Kozłowski Wojciech

CEU eTD Collection ÁRPÁDS AND PIASTS RECONSIDERED (986- CA. 1250) ÁRPÁDS ANDPIASTSRECONSIDERED PRELUDE TOTHEANGEVINS: MARRIAGES OF THE MA Thesis in Medieval Studies in Medieval Thesis MA Central Central University European Koz á owski Wojciech owski May 2008 Budapest CEU eTD Collection Central European University, Budapest, in partial fulfillment of the requirements ÁRPÁDS AND PIASTS RECONSIDERED (986- CA. 1250) ÁRPÁDS ANDPIASTSRECONSIDERED PRELUDE TOTHEANGEVINS: MARRIAGES OF THE Thesis submitted to the Department of Medieval Studies, Accepted in conformance with the standards of the CEU ______of the Master of Arts degree in Medieval Studies Chair, Examination Committee Examination Chair, Koz Thesis Supervisor á (POLAND) owski Wojciech owski May 2008 Examiner Examiner Budapest by ii CEU eTD Collection Central European University, Budapest, in partial fulfillment of the requirements ÁRPÁDS AND PIASTS RECONSIDERED (986- CA. 1250) ÁRPÁDS ANDPIASTSRECONSIDERED PRELUDE TOTHEANGEVINS: MARRIAGES OF THE Thesis submitted to the Department of Medieval Studies, Accepted in conformance with the standards of the CEU ______of the Master of Arts degree in Medieval Studies Koz External Examiner á (POLAND) owski Wojciech owski Budapest May 2008 by iii CEU eTD Collection Central European University, Budapest, in partial fulfillment of the requirements ÁRPÁDS AND PIASTS RECONSIDERED (986- CA. 1250) ÁRPÁDS ANDPIASTSRECONSIDERED PRELUDE TOTHEANGEVINS: MARRIAGES OF THE Accepted in conformance with the standards of the CEU Thesis submitted to the Department of Medieval Studies, ______of the Master of Arts degree in Medieval Studies Koz External Supervisor á (POLAND) owski Wojciech owski Budapest May 2008 by iv CEU eTD Collection Budapest, 26 May Budapest, 2008 for other institution of an higher education academicany degree. to form in this submitted been has thesis the of part no that declare also I of others, and no part of the thesisinfringes on any person’s orinstitution’s copyright. bibliography. Ideclare that nounidentified use and illegitimate wasmade of work the on based my as and innotes information properly credited research and only such external work, own my exclusively is thesis present the that herewith declare Studies I, the undersigned, I, the Koz á owski Wojciech , candidate for the MA degree in Medieval for theMAdegree , candidate ______Signature v CEU eTD Collection Table of 94 Figures...... Bibliography...... 86 81 ...... Conclusion Before a Conclusion: Prelude 75 to the Angevins...... Chapter III: The Marriage of 1239 and Its Political 52 Context...... Chapter II: Dynastic horizons of the Árpáds and Piasts, 20 1150-1250...... Chapter I: Árpáds and Piasts from a Marital Perspective, ...... 7 986-1140 Introduction...... 1 Secondary 86 Literature...... 86 Sources:...... Conclusion...... 72 Conclusion...... 51 ‘Prestigious marriages’ 48 comparison...... Analysis 27 of the data...... Methodological 24 remarks...... Table of contents vi CEU eTD Collection political decisions and events. This reflection grabbed me, a young Polish scholar, Polish young a me, grabbed reflection This events. and decisions political of explanation a general in presenting indispensable however, were, they process; played role that inapolitical factors abackground were crucial economy, society and netmore and developedmutual complicated Culture, a into of connections. intricate but issue, brothers-in-arms the on only countriesrelied not between two the ties close it quiteMongol invasion inworked well 1241;Later, and efficiently. the Moreover, the battling then Halich, for in fights first Poland, Little and Hungary between military cooperation constant nearly saw century thirteenth the half of second the that isrealized particular study I emerged. howthis That coalition. previous Árpád-Piast political originsAngevin-Piast of the alliance demands putting the aquestion to the explain to attempt scholarly honest an that grown has conviction my studies Robert toElisabeth, of adaughter interventions in 1304 and 1311onbehalf of be introduction an toalong story with its final in chapter Amadeus Ába’s place marriagesÁrpád-Piaston intwo dynastic thatTheyseemed took that period. to my attention focused and century thirteenth the of half first the to me led eventually of Árpáds politics the northern for these tofind My ajustification Cracow. attempts Poland was not exceptional Poland wasnotexceptional Black, Leszekthe under help help toLittle Poland troops to first todispatch whowere the Árpáds,mainly AndrewIII, unifystruggle to principalities, Polish the smoothlymy transferred attention to lastthe however, of why Charles Robert was ready to support W support was readyto Robert Charles however, of why century? The problem, fourteenth atalliance beginning of the the of Angevin-Piast the origin was the What question: the answering to shifted interest main The in Hungary. number of discussions a After in Hungarian. skills no with and level, ground from starting when especially world. optimistic Thischallengingfor too goal aten-month proved research period, in the else anywhere than city capital in its easier much be should which Hungary, fourteenth-century learnabout aspossible” was to “asmuch interest My personal handling this vast topic: Prof. Gábor Klaniczay, Prof. József Laszlovszky, Prof. Halina Manikowska, Halina Prof. Prof. MarianneLaszlovszky, Sághy,József Prof. and Dr. Balázs Klaniczay, Nagy. Gábor Prof. topic: vast this handling 1 Iwould like to express here my special thanks to the Hungarian and Polish scholars who helped me in à okietek. Soon after, I realized that the military presence of Hungary insouthern Hungary of presence military the that I realized after, Soon okietek. I arrivedin Budapest with study desire to a strong Angevins. Hungarian the 1 Idecidedlimit my to to the study early of period Angevin rule I I n n t t à r r okietek, inthesummerokietek, of 1320. Duringmy o o d d u u c c à t t okietek, andokietek, in of marriage the Charles i i o o n n à okietek’s predecessor in okietek’s predecessor á adys á aw à okietek in his okietek 1 CEU eTD Collection postponing the methodology postponing for the methodology discussion reason,Namely, another too. each chapter details I methodologywill and specific approach. So as not to overburden thejust “Introduction” with the givethirteenth a century.shortpolitical existence of Hungary and Poland, and those that took placeThis in the first half of summary study containsto find ofof four outthe chapters, intend consequences. I its political and of prestige the from newperspective the material style essentialwith their of own however,1250. Thisisnot, agenealogical looking re-examination. atthis Iam my separate differenceresearch work.between drawbacks that derive from my lackskills of proper in Hungarian. I theam marriages mewould develop an give myownmethodology to opportunity and limitthe in the which picture,” a“big of astudy make decidedto I ultimately Therefore, acceptable. first centuries and scholarly makemanageable it thesubject and to reconsider myapproach I that of limitsthe ofsuch woulda work make itsuperficial. time the Thus, limitdemanded and nor on asthoroughly ÁrpádsandPiasts the Piasts Ihad intended; as previously efforts – still lies ahead. For that reason, Icould write a study neither on the Angevins my language, which–despite in level theskill Hungarian topicof demandsacertain discussion the of be aproper Moreover, ignored. scholarshipof cannot previous the work the that means absolutely however, my for moreresearch, is no space there that mean not does This times. of hundred scholars other by examined and vast is entered elementimportant my learningof find in Budapestto thatthe political out field I has beenan fewmuch were It formonths. a too literature andthesecondary sources of number the Alas, manner. different slightly in a textbooks available copying my would and zero decrease contribution to like whole wouldown the look work On the other hand,for Angevin-Piast the alliance in way a more profound than had already been done. I was alreadysimple truth that Iwould notbe ablemake to a proper study sureto provide an explanation that anyrole half-meanshere: a scholarly and honesty a limited and mercy. time without approach limits. Regardingme approaching. flooded literature secondary and the Large sources of quantities honesty, I realized frustration,of because the time for sitting writing down and athesis wasunforgivably the after a few months of “rediscovering” the Hungarian history. This also became a point This study attempts to reconsider the Árpád-Piast marriages from marriages toreconsider from This study Árpád-Piast c.986to the attempts These were the conditions of the birth of this study. Two factors played a vital 2 CEU eTD Collection data I have not referred directly to the acknowledged Polish genealogist of Piasts, of the genealogist Polish acknowledged the to directly referred not Ihave data whileof amount that aserious be genealogical the might with disappointed dealing wouldlike of informativepages. HereI remark than more one written dozens to that aresometimes and which tablesgraphics, with have chapter this questions. I supplied my to according in scholarship, research by previous andgathered order the put the first chapter.affected the Árpáds and Piasts. The sources for the that chapter are changes similar to those used parallel in discloses and century, thirteenth I in the events havethe for background reworked a good sets in picture, big tendencies the itrolereveals political because important andan plays investigation This reordered time. over evolution their and dynasties two these the genealogicalhorizon has given some additional information about the political perspectives of eighty marriages concluded The analysis were that withinthe period. of dynastic the data which was Again, this is not a political history a political not is this Again, in both understandingwhat happenedwith 1250. dynasties period from the 1150 to Piasts. This presents somechapter historical butmost background, ofitis dedicated to discussion of numericalmy major purposes. these two approaches,data which, apparently, seldom confronton each built other, has been one of interpretation The literature. concerning secondary Polish and Hungarian the together dynastic unions. Another intention is very practical. Ihave had an putopportunity to the dynasticintroducedhave I although facts, rewrite to chapter simplefirst the in horizon intend not do I monographs. single corrections, ofbut onlyI am thedealing with a big picture, I haveto allowed myself useto rely mainly on textbooksÁrpáds and them to recognize Because literature. ideas expressedinthe secondary andthencomparedcollected with and the patternseffective methodology. in Genealogical the data, available in several publications, has been yet onasimple relies The firstchapter secondchapter. for the setting background the of arole play they and context political broader in their relations dynastic the early illustrate Hungarian-Polish features of These features such cooperation. andgeneral of for thestyle partnership Thisisasearch one. other the perceived mutual recognize i.e., howeach status, dynasty to dynastic unions, of perspective text. main inthe methodology the is done in a different way; therefore, I have found it sensible to devote some space to The second chapter is very different; the main argument is embedded in main is the embedded a is argument very different; The secondchapter The first chapter is a kind of dynastic comparison, which tries, from the sensu stricto sensu , but a statistical comparison of over 3 CEU eTD Collection and toshed bediscussed –will Polish comparedlight and inorder on periodthe aspecificalso call furtherfor two research,wherethe historiographies – Hungarian this therelations policy withfaraffected into Poland Thefourth future. chapterthe is understandingHungary further a foreign to gives policy how clue Béla theof IV, and perception of men in A power. description of the Mongol invasion’s inaftermath over butdue itstime, durability to is influence able to thepolitical horizon and itTherefore,picks of question the a notion a “politicalof tradition”up whichevolves of Béla IV and Charles Robert of and Piasts Anjouafter 1239. This chapter sets out to build a platformin between thethe early reign perspective of from their thirdthe and chapter its idea of a watershed inthemutual relations of Árpáds the northern politics. opening” features. which inÁrpád-Piastrelations, acquiredsoon unprecedented origins of marriage.the Thisis alsoseta an borderline endeavor to in1239for a“new the around in debate isa scholarly voice a chapter third the Thus, consequences. in accounts understanding source itsmarriage tosecureabetter an of attempt and the two am discussing I also marriage. the for more reasons could give but neglected, rather been have now until up which factors out point to tries and interpretations, political intentions both of sides,it some incoherence discloses in previous possible the by revealing role, and reconciliatory of plays akind therefore, chapter, the other underlinefor Hungarian the themarriageparty.to andneglectOn reasons Polish the hand, the both sides. Thetends is scholarship found on mutual little awareness that there Polish Hungarians because I haveapproaches, both issue. used I onthis Hungarian Polish opinions and pay the contrast and compare i.e., to chapter, first the to is similar idea The subject. little deals that secondary literature background. rich with Ihaveusedthe the Inaddition, attention partially on resultsthe of previousthe which chapters, provide dynastic solid at all to this issue. The third Boles have based whicharealready usedpublications onJasi had access to his works in Budapest. Moreover, for collecting my data on Kazimierz Jasi the Piasts I 3 2 The other version of this name is Kunigunde. These works are listed in the first chapter and also mentioned in the main body of the second chapter. á aw the Shy of aw theShy Polandof andKinga The fourth The fourth ischapter less a study and more alogicalderives speculation. It The third chapter is mainly a thorough reconsideration of of marriage isreconsideration the of mainly athorough The chapter third Ĕ ski. This has happened due to technical reasons, because I havebecause technical not I has happeneddueto reasons, ski. This 3 of Hungary of inHungary rests 1239. My argument Ĕ ski’s studies. 2 4 CEU eTD Collection Signum, 1999), 7-11. [Hungarian-PolishPolitical and Cultural Relations underW Stanis Among the Polish scholars I would name here, in chronological order, JanAges. D Middle in the relations Hungarian-Polish just covers which literature little is On hand,there other the matters. political deals with which somehow literature, amountdemandsof of avastsecondary theAngevinperiod, aconsideration reaches and century tenth the from extends which chronology, The research. of piece another chronological framework functions mainly on approximations and avoids exact dates. not does chronology the refer however, time, same the At centuries. three over covers which to chronology, broad the a introduce to me enables anapproach Such life context. political the to reference with datessignificance their and marriages mutual their interpreting just of rulers, writingam not in Hungarian-Polish aboutthe highMiddlethe Ages.Iam relations but rests stress separately herelikeand meaning.Iwouldpractical examine again to theirthat upon treatme them to has facts compelled of a sequence years. Such fifty within marriages the marital place.geopolitics took break Thislong by wasfollowed number of an unprecedented issues. in changes at significant but thesametime marriage, Árpád-Piast when there wasno Thus, intoI havenearly After the 1140was first putthem chapter. eighty-year-long a gap the reason that For features. had specific placemarriages before1140and took three first The sequence. interesting an revealed examination Further century. tenth in the place dynastic marriages demanded first the going backwards to such unions, which took in interest here.My a patterns few basic I will indicate just Therefore, chapter. but –as I argue – was, de facto, the first chapter of this many faceted story. a preludewhichnot theAngevin to was in Hungary their(and rule relations), Polish 5 alsoare included in the bibliography. relevant works of these scholars in the bibliography. Theother scholars, mentioned in the introduction, 4 enough to state hereenough date Ihavefound that to to anystudy not asimilar which presented its neglect. andsherevealed relations, on literature Hungarian-Polish the the to afew paragraphs dedicated hasalso Rekettyés Maria always– problems. political not – various on concentrated and periods, in different relations Hungarian-Polish the Kovács, Dániel Bagi and Márta Font. andMárta Bagi Dániel Kovács, Mária Rekettyés, Mária ofmost some listed I have footnotes, overloaded from free “introduction” this keep to order In á aw A. Sroka, and Ryszard Grzesik. On the other side, I would point out Endre out side, andRyszard other wouldthe point On I Grzesik. A.aw Sroka, In my study, the discussion of previous research proves to be the question of The main chronological framework of this study is presented in firstthe Stosunki politycznekulturalne i polsko-w 4 All these scholars, however, have worked on have worked however, All scholars, these Ċ gierskie zaW gierskie á adys á aw aw Jagiello á adys á awa Jagiello Ĕ czyk] (Wroc ą browski, 5 Ĕ It is It czyka á aw: 5 CEU eTD Collection 7 (hereafter: (fromNinth to Fourteenth the the Century)], ed.GyulaKristó (Budapest:Akadémiai Kiadó, 1994) further research because this researchbecause further my is “prelude also Angevins”. to private the features mystudy.hope thatimportantinspiring thisof approach for will I prove most are the on subject the literature secondary Hungarian the and Polish merge the to an attempt and reconsideration, athorough new Hence, approach, this a newlight. nuptial of dynasties.unions two They have been andputexamined, reinterpreted, into the comprised has material source fundamental My necessary. is genuinely this when it. justifies believe, I my methodology, but disputable, my argumentin relied have I centuries, three over relations marital on Árpád-Piast in the tendencies and efforts of other scholars’ work. My choice may be sometimes 2Ī század) have been of Boles “mystery” the rolein decoding important an has played Bearded Henry the on Zientara of Benedykt The Font. work Márta of publications the with them Ihavecompared andsometimes Polish-Ruthenian issues, Ihave eagerly forreached Bronis Gyula Kristó, and Jen Gyula Kristó, mostthe andKosztolnyik, like prominent HungarianZ.J. scholars recent Pál Engel, Hence, Ihave of secondary literature. publications usedmainly English-language the allow abovedescribed me didnot bring in to study of a comprehensive Hungarian the methodologicalÁrpád-Piast mine. approach relationsto to Thelimits which I have 6 Marekpublications Bara of latesthave general I tothe for thebasic turned framework factual literature, secondary Polish the Regarding argument. my for foundation a good be will opinions their that Korai magyartörténeti lexikon (9-14 század) Piastowie. Leksykon biograficzny óg ( Cracow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1999) (hereafter: 1999) Literackie, Wydawnictwo Cracow: . For the same reason, literary sources appear only in the third chapter, yetonly appearonly chapter, in literary sources third the For the samereason, 7 On the whole, as my study aims deliverto a big picture which reflects trends Lexikon Piastowie ). , 6 Ę a recent lexicon, and arecent á Sz aw the Shy’s marriage. The bases for my genealogical studies my for genealogical bases marriage. The Shy’s aw the Ħ Ĕ cs, and the summarising work of in of hope LászlóKontler, work cs, and summarising the ski and Stanis [Piasts. Biographical Lexicon], ed.Stanis [Lexicon Earlyof the History of Medieval Hungary á aw Szczur. Moreover, whileaw Szczur. the discussing Korai magyar történeti lexikon(9-14 Piastowie ). á aw W á aw KrzysztofSzczur, á odarski’s works, odarski’s 6 CEU eTD Collection horizons until and describe betweenÁrpáds marriages andcompare to dynastic 1214 and Piasts concluded until onein the 1214. marriagesmoreÁrpád-Piast were in 1138.No of Polandlast “universal” died duke the meantime andinthe later, discuss placeI will 1140,which around marriage took 1150-1250 seems somewhat artificial meantbeinterdynasticand is to so. Thelast Andrew II, and married ason Coloman, Polishof DukeLeszektheWhite, kingof the Hungary, this was already,encompasses Árpád-Piasts dynastic marriages. 1214Salomea, In adaughter of the in my view, in starting themiddleofin tenth century somewhere and 1214, ending a new type of followingmarriage. The period chapters. way the for Angevin-Piast alliance, finally in concluded 1320. I paved period particular of events that In addition, the have in past. the hadnoprecedents introduced future political and middleforthe of relations were awatershed thirteenth century the in IV’s daughters Béla dukeswith of Polish marriages the that demonstrating aimed at two periods myKingdom On and the Polish principalities. whole, Hungary the of is reasoning for the between gap growing the underline will century, for a whole intermarried discussion. houses both whom with i.e., horizons, dynastic the of analysis An century. The Hungary changesrealizing what affected inand Poland half secondthe twelfth the of after seen better be first will difference the Moreover, Anjou. of Robert Charles including one, alliances Béla concluded bytheHungarian kings AndrewII, IV, and their successors, between century.the two dynastiesthe scene for my furtherNamely, argument about Árpád-Piast relations in the thirteenth from I think the tenththat thereto the twelfthwas a significant centuries juxtaposeddifference to in the relations century Makk, 9 PolishAcademy of Sciences in Warsaw) fordrawing my attention to this problem. 8 C C Partially due toaByzantine dominationthat lasted in Hungary between1140-1170. See: Ferenc Here would I like to express gratitude my to HalinaProfessor Manikowska (Institute ofHistory, h h a a p The Árpádsand Comneni;the political relations between Hungary antheByzantium inthe12th p ( The main reason for this chapter is give forThe main ageneral dynastic chapter on to overview this reason At the beginning, however, I will justify the chronology applied in the two Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1989). t t 8 e e of these two houses in the period from 1150 to1250. Thisset necessary is of housesinthe to from 1150to1250. these period two r r I I : : Á Á r r p p á á d d s s a a n n d d P P i i 9 a These several decades, nevertheless, completely nevertheless, decades, These several a s s t t s s 1 1 f 1 f 1 r r 4 4 o o 0 0 m m a a M M a a r r i i t t a a l l P P e e r r s s p p e e c c t t i i v v e e , , 9 9 8 8 6 6 - - 7 CEU eTD Collection [Cambridgeshire]: Cambridge University Press, 1990). University Press, 1990)and idem, systems ofmarriage andthe family inthepre-industrial societies of Eurasia An1993). of approach anthropologists:an JackGoody, Shulamith Shahar, Shulamith Cartlidge, two modelsfromtwelfth-century France symbolism and society society should be seen as a serious issue for several reasons. for several issue serious asa be seen should society in medieval gather all for laterMarriage to reference. order of in oneplace them implicitly. understoodlacked anphilosophy facing unspoken fate together,Iwouldof arguethat this was in reality. manybear medieval though of theconsequences this marriages Even relationship. to were ready they There that sharedand be now would houses theirfate of declared that was a marital parties the will into agreement By stepping inpractice. confirmed good no need seal that a proper was, however, marriage fact of very to the inwriting, intentions name it, parties’ revealedthe issuing charters parties. treatiesand Signing between two because arrangements political concluding of means other any by overshadowed never was everyone knew final for my date it discussion 1250. around establish a to of andfor Idecided 1256; therefore those 1239 was aprecedent of 1214 marriage The was a”newopening.” there century thirteenth in of the middle the that claim to dare I that extent an such to relations, Hungarian-Polish of basis the reshaped 10 verbis an marriage was a Furthermore, contract. made marriage the who by those lasting cooperation. In a sense it was a clear signal of political immediateoption profit;that was it waschosen also seen to include the construction of a solid basis for long wouldconcluding claimthat amarriage as wasunderstood more then gaining I Therefore, repercussions. political evoked immediately it marriages dynastical of in case butthe course, happen, of from could a wife Separating decades. and years fora last fact that marriage could inadvancethe into consideration hadtotake parties aside infrom couldexceptions happen which practice basic idea, and not denying this Christian acoupleteachings oncewas live married supposed to life Putting together. Some concerning readings problems of marriage:a medieval D.L.D'Avray, declaration of a will to cooperate and, hence, it created extraordinary space for space extraordinary itcreated and, hence, cooperate a will to of declaration Some general features of a dynastic marriage must necessarily be discussed in be discussed necessarily marriage must a dynastic of features Some general significance Their marriages. dynastic to related often was politics Medieval Medieval marriage: literary approaches,1100-1300. The fourth estate :ahistoryof women inthe Middle Ages ( Oxford: Oxford University GeorgesPress, 2005); Duby, The development of the family and marriage inEurope ( Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991); Neil The oriental, theancient,The andtheprimitive: ( Rochester, NY : D. S. Brewer, 1997); 10 Firstly, according to . (Cambridge: Cambridge . (London: Routledge, Medieval marriage:Medieval Medieval marriage: . (Cambridge expressis 8 CEU eTD Collection 14 13 Powszechny Nevertheless, in case of Árpád-Piast marriages I am referring to works indicated by Jan T by 12 Jan indicated works to Iamreferring marriages ofÁrpád-Piast case in Nevertheless, reliable. considered generally is book Balzer’s 5-28.) (idem, edition second the to chapter introductory noticable contribution toBalzer’s text. All thesemade efforts have beensummarized research by Jan T genealogical and historical of century a over However, content. the in changes without (hereafter: Balzer, Piasts beforePiasts 1214. considerations. from these any of free never were marriages their through seen relations Hungarian-Polish conditions. would but bevery circumstances be coulddesirable problematic in another in one who offspring, meant normally a marriage Moreover, thrones. even or regions estates, land territories, involve particular could that other the claims against it device. political on the Depending situation, could party one equip many with most solemn one. Namely, amarriage, once concluded, acted as a “give-me-a-reason” own serious consequences, its and long lastingnot was perspective necessarily the hadits marriage hand,adynastic other the On profits. economic and diplomatic both Subsequently, usually this broadened the sphere of influencepolitical and resulted in they inevitably thestatus enhanced of a dynasty among European other houses. because greatly appreciated were marital honorable andconnections Wide-ranging as a however. lined toprestige, wasclosely somewhat marriage Adynasticteam. be pair seen should contracted on now the from that information receive clear would by-standers the all time, same the At undertakings. political and diplomatic 11 986. concludeddaughter of c. Géza I, 1214 and1320. place between fivetook the marriages comparedthat to sixroyal make altogether 'ą eleventh century, and the remaining two in the first half of the twelfth century. Jan concluded before 1214. marriages were three Árpád-Piast there only works, scholarly recent According to king II, of married of Emeric,Mieszko daughter Poland. anonymous an Here the Hungarian genealogical tables are in accord with the Polish perspective. Polish the with inaccord are tables genealogical Hungarian the Here Balzer, JanD Oswald Balzer, browski suggested a sixth marriage, and argued that a son of St. Stephen, St. ą According to Oswald Balzer, there were five marriages between Árpáds and between fivemarriages were Oswaldthere Balzer, to According 1. browski, “Polskie ma Genealogia 187 (1930): 65-69. This idea was disputed which Iexplainsoon. Boles Genealogia Piastów 13 Genealogia These numbers for the first period canfor nolonger These first the numbersbe maintained. period , 979. 11 á aw I, son of Mieszko I and an anonymous woman, probably a Two of them were concluded in the tenth century, one in the áĪHĔ ),978. Thisbook first waspublished in1895 and now reproduced stwo [Genealogy of Piasts] (Cracow: Wydawnictwo Avalon, 2005) Avalon, Wydawnictwo (Cracow: Piasts] of [Genealogy Ğ w. Emeryka” [The PolishMarriage of St. Emeric,] 14 12 This would This Ċ Ċ gowski. gowski inan Przegl ą 9 d CEU eTD Collection Archeologiii Etnologii, ca. 2000). Poland in the 10th centuryin the10th Poland Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, 2006)(hereafter: Bara daughter ofBoles Andrzej Marzec claims that it happened according to the will of both sides (see sides of both will the to according it happened that claims Marzec Andrzej Pozna European Medieval Culture. Studies Presented to Professor Alicja Kar Alicja Professor to Presented Studies Culture. Medieval European Ğ ZĊ convincingly refuted by GrzesikRyszard – idem, “Adelajda, rzekoma ksi 15). Jan D Jan15). 11 (1897), 745-788) and argumentationhis was subsequently widely accepted (seeBalzer, remarkably hot.remarkably Alliances andwar’s alllocal andwere changing downs ups affected gained aswarbooty. wealth and expansion based on was state European Central medieval early the idea of the Moreover, parallel. in chronologically on went nations both of histories the extent a great To among states powers. European the status for the andfighting foundations ofintentions. more amatter of and numbers thirteenth century significantly changed the statistics. Nonetheless, this is less a matter view, the of point numerical Thus,from the years apart. ahundred were about third the secondand whereas the long break, a fifty-year about wasapparently there second andthe first the Between centuries. in following i.e.,and tenth the century, Elisabeth),(Erzsébet, a daughter concludedof Béla II, before 1140. rejected byStos Hungary, of prince the Géza, to married was Adelheida, princess, Polish a that and hypothesis Balzer’s Oswald she could be the mother17 of St. Stephen16 view.(Balzer, See, e.g., unknown. speculative (idem, mother’s name. Therefore, claiming thather the princess’sdefinitely was wasRicheza named afterand hermother evidence, is simply source no is there for unknown is name her that argued Balzer to the Polish 1301 princess who married Béla I, at that time a future king of Hungary. On the other hand, Lexikon historiography. Namely, the Hungarian genealogical tables made by Gyula Kristó and Pál Engel (see: 15 18 redniowiecznejPrace Europy. ofiarowane profesor Alicji Kar The three other marriages have been rejected by modern historiography, both Polish and Hungarian. and Polish both historiography, modern by rejected been have marriages other three The Iwill get back to it little bit later. This seems to be a good place to make a little correction that apparently spread within Hungarian within spread apparently that correction alittle make to place good be a to seems This Marek Kazimierz Marek Bara gierskim” [Adelheid, the Alleged Polish Princess on the Hungarian Throne] Hungarian the on Princess Polish Alleged the [Adelheid, gierskim” (1993) (hereafter: Kristó, Ĕ skie Towarzystwo Przyjació , 61-65), ande.g., GyulaKristó, In the tenth century Hungary and Poland were diligently establishing their establishing diligently were Poland and Hungary century tenth the In every marriage dynastic asingle was there this chronology, According to 3. 2. 16 ą browski’s suggestionregarding St. Emeric’s Polishmarriage hasbeenrecently á Piastowie aw Mieszko the Old, a son of Boles Anonymous daughter of Anonymous daughterof MieszkoII á aw III the Wrymouth,aw IIIthe andGéza II,asonof Béla c. 1136was II,eventually dropped. Genealogia à aguna (idem,aguna “Rodowód Piastów” of Origins [The Piasts] , 54. 18 Ĕ ski, , Ed. Przemys This naturally incited conflicts and made the whole region andmade whole incitedthe Thisnaturally conflicts , 165-166,ModernPolish 978). historiography theBalzer’s supports Die Arpadendynastie Dynastia Piastów w Polsce á Nauk,1995),47-53. Finally, supposed the marriage of a Judith, Die Arpadendynastie.Geschichte Die Ungarns 895von bis á aw Urba Ĕ czyk, ), Stammtafel II 287, have given a name Richeza Ĕ ski, ( á Dynastia aw III the Wrymouth and Gertrúd Warsaw: Polska Akademia Nauk. Instytut [The Piast Dynasty in Poland] (Warsaw: Poland] in Dynasty Piast [The 15 Genealogia and King Béla I, chronology á owskiej-Kamzowej ), 106. See also: á owska-Kamzowa] (Pozna owska-Kamzowa] , 62-71),was immediately ĊĪ niczka polska troniena Piastowie Kwartalnik Historyczny 17 Kobieta w kulturze The neighbours of [Woman in the , 98). Genealogia 10 Ĕ : , CEU eTD Collection Bolesstepped into the imperial camp. This, however, did not last long and he saw Bezprim,in a sonof 1988, 86-87).He also thatmaintained later, during the German-Polishwar1003-1018, Hungary 23 Ğ dissolved: idem, “Dzieje Polski do r. 1194” [The History of untilPoland 1194] not give any explanation,except forsuggesting, that Hungarian-Polish the relations somehow (Warsaw: Pa the Middle of the Tenth Century] spouses split up very soon. very up split spouses Marek Bara Stanis “Ukszta Kristó, who claimed that Boles marriage. the of cancellation the for givereasons not any does Balzer due to political inefficiency, even thoughwould this changewasalso I years. arguethat argumentation, two Balzer’s Following a son was born to Boles Hungary against Bohemians, but he received none. buthereceived Hungary against Bohemians, Boles 22 longer no it because marriage, profitable. politically was Meissen, gave Mieszko I, the father of Boles father of the I, Mieszko gave Meissen, Margrave Rygdag and,consequently, theintroduction newof a familyin ruling of death the that supposed Balzer wife. Hungarian a took then and however, her, I initially married a daughter of the margrave of Meissen. He was soon separated from 21 20 present changes that appeared in the twelfth century. Piasts the between cooperation partner-style reveal will andexamples following of examination the Árpádsdifference andmuch not was there century their tenth in the that conclude to is enough It details. comparable in politicalgointo isnoneedhereThere to Hungary Poland. and menace to become acommon have could prestige. countries Western these that suggest I speaking, generally Therefore, strategies This willwas HolyRomanthe German andunder strong Bohemia, which Empirepressure. allowand in In most cases both Hungary and Polandhad toneutralize an meexpansionist politics of thelater status toframeworks. had basic some fluctuations however, these acertain degree, rulers. To between these two states. The 19 redniowiecznej Kristó, Bara Ibidem, 81. Balzer, Piastowie á aw I and the Hungarian princess, a man of reconciliation (ibidem, 167-169). Also Jerzy á á Ĕ only allegedly long, survive not did princess Hungarian unknown an with I aw aw Sroka, who simply declared that the reasons are not known. á towanie si ski, The fate of the first marriage depicts this point clearly. Specifically, Boles clearly. Specifically, point this marriage depicts of first The fate the Die Arpadendynastie Genealogia , 25. Ĕ Dynastia stwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe,165. Roman 1957), Grodecki, on theother hand,did Ĕ [The History of MedievalPoland], vo1. 1(Cracow: Platan, 1995) 77-78. ski did not draw muchski didnot attention this marriage,to concluding the that Ċ pa , 80. , 61. AleksanderGieysztor did not mention the marriage at all. See: idem, Ĕ stwa polskiego od po , 58. Györg Györffy similarilyargued (idem, 22 Historia Polski Iwould still agree with explanationthe by given Gyula á aw I expected his marriage to result in support from á owy IX w.” [The Development of the Polish State from [History of vol.Poland], 1, Ed. Henryk á aw I, a good reason to cancel the first cancel the to reason a good I, aw 23 Maybe it was not Boles 19 The second marriage of KönigStephan der Heilige á aw I. Interestingly, 20 21 Neither did Dzieje Polski à Similarly, owmia á aw I Ĕ á aw ski, 11 , CEU eTD Collection (hereafter: Engel, (hereafter: Arpadendynastie in his realm, pushed him to conclude a marriage that aimed forlong-lasting results. See: Kristó, Poland. Ithink that peacekeepingthe policy of Géza, who focused on mainly consolidating power his 27 Dynastia New CentralYork: EuropeanUniversity Press,2003) (hereafter: Gesta Principium Polonorum.Deeds The ofthePrinces of Poles,the and shame and disgrace be brought upon the Ruthenians.’ So said Boles concubine and on one occasion only, that with this act the insult done to our people may be avenged, refused me, will be ravished. And she will not be joined to Boles at this hour,so on the night to come the sister city of the of this most –WK] Kiev [of cowardlyGate Golden king, the whosepierces hand my had sword as earlier beenexplained:’Just and gleefully laughed while staying in Kiev, in order to pay back insult for insult. “When they asked the reason for this, he ruler refused and his decision was taken as an insult. Therefore, Boles Therefore, insult. an as taken was decision his and refused ruler According to Gallus, Boles 26 25 (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1982), 54. Bohemia without Hungarian reinforcements but with German acceptance. He with acceptance. but HungarianGerman reinforcements Bohemiawithout andmarchedCracow against marital Fourthly,to theirMieszko approach policy. very backadditionally Hungarian Piasts’ practical home.That the wife underlines reasons. alliance, very hadbeen concludedfor from the perspective real which Mieszko’s importance was limited, thus a lack of cooperation compelled the Piasts to reconsider Árpáds with aspartners whom they common could conduct Buttheirpolitics. 24 fought Bohemiansthe credible. andwasvictorious. Polish Around 987the duke himself buthisfather, Mieszko I,whowasstill incharge, sounds butdisappointment [Mieszko the First] (Pozna Strzelczykwas convinced that the marriage was aimed against Bohemia; idem, Seemingly, Árpáds the feel notdid very offended. divorce. the to due conflict a Hungarian-Polish mentions which account no is There asprestigious. house Árpád the consider not did Piasts the Firstly, tenth century. the neighbors in 989-990, domain border. Thus, would reachtheHungarian Polandbecame andHungary his campaign after asuccessful that he knew because Mieszko, for were crucial relations with good sides.Hungary from Furthermore, opposite havebeen attacked could such with acaseBohemia In conflict Bohemia. into beforeentering Hungarians Progressing along lines, these Isuggest Mieszkohoped that make to friends with the a result he subjected Silesia and Little Poland with Cracow to his authority. On the other hand, the Hungarians were genuinely interested in close and peacful relations with relations peacful and close in interested genuinely were Hungarians the hand, other the On But they could. Gallus Anonymous told astory about Boles Bara Tadeusz Manteuffel, Tadeusz Ĕ ski, This case gives some clue theto character of Hungarian-Polishthe relationsin , 91-92. 27 Thirdly, even a first-born son did not prevent Boles prevent not did son first-born a even Thirdly, Dynastia , 58; Pál Engel, The Realm , 55. The Formation of thePolish State. The Period ofDucal Rule, 963-1194 25 Ĕ á : Wydawnictwo WBP, 1999), 165-166. i.e., surely after the dismissal of the Hungarian princess. aw I wanted to marry one of sisters of Jaros ), 26. ), The Realm of St.Stephen (London: I.B. Tauris Publishers, 2001) á aw I entering Kiev afterits submission. 26 Secondly, Piasts treated the treated Piasts Secondly, á aw as his lawful wife, but as his á Gallus aw I took her only once by force, by once only her Itook aw á Ed. FrankSchaer, (Budapest. aw, and what he said he did” – á aw of Kiev. The Ruthenian á aw I from sending his sending from I aw ), 43. See also Bara also See 43. ), Mieszko Pierwszy Mieszko 24 Ĕ As Die ski, 12 CEU eTD Collection 34 “notlong after Andrew’s electionto the kingship,” which happened in 1046(idem, 33 32 31 30 released soon king’s death. the after soon released and byKingStephen, there Casimir yet Polandthe wasarrested time, at towards 1038 and 1041. It would 1038 andbeen delicate toorganize have 1041.It a dynastic evenmore inprobably 1041. into Piast family. the managed return Cracowwith to Casimir to German troops, Hungarianthe foundinthrone shelter married Poland and wereabout tomarry) (or was no open Hungarian-Polish conflict, Stephen did not like the fact that claimants to Hungary. Bara Hungary. refuge in early and in took Mieszko in after 1038 II’s death 1034,wasexpelled rebelled and was whensubmerged the central in civiladministrationmatters war.worse, I Casimir,have to mentionceased here whoto thatexist ascended the 1030s and in a Polandsignificant the were Polisha difficult part time,throne of the country 29 the sons “before 1048,” i.e., before Béla finally returned Hungary. sons“beforefinally i.e.,the returned Béla to before 1048,” ofbirth dates the andof inserted made calculation amorehand, Kristó careful Gyula three sons fled to Poland. to fled sons three cousin, Vazul, but the king decided differently. Asa result, Vazul was blinded and his Hungary,have inheir unexpectedly died been would 1031.Theobvious Stephen’s and Poland. Emeric, a son of King Hungary and PolandStephen could live theirlives separately,yet successfully. and designatedachievemanaged to hispolitical goals Hungarian On without whole,the troops. to inherit the crown of 28 similar by sons showing pattern, that both Béla werebornof c. 1040. by inHungarian supported 1031. princess, Ruthenians the leave hiscountry invasion leddue to by brother by Mieszko’s Bezprim, older a put somewhereput between 1039and1042. details. convincing of Following Balzer’s analysis, thedate marriage should be this Mieszko is II by generally accepted historiography. devil the Nonetheless, inis the of andadaughter of Vazul, ason Béla, between marriage Thefactof in revolt. in acountry restore peace to andreturned setout II murderedand Mieszko was soon Ibidem, 140. Bara Kristó, Balzer, Bara Engel, Lexikon Ĕ Ĕ ski, ski, The second quarter of the eleventh century was very wasfor Hungary century very of demanding eleventh the The quarter second The Realm Die Arpadendynastie Genealogia , 62. Dynastia Dynastia Ĕ ski indicates that this was the only place which was not hostile not was which place only the was this that indicates ski , 28-29. 34 , 139. , 98. , 167. Thus, Ican hardly imagine the existence of a Polish state between 28 , Stammtafel II, 286-87. Pál Engel claims that Béla returned to Hungary In the meantime, the Polish King Mieszko IIwas forced to 33 It appears plausible to me that, although me although there that, appears plausibleto It 30 The genealogical tables of 29 Nevertheless, Bezprim Nevertheless, Lexikon The Realm 31 On the other the On 32 Tomake follow a , 30). 13 CEU eTD Collection Arpadendynastie, Central Europe 36 History of Polishthe State] (Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiej with his sons. The point is that the Andrew’s party always sought help from the West the from help sought always party Andrew’s the is that point The sons. his with dziejach pa time and they both hadeither to find from a Ruthenia interchangeably of received support Andrew’sand son –Solomon, brother Béla I, or the Holy Roman Roman Empire and Rutheniatogetafirm holdEmpire. on Hungarian affairs. Andrewa I, Both of thempartnership. were kings Hungarian-Polish medieval early the Basically,in justify additionally theirwhich matters, single few political conditionsrelations allowed these describe to not is however, Poland in intention, My the decades. several tonext in the second competerelations halfwith theof theHoly twelfth century in detail, caseof Boles the but to draw attentionestablishing good political contacts with someone in control of Cracow. This was later to in interested were essentially Hungarians the events show that future however, a statewith in mainlya capital This had justification; Cracow. a geographical stronghold in Little Poland. From then on, Ibelieve, Hungarians considered Poland as main to the from Gniezno administration Polish the of center the transferred Cracow and to status fully sustained. apractical was return Secondly, Casmir’s partnership eveninferior or equal was of party Hungarian the in also case this that emphasize strongly I would reason, that For duke. Polish the for advantage slight a with maybe even power, of balance a characteristic maintained sides both – intriguingly be with – but perceivednot oneof the this could ascomparable marriage 986, not the King of Hungary yet, and there were doubts if he ever would be. would ever ifhe doubts were there and yet, Hungary of King the not was not inHe peace. theexternal and position internal restore and ashes the from of country a his powerfulrebuild to about ruler, as Mieszko I was.just was placevery Casimir specific conditions. under Conversely, marriage took Firstly, this Béla was and forCracow forward thetimelook to further being political development. could question happened 1041-1042, around in marriage that the Iwould argue Therefore, conditions. difficult undersuch marriage tended to date it forthe time of Casimir: idem, 35 The political winds of change blew in favour of Vazul’s sons even in 1045. See: Kristó, See also a thorough discussion on the chronology of this marriage by Gerard Labuda, who also The of decisions early the impact1040s had important Hungarian-Polish on an This discussion of the context of the second dynastic marriage had itshad reasons. marriage of seconddynastic the of context the This discussion Ĕ stwa polskiego (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002) (hereafter: Kontler, 86-89; Engel, á aw III the Wrymouth. the aw III [Mieszko IIKing ofPoland (1025-1034). The Turning Period inthe The Realm modus vivendi modus , 29; László Kontler, Mieszko IIkrólPolski(1025-1034). Czasyprze 35 when Casimir restored his authority in authority his restored Casimir when with the “Polish party,” i.e., Béla i.e., Béla I party,” “Polish with the Ċ tno A historyHungary of :millennium in Ğ ci, 1992),ci, 174-183. A History A ), 60. 36 Therefore, á omu w Die 14 CEU eTD Collection 43 42 41 40 ( Kosztolnyik, Z. J. – command.” direct his forces under Polish the with princely-one-third, the territory, own reactionand political-military development inHungary. Upon his return home, Bela remained in his been veryhome; hedid not want to get involvedthe in muchnew Hungaro-Germanpolitical situation that must have inarmy divisions … Probably,flux what happened was that Bela went to Poland to stay away from politicsat at this time. And yet, he wished to be prepared for any possible German father-in-law [Boles support “just in case” and would39 have been granted. “Bela fled the country for the court of his Polish – person’s [i.e. Ladislas’ –WK] guardianPolandin …I raised him,Iinstalled king as inHungary”him however, some additions. Márta Font stated: camp. a German to sticked constantly and vassals maintain sovereignty. Bohemians searchedfor abest place among the emperor’s Polish alliance was then generally aimed against the Empire and served both parties to was developedEurope andhence reappear used continuously. to Hungarian- The Hungarian throne in the turn of twelfth century, the specific net of alliances in Central 38 which matters, apparently Bara were crucial. geopolitical here underline to like would I references. political with only explained help to the Polish rulers against their subjects if they revolted. (hereafter: Font, latter. againstthe troops beginningthe of twelfththe centuryÁlmos, ayounger brother of Coloman, received “specialized”in interventions. such sought Coloman Hungarian too. helpthere, years.Poland twenty-five nearly altogether They canonized. ruled was later and ruler a saintly as remembered was of one them Moreover, kings. Hungarian three “their” had Poles that say I would terminology, political modern using Consequently, throne. Hungarian the obtain I to Ladislas and I, Géza I, Béla helped considerably I Béla of behalf on interventions Ladislas, were born in Poland and spent their childhoods there. childhoods their spent and in Poland born were Ladislas, baptized in Poland North. The marriage the turnedto traditionally theBéla’s party from Rutheniandukes,whereas the or of Béla I itself was not the only reason for that. Béla I was 37 Boulder: East European Quarterly, 1981)(hereafter: Kosztolnyik, Bara Kristó, Ibidem, 22-23. See also Kristó, Font, According picturesqueto the descriptionof Kosztolnyik,Z. J. Béla I could have even asked for Gallus Anonymus put the following into the mouth of the Polish king Boles Márta Font, Márta Gallus Ĕ Coloman ski, , 99. Márta Font accepted this account (idem, account this accepted Font Márta , 99. The Hungarian-Polish relations under Boles under relations The Hungarian-Polish Die Arpadendynastie, Dynastia Five Eleventh-Century Hungarian Kings: Their policiesand their Relationswith Rome ColomanLearned, the Hungary kingof Coloman , 16. á aw II wasaw father-in-lawII his not – WK], and returned to Hungary with three Polish , 149. 37 and stayed there at least a few years. His Gézaand leastsons, a fewyears.His and at there stayed ) 11. See also: Kristó, 41 On hand, other Hungarianthe the militaryprovide used to 109,114. Die Arpadendynastie, 39 and his family were generally successful and successful generally were family his and Die Arpadendynastie, Coloman Ĕ 114. ski concluded that during fights forconcluded the during fights ski that ( Szeged: Szegedi Középkorász M 43 I agree with this opinion making, , 12). á aw III the Wrymouth areoften Wrymouth the aw III Five 92. ), 76. 42 á aw II: “Iwas this 38 Numerous Ħ hely, 2001) 40 At 15 CEU eTD Collection 46 Wydawnictwo Literackie, 2006) (hereafter: Szczur, overlord and had superior power Boles over power andhadoverlord superior daughter ofthe Kiev, supportive.havebeen very could dukeof grand second wasa caseColoman,in withRuthenians.Inthis wife whose his contacts Coloman were not only due to the Bohemians. Boles 45 Boles here. avital role played so,apparently,geography North, the governed 44 with Boles Boles relations beginning established Hungarians with century the twelfth the good of in the Secondly, immediately. that to turn will I outlook. in this change a drastic seen as a serious partner. In my opinion, next decades of the twelfth century witnessed Polish principality, commanda single underthe united of duke,could have been still The dignity. royal its lost Poland whereas kingdom, a permanently was Hungary century, balance was of butthe and status still power political preserved, although eleventh the of half second the in especially involved, militarily more was party sides Polish things.both hereequal Possibly other two acted partners. as Firstly,the Poland – Little Poland andnamely,issue, Boles Silesia. for however,with Hungary. itswould, consequences underline negative another all I reasons for that are plentiful. The first is that Zbigniew was in the Germans’ camp open hewas because open Bara Stanis Font, á á Ĕ aw III, and Elisabeth, a daughter of Béla II, was concluded before 1140, II, of Béla adaughter andElisabeth, aw III, aw III, yet not with Zbigniew. Despite the fact that Zbigniew was appointed as Zbigniew wasappointed fact that the Despite with yetZbigniew. not aw III, Coloman ski, The third marriage,between Old, dynastic Mieszko the thirdson of the Stanis well. as personally. Coloman’s sympathyextended Boleslaw’s to descendents relationsColoman’s were basedgood probably whentheymet once Álmos also gothelp and so could capture Abaújvár. Boleslaw and aspiring power against to Álmos in asylum1095, got in Poland, but sympathy of the Polish rulers did the not appear unambiguously. discord Coloman,Coloman’s and Álmos In Poland. in born was father relationshad good with hisPoland, grandmother was Polish his and Álmos; there,Boles and Coloman Here, power. for fought who brothers two also were century The history of Hungary and Poland inthebeginning of twelfth the seems to have similarities. In the turn of this century there á aw Szczur, Dynastia á aw III and even sent troops his Thesupport himagainstbrother. sent oldertroops andto aw III even á aw Szczur pointed out that close relations between Boles between close relations that out pointed Szczur aw , 72-73. 44 , 189. Historia Polski. á aw III from aw III beginning,i.e., very the 1102,was southern ruling de facto á aw and Zbigniew. … Coloman’s family aw andZbigniew. …Coloman’s always Árpáds’ neighborthe of the domain. Zbigniew ĝ redniowiecze 46 As ruler of Cracow, his way to Hungary stood Historia á (History of MiddlePoland. Ages) (Cracow: aw III, Hungary cooperated constantly Hungary cooperated aw III, ), 124. á aw III looked for an intercessor 45 I would add á aw III and aw III 16 CEU eTD Collection Arpadendynastie, Elisabethwas omitted in a display onthe genealogical tables in hisbook. See: Kristó, 52 51 this. prevent to meant was Old the ofMieszko marriage the ruler, would too couldpowerhad have much and have on encroached brothers’ autonomy. his Thus, ascribed to the every male descendant of Boles take charge of the whole country, which, however, was destined to be divided into princely districts, 50 49 neighbor. northern their towards expressed Hungarians that attitude specific the dispatched envoyan to Boles supporters, who only abandoned joinedand and retinue.Moreover, later his him Béla II thenthey twoin camps, who were doing the politicsreal in the kingdom. Therefore,Boris had plenty of a traitor, too, to theircountry’s just case” (Kosztolnyik, favoured had barons, the their they: that kingknow who alone commander the let heldto the Boris, right to supported thewho Crowntroops …they Ruthenian had warned him that they would regard him as barons – WK] had dispatched a delegation not to Boris, but to the commander of the Polish and what is the most intriguing here is how the Polish duke was perceived. Kosztolnyik wrote: “They [the changed their minds, they expected the same from Boles from same the expected they minds, their changed they Once of war. act an considered was not kingdom the into army an with marching and it, wished barons the Polish duke was within his rights to support a candidate for the throne(hereafter: Kosztolnyik, as long as they Policies andtheir Impactupon Foreign Affairs. argued the opposite –idem., popular with the Hungarianthe popularwith fewhad nobility followersand (Bara being politically constrained he had to go warto for Boris. Bara died. hadalready of concept this double-marriage architects the 1141when happened after meantime the idea was dropped andmeantime the idea was marriage was the dropped cancelled. the In postponed. was ceremony the and small too were children both but place, took engagement the that believes Marzec – GézaII. BélaII of son oldest marry the plan for a double marriage, i.e., Judith, a daughter i.e., for plan marriage, Judith, adouble adaughter of Boles him (Kristó, according to the Polish annuals quoted by Marzec, Andrzej Polish the quoted according annuals to unhappy ascensionthe with of BélaII tothe throne, called forBoris andasked Boles 48 basically to secure Béla II from his older brother, W from brother, his older secure Béla II to basically confused Álmos with Béla II,but suggested that the marriage ofMieszko the Old was supposedly between supposedly 1136 and 1138. 47 relations. friendly establish to an attempt of evidence O Krzysztof For Hungarians. make with peace to ruler had Polish the circumstances political tough In lost. eventually and II Béla against Boris anotherforfight Hungarianthrone. the 1130s the to due of beginning conflictat the cameinto who and Polish rulers, Hungarian between the Itisinteresting that Kristó did not mentiona word about these Hungarian-Polish negotiations and Bara The scenario of this Polishintervention looked very similar to the previous ones. Some malcontents, Piastowie Piastowie Piastowie Ĕ ski, , 98. , 107. , 107. Dynastia Die Arpadendynastie, 138-140, Stammtafel III 288-89. , 218, 220. According to the last will of Boles From From Coloman theLearned to Béla III, 1095-1196:Hungarian Domestic á ) 102-106. He draws an interesting picture of Hungarian nobility, divided aw asking III, him togive up Boris’ case and withdraw.He did not, but 138). Bara 47 Ĕ ski explains that Boles This marriage was a result of of wasaresultreconciliation This marriage á aw III. Bara (Boulder:Monographs, EastEuropean 1987) From á aw III. This gives, in my opinion, a taste of taste a my opinion, in gives, This III. aw Ĕ ski claimes that W , 104). This seems to mean that for the Ĕ 49 ski also concludes that Boris was not á Bara aw III, W Ĕ á ski, aw had no optionat the time and Ī 48 óg the marriage was clear marriage was the óg á adys 51 Boles Ĕ Dynastia originally there was a there originally ski, on the other hand, other the on ski, á aw III, wasmeantaw III, to á adys á aw. á á aw III supported aw III adys á , 189). Kosztolnyik aw was supposed to 50 52 á Interestingly, aw III tosupport Ithink this á aw, asasenior Die 17 CEU eTD Collection system, as it hasbeen later senioral calledThe by historians, death. father’s measuredthe outafter of the regionsimmediately ofother Polandeach with acentral districtfighting from them prevent and above all aimed to introducehis last will the Polish duchy was divideda into smallersystem districts (principalities). This politicalthat move was would secure a share of power for each of Boles 55 54 more local politics. local more both states drifted apart. Whereas Hungary was rising in power, Poland pulled back to asequals. and themselves time atthat perceived each other respected and negotiationsisfinal a demonstration c.1136 these that wererather close to dynasties of successionnotion The families. royal highest the among building relationship of demonstration that seems atdoublenot) or attempts marriage (concluded isisit useful, amaterial because to have two these Comparing themselves. for emerged crown Hungarian the won they eventually during thesuccession.was Undoubtedly,how Angevins perceived that of the alliance 1270 and Boles Anjou and Árpád wasconcluded. in thirty famousyears later, the between doublemarriage 1269-1270, Houseof the these two countries, which will be the subject of the chapter II. son of Boles Konrad III, inKonrad This marriage, III, however,did1139. place. not take theGerman king son of Henry,a to wasoffered daughter Thesecond daughters. his father – the future senior duke of Poland, married Elisabeth, one of Béla’s two marry one of the to about Boles was crown, Hungarian the to heir an therefore and II, Béla of son oldest issue of the double marriage concluded by Boles marriageconcluded double issuethe of successful king-maker. as an activeyears hundred a for functioned Poland that is contributor here stress to want I what nevertheless, to Hungarian the thirteenthdomestic century, the status of the Piasts andaffairs, Árpáds was comparable, inunlike asequal history, Furthermore, acted Hungary and Poland partners. political and – what common of years hundred two isfirst for that more argument fundamental my – buttresses was a 53 Thedeathof Boles Kristó, Or at least an heir of western Great Poland with Pozna with Poland Great of western an heir least Orat This, however, changed soon. During the second half of the twelfth century twelfth the of half second the During soon. changed however, This, apactof marriage as adouble royal treat automatically historians Some In addition, in order to make my whole argument stronger, I will develop the develop I will stronger, argument my whole make to in order addition, In textbooks, by general neglected however Old, the Mieszko of The marriage Die Arpadendynastie, á aw III and an heir to Great Poland, á aw III, in 1138,aw inIII, was point aturning Polish inthe medieval history. to According 55 This can by of be seenthe dynastic horizons examining clearly á aw’s daughters. At the same time, Mieszko the Old, the third 139-140. Ĕ . See: Bara . See: 53 á and – according to the last will of aw III and Béla II in c.1136.The II aw IIIandBéla Ĕ ski, Dynastia á aw III’s and Béla II’s 54 Around ahundred , 219. á aw’s sons 18 CEU eTD Collection brothers/relatives and to oversee interests of the whole Poland. whole ofthe interests tooversee and brothers/relatives younger his supervise to expected was he and dynasty) Piast of the representative oldest subsequently, future his heirs. The central district was meant to be ruled by the oldest son (later, the land of Sandomierz) and each of them was supposed to be inherited by a son of Boleslaw and, emphasize the practical equality of Árpáds. and Piasts the the of equality practical the emphasize its traces on,but wasnever acted however, for Such pact, my a argument reasoning. is final a the succession pact indicate possibly could that marriage of 1136-38 domain Theprospective border. totheHungarian wasdirectly doubleadjacent his because Cracow, ruled who one wasthe partner political natural the Árpáds the impact on Hungarian-Polishhad that an factor ina geographical for wasalso the fights Hungary.throne There in active very was Poland when relations. century, eleventh the of half second the in developed As the example of Empireand Bohemia, influence.imperial which was under Close ties political further Boles Roman Holy the of expansion the i.e. threat, common a by strengthened was powers comparable of Such a cooperation wassustained. the balance of power case, too, in Therefore, this court. Casimir’s the in at exile Béla Iwas inand Poland his power restoring just was bride, the of a brother I, Casimir when conditions, political specific Béla very II to happened under 1041-1042 of an around Mieszko I daughter unnamed of marriage The century. eleventh the in change much not did it but century, tenth the in marriage of case the mainly was This successfully. yet separately, politics their run prestige for the Piasts, but were useful and possibly beneficial. Both dynasties could little had relations Hungarians the with that whichsuggest patterns, time show marriages that of The status. similar asof other each perceived Árpáds the and Piast During my the followingresearch, havefound statements justification. Firstly, the Boles of death the until Árpáds and Piasts the between relations dynastic the (the land of Cracow and the Gda At the beginning of this chapter I set out to demonstrate the main features of Ĕ sk Pomerania) and other districts (Great Poland, Mazovia, Silesia, the á aw III revealed, for á aw III. aw 19 CEU eTD Collection in 1091. Dalmatian coast – a clear signan independent existence and,initiated subsequently, expansion towards the of solid integrity. Croatia securing aprivileged position forand Roman the Church. Hungary confirmed its will for Dalmatia were annexed 1095) and Coloman resulted(1095-1116) in unificationthe of legalthe system and Ladislas I(1077- long of reigns The conditions. wavering several decades of after – will be understand is some once easier to data presented. background of range marriages dynastic in and scale the houses –especially embedded both royal better understanding of the material I will present below. Patterns of dynastic interests before thebeginningof century. thirteenth the features will Outlining these allow presentationsaffected Hungary by that of short and Poland general the development A good number of Walloons, Saxons, and other Germans came, mainly to the under- the to mainly came, Germans other and Saxons, Walloons, of number A good century. twelfth the middle inof started the that immigration Western of importance andhadon social, aserious impact systems.outlegal the Pál and Engel tax pointed administration, state of levels organizational the enhanced naturally that development place. took monastic foundations many country the andthroughout its privileges,Church spread won domains extra was due totheacquisition modelsWestern of andliving standards. TheRoman Hungary leapdevelopmental experienced asignificant over twelfth the century. This the twelfth century. Louis J. Lekai, Templars also arrived at this time. See: Kristó, inHungary, and made great contributions to the general development of the country. Hospitallers and 58 Historicum Ordinis Cisterciensis in Hungaria Ciszterciek 57 Fine, from theSixth LateTwelfthto the Century Realm Croatia and from then on he called himself 56 C C Throughout the twelfth century newly formed orders – Premonstratentians and Cistercians – settled – Cistercians and Premonstratentians – orders formed newly century twelfth the Throughout Kontler, This date This could be,however, movedforward to 1102, whenColoman crowned himself ofking h h a a TheEarly , 35-36. Similar chronology: John V. A. Fine, Jr. p p At the turn At turn the finallyof in the twelfth Hungary the century kingdom consolidated be should preceded Árpádsand Piasts of horizons dynastic the A of discussion t t 56 e e [The Cistercians] (Budapest:Mikes Kiadó, 1997);Ferenc L. Hervay, A History LászlóKontler hasnicely thefurther development presented of Hungary in r r I I ), 234. I The Cistercians. Ideals and Reality I : : D D , 72-75. y y 57 n n I will summarize it in a few sentences. The Kingdom of a a s s t t i i c c h h o o 58 r r This was accompanied by intellectual This was by andaccompanied intellectual cultural i i (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991) (hereafter: z z o o (Roma:1984). rex Hungariae, Croatiae etDalmatiae n n Die Arpadendynastie, 1 1 s s 2 2 5 5 o o (Kent: The Kent State University Press, 1989); 0 0 f f t The Early Medieval Balkans. ACritical Survey t h h e e Á Á r r p p á á 168. Forfurther seereading also: d d s s a a n n d d P P i i . See: Engel, See: . a a s s t t Repertorium s s , , 1 1 1 1 5 5 0 The 0 20 - - CEU eTD Collection 62 61 60 emulating the urban organization of their places of origin. of places their of organization urban the emulating there settlements established their and of northern kingdom, the populated parts 59 Byzantium. and Empire Roman Holy the – empires bordering two Dalmatiatwelfth and towards relationscentury: anexpansion building proper with the in policy foreign Hungarian of aspects main three distinguishes Kontler politics. in Italy, who were endangered by the vast political ambitions of the Byzantine the of ambitions political vast the by endangered were who Italy, in Normans the with communicate Hungarians the made and Serbs the into Hungarians conflicts. military in resulted numerable territories, Serbian the concerning especially line, Byzantine-Hungarian the on tensions in era. wholeandthe Árpádian period powerful reasonalsothat reign the is Béla III(1172-1196) of claimed most prosperous asthe internal peace, and immediately undertook a program of domination in the region. For managedeleventhAta certain restore time to that degree, century. Hungary, to expansion limited bydomesticwas quarrels, whichlasteduntil nearly endthe of the simultaneousdecline growth sense,the largerthis In between empires. two its survival securing preoccupied with ofof Hungary.PolishHungary did –after the opposite battlethe in ofAugsburg 955 the country was mainly Silesia), Ruthenia, western and Pomerania, Moravia, Meissen, Mark, (Lusatian Thus,power afterfirst half of twelfth the a significantcentury, couldexpansion afford program over the deaththe of twelfthStephenvery different story. I Polish “by party Themarriage of chance.” Boles (1038) the with century concluded was sense this in specifically and in Ruthenia, interest anyHungarian wasrevived dueto mainly of 1214 was marriage the that out point I would above. Here presented have I which counterbalanced marriages, in royal break hundred-year-long nearly the explain forlost time the its being,practicalfor attractiveness Hungary. would, Ithink, This north, The politics. Hungarian dominated matters southwestern and southern however, by especiallythe kings, Hungarian the engaged that affairs Ruthenian south in the interest a rising at the turn of the thirteenth century. For most of the twelfth century, For short but telling introduction to this matter see: Fine, see: matter this to introduction telling but short For Ibidem. Kontler, Engel, This unprecedented prosperity This unprecedented prosperity of immediatelyHungary was in reflected My general impression is, however, that whereas Poland, from the tenth to the to tenth the from Poland, whereas that however, is, impression general My The Realm A History , 61. , 74. 61 Previously, however, the continuing the however, Previously, á TheEarly aw the ShyKinga in a to 1239 was 62 This stormy Thisstormy pushedrelationship 59 , 234-247. 60 Iwouldhere add 21 CEU eTD Collection recognized as dukes of Poland. dukes as recognized Brave,Mieszko BolesII, and 65 Kristó, throne. to claims opponent, plausible his Géza’s, concerning evidence source direct no is there admitted 64 transformed from from transformed duchy/kingdom andcentrally a unified governed was state Polish the view,here, iscritical which of point political From the century. by Hungarians, who himaccepted a as ruler much without protest. and,he wasaccompanied border totheHungarian subsequently, Byzantinetroops the born to Manuel. Nonetheless, after Stephen III had passed away, Béla was escorted by son was long-awaited a because becomeemperor, an not did eventually well. Béla engaged Béla tohis Maria, daughter perceiving him as heira future Byzantium to as Stephen hadIII inherit diedchildless, Hungary. Inaddition, would Manuelofficially agreed with Stephen III that Béla, a possible successor to the Hungarian throne in case political political waspreserved, Fine whichJohn power concluded asfollows: itssubmithaveByzantium. beatennot to Hence, Iwould arguethat did Hungary to imposed King Stephen directly emperor the Moreover, century. previous inthe Piasts the similarly to throne, IV,Hungarian the to candidates whoexpelled hosted Manuel ruledpolitics. domestic its for a short in interfere to time. allowed Byzantium consequently, and, losses military suffered several Nevertheless,invading Italy forcedand him focus on Balkanto affairs. BeforehisHungary death the repeatedlyemperor Manuel (1143-1180).ThisComnenos alliance the emperor from prevented 63 Boles seductiveboth firstHungary andthe for Poland. During the decades after death of very became shortly which Halich principalities, the of Lodomer emergence and Grand Duchy of Kiev lostits leading role due to such internal partitions resulted in the that fact very The Ruthenia. and Empire Roman Holy in the happened processes similar and time inthat extraordinary not was entities political smaller into division autonomous principalities which growingnumber Such were ruledbya of Piasts. a From the middle of the tenth century until 1138 there were only three Polish kings: Boles Ibidem, 243. Gyula Kristó saw the ascensionof Béla to the Hungarian throne as difficult but, he Fine, á Die Arpadendynastie, aw III (1138) the central the central administration wassustainedaw III(1138) andthedistricts/duchies, The Early Poland, in contrast, lost its former significance by the turn of the thirteenth he Namely, strategy. anew political introduced Manuel however, Later, Normans in Italy. Normans itunder butwas control his goals expense at the againstof the into Balkans keep the the them Hungarian Manuel wasable to advance were to be ten Byzantine campaigns against Hungary. As a result of , 238. Over next twenty there however, –WK],Overnexttwenty years [c.1150-1170 150-151. 63 á aw OtherII. rulers, including Boles á aw III theWrymouth,were 64 65 to a group of á aw I the 22 CEU eTD Collection thirteenth century. the of middle the until houses these differentiated strongly think, I which, Piasts, these parallel Iwill Now contrast and bigcompare picture. has revealedthis twelfth the century political evolutions withbe confinedtovery local initiatives. the dynasticbuilding up itshorizons position of a regional Balkan superpower, Poland’s ambitions had to of wagingthe Árpáds war with andByzantium, the establishing overseas alliances with the Normans, and and an attempt overlordship towards astep wasalwaysconsidered Aresidencein Cracow Cracow. to call ambitions onsecuring power over focusedpolitical kingdom,many them their and of oneselfdisappear. unity notdid Alldukesrememberedonce Poland that entity, wasone a land of Cracow. the was inpractice land, which “capital” of the elites the to mainly it profits bore for disliked, was administration theirfor social chance by promotion their Any around gathering own duke. central winsuperior Such power. Silesiatensions to e.g., enabled, even its formal From unity. Old1181 Mieszkothe and Casimir Justheld the the it. multiplying Firstly, duchies. maintain asingle dukewanted to his domain and enlarge of process speeded upthe that forces centrifugal some also were them. There male growingpartially the number andpartiallyduetoclashes of amongdue to heirs late twelfth the a further disintegration of century principalities, the witnessed becameprincipalities perceivedashereditary domains. and changed also dynasty within mentality The clashed. soon brothers younger 69 68 67 Boles and for over his nearly ruled years, his accordingbrothers father’s to wish. thirty expelled, and the second heir, Boles of Boles son (senior) oldest the whenWladislas, however, violated, Boles that system hereditary despite some difficulties,evolve didnotindependent into principalities. 66 Ibidem, 296. Ibidem, 302. Ibidem, 233. Bara 68 Also, local elites were deeply interested in further divisions because they saw because they divisions infurther interested local weredeeply elites Also, á Ĕ aw’s death in yetaw’s death 1173leftPoland unified, vergeof the on His eruption. ski, Summarizing the main political events and developments in the second half of half second in the developments and events political main the Summarizing Dynastia , 232. á aw III introduced in his so-called “last will” was soon was will” “last so-called inhis introduced III aw primus interpares primus á aw K Ċ dzierzawy (the Curled Hair), took his place 69 Nevertheless, the idea of Polish of idea the Nevertheless, . Hence, whereas Hungary was Hungary whereas . Hence, 67 Consequently, Poland lost de facto autonomy. Thus, á aw III, was aw III, 66 The 23 CEU eTD Collection rulers,Crusade should gettheirown category “Crusade”. category This would include the marriages withthe Fourth the after place took which marriages, and “Empire” category the with equally be treated who emerged73 after the Byzantium proper was conquered by Latins. I agree that this 72 71 Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1999). Leksykon biograficzny concerned Hungarian Balkan-Byzantium politics. Balkan-Byzantium Hungarian concerned formal subjects of usefulthe statistical data. “Empire”Holy embraces all relations with Romanthe German-speaking and Empire. obtain to necessary found itI but superficially, somewhat here treated was “direction” “Byzantium” refers andÁrpáds.The of the of efforts dynastic Piasts the unitsthe wereaddressees to all relations of political sort i.e., what objectives, marital of the impression a general term gives that This whole is for the research. “direction” crucial Theterm database. the describe several introduced to terms Piasts’ the Árpáds’.and I the perspectives, Secondly, insupport different twiceorder to two werecounted Hungarian-Polish marriages all Similarly, dynasty. from same the both originated of them matter that no parties, two of horizon dynastic a itexpressed because marriages, separate two statistically marriagemeant same figuresin the all for database,aPiast-Piast standards the keep to andinorder convenience for sake statistical the membersof dynasty,the of other married who Piasts of the case In its natural understanding. addition to a small methodology I have applied. Firstly, the term “marriage” should be elaborated here by contexts. appropriate both housesput and allowwill the meto marriages of 1256intheir 1239 and believe that such a alonenotenough) was withindatabase both dynasties in periodthe 1150to1250. roughly I reveals some maingather goal was toall were concluded that marriages the engagement (thus, interesting trends in the marital policy of scholarly research. scholarly Piastowie. Leksykon biograficzny Piastowie. Leksykon already published material.genealogical Forthe figures Polish I usedmainly remarks Methodological 70 genealogical tables available in the last volume of the of volume last in the available tables genealogical tables published in Lexikon. WhileIwas finishing thisstudy, Manikowska out pointed thatthe category “Byzantium”should not Forclear reference I amgiving here again the full bibliographic descriptionof work:this Lexikon des Mittelalters Lexikon Nevertheless, before getting to results of my survey, I describe the The following discussion relies on a database, which I have created using which Ihavecreated on a database, relies discussion following The , 61-65. 70 [Piasts. Biographic Lexicon], ed.Stanis Icollected the data concerning the Árpáds from the genealogical , ed. RobertAuty et al.... (Munich: Artemis-Verlag, 1991-1999), vol.9. 71 For any uncertain figures I also referred to the , which summarizes the up-to-date status of up-to-date summarizes the , which 73 “Ruthenia” took a broad meaning abroad “Ruthenia” took á aw KrzysztofSzczur, O Lexikon des Mittelalters Lexikon Ī óg Piastowie. ( Cracow: . 72 My 24 CEU eTD Collection consider all the exceptions and specific cases that appeared over a century of dynastic of acentury over appeared that cases and specific exceptions all the consider to therefore, be Itwould problematic, later). in (andmarried years early engaged their some or of decades them were over times married several people some because herebe used cannot marriages, of dates the like factors, Other birth. of of dates closeness relative the 2) and generation; ‘zero’ the to in reference level descent the of 1) mainsupporting this order: hereSalomea. factors particular Thus, Iconsidered two Boles between Béla IIand (b. 1116)was latter the (b. 1108),and BélaII years than older and Ryksa – I have I Wladislas – marriage first from the His Salomea. descendants marriage to his second included to thechildren ‘zero’ of Béla II andgeneration of the children Bolesmarriages of their children took place in the 1130s at earliest.because This was the case ofthe the former was three king of Hungary. Although there was a twenty-year-long break between them, generation that included two main figuresmain– Bolesincluded two generation that interpretation. my of core formedthe which Árpáds, andthe Piasts of the generations five parallel relative chronology, which was essentially based on a system of generations. Idefined created I also therefore, accurately; data the forenough approaching not however, this beginningof This discussed chronology at the previousthe were chapter. was, marriage of of Boles marriage death of Boles following factors:based 1250. The choice on the were approximately incriteria 1150to the period First, I set up a universal chronology.leading trends. The the recognize to smaller entities into “empire” dismember the to Idecided data, the starting of interpretation detailed more the pointduring reason, same the For Poland. and Hungary was the this was a neighboring “Bohemia,” because from term “Empire,” however, the the likewise. Idistinguished state and therefore it played a special role in the politics of 74 be accepted. cannot a generalization such study indicatorof the geopolitical sphere of the Hungarian interests. Iabsolutely agree that ina more detailed between the Northern and the Balkan politics of Hungary, the category “Byzantium” playsthat ina role theof verythe case of this study, where I am mainly looking fora big picture, and I categorizationhave strong has a justification differentiated I and am grateful suggestion.for this I would argue, however, Boles á aw the Curled Hair (b. 1121/22), the oldest son of Boles á aw III was1086, born in while Béla IIwas born in1108. A generation was constructed on the following basis: I distinguished a ‘zero’ onthefollowingbasis: A generation Idistinguished a was constructed The whole happened which comprises marriages, database eighty-five á aw III the Wrymouth in Wrymouth IIIthe end the was 1256,i.e., aw point 1138, and the á aw the Pious with the Hungarian princess, Jolanta. The reasons for reasons The Jolanta. princess, with Hungarian the Pious the aw á aw III, which, however, were born from á aw III, dukeofBélaII, and aw III, Poland á aw III by his wife 74 the 25 CEU eTD Collection generation, which at this stage was not a part of mya part of wasnot research. stage which atthis generation, sixth the to her assigned have should I chronology, my relative to according The reasonis that Kinga was a daughter of Anna and agranddaughter of Béla IV, i.e., chronology chronology a little byignoring themarriageKinga of and P 1259 (in violated a the case)and Árpáds’ in1264(in Piasts’ universal the case). I placein last took ones the in whereas 1136-1138, werecontracted in database the includedmarriages Thefirst of biga given process. picture andthe reveal trends track behavior, has marriages.suffered several drawbacks.I am completely Statistical data,aware nevertheless, that my is statisticaluseful to analysis, applied to human Ĝ emysl emysl IIinOtokar 1261. 26 CEU eTD Collection married more prominently. more married dynasties see which make two the of acomparison to marriage” and “prestigious a getin big of to introduce whole Finally,will term the of the total period. picture I data the summarizing am I Thirdly, features. distinctive and common both for search in houses both a a generation within compare Árpádsand the Piasts.Iwill Secondly, Analysis ofthedata My basic aim in this discussion is to reconstruct the dynastic horizons of the of horizons dynastic the reconstruct to is discussion this in aim basic My 1208? dubious 1200< after <1200 before ? c. Legend 1271 1222/25 Ȼ death 1 > < ? c 1 1 no data no circa n betwee 27 Figure 1.Table showingdynastic marriages in the first generation. Elisabeth StephenIV Ladislas II Géza II Name Casimir the Just Agnes Judith Dobroniega Ludgarda Mieszko the Old Boles Ryksa Boles Name á á aw the Curly Haired Tall the I aw Árpáds ofbirths: Range GENERATION I 1121-1138 1127-1201 1133-1165 1131-1163 1130-1162 Life Dates 1138-1194 1137-1182< 1130/35-1171/75 1128/35-1160 Dytryk 1122/25-1202 Elisabeth 1121/22-1173 Wierzchos 1126-1156 Life dates

CEU eTD Collection . Range of marriages: . Range ? Mieszko the Old Otto Eudoksja Mary ofProvance duke Berenger, II Raimund Krystyna Zwienis Mary ? Eufrosina Marriage partner Helen 0Ğ ofCastile king VII, Alfons Marriage partner cis á aw á awa á 1136-1161 awa . Boles Albrecht 1148 the Bear, mrg. of Brandenburg Izas Wszewo Empire in wealth lower of dynasty Izas Ruthenianduke princess from Byzantium 0Ğ P II Conrad Meissen of of margrave son Béla II Árpád cis á á aw 1150-54 Monomach, grand duke of Kiev aw <1151 Monomach, grand duke of Kiev á á aw III the Wrymouth of Poland aw Monomach, grand duke ofKiev duke grand Monomach, aw á ? Father/Dynasty od, duke ofNovgorod duke od, Ĝ emyslid, duke ofZnojmo duke emyslid, Father/Dynasty 1136-1138 1136 c. 1160 ? ? 1161< ? c.end 1150 1136-38 Date of marriage c. 1146 1161 Date of marriage 1152 Ruthenia Poland Ruthenia Ruthenia Empire Brandenburg Empire Ruthenia Bohemia Byzantium Meissen Empire Hungary Ruthenia Provance Castile Direction ? Direction 28 Hungary Castylia Provance Bohemia CEU eTD Collection 8% 8% 8% 8% Unknown 8% I generation 12 marriages Piasts Empire 26% Ruthenia 34% Unknown Poland 25% 25% I generation 4 marriages Árpáds Ruthenia Byzantium 25% 25% 29 CEU eTD Collection Piasts. the and Árpáds the of horizons dynastic the between difference much not was there marital contractsstrongly suggest thatwith in the first generation boththeir dynasties were content to enter intoimmediatepart of imperial the Hungary.policy details,goingintotowards Not availabledata the neighbors.pressure from the south. There is no doubt that marriage Into a Byzantine princess wasconclusion, a agrowing meantto counterbalance was direction Ruthenian the that however, I would argueimagine, Iwould influence. Byzantine was freeof marriage a Polish only apparently that in 1170 was that from Hungary a periodthe 1140 to time domination, of Byzantine consideration into Taking neighbors. north-south their married evidently Árpáds the sametime, the At relations. of east-west importance fact underlines This territories. Piast nearthe located were whosedomains partners political possible with however, wereconcluded, bytheemperor arranged marriages Twoof the Empire (30%). confined neighboring toonly mainlyRuthenia countries, Roman (40%)and theHoly is horizon dynastic Piasts’ the spouses, Ryksa’s omitting Hence, Castile. of king the her to engaged There emperor the court. imperial the seek refugeat was forced to and aninviting therefore, leftPoland party.father, her Probably she in1146with who remove very prestigious marriages of Ryksa. She was a distant relative of the emperor if I changesignificantly numbers these Nevertheless, spectrum. centered regionally their This reveals neighbors. closest their to linked them marriages Piasts’ the of Two-thirds choices. variety of interesting an time presented that at policy marital their that shows IGeneration” “Piasts diagram The Árpáds. asthe marriages as many of Béla II who got married are part of this study. The number of Piasts had three times Boles Boles Boles for Boles except Piasts, All the this period and called it the era of Byzantine domination. 75 Iwould like to express my gratitude here to Professor József Laszlovszky,who drew my attention to á á á aw III. Ryksa was Boles was Ryksa III. aw aw the Tall was the oldest son of Wladislas I, i.e., of the first-born son of aw III from his second marriage to Salomea, a daughter of Henry of Berg. The first generation comprised twelve people, eight Piasts and four Árpáds.The first people, comprised generation Piasts andfour eighttwelve á aw the Tall’s sister. On the Árpád side, only children only side, Árpád the On sister. Tall’s the aw á aw the Tall and Ryksa, were the descendants of descendants the were Ryksa, and Tall the aw 30 75 Figure 2.Table showingdynastic marriages in the secondgeneration. Mary Ilona Odola Elisabeth Géza BélaIII StephenIII Mieszko I Pl Boles Elisabeth Judith Wierzchos Odon á aw Árpáds ofbirths: Range GENERATION II Piasts Name Name á awa-Ludmi ą tonogi á a <1146-1211 Ludmi 1159-1195 1199 1189 1150-1210 1148-1196 1147-1172 Life Dates Sobies c. 1152-1209 Bernard III of <1154-1201 Anhalt Frederick I of <1152-1223 Bitsch 1145-1194 Life dates 1145-1159 Ļ Ļ

CEU? eTD Collection? . Range of marriages: . Range Nicolaus ĝ Dobros Margaret Capet Margaret Leopold Babenberg V, duke of Austria Frederick, P duke of Bohemia Anna Chatillon Agnes Wyszes wi Ċ tope á á á aw II, duke of OlomuncP a á awa awa ? Marriage partner Marriage partner á k 1157-1189 . Wladislas II, king of Bohemia Pomerania: 1180/1 orDymin 1187/9 or West Pomerania Michiele Vitale II, Venetian doge II,Venetian Vitale Michiele Louis VII, king of France Albrecht the Bear, mrg. Of Brandenburg Mathew I, duke of Lotharingia Jaros princess from Byzantium ofAntioch duchess Konstanzee, Henry II Babenberg of Austria Ĝ Ĝ emyslids emyslids á aw O Ğ miomys Father/Dynasty Father/Dynasty á ueo aih c. , 1180 duke of Halich ? 1164 1167 c. 1173/4 c. 1157 1186 c. 1166 1174 c. Empire 1173-1177 Date of marriage 1170 1166 Date of marriage ? Ruthenia Bohemia Venice Bohemia Pomerania Bohemia France Empire Empire Byzantium Byzantium Empire ? Direction Direction Lotharingia Austria Antioch Austria Brandenburg 31 Pomerania 17% Unknown Bohemia 17% CEU eTD Collection 17% II generation II 6 marriages 6 Piasts Ruthenia 17% Empire 32% France 13% Bohemia 25% Venice 13% II generation II 8 marriages Árpáds Byzantium Empire-Austria 25% 24% 32 CEU eTD Collection Byzantine politics with in Normans. correspondence Venice, ambitious nuptial butpolicy. issue Dalmatian The compelled them to getcloser to penetrationslowly focusing on the regional context, the Árpáds successfully attempted a more were Piasts the them. Whereas dynasties both differentiated of generation second of the Italian The empire. the leaped over Seaand Adriatic the crossed second generation the peninsulamarriage in Thus, theÁrpáds’ policy in interests coast. Hungarian Dalmatian the revealed growing doge a Venetian A marriage to house. of Hungarian the had started daughter of kingofFrance.the This expandedhorizon thedynasticsignificantly earlierfinallybut receiveda court English the enter to first attempted III dukes, Béla with Mieszkoanti- the Old’swhereas Furthermore, esteemed. more were who dynasticpartners marriage-contracting range reacheddirections as far as the reflected court of the alsoLotharinian a regionally centered spectrum like the Piasts, but with northeastern borders to the northwest: the Babenbergs and P and Babenbergs the northwest: the to borders northeastern and northern the from shifted interests dynastic The comparable. hardly are marriages these matters in political however, wasByzantium; generation Europeanbroader into step to attempted effectively the Árpáds,who generation, unlike politics. first emulated the therefore, horizon, nuptial of Piasts’ the general pattern Statistically, of Mieszko IPl marriage about the data No southeast. and southwest west, north, the to marriages the onlywith familythe of Lotharingian the Olddukes. Mieszkothe securedhis domain by directionThis regionally spectrum centered was interrupted only once through a marriage that securehispower. attempting to in successful he waspartly where Poland politics, repeated as his Littlea partof understood alsobe Bohemia andHalichcould relations with afterneighbors tohis GreatPoland domain – Brandenburg Pomerania. and His the first of patterns previousthe married generation. He his childrentothe closest daughter of WladislasThe marital II). Mieszko politics Oldof the continued the Silesia) and seven Árpáds (all children of Géza II, except for Mary who was a Mieszko the Old of Great Poland, and one, Mieszko I Pl Mieszko one, and Poland, of OldGreat the Mieszko The second generation embraced six Piasts (five of them were children of werechildren (five of them six Piasts embraced The second generation ą tonogi suggests thatthistonogi wasnotaprestigious relationship. The ą tonogi, originated from originated tonogi, Ĝ emyslids. These two These emyslids. 33 Figure 3.Table showingdynastic marriages in the third generation. Árpáds Piasts Constanz Andrew II Margaret Emeric Conrad White the Leszek Wladislas Odonic Anastazja Salomea Wladislas Laskonogi Bearded the Henry Casimir Adelajda Zbys Range ofbirths: Range III GENERATION Name Name á awa 1157-1187 1157/66-1213< 1161/66-1231 1165/70-1238 Hedwig 1178/79-1230 Wiola c. Agafia 1187-1247 c. Grzymis 1186-1227 c. Jadwiga 1190-1239 16-20 Bogus <1164-1240 1177-1235 Gertrud Issakios 1175-1229 Angelos 1174-1204 Konstanzee Life dates Life dates 1162/64-? Racibor 1240 CEU eTD Collection . Range of marriages: . Range Ļ 3Ĝ Beatrix Este Jolanta Nicolaus of Montferrato Boniface Dypold II à ucja emysl IOttokar á aw I, duke of West Pomerania á awa Marriage partner Marriage partner 1173-1235 . Moravia of P king ofBohemia king Azzo IV of Este Emperor Latin the Courtenay, Pierre a knight of the Saint Omer Order of Thessaloniki king 3Ĝ Ingwar, duke of Pomerania or Bogus Bertold IV,duke of Istria and Kraina of Byzantium emperor Alfons II, king of Aragon Jaromir, duke of Rugia Bertold VIof Andechs Ko tsar ĝ 0Ğ wiatos emyslids ciwoj I, procuratorof Gda á aw I, duke of West Pomerania á á ojan of Bulgaria (dubious!!) aw, duke of duke aw,P Father/Dynasty Father/Dynasty Ĝ emyslids ĝ wi à Ċ uck tope Ĝ emysl á k, duke of Ĕ sk Date of marriage Date of marriage 1198-1200 1217-1220 1186-1190 1218-20 1173-76 1175-80 c. 1200 1208? 1208? 1198 1235 1215 1210 1204 1185 1186 1181 Pomerania Bohemia Pomerania Bohemia Pomerania Ruthenia Bohemia Ferrara Byzantium Latin Flandres Byzantium Thessaloniki Ruthenia Byzantium Byzantium Aragon Empire ?? Bulgaria Pomerania Empire Pomerania Direction Direction Austria Bavaria 34 Pomerania Ruthenia 34% 22% III generation 9 marriages9 CEU eTD Collection Piasts Bohemia Empire-Bavaria 22% 11% Others-Bulgaria? 11% Ferrara Aragon 13% 13% Flandres Bohemia 13% 13% III generation 8 marriages Árpáds Empire-Austria Byzantium-Latin 12% 12% Byzantium- Thessaloniki Byzantium Byzantium- 12% 12% 35 CEU eTD Collection does not make much sense. There was no reason for this marriage, he argues – see, – argues he marriage, this for reason wasno There sense. much make not does however, a muchhowever, issue. a disputed third Piast generation was, seemingly, the one with a Bulgarian princess, which is, Bearded successfully continued this tradition. this continued Bearded successfully the Henry court. imperial the with relations close their up gave never they but I Pl and father (the Mieszko Bearded), the of Henry Boles I, Wladislas of Sons in 1146. rebelled brothers younger his after forcedrefugeempirein totake the Wladislas whowas Iof Silesia, was a of grandson of herebe duchy shouldasaspecificAndechs feature consideredthe Henry Silesia. of cease. Themarriage didmore of fights Hedwignot serious to Henry Bearded the of Nonetheless, principalities. whole than rather land of plots and strongholds single on focused increasingly were contests a certain such degree, To quarrels. dynastic enter less prestigious morebut practical local alliances, which helpfulproved in the permanent houses. Moreover, prominentEuropean to apowerattractive yetrepresented of them desire ofrepeated internal clashes among the Piastsindividuals shaped their politics toagreat extent. None a clear to check horizon forand look marriage partners somewherein further ThisEurope. is,reflection Ithink, their Piastchange opponents ofthenumber of Bohemian couples their wouldforced fall to generalone. Whatever was done, it does not numberthempolitics. toofnotion Pomeranianand Pomerania. Dependingon interpretation which will be followed, however, the marriagesthat The Ruthenia have Bohemia here and equal (both percentages asinthesecond generation)couldthe growing havePiasts risen with existed marriage affiliations Constant generations. prior with the in comparison to four changed has nothing were that and,dismembermentimpression the gives Piasts the of ifmarriages the of analysis thatunwilling were so, the All Árpádsinincluded the were children of this generation King The BélaIII. to crossoffrom Great Poland, three from Silesia, one from LittlePoland Poland, and one from Mazovia. their came Piasts Four their ancestors. of largerentities of the disintegration increasing andregional the of result wasthe This principalities. Polish various from already originated Wiola. Information about herBulgarian roots comes from JanD 77 West. the on more concentrated dukes Silesian and Ruthenia, to turn Poland branchpaid much attentionto Pomerania, the Little Poland and Masovianbranches tended to families. At first sight some features comeout which might be elaborated. For instance, the Great 76 Jerzy Rajman stated that all we know for sure about Itthe wouldwife of Casimir be interesting, of Silesia is her name – I think, to make a further study of dynastic horizons of particular Piast The third generation comprised nine Piasts and four Árpáds. and The The Piasts ninePiasts thirdcomprised generation 77 Thus, I will not draw too many conclusions from it. 76 The only “exotic” marriage in the ą tonogi, regained Silesia in Silesia regained 1163, tonogi, á ugosz, but inRajman’s opinionthis Piastowie á aw I the Tall the I aw , 715-716. 36 CEU eTD Collection Tsar Ko Tsar Piasts did not progress at all in this matter. inthis all at progress not did Piasts the whereas scale, an unprecedented to horizon dynastic their developed Árpáds the generations fourth the and first the between that however, doubt, no is There region. theRuthenian Polish and re-entered The nextgeneration “remembered” North. the policy foreign Hungarian when time the also was This dynasties. European marital found marriedKonstanze. The turn of thirteenth the Hungary century running active politics that had already resulted in close relations with the influential was chosen only once, but from the very – top P in Bohemia, marriagewas a second which contractor the timedouble generation, this Furthermore, targets. connubial asHungarian disappeared Poland completely and Ruthenia Simultaneously, France. northeastern touched even and Italy northern in a foothold put Peninsula, Iberian it the reached since generation, secondthe in evenfurther, with comparison broadened horizon appeaseit.used Thenuptial to was Hungary of policy marital the apparently and Balkans in opponent powerful most the was it because Hungary for important particularly was region Byzantium The development. historical to immediately adjusting were which politics, flexible and their but regional, as variety,considered still be could marriages especially their of 60% About Piasts. towards Byzantium, shows that Hungary was carrying out active To the contrary, Stanis á ojan – see, ojan Four ÁrpádsFour in thirdthe married generation asmany almost times as nine did Piastowie á aw Sroka repeats without hesitation from D , 721. Ĝ emysl I Otokar, the king of Bohemia, á ugosz that Wiola was a daughter of 37 Piasts Figure 4.Table showingdynastic marriages in the fourth generation. Árpáds Jolanta Andrew Coloman Elisabeth BélaIV Mary Henry II the Pious the ObeseII Mieszko Casimir I Siemowit I Boles Salomea á aw I Range of Range of births: GENERATION IV Name Name 1196/1207-1241 23413/ Ivan II Asen, tsar1203/4-1237/8 of Bulgaria c. Judith 1220-1246 c. Hedwig 1211-1267 c. Perejas 1215-1262 1196-1220 1208-1248 Gertrud 2915 Jacob I, king of 1219-1251 Aragon 1210-1234 Mary 1208-1241 Salomea Louis IV, duke of 1207-1231 Thuringien 1206-1270 Mary 1211-1268 Coloman Life dates Life dates

CEU eTD Collection . Rangeofmarriages: Anna Eufrosina Konstanze Anastasia á awa Marriage partner Marriage partner 1214-1257 . 3Ĝ Casimir Iof Opole & Racibórz Henry II the Pious of Silesia Alexander, duke of Be Henry II the Pious of Silesia 0Ğ of Cracow duke White, the Leszek ofNicea emperor Laskaris, Thedoros ofHungary king Árpád, II Andrew Danil, duke of Halich duke Danil, Conrad, duke ofMazovia duke Conrad, emysl Otokar I, king ofBohemia king I, Otokar emysl cis á aw, duke of Novgorod and Halich Father/Dynasty Father/Dynasty ? á z Date of marriage Date of marriage 1214-18 c. 1257 c. 1234 c. 1234 c. 1248 1226/7 <1239 1247 1214 1220 1214 1235 1221 1221 Bohemia Piast-Piast Piast-Piast Piast-Piast Ruthenia Poland Byzantium Nicea Hungary Ruthenia Ruthenia Piast-Piast ? Aragon Empire Bulgaria Direction Direction Cracow 38 Ruthenia 22% Piast-Piast 45% IV generation IV 9 marriages 9 CEU eTD Collection Piasts Bohemia 11% Unknown 11% Hungary 11% Poland-Cracow 17% Ruthenia Aragon 17% 17% IV generation 6 marriages Árpáds Bulgaria Empire 16% 17% Byzantium-Nicea 16% 39 CEU eTD Collection after 1250, which gave me a clear reason to omit his frommystatistics. omit Stephen 1250,which case after gavemeclear reason to a mother and did notplay a political role in the country. Moreover, he probably married death ofhis father.Therefore, he was from Hungarianthe taken toItalycourt byhis the after actually siblings, his than later much born was who Stephen, of exception dynasty. Therefore, it seemed worth fighting for. powerful idea of creatingmember anewkingdom east toPoland, Árpádthe of weakening by marryingrivals Moreover, behind them. thismarriagethe stood this case, Hungarian its the Byzantine politicsemulated dynasty soothingof and into pushed northern Piasts’ the Árpáds In the reawakened Hungarian politics arms. was, in my view, merely due to the Ruthenian politics of Andrew II, i.e., a this relation that state Iwill in moreonly Here detail. chapter in next marriage the Salomea, a marriage daughterhigh-status inhappened Andrew 1214, when Coloman, asonof king II,the of Hungary, received Another horizon. marital of prestigious Leszekmore and wider its for thebefore itself White, distinguished had which branch, Silesian the within however, thehappened, Duke of Cracow. I will discuss this bride wasP the of father a because Piasts for extraordinary was relation latter the Nevertheless, concluded with Ruthenian dukes of importance andregional with Bohemia. which hadfrom least derived at the firstmarriages generation, some were of domains relations. claimantsFollowing than other against the tradition any outside secure their own for them to more efficient I think, were, internal alliances such politics gained the upper hand injuxtaposition with theirforeign policy. Moreover, influence outside but played on a very local political scene. Thus, the Piasts’ domestic meant that nearly half of the dynastic “manpower” was used not to expand the house’s in withinthis Polish dynasty.marriages Consequently, this generation occurred the plain evidenceof political growingdeclineof the Piasts’ the horizons. 45%of the of and were Poland further dismemberment werethe effectof the Such marriages scale generation. fifth even inthe on a greater marriages, whichreappeared Piast-Piast from of Boles that very different already great-grandchildren Boles of of them were all and born andLittle Poland (one), (two), Silesia (three), from Mazovia originated Piasts at the beginning of the thirteenth century. They were grand- or Six Árpáds in the fourth generation were children of Andrew II with the The fourth generation embraced six Piasts and six Árpáds. Geographically the Geographically andsix Árpáds. sixPiasts embraced generation The fourth Ĝ emysl Otokar I, the king of Bohemia. Such a prominent marriage Bohemia.prominent king I,the a of Such emysl Otokar á aw III the Wrymouth Wrymouth lived IIIthe andaw inaPoland that was á aw III. This generation also introduced the introduced also This generation aw III. 40 CEU eTD Collection be discussedin followingthe chapter. will issue this but Halich, and in Lodomeria Piasts the of role significant the of aware rulingthose I in Cracow. thethink, some however,that Árpádsfor timenot were notconnubial only contracts butwith alsodukes Ruthenian with especially Piasts, the southwestern similarled land)Ruthenia (Halich the Árpádsto dominate/incorporate statisticalBulgaria led them continuously marry to Byzantine princesses. According this to Angevins in longingcentury. Serbia thetosubordinate fourteenth The Árpáds’ and the by inherited automatically was and years hundred two next the for lasted III, incrucial northern expansion.launched theÁrpáds’ expansion, underBéla role This analysis, indifference playeda yearstotal of eighty after marriages concluded Ruthenian the and Polish the that think I that. of isevidence North the of Rediscovery lay. Hungary of vital concern the where directions the depicted clearly marriages and there, regionI wouldand it could reign the Béla of Kingdom III, Hungary of attained anauthoritative in position the run its politicsByzantium in thethird generation, butIwanttorecall issueagainthis here.After the by towards meansstrongly flexibility Árpádian the mentioned have I neighbors. of southern its power.dominate The idea to more even eagerness ofexpressed Hungary crusade fourth the after Byzantium expansion wasfall of the with and century, of previous the politics Balkan the with accordance in however, was, relations these Entering argue attention. Árpádian the of ‘region’ nuptial new becameacompletely Bulgaria emerged. ofinheritancequestion subsequently thatwas surely the case inWest, search powerful of politicalin partners behindthe Babenberg This domains. thean fifth generation, Northand“connubial shift” tothe the to a experienced thefifth,later generations analogical when the Austrian and Austria.marry ruled Thefourth, over Árpáds toBabenbergs,who were anxious house died outseemedfor profitable all involved. actors the In secondandthe third generations the and a that interest dynastic political and of permanent examples I think, These are, Aragon. generation) was sustained in directionsonly two desire – Byzantium and Kingdom of Stephen’s older siblings,the to Returning I want to stress century. that thirteenth the continuity of half second the in (in comparison events concerns with the third to nevertheless,was, future thefather of Andrew king III,a butissue of Hungary, this 41 Figure 5.Table showing dynastic marriages inthefifth generation. Árpáds Piasts Béla Stephen V Konstanze Jolanta Elisabeth Anna Kinga I Conrad Henry Judith 1227/30-1266 III the White Konstanze Elisabeth Boles Wladislas Eufemia Salomea Gertrud Boles 3Ĝ Boles Eudoksja Judith emysl I á á á aw Hedwig 1220/5-1278 II Rogatka aw the Pious aw the Shy Name Name Range Range of births: 1220-1243. Range of marriages: 1234-1264. GENERATION V 1225/35-1267/71Conrad 1218/20-1244/47Boles 1228/31-1273/4 1222/6-1257/65 c. 1225-1281/2 243-25 P 1224/32-1265 1224/7-1279 Jolanta 2715/ Casimir I, duke of 1227-1253/7 Mazovia 1220/1-1257 Elisabeth 13-29 Wladislas I, duke of <1239-1289 Opole Dytryk I of Brenna & 1224-1248> Wettyn 1226-1279 Kinga 2316 Kinga, duchess of 1243-1269 Brandenburg 1239-1272 Elisabeth Ro 1226-1270 Boles 1224-1292 Life dates Life dates 1298 1271 ?

CEU eTDĻ CollectionĻ Boles Henry XIII of BavariaLower Eufemia Eufemia Henry III the White Mieszko II the Obese, duke of Opole & Racibórz Lev, duke of Halich Salomea Ĝ emysl I, duke of Pozna Ğ cis á á á aw the Pious, duke of Kalisz aw the Shy aw I á aw, duke of Czernigov Marriage partner Marriage partner Ĕ Wladislas Odonic, duke of Great Poland Henry II the Pious of Silesia Leszek the White, duke of Cracow duke White, the Leszek BélaIV, king of Hungary BélaIV, king of Hungary Henry I of Anhalt Seihan, duke of Cumans of Mazovia duke Conrad, ofMazovia duke Conrad, Henry II the Pious of Silesia Sambor, duke ofTczew duke Sambor, Wladislas Odonic, duke of Great Poland Henry II the Pious of Silesia Danil, duke of Halich duke Danil, Wladislas Odonic, duke of Great Poland of Mazovia duke Conrad, Henry II the Pious of Silesia Father/Dynasty Father/Dynasty Date of marriage Date of marriage 1238/39 c. 1245 c. 1234 c. 1234 c. 1251 c. 1250 1256 1244 1243 1239 1256 1239 1242 1244 1264 1259 1251 1252 1252 1249 1251 ? ? Empire Poland Bavaria Piast-Piast Piast-Piast Piast-Piast Ruthenia Cracow Poland Hungary uhna Great Ruthenia Poland Piast-Piast Cumans Hungary Empire Piast-Piast Piast-Piast Empire Brandenburg Pomerania Piast-Piast Piast-Piast Piast-Piast Piast-Piast Piast-Piast Empire Direction Direction 42 Piast-Piast

CEU eTD Collection68% Pomerania 6% V generation 16 marriages 16 Piasts Empire 13% Hungary 13% Poland-Great Poland 14% Ruthenia 30% V generation Poland-Cracow 7 marriages Árpáds 14% Empire-Bavaria 14% Cumans 14% Brandenburg Empire- 14% 43 CEU eTD Collection Árpáds withdrew completely from from somewhatdynastica European This Árpáds policy. completely withdrew deathbed, it with Kingdom the of Thus, would beclaimNaples. to improper the that Béla IV be discussedmarriages in the next chapter. For the sake of honesty I need to addpartially herebe anaccurate conclusion;that however,under ithad plain political reasons, which will took would This ones. lessprestigious with them andreplaced contacts its European-wide place politics. impression All of fifth thatHungary these in an give the generation dropped with marriagethe toBohemian a Cuman, wasasingle there Moreover, Halich Poland. and to wererelated marriages of all which was connectedBéla withIV was and Northern that 60% preoccupied the numbersshow the politics kingByzantium. with marriage no was to there time first a the For and,greathowever. is striking, thing extent later to internalmentioned Hungarianat a shiftBéla in their politicsIV’s toward Piasts. the the empire. In beforeperiod bypartnerships 1140,whichwas to with dominated a slightadvantage the fifth the unlike totally was it Furthermore, generation prestigious. and beneficial very politically another was relations such entering century, thirteenth of the for Piasts the that therefore, Even counting of amarriage 1214 with a royal son would give less argue, then 8%. I generation). fourth (the Pious the II Henry and generation) first (the Old the Mieszko place beforeitit,is enough show to followingthe numbers. Forall thirty-nine marriages took that 1239demonstrate To extraordinary. were daughters royal to marriages Hungarian two the only two traditional lords– bordering imperial and Pomeranian one of In the dukes. milieu, this (5%) remained partners nuptial Other alliances. wereintra-dynastic constructing politics, withPolish domestic and local in engaged fully were Piasts the of majority The royal scale. daughters buta greater on fourth generation, in that the to issimilar ofsuch relations increase the for reason The relatives. Piast among happened generation in this – marriages the marriagesPiast-Piast type ofmarriage gained more statistical yetimportance, two-thirds of all the Piasts, the Regarding below. further it of discuss will I relations. Piast-Árpád the in called the “newopening” have previously theeventswhich I lived to contemporary children Theseborn between 1220 twenty Béla IV). of peopleand were 1243,and from Little Poland,two from Mazovia, from and Árpáds seven and seven Silesia) (all At the same time, the Árpáds continued their northern politics. I have already have I politics. northern their continued Árpáds the time, same the At The fifth generation included fourteen (fourPiasts from Great Poland, one 44 CEU eTD Collection chronology, which I described previously whichIdescribedchronology, here. previously and applied of deceiving middle the picture inthirteenth century mystatistics fromthe originates Aragon Ruthenia Bohemia Venice 6% 18% 3% 9% Marriages of Árpáds Others Marriages ofPiasts Marriages Empire Poland 18% 16% 12% Piast-Piast I-V generation I-V generation 26% c. 1150-1250 52 marriages c. 1150-1250 33 marriages 33 SUMMARY Ruthenia Bohemia 10% 12% Byzantium Others 22% Pomerania 12% Hungary Empire 10% 18% 8% 45 CEU eTD Collection Anhalt Wettin Thuringen 13% 13% 17% Brandenburg Empire for Piasts for Empire Andechs Empire for Árpáds Empire Others I-V generation Bavaria 13% 13% 17% 17% I-V generation 8 marriages 6 marriages 6 Meissen 12% Brandenburg 24% Lotharingia Babenbergs/Au 12% 49% stria 46 CEU eTD Collection between political and dynastic horizons of the Piasts and the Árpáds. firstthe time, which This I think,they coulddifference afford. is, animportant for Byzantium and drop North tothe turn to decided of They matter choice. a itwas Árpádsfor the marry while Ruthenians, options butto few other Piaststhere were the for that however, hereis, issue tonote important The horizon. dynastic reshaped the automatically generation fifth the in politics in Hungarian change a periodic Besides, longer comparable. no were Árpádian, the and Piasts’ the spectra, both century, thirteenth middle the of by the Asaresult, horizon. theirbroaden dynastic to became easierittheirto theÁrpáds.Hungarians were,the the courts The more successful houses opened of“big” European ontheand, consequently, vital interests encroached Venice, nottomention tocontrol attempts Austria. Suchambitious politics a serious contestwhich they were in fact doing.with On the contrary, step-by-step the Árpáds were entering ByzantiumEuropean dynasties.for Thus, their dynasticthe horizon was adjusted Balkansto the sort of politics, confrontation which royalby with powers rival were controlled high-status the and a struggle unable runsuchfor to an expansionist political program which would putthem in Dalmatia actually were Piasts the Namely, feature. important another reveal with think, I results, but also powers, which were crucial for their expansionist politics.All these statistical neighbors immediate only not marrying their Árpádswere contrary, the the lords. To Piastsnearly fivegenerations throughout married borderingandall territorial dukes marriage c. 1234, Jolantahorizon. wasThus, just when aboutBoles dynastic and political marriages a shrinking Piast-Piast –alucid of occurred symbol to marryfirst the generation fourth the In Sea. Jacob Adriatic the along ambitions their I,betrayed the king cities Italian northern of the with Aragon. connections while Balkans, in the politics Hungarian The reflected the vigorous Byzantine emperors with marriages post-Fourth-Crusade the and prolong managed to with connections itfor two generations. Anumber of themselves regional reached theWesternto theÁrpáds of politics, borders Europe confined thePiasts Whereas generations. later inthe longer case no the was, however, one.This Hungarian the exceeded time atthat which generation, in first horizon the had ofbothhouses.in the ThePiasts widest horizons noticeably dynastic the reflected process of an in Árpád andwas agradual decline. rise This process power Piast Summarizing this discussion of five generations, I emphasize a simultaneous a emphasize I generations, five of discussion this Summarizing á aw I received the hand of Gertrud in the first Piast-Piast 47 CEU eTD Collection status of the dynasties was very different. wasvery dynasties of the status the because century thethirteenth of in middle Piasts the the with marriage a dynastic left (4%). Therefore, Iconclude that the Árpáds needed a very good reason to agree to would be whilehis only by at two court, emperor shewasstaying was arranged the that marriage of Ryksa a if Iomitted Furthermore, fall (6%). to only three itwould Piasts the butfor same stay the would Árpáds for the total case, the In that marriages. moreif telling, I removed from statisticsthe all thirteenth-century Piast-Árpád developed between the two dynasties over a century. This summary would be even nine within Árpáds’ Thesethe dynasty (27%). numbers giveataste of gapthat the There were altogethermade a met this comparison. and condition all that marriages counted the I sex. Then, six “prestigiousbe family with a royal himself– akingoran emperor his with or childrenofeither marriages” would marriage” a “prestigious that Idecided both Hence, dynasties. to questionnaire amidsame the apply to was here theimportant most The above. Piasts demonstration the (12% of all) somesupportillustrate be,evaluationfindingsforto might Iwant givebetter andto and befor andmatterhow disputable comparison used drawing some conclusions. No this Theevaluation andcannot Árpáds. of status Piasts the evaluation social/royal the of an facilitate to meant is terminology artificial This marriages.” “other of opposite asthe marriage” “prestigious term the introduced I my help database. of with the marriages’‘Prestigious comparison Finally, I would like to make the last distinction between these two houses two between these make distinction like to thelast Finally, Iwould 48 CEU eTD Collection Figure 6.Tables showing the“prestigious marriage” comparison to aking to 1 % total son aroyal to daughter aroyal to anemperor to aking to 4 to an emperor to a royal daughter to a royal son aroyal to daughter a royal to anemperor to Prestigious marriages altogether 0 2 Piasts 12% 4 6 1 0 1 4 Árpáds 27% 3 3 9 0 2 4 prestigious marriages prestigious prestigious marriages prestigious other marriages other marriages other 1 0 Árpáds Piasts 49 Piasts Árpáds 24 46 9 6 CEU eTD Collection marriages other 73% marriages other 88% 52 marriages 33 marriages PIASTS Árpáds prestigious marriages 12% prestigious marriages 27% 50 CEU eTD Collection Piasts andPiasts Árpáds the werenolonger of status. equal The reemerge,very circumstances. inundoubtedly butdecades, seemedto different for eight interrupted Ages, Middle early the of partnership The asspouses. daughters nuclear family for royal awholecentury, suddenly and tworoyal they received marry any into managed to whoscarcely Piasts, for the extraordinary 1256 were twofollowingAccording the policy. themarriages statistical and data, to 1239 of Ruthenia in andthe one with Poland effectsof this renewed northern 1214 were with marriages the Hence, expansion. further for their a changeddirection choice and Árpáds’ the of shapeasaresult took century of turn the thirteenth the politics at butalsoNorthern Hungarian of century, inthe middle perspectives thirteenth the thereastrikingonly between Piasts’ the Árpáds’ dynastic and the was gap contemporarily played an essential role in their politics. Therefore,context I can state that nothistorical the with buttressed analysis statistical The Árpáds. the for importance shows little wereof time for some politics Northern that aclue gives Piasts with the thatbreakin marriages includingAn Árpáds. dynastic royal the eighty-year the courts, the progressiveHungarian dismemberment distanceinternational In dealingswith perspective. addition,a shrinking duetothe of Poland, the Piasts dynasty of dynastywide European the Piastsrelations, more submergedinto andmore short- lost their dynasticWhereas a theÁrpádsbecame consequently, alongthegenerations. progressing attractiveness and significantly wasvaried married, had they whom with i.e., houses, to both of horizon eager dynastic the showed, analysis As statistical the dynasties. two of these perspectives to marry parties,and Piasts. contrast these parallel political evolutionswhich with the dynastic horizons of the Árpáds decline which1150-1250, power of a growinggenerally witnessedHungary, a gradual and of Poland. The Conclusion main goal of the chapter was, however, to compare and The of period a gradual 1150-1250 brought change and in status the demonstrated politicalthe The first of period part of the contextof chapter this 51 CEU eTD Collection one had more obscure justification and, perhaps, a rather strategic perspective. OnceI strategic perspective. arather and, perhaps, justification hadone more obscure second the time, of the reasoning marriagepolitical of firstpractical a result was the give backgroundfor thesecond discussed here will as aproper union. to I argue that, be to has Coloman and Salomea of marriage the Thus, Piasts. the and Árpáds is1239 for highly thisrelevant, was,I think, awatershed inthe mutual of relations the of marriage for the reasons the Revealing interpretation. my formulate own to order in approaches, contemporary a listof will I present in of answer an search Therefore, answeringhas question, becauseit thesecond many forcaused historians. troubles major willbededicated the to Moreover, partof this chapter are hardly comparable. and circumstances placein marriages different two took these will arguethat I chapter placebetween in Boles1239 son ofAndrewin II, 1214? between Salomea, adaughter of the duke of Cracow, Leszek the White, to Coloman, a politics. local, ifregional, not to wereplainly confined Piasts the perspective, European dynastic century wereshowed thattheprestige both andstatus houses inof beginningof the thirteenth the significantly II Chapter centuries. leastthree for at there remained seas” and “high political the into Hungary (1172-1196), sailed Béla Byzantinewith domination reign III the of and differentescape however,the to managed the kingdom pressurefrom Later, Byzantium. strong and, whereasAtinvolved in sameauthority. the politics andcameunder Hungary time, Balkan got the other’s recognize each to andwerereluctant each other fought often Poland that Árpáds independentseveral semi-independent formerin or principalities the Kingdom of could claim were few there a decades, after Soon, effectiveness. andpolitical its power decreased a truly Boles of death the after however, changed, conditions These partners. regional as perceived and both century political Hungary retainedcouldbe and similar Poland the status mid-twelfth the until that demonstrated also They context. political its in Piasts and only some political disturbances postponed the event. the postponed disturbances political only some and 78 This marriage was in fact celebrated in 1218, but both parties had decided on it four years earlier C C h h á a a aw IIIin 1138. Polandinternal submergedinto divisions which considerably This chapter deals with two questions: What was the reason marriage for the reason was the What questions: two deals with This chapter The previous twochaptersexplained the marital Árpádspolicy the of and p p t t e e r r I I I I I I : : T T h h e e M M 78 a a á aw the Shy aw Kinga, and adaughterof IV? Béla this In What was the reason for another marriage that took that marriage another reasonfor was the What r r r r i i a a g g e e o o f f 1 1 2 2 3 3 9 9 a a n n d d I I t t s s P P o o l l i i t t i i c c a a l l C C o o n n t t e e x x t t 52 CEU eTD Collection Pa 81 idem, territory. Evidently, the Hungarian king must have had little use fororganized military intelligence” – beforehand about the religious, political, social, and diplomatic conditions that prevailed inthat time-consuming and military countless, expeditions expensive, against Halich,of leading AndrewInstead II ought to have negotiations. gainedpersonal information through tactfully, and convincingly, will displayedby Mistislav would have enabled Andrew II to handle the Halichquestion more irresponsible mannertoward Mistislav and Danilo Halich.in As is evident from the record, the good about allof Andrew II’s Ruthenianpolitics saying: “The monarch also behaved inasimilarly 80 relations, whois by often quoted leadingthe historian in Hungarian field,the Márta securing Ruthenia forsecuring Hungary. Ruthenia only for two years, but after becoming king, he put great deal of effort and wealth into mind and assignedsuccessful.imposed he Then, a son deceasedthe of duketorule,butsoon changed his Halich to his Halich was own take dispatched army and awell-equipped 1188, whenBélato III son, Andrew. periodically whole the twelfth over in aturningcentury. Nevertheless, occurred The point royal neighbor northern its in interested sonbeen had Hungary time. first governed the course, of Halich former dukedied. because its Roman, for Casimirtoo, later secured Halich Five yearsRoman,in 1182. Bronis lasting between theÁrpádsand competition political the Piasts. According to establish loyal dukes there. Casimir the Just won loyal won W Just there.Casimirestablish the dukes least at or principalities both either make seize to to in attempts ruled Cracow, especially Piasts, thesewho the encouraged there The prevailing political disturbance important ones in southwestern Ruthenia were Halich and W and wereHalich Ruthenia insouthwestern ones important formerly under thatwere Therefore, duchies power.smaller its lose Kiev gradually Grand Duchy of Kievian domination what twelfth century, to a process very similar madehadhappenedin the Poland, set offHalich. TheprogressiveKievian decomposition Rutheniaof in secondhalfthe of the on the road to independence. buttress. considerable, The most yetan additional, get Angevins would the and between Piasts relations close future strategic pact at the turn of thea fourteenth was alliance If the centurylight. meant a different to last in seen be for can decades, alliance then the Hungarian-Polish the and region the in century thirteenth the of part second the this, shown have 79 Bronis Engel, Bara Ĕ stwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe,1966) (hereafter: W Hungary Ĕ á ski, aw W aw To begin with, Iwill summarize the history of the Hungarian-Polish rivalry for The Realm á aw W Piastowie , 99. á á odarski, odarski, , 54. See also: Bara 79 , 286. Then,however, Hungary entered the political scene. This was not, 81 Polska iRu an acknowledged expert on an on Hungarian-Polish-Ruthenian expertacknowledged 80 Ĕ Ğ The events of 1188 were a trigger point of long- ski, 1194-1340 Piastowie [Poland Ruthenia and 1194-1340.] (Warsaw: , 287. Kosztolnyik, expresses opinion anegative á odarski, á odzimierz for his relative, close odzimierz PolskaRu i á odzimierz (Lodomer). odzimierz Ğ ). 53 CEU eTD Collection 89 88 turned there immediately after his release from prison and after the death of his brother, Emeric. brother, of his 87 death the after and prison from release his after immediately there turned to the regent of the kingdom. This would also imply that Andrew was vitally interested inHalich, if he the death of Roman. W Roman. of death the 32 and 38). It is impossible to move the summer” of first1205 (his issued charterwas August dated 1, 1205–see: Kosztolynik, alreadywas latter The Ladislas. child, little his oversee to him asked and exile from Andrew recalled crownedEmeric a Ferencand Makk, however,Kingking, Emeric died on 30November1204.Shortly before his death, King thus Andrew acted as the regent until, as Kosztolynik supposes, “in early with Roman of Halich. According to the genealogical tables in tables genealogical the to According of Halich. Roman with called Andrew a “new” kingof Hungary appliedand this term tothe chronology concerning the pact 86 85 84 83 (Szeged: Szegedi Középkorász M Font, 82 had a war broken out. broken had awar beenendangered which have because would with ties, economic close of Hungary number any of Littlethe nobility strongly Poland’s to military was opposed conflict East to the West. to the East from the routes on trade asacrossroads served Cracow, with Little Poland, because neighbors. Ruthenian their to attention buthe declared himself King of andHalich.Lodomer his under oldprotection, four-year the Daniel andfollowed took pact Andrew the II deceased. the of children the care of take remaining would 1205 they mutual swore friendship in andagreedthat case of a death,the one with Andrew and II,however, between 1204and sometime 30 November 16 June found Leszek partner. auseful political meantime, RomanLeszek in thesupported White As obtaining Halich. a result, the In Crusade. Fourth the and Byzantium, Balkans, the concerning issues other with of Andrew inforreign II’s nearly Earlier, decade, Hungary 1205. preoccupieda was income. postponed duetodiplomaticW negotiations. According to Hungarian-Polishin White, againstLeszek the onhisexpedition battleZawichost Poland of relations on the verge of war. The conflict was temporarily Ibidem, 55, 62, 67 and 89. Ibidem, 33. W Ibidem, 25.This is aninteresting issue, whichI would like to draw attentionto. Namely, W Ibidem, 21. 8. Ibidem, W Márta Font, Márta á á odarski, odarski, 82 beginning with Leszek the White beginning dukesof with Leszekmuch (1202/5-1227), the Cracow paid Hungary toan returned active Ruthenian policy somewhere in beginning the PolskaRu i PolskaRu i Árpád-házi királyok és Rurikida fejedelmek 84 á Therefore, control over Halich meant additional and significant odarski’s chronology does not refer to the formally “new” king of Hungary but Hungary of king “new” formally the to refer not does chronology odarski’s Ğ Ğ , 29-30. , 9. 89 Bara Ħ hely, 2005)(hereafter: Font, Ĕ ski, on the other hand, argues that neither side went to terminus ante quem 85 Roman soon established diplomatic relations diplomatic established soon Roman 83 This was partly for economic reasons, [The ÁrpádianKings theand Ruriks Dukes.] forward; because this is the source-date for source-date the is this because forward; Árpád-házi Lexikon 88 (61-65) done by Kristó Gyula Such broughtdecisions 86 Roman in Roman the perished ). á odarski, asignificant Hungary 87 hence á odarski , 31- 54 CEU eTD Collection 95 94 time Leszek theWhite was unexpectedly murdered. Consequently, the Poles lost their 93 son of the king of Hungary. Andrew, youngest the handed to Halich wouldbe over They afterwards II. agreed that 92 to Hungary, and aRuthenian,Duke M between 1218 itand 1221,and thereafter wasdropped.Coloman moved Salomea and Kingdom Halich partially of with a Hungarian andaPolishking queen,worked Halich by both question sides. Thehowever, political project, establishing the forhandling a futurewayof the “gaunt setaprecedent decades.Thisalso and lean” nearly eight after Árpáds andthe Piasts the between relations dynastic reinaugurated Hungary and interests playinpoliticalintended a of contradictory reconciling the crucial to role the duchy of Cracow. The nuptial union of Salomea and Coloman 91 work vitally interestedin securing in their presence region.the political In it end the not did of aresult Spišof was pact the conclude that question. Halich king of Hungary 1214 could seeafter he that would beless involved militarily in the consensus with Andrew II. The duke himself was not that much in favor on it. on favor in much that not was himself duke The II. Andrew with consensus seek a compelled influentialnobility Leszek theWhiteto who Little Poland’s Halich. in effectively rule to able be not would Hungary consent Polish the without that on defeatedintroops Hungarian the in from itgovernor Halich 1213, wasevident then Polish after that emphasized formerly historiography Polish in Spiš. negotiations marriage originated from the Cracovian court Cracovian from the originated marriage of idea very The barons. Ruthenian the of hostility the overcome cooperation held interchangeably by the Poles or the Hungarians forced them to join efforts and by between andSalomea A become clear. Coloman, wavering overlordship inHalich cooperation. Fighting could each other not guarantee any inprogress Halich. in mainly Rutheniademanded conditions political severe war becausethe 90 W Kosztolynik, W Szczur, Balzer, Bara á á odarski, odarski, de facto Ĕ ski, 92 This is when the reasons for the Spiš pact of 1214, which arranged a marriage Genealogia Historia W Piastowie PolskaRu i PolskaRu i á odarski claimed, however, that the negotiations in Spiš were held due to due held were in Spiš negotiations the that however, claimed, odarski Hungary so smoothly,nevertheless, it seems rational meto that the marriage was , 260. 94 , 482. Kosztolynik, These opinions differ slightly from each other; therefore, I would , 305. , 51. Ğ Ğ , 81. , 55. 95 In 1227 M Hungary Ğ cis Ğ , 50. cis á aw, received Halich forlifeaw, received Halich from Andrew á aw fulfilled hisaw fulfilled promise sameand atthe 91 real politik and tough was finally accepted after conducted by partiestwo 90 93 The 55 CEU eTD Collection discussion. marriage, I will use his arguments as a starting point for a broader historiographic literature. Because Brzezi Because literature. 101 100 MA thesis, Central European University (Budapest,1994). inthe Piasts’ Relations with the Bohemian and Hungarian Rulers,” 99 Historical Stream] (Budapest: Gondolat, 1973), 33. references. See: idem, See: references. Salomea, Kinga and Jolanta, emphasizing their religious activities and not giving any political history, does not even try to justify three marriages of the thirteenth century. Kovács only lists 98 marriage. Dictionary), and on Bronis on and Dictionary), husband, who Croatiagoverned Slovenia, his until in and death 1241. at Muhi marriage, nonetheless, wasneverannulled livedand Salomea her inHungary with Halich outgrew the rulingin skills of the youngdevelopment royal political couplethe and and their sides, both retinue.on limited The rather was ties, connubial the Thewillfor cooperation,had short-lived. despite meaning which proved apractical in influence Ruthenia. 97 96 Brzezi Balzer, obscure andobscure explainto for difficult modern historiographers. marriagein reasonsfor The are this IV, of a daughter 1239. Béla (Kinga), Kunigunde none. however, was, There that. for will a been hadthere ageof spouses) the young the least dueto (at overcome been have could formaintaining it. Iwould argue here that emotional or technical obstacles in this case union a moreevolved strategic into one inand this way showed both parties reasons I suppose itself that Therefore, meaning early this the marriage practical of survived. yearsimmediately was thirteen 1221Coloman years old and(in Salomea ten old), the almost disappeared thismarriage for fact basic reasons the that the despite Witold Brzezi Witold The book of Endre Kovács, which was meant to describe the Hungarian-Polish relations over their over relations Hungarian-Polish the describe to meant was which Kovács, Endre bookof The Ibidem, 87. Piastowie W This is the standard work of Oswald Balzer, á odarski, Ĕ 100 marry the Hungarian king’s daughter. Salomea, undoubtedly, played brother [i.e. the brother of Boles of Salomea, brother [i.e. the brother her that so Poland to child the sent and mother her with communicated She time. atthat in who stayed Hungary wasSalomea, marriage According to her [Kinga’s – WK] “Vita” the main initiator of the Now comes the challenging question of the marriage of Boles ski (in his ski (in MA defendedatCEU) gaveThesis for aconcise explanation the 99 on on from articles , 190. According to footnotes, in his argumentation he relied on Oswald PolskaRu i Ĕ ski, “The Piasts’ Marriages to the Arpads and Premyslids: Their Role and Importance and Role Their Premyslids: and Arpads the to Marriages Piasts’ “The ski, Magyarok éslengyelek atörténelem sodrában Ğ 96 – also –also quoted here. Concluding the marriage of Coloman and Salomea,I think, Ĕ ski’s aim was to give a simple explanation for this explanation simple give a wasto aim ski’s á aw W aw Polski S á odarski, Genealogia á ownik Biograficzny 101 and on sources indicated by this , which, I am also quoting in thisstudy. á aw the Shy – WK] Shy the could – aw (hereafter: Brzezi [Hungarians and Polesthe in (the Polish Biography 98 Recently Recently Witold á aw the Shy with Ĕ ski, The Piasts 97 Thus, 56 ) CEU eTD Collection 107 (hereafter: D the Illustrious Kingdom of vol.Poland] 5-6 (Warsaw: Pa 106 105 Piekosi 104 the after years hundred two that I think account. into take to option other no was creation, own chronicler’s the son. only brother’s Boles control of andseize take Cracow to attempts made anumberof White, of death Leszek the the after who, Mazovia Conrad of of hostile activities the underlined marriage the of explanation His them. about known have to not seems and other barons. other and Wydawniczy, 2003)(hereafter: Grzesik, elements tounite thatinitiated efforts Kinga andBoles Wis of Shyhe by the as advised bishop the Cracow, married that Kinga declared Ma Salomea as an initiator. Brzezi Poland Poland theÁrpádianand Hungary opinion in mutual until 1320],(Warsaw: Slawistyczny O and 1329,whichisnowadays considered avaluable source, between Kyngae”,biography 1317 composed followed “Vita sanctae ahagiographic 103 carefully examined. The first issue carefully initiators first examined. The istofind of this union. Brzezi 102 D Jan D Jan – idem, charter this accepts Balzer Ryszard Grzesik, Brzezi Kodeks Dyplomatyczny Ma á opolski á ugosz, Ĕ ski, vol.2 (Cracow: Akademia Umiej á This explanation discloses several weaknesses which should be now morewhat Béla IVhad inmind marrying when his daughteroff. future.the Judging later from events … onemay itwas suggest that have neutralized the Polish only not competition might but also havein Cracow, secured histhrone aid the in gain to tended who Shameful, familyHungarians. with …Theestablishment of Boleslav ties the with the strugglefor Halich, assisting Roman’s son, Daniel, against the Leszekappeared upon of Conrad theWhite’s death. interfered Masovia conflicts Hungarian-Polish the then, Settled fahter. Boleslavs’s Béla IVand between relations previous tothe shouldrefer think, one tothehis Polishby marryingcould daughter obtained duke,I have IV Béla benefits the regarding turn, In Cracow. for Masovia of Duke Boles the [Icallhim strengthenedBoleslav of Shameful position the ruler Hungarian the with relation The men. abovementioned Kingaby marry the to advised dukewas the Boleslav wereadthat this Hungarian-LesserPolish union. In one of the charters issued by inandbringing noblemen of about were primary Lesser Poland other considerable role thein bishop union, this however, arranging Vislav ugosz, Ĕ ski, Roczniki á (the Diplomatic Codex of Little Poland) issued in 1257. ugosz, The Piasts á aw the Shy – WK] his instruggle Shy aw the hisuncle, with Conrad,the – Roczniki czyli Kroniki s Roczniki , V-VI, 354. Polska Piastów i W 105 106 Thus, the reliable sources of the period indicate two parallel indicate two theperiod of sources reliable Thus,the , 60-61. D , V-VI), 354-355. á ugosz’s arguments were ultimately rejected by historians were as ultimately arguments rejected ugosz’s á opolski 107 Ĕ ski referred also toa charter in Genealogia butforhim doesnotchangethis factthat the there [the Diplomatic Codex of the Little Poland], ed. Franciszek ed. Poland], Little the of Codex Diplomatic [the á Polska Ċ awnego Królestwa Polskiego gry Arpadówwewzajemnej opinii(do 1320roku) Ċ tno ), 42. , 495. Ğ ci, 1886),ci, No. 452. Ĕ stwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1973) á aw. Interestingly, Jan D [The Annals or the Chronicles of Chronicles orthe Annals [The Kodeks Dyplomatyczny 103 102 andheindicated 104 ThereBoles [The Piast [The á aw, his á ugosz Ğ rodek á Ĕ á aw, ski aw 57 CEU eTD Collection Che in located were offices known customs oldest The later. and century thirteenth the is trade availablesecondpartof only for the material Hungarian-Polish concerning the they makingmoney source were seemspossible;with however,them. This good nobility against Leszek the White. They did notwant tofight the Hungarians,because marrying Árpáds. into the that W that mentioned already have I economy. be would support political the for reason Another protector in regionthe and he therefore couldlook forward tohis future reign. pointing out that Boles pointing that out could count on his father-in-law in case of domestic conflicts. Brzezi conflicts. domestic of in case father-in-law his on count could duke their because in todomination Poland, step first the as amarriage perceive such century was politically and prestigiously beneficial. The retinue of Boles century beneficial. of andprestigiously politically The retinue was previous chapter, anuptial union with in Árpáds the middlethe of thirteenth the with their southern neighbor. From the Polish point of ties view, as I have political presented in closer the establish to willingness their justified have would which reasons age of seven. Therefore, I do not see her as the main initiator of the marriage. informed political aboutthe running streams through Poland, whichshehadin left the wasless for her Hungary decades, two she,stayingthat with inwestern husband dedication herto dynasty, lobbying Boles before 1241she barely knew herbrother. This,of does course, notexclude her that would I expect reason, For that in Hungary. settled years Salomea four after born Boles is herethat mentioning can be worth said. It 1241; lifeisSalomea’sin from 1221 to scarce the period know forabout Information sure. itwas her butwhetherideaisimpossible to court, Coloman’s death nobility. livedin Salomea Hungary for twenty years andin after toCracow returned the 1241. Thus, she could promotemarried. her brother’s case at Béla IV’s marriage, D 109 108 Brzezi Piastowie á m (evidence from m from 1260) and Stary S (evidence á The attitude of The of attitude nobility issue.the is another weremany There plausible As D odarski used economic interests as an explanation for opposition among the among opposition for explanation an as interests economic used odarski Ĕ ski, , 190. á The Piasts ugosz know anythingdidugosz not aboutwhy Boles á ugosz cannot help much, I turn back to SalomeahelpLittle backto Poland’s much, and cannot ugosz Iturn , 60. á aw gained a great deal by aw gainedagreat Conrad of Mazovia against 109 Theoretically, Boles á aw’s case to Béla IV; nevertheless, it shows ą cz (erected in 1280). Both in of were cz (erected them 1280). Both á aw was much younger than younger than she, aw wasmuch á aw found the most powerful 108 á aw theShy Kingaand got therefore, nothing certain nothing therefore, Ĕ ski is right in right is ski á aw could aw 58 CEU eTD Collection Wyrozumski, [History of fromPiasts’ Poland the theSeventhCentury 1370](Cracow:to 1999) (hereafter:Fogra, 1239, i.e., wasyear this final the of such suzerainty – idem, 113 fordomination over the country. See: most powerful dukes) inPolish politics of the first half of thirteenththe century who were competing underPoland theHenries and Conrad of Mazovia. Thisidea is used tounderline two figuresmajor (the Sometimes it is combinedcentury. with thirteenth a historiographicthe of half first notionthe of in the “double Pious, the Henry monarchy” son, his that and functioned Bearded in the Henry by 114 Black] (Warsaw: Neriton 2000) (hereafter: podzielonego Królestwa. Ksi and Hungary),and handlowych pomi handlowych Middle Ages), the local nobility, with the consent of Grzymis whointended togain thronethe in Both Cracow. suppositions shouldbe reexamined. was foreseeing future developments in Polish by politics his giving toaduke daughter strengthened his position against Conrad of Mazovia. He alsomaintained that Béla IV Boles of explanation an with together examined be should nobility the of influence 112 Nauk, 1977), 69. District until the Final Years of the SixteenthCentury], (Cracow: Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii while Boles while is here that in 1239 it was Henry the Pious of Silesia who ruled personally in Cracow, Bishop of Cracow, was among these who advised the marriage to Boles 111 camethey whether but upsignificant be could nobility withthe of role the Concluding, together. such an initiative and in location theactof Cracow of 1257. or Hungarian-Polish historiography truly trade that exploded Babenberg’s afterthe wars not, this cannot This statementdoes not, however, prevailing contradict in notion the Polish be answered yet. Wis Age, Stone the in even exchange for attractive were valleys Carpathian the that stated thirteenth Bo thirteenth century. emergenothing outof andsucheconomic alsoin relations existed partof the first the route. Hungarian-Polish trade organized the for Piasts’ Poland,] (Pozna 110 According to Jerzy Wyrozumski, the first individual charters of Boles “Monarchia Henryków” in Polish. This is a general term which refers to the state whichwas created See, e.g.,: Jan D Bo StefanWeymann, 111 Ī á aw’s political status in 1230s and the role of the “monarchy of the Henries.” ena Wyrozumska, thus, the idea ofprofitabletrade is,Ithink, north-south justifiable. absolutely After deathof the Leszek theby White in1227,Little Polandwashanded over Brzezi Dzieje á aw was holding Sandomierz under the Henry’s suzerainty. Henry’s the under Sandomierz holding was aw Rocznik krakowski Ĕ Rocznik Gda Ċ ski claimed, in the quotation above, that by marriage Boles dzy Gda dzy ), 220. ą browski, “Kraków a W &á Ĕ : Pozna a idrogi handlowew Polsce piastowskiej Ī Drogi w ziemi krakowskiej do ko ena Wyrozumska has referred to archeological excavations and archeological excavations to hasreferred ena Wyrozumska Ĕ ąĪĊ skiem a W a skiem Ĕ Ĕ ski LeszekCzarny skie Towarzystwo Przyjació 9-10 (1935-36),190; and recently: Pawe 13(1911):190; Krystyna Pieradzka,“Trzy wieki stosunków ĩ mudzki, Ċ grami” (Three Centuries of Trade Relations between Gda between Relations ofTrade Centuries (Three grami” ĩ mudzki, Ċ gry w wiekach [The [The Study of Dividedthe Duke Kingdom. Leszek the Studium 112 Studium , 32. In my view, these opinions can exist 110 á awa, the mother of the one-or-two á ), 271. Nauk, 1938,) 9. Probably intensive did trade not Ĕ Ğ Dzieje Polski Piastowskiej VIIw.-1370 ca XVI wieku rednich” (Cracow and Hungary in the [Customs Trade and Routesthe in á aw the Shy were issued in [The [The Roads of Cracow ĩ á mudzki, á aw. The point 113 á aw the Shy Thus, the Thus, á aw, the Studium 114 Ĕ 59 sk CEU eTD Collection under the 122 121 120 119 118 117 (hereafter: Zientara, (hereafter: seine Zeit :Politik und Gesellschaft immittelalterlichen Schlesien. 116 Shy was still somehow dependent on Shy him. dependenton somehow was still Piousthe themost powerful duke in his time and thatin underlined 1239 Boles called Henry theBearded, Henry on study of acknowledged the author the Zientara, Benedyktwar. go to andnot temperately did acted andevenConrad in Cracow was smoothly transferred to his son, Henry the Pious. He was immediately recognized only accepted ashisSandomierz Henry principality. in died “monarchy”1238, buthis especially when Boles such conditions, while Boles the local nobility. local the of a new electoral system in Little Poland, which gave significant power intohands of development the witnessed century of half thirteenth firstthe the speaking, Generally Sandomirianthe nobility grew inimportance and practically gained autonomy. Henry the Bearded’s command. Bearded’s Henry the nobility, of by Sandomirian a member the released were soon Mongol onslaught inMongol onslaught 1241. thatfrom accepts rule1231 the inCracowwasundisputableHenries of until the Mazovia], Boles eastern part of Little Poland, to Boles Sandomierz, an granted in Cracow, Henry ducalpower the to which confirmed a compromise, dukes agreedto untilwhen both lasted (1232), Skaryszew pactof the uncle of Boles White and an the of deceasedLeszek the brother a by Mazovia, attempts Conrad of from burdenthe aggressive on Poland Little Bearded of of took protecting Silesia principality. Therefore, again with the approval of the local nobility, Henry the “Polityczne plany Konrada Iksi because hehad departfight to W year-old Boles 115 GyulaPauler, Font, Zientara, Ibidem, 331. Bara Bara Bara Piastowie á aw in exchange for some territorial concessions. territorial for some in aw exchange Ĕ Ĕ Ĕ Árpád-házi ski, 328 and 332. ski, ski, Árpá Rocznik TNT Heinrich , 192. Dynastia Dynastia dian Kings], vol.2 (Budapest: á A magyar nemzet t á aw, to W aw the Shy. , 218. Heinrich , 336. 117 , 331. See also: W , 327-329., The author recapitulates studies of Bronis 76/1(1971), Toru In Boles 1233 Conradimprisoned á aw finally his from aw finally Cracow, resigned heritage, and paternal )). á adys 121 115 Ċ á á ciamazowieckiego” Plans of [Political the Duke Conrad I, of Gyula Pauler spoke similarly over a century ago. acentury over similarly spoke Gyula Pauler aw Laskonogi from Great Poland. He did not stay long, aw the Shy infar was turningaw theShy thirteen 1239andwas The conflict between Henry the Bearded and Conrad ö rté á 119 odarski, nete az Á Ĕ ) andof Benedykt Zientara (idem, This additionally strengthened Henry’s status, Henry’s strengthened additionally This á Á aw the Shy,and gave Henry the right tooversee llami K á adys PolskaRu i rpádhá 120 Zientara’s view is shared by Font, who Font, by shared is view Zientara’s Ę á aw Odonic in the Laskonogi's homeaw OdonicintheLaskonogi's nyvterjeszt zi kirá Ğ , 97. lyok alatt 116 Ę á aw and hisaw but mother,and they Vá At the same time, however, time, same Atthe Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 2002. llalat, 1985), 136. [Hungarian National History 118 Heinrich der Bärtigeund supposedly on the á aw W á odarski odarski (idem, á aw the 122 In 60 CEU eTD Collection Conrad and Danil were no more friendly. more no were Danil and Conrad the casethe in 1235, supporting Danielagainst Hungarian inHalich. rule maintainunanimouslybeginningin the that wassignificantly 1230sConrad the of 130 “persuade” Conrad of Mazovia to cease his anti-Hungarian politics, cease Ruthenian his anti-Hungarian to Mazovia Conradof “persuade” account Conrad in he1239 andchance hadlittle becomingof dukeofCracow.Taking into that Béla IV was looking for a Polish ally in Little Poland who could his neutralize policy Ruthenian of W Conradand Mazovia. secure to desire IV’s is Béla issue disputable me. Another to plausible scarcely seems election of Boles 129 think, Brzezi itsand family the Silesian connections. court through arranged points out, contrary to Bara contrary to out, points itmeantHenry was notagainsti.e., Pious. the similarly, 128 127 rapprochement. Hungarian-Polish in a interested deeply also was supposedly who Pious, the Henry 126 Boles summit played a role in reconciling Conrad and Boles this adds that He also wasmade. Kinga with a marriage a decision about that there Bishop of Cracow; and anumber of Lesser Poland nobility. Bara 125 124 Grzymis Przedbórz attended byBoles attended Przedbórz in wasa Namely, in there interesting theory. July 1239, political early summit any in time was future the barely thinkable. from from Henry opposing Pious,the 123 chronology), so still away from Bara so stillawayfrom death-bed. a possible chronology), Moreover, thelatter was in his early (orforties,ifthirties applying the oldest anxious tosecure itfor themselves if somethingHenry happened to Pious.the W W Brzezi Ibidem. Zientara, Bara Zientara, Piastowie á á odarski, odarski, á aw to gain independence, yet gain– at aw to independence, same the time directed –wasnot against Ĕ ski, Ĕ á ski, awa, mother of Boles of mother awa, Heinrich Heinrich , 192. Piastowie PolskaRu i The Piasts PolskaRu i Ĕ ski’s ideas are questionable. Boles ideas arequestionable. ski’s 125 á 130 aw over the head of the real ruler in Cracow, i.e., Henry the Pious, , 336 , 336; Bara Zientara knew about the Przedbórz summit and interpreted it interpreted and summit Przedbórz the about knew Zientara , 334-335. when Daniel arrived at the coronation of Béla IV in search of , 61. Ğ , 107. Font, Ğ , 107. The author convincigly argued that after 1233 relations between relations 1233 after that argued convincigly author The 107. , Ĕ ski, Ĕ á ski, that the marriage of Boles marriage of the ski, that Dynastia á aw the Shy of Sandomierz; Conrad of Mazovia; Conrad of Sandomierz; of Shy aw the 123 aw; Pe aw; Árpád-házi the very notion that Boles , 335. á ka, the Archbishop of Gniezno; Wis Gniezno; of Archbishop the ka, , 226, and 234. 124 Much more powerful dukes were á aw the Shy was not fighting not aw theShy with was 129 á aw, revealed some ambitions of This, however, was no longer no was however, This, 126 á aw could rule in Cracow Nevertheless, Zientara Nevertheless, Ĕ á 127 aw and Kinga was aw and Ĕ ski states that it was á ski introduced an introduced ski odarski and Font and odarski In this context, I á aw, the aw, 128 the 61 CEU eTD Collection 138 Árpádian period] (Budapest: 137 136 Hungary,895-1301] (Budapest: Osiris 135 134 Opole and Racibórz, were signs of a decline in Conrad’s power. See: idem, anothermarriage of 1238/9 between the Conrad’s daughter, Judith,Mieszko with II the Obese,of duke 133 support. 132 131 status. political Conrad’s weakened which additionally 1239, northern politics. Furthermore, the Conrad’s old ally, W was to restore the image, power and authority of the king of image, and the Hungary.was torestore authority king power the of of therefore, Béla, for aim main The politics. internal II’s Andrew the after considerably vehemently the confronted nobility, in had Hungarian which grown power could theregarding amount freedom of his non-Christian enjoy. subjects negotiations focused issues. with kingcontinued papacy on the domestic The temporarily Ruthenian waspolitics nolonger for aprimary Hungary. target forproblem Hungarian politicsis inWhat more, Ruthenia. Iwould say that Conrad Iwouldlonger of Summarizing points, arguethat these Mazovia wasno a political pull action to sons Conrad’s away from supporting theirfather. as daughters ofHenrythe hasbeeninterpreted aroundHenry’s 1234,which Pious, Conrad –Casimir Iand Boles the Mongolsthe in 1241. against inefficiency military catastrophic the for there reasons the lays Kosztolnyik nobility. kingthe and the between relations already the tense deteriorated however, the very beginning very the it andeventually gave up. from IV wasreluctant butBéla Bulgaria, invading in an ideaof fact, was, There 1241. a style of the foreign policy. Hungary was not officially at war between 1235 and coronation of coronation Béla military help infrom of received some IV, Daniel Hungary twice his contribution. official an making asking for supportin their for Halich. however, quest interested Béla IV, wasnot in Hungarian the court came to –repeatedly Mihail,dukes –Daniel, Rostislaw and Kristó, Kristó, Kosztolnyik, Kosztolnyik, Engel, Bara Kristó, Piastowie Ĕ Béla IV was 1235.Hiscrowned inOctober years first of were rulership deeply ski, 131 The Realm Die Arpadendynastie Die Arpadendynastie Die Arpadendynastie Moreover, in the late 1230s Conrad encountered some Moreover, in 1230sConrad encountered inhis late the difficulties , 413. Bara, 413. Dynastia Hungary Hungary , 97. , 334. Ĕ , 122. , 122. See also: ski only states themarriagethat ofCasimir IandKonstanze, togetherwith 136 Zrí Béla’s engagementin domestic affairs practically influenced , 203. , 203. nyi Katonai , 203. See also: Gyula á aw I–married, respectively,Konstanze and Gertrud, Kiadó 138 Kristó Font lists in a chronological table that after the Kiadó , 1998) (hereafter: Kristó, (hereafter: 1998) , Gyula. , 1986) (hereafter: Kristó, Magyarorszá 137 Kristó On the other hand, the Ruthenian the hand, other the On , Az Árpá g t Magyarország á adys Ę rté d-kor Piastowie nete, 895-1301 Az 132 á aw Odonic, died in Árpá Besides, sons of háború 135 d-kor , 334. ), 224. Such policy, Such i [Wars in the 134 ), 114. [History of [History Béla IV 133 62 CEU eTD Collection 146 145 duke. Cuman the called 144 143 147 Hungary 142 141 utolsó Az probably wantpush didnot far, to too i.e., heavoided marital withrelations the subjects. For the Mongols it was an explicit allowing Cumansintohis territory because theMongols considered them their account into homelandshad take in1238.Béla possible the to IV consequencesof such fleeingfrom asylum, who Mongols the haddefeated them in their previous Cumans gained the rightsof“guests.” the privileges, in their limited constantly were they whereas hostile; immediately consolidatingking’s approval the of thecentral Cumans settling authority in the wastelands ofof Hungarythe wasking. aimed at The reaction of the nobility was 140 freedom. of Cumans’ guarantee the He accepted Christianity in and exchange military promised Bélasupport for IV’s chief drastically. was deteriorating East inthe situation military ideathe in into of willing fronta Bulgarian not step conflict 1238, to whilethe Béla clearly states that with IVdropped Kosztolnyik Mongols. plausiblethe conflict wage a war. Some of the reasons I have just listed. However, he also had considerto a from Ruthenian prospects, Piaststhe offers? andreject without seemingly accept aweakduke, to then, reasons, the Whatwere down. place wereturned applications Ruthenian took when Kinga atexactly time the the that marriage Boles of the with immediately here it compare I will here. is evident Halich to claimants Ruthenian with ties family close establish to IV Béla of Béla’s for hisdaughters son, Lew,in buthe 1240, wasalso refused. a son Mihail, oneinasked for of of them 1238/9. fights for Halich (1235/6 and 1237). 139 and Ruthenian the any marriageshis daughters between dukes. dynastic András Pálóczi Horváth, Pálóczi András Kristó, ProfessorIstvánPetrovics, examiningwhile my study, has suggested thatKuthen may be equally Kosztolnyik, Kosztolnyik, W W Jen Font, á á 144 odarski, odarski, Ę Sz ,(Budapest: Corvina 1989), 49-50. I think that Béla IV, between 1235 and 1241, was absolutely not inmood to between not a 1235 and1241,wasabsolutely I think that IV, Béla Árpád-házi , Kuthen,enter wasallowed Kingdom the to of hisHungary with menin 1239. ), 79. Die Arpadendynastie Ħ cs, PolskaRu i PolskaRu i Az Hungary Hungary utolsó utolsó Árpá , 240. , 127. , 129-130. Ğ Ğ , 119. , 117; Font, dok , 203. [The Last [The Pechenegs, Cumans,Steppepeople Iasians. in Medieval Árpád-házi 145 Árpá 139 146 András Pálóczi Horváth has argued that the that argued has Horváth Pálóczi András The king of Hungary rejected, nevertheless, Hungary Thekingrejected, of The for Cumans themselves,however, asked ds], (Budapest: Osiris , 239. casus belli 141 Daniel also requested one of . 147 Béla IV took butthis BélaIVtook risk, 143 Kiadó Moreover, the Cuman , 1993) (hereafter: Sz 142 Thereluctance á aw the Shy to Shy aw the 140 Rostislaw, Ħ 63 cs, CEU eTD Collection 153 152 150 151 Sz claims Cracowto again and Boles assomeafter, That is suggest). scholars whyConrad of Mazovia could his raise Henries and trampled Henry the Pious himself on the field of Legnica (or immediately Polish invasion scene.political Mongol destroyed in The the“monarchy” 1241 the of already pointed out, in 1239 there was no reason to expect such a revolution in the the claim of Font remained unhelpful it the discussion. the it unhelpful remained Font of claim the Boles status of status of Boles inmentioning, following footnote a JerzyWyrozumski’s textbook, meaning. aimed Mongols, it although againstthe couldhave acquired later this particular ambiguously marriage of states the hand,Fontother Boles that enoughthis wasnot Bélaand, therefore, in seek IVhad support to West. the when Hungary when Hungary was before under threat only 1241,the ally was Boles Othersit. over pondering did without marriage the not mentioned only have scholars Many IV. mention it at all. only independence,explain works becausedoesnot partially, the intentionsBéla of which recognized the marriage as a symbol Boles of asasymbol marriage the which recognized 149 Brzezi scholars have tried toexplain the marriage and reveal its broader meaning. few however, fact, a historiography. In appearinthecontemporary reasons which dismissing with occupied beenrather have I it. contrary, Onthe found for reasons not expel Ruthenia to Mongols. the to sendmilitary units forcedbeen to have a marriage, he would Once hehadagreedto atthattime. troops endangeredbytheMongol Ruthenian dukes,whoweredirectly 148 Wyrozumski, Font, This is the case of Kosztolnyik, Sz Ħ Zientara, W cs, á Ħ odarski, á cs, Az utolsó Az aw the Shy indeed became the duke of Cracow in that year in asIhave but, that Cracow became dukeof indeed the aw the Shy Ĕ Árpád-házi Discussing the historical of context Hungarian-Polishthe marriage, Istill have ski’s interpretation no Bara longerbecan upheld. interpretation ski’s Az utolsó Az 152 Heinrich Unfortunately, not suggest does any she reasons other except for PolskaRu i , 76; Kristó, Dzieje á , 76. aw stabilized Conrad onlyafter he defeated of Mazovia in1243. , 251. , 336;Pauler, . Ğ , 118. Magyarország Hungary A magyar 150 á aw found a chance stepto into a competition. Thus, , 224; naming only a few. Sz . Ħ , 136; W cs suggested that in circumstances, cs suggestedthat difficult á odarski, PolskaRu i á aw the Shy’s attempt at attempt aw the Shy’s Ĕ ski’s interpretation of, interpretation ski’s á aw andKingawasnot Ğ 153 , 118; that the political the that á aw the Shy, butaw the Shy, Piastowie 151 On the On , 196; 149 148 64 CEU eTD Collection Jahrhundert 155 154 Anna, hadhimself. of marriedHenry to previously Piousthe been a daughter after Boles just Hungary, king of the to relative Polish second-ranking mostthe powerful heduke in ruledPoland, inCracow and, whatis hecrucial, wasthe conditions Poland was a convenient place to start a search for an ally. interests. Hungarian contrary to which was influence inAustria, Bohemia in was deeply involved imperial domestic andin politics building up its Sz of Cuman highlystrengthenhisRuthenian policy; forcesto attemptnumber asignificant royal the with trained lightapproach cavalry, of the and Mongolsindevelopment three in regionsdifferent and help big the The grasping picture. his effort coincides tothe major eventsfind which I havewith referred to already.lists above They chart discloseThe anBéla a parallel drawbacks. its political with ally.even ones, IV’s existing the than think, I sense, firmAccording withdrawal to Thisideabuild makes more Mongol marriage to threat. the an againstthe alliance from an active (Zientara)andhypothesis Pious agreedto with then IVnegotiated Béla that Henry the 1240. Figure 7.Table showingmajor events inPoland andHungarybetween 1238and Jörg Konrad Hoensch, Sz Ħ cs, Hungary at the early phase of Béla IV’s reign was politically isolated, waspolitically IV’sreign early the of Béla phase cs, Hungary at Ħ cs, Year Henry the Pious was the most convenient political partner for Béla IV. He was make Iwill here seem aworking Since explanations unworkable, other Az utolsó Az 1240 1239 1238 . (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1992),84-86. , 76. the Shy and Kinga Shy the Cracow in rulership Pious' the Henry ofthe beginning the the marriage of Boles of the marriage power in decline Mazovia's Conrad of the Geschichte Böhmens: vonder slavischenLandnahme bis ins20. Poland á aw from the Mongols the from Hungary to flees Mihail Bulgaria suspended Bulgaria of invasion Hungarian the daughter to Rostislaw to daughter his give IVrefuses to Béla Daniel Lew,a son to of daughter his give to IVrefused Béla Hungary the Cumans settle in Hungary the Mongols advance to to Kiev advance Mongols the the Cumans the defeat Mongols the Mongols bythe invaded Ruthenia Southern Kiev, 6December Kiev, seize Mongols the Halich seize Mongols the Mongols bythe conquered Ruthenia Northern 155 Undersuch á aw the Shy aw the 154 while 65 CEU eTD Collection Central Europe Elisabethfor themselves, idem, dynasties started to look forfamily other connections withMoreover, IX. the Gregory Árpáds pope, in order the by to use the recommended esteemwas ofwhich St. sanctity, of awoman’s ideal Elisabeth Árpád in 1235 was a turning point in the Árpádian158 dynastic history.but also, in 1239, St. the Elisabethrelations of both rulers became with the pope werean less than friendly.approval was needed even for unions of the third grade of kinship. This was not only the second grade 157 was the oldest daughter of Béla IV (idem, fifteen1239.in W Gyula Kristó and Ferenc Makk, give 1224 as the Kinga’s year of birth, therefore, she would have been of issuing the charter and political conditions of that time demanded that Boles that that demanded time of conditions andpolitical charter the issuing of reasons thatthe wouldspeculate I be answered definitely. cannot inhisPious charter Polish officials for advice. from Henry Pious,undoubtedlythe tohisturned closestTheretinue honorable andother question of why Boles consciousness of the Little marry Kinga, tofit seems here aswell. negotiationsheld wereapparently a The with Poland nobility and Boles 60; Bara charter of where of 1257, Boles charter general mood of pushing thenegotiations forward and overcoming any Theobstacles. into the fits sources inthe whichwasmentioned by pressure The Przedbórz. Salomea Cracow, could strongly lobby forit and this truly happened atthe summitin prestigious of question the why acquiredthe duke of of petty Sandomierz adaughter-in-law the Thus,theoretically, alliance. a political buttress still could marriage the and approval forno papal need therewas conditions brotherBéla IV.Insuch of wife,a Coloman’s proper age andBoles thirteen-year-old sametime, the At obtainable. under the control grade of kinship, of Henry in second the related andKingawere Pious sonsof the Henry practice, The the Ithink. Pious, but IV. of Béla daughter oldest the he was also a brothermarriage Kinga, for with firstbeen considered have them should of probable thatone of yearsHenry years White old),seems ConradI(8-11 (9-12 III the and Thus, it old). profit. Therefore, the Little Poland’s nobility, together with Wis with nobility,together Little Poland’s the Therefore, profit. andprestigious Árpáds wereapolitical the with ties marital above,further elaborated Henry Pioushadthe three unmarried sons: Boles Konstanze, aunt.Suchfamilyconnections surely helped.In IV’s whowasBéla 1239 156 An important point Konstanze, should grandmother be made of here.the boys, Accordingand Andrew II, grandfather to Gábor of Kinga, Klaniczay, were siblings. Papalthe canonization of Polish historiography maintains that Kinga was five years old in1239 (Brzezi Ĕ ski, 158 Dynastia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 209-211 and 235. Árpád dynasty is answered. From the Polish point of view, as I have á odarski’s argument wasconcordance in with 157 , 334). To the contrary, the genealogical tables of and for such a marriage papal approval hardly yet andfor such was necessary, a marriageapproval papal Holy Rulers andBlessed Princesses: Dynastic Cultsin Medieval á aw the Shy recalled that the nobility advised him nobility the that to advised Shyrecalled the aw 156 The simplest solution, nevertheless, was difficult in difficult was nevertheless, solution, simplest The PolskaRu i Ğ , 118). á aw II Rogatka aw IIRogatka (14-19 years old), á Lexikon á aw, once he received the offer á aw did not mention Henry the aw the Shy was not only only not the was Shy aw the , when he claimed that Kinga Lexikon á aw, the bishop of aw, the (61-65), compiled by Ĕ ski, The Piasts , 59- á aw 66 CEU eTD Collection the Hungarians and the Bulgars, were isolated and unsupported, and the Mongols knew it.” knew Mongols the and unsupported, and isolated were Bulgars, the and Hungarians the 163 162 Saunders, History oftheMongol Conquests 161 Europe (Warsaw: Pa Królestwa Polskiego Mongols the author of the footnotes in the source edition: Jan D Jan edition: source the in footnotes of the author the 160 Múzeum, 2007), 16. tatárjárás ( Poland], vol.1. (Cracow: 1995), Platan, 278;Josef Válka. Heinrich reconstruction of the Mongol invasion in Poland should be taken into account here: account into taken be should in Poland invasion Mongol the of reconstruction quarrels. their with powers European other preoccupied successfully had and other each fighting were who IX, Gregory Pope and II Frederick Emperor of against Mongolsthe shoulders the responsibility on for of Europe unpreparedness the wasaware threat. advancing of the all Europe of leastin early 1239 at He arguesthat onslaught. of Mongol the politics doorstep the on European description of aconvincing gives Chambers attractive. James particularly main army was destroying Hungary. Mongol incursion into Poland was aimed to keep the Polish forces at bay while the separately. them campaigns treat and two between see any these not connection Many do matter. in on aredivided 1241.Scholars this Little andSilesia simultaneously Poland, in Namely, this matter. is there questionthe of why invaded Mongols the Hungary, inCentral Europe Mongol1241 andis all that knownabout warfare offer some clues it. Nonetheless,do notsaymuchabout oftheMongol in shape the the campaign thesources because explicitly prove to difficult seems rather This invasion? Mongol of his marriage. origins the of story whole the describe not and nobility the of influence the underline 159 kind offlanking strategy. Brno:Vlastivedná a Muzejní Spolecnost,S. Kovács, 1991), 48; Tibor és “Támadás Védekezés,” Ibidem, 88. The author added there: “The armies in the front lines, the Teutonic Knights, the Poles, the Knights, Teutonic the lines, front the in armies “The there: added author The 88. Ibidem, Chambers, Kosztolnyik,Hungary, James Chambers, 139; Examples: David Morgan, David Examples: Here are some examples: Bara examples: some are Here (NewAtheneum, York: 1979) (hereafter: Chambers, ), 139-140;Jerzy Wyrozumski, , 343; Kristó, , 343; seemed ideal for a quick conquest, butunfortunately Baidar and seemed idealfor aquick conquest, conditions the noapparentopposition, With surprise. by complete were marching through Poland. …The had Poles obviously been taken While Batu’s army was intoadvancingHungary, Baidear andKadan Did Béla IV, however, turn to the North in order to find an ally againstlikely a The History [The Mongols’ Onslought], Mongols’ [The Ĕ 159 stwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1974)(hereafter: D The Devil’s Several others cannot ignore such a military “coincidence” and see a and “coincidence” ignore such a military cannot Several others [The Annals orthe Chronicles of Illustriousthe Kingdom of vol.Poland], 7-8 ), 85. Az , 85. Árpá 160 d-kor The Mongols Finally, there are scholars who openly maintain that the that maintain openly who scholars are there Finally, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001)(hereafter: Ĕ ski, , 128; Ed. Ágnes Ritoók, Garam Éva, Garam Ritoók, Ágnes Ed. Dynastia Dzieje 161 Dzieje Polski For my hypothesis, Iadmit, last the idea looks , ( , 222-223; Szczur, Oxford: Blackwell, 1990)(hereafter: Morgan, , 336; W , 336; The Devil’s Horsemen: The Mongol Invasionof Ğ á redniowiecznej odarski, á ugosz, Stredoveka Morava The Devil’s 162 á Historia ugosz, Chambers themajor puts Roczniki czyli Kroniki s PolskaRu i ( Roczniki, Budapest: MagyarNemzeti [The History Medieval of History [The , 263.Krystyna Pieradzka, ), 96. J. J. Saunders, 96. J. ), [Medieval Moravia] Ğ , 119-121;Zientara, VII-VIII), 9. 163 Chambers’ á awnego The The 67 A CEU eTD Collection of avoiding a fight. strategy hispassive dukefor from blamedthe society, which was a pressure growing his andarmies Wenceslas there enterstopped unexpectedly thebattle, had because to Poland army, whenHenry, continuing the Zientara’stoo argument, did not want torepeatsmall the loss of the Little forceshelp wasabout that tocomeWenceslas. from believed becausehe Legnica strongly had clashed back to pulled Henry Pious the with that out points Healso surprise. was acomplete the Mongols. onslaught winter-time the that and keep Conrad away Mazovia to to were dispatched Finally, Henry 165 164 Zientara, Chambers, Zientara argues similarly in crucial parts. He agrees that some similarlyHe agrees argues that inZientara troops Mongol crucial parts. Wenceslas. before Liegnitz speed toreach abandoned the siege, andKing marching Wenceslastojoin of Bohemia was him. Baidar sent word to Kadan of andSilesia had assembledBatu, an army of the northern princesand at Liegnitz … set out at full to do was keep him there. They made a feint advance towards the west, miles from Bela’s army in Hungary and all [Mongols they – WK]had hundredfifty he already and WK] two However, [Wenceslas – was farpowerfulit for too and it was by driven hisoff cavalry. … Saxony.At KlozkoMongol the vanguard but found him, his army was Wenceslas fell back to collect reinforcements from Thuringia and When the news of the defeat [at Legnica – WK] reached him, siege to it [Wroc Polish armies the of find strongest the to expected they where Silesia, of capital … Kadan had not yet arrived and Baidar began to lay Kadan had arranged to meetBreslau [Wroc again at had to Kadan arranged to come to itslong for enough the Polishother reach dukesto Hungary or unopposed relief inlured behind from it the walls out mightheld itcity have where out dangerouslylaw, the King of Hungary, had and Baidar notonlyfound it, buthad superior his march first father-in- rescueof to to the bethe army of would one numbers.returning toits camp with… its plunderBaidar and prisoners. …Boles within anda few miles of Cracow and then slowly turned back as though advancedvanguard to Baidar’s itself, to burning attention and drawing Raiding and Cracow. at capital Polish the directly towards south-east, a calculated took Mazovia, Baidar risk and continued hisadvance attack to north-west While Kadan couldadvance. European rode army possible; in the last resort Mongols could always retreat faster then any small, they decide divideto itand spread alarm over as wide an area as mobilized.beenAlthough theiralready own army was dangerously from Hungary, away armies and it European did notnorthern yet the draw look to was as though objective Kadan’s these armies had even Heinrich The Devil’s , 343-345. 165 Chambers continues: , 96-97. á aw – WK], but at last he received a report that Henry 164 á aw –WK],the á aw’s 68 CEU eTD Collection 172 171 of war such as the world scarcely saw before or has seen since” – ibidem, 88. anunfamiliar Europeanin terrain, handled were onearmies Asian cannot which fail with to skill admitthe or that solved, were the Mongol supply of leadersproblems weredifficult masterswhich of the art clockwork precisionwhereby enemythe was surrounded, defeated andpursued, the brilliant manner in greater part of eastern Europe, the planning and co-ordinationof movement of so many army corps, the extraordinary campaign. Whetherone considers geographicalscope of fighting, whichembraced the 170 Christendom, in itsall discord had chanceno of mounting a united defence.” Kingthe of Hungary IV withBéla his nobles, wellas the as quarrelsomenine Polish duchies. Western the struggle of betweenaware well Popewere Gregory Mongols The IX and thecharted. Holy was Romanof Europe Emperorsituation Frederick political II, the and and the problems attack ofthe of targets “As always the Mongols planned their operations carefully.Spies collected information about the Century: EncounteringOther the 169 168 167 166 1239 rebuilding andarmy.1239 rebuilding reorganizing their had suffered heavylosses during theconquest of mostRuthenia, spent of year the in intentions Hungarian atthe court 1237. their arrived hostile of news first The Hungary. of Kingdom powerful and wealthy the on invasion major Accordingstrategy. Chambers, to Mongols the werewell launching before a prepared deploy deploy army. a major properly necessary to data the provide with them to service” an create “intelligence to to their empire have some some credibility, have to theirempire incorporate thevast Hungarian Mongolshand,plains wantedto thatthe assumptions unexpectedly, ran through the country routing its armies, andfinally left. On the other it.behave intended they tooccupy not Theyappeared asthough inPoland Hungarian and the Polishenemy. the campaigns of 1241 were for scouting system a sophisticated weapon, and apowerful psychological cruelty as closely related. The inforce, included: reconnaissance which army, Mongol of the features characteristic Mongols did scale. avast on corps serious military from aid coming North,the whichbe had prevented atthe to root. judgingexpedition. from Furthermore, their Iwould claim tactics they that anticipated tobeproved asuccess. TheMongols,not have however,could such expected a swift thethat Polish campaign merely was a flanking operation which, perhaps surprisingly, Morgan, Stephen Turnbull, at this wonder with struck still is historian the centuries, seven then ofmore a distance “At Ibidem, 84. See also Antti Ruotsala, Saunders, Kosztolnyik, Chambers, This fine description meticulously reconstructs the Mongol and tactics Mongol the meticulously reconstructs This finedescription and rode aroundand him rode Moravia,through burning as towns they went. drawing upintobroke them, after Wenceslas and small then groups The Mongols TheHistory 171 The Devil’s Hungary Taking all of this into consideration, I would argue strongly that the MongolWarrior 1200-1350 , 139-140. , 83. , 132. , 99. 169 170 Moreover, it allowed them to coordinate numbers of army A study short by Stephen Turnbull the clearly describes (Helsinki: Finnish The Academy of Science andLetters, 2001),32: Europeans and Mongols in Middlethe of Thirteenththe 172 therefore, I would follow these lines and state (London: Osprey Publishing, 2003). 168 The made huge Mongols a also effort 167 The Mongols, who Mongols, The 166 69 CEU eTD Collection troubled any Polish insight into the invaders’ interests. Secondly, the Polish-centred the Secondly, interests. invaders’ the into insight Polish any troubled description. Moreover, the conditions of the Polish-Mongol encounter greatly hence D Mongol war policy, the analyze not did and events reported normally annals Dominican the Firstly, this. for reasons two be may There Hungary. to help send to necessity ducal the mention intention hewere thelostwhich Mongol Dominican awareof annals, usedextensively, the to keep possiblementioned before –didnot know reasonsthe for marriage the of 1239, butneither reinforcements at bay from Poland. They also did not and he did not even try to combine the Hungary. two invasions. refugereturned andtook inamountain Mongols once castle weredevastating the Probably D 12 March 1241. placetook around 18March1241, Boles which –after battle of Chmielnik because the from Cracow to Hungary. to D from Cracow Bolesremarks that explain the strategic of Mongols. objectives the Following the tradition, D Neither itsay does anything dukes’ aboutthe intentions tohelp Béla IV, nordoes it Hungary. and Poland of invasions the between relations any about aword mention not tradition. and annals, Dominican lost a chronicles, 'á composed nearly on the day of composed D invasion. the nearly the day of on mainlyconsidered credible, lost Dominican tothe which due source, was supposedly invasion Poland. theMongol of about narrative the dynastic union. the of consequence marriage in the to military wasattached which alliance the 1239 and Why? Becausethe Mongol incursion intoPoland was,Ithink, adevastating 178 177 176 175 Historyczny 174 173 D Jan Kosztolnyik, Ibidem, 14. Ibidem, 16. D Labuda. See: Gerard “Wojna zTatarami w roku 1241”[The with Tatarsthe War 1241], in D ugosz relied on the Polish laconic annals’ notes, single fragments from other from fragments single notes, annals’ laconic Polish the on relied ugosz á á ugosz, ugosz, á ugosz, the fifteenth century Polish chronicler, left a rather long and detailed and long a rather left chronicler, Polish century fifteenth the ugosz, There is, unfortunately, no direct evidence in the sources for this for evidencenothis inthesources conclusion. direct There is,unfortunately, 176 50(1959): pageswere not available tome. Roczniki Roczniki The point here is that the Mongols were already deep in Hungary, Hungary 178 , VII-VIII, 9. , VII-VIII, 9-30. This shows that D that This shows á aw the Shy hiswith mother, hiswife, andhis departed retinue , 139. á á ugosz applied a similar “narrow” approach his approach to similar “narrow” a applied ugosz ugosz immediately adds, however, that Bolesthat adds,however, immediately ugosz 177 á while the Mongols passed the Verecke Pass on Pass Verecke the passed Mongols whilethe ugosz’s perspective was strongly Polish-centred strongly was perspective ugosz’s á 173 ugosz’s account, nevertheless,ugosz’s account, does 175 According to Gerard According Labuda, to á aw allegedly fled the country – fledthecountry aw allegedly Thus, his account is Thus, generally hisaccount á ugosz – as I á ugosz only ugosz Przegl á aw 174 70 ą d CEU eTD Collection Roman Empire’s matters. Theworry Ruthenian the matters. not have Roman Mongolsabout Empire’s did to Holy the on centered attention Bohemian the of because and Austria with conflicts wouldnot dispatch any They troops. were alsoaware of Hungary’s isolation due to I think, and pope the emperor Mongols apolitical The the calculation. knewthat some military commitment from Poland for the sake of Hungary. Such aforecast was, for my Mongols the expected that really hypothesis particular passageassupport were genuinelyAfterwards, the beaten Polish dukes – not tomention the massacred Henry the Pious – cooperation which could have taken place Mongols the had notPoland. overrun unableto tosend mount military an army. helpIn such to a Hungary,context, butI would at leastuse this it gives an idea of the military accounts of Mongol the in rulership Hungary. after is and invasion the of considered(1243-44) one mostthe captivating andlively the Mongols. Furthermore, this was the final proof of their excellence. absolutely with occupied defending theirterritory. own Andthis was mainthe goal of were They South. the to expedition military any consider to respectively) chroniclers, Szentpétery, Vol.2 (Budapest: Nap Kiadó, 1999), 563. in as experiences prisoner Hungary.a Mongol The who expressed of written by Split therehis archbishop Rogerius, (1249-66), Silesia orPoland.” from military help no receive king Hungarian the makethat certain to objective: stating“in thatachievingBatu Khan had victory at Liegnitz, realizedhisfirst the case of Boles surprise of the attack, and the lack of awareness that Hungary was already on fire (see complete the of a threat obliteration, such normal is under which quite perspective, 180 179 Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum: tempore ducumregumque stirpis Arpadianae Gestarum prestare sibi auxilium nequentibus simili crudelitatepervandens adportam Hungarie festinavit Wratislavia civitate nobilissima et strage facta mirabili ac interram ducis Moravie aliis ducibus 181 Ibidem. Lexikon des Mittelalters Peta rex per PoloniamPeta rex per dirigens gressus suos unoab ipso de ducibusPolonie interfectodestructa et There is, however, a single source account to which Kosztolnyik referred after which Kosztolnyikreferred to account a singleis, There however, source This fragment does notindicate the directly does Polish dukesweresupposed that This fragment ofHungary. gate to the on moved hastily and land the devastated similarly he reinforcements, Moravian dukeswere while arriveduke and, unableother to with the of land the invaded he Then slaughter. extraordinary an inflicted of of he noble Polishthe dukes, destroyedWroc city the of Commander made his Peta way Polandthrough and, havingkilled one á aw the Shy’s flight) left no chance for the Polish dukes (and Polish 179 The reference is a short passage from the , vol. 7, (1995,) 946. 181 180 The passage itself stated: itself Thepassage Carmen was written immediately waswritten Carmen Miserabile á aw and , ed. Imre , In , 71 CEU eTD Collection enough to wage war with his back unsecured, avoided conflicts,strong not and dedicatedwas himself endangered, was authority his that well very knew who IV, Béla Cumans. Moreover, “royal” the with if combined helpful, bemilitarily who could “isolation,”meanssought a solidify and histo gained royal a power, partner political marriage.the Béla IV, whowasstruggling his with nobles, suffered from political which by approachingwas confirmed the threat) Mongol aimedagainst(particularly alliance military a to led negotiations the Consequently, nobles. Poland’s Little the result of talks betweena Henrywas marriage thethe Pious that showed and Béla IV examination My with the other. the support neglect and of party Salomea one of and interests on the concentrate to tended have Scholars often superficially. but differently maintaining it. and in long-term more one strategic meaning evolvedintoa early this the of union practical this I inferway that neverannulled.Therefore, and was storm political however, this survived demonstratedfamily. work and Thisit program notdid was after dropped years. three Themarriage, Halich was supposed fights expressedsuch Themarriage and further Ruthenia. a “newfor tensions. deal” the to become fact a kingdomfind a underconsensusthat theThis rule rivalry of bothwhichthe Árpád-Piastdid notwould bearparties fruit, royalallow however, them shareand thereforestill the profitsthe competitorssaw of the attemptedreasons region to without for Halich W Halich and inRuthenia of southwestern the for werecompetingdomination Árpáds Piasts and the break inmutual relations anddynastic was a problem.a quite practical solution to The 1214 and eventually concluded in1218.This marriage happened an after eighty-year- the first half of the thirteenth century. The first, Salomea and Coloman, was agreed in ransacking Poland.troops southern becausemade that the mainfactor any contribution unthinkable wasthe Mongol happen,Hungary not butan did isnot this argumentagainst allegedthe alliance neutralized The Polish atverybeginning the invasion the of expedition proper. to be to had abilities military whose Hungary, of King the of ally standing and serious precisely,dukes, who just hadbeen expelled from domains,their more yet–Poland (or Little Poland and Silesia) drew their attention because it was the only The second marriage, of Boles Kinga and of marriage, The second In this chapter I have discussed two Árpád-Piast marriages which occurred in occurred which marriages Árpád-Piast two discussed Ihave In thischapter Conclusion á odzimierz (Lodomer) from the last two decades of century. decades of twelfth the from two last the (Lodomer) odzimierz á aw the Shy, has beeninterpreted Shy,has aw the 72 CEU eTD Collection the real contractor union. of the real the contractor helped Boles Henry elevated only not Hungary with the alliance The coming. Piousreinforcements to excel other Piastspolitical patronage. Insuch a caseHenry look forward toHungarian could and strengthened butthere, it was alsoaperil Kinga livedto herhusband, and who Henry’s under his politicalthreat to Cracow in such circumstances,status was a parallel danger toHenry the Pious’ rule as support for his Cracow by keeping the young couple under his control. Any serious region. Henry the Pious, in the state powerful most the of Hungary, king the a son-in-law of into transformed however, remained a master of the game and secured extra absolute winnerinabsolute sensewasBolesthis inundoubtedly mind, Henry but they Pious’the present only The were notthe ones. emphasizingwas house imperial the Even saint. woman’s noble a of model influential an became was canonized Elisabeth,and soon in who of 1235 because St. European dynasties looked for furtherandalliances. prominent potent The Árpáds were“popular” with its proximity to St. Elisabeth. These reasons of prestige were 3Ĝ with the family close hadconnections alone. Healready bysheer power guaranteed not Piasts, him which was authority over theother king give would of Poland. This by attractive Árpáds. the Polish wasconsidered region Ihavewhich argued, politically traditionally, as duke of Cracow lawfulthe heir Although Cracow. to in one1239 Boles day, he still Pious’same the hewas and, at youngsupervision time, a dukeof Sandomierz and remained a closely related.ruler He was, nevertheless, the best choice as well,in for he was under Henry the Little legally too Piouswere the Henry sons because the of Kinga, onlychoice forthe Poland, i.e., in the ruler, whose borders were equally menaced by the Mongols. Boles Mongols. by menaced the wereequally borders ruler, whose someat time in future atleastor, the a strategic partnership with neighboringthe Ruthenia of recovery in the assisting manpower meant Poland with Ties Mongols. the necessary.in wasdeclaring Rutheniain Theengagement 1239-1240 equal to war on help fromimmediate require not whodid only butthose allies, reliable needed he was however, Hungary.fact, In friendly powers. establish with alliances wasto his kingdom, for safety of the Béla coulddo did he all policy, domestic with preoccupied Being his power. consolidating to not want to fight, but wanted to be backed up, if emyslids and, indirectly, with the Árpáds, but as the dominant Polish duke he duke Polish dominant the as but Árpáds, the with indirectly, and, emyslids Henry the Pious was thinking about receivingbecoming Henry royal wasthinkingabout crown Pious the and a á aw himself, who from himself, whofrom aw a petty duke was á aw had little chance becomingof a á aw the Shy Shy was aw the á aw, but it but aw, 73 CEU eTD Collection to avoid. This dangerfrom emerged Hungarian-Polishthe alliance. a danger they planned they were about isbesthow serious theproof riskof they took The forces. major two between trapped army Mongol main the crush to South the to contingent inwouldMongol weakerthe troops and Little then route Polandadvance months. isolateits the powerful Mongols the knees andthenthrow to to two kingdom within They arrangedHungarian campaign. the asheerPolanda random incursion or not wasabsolutely coincidencewith the On wholethe contrary, in operation forLittle Their flanking invasion. before launching taken granted the campaign it was a militaryof the Mongol strategy plainly analysis hints critical The at some unknown interests. takingmasterpiece Polish factors and which Hungarian the the both Mongols had consideration into taking whicha risk allowedlack when coherence of revealedasignificant literature opinions of secondary the that thevaried political circumstancesand of of examination previous careful 1241. The strong Polish This interpretation was partially built on the character of built of character Mongol invasion on the the was partially This interpretation 74 CEU eTD Collection consequences. The country was seriously damaged, in some parts devastated and devastated in parts some seriously damaged, was country The consequences. close attention to what happened to the country in 1241. I will present it here briefly: historiography as Hungarian pays the state, “secondthe of treated the foundation” is period history somewhat “post-Mongol” the from Since for Hungarian invaders. the was regional by kingdom played mostBéla IV,whose sufferedpolitics apparently the in “post-Mongol” the however, role, leading invasion. The Mongol the of experience àĊ central of parts the Hungary, and of significant Poland, regions Sieradz Poland (Little catastrophe in its1241. Regional goals politics, structures, hadand tobe reconsidered. unprecedented duetothe now, show happened, asIwill foreseen. This was originally first time in marriage the muchof 1239, developedties evolved and stronger into than century. thirteenth in half the of second the when describing the mutual between relations Polishthe dukes and kings of Hungary mention others,intobeconsideration cultural shouldeconomic, two which taken and demands another in Europe Central period “post-Mongol” the on areflection because chapters, thorough study.emulate Hungarian-Polish approach the anddoesnot of relations previous the Herein I development willlater the of understanding my only discloses chiefly chapter This adumbrate a politicala trendpointout in whichbegan thefor 1230sandextended nexttwodecades. the aspect and however, is adetailed not, examination half-century the of attempt butan to period, supposed tocreate a linkbetween politicsthe Bélaof IVandthe Angevin period.This 182 Kosztolnyik, czyca), and southwestern Ruthenia were unwillingly affected by the samehistorical Such an attitude towards Such towards an growingthe attitude had dangerof invasion a Mongol serious spies. is, Tartar) (that as ‘Russian’ midst in their settled recently Cumans called by pope.Worse still,the common the folklooked upon been the had that synod church the attend to wish not did they because invented the danger had members only hierarchy of that the impression the were under active– duty to called now – and court the to attached lessernobility,nobles, and servientes, and even service personnel the The seriously. call the took nobody season, carnival the of because A concept of a North-South strategic alliance, which was expressed for the This short chapter, more like an essay, justifies the title of my thesis and is B B 182 e e Hungary, In early 1241, Béla IV declared a state but, of emergency, state In early a Béla IVdeclared 1241, f f o o r r e e a a 133. C C o o n n c c l l u u s s i i o o n n : : P P r r e e l l u u d d e e t t o o t t h h e e A A n n g g e e v v i i n n s s 75 CEU eTD Collection 188 187 186 contemporaries,” Ibid., 37. invasion was a major turning point if we consider the deep imprint it lefton the imagination of 185 century. thirteenth of the end the until wasworking in order, although, the fearcaused by Mongols lasted to1270 and to some extent even the onslaught. Dr Balázs Nagy pointed out to me that after ten or fifteen years thethe Kingdomalleged complete of devastation,Hungary and the impressive quickand recovery the in first decades following victorious for wars Hungary the 1240s,late whichin could not been have waged only few years aftera invasionwas not as destructive as was maintained before. Two main arguments support this claim – the subjects submitsubjects invadersto the serious without resistance. his make would Mongols the with encounter next the that doubts no had king the huge famine which apparently claimed more lives than the invasion itself, invasion the than lives more claimed apparently which famine huge abandoned and fields uncultivated resulted in a lackofharvest and,subsequently,in a lives –housesdown, burnt barnsand stablesdemolished, andcrops taken away. The their over accumulated had they property the lost often survived who those whereas months. withinpartially spread thirteen Unburied corpses disease, depopulated 183 the coin. Béla IV painfully realized that his kingdom would not be safe as long as it royal army. The drastic of organization the reconsider the kingto fighting –forcedthe style European the change in domesticshiftin the political strategy. TheexperienceofMongol –so from different warfare politics, however, areas, repopulate deserted was aimedto that immigration policy a new was only one side of number ofcasualties among theinhabitants. first onslaughta reconnaissance oninflicting focused wasjust thehighestpossible toHungary. Mongols return would soon itforpreparing asecondinvasion. belief Thecommon of 1240swasthethe that securingand in kingdom his to peace on, Béla IVwaspredominantly dedicated chased formonths by a Mongol squadron as far as the Dalmatian seashore. From then 184 ashes. the from be left rebuiltsupposedly literally Hungary population the to 15-20%of andkilled 1246], “Magyarország külpolitikája 1242-1246 között” [The PoliticsForeign of Hungary between1242 and Press, 2001)(hereafter: Berend, Muslims, and ‘Pagans’ inMedieval 1000-c. Hungary, c. 1301 Berend, Nora see: invasion Mongol of the impact the concerning See ibidem, 323-324. Ibidem, 180. Kosztolnyik, Kosztolnyik, Pál Engel, Pál Kontler, Els The reconstruction of the country had to encompass several aspects. Alongside was king, who forand the country the for experience This was atraumatic Ę Század A History A The Realm Hungary Hungary 184 2(2000): 299-349 (hereafter: Szende, , 78. For an extensive, 78.Foran discussion modernof the historiographical trends , 102. , 182. , 320; Berend, 320; , At the Gate At the Gate ), 36-37. For asimilar discussion see also: LászlóSzende, 185 , 163,, 165. EarlierNoraBerend explained that“the This was due to the assumption that the 186 The people’s morale was so low that so morale was Thepeople’s Magyarország (Cambridge : Cambridge University At the Gateof Christendom: Jews, 187 ), 308-313. On thewhole, the 188 there wasa there 183 which 76 CEU eTD Collection 196 195 194 193 northern borders of Hungary. Rostislav of opposite of practices before 1241and clearly tobuildaimed abuffer zone along the the was North the to offensive “marital” The means. dynastic and military both with expansionist politics of the king of Hungary. Firstly, the expansion was carried out and recently andto recently 192 fiefdom. See Kosztolnyik, aid from the emperoragainst Mongols, hewould have submitted himself and countryhis to him in 190 However, his pleas proved invain. proved hispleas However, against common and king the the reinforcements support France, askingfor of danger. authority. Therefore, with papal confirmedcorroborated kingdoms, and wouldbe the unity European the of he turned to the Holy menace Eastern the answer to best the that believed He its own. Seeon Mongols faced the Berend, – words.” but only help, nor consolation neither wereceived these all from but Franks, of the court the the time of the said pestilence it had givenus efficient aid and help; and we had our request laidbefore courts by Christians, the imperial one, to which we were ready to submit ourselves because of this,of if at Christendom,ourfought againstkingdom, usin weourrequest over matter put this before three courtsthe principal that is Yours,191 which is thought and believed to be 189 the mistress and superior of all securinghis sphereofinfluence. Béla IVwasto devoted some Hungarian reinforcements expelled Conrad of Mazoviain from Cracow 1242. nevertheless, Hungarian the Followers without support. Boles of finallyin and in it throne the 1243. Cracow claimantwon to and becauseendeavor, Boles his“monarchy” disintegrated be had reorganized. to paradoxicallyhelpedin The deathof Henry Pious the this not work, owing, I think, to excellence did however, Thesystem, in North. the support military of seek political and to chapter, the Mongol warfare. previous in the The explained I securityas IV, Béla forced “isolation” structure political and turmoil Béla IV and Henry the Pious. The obvious threat of the advancing Mongols, domestic haddecades. A in of system security been by between proclaimed 1239 alliance the ofLittle Polandin between dukes following the and the political Hungary cooperation Europe as the region where his idea of a system of security could prevail. ĩ W ĩ Szende, Bara envoy An of Béla IV arrivedthe at courtimperial in1241 and promised thatif IV Béla had received Ibid., 180.Béla IVnicely expressed frustration his writing to popethe c.1250:“When the Tartars Berend, see IV of Béla letters the in reflected despair and need For mudzki, mudzki, á odarski, Ĕ At the Gate The aftermath of the Mongol invasion was, therefore, a foundation for the for a foundation therefore, was, invasion Mongol the of aftermath The ski, Magyarország Dynastia Studium Studium PolskaRu i , 166. ĩ , 34. , 33 and 36. , 340 and 373. Szczur, mudzki, , 319 and 325. Ğ Hungary , 123. 196 adecisiveHalich to turn previousthe was partof , 350-351. 191 Historia Disappointed, Béla IV concentrated on Eastern on IVconcentrated Béla Disappointed, , 264. ý ernigov, who had already asked for a 189 , tothe German emperor, 194 At theGate According to W According to á aw theShy aw asa emerged 192 This did not happen, Thisdidnot á , 164. aw the Shy aw thewith Shy á odarski 190 and to 195 193 77 CEU eTD Collection peaceful. The charters examined so far do not refer to this problem explicitly. problem to this refer do not sofar examined charters The peaceful. genuinely considered were areas northern the because deliberately done were nobles faithful few 202 Dezs Diplomaticus Patrius Hungaricus. Hazai okmánytár Calis,karissime filienostre, cumprincipibus earumdem ad visitandum nosconvenissent Lodomerie, domina Kyngve ducissa Cracovie et Sandomerie, necnondomina et Jolen ducissa de nuncios regis Francie, sollennes ethonestos; eadem eciam hora domina Constancia ducissaGallicie et boemorum etspecialiter Vybar filium Beubarth, Abachy et Thamasy nuncios tartharorum,nec nonet nuncios diversorum regnorum recepissemus [BélaIV – WK], grecorumscilicet, bulgarorum, This may indicate the king’s intentionto keep up good relations with his sons-in-law. court. Moreover, the presence of all three of the king’s daughters with their husbands was rewardalso forattested. his fidelity. Thetext mentions many envoys from various countries who had gathered in the 201 200 son-in-law. his for Halich conquering duke ofHalich,inin 1245 vain. proved in Little Poland. ThejointHungarian-Polish-Ruthenian expedition against Daniel,a Boles meantime, the In Daniel. against Halich in him 199 198 succeeded. and andMa dukeof Bosnia the became a key figure in the Balkans, controlling the Hungarian interests in the south as daughter of Béla inIV 1238/9, eventually married Annain 1243. Within yearsten he 197 neighboring principalities were allied with Hungarianthe court. the where region peaceful rather a became be precise) to too, northeast, (and the Serbia and gained some control over the Bulgarian state. On the other hand, the North secured victories by the whichconsequently suppressedof Rostislav, theKingdom of was of Hungary border southern The West. the on concentrated conflicts full of was century thirteenth the of half second the that fact the to contributed surely policy warlike decades.This the over charters in royal donation appears repeatedly one western the but long-lasting, considered was directions both from coming The threat borders. Mongols) (the and eastern Bohemia) and (Austria western the on recognized Kingmay BélaIV be asfollows: characterized the vital of kingdom enemies the were Cracow and Halich. northern and northeastern insister of Konstanze, asaspouse 1256. inKalisz of a IV BoleslawFinally, Pious Polishthe received duke Jolanta, the 1251. neighbors, namely, the Polish and Ruthenian dukes of This is a question for further examination, whether kings’ donations on the Polish border for quite a King Béla IV on 2 April, 1264, issued a charter for a Magister Nicholaus with a donation as a W Szende, W Engel, Ę á á Véghely, odarski, odarski, Béla IV made a significant effort to sustain the best possible relations with his with possible relations best sustain the effort to made a significant Béla IV The Realm Magyarország PolskaRu i PolskaRu i Vol. 8, Vol. 200 , 106. Lev, a son of Daniel, married Konstanze, another daughter of Béla ( Pápa: Jókai Mór Városi Könyvtár, 2004- Könyvtár, Városi Mór Jókai Pápa: 201 , 339. Ğ Ğ , 132. , 127-8. Hence, the general security general Hence,system the meticulously set upby security þ va. 197 Nevertheless, in that year Béla IV intended to pit to intended IV Béla year that in Nevertheless, 199 198 He launched his offensive “marital” instead, Afterwards, Béla IV dismissed the idea of , Ed. Nagy,Imre IvánPáur,Károly Ráth and á ) aw the Shy was already ruling already was Shy the aw , No. 76, 96-97). 202 et medio temporeet ( Codex 78 CEU eTD Collection 205 Towarzystwa Naukowego, 1931),80. ThirteenthCentury the inBeginnings of and Fourteenth the Century (1250-1306).] (Lvov: Nak polowiepoczXIII i deserting it only in 1270s. thelate Leszek Black, the successor appointed firmly in stayed camp, Hungarian the 204 remarked that has foritBohemia decades.Henryktheir andoccupied Samsonowicz took place soon system. the launched which trigger a as only acted Mongols the that nevertheless, of the because exactly system, The dynasties. little prestigious, northern, into them marrying marriages, by his daughters “sacrifice” to ready IV was Béla zone, buffer a firm establish general was their strategyredefine to Hungarians the forced however, invasion, of supposedMongol The security, relations. and turned it into in “new adiscrete Hungarian-Polish initiated opening” Árpáds’, comparable the with a priority toof their foreignlastreach out to Poland politics. as to a political Tofor partner, in to Béla IV Theof strategic decision background. and1239 had historical it asolid although the Piasts’ages. status was no emergenot ofnowherelonger did alliance reveals out Angevin-Piast of work that the this Andunderstanding northern Robert’s Charles This is but activity. definitely study the true, it did. for asaclue events theinstead most recent emphasizing politics, in practical History “tradition”anti-Bohemian, northern ideaofa the Manikowska politics. would oppose active, Angevinstoward mostly century Hungarian and the shows, played a role in turning “goingtradition together”of was, present thus, at the beginning of fourteenth the entrenched the horizonspolitical of of kings Hungary A and dukesof Little Poland. deeply throne tothe Hungarian Robert Charles ascension of the before and invasion thirteenth century in detail. only the sixty Iwould yearsargue that after Mongol the This is, however, not the For politics inthreedecadesBolesthese Europe. Central place in legacy,foryearserupted 1246, occupiedthem thirty which and greatly reshaped to discussfor Babenberg’s war regional –Bohemia andHungary. between The two powers the events of the second half of the 203 ĩ ĩ W mudzki, mudzki, á odarski, their hereditary domains. The competition concerned: Tyrol, Carinthia, concerned: The competition theirdomains. hereditary Wittelsbachssecure andLuxemburgs to competed augmentation of of forcreationconflicts the dynasticof domains. Habsburgs, in thetime performed was Empire Roman Holy of the Reconstruction rivalry political witnessed agrowing thirteenth The secondthe half century of Studium Studium PolskaRu i ą tkach XIV wieku (1250-1306) , 389. , 260. W Ğ , 145. á odarski, PolskaRu i 204 But even then, they did it for only a short time. Ğ , 155-56. See also: idem, [Poland and Bohemia in the Second Half of the á aw the Shy, the his aw and Polska iCzechy w drugiej á adem 203 205 79 CEU eTD Collection sort of politics. issue anthropological does basic onthe Wyrozumski with My agreement not desires. or needs economic or mean biological that I set aside strong209 economicMickiewicza,1997), 64. motifs, which were (and are) ubiquitous in any the Kingdom of Poland], ed. Jadwiga Krzy Thirteenth Century], w XIII wieku”208 [The Economic and Social Conditions of the Unification Process in Poland in the economic strong the Moreover, them. from themselves abstract totally not could They horizons. ties,its and politics country’s the inherited also they it with but themselves, for crown which intensifiednot onlyAngevins Hungarian because fourteenth in the win thedid century, the early be, approachmeaning appropriate the Ithink, emergingAngevinperiod would an to underand political, economic, i.e., cultural, practical, spectrum Árpádian and its the Boles decision in 1239. The reconstruction of Poland’s place (or rather Little Poland’s) in of a strategic here,aconsequence have presented whichwas,asI perspective, Árpádian avery from Little Poland retinue, whooften perceived Robert’s and Charles of the were part who of people objectives the understand to necessary and its evolution, which had its rootsin 1239 butalso acontinuation in 1320. challengingbut only the This rational task. wouldgivefor abroadcontext alliancethe wouldbe literature, secondary Western and andSlovak, Polish, Czech, Hungarian, cultural and economic consequences. Explaining them,massive the considering in causedserious which meantime demandedsustainingthe of alliance, the power expansionist units –Bohemia, Teutonic the Order,and Hungary. balance The regional mighty whichleftbetween This wasPolandand geopolitics, a result apparently of system the of it,and asamilitary remainedignored intactsecurity worked alliance. the second Mongol invasion. Idem, invasion. Mongol second the out, sincere however, the will of Leszek Black the tosupport Ladislas IV of Hungary in 1285during 207 the turn of the fourteenth century.] 206 economy. I agree, economy. I towards W towards This is an anthropological statement, which claims that a human being cannot be reduced to its to bereduced cannot being a human that claims which statement, ananthropological is This Jerzy Wyrozumski, “Gospodarcze i spo i “Gospodarcze Wyrozumski, Jerzy This simply means that the Mongols were no longersuch agreat asearlier. Henryk Samsonowicz. “Miejsce Polski w Europie w XIII/XIV w.” [The Polish place in Europe at Continuing big this Iargue Bohemia picture, that Mongols, replaced the rivalry. international of scene the became principalities Polish peripheral up-until-then The … dynasties. European of inarivalry great the involved were regions these All (Silesia). principalities Polish the also and Árpáds, the after Jerzy Wyrozumski andBrandenburg, after Bohemia theP á adys á aw Przemys 209 and therefore, I maintain and understand therefore, to that Angevinthe policy à okietek at the beginning of the fourteenth century, it is it century, fourteenth of the beginning atthe okietek á II.Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego 208 206 stated once that history is a domain of people, and not of Kwartalnik Historyczny Studium á Ī eczne uwarunkowania procesu zjednoczeniowego w Polsce zjednoczeniowego procesu uwarunkowania eczne , 389. aniakowa (Pozna Ĝ emyslids had diedout,Hungary emyslids á aw the Shy and Béla IV, kept on 100, No.4 (1993): 95. Translation mine. Ĕ : Instytut Historii Uniwersytetu Adama , [Przemys á II. The Restoration of ĩ mudzki pointedhas 207 but 80 CEU eTD Collection Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 2001), 57. Thirteenth and the SeventeenthCenturies] (Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Etnologii i Archeologii Europy Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, 1991),418-419. See also: Danuta Molenda, SamsonowiczHis forBirthday], 60. ed. Andrzej Wyrobisz Micha and marriages of that time show patterns which suggest that relations with relations Hungarians that the with whichsuggest patterns time show of marriages that until andtheÁrpáds perceivedeach ashaving Piast 1140 the other The similar status. my research, Ihave been able to justify the following statements. Firstly, in the period Gertrúd),Elisabeth adaughter concludedof (Erzsébet, DuringBéla II, before1140. concluded Mieszko Old,asonof andBoles 1041-1042; the Géza I,concluded c.986; an anonymous daughterof MieszkoII andKing BélaI, them: Boles until marriagesdynastic betweentheÁrpádsandPiasts There werethree 1140. of Angevins.”the “thewas revealed to prelude I called that picture the literature. secondary Hungarian identify marital to reflectionsan inthePolishalliancesattempt and their the and important features of my study were a thorough reconsideration of the political role of most fresh The approach. materials a with make existing useof it to was devised but allowandidea andexhaustive genealogical research, this of not study did complete Poland and Hungary and of existence political those the of centuries first in the marriages that the between took place in thediscover whetherintended wasa there meaning. I difference prestige to andpolitical first half of the of in marriages perspective their reconsider Árpád-Piast the the to has attempted thirteenth century.and seemingly they followed someThe patterns of their Árpádian early, predecessors. very type ThisPiasts study the marry to started Angevins The context. mutual in their Piasts the prelude was composed from a reflection century. of Practically, the fourteenth the turn at relations Angevin-Piasts on research on the marital politics of the Árpáds and sze Ages], Ğ century. developingmade and Hungary partnerin major Polish the trade fourteenth the 210 redniowiecza” [The Role of the Towns of Little Poland in the International Trade in the Late Middle Late the in Trade International inthe Poland Little of Towns the Roleof [The redniowiecza” Kazimierz My Ğü dziesi Czas, przestrze ĝ The main reason for the first chapter was to give a general overview of From very the beginning thisstudy meantwas tobe a prelude for future 210 rodkowejw XIII-XVII wieku ąWą rocznic á aw I, son of Mieszko Iand an anonymous woman, probably a daughter of Ğ li Ĕ Ċ Ĕ , pracaw dawnych miastach:studia ofiarowane Henrykowi Samsonowiczowiw urodzin ski, “Rola miast ma [Time, Space, Work in Old Towns: Studies Presented to Henryk to Presented Studies Towns: Old in Work Space, [Time, [Polish Lead on Central European Markets between the between Markets European on Central Lead [Polish C C o o n n á c opolskich w handlu mi c l l u u s s i i o o n n á aw III the Wrymouth aw IIIthe and Ċ dzynarodowym pó Polski o á Tymowski á ów na rynkach ( Warsaw: Ĩ nego 81 CEU eTD Collection politics at the turn of the thirteenth century took shape as a result of the Árpáds’ the of shapeasaresult took century of turn the thirteenth the politics at butalsoNorthern Hungarian of century, in the middle perspectives thirteenth the Árpáds’ dynastic the Piasts’ and the between gap not astriking was there only that dynastic attractivenessaddition, progressive duetothe of Poland, dismemberment lost Piasts the their to In international perspective. ashrinking morewith more dealings and short-distance royal courts,into submerged Piasts relations, the Árpádsbecame adynasty European wide with including the Whereas generations. the along changing consistently, and thesignificantly varied Árpáds. married, they whom i.e., houses, both of horizon Therefore, dynastic the showed, marriages I can changestate in the status followingarrived at the later period The conclusions. a gradual of 1150-1250brought and perspectivescomparison tosee which of the two dynasties married more prominently.As a result I of these twosummarized the data in total getto abigdynasties. picture of the whole period. Finally, I Imadethen and a features, distinctive and common both for a search in Asgeneration the percentages houses comparedhorizons Ialso ÁrpádsandthePiasts. one within both of the of dynastic the reconstruct was to discussion inthis aim basic My decades. the over “generations” allow examinationto for ofchanginginmarital an patterns tendencies placein took was 1250.Thedata approximately period the 1150to intodivided which Piasts oftheÁrpádsand marriages dynastic includedeighty-five The database practical equality of the Piasts and the Árpáds. the itsemphasize traces on,but never acted was however, apact, reasoning. Such indicate that might marriage of 1136-1138 That theprospective double border. Hungarian the a succession to ruled thebecausehis who one Árpáds wasdirectly adjacent domain was Cracow, pact was beingrelations. As the exampleplanned of Boles for is had animpact Hungarian-Polish factor that There wasalsoageographical on the in Hungary. final throne the for fights in active very was Poland when argument century, eleventh for my influence.imperial in further Close halfof ties thethe political second developed under was which Bohemia, and Empire Roman Holy the of expansion the i.e., threat, by acommon wasstrengthened powers comparable of cooperation century. Such of marriage in century,but thetenth changemuch situation in did the not theeleventh dynasties could run their politics separately yet successfully. This was mainly the case had Piasts,were but little the for prestige useful beneficial. Both and possibly The second chapter focused on a statistical analysis of a database marriages.of á aw III revealed, the natural political partnerfor the 82 CEU eTD Collection and suffered from political isolation, needed a reliable partner. Ties with Little Poland Little Ties with partner. a reliable needed isolation, political from andsuffered 1239 from perspective. Hungarian the BélaIV,whowasstruggling his nobles with in alliance the for reasons the presented also have I intervention. a Polish caused have somethingsuggestThus, Mongolsknew the alliance), that I about (pact, whichwould risked run a small through unitto Little Poland asmuch andwreak havoc as possible. seriously expected astrong Polish marching army and southwards, they therefore it.They Hungary,isolate and then damage to theMongols whichallowed masterpiece itwas amilitary contrary, the On campaign. Hungarian the with coincidence operation in Littlea random Poland not in1241 was incursionabsolutely sheer or invasion (the effect of their professional intelligence service). Their flanking little know until now, which Mongolsthe had taken for grantedbefore launching the marriage. A critical problem the the wasanewof to which approach warfare,Mongol inof adiscussion analysis was mainly idea of by marriage.confirmed the The wassupported alliance a military of the Mongol which menace), Mongol approaching the aimed against (particularly alliance military strategya to led negotiations the Consequently, nobles. Poland’s Little and plainly Salomea of hinted and Béla IV with support the Pious wasaresult betweenHenry marriage of the talks at some factors Boles KingamarriageThe second of and itself survived. Ruthenian duke,butthemarriage idea workedallowed them shareto the profits of the region without further fights and tensions.in The practice which finda consensus attempted to competitors the however,and therefore fruit, bearnot didfor rivalry This century. decades of twelfth the two lastfrom the (Lodomer) only three years, until Halich was lost again to the for dominationin thesouthwestern Ruthenian lands of Halich and W 1214 and eventually concluded in 1218. Theand Árpáds the Piasts werecompeting in wasagreed Salomea andColoman, first, The half century. thirteenth first the of longerwere no of equal status. Árpáds the and Piasts the that plainly demonstrated my research addition, In spouses. family any for into marry royal nuclear managed to whoscarcely Piasts, for the extraordinary a whole marriagesfollowing 1256were 1239 and of thetwo data, percentage the According to century,Ruthenia one with and Polandinof 1214wereeffects renewedthis policy. Northern with marriages Hence, expansion. further and their of direction the changed and choice suddenly they received two royal daughters as á aw the Shy I can be interpreted differently. My examination showed that the The third chapter compared two Árpád-Piast marriages comparedThe third Árpád-Piast in chapter whichoccurred two the á odzimierz 83 CEU eTD Collection spouse Kinga in 1257, earnedprofit significant from international All trade. these the bordering districtquickly; followers Stanislas apparently cult the St. of on soil, found Hungarian too; of Nowy S common level – trade, culture, and religion. The cult of St. Elisabeth in Poland spread politicalthrough but, Ithink, itmainly cooperation was constructed on morethe expressed friendshiphalf was secondthe century. This of partially thirteenth the nature stifled any conflict. Apparently Little their Polandby and Hungary that became friends over circumstances produced eventually which aspects, economic and social on relied increasingly cooperation North-South The alliance. military a more than however, was, This preserved. main strategici.e. idea, their with theircentury, core, next the of turn the to conditions, political in changing lasted, then and century thirteenth the inthefirsthalf originated of that suggesttrends draw some linesor and the arrival of in Angevins the beginningof the fourteenth the century. Itried to unit, which was set out to build a bridge a of over role the theplayed periodIt of conclusion. thethe in early included reignbeen have of Béla IV as of his status union.the real the strengthened political contractor Boles elevated Hungarianforward coming. not to with reinforcements Hungary only The alliance husband, wholived underHenry’s political Henry umbrella. could, therefore, look was a parallel dangerCracow hisyoung Hence, anythreatto control. thecoupleCracow by under keeping to the Henry Elisabeth. Henry Pious,the by marriage,the supportfor securedextra his rule of the Pious’ rule,noble woman sainthood. Evenbut the imperial house was emphasizingalso its proximity to St. peril Elisabeth, who wascanonized in 1235 and tosoon became influentialan model for Kinga and her Poland. wasreceivingPious apparently about thinking aroyal becomingcrown and king of The Árpáds Henry the matters. several prestigious on marriagethe included Polish perspective The related. closely too werelegally were Pious the Henry of sons the simultaneously and “popular”Árpáds), the for attractive politically considered traditionally was which region Polish with the (i.e., of Little Poland part the of ruling advantage he hadthe because for Kinga the European dynasties because of St. whose borders wereequallymenaced borders whose bytheMongols. Boles ruler, neighboring the with astrategic partnership atleast, or, years earlier) twenty been hadit time(as future some at in Ruthenia recovering assist to manpower meant The last chapter of study this had a meaningvery specific anditcould also á aw, but it helped Henry the Pious to excel over other Piasts and Piasts excelother over to Pious the helpeditHenry but aw, ą cz, offered by Boles á aw the Shy to his Hungarian á aw theShy aw was chosen pontifex , i.e., a special 84 CEU eTD Collection andunion small, prelude the many to wasatrue later. Angevin-Piast the decades strongly believe that the Árpád-Piast alliance, interesting the partnership bigthe of because I 1239andinvasion, betothe back century fourteenth Mongol can the traced atin answers political thisstudy and that formatters theturn these other of the argued have I whole, the On Piasts. the to Robert Charles of unions two and Fennena research awaits, forinstance, the reasons for the following marriages: Andrew III to century.be furtherFor to thescholarship. This also would acrucialcontribution for backgrounda proper politicalthe of beginningthe decisions fourteenth the of social, political and panorama of Hungarian-Polishthe relations after 1241would give a wide I realized economic, that once reconsidered was relations, Angevin-Piast study to intention, first My literature. secondary and sources Polish and Hungarian the issues, nowonly partially examined,further awaitresearch, which both would include 85 CEU eTD Collection Balzer, Oswald. Balzer, Bara ______. Bagi, Dániel. Bagi, A tatárjárás Literature Secondary Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum: tempore ducumregumquestirpis Arpadianae Allsen, Thomas T. Kodeks DyplomatycznyMa Gallus Anonymous.Gesta TheDeedsofthePrinces PrincipiumPolonorum. ofthe ______. 'á Codex Diplomaticus Patrius Hungaricus. Hazai okmánytár Hazai Hungaricus. Patrius Codex Diplomaticus Sources ugosz Jan.ugosz Ĕ ski, Marek Kazimierz. Marek ski, early 12th century Eastern-Central early Europe]. Eastern-Central century 12th author's perception history of as reflected by Latinhistoriographythe the of andmodels sources of Hungary: Gestaconcerning Data, the Hungary and the Poland].Warsaw:Naukowe PWN, Wydawnictwo 2006. 1894. in Cracowin Years 1202 and 1210/11].Cracow: Akademia Umiej Avalon, 2005. század eleji latin nyelv eleji latin század mintái, valamintaszerz University Press, 2001. edition: Budapest, 1937-38.] Gestarum Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, 2007. Franciszek Piekosi Press, 2003. Poles. Pa Chronicles Kingdom of Vol. Warsaw: Poland]. Illustrious the 7-8. of Pa Chronicles vol.of Illustriousthe Kingdom Warsaw:of Poland]. 5-6. Könyvtár, 2004- Páur, Károly and Károly Dezs Ráth Páur, : Ĕ Ĕ stwowe Wydawnictwostwowe Naukowe, 1974. stwowe Wydawnictwostwowe Naukowe, 1973. Walka otron krakowski w latach 1202i1210/11 Roczniki czyli Kroniki s Roczniki czyli Kroniki s Ed. Frank Schaer. Budapest. New York: Central Central New York: University European Frank Budapest. Schaer. Ed. [The Mongol Ed. Ritoók Ágnes,Invasion]. Garam Éva. Gallus Anonymus és Magyarország: Gesztamagyar adatai,forrásai, Gallus AnonymusésMagyarország: Genealogia Piastów . Ed. Culture and Conquest in Mongol Eurasia. Culture Conquestin Mongol and Imre Szentpétery.Budapest: Vol. NapKiadó, 2. 1999.[First . : Ĕ ski. Vol. 2. Cracow:ski. 2. Vol. Akademia Umiej á opolski Ħ Dynastia Piastów w Polsce történetírásának tükrében történetírásának Ę történetszemlélete alatinKelet-Közép-Európa 12. B B [The Diplomatic Codex of the Little Poland]. Ed. Poland]. Little the of Codex Diplomatic [The á i i awnego Królestwa Polskiego á b b [Genealogy of Piasts]. Cracow: Wydawnictwo awnego Królestwa Polskiego Ę l l Véghely. i i o o g g r r a a p p h h y y Vol. 8. Budapest: Argumentum, 2005. [The Anonymous Gall and Gall Anonymous [The [The Fightfor the Throne Pápa: Jókai Városi Pápa: Mór [The Piast Dynasty in Dynasty Piast [The . Ed. Imre Nagy, Iván Cambridge:Cambridge Ċ tno [The Annals or the or Annals [The [The Annals or the or Annals [The Ğ ci, 1886. Budapest: Ċ tno Ğ ci, 86 CEU eTD Collection ______. 'ą D'Avray, Ciszterciek D. L. Chambers James. Chambers Cartlidge Neil. Brzezi Berend, Nora. ______. Baszkiewicz, Jan. Baszkiewicz, ______. Barciak, Antoni. browski, Jan. “El Ĕ Ossoli as the Creator of Corona Regni Poloniae]. Wroc Prac Naukowych 2007. Universitas, Idem. Umiejetnosci wydzial Historyczno-Filozoficzny University Press, 2005. Péter Budapest:Péter Mikes Kiadó, 1997. Atheneum, 1979. D. S. Brewer, 1997. rulers. and importance inthePiasts'relationswithBohemianandHungarian 2001. 1000-c. 1301 Medieval Hungary,c. the fourteenth fourteenth the centuries]. Warsaw: Ksi wieku Wiedza Powszechna, 1968. Poland].Katowice: Uniwersytet Ideological Aspects of the Bohemian Expansion on the Territories of Southern Thirteenth and Beginnings the of Centuries: Fourteenth the Political and po czeskiejnaziemie problemyekspansji wieku: polityczno-ideologiczne Katowice: UniwersytetKatowice: century]. thirteenth the of half second in the policy foreign Bohemian political ideology II’smonarchy: Premysl the of Ottokar astudy on the dziejów czeskiej polityki zagranicznej w drugiej po ski, Witold. ski, á udniowej Polski [The Cistercians]. Ed. Hervay, Ferenc Levente, Legeza, László, Szacsvay, Legeza, Levente, Hervay, Ferenc Ed. Cistercians]. [The Kazimierz Wielki twórca Korony Królestwa Polskiego Czechy oraz ziemie po Czechy orazziemie Powstanie zjednoczonegopa [The rebirth of the united Polish state in the turn of the thirteenth and thirteenth the of turn the in state Polish united the of rebirth [The Ĕ El Budapest: CEU,Budapest: BudapestCollege, 1994. skich, 1964. Medieval Marriage:Literary Approaches, 1100-1300. At the Gate of Christendom: in Jews,Muslims,and“Pagans” At theGateof Ī bieta The Devil’s Horsemen: The Mongol Invasion ofThe Devil’sHorsemen:Mongol Invasion Europe. Ideologia polityczna monarchii Przemys Medieval Marriage: Symbolism andSociety Medieval Marriage: Polska czasów czasów Polska Ī The Piasts' marriages to the Arpads Piasts'The marriagestotheArpads and Premyslids:theirrole bieta à okietkówna [Bohemia and the Territories of the Southern Poland in the à okietkówna” [Elisabeth of Lokietek]. ĝOą ski, 1982. à á udniowej Polski w XIII oraz w w oraz pocz udniowej Polski XIII . Cracow: Towarzystwo Autorów iWydawców Autorów Towarzystwo . Cracow: okietka ĝOą Ĕ stwa naprze polskiego ski, 1992. . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, [Poland in times of ąĪ ka iWiedza, 1954. 57 (1914): 302-430. Reprint:302-430. (1914): 57 á aw: Zak á a Otokara II: studiumz a OtokaraII: á owie XIIIwieku à Rozprawy Akademii [Casimir the Great [Casimirthe . á okietek]. Warsaw: ad Narodowy im. á omie XIII i XIV omie XIII Oxford: Oxford Rochester, NY: Rochester, NewYork: ą tkach XIV [The 87 CEU eTD Collection Goody, Jack. Gieysztor, Aleksander. “Ukszta Aleksander. Gieysztor, ______. Márta. Font, Fine, John V. A., Jr. Engel, Pál. Dworzaczek, W Dworzaczek, Duby, Georges. ______. “Z czasów ______. “Z czasów ______. “Polskie ma______. “Polskie ______. “Polityka andegawe ______. aW “Kraków ______. ______. “Koronacje andegawe Cambridge University 1990. Press, Pa Historia Polski Century]. Tenth the of Middle the from State Polish the of Development [The 0Ħ Ruriks Dukes].Szeged:Szegedi Középkorász M 1991. the LateTwelfth Century Naukowe,Wydawnictwo 1959. Historyczno-Filozoficzny in the Fourteenth Century]. Fourteenth the in w.” [From the Times of Lokietek. A Study on the Polish-Hungarian Relations Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University 1991. Press, Przegl Casimir the Great]. Casimir the Middle Ages). Great]. Cracow: 1918. Cracow: Great]. Poland]. Jagiello Uniwersytetu Cracow: Drukarnia 2. Vol. StanislawKutrzeba]. to dedicated Ĕ hely, 2001. stwowe Wydawnictwostwowe Naukowe, 1957. Ostatnie lata Ludwika Wielkiego 1370-1382 The RealmofSt. Stephen Coloman the Learned, King of Hungary. Coloman theLearned, Kingof Árpád-házi királyokés Árpád-házi Rurikida fejedelmek ą The Development oftheFamily and Marriage in Europe d Powszechny Ĕ skiego, 1938.skiego, Studia historyczne kuczci Stanis Medieval Marriage: Two models from Twelfth-century France from Medieval Marriage:Two models á odzimierz. The Early Medieval Balkans. A Critical Survey from the Sixth to theSixth A CriticalSurveyfrom The EarlyMedievalBalkans. Rocznik krakowski Rocznik [History of Poland]. Vol. 1.Ed. Henryk à áĪHĔ okietka. Studium nadokietka. Studium stosunkami polsko-w Ċ Kwartalnik Historyczny gry w wiekach gry stwo 187 (1930): 65-69. 187(1930): Ĕ 59(1916):278-326. Genealogia ska Kazimierza Wielkiego” [TheAngevin Politics of á towanie si towanie Ğ . Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, w. Emeryka” [ThePolish Emeric]. Marriage of St. Ĕ skie w Polsce” [The Angevin Coronations in Angevinskie wPolsce” [The Coronations . London: I. B. Tauris Publishers, 2001. Rozprawy UmiejAkademii 13(1911):187-250. Ċ [Genealogy]. Warsaw: Pa [Genealogy]. Ğ pa rednich” (Cracow and Hungary andHungary inrednich” the (Cracow Ĕ stwa polskiego od po polskiego od stwa 36 (1922): 11-40. 36(1922): á awa Kutrzeby Szeged: Szegedi Középkorász Szeged: Szegedi Ħ [The Last Years of Louis the [TheÁrpádian Kings and the hely, 2005. à owmia [Historical studies [Historical Ċ gierskimi gierskimi w XIV Ċ tno Ĕ . Cambridge : á ski.Warsaw: owy IX w.” owy Ğ ci wydziaci Ĕ stwowe 88 á . CEU eTD Collection ______. Heer, Friedrich. Heer, Halaga, Ondrej R. György. Györffy, Jasi Konrad. Jörg Hoensch, L. Hervay, Ferenc ______. ______. Grzesik, Ryszard. “Adelajda, rzekoma ksi rzekoma “Adelajda, Grzesik, Ryszard. Grodecki, 1194”[The Roman, “Dzieje dor. Polski History of Poland until 1194]. ______. Ĕ ski, Kazimierz. “Polityka ma “Polityka Kazimierz. ski, RĞ Ğ Wroniszewski,???. Toru Poland –Comparative Ed.Andrzej Studies]. Radzimi The Role of Family andKindred Relations in the Public Life of the Medieval Ī Wladislas Wladislas the Townsthe in Eastern Slovakia andPrussia, 1275-1526]. Kosice: Pruskom,1275-1526 vydav.,1975. Warsaw: Slawistyczny O [Piast ArpadianPoland in mutual and Hungary their until opinions 1320]. 20. Jahrhundert publisher, 1984. kulturalnych w Pozna Ages]. Middle in the Relations Cultural Hungarian-Polish the of History TowarzystwoPrzyjació kulturze Throne] Hungarian the on Princess Polish Alleged the [Adelheid, Presented to Professor Alicja Kar Kar Cracow: Platan,Cracow: 1995. Dzieje Polski University Press, 1990. Family Eurasia in thePre-industrialSocieties of yciu publicznym wPolsce widniccy, zi widniccy, wi á The Oriental, the Ancient, and the Primitive: Systems of Marriage andthe Primitive:SystemsThe Oriental,theAncient,and of Polska Piastów i W Ċ owskiej-Kamzowej Rodowód Piastów Kronika w cimscy Ĕ : Wydawnictwo Pozna Wydawnictwo : The HolyRomanEmpire. à Ğ König Stephander Heilige Repertorium Historicum inHungaria OrdinisCisterciensis redniowiecznej Europy. Prace ofiarowane profesor Praceredniowiecznej ofiarowane Europy. profesor Alicji Košice-Balt: okietek].” In okietek].” [The Genealogy of the Silesian Piasts: Piasts of Wroc Ċ biccy, g Ğ . Munich: C.H.Beck, 1992. redniowiecznej Ğ Ċ Geschichte Böhmens: von der slavischen Landnahme bis ins bis slavischenLandnahme vonder Geschichte Böhmens: redniowieczu giersko-polska: z dziejów polsko-w dziejów z giersko-polska: [Kosice - the Baltic: Production and Trade Relations of á [Woman in the European in [Woman Medieval Culture. the Studies European á ogowscy, Nauk, 1995, 47-53. Nauk,1995, Ċ Ĕ vý Ğ Genealogia. Rola zwi ĞOą gry Arpadówwewzajemnej opinii (do 1320roku) rodek Wydawniczy,rodek 2003. : Uniwersytet Miko áĪHĔ Ğ roba aobchodvstyku skich: Piastowie wroc redniowiecznej na redniowiecznej tle porównawczym Ĕ [The Hungarian-Polish Chronicle: About the About Chronicle: Hungarian-Polish [The skiego Towarzystwa PrzyjacióTowarzystwa skiego [The History of Medieval Poland]. Vol. 1. ska W ska Ī New York: Praeger,1969. aga á ĊĪ . owska-Kamzowa]. Pozna á 1988. adys Ĕ niczka polska na tronie w natronie niczka polska scy, ole á awa awa á aja Kopernika,1996. ą zków zków rodzinnych w i rodowych Ğ à niccy, opolscy, cieszy opolscy, niccy, okietka [Marriage policy of policy [Marriage okietka východoslovenský á . Cambridge: Cambridge awscy, legnicko-brzescy, Ċ gierskich kontaktów gierskich á Nauk,1999. Ĕ Ĕ ski and Jan Vý : Pozna [Genealogy. Ċ chodoslov. Kobieta w ch miest s gierskim” . Rome: Ĕ Ĕ scy i á skie aw, 89 CEU eTD Collection Lekai, Louis J. Louis Lekai, ______. “Wojna z Tatarami w roku 1241” [The War with the Tatars in 1241”[The “Wojna Warwith Tatars 1241]. the w roku ______. zTatarami Labuda, Gerard. ______. ______. Kristó Kovács, Endre. Kovács, J. Zoltán. Kosztolnyik, lexikon(9-14század) Korai magyar történeti Kontler, László. ______. ______. Klaniczay, Gábor. ______. , Gyula. University Press, 1989. Przegl Umiej Akademia Polska Cracow: State]. thePolish inof History Period the pa Budapest: Osiris Budapest:Corvina, 1993. Katonai in the Historical Stream]. Budapest: Gondolat, 1973. 1996. Budapest:Kristó. Akadémiai Kiadó, 1994. Medieval Hungary (from thePalgrave Macmillan, 2002. Ninth to the FourteenthCentral Europe Century)]. Ed. Gyula their Relations with Rome. Monographs, 1987 Policies andtheir ImpactuponForeign Affairs. Wydawnictwo Pozna Wydawnictwo Cieszyn andO Legnica andBrzeg, Ĕ stwa polskiego Rodowód Piastów pierwszych Hungary intheThirteenthCentury. From Coloman the Learned to Béla III, 1095-1196: Hungariandomestic From toBélaIII, ColomantheLearned Magyarorszá Die Arpaden-Dynastie: dieGeschichte Ungarns von 895bis1301 Ċ ą tno Az d Historyczny Kiadó Magyarok és lengyelek a történelem sodrában a történelem éslengyelek Magyarok A History of Hungary: inCentralEurope Millennium A Historyof The Cistercians. IdealsandReality Ğ Mieszko IIkrólPolskiCzasy (1025-1034). prze Árpá ci, 1992. Holy Rulers and Blessed Princesses: Dynastic Cults inMedieval Cults Dynastic Princesses: Holy Rulers and Blessed , 1986. Ğ . Cambridge: Cambridge University 2002. Press, wi d-kor Five Eleventh-Century Hungarian Kings:TheirPoliciesand Five Eleventh-CenturyHungarian Kiadó g tö Ċ . [Mieszko II King of Poland (1025-1034). TheKing Poland Turning (1025-1034). II of [Mieszko cim]. Cracow: Wydawnictwocim]. Avalon, 2007. Ĕ 50(1959):???. háború ĝ skiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciò skiego rté , 1998. widnica, Zi nete, 895-1301 Boulder: EuropeanQuarterly, East 1981. i [Wars in Budapest: Árpádian the period]. [The Genealogy theof First Piasts]. Ċ bica, G Boulder: EuropeanMonographs, East [Lexicon of the Early History of [History [History of Hungary, 895-1301]. á ogòw, ogòw, . Kent, OH: The Kent State Boulder: East European Boulder: á ĩ Nauk,2004. aga [Hungarians and Poles Ĕ , Ole á omu w omu dziejach Ğ . New York: . New nica, Opole, Pozna Zrí nyi 90 Ĕ : . CEU eTD Collection Ruotsala, Antti. Rekettyés, Maria. Rekettyés, Zdzis Pietras, Pieradzka, Krystyna. “Trzy wieki stosunków handlowych pomi handlowych stosunków wieki “Trzy Krystyna. Pieradzka, Piastowie. Leksykon biograficzny Piastowie. Leksykon Pauler, Gyula. Pauler, András. Horváth, Pálóczi My Morgan, David.Morgan, Manteuffel, Tadeusz. Makk, Ferenc. Molenda, Danuta. à aguna, Stos aguna, Ğ li Ĕ ski, Kazimierz.ma “Rola miastski, Letters, 2001. Letters, Encountering theOther :á Jagiello Wydawnictwo WAM,Wydawnictwo 1999. Hungary]. :Ċ Krzysztof O Könyvterjeszt National History under the under History National Wyrobisz and Micha Presented toHenryk forHisBirthday]. Samsonowicz 60. Andrzej Ed. PWN, 1991. Hungary sze dawnych miastach: studia ofiarowane Henrykowiw Samsonowiczowi International in Ages]. LateMiddle the Trade International pó 963-1194 Archeologii Akademii Polskiej Nauk, 2001. i Etnologii Instytutu Wydawnictwo Warsaw: Centuries]. Seventeenth the and Thirteenth the between Markets European Central the on Lead Polish and Byzantiumin the 12th Century Historyczny Ĩ adys Ğü grami” [Three Centuries of Trade Relations between Gda between Relations Trade of Centuries [Three grami” nego dziesi á á á aw. “Rodowód Piastów” [The Origins of Piasts]. of Origins [The Piastów” “Rodowód aw. Ĕ aw S. aw Jagiello The Árpádsand theComneni; PoliticalRelationsbetween Hungary A magyarnemzettö . Budapest:Corvina 1989. The Mongols czyka . Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1982. Europeans and Mongols in the Middle of the ThirteenthMiddle ofCentury:Europeans and Mongolsinthe Ğ redniowiecza” [The Role of the Towns of Little Poland in the ąWą Rocznik Gda Polski o Stosunki polityczne i kulturalne polsko-w polityczneikulturalne Stosunki 11(1897):745-788. Ī óg. Ę rocznic [The Hungarian-Polish Political and Cultural Relations under The Formation ofthePolishState.The PeriodDucal of Rule, Vá Kazimierz Odnowiciel Cracow: WydawnictwoLiterackie, 1999. llalat, 1985.[First edition: 1893.] á Ĕ Pechenegs, Cumans,Iasians. SteppePeopleinMedieval ów ów na rynkachEuropy czyk]. Wroc á Tymowski, 417-429. . Ċ Oxford: Blackwell, 1990. urodzin Ĕ ski . Helsinki: The Finnish Academy of and Finnish Academy The . Helsinki: Science of [Piasts. Biographic Lexicon]. Ed. Stanis Ed. BiographicLexicon]. [Piasts. 9-10(1935-36):189-208. rté Árpá nete azÁ [Time, Space, Work in[Time, Space,Work StudiesOld Towns: á aw: Signum, 1999. . á opolskich w handlumi opolskich dian Budapest:Kings]. Vol. 2. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1989. [Casimir the Restorer]. Cracow: Restorer]. the [Casimir rpádhá ĝ Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wydawnictwo Warsaw: rodkowej w XIII-XVII wiekuw rodkowej XIII-XVII zi Czas, przestrze kirá Ċ gierskie za W zagierskie lyok alatt Ċ dzy Gda dzy Ċ dzynarodowym [Hungarian Ĕ á Kwartalnik aw Szczur, , praca w , praca á Ĕ adys Ĕ skiem a skiem sk and sk Á [The llami á awa 91 CEU eTD Collection Válka, Josef. Stephen. Turnbull, The Neighbours ofPolandinthe10thCentury Sz ______. ______. ______. ______. “Kontakty ______. W Sroka, Stanis Sroka, Szczur, Stanis Szczur, [The Foreign között” Politics 1242-1246 “Magyarország külpolitikaja Szende, László. Strzelczyk, Jerzy. Strzelczyk, Saunders, J. Saunders, Shulamith. Shahar, Samsonowicz, Henryk. “Miejsce Polski w Europie w XIII/XIV w.” [The Polish place Polish [The w.” XIII/XIV w Europie w Polski “Miejsce Henryk. Samsonowicz, Ħ cs, Jen 2003. Polska Akademia Nauk. Archeologii Instytut i Etnologii, ca.2000. Spolecnost, 1991. Spolecnost, Ages]. Cracow: Ages]. Cracow: “Universitas,” 1995. the History [Concerning Relations intheLateMiddle of Hungarian-Polish in MiddleAges.the Essays]. Bydgoszcz: 2002. “Homini,” Szkice Cracow: Towarzystwo Naukowe “Societas Vistulana,” Naukowe Towarzystwo 2001. Cracow: 1437 New Sources]. dokumentów” [Contacts of Wladislaw with Lokietek Hungary according to 1999. "Societas Vistulana", Naukowe Towarzystwo Cracow: Angevins]. Hungarian Cracow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, Wydawnictwo Cracow: 2006. of of Hungary between 1242 and 1246]. WBP, 1999. Pennsylvania 2001. Press, London: Routledge, 1993. 89-100.(1993): in Europe at of infourteenth turn the century]. Europe the Ę . Wokó Polacy na W [Poles in Hungary under Sigismund of Luxemburg (1387-1437)]. of inunder Sigismund [Poles Hungary Z dziejów stosunków polsko-w Az [Regarding Contacts of the Former Hungarian Territories with Poland Stredoveka Morava á á aw, aw. utolsó Árpá The History of the MongolConquestsThe Historyof á kontaktów kontaktów dawnych ziemw Historia Polski. Polski. Historia Mieszko Pierwszy Mieszko Mongol Warrior1200-1350 The Fourth Estate: a History of Women of Fourth intheMiddleAges The Estate:aHistory Genealogia Andegawenów w Genealogia Andegawenów Studia Historyczne Ċ grzech za panowania Zygmunta Luksemburskiego1387- grzech zapanowania á dok adys [The Last [The á awa awa [Medieval Moravia]. [Medieval ĝ redniowiecze [Mieszko the First]. Pozna First]. the [Mieszko à okietka zW okietka 38 (1995): 299-307. 38(1995): Árpá Els Ċ . Ed. Przemys Ed. . ds]. Budapest: Osiris Ċ gierskich w pó Ę gierskich zPolsk gierskich . London: Osprey . London:Osprey Ltd., Publishing Század [History of Poland. Middle Ages]. Ċ gierskich Kwartalnik Historyczny Kwartalnik Ċ . Philadelphia: University . Philadelphia: University of Brno: Muzejní a Vlastivedná grami grami w 2(2000),299-349. á aw Urba aw [Genealogy of the Ĩ nym nym ą w Ĕ Kiadó Ğ : Wydawnictwo : Ĕ wietle nowych wietle czyk. Ğ Ğ redniowieczu. redniowieczu , 1993. Warsaw: 100/4 92 . CEU eTD Collection ĩ Zsoldos, Attila. Zsoldos, Zientara, Benedykt. Zientara, ______. “Gospodarcze i “Gospodarcze spo ______. ______. “Geneza sukcesji andegawe Wyrozumski, Jerzy. Wyrozumski, ______. Wyrozumska, Bo Wyrozumska, ______. :á Weymann, Stefan. Wertner, Mór. mudzki, Pawe mudzki, odarski, Bronis odarski, of of dividedthe Kingdom. DukeLeszek theBlack]. Warsaw:2000. Neriton Árpáds]. Budapest:MTATörténettudományi 2005. Intézete, [The Árpáds ladies:and The their institution queenship inof the period of mittelalterlichen Schlesien. mittelalterlichen Uniwersytetu Adama1997. Uniwersytetu Mickiewicza, Poland],Jadwiga Krzy ed. Polskiego Królestwa Process in Poland in the Thirteenth Century]. In Century]. Thirteenth in the in Poland Process Polsce w XIII wieku” [The Economic and Social Conditions of the Unification Succesion inSuccesion Poland]. Poland from Polandfrom Sevenththe Century 1370]. Cracow:to 1999. Fogra, Wydawnictwo PolskiejWydawnictwo Akademii 1977. Nauk, Cracow: Century]. Sixteenth of the Final Years the until District Cracow Towarzystwa 1931. Naukowego, Pa in the Beginnings of the Fourteenth Century Lviv:in of Century (1250-1306)]. Nak Beginnings the Fourteenth the 1306) Plans of Conrad I, the Duke of of Mazovia]. Duke I, the Plans of Conrad Przyjació Trade Routes in the Piasts’ Poland]. Pozna Poland]. in Piasts’ Routes the Trade Nagybecskerek: Pleitz, 1892. Ĕ stwowe Wydawnictwostwowe Naukowe, 1966. Polska i Czechy w drugiej polowie XIII ipocz Polska iCzechyw polowie XIII drugiej Polska iRu [Poland and Bohemia in the Second Half of the Thirteenth Century and Century Thirteenth the of Half Second the in Bohemia and [Poland á Az Árpádok és asszonyaik: A királynéi intézményAz Árpádokésasszonyaik: azÁrpádokkorában Akirálynéi . Az Árpádok családi története Az Árpádokcsaládi á Nauk,1938. Studium podzielonegoKrólestwa. Ksi Ī á ena. aw “Polityczne plany Konrada I ksi I Konrada plany “Polityczne aw &á Heinrich der Bärtige undseine Zeit:PolitikundGesellschaft im Dzieje Polski Piastowskiej VII w.-1370VII Polski PiastowskiejDzieje a idrogi handlowe w Polsce piastowskiej Drogi w ziemi krakowskiejdoko Drogi Ğ 1194-1340 Studia Historyczne [Przemys á eczne uwarunkowania procesu zjednoczeniowego w zjednoczeniowego procesu uwarunkowania eczne Munich:2002. R.Oldenbourg, Ī [Poland and Ruthenia1194-1340].Warsaw: and [Poland aniakowa, 57-64.Pozna aniakowa, Ĕ á II. The Restoration of the Kingdom of skiej w [The Polsce” of origins Angevin the [The history the Arpadof family]. 25 (1982): ???. 25(1982): Rocznik TNT Ċ ąĪĊ cia mazowieckiego” [Political mazowieckiego” cia Ĕ Ĕ : Pozna : ca XVI wiekuca XVI Leszek Czarny ą Przemys tkach XIV wiekutkach XIV (1250- [History of the Piasts’ 76/1(1971):Toru Ĕ Ĕ [The Customs and : Instytut Historii : Instytut skie Towarzystwo skie á II. Odnowienie II. [Roads of the [The study á adem Ĕ . 93 CEU eTD Collection Figure 7.Table showingmajor in events Poland andHungary between 1238 and Figure 6. Tables showing the 49 “prestigious marriage” ...... comparison Figure 5. Table showing dynastic marriages 42 in the fifth ...... generation. Figure 4. Table showing dynastic marriages 38 in the ...... fourth generation. Figure 3. Table showing dynastic 34 marriages in ...... the third generation. Figure 2. Table showing dynastic marriages 31 in the second ...... generation. Figure 1. Table showing dynastic marriages in the first 28 generation...... 20...... 65 1240...... T T a a b b l l e e o o f f F F i i g g u u r r e e s s 94