Talk:Duchy of Saxony

Merge suggestion discussion from 20 March 2006
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Foundert  (talk • contribs) 20:23, 26 February 2006 re:user talk: Foundert
 * Could this article become part of a new history of lower saxony? feb2006

re: User:Petri Krohn placed Mergetags: 12:14, 20 March 2006, user Talk: Petri Krohn

No Merge&mdash; expand! Historically based articles like this should never be merged together, each has it's own independent context and corpus of literature, public, private, and archival that refers to it within the context of the times. Moreover, the geographic boundaries rarely if ever line up with such successor states, and only when they do should a merge be seriously entertained, but that then orphans the title plus the place in it's times, and buries the context of same trivializing it within the greater article obfusticating understanding by people that run across these terms in references&mdash;which is why they (our customers) are looking for more information herein! Q.E.D. Fra nkB 22:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what should be merged where, but it seems there are too many articles here. Saxons, Old Saxony, and Duchy of Saxony have significant overlap. Of the three, Old Saxony is the term with the least well-defined meaning, so it should probably be the one to go. I agree that a History of Lower Saxony article that spans two millennia would be misleading; Lower Saxony is a different entity today than Old Saxony/Saxony was in Iron Age or Medieval times. Chl 15:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Old Saxony is very important to look at if one is trying to understand things like the origins of the Anglo-Saxon conquest of Britian. The modern province of Saxony is an entirely different area, and is nearly irrelevent to the history of Old Saxony, thus complicating searches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.2.219 (talk • contribs) 27 May 2006


 * True, but can't this be covered at, let's say, Saxons? Then Old Saxony could be a redirect there. I guess the question is if there is anything to say about Old Saxony besides that it is the original territory of the Saxons. Chl 16:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Made some minor deletions. I have deleted statements about the Anglo-Saxon conquest of Britain that were false at a detailed level: e.g., calling Britain "England". The very name "England" is from the name of one of the three invading tribes. Anyhow, detail about the Anglo-Saxon conquest is off topic in an article on the Duchy of Saxony. For one thing, the Duchy didn't exist yet. Hurmata 04:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Saxe-Wittemberg
Did Saxe-Wittemberg really partition off of the Duchy of Saxony? Wittenberg was to the east of the original stem duchy, so it looks like the Duchy was completely dissolved and the Ascanians simply created a new one using the lands they held, including Wittenberg which was previously in the March of Lusatia. Emperor001 (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Coat of arms
Please take down the coat of arms. It has very very little (if not nothing) to do with the stem duchy in the map so the way it is now is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.125.249.57 (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)