Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 12th, 2012, 11:16 PM   #191

beorna's Avatar
αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Lower Saxony
Posts: 13,240

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward View Post
By the way, Czech Kingdom is called “Ingiltere Cek” in Turkish language.

yes, It was in Latin. But the great folk legend about Lech, Czech and Rus come from this chronicle. It is difficult to say that the 13 century folks will say Lech, Bohemian and Russ. Not a chance.
Great joke, Edward. And that the Turks called it Czechs, wow, that's really the ultimative evidence against me postings!
beorna is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 12th, 2012, 11:44 PM   #192

Grimald's Avatar
Civilized Barbarian
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: Hercynian Forest
Posts: 3,192

The Czech lands are a prime example of a region with shared history. What else would one expect from a land so centrally located in the middle of Europe?

I don't actually care too much about single words, as long as they are not used to conceal or distort certain aspects of history - so I am fine with both Czech and Bohemian. What beorna is probably worried about is that the contribution of German-speaking people to these lands will be forgotten, downplayed, or distorted in the light of the events of the 20th century. Please let's not forget that our modern national thinking originated in the 19th century, and that it is not possible to interpret the previous history along these modern ideas.
Grimald is offline  
Old December 12th, 2012, 11:48 PM   #193

beorna's Avatar
αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Lower Saxony
Posts: 13,240

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimald View Post
The Czech lands are a prime example of a region with shared history. What else would one expect from a land so centrally located in the middle of Europe?

I don't actually care too much about single words, as long as they are not used to conceal or distort certain aspects of history - so I am fine with both Czech and Bohemian. What beorna is probably worried about is that the contribution of German-speaking people to these lands will be forgotten, downplayed, or distorted in the light of the events of the 20th century. Please let's not forget that our modern national thinking originated in the 19th century, and that it is not possible to interpret the previous history along these modern ideas.
Thanks, that is exactly what I mean and what I am worried about, especially if i look who opened these thread.
beorna is offline  
Old December 13th, 2012, 12:45 AM   #194
Citizen
 
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 42

Quote:
Originally Posted by beorna View Post
The first germans came already in the 11th century, but the main migration was under Ottokar I., Wenzel I and especially Wenzel II. So the mentioning of vladislav II. on the 2nd crusade in 1147 was before the main German migration. Ioannes Kinnamos was a contemporary chronicer, so I don't see how it contradicts with my saying. I never claimed, that the Czechs are not allowed to be claimed Czechs, but Bohemians. Nevertheless was it Frederic barbarossa, who allowed Vladislav to be crowned as king for his service for him.
We have different periods of the history of Bohemia. For the early phase there is generally no problem to call the reign a Czech ducatus (but as well no to call it Bohemian) or for some short period Czech kingdom. Perhaps from Podiebrad till Ludwig II we had something that would come close to a Czech state, but the reign also included Hungary and Croatia. So was it really a Czech state, why not a Hungarian?
Come on, I already answered your questions, please read my previous posts. There are virtually thousands of contemporary documents and it´s impossible to quote them all... I quoted contemporary documents, you didn´t quote any. I try to summarize some points (but I won´t quote the documents mentioned in my previous posts again and again), and I rest my case:

Statehood:
Since the 14th century (ie the period you are talking about), there was a clear concept of an indivisible entity (ie whoever was elected king of Bohemia, had to be also accepted as the ruler in other lands of the Crown) called Bohemian Crown (in old Czech called Koruna cžeská, in Latin Corona Bohemiae; sometimes it was called Kingdom of Bohemia and Incorporated Lands) as a state consisting of several lands: Kingdom of Bohemia (Regnum Bohemiae), Marchionate of Moravia, Silesian duchies, Upper and Lower Lusatia, and shortly also Brandenburg. Ie Bohemian Crown was different from Bohemia proper, and the Bohemian Crown was not an accidental conmglomerate of lands who just happened to be ruled by the same dynasty. The common institutions were not only the king, but also general estates, chancery, etc. Nobody back then doubted the existence of the realm...Of course this state was part of HRE - there were many states in the HRE. But the Bohemian Crown was not even included in the so-called imperial circles (also Burgundy and Italian domains were not included, altghough they were in the HRE...), ie it was considered part of the HRE, but not of the German kingdom (regnum Teutonicum). I do not understand the point with Hungary and Croatia - Bohemian Crown was for a certain period in a personal union with them, but these were clearly separate states.

Czechness of the state:
It has nothing to do with the fact that many other ethnicities (especially Germans) lived in the realm or even who formed the majority (Czech speakers were in majority only in Bohemia and Moravia and in some minor Silesian dukedoms). It has to do with the founding myth (just to be clear: not a nationalist myth of the 19th century, but a medieval myth proclaimed by the contemporaries, repeated and widely accepted) of the country - founded by ethnic Slavic Czechs who claimed their supremacy (and they did so for the entire history of the dukedom and kingdom, not only in some brief periods!), and used the root "Czech" when naming the country (also for the entire history, not some brief periods). As I said earlier, "Bohemian" was just the Latin/Western word for "Czech", it was simply synonymous (until the differentiation started to be made in the 19th century). It has also nothing to do with the ethnicity of the rulers: French dynasties don´t make medieval England less English, or a Lithuanian/Polish dynasty medieval Hungary less Hungarian. Many rulers of Bohemia from foreign dynasties felt obliged to stress their Czech origins in order to be accepted (Charles IV wrote about his "beloved Czech language", he pointed out in his autobiography that he forgot Czech when he left for France at the age of 7, but re-learned it after he came back to Bohemia and he spoke it again "as any other Czech" - neddless to say that he used the words "Bohemian language" when writing about it in Latin and "Czech language" in the contemporary Czech version of the autobiography: simply because it was exactly the same.

Czech and Bohemian is the same, and the Czech and Bohemian state was the same. A Byzantine chronicler from the 12th century says that. A Polish chronicler from the 13th century says that. A German chronicler from the 14th century says that. Myriads of medieval documents say that. There are Czech - Latin dictionaries from the 14th century who say that, there are Bohemian-German alias Czech-German (böhmisch-teutsch in German and cžesko-němeczkŭ in contemporary Czech) dictionaries from the 15th and 16th centuries who say that. I´ll add the English Universal History from the mid-18th century: "The present inhabitants are still called Bohemians by foreigners, but the natives call themselves Zechs". I simply don´t know how something so obvious and so massively documented can be ignored.

It doesn´t contradict the extremely important role of Germans in Bohemia, it doesn´t have anything to do with nationalism. It has to do with a simple fact that nations have sometimes a habit to call other by other names. Czechs call Germans "Němci", French call them "Allemands", but it doesn´t change the fact that Němci, Allemands, Germans and Deutsche are exactly the same people. I think it´s useful to use the designation "Czech Kingdom" (although it´s not a classical English term) in parallel with "Kingdom of Bohemia", because in modern times, they became disconnected and people forget that it used to be the same thing - and you are an example of it, although I don´t doubt that your mistake is a honest one.
Czechicus is offline  
Old December 13th, 2012, 01:12 AM   #195

beorna's Avatar
αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Lower Saxony
Posts: 13,240

Quote:
Originally Posted by Czechicus View Post
Come on, I already answered your questions, please read my previous posts. There are virtually thousands of contemporary documents and it´s impossible to quote them all... I quoted contemporary documents, you didn´t quote any. I try to summarize some points (but I won´t quote the documents mentioned in my previous posts again and again), and I rest my case:
I really don't see your problem!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Czechicus View Post
Statehood:
Since the 14th century (ie the period you are talking about), there was a clear concept of an indivisible entity (ie whoever was elected king of Bohemia, had to be also accepted as the ruler in other lands of the Crown) called Bohemian Crown (in old Czech called Koruna cžeská, in Latin Corona Bohemiae; sometimes it was called Kingdom of Bohemia and Incorporated Lands) as a state consisting of several lands: Kingdom of Bohemia (Regnum Bohemiae), Marchionate of Moravia, Silesian duchies, Upper and Lower Lusatia, and shortly also Brandenburg. Ie Bohemian Crown was different from Bohemia proper, and the Bohemian Crown was not an accidental conmglomerate of lands who just happened to be ruled by the same dynasty. The common institutions were not only the king, but also general estates, chancery, etc. Nobody back then doubted the existence of the realm...Of course this state was part of HRE - there were many states in the HRE. But the Bohemian Crown was not even included in the so-called imperial circles (also Burgundy and Italian domains were not included, altghough they were in the HRE...), ie it was considered part of the HRE, but not of the German kingdom (regnum Teutonicum). I do not understand the point with Hungary and Croatia - Bohemian Crown was for a certain period in a personal union with them, but these were clearly separate states.
I said it now many times and Grimald tried to made my point clear as well. Czech is exclusive and I am convinced, that the starter of the thread knew this and intentionally used the term Czech kingdom, allthough the english expression would have been Bohemian kingdom. I know, that the Czech expression is Koruna cžeská. As long as the term is used neutral there is no problem to use it in Czech. Nevertheless was it no Czech state. The northern regions were inherited or give as fiefdom or sold to the king of Bohemia. The kings of Bohemia weren't not only simple princeps of the HRE, but even emperors themselves. Do you want to say that since the 17th centuy under the Habsburgians it ws a Czech state as well?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Czechicus View Post
Czechness of the state:
It has nothing to do with the fact that many other ethnicities (especially Germans) lived in the realm or even who formed the majority (Czech speakers were in majority only in Bohemia and Moravia and in some minor Silesian dukedoms). It has to do with the founding myth (just to be clear: not a nationalist myth of the 19th century, but a medieval myth proclaimed by the contemporaries, repeated and widely accepted) of the country - founded by ethnic Slavic Czechs who claimed their supremacy (and they did so for the entire history of the dukedom and kingdom, not only in some brief periods!), and used the root "Czech" when naming the country (also for the entire history, not some brief periods). As I said earlier, "Bohemian" was just the Latin/Western word for "Czech", it was simply synonymous (until the differentiation started to be made in the 19th century). It has also nothing to do with the ethnicity of the rulers: French dynasties don´t make medieval England less English, or a Lithuanian/Polish dynasty medieval Hungary less Hungarian. Many rulers of Bohemia from foreign dynasties felt obliged to stress their Czech origins in order to be accepted (Charles IV wrote about his "beloved Czech language", he pointed out in his autobiography that he forgot Czech when he left for France at the age of 7, but re-learned it after he came back to Bohemia and he spoke it again "as any other Czech" - neddless to say that he used the words "Bohemian language" when writing about it in Latin and "Czech language" in the contemporary Czech version of the autobiography: simply because it was exactly the same.
This is not something that is generally denied. But you show again just one side of the coin. Before the Czech nationalism arose in the 14th 15th century, many of the nobility preferred german as language. So the history was not as simple as it is tried to show here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Czechicus View Post
Czech and Bohemian is the same, and the Czech and Bohemian state was the same. A Byzantine chronicler from the 12th century says that. A Polish chronicler from the 13th century says that. A German chronicler from the 14th century says that. Myriads of medieval documents say that. There are Czech - Latin dictionaries from the 14th century who say that, there are Bohemian-German alias Czech-German (böhmisch-teutsch in German and cžesko-němeczkŭ in contemporary Czech) dictionaries from the 15th and 16th centuries who say that. I´ll add the English Universal History from the mid-18th century: "The present inhabitants are still called Bohemians by foreigners, but the natives call themselves Zechs". I simply don´t know how something so obvious and so massively documented can be ignored.
Again, who denies this? But in Brandenburg, the Lausitz and Silesia lived no Czechs and so why do you want to include them into a Czech state? They wre subjects to the king of Bohemia.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Czechicus View Post
It doesn´t contradict the extremely important role of Germans in Bohemia, it doesn´t have anything to do with nationalism. It has to do with a simple fact that nations have sometimes a habit to call other by other names. Czechs call Germans "Němci", French call them "Allemands", but it doesn´t change the fact that Němci, Allemands, Germans and Deutsche are exactly the same people. I think it´s useful to use the designation "Czech Kingdom" (although it´s not a classical English term) in parallel with "Kingdom of Bohemia", because in modern times, they became disconnected and people forget that it used to be the same thing - and you are an example of it, although I don´t doubt that your mistake is a honest one.
And this is what I reject. The term Czech in english or german indicates an ethnic state, which it was not.

And BTW, I really thought you were different. I did never insulted you. It is a pity, that you now try to insinuate things I haven't said or that I am dishonest. Are you guys not able to discuss or to accept different points of view. Is anybody who has a different point of view immediately a liar or if he is german perhaps even a nazi?
beorna is offline  
Old December 13th, 2012, 01:24 AM   #196
Citizen
 
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 42

Quote:
Originally Posted by beorna View Post
I really don't see your problem!


I said it now many times and Grimald tried to made my point clear as well. Czech is exclusive and I am convinced, that the starter of the thread knew this and intentionally used the term Czech kingdom, allthough the english expression would have been Bohemian kingdom. I know, that the Czech expression is Koruna cžeská. As long as the term is used neutral there is no problem to use it in Czech. Nevertheless was it no Czech state. The northern regions were inherited or give as fiefdom or sold to the king of Bohemia. The kings of Bohemia weren't not only simple princeps of the HRE, but even emperors themselves. Do you want to say that since the 17th centuy under the Habsburgians it ws a Czech state as well?


This is not something that is generally denied. But you show again just one side of the coin. Before the Czech nationalism arose in the 14th 15th century, many of the nobility preferred german as language. So the history was not as simple as it is tried to show here.


Again, who denies this? But in Brandenburg, the Lausitz and Silesia lived no Czechs and so why do you want to include them into a Czech state? They wre subjects to the king of Bohemia.


And this is what I reject. The term Czech in english or german indicates an ethnic state, which it was not.

And BTW, I really thought you were different. I did never insulted you. It is a pity, that you now try to insinuate things I haven't said or that I am dishonest. Are you guys not able to discuss or to accept different points of view. Is anybody who has a different point of view immediately a liar or if he is german perhaps even a nazi?
Please read again what I wrote and you´ll find out that I said I believe you are honest (ie that you made a honest mistake).
Czechicus is offline  
Old December 13th, 2012, 01:30 AM   #197

beorna's Avatar
αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Lower Saxony
Posts: 13,240

Quote:
Originally Posted by Czechicus View Post
Please read again what I wrote and you´ll find out that I said I believe you are honest (ie that you made a honest mistake).
Yes, indeed. I misread it. That happens because I had too many bad experience here. I beg your pardon.
beorna is offline  
Old December 13th, 2012, 01:31 AM   #198

Excalibur's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Mar 2010
From: Over the Rainbow
Posts: 782

Quote:
Originally Posted by beorna View Post
Thanks, that is exactly what I mean and what I am worried about, especially if i look who opened these thread.
Beorna, you permanently complaining you are under attack and u are often offended but read your own posts sometimes. What is wrong with the fact Edward opened this thread and what is wrong with him? Your sentence can be also taken as some kind of offence. Now u can add an apology to Edward aswell.

Last edited by Excalibur; December 13th, 2012 at 01:40 AM.
Excalibur is offline  
Old December 13th, 2012, 01:38 AM   #199

Excalibur's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Mar 2010
From: Over the Rainbow
Posts: 782

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimald View Post
The Czech lands are a prime example of a region with shared history. What else would one expect from a land so centrally located in the middle of Europe?

I don't actually care too much about single words, as long as they are not used to conceal or distort certain aspects of history - so I am fine with both Czech and Bohemian. What beorna is probably worried about is that the contribution of German-speaking people to these lands will be forgotten, downplayed, or distorted in the light of the events of the 20th century. Please let's not forget that our modern national thinking originated in the 19th century, and that it is not possible to interpret the previous history along these modern ideas.
True and i understand why is Beorna so much worried. But we also said several times German influence on Czech history is not forgottten and it even cannot be forgotten. German influence cannot be forgottent bcause it is a simple fact.
Germans and Czech lived in peace and great cooperation in one land for 1000 years without any serious problems till 1930s. Then they got chance to pick their future, they freely selected Third Reich option over own country option and they got it later. And here is the Beornas problem. He complaining Germans could be forgotten.
I assure they are not forogotten and they will never be. Not as in good meaning but also in that sadly bad meaning.

We all got new chance and now 70 years after the unfortunate events so we can start over and we are starting again but permanent complains showing Germans as victims of Czechoslovak policy will definitely not to help to improve our relations which are nearly awesome last decades.
We simply have to accept our responsibilities nad we have to stop to search mistakes on other sides otherwise we will never move from the place...

Last edited by Excalibur; December 13th, 2012 at 01:56 AM.
Excalibur is offline  
Old December 13th, 2012, 01:49 AM   #200

beorna's Avatar
αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Lower Saxony
Posts: 13,240

Quote:
Originally Posted by Excalibur View Post
Beorna, you permanently complaining you are under attack and u are often offended but read your own posts sometimes. What is wrong with the fact Edward opened this thread and what is wrong with him? Your sentence can be also taken as some kind of offence. Now u can add an apology to Edward aswell.
I excuse if I offended somebody wrongly or if I made a mistake. Of course only to people who did the same in the past. You and Edward insulted me so often and below the belt and widely overstepping the marks and I never got the only the ghost of an excuse.
beorna is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
czechoslovakia, early modern period, medieval, medieval europe, renaissance, slavs


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Peaceful Kingdom plutoboyz General History 37 March 29th, 2010 07:00 AM
Kingdom of Jones Gallic Gun War and Military History 9 March 15th, 2010 03:03 AM
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls Comet History in Films and on Television 3 September 17th, 2007 01:46 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.