Talk:Old Prussians/Archive 1

Recidivism of primitive polish chauvinism

What evidence is there that Pruzzen meant "fair-haired?"

Does anyone know if Danzig was almost entirely German -- or was there a sizable proportion of native Prussians living there?

In the beginning Gdansk was entirely Polish without any Prussian population. In XIII and especially XIV century there was a huge wave of Dutch, Flemmish and German immigration to the City. Since the city never belonged to original land of Prussians there was never a Prussian Population there.Space Cadet 13:18, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, in the (today) Danzig/Gdansk region there was some "Ols Prussian" population, later replaced by a population that was/is not ("ethnically") Polish, but Cashubian. See e.g. Wiki in kaszëbsczi.--81.84.223.134 (talk) 14:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Proper citation would be helpful. The eastern mouth of the Vistula was indeed part of the Prussian homeland since before Slavs arrived. After their arrival, was the native population forced out, or were they absorbed? Citation? Does info on St. Adalbert give much detail? Also, after Danzig became a Hansa port was there zero population from the neighboring old Prussian area or was it entirely German and Dutch?

• This article should be expanded with a description of Prussian culture (see external links in the page), and a brief summary of the Old Prussian language. Also, specifics on revival of culture and language may prove interesting. (Compare this article with that on Indigenous people.

• Watch out for one particular vandal who will destroy any article which does not eulogize the glories of Communism and Poland!
  --Wighson

Spacecadet, you are full of yourself like the rest of Wikipedia's Polish flagwavers: "Polish without any Prussian population", you say? Clearly you don't know what the hell you are talking about. It was Prussian to begin with. Prussia has nothing to do with Germany until the 13th century. By an accunt of "nationality", the area rightfully belongs to the Lithuanian/Latvian Slavs. Furthermore, there is a difference between Polish as a nationality and Poland the Kingdom, an imperial entity. That would be like calling Hannoverians British in the 18th Century. Its imperialist just like any other nation. Interestingly enough, the Prussians were conquered by BOTH the Teutons and the Poles in cooperation...and to think that you thought Polish people inhabited the area from Manchuria to Belgium? Shame on you.

Gdańsk was founded in 980 and NO: it never had any Prussian population. Prussia was on the eastern side of the Vistula river! If you are calling Lithuanians and Latvians - Slavs, then it is you who has no clue. They are Balts, BTW. Space Cadet 17:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I think you misinterpreted what I was saying. I was suggesting that the Slavs residing there originally had ventured from the east (Lithuania/Latvia was a reference point). I'm not sure anyone knows the answer to that one... Of course, this is really irrelavant to the point I was making, which was that Slavic Pomerani and Kasubi tribes were living in the area before the Polish invaders arrived between 962 to 992. Wooden structures were already present before the Poles came, took the land and built Gdansk. The area was conquered by the Poles and became Polish through, surprise, expansion and assimilation. I am not arguing that Danzig was Prussian, but I am arguing that the region where Danzig was established was not an area where the Polish peoples had settled. Thus, the land is "Polish" just as much as it is anyone else's after they conquer it, according to your logic.

Yes, the Baltic "Prussians" are on the other side of the river, but its on the other side of the river - not the ocean! The poles, on the other hand, settled nowhere near this location orginally and were much closer to the Warta River.

Hello guys. You men have touched on some big topics. I suppose what one can validly conclude about them depends in large part on the dates meant. Archaeology tells us the proto-Balts probably went to the west of the Vistula into Pomerania and also covered most of northern Russia. This was too early for any "Old Prussians", which brings up the question of language genesis and ethnogenesis. Slavic is rather early but when and how did Polish appear? There were no Poles along the Baltic originally; the language did not originate there. They kept moving into the Baltic down the Vistula, contending with the Prussians and taking their land. Their biggest expansion came when they formed a common state with the Lithuanians and built an empire across what is now Russia. While the Lithuanians were putting that in place they left the Old Prussians to the wolves. There were however early Slavs along the Baltic all the way into the Propommern. Charlemagne invited more in after the departure of the population of Schleswig-Holstein to Britain, which got him into trouble with the scandinavians. The Slavs in germany were the Wends. I think there might be some of them left.

Now, I read a lot of talk here about Gdansk. Well, what of the Goths? The Vandals? Just where were they? Do you really think there was no city at Gdansk until 980? Was there any actual Polish spoken at that time anyway? If so, it must have been far from Gdansk. These questions of who settled Gdansk, where were the Prussians, where were the Balts, when did the Polish tribes or the Baltic tribes come into existence, etc. are bigger than a few centuries after the year 1000. There is at least 1000 years before then to cover, possibly more, and I don't see it being started yet. There are a lot of potential articles in it, a lot. It is going to have to be like a mosaic filled in a few pieces at a time.

Now, I don't mean to be insulting, but the passionate generalizations of newly patriotic Poles is not very helpful in achieving an objective history. Why don't you do the Polish Wikipedia? Today's issues have not a thing to do with 1000 years ago, as neither the issues nor the protagonists existed yet. Or shall we just give up and say that no objective history can be written, and concentrate on propaganda? But the we are going to need a history of propaganda, and a history of histories of propaganda, being careful it does not turn into a propaganda of propaganda, etc. Gosh, cleaning up and slanting history is like telling lies, the more you tell, the more you need to tell. I would say as a general rule that if you are resentful over the current location of the Polish border perhaps you should consider avoiding the topic on Wikipedia and let the 3rd parties handle it. Recuse yourselves.Dave 03:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

There is no Prussian people, and has not been any since the 18th century. The inhabitants of East Prussia, who were expelled after the Second World War, considered themselves to be Germans. That they are now interested in reviving a "Prussian" identity is worth noting, but the idea that there is any kind of continuity between this and old Prussian culture is ridiculous. john 02:09, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is maintained by compromise and co-operation with the community. If you have something worthwhile to contribute to an article you should do that. Blanking out the bulk of others' work, is not contribution and is in violation of Wikipedia's expressed policy.

The whole point of the article, and what makes it interesting and relevant, is that they are still an identifiable ethnic group and some among them wish to revive certain markers. The current movement of cultural revival was sparked by their physical removal from the lands which they have inhabited since before history.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But that's it -- it's an over-generalization. By the same logic, there are no Tibetan people and no Hawaiian people. By this logic, Koreans have no continuity with Koreans of the past because they were ruled so long by China and Japan. By this logic, Aborigines removed from their native lands cease to be Aborigine if they speak only English. This is ridiculous and offensive to people the world over. Needless to say, such a hostile racial stance is inappropriate on Wikipedia.

Intelligent conversation should be encouraged, not attacked. Without compromising neutrality, you could make an intelligent note of your opinion without gross censorship and Wikipedia:Vandalism of an article. You could, for example, ask the question: "If an ethnic group no longer speaks its native language, does it cease to exist? Does it lose the right to discuss its history since the said change?" If you are entitled to your opinion, others are entitled to theirs. Some Prussians do believe themselves to exist and wish to be heard, wrongly or rightly.

That said, do you have any knowledge of the Old Prussians to make an intelligent contribution? For example, Tacitus referred to them long before Adalbert. Moreover, there is a corpus of archaeological data from the region. If you have access to a university library, you could provide some intelligent input about this information. As it is, simply blanking out the bulk of an article doesn't demonstrate the minimum requisite knowledge necessary to contribute.

--Wighson

The comparisons you are making are ridiculous. No people living in East Prussia had a sense of being part of a "Prussian" nationality before 1945. They considered themselves to be Germans (or, in some cases, Poles). The idea that they were "Prussians" is a political invention designed to make it seem as though innocent Prussians were kicked off their lands by the mean Russians because of things that Germans did. While this should be discussed, it is not at all the same thing as Tibetans or Koreans being ruled by foreigners. Also, my last name is Kenney, and I did not even revert the article this last time. john 00:09, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My respectful suggestions:

• Avoid generalizations such as "no people." Substantiation?
• Which Prussians considered themselves Poles? Is this supposition? Substantiation?
• Do not conflate "nationality" with "ethnicity."
• What do you know of current ethnic Prussians' political affiliation? Substantiation?
• Why isn't the history of the Prussian Balts analogous to that of Tibetans or Koreans? Explain.
• "Mean Russians" is POV. Would you really wish to discuss this? Are Russians truly mean?

Sorry about misspelling your last name (if it matters). You did commit vandalism on 20:22, 2004 Apr 1, unless someone forged your handle.

Quibling objections may be worthy of the Talk page, but are hardly justification for massive unilateral deletion, ie, vandalism. Why not just emend the article with your insights? That would be more helpful. At very least, express your objection, before blanking out most of an article with which you disagree.

I am sure others welcome your opinions as much as I.

Best wishes,

--Wighson

1. Shouldn't you have to prove that there was a sense of Prussian ethnicity among the inhabitants of East Prussia? I've never read that there was.
2. I imagine the southern inhabitants who voted for becoming part of Poland in that plebiscite did. I'm not sure how many of them there were.
3. "Prussian" was neither a nationality nor an ethnicity. There was certainly a regional or civic identity of being Prussian (along with people in the Rhineland), and a regional identity as being East Prussians, but I've never read anything about a sense of ethnic identity
4. There's no such thing as an ethnic Prussian, so I have no idea. Most of those who identify themselves as Prussian expellees are fairly right wing, though, was my understanding.
5. Tibetans and Koreans have maintained a separate ethnic identity and their own language throughout recorded history. Furthermore, they have for long periods had a separate political identity (especially Korea, which has basically been independent or autonomous for most of modern history except the 1910-1945 period). Prussians have, so far as I can tell, never had a separate political identity. Their separate language disappeared by the 18th century. And this sense of ethnic identity was manufactures wholesale by a small number of rightwing expellees after they all ceased to live in East Prussia anyway.
6. I wasn't saying the Russians were mean. I was saying that that argument is the reason why expellees from East Prussia try to pretend they have this phantom "Prussian" ethnicity. john 01:52, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful answers. Perhaps some Wikipedian would care to address these issues.

--Wighson

Mr. Kenney and Mr. Wighson, my goodness what a furor. You sound like a couple of college professors fighting for a stipend. And yet, there seems to be some partial truth in what each of you says.

I might note from what I have read that there is not a small number of expelees. The Russians were pretty mad. They had just lost 40 million people to German ideological shenanigans. Prussia was totally cleared out. Millions of people took it on the lam and every town city and village was destroyed, with their civic records dumped into German municipalities much further west. It will never be back, like it or not. Sorry, boys. Any attempt to restore Prussia is only fun and games, but you won't gain Russian approval, will you? They seem to have beat everyone else around there, and probably could still do it today.

As for the people that were cleared out, you seem to be having problems defining identity. Genetic identity is not cultural identity. Genes can't be contained and cultures change fast. There's a new field of study that matches the DNA of ancient remains to modern and tries to find moderns that are close to ancients. They can be found. I'm sure there are plenty of pockets of ancients in most populations. I got no doubt that that the cleared-out Prussians included many descendents of Germanized Prussians. I'm sure there were Gothic descendants also. Unless you massacre them, populations do not disappear, they go into other populations gene by gene. The plague did not take everyone; moreover, that was only the last vestige of Prussians. But politically speaking, who cares? The Russians aren't going to raise the Titanic or put Kaliningrad back to Koenigsburg. Funny enough, there is a civic movement of Russian inhabitants of Kaliningrad who try to get the name Koenigsberg back - like the people of Leningrad got the former name St. Petersburg back.

As for the culture, plenty of current Germans trace a connection back to Prussians. If you look up on Prussian Reconstructions you will find such words as klausewingi, "hearer", probably "Confessor." If you turn that into Polish you get Klausewitz and if you Germanize that you get Von Klausewitz. We already know that Copernicus was Kapernik, "coppersmith". Note the Slavic -nik, which was also Prussian. But, let's look at it another way. The Balts once extended all the way over to Moscow. Indeed the Lithuanians probably came from Belarus. So, the "Slavic" population of North Russia probably came from a Baltic one. Not only that, but Baltic and Slavic as well as Thracian are only developments of an original common language. Does all this do anything to your fixed ideas of ethnicity?

As for the ancient sources, the Balts no doubt appear, but to identify them for sure is harder. Are Herodotus' Gelones an early form of Galindi? I'd like to see more done along those lines.

---

Complaint on the history

I removed the following comment from the article, and adding it here for discussion:

[comments--this history is too simplified to the point of being misleading--as Russia did not exsit as a state at this time it is not right to say that Lithuania was "allying with Poland and carving out an empire in Russia." Lithuania already was a large state stretching almost to the Black Sea covering much of the area of modern Belarus and Ukraine. In fact the Polish-Lithuanian alliance went farther--by treaty the two states became a commonwealth, to good degree motivated by self-defense against the increasing encroachment of the Teutonic Order. The Grand Duke of Lithuania, Jogaila (c. 1351-1434), who was pagan, felt the increasing crusading zeal of the Teutonic Order which was intent on converting the Lithuanians, and had a papal dispensation from 1339 to do so. Through marriage to Jadwiga, Jogaila converted to Christianity, became king of Poland (1386-1434), known as Wladyslaw Jagiello (I cannot make the correct Polish alphabet). It was as king of Poland that Jagiello, leading the Polish-Lithuania Commonwealth, met the Teutonic knight at Grunwald.]

Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Article name change

I suggest the name of this article be changed from Prussian people to Baltic Prussians or Old Prussians. The current name is misleading in many ways. For one things most people still associate the words Prussia and Prussian(s) with the German-speaking duchy and kingdoms called Prussia. Right now when you enter the word Prussians into Wikipedia you come to this page, in contrast entering the words Prussia or Prussian leads to disambigumate pages where the different "Prussias" are desrcibed and the reader guided to the relevant topic. I suggest a name change for this article and a new disambigumate page instead of the current redict from Prussians to this page. --84.153.38.218 17:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Prussians vis-a-vis Lietuvininks

I wonder if any of them got lithuanised. The cultures seems akin to each other. And since the Lietuvinks were supposed to live where Prussians had done, I wouldn't be surprised if they had stemmed from them. Zbihniew 19:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Many of Old Prussians after last uprisal by Herkus Montė have fled to Samogitia and Lithuania propria, where they were accpetd and given lands. In the eastern outskirts of historical Lithuanian propria there are still preserved places with names Prusai, Pruseliai. Others, who had left suffered heavy casualties after the great plague in 17th century, remaining were Lithuanised by sort of inner colonisation following that plague.--Lokyz 23:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It is known that old prussians settled around Pruzhany in Belarus (legend says the name of a town originates from Prussians). In Lithuania and Latvia, indeed, are placenames named after prussians, but are they named after old prussians? Old prussians not named themselves as prussians, it was exonym used by neighbours. As far I know lithuanians named germans from Prussia as Prussians too.--Vulpes vulpes 10:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the debate was move and the article was moved by User:Mangojuice.

Prussian people → Old Prussians – "Old Prussians" refers specifically to the medieval Baltic tribes, while "Prussian people" may refer to either the Old Prussians or citizens of the former state of Prussia. Olessi 17:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support as originator. Olessi 17:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Google Books and Google Scholar both give more hits for "Old Prussians" than "Baltic Prussians" (an alternative name). Compare [1], [2] & [3], [4]. Olessi 17:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The move is wrong. Unfortunately I missed the poll. The name of the people is "Prussians", not "Old Prussians". There was new ethnos kind of "New Prussians". The convenience of disambiguating is not valid reason for renaming the article. We don't rename Germans into whatever it can be just because "Germans" may refer both to German ethnos and to citizens of Germany. 22:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Prussians not German??? LOL

"that state was led by Germans, not by the extinct Old Prussians."

Can anyone explain what this means? Its like that stupid Sound of Music that postulates Austrians aren't German because they're a political subdivision of racially Germanic people.

Similar, Prussia was nothing more than a tribe of Germanic people on the Baltic. I don't hvae time to re-write something like this so it makes sense, but this article is proof that idiocy and irrational bias continues to define much of Wikipedia.

Bill White — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.35.153 (talk) 08:56, 13 December 2006

The original Prussians were Baltic in origin, not Germanic. The German Teutonic Knights conquered Prussia, established German towns, and gradually killed off or assimilated the original Prussians. The later state of Prussia that developed was led by Germans and primarily populated with Germans, but took its name from the conquered territory, that of the Baltic Prussians. Olessi 18:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting

borusci- remove the latin sci and you get boru. the people of boru or wolf. boru means (grey) wolf in karachay turkish.

---

This article lacks some important data. First, term Old Prussians was created by german historians in 19 century (by Johannes Voigt ?) to separate novadays Prussians and Prussians of the past. Second, Old Prussians not named itselves as Prussians, it was exonym, Bartians named themselves as Bartians, Sambians - as Sambians etc. Old Prussian were organized into one or less ethnicity in the Monastic state of the Teutonic Knights, in the same time germans in this state begun to name itselves as Prussians. Third, etimology of name Prussians is unclear, one theory says it is related to frisians. Anyway, main meaning Prussians refers to inhabitans of former Prussia and I wonder why when is typed "Prussians" redirects to Old Prussians, and when is typed: "Bavarians" appears disambiguation page with links to Bavaria, but not to ancient Boii tribe? --Vulpes vulpes 11:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

RFC: Merger

Old Prussia and Origins of Prussia should be merged into this article, as all three articles cover the same topic. "Old Prussia" as a term in English publications has no uniform meaning, although it often refers to "Prussia proper" (West and East Prussia) to differentiate from the rest of the Kingdom of Prussia, or to the Kingdom of Prussia before the Napoleonic era. "Origins of Prussia" as a title is ambiguous, and its content seems to be a fork of Old Prussians. Olessi (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Since the merger proposal affects three relatively obscure articles, I have listed it at WP:RFC/HIST to widen its awareness. Olessi (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose-Old Prussians describes an ethnic group of people that were eliminated due to Germanisation and conquest of their land by Germanic invaders. Origins of Prussia is a completely different article about emergence of political entity. Old Prussians article is about culture, history, origin and eventual demise of Baltic ethnic group. Two completely different topics even if connect to each other.--Molobo (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. As per User:Molobo. Old Prussia refers to an Eastern European nation annihilated by the Teutonic Knights, while the Origins of Prussia leads to an establishment of a historic state of Prussia originating in the Margraviate of Brandenburg. Both articles should be improved to better reflect their differences. --Poeticbent talk 19:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Molobo. Space Cadet (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

"Old Prussia" is original research titling for a concept that is the same as Old Prussians. "Old Prussia" as a phrase is ambiguous; a better title would be "Pagan Prussia". Even then, I don't see how it would warrant being a separate article than "Old Prussians". The "Origins of Prussia" article in its present state does not describe the origins of the state of Prussia, but the origin of the Old Prussians; it is essentially History of the Old Prussians. A better location for describing the origins of Prussia would be at Brandenburg-Prussia, although the article on Prussia already has clear links to its 'origins articles', Old Prussians, Teutonic Knights, and Duchy of Prussia. "Old Prussia" and "Origins of Prussia" are both forks of "Old Prussians". Olessi (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support any attempt to clean up the terms and consolidate information. At the moment all articles are in pretty bad shape. Any work will be appreciated. Renata (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support - the term "Old Prussia" is indeed ambiguous and weird, and "Origins of Prussia" is just genuinely terrible. john k (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support - the articles are on the same subject matter anyway.Iulius (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Since no further sources attesting to English usage of "Old Prussia" were provided, I have merged Old Prussia and Origins of Prussia into Old Prussians and Prussia (region); articles linking to Old Prussia were changed to link instead to Prussia (region). Olessi (talk) 05:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)