Talk:Teutonic Order

Teutonic!??

Does anyone know why this strong men who brought civilisation and christianity to pagan northeastern Europe from the 12th century on are called "Teutonic Order" in English? The original latin phrase is "ordo teutonicus", where teutonicus is nothing else than the medieval latin word for "German" (in original "deutsch" or "thiodisk" in those days). To translate it into nowadays English to "teutonic" is a bit confusing because there is no ethnic adjective "Teutonic" being anything else than German. By the way, I do not know any other cases the word "Teutonic" is used in English.

In German this order is consequently referred to as "German Order" (in original: "Deutscher Orden") which seems to me the only possible translation, or "Deutscher Ritterorden", "German Knights Order".

Note: The word "Orden" in German is only used for the religious order of munks. The political meaning of to keep things in order would be "Ordnung".

Anti-Note:

No, "Orden" means order of munks (religious order), as well as order (decoration). Ordnung means to keep things in order. I'm german, so I should know it. Therefore it would be consequent to change the name of the article into "german order". An article about german order exists already, but this deals only with a nazi-decoration. So the nazi-decoration "german order" and the knights order "german order" habe in german the same name "Deutscher Orden". One should create a "disambiguation".--12 Tenma 19:17, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

But we don't need to - these things have separate names in English. It doesn't matter what they are in German. I added a link to this page from the German Order page, but the knights are not called the "German Order" in English. Adam Bishop 19:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

thanks, now will also german-language thinking, but english-reading-people find the "Deutscher Orden" in the Wikipedia-en. ;-)--12 Tenma 19:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The word "teuton" itself refers to germanic tribe that moved into southern Europe about 100 BC.

---

== Teutonic Order == is the more correct form, since it did not only include Teutonic Knights. The title should be changed back

---

The Order and its relations with its neighbours (especially Poland) are the main motive in a novel by the Polish author Henryk Sienkiewicz Krzyzacy (The Teutonic Knights) [the title it was first published under in English-speaking countries was The Knights of the Cross, translation by Samuel A. Binion Silvermane]. (This novel, like most of Sienkiewicz's writings, shows strong pro-Polish and anti-German bias)

Sienkiewicz was a writer not a historian, wasn't he ?
Kpjas

Well, some historical fiction is more accurate than others. For instance, The Teutonic Knights is more accurate than Quo Vadis. --MichaelTinkler, who's actually read both.

Of course, he was a writer not a historian, but he was also a Polish nationalist, and one should be prepared to have lot of distance to his "historical" books before reading them if one doesn't want to get false vision of historical events. --Taw

He was less nationalistic in presenting historical truth than Hollywood film-directors ;-)). Of course, the books are sort of literary fiction, but put within solid historical frames (including the social background) and based on medieval chronicles. "Soon the Order was involved in many wars against Poland, Lithuania and the Tatars." I think it is a trace of TK propaganda - saying that in the battle of Grunwald (Tannenberg)100,000 Tatars took part (truly there was less than 2,000 Tatar riders). Teutonic Knights' territories had never bordered with Tatar tribes. "The Order began to lose influence during the late Middle Ages, as the earlier tribal Slav people of Eastern Europe began to organize into countries." Above-mentioned words may falsify the facts. The history of Poland (as the organized state) dates back at least to 966 (christening of the country). The real reason of wars between Poland and TK began in 1309 when the Order grabbed the mouth of the Vistula River with Gdansk (Eastern Pomerania) and Poland (being in unstable political situation) couldn't have reacted. Soon, the diplomatic war started and arguments about invading Christian lands put forward by Polish representatives couldn't have been disregarded by papal judges. That war of propaganda, which lasted over 100 years has laid over the conflict - the shadow that historicians still cannot move. "Later, the burgers of Prussia rose up against the Catholic Teutonic order and their power waned further. The emperor Maximilian I had made an agreement with the Polish king and in 1525, the grand master of the order, Albrecht of Brandenburg, converted to Lutheranism and swore allegiance to the Polish king, who made him the Duke of Prussia." We must separate two facts: 1) thirteen-year war between Poland and the Order (Lithuania won't take a part in that conflict), started in 1454 when Prussian cities rose up against TK and swore allegiance to Casimir, the king of Poland. The war ended in 1466 (the second treaty of Torun) giving back to Poland Eastern Pomerania with Gdansk and the large part of Prussia with former TK capital - Marienburg (Malbork). The rest of Prussia became the fief of Polish kings. 2) Great Masters of the Order tried to regain its power. In 1519 the new war started and ended in 1525 when Albrecht Hohenzollern swore allegiance as the vassal of the Polish king (an agreement between Sigmund and Maximilian I happened earlier, in 1515, and gave in 1526 to the Habsburg dynasty the control over Jagiellon dominions in Czech and Hungary).

---

user:H.J. -- What are "imperial Hapsburg members" ? This entire sentence makes no sense in English.

Answer to the question of "what are imperial Habsburg members" : The Habsburg royal and imperial dynasty of Europe ruled many countries and furnished many German kings/ emperors of the Holy Roman Empire. They also lead the "Order of the Golden Fleece" and after 1525 were the Grand Masters of the Teutonic Knights. Outside links showing emperor

• Maximilian I Habsburg ,w. Golden Fleece http://www.uni-mannheim.de/mateo/desbillons/eico/seite9.html
• Karl V (Charles V) Habsburg w. Golden Fleece http://www.uni-mannheim.de/mateo/desbillons/eico/seite10.html
• Maximilian II Habsburg ,w. Golden Fleece : http://www.uni-mannheim.de/mateo/desbillons/eico/seite12.html
• Maximilian III Habsburg, (son of emperor Max. II), Archduke of Austria, Elected king of Poland, Duke of Burg(und), Comes ? of Tirol, Ordinis TEVT MAGNUS MAGIST (Teutonic Order Grand Master) http://www.uni-mannheim.de/mateo/desbillons/eico/seite45.html .

No duh. Most of the contributors here know who the Hapsburgs were. The point (which you missed) is that the sentence makes no sense. Are you trying to say that, after a certain date, the leadership of the TKs fell and remained under the control of the Hapsburgs? Then please do so. If you just mean that they were members of the Habsburg family (and I would be very careful about saying imperial, since there really isn't such a thing -- different branches of the family held the title, but were often in direct conflict with each other...)

The Habsburgs were imperial, royal, ducal, comites? and whatever , in short a ruling dynasty of Europe. From what I can make out in the article on the T. K. by Sinclair, they were not the only ones after 1525, but others were Teutonic Grand Masters too. They were the emperors of the Holy Roman Empire for nearly 500 years collectively. The emperors were always first German king, then emperor. And Maximilian III was the son of emperor Maximilian II and the brother of emperor Mathias and he was from the imperial Habsburg dynasty, even though he was not himself emperor. How would you word this ? user:H.J.

---

Since it has little to do with the imperial aspect of the Habsburgs, I would just say Habsburg. Not every Habsburg bore every title -- and titles like King of Germany were often wishful thinking, since there was no "Germany" -- just a bunch of principalities. If the family (in its various branches) really dominated the office of GM of the Tks, then simply saying Habsburg will let people know that it was the family in general. At the same time, they will automatically link (in their minds, as well as on the wikipedia) the imperial part -- as in "oh -- those guys who were emperors for so long." Sometimes it works better to allow people to make obvious conclusions rather than to point them out in a way that may not be entirely accurate. The way it was, people could easily think that the GM was tied to the office of Emperor, so that the Emperor would automatically be head of the TKs!

---

Sounds alright. I took out the imperial and just linked the Habsburg. Thanks user:H.J.

---

Could someone explain the "slaughter of all Prussians?? JHK 16:24 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Let me try. Teutonic Knights exterminated the original people living in Prussia, who together with Letts, Kours, Samogitians and Lithuanians belonged to the Baltic Peoples. The process of total extermination took a couple of centuries, but slaughter of civilians was the mostly used way to get rid of the unwanted people. In polish language (and I believe in german, lithuanian and russian) there are separate words for the original population of Prussia, and for the inhabitants of those lands in later centuries. In English they sometimes call the indigenous people - Old Prussians. Is this it, or were You puzzled by something more? Space Cadet 14:31 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

To: Space Cadet. It is obviously untrue. The Teutonic Knights did not exterminated Prussians. Of course, there were Middle Ages and kiling of "civilians" was normal way at war. But they were also prospective workforce. Lots of Prussian baptized nobility would become nobles under new regime. Anyway Old Prussian language still was in use even in 17th century and died out at the beginning of 18th century.

von Fiszman

---

Space Cadet is indeed displaying his usual extreme and historically mendacious Polish nationalism, but from what I have read in English (most recently: "the Northern Crusades"), it's true that the Teutonic Knights often were quite savage in subjugating the Old Prussians -- who by the way were Balts, not Slavs (and certainly not Poles). On the other hand, as von Fiszman observes above, savagery was common in the Europe of the Middle Ages (and later!). It is not true that the Old Prussians were "exterminated," though a large proportion of them were killed. Many Old Prussians survived by accepting both Teutonic overlordship and Catholic Christianity, and were gradually assimilated into the expanding German population, though they did not initially enjoy full equality with ethnic Germans. The Old Prussian language, which was akin to Lithuanian and Latvian, became a dead language only in the 18th century. I have edited a section of the entry to provide a more balanced view. And just so Space Cadet knows, I am a professional editor. Czesc! User:sca 22 Sept 04

---

I never said that Old Prussians were Poles or Slavonic. And what in my comment "displays my usual extreme and historically mendacious Polish nationalism"? And when did I say that you're not a professional auditor? And how do you know that I'm not? Siemanko! Space Cadet 22:26, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rexamining the Teutonic Knights

The Teutonic knights up till recently have been given very bad press. In many respects this is due to more recent historical events such as WWI and WWII. After researching them on my own, I have come to the conclusion that they were not the blood thirsty and savage men that propaganda has painted them as. William Urban's book on them is a very good rexamination of the Teutonic Order, their purposes and their history. Linking the order to the Waffen-SS is not only unfair but completely inacurate. The Ordenstaat was the only real nation that middle ages Western Eupore could state to have. In many ways the Knights were ahead of their time in their ecomonic, political, and military ideals. They were inarguably a very effective military force in the Baltic, there decline was inevitable though with their confrontation with a united Poland-Lithuanian kingdom and the reformation of the church. The fact that the TK started looking to domains outside the control of the major European monarchies after the fall of the Outremer is a direct result of the attack and aboltion of the Templars. Remember the TK had adopted the rule of the Temple. Seeing that a military orders could come under attack from monarchs must have prompted the knights to seriously looking to switch their focus away from the middle east, to areas like the Baltic where they already commanded a strong presence. The fact the switched their capital from Venice to Marienburg in 1314 (I think that is the correct date) must be compared to the fact that last Templar Master was burn in 1310. This article also states that the Teutonic Order was only granted the Prussia as a fief until the end of the conquest. That is throughly untrue the TO was granted all territory that they won as a fief forever, not only by the Poles but by the HRE Frederick II and the Pope. Aside from that Poland never had controlled Prussia anyway, so the saying to the victor go the spoils would seem very correct. I'd appreciate any other views or corrections on my opinions. J.A. Kuehn July 7, 2005

I have read Urban's "The Teutonic Knights" and Christiansen's "The Northern Crusades", both mentioned on this Talk page. Urban's book had some interesting reading in it, but it seemed more of a general survey of the knights. He did not seem to add a great deal of insight to their story, and he seemed a little too forgiving of their actions. I preferred Christiansen's book which, although covering a much wider time period and more groups, seemed to be more thorough. I do agree that the knights have gotten a bad rap to some extent, but they still weren't Noble Peace Prize winners. It's important to look at their actions and the actions of their neighbors in their time period, not be today's higher standards. Whether or not the knights truly received rights from Konrad or the Emperor over the land they conquered is disputed, if you did not know. Olessi 8 July 2005 02:03 (UTC)

From everything I read Frederick II Hohenstaufen did give the TO rights over the territory they conquered which included the Grand Master being given the status of a prince in the HRE and given representation in the Riechstag. As to Konrad of Masovia I might have been mistaken in the claim that he also gave the knights the rights to the territory conquered. But I seriously dought he expected the knights expend the energy conquering Prussia if they did not expect to reap at least some sort of land from the deal. But I agree that the knights were not Nobel peace prize contenders. Their entire mission in the Baltic and Prussia especially was forcible conversion by the sword. Still compared to other major powers of that day they weren't all that bad. Remember also that because of the TO Europe experience some of the lowest grain prices of the Middle Ages primarily due to the TO stockpiling grain while prices were low and selling when they were high. They did this with the help of the Hanseatic League. Jak1985

I'd like to write a more extensive preface about the founding of the order and its (several) names, a special section devoted to the organisation of the Order, a list with bailliffs in the Holy Roman Empire etc. etc.

Regards,

Dear Anon: be our guest. My only advice is that you register first, so we can more easily know who is doing the edits. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Early stages and organisation

I'd like to write a more extensive preface about the founding of the order and its (several) names, a special section devoted to the organisation of the Order, a list with bailliffs in the Holy Roman Empire etc. etc.

Regards,

<--- this comment is actually mine, but something went wrong

User:moenstah

Yeah the organization of the TO is quite interesting. Not only in the regards to the high level administration division, such as having commanders of field forces (marshall's) and fortress troops commanders (commanders) in the different areas, aka Prussia, Livonian, Germany proper ect. They also quite interesting in how the handled lower level command structure. Jak1985 13:43 26 August 2005

Category

Why is this article categorized as a state of the Holy Roman Empire? Although the knights received privileges from the emperor, their territory was never included within the empire, AFAIK. Is this article categorized as such because the Grand Master had a vote on the Reichstag? Olessi 17:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I have found a few maps that do depict their Prussian lands within the borders of the Empire up through 1466. Olessi 22:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Teutonic Shield

The Wikipedia Help Desk received a message from a Wikipedia user Rian Woolcott about a missing shield:

I had noticed that on your website, that when I was looking up the Teutonic Knights that you were missing one of the shields or coat of arms. I have seen this shield in the book called, "The Chronicle History of Knights" and also a website under [1] Just thought that it could help.

He also sent a copy of an image for uploading but I thought I would wait until people on this page suggested it was necessary. I will also send instructions on uploading images. Capitalistroadster 04:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Tnx - the more images, the merrier.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Extermination

The Teutonic Knights did not exterminate the local people. Thats a filthy lie. You can in almost every book, even from polish authors, read, that they were integrated into the new german tribe of Prussians. Its true, that there were longholding uprisings against the knights, but the baltic Prussians did not as much suffer as you might think. Why do you think, there were so many supporters between local inhabitants? Did you ever hear about the Vitings (in german: Witinge)? They were freed paysans and they served even before and after the battle of Grunwald loyally to the Teutonic Order. I read many books about the colonisation of Prussia. The people came mostly from Prussia itself. The other two large groups were Germans and Polish. As it was the time, when large areas in whole Europe were colonized, you might discern, it wasn't so easy to find people for a distant countryside. Ill give you some titles you can read for better knowledge. By the way, who says, that the Prussian territories should be Polish? The Prussians were Baltic tribes, not Slaws. Küstenkind

• Boockmann, Hartmut, Der Deutsche Orden, Munich 1981, ISBN 3-406-08415-X
• Erlen, Peter, Europäischer Landesausbau und deutsche Ostsiedlung, Marburg 1992, ISBN 3-87969-224-6
• Biskup, Marian/Labuda, Gerard, Die Geschichte des Deutschen Ordens, Osnabrück 2000, ISBN 3-929759-42-X

(The last one is translated from Polish)

Witold is Vytautas the Great

Is the name Dobrzyń used in English texts? Xx236 12:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Do some searchers and tell us.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The subject was discussed long time ago: I think that any variation of Order/Knights of Dobrin/Dobrzyn is fine. Olessi 1 July 2005 21:26 (UTC) Xx236 14:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I question the impartiality of this article

This article paints the Teutonics knights during their activities in Europe, not mention their activities, as benevolent.

It is documented fact that the knights lost all excuse for attacking Lithuania after that country's official conversion to Christianity. It is also documented fact that the vicious attacks by the Teutonics knights on Lithuania continued because by this stage they could not give a stuff about "converting pagans" (not that they had the right to do that with violence anyway) but motived by purely mercenary desires, and addicted to a life of violence and plunder.

It is highly objectionable to paint this order and their activities at this time as benevolent.

This article also talks about Lithuanians and Poles being "aggressive" and attacking the Order, which is a complete joke because it was the other way around.

Codman 07:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you actually lived in those times to make such a claim? I think not. I am Polish myself, but let's have a look at the whole thing from a neutral point of view. All the historic information we have nowadays is somewhat biased towards either side. Of course all the Polish sources will favour Poland and claim it was the Order who was the aggressor, while German sources could claim it was Poland and Lithuania that were the aggressors. It is same as claiming that the battle of Plowce was won by Poland (in Sienkiewicz's "Krzyzacy" you have a very good example of bias), but in reality the battle was undecided.

Norum 09:56, 17 April 2006

You make a good point. I am looking forward to your revision of the article. But please cite your sources.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Samogitia by Charles Pichel. (I believe that's the correct spelling of his last name.) Plenty of other references too. I am removed from my references, living in a different state at the moment, but remember their content fairly well, and believe me, it is not a nice picture that they paint of the Order, their behaviour or their motives. I am incensed by the descriptions of Lithuania and Poland waging "aggressive attacks against the Teutonic Knights". It is historical fact that Teutonic Knights actually waged aggressive attacks against Poland and Lithuania. It is also historical fact that spreading Christianity had nothing to do with these attacks as by this state Poland was wholly Christian, and Lithuania was well into the process of converting. It was merely a matter of battle-lust, land and plunder. It is also historical fact that the Teutonic Knights treatment of the people during these attacks was sickeningly vicious and cruel. I have removed the the descriptions of Lithuania and Poland "aggressive attacks against the Teutonic Knights" and I INSIST THEY STAY REMOVED. I will not tolerate this complete reversal of facts, this complete distortion of the historical record. This is a very reasonable compromise, the Teutonic Knights actually deserve far heavier criticism than what they receive in this article.

Codman 22:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Poland and Lithuania actively supported pagan inhabitants of Samogitia (at the time part of the Monastic State) so it was in fact the Order who was attacked first. Rübezahl 20:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Whilst I think that some of Codman criticism of this article is valid, I do not agree with most of points. The Teutonic Order was by its very definition a violent organization whose aim in the Baltic was the forceful conversion of the Prussians, Livonians, Latvians, Estonians, and Lithuanians by the sword. That was not at all in their mind a wrong thing to do, in fact for them it was a privilege to crusade against the enemies of Christ. What Codman does not understand is that of historians to critically evaluates the facts and render an interpretation, as free from bias as possible. That does not necessitate condescension, judgment, and condemnation of the persons, peoples, or groups that are being evaluated. The Teutonic Knights have had a reputation since their decline, mostly because to the victors goes the right to write the history. Recently though people have begin to reexamine the Crusades, and the Ecclesiastical Orders, partly due to the GWOT. On the other had ecologist love to make judgments about who and what is at fault for the circumstances in the world. So Codman please try and take less of an ecologist’s view and more of a historians view on the matter. You could maybe analyze the ecological impact of the Teutonic Order in the Ordenstat, I don’t believe there has been much written on that. So I look forward to Codman’s open mindedness about the TO and to a subsection of this article of the ecological impact of the Knights. PS this ariticle has come a long way from where it was a while ago, I always love looking at the improvements and discussion. Jak1985 21:54, May 2 2006

The 8th Grand Master: Günther von Wüllersleben or Günther von Schwarzenberg

In here it reads the 8th Grand master as Günther von Schwarzberg, but the other Wikipedias (Polish, German and Swedish) plus the Order's website says it was Günther von Wüllersleben. We have to assume it was von Wüllersleben then.

http://www.deutscher-orden.at/

Norum 16:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Charles Thourot Pichel

According to historian Charles Pichel, it is a fair assessment that by the time the Order was situated in Prussia, it was more interested in the power, lands and plunder attained through warfare than the spreading of a Christian faith that was largely already in place.[1] The work quoted is: Pichel, Charles L. Thourot (1975) Samogitia. Wilkes-Barre, PA, Maltese Cross Press.

I did a Google search on this 'historian' as well as the publisher. The results are less than convincing. The publisher Maltese Cross Press appears only with the book listed. As for 'Charles Thourot Pichel', he appears as a self styled head of a branch of the Maltese knights, claiming a "Russian tradition" [2]. A quote out of the book listed in [3] strikes me as patent nonsense. Again (see the part about secret societies) describes him as a colonel, pro-Nazi, and indirectly linked to conspiracy theories like the Roswell UFO incident. This is in concordance with results from other sites.

I propose that either the reputation of Mr.Pichel is established or that better source for the claim is given. '-129.247.247.238 23:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)'

There is also another quote here. Hmmm, I tend to agree with you this may be a bogus reference. By the way, feel free to shed the cloak of anonimity and register - we are always happy to welcome new serious contributors.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Extra info about the begining of the Order state in Prussia

It is stated in the text : ,,After Christian forces were defeated in the Middle East, the Order moved to Transylvania in 1211, but were expelled in 1225. The knights moved to Prussia, where they created the independent Teutonic Order state. After basing itself in Prussia, the Order became involved against the Kingdom of Poland..." . Actually it might be worth noting that they were INVITED to Prussia in 1226 by Konrad , prince of Masovia to protect the coast from Brandenburgians and convert pagans present there . The terrains there were lended to the Order by Konrad , but later the order conquered Danzig in 1308 and falsified the lease documents so they would say that the land was given to the Order forever .

Perhaps Konrad did not actually give the Order the right to keep the lands the conquered, but that is immaterial due to the support of the Order's claim by both the Holy Roman Empire, and the Papacy. And even more immportant element in the equation is that the Teutonic Knights felt they God's mandate in their conquest of the pagan Prussian, much the same way Americans felt in the 19th century that it was their manifest destiny to spread to the Pacific. Therefore the reality of the situation was that the Teutonic Order was in the Baltic to stay. Jak1985 11:33 April 3, 2006

Well, there were also bishop Christian, who should get his part according to his privileges (was it 1/3 or 2/3 of all conquered territories?), but who practically was cheated out by TO. Szopen 09:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Factual Error

There are actual factual errors in the article, that strike me as more serious than errors of interpretation or faulty historical vision. It would be nice to get the actual facts straight and written clearly, before arguments over their interpretation begin.

from the article:

"After Christian forces were defeated in the Middle East, the Order moved to Transylvania in 1211, but were expelled in 1225."

This sentence is too vague and ultimately misleading. The Christians weren't totally defeated in the Middle East until the end to the 13th century. There was a major set-back after Hattin, 1187; but Acre and the kingdom didn't fall until 1291. The above sentence seems to imply that the Teutonic Knights moved because of the (total) defeat of the Christian kingdoms in the Middle East. (Hint: the word "after" sets up an implied cause and effect relationship between the first two clauses). I hope the original author will seriously consider changing this ambiguous language. It serves to set up a misleading timeline for Christian activities in the Middle East during the period under consideration (i.e. 12th & 13th c.).

There are also some secondary related facts which are wrong by ommission: the Teutonic Knights had strongholds in the Middle East until the bitter end. They didn't leave en masse after 1211. What seems more likely is the Teutonic Knights set up priories and strongholds over germanic Europe the same way that the Templars colonized small parts of France, England, Spain, etc. And what's more likely, (and this requires cites, maybe R.C. Smail) being the third group on the scene, their role in the Holy Land was limited by the Templar/Hospitaller presence, and they were looking for a place where they could expand their role/power; rather than leaving the Holy Land because of Christian defeats.

The paragraph begining:

"When the mission of the Order in Palestine was nearing its end, the Teutonic Knights moved their headquarter to Venice and offered their services to Christian rulers confronted with hostile non-Christian neighbors. In 1211, Andrew II of Hungary accepted..."

is equally flawed for the same reasons.~~cgothard

Thank you for your comments. Please, be bold and make the necessary changes in the article, especally if you can cite the relevant sources. You may want to register, too.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

problematical image

The image Teutonic order charge.jpg used here is problematical:

• it is a picture from a computer game so that there is no historical authenticity (i.e. it is not a reality, it is an idea or an image of somebody who made the game)
• the licence is not clear

Thx, -jkb- 09:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Names of the Grandmasters

Please look at the list of the Grandmasters as given by the Order's website before making changes or creating articles - and especially before moving articles or deleting redirects. --Matthead 08:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That is a good suggestion. I don't think it's a good idea to create redirects back to the main article (such as Konrad von Erlichshausen), however. Also, I think it would be good to move the list to its own article, ala de:Hochmeister. Olessi 17:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)