From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Belarus (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belarus, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belarus on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.


The history of the "second prong" of the fork is in Navahrudak/old article. `'mikkanarxi 16:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia is not a place to evaluate historiography, so I've changed wording that disputes lithianian historian works, keeping all the statements intact. Truthseeker 85.5 - it's not a place of national pride or disgust. It's aplace for facts - i you care to participate, provide reference to Maciej Strijkowki's work, and do not delete facts, you don't like - for example that stone castle was built in 14 century.--Lokyz 19:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't "like" or dislike any "facts" related to this settlement. What makes you think that I don't like castles built in the 14th century? I must confess that I don't like "the Mendog's castle", because it doesn't make much sense from a grammatical point of view. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Quite an interesting wording - somehow i cannot see no GFA no Neutrality in it, and unnamed Lithuanian historians seem to be more biased than the author who put down this wording.--Lokyz 20:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Such statements as and make it the capital of his expanding state is only proof of editors lack of skills in this period. The best thing that contemporary Mindaugas docs suggests is Datum in Lettowia in curia nostra anno domini MCCLIII mense Julio; =Latava stream + hill fort.= some location - capital(?) M.K. 09:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)p.s. aaa and one more thing - Navahradak was placed as "capital" by steriy. also by acts of Polish friends, because he wanted to prove that Navahradak is inextricable part of Lithuania, that territorial disputed should be forgotten for all times.
Sorry, I can't parse this gibberish. Could you articulate your arguments (if there are any) more intelligibly? --Ghirla -трёп- 11:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the meaning and importance of "coronation" ceremonies in pagan times is not very clear. - not very true, because we are perfectly aware of coronation ceremonies of this kind in Lithuania (new cathedral, crown, bishop arrival, proclamation Catholic texts/prayers etc.) , plus he was already baptized before coronation, so no more paganism, at least for a while. M.K. 13:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

So the pagans had a crown, a bishop, and a cathedral? I was not aware of that. --Ghirla -трёп- 14:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
you made statement about Mindaugas case and I answer that he built/ordered cathedral, organized bishop matters etc. for his coronation, a little bit more when - meaning and importance of "coronation" is not very clear M.K. 15:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ruling Princes[edit]


An anon recently questioned it being a capital of GDL in the "Belarus" article. Please substantiate the claim (here and at Belarus). Mikkalai 20:47, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have some historical books in Belarusian (in paper) here... and I found few links: [1] [2] [3] [4]... --Monkbel 07:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
These links are representing just one of POV, in this case belorussian, ant than POV is not really good argumented. To avoid insults and anger, i'd ask you to give your argumens, and by that I mean valid argumentated scientific research and documents.
AFAIK, idea of Novohradek being capital was born in late XVIth century, by the time when GDL was still hoping to regain Volyn and Halich from Poland. Supposed first capital was moved due south east to prove, that above mentioned lands were non separable part of GDL (by the time in Novohradek was built really impressive castle). For that sake Strijkowski has written a politicly biased chronicle, based on variable sources, among them highly disputed at the verge as non existant. Among other things, in that chrionicle was also a statement, that all dukes of GDL are of Roman origin (as an argument were used similiarities between lithuanian and latin words). Such arguments were used to validate GDL separatism from Poland. If needed i can provide full list of historiografy on this in at least 4 languages. --Lokyz 20:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The fact is that only Belorussians says this city was capital of LGD; Lithuanians says capital during Mindaugas rule was Voruta, which place is unknown (others says there was no capital then, and that Grand Duke was just moving with army through local dukes and taking tribute and spending time at them: such practice was common elsewhere), then Kernavė, then Trakai, then Villnius. In fact, I heard the first time of claime about Navgaradak being capital once from here, . I dont know how much Belorussian claim differs from this, but there is certainly proove for e.g. Trakai being capital (now the town is called Senieji Trakai). I think when I'll have time I will make an article Heritage of Grand Duchy of Lithuania where would be discussed influences by Lithuanians to LGD, influences by Eastern Slavs to LGD, Belorussian and Lithuanian claim differences on certain historical events, their prooves, also explaiantion between relations of different nations in LGD (that theere wasn't one nation ruling another but rather existing in same country), ethnic compositions (I have some info on that) at different times, etc. and also where such common heritage could be seen now/recently (e.g. common coat of arms of pre-Lukashenko Belorussia and Lithuania, Litvins / Lithuanians, etc.) . In that case it would be possible to link to that article after mentioning about the capital so people would be informed about dispute. DeirYassin 21:26, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NPOVed article a bit. please note that there were no nations as such during time of early LGD. Lithuanians were cosnisting of a few tribes speaking in different dialects, Eastern Slavs weren't just Belarussians and Ukraineans either as they are now; and what is most important, people probably didn't thought of themselves as belong to some certain nation, but rather as of people living in LGD or it's respective territoral units. Also, at the time of LGD there was almost no influence to culture of each nation from other nations, as nations were living in separate parts of the country, while nobles at the time, unlike in the time of Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth during polinization, used to "adopt" the way of life of locals, e.g. Lithuanian nobles who would marry Slavic nobles and move to live in Slavic territories would adopt Orthodox faith and start speaking Slavic and vice-versa. Therefore language had political influence, but not cultural, as the great majority of non-Easten Slavic lands wouldnt know Old Belarussian. And religion (paganism of Lithuanians, Islam of tatars) wasnt influenced by writting at all. As for deleting the portion about Lithuanians having less people, that changed over the time so is inaccurate. It is true that in late LGD Lithuanians were less than Eastern Slavs, however when LGD was just estabilished in Mindaugas times, it's borders encompassed almost just Lithuanian (Baltic) ethnic territories and just some of Slavic ones, so I read estimation that 70% people then were Lithuanians (Balts). Later this part gradually decreased to 30% however, with the aquisition of new Slavic territories into LGD. DeirYassin 21:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

About "old belorusian"[edit]

i don't think it's appropriate to put paragraphs about "old belorussian" written laguage and it's influence on GDL under a topic for a solely city. Nor the language, neither the written word was invented in this city, and seeing it as a former capital is quite disputable. And "short version of GDL" IMHO does not fit here either, there is a whole article about that. --Lokyz 23:15, 2005 July 19 (UTC)

I agree. BTW, same story about Navahradak being capital is also repeated on Belarus article. I think these disputes about various national ways to present history of GDL should be on article Grand Duchy of Lithuania and everyone who wants to read more about the Duchy would click the link. DeirYassin 09:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Jewish history[edit]

This town has a rather rich Jewish history, e.g. it was the home to Yechiel Michel Epstein and a yeshiva of the Mussar Movement. JFW | T@lk 08:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

OK. I added the Novardok yeshiva and Rabbi Epstein. -- -- -- 22:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

POV'ed attack[edit]

"Short history of Novohradeka according to Ermalovich".


Novogrodek is correct English form of that Belarusian city (Navahradak or Navahrudak in Belarusian language). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mibelz on November 15, 2006

According to which authoritative source is this claim of the "correct English form" based? -- Deborahjay 14:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

First capital of Lithuania?[edit]

I move lengthy details of scholarly disputes from main space to this page. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Stryjkowski's approach is disputed also, because he could not locate and pinpoint single place were King Mindaugas was crowned. Firstly he stated that Kernavė was such place [1] , in second of his work the same suggestion is repeated again [2] and only in his third work Navahradak was pointed as such place [3]. Nevertheless, the place where a Christian ruler is crowned is not always his capital. For instance, the Russian tsars were crowned in Moscow when their capital was St. Petersburg, while the kings of France were crowned in Rheims and not in Paris, which was their capital. Furthermore, the meaning and importance of "coronation" ceremonies in pagan times is not very clear. Other scholars, which oppose idea of Navahrudak as capital, make suggestions that first capital could be in Voruta, Kernavė, Trakai and Vilnius, although it's more likely that there was no single capital at all [citation needed] prior to the documented proclamation of Vilnius as capital in 1323.
    • ^ Stryjkowski M. Stryjkowski M. Kronika polska, litewska, żmódzka i wszystkiej Rusi. Stryjkowski M. Goniec cnothy, do prawych slachciczów. Warszawa, 1846. Vol-2. p.541
    • ^ J. Radziszewska. Stryjkowski M. O początkach, wywodach, dzielnościach, sprawach rycerskich i domowych sławnego narodu litewskiego, żemojdzkiego i ruskiego, przedtym nigdy od żadnego ani kuszonę, ani opisane, z natchnienia Bożego a uprzejmie pilnegp doświadczenia. Warszawa, 1978, p. 194.
    • ^ Stryjkowski M. Stryjkowski M. Kronika polska, litewska, żmódzka i wszystkiej Rusi. Warszawa, 1846. p. 197