Polish territory?

Discussions on other historical eras.
User avatar
lukeo
Member
Posts: 370
Joined: 29 Jun 2003 11:03
Location: Gondor

Post by lukeo » 10 Jul 2003 16:44

Not true!
Last edited by lukeo on 10 Jul 2003 16:45, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
lukeo
Member
Posts: 370
Joined: 29 Jun 2003 11:03
Location: Gondor

Post by lukeo » 10 Jul 2003 16:44

viriato wrote:lukeo wrote:
Yes Slavs, but not exactly Poles. Poland conquered Pomerania! This means she conquered it from someone else! Besides Poland only held Pomerania for a short period as she had to fight against the Danes and some Germans for it possession. Already in the XII century the (Slav) Dukes of Pomerania made themselves and their territory vassals of Germany as a way of gaining some peace.


Yeah! Poles'd conquered their own territory:)
But to be serious: The Pommerania/Pomorze was whole "conquered" by prince Mieczyslav (Mieszko) the I, who also "conquered" Mosovia, Silesia, and Malopolska (Little Poland), which became parts of Poland. Keep in mind, that Mieszko is remembered as man, who reunited the tribes that afterwards beacame Poles. The Eastern Pomerania remained (with short inturrupts) in Poland up to the Teutonic conquest. The western took twice again its independendence in the times of desitegration of Polish state. Once, in XII century, the west Pomeriania princedom was brought back under Polish rule. On time of west Pomerania's second attempt, in the late XIII century, Poland was in state of ruin, deepest point of feudal desitegration (over 30 princedomes). On that time Poland's lost not only western Pomerania, but also Silesia (no doubt - Polish ethnic), and finaly, the Eastern Pomerania, taken by the growing Teutonic state.

I said SLAVS, because in the early medieval there were no big differences between Polish, Czech, Bulgarian, Russian etc. dialects of the same language, known as the SLAVIC language. We can speak about different slavic speeches from at most XIII century. Anyway, the Polish language was so close to those that existed in western Pomerania and german Mecklemburgia, that the linguistic tell about one LECHIC language. This one shattered on Polish, Kashubian (in eastern pomerania), Slovinian (wester Pomerania) and Wenetic (in modern Meklemburgia) because it's speakers were separeted in different states.



There is a difference between the German Pommern "Pomerania" - it does not include, and never did, Danzig and the Kashubian inhabitated part of West Prussia, sometimes referred as Pommerelen "Pomerelia" in German. As to the Polish they think of both parts as Pomorze.


Well, all those names including Pomerania, Pemmern or Pommerelein are derived from polish Pomorze, which mean "Land near the sea" (Polish "Morze" - sea). The gemans used two names because they were craeted in different time and in different places. "Pommern" was used by the Branderburgians and Mecklebmburgians for the land on their borders, the name "Pommerelein" was created by the Teutons.

Yes, Poles use the name "Pomorze" for both these lands, couse it was their original name. However, when Poles speak "Pomorze", they always add "Zachodnie" (western) or "Wschodnie" (Eastern).


But that is only a part of West Prussia. Almost half of West Prussia was on the right bank of the Vistula, and had been inhabited by the old Prussians too.


Not true. Both banks of Vistula were inhabited by Poles/Kashubians. On the north part of the bank, the Pogezania land (where the Marienburg is situated) was already polonised by the settlers in the 11th century.The southern part, near cities of Grudziadz and Torun, was for all time polish.


Bromberg/Bydgoszcz from the times of partition to 1920 was attached to Posen/Poznan.


Yes, it was, but only because there was no Kuyavian province. Bydgoszcz is not in Pomorze, neither in Wielkopolska (region, which capital is Poznan). Bydgoszcz is in the Kuyavian region, and was not conquered by the Teutons at all, but it remained in Poland up to 1792 (second partition of Poland). Now it is capital of separate polish province.

viriato
Member
Posts: 717
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 13:23
Location: Porto,Portugal

Post by viriato » 10 Jul 2003 19:16

Thanks lukeo for your answer. At least you didn't either cry or laugh about what I said. :lol:

You wrote:

But to be serious: The Pommerania/Pomorze was whole "conquered" by prince Mieczyslav (Mieszko) the I, who also "conquered" Mosovia, Silesia, and Malopolska (Little Poland), which became parts of Poland. Keep in mind, that Mieszko is remembered as man, who reunited the tribes that afterwards beacame Poles. The Eastern Pomerania remained (with short inturrupts) in Poland up to the Teutonic conquest. The western took twice again its independendence in the times of desitegration of Polish state. Once, in XII century, the west Pomeriania princedom was brought back under Polish rule. On time of west Pomerania's second attempt, in the late XIII century, Poland was in state of ruin, deepest point of feudal desitegration (over 30 princedomes).


Two points:

1-I think the conquest of Pomerania by Mieszko was around the year 1000. This would mean that Poland had a territorial claim on "Pommern" of some two hundrad years. But during this lapse of time in fact Poland "lost" and "won" the ducate for several times. One could say therafter that Poland never occupied de facto the territory as was the case of Great or Little Poland or even Mazovia or Kujavia.

2-It is far fetched to consider the Slovincians/Pomeranians as Poles. Of course they were western Slavs as Poles but the same was true of the Wends/Lusatians, Czechs, Slovakians, Kashubians Polabians and others, yet we don't consider these peoples Poles.

I said SLAVS, because in the early medieval there were no big differences between Polish, Czech, Bulgarian, Russian etc. dialects of the same language, known as the SLAVIC language. We can speak about different slavic speeches from at most XIII century.


This is another far fetched proposition of yours. The three Slav group of languages, Western, Eastern and South were already separated in the beggining of our age. In the XIII century the Belorussian, Russian and Ukrainian languages were in the midst of the process of separation. The same was happening to the Western and South Slav group of languages. The defunct Polabian was in every aspect a language by itself even if it was possible intercomunication with Polish as I believe it is still the case of Polish and the others Western Slav languages.

but also Silesia (no doubt - Polish ethnic)


By the XIII century Silesia probably already had a German majority. BTW Silesia was "originaly" Czech, not Polish. In due time this province was again part of the Czech lands, and as the Czech kings were at the same time the German emperors it became a part of Germany too.

the Pogezania land (where the Marienburg is situated) was already polonised by the settlers in the 11th century.


If those lands had been Polonized it means that someone else inhabited them before. In this case it is easy to know who were the "culprits"- the Prussians.

As to Bromberg/Bydgoszcz I don't dispute what you have told us. I just remember that for a few years it was included in West Prussia in the beggining of the XIX century I believe (at the time of the Congress Kingdom). And from 1939 to 1945 it was included in West Prussia/Danzig.

User avatar
lukeo
Member
Posts: 370
Joined: 29 Jun 2003 11:03
Location: Gondor

Post by lukeo » 10 Jul 2003 20:06

viriato wrote:Thanks lukeo for your answer. At least you didn't either cry or laugh about what I said. :lol:


I preffer discusion. But I admit, that your claims are unacceptable to me.


1-I think the conquest of Pomerania by Mieszko was around the year 1000. This would mean that Poland had a territorial claim on "Pommern" of some two hundrad years. But during this lapse of time in fact Poland "lost" and "won" the ducate for several times. One could say therafter that Poland never occupied de facto the territory as was the case of Great or Little Poland or even Mazovia or Kujavia.


Well, then Pomerania was a PART of Poland. This "Conquest" was of the same kinds as Alfred's in the Anglosaxon Britain, or Gorm's in Danmark. It was not sctricto conquest, because there was no states to fight, but simply tribal wars.

2-It is far fetched to consider the Slovincians/Pomeranians as Poles. Of course they were western Slavs as Poles but the same was true of the Wends/Lusatians, Czechs, Slovakians, Kashubians Polabians and others, yet we don't consider these peoples Poles.


I said that they were speaking the SAME language, known as le Lechic (pron in Polish "Lehitski"). So they were de facto one nation (not Poles, but Poles were the Majority), that shattered because its people were divided by the borders. The name "Lech" (pron. "leh") is the name of legendary founder of Poland.
"Lechic" dissapired in Polish language, but keep in mind, that Poland is "lehistan" in Turkish, "Lengyaroszag" in Hungarian or "Lenkiya" in Lithuanian. Poles are "Lahy" in Ukrainian.


This is another far fetched proposition of yours. The three Slav group of languages, Western, Eastern and South were already separated in the beggining of our age. In the XIII century the Belorussian, Russian and Ukrainian languages were in the midst of the process of separation. The same was happening to the Western and South Slav group of languages. The defunct Polabian was in every aspect a language by itself even if it was possible intercomunication with Polish as I believe it is still the case of Polish and the others Western Slav languages.

but also Silesia (no doubt - Polish ethnic)



NO WAY! This the most ubelievable! In difference to Germanic tribes, the Slavs were living together up to 5th century. Their language was, according to linguistic, almost incredibly homogeneus. The dialectal differences appired in the 9th century, much because the incoming of Hungarians, who separated the Slavic peoples.
The belarussian, and ukrainian languages separated from Russian in 16th century, with big influence of the Polish speech.
The Lechic languages shattered not earlier than in 13/14 century.


By the XIII century Silesia probably already had a German majority. BTW Silesia was "originaly" Czech, not Polish. In due time this province was again part of the Czech lands, and as the Czech kings were at the same time the German emperors it became a part of Germany too.


In XIII century this land was almost PURE Polish. The German settlers sstarded to slowly change this, but in 14/15th century Slask Poles were still great mojority (for exaple an Oder transport guild was called "Wodni Polacy", "Water Poles"). Only nobility was then mainly German or Germanised. The church was still Polish (for exmple 13th century Wroclaw bishop Nanker prohibited German language in church schools, and ordered to learn only in Polish). The brakpoint of this situation was the XXX years war, in which about half of Slask's population were killed. New settlers were mostly Germans. But still in 20th century Poles remained power on Silesia. The land east to Wroclaw was still inhabitted mostly by Poles (who organised 3 uprising to be included ito Polish state in 1920s). Polish minority also remained on the west, including in Wroclaw.
Like I said, Poland's lost it in 14 century. It lost it to the Czech kingdom.


If those lands had been Polonized it means that someone else inhabited them before. In this case it is easy to know who were the "culprits"- the Prussians.


I meant, that this land was mixed - Slavo-Baltic at first, which is prooved by the archeologists. But it early became Slavic.

User avatar
lukeo
Member
Posts: 370
Joined: 29 Jun 2003 11:03
Location: Gondor

Post by lukeo » 10 Jul 2003 20:25

Sorry for the mistakes in the last post. i'm in hurry for a meeting.

viriato
Member
Posts: 717
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 13:23
Location: Porto,Portugal

Post by viriato » 10 Jul 2003 20:46

Ok lukeo there you have my answer:

It was not sctricto conquest, because there was no states to fight, but simply tribal wars.


What do you mean? That the Slovincians had no state? Yes they had. And even if they were simply a tribe the conquest would still have been a conquest.

I said that they were speaking the SAME language, known as le Lechic (pron in Polish "Lehitski"). So they were de facto one nation (not Poles, but Poles were the Majority), that shattered because its people were divided by the borders. The name "Lech" (pron. "leh") is the name of legendary founder of Poland.
"Lechic" dissapired in Polish language, but keep in mind, that Poland is "lehistan" in Turkish, "Lengyaroszag" in Hungarian or "Lenkiya" in Lithuanian. Poles are "Lahy" in Ukrainian.


and

NO WAY! This the most ubelievable! In difference to Germanic tribes, the Slavs were living together up to 5th century. Their language was, according to linguistic, almost incredibly homogeneus. The dialectal differences appired in the 9th century, much because the incoming of Hungarians, who separated the Slavic peoples.
The belarussian, and ukrainian languages separated from Russian in 16th century, with big influence of the Polish speech.
The Lechic languages shattered not earlier than in 13/14 century.


Nope. As you state already by the fifth century the Slav languages were beggining the process of differenciation. Belorussian and Ukrainian were becoming distintive from the russian already in the XIII century you can be sure. As to the Western Slav group I have doubts it was uniform in the XIII/XIV centuries. Were Czech and Polish the same language by then?

In XIII century this land was almost PURE Polish. The German settlers sstarded to slowly change this, but in 14/15th century Slask Poles were still great mojority (for exaple an Oder transport guild was called "Wodni Polacy", "Water Poles"). Only nobility was then mainly German or Germanised. The church was still Polish (for exmple 13th century Wroclaw bishop Nanker prohibited German language in church schools, and ordered to learn only in Polish). The brakpoint of this situation was the XXX years war, in which about half of Slask's population were killed. New settlers were mostly Germans. But still in 20th century Poles remained power on Silesia. The land east to Wroclaw was still inhabitted mostly by Poles (who organised 3 uprising to be included ito Polish state in 1920s). Polish minority also remained on the west, including in Wroclaw.


Nonsense. Germans began to arrive in the XII century and in just one century they were probably the majority in the province. By the XIV century they were the majority. BTW my source is the late French Professor Charles Higounet "Les Allemands en Europe Centrale et Orientale au Moyen Age". And to the fact that Poles were still a "power" in Silesia in the XX century I remember that after the partition of Upper Silesia (in spite of the German victory) in the elections of the Polish part all along the twenties and thirties the German parties received always a number of votes well above the number of Germans according to the Polish census.


Like I said, Poland's lost it in 14 century. It lost it to the Czech kingdom.


Like I said before. It had been Czech before being Polish and it returned to the realm of the Czech Lands.

User avatar
lukeo
Member
Posts: 370
Joined: 29 Jun 2003 11:03
Location: Gondor

Post by lukeo » 11 Jul 2003 11:22

What do you mean? That the Slovincians had no state? Yes they had. And even if they were simply a tribe the conquest would still have been a conquest.



Well, there was no state in modern meaning of this word. Lack of any central government, for instance.
And I still claim, that it was the "conquet" of the same type, as Mieszko made to other Polish tribes and reunited them.

You may don't know, that in the beginning of the 20th century (1902, I think), Germany organised "Kashubian Submit", to proove, that Pomorze is not Polish at all. The Kashubians admited, that they are diffrent nation, but also proclamed, that Poles are their Brother Nation, which share with them history and culture. They also said, that only place for the Kashubian nation is the Polish state, which is nessesery for Kashubians to survive.
The Germans quickly closed the submit and banned to inform about it.



Nope. As you state already by the fifth century the Slav languages were beggining the process of differenciation. Belorussian and Ukrainian were becoming distintive from the russian already in the XIII century you can be sure. As to the Western Slav group I have doubts it was uniform in the XIII/XIV centuries. Were Czech and Polish the same language by then?



Well, I will use an example. Have you heard about Old-Church-Slavonic language. Ciril and Methody, trying to convert Slavs into Christianity in IXth century, translated the Bible and whole liturgy onto Slavonic dialects from Bulgaria. And, according to Byzantine chronicle, "Slavs from Bulgaria, Great Moravia (Modern Slovakia, Czechia, and S. Poland), Russia, and other lands cheerfull come now to churches, because now liturgy is in THEIR language".
So you can see, in IX century, there was still ONE Slavonic language, fully communicative to all Slavs.
And to the Russians. You mix some informations. In medieval time there were TWO east Slav dialests: Souther and Northern, that doesn't accord to Ukrainian, and the rest. Southern included central Ukrane and southern Russia for example. The Separation of eastern Slavic language was caused by the destruction of the old Russia, and the falling of its western parts under Polish/Lithuanian rule (simply by separating its speakers).


Nonsense. Germans began to arrive in the XII century and in just one century they were probably the majority in the province. By the XIV century they were the majority. BTW my source is the late French Professor Charles Higounet "Les Allemands en Europe Centrale et Orientale au Moyen Age". And to the fact that Poles were still a "power" in Silesia in the XX century I remember that after the partition of Upper Silesia (in spite of the German victory) in the elections of the Polish part all along the twenties and thirties the German parties received always a number of votes well above the number of Germans according to the Polish census.


What nonsense? First waves of colonists were almost immidiately assimilated. Partialy because thy were not only Germans, but also French, Valons, Dutch, Frises etc.
I admit, that I made one mistake. Nanker lived in 14th century. He also interdicted king John of Luxemburg for preffering Germans in Slask administration.

The history of Slask during the votes is much more complicated than you think. I don't think, you can realise the terror, that Germans spread there. The Germans didn't want do lost Slask, because it was their last industrial area (Ruhr was occupied by the France).
Polish side made a mistake then. Because the terror, about 30tousands of Poles escaped to Poland, and Poles agreed with the Germans, that in the vote could take part also those people, that had lived in Slask, but thye didnt then. The Germans organised a campaign, and quickly send to SLask about 500000 germans (also those, who have studied there, hired workers, etc). And also, unluckly, it was the time of Polish defeats in the war with Bolshevicks. So, Poles'd lost. But the Poles of Silesia, made one more uprising, and they quickly controlled almost all of upper Silesia (the front line was close to Opole). That's why part of Silesia was given to Poland, because both Germans and French were shocked with the strenght of this movement.

Like I said before. It had been Czech before being Polish and it returned to the realm of the Czech Lands.


Slask was controled by the Czechs beetween 911 AD (the destruction of Hungarians) and950 AD (Polish conquest). 39 years. Very long time :). The also held it for short time in XI century.

But before the Czechs, there were also Moravians, Avars, Slezans, Vandals, Celts, proto-Indoeuropeans.... and long, long before, some Neartendali men:)

But it doesn't change the fact, that Silesians, spoke Polish language, referred themselves as Poles, and wanted to be include into the Polish state.


I see, that I have convinced you to some facts, since you don't ask for them anymore.
Last edited by lukeo on 11 Jul 2003 15:39, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
lukeo
Member
Posts: 370
Joined: 29 Jun 2003 11:03
Location: Gondor

Post by lukeo » 11 Jul 2003 15:29

This is map of Slavic tribes in central Europe beetween 800 and 950 AD. As you can see, the Poles, Polabians(wends), and Pomeranians, are colored id diffrent kinds of pink, to show, that there were only slight diffrences beetween them.

Stripes represet ethnical mixed territory.

Note, that yellow line represent not the Czech influences, but the borders of Great Moravia.

You can also see the Vistula banks here, and the fameous "always German" - Siliesia
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

viriato
Member
Posts: 717
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 13:23
Location: Porto,Portugal

Post by viriato » 11 Jul 2003 22:15

Quite interesting map lukeo! Thanks!

I would like you to confirm me, is the yellow line the one corresponding to the Great Moravia? The legend is toooo small to read anything.

BTW could you download for us the maps referring to the period immediately before (say from 400 AD) and to the period immediatey after (say till 1400AD)?

User avatar
lukeo
Member
Posts: 370
Joined: 29 Jun 2003 11:03
Location: Gondor

Post by lukeo » 12 Jul 2003 07:02

I have this map slighty bigger and more visible, but I had to resize it, because it was too big, to be viewed here on this forum. sorry

I will look for some other maps.


Message to all Germans - look, where Berlin is on this map:)
Last edited by lukeo on 12 Jul 2003 08:34, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
lukeo
Member
Posts: 370
Joined: 29 Jun 2003 11:03
Location: Gondor

Post by lukeo » 12 Jul 2003 07:09

I post slighty bigger map's legend. Mayby now you can see something.

Yes, the yellow line represents the borders of Great Moravia. Look, that Moravia also had some territories on the south, in modern Hungaria, which was also inhabittet by sla Slavs before arrival of Hungarians.

I'll try to look after some maps that show those lands around 1400AD.
In maps that show them around 400AD, you won't see anything, than big name SLAVS.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

viriato
Member
Posts: 717
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 13:23
Location: Porto,Portugal

Post by viriato » 12 Jul 2003 13:39

Thanks again lukeo! I'm looking forward to the other maps. Incidentally are these maps online, or do they come from some book you own? If they are online or whether you know any with origin in Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Ukraine, Lithuania, etc it would be great as I have only maps with origin in France, Germany and the Anglo-Saxon countries.

User avatar
Musashi
Member
Posts: 4656
Joined: 13 Dec 2002 15:07
Location: Coventry, West Midlands, the UK [it's one big roundabout]

Post by Musashi » 12 Jul 2003 13:46

So look at this: http://piastowie.kei.pl/piast2/mapy.htm
The descriptions are in Polish :) :wink: 8)

viriato
Member
Posts: 717
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 13:23
Location: Porto,Portugal

Post by viriato » 12 Jul 2003 14:37

Musashi after all you are capable of discussing the subject... Good to know! :lol:

Thanks for the web page. I now see where lukeo got his map! Very good! A pity that it ends on Kasimir the Great... It would be great if we got maps till the XX century...

I now am looking for instance for the Czech point of view and compare to these maps. We ought to know all points of view... 8)

Davey Boy
Member
Posts: 1504
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 13:51
Location: Australia

Post by Davey Boy » 12 Jul 2003 15:47

Hey Mills,

Bydgoszcz was NEVER the home of Baltic Prussian tribes. Don't even attempt to argue this absurd claim of yours.

And the only time Bydgoszcz was part of Germany was when Prussia sized western Poland.

So this was Polish land ethnically since the Goths and Vandals left the area.

Next thing you'll be trying to say is that Gniezno and Poznan were Baltic Prussian lands. Pfff.

For Chrissakes, do some research mate. You're just embarassing yourself.

Return to “Other eras”