Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Illustrations
- Map
- Introduction
- Chapter 1 Displays of Power—Architecture as Sign and Symbol
- Chapter 2 Choice of Architectural Forms
- Chapter 3 The Code of Form and Shape
- Chapter 4 Composition of Spatial Arrangements
- Chapter 5 Appropriation and/or Influence
- Chapter 6 Architecture as a Vehicle of Meanings
- Chapter 7 Form versus Function
- Chapter 8 Interpreting Function
- Chapter 9 Reading Architecture
- Conclusion
- Bibliography
- Index
Chapter 1 - Displays of Power—Architecture as Sign and Symbol
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 November 2024
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Illustrations
- Map
- Introduction
- Chapter 1 Displays of Power—Architecture as Sign and Symbol
- Chapter 2 Choice of Architectural Forms
- Chapter 3 The Code of Form and Shape
- Chapter 4 Composition of Spatial Arrangements
- Chapter 5 Appropriation and/or Influence
- Chapter 6 Architecture as a Vehicle of Meanings
- Chapter 7 Form versus Function
- Chapter 8 Interpreting Function
- Chapter 9 Reading Architecture
- Conclusion
- Bibliography
- Index
Summary
IN THE GESTA PRINCIPUM POLONORUM attributed to the Polish chronicler commonly referred to as Gallus Anonymus, descriptions of Bolesław the Brave's power included a list of individual strongholds and the potential number of conscripts they could provide:
From Poznań, 1,300 mailed knights and 4,000 footsoldiers; from Gniezno, 1,500 mailed knights and 5,000 footsoldiers; from the stronghold of Włocławek, 800 mailed knights and 2,000 footsoldiers; from Giecz, 300 mailed knights and 2,000 footsoldiers—such were the troops mustered under Bolesław the Great, all the bravest of the brave, fully trained for war. How many came from other cities and castles would be a long and endless labour for us to list, and perhaps tedious for you to listen to.
The brief list of options open to Poland's future king emphasizes the importance of individual centres across the territories ruled by the Piasts. Lands held by the Přemyslids and the Árpáds were also dotted with centres under local rule, all available as sources of army conscripts and financial backing. This is why I have focused on selected strongholds recognized as centres of power (sedes regni principales), as they were part of the infrastructure a ruler could employ in developing his or her power, and a space for displaying it when needed. Yet what makes them different to other strongholds developed at that time? Was it their geographical location? The way space was organized around and within the stronghold? The defence system employed, or the type and/or purpose of buildings within? I hope that by answering these and other questions, I will capture the similarities and differences between how the princes and kings of the Piast, Přemyslid, and Árpád dynasties defined, created, and exhibited power.
A stronghold, especially if fortified, encircled with a rampart and palisade, with its access protected by a natural knoll or river, was one of the most obvious symbols of power across Europe. Were it not for such strongholds—or rather networks of strongholds—chieftains who began developing their dominion over the period of the eighth/ninth and eleventh centuries across Central Europe, particularly in what would later become Poland, Bohemia, and Hungary, could not have commanded such vast areas. The stronghold was the fundamental economic and military unit, providing inhabitants with a support and safety structure.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Architecture and Power in Early Central Europe , pp. 1 - 24Publisher: Amsterdam University PressPrint publication year: 2022