Žalgirio mūšis Lietuvos istorikų darbuose

Direct Link:
Collection:
Mokslo publikacijos / Scientific publications
Document Type:
Straipsnis / Article
Language:
Lietuvių kalba / Lithuanian
Title:
Žalgirio mūšis Lietuvos istorikų darbuose
Alternative Title:
Battle of Tannenberg in the works of Lithuanian historians
In the Journal:
Istorija [History]. 2011, Nr. 81, p. 23-35
Keywords:
LT
Atmintinos datos; Istorija; Istorikai; Istorinė atmintis; Istoriografija; Jubiliejus; Karai; Karybos istorija; Lietuva; Lietuvių istoriografija; Mečislovas Jučas; Svenas Ekdahlis; Vokiečių ordinas; Žalgirio mūšis.
EN
Anniversary; German order; Grunwald battle; Historians; Historical memory; Historiography; History; Lithuania; Lithuanian historiography; Memorable dates; Mečislovas Jučas; Military science history; Sven Ekdahl; The Battle of Tannenberg; Wars.
Summary / Abstract:

LTStraipsnyje siekiama apibūdinti lietuviškąją Žalgirio mūšio tyrinėjimo tradiciją, aptarti jos raidą, svarbesnes išvadas ir pasiekimus nuo pirmųjų Žalgirio mūšio vertinimų iki Žalgirio mūšio 600 metų jubiliejaus. Iš pateiktos istoriografinės apžvalgos daroma išvada, kad lietuvių istoriografijoje jau seniai Žalgirio mūšis suvoktas kaip epochinės reikšmės įvykis. Lietuvos istoriografija visada jautriai reaguodavo į bandymus sumenkinti Lietuvos kariuomenės ir Vytauto reikšmę Žalgirio mūšyje. Buvo visuotinai pripažįstamas reikšmingas lietuvių vaidmuo pradiniame ir baigiamajame mūšio etape, tačiau pasitraukimas ilgą laiką aiškintas dvejopai: kaip Lietuvos kariuomenės priverstinis atsitraukimas, po kurio sekė sėkmingas persirikiavimas ir grįžimas į mūšio lauką, arba kaip specialiai suplanuotas apgaulingo bėgimo manevras siekiant išardyti priešo rikiuotę. Pastaroji hipotezė galutinai įrodyta Svenui Ekdahliui suradus ir paskelbus apie tai kalbantį mūšio dalyvio laišką. Taip pat buvo nevienodai aiškinamas Jogailos vaidmuo: kartais vieninteliu mūšio vadu buvo laikomas Vytautas, o kartais tam tikras vaidmuo pripažįstamas ir Jogailai. Pastaruoju metu vienaip ar kitaip pripažįstamas abiejų vadų vaidmuo mūšio metu. Lietuvių istoriografija palyginti nedaug dėmesio skyrė kariuomenių skaičiaus įvertinimui. Vienintelės savarankiškesnės pastangos buvo susijusios su gana radikaliais mėginimais sumenkinti Lenkijos kariuomenės vaidmenį mūšyje. Tai buvo daroma įtemptų Lenkijos ir Lietuvos santykių fone, apie 1930 m. Kitais atvejais daugiausia pasirenkami užsienio istoriografijoje vyraujantys skaičiai. [Iš leidinio]

ENThe Battle of Tannenberg (the Battle of Žalgiris, the Battle of Grunwald), the greatest and most significant battle in the medieval history of Lithuania, Poland and the Teutonic Order, since ancient times has been in the centre of multilingual historiographical researches in Middle and Eastern Europe. The authors, who wrote in Lithuanian, always devoted considerable attention to it; however, as the Lithuanian scientific historiography evolved later than in German and Russian linguistic contexts, the development of this historiography started later as well. The first estimates of the Battle of Tannenberg, made in the 19th century, prove that this battle attracted the Lithuanians' attention starting with the first stages of Lithuanian historiography; when the tradition of Lithuanian scientific historiography acquired a solid basis, it developed some features of originality. Polemics with the Polish historiography, strongly influenced by Jan Długosz's biased battle accounts, laid solid foundations for a more objective attitude to the Battle of Tannenberg; this approach was confirmed by further researches. However, namely the Lithuanian historiography of Tannenberg is less known in the international researches of the battle because of the following reasons. First of all, lack of solid, seminal works (except for Mečislovas Jučas' monograph and some science popular publications, Lithuanian historiography of the Battle of Tannenberg was mainly represented by articles).then, the language barrier should be taken into consideration as the works published in the Lithuanian language were less accessible to the international community, and, finally, lack of historiographic reviews and bibliography should be mentioned. Therefore, the aim of this article is to characterize the Lithuanian research tradition of the Battle of Tannenberg, to discuss the development of this tradition as well as to highlight important conclusions and achievements starting with the first estimates of this battle till its 600th anniversary. The presented historiography review helps to conclude that in Lithuanian historiography the Battle of Tannenberg is perceived as the event of epochal importance. Lithuanian historiography has always been sensitive to the attempts to diminish the importance of the Lithuanian army and Vytautas for the battle. The Lithuanians' significant contribution at the initial and final stages of the battle is recognized universally; however, the retreat received diverse evaluation: it was treated 1) as a forced retreat, followed by a successful reorganization and return to the battlefield and 2) as a specially planned tactical manoeuvre to break the enemy's battle line. The latter hypothesis was confirmed when Sven Ekdahl found and published the letter of one of the solders involved in the battle. Jogaila's (Jagiello) role was also explained differently: in some cases, Vytautas was considered to be the chief and the only army commander while in other cases Jogaila's significant military role was also emphasized. Lately, however, the role of both leaders has been acknowledged. […]. [text from author]

ISSN:
1392-0456; 2029-7181
Related Publications:
Permalink:
https://www.lituanistika.lt/content/29609
Updated:
2020-04-14 11:31:35
Metrics:
Views: 96    Downloads: 31
Export: