Talk:John of Bohemia

Dates mixed up?

In the first paragraph it is said, he was Count of Luxemburg vom 1309, however, on the box on the right it is said from 1313. Which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.219.26.121 (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

Acceded to what? Count? Holy Roman Emperor? Something else?Vicki Rosenzweig

I read in another website that John I wasn't totally blind but he saw very badly!

Well, considering that the article's name is "John I, Count of Luxemburg", the answer seems quite obvious.-Alex 12.220.157.93 13:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed the tag 'royalty who committed suicide - it says in the article he died in battle, therefore it's wrong. Griff24 13:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Woeful stub of an article on a man whose name is obscure now, but who was one of the most prominent figures of his time, his influence extending well beyond Bohemia, into Germany, France, Poland, Prussia, Austria and Italy. His slogan was even adopted by the Princes of Wales. I'd like to see a proper article by a Czech or German contributor.

No longer quite so woeful, but why is he "John I"? Who was John II? Srnec 03:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point... shall we move the article to "John of Bohemia", then? --- Sandius 10:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I cut some statements that didn't feel right

Here they are, for anyone to interrogate, change, or put back

• John was French by education, but deeply involved in the politics of Germany, taking part in the wars between the Wittelsbachs and the Habsburgs on the side of the former.

For me, his main concern in German politics was to further the Luxembourg cause against the Bavarian Wittelsbachs, though he allied with the Palatine Wittelsbachs, one of whom his son married. He did quarrel with Hapsburgs, but he sided with one branch of the Wittelsbachs which was at war with another branch. His son was set up as anti-king to the Wittelsbach Louis IV in the year John died. It was more complicated, I feel, than the sentence allows.

• The object of the hostility of the Czech nobility, however, he gave up the administration of Bohemia and embarked on a life of travel, spending time in Luxembourg and the French court. He did try to make Prague a centre of chivalry like the round table of Camelot of Arthurian legend.

I left the first part of this alone, though I wasn't sure about it (it's true that he was an absentee king, but I don't believe he gave up the administration of Bohemia; he started some major building projects there, for example, which made a considerable impact. His administration held firm, despite the chaos that preceded his reign, and he built a power base in Prague).

The second part, about Camelot, sounds fanciful to me. But if there is a source for this, I think it should be mentioned.

• For all this, he is an enigmatic figure: a blind knight-errant, warrior and diplomat, cosmopolitan and educated.

For me there's nothing enigmatic about a fouteenth-century king being the last four things. John certainly has an air of chivalry about him at Crécy in Froissart's account (though he is described as "nigh blind" and couldn't possibly have been totally blind — as someone above pointed out — if he was riding into battle and wellying opponents with his sword), but I'm not sure if "knight-errant" is the precise historical term required.

--qp10qp 02:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Crusading, Teutonic order...

I have no sources to back this up at present. But long before John became count he was crusading with the Teutonics (auxilliary, he obviously did not join the order) in the east (Poland and modern day Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia). I believe even as count and king he spent some campaigns there. He was not travelling to Poland for fun (as one might believe from the article right now). I will see whether I can find material to back this up (and in exactly which role he crusaded and during which years). Another point, he was a quite prominent jouster (and host for jousts) and of course loved battle. Lastly, if there is an interest I can go take a picture of his toombstone and add something about the transfer of his body to Luxembourg in the past century (19OO's, I just don't recall when this happened which is why I have to use a silly "past century" term:-(). Lastly, I'm adding the Luxembourgish name.--Caranorn 19:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to John of Bohemia. This follows the discussion here and point 2 at Wikipedia:NCNT#Monarchical_titles, as well as the current naming pattern of Bohemian monarchs. Given that the proposal was open, there was not enough argument in the discussion to show he is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, in this case John the Blind, although he very well may be. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Though the move request says "John the Blind", I actually request that this article be moved to any one of the following options, because the current title is confusing and OR. There is no John II of Bohemia.

1. John the Blind
2. John of Luxembourg
3. John, Count of Luxembourg
4. John of Bohemia
5. John, King of Bohemia

I have personally decided not to care which title he gets moved to, but if I had to express a preference, it would be for option 1 or 4. Srnec (talk) 07:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

And note that the other Wikis generally prefer a version of option 1 or 2. Srnec (talk) 07:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer the 4th version, it seems to me that it's de facto a standard for naming articles about kings in Wikipedia. Completely agree with the removal of the ordinal per WP:NCNT (and common sense). -- Sandius (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Number 4 is the option that is inline with current conventions/guidelines, but those are only conventions/guidelines. (There happens to be widespread opposition to the guidelines in cases where a monarch has no ordinal, actually.) Srnec (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The alternative would be 5, which should at least be a redirect. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't fully understand your "those are only conventions/guidelines". I think we should stick to the conventions where they are appropriate; they seem to fit perfectly to this case (to me, of course). -- Sandius (talk) 12:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

My point was that we are not obligated to follow conventions/guidelines whether they are applicable or not. Ignore all rules is WP's only global policy and has been from the beginning. I am not saying that the conventions/guidelines are not useful (they may be here), but they are a bad "reason". Srnec (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support 2. Article was originally started with "John the Blind of Luxembourg" in the first line. 1 or 2 would then be best choices if we respect original author, and 2 gets slightly more hits in Google Books. Compulsions70 (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't need to respect the original author, but Google Books is interesting. Srnec (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Henry I of Bohemia

How did John depose him? Was it since Elisabeth was the elder sister of Anna Premyslid (Henry's wife) and thus gave him a better claim to the throne? What were the official rules of succession in Bohemia regarding such cases? Were there any? Top.Squark (talk) 09:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea, until now I wasn't even aware of this. From the German articles it seems like Anna was the oldest daughter of Wenceslas III. I'm not sure what sucession clauses were in practice for Bohemia, possibly there was no transmission at all through the female line and the throne automatically reverted (Bohemia was a vassal of the Roman Empire/German Kingdom). In any case, John and Elisabeth seem to have had the support of the Bohemian nobility and clergy. John was granted the crown by his own father, then Emperor of Rome. Then he marched to Bohemia under arms and was finally crowned king at Prague. Note, I don't find in out various articles whether Henry was ever actually crowned king of Bohemia. On the other hand I seem to find an explanation, the Bohemian Kingdom seems to have been elective, or at least have become elective after the death of Wenceslas III. So John was elected which explains the Bohemian delegation petitioning Henry VII to place his son John on the throne...--Caranorn (talk) 11:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth

Is there any primary or contemporary secondary source for the marriage of Elizabeth, daughter of John of Bohemia and twin sister of Anna? >John Nichols, an English antiquarian of the 18th century, related that she married Litvaticus, Duke of Tescen and that their daughter married an English nobleman by the name of Bigod. Their daughter married Sir Thomas Tyndall. This is an interesting question because there is a well established tradition that the Tyndall family were asked by a deputation from the Bohemian Diet to become Kings of Bohemia on the basis of this descent (see the Tyndall article for more).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John of Bohemia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120612014408/http://users.ox.ac.uk/~tayl0010/history.htm to http://users.ox.ac.uk/~tayl0010/history.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Middle Coat of Arms of Luxembourg.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Arms of the Count of Luxembourg.svg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Renaming the page "John the Blind" ?

I don't know how you feel but as a Luxembourger i don't really like using the Name John of Bohemia as naming for this page, even though i get it that the title of King (of Bohemia) is higher than his other titles and that he frequently used that name himself. That being said let me assure you that i'm also not advocating for calling it John of Luxembourg, but in my opinion the vast majority of people know him best as John the Blind.

In Luxembourg nobody would ever call him something else than Jang de Blannen, also in Germany he is frequently known as Johann der Blinde. Even in the Czech Rep. he is not known as John of Bohemia but as Jan Lucembursky (John of Luxembourg).

I would recommend to rename the page "John the Blind". Many tourists in Luxembourg, when visiting his tomb, want to research John the Blind in Wikipedia and are very confused to be directed to a page called John of Bohemia...

Also there seems to be no one else in history with the Name John the Blind, making this situation (maybe) clearer ?

What do you think ?

Letzebuergerr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Letzebuergerr (talk • contribs) 15:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Arms of the Count of Luxembourg.svg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

There should be more about crusades in Lithuania

The Siege of Medvėgalis was significant, and should be mentioned. In that article it says he was in Lithuania three times. Victor Grigas (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)