Talk:Duchy of Samogitia

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

Terminology[edit]

Shouldn't it be Duchy (~40 Google Print hits), not Eldership (1 Google Print hit), and Starost (17 Google Print hits), not Elder (3 Google Print hits)? PS. As it was not a voivodeship, it should not be listed among voivodeships in {{Voivodeships of Lithuania}}. PSS. According to pl wikipedia, it was an eldership (starostwo) officially only from 1419 to 1441, and it was a Duchy for centuries both before and afterwards.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 10:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No those were separate entites, Eldership (per WP:UE) was somewhat smaller. And it did not ceased to exist after 1441, otherwise Jan Karol Chodkiewicz could not have been appointed Elder of Samogitia. If one would read books intstead of counting them, the answer would be obvious. Like for example the fact, that almost all the books about Duchy of Samogitia are from 1th century, (and Russian tzar used a title "Duke of Samogitia"). Some of the books supporting "starost" are also 19th century, and written by Polish authors.--Lokyz (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The correct term we use is starost, not elder. Chodkiewicz was appointed starosta generalny - as it was the starost that was in charge of this territory in the GDL and later, PLC. But the territory was named Duchy, not Eldership/Starostwo. And no, not a single book refers to the Duchy in the 1st century (I expect you made a typo).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please abstain from hasty moves? A line in Polish Wikipedia certainly is not enough to change stable article in such haste. Eldership was administrative unit with some autonomy as local nobility had right to elect the elder, so this article was about adminsitrative unit, not the Duchy. Further more - Elder of Samogitia was equal to voivode by his powers.
As for naming - correct translation of storost per WP:UE into English is elder and the article should be merged into elder, as it is the same concept only implemented in particular country, and this is English Wikipedia.
Meanwhile could you move it back to the proper and stable name?--Lokyz (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the article to a name that is actually used in literature. It was titularly a Duchy, but it was administered by a starost. I am not going to support a move back to an ORish name. PS. If you want refs for discussion of Duchy/starostwo, see for example here or here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your links represent a truly reliable sources and very academic research indeed. Especialy the second one, that does not say a word about Duchy. Could you please provide a more specific research on the Eldership/Duchy subject rather than presenting basic information about Samogitia? And don't you think, that there are special works on the subject, like Lithuanian Metrica studies [1] that clearly say priviliges granted to 26 cities in Eldership of Samogitia, sometimes referred to as Duchy Lithuanian: Daugiausia, net 26 privilegijas gavusių miestų buvo Žemaitijos seniūnijoje (kartais vadinamoje kunigaikštyste). And this is in summary of Metrica document studies. I can provide more specific studies, that Eldership of Samogitia is more common name than Duchy in contemporary use as recent research proves, rather than 19th century books body count.--Lokyz (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Updated for easier comprehension.--Lokyz (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, stop treating Polish Wikipedia as a reliable source. I am sorry to tell it it is far from there. Eldership was established in 1411 after Treaty of Melno or in 1413 after Christianization of Samogitia. A privilege in 1441 confirmed exceptional status. In 1442 Grand Duke titles himself as "Duke of Lithuania, Rus, and Samogitia." Thus the confusion with "duchy"... (Kiaupa, History of Lithuania before 1795, p. 163) "Duchy of Samogitia" is not found in a single book published after 1960... Please move the article back. Renata (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Incorrect, Duchy of Samogitia is used for example by Britannica (here). Consider the terminology from academic studies: 7 for Duchy ([2]) (including works by Aleksandravičius) and 0 for eldership [3]. If we descend to the plain Google -wikipedia, we get 300 results for Duchy ([4]) and 9 for Eldership ([5]), most of which seem like wiki mirrors anyway. If you want to start a RM, feel free to do so, but the evidence is pretty clear that Duchy is more popular and correct than eldership. Finally, if anything, eldership is less correct than starostwo - consider this: 3 hits for "elder of Samogitia", 17 for "starost of Samogitia" - and 1 for "starostwo of Samogitia" (as popular as eldership :>).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 11:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing - the first look into Aleksandravičius book reveals the problem - Duchy of Samogitia is mentioned in the 19th century context. Just above. I've told you that Tzar of Russia was titled Duke of Samogitia, and from the title Political goals of Lithuanians, 1863–1918 it is rather obvious. Anyway, it just seems that meeting some of my fellows and Professors from my study time is inevitable to fix the name of the article. Meanwhile I'm forced to dispute the title.--Lokyz (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A nice attempt at OR, but let's stick to refs. Historian Grzegorz Błaszczyk ([6]), expert on GDL history, has published a book Żmudź w XVII i XVIII wieku: zaludnienie i struktura społeczna in 1985; I'll have full access to it in a week. On p.6 as you can see in this short snippet, he discusses the various names of the entity and notes that the Duchy (Księstwo) was the OFFICIAL name in 17th and 18th centuries. Earlier, the name was ziemia żmudzka (Samogitian Land). He does acknowledge that starostwo is another name used in some sources, but does not stress it unduly. I will report more on that once I have the book in my possession; in any case all the sources presented here support the Duchy, not any Eldership. PS. Błaszczyk here writes that the starostwo was created in 1411 but was later named Duchy. PSS. As I noted above, Zygmunt Gloger also prefers Duchy in his encyclopedia.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A nice attempt at PA, but let me remind edveryone that for now the article has no references, so "sticking to references" is not the case here. Or besides counting Ghits have you read the article and can you enlighten us what is it about? Especially about what context Duchy of Samogitia is used.
And the last thing - I'm a bit confused: what part of my previuos statement did you find OR'ish? The fact, that tzar used title duke of Samogitia, or Aleksadravičius book title?--Lokyz (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)--Lokyz (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The case is simple. I claim that Duchy is more popular, and I have presented both ghits and refs to back it up. You claim that eldership is more popular, but have failed to present any evidence to back your claim. As far as I am concerned, such discussion has little further merit.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Duchy vs eldership is not a matter of popularity, but of historical fact. Those two are very different political entities. I have presented reference from Kiaupa, who spent about a page of his book discussing Samogitia's exceptional status. He claims it was eldership, often confused as duchy. So far I haven't seen any solid ref for the contrary. Renata (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide quotation and translation of the work you cite, so we can discuss it in more detail. So far all the refs I've found and present support Duchy, not Eldership.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The case is simple - you cannot provide a single reference explaining whether 1442 the Elderhsip ceased to exist. As a matter of fact you failed to provide any single reference to this article, hence it is still tagged as unreferenced. Google hits body count is interesting exercise, sadly enough, it does not improve Wikipedia quality even a bit. And as a matter of fact I've provided a reference, claiming that term Duchy was used only rarely. It is on this very same talk page:) And by the way you did not answer my previous question.--Lokyz (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide the quotation and translation of your source about usage of Duchy. And yes, extrapolating from the fact that a name was used in 19th century that it was common then and not common earlier is quite ORish. As for 1442, that year - after dealing with a local rebellion - Casimir IV issued a new legislation regarding the Duchy, granting it more privileges - among other restoring a temporarily removed status of a Duchy ([7], [8], [9]). PS. Here you can find several contemporary maps, none has any reference to starostwo, but some to a duchy; most clear: here, here (late 17th/early 18th centuries)... do you want more? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
it is done just above.--Lokyz (talk) 00:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is above? Please link me the diff if possible.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
my post on 22:42, 5 June 2008. I'm still waiting for an answer regarding accusations on OR. They are also present just above.--Lokyz (talk) 00:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That post contains your interpretation, I see no quotations. I have explained the OR issue above.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: what about these claims in the Lithuanian Wikipedia?:

1411 m. didžioji pirminės istorinės Žemaitijos dalis virto Žemaičių seniūnija, o pastaroji 1441 m. buvo pavadinta „Žemaičių kunigaikštyste“; šios kunigaikštystės (seniūnijos) rytinė riba nuo pat 1411 m. buvo Nevėžio upė, 1398-1409 m. atlikusi oficialios LDK ir Vokiečių ordino sienos vaidmenį.

XV-XVI a. LDK suskirsčius į vaivadijas, Žemaičiams buvo paliktas kunigaikštystės statusas; XV-XVIII a. nuo likusios etninės Lietuvos dalies šiek tiek skyrėsi ir Žemaičių kunigaikštystės administracinis suskirstymas, – iki 1764 m. (t. y. iki vad. Telšių reparticijos sudarymo) ji skirstyta į ~28 nedidelius valsčius, arba vad. tijūnijas.Iulius (talk) 08:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not the faintest idea. Please translate non-English text into English, for the benefit of 99% of Wikipedia editors (who don't speak Lithuanian, nor Polish).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 10:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC re naming[edit]

I'm inclined to repeat - please move the article back to the proper naming, unless you'd provide undisputed reference. Please note, that article wasn't and still isn't referenced despite one of the editors attempt to talk other users otherwise. As promised just above, I've made inquiry to accademic researchers - and the "Duchy" does not seem to be the popular or widely used name.--Lokyz (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While you repeat your unspecified ORish claims, I have above presented references - such as the work of historian Błaszczyk, proof that Duchy is 10 times as popular in English sources as Eldership/Starostwo, and scans of old maps using Duchy, that all support the "Duchy" version.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yawn. For the record - A. the "references" are discussed just up above (and they seem to be rather week). B. the article is unreferenced as for now (as it is said above, and the article is tagged as such). C. I'd be glad if someone would try to evaluate the context they're used (for example is it in 13th century, 14th or 19th maybe?).--Lokyz (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yawn indeed. You failed to provide either any criticism of the references I provided along other lines than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and you have failed to provide any references to support your "eldership". This is why I have requested this RfC, and as I've indicated above, I will not continue this pointless discussion with you alone.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you to have a cup of WP:TEA, and after that reread the discussion above. Until then I'll stick to WP:DNFTT. Have a good day.--Lokyz (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grzegorz Błaszczyk on the naming[edit]

As I have noted above, historian Grzegorz Błaszczyk is the only one who - as far as the refs provided show - addressed the issue of naming of this entity. From the footnote #1 in his Żmudź w XVII i XVIII wieku: zaludnienie i struktura społeczna (p.1 and p.2):

  • late 15th and mid 16th century: Ruthenian zemlja Žomojtskaja, sometimes Žomojtsjom povete, rare Žomoit, (velikoe) Žomoitskoe knjaz'stvo
  • from mid 16th century: Polish Ziemia Żmudzka
  • from 17th century: Polish Księstwo Żmudzkie which was the official name until the second partition of Poland (1793), when another name was introduced (województwo żmudzkie)
  • starostwo żmudzkie is used occasionally, it is however unclear and confusing and should be avoided in modern publications (it can refer not only to the Duchy, but the the estates of starosta)

Q.E.D. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS. In the long English summary (p.174-177) Błaszczyk uses Duchy, and certainly not Eldership is mentioned.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Regarding The Duchy of Samogitia (Lithuanian: Žemaičių seniūnija, Polish: Księstwo żmudzkie)[1] had been the administrative unit of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania from 1219?? I might look it up more precisely later to double check but wasn't it Gediminas who finally conquered Samogitia and annexed it with the Lithuanian state and that was around in the beginning of the 14th century.--Termer (talk) 06:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not fully correct. It was Witold/Vitaut/Vytautas who finally secured Samogitia for the GDL in 1411 ([10]). Thus, Samogitia became a stable part of the GDL only in the early 15th century. It also implies that Samogitia did not participated in the creation of the GDL. If somebody believes that the last sentence is incorrect, comments (supported by quotations/links) are welcomed. CityElefant (talk) 16:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duchy vs. Eldership or Starosta[edit]

I've read through the Duchy vs. Eldership story above. According to Niesiecki, Kasper (1846). Herbarz polski Kaspra Niesieckiego (in Polish). Waif. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link) , the book I've been using for tracking down the exact names for the Polish-Lithuanian administrative units. Zmudzkie is listed among Voivodeships with exception that it's the only one that's called Starostwo. It seems to me the confusion between Duchy and Eldership has originated from the fact that some royalties did hold the title "Duke of Samogitia", just that it doesn't mean there actually was a Duchy as a Principlity that was ruled be a Duke, it was just a titular thing. Exactly like there wasn't a Duchy of Livonia later in history even though Swedish kings and Russians tsars did hold the title. Since Zmudzkie Starostwo in Polish refers to "starosta of Samogitia" or "Samogitia eldership" according to The Economic History Review By Ephraim Lipson, based on the fact that In Samogitia the elder fulfilled the duties of the voevoda according to The Lithuanian Statute of 1529 Karl von Loewe, looks like the article should be renamed accordingly.--Termer (talk) 07:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS.Also, since the elder of Samogitia was considered a Lithuanian noble according to Sergeĭ Mikhaĭlovich Solovʹev, Alexandra Shecket Korros, John D. Windhausen, it might have added to the confusion why in some sources the eldership has been referred to as a Duchy, meaning a Principality. And actually principality of Samogitia is used also quite often.--Termer (talk) 07:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the name change is incredibly misleading and disappointing. I don't understand the reason for it in spite of reading this whole page. Who was the Duke of Samogitia other than a nominal title of some foreign king? 174.73.19.153 (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UrusHyBy's map[edit]

What is the point of having so many maps depicting Samogitia in this article? This map adds nothing new to the article and doesn't even show all the Samogitia. The description “In 16-17ct Samogitia covered large part of today's Lithuania” is pointless, because modern-day Samogitia covers a large part of Lithuania as well, just to a lesser extent. — Glebchik (talk) 13:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Duchy_of_Samogitia&oldid=1205855705"