Jump to content

Talk:Union of Lublin

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

Statues of Lithuania

[edit]

What exactly were these "Statues of Lithuania" ? Were they approved by the parliament (Sejm) ? Lysy 21:03, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Statute of Lithuania - maybe mistranslation, in Lithuanian they are known as "Lietuvos statutas". Basically it was like a collection of all the laws, which was unique in Europe at the time, because unlike Poland-Lithuania most of countries were absolute monarchies so didn't needed those things. If I remember correctly, copies of statutes used to be kept in each powiat so they could be used and seen by each person (probably only nobles). DeirYassin 21:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was wondering who was writing them and who approved them ? Lysy 21:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, got myself a book now. First statute was created in 1522, came into power in 1529 by the intiative of nobles' council, basically it was like standartising and collecting various tribal and traditional laws and writting them at one place, major work was done by Albertas Goštautas. Second statute came into power in 1566 by the order of king/grand duke Žygimantas Senasis (Sigismund the Old?) and was larger and more advanced. The king did this because of pressure of Lithuanian nobles, it was done because of expanding nobles' rights the first statute became redundant. Second statute was prepared by a special commition appointed by grand duke and nobles' council, commition consisted of 10 people. Third statute was accepted in 1588, to somewhat alter laws in relation to Union of Lublin.DeirYassin 21:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tnx for the info. A stub (at the very least) at the Statutes of Lithuania is in order, I believe. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 07:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Try at Lithuanian Statutes :) Halibutt 08:06, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
Uh-oh. And now we have to merge them :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:58, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Talking about 1588, you forgot to mention that this variant was made under direction of Lew Sapieha. ---Litwinowicz

EU?

[edit]

I think that maybe last lines should be removed (I mean ones about many historians considering it to be similar to EU), as it is kinda POV, unnecessary comparement (because EU has no direct connection to the Polish Lithuanian commonwealth), and such things could be written maybe by members of any nation/country about their nation/country being like something (considered "good") of our days. In fact, similar things about union being similar to that of EU, can be said at many unified countries, e.g. Switzerland, Austria-Hungary, maybe even Yugoslavia, etc. and such claims are probably an overpompastification (wrong word probably I know) DeirYassin 20:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the point of the author, as I interpret it, is to make the point that Poland-Lithuania was the *largest* such union in Europe until the formation of the EU, not that it was merely a unification. --Vegalabs 19:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anon comments

[edit]

Someone needs to clean up the spelling and grammar of the article. If I see another "it's" instead of "its" I think I'm just going to die. (Done)

And this sentence makes no sense:

"However the commoners, especially peasants, who aggravated by a rapid inserfement as the Ruthenian territory was colonized by Szlachta, continued to speak in their own languages and the Orthodox religion, which eventually created a significant rift between the lower social classes of people and the nobility in the Lithuanian and Ruthenian areas of the Commonwealth."

Merge

[edit]

“Poland provided military aid in that war after the union of the two entities, but did not return the previously annexed territories. Lithuania had to recognize its incorporation into Poland.[5]”

Is any chance of merge this sentence with others because it looks a bit about of context especially if trying to read aftermath part. Or at least expand part –“ recognise its incorporation” to - Lithuania had to recognize incorporation of Podlachia, Volhynia, Podolia and the Kiev regions into Poland. M.K 23:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold and show us what you mean?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serfdom

[edit]

First, we should create serfdom in Poland, just like there is serfdom in Russia. Second, this article is quite incomplete. Third, serfdom was not a direct consequence of the Union, and we could discuss whether it should be mentioned at all. But if it is mentioned, I see nothing wrong with noting that it created conditions that were worse than in the West but better than in the East.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 21:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colonization of Ukraine and serfdom that it brought was the direct consequence of the Union of Lublin which legitimized the Polish occupation of Ukraine. On the other hand, the comparison of the Polish serfdom with any other serfdom does indeed belong to the Polish serfdom article, but not this one. Here it is merely irrelevant. --Irpen (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And of course when Piotrus runs low of his "revert quota" the same editors quickly show up to help. An accident perhaps. More looks like a very sad pattern. --Irpen (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just look at it as the proof that Wikipedia works - multiplie users revert bad edits and support good edits. PS. You are more than welcome to expand, with references, your point that Colonization of Ukraine and serfdom that it brought was the direct consequence of the Union of Lublin which legitimized the Polish occupation of Ukraine. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 22:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All right, Piotrus, you are now saying that my edits are worse than those of Molobo. However outrageous a statement, nothing you say surprises me anymore.
You habit to act off-wikipedia to achieve the onwiki goals have been exposed multiple times and since you never expressed any remorse or apology, even when caught red-handed with the most despeakable off-line actions, you gave no reason to believe that it has stopped.
Thank you for telling me taht I am "welcome and expand" but with a dedicated team reverting my edits, I am not in the mood to merely waste my time. --Irpen (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I don't see content creation as a waste of time, I will at some point create an article about serfdom in Poland, and likely move various stuff (including some discussed here) there. Until that happens, I see no reason to delete useful and referenced information. I don't intend to reply to your incivil comments; may I remind you you have been asked to refrain from such tone and attitude?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 22:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, let me remind you that the community response to this ArbCom clause was overwhelming and shows that ArbCom goofed (it was also discussed not so long ago an ANI). You do not need to respond. Your, now blanked, Piaskownica in pl-wiki is louder than anything you can possibly say, save an apology that has yet to come. --Irpen (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you satisfy my curiosity and link the ANI discussion you mention? You can do it on my talk page as we are getting OT here. Thank you, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 22:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion about Commonwealth

[edit]

The following link and conclusion on Polish website about Lublin Union was removed [1] from wikipedia Union of Lublin

Info-Polen (link below) concludes "that the common republic (Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) was a sluggish none-functioning body without political and legal mechanisms"

Lublin Union on info-polen (German-Polish site)

MfG 30 Jan 2008

Royal Prussia

[edit]

The first paragraph somewhat misinforms. Poland was not in personal Union with ROyal Prussia. Royal Prussia was autonomous part of Poland. Szopen (talk) 11:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference "DavN"

[edit]

I think the reference is wrong in the background chapter, where it is defined as

<ref name="DavN">Norman Davies, ''God's Playground: A History of Poland in Two Volumes'', Oxford University Press, p.151</ref>.

The reference is alleready definded in the first chapther, second paragraph as

<ref name="DavN">Norman Davies, ''God's Playground: A History of Poland in Two Volumes'', Oxford University Press, ISBN 0199253390, [http://books.google.com/books?id=b912JnKpYTkC&pg=PA50&dq=Poland+Lithuania+union+Muscovy&ei=rKdLR4jZLoTg6wKK0OTzBg&sig=lJexA_ptb7OrQc5gz1NSBrQLS2U Google Print, p.50]</ref>.

With the current definitions of the reference you don't get link to both sides in Google Print. On top of that, page 151 in the book don't give any meaning to the content in the chapter. I have glanced through the book and think the reference in the backgroundchapter should be like this:

<ref name="DavN2">Norman Davies, ''God's Playground: A History of Poland in Two Volumes'', Oxford University Press, ISBN 0199253390, [http://books.google.com/books?id=b912JnKpYTkC&lpg=PA151&dq=Poland%20Lithuania%20union%20Muscovy&hl=sv&pg=PA121#v=onepage&q=Poland%20Lithuania%20union%20Muscovy&f=false Google Print, p.121]</ref>

as page 121 in the book relates to the topic. PerV (talk) 01:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

[edit]

This sentence in the lede : "Polish historians concentrate on its positive aspects, emphasizing its peaceful, voluntary creation and its role in the spreading of Polish culture. Lithuanian historians are more critical of the Union, pointing out that it was dominated by Poland." is unsourced and unsupported by anything in the text. While it may be somewhat true I can also think of some Polish historians who are critical of the union. I think it should be removed unless it can be sourced.VolunteerMarek 16:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I vaguely think I added it a while ago. I agree it should be sourced, I thought it was. Perhaps we can source it or rewrite it with the similar content of Polish–Lithuanian_Commonwealth#Legacy. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think the Lithuanian side of it - that the PLC is viewed in a negative light - is historically mostly true and of course it appears to be true going by the attitudes of various users on Wikipedia. But even there I expect there is a lot more diversity of opinion and nuance. On the Polish side, it's not that hard to find historians who are critical of the union - Jasienica for example who though that by uniting, Poland inherited all of Lithuania's problems and reoriented itself eastward, rather than westward, which hampered its economic development. I've also seen some allusions to the argument that it was the union with Lithuania - and more specifically the acquisition of Ukraine - which was responsible for the re-emergence of serfdom in Poland.VolunteerMarek 21:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Lithuanian" includes today Belarus and Ukrainian.Xx236 (talk) 06:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ks. Pomorskie

[edit]

What is Ks. Pomorskie, which appears on the legend of the map? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's Duchy of Pomerania - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Pomerania From 11th century this territory was a fief of Poland. In 1138 Bolesław Krzywousty split the polish territory into different parts, so each of his sons would have some territory to reign. This act weakend Poland and technically the country didn't exist up until the begging of 14th century. Discussed territory became more independent and was named Ks. Pomorskie (Księstwo Pomorskie - Duchy of Pomerania). It didn't return to Poland and later on it became part of Prussia. Sarabonnat2 (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. File:Irp1569.jpg, which is presumably the one you are discussing, should be translated to English (sadly, I don't have the skills to do so). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Union of Lublin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes and additional explanation about the 1580 ceremony of the Lithuanian Grand Duke Stephen Báthory

[edit]

Here are additional explanation and sourcing about the 1580 Lithuanian ceremony of Grand Duke Stephen Báthory. During the inauguration/elevation ceremony of the Grand Duke Stephen Báthory (29 May 1580) a blessed sword and hat (both were sanctified by Pope Gregory XIII himself) was used in the Vilnius Cathedral and the ceremony likely did not feature the usual Gediminas' Cap at all (it certainly wasn't placed on Báthory's head). Nevertheless, multiple WP:RS describe the ceremony of 29 May 1580 as elevation/enthronement ceremony of the new Grand Duke of Lithuania (Stephen Báthory) and this clearly was an ignoration of the stipulations of the Union of Lublin. Supporting sources:

1. "Iš pradžių, regis, buvo mėginama didžiajam kunigaikščiui rengti atskirą ceremoniją. 1580 m. gegužės 29 d. Vilniaus katedroje įvykęs popiežiaus kalavijo ir karūnos perdavimo aktas amžininkų akimis ir buvo Stepono Batoro, kaip didžiojo kunigaikščio, intronizavimas" (English: At first, it seems, there was an attempt to hold a separate ceremony for the Grand Duke. In the eyes of contemporaries, the act of handing over the papal sword and crown that took place in the Vilnius Cathedral on 1580 May 29 was the enthronement of Stephen Báthory as the Grand Duke). Source: publication by Lithuanian Institute of History, p. 9.

2. Maciej Stryjkowski's Kronika polska, litewska, żmódzka i wszystkiéj Rusi Macieja Stryjkowskiego. T. 2. Warsaw, 1846, p. 432. This source is provided as a backing source in the publication by Lithuanian Institute of History (mentioned above).

3. "Vienas iš tokių, Lietuvos valstybingumą tvirtinančių valdovo gestų buvo jo pakėlimo į Lietuvos sostą ceremonija. 1580 m. gegužės 29 d. valdovas priešais Vilniaus katedros didįjį altorių iš žemaičių vyskupo Merkelio Giedraičio rankų priėmė popiežiaus Grigaliaus XIII atsiųstą kalaviją ir Lietuvos didžiojo kunigaikščio kepurę kartu su apaštališkuoju palaiminimu. Toks ritualas turėjo sąsajų su ankstesnių valdovų pakėlimo į Lietuvos dk sostą ceremonialu, nors sudarius Liublino sąjungą, jis neturėjo būti praktikuojamas." (English: One of such gestures of the ruler confirming Lithuania's statehood was the ceremony of his elevation to the throne of Lithuania. On 29 May 1580 in front of the high altar of the Vilnius Cathedral, the ruler accepted the sword sent by Pope Gregory XIII and the hat of the Grand Duke of Lithuania together with the apostolic blessing from the hands of the Samogitian Bishop Merkelis Giedraitis. Such a ritual had connections with the ceremonial elevation of previous rulers to the throne of Lithuania, although it was not supposed to be practiced after the union of Lublin). Source: publication by Vilnius University, p. 67 (title page claims that there also is a translation to the Hungarian language by BEATRIX TÖLGYESI).

4. "Vienas įdomiausių su Lietuva susijusių Naujosios Karalystės iždinės eksponatų – iš pirmo žvilgsnio neišvaizdi kalavijo geležtė. Iš tikrųjų – tai 1580 m. gegužės 29 d. priešais Vilniaus katedros didįjį altorių Lenkijos ir Lietuvos valdovui Steponui Batorui (1576–1586) įteiktas popiežiaus Grigaliaus XIII pašventintas kalavijas, per amžius praradęs savo puošnią rankeną. Kalaviją ir perlais puoštą popiežiaus pašventintą kepurę valdovui įteikė žemaičių vyskupas Merkelis Giedraitis. Lietuvoje ši ceremonija traktuota kaip Lietuvos didžiojo kunigaikščio pakėlimo iškilmės, kurias rengiant buvo ignoruojama Liublino unija ir manifestuojamas Lietuvos savarankiškumas." (English: One of the most interesting exhibits of the treasury of the New Kingdom related to Lithuania is an unsightly sword blade at first glance. In fact, on 29 May 1580 in front of the high altar of the Vilnius Cathedral, the sword consecrated by Pope Gregory XIII was presented to the ruler of Poland and Lithuania, Stephen Báthory (1576-1586), having lost its ornate handle over the centuries. Merkelis Giedraitis, bishop of Samogitia, presented the ruler with a sword and a hat decorated with pearls consecrated by the Pope. In Lithuania, this ceremony was treated as the celebration of the elevation of the Grand Duke of Lithuania, during which the Union of Lublin was ignored and Lithuania's sovereignty was manifested). Source: article published by the Palace of the Grand Dukes of Lithuania.

5. Identical paragraph like in the 4th point (above) was (likely) later republished by the official website of the Lithuanian National Radio and Television (HERE) and a very popular Lithuanian news website 15min.lt (HERE).

By the way, the 1569 Union of Lublin was not accepted in the first try because of the Lithuanian nobles strong objection to it and its conditions. However, the Principality of Moscow was waging a successful war against the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (which lost important territories like Polotsk) and the Kingdom of Poland was not much willing to help the Lithuanians until a chunk of territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was transferred to the Kingdom of Poland and eventually they accepted the Union of Lublin. This led to successful reconquests by joint Polish-Lithuanian military forces (e.g. Polotsk, etc.). Moreover, this ceremony of Stephen Báthory is not the first example when the Lithuanian nobles violated previous agreements with the Poles (e.g. Casimir IV Jagiellon was separately proclaimed the Grand Duke of Lithuania by the Lithuanians and a ceremony inaugurating him as the Grand Duke of Lithuania was held in 1440, this way violating the Union of Grodno (1432) and terminating the Polish–Lithuanian union (first source, second source, p. 8). -- Pofka (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Union_of_Lublin&oldid=1194478552"