Talk:Mieszko I/Archive 1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
He married several Christian wives, one after another. We know that the one who converted him was the Bohemian. Here is a general principle of history writing: unless we have written documentation of motives, we are very cautious about saying "he did this because of that." How do we know? We know that he married a Christian in a Christian ceremony, and that a few years later he became a Christian. Other than that it is hard to say. Conversion is a tricky thing to study and tricky to write about.
Besides the many earlier wives, Boleslaw kidnapped a nun ,another record says he married Oda von Haldesleben ( I seem to remember, that this is the nun) . Boleslav and the former nun had many children. In the wiki search engine type in: bishops and margraves of Brandenburg : etc, then take a good look at the list . Mieszko , also written ",Mieczislaw (Burislaf) I " . The , means that he had another name. The Burislaf means, he also held the title "Burislaf of Wendland"
I have a "Theodoric, count of Ringelheim, b abt 853. Oda was a very popular name used since Widukind or Wittekind by Saxon dukes. Oda is the female version of Odo,Oddo, Otto, Oto, Otho . I have a record, saying :Dietrich von Meissen Misnia's daughter Oda,a nun,was kidnapped by Mieszko,they had many children. another note Boleslaw I married Oda von Meissen ( do not have her father) Dietrich High German is the same as Theodoric.
Part of having the emperor grant ducal, margrave, or whatever positions and tiles ,was that the person had to take up Christianity. Many only took it in name and were not really Christians yet, often later in their lives. But time and time again,other people came and attacked the empire. The emperor won them over by marrying the daughters, nieces, granddaughters off to the attacker, thus making him a member of the family and co-operator of the empire. This honor system feudal arrangement , giving a personal pledge and keeping it, was the law and the way of government. The head of the country or land was the father of the land , the Landesvater and the mother of the land , the Landesmutter. You might call it a mom and pop operation. Family counted above all else. The honor system , laws that were not written down, but just a handshake was binding.
To the Boii,I have a copy of an engraving showing Herzog Sigmund, born 26.July 1439 in Starnberg , died Feb 1501 in Menzing Bavaria. His portrait states: Sigismundus Dux Boiar.LV.OB.A.MDI ,bottom Tecvm Habita ( I got this out of Encyclopedia Britannica or US Encl,Bicentennial).
If 20 century historians come up with different opinion ,it could very well be that they do'nt nearly have all the info that, earlier ones did. Telling the 15th century Dux Boiar.(ium) 500 years later that he is a lyar , does not seem to be too swift.
(When I asked JHK , how many books she has on Prussian history, she answered 0, she can just go and look it up in the library. Well the majority is not in the library and definately not in English .This just as my example.)
There is a big question on the mother of Boleslaw I , because the Danish have some runestone that claims Miescislaw (not the spelling used) was married to Thyra Haraldsdottir, daughter of Harald Bluetooth, Blauzahn, b 910 . But the dates are goofy. Just as with the widow Dubrawka, born 925 + 977 and Boleslaw I , born 967. With Thyra it only says born before 1000, died 1000. After Mieszko I she was supposed to have married Olaf Tryggvason, King of Norway in 998,and had a child 999.
First, University libraries generally have good collections. I've been able to get books in German her in the states that I couldn't get when in Germany. I don't actually need to read books on Prussia in English -- I've been researching in German, often for Professors in Germany, for about 10 years. We've done this before, so please leave it alone. Since I don't regularly teach on the Prussians, I see no reason to spend money on books I can borrow. That's what lots of us do. Size of one's personal collection is probably not the best way to judge one's worth as an historian.
Second, everything Michael said about the Baioari and Boii is correct. The fact that you have a picture with Dux Boiarum doesn't show a connection. In fact, you regularly demonstrate that there are many variations of one name. In my own research, for example, I can think of several documents that mention a man called Adalbert (there are hundreds of different Adalbberts, but these pertain to the same man). In four or five documents, his name is spelled Adalbert, Adalbercht, Adalperaht, Adalbraht, and Adalperct. Same guy. Conversely, most scholars today believe that Boii and Baioari are two different words with different roots. Boiarum is certainly not the same thing as Baioariorum.
Finally, twentieth century historians actually have more information than did our predecessors. In fact, that is the nature of being an historian -- to take what others have said and build upon it. Sometimes new research forces us to reject previous thoeories. In previous centuries, history was expected to be written with an agenda, and only based on the facts available. Now, we are expected to write neutrally, and we have much better access to primary sources -- even to different versions of the same document! Think of a biblical historian -- before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, his writing would be very different than after...JHK
Let me give a relevant example from English history, HJ - the kings (and queens) of England had some pretensions (I think unwarranted, at best, but then I'm much more Gallo-centric than some folks) to being kings of France as well as their other titles. They never ruled much territory in France after the 15th century, and none after the 16th century. That didn't stop official listings of their title, especially in captions in woodcuts like your Bavarian example, from including R. Fr. (Rex Franciae = "King of France") for a VERY long time. Was it true? No. Did they know it was a lie? Yes. Titulature (Intitulatio, in Latin), is a matter of propaganda rather than being a simple description of facts. No historian would base an argument about the FACTS of territory controlled from the caption to a portrait-print; it does make an interesting story about what people BELIEVED or WANTED other people to believe (that is, propaganda). --MichaelTinkler, who also owns fairly few books that don't apply to the early middle ages or classical world, since he works out of libraries.
To MichaelTinkler and JHK See my answer in talk:Bohemia user:H.J.
To MichaelTinkler ???? Mieszko I ( am posting this again, because I think you have overlooked it earlier, was it yesterday or this morning ? Regardless ,I did not hear from you on that again)
Besides the many earlier wives, Boleslaw kidnapped a nun ,another record says he married Oda von Haldesleben ( I seem to remember, that this is the nun) . Boleslav and the former nun had many children. In the wiki search engine type in: bishops and margraves of Brandenburg : etc, then take a good look at the list . Mieszko , also written ",Mieczislaw (Burislaf) I " . The , means that he had another name. The Burislaf means, he also held the title "Burislaf of Wendland"
I have a "Theodoric, count of Ringelheim, b abt 853. Oda was a very popular name used since Widukind or Wittekind by Saxon dukes. Oda is the female version of Odo,Oddo, Otto, Oto, Otho . I have a record, saying :Dietrich von Meissen Misnia's daughter Oda,a nun,was kidnapped by Mieszko,they had many children. another note Boleslaw I married Oda von Meissen ( do not have her father) Dietrich High German is the same as Theodoric.
Part of having the emperor grant ducal, margrave, or whatever positions and tiles ,was that the person had to take up Christianity. Many only took it in name and were not really Christians yet, often later in their lives. But time and time again,other people came and attacked the empire. The emperor won them over by marrying the daughters, nieces, granddaughters off to the attacker, thus making him a member of the family and co-operator of the empire. This honor system feudal arrangement , giving a personal pledge and keeping it, was the law and the way of government. The head of the country or land was the father of the land , the Landesvater and the mother of the land , the Landesmutter. You might call it a mom and pop operation. Family counted above all else. The honor system , laws that were not written down, but just a handshake was binding.
There is a big question on the mother of Boleslaw I , because the Danish have some runestone that claims Miescislaw (not the spelling used) was married to Thyra Haraldsdottir, daughter of Harald Bluetooth, Blauzahn, b 910 . But the dates are goofy. Just as with the widow Dubrawka, born 925 + 977 and Boleslaw I , born 967. With Thyra it only says born before 1000, died 1000. After Mieszko I she was supposed to have married Olaf Tryggvason, King of Norway in 998,and had a child 999.
- H.J. -- both Michael Tinkler and I addressed your comments, both here and on the Bohemia/Talk page. JHK
To JHK . Michael Tinkler had questions , 1.On wife/s of Mieszko I , O 2. Oda's father Theoderic ? I answered these for him early this morning or last night, can't remember .Therefore I posted answers just above last comment. Have not heard back from him on those two points. user:H.J.
Well, I read it; thanks for trying - it's too much of a mess to try to solve on wikipedia. There's no relying on lone rune-stones. Oh, well, most genealogy from before the 15th century is pretty messy and highly imaginary; any one genealogy may be true, but the further they get into the past (i.e., the 10th century and before) the worse they are. I mean, look at the trouble Theaphanu causes, and she came from the most important family in Europe, and married into the Ottonians! Clearly mere lists of 'so and so was the father of so and so' is not so simple! Part of the problem, as JHK has been pointing out, is that lineal inheritence is NOT that important before the 10th or 11th centuries - the whole idea of noble families with guarunteed titles and inheritences is an invention of the 10th century French which only later spreads east and south. Before then an office might have been regularly given to members of a particular family,but not in any particular order of eldest son, eldest son, eldest son, etc. So (we think) people were able to be sloppier about kinship back then; kinship was more lateral. After the French tightened up inheritence, patrilineal kinship becomes more important and people start keeping better records. However, and this is where lots of later medieval and renaissance genealogical lists get messy, people went around reconstructing lost patrilineages (all the way back to Adam, usually). Very problematic, but still very interesting. --MichaelTinkler
To MichaelTinkler Ok, you do understand the actual occurrances, more like it really was, versus, what historians today wish it to have been , all neetly categorized and easy for them to present, which it was not.
Let me point to another factual custom or medival law if you will. Adoption. A ruler had the right to adopt anyone he wished to , a totally unrelated adult person, if he had no heirs. He tapped him on the shoulder, or the person to be adopted, put his hand inbetween the two hands of the adopteur. And voila , the total stranger was now an official son of the king or whoever. Can you just imagine how this can drive modern historians insane ? Best example , read my Maximilian I entrance. I stated ,that he adopted Louis of Hungary. Someone took it out, probably thought, that sounds too weird. Well , check out AEIOU , Austrian Encyclopedia and you will find it there. Modern sample, "the Queeny" tapped Bill Clinton on the shoulder . You want to bet , that he is now related to Charlemagne ? ( as is every one else).
The Wenceslas , entrance is ok user:H.J.
Dagome Iudex describes Dago or Dagr (Mieszko I), husband of Ote MG
- Actually, describes judge Dagome, which could be Dago, Dagon, Dagr, Dagobert... Szopen 19:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Dagome Iudex refers to Dago or Dagr, who was married to Ote (Oda von Haldensleben and they had three sons, Boleslaw I Chrobry was not included. Dago is the one later called Mieszko I of the Piasts. The Daglingers were a dynasty from Norway. Dagobert is also an old Frankish name of several rulers. MG
- Dago is not "later" called Mieszko. Mieszko in contemporary sources appears as: Misico, Mesco, Misika, Msko, Mescho, Myska etc, etc. Today we call him Mieszko, though his real name could be, for example, Misko or Mieszek - but this is form which results from tradition (including dynasty tradition) Szopen 19:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Book: (The Daglinger 'Piasts') 'Die Daglinger "Piasten" [1] by Jochen Wittmann
MG 3/24/2006
Moved info on meaning of name here:
Mieszko was not the duke's actual name but was given to him later - contemporary documents called him Mesco, Misico, Mesico, Msko or similar, he also appeared as Dagr and Dagome in document called Dagome iudex, his name Dago reflect his northern European roots. Daga, Dagga, Daca, modern German language Degen, English dagger all mean a sword, a short sharp weapon, which translated to Polish language became the name he is known under. MG 3/27/2006
Again, he was not called "Dagr" but "DAGOME". If you insists that he was nto called Mieszko (becaus ein sources we have Misico, Mesco, Msko etc) then you CAN'T in the same sentence add that he was in fact called Dagr or Dago, when in the ONLY ONE SOURCE which has name other than some variant of "Mieszko" the name is "DAGOME". What else, in Polish sword is "miecz", which is totally different sounding from "Mieszko". What's more, stating as fact that Mieszko has northern european roots, basing just on ONE WORD "Dagome" is simply .. hilarious. Szopen 08:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Old talk
He married several Christian wives, one after another. We know that the one who converted him was the Bohemian. Here is a general principle of history writing: unless we have written documentation of motives, we are very cautious about saying "he did this because of that." How do we know? We know that he married a Christian in a Christian ceremony, and that a few years later he became a Christian. Other than that it is hard to say. Conversion is a tricky thing to study and tricky to write about.
Besides the many earlier wives, Boleslaw kidnapped a nun ,another record says he married Oda von Haldesleben ( I seem to remember, that this is the nun) . Boleslav and the former nun had many children. In the wiki search engine type in: bishops and margraves of Brandenburg : etc, then take a good look at the list . Mieszko , also written ",Mieczislaw (Burislaf) I " . The , means that he had another name. The Burislaf means, he also held the title "Burislaf of Wendland"
I have a "Theodoric, count of Ringelheim, b abt 853. Oda was a very popular name used since Widukind or Wittekind by Saxon dukes. Oda is the female version of Odo,Oddo, Otto, Oto, Otho . I have a record, saying :Dietrich von Meissen Misnia's daughter Oda,a nun,was kidnapped by Mieszko,they had many children. another note Boleslaw I married Oda von Meissen ( do not have her father) Dietrich High German is the same as Theodoric.
Part of having the emperor grant ducal, margrave, or whatever positions and tiles ,was that the person had to take up Christianity. Many only took it in name and were not really Christians yet, often later in their lives. But time and time again,other people came and attacked the empire. The emperor won them over by marrying the daughters, nieces, granddaughters off to the attacker, thus making him a member of the family and co-operator of the empire. This honor system feudal arrangement , giving a personal pledge and keeping it, was the law and the way of government. The head of the country or land was the father of the land , the Landesvater and the mother of the land , the Landesmutter. You might call it a mom and pop operation. Family counted above all else. The honor system , laws that were not written down, but just a handshake was binding.
To the Boii,I have a copy of an engraving showing Herzog Sigmund, born 26.July 1439 in Starnberg , died Feb 1501 in Menzing Bavaria. His portrait states: Sigismundus Dux Boiar.LV.OB.A.MDI ,bottom Tecvm Habita ( I got this out of Encyclopedia Britannica or US Encl,Bicentennial).
If 20 century historians come up with different opinion ,it could very well be that they do'nt nearly have all the info that, earlier ones did. Telling the 15th century Dux Boiar.(ium) 500 years later that he is a lyar , does not seem to be too swift.
(When I asked JHK , how many books she has on Prussian history, she answered 0, she can just go and look it up in the library. Well the majority is not in the library and definately not in English .This just as my example.)
There is a big question on the mother of Boleslaw I , because the Danish have some runestone that claims Miescislaw (not the spelling used) was married to Thyra Haraldsdottir, daughter of Harald Bluetooth, Blauzahn, b 910 . But the dates are goofy. Just as with the widow Dubrawka, born 925 + 977 and Boleslaw I , born 967. With Thyra it only says born before 1000, died 1000. After Mieszko I she was supposed to have married Olaf Tryggvason, King of Norway in 998,and had a child 999.
First, University libraries generally have good collections. I've been able to get books in German her in the states that I couldn't get when in Germany. I don't actually need to read books on Prussia in English -- I've been researching in German, often for Professors in Germany, for about 10 years. We've done this before, so please leave it alone. Since I don't regularly teach on the Prussians, I see no reason to spend money on books I can borrow. That's what lots of us do. Size of one's personal collection is probably not the best way to judge one's worth as an historian.
Second, everything Michael said about the Baioari and Boii is correct. The fact that you have a picture with Dux Boiarum doesn't show a connection. In fact, you regularly demonstrate that there are many variations of one name. In my own research, for example, I can think of several documents that mention a man called Adalbert (there are hundreds of different Adalbberts, but these pertain to the same man). In four or five documents, his name is spelled Adalbert, Adalbercht, Adalperaht, Adalbraht, and Adalperct. Same guy. Conversely, most scholars today believe that Boii and Baioari are two different words with different roots. Boiarum is certainly not the same thing as Baioariorum.
Finally, twentieth century historians actually have more information than did our predecessors. In fact, that is the nature of being an historian -- to take what others have said and build upon it. Sometimes new research forces us to reject previous thoeories. In previous centuries, history was expected to be written with an agenda, and only based on the facts available. Now, we are expected to write neutrally, and we have much better access to primary sources -- even to different versions of the same document! Think of a biblical historian -- before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, his writing would be very different than after...JHK
Let me give a relevant example from English history, HJ - the kings (and queens) of England had some pretensions (I think unwarranted, at best, but then I'm much more Gallo-centric than some folks) to being kings of France as well as their other titles. They never ruled much territory in France after the 15th century, and none after the 16th century. That didn't stop official listings of their title, especially in captions in woodcuts like your Bavarian example, from including R. Fr. (Rex Franciae = "King of France") for a VERY long time. Was it true? No. Did they know it was a lie? Yes. Titulature (Intitulatio, in Latin), is a matter of propaganda rather than being a simple description of facts. No historian would base an argument about the FACTS of territory controlled from the caption to a portrait-print; it does make an interesting story about what people BELIEVED or WANTED other people to believe (that is, propaganda). --MichaelTinkler, who also owns fairly few books that don't apply to the early middle ages or classical world, since he works out of libraries.
To MichaelTinkler and JHK See my answer in talk:Bohemia user:H.J.
To MichaelTinkler ???? Mieszko I ( am posting this again, because I think you have overlooked it earlier, was it yesterday or this morning ? Regardless ,I did not hear from you on that again)
Besides the many earlier wives, Boleslaw kidnapped a nun ,another record says he married Oda von Haldesleben ( I seem to remember, that this is the nun) . Boleslav and the former nun had many children. In the wiki search engine type in: bishops and margraves of Brandenburg : etc, then take a good look at the list . Mieszko , also written ",Mieczislaw (Burislaf) I " . The , means that he had another name. The Burislaf means, he also held the title "Burislaf of Wendland"
I have a "Theodoric, count of Ringelheim, b abt 853. Oda was a very popular name used since Widukind or Wittekind by Saxon dukes. Oda is the female version of Odo,Oddo, Otto, Oto, Otho . I have a record, saying :Dietrich von Meissen Misnia's daughter Oda,a nun,was kidnapped by Mieszko,they had many children. another note Boleslaw I married Oda von Meissen ( do not have her father) Dietrich High German is the same as Theodoric.
Part of having the emperor grant ducal, margrave, or whatever positions and tiles ,was that the person had to take up Christianity. Many only took it in name and were not really Christians yet, often later in their lives. But time and time again,other people came and attacked the empire. The emperor won them over by marrying the daughters, nieces, granddaughters off to the attacker, thus making him a member of the family and co-operator of the empire. This honor system feudal arrangement , giving a personal pledge and keeping it, was the law and the way of government. The head of the country or land was the father of the land , the Landesvater and the mother of the land , the Landesmutter. You might call it a mom and pop operation. Family counted above all else. The honor system , laws that were not written down, but just a handshake was binding.
There is a big question on the mother of Boleslaw I , because the Danish have some runestone that claims Miescislaw (not the spelling used) was married to Thyra Haraldsdottir, daughter of Harald Bluetooth, Blauzahn, b 910 . But the dates are goofy. Just as with the widow Dubrawka, born 925 + 977 and Boleslaw I , born 967. With Thyra it only says born before 1000, died 1000. After Mieszko I she was supposed to have married Olaf Tryggvason, King of Norway in 998,and had a child 999.
- user:H.J. -- both Michael Tinkler and I addressed your comments, both here and on the Bohemia/Talk page. JHK
To JHK . Michael Tinkler had questions , 1.On wife/s of Mieszko I , O 2. Oda's father Theoderic ? I answered these for him early this morning or last night, can't remember .Therefore I posted answers just above last comment. Have not heard back from him on those two points. user:H.J.
Well, I read it; thanks for trying - it's too much of a mess to try to solve on wikipedia. There's no relying on lone rune-stones. Oh, well, most genealogy from before the 15th century is pretty messy and highly imaginary; any one genealogy may be true, but the further they get into the past (i.e., the 10th century and before) the worse they are. I mean, look at the trouble Theaphanu causes, and she came from the most important family in Europe, and married into the Ottonians! Clearly mere lists of 'so and so was the father of so and so' is not so simple! Part of the problem, as JHK has been pointing out, is that lineal inheritence is NOT that important before the 10th or 11th centuries - the whole idea of noble families with guarunteed titles and inheritences is an invention of the 10th century French which only later spreads east and south. Before then an office might have been regularly given to members of a particular family,but not in any particular order of eldest son, eldest son, eldest son, etc. So (we think) people were able to be sloppier about kinship back then; kinship was more lateral. After the French tightened up inheritence, patrilineal kinship becomes more important and people start keeping better records. However, and this is where lots of later medieval and renaissance genealogical lists get messy, people went around reconstructing lost patrilineages (all the way back to Adam, usually). Very problematic, but still very interesting. --MichaelTinkler
To MichaelTinkler Ok, you do understand the actual occurrances, more like it really was, versus, what historians today wish it to have been , all neetly categorized and easy for them to present, which it was not.
Let me point to another factual custom or medival law if you will. Adoption. A ruler had the right to adopt anyone he wished to , a totally unrelated adult person, if he had no heirs. He tapped him on the shoulder, or the person to be adopted, put his hand inbetween the two hands of the adopteur. And voila , the total stranger was now an official son of the king or whoever. Can you just imagine how this can drive modern historians insane ? Best example , read my Maximilian I entrance. I stated ,that he adopted Louis of Hungary. Someone took it out, probably thought, that sounds too weird. Well , check out AEIOU , Austrian Encyclopedia and you will find it there. Modern sample, "the Queeny" tapped Bill Clinton on the shoulder . You want to bet , that he is now related to Charlemagne ? ( as is every one else).
The Wenceslas , entrance is ok user:H.J.
Talk beginning Feb. 2002
Does anyone know the Latin used for "warden" of a March? I would be interested in seeing where this came from. Removed the v. wherever, since the name was assuredly not so written in the 10th c. User:JHK
By source, "The Polish Way" by Adam Zamoyski, says that the battle in Pomerania was fought against the Margrave of the Northern March. That is why I added the section on the battle for Pomerania, however, the word Margrave was removed. I would put it back. Danny
- Sorry, Danny, but I wouldn't. The title used at the time was comes marchiones. It translates to the more modern Markgraf or Margrave, but because that title carries a slightly different connotation, Count of the March is a better English translation. For later titles (ones that really don't mean "the military commander in charge of a frontier"), the Margrave translation is fine (as in Brandenburg, etc.) -- but not in the 10th c. I suggest it remain as is. JHK
- No problems with that. Thanks for the explanation. Why don't we put in Count of the Marches as you suggest? Danny
- I thought I had?? User:JHK
- Looks like it got changed back by someone.Danny
JHK, I've been doing a bit of research on the term Margrave of the March, which simply means "Lord of the Border Area." It appears that in many English-language sources the term Margrave is used to describe nobles from the tenth century and earlier. I have a problem with "Count" because to me it implies a rank of hereditary nobility. Margrave, in the sense of military leader, would be a more accurate term to use. The word itself, I understand, is from the the German Mark-Graf, with "Mark" being the Germa-language equivalent to "March" (as border). Since, as you point out, we do not know the identity of this individual, the title Margrave would seem an adequate English-language term, paralleling the German. And, as I said, there are numerous sources that employ the term Margrave for that particular time period. "Comes marchiones" may be the proper Latin title, but we do need to use an English term. Looking forward to hearing from you on this one. Danny
- Yes, 'count' implies hereditary nobility. So does 'marquis', which is the eventual Franco-English version of Marcher-Lord. In the 10th century titles were not really heritable -- what was heritable was status, which led to titles. It's an awkward period. JHK is trying to be accurate, which is difficult to do in a general readership- thing like Wikipedia. This should be factored into royal and noble styles. MichaelTinkler
I understand the distinctions and am hesitant to restore Margrave, especially if both of you seem to think that Count is more accurate. One source I found online to defend the use of Margrave over count is the following webpage: http://www.friesian.com/germany.htm#baden , where I did a search for Northern March and found the name Dietrich, which I added to the article. That piece does distinguish between Count and Margrave, clearly stating that during that time, the Northern March was ruled by a margrave. While I accept that this may also be inaccurate, I also think that as a general-readership source, we might consider using the common terminology, especially as it appears again and again in literature describing that period. Danny
- I'm not convinced that Dietrich is better than Theoderic, either. I would point out that, in German, there is definitely a difference between Graf and Markgraf -- so that the author is equally correct in saying there's a difference between Count and Margrave, the English language equivalents. That's why I suggested "Count of the March" (and the more generic form could be marcher lord). If one wants to really be confusing, one could point out that the English Marshall (as in William the Marshall, Earl Marshall -- and earls = counts) and the French Marechal have their roots in the same military titles, but ended up as special-use words for the supreme military commander. SO anyway -- absolutely not "Count" but "Count of the March" (which makes it easier in the long run, since a Count Palatine (Pfalzgraf)is also not *just* a count. Again, since Margraves are generally rulers of fixed, heritable realms, I think that it needs to stay count in this particular instance. User:JHK
David -- changing count lord to count. MArcher lord does work in English, though -- at least I've seen it in English. I think Reuter uses it.... But since I'd used count as an abbreviated form of count of the March, I certainly won't complain! User:JHK
I just started read "Industry in old Poland" and there i found statement, that in years 960-980 there is very sudden decline in numbers of arabian dirhems. Author made assumption, that since dirhems were usually paid for slaves, then it seems that Mieszko finished with slave trade in his territory, either because of accepting christianity (OTOH, he reminds that christian Prague was still centre of slave trade) or because of conquering wealth Pomorze.. What do you think? It is established and reliable enough fact to be included in the article? [[szopen]]
- If included, it should be attributed, as in "The historian x has claimed a drastic decline in the slave trade under ..." JHK
I removed the following incorrect statement To celebrate his victory, he dedicated a city, Gdansk, at the mouth of the Vistula River, to compete with the ports of Szczecin and Wolin? on the Oder. user:H.J.
Removed again To celebrate his victory, he dedicated a city, Gdansk, at the mouth of the Vistula River, to compete with the ports of Szczecin and Wolin on the Oder.
It would be pretty difficult for Miezsko I to dedicate a city called Gdansk, which under Polish administration celebrated its supposed 1000 year anniversary in 997, unless he rose up from the grave.I suppose that this is another Krok (Krak) {crack ?) story fairytale. user:H.J.
- And I am putting it back. While I am sure they held some lovely celebrations in 997, the city was founded in 980. 997 marks St. Adalbert (Woziech--sp.?)in Gdansk, but the city was founded earlier. Danny
HI Danny, That is really amazing that you have a founding date of 980. Please state yor primary source here. I have a book from 1993 Warsaw named Gdansk and it does not state anything prior to 997, which you correctly identify as the date of St. Adalbert (at the Gothic coast- Gothiscandza). Thanks user:H.J.
- My source is a history of Poland by Adam Zamoyski called "The Polish Way," and I have verified it with several other sources. Furthermore, if Adalbert was martyred there in 997, it stands to reason that there was a city there at the time ... Danny
Danny, that is not a primary source. However, I left the claim in and identified it.I still would like to see a primary source from you or from anyone. user:H.J.
- Nor is the text that you quote a primary source. Here is a bit of history for you. Kashubians settled in the area long before 997. In 980, the city was developed by Mieszko as rival port. In 997 Adalbert came there to convert the inhabitants and was martyred. The fact that he came there indicates that there was where to come. The Polish celebrations in 1997 marked 1000 years since Adalbert. Danny
user:H.J. -- despite all attempts to the contrary, you still don't seem to know the difference between a primary and a secondary source. Primary refers to a first-hand account, or original document (in the case of land transactions, etc) or a number of other types of sources. Secondary sources are second-hand accounts based both upon primary sources and other secondary sources. Thanks for playing, though. JHK
One more time. I do want to see a primary source (a copy of an actual record from 980 will do).In addition a secondary sources,would be nice too. I left the sentence in and described the circumstances. Since that was disregarded, I am now taking it out until I see a primary document. The following year he celebrated his victory by dedicating the city of Gdansk at the mouth of the Vistula River, to compete with the ports of Szczecin and Wolin on the Oder.
I am happy to notice that my entries are being read, referring to the 1997 1000 year anniversary of St. Adalbert of Prague and the Kashubians.To be exact, Saint Adabert was recorded in Prussia at the Gothiscandza (Gothic coast) near the later city of Danzig , where he came to the Baltic Sea and was martyred. user:H.J.
- Actually, I had no idea you wrote a piece on Adalbert. I generally try to use other sources when introducing information. As for Gdansk, no, I do not have a primary source. I have quoted sources, i.e., historians who specialize in Polish history. Your sources, on the other hand, are the fact that a book that you own begins its history after the aforementioned event and your recollections of a celebration held in the city four years ago. If you note the language that I used, I said "dedicated," which you changed to "founded." There is a very big distinction here, which you fail to recognize. My suggestion is to look through some other historical texts that do not begin their history at a later date. There was a settlement there even before 980, the date I gave for the dedication of the city. You might also try to look up what the 1000 year celebrations marked--it was not the founding of Gdansk. Danny
Fr. user:H.J. -- Well, for a secondary source, since I know how much you like relying on websites, how about this one? [[2]]
It's a link to German website that refers to Gdansk/Danzig's first mention in the 10th c. as part of Mieszko's realm. I know it's not much, but I found it of interest. I'm sure there's more... why yes, another dubious secondary source -- a website (www.danzig.de) that clearly resents the fact that Danzig is now part of Poland -- but nonetheless states that the city existed (in some form) in 997 -- and it appeared to have belonged to Miezko earlier...aha -- further research, albeit on the web, indicates that the city is mentioned in the martyrdom of our friend Adalbert of Prague as 'Gyddanysc'. I'm guessing you'll find your primary source is the same one you've no doubt used in your work on Adalbert. JHK
- Thanks, JHK! Danny
Thanks for looking some sites up JHK. I am familiar the travel tour quick history site. You will find that official sites only go as far as is authorized by todays experts, such as yourself.Why? They want to avoid the hassles, harrasments etc anyone immediately is subjected to, when they dare to point out facts not authorized by todays experts.Many sites now copy each others nonesense. Settlements have been all along the Baltic Sea coast for thousands of years.And the Gyddansyc mentioning was put in some of the articles by me somewhere.
If there was a city it would have a city charter.If it does not, it was not a city, but perhaps a camp ground.
- That's just a load of Bollocks, plain and simple. Augsburg and Munich have been fighting for years because Munich had the first charter, but Augsburg had already been a functioning city for a couple of hundred years! Chartered cities are a reasonably late invention -- Are you actually suggesting that Rome was not a city? or London? or Paris? Gdansk may not have been a Hansestadt at the time (since the Hansa didn't exist), and in the 10th century it may only have been a small town, but that is not what you originally said -- you said it didn't exist. Give it up, for Pete's sake. You are simply wrong. JHK
Are you sure about Mieszko pledging to Gero? Labuda analised primary sources, and came to conclusion, that 1) This was introduced by Thietmar 2) Thietmar was making summaries of earlier Widukind chronicle in that part 3) However Widukind never wrote anything like that. Instead he wrote that Geron forced some Slavic tribes to pledge allegiance to Emperor, and then in next sentence he wrote something else about Mieszko, totally not related to Gero 4) however Mieszko in 970 something was called friend of Emperor. szopen
For God sake, i know this is coincidental that Helga returned when i left, but really there wasn't nobody who tried to prevent her?
I already discussed that ad nauseum. Mieszko did not have to receive dux title from Emperor. He was duke. His position couldn't be strenghtened by pledging allegiance to other kings - his state was his ownership.
He did not pledged allegaince to Gero: contemporary Chronicler Widukind mentions, the Gero forced few Slavic dukes to pledge allegiance, and then in next sentence start to talk about Mieszko. Thietmat made abstract of this and wrote that Gero forced few Slavic dukes including Mieszko to pledge allegiance to Emperor.