Talk:Treaty of Arnswalde

Move

I reverted the move to "treaty of Choszczno." Choszczno was not the name of the site, but Arnswalde. "Treaty of Choszczno" is not used in literature, "treaty of Arnswalde" is, e.g. in The New Cambridge Medieval History: c. 1198-c. 1300 (1999: p. 751. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see Gdansk/Danzig vote.VolunteerMarek 16:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The Gdanzig vote does not fully apply here. First of all, it clearly says "For Gdańsk [my emph.], use the name Gdańsk before 1308 and after 1945". Nothing happened in Arnswalde in 1308, which in 1269 was a Brandenburgian place in Brandenburg, termed Arnswalde even in the treaty itself (which is the first mention btw.), so the reasoning behind the pre-1308 ruling for Gdanzig can not be transferred to pre-1308 Arnswalde.

Arnswalde does however have a shared history between Germany and Poland, since it became Polish in 1945. So the modern name Choszczno must be mentioned according to this provision of the Gdanzig vote: "For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig)."

The Gdanzig vote ruling continues: "An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises." I provided an English reference that primarily uses this name - the New Cambridge Medieval History - above as there seems to be a dispute here.

Please do not start a "move war". I will revert your move a second time to have the article by its original name again, which was stable for five years, since the article's creation. If you think I should not have reverted your move, you are free to request a move and present your counter-arguments on this talk page. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

One more time. You cannot decide selectively when the Gdansk/Danzig vote does or does not apply to suit your fancy. Especially when this decision essentially comes down to "cram in as many German names into places and people as possible, remove as many Polish names from articles as possible" kind of philosophy. That's pretty much a textbook example of trying to WP:GAME a policy right there.

The Gdansk/Danzig vote explicitly states: "For Gdańsk, use the name Gdańsk before 1308 and after 1945" and then later provisions of the vote generalize that to all places that "share a history between Poland and Germany". This is 1269 and last I checked that came before 1308. If your reasoning is that the vote applies only to Gdańsk and not to other places that share a Polish German history (except for the double naming provision which you reference) then first let see you move all the spurious usages of "Thorn (Toruń)" to the more proper "Toruń (Thorn)" which this reasons implies (and same for similar instances in other cities' case) - "nothing happened in Torun in 1308" either. Otherwise you're just abusing the Gdansk/Danzig vote to suit your own agenda.

It's also completely false that before 1269 this place was part of Brandenburg. 1269 was when this place was taken over by Brandenburg. Before that it had been in Poland. In 1269 the Brandenburgians chased out the Cisterians and usurped the place. THAT's the point at which it became part of Brandenburg - you're trying to make out like it had always been part of it, for time immemorial before 1269, but I know that you know that's just not true. So stop pretending and hoping that any outside readers are going to be too ignorant of the historical details of the region to realize when you're trying to pull a fast one.

This is further support for the fact that the Gdansk/Danzig vote does INDEED apply in this case. And the GD vote explicitly states "Reverts to conform with community consensus are excluded from the three-revert rule (3RR). ", and "Persistent reverts against community consensus despite multiple warnings may be dealt with according to the rules in Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism."

Finally it takes some real bad faithed chutzpah to try and warn others about "starting a move" war after you've already started one by reverting twice. Additionally, the only reason the previous title was "stable" was because no one paid any attention to this, fairly obscure, article. But "stable" does not mean correct, nor does it mean "titled in accordance with policy". And hey, the article had been "stable" for the past two months as well. You just jumped right into the move warring though.

VolunteerMarek 19:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

And btw, that single source is the ONLY English source which I can find which uses the term "Arnswalde".

Also historical records of the name "Choszczno" (spelled "Hoscno") PREDATE records of any "Arnswalde" by about 40 years.VolunteerMarek 20:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You did not respond to my argument that "treaty of Arnswalde" ist used in English, for which I provided the New Cambridge Medieval History as a reference. What are your quality references for English usage of "treaty of Choszczno"?

Your quote:"The Gdansk/Danzig vote explicitly states: "For Gdańsk, use the name Gdańsk before 1308 and after 1945" and then later provisions of the vote generalize that to all places that "share a history between Poland and Germany"." Answer: That is a misunderstanding - no later provision "generalizes" the pre-1308 naming of Gdanzig, which would not make sense since 1308 is a Gdanzig-specific date which has no meaning for e.g. Arnswalde/Choszczno. The line in the Gdanzig vote about places that "share a history between Poland and Germany" is about mentioning the respective alternative placenames, regardless of date. I linked the template above.

To all your unpleasant allegations about my motives etc I will not respond.

And while it is not really relevant for the treaty and even less for the wikipedia's article title of the treaty, let me correct some misunderstandings about Arnswalde's early history on your part, your quote: "It's also completely false that before 1269 this place was part of Brandenburg." [Where did I say so? Your quote cont.:] " 1269 was when this place was taken over by Brandenburg. Before that it had been in Poland. In 1269 the Brandenburgians chased out the Cisterians and usurped the place."

I will start my answer to that with a translation of a quote from Gaziński R et al (2004: p.271) from the Archiwum Państwowe w Szczecinie: "About 1263, the area with the fort was conquered by the Brandenburgians, who in the years 1269-1289 constructed a town east of the fort."

The fort west of the later town of Arnswalde was mentioned as "Hoscno" in a donation the duke of Greater Poland, Odonic, made to the Pomeranian monastery of Kolbatz in 1233. Why? Per Gahlbeck (2002: p. 99): "To win these orders and monasteries as allies for his plans - it was no more than plans, because over the areas he donated, he did not assert actual control."

The context of this donation was a contemporary struggle over control of the lower Warthe/Warta river between the dukes of Pomerania, Greater Poland, Silesia and the Brandenburgian margraves. "Hoscno" thereby marks about the northwesternmost point of the disputed area, in the medieval Pomeranian part. The Kolbatz monks went straight to the Pomeranian duke, Barnim I, and wanted him to confirm the donation, which he was reluctant to do. He nevertheless gave in in 1237. The primary site of miltary conflict was south of it anyway: the Zantoch/Santok area at the Warthe/Warta, gained by the margraves from Greater Poland in the mid-13th cty, before they turned north into Pomerania and took from Barnim a large area, including Kolbatz's "Hoscno." Cf. Gahlbeck C (2002): Zisterzienser und Zisterzienserinnen in der Neumark (Publications of the Brandenburgian State Archive vol. 47), pp. 31, 99, 129, etc pp.

Upon gaining control, the Ascanian (Brandenburgian) margraves introduced a new administrative division (terra Arnswalde) and built Arnswalde as its center, Gahlbeck (2002: p. 591): "Kolbatz monks were not directly involved with the founding of the town of Arnswalde, credit for this belongs to the Ascanians alone, who also were responsible for the town's name." Well, then came the treaty of 1269, which only per chance was concluded there. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The whole point of the Gdansk/Danzig vote is to avoid exactly these kinds of petty disputes happening across the hundreds of articles related to Polish-German relations. Sure. Not every place that shares a history between Poland and Germany has 1308 as the exact date at which the switch in naming can be said to have taken place. Hell, even for Gdansk, 1308 ain't that good (more likely sometime in the 1400's but never-mind that now). For some places the "best" date might be 1270 for others it may be 1573 and yet for others it may be 1939. The point is - and that's what originally led to the Gdansk/Danzig vote - is that if we try to decide this kind of thing on article-by-article basis it becomes just a stupid series of nationalist edit wars which suck up valuable time of potentially good editors. So what the Gdansk/Danzig vote did is to simply cut that Gordian Knot by simply saying, use Polish naming for places prior to 1308 and German names for 1308-1945.

This worked - all the edit wars and disputes that raged back in the day more or less evaporated. But this was the product of the fact that people actually respected the vote and didn't try to game it. And this is how the vote has always been interpreted - to apply to any place which shares a Polish/German history.

Until you came along and decided that the general consensus that has been established over three or four years of editing on Wikipedia did not apply to you, or to the articles you chose as your WP:OWN. So you started renaming stuff to German names in contravention of how the Gdansk/Danzig vote stipulates based on what you yourself judged to be the "right way". Crazily enough, this "right way" has always involved removing as many Polish names as possible and inserting as many German names as possible. Invoking the Gdansk/Danzig vote when it works in your favor (German names take precedence) but ignoring it when it suggests the opposite (Polish names take precedence). Some bad faithed person may call that gaming or just plain ol' dishonest nationalist (though "civil") POV pushing.

So we had an imperfect but workable compromise and then a single individual, you, decided to fuck it all up in the pursuit of their own agenda. This is the essence of putting your own personal preferences and ideology before that of the community. At the very least, be consistent. If the Gdansk/Danzig vote is dead, fine, there's plenty of articles that are waiting to be moved to their English language names, which just happen to correspond to their Polish names. Or perhaps we should just use current country names for all the relevant places (which is about the most sensible solution come to think of it). But if it is NOT dead - and putting myself in YOUR POV pushing shoes, I don't think you want it dead since it benefits your POV greatly - then at the very least don't make a mockery of it, and have the decency to apply it consistently.

Also, let me point out again that all you've managed to find to support your position is a single source!!! Honestly, this treaty was pretty minor, which is why English language sources don't pay attention to it. It's a stupid issue to hang your reputation on.

Finally, let me point out that basically NOTHING in what you quoted contradicts what I said - 1269 was the year during which this place was taken over by Brandenburg, though I guess the margraves might have been active in the area a few years prior. The area was part of Greater Poland. There was a dispute between the Cistercians and the Order of St. John's and the Cistercians, in order to cover their asses, asked both the Duke of Greater Poland and Barnim for approval "just in case". Then the Brandenburgians established themselves in the region by supporting the Cistercians, and then, somewhat characteristically in fact, threw them out once they got full control. None of this contradicts what I had already said. In fact, it is more or less precisely what I said. I'm not sure what your point in regard to all that was.

Oh yeah, the prose of this article as well as the one at Choszczno suggests that once again you're translating verbatim these German works. Keep in mind that literal translation - even if you change a word or two for POV purposes - is still a copyvio. I really really (honestly!) don't feel like having to go through all that again.VolunteerMarek 07:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

If your interpretation of the Gdanzig vote was correct, and thus contrary to what is written there every place with a shared history must be addressed by its Polish name prior to 1308 and by its German name 1308-1945, then you'd have to use the German name for every single place now in Poland for the period between 1308 and 1945. Your interpretation neither reflects the wording, nor the spirit, nor the practice of application of the Gdanzig vote.

The treaty was not concluded in Poland, had nothing to do with Poland and is not known by a Polish name in English literature. The margraves did not take over the area where they built Arnswalde from Poland (but from Pomerania), neither did they support the Cistercians in that dispute with the St John's order as you say, but that is another story. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

No, not "every place in Poland" - those with a Polish-German history. Such as this one.

And stop making stuff up. While Choszczno was taken over in 1269 by Brandenburgians, a year or so before it was part of Duchy of Greater Poland. Barnim might have made some claims to it (mostly because the area was a borderland) but it was Odonic who actually legally held the area. So yes it was concluded in what almost right up to the time of the treaty was Poland and it obviously affected Poland. And it's not exactly known in English literature under its German name either (you got a single source there - which is trumped by the Gdansk/Danzig vote).VolunteerMarek 15:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I linked the map for a purpose, and you are still wrong regarding the history of Arnswalde. Odonic was long dead when the treaty was concluded, and his claims were just one of several competing claims - but as I said, that was decades before the treaty was concluded, and doesn't really matter to determine the article's title. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course Odonic was long dead in 1269. But he had the relevant land in the 1230's, as Duke of Greater Poland. Barnim might have made claims to it - it was a border area, but ever since Krzywousty the area had been part of Poland. It was most certainly not part of Brandenburg which acquired control either in 1269 (the particular year of the treaty) or even in 1290's. At best your argument seems to be that since this part of Poland was disputed by (slavic Pomeranian Duke) Barnim ... "it has nothing to do with Poland". ??? VolunteerMarek 20:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, so when Krzywousty took the area from the Pomeranians, it became Polish, and when the Pomeranians took it back, it remained Polish, and when the Brandenburgians took it from the Pomeranians, it remained Polish, and when the Brandenburgians founded a town there, this town was a Polish town in Poland? Come on. And your statement that Odonic "had the relevant land in the 1230's" contradicts Gahlbeck (1998:99). Skäpperöd (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice rhetorical trick, but no. When did the Pomeranians take it back? What year? From whom? Keep in mind that Krzywousty controlled pretty much ALL of Pomerania. What they 'took back' from Poland was Szczecin, Rugia etc. and places much more to the northwest. This particular area remained with Poland - or what became the Duchy of Greater Poland more precisely - and passed to Mieszko the Old. Then it passed with the subsequent Dukes of Greater Poland until it got to Odonic. I don't know if it "contradicts" Gahlbeck since you have not provided the actual quote from it (all of it, in German). Even if so, we have other sources that state that Odonic donated it. More likely, since this was a sparsely populated borderland, it was simply contested by the Dukes of Pomerania.VolunteerMarek 00:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

All of this is not relevant for the treaty, but I will nevertheless answer your questions. Let's start with Krzywousty: He had included the southern areas of Pomerania (south of the highland) into the Greater Polish castellanies of Zantoch/Santok and Driesen/Drezdenko (Gahlbeck 1998:98). The core areas of these castellanies, i.e. the areas adjacent to the Warta and Notec rivers, were under direct control of the Polish castellan, while the area north of it remained under control of the local Pomeranian nobles, who had to pay tribute to the castellan (Gahlbeck 1998:98). The area of modern Choszno was at the northernmost frontier of Zantoch (Zientara 2002:299). After Krzywousty's death, the Pomeranians stopped paying tribute (Gahlbeck 1998:98; they were reluctant to pay tribute before, too.) While the Piasts who succeeded Krzywousty were focussing on their inner rivalries, Mieszko III the Old of Greater Poland participated in the unsuccessful Wendish crusade against the Pomeranians in 1147. "Only the core areas of the castellanies Driesen and Zantoch remained with Greater Poland. At large, this political constellation remained stable throughout the late 12th and the first quarter of the 13th century." (Gahlbeck 1998:97). Zantoch was then taken over by the Silesian duke Henry the Bearded (peace with Greater Poland's Odonic in 1234, Zientara 2002:299). The Silesians expanded north of the Warta into Pomerania, then ruled by Barnim I (Zientara 2002:300ff.; Benl 1999:89), who in turn was a vassal of the Brandenburgian margraves (Zientara 2002:299). This was a period of abundant donations made by all participants (Barnim, Odonic and Henry) to monk orders, whom the donators expected to secure their borderlands and/or claims (Zientara 2002:301ff; Benl 1999:89). By 1250 however, Barnim had retaken most of the areas lost in the Warta and Notec area before, and held the northern part of the former Zantoch and Driesen castellanies (Benl 1999: 89). By this, he was supported by the margraves, and Zantoch itself was taken by "the Germans" (either Barnim's or more likely the margraves' men) in 1238 and much fought over thereafter (Zientara 2002:338-339). The Greater Polish duke Przemysl formally gave up claims to the Zantoch castellany when his daughter married a Brandenburgian margrave and the castellany (w/o the fort of Zantoch) was transferred to the latter as bridal trousseau (Benl 1999:89). During the next years, the margraves expanded their New March northward at the expense of Barnim (Benl 1999:89-90).

I'm honestly too tired to correct the mistakes in the above. Especially since, as always you've very good at mixing up the truth with exaggerations and a whole lot of fudging. This "Zantoch", i.e. Santok, was taken and retaken by various parties during the period. But for the most part, aside from a short term capture by the Brandenburgians, it stayed very much within the "Polish-Pomeranian" orbit. You are also doing your best to give a false impression that these ... "Silesians", at the time, weren't Poles - which is pure nonsense. Hell, some of them were "High Dukes of Poland" - they were about as Polish as you could get at the time. Once again you're trying to exploit the fact that some of these terms and the nomenkleture is fairly esoteric and specific to a particular historiography to push a particular, extremely pro-German nationalist POV. More, you're once again exploiting the anachronisms inherent in some of these terms (i.e. "Pomeranians" in 18th century were Germans, but "Pomeranians" in the 13th century were Slavs/Poles). Like that anon that always shows up in these parts. To wit, Henry the Bearded, whom you insist on referring to as a "Silesian", held the title of "Grand Duke of Poland" (legitimately, he was the senior in Krzywousty's testament, and his grandson to boot).

But all that is an aside to the central question here. THIS particular area was a borderland between Poland, and then the Duchy of Greater Poland and Pomerania. Given that it was more or less the "boonies" of any of these state entities, the records are scarce. Here's what we know however:

1. It was part of Krzywousty's realm. In addition Krzywousty conquered most of Western Pomerania, up to Rugia.

2. After he died, Krzywousty divided his lands up between his sons. This particular piece of territory fell to the Grand Dukes of Greater Poland, in this case Mieszko the Old.

3. The infighting among the sons of Krzywousty allowed the Western Pomerniana dukes to assert their independence. Szczecin, Rugia, etc. became more or less independent of the successors of Krzywousty, i.e. the Dukes of Greater Poland. BUT, this area was not part of their realm. At best it was a borderland. Krzywousty died in 1138. There's very little information about this particular region (hell, there's very little information about Pomerania itself) for the period between his death and early 13th century. At some point the Griffins established their independence from the Dukes of Greater Poland - but that was in Szczecin etc. Not in this place. Which was a borderland.

4. In the 1230's Wladyslaw Odonic, who was the Duke of Greater Poland at the time, had a claim to the area. There's nothing to suggest that this particular area was ever part of Barnim or other Pomerenian dukes land. Again, it was a borderland, which explains why the monks, "just to make sure" asked Barnim as well to certify the donation. Notably, they asked Odonic first.

5. The next piece of information we get is that in 1269 - the year of this treaty - the area had been conquered by Brandenburg. Obviously since they conquered it it wasn't theirs right before, in say, 1268.

6. It's likely that the Brandenburg Margraves soon after lost nominal control over the area to Mestwin or one of the other Dukes of Gdansk, though, again, given the feudal disputes that were going on at the time, who knows. Some sources state that they did not really regain control of the Choszczno area until 1290's. In the mean time, if anything, it belonged to the Pomerelians, who, yes, were also Poles, just ones who wanted to carve out their own state from Krzywousty's former realm (just like the Mazovians, Silesians, Malo-Polskans, etc. etc. - this was a civil war between various Polish dukes).

You have completely failed to address the underlying question. Let me repeat it: When did the Pomeranians take it back? What year? From whom?

Instead you launched this strange red herring of the history of the Santok area. That was a different place. Answer the question rather than trying to change the subject. I would also really appreciate it if you stopped pretending that the answers to some of these questions raised above can be given definitive answers. Honestly - and as anyone who reads about this stuff well knows - for this period and this region, records are scarce, there's a lot we don't know and probably will never know. I'm perfectly willing to - actually no, I insist that - the situation is presented in these ambiguous terms. One way you can always tell a real historian from someone who just happens to have read a lot of history books and is just intent on using them to push a POV is that the real thing admits ambiguity and is unashamed of ignorance. The amateur on the other hand is always the guy who always insists "THIS IS THE WAY IT WAS! IT MUST BE PUT IN HERE. I'M WRONG YOU'RE RIGHT!". freakin' a, this is 13th century Poland/Pomerania we're talking about - you get a document once every 75 years to figure out what happened, if you're lucky.

Finally, I hope you're at least willing concede at this point that this notion that "this treaty had nothing to do with Poland" is pure nonsense. Come on, let's have at least a little bit of straight forwardness.

VolunteerMarek 05:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I am disappointed. I detailed the history of the area and gave a modern expert source for each sentence, and your answer is polemics full of sidekicks about my alleged motives, skills, education etc., to which I will not respond.

I will however assume a lot of good faith, since in particular these your sentences: "Instead you launched this strange red herring of the history of the Santok area. That was a different place" - show that you are not familiar with the geography of this region, so I will repeat a sentence from my last answer that you seem to have overread: "The area of modern Choszno was at the northernmost frontier of Zantoch (Zientara 2002:299)" (i.e. the Zantoch/Santok castellany, not the fort). Maybe you can now read again through my previous posting and it will occure to you that the history of the northern part of Krzywousty's Zantoch/Santok castellany is not a red herring, but the history of the site we are talking about, and which you insist had been in Poland by the time of the treaty or in the years before. Above, I have shown in detail that this was not the case and provided my sources.

Another sentence of your response is of even greater concern, your quote: "'Pomeranians' in the 13th century were Slavs/Poles." What makes you think that the 13th-cty Pomeranians were Poles? And 13th-cty Pomeranians = Slavs is also wrong - though there were many Slavic Pomeranians in 13th-cty Pomerania, this was the century of large-scale German settlement and land amelioration, and for the Pomeranian Slavs who participated in the Ostsiedlung "Slav" soon becomes an ambiguous term to use (by language? by customs? by name? by way of working? by law? ...). Since in this particular case we are talking about an area that in the period between the donations of Odonic and Barnim (1233/4/7) and before 1269 belonged to the property of Kolbatz abbey, let me illustrate the situation there: Kolbatz abbey was among the earliest furtherers of Ostsiedlung in Pomerania, with records of German villages on its property since the 1170s (Benl 1999:47-48). Large-scale German settlement and 'localization' of villages on Kolbatz's property started in the 1240s (Benl 1999:51). Unusual for Pomerania, Slavs on Kolbatz's property were granted German law by Barnim in 1241 (Benl 1999:51). So your generalization that 13th-cty Pomeranians = Slavs is wrong for Pomerania as a whole and even more wrong for the area we are discussing here, let alone for the town of Arnswalde founded there by the margraves. But even if the population was Slavic - what would that matter? Skäpperöd (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I asked you to provide info on when Pomeranians took control of Choszczno but instead you gave information about when Brandenburg took Santok. It seems like you're repeating what I had already said, then drawing different conclusions and then accusing me of geographic ignorance on top of that. Your original contention was that "this treaty had nothing to do with Poland" and the justification for the name is that the place belonged to Brandenburg.

Ok, let's try again, step by step. First let's put aside the Brandenburgians since I think we can both agree that they did not control this area until at least 1263, no?VolunteerMarek 23:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

And the Pomeranians =? Slavs argument, we had before more or less at other articles. Quite frankly it is your view which raises concerns and eyebrows. But let's leave that for later.VolunteerMarek 23:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

As it is clear you'll never reach an agreement, I suggest WP:RM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)