Talk:Teutonic Order

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Currency in GBP-only in Decline Section[edit]

Added USD and Euro figures to the indemnity paid by the knights. Perhaps the first noted currency should be Euros, since I suppose it would make more geographic sense in present-day terms? --Aeranis 00:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update needed[edit]

Hi! I think this needs some large updates, The Order is currently working from Romania, I have proof in the form of the Registration Letter from ANAF (National Agency for Fiscal Administration) Serial No : 1295651 I also have a letter from the Bank in Romania where they keep bank accounts. And I also have a proof of registration from the Romania Judiciary Oradea Civil Section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shingetsutan (talk • contribs) 07:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teutonic!??[edit]

Does anyone know why this strong men who brought civilisation and christianity to pagan northeastern Europe from the 12th century on are called "Teutonic Order" in English? The original latin phrase is "ordo teutonicus", where teutonicus is nothing else than the medieval latin word for "German" (in original "deutsch" or "thiodisk" in those days). To translate it into nowadays English to "teutonic" is a bit confusing because there is no ethnic adjective "Teutonic" being anything else than German. By the way, I do not know any other cases the word "Teutonic" is used in English.

We call the ancient Germans Teutons because that is what basically what the Romans called them. There are many German tribes thus it is easier to call them Teutons as a whole.

In German this order is consequently referred to as "German Order" (in original: "Deutscher Orden") which seems to me the only possible translation, or "Deutscher Ritterorden", "German Knights Order".


Both the Latin and the German language have two different terms: "Teutonicus" and "Germanicus" for Latin, "Deutsch" and "Germanisch" for German. As the original Latin name is "Ordo Teutonicus" and not "Ordo Germanicus" the only correct translation is "Teutonic Order" for English and "Deutscher Orden" for German. Nobody is calling the British "Order of the Bath" "Order of the Tub or Order of the Terms", so please refrain from calling the Teutonic Order "Germanic Order".


Note: The word "Orden" in German is only used for the religious order of munks. The political meaning of to keep things in order would be "Ordnung".

Anti-Note:
No, "Orden" means order of monks (religious order), as well as order (decoration). Ordnung means to keep things in order. I'm german, so I should know it. Therefore it would be consequent to change the name of the article into "german order". An article about german order exists already, but this deals only with a nazi-decoration. So the nazi-decoration "german order" and the knights order "german order" habe in german the same name "Deutscher Orden". One should create a "disambiguation".--12 Tenma 19:17, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But we don't need to - these things have separate names in English. It doesn't matter what they are in German. I added a link to this page from the German Order page, but the knights are not called the "German Order" in English. Adam Bishop 19:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, now will also german-language thinking, but english-reading-people find the "Deutscher Orden" in the Wikipedia-en. ;-)--12 Tenma 19:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The word "teuton" itself refers to germanic tribe that moved into southern Europe about 100 BC.

There was never a general term for "Germans" in the middle ages. "German" is somehow related to Latin meaning something like brothers and not a proper Germanic term, Germanisch has a different connotation in modern German language, Deutsch is etymologically the same as Dutch and refers to the language, occasionaly "Aleman" was used, denoting the tribes that bordered with the Latin countries. Franks was a synonym for Roman-Catholic, northern Germany was in war with the Franks in the early middle ages. In other words, there was never a historical word for all Germans and never one capital. Teutonic is a hate word used by Poles, the orden was not a representative for all Germans, in fact the Teutonic knights were very much hated by the Hanseatic cities because of its catholicism and feudal system, which it shared with Poland at that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.6.141.119 (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

== However consider that in 1508 the term Germaniae rex, König in Germanien emerged. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_the_Romans#Later_developments Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 09:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

== Teutonic Order == is the more correct form, since it did not only include Teutonic Knights. The title should be changed back

Agreed, why did it get changed if the first paragraph says, in bold, Teutonic Order? The article is not simply about the knights of that order, but I wouldn't presume to change it without more of a consensus.

The Order and its relations with its neighbours (especially Poland) are the main motive in a novel by the Polish author Henryk Sienkiewicz Krzyzacy (The Teutonic Knights) [the title it was first published under in English-speaking countries was The Knights of the Cross, translation by Samuel A. Binion Silvermane]. (This novel, like most of Sienkiewicz's writings, shows strong pro-Polish and anti-German bias)

Sienkiewicz was a writer not a historian, wasn't he ?
Kpjas

Well, some historical fiction is more accurate than others. For instance, The Teutonic Knights is more accurate than Quo Vadis. --MichaelTinkler, who's actually read both.

Of course, he was a writer not a historian, but he was also a Polish nationalist, and one should be prepared to have lot of distance to his "historical" books before reading them if one doesn't want to get false vision of historical events. --Taw

He was less nationalistic in presenting historical truth than Hollywood film-directors ;-)). Of course, the books are sort of literary fiction, but put within solid historical frames (including the social background) and based on medieval chronicles. "Soon the Order was involved in many wars against Poland, Lithuania and the Tatars." I think it is a trace of TK propaganda - saying that in the battle of Grunwald (Tannenberg)100,000 Tatars took part (truly there was less than 2,000 Tatar riders). Teutonic Knights' territories had never bordered with Tatar tribes. "The Order began to lose influence during the late Middle Ages, as the earlier tribal Slav people of Eastern Europe began to organize into countries." Above-mentioned words may falsify the facts. The history of Poland (as the organized state) dates back at least to 966 (christening of the country). The real reason of wars between Poland and TK began in 1309 when the Order grabbed the mouth of the Vistula River with Gdansk (Eastern Pomerania) and Poland (being in unstable political situation) couldn't have reacted. Soon, the diplomatic war started and arguments about invading Christian lands put forward by Polish representatives couldn't have been disregarded by papal judges. That war of propaganda, which lasted over 100 years has laid over the conflict - the shadow that historicians still cannot move. "Later, the burgers of Prussia rose up against the Catholic Teutonic order and their power waned further. The emperor Maximilian I had made an agreement with the Polish king and in 1525, the grand master of the order, Albrecht of Brandenburg, converted to Lutheranism and swore allegiance to the Polish king, who made him the Duke of Prussia." We must separate two facts: 1) thirteen-year war between Poland and the Order (Lithuania won't take a part in that conflict), started in 1454 when Prussian cities rose up against TK and swore allegiance to Casimir, the king of Poland. The war ended in 1466 (the second treaty of Torun) giving back to Poland Eastern Pomerania with Gdansk and the large part of Prussia with former TK capital - Marienburg (Malbork). The rest of Prussia became the fief of Polish kings. 2) Great Masters of the Order tried to regain its power. In 1519 the new war started and ended in 1525 when Albrecht Hohenzollern swore allegiance as the vassal of the Polish king (an agreement between Sigmund and Maximilian I happened earlier, in 1515, and gave in 1526 to the Habsburg dynasty the control over Jagiellon dominions in Czech and Hungary).

user:H.J. -- What are "imperial Hapsburg members" ? This entire sentence makes no sense in English.

Answer to the question of "what are imperial Habsburg members" : The Habsburg royal and imperial dynasty of Europe ruled many countries and furnished many German kings/ emperors of the Holy Roman Empire. They also lead the "Order of the Golden Fleece" and after 1525 were the Grand Masters of the Teutonic Knights. Outside links showing emperor

No duh. Most of the contributors here know who the Hapsburgs were. The point (which you missed) is that the sentence makes no sense. Are you trying to say that, after a certain date, the leadership of the TKs fell and remained under the control of the Hapsburgs? Then please do so. If you just mean that they were members of the Habsburg family (and I would be very careful about saying imperial, since there really isn't such a thing -- different branches of the family held the title, but were often in direct conflict with each other...)

The Habsburgs were imperial, royal, ducal, comites? and whatever , in short a ruling dynasty of Europe. From what I can make out in the article on the T. K. by Sinclair, they were not the only ones after 1525, but others were Teutonic Grand Masters too. They were the emperors of the Holy Roman Empire for nearly 500 years collectively. The emperors were always first German king, then emperor. And Maximilian III was the son of emperor Maximilian II and the brother of emperor Mathias and he was from the imperial Habsburg dynasty, even though he was not himself emperor. How would you word this ? user:H.J.

Since it has little to do with the imperial aspect of the Habsburgs, I would just say Habsburg. Not every Habsburg bore every title -- and titles like King of Germany were often wishful thinking, since there was no "Germany" -- just a bunch of principalities. If the family (in its various branches) really dominated the office of GM of the Tks, then simply saying Habsburg will let people know that it was the family in general. At the same time, they will automatically link (in their minds, as well as on the wikipedia) the imperial part -- as in "oh -- those guys who were emperors for so long." Sometimes it works better to allow people to make obvious conclusions rather than to point them out in a way that may not be entirely accurate. The way it was, people could easily think that the GM was tied to the office of Emperor, so that the Emperor would automatically be head of the TKs!

Sounds alright. I took out the imperial and just linked the Habsburg. Thanks user:H.J.

There has never been - and will never be - such a thing like a "Kingdom of Germany" or a "German King". 78.50.51.229 (talk) 08:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know where you base that on. There has been a kingdom within the Holy Roman Empire which contemparies call the kingdom of Germany (regnum teutonicorum). Otto of Freising deals quite often with the conception of kingdom and empire. The title "king of Germany" was rather unofficial during the middle ages but became an inherit part of the emperors' titles since the 15th century.--MacX85 (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone explain the "slaughter of all Prussians?? JHK 16:24 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Let me try. Teutonic Knights exterminated the original people living in Prussia, who together with Letts, Kours, Samogitians and Lithuanians belonged to the Baltic Peoples. The process of total extermination took a couple of centuries, but slaughter of civilians was the mostly used way to get rid of the unwanted people. In polish language (and I believe in german, lithuanian and russian) there are separate words for the original population of Prussia, and for the inhabitants of those lands in later centuries. In English they sometimes call the indigenous people - Old Prussians. Is this it, or were You puzzled by something more? Space Cadet 14:31 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

To: Space Cadet. It is obviously untrue. The Teutonic Knights did not exterminated Prussians. Of course, there were Middle Ages and kiling of "civilians" was normal way at war. But they were also prospective workforce. Lots of Prussian baptized nobility would become nobles under new regime. Anyway Old Prussian language still was in use even in 17th century and died out at the beginning of 18th century.

von Fiszman

Space Cadet is indeed displaying his usual extreme and historically mendacious Polish nationalism, but from what I have read in English (most recently: "the Northern Crusades"), it's true that the Teutonic Knights often were quite savage in subjugating the Old Prussians -- who by the way were Balts, not Slavs (and certainly not Poles). On the other hand, as von Fiszman observes above, savagery was common in the Europe of the Middle Ages (and later!). It is not true that the Old Prussians were "exterminated," though a large proportion of them were killed. Many Old Prussians survived by accepting both Teutonic overlordship and Catholic Christianity, and were gradually assimilated into the expanding German population, though they did not initially enjoy full equality with ethnic Germans. The Old Prussian language, which was akin to Lithuanian and Latvian, became a dead language only in the 18th century. I have edited a section of the entry to provide a more balanced view. And just so Space Cadet knows, I am a professional editor. Czesc! User:sca 22 Sept 04

I never said that Old Prussians were Poles or Slavonic. And what in my comment "displays my usual extreme and historically mendacious Polish nationalism"? And when did I say that you're not a professional auditor? And how do you know that I'm not? Siemanko! Space Cadet 22:26, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rexamining the Teutonic Knights[edit]

The Teutonic knights up till recently have been given very bad press. In many respects this is due to more recent historical events such as WWI and WWII. After researching them on my own, I have come to the conclusion that they were not the blood thirsty and savage men that propaganda has painted them as. William Urban's book on them is a very good rexamination of the Teutonic Order, their purposes and their history. Linking the order to the Waffen-SS is not only unfair but completely inacurate. The Ordenstaat was the only real nation that middle ages Western Eupore could state to have. In many ways the Knights were ahead of their time in their ecomonic, political, and military ideals. They were inarguably a very effective military force in the Baltic, there decline was inevitable though with their confrontation with a united Poland-Lithuanian kingdom and the reformation of the church. The fact that the TK started looking to domains outside the control of the major European monarchies after the fall of the Outremer is a direct result of the attack and aboltion of the Templars. Remember the TK had adopted the rule of the Temple. Seeing that a military orders could come under attack from monarchs must have prompted the knights to seriously looking to switch their focus away from the middle east, to areas like the Baltic where they already commanded a strong presence. The fact the switched their capital from Venice to Marienburg in 1314 (I think that is the correct date) must be compared to the fact that last Templar Master was burn in 1310. This article also states that the Teutonic Order was only granted the Prussia as a fief until the end of the conquest. That is throughly untrue the TO was granted all territory that they won as a fief forever, not only by the Poles but by the HRE Frederick II and the Pope. Aside from that Poland never had controlled Prussia anyway, so the saying to the victor go the spoils would seem very correct. I'd appreciate any other views or corrections on my opinions. J.A. Kuehn July 7, 2005

I have read Urban's "The Teutonic Knights" and Christiansen's "The Northern Crusades", both mentioned on this Talk page. Urban's book had some interesting reading in it, but it seemed more of a general survey of the knights. He did not seem to add a great deal of insight to their story, and he seemed a little too forgiving of their actions. I preferred Christiansen's book which, although covering a much wider time period and more groups, seemed to be more thorough. I do agree that the knights have gotten a bad rap to some extent, but they still weren't Noble Peace Prize winners. It's important to look at their actions and the actions of their neighbors in their time period, not be today's higher standards. Whether or not the knights truly received rights from Konrad or the Emperor over the land they conquered is disputed, if you did not know. Olessi 8 July 2005 02:03 (UTC)

From everything I read Frederick II Hohenstaufen did give the TO rights over the territory they conquered which included the Grand Master being given the status of a prince in the HRE and given representation in the Riechstag. As to Konrad of Masovia I might have been mistaken in the claim that he also gave the knights the rights to the territory conquered. But I seriously dought he expected the knights expend the energy conquering Prussia if they did not expect to reap at least some sort of land from the deal. But I agree that the knights were not Nobel peace prize contenders. Their entire mission in the Baltic and Prussia especially was forcible conversion by the sword. Still compared to other major powers of that day they weren't all that bad. Remember also that because of the TO Europe experience some of the lowest grain prices of the Middle Ages primarily due to the TO stockpiling grain while prices were low and selling when they were high. They did this with the help of the Hanseatic League. Jak1985

I'd like to write a more extensive preface about the founding of the order and its (several) names, a special section devoted to the organisation of the Order, a list with bailliffs in the Holy Roman Empire etc. etc.

Regards,

Dear Anon: be our guest. My only advice is that you register first, so we can more easily know who is doing the edits. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Early stages and organisation[edit]

I'd like to write a more extensive preface about the founding of the order and its (several) names, a special section devoted to the organisation of the Order, a list with bailliffs in the Holy Roman Empire etc. etc.

Regards,

<--- this comment is actually mine, but something went wrong


User:moenstah

Yeah the organization of the TO is quite interesting. Not only in the regards to the high level administration division, such as having commanders of field forces (marshall's) and fortress troops commanders (commanders) in the different areas, aka Prussia, Livonian, Germany proper ect. They also quite interesting in how the handled lower level command structure. Jak1985 13:43 26 August 2005

Category[edit]

Why is this article categorized as a state of the Holy Roman Empire? Although the knights received privileges from the emperor, their territory was never included within the empire, AFAIK. Is this article categorized as such because the Grand Master had a vote on the Reichstag? Olessi 17:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a few maps that do depict their Prussian lands within the borders of the Empire up through 1466. Olessi 22:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
William Shepherd's atlas lists several of them: [1],[2],[3] Olessi 00:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teutonic Shield[edit]

The Wikipedia Help Desk received a message from a Wikipedia user Rian Woolcott about a missing shield:

I had noticed that on your website, that when I was looking up the Teutonic Knights that you were missing one of the shields or coat of arms. I have seen this shield in the book called, "The Chronicle History of Knights" and also a website under [4] Just thought that it could help.

He also sent a copy of an image for uploading but I thought I would wait until people on this page suggested it was necessary. I will also send instructions on uploading images. Capitalistroadster 04:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tnx - the more images, the merrier.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extermination[edit]

The Teutonic Knights did not exterminate the local people. Thats a filthy lie. You can in almost every book, even from polish authors, read, that they were integrated into the new german tribe of Prussians. Its true, that there were longholding uprisings against the knights, but the baltic Prussians did not as much suffer as you might think. Why do you think, there were so many supporters between local inhabitants? Did you ever hear about the Vitings (in german: Witinge)? They were freed paysans and they served even before and after the battle of Grunwald loyally to the Teutonic Order. I read many books about the colonisation of Prussia. The people came mostly from Prussia itself. The other two large groups were Germans and Polish. As it was the time, when large areas in whole Europe were colonized, you might discern, it wasn't so easy to find people for a distant countryside. Ill give you some titles you can read for better knowledge. By the way, who says, that the Prussian territories should be Polish? The Prussians were Baltic tribes, not Slaws. Küstenkind

  • Boockmann, Hartmut, Der Deutsche Orden, Munich 1981, ISBN 3-406-08415-X
  • Erlen, Peter, Europäischer Landesausbau und deutsche Ostsiedlung, Marburg 1992, ISBN 3-87969-224-6
  • Biskup, Marian/Labuda, Gerard, Die Geschichte des Deutschen Ordens, Osnabrück 2000, ISBN 3-929759-42-X

(The last one is translated from Polish)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Teutonic Order raped whole Prussia, those who did not convert were killed, they did exterminate the local people. There is not such thing as German tribe of Prussians, only German population which was resettled into Prussian region taking over it's name. If they would integrate then their language and culture would not extinct. Do you know what tactic did Teutonic Order use against the Prussians? Burn everything to the ground. There was not many supporters between local inhabitants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KTTdestroyer (talk • contribs) 18:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you exaggerate. Hyperbole has no place in an encyclopaedia. The Order made up only a small amount of the population of Prussia. Prussia had many petty nobles, burghers and peasants, most of which were native, although there was some immigration from Germany. There were also Languages and cultures go extinct all the time, and history is full of examples of invaders assimilating and integrating with the natives, and not killing all of them. Take for example; the Anglo-saxons in England. Most English people have some Celtic ancestry. Tinynanorobots (talk) 04:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to genetic studies. There is a sharp separation between Celtic nations and Anglo-Saxon descendants in Great Britain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.60.40 (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Witold is Vytautas the Great[edit]

Is the name Dobrzyń used in English texts? Xx236 12:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do some searchers and tell us.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The subject was discussed long time ago: I think that any variation of Order/Knights of Dobrin/Dobrzyn is fine. Olessi 1 July 2005 21:26 (UTC) Xx236 14:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I question the impartiality of this article[edit]

This article paints the Teutonics knights during their activities in Europe, not mention their activities, as benevolent.

It is documented fact that the knights lost all excuse for attacking Lithuania after that country's official conversion to Christianity. It is also documented fact that the vicious attacks by the Teutonics knights on Lithuania continued because by this stage they could not give a stuff about "converting pagans" (not that they had the right to do that with violence anyway) but motived by purely mercenary desires, and addicted to a life of violence and plunder.

It is highly objectionable to paint this order and their activities at this time as benevolent.

This article also talks about Lithuanians and Poles being "aggressive" and attacking the Order, which is a complete joke because it was the other way around.

Codman 07:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Have you actually lived in those times to make such a claim? I think not. I am Polish myself, but let's have a look at the whole thing from a neutral point of view. All the historic information we have nowadays is somewhat biased towards either side. Of course all the Polish sources will favour Poland and claim it was the Order who was the aggressor, while German sources could claim it was Poland and Lithuania that were the aggressors. It is same as claiming that the battle of Plowce was won by Poland (in Sienkiewicz's "Krzyzacy" you have a very good example of bias), but in reality the battle was undecided.

Norum 09:56, 17 April 2006


You make a good point. I am looking forward to your revision of the article. But please cite your sources.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Samogitia by Charles Pichel. (I believe that's the correct spelling of his last name.) Plenty of other references too. I am removed from my references, living in a different state at the moment, but remember their content fairly well, and believe me, it is not a nice picture that they paint of the Order, their behaviour or their motives. I am incensed by the descriptions of Lithuania and Poland waging "aggressive attacks against the Teutonic Knights". It is historical fact that Teutonic Knights actually waged aggressive attacks against Poland and Lithuania. It is also historical fact that spreading Christianity had nothing to do with these attacks as by this state Poland was wholly Christian, and Lithuania was well into the process of converting. It was merely a matter of battle-lust, land and plunder. It is also historical fact that the Teutonic Knights treatment of the people during these attacks was sickeningly vicious and cruel. I have removed the the descriptions of Lithuania and Poland "aggressive attacks against the Teutonic Knights" and I INSIST THEY STAY REMOVED. I will not tolerate this complete reversal of facts, this complete distortion of the historical record. This is a very reasonable compromise, the Teutonic Knights actually deserve far heavier criticism than what they receive in this article.

Codman 22:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poland and Lithuania actively supported pagan inhabitants of Samogitia (at the time part of the Monastic State) so it was in fact the Order who was attacked first. Rübezahl 20:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I think that some of Codman criticism of this article is valid, I do not agree with most of points. The Teutonic Order was by its very definition a violent organization whose aim in the Baltic was the forceful conversion of the Prussians, Livonians, Latvians, Estonians, and Lithuanians by the sword. That was not at all in their mind a wrong thing to do, in fact for them it was a privilege to crusade against the enemies of Christ. What Codman does not understand is that of historians to critically evaluates the facts and render an interpretation, as free from bias as possible. That does not necessitate condescension, judgment, and condemnation of the persons, peoples, or groups that are being evaluated. The Teutonic Knights have had a reputation since their decline, mostly because to the victors goes the right to write the history. Recently though people have begin to reexamine the Crusades, and the Ecclesiastical Orders, partly due to the GWOT. On the other had ecologist love to make judgments about who and what is at fault for the circumstances in the world. So Codman please try and take less of an ecologist’s view and more of a historians view on the matter. You could maybe analyze the ecological impact of the Teutonic Order in the Ordenstat, I don’t believe there has been much written on that. So I look forward to Codman’s open mindedness about the TO and to a subsection of this article of the ecological impact of the Knights. PS this ariticle has come a long way from where it was a while ago, I always love looking at the improvements and discussion. Jak1985 21:54, May 2 2006

Recently on a visit to Lithuania I was surprised to hear this new perspective on the TO - and the facts that supported it. It used to be politically dangerous to ventilate such opinions and archeologists had to tweak their research to fit state propaganda, but in fact centuries of cohabitation are the reality, more than the days of bloody and violent battles in those centuries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.217.242.4 (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By Mster Gibs in response to your bold faced lie. You do realize the knights of the Teutonic order were the protectors and guardians of Prussia you moron you are more likely getting your information from biased sources as to be expected from your kind. But nice try portraying them as slaughterers you dont deserve to be a historian you are a disgrace to what historians stand for and you spew nothing but falsehoods. I bet youre the type that says muslims didnt slaughter people during the crusades or take over christian owned territoy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Gibbs (talk • contribs) 20:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 8th Grand Master: Günther von Wüllersleben or Günther von Schwarzenberg[edit]

In here it reads the 8th Grand master as Günther von Schwarzberg, but the other Wikipedias (Polish, German and Swedish) plus the Order's website says it was Günther von Wüllersleben. We have to assume it was von Wüllersleben then.

http://www.deutscher-orden.at/


Norum 16:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Thourot Pichel[edit]

According to historian Charles Pichel, it is a fair assessment that by the time the Order was situated in Prussia, it was more interested in the power, lands and plunder attained through warfare than the spreading of a Christian faith that was largely already in place.[1] The work quoted is: Pichel, Charles L. Thourot (1975) Samogitia. Wilkes-Barre, PA, Maltese Cross Press.

I did a Google search on this 'historian' as well as the publisher. The results are less than convincing. The publisher Maltese Cross Press appears only with the book listed. As for 'Charles Thourot Pichel', he appears as a self styled head of a branch of the Maltese knights, claiming a "Russian tradition" [5]. A quote out of the book listed in [6] strikes me as patent nonsense. Again (see the part about secret societies) describes him as a colonel, pro-Nazi, and indirectly linked to conspiracy theories like the Roswell UFO incident. This is in concordance with results from other sites.

I propose that either the reputation of Mr.Pichel is established or that better source for the claim is given. '-129.247.247.238 23:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)'[reply]

There is also another quote here. Hmmm, I tend to agree with you this may be a bogus reference. By the way, feel free to shed the cloak of anonimity and register - we are always happy to welcome new serious contributors.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Extra info about the begining of the Order state in Prussia[edit]

It is stated in the text : ,,After Christian forces were defeated in the Middle East, the Order moved to Transylvania in 1211, but were expelled in 1225. The knights moved to Prussia, where they created the independent Teutonic Order state. After basing itself in Prussia, the Order became involved against the Kingdom of Poland..." . Actually it might be worth noting that they were INVITED to Prussia in 1226 by Konrad , prince of Masovia to protect the coast from Brandenburgians and convert pagans present there . The terrains there were lended to the Order by Konrad , but later the order conquered Danzig in 1308 and falsified the lease documents so they would say that the land was given to the Order forever .

Perhaps Konrad did not actually give the Order the right to keep the lands the conquered, but that is immaterial due to the support of the Order's claim by both the Holy Roman Empire, and the Papacy. And even more immportant element in the equation is that the Teutonic Knights felt they God's mandate in their conquest of the pagan Prussian, much the same way Americans felt in the 19th century that it was their manifest destiny to spread to the Pacific. Therefore the reality of the situation was that the Teutonic Order was in the Baltic to stay. Jak1985 11:33 April 3, 2006

Well, there were also bishop Christian, who should get his part according to his privileges (was it 1/3 or 2/3 of all conquered territories?), but who practically was cheated out by TO. Szopen 09:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the first bishop of Prussia name Christian was supposed to chose his part of territory, but he refused to take any.

Factual Error[edit]

There are actual factual errors in the article, that strike me as more serious than errors of interpretation or faulty historical vision. It would be nice to get the actual facts straight and written clearly, before arguments over their interpretation begin.

from the article:

"After Christian forces were defeated in the Middle East, the Order moved to Transylvania in 1211, but were expelled in 1225."


This sentence is too vague and ultimately misleading. The Christians weren't totally defeated in the Middle East until the end to the 13th century. There was a major set-back after Hattin, 1187; but Acre and the kingdom didn't fall until 1291. The above sentence seems to imply that the Teutonic Knights moved because of the (total) defeat of the Christian kingdoms in the Middle East. (Hint: the word "after" sets up an implied cause and effect relationship between the first two clauses). I hope the original author will seriously consider changing this ambiguous language. It serves to set up a misleading timeline for Christian activities in the Middle East during the period under consideration (i.e. 12th & 13th c.).

There are also some secondary related facts which are wrong by ommission: the Teutonic Knights had strongholds in the Middle East until the bitter end. They didn't leave en masse after 1211. What seems more likely is the Teutonic Knights set up priories and strongholds over germanic Europe the same way that the Templars colonized small parts of France, England, Spain, etc. And what's more likely, (and this requires cites, maybe R.C. Smail) being the third group on the scene, their role in the Holy Land was limited by the Templar/Hospitaller presence, and they were looking for a place where they could expand their role/power; rather than leaving the Holy Land because of Christian defeats.

The paragraph begining:

"When the mission of the Order in Palestine was nearing its end, the Teutonic Knights moved their headquarter to Venice and offered their services to Christian rulers confronted with hostile non-Christian neighbors. In 1211, Andrew II of Hungary accepted..."

is equally flawed for the same reasons.~~cgothard

Thank you for your comments. Please, be bold and make the necessary changes in the article, especally if you can cite the relevant sources. You may want to register, too.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

problematical image[edit]

The image Teutonic order charge.jpg used here is problematical:

  • it is a picture from a computer game so that there is no historical authenticity (i.e. it is not a reality, it is an idea or an image of somebody who made the game)
  • the licence is not clear

Thx, -jkb- 09:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at Image_talk:Teutonic_order_charge.jpg.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Names of the Grandmasters[edit]

Please look at the list of the Grandmasters as given by the Order's website before making changes or creating articles - and especially before moving articles or deleting redirects. --Matthead 08:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good suggestion. I don't think it's a good idea to create redirects back to the main article (such as Konrad von Erlichshausen), however. Also, I think it would be good to move the list to its own article, ala de:Hochmeister. Olessi 17:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any feelings on creating a Hochmeister article? Olessi 03:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Matthead 05:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've also created a template rather than the generic box. See Heinrich Walpot von Bassenheim for a demo. Needs to be fixed. --Matthead 06:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthead, if you go to Polish wikipedia, they have the full names of the Grand Masters, including the roman numerals beside the names. Here's the link [[7]]. Plus I think it was you who put the links from the Grand Masters without any info yet (such as Konrad von Erlichshausen), back to the main article about the Teutonic Knights? What was the point of that? [[8]] [[9]] Norum 10.09.2006

If any listing should be trusted, it should be the list on the order's official page. Those "official" names should be the article titles, while the naming with ordinals can be done on the first line of the article itself. Olessi 15:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know that the additional numbers are on the Polish wiki, but they make few sense. Nobody calls the current US-President "George III Bush", just because Washington and his father also were named George. The Hochmeister were no dynasty, they were elected, and came from various families, so no numbers are needed to tell two apart, not even the two Heinrichs from Plauen, as they were from two branches. Their families had the messy habit to name all sons Heinrich [10] up to 67th in one case. I created the redirects, as a blue link is better than a red one or none, and this way the various spellings in many articles could be limited to one that went at least to the list.--Matthead 05:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that removing the Grand Masters from the article about the Teutonic Knights was pointless. It was fine where it was. Plus since this is English wikipedia, the term used should be Grand Master, not Hochmeister. Since Olessi moved everything, he should fix the succession box well. I did enough work adding all the info and the succession tables on many Grand Masters, so I'm not fixing this. I think this was pointless. Norum 11.06.2006

Yes this is all rather pointless. From the perspective of someone who is neither German nor Polish, we call them "Grand Masters" and we do not number them like the Polish Wikipedia does for some reason. Adam Bishop 22:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with calling the position Hochmeister or Grand Master. The position is important enough to have its own article, which will be expanded further in the future. And if there is an article for Hochmeister (or Grand Master (Teutonic Order), or List of Grand Masters of the Teutonic Knights, etc.), then that is the best place to have a list of Grand Masters, especially when Teutonic Knights is as long as it is now. I will gladly fix the succession tables, as I am going to copyedit and conform the articles with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Also, Norum, it would have been helpful if you had mentioned your disapproval of moving the list to a different article when I inquired about it on 8 June. Olessi 23:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can't check everything every day. Anyways, the popes are not dynasty either, yet they use roman numaerals to distinguish themselves. Can you imagine Benedict XVI going just as Benedict? I think it would be a good idea to at least add in the Teutonic Order article a link to the Hochmeister article. Norum 11.06.2006
New Popes choose a regnal name upon accession; ordinals are added to differentiate between previous Popes with that name. The non-royal Grand Masters never received new names- Konrad von Feuchtwangen took office as "Grand Master Konrad von Feuchtwangen", not as "Grand Master Konrad II". It is similar to presidents- John Adams governed as "President John Adams", not as "President John I. Adams", while John Quincy Adams governed as "President John Quincy Adams", not as "President John II. Quincy Adams". Similarly Lech Wałęsa was "President Lech Wałęsa", not "President Lech I. Wałęsa", while Lech Kaczyński is "President Lech Kaczyński", not "President Lech II. Kaczyński". The Czech and Polish Wikipedias are the only places I've seen the Grand Masters listed with ordinals. The current version of Teutonic Knights includes three links to Hochmeister at the moment. Olessi 03:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Matthead's opinion that a "blue link" is better than a "red one". A red link indicates there is work to be done. A blue link indicates to most readers that an actual article is there, not a redirect. If someone is filling in the gaps in an article, they are going to start with red links, not blue links. Olessi 23:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, the historically most important Hochmeister during the the Monastic state "are blue" now, and the missing articles can be created as stubs using the name, dates etc. I suggest using Template:Hochmeister as it needs less source code in the article than the default succession box. See Heinrich Walpot von Bassenheim as a starting point. --Matthead 04:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fiddled around with templates before you fixed the graphic for Template:Hochmeister. KuatofKDY explained that the majority of succession boxes are simplified to remove images. If you are going to use an image, I suggest using Image:Teuton flag.svg instead. Olessi 04:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss at Talk:Hochmeister. A template has two advantages, 1) it can be edited with effect to all tagged pages 2) the source code in the articles is simpler and shorter.--Matthead 08:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of changes I made[edit]

Thought I'd mention them here; someone may be able to do better.

After the Peace of Augsburg in 1555, membership in the order was open to Protestants, although the majority of brothers remained Catholic and the organization became increasingly Baroque.[1]

I removed the "Baroque" reference because I didn't understand it. Perhaps the word was used figuratively to mean "complex", but I don't know. The snag is that if the footnote refers to that bit (I doubt it), it will now be redundant.

I also removed one of the two pictures of the battle of Grunwald. I thought that was one too many in an already overstuffed article; it was also too big and was dislocating the text, and reducing its size would have made its detail impossible to see without clicking on the picture. qp10qp 15:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Urban was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Payment for the citadel?[edit]

"On 13 September 1309 the Order purchased from Brandenburg for 10,000 marks claims to the castles of Danzig, Schwetz (Świecie) and Dirschau (Tczew) and their hinterlands."

At best this line is confusing when it comes right after stating that the Order billed Poland for 10,000 marks. However, I checked the source page cited, and, although it was a Google translation, the page actually said,

"When Lokietek offered only 300 Marks, the medal occupied completely Danzig as pledge for the sum which can be paid."

Two paragraphs later the article does say something which is completly unreadable through the google translation about 10,000 marks and "the medal", which took to mean "the Order", and Brandenburg. I think this is where the purchase talked about in the questioned line of our article comes in.

Please, someone who knows a little more about this topic than me, at least reword the paragraph to make more clear what is going on.Artificialkiwi54 15:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motto[edit]

I noticed that nowhere in the article is there a reference to the Order's motto. I'm no Teuton or Teutonic historian, but I found a website that says: "the motto of the imperial order is "Christus Vincit, Christus Regnat, Christus Imperit," ( Christ Conquers, Christ Reigns, Christ Rules,) from Charlemagne (742-814) first holy roman emperor (800-814)" (http://imperialteutonicorder.org/_wsn/page3.html). Does anybody know if this is correct? Mets 00:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The website that it is taken from is pretty good with its information pertaining to the Teutonic order. Besides it sounds like a motto that the TO would have. Jak1985

The website is run by a rather odd individual who titles himself "His Imperial and Royal Highness Prinz Karl Friedrich von Deutschland". Needless to say, this individual has no actual claims upon the monarchy and all of his websites must be taken with grain of salt or two. Olessi 05:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought that the motto of the TO was "Christ ist Erstanden" (Christ is Risen), but my source is the novel The Teutonic Knights by Henryk Sienkiewicz so I might be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.237.154.248 (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right of course (see my comment below under "Teutonic Order Today").--dunnhaupt (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


From the german wiki: "Der Wahlspruch des Ordens lautet: „Helfen, Wehren, Heilen“." the moto is: help, defend, heal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.50.51.229 (talk) 09:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Helmet[edit]

What is the reason for those horn-like extensions I've seen on many Teutonic helmets? It seems very intimidating, but is that the only reason or are there more? Mallerd (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Teutonic and German knights never wore horns. They were found mostly among certain tribes of Norsemen in Scandinavia and Britain.--dunnhaupt (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually vikings did not wear horns at their helmet, this is a quite popular fairy tale... the Teutonic Knights did, as well as large "wings" and other "beasty" stuff attached to their helmets. The reason would be quite simply to scare their enemies.--91.10.61.42 (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither did the Vikings nor the Teutonic Knights wear these horned or winged helmets. There is no evidence to it plus it's highly doubtable to wear such a helmet in a combat situation.--MacX85 (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Horns and wings were common crests on helmets of knights throughout Germany, although there is enough other stuff to be found like flowers, human torsos, hats, etc. This stuff belonged to each knights coat of arms. Although they seem rather impractical in combat, there are certain manuscripts that show them worn in turnaments and some combat-scenes. However those horns were never used in such a way as shown in this silly pc-game. Those guys only thought, that it would look cool and now every nerd believes that this has been reality. 87.178.41.9 (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


All these appliances (Horns, Hands, Claws a.s.o.) where part of the coat of arms - the so-called "Helmzier" - and not to be worn in battle or tournament. Before any official gathering of german knights a herold had to confirm the identity of the man before him by consulting the "Adelsrolle" (literally: nobility-scroll) during a so-called "Helmschau" (visitation of the Helmets). Knights oficially present had to leave their ritual helmets in custody of the herold, who displayed them for other knights to see. This was due to the need for the coming peace of the gathering to be held, thus quarrels,complaints, feuds and challenges could be officially made beforehand in a mandatory setting. Most knights in Germany where liable to carry different helmets, head-gear for the melee, for jousting, for warring and for presentational purposes.

This is a very well researched topic - people shouldn't watch Ivanhoe, Braveheart or Spiderman to educate themselves... --77.3.76.216 (talk) 07:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Change In the List Of Appearances[edit]

It's the Knights Hospitallor (spelling?) that appear in Ubisoft's game, Assassin's Creed, not the Teutonic Order. SWGMan (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are several orders in the game, look for the mission when you have to kill the leader in the harbour. That one was Teutonic. Mallerd (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the knights that are around the docks area in the game are of the Teutonic Order, even though the colour shading makes it difficult to tell the difference sometimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.195.145 (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ranks In The Order[edit]

I was wondering if there was a list of ranks and what they do for the order. SWGMan (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teutonic Order Today[edit]

I was wondering since the TO still exists today, how do they select new members? What would the qualifications be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcore (talk • contribs) 23:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The authentic Teutonic Order always was and still is strictly a Roman catholic order. It still exists, and its headquarters is in Vienna's "Deutsch-Ordenshaus" by the cathedral. The fake order mentioned above (under "Motto") is run by the equally fake "Prince Friedrich" out of Teddington near London, England, and has nothing whatever to do with the authentic "Deutscher Orden" (cf. the German Wikipedia).--dunnhaupt (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Teutonic Knights in Belgium[edit]

Teutonic Knights in Belgium

Image —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mallerd (talk • contribs) 10:03, 11 May 2008

Fictional Member[edit]

The knight in Chaucer's "Knight's Tale" is a member of the Teutonic Order.--dunnhaupt (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which one? You mean the protagonist "Ulrich von Liechtenstein"? He's not supposed to be a Teutonic Knight, but certainly a German knight. The original Ulrich von Liechtenstein wasn't a Teutonic Knight either.--MacX85 (talk) 13:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was a Knight of the empire, probably also a member of the so called "party"crusades, the order organised once a year for more than a hundred years (archive of the to), to "slaughter some heathes" inviting the whole west european knightshood from portugal to malta. 78.50.51.229 (talk) 09:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Influence on German nationalism???[edit]

I wonder if this section reflects a neutral point of view. I don't doubt that Nazis, especially the SS, heavily used symbols of the Teutonic Order, but this whole monocausal reasoning that the rise of Nazism before war as a consequence of anti-slavic imperialism in the tradition of the Teutonic Order sounds extremely simplified. Are there any other scientific references for this than this one 6 page article in Polish without any further bibliography at the end? --Popolfi (talk) 03:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This makes no sense. The TO wasn't anti-slavic... just anti-pagan.--MacX85 (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Nazi Party is said to have been organized at the Thule Society which looks like it was ran by the Teutonic Order of the time. I would take issue with the claim the Teutonic Kights or any other Military Order were/are ever Protestant. Romanism and Protestantism do not go together. While Evangelicals join, these are converts to Rome.72.161.224.78 (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1410[edit]

As has been noted in the past, the Battle of Grunwald/Zalgiris/Tannenberg is generally known in the West, in English — and in Western historiography — by its German name, Tannenberg. And why did we have to remove the Lithuanian name?

Sca (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teutones versus the Ordo Teutonicus[edit]

Does anyone know if there is a connection between the Teutonic Knights and the Teutones (the peoples that migrated down from Jutland - references exist from the 2nd and 1st Century B.C.)? Or, were they a bunch of outsiders who just used the name as a "destination reference" or because of Germanic connection (i.e. the broader definition of Teuton)? My understanding is that the Teutones, along with the Cimbri and the Ambrones, came down (with, in part, the Harudes), and expanded into north-central Europe - from the western Rhine to the Wiechel (Vistula), and south to the Danube. From what I have read, they also established the settlement of Teutoburgium (near the southwestern border of Hungary). In addition, I read a reference on one of the Prussia pages about the Teutones in Old Prussia (pre-Viking visits of the 700 and 800 periods). As such, I was wondering if there is some type of connection. Was the Order established with an attempt as some from of antiquarian-cultural identification? Specifically, was the Order established with a mindset of selecting [or portraying] an association or historical brotherhood - of sorts - with Prussia's tribal roots? Maybe that is kind of far-fetched; but we do that kind of thing in corporations, social-work agencies, and diplomatic corps of today. We send "emissaries" that have some real - or even exaggerated or down-right fabricated - association with the people to whom they are sent. I just wonder if there is any research data that show whether or there was a connection. If so, is there any evidence that indicates what the initial impetus - on an individual level - that started the whole idea of the Order in the first place. The article references the bigger-picture events and political and church establishments of the Order. I am wondering if the first sparks of its creation started on a more personal level -- such as some first individuals having a historic or emotional connection with the Prussian area. If so, that could have been the earliest trigger that eventually became the vision called the Teuton Order. Granted, that vision resulted in good, bad, and even good-intentions that were turned into another road to Hell by the power-brokers of that age. I hope my inquiry doesn't trigger comments going down that road again. I hope replies respond to the issue of my inquiry -- whether or not there was a historical connection between the Teutones and the Teutonic Knights. User:Tesseract501\Tesseract501 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It was common in the Middle Ages to use classical terms for places and people - for example, the First Crusaders were described as Franks, Allemanni, Teutons, etc, and travelled through places like Illyria and Pannonia and fought against the Babylonians, when what is really meant is French and Germans, Albania and Hungary, and Egyptians. They probably weren't specifically claiming to be descended from the ancient Teutons, but it was instead an erudite way of saying that they were German. I very much doubt that they were claiming actual descent from the ancient Teutons. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. "Teuton" was a synonym for German since the early 11th century. Even German chroniclers of the 12th century were talking about a Teutonic kingdom which they were living in and speaking the lingua teutonica. This was really common. This term was spread by papal messengers during the investiture controversy which was supposed to lower the authority of the German king/emperor--MacX85 (talk) 20:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bailiwick of Utrecht[edit]

The Balije van Utrecht is now included, but not very well. We do not (yet) admit women. The religious order that has taken over the catholic branch originates in a country, Austria, where nobility not only no longer exists, but where using a title is still (2013!!!) forbidden by law... it is telling and shocking that itself does not iinclude any reference to the Dutch Protestant organization either. While perhaps biased I think it may well be defendable that the aristocratic Utrecht branch, is more a continuation of the historical Teutonic order than the scandal and politics ( is that a pleonasm?) tainted Austrian/German organization..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.217.242.4 (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oughtn't comment be made in this article of the Balije van Utrecht ("Bailiwick of Utrecht") of the Ridderlijke Duitsche Orde ("Chivalric German [i.e., 'Teutonic'] Order")? Much as the Bailiwick of Brandenburg in its relationship to the Order of Saint John, this Dutch society is an authentic part of the original Teutonic Order, though, having undergone reformation in the sixteenth century and, thus, now Protestant rather than Roman in its membership -- yet no less a remnant of the old Teutonic Order for all that. Firstorm (talk) 03:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Master?[edit]

The German term is Hochmeister, literally High Master, not Grand Master. The Latin term was magister primus, first master. Is it common to ignore this? -- Zz (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 January 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Teutonic Knights → Teutonic Order – I've just checked their official website and it confirmed my feeling that the common (informal) English name is still the Teutonic Order. At Google Scholar Teutonic Order has about 38,400 hits vs. about 14,500 for Teutonic Knights. Teutonic Knights are just its members, usually medieval ones. Brandmeistertalk 23:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Brandmeistertalk 23:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Renata (talk) 13:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The search and stats with links cited above are flawed because they return hits like "Teutonic ... order of words", "Order of Teutonic Knights", " In order to ... Teutonic Knights", etc. in addition to intended hits. I'm not saying the stated feeling is necessarily incorrect, but better evidence should be provided. Doremo (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, this is interesting. By putting the term in quotation marks you get 4780 for Order and 6980 for Knights. But "knights" never made much sense to me and only created confusion (are we talking about the Order or the soldiers?). Renata (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Another statistical measure (contradicting the feeling above) is available here. Doremo (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. -- Director (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Knights" is apparently still more common, according to the numbers shown by Renata and Doremo above. "Teutonic Order" is already useable over redirect and prominently mentioned in the lead. I see not enough reason for a change. GermanJoe (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'll go with the reference works Brandmeister cites, even though this ngram suggests that "knights" is somewhat more common in the RS. The poorly named WP:COMMONNAME guideline does not actually say that we have to go with the name that scores higher in terms of ngram or hits. "Quality encyclopedias" are listed as a valid source. NotUnusual (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to have to note this but required if turns out to be community banned user: SPI on User:NotUnusual In ictu oculi (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support-Evidence seems reasonable. Vyselink (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Teutonic Knights and World War I[edit]

According to the article. they were a military order up until 1929. So that begs the question... did they fight in WWI? It was well within their timeframe as a military order (1914-1919) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.158.38.24 (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Against Poland?[edit]

Are you serious? Poland didnt even exist back then the entire area/province was known as Prussia back then. I question your impartiality. You obviously have a clear bias against the Teutonic Knights. Prussians never attacked their own people this is a lie you are telling on this article to willingly misrepresent them. I find the older the source of information the more reliable that piece of information is the more recent the source is by date the less reliable it is. Find an older piece of information cite it and ill be more inclined to believe what you are saying. For the most part each kingdom within prussia worked together, traded with eachother, and worked side by side in battle together.

I have Prussian linage and you are purposely misrepresenting my heritage and i will not stand for it but not just because its the reputation of my heritage is on the line but because most of what you are saying about the Teutonic Knights is factually incorrect. Find articles about records from that time and use them do not go and use excerpts from fiction to support your apparent bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Gibbs (talk • contribs) 16:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Number of soldiers?[edit]

How many soldiers did the order have?

Motto[edit]

It is almost impossible to find references to the motto (Helfen, Heilen Wehren) before 2000. Apparently this is from Demel (1999), but where did Demel get it from? How old is the motto? I tried permutations ("Helfen, Wehren, Heilen") with no success. Perhaps the motto was Latin? Google tells me that "adiuvare, tueri, atque defendere" is biblical, but that would be "to help, to protect, to defend", not "to heal"; Latin for "to heal" might be sanare, or curare, or mederi, or even salvare. I find "adiuvare, salvare et defendere" in medieval texts[11] but no connection to the Teutonic Order. Unless we can cite exactly where and when this motto is introduced, it should be regarded as spurious. It certainly doesn't jump out at us from a quick literature search. --dab (𒁳) 11:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes[edit]

There are several mistakes in the article. Sometimes there is a contradiction in it. The order is a religious order. It is not awarded! The Order of Malta is not higher or lower than the Teutonic Order. Both orders are not decorations but religious orders. The last knight of the order died 1970. The men with the black copes are "Familiares". In this group exists a sub-division of Honorary Knights who wear white copes with the coat of arms with the black cross. In contrast to the real members of the order (and the real knights) who wear the cope only with the cross without shield. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.149.171.235 (talk) 04:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More mistakes in this article, with obvious major POV problems and no sources:
Snippet 1:
The Knights had quickly (SIC) <-- how quickly, and according to whom?
taken steps against their Polish hosts (wrong: Konrad was the original host, and not from the Polans)
and with the Holy Roman Emperor's support, had changed the status of Chełmno Land (the Holy Roman Emperor had nothing to do with the agreement between Konrad, the Pope and the Order)
where they were invited by the Polish prince (who?)
the kings Poland denounced the Order for expropriating their lands (which 'kings of Poland' are meant to support this blanket statement, and were some of the individuals implicitly named even kings? What makes it their land and not the land of the people who reside there, who are subjugated, at the request of - at that time - the king of Poland, BY the Knights?
the Polish lands of Pomerelia (also Pomorze Gdańskie or Pomerania), Kujawy, and Dobrzyń Land (the Polish - probably not the right word for the time period we are referencing here - invaded these lands, too. To what degree were these lands even known at the time by the terms that the obviously Polish writer wishes to inject into this article?)
Snippet 2:
The order theoretically lost its main purpose (theoretically, according to whom?) (main purpose, as opposed to what other purpose? What makes a purpose main, and who decides?)
it initiated numerous campaigns against its Christian neighbours, the Kingdom of Poland (if anything was initiated against Poland - a point of view assessment - it was because the leader of Poland at the time, not even a king, Władysław the Elbow-high, had initiated expansionism into Baltic, failed and called upon the Teutonic Order to twice put down the uprising and refused to pay them. Ignoring all of this and emphasizing that the neighbors were Christian seems to imply that the Order were a bunch of landgrabbing manipulative deceivers who stole all of the Baltic who had totally not moved into the area themselves (or called on the Knights to do the dirty work of putting down rebellions only to refuse to pay them).
Snippet 3: (a.k.a more ridiculousness)
The Teutonic Knights had a strong (how strong, according to whom?)
enabled them to hire mercenaries from throughout Europe (mercenaries against whom? from where in Europe?)
to augment their feudal levies (how does having a mercenary augment a feudal levy?)
and they also became a naval power in the Baltic Sea. (just when I thought this article could not get more ridiculous - BAM! there it is. Suddenly, the knights are a naval power, like the Spanish or the English thereafter. Or maybe the author of this text is so divorced from reality, he/she/it is implying that the knights were amphibious...perhaps they are transformers)
Snippet 4: (I am getting tired of this, I only came here looking for a stat and now I'm fixing this garbage why??)
In 1515, Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I made a marriage alliance with Sigismund I of Poland-Lithuania. (irrelevant)
Thereafter, the empire did not support the Order against Poland. (what kind of support? moral support? financial support? since when? and support for what against Poland, land, independence?)
In 1525, Grand Master Albert of Brandenburg resigned
this shaved-down sequence talks about things that concern Poland's relations with the HRE, not the Order; it implies that the Order was against Poland without actually stating what the Order's relationship to Poland was, since when, and why, which is probably more useful than a blank statement like they were against Poland, which implies that this was a plank of the Order's platform; the article also fails to indicate what the circumstances were for that resignation (a war had just been fought, Poland won, treasury was drained, was now being asked to send the Order to fight the Ottomans)Justforthisthing (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Translation[edit]

"A manuscript by Karl Marx once characterised the forces of the Order as Reitershunde - meaning something like a 'pack of knights'."

No, reitershunde means "riding dogs." Reiter means rider. Hunde means hounds i.e. dogs.

I'm not sure how it's relevant what Karl Marx thought of the Teutonic Order, though, but it does highlight his general hatred for Christianity, I suppose. And the editor's unsurprising bias. --89.8.107.184 (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Teutonic_Order&oldid=1212510053"