Talk:Lipka rebellion: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:08, 7 May 2009

Military history: European / Ottoman / Polish Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	Ottoman military history task force
	Polish military history task force

A fact from Lipka rebellion appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 May 2009 (check views). A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2009/May.

Wikipedia

Question

In looking up stuff for this article I started to wonder about the exact status of the Lipkas within the commonwealth. The upper ranks of the Lipkas were definitely nobility (szlachta), but the status of the rank and file is less clear. It seems like they had a sort of special status in and of themselves - not quite nobility, but some guaranteed privileges and so on. For example, sources state that unlike peasants, they had a right to acquire and own land but "na prawie Tatarskim" (on Tatar law) rather than on "nobles' law" (this was one of the extensions made by Jan Kazimierz in 1669 and later confirmed by the Sejm after the rebellion). I'm not sure what this meant (restricted rights of inheritance maybe?). If anyone knows anything or can provide some sources, it'd be much appreciated.radek (talk) 05:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, ok, found an answer to my own question [1].radek (talk) 06:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...came out of Sobieski's private holdings

I recall reading somewhere that they came from królewszczyzny...? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was both, I'll take another look at the sources.radek (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source I cited for this states:

"Aby ich pozyskać w porozumieniu z sejmem przywrócił im dawne prawa, a w zamian za zaległy żołd przyznał w 1679 roku ziemię w Kruszynianach, Nietupiach, Łużanach, Drahlach, Malawiczach i Bohonikach (Podlasie)...Obok wspomnianych terenów, Tatarzy otrzymali nadania od króla w Lubelskiem (1681): Lebiedziewie, Małaszewiczach i Studziance. Jednak z tego osadnictwa pozostały obecnie wyłącznie ślady materialne (cmentarz) i nieliczni potomkowie dawnych osadników."

(In order to reach an understanding between them (the Lipkas) and Sejm, he (Sobieski) restored their privileges, and in exchange for the unpaid wages, in 1679 he granted them land in (list of villages follow) ... In addition to the listed regions, the Tatars obtained a grant from the King in (another list of regions). However, there only remain rare signs of the Tatars in these settlements, and only a few descendants still live there)

When I first read that for this article I took it to mean that the first list of grants (w Kruszynianach, Nietupiach, Łużanach, Drahlach, Malawiczach i Bohonikach (Podlasie)) were the ones made by the Sejm, probably out of królewszczyzny and that the second list were the ones made by Sobieski personally. But reading it again it could be that the list is simply split among those settlements which survived and those which didn't. I'll keep looking to try and find out more.radek (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

translation

Instead "choragwii" should be "choragwie" (nominative).

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 :When I first read that for this article I took it to mean that the first list of grants (w Kruszynianach, Nietupiach, Łużanach, Drahlach, Malawiczach i Bohonikach (Podlasie)) were the ones made by the Sejm, probably out of [[królewszczyzna|królewszczyzny]] and that the second list were the ones made by Sobieski personally. But reading it again it could be that the list is simply split among those settlements which survived and those which didn't. I'll keep looking to try and find out more.[[User:Radeksz|radek]] ([[User talk:Radeksz|talk]]) 19:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
+== translation ==
+Instead "choragwii" should be "choragwie" (nominative).