Wikipedia: Mieszko I/Talk

He married several Christian wives, one after another. We know that the one who converted him was the Bohemian. Here is a general principle of history writing: unless we have written documentation of motives, we are very cautious about saying "he did this because of that." How do we know? We know that he married a Christian in a Christian ceremony, and that a few years later he became a Christian. Other than that it is hard to say. Conversion is a tricky thing to study and tricky to write about.

Besides the many earlier wives, Boleslaw kidnapped a nun ,another record says he married Oda von Haldesleben ( I seem to remember, that this is the nun) . Boleslav and the former nun had many children. In the wiki search engine type in: bishops and margraves of Brandenburg : etc, then take a good look at the list . Mieszko , also written ",Mieczislaw (Burislaf) I " . The , means that he had another name. The Burislaf means, he also held the title "Burislaf of Wendland"

I have a "Theodoric, count of Ringelheim, b abt 853. Oda was a very popular name used since Widukind or Wittekind by Saxon dukes. Oda is the female version of Odo,Oddo, Otto, Oto, Otho . I have a record, saying :Dietrich von Meissen Misnia's daughter Oda,a nun,was kidnapped by Mieszko,they had many children. another note Boleslaw I married Oda von Meissen ( do not have her father) Dietrich High German is the same as Theodoric.

Part of having the emperor grant ducal, margrave, or whatever positions and tiles ,was that the person had to take up Christianity. Many only took it in name and were not really Christians yet, often later in their lives. But time and time again,other people came and attacked the empire. The emperor won them over by marrying the daughters, nieces, granddaughters off to the attacker, thus making him a member of the family and co-operator of the empire. This honor system feudal arrangement , giving a personal pledge and keeping it, was the law and the way of government. The head of the country or land was the father of the land , the Landesvater and the mother of the land , the Landesmutter. You might call it a mom and pop operation. Family counted above all else. The honor system , laws that were not written down, but just a handshake was binding.

To the Boii,I have a copy of an engraving showing Herzog Sigmund, born 26.July 1439 in Starnberg , died Feb 1501 in Menzing Bavaria. His portrait states: Sigismundus Dux Boiar.LV.OB.A.MDI ,bottom Tecvm Habita ( I got this out of Encyclopedia Britannica or US Encl,Bicentennial).

If 20 century historians come up with different opinion ,it could very well be that they do'nt nearly have all the info that, earlier ones did. Telling the 15th century Dux Boiar.(ium) 500 years later that he is a lyar , does not seem to be too swift.

(When I asked JHK , how many books she has on Prussian history, she answered 0, she can just go and look it up in the library. Well the majority is not in the library and definately not in English .This just as my example.)

There is a big question on the mother of Boleslaw I , because the Danish have some runestone that claims Miescislaw (not the spelling used) was married to Thyra Haraldsdottir, daughter of Harald Bluetooth, Blauzahn, b 910 . But the dates are goofy. Just as with the widow Dubrawka, born 925 + 977 and Boleslaw I , born 967. With Thyra it only says born before 1000, died 1000. After Mieszko I she was supposed to have married Olaf Tryggvason, King of Norway in 998,and had a child 999.

H. Jonat

First, University libraries generally have good collections. I've been able to get books in German her in the states that I couldn't get when in Germany. I don't actually need to read books on Prussia in English -- I've been researching in German, often for Professors in Germany, for about 10 years. We've done this before, so please leave it alone. Since I don't regularly teach on the Prussians, I see no reason to spend money on books I can borrow. That's what lots of us do. Size of one's personal collection is probably not the best way to judge one's worth as an historian.

Second, everything Michael said about the Baioari and Boii is correct. The fact that you have a picture with Dux Boiarum doesn't show a connection. In fact, you regularly demonstrate that there are many variations of one name. In my own research, for example, I can think of several documents that mention a man called Adalbert (there are hundreds of different Adalbberts, but these pertain to the same man). In four or five documents, his name is spelled Adalbert, Adalbercht, Adalperaht, Adalbraht, and Adalperct. Same guy. Conversely, most scholars today believe that Boii and Baioari are two different words with different roots. Boiarum is certainly not the same thing as Baioariorum.

Finally, twentieth century historians actually have more information than did our predecessors. In fact, that is the nature of being an historian -- to take what others have said and build upon it. Sometimes new research forces us to reject previous thoeories. In previous centuries, history was expected to be written with an agenda, and only based on the facts available. Now, we are expected to write neutrally, and we have much better access to primary sources -- even to different versions of the same document! Think of a biblical historian -- before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, his writing would be very different than after...JHK

Let me give a relevant example from English history, HJ - the kings (and queens) of England had some pretensions (I think unwarranted, at best, but then I'm much more Gallo-centric than some folks) to being kings of France as well as their other titles. They never ruled much territory in France after the 15th century, and none after the 16th century. That didn't stop official listings of their title, especially in captions in woodcuts like your Bavarian example, from including R. Fr. (Rex Franciae = "King of France") for a VERY long time. Was it true? No. Did they know it was a lie? Yes. Titulature (Intitulatio, in Latin), is a matter of propaganda rather than being a simple description of facts. No historian would base an argument about the FACTS of territory controlled from the caption to a portrait-print; it does make an interesting story about what people BELIEVED or WANTED other people to believe (that is, propaganda). --MichaelTinkler, who also owns fairly few books that don't apply to the early middle ages or classical world, since he works out of libraries.

To MichaelTinkler and JHK See my answer in Bohemia/Talk H. Jonat

To MichaelTinkler ???? Mieszko I ( am posting this again, because I think you have overlooked it earlier, was it yesterday or this morning ? Regardless ,I did not hear from you on that again)

H. Jonat

: Helga -- both Michael Tinkler and I addressed your comments, both here and on the Bohemia/Talk page. JHK

To JHK . Michael Tinkler had questions , 1.On wife/s of Mieszko I , O 2. Oda's father Theoderic ? I answered these for him early this morning or last night, can't remember .Therefore I posted answers just above last comment. Have not heard back from him on those two points. H. Jonat

Well, I read it; thanks for trying - it's too much of a mess to try to solve on wikipedia. There's no relying on lone rune-stones. Oh, well, most genealogy from before the 15th century is pretty messy and highly imaginary; any one genealogy may be true, but the further they get into the past (i.e., the 10th century and before) the worse they are. I mean, look at the trouble Theaphanu? causes, and she came from the most important family in Europe, and married into the Ottonians! Clearly mere lists of 'so and so was the father of so and so' is not so simple! Part of the problem, as JHK has been pointing out, is that lineal inheritence is NOT that important before the 10th or 11th centuries - the whole idea of noble families with guarunteed titles and inheritences is an invention of the 10th century French which only later spreads east and south. Before then an office might have been regularly given to members of a particular family,but not in any particular order of eldest son, eldest son, eldest son, etc. So (we think) people were able to be sloppier about kinship back then; kinship was more lateral. After the French tightened up inheritence, patrilineal kinship becomes more important and people start keeping better records. However, and this is where lots of later medieval and renaissance genealogical lists get messy, people went around reconstructing lost patrilineages (all the way back to Adam, usually). Very problematic, but still very interesting. --MichaelTinkler

To MichaelTinkler Ok, you do understand the actual occurrances, more like it really was, versus, what historians today wish it to have been , all neetly categorized and easy for them to present, which it was not.

Let me point to another factual custom or medival law if you will. Adoption. A ruler had the right to adopt anyone he wished to , a totally unrelated adult person, if he had no heirs. He tapped him on the shoulder, or the person to be adopted, put his hand inbetween the two hands of the adopteur. And voila , the total stranger was now an official son of the king or whoever. Can you just imagine how this can drive modern historians insane ? Best example , read my Maximilian I entrance. I stated ,that he adopted Louis of Hungary. Someone took it out, probably thought, that sounds too weird. Well , check out AEIOU , Austrian Encyclopedia and you will find it there. Modern sample, "the Queeny" tapped Bill Clinton on the shoulder . You want to bet , that he is now related to Charlemagne ? ( as is every one else).

The Wenceslas , entrance is ok H. Jonat