I've tried to make this English. First of all, I have cut out at least half of the mere translations - giving the German (or hypothetical Germanic reconstruction) in parentheses is not enough. All the material about the Germanic tribes by
Tacitus is VERY doubtful. I am far from qualified to rule on lots of this - I don't read the archaeology on which the latest research depends. The 1911 source is certainly not of much use on this material, but neither is anything much published in German before 1970. A pointer for wikipedia -- read the
how does one edit a page and use double brackets -- that's this: [ to make a wikipedia link.
For anyone not familiar with Tacitus, see : Penguin Classics , Tacitus, The Agricola and the Germania, Translated by H. Mattingly, Translated Revised by S. A. Handford , Penguin Books Ltd, London etc available at amazon.com , Barnes & Noble and other book stores.
To Michael Tinkler !!! Thank you for your fine job.
Sorry, I need to change it back.
Albrecht of Brandenburg did n o t dissolve the Teutonic Knights.
He only took off his robe as Grandmaster ( resigned the position ). The Habsburgs continued leading the Teutonic Knights and Maximilian III, son of emperor Maximilian Habsburg II, held among other positions the title : Ordinis Teut(onicus) Magnus many years later.
Just to be pedantic: I think most of the contributers to this page and things
Germania are familiar with Tacitus, and most with the Mattingly translation (of which there are many others). The point is that Tacitus is not considered a reliable source on the Germans. Go back and read some
MichaelTinkler comments for more elucidation.
The
PrUB Preussische Urkunden Buch or Prussian Law book records are published copyright 2000
Stuart Jenks , cannot copy it . So check www.webtop.comm or altavista for :Preussische Regesten stuart Jenks , year 1224 . March
I have a copy of the Hon. B.Carroll Reece Speech . Would anyone please let me know if you are familiar with this ? And your thoughts on this ?
For some of the Polish crown check the Holy Roman Empire (family album) book at http://www.uni-mannheim.de/mateo/desbillons/eico.html and check all the title
If you need to find the family connections go to Uni hull,uk
http://www.dcs.hull.ac.uk/public/genealogy/royal/
H. Jonat
The entire first two paragraphs are doubtful, at best. JHK
Paul: you do have a point (to state it mildly), but I must admit, that
Prussia/Waid shit was pretty fun to read. --
TheCunctator
Should "Pomesania" be Pomerania? I wasn't confident enough to change it. --
corvus13
No, Pomerania (Pommern) is north of Berlin . Further east is Pomesania , one of the lands of Old Prussia ,later called East Prussia , City of
Elbing (Polish Elblag) is in the land of Pomesania.
OK, thanks, glad I didn't change it. :-) --
corvus13
Took out the following because: a) it just sat there not fitting in, and; b)WHAT Bavarian geographer?
"In 850 AD Bavarian geographers recorded the "Brus"."
It is unclear from the initial entry as to who the participants in the War with Poland were -- as well as who negotiated the Peace of Thorn. It would be good to know this, instead of just putting in something about the Pope and Emperor not recognizing the treaty, as if it was not ok. Did they have that right? Why or why not? What was the result of their action? These are the types of questions that need to be answered in an article, IMHO.
JHK
I have quote from book "Unvergessene Heimat Ostpreussen", Bernd G. Laengin
ISBN 3-89350-786-8 (
amazon.com,
search) Weltbild Verlag from Laengin's Zeittafel. (I have previously seen this Zeittafel on internet under Ostpreussen, do not have exact url, but found out Laengin is a correspondent and lived/lives? in Canada.
If you check the PR UB Preussische Urkunden Buch Preussische Regesten
http://www.webtop.com
by Stuart Jenks put on internet in the year 1234 Prussia, Lovonia etc received citizenship under the empire. Golden Bull of Rimini 1226 and 1234 Rieti took Prussia ,Old Prussi Land under pope and emperor direct.
The emperor and the pope were the highest authority in Europe. The emperor had precedent over all Christian rulers.
H. Jonat
- O.K., HJ, I'll take you up on the last sentence alone. The Emperor *claimed* precedence over all Christian rulers. In fact, the claim meant nothing at all. No one outside the Empire recognized anything but a vague 'precedence' - that is, if they'd all been at a dinner, he would have gone in first, or if they'd all been at a conference, he would have been the de iure host. It doesn't mean that anyone outside the empire did anything he said. Ditto for the pope. Most of medieval history is the story of the European nobility ignoring what the popes told them. On to a substantive issue: I am not at all sure what you mean by Golden Bull of Rimini 1226 and 1234 Rieti took Prussia ,Old Prussi Land under pope and emperor direct. Direct what? Direct ownership?
- Do you think you might at least TRy to answer the questions I asked? I wasn't debating the facts, only pointing out that this is another instance where you don't write in complete thoughts. You don't say who the participants in the war were, etc. Plus, what you say here implies something very different than what you added to the article. There, you imply that the pope and the emperor had no right to deny the terms of the peace, to Prussia's detriment. Here, you say that they had rights to make the final call on every treaty. Be consistent.JHK
Moved this:
, where the
Ur, bison of Europe survived to this day.
because it didn't seem relevant to the paragraph and because I checked 6 or seven articles on the Aurochs/Ur?, and they said the last true Aurochs died out in 1620. Since then, the breed has been "re-created" by breeding from the genetically oldest cattle breeds -- this was done by Germna scientists, so they may well be in Prussia. JHK
- historical conservation of breeds! yikes! There's also that horse-thing that they're rebreeding in Poland, I think. --MichaelTinkler
Took out Auroch reference again. Since the last ones were found in Poland, I can't see how it supports a claim that parts of Prussia remained wild later than the rest of Europe. if you want to be specific, then there's a good argument that the last wild area was the imperial hunting preserve that Goering kept up for his own hunting pleasure. I think that was on the Polish/Hungarian? border...JHK
I didn't follw the discussion here, but is there a reason why the German name for prussia (
Preussen or
Preußen) is not mentioned on the name page?
Magnus Manske
Yes, there is a reason. Anytime I input the German name, I am told, that this is an English language encyclopedia and therefore the names have to appear as they are known in English.
I have numerous times pointed out, that the correct name should also be used, only to constantly have someone change it.
Even my Webster's Collegiate Dictionary lists: "Preussen , Prussia , the German name."
But secondly all the older German maps show Prussia or Preussen. Prussia is therefore ok with me. Gdansk or Elblag ,Albrecht the Baer was changed to Albert etc and that however is not ok with me , but when you check wikipedia you will find that it was changed to that too after a lot of crap I have been getting for pointing out repeatedly, that correct names should be used.
H. Jonat
Well, Magnus, every time H.J. puts in a little German, she puts in a lot, so editors tend to overreact. The name 'Preussen' should appear, in italics so that we all admit that it's not an English word, immediately after the first occurrence of 'Prussia' and then not again. That much I would live with. All of this 19th century folklore-studies stuff is much less tenable. --
MichaelTinkler
To Magnus and Michael
Just for curiosity, I did check Webster's Collegiate and verified, that it does state: Preussen. Webster's handles it the same way that Larry Sanger handled Gdingen and Gdynia. But I was told that Larry is not always right.
I believe Larry is right and both names (sample given earlier : Instambul and Constantinople
should have entrances .
MichaelTinkler you have been handling the two name situation very well
too.
H. Jonat
I see my name used in vain here (in more ways than one, apparently ;-) ). Cf.
[1] and
[2] (just data points). I imagine that the use of "Preussen" vs. "Prussia" is something that people who write or study a lot about Prussia (in English) would be better qualified to speak about than the editors of Webster's Collegiate or, ahem, me. :-)
For clarity, let me say that the way I'd propose to handle the Gdingen vs. Gdynia issue is: the history of Gdynia post-1920 obviously belongs on Gdynia. The history of the town before that could be placed on Gdingen, because that's what the town was known as then. I don't have a strong view on that. But it could also (or instead) be placed on Gdynia, I imagine.
The latter issue is not analogous to the use of "Preussen" here, I think: as far as I know, the usual English word for the country has always been "Prussia," and "Preussen" is new to me (it is a German word that, maybe, a few historians writing in English, for whatever reasons they might have, sometimes use instead of "Prussia"). Unlike "Gdingen," which presumably was the name of the town used by English speakers before 1920 (though I'm just guessing!), "Preussen" was (I guess!!) never the usual name for what we in English call "Prussia." If my guesses are all correct, I agree with JHK.
More generally, I totally support the principle Helga explains above, namely, any English names for things ought to be used in the English language Wikipedia. We don't call the article about Germany "Deutschland." "Deutschland," contrary to Helga, is not more correct, in English, than "Germany." (I'm referring to her comment above, "I have numerous times pointed out, that the correct name should also be used.") In fact, it's less correct: it's just confusing, bad, and probably pretentious English to use "Deutschland" when the perfectly good and accurate English word, "Germany," is available. Of course, when describing places that have different names in their native languages, or other relevant languages, sure, it's a very good idea to give the name in the native language once (as Michael says above). But in referring to the place, if there's an English name, then by golly, use it! That's what it's there for!
If I have misunderstood anyone or what the debate was about, I apologize profusely in advance. :-) --LMS
Was Prussia really its own diocese? That seems very strange, considering that usually they were tied specifically to cities. Also, FYI Helga, you can find Adam of Bremen in the Monumenta Germanica Historiae. Again, please be careful when believing this stuff as pure fact -- if we trusted all of these early chronicals, we'd have to believe that the Merovingians were descended from sea-monsters, as Fredegar reports.
JHK
- he might have been personally Christian of Prussia, but he must've been bishop of a city. --MichaelTinkler
- In which case, unless he governed in Prussia, he wasn't Christian OF Prussia, but Christian, a guy from Prussia. In later times, he could conceivably have been prince-bishop, but again, bishops belong to cities...JHK
- later, having poked around - No, how odd! According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, he was 'bishop of Prussia'. See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03704a.htm They really never mention a city. Very unusual - so unusual that I'm a little put out that they don't mention how odd it is. The papal legate obviously thought it was and divided Prussia into dioceses.--MichaelTinkler
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)