Przemys%C5%82 II of Poland
Get Przemys%C5%82 II of Poland essential facts below. View Videos or join the Przemys%C5%82 II of Poland discussion. Add Przemys%C5%82 II of Poland to your PopFlock.com topic list for future reference or share this resource on social media.
Przemys%C5%82 II of Poland

Przemys? II (Polish: ['pm?sw] also given in English and Latin as Premyslas or Premislaus or less properly Przemys?aw; 14 October 1257 - 8 February 1296), was the Duke of Pozna? from 1257[1]–1279, of Greater Poland from 1279–1296, of Kraków from 1290–1291,[2] and Gda?sk Pomerania (Pomerelia) from 1294–1296, and then King of Poland from 1295 until his death. After a long period of Polish high dukes and two nominal kings, he was the first to obtain the hereditary title of king, and thus to return Poland to the rank of kingdom.[3] A member of the Greater Poland branch of the House of Piast as the only son of Duke Przemys? I and the Silesian princess Elisabeth, he was born posthumously;[3] for this reason he was brought up at the court of his uncle Boles?aw the Pious and received his own district to rule, the Duchy of Pozna? in 1273. Six years later, after the death of his uncle, he also obtained the Duchy of Kalisz.[4]

In the first period of his government, Przemys? II was involved only in regional affairs, first in close collaboration and then competing with the Duke of Wroc?aw, Henryk IV Probus.[5] This policy caused the rebellion of the prominent Zaremba family and the temporary loss of Wielu?.[6] Working with the Archbishop of Gniezno, Jakub ?winka, he sought the unification of the principalities of the Piast dynasty.[7] Unexpectedly, in 1290, under the will of Henryk IV Probus, he managed to obtain the Duchy of Kraków[8] and with this the title of High Duke of Poland; however, not having sufficient support from the local nobility (who supported another member of the Piast dynasty, W?adys?aw I the Elbow-high) and faced with the increasing threats of King Wenceslaus II of Bohemia, Przemys? II finally decided to retreat from Lesser Poland,[9] which was then under the rule of P?emyslid dynasty.[10]

In 1293, thanks to the mediation of Archbishop Jakub ?winka, he joined into a close alliance with the Kuyavian princes W?adys?aw the Elbow-high and Casimir II of czyca.[11] This alliance was anti-Bohemian, and his goal was to recover Kraków, then in the hands of King Wenceslaus II.

After the death of Duke Mestwin II in 1294, and according to the Treaty of K?pno[12] signed in 1282, Przemys? II inherited Pomerelia. This strengthened his position and enabled his coronation as King of Poland.[13] The ceremony was held on 26 June 1295 in Gniezno, and was performed by his ally Archbishop Jakub ?winka.[14] Only nine months later, on 8 February 1296, Przemys? II was murdered during a failed kidnapping attempt made by men of the Margraves of Brandenburg, with some help from the Polish noble families of Nacz and Zaremba.[9][15]

Birth and naming

Przemys? II was born on 14 October 1257 in Pozna? as the fifth child and only son of Duke Przemys? I of Greater Poland and his wife Elisabeth, daughter of Duke Henry II the Pious of Silesia. It is known that he was born in the morning, because according to the Chronicle of Greater Poland, when Dowager Duchess Elisabeth gave birth to a son, the vicars and canons of the city were singing morning prayers.[16] At the news of the birth, the local clergy chanted the Te Deum laudamus.[17] Shortly after his birth, the prince was baptized by the Bishop of Pozna?, Bogufa? III.[18]

According to the Chronicle of Greater Poland (Kronika wielkopolska),[19] Przemys? II was named after his father, who had died four months before his birth, on 4 June 1257. The form of the name in the days of his contemporaries certainly sounded like Przemys? or possibly Przemy?l. However, due to the fact that the word "Przemys?" (English: Industry) means production of a good or service within an economy today, it is reasonable to be considered that his name could be a valid form from Przemys?aw, especially as this version is undoubtedly more medieval (occurs at the beginning of the 14th century).[20] Another name under which the Duke of Greater Poland was probably known, following the indications of the Rocznik Ko?backi,[21] is Peter (Polish: Piotr), but Oswald Balzer considered this an obvious mistake.[22] The only historian who recognised the name Peter as authentic was K. Górski.[23]

No sources about contemporary rulers provided information about a nickname. Only in sources related to the Teutonic Order from 1335 he is given the nickname Kynast.[24] In current historiography he is sometimes nicknamed Posthumous (Polish: Pogrobowiec),[25] but this has not been universally accepted.

Tutelage of Boles?aw the Pious (1257-1273)

Childhood

At the time of is birth, Przemys? II was the nominal ruler of the Duchy of Pozna?. The guardianship of the Duchy, probably alongside with his mother Elisabeth,[26] was taken by his uncle Duke Boles?aw the Pious and his wife, the Hungarian princess Jolenta (Helena). In consequence the prince remained at the court in Pozna?, where his mother raised him. On 16 January 1265 Dowager Duchess Elisabeth died at her estate in Modrze, and the orphaned Przemys? together with his sisters were later cared for by their uncle and aunt.[]

Very little information exists about the education given to Przemys? II. Diplomatic sources have retained only the names of two of his teachers: Dragomir and Przybys?aw.[27] It is assumed (although without any direct evidence) that the prince had some knowledge of at least Latin in speech and writing.[28]

Relations with Brandenburg and Neumark

The next mention of Przemys? II came in 1272, when his uncle Duke Boles?aw the Pious appointed him the nominal commander of an armed expedition against Brandenburg. The true commanders of the expedition were the Governor of Pozna?, Przedpe?k and the Castellan of Kalisz, Janko. The expedition was launched on 27 May; in addition to the specific purpose to acquire and destroy the newly built fortress in Strzelce Kraje?skie (or, in case it proved to be impossible, at least the desolation of Neumark). The young prince was to be educated in the art of war. The project, as detailed in the Chronicle of Greater Poland,[29] was a great success. The city of Strzelce Kraje?skie after a short, but extremely fierce battle, was defeated and captured by the Greater Poland army. According to the Chronicle, while gaining command of the fortress, Przemys? II ordered the slaughter of the defenders, and only a few managed to save the life of the prince from the angered citizens.[30]

Shortly after completing the expedition and with the majority of his forces in his way back, Przemys? II received a confidential message that the fortress of Drezdenko was protected by only a few German knights. The young prince, despite the fact that he only had a part of his forces, decided to make a quick attack. This completely surprised the defenders and fearing the same fate of soldiers from Strzelce Kraje?skie, they decided to surrender the fortress in exchange for a full pardon. After this, Przemys? II took the fortress in the name of his uncle and triumphantly returned home.[31]

In the same year, Przemys? II concluded his first alliance with Duke Mestwin II of Pomerelia. At first an ally of the Margraves of Brandenburg, Mestwin II could expel his brother and uncles from Pomerania and became sole ruler in 1271, but shortly after he was defeated and even imprisoned by them; this caused him to cede the province of Gda?sk to Margrave Conrad of Brandenburg in exchange for aid against his foes. Despite Mestwin II retaining the feudal sovereignty over the territory, the Brandenburg Margraviate still occupied the main castles and fortresses of the city even after the restoration of Mestwin II in the ducal throne. With his knowledge that his forces are too weak against Brandenburg, the Pomeranian Duke decided then to make an alliance with the Greater Poland rulers, Boles?aw the Pious (who probably was his first-cousin)[32] and Przemys? II.

The Greater Poland-Pomerania alliance ended up in regaining the fortresses in Gda?sk and the complete expulsion of the Brandenburg forces from Pomerania. Although soon after Mestwin II decided to conclude a separate peace with the Margraviate, the alliance with Greater Poland signed in 1272 remained in force.[33] The continuous threat of Brandenburg and the uncertainty of the alliance with Mestwin II, caused that Boles?aw the Pious began to seek new allies in case of war. For this purpose, Boles?aw decided to seek an agreement with Duke Barnim I of Pomerania.

First marriage

As a part of the new alliance with Pomerania, marriage was arranged between Przemys? II and Barnim I's granddaughter Ludgarda,[34] daughter of Henry I the Pilgrim, Lord of Mecklenburg and Anastasia of Pomerania. Apparently, the young prince was pleased with his young bride,[35] as stated in the Chronicle of Greater Poland:

"And when he saw her, he liked her person. And there in the country of the said Duke Barnim, in the city of Szczecin, took her as a wife. And this happened in his sixteenth year of life (1273)."[36]

After the wedding the couple was briefly separated. Przemys? II came to Greater Poland, where together with his uncle prepared the ceremonial arrival of his wife to Pozna?. Finally, together with his uncle, his aunt Jolenta, Bishop Miko?aj I of Pozna? and other Greater Poland dignitaries the prince went to the border frontier in Drezdenko, where he solemnly brought Ludgarda to her new home. The alliance between Greater Poland and Pomerania was directed against Brandenburg and in 1274, resulted in more than one retaliatory expedition against Greater Poland; taken by surprise, the princes watched how without major obstacles the Brandenburg army came to Pozna?, and burned the main fortress of the city.[37] Only after this, the Greater Poland knighthood was hastily organized and was able to expel the invaders.

Independent Duke of Pozna? (1273-1279)

Rebellion

In 1273 Przemys? II became an independent Duke of Pozna?. The circumstances around this event are not entirely clear.[38] On the basis of only one known source, a document dated 1 October 1273, it appears that Przemys? II began to use the title of "dux Poloniae" (Duke of [Greater] Poland).[39] A document issued on 25 August 1289, notes that the Greater Poland ruler gave the villages of W?gielnice and ?agiewnice to the major of Gniezno, Piotr Winiarczyk, in gratitude for helping him to escape from the Gniezno fortress (however, when the incident took place wasn't mentioned in the document).[40] In light of modern historiography, the events preceding the issue of this document could be as follows: Przemys? II, unhappy with the prolonged guardianship of his uncle, and with the support of some powerful Greater Poland magnates[41] decided, regardless of the consequences, to assert his rights over Pozna?. It is unclear at this stage whether there has been any armed incidents; in any case, the demands of Przemys? II became so insistent that they ended in his imprisonment in the Gniezno castle. It can be assumed[42] that there wasn't a prison in the proper sense of the word, but under house arrest, during which Przemys? II was not too rigorously guarded, since the prince was able to escape from the castle without any outside help. In a document issued to Piotr Winiarczyk, the writer used the phrase "qui de nocte consurgens", which supports the assumption that the clerk was asleep and was completely surprised by the arrival of the prince. In any case, the real cause of this grant of lands given to Winiarczyk by Przemys? II apparently wasn't sure, and probably only equipping him with sufficient means to escape.[43]

Alliance with Henryk Probus

After escaping from Gniezno, Przemys? II probably went on Lower Silesia under the care of Henryk IV Probus, Duke of Wroc?aw. This help was evidenced by the conclusion of an alliance (in unknown date) directed against "any man and Polish prince" with the exception of Duke W?adys?aw of Opole and King Ottokar II of Bohemia.[44]

An alliance between Przemys? II and Henry IV placed Boles?aw the Pious in a very uncomfortable situation, because he was a member of the Pro-Hungarian coalition of Polish princes (in addition to him, it included Boles?aw V the Chaste, Leszek II the Black and Konrad II of Masovia) could not remain indifferent to this close cooperation with the Duke of Wroc?aw, which was the leader of the Pro-bohemian coalition (where other Silesian princes also belonged).[45]

This alliance probably forced Boles?aw the Pious to reconsider his treatment of his nephew and finally granted him the Duchy of Pozna? in 1273.[46] Przemys? II, in exchange, not only interrupted for a time his cooperation with the Duke of Wroc?aw, but decided to support his uncle in the expedition against W?adys?aw of Opole (ally of King Ottokar II and Henryk IV Probus), in retaliation for the attempts of the Opole ruler to overthrow the government of Boles?aw V the Chaste in Lesser Poland during the first half of 1273.[47] Thus, with high probability, it can be concluded that by this time the conflict between Przemys? II and his uncle for power has been finally resolved.

Very little information exists about the rule of Przemys? II over Pozna?. From the period 1273-1279, are known only four documents issued by the prince, including two issued jointly with his uncle Boles?aw the Pious.

Conflict with Boles?aw the Horned

Henry IV Probus, Duke of Wroc?aw. Codex Manesse, ca. 1305

Przemys? II's foreign politics are more known during this time. His friendly relations with Henry IV Probus survived, despite the momentary interruption, even after 1273. This alliance was maintained without significant changes, and only as a result of the events that taken place on 18 February 1277 in the town of Jelcz near Wroc?aw,[48] the Duke of Pozna? was forced to explicitly stand at the side of the Wroc?aw ruler, his cousin.[49] Henryk IV was kidnapped and imprisoned in the Legnica castle by his uncle, Duke Boles?aw II the Horned. The pretext used by the Duke of Legnica to do this was the demands of the Duke of Wroc?aw over one-third of his domains, which, according to him, were part of his inheritance as legacy from both his father Henry III the White (died in 1266) and uncle W?adys?aw (died in 1270). Boles?aw used in his favor the political weakeness of Henryk IV's guardian, King Otakar II of Bohemia, who in September 1276 was forced to submit to King Rudolph I of Germany.

Przemys? II, faithful to his previous agreements with Henry IV Probus, decided to stand at the head of the knights of Pozna?, Wroc?aw (which generally were loyal to their ruler) and G?ogów (commanded by Duke Henry III) and marched to Legnica in order to obtain the freedom of Henry IV.[50] The Legnica army was commanded by Boles?aw and his eldest son Henry V the Fat. The battle took place on 24 April 1277 in the village of Stolec near Z?bkowice ?l?skie,[51] and, according to modern historiography, was extremely bloody and lasted almost the entire day. Initially it seemed that the coalition Pozna?-G?ogów-Wroc?aw would have a complete victory. The situation became even more favorable to them when Boles?aw escaped from the battlefield. However, his son Henry V decided to stay until the end, and in this desperate situation encouraged his knights to fight, and finally obtain the victory; to complete the success, even Przemys? II and Henry III were taken prisoners.[52] However, according to Jan D?ugosz in his chronicle, for the Dukes of Legnica this was a Pyrrhic victory, since "died in this battle so countless number of people that the knights of Legnica, although the winner, they could mock the vanquished, because the bloody paid for victory".[53] The imprisonment of the Duke of Pozna?, if it occurred, was brief. The argument against this was noted in the fact that there is no record of Przemys? II having to pay for his release.

Whatever the truth was, by 5 July 1277 Przemys? II was in Lubin.[54] The release of Henryk IV Probus took place some days later, on 22 July, after the surrender to Boles?aw II of 1/5 of his Duchy, with the town of ?roda ?l?ska at the head.[55] Boles?aw the Pious was against the participation of his nephew in this conflict; he not only refused to support him militarily but also invaded the borders of the Duchy of Wroc?aw, trying to assert financial claims. Moreover, at this point, he gave his daughter Elizabeth in marriage to Henry V the Fat.[56]

An additional reason for a quick end to this conflict among the Silesian princes was the personal intervention of King Ottokar II of Bohemia, who in preparation for his final confrontation with King Rudolph I of Habsburg German needed to calm the situation in Poland.[57]

Cooperation with Bohemia

In September 1277 King Ottokar II held in the border city of Opava a meeting of Polish princes. Sources doesn't specify either the exact date or the participants. Historians speculate only that they could be: Henryk IV Probus, Boles?aw V the Chaste, Leszek II the Black, W?adys?aw of Opole with his sons, Henry III of G?ogów and Przemys? II.[58] Several political decisions were made during the meeting, most notably military actions against Germany.

The decisive battle between Ottokar II and Rudolph I took place on 25 August 1278 in the known Battle on the Marchfeld. As many 1/3 of the Czech army were supposed to be allied with the Polish troops. Przemys? II wasn't among them, because he was then in L?d.[59] However this doesn't mean that, as historians speculate, he didn't send troops to the Bohemian King as was planned.[60]

Reconciliation with Boles?aw the Pious

The apparent difference of interests between Przemys? II and his uncle Boles?aw the Pious in the Silesian and Czech affairs, did not disturb their good relations. Evidence of this was the common issuance of documents, such as 6 January 1278.[61]

Another proof of the close cooperation between uncle and nephew in the last years of Boles?aw the Pious' life is in the events that took place in mid-1278 (probably in August):[62] Boles?aw, using the weakeness of the Margraviate of Brandenburg during the fight between Ottokar II and Rudolph I, in only eight days attacked Neumark and advanced until My?libórz, where his troops defeated Margrave Otto V the Long.[63]

Przemys? II didn't participate in this expedition (at least directly, according to Jan D?ugosz[64]), because at that moment he was in L?d, according to a document dated 24 August 1278.[65][66] Certainly by the command of his uncle,[67] Przemys? II acted as mediator in the dispute between Dukes Leszek II the Black and Ziemomys? of Inowroc?aw and his subjects.[68]

Przemys? II was able to end the dispute between Leszek and Ziemomys? with their local nobility definitively. The Duke of Inowroc?aw had to agree to two conditions: firstly, in his court all the noble families would be well tolerated and respected, and secondly, he had put a distance from his German advisors. In addition Ziemomys? also have to accept the surrender of the towns of Kruszwica and Radziejów to Boles?aw the Pious and Wyszogród to Duke Mestwin II of Pomerelia.[69] The friendly relations between Przemys? II and the Kuyavia Dukes proved to be durable and survived to the end of his reign.[70] The expedition against Brandenburg in 1278 was the last important event in Boles?aw the Pious' life. "Maximus trumphator de Teutonicis" (in: The highest winner on the Germans[71]), died on 13[72] or 14[73] April 1279 in Kalisz. Without male heirs, shortly before his death he declared his nephew his only and legitimate heir and urged him to take care of his wife Jolenta-Helena and his two underage daughters, Hedwig and Anna.[74]

Duke of Greater Poland (1279-1290)

Przemys? II allows to locate cities Gosty? and Brzezie on Magdeburg rights, a document from 1278.

Acquisition of Greater Poland

The inheritance of Greater Poland by Przemys? II went peacefully. The union proved to be durable, and with the exception of its borders with the Duchy of Wroc?aw, survived throughout his reign. However, despite the personal unification of the territory, the division between Kalisz and Gniezno persisted almost to the end of the 18th century. Later, in times of Casimir III the Great, there was also a visible division between the old voivodeships of Pozna? and Kalisz.

Relations with nobility and neighbors

An analysis of the contemporary documents[75] showed that in the first period of his rule over all Greater Poland, Przemys? II relied on the following nobles: Jan Gerbicz, Bishop of Pozna?; members of the powerful noble family of Zaremba: Andrzej, chancellor of Kalisz (since 1288 the first "cancellerius tocius Polonia") and later Bishop of Pozna?; S?dziwój, chamberlain of Gniezno; Beniamin, voivode of Pozna?; and Arkembold, voivode of Gniezno. Other close collaborators were Wojciech Krystanowic z Lubrzy, chamberlain of Pozna?; Tomis?aw Nacz, Pozna? castellan; Maciej, Kalisz castellan; Stefan, Wielu? castellan, Miko?aj ?odzia, Pozna? judge; Wincenty ?odzia, chancellor of Pozna?; and the brothers Tylon, Ja?ko and Miko?aj, three notaries of middle-class origin.[76]

During the years 1279-1281, Przemys? II had a rather friendly (or at least neutral) relationship with all of his immediate neighbors.[77]

Imprisonment

The Duke of Greater Poland felt quite safe when he was invited to a meeting organized by Henry IV Probus. The meeting took place probably on 9 February 1281 in one of the Silesian villages;[78] however, the Duke of Wroc?aw had another plan - he broke all the rules of hospitality, imprisoned the three princes who were invited (Przemys? II, Henry V the Fat of Legnica, and Henry III of G?ogów), and forced them to make political concessions.[79] This action was made even more outrageous by the fact that only four years earlier Przemys? II and Henry III risked their lives and armies to save Henry IV Probus in the Battle of Stolec, which ended with victory of Henry V the Fat, the third guest of this meeting. Historians speculate[80] that the reason for the Duke of Wroc?aw to make this radical move was probably his desire to increase his influence over the neighboring principalities as part of his own plans for a royal coronation.[81]

Finally, after brief resistance, Przemys? II was forced to give the strategic Lesser Polish land of Wielu? (also known as Ruda) in order to obtain his release, because Henry IV wanted a direct connection between Wroc?aw and Lesser Poland. The imprisonment of Przemys? II did not last too long, because on 3 March he was documented to have been in Pozna?.[82] Henry III and Henry V the Fat were both forced to grant much larger territorial concessions. In addition, the three Dukes agreed that upon the request of the Duke of Wroc?aw they would each give him military aid in the amount of thirty lancers. So this was, in practice, an act of homage.

The rapid release of Przemys? II could have been aided by the intervention of Leszek II the Black and Mestwin II of Pomerelia.[83] The reason for the arrival of Mestwin II to Greater Poland, in addition to helping his imprisoned ally, was to settle the claims of the Teutonic Order over parts of Pomerelia and to resolve the issue of succession after his own death; from his first marriage, Mestwin II had only two daughters, Catherine and Euphemia.[84] The situation was further complicated by the fact that Mestwin II gained the rule over all the Duchy of Pomerelia after a war against his uncles, Racibor and Sambor II, who in revenge for this willed his possessions (including Bia?ogard and Gniew) to the Teutonic Order upon his death in 1278.[85]

Treaty of K?pno

Memorial stone in the city of K?pno commemorating the treaty between Przemys? II and Mestwin II

The first talks between Przemys? II and Mestwin II about the latter's succession probably occurred around 1281, on occasion of the arrival of the Duke of Pomerelia in Greater Poland to visit the Benedictine Abbey in Lubin.[86] Although there is no direct evidence that Przemys? II was also in the Abbey in person, the presence of Jan I of Wysokowce, Bishop of Pozna? and other Greater Poland dignitaries suggest that a compromise was then suggested. At the beginning of the next year Mestwin II again went to southern Greater Poland, in order to talk with the Papal legate Filippo di Fermo about his dispute with the Teutonic Order over the possession of the towns of Gniew and Bia?ogard. The legate stayed in Milicz, which belonged to the Diocese of Wroc?aw. Due to the friendly relations of Przemys? II (and thus his ally Mestwin II) with Henry IV Probus, the Duke of Pomerania decided to stop at the frontier village of K?pno (also in the Diocese of Wroc?aw), and waited to hear the legate's verdict.[87]

In K?pno, Mestwin II probably expected the arrival of the Duke of Greater Poland.[88] Here, on 15 February 1282, a treaty was concluded between Przemys? II and Mestwin II, which secured the future unification of Gda?sk Pomerania and Greater Poland.[89] Witnesses in the signed document, among others, were Pomeranian Voivode Waysil, Pozna? voivode Beniamin, Gniezno voivode Arkembold, Pozna? judge Miko?aj, Kalisz judge Andrzej, and the Dominican friar Piotr (later Prince-Bishop of Cammin from 1296-1298), who was possibly responsible for writing the text. Other important dignitaries might have been present in K?pno at the time, however, they are not mentioned.

There are ongoing disputes between historians about the exact nature of the Treaty of K?pno. According to some historians (for example Balzer[90] and Wojciechowski[91]) the treaty was a classic pact of mutual inheritance, in which the one who survives the other inherits his territory. According to others (like K?trzy?ski, Baszkiewicz, Zielinska, Nowacki and Swie?awski), it was a one-sided arrangement or donation for life from Mestwin II to Przemys? II (called donatio inter vivos).[92] Another theory was posed by Janusz Bieniak.[93] He believed that Mestwin II simply paid homage for his lands to the ruler of Greater Poland, who became the de jure ruler of the territory. Currently, the second theory is the most accepted, mainly because it agrees entirely with the contemporary sources. Since 1282 Przemys? II formally used the title of "dux Pomeranie" (Duke of Pomerania), but during Mestwin II's life he renounced his claim to the rights over Gda?sk Pomerania (Pomerelia).

As was customary, the treaty would have to be approved by the nobles and knights of both lands. The meeting between the nobility of Pomerelia and Greater Poland took place between 13-15 September 1284 in the town of Nak?o, where they confirmed the rights of Przemys? II over Gda?sk Pomerania.[94] The unification of Pomerelia and Greater Poland was not the only decision made by Przemys? II and Mestwin II. The favors shown by the Duke of Pomerelia to the powerful witnesses of the agreement from Greater Poland showed that they were also keenly interested in the close integration of the two lands.[95]

Widowhood

In December 1283 in Gniezno, at the age of 22 or 23 years, Ludgarda, wife of Przemys? II, died unexpectedly.[96] Relations between the spouses for some time before her death weren't very good; perhaps there had even been a separation between them. The reason for this was the supposed infertility of Ludgarda, more apparent after ten years of marriage. The actual period of marital intercourse between the spouses given their age (both are quite young at the time of their wedding) could actually be shorter. Indeed, there is no direct proof about Ludgarda's barrenness beyond the lack of offspring; in those, the childlessness in marriage was usually considered to be the woman's fault, although in this case (due to the birth of a daughter from Przemys? II's second marriage), it seems more likely. It was not a surprise when accusations began to emerge against the Duke of Greater Poland of the suspected murder of his wife.[97] No contemporary source mentions this, a fact more surprising because Przemys? II had bitter enemies who certainly would use this crime against him. Also, any reactions from church or public penance would noticed.

The first suggestion about Ludgarda's mysterious death came from the 14th century Rocznik Traski:

In the same year died unexpectedly the spouse of Przemys? Duke of Greater, the daughter of Lord Nicholas of Mecklenburg named Lukarda. Nobody could figure out how she died.[98]

The chronicler of the Rocznik Traski doesn't suggest an unnatural death for the Duchess, but leaves some doubts about it. The Rocznik ma?opolski, by the other hand, spoke clearly about Ludgarda's murder in the Szamotu?y code, in which added further information about this event:

Regardless of the historian (I might add) we have seen in our youth in the streets of Gniezno a wooden chapel, which in the vernacular language is called vestibule, where exist two great stones in the shape of millstones reddened with the blood of that lady, who are completely worn and faded, and were deposited in her tomb at Gniezno cathedral.[99]

Another source that describes the death of Ludgarda is the Kronika oliwska, written in the mid-14th century by Abbot Stanis?aw. On the pages of his work, the author clearly showed aversion towards the Samborid dynasty, rulers of Pomerelia until the end of the 13th century. This aversion is also transferred to Przemys? II:

When Prince Mestwin was buried in Oliwa, Przemys? arrived in Gda?sk and took possession of the duchy of Pomerania. Then he received from the Holy See the crown of the Polish Kingdom. He lived another year and was captured by the men of the Margrave of Brandenburg, Waldemar, who killed him to avenge the holy Lukarda his wife, suspecting that he had strangled her.[100]

It is unknown why the Margraves of Brandenburg would avenge the murder of Ludgarda, since this could place them in a dangerous position, considering their alliance with Pomerelia-Greater Poland. The reports of the Kronika oliwska were repeated in Mecklenburg by chronicler Ernst von Kirchberg,[101] a wandering bard from Thuringia, who around 1378 appears at the court of Duke Albert II of Mecklenburg (Ludgarda's nephew) on occasion to his wedding. Shortly after von Kirchberg wanted to show his thanks for the Duke's hospitality and wrote a long rhyming poem, in which he also mentions Ludgarda. The story of the chronicler was as follows: Przemys? II, at the instigation of his mother Elizabeth of Wroc?aw (who is well known had died in 1265, a long time before the marriage of her son) asked his wife for a divorce and return her to Mecklenburg. In view of her refusal because "What God has joined, men must not divide", Przemys? II decided her imprisonment in the tower, where he tried to persuade her again to accept a divorce. Finally, due to her obstinacy, Przemys? II killed her with his own dagger. In this event he was helped by one of his ministers, who finished the deed by suffocating a dying Ludgarda with a towel.

The last important source for the history of Ludgarda are Annals of Jan D?ugosz,[102] who wrote about this events almost two centuries after (around 1480). D?ugosz was the first chronicler who locates Pozna? as the place of Ludgarda's death. Besides, he established her date of death on 14 December, who is corroborated by contemporary sources as a date of her burial. Modern historiography generally supports the complete innocence of Przemys? II in the sudden death of his wife.[103]

Based on the findings of Brygida Kürbis, it can be concluded that the 10-year marriage of Przemys? II and Ludgarda wasn't successful, and over time it became more obvious to everyone that the ducal couple was unable to have children, although this couldn't be completely certain, because Ludgarda in 1283 was at most only 23 years old. Nevertheless, is assumed that Przemys? II's growing aversion to his wife because of her infertility was well known by all. So when in mid-December 1283[104] Ludgarda died suddenly and separated (evidenced by her death in Gniezno, away from Przemys? II's court in Pozna?), raised suspicion that the death of the duchess was unnatural. Nobody, however, had evidence of this. Contributing to rumors was that in the 13th-century medical knowledge was negligible, and therefore often sudden death of a young person was interpreted as unnatural. In addition, the duke's rejection of a proper mourning to his wife, who was universally liked, increased the suspicions against Przemys? II.

Archbishopric of Gniezno

Jakub ?winka, Archbishop of Gniezno, from a book illumination, before 1535

On 18 December 1283, a few days after Ludgarda's funeral, Greater Poland witnessed an extremely important event for later history of Poland: the consecration of Jakub ?winka as Archbishop of Gniezno. The event took place in the Franciscan church in Kalisz and was extremely important because after twelve years (since the death in 1271 of Archbishop Janusz Tarnowa) Poland wasn't a full-recognized prelate.[105] Jakub ?winka received the papal nomination on 30 July 1283, however, because he was only a deacon, it was necessary to ordain him. This ceremony took place on 18 December and a day later Jakub received the episcopal consecration. The ceremony, according to sources, was assisted by five Polish bishops and Przemys? II, who gave the new Archbishop an expensive ring as a gift.[106]

Little is known about the origin and early years of Jakub ?winka, except for his mention in a document issued by Boles?aw the Pious.[107][108] As Archbishop of Gniezno, the cooperation between him and Przemys? II was excellent. One example of this was the fact that he appeared as witness in 14 diplomats[109] issued by the Duke of Greater Poland, including the confirmation of all his existing privileges and the permission to mint his own coins in ?nin and the castellany of L?d.[110]

War against Western Pomerania

In the first half of 1284 Przemys? II was involved on the side of Denmark and Brandenburg in an armed conflict against Western Pomerania and Rügen. Details about this event are limited, and the peace, which was concluded on 13 August, didn't bring any real benefits to Greater Poland.[111]

Much more positive effects would arise from Przemys? II's friendly relations with Leszek II the Black, Duke of Kraków; they had a meeting in Sieradz on 20 February 1284. Details about the reason and talks of this relationship are unknown, but they would be productive, since Przemys? II decided to give the Kraków voivode ?egota three villages (Nieczajno, Wierzbiczany and Lulin).[112] This good relations were maintained for some time, since seven months later, on 6 September, the Duke of Greater Poland mediated in a dispute between Leszek II the Black and his brother Casimir II of czyca with the Teutonic Order.[113] Przemys? II also didn't lose sight of the Pomerelian affairs, because on 13 September he had a new meeting with Mestwin II in the city of Nak?o.[114]

Betrayal of S?dziwój Zaremba

According to the Rocznik Traski (based probably in older sources now missing), on 28 September 1284, Kalisz was burned.[115] This soon caused a series of events which threatened the power of Przemys? II. Now governor of Kalisz and in the city at the time of the fire, S?dziwój Zaremba, fearing the consequences, decided to take the Kalisz castle (apparently not damaged in the fire)[116] and give it to Henry IV Probus.[117] At the news of the events of Kalisz, Przemys? II reacted instantly. No later than 6 October, as attested by a document issued in that time, Przemys? II was at the head of the Greater Poland knights under the city walls. In view of the refusal of submission, the duke ordered the siege. It is unknown how prolonged this siege was, but certainly soon due to the reluctance to fight from the rebels (knights and nobles probably feared that Przemys? II, after the capture of the castle, would not spare nobody), the duke agreed to negotiate with them. Eventually, Przemys? II regained his castle of Kalisz, but he had to give the newly built castle in O?obok to Henryk IV Probus.[118] There is no certainty that the betrayal of S?dziwój Zaremba was an isolated incident or part of a wider conspiracy from the Zaremba family. However, it can be assumed that the duke didn't believe in a familiar conspiracy because most of S?dziwój's relatives remained in their posts even after 1284.[119] Another source supporting this is a document issued on 6 October (and thus during the period of siege) where the voivode of Pozna? Beniamin Zaremba appears as a witness, and therefore had to remain in the inner circle of Przemys? II.

Przemys? II's change of attitude against Beniamin occurred in 1285. Due to little contemporary information, the cause is unknown. The Rocznik Traski only pointed that the Duke of Greater Poland imprisoned both S?dziwój and Beniamin.[120] At the end apparently they were treated very gently, because Mestwin II of Pomerelia not only restored them their previous post but also part of the property that was confiscated them.[121] Moreover, Beniamin appeared again in the circle of Przemys? II around 1286.[122]

Second marriage

In 1285 Przemys? II decided to remarry. The chosen bride was Richeza, daughter of the deposed King Valdemar of Sweden and granddaughter of King Eric IV of Denmark. Due to the lack of contacts between Greater Poland and Sweden, the negotiations were probably concluded through the mediation of the [[House of Ascania] ].[123] The marriage by proxy took place in the Swedish city of Nyköping on 11 October 1285; in the ceremony, the Duke of Greater Poland was represented by the notary Tylon, who received from Przemys? II the village of Giecz in gratitude for his services.[124] It is unknown when and where the formal wedding between Przemys? II and Rikissa took place, or who administered the sacrament of marriage: it could be either Bishop Jan of Pozna? or Jakub ?winka, Archbishop of Gniezno.[125]

Congresses of czyca and Sulejów

The year 1285 brought to Przemys? II other successes: in January, Archbishop Jakub of Gniezno convened a meeting in the town of czyca, where the excommunication of the main opponent of the Greater Poland ruler, Henryk IV Probus was confirmed;[126] On 15 August Przemys? II had another princely meeting, this time with W?adys?aw I the Elbow-high and Ziemomys? of Inowroc?aw in the town of Sulejów, where the rebellion against Leszek II the Black and his deposition in favor of Konrad II of Czersk was probably discussed.[127]

In May 1286 after the death of the Bishop of Pozna? Jan Wyszkowic, his successor Jan Gerbicz was consecrated.[128] The cooperation between the new Bishop and Przemys? II was good, although some historians wonder why Bishop Gerbicz later was surnamed "traditor" (traitor).[129]

Alliance between Greater Poland, Pomerelia and Western Pomerania

According to Jan D?ugosz, on 14 June 1287 some Greater Poland knights and (as was suggested by the chronicler), without the knowledge of his ruler,[130] made a surprise attack to O?obok, won the castle and returned the district to Greater Poland.[131] Henryk IV Probus decided to not respond with any armed conflict and accepted the loss; in unknown circumstances, around this time Przemys? II also regained Wielu? (lost in 1281).[132] It can be assumed that the attitude of the Duke of Wroc?aw was part of the concessions associated with his plans to obtain the throne of Kraków, and wanted in this way to ensure that benevolent neutrality of the Duke of Greater Poland.

Some months later, on 23 November in the city of S?upsk a meeting took place between Przemys? II, Mestwin II of Pomerelia and Bogislaw IV of Pomerania. There, they entered into and agreement of mutual cooperation and help against any opponent, especially the rulers of Brandenburg and Vitslav II, Prince of Rügen. The agreement also guaranteed the inheritance of Gda?sk by Bogislaw IV or his descendants in the case of the deaths of both Mestwin II and Przemys? II.[133] In addition, this treaty contributed to a significant deterioration of the relations between Greater Poland and the House of Ascania, rulers of Brandenburg.[134] The treaty was subsequently confirmed at a meeting in Nak?o in August 1291.

Coalition and fatherhood

According to the theory of historian Oswald Balzer, around 1287 and by inspiration of Archbishop Jakub of Gniezno, treaty of mutual inheritance was agreed on between Leszek II the Black, Henryk IV Probus, Przemys? II and Henry III of G?ogów.[135] Balzer's theory gained immense popularity among historians.[136] This view is refuted by W?adys?aw Karasiewicz[137] and Jan Baszkiewicz.[138] However, doesn't completely exclude the possibility that during this period an agreement could have been concluded between Przemys? II and Henryk IV Probus, evidenced by the fact that the Duke of Wroc?aw voluntary returned of lands O?obock and Wielu? to Przemys? II in his will.[139]

On 14 May 1288 at the Congress of Rzepce the alliance between Przemys? II and Mestwin II was further strengthened.[140] In July, the Duke of Greater Poland visited the seriously ill Leszek II the Black in Kraków. The matters discussed in this visit are unknown.

The first and only child of Przemys? II was born in Pozna? on 1 September 1288: a daughter, named Richeza, who later became queen of Bohemia and Poland as the wife of Wenceslaus II and after his death, of Rudolph I.[141] The news of the birth of her daughter were also the latest information about Duchess Richeza. She certainly died after that date and before 13 April 1293, when Przemys? II entered into his third and last marriage.[142] It seems that Przemys? II had deep and strong feelings for his second wife. This is evidenced not only by the fact that he give their daughter the name of the mother, but also by a document issued on 19 April 1293 where he ceded to the Bishopric of Pozna? the village of Kobylniki as payment for a lamp lit eternally at his second wife's tomb.[143]

Death of Leszek the Black

On 30 September 1288 Leszek II the Black, Duke of Kraków, Sandomierz, and Sieradz, died childless .[144] His death launched the outbreak of war in Lesser Poland. The Kraków knighthood were in favor of Boles?aw II of P?ock, while the Sandomierz knighthood supported his brother Konrad II of Czersk; on the other hand, the middle-class citizenry favored Henryk IV Probus, Duke of Wroc?aw.[145]

At the beginning of 1289, Silesian troops marched under the command of the Duke of Wroc?aw and his allies Bolko I of Opole and Przemko of ?cinawa. They also counted on the support of Sulk the Bear (pl: Su?k z Nied?wiedzia), the castellan of Kraków, who had control over Wawel castle.[146] In response, a coalition against them was formed by Boles?aw II of P?ock, Casimir II of czyca, and W?adys?aw I the Elbow-high.[147] Surprisingly, Przemys? II joined with them, thus ending all of his prior arrangements with the Duke of Wroc?aw.

The Wroc?aw-Opole-?cinawa army realized that they had insufficient forces to resist the coalition of Greater Poland-Kuyavia-Masovia, and decided to retreat to Silesia, where they would gather more troops. The retreating troops were quickly followed and a bloody battle took place in the town of Siewierz in Bytom on 26 February 1289, culminating in a full victory for Przemys? II and his allies. In this battle Przemko of ?cinawa was killed and Bolko I of Opole was captured.[148] After the battle W?adys?aw I the Elbow-high took Kraków, and Przemys? II withdrew with his troops, making a separate truce with Henryk IV Probus.[149] However, later in 1289, Henryk IV Probus took up arms against Kraków, removing W?adys?aw I the Elbow-high to the government of Sandomierz. This event was considered as temporary, because both Henryk IV Probus and W?adys?aw I the Elbow-high continued to use the title of Duke of Kraków and Sandomierz.[150]

Rise to kingship (1290-1295)

Acquisition of Kraków

Henry IV Probus, Duke of Wroc?aw and Kraków, died on 23 June 1290, probably poisoned.[151] Because he died childless, in his will[152] he bequeathed the Duchy of Wroc?aw to Henry III of G?ogów,[153] and Kraków - with the title of high duke and thus the overlordship over Poland - to Przemys? II. In addition, he returned K?odzko to King Wenceslaus II of Bohemia and also gave the Duchy of NysaOtmuchów to the Bishopric of Wroc?aw as a perpetual fief with full sovereignty.[154]

These latter dispositions were not surprising, since they were compatible with the most recent political stance of Henryk IV. However, the inheritance of Kraków and Sandomierz by Przemys? II, one of his closest male relatives,[155] caused considerable surprise among historians. In historiography, there are several theories to explain the decision of the Duke of Wroc?aw.[156] Recently it has been assumed that Archbishop Jakub of Gniezno was behind this testament, because he was in Wroc?aw on 17 June 1290, a few days before the death of Henryk IV.[157] In accordance with custom, Przemys? II had to pay some religious dispositions from Henryk IV: the transfer to Kraków Cathedral of 100 pieces of fine gold and devotion to the implementation of ornaments and liturgical books to the Tyniec monastery.[158]

Przemys? II was probably informed very quickly about the death of the Duke of Wroc?aw. Due to the lack of documents, the first time he appeared with the title of Duke of Kraków was in a diploma issued on 25 July 1290.[159] Przemys? II never used the title of Duke of Sandomierz in any of his documents, despite having full rights over this land under the will of Henryk IV Probus. This is because he did not have possession of it: W?adys?aw I the Elbow-high, in fact, had conquered the land shortly before Henryk IV's death.[160]

In Lesser Poland, Przemys? II adopted the crowned eagle - which was used previously by Henryk IV Probus - as his emblem; his previous emblem, inherited from both his father and uncle, was a climbing lion.

It is unknown exactly when Przemys? II went to Kraków to assume control, as on 24 April 1290 he was still in Gniezno.[161] Two months later he issued a document in Kraków,[162] where he initially supported and confirmed the power of the local elite (with castellan ?egota, chancellor Prokop, voivode Miko?aj, and treasurer Florian, among others),[163] the clergy (including Pawe? of Przemankowo, the Bishop of Kraków, who in another document issued on 12 September 1290 was given the right to collect tithes from the local income),[164] and middle-class people.[165]

Relations with W?adys?aw the Elbow-high

There is no certainty about the political relations between Przemys? II and W?adys?aw I the Elbow-high, especially regarding who was the real ruler over the Duchy of Sandomierz. The fact that Przemys? II did not use the title "Duke of Sandomierz" supports the thesis that both competitors accepted the Elbow-high's authority and formal possession over that land, without precluding the possibility of minor clashes.[166]

It is also noted that Przemys? II appointed officials only in Kraków and the surrounding areas (Wieliczka and Miechów). This probably indicated that the real power of the Duke of Greater Poland was confined to the city and nearby towns. The other territories were probably held by W?adys?aw I the Elbow-high.[167]

Resignation of Lesser Poland

Przemys? II left Kraków, capital of Lesser Poland, between 12 September and 23 October 1290. He never returned.[168] Leaving Wawel castle, he took with him the royal crown and regalia that had been kept in the cathedral since the times of Boles?aw II the Generous.[169] At this point he was already planning his own royal coronation.

Meanwhile, the pretensions of Wenceslaus II of Bohemia over Lesser Poland became more evident. His claims were supported by the donation made for his maternal aunt, Gryfina (also named Agrippina) of Halych[170] (widow of Leszek II the Black) and the investiture given to him by King Rudolph I of Germany. Both documents had no significance under Polish law; however, his military power, wealth and the cultural proximity with the Kingdom of Bohemia made Wenceslaus II a widely accepted candidate in Lesser Poland.[171] Przemys? II thus had two choices: a military confrontation (in which he had no chance due to the predominance of the Bohemian army), or political discussions.

On 14 October 1290, Archbishop Jakub ?winka inaugurated a provincial synod in Gniezno, assisted by Jan Gerbicz, Bishop of Pozna?; Tomasz Tomka, Bishop of P?ock; Wis?aw, Bishop of Kujawy; and Konrad, Bishop of Lebus (Lubusz).[172] In addition to the Bishops, Przemys? II and Mestwin II of Pomerelia also assisted at the Synod. It was probably in this meeting that the Duke of Greater Poland decided to abandon his rights over Lesser Poland to Wenceslaus II in exchange for a monetary compensation.[173]

It is not known exactly when the negotiations began between Przemys? II and Wenceslaus II. They certainly ended between 6 January (the last time when Przemys? II used the title of Duke of Kraków in a document) and 10 April 1291 (the first time when Wenceslaus II used this title in charters).[174] In addition, it is also known that by mid-April Bohemian troops led by Bishop Arnold of Bamberg were already at Wawel castle.[175]

Alliance with Henry III of G?ogów

The loss of Lesser Poland did not prevent Przemys? II from actively participating in national politics. In the early 1290s (probably shortly after the death of Henryk IV Probus), he entered in a close alliance with Henry III of G?ogów. Details of this treaty are not preserved, and the only historic knowledge of this matter derives from a document issued by W?adys?aw I the Elbow-high in Krzywi? on 10 March 1296, in which he emphasizes that Henry III had good rights over Greater Poland.[176] Rejected the idea of kinship (who the Elbow-high could claim due to his marriage to Hedwig of Kalisz), it seems justified the view that in the early 1290s (certainly before January 1293, when Przemys? II became involved with the Elbow-high) a treaty was signed in which the ruler of Greater Poland give rights of succession to the Duke of G?ogów.[177]

Congress of Kalisz

In January 1293, political talks occurred in Kalisz between Przemys? II, W?adys?aw I the Elbow-high, and his brother Casimir II of czyca. Details about the conversations are unknown; however two documents survive in which the succession of the throne of Kraków (although only theoretical, because the Duchy was in the hands of Wenceslaus II) would be in the following order: first Przemys? II, then the Elbow-High, and finally Casimir II of czyca. In addition, they promised to help each other in the recovery of this land by any one of them and annually pay 300 pieces of fine silver to the Archbishop of Gniezno, with the obligation to duplicate the amount during the first two years.[178] Conversations in Kalisz were certainly sensitive,[179] and the initiator was without doubt Archbishop Jakub ?winka. The main motivation was probably to reinforce the anti-Bohemian coalition, in which the allies undertook to help each other. Przemys? II also named the Elbow-high as his successor in Greater Poland in the case of his death without male heirs (although it is possible that, as in the case of Henry III of G?ogów, they signed a treaty of mutual inheritance).[180] In spite of the arrangements there are no known actions by the coalition. Casimir II of czyca died on 10 June 1294 in the Battle of Trojanow against Lithuania.[181]

At the Congress of Kalisz, the marriage between W?adys?aw I the Elbow-high and Hedwig of Kalisz, Przemys? II's cousin and daughter of Boles?aw the Pious, was probably arranged (and possibly performed).[182]

Third marriage

Around the time of the Congress of Kalisz, Przemys? II decided to remarry, as his beloved wife Richeza was certainly dead by that time (probably the year before). The chosen bride was Margaret, daughter of Albert III, Margrave of Brandenburg-Salzwedel and Matilda of Denmark, daughter of King Christopher I.[183] This marriage was concluded for political reasons and was expected to secure the succession of Przemys? II in Pomerelia. Due to the relatively close relationship between the Duke and his bride (they are both great-grandchildren of King Ottokar I of Bohemia), a papal dispensation was needed for the marriage.[184] The wedding ceremony took place shortly before 13 April 1293; according to some historians, it was probably on this occasion that the betrothal between Przemys? II's daughter Ryksa and Otto of Brandenburg-Salzwedel, Margaret's brother, was also celebrated.[185]

Acquisition of Pomerelia

In spring of 1294, Mestwin II of Pomerelia paid a visit to Przemys? II. In turn, the Duke of Greater Poland was in Pomerelia on 15 June, where he approved documents with Mestwin II in S?upsk.[186] By 30 June Przemys? II was again in Greater Poland.[187]

The deteriorating health of Mestwin II forced Przemys? II to make another visit to Pomerelia in autumn.[188] It is unknown if he was present when Mestwin II died on 25 December 1294 in Gda?sk;[189] however, there is no doubt that Przemys? II took part in his funeral. The last Duke of Pomerelia from the Samborides was buried in the Cistercian monastery in Oliwa.[190]

After inheriting Pomerelia, Przemys? II adopted the new title of "dux Polonie et Pomoranie".[191] He remained in Gda?sk Pomerelia until the beginning of April, but by 10 April he was in Pozna?.[192]

King of Poland (1295-1296)

Coronation

The unification of Greater Poland and Gda?sk Pomerania (Pomerelia) definitely made Przemys? II the strongest Piast ruler. Already by 1290, and with the help of Archbishop Jakub of Gniezno, duke began to prepare his coronation, earlier unsuccessfully pursued by Henryk IV Probus, the preliminary step for the unification of Poland.[]

Due to the occupation of Lesser Poland by Wenceslaus II, the Duke of Greater Poland had to postpone his plans until 1294. Only with the death of Mestwin II - an event which increased considerably his power among the Piasts rulers - Przemys? II, together with Archbishop Jakub, took the decisive decision for a coronation.[]

The coronation of Przemys? II and his wife Margaret took place at Gniezno Cathedral on Sunday 26 June 1295, the day of Saints John and Paul.[193] It is unknown why it took place as a simple coronation ceremony (ordinis cororandi) despite it was the first Polish coronation in 219 years. Besides Archbishop Jakub of Gniezno, the other main representants of church hierarchy who participated in the ceremony were:[194][195] Bishops Konrad of Lubusz, Jan II of Pozna?, Wis?aw of W?oc?awek and Gedko II of P?ock. From the Polish episcopate, Bishops Johann III Romka of Wroc?aw and Jan Muskata of Kraków were possibly either present in person or sent their consents.[196] Historians generally agree with the above list of Bishops who participated in the coronation. Certainly are some doubts about the presence of Bishop Konrad of Lubusz, who on 18 June was in Prague.[197] However, as was noted by Kazimierz Tymieniecki,[198] he could be able to make the travel to Gniezno for the coronation. There is no information about the secular witnesses of the coronation; certainly many dignitaries from both Greater Poland and Pomerelia must have arrived.[199] Similarly, no sources point to the presence of other Piasts rulers in the ceremony.[200]

Poland at the time of Przemys? II (1295)

The consent of Pope Boniface VIII wasn't necessary, because due to the earlier coronations Poland was already a Kingdom.[201] Contemporary sources do not definitively confirm that Przemys? II and Archbishop obtained the approval of the Holy See for the coronation. Only the Kronika oliwska[202] and the Kronika zbras?awska[203] stated that the coronation took place with such consent.

If there was an explicit approval, it could influence the later effort of W?adys?aw the Elbow-high to obtain the Pope's permission for his own coronation; the coronation in 1320 took however place in very different circumstances, because W?adys?aw had a competitor to the throne in the person of King John of Bohemia and the Papacy was then strongly influenced by the French court.[204] In 1295 the Papacy was an independent entity and the Polish episcopate could more calmly await the expected protests from Wenceslaus II.

Regardless of whether Przemys? II has obtained the consent of the Pope or not, the legality of his coronation was not questioned by his contemporaries. Even the Czech Kronika zbras?awska did not deny the royal title of the Duke of Greater Poland, although it called him King of Kalisz.[205] Finally, Wenceslaus II restricted his actions only to diplomatic protests to both Przemys? II (where he tried to persuade him to give up the crown) and the Papal Curia.[206]

The coronation of Przemys? II gave rise to a dispute between historians about the extent of his kingdom. Stanis?aw Kutrzeba pointed that Przemys? II, in fact, was crowned King of Greater Poland.[207] This theory caused a lively discussion, which to this day doesn't give a clear answer about the monarchical status of Przemys? II.[208] It could be expected however that Przemys? II wanted to revive through the coronation the old Kingdom of Poland, which also agrees with the inscription on the post-coronation seal Reddidit ipse pronis victricia signa Polonis,[209] although in reality Przemys? II was politically limited to Greater Poland and Gda?sk Pomerania.

Royal government and death

After the coronation, Przemys? II went to Pomerelia and came to S?upsk On 30 July, where he confirmed the privileges of the Cistercian monasteries in Oliwa and ?arnowiec.[210] He then visited other major cities: Gda?sk, Tczew and ?wiecie. In August 1295 he returned to Greater Poland but in October he was again in Gda?sk.[211] This demonstrates how important the Duchy of Pomerelia was for Przemys? II.

Taking into account the fact that these events took place in the 13th century, the sources that stated any details concerning Przemys? II's death are dubious; the Kronika wielkopolska failed to mention[212] the events in Rogo?no.

Sources are divided[213] about who are the perpetrators of the murder of the Polish King: the margraves of Brandenburg, some Polish families (the Naczs or Zarembas or the two families at the same time), and finally attempts to reconcile the two theories.

One of the first sources who must be taken into account was the almost contemporary Rocznik kapitu?y pozna?skiej.[214] The records shows that the margraves of Brandenburg, Otto V, another Otto (perhaps Otto IV), and John IV, nephew of Przemys? II (as son of his oldest sister Constance), sent an army who arrived in the dawn on 8 February 1296 to the town of Rogo?no, where the King spent the Carnival to kidnap him. However, because he showed strong resistance and was wounded, the men, unable to take him injured to Brandenburg, finally killed him. The motive for the crime was the hatred of the margraves toward the Polish King because of his coronation.

The murder of King Przemys? II by men of the margraves of Brandenburg was also supported by the Kronika oliwska (Chronicle of Oliva), which stipulates that after the coronation:

lived one year, was captured by the adjutant of Waldemar, Margrave of Brandenburg, and was murdered in revenge for his wife, the holy Lukarda, which, he suspected had killed before.[215]

With high probability it is assumed that the first part of this information, was translated from the Liber Mortuorum Monasterii Oliviensis[216] by the author of the Kronika oliwska, Abbot Stanis?aw, and the message about the motives of the murder as a revenge for Ludgarda's death is the result of a latter addition of the Abbot. This passage established the main indication that Margrave Waldemar of Brandenburg was guilty of the crime; however, during the tragic events he could not have participated because in 1296 he had less than 15 years old. Waldemar certainly gained notoriety only around 1308, after his failed attempt to seize Pomerania.[217]

Another earlier source who wrote about the death of Przemys? II at the hands of Brandenburg, was the Rocznik ko?backi of the Cistercian monastery in Ko?bacz on Western Pomerania. The brief information is valuable primarily because it was the only one who named the direct perpetrator of the crime, a man named Jakub Kaszuba.[218] The problem is that nothing certain about him was found in other sources, and besides, the name of Piotr, under what is known Przemys? II in the chronicle, raises big surprise.[219] Most likely this is a mistake of the author.

Finally, another source who accused the margraves of Brandenburg was the relative later Chronicle of Henry of Hertford, which although written during the mid-14th century, was reliable enough because was from Germany (and therefore unsuspected of being partial). There he stated that Przemys? II died during a war between Brandenburg and Greater Poland. Another German chronicler, who unequivocally accused the House of Ascania was Dietmar of Lübeck,[220] which also pointed out that Przemys? II's wife Margaret took part in the conspiracy which killed him, due to her family relations. It is unknown whether the chronicler found this information, from earlier sources or deduced it based on the simple relationship: because Margaret came from the family accused of the murder, she had to participate.

There are a number of sources, both Polish and foreign, who accused some Polish noble families as perpetrators of the crime. Among the Polish sources who established this fact are: the Rocznik ma?opolski[221] in the Szamotu?y codec, the Rocznik S?dziwoja[222] and the Kronika ksit polskich.[223] The priority should be given to the nearest chronologically Rocznik Traski.[224] Extremely important is also the testimony of Jan ?odzia, Bishop of Pozna? during the Polish-Teutonic War of 1339, because it came from a person who participated in the political life of Greater Poland of those times.[225]

The foreign sources who described the crime and pointed the culprits are: the Annales Toruniensis (date from the early 15th century),[226] the Kronika zbras?awska (dated from the 14th century)[227] and the Latopis hipacki, who was written in the first half of the 14th century.[228] From the above-mentioned chronicles (from Lesser Poland, Bohemian and Kievan Rus' provenance), the main perpetrators in the King's death were Greater Poland noble families. These families have been identified as either the Zarembas (according to the Rocznik ma?opolski) or the Naczs with the help of the Zarembas (according to the Latopis hipacki).

Finally, a third group of sources accused both the margraves of Brandenburg and the Polish noble families of the murder; for example the Rocznik ?wi?tokrzyski nowy.[229] Almost identical information was shown in the Katalog biskupów krakowskich, dated from the 15th century; however, there is an addition which also indicated that Wenceslaus II and a group of unnamed Polish princes are involved in the crime.[230] It is unknown whether the author mentioned the involvement of Wenceslaus II as a simple deduction: because he had the greatest benefit for this crime, he must be the perpetrator.[231] Finally, Jan D?ugosz indicated that the Zaremba and Nacz families, with the help of some "Saxons", are the perpetrators of the crime,[232] a fact also reported by Marcin Bielski[233] and Marcin Kromer.[234]

8 February 1296 is widely recognized as the date of the crime. In fact, it appears in the Rocznik Traski,[235]Rocznik ma?opolski,[15]Rocznik ?wi?tokrzyski nowyw,[236]Kalendarz w?oc?awski[237] and the Liber mortuorum monasterii Oliviensis.[238] The dates given by the Rocznik kapitu?y pozna?skiej (6 February)[239] and the Nekrolog lubi?ski (4 February),[240] as well the reports of Jan D?ugosz[241] are considered erroneous.

As for the place of death, historians considers accurate the versions of the Rocznik ma?opolski ("prope oppidum Rogoszno")[15] or the Rocznik S?dziwoja ("ante Rogoszno"),[222] who stated that Przemys? II was killed near Rogo?no.

The body of 39-year-old Przemys? II was buried in the Archcathedral Basilica of St. Peter and St. Paul in Pozna?, according to the Rocznik kapitu?y pozna?skiej.[242] The funeral was presided by Bishop Jan. Crowds of nobles, clergy, knights and common citizens took part in the procession.

Reconstruction of the murder

Epitaph of Przemys? II in the Royal Chapel of Pozna? Archcathedral Basilica of St. Peter and St. Paul

The death of Przemys? II as a result of a failed kidnapping attempt was a matter of interest between historians.[243] Circumstances of the death of the last of the Piast Greater Poland line was specifically studied by Karol Górski,[244] Kazimierz Jasi?ski,[245] Zygmunt Boras,[246] Bronis?aw Nowacki[247] and Edward Rymar.[248] The importance in Polish history of the death of Przemys? II was also relevant in the works of W?adys?aw Karasiewicz[249] and Jan Pakulski,[250] due to the role of the Nacz and Zaremba families.

In 1295 the King spent Christmas in Gniezno, where he met with W?adys?aw I the Elbow-high.[251] The reason for this meeting is unknown. Probably the possibility of the recovery of Lesser Poland was discussed, as was the defeat of Brandenburg. In any case, these conversations could be shown as a threat by the Brandenburg Margraves, who still are anxiously watching the inheritance of Pomerelia by Przemys? II after Mestwin II's death and his royal coronation.[252] But the main concern of the House of Ascania was obvious to all: the union of the Kingdom of Poland, and that sooner or later Przemys? II would claim the lands seized by the Margraves in Greater Poland.

After 25 January 1296 the King left his capital, and surely by 3 February he was in Pyzdry. For the last days of the Carnival (between 4-7 February) Przemys? II decided to spend these festivities in the town of Rogo?no.

The Death of King Przemys? II by Jan Matejko, 1875
Assassination of King Przemys? II by Wojciech Gerson, 1881

Leaving Pyzdry, the King certainly didn't think that about only 30 km away, in the Brandenburg town of Brzezina are staying the two brothers Margraves Otto IV with the Arrow and Conrad, and the sons of the latter: Otto VII, John IV and probably also the youngest, Waldemar.[253] They were carefully informed by traitors from Przemys? II's inner circle about the King's itinerary for the next few days.

In the meanwhile, Przemys? II participated in the traditional tournaments and religious services of the Carnival. The security guard of the King became weaker, especially since probably 8 February. On that day began the forty days of Lent, and before heading out again the entourage wanted to rest.

The plan of kidnap the King by the Margraves of Brandenburg was widely detailed by the Roczniki ma?opolski.[15] They probably wanted to obtain from Przemys? II the resignation of Pomerelia and with this, his plans for the unification of Polish Kingdom. The contingent was probably consisted by dozens of people, because made the kidnapping in hostile territory require adequate preparation. Direct command of the army was entrusted, according to the Rocznik ko?backi[254] to certain Jakub, who was identified by Edward Rymar[255] as Jakub Guntersberg (Jakub Kaszuba).

Although the personal participation of the Margraves in the kidnapping[256] was stated in the Rocznik kapitu?y pozna?skie[242] and the chronicle of Jan D?ugosz,[257] this fact seems unlikely, because they would not risk their lives, with no certainty of success. In any case, an army of a few dozen men set off in the evening on 7 February (probably after sunset), by the shortest route through Note? to the place where Przemys? II stayed. As was stated by Karol Górski,[258] the sunset of 7 February (or properly 30 January, if we taken into account the subsequent calendar reform) occurred at 16:48, and the sunrise had come about 7:38, which gave fourteen hours to the army to quietly reach to their target.

The attack took place early in the morning of 8 February, on Ash Wednesday, when the bodyguards of the King were in a deep sleep. Despite this, they were able to organize a defense under the personal guidance of the King, but the attackers were too numerous to overcome. The primary objective of Jakub Kaszuba's people was the capture of Przemys? II; they succeeded only after the King, covered with numerous wounds, fell to the ground. The Brandenburg army seriously wounded his horse to flee towards the border with Silesia (probably with the intention to confuse the Polish army). Soon, the kidnappers realized that they weren't able to bring alive the King, and the prisoner only delays their escape. Then decided the murder of the King, a deed personally made by Kaszuba.[259] A late tradition says that the murder took place probably in the village of Sierniki,[260] about 6.5 km east from Rogo?no. The King's body was abandoned on the road, where was found by the knights involved in the persecution. The place where the crime was committed and his body was found (pl: por?bania) was traditionally named Por?blic. The assassins were never caught.

Thus, there is much convincing evidence for the participation of the Margraves of Brandenburg in the murder. According to Kazimierz Jasi?ski,[261] that efficient action wasn't possible without the participation of people who was close to Przemys? II. Historians are divided about what of two noble families, Nacz or Zaremba, participated in this event. The Zarembas are more suspect based on the writings of the Rocznik ma?opolski:;[15] the rebellion of 1284, certainly caused a deterioration in their relations with the King. About the Nacz family, there is no accusation against them in the Rocznik ?wi?tokrzyskiego nowy[262] or in the chronicle of D?ugosz;[263] in fact, modern historiography writes about the friendly relationship of Przemys? II with the Grzyma?a and ?odzia families, and also with the Nacz.

Aftermath

Although the death of Przemys? II, last male member of the Piast Greater Poland line, certainly surprised his neighbors (including Brandenburg, whose purpose was to kidnap the king, not his murder), it caused the rapid intervention of all the forces who wanted to seize power in his domains. Probably even in February, and by March, Greater Poland was in the middle of a confrontation between W?adys?aw I the Elbow-high (supported by Boles?aw II of P?ock)[264] and Henry III of G?ogów (with the help of Bolko I of Opole).[265]

The war, if it really took place, didn't last long, because on 10 March 1296 in Krzywi? an armistice was signed.[266] Under the agreement, the Elbow-high accepted the rights of the Duke of G?ogów over Greater Poland, following the terms of his previous treaty with Przemys? II. In addition the Duke of Kujawy adopted Henry III's eldest son Henry as his heir, while ensuring that at the moment of his majority the Elbow-high would provide him with the Duchy of Pozna?.[267]

It's not known why W?adys?aw I the Elbow-high considered that Henry III of G?ogów had better rights to Greater Poland than him. Generally, historians believe that it was probably because of the constant threat of Brandenburg, who seized the land of Note? and the castles in Wiele?, Czarnków, Uj?cie, Santok and Drezdenko.[268]

The second reason for W?adys?aw I the Elbow-high's quick agreement with Henry III of G?ogów was the intervention in Gda?sk of his nephew Leszek of Inowroc?aw, which made claims to this part of the lands of Przemys? II.[269] Finally, thanks to the fast intervention of the Elbow-high in Pomerelia, Leszek retreated to his paternal domains in Inowroc?aw after receiving as compensation the town of Wyszogród.

With the death of Przemys? II came the partition of his domains, and only thanks to the instant reaction of W?adys?aw I the Elbow-high, the losses against of Brandenburg, G?ogów and Kujawy were relatively small.

Seals and coinage

During his reign Przemys? II had only five seals:

Przemys? II's seal, naming him Premisl II Dei Gracia Regis Poloniae Domini Pomeraniae[270]
  • The first seal was inherited from his father and manifesting standing figure with a pennant in his right hand and a shield in his left. On the dial bears a climbing lion. On both sides of the form appear standing towers, with trumpeters blowing horns. The character of the prince's hand is shown blessing of God. Around an inscription: "Sig. Premislonis Dei Gra(cia) Ducis Polonie". This seal was in consequence used conclusively between the years 1267-1284.
  • The second seal and coat of arms shows a climbing lion, and around is shown the inscription: "S. Premizlonis Dei Gra(cia) Ducis Polonie". Przemys? II used this form of seal during 1267-1289.
  • The third seal, depicting the same elements of the first (figure is, however, larger and on the dial instead of a lion appears an eagle without crown), bears the inscription: "Sig Premislonis Secundi Dei Gra(cia) Ducis Polonie". It's known only from a single document issued on 12 September 1290.
  • The fourth seal, used during the years 1290-1295, is larger than the previous ones and shows the prince standing with pointed cap on his head. In his left hand he holds a shield with a crowned eagle, the right pennant with crowned eagle, which runs ribbon with the inscription "Et Cra".[271] At the bottom of the seal bears trampled by the ruler a dragon. In the rim bears the same inscription as on the third seal.
  • The fifth seal was used by Przemys? II after his coronation, during 1295-1296. The new stamp is majestic and shows on the obverse the king sitting on a throne in a long robe and with long hair, wearing a crown on his head, holding in his left hand an apple with a cross in the right scepter. On the right hand of the king, the throne bears a helmet with feathers. An inscription around the seal is shown: "S. Premislii Dei Gracia. Regis. Polonie (et Ducis) Pomoranie".[272] It also includes the inscription, according to K. Górski (in "Rocznik Gda?ski", XII, 1938, p. 29): "S(igillum) Premislii Dei Gracia Regis Polonorum et Ducis Pomora(nie)". The inscription on the seal raises some doubt due to the damage to the preserved copy of the seal according to the reconstruction of Stanis?aw Krzy?anowski[272] reads: "Reddidit Ips(e Deus) Victricia Signa. Polonis".

Historians do not agree why Przemys? II replaced the seal used by his father and uncle for a lion and an eagle. It's believed that either he wanted to emphasize his procedence from the Piast dynasty (the eagle in the coat of arms was also used by W?adys?aw III Spindleshanks and W?adys?aw Odonic), or with the symbol wanted to emphasize his rights inherited from Henryk IV Probus.[273]

There is no known coin which can certainly be attributed to Przemys? II. However, due to the existence of mints, confirmed by sources,[274] it is possible that many coin portrayals were misinterpreted by experts. Some historians attributed to the Greater Poland ruler two types of coins: the Bracteate, preserved in seven copies, showing a portrait in profile with a crown, holding in his hands a sword, and a coin preserved in a single copy, which differs from the first model inscription "REX" and the crowning headgear (on the second copy appears topped with a cross). Both coins resemble the Denarius from times of Boles?aw II the Generous.[275]

Economic policy

Due to the nature of the extant sources from the times of Przemys? II (documents, and narrative texts recording mainly -if not exclusively- political events) it is difficult to indicate what the major plans of action of the King in the economic sphere were. The most important ally for Przemys? II was the Roman Catholic Church, and for obvious reasons (copyists and translators, in the vast majority, are from the clergy) most documents who detailed their collaboration have been preserved to this day.

One of the most important political allies of Przemys? II was Jakub ?winka, Archbishop of Gniezno. Already on 8 January 1284 he managed to obtain the village of Polanów.[107] Much more important grace of the King to Archbishop Jakub was received on 1 August when he obtained the right of mint his own coins in ?nin and the castellany of L?d. Moreover, under these privilege of coins mint, the Archbishop was to be treated as equal with the Greater Poland ruler.[276] Two years later, on 20 June 1286 there was a failed attempt to get the same privilege of the Archbishop to Duke Boles?aw II of Masovia in ?owicz; this became in the basis for the economic independence of Jakub and the economic power of Greater Poland.[277] Also, the Bishop of Pozna? received similar grants from Przemys? II for example, in 1288 in the city of ?ródka,[278] in 1289, an exemption from merchantil taxes to the episcopal city of Buk,[279] and finally, in 1290, was approved the grant of German law for S?upca. For political reasons, there is no similar support to other bishops -with one exception- in 1287, Przemys? II released Bishop Konrad of Lubusz from the current Polish law and authorized the implementation of the German law in his diocese.[280]

The Greater Poland ruler also tried to support monastical Orders. The surviving sources showed that among the most favored were the Cistercians and especially his monasteries in L?d (who received grants in the years 1280, 1289, 1291 and 1293),[281]?ekno (1280, 1283, 1288),[282] and Go?cikowo (1276, 1277, 1290).[283] Those enjoying a little less support included the Benedictines (especially the monastery of Lubin, who received privileges in the years 1277, 1294, 1296),[284] and Dominicans (his friary in Pozna? received in 1277 the right to fishing on the Warta,[285] and the monastery of Wronki monetary grants). Przemys? II also granted small privileges to military orders: the Templars,[286] the Hospitallers,[287] and the Canons of the Holy Sepulchre.[288]

Przemys? II also favored the middle class, and happily to this day many documents regarding this have survived. In 1280, the capital Pozna? bought from the government lands and utilities, and received income from stalls and shambles. Three years later, the merchants were freed from paying some taxes in Greater Poland.[289] The second main city in Greater Poland, Kalisz, received in 1282 the confirmation of some rights previously granted by Boles?aw the Pious.[290] In 1283, the Duke extended the town privileges in all the cities of Greater Poland following the model of Kalisz (Privilege of Kalisz).[291] In 1287 another city was granted privileges for the Jewish community to establish a local cemetery in the village of Czaszki[292]). In 1289 a city obtained consent for the construction of five pharmacies and the authorization of a sixth[293]). In 1291 cloth sellers received from the Duke the revenue from customs duties, and the city received 12 pieces of land for the purpose of grazing[294]). In 1292 an exmption from customs duties levied in O?obok was granted.[295]) In 1294 noble privileges, based on former and existing German laws, were granted in the city of Kalisz[296]).

In addition to the privileges granted to Pozna? and Kalisz, other individual privileges given to Pyzdry in 1283 (exemption from paying customs duties merchants in Greater Poland[297]), to Rogo?no in 1280 (implementation of the German law[298]) and Elbl?g in 1294 (confirmation of privileges given by Mestwin II[299]).

References

  1. ^ Only nominal; he actually took over the government of Pozna? in 1273, aged sixteen. A. Swie?awski: Przemys? król Polski, Warsaw 2006, pp. 95-96.
  2. ^ Only nominal (without actually reigning in the district) but used the title even in subsequent years, for example, on the occasion of the congress in Kalisz in 1293. Codex diplomaticus Maioris Poloniae, ed. E. Raczynski, Pozna? 1840, nr 76; Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. II, nr 692.
  3. ^ a b "Przemys? II". piastowie.kei.pl. Retrieved 2016.
  4. ^ "Polak Wszechczasów - Przemys? II". Archived from the original on 26 June 2018. Retrieved 2016.
  5. ^ Supe?, Grzesiek. "Przemys? II - Poczet w?adców Polski". Retrieved 2016.
  6. ^ Pietrzyk, Bogdan. "Henryk IV". Retrieved 2016.
  7. ^ "Próby zjednoczenia pa?stwa polskiego w XIII i XIV wieku". Archived from the original on 12 May 2016. Retrieved 2016.
  8. ^ Supe?, Grzesiek. "Henryk Probus - Poczet w?adców Polski". Retrieved 2016.
  9. ^ a b "Przemys? II - król Polski zamordowany".
  10. ^ chariot.pl, Agencja Interaktywna. "Ma?opolskie Centrum Kultury SOKÓ? - mcksokol.pl - Czesi w Ma?opolsce. Doba Przemy?lidów". Archived from the original on 3 November 2016. Retrieved 2016.
  11. ^ "Próby zjednoczenia ziem polskich - Wirtualny Wszech?wiat".
  12. ^ "Przemys? II (1257-1296) - Wybitni Wielkopolanie - Region Wielkopolska o miejsca które warto odwiedzi?". Retrieved 2016.
  13. ^ Olszowski, Micha?. "historycy.org -> Uk?ad w K?pnie". Retrieved 2016.
  14. ^ "1295 r.: Koronacja Przemys?a II na króla Polski - Blisko Polski".
  15. ^ a b c d e Rocznik ma?opolski, [in:] MPH, vol. III, p. 187.
  16. ^ Kronika wielkopolska, Warsaw 1965, vol. 119, pp. 260-261: "In the same year (ie in 1257) was born the son of Przemy?l the Good Duke of Greater Poland, in Pozna?, on Sunday morning, the feast of the martyr Saint Callixtus (Pope Callixtus I). And when the canons and vicars of Pozna? sang morning prayers at the end of the ninth lesson came and told the news for the birth of a boy. So immediately momentous voice began to sing the Te Deum laudamus - because of the morning the Office, as with joy at the birth of a boy - to praise God that so much grace deigned to comfort the Polish".
  17. ^ B. Nowacki: Przemys? II, ksi wielkopolski, król Polski 1257-1295, Pozna? 1995, p. 43.
  18. ^ http://www.archiwum2015.sobieniejeziory.pl/upload/POM_SOBIENIE_BISKUPIE_CZ.II.pdf
  19. ^ Kronika wielkopolska, Warsaw 1965, vol. 119, pp. 260-261.
  20. ^ Especially if it is compared with the analogous case of the name W?adys?aw, who in earlier sources is in the form W?odzis?aw, possibly W?odko. See K. Jasinski: Genealogia Piastów wielkopolskich. Potomstwo W?adys?awa Odonica, [in:] Nasi Piastowie (Kronika Miasta Poznania, nr 2/95), Pozna? 1995, pp. 39-40.
  21. ^ Rocznik Ko?backi: MGH SS, vol. XIX, p. 716.
  22. ^ O. Balzer: Genealogia Piastów, Kraków 1895, pp. 243-250
  23. ^ K. Górski: ?mier? Przemys?a II, Roczniki Historyczne, vol. V, Pozna? 1929, p. 198.
  24. ^ K. Jasi?ski: Genealogia Piastów wielkopolskich. Potomstwo W?adys?awa Odonica, [in:] Nasi Piastowie (Kronika Miasta Poznania, nr 2/95), Pozna? 1995, p. 53.
  25. ^ For example Z. Boras: Przemys?aw II. 700-lecie koronacji, Mi?dzychód 1995, p. 14
  26. ^ However, it did not encompass the proper Governorship of the Duchy of Pozna?, contenting herself with the direct rule over only her dower land, the village of Modrze. T. Jurek: El?bieta [in:] Piastowie Leksykon Biograficzny, edited by S. Szczura and K. O?óga, Kraków 1999, p. 414.
  27. ^ Their names appeared on a document granted by Boles?aw the Pious on 8 November 1267. This document is also the first mention of Przemys? II. See Codex diplomaticus Poloniae, vol. I, nr 52 and A. Swie?awski: Przemys?. Król Polski, Warsaw 2006, pp. 92-93.
  28. ^ Indirect proof may be that such language skills were inherited from his father Przemys? I. Kronika wielkopolska, ed. B. Kürbis, translation by K. Abgarowicz, introduction and commentaries by B. Kürbisówna, Warsaw 1965, vol. 118, pp. 257-260.
  29. ^ Kronika wielkopolska, Warsaw 1965, vol. 161, pp. 295-297.
  30. ^ Some historians, such as A. Swie?awski: Przemys?. Król Polski, Warsaw 2006, pp. 93-94 or Z. Boras, Przemys?aw II. 700-lecie koronacji, Mi?dzychód 1995, pp. 19-20, believes that in fact only a small part of the defense was actually killed during the acquisition of the fortress, and the survivors of the Greater Poland army, as suggested by Jan D?ugosz, were who saved Przemys? II's life.
  31. ^ Kronika wielkopolska, Warsaw 1965, pp. 295-297.
  32. ^ Hedwig, mother of Boles?aw the Pious, was probably a daughter of Duke Mestwin I of Pomerelia. O. Balzer: Genealogia Piastów, Kraków 1895, p. 221; W. Dworzaczek, Genealogia, Warsaw 1959, arr. 2 and 17; K. Jasinski, Uzupe?nienia do genealogii Piastów, "Studies ?ród?oznawcze", Vol. V, 1960, p. 100; K. Jasinski: Genealogia Piastów Wielkopolskich. Potomstwo W?adys?awa Odonica, "Kronika Miasta Poznania", Vol. II, 1995, pp. 38-39.
  33. ^ K. Jasi?ski: Gda?sk w okresie samodzielno?ci politycznej Pomorza Gda?skiego, [in:] Historia Gda?ska edited by Edmund Cie?lak, Gda?sk 1985, vol. I (to 1454), pp. 283-297.
  34. ^ In contemporary sources, her name is variously recorded as Lucardis, Lucartha or Lukeria. See B. Nowacki: Przemys? II, ksi wielkopolski, król Polski 1257-1295, Pozna? 1995, p. 54.
  35. ^ It is unknown how many years had Ludgarda at the time of the wedding. Based on indirect sources, historians accept that she could be born around 1259 (B. Nowacki: Przemys? II ksi wielkopolski, król Polski 1257-1295, Pozna? 1995, p. 54), in 1260 or 1261 (K. Jasi?ski: Genealogia Piastów wielkopolskich. Potomstwo W?adys?awa Odonica, [in:] Nasi Piastowie "Kronika Miasta Poznania", nr 2/95, Pozna? 1995, p. 54), and finally, about 1261 (A. Swie?awski: Przemys?. Król Polski, Warsaw 2006, p. 94). In consequence, the Mecklenburg princess would be around 13-15 years at that time.
  36. ^ Kronika wielkopolska, Warsaw 1965, p. 297.
  37. ^ Wspominki pozna?skie, [in:] MPH SN, vol. VI, Warsaw 1962, pp. 125; A. Swie?awski: Przemys?. Król Polski, Warsaw 2006, p. 95.
  38. ^ Also, historiography is not consistent in this regard, and additional confusion exists around the order of events. K. Jasinski, Przemys? II, [in:] Polish Biographical Dictionary, Vol XXVIII, Wroc?aw 1984-1985, p. 730, and K. O?óg: Przemys? II, [in:] Piastowie. Leksykon biograficzny, Kraków 1999, pp. 154-155, reports that firstly Przemys? II received its own district, and then, according to the will of Boles?aw the Pious, married with Ludgarda of Mecklenburg. Information about the rebellion against his uncle (discussed below), however, seems to suggest that in fact it was the opposite, ie: the prince firstly married Ludgarda, and then, dissatisfied with the lack of influence in the government affairs, rebelled to receive his own patrimony, and as a result he obtained the Duchy of Pozna?. This sequence of events is supported by B. Nowacki: Przemys? II ksi wielkopolski, król Polski 1257-1295, Pozna? 1995, pp. 54-58 and A. Swie?awski: Przemys?. Król Polski, Warsaw 2006, pp. 95-96.
  39. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski (Kodeks Dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski), Vol. I, No 453.
  40. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, Vol. II, No. 639.
  41. ^ It is unknown who were these people. It only assumes that they could be young prince's closest associates during his government over the Duchy of Pozna? in 1273-1279. They were: the Governor of Pozna? Benjamin Zaremba, the Chancellor and later Bishop of Pozna? Andrzej Zaremba, the esquire Pietrzyk, the Pozna? Chamberlain Bogus?aw Domaradzic Grzyma?, the Prince's notary Tylon, his confessor Theodoric, and the incumbent Bishop of Pozna? Miko?aj I. See B. Nowacki: Przemys? II ksi wielkopolski, król Polski 1257-1295, Pozna? 1995, pp. 58-59.
  42. ^ A. Swie?awski: Przemys?. Król Polski, Warsaw 2006, p. 97.
  43. ^ Some doubts about this theory are raised because the fact that Peter Winiarczyk was rewarded after 16 years of the events. A. Swie?awski: Przemys? król Polski, Warsaw 2006, pp.97-98.
  44. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, Vol. VI, No. 25. This alliance was known only from a write-down document without date and place of origin, and the issue of giving a chronological time to that document is quite complicated (years 1273-1278 during the rule of Przemys? II over Pozna?). The analysis of the events can be assumed that the most possible date could be half year of 1273. Cf A. Swie?awski: Przemys?. Król Polski, Warsaw 2006, p. 96. Other historians (for example, B. Nowacki: Przemys? II ksi wielkopolski, król Polski 1257-1295, Pozna? 1995, pp. 59-61) give as date for the conclusion of the alliance the year 1276.
  45. ^ Cf. S. Zachorowski: Wiek XIII i panowanie W?adys?awa ?okietka, [in:] R. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. D?browski: Dzieje Polski ?redniowiecznej w dwu tomach, vol. I to 1333, Kraków 1995, p. 271: Here is further related the long-term conflict between the Kingdoms of Hungary and Bohemia after the fall of the Babenberg dynasty, who ended with the defeat of Przemy?l Otakar II in the Battle on the Marchfeld in 1278. Should be remembered, however, that after 1273 the Polish princes who were on the Hungarian side changed unexpectedly his politics and transferred their loyalty to the Bohemian side (probably due to the inability to find cooperation with the regency who ruled Hungary on behalf of the young King Ladislaus IV). More about this conflict could be see in: A. Barciak: Ideologia polityczna monarchii Przemys?a Ottokara II. Studium z dziejów czeskiej polityki zagranicznej w drugiej po?owie XIII wieku, Katowice 1982.
  46. ^ This date is favoured by K. O?óg: Przemys? II, [in:] Piastowie. Leksykon biograficzny, Kraków 1999, p. 154, and A. Swie?awski: Przemys?. Król Polski, Warsawa 2006, pp. 96-97. From another opinion is B. Nowacki: Przemys? II ksi wielkopolski, król Polski 1257-1295, Pozna? 1995, p. 58, which accept a date of about 1275 as most the accepted date for the beginning of Przemys? II's rule in Pozna?. J. Topolski: Dzieje Wielkopolski, vol. I, Pozna? 1969, p. 294 and W. Dworzaczek: Genealogia, Warsawa 1959, table 2, are in favor of the year 1277.
  47. ^ A. Swie?awski: Przemys?. Król Polski, Warszawa 2006, p. 97.
  48. ^ More information about these events in B. Nowacki: Przemys? II ksi wielkopolski, król Polski 1257-1295, Pozna? 1995, pp. 62-68, cf. Kronika ksit polskich, ed. Z. W?glewski, [in:] MPH, vol.III, Lwów 1878, p. 496.
  49. ^ Henry III the White (Henryk IV's father) was brother of Duchess Elisabeth of Pozna? (Przemys? II's mother)
  50. ^ K. O?óg: Przemys? II, [in:] Piastowie. Leksykon biograficzny, Kraków 1999, p. 155.
  51. ^ Kronika ksit polskich, ed. Z. W?glewski, [in:] MPH, vol. III, Lwów 1878, p. 496.
  52. ^ Modern historiography (for example K. O?óg: Przemys? II [in:] Piastowie. Leksykon biograficzny, Kraków 1999, p. 155; B. Nowacki: Przemys? II ksi wielkopolski, król Polski 1257-1295, Pozna? 1995, pp. 67-69 and A. Swie?awski: Przemys?. Król Polski, Warsaw 2006, p. 99) considered the capture of Przemys? II as doubtful, because only Jan D?ugosz reports this and other contemporary sources are silent about this event.
  53. ^ J. D?ugosz: Roczniki, czyli kroniki s?awnego Królestwa Polskiego, Fr. VII, p. 250.
  54. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. III, nr 2030.
  55. ^ A. Wa?ko: Henryk IV Prawy (Probus), [in:] Piastowie. Leksykon biograficzny, Kraków 1999, pp. 427-428
  56. ^ K. O?óg: Boles?aw Pobo?ny, [in:] Piastowie. Leksykon biograficzny, Kraków 1999, p. 146.
  57. ^ At the same time, he issued a proclamation addressed to the Polish, in which he emphasized the brotherhood between the two nations and a common threat from Germany. A. Barciak: Ideologia polityczna monarchii Przemys?a Ottokara II. Studium z dziejów czeskiej polityki zagranicznej w drugiej po?owie XIII wieku, Katowice 1982, pp. 43 ff.
  58. ^ This list of ruler is provided by B. Nowacki: Przemys? II ksi wielkopolski, król Polski 1257-1295, Pozna? 1995, p. 69.
  59. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. I, nr 482.
  60. ^ K. O?óg: Przemys? II, [in:] Piastowie. Leksykon biograficzny, Kraków 1999, p. 155.
  61. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. I, nr 473.
  62. ^ Mature historiography moved Boles?aw's expedition to the end of May or early June. See W. Rybczy?ski: Wielkopolska pod rz?dami synów W?adys?awa Odonica (1235-1279), [in:] "Rocznik Filarecki", I, 1886, pp. 316-317.
  63. ^ Rocznik Traski, [in:] MPH, vol. II, Lwów 1872, p. 844.
  64. ^ Cf. A. Swie?awski: Przemys?. Król Polski, Warsawa 2006, p. 100.
  65. ^ J. Powierski: Krzy?acka polityka Przemys?a II w pierwszym okresie jego aktywno?ci politycznej, [in:] Przemys? II. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, edited by J. Krzy?aniakowej, Pozna? 1997, pp. 117-118.
  66. ^ A completely different date is fixed by J. T?gowski: W sprawie emendacji dokumentu Przemys?a II dotycz?cego powrotu Siemomys?a na Kujawy, "Zapiski Kujawsko-Dobrzy?skie", serie A, 1978, pp. 213-219. He draws attention to the possibility of a mistake in the date of the document and the correct year of publication would be 1279. However, no other sources confirmated this and T?gowski thesis remains only a hypothesis.
  67. ^ Przemys? II had then only less than 20 years. It seems obvious that with the much olders Leszek II the Black and Ziemomys? of Inowroc?aw not have asked for his direct arbitration but rather to his uncle Boles?aw, who (perhaps due to his war against Brandenburg or wanting to raise the prestige of his nephew), declined his participation in the meeting by sending Przemys? II with a retinue of experienced advisors: Maciej, Castellan of Kalisz; Bodzenta, Castellan of Ladz; Andrzej, Castellan of Nakielsk; Bodz?ta, Castellan of Gieck; Bierwo?t, Castellan of L?dzki and the Gniezno knight Bogumil. Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. III, nr 482, por. A. Swie?awski, Przemys? król Polski, Warszawa 2006, s. 99.
  68. ^ The dispute was because the close ties between Ziemomys? with the Teutonic Order, at the expense of the local noble families. Early in 1271 Ziemomys? had suffered the rebellion of his subjects and temporary had lost his Duchy of Inowroc?aw, who was placed under the guardianship of both Boles?aw the Pious and Leszek II the Black. S. Sroka, Siemomysl [in] Piast Biographical Lexicon, Cracow, 1999, pp. 208-209.
  69. ^ Ziemomys?'s eldest son Leszek recovered Wyszogród after Mestwin II's death in 1294. S. Sroka: Siemomys?, [in:] Piastowie. Leksykon biograficzny, Kraków 1999, p. 209.
  70. ^ Not taking into account the later tense relations between Przemys? II and W?adys?aw I the Elbow-high during his brief reign in Kraków. The friendly relations with the descendants of Casimir I of Kuyavia with the Greater Poland ruler was reflected, as some historians believed in the name chosen to Ziemomys?'s second son, Przemys?, during his exile in L?d. S. Sroka: Przemys? II, [in:] Piastowie. Leksykon biograficzny, Kraków 1999, p. 223.
  71. ^ Described in this was by the Rocznik kaliski. See. B. Nowacki: Przemys? II ksi wielkopolski, król Polski 1257-1295, Pozna? 1995, p. 79.
  72. ^ A. Swie?awski: Przemys?. Król Polski, Warszawa 2006, p. 100; O. Balzer: Genealogia Piastów, Kraków 1895, p. 232; W. Dworzaczek: Genealogia, Warsaw 1959, table 2.
  73. ^ K. Jasi?ski: Genealogia Piastów wielkopolskich. Potomstwo W?adys?awa Odonica, [in:] Nasi Piastowie ("Kronika Miasta Poznania", nr 2/95), Pozna? 1995, p. 42; K. O?óg: Boles?aw Pobo?ny, [in:] Piastowie. Leksykon biograficzny, Kraków 1999, pp. 142-147
  74. ^ Jolenta-Helena shortly after her husband's death moved to Kraków next to her sister, the later Saint Kinga, which after the death of her husband Boles?aw V the Chaste entered in the Poor Clares monastery at Stary S?cz. In this convent she stayed, according to various sources, either until the Mongol invasion in 1287 or until the death of her sister in 1292. Then she returned to Greater Poland and generously provided by Przemys? II, resided in the Poor Clares monastery in Gniezno, where she died on 11 June 1298, venerated as a saint. E. Rudzki: Polskie królowe, vol. I, p. 12.
  75. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. I nr 485, 486, 488, 489, 491, 492, 493, 494, 496.
  76. ^ B. Nowacki: Przemys? II, ksi wielkopolski, król Polski 1257-1295, Pozna? 1995, pp. 81-82; A. Swie?awski: Przemys?. Król Polski, Warsaw 2006, pp. 101-103.
  77. ^ During 1278 Greater Poland had constant conflicts with the Margraviate of Brandenburg. After this year, none of the parties undertook further hostilities. In subsequent years, there was even warming relations. In addition, the Duke of Greater Poland had remarkably friendly relations with Mestwin II of Pomerelia, Leszek II the Black, and since 1281 with Henry IV Probus. A. Swie?awski, Przemys? król Polski, Warsaw 2006, p. 105.
  78. ^ It is unknown where exactly the meeting took place, because none of the contemporary sources of these events mention it. Historians have theorized that it could have been either S?dowel (cf. K. O?óg: Przemys? II, [in:] Piastowie. Leksykon biograficzny, Kraków 1999, pp. 155-156) or Barycz (cf. Z. Boras: Przemys?aw II. 700-lecie koronacji, Mi?dzychód 1995, p. 25), but these are based only on indirect sources.
  79. ^ Rocznik Traski, [in:] MPH, vol. II, p. 847.
  80. ^ R. Grodecki: Dzieje polityczne ?l?ska do r. 1290, [in:] Historia ?l?ska od najdawniejszych czasów do roku 1400, edited by S. Kutrzeby, vol. I, Kraków 1933, pp. 289-290
  81. ^ The plans for a royal coronation for Henryk IV Probus proved to be serious, and are further confirmed by a document signed in 1280 between him and his father-in-law W?adys?aw of Opole, in which the latter requested that, in return for his help in this matter, his own daughter (wife of Henry IV) would be crowned Queen with him. B. Nowacki: Przemys? II, ksi wielkopolski, król Polski 1257-1295, Pozna? 1995, p. 83.
  82. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, nr 504; K. Jasi?ski: Stosunki Przemys?a II z mieszcza?stwem, [in:] Czas, przestrze?, praca w dawnych miastach: Studia ofiarowane Henrykowi Samsonowiczowi w szedziesi?t? rocznic? urodzin, Warsawa 1991, p. 325.
  83. ^ J. Baszkiewicz: Powstanie zjednoczonego pa?stwa polskiego na prze?omie XIII i XIV wieku, Warsaw 1954.
  84. ^ E. Rymar: Rodowód ksit pomorskich. Szczecin 2005, tabl. VI.
  85. ^ B. ?liwi?ski: Sambor II, [in:] Polski S?ownik Biograficzny, vol. XXXIV, Wroc?aw 1993, p. 405.
  86. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. I, nr 501.
  87. ^ The case ended unsuccessfully for Mestwin II: the legate's verdict, issued in the name of Pope Martin IV on 18 May in Milicz, forced the Duke of Pomerelia to transfer Gniew to the Teutonic Order. Bia?ogard remained in Pomerelia, but in return, the Duke had to give a few villages in the Ait in compensation. K. Zielinska: Zjednoczenie Pomorza Gda?skiego z Wielkopolska pod koniec XIII w. Umowa k?pi?ska 1282 r., Toru? 1968, pp. 82-88.
  88. ^ The selection of the frontier village of K?pno as a place of meeting could have had a double purpose: first, it might have been to facilitate contact with Papal legate Filippo di Fermo, then in Milicz (K. Zielinska: Zjednoczenie Pomorza Gda?skiego z Wielkopolska pod koniec XIII w. Umowa k?pi?ska 1282 r., Toru? 1968, p. 51), and second, it could have been a political demonstration by Przemys? II directed against Henry IV Probus (B. Nowacki: Przemys? II, ksi wielkopolski, król Polski 1257-1295. Pozna? 1995, p. 88).
  89. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. I, nr 503.
  90. ^ O. Balzer: Królestwo Polskie, vol. II, Lwów 1919, pp. 266-267
  91. ^ Z. Wojciechowski: Ho?d Pruski i inne studia historyczne, Pozna? 1946, p. 98.
  92. ^ A. Swie?awski: Przemys?. Król Polski, Warsawa 2006, pp. 107-108; B. Nowacki: Przemys? II, ksi wielkopolski, król Polski 1257-1295, Pozna? 1995, pp. 88-90.
  93. ^ Postanowienia uk?adu k?pi?skiego (15 lutego 1282). [in:] "Przegl?d Historyczny", vol. LXXXII, 1991, pp. 219-233.
  94. ^ Chronica Oliviensis auctore Stanislao abbate Olivensi, [w:] MPH, t. VI, p. 315, and Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. I, nr 544. However, other dates for this meeting are also theorized. For the years 1288-1291 is J. Bieniak: Postanowienia uk?adu k?pi?skiego (15 lutego 1282) [in:] "Przegl?d Historyczny", vol. LXXXII, 1991, p. 228, while for the year 1287 is B. ?liwi?ski: Rola polityczna mo?now?adztwa na Pomorzu Gda?skim w czasach M?ciwoja II, Gda?sk 1987, pp. 187-191.
  95. ^ For example, in 1283 Miko?aj Zaremba received from Mestwin II in gratitude for his faithful services the village of Kr?piechowice. Four years later, he was appointed voivode of Tczew. Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. II, nr 739, 740.
  96. ^ The exact date of death of the Duchess of Greater Poland is unknown; it is only corroborated that she was buried on 14 December 1283 in Gniezno Cathedral. The contemporary sources who certify this are Roznik Traski, [in:] MPH, vol. II, p. 849, and Rocznik Ma?opolski, [in:] MPH, vol. III, p. 182. Only Jan D?ugosz stated that Ludgarda died in Pozna?, and her date of death is precisely 14 December; J. D?ugosz: Annales seu cronicae incliti Regni Poloniae, Fr. VII, Warsaw 1975, pp. 225-226; see also O. Balzer: Genealogia Piastów, Kraków 1895, p. 246; W. Dworzaczek: Genealogia, Warsaw 1959, table 2; K. Jasi?ski: Genealogia Piastów wielkopolskich. Potomstwo W?adys?awa Odonica. [in:] Nasi Piastowie ("Kronika Miasta Poznania", nr 2/95), Pozna? 1995, p. 55.
  97. ^ Sources medieval sources actually inventing sensational information about the unnatural deaths of rulers, especially in relation of the Silesian princes during the years 1266-1290, because is noted the fact that deaths of four rulers (brothers: Henry III the White, W?adys?aw and Konrad I of G?ogów, and Henryk IV Probus) were under suspicions of poisoning. See B. Nowacki: Przemys? II, ksi wielkopolski, król Polski 1257-1295., Pozna? 1995, p. 93.
  98. ^ Rocznik Traski, [in:] MPH, vol. II, p. 849. Chronicler obviously mistakenly identified Ludgarda's father with her uncle. Probably this mistake was originated because at the time of the writing, Henry I was taken prisoner during a pilgrimage to the Holy Land and his brother Nicholas III assumed the government of Mecklenburg on his behalf.
  99. ^ Rocznik ma?opolski, [in:] MPH, vol. III, p. 183.
  100. ^ Chronica Oliviensis auctore Stanislao abbate Olivensi, [in:] MPH, vol. VI, p. 315. Translation by B. Kürbis: O Ludgardzie, pierwszej ?onie Przemys?a II, raz jeszcze. [in:] Przemys? II. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, edited by J. Krzy?aniakowej, Pozna? 1997, p. 263.
  101. ^ B. Kürbis: O Ludgardzie, pierwszej ?onie Przemys?a II, raz jeszcze. [in:] Przemys? II. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, edited by J. Krzy?aniakowej, Pozna? 1997, pp. 263-264.
  102. ^ Jan D?ugosz: Annales seu cronicae incliti Regni Poloniae, Fr. VII-VIII, Warsaw 1975, pp. 225-226.
  103. ^ For the innocence Przemys? II and thus also for the natural death of Ludgarda are in favor A. Swie?awski: Przemys?. Król Polski., Warsaw 2006, pp. 110-111; B. Ulanowski: Kilka s?ów o maonkach Przemys?a II. [in:] "Rozprawy i Sprawozdania z Posiedze? Wydzia?u Historyczno-Filozoficznego Akademii Umiej?tno?ci", vol. XVII, 1884, p. 258; B. Nowacki: Przemys? II, ksi wielkopolski, król Polski 1257-1295., Pozna? 1995, pp. 93-94 and B. Kürbis: O Ludgardzie, pierwszej ?onie Przemys?a II, raz jeszcze. [in:] Przemys? II. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, edited by J. Krzy?aniakowej, Pozna? 1997, pp. 257-267. By the other hand, among who believed in the culpability of Przemys? II are K. O?óg: Przemys? II. [in:] Piastowie. Leksykon biograficzny, Kraków 1999, p. 156; K. Jasi?ski: Ludgarda. [in:] Polski S?ownik Biograficzny, vol. XVIII, 1973, p. 87; J. Wesio?owski: Zabójstwo ksinej Ludgardy w 1283 r. [in:] "Kroniki Miasta Poznania", Pozna? 1993, nr 1-2, p. 19 and B. Zientara: Przemys? II. [in:] Poczet królów i ksit polskich, reader, pp. 212-217.
  104. ^ K. Jasi?ski: Genealogia Piastów wielkopolskich. Potomstwo W?adys?awa Odonica, [in:] Nasi Piastowie ("Kronika Miasta Poznania", nr 2/95), Pozna? 1995, p. 55.
  105. ^ In 1271 Wolimir, Bishop of Kujawy was appointed vicar in temporalibus; however, he died three years later. Then the cantor Prokop was designated administrator of the Archdiocese of Gniezno. It was only in 1278 when Pope Nicholas III appointed Martin of Opava as the new Archbishop. However, this selection is not accepted by both Boles?aw the Pious and Przemys? II and the case was only solved by Martin's death shortly after in his route to Gniezno. The next two candidates proposed: W?o?cibor (by Przemys? II and Leszek II the Black) and Heinrich von Brehna (by the Papacy) refused their nominations. Finally, the selection of the Chapter in 1283 fell in Jakub ?winka, who, counted with the consent of both Przemys? II and Pope Martin IV, finally ended the vacancy. W. Karasiewicz: Jakób ?winka arcybiskup gnie?nie?ski 1283-1314, Pozna? 1948, pp. 5-10.
  106. ^ Rocznik Traski, [in:] MPH, vol. II, p. 849.
  107. ^ a b Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. I, nr 532.
  108. ^ W. Karasiewicz: Jakób ?winka arcybiskup gnie?nie?ski 1283-1314, Pozna? 1948, p. 91. Is suggested that Jakub ?winka give some unknown services to Przemys? II during his incarceration after the Battle of Stolec. There is no direct evidence of this.
  109. ^ S. Krzy?anowski: Dyplomy i Kancelaria Przemys?a II, [in:] "Pami?tnik Akademii Umiej?tno?ci", no 8 (1890), reg. 10.
  110. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. I, nr 542. Cf. J. Pakulski: Stosunki Przemys?a II z duchowie?stwem metropolii gnie?nie?skiej, [in:] Przemys? II. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, edited by J. Krzy?aniakowej, Pozna? 1997, pp. 87-88.
  111. ^ The intervention of Przemys? II in the conflict on the side of Brandenburg, who had been waiting in a good situation to settle down in Pomerania, had a negative view in historiography. K. Jasi?ski: Tragedia Rogozi?ska 1296 r. na tle rywalizacji wielkopolsko-brandenburskiej o Pomorze Gda?skie, [in:] "Zapiski Historyczne", vol. XXVI, t. 4, Toru? 1961, pp. 81-82; A. Swie?awski: Przemys?. Król Polski, Warsaw 2006, p. 113.
  112. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. I, nr 536. Recently B. Nowacki: Zabiegi o zjednoczenie pa?stwa i koronacj? królewsk? w latach 1284 i 1285 na tle rywalizacji Przemys?a II z Henrykiem Probusem, [in:] Przemys? II. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, edited by J. Krzy?aniakowej, Pozna? 1997, pp. 153-160, theorized that the relations between Przemys? II and Leszek II the Black weren't correct and the meeting of Sieradz actually was with the voivode of Kraków ?egota, member of the family Toporczyków, who was the leader of the opposition against Leszek II. According to this theory, an agreement was made between the Duke of Greater Poland and the Toporczyków family to overthrow the childless Leszek II and give the throne of Kraków to Duke Konrad II of Czersk. With this procedure, would be impossible to Henry IV Probus to take Kraków. This idea, however, seems unlikely, since the first meeting was held in Sieradz, ie the territory belonging to Leszek II, so he had to known about the details of the discussions held there. Secondly, Bronis?aw Nowacki assumes that Henry IV Probus was informed about the talks in Sieradz, a fact even more unlikely it becomes apparent that the conspiracy against Leszek II was accorded here, especially if ?egota remained in his post until 1285, until the actual rebellion of the Toporczyków family, which clearly surprised Leszek II, because this is the only way to explain the information given by the Rocznik Traski, who clearly established that rebellion completely surprised Leszek II and only with the help of the Hungarians and Cumans was able to defeat the army of Konrad II in the Battle of Rab? on 3 May 1285; see P. ?mudzki: Studium podzielonego Królestwa. Ksi Leszek Czarny, Warsaw 2000, pp. 378-380, footnotes 82-84 on p. 379 and footnote 86 on p. 380; Rocznik Traski, [in:] MPH, vol. II, p. 851.
  113. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. I, nr 543.
  114. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. I, nr 544.
  115. ^ Rocznik Traski, [in:] MPH, vol. II, p. 850.
  116. ^ Jan Pakulski argues that this could have happened on 30 September. J. Pakulski: Ród Zarembów w Wielkopolsce w XIII wieku i na pocz?tku XIV wieku, "Prace Komisji Historii XI", Bydgoskie Towarzystwo Naukowe, serie C, nr 16, 1975, p. 128.
  117. ^ It is also possible that S?dziwój was already in the opposition against Przemys? II and in favor to Henryk IV Probus, and that fire of Kalisz was only a pretext in order to give the castle to the Duke of Wroc?aw. A. Swie?awski: Przemys? król Polski, Warsaw 2006, pp. 114-116.
  118. ^ B. Nowacki: Przemys? II, ksi wielkopolski, król Polski 1257-1295, Pozna? 1995, pp. 94-95.
  119. ^ J. Pakulski: Ród Zarembów w Wielkopolsce w XIII wieku i na pocz?tku XIV wieku, "Prace Komisji Historii XI", Bydgoskie Towarzystwo Naukowe, serie C, nr 16, 1975, p. 127.
  120. ^ The return of S?dziwój to Greater Poland seems surprising because was expected that after his betrayal he would remain in the court of Henry IV Probus. Perhaps his return was temporary, in order to include Beniamin in a wider conspiracy against Przemys? II. This could be explained why the Duke of Greater Poland imprisoned both. K. Jasi?ski: Rola polityczna mo?now?adztwa wielkopolskiego w latach 1284-1370, RH, XXIX, 1963, p. 221.
  121. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. I, nr 562.
  122. ^ A. Swie?awski: Przemys?. Król Polski, Warsawa 2006, pp. 115-116, supported the theory that S?dziwój also returned to Greater Poland around this time. See Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. VI, nr 36.
  123. ^ A. Swie?awski: Przemys?. Król Polski, Warsaw 2006, p. 120.
  124. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. I, nr 568.
  125. ^ K. Jasi?ski: Szwedzkie mae?stwo ksi?cia wielkopolskiego Przemys?a II (Ryksa, ?ona Przemys?a), [in:] Monastycyzm, S?owia?szczyzna i pa?stwo polskie. Warsztat badawczy historyka, edited by K. Bobowskiego, Wroc?aw 1994, pp. 69-80.
  126. ^ This was a retaliation for the expulsion of Tomasz II Zaremba, Bishop of Wroc?aw. Rocznik Traski, [in:] MPH, vol. II, p. 851.
  127. ^ W. Karasiewicz: Jakób ?winka arcybiskup gnie?nie?ski 1283-1314, Pozna? 1948, p. 21; P. ?mudzki: Studium z podzielonego królestwa. Ksi Leszek Czarny, Warsaw 2000, p. 416, speculates that during this meeting Przemys? II gave Ziemomys? of Inowroc?aw the town of Bydgoszcz. Others believed that this event was earlier, in the meeting of L?d orchestated by Boles?aw the Pious.
  128. ^ Rocznik Traski, [in:] MPH, vol. II, p. 851; W. Karasiewicz: Dzia?alno polityczna Andrzeja Zaremby w okresie jednoczenia pa?stwa polskiego na prze?omie XIII/XIV wieku, Pozna? 1961.
  129. ^ A. Swie?awski, Przemys?. Król Polski, Warszawa 2006, p. 121-122. Some historians speculated that he received this nickname for his involvement in the crime of Rogo?no. However, there is no proof of this.
  130. ^ It seems quite unlikely that Przemys? II was completely unaware about the planned expedition. This apparent ignorance could be motivated by a political subtext, facilitating later an agreement with Henryk IV Probus. A. Swie?awski: Przemys? król Polski, Warsaw 2006, p. 122.
  131. ^ J. D?ugosz: Roczniki czyli kroniki s?awnego Królestwa Polskiego, Fr. VII, Warsaw 1974, p. 308.
  132. ^ S. Zachorowski: Wiek XIII i panowanie W?adys?awa ?okietka, [w:] Dzieje Polski ?redniowiecznej w dwu tomach, t. I do roku 1333, Kraków 1926, p. 350.
  133. ^ B. Popielas-Szultka: Przemys? II a Pomorze Zachodnie (stosunki polityczne), [in:] Przemys? II. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, edited by J. Krzy?aniakowej, Pozna? 1997, p. 149.
  134. ^ E. Rymar: Studia i Materia?y z dziejów Nowej Marchii i Gorzowa. Szkice historyczne, Gorzów Wielkopolski 1999, pp. 30-31.
  135. ^ O. Balzer: Królestwo Polskie, vol. I, Lwów 1919, pp. 272-275. According to this treaty, the inheritance rights would be in the following way: after the death of Leszek II, his domains were received by Henryk IV, then after his death, Przemys? II, after finally Henry III of G?ogów received all from the deceased princes. The agreement was facilitated by the fact that all the princes were then childless.
  136. ^ R. Grodecki: Dzieje polityczne ?l?ska do r. 1290, [in:] Historia ?l?ska od najdawniejszych czasów do roku 1400, edited by S. Kutrzeby, vol. I, Kraków 1933, pp. 314-315.
  137. ^ W. Karasiewicz: Jakób ?winka arcybiskup gnie?nie?ski 1283-1314, Pozna? 1948, p. 96.
  138. ^ J. Baszkiewicz: Powstanie zjednoczone pa?stwa polskiego na prze?omie XIII i XIV wieku, Warsaw 1954, pp. 386-394.
  139. ^ S. Musia?: Bitwa pod Siewierzem i udzia? w niej Wielkopolski, [w:] Przemys? II. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, edited by J. Krzy?aniakowej, Pozna? 1997, p. 163.
  140. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. II, nr 620.
  141. ^ Rocznik Traski, [in:] MPH, vol. II, p. 852.
  142. ^ O. Balzer: Genealogia Piastów, Kraków 1895, p. 249.
  143. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, t. II, nr 631. In this document Przemys? II also expressed his desire to be buried next to her.
  144. ^ O. Balzer: Genealogia Piastów, Kraków 1895, p. 333.
  145. ^ A. Swie?awski: Przemys?. Król Polski, Warsaw 2006, pp. 124-127.
  146. ^ Rocznik Traski, [in:] MPH, t. II, s. 852. J. D?ugosz: Roczniki czyli kroniki s?awnego Królestwa Polskiego, Fr. VII, Warsaw 1974, p. 310, wrongly mentions Henry V the Fat of Legnica as an ally of Henryk IV Probus and part of the fight. However, further analysis of the events clearly indicates that the prince who was in the fight was Bolko I of Opole. See S. Musia?: Bitwa pod Siewierzem i udzia? w niej Wielkopolski, [in:] Przemys? II. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, edited by J. Krzy?aniakowej, Pozna? 1997, pp. 161-166.
  147. ^ Shortly afterwards, and for unknown reasons, W?adys?aw I the Elbow-high became the leader of the coalition, and after the resignation of Konrad II of Czersk managed to control Sandomierz. R. Grodecki: Dzieje polityczne ?laska do r. 1290. [in:] Historja ?laska od najdawniejszych czasów do 1400. edited by A. Kutrzeby, vol. I, Kraków 1933, p. 317.
  148. ^ Nagrobki ksit ?l?skich, [in:] MPH, vol. III, p. 713; Kronika ksit polskich, [in:] MPH, vol. III, p. 536,
  149. ^ A. Swie?awski: Przemys?. Król Polski, Warsaw 2006, p. 126.
  150. ^ R. Grodecki: Dzieje polityczne ?l?ska do r. 1290, [in:] Historia ?l?ska od najdawniejszych czasów do roku 1400, edited by S. Kutrzeby, vol. I, Kraków 1933, p. 317.
  151. ^ K. Jasi?ski: Rodowód Piastów ?l?skich, vol. I, Wroc?aw 1973, p. 161.
  152. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. II, nr 645.
  153. ^ T. Jurek: Dziedzic Królestwa Polskiego ksi g?ogowski Henryk (1274-1309), Pozna? 1993, p. 14.
  154. ^ A. Swie?awski: Przemys?. Król Polski, Warsaw 2006, pp. 126-128.
  155. ^ They are first-cousins: Przemys? II's mother Elisabeth was sister of Henryk IV's father Henry III the White.
  156. ^ For Oswald Balzer (O. Balzer: Królestwo Polskie, vol. I, Lwów 1919, pp. 272-275) the will was to be a proof for the conclusion of the First Piast coalition. The fact that the participation of Greater Poland troops in the Battle of Siewierz, however, reveals hostile relations with Henryk IV after 1287. Some historians (cf. K. O?óg: Przemys? II, [in:] Piastowie. Leksykon biograficzny, Kraków 1999, p. 157) believes that the Duke of Greater Poland received the inheritance from Henryk IV in gratitude for his support in his coronation plans. Finally, the hypothesis supported by Tomasz Jurek (T. Jurek: Testament Henryka Probusa. Autentyk czy falsyfikat?, "Studia ?ród?oznawcze", XXXV, p. 95) under which the will was, in fact, a forgery, and in his real testament Henryk IV gave his Lesser Poland domains to Bolko I of Opole.
  157. ^ B. Nowacki: Przemys? II ksi wielkopolski, król Polski 1257-1295, Pozna? 1995, p. 123.
  158. ^ A. Swie?awski: Przemys?. Król Polski, Warsaw 2006, p. 127.
  159. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Ma?opolski, ed. F. Piekosi?ski, vol. III, Kraków 1887, nr 515.
  160. ^ This is due probably to the principle followed by Przemys? II in the count of his titles. This happened despite the claims made by W?adys?aw I the Elbow-high over Kraków, who even appointed a voivode for this city, although he didn't have real control over the land. J. Bieniak: Zjednoczenie Pa?stwa Polskiego, [in:] Polska dzielnicowa i zjednoczona. Pa?stwo, Spo?ecze?stwo, Kultura, edited by A. Gieysztora, Warsawa 1972, pp. 202-278.
  161. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. II, nr 644.
  162. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. II, nr 647.
  163. ^ A. Swie?awski: Przemys?. Król Polski, Warsaw 2006, p. 133.
  164. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, t. II, nr 651, ed. T. Nowakowski, Krakowska kapitu?a katedralna wobec panowania Przemy?lidów w Ma?opolsce w latach 1292-1306, PH, vol. LXXXII, 1991, no 1, p. 12.)
  165. ^ A. Teterycz: Ma?opolska elita w?adzy wobec zamieszek politycznych w Ma?opolsce w XIII wieku, [in:] Spo?ecze?stwo Polski ?redniowiecznej, edited by S. Kuczy?skiego, t. IX, Warsaw 2001, p. 80.
  166. ^ T. Nowakowski: Stosunki mi?dzy Przemys?em II a W?adys?awem ?okietkiem w okresie walk o Kraków po ?mierci Leszka Czarnego (1288-1291), RH, LIV, 1988, p. 159; T. Pietras: Krwawy wilk z pastora?em. Biskup krakowski Jan zwany Muskat?, Warsaw 2001, p. 38; S. Zachorowski: Wiek XIII i panowanie W?adys?awa ?okietka, [in:] R. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. D?browski: Dzieje Polski ?redniowiecznej w dwu tomach, vol. I to 1333, Kraków 1995, p. 343.
  167. ^ A. Swie?awski: Przemys?. Król Polski, Warsaw 2006, p. 136.
  168. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. II, nr 657, 658. The departure from Kraków certainly wasn't considered by Przemys? II as an abandonment of the area. Evidence of this was the fact that ?egota, Kraków castellan, joined Przemys? II in his retirement. A. Swie?awski: Przemys? król Polski, Warsaw 2006, p. 135.
  169. ^ Petra ?itovskeho kronika zbraslavska, [in:] Fontes rerum Bohemicarum, vol. IV, edited by J. Emler, Prague 1884, p. 60; T. Jurek: Przygotowania do koronacji Przemys?a II, [in:] Przemys? II. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, Pozna? 1997, p. 168.
  170. ^ Cronica Przibconis de Tradenina dicti Pulcaua, [in:] Fontes rerum Bohemicarum, vol. V, edited by J. Emler, Prague 1893, p. 175.
  171. ^ At the head of the Bohemia party was Pawe? of Przemankowo, Bishop of Kraków. B. Nowacki: Przemys? II ksi wielkopolski, król Polski 1257-1295, Pozna? 1995, pp. 133-134; T. Nowakowski: Ma?opolska elita w?adzy wobec rywalizacji o tron krakowski w latach 1288-1306, Bydgoszcz 1992, p. 46.
  172. ^ Bishop Pawe? of Kraków did not assist at the synod, which is indirect proof of his support of the Bohemian pretensions. A. Swie?awski: Przemys?. Król Polski, Warsaw 2006, p. 142.
  173. ^ Rocznik Kujawski, [in:] MPH, vol. III, p. 209; B. Nowacki: Czeskie roszczenia do korony w Polsce w latach 1290-1335, Pozna? 1987, p. 52.
  174. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. II, nr 665.
  175. ^ Rocznik Traski, [in:] MPH, vol. II, p. 852; Rocznik S?dziwoja, [in:] MPH, vol. II, p. 879.
  176. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. II, nr 745.
  177. ^ It unknown the nature of the alliance, but due to the withdrawal of Przemys? II with him after the Congress of Kalisz in 1293 can be assumed that it was a classic treaty of mutual inheritance, from which Przemys? II was relieved after the birth of Henry III's firstborn son Henry (later in 1292). T. Jurek: Dziedzic Królestwa Polskiego ksi g?ogowski Henryk (1274-1309), Pozna? 1993, p. 23.
  178. ^ Zbiór dokumentów ma?opolskich, edited by S. Kura? and I. Su?kowska-Kura?, cz. IV, Wroc?aw 1969, nr 886; Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, t. II, nr 692. The document is dated 6 January.
  179. ^ Evidenced by the agreements about the succession in Kraków. Due to the de facto possession of Wenceslaus II over this land, this would bring a future war. A. Swie?awski: Przemys?. Król Polski, Warsawa 2006, p. 150.
  180. ^ A. Swie?awski: Przemys?. Król Polski, Warsaw 2006, pp. 149-150.
  181. ^ O. Balzer: Genealogia Piastów, Kraków 1895, p. 342.
  182. ^ W. Dworzaczek: Genealogia, Warsawa 1959, tabl. 3; O. Balzer: Genealogia Piastów, Kraków 1895, p. 252. They placed the marriage shortly before the death of Boles?aw the Pious.
  183. ^ W. Dworzaczek: Genealogia, Warsaw 1959, tabl. 58; K. Jasi?ski: Genealogia Piastów wielkopolskich. Potomstwo W?adys?awa Odonica, [in:] Nasi Piastowie ("Kronika Miasta Poznania", nr 2/95), Pozna? 1995, p. 156.
  184. ^ K. Jasi?ski: Uzupe?nienia do genealogii Piastów, "Studia ?ród?oznawcze", 1960, p. 105.
  185. ^ A. Swie?awski: Przemys?. Król Polski, Warszawa 2006, p. 152.
  186. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. II, nr 715.
  187. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. II, nr 720.
  188. ^ It is certain that Przemys? II was in Pomerelia on 14 October, since that day he confirmed in Gda?sk the economic privileges to Elbl?g. Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. II, nr 726.
  189. ^ The next known document by Przemys? II after 14 October 1294 was issued on 6 April 1295 in ?wiecie; Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. II, nr 732. There is no certainty where he was between those dates.
  190. ^ E. Rymar: Rodowód ksit pomorskich., Szczecin 2005, p. 268.
  191. ^ A. Swie?awski: Przemys?. Król Polski., Warsaw 2006, p. 153.
  192. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. II, nr 632.
  193. ^ Rocznik Traski, [in:] MPH, vol. II, p. 853; Rocznik S?dziwoja, [in:] MPH, vol. II, p. 879; Rocznik wielkopolski 1192-1309, edited by A. Bielowski, [in:] MPH, vol. III, p. 40.
  194. ^ according to the Chronicle of Greater Poland Rocznik wielkopolski 1192-1309, [in:] MPH, vol. III, p. 40.
  195. ^ Rocznik kapitu?y pozna?skiej 965-1309, [in:] MPH, SN, vol. VI, Warsaw 1962, p. 53.
  196. ^ The consents of the Bishops of Wroc?aw and Kraków for the coronation are rejected by some historians. Indeed, their approval wasn't required for the validity of the coronation. Z. Dalewski: Ceremonia koronacji Przemys?a II, [in:] Przemys? II. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, edited by J. Krzy?aniakowej, Pozna? 1997, p. 211.
  197. ^ O. Balzer: Królestwo Polskie 1295-1370, vol. I, Lwów 1919, p. 338.
  198. ^ K. Tymieniecki: Odnowienie dawnego królestwa polskiego, [in:] "Kwartalnik Historyczny", XXXIV, 1920, pp. 48-49.
  199. ^ A. Swie?awski: Przemys?. Król Polski, Warsaw 2006, pp. 164-165.
  200. ^ W?adys?aw I the Elbow-high and, less likely, Siemowit of Dobrzy? and Boles?aw II of Masovia could be present at the ceremony. J. Bieniak: Znaczenie polityczne koronacji Przemys?a II, [in:] Orze? bia?y. Herb pa?stwa polskiego, edited by S. Kuczy?skiego, Warsaw 1996, p. 51, and T. Jurek: Dziedzic Królestwa Polskiego ksi g?ogowski Henryk (1274-1309), Pozna? 1993, p. 31, their assistance doesn't seem possible, because, according to the writings of 14th century chronicler Jan of Czarnków, the Piast princes could be very sensitive to any such restriction of their political freedom. See B. Nowacki: Przemys? II 1257-1296. Odnowiciel korony polskiej, Pozna? 1997, p. 147.
  201. ^ For example, there are no preserved informations about a papal consent for the coronations of Wenceslaus II in 1300 and Ryksa-Elisabeth in 1303. Despite this fact, the approval of the Pope by Przemys? II is extremely popular among historians. K. O?óg: Przemys? II, [in:] Piastowie, Leksykon biograficzny, Kraków 1999, p. 159, even detailed that the delegation sent to Rome was led by Dominican friar Piotr ?y?a.
  202. ^ Chronica Oliviensis auctore Stanislao abbate Oliviensi, Secunda tabula benefactorum, [in:] MPH, vol. VI, Kraków 1893, p. 315.
  203. ^ Petra Zitavskeho kronika zbraslavska, [in:] Fontes rerum Bohemicarum, t. IV, edited by J. Emler, Prague, 1884, p. 60. The author stated that Przemys? II managed to get the crown as a result of misappropriation of funds, which were sent to Rome. A. Barciak: Czeskie echa koronacji Przemys?a II, [in:] Przemys? II. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, edited by J. Krzy?aniakowej, Pozna? 1997, p. 225.
  204. ^ A. Swie?awski: Przemys?. Król Polski, Warsaw 2006, p. 163.
  205. ^ Perhaps the reason for this recognition was the subsequent marriage of Wenceslaus II to Przemys? II's daughter Richeza-Elizabeth. Petra Zitavskeho kronika zbraslavska, [in:] Fontes rerum Bohemicarum, vol. IV, edited by J. Emler, Prague, 1884, p. 60.
  206. ^ A. Barciak: Czeskie echa koronacji Przemys?a II, [in:] Przemys? II. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, edited by J. Krzy?aniakowej, Pozna? 1997, p. 225.
  207. ^ S. Kutrzeba: Historia ustroju Polski w zarysie, vol. I, Korona, Warsaw 1905, pp. 44-45.
  208. ^ About the Greater Poland Kingdom wrote: S. K?trzy?ski: O królestwie wielkopolskim, PH, VIII 1909, p. 131 ff; J. Baszkiewicz: Powstanie zjednoczonego pa?stwa polskiego na prze?omie XIII i XIV wieku, Warsaw 1954, p. 242. In turn, emphasized its universal nature (King of all Poland): S. Krzy?anowski: Regnum Poloniae, [in:] "Sprawozdanie Akademii Umiej?tno?ci, Wydzia? Historyczno-Filozoficzny", 1909, nr 5, p. 1; O. Balzer: Królestwo Polskie, vol. II, Lwów 1919, p. 321.
  209. ^ A. Swie?awski: Przemys?. Król Polski, Warsaw 2006, pp. 168-169.
  210. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. II, nr 737, 739.
  211. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. II, nr 740.
  212. ^ Evidence of this is the sentence in the introduction to the Chronicle: "especially in the reign of King Przemy?l", which strictly regulates the editors of the first version of the work for the period between 25 June 1295 (coronation) and 8 February 1296 (death). Kronika wielkopolska, transl. K. Abgarowicz, edited by B. Kürbisówna, Warsaw 1965, s. 44.
  213. ^ K. Górski: ?mier? Przemys?a II, [w:] "Roczniki Historyczne", vol. V, Pozna? 1929.
  214. ^ Rocznik kapitu?y pozna?skiej 965-1309, [in:] MPH, SN, vol. VI, Warsaw 1962, p. 40; K. Jasi?ski: Tragedia rogozi?ska 1296 roku na tle rywalizacji wielkopolsko-brandenburskiej o Pomorze Gda?skie, [in:] "Zapiski Historyczne", vol. XXVI, t. 4, Toru? 1961, s. 71.
  215. ^ Kronika oliwska, ed. Wojciech K?trzy?ski, [in:] MPH, vol. VI, Kraków 1893, p. 135. A. Jelicz: By czas nie za?mi? i niepami. Wybór kronik ?redniowiecznych, Warsaw 1975, p. 110.
  216. ^ Liber mortuorum monasterii Oliviensis, ed. W. K?trzy?ski, [in:] MPH, vol. V, p. 507.
  217. ^ K. Górski: ?mier? Przemys?a II, [in:] "Roczniki Historyczne", t. V, Pozna? 1929, p. 172.
  218. ^ Milliman, Paul (2013). 'The Slippery Memory of Men': The Place of Pomerania in the Medieval Kingdom of Poland. Brill. p. 105.
  219. ^ Translation by Karol Górski (K. Górski: ?mier? Przemys?a II, [in:] "Roczniki Historyczne", vol. V, Pozna? 1929, p. 198), indicated that possibly the name Peter was taken in baptism, although there is no confirmation of this information in any other source.
  220. ^ Interpretation of the text by K. Jasi?ski: Tragedia rogozi?ska 1296 roku na tle rywalizacji wielkopolsko-brandenburskiej o Pomorze Gda?skie, [in:] "Zapiski Historyczne", vol. XXVI, t. 4, Toru? 1961, p. 72.
  221. ^ Rocznik ma?opolski, [in:] MPH, vol. III, p. 182.
  222. ^ a b Rocznik S?dziwoja, [in:] MPH, vol. II, p. 879.
  223. ^ Kronika ksit polskich, ed. Z. W?glewski, [in:] MPH, vol. III, Lwów 1878, p. 541.
  224. ^ Rocznik Traski, [in:] MPH, vol. II, p. 853.
  225. ^ Lites gestae inter Polonos ordinemque cruciferorum, vol. I, second edition, edited by Z. Celichowski, Pozna? 1890, p. 150; K. Jasi?ski: Tragedia rogozi?ska 1296 roku na tle rywalizacji wielkopolsko-brandenburskiej o Pomorze Gda?skie, [in:] "Zapiski Historyczne", vol. XXVI, t. 4, Toru? 1961, p. 90.
  226. ^ Annales Toruniensis, [in:] Scriptores rerum Prussicarum, vol. III, p. 62.
  227. ^ Petra ?itovskeho kronika zbraslavska, [in:] Fontes rerum Bohemicarum, vol. IV, ed. J. Emler, Prague 1884, p 61.
  228. ^ Text from K. Górski: ?mier? Przemys?a II, [in:] "Roczniki Historyczne", vol. V, Pozna? 1929, p. 177.
  229. ^ Rocznik ?wi?tokrzyski nowy ed. A. Bielowski [in:] MPH, vol. III Normal 0 21, p. 76; B. Nowacki: Przemys? II 1257-1296. Odnowiciel korony polskiej, Pozna? 1997, p. 162.
  230. ^ Katalog biskupów krakowskich, ed. W. K?trzy?sk, [in:] MPH, vol. III, p. 365.
  231. ^ K. Tymieniecki: Odnowienie dawnego królestwa polskiego, [in:] "Kwartalnik Historyczny", XXXIV, 1920, p. 42; here the author agrees with the version of the Katalog.
  232. ^ J. D?ugosz: Roczniki czyli kroniki s?awnego Królestwa Polskiego, fr. VIII, pp. 368-372.
  233. ^ Kronika Marcina Bielskiego, ed. K. Turowski, Sanok 1856, fr. I, s. 349, although he pointed that Wenceslaus II was the main responsible for the crime.
  234. ^ Kronika Polska Marcina Kromera biskupa warmi?skiego, vol. XXX in three languages: Latin, Polish and German. Polish translation from Latin by Martin from B?a?owa B?a?owskiego. Currently third edition in Polish, vol. I, Sanok 1868, fr. I, pp. 533-534.
  235. ^ Rocznik Traski, [in:] MPH, vol. II, p. 853.
  236. ^ Rocznik ?wi?tokrzyski nowyw: MPH, vol. III, p. 76.
  237. ^ Kalendarz w?oc?awski, ed. A. Bielowski, [in:] MPH, vol. II, p. 942.
  238. ^ Liber mortuorum monasterii Oliviensis, ed. W. K?trzy?ski, MPH, vol. V, p. 507.
  239. ^ Rocznik kapitu?y pozna?skiej 965-1309, [in:] MPH, SN, vol. VI, Warsawa 1962, p. 53. This seems extremely surprising because it would seem that this was the best-informed source of the events. Perhaps the author had a mistake with the beginning of the carnival in Rogo?no. B. Nowacki: Przemys? II 1257-1296. Odnowiciel korony polskiej, Pozna? 1997, p. 157; B. Kürbisówna: Dziejopisarstwo wielkopolskie w XIII i XIV w., Warsaw 1959, pp. 74-80.
  240. ^ Liber mortuorum monasterii Oliviensis, ed. W. K?trzy?ski, MPH, vol. V, p. 627; O. Balzer: Genealogia Piastów, Kraków 1895, pp. 243-244
  241. ^ J. D?ugosz: Roczniki czyli kroniki s?awnego Królestwa Polskiego, fr. VIII, p. 369. Here D?ugosz gives a double date: 8 February, festivity of Saint Dorothy (Dorothea of Caesarea), who clearly was a mistake because the feast of this Saint is on 6 February.
  242. ^ a b Rocznik kapitu?y pozna?skiej 965-1309, [in:] MPH, SN, t. VI, Warsaw 1962, p. 40.
  243. ^ B. Ulanowski: Kilka s?ów o maonkach Przemys?awa II, [in:] "Rozprawy Akademii Umiej?tno?ci w Krakowie. Wydz. Historyczno-Filozoficzny", vol. XVIII, 1884, p. 271, ed. 1; A. Semkowicz: Krytyczny rozbiór "Dziejów Polski" Jana D?ugosza (do roku 1384), Kraków 1887, pp. 317-318; S. Kujot: Dzieje Prus Królewskich, [in:] "Roczniki Towarzystwa Naukowego w Toruniu", vol. XXII, 1915, pp. 1171-1174; W. Semkowicz: Ród Awda?ców w wiekach ?rednich, [in:] "Roczniki Pozna?skiego Towarzystwa Przyjació? Nauk", vol. XLVI, 1920, p. 187; O. Balzer: Królestwo Polskie 1295-1370, Lwów 1919, p. 253; F. Koneczny: Dzieje Polski za Piastów, Kraków 1902, pp. 303-304; T. Tyc: Walka o kresy zachodnie, [in:] "Roczniki Historyczne", vol. I, 1925, p. 49; K. Tymieniecki: Odnowienie dawnego królestwa polskiego, [in:] "Kwartalnik Historyczny", XXXIV, 1920, pp. 42-44; E. D?ugopolski: W?adys?aw ?okietek na tle swoich czasów, Wroc?aw 1951, pp. 32-37; K. Olejnik: Obrona polskiej granicy zachodniej 1138-1385. Okres rozbicia dzielnicowego i monarchii stanowej, Pozna? 1970, p. 142; J. Bieniak: Zjednoczenie pa?stwa polskiego, [in:] Polska dzielnicowa i zjednoczona. Pa?stwo, spo?ecze?stwo, kultura, edited by A. Gieysztora, Warsaw 1972, pp. 228-229; J. Bieniak: Przemys? II, [in:] "Polski S?ownik Biograficzny", vol. XXVIII/1, fr. 119, pp. 730-731; T. Silnicki and K. Gob: Arcybiskup Jakub ?winka i jego epoka, Warsaw 1956, pp. 229-230; J. Baszkiewicz: Powstanie zjednoczonego pa?stwa polskiego na prze?omie XIII i XIV wieku, Warsaw 1954, pp. 263-264; P. Jasienica: Polska Piastów, Warsaw 1996, pp. 233-234; A. Jureczko: Testament Krzywoustego, Kraków 1988, p. 76; W. Fenrych: Nowa Marchia - w dziejach politycznych Polski XIII i XIV wieku, Pozna? 1959, pp. 31-34; H. ?owmia?ski: Pocz?tki Polski, vol. VI/2, Warsaw 1985, p. 871; J. Dowiat: Polska pa?stwem ?redniowiecznej Europy, Warsaw 1968, p. 275; K. O?óg: Przemys? II, [in:] Piastowie. Leksykon biograficzny, Kraków 1997, pp. 160-161; B. Zientara: Przemys? II, [in:] Poczet królów i ksit polskich, Warsaw 1984, p. 217.
  244. ^ K. Górski: ?mier? Przemys?a II, [in:] "Roczniki Historyczne", vol. V, Pozna? 1929,
  245. ^ K. Jasi?ski: Tragedia rogozi?ska 1296 roku na tle rywalizacji wielkopolsko-brandenburskiej o Pomorze Gda?skie, [in:] "Zapiski Historyczne", vol. XXVI, t. 4, Toru? 1961; K. Jasi?ski: Rola Polityczna mo?now?adztwa wielkopolskiego w latach 1284-1314, [in:] "Roczniki Historyczne", t. XXIX, 1963.
  246. ^ Z. Boras: Ksita piastowscy Wielkopolski, Pozna? 1983; Z. Boras: Przemys?aw II. 700-lecie koronacji, Mi?dzychód 1995.
  247. ^ B. Nowacki: Przemys? II 1257-1296. Odnowiciel korony polskiej, Pozna? 1997; B. Nowacki: Przemys? II ksi wielkopolski, król Polski 1257-1295, Pozna? 1995.
  248. ^ E. Rymar: Próba identyfikacji Jakuba Kaszuby, zabójcy króla Przemys?a II, w powi?zaniu z ekspansj? Brandenbursk? na pó?nocne obszary Wielkopolski, [in:] Niemcy - Polska w ?redniowieczu. Materia?y z konferencji naukowej zorganizowanej przez Uniwersytet Adama Mickiewicza w dniach 14-16 XI 1983, ed. J. Strzelczyka, Pozna? 1986; E. Rymar: Przynale?no polityczna wielkopolskich ziem zanoteckich mi?dzy doln? Draw?, doln? Gwd?, oraz Wielenia, Czarnkowa i Uj?cia w latach 1296-1368, [in:] "Roczniki Historyczne", t. 50, 1984; E. Rymar: Stosunki Przemys?a II z margrabiami brandenburskimi ze starszej linii aska?skiej w latach 1279-1296, [in:] Przemys? II. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, ed. J. Krzy?aniakowej, Pozna? 1997.
  249. ^ W. Karasiewicz: Dzia?alno polityczna Andrzeja Zar?by w okresie jednoczenia si? pa?stwa polskiego na prze?omie XIII/XIV w., Pozna? 1961.
  250. ^ J. Pakulski: Nacze wielkopolscy w ?redniowieczu. Genealogia, uposa?enie i rola polityczna XII-XIV w., Warsaw 1982
  251. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. II, p. 758.
  252. ^ E. Rymar (Stosunki Przemys?a II z margrabiami brandenburskimi ze starszej linii aska?skiej w latach 1279-1296, [in:] Przemys? II. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, ed. J. Krzy?aniakowej, Pozna? 1997, pp. 142-144) hypothesized that the direct impulse to try to kidnap the king was the decision of Pope Boniface VIII to appointed the Dominican Piotr (who had friendly relations with Greater Poland) as Bishop of Kamie?, an event who was clearly unfavorable to Brandenburg. For the House of Ascania it then became clear that all the diplomatic pressure against Przemys? II and his alliance with Western Pomerania were doomed to failure and, therefore, they lost any chance of winning Pomerelia.
  253. ^ B. Nowacki: Przemys? II ksi wielkopolski, król Polski 1257-1295, Pozna? 1995, pp. 141-142.
  254. ^ Rocznik ko?backi, MGH SS, vol. XIX, p. 716
  255. ^ E. Rymar: Próba identyfikacji Jakuba Kaszuby, zabójcy króla Przemys?a II, w powi?zaniu z ekspansj? Brandenbursk? na pó?nocne obszary Wielkopolski, [in:] Niemcy - Polska w ?redniowieczu. Materia?y z konferencji naukowej zorganizowanej przez Uniwersytet Adama Mickiewicza w dniach 14-16 XI 1983, ed. J. Strzelczyka, Pozna? 1986, p. 209.
  256. ^ K. Górski: ?mier? Przemys?a II, [in:] "Roczniki Historyczne", vol. V, Pozna? 1929, pp. 191-192.
  257. ^ J. D?ugosz: Roczniki czyli kroniki s?awnego Królestwa Polskiego, fr. VIII, p. 369.
  258. ^ K. Górski: ?mier? Przemys?a II. [in:] "Roczniki Historyczne", vol. V, Pozna? 1929, p. 173.
  259. ^ E. Rymar: Próba identyfikacji Jakuba Kaszuby, zabójcy króla Przemys?a II, w powi?zaniu z ekspansj? Brandenbursk? na pó?nocne obszary Wielkopolski. [in:] Niemcy - Polska w ?redniowieczu. Materia?y z konferencji naukowej zorganizowanej przez Uniwersytet Adama Mickiewicza w dniach 14-16 XI 1983, ed. J. Strzelczyka, Pozna? 1986, p. 209.
  260. ^ K. Górski: ?mier? Przemys?a II. [in:] "Roczniki Historyczne", vol. V, Pozna? 1929, p. 198.
  261. ^ K. Jasi?ski: Tragedia rogozi?ska 1296 roku na tle rywalizacji wielkopolsko-brandenburskiej o Pomorze Gda?skie. [in:] "Zapiski Historyczne", vol. XXVI, t. 4, Toru? 1961, p. 65.
  262. ^ Rocznik ?wi?tokrzyski nowy..., p. 76.
  263. ^ J. D?ugosz: Roczniki czyli kroniki s?awnego Królestwa Polskiego, fr. VIII, p. 271.
  264. ^ O. Balzer: Królestwo Polskie 1295-1370, vol. I, Lwów 1919, pp. 350-351.
  265. ^ T. Jurek: Dziedzic Królestwa Polskiego ksi g?ogowski Henryk (1274-1309), Pozna? 1993, pp. 32-34.
  266. ^ B. ?liwi?ski: Wiosna 1296 roku w Wielkopolsce i na Pomorzu Gda?skim, [in:] Przemys? II. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, ed. J. Krzy?aniakowej, Pozna? 1997, pp. 233-235. The fact supporting the idea that fighting occurred in Greater Poland, despite previous historiography (for example E. D?ugopolski: W?adys?aw ?okietek na tle swoich czasów, Wroc?aw 1951, p. 35) was the destruction of property belonging to the Bishopric of Pozna?. See W. Karasiewicz: Dzia?alno polityczna Andrzeja Zaremby w okresie jednoczenia pa?stwa polskiego na prze?omie XIII/XIV wieku, Pozna? 1961, p. 31.
  267. ^ J. Bieniak: Wielkopolska, Kujawy, ziemia czycka i sieradzka wobec problemu zjednoczenia pa?stwowego w latach 1300-1306, Toru? 1969, pp. 122-123.
  268. ^ E. D?ugoposki: W?adys?aw ?okietek na tle swoich czasów, Wroc?aw 1951, pp. 33-34; K. Jasi?ski: Rola polityczna mo?now?adztwa wielkopolskiego w latach 1284-1314, [in:] "Roczniki Historyczne", vol. 39, 1963, p. 227; H. ?owmia?ski: Pocz?tki Polski, vol. VI/2, Warsaw 1985, p. 871. The threat of Brandenburg seems too dangerous that the annexation took place with the consent of the inhabitants of the towns, in the German-Polish border. See E. Rymar: Próba identyfikacji Jakuba Kaszuby, zabójcy króla Przemys?a II, w powi?zaniu z ekspansj? brandenbursk? na pó?nocne obszary Wielkopolski, [in:] Niemcy - Polska w ?redniowieczu. Materia?y z konferencji naukowej zorganizowanej przez Instytut Historii UAM w dniach 14-16 XI 1983 r., ed. J. Strzelczyka, Pozna? 1986, pp. 203-224; E. Rymar: Przynale?no polityczna wielkopolskich ziem zanoteckich mi?dzy doln? Draw? i doln? Gwd?, oraz Wielenia, Czarnkowa i Uj?cia w latach 1296-1368, [in:] "Roczniki Historyczne", L, 1984, pp. 39-84, and T. Jurek: Dziedzic Królestwa Polskiego ksi g?ogowski Henryk (1274-1309), Pozna? 1993, p. 33; in older historiography the intervention of the Margraves in Greater Poland was doubtful or even never existed. K. Górski: ?mier? Przemys?a II, [in:] "Roczniki Historyczne", vol. V, Pozna? 1929, p. 189; W. Karasiewicz: Dzia?alno polityczna Andrzeja Zaremby w okresie jednoczenia pa?stwa polskiego na prze?omie XIII/XIV wieku, Pozna? 1961, p. 19.
  269. ^ B. ?liwi?ski: Wiosna 1296 roku w Wielkopolsce i na Pomorzu Gda?skim, [in:] Przemys? II. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, ed. J. Krzy?aniakowej, Pozna? 1997, pp. 237-242.
  270. ^ poczet.com, Przemys? II (Pogrobowiec)
  271. ^ There is no known cause of why was abbreviated the Latin term "et Cra(covie)" and this despite the fact that there is enough space to place the entire phrase. Z. Piec: O piecz?ciach, herbach i monetach Przemys?a II (Uwagi dyskusyjne), [in:] Przemys? II. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, ed. J. Krzy?aniakowej, Pozna? 1997, pp. 181-198.
  272. ^ a b S. Krzy?anowski: Dyplomy i kancelaryja Przemys?awa II. Studyjum z dyplomatyki polskiej XIII wieku, [in:] "Pami?tnik Akademii Umiej?tno?ci, Wydzia?y Filologiczny i Historyczno-Filozoficzny", vol. VIII, 1890, p. 155.
  273. ^ A. Swie?awski: Przemys?. Król Polski, Warsaw 2006, pp. 145-146; S. K?trzy?ski: O dwóch piecz?ciach Przemys?a II z roku 1290, [in:] "Miesi?cznik heraldyczny", II, 1932, pp. 23-24.
  274. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. I, nr 49.
  275. ^ Z. Piech: O piecz?ciach, herbach, i monetach Przemys?a II (Uwagi dyskusyjne), [in:] Przemys? II. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, ed. J. Krzy?aniakowej, Pozna? 1997, pp.196-197.
  276. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. I, nr 542.
  277. ^ Nowy kodeks dyplomatyczny Mazowsza cz. II. Dokumenty z lat 1248-1355, ed. I. Su?kowska-Kura? and S. Kura? in cooperation with K. Paculeskiego and H. Wajsa, Wroc?aw 1989, nr 76.
  278. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. II, nr 625.
  279. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. II, nr 635.
  280. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. I, nr 585.
  281. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. II nr 636, 673, 695, vol. VI, nr 13.
  282. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. I nr 521, vol. II nr 617, vol. VI, nr 28.
  283. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. I, nr 459, 470, vol. II nr 653.
  284. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. I, nr 467, 469, vol. II, nr 729, 744, vol. III, nr 2030.
  285. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. I, nr 464.
  286. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. I, nr 516, 570, vol. II, nr 679.
  287. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. IV, nr 2058.
  288. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. I, nr 495, vol. II, nr 661.
  289. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. I, nr 519.
  290. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. I, nr 511.
  291. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. I, nr 528.
  292. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. I, nr 574.
  293. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. II, nr 640.
  294. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. II, nr 665, vol. I, nr 674.
  295. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. II, nr 689.
  296. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. II, nr 723.
  297. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. VI, nr 30.
  298. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. I, nr 615.
  299. ^ Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, vol. II, nr 726.

Bibliography

  • Henryk Andrulewicz, Geneza or?a bia?ego jako herbu Królestwa Polskiego w roku 1295, [in:] "Studia ?ród?oznawcze", vol. XIII, 1968, pp. 1-26.
  • Oswald Balzer, Genealogia Piastów, Kraków 1895.
  • Oswald Balzer, Królestwo Polskie 1295-1370, vol. I-III, Lwów 1919-1920.
  • Antoni Barciak, Czechy a ziemie po?udniowej Polski w XIII wieku oraz na pocz?tku XIV wieku. Polityczno-ideologiczne problemy ekspansji czeskiej na ziemie po?udniowej Polski, Katowice 1992.
  • Antoni Barciak, Czeskie echa koronacji Przemys?a II, [in:] Przemys? II. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, ed. Jadwiga Krzy?aniakowej, Pozna? 1997, pp. 225-232.
  • Jan Baszkiewicz, Powstanie zjednoczonego pa?stwa polskiego na prze?omie XIII i XIV wieku, Warsaw 1954.
  • Jan Baszkiewicz, Rola Piastów w procesie zjednoczenia pa?stwowego Polski, [in:] Piastowie w dziejach Polski. Zbiór artyku?ów z okazji trzechsetnej rocznicy wyga?ni?cia dynastii Piastów, ed. Roman Hecka, Wroc?aw 1975, pp. 49-68.
  • Zofia Biaowicz-Krygierowa, Pos?gi memoratywne Przemys?a II i Ryksy w dawnej Kaplicy Królewskiej katedry w Poznaniu, [in:] Przemys? II. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, ed. J. Krzy?aniakowej, Pozna? 1997, pp. 307-327.
  • Maria Bieli?ska, Kancelarie i dokumenty wielkopolskie XIII wieku, Wroc?aw 1967.
  • Maria Bieli?ska, Antoni G?siorowski, Jerzy ?ojko, Urz?dnicy wielkopolscy XII-XV wieku. Spisy, Wroc?aw 1985.
  • Janusz Bieniak, Postanowienia uk?adu k?pi?skiego (15 lutego 1282), [in:] "Przegl?d Historyczny", vol. LXXXII, 1991, pp. 209-232.
  • Janusz Bieniak, Zjednoczenie pa?stwa polskiego, [in:] Polska dzielnicowa i zjednoczona. Pa?stwo. Spo?ecze?stwo. Kultura, ed. A. Gieysztora, Warsaw 1972, pp. 202-278.
  • Janusz Bieniak, Znaczenie polityczne koronacji Przemys?a II, [in:] Orze? Bia?y. Herb pa?stwa polskiego, ed. S. Kuczy?skiego, Warsaw 1996, pp. 35-52.
  • Zbigniew Dalewski, Ceremonia koronacji Przemys?a II, [in:] Przemys? II. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, ed. J. Krzy?aniakowej, Pozna? 1997, pp. 199-212.
  • Edmund D?ugopolski, W?adys?aw ?okietek na tle swoich czasów, Wroc?aw 1951.
  • W?odzimierz Dworzaczek, Genealogia, Warsaw 1959.
  • S?awomir Gawlas, Polityka wewn?trzna Przemys?a II a mechanizmy spo?ecznych de? i konfliktów w Wielkopolsce jego czasów, [in:] Przemys? II. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, ed. J. Krzy?aniakowej, Pozna? 1997, pp. 65-80.
  • Karol Górski, ?mier? Przemys?a II, [in:] "Roczniki Historyczne", V, 1929, pp. 170-200.
  • Roman Grodecki, Polska piastowska, Warsaw 1969.
  • Roman Gumowski, Monety królewskie Przemys?awa II, [in:] "Wiadomo?ci Numizmatyczne", II, 1958, t. 3, pp. 11-15.
  • Marian Haisig, Herby dynastyczne Piastów i pocz?tki god?a pa?stwowego Polski, [in:] Piastowie w dziejach Polski. Zbiór artyku?ów z okazji trzechsetnej rocznicy wyga?ni?cia dynastii Piastów, ed. R. Heck, Wroc?aw 1975, pp. 149-166.
  • Wojciech Iwa?czak, El?bieta Ryksa - królowa, kobieta, mecenas sztuki, [in:] Nasi Piastowie, "Kronika miasta Poznania", 1995, nr 2, pp. 153-164.
  • Kazimierz Jasi?ski, Gda?sk w okresie samodzielno?ci politycznej Pomorza Gda?skiego, [in:] Historia Gda?ska, vol. I. ed. E. Cie?laka, Gda?sk 1978, pp. 271-297.
  • Kazimierz Jasi?ski, Genealogia Piastów wielkopolskich. Potomstwo W?adys?awa Odonica, [in:] Nasi Piastowie, "Kronika miasta Poznania", 1995, nr 2, pp. 34-66.
  • Kazimierz Jasi?ski, Ludgarda (ok. 1260-1283), pierwsza ?ona Przemys?a II, ksi?cia wielkopolskiego, od r. 1295 króla polskiego, Polski S?ownik Biograficzny, vol. XVIII, Wroc?aw 1973, pp. 87-88.
  • Kazimierz Jasi?ski, Przemys? II (1257-1296), ksi wielkopolski, krakowski, pomorski, król polski, [in:] Polski S?ownik Biograficzny, vol. XXVIII, Wroc?aw 1984-1985, pp. 730-733.
  • Kazimierz Jasi?ski, Rola polityczna mo?now?adztwa wielkopolskiego w latach 1284-1314, [in:] "Roczniki Historyczne", vol. XXIX, 1963, pp. 215-250.
  • Kazimierz Jasi?ski, Ryksa El?bieta - Boemie et Polonie bis regina, [in:] Przemys? II. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, ed. J. Krzy?aniakowej, Pozna? 1997, pp. 269-280
  • Kazimierz Jasi?ski, Stosunki Przemys?a II z mieszcza?stwem, [w:] Czas, przestrze?, praca w dawnych miastach. Studia ofiarowane Henrykowi Samsonowiczowi w szedziesi?t? rocznic? urodzin, Warsaw 1991, pp. 319-328.
  • Kazimierz Jasi?ski, Szwedzkie mae?stwo ksi?cia wielkopolskiego Przemys?a II (Ryksa ?ona Przemys?a) [in:] Monastycyzm, S?owia?szczyzna i pa?stwo polskie. Warsztat badawczy historyka, ed. K. Bobowskiego, Wroc?aw 1994, pp. 69-80.
  • Kazimierz Jasi?ski, Tragedia Rogozi?ska 1296 r. na tle rywalizacji wielkopolsko-brandenburskiej o Pomorze Gda?skie, [in:] "Zapiski Historyczne", vol. XXVI, 1961, t. 4, pp. 65-104.
  • Kazimierz Jasi?ski, Z problematyki zjednoczenia pa?stwa polskiego na prze?omie XIII i XIV wieku, [in:] "Zapiski Towarzystwa Naukowego w Toruniu", vol. XXI, Toru? 1955, pp. 198-241.
  • Kazimierz Jasi?ski, Zapis Pomorza Gda?skiego przez Mszczuja w 1282 r., [in:] "Przegl?d Zachodni", VIII, 1952, nr 5-6, pp. 176-189.
  • Tomasz Jurek, Dziedzic Królestwa Polskiego ksi g?ogowski Henryk (1274-1309), Pozna? 1993.
  • Tomasz Jurek, Przygotowania do koronacji Przemys?a II, [in:] Przemys? II. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, ed. J. Krzy?aniakowej, Pozna? 1997, pp. 167-180.
  • Tomasz Jurek, Testament Henryka Probusa. Autentyk czy falsyfikat?, [in:] "Studia ?ród?oznawcze", vol. XXXV, 1994, pp. 79-99.
  • W?adys?aw Karasiewicz, Biskup pozna?ski Jan Zaremba 1297-1316, [in:] "Sprawozdania Pozna?skiego Towarzystwa Przyjació? Nauk", nr 49 first and second quarter 1957, pp. 62-64.
  • W?adys?aw Karasiewicz, Dzia?alno polityczna Andrzeja Zaremby w okresie jednoczenia pa?stwa polskiego na prze?omie XIII/XIV wieku, Pozna? 1961.
  • W?adys?aw Karasiewicz, Jakób II ?winka arcybiskup gnie?nie?ski 1283-1314, Pozna? 1948.
  • Stanis?aw K?trzy?ski, O dwóch piecz?ciach Przemys?a II z roku 1290, [in:] "Miesi?cznik heraldyczny", II, 1932, pp. 21-30.
  • Stanis?aw K?trzy?ski, O królestwie wielkopolskim, [in:] "Przegl?d Historyczny", vol. VIII, 1909, pp. 129-153.
  • Jadwiga Krzy?aniakowa, Rola kulturalna Piastów w Wielkopolsce, [in:] Piastowie w dziejach Polski. Zbiór artyku?ów z okazji trzechsetnej rocznicy wyga?ni?cia dynastii Piastów, ed. R. Heck, Wroc?aw 1975, pp. 167-195.
  • Stanis?aw Krzy?anowski, Dyplomy i kancelaryja Przemys?awa II. Studium z dyplomatyki polskiej XIII wieku, [in:] "Pami?tnik Akademii Umiej?tno?ci, Wydzia? Filologiczny i Historyczno-Filozoficzny", vol. VIII 1890, pp. 122-192.
  • Stanis?aw Krzy?anowski, Regnum Poloniae, vol. I, II, [in:] "Sprawozdania Akademii Umiej?tno?ci, Wydzia? Historyczno-Filozoficzny", 1905, nr 5, pp. 14-16, 1913, nr 9, pp. 20-24.
  • Brygida Kürbis, O Ludgardzie, pierwszej ?onie Przemys?a II, raz jeszcze, [in:] Przemys? II. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, ed. J. Krzy?aniakowej, Pozna? 1997, pp. 257-267.
  • Brygida Kürbis, Dziejopisarstwo wielkopolskie w XIII i XIV w., Warsaw 1959.
  • Gerard Labuda, M?ciwoj II, Polski S?ownik Biograficzny, vol. XXII, Wroc?aw 1977, pp. 229-231.
  • Gerard Labuda, O godno?ci króla i instytucji królestwa, [in:] Przemys? II. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, ed. J. Krzy?aniakowej, Pozna? 1997, pp. 27-56.
  • Gerard Labuda, Wielkopolska na drogach rozwoju politycznego ku koronacji Przemys?a II, [in:] Nasi Paistowie, "Kroniki Miasta Poznania", 1995, t. 2, pp. 10-33.
  • Henryk ?owmia?ski, Pocz?tki Polski, vol. VI, Warsaw 1985.
  • Norbert Mika, Imi? Przemys? w wielkopolskiej linii Piastów. Niektóre aspekty stosunków ksit wielkopolskich z Czechami do po?owy XIII wieku, [in:] Przemys? II. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, ed. J. Krzy?aniakowej, Pozna? 1997, pp. 247-255.
  • S?awomir Musia?, Bitwa pod Siewierzem i udzia? w niej Wielkopolan, [in:] Przemys? II. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, ed. J. Krzy?aniakowej, Pozna? 1997, pp. 161-166.
  • Bronis?aw Nowacki, Czeskie roszczenia do korony w Polsce w latach 1290-1335, Pozna? 1987.
  • Bronis?aw Nowacki, Przemys? II, ksi wielkopolski, król Polski 1257-1295, Pozna? 1995.
  • Bronis?aw Nowacki, Przemys? II 1257-1296. Odnowiciel korony polskiej, Pozna? 1997.
  • Bronis?aw Nowacki, Zabiegi o zjednoczenie pa?stwa i koronacj? królewsk? w latach 1284 i 1285 na tle rywalizacji Przemys?a II z Henrykiem IV Prawym, [in:] Przemys? II. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, ed. J. Krzy?aniakowej, Pozna? 1997, pp. 153-160.
  • Bronis?aw Nowacki, Zwi?zki mae?skie ksit jednoczycieli pa?stwa polskiego w drugiej po?owie XIII wieku na tle ich polityki zjednoczeniowej. Rola polityczna margrabiów brandenburskich z m?odszej linii aska?skiej, [in:] Docento discimus. Studia historyczne po?wi?cone Profesorowi Zbigniewowi Wielgoszowi w siedemdziesi?t? rocznic? urodzin, ed. K. Kaczmarka and J. Nikodema, Pozna? 2000, pp. 161-171.
  • Tomasz Nowakowski, Krakowska kapitu?a katedralna wobec panowania Przemy?lidów w Ma?opolsce w latach 1292-1306, [in:] "Przegl?d Historyczny", vol. LXXXII, 1991, t. 1, pp. 1-20.
  • Tomasz Nowakowski, Ma?opolska elita w?adzy wobec rywalizacji o tron krakowski w latach 1288-1306, Bydgoszcz 1992.
  • Tomasz Nowakowski, Stosunki mi?dzy Przemys?em II a W?adys?awem ?okietkiem w okresie walk o Kraków po ?mierci Leszka Czarnego (1288-1291), [in:] "Roczniki historyczne", vol. LIV, 1988, pp. 143-161.
  • Krzysztof O?óg, Przemys? II, [in:] Piastowie. Leksykon biograficzny, Kraków 1999, pp. 154-161.
  • Jan Pakulski, Itinerarium ksico-królewskie Przemys?a II, [in:] "Studia ?ród?oznawcze", vol. XXXIX, 2001, pp. 69-94.
  • Jan Pakulski, Nacze w Wielkopolsce w ?redniowieczu. Genealogia, uposa?enie i rola polityczna w XII-XIV w., Warsaw 1982.
  • Jan Pakulski, Rola polityczna Beniamina Zaremby w drugiej po?owie XIII wieku, [in:] "Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Miko?aja Kopernika w Toruniu. Nauki Humanistyczno-Spo?eczne", vol. XXXV, Historia V, 1969, pp. 21-32.
  • Jan Pakulski, Ród Zarembów w Wielkopolsce w XIII i pocz?tkach XIV wieku. Prace Komisji Historii XI, Bydgoskie Towarzystwo Naukowe, serie C, nr 16, 1975, pp. 103-137.
  • Jan Pakulski, Stosunki Przemys?a II z duchowie?stwem metropolii gnie?nie?skiej, [in:] Przemys? II. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, ed. J. Krzy?aniakowej, Pozna? 1997, pp. 81-100.
  • Zenon Piech, O piecz?ciach, herbach i monetach Przemys?a II (Uwagi dyskusyjne), [in:] Przemys? II. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, ed. J. Krzy?aniakowej, Pozna? 1997, pp. 181-198.
  • Zenon Piech, Studia nad symbolik? zjednoczeniow? piecz?ci ksit piastowskich w drugiej po?owie XIII wieku i pocz?tkach XIV wieku, "Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiello?skiego. Prace historyczne", vol. LXXXIV, 1987, pp. 37-60.
  • Tomasz Pietras, Krwawy Wilk z pastora?em. Biskup krakowski Jan zwany Muskat?, Warsaw 2001.
  • Poczet królów i ksit polskich, ed. VII, Warsaw 1996.
  • Barbara Popielas-Szultka, Przemys? II a Pomorze Zachodnie (stosunki polityczne), [in:] Przemys? II. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, ed. J. Krzy?aniakowej, Pozna? 1997, pp. 145-152.
  • Jan Powierski, Krzy?acka polityka Przemys?a II w pierwszym okresie aktywno?ci politycznej, [in:] Przemys? II. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, ed. J. Krzy?aniakowej, Pozna? 1997, pp. 101-122.
  • Edward Rymar, Próba identyfikacji Jakuba Kaszuby, zabójcy króla Przemys?a II, w powi?zaniu z ekspansj? brandenbursk? na pó?nocne obszary Wielkopolski, [in:] Niemcy - Polska w ?redniowieczu. Materia?y z konferencji naukowej zorganizowanej przez Instytut Historii UAM w dniach 14-16 XI 1983 r., ed. J. Strzelczyka, Pozna? 1986, pp. 203-224.
  • Edward Rymar, Przynale?no polityczna wielkopolskich ziem zanoteckich mi?dzy doln? Draw? i doln? Gwd?, oraz Wielenia, Czarnkowa i Uj?cia w latach 1296-1368, [in:] "Roczniki Historyczne", vol. L, 1984, pp. 39-84.
  • Edward Rymar, Stosunki Przemys?a II z margrabiami brandenburskimi ze starszej linii aska?skiej w latach 1279-1296, [in:] Przemys? II. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, ed. J. Krzy?aniakowej, Pozna? 1997, pp. 123-144.
  • Tadeusz Silnicki, Kazimierz Gob, Arcybiskup ?winka i jego epoka, Pozna? 1956.
  • Szcz?sny Skibi?ski, Boles?aw Chrobry a Przemys? II. O królewskich pomnikach w katedrze pozna?skiej, [in:] Przemys? II. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, ed. J. Krzy?aniakowej, Pozna? 1997, pp. 299-306.
  • Andrzej Skulimowski, Skulimowski M., Magister Miko?aj, nadworny lekarz ksit wielkopolskich w II po?owie XIII wieku i na pocz?tku XIV wieku, [in:] "Archiwum Historii Medycyny", vol. XXIV, 1958, nr ¾, pp. 285-290.
  • Krzysztof Skupie?ski, Miejsce notariatu publicznego w?ród ?wiadków realizacji programu politycznego arcybiskupa Jakuba ?winki, [in:] "Kwartalnik Historyczny", vol. XCVI, 1989, nr 3, pp. 63-84.
  • Aleksander Swie?awski, Dux regni Poloniae i heres regni Poloniae. Ze studiów nad tytulatur? w?adców polskich na prze?omie XIII i XIV wieku, [in:] "Przegl?d Historyczny", vol. LXXX, 1989, t. 3, pp. 429-438.
  • Aleksander Swie?awski, Plany koronacyjne Henryka Probusa. Królestwo polskie czy królestwo krakowskie?, [in:] "Studia z Dziejów Pa?stwa i Prawa Polskiego", vol. IV, 1999, pp. 139-146.
  • Aleksander Swie?awski, Przemys? - król Polski, Wydawnictwo "DiG", Warsaw 2006.
  • B?a?ej ?liwi?ski, Rola polityczna mo?now?adztwa na Pomorzu Gda?skim w czasach M?ciwoja II, UG, Gda?sk 1987.
  • B?a?ej ?liwi?ski, Rz?dy Przemys?a II na Pomorzu Gda?skim w latach 1294-1295, [in:] "Zapiski Historyczne", vol. LIX, 1994, t. 1, pp. 7-27.
  • Agnieszka Teterycz, Ma?opolska elita w?adzy wobec zamieszek politycznych w Ma?opolsce w XIII wieku, [in:] Spo?ecze?stwo Polski ?redniowiecznej. Zbiór Studiów, ed. S. Kuczy?skiego, vol. IX, Warsaw 2001, pp. 65-87.
  • Jan T?gowski, Uwagi o piecz?ciach Przemys?a II, "Acta Universitatis Nicolai Copernici. Historia XXIV. Nauki Humanistyczno-Spo?eczne", t. 204, 1990, pp. 175-183.
  • Jan T?gowski, Zabiegi ksi?cia kujawskiego W?adys?awa ?okietka o tron krakowski w latach 1288-1293, [in:] "Zapiski Kujawsko-Dobrzy?skie", vol. VI, 1987, pp. 43-68.
  • Kazimierz Tymieniecki, Odnowienie dawnego królestwa polskiego, [in:] "Kwartalnik Historyczny", t. XXXIV, 1920, pp. 30-87.
  • Boles?aw Ulanowski, Kilka s?ów o maonkach Przemys?awa II, [in:] "Rozprawy i Sprawozdania z Posiedze? Wydzia?u Historyczno-Filozoficznego Akademii Umiej?tno?ci", vol. XVII, 1884, pp. 252-274.
  • Zofia Waniek, Powi?zania genealogiczne aska?sko-wielkopolskie w XII i XIII wieku, [in:] "Prace Komisji Historii", XI 1975, Bydgoskie Towarzystwo Naukowe. Prace Wydzia?u Nauk Humanistycznych, serie C, nr 16, pp. 89-101.
  • Jacek Wiesio?owski, Zabójstwo ksiny Ludgardy w 1283 r., [in:] "Kronika miasta Poznania", 1993, nr 1-2, pp. 7-22.
  • Bronis?aw W?odarski, El?bieta-Ryksa, [in:] Polski S?ownik Biograficzny, vol. VI, Kraków 1948, pp. 241-242.
  • Bronis?aw W?odarski, Polska i Czechy w drugiej po?owie XIII i na pocz?tku XIV wieku, Lwów 1931.
  • Jerzy Wyrozumski, Gospodarcze i spo?eczne uwarunkowania procesu zjednoczeniowego w Polsce XIII wieku, [in:] Przemys? II. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, ed. J. Krzy?aniakowej, Pozna? 1997, pp. 57-64.
  • Stanis?aw Zachorowski, Wiek XIII i panowanie W?adys?awa ?okietka, [in:] Grodecki R., Zachorowski S., D?browski J., Dzieje Polski ?redniowiecznej w dwu tomach, vol. I, by 1933, Kraków 1926, ed. II, Kraków 1995.
  • Krystyna Zieli?ska, Zjednoczenie Pomorza Gda?skiego z Wielkopolsk?. Umowa k?pi?ska 1282 r., Toru? 1968.
  • Benedykt Zientara, Przemys? II, [in:] Poczet królów i ksit polskich, Warsaw 1984, pp. 212-217.
  • Pawe? ?mudzki, Studium podzielonego Królestwa. Ksi Leszek Czarny, Warsaw 2000.

Chronicles

  • Chronica Oliviensis auctore Stanislao abbate Olivensi, ed. W. K?trzy?ski, [in:] MPH, vol. VI, Kraków 1893, pp. 310-350.
  • Cronica Przbkonis de Tradenina dicti Pulcaua, [in:] Fontes rerum Bohemicarum, vol. V, ed. J. Emler, Prague 1893.
  • Jan D?ugosz, Roczniki, czyli kroniki s?awnego Królestwa Polskiego, fr. VII, Warsaw 1974.
  • Kodeks dyplomatyczny Ma?opolski, ed. F. Piekosi?ski, vol. III, Kraków 1887.
  • Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, ed. I. Zakrzewski, vol. I-V, Pozna? 1877-1908.
  • Kronika ksit polskich, ed. Z. W?glewski, [in:] MPH, vol. III, Lwów 1878, pp. 423-578.
  • Kronika wielkopolska, ed. B. Kürbis, transl. K. Abgarowicz, introduction and commentaries B. Kürbis, Warsaw 1965.
  • Petra Zitovskeho kronika zbraslavska [in:] Fontes rerum Bohemicarum, vol. IV, ed. J. Emler, Prague 1884.
  • Rocznik Traski, [in:] MPH, vol. II, Lwów 1872, pp. 826-861.

See also

Przemys? II
Born: 14 October 1257 Died: 8 February 1296
Regnal titles
Preceded by
Boles?aw the Pious
Duke of Pozna?
1273-1296
Succeeded by
W?adys?aw I the Elbow-high
Duke of Greater Poland, Kalisz, and Gniezno
1279-1296
Duke of Wielu?
1279-1281
Succeeded by
Henryk IV Probus
Preceded by
Henryk IV Probus
Duke of Wielu?
1287-1296
Succeeded by
W?adys?aw I the Elbow-high
High Duke of Poland
1290-1291
Succeeded by
Wenceslaus II of Bohemia
Preceded by
Boles?aw II the Generous
King of Poland
1295-1296
Preceded by
Mestwin II
Duke of Pomerelia
1294-1296
Succeeded by
Leszek of Inowroc?aw

  This article uses material from the Wikipedia page available here. It is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0.

Przemys%C5%82_II_of_Poland
 



 



 
Music Scenes