Talk:Origins of Prussia

Again I am disputing the truth of the sentence Conrad invaded and even took some Prussian territory in Kulmerland'. I will remove it in the future, unless i will see some evidence. One week of grace begins... szopen

A number of historical facts were removed by szopen,

therefore entered here: [1] MG 3/19/2006

1) The first attempts at conquering Prussia are recorded in 997 AD. <- This is false. In 997 there was mission of St. Adalbert. Since he went without soldiers^{[citation needed]} and was martyred, it's hard to see it as "conquest". 2) Already several times before, particularly in 1220 and thereafter Konrad I of the duchy of Masovia was unsuccessfully trying to conquer Prussian land. <- This is a bit news for me. Konrad I was trying christianisation of Prussia in 1222 and 1223, IIRC, I am nto aware of any raid or anything in 1220. 3) Why the removal of "Polish" from duchy of Masovia? It was Polish duchy, period. 4) Due to a number of attempts by Konrad of Masovia to conquer Prussia, the Culmerland to the north of Masovia became quite devastated and Konrad feared for his own land in Masovia <- This is unclear. First, Culmerland was Konrad's land. it was part of Polish land since X century. It _was_ part of the Masovia, so why _north_ from Masovia?! It was devastated by Prussian raids. To repeat: CULMERLAND (ziemia chelminska) was part of Polish duchy since a long time before Konrad. First written mentioning of Chelmno as Polish town, the centre of Polish Ziemia Chelminska, is from 1065. So, in 1220 Culmerland was part of Poland since _AT LEAST_ 150 years (and more, since archeological findings confirm it was rather inhabited by Slavs, not Prussians. In 1216 Chelmno (Kulm) was invadaded and burned by _Prussians_. Trying to constantly write that Chelmno was "recently conquered" is falsification of the history. Szopen 08:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The recent additions were almost absurd. Constant mistaking the dates, the numbers takien from the thin air etc etc. And again claiming that Culmerland was Prussian despite all archeological evidence of Slavic (Polish) settlements dating as far as early XI century. First mention of Culm as Polish town is in 1065! Also depicting the Prussians as peaceful people, which they were definetely not. All medieval people, Poles, Prussians etc were constantly invading themselves. The difference were that Polish armies started to try to conquest Prussia, while Prussians were mainly pillaging. the truth is also that starting with second hald of XII and even more in XIII century, Polish states were so weak that Prussians gained the upper hand in the conflict and became aggressive side. Also, the weasel words like "fanatism" are totally contrary the spirit of wikipedia. Szopen 08:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV and fact check

I have nominated the section "Prussia and the new neighbors since the 10th century" for a POV check and a fact check, against possible bias (in some cases, evident anti-Polish bias, in other cases, simple bias) and unsourced information. I single out the following lines as particularly in need of attribution, verification, re-writing, or removal:

Boleslaw did not give up his attempts at conquest and in the years of 1011 to 1015 he undertook further military excursions into Prussia.
<- the sourceS? Only sources mention only Bruno from Querfurt two missions and Adalbert, no military excursions (except from myths generated later in XVI century, when it was claimed by some that Boleslaw CONQUERED Prussia. Szopen 08:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Thietmar, not Thitmar, and Długosz, not Glugosz. Neither Thietmar or Ann. Qued. Mention supposed conquest of Prussia by Boleslaw, so saying they are source has to be heavily motivated. Szopen 08:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, Boleslaw's "military excursions" were monks with guards, in other words?

Sending a few missionaries (Bruno, Adalbert) with some guards is hardly the same as sending an army. If sources are found to corroborate that, then what do you think of rewording the line to read "The Christians did not give up their attempts to convert the pagan Prussians, and Boleslaw I of Poland continued to send missionaries, sometimes armed." ? -- Beobach972 17:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In 1064 Pomeranians, who were also constantly attacked by Poland, together with Prussians retaliated in Greater Poland. Boleslaw II won a bloody victory and again forced the Pomeranians to temporarily submit.

Yes, probably. I am not sure about Prussian participation Szopen 08:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It took till 1091, when Polish forces under Władysław Herman invaded Pomerania with the goal of reestablishing Polish overlordship. Despite the victories (taking Nakło/Nakel, victory near Drzycim/Driesen) Poles were unable to subdue the Pomeranian uprising. They regained their independence from Poland with the aid of the Prussians.

Yes. Prussian aid is uncertain, I never read about it anywhere. Note that there were two battles near Nakel, the second one was unconcluded (well, Poles kept the battlefield so they claimed they won, but with losses so great that they had to withdraw) Szopen 08:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Pomeranians were a tribe of the Prussian people, so it is plausible that the other tribes helped them. -- Beobach972 17:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Poles still did not give up their conquest attempts and they attacked in the winter coming into Prussia over the many lakes, when they were frozen over. They often dragged Prussian captives into their country. The greatest gain was made by Polish king Boleslaw II in winters of 1107/8 and 1110/1. Boleslaw demolished vast stretches of the south-western regions of Prussian land, then also tried to secure previous conquest of Prussian Culmerland by removing great numbers of Prussians to Greater Poland, giving Culm to Duke of Masovia as lien. The Prussian Culmerland had been invaded and conquered by Poles since Boleslaw I and regained by Prussians every time.

Culmerland since it was first time recorded was POLISH land. Also archeological evidence is crucial in recording POLISH (i.e. Slavic) presence in the region, which gradually was moving north. Prussians were in northern part of Culmerland only. Boleslaw II by 1107 already was dead. Probably it's about Boleslaw III the Wrymouth, who in around this time demolished vast stretches of POMERANIAN land. Giving Culmerland to duke of Masovia as lien is absurd, since: in 1102 Mazowsze was given to the province of Zbigniew, who was formally SENIOR (and was allied with Pomeranians at that time) Szopen 08:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Culm is listed by Peter of Dusburg as a Prussian land, though nearly uninhabited. A little digging reveals why: inhabited by Slavs from the 8th century onwards, the territory was subject to Prussian raids and colonisation in the 13th century, presumably displacing/killing the Slavic population and accounting for its being recorded by Peter in the 1300s as a Prussian territory -- especially given the fact that the area (according to a neat little timeline on the German WP) was controlled from 1230 to 1466 by the Deutscher Orden. From the 10th century to 1230 it is listed as being under Polish control, and considering it was settled by the Slavs in the 8th century, the article as it stands makes no sense — it leaves one to wonder how could the Poles have captured their own land? Even if they had, the confusion of the various Boleslaws would need to be corrected. Prussian raids, in turn, can hardly be described as the area being "regained by the Prussians every time". Are there any objections to the simple removal of this paragraph? -- Beobach972 17:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When Pomerania became christianised in 1124 that brought on a new danger for the Prussians. By 1147 and 48 Polish king Boleslaw IV together with Russian troops attacked Prussia, but they were unsuccessful in their conquest attempt.

Yes and No. The results of the conquest politics by Polish DUKE Boleslaw the Curly are not certain. The Kadlubek wrote about "success". Also in 1157 Barbarossa mentioned that Prussians fought alongside Poles. Szopen 08:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Polish did not stop. With fire and sword the Polish king Boleslaw IV came again in 1158 along the Ossa river into Pomesania and proclaimed that all of Prussia must submit to christianity and to the Polish crown. Whoever does not submit, shall loose property and life. When the Prussians finally got the Polish army to leave the country, the Prussians chased out the Polish priests as well, who had been installed by the army.
They slashed, burned and murdered so terribly, that the Prussians now realized, that Poland did not only want tribute but that they were out for total submission. Prussians prepared and they led the Polish army, under leadership of Henry of Sandomir, brother of the king, into an area of marshy morass. Whoever did not drown, was felled by an arrow or by throwing clubs. Nearly all Polish military parrished. Since then the Poles were careful and did not strike again. That is, they did not strike again until the years 1191-93.
(That reads like an action novel...)

Yes (rhetorics aside). That is, the event of catastrophic defeat is true. Szopen 08:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He forced them to paying tribute and then withdrew. Their conquest of the Prussian Culmerland was very shaky, even thought the Poles had already killed or removed many of the Prussians in that territory. But the Prussians, previously documented as very peaceful people, had by now learned warfare, necessitated by the many wars brought upon them ever since the conquests started Boleslaw I. The Poles could no longer hold on to Prussian Culmerland and began to call on the pope.

Culmerland was not Prussian, but Polish since AT LEAST early XI century (first mentioning in sources). Also Prussians were documented as peaceful people (the Estes) some thousand years ago. Very funny. Slavic people also were documented as very peaceful people thousands years ago. Szopen 08:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The results were edicts calling for Northern Crusades against the "marauding, heathen" Prussians. Many of Europe's knights joined in these Crusades, which lasted sixty years.

-- Beobach972 03:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous claims he backs his thesis with medieval chroniclers. It's absurd. I challenge him to provide the quotes from those chronicles to document supposed conquest attempts by Chrobry and Wrymouth in Prussia Szopen 08:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A number of conquest attempts were launched against Prussia by Poland, (ref External link William Pierson book), also [2]] Chronicon Polonor. Ongoing military attacks in order to subjugate Prussia. Labuda disputes this.

Marija Gimbutas in her book: The Balts - describes the Prussian and Baltic territory reaching much further west, south, south-west, south-east than the later Prussia, when Poland came into existense and conquered much additional territory (claimed by Polish to have been a "uniting of Polish tribes"), however for centuries rejected and fought against by the ones involved.

Prussians are also recorded as Ulmerugi, Holmrugi (Island Rugians in the Vistula river area. That name still showed up on maps of area around Culm, Culmerland, Kulmerland territory which was surrounded by the Vistula river.

Boleslaw I claimed to have conquered (part of) the Prussians and even his headstone is supposed to have shown something like this. He also claimed to have put 'columns' (pillars) up in the newly conquered Prussian territory, to mark the new border of territory, which he now claimed as his, which was not his.

So ,Szopen, Culmerland was not Polish land- it was Prussian land, partially conquered temporarily by Poland.

Gethen, Getae is yet another name for the Prussians, that name was still known to Polish historians as well.

Szopen's mentioning of Bruno of Querfurt as having taken part in Boleslaw I battles against Prussians 1015 also makes no sense, because Bruno was dead since 1009.

Anon, you are mistaken. Boleslaw I had not claimed anything like that. It was a myth invented later, not mentioned by any contemporary sources I am aware of. If you can, please provide quotes from medieval sources (yearsbooks or chronicles). Also, Culmerland is Slavic land - just check any archeological site and see what was the settlement pattern in early medieval times. As for Bruno, I mentioned it because it is the only time Prussians are mentioned by chroniclers around the period you mentioned. Of course I may be mistaken. Please provide the primary sources (the book you mentioned probably has some quotes, if it is real reliable history book, not "history for the dummies" series.

As for Baltic territory stretching further south and west that's true - before Slavs moved out of their hypothetical ur-heimat Balts and Prussians inhabited much of territory which later became Slavic. However in X century the area was settled by Slavs for few generations (though of course not whole area - northern Culmerland IIRC was Prussian. Szopen 12:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noted that you mentioned the same book as source for the claim that Poznan was "first under Magdeburg jurisdiction", a myth which was debuked by GERMAN historian in early 1920s. Is that right!? Szopen 12:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: after digging few books and searching the net I found one detail: there were probably some fights between Prussians and Poles earlier (before death of St. Adalbert). The only clue here is that brother of Prussian who killed Adalbert died in fight with Poles <- at least this is what Jasienica wrote. Jasienica also wrote that in 1038 Prussians invaded Poland. Szopen 12:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More info digged out. I was surprised by your "headston of Boleslaw I" so I started to search more. The headstone of Boleslaw I is known only from literature, the earliest copy came from first half of XV century, and the time of creation the text is estimated for 1340s. In other words, it is highly dubious source to use. Szopen 08:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

A sandbox in which to edit the last section and reach a consensus about what it should say, prior to release: Talk:Origins of Prussia/Sandbox. (Beobach972 17:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The Adalbert of Prague article states that Boleslaw II had several members of Adalbert's family murdered, yet Boleslaw I sent soldiers to protect Adalbert in his mission to Prussia. Is this correct? -- Beobach972 17:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, Radomil explained that Boleslaw II (the Pious) was from Premyslid dynasty and was duke of Bohemia, not directly related to Bolesław I (Chrobry) from the Piast dynasty, who was duke and later king of Poland. -- Beobach972 19:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant Germanic pluralization

I have removed the following text from the article:

The East Prussian dialect of German maintains a curious tradition of pluralisation, and does not pluralize words like standard German; "Mann" (the German word for man), for example, normally has the plural form "Männer", but in the East Prussian dialect it is simply Manns^{[citation needed]}.

My reasons are:

East Prussian is a dialect of Low German, not of standard (High) German.
S-plurals are a common phenomenon of Low Germanic languages.
The putative implication that the pluralization of Low Prussian is somehow influenced by a Baltic language substrate is unsubstantiated.
It is irrelevant to the context (discussion of Old Prussian laūks, which is, in any event, a singular form).

--Ziusudra 15:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

This article should be merged into Old Prussians. "Origins of Prussia" as a title is ambiguous - why should it relate to the medieval history of the region of Prussia, as opposed to the political origins of the state of Prussia? The content of this article essentially focuses on the Old Prussians, and seems to be a fork of that topic. Olessi (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]