Encyclopedia > Talk:Prussia
Talk:Prussia
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 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 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] (http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=Prussia) and [2] (http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=Preussen) (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
- Odd -- but perhaps he was a Chorepiscopos or something -- given apostolic charge of Prussia in the short-term as a kind of Boniface wannabe, and who found himself sorely disappointed when the papal legate stepped in with actual administration...JHK
Removed a bunch of "see also" links because many already existed in the article body, and others had little if anything to do with the article as written. JHK
- 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.
- 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.
Isn't Prussia sort of the birthplace of the educational system now used in the United States, or at least of public education in general? I'm thinking of Johann Fichte's "Addresses to the German Nation" in the early 1800s. He wanted the state to control education so the nation could recover from Napoleon's conquest. At least according to some scattered articles I read last spring. --Wesley
Well, depends what you mean. Definetely before Prussia there was control state education (KEN - Komisja Edukacji Narodowej, Commission of National Education) was in Poland years earlier. szopen
After 1945 Take-Over by Soviet Union
On the land east of the Oder-Neisse River[?] seperating eastern Prussia ,eastern Pomerania, nearly all of Silesia, eastern Brandenburg from the West Germany.
In 1965 a letter was written by the Polish bishops to the West German bishops. The Polish bishops were strongly critizised by the Polish Communist governmental agencies,press,etc who called the bishops "revangists".
Following are excerpts from a statement of Glos Pracy,Warsaw, Dec 31,1965, Jan 2 and 2,1966:
"...Above all, it must be kept in mind that the Vatikan has not approved the Potsdam Agreement of 1945, that it sees in this no basis for a peace treaty with Germany, and that it regards the concordates signed with Prussia in 1929 and with the German Reich in 1933 as still legally binding.
The episcopates and archiepiscopates in our Polish western territories figure in the Vatican's registers as German episcopates; formally, ecclesiastical jurisdiction there is exercised by German clerics who reside in the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany.
The Polish bishops who reside in the western territories enjoy no formal jurisdiction in their episcopates, which, however, they exercise de facto....Formally, they act as mission bishops, exercising their priestly functions among the Polish population living in the territory of the German nation. ...
The only exeption, since April 1964, has been the Danzig episcopate, in which, following the death of Bishop Splett, the Pole Edmund Nowicki became ordinarius with full canonical authority. The Danzig episcopates, since, according to the Vatican, the Free City of Danzig continues to exist, and since the borders of this episcopate correspond to the borders of the one-time free city, this is completely absurd...
In his letter to the German bishops, dated March 1, 1948, Pius XII expressed his displeasure at the expulsion of the Germans: protested against it and recommended that "that which had been done, be undone as far as it still can be". In his letter, he described Breslau as the "center of the German East". At the same time, the Vatican issued an order to organize an ecclesiastical administration of their own for the refugees on German territory...
...In all the Papal Annuals "Annuario Pontifico" published after the war, the units of the ecclesiastical administration in the western territories are listed in the column ' Germany'. In this respect, Pope Paul VI ia a consistent implementor of Pius XII."
Removed absurd statement in re: ethnicity vs. legal rulership. Language does not equal anything in particular, anyway. MichaelTinkler
Transferred from text:
Numerous pieces of correspondence between the different Prussian factions and the emperors as well as other documents have been published. This large volume of documents covering hundreds of cities and towns involved are now in the process of being integrated in a centralized Prussian Documents system. The emperor was the highest judge in matters which could not be taken care of on a more local level. The Prussian Confederation was subject to the emperor (Pr.U.413 #506)
The arrangements between western Prussia with Casimir IV Jagiello and Elizabeth Habsburg were of a defensive protection alliance nature. Though parts of Prussia were ruled by the Polish monarchs, the people and language remained German. For a glimpse at the Prussian Documents (Preussische Urkunden) see [[3] (http://www.rrz.uni-hamburg.de/Landesforschung/pub/3frame?/Landesforschung/pub/js413.htm)]
Western Prussia did not have "arrangements of a defensive nature" with Poland. It was a part of the territory over which the Polish kings held sovereignty. Much of the population indeed remained German-speaking, especially in the towns. But can you, H Jonat, put a proportion on it? If you valued historical fact at all rather than merely seeking at every turn to impose your own national chauvinist prejudice on every article, others might be inclined to take your argumants seriously.
Let's look at some of the "contributions" we've had from H Jonat:
The Prussians (Germans) in 1454-66 successfully resisted an attempted Polish takeover. WRONG. The Prussian Conferederation accepted Polish sovereignty to free itself (successfully, with Polish help) from the (German) Teutonic Order.
Prussia was subject to the Empire throughout these centuries. WRONG. The Empire NEVER held practical authority in the region, despite earlier claims of "protection" extending to Riga. The Teutonic Order looked to the Pope as its suzerain. After 1466 western Prussia was under Polish rule, eastern Prussia under Polish suzerainty. No Emperor. The fact that the Pope and Emperor didn't support the second Treaty of Thorn was of no consequence: the Emperor had no say in the area, and neither he nor the Pope were signatories. The Order signed away its rights in the west and accepted the Polish king as overlord in the east.
H Jonat uses a "1570" map (in fact the title page says 1598) to "prove" that Poland didn't possess sovereignty over Prussia, and even goes on to suggest that Poland didn't exist as a kingdom (this is between the Lublin Union and the Polish capture of Moscow, when the kingdom was at the height of its power). The atlas in which the map appears says a couple of pages later that "Prussia belongs totally under the crown of Poland, except the Duchy of Prussia, which is comprised in it, yet having for the present a distinct Duke." This duke's descendant goes on in 1660 to free himself from Polishoverlordship. A later descendant proclaims himself king in [east] Prussia because the Empire has no authority there.
Next, H Jonat uses some coins from the 1610s to claim direct Hapsburg rule over Prussia. The titles she cites are actually phantom offices related to the post of Grand Master of the Teutonic Order, which had lost its hold on eastern (now ducal) Prussia to its own former head (still a Polish vassal) 90 years earlier.
On top of this, H Jonat doesn't know when the Brussian dukedom passed from the Ansbach to the Brandenburg Hohenzollern line (1618, not 1568); she thinks Brandenburg's steadfastly Lutheran margrave Johann Georg "let the Jesuits take over" (and then explains this by a confusion with a later Johann Georg who adopted Calvinism!); and she imagines there were multiple dukes reigning simultaneously (one perhaps even a Habsburg!)
I've better things to do with my time than keep re-correcting such gibberish. I'm going to revert this article every time it's vandalised, because that's what it's come to. I hope to be able to incoprporate any intelligent additions by others, but if any are accidentally lost, please point them out to me. David Parker
Above text contains a good amount of things different from what I have said. I had added another source of legal documents (Preussische Urkunden. There are numerous imperial documents stating the status of Prussia. It is obvious that there is some pre-conceived and very determined force of English speakers , that insists on declaring everything to have been and to be Slavic and particularly Polish. It does not matter to this pre-demined force, what the actual facts were, they are constantly disregarded with derogative remarks. I tell you what, I give up to this force that is always right. It does not matter what the true facts were. All of Germany and all of Prussia and all the Angles and Saxons and all other Germans have all actually been always Polish. H. Jonat
Mrs Jonat, you are obviously ignoring what others are trying to tell you. It is _we_ who are trying to convince you about factual facts. Nobody claims that everything in the world is Slavic and especially Polish. It is not. Nobody is trying to say that Germans were never in Prussia or that they never contributed to developmnet of wealth and culture of Poland, since they for many decades were important part of it.
Try to think logical. Let's say that Prussia was not part of Poland, but instead part of Empire. Why then during first partition partitioners asked Polish Parliament for approving their actions? If Poland had no jurisdiction over the area, why they did so?
If Prussia was not part of Poland, why Prussians were elected to Polish Parliament? Why they were sitting in Polish Senate? Prussians elected Polish kings, why they did so if they were not part of Polish kingdom?
Mind you that being part of Poland, or being part of Germany does not imply ethnicity. Again, many leaders of opposition in Prussia, who fiercely opposed reducing its authonomy, were Polish speakers, that is by todays standards Poles (some of them originated from Greater Poland). Some of opposition who demanded incorporating Prussia into Poland were by todays standards Germans.
I, in fact, was mistaken with few things and i happily admit that. Prussia was part of Poland since 1466, but until union of Lublin it had very wide authonomy.
Next thing is that you are mistaking many things. Polish cities for years treated Magdeburg (if i am not mistaken) as today we treat Strasburg, as highest authority. Germans were numerous in Prussia, but many knights, and definetely most of lower classes was Polish (by language).
You are trying to prove that Polish, English, French, Russian, even most of German historians got it all wrong and are under influence of Polish propaganda. In XIX century they were propably under influence of Russian propaganda, since there were no Poland then.
a.d.danilecki "[[szopen~]]"
To szopen,just a short note to say thank you for your nice message. You have several questions. I may put some material together eventually and let you know.To the propaganda point I think at least as much or more came and obviously still comes from sources other than Polish or Russian.Gorbachow, while still in office, had at least the courage to take a history book away from a teenage school child in Russia and said , these books are wrong.I saw this on TV.H. Jonat.
| Inhabitants | non-German citizens* | |
|---|---|---|
| East Prussia | 1,958,663 | 2,189 |
| West Prussia | 1,433,681 | 1,976 |
| City of Berlin | 1,578,794 | 17,704 |
| Brandenburg | 2,541,783 | 5,213 |
| Pomerania | 1,520,889 | 1,405 |
| Posen | 1,751,642 | 1,438 |
| Silesia | 4,224,458 | 24,811 |
| Saxony | 2,580,010 | 4,642 | Schleswig-Holstein | 1,217,437 | 37,821 |
| Hannover | 2,278,361 | 8,089 |
| Westphalia | 2,428,661 | 9,879 |
| Hessen-Nassau | 1,664,426 | 9,801 |
| Rhineland | 4,710,391 | 39,669 |
| Hohenzollern | 66,720 | 161 |
- The numbers for "non-German citizens" represent only people, who did not speak German language.
From 1885 to 1890 Berlin had gained 20% inhabitants, Brandenburg and Rhineland gained 8,5%, Westphalia 10% , while East Prussia had lost 0,07 and West Prussia 0,86 %.
Removed this because it had no clear connection to the rest of the article. JHK
In the upcoming World Cup in soccer I'm putting my money on Prussia, to take the gold. I hear, they have a pretty strong team. Does anybody know, which group they're in and which teams they're playing first?
They are in a group with Gallia, Etruria, Califate of Cordoba, Byzantine Empire and Khanate of Crimea.
Soccer Fan
HJ -- removed the bit on the coinage because the article on coin reform doesn't really say much about what the problem was -- only about Copernicus' role in trying to solve it. Also, since it is fairly certain that that article is infringing on copyright (translations do not make it legal), that article may have to be drastically shortened or removed anyway. JHK
Helga and JHK: Can we agree to use "Prussia" for pre-1945 historical references to cities (as in articles about Copernicus) without CONSTANTLY having to add the disclaimer that "it used to be called Prussia, now it's called Poland"?
Or better yet, can we agree to use the term Prussia only for the pagan, pre Teutonic territory, term Monastic state, for the time when the Teutonic knights ruled, Ducal Prussia for the part of teritory ruled by Hohenzollerns (Polish fief till 1657), Royal Prussia for the teritory incoprated in the Polish Crown, the Kingdom of Prussia and finally for the period between the wars - East Prussia. This way we can avoid misunderstandings like "Copernicus was born in Prussia". More accurate would be a statement "Copernicus was born in Polish province of Royal Prussia".
Georg
- Ed, I'm sure Helga would really like that -- it would imply support of her point that they are all Prussian, hence "really" German, and unfairly taken from Germany at the ends of the World Wars. Unfortunately, the reason all of these articles are written as they are is that (if you read all the interminable talk pages) several people who are more familiar with how to interpret source materials and who also have no axes to grind had to come up with a compromise. We've done this by trying to make it clear (or kind of skimming over) the fact that, yes, the cities in question are located in a geographical area known as Prussia, but that that doesn't mean they were GERMAN. By giving maybe too much history, we at least avod the POV of unfair land reassignments. Please look through the talk and see which wikipedians worked on this or brought up valid points -- two professional medievalists, a couple more historians, and some other wikipedians well-respected for their level-headedness and quality of contribution. Please think carefully before jumping in to make any such changes -- and then don't. ;-) Thanks! JHK 08:39 Aug 6, 2002 (PDT)
- Just saw Georg's comment in an edit conflict -- That's a great solution, except that it means someone actually has to figure out when each was in effect -- that's one of the reasons we avoided it. None of us is an expert, and no one had time to make sure we got it right. For example, I'm pretty sure that Ducal Prussia was under different suzereigns at different times...which makes a difference if one waas the Empreor and another was king of Poland... It really means adding explanations of each of those different entities and their allegiances...JHK
HJ that was a link to a site most certainly breaking somebody's copyright. It didn't show Prussia -- it was a map of Poland in 922, with different populations indicated. Where a people lived is not the same as an actual state. JHK
- but in 1660, after the Second Northern War[?] between Sweden, Poland and Brandenburg, the Treaty of Oliva granted full sovereignty to Frederick William I[?] of Prussia-Brandenburg as duke of Prussia.
Which Frederick William I are we talking about here? The one I know, the "Soldier King" of Prussia, lived from 1688 until 1740. AxelBoldt 04:47 Nov 14, 2002 (UTC)
Axel, the numbering was "reset" after Friedrich Wilhelm III the Duke of Prussia, proclaimed himself Friedrich Wilhelm I the King in Prussia in 1701. Friedrich Wilhelm I, der Grosse Kurfürst (the Great Elector)the duke of Prussia (1620-1688) is the one who managed to turn the Polish Province into independent Duchy in 1660.
I hope this is helpful, Axel, although I'm sure Helga could've explained it better. BTW, where is Helga? Is she OK? I kinda miss her in a unique sort of way.
Space Cadet
All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License
|
Search Encyclopedia
|
Featured Article
|