Nové možnosti prístupu k výskumu dejín vojvodstva v 11. storočí

The study presents previous research on the history of the duchy in Hungarian, Czechoslovak (Czech) and Polish historiography as well. It also represents a new research concept. The Arpads‘ system of power division in the 11th century cannot be considered either as a model of state development or as a mere exercise of dynastic inheritance or family law. Instead of research on the statedevelopment, it is more appropriate to proceed from the then understanding of law and the organization of society, contained primarily in narrative sources and then situate the history of the duchy into it. The basis of this order had been represented by the system of relations between free people, based on a friendship confirmed by an oath. We can assume that these interpersonal relations had also determined the competence of the duchy and dukes. When comparing the Arpad dynastyduchy with similar constitutions of the Piast and Přemyslid dynasties, we can state that the territorial power division does not necessarily correspond to the authority/competent one. We still do not know the exact territorial extent of the duchy in the Kingdom of Hungary. However, we can say with certainty that its centers, unlike the Piast ones, had only slightly affected the main royal residences. While good relations had been lasting in the ruling dynasty, the dukes had important competencies. These competencies meant a share in the royal power, so the agreement had primarily represented the division of competencies. This might explain why kings and dukes regularly appear together in the main positions of the country, together representing the ruling power. The model of the power division between the Arpads in the 11th century was thus primarily family-based. It was based on consensus among family members.According to this consensus, the power division affecting the whole country had been in the ratio 2 : 1. The sources do not mention exactly what the members of the ruling family had divided among themselves. We can suppose that the reason was because it was not necessary, since the Hungarian chronicler understood the term divisio regni in the meaning of the disputes over the throne, as well as the power division.