Klaipėdos universitetas

The account of the 1219 treaty between the Lithuanian dukes and Galicia-Volhynia provided by the chronicler of the Ruthenian principality lists briefly several dukes from different areas of what is treated by contemporary historians as the Lithuanian confederation. They include the dukes of Lithuania, Deltuva, Nalšia and Žemaitija, but do not mention representatives of the Curonians, Žemgalians (Semigallians) or Yotvingians. Our knowledge of one of the omitted areas, Žemgala (Semigallia, today southern Latvia and northern Lithuania), is still based on the presumption that its society should have developed according to a more or less similar path as other Baltic societies of that period. The article invites us to reconsider this presumption, focusing on one episode mentioned by Henry of Livonia in his chronicle from the early 13th century. Henry describes how, in 1219, the Žemgalians of the Mežotne (Mesoten) area approached the Bishop of Riga seeking military assistance to defend themselves against the Lithuanians, and, as it became evident during the negotiations, against other Žemgalians. In dealing with this episode, the author attempts to characterise the society of Žemgala, mainly its upper social layer, which could be described considering scarce sources. This leads him to the broader question of whether the development of Žemgalian society was similar to other non-Christian (firstly, Baltic) societies.

The first part of the article presents historiographical problems relating to the warrior classes in Baltic and Finnish societies. In the second and third parts, it analyses Balt and Finnish societies relating to the formation of the warrior classes, with regard to the relationship between the chief/nobleman and the warriors, the meaning of the management of property and inheritance, and the vertical formation of relationships between noblemen and warriors. The written sources presented in the article show that at the turn of the 12th and 13th centuries, there was a stable institution of management and inheritance of property, which enabled noblemen and the warriors subordinate to them to increase their power with regard to other members of the community. This provided conditions for the formation of a ‘military democracy’, where the most important decisions concerning the community are approved not by all free members of the community, but by the noblemen and warriors subordinate to them. The basic idea of the article is that the ‘inheritance’ of the power/status of the noblemen is related to the right to inherit property (the castle and the surrounding territory, the homeland). It should be noted that by relating the management and inheritance of property to ‘inherited’ and acquired power, a vertical relationship appears between the nobleman and the warrior, which is based on subordination, not on consensus.