THE archetypal CRuSaDER. Henry of Sandomierz, the Second youngest Son of BoleSław iii

Rome, Constantinople and Newly-Converted Europe. Archaeological and Historical Evidence M. Salamon, M. Wołoszyn, A. Musin, P. Špehar, M. Hardt, M.P. Kruk, A. Sulikowska-Gąska (eds.) U źródeł europy ŚrodKoWo-WScHodniej/FrüHzeit ostmitteleuropas 1,1 Kraków-leipzig-rzeszów-Warszawa 2012, vol. i, p. 215-231 darius von Güttner-SPorzyńSKi THE archetypal CRuSaDER. Henry of Sandomierz, the Second youngest Son of BoleSław iii abstract. The archetypal crusader. Henry of Sandomierz, the second youngest son of Bolesław III. the crusades were known to the elites of Poland within a decade of the First crusade. the Piast dynasty quickly embraced the structures and mission of the church, launching campaigns against their pagan neighbours. Henry, a prince of the House of Piast, duke of Sandomierz, was born between 1126 and 1133. He was the irst of his House to bear the non-slavic name of Henry and it is likely that he was named in honour of one of his German relatives. contemporary, albeit scarce, sources place Henry at the centre of dynastic machinations and provide tantalising references to a highly cultured, much-travelled and pious knight who founded a commandery of Knights Hospitaller and died on crusade ighting the pagan Prussians. Hypotheses abound suggesting that Henry had gone on one, possibly two, pilgrimages to the Holy land, and may even have joined a military religious order. this paper offers a re-examination of the arguments provided for and against the likelihood of Henry of Sandomierz being a pilgrim to jerusalem twice (in 1147 and 1154). it will also argue that the participation of a Polish contingent in the Second crusade is possible and would have been a natural extension of the strong engagement by the Piast princes in the affairs of latin christendom. Henry of Sandomierz was the second youngest of the sons of Bolesław iii Krzywousty (the Wrymouth) from Bolesław s second marriage to Salome of Berg and was born between 1126 and 1133 (jasiński 2004, 247-250). He was the irst of the Piast dynasty to bear the non-polish name of Henry and it is likely that he was baptised in honour of emperor Henry ii or his maternal grandfather Henry count of Berg. Within the decade of his birth Henry s father died, and Henry s elder half-brother Władysław ii Wygnaniec (the exile [1105-1159]) ascended the Polish throne. the succession, regulated by Bolesław iii s Act of Succession, nominated Bolesław s eldest son, Władysław, as his heir and successor. the act instituted a form of government referred to in the Polish historiography as the principate which provided for the eldest son, as the irst among the Piasts princes (the princeps), to exercise overall suzerainty over the Piast patrimony. the princeps seat was of the province of little Poland with its capital in Kraków. the princeps made appointments to all the leading lay and ecclesiastical 1 this paper includes research, ideas and hypotheses expressed in my book Poland and Holy Wars: transmission, reception and the Practice of the idea of crusade 1100-1230 which is being prepared for publication. the arguments in this paper have been presented in various forms and stages of development at the international congress of Medieval Studies in leeds, conferences of the london centre for the Study of the crusades, the Military religious orders and the latin east, the Polish-czech Medievalists conferences in Gniezno, and the biennial conferences of the Australian and new zealand Association for Medieval and early Modern Studies. Some arguments have also appeared in the Journal of Medieval History and the Crusades. 25

darius von Güttner-Sporzyński ofices of the Piast realm and exercised control over Pomerelia and Pomerania. the act also provided for Bolesław s younger sons to be endowed with their own provinces within the Piast patrimony 2. the Piast juniors Bolesław iv (b. 1121/1122), Mieszko iii (b. 1122/1125), and Henry (b. 1126/1133), were given rule over the domains of Mazovia, Great Poland and Sandomierz respectively, whilst the youngest (posthumous?) son of Bolesław iii, casimir ii (b. 1138), was not included in the settlement 3. the precise details of Bolesław iii s disposition are subject to unresolved debate. the historiography of the Act of Succession (which is referred to by Polish historians as Testament of Bolesław III) is extensive and there is no agreement on the Act s provisions and it could be questioned if the Act in fact existed at all. the discourse has concentrated on the division of Poland into hereditary duchies, the borders of the provinces and the repercussions of Bolesław iii s disposition for Poland and its history. Alternative views of the dynastic settlement are presented by rymar (1993; 1994) who argues for primogeniture as the basis of the dynastic settlement in Poland. However whether Bolesław intended the provinces given to his sons to become their hereditary possessions (Wyrozumski 1995, 285) or an apanage during their lifetime, it is highly likely that the Polish throne was to be hereditary in the line of Władysław ii. What is certain is that this dynastic settlement placed the Piasts as viceroys of the princeps in direct control over the provincial magnates and clergy who often were functionaries of the crown but whose allegiance was uncertain in times of crisis. the discussion to date has been suficiently summarised by derwich (1980) and teterycz-puzio (2009, 15-27). the dynastic settlement established at the death of Bolesław iii in 1138 broke down when in about 1142 Władysław ii precipitated a civil war by attempting to enforce his suzerainty and take direct control of the provinces under the control of his brothers. As the civil war progressed Władysław met with increasing opposition from the prelates and magnates, for whom centralised power in general, and Władysław ii s policies in particular, were unfavourable to their interests and inluence. during the civil war Władysław ii entered into an alliance with the pagan Prussians who inhabited the lands north of Mazovia (the province governed by the leader of the Piast juniors, Bolesław iv). the alliance with the Prussians served to strengthen the armed forces at Władysław ii s disposal, presented Mazovia with a military threat from the north and ensured Władysław s military superiority (dworsatschek 1998, 100-101). However, the tables turned in 1146 at the height of the civil war. during the siege of Poznań, the last stronghold of the Piast juniors. the leader of the church in Poland, Archbishop of Gniezno, jakub of Żnin, excommunicated Władysław ii and his wife Agnes of Austria (Gesta Friderici I. imperatoris, p. 57, 81-82; Chronica Poloniae Maioris, col. 32, p. 51-52). the Archbishop was outraged by Władysław ii s use of pagan troops against his brothers (labuda 1969, 284-285; Smolka 1959, 238-239). Whilst the pagan troops are not precisely identiied in the sources, the Bohemian chronicler describing these events described Władysław s mercenaries as Saracen emphasising the alienated position of the Polish ruler who not only fought his brothers but who used pagan idolaters and apostates against them (Vincentii Pragensis Annales, p. 664). the siege of Poznań and the revocation of the Polish church s support for Władysław ii marked the reversal of his fortune in the civil war; before the end of 1146 he was defeated, exiled and deposed. After Kraków surrendered, the last bastion of the forces loyal to Władysław ii under the command of his wife Agnes of Austria, Władysław s family found sanctuary at the court of King conrad iii, his brother-in-law, and the exiled Piast became known to posterity as Władysław ii the exile (cf. Rocznik kapitulny krakowski, p. 789). the exile of Władysław ii changed the balance of power and irrevocably altered the provisions of Bolesław iii s Act of Succession. the leader of Piast juniors, Bolesław iv became the suzerain of the Piast realm and in addition to his province of Mazovia took control of Władysław ii s Silesia. As the princeps Bolesław iv also received the province of little Poland. the Piast patrimony was now governed by a triumvirate: the dominant Bolesław iv in alliance with Mieszko iii of Great Poland and Henry of Sandomierz. Henry s status as one of the rulers of Poland can be authenticated from a number of charters issued after 1146. in a charter of a Polish noble zbylut (issued 1152/1153) Henry is placed as one of the three brothers governing Poland [...] Boleslao, Mesicone, Heinrico fratribus germanis in Polonia principantibus. 2 Bolesław iii s sons from his marriage to Salome of Berg are known collectively in the Polish historiography as the Piast juniors. i will use this term advisedly in this paper. 3 there is no uniform translation of Polish names of the provinces into english. For example: Great Poland or Greater Poland (Polish: Wielkopolska, latin: Polonia Maior); little Poland or lesser Poland (Polish: Małopolska, latin: Polonia Minor), Sandomierz (latin: Sandomiria). 26

the archetypal crusader. Henry of Sandomierz, the second youngest son of Bolesław iii (C. diplomaticus Maioris Poloniae, no. 18, p. 23-24). Similarly, in a charter issued in 1153 by jan Archbishop of Gniezno it is stated that [...] Boleslao, Mescone, Henrico germanis fratribus principatum in Polonia tenentibus. (C. diplomaticus Maioris Poloniae, no. 372, p. 1-2). the iconography of the coins minted between 1150 and 1165 by Bolesław iv suggest that the three oldest Piast juniors formed a strong, united triumvirate. the coins, whilst depicting Bolesław iv in a dominant position show the three Piast juniors together as the rulers of Poland (Suchodolski 1961, 68). Bolesław iv s actions suggest that he was conident of the support of his younger brothers Mieszko iii, Henry and casimir ii, who (with the exception of casimir) ruled their own duchies within the Polish monarchy. With the support of the prelates and the magnates, Bolesław iv secured his rule as the suzerain of all Polish lands. Amongst the irst actions of the new triumvirate, i argue, was the participation of Mieszko iii in the Wendish crusade, closely followed by Bolesław iv s organisation of an expedition against the Prussians and of Henry of Sandomierz who joined the Second crusade in the Holy land. *** When he [Henry of Sandomierz d. v.g.-s.] reached the Holy land safely and honoured the Holy Sepulchre, he joined the army of Baldwin, King of jerusalem, and very gallantly fulilled the knightly duty of ighting with the Saracens. Although he dreamt of a martyr s crown his wish was not granted. Having spent a whole year in the Holy land, by which time many of his knights had been killed either in battle or by the inclement climate, he returned to Poland unharmed. Both his brothers Bolesław and Mieszko and the Polish lords received him with great reverence and sincere joy. Because of his tales news was spread of the condition, state and organisation of the Holy land, and of the ierce and bloody battles being fought in its defence (Dlugossii Annales, lib. v, p. 52-53) 4. the Piast dynastic traditions echo in this ifteenth-century account written by the Polish historian jan długosz, who preserved a crusade experience of a twelfth-century Piast prince s service in the Holy land. the inclusion of Henry s pilgrimage in długosz s Annales is testimony, even if ampliied, to its original importance in the twelfth century as an occasion worthy of remembrance and veneration. the passage also provides speciic evidence about how the idea of crusade was transmitted to the Polish elites, and strongly suggests that the Polish court was highly receptive to information about the crusades and their progress as early as the Second crusade. the Second crusade began with an armada which departed from the english port of dartmouth in May 1147 carrying dutch, english, Flemish, Frisian, German, norman and Scottish crusaders. in the same month, a German army left for jerusalem, led by King conrad iii. conrad was accompanied by his nephew Frederick of Swabia, and half-brother Bishop otto of Freising, and, according to the Greek chronicler john Kinnamos, conrad s vassal vladislav ii of Bohemia. the Germans arrived in constantinople in September 1147 after marching through Austria, Hungary and Bulgaria (Bernhardi 1883, 591; Berry 1969, 483). French troops of the Second crusade, under the command of King louis vii, began their march in june and arrived in constantinople in october 1147. john Kinnamos (cinnamus), was a twelfth-century Byzantine historian and an imperial secretary to emperor Manuel i comnenus (1143-1180). His chronicle was considered to be the continuation of the Alexiad of Anna comnena, as it covers 1118-1176 (Kinnamos; omran 1999, 45-55). Kinnamos related that in october 1147 [...] the Germans had been frequently defeated by the turks and lost many of their men; once they abandoned passage through Philomilion, they hastened back. coming to nikaia [iznik], they met there the French who were marching on the road, and the other kings who were bringing with them large forces: one of these ruled the czechs nation, and had seemingly been appointed king by conrad; the other, that of the Poles who are a Scythic people and dwell beside the western Hungarians. (Kinnamos, p. 70). the information presented by Kinnamos is accurate and precise in respect of the czechs and their ruler, vladislav ii, who later received his crown with the permission of emperor Frederick ii. it is also known that vladislav ii of Bohemia, his brother and a number of czech nobles took the cross after receipt of the letter 4 Postquam vero terram Sanctam incolumis attigit, Sancto Sepulchro adorato milicie Baldwin iherosolimorum regis se coniungit fortissimique militis in certaminbus cum Saracenis habitis opera exercens, martirii palmamb se suspirabat adepturum. verum cum hec illi sors tunc obtingere non posset, anno integro illic exacto aliquibus militibus suis, partim in conlictibus huiusmodi occisis, partim intemperie eris absumptis in patriam sospes rediit, et tam a germanis suis Boleslao et Myeczszlauo quam universis Polonie optimatibus maximo honore et animorum gratulacione exceptus est. cuius relacione et qualitas, condicio statusque terre Sancte et quam acerrima quamque fortissima cum barbaris pro illius defensione agantur prelia, cepit vulgari et diffundi. english translation by darius von Güttner-Sporzyński. 27

darius von Güttner-Sporzyński from Bernard Abbot of clairvaux (Vincentii Pragensis Annales, p. 662-663; C. diplomaticus regni Bohemiae, no. 150, p. 151-153). Participation by the czech troops is also conirmed by a number of other sources and the events that Kinnamos discuss in his Chronicle are substantiated in a number of sources. However, the only known reference to the arrival of the Polish crusader army at the Bosporus is made by Kinnamos. Given his accuracy on other points Kinnamos evidence about the Poles is generally accepted. the German and French armies had planned to join forces and enter Muslim territory together; however, the slower than expected progress of the French, and the acts of violence against the local population committed by German soldiers stationed in constantinople, led the Byzantine emperor Manuel to persuade conrad iii to cross to Asia alone. Soon after this crossing conrad s forces were attacked and defeated by the turks at doryleum on 25 october 1147 (the event described above by Kinnamos). conrad saved himself by retreating with his mounted knights towards nicaea, where, according to Kinnamos, they encountered the troops of the French, czech and Polish armies (Bernhardi 1883, 624; runciman 1952, 266-268). the Polish and czech crusading contingents may have travelled to constantinople together and only at the Bosporus joined with the French and Bohemians, as reported by Kinnamos. the close cultural and linguistic ties between the Poles and czechs supports the possibility of close co-operation between Bohemian and Polish crusaders (Gładysz 2002, 65). the chronologically closest Polish source to the events outlined by Kinnamos which mentions Polish participation in the levantine crusades is the oldest of the extant Polish annals, the Annals of Lubiń. the Annals of Lubiń reported under the year 1154 that a Piast prince, Henry of Sandomierz went to jerusalem (Rocznik lubiński, p. 113). later Polish annals reported Henry s journey to jerusalem variously under the years 1154 and 1155, and linked the event with the foundation of the Hospitaller commandery in zagość, the irst Hospitaller outpost in the region (Rocznik Krakowski, p. 833; Rocznik Sędziwoja, p. 875; Rocznik Traski, p. 833; Rocznik małopolski, p. 157). the previously cited ifteenth-century account from the Annales of długosz, is likely to be primarily based upon court tradition and długosz s knowledge of the above twelfth-century Polish annals. it also places Henry of Sandomierz s journey in 1154 (Dlugossii Annales, lib. v, p. 52-53). these references to the journey of Henry of Sandomierz to jerusalem cross-referenced with Kinnamos Chronicle provide strong evidence for a journey of a Piast to jerusalem. Moreover, these references further inform about the foundation of the irst Hospitaller house in Poland inspired by Henry s participation in a crusade and exposure to the activities of the military orders in the Holy land. the Polish annales however refer to two separate events related to Piast connections with the Holy land. Firstly, they refer to the actual pilgrimage, and secondly they conirm the subsequent foundation of the Hospitaller commandery. it is probable that the Polish annalists conlated the events of Henry s crusade (which had taken place earlier) with the subsequent foundation of the Hospitaller commandery in zagość (dąbrowska, Michałowski, tomaszewski 1964; dąbrowska, tomaszewski 1969; dąbrowski 2002; Smoliński 1996, 225-251; tymieniecki 1912). the wording of the undated foundation charter issued for the Hospitallers by Henry of Sandomierz supports the theory that these were separate events. in the charter, which survives in the original (and is one of the oldest extant documents issued by a Polish ruler), Henry of Sandomierz refers, in a tone of self-reproach, to his long delayed resolve to endow the Hospitallers directly: For although the vanities of this world prevented me, a sinner, to fulil a vow undertaken long ago to build a church to the glory of God and the honour of Saint john the Baptist [ ] i am fulilling this vow now [ ]. (C. diplomaticus Poloniae, no. 4, 4-5). the foundation charter for the Hospitallers in zagość dates for the period after the Second crusade and before Henry s death in 1166, and the historiographical debate summarised recently by M. Smoliński (2008, 11-15) is likely to remain inconclusive. M. Starnawska (1999, 27) observed that the endowment was not extensive. in the charter however Henry of Sandomierz presented the Hospitallers with an estate, which consisted settlers, livestock, two villages, an inn as well as a vineyard, four goldsmiths and various privileges (C. diplomaticus Poloniae, no. 4, 4-5). i suggest that this was a well-deined estate with resources able to support the Hospitallers in establishing a church, their convent as well as beneit the order s mission. in the Polish historiography the issue of the settlement of the Hospitallers in zagość resulted in an inconclusive debate. one of the main points of the dispute are the origins of the knights who settled in zagość and the question of dating of the foundation charter for the Hospitallers. B. Klassa (2000, 153) argued that the Hospitallers who arrived in zagość were italians. She supported her arguments with the analysis of the architectural style of the church built in zagość M. Gładysz (2002, 105-106) argued that the knights arrived 28

the archetypal crusader. Henry of Sandomierz, the second youngest son of Bolesław iii after 1147/1148 (irst pilgrimage of Henry of Sandomierz to the Holy land) and before 1153/1154 (second pilgrimage). Gładysz also suggested that jaxa of Miechów, who went to the Holy land in 1147/1148 and later 1162 could have been an intermediary between the Hospitallers and the Piast prince. recently M. Smoliński shifted the focus of the debate about the commandery in zagość towards examination of the wider political context of military orders presence in east central europe (Smoliński 1996; 1997; 2002; 2008). in Smoliński s argument the foundation of the commandery in zagość was closely related to the political alliance between the brother and heir of Henry of Sandomierz, casimir ii and the Bohemian and Moravian dynasts (Smoliński 1996, 237-250). it is a likely hypothesis as relations between the Hospitallers and Henry of Sandomierz may have been a result of the inluence of his extended family further strengthened by his pilgrimage to the Holy land. it is also more likely that the Hospitallers who arrived in zagość arrived there from Bohemia and Moravia because the irst foundations for the Hospitallers were made in the period following the Second crusade (C. diplomaticus regni Bohemiae, nos 245, 246, 214-218) 5. it is also likely, as Smoliński argues, that the shift in the Piast foreign policy may have served as the political inducement for the foundation of the commandery in zagość. in the late 1150s the ascendancy of a political faction which aimed at securing a long lasting settlement with emperor Frederick i Barbarossa (1152-1190), might have convinced Henry of Sandomierz to imitate the examples of his fellow crusaders, the Bohemian and in particular Moravian princes related to the Piasts through the subsequent marriage of Henry s younger brother casimir ii. Henry of Sandomierz s charter, in addition to donating the estate to the Knights of Saint john reveal another aspect of Western inluences on Henry s actions. in the charter establishing the commandery on the estate of zagość, Henry of Sandomierz delineated the obligations of the peasant and artisan settlers of the estate, allowing for liberi hospites, who were allowed to leave the feudal estate after they fulilled the conditions of their contract with their feudal lord. tymowski argued that the charter of Henry of Sandomierz was evidence that Henry was a good manager and a new-age administrator and organiser of the landed estates because of his innovative adaptation of Western methods for the settlement of peasants and their obligations to their feudal lords (teterycz 2000, 260-261; tymowski 1980, 105-113). in the charter, Henry, as founder of the commandery expressed regret at the postponement of the actual foundation, recorded by the Polish annals under the year 1154. there is considerable disagreement over this point however. one explanation is that Henry of Sandomierz took part in the crusade in 1147 and the Hospitaller commandery was subsequently founded in zagość in 1154. there is a close parallel for a delayed foundation of a Hospitaller commandery as vladislav ii of Bohemia returned from the Second crusade in 1148 and endowed the Hospitallers in 1169 (C. diplomaticus regni Bohemiae, no. 246, 216). therefore it is highly likely that the reference to Henry of Sandomierz s journey and the foundation of the Hospitaller commandery under the same year (1154) in the Polish annals is a conlation of two separate events. Such an explanation is further supported john Kinnamos reference to a Polish crusader army at the Bosporus in 1147 on the way to jerusalem. the information offered in john Kinnamos account is signiicant because it links Polish participation in the crusades directly to the arrival of the crusading armies in constantinople during the Second crusade. if true, participation in the levantine crusade would predate the participation of Mieszko iii in the Wendish crusade (july-august 1147) and Bolesław iv s crusade against the Prussians (november-december 1147). this concentrated crusading effort by the Piast juniors followed their victory in the civil war (largely the result of the support given to the Piast juniors by the Polish prelates and magnates). the Piast juniors powerful alliance of secular and church interests continued the policies of Bolesław iii which aimed at the subjugation and christianisation of the remnant pagan tribes to Poland s north. Participation of the Polish contingent in the Second crusade was an extension of the strong engagement by the Piast juniors in the affairs of latin christendom. Henry s efforts were supported by his brothers, whose motivations were not all altruistic. A Polish army led by Henry was a means of legitimising the rule of Bolesław iv in the eyes of other christian rulers, and in particular, the Pope, who, due to the support of conrad iii, was sympathetic to his rival, Władysław ii. Participation by Poles in the crusade proper also served as proof to the rest of christendom that Poles were an 5 the irst information about the Hospitaller commandery in Prague is included in the undated charters issued by vladislav ii of Bohemia (1140-1172). the charters granted the Hospitallers the patronage of the church of Saint Mary in Prague and estates and privileges. this endowment gave the Hospitallers the base to establish a network of commanderies and estates of the order in Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia. 29

darius von Güttner-Sporzyński integral part of latin christendom and that they were not culturally or politically inferior. Moreover, the Polish princes did not feel that they were vassals of the empire as the Piasts aspired to form an equal partnership with the emperor. the sources therefore reveal that the Polish ruling elites were exposed to the idea of crusade and actively took part in the crusading effort of the Second crusade. in his Chronicle, Kinnamos identiies the large forces as czechs and Poles and describes the czechs as the vassals of the Germans, but the Poles as a separate army led by their King. it is highly likely that the czech contingent was part of the army under the command of conrad iii, vladislav ii s overlord (Annales Palidenses, p. 82; Vincentii Pragensis Annales, p.658-683, 681; C. diplomaticus regni Bohemiae, p. 216; Freising, p. 75; Kinnamos, p. 168-169). However Kinnamos states elsewhere that they crossed into Asia Minor not with the Germans but with the French. A possible explanation could be, as the czech sources suggest, that vladislav ii of Bohemia stayed in constantinople and later crossed the Bosporus together with the French (Vincentii Pragensis Annales, p. 681; Kinnamos, p. 168; Berry 1969, 492; iwańczak 1995, 120; Mayer 1988, 101; runciman 1952, 269). Further details of the actions of the czech crusading contingent are not known precisely but their reconstruction provides clues to the likely actions of the Polish crusaders (Vincentii Pragensis Annales, p. 663). the czech crusaders fought against the Saracen forces and probably went as far as tripoli with the French. the czech forces were decimated (as were the Polish according to długosz), preventing vladislav ii from fulilling his crusading vow of reaching the Holy Sepulchre (whereas according to długosz Henry of Sandomierz did reach jerusalem) as it is likely that vladislav ii sailed with conrad iii from ephesus to constantinople without reaching jerusalem due to the illness of the emperor or the necessity for a speedy return to Bohemia (Vincentii Pragensis Annales, p. 663; C. diplomaticus regni Bohemiae, p. 216; Gładysz 1997, 37; runciman 1952, 270). despite the prior animosity between vladislav ii of Bohemia and the Piast juniors, it is likely that the close family relationship (Henry and vladislav ii were irst cousins), as well as cultural and linguistic ties, made it inevitable that there would be at least some collaboration if not comradeship. it is also likely that Henry of Sandomierz became a confrère of the Hospitallers in the Holy land, as did vladislav ii s brother (lalik 1967, 70-73). it may have been that Henry s religious observance led him to never marry and to maintain a low proile for a prince of the ruling house because he refused to use a formal royal title (Gładysz 2002, 106; teterycz 2000, 254). However, the suggestion that Henry actually became a professed member of one of the military orders because he settled one of them in his duchy is an unlikely interpretation (Stróżyk 1992, 18-19). the Annales Bohemorum provides details of the return route to Bohemia taken by vladislav ii in 1148. the Annales report that vladislav ii returned to Bohemia through rus, which necessitated passage through the eastern territories of the realm of the Piasts, and in particular, the duchy of Sandomierz (Vincentii Pragensis Annales, p. 663; Mendys 1927, 31). the czech ruler could not safely return via Hungary due to open hostility with the Hungarian King Geza ii. Sandomierz, the capital city of the duchy of the same name, according to Gallus Anonymus, was one of the principal cities of the Polish monarchy. in addition to Papal protection a close personal and family relationships between vladislav ii of Bohemia and the Piasts would have allowed him to request the guarantee of safe passage through Poland. However this was not an obvious request as vladislav ii did not enjoy amicable relations with the triumvirate which ruled Poland in 1148. on the contrary, vladislav had collaborated in conrad iii s unsuccessful invasion of Poland in August 1146 and therefore it is likely that the Piast juniors would have been hostile to a prince who only two years prior had attempted to force them into imperial submission and the restoration of Władysław ii as the suzerain of Poland. this animosity may have been blunted somewhat however if vladislav ii returned to his kingdom through rus and through the Piasts realm in the company of a fellow crusader, the King of the Poles, Henry of Sandomierz 6. the issue of the identity of Kinnamos King of the Poles features in the historiography of the Polish participation in the Second crusade as an extension of the political situation in Poland at that time (Gładysz 2002, 18). indeed, the established view amongst Polish historians is that the unnamed Polish ruler referred to by Kinnamos was not Henry but Władysław ii. the exiled who had sought refuge in Germany at the time of 6 it could be argued that technically, safe passage for vladislav ii of Bohemia through Poland would not have been problematic given his status as a crusader enjoying the protection of the church. 220

the archetypal crusader. Henry of Sandomierz, the second youngest son of Bolesław iii the Second crusade (dworsatschek 1998, 124-126; Starnawska 1993, 109; zientara 1971, 371). there is an argument that Władysław ii s participation in the crusade could have been a strategic manoeuvre to persuade the Pope to revoke Władysław ii s excommunication and gain favour with the Polish prelates who opposed the exile s return and his restoration as the suzerain of Poland (Mendys 1927, 403). it is, however, unlikely that Władysław ii (who had been deserted by his Polish supporters) could inance, equip and recruit participants for an independent crusader army. if Władysław ii was given the means of equipping and organising the army by conrad iii, then it would seem extraordinary that Władysław did not use these resources to challenge the Piast juniors and regain the Polish throne (Mendys 1927, 428). i believe that the Polish situation bears some parallels to the better documented experience in denmark where the appeal for participation in the Second crusade met with similar enthusiastic response from the contending pretenders to the danish throne (jensen 2001, 164-179). in Poland, the triumvirate of Piast juniors seized the opportunity to participate in the crusades to reinforce in the international arena their legitimacy to rule Poland whilst domestically using the crusades as the continuation of the policies of forced christianisation pursued by their glorious father Bolesław iii. i am suggesting that Henry s crusading expedition to the Holy land, Mieszko iii s participation in the Wendish crusade and Bolesław iv s irst example of crusading expedition in Prussia were deliberate exploitation of the crusading movement for local motives. in fact, they might have been a shrewd political tactical gesture analogous to Mieszko i s adoption of christianity as the state religion in 966. Among the Piast juniors Henry of Sandomierz was the best candidate to be an archetypal crusader. Henry, as a young knight was inluenced and affected by the preaching of the Second crusade and whose later actions relected his deep immersion in the knightly ethos. He was likely to be inluenced by the preaching of the crusade which focused primarily on the devotional and moral aspects of life and less on the military, material or political aspects associated with the crusading movement (Maier 2000, 54). Henry of Sandomierz represented a new kind of knight amongst the Piast dynasty and the Polish knighthood in general; and one unknown to the ages gone by, who ceaselessly wages a twofold war both against lesh and blood and against a spiritual army of evil in the heavens. Henry s vita relects these qualities extolled by Bernard Abbot of clairvaux in the In laude novae militiae and the virtues emphasised by długosz in the Annales. in particular długosz s striking reference to Henry s pursuit of a martyr s crown is an attitude likely to be adopted by a young knight under the inluence of Bernard Abbot of clairvaux. Bernard proclaimed that the new knighthood need fear neither demons nor men or death; on the contrary, they should desire it, a direct encouragement of the quest for a martyr s crown. długosz s narrative is likely to be a relection of Henry s legend, a dynastic tradition cultivated at the Polish court. it draws parallels with Bernard s fearless knight who is secure on every side, for his soul is protected by the armour of faith just as his body is protected by armour of steel and is blessed if he dies in the lord, and even more so if he dies for the lord! (cf. Bernard of clairvaux, p. 33-34). in proposing Henry of Sandomierz as Kinnamos King of the Poles, i suggest that these formative inluences on Henry s reception of the idea of crusade are highly relevant. these can be directly linked to the imperial invasion of Poland in August 1146 when conrad iii attempted to restore the exiled Władysław ii to the Polish throne. the references of the Polish annals to conrad iii s invasion of Poland provide a link between that war and conrad s later leadership of a crusader army during the Second crusade. the annals reported that cunradus imperator Poloniam intravit et cum regibus et ducibus jerusalem pergit (Rocznik Krakowski, p. 833; Rocznik Sędziwoja, p. 875; Rocznik Traski, p. 833; Rocznik lubiński, p. 113; Annales Cracoviensis, p. 59; Rocznik krótki, p. 237). Whilst this is not an explicit statement of the inclusion of the Polish dynasts and knighthood in the German crusader contingent, it is possible that the annalist referred to some of the Poles joining the multinational effort in the Second crusade to the Holy land. conrad iii s incursion into Poland in August 1146 ended in military iasco for the emperor but resulted in closer relations being established between the Piast juniors and conrad s Saxon vassals (Albrecht the Bear and conrad of Meissen), as it was the vassals who negotiated the truce between the emperor and Bolesław iv (A. Magdeburgenses, p. 187-188; jasiński 2004, 255-260; Kahl 1964, 374; Schultze 1954, 13, n. 38). it is also highly likely that the terms of the truce had an impact on the spread of the idea of crusade in Poland because in order to guarantee the terms of the truce the Piast juniors provided their iunior frater as a hostage to the emperor. contrary to Mendys (1927, 401) and dworsatschek (1998, 122-123), who argued that the iunior 22

darius von Güttner-Sporzyński frater denoted the youngest of the Piasts, casimir ii, i believe that it was Henry of Sandomierz who was given to conrad iii for a number of reasons (Gładysz 2002, 62; labuda 1973, 46-48; zientara 1971, 370, n. 18). Henry was in his late teenage years at the time of the imperial invasion of Poland and the age of majority for the Piast dynasts was between the age of fourteen and twenty (Sobociński 1949, 242-248). it is highly likely he accompanied his older brothers Bolesław iv and Mieszko ii during the military operations against the imperial troops and after the truce negotiations, according the Annales Magdeburgenses, he was immediately dispatched with conrad iii (A. Magdeburgenses, p. 187-188). Such a reconstruction would also allow for the Piast dynast to personally witness the preaching of the crusade and take part in the preparations for the crusade at conrad iii s court. As the likely hostage given in August 1146 to the King, Henry would have been exposed to the preaching of the crusade and inluenced by the persuasive oratory of Bernard Abbot of clairvaux, who preached at conrad iii s court (which resulted in conrad s reluctant decision to take the cross). the act of taking the cross placed Henry of Sandomierz under papal protection and in effect released him from any other obligation which could have prevented fulilment of the vow (Gładysz 2002, 63). By taking the vow Henry made a promise to God and an obligation to the whole of christendom (Maier 1994, 135). it could be argued that the moment Henry took the crusading vow he was released from the obligation to stay at the imperial court under the terms of the truce between conrad iii and Bolesław iv (Brundage 1969, 159). Henry s relative youth did not prevent him from leading the Polish crusader contingent as he was accompanied by the magnates of Sandomierz and the Polish knights who were dispatched with him with the consent of Bolesław iv. it is highly likely that the knights who accompanied Henry in 1147 were recruited predominantly from the duchy of Sandomierz (Gładysz 2002, 102; teterycz-puzio 2006, 49-50). Giergiel suggested that the existence of otherwise unique twelfth-century tombstones of knights located in Sandomierz, Wąchock and radom, which depict the symbols of sword and lion, mark the graves of the Sandomierz knights who returned from the Holy land with Henry (Giergiel 2004, 64-65). it is also possible to reconstruct a list of the knights who were either closely associated with the court of Henry in Wiślica or in his service. For example, there are twenty-six names of knights who were witnesses of the charter of Henry of Sandomierz issued on 21 May 1161, where Henry endowed the Abbey of the canons regular in czerwińsk (C. diplomaticus Poloniae Minoris, no. 373, 4). Between 1147 and 1149 no sources mention Henry s presence in Poland. the sources do not mention Henry in relation to the Wendish crusade and he was absent at the council held by Bolesław iv with Albert the Bear, in Kruszwica in january 1148 where an alliance was cemented between the Piasts and the Ascanian dynasty by a dynastic marriage between Albert s son otto and judith ( 1175), a sister of the Piast juniors (Kozłowska-Budkowa 1930, 342). the inluence of chivalric Western culture on Henry of Sandomierz is evidenced by the cultural practices adopted at his court in Wiślica, the reception of which could be dated to Henry s stay at the imperial court (labuda 1960, 290; tymowski 1980, 105-113). According to labuda (1960, 290-291) and Wasilewski (1978, 120), the court in Wiślica was in the second half of the twelfth century a key political and cultural centre in Poland. labuda suggested that the court of Henry of Sandomierz was the place where cultural exchange between the West and Poland occurred through the interaction of the cultural elements introduced by Henry from the West and local customs; it is highly likely that the court of the crusader prince favoured the adoption and display of the knightly culture of latin christendom and thus inluenced the behaviour patterns of the magnates of Sandomierz. it is possible therefore that Henry contributed signiicantly to the transmission of ideas of courtliness and knightly ethos to Poland in addition to the promotion of the ideals of the new knighthood (Scaglione 1991). Amongst the most striking of this is the entertainment offered at Henry s court in Wiślica an adaptation of the Saga of Walther of Aquitaine (cf. Saga...; see also learned 1892). the text of the Polish version of this poem has been preserved by a Polish annalist in the Chronicle of Great Poland (Chronica Poloniae Maioris, col. 29, 41-45; Kronika Wielkopolska, p. 14, 37; see also Kürbis 1952, 110; 1959, 91, 103). the poem is considered the earliest example in Poland of a written composition whose function was not informative, legislative or hagiographic, but purely as a literary work for entertainment (labuda 1960, 286-292; Stefanowska, Sławínski 1978, 122). its existence in Poland is highly signiicant. it is an example of a Western european art form being adapted to the Polish environment (it uses polonised names for the characters and a Polish setting). the saga tells the love story of Walgierz of tyniec, Wisław of Wiślica and Helgunda and demonstrates the extent to which Henry s twelfth-century court adapted ideas from the West (labuda 1960, 222

the archetypal crusader. Henry of Sandomierz, the second youngest son of Bolesław iii 289-292). the saga also suggests a certain degree of homogeneity in the cultural practices of the european elites (routledge 1995, 100). in the context of the development of Polish administrative practices (after the implementation of the Act of Succession of 1138) it is also signiicant that Henry of Sandomierz had established his own chancellery which produced his charters and maintained control over his own seal. it is likely that Henry was the irst of the Polish princes to have maintained the ofice of chancellor (Kętrzyński 1891, 17). the indication of the existence of such an ofice can be established from the charter issued to the Hospitallers. the charter included the phrase [...] ut autem haec mea largitio asepedicto Hospitali s. joannis in perpetuum irma et illibata permanea, sigilli mei impressione eam corroboro et coriirmo (C. diplomaticus Poloniae, no. 4, 4-5). Whilst the most signiicant foundation of Henry of Sandomierz was the establishment of the commandery of the Hospitallers in zagość, there are other documented donations to the church by Henry. According to lalik (2006, 471-476) and dobosz (1995, 83-86), the pilgrimage to the Holy land resulted in an increase of Henry s support of church foundations. Among the larger foundations of Henry of Sandomierz were the collegiate churches in Wiślica (later the place of his burial), opatów, as well as churches in zagość and endowments for the church in czerwińsk (tomaszewski 1974, 87-90). these foundations were, according to labuda (1960, 290), intended to support Henry of Sandomierz s foundation of a separate bishopric for the duchy of Sandomierz. A previously unknown aspect of the foundation of the church in opatów was revealed by tomaszewski (1991, 300-303). By analysing the descriptions of the portal of the romanesque church in opatów (provided by długosz in his Liber beneiciorum dioecesis Cracoviensis, which is as a valuable example of the medieval reception in its description of the opatów collegiate s portal sculpture (Długosz Liber beneiciorum..., p. 575), tomaszewski explored the imagery of the portal of the church and concluded that its tympanum (which depicted the founders of the church) included the sculptures of knights with crosses on their mantles and probably depicts Henry of Sandomierz as a crucesignatus (Hauziński 1995, 73; Stróżyk 1992, 17-18). Such an artistic presentation of the founder, wearing the cross of the crusaders, not only visibly distinguished him from other knights but also, as Brundage (1969, 115-190) reminds us, marked his particular status as one who had fulilled his vow. the representation of Henry of Sandomierz as crucesignatus may also be indicative of his close association with a military order, possibly through being one of the order s confrères, but also projected the image of Henry as a crusader to the local population. recently Gładysz proposed that Henry of Sandomierz travelled to the Holy land twice, irst during the Second crusade in 1147, and later in 1154 (Gładysz 2002, 102). this proposition has been rejected by teterycz (2000, 253) and Starnawska (2003). yet, in my opinion neither of these criticisms invalidate Gładysz s hypothesis and i tend to agree with Giergiel s cautious acceptance of Gładysz s arguments (Giergiel 2004, 56-57). Gładysz s hypothesis is based on the identiication of Kinnamos King of the Poles and the account of the Annals of Lubiń. Gładysz s identiication of Henry of Sandomierz as the King of the Poles is convincing if hypothetical. Gładysz suggested that Henry of Sandomierz could have taken part in the siege of Ascalon, which had fallen to the crusaders on 19 August 1153, and argues that it is possible that the Polish crusading contingent arrived in the Holy land with the other pilgrims from europe mentioned in his Chronicle by William Bishop of tyre (Gładysz 2002, 99-106). Whilst i ind the possibility of the two trips by Henry of Sandomierz to jerusalem credible, i believe that the date 1147 was the date of the actual participation in the crusade and 1153/1154 was the date of the establishment of the Hospitaller commandery in zagość. the silence of the sources in regard to Henry taking the cross is the main argument against the hypothesis identifying him as Kinnamos King of the Poles, as was noted by Starnawska (1999, 26) and Gładysz (2002, 59) and discussed by Giergiel (2004, 56-57). However, Polish native sources are also silent for example, on the subject of Polish participation in the Wendish crusade, although other sources conirm that the Poles took part with an army of considerable size. the sources and the vita of Henry of Sandomierz present a coherent image of Henry as a crusader, a pious and devout prince who was concerned for higher causes with a lack of regard for earthly concerns (Dlugossii annales, lib. v, p. 52). Whilst the second youngest of the Piast juniors was acknowledged as one of the ruling Polish dynasts, he refrained from using his titles in preference for being identiied simply as the son of Bolesław iii (ilius Boleslai) or the brother of Bolesław iv (frater germanus), even in the documents 223

darius von Güttner-Sporzyński authenticated by the papal legates (C. diplomaticus Maioris Poloniae, no. 12, 18-19; teterycz 2000, 256-257; teterycz 2001, 96-98). His religious observance and close association with the military orders contributed to his unmarried status, despite the advice of the lords of his duchy (Dlugossii annales, liv. 5, p. 52). the manner of Henry s death (in an expedition against Prussian pagans in 1166) cemented the legend of the prince-crusader, the knight for whom death in battle is more precious as it is the more glorious (Bernahr of clairvaux, p. 33-34). Polish troops were decimated in an ambush on 18 october 1166 in the Prussian wilderness. the Annals of the Chapter of the Cathedral of Kraków relate that Henry of Sandomierz was killed either directly in the battle or died as the result of the injuries suffered there (A. Poloniae Maioris, p. 114; A. capituli Cracoviensis, p. 62). Perhaps in keeping with an unassuming crusader-prince and his personal charisma, accentuated by długosz, is the manner of Henry s burial in the collegiate church of his foundation in Wiślica (józefowiczówna 1965, 78). discovered during an excavation in 1959-1960 and thought to be founded by Henry of Sandomierz s brother and heir, casimir ii, is an ornamental loor covering made of plaster, known as the Plate of Wiślica or Plate of Orants. the plate was placed upon the loor on the way to the burial crypt where the remains of Henry of Sandomierz were placed (józefowiczówna 1965, 75-80) and inscribed on the plate a prayer has partly survived: [...] those [depicted here] beg to be downtrodden so that they may be raised to the heavens. the Plate of Wiślica was most likely inished before 1177 when casimir ii ascended the throne of Kraków (Kalinowski 1968, 193). the Plate of Wiślica depicts a family group of six persons in prayer divided into two ields (Kalinowski 1963, 85-132; Świechowski 1990, 104-105). in the upper ield (representing the dead) is the priest, Gedko Bishop of Kraków (1166-1186), in liturgical vestments and with tonsure in the centre; on his left side is a child (Henry s nephew casimir) depicted in a posture of prayer, standing upright with raised arms set apart (the palms face outward), and on the right there is an older man (Henry of Sandomierz), with long moustache and divided beard. in the lower ield (representing the living) is a middle-aged man (Henry s brother casimir ii) with beard and moustache in a tunic and a cloak in the centre; on his left a teenager (Henry s nephew Bolesław) and on his right a woman in a long dress (casimir ii s wife Helena; cf. Buko 2008, 292-294; Kalinowski 1968, 193; Wasilewski 1978, 115-120). this portrayal of the dead and the living of the Piast dynasty can be interpreted as the conirmation of the vita of Henry of Sandomierz but also as the expression of casimir ii s aspiration to follow in the footsteps of his brother; the catholic Prince casimir would fulil this Piast family prayer in 1192 when he brought the Saladinistas, the Prussian tribe of Pollexians into submission (Magistri Vincentii, iv:19.4., p. 166). Conclusion this paper presented a reconsideration of some aspects of the dynastic tradition preserved in the Annales of jan długosz and emphasised several key points about the Piast crusader Henry of Sandomierz; Henry sought martyrdom and his return to Poland from the Holy land brought him praise. the Polish annals conlate Henry of Sandomierz s journey to jerusalem in (1147) and the subsequent foundation of the Hospitaller commandery (1154) under the same year (1154). Moreover, the reference to the King of the Poles as a leader of a crusader army at the Bosporus in 1147 on the way to jerusalem almost certainly refers to Henry of Sandomierz s journey to jerusalem (reported in Polish annals under 1154). this archetypal crusader, Henry, was well equipped to face the emotional and physical necessities of the armed pilgrimage to the Holy land. during his probable stay at the imperial court as a hostage, Henry was immersed in the ethos, politics and aspirations of the most powerful court in europe and this experience shaped him to became the epitome of the knight of christ, known for both his personal piety and actions which beneited the church and the crusading military religious orders in Poland. Henry s residence at the imperial court and the inspirational preaching of Bernard Abbot of clairvaux would have had a formative inluence on him. it is very likely that Henry of Sandomierz was among the noblest princes of the realm, had with many others vowed to undertake the same military service (Freising, p. 76). Henry s pious efforts were supported by his Piast brothers for whom the involvement in crusading was also a means of legitimising the rule of Piast juniors over Poland in the eyes of the Pope and other christian rulers. Participation by Poles in the crusades proper placed the Piasts on equal footing with the rest of latin christendom. indeed, Henry of Sandomierz represented a new kind of knight. the dynastic memory 224