Moscovy..The Liberators?
Mike Davidchik
The Moscovy liberated the Belarusans from the Poles by destroying
libraries and churches, decimating the population, and taking away
religious freedom. Here are some examples from the history of Polacak
(Polotsk), ancient city of the Bela Rus:
> 1. From 1563 - 1579, during the Livonian War (when Russia
> fought against the Livonian Order, GDL, Poland and Sweden for access to
> the Baltic Sea), Polacak was occupied by the troops of the Muscovy Tsar
> Ivan IV Grosny (Ivan the Terrible). Over the wartime years, the library of
> the St. Sophia's Cathedral, where chronicles, books and other documents of
> Belarusan culture covering Polacak's entire history were kept, was
> completely plundered. In 1579 the city was liberated by the Grand Duke of
> Litva and King of Poland Stefan Batory. In 1581, the Polacak Jesuit
> College, a secondary school (later, in 1812 it became an academy) was
> founded. In the 17th century the city was characterised by its large
> number of stone-built monasteries and churches, both Orthodox and
> Catholic.
>
> 2. During the war between Russia and the GDL and Poland in 1654-67,
> Polacak was again occupied by Russian troops. The city was severely
> affected by this terrible war waged by Moscow over "primordial Russian
> territory", as it claimed. The number of families in Polacak decreased
> from 1500 to 102 (by 93%) and the population in the Polacak area shrunk
> from 163,000 to 40,000 (by 75%). The next war waged by Russia, this time
> with Sweden, was also fought on Belarusan territory. When the Russian Tsar
> Peter the Great (a supporter of a European Russia and the founder of
St. Petersburg) came to Polacak, he turned the most ancient Belarusan
cathedral, St. Sophia Śs Cathedral into an armoury. When the Russians left
the city on 1 May 1710, they blew the armory up and the cathedral was
reduced to ruins.
>
> 3. After the first division of the Rec Paspalitaja, the state comprising
> Poland and the GDL, in 1771, the right-bank part of town was lost to the
> Russian Empire, the left bank followed in 1793. In 1820, the Tsarist
> authorities described the Polacak Jesuit Academy and Polacak's printing
> workshop as "suspicious". The Academy's library, which contained 40,000
> books, and was the richest collection of 16th-18th century books, was
> disbanded; the books were taken to St. Petersburg, Kiev and other cities.
>
> 4. The official state church in the GDL since 1596 was the so-called
> Uniate Church. It was formed to resist the Polish catholicization and the
> Russian Orthodox faith and played a unifying role for the Belarusan (as
> well as the Ukrainian) people. Church rituals continued to be conducted in
> the Orthodox way, but in contrast to the Orthodox Church, the Uniates
> recognized the Pope as their head. However, in 1839, the Moscovy
> dominated Polacak Church Council passed a resolution which forced the
> Uniat Church to merge with the Orthodox church and outlawed the use of the
> Belarusan language in church service. This was done in all of Belarus in
1841.
Gator
I wonder if most of the citizens of Belarus
would agree with you? I must admit I have
travelled there only once, but I am willing to bet
a large majority are much more anti-Polish than anti-Russian.
Yevgeniy Chizhikov
Mike Davidchik wrote:
> The Moscovy liberated the Belarusans from the Poles by destroying
> libraries and churches, decimating the population, and taking away
> religious freedom. Here are some examples from the history of Polacak
> (Polotsk), ancient city of the Bela Rus:
This all been done to the Polish-Luthenian elite that conquered Belarus during
their imperialistc war against Russian lands and ruled it, and suppressed and
forcefully Catholized Belarus. Denie this can do only really good Polish slave
that mistaken history of Belarus and history of Cathilic Polish-Luthenian
rulers, which never the less still the history of Belarus, but not really happy
one.
Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
Mike Davidchik
In article <3526C29E...@popmail.csuohio.edu>, Yevgeniy Chizhikov
<y.chi...@popmail.csuohio.edu> wrote:
> This all been done to the Polish-Luthenian elite that conquered Belarus during
> their imperialistc war against Russian lands and ruled it, and suppressed and
> forcefully Catholized Belarus.
What imperialistic war? The Principality of Polotsk had been part of the
Grand Duchy of Lithuania since the 13th Century. It never was part of
Russia until the 18th Century. Polotsk was never Roman Catholicized. The
Byzantines merely
stayed in communion with Rome. It had always been Byzantine...never Latin
Rite. The Jesuits were there because King Kazimir's Code allowed equality
to Catholic and Orthodox lords. The Bela Rus princes had intermarried with
the Poles and Balts only. Polotsk was run by Belarusans as a
self-governing Madgeburg City, not by invading Poles. The Grand Duchy
also fought to maintain its sovereignty
from the Poles in the 17th-18th Century. But, it is historical fact that
the Belarusans fought wars against the Moscovites for THREE centuries.
Denie this can do only really good Polish slave
> that mistaken history of Belarus and history of Cathilic Polish-Luthenian
> rulers, which never the less still the history of Belarus, but not
really happy
> one.
This has little do with either the Poles or Lithuanians. It has to do
with the "russification" of Belarus, including its own history. The
history of Belarus
from the 13th Century to 18th Century was primarily that of trying to
maintain their independence from the Teutonic Knights, Mongols, Poles,
Ukrainians, and GREAT RUSSIANS. This is not a happy history...but things
didn't get any better under the Russians (2,000,000 deaths under
Stalinization). Peter the Great used the culture of the ancient Rus
(Modern Russians are actually are less Rus by heritage and culture than
the Ukes and Belarusans) and the Orthodox religion (Most modern day
Russians are really atheists or agnostics) to provide a moral and cultural
basis for his Empire.
This is not to say that anybody was right or wrong (good or bad)...just
that this is the real history.
Mike
Zbigniew
Gator wrote in message <6g6aqg$8ns$1...@newsd-123.bryant.webtv.net>...
It was mentioned that You have travelled only once in Belarus,
but Your will to reinforce our opinion that a majority of Belarus
citizens are much more anti-Polish than anti-Russian is at least
absurdal and Your will to bet is rather ridiculous.You may put on
stake only Your ignorance.
I have spent many years in Belarus and today I am sure that
there some different regions and the opinion You can meet
might have been different if were more departures to some
western or northern parts of Belarus.
Do You know that the influence of Catholic church in Belarus
has being increased despite of obstacles have been created
by Lukashenko and Orthodox church? Do You know that for
many of people of Belarus Catholicism is synonym ofPolish
Faith?
The process of russification in Belarus and Soviet propaganda
have dulled the consciousness of many people,but I wish You
to travel to Grodno region several years or even months ater the
collapse of regime,created by "Kolhoznyj Koniuh".
Best regards,
Zbig.
Yevgeniy Chizhikov
Mike Davidchik wrote:
> What imperialistic war? The Principality of Polotsk had been part of the
> Grand Duchy of Lithuania since the 13th Century.
I did not know that Polotsk was all Belarus.
> It never was part of
> Russia until the 18th Century. Polotsk was never Roman Catholicized.
Yes, attempts of Catholization of Belorussian people failed, yet all nobility was
Catholized and Polish.
> The Grand Duchy
> also fought to maintain its sovereignty
> from the Poles in the 17th-18th Century. But, it is historical fact that
> the Belarusans fought wars against the Moscovites for THREE centuries.
BULL. Lithuanians fought wars, and they in general used other people hands. They
like to pay to Cossacks to fight war for them. They also bought Tatars, when they
needed.
> This has little do with either the Poles or Lithuanians. It has to do
> with the "russification" of Belarus, including its own history.
Did you ever why Russiafication of Belarus happened so quickly? Because 90% of
Belorussians was illiterate serfs. Russification started with introduction of
schools for everybody in early 1920's. This is REALLY killed Belarusian language,
even Belarusian lungage had been mandatory for everybody, including Russians and all
other natinalities, Belarusian faid a way. Today even in villages people speak only
strange mix of Russian and Belarusian. I guess Belarusian language is not exactly
brings good memories for Belarusians.
< a lot of snip>
Amazingly American Mike, even is more nationalistic than Belorussian Front. Now I
saw everything. If you wonder why Lukashenko in power, look in the mirror, it is
because dumb people like you. When you have two bad things, you choose the lesser
one.
Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
Andrew P. Paplinski
Yevgeniy Chizhikov wrote:
>
> Mike Davidchik wrote:
>
> > The Moscovy liberated the Belarusans from the Poles by destroying
> > libraries and churches, decimating the population, and taking away
> > religious freedom. Here are some examples from the history of Polacak
> > (Polotsk), ancient city of the Bela Rus:
>
> their imperialistc war against Russian lands and ruled it,
You sound like the greatest historian of all times, J.V.Stalin.
AFAIK, Belarus joined the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as a result
of two unions: in Kreva (?) 1385, and in Lublin in 1560(?).
"Russian lands" have not been invented at these times yet.
> and suppressed and
> forcefully Catholized Denie this can do only really good Polish slave
> that mistaken history of Belarus and history of Cathilic Polish-Luthenian
> rulers, which never the less still the history of Belarus, but not really
> happy one.
I understand that in your opinion Belarus would have been (XIV--XVIIIc)
better of with Mosovy than with Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
Care to explain why?
---------------,
Andrew P. Paplinski
Perkunas
Labis,
> AFAIK, Belarus joined the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as a result
> of two unions: in Kreva (?) 1385, and in Lublin in 1560(?).
> "Russian lands" have not been invented at these times yet.
Belorussia lands were a part of LDK (LGD)! Something like one republic of
Lithuania and Poland was created by force only in second part of XVI! In 1385
were was NO commonwealth! Even when HALF of LDK was given to Poland, to force
Lithuanians to form a "Commonwealth" the lands of today's Belorussia (biggest
part) stayed in Lithuania!
P.S. LITHUANIANS HAD NEVER HAD ONE REPUBLIC WITH POLISH!!! There were "close"
relations, but Lithuania had it's own army, budget, law etc. BTW Polish didn't
have the same rights to land in Lithuania as they did in poland! Listen to
Lithuanian folklore, you'll hear what the biggest enemies of Lithuanians were
germans (knights) and POLISH!!!
--
"And if You save Your Love, save it all. Don't push me too far..."
Perkunas,
bambo...@hotmail.com
In article <35272B5D...@popmail.csuohio.edu>,
Yevgeniy Chizhikov <y.chi...@popmail.csuohio.edu> wrote:
> BULL. Lithuanians fought wars, and they in general used other people hands.
They
> like to pay to Cossacks to fight war for them. They also bought Tatars, when
they
> needed.
> Did you ever why Russiafication of Belarus happened so quickly? Because 90%
of
> Belorussians was illiterate serfs. Russification started with introduction
of
> schools for everybody in early 1920's. This is REALLY killed Belarusian
language,
> even Belarusian lungage had been mandatory for everybody, including Russians
NOT TRUE!
Belarusian was prospering in 1920-20's. What lead to its current state is:
1) Murder of almost all "intelligentsia" in 1936-1941.
2) Major sufferings from the war (Minsk was literally destroyed. Today's Minsk
population is more than 50% immigrants from all the former Soviet Union)
3) Language reforms of the fifties which had a goal of convergence of
Belarusian and Russian languages (and then people) into one (language and
nation, respectively).
4) Russian language policy (closing of Belarusian schools and colleges). There
was not a single college in Belarus that was offering technical courses in
Belarusian. That lead to a stagnation in a language.
> Today even in villages people
> speak only
> strange mix of Russian and Belarusian.
If move at least 50 miles from Minsk, you can hear clear unspoiled Belarusian.
> saw everything. If you wonder why Lukashenko in power, look in the mirror,
it is
> because dumb people like you. When you have two bad things, you choose the
This is not a good way of discussion...
Sincerely,
Syarzhuk Kazachehnka
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Mike Davidchik
> > AFAIK, Belarus joined the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as a result
> > of two unions: in Kreva (?) 1385, and in Lublin in 1560(?).
> > "Russian lands" have not been invented at these times yet.
The Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Rus was started by Mindough (Mindaugas)
by consolidating parts of eastern Lithuania and western Belarus from
1240-1263.
His capital was in Navahradak. Slavic tribes (ancestors of the Bela Rus)
were part of his regime.
> Belorussia lands were a part of LDK (LGD)! Something like one republic of
> Lithuania and Poland was created by force only in second part of XVI! In 1385
> were was NO commonwealth!
In 1385, Grand Duke Jahaila married the Polish queen. Later, his brother, Vitaut
got the GDL because of it. This was an alliance.
Even when HALF of LDK was given to Poland, to force
> Lithuanians to form a "Commonwealth" the lands of today's Belorussia (biggest
> part) stayed in Lithuania!
This is true. It has nothing to do with the issue. The point that I was making
was that Orthodox Bela Rus joined the Catholic Balts and Poles to drive
Moscovy out of their lands. Some of the nobles in Litva were Catholic and
some Orthodox, so these wars were not primarily religious.
>
> P.S. LITHUANIANS HAD NEVER HAD ONE REPUBLIC WITH POLISH!!! There were
"close"
> relations, but Lithuania had it's own army, budget, law etc. BTW Polish didn't
> have the same rights to land in Lithuania as they did in poland! Listen to
> Lithuanian folklore, you'll hear what the biggest enemies of Lithuanians were
> germans (knights) and POLISH!!!
I don't recall that I ever said one republic. I said that there was a
confederation among the Poles and Litvini (this includes Balts and
Belarusans).
The point that the Belarusan "nationalists" have always made is that they
were not subjugated by the Poles until the 16th Century. The Grand Duchy
of Litva was independent of Poland with all Rus cities having local rule,
but their was inter-marriage of the nobility for defense purposes against
the Teutonic Knights, Moscovites, etc.
In 1569, there was a union of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Rus, and
Samogitia with Poland. This occurred ten years before King Stefan Batory
(a Hungarian) kicked the Moscovites out of Polotsk with armies from all of
the GDL. Prior
to the Commonwealth, the GDL had been fighting wars against Moscovy for a
hundred years. These GDL troops were not mostly Poles...they were Litvini
(Balts and Rus). Litva was greatly weakened by all of these wars and had to
find an ally. Prince Radzivil died before he could get anything going
with the Swedes.
Instead of a bull seeing red, you see the word, Polish, and you go
bananas. You get carried away with your ethnic prejudices. I am not a
Polish supporter. I
am trying to make the point about the Bela Rus having their separate
identity with Litva being erased through centuries of Russian propaganda.
I am well aware that the people living within the current day Belarus
borders were called
"Litvini" for centuries and they became Belorussians after being subjugated
by Poland and Russia.
King Kazimir's Code in 1468 and the Statutes of the Grand Duchy of Litva in 1529
were both written in BELARUSAN...not Polish or modern day Lithuanian.
Mike
M. K.
Perkunas wrote:
> Labis,
>
> > AFAIK, Belarus joined the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as a result
>
> > of two unions: in Kreva (?) 1385, and in Lublin in 1560(?).
>
> > "Russian lands" have not been invented at these times yet.
>
> Belorussia lands were a part of LDK (LGD)! Something like one republic of
>
> Lithuania and Poland was created by force
>
Not by force but by the Decision of the Lithuanian Grand Duke
of the Jagiellonian dynasty who was also the King of Poland.
> only in second part of XVI! In 1385
>
> were was NO commonwealth!
>
Yes it was and you are trying to re-write history:
I will quote some passages from "God's Playground, A History Of Poland"
by Norman Davies:
"The second stage was affected in an agreement signed at Horodło
in Volhynia on October 1413. Here in effect, the Polish lords and
Lithuanian boyars formed themselves into a joint estate. Among their
many provisions it was agreed that matters of concern touching both
countries should be settled in joint assemblies of the nobility, and
that the Polish lords should participate in the election of the Lithuanian
Grand Duke. In this way, the strict monarchical principle already badly battered
by the events of 1370, 1384-6, and 1401, was finally abandoned.
(...)
The Polish nobility were obtaining a permanent stake in the internal affairs
of their partners: the Lithuanians were receiving a guarantee of the separate
identity of their state and its ruler.
(...)
To all intents and purposes they became one nation."
About the Union of Lublin
"Chodkiewicz accepted the terms of the proposed Union. The Senate rose
to its feet and roared its thanks. Poland and Lithuania were to be joined
together, 'freemen with free, equals with equal'. There was to be one
Rzeczpospolita, one 'Republic' or 'Commonwealth'; one indivisible body politick,
one king, elected not born,; one Sejm; one currency. The Lithuanians were to keep
their own law, their own administration, their own army, and the titles of their
princely families. The details were amicably edited.
(...)
Finally, on 1 July 1569, the Act of Union was sealed. Standing at the front hat in
hand and surrounded by the clergy, Sigismund-August received the oaths of loyalty
from each of the signatories. Then he led the entire assembly to the Church
of St. Stanislaw, kneeling before the altar and singing the Te Deum in a strong voice."
> Even when HALF of LDK was given to Poland, to force
>
> Lithuanians to form a "Commonwealth" the lands of today's Belorussia (biggest
>
> part) stayed in Lithuania!
>
> P.S. LITHUANIANS HAD NEVER HAD ONE REPUBLIC WITH POLISH!!!
>
You've just misspelled "Poles" and don't know what you're talking about anyway.
> There were "close"
>
> relations, but Lithuania had it's own army, budget, law etc.
>
It doesn't take an independent state to have its own budget or law.
The Lituanian army couldn't make wars of its own.
> BTW Polish didn't
>
> have the same rights to land in Lithuania as they did in poland!
>
Nonsense. Show me a proof.
You've misspelled "Poles" once again. Buying a dictionary
wouldn't hurt.
> Listen to
>
> Lithuanian folklore, you'll hear what the biggest enemies of Lithuanians were
>
> germans (knights) and POLISH!!!
>
It is great to know the Lithuanians don't have anything against the Russians.
Mnie eto oczen nrawitsa, towariszczi.
The Teutonic Knights would have annihilated the Lithuanians
as they did with the Prussians and Sudovians and there
wouldn't have been any such lovely Lithuanian songs
to be sung, had Lithuania not united itself with Poland in the
first place. The Knights defeated the Lithuanians at Rudau/Rudawa
in 1370 and occupied Samogitia where probably those anti-Polish songs
are sung now. It would be interesting to know who taught those folks their
"folk" songs. I only know a humble Polish folk saying regarding Lithuania,
namely glodna Litwa - hungry Lithuanians. The Knights imprisoned Witold
at the Malbork castle as well (I saw the cell) whence he escaped thanks
only to the help of a young Prussian servant.
It is easy to talk big now. Lithuania may still end up as a part
of Russia (united with Belorussia of course, to your rejoice) -
- then you guys will talk big - we'll see.
The Grand Duchy of Lithuania appeared only because the Mongols
beat the Russians and subdued them for a few centuries.
Once the Mongol Empire crumbled, the pagan Duchy was unable exist
without a Christian ally, you know it well.
--
While replying, please remove 'rem' from my e-mail address.
MK
Mike Davidchik
In article <352DBD76...@pop.erols.com>, "M. K."
<remn...@pop.erols.com> wrote:
> Once the Mongol Empire crumbled, the pagan Duchy was unable exist
>
> without a Christian ally, you know it well.
This is not completely true. The Mongols could not get past the Palesse.
Once they tried and were soundly defeated by the GDL. The GDL was once
just as strong as Poland, but was weakened greatly by many wars, not just
against
Moscovy, but the Cossacks, Knights, Swedes, Tatars, etc. The Cossacks
uniting with Russia was just as significant as the Russians finally
defeating the Mongols in dooming the GDL.
I am not sure what you mean by "Christian ally." Most of the combatants
were Christians. The GDL was always officially a Christian country,
although some of the Balts (Smudz), were not Christianized until a century
or two after it was founded. By the end of the 16th Century, everybody was
Christian (both Catholic and Orthodox).
The political union of the GDL with Poland is not greatly lauded by either
modern day Lithuanians or Belarusans because Poland, in return for her
military support, became heavy handed in trying to Polonize everybody. It
also tried to impose Catholicism in the Rus areas which were Orthodox or
Uniate. Poland's military support of the GDL is completely forgotten
today, but Poland's attempts to change the language, religion, and culture
are greatly remembered.
In several respects, Poland and Russia were very similar in the 16th-19th
Centuries. They both tried to wipe out all the vestiges of the GDL.
Russia
was successful.
Mike
zuzia
Interesujaca replika, trafne komentarze, szczegolnie ponizszy.
"Olsnionymi" nacjonalistami jest latwiej manipulowac wiec
prawdopodobienstwo, ze Litwa i Bialorus "powroca do macierzy" jest dosc
wysokie. ZZ
-------------------
>"Lithuania may still end up as a part of Russia (united with Belorussia of
M. K.
Mike Davidchik wrote:
> In article <352DBD76...@pop.erols.com>, "M. K."
>
> <remn...@pop.erols.com> wrote:
>
> > Once the Mongol Empire crumbled, the pagan Duchy was unable exist
>
> >
>
> > without a Christian ally, you know it well.
>
> This is not completely true. The Mongols could not get past the Palesse.
>
But I didn't write about the Mongols but about the Russians and the Teutonic Order.
The Russians and the Teutonic Knights could easily get past Polesie, and that was
my point. After 1237-39 the only Russian principality not controlled by the Mongols
was the Republic of Novgorod caught between them and the Teutonic Knights
so the Lithuanians were able to penetrate southern Russian principalities soon after
1240. This was directly related to the defeat suffered by the Russians at the hands
of the Mongols.
If the Mongols couldn't reach beyond Polesie it means they couldn't reach only western
Belorussia and Lithuania proper. But most of the Grand Duchy's territory
i.e., Ukraine and eastern Belorussia was on that side of Polesie they were able
to attack and they raided them multiple times. They reached Silesia, Moravia, Hungary,
Croatia, Dalmatia, Serbia, Transylvania, Walachia, and Bulgaria in 1241-42 and retreated
only because of the death of the Great Khan. Had they conquered Volhynia-Galicia they would
have been able to bypass the Pripet Marshes and attack Lithuania or, more probably, they
would have tried to attack Poland (which they did many times in fact) and the Teutonic Knights
would be free to deal with Lithuania as they pleased. In other words without Kiev, Czernihiv,
Smolensk, Volodymyr, and Brest Litovsk Lithuania was to weak to be a partner for Poland.
With Turau-Pinsk and Polatsk only they would have been annihilated by the Teutonic Knights
or maybe by them and the Poles and Russians.
At any rate without Christianization and an alliance with a Christian power Lithuania
would have been defeated by one or more of her neighbors sooner or later.
This was the case with the Sudavians which were annihilated by the Knights
and Mazovian princes. Lithuania didn't have any other choice but to get Christianized.
Had it been Christianized by the Teutonic Knights, its fate could have been similar
to that of Latvia or Estonia or worse. Who knows?
Poland would have probably tried to annex not only Galicia but also Volhynia, Podlachia,
and Podolia, allying itself with Hungary and Bohemia against the Teutonic Knights, and
Tatars. Maybe Hungary would have gotten a part of Galicia and Moldavia.
Actually in 1377 a Polish-Lithuanian army led by Louis of Anjou the King of Poland and Hungary
conquered the territories of Belz and Chelm which belonged to the Grand Duchy before.
Even with Polish help the Lithuanians could hardly defend Ukraine and
a joint Polish-Lithuanian force was defeated by the Tatars on the Vorskla.
> Once they tried and were soundly defeated by the GDL.
>
My point was that the Teutonic Knights + Russia free of Mongols were enough
to destroy the Grand Duchy or Christianize and subdue it. The Duchy needed an ally
to defend itself against both of them. At any rate without Christianization
the Grand Duchy couldn't exist. The only reasonable and available Christian ally
was Poland which at that time was also pressed by the Knights and the Tatars as well.
Lithuania practically had only one choice at that time - Poland or the Teutonic Knights,
period.
> The GDL was once
>
> just as strong as Poland,
>
Yes, once, at one point in time it was relatively strong
because after 1240 it conquered the southern Russian principalities
destroyed by the Tatars, Poland was fragmented, and the Teutonic
Knights were just starting to establish themselves in Prussia.
But just take a look at the timeline:
1229 Konrad of Mazovia, pressed by the Prussians invites
the Teutonic Knights to settle in the land of Chelmno
and fight the Prussians.
1236-42 The Mongols invade Russian and Polish principalities,
Hungary and the Balkans. Immediately after that the Lithuanians
started conquering the southern Russian principalities.
1237 The Teutonic Order unites with the Livonian Order
(In 1246, two Franciscans - Giovanni da Piano del Carpino
and Benedict the Pole - were sent by pope Innocent IV to the
Mongol Khan.
This is what they wrote:
(...)
"Afterwards prince Vasilko sent us (from Volhynia - M.K.), with a servant
to Kiev, the capital of Rus. We went exposing our lives to a great danger,
as the Lithuanians were frequently invading the Ruthenian lands and most frequently
were roaming those parts we were about to go through.
The servant given to us protected us from the Rusyns, the greater part of whom
were slaughtered or taken into captivity by the Mongols anyway."(...))
1300 Vaclav II, the king of Bohemia is elected king of Poland (r. 1300-5)
1301 His son Vaclav III is elected king of Hungary (r. 1301 -1306)
1320 Władysław Łokietek is elected king of unified Poland (r. 1305-33)
1333-70 Casimir III the Great rules Poland. He reorganizes the country,
signs a peace with Bohemia (1339) and the Teutonic Order (1343), reaches
an accord with Hungary and acquires Galicia (1344-49), western Mazovia (1351-52),
western Volhynia, and western Podolia (1366)
1370 Louis of Anjou, the king of Hungary is elected King of Poland (r. 1370-82)
1370 The Teutonic Knights defeat the Lithuanians at Rudawa
1384 Louis of Anjou's daughter, Jadwiga, is elected Queen of Poland (r. 1382-99)
1386 Władysław Jagiełło is baptized at Cracow, elected king of Poland
and marries Jadwiga.
> but was weakened greatly by many wars, not just
>
> against
>
> Moscovy, but the Cossacks, Knights, Swedes, Tatars, etc.
>
You haven't mentioned the Teutonic Order which
was the closest to and surrounded Lithuania.
> The Cossacks
>
> uniting with Russia was just as significant as the Russians finally
>
> defeating the Mongols in dooming the GDL.
>
> I am not sure what you mean by "Christian ally." Most of the combatants
>
> were Christians.
>
But not all. Not the Lithuanians and their ruling class. They were pagans unitl
1386
> The GDL was always officially a Christian country,
>
This is just NOT TRUE. Jagiełlo was a pagan, plain and simple.
BTW, what do you mean by "always?"
> although some of the Balts (Smudz), were not Christianized until a century
>
> or two after it was founded.
>
Oh, I see, I see :-) You actually are intentionally trying to confuse the Belorussians
with the Lithuanians (Balts, as you say) and try to convince everybody that the former
conquered the latter and were true Lithuanians. Well, I'm really sorry, but I don't buy
this fallacy.
If you think that the Lithuanians' using Old Belorussian as their official
language proves this there is a much simpler explanation: All the Catholic countries
at that time used Latin as their official language. It doesn't mean, however, that
their kings, aristocracy, or all the inhabitants were Romans.
> By the end of the 16th Century, everybody was
>
> Christian (both Catholic and Orthodox).
>
And you believe all of this just happened by itself?
The Lithuanians (the Balts, as you say) were
converted to Catholicism after the Union of Krewo (1385)
and Jagiełło's baptism (
> The political union of the GDL with Poland is not greatly lauded by either
>
> modern day Lithuanians or Belarusans because Poland,
>
It really doesn't matter what they say now, when the Teutonic Knights
are long gone. What mattered at that time was what their Grand Duke
believed was best for them.
> in return for her
>
> military support, became heavy handed in trying to Polonize everybody.
>
Actually they rushed to get Polonized. Now some of their crybabies descendants
try to distort history as much as it suits them. Hadn't they got Polonized
they would have been Germanized and this is the truth.
What they say now, after decades of Russian/Soviet propaganda is really irrelevant.
> It
>
> also tried to impose Catholicism in the Rus areas which were Orthodox or
>
> Uniate.
>
At the Union of Brest (1596) one Orthodox faction pledged their loyalty to the pope.
I know that the Russians tried to convert the Uniates to Orthodoxy in the 19th century
and persecuted them. They persecuted the Catholics as well.
The Uniate metropolitanate of Kiev with eparchies in Chelm, Lutsk, Volodymyr-Brest,
Pinsk, Polatsk and Smolensk was abolihsed in 1796. The church was restored in 1806
and two metropolitanates, for Belorus and Lithuania established in 1828.
Once again, in 1839 they were abolished. The last Uniate eparchy in Chelm was
abolished in 1875. All Uniates/Greek Catholics in the Russian Empire were _forced_ to
become Orthodox or Roman Catholics. After that, Greek Catholicism was able to survive
only in Austria-Hungary.
Now it appears the Orthodox remember only the sins of others.
There was a constant friction between the Uniates and Orthodox
and I don't know why you try to talk only about the conflict with Catholics.
> Poland's military support of the GDL is completely forgotten
>
> today, but Poland's attempts to change the language, religion, and culture
>
> are greatly remembered.
>
Sure, everybody tries to forget his debts. This is very convenient.
We'll see what they will say when the Russians will try to return
to the Baltic. Maybe they will regain some memory.
> In several respects, Poland and Russia were very similar in the 16th-19th
>
> Centuries. They both tried to wipe out all the vestiges of the GDL.
>
I quite don't understand what you are talking about.
Until the end of the 18th century Poland and Lithuania
existed as the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania preserving
some of its separate institutions. Between 1772-1795
Russia, Prussia, and Austria partitioned this state
among themselves so I don't know what similarity
you see between Poland and Russia.
You carefully deleted what I wrote about
this subject and keep repeating your
previous fallacies again.
> Russia
>
> was successful.
>
Russia was successful at what?
Did Russia ever try to enter in any voluntary union
with Lithuania, like Poland did?
What do you base your comparisons on?
What happened in the 18th century was exactly what could have happened
in the 14th century already: The Germans and the Russians
dividing Poland and Lithuania among themselves.
If Lithuania was unable to preserve its independence even with Poland's
support it wouldn't have been able to do so alone, period.
How could you be so blind not to see it. Jagiełło knew exactly
what he was doing.
Mike Davidchik
In article <352F39C2...@pop.erols.com>, "M. K."
<na...@pop.erols.com> wrote:
> Mike Davidchik wrote:
>
> > In article <352DBD76...@pop.erols.com>, "M. K."
> >
> > <remn...@pop.erols.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Once the Mongol Empire crumbled, the pagan Duchy was unable exist
You have oversimplified. Yes, it probably was inevitable that Russia
would get stronger, but they had help. The Cossacks did a number on the
Litvini too. Poland was greatly weakened through various wars. In the
16th Century, if the Swedes could have gotten together with the Litvini,
it would have helped. I dislike you referring to the GDL as a "pagan"
Duchy. This is not true. There
were some pagans in it for the first century (mostly Balts who comprise
modern day Lithuania). But, Vitaut and Jagaila were Christians, and the
army which allowed them to build the GDL was mostly slavic Krivichi
(mostly Byzantine Christians). You confuse modern day Lithuania with the
GDL.
> > > without a Christian ally, you know it well.
> >This is not completely true. The Mongols could not get past the Palesse.
> >
> But I didn't write about the Mongols but about the Russians and the
Teutonic Order.
>
> The Russians and the Teutonic Knights could easily get past Polesie, and
that was my point.
Yes, but the Russians were not that strong until the 16th-17th Centuries.
> After 1237-39 the only Russian principality not controlled by the Mongols
>was the Republic of Novgorod caught between them and the Teutonic Knights
> so the Lithuanians were able to penetrate southern Russian
principalities soon after 1240. This was directly related to the defeat
suffered by the Russians at the hands of the Mongols.
Yes, the GDL was extended through Ukraine to the Black Sea. You say only
"Russian" Principality (Novgorod), but it was not the only "Rus"
Principality that survived the Mongols. Several other Rus Principalities
were alive and became part of the GDL (Polacak in 1307). The GDL didn't
conquer these Rus. They joined them because of the wars with the
Knights. At its heighth, there were more Slavic Rus, than Balts in the
GDL.
> If the Mongols couldn't reach beyond Polesie it means they couldn't
reach only western Belorussia and Lithuania proper. But most of the Grand
Duchy's territory
> i.e., Ukraine and eastern Belorussia was on that side of Polesie they
were abl to attack and they raided them multiple times. They reached
Silesia, Moravia, Hungary, Croatia, Dalmatia, Serbia, Transylvania,
Walachia, and Bulgaria in 1241-42 and retreated only because of the death
of the Great Khan.
Yes, but they were unsuccessful in the Rus area which is now called Belarus.
Had they conquered Volhynia-Galicia they would have been able to bypass
the Pripet Marshes and attack Lithuania or, more probably, they
would have tried to attack Poland (which they did many times in fact) and
the Teutonic Knights would be free to deal with Lithuania as they pleased.
Yes, but it didn't happen. The Knights, Poles, and Litvini would have
united against them.
In other words without Kiev, Czernihiv, Smolensk, Volodymyr, and Brest
Litovsk Lithuania was to weak to be a partner for Poland.
I doubt that Kiev was necessary. The GDL didn't have Kiev during most of
its history.
>
> With Turau-Pinsk and Polatsk only they would have been annihilated by
the Teutonic Knights or maybe by them and the Poles and Russians.
Yes, this why the Slavic Litvini princes inter-married with the Poles.
Many of the Polish Kings had Belaya Rus and Balt blood in their veins.
>
> At any rate without Christianization and an alliance with a Christian
power Lithuania would have been defeated by one or more of her neighbors
sooner or later.
I agree. But, quit confusing old Lithuania with new Lithuania. The Baltic
tribes that constitute modern day Lithuania were not even originally part
of the GDL. The Slavic Litvini tribes became Christianized in the 10th
Century.
> Lithuania didn't have any other choice but to get Christianized.
This is a fallacy. You act like it was against their will. Firstly, the
Balts who inter-married with the Rus were always converted to
Christianity. Secondly, Volodymyr brought Byzantine Christianity to the
Rus Principalities
long before the creation of the GDL. Thirdly, Latin missionaries were
active in the GDL before its union with Poland. Almost all of the Grand
Princes
(who used Belarusan in their courts byt the way) were Catholics after Yahaila's
conversion. These princes tried to convert the GDL to Catholicism, but
discovered that Orthodoxy was too strong in Rus territories. So, they
practiced a form of religious freedom not tolerated in either Poland or
Russia. Prince Radzivil even introduced Calvinism. The modern day
Lithuanians were pressured toward Christianity by everybody, not just the
Poles.
> Had it been Christianized by the Teutonic Knights, its fate could have
been similar to that of Latvia or Estonia or worse. Who knows? Poland
would have probably tried to annex not only Galicia but also Volhynia,
Podlachia,
and Podolia, allying itself with Hungary and Bohemia against the Teutonic
Knights, and Tatars. Maybe Hungary would have gotten a part of Galicia and
Moldavia.
Who knows who the Catholic missionaries were in the early centuries. Old
accounts indicate that the rivals of Sts. Cyril and Methodius were mostly
Germans. It is believed that Scandinavians were also involved with the Rus.
The Jesuits didn't arrive until the 16th Century. Were they all Poles? I
doubt it very much.
>
> Even with Polish help the Lithuanians could hardly defend Ukraine and
>
> a joint Polish-Lithuanian force was defeated by the Tatars on the Vorskla.
This is a moot point considering that the Cossacks allied with the Russians
instead of Poles or GDL.
> My point was that the Teutonic Knights + Russia free of Mongols were enough
>
> to destroy the Grand Duchy or Christianize and subdue it.
Yes, Polish help did prolong the fight. But, this has NOTHING to do with
Christianity. The Russians did not Christianize Belarus and Ukraine.
They were Christians before the Russians. The Teutonic Knights were
Catholics.
They would have just tried to convert everybody like the Poles. The Poles
did NOT Christianize MOST of the GDL. I say this as a Catholic myself.
> The only reasonable and available Christian ally
was Poland which at that time was also pressed by the Knights and the
Tatars as well.
Yes, I agree. But, there was some attempt to get the Swedes in the 16th
or 17th Century.
> Lithuania practically had only one choice at that time - Poland or the
Teutonic Knights, period.
I doubt that the Teutonic Knights was ever a candidate.
>
> Yes, once, at one point in time it was relatively strong
>
> because after 1240 it conquered the southern Russian principalities
>
> destroyed by the Tatars, Poland was fragmented, and the Teutonic
>
> Knights were just starting to establish themselves in Prussia.
Yoy say conquered southern Russian principalities. I say annexed southern
Rus principalities. Who were they fighting? It wasn't the Rus tribes, it
was the Tatars or Teutonic Knights. The leaders of the four main Slavic
tribes in the GDL had already inter-married with some of the Slavic tribes
in what is now Ukraine. Tiny modern day Lithuania did not conquer the Rus
Principalities.
>
> 1384 Louis of Anjou's daughter, Jadwiga, is elected Queen of Poland (r.
1382-99) 1386 Władysław Jagiełło is baptized at Cracow, elected king of
Poland
> and marries Jadwiga.
Yes, here is where the alliance between Poland and the GDL begins. Yahaila
was re-baptised in Cracow and became a Catholic. He had previously been
baptized as an Orthodox in Navahradak to consolidate his power with the
Rus tribes. The modern day Lithuanians don't like this idea and don't want
to accept that the Rus Principalities voluntarily made possible the
growth of the GDL.
There is no proof that the GDL was ever an all pagan Duchy. When Mindou
got the Krivichi to help him take over some Balt areas, they were already
Christianized.
When Polacak joined the GDL, it was already Christian, long before Yahaila.
i believe that Navahradak was Christian when it was the GDL capital.
> > I am not sure what you mean by "Christian ally." Most of the combatants
> >
> > were Christians.
> >
> But not all. Not the Lithuanians and their ruling class. They were
pagans unitl
Some of the Baltic tribes were pagan. But, the dominant group which
encompassed the nobility, was Christian. By 1385, I think that almost
everybody was Christian. I agree that the Smudz were the last.
> > The GDL was always officially a Christian country,
> >
> This is just NOT TRUE. Jagiełlo was a pagan, plain and simple.
This is false. He was baptized twice. He was married in the Catholic
Church to the Polish Queen. He later married a Bela Rus woman who was
Orthodox. He had two children by this woman who were ethnically Bela Rus
Christians. I believe that his brother, Vitaut, was baptized a Christian.
>
> BTW, what do you mean by "always?"
>
> > although some of the Balts (Smudz), were not Christianized until a century
> >
> > or two after it was founded.
> >
> Oh, I see, I see :-) You actually are intentionally trying to confuse
the Belorussians with the Lithuanians (Balts, as you say) and try to
convince everybody that the former conquered the latter and were true
Lithuanians. Well, I'm really sorry, but I don't buy this fallacy.
There is no confusion at all. During most of the history of the GDL, the Litvini
were both Balts and Bela Rus. It is not a question of the Bela Rus conquering
the Balts, or vice versa. Mindou (Mindaugas) used the Krivichi to gain
power over some of the Balts. He didn't get everybody. But, the
inter-marriage of his descendents extended the GDL. Like I say, the main
Baltic tribe for modern day Lithuania (Aukhota) was not in the original GDL.
There is no history which shows that any of the four Slavic tribes of
modern day Belarus were ever conquered. They probably joined each other
to defend themselves from common enemies. In the 14th Century onwards, the
ethnic Slavs were as much Litvini as the Balts.
>
> If you think that the Lithuanians' using Old Belorussian as their official
> language proves this there is a much simpler explanation: All the
Catholic countries at that time used Latin as their official language. It
doesn't mean, however, that their kings, aristocracy, or all the
inhabitants were Romans.
That is not my point. Old Belarusan was chosen instead of Latin even though
the grand princes were usually Catholic instead of Orthodox. This is
because the development of Old Belarusan was far ahead of any Baltic
language. The Smudz didn't even have a written language for centuries.
Secondly, most of the population was ethnically and culturally Bela Rus
during most of the history of the GDL. The GDL has hardly anything to do
with modern day Lithuania. Old Belarusan was the language in most of the
churches and schools of the GDL, including Vilnius.
> The Lithuanians (the Balts, as you say) were
>
> converted to Catholicism after the Union of Krewo (1385)
>
> and Jagiełło's baptism (
Yes, most of the modern day Lithuanians. But, there were Balts and Slavs
who called themselves Litvini who were already Christianized long before
this day. The GDL started in 1260, not 1385. The dominant group in all of
the Rus cities
which became part of the GDL had been Christianized in the 10th Century.
This fallacy is perpetuated because of the ancient emnity between
Catholics and Orthodox. By the end of the 14th Century, almost everybody
in the GDL was Catholic or Orthodox. Poles can claim that they converted
some of the Baltic tribes to Christianity. But, they cannot claim that
they converted everybody
in the GDL. There were German and Scandinavian and Byzantine
missionaries around as early as the 10th Century.
If you want to think that a few pagans from a tiny part of the Baltic conquered
all of those Christian Rus Principalities, you are a dreamer.
Incidentally, most of the princes of the GDL were a mixture of Balt, Rus,
and Pole. They were not Smudz. It is said that Yahaila couldn't even
speak Polish and had to talk in old Belarusan in his court. King Kazimir
preferred Belarusan.
> Actually they rushed to get Polonized. Now some of their crybabies descendants
>
> try to distort history as much as it suits them. Hadn't they got Polonized
>
> they would have been Germanized and this is the truth.
Most modern Lithuanian or Belarusan historians would deny that they rushed
to be Polonized. Hadn't they got Polonized, you say that they would have
been Germanized. This is not completely true. Most of the GDL was
actually Russified. The Teutonic Knights (Livonian Order) were less a
threat to the GDL than Russia by the 15th and 16th Centuries.
What they say now, after decades of Russian/Soviet propaganda is really
irrelevant.
It is not irrelevant because that is what they (the Belarusans) now
believe to be the truth.
> At the Union of Brest (1596) one Orthodox faction pledged their loyalty
to the pope.
I agree. In fact, the majority of the Rus part of GDL in the period from
about 16th thru 18th Century This has been completely written out of the
official
Russian/Soviet histories. They don't admit that the Uniates were outlawed in
1841 as part of the Russification of Belarus. They hardly admit that the
Uniates ever existed.
> I know that the Russians tried to convert the Uniates to Orthodoxy in
the 19th century and persecuted them. They persecuted the Catholics as
well.
> The Uniate metropolitanate of Kiev with eparchies in Chelm, Lutsk,
Volodymyr-Brest, Pinsk, Polatsk and Smolensk was abolihsed in 1796. The
church was restored in 1806 and two metropolitanates, for Belorus and
Lithuania established in 1828. Once again, in 1839 they were abolished.
The last Uniate eparchy in Chelm was abolished in 1875. All Uniates/Greek
Catholics in the Russian Empire were _forced_ to become Orthodox or Roman
Catholics. After that, Greek Catholicism was able to survive only in
Austria-Hungary.
I agree. This is why Greek Catholicism only survived in Western Ukraine
and some of the other Slavic countries which were part of the Empire
(Ruthenia, Slovakia,
Hungary, Romania, etc. But, the Poles were not good guys either. They have
been persecuting Greek Catholics in Galicia for centuries, although not to
the extent of the Russians.
>
> Now it appears the Orthodox remember only the sins of others. There was
a constant friction between the Uniates and Orthodox and I don't know why
you try to talk only about the conflict with Catholics.
This is because I consider Byzantine Catholics (Uniates) to be just as
much Catholics as Roman Catholics. I would take communion in either
Church. I agree that persecution of Greek Catholics was more severe than
to Roman Catholics by both the Tsarists and particularly the Communists.
The attitude of the Poles and Russians was similar...either Roman Catholic
or Russian Orthodox...nothing else.
>
> > Poland's military support of the GDL is completely forgotten
today, but Poland's attempts to change the language, religion, and culture
> are greatly remembered.
> >
> Sure, everybody tries to forget his debts. This is very convenient.
>
> We'll see what they will say when the Russians will try to return to the
Baltic. Maybe they will regain some memory.
> I quite don't understand what you are talking about.
>
> Until the end of the 18th century Poland and Lithuania
>
> existed as the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
>
> with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania preserving
>
> some of its separate institutions.
In 1696, Old Belarusan was replaced by Polish as the official language of
the GDL. In 1791, the Constitution merged the Polish Crown and the Grand
Duchy of Lithuania, Rus, and Samogitia into a unitary state. These actions
were not loved by the Bela Rus or the Balts.
> You carefully deleted what I wrote about
>
> this subject and keep repeating your
>
> previous fallacies again.
I don't understand the statement, above.
>
> Russia was successful at what?
>
> Did Russia ever try to enter in any voluntary union
>
> with Lithuania, like Poland did?
No, but Russia was successful in almost completely erasing the true
history of the GDL. Through the centuries, starting with Peter the Great,
who stole the Rus identity away from the Belarusans and Ukrainians, and
ending with modern day Russian (former Communist) historians, most of the
history of Litva has disappeared. The only things left were stolen by the
modern day Lithuanians just because they still have the name. The
Russians say that the GDL
was just a Polish conspiracy to subjugate and Catholicize their Slavic
brother Belarusans. Of course, this is nonsense. They say that they were
welcomed with open arms by the Bela Rus populace from their Pole
oppressors, but forget all of the battles in which thousands of Belarusans
were killed by Russian or Cossack hands trying to defend their country.
> What happened in the 18th century was exactly what could have happened
>
> in the 14th century already: The Germans and the Russians
>
> dividing Poland and Lithuania among themselves.
>
> If Lithuania was unable to preserve its independence even with Poland's
>
> support it wouldn't have been able to do so alone, period.
>
> How could you be so blind not to see it. Jagiełło knew exactly
>
> what he was doing.
I never said that Yahaila didn't know what he was doing. You got me
confused with some anti-Pole Lithuanian. My main point is that old
Lithuania and new Lithuania are entirely different concepts. Old Lithuania
was not just a couple of Balt tribes. It was some Balts, but also many
Rus (Slavs), Prussians, Teutons, Jews, and Moslems. It was Catholic,
Uniate, and Orthodox. It was not a Polish dictatorship. Most of the major
cities, including Minsk, had self-rule.
It was more European and tolerant than today. The Bela Rus had their own
identity and were not Russians or Poles.
Mike Davidchik
Andrew P. Paplinski
Mike Davidchik wrote:
>
> > > AFAIK, Belarus joined the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as a result
> > > of two unions: in Kreva (?) 1385, and in Lublin in 1560(?).
> > > "Russian lands" have not been invented at these times yet.
>
> by consolidating parts of eastern Lithuania and western Belarus from
> 1240-1263.
> His capital was in Navahradak. Slavic tribes (ancestors of the Bela Rus)
> were part of his regime.
Mike,
I'm really glad that you and many others are able to discuss
in a civilised way history of the area now related to many modern
day countries like Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine, Poland, Russia.
This history was being re-written many times to serve variety
of political purposes, and also to help people to gain spiritual
strength to survive hardship of occupations by others.
Now, we are in a lucky sitiation as all the above mentioned
countries enjoy the political freedom to sufficient degree
to be able to discuss their past. Not being a historian myself
I can only contribute in a very limited way to the discussion,
but encourage those who know more and those who are just interested
in our common history to maintain the high level of the exchange
of facts, thoughts and ideas.
---------------,
Andrew P. Paplinski, a...@dgs.monash.edu.au
Comp.Sci.& Soft.Eng., http://www.dgs.monash.edu.au/~app/
Monash University, Clayton 3168, [Melbourne,] AUSTRALIA
Perkunas
Hello,
I think this misunderstanding between us is because we live in different
countries and we were learning from different history books. Everybody thinks
HIS is the only correct.
You say polish... oh sorry polska or slektos:) were "friends" of Lithuanians?
Weren't Polish trying to colonize Lithuanian lands? I mean before 13th century?
Who invited knights to conquer pagans? Not Polish? The fact what Germans became
strong enough and started fighting against Poland don't prove they were
innocent!
IMO at those times different countries couldn't be "friends". It was just a
choice: to fight, or to be in peace.
How could Polish be "friends" of Lithuanians. Polish were christians,
Lithuanians - pagans! Christianity was pushed into Lithuania with a lakes of
blood. So it was Polish who "said what to sing".
You wrote something about the battles... But why did You mentioned only the
ones Lithuanians had lost? If so why couldn't knights get into Lithuania? Polish
didn't help Lithuania in 13th century and even until Jogaila became a king of
Poland.
So what about the battles of Saule and Durbe? What about the battles, where
only Samogitians using tactics and landscape defeated germans? Or are these just
a tales, written by germans with terror! It was written by them, what
Samogitians (who were not specialized only in fighting, they had also to feed
their families) fought with big hmmm... trees (don't know how to say) in their
hands, washing away some enemies at a time!!!
What do You mean, what Lithuanians were weak? F.e. Germans used a cannon, and
next year Lithuanians also had and used them! So it was modern army!
The thing about religion is not as important as You say. It was impossible to
fight with everybody! Lithuania was too weak to fight against ALL EUROPE. Wasn't
it knights from all around the Europe, who went to die for god in the last pagan
country?
Lithuanians were fighting against Polish too... But as I say, you can't fight
against all of your enemies... Lithuania had to get an ally. The ally was
Polish. If Lithuania was "too weak", why did Polish wanted so desperately to get
closer to Lithuania! Or was it a will to colonize Baltic lands! Not a wish to be
good friend!
Jogaila got christianized, but he went to Poland! And he was treated as
Lithuanian king only theoretically for some time!!! The practical Lithuanian
Dukes were PAGANS! They had to promise something to christians to get some rest
from their attacks! And BTW an ordinary people didn't accepted christianity for
other 200 years! In Samogitia people didn't want to get christianized! That was
done by force or... :) f.e. in Samogitia people were given new clothes and some
other things if they went to get christianized... So some of them did that not
once. :)))
And BTW Lithuanian christianity has much in common with paganism! It is only
bible, which is 100% non Lithuanian.
Talking about polonisation I will have to agree with M.K. I think... :(((
It was Lithuanian higher layers, who rushed to be like Polish, because Polish
(of those class) lived better. But these higher class is NOT all Lithuania! And
other people didn't wanted, and didn't get polonized... And today we must say
"thank You" to them, what we are not Polish! :)))
Now some words about Union... I don't get how You put the date of Union to
14th century... But I'm gonna talk about the one in 16th century.
There couldn't be any union, because then why would Polish want another union?
Lithuanians talked about that, because they were in bad situation... Wars had
weakened Lithuania. But Lithuanians DIDN'T WANT THE UNION! It is clear! Or does
Polish history says, what it was Lithuanians "all time dream"???
I've red what this treaty was signed in total silence... Lithuanians had to do
it... They had no other choice... It is one of the darkest episodes in
Lithuanian history...
Can You tell me, what You think about Lithuanian historians Bumblauskas and
Gudavicius? if You know such names... They work at the Vilnius University... And
they do talk about Lithuanian history very realistic. So they said, what "polish
historians agreed some years ago what Lithuania was an independent state till
the third division in 1795!".
Anyway it is still good to hear You at least not saying, what Lithuania was a
part of Poland.
It was always a habit of Polish to state, what they are "so damn cool". Just
everybody is good in his own field. Lithuanians are so different from Polish.
Polish are more similar to slavs... (if they aren't slavs), and Lithuanians are
Balts (today's Lithuania and Latvia).
Now something about slavic lands. They became a part of LDK, because they
needed defence! They couldn't defend themselves alone. But the fact what
somebody Lithuanian became their leader shows, what slavic lands were connected
to Lithuanian, not vice versa! And LDK was very tolerant (maybe too tolerant) so
those Lithuanians got the religion of their "new lands" and even changed their
names. But they were still obedient to Lithuania.
Could You please tell me more about Naugardukas, as the capital of LDK???
Where are Kernave, Trakai, Vilnius?
Which Ballets weren't pagans?
"anti-Pole Lithuanian" <--- is that me? :))) Anyway... It is in a blood of
Lithuanians... Genes maybe :)))
P.S. I have a proposal to move this discussion out of newsgroup... just i would
like to learn about what Polish history says about that period. And I think this
discussion is not interesting to everybody.
Mike Davidchik
> How could Polish be "friends" of Lithuanians. Polish were christians,
> Lithuanians - pagans! Christianity was pushed into Lithuania with a lakes of
> blood. So it was Polish who "said what to sing".
Christianity was pushed on the pagans by several groups, not just the
Poles. It came from the Teutonic Knights, Scandinavians, and Eastern
Slavs.
Polish
> didn't help Lithuania in 13th century and even until Jogaila became a king of
> Poland.
Lithuania was helped in the 13th and 14th centuries by several Slavic Rus
tribes.
> What do You mean, what Lithuanians were weak? F.e. Germans used a
cannon, and
> next year Lithuanians also had and used them! So it was modern army!
In the 14th Century, the Lithuanians were just as strong as the Poles.
> Lithuanians were fighting against Polish too... But as I say, you
can't fight
> against all of your enemies... Lithuania had to get an ally. The ally was
> Polish.
Old Lithuania also allied with several southern Rus cities, not just the Poles.
If Lithuania was "too weak", why did Polish wanted so desperately to get
closer to Lithuania! Or was it a will to colonize Baltic lands! Not a wish
to be good friend!
The Poles needed allies too.
>
> Jogaila got christianized, but he went to Poland! And he was treated as
> Lithuanian king only theoretically for some time!!!
Yahaila was Polish King in 1385. In 1392, Vitaut was recognized as
independent ruler of the GDL.
The practical Lithuanian
> Dukes were PAGANS! They had to promise something to christians to get
some rest
> from their attacks! And BTW an ordinary people didn't accepted
christianity for
> other 200 years!
This is not completely true. There were many princes who were Christian
in the GDL in the 14th and 15th Centuries.
In Samogitia people didn't want to get christianized! That was
> done by force or... :) f.e. in Samogitia people were given new clothes
and some
> other things if they went to get christianized... So some of them did that not
> once. :)))
Samogitia was not part of the opriginal GDL.
> And BTW Lithuanian christianity has much in common with paganism! It is only
> bible, which is 100% non Lithuanian.
Please try to tell that to all of my Lithuanian friends who are devout
Catholics. You are influenced by the Soviet Era. Lithuanians who left
Lithuania and immigrated to America would not necessarily agree with you.
Please note that there are more Lithuanians in America than Lithuanians in
Lithuania.
>
> Talking about polonisation I will have to agree with M.K. I think... :(((
> It was Lithuanian higher layers, who rushed to be like Polish, because
Polish
> (of those class) lived better. But these higher class is NOT all Lithuania!
This was true in all parts of the GDL. The higher society was polonized
in the Slavic areas as well.
>
> Now some words about Union... I don't get how You put the date of Union to
> 14th century... But I'm gonna talk about the one in 16th century.
There was an alliance with Poland from 1385 through the 18th Century. However,
this does not mean that the GDL didn't have independent rule. The GDL was
not completely absorbed until about 1690.
But Lithuanians DIDN'T WANT THE UNION! It is clear! Or does
> Polish history says, what it was Lithuanians "all time dream"???
Lithuanians did want a union with Poland as long as they had their own
self-rule and own armies.
> I've red what this treaty was signed in total silence... Lithuanians
had to do
> it... They had no other choice... It is one of the darkest episodes in
> Lithuanian history...
The Litvini knew that there only chance of survival against the Moscovite
Russians or Teutons was an alliance with Poland.
So they said, what "polish
> historians agreed some years ago what Lithuania was an independent state till
> the third division in 1795!".
It was a matter of degrees. I would say that it was 1696. By 1795, the
GDL had already lost most of its territory to Russia, Prussia, and
Austria. In 1696, the official lnaguage of the GDL was changed from
Belarusan to Polish and all ogvernment documents were translated into
Polish.
Lithuanians are so different from Polish.
> Polish are more similar to slavs... (if they aren't slavs), and
Lithuanians are Balts (today's Lithuania and Latvia).
There is a difference between modern day Lithuanians and old Lithuanians.
Most of the higher classes of the GDL were a mixture of Balt, Rus, Teuton,
and Pole.
The aristocracy of the GDL was as much Slavic as Balt.
>
> Now something about slavic lands. They became a part of LDK, because they
> needed defence! They couldn't defend themselves alone. But the fact what
> somebody Lithuanian became their leader shows, what slavic lands were
connected
> to Lithuanian, not vice versa!
It is true that the Bela Rus needed allies against the Mongols, Knights,
and Moscovites. But, it is truer that Litva was getting whipped by the
Knights and need help from Poles and Rus. However, your implication that
modern day Lithuania dominated them is false. There was inter-marriage
from almost the beginning. It was an alliance of several independent
cities and tribes (Balt & Rus) with no dominance by the modern day
Lithuanians. When you are talking about Lithuanian leaders, after
Yahaila, you are talking about persons of mixed Balt, Rus, and Polish
blood. The armies that defeated the enemies of the GDL came mostly from
Slavic territories.
>
> Could You please tell me more about Naugardukas, as the capital of LDK???
> Where are Kernave, Trakai, Vilnius?
The original two capitals of the GDL were in what is now Belarusan
territory. The strong Rus Principalities which joined the GDL are what
made it survive and prosper, not a couple of pagan tribes in Samogitia.
They were cut off from the Kievy Rus by the Mongols. Vilnius (Vilna) is
also considered to be a former cultural capital of the Bela Rus. The
Christian Principality of Polacak (Polotsk) voluntarily joined the GDL in
1307. Polacak had influence over several other Rus cities which joined
together. Most of the leaders and generals of the GDL in the 15th and
16th Centuries had Belarusan blood. If the Poles or Germans hadn't
converted the pagan tribes, they would have been converted by the GDL
aristocracy. It must be stated that all Christians in Eastern Europe in
the 14th Century still had a residue of pagan customs and practices. When
Mindouh (Mindaugas) first formed the GDL, his capital was Navahradak, and
the Krivichy helped him whip the Balt tribes.
>
> "anti-Pole Lithuanian" <--- is that me? :))) Anyway... It is in a blood of
> Lithuanians... Genes maybe :)))
All of the histories about the GDL (Polish, Lithuanian, Bela Rus, and Russian,
have been distorted. Modern day Lithuania has the advantage of having the same
name and capital, partly due to Stalin's actions. He wanted to completely
destroy the true identity of Belarus. The Russians contributed to the
notion that the GDL consisted of a few Baltic tribes.
Mike
Mike
Andrew P. Paplinski
Perkunas wrote:
> I think this misunderstanding between us is because we live in different
> countries and we were learning from different history books.
This is the essence of misunderstanding, of course, but nothing
stops us now from studying the differences in facts presented,
interpretations made and conclusions arrived at. I personally
find it very interesting to see the variety of presentations
of the same historical events.
We have to remember that these differences were often instrumental
to our national survival. In such a situation the "objective truth"
if exists in history must suffer. Now all countries of interest are
free and so we are free to try to be objective regarding our common
history.
> Everybody thinks HIS is the only correct.
This is too pessimistic a view point as I said above. Moreover,
gentelmen do not question facts, do they? :-)
> (...)
> P.S. I have a proposal to move this discussion out of newsgroup...
> just i would like to learn about what Polish history says about
> that period. And I think this discussion is not interesting to
> everybody.
I'm not sure that I know what you are after, but I suggest to
keep the newsgroups as they are, unless someone wants to add
more groups.
---------------,
Andrew P. Paplinski
Marija Kuncaitis
Perkunele,
There isn't much purpose gained in taking on such a defensive stance. True,
I did not see the message which prompted your response. But instead of
lowering ourselves to accusing each other over crimes that happened
centuries ago, wouldn't be better to educate each other in a calm and
rational manner?
Each of the former Communist Countries received varying reports
on their history. Let's start looking at historical monographs, documents
and the oral histories of these countries before we start jumping for
each other's blood.
Marija
Perkunas <to...@adm.vtu.lt> wrote in article
<35346C2A...@adm.vtu.lt>...
zuzia
Who cares about Lith [what?], Lithuania today. Economically, it's less
important than a single metropolitan town, say, Chicago. Culturally, it's
less important than a single metropolitan town, say, Chicago. In tourist
terms, it's less important than a single metropolitan area, say, that of
Chicago. In science, higher education or R&D terms, it's less important
than a single metropolitan area, say, that of Chicago. A peculiar little
spot on the map filled with a drooling nationalism. Why don't you simply
rejoin a more serious but just as backward country like Russia? ZZ
-------------------------> Hello,............
Jerzy Pankiewicz
In soc.culture.polish zuzia <zu...@enter.net> wrote:
: Who cares about Lith [what?], Lithuania today. Economically, it's less
: important than a single metropolitan town, say, Chicago. Culturally, it's
: less important than a single metropolitan town, say, Chicago. In tourist
: terms, it's less important than a single metropolitan area, say, that of
: Chicago. In science, higher education or R&D terms, it's less important
: than a single metropolitan area, say, that of Chicago. A peculiar little
: spot on the map filled with a drooling nationalism. Why don't you simply
: rejoin a more serious but just as backward country like Russia? ZZ
Why zuzia doesn't join her Russian friends?
Comrade zuzia, KGB doesn't exists any more.
Your anti-Polish and anti-Lithuanian job is over.
Jerzy Pankiewicz
Quite many Lithuanians were Orthodox before
Roman-Catholics came. Lithuanians were
converted by Lithuanians, Poles had very
little to do in Lithuania in the 15th century.
Maybe Jogaila should have chosen the Orthodox
church? It was his idea, no Pole forced him.
If Lithuanians are unhappy as Roman-Catholics they can
recreate their native religion. We will accept the
St. Mary icon from Vilnius.
Lithuanians ruled Slavs. Modern historiography
is less enthusiastic about such empires.
The cooperation with Poland wasn't imposed
by Poland. Both parts had their benefits and losses.
Poland became involved in the Lithuanian-Russian conflict
which ended with several divisions of Poland
and Soviet occupation of Poland till about 1989.
"God's Playground" by Norman Davies contains a basis for our
discussions. Lithuanian legends doesn't.
Jerzy Pankiewicz
Marija Kuncaitis
Thank you for saying that.
I have read the history on Lithuania, written by Lithuanian
Academics and by those who are non-Lithuanian. And all of them
agreed, Jogaila wasn't forced to marry the Polish Queen, and
Lithuania was not subjugated. Jogaila's co-ruler of Lithuania
was Vytautas.Vytautas took care of the Grand Duchy as
did his descendants.
I would ask those in this newsgroup to stop pointing fingers
over issues that happened centuries ago. We should
help each other to understand our respective histories, and
not jump down each other's throats.
Marija
Perkunas
Hello again,
ZALGIRIS... ZALGIRIS!!!! You simply can not imagine what was happening on
Tuesday here in Lithuania :))) ole! Ant kalno muuurai! Zaidzia Lietuviai!
> princes were christian
What percentage of population was princes? 90 or 95? :))) The absolute
majority of population was pagan even after some hundred years after final
"christianisation"!!!
Let's say you are christian, and somebody comes, kills your father, mother,
sisters, brothers, puts a gun to your head... Would you accept his religion?
ha... :)
> Samogitia wasn't a part of original LDK
Hey hey... Where did this come from? :)
The fact, what Samogitia was traded to knights hundreds of times, but later
always returned is not a proof of that! Samogitia was always treated as
Lithuanian land! And it is! It is just what Samogitians are so arrogant... I
think they did preserve Lithuanian traditions better when others.
Even today Samogitians can have their own "Samogitian" passport... yes it is
just a joke... it doesn't mean anything, but true Samogitians can have a cheaper
beer if they have this "passport" :))) Of course they think of themselves as
Lithuanians and don't want to be separate :)))
> There are more Lithuanians in America when in Lithuania...
:))) You know... I simply do not imagine what to say to such a statement...
:))) err... was it a joke?
And the last 100% percent Lithuanian Duke was I think Vytautas. He was
kidnaped and educated by Teutons, but his parents were true Lithuanians and he
did so much good to Lithuania!
The facts You said about the capital are interesting... Can You tell me the
periods, when other places were the capitals of LDK, or maybe Lithuania. It was
Kernave, then Trakai and from 1323 (the date of Gediminas letters to Europeans)
it was Vilnius! And it stayed so till today... Oh yeah... The temporary capital
was Kaunas during the Polish occupation of Southern Lithuania (~20 years).
BTW. What does Polish history says about that occupation. About the
"democratic" voting to make Vilnius district a part of Poland. And a
discrimination of Lithuanians in Vilnius, much bigger when everything what is
said (again...SAID) about Russian discrimination in Latvia.
Marijai:
It just sucks, when Belorussians say LDK was their republic, Polish say what
it was their... Vilnius is 100% Polish town etc... I am Lithuanian... so excuse
me, but I can't... errr... nevermind.
To Zuzia?
What was it about? Or maybe You are a 100% american?
Uzknisa jankiai, kai pradeda aiskinti savo nerealias idejas... Tipo mes
pasaulio bambos... Ka padarysi, esu mazesnes ir silpnesnes Tautos atstovas, tai
patylesiu :(
Mike Davidchik
> > princes were christian
> What percentage of population was princes? 90 or 95? :))) The absolute
> majority of population was pagan even after some hundred years after final
> "christianisation"!!!
> The duchy of Novaharodak was virtually surrounded by unassimilated Baltic
> tribes: the Jacviahi(Yatvegians) in the west (who were later
> belarusianized), the Nalscany in the north, the Litva in the east and
> Northeast, and the area called Aukstota in the south-eastern part of modern
> Lithuania.
>
> Aukstota - which means highland in Lithuanian - is nowhere mentioned as such
> in the medieval chronicles and did not seem to be a political entity. Many
> of its place names contain the word aukstas, or high, while Samogitia,
> further to the west, means lowland. The city of Vilna (currently know as
> Vilnius) the present capital of Lithuania, is in Aukstota and Lithuanian
> scholars consider Aukstota to be the heart of the Lithuanian ethnic area.
> They claim that Aukstota was the location of the original Litva and that it
> was from here that Duke Mindouh (Mindaugas in modern Lithuanian) left to
> conquer the adjoining Duchy of Novaharodak and established the Grand Duchy
> of Litva.
The account, above, has been questioned and it is believed that Mindouh,
although ethnically Balt, started the GDL from Novahardok with the help of
Slavs and conquered the Auksota. It is believed that he allowed himself to
be baptised Christian to get the help of the Slavs.
> According to the chronicles of the period, Mindouh suffered military defeats
> in his mercenary activities and domestic rivals forced him to flee from
> Litva to Novaharodak. In Novaharodak, Mindouh converted to Orthodox
> Christianity and was elected its duke. Then Mindouh attacked Litva. Mindouh
> was ready for revenge and, according to the chronicles, "he occupied Litva"
> and ousted his enemies. This was the first step in the formation of the
> Grand Duchy of Litva.
Nobody really knows where Litva really was. it might have just been the
name of a lake.
> The adjoining Baltic areas of Litva and Nalscany were subdued by force;
> whereas the old Belarusian principalities of Pinsk(see also Pinsk),
> Polacak(see also Polacak), Viciebsk and others joined the new state
> voluntarily. The Litvanians of the Upper Nioman were gradually assimilated
> (belarusianized) but retained their name which was adopted by the entire
> nation. The unification of Belarusan and Litvanian lands was part of the
> historical process of rapprochement and helps to explain the dominant role
> of the Belarusian culture and the official status of the Belarusan language
> in the Grand Duchy.
In 1410, the alliance of the Litvini (Balts & Rus) and Poles paid off.
They destroyed the Teutonic Order at the Battle of Grunwald.
> Let's say you are christian, and somebody comes, kills your father, mother,
> sisters, brothers, puts a gun to your head... Would you accept his religion?
> ha... :)
No...how many Lithuanian clerics were killed or imprisoned by the Soviets
because they would not accept the religion of Communism. Of the 11
million
who died in Nazi concentration camps, 5 million were Christians.
By the time of Vitaut, princes were inter-marrying and the Rus princes
from Polacak, Turau, Brest, Hrodna, etc. had already been Christian for a
couple of centuries. Yahaila was not converted against his will and he
promised the Polish court that he would make the GDL a Catholic country.
However, he and his successors had opposition from the Orthodox princes.
Some became Catholic, but many did not. His successor, Kazimir, gave
equal rights to the Catholic and Orthodox princes. The developing
religious question was not pagan versus Christian, it was Catholic versus
Orthodox. The Teutonic Knights or Rus would have also converted the
Samogitians or Aukstotas.
>
> > Samogitia wasn't a part of original LDK
> Hey hey... Where did this come from? :)
> Another Baltic tribe, the Samogitians, who lived between Aukstota
> and the Baltic Sea, did not merge with the Slavs but remained a separate
> ethnic group. It was the Samogitians and the inhabitants of Aukstota who
> became the ancestors of today's Lithuanians.
It is believed that the Samogitians became Christian after they joined the GDL.
>
> > There are more Lithuanians in America when in Lithuania...
> :))) You know... I simply do not imagine what to say to such a statement...
> :))) err... was it a joke?
It is a fact. American Lithuanians are almost all Catholics and would not
brag about ever being pagans. Whether they were converted by Germans,
Scandinavians,
Poles, other Balts, or anybody else, is unimportant.
>
> And the last 100% percent Lithuanian Duke was I think Vytautas. He was
> kidnaped and educated by Teutons, but his parents were true Lithuanians and he
> did so much good to Lithuania!
Vitaut protected the rights of the Litvini from Yahaila who was forced to
relinquish his title of Grand Prince after becoming King of Poland. The
resistence against full incorporation (as opposed to a confederation) into
the Kindgdom of Poland came as much from the Rus as the modern day
Lithuanians. I repeat that almost all GDL cities were under self-rule
charters or ordinances.
> The facts You said about the capital are interesting... Can You tell me the
> periods, when other places were the capitals of LDK, or maybe Lithuania.
It was
> Kernave, then Trakai and from 1323 (the date of Gediminas letters to
Europeans)
> it was Vilnius! And it stayed so till today... Oh yeah... The temporary
capital
> was Kaunas during the Polish occupation of Southern Lithuania (~20 years).
Hedymin (Gediminas) transferred the capital to Vilna (Vilnius) in 1323.
It was in Navahdradak and Kurva prior to Vilna. By this time, old
Belarusan was the official language. It was never Lithuanian or Latin and
not Polish until 1696. Yahaila spoke old Belarusan, not Polish.
> It just sucks, when Belorussians say LDK was their republic, Polish say what
> it was their... Vilnius is 100% Polish town etc... I am Lithuanian... so
excuse me, but I can't... errr... nevermind.
Belarusans were as much a part of the GDL as anybody. This is concealed
by the Poles, modern Lithuanians, and the Russians. This is not to say
that there were not others (Balts, Prussians, Jews, etc.). All of the
Slavic cities in the GDL had home rule and were not dominated by either
the Poles or Lithuanians. The religious and polonization problems came
later in the 16th and 17th Centuries. After most of the Slavic areas of
the GDL were taken over by force and treaty, they were russified. This is
when anti-Polish and anti-Catholic prejudices were whipped up to justify
incorporating all of these terrritories into Tsarist Russia. When Tsarist
armies were supposedly defending themselves against a Polish invasion,
they were really fighting mostly over lands which had been part of the GDL
and had never been part of Russia itself, although they were ethnically
Rus. The Russian had to justify taking these lands by saying they were
liberating them from the Poles, not the Litvini. Later, for various
reasons, all of these countries almost completely wrote the true GDL out
of their histories. The belief that two little Baltic tribes from modern
day
Lithuania conquered everybody between the Baltic and Black Sea (the
heighth of the GDL) is complete mythology. The part about the GDL ever
being a predominately pagan area, or an area that had to be Christianized
only by the Poles, is also mythology.
Mike
Mike Davidchik
In article <6h4msa$mtv$8...@sun1000.pwr.wroc.pl>,
panki...@sun1000.pwr.wroc.pl (Jerzy Pankiewicz) wrote:
> Quite many Lithuanians were Orthodox before
> Roman-Catholics came.
These were mostly the Rus Principalities which joined Litva due to the
fall of Kiev and Moscow to the Mongols. The Byzantine missionaries started
converting the Rus in the 10th Century. Yahaila's son by his second wife,
Sonya, a Belarusan, was Kazimir who became Great Prince of the GDL and,
later, King of Poland. Kazimir gave equal rights to Catholics and
Orthodox to preserve the GDL.
Lithuanians were
> converted by Lithuanians, Poles had very
> little to do in Lithuania in the 15th century.
Yahaila tried to convert all of the GDL to Catholicism, but failed. Vitaut
had a liberal policy toward everybody. For awhile, an Orthodox prince
controlled Litva, but was replaced by Sigismond, Yahaila's brother,
presumably Catholic. Kazimir had the support of the Orthodox princes, but
became Catholic. Later, the Jesuits tried to resolve the religious issue
through the Greek Catholic Church (Uniates), but this nationalistic
Church took hits from both the Poles (inside) and Russians (outside).
> Maybe Jogaila should have chosen the Orthodox
> church? It was his idea, no Pole forced him.
He had to become Catholic to become King of Poland. If he stayed, Great
Prince of the GDL, he could have gone either way. The modern day
Lithuanians want to say he was a pagan, but this is doubtful. The Slav
princes would not have
allied themselves with a pagan. The mythology is that Yahaila became a
Christian in 1385 and all the Litvini didn't become Christians until after that.
There were both Catholic and Orthodox Christians in Litva (mostly in
cities) in the earlier Century. They were just not Smudz or Samogitians.
> If Lithuanians are unhappy as Roman-Catholics they can
> recreate their native religion. We will accept the
> St. Mary icon from Vilnius.
This is just Perkunas' imagination. The first wave of outside Catholic
missionaries in Litva were probably from Germany or Scandinavia, not
Poland.
>
> Lithuanians ruled Slavs. Modern historiography
> is less enthusiastic about such empires.
Lithuanians never really ruled Slavs. The GDL was a loose federation of
cities and tribes, including at least four Slavic Rus groups which joined
voluntarily
due to the common enemies, Mongols and Teutonic Knights, and later, Great
Russians. They had self rule and their own armies. Litva became weaker
than Poland because everybody was using it as a battleground.
>
> The cooperation with Poland wasn't imposed
> by Poland. Both parts had their benefits and losses.
> Poland became involved in the Lithuanian-Russian conflict
> which ended with several divisions of Poland
> and Soviet occupation of Poland till about 1989.
This is generally true. But, the Poles became very heavy handed in Litva
and Ukraine in the 17th and 18th Centuries. The Poles also over-extended
themselves by having too many enemies. In retrospect, the Poles should
have not fought the Russians in the 17th Century.
Mike
Andrew P. Paplinski
Perkunas wrote:
> (...) Marijai:
> It just sucks, when Belorussians say LDK was their republic, Polish say what
> it was their... Vilnius is 100% Polish town etc... I am Lithuanian... so excuse
> me, but I can't... errr... nevermind.
Perkunas,
As far as I remember Lithuanians have an opinion of being
brave people :-) Why cannot you be cool and face the above
statements in a brave and rational way:
- Belorussians say LDK was their republic,
- Polish say they shared their fate with Lithuanians for
four hundred years and were mixed together so that it
was difficult to tell the difference.
Could you please make non-emotional comments regarding the
above statements?
---------------,
Andrew P. Paplinski
zuzia
Od poczatku obserwuje cala te dyskusje "o Litwie" z pewnym zdumieniem. Tak
tutaj na Internecie jak i w polskiej prasie, w czasie mych wizyt
swiatecznych w kraju. Litwa przegrywa swa przyszlosc wlasnie teraz gdyz
gospodarczo jest mniej wazna niz dowolna duza metropolia miejska w krajach
uprzemyslowionych i nie jest w stanie nawiazac racjonalnych stosunkow z
otaczajacymi ja narodami dzieki calkiem oblakanemu nacjonalizmowi. Jaka
przyszlosc przygotowuja Litwie jej nacjonalisci? Czy pomoc emigracji z
Chicago wystarczy wobec rosnacych apetytow? Oczekiwanie na odtworzenie Prus
Wschodnich jest plonne i obiektywnie, dalszy slepy szowinizm doprowadzi do
wchloniecia tego malutkiego kraju przez Rosje tak samo jak to sie stalo po
rewolucji pazdziernikowej. I nikt nie bedzie ronil o to lez na swiecie,
moze poza kilkoma ulicami w Chicago. Slepym nacjonalizmem zawsze latwiej
jest manipulowac. Dosc truizmow, czas przejsc do powazniejszych tematow
niz ten. ZZ
P.S. Panie Jerzy Pankiewicz, odrobiona praca domowa to cos czego tak nie
lubia dzieci i wielu doroslych, byc moze i Pan tym razem. Prosze przejrzec
poprzednie "postingi" na powyzszy temat ,a takze moje postingi na wiele
innych tematow, zanim zacznie Pan wyciagac wnioski (oby znowu nie tak
pochopne). Powodzenia.
----------------------------------------
Perkunas <to...@adm.vtu.lt> wrote in article
<353605E0...@adm.vtu.lt>...
> Hello again, ... To Zuzia?
> What was it about? Or maybe You are a 100% american?
> Uzknisa jankiai, kai pradeda aiskinti savo nerealias idejas... Tipo mes
pasaulio bambos... Ka padarysi, esu mazesnes ir silpnesnes Tautos atstovas,
tai patylesiu :(
> --
> "And if You save Your Love, save it all. Don't push me too far..."
> Perkunas,
-------------------------
Jerzy Pankiewicz <panki...@sun1000.pwr.wroc.pl> wrote
Perkunas
Labis,
> brave people :-) Why cannot you be cool and face the above
> statements in a brave and rational way:
Yes I can. But I can't read and do not say something from Lithuanian side. I
can face the true (but sad) facts like:
- Lublin Union.
- Not too democraatic formation of Lithuania (which later became LDK!)
- Many Lithuanian noblemen were thinking of Lithuanian language as language of
low people (peasants etc.) after Lublin union, but they still called themselves
Lithuanians and most of them protected Lithuanian identity.
And now:
> - Belorussians say LDK was their republic,
I would say, what Lithuanians had more "friendly" relations not with Poles,
but Guds (Belorussians, while there was no such thing at those times). But
Lithuanians dominated... Why do you make me to repeat things more whan once.
Intermarriage was kind of custom at those times to strengthen friendship! It was
patriarchalic society, so blood of Belorussian woman didn't mean too much! And
it was mostly sons of Lithuanian rulers, who after marriage ruled those slavonic
lands!
> - Polish say they shared their fate with Lithuanians for
> four hundred years and were mixed together so that it
> was difficult to tell the difference.
1795 - 400 = 1395... Hmmm... OK I do agree with the first statement (partly,
because interests of P. and L. were different after the defeat of Teutons, and
it wasn't solved too good. L-P "republic" collapsed because of the lack of order
in Seimas and all goverment, which was mostly caused by these L-P relations and
runing after money (by both sides)).
Lithuanian nobles did speak Polish, but they said they were LITHUANIANS! They
didn't give Poland too much rights in Lithuania. And nobles were NOT the
majority of Lithuanian nation! Others spoke Lithuanian and acted like
Lithuanians!
> Could you please make non-emotional comments regarding the
> above statements?
NO ;(
Now I'm gonna kill myself in the hardest way - drowning... glag glag glag...
:)))))))
Sorry if my last post had too much sensitivenes, it could be... but it has
nothing to do with this newsgroup.
*** When talking about Lithuanians, please do not forget simple, not noble
people, who were always a majority! It says nothing good about a man, if he
forgets religion of his fathers and thinks of other as the only one true in one
day (while I don't think so bad of Mindaugas).
Samogitians were the best example of faith to paganism. They were
christianised the last and even after that, pagan traditions lived there for
some other 200 yrears! Later they became similary devoted to christian religion.
It is so hard to resisto to pop culture, especially if it comes with a gun in
it's hand.
> Nobody really knows where Litva really was. it might have just been the
> name of a lake.
What are You talking about? The territory or the name?
> In 1410, the alliance of the Litvini (Balts & Rus) and Poles paid off.
> They destroyed the Teutonic Order at the Battle of Grunwald.
Yeah. The battle of Zalgiris! ZALGIRIS... ole ole ole... EuroCup is here again
:))))))))))))
> equal rights to the Catholic and Orthodox princes. The developing
> religious question was not pagan versus Christian, it was Catholic versus
Yes I do agree with it 99%. But I didn't talk about that. I stated what most
of Lithuanians (not only nobles) remained pagan for centuries! This is what I
said. Lithuania couldn't remain pagan in such a undemocratic times. Weren't
those the times of incvisitions, witch hunts etc.?
> It is believed that the Samogitians became Christian after they joined the GDL.
Joined LDK which time? :)))
If it is such a big deal, I can ask a real historician about the date of
Samogitians turning into christians.
> It is a fact. American Lithuanians are almost all Catholics and would not
> brag about ever being pagans. Whether they were converted by Germans,
Once again we are talking about different things! Yes, today absolute majority
of Lithuanians are christians especially in America. But I just understood, what
there are more Lithuanians in America (You said so...).
> I repeat that almost all GDL cities were under self-rule charters or
> ordinances.
Yes. I agree with it.
> By this time, old Belarusan was the official language.
IT WAS ONLY WRITTEN LANGUAGE! That is all! There was no Lithuanian written
language yet. Somebody has already given You an example about it with Latin
language.
> Yahaila spoke old Belarusan, not Polish.
You think Poles :) would let their king not to speak Polish? I doubt...
Jogaila was Lithuanian (at least he was born as Lithuanian) so he also 100%
spoke Lithuanian! He didn't ruled LDK, so he had no need to learn to speak in
any other slavic language (only Polish).
> Belarusans were as much a part of the GDL as anybody.
Siberia is also a part of Russia now. Does it take a HUGE part in Russian
events?
> This is concealed by the Poles, modern Lithuanians, and the Russians.
It is NOT concealed. It is at least in Lithuanian history books. But the fact
is what slavic lands (B. and R.) had no centralised government, no republic.
There was only a bunch of little cakes! So the Dukes of Lithuania got them one
by one. After taking control, some Lithuanian was directed to the main city of
"fresh" region, he took Orthidox, changed his name to slavic and often married
some woman. I agree, there were situations, when some rulers of larger and so
stronger districts forgot who is the boss, but such dudes were always given a
lesson.
So it WASN'T conquering, it was taking control using diplomacy. The best
diplomat was Algirdas (he used diplomacy more when wars).
> The belief that two little Baltic tribes from modern day
> Lithuania conquered everybody between the Baltic and Black Sea (the
> heighth of the GDL) is complete mythology.
I agree it is sad to be used. I feel bad what Lithuania was some times used by
Poland.
Lithuania didn't have enough men (phisically). Belarussian lands got a defence
and Lithuania got men.
> The part about the GDL ever being a predominately pagan area, or an area
I don't get what You want to say... But LDK was a powerful pagan republic. It
was attacked in the name of God to take it's lands and kill Lithuanians...
Teutons (and earlier Poles) attacked Lithuanian lands stating they are doing
"good" bringing a true god to the lands of "dark" pagans. While the main reason
is not a secret.
The proof for this is what rulers time to time offered to accept christianity
but if Teutons were much stronger at that period, they simply "didn't hear"
that.
I also agree, what after LDK expanded far from the ethnic Lithuanian lands,
largest part of it (by territory) was not pagan. But it is also a fact, what
those southern lands were poorly inhabited.
> that had to be Christianized only by the Poles, is also mythology.
Lithuania had to be christianised... By Teurons or by Poles... I can only
guess, what would have happened if it was Teutons, who christianised
Lithuania...
BTW... Poles always treated Lithuania as their "helpers"... They thought
Lithuania was theirs after Jogaila, f.e. they couldn't accept, what somebody
from "their" district (Vytautas) becomes a King, and they did everything, to
prevent him from getting a crown! <- Did I say something wrong?
It is the fact what Lithuanians often ignored such interpretations of Poles.
After the union... wasn't it Lithuanians and ONLY Lithuanians who elected three
first kings of the union? :) Poles could do nothing and had to elect them also
after some time, so what that would look like they both (P. and L.) elected the
king of the republic... :)
!Hey what does Polish history books say about that?
ZALGIRIS... Mes laimejom.... Ole ole ole...
Perkunas
Heeeelllo once again...
> The Slav princes would not have allied themselves with a pagan.
Who would have asked them? There was no unity between slavic tribes!
> If Lithuanians are unhappy as Roman-Catholics they can
<...>
> This is just Perkunas' imagination.
Hey! I didn't say that. Lithuanians are mostly Roman-Catholics today and they
are happy about that. I only say, what in the past Lithuanians were very
faithful pagans and they are proud about that (maybe except christian fanatic
old women).
That would be all.
And please don't count my personal words as words of Lithuania!
halm...@msn.com
In article <35375228...@adm.vtu.lt>,
Just look at how well their descendants are doing!!!
M. K.
Mike Davidchik wrote:
The account, above, has been questioned and it is believed that Mindouh,
> although ethnically Balt, started the GDL from Novahardok with the help of
>
> Slavs and conquered the Auksota. It is believed that he allowed himself to
>
> be baptised Christian to get the help of the Slavs.
>
[...]
"Navahardok", not "Navahrudak?" this doesn't sound East Slavic at all
but rather Pomeranian/Polabian? Maybe this is a "tranlation" of the
Lithunian "Naugardukas" but whom would that have come from,
the Lithuanians themselves or the Varangians?
M. K.
Marija Kuncaitis wrote:
> I have read the history on Lithuania, written by Lithuanian
> Academics and by those who are non-Lithuanian. And all of them
>
> agreed, Jogaila wasn't forced to marry the Polish Queen, and
>
> Lithuania was not subjugated.
>
Strictly speaking, Jadwiga was elected king of Poland (sic)
not queen so, after she married Jagiello, she remained a monarch
in her own right, not just the queen consort
> Jogaila's co-ruler of Lithuania
>
> was Vytautas.Vytautas took care of the Grand Duchy as
>
> did his descendants.
>
Witold fled to the Teutonic Knights in 1389 and with them
invaded Lithuania, governed by Polish officials sent by Jagiello.
Since 1392 he governed Lithuania in Jagiello's behalf.
In 1398 he concluded a treaty with the Knights giving
to them Samogitia in return for their help against the Tatars.
After the latter defeated the Lithuanians and Poles on the Vorskla,
Witold renewed Lithuania's union with Poland (1401 the "Wilno-Radom Act").
According to this Act's provisions, Lithuania was to be ruled by Witold
for life and after his death by Jagiello and his successors i.e., those who
took care of the Grand Duchy thereafter were Jagiello's, not Witold's,
descendants. Witold assumed the title of the Lithuanian Grand Duke
("magnus dux") and Jagiello, as his overlord, the title of "dux supremus".
According to yet another agreement signed at Horodlo in 1413, matters concerning
both countries were to be settled in joint assemblies of both countries'
nobility and the Polish lords were to take part in the election of the
Lithuanian Grand Duke.
> I would ask those in this newsgroup to stop pointing fingers
>
> over issues that happened centuries ago. We should
>
> help each other to understand our respective histories, and
>
> not jump down each other's throats.
>
Mike Davidchik
> No, no Perkunas. It must have been the Beloraussians that made it work.
> Just look at how well their descendants are doing!!!
You still don't understand. It was a confederation of Balts, Rus, and
Poles that made Great Litva work. It was not tiny little modern day
Lithuania.
Modern day Belarus has few of the descendents of the old GDL. All of the
wars, revolutions, purges, famines, Gulags, immigration, etc. for the
last four centuries, have decimated the original population. The modern
day Belarusans know little about the GDL and have been completely
russified and communized.
Mike
Mike Davidchik
> > By this time, old Belarusan was the official language.
> IT WAS ONLY WRITTEN LANGUAGE! That is all! There was no Lithuanian written
> language yet. Somebody has already given You an example about it with Latin
> language.
You are assuming that all the Baltic tribes spoke one language which you call
Lithuanian. I doubt that there was a single Lithuanian language. I am
sure that Yahaila and Vitatut and Hedymin spoke some Baltic dialect.
But, they had to communicate in a common language in the GDL. The common
language was Belarusan
until 1696 when it became Polish. It NEVER was modern day Lithuanian.
>
> > Yahaila spoke old Belarusan, not Polish.
> You think Poles :) would let their king not to speak Polish? I doubt...
Several of their kings were foreigners who had different native tongues. Some
were Balts, Rus, Germans, Hungarians, etc. Vitaut's grandson was Prince
Vasili of Russia. Vitaut's nephew was King of the Czechs. The first
Hanover King of England couldn't speak a word of English. The second
spoke with a heavy German accent.
> Jogaila was Lithuanian (at least he was born as Lithuanian) so he also 100%
> spoke Lithuanian! He didn't ruled LDK, so he had no need to learn to speak in
> any other slavic language (only Polish).
You are wrong. Yahaila did rule the LDK for several years before Vitaut
took over. Yahaila did speak old Belarusan. His first descendents who
became leaders of Poland and the GDL were half-Belarusan by his second
wife. Vitaut became
Grand Prince by force through the help of the Orthodox Party. The language
of the Church was old Belarusan.
>
> > Belarusans were as much a part of the GDL as anybody.
> Siberia is also a part of Russia now. Does it take a HUGE part in Russian
> events?
Belarusans are a people. Siberia is a territory. The generals who kept
the Mongols or Moscovites out of the GDL were mostly Slavs.
>
> > This is concealed by the Poles, modern Lithuanians, and the Russians.
> It is NOT concealed. It is at least in Lithuanian history books. But
the fact
> is what slavic lands (B. and R.) had no centralised government, no republic.
Nobody had a republic. Nobody had a centralized government. Litva was always
a confederation of feudel principalities and cities and tribes with their
own laws, armies, language, culture, etc. Even when the Rech was later
created, there was no centralized government.
The best
> diplomat was Algirdas (he used diplomacy more when wars).
Great Prince Alherd (1341-1377) was an Orthodox Christian. He extended
Great Litva to the Black Sea by getting the Ukraine.. His armies defeated
Moscovy over Smolensk and he almost took Moscow.
>
> > The part about the GDL ever being a predominately pagan area, or an area
> I don't get what You want to say... But LDK was a powerful pagan republic.
When was it a pagan republic? Firstly, it was first partly Christianized
by Mindough. Secondly, it was never a republic until it joined with
Poland. Yahaila, Vitaut, Kazimir, Hedymin, Alherd...were all Christians.
The Rus Principalities that joined it were all Christian.
> I also agree, what after LDK expanded far from the ethnic Lithuanian lands,
> largest part of it (by territory) was not pagan. But it is also a fact, what
> those southern lands were poorly inhabited.
The Principality of Polacak originally had just as many people as any Baltic
city.
I can only
> guess, what would have happened if it was Teutons, who christianised
> Lithuania...
What's the big deal. The Germans christianized the Latvians and Estonians.
>
. Poles always treated Lithuania as their "helpers"... They thought
> Lithuania was theirs after Jogaila, f.e. they couldn't accept, what somebody
> from "their" district (Vytautas) becomes a King, and they did everything, to
> prevent him from getting a crown! <- Did I say something wrong?
Vitaut was not a King, although the Polish crown was once offered to him.
Prince Vitaut had the help of the Slavs and Orthodoxy in keeping the
Poles from dominating Litva. The Poles didn't get strong enough to
dominate Litva until the
17th Century.
> It is the fact what Lithuanians often ignored such interpretations of Poles.
> After the union... wasn't it Lithuanians and ONLY Lithuanians who
elected three first kings of the union?
Yes, if you include the Rus too.
Mike
Evaldas Zvinys
Mike Davidchik (davi...@oro.net) wrote:
: In article <352DBD76...@pop.erols.com>, "M. K."
: <remn...@pop.erols.com> wrote:
: I am not sure what you mean by "Christian ally." Most of the combatants
: were Christians. The GDL was always officially a Christian country,
: although some of the Balts (Smudz), were not Christianized until a century
: or two after it was founded. By the end of the 16th Century, everybody was
: Christian (both Catholic and Orthodox).
If you look at the old maps and the old chronicles (e.g. Ipatii {sp?})
you will find out that at these times the Smudz (Zemaitija)
had its Eastern border at Nevezis river.
Quite a bit to the East of Nevezis river, there is Vilnius, with
Sventaragis valley, a sacred place for Balts
(probably as important as Romove).
By the way in the same place now there is the Cathedral.
So, your assertion that Balts=Smudz is incorrect.
The Balts lived more to the East than you admit.
-Evaldas
Marija Kuncaitis
> Marijai:
> It just sucks, when Belorussians say LDK was their republic, Polish say
what
> it was their... Vilnius is 100% Polish town etc... I am Lithuanian... so
excuse
> me, but I can't... errr... nevermind.
I actually would like to see the Belorussians and Poles to site historical
texts (and more than just one) which are considered valid at most
international
universities, which prove their points. I think it would be very difficult,
but still it would
be interesting, yes?
Marija
zuzia
Marija, to zupelnie nie ma znaczenia, nikt powazny sie tam w te wasze bagna
nie wybiera, bo i po co. Zycze dalszych owocnych rozwazan nad wielkoscia
Litwy. ZZ.
---------------------
Marija Kuncaitis <lil...@istar.ca> wrote
Maris Ozols
"zuzia" <zu...@enter.net> wrote:
Zuzia!
There is no automatic translator on the internet to translate your
texts into English. So, since probably no one on this newsgroup
understands wht you are talking about with maybe a few exceptions (I'm
married to a Pole and can get by) , I suggest you do not bother
crossposting to soc.culture.baltics
Maris
WARNING!!!
The return email address was altered to foil the bulk email
spammers. If you reply to this message, please manually remove
* from the end of the return address or it'll bounce. Thanks!
Marija Kuncaitis
> Marija, to zupelnie nie ma znaczenia, nikt powazny sie tam w te wasze
bagna
> nie wybiera, bo i po co. Zycze dalszych owocnych rozwazan nad wielkoscia
> Litwy. ZZ.
I am sorry, I speak/read only Lithuanian and English... I can get by in
French,
but no, I don't understand Polish.
Sorry.
M
Mike Davidchik
In article <01bd6a90$6ae26a20$df93bfcc@bulb>, "Marija Kuncaitis"
<lil...@istar.ca> wrote:
> > Marijai:
> > It just sucks, when Belorussians say LDK was their republic, Polish say
> what
> > it was their... Vilnius is 100% Polish town etc... I am Lithuanian... so
> excuse
> > me, but I can't... errr... nevermind.
>
> I actually would like to see the Belorussians and Poles to site historical
> texts (and more than just one) which are considered valid at most
> international
> universities, which prove their points. I think it would be very difficult,
> but still it would
> be interesting, yes?
>
> Marija
Marija,
Here is the problem. The Lithuanian Metrika (1386 to 1794), a state
archive which is the best source of decisions in the GDL, was stolen by
the Poles and Russians. Many of the records of the Rus Principalities in
the GDL were destroyed by the Russians (Polacak). The GDL documents that
can be found in
the archives in Warsaw, Moscow, and St. Petersburg, are translations from
the old Belarusan to Polish or Russian. When they were translated, they
modified
the documents to justify their positions. The Metrika cannot be found in Vilnius
in their Belarusan originals. Therefore, the discussions about the
relevant importance of the Poles and Belarusans in the history of the GDL
cannot be proven. The Russians undertook a major effort under the Tsars
to justify their taking over Belarus. They supposedly were just reuniting
Rus lands and freeing them from the Poles. The truth is that some Rus
Principalities were never under the control of either Kiev or Moscow until
the 18th Century. Many city-states were independent or affiliated with the
GDL. They were part of Great Litva. The old Belarusan culture and
language was almost eradicated either by the Poles or Russians (mostly the
Tsarists and Communists). Old Lithuania was not the same as modern day
Lithuania. Stalin gave Vilnius to the Smudz
for a reason..not because he was a good guy. He didn't want it to be
Polish or Belarusan. The Russians made Minsk the capital of Belarus...not
the Belarusans.
Mike
halm...@msn.com
In article <davidchik-180...@y53.oro.net>,
correct thing and beg to become provinces of Belorussia?
Andrew P. Paplinski
Mike Davidchik wrote:
> (...)
> Belarusans were as much a part of the GDL as anybody. This is concealed
Mike, I have never seen this concealment being made by Poles.
What is inflammatory in this statement, anyway? Sorry to say
but it sounds like an anti-polish propaganda :-)
---------------,
Andrew P. Paplinski
zuzia
Mike, Marija, and the rest, this is an interesting historical debate,
perhaps, but has no relevance to what's important for the present and the
future, it's not even fun. Please, keep doing your thing in more suitable
eastern groups like soc.culture.russian, or soc.culture.baltics w/o
posting in our soc.culture.polish newsgroup. Thank you and take care, ZZ.
------------------
Mike Davidchik <davi...@oro.net> wrote in article
<davidchik-180...@y53.oro.net>...
> In article <01bd6a90$6ae26a20$df93bfcc@bulb>, "Marija Kuncaitis"
> <lil...@istar.ca> wrote:
> > > Marijai:
> > > It just sucks, when Belorussians say LDK was their republic, Polish
Zbigniew
>----------------------------------------
>Perkunas <to...@adm.vtu.lt> wrote in article
><353605E0...@adm.vtu.lt>...
>> Hello again, ... To Zuzia?
>> What was it about? Or maybe You are a 100% american?
>> Uzknisa jankiai, kai pradeda aiskinti savo nerealias idejas... Tipo mes
>pasaulio bambos... Ka padarysi, esu mazesnes ir silpnesnes Tautos atstovas,
>tai patylesiu :(
>> --
>> "And if You save Your Love, save it all. Don't push me too far..."
>> Perkunas,
>-------------------------
>Jerzy Pankiewicz <panki...@sun1000.pwr.wroc.pl> wrote
>> Why zuzia doesn't join her Russian friends? Comrade zuzia, KGB doesn't
>exists any more. Your anti-Polish and anti-Lithuanian job is over.
>
Szanowna(y ?) Zuzia,
Ciesze sie,ze ktos zauwaza nacjonalizm litewski.
Oskarzaja Cie jacyc Pankiewicze,ktorzy nigdy nie
byli na Litwie,a jezeli tak,to najwyzej gapili sie przez
chwile kolo Ostrej Bramy,by pozniej butwiec w
jakiejs knajpie.Brzydze sie takimi polaczkami.
Milcze juz o Perkunasie,bo to jest
pure clinical example and probably incurable.
Uczyl Marcin Marcina,a sam glupi,jak swinia,tak i
z Perkunasem.Na swieto 2000-lecia chrzescijanstwa
poganie litewscy zbieraja sie w Kiernowie,by dac upust
swoim zdziczalym instynktom.Nie zdziwie sie,jezeli
Perkunas,jak lesny dzikus bedzie skakal przez ogien .
<Uzknisa jankiai, kai pradeda aiskinti savo nerealias idejas...
Niech Perkunas odpowie,dlaczego narod litewski wolal
amerykanina Adamkusa,a nie Paulauskasa,czy zakatarzonego
politycznie i zdrowotnie Landsbergisa.Widocznie narod ma
instynkt samozachowawczy.
>pasaulio bambos... Ka padarysi, esu mazesnes ir silpnesnes Tautos atstovas,
>tai patylesiu
The Star-spangled Banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land free and the home of the brave.
Amerykanie slusznie sa dumni ze swego panstwa i warto mniejszym posluchac
i pomilczec.Litwa majac pod soba mniejszosci zachowywala sie bardziej
arogancko
niz "pasaulio bamba ".Nowy prezydent ma wiecej oleju w glowie,dlatego juz sa
wyniki,naprzyklad wykorzenil polakozerce,bylego ministra oswiaty
Zinkeviciusa,
ktory planowal likwidowac polskie szkolnictwo na Litwie.
Serdecznie pozdrawiam,
Zbigniew S.
Mike Davidchik
In article <6h7rtv$b65$1...@hecate.umd.edu>, gin...@Glue.umd.edu (Evaldas
Zvinys) wrote:
> If you look at the old maps and the old chronicles (e.g. Ipatii {sp?})
> you will find out that at these times the Smudz (Zemaitija)
> had its Eastern border at Nevezis river.
> Quite a bit to the East of Nevezis river, there is Vilnius, with
> Sventaragis valley, a sacred place for Balts
> (probably as important as Romove).
> By the way in the same place now there is the Cathedral.
>
> So, your assertion that Balts=Smudz is incorrect.
> The Balts lived more to the East than you admit.
>
> -Evaldas
I never asserted that Balts=Smudz. I believe just the opposite. I believe that
there was much integration of the Balts with the Slavs before the GDL even
existed. The Samogitians had little to do with the original GDL.
Mike
Perkunas
Labis,
> Ciesze sie,ze ktos zauwaza nacjonalizm litewski.
> Oskarzaja Cie jacyc Pankiewicze,ktorzy nigdy nie
> byli na Litwie,a jezeli tak,to najwyzej gapili sie przez
bla bla bla... placki blacki bubacki, kukacki puimoracowy :)))
Sorry what's all I know in Polish :)))) (no offence:)
Cheers!
Jerzy Pankiewicz
: In article <davidchik-180...@y53.oro.net>,
: davi...@oro.net (Mike Davidchik) wrote:
: >
: > GDL. They were part of Great Litva. The old Belarusan culture and
: > language was almost eradicated either by the Poles or Russians (mostly the
: > Tsarists and Communists).
Fiction. GDL nobles changed their language during about 100 years
process when both languages coexisted. Polish words were used
in Old Belarus text or inversely. There was no 'eradication'.
Eventually the Orthodox church was persecuted
but rather because it was ruled from Moscow.
United church was a part of Belarus culture
till it's tragical end under Russia.
JP
M. K.
Jerzy Pankiewicz wrote:
>
> but rather because it was ruled from Moscow.
> United church was a part of Belarus culture
> till it's tragical end under Russia.
>
[...]
Uniates in Podlachia had to marry secretly, when this part
of Poland belonged to Russia, for fear of persecution.
So gentle were their "Russian brothers" for them.
Mike Davidchik
In article <3540A0A7...@pop.erols.com>, "M. K."
<remn...@pop.erols.com> wrote:
> Jerzy Pankiewicz wrote:
> >
>
>
> > but rather because it was ruled from Moscow.
> > Uniate church was a part of Belarus culture
> > till it's tragical end under Russia.
> >
> [...]
>
> Uniates in Podlachia had to marry secretly, when this part
> of Poland belonged to Russia, for fear of persecution.
>
> So gentle were their "Russian brothers" for them.
The KGB has opened up its records pertaining to the persecution of the
Greek Catholic Church in Eastern Europe. It was a dedicated effort to
obliterate all
vestiges of Greek Catholicism, not only in Ukraine, and Belarus, but also
all Eastern Europe (Czechoslavakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, etc.) The
level of effort was greater than against Roman Catholics becaue of the
traditional hatred of Great Russians toward Byzantine Catholics.
Mike