On the Pagan Rebellion

On July 13, 1024 Boleslaw Chrobry’s great rival, the German Emperor Henry II passed away.  The next Easter (either on April 18 or April 23, 1025), Boleslaw crowned himself king (most probably in Gniezno).  He too would pass away shortly (on June 17, 1025) but the deed was done.  Poland was a kingdom and it was up to Boleslaw’s son Mieszko II to continue the legacy.

The Unhappy Reign of Mieszko II

Mieszko II was crowned king most likely already by Christmas 1025.  At that time the German throne was held by Conrad II.  At first Conrad had to deal with some opposition in Swabia and Lotharingia and it appears that West Germans tried to get Mieszko energized about helping them.  Unfortunately for Mieszko, by the time he launched his campaign against Conrad (in 1028), the latter had already dealt with his internal opponents (sometime in 1027).  Mieszko’s invasion of Saxony in January 1028 was largely a success (apparently he took huge numbers of hostages) but it only served to refocus the Emperor on the East.

eszk

Mieszko II

Conrad began his counterattack in 1029 wanting to finally deal with his meddlesome Polish neighbors.  To do that he raised a truly giant army and set out for Poland.  However, at first things did not go so well for him.  The German advance crossed the Polish border at the river Solawa (Saale) and entered Milsko and Luzyce (today’s Meissen and Lausitz).  But the army never reached Poland proper getting stuck and coming apart at Budisin (Bautzen).  In 1030, in turn, the Emperor’s attention was diverted by the Hungarians who decided that they wanted to have Bavaria for themselves.

imperator

Conrad II

From then on things went south for Mieszko.  The Hungarians and Germans concluded a peace treaty in 1031.  Conrad tried his hand against Poland again.  But this time he did not go it alone. For starters, he’d drawn in the Czechs.  They had previously been humiliated by Mieszko’s father, Boleslaw who conquered most of Bohemia and Moravia and made it part of his realm.  Since then the Czechs revolted on Mieszko’s watch and under their duke Udalrich were ready to assist the Germans.  Moreover, Conrad coordinated with the leader of Kievan Rus, Yaroslav.  Since the Rus had been defeated by Boleslaw as well, they too were ready to help out and recover some of their lost lands.  Furthermore, both the Germans and the Rus brought with them each a son of Boleslaw’s.  With the Germans came Otto, Boleslaw’s youngest son (named after Otto III the Red).  With the Rus there came Bezprim, Boleslaw’s oldest son.  Although Mieszko II was clearly his father’s choice to succeed him, he was not the only contender.  He likely had kicked his brothers out of his kingdom after his father’s death but that only wounded their pride and so they sought help abroad.

olri

Oldřich (Udalrich)

Mieszko sought refuge.  Because of a temporary break between Conrad and Udalrich, his best bet seemed to be to go to Bohemia.  Udalrich had already met Mieszko and indeed had imprisoned him back in 1014 when Mieszko tried to win Udalrich over to an alliance.  But Udalrich was not ready to risk everything for the now weak Mieszko.  Mieszko’s father, Boleslaw, had blinded Udalrich’s brother (Boleslaw III) and now, allegedly in revenge, Udalrich had Mieszko castrated.  The Rus recovered some of the lands they’d previously lost to the Germans.  Milsko and Luzyce went to the Germans.  The Polish crown was sent to Germany either by Bezprim or by Mieszko’s wife (whom he left in Poland).  Bezprim was installed as a duke and Otto may have gotten a piece too.  The Pomeranians revolted.  In the meantime, Mazovia apparently also separated from the rest of Poland under the leadership of one Maslaw or Mieclaw (Mieszko II’s former cup bearer).

slav

Yaroslav

This situation was not stable, however.  Bezprim was apparently not the most beloved leader and, it seems, was quickly murdered by local opposition.  Mieszko was released by Udalrich but was forced to go see the Emperor at Merseburg.  There, he was forced to confirm the Emperor’s overlordship as well as agree to have his younger brother Otto get Silesia and to have Dietrich (another grandson of Mieszko I) obtain possession of another part of the country.

But things did not turn out so badly for Mieszko (other than the whole castration thing).  Apparently, full of energy he used the Emperor’s to reclaim Polish lands if not the crown.  About 1033 both Otto and Dietrich die or disappear.  How that came about you can speculate just as well yourself.  The Rus, satisfied with their prior land grab, did not intervene without German help.  Thus, Mieszko was able to reunify the country briefly before his own death (apparently of natural causes) in 1034.

And then we come to a bit of a hole in history.

What Happened Next?

What happened next is, to put it mildly, very unclear.  There is a suggestion (happily jumped on by all kinds of conspiracy theorists and various reflexively anti-Catholic personas) that next in line to the throne was Mieszko’s oldest son, Boleslaw.  Boleslaw’s very existence, however, has been questioned (hence, he is called Boleslaw the “Forgotten”).  As per the conspiracy theorists, Boleslaw’s being “forgotten” is a result of a vast nefarious Catholic conspiracy to erase his memory from the list of Polish rulers.  Why would the Church do that?  Well, the theory goes because Boleslaw’s faith was Slavic-rite or maybe he was even a pagan (anything but Catholic).  There are a number of sources that provide some support for the existence of a Boleslaw but they are either very late (such as the Greater Poland Chronicle – see below) or the support they provide is only very indirect.  We will perhaps get back to this controversy to discuss it in detail.  For now, suffice it to say, that it is highly unlikely that such a ruler (not mentioned by the rather meticulous German annalists or by any of the Czech, Russian or Hungarian sources) existed.  On balance, it is more likely that the next Polish ruler really was Casimir the “Restorer”.

Nevertheless, Casimir did not take charge of Poland in 1034.  Between 1034 and 1039 a lot of things happened though information regarding these things is scant.  For one thing, we know that Udalrich’s son, duke Bretislaw ascended the Czech throne in 1034.  By 1037 he had made his way to Poland leveling both Gniezno and Poznan and taking the bones of Saint Adalbert (Wojciech) to Prague.  Casimir had fled Poland earlier and had been held in Hungary.  He was only released in 1038 when the Hungarian throne changed hands.  He then went to see his mother in Germany and, apparently against her advice and that of the Emperor, decided to return to Poland taking with him about “500 knights.”  It was that group that effectively reconstituted the Polish realm building alliances inside the country, routing the Mazovians and defeating the Pomeranians.

But let’s get back to 1034 – 1039.  These are the years of the so-called “pagan rebellion.”

What we know is, well, very little.  Nevertheless, it seems that in light of the total collapse of rule in 1034, secessionism and foreign invasions, some form or a rebellion took place against whatever then remained of the Piasts’ authority.  Whether the rebellion had more of a “class” dimension or was more of a religious character is unclear.  It was probably some combination of both.

The written sources are scant and likely, some of them, wrong.  Let’s break this up a bit.

The Year 1022

The first mention of a “pagan” revolt comes in the year 1022 and it appears in two places.  Cosmas of Prague and the much later Jan Dlugosz.

Cosmas notes laconically in Book I of his Chronicle of the Czechs under the year 1022:

“A persecution of Christians was carried out in Poland.”

cosm

Cosmas

This would have put, at least this, “pagan” revolt during the reign of Boleslaw Chrobry (died 1025) rather than after the death of Mieszko II.

Possible?

cosma

Sure, but the problem with Cosmas is that, writing almost a hundred years after the events in question his knowledge of them seems highly distorted.  For example, he ascribes many of the deeds of Boleslaw Chrobry to his father Mieszko I.  Not only that, he does not even know some Czech matters.  Thus, he claims that Uldrich was the son of Boleslaw III of Bohemia, rather than, as we know, the latter’s brother.  It is, therefore, highly unlikely that such a small detail would have been gotten right by Cosmas.

Cosmas does later (in Book II) discuss the Czechs invasion of Poland in the year 1037 but says nothing at that time about any pagan or other rebellion.

Another source for an earlier rebellion is  Jan Dlugosz who does have an entry under 1022 that characterizes the events in a similar but slightly different way:

“…For some among the nobles, incited by satan, found giving sheaf tithes and the fulfillment of Christian duties to be burdensome, which complaints were made especially by those who having been raised in the errors of paganism grew weary of the yoke of the true faith of Christ; [and] after much scheming they decided to return to the old life of impiety and idolatry, to fail to timely pay their tithes, nor to attend churches, to throw out, in fact, priests and God’s servants from the temples.  And when Boleslaw the Polish king found out about this, he would not, this fervent evangelist of the Catholic faith, allow this smoldering rebellion to grow but nipped it in the bud; sending out squadrons of knights he captured the ringleaders and some of them he ordered beheaded while others he had flogged; and only those that had less guilt, having been seduced by others’ persuasion, did he spare any punishment.”

A slight problem with Dlugosz, of course, is that he writes even later in the 15th century and, for all we know, may have relied here on Cosmas.

The Year 1025 (or 1030?)

Nestor’s “Primary Chronicle” (PVL) mentions under the year 1030 the following:

1030 or year 6538:

“… At this same time, Boleslav the Great died in Poland, and there was a revolt in the Polish country.  The people arose and killed the bishops, the priests, and the boyars, and there was rebellion among them.”

pavl

He goes on to say that in the “year 1031 (or 6539)] Yaroslav and Mstislav collected a large force and marched into Poland.  They recaptured the cities of Cherven, and ravaged the Polish country side.  They also captured many Poles and distributed them as colonists in various districts.  Yaroslav located his captives among the Ros’, where they live to this day.”

rosl

Since Nestor places this event immediately after Boleslaw Chrobry’s death and since Chrobry died in 1025, it seems reasonable to assume that some sort of a pagan rebellion took place at that point.

Unless, of course, Nestor also confused Boleslaw Chrobry with Mieszko II.

The Year 1034

The Greater Poland Chronicle (GPC) places these events after Mieszko II’s death.  Although the chronicler gets the year wrong (1033 versus 1034), he seems nevertheless to associate the “pagan” rebellion with the time immediately before Casimir the Restorer took charge.

kpreal1

GPC

The GPC says:

“After he [Mieszko II] died in the year of Our Lord 1033, his firstborn son Boleslaw* came to rule.  But after this one was crowned, he caused his mother many indignities.  His mother, who came from an excellent family, not being able to endure his wickedness, taking her little son Casimir, returned to her homeland to Saxony, to Brunswick and placing her son there to study was said to have entered some convent.  Whereas Boleslaw, on account of his cruelty and monstrosity of deeds that he committed, poorly ended his life and, though honoured with a royal crown, is not counted among the kings and princes of Poland.”

* Boleslaw the (Previously) Forgotten or Boleslaw the Made-Up depending on your point of view.

kpreal2

GPC

“After his death, there arose in the Polish country much turmoil and many wars, rather internal than external.  But when the Polish state – by reason of [these] wars – fell almost completely , the great lords of the country set out immediately on a journey to Saxony to their Lady, the queen with the aim of finding their Lord, Casimir.”

kpbi

“From her they learned that she had sent him to Paris to study the liberal arts where, while spending time there and working, he took on the oath of Saint Benedict at the Cluney Abbey.  Rushing to him, they beheld that he had already been ordained a deacon.”

In accord with this dating are the Hildesheim Annals which have the following entry under the (correct) year 1034:

misa

The famous Hildesheim Annals entry (Paris MS)

“Mieszko the duke of the Poles died prematurely and Christianity there so well begun by his predecessors and by him [Mieszko II] even strengthened, alas, lamentably perished.”

misacho

(the same entry is also in the Magdeburg Annals)

Other Sources

Gallus Anonymous does speak of a pagan rebellion.  He does not say when it took place but does place it after the death of Mieszko II and after the expulsion of Casimir the Restorer from Poland.   Thus, it seems that we are looking at 1034 – 1036.  Since he discusses these events before the Czech invasion of 1037 we can tentatively say no later than that year.  Perhaps.

Here is Gallus’ Chapter 19: 

“At this time kings and dukes neighboring Poland, each in his own turn violated her and took towns and border castles or, after the taking, burn them down.  And so exposed to so many sorrows and painful defeats, she was treated even shabbier and more abominably by her own inhabitants.  For the slaves rose against masters, freedmen against the nobles, announcing themselves as nobles in turn, taking their [nobles’] wives and beds and most cruelly persecuting the same [nobles].”

gallus1

Gallus

gal1

“Renouncing too the Catholic faith, which we are unable to mention without shedding many a tear, they rebelled against the bishops and priests, and some of these, in their eyes being more prominent/honorable, they put to the sword; and some others, as if deserving a more ignoble death, they had stoned.  In the end, by reason of foreign causes as too by reason of her own inhabitants, did Poland suffer such ruin, that she was almost completely deprived of riches and people.  It was then that the Czechs destroyed Gniezno and Poznan and took the body of Saint Adalbert.  And those who managed to flee the hands of the enemies or who were escaping the rebellion of their serfs, made their way across the River Vistula to Mazovia.*  And the aforementioned cities remained abandoned so long that in the Church of Saint Adalbert as well as at Saint Peter’s wild animals set up their dens…”

gallus2

Gallus

* Of course, Mazovia too was going to rebel under Maslaw (or Mieclaw) the recently repurposed cup bearer.

gal2

There is not else on the pagan rebellion.  Thietmar’s Chronicle only reaches the year 1018.  Kadlubek’s Chronicle is silent.  There is another Bohemian source and some Russian sources (preserved in much later books) but they all add little else to the topic.  Nevertheless, a “pagan” rebellion was altogether possible.  A similar rebellion took place in Bohemia between 921 and 935 and, of course, the Great Slav Uprising of 983 in Polabia had not only anti-Frankish/Saxon but also anti-Christian character.

Copyright ©2016 jassa.org

November 30, 2016

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *