Talk:Ostsiedlung

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Middle Ages Icon Ostsiedlung is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.


Contents

[edit] Marches

User:Imiraven How should I translate this sentence in Historische Entwicklung einiger Marken und Regionen: "In Norddeutschland gingen der Ostsiedlung Auseinandersetzungen Karls des Großen mit den nicht-christlichen Sachsen voraus, als Karl seine Reichsgrenzen sichern wollte". Unfortunately I haven't found any appropriate translation for "vorausgehen" in this case.

For Marken, it's short for Markgrafschaft (laut [:de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Brandenburg]), but I think originally comes from Latin marchia (see etymology of the words Ostmark forAustria). Mark Brandenburg has equivalents in a ton of languages but not in English, so I think your einenglisching of it is good.
As for this sentence: In Norddeutschland gingen der Ostsiedlung Auseinandersetzungen Karls des Großen mit den nicht-christlichen Sachsen voraus, als Karl seine Reichsgrenzen sichern wollte (siehe Sachsenkriege Karls des Großen).
My suggestion is: In northern Germany, the Ostsiedlung led to conflicts between Karl the Great and the non-Christian Saxons, ...
Adam Mathias 18:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
For Marken, see Marches. "Historical development of a few marches and regions" and "In northern Germany the Ostsiedlung led to conflicts between the pagan Saxons and Charlemagne as he secured the borders of his empire." Olessi 18:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah that's better! Adam Mathias 19:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Imiraven 9:39 16/2/2006 (UTC): I've corrected many grammatical mistakes, used American spelling, and marked some doubtful words and expression, e.g "markers" is perhaps incorrect.
User:Imiraven 15:40 20 February 2006 (UTC): I'll have completed "East Colonisation" on 3 March 2006.

The article is loaded heavily with German POV, I will wait its final version, for now however obvious POVish sentences are spotted,for example: The East Colonisation was predominantly a peaceful process; the rulers of Hungary, Bohemia, Silesia, Pomerania, Mecklenburg, and Poland encouraged German settlement to promote the development of their lands. The sentence completely avoids the massacres of native populations that were made for German settlers to arrive, for example in Prussia, it avoids mentioning that while initially indeed German settlers were invited, soon ethnic conflicts followed as native people were forced into lower social status by their German guests. It avoids mentioning that arrival of Germanic knights in the area has led to conflict that endured for centuries in Poland, it doesn't mention the wars Brandeburgia led in order to capture and settle Polish territory etc. The conflict between Polish rulers and Germans within Poland isn't touched at all.No information is given on massive uprisings of original Prussians against Teutonic Knights, no information is given on enslavment of local population by Germanic knights in Baltic countries, and so on. And that problems are only those seen at one glance. --Molobo 23:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Well - please add the facts. But make it not anit-German POV - that would be if there is only one sentense about the peaceful processes and a large paragraph about massacres. By the way - not all the Slavs have been "Polish". The later "Polish rulers" have been expansionists themselves. To speak about "Slavic territory" in the context of 1945 makes also not so much sense. Lusatia for example has not always been inhabited by Slavs. There have been many tribes before, for example Germanic tribes and Illyrians. Around 700 Lusatia was nearly "uninhabited", but there was a smaler older population. Then there was a kind of West Colonisation of the Slavs - how "peaceful" this was is not known. But it is known that for the Milzener (today Sorbs in Lusatia) had not much to do with the Slavic tribes for example in Mecklenburg. The Milzener took never part in rebellions against the Germans (maybe thatswhy they could save there culture up to today) other tribes did. Around 1000 started the German East Colonisation to in comparison with their home areas also neary "uninhabited" areas. Many slavic rulers even invited them, because the rulers in this time mostly didn't care about Germans or Slaves, but wanted good farmers and craftsmen. In many nearly uninhabited areas for example the Upper Lusatian highlands the Slavs settled only 100 years before the first German settlers arived. For sure there have been also many conflicts, but the main process was assimilation and settlement in former forest and swamp at least in the most areas. 86.56.0.49 07:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Likewise, as not to enforce a double standard, not all Germanic tribes are German. I do however think that Molobo is referring to Slavonic peoples which made up the Poles (about today's borders). -- Anonymou

[edit] Poland had an emperor ?

It's the first time I hear Poland had an Emperor Casimir. --Molobo 23:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Peacefull ?

From history of Brandenburg on Wiki: In the great uprising in 983 the Slavs wiped out German control from the territory of present day Brandenburg. The monasteries were buried, priests and Germans officials killed or expelled. The Slavic tribes living east of Elbe remained independent and pagan for the next 150 years. 12th Century In the beginning of the 12th century the Saxon German kings and emperors conquered the Slavic-inhabited lands of present-day Brandenburg. Many Slavic inhabitants survived the conquests and live there still today - Sorbs, Lusatians. The church brought bishoprics, which with their walled towns, afforded protection for the townspeople from attack. With the monks and bishops, the history of the town of Brandenburg, which in time became the state of Brandenburg, began. In 1134, in the wake of a German crusade against the Wends, the German magnate Albert the Bear was granted the Northern March by the Holy Roman Emperor Lothar II. For some time up until the 15th century, some part of the area that would become Brandenburg was inhabited by the Slavic Wends, who still make up a part of the area's modern population. --Molobo 23:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Name change

Kinda a small detail, but is east colonization really the right phrase in english? are you sure its not supposed to be "eastern colonization" or something?.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

English-speaking scholars usually use the term Ostsiedlung in italics. This article shouldn't have been moved - it's the most common forumlation in English. On the other hand, we need to get rid of these references to "Heinrich the II": in English he's referred to as Henry II or Henry the Second, Holy Roman Emperor. --Jpbrenna 15:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note moved from Marker of the Billungs section

(to edit: there is a lack of e.g details about the expansion to Pomerania, to Wartheland and to the Baltic States. The whole chapter has to be arranged again). (unknown; moved here by --Jpbrenna 15:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC))

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. Haukur 09:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move to Ostsiedlung

As I wrote on the Ostsiedlung talk page before the article was redirected here, Ostsiedlung has gained currency in academia as the term to describe German eastern colonization, and performing an English Google test shows it is three times more productive than the English calques "East Colonization" and "East Colonisation." All of my medieval history texts have used the term Ostsiedlung in discussing this phenomenon (without the adjective Deutsche); the first time I read the termEast Colonisation was on Wikipedia! We're supposed to use the most common English-language name, and that just happens to be a borrowed German word, so let's use it! --Jpbrenna 21:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose moving to Ostsiedlung (WP:UE), although I think the current page name is not correct either, perhapse German eastwards colonisation, or German eastward expansion or German eastward migration --Philip Baird Shearer 10:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per nom (and also in line with Drang nach Osten, which I initially mistaken the English name for). Duja 10:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support either Ostsiedlung or East Colonization but not East Colonisation. Nobody says it like that. - 167.7.39.139 00:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • support move to Ostsiedlung, also, colonisation is not correct as the IP person above stated, it is spelled colonization by a vast majority. But I do not support moving it to East Colonization. otherwise, support for same reasons as Jpbrenna.

--Jadger 20:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Support--Aldux 00:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

per nom (and also in line with Drang nach Osten, which I initially mistaken the English name for). Duja 10:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not "per nom" see the policy WP:NC#Use English words --Philip Baird Shearer 19:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I know it. It also says "unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the English form." Duja 07:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ostsiedelung = Settelement of the East

Colonization is the wrong translation, settlement is correct and fits with the genarl character of this undertaking

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Kraków

"Ethnic Germans, along with Azkhenazi Jews, also formed a large part of the town population of Kraków".

The Jews lived rather in Kazimierz, a separate town, than in Kraków. Xx236 11:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] map

I have left my comments on the new map on the image's discussion page, I would like further input.

--Jadger 00:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Huh? Can someone explain this sentence?

The sentence below is the last one in the introduciton. What is this sentence intended to say?

However, some of the areas that saw resettlement were not as far eastward and as such, they are a part of the current German state.

I would guess that it is trying to say that parts of the territory that was settled during "Ostsiedlung" is still part of the current German state. However, if that is what is meant, this sentence does not say that and should be fixed.

--Richard 15:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Right- modern German regions like Mecklenburg, Vorpommern, Brandenburg, and Saxony were populated by Slavs before the medieval Germans arrived.

--Olessi 00:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The sentence doesn't make sense, because most of the last paragraph of the introduction is a mess.

During and after World War II, Germans were expelled east of the Oder-Neisse line, leaving the current German linguistic border smaller than that of the 10th century when expansion of German territories started. Population changes after the second World War largely reverted the Germanisation of Slavic or Baltic territory by , as it had taken place during Ostsiedlung. However, some of the areas that saw resettlement were not as far eastward and as such, they are a part of the current German state.

The next to last sentence misses a part (... territory by , as ...) and the sentence before that is factually incorrect. The Ostsiedlung started at the Elbe and Saale rivers, which are quite a bit west of the Oder-Neisse line.

-- Tibors 21:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


OstsiedlungGerman eastward expansion — No need to use German word where an adequate English equivalent exists. Also per WP:UE. —--Lysytalk 19:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support. Wikipedia is not a German-English dictionary. The German word should stay as a redirect but the article can and should be named in English. --Lysytalk 19:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. The claim that English speakers use Ostseidlung in italics defeats its own purpose; if, like blitzkrieg, it had been adopted into English, it would have lost the italics. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Many foreign (italicized) words are used for encyclopedic terms without having been adopted into the language (e.g., guanxi). —  AjaxSmack  03:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • oppose. German eastward expansion is an geographical/historical accident. Ostsiedlung is a deliberate politcal concept and ideal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barliner (talkcontribs) 13:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC) [copied from WP:RM by Stemonitis 16:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)]

[edit] Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • "No need to use German word where an adequate English equivalent exists" is not what the guideline says, but "use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works". That being said, Ostsiedlung seems to be a commonly used English version, at least until you conduct a research to prove otherwise. Duja 19:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    Ostsiedlung may be used by authors trying to impress the readers with their knowledge of German, but the contents of the article can be perfectly well described in English. --Lysytalk 19:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    Lysy, are you trying to impress somebody with your recent edits to the English Wikipedia article Wolność i Niezawisłość, or do you think that the contents of that article can not be perfectly well described in English? There are still many articles on English Wikipedia that have Polish names which are a mystery to non-Poles, how about renaming them? -- Matthead discuß!     O       22:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    Many should be renamed, especially if they are not proper names, and where good English alternatives exist, e.g. Hala Ludowa. --Lysytalk 07:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    I handled that request myself, as it was reasonably demonstrated that Centennial Hall has greater prominence in English than Hala Ludowa. Thus, for this article, you just have to reasonably demonstrate that "East Colonisation" or "Eastward expansion" or whatever has greater prominence than "Ostsiedlung" in English scholar literature. Just asserting it is not enough. Duja 11:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    Not really. Unlike Centennial Hall, this article is rather a historical essay than a description of an object. It needs a descriptive title, not a proper name, so the prominence criterion does not make so much sense in this case. --Lysytalk 19:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    (BTW, I mentioned Hala Ludowa only to counter Mattheads hint that I'm not nominating Polish titles for rename; Not as an example to follow here, as the case is clearly a different one) --Lysytalk 19:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 06:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map

Why does the map present Wielkopolska as completely German, while the fact is it was Polish linguist area with German minority ? --Molobo 07:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

it does not represent Greater Poland as completely German, please explain this misconception you have? --Jadger 17:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC) Of course it does-just as Silesia and Pomorze. --Molobo 18:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tags

Ok, let's talk...

Evolution of German linguistic area from 700 to 1950[dubious – discuss]
Evolution of German linguistic area from 700 to 1950[dubious ]
Why is the map "dubious"?

- Ostsiedlung (German: Settlement in the East), also known as German eastward expansion, refers to the medieval eastward migration and mainly peaceful settlement of Germans from modern day Western and Central Germany into less-populated regions like the Baltic and modern day Poland. These areas had been left by their ancestors[citation needed], the Germanic tribes, in the Migration Period partly due to incursions by the Huns, and since had been settled by Baltic peoples, and, since about the 8th century[citation needed], the Slavs.[1]

It appears the {{fact}} tags are being used here to challenge the assertions. Why?

--Richard 18:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

  • First the map.

It presents Pomorze, Silesia and Wielkopolska as almost completely German in 18,19, 20 century which contradicts knowledge about those areas. See scholary maps regarding those areas [1] [2] [3]

  • Second-"their ancestors. I don't know if the people who were invited to those lands by Polish and Slavic rulers were descendants of Germanic tribes moving through that area. Germanic tribes existed also in Scandinavia, North Germany and moved to Germany proper besides areas written about. People who came in Ostsiedlung could have been ancestors of those tribes, the current sentence makes the impression they were descendants of those who moved through those territories earlier. Also what is the connection to Ostsiedlung. Did they came because some Germanic tribes were here before establishing Germanic states in West ? If so that should be sourced by some neutral and objective source.
  • Third. Slavs in 8th century. It would be more correct 6-7th century.
  • Fourth. Mainly peacefull-This is an opinion that only shows part of the picture, for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polabian_Slavs "Many of the Polabian tribes were subjugated by the Franks in the 7th century and their lands were soon afterwards occupied by German bishops and nobles. They liberated themselves in a pagan uprising in 983, but were again subdued by the Germans in the mid-12th century. Despite the forced conversion to Christianity, the Slavic language was spoken by the descendants of the Drevani in the area of the lower Elbe until the early 18th century. The Lusatian Sorbs remained independent to a large extent. They were temporarily subdued by Charlemagne, but upon his death the links with the Franks were broken. In a series of bloody wars between 929 and 963 their lands were conquered by King Henry the Fowler and his son Otto the Great and were incorporated into the German domain" So it wasn't peacefull. Later they were also uprisings in Poland-Wójt Albert and Bohemia against German people. --Molobo 19:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

A major problem of this map is that it cites no sources it is based upon; in essence, it's an OR map. Thus dubious, particularly if contrary maps can be presented.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the map from the article. What about the tags? Is the veracity of the assertions being challenged? If so, on what basis? --Richard 15:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
This useful map is covering 1250 years with an animation consisting of many maps, the majority of them undisputed. It replaces a whole bunch of single maps. Surely a lot of hard work was put in that, much more than a scan of a single map requires. It would be helpful if the creator of the map would have given detailed sources for each map instead of simply listing dozens of books on his German user page [4] Apparently, he has answered to criticism and has made changes in the past. Considering the abuse from other users [5], I can understand that he apparently does not bother to put more work into Wikipedia only to see it deleted. As anyone is permitted to modify the file, I was tempted to fix it myself, but that map would inevitably be attacked as OR and POV and whatnot, too, and share the same fate. Another victory for the tireless edit warriors who in some cases had year-long vacations. -- Matthead discuß!     O       19:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

"What about the tags? Is the veracity of the assertions being challenged? If so, on what basis?" Right now it says that people that were part of Ostsiedlung were ancestors of Germanic tribes that moved on that territory while migrating from Scandinavia. However there were also Germanic tribes in North Germany and Scandinavia-how do we know that people in Ostedlung were ancestors of certain Germanic tribes and not the others.Seems far fatched to say the least. --Molobo 13:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can somebody upload this map

It is a historical map regarding this subject. Other maps by the author are on Wiki. [6] --Molobo 19:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whether or not to discuss the expulsion of Poles in the lead

I think I agree with Jagder that it is getting a bit off-topic to discuss the expulsion of Poles during WWII in the lead. I know it seems like a balancing explanation for why Germans were expelled but it doesn't need to be explained in the lead.

I will comment that the lead mentions the 19th century concepts of Drang nach Osten and Lebensraum but the article doesn't discuss it. If it's mentioned in the lead, it should be explained in greater detail in the article. Same goes for the expulsions at the end of WWII. These points should be discussed briefly because they are not specifically part of Ostsiedlung but rather the political ramifications of the romanticization of Ostsiedlung 500 years after the fact. They are also useful to make sure the reader is aware that much of Ostsiedlung was reversed by the expulsions. Mostly this section should state the facts briefly with links to the appropriate articles for the reader to learn more if he/she is interested.

As for the {{fact}} tags, I am generally in favor of finding citations for stuff unless it's commonly known stuff like "The neoconservatives in the U.S. supported the election of George Bush."

--Richard 15:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Molobos latest edit

I'm surprised no-one has reacted to Molobo (talk · contribs)s latest edit?!?

Under the edit summary: "minor npov , request confirmation of some claims", he amongst a number of citation requests also includes a sourced paragraph deletion.

Ostsiedlung (German: Settlement in the East), also known as German eastward expansion, refers to the medieval eastward migration and mainly peaceful settlement of Germans from modern day Western and Central Germany into less-populated regions like the Baltic and modern day Poland. These areas had been left by their ancestors, the Germanic tribes, in the Migration Period partly due to incursions by the Huns, and since had been settled by Baltic peoples, and, since about the 8th century, the Slavs.Ref:Wallbank and Schrier, Living World History, pp. 193

becomes

Ostsiedlung (German: Settlement in the East), also known as German eastward expansion, refers to the medieval eastward migration and settlement of Germans from modern day Western and Central Germany into regions like the Baltic and modern day Poland inhabited Baltic peoples and the Slavs

In Many articles Molobo seems to be very keen on including the Piast Dukes in the text, to show that Polish rule once extended over the eastern areas, but I guess setlements that preseded them are not so popular in Poland.... If we are going to "drop" sourced facts, it should be done openly and not quietly hidden away under the pretence of other edits. --Stor stark7 Talk 23:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The date of arrival of Slavs isn't clearly defined and open to debate, to present one version as undisputed fact is POV. --Molobo 03:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
"but I guess setlements that preseded them are not so popular in Poland.... I"
Celts and other people were there before Germanic tribes wandered from Scandinavia in their trek. I don't recall any notable states there before Piast times.--Molobo 03:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
My dearest Molobo. Maybe you are right, maybe you are wrong, but I'm not about to be dragged in to an irrelevant discussion. This you should have dealt with at the talk page before your edits. All I want do do here is to draw the attention to yet another example of how Molobo (talk · contribs)s uses misleading edit-summaries and hides his quiet deletion of sourced information interspaced with other seemingly legit edits. --Stor stark7 Talk 10:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)