Horse fighting (hestaat, hestavíg) was a peculiar comparison in medieval society. This sport, which was depicted in Icelandic sagas and later sources, disappeared in more recent times. Some researchers try to attribute the origin of this phenomenon to housing routines, but this remains unconfirmed due to a lack of supporting sources. The organization of horse fighting (hestaþing) was part of the life of Icelanders in the Middle Ages, not only as a form of entertainment, but also as a way to trade or pair horses. It was decided how the horses would fight (one-on-one, tournament, etc.), and judges were selected to decide the outcome. The place of the duel (a circle of people, a circle of stones) was often brought by a second. The fight consisted of kicking and biting the opponent. Perhaps (there is no evidence of this) a mare was brought in to stimulate the stallions to fall. A common reason for the appearance of horse fighting in sagas is the moment when, once again, duels occur, which lead to conflict between the owners of the horses. Horse fighting also took place in various regions where horses fought each other, which contributed to the creation and difficulty of distributing people across parts of the islands.

The status of skaldic poetry as a reliable historical source, and thus its usefulness in studies of Scandinavian history in the 10th and 11th centuries, has long been a subject of debate among researchers. Due to the late state of preservation and the nature of the poems, caution is rightly advocated when relying on information provided by poets. However, this does not mean that this category of sources is irretrievably lost to historians, a good example of which is research on the presence of Scandinavians in England at the turn of the 10th and 11th centuries. The situation is similar with the poetry composed at the court of Magnus the Good, King of Norway and Denmark (ca. 1035–1047). This applies primarily to the manner in which skalds addressed the ruler in poems composed in his honor. A detailed analysis of three poems (Magnúsflokkr by Þjóðólf Arnórsson, Hrynhend-Magnúsdráp, and Magnúsdráp by Arnór Þórðarson) indicates the skalds' care in designating the king by appropriate names, so that they fully reflected his efforts to legitimize his position in Denmark, especially in the face of the conflict with Sven Ulfsson, a claimant to the throne. The poetry in Magnus's honor indicates this, which is also confirmed by other contemporary sources. Magnus based his rule over Denmark on the memory of his father, Olaf the Holy, and a way to gain an effective advantage in the struggle for the throne was to seize control of the key region of the country, namely Scania.

The aim of the article is to examine the credibility of one of the documents whose authorship is ascribed to Bolesław Wstydliwy. Testing of the very document has become a reason to draw a theory on the conflict in the circles of a political elite of Małopolska in the 1250s. The staffing of offices in the letter of witnesses seemed inappropriate in almost all cases. Despite the fact that a diploma started to play a significant role at one time, its credibility was not commented on by the researchers yet testing was considered real without going into details. Only some historians treated the document as suspicious. The provenance of the conflict in question in theories of subsequent historians was extremely different: some researchers saw a reflection of rivalry between a castellan and a voivode of Kraków on the priority in hierarchy in a strange form of testing, for some others an extraordinary list of witnesses was to prove pluralism of Małopolska dwellers towards the so-called war on the legacy left after the Babenbergs. A detailed examination of disposition components and getting to know people present both in testing and the remaining part of the diploma closer, shed a totally different light on document credibility, and, hence, the image of internal politics of Małopolska in the mid 13th century.

At the end of the 12th century, Iceland was the scene of significant political changes. The previously dominant system of power, based on the competences of the Althing and the authority of local chieftains (goðar), was collapsing. The balance of power on the island was now to be based on the coexistence of larger domains (héraðsríkja) created by the most influential families, at the expense of other local chieftains. At the end of the first half of the 13th century, in the so-called During the Sturlung era, Iceland was informally divided into six local spheres of influence ruled by distinguished families: Haukdælir in Árnesþing, Oddaverjar in Rangárþing, Ásbirningar in Skagafjörður, Vatnsfirðingar in Ísafjörður, Sturlungar in Hvammur in Dalir, and Svínfellingar in Austfirðir. The process of consolidating power on the island was characterized by constant conflicts between individual families. These conflicts are reflected in the so-called contemporary sagas, commissioned by the main and most influential participants in the power struggle (e.g., the Sturlung Saga). The aim of this article is to consider how rivalry, shifting alliances, armed confrontations, and ultimately truces and agreements influenced the political balance of power in eastern Iceland. The basis for tracing these mechanisms is an analysis of one of the contemporary sagas, the Saga of the Men of Svinafell (Svínfellinga saga), in comparison with other, mainly annalistic, accounts created on the island at the time.

This article is dedicated to mention of Galician prince Lev in Anonymi Leobiensis Chronicon. The author of this chronicle is unknown, but his testimonies are entirely credible, because his work was written in cooperation with another famous medieval author — Iohannis abbatis Victoriensis. Further scientific debate, involving new sources, will shed more light on this important issue and a detailed analysis will give us a chance to identify the first chronicler, who marked the name of the Galician prince Lev Danilovich among active participants of the great battle between the Czech king and the founder of the Habsburg dynasty.

The analysis of source materials, concerning an attack on Johannes Warschow, a merchant from Toruń at the beginning of the 15th century by the inhabitants of Sieradz Land and later events connected with it, allows for reconstructing the actions taken in order to solve misunderstandings. Usually, the case was given to court in the place of residence of the accused. A commander was an arbitrator on the part of the Teutonic Knights, however, when the defendant was the subject of the Crown or Mazowsze, it was a starost. In special cases, there was a possibility to hand the case over to a different clerk, often taking an office in the borderland areas. In unique cases, it was the king who arbitrated the case, and, surely, the prince of Mazowsze and a grand Teutonic master respectively. It does not seem, though, that such courts were often used. One should also notice that two antagonized parties were required to come to court in front of those adjudicating in trans‑borderline cases who testified in the course of the trial.

The following text presents supplementations to prosegraphy and family relationships of the closest relatives of Mikołaj Trąba and Wojciech Jastrzębiec, two close co‑workers of king Władysław Jagiełło, and archbishops in Gniezno taking an office one after another. In the case of one of the brothers, the latter, namely Jastrzębiec, a chamberlain from Łęczyca, it was indicated that he was still alive on 25 November 1410. Also, a closer chronology of leaving priesthood by one of his nephews, Marcin from Borysławice and Rytwiany, who having resigned from a priesthood career, took part in the great battle with the Teutonic Knights (1409—1411), and was appointed a knight after the battle in Grunwald, was presented. An interesting context of the marriage of a niece of the hierarch in question, Anna (a daughter of chamberlain Mikołaj) with Jan from Licheń, a nephew of Andrzej Łaskarzyc from Gosławice, a bishop in Poznań, was more widely discussed. It was also proved that the marriage of chamberlain Mikołaj with Małgorzata from Borysławice did not only led to substantially increased property basis of the Jastrzębiec family by the Borysławice key to Łęczyca Land and two villages in the Kalisz county in Wielkopolska, but also relating a new family from Łubnice and Beszowa by marriage to an outstanding line of the Ogon family from which originated among others the Kościelecki, Umieński, Lubiński‑Chodecki and Działyński families in Szeroka Wielkopolska, The so far unknown source also allowed for paying attention to a close relationship between Mikołaj Trąba and a clerk family deriving from Dobrzyn and Kujawy Brzeskie (the Tłuchowski‑Baruchowski family belonging to the noble clan of Cholewa). It allowed for making an assumption that although Trąba was an illegitimate son, his mother came without a doubt from a noble family (perhaps even a clerk one) that was significant on a regional scale. Likewise, his biological father, a prelate in the chapter in Sandomierz.

Thanks to arrangements made by Jerzy Zysnarski and Edward Rymar, we know that it was Wierzbięta from Smogulec, a knight from Wielkopolska, belonging to the noble clan of Grzymała that had the rights to a small town of Danków in the New March. A detailed analysis of the available source material allowed for pointing out that he received Danków from Sigismund of Luxembourg probably on 16 November 1386 as a salary for the merits given to Sigismund after king Ludwik Węgierski’s death. Jan Zgorzelecki gave the same properties to Otto von Kittlitz, a knight from Łużyce, in 1391. When leaving the New March to the Teutonic Knights, Kittlitz remembered about his rights to Danków while the Order’s authorities used Wierzbięta’s rights against him who was financially connected with the Teutonic Knights much earlier. It led to a long‑lasting argument in which initially it was Wierzbięta’s wife and relatives that took part in before October 1403 and his death. The very argument quickly became an argument between Otto von Kittlitz and the Teutonic Knights. It was as late as in 1452 that Fryderyk, a Saxon elector finally ascribed Danków properties to the Teutonic Knights. In subsequent stages of the trial, a big role was given to the representatives of the states (knighthood and towns) of the New March having a much stronger position than the states in the Prussian state of the Order.

Millers as a social group are to be found in the sources at the turn of the Middle Ages and the modern era, however, the studies on this part of the society have not been thoroughly conducted so far. The aim of the article is to make an attempt to ask important research questions that would help understand the functioning of the medieval society, as well as polemics with a model of a fixed social ladder ingrained in the Middle Ages. The axis of the source analysis is a testament written by Stanisław from Koło, a 15th century miller from Wielkopolska. The author of the text ponders over the influences of millers, their property and role in local communities. A periphery source basis constitutes among others late‑medieval court oaths, 16th century conscription registers or notes from local books to be found in Poznań’s Słownik Historyczno‑Geograficzny Wielkopolski w średniowieczu. The text is contributive in nature that is why many issues dealt with in it awaits their further investigation. What is postulated is among others studies on the scope of a mill compulsion, millers’ movables and fixed properties or, finally, an attempt to copy the milk network in the 14th, 15th and in the first half of the 16th century most carefully.

One of the motives to be found in Kazimierz Jagiellończyk’s political ideology was calling for peace, harmony and unity, addressed to both his subjects and the world. It derived from king’s belief in kindness peace and harmony bring. He claimed that state prosperity depends on them. The king’s duty, however, as a just (rex iustus) and peaceful (rex pacificus) king was to provide peace and harmony. The subjects should live in a brotherly harmony. It referred to both the relationships between Poles and Lithuanians as well as Prussians, and internal ones. It was connected to among others the concept of the body of the Polish Crown (corpus regni Poloniae). All subjects were the members of the same body that should constitute unity. Calling for peace, harmony and unity also derived from the fact that Kazimierz Jagiellończyk perceived them against a wider and divine background. He understood king’s duties as the manifestation of God’s actions on the earth. As it was Christ’s coming that provided peace to the earth, maintaining this peace was king’s duty.

The character of the article is Heinko from Głubczyce, the first starost of Opava, a close co‑worker of prince Mikołaj of Opava, publically active between 1331 and 1354, gone before 1357. This is a figure well‑known by historians, but also controversial when it comes to his social origin. The researchers treat him as either a knight settled down in a town or a townsman being ahead of a knight in terms of his position. The author, arguing with Damian Halmer, deriving Heinko from the environment of the middle class in Głubczyce, shows his knightly status. He pays attention to the fact that it is only a Lubschicz predicate that speaks in favour of Heinko’s middle class origin. There is no document defining Heinko as a townsman, however, a diploma from 1352 places his name among the knights of Opava Land. What is crucial here is a knightly origin of Ramfoldus de Lubschicz identified by the author with Heinko’s son, and Heinko’s knightly family connections. The author rejects Heinko’s connections with the Stosz family, forced by the Czech historians, but associates him with equally influential families von Füllstein and von Reichenbach, though only on the distaff side. Heinko’s family origin remains still a riddle. Lords von Lubschicz, at the time of Heinko of a knightly origin, could come from hereditary mayors of Głubczyce at the turn of the 13th and 14th centuries.

The text combines the elements of a review and an arguing article. Presenting the circumstances of publishing the very book, the author discusses its contents, and evaluates it. The evaluation, though, is not positive. The author of the article pays attention to numerous factographic mistakes, gaps in the literature used or doubtful concluding. Apart from that, the text aims at showing the problems related to the course of Fryderyk Jagiellończyk’s career that Natalia Nowakowska either did not cover or just mentioned them. Among these one should enumerate the necessity to a re‑discussion of the relationships between Fryderyk and his most important tutor Filip Kallimach, the circumstances of appointing a prince a bishop of Kraków by a pope, and Filip’s attempts of succession to Warmia bishopric after Łukasz Watzenrode (especially in the light of maintained acts of bishops and Warmia chapter, relationships between brothers, particularly with Zygmunt Stary), Fryderyk’s political position in the Crown a day before Jan Olbracht’s death or the circumstances of the cardinal’s participation in Aleksander Jagiellończyk’s argument with the chapter in Kraków in 1502. The article pays attention to the necessity to separately treat not only personal politics led by Fryderyk in the chapters in Kraków and Gniezno in the future, but also his relationship with older canons, mainly from the circle of archbishop Zbigniew Oleśnicki. It aims at, above all, recognizing how their cooperation worked, how Fryderyk gained them or how they gained his confidence.