Talk:Christianization of Lithuania

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


Untitled[edit]

I changed last pagan nation to one of the last-see wikipedia article on Mari-El —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.51.95.250 (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Algirdas baptism[edit]

German sources do state, that he was never baptised and was burrried in a ceremonial fire pagan way. First mentions of "baptism" emerge only in late Russian chronicles, and are often interpreted as an attempt to "correct" important Russian nobles family line. Anyway if someone would find a valid reference this one would be acceptable.--Lokyz 11:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's suprising that you find some mentions of Olgierd in "German sources" at all. "A neat division of their dominions is illustrated by the fact, that Algirdas appears allmost only in East Slavic sources, whereas the Western chronicles are aware of Kęstutis only," - a Britannica quotation that was present in the Algirdas article, before it was crippled by some ignorant edits, with all vital facts about him expurgated in favour of cheap nationalism. --Ghirla-трёп- 11:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Nope, it is not so - Herman von Warteberge describes his burial, Dlugosz also. The last even could ask Jogaila, who surely had to know, how his father was burried, don't you think? And as of gusts, I do not find Britanica the be most authoritative work on this period.--Lokyz 11:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you prefer Dlugosz, writing in the late 15th century and infamous for his ideological fables, to the 14th-century Slavic chronicles, just because they are Russian (or, to borrow your phrase, Rus'ian)? Why the Livonian Chronicle is more authoritative than its Russian counterparts - just because the Knights had little contact with Algirdas and knew him by hearsay? Furthermore, it'd be hard to understand their motivation in recording Algirdas' conversion to a rival faith, something which they were unable to achieve either by cunning or force. --Ghirla-трёп- 11:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Algirdas was not baptized: See Rowell's book, [1] pages 130, 149. And I would love to see some solid & reliable references that Grand Duchy of Lithuania was successor of Kievan Rus'. Just because it took advantage of collapsed Kievan Rus' does not mean it was its successor. Renata 11:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The great duchy known as Lithuania preserved major legal and administrative instututions of Kievan Rus' (such as Ruskaya Pravda), a favourite tenet of Antonovich, Grushevsky, and other 19th-century Ukrainian historians who penned a raft of monographs on the subject. I don't expect difficulty in referencing this. --Ghirla-трёп- 11:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19th century? Anything more recent? Renata 13:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dvornichenko's (a major present-day Russian specialist on Medieval Western Rus') books, and the like. See: А.Ю. Дворниченко. Русские земли Великого княжества Литовского, 1993. He has shown that nothing lost its actuality in Russian 19th-century historians' context, by now. The whole GDL administrative system was built fully on the Russian base. And even the destructive activities of Soviet "historians" were not able to prove the contrary... The present-day Belarusian historian Kraucevicz noted the vivid fact: in the whole GDL administrative system there was not a single institute of Baltic origin - every single state institute was Slavonic (Стварэнне Вялікага княства..., 2008. p. 119). This point is obvious for anyone who really is involved in GDL history. So you'd better not try to look sillier than you are (which is the normal way for your like to come out), okay? :) Rasool-3 (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do prefer Dlugosz and Warteberge. The first, because he was close to the Jagiellon dynasty (Algirdas vas Jogaila father, he has been directly talking to Sophia of Halshany, a daughter of Vytautas's brother-in-law and so on), the second because he was contemporary author. If you please could name exact Russia chronicle that mentions baptism of Algirdas, it would be superb, because for now we are talking about "some" chronicle vs Warterberge chronicle. BTW you might take a look into the map and find Maišiagala - it is roughly 100 km to nowadays Latvia and previously Livonia border. As for Germans denial of conversion you might be right, although the burial fact is also described in Polish Kingdom chronicle, and you would not say, that Livonia and Poland were the best friends at the time.
The Algirdas baptism to my knowledge emerges in Karamzin's literature, and he is known to be court "historian" (or as hid did call himself "writer"), so his reliability isn't very high. Actually, i might be wrong, and that's why i did ask for references. I do not hve an intention to start fight, I'm just trying to understand your arguments.
As for Ruskaya Pravda - I do not recall, that it had some legal status in Lithuania proper, Samogitia or nowadays Belarus lands. Legal tradition in some regions - this is not a state continuation.--Lokyz 12:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should distinguish between the grand duchy and Lithuania. The state called Lithuania spread westward as far as Mozhaisk. Russian chronicles are more informed about the state of affairs there, because there were so many marital and cultural ties: for instance, Vasily II of Moscow was Vitautas's grandson. Karamzin's reliability is higher than that of any historian writing during the same period. But that's not my point. Among chronicles that mention Olgierd's conversion are the Bychowiec Chronicle and the Hustynska; they even say that he was buried according to the Orthodox tradition. --Ghirla-трёп- 12:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bychowiec Chronicle is one of the least reliable (Palemonids anyone?), and btw it is dated 16th century. Sorry never heard about Hustynska (spelling maybe? could you write it's name in Cyrilic?) so I do not have an opinion.--Lokyz 12:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Bychowiec Chronicle is a fake in many occurences. And putting it like "some" suggest that there were more than two Orthodox dukes of Lithuania, which is not true, so the formulation as it is now is misleading to the reader. Now there are opposing facts in the same article about Algirdas - that he preferred to keep paganism. No christian ruler would do this and this, as described in the article Anthony, John, and Eustathios Iulius 12:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should check this edit before lecturing me on the merits of the Bychovets Chronicle as you spell it. But Dlugosz is hardly more reliable, for that matter. --Ghirla-трёп- 12:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And did they mention Algirdas' baptismal name? isn't it a shame not to know a ruler's name? So I suggest before making such controversial sporadic additions, take time to solve the matter in the article where it belongs - Algirdas, not to contaminate them with dubious facts that give nothing to the reader Iulius 12:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup Polish not reliable and Russian reliable and vice versa. This will hardly lead us to consensus. I'm affraid you did misunderstand me - I do not have an intention to teach someone or lecture anything. I thought we're discussing historical sources and reliabilty of them, not each other likes or dislikes. AFAIK - scientific discipline called history calls the fact reliable if it is repeated in another independent source. Hence Warteberge and Dlugosz improves each other reliability on the fact, that Algirdas was burned before burying him. We do not discuss relaibility of other facts. BTW, i cannot find any mentioning of Hustynska letopisj or chronicle. Can you help me?--Lokyz 13:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How could that be explained that this article is the only that states Algirdas being an Orthodox, even though there are no evidence of his baptism? How about this contradicting citation: "For Gediminas and Algirdas, retention of paganism" Iulius 13:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Pagan" is awfully vague...[edit]

What was the religion of Lithuania before it was Christianized? I'm not seeing any mention of it in either this article or the main Lithuania one...

I wanted to refer you to Baltic paganism but the page somehow redirects to Estonian mythology, although Estonians are not Balts and their pagan religion had little in common with that of Lithuania... --Ghirla-трёп- 17:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Renata has fixed that redirect.--Lokyz 17:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Lithuanian pagan towns"[edit]

"...in Lithuanian pagan towns Vilkmergė, Maišiagala, Lyda, Nemenčinė, Medininkai, Krėva, Haina and Abolcy".

Why indulge in fantasies and delirium because of own ingnorancy, instead of being reasonable and thinking a bit? I'm talking about the fact, that present-day Belarusian towns (Krevo, Lida, Haina and Abolcy) are retrospectively made some "pagan Lithuanian towns", a part of some "pagan Lietuva", which has never been clearly depicted, neither seen or witnessed by anyone. Still, I'm not talking here about those towns mentioned, which are in the territory of the present-day Lietuva (Lithuania) - these are Vilkomir (Vilkmerge), Moiszagola, Niemenczyn, and Medniki; although still I'd like to stress that anything like "Vilkmerge" never existed before the 20th century: the name has always been Vilkomir, which is Slavic, as the Lithuanian cronicles witnessed themselves, that it was founded in the 13th century and named because of surrounding wolves ("vilki" in Slavonic). This is what the Lithuanian cronicles themselves say. Remember this. The same applies to Medniki (always known under this name), and the rest... But I'm not talking about these now.

I'm talking about the Belarusian towns. I wonder, whether the one who had written it, all in all realized where these towns are situated, and how could those have been "pagan Lithuanian" (implying "Lithuanian" is the name for the "pagan Baltic folk", which has never been proved true for the Grand Duchy of Lithuania). I mean, Haina is 40 km north of Minsk, a Belarusian city which had been the capital of a duchy from the year 1101, and the centre of a bishopry from mid 12th century. Abolcy lie between Minsk and Polack - another ancient capital, with a diocese and St.Sophia cathedral from 1066 (like in Kyiv). Abolcy lie 80 km west of Vitebsk - an old duchy capital from the 9th century, and with churches from the same age. What do you mean by calling these towns "pagan Lithuanian"? That they, and the neighbourhood, were occupied by "pagan Lithuanians", who were not Slavs and not Christians? What is it for? Is it a kind of agressive expansion into Belarusian territory and history, based upon your own ignorance and agressive fantasies?... For instance, many towns of present-day Lietuva (Lithuania) had many Orthodox churches and parishes of 14th century or even earlier. So, using your logic, why not write that they were a part of "Orthodox Rus", not pagan Lithuania?... If you insist on your "logic", so then can you write something like "pagan Celtic towns 50 km south of Paris in 14th century", or "pagan Celtic towns 50 km north of London in 14th century"? Can you do that? I guess you can, with your rate of boldiness. But thinking, at least a bit, does make sense. You should amend the passage, otherwise the whole section, or even article, needs re-writing. Rasool-3 (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Lithuanian paganism" converted into "Lithuanian" catholicism, huh?..[edit]

I'll make you see my point clearer (regarding "pagan towns" in Belarus as well). I'll ask you one sole question which cannot be replied within the stupid context of "ethnic Baltic Lietuva" we're now exisiting in. An anonymous user a bit earlier has rightly stressed that we have nothing to be denoted with "Lithuanian paganism". It's not only "vague" - it's, actually, an empty notion. I'll show you this (and with connection to your imaginary "pagan towns" in Belarus as well...). Once you're imagining some "ethnic Baltic paganism" allegedly denoted as "Lithuanian" in 1387, and successfully replaced by Catholicism in 1387 (which should be as well "ethnic Baltic Lithuanian" in the "ethnic Baltic Lithuanian country" which Lithuania allegedly was) - then please tell me, why the language of Lithuanian Catholic church ever since 1387 and at least to the 17th century was Slavonic (church Belarusian), not any Baltic? Were "Baltic Lithuanians" not able to have its own church language, when introducing Catholicism instead of "ethnic Baltic paganism"? Or they decided to introduce Belarusian language in their church, while accepting Catholicism from Poland? What is the solution of this perplexion?...

Even Poles never claimed, that the language of the Lithuanian Catholic church in 14th - 17th century was Polish (mainly because the Polish language was introduced in the Polish church itself only by mid 16th century). Polish became a dominant language in Lithuania church only by the end of 17th century. So, what was the language of Lithuanian Catholic church before, from 1387 to the 17th century? All documents and every evidence show that it was church Belarusian, the same language that we see in all documents and evidences of all Lithianian nobles, who called it "Lithuanian language". At the same time we, of course, do not have any evidences of any Baltic language (which is now called "Lithuanian") in the Lithuanian Catholic Church, as elsewhere in GDL. The text of GDL Catholic mess (a copy from 15th century) reads: "Какъ ся мша чтеть рымскимъ обычаемъ матце Божией" - this is church Belarusian language, the same we have in Skoryna's books, and in the Lithuanian Statutes, this language was called "Lithuanian" then. King Casimir got an inscription made in a Wawel chapel in 1471 (where he was later buried, in 1492): "К ухвале именя найвышшого Бога Ойца всемогушчого, побудована косцёлу сея каплица, повеленьем великого а преславного Короля, просветного Казимира...", etc. This is again plain then Belarusian language. Every evidence shows that it was the language of mess and every procedure in the Lithuanian Catholic Church from 1387 to at least 17th century.

First Vilna catholic bishops: Jacob Plychta, Jan's son (1398 - 1407), Nicolaus Dzieszkowicz (1453-1467), Jan Losowicz (1468-1481) and other - all Slavonic names, no any Balts. Documents witnessed that those were Litvins (Lithuanians), not Poles: "Jacobum natum quodam Joannis dicti Plychta, vicarium Lythuanie, eiusdemque nacionis et lingue", "Nicolaus Dzierzgowicz dictus, natione Lituanus", "Johannes Lossowicz civilis Vilnensis Lithuanus" etc. There is no any evidence, that Lithuanian Catholic church in 14-17 centuries had any mark of "Baltic ethnicity". What is this riddle? The solution is sole: there was no any "ethnic Baltic folk" called "Lithuanians" before 1387, as well as after, and there was no any "Lithuanian ethnic Baltic paganism" before 1387, as there was no "ethnic Baltic Lithuanian" catholic church thereupon. Because "Lithuanian" was not a name for "ethnic Baltic pagans" before 1387, but for something different. Rasool-3 (talk) 08:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sami were last European group to be converted, not Lithuanians[edit]

The Sami of Scandinavia were still practicing their original religion until the 18th century. This would mean that Lithuanians were *not* the last "pagan nation" of Europe to be converted to Christianity, but the second to last. I know some people say that the Sami are an ethnic group rather than a nation, since they didn't have a state society, but I think it can be argued that they are a nation made up of smaller tribes much like Native American nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:200:C000:530:5827:692E:5B13:929 (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christianization of Lithuania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christianization_of_Lithuania&oldid=1206681410"