Acta Historica Universitatis Klaipedensis

When the People’s Council of Latvia gathered in Riga on 18 November 1918 to proclaim Latvia’s independence, the Latvian Provisional Government did not yet have an army capable of defending it, and the entire territory claimed for the future Latvia was still under the control of German troops. In late 1918 and early 1919, the subsequent building up of the first army formations of the Republic of Latvia took place under extremely challenging circumstances. The government lacked financial resources, weapons, equipment and ammunition, while the Red Army advanced rapidly from the east. Initially, the armed forces were formed based on a compromise reached with Germany and according to the principle of ethnic division. After the loss of Rīga and the withdrawal to Liepāja in January 1919, a new line of division emerged: Latvian military units loyal to the Provisional Government were simultaneously formed in two distant regions, in the Liepāja area and in Estonia. The article aims to analyse the impact of both these factors on the development of the Latvian armed forces and the course of the Latvian War of Independence.

Since the second half of the 20th century, the phenomenon of warriors (fighters) as one of the most important components of Medieval warfare, has increased in popularity in Lithuanian historiography. Archaeologists and historians usually analyse Balt warriors differently, because of the different methodology and understanding of the development of the state; therefore, the genesis, functionality, structure and decay of warbands (supposedly, in the 14th century) are perceived very differently. This paper has three objectives: 1) descriptive research to revise different opinions on warriors between archaeologists and historians; 2) comparison to find similarities and differences in the understanding of warriors between the two disciplines; and 3) an analysis of the problems of the chronology, definition and arguments of warriors in works by Lithuanian archaeologists and historians. The article shows that the work of archaeologists and historians falls short of the method of comparison in analysing this development prior to the creation of military-social structures in Western and Central Europe. Also, only a few archaeologists and historians have attempted to define the meaning of the word ‘warrior’ within the social structures of Balt society.

The 13th and early 14th century was a time when Lithuania emerged as a grand duchy and became one of the biggest expansion forces in northeast Europe. Unfortunately, we have no information today about what the equipment of a Lithuanian warrior looked like at that time, except for archaeological data and poor historical sources. The aim of this article is to show that by using this apparently quite scanty information, we can create not only an image of the arms and armour used by a particular warrior; there is also a possibility to retrace specific features of warfare by Lithuanians. The search for analogues should not be limited to archaeology. Much information can be obtained from sources in the fine arts and applied arts. The analysis of Medieval art can be as important as research into weapons itself, because an archaeologically discovered object can easily be recognised in fine arts sources. However, this information should be analysed carefully, taking into account certain factors (the special conditions of Medieval art) that may cause the study to go in the wrong direction.

In January 1919, the Army of Soviet Latvia (ASL) emerged out of Red Army units fighting on future Latvian territory. Until its dissolution in early June 1919, units of the ASL participated in a war that covered areas claimed by both the Latvian and Lithuanian governments. The article aims to reevaluate the campaign in northern Lithuania in the first half of 1919. Until today, the fighting on the left flank of the ASL has been seen as a secondary front, and therefore usually overlooked. The article explores the plans of the ASL, the forces involved, and the actual warfare. Attention is also paid to events behind the front line, and the activities of the Soviet Latvian authorities in Lithuania.

Personal testimonies of the Great War, revealed in memoirs, diaries and publications by Lithuanians, have already been used by historians seeking clarification of the reflection of the military experience in Lithuania. This article shows that a significant part of these testimonies appeared in the interwar period due to the intentional collection and publication of material on military history, and their publication was often not random, but also had a political aspect. Moreover, the article complements earlier knowledge of the fact that the Great War was referred to not only when mentioning the German occupation. The many references to the Great War in the writings of Lithuanian intellectuals, and in the writings and speeches of politicians in the interwar period, had much more varied reasons.