, once
again in Polish historiography, emphasises that the main command of the royal
troops rested with King Władysław II.57 For the Lithuanians, Žydrūnas Mačiukas,
in his aforementioned article devoted to the image of Grand Duke Alexander Vytautas presented in the description of the Battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg/Žalgiris
included in the Annales, draws attention to the discrepancy between Długosz’s
work and the Cronica conflictus in the description of the role of the two rulers in
the process of making the decision to begin the battle. He regards this fact as
significant, especially in the context of the ascertained conduct of the Polish chronicler, who portrayed the Lithuanian ruler as a brave hero modelled on Alexander
the Great. Conducting analyses on the “narrative level” of the Annales, Ž. Mačiukas
55
Ž. Maciūkas, ‘Książę Witold Wielki w kampanii letniej 1410 r. w ocenie Jana Długosza,’
AUPC 99 (2011) (Bitwa pod Grunwaldem w historii i tradycji Polski i Litwy), pp. 113–125.
56
D. Konicki, ‘Bogurodzica i hymn tryumfu Christ ist erstanden – pieśni, które śpiewano
pod Grunwaldem. Analiza wybranych aspektów muzycznych,’ in: Bitwa grunwaldzka w historii
(as in note 37 above), pp. 67–76.
57
M. Bartnicki, ‘Kwestia dowodzenia w bitwie grunwaldzkiej,’ in: 600-lecie bitwy pod Grunwaldem i jej tradycje, Lublin, 2012, pp. 75–86.
New Research into the Battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg/Žalgiris
17
offers unclear conclusions with reference to the “positive level” – the reconstruction of the actual course of the battle, which raise some fundamental methodological reservations.58
Igor P. Voznyi focuses on problems related solely to the collective dimension
of the Battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg/Žalgiris, and he attempts to juxtapose and
compare this battle with the military engagement at Kulikovo (8 September, 1380).59
Analysing the organisation of medieval troops, he indicates many similarities between Central and Eastern European practices. The author searches for similarities
not only in the weapons but also in the course of the two battles, although his
image of the July battle of 1410 is constructed mainly on the basis of Stefan M.
Kuczyński’s old publications.60
The methods of collective employment of forces in combat by the hospodar’s
troops are analysed by Darius Baronas, who set them within the broader context
of transformations in Lithuanian warfare taking place between the thirteenth and
early fifteenth centuries.61 While analysing this question with reference to the relatively well documented thirteenth century sources, the author indicates the considerable mobility and manoeuvrability of the Lithuanian mounted troops which
he then seems to project, within the evolutionary image he constructs, onto the
early fifteenth century, viewing the manoeuvres of the Grunwald battle as a confirmation of these features. Another Lithuanian historian, Romas Batūra, has published an occasional study of the battles of Durbe and Grunwald in which he tries
to demonstrate that the manoeuvres of the grand duke’s troops in the first phase
of the battle were not a “tactical” novelty used by the Lithuanians, as similar
operations are known from an earlier period.62
Maciūkas, ‘Książę Witold Wielki,’ pp. 118–124.
58
И.П. Возный, ‘Военное искусство в Куликовской (1380) и Грюнвальдской (1410)
битвах (сравнительный структурный анализ), SSBP 2010, no. 2 (8), pp. 33–45. There is also
an abridged version of the article, published in the Petersburg post-conference volume, cf. idem,
‘Куликовская (1380 г.) и Грюнвальдская (1410 г.) битвы: сравнительный анализ военного
искусства,’ in: Судьбы славянства и эхо Грюнвальда (as in note 54 above), pp. 66–69; cf.
also idem, ‘От Куликова до Грюнвальда: Сравнительный анализ военного искусства,’ Родина
2010, no. 7, pp. 28–31 (even a more abridged version of the text).
59
60
Возный, ‘Военное искусство,’ pp. 41–45 (together with three sketches on the military
operations in the both battles). All the reflections of the author, especially those on the battle
events, are so general in character that his attempt at a comparative approach seems unjustified
in many places.
D. Baronas, ‘Der Kontext der litauischen Kriegskunst des 13. Jahrhunderts und die militärischen Innovationen von der zweiten Hälfte des 14. Jahrhunderts bis zum Beginn der 15.
Jahrunderts,’ in: Tannenberg – Grunwald – Žalgiris 1410 (as in note 10 above), pp. 159–173.
61
R. Batūra, Lietuvos laisvės kovų vietos Nemuno, Vyslos, Dauguvos erdvėje. 250 metų
(1185–1435) Lietuvos gynybinio karo su Kryžiuočių ordinu pagrindinių įvykių vietos. Žalgirio
pergalei 600. Durbės pergalei 750, Vilnius, 2010 (English version: Places of Fighting for Lithuania’s Freedom. In the Expanse of Nemunas, Vistula and Dauguva Rivers. Main Battle Places of
Lithuanian Defensive War with the Teutonic Knights Lasting for 250 Years (1185–1435). Battle
of Tannenberg – 600 years anniversary. Battle of Durbe – 750 years anniversary, Vilnius, 2010).
The publication refers to an earlier article by the scholar: ‘Lietuviškos taktikos reikšmė Žalgirio
62
Krzysztof Kwiatkowski
18
Jerzy Maroń has also made some remarks on military issues.63 Most important
for the Grunwald discussion are his opinions about the formations of the battle
units. Referring to a suggestion by W. Majewski (1960), according to which the
banners were deployed in columns of eight rows, the author points out its limited
appeal in the later literature, and emphasises the long-standing domination of the
concept of a deep wedge-tipped column formation (suggested by A. Nadolski),
which he rejects, thus placing himself in opposition to the epigones of A. Nadolski, including Witold Świętosławski. In the latter’s opinion, the most documented
unit formation by early fifteenth century sources is the deep charging formation of
horsemen.64
V. ISSUES RELATING TO THE ORGANISATION
OF THE TROOPS AND WEAPONRY
Since the 1970s, an important role in Grunwald studies has been played by the
arms and armour studies, carried out mainly by archaeologists from the Łódź
academic centre. The tradition of the Łódź school of arms and armour studies,
established by A. Nadolski, including the subject of Grunwald, has been continued
by his students and the following generations of researchers. The text by Witold
Świętosławski, devoted to the weapons used in the Battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg/
Žalgiris, deserves mentioning here.65 Marian Głosek in a similar popular science
survey presents the organisation and weaponry of the Polish Crown and Lithuanian
troops, discussing the composition of the mounted formations, the banner system
of the troop formations, their number, and the weapons used.66 It is completed by
a text by Andrzej Nowakowski who, on the basis of his own studies, mainly twoor three-decades old, presents a short survey of the basic knowledge of the military
organisation of the Teutonic Order, including the social composition of the troops,
its organisation, weapons and combat methods.67
mūšyje’ [Importance of Lithuanian tactics in the battle of Grunwald], in: Žalgirio laikų Lietuva
ir jos kaimynai (as in note 21 above), pp. 65–76, here: pp. 68, 72.
J. Maroń, ‘Grunwaldzkie tezy Wiesława Majewskiego,’ in: Od Grunwaldu do Bzury –
bitwy i boje polskie na przestrzeni dziejów, Wrocław, 2012 (Wrocławskie Studia z Historii
Wojskowości I), pp. 13–26.
63
Świętosławski, ‘Posłowie,’ p. 246.
64
W. Świętosławski, ‘Broń walczących pod Grunwaldem. Próba porównania,’ in: Santok
i Drzeń w konfl ikcie polsko-krzyżackim. W 600 rocznicę bitwy pod Grunwaldem, Gorzów
Wielkopolski, 2012, pp. 17–30.
65
66
M. Głosek, ‘Organizacja i uzbrojenie wojsk sojuszniczych okresu bitwy pod Grunwaldem,’
in: Grunwald 1410 (as in note 27 above), pp. 39–53.
67
A. Nowakowski, ‘Wojskowość krzyżacka w epoce bitwy pod Grunwaldem,’ in: ibid.,
pp. 55–58.
New Research into the Battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg/Žalgiris
19
Also Paweł Jusiak brings up an array of issues related to the number and armaments of the forces fighting in the July battle of 1410.68 Krzysztof Braun, in turn,
broaches the subject of “logistics”, although he does so on the basis of meagre
source material, even drawing on popularising, journalistic information.69 The Russian arms and armour expert Vyacheslav D. Grekov discusses military structures
for the south-western Rus (i.e. Ruthenian) lands in the early fifteenth century,
pointing to the four main types of the troops at that time (heavy and light horsemen, and heavy and light foot combatants) and to the presence of four major
trends: the increased destructivity of assault weapons, the increased frequency of
combining different types of troops (horsemen and foot combatants), the increased
defensive potential of weaponry and its increasing diversity.70 The Ukrainian medievalist Andrei V. Fedoruk deals with the use of gunpowder artillery by both sides
of the conflict, especially during the 1410 summer expedition. His article, however, is of limited value, for the author has gathered information already known
from the previous literature on the subject (based mainly on Volker Schmidtchen’s
study).71
VI. INDIVIDUAL EPISODES OF THE BATTLE
The most numerous group of the “anniversary studies” consists of studies devoted to selected aspects or elements of the July battle. A majority of them were
written intentionally as Grunwald publications, but there is a large number of those
in which the issues related to the battle of 15 July, 1410 are addressed only marginally. There is no doubt that it is impossible to mention and list all such texts
in the present survey. Problems related to the routes followed by the troops of both
sides of the conflict on their way to Grunwald in 1410 comprise a separate subject
of Grunwald studies. An overview of the opinions on this matter of scholars who
examine the problem in the context of the whole battle has been already presented above, but there are other analyses of this subject. The historian from Łódź,
Tadeusz Grabarczyk, an outstanding researcher of the Polish military matters of
the fifteenth and early sixteenth century, undertakes an attempt to reconcile the old
P. Jusiak, ‘Charakterystyka wojsk uczestniczących w bitwie pod Grunwaldem – liczebność,
organizacja, wyposażenie i uzbrojenie,’ in: 600-lecie bitwy pod Grunwaldem (as in note 57 above),
pp. 57–74.
68
K. Braun, ‘Przygotowania i przemarsz wojsk Jagiełły przez Mazowsze,’ in: Mazowsze
w wielkiej wojnie z Zakonem Krzyżackim 1409–1411, Żyrardów, 2011, pp. 51–58.
69
В.Д. Греков, ‘Комплекс вооружения Юго-Западной Руси накануне битвы при
Грюнвальде/Танненберге,’ in: Судьбы славянства и эхо Грюнвальда (as in note 54 above),
pp. 89–93.
70
А.В. Федорук, ‘Огнестрельная артиллерия в Великой войне государств Ягеллонской
унии с Немецким орденом 1409–1411 гг.,’ in: Судьбы славянства и эхо Грюнвальда (as in
note 54 above), pp. 333–336; a slightly changed version: ‘“…И громит бомбардами!”:
Артиллерия при Грюнвальде,’ Родина 2010, no. 7, pp. 32–35.
71
Krzysztof Kwiatkowski
20
concepts of S.M. Kuczyński and A. Nadolski with a new hypothesis by S. Ekdahl,
with his own original contribution.72 Also, the Olsztyn historian, Grzegorz Białuński,
focuses his attention on the routes and battle formations of the troops; he accepts
Ekdahl’s opinions in their general outline, but makes his own inputs.73
Another group of topics is related to the number of troops and individual units
participating in the battle, their social make-up and “mobilisation” potential of the
countries and individual regions. An important aspect has been brought up by
Grischa Vercamer,74 who, reinforcing the assertion present in the historiography
about the importance of the so-called “freemen” (Middle High German: freien) as
a social base of the Teutonic Order’s troops, re-evaluates (after Friedrich Benninghoven and Henryk Łowmiański) the number of this group and the sizes of its
military contingents. Another historian who has investigated a similar subject, although limited to the region of Gdańsk (i.e. Pomerelia), is Maksymilian Grzegorz
from Bydgoszcz. Based on the outcomes of his own research, conducted during
the compilation of the Historical-Geographical Dictionary of Gdańsk Pomerania
in the Middle Ages (Słownik historyczno-geograficzny Pomorza Gdańskiego
w średniowieczu), he attempts to estimate the number of landowners’ services from
Pomerelia province at the end of the fourteenth century.75 The topic of the Pomerelian military contingents has also been brought up by Kazan historian Timur
F. Khaydarov, but only in the local context of Gdańsk.76
72
T. Grabarczyk, ‘Armia króla Władysława Jagiełły w drodze pod Grunwald,’ AUPC 99
(2011) (Bitwa pod Grunwaldem w historii i tradycji Polski i Litwy), pp. 7–24. He argues that
the main part of the royal troops moved from the south end of the Großer Damerau-See (Polish:
jezioro Dąbrowa Wielka) towards Oschekau (Osiekowo) and Lodgau (Łogdowo), without making a detour, as postulated by A. Nadolski, through Groß Gardienen (Gardyny), Thurau (Turowo)
and Browienen (Browina); as to the reference about a camp near Vierzighuben (Wierzbica),
mentioned by S. Ekdahl, he sees it as a camp of troops detached from the royal troops that
could have reached the fields of Grünfelde (Grunwald) from another direction.
G. Białuński, ‘Bitwa pod Grunwaldem (1410). Potrzeba nowego spojrzenia – marsz armii
polsko-litewskiej i uszykowanie wojsk na polu bitwy,’ Regiony i Pogranicza 2011, no. 4, pp.
34–44. While accepting the hypothesis that the royal troops reached the fields of Grünfelde
(Grunwald) through Seemen (Samin), the author seems to reject these parts of S. Ekdahl’s
opinion which locate the camp of these troops on 13 and 14 July near Vierzighuben (Wierzbica).
73
G. Vercamer, ‘Die Freien im Deutschordensland Preußen als militärischer Rückhalt Ende
des 14. – Anfang des 15. Jahrhunderts,’ in: Tannenberg – Grunwald – Žalgiris 1410 (as in note
10 above), pp. 175–189.
74
M. Grzegorz, ‘Możliwości mobilizacyjne rycerstwa pomorskiego (z udziałem pomorskopruskiego) w dobie Grunwaldu,’ in: Krajobraz grunwaldzki (as in note 8 above), pp. 135–141.
Assuming that the number of “services” (Middle High German: dienste) was around 700 (including not only those from the estates of “freemen” [freien], knights or squires, but also from
ecclesiastical territories), he arbitrarily reached a total of ca. 2,100–2,500 people as the upper
limit of “mobilisation” possibilities of the Pomerelian knighthood;” to this he added a number
of other military contingents which were not associated with the group of landowners.
75
Т.Ф. Хайдаров, ‘Участие Данцига в Великой войне (1409–1410),’ in: Судьбы
славянства и эхо Грюнвальда (as in note 54 above), pp. 344–348. He distinguishes four types
of men-at-arms mustered from the agglomeration of Gdańsk: 1) “knightly” units of brethren76
New Research into the Battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg/Žalgiris
21
Also, a historian and archivist from Berlin, Bernhart Jähnig, focuses his attention on the question of numbers, and on the example of the well-documented group
of Teutonic Order’s dignitaries he presents the loss of members of the Order killed
in the battle of 15 July, 1410; for discussions of Grunwald, his most important
observations are on the participation and fate of individual dignitaries in the battle.77
A whole number of studies by Eastern European researchers deal with the
participation of Lithuanian-Ruthenian military contingents in the Prussian expedition of 1410. The young Russian mediaevalist Andrei V. Kuzmin broaches the
problem of participation of Ruthenian and Lithuanian knyazes,78 rightly assuming
that a juxtaposition of the contemporary rulers of the extensive Rus and Ruthenian lands and commanders of military units, and finally a determination of the
contemporary composition of knyaz forces would make it possible to conduct much
more in-depth and thorough analysis, both of the juxtaposition itself and the number
of troops at the disposal of Grand Duke Alexander Vytautas. The author’s reflections focus mainly on the identification of individual persons – actual and possible
participants of the Battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg/Žalgiris, and only marginally
touch upon the composition of the military contingents brought by them to the
expedition, although this minimalist programme seems to be the most adequate
solution in the present state of research.
Aliaksey I. Shalanda turns his attention to the banners of Grand Duke Alexander Vytautas, both in the sense of units of military organisation and ensigns of
battle, and argues for a thesis of division of the grand duke’s troops into so-called
hufs, of which there were six, according to his estimation, made on the basis of
source material from the first half of the sixteenth century (the hufs of: Smolensk,
Samogita, i.e. a reserve one, of the grand duke, Vilnius, Trakai and a huf of guests
and mercenaries).79 Henadz’ Sahanovič opposes the opinions about the presence
among the hospodar’s troops of a group of men-at-arms from Veliky Novgorod,
and the account of this event in Detmar’s chronicle from Lübeck he regards as
“absolutely fictitious.”80 The reflections of Evgeniy A. Shinakov, made in the conknights; 2) units of a patrician fraternity of St. George; 3) units of armed townsmen-citizens
formed around the archers’ fraternity; and 4) groups of ship-boys (schiffskinder).
77
B. Jähnig, ‘Eine Korporation in Personalnöten. Die Bedeutung des Schlachtentods von
203 Deutschordensbrüdern am 15. Juli 1410,’ Miscellanea Historico-Archivistica 19 (2012),
pp. 119–131.
78
А.В. Кузьмин, ‘Титулованная знать Великого княжества Литовского в “Великой
войне” 1409–1411 гг. против Тевтонского ордена,’ in: Вялiкае княства Литоўскае (as in note
46 above), pp. 26–75; idem, ‘Участие литовско-русских князей в Грюнвальдской битве,’
in: Судьбы славянства и эхо Грюнвальда (as in note 54 above), pp. 145–154.
A.I. Шаланда, ‘Харугвы войска Вяликага Княства Литоўскага ў бiтве пад Грунвальдам
1410 г.: спроба рэканструкцыi сiмволiкi,’ in: Вялiкае княства Литоўскае (as in note 46 above),
pp. 76–91. The author tries to determine the composition of individual hufs, and on the basis
of iconographic and written sources (including, among others, armorials) seeks to identify the
battle emblems of main banners.
79
Sahanovič, ‘Tannenberg und die ostslawische orthodoxe Welt,’ p. 315.
80
Krzysztof Kwiatkowski
22
text of the participation of Ruthenian military contingents from Bryansk and
Chernihiv, are only assumptions.81 Marek Radoch also deliberates over the participation of Samogitians in the battle of 15 July, 1410. He formulates an assumption (although unsupported by any evidence) that the Samogitians raised one banner, which was not referred to by Jan Długosz.82
The “anniversary publications” deal also with the topic of the Tatars, whose
participation in the Battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg/Žalgiris is usually presented in
the broad context of the contemporary political situation of the Golden Horde. The
most important text on this subject is the study by Yuri V. Selezniov who analyses
the activities of Jalal al-Din Khan, against the backdrop of relations in Eastern and
Central-Eastern Europe.83 The same Tatar topic is undertaken by Yuri V. Krivosheev,
although his short text has a character of a communiqué, without any analytical
value.84 Also, Selim Khazbiyevich writes about the participation of the Tatars in
the July battle of 1410,85 but it should be said in the first place that the author
relies on the previous literature on the subject, and his article, albeit possessing
a critical apparatus, has no analytical character and includes too many sweeping
generalisations and too much imprecise information. A similar set of information
is given in a more recent publication by the same author, written together with
Sławomir Moćkun.86 Not much different from this “canon” of knowledge, are the
statements by Jan Tyszkiewicz,87 and a contribution is made by Stanisław Dumin
in several biographic entries of Polish-Lithuanian Tatars.88
Е.А. Шинаков, ‘Военные события на центрально-восточных окраинах Великого
княжества Литовского в конце XIV – начале XV в. и их политические последствия,’
in: Судьбы славянства и эхо Грюнвальда (as in note 54 above), pp. 369–373.
81
M. Radoch, Walki Zakonu Krzyżackiego o Żmudź od połowy XIII wieku do 1411 roku,
Olsztyn, 2011, pp. 311–312, 316–318.
82
Ю.В. Селезнёв, ‘Деятельность хана Джелаль-ад-Дина в контексте международных
отношений эпохи Грюнвальдской битвы,’ SSBP, 2010, no. 2 (8), pp. 46–52. The author refers
to his earlier work: Элита Золотой Орды, Казань, 2009. Cf. also idem, ‘Хан Джелаль-ад-Дин
в эпоху Грюнвальдской битвы,’ in: Судьбы славянства и эхо Грюнвальда (as in note 54
above), pp. 266–270.
83
84
Ю.В. Кривошеев, ‘Грюнвальдская битва и татары,’ in: Судьбы славянства и эхо
Грюнвальда (as in note 54 above), pp. 143–145.
85
S. Chazbijewicz, ‘Chan Dżelaleddin i Tatarzy w bitwie pod Grunwaldem,’ Przegląd Tatarski 2 (6), 1431/2010, pp. 6–9.
S. Chazbijewicz, S. Moćkun, Tatarzy pod Grunwaldem, Grunwald, 2012, pp. 37–44.
86
J. Tyszkiewicz, ‘Dwa hufce tatarskie w bitwie pod Grunwaldem,’ in: idem, Tatarzy w Polsce i Europie. Fragmenty dziejów, Pułtusk, 2008, pp. 71–87.
87
88
S. Dumin, ‘Betsabuł (Betsab-ułan, także Kepek-chan),’ in: S. Dumin, A. Jakubauskas,
G. Sitdykow, Tatarskie biografie. Tatarzy polsko-litwscy w historii i kulturze, Białystok, 2012,
pp. 63–64; idem, ‘Dżelal-ad-Din (Dżelal-ed-Din),’ ibid., pp. 78–83; idem, ‘Jeremferden (DżabbarBerdi, Jabbar-Berdi),’ ibid., pp. 86–87. An original version of the publication: A. Jakubauskas,
G. Sitdykov, S. Dumin, Lietuvos totoriai istorijoje ir kultūroje / Литовские Татары в истории
и культуре, Vilnius, 2012.
New Research into the Battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg/Žalgiris
23
The participation of Moldavian military contingents in the battle has also been
taken up. This theme, while not new, has been touched upon by a medievalist from
Chernivitsi, Andrei V. Fedoruk, who takes the homage paid and oaths made to
King Władysław II by Hospodar Alexander I the Good (Alexandru cel Bun) and
his boyars (12 March, 1402; 1 August, 1404, and 6 November, 1407) as general
evidence of their presence in the Prussian expedition.89 Analysing the composition
of the contemporary Moldavian troops, and referring to his former publication
(2003) written in cooperation with Olexandr M. Masan, he claims that a military
contingent going to Prussia could have consisted not only of Moldavian boyars,
but also Ruthenians, while the main area of conscription could have been the Land
of Shypyntsi;90 this corresponds to the opinions of Aleksey V. Balukh.91 A similar
opinion on this matter is expressed by Bogdan M. Bondaryuk in his short article,
in general having the character of a survey.92
Reflections on contingents from individual lands and regions are not limited to
Lithuanian-Ruthenian countries, Moldavia and the south-eastern steppe zone. Benon
Dymek93 and Marek Plewczyński have written about the troops from Mazovia; the
latter bringing up the question of number and composition of a military contingent
of Mazovian Duke Janusz I.94 Paweł Jusiak, in turn, in his already quoted article,
deals with a banner of Lublin, which he regards as “lighter”, but, as regards its
number, matching other units from Lesser Poland (Małopolska).95
The vast majority of other studies are devoted to individual people – participants of the battle of 15 July 1410, or small groups gathered around leading
personalities. It seems that those studies could have initiated a new research line
within the Grunwald debate, focused on gathering prosopographical data, not only
about well-documented participants of the battle but also about those whose par А.В. Федрук, ‘Великая война 1409–1411 гг. и Молдавское воеводство,’ Stratum plus.
Archaeology and Cultural Anthropology, 2011, no. 6, pp. 295–304.
89
Ibid., p. 299, note 4; cf. О.[M.] Масан, А.[В.] Федорук, ‘Русько-молдавський загін
в битві під Грюнвальдом (З історії міжнародних зв’язків населення Буковини на початку
ХV ст.),’ Питання стародавньої та середньовічної історії, археології й етнології. Збірник
наукових праць 2003, no. 2 (16), pp. 59–67.
90
91
А.В. Балух, ‘“Шипинскя земля”: истоки и судьба,’ Stratum plus. Archaeology and Cultural Anthropology 2010, no. 6, pp. 27–39, here: p. 34.
Б.М. Боднарюк, ‘К вопросу об участии молдавского отряда в битве при Грюнвальде
1410 г.,’ in: Судьбы славянства и эхо Грюнвальда (as in note 54 above), pp. 46–50.
92
93
B. Dymek, ‘Mazowsze a Grunwald,’ in: Mazowsze w wielkiej wojnie (as in note 69),
pp. 23–40, here: p. 32; por. idem, Udzielne Księstwo Mazowieckie (1247–1381). Zarys dziejów,
Warsaw, 1996, pp. 72–76.
M. Plewczyński, ‘Mieszkańcy Mazowsza czersko-warszawskiego w wielkiej wojnie z zakonem krzyżackim 1409–1411,’ in: Wsparcie inżynieryjne w Wielkiej Wojnie z Zakonem
Krzyżackim 1409–1411, Warsaw, 2010, pp. 7–20.
94
Jusiak, ‘Charakterystyka wojsk uczestniczących w bitwie pod Grunwaldem,’ pp. 73–74.
The author notes the participation in the battle of individual persons – Lublin terrigenae, i.e. nobles who originated in the land, and he mentions also two – referred to by Jan Długosz – conductors of the royal troops in 1410, who at that time lived in the land of Lublin.
95
Krzysztof Kwiatkowski
24
ticipation is only probable or simply possible (because of, for instance, their military duties). The group of “prosopographical” studies opens with an article by
Uwe Tresp who broadly discusses the context of the methods and circumstances
of recruitment of mercenaries by both sides of the conflict.96 Grzegorz Białuński
tackles the problem of participation in the Battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg/Žalgiris
of the horsemen unit from the Land of Chełmno (Kulmerland) and of acting of
Nikolaus von Renis (Mikołaj z Ryńska).97 The same matter is covered in another
article by him,98 which also includes important contributions to “Grunwald prosopography” on the Prussian side.99 In addition, Adam Szweda takes a closer look
at the figure of Nikolaus von Renis.100 Next, Sobiesław Szybkowski in his two
analytical, historical prosopographical studies, briefly mentions (following older
literature, including his own works) the possible participation in the July battle of
1410 of some terrigenae from the Land of Dobrzyń fighting for the Teutonic Order.101 The eminent researcher of the phenomenon of the “Prussian reisen”, or
Preußenfahrten, Werner Paravicini, mentions the documented participation in the
Battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg/Žalgiris in the Teutonic Orders troops of knights
from the County of Hainaut/Hennegau.102 A mediaevalist from Opole, Marcin
Böhm, portrays the figure of one of two known princely participants of the battle,
U. Tresp, ‘Söldner aus den Ländern des Böhmischen Krone in den Kriegen zwischen dem
Deutschen Orden und Polen-Litauen zu Beginn des 15. Jahrhunderts,’ in: Tannenberg – Grunwald
– Žalgiris 1410 (as in note 10 above), pp. 135–158, here: pp. 147, 152–153, 157.
96
G. Białuński, ‘Uwagi i udziale chorągwi chełmińskiej w bitwie grunwaldzkiej,’ Echa
Przeszłości 11 (2010), pp. 37–42.
97
Idem, ‘Opozycja rycerstwa pruskiego na początku XV wieku,’ Komunikaty MazurskoWarmińskie 2010, no. 3 (269), pp. 247–278, here: pp. 251–255.
98
99
Ibid., pp. 264–267, 268–271 (apart from Nikolaus von Renis , the author presents the
personages of: Stanisław von Bolumin (z Bolumina), Johann von Orsechaw (Janusz z Orzechowa)
and Konrad von Robekaw (Konrad z Robakowa).
100
A. Szweda, ‘Mikołaj z Ryńska – chorąży ziemi chełmińskiej i Jaszczurkowcy,’ in: Szkice
z dziejów Ryńska. 600 lat od śmierci Mikołaja z Ryńska, Pelplin‒Ryńsk, 2011, pp. 9–32 (the
matter relevant to the theme of Grunwald: pp. 22–27).
101
S. Szybkowski, ‘Świadkowie przywileju wielkiego mistrza Ulryka von Jungingen z 28 X
1409 roku. Z badań nad prokrzyżacką orientacją wśród szlachty dobrzyńskiej w okresie wojny
1409–1411,’ Zapiski Historyczne 75 (2010), no. 2, pp. 23–43, here: pp. 35–36; idem, ‘Krzyżacy
i ich dobrzyńscy poplecznicy w latach 1405–1413. Z badań nad polsko-pruskimi związkami
transgranicznymi na początku XV wieku,’ Komunikaty Mazursko-Warmińskie 2010, no. 3 (269),
pp. 281–298, here: p. 292. The persons in question are: Jan Świnka z Chojnowa, Adam z Sarnowa, Jakub z Radzików, Otton z Kikoła, Jan Rasz ze Starorypina and Mikołaj z Radomina.
W. Paravicini, ‘Von der Preußenfahrt zum Hussitenkreuzzug,’ in: Beiträge zur ilitärgeschichte des Preussenlandes (as in note 6 above), pp. 121–159, here: pp. 121–122; idem, Die
Preussenreisen des europäischen Adels, vol. 1, Sigmaringen, 1989, pp. 37–38, 78. Evidenced by
sources are: Simon de Lalaing, a certain Mr de Qiévrain and Jean de Gros/Grez, together with
other 24 noblemen, although the author reports, with a degree of caution, the possible presence
in the July battle of four other knights from the region: Jean de Werchin, Pinkart de Hérimez,
Gérard de Havré and Simon de Fagnolle.
102
New Research into the Battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg/Žalgiris
25
Duke Konrad VII “The White” of Oleśnica.103 A small contribution to the Prussian
part of “Grunwald prosopography” is also made by Dieter Heckmann, who analyses the relationship between the leaders of the Old Town of Elbing (Altstadt Elbing) and the Teutonic Order, touching upon the participation of townsmen from
the Old Town of Elbing in the July battle and their casualties.104 Certain prosopographical aspects are brought up by Tomasz Graff,105 and also by Jerzy Sperka,106
Krzysztof Latocha,107 Bożena Czwojdrak,108 and Sobiesław Szybkowski.109 All these
texts belong to the group of studies and genealogical and prosopographic contributions to Polish families of the mighty and knightly, that have recently been published in large numbers. The whole trend could be important for “Grunwald prosopography,” and thus it would require a separate and chronologically broader
survey of its own. In closing this topic, it is worthwhile to note a book by Jerzy
Sikorski, although it has a popular science character. It is a collection of more or
less concise biographic entries of – contrary to its title110 – not only the participants
of the Battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg/Žalgiris, but also some other “heroes” of the
war of 1409–1411, who in the summer of 1410 “stayed at home” or operated in
other regions of the Polish-, Mazovian- and Lithuanian-Prussian borderlands, or
who were simply born after 1410 (like Jan Długosz).111
In summing up the survey of studies focused on the participation of individual
people and groups gathered around them in the Battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg/
103
M. Böhm, ‘Udział Konrada VII Białego księcia oleśnickiego w bitwie pod Grunwaldem,’
in: Studia historyczno-wojskowe, vol. 3, Zabrze, 2009, pp. 19–25; idem, Konrad VII Biały (ok.
1394 – 14 lutego 1452). Pan Oleśnicy i Koźla. Książę zapomniany, Krakow, 2012, here:
pp. ­76–81.
104
D. Heckmann, ‘Zwischen Tannenberg und Thorn: Krisenbewältigung des Rates der Altstadt Elbing i. J. 1410,’ OMCTH 18 (2013), pp. 55–65, here: p. 59. The author regards as killed
in the battle: Heinrich Altmanna, Johann Hervord Junior, Tidemann von der Wyde and Johann
Raw, and probably also Bertram Betke and Johann Krutzeburg.
T. Graff, Kościół w Polsce wobec konfl iktu z zakonem krzyżackim w XV wieku. Studium
z dziejów kultury politycznej polskiego episkopatu, Krakow, 2010, pp. 32–33.
105
J. Sperka, ‘Beneficjenci Wielkiej Wojny wśród rycerstwa polskiego,’ AUPC 99 (2011),
(Bitwa pod Grunwaldem w historii i tradycji Polski i Litwy), pp. 92–111 (especially pp. 97–111).
106
107
K. Latocha, ‘Początki kariery Wojciecha Malskiego (do 1419 r.),’ in: In tempore belli et
pacis (as in note 11 above), pp. 191–205, here: p. 19; the author makes conjectures about Wojciech’s service in the grand banner of the Land of Krakow.
108
B. Czwojdrak, ‘Jan Mężyk z Dąbrowy (†1437) – Ślązak w służbie Korony,’ in: Šlechtic
v Horním Slezsku / Szlachcic na Górnym Śląsku. Relacje między regionem i centrum w losach
i karierach szlachty na Górnym Śląsku (XV–XX wiek), Katowice‒Ostrava, 2011, pp. 329–336.
109
S. Szybkowski, ‘Polskie otoczenie starszego i młodszego Ścibora ze Ściborza i Beckova.
Uwagi prozopograficzne,’ in: In tempore belli et pacis (as in note 11 above), pp. 297–316, here:
p. 310; idem, ‘Duchowni panowie chorągiewni podczas letniej wyprawy na Prusy w 1410 r.,’
in: Kościół i społeczeństwo. Studia nad obiegiem informacji i konfliktami zbrojnymi w dawnych
i nowych wiekach, Warsaw, 2012, pp. 209–225.
J. Sikorski, Bohaterowie Grunwaldu, Olsztyn, 2010.
110
Ibid., pp. 19–20, 25–26, 31–33, 40–42, 95–97, 100–102, 103–104, 307–311, 331, 337–339.
111
26
Krzysztof Kwiatkowski
Žalgiris, it should be said that a substantial prosopographisal study of Grunwald,
both in reference to actual participants (documented in sources) and those who are
only probable or simply possible, on both sides of the conflict, still remains a research postulate – in my opinion, an important one.
Finally, let us mention a publication on interpersonal communication. The Cologne historian of the Teutonic Order, Klaus Militzer, directly touches upon the
question of the specific communication situation created every time a battle is
fought. Once again, he refers in his study to the rite of sending of two swords as
a challenge to battle, and emphasises that the fact was little known to the Teutonic Order’s brethren, and probably quite unknown to the king’s entourage. The
author seems to assume that the latter not so much reacted to the act of challenge
itself, as created their own propaganda message, casting the king as a pious and
humble ruler. Thus, the messages sent by both sides of the conflict before the battle somehow missed each other. The lack of distinction between the understanding
of the act of sending of two swords by the Polish king and his entourage at the
precise moment of the event, and its later post-war interpretations, should be considered as a certain shortcoming of these reflections.112
VII. SURVEY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH
Apart from studies focused mainly on historical or military-historical matters
and studies in source criticism, there are also some reviews and analyses of archaeological research conducted in the twentieth century in the fields of Grunwald,
and in their vicinity, which have been published in recent years. In general, these
publications are surveys, only occasionally analytical (which is quite understandable, considering the fact that over twenty years have passed since the end of the
last systematic excavations). There is no doubt, however, that they belong to the
category of “Grunwald writings.” The list opens with a book by Krzysztof Wolski
on the history of archaeological explorations of medieval and early modern battlefields in the territory of Poland (and Ukraine),113 in which the presentation of
archaeological research in the so-called “Fields of Grunwald” (Pola Grunwaldzkie)
(in both stages: in the 1950s–1960s, and in the 1970s–1980s) is preceded by a kind
of historiographical introduction. In his conclusions, the author, with great optimism, regards the results of excavations in the area of presumed field of the battle and accompanying works by experts in other auxiliary sciences. Somewhat
different in character is the short, albeit synoptic article by Mirosław J. Hoffmann,
who has taken into account not only the main excavations mentioned above in the
“Fields of Grunwald”, but also numerous individual accidental discoveries, surface
examinations, probing, geophysical prospection, rescue explorations and archaeo112
K. Militzer, ‘Kommunikations- und Verständigungsprobleme vor und nach der Schlacht
bei Tannenberg,’ in: Tannenberg – Grunwald – Žalgiris 1410 (as in note 10 above), pp. 301–305.
113
K. Wolski, Polskie pola bitew w świetle archeologii. Średniowiecze i okres wczesnonowożytny,
Racibórz, 2008, pp. 57–109.
New Research into the Battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg/Žalgiris
27
logical interventions made in the span of over the last two hundred years.114 Grzegorz Świderski has covered in great detail the history of archaeological works in
the area of the alleged field of battle, offering probably the fullest review of Polish
examinations and archaeological prospecting in the second half of the twentieth
century.115 In his popular science article, Witold Świętosławski has focused his
attention not so much on the course of archaeological works, as on the resulting
artefacts.116 Another arms and armour expert from Łódź, Piotr Strzyż, on the basis
of juxtaposition of all the more or less actual firearmballs, has analysed the size
of cannons that could have been used during the July battle.117
A valuable study of archaeological research conducted in the so-called “Fields
of Grunwald” is the book published in 2010 by Henryk Leśniowski and Romuald
Odoj, being an updated and enlarged edition of their older publication.118 The book
has no means of documentation, thus it could be included in the group of popular
science publications, but owing to the fact that one of its co-authors is the most
eminent Grunwald researcher, R. Odoj, it should be regarded as an important contribution. The article by Romuald Odoj, who in a concise way presents his opinions
on the battle is of different character – with its centre of attention shifted to historical reflections. Again, the essay, despite its popular science form, contains important observations and reflections for the Grunwald discussion.119 Finally, the
popular science publication by the abovementioned Piotr Strzyż, reviewing the
archaeological works carried out from 1980 to 1995 (with interruptions) at
Dąbrówno (German: Gilgenburg) is worthy of attention, for the aspects he touches upon are important for the analysis of the routes followed by the Polish Crown
troops on its way to the area of the battle.120
114
M.J. Hoffmann, ‘Z historii badań archeologicznych w rejonie pól grunwaldzkich,’ in: Krajobraz grunwaldzki (as in note 8 above), pp. 143–150.
115
G. Świderski, ‘Historia badań archeologicznych pola średniowiecznej bitwy pod Grunwaldem,’ Komunikaty Mazursko-Warmińskie 2010, no. 2 (268), pp. 137–166.
W. Świętosławski, ‘Archeologiczne ślady bitwy grunwaldzkiej,’ in: Grunwald 1410 (as
in note 27 above), pp. 91–101.
116
P. Strzyż, Średniowieczna broń palna w Polsce. Studium archeologiczne, Łódź, 2011,
pp. 53, 54, 55, 58, 85–88.
117
118
H. Leśniowski, R. Odoj, Tajemnice grunwaldzkiego pobojowiska, Olsztyn, 2010; cf. ­eidem,
Tajemnice Grunwaldzkiego Pola, Olsztyn, 1985.
119
R. Odoj, ‘Bitwa grunwaldzka i jej tajemnice (o źródłach pisanych i archeologicznych),’
Bibliotekarz Warmińsko-Mazurski 2010 – special issue (Na stronach ksiąg i Internetu. Bitwa pod
Grunwaldem przez wieki), pp. 29–42.
120
P. Strzyż, ‘Badania archeologiczne Dąbrówna. Dąbrówno 1410 r.,’ in: Grunwald 1410 (as
in note 27 above), pp. 103–109.
Krzysztof Kwiatkowski
28
VIII. SUMMARY APPROACHES
It is possible to indicate among the abundant literature devoted to Grunwald
some attempts at the synthetic presentation of the military confrontation of 15 July,
1410, published in recent years. It is not my purpose to present a catalogue of this
kind of publications – this would generate the necessity to list a great number of
textbooks and encyclopaedic editions. A short exemplification could be, however,
a symptomatic indicator of the place occupied by the Grunwald discussion within
generally understood mediaeval studies in Central Eastern European countries,
where the reminiscences of Grunwald/Žalgiris are still an element of the collective
memory of societies.
One such attempt has been undertaken by the eminent Lithuanian scholar
Mečislovas Jučas.121 In a few sentences, he presents the aspects of the battle which
are important, in his opinion: the site of the battle, ca. 4 km2; the number of the
troops, ca. 15,000 on the Teutonic Order’s side, and ca. 20,000 combatants on the
Polish king’s side; the “political leadership” of King Władysław II and the “military leadership” of Grand Duke Alexander Vytautas; the “plan of the battle” prepared and devised by both of them together; the faked flight of the LithuanianRuthenian troops which was a battle manoeuvre; the six-hour combat of the Polish
Crown units with that part of the Teutonic Order’s troops that stayed in the battlefield; and finally, the failed attack of the grand master’s reserves who were
defeated, crushed and forced to escape by cooperation of the Crown troops, with
the banners of the grand duke returning to the battle after redeployment.
A possible Polish counterpart of such general and synthetic description could
be the article by the experienced researcher of Polish medieval military matters,
Karol Olejnik.122 The essay, published in a collective volume devoted to the battles
regarded as the most important in Polish history, compiled on the initiative of the
Society of Military Science Historians (Stowarzyszenie Historyków Wojskowości),
could easily be considered an exponent of the current state of Grunwald historiography – at least its Polish variety. The author presents his vision, in great part
built on the concept of S.M. Kuczyński from fifty years ago, with the location of
the clash, hypothesis of pitfalls, estimations assuming the balance of forces of both
sides and opinions about the technically inferior weapons of the grand duke’s
troops. Thus, it would be difficult to speak about the relevance to today of the
proposed image of the Battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg/Žalgiris.
Both examples, which could easily be multiplied – also with similar, recent
Belarusian examples123 – clearly demonstrate one of the elements of cultural “entanglement” of the academic Grunwald discussion in Central Europe. This is the
unusually high level of inertia of opinions and outlooks. A thesis could be put
121
M. Jučas, ‘Trumpai apie Žalgirio mūšį’ [Krótko o bitwie grunwaldzkiej], in: Kaip tai
atsitiko Didžiajame mūšyje (as in note 14 above), pp. 28–30.
K. Olejnik, ‘“Wielka Wojna” lat 1409–1410 i bitwa pod Grunwaldem,’ in: Historia militaris Polonica, Warsaw, 2012, pp. 27–48.
122
It suffices to see, for instance, the Belarusian works cited in note 3 above.
123
New Research into the Battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg/Žalgiris
29
forward that the importance attached to the battle of 15 July, 1410, magnified by the
“tradition” accumulated around its interpretations, making of its recollections and memories a social value in itself, and, in the majority of narratives, adding to it the blaze
of “permanence,” “durability” and “loftiness,” has, and still does, form a psychosocial
basis for the fossilisation of images and opinions, especially those that were formulated in such a pathetic tone. This phenomenon is an expression of the still great social
importance of the Grunwald/Žalgiris myth, both in Poland and in Lithuania, and also
a manifestation of the creation of this myth in shaping Belarusian society.
IX. CONCLUSIONS
This survey of the publications on Grunwald/Tannenberg/Žalgiris, issued on the
occasion of the anniversary of the battle in the period between 2008 and 2013
(and not quite ended yet), illustrates, in my opinion, the broad diversity of topics
and aspects, with a surfacing at the same time of the diversity of methodological
approaches and procedures, as well as the wide range of hermeneutic efforts taking
into account the increasingly broad and complex source contexts, accompanied by
a range of sophistication and epistemological research sensitivity. In comparison
with the academic fruit of the 550th anniversary of the battle, the qualitative change
in this research field is obvious. What dominates is the classic paradigm of “positive” research that could bring us closer to the development of substantial knowledge about the past reality of the Battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg/Žalgiris. Within
this space, as fifty years ago and later, efforts have been made to create a comprehensive image of events, despite the more or less acute awareness of the fragmentary character of the source material. In recent years there has been a fundamental reevaluation of the former establishments and assumptions in this trend.
The concept formulated by S. Ekdahl in 2009 has opened a new stage in the historiography of Grunwald. Insofar as before the 2009 publication by this scholar,
his opinions – expressed in various texts from 1976 – were usually regarded as
fragmentary statements that would not lead to a comprehensive whole, and in
extreme cases were treated as academic extravagancies. The full presentation of
his opinions, contrary to the vision of Johannes Voigt – which for over fifty years
was only supplemented and verified in its individual elements, and thus became
extremely fossilised and inertial – forces the next generations of participants of the
Grunwald debate to take a stance – more or less critical, more or less creative,
but always stimulating the movement of thoughts – on this comprehensive proposal. This does not mean that Ekdahl’s concept is necessarily an accurate representation of the actual events of July 1410. Yet, it opens an alternative and thus
invigorates the current of Grunwald discussion. And there is a great need for this
on that “holistic” level.
Owing to the domination of the “positive” paradigm indicated above, the Grunwald studies of that “anniversary period” include three main fields of interest,
namely: military operations of the troops, their arms and armour, and number of
troops. Thus, these treatises form a part of “classic” historical or historical-military
Krzysztof Kwiatkowski
30
research. In this way, previous analyses are reduced to attempts at searching for
answers to the questions that could be condensed to the three basic ones of who?
what? and how? Questions of why? are being timidly formulated right now.
Because the next stage of archaeological and geo-environmental investigations
was not taken up at the end of the first decade of the 21st century, Grunwald literature has been left to depend solely upon historical sources and exclusively upon
reporting commentaries to old field explorations. Yet, the array of historical sources for Grunwald studies is fairly limited and, more importantly, there is no prospect
of broadening it in the future. In reference to this body of historical sources, the
exploration of written sources is dominant, supplemented by scant visual evidence
(with the Banderia Prutenorum at the head) – hence this significant domination of
“classic” historical hermeneutics.
In the context of the several attempts undertaken (and presented here) at a “narrative” analysis of available source texts, a question arises about the extent of the
hermeneutic exploitation of source material. It seems that the “classic” analysis,
focused on procuring “positive”, actual data, does not exhaust the informational
reserves of the historical material; what is more, the awareness of the incompleteness of hermeneutic research causes concern for the epistemological adequacy of
information acquired from this “classic” analysis of past realities. We should be
aware, however, that the “narrative” paradigm poses the threat of regarding all
written sources as only and exclusively narratives for which it is totally impossible
to ascertain their adequacy as records of past reality. This would be a peculiar
“post-modernistic radicalism.” Meanwhile, the question is justified, of whether all
“source facts,” recognised as topical elements of constructed narratives, are solely
literary figures and elements of text, or, maybe, regardless of these diagnosed narrative functions, could at the same time remain, to a certain degree, accurate reflections of past reality.
The “anniversary Grunwald literature” remains, like the older historiography,
for instance the texts concentrated around the 550th anniversary of the battle, culturally “entangled” – because this is an inseparable and inalienable phenomenon
of historical – or broader – humanistic research. The phenomenon takes various
shapes. One of them could be illustrated by that observed in some texts, not
stated expressly and probably often quite subconscious, of the self-identification of
the author (scholar) with one of the sides of the conflict from six hundred years
ago. This mainly concerns the identification with the victors of the July battle of
1410, and thus an appraisal of the past, evident both in some Lithuanian and Polish
authors, as well as in Belarusian and Russian ones, which is expressed in the most
evident form in the style of the text, permeated with parabolic, pompous, and
sublimating elements, although this is by no means a phenomenon dominant in
academic Grunwald literature.124 In this context, the attitude of numerous Polish
General approaches are especially full of bombastic and triumphant expressions, as for
instance in the expression that the “Grunwald victory was one of the most significant events of
medieval Europe” (Z. Nasalski, ‘Introduction,’ in: 600-lecie bitwy pod Grunwaldem [as in note
57 above], pp. 7–8, here: p. 7). An unemotional, low-keyed, restrained and sedate look at the
124
New Research into the Battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg/Žalgiris
31
historians towards the concepts, and especially towards the research stance of S.
Ekdahl, who postulates a peculiar “de-emotionalisation” of the Grunwald discussion, could be considered a very sceptical one. A part of them seems to subconsciously regard this as stripping Grunwald of the triumphal glory that was lent to
it, both in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. It is equally difficult to find this
restraint and this “de-emotionalisation” among Belarusian or Lithuanian scholars,
who function within societies which are nowadays searching intensely for historical self-identification and collective memory, and in which the remembrance of
Grunwald/Žalgiris plays an important part.
Finally, the reflections on the cultural dimension of historical research also
raises the question about the response effect created by the “anniversary Grunwald
studies” within broader social awareness. If we assume that popular science publications, encyclopaedias, various kinds of textbooks and syntheses mirror the current state of social knowledge, our assertion – at least for Poland – is this: the
July battle of 1410, constantly recognised and generally regarded as a “great victory of Polish arms” in a succession of centuries-old confrontations with the “enemies of the motherland”, is presented in a “positive” dimension to a large extent
– while on the visual plane, defined by graphic planes of deployments and manoeuvres of the troops, entirely ‒ according to the nineteenth-century ideas of
a Prussian professor and a Prussian officer.125 This is a peculiar historical cultural
paradox.
Regardless of this pessimistic conclusion, the fact of the appearance in recent
years of a large number of academic studies more or less directly related to the
subject of the Battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg/Žalgiris allows us to notice the still
large research potential within this topic. If, to the differentiating methodology of
historical and historical cultural studies, we add the possibility of broadening archaeological research with geo-environmental analyses, this potential, together with
the resulting epistemological perspectives, will continue to increase; although in
the “positive” dimension of the possibility of enlarging our knowledge about the
battle of 15 July, 1410, it is worth keeping a minimalist attitude, and thus to refrain
from awaiting with hope new extensive layers of substantial knowledge.
Translation provided as part of the “Index Plus 2012” programme
Translated by Grażyna Waluga
Proof-reading Graham Crawford
importance of the Battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg/Žalgiris from a broader historical perspective
in the “anniversary literature” belongs to a minority group – cf. for example R. Czaja, ‘Bitwa
pod Grunwaldem i jej wpływ na sytuację polityczną w Europie na początku XV w.,’ in: Wojna,
pamięć, tożsamość (as in note 17 above), pp. 71–79 and 165–169; who looking for an answer
to the question whether the political importance of the battle for Central Eastern European
countries corresponded to its considerable military dimension, rightly emphasises that (p. 75)
“from the perspective of Central and Western Europe the war of Lithuania and Poland with the
Teutonic Order was seen as a local conflict.”
Apart from two cited publications by M. Jučas and K. Olejnik (see notes 121–122 above),
cf. for example, K. Nowiński, Śladami polskich bitew, 2nd edition, Warsaw, 2006 (1st ed.: 2004),
pp. 40–51 (including plans on pp. 42, 43, 44, prepared by S. Szymański).
125