Talk:Adalbert of Prague

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


the present text says St Adalbert attended the St. Adalbert Elementary School in Elmhurst (New York) I would suspect somebody is making fun of all of us. Is there someone that can retrace this edit?Mikils (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


The entry says that St. Adalbert was born 939. I looked in Britannica and it says 956. Who is right? --css

Who knows? Get proper sources (not encyclopaedias) and find out.
Ceplm (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

To css !! I got the date of 939 for birth of St Adalbert from the Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent (They show 939- 997 , but positioned at the wrong St Adalbert. They list several.)

The date of birth does not make any difference to me in the story and I am taking it out. I found several articles at . Some say he was martyred at the Pomeranian coast. That is incorrect, because it was the Samland coast . Samland in Prussia has never been Pomerania . Danzig , where he started out in Prussia, was christianised from the west from Pomerania and was at times ruled by the Pomerelian ( Little Pomeranian) dukes ,even though it was situated in Old Prussi Land. But the Eastern part of Prussia was Christianised from Riga in Livland Livonia ( today Latvia) and was under the archbishopric of Riga.

I removed the 'loss of land and freedom' part. Christianization, IF it was combined with conquest by a neighboring Lord, might have meant loss of 'freedom'. Plenty of people converted without 'loss of freedom'. Lots of these north German entries seem to imply that the Prussians were noble savages (I'm especially amused by the idea that they fought with clubs because clubs were 'less final' than swords - that implies that fighting with clubs was a positive thing and that these noble savages were corrupted by their wicked, sword-using neighbors. That's all arrant speculation. If they didn't use swords it was because they were so poor and so metallurgically unsophisticated that they couldn't. People always use the best weapons they can afford.).

Christianization did mean loss of land and freedom . Read the book about the Baltic or Northern Crusades at

Prussian reiks (chiefs) Warpode and Survabuno were "Christianized" and brought to the Pope. After they found out the pope wanted to take the land over, they Re-verted back to Old Prussian Baltic Nature believe. To the clubs ( throwing and hitting) , Prussians had plenty of metal, used it for tools, bowls, jewelry etc . But until Crusaders were sent, starting with Boleslaw I Chrobrie's soldiers coming in with Vojtech Adalbert , Prussians had no need for heavy deadly weapons.

When you look at bowling pins , you have the shape of the throwing clubs.


Christianization was a complex process. It involved considerable social change and/or it was caused by considerable social change. However, the popes did not take land except by insisting that any churches and diocese founded be adequately self-supporting (which certainly involved demanding land and income). They often interfered in the actual distribution of larger territorial units, but seldom successfully - see the entries on the Normans and Ireland, where the Pope tried to interfere and failed. We are trying to write articles that reflect this complication, and simply saying "Christianization meant the loss of land and freedom" is not complex enough.
I didn't ask a question about clubs, and I don't deny that they used them. I asserted that the reason they used them was different. Metal for jewelry is not suitable for making swords. No people is inherently more peaceful than any other, so the idea that they didn't WANT to use better weapons doesn't work. People always use the best weapons they can afford or are permitted to use. --MichaelTinkler

Which popes are involved with Adalbert? I suppose more than one, given the time-frame and the shortness of some of those papacies. Let's get the names in. --MichaelTinkler

There is a current theory that Adalbert was murdered for being a Polish spy JHK


The line:

 This investment perfectly paid off.

is not clear. How did buying the body of the dead missionary pay off? I understand that the saint's tomb became an important pilgrimage, and even had political repurcussions, but this sentence does not make any of that clear. -Willmcw 07:06, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The paragraph about Vojtěch's conflicts and the murder in 995 seems to contradict most sources on Czech history.

First, Vrśovcy should be spelled Vršovci (ś is never used in Czech names and the -cy suffix doesn't exist in Czech).

Second, the murder of the Slavníks in 995 has been probably ordered by the ruling dynasty of the Přemyslides, for whom the expanding power of Slavníks was becoming a threat. Vršovci don't seem to be connected to this event.

Unless anybody objects, I will correct the article soon. MJ 20:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

According to Cosmas' chronicle, Slavniks were murdered by Vrśovci who were comits (confederates) of Boleslav II. He promised them Libice town in thanks of helping him to incorporate Zličan princedom to Prague. Thus Boleslav made Vrśovci do all the work. If you consult the firstprimary source you easily ascertain all this. okoli 06:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Weirdness with Boleslaws[edit]

The Adalbert of Prague article states that Boleslaw II had several members of Adalbert's family murdered, yet Boleslaw I sent soldiers to protect Adalbert in his mission to Prussia. Is this correct? -- Beobach972 17:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Radomil talk 19:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, unrelated Boleslaws! Thank you for explaining! -- Beobach972 19:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
In fact, they were related. Boleslav II was uncle of Boleslav I (Beleslav's Chrobry's mother, Doubravka of Bohemia, was sister of Boleslav the Pious) ;). But they've got different kingdoms, and different interests. Radomil talk 19:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, related Boleslaws! :p ... but yeah, as long as they're not father and son living in the same castle, which would have made their antithetical attitudes towards Adalbert quite interesting (although, I suppose, not too unusual, given the goings-on of that time period). -- Beobach972 21:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


How exactly does one get "Adalbert" out of "Vojtěch"? I'm assuming the latter was his given name at birth, since he was Czech... --Jfruh (talk) 02:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't get "Adalbert" out of "Vojtěch" and you don't have to. Vojtěch was his baptismal name, but Adalbert he accepted as his name after his Confirmation (yes, after his teacher Adalbert of Magdeburg). It is certainly less common than using the baptismal name, but it sometimes happen. According to the Czech Wikipedia, he actually did use the name Adalbert from then on.
Ceplm (talk) 22:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. He was baptized by Adalbert of Magdeburg. (Ironiest 14:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC))

Too few references[edit]

The story about Strachkvas taking over the bishop's office and dying in consequence first comes in Cosmas's Chronicle, more than one hundred years later, and is highly doubted. If Adalbert did baptize Hungarians, is highly doubted as well. There is no clear evidence for it, and the relevant passage in Vita by Bruno seems to be added later. Can you please clarify the issue with this first Adalbert's Vita from Aachen, previous to Canaparius? I never heard about it before. To my knowledge, Karwasinska's work was the latest profound study on the subject, and she's assuming it was really Canaparius who composed the first Vita. [[[User:Ironiest|Ironiest]] 22:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)]

Extreme pro-Christian bias[edit]

I'm afraid this article follows hagiography and nothing else. For example:

  • Adalbert complained of polygamy and idolatry, which still were not unusual among the Czechs. -- nice wording for putting non-believers to death, on a scale that was appalling even in his times.
  • despite his desecration of sacred groves, locals merely asked him to leave. Adalbert's reaction? He ordered his servants to raze a temple and put out a holy fire.

Compared to standards of that day, Prussians acted extremely kindly, but ultimately, having no other means to deal with a criminal destroying their holy places, put him to death. And even then, they let Adalbert's servants and co-missionaries go. Thus, he deserves the name "martyr" about as much as your average Talib bomber. KiloByte (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Mission and martyrdom in Prussia 1.3[edit]

Under part 1.3 Mission and martyrdom in Prussia. Paragraph two about the chopping down oak trees, has no citation connecting Adalbert of Prague to these grotesque allegations? Jwak1985 (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


I'm not sure where to place this in the article, but several scholars have written that Adalbert of Prague is the most likely author of this hymn which is also the oldest Polish song in exsistence. Please see here. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)