[Home]H. Jonat/Talk

HomePage | H. Jonat | Recent Changes | Preferences

I am happy to report that after initial messages I can now remove my "answer" to the back page of /Talk

"Nasty mean spirited messages are not welcome . If you are one of those
who just can't help it , bite your tongue." (I can thankfully say, that I can now take this comment off my main page. H. Jonat)

Hi- I'm definitely not trying to be mean spirited, but I am confused as to what is going on with the horse breed pages. You have several copies of the pages with various sorts of links. You mention redirecting but they don't appear to actually be redirected. Forgive me if I'm stating the obvious or jumping to conclusions, but it appears that you are unclear on the correct method of redirecting. You need to use the #REDIRECT command as described in How does one edit a page. I was going to fix it myself but I am not sure which of the pages you intend to be the main one. Thanks. --Alan Millar

Hi, that message was for some earlier people, not for you. You did ok with the horse pages. But someone took something off in the meanwhile (the split Horse breeds), which I had not put on). I added Horse Breeds on the Horse page. H. Jonat

Regarding your question in Berlin/Talk: I'm too old for techno (35). I edited the paragraph a bit, but the techno reference wasn't mine. But even if you aren't into dance music, Berlin is a great city :-) --Tsja

To Tsja ,Ok, I was just wandering ,who would put that up near the top ? Had to be someone very young. Ich bin ein Berliner,geb. Belziger Strasse Schoeneberg , I Block von Rathaus-Schoeneberg. H. Jonat

Let me give you a general pointer on Catholicism -- no Catholic priest speaks for the whole Church (no matter HOW much he wants to). He can speak on behalf of the Church only insofar as he speaks in union with his bishop and the teaching tradition of the Whole Thing, not just his own local prejudices. So, for instance, I can believe that plenty of individual Polish priests said things about language. They were wrong if they said 'God only understands Polish.'). If, however, they said 'I only understand Polish and refuse to hear your confession,' they were perhaps correct, but they had a duty to make sure that non-Polish speaking parishoners could make confession at least once a year. That is kind of the bare minimum. If they *did* speak German and refused to hear confessions in German, they are in the wrong. On the other hand, they were entirely within their rights to preach in another language - that has always gone on, that preaching is required in a national language. In fact, that was a big problem in the Austro-Hungarian empire. In contemporary America the Catholic Church has a major problem finding enough priests who can handle Spanish. It's fairly easy to learn enough Spanish to say the Mass - which essentially only involves reading out loud, not necessarily understanding every syllable. It's harder to preach. Hardest of all is confession. In fact, Catholic priests very frequently are given permission by their bishop to *only* say Mass in certain languages, but *not* to hear confessions, since that involves a higher standard of language knowledge. Of the 2 priests in my very small city in New York State they both are allowed to say Mass and preach in Spanish, but only one hears confessions. I don't know what the circumstances are which you are representing, but you are not giving enough information in your one-sentence statments about language supression. --MichaelTinkler

Hi Helga -- just some English info for you --

I know that in German, you'd just write erst(e), zweite, dritte, usw., like this : 1., 2., 3. Unfortunately, that doesn't work in English. The ending you write depends on what the number is, so 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th. After that, unless the number ends in a 1, 2, or 3, it ends in 'th'. JHK

But note that 11th, 12th, 13th and 111th 112th, 113th, etc. are correct. -- Derek Ross

D'oh! I forgot those, thanks Derek, and sorry Helga for the slight misinformation! JHK

Thanks a lot JHK for trying to further confuse me and thanks Derek Rossfor setting the numbers straight. H. Jonat
Hi Helga --

Please believe that this is not meant in a mean-spirited way. You seem to be getting into another of your "add as many articles as possible as quickly as possible" rolls. Unfortunately, what you're adding is just a bunch of genealogical entries. They aren't well-written, and they don't have any information other than the "father of, husband of, wife of" type. Moreover, it seems that, in your rush, you're not really thinking about the titles you give to your entries, even though you have had ample opportunity to read all the talk on nomenclature. Finally, you don't seem to be doing any editing or proofreading before you post. This is really frustrating, because there are a lot of us who actually do write in whole sentences and try to include information about WHY they person is important enough to deserve an article. (I don't know if they are frustrated, too -- I'm only speaking for me). Could you please consider writing one good article instead of five that others will have to come along and fix? You've written a lot of extensive stuff, so I know you know how to do it! ;-) JHK

To JHK I get the most important basic facts, such as BD , marriage death of a person in. That has on this list started ,so far been missing, as well as on many other lists. Then I or anyone else can add any other information they have. We have been getting a lot of information together that way. It does not say anywhere that it has to be a complete article, or does it ? At least I have not seen that. H. Jonat

It doesn't say that, but it's plain good manners. Also, by taking the time think out an article written in complete sentences and with a couple of important points, it gives you the ability to judge whether or not someone is important enough to worry about. There are lots of people who want this project to work -- we therefore feel obligated not to leave sloppy stubs around. When you create a sloppy stub, someone else feels motivated to fix it -- even if the person is not really important Eadgyth, for example. She's not entirely unimportant, but she isn't worth slacking on her husband! It's more important, IMO, to have fewer good articles than tons of unhelpful ones (and dates and relations just aren't that useful if there's no context). What you are doing is creating more than you can fulfill, and therefore obligating others to finish your work, rather than start work of their own. JHK

To JHK Why is Edith or Eadgyth (daughter of English king) not that important or any other daughter, wife etc? On the contrary: The wifes and daughters were some of the most important parts of the empire and the rule in Europe. Matrilinial passing on of the crown had many times saved the dynasty and kept the land going. Stop your whining!!! Go take a break. H. Jonat

I am not whining -- just pointing out historical fact. Yes, royal women were often hugely important and influential -- but not all of them. You seem to be saying that Edith was important by virtue of being royal. THat's not true (she was fairly influential, by all reports, but hardly as powerful as Plectrude or Eleanor of Aquitaine!). If you followed my advice and wrote a real article, you could prove your point. As it is, I stand by what I said before -- throwing a bunch of badly-written genealogy on the site is just inconsiderate, when you could be writing full articles, or even complete stubs -- something we all know you can do when you care about something. If you don't care enough to do a decent job, please leave it to people who do. JHK

To JHK, I took a break too. To my adding the info on misc people earlier today : I waited since Sep for someone to do it. No one did. So I started . I am entirely spending too much time already. I do n o t want to get into longer articles , unless absolutely necessary. I was happy with adding what I did and I do not consider it not to be decent.

To JHK and MichaelTinkler Do you think we should use Ladislaus , Ladislas or Wladislaw ?? (I know this came up before.)

Repeat from earlier: To JHK .Could call him Ladislaus , I have seen that name used. see http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/9615/jadwiga.html on Hedwig and Ladislaus etc

H. Jonat

Since you started with Wladislaw, it seems better to keep it that way, as long as we're consistent. I suggest that in the first line, you add '(or Ladislaus)' -- then people might not be confused.

Regarding the rest, I know you started these a while ago -- I just hoped you'd actually finish them -- even if you don't have time for long articles, you could add a bit at a time to one article and make it good, rather than just leaving a trail of unfinished stuff and hope others would clean it up. For example, with Jadwiga, you could link her to the List of saints and include something about why she was a saint. Also, it's not really clear that she was the sole heir to the throne, and that's why it was important that she inherit -- and when she inherited, did she actually rule, or was it just a convenient way for the Jagiellos t get their hands on the crown. This is one of the things that I find really frustrating -- you've done a bunch of research, clearly know enough to feel confident in starting an entry -- but to get all the info in, somebody else needs to duplicate or extend research you started before you dropped it to go on to something else! JHK

I will here suggest corrections to articles, i will put them on relevant talk pages. I think, since you represent totally different point of view from what i've learned in school, and read in all historic books, that you should have chance to protest, discuss and present your own point of view. I will made changes to articles after either end of discussion, or if you won't respond to the end of week (i am inpatient, yes, i know. But hey, every of your entries which touches polish history is so biased that i am surprised that i have patience to first check my sources and put changes here.

here we go. My initial suggestions: Prussia

They achieved this largely through the co-opting of local Slavic chieftains into a system of mutual defense and allegiance. This policy not only bound former enemies to the Emperor, but also prevented any of the Emperor's West Frankish leading men from expanding their own power bases eastward. It is not surprising, then, that when the Emperor created the Duchy of Poland,

largely is an exaggeration. Most of lands were conquered, although soemtimes Germans indeed allowed elite of conquered Slavic tribes join the German elite.

Emperor created Duchy of Poland - he didn't. Unless you provide any source of information, that it were Germans which conquered Poland and give it to Polish dukes. Poland wasn't created by external forces.

Boleslav sent his soldiers - yes, few guards to protect Adalbert. He indeed probably sent Adalbert to increase his influence in Prussia and maybe in future conquer it, but i haven't read anything in any book about sending soldiers. Soldiers stayed in Poland, Adalbert with few monks go into Prussia, where he indeed act quite stupidily by our standards (but not by medieval standards) and was killed.

I will delete that whole paragraph, with replacing that with (some reshaping will be needed)

In 997, Boleslaw I Chrobry, then Duke of Poland, sent Saint Adalbert of Prague to convert the Prussians. Adalbert behaved very agressively, and when he tried to destroy some saint trees, Prussians first expelled him and warned, that he will be killed when he will return, and when he did, they indeed killed him at the Samland/Prussia?? coast.

Prussians invaded Poland hundred of times, and it wasn't like they were peacefull people invaded by those evil Poles. So, i will add also: For centuries Prussians invaded Polish lands, and in return Polish dukes organised raids to Prussia. In 1220 [...] To protect his duchy, Conrad asked Teuton Order to come, offered them Culmerland (Chelminska land). However Teutons immedietely turn to Pope, who [(installed them......]

I would have to seek more about history of Chelmno.

Next: Teutons then fought with Poland numerous wars (1308-9, 1326-1332,1409-1411, 1414,1422,1431-1435..) but they belong to history of Teutonic Order not Prussia probably(?). i don't know what death of Emperor had to do with war, war 1409-1411 was between Poland-Lithuania and Teutons, Tatars were indeed part of Lithuanian forces (some 300 of soldiers), i don't know also if it is worth mentioning so called Zwiazek Jaszczurczy (Lizard confederacy?). So In 1444 Prussian cities and knighthood organised Prussian Confederacy. Confederacy tried to appeal to Emperor, but when he decided to side with Teuton Order, Confederacy turn to Poland and asked Casimir IV for help and incorporating Prussia into Poland. Casimir IV agreed, although many from his council, including bishop Olesnicki, oppose him. In [Thirteen Years War]? Teuton Order was defeated and turn into vassal of Poland, while part of Prussia was incorporated directly into Poland. Part of Prussia receive many privileges, both political and economical (listing privileges like indygenat, privileges to Thorn (Torun) and Danzig (Gdansk) etc...)

After 1568 Duchy of Prussia, accroding to feudal law, should be incorporated directly into Poland, but instead Polish king allow Franconian branch of Hohenzollerns to take over it. The same happened in 1618.

Prussian Confederation

In 1454, the Prussian Confederation asked for protection from the king of Poland, which is granted. The King of Poland became Prince of Prussia, the two states becoming a personal union under his crown. This state of affairs would continue until 1466 when Prussia was granted its own independent duke and the confederation became the Duchy of Prussia.

EEEE?? in 1466 Prussia was directly incorporatedinto Poland. It never received it's own duke. It was ruled initialy by king's governors, IIRC, and i don't know if Polish institutions were immedetiely introduced.

Prussian confederacy was initiated by cities _AND_ knighthood.

Masovia It would be worth to mention that Masovia was conquered by Poland in X century (or earlier, historians can't agree to that fact).

Gdansk It would be worth mention that most probably Danzig was founded by Polish Piasts as military outpost. Or that it was part of Poland and was conquered by Teutons (when they were asked for help, they came, helped, and refuse to leave) who massacred majority of earlier inhabitabts (althoiugh number of 10.000 is exaggeration)

Danzig was not in Prussia, but in Pomorze. Emperor couldn't gave Teutons something he wasn't in his posession. This was christian, Polish city, belonging to Poland. Pope in few sentences ordered giving back Danzig to Poland.

This created a continous stretch of land under one government, able to withstand the various onslaughts of Mongols, Tatars, and Turks. The forces of [Ghengis Khan]? came all the way to Liegnitz in Silesia and to Brandenburg, the area of the modern city of Berlin, where they were finally repelled by Gotthardt von Brandis.

Teutons where far away from Turks, Mongols or Tatars and their funding had nothing to do with them. Genghis Khan was already dead when battle of Liegnitz took place. I've first time heard that Tatars came to Berlin, i've always read that after battle of Liegnitz they returned (since this weren't really big or important army, this was only diversion, since main Mongol goal was Hungary)

Nothing is mentioned about rights of Polish minority in Danzig, about killing and maltreting of Poles.

War against Soviet Union was war of independence, not of conquest.

And the rest is... sounds like if i heard again Hitler accusation in 1939.

[Luis I the Great]? - i think i will add entry that he son of Elzbieta Lokietkowna, as soon as i will check that information and founf the dates.

Kashubian - i wcould add info about treatment of Kashubs under German rule (extermination) and Communist (discrimination).

To szopen , I found a very interesting review at http://www.amazon.com has a book : The Vanished Kingdom : Travels Through the History of Prussia by James Charles Roy, Amos Elon (Introduction)
East Prussian American Looks Back and Forward, March 2, 2000 Reviewer: John V. Proesch from Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA My great grandmother came from near Danzig. Her name was Tarnowski, and obviously had Slavic origins. Her husband, a Proesch from Mecklenburg, was a descendant of the Slavic Abotrite tribes (ca. 800). They both considered themselves German. This book explained to me the ethic confusion of areas like Poland/Prussia?. It also highlighted a fact that history has witnessed with Poland: You can wipe it off the map politically, but a Polish/Prussian? sensibility will remain. What can this mean for the future? I believe Prussia is, indeed, not dead. Also, that WWIII is not neccesarily the inevitible result of such a conflict. Is the extinction of Prussia another Versailles-like offense to the German people, or can accommodation be made to deflate this "ethnic" horror? I welcome response. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

To szopen,

I have been gone for several days. Will try to catch up on the questions accumulated in the meanwhile. First of all:

Danzig is located in the territory of Old Prussian Land. The church however "christianized" Danzig from the West by the Cistercians. Oliva (at Danzig) was founded ca 1178 and christianized from Pomerania- Pomerellia (little Pomerania). Monk Christian of Oliva, was designated the Apostle of Prussia by the pope. Brandenburg margraves had inheritance right to Danzig, but pope gave Danzig and Pomerellia to Teutonic Order together with Prussia, Livonia etc. (Earlier history was recorded as part of Magna Germania).

I will try to answer some of misconceptions here

  1. Germans in ancient times was not used as ethinicity description - once one writer, damn i wish i had my library here, wrote that he don't know if should put Wends into Germans group or into Sarmatia group, and he listed why they shoul be Germans (fighting on foot etc) never mentioning language. That means, that whenever ancients wrote Germans, they meant group of barbarians of similar customs, not an ethnicity. Words which, as generally is thought, as realtign to Slavs (Ants, Wenets etc) appeared first in some IIRC III century (again i wish i had here my books). Surely that does not mean that they don't exist before III century, and then later, all of the sudden, took during one or tewo century half of the Europe, going out of nowhere.
  2. First established settlements in Danzig where well before XII century, and Pomorze Gdanskie (as it is called in Polish, Pomorze==land near the sea, from morze==sea, po==prefix meaning close to, compare to pobocze, pogorze etc) was conquered by Piasts in X century.
  3. According to feudal rules, Pomorze was part of Poland, as their dukes were vassals of Polish princes. Tomorrow i will search in my (quite outdated) book from library i had in Poznan, and list treaties and some dates from its history. Since Pomorze was part of Poland, how can Pope give it to Teutons? Could you list anything on that? Especially that in sentence later he ordered giving back Danzig (Gdansk) to Poland and pay reparations?

Prussia was "christianized' from the east. (First Poland tried, was repelled several times by Prussians). Then Baltic Crusades or Northern Crusades against Prussia, Livonia, Lithuania. Archbishop of Riga was then head over the four bishoprics of Prussia (by order of William of Modena, papal legate). Riga was under Visby, Gotland. Posen or Poznan was til circa 1250 under Magdeburg. Before the Polanen received ducal title from emperor , they were part of Czech .(Czech and Lech)Czech and Polish dukes, kings all pledged allegiance to emperors for the land they held in lien (on loan)

  1. Poznan (Posen) is one of oldest Polish city, but, as you probably know, in earlier medieval times German law was quite superior to old Slavic customs, so dukes and kings usually relocated old cities and villages on new law.
Poznan was under Magdeburg? Well, in church hierarchy it was under Gniezno from the very beginning (discussion over so called Magdeburg falsificate was done by Gerard Labuda), but yes, since it was located on Magdeburg laws, in terms of city laws highest authority for it was Magdeburg.

  1. Dukes not all, kings not at all pledged allegiance of emperor. Let's see:
    1. Mieszko was called friend of the Emperor, and paid tribute "up to Warta" (which is sentence which caused many historians to lost many nights). That means, that he hadn't paid tribute from all his territory, and we don't know from what territory he paid tribute (as you know, in earlier medieval times people considered sometimes what we now call Oder, next part of Warta - and differences in trying describe this territories are really huge, from Land Lubuska, to Half of Great Poland, to part of lands behind todays oder etc.
    2. Boleslav Chrobry can't by any means by vassal of emperor - he fought too many wars with him, also on the very beginning of his rule there probably was some tie to Empire. He also took some lands under feudal law, but again, Kings of England were vassals from some of their lands (as French lords) to French kings, which doesn't mean that Engalnd wsas part of France or English kings were vassals of France when they were kings of England.
    3. Mieszko II was in his childhood duke of Reich, but since he was king, and kings in Poland were always sovereign, since Mieszko never asked anybody for allowing him crowning, and Boleslav took crown from Pope, and with Emperor actively trying to stop him. Howeverm and the end of his rule (after pogan reaction) Mieszko had to resign from sovereignty.
    4. Kazimierz and Wladyslaw Herman pledged allegiance to Emperor
    5. Boleslav Smialy didn't
    6. Boleslav Krzywousty didn't, although it seems that in 1109 hhe agreed with Emperor that he will take east pomerania (Pomorze Szczecinskie in Polish) up to Riga and Piana as vassal of Empire - historians had here puzzle, since all German chronicles claimed total victory in war, while Polish Chronicle claimed totally opposite - anyway, war ended, Boleslav got some land instead of losing, he probably promised some money (which we don't know if were ver paid). and his brother Zbigniev, couldn't be installed by Emperor on throne.
    7. Definetely in Krzyszkow Poland became vassal of Emperor, and Fryderyk Barbarossa was boasting with that (mentioning Frodezlau as one of cities he conquered, and that he did what no of his predecessors did).
    8. Definetely later Emperors considered Poland theirs vassals, while Poles considered themselves independent.
    9. anyway, Przemyslaw crwoned himself king, so he was independent, he ruled Pomorze Gdanskie and Great Poland.
    10. then his lands were inherited by Wladyslaw Lokietko, who ruled Little Poland, Great Poland, Pomorze Gdanskie and Kujawy.
    11. Pomorze Gdanskie were attacked by Brandeburgians claiming that htey had rights to that area (Discussion of that tomorrow). Lokietek asked Teutons for help. Teutons came, repelled Brandenburgians, demanded ridicoulously high price for they help, and then refuse to leave. They massacred Danzig (Although recently it seems that numbers of victims was much lower that claimed 10.000). in few wars Lokietko managed to save Great Poland from their hands. Pope sentenced that Teutons should pay reparations and give back Danzig and Pomorze Gdanskie to Poland.

Mieszko and Boleslaw were margraves of the empire ( married to Saxons).
they were also married to Slavic princesses, Czech etc. They were taking some of the lands as Empire vassals, some as independent rulers.

Later Polish kings all were married to Habsburgs, Vasas ( Austria, Sweden were part of empire) Archbishop of Krakow (a Hanseatic League city was a prince of the empire. And "Polish " kings continued pledging allegiance to emperors, either by pledge, marriage or as members of the order of the "Golden Fleece". (Catholic Counter-reformation). From circa 1695 to 1768 ? Electors of Holy Roman Empire , Saxony were also kings of Poland.

Well, Polish kings were also married to Russian kings, Hungarian etc. Habsburgs had Piast blood in their veins, so many other dynasties

Polish kings never ever pledged allegiance to Emperor, as stated implicit in many speeches, letters and treaties. In fact, some even claimed that Poles never were under foreign rule, or under Emperors rule, forgetting times of Mieszko Stary

They probably did not put too much emphasis on all these facts in your country during the communist regime.
Well, not. since they do not put much emphasis on fact that moon is from green cheese.

under communism, you have: in 1950 most of history is rubbish (Every aspect of history was fight of poor people against their lords) what was teached in schools, usually is rubbish (although the more ancient history, the best quality, as long as it does not treat Russians) but what was teached in universities and in books, the later the better (again except anything related to USSR). I've read parts of chronicles of Jan Dlugosz, Wincenty Kadlubek, Gall Anonim, i've read Jan z Czarnkowa part of Chronicle, (parts, since my knowledge of latin is limited, so i read only that which was translated into Polish). Everywhere it is stressed that Poland is sovereign. I've read fundamental books by Lowmianski, Labuda, who discuss and repell most of preWar German propaganda (like that Poland was foudned by Germans or Vikings, huge German colonisation in Medieval times etc) Could you list me one accident when Polish king pledged allegiance to Emperor after XIV century? Or how can they pledge allegiance ,,by marriage" ?

Besides, communism ended more than decade ago. We have plenty of time to read books translated from West, read things we never know about etc.

With your last statement about Hitler, perhaps you can explain to me the Polish leader Rydz Smygly( can't remember exact spelling) , who in March 1939 had a portrait of himself painted riding through the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin taking over Germany. What explanation do you have for that ?

Rydz Smigly was a jerk. He tried to pose as great leader of invincible state. While i hope you are not trying to convince me, that Poland started WWII, aren't you?

What is your explanation of the expulsion of hundereds of thousands of Germans from Polish Corridor starting after 1919 and of the 50 thousand of these (ethnic) Germans from the Polish Corridor in summer 1939, herded on a death march by Polish neighbors( recorded as Bromberger Blut Sonntag (Bromberg Bloody Sunday)?
H. Jonat

Expulsion of Germans in 1919 is something, which happened probably only in German propaganda. Blut Sonntag happened during chaotic war, when someone was shooting to Polish soldiers, and local captain as retaliation shooted some more or random civilians. Unless you are talking about Nazi Revenge, which is also called Krwawa niedziela, who shooted also random Polish civilians.

Expulsion of Germans in 1939 is something which took breathe from me. When that happened, since it seems again that only happened in Nazi propaganda. No Polish witnesses, no mentioning that in any source except Nazi or Nazi related propaganda.

Anyway, if we will start that sort of arguments, how you would explain expulsion of ethnic Poles from Warthengau and Pomorze, killing Kashubes and Poles, bombing hospitals, shooting villagers, kidnapping children, forcing people to slave work, wiping out whole villages, expulsion of Poles from places where they live for milennia, taking their property, destroying monuments, books, shooting intelligentsia etc etc?

I propose discussion of facts one by one, since if we will discuss all at once we will start flame war. Let's start with Mieszko I, Jomsburg (that is, that nonexistent city which existed only in fantasy of saga writers in XIII century), hwo Emperor made Boleslav duke of Poland etc. Ok?

To szopen I appreciate your interest in the history and your additions to the wikipedia.

One thing is for sure. Mixing the statements ,I wrote, together with your statements , makes for a great big confusing mishmash. I have great difficulty now in trying to figure out what is what. Therefore I suggest that you contact the German-Polish Historical Institute ( or some similar name) in Warsaw and ask them all your questions. I found them on the internet.

I can make out that you are proposing discussions one by one. That is good, because I have spend a lot of time and endless discussions already previously with other wikipedians and I am sorry to say that I do not have endless time do continue this and have to keep time short.

You are starting with Mieszko I. What do you believe is this dagome judex you have mentioned? As other wikipedians constantly point out , state your sources and particularly the primal source for whatever statement you make on wikipedia. And what is your connection of Mieszko I and Jomsburg? H. Jonat

Thanks for your appreciation. I apologise for mixing your and mine statements, i tried to put : before all your statements, it seems it doesn't help much.

I shall also apologise for being maybe a bit too aggressive. I shouldn't wrote Nazi propaganda about everything i don't like, before asking you for sources, which i do now.

I think that since you are presenting German POV, and i present Polish POV, by agreeing to version acceptable to us both we could made NPOV articles.

Ok, let's go.

i wrote Dagome Iudex from ksero of book i found in public library, By G. Labuda (Studies on Western Slavs in i remember correctly. Right now i have two books, one is Poland of Mieszko I, Poznan 1993 OWN, ISBN 83-85481-55-9 (amazon.com, search), which is set of articles by G.Labuda (probably biggest authority on earlu medieval history in Poland), Klaus Zernack (From Germany), Rostislav Novy (Czech) Stanislaw Trawkowski, Zofia Kurnatowska, Jacek Banaszkiewicz. Those articles are summary of knowledge about Mieszko I, his realtionship with Empire and neighbours. Another book is R.Grodecki, St. Zachorowski, J.Dabrowski Dzieje Polski Sredniowiecznej (history of medieval Poland) - this is a bit outdated book, since it was published in some 20s, and we all know how big progress was done in this area during last 50 or so years, however it had a lot of footnotes explaining differences between nowadays knowledge and that from 1920s. One i got is from Krakow 1995, ISBN 83-7052-230-0 (amazon.com, search).

I have more books on that topic, but i have them in my home, Swiebodzin (former Schwiebus), some 100 west from my place now, so i will present that sources after 1 january (one is by Labuda on the beginning of Polish state and Slavs, second is about recent archeological discoveries in Poznan).

I've read also a lot about the subject, fundamnetal, earlier mentioned Studies about Western Slavs by Labuda (almost all i know about Jomsborg is from that book) and another book by another great scientist Lowmianski about Slavs. Those are from library, but i can get them, if you know, but again only after 1 january, more probably much after 10 january. There is no need to hurry however, i guess.

Of course i got also much books by Jasienica, one By Davies, but since they are more popular ones, i don't know if i can cite them as source.

Now, i know that many Germans got impression that Poland was created by Germans. i've read some similar sentences in your articles. In [Dagome iudex]? i summarized most arguments against supposed Scandinavian origin of Polish state. However, i am not sure what is your opinion on the subject, since it seems you are believing that Mieszko I was installed somehow on Polish throne by Emperor (he was not). It is agreed now that Mieszko was not considered by Emperor sovereign ruler (but hey, Emperor considered whole Europe as his dominion), and that he was in some way dependent from Empire. Most hot sentence, most discussed one, is what does mean usque Warta fluviem (pardon my latin, citation from memory), when Mieszko became friend of Emperor and what exactly did that mean. Another case which was ocne controversial was whether Polish Church was dependent from Magdeburg, and it was proved by German Historian Kehr before WWII, that it was not, however his findings, results of research of many other Polish, Czech and German historians is still ignored by some German historian, however i believ considered marginal. Last controversial topic is Jomsburg, that is whether that viking city existed at all, since only sources about that came from XIII century from Islandic sagas, while in other sources from X century there mentioned Slavic city with Slavic pirates, IIRC Jumne. So most historians in Poland consider both Jomsborg and Wineta as mythical cities. There are however some archeological documentation that VIkings where present in place where now is Wolin, and medieval city was built in a fashion similar to Viking settlements, so we can now say that either 1) there was international city where Vikings live amongs other northern people (as it is describe in one medieval chornicla, Adam from Brema IIRC?) 2) Viking merchant city 3) Viking pirate city 4) Slavic pirate city.

I think that are all contreversions about times of Mieszko I. Again, i listted them, since i got impression from your articles, that you are supporting that branch of German historians, who are ignoring everything which happened in science since WWI (you cited as a source Catholic encyclopedia from 1910, that is really outdated). I'll be happy to read your opinion of these, then we could go to Boleslav Chrobry and his attitude to Empire. I guess the later in time, the more controversions.

A, there is also question about when Silesia was conquered by Piasts, when Cracow was conquered by Piasts (in 999 by Boleslav Chobry or in 990 by Mieszko?), Masovia, and which land was conquered in 990 by Mieszko I (Most agree that was Silesia, but some argue about Luzyce, Lusitz).

A, one more thing - i've notived that by reading some tlak pages - it seems you are believing that Mieszko was ,,granted" ducal title from Emperor and that's why he was ,,forced" to christianize, and that Poles were part of Czech earlier? Is that what you are really believe? I've also noticed you called Mieszko Burislaf, while most historians believs that Burislaf is semi-mythical person which was name part for Mieszko, part for Boleslav, or name used whenever sagamadras needed name for Slavic king. I don't want to argue that before i will heard that you really believe that. A. D. Danilecki "szopen"

To szopen The Chech and Lech is an old Polish story as is the Krok story.I do not believe, that there are any records at all of Poles, before the Polanen tribes under Mieszko I. And even the Piast rulers were only named Piasts in the 17th century. The family name was Lambert ( a good old German family name, also went to France :pronounced Lamber (silent t) . There were previous Lambert emperors. The son of emperor Arnulf of Carinthia, Bavaria was Zwentibolt (Slavic Swatopluk).And the Slavic Krol (king), derived from Karol(us) Karl, Charlemagne. It all shows that even when the Slavs moved into Germania, they also were part of the empire, that continued until 1804/6.

Then you have to look at the original Rus history also. All the land under the Rus (before they were Russians) was called Gardarike. ( Rike ,Rix and Old Prussian Reiks or High German Reich = Rex=Regis = English kings)

Burislaf was also a markgrave of the Saxon empire. The Royal and noble genealogy of UK lists Mieszko I as aka Burislaf von Wendland of Wendland (Wendish land in northern Germany). Mieszko I , recorded Miecislaw (or something like that) may have been a name much later given to him by Polish writers, since the only record seems to be as Dago in Dagome Iudex. Since Ote is mentioned in this, I believe that this is the record for Mieszko I and wife Oda (von Haldensleben),when by marriage to her he (Dago-bert ?) accepted the position as margrave of the empire.

To the christianisation, all dukes, margraves etc had to axcept baptism as part of receiving the position from the emperor ( see Moravians (Czechs, Slovacs) who came before the emperor in Regensburg before 900 AD). German kings/emperors never made any demarcation line between Slavic and German people or any others, such as Huns, Finns, Esthonians etc.

Taking on the required state religion and name is typical of the Russian rulers or any others also, where Sophie von Anhalt-Zerbst , took office as Czarina Catherine II and became orthodox. When Russia conquered the North the language of Couronia, Livonia,later Latvia continued to be German until 1891.

When you look for records, write down the current writers of the article, but also check for primary sources. This is what JHK keeps asking for. The primary source is ,when and who first recorded it.

I have read something to the effect, that the Dagome iudex is a 'gift certificate' , with which Dago (Mieszko I ?) gave all the land he had conquered into papal possession. He then received land back in lien. This was a standard procedure, because all land of Europe was considered as belonging to emperor and or pope, who then granted liens (loans).

Going back to one of your earlier questions on Magna Germania, all earlier century maps show Germania and Inferior Germania was Holland,Netherlands. The 1493 Schedelsche Weltchronik shows many cities for the first time , such as Breslaw, Cracow, etc (w=u in old German), it shows Magna Germania. H. Jonat

that question of Magna Germania wasn't mine. If it would be mine iw oudl sign it. Other questions i answeered in Dagome Iudex. BTW(note that One of names writteen in XIII century by Emperor Fryderyk Barbarossa was Frodezlau, not Breslaw). Not also that maps from medieval times are usually not accurate, and in 1493 Cracow was _capital_ of Poland, and Polish kings clearly stated many times early that they consider themselves sovereing kings. szopen Could you please:

To Taw

I used a lot of time on articles . There were many debates back and forth and I brought proof every time. You are altering a number of these articles to the point , that now they do not make any sence.

Any of these place names have been changed to Polish language AFTER 1945, when these lands were illegally taken over by Stalin.

Using Polish names for the place names for events BEFORE 1945 seems to me like deliberate misrepresentation.

I suggest, that you keep the correct place names as they were used until 1945. You can write the Polish version in the Polish wikipedia.

I suggest that you do not change the English language wikipedia to Polish place names.

Thanks H. Jonat

That's very interesting theory, that Torun was part of Germany before 1945. Unfortunately for you, it was in Poland between 1919 and 1939 and up to 1793. Moreover, in census during 1920s, only 10% inhabitans of Pomorskie region (with capital in Torun) declared their native language to be German, so this region, including Torun, was almost completely Slavic (Polish and Kashub) all of the time.

Using German names for time of Copernicus also makes no sense. Latin was the only language that was officially used at that time, and Polish is used there now. So what is rationale behind using German ? German occupation in 19th century ?

And don't make me laugh with "legality" of taking over Warmia. Who started the war and took over ("legally" ?) Wielkopolska, Kujawy, Pomorze. and other regions ? --Taw

To Taw ,this is so full of crap that I will leave it unanswered. Anyone interested can look at the maps on my H. Jonat page and see for themself.
What here is full of crap? [cut things i wrote] Even if you consider what wrote Taw or I crap, you can discuss that, or else you are just giving up. WHAT IS NOT TRUE IN THAT WHAT TAW WROTE? szopen

To szopen I do not consider your writings crap. I appreciate your honest efforts,
 and I will discuss with you further.

Taw wrote such nonesence all day long yesterday and today, that it would probably be best for me to give up. But that is probably the purpose for all this. Taw has been told previously by several people , not to polonianize everything, but he just keeps trying. There is a perfect place for him to polonianize , that is the Polish wikipedia. And as I stated, anyone can look at the maps and see for themself.

As for the place names, until 1945 (some 1920) none of the place names were Polish. It is therefore false to try to make several hundered years place names Polish in the articles, when they did not become Polish until after 1945 . H. Jonat

Mrs Jonat,

   I will try calm down before sending anything to you in future. Anyway, here is rationale for using Polish names:

1) Those cities are in Poland now. 2) Most of them had Polish names well before 1945. You are mistaken in thinking that those name were somehow invented in 1945. No, names like Torun, Elblag, Malbork, Gdansk had long history, although sometimes (as in case on Malbork) were just borrowed from German. However cities like Gdansk or Tczew (Dirsaw, Tsczow as it was written by Dlugosz) had long history before German settlements. Example is Gdansk (Danzig) itself, since first mentioning of city here in written sources is from 997, right? Some others were founded by Teutons or Germans, but from very beginning their names, maybe too difficult in original to pronounce by my ancestors, got Polish names (just like we say Nowy Jork instead of New York, Monachium instead of Munchen etc). Sometimes Polish, or, better say, Slavic names had few versions (like Wroclaw, called Breslau, Frodezlaw, Wratislavia etc) and in that case Polish administrators choosed one of them (sometimes, in case of smaller cities and villages, quite arbitraly) 3) Many of that cities was in Poland before Teutons conquered these territories and then was takn back in 1466 and were in Poland up to partitions. Yes, they were in Poland before, since Gdansk Pommern (Pomorze in Polish means both Szczecinskie and Gdanskie, i guess in German you have two different terms, right?) dukes pledged allegiance to Polish dukes, also as sometimes dukes of Western Pomorze. It was also directly ruled by Przemysl, king of Poland, who was given that land by Msciwoj, who in his testimony gave it to Przemysl, and heir of Przemysl was Wladyslaw Lokietek, who then directly ruled that area until Teutons conquered it, then after conquest bought it from Brandeburgians (who had no rights to Pomorze!). After 1466 These lands were incorporated (as it is clearly written in peace of Torun, after 1 january i can write summary of treaty of Torun given by Jan Dlugosz, who was one of negotiators as you know). Three Polish voivodship were organised, land was ruled by kings governor. These land had some kind of authonomy, some greater than others (like Ermeland, that is Warmia). However they were part of Rzeczpospolita of Poland and Lithuania. In war of succession Gdansk was backing St. Leszczynski and i read at least one song (written originally in German) which was very patriotic and called to defensing fatherland, that is Poland. This is quite paradox, that many first Polish books were printed or published by Germans from origin, who however called themselves Poles and called Rzeczpospolita their homeland. On the other hand, i heard stories about peasants, speaking Polish, living in the centre of Poland, who in WWI asked they lord what would happened to them if Poles will come to them... Nationality is a complicated thing in Central and Eastern Europe. 4) Anyway, if in English some city had English, traditional name, it makes perfect sense to add article and redirect it to article about city in Polish. It also makes perfet sense to note how a city is called in Polish and in German. Is just like adding article about Bohemia and Czech. I guess you would also prefer search for Poland in English encyclopedia, not Polonia, Polen, or whatever. 5) I have sometimes identical feeling when i read some of your articles. You make impression that history is black and white. We and Them. Bad and Good. You tend to forget that almost every event in history is described in few different versions, that many of documents from history is falsificates, many others are propaganda, sometimes sources have versions which without intention of authors is false (would you believe Gall Anonim that Prussians are Saxons who escaped from Charlemagne?) Black and White is history only teached in schools. When you are start to read some serious historian work, you will see that there is always other side. In school i remeber i was angry about Germans who always burned Polish villages who burned poor villages, but then i started to read serious works and i know now, that is was common practice in medieval times and Poles were as eager to burn and murder in medieval times as Germans. In school of course they don't lie - they just show some facts and hide others (except for our Great Brothers from Russia, especially communists, but most lies are from XX century). I learned that there is no absolute truth and history is much more complicated that one could realise. When burgers of Schwiebus refused to be given to Brandenburgia, was that because they were patriotic Poles, or were they afraid bigger taxes, or just were they local Silesian patriots, or just were they loyal to Piast dukes?

BTW, i have a book with materials from some historian conference about military cartography. Two maps are especially interesting - i have to scan them and put on net, although proabbly i will do that after 1 january. First show Ukraine in XVII century. Although many of ames is Polish, and although most of us here agree that Ukraine was part of Poland that time (first half of XVII century) map is entlitled Ukraine, and there is no name of Poland in it. Only Big Ukraine, then Podole, Great Dukedom of Lithuania etc. I have also map of Lithuania, very small copy, which shows parts of Prussia. There are borders on Vistula between Poland and Prussia, showing Ermeland as part of Prussia (!!), but Pomorze Gdanskie (Royal Prussia) is in borders in Poland, although border between Prussia and Royal Prussia is on very edge of the map. OTOH, there are also no borders shown between Lithuania and PRussia, maybe because copy i have is so small. szopen

To szopen You are absolutely right and you know it and I know it about all the complicated and diverse history of people in Europe. But I live in America since 1962. People here in general do not know anything about European or any other history besides what they hear daily: The USA is the greatest. Now I am over simplyfying and there are very educated people who know every detail. But the general public and overwhelming majority do not know anything about Europe other than WWI and WWII propaganda. Therefore I am writing my inputs in wikipedia with the majority of English speaking people in mind who live all around me. When you give them too many details they just get totally confused. In the last 10 years or so it has gotten better and I know from schools that now they show a little bit of European history in school books. But believe me the onesided Cold War education was totally black and white and the WW II education is still totally black and white. When you go to any book store here they have isle after isle of books all on WW II. Then if you are lucky you find maybe one or two books on a particular country. I started collecting historical facts by bits and pieces .The main reason why I spend this much time, which I should not, on inputting in this wikipedia , is to show the family relations of the leaders of the different countries in Europe.When you read about the "Polish crown" it is to me important to know who these people actually were. It is important to me that the Polanen who came into Germania were taken in as Brother of the Empire and received land in lien ( land on loan), the same as the other rulers who pledged allegiance to the emperors. And you are right , when you notice , that so many places in todays Poland were German speaking. The cities in Poland Ukraine and Lithuania were founded with German Magdeburg law and the cities had self government by a city council or Rat. Therefore you have the Rathaus ( Ratus ?) in Danzig. And no Germans wanted to be taken over by any other authority. Berliners did not like it when they had to give up the free independend Hanseatic League city status when the Kurfuerst electors of Brandenburg took their seat in Berlin. And the German phone book is full of Germans with Polish names, who all came to Germany over the centuries, rather than living under "Poland" which was actually under Russia. Another point about the German names of places in Poland. First of all this wikipedia is in English and there are guidelines about keeping the English names of places and in addition giving local names. Taw tries to change everything into Polish , which is wrong. Poland supposedly signed an agreement, that the German language is an official language again (I do not know if this is for the German parts taken over by Poland after 1945 only , or if it is valid for all of Poland).Therefore the German placenames (which are often also the English) are still absolutely correct to use. I have a 1998 Swedish atlas that shows both the German and the Polish names. I have a ca 1600 atlas, that shows a large German speaking city of Bromberg and below it a small town Bedgocz (or Bidgocz). I have looked at many church records of the LDS http://www.familysearch.com go to records and places. ,type in Bromberg or whatever town and you will find German churches going back as far as Lutherism. Some areas may have been officially in the kingdom of Poland but they were not Polish . Again ,when you look at the "Polish kings" , how many were Polish ? And as I have found out ,all dukes , kings of Poland pleadged allegiance to emperor, they had to, because they received land lien, on loan and if the son did not want to pledge allegiance, the land went back to the empire. That was the feudal law system. And it would be interesting to read the 1466 Treaty of Thorn, but I can tell you already, the emperor and the pope declined it in 1467, therefore it is not ratified, it is void. The emperor was still overlord of Prussia, even when Albrecht of Brandenburg Ansbach Prussia Hohenzollern pledged allegiance to his uncle Sigismund I (of the Jagiello Habsburg family). Albrecht was put under ban. So there are many different histories to everything and the Lutheran history is in opposit to the Catholic history. I just hope that many more people where you live, go and look at actual history in contrast to the official state histories. On the Schwiebus question I can tell you that I looked for Zuellichau (Polish Sulichow ?) on the Silesia map and it was not on there.I know my grandmother was born in Zuellichau, I have been there as child during bomb attacks on Berlin. Then I found out that officially Zuellichau has been in Brandenburg since ca 1450. But my family still considered it Silesia. I did find it on the Brandenburg map. On that 997 year for first time mentioning of Danzig ( Gyddancyk). Danzig as Gothiscandza -Gothic coast is mentioned centuries earlier. 997 AD is the year when the first Polish attempt together with St Adalbert to take over Prussians failed. And since Posen then stood under Magdeburg and Adalbert ( who had baptised Hungary) was educated at Magdeburg ,the German and Hungarian post office issued a commemorative stamp in 1997. On Lithuania, read the wikipedia on Lithuania and Latvia Riga. Many of these parts were ultimately under the empire. That is why it is so important to actually look at all the rulers ,their families and the dynasties of that time. That big "Polish" kingdom of the 15th century , largest land in Europe is more a myth, perpetuated by English speaking people in the 19 and 20 century, who had a great interest to have the European empires disappear. It is, what is called here "in the best interest of the economy". H. Jonat

HomePage | H. Jonat | Recent Changes | Preferences
This page is read-only | View other revisions
Last edited December 21, 2001 2:52 am by H. Jonat (diff)