This paper addresses the historiographical construction of Duke Skirgaila, son of Algirdas (c. 1354–1397), brother and regent to Jogaila (later King Władysław II Jagiełło) arguing that his traditional image as an incompetent, greedy, or aggressive political actor is a "fabricated villainy". 

This revisionist thesis contributes directly to BASEES’ imperative to decentre and decolonise East European historiography, challenging the dominant narratives that have consistently marginalized and delegitimized figures inconvenient to the Polish-Lithuanian Union and Vytautas the Great’s rise to power.  

The study employs critical discourse analysis (CDA) on primary source material and comparative historical sociology (Z. Norkus' concept of the GDL as a "Patrimonial Empire") to relocate Skirgaila’s story from a simple tale of personal failure to a crucial case study of structural institutional crisis. Skirgaila’s tenure as Jogaila’s regent in Polotsk and later in Trakai (1386–1392) was inherently unstable because his delegated authority ("proxy rule") lacked the essential "patrimonial legitimacy" required within the Gediminid dynasty. His failure to secure Trakai against the claims of Vytautas (son of Kęstutis, the traditional inheritor of the patrilineal domain) was not a measure of his personal abilities, but a predictable outcome of this fundamental crisis in succession.  

The negative portrayal of Duke Skirgaila was systematically perpetuated by a confluence of hegemonic perspectives: the Pro-Vytautas/Ruthenian Chronicles; the Pro-Jagiellonian/Polish narrative (Długosz); and the Teutonic Order’s propaganda (Wigand of Marburg). 

To counter this, the paper highlights Skirgaila's later, successful administrative career as Duke of Kyiv (1392–1397). His ability to effectively govern these vast, multi-ethnic, and Orthodox peripheries—securing the southern flank of the Grand Duchy—demonstrates a military and administrative competence systematically ignored by historiography focused solely on his defeat in the Lithuanian metropolis. The analysis concludes that Skirgaila was not an inherent villain, but a politically necessary antagonist, whose constructed incompetence served to legitimize the new political order established between Jogaila and Vytautas.