| Abstract [eng] |
The main aim of the present study is to investigate the issue of Samogitia‘s status in its relationship with Duke Kęstutis. The research covers the period of 1337 to 1382. The research methods used in the study include the comparative method, retrospection, and verification of sources and historiography. The thesis consists of 3 chapters, which are respectively dedicated to achieving the three objectives set in this study. The first objective is to analyse the collaboration between Duke Kęstutis and Samogitians in the context of the war against the Teutonic Order. The analysis of the attacks on Samogitia carried out by the Teutonic Order shows that Kęstutis played a minor role in the Samogitian defence as he was not mentioned in any descriptions of the Samogitian defence in the German chronicles. This allows to state that the Samogitians themselves mainly took care of the defence of their region. Although this does not mean that Kęstutis took no care of the protection of Samogitia, he paid most attention to the border territories with the Order, which were turning into wasteland, rather than the inland territories of Samogitia. These actions could have also been carried out aiming at protection of the lands of the Duchy of Trakai ruled by Kęstutis. This became especially evident after the events in Kaunas in 1362, and the collapse of the Panemunė system. However, as the research shows, the Samogitians might have tried to get involved in the protection of the border lands in Panemunė, and thus both sides were interested in the security of this territory. The vagueness of Kęstutis‘ role allows to consider the idea that the Duke had no obligation to defend this land by direct actions as he did in his other territories. Such state may show that Kęstutis did not consider himself the sovereign of Samogitia. The investigation of Kęstutis‘ attacks on the Teutonic Order shows that the chronicles did not identify the Samogitian forces in the invasions of the Order‘s lands. This may mean that Samogitians did not launch separate invasions of the Order‘s lands. However, they may have integrated themselves into Kęstutis‘ or Grand Duke of Lithuania Algirdas‘ military divisions, when the latter organized campaigns of the state importance. On the other hand, the events of 1381 to 1382 showed that Kęstutis was forced to negotiate with the noblemen of Medininkai when he was trying to involve the Samogitian forces into the internal fights. The necessity of an agreement may point to the fact that Kęstutis did not have absolute power over Samogitians. The second objective is to determine the nature of Kęstutis‘ activity in the southern and eastern politics. The status of Duke Kęstutis in the Duchy of Trakai was ambiguous. This was determined by the heterogeneity of his possessions – in addition to the core possessions of Trakai, he had to take into consideration the territories bordering with Poland (Palenkė), which retained some peculiarities of government and external political influences until the 15th-16th centuries. The southern territories of the Duchy of Trakai appeared to have a direct relationship with the political problems dealt with by Duke Kęstutis brother, Liubartas, i.e. with the ambitions of Poland and Hungary. In 1344, starting a diplomatic activity with King Casimir and supporting Liubartas, Kęstutis was involved in the regional problems for a longer time. In the period of 1349 to 1351, he even actively fought against Poland. The Duke also took part in the Christianising campaigns of 1349, 1351, 1358 and 1373. However, they were all unsuccessful. The sources do not reflect the Samogitian reaction. On the other hand, the land of the Duchy of Trakai was attacked by the forces of the Order. The unifying interest of both Kęstutis and Samogitia in fighting against the Teutonic Order was determined by this problem. This also could have affected the Duke‘s aspiration to establish a close relationship with Samogitia through marriage. In 1360s and 1370s, with the growing political objectives of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Kęstutis was made to act on a few fronts. He joined Algirdas‘ military campaigns to Moscow in 1368, 1370, and 1372. The Samogitian forces took part in the latter campaign. He also had to fight against the Polish and the Order. Some problems in his patrimonies and a considerable extent of the policy of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania might have determined the fact that the Duke did not get involved in the internal problems of Samogitia, and allowed them to carry out their internal defence, and he contributed to the common interest only at the times of the attacks against the Teutonic Order. This did not allow extending potential sovereignty claim to this region. The third objective is to determine the nature of Samogitia‘s status in its relationships with Kęstutis in the context of the dynasty conflict with Jogaila. The fact that Kęstutis could not be the sovereign (i.e. the ruler) of Samogitia was illustrated by the content of the Trakai Agreement – the agreement did not defend Samogitia from the attacks by the Order, but it gave protection to the southern Duchy of Trakai. Riga Agreement showed that the Order considered Samogitia a separate territory. This was also evident in the events of July to August, 1382, when Kęstutis had to persuade the noblemen of Samogitia to support him in his fight against Jogaila. The treaty of Dovydiškės most probably excluded Samogitia as well. The Samogitians were not generally inclined to interfere in the internal dynasty conflict. Therefore we can’t completely rely on the historiography which stated that Kęstutis was a dominant figure in Samogitia who acted effectively in the region. The question may be raised: If Kęstutis had no sovereign rights of Samogitia, how should his status be defined? The answer is provided by P.Vlodkovich at the Constanca Assembly where he raised the issue of the legitimacy of Mindaugas granting the lands of Samogitia to the Order. According to him, Mindaugas had no power on Samogitia, as he was only an administrator, and therefore could not give it to anybody. It is obvious, that behind the words said by P. Vlodkovich there was Jogaila himself expressing the status of the rule over Samogitia, and probably Vytautas, who supported Jogailas‘ policy of regaining Samogitia. This is an authentic testimony, in which we can see both the cousins‘ and Kęstutis‘ relationships with the society of the region. Therefore, we can state that Kęstutis‘ status in Samogitia may be best defined as that of an administrator. As due to the complicated political state of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Kęstutis was not able to take some more active actions on the rule of Samogitia, his functions as an administrator were limited to the organization of military actions at the state level, not interfering in the internal processes. |
