Talk:German–Polish War (1003–1018)

Untitled
The following comment was left on the talk page in place of the regular talk page by Skapperod, after he tried to delete this article by redirecting it to his SYNTH article on the Treaties of Bautzen and Merseburg.radek (talk) 06:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

==Redirect==

I redirected this unsourced stub to Treaties of Bautzen and Merseburg, since it is a content fork. There is a discussion whether the aforementioned article should be split, see Talk:Treaties of Bautzen and Merseburg. I further oppose the title, since it was not Germans against Poles, but an emperor vs nobles dispute. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Response to the comment
 * Redirecting this article to Treaties of Bautzen and Merseburg is completely inappropriate and in fact disruptive. The SYNTH article is going to be split into two proper articles on the Peace of Bautzen and Treaty of Merseburg, per the comments resulting from the RfC. However, that is essentially irrelevant, as this is the article on the conflict which ended with the Peace of Bautzen. Just like we don't redirect World War I to Treaty of Versailles there is absolutely no legitimate reason for why this should be redirected to the article on the treaty which ended this war. This is simply an act of trying to delete an article "out of process" by circumventing usual WP:AFD procedures. Do not do this again.
 * If Skapperod has a problem with this article's existence he should nominate it for AFD rather than engage in these kinds of disruptive "delete" tactics.


 * As to the name of the article, that's how this conflict is generally known in sources. The fact that there are no sources yet in the article is simply due to the fact that the article was just newly created. They're coming, don't worry.
 * As to the name, if Skapperod has a problem with this article's title, let him provide sources which show other names for the article, and let him institute a proper REQUESTED MOVE discussion.
 * This kind of artificial "deletion" without any kind of input from the broader Wikipedia community or without any attempt at establishing consenus is really egregious and against Wikipedia procedures. Frankly I'm a bit shocked that Skapp would do something like this and there is little left on Wikipedia that can shock me.radek (talk) 07:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Would you please respect WP:BRD and have the RfC have its course first. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The RfC has pretty much run its course, your unwillingness to accept outside opinion by uninvolved editors aside, and besides, this article has nothing to do with the RfC.radek (talk) 09:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Title
Is this actually regarded by historians as a single war? Looking at pl:Wojna polsko-niemiecka on Polish Wikipedia, I see it is divided into several separate topics, of which only the first (1002-1005) has an article.--Kotniski (talk) 10:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This topic is called "Wojny Polski z Cesarstwem" in Polish historiography, will expand it later.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It was a series of related wars with intermittent periods where peace broke out in between. It's possible to separate it into three periods 1002–1005, 1007–1013 and 1015–1018, per current article structure. In each case the major players were the same however. Also, I've seen some sources put the beginning of the war at 1004 ( pg 385) (basically the reasons for war occurred in 1002 and 1003 but it took them awhile to get their armies into the field etc.). The other two periods on Polish wiki are red linked, which just means the people there have been too lazy to write them.


 * I don't know - I can see the logic in splitting it into three separate articles but I also think that all these constituted essentially a single war. I'm still digging through the sources (there's variation in how they treat it). So more input is appreciated.radek (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think there is room for both the general article about the period, and seperate ones regarding each war that happened. I definitely have source for general period, and could write it down.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The general article could cover everything from Battle of Cedynia (or earlier) up to Krzywousty or Battle of Grunwald or even beyond. It would basically be like having an article on the prolonged series of French-English wars. As I said somewhere else (somewhat facetiously) one could have an article on German-Polish wars 1002-1945. But anyway - that is not THIS article. The real difficulty HERE is in deciding whether to date the beginning of the conflicts to 1002 or 1004. In January of 1002 Otto III, who was an ally and friend of Piast Poland died. In May of 1002 Boleslaw took control of Prague and Bohemia. This was not a direct attack upon any German provinces or Marches and while this could've been "ok" with significant parts of German nobility of the time, the guy who eventually became King of Germany was Henry II who was not "ok" with it - but at the time his position within Germany was still weak. By 1004 he strengthened his position and was able to do something about it... within Bohemia. He was not able to actually commence a military campaign against Poland proper itself until 1005. So depending on how one defines the beginning of this conflict the possible years are either 1002, 1004 or even 1005. And that's how it's treated in the sources (some already in the article, some more coming) - i.e. variously.radek (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe I didn't express myself clear-the term Wojny Polski z Cesarstwem is a specific term found in Polish encyclopedias which covers a designated timeframe from 1004 to 1157. The only problem would be translation of this term to english.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Müller-Mertens in Reuter et al. (1995) divides the conflict between Henry II and Bolesław I into three campaigns: 1003–5, 1007–13, and 1015–18. The unsourced claims about conflict between Bolesław and Henry at the Merseburg council in July 1002 over the enfeoffment of Meissen are not found in Müller-Mertens; Bolesław supports Henry II's kingship in return for enfeoffment with the lower Lusatia and the Milzener lands. The Merseburg council is thus described as an (apparently mutually beneficial) deal between them, there is no hint of animosity yet. The Schweinfurter Fehde did not start until August 1003. All that remains unexplained is the razing of Strehla castle: when did this happen and why? Other than that, the 1003–1018 dating has support. It may be that the cause of this conflict should be found in the Bohemian war of succession (apparently started in 999) rather than the Merseburg council, the Stehla razing or the Schweinfurter Fehde, each of which appears independent of the initial fighting between Henry and Boleslaw. Strzelczyk's chapter in the same book says that 'Boleslav['s refusal] to do homage to Henry for Bohemia [led] to open conflict in the course of which the Germans brough Jaromir and Oldrich to Prague and the Polish garrison was obliged to leave Bohemia.' Note that Jaromir and Oldrich were the two exiled claimants to the Bohemian throne that Bolesław had now seized. If anything, I think this proves that the war started with Polish and German intervention in the Bohemian succession crisis and not because of any other animosities between Henry and Bolesław. This may affect the title if it is not supported in RS. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , I see that you recently restored the original article title via WP:RM/TR. I'm not unopposed to stating the dates in the article title, but could you clarify why you think the war started in 1002? As I discussed in my comment above and in my edit summaries when I recently made improvements to the article, I think the war between Bolesław and Henry did not start until 1003. The three reasons that the text itself provided for the origins/cause of the war were not only unsourced, but did not support a 1002 starting date, whereas Müller-Mertens in Reuter et al. (1995) does support a 1003 beginning. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I simply reverted without checking whether the dates were accurate. I agree that 1003 seems correct for a German–Polish war. It is the implied starting point for the war in David S. Bachrach (2008), "The Military Organization of Ottonian Germany, c. 900–1018: The Views of Bishop Thietmar of Merseburg", The Journal of Military History 72(4): 1061–1088 (at 1070). Reuter, Germany in the Early Middle Ages, 800–1056 also puts the beginning of the conflict in 1003, although he implies that the first campaign of Henry was in 1004. That said, sources agree that the Strehla razing happened in 1002; see Andrzej Pleszczynski The Birth of a Stereotype: Polish Rulers and Their Country in German Writings c. 1000 AD, pp. 211–212, and Thietmar's Chronicon trans. David Warner. Srnec (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this response! I will read what I can, and perhaps add them as references to the article. The Strehla razing can probably be counted as a military action, but against whom? If Henry gave Bolesław these Sorbian lands as a fief at the Merseburg council in July 1002, then Bolesław seems to have acted against his own new Sorbian subjects, not against Henry. There could be all sorts of reasons why, e.g. the Sorbs being unwilling to recognise Bolesław as their new lord, and denying him a royal entry/joyous entry, and that Bolesław razed Strehla castle as a reprisal. (This was a very common occurrence in medieval (and early modern) Europe. Given the fact that the Sorbs were still mostly pagan and Bolesław was a Christian ruler, this could be a motive why they refused to recognise him as their new lord). Such an action would normally not spark a war between Bolesław and Henry; Bolesław would have been in his right to punish his own subjects for disobedience. I'll to find out more if I can. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've been reading Pleszczynski's explanation of the Strehla razing, and it is far more complicated than I thought. It now seems that it may have been part of the Ekkeharding inheritance dispute over Meissen, or the apparent assassination attempt on Bolesław, if Herman I of Meissen was involved in it. For Pleszczynski, it had nothing to do with the Sorbs or religion (a hypothesis of mine), but was part of yet another succession crisis, after the 999 Bohemian, the 1002 German, and long before the 1015 Kyivan succession crises. If so, that would mean Bolesław intervened in all 4 succession crises in order to take advantage of them – a very common practice in dynastic warfare. (It almost seems like "Ottonian–Piast War" would be rather more fitting as a title, because dynastic interests are central to all of these conflicts, but ok; the current title is fine). Thanks for suggesting these sources! Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

MILHIST initial assessment
Needs work to connect references to text to reach Start or beyond Monstrelet (talk) 09:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right - it's a recently created article and this being September I'm extremely busy. Will try soon.radek (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

and Slovakia
Re. Yes, a Slovak state didn't exist until the 20th century. But obviously this is referring to the territory of modern day Slovakia. And this is how it's described in sources,. This isn't the place to fight out the "did Slovakia exist" wars. Volunteer Marek 21:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

One more time, the sources provided above note that Slovakia was part of this conflict and part of the conquest of Boleslaw:

"Boleslaw enlarged the Polish state, connecting lands on the west (Lusatia), and south (Slovakia)."

"Under Boleslaw Chrobry, the Polani came to control Bohemia, Moravia and Slovakia"

"He (Boleslaw) was even briefly able to impose his rule over Bohemia, Moravia and much of modern Slovakia".

And again, the fact that there was no Slovak state in 10th-11th centuries is irrelevant. Neither was there a Lusatian state. The word Slovakia refers to an area not a political entity.

So please either provide sources to the contrary or stop it with the OR reverts. Volunteer Marek 22:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

POV and Polish bias
Must be renamed at the very least. This article is utterly weird - if there was anything to be called ware between "German" and "Polish" at least the German side MUST be mentioned. Is there anything comparable? Is there something of a French-German or French.English war at this time? NO. These were early medieval states. Article must be re-named and balanced. I wonder on the motivation of invention such a wording.