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 June 18th, 2013, 10:15 AM   #91
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
From: Poland
Posts: 5,558

Quote:
2) Michael did not claim, that Poles/Slavs were greedy, especially not greedy "Nazis".
He wrote that Poles (and Lithuanians) were greedy and that's why they wanted to conquer land from the Teutonic state in 1410.

And of course the Teutonic order was not greedy when it conquered parts of Poland before, right?

When the Teutonic Order conquered the Polish province of Pomerelia in 1308 / 1309, Michael explained this by saying, that Poland called the Teutonic Order for help against the Brandenburgian invasion, and later Polish king "forgot" to pay the Teutonic Order for this help. So according to Michael, they did not receive their money for help, and that's why they immediately conquered the region instead of waiting for money for a longer time.

Which means exactly, that they were very greedy and also very impatient men. But according to Michael, they were not.

Only Poles were greedy, when they wanted to regain what they lost in 1309... Yeah, right...

================================================

Many of Michael's posts on this forum, are masterpieces of the fine art of twisting everything around.

Last edited by Domen; June 18th, 2013 at 10:24 AM.
Domen is offline  
Remove Ads
Old June 18th, 2013, 10:26 AM   #92

mighty bear's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: United Kingdom
Posts: 635

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domen View Post
You really did not read these discussions carefully enough.

Actually no of Polish members on this forum were / are claiming that Teutonic Knights were like Nazis.

It was Michael Mills who described Poles/Slavs as Medieval era greedy "Nazis", seeking to wipe out the Teutonic Knights.

So in the name of combating alleged "Polish historical BS", they are actually creating a similar BS, but in its anti-Polish (opposite) form.

This is simply the masterpiece of historical propaganda and revisionism, really.
Sorry I should have been clearer, I was simplifying a trend on topics regarding the conflicts between Teutonic Knights and Poland which often conclude that they are some sort of prelude to 1939 and the actions which occurred afterwards.
mighty bear is offline  
Old June 18th, 2013, 01:53 PM   #93

beorna's Avatar
αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Lower Saxony
Posts: 12,912

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domen View Post
He wrote that Poles (and Lithuanians) were greedy and that's why they wanted to conquer land from the Teutonic state in 1410.
The Battle of Tannenberg, 1410:

posting 121:
"The issue was not whether the Teutonic Order had outlived its genuine usefulness; the issue was whether the greedy and expansionist rulers of Poland had any moral right to get their hands on the wealth of the Monastic State of the Teutonic Order, a state that was not ethnically Polish but mainly German, at least in its Prussian part."

I put it into relief again for you "the greedy and expansionist rulers of Poland"

He didn't wrote something about greedy Poles, just about greedy rulers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domen View Post
And of course the Teutonic order was not greedy when it conquered parts of Poland before, right?

When the Teutonic Order conquered the Polish province of Pomerelia in 1308 / 1309, Michael explained this by saying, that Poland called the Teutonic Order for help against the Brandenburgian invasion, and later Polish king "forgot" to pay the Teutonic Order for this help. So according to Michael, they did not receive their money for help, and that's why they immediately conquered the region instead of waiting for money for a longer time.
Polish province? You are quick with the use of the term "Polish". Pomerania and Pomerelia had become a target of Polish expansionism very early, but allways fought for their independence from Poland. Boleslaw III was the last who took control over both regions. But after his death and the fragmenation of Poland, they became independent again. Bogislaw I of Pomerania gave in 1181 his land as fiefdom to Fredric II barbarossa. Swietopelk II gained independence in 1227.
After his death his brother's sambor II and Ratibor and his sons Mestwin II and wartislaw II fought for succession. Mestwin gave his part as fiefdom to Brandenburg and was succesful in the following fights against his competitors. But then mestwin changed the horse and allied with Boleslaw of Poland. He as well allied with the order. In this situation Mestwin gave Przemysl II of great Poland his reign as present.
After 1320 Wladyslaw Lokietek tried to get controll over Pomerelia, but the Swenzones, the ruling dynasty here resisted and asked Brandenburg for help. The Polish king asked the order for help, but as you described, forgot to pay and the order took control over Pomerelia.

So the 1) the term "Polish province" is not adequate. 2) There was no Brandenburgian invasion and 3) I did not hear you complaining about the sale of the marienburg 1455 by mercenaries who weren't paid by the order to the Polish king. The behavior of the order was not special.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domen View Post
Which means exactly, that they were very greedy and also very impatient men. But according to Michael, they were not.

Only Poles were greedy, when they wanted to regain what they lost in 1309... Yeah, right...
Well, Michael used it, not me. I think, that such terms are generally problematic. But on the other side, I complaint a several times about the claims by Poles, that their conquest is allways good and justified, whereas they claim, that those of the order were ruthless and bad. So I don't think, that you really have a right to complain about Michael.

maybe we can discuss it factually and not with a national bias.
beorna is online now  
Old June 18th, 2013, 01:55 PM   #94

beorna's Avatar
αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Lower Saxony
Posts: 12,912

Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty bear View Post
Sorry I should have been clearer, I was simplifying a trend on topics regarding the conflicts between Teutonic Knights and Poland which often conclude that they are some sort of prelude to 1939 and the actions which occurred afterwards.
Not only the order, the whole colonisation process is seen as prelude, as Drang nach Osten.
beorna is online now  
Old June 18th, 2013, 02:11 PM   #95

Mosquito's Avatar
bloody
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Sarmatia
Posts: 5,616

Quote:
Originally Posted by beorna View Post
Polish province? You are quick with the use of the term "Polish". Pomerania and Pomerelia had become a target of Polish expansionism very early, but allways fought for their independence from Poland. Boleslaw III was the last who took control over both regions. But after his death and the fragmenation of Poland, they became independent again. Bogislaw I of Pomerania gave in 1181 his land as fiefdom to Fredric II barbarossa. Swietopelk II gained independence in 1227.
Sorry but here you are wrong. Most of lands east from Oder were in medieval times considered as Polish provinces, even those which belonged to Brandenburg. Good example of it was a homage of Brandenburgian and Pomeranian lords to king Casimir the Great, who came to Cracow after the death of Ludwig der Römer Herzog von Bayern and Markgraf und Kurfürst von Brandenburg, claiming that they pay homage to king of Poland because it is Polish province (in year 1365)
Mosquito is offline  
Old June 18th, 2013, 03:20 PM   #96
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
From: Poland
Posts: 5,558

"greedy and expansionist rulers"

"moral right"

Etc., etc.

And what "moral right" had "greedy and expansionist Teutonic Order's rulers" to invade several provinces of Poland in the 14th century?

Quote:
Polish province? You are quick with the use of the term "Polish".
Why? It was part of Poland in 1308. It was under the rules of Władysław Łokietek from 1306 to 1309.

And it was part of the reunited Kingdom of Poland already since 1295.

Quote:
Swietopelk II gained independence in 1227.
Indeed. But 1227 is not 1308. And in 1308 it was part of the Polish state under Władysław Łokietek.

And as for 1227 - in 1227 not only Swietopelk II, but also every other Polish duke, was independent.

Quote:
After 1320 Wladyslaw Lokietek tried to get control over Pomerelia
Wrong. Władysław Łokietek gained control over Pomerelia already in year 1306.

And already before it was part of the reunited Kingdom of Poland since 1295.

Quote:
but the Swenzones
They were called Święcowie or Swacowie (Swacowie in Kashubian dialect). Not Swenzones.

Quote:
the ruling dynasty here
Nope - they were not a ruling dynasty, they were just a family of local magnates / powerful nobles.

They started to be a dynasty (i.e. beginned to rule over some territory) only after their alliance with Brandenburg.

And the founder of the dynasty was a guy named Święca (this is why the dynasty was later called Święcowie):

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9Awi%C4%99ca

Just like the Jagiellon dynasty was from the guy named Jagiełło (or Jogaila in modern Lithuanian), who founded it.

===================================

Świętopełk II - who gained independence from Cracow in 1227 - was from the Sobiesławice dynasty.

I suppose you confused Święcowie family with Sobiesławice dynasty (also known as House of Sobiesław):

Samborides Samborides


Sobiesławice dynasty - when it comes to male members - died out in 1294 (and last female member died in 1317).

Last edited by Domen; June 18th, 2013 at 03:42 PM.
Domen is offline  
Old June 18th, 2013, 03:44 PM   #97
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
From: Poland
Posts: 5,558

Pomerelia became part of the reunited Kingdom of Poland in 1294 / 1295 as the result of this treaty:

Treaty of K?pno - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It continued to be part of the Kingdom of Poland in years 1299 / 1300 - 1305, when Vaclav II was king of Poland.

In 1306 - 1309 it was also part of Poland under the rules of Władysław Łokietek.

Quote:
3) I did not hear you complaining about the sale of the marienburg 1455 by mercenaries who weren't paid by the order to the Polish king.
Mercenaries are well know for being very greedy and also cruel. So?

So the Teutonic Brother-Knights - who vowed modesty and such things (in general: Christian values) - were very greedy.

This means, that they were clearly not observing their vows.

If you justify behaviour of Christian knights-monks saying that "mercenaries did similar things", then it means that something was wrong with those Christian monks - because you require higher standard of morality from a knight-monk, than from a depraved mercenary.

Do not try to justify pedophile priests with arguments that there are also pedophiles among secular population.

Quote:
"The issue was not whether the Teutonic Order had outlived its genuine usefulness;
Apparently yes. And it was also very depraved - knights-monks who vowed virtuous behaviour, behaving like mercenaries!

Last edited by Domen; June 18th, 2013 at 04:03 PM.
Domen is offline  
Old June 18th, 2013, 06:17 PM   #98
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 3,600

Please calm down, Domen.

If you say the Teutonic Knights were greedy and unprincipled, I will agree with you.

Will you agree with me when I say that the Polish kings Wladyslaw Lokietek and Jagiello were equally greedy and unprincipled?

What I have consistently criticised is the tendency of Polish nationalist historiography to present the conflicts between the Teutonic Order and the Polish kings, in particular the Battle of Grunwald, as an ethnic struggle between the German and Polish peoples, in which the former are evil aggressors and the latter virtuous victims.

I have said, and will continue to say, that the above conflicts were simply struggles for power motivated on both sides by greed to control the wealth created by the Baltic trade, with neither side more virtuous than the other.

There was a time when a German nationalist historiography existed, which also interpreted the above conflicts as a "racial" war, except that it saw the Germans as the good guys and the Poles as the villains. Fortunately, that German nationalist historiography has now disappeared, except on the extreme fringes; the problem is that Polish nationalist historiography is still very much alive and is propagated by mainstream Polish historians, even supported by the Polish Government.

Let us take a West European example. The port of Rotterdam grew very wealthy on the trade flowing down the Rhine, a trade that originated in German lands. Does the fact that the trade originated in German lands give German rulers the right to seize control of Rotterdam and incorporate it into their domains?

That is precisely what Polish nationalist historiography claims in respect of Danzig, Thorn and the other Prussian cities.

In our own time, the reasons for those quarrels over possession of territory have disappeared; trade flows freely and peacefully between Germany and the Netherlands, and between Germany and Poland, and national borders are gradually losing their importance. However, the satisfactory resolution of the territorial conflicts of the past does not mean that we should not try to correct mistaken and biassed interpretations of that past.

So I will make a suggestion. For the sake of an understanding of history that reflects the present friendship between the German and Polish peoples, let the triumphalist and chauvinist monument to the Battle of Grunwald that stands outside the southern gate of the medieval walls of Krakow be once again demolished, and this time not rebuilt.
michael mills is offline  
Old June 18th, 2013, 11:33 PM   #99
Academician
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: Black sea coast
Posts: 83

Quote:
Originally Posted by kan240 View Post
That's right .

But why did they have the country? They were knight orber but still normal christian order which sholudn't have country. Existece of it were secured by emperor. They had easier task because they fought with primitive pagan tribe. For me they should ask polish princes for quarters.
We had the same situation with the robbers from the Forth Crusade, who instead of fighting infidels, sacked Constantinople (1204) and fought battles against neighboring Christian nations .
Copan is offline  
Old June 19th, 2013, 03:40 AM   #100

beorna's Avatar
αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Lower Saxony
Posts: 12,912

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosquito View Post
Sorry but here you are wrong. Most of lands east from Oder were in medieval times considered as Polish provinces, even those which belonged to Brandenburg. Good example of it was a homage of Brandenburgian and Pomeranian lords to king Casimir the Great, who came to Cracow after the death of Ludwig der Römer Herzog von Bayern and Markgraf und Kurfürst von Brandenburg, claiming that they pay homage to king of Poland because it is Polish province (in year 1365)
And the same were considered as part of the HRE. That the areas you speak about felt back to Poland had to do with the reign of Otto the lazy. He did lost not only this lands and at least Karl IV marched in to stop him.
beorna is online now  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
knights, teutonic


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Teutonic Siege Weapons HeirofAlexander Medieval and Byzantine History 3 February 19th, 2012 01:29 PM
How tough was the Teutonic Order? Brisieis War and Military History 8 February 2nd, 2012 08:07 AM
The Teutonic Knights vs The Knights Templar. Volkov Speculative History 7 July 4th, 2010 05:14 PM
Successful Teutonic Invasion of Novgorod. Volkov Speculative History 2 June 26th, 2010 02:12 PM
The good and bad things abut Teutonic Knights Edward European History 16 January 1st, 2010 04:38 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.