Western Frankish Chroniclers’ Accountsabout the Bohemian and Central European History in the 10th and First Half of the 11th Century

Western Frankish Chroniclers’ Accounts about the Bohemian and Central European History in the 10th and First Half of the 11th Century Jakub Izdný The core of the sources concerning the history of Central Europe in the 10th Century could be found in the charters, annals and chronicles originating in the territory of the Ottonian/Salian Empire. Especially in the case of so called East Central Europe,1 we could gain the clear majority of the important information from the quite limited number of sources of this kind, without any serious hope for finding an important information anywhere else. This enclosed group of sources is quite well known, examined and could only provide anew interpretation by using avery innovative and different attitude. If we consider the national history of Bohemia, Hungary or Poland, the corpus of the sources is usually already edited in some 19th or early 20th Century’s edition,2 consisting of the said charters, annals, chronicles of the empire, several “domestic” sources coming from the younger periods (mostly even the 12th Century)3 1 The term East Central Europe describes the medieval state formations of Piast, Árpádian and Přemyslid dynasties, that were slowly creating the Polish, Hungarian and Bohemian state. The term itself underwent acertain criticism and is fully dependant on the discussion about the term Central Europe. For further reading about these terms in medieval context see e. g. N.BEREND— P.URBAŃCZYK— P.WISZEWSKI, Central Europe in the High Middle Ages. Bohemia, Hungary and Poland, c.900— c.1300, Cambridge 2013, pp.1–39. 2 The “domestic” editions considered generally as the most important include Fontes rerum Bohemicarum, started in 1874 by Josef Emmler in Prague for Bohemian space, Monumenta Poloniae historica (MPH) originally published in Lwów 1864–1893 by August Bielowski for Polish history and finally Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum (SRH), published by Imre Szentpétery in Budapest in 1937–1938 for Hungarian space. The editors’ attitudes and natures of the actual corpuses presented there slightly differ. These main editions are accompanied by certain other collections of charters or catalogues of sources comprising information about certain country or region (Magnae Moraviae fontes historici or Catalogus fontium historiae Hungaricae). Similar is the case of the modern Slovakian edition Pramene kdejinám Slovenska aSlovákov, depending mostly on the existing editions. General overview of the “imperial” sources is of course presented in the German series Monumenta Germaniae Historica (MGH). 3 Each country has its own “national chronicle”, but these sources also vary to agreat extent: From atypical history of the nation, such as the one written by Kosmas of Prague 8 PRAGUE PAPERS ON THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 1/2017 and some hagiographical sources, that give us some interesting but— from astrict historiographical point of view— rather dubious information. On the other hand, there is aslightly different case if we question the early Hungarian history. The period of the Hungarian invasions, the so called “kalandozások”,4 could be naturally traced in the vast number of varied sources that are to be found all around Europe.5 Alarge number of the authors described the Hungarian raids that affected all the parts of the European continent (except the islands and Scandinavia). This does unfortunately not mean, that the history of the Hungarian raids is clearer or less dubious, but the Hungarian historiography— probably because of this phenomenon— generally tends to be more “open” to the information coming from these sources, however far they were written from the described space.6 That includes even the case of the later information concerning the “settled” period of the Hungarian 10th and 11th Century.7 If we look more closely on the Bohemian historiography of the 10th Century, we realize that especially the sources originating in the Western Frankish Empire are passed without afurther interest.8 It’s anatural phenomenon if we consider the (published as Die Chronik von Böhmen des Cosmas von Prag by B.BRETHOLZ in Berlin 1923 (MGH Scriptores rerum Germanicarum, nova series II; further as “Kosmas”), an expanded biographies of the rulers of the country as in case the Anonymous “Gaul” (the text published as MPH nova series II by K.MALECZYŃSKI in Kraków 1952 is now reproduced with some corrections and English translation by P.W.KNOLL and F.SCHAER as Gesta principum Polonorum: The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles in: Central European Medieval Texts III, Budapest— New York 2003, further cited as “Anonymous Gaul”) or awholly mythical story of the origin of the tribe, Gesta Hungarorum, created by another Anonymous from the Hungarian court (in: SRH I, pp.13–117). 4 The Hungarian word “kalandozás” describes the phenomena from an interestingly different point— it means “to wander” or “go on adventure”. 5 The general overview of the picture of these invasions in contemporary sources was presented by M.G.KELLNER, Die Ungarneinfälle im Bild der Quellen bis 1150: Von der „Gens detestanda“ zur „Gens ad fidem Christi conversa“, München 1997. 6 Aconvincing information about Magyar life and history could be found even in the Spanish Muslim sources, e. g. I.ZIMONYI, ANew Muslim Source on the Hungarians in the Second Half of Tenth Century, in: CHRONICA, Vol.44, 2004, pp.22–31. Hungarian invasion of 942 lead to Muslim Andalusia and some of the warriors were held as captives and then even hired as guards there. 7 See L.VESZPRÉMY, Adémar de Chabannes krónikájának magyar vonatkozásai. Textus és kontextus, in: Századok, Vol.138, No.2, 2003, pp.459–467 and e. g. the common use of Adémarʼs chronicle in the chapter The Kingdom of Hungary (written by N.BEREND, J.LÁSZLOVSZKY and B.Zs. SZAKÁCS) in the work Christianization and the Rise of Christian Monarchy: Scandinavia, Central Europe and Rus‘ c.900–1200, ed. N.Berend, Cambridge 2007, pp.319–368. 8 For example, the presence of the Bohemian duke Boleslav at the battle of Lechfeld (as described by Flodoard of Reims) is rejected by V.NOVOTNÝ, České dějiny I.1, Praha 1912 and then this information is omitted at all by Boleslav’s latest biographer M.LUTOVSKÝ, Bratrovrah atvůrce státu: Život adoba knížete Boleslava I., Praha 2006. The accounts of Richer and Rudolph Glaber don’t bring many actual news (although his news about St.Adalbert were evaluated in the work of E.DĄBROWSKA, Cluny aśw. Wojciech: JAkUb IzdNý 9 quality of these sources: The information given by these authors are very short, hardly bring any actual new information, concern avery questionable terms and orthography of the names occurring in the text and finally there is aserious doubt that the sources of the writers’ information were somewhat reliable. On the other hand, it is not awise attitude to refuse these texts in general, for it may still be auseful source for the given period. If we bear in mind the limits that are affecting the general quality of the information, we can trace some important data even in these dubious and questionable accounts. This data will of course not directly change the historiographical picture of the events of the 10th century in Bohemia (and Central Europe), but they can provide an important addition to the general picture of the European history and the position of the given region in the intellectual world of that time. The trend of omitting these sources was slightly changed recently, when Marie Bláhová used some of the Western Frankish chronicles for her short study about the death of St Adalbert,9 which probably shows, that the Western Frankish sources could find another position in Czech historiography. An attempt of ageneral description of these sources and their relevance and importance for Bohemian and Central European historiography will be presented in this short study. The most fruitful information coming from the Western Frankish space could be found in four chronicles of the 10th and first half of the 11th century. The most important chroniclers of this period— Flodoard of Reims,10 Richer of Reims,11 Adémar of Relacja „Historiae libri Quinque“ Rudolfa Glabera omęczeństwie św. Wojciecha, in: Kwartalnik historiczny, Vol.110, No.3, 2003, pp.5–13.), Adémar of Chabannes was until now omitted completely thanks to the alleged younger interpolation of the text (see below). 9 M. BLÁHOVÁ, Smrt svatého Vojtěcha: Zamyšlení nad zprávami nejstarších pramenů, in: E.DOLEŽALOVÁ— P.SOMMER (Eds.), Středověký kaleidoskop pro muže shůlkou, Praha 2016, pp.425–434, here 428–429. 10 The canon and historian of the church in Reims (†966). Three certain works of this authors are known: History of his church in Reims, acollection of poems called “De Triumphis Christi” and his chronicle, mostly described as Annals. From the two mostly used editions— G.PERTZ, in: MGH SS III, Hannover 1839, pp.368–408 and P.LAUER, Les Annales de Flodoard, Paris 1905, Iwill quote the easy accessible German one, further as “Flodoard”. The work was discussed lately in: E.ROBERTS, Flodoard of Rheims and the Tenth Century, University of St. Andrews 2014; S.LECOUTEUX, Les Annales de Flodoard de Reims (919–966) dans la tradition historiographique du Moyen Âge, EPHE Paris 2011; S.LECOUTEUX, Le contexte de rédaction des Annales de Flodoard de Reims (919–966), in: Le Moyen Âge. Revue dʼhistoire et de philologie, Vol.116, 2010, pp.51–121, 283–318 and S.FANNING— B.S.BACHRACH (Eds.), The Annals of Flodoard of Reims, 919–966, Peterborough 2004 (with the English translation of the work). 11 The monk of the same city, follower of Flodoard’s work. His text presents achronicle of the second half of the 10th century, surviving only in the author’s autograph. It was edited lately by H.HOFFMANN, as MGH SS XXXVIII, Hannover 2000 (further as “Richer”). For further reading see e. g. J.LAKE, Richer of Saint-Rémi: The Methods and Mentality of aTenth-century Historian, Washington 2013; J.GLENN, Politics and History in the Tenth Century: The Work and World of Richer of Reims, Cambridge 2004. 10 PRAGUE PAPERS ON THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 1/2017 Chabannes12 and Rudolph Glaber13— bring us some information mostly concerning the Hungarian and Bohemian history. It is probably avery interesting and important finding, that we can’t get very much information about the third member of the triad of the newly established monarchies of the East Central Europe: Poland (or to be more exact: Piast realm). Only the Adémar’s Chronicle brought us the name of the host of St Adalbert in Poland, the “rex Sclavanie Botesclavus”.14 Even Rudolph Glaber, who mentions the same story, describes the route of St. Adalbert as adirect mission “from Prague (Braga) to Prussia”.15 It is quite interesting that the core of the information about the Central Europe in the Western Frankish sources almost omits the existence of the Piast realm at all. We can possibly explain this by the speed of the transmission of the information and acertain conservativism during this period. While the regions of Bohemia were in the focus of the Western chroniclers since the year 805, when Charlemagne first conquered this region,16 and the information about the Hungarian raids was coming with the attacking Hungarians to the homeland of the chroniclers, the emergence of the “Polish”17 state came up only in 960’s and it took 12 Adémar (†ca 1034) was aproductive author and composer of Central-West France. His chronicle was lately published by P.BOURGAIN in: Corpus Christianorum. Continuatio mediaevalis CXXIX, Tournhout 1999 (further as “Adémar”). From avast amount of secondary literature see e. g. D.F.CALLAHAN, Jerusalem and the Cross in the Life and Writings of Ademar of Chabannes, Leiden 2016; J.GRIER, The Musical World of aMedieval Monk: Adémar de Chabannes in Eleventh-century Aquitaine, Cambridge 2006; Y.CHAUVIN, Adémar de Chabannes, Chronique, Turnhout 2003 and R.A.LANDES, Relics, Apocalypse, and the Deceits of History: Ademar of Chabannes, 989–1034, Cambridge 1995. 13 Glaber was awell-educated enfant terrible of the French monasteries in the first half of the 11th century. Except the interesting chronicle, he also wrote abiography of aCluniac William of Volpiano. Major recent works concerning his chronicle include R.ROMAGNOLI, Le Storie di Rodolfo il Glabro (Strutture culturali e modelli di santità cluniacensi), Bologna 1988; E.ORTIGUES— D.JOGNA-PRAT, Raoul Glaber et l’historiographie clunisienne, in: Studi medievali, Vol.26, 1995, pp 537–572; G.M.CANTARELLA, Appunti su Rodolfo il Glabro, in: Aevum, Vol.65, 1991, pp.279–294; J.FRANCE, Rodulfus Glaber and French Politics in the Early Eleventh Century, in: Forschungen zur westeuropäischen Geschichte, Vol.16, No.1, 1989, pp.101–112. The most recent edition has been published by M.ARNOUX as Raoul Glaber: Histoires, Turnhout 1996; but for me only the slightly older Cronache dell’anno mille (Storie), Milano 1989 edited by G.CAVALLO and G.ORLANDI (further as “Glaber”) was accessible. 14 Adémar, p.152. 15 Glaber, pp.28–29. 16 Charlemagne’s campaign is noted almost by every single source describing this period, and the traces of this information could be found even in Kosmas, pp.59, 93–94. 17 The actual name of Poles and Polish state and nation appears in the sources first at the end of the 10th century. This probably underlines the unsure attitude that the authors of the 10th and 11th century had to the very existence of anew political unit of the East Central Europe. For further readings see P.URBAŃCZYK, Slavic and Christian Identities during the Transition to Polish Statehood, in: I.GARIZPANOV— P.GEARY— P.URBAŃCZYK (Eds.), Franks, Northmen and Slavs: Identities and State Formation in Early Medieval Europe, Turnhout 2008, pp.205–222. Adémar still uses the term “Slavic” for the description of the rule of Boleslav the Valiant, although he also knows the name “Polliana” which is on the other hand only one of the four provinces mentioned in this connection (see below). JAkUb IzdNý 11 some time before the name and idea of anew region found its place in the intellectual map of the Western Frankish writers.18 The oldest Western Frankish Chronicle covering the period of the 10th Century are the so-called Annals of Flodoard. The basis of Flodoard’s work really resembles the classical annalistic form, mentioning the history year by year, not trying to explain some motives and consequences by leaving this strict chronological order and reminding us thusly how thin is the borderline between annals and chronicle in the said period. Flodoard describes the period of 919 to 966, with the focus to the Western Frankish history, but being very sufficiently informed about the situation “behind the river Rhine”, in the emerging Ottonian Empire. Thanks to this knowledge of the Ottonian history, Flodoard can give us some very interesting and important information not only to the period of Hungarian raids (which he catches up for the years 919, 922, 924, 926, 933, 935, 937, 951 and 954)19 but also several interesting facts about the history of Bohemia. We must bear in mind, that especially the exact years of the certain campaigns in Flodoard’s work are quite reliable and hardly we can find any mistake, which is quite unusual for the annals of the given period. Flodoard brings us especially three interesting reports concerning directly the East Central Europe:20 First, there is an interesting account of the battle at Riade.21 Frankish chronicler describes it quite exactly, although with some interesting mistakes. According to him the Hungarian army was divided in three units: one of them heading in Italy, the other to Henry’s realm. The third unit is then completely forgotten in the account. One possible explanation of this fact is brought by the message of Widukind of Corvey,22 who describes the attack to Saxony as an action of two separated groups, one of which was destroyed in Thuringia just before the Riade battle. The other part of Hungarians could then be the third army mentioned by Flodoard. Even the phrase “ad internetionem sternit” used by Flodoard for describing the Hungarian defeat resembles more the information of Widukind, who says, that the main armies never actually clashed and the success of Saxons was merely the chasing of the Hungarians away. Giving so much credit to Flodoard’s information enables us to take seriously also the account, that Henry the Fowler’s army consisted not only from Saxons and Bavarians but from “the other tribes subjugated to him”. We can say, that 18 On the other hand, the Polish authors payed attention to the Adémar’s news, especially about the international figure of St. Adalbert already— see N.MIKA, Postać sw. Wojciecha w europejskiej historiografii wieków średnich— prezentacja wybranych wzmianek źródłowych, in: A.BARCIAK (Ed.), Środkowoeuropejskie dziedzictwo świętego Wojciecha, Katowice 1998, pp.43–59, namely 53ff and D.A.SIKORSKI, rec. Kronika Ademara zChabannes— odzyskane żródło dla najwcześniejszych dziejów Polski, in: Studia żródłoznawcze, Vol.40, Warszawa 2002, pp.215–220. 19 See respectively Flodoard, pp.368, 370, 373–374, 376, 381, 383–384, 400 and 402. 20 Aminor and hardly decipherable message about the campaign of Henry the Fowler against Sarmatians (i. e. Slavs, see below) in 924 (FLODOARD, p.374) could unfortunately hardly bring any more accurate information. We can only anticipate, that this message was asource for Richer— see below. 21 Flodoard, p.381. 22 Widukind of Corvey, Rerum gestarum Saxonicarum libri tres, ed. P.HIRSCH— H.-E. LOHMANN, Hannover 1935, pp.56–57 (further as “Widukind”). 12 PRAGUE PAPERS ON THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 1/2017 by these tribes Flodoard could mean the “German tribes” such as Thuringians, Swabians and (Eastern) Franks,23 who were omitted by the account of Flodoard. The West Frankish author could even question the “Frankish” nature of the power of “princeps Transrhenensis”,24 how he described Henry the Fowler, by such an “omission”. On the other hand, there is another possibility, already mentioned by certain scholars:25 By the “subjugated tribes”, Flodoard could mean rather some Slavic tribes that Henry defeated before the battle at Riade as he planned the decisive clash with the invaders.26 Slavs of the Elbe region were subjugated very forcibly, which possibly diminishes the possibility of their useful help. On the other hand, there is still apossibility that in the same time probably less violently pacified duke Wenceslas of Bohemia was ready to help to his new “dominus”.27 The Czech historiography traditionally sees the contact between Henry and Wenceslas as somewhat sensitive topics.28 Maybe because of this attitude, the local historiography never fully examined all the circumstances of the given “Slavic” campaign of Henry the Fowler, especially in the context of the preparations against the Hungarians.29 Bearing this context in mind, it is not that hard even to attribute scars on the St Wenceslas’s skull30 to the fights with Hungarians (so far, the scars rather could “attest” his brave resistance against the “German” enemy). The Bohemian duke could really act as an ally of Henry Iin the battle of Riade in asomewhat similar position as his younger brother at Lech. Unfortunately, Flodoard doesn’t mention expressly what “tribes” does he mean. It’s significant for his work, that he didn’t use the word “Slav” or “Slavic” anywhere. His term for Slavs is the older Roman term identifying the population of Eastern Europe with the nomadic Sarmatians31 and in one case the younger term for the gen23 Flodoard uses the word gentes in the connection “Germaniae Galliaeque gentes” (p.377). 24 Flodoard, p.369. 25 “The ‚ceterae gentes subjectae‘ of Flodoard’s Annales … were most probably Slavs,” according to K.J.LEYSER, Medieval Germany and Its Neighbours, London 1982. 26 WIDUKIND, p.55 describes the anti-Slavic campaign in 928/929 as abeta-test of Henry’s army. In fact, the Ottonian king could try to fight the possible allies of Hungarians and prepare his flanks for the defence. 27 The final agreement of these rulers is attested by the same source (Widukind, p.50: “(Henricus) regemque eius in deditionem accepit”). 28 Ageneral overview of the nationalistic historiography discussing this topic is presented by O.KRÁLÍK, Labyrint dávných dějin českých, Praha 1970, pp.81–116. The modern Czech historiography tends to describe the problem in amore neutral way, but it is still influenced by the original tradition widely. 29 For example, F.M.BARTOŠ, Kníže svatý Václav uVidukinda, in: Svatováclavský sborníkI.Kníže Václav Svatý ajeho doba, Praha 1934, p.838 totally overturned the actual idea of Widukind’s account by interpreting the whole story as agreat plan against the Slavs (!), which was the reason, why Henry accepted even the expensive truce with the Hungarians. 30 The traumatology of the Wenceslasʼ skull was described by E.VLČEK, Nejstarší Přemyslovci: Fyzické osobnosti českých panovníků. Atlas kosterních pozůstatků prvních sedmi historicky známých generací Přemyslovců spodrobným komentářem ahistorickými poznámkami, Praha 1997, pp.124–133, especially page 130, where two healed wounds on the skull are described. 31 Flodoard, pp.374, 403 and 404. JAkUb IzdNý 13 eral Slavic population “Wends” (Wenedorum).32 As the Western Frankish population lacked any contacts with the neighbours of their Eastern relatives, this attitude is rather expectable and we see asame name “Sarmatians” given to the Slavic population by Flodoard’s “successor” Richer.33 Flodoard clearly uses the term Sarmatians as ageneral name for apopulation, not aspecific country or people— Sarmatians in his world could have several rulers— principes and reges. The second case when Flodoard expressly describes the situation behind the Eastern border of East Frankish realm is ashort sentence added to the text of the year 950 without any context: “King Otto, who besieged abig castle of Weneds, called Proada, accepted the subjection of their king (sic!); but he also subjected the Hungarians.”34 By the mentioning of Hungarians, the author is probably already anticipating the results of the big campaign in 955. It is interesting, that when describing this campaign later (see below), Flodoard is mentioning the participation of Boleslav (or his soldiers?), but in this specific case Flodoard doesn’t mention (and maybe even know) the name of the ruler of Weneds and we may even ask if he was aware that the present king of Weneds and later mentioned duke/king of Sarmatians were the same person. The use of adifferent name for the tribe would imply, he did not, although the connection with the Hungarians is somewhat strange in this case. Even more interesting is, that the target of Otto’s campaign is specified to Prague (which name, however deformed, stays probably out of question). The other two sources referring closer to this campaign give us adifferent name of the besieged fortress— Nova35 or Niuunburg.36 Both names relate possibly to the same place, which could make us reject the Flodoard’s message as dubious, as he was probably only identifying the capital of Bohemians and probably already most important castle of Prague with the target of the campaign that wasn’t in fact known to him. On the other hand, if Flodoard did not identify the campaign of 950 with the later news about Boleslav, and because he used adifferent term for Bohemia here, we can also anticipate, that the whole message came from some specific Flodoard’s source, which could also increase achance, that the name of Prague was already present in the original report. 32 Flodoard, p.400. This particular case refers to the encounter between Otto and Boleslav in 950 (see below). Is it possible, that Flodoard really distinguished Slavs (Sarmatians) and Bohemians (Wends)? 33 Richer, pp.51, 73 and 75. 34 See the note 32. The same campaign is attested by Widukind, pp.108–109 and several other sources, such as Reginonis abbatis prumiensis chronicon cum continuatione treverensi, ed. F.Kurze, MGH SRG LX, Hannover 1890, p.164 (further as “Continuator”) and Die Chronik des Bischofs Thietmar von Merseburg und ihre Korveier überarbeitung, ed. R.Holtzmann, MGH SRG nova series IX, Berlin 1935, p.40 (further as “Thietmar”). 35 Widukind, p.108. 36 See the charter in: Diplomata regum et imperatorum Germaniae: Die Urkunden der Deutschen Könige und Kaiser 1: Die Urkunden Konrad I., Heinrich I. und Otto I.: Conradi I., Heinrici I. et Ottonis I.Diplomata, ed. T. von Sickel, MGH, DD, Hannover 1879–1884, chart no.126, pp.207–208 issued there. There are several theories localising the “New castle” to many regions of Bohemia. From the recent ones, Mladá Boleslav was proposed by R.TUREK, Widukind Korvejský astarší české dějiny, Sborník kruhu přátel Muzea hl. m. Prahy, Vol.1, 1988, p.60 and Žatec by M.LUTOVSKÝ, Bratrovrah atvůrce státu, p.120. 14 PRAGUE PAPERS ON THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 1/2017 There is also achance to reconcile this two news. While Flodoard was informed about the campaign to Prague, Widukind and Otto himself could be aware of anew castle present there. It was not the Prague castle, but it could be the other fortress on top of the hill next to the Prague agglomeration— Vyšehrad. Unfortunately, the archeologic research completed lately by the publication of an impressive survey,37 didn’t prove the presence of any fortified structures on the top of the hill already in the half of the 10th century. On the other hand, Widukind’s message would be much clearer, if we put the scene of the story right between the two castles38 of Prague and Vyšehrad. According to the Widukind’s account Otto besieged the castle where only Boleslav’s son was present (Nova— Vyšehrad?), but was afraid of the danger (coming possibly from Prague— Proada?) and ordered to stop the attack. Boleslav (himself!) then left the castle (i. e. Prague?) to negotiate. Flodoard’s account (would it be considered reliable) could in fact bring alight to the confusing text of Widukind. The year 955 brought two important battles for the king Otto and both are registered also by the Flodoard’s Annals.39 The first is of course the battle of Lech (Lechfeld, Augsburg).40 It’s not necessary to describe the battle, it’s consequences and the details that reached Flodoard’s scriptorium. The main cause, why this episode is very important for us, is the actual presence of the Boleslav (or originally “Burislao”) himself, that is mentioned by Flodoard. It is interesting that Boleslav is noted together with Conrad the Red as the two noteworthy allies of Otto in the battle, giving us avery good reason to hope that Flodoard was deeply sure about the duke’s participation in the battle.41 In the same year, Otto fought the battle at Raxa against the rebelling Obotrites, ruled by two dukes— Nakon and his brother Stojhněv.42 These two persons are probably meant by Flodoard, when he’s referring to the “two Sarmatian kings”43 that were defeated— again not only by Otto, but also by the king “Burislao,” adding that he was recently subjugated by Otto. It is hard to decide if Flodoard was really connecting this information with the account from the year 950. Flodoard’s formulations are vague and it is interesting, that he’s mentioning the subjugation of Boleslav at first by the second appearance of his person, almost suggesting that the subjugation happened between the two battles (which is of course anonsense). Neither is Flodoard referring expressly to the event of 950, which is another indication that he did in fact not match these events in his mind. However, we must know, that Boleslav’s actual presence at Lech or even presence of aBohemian army in the battle against the Slavs is attested only by Flodoard. Had this information come not from aWest Frankish chronicle but from some single East 37 V. MOUCHA— B.NECHVÁTAL— V.VARADZIN, Vyšehrad: Knížecí akrálovská akropole: Svědectví archeologie, Praha 2015. 38 The charter mentioned above in the note 32 clearly says „suburbio Niuunburg“. 39 Flodoard, p.403. 40 For further reading about the battle, its consequences and other sources to the event see e. g. Srov.M.G.KELLNER, Ungarneinfälle im Bild der Quellen bis 1150, pp.161–173. 41 The existing literature is much less sure— see the note 8. 42 See e. g. Widukind, pp.130 and 133ff. 43 Flodoard, p.403. JAkUb IzdNý 15 Frankish annals, we would surely accept the presence of Boleslav at Lech or at least his soldiers in both battles. The information is completely plausible and— bearing in mind the global reliability of the Flodoard’s work— Iwould consider the information quite acceptable. Boleslav’s possible presence at Lech as well as the other battle fought by Bohemians against Hungarians in the same year44 only attests, that the Bohemian support provided to Otto during the decisive conflict is important not only as an event partially uncovering the Bohemian history of the 10th century, but as an information showing us the nature of the relation between Bohemia and the Empire. Boleslav was very actively helping Otto to defeat his biggest opponents and— by doing so— sealing his own position within the imperial aristocracy. It would be acceptable to presume, that Flodoard’s information is right and Boleslav was able to give support personally even in the battle at Raxa. The last Flodoard’s information about the eastern border of the East Frankish Empire appears at the year 958, when another fight with Sarmatians is fought by Otto.45 This information could be confirmed by the chronicle of Widukind and Regino’s Continuator. The first mentions approximately in the same time abig “killing” done by the “barbarians”.46 The second author attributes the two campaigns against Slavs to the years 957 and 959.47 The second author I’m going to investigate— Richer of Reims— was to abig extent using the chronicle of Flodoard.48 On the other hand, he was not mentioning very much information of the Ottonian eastern border, even if he could use the material of his source. The Hungarian attack is mentioned only once and could be probably attributed to the year 937.49 Without possible specification, the author mentions the subjugation of “Sarmatians” done by Henry the Fowler and even without any fight.50 The only case, when we can think about the “subjugation without any fight” is probably the campaign to Prague in 929 (mentioned above). While some historians somehow automatically think about abig war event between Henry and Wenceslas,51 we could bear in mind, that hardly any actual fight is attested.52 On the other hand, we 44 Arather mysterious information comes from Annales Sangallenses (in: MGH SS I, Hannover 1826, p.79). Although the nature of the information and its impossible confirmation resembles the news from Flodoard, the other battle with Hungarians is generally accepted by the scholars (e. g. H.BEUMANN, Die Ottonen, Stuttgart— Berlin— Köln, 2000, p.79; LUTOVSKÝ, Bratrovrah atvůrce státu, p.135). In fact, it would be the only specific battle between Slavs and still non-Christian Hungarians, that is mentioned in the written sources after the fall of Great Moravia. 45 Flodoard, p.404. 46 Widukind, p.136. An attack against Redars is mentioned already in 957 (ibidem). 47 Continuator, p.169. His account is on the other hand full of such mistakes. 48 Richer, Einleitung, p.2. 49 Richer, p.103. 50 Ibidem, p.51. 51 The last author anticipating avery serious military operation, with several battles is V.VANÍČEK, Svatý Václav: Panovník asvětec vraném středověku, Praha 2014, pp.111–112. 52 Widukind pp.50–51, the author who gives us the most detailed account of the story, doesn’t mention any fight at all (especially in comparison with the other parts of Slavic campaign he described before and after). The annals on the other hand seem to under- 22 PRAGUE PAPERS ON THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 1/2017 The biggest and more important role for the picture of East-Central Europe in the West Frankish environment is played by saints. The role of saints and especially of saint Adalbert while questioning the picture of Central Europe in the Western European view is probably essential. The stories of his martyrdom are contained even in the Glaber’s work, that otherwise payed no attention to the Bohemian history (and totally omitted the polish part of Adalbert’s story). Certain parts of Adalbert’s story were definitely taken from the official hagiographies and the importance of this saint is acrucial moment of an actual awareness concerning the East-Central European question in Western Europe. From the Bohemian and Central European point of view, we should not underestimate these sources. Although the information provided by these sources could be sometimes proven wrong, it is definitely not ageneral quality of all these sources. Especially Flodoard’s chronicle can be considered as an important and probably trustworthy. Following the recent trust put in the so far neglected part of Adémar’s chronicle, another changes of our view of the Central European history around the year 1000 are expectable. The other important fact is, that even from their “wrong” information we can collect an important data about the mechanisms of spreading news around Europe and about the picture of Central Europe in the West. WESTERN FRANKISH CHRONICLERS’ ACCOUNTS ABOUT THE BOHEMIAN AND CENTRAL EUROPEAN HISTORY IN THE 10TH AND FIRST HALF OF THE 11TH CENTURY ABSTRACT The study summarizes the information about Bohemia (and East Central Europe in general) that is given by the Western Frankish chronicles of the 10th and first half of the 11th centuries. These contributions were mostly omitted or refused by general majority of the Czech historiography. Recent changes of attitude to the relevance of these sources could bring anew view on these sources. The information about Bohemia contained in these sources could also help us to expose apossible relations and stereotypes about our region in Western Europe in the 10th and 11th century. KEYWORDS East Central Europe; Western Frankish Empire; chronicles; Bohemia; saints Jakub Izdný | Institute of World History, Faculty of Arts, Charles University, Nám. Jana Palacha 2, 116 38, Praha 1, Czech Republic, [email protected]