Kazimierz, grandson of Bolesław the Brave, managed to hold power for only three years. In 1037, internal enemies forced the young prince to flee the country. The Piast state broke apart and became an easy target for its foes. Among the participants of the conspiracy that removed the legitimate monarch from the throne was one of the most important dignitaries of the court. The cup-bearer Miecław profited from the catastrophe, established his own state, and was already preparing to replace the Piasts. Who was the man who nearly changed the course of medieval Polish history?
By the late 1030s, amid a deep crisis of the early Piast monarchy – ravaged by foreign invasions and internal unrest – a certain Miecław (Masław) created his own state in Mazovia. It proved to be short-lived and ceased to exist upon his death.
Much has been written about this “state” in historiography. Two nearly contemporary and mutually independent sources provide information about Miecław (Masław). These are the Polish Chronicle by the Anonymous known as Gallus and the Tale of Bygone Years, originating from the Ruthenian cultural sphere.
In both accounts Miecław is depicted as the ruler of Mazovia, against whom Kazimierz I the Restorer and his ally, the Rus’ prince Yaroslav the Wise, fought. Unfortunately, the surviving source material is fragmentary and does not allow us to trace the successive stages of the Mazovian usurper’s life.
Essentially, we know only about the last years of his life – in particular, the circumstances surrounding his death, which he suffered, as is commonly assumed, in 1047.
Who was the cup-bearer?
During the life of Mieszko II, Miecław served as his cup-bearer. In the Middle Ages, the cup-bearer was a high-ranking court official who oversaw the ruler’s wine cellar.
Alongside the steward, who served the ruler his food, the cup-bearer held the most important function at the princely court. He was responsible for ensuring that the prince could drink properly and safely. Nearly every beverage passed through the cup-bearer’s hands; if it was fit for consumption, it reached the ruler.
Naturally, the office of cup-bearer, though offering many benefits, also carried great risks. The most serious of these was the danger of poisoning.
The unclear beginnings of Miecław’s career
From this, it follows that Miecław belonged to Mieszko II’s trusted circle and must have had considerable influence over his decisions. It is impossible to determine when he received the honour of cup-bearer. Perhaps this occurred only near the end of Mieszko II’s reign (1025–1034), because during Bezprym’s bloody coup (1031) many supporters of the king were eliminated—including members of his household.
Another version of events is also possible: Miecław may have escaped Bezprym’s purge, seeking refuge somewhere safe, and, upon hearing of the tyrant’s unexpected death (in 1032), returned to Greater Poland. There Mieszko II soon appeared and welcomed the cup-bearer back to his court.
Miecław presumably retained his office during the first years of Kazimierz the Restorer’s rule (beginning in 1034), since the successor of Mieszko II had to rely on officials who had faithfully served his father.
Miecław was likely part of this group, as no contemporary source (including the Polish Chronicle of Gallus Anonymous, the most important source for this period) reports that he ever offended the king or lost his position.
A leap to power. How Miecław took control of Mazovia
At an unknown time and under unclear circumstances, Miecław became the governor of Mazovia. The promotion of this dignitary – who is sometimes thought to have been related to members of the Piast dynasty -may have occurred after 1034, according to Aleksander Gieysztor.
This view is based on Gallus Anonymous’ report that Miecław proclaimed himself “leader of the Mazovians” after the death of Mieszko II. For this reason, Barbara Krzemińska-Surowiecka’s hypothesis, which shifts his rise to independence to the time of Bezprym, appears entirely unfounded.
A catastrophic conspiracy
It must be assumed that the revolt against Richeza, and later against Kazimierz, was highly organised. In both conspiracies the rebels resorted to extreme measures. They acted quickly and efficiently, preventing the queen and her rightful heir from organising resistance.
The conspirators, aware of their goals, controlled the army, against which the Mieszkowic could not defend himself. They likely seized control of the prince’s troops as well, since rulers chose lower-level commanders from among the magnates. Thus, Kazimierz’s forces effectively fell under the control of his opponents, who had no respect for him and forced him to capitulate.
As one of the participants in the anti-Piast conspiracy, Miecław must have expected, like the others, to receive significant benefits (for otherwise they would not have initiated a rebellion that, if unsuccessful, would have cost them their positions, properties and – most importantly – their lives).
The risk was worthwhile, for the entire inheritance of the exiled dynasty was up for division. And here the qualities that Miecław later displayed so clearly may have helped him.
An outstanding rival of the Piasts
Miecław was an exceptional figure, at least by the standards of his time. The earliest Polish chronicler, Gallus Anonymous, devoted considerable attention to him in a chronicle intended to glorify the Piast rulers. Had Miecław not played a major role during the reign of Kazimierz the Restorer, the chronicler would undoubtedly have written far less about him – or perhaps nothing at all.
Thus, based on the available, though fragmentary, sources, we may deduce that the cup-bearer of Mieszko II belonged to the select group of individuals who, though outside the circle of the “natural lords” of Poland – the Piasts -had real chances of taking their place. Miecław could have become the founder of a new dynasty.
It is difficult to predict how Polish history would have unfolded, but it would certainly have looked different. Although Miecław would have been the direct successor to the monarchy of Bolesław the Brave and Mieszko II, he would have ruled a state with a different territory, name, and political centre of gravity.
Perhaps eastern affairs would have dominated Polish politics at the time, especially if the centre of the new monarchy had been located in Mazovia – the very region where Miecław later created his state.
Division of the spoils, division of Poland
The ruler of Mazovia was undoubtedly ambitious, resourceful, and stubborn. The last of these traits may have helped him articulate his expectations when negotiating with the other initiators of the anti-Piast rebellion.
Nothing in the surviving sources indicates that the conspirators quarrelled over dividing the heritage of the exiled Kazimierz. Of course, an argument ex silentio is insufficient.
Nevertheless, there is no obstacle to adopting a working hypothesis: the participants in the rebellion likely met and agreed upon a mutually satisfactory division of the Piast domain.
Mazovia – as we may infer from later events-fell to Miecław. It is unknown whether he was satisfied with his reward. Perhaps he had not played the leading role in the rebellion against Richeza and Kazimierz, as more politically important and wealthier provinces – Lesser Poland, Greater Poland, and Silesia – went to other leaders of the conspiracy.
