Academic literature on the topic 'Teutonic Order, castles, functioning of castles'

In the noble families houses, a sacral room or a separate volume made for relics’ storage or prayers started to call the chapel (German: Kapelle, Latin: capella). The name for this building type was borrowed from the Latin words cappa, capa. The knights for implementation of its policy on conquered lands inhabited by the Balts founded economically independent castles of stone that included chapels. According to regulations of castellum’s planning, the chapel had to be situated on the east side of the structure. In Livonia and the State of the Teutonic Order, the location of castles and cult buildings influenced layouts of town centres. Research goal: analysis the impact of cult buildings on layouts and spatial structures of castles and fortified centres to determine common and different characteristics in Livonia and the State of the Teutonic Order. Research problem: the influence of sacred buildings’ location on layouts of castles, built by the Teutonic Order. has not well researched. Research novelty: structures of the Teutonic Order’s fortresses are studied in the context of Italian architecture. Research methods: studies of urban planning cartographic materials, archive documents, projects, published literature and inspection of buildings in nature.

The author’s main objective is to define the level of development of the tourism function of the Teutonic Order castles found in the area of contemporary Poland. The author has taken into account both well-preserved and renovated castles, as well as those in a state of ruin. In order to achieve his goal, he analysed forms of castle development and numbers of tourists, which is the main measure of the tourism function. The final stage of the research was to define the tourism rank of the castles studied.

The location of infirmaries in Teutonic Order castles topography in late Medieval Prussia In the primary Rule of the Teutonic Order, written in the middle of the 13th century, maintaining hospitals by the organisation is in its content, yet the generality of the normative provisions contained in that source bears a number of questions which are difficult to answer in a satisfactory way. From the main paragraphs referring to that issue it is impossible to conclude whether those hospitals/infirmaries were intended for secular persons or the brother friars of the Order. Detailed regulations on the subject were additionally provided in Statutes written around the same time. In accordance with those provisions, if a friar knight fell ill, then he should stay in bed for a few days. In case of prolongation of this state, he was to be moved to a common chamber for the sick – the infirmary. Only the Grand Master and his deputy had the right to be treated in their own chambers. However, it must be remembered that those regulations were formulated mostly in reference to the main convent of the Teutonic Order in the Holy Land. This institution was subordinate to the Great Commander and it was him who provided for medical care and medicines for the sick through his appointed subordinate official (“firmariemeister”). From the 13th century normative sources it cannot be concluded where the infirmaries were supposed to be located in the castle grounds. What does this issue look like in reference to the state of the Teutonic Order in Prussia in the 14th and 15th centuries? Unfortunately, in the current literature of the subject it has been attempted to identify the locations of castle infirmaries exclusively on the basis of architectural data of preserved commander castles (still enerally sparse). Meanwhile, the problem is that limiting only to that sort of sources when examining the issue does not provide any evidential basis to indicate the location of infirmaries in the spatial configuration of the Teutonic strongholds. Only the analysis of written sources of the époque (starting with the end of the 14th century) allows to state that nearly all infirmaries of commander castles of the time in Prussia intended both for the members of the Teutonic Order (brothers, priests) and secular servants‑dieners were locate within the bailey. Sparse exceptions from that rule would only apply to the capital castle in Malbork, where one of the infirmaries might have been located in the area of the proper convent of the high castle and to the one in Konigsberg, where the infirmary for servant‑dieners of the Order was located outside the defensive walls of the bailey.

Colors were ubiquitous in the medieval world, and castles were no exception. While in the eyes of most people their rich color schemes manifested power and wealth, some could also read the more nuanced messages these colors conveyed. The main objective of this paper is to discuss the use and role of color in the interiors of castles of medieval Bohemia and Poland. The picture is complemented by the analysis of color decorations of defensive residences of the Teutonic Order. The discussion takes into account the varying states of preservation and draws from the available written accounts. To present the most complete picture possible, we discuss royal residences, for which unfortunately limited data are available, as well as the better-preserved castles of dukes and knights. We discuss the identified iconographic programs and their chivalric, heraldic, and hagiographic motifs. Within the scope of our discussion are late forms of floral decorations, known as “green chambers”. The numerous examples presented in the paper prove that color was an important tool of visual social communication in castle architecture: it complemented the symbolism, and sometimes carried an independent message.

Delivery of Letters in the Teutonic Order in Livonia. With a preliminary statistical analysisThis contribution is on the organization and efficiency of the delivery of letters in the Teutonic Order in Livonia. Firstly, the scarce data on couriers is presented. Main part of the contribution is discussing the phenomenon of registration of time (hour) and place in some of the stations on the delivery routes of letters. This method, used extensively also in Prussia, was most likely introduced in Livonia in the beginning of the 15th century. It was used in case of most urgent letters and was first of all meant to monitor the efficiency of delivery. The majority of the places of registration of time are in the territory of the Order, but there are also some exceptions, when this was done in episcopal castles or manors. High number of letters of the Masters of the Teutonic Order in Tallinn City Archives is also allowing some preliminary statistical analysis, how the space and time was mastered on the route Riga-Wenden-Reval. It appears, that although the letters were ordered to be carried day and night, the calculated average speed is so low, that there were obviously made also some stops for rest on the road.

I draw the historical background with the question of how the city has for centuries been communicating with visual signs with its so different external sovereigns. After general remarks, I focus on the ruler’s relationship with the city during the Teutonic Knights’ era, as the example serving the Teutonic castle in Gdansk, from the beginning of its construction to the story of its demolition. The Teutonic castle was built, according to the message of Wigand of Marburg, during the time of Grand Master Dietrich von Altenburg around 1340. Unlike the dating, its form disappears in the darkness of history. Archaeologists have proven the existence of a castle complex consisting of the main castle and two baileys on the site of the former castle of the Pomeranian dynasty of Samborids. The convent house: a square with sides of about 53 m, had four residential wings grouped around the courtyard, three towers at the corners, and a high guard tower. The article then deals with the castle as a kind of a protagonist of the drama in the war for symbols, developing in four scenes. The first took place after the Battle of Grunwald in 1410, when the town paid homage to Polish King Władysław Jagiello, but in the autumn of 1410 it returned to the rule of the Teutonic Order. In the following months, the city authorities reacted negatively to the attempt of the Grand Master Henry von Plauen to raise taxes. Mayors and members of the City Council: Konrad Letzkau, Arnold Hecht, and Bartholomew (Bartholomäus) Gross, were invited to the Teutonic Knights’ Castle in spring 1411 under the pretext of negotiations, and there they were murdered in unclear circumstances. The town responded by burying both mayors, and probably Gross as well, in the ambulatory of St Mary’s Church, (possibly) in St Hedwig’s Chapel belonging to the Letzkau family. The tombstone (nowadays destructed after the fire of 1734), which preserved anti–Teutonic sentiments, became an attraction for visitors, and was excluded from the normal burial practice of St Mary’s Church in the early modern times. Another part of our dispute occurred in 1453, when the Gdansk delegates complained at the Reich’s conciliatory assembly in Vienna about the Gdansk Commander forbidding to continue the construction of the tower of St John’s Church. On this basis, Olaf Asendorf constructed a theory on the general prohibition of building high towers in the Teutonic state, the so-called turmverbote. However, we have no proof that such a ban existed in any form, and apart from two other messages from Elbląg and Kaliningrad, former Königsberg, we cannot trace this kind of regulation in the written sources. On the other hand, none of the towers dominating the panorama of Gdansk was built before 1457. It was only after the transition to Polish sovereignty that the construction of the towers of St John’s Church, St Catherine’s Church, St Mary’s Church, and the Town Hall tower continued. The case from 1453 fits the hypothesis of fighting with the Order with the use of the city’s symbol, but this is rather a hysterical reaction of the economically and politically weakened corporation, which tries to enforce the city’s obedience by prohibiting the further construction of the tower of St John’s Church. The events of the Thirteen Years’ War (1454–1466): Gdansk was to throw off the yoke of the Teutonic Knights’ power and voluntarily surrender to the power of the Polish monarchy together with the guarantee of maximum privileges, are the backdrop to the next stage of our battle with the use of symbols. Most probably in February 1454, a decision was made to demolish the fortress, which could potentially become the seat of the new ruler, thus threatening the autonomy of the city. During the negotiations between the Gdansk envoys and Casimir IV Jagiello in February and March 1454 in Cracow, the delegates secretly sent the following letter to the City Council: ‘ Those of the seats [castles of the Teutonic knights] that were demolished are to remain destroyed, but we are not [allowed] to continue the demolition of these castles without consulting or informing the Lord King and the Estates. Hence, good friends, if you have not destroyed them, we advise you in all your power that you are to dismantle them the sooner the better, before we are back home, because the Lord King is “drooling” at the thought of Gdansk’. In the original hern conynge henget de lunge sere up Danczik is an idiomatic Lower German term, literally meaning King hangs his lung [to occupy the castle], so he cares a lot about it. This is what happened. Just like in Elbląg, Toruń and Bartoszyce and partly in Królewiec, the municipal authorities thoroughly demolished the Teutonic Castle. As early as in 1857, August Lobegott Randt noted, without mentioning the source, that when the star vaults over the main hall of the Artus Manor were unfastened in 1478–1481, pillars from the Teutonic Castle were used; this theory was taken up by almost all later literature. A whole range of other relics in various places in Gdansk made of sandstone or granite, together with the latest finding in St Mary’s Church from 2020, are now connected with the Castle. This theory fits perfectly with the considerations of political iconography. In the Artus Court, the first monumental building completed after the Grand Permit of 1457, architectural details from the former seat of the supreme authority are placed, since it is where the elites of the new republic meet. Together with the demolition of the Castle, the knowledge of its silhouette was lost. Only indirectly does the image give us a fascinating iconographic message, which for me is the fourth episode of the ‘battle with the use of images’. In the painting ‘The Ship of the Church’ from the Artus Manor, destroyed in 1945: a representation of a ship armed with cannons symbolizing the community of Gdansk, in one corner rather a small depiction of a castle can be seen. It shows the main tower, the evidence of which was proven by the 2002 archaeological researches. Its unusual spire evokes obvious associations with the Flemish–Brabantine belfry towers: free–standing towers or towers inscribed in town halls or cloth halls being symbols of urban self–government. What is the function of the representation of the Teutonic castle in the painting? Who was its author and fundator? According to Adam Labuda’s interpretation, it is the pendant to the painting ‘Siege of Malbork’, lost in 1945 – of almost identical dimensions, stylistically similar – and seems to be the work of the same painter. Together with the latter, it conveys the story of the battle for the gained independence of Gdansk, a powerful and rich city, united in religion and under the sceptre of the King. It is possible that the paintings were executed in connection with the would–be visit to the city of Jan Olbracht in 1501, or another entry of Alexander I in 1504. But what remains a puzzle is the function of a Teutonic castle with a Flemish helmet in the painting. Was it only related to the possible Dutch origin of the artist, or was it a political message, wishful thinking of the founders: an allusion to Gdansk as an independent city? The article on its first level interprets a non–existent building which has become the protagonist, the pretext, and the background of the multi–act drama of ‘the battle with the use of images’. More generally, it states the entanglement of Gdansk art and architecture in politics as a characteristic feature of this metropolis through all epochs. Yet above all, I would like to thank Małgorzata Omilanowska, the one to whom we dedicate this volume, because without her initiative I would never have started teaching in this fascinating city and thus researching its art history.

The Management of Research on the Beginnings of the Polish State was established to carry out extensive, interdisciplinary research on the genesis and functioning of the state of the first Piasts, which was undertaken in connection with the need to celebrate the 1000th anniversary of the Polish state and its baptism. In 1949–1953, Early Medieval archaeological sites were examined in 31 cities. The most attention was devoted to strongholds with Piast records (Gdańsk, Gniezno, Giecz, Poznań, Kruszwica, Kalisz, Tum pod Łęczycą, Błonie, Bródno, Wrocław, Opole, Niemcza, Cieszyn, and Wiślica). Most of them are located in the medieval centres of modern cities. In this situation, the natural order of things was to link the problems of Early Medieval castles with the problems of the beginnings of Polish cities. Early Medieval sites in Poland, usually with a complicated stratigraphy, especially in the case of cities or strongholds, are the most difficult to excavate. Meanwhile, at that time only limited experience of excavation work at multi-layer sites prior to World War II was available – as a consequence, research methods for larger settlement complexes were developed on an ongoing basis, in the course of the research itself. Thus, the Millennium program has become a kind of testing ground in the field of urban archaeology in Poland. Key word: history of Polish archaeology, Management of Research on the Beginnings of the Polish State, millennium archaeology, urban archaeology.

The article presents the process of creation of new towns in the Duchy of Prussia (1525-1701), which later became Masuria. More specifically, the paper describes how a hamlet received a location privilege. The establishment of towns described here (Olecko, Gołdap, Węgorzewo, Giżycko,Pisz and Ełk) was initiated by Albert, the Duke of Prussia (1525-1568). He was motivated by the idea partially formulated in the location privilege: “For the general growth, elevation and betterment of our duchy”. The duke personally granted the location privilege only to Olecko, which was the sole town established on previously unsettled land. In the remaining cases, he only gave a verbal promise. This did not guarantee a rapid grant of thelocation privilege as the promise was fulfilled by the duke’s successors in the remaining cases. It happened first in case of Gołdap and Węgorzewo, just several years after the promise had been made. It took a little longer in case of Giżycko (after several decades), while Pisz and Ełk had to wait the longest (almost or more than 100 years). Each town had its own different origins. Gołdap was created quickly (1565-1570) on an area which used to be a duke’s grange. Węgorzewo, Giżycko, Pisz and Ełk waited for several hundred years for a legally binding location privilege. It is important to note that each of the aforementioned towns was established near a former castle of the Teutonic Order. Moreover, the hamlets which developed near the former castles had a different status but they all performed a market or craft function. With time, this function served as a basis for applying for the town privilege. The market function was originally carried out by the peasant hamlets in Węgrorzewo and Giżycko, even though the towns were createdon the tenant farmer villages. Furthermore, the old peasant hamlets still functioned but as the contemporary out-of-town jurydykas (German Schloβfreiheit). Pisz was established on the basis of an old peasant hamlet and it never was a tenant farmer village. In case of Ełk it was the exact opposite, there never was a separate peasant hamlet. The tenant farmervillage located there evolved into a town. Only two towns were founded due to the inhabitants’ initiative, namely Olecko and Gołdap. The remaining ones were established collectively by the whole community. Most frequently, it took place with the participation of the inhabitants of the former hamlets (Giżycko, Pisz, and Ełk). The former inhabitants did not participate in the process of town building only in the case of Węgorzewo and Gołdap.Generally speaking, each location privilege described here gave the towns the so-called town privilege (German Stadtrecht). It described in detail the area of land and the type of the town privilege which was granted (Culm law in each case). Moreover, it allowed the creation of town authorities (mayor, council and bench) and granted them the option to issue documents and statutes (German Willkür) as well as allowed them to possess a seal. Furthermore, it allowed the towns to organize markets and fairs on certainfixed dates as well as regulated the rights and obligations of the townsmen. Even though the location privilege formally meant the end of the town creation process as far the law was concerned, it did not mean that it was the end of its formation. Further steps had to be made to constitute the authorities and the bench, to write statutes (German Willkür), guild regulations, etc.