The Polish area under Prussian control

Discussions on other historical eras.
User avatar
Baltasar
Financial supporter
Posts: 4610
Joined: 21 Feb 2003 15:56
Location: Germany

Re: Why Westpreussen is an artificial name & (Ost)Preussen i

Post by Baltasar » 17 Nov 2010 16:32

SashaWa wrote:
Hardly official, which is the only stuff that counts.
The whole book is filled with official documents.
And yet you're unable to provide a quote from it.
Besides, it's actually Emanuel Geiss and I couldn't find any info about him or the book.
Its Imanuel, and actually he is one of the most prominent German historians. A simple google book search gives 22.000 results for his name with dozens of books by him....
Of course you regard him as prominent, since he fits into your point of view. Never heard of that guy before.

SashaWa
Banned
Posts: 48
Joined: 10 Nov 2010 01:35

Re: Why Westpreussen is an artificial name & (Ost)Preussen i

Post by SashaWa » 17 Nov 2010 16:50

Baltasar wrote: And yet you're unable to provide a quote from it.
Huh? I have the book by Geiss in my possesion, nobody asked me about a quote from that book though?
Never heard of that guy before.
And that proves what exactly? But since you didn't even knew about religious persecution in German Empire like Kulturkampf I can't say I am surprised.

User avatar
Baltasar
Financial supporter
Posts: 4610
Joined: 21 Feb 2003 15:56
Location: Germany

Re: Why Westpreussen is an artificial name & (Ost)Preussen i

Post by Baltasar » 17 Nov 2010 17:36

SashaWa wrote:
And yet you're unable to provide a quote from it.
Huh? I have the book by Geiss in my possesion, nobody asked me about a quote from that book though?
I wrote: If you can come up with any official war aims, really literally any, I'd be somewhat surprised. Even a strategic paper during the July crisis would suffice.

You came up with a book of an author I've never heard of despite living almost in the neighbourhood, claiming it's full of original sources, yet you're not providing any. Quoting a few examples would be the easiest way of clarifiying that point, wouldn't it.
SashaWa wrote:
Never heard of that guy before.
And that proves what exactly? But since you didn't even knew about religious persecution in German Empire like Kulturkampf I can't say I am surprised.
In fact I didn't know you viewed being Polish as a religion.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23283
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Re: Why Westpreussen is an artificial name & (Ost)Preussen i

Post by David Thompson » 17 Nov 2010 19:14

For the second time, the topic of this thread is whether Westpreussen is an artificial name & (Ost)Preussen isn't. If the posters aren't going to discuss the topic, it's time to lock it.

Peter K
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 3673
Joined: 12 Jul 2006 19:17
Location: Poland

Re: Why Westpreussen is an artificial name & (Ost)Preussen i

Post by Peter K » 18 Nov 2010 01:07

For the second time, the topic of this thread is whether Westpreussen is an artificial name & (Ost)Preussen isn't. If the posters aren't going to discuss the topic, it's time to lock it.
David, please let the discussion take place, Ok?

What is being discussed at the moment still is somehow related to the topic.

By the way, it was not supposed to be one of those "stricte" topics.
You left out mobilization dates, which constituted an act of war as well as they were a direct threat to a country's safety, the formal declaration of war was just that, a formality.
1. Mobilization is not an act of war, especially that countries which are under the threat of aggression carried out by other countries also mobilize their armies to defend their homelands.

2. Russia mobilized because Austro-Hungary declared war on Serbia a day before (and Serbia was Russia's ally), so Russian mobilization had nothing to do with German Empire, rather with Austria-Hungary and Serbia.

3. I'll reply to other posts later since I have no time and you all were posting here like mad during the last days.

=====================================

Ok - I could reply to those from 3rd page:
Considering this, the above opinion which puts all blame on Austria-Hungary and the German Empire doesn't really reflect reality.
I don't put all blame for the war on Austria-Hungary and the German Empire.

I just say that Austria-Hungary and the German Empire started the war. Which is true because Austria-Hungary declared war on a neutral country first and Germany followed (also declaring it on a neutral country).
they entered the war without even knowing what they wanted to achieve in the end.
Huh? Are you sure?

Purpose of wars is usually the same - more power, more money, more territory, etc.

BTW - Baltasar, you would always defend Germany no matter what, wouldn't you?
Probably because Poland never would have come into existence had there not been a WWI.
But probably would have come into existence had there not been a WWI.

Because the Poles had a huge will and made their best efforts to become independent again.
ad Poland not been recreated it's quite likely that by now (2010) the Polish people would have been assimilated.
No because by the time of being partitioned Poles were already an old, well-developed nation with a well-developed several hundreds years long traditions, culture and common identity.

It is not as easy to destroy such nation as it is to destroy a primitive tribe of Yotvingians.
The Jews are in fact not a good example. These are not the same people who lost their land 2000 years ago, rather are the product of twenty centuries of intermarriage with non-Israelites and integration of non-Israelite cultures.
Every nation is a product of integration with cultures of other nations.

There are no "pure" nations. Also genetically there are no such nations.
Of course it's fairly widely believed that war was inevitable, but had it started in 1910 or 1916, the circumstances would have been different and the war would not have developed the way that it did.
Axis Powers would lost no matter what. With US help for the Allies.

Moreover it seems that you don't know that both Germany, Austro-Hungary and Russia offered Poland independence (or at least autonomy) yet during WW1. The deal was simple - you will fight for us, we will give you independence / autonomy after victory.

But of course all three of them lost the war, which was even better for Poland.

So no matter what kind of war, just a war between the three Poland's partitioners was needed.
And can you prove that the supposed Polish borders are accurate, too?
I don't need to. It's a well-known fact just like for example borders of the USA in 1863.

Moreover I already posted a You Tube video showing borders of Poland and you also have 1138 there.
So you'll agree then that the Poles were participants in the genocide of the Yotvingian people?
Of course. Just like Christian crusaders from all around Europe, England, France, etc.
I'm sure the Yotvingians were still maintaining a distinct identity a century after there homeland was partitioned.
Vast majority of Yotvingians were slaughtered during the process of "conversion".

Some of those few who survived that genocide, probably were.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23283
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Re: Why Westpreussen is an artificial name & (Ost)Preussen i

Post by David Thompson » 18 Nov 2010 02:57

Domen121 -- You wrote:
David, please let the discussion take place, Ok?

What is being discussed at the moment still is somehow related to the topic.

By the way, it was not supposed to be one of those "stricte" topics.
I will give it a second chance now that SashaWa is no longer with us. However:

(1) In my opinion the thread has drifted seriously off-topic.

(2) The posts have turned into a series of unsourced expressions of opinion, fact-free repartee and personal remarks about the other participants.

(3) We run the forum for our readers, and recently, they're not getting much usable information in this thread. In that sense, AHF is always strict.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8824
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Why Westpreussen is an artificial name & (Ost)Preussen i

Post by michael mills » 18 Nov 2010 03:07

The German territory West Prussia had been known as "Prussia" since at least the 15th Century.

In the middle of the 15th Century, the lands of the Teutonic Knights were divided, with possession of the western part passing to the Crown of Poland while the eastern part remained in the possession of the Knights. That is the origin of the geographical concepts of "East Prussia" and "West Prussia".

The western part of Prussia which had passed into the possession of the Polish Crown bore the official title of Royal Prussia, a designation that was accepted by the Polish kings. The inhabitants of Royal Prussia were called "Prussians", and were distinct from "Poles", who were inhabitants of the Kingdom of Poland, a separate territory, with which Royal Prussia was in personal union. Thus, the historian Norman Davies is correct when he states that Copernicus, who was born in Royal Prussia, was a "Prussian" by nationality, even though he was a subject of the King of Poland.

When the eastern part of Prussia that had remained in the possession of the Teutonic Knights was secularied in the early 16th Century, when the last Grandmaster accepted the Reformation, the territory became known as "Ducal Prussia". Thus there were two Prussias, "Royal Prussia" in the west, ie West Prussia, and Ducal Prussia in the east, ie East Prussia. Thus the names West Prussia and East Prussia are historically legitimate as geographical designations.

Royal Prussia lost its autonomy in 1569, at the Union of Lublin, and was absorbed into the Kingdom of Poland. The name "Prussia" was revived in 1772, when the territory of the former Royal Prussia was transferred from the Polish Commonwealth to the Kingdom of Prussia in the First Partition of Poland, and received the official title of West Prussia.

Peter K
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 3673
Joined: 12 Jul 2006 19:17
Location: Poland

Re: Why Westpreussen is an artificial name & (Ost)Preussen i

Post by Peter K » 18 Nov 2010 14:55

man territory West Prussia had been known as "Prussia" since at least the 15th Century.

In the middle of the 15th Century, the lands of the Teutonic Knights were divided, with possession of the western part passing to the Crown of Poland while the eastern part remained in the possession of the Knights. That is the origin of the geographical concepts of "East Prussia" and "West Prussia".
The state of the Teutonic Order that conquered pagan Prussians was known as the state of the Teutonic Order in Prussia, contrary to the state of the Teutonic Order in Livonia, previously known as Livonian Knights or Livonian Order, but they merged with the Teutonic Knights, just like the Polish Order of Dobrzyn did.

In 1308 Brandenburg invaded Gdansk Pomerania and captured Gdansk, which belonged to the Kingdom of Poland then. The Polish king called for help of the Teutonic Order to help him to repulse Brandenburgian forces from his territory. Teutonic Order defeated Brandenburgians but instead of returning the city to Poland, captured Gdansk on their own and slaughtered its population. One year later in 1309 Teutonic Order captured also the rest of the Polish Gdansk Pomerania. As the Polish king was involved in other areas, he had no forces to take back his property and so Gdansk Pomerania remained in Teutonic hands despite numerous complaints to the pope by the Poles. So in 1309 Gdansk Pomerania became part of the Teutonic Order in Prussia.

That's why when in 1466 Poles recaptured Gdansk Pomerania and also captured western parts of the former Teutonic state (that never belonged to Poland before) - namely Land of Chelmno, Malbork, Elbląg and Warmia - all these lands together became a new province - Royal Prussia - that consisted of three Voivodeships - Pomorskie, Chelminskie and Malborskie - as well as one duchy - Ksiestwo Warminskie, which became dominium of local bishops.

I made a mistake while naming this thread.

It should be about different variations of the name Prussia, not only West and East.
the Kingdom of Poland, a separate territory, with which Royal Prussia was in personal union.
Royal Prussia was part of the Kingdom of Poland since 1466, but until 1569 it had autonomy. In 1569 it was not incorportaed to the Kingdom of Poland (as it already was its part), but to the Crown of Poland, which was only part of the entire kingdom.

Just like the Silesian Voivodeship had autonomy (for example its own parliament) since 1922 until 1939.
The inhabitants of Royal Prussia were called "Prussians", and were distinct from "Poles", who were inhabitants of the Kingdom of Poland, a separate territory, with which Royal Prussia was in personal union.
To be of Prussian nationality (which was by the way not very numerous in 16th century as almost all Prussians were exterminated or Germanized) Copernicus would have to be born to a Prussian family, while he was born to a Polish-German couple.

User avatar
Baltasar
Financial supporter
Posts: 4610
Joined: 21 Feb 2003 15:56
Location: Germany

Re: Why Westpreussen is an artificial name & (Ost)Preussen i

Post by Baltasar » 19 Nov 2010 11:57

Domen121 wrote:
Baltasar wrote: You left out mobilization dates, which constituted an act of war as well as they were a direct threat to a country's safety, the formal declaration of war was just that, a formality.
1. Mobilization is not an act of war, especially that countries which are under the threat of aggression carried out by other countries also mobilize their armies to defend their homelands.

Russia was not under threat of agression but Germany and moreover Austria Hungary were when the Russia mobilized and both Germany and Austria-Hungary made it very clear to the Russians what would happen if they mobilized. So to coming back to your first accusiation of Germany and AH starting WWI, the Russians deliberately ignored the warning they got because of their own desire to expand at the cost of AH and because of France encouraging then.
2. Russia mobilized because Austro-Hungary declared war on Serbia a day before (and Serbia was Russia's ally), so Russian mobilization had nothing to do with German Empire, rather with Austria-Hungary and Serbia.
In the same sense that you say Russia was mobilizing because of the threat to her ally Serbia, Germany was forced to act because her ally AH was under direct threat.

Considering this, the above opinion which puts all blame on Austria-Hungary and the German Empire doesn't really reflect reality.
I don't put all blame for the war on Austria-Hungary and the German Empire.

I just say that Austria-Hungary and the German Empire started the war. Which is true because Austria-Hungary declared war on a neutral country first and Germany followed (also declaring it on a neutral country).
That's a rather technical assessment, neither considering the assassination of the AH crown prince or the threat the Russian mobilization posed to both Germany and AH.
they entered the war without even knowing what they wanted to achieve in the end.
Huh? Are you sure?

Purpose of wars is usually the same - more power, more money, more territory, etc.
Purpose of war as in war aims, that was the context I wrote above sentence in. It'd help if you would read it in context.
BTW - Baltasar, you would always defend Germany no matter what, wouldn't you?
You actually should know better and you should view posts in context to what they were written to, because at that time I was replying to the already banned SashaWa aka Okyzm.
The whole 'who was guilty for starting WWI' in the sense that was used eg in the treaty of Versailles has been around for quite a while and tends to ignore the British, French, Russian etc motives and actions prior to the war. This is not to say that AH and the German Empire didn't do their bit to start the war, it merely means that the Allies had their fair share in it.
The Jews are in fact not a good example. These are not the same people who lost their land 2000 years ago, rather are the product of twenty centuries of intermarriage with non-Israelites and integration of non-Israelite cultures.
Every nation is a product of integration with cultures of other nations.

There are no "pure" nations. Also genetically there are no such nations.
I'd like to add that religion and nations are two different things. Israelites and Jews are not identical terms.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 10091
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Why Westpreussen is an artificial name & (Ost)Preussen i

Post by ljadw » 19 Nov 2010 18:18

I am risking the wrath of D.T. by going totally of topic,but I will have the pleasure to beat Domen on his own terrain . 8-)
An hypothetical exemple :in 1929,Pilsoedski is visiting Bromberg,city that after WWI became a part of Poland . There he is murdered by pro German nationalists.These are caught by the Polish police ,who is discovering that the terrorist were coming from Germany where they received weapons and instruction .Poland is transmitting an ultimatum to Germany and is demanding an investigation (with COOPERATION from the Polish police )on the principals of the murder .Germany is refusing any role for the Polish police in the investigation .
Nowmy question :would Poland not be entitled to declare war on Germany ? (a purely German investigation would be burking of the issue .)
Well,change Bromberg by Sarajevo,1929 by 1914,Germany by Serbia and Poland by Austria,and the logical answer will be that in 1914,Serbia (supported by Russia ) was responsible for the outbreak of WW I,by refusing the Austrian ultimatum,unless your argument is that Austria had to agree with an inquiry by Apis to decide if Apis was responsible ,or that in 1914,Serbia could claim the comfortable position of being accused and judge . 8-) :idea: :wink:

User avatar
henryk
Member
Posts: 2281
Joined: 27 Jan 2004 01:11
Location: London, Ontario

Re: Why Westpreussen is an artificial name & (Ost)Preussen i

Post by henryk » 19 Nov 2010 19:37

Domen121 wrote: In 1308 Brandenburg invaded Gdansk Pomerania and captured Gdansk, which belonged to the Kingdom of Poland then. The Polish king called for help of the Teutonic Order to help him to repulse Brandenburgian forces from his territory. Teutonic Order defeated Brandenburgians but instead of returning the city to Poland, captured Gdansk on their own and slaughtered its population. One year later in 1309 Teutonic Order captured also the rest of the Polish Gdansk Pomerania. As the Polish king was involved in other areas, he had no forces to take back his property and so Gdansk Pomerania remained in Teutonic hands despite numerous complaints to the pope by the Poles. So in 1309 Gdansk Pomerania became part of the Teutonic Order in Prussia.

That's why when in 1466 Poles recaptured Gdansk Pomerania and also captured western parts of the former Teutonic state (that never belonged to Poland before) - namely Land of Chelmno, Malbork, Elbląg and Warmia - all these lands together became a new province - Royal Prussia - that consisted of three Voivodeships - Pomorskie, Chelminskie and Malborskie - as well as one duchy - Ksiestwo Warminskie, which became dominium of local bishops.
This map shows the area in 1333, giving the location of German colonists.
http://piastowie.kei.pl/piast/mapy/13.htm
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Peter K
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 3673
Joined: 12 Jul 2006 19:17
Location: Poland

Re: Why Westpreussen is an artificial name & (Ost)Preussen i

Post by Peter K » 20 Nov 2010 00:33

Apart from German colonists, there were also numerous Polish colonists coming to Christianized East Prussia:

Scan of the map from the book "Państwo Zakonu krzyżackiego w Prusach. Władza i Społeczeństwo" ("The state of the Teutonic Order in Prussia. The authorities and the society"), PWN, Warsaw, 2008 - page 207:

"Map 11. Directions of colonization of the state of the Teutonic Order in 13th and 14th centuries."

Black arrows - German colonization
White arrows - Polish colonization
Dark areas - property of bishops (mainly in Warmia = Ermland)
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8824
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Why Westpreussen is an artificial name & (Ost)Preussen i

Post by michael mills » 20 Nov 2010 05:50

I would like to rectify the Polish nationalist version of the history of Royal Prussia posted by Domen.
Royal Prussia was part of the Kingdom of Poland since 1466, but until 1569 it had autonomy. In 1569 it was not incorportaed to the Kingdom of Poland (as it already was its part), but to the Crown of Poland, which was only part of the entire kingdom.
Here is a quote from Andrzej Kaminski, "Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and its Citizens", in the book "Poland and Ukraine Past and Present". It is an example of non-chauvinist history written by a Pole, as opposed to the chauvinist version of Polish history.

Page 38:
When the union with Lithuania was signed [in 1569], the rich province of King's Prussia was also incorporated
[into the Kingdom of Poland]. Belonging to the Crown since 1466, its political system was more like Holland's than like Little Poland's. Cities played the predominant role in the political life of Prussia by controlling the provincial Diets and cooperating with the group of magnates who were the local county officials. The sovereign authority in the province had been the general Diet of Prussia. The King as supreme sovereign was limited by laws and did not participate in the Prussian Diet. In turn, the Prussian Diet had vehemently refused to participate in the Polish Diet since it did not wish to recognise the latter's authority. But because the Prussian nobility was dominated on its own territory by the patriciate of the three large cities - Gdansk, Torun and Elblag - it entreated the royal officials to end the separatism of its province. A combination of the "Respect for the Law" movement, royal pressure, and the liberation of the Prussian nobility led to the incorporation of Prussia into the Polish Crown.
The source quoted by Kaminski for the above is W Odyniec, Dzieje Prus Krolewskich 1454-1772 (Warszawa 1972), pp. 102-140.

Note that Kaminski says that the political system in Royal Prussia was more like that of Holland than of Little Poland, the centre of the Polish Kingdom, and was based on cities. The reason for that difference was the presence in Royal Prussia of a very large German population, which was heavily urbanised and politically and culturally more advanced than the more rural Polish population, consisting of nobles and peasants.
To be of Prussian nationality (which was by the way not very numerous in 16th century as almost all Prussians were exterminated or Germanized) Copernicus would have to be born to a Prussian family, while he was born to a Polish-German couple.
By the 15th Century, when Copernicus was born, the term "Prussian" was applied to all the inhabitants of Prussia, both Royal (West) Prussia and Ducal (East) Prussia. It no longer denoted solely the descendants of the original Old Prussians, who were by that time no longer distinguishable from the settlers who had colonized their territory.

Since Copernicus was born in Royal prussia, he was a Prussian, the point made by Norman Davies.

The point is that the meaning of a national name can change over time. Take for example the term "British", or "Briton". Today those terms denote inhabitants of Britain, who speak English, a Germanic language. However, in Roman times the terms denoted a people speaking a celtic language, who were later conquered and expelled or absorbed by the invading English.

Even in Shakespeare's time, the word "British" was used to denote only the ancient inhabitants of Britain, in Roman times; the Englishmen of his time never called themselves "British".

The modern use of the word "British" dates from the early 18th Century, when England and Scotland were united to become the United Kingdom; the word "british" was adopted to cover both the English and Scottish peoples.

Thus the term Prussian, which originally denoted an ancient tribe speaking a Baltic language akin to Lithuanian, later came to be applied to all the people living in the territory known as Prussia (both German and Polish-speaking), and finally came to denote only Germans.
In 1308 Brandenburg invaded Gdansk Pomerania and captured Gdansk, which belonged to the Kingdom of Poland then. The Polish king called for help of the Teutonic Order to help him to repulse Brandenburgian forces from his territory. Teutonic Order defeated Brandenburgians but instead of returning the city to Poland, captured Gdansk on their own and slaughtered its population. One year later in 1309 Teutonic Order captured also the rest of the Polish Gdansk Pomerania. As the Polish king was involved in other areas, he had no forces to take back his property and so Gdansk Pomerania remained in Teutonic hands despite numerous complaints to the pope by the Poles. So in 1309 Gdansk Pomerania became part of the Teutonic Order in Prussia.
The above is a rather chauvinist version of history, presenting the conquest of Danzig as an ethnic conflict between Germans and Poles. In fact it was the result of a conflict between rival Polish nobles for the crown of Poland.

In 1308, the claimant to the crown of Poland who actually held sway in the Polish capital, Krakow, was Wladyslaw Lokietek, who lived from 1260 t0 1333 He had seized power in 1305, after the resignation of Vaclav, who was also king of Bohemia. However, Lokietek's claim was disputed by other claimants.

Lokietek had been ruler of Poland twice before. He had first become Prince of Poland in 1289, but had been expelled by Przemyslaw, Duke of Poznan in 1290, who was the first to be crowned King of Poland. Lokietek had been restored in 1296, calling himself King Wladyslaw I, but had again been expelled in 1300 by Vaclav, King of Bohemia, who was then elected King of Poland. In 1305, Lokietek became ruler for the third time. As can be seen, his claim to the crown was very shaky and in dispute.

In 1308, the Duke of Pomerelia, the area where Danzig was located, laid claim to the Polish crown, and asked the Elector of Brandenburg for support; in return he offered to give the Elector possession of Danzig. In due course the army of the Elector of Brandenburg arrived at the gates of Danzig; the citizens of Danzig, mainly German, opened the gates and allowed the Brandenburg army to take possession. Only the Danzig citadel, held by a force loyal to Lokietek and under the command of his castellan Bogusza, refused to surrender; it was then besieged by both the Brandenburg army and the citizens of Danzig.

Since Lokietek had no forces to send against the Elector of Brandenburg and the Duke of Pomerelia, he asked the Grandmaster of the Teutonic order to do the job for him. The Grandmaster agreed, on condition that Lokietek would reimburse the Teutonic Order for all its costs incurred in conquering Danzig and Pomerelia for him; until that debt was paid, the Knights would keep possession of the territories they conquered as collateral.

The army of the Teutonic Knights then attacked Danzig and drove away the Brandenburg army. Since the citizens of Danzig had rebelled against the King of Poland, they were to be punished by death; the Teutonic Knights carried out the executions on behalf of King Wladyslaw Lokietek. Most of the slain citizens were ethnically German, since the majority of the Danzig citizenry was German at that time.

Thus, the capture of Danzig by the Teutonic Knights and the massacre of the citizens was not a case of germans capturing a Polish city and killing its Polish inhabitants, but rather a case of German knights killing German townsmen on behalf of a Polish King.

The following year, he Teutonic Knights conquered the rest of Pomerelia, again on behalf of the Polish King. However, when it came time for King Wladyslaw Lokietek to pay his debt to the grandmaster and take possession of the lands the Knights had conquered for him, the Grandmaster pulled a swifty on him presenting a bill of costs so high that Lokietek simply could not pay it. As a result, the Teutonic Knights retained possession of Danzig and Pomerelia as settlement for the unpaid debt.

Peter K
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 3673
Joined: 12 Jul 2006 19:17
Location: Poland

Re: Why Westpreussen is an artificial name & (Ost)Preussen i

Post by Peter K » 20 Nov 2010 14:41

but rather a case of German knights killing German townsmen on behalf of a Polish King.
More fairy tales again. Nobody ordered the Teutonic Knights to massacre the population, they did it on their own behalf and also later invented stories that population fled and nobody massacred them.

And large part of population of Gdansk at that time was Slavic.
presenting the conquest of Danzig as an ethnic conflict between Germans and Poles.
I didn't say anything like this. Once again your groundless speculations.
When the union with Lithuania was signed [in 1569], the rich province of King's Prussia was also incorporated
[into the Kingdom of Poland]. Belonging to the Crown since 1466, its political system was more like Holland's than like Little Poland's. Cities played the predominant role in the political life of Prussia by controlling the provincial Diets and cooperating with the group of magnates who were the local county officials. The sovereign authority in the province had been the general Diet of Prussia. The King as supreme sovereign was limited by laws and did not participate in the Prussian Diet. In turn, the Prussian Diet had vehemently refused to participate in the Polish Diet since it did not wish to recognise the latter's authority. But because the Prussian nobility was dominated on its own territory by the patriciate of the three large cities - Gdansk, Torun and Elblag - it entreated the royal officials to end the separatism of its province. A combination of the "Respect for the Law" movement, royal pressure, and the liberation of the Prussian nobility led to the incorporation of Prussia into the Polish Crown.
Michael you think I'm stupid and I can't see that you added the fragment in the brackets - [into the Kingdom of Poland] - on your own? You try to prove that Royal Prussia was incorporated into the Kingdom by adding this on your own?

Don't be funny man.
Note that Kaminski says that the political system in Royal Prussia was more like that of Holland than of Little Poland, the centre of the Polish Kingdom, and was based on cities. The reason for that difference was the presence in Royal Prussia of a very large German population, which was heavily urbanised and politically and culturally more advanced than the more rural Polish population, consisting of nobles and peasants.
Large part of population of towns in Royal Prussia - even when this area was still part of the Teutonic State - were ethnic Poles. For example in Torun around year 1450 - so when this area was still under rules of the Teutonic Order - Poles were 23% of all inhabitants within the city walls and 50% of inhabitants of the suburbs. In Chelmno in the same period Poles were 27% of all inhabitants within the city walls and 52% of inhabitants of the suburbs. In Gdansk and Elblag Poles lived too, although in smaller numbers than in Torun and Chelmno.

Besides, urbanisation in Royal Prussia wasn't much bigger than in Lesser Poland. Considering that eastern part of Lesser Poland was very little urbanised, urbanisation in the Land of Cracow must have been similar.

The below quoted data is for 16th century:

Breakdown of rural and urban population in several provinces of Poland:

Greater Poland:

Peasantry - 68,9 percent
Townsmen - 25,2 percent
Priesthood - 0,3 percent
Nobility - 5,6 percent

Lesser Poland:

Peasantry - 68,9 percent
Townsmen - 26,3 percent
Priesthood - 0,2 percent
Nobility - 4,6 percent

Mazovia:

Peasantry - 62,4 percent
Townsmen - 14,1 percent
Priesthood - 0,1 percent
Nobility - 23,4 percent

Royal Prussia:

Peasantry - 59,3 percent
Townsmen - 36,5 percent
Priesthood - 1,2 percent
Nobility - 3,0 percent

Overall level of urbanisation in Poland in 1582 was 25% of population.

In eastern areas (like Mazovia) it was smaller than in Greater Poland, Land of Cracow, etc.

================================

And categories of rural population in these provinces:

Greater Poland:

Yokels - 53,0 percent
Smallholders and landless - 29,0 percent
Craftsmen and minor merchants - 10,0 percent
Propertied nobility - 4,1 percent
Smallholding and landless nobility - 3,5 percent
Priesthood - 0,4 percent

Lesser Poland:

Yokels - 48,1 percent
Smallholders and landless - 33,3 percent
Craftsmen and minor merchants - 12,0 percent
Propertied nobility - 5,3 percent
Smallholding and landless nobility - 1,0 percent
Priesthood - 0,3 percent

Mazovia:

Yokels - 41,1 percent
Smallholders and landless - 24,8 percent
Craftsmen and minor merchants - 6,7 percent
Propertied nobility - 5,5 percent
Smallholding and landless nobility - 21,7 percent
Priesthood - 0,2 percent

Royal Prussia:

Yokels - 39,2 percent
Smallholders and landless - 43,4 percent
Craftsmen and minor merchants - 9,9 percent
Propertied nobility - 3,1 percent
Smallholding and landless nobility - 2,1 percent
Priesthood - 2,3 percent

Data comes from this website:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=403582

http://www.cpx.republika.pl/index.html

There is also data from early 15th century for the Teutonic Order which more or less confirms this:

Population of provinces of the state of the Teutonic Order in early 15th century:

Gdansk Pomerania - 160,000 (including 30,000 townsmen = 19%)
Land of Chelmno - 80,000 (including 30,000 townsmen = 38%)
Prussia Proper - 270,000 (including 50,000 townsmen = 19%)

Relatively high level of urbanisation resulted mainly from sparsely populated countryside.

-----------------------------------------------------

Edit:
The point is that the meaning of a national name can change over time. Take for example the term "British", or "Briton". Today those terms denote inhabitants of Britain, who speak English, a Germanic language. However, in Roman times the terms denoted a people speaking a celtic language, who were later conquered and expelled or absorbed by the invading English.
This is wrong again.

"British" denote all British people - also Welsh, Scottish and Manx who speak Celtic languages.

Not only those who speak English.
The modern use of the word "British" dates from the early 18th Century, when England and Scotland were united to become the United Kingdom; the word "british" was adopted to cover both the English and Scottish peoples.
And in 18th century majority of Scottish people spoke Scottish language, not English.
Last edited by Peter K on 20 Nov 2010 22:24, edited 2 times in total.

South
Financial supporter
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007 09:01
Location: USA

Re: Why Westpreussen is an artificial name & (Ost)Preussen i

Post by South » 20 Nov 2010 18:07

Good afternoon all,

Fascinating thread; great material !

Where is Waldeck ? I didn't see on on either map.

Thanks in advance.

Warm regards,

Bob

Return to “Other eras”