Talk:Royal Prussia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ). Add comments
Supported by WikiProject Prussia.
Poland Portal
Royal Prussia is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Poland on Wikipedia. To participate simply edit the article or see our current projects and discussions. On the main project page we have some tools to help you out. Don't hesitate to ask questions!
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion

Contents

[edit] Talk of 2004

Dear user 66.47.62.78,

  • There was no such thing as West Prussia during the period described in the article.
  • 13 Years War had nothing to do with Reformation or religious wars - it was a war between two catholic states.
  • I was using only very detailed German maps as a source.
  • I happen to know that you have a bitmap version of that map in your possesion (Bonus Folder), so feel free to edit my map and replace it (we haven't had a map war on the Wikipedia, yet).
  • Is it really important who the peace treaty was recognized by, as long as it was recognized by the two fighting sides?
  • Why don't we discuss drastic changes on the "Talk" page before implementing them?

Space Cadet 15:41, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Answers to S.C. 1. West Prussia is only what it has always been before: the western part of Prussia. 2. 13 Years War had everything to do with Religion or religious wars and the (following) Reformation. Jan Hus was a forerunner of the Reformation. Things don't happen in a day. The two or several catholic cities, states -War of the Cities- of Prussia were in 1525 to become Evangelic (Protestant) eastern Prussia (later called East Prussia) and western Prussia (later called West Prussia) which partially held on to Catholic religion. Ermland- Warmia became a Fuerst-Bistum, Imperial Prince Bishopric, therefore remained a Catholic island surrounded by protestant eastern Prussia.

Catholic Crown of Poland , king Casimir IV and queen did aid Prussian Confederation, the forerunners of the later Protestant Prussians. Was Casimir IV Polish? No- he was Lithuanian (Jagiellones) and his wife, the Queen of Poland,was Elisabeth Habsburg, the Mother of the Jagiellones. So how is that for irony ? A Catholic Habsburg Queen, granddaughter of an HRR (Holy Roman Emperor ( and relative- daughter ? of an HHR emperor (Albrecht)aiding a (future) Protestant Prussia. Ninety percent of the empire, Germany, large parts of Europe had become Protestant, when the Counter-Reformation hit. The dear sweat Jesuits came to convince the rest.

(personal note: My grandmother, brought up staunchly Catholic in Silesia, in her old age, told me that she would rather change over to Evangelism. But for her it was a (Catholic) sin, to even think like that)

One needs to understand the struggle of the Religions (first the enforced Christianizations, later Counter-Reformations) then developement of the first Protestant State in Europe- in the World (1525 Prussia under Albrecht of Brandenburg-Prussia). If that is not understood then all personal freedom here or anywhere else in the world is not understood.

3. Nothing against your nice looking maps. I know, that you like to make them up. It does serve the purpose for the current younger inhabitants of the land to get familiar with the fact that their towns had different names previously, a fact dilligently withheld from them by the communists.

That this has changed since the demise of the communists to the positive, is clear to me by the photo from the Warsaw highschool classroom for German language with the poster on the wall : Ich (heart) liebe Berlin. Show that photo to wikipedians who constantly want to harp on the Polish/German German/Polish wars only.

From day one at wiki I wanted to show the family relations of the people of the countries in Europe. That is a much more important topic on how Europe was governed for the last 1000 years. But the family relations are always put aside, belittled, badmouthed by several wikipedians as unimportant and worse. However -it is just as important a point to show the Queens , Duchesses Margravesses and whatever of a country as well, because often the females had a very important role and kept the country going. (I am not a women's libber, so don't get me wrong). But I come from an Old European system, where male and female had an equal balance (other countries call it: Jin and Jang). When Professor Marija Gimbutas in her books pointed out the Old European value system, before the arrival of the people who live by the sword, she was immediately attacked by the Industrial-Military Complex in USA. I kept the newspaper article. See a pattern ?

I condensed a number of factual Maps of Prussia from throughout the centuries. 20/21th century interpretations are just that, not real, not showing the circumstances at the time-several centuries ago. For facts go to the primary sources, not interpretations.

4. On the bit map(s) . I do not want to edit your bit maps. I see so many 20/21th century interpretation maps, also 19th century ones and it seems that in those interpretation maps, by not looking at a real map from the actual time period, ly a large number of 20th century world problems, created by people who did not really look at facts, but rather created interpretations in order to gain profits.

5. Treaty of Thorn is -yes- important, that it was not recognized by the emperor nor the pope. They both held the official titles to Prussia (Golden Bulla of Rimini- Emperor, Golden Bulla of Rieti- Pope).

Reminds me of another point I am consistently pounting out a wiki- The Feudal Lien or Loan system.

(again a personal note: my mother-in-law from Elbing in (West and East) Prussia: Es ist alles nur geliehen, auf dieser schoenen Welt... (Everything is only on loan- in this beautiful world...)

so Space Cadet- yes, here I sit discussing with you my points. I do not mind discussing with you. But it takes a lot of time and I have spend w a y too much time discussing on wikipedia. I do not have t h a t much time and the great problem is on wikipedia, one gets constantly attacked (this seems to be better right now) and/or it gets constantly messed up again, that is, there is so much false, misleading and inaccurate information on wikipedia articles, which gets multiplied numerous times by a bunch of copycats, who all use wikipedia for their little websites.They do not show the updated version, nore the disclaimers and thus Wikipedia is therefore the source of Mass-Dis-Information. I therefore devised the advisory note to keep me from endless unfruitful debates.

Gotta have Love Gotta go-loveya- Tantchen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.47.62.78 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 11 February 2004

1 "Always" - meaning since 1308 Teutonic Knights invasion of Polish Pomerania, because before that there was no single Prussian in Gdansk (Danzig) or Bydgoszcz (Bromberg). Also West Prussia is a name of a province with very well defined borders, not some unspecified western side of Prussia. And that province just did not exist during Royal Prussia times.

2 Prussians were all catholic during 13 Years war. They became protestant 80 years later (roughly 3 generations) because of the rule "cuius regio, eius religio" not because of their own choice. I don't buy the "forerunners of the later Protestant Prussia". It's like calling Teutonic Knights "forerunners of the later (1871) unified Germany.

Elisabeth of Habsburg (the mother of kings) had a Piast Grand grand mother - Elisabeth of Pomerania, the grand daughter of Casimir the Great - king of Poland. Elisabeth of Habsburg spend 51 years in Poland, never leaving the country. She mastered Polish language and never spoke German again, even to her kids, so when her oldest daughter Jadwiga wed with the prince of Bavaria, she needed a translator, because she didn't speak a word of German!

3 OK

4 OK

5 Official meaningless titles one might add. And neither Pope or the Emperor ever recognized secularization of the Teutonic Order and conversion of its lands to the Protestant Ducal Prussia, but what does it prove?

Can't write any more today. Also I will not be available tomorrow, because of an urgent business downtown.
Space Cadet 04:04, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The resulting Second Treaty of Thorn (October 1466) provided for the Order's cession to the 'Polish crown' of its rights over the western half of Prussia. This treaty was between some Prussian cities and Casimir IV, who initially helped, but then wanted to annex wrongfully, which had started the 13 years war. The treaty was not recognized by pope, nore by the emperor, the supreme overlords of Prussia.


Prussia or Preussen remained the official names and Royal Prussia was not the official name. When one finds later destriptions titled Königliches Preussen, it refers to the kings of Prussia.

Prussia ( the later so identified Royal Prussia part ) stood under patronage of the Grand Dux of Lithuania (the Jagiello/Habsburg/Wasas, Wettins)). For his function in Prussia the Grand Dux held the title Dux Prussia. The other part continued to be officially Prussia as well, but was later identified as Ducal Prussia. Both the Royal and The Ducal names were only for identification purposses.

What is also confusing to a number of people today, is the fact, that the Grand Dux also became King of Poland. People sometimes believe this to mean, that Prussia became Poland or belonged to Poland. This is an error. A sample is the case of the dukes of Hannover, who also functioned as kings of England, dukes of Schleswig Holstein functioned as kings of Denmark, etc. The European imperial, royal and ducal families interchanged rules in different counties continously.

The Wettin Saxony electors for nearly a hundred years were Sac Rom Imporium- Imperial Kurfuersten electors, kings of Poland Rex Polonia and Dux Lithuania, Rus, Prus and Masovia. At the same time the Hohenzollern were Dux of Prussia.

Ermland or Warmia which is situated in the center of Eastern Prussia or Royal Prussia, remained an exempt imperial Prince-Bishopric.

The Hanse cities retained their independent status as well. They were entitled to take part in imperial diets. They kept seperate, independent armies, money system, law system and their ships flew seperate city-state flags.

The eastern part of Prussia remained under the rule of the Order and its successors, until 1660 under 'Polish suzerainty as a Polish fief', becoming the later so identified Duchy of Prussia in 1525 when the Order's Grand Master Albert of Brandenburg adopted Lutheranism and secularised his land as hereditary ruler. To clarify again, this part of Prussia also remained officially Prussia (and not Ducal Prussia).

During the First (1772) and Second (1793) Partitions of Poland West Prussia was re-united politically with East Prussia and incorporated into the Kingdom of Prussia.

    • A few facts:

1. The 13 Years War was between Teuthonic Order and Polish Kingdom only. Lithuania was not engaged in the War. And obviously the States of Prussia recognized authority of King of Poland, not Grand Duke of Lithuania. 2. Emperor was not a lord over Poland. His recognision had the same value like recognition from the Emperor of China. No Emperor's claims to Royal Prussia were recognized by Poland. 3. Royal Prussia was directly included into Polish Crown in 1569 (Great Poland province). 4. Many Polish cities were members of Hanza. It did not make them independent. 5. From 1569 Lithuania was not a separate state any more. 6. State was not personal property of the King. 7. Warmia was a part of Royal Prussia and Warmian bishop was a member of (Royal) Prussian senat. Etc.

Yeti Yeti (talk · contribs) 03:14, 20 February 2004

Dear Yeti A few more facts: The 13 years war was the war between the cities, that is the Prussian cities, some remained with the Teutonic Knights, others became independend, officially recognized is Evangelisch- Protestant in 1525. Obviously Kasimir Casimir IV was from the Lithuanian house of Jagiello, ruled as grand dukes of Lithuania and also as kings of Poland. Casimir married Elisabeth Habsburg in 1454 and therefore he was asked for help by the Prussians, because he now was the son-inlaw of emperor Albert II and grandson-in-law of emperor Sigismund. None of the socaled "Polish" kings were ever king of Prussia. They were dukes of Prussia. (Almost ?) each one of the Jagiello Lithuanian grand dukes (also kings of Poland) was married or the child of a Habsburg.

4. Krakow was a "Polish" Hanse city, but it could have actually been an imperial city for some time. Emperor Charles IV was married in Krakow to Elisabeth of Pomerania.

By the way, Pomerania was a part of the empire at least since 1181 until 1806 continously. I think SC made some remark above about Pomerania.

6. States, territories were personal properties of the nobility, they were bought and sold or traded constantly.

7. Again, one more time-- Ermland Warmia was an exempt diocese under government of an imperial {{Holy Roman Empire]] Prince-Bishop.

Please , do me a favor and correct the mistakes in the different Wikipedia articles you have input today. Thanks. MfG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.47.62.78 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 20 February 2004

Dear MfG

I am afraid your interpretation of history is highly controversial.

1. Writing that the war was between between Teuthonic Order and Polish Kingdom I mean that Lithuania was not engaged in the conflict. So obviousely, Lithuania was not the part in Torn Peace II, but only Kingdom of Poland and the cities were subdued to King of Poland. Of course he was also ruler of indepenant state of Lithuania, but this state had nothing to do with War on Prussia in 1454.

2. I know nothing about protestantism in 1466. Polish King granted to cities of Prussia vast authonomy (of course it isa modern term) in internal affairs. Besides in Poland was never the rule "cuius regio uius religio". But were subdued to King of Poland, not GD of Lithuania (even if it as the same person. Kingdom of Poland was not a personal property of any king. His "positions" as King of Poland and GD of Lithuania were entirely different matters. Besides, the Polish monarchy was not (in theory) hereditary at least from 14th century.

4. Self rule of Polish royal cities enabled them to deal them directly with foreign cities. Writing about Krakow as imperial city is ridicoulous. Yhe Emperor was in Krakow a guest of Polish King, nothing more. If you write about Gdansk or Krakow as subdued to Emperor, you can write the same way also about London or Paris. Emperorors considered themself Lords of all Christan rulers. Unfortunatelly, opinion of Kings and nobles of Kingdoms of England, France and Poland were a little bit different.

5. Duchy of Pomerania (sundued to Emperor) and Eastern Pomerania are entariely different territories.

6. "States, territories were personal properties of the nobility, they were bought and sold or traded constantly" - I think you should learn somthing on this subject. I will not comment it.

7. Warmia was not a part of Empire. Of course opinion of Emperor could be different: see 4. In fact was subdued to Polish King, and the bishop was member of diet of Royal Prussia.

8. The all controversies about the status of Royal Prussia ended in 1569, when it was included directly into Greater Poland province of Polish Crown.

If you'd like to something more about political structure of Poland between 14th and 18th centuries you can have a look at: History of Poland, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Nobles Republic.

Regards,

User:Yeti 14:48, 20 February 2004

Isn't Knipawa a district of Krolewiec? And can we use "Krolewiec" instead of Knipawa? Que piensan, ustedes, vatos? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Space Cadet (talk • contribs) 10:07, 24 May 2004

[edit] Gloger, Geografia historyczna

Zygmunt Gloger, Geografia historyczna ziem dawnej Polski. W tekście 63 autentycznych rycin, Kraków 1903 Prusy Polskie, czyli Królewskie.

Ziemia Chełmińska, dana przez Konrada I Mazowieckiego jako uposażenie jałmużnicze Zakonowi krzyżackiemu, tudzież Pomorze polskie z Gdańskiem, zagrabione Władysławowi Łokietkowi roku 1309 przez Zakon, podlegając rządom krzyżackim, zachowywały obyczaj i narodowość polską. Ucisk i wyzysk chciwego Zakonu, doznawany przez wszystkich mieszkańców tych ziem, zarówno przez wieśniaków, jak szlachtę i mieszczan, zarówno Polaków, jak Niemców (osiedlających się w miastach), utrzymywał w nich tradycye swobód, jakie posiadali pierwej pod rządem Polski lub książąt Pomorskich, i podsycał we wszystkich mieszkańcach żądzę zrzucenia z siebie jarzma krzyżackiego.

Czterech więc rycerzy (mających dobra blisko miasta Radzyna) w ziemi Chełmińskiej zawiązało, w celu pozbycia się panowania Zakonu, rodzaj bractwa, sprzysiężenia, które przyjęło nazwę Jaszczurkowego, podobno z powodu, że wyobrażenie tego niewinnego gadu służyło spiskowym jako znak do wzajemnego poznawania się między sobą. Do tego stowarzyszenia, które ufne w swa siłę, poczęło działać jawnie, przystąpiła szlachta ziemi Chełmińskiej, Ostrorodzkiej, Dzierzgowskiej, Elbląskiej, oraz mieszkańcy miast: Torunia, Brodnicy, Grudziądza, Elbląga, Brunsbergi i innych. Za takie dążności potępieni przez cesarza niemieckiego, protektora Zakonu, wysłali spiskowcy roku 1454 przedstawicieli swoich do Krakowa, gdzie przed królem Kazimierzem Jagiellończykiem oświadczyli pamiętne słowa, że „jak tylko stali się panami woli swojej, postanowili natychmiast powrócić na łono dawnej i odwiecznej ojczyzny, od której obłudą lub siłą oręża oderwani byli”.

Kiedy król, po wybuchu wojny z Zakonem, przyjechał z Torunia do Elbląga, gdzie – jak mówi Bielski – „nie jako za pana, ale ledwie nie za Boga od tych tam ludzi był przyjęt”, prócz szlachty przysięgali mu także na wierność trzej biskupi pruscy: chełmiński, pomezański i sambieński. Nastąpił sejm w Grudziądzu, na którym stanęła unia ziem „Pruskich” z Koroną. Senatorowie tych ziem, na równi z koronnymi, mieli zasiadać w radzie koronnej, czyli Wielkoradzie królewskiej, i wspólnie króla wybierać. Król przyrzekał, że urzędy w ziemiach Pruskich będzie rozdawał tylko obywatelom miejscowym. Prusy zachowywały oddzielny swój skarb, prawo indygenatu i pospolitego ruszenia w granicach tylko pruskich.

Pokój toruński, zawarty po skończonej wojnie 13-letniej z Zakonem, roku 1466, pozostawił Wielkiego Mistrza w lennem względem Polski posiadaniu Prus książęcych. A że księstwo to leżało na wschód od Prus, połączonych z Polską, powstały stąd nazwy: Prus wschodnich, czyli książęcych, pozostawionych Krzyżakom ze stolicą w Królewcu, oraz Prus zachodnich, czyli polskich lub królewskich. Te ostatnie razem z Warmią przedstawiały rozległość około 630 mil kwadratowych i co do wielkości były prawie równe Prusom wschodnim. Tym sposobem musiało ustać istnienie postanowionego podczas wojny 13-letniej województwa Królewieckiego, a stanęły tylko w Prusiech zachodnich trzy województwa: zamiast Toruńskiego Chełmińskie, zamiast Elblągskiego Malborskie razem z księstwem Warmińskiem i zamiast Gdańskiego województwo Pomorskie.

Jeszcze na początku tej wojny Kazimierz Jagiellończyk ustanowił dla ziem pruskich i nominował 4 wojewodów: gdańskiego, toruńskiego, elblągskiego i królewieckiego. Królewiecki był już wobec pozostawienia tej części Prus Krzyżakom niepotrzebny. Teraz król ustanowił 3 kasztelanów: chełmińskiego, elblągskiego i gdańskiego; 3 podkomorzych, 3 chorążych, miecznika i podskarbiego ziem Pruskich, oraz sędziów po powiatach. Urzędnicy ziemscy w województwach pruskich byli następujący: podkomorzy, chorąży, sędzia ziemski, ławnicy czyli sądowi, którzy są asesorami na sądach ziemskich, i pisarz ziemski.

Najprzód wszystkie województwa odprawiały sejmiki u siebie. Województwo Pomorskie, jako największe i aż w czterech miejscach sejmikujące, miało po tych sejmikach powiatowych sejmik wojewódzki, czyli „generalik pomorski”. Następnie posłowie zewsząd wybrani jechali na sejm prowincyonalny, to jest na ów Generał pruski, który odbywał się kolejno raz w Grudziądzu, drugi raz w Malborgu, a trzeci raz w Gniewie. Z Generału, na którym prezydował zawsze książę biskup warmiński, a w niebytności jego biskup chełmiński, posłowie jechali na sejm koronny. Jeżeli który sejmik w 3 województwach nie stanął, nie mogło być Generału, albo jeżeli zerwano Generał, posłowie na sejm koronny nie jechali. Początkowo na Generałach pruskich sam król powinien był przewodniczyć. Zwano je po łacinie Conventus Generales.

Senat pruski (Wielkorada Prus polskich) składał się z 15 senatorów czyli wielkoradców, a mianowicie: 2 biskupów: chełmińskiego i warmińskiego (bo dwaj inni, sambieński i pomezański, ze swemi dyecezyami pozostali u Krzyżaków w Prusiech wschodnich), 3 wojewodów 3 kasztelanów, 3 podkomorzych, 3 przedstawicieli głównych miast pruskich: Gdańska, Elbląga i Torunia, i wreszcie podskarbiego ziem Pruskich. Tak w senacie pruskim, jako i na Generałach, urzędowy tytuł prezydującego księcia biskupa warmińskiego był: Princeps Sacri Romani Imperii, t. j. książę świętego państwa rzymskiego, i ten w sprawach kościoła nie podlegał arcybiskupowi gnieźnieńskiemu, tylko samej Stolicy Apostolskiej.

Do Senatu Koronnego (od roku 1466) wchodziło 8 senatorów pruskich, a mianowicie: 2 biskupów, 3 wojewodów i 3 kasztelanów, których krzesła do czasu unii lubelskiej stały razem, jako oddzielna prowincya. Dopiero na sejmie powyższym (1569 roku) postanowiono za zgodą ogólną pomięszać krzesła wszystkich prowincyi Rzeczypospolitej, a więc i pruskie, w pewnym oczywiście porządku, podług starszeństwa województw. Miecznik ziem pruskich i inni wszyscy urzędnicy, nie należący do Senatu Pruskiego, mieli swoje stalla w niższej izbie sejmowej.

Wszystkie obrady na sejmikach powiatowych i na Generale prowincyi pruskiej odbywały się po polsku, sami tylko deputowani od miast (Gdańska, Elbląga i Torunia) mogli czynić wnioski po łacinie, gdyby z tego chcieli korzystać. Prawa ziemskie, zwane Jus terrestre, nadane przez

No, z tym to chyba lekka przesada. Przed unia Lubelska na pewno nie. Obrady byly prowadzone czesto po niemiecku, zwlaszcza przedstawiciele miast mowili czesto po niemicku, takie przynajmniej mam wrazenie po lekturze paru ksiazek na ten temat. Po UoL i unifikacji kraju moglo sie to zmienic.Szopen 09:31, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kazimierza Jagiellończyka, z późniejszemi zmianami obowiązywały szlachtę, której apelacya służyła do trybunału piotrkowskiego. Później, na mocy uchwały sejmu z roku 1764, ustanowiony Trybunał Wielkopolski począł sądzić sprawy kadencyami, w Poznaniu i Bydgoszczy, dla Wielkopolski i Prus królewskich. Miasta, rządząc się prawem chełmińskiem, odwoływały się do sądów nadwornych królewskich.

Prusy polskie słynęły z handlowych i bogatych miast, nad Wisłą i Nogatem położonych. O trzech najgłówniejszych: Gdańsku, Elblągu i Torunia, mówiło pospolite przysłowie, że: „Toruń piękny, Elbląg mocny, Gdańsk bogaty”. Wszystkie trzy miały prawo bicia własnej monety i biły jej dużo. Miasta powyższe dostarczały Europie: polskie zboże, potaż, wosk i inne produkta, a sprowadzały morzem dla Polski towary kolonialne, śledzie i ryby zamorskie, wina francuskie i hiszpańskie, cienkie sukna, tkaniny jedwabne i t. d. Prusy polskie obfitowały w dobrą glebę, rybne jeziora, żyzne pastwiska, obfitość pięknego bydła, oraz bursztyn, wyrzucany falami Bałtyku. Miały te ziemie porty morskie i zamki warowne, a w miastach bogate mieszczaństwo i kupiectwo. To też od czasu powrócenia ziem pomorskich do Polski za Kazimierza IV, statyści zaznaczyli wzrost dostatków w Koronie Polskiej. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WLKP (talk • contribs) 06:30, 15 December 2004

Given that this is the English Wikipedia, it's really incredibly rude to discuss articles in a language that most of the editors here cannot understand. (Having private conversations in other languages on User_talk: pages is of course fine, but article Talk: pages are a whole different kettle of fish; by definition, they are an open conversations with all members of the Wikipedia community.) We also have a Polish Wikipedia: if you want to discuss articles in Polish, please head over there. Noel (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by User:Schwartz und Weiss

I wonder, why did User:Schwartz und Weiss remove the map without any comment or discussion here ? --Lysy (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Prussia - random fragments from Polish books

This are loose fragments which I noted from different books I have dealing with Royal Prussia. They are not put in any chronological order. I am putting them here because I don't know when I will have time again to participate in Wikipedia. This could be even in Monday, or this could be few weeks.


1. "W kregu Stanowych i kulturowych przeobrazen Europy Polnocnej w XIV-XVIII wieku" Torun 1988

Quite separate category here are inhabitants of Culmerland. This was land not conquered from Prussians (_Baltic_ Prussians) but given to TO by Masovian dukes. Gentry from this region was always very active in opposition to TO and in supporting rejoining to POland. I.e in 1409-11 war there was a Lizard Union founded by local gentry. It was "legal" opposition, but it seems that the members were not so legal, because a lot of them escaped to Poland after 1411: e.g. Jan from Szczuplinek Dabrowski, Mikolaj Rynski, Staszko from Bolumin. The members played large role in convincing castles and cities in Pomorze to subdue to Wladyslaw Jagiello immedietely after Grunwald/Tannenberg (I.e Mikolaj Rynski desinformed TO about military plans of Jagiello and Vytautas). Also in 1456 the gentry from Culmerland played large role.

Page 101: Watzenrode got 3 villages from Sigismund the Old in February 9th 1508. (Podgrodzie, Krzyzewo, Karszewo)

Page 110: During conflict between Watzenrode and Elbing and Danzig the cities went to king's court. The judgment was carried in January 18th in Cracow. But mediation carried with help of also magnates from the Crown failed because Watzenrode didn't want to compromise. Also later both cities were calling for kings help.

Witold Szucki about Royal Prussian parliament 1548-1569.

It was created by Sigimund I in "danzig constitution" from 1526 and was dissolved by Sigismund August in 1569.

Initially from 1548 to 1562 Sigismund August backing elites, magnates, only later he finally backe executionist' movement.

Prussian Sejmik was made from two parts: higher, with Prussian COuncil made from two bishops, three voivodes, castellanes and "podkomorzy", and delegates from three mayor Prussian cities: Danzig, Elbing and Thorn. Small cities and gentry participated in lower part of the parliament. The Sejmiks were normal and special, which were called by king.

The high cost of being a delegate cause gentry to demand from king a recompensation from royal treasure, (1549, 1556) which king both times refused.

In 1551 gentry demanded that delegates could be called to Sejmiks only by king letters, since "they do not want to be ruled by voivodes".

Both small cities and gentry were called to Sejmiks by king's letters. I would LOVE to see any such letter, to see whether they were signed as _king of Poland_ or _grand duke of Prussia_. On all documents I saw and in all books Sigismund was signing as "king of Poland, duke of Masovia, Poland, hereditary lord of Russia" etc etc, but if I could see original letter we would finally solve the issue with anonymous editor who constantly edits the articles introducing IMO arteficial "grand duke of Prussia" title.

2. "Prusy Książęce i Prusy Królewskie w XVI-XVIII wieku" Kielce 1997

Jan Małłek: "Dwie części Prus - nowe spojrzenie" pp 13-14: "In XVI-XVIII century inhabitants of this province, of different religions, using different languages - German, Polish, Lithuanian or Prussian - were feeling Prussians. (...) Interesting here is look into XIX century, where new-Prussian nationality was destroyed (which, as it seems, was consisting of people from both parts), and joining of different groups of population, which were until now differing in language, but not in identity, to Poles, Germans or Lithuanians. It is thought that only about 1860 one can put equation sign between being Prussian and German.

(Actually, one would have to add here Scotts, English, Jews, Swedes, French, Danes and Dutch).

Jorg Hackmann in his article notices that Polish historians concentrated mainly on Polish ties, while German on German ties of Prussia.

"genthe Pruthenum natione Polonus" identity...

Ducal Prussia: 1563 Hohenzollerns from Brandenburgia were allowed to the fief by Polish king (which was, as some Polish historian say, his first mistake and first occasion for incorporation of Ducal Prussia), and they take over Prussia in 1618. After all, treaty from 1525 restricted that only Albrecht and his sons in male line, or his three brothers or their male descendants could inherit the Duchy, and then Ducal Prussia was to be incorporated into Poland. When all Hohenzollern from Frankonian line died out, king instead allowed to pass the duchy into hands of Brandenburg like, again with restriction that after they will die out, duchy should be passed to Poland. Brandenburg line firs get this right in 1563, which was then confirmed in 1569 by Polishh Sejm, but this had to be confirmed each time ruling duke changed and only in 1618 it finally was passed into Brandenburgian hands.

Danuta Bogdan: "Warmia - ksiestwo, dominium, kraik"?

1243: TO was to get 2/3 of conquered territory, each of 4 bishopry was to get 1/3. In 1260 1/3 of bishopry in Warmia was given to capitule. TO was Warmia's protector, but subjects of Warmia's bishops were obliged to fight for bishop, not for TO.

D.Bogdan present then the Polish and German view on Warmia. According to her, German historians consider Warmia's bishops independent ruler, not under the TO, while Polish think that it was rather dominium inside TO - since Warmia was outside represented by TO, laws passed by grand master were obligatory in Warmia, and Warmiaks participated since 1411 in general Prussian assemblies.

In 1454 when Prussian delegates went to Cracow and asked king for incorporation of Prussia into Polish kingdom and when then pledged allegiance to Polish king, Warmia's bishop was not amongst the delegates, and two representatives of Warmia had no legal right to represent bishop and took an oath only in their own name. In 1464 there was initial treaty in which Sigismund August took Warmia under his protection, and only in 1467 it was incorporated formally into Polish kingdom, and become part of the crown.

Soon after there was conflict over election of bishop, when king forced his candidate Wincenty Kielbasa (bishop of Culmerland), while Warmiaks wanted Mikolaj Tungen. Mikolaj Tungen in 1476/7 broke the alliance and first allied with TO, and then went for protection of Hungarian king Maciej Korwin. During the negotiation Mikolaj Tungen claimed two things: that Warmia was duchy of the Reich and denied the fact of incorporation into the crown in 1467, and that Warmia is directly under the pope and can choose any protector it wants.

Finally there was treaty of Piotrkow in 1479, in which Warmia was "returned to the body and unity of Polish kingdom" (seems to be quote from the treaty, because D.Bogdan uses that sentence in apostrophes), king was recognised as lord and protector of Warmia, and bishop and capitule received the duty of pledging the allegiance to king. Warmia's estate had to pledge allegiance to king every ten years. Also Warmiaks received the right to renounce the loyalty to Warmia's bishops if they won't pledge the allegiance to Polish king and the right of apellation to king's courts. Bishop of Warmia also received the place in Polish senate.

Lucas Watzenrode was also choosen against king's will, but he was so keen politician he quickly became trusted man of king. He received confirmation of all priviledges received "from popes, emperors, and Polish kings". Finally in 1512 it as decided that capitule will sent king the CV and qualifications of all capitule members, from them king will choose 4 from them, and from this four capitule will elect the bishop, which will then be sent to the pope for confirmation. Those candidates had to be either indigenes (born in Prussia) or sons of king. Then bishop had to pledge the allegiance to king. The treaty was confirmed by pope Leon X in 1513. All later conflicts were caused by forcing by king Polish candidates from the Crown, which started fast polonisation of Capitule with 1551 election of first Polish bishop, Stanislaw Hozjusz.

Warmia had separate laws, based on old "Culmerland law", while in Royal Prussia it was in 1598 replaced by Polish law, while in Ducal Prussia "Culmerland laws" were abandoned in 1620.

Formally Warmia bishopry was under Riga, but this stopped in 1566, and bishops of Warmia were fighting against recognising metropoly of Gnesen, insisting that they are directly under the Rome.

The title: it was used ONCE in XIV century: in the letter from emperor Charles XI in 1357 bishop or Warmia is called "princeps et devotus noster diletus" but this could be just manner of emperor's chancellary, who addressed many others with similar names. In XV century in 1492 Maximillian in letter to Watzenrode also called him prince.

Bishop Marcin Kromer, when writing his book "Polonia" in part about Royal Prussia and Warmia said that Warmia has separate lands, laws and jurisdiction "as if it was duchy". Gottfried Lengnich, quoting capitule member and king's secretary Tomasz Treter, in first part of XVIII century wrote that bishops of Warmia got the title of prince from Chales IV, and that they are using this title when writing to foreigners or their subjects, but not with official archives nor with relation of king, because king's chancellary does not recognise this title. He also wrote that emperor Charles IV gave bishop right to mint coins and nobilitations, but this right were never used.

Also, Royal Prussia estates _always_ called bishops of Warmia "Herr Bischoff from Heilsberg", not as princes. Also popes: Gregory XIII when writing in 1583 to bishop Kromer, and Benedykt XIII in 1725 to Krzysztof Szembek, title them as "venerabili fratri Martino (Marcin Kromer) Episcopo Warmiensis".

It seems that first bishop who consequently started use the title of prince was Waclaw Leszczynski in 1644, or Mikolaj Szyszkowski in 1633.

In 1489 capitule claimed, that it is under laws of concordate of German nation (the 1448 treaty between pope Mikolaj V and emperor Fryderyk III), but this claims were severly limited in 1513. King sent in 1610 Bratkowski to Rome in search in archives for original of documents, but he failed.

Most interesting: since times of bishop Rudnicki, bishop had to search the agreement of capitule when... _declaring wars_ (!!!) putting extra- ordinary taxes and so on.

Page 71: "Prussia was always as >>land<< something more than province, but in eyes of Polish kings they were always part of the Crown"

Parliament of Warmia was unique in whole Poland. It consisted not only from representatives of nobles, cities but also from peasants.

The pledge of allegiance for bishop could be given in one of two languages: in either Polish or German.

Since XVII century Warmia's inhabitants strongly wanted to become third part of Prussia, as separate part. They wanted to introduce the term of "Warmia indygen" in addition to existing "Prussian indygen".

The author concludes that most similar is situation of duchy of Siewierz, which belonged to bishops of Cracow.

Hans-Jurgen Bomelburg "Royal Prussia and Masovia: comparison of regional identity in modern times in Polish kingdom".

1526 titles of Polish king: "rex Poloniae, magnatus dux Lithuaniae, Russiae totiusque Prussiae ac Masoviae dominus et haeres"

The author stresses the duality of gente-natione in Poland. The nobles of many voivodships (Samogitia, Vohlyn, Inflanty) described themselves as separate "nations".

Some quotes which I think will support strongly the separatism of Prussians (But my German is very poor, could someone translate it?) in 1535 Royal Prussia Council declared "dweil wir eyn Volck und under eynem Herrn gesessen" and in the case of war with Albrecht "die furstliche Durchleuchtigkeit [Albrecht] nicht verlassen muchte noch kunte" and representatives of Danzig said "wir allhier im Lande, das ein corpus und unter eynem Herrn gelegen, eyner den andern in Nothen nicht verliessen".

Prussia had indygenat, separate laws, treasury and Sejmik for whole Royal Prussia. And again, I can't understand Bomelburg here: "despite this the authonomy supporters, as Gottfried Lengnich, wrote >>Die meisten Auswartige sehen die Provintz ein in drey Woywodschafften geteiletes Land ab, welches von der Cron Polen bloss dem Namen nach unterschieden is".

Comparison to Masovia: in 1527 delegates from Masovia were forced to resign from their project of giving king title of duke of Masovia, so he would rule Masovia as duke not as king; in 1530 Masovians sent their delegates to the Sejm; in 1540 after decade of conflicts Masovian laws were modified to made them more similar to those in the Crown, but still Masovia has separate laws. In 1569 Mikolaj Siennicki, leader of executionist, said to the king "we are scared by the fact that your Highness is thinking, that you keep Masovia by some other, not royal law".

In 1576 finally there was unification of laws between the crown and Masovia, but some of the laws were kept and guaranteed as separated Masovian privileges (46 articles: "except ducatus Masoviae"). This unification was demanded by the Masovian themselves, because obviously they saw advantages resulting from this unification (nobles' rights in crown were larger than in both Masovia and Royal Prussia).

Going back to Prussia: 1766, starosta from Naklo, Kasper Rogalinski, who came here from the crown: "I doubt the Alkoran between Turks, Talmud between Jews are so respected as those here Prussian laws, about which everyone here is speaking with respect and everyone is enjoying them and is of opinion that whole Europe is jeallous about them, and very few are those who know them and understand them."

The elites of Danzig and Elbing were not using language or religious arguments when arguing about their privileges. Different situation was in Torun/Thorn. Samuel Luther Geret in 1774, under impression of Bar confederacy and in time of religious conflicts between catholics and lutherans: "Wenn ich betrachte, dass wir Polen geworden und, aufgehoret haben, Preussen zu seyn. Ja! Die Polen, die Feinde von Preussen, haben, seit der Ziet, dass wir an die Konige von Polen uns ergeben haben, unser Vorfahren mittlerer Zeir beredete, biss gar niemand ubrig sey, der unsern Gesetz- und Pacten massugen Zustand verstehe, und wir dergestalt blosse Woywodschafften von Preussen und keine Lande Preussen, lediglich Polacken und kein Preussen, mehr seyn werden. Einen eigenen und abgesonderten Staatskorper haben - die von der Republick Polen durch Sprache, Sitten, Rechte, Gewohnheiten, Stande und Ordnungen, Rathe, Obrigket und Richter ganz verschieden." Author stresses that no other document uses such arguments (but I don't think I fully understand them - I grasp every second word from German text, can someone translate it?)

1573: Jan Dymitr Solikowski "Conversation in Kruszwica": "Now, when in one republik and common kingdom Poles, Lithuanians, Prussians, Russians, Masurs, Samogitians, Inflantians, Podlasians, Vohlynians, Kievians, I see no way for them to choose the lord from their nation"

In the same time and other document "Surely, as Pole for German, Lithuania for Prussian, Prussian for Vohlynian, Russian for Masur, Masur for Samogitian, Samogitian for Inflantian won't agree" or in other "Now, my beloved Poles, my beloved other brothers, Lithuania, Russians, Prussians, Masovians..."

Masovia was treated also later as separate country: "All those damages in Poland and Masovia..." in chronicle of Stryjkowski.

J. Crassinii, "Polonia" 1574 (Krasinski) "numerous and wide lands, as Poland, Lithuania, Russia, Prussia, Masovia, Samogitia, Inflanty, all together made one powerful state".

1667 Stanislaw Dzialynski, descendant of rich Greater Polish family said that he is "dann er nicht ein Kosack sonder ein Prusack were".


Krzysztof Mikulski "Szlachta i patrycjat w Prusach Krolewskich w XV-XVIII wieku"

G.Lengnich in XVIII century claimed that Royal Prussia and Poland are in Personal union, joined only by the person of king.

hehe, Hans Schaffer from Thorn, to make him more like noble, changed the name to Kochanski :)

1611: indygenat of Prussia was abolished by Sejm, but king cancelled this law. Sejmik from 1613 in Greater Poland: "Indigenatus Prussian, which is against freedom and law of citizens of whole republik, which they have, should be abolished, since aequalitas in aequali republik should serve to anyone". The question of abolishing the indygenat appeared on Sejms many times, but finally the postulates of gentry from Greater Poland were not fulfilled.

Sejmik Proszowicki in instructions for delegates to Sejm, in 1592 "Prussian land should in nothing be different from the Crown, and should have no separate offices, and especially >>podskarbi<<. And that it should have the same burden as Crown, as the body of one republic". Year later Sejmik Sredzki: Lithuania, Inflanty and Prussia "should be with us, as we with them, has equal burdens".

1627 Lubomirski said, that why Poles should fight for Prussia, if king will it take into his own possession and give all to the Germans.

Barbara Janiszewska-Mincer "Influence of filo-polish party in 1602-1621..."

The opposition in Ducal Prussia was consisting of both catholics and lutherans, Poles and Germans. The largest party acted in 1602-1621, when two parties fought in Ducal Prussia - filopolish and filobrandenburgian.

In 1600 opposition already in landtag complained about violation of rught of Prussians of appelation to kings courts, and asked king to sent his comissars to Ducal Prussia to eradicate all wrong-doings. Only in 1602 however Otto von Groben appeared as leader of filo-polish party, when he conflicted with Fain Dohn, calvin (calvinism was forbidden in Ducal Prussia) and leader or filo-brandenburgian party.

Otto von Groben was German, but knew Polish very well.

In the beginning filo-Polish party was representatives of lower and middle gentry. It wanted strengthening of ties with poland, reducing rights of cities and bringing to Prussian gentry the same rights as Polish gentry had. Because of "querula" which were constantly given by this party (complaints) they were called "querulants".

Their leaders were Otto and Eustach von Groben, Poles from family of Finkowie, German Tettau, Keytzen, Oelsnitz, Lesgewangs, and Pole Fryderyk Bielinski.

in 1604 querulants appeared as opposition against Brandenburgian succession. They considered Ducal Prussia a province of Polish kingdom, and they demanded that in case of Sejm, king should demand sending also delegates from Ducal Prussia.

In 1605 querulants again presented their program. They wanted stricter ties with Poland, they considered Polish king decision of giving succession to Brandeburgians illegal as they were not consulted with Polish and Prussian estates.

Querulants were constantly asking for help king, Polish opposition etc. King however was ignoring them. In 1609 Groben was delegate (again) to Polish Sejm and Senate. He underlined that PRussian gentry is part of Polish republic and wants to have the same freedoms as Polish gentry. He asked also king for sending his comissars to Poland. When speaking to Sejm (lower camera of Polish parliament) he was even more radical. He protested against giving the duchy to the _foreigner_ who would surely want to separate Ducal Prussia from Poland.

Also Groben gave king project made by querulants, in which they proposed the king joining duchy to kingdom. Ducal Prussia was to be divided into three voivoidships.

King ignored querulant demands, he only sent his comission, which came to Prussia in 1609. On landtag filo-brandenburgian party protested against actions of filo-Polish party and Polish comissars. Polish comission reduced rights of cities and increased influences of gentry.

Later querulants were fighting for rights of catholics and for guaranteeing the right of apellation to king's court (confirmed in 1613).

In 1614-16 Polish king asked why Brandenburgian employs foreigners (non-indygens) violating Prussian privileges and demanded that he should remove them from the offices. After few years finally Fabian Dohna was removed from his office.

After 1616 oppossition unexpectedly received backing from the cities. In 1618 finally rigth to apellation to king was confirmed - every landrat, noble and city council could apellate to the king.

In 1621 filo-Polish opposition was broken. Groben was forced to emigrate.

Another article: in 1556 Royal Prussia estates demanded, that King's forces should abandone the country (those ere soldiers hired to war with Moscow) and that in future king should consult Prussian estates before he would march his army into the Prussia.

Prussian Sejm in 1558: Prussia is part of the Crown, and not the other way, so the Crown's duty is to protect Prussia, and not the other way. In other words, Prussians refused to participate in costs of war with Moscow. They thought that if they are attacked, king should protect them, but they do not have to pay taxes for wars with Moscow. No wonder the reaction of executionist movement was so strong. "Equal rights, equal burdens" was after all the chief slogan of executionists.

1563 in letter to Danish king Fryderyk III, Sigismund August: "We are governing not as our will dictates us and not as we want, but according to the law and rules of our ancestors".

A lot of conflicts was caused by the creation of Polish fleet. Danzigers were abstaining for help as much as they could, delaying taxes, complaining about Polish mariners etc.

The article about Prussian regiments in war with Moscow in 1609 is not interesting for the discussion here. Similarly about Polish envoys in XVIII century.

Marcin Chachaj:

Interesting thing: as you know, Polish natio in Bologne was created only about 1600. In 1600-1661 there are 18 people who wrote that they came from "Prussia" or "Borussia" in lists of Polish natio, while there are still also few names in lists of German natio. In total in XVI and XVII century 73 student names are recorded, of which 6 are in irst part of XVI century in German natio (where there was no Polish natio in Bologne yet), 29 + 9 in other German natio lists before 1600. Some names were repeating in some lists. Quick math shows that most of recorded students after 1600 had to sign to Polish natio, nevertheless.

Article mentions also Prussian and Inflantian "natio". Wonder why Prussians were not signing there? Or maybe I am not understanding something here?

The next two articles deals with economy and are not interesting for the discussion here.

3. Wies³aw Fija³kowski "Poles and their descendants in history of USA" W-wa 1978

In 1619 specialists contracted by John Smith from Danzig, who came as first Poles to America, were called in documents "Polacks". Of course they were _contracted_ in Danzig, so it is possible that they were outside Prussia.

4. Maria Bogucka "Kazimierz Jagiellonczyk" KiW 1978

When denvoys from Prussia led by Gabriel Bazynski (called von Baysen in German sources) came to Cracow asking king for incorporation of Prussia into Polish kingdom, they were opposed by Zbigniew Olesnicki party. Kings nevertheless proclaimed in 6th March 1454 that Prussia is incorporated into Polish kingdom, "which Teutonic Knights, falsely called brothers from monasteries, ... secretely invaded, took and illegally kept against king's wishes, for loss of their souls ..."

When envoys came back to Prussia, and hearing that king backed Prussian Union, the uprising started. In May 1545 king arrive to Torun, when he took pledge of allegiance from Culmerland.

After catastrophic defeat at Chojnice burghers of Prussian cities reached king in Nieszawa and asked him to not be stopped by the defeat, but to immedietely start gathering new armies. They also stated that they will help him with all his wealth and that they will not broke given oath to their death.

During whole war king couldn't find enough money. Lesser Polish gentry was against taxes; clergy was against taxes;

When finally treaty of Torun was signed, bishop of Warmia was enumerated along other bishops, without any special remarks, just if he was normal bishop under king's overlordship.

Jan Dlugosz writing in his chronicle added: "And I, who wrote this chronicle, was filled with joy because of end of Prussian war and returning the lands once lost... I, who was bearing with sorrow that Polish kingdom is by different nations tore apart, I consider happy me and my contemporaries. For even happier I would consider myself if I was able to see Silesia, Lubuska land and Slupska land... returned and joined."


1467 Kazimierz Jagiellonian:" If holy father, pope, could his bishop place there, this could then started new custom and king, and also land and cities would be robbed from this law."

Wincenty Kielbasa, candidate of king, was "indygen" since he was noble from Culmerland, yet he was treated as foreigner in Warmia.

When Tungen without king's agreement was elected for bishop, Kazimierz with 2.000 mercenaries went to Prussia. In 1477 Grand Master of TO, Marcin Truchsess von Wetzhausen refused to pledge the allegiance to POlish king, allied with Tungen and started war. After short war in 1479 king has whole Warmia in his hands and TUngen had to escape to Teutonic Knights. In 1479 two delegates from Warmia's capitule came to the Sejm, along with Mikolaj Tungen and Marcin Truchsess. Mikolaj Tunge, according to DLugosz, crying denounced his sins and then he was forgiven by Kazimierz. Tungen pledged allegiance in 1479. Similarly had to do grand master of TO.

Also it was decided, that within three months from being confirmed by Rome, each Warmia's bishop will have to pledge allegiance to king if he would be in Prussia, or the pledge would be taken in king's name bishop assigned by king, with presence of burgmeisters of Thorn, ELbing and Danzig, starosta of Malbork and voivode. Similar pledge was to be given every ten years by Warmia's population.

Unification of Prussia: in 1454 king introduced some Polish offices to Prussia: starosta, castellans, voivodes. 1467 the old office of governor was abandoned and instead the office of chief starosta of Prussia, tied to the office of starosta of Malbork. Scibor Bazynski who was previously governor was nominated voivode of Malbork, while new chief starosta became Jan Koscielecki.

In 1469 the court system similar to that in the crown was introduced, that is city courts (sady grodzkie) and land courts (sady ziemskie). Three kings comissars went to Prussia, two bishops and hero of 13-years war, DUnin. Their activity wasn't well seen by local magnates - they started with reminding Scibor Bazynski, that he no longer can use the title of Prussia's governor - seems he was still using it despite the office was no longer existing. The comissars started to put some taxes, customs, taking some villages etc. In 1476 Kazimierz Jagiellonczyk in whole Royal Prussia introduced uniformly CUlmerland law. New starosta of Malbork became Piotr Dunin from Lesser Poland. Dunin wasn't extremely popular in Prussia.

In 1485 king for the first time asked Prussia for taxes, because of possibility of war with Turkey. Estates refused. New starostas in 1485 were also assigned three newcomers from the Crown.

The situation in Prussia was very complicated. King's starosta in Malbork, newcomer from the Crown, had 17 starosta's under him, all newcomers fromthe Crown. 13th other starostas however were under "naczelnik krajowy" (hm... land's chief?). At first ti was Mikolaj Bazynski, when he resigned king appointed other voivodes of Prussia. Between king's starostas and others there were constant conflicts. Especially Danzig was troublesome. It illegally captured nobles and put them against city's courts. In revenge Teczynski, Polish starosta was capturing Danzig' subjects.. etc etc.

Again Bogucka stresses the difference between Culmerland, where gentry has different faily ties with Greater Poland, and the rest of Royal Prussia.

Finally: 1485 Thorn agreed for taxes, 1487 Elbing, 1488 - Culmerland's gentry. 1489 against king's wish Watzenrode was elected bishop of Warmia. The conflict was to be solved at Prussian parliament. This was very nervous atmosphere, especially since in may king introduced 2600 his soldiers into Prussia. Especially gentry was for king, especially from Culmerland, while magnates and large cities opposed him. In Culmerland soon there was separate sejm, where gentry agreed for king's taxes.

In 1489 new TO grand master Jan Tiefen pledged allegiance to Polish king...

In 1489 Prussian Sejm gave his demands to king: "Removal of newcomers from the Crown from starosta offices; remove king's army from Prussia; Prussia's buisseness deal only with Prussia's couuncil, without Crown's gentry; keep Warmia's privileges; join to Prussia lands, which king gave in lien to duke of Slupsk, Lebork and Bytow." From _part_ (author does not specify which one) Prussian delegates then withdrew.

Finally in 1490 Prussian estates agreed for tax for whole Prussia. Prussian delegates reached king in december in Piotrkow Sejm, asking to mercy for Watzenrode. King ignored it and acted as offended prima ballerina. Watzenrode and whole Warmia, to please king, agreed to join the taxes. But king to his death was not pleased with Watzenrode's election.


I have some more books about Prussia, but had no time to type the infromation from them. Szopen 11:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Entering removed version

Entering here the version removed by Balcer; [1]

For references read erternal link of that version, which was also removed by Balcer.

MG 4/17/2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.39.36 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 18 April 2006


An old map from the 17th century and a reference to a biased www.westpreussen-online.de/ site is not very convincing. Modern, reliable, English language references are needed to establish facts. The most recent English language reference is unambiguous on the subject. As this question already came up in discussions around Copernicus, let me just paste my relevant comment here.
To anyone interested in the history of Royal Prussia, I suggest the most recent, comprehensive reference: The Other Prussia: Royal Prussia, Poland and Liberty, 1569-1772 by Karin Friedrich, Cambridge University Press, 2000 (book viewable on Google Book Search). Balcer 02:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I find one particular passage in this book which I think merits extensive citation (from page 23 of the book):
Section: Royal Prussia as a province of the Polish crown
In the political language of the Polish Renaissance, whose culture had already penetrated Prussian political thinking and writing under Teutonic rule, the Incorporation Act of 1454, which joined the Prussian territories in union with Poland, accused the Teutonic Knights of tyranny: their acts of perfidy and violence had nullified all previous treaties and obligations owed by their former subjects. This document was later accorded quasi-religious veneration by the Prussian estates, and particularly the representatives of the three major cities. As a catalogue of gravamina against the German Order, it details the estates' accusations. The Teutonic Knights' evil deeds - murder, conspiracy, exploitation, rape, fraud and tyranny - justified, in the words of the Polish King, the act of resistance against unlawful government. As a 'king who obeys the laws set by God', Casimir Jagiellonczyk accepted the Prussian prelates, knights, burghers, nobles, and all inhabitants of the Prussian lands under his rule, to which they 'spontaneously and voluntarily' subjected themselves ([latin quote of document, translated: we integrate, reunite, reinstate, and incorporate [you], for the participation in all properties, laws, liberties and prerogatives ... of the Polish kingdom). Balcer 02:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Let me also include this quote from 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica (it's not recent, but it is Public Domain and available in entirety online. This is from the entry on Teutonic Order
The first blow struck at the Order, if it did not destroy its power immediately, ruined its prestige for ever. The defeat which the Polish king Ladislaus inflicted upon the knights at Tannenberg in 1410 was crushing. It brought Ladislaus little immediate gain; but it stimulated the elements of unrest in Prussia to fresh activity. The discontented clergy, especiaEy in Livonia; the towns, such as Danzig; the native aristocracy, organized in a league (the Eidechsenbund, or League of the Lizard), all sought to use their Opportunity. It was in vain that the heroic grand master, Henry of Plauen (1410-1413) sought to stem the tide of disaster; he was deposed by the chapter of the Order for bis pains. The success of the Hussite raids in Germany gave fresh confidence to the Slavs of Poland. The Order was at variance within itself; some of the bouses of the brethren refused to obey the marshal, and the grand master quarrelled with the German master. Above all, there arose in 1440 the Prussian League (Preussischer Bund), in which the nobles and towns joined together, nominally for common protection of their rights, but really against the Order. The League naturally sympathized with Poland, not only because Poland was the enemy of the knights, but also because under Poland it hoped to enjoy the practical liberty which Polish anarchy already seemed to offer. The ultimate result was that in 1454 an embassy of the League offered Prussia to the Polish king, and that, after many years of war, the Peace of Thorn (1466) gave to Poland West Prussia, with Marienburg, Thorn, Danzig and other towns, in full possession, and, while leaving East Prussia to the Order, made the Order the vassals of Poland for the territory which it retained. Henceforth the grand master was to sit in the Polish diet on the left of the king, and half of the knights of the Order were to be Polish. -- Balcer 01:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


This is all old stuff, brought up numerous times. You are forgetting, that the Preussische Bund Prussian Confederation, was declared illegal by empire and pope and that the 1466 Treaty of Thorn was not accepted by emperor or pope an so on and so on.
MG 4/17/2006 24.23.39.36 01:31, 18 April 2006
It has been brought up more than once because you stubbornly refuse to accept it. As to what the pope and the empire thought about the Treaty of Thorn, who cares? In 1466 the Empire and the Pope lost most of their influcence, and did not own or run Europe. Why should it matter whether they accepted the treaty or not? Balcer 23:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capital - Government of Prussia, Royal Prussia

Did Royal Prussia have an actual capital where its legislature always met, or did it not have anything quite so permanent in its governance? Its capital or its lack of one should be mentioned in the article. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Why should rivalling cities settle for a permanent capital? Prussian Landtag (also called Ständetag or Tagfahrt, see Acten der Staendetage Preussens, koeniglichen Antheils.(westpreussen.)) diets were held at varying places, e.g. in March 1522 at Graudenz with Copernicus, and there apparently also in 1530, 1579, 1608, 1612, 1678, 1699, 1701, 1730. Elbing in 1427, 1467, 1504 and 1507 (with Copernicus), 1517, 1528, 1529, 1569. Thorn 1485, 1571, 1594, 1626. Danzig 1526. Marienburg 1466, 1476, 1504, 1528, 1535, 1546, 1556, 1648, 1652, 1701. And so on. Of course a Prussian Landtag was also held in Königsberg. And later in Berlin. -- Matthead  Discuß   00:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
There were many cities where Landtage an Staendetage governing authority meetings were held. The Legal Acten records of Prussia during the T.O. and afterwards are documented in book form and for some strange reasons wound up in USA universities, where many of them are now posted on internet, such as the book of the Acten der Staendetage in Westpreussen (Royal Prussia, Western Prussia)

Royal Prussia on Wikipedia contains many basic false/incorrect assumptions/statements

[edit] Danzig - Emperor document 1473 to King of Poland Casimir IV, verifying, that Danzig is IMPERIAL City

Completely disregarded at Wikipedia are multiple documents from eastern and western Prussia, which show different status of Danzig or western (Royal) Prussia as it is portrait in wikipedia. In the book featuring the Staendetage in Westprussia is the document of 1473 where the emperor writes to Casimir IV and verifies the Imperial Status of Danzig

Come on, Poland did not recognise authority of the German Emperor. He could think and wrote whatever he liked and it didn't matter, nothing at all. If you had Casimir's answer, now THAT would matter something. Szopen (talk) 07:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read up on Danzig, Danzig Law, Reinhold Curicke etc

I find that some people keep adding to Danzig, Poland or change it to Gdansk, such as in Reinhold Curicke or Danzig law. It is not Gdansk, Poland until conquest in 1945, but Danzig, Prussia or Danzig, Royal Prussia, but not Danzig Royal Prussia, Poland.

I collected a number of historical facts for Danzig, Danzig law and Prussia, of which it was a continous part.

I posted these at Talk:Danzig law [2] (also above)

It is pointed out that (even then) the false assumptions (about Danzig) are sometimes made (es ist ein Fehler, wann zuweilen vorgegeben wird, die Republik Polen sei Herr ueber die Stadt (Danzig) und ihre Recht usw). I realize that this will take some time to read through. This false assumption, that Danzig was Poland or Royal Prussia, was Poland is often repeted, it is nevertheless false and Wikipedia should not engage in entering false assumptions or claims. An Observer 9.6.2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.68.253 (talk)


City of Danzig, Prussia (not subjugated by Polish kingdom/commonwealth) with Danzig law continued as part of Prussian Law for all states of Prussia

Juribus municipalibus Terrarum Prussiae Danzig dem polnischen Reich nicht unterworfen Danzig was not subjugated to Polish kingdom/commonwealth S 424

Juribus municipalibus Terrarum Prussiae Rechtssystem fuer Danzig wie ganz Preussen Danzig together with all parts of Land of Prussia continued one Law system S 27

Preussische Staedte liessen 1452 Privilegien von Kaiser Friedrich III bestaetigen Prussian cities had law system verified by emperor Frederick III in 1452 S 29

Huldigungs- Eide…die Stadt Danzig dem Koenig von Polen und sonst niemanden die Treue gelobet..

Es ist ein Fehler, wann zuweilen vorgegeben wird, die Republik Polen sein Herr ueber die Stadt und ihre Rechte

Allegiance oaths…the city of Danzig pledged allegiance to the person of king of Poland and to no one else.

It is a mistake, when sometimes it is assumed that the republic of Poland is (was) highest overlord over Danzig and her rights (laws system) S 44

Koenig von Polen als Schirmherr Danzig’s , King of Poland protector of Danzig, could wrote letters, suggestions, Danzig always furnished, paid for own troops S 69, 70 An Observer 9.6.2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.69.190 (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous, Gdansk is Polish name of the city founded by Polish duke. It was used hundred years ago. Royal Prussia was integral part of Poland, just as Gdansk. It had very wide autonomy, but was part of Poland. Almost all Polish cities and magnates had their own armies, a lot of provinces had their own set of different laws, this was reality of Poland - it was not centralised state. Szopen (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If Gdansk was not part of Poland, then why: 1) When Poland had Royal fleet, it always stationed in Gdansk. WHen Gdansk mob at one occassion attacked Polish mariners, and several were punished by death, king forced Gdansk to subdue and delegates from Gdansk wer ein public, on their knees, apologising for their action, paying high retribution to families of killed Polish mariners

(1570).

2) After Batory election, Gdansk first refused to recognise him, and then after war subdued, again delegation apologised Polish king and paid high contribution (1577). Gdansk artillery was then used in war against Moscow. 3) The laws of Gdansk were confirmed by POLISH KING, not by emperor. 4) In 1526 King Sigismund entered the city, punished several rioters, expelled Lutherans (on what authority, if he was not overlord of Gdansk?). Then he GAVE NEW SET OF LAWS TO GDANSK. How he could do it, if he had no autority over Gdansk? 5) If Poland had no authority over Gdansk, why Polish Sejm was able to put Statuty Karnkowskiego in 1570? This law was revoked only after Gdansk rebellion during Batory's rule, as part of compromise (Batory revoked statuty, Gdansk recognised Batory and Polish overlordship, apologised, and paid contribution) 6) If Gdansk had no ties to Poland, why in Rathaus they had three coat of arms: Prussian, Gdansk and Polish? 7) If King of Poland had no autority in Gdansk, what about 1678 Sobieski's visit to Gdansk, were he was changing Gdansk laws? 8) If Poland had no authority over Gdansk and it was absolutely free city, what was the role of Polish "Gdansk castellan"? 9) If Gdansk had no ties with Poland, why when minting money, on one side they had coat of arms of Gdansk, and on second side they had either Polish eagle or king's portraits, with signatures like "KASIMIRVS REX POLON" (look here: http://www.klaser.pl/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=19) or here http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mennica_gda%C5%84ska#Zygmunt_August_.281548-1572.29 (the exception: the time of riot against Batory, when Polish signs were temporarily removed from minted coins) 10) What about 1466 treaty, in which clearly it is stated, that Gdansk (as rest of Royal Prussia) will belong to Polish king and Polish kingdom? 11) On what authority Polish king in 1557 issued tolerancy edict for Gdansk? 12) Why Polish Sejm issued official thanks in 1658 to Gdansk, thanking for "faith and loyalty"? 13) If it was independent republic, why it took at all part of Polish succession war, backing Leszczynski?

You have to understand, that POlish commonwealth was not centralised state. Every city, every noble, every land jelously protected their own set of laws and privileges. Gdansk had the most authonomy and self-rule, but nominally it was part of Polish kingdom. Szopen (talk) 08:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not, that Danzig had no ties to Poland at all, but rather it had ties to the crown of Poland, that is to the person of the king, not to the kingdom or commonwealth. The answer to your questions are listed above in the excerps (in the book that lists the Danzig and Prussian documents and are also answered by the International Law Historian Gottfried Lengnich (also in the book). It never belonged to Polish king or Polish kingdom, it had an agreement of support/protection and the Danzig fleet, was a Danzig fleet, paid for and staffed by Danzig, not a Polish fleet, not paid for by Poland. Sejm several times tried to force things like Statuty Karnkowskiego in 1570, was rejected, Danzig did not accept any interference with its souverain rights. The Polish kings oftentimes borrowed money from Danzig and of course sejm thanked Danzig for its 'loyalty'. Whenever a new king came, Danzig had them again verify their ancient Law Statutes, which they kept from before accepting king /crown of Poland as protector. With the demise of a king of Poland the contract became null and void. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.68.253 (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Lengnich? Come one, he wrote in what, XVII century? I knew him, he propagated a lot of false ideas. Polish king and Polish crown was the same thing. Gdansk bowed to king of POland, kingdom of Poland, not to some person. As for "Polish kings had to verify their laws" it just sows you know nothing about Poland. All Polish kings had to confirm all old laws and privileges, this was condition of becoming king of Poland. The agreement was not about "protection", though Gdansk sometimes indeed tried to present it that way. Gdansk was part of Polish kingdom, though with exceptional authonomy. Szopen (talk) 07:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
You can also read modern references (1995) such as:

References

  • Des Syndicus der Stadt Danzig Gottfried Lengnich ius publicum civitatis Gedanensis oder der Stadt Danzig Verfassung und Rechte, 1769, published by Otto Günther, Danzig 1900 (initially only intended for internal use within city administration) [3]
  • Paul Simson: Geschichte der Danziger Willkür. Quellen und Darstellungen zur Geschichte Westpreußens Nr. 3. Danzig 1904 [4]. Reprint: Nicolaus-Copernicus-Verlag, Münster 2006, ISBN 978-3-924238-36-0. [5]
  • Hans-Jürgen Bömelburg, Zwischen polnischer Ständegesellschaft und preussischem Obrigkeitsstaat: Vom Königlichen Preußen zu Westpreußen (1756-1806) 1995, Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag Prussia (Germany) ISBN 3486561278 [6]