texts:
 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 Białogard and Gniew) to the Teutonic Order upon his death in 1278. Treaty of Kępno

The first talks between <mask> 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. Although there is no direct evidence that <mask> <mask> was also in the Abbey in person, the presence of Jan I of Wysokowce, Bishop of Poznań 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 Białogard. The legate stayed in Milicz, which belonged to the Diocese of Wrocław. Due to the friendly relations of <mask> II (and thus his ally Mestwin II) with Henry IV Probus, the Duke of Pomerania decided to stop at the frontier village of Kępno (also in the Diocese of Wrocław), and

masks: Przemysł Przemysł II Przemysł


type: original

texts: waited to hear the legate's verdict. In Kępno, Mestwin II probably expected the arrival of the Duke of Greater Poland.Here, on 15 February 1282, a treaty was concluded between <mask> II and Mestwin II, which secured the future unification of Gdańsk Pomerania and Greater Poland. Witnesses in the signed document, among others, were Pomeranian Voivode Waysil, Poznań voivode Beniamin, Gniezno voivode Arkembold, Poznań judge Mikołaj, Kalisz judge Andrzej, and the Dominican friar Piotr (later Prince-Bishop of Cammin from 1296 to 1298), who was possibly responsible for writing the text. Other important dignitaries might have been present in Kępno at the time, however, they are not mentioned. There are ongoing disputes between historians about the exact nature of the Treaty of Kępno. According to some historians (for example Balzer and Wojciechowski) the treaty was a classic pact of mutual inheritance, in which the one who survives the other inherits his territory. According to others (like Kętrzyński, Baszkiewicz, Zielinska, Nowacki and Swieżawski), it was a one-sided arrangement or donation for life from Mestwin II to Przemysł II (called donatio inter vivos). Another theory was posed by Janusz Bieniak.He believed that Mestwin II


texts:
 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 Przemysł 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 Gdańsk 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 and 15 September 1284 in the town of Nakło, where they confirmed the rights of <mask> II over Gdańsk Pomerania. The unification of Pomerelia and Greater Poland was not the only decision made by <mask> 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.Widowhood
In December 1283 in Gniezno, at the age of 22 or 23 years, Ludgarda, wife of <mask> II, died unexpectedly. Relations between the spouses for some time before her death weren't very good; perhaps there had even been a

masks: Przemysł Przemysł Przemysł


texts:
 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 <mask> 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. No contemporary source mentions this, a fact more surprising because <mask> 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:

The chronicler of the Rocznik Traski doesn't suggest an unnatural death for the Duchess, but leaves some doubts about it. The Rocznik małopolski, by the other hand, spoke clearly about Ludgarda's murder in the Szamotuły code, in

masks: Przemysł Przemysł


texts:
 which added further information about this event:

Another source that describes the death of Ludgarda is the Kronika oliwska, written in the mid-14th century by Abbot Stanisław. 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 Przemysł II:

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, a wandering bard from Thuringia, who around 1378 appears at the court of Duke <mask> 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: <mask> II, at the instigation of his mother Elizabeth of Wrocław (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

masks:
Albert II
Przemysł


texts: "What God has joined, men must not divide", <mask> II decided her imprisonment in the tower, where he tried to persuade her again to accept a divorce. Finally, due to her obstinacy, <mask> 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 Długosz, who wrote about this events almost two centuries after (around 1480). Długosz was the first chronicler who locates Poznań 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 <mask> II in the sudden death of his wife. Based on the findings of Brygida Kürbis, it can be concluded that the 10-year marriage of <mask> 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 Przemysł II's growing aversion to his wife because of her

masks: Przemysł Przemysł Przemysł Przemysł


texts:
 infertility was well known by all. So when in mid-December 1283 Ludgarda died suddenly and separated (evidenced by her death in Gniezno, away from <mask> <mask>'s court in Poznań), 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 <mask> II.Archbishopric of Gniezno

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 Świnka 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. Jakub Świnka 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

masks: Przemysł II Przemysł


texts:
 consecration. The ceremony, according to sources, was assisted by five Polish bishops and <mask> <mask>, who gave the new Archbishop an expensive ring as a gift. Little is known about the origin and early years of Jakub Świnka, except for his mention in a document issued by Bolesław the Pious. As Archbishop of Gniezno, the cooperation between him and <mask> II was excellent.One example of this was the fact that he appeared as witness in 14 diplomats issued by the Duke of Greater Poland, including the confirmation of all his existing privileges and the permission to mint his own coins in Żnin and the castellany of Ląd. War against Western Pomerania
In the first half of 1284 <mask> 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. Much more positive effects would arise from <mask> 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 <mask> II decided to give the

masks: Przemysł II Przemysł Przemysł Przemysł Przemysł


texts:
 Kraków voivode Żegota three villages (Nieczajno, Wierzbiczany and Lulin). 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 <mask> of Łęczyca with the Teutonic Order. <mask> 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 Nakło.Betrayal of Sędziwój Zaremba
According to the Rocznik Traski (based probably in older sources now missing), on 28 September 1284, Kalisz was burned. This soon caused a series of events which threatened the power of <mask> <mask>. Now governor of Kalisz and in the city at the time of the fire, Sędziwój Zaremba, fearing the consequences, decided to take the Kalisz castle (apparently not damaged in the fire) and give it to Henry IV Probus. At the news of the events of Kalisz, <mask> II reacted instantly. No later than 6 October, as attested by a document issued in that time, <mask> <mask> 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

masks:
Casimir II
Przemysł
Przemysł
II
Przemysł
Przemysł
II


texts: reluctance to fight from the rebels (knights and nobles probably feared that <mask> II, after the capture of the castle, would not spare nobody), the duke agreed to negotiate with them.Eventually, <mask> II regained his castle of Kalisz, but he had to give the newly built castle in Ołobok to Henryk IV Probus. There is no certainty that the betrayal of Sędziwój 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 Sędziwój's relatives remained in their posts even after 1284. Another source supporting this is a document issued on 6 October (and thus during the period of siege) where the voivode of Poznań Beniamin Zaremba appears as a witness, and therefore had to remain in the inner circle of <mask> <mask>. <mask> <mask>'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 Sędziwój and Beniamin.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

masks: Przemysł Przemysł Przemysł II Przemysł II


texts:
 was confiscated them. Moreover, Beniamin appeared again in the circle of <mask> II around 1286. Second marriage
In 1285 <mask> 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. 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 Przemysł II the village of Giecz in gratitude for his services. It is unknown when and where the formal wedding between <mask> II and Rikissa took place, or who administered the sacrament of marriage: it could be either Bishop Jan of Poznań or Jakub Świnka, Archbishop of Gniezno.Congresses of Łęczyca and Sulejów
The year 1285 brought to <mask> II other successes: in January, Archbishop Jakub of Gniezno convened a meeting in the town of Łęczyca, where the excommunication of the main opponent of the Greater Poland ruler, Henryk IV Probus was confirmed; On 15 August <mask> II had another princely meeting, this time with Władysław I

masks: Przemysł Przemysł Przemysł Przemysł Przemysł


texts:
 the Elbow-high and Ziemomysł of Inowrocław 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. In May 1286 after the death of the Bishop of Poznań Jan Wyszkowic, his successor Jan Gerbicz was consecrated. The cooperation between the new Bishop and <mask> II was good, although some historians wonder why Bishop Gerbicz later was surnamed "traditor" (traitor). Alliance between Greater Poland, Pomerelia and Western Pomerania
According to Jan Długosz, on 14 June 1287 some Greater Poland knights and (as was suggested by the chronicler), without the knowledge of his ruler, made a surprise attack to Ołobok, won the castle and returned the district to Greater Poland. Henryk IV Probus decided to not respond with any armed conflict and accepted the loss; in unknown circumstances, around this time <mask> <mask>law 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 Gdańsk by Bogislaw IV or his descendants in the case of the deaths of both Mestwin II and <mask> II. In

masks: Przemysł Przemysł IIgis Przemysł


texts:
 addition, this treaty contributed to a significant deterioration of the relations between Greater Poland and the House of Ascania, rulers of Brandenburg. The treaty was subsequently confirmed at a meeting in Nakło 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, <mask> <mask> and <mask> of Głogów. Balzer's theory gained immense popularity among historians. This view is refuted by Władysław Karasiewicz and Jan Baszkiewicz.However, doesn't completely exclude the possibility that during this period an agreement could have been concluded between <mask> II and Henryk IV Probus, evidenced by the fact that the Duke of Wrocław voluntary returned of lands Ołobock and Wieluń to <mask> II in his will. On 14 May 1288 at the Congress of Rzepce the alliance between <mask> II and Mestwin II was further strengthened. 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 <mask> II was born in Poznań on 1 September 1288: a daughter,

masks:
Przemysł
II
Henry III
Przemysł
Przemysł
Przemysł
Przemysł


texts:
 named Richeza, who later became queen of Bohemia and Poland as the wife of Wenceslaus II and after his death, of Rudolph I. 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 <mask> II entered into his third and last marriage.It seems that <mask> 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 Poznań the village of Kobylniki as payment for a lamp lit eternally at his second wife's tomb. Death of Leszek the Black
On 30 September 1288 Leszek <mask> the Black, Duke of Kraków, Sandomierz, and Sieradz, died childless . His death launched the outbreak of war in Lesser Poland. The Kraków knighthood were in favor of Bolesław II of Płock, 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 Wrocław. At the beginning of 1289, Silesian troops marched under the command of the Duke of Wrocław and his allies Bolko I of Opole and Przemko of Ścinawa. They also

masks: Przemysł Przemysł II


texts: counted on the support of Sulk the Bear (pl: Sułk z Niedźwiedzia), the castellan of Kraków, who had control over Wawel castle.In response, a coalition against them was formed by Bolesław <mask> of Płock, Casimir II of Łęczyca, and Władysław I the Elbow-high. Surprisingly, <mask> <mask> joined with them, thus ending all of his prior arrangements with the Duke of Wrocław. The Wrocław-Opole-Ścinawa 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 <mask> <mask> and his allies. In this battle Przemko of Ścinawa was killed and Bolko I of Opole was captured. After the battle Władysław I the Elbow-high took Kraków, and <mask> <mask> withdrew with his troops, making a separate truce with Henryk IV Probus. However, later in 1289, Henryk IV Probus took up arms against Kraków, removing Władysław I the Elbow-high to the government of Sandomierz.This event was considered as temporary, because both Henryk IV Probus and Władysław I the Elbow-high

masks: II Przemysł II Przemysł II Przemysł II


texts:
 continued to use the title of Duke of Kraków and Sandomierz. Rise to kingship (1290–1295)

Acquisition of Kraków
Henry IV Probus, Duke of Wrocław and Kraków, died on 23 June 1290, probably poisoned. Because he died childless, in his will he bequeathed the Duchy of Wrocław to <mask> of Głogów, and Kraków – with the title of high duke and thus the overlordship over Poland – to <mask> II. In addition, he returned Kłodzko to King Wenceslaus <mask> of Bohemia and also gave the Duchy of Nysa–Otmuchów to the Bishopric of Wrocław as a perpetual fief with full sovereignty. 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 <mask> II, one of his closest male relatives, caused considerable surprise among historians. In historiography, there are several theories to explain the decision of the Duke of Wrocław.Recently it has been assumed that Archbishop Jakub of Gniezno was behind this testament, because he was in Wrocław on 17 June 1290, a few days before the death of Henryk IV. In accordance with custom, <mask> <mask> had to pay some religious dispositions from Henryk IV: the transfer to Kraków Cathedral of 100

masks:
Henry III
Przemysł
II
Przemysł
Przemysł
II


texts: pieces of fine gold and devotion to the implementation of ornaments and liturgical books to the Tyniec monastery. <mask> II was probably informed very quickly about the death of the Duke of Wrocław. 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. <mask> <mask> 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: Władysław I the Elbow-high, in fact, had conquered the land shortly before Henryk IV's death. In Lesser Poland, <mask> 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 <mask> II went to Kraków to assume control, as on 24 April 1290 he was still in Gniezno. Two months later he issued a document in Kraków, where he initially supported and confirmed the power of the local elite (with castellan Żegota, chancellor Prokop, voivode Mikołaj, and treasurer Florian, among others), the clergy (including Paweł of Przemankowo, the Bishop of Kraków, who in

masks: Przemysł Przemysł II Przemysł Przemysł


texts:
 another document issued on 12 September 1290 was given the right to collect tithes from the local income), and middle-class people. Relations with Władysław the Elbow-high
There is no certainty about the political relations between <mask> II and Władysław I the Elbow-high, especially regarding who was the real ruler over the Duchy of Sandomierz. The fact that <mask> 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. It is also noted that Przemysł 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 Władysław I the Elbow-high.Resignation of Lesser Poland
<mask> II left Kraków, capital of Lesser Poland, between 12 September and 23 October 1290. He never returned. Leaving Wawel castle, he took with him the royal crown and regalia that had been kept in the cathedral since the times of Bolesław II the Generous. At this point he was already planning his own royal coronation.


texts: 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 (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.<mask> 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 Świnka inaugurated a provincial synod in Gniezno, assisted by Jan Gerbicz, Bishop of Poznań; Tomasz Tomka, Bishop of Płock; Wisław, Bishop of Kujawy; and Konrad, Bishop of Lebus (Lubusz). In addition to the Bishops, <mask> <mask> 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. It is not known exactly when the negotiations began between <mask> II and Wenceslaus


texts:
 II. They certainly ended between 6 January (the last time when <mask> 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). In addition, it is also known that by mid-April Bohemian troops led by Bishop Arnold of Bamberg were already at Wawel castle.Alliance with <mask> of Głogów
The loss of Lesser Poland did not prevent <mask> 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 <mask> of Głogów. Details of this treaty are not preserved, and the only historic knowledge of this matter derives from a document issued by Władysław I the Elbow-high in Krzywiń on 10 March 1296, in which he emphasizes that Henry III had good rights over Greater Poland. 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 <mask> <mask> 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 Głogów. Congress of Kalisz
In January 1293, political talks

masks:
Przemysł
Henry III
Przemysł
Henry III
Przemysł
II


texts: occurred in Kalisz between <mask> <mask>, Władysław I the Elbow-high, and his brother <mask> of Łęczyca. 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 <mask> II, then the Elbow-High, and finally <mask> of Łęczyca. 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.Conversations in Kalisz were certainly sensitive, and the initiator was without doubt Archbishop Jakub Świnka. The main motivation was probably to reinforce the anti-Bohemian coalition, in which the allies undertook to help each other. <mask> <mask> 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 <mask> of Głogów, they signed a treaty of mutual inheritance). In spite of the arrangements there are no known actions by the coalition. <mask> of Łęczyca died on 10 June 1294 in the Battle of

masks:
Przemysł
II
Casimir II
Przemysł
Casimir II
Przemysł
II
Henry III
Casimir II


texts:
 Trojanow against Lithuania. At the Congress of Kalisz, the marriage between Władysław I the Elbow-high and Hedwig of Kalisz, <mask> II's cousin and daughter of Bolesław the Pious, was probably arranged (and possibly performed). Third marriage
Around the time of the Congress of Kalisz, <mask> 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. This marriage was concluded for political reasons and was expected to secure the succession of <mask> 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. The wedding ceremony took place shortly before 13 April 1293; according to some historians, it was probably on this occasion that the betrothal between <mask> II's daughter Ryksa and Otto of Brandenburg-Salzwedel, Margaret's brother, was also celebrated. Acquisition of Pomerelia
In spring of 1294, Mestwin <mask> of Pomerelia paid a visit to <mask> II. In turn, the Duke of Greater Poland

masks: Przemysł Przemysł Przemysł Przemysł II Przemysł


texts:
 was in Pomerelia on 15 June, where he approved documents with Mestwin II in Słupsk. By 30 June <mask> <mask> was again in Greater Poland.The deteriorating health of Mestwin II forced <mask> II to make another visit to Pomerelia in autumn. It is unknown if he was present when Mestwin II died on 25 December 1294 in Gdańsk; however, there is no doubt that <mask> II took part in his funeral. The last Duke of Pomerelia from the Samborides was buried in the Cistercian monastery in Oliwa. After inheriting Pomerelia, <mask> II adopted the new title of "dux Polonie et Pomoranie". He remained in Gdańsk Pomerelia until the beginning of April, but by 10 April he was in Poznań. King of Poland (1295–1296)

Coronation
The unification of Greater Poland and Gdańsk Pomerania (Pomerelia) definitely made <mask> 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


texts: power among the Piasts rulers – <mask> II, together with Archbishop Jakub, took the decisive decision for a coronation. The coronation of <mask> II and his wife Margaret took place at Gniezno Cathedral on Sunday 26 June 1295, the day of Saints John and Paul. 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: Bishops Konrad of Lubusz, <mask> of Poznań, Wisław of Włocławek and Gedko <mask> of Płock. From the Polish episcopate, Bishops <mask> Romka of Wrocław and Jan Muskata of Kraków were possibly either present in person or sent their consents. 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. However, as was noted by Kazimierz Tymieniecki, 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. Similarly, no

masks:
Przemysł
Przemysł
Jan II
II
Johann III


texts: sources point to the presence of other Piasts rulers in the ceremony. The consent of Pope Boniface VIII wasn't necessary, because due to the earlier coronations Poland was already a Kingdom. Contemporary sources do not definitively confirm that Przemysł II and Archbishop obtained the approval of the Holy See for the coronation. Only the Kronika oliwska and the Kronika zbrasławska stated that the coronation took place with such consent.If there was an explicit approval, it could influence the later effort of Władysław 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 Władysław 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. 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 <mask> 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 zbrasławska did not deny the royal title of the Duke of Greater Poland, although it called him King of Kalisz.


texts:
 Finally, Wenceslaus II restricted his actions only to diplomatic protests to both <mask> II (where he tried to persuade him to give up the crown) and the Papal Curia. The coronation of <mask> II gave rise to a dispute between historians about the extent of his kingdom. Stanisław Kutrzeba pointed that <mask> II, in fact, was crowned King of Greater Poland.This theory caused a lively discussion, which to this day doesn't give a clear answer about the monarchical status of Przemysł II. It could be expected however that <mask> 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, although in reality <mask> II was politically limited to Greater Poland and Gdańsk Pomerania. Royal government and assassination
After the coronation, <mask> II went to Pomerelia and came to Słupsk On 30 July, where he confirmed the privileges of the Cistercian monasteries in Oliwa and Żarnowiec. He then visited other major cities: Gdańsk, Tczew and Świecie. In August 1295 he returned to Greater Poland but in October he was again in Gdańsk. This demonstrates how important the Duchy of Pomerelia was for <mask> II. Taking into

masks: Przemysł Przemysł Przemysł Przemysł Przemysł Przemysł Przemysł


texts: account the fact that these events took place in the 13th century, the sources that stated any details concerning <mask> II's death are dubious; the Kronika wielkopolska failed to mention the events in Rogoźno.Sources are divided about who are the perpetrators of the murder of the Polish King: the margraves of Brandenburg, some Polish families (the Nałęczs 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 kapituły poznańskiej. The records shows that the margraves of Brandenburg, Otto V, another Otto (perhaps Otto IV), and John IV, nephew of Przemysł II (as son of his oldest sister Constance), sent an army who arrived in the dawn on 8 February 1296 to the town of Rogoźno, 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 Przemysł II by men of the margraves of Brandenburg was also supported by the Kronika oliwska (Chronicle of


texts:
 Oliva), which stipulates that after the coronation:

With high probability it is assumed that the first part of this information, was translated from the Liber Mortuorum Monasterii Oliviensis by the author of the Kronika oliwska, Abbot Stanisław, 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. Another earlier source who wrote about the death of <mask> II at the hands of Brandenburg, was the Rocznik kołbacki of the Cistercian monastery in Kołbacz 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. The problem is that nothing certain about him was found in other sources, and besides, the name of Piotr, under what is known <mask> <mask> in the chronicle, raises big surprise. Most likely this is a mistake of the author.


texts: 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 <mask> II died during a war between Brandenburg and Greater Poland.Another German chronicler, who unequivocally accused the House of Ascania was Dietmar of Lübeck, which also pointed out that <mask> 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 małopolski in the Szamotuły codec, the Rocznik Sędziwoja and the Kronika książąt polskich. The priority should be given to the nearest chronologically Rocznik Traski. Extremely important is also the testimony of Jan Łodzia, Bishop of Poznań during the

masks: Przemysł Przemysł


texts: Polish-Teutonic War of 1339, because it came from a person who participated in the political life of Greater Poland of those times. The foreign sources who described the crime and pointed the culprits are: the Annales Toruniensis (date from the early 15th century), the Kronika zbrasławska (dated from the 14th century) and the , who was written in the first half of the 14th century.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 małopolski) or the Nałęczs with the help of the Zarembas (according to the ). Finally, a third group of sources accused both the margraves of Brandenburg and the Polish noble families of the murder; for example the Rocznik świętokrzyski nowy. 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. It is unknown whether the author mentioned the involvement of Wenceslaus II as a simple deduction: because he had the


texts:
 greatest benefit for this crime, he must be the perpetrator. Finally, Jan Długosz indicated that the Zaremba and Nałęcz families, with the help of some "Saxons", are the perpetrators of the crime, a fact also reported by Marcin Bielski and Marcin Kromer. 8 February 1296 is widely recognized as the date of the crime.In fact, it appears in the Rocznik Traski, Rocznik małopolski, , Kalendarz włocławski and the Liber mortuorum monasterii Oliviensis. The dates given by the Rocznik kapituły poznańskiej (6 February) and the Nekrolog lubiński (4 February), as well the reports of Jan Długosz are considered erroneous. As for the place of death, historians considers accurate the versions of the  Rocznik małopolski ("prope oppidum Rogoszno") or the Rocznik Sędziwoja ("ante Rogoszno"), who stated that <mask> <mask> was killed near Rogoźno. The body of 39-year-old <mask> <mask> was buried in the Archcathedral Basilica of St. Peter and St. Paul in Poznań, according to the Rocznik kapituły poznańskiej. The funeral was presided by Bishop Jan. Crowds of nobles, clergy, knights and common citizens took part in the procession. Reconstruction of the murder

The death of <mask> II as a result of a failed kidnapping attempt was a matter of interest

masks: Przemysł II Przemysł II Przemysł


texts: between historians.Circumstances of the death of the last of the Piast Greater Poland line was specifically studied by Karol Górski, Kazimierz Jasiński, Zygmunt Boras, Bronisław Nowacki and Edward Rymar. The importance in Polish history of the death of <mask> II was also relevant in the works of Władysław Karasiewicz and Jan Pakulski, due to the role of the Nałęcz and Zaremba families. In 1295 the King spent Christmas in Gniezno, where he met with Władysław I the Elbow-high. 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 <mask> II after Mestwin II's death and his royal coronation. 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 <mask> 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) <mask> II decided to spend these festivities in the

masks: Przemysł Przemysł Przemysł Przemysł


texts: town of Rogoźno. 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. They were carefully informed by traitors from Przemysł <mask>'s inner circle about the King's itinerary for the next few days. In the meanwhile, <mask> 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 małopolski. They probably wanted to obtain from Przemysł II the resignation of Pomerelia and with this, his plans for the unification of Polish Kingdom. The contingent was probably consisted of dozens of people, because made the kidnapping in hostile territory require adequate preparation. Direct command of the army was entrusted, according to the Rocznik kołbacki to certain Jakub, who was identified by Edward Rymar as Jakub

masks: II Przemysł


texts: Guntersberg (Jakub Kaszuba). Although the personal participation of the Margraves in the kidnapping was stated in the Rocznik kapituły poznańskie and the chronicle of Jan Długosz, 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 Noteć to the place where <mask> II stayed. As was stated by Karol Górski, 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 <mask> 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


texts: (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. A late tradition says that the murder took place probably in the village of Sierniki, about 6.5 km east from Rogoźno.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: porąbania) was traditionally named Porąblic. 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 Jasiński, that efficient action wasn't possible without the participation of people who was close to Przemysł II. Historians are divided about what of two noble families, Nałęcz or Zaremba, participated in this event. The Zarembas are more suspect based on the writings of the Rocznik małopolski:; the rebellion of 1284, certainly caused a deterioration in their relations with the King.About the Nałęcz family, there is no accusation against them in the Rocznik świętokrzyskiego nowy or in the


texts:
 chronicle of Długosz; in fact, modern historiography writes about the friendly relationship of <mask> II with the Grzymała and Łodzia families, and also with the Nałęcz. Aftermath
Although the death of <mask> 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 Władysław I the Elbow-high (supported by Bolesław <mask> of Płock) and <mask> of Głogów (with the help of Bolko I of Opole). The war, if it really took place, didn't last long, because on 10 March 1296 in Krzywiń an armistice was signed. Under the agreement, the Elbow-high accepted the rights of the Duke of Głogów over Greater Poland, following the terms of his previous treaty with Przemysł II. In addition the Duke of Kujawy adopted <mask>'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 Poznań. It's not known why Władysław I the Elbow-high considered that <mask> of Głogów had better

masks:
Przemysł
Przemysł
II
Henry III
Henry III
Henry III


texts:
 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 Noteć and the castles in Wieleń, Czarnków, Ujście, Santok and Drezdenko. The second reason for Władysław I the Elbow-high's quick agreement with <mask> of Głogów was the intervention in Gdańsk of his nephew Leszek of Inowrocław, which made claims to this part of the lands of Przemysł II. Finally, thanks to the fast intervention of the Elbow-high in Pomerelia, Leszek retreated to his paternal domains in Inowrocław after receiving as compensation the town of Wyszogród. With the death of <mask> II came the partition of his domains, and only thanks to the instant reaction of Władysław I the Elbow-high, the losses against of Brandenburg, Głogów and Kujawy were relatively small. Seals and coinage
During his reign <mask> II had only five seals:

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.

masks:
Henry III
Przemysł
Przemysł


texts: 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". <mask> 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". 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 Przemysł 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


texts: 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". It also includes the inscription, according to K. Górski (in "Rocznik Gdański", 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 Stanisław Krzyżanowski reads: "Reddidit Ips(e Deus) Victricia Signa. Polonis".Historians do not agree why <mask> II replaced the seal used by his father and uncle for a lion and an eagle. It is believed that either he wanted to emphasize his precedence from the Piast dynasty (the eagle in the coat of arms was also used by Władysław <mask> and Władysław Odonic), or with the symbol wanted to emphasize his rights inherited from Henryk IV Probus. There is no known coin which can certainly be attributed to Przemysł II. However, due to the existence of mints, confirmed by sources, it is possible that many coin portrayals were misinterpreted by experts. Some historians attributed to the Greater Poland

masks:
Przemysł
III Spinhanks


texts:
 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 Bolesław II the Generous. Economic policy
Due to the nature of the extant sources from the times of Przemysł 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 <mask> 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 <mask> II was Jakub Świnka, Archbishop of Gniezno. Already on 8 January 1284 he managed to obtain the village of Polanów. 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 Żnin and the castellany of Ląd. Moreover,


texts: under these privilege of coins mint, the Archbishop was to be treated as equal with the Greater Poland ruler. Two years later, on 20 June 1286 there was a failed attempt to get the same privilege of the Archbishop to Duke Bolesław II of Masovia in Łowicz; this became in the basis for the economic independence of Jakub and the economic power of Greater Poland. Also, the Bishop of Poznań received similar grants from <mask> II for example, in 1288 in the city of Śródka, in 1289, an exemption from mercantile taxes to the episcopal city of Buk, and finally, in 1290, was approved the grant of German law for Słupca.For political reasons, there is no similar support to other bishops -with one exception- in 1287, <mask> II released Bishop Konrad of Lubusz from the current Polish law and authorized the implementation of the German law in his diocese. 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 Ląd (who received grants in the years 1280, 1289, 1291 and 1293), Łekno (1280, 1283, 1288), and Gościkowo (1276, 1277, 1290). Those enjoying a little less support included the Benedictines (especially the monastery


texts: of Lubin, who received privileges in the years 1277, 1294, 1296), and Dominicans (his friary in Poznań received in 1277 the right to fishing on the Warta, and the monastery of Wronki monetary grants). <mask> II also granted small privileges to military orders: the Templars, the Hospitallers, and the Canons of the Holy Sepulchre. Przemysł II also favored the middle class, and happily to this day many documents regarding this have survived. In 1280, the capital Poznań 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. The second main city in Greater Poland, Kalisz, received in 1282 the confirmation of some rights previously granted by Bolesław the Pious. In 1283, the Duke extended the town privileges in all the cities of Greater Poland following the model of Kalisz (Privilege of Kalisz). In 1287 another city was granted privileges for the Jewish community to establish a local cemetery in the village of Czaszki). In 1289 a city obtained consent for the construction of five pharmacies and the authorization of a sixth). In 1291 cloth sellers received from the Duke the revenue from customs duties, and the


texts:
 city received 12 pieces of land for the purpose of grazing). In 1292 an exemption from customs duties levied in Ołobok was granted.)In 1294 noble privileges, based on former and existing German laws, were granted in the city of Kalisz). In addition to the privileges granted to Poznań and Kalisz, other individual privileges given to Pyzdry in 1283 (exemption from paying customs duties merchants in Greater Poland), to Rogoźno in 1280 (implementation of the German law) and Elbląg in 1294 (confirmation of privileges given by Mestwin II). Ancestors

References

Bibliography
Henryk Andrulewicz, Geneza orła białego jako herbu Królestwa Polskiego w roku 1295, [in:] "Studia Źródłoznawcze", 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 południowej Polski w XIII wieku oraz na początku XIV wieku. Polityczno-ideologiczne problemy ekspansji czeskiej na ziemie południowej Polski, Katowice 1992. Antoni Barciak, Czeskie echa koronacji Przemysła II, [in:] Przemysł <mask>. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, ed. Jadwiga Krzyżaniakowej, Poznań 1997, pp. 225–232.Jan Baszkiewicz, Powstanie zjednoczonego państwa polskiego


texts: na przełomie XIII i XIV wieku, Warsaw 1954. Jan Baszkiewicz, Rola Piastów w procesie zjednoczenia państwowego Polski, [in:] Piastowie w dziejach Polski. Zbiór artykułów z okazji trzechsetnej rocznicy wygaśnięcia dynastii Piastów, ed. Roman Hecka, Wrocław 1975, pp. 49–68. Zofia Białłowicz-Krygierowa, Posągi memoratywne Przemysła II i Ryksy w dawnej Kaplicy Królewskiej katedry w Poznaniu, [in:] Przemysł <mask>. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, ed.J. Krzyżaniakowej, Poznań 1997, pp. 307–327. Maria Bielińska, Kancelarie i dokumenty wielkopolskie XIII wieku, Wrocław 1967. Maria Bielińska, Antoni Gąsiorowski, Jerzy Łojko, Urzędnicy wielkopolscy XII–XV wieku. Spisy, Wrocław 1985. Janusz Bieniak, Postanowienia układu kępińskiego (15 lutego 1282), [in:] "Przegląd Historyczny", vol. LXXXII, 1991, pp.209–232. Janusz Bieniak, Zjednoczenie państwa polskiego, [in:] Polska dzielnicowa i zjednoczona. Państwo. Społeczeństwo. Kultura, ed. A. Gieysztora, Warsaw 1972, pp. 202–278.Janusz Bieniak, Znaczenie polityczne koronacji Przemysła II, [in:] Orzeł Biały. Herb państwa polskiego, ed. S. Kuczyńskiego, Warsaw 1996, pp. 35–52. Zbigniew Dalewski, Ceremonia koronacji Przemysła II, [in:] Przemysł II. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, ed. J.


texts: Krzyżaniakowej, Poznań 1997, pp.199–212. Edmund Długopolski, Władysław Łokietek na tle swoich czasów, Wrocław 1951. Włodzimierz Dworzaczek, Genealogia, Warsaw 1959. Sławomir Gawlas, Polityka wewnętrzna Przemysła II a mechanizmy społecznych dążeń i konfliktów w Wielkopolsce jego czasów, [in:] Przemysł <mask>. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, ed. J. Krzyżaniakowej, Poznań 1997, pp. 65–80.Karol Górski, Śmierć Przemysła II, [in:] "Roczniki Historyczne", V, 1929, pp. 170–200. Roman Grodecki, Polska piastowska, Warsaw 1969. Roman Gumowski, Monety królewskie Przemysława II, [in:] "Wiadomości Numizmatyczne", II, 1958, t. 3, pp. 11–15. Marian Haisig, Herby dynastyczne Piastów i początki godła państwowego Polski, [in:] Piastowie w dziejach Polski. Zbiór artykułów z okazji trzechsetnej rocznicy wygaśnięcia dynastii Piastów, ed.R. Heck, Wrocław 1975, pp. 149–166. Wojciech Iwańczak, Elżbieta Ryksa – królowa, kobieta, mecenas sztuki, [in:] Nasi Piastowie, "Kronika miasta Poznania", 1995, nr 2, pp. 153–164. Kazimierz Jasiński, Gdańsk w okresie samodzielności politycznej Pomorza Gdańskiego, [in:] Historia Gdańska, vol. I. ed. E. Cieślaka, Gdańsk 1978, pp.271–297. Kazimierz Jasiński, Genealogia Piastów wielkopolskich. Potomstwo Władysława


texts:
 Odonica, [in:] Nasi Piastowie, "Kronika miasta Poznania", 1995, nr 2, pp. 34–66. Kazimierz Jasiński, Ludgarda (ok. 1260–1283), pierwsza żona Przemysła II, księcia wielkopolskiego, od r. 1295 króla polskiego, Polski Słownik Biograficzny, vol. XVIII, Wrocław 1973, pp. 87–88.Kazimierz Jasiński, <mask> <mask> (1257–1296), książę wielkopolski, krakowski, pomorski, król polski, [in:] Polski Słownik Biograficzny, vol. XXVIII, Wrocław 1984–1985, pp. 730–733. Kazimierz Jasiński, Rola polityczna możnowładztwa wielkopolskiego w latach 1284–1314, [in:] "Roczniki Historyczne", vol. XXIX, 1963, pp. 215–250. Kazimierz Jasiński, Ryksa Elżbieta – Boemie et Polonie bis regina, [in:] Przemysł <mask>.Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, ed. J. Krzyżaniakowej, Poznań 1997, pp. 269–280
Kazimierz Jasiński, Stosunki Przemysła II z mieszczaństwem, [w:] Czas, przestrzeń, praca w dawnych miastach. Studia ofiarowane Henrykowi Samsonowiczowi w sześćdziesiątą rocznicę urodzin, Warsaw 1991, pp. 319–328. Kazimierz Jasiński, Szwedzkie małżeństwo księcia wielkopolskiego Przemysła II (Ryksa żona Przemysła) [in:] Monastycyzm, Słowiańszczyzna i państwo polskie. Warsztat badawczy historyka, ed.K. Bobowskiego, Wrocław 1994, pp. 69–80. Kazimierz Jasiński, Tragedia

masks: Przemysł II II


texts: Rogozińska 1296 r. na tle rywalizacji wielkopolsko-brandenburskiej o Pomorze Gdańskie, [in:] "Zapiski Historyczne", vol. XXVI, 1961, t. 4, pp. 65–104. Kazimierz Jasiński, Z problematyki zjednoczenia państwa polskiego na przełomie XIII i XIV wieku, [in:] "Zapiski Towarzystwa Naukowego w Toruniu", vol. XXI, Toruń 1955, pp.198–241. Kazimierz Jasiński, Zapis Pomorza Gdańskiego przez Mszczuja w 1282 r., [in:] "Przegląd Zachodni", VIII, 1952, nr 5–6, pp. 176–189. Tomasz Jurek, Dziedzic Królestwa Polskiego książę głogowski Henryk (1274–1309), Poznań 1993. Tomasz Jurek, Przygotowania do koronacji Przemysła II, [in:] Przemysł <mask>. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, ed. J. Krzyżaniakowej, Poznań 1997, pp.167–180. Tomasz Jurek, Testament Henryka Probusa. Autentyk czy falsyfikat?, [in:] "Studia Źródłoznawcze", vol. XXXV, 1994, pp. 79–99. Władysław Karasiewicz, Biskup poznański Jan Zaremba 1297–1316, [in:] "Sprawozdania Poznańskiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciół Nauk", nr 49 first and second quarter 1957, pp. 62–64.Władysław Karasiewicz, Działalność polityczna Andrzeja Zaremby w okresie jednoczenia państwa polskiego na przełomie XIII/XIV wieku, Poznań 1961. Władysław Karasiewicz, Jakób II Świnka arcybiskup gnieźnieński 1283–1314, Poznań 1948.


texts: Stanisław Kętrzyński, O dwóch pieczęciach Przemysła II z roku 1290, [in:] "Miesięcznik heraldyczny", II, 1932, pp. 21–30. Stanisław Kętrzyński, O królestwie wielkopolskim, [in:] "Przegląd Historyczny", vol. VIII, 1909, pp. 129–153.Jadwiga Krzyżaniakowa, Rola kulturalna Piastów w Wielkopolsce, [in:] Piastowie w dziejach Polski. Zbiór artykułów z okazji trzechsetnej rocznicy wygaśnięcia dynastii Piastów, ed. R. Heck, Wrocław 1975, pp. 167–195. Stanisław Krzyżanowski, Dyplomy i kancelaryja Przemysława II. Studium z dyplomatyki polskiej XIII wieku, [in:] "Pamiętnik Akademii Umiejętności, Wydział Filologiczny i Historyczno-Filozoficzny", vol. VIII 1890, pp.122–192. Stanisław Krzyżanowski, Regnum Poloniae, vol. I, II, [in:] "Sprawozdania Akademii Umiejętności, Wydział Historyczno-Filozoficzny", 1905, nr 5, pp. 14–16, 1913, nr 9, pp. 20–24. Brygida Kürbis, O Ludgardzie, pierwszej żonie Przemysła II, raz jeszcze, [in:] Przemysł <mask>. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, ed.J. Krzyżaniakowej, Poznań 1997, pp. 257–267. Brygida Kürbis, Dziejopisarstwo wielkopolskie w XIII i XIV w., Warsaw 1959. Gerard Labuda, Mściwoj II, Polski Słownik Biograficzny, vol. XXII, Wrocław 1977, pp. 229–231. Gerard Labuda, O godności króla i instytucji


texts: królestwa, [in:] Przemysł <mask>.Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, ed. J. Krzyżaniakowej, Poznań 1997, pp. 27–56. Gerard Labuda, Wielkopolska na drogach rozwoju politycznego ku koronacji Przemysła II, [in:] Nasi Paistowie, "Kroniki Miasta Poznania", 1995, t. 2, pp. 10–33. Henryk Łowmiański, Początki Polski, vol. VI, Warsaw 1985.Norbert Mika, Imię Przemysł w wielkopolskiej linii Piastów. Niektóre aspekty stosunków książąt wielkopolskich z Czechami do połowy XIII wieku, [in:] Przemysł <mask>. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, ed. J. Krzyżaniakowej, Poznań 1997, pp. 247–255. Sławomir Musiał, Bitwa pod Siewierzem i udział w niej Wielkopolan, [in:] Przemysł <mask>. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, ed.J. Krzyżaniakowej, Poznań 1997, pp. 161–166. Bronisław Nowacki, Czeskie roszczenia do korony w Polsce w latach 1290–1335, Poznań 1987. Bronisław Nowacki, Przemysł II, książę wielkopolski, król Polski 1257–1295, Poznań 1995. Bronisław Nowacki, Przemysł II 1257–1296. Odnowiciel korony polskiej, Poznań 1997. Bronisław Nowacki, Zabiegi o zjednoczenie państwa i koronację królewską w latach 1284 i 1285 na tle rywalizacji Przemysła II z Henrykiem IV Prawym, [in:] Przemysł II.Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, ed. J. Krzyżaniakowej, Poznań 1997, pp.

masks: II II II


texts: 153–160. Bronisław Nowacki, Związki małżeńskie książąt jednoczycieli państwa polskiego w drugiej połowie XIII wieku na tle ich polityki zjednoczeniowej. Rola polityczna margrabiów brandenburskich z młodszej linii askańskiej, [in:] Docento discimus. Studia historyczne poświęcone Profesorowi Zbigniewowi Wielgoszowi w siedemdziesiątą rocznicę urodzin, ed. K. Kaczmarka and J. Nikodema, Poznań 2000, pp.161–171. Tomasz Nowakowski, Krakowska kapituła katedralna wobec panowania Przemyślidów w Małopolsce w latach 1292–1306, [in:] "Przegląd Historyczny", vol. LXXXII, 1991, t. 1, pp. 1–20. Tomasz Nowakowski, Małopolska elita władzy wobec rywalizacji o tron krakowski w latach 1288–1306, Bydgoszcz 1992. Tomasz Nowakowski, Stosunki między Przemysłem II a Władysławem Łokietkiem w okresie walk o Kraków po śmierci Leszka Czarnego (1288–1291), [in:] "Roczniki historyczne", vol. LIV, 1988, pp.143–161. Krzysztof Ożóg, Przemysł II, [in:] Piastowie. Leksykon biograficzny, Kraków 1999, pp. 154–161. Jan Pakulski, Itinerarium książęco-królewskie Przemysła II, [in:] "Studia Źródłoznawcze", vol. XXXIX, 2001, pp. 69–94.Jan Pakulski, Nałęcze w Wielkopolsce w średniowieczu. Genealogia, uposażenie i rola polityczna w XII–XIV w., Warsaw 1982. Jan Pakulski,


texts: Rola polityczna Beniamina Zaremby w drugiej połowie XIII wieku, [in:] "Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika w Toruniu. Nauki Humanistyczno-Społeczne", vol. XXXV, Historia V, 1969, pp. 21–32. Jan Pakulski, Ród Zarembów w Wielkopolsce w XIII i początkach XIV wieku.Prace Komisji Historii XI, Bydgoskie Towarzystwo Naukowe, serie C, nr 16, 1975, pp. 103–137. Jan Pakulski, Stosunki Przemysła II z duchowieństwem metropolii gnieźnieńskiej, [in:] Przemysł <mask>. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, ed. J. Krzyżaniakowej, Poznań 1997, pp. 81–100. Zenon Piech, O pieczęciach, herbach i monetach Przemysła II (Uwagi dyskusyjne), [in:] Przemysł <mask>.Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, ed. J. Krzyżaniakowej, Poznań 1997, pp. 181–198. Zenon Piech, Studia nad symboliką zjednoczeniową pieczęci książąt piastowskich w drugiej połowie XIII wieku i początkach XIV wieku, "Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Prace historyczne", vol. LXXXIV, 1987, pp. 37–60.Tomasz Pietras, Krwawy Wilk z pastorałem. Biskup krakowski Jan zwany Muskatą, Warsaw 2001. Poczet królów i książąt polskich, ed. VII, Warsaw 1996. Barbara Popielas-Szultka, Przemysł II a Pomorze Zachodnie (stosunki polityczne), [in:] Przemysł <mask>. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego,


texts: ed. J. Krzyżaniakowej, Poznań 1997, pp.145–152. Jan Powierski, Krzyżacka polityka Przemysła II w pierwszym okresie aktywności politycznej, [in:] Przemysł <mask>. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, ed. J. Krzyżaniakowej, Poznań 1997, pp. 101–122. Edward Rymar, Próba identyfikacji Jakuba Kaszuby, zabójcy króla Przemysła II, w powiązaniu z ekspansją brandenburską na północne obszary Wielkopolski, [in:] Niemcy – Polska w średniowieczu. Materiały z konferencji naukowej zorganizowanej przez Instytut Historii UAM w dniach 14–16 XI 1983 r., ed.J. Strzelczyka, Poznań 1986, pp. 203–224. Edward Rymar, Przynależność polityczna wielkopolskich ziem zanoteckich między dolną Drawą i dolną Gwdą, oraz Wielenia, Czarnkowa i Ujścia w latach 1296–1368, [in:] "Roczniki Historyczne", vol. L, 1984, pp. 39–84. Edward Rymar, Stosunki Przemysła II z margrabiami brandenburskimi ze starszej linii askańskiej w latach 1279–1296, [in:] Przemysł <mask>. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, ed.J. Krzyżaniakowej, Poznań 1997, pp. 123–144. Tadeusz Silnicki, Kazimierz Gołąb, Arcybiskup Świnka i jego epoka, Poznań 1956. Szczęsny Skibiński, Bolesław Chrobry a Przemysł II. O królewskich pomnikach w katedrze poznańskiej, [in:] Przemysł <mask>. Odnowienie Królestwa


texts: Polskiego, ed. J. Krzyżaniakowej, Poznań 1997, pp.299–306. Andrzej Skulimowski, Skulimowski M., Magister Mikołaj, nadworny lekarz książąt wielkopolskich w II połowie XIII wieku i na początku XIV wieku, [in:] "Archiwum Historii Medycyny", vol. XXIV, 1958, nr ¾, pp. 285–290. Krzysztof Skupieński, Miejsce notariatu publicznego wśród świadków realizacji programu politycznego arcybiskupa Jakuba Świnki, [in:] "Kwartalnik Historyczny", vol. XCVI, 1989, nr 3, pp. 63–84.Aleksander Swieżawski, Dux regni Poloniae i heres regni Poloniae. Ze studiów nad tytulaturą władców polskich na przełomie XIII i XIV wieku, [in:] "Przegląd Historyczny", vol. LXXX, 1989, t. 3, pp. 429–438. Aleksander Swieżawski, Plany koronacyjne Henryka Probusa. Królestwo polskie czy królestwo krakowskie?, [in:] "Studia z Dziejów Państwa i Prawa Polskiego", vol. IV, 1999, pp.139–146. Aleksander Swieżawski, Przemysł – król Polski, Wydawnictwo "DiG", Warsaw 2006. Błażej Śliwiński, Rola polityczna możnowładztwa na Pomorzu Gdańskim w czasach Mściwoja II, UG, Gdańsk 1987. Błażej Śliwiński, Rządy Przemysła II na Pomorzu Gdańskim w latach 1294–1295, [in:] "Zapiski Historyczne", vol. LIX, 1994, t. 1, pp. 7–27. Agnieszka Teterycz, Małopolska elita władzy wobec zamieszek


texts: politycznych w Małopolsce w XIII wieku, [in:] Społeczeństwo Polski Średniowiecznej.Zbiór Studiów, ed. S. Kuczyńskiego, vol. IX, Warsaw 2001, pp. 65–87. Jan Tęgowski, Uwagi o pieczęciach Przemysła II, "Acta Universitatis Nicolai Copernici. Historia XXIV. Nauki Humanistyczno-Społeczne", t. 204, 1990, pp.175–183. Jan Tęgowski, Zabiegi księcia kujawskiego Władysława Łokietka o tron krakowski w latach 1288–1293, [in:] "Zapiski Kujawsko-Dobrzyńskie", vol. VI, 1987, pp. 43–68. Kazimierz Tymieniecki, Odnowienie dawnego królestwa polskiego, [in:] "Kwartalnik Historyczny", t. XXXIV, 1920, pp. 30–87. Bolesław Ulanowski, Kilka słów o małżonkach Przemysława II, [in:] "Rozprawy i Sprawozdania z Posiedzeń Wydziału Historyczno-Filozoficznego Akademii Umiejętności", vol.XVII, 1884, pp. 252–274. Zofia Waniek, Powiązania genealogiczne askańsko-wielkopolskie w XII i XIII wieku, [in:] "Prace Komisji Historii", XI 1975, Bydgoskie Towarzystwo Naukowe. Prace Wydziału Nauk Humanistycznych, serie C, nr 16, pp. 89–101. Jacek Wiesiołowski, Zabójstwo księżny Ludgardy w 1283 r., [in:] "Kronika miasta Poznania", 1993, nr 1–2, pp. 7–22.Bronisław Włodarski, Elżbieta-Ryksa, [in:] Polski Słownik Biograficzny, vol. VI, Kraków 1948, pp. 241–242. Bronisław


texts:
 Włodarski, Polska i Czechy w drugiej połowie XIII i na początku XIV wieku, Lwów 1931. Jerzy Wyrozumski, Gospodarcze i społeczne uwarunkowania procesu zjednoczeniowego w Polsce XIII wieku, [in:] Przemysł <mask>. Odnowienie Królestwa Polskiego, ed. J. Krzyżaniakowej, Poznań 1997, pp.57–64. Stanisław Zachorowski, Wiek XIII i panowanie Władysława Łokietka, [in:] Grodecki R., Zachorowski S., Dąbrowski J., Dzieje Polski średniowiecznej w dwu tomach, vol. I, by 1933, Kraków 1926, ed. II, Kraków 1995. Krystyna Zielińska, Zjednoczenie Pomorza Gdańskiego z Wielkopolską. Umowa kępińska 1282 r., Toruń 1968. Benedykt Zientara, Przemysł II, [in:] Poczet królów i książąt polskich, Warsaw 1984, pp.212–217. Paweł Żmudzki, Studium podzielonego Królestwa. Książę Leszek Czarny, Warsaw 2000. Chronicles
Chronica Oliviensis auctore Stanislao abbate Olivensi, ed. W. Kętrzyński, [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 Długosz, Roczniki, czyli kroniki sławnego Królestwa Polskiego, fr. VII, Warsaw 1974. Kodeks dyplomatyczny Małopolski, ed. F. Piekosiński, vol.III, Kraków 1887. Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, ed. I. Zakrzewski,


texts:
 vol. I-V, Poznań 1877–1908. Kronika książąt polskich, ed. Z. Węglewski, [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

History of Poland (966–1385)
Dukes of Greater Poland
Jakub Świnka
Royal coronations in Poland

|-

|-

|-

|-

|-

|-

1257 births
1296 deaths
13th-century Polish monarchs
Polish Roman Catholics
Dukes of Pomerania
Dukes of Greater Poland
13th-century murdered monarchs
Assassinated Polish people
Burials at Poznań Cathedral
People murdered in


texts:
<mask> (; 7 January 1895 – 3 February 1955) was a Soviet and Russian major general who served as the chief executioner of the NKVD under the administrations of Genrikh Yagoda, Nikolay Yezhov, and Lavrentiy Beria. Hand-picked for the position by Joseph Stalin in 1926, <mask> led a company of executioners that performed and supervised numerous mass killings during Stalin's reign, mostly during the Great Purge and World War II. He is recorded as having executed tens of thousands of prisoners by his own hand, including his killing of about 7,000 Polish prisoners of war during the Katyn massacre in spring 1940, making him the most prolific official executioner and mass killer in recorded world history. Forced into retirement following the death of Stalin, <mask> died in 1955, his death being officially reported as a suicide. Early life and career
<mask>, born into a peasant family on 7 January 1895, served in the Imperial Russian Army during World War I, and joined the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and the Soviet state security agency Cheka in March 1921. Though records are scant, he was evidently noted for both his pugnaciousness and his mastery of what Joseph Stalin termed chernaya rabota ("wetwork", or literally, "black work"): assassinations, torture, intimidation, and executions conducted clandestinely. Once he gained Stalin's attention, he was quickly promoted and within six years was appointed the head of the purposefully created Kommandatura Branch of the Administrative Executive Department of the NKVD.This branch was a company-sized element created by Stalin specifically for wetwork. Headquartered at the Lubyanka in Moscow, its members were all approved by Stalin and took their

masks:
Vasily Mikhailovich Blokhin
Blokhin
Blokhin
Blokhin


texts:
 orders directly from him, which ensured the unit's longevity despite three bloody purges of the NKVD. As senior executioner, <mask> had the official title of commandant of the internal prison at the Lubyanka, which allowed him to carry out his duties with a minimum of scrutiny and no official paperwork. Although most of the estimated 828,000 NKVD executions conducted in Stalin's lifetime were performed by local Chekists in concert with NKVD troikas, mass executions were overseen by specialist executioners from the Kommandantura. In addition to overseeing the mass executions, <mask> personally pulled the trigger in all of the individual high-profile executions conducted in the Soviet Union during his tenure, including those of the Old Bolsheviks convicted at the Moscow Trials; Marshal of the Soviet Union Mikhail Tukhachevsky (convicted at a secret trial); and two of the three killed NKVD Chiefs (Genrikh Yagoda in 1938 and Nikolay Yezhov in 1940) he had once served. He was awarded the Badge of Honour for his service in 1937. Role in the Katyn massacre

<mask>'s most infamous act was the April 1940 execution by shooting of about 7,000 Polish prisoners interned in the Ostashkov prisoner of war camp in the Katyn forest.The majority were military and police officers who had been captured following the Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939. The event's infamy also stems from the Stalin regime's orchestration of the murders, and the subsequent Allied propaganda campaign which blamed Nazi Germany for the massacres, aided by the Western Allies in order to preserve morale. In 1990, as part of Glasnost, Mikhail Gorbachev gave the Polish government the files on the massacres at Katyn, Starobilsk and

masks: Blokhin Blokhin Blokhin


texts: Kalinin (now Tver), revealing Stalin's involvement. Based on the 4 April secret order from Stalin to NKVD Chief Lavrentiy Beria as well as NKVD Order No. 00485, which still applied, the executions were carried out over 28 consecutive nights at the specially constructed basement execution chamber at the NKVD headquarters in Kalinin, and were assigned, by name, directly to Blokhin, making him the official executioner of the NKVD. Blokhin initially decided on an ambitious quota of 300 executions per night, and engineered an efficient system in which the prisoners were individually led to a small antechamber—which had been painted red and was known as the "Leninist room"—for a brief and cursory positive identification, before being handcuffed and led into the execution room next door. The room was specially designed with padded walls for soundproofing, a sloping concrete floor with a drain and hose, and a log wall for the prisoners to stand against.Blokhin would stand waiting behind the door in his executioner garb: a leather butcher's apron, leather hat, and shoulder-length leather gloves. Then, without a hearing, the reading of a sentence or any other formalities, each prisoner was brought in and restrained by guards while Blokhin shot him once in the base of the skull with a German Walther Model 2 .25 ACP pistol. He had brought a briefcase full of his own Walther pistols, since he did not trust the reliability of the standard-issue Soviet TT-30 for the frequent, heavy use he intended. The use of a German pocket pistol, which was commonly carried by German police and intelligence agents, also provided plausible deniability of the executions if the bodies were discovered later. An estimated


texts:
 30 local NKVD agents, guards and drivers were pressed into service to escort prisoners to the basement, confirm identification, then remove the bodies and hose down the blood after each execution. Although some of the executions were carried out by Senior Lieutenant of State Security Andrei Rubanov, <mask> was the primary executioner and, true to his reputation, liked to work continuously and rapidly without interruption. In keeping with NKVD policy and the overall "wet" nature of the operation, the executions were conducted at night, starting at dark and continuing until just prior to dawn.The bodies were continuously loaded onto covered flat-bed trucks through a back door in the execution chamber and trucked, twice a night, to Mednoye, where Blokhin had arranged for a bulldozer and two NKVD drivers to dispose of bodies at an unfenced site. Each night, 24–25 trenches were dug, measuring  in length, to hold that night's corpses, and each trench was covered over before dawn. <mask> and his team worked without pause for 10 hours each night, with Blokhin executing an average of one prisoner every three minutes. At the end of the night, Blokhin provided vodka to all his men. On 27 April 1940, <mask> secretly received the Order of the Red Banner and a modest monthly pay premium as a reward from Joseph Stalin for his "skill and organization in the effective carrying out of special tasks". His tally of 7,000 shot in 28 days remains the most organized and protracted mass murder by a single individual on record, and caused him being named the Guinness World Record holder for 'Most Prolific Executioner' in 2010. Personal life
<mask> was married to Natalia Aleksandrovna <mask> (1901–1967), and had

masks: Blokhin Blokhin Blokhin Blokhin Blokhina


texts:
 a son, Nikolai Vasilievich Baranov (1916–1998).Retirement and death
<mask> was forcibly retired following Stalin's death in March 1953. However, his "irreproachable service" was publicly noted by Beria at the time of his departure. When Beria himself was removed in June, <mask>'s rank was stripped from him in the de-Stalinization campaigns of Nikita Khrushchev. He reportedly sank into alcoholism and serious mental illness. <mask> died on 3 February 1955, aged 60. The official cause of death was listed as "suicide". Honours and awards
 Honorary Worker of the Cheka-GPU (V) № 498
 Honorary Worker of the Cheka-GPU (XV) (1932)
 Order of the Red Star (1936)
 Order of the Badge of Honour (1937)
 Order of the Red Banner, twice (1940, 1944)
 Order of the Red Banner of Labour (1943)
 Order of Lenin (1945)
 Order of the Patriotic War, 1st class (1945)

Notes

See also
 Mass killings under communist regimes

References

External links
 Remembering Katyn, Suicide of <mask> <mask>
 Katyn Memorial, Justice for Stalin's & Blokin's Katyn Victims
 Katyn Information & Memorial

1895 births
1955 deaths
Capital punishment in the Soviet Union
Communist Party of the Soviet Union members
Genocide perpetrators
Great Purge perpetrators
Katyn massacre
NKVD officers
People from Suzdalsky District
People from Suzdalsky Uyezd
Perpetrators of World War II prisoners of war massacres
Recipients of the Order of Lenin
Recipients of the Order of the Red Banner
Recipients of the Order of the Red Banner of Labour
Recipients of the Order of the Red Star
Russian executioners
Russian mass murderers
Russian military personnel of World War I
Soviet executioners
Soviet major generals
Soviet mass murderers
Suicides in the Soviet

masks: Blokhin Blokhin Blokhin Vasily Blokhin


texts:
<mask> (; born 19 February 1952) is a Slovenian diplomat, professor of international law, human rights expert, and political figure who served as President of Slovenia from 2007 to 2012. Türk was the first Slovene ambassador to the United Nations, from 1992 to 2000, and was the UN Assistant Secretary General for Political Affairs from 2000 to 2005. He is a visiting professor of international law at Columbia University in New York City, a professor emeritus at the Faculty of Law of the University of Ljubljana, and non-resident senior fellow of Chongyang Institute for Financial studies at Renmin University of China in Beijing. Türk is the founder of the Danilo <mask> Foundation, devoted mostly to the rehabilitation of child victims of armed conflict. He is also the chairman of the Global High Level Panel on Water and Peace and the chairman of the board of the Global Fairness Initiative], a Washington, CD-based NGO dedicated to economic and social development in developing nations. In 2016, Türk was an unsuccessful candidate for the post of Secretary-General of the United Nations. Early life
Türk was born in a lower-middle-class family in Maribor, Slovenia (then part of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia).He attended Maribor Grammar School No. 2 (II. gimnazija Maribor). In 1971 he enrolled at the University of Ljubljana, where he studied law. After graduation (1975) he served as the secretary of the commission for minority and expatriate affairs at the Socialist Alliance of Working People (SZDL), an organisation sponsored by Yugoslav Communist Party. In December 1979 he became the chairman of that commission and a member of the executive committee of the SZDL. At the same time he continued his studies.He obtained an MA with a thesis on minority rights from the University of Belgrade's Law School. In 1978, he became a

masks:
Danilo Türk
Türk


texts:
 teaching assistant at the Faculty of Law in Ljubljana. In 1982, he obtained his PhD with a dissertation on the principle of non-intervention in international law at the University in Ljubljana and received a full-time job as an assistant professor at the University in Ljubljana's Faculty of Law. In 1983, he became the director of the University of Ljubljana's Institute for International Law. In the following years, he worked on human and minority rights. In the mid-1980s, he collaborated with Amnesty International to report on human rights issues in Yugoslavia. Between 1986 and 1992, he served in a personal capacity as a member the UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities and was the UN Special Rapporteur on the Realization of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.Together with Louis Joinet (France), he was also the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression. In 1987 he initiated the establishment of the Council for Human Rights in Slovenia and served until 1992 as the council’s vice-chairman. In 1990/91 he coauthored the human rights chapter in Slovenia's constitution. Diplomatic and academic career
From 1992 to 2000, <mask> was the first Slovene Permanent Representative to the United Nations. During this time, he secured the election of Slovenia to the UN Security Council (1998–1999) and was president of the United Nations Security Council in August 1998 and November 1999. [1] Between 1996 and 1998, he was a member of the UN Human Rights Committee. From 2000 to 2005, he served as UN Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs under Secretary General Kofi Annan.In 2005 he returned to Slovenia and became a professor of international law; from May 2006 to December 2007 he served as the vice dean of student affairs at the University of Ljubljana's Faculty of Law. <mask> has

masks: Türk Türk


texts:
 published over 100 articles in various law journals and three books. He authored the first Slovene book on international law, titled Temelji mednarodnega prava (Foundations of International Law, 2007, revised 2015). In 2019, <mask> was elected president of the Club of Madrid. Presidency

In June 2007, <mask> ran in the Slovene presidential election. As an "independent" candidate, he was backed by a broad coalition of left-wing parties, composed of the opposition Zares party and Social Democrats, the Democratic Party of Pensioners of Slovenia, and the extra-parliamentary Christian Socialist Party and Democratic Party. In the first round of the presidential elections, held on 21 October 2007, he placed second with 24.54% of the votes, which brought him into the runoff against the centre right candidate Lojze Peterle (who received 28.50% of the popular vote).He won the runoff on 11 November 2007 with 68.2% of the votes,[2] becoming the third president of Slovenia on December 23, 2007. Türk ran for reelection in 2012, but lost the election to Borut Pahor in a second round of voting, held on 2 December 2012. [5] He received roughly one-third of the votes. Health
In March 2011, <mask> <mask> successfully underwent robot-assisted prostate cancer surgery at the Urology Institute in Innsbruck, Austria. UN Secretary-General candidature

In December 2013 Türk announced that he was planning to run for UN Secretary-General. He was soon supported by Prime Minister Alenka Bratušek and Minister of Foreign Affairs Karel Erjavec. In January 2014 the Slovene government endorsed Türk as its candidate for UN Secretary-General.He was later also supported by Prime Minister Miro Cerar and President Borut Pahor, as well as by Speaker of the National Assembly of Slovenia Milan Brglez (also a professor at the University of Ljubljana). In accordance

masks: Türk Türk Danilo Türk


texts: with the UN procedure, the government of Slovenia nominated <mask> <mask> as candidate for UN Secretary-General on 8 February 2016. Türk is an experienced member of the United Nations community. He served as the first Permanent Representative of the Republic of Slovenia to the UN and remained in New York as ambassador for eight years, from 1992 until 2000. As Slovenian representative he also presided over the United Nations Security Council twice. His work was recognised by Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who chose Türk as one of his close advisors and appointed him Assistant Secretary-General in 2000. He served in this position until 2005, when he returned to Slovenia to teach international law at the University of Ljubljana.Türk has long been recognised as an expert and global advocate for human rights and his work has been connected with human rights and the fight for equality for more than 40 years. One element of human rights that Turk has been questioned about is the UN's role in the Haiti cholera outbreak that has been widely discussed and criticized. There has been indisputable evidence that the UN is the proximate cause for bringing cholera to Haiti. Peacekeepers sent to Haiti from Nepal were carrying asymptomatic cholera and they did not treat their waste properly before dumping it into Haiti's water stream. In an interview with the New York Times, Türk was asked if cholera victims should receive compensation. He responded by saying he hopes the UN would "provide the victims with a fair process and an effective remedy." St. Vincent followed this up during the UN informal dialogues by asking Mr. Türk how he would place the pursuit of an effective remedy on his list of priorities.Türk's response was that though the UN enjoys immunity from prosecution, "there are other ways of establishing fair process and

masks: Danilo Türk


texts:
 effectiveness". He also stated "current discussions that I know exist within the Secretariat and between the Secretariat and member states will produce such effectiveness and fairness." Following-up at the media stakeout, Inner City Press questioned Türk about his statement that there may be some process going on behind the scenes to pay compensation. Türk responded by saying that there have been informal conversations about the Haitian situation, and though he does not have full knowledge, he can say that "this story is not closed." He admits that he values the importance of legal regulation including UN immunity, but he also believes in remedies and fair processes. 37 human rights organizations recently signed onto a UN Secretary General accountability pledge. This pledge asks the candidates to take action on two human rights violations that have tarnished the United Nations' image: failing to provide remedies for victims of cholera in Haiti, and sexual exploitation and abuse by peacekeepers.Türk issued a statement responding to Aids Free World and the Institute for Justice & Democracy in Haiti, expressing his support for the organizations' efforts. While he acknowledges that he has "clearly expressed [his] commitment to fairness towards the victims of cholera in Haiti and for substantial, credible and speedy investigations of the cases of sexual abuse committed by peacekeepers", he cannot undertake formal pledges. Nevertheless, he reaffirms his commitment to better UN accountability and says "it is abundantly clear where my heart is." Honors and awards
: Received a copy of the key of the city of Tirana on the occasion of his state visit to Albania. : Grand  Star of the Decoration of Honour for Services to the Republic of Austria (2011)
 : Ilyas Afandiyev International Prize (2010)
 : Received a copy of the key of the


texts:
 city of Bogota (2008)
 : European Court of Auditors Medal (2012)
 : Commander, First Class, Order of the White Rose of Finland (2010)
 : Gold medal of the Széchenyi Scientific Society (2008)
 : Honorary Doctorate, University of Szeged (2010)
 : Honorary Doctorate, Corvinus University of Budapest (2015)
 : Knight Grand Cross, Order of the Falcon (2011)
 : Knight Grand Cross with Cordon, Order of Merit of the Italian Republic (2011)
 : Honorary Professor of the Academy of Public Administration, Astana (2009)
  : Grand Cross of the Order of Saint-Charles (11 January 2011)
 : Grand Cross, Royal Norwegian Order of St Olav (2011)
 : Grand Cross with Diamonds, Order of the Sun of Peru (2008)
 : Honorary Doctorate, Moscow State Institute of International Relations (2012)
 : Honorary Doctorate, V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University (2011)
: Received the Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath by Queen Elizabeth II during her visit to Slovenia in 2008.
 : Arthur J. Goldberg Award, Touro Law College (2008)
Protector of the European Academy of Sciences and Arts (2008)

Personal life
Danilo Türk has been married to Barbara Türk (née Miklič) since 1976. They have one daughter and one granddaughter.He is the brother of the manager Vitoslav <mask>, member of the Slovenian Democratic Party. Türk speaks Slovene, English, French, and Serbo-Croatian. References

External links

Web page of the president of Slovenia
Former presidents of Slovenia with links on their archive web pages
Office of former President <mask> <mask>
Biography
Presidential campaign site 2012
 Biography by CIDOB Foundation
Interview from December 2009 in English with transcript

1952 births
Columbia University faculty
Grand Crosses of the Order of Saint-Charles
Honorary Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath
Knights Grand Cross with Collar of the Order of Merit of

masks: Türk Danilo Türk


texts:
 the Italian Republic
Living people
Members of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights
Politicians from Maribor
Permanent Representatives of Slovenia to the United Nations
Presidents of Slovenia
Slovenian diplomats
Slovenian lawyers
United Nations Human Rights Committee members
Slovenian officials of the United Nations
University of Belgrade alumni
University of Belgrade Faculty of Law alumni
University of Ljubljana alumni
University of Ljubljana


texts:
<mask> (born November 3, 1940), an American jurist and legal scholar, is currently a Senior United States Circuit Judge and chief judge emeritus of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Washington, D.C., and a professor of law at the New York University School of Law. Early life and education

<mask> was born in New York City, the oldest of three children and the son of <mask> and George H<mask>. His parents were divorced in 1950 and <mask> and his two sisters, Verne Debourg and Pamela Matthews, were raised by their mother. From 1952 to 1953, his mother attended Smith College, where she earned a Master's degree in social work. While his mother was away, <mask> lived with his grandparents, in the Harlem section of Manhattan. When his mother returned, the family moved to Long Island, where <mask> attended Uniondale High School and was president of the first graduating class. In 1961, <mask>' mother married <mask>.<mask> received a Bachelor of Science degree from Cornell University in 1962 and a Juris Doctor from University of Michigan Law School in 1965. He graduated from law school with distinction and was a member of the Michigan Law Review and the Order of the Coif. When he graduated from Michigan, he was the only African American (law student or member of the faculty) in the law school. During his time in Michigan, <mask> spent time with his father, George H<mask>, a long-time member of the Michigan House of Representatives; his stepmother, Esther Gordy <mask>, a Senior Vice President at Motown Record Company; and Berry Gordy, Jr., the founder of Motown

masks:
Harry Thomas Edwards
Edwards
Arline Ross Edwards
. Edwards
Edwards
Edwards
Edwards
Edwards
Thomas Lyle
Edwards
Edwards
. Edwards
Edwards


texts:
 Record Company. Professional career: 1965–1980

Despite his very strong academic record in law school, <mask> had difficulty finding a job in the legal profession because he was African American. All of the major law firms to which he applied openly rejected him because of his race. It was only after Professor Russell Smith, his mentor at Michigan, interceded on his behalf that he was hired at Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson.He worked with the firm in Chicago, Illinois from 1965 to 1970, specializing in labor relations law and collective bargaining. In 1970, he accepted an invitation to join the faculty of the University of Michigan Law School and became the first African American to teach at the law school. His teaching and scholarship focused on labor law, collective bargaining, labor law in the public sector, employment discrimination, arbitration, negotiations, and higher education and the law. In 1974, he and his then-wife Becky, and their children, Brent and Michelle, traveled to Brussels, Belgium, where <mask> was a Visiting Professor of Law at the Free University of Brussels. In 1975, <mask> accepted an invitation to visit at Harvard Law School. He was a Visiting Professor of Law at Harvard Law School during the 1975–76 school year and then accepted a tenured position on the law school faculty in 1976. While at Harvard, <mask> was also a faculty member at the Institute for Educational Management at Harvard University from 1976 through 1982.During this period, he co-authored a book on Higher Education and the Law, which was a major shift in his academic work. In the spring of

masks: Edwards Edwards Edwards Edwards


texts:
 1977, <mask> and his family returned to Ann Arbor, Michigan, where he rejoined the faculty of the University of Michigan Law School. In 1980, <mask> was the co-author of four different casebooks (the only legal scholar in the country at the time to achieve the feat). In 1977, <mask> was nominated by President Carter and confirmed by the Senate to serve on the Board of Directors of Amtrak. He was subsequently elected Chairman by the other members of the Board. He resigned his position with Amtrak when he was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1980. From 1970 until 1980, <mask> served as neutral labor arbitrator on a number of major company and union arbitration panels; he was also Vice President of the National Academy of Arbitrators.Federal judicial service

When President Carter took office in 1977, there were only two blacks and one woman among the active federal court of appeals judges. To address this situation, the President established merit selection panels to identify and recommend highly qualified female and minority attorneys for appointment to the federal bench. In 1979, the judicial selection panel for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sent nine names to then-Attorney General Griffin Bell. From that list, President Carter nominated Patricia Wald, Abner Mikva, and <mask> to serve on the court. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was later nominated when an additional opening arose on the D.C. Circuit. <mask> was nominated by the President on December 6, 1979, to a seat vacated by Judge David L. Bazelon, and

masks: Edwards Edwards Edwards Edwards Edwards Edwards


texts:
 confirmed by the United States Senate on February 20, 1980.The President signed his commission to join the court on February 20, 1980. He was 39 years old when he joined the court, reputedly the youngest federal court of appeals judge sitting at the time. Judge <mask> served as Chief Judge from the fall of 1994 until July 2001. During his nearly seven years as Chief Judge of the D.C. Circuit, <mask> directed numerous IT initiatives at the D.C. Circuit; oversaw a complete reorganization of the Clerk's Office and Legal Division; implemented case management programs that helped to cut the court's case backlog and reduce case disposition times; successfully pursued congressional support for the construction of the William B. Bryant Annex to the E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse; presided over the court's hearings in United States v. Microsoft; established programs to enhance communications with the lawyers who practice before the court; and received high praise from members of the bench, bar, and press for fostering collegial relations among the members of the court.He assumed senior status on November 3, 2005. Law teaching and scholarship since 1980

Since 1980, Judge <mask> has taught at a number of law schools, including Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. He is presently a professor of law at the NYU School of Law, where he has taught since 1990. In 2010, he was the C.V. Starr Distinguished Jurist in Residence at the Peking University School of Transnational Law, Shenzhen, China. He is the coauthor of five books. His most recent book is Edwards & Elliott, Federal

masks: Edwards Edwards Edwards


texts: Standards of Review (3d ed. 2018).One of his most significant publications, "The Growing Disjunction Between Legal Education and the Legal Profession", 91 Mich. L. Rev. 34 (1992), has been the source of extensive comment, discussion, and debate among legal scholars and practitioners. The article has been recognized as "one of the most-cited law review articles of all time." Three other articles, "Collegial Decision Making in the U.S. Courts of Appeals" (July 2017); Edwards & Livermore, "The Pitfalls of Empirical Studies That Attempt to Understand the Factors Affecting Appellate Decisionmaking", 58 Duke L.J.1895 (2009); and "The Effects of Collegiality on Judicial Decision Making", 151 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1639 (May 2003), explain how appellate judges decide cases and refute the claim that the personal ideologies and political leanings of court of appeals judges are crucial determinants in their decision-making. In the 2017 paper, <mask> contends that too often commentators attempt to equate the decision-making practices of the U.S. Courts of Appeals with those of the U.S. Supreme Court. This is a mistake, he says, because the organizational structures and judicial responsibilities of the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals are strikingly different.And, unlike the Supreme Court, most of the decisions issued by the Courts of Appeals are unanimous. For the terms between 2011 and 2016, the Courts of Appeals issued over 172,000 total decisions on the merits. Only 1.3% of these decisions included a dissent. Less than 1% of the total decisions included a concurring opinion. And 90% of “published”