Talk:Grand Duchy of Lithuania/Archive

Old talk

 * The GDL history is unseparable from the histories of Lithuania, Poland and Belarus.
 * These histories might cast the light from different POV.
 * Naturally, they might be national(istical)ly biased, hence conflicting.

Mikkalai 20:40, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * This is thus a good place to start to create an NPOV version of the histories of these various groups that includes all the nationalistic differences in the historical interpretations of the underlying facts. &#8212; Alex756 14:42, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * He-he... the problem with history is that too many underlying facts are known only from their "interpretations". Mikkalai 22:34, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * There is a valid debate amongst professional historians that these interpretations can throw new light upon the inaccessible "facts" of history. See historiography. &#8212; Alex756 00:59, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Modern Lithuanians( called in time of GDL Zhamojc' and Aukshtota) have nothing in common with ancient Litva, motherlad of todays belorussian ethnos.Vilnius that changed name in about 1939 (appeared about 200 years later of GDL appearence) as result of Salin - modern Lithuanian agreemens passing slavic populated land to Zhamojc, and is, in fact, long playing plan of desroying so much hated ancient Litva. I can understand russians, Nepoleon took Moscow once , Hitler did not managed to do that. And our Litvin (belarus)Duke took it 2 times. The difference is that "belarus" POV is based on scientific facts and and archeological data. Funny thing , modern lithuanians cannot to research it , since it is located on territory of western Belarus :) Czytacz.
 * yeah according to byelorussian "historian" Ermalovich who cant even read or understand full text of chronicles and other data, I believe by his "philosophy" ancient Roman Empire was established by "old byelorussians" too... M.K 08:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

my minor grammar edit may have changed meaning in religion section
I edited the article at 07:40, 11 Feb 2004. Might have caused a small shift in meaning. After the union with Poland, how long did the pagan beliefs last? Did the religion sucumb or just the nation's millitary? I suspect the pagan beliefs went underground, but I'm not too familar with that area of history.

Legacy
This chapter is written from Russian point of view. There is no reason why such a big country as Russia should stay unified thrugh history. I think we shall write more about GDL itself, rather then see it through the impact on Russia. Cautious 13:28, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * It was not so big at these times. Siberia, Northern Caucasus/Stavropol, Caspian steppes, etc. were added way later. Mikkalai 01:12, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC).

Religion
I did change the definition of religion, for it wasn't clear. Animism was omitted by me, it is dubious question about it. Also I changed the phrase about princes, for the previous was ambiguous. (look Culture of Lithuania, please). Linas 10:41, 2004 May 10 (UTC)

--

Legacy
One of the most crucial effects of Lithuania's power was upon Ruthenia. Of great import was the division of the East Slavs. The East Slavs had, until the Mongol conquest, been unified in one state, that of Kievan Rus. The Mongols attempted to keep the East Slavs unified and succeeded in conquering virtually all of the former Rus lands, but half of them were soon seized by Lithuania. This separation of the East Slavs among two outside powers created substantial differences that persist to this day. While during Kievan Rus there were certainly substantial regional differences, it was the Lithuanian annexation of much of southern and western Rus that lead to the permanent division between Ukrainians, Belarusians, and Russians. Without the presence of a strong empire it is likely that Kyiv, Minsk, and other now non Russian cities would have been as thoroughly annexed to Russia as Novgorod, a city which also had strong regional differences to Vladimir-Suzdal', but ones that were erased by total Muscovite regional domination.

Lithuania brought the Ukraine and Belarus into much closer relations with the Western Europe and this lead to distinct cultural and linguistic differences between them and Russia.

1. This is not a philosophical essey but an encyclopedia based of FACTS. History as science does know words that something WOULD BE. 2. Claim that GDL "created" Belarusian and Ukrainian nations has no founds. For example political separation of Red Ruthenia from other Ukrainian lands did not created a separate "nation". The same about Carpathian Ruthenia: this area was politically isolated from ther Ruthenian lands for 1000 years but it did not ceased ethnic connection with present day ethnic Ukrainians. 3. The claim that unification of Rus' by Moscow was historically determinated is a non sense. 4. POV that the true Rus' was Moscow Rus' is biased. As far as I know inhabitans of 15th or 16th century Rus' had different opinion. 5. The serious ethnic and linguistical differences between different parts of Rus' were substantial even before 14th century and can not be reduced to influence of GDL. For example ethnic border between Belarusian and Ukrainian languages do not cover with any historical border and exists much longer than GDL.Yeti 13:55, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Gloger, Geografia historyczna
Zygmunt Gloger, Geografia historyczna ziem dawnej Polski. W tek&#347;cie 63 autentycznych rycin, Kraków 1903 Prowincya W. Ksi&#281;stwa Litewskiego

(Magnus Ducatus Lituaniae).

W ogólnym sk&#322;adzie Rzeczypospolitej od czasu unii lubelskiej (1569 r.) Wielkie Ksi&#281;stwo Litewskie stanowi&#322;o obok Wielko i Ma&#322;opolski trzeci&#261; prowincy&#281;. Co trzeci sejm walny dawa&#322;o marsza&#322;ków sejmowych i ka&#380;dy trzeci sejm odprawowa&#263; si&#281; by&#322; powinien w Grodnie.

Kraj ten, oko&#322;o sto mil, od granic ziemi Pskowskiej na pó&#322;nocy, do Wo&#322;ynia na po&#322;udniu, i tyle&#380; od granic ziemi Smole&#324;skiej na wschodzie, do Po&#322;ongi nad Ba&#322;tykiem, d&#322;ugi i szeroki, przeci&#281;ty uko&#347;nie szerokim pasem g&#281;stych jezior, oblany by&#322; przez cztery wielkie rzeki: Niemen, D&#378;win&#281; zachodni&#261;, Dniepr i Prype&#263;. Z tych trzy pierwsze znane ju&#380; by&#322;y w staro&#380;ytno&#347;ci pod nazwami: Chronos (Niemen), Rubon (D&#378;wina) i Borysthenes (Dniepr u Herodota), zwany od VI wieku Danapris, Danapros lub Danaprus. G&#322;ówn&#261; atoli artery&#261; serca Litwy jest Niemen, sp&#322;awny dla „wicin” od Sto&#322;pców, a s&#322;ynny z pi&#281;knych brzegów od Grodna. Ju&#380; za Zygmunta Augusta Ma&#322;opolanin, Miko&#322;aj Tar&#322;o ze Szczekarzewic, chor&#261;&#380;y przemyski, staraniem swojem oczyszcza&#322; koryto Niemna z g&#322;azów, szkodliwych dla &#380;eglugi, za co mu wdzi&#281;czni ziomkowie pomnik kamienny postawili, a wierszopis &#347;l&#261;ski, Schraether, pami&#281;&#263; jego usi&#322;owa&#324; w wierszu &#322;aci&#324;skim przekaza&#322;.

Obfito&#347;&#263; wód w po&#322;udniowej stronie Wielkiego Ksi&#281;stwa Litewskiego od dawna zach&#281;ca&#322;a przemy&#347;lnych obywateli do kopania sp&#322;awnych kana&#322;ów wodnych. Istnieje dot&#261;d kana&#322; z jeziora Sporowskiego do miasta Bezdzie&#380;a w Kobry&#324;skiem. Syn Zygmunta III, królewicz W&#322;adys&#322;aw, o innym zamy&#347;la&#322; i na to „przekopanie” konstytucy&#281; sejmow&#261; ju&#380; w roku 1631 wyjedna&#322;, ale napa&#347;ci s&#261;siadów Rzeczypospolitej zniweczy&#322;y rozumne te zamys&#322;y polepszenia wewn&#281;trznej gospodarki kraju. Dopiero wi&#281;c za Stanis&#322;awa Augusta wykopany zosta&#322; kosztem skarbowym za 40.000 dukatów kana&#322;, zwany Królewskim, Brzeskim lub Rzeczypospolitej, 10 mil d&#322;ugi, który po&#322;&#261;czy&#322; Pin&#281;, wpadaj&#261;c&#261; do Prypeci, z Muchawcem, wpadaj&#261;cym do Buga, a tem samem Ba&#322;tyk z morzem Czarnem. Prawie jednocze&#347;nie Micha&#322; Ogi&#324;ski, hetman Wielki litewski, przez wykopanie w&#322;asnym kosztem siedmiomilowego kana&#322;u (zwanego kana&#322;em Ogi&#324;skiego), po&#322;&#261;czy&#322; Jasio&#322;k&#281;, wpadaj&#261;c&#261; do Prypeci, ze Szczar&#261;, uchodz&#261;ca do Niemna. By&#322; jeszcze i czwarty stary kana&#322;, zwany Batowym lub publicznym, z jeziora Turskiego od &#378;róde&#322; Prypeci do Muchawca kierowany.

Litwa, która jeszcze, gdy Piastowie panowali w Polsce, nie by&#322;a krajem rolniczym, pod Jagiellonami tak szybko rozwin&#281;&#322;a si&#281; i zakwit&#322;a, &#380;e ju&#380; za Zygmunta I zaopatrywa&#322;a w &#380;yto wszystkie zamki ukrai&#324;skie nad Dnieprem. Za Jagie&#322;&#322;y floty zachodniej Europy, a zw&#322;aszcza portugalska i hiszpa&#324;ska, sprowadza&#322;y maszty z puszczy Bia&#322;owieskiej, sp&#322;awiane Narwi&#261; i Wis&#322;&#261; do Ba&#322;tyku.

Wielkie Ksi&#281;stwo Litewskie przed rokiem 1772 sk&#322;ada&#322;o si&#281; z nast&#281;puj&#261;cych województw: 1) Wile&#324;skiego, 2) Trockiego, 3) Ksi&#281;stwa &#379;mudzkiego, 4) województwa Po&#322;ockiego, 5) Nowogrodzkiego, 6) Witebskiego, 7) Brzesko-litewskiego, 8) M&#347;cis&#322;awskiego, 9) Mi&#324;skiego i 10) Inflanckiego; ostatnie, zwane niekiedy ksi&#281;stwem, wspólnie do Litwy i Korony nale&#380;a&#322;o. Województwo Smole&#324;skie, cho&#263; od roku 1667 przy&#322;&#261;czone zosta&#322;o do Moskwy, tytularnie jednak pozosta&#322;o przy Litwie i w porz&#261;dku urz&#281;dowym pomi&#281;dzy ksi&#281;stwem &#379;mudzkiem a województwem Po&#322;ockiem wymieniane bywa&#322;o. Niezale&#380;nie od nazw urz&#281;dowych wesz&#322;y do mowy potocznej nazwy z charakterem etnograficznym. Tak np. województwa: Po&#322;ockie, Witebskie, M&#347;cis&#322;awskie i cz&#281;&#347;&#263; Mi&#324;skiego, zacz&#281;to w wiekach ostatnich nazywa&#263; Bia&#322;orusi&#261;. Województwo za&#347; Nowogrodzkie i strony Grodzie&#324;skie, po Podlasie, nazwano, bez wyja&#347;nionego powodu, Rusi&#261; Czarn&#261;. Obie te jednak nazwy nie upowszechni&#322;y si&#281; nigdy w mowie ludu ziem powy&#380;szych. Bagniste dorzecze Prypeci, zajmuj&#261;ce wi&#281;ksz&#261; cz&#281;&#347;&#263; województwa Brzeskiego, cz&#281;&#347;&#263; wschodnia Nowogrodzkiego, po&#322;udniowa Mi&#324;skiego i pó&#322;nocna Wo&#322;y&#324;skiego, zowie si&#281; Polesiem lub Polisiem. Cz&#281;&#347;&#263; po&#322;udniowa ksi&#281;stwa &#379;mudzkiego, po&#322;o&#380;ona w klinie mi&#281;dzy Niemnem, Prusami i Szeszup&#261;, zwa&#322;a si&#281; „traktem Zapuszcza&#324;skim”.

Herb Wielkiego Ksi&#281;stwa Litewskiego, zwany „Pogoni&#261;”, przedstawia w polu czerwonem, pod mitr&#261; (czapk&#261;) ksi&#261;&#380;&#281;c&#261;, je&#378;d&#378;ca w zbroi i he&#322;mie, z mieczem do ci&#281;cia podniesionym, i tarcz&#261;, na której dwa krzy&#380;e z&#322;ote w jeden spojone. Ko&#324; pod nim bia&#322;y, rozp&#281;dzony, okryty czaprakiem czerwonym, d&#322;ugim prawie do kopyt potrójn&#261; z&#322;ot&#261; frendzl&#261;. Piastowie przedstawiali nieraz na swoich piecz&#281;ciach postacie swoje na koniu cwa&#322;uj&#261;cym. Na&#347;ladowa&#322; to Olgierd i st&#261;d na jego piecz&#281;ci z roku 1366 mamy pierwsz&#261; „pago&#324;”, która ma tego ksi&#281;cia wyobra&#380;a&#263;. Oczywi&#347;cie na „pogoni” poga&#324;skiej tarcza Wielkiego ksi&#281;cia nie mia&#322;a jeszcze krzy&#380;ów, które dopiero po przyj&#281;ciu chrze&#347;cija&#324;stwa dodano. Poeta polski XVII wieku, Wac&#322;aw Potocki, dodanie krzy&#380;ów na tarczy przypisuje s&#322;usznie Jagielle:

„Jagie&#322;&#322;o, skoro skrzyde&#322; Krzy&#380;akom przystrzy&#380;e, Kawalerowi na tarcz da&#322; herb ich, dwa krzy&#380;e”.

Prócz tego by&#322; jeszcze inny herb Litwy, a w&#322;a&#347;ciwie domu Jagiellonów, zwany kolumnami, przedstawiaj&#261;cy trzy &#380;ó&#322;te s&#322;upy z podstaw&#261;, w czerwonem polu. Herbu tego u&#380;ywa&#322; Witold i Zygmunt Kiejstutowicz, na tarczy Pogoni zamiast krzy&#380;a, a pó&#378;niej Zygmunt August na pieni&#261;dzach litewskich, Na pogrzebie Zygmunta I niesiono dwie chor&#261;gwie. Na jednej by&#322;a Pogo&#324;, a na drugiej Kolumny. Chor&#261;giew Wielkiego Ksi&#281;stwa Litewskiego (pod&#322;ug Gwagwina) czterok&#261;tna, z sze&#347;&#263;dziesi&#281;ciu &#322;okci czerwonej kitajki, mia&#322;a z jednej strony Pogo&#324;, a z drugiej Bogarodzic&#281; z Dzieci&#261;tkiem, obraz w s&#322;o&#324;cu. Chor&#261;giew za&#347; hetmanów litewskich by&#322;a b&#322;&#281;kitna i z jednej strony mia&#322;a pogo&#324; w polu czerwonem, a z drugiej posta&#263; &#347;w. Stanis&#322;awa, biskupa krakowskiego.


 * jeez, this is quite old text.

--Lokyz 23:21, 2005 July 19 (UTC)

Revision
On “The word "conquest", although it's used often by international (especially Anglo-American) and Lithuanian historians, is not the most proper word to describe the process by which the Grand Duchy of Lithuania united the lands of White Ruthenia. It is worth noting that both peoples, the forefathers of modern Lithuanians and modern Belarusians, called themselves "Lithuanians" in their own tongue (respectively lietuviai in Lithuanian and litvins in Belarusian).”

It's necessary to put a comment on it. This sentence was a bit out of context. And, there are analogous expressions (at least two) in this article, where is said that the unifying was more peaceful than military. I think it might be replaced. However, if You think, that it is very important here, revert it. It doesn't cost an editing war, not being totally false. The next point about the name of Lithuanians is dubious. Facts show that such usage of Lithuanian as You suggest was unpopular if it existed at all. Name Lithuanian(s) in old texts refers to: 1) Lithuanians, Lithuanian speaking people of the G. D. L. or Prussian state (Prussia). 2) Lithuanian nobles, i. e. Slavic speaking catholic nobles, who considered themselves Poles. After Polish national movement had grew in the 18th - 19th centuries the second usage was repudiated by nobles ( except minority of them, later called by others ones litwomans), who started call themselves simply Poles. This development lead to present usage of Lithuanian. It's even laughable thing, that after 16 or 17 century Slavic persons from former Duchy (both Poles and Belarusians) categorically don't want to be even similar to Lithuanians, but they often pretend to the name. The reality is, that even if somebody was called Lithuanian being Pole or Russian, when aboriginal Lithuanians still exist, he was naturally referred with these Lithuanians. Such situations like one with Romanians (Romania) are possible in the world, but only when aboriginal root nation has no more exist. Linas 11:24, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)

At this form it might sound, that only true "litvins" vere belorussians (which is not true) and "lietuviai" were not part of that term. That suggestion is supported by the link "litvins", which points to "belorussians" term. In that form lies some elements of modern belorussian nationalistic interpretation of the GDL origins.

--Lokyz 00:03, 2005 July 13 (UTC)


 * I think there should be done a separate chapter or even a separate article about the "heritage" of GDL. As Mikkalai said here, this might be very hard to get an agreement on as there are different versions. What needs to be done is to put these versions in one place and:
 * Write the claims of each version sorted by the type of these claims (e.g. first about chancery language, then about on lands of which nation the state actually started, then about nationality of rulers and how they used to assimilate, then about what first capital was, etc.)
 * Together with claims, mention on what documents or facts they are based. This is very important, becaus ethere are various nationalist versions on all sides which are based by various minor documents which might be interpreted in several ways. This is exactly what makes this discution hard because some articles takes one POV and does not explains on what it is based (e.g. that first capital was Navahradak) and so the reader is unable to decide where there is more truth. And on discutions for example Belarusian might link to some nationalist website where it is written that Navahradak was first capital of GDL, then a Lithuanian might link to a site giving information taht the capitals were Voruta, Kernavė and Trakai and they will never agree, as none of the sites will give sources so they'll just call each other nationalists. Therefore sources are very important.
 * If there are counterarguements to the claim on any of the other sides, mention them.


 * At the end it would also be possible to mention better books and articles about GDL and which of the sides they support, also main historians and their opinions. Of course, this would take time to write, and I tried to write it but decided to stop because I am clearly having too few information about for example what documents supports Belarusian POV, I am not very knowldgable of exact documents supporting Lithuanian or Polish POVs either. Therefore maybe if there is someone who knows more about these things and is notseeing just one nationalistic idea could write more. Then that sentence which Linas mentioned would be moved from first paragraph to taht paragraph about the heritage of GDL.DeirYassin 21:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

chancery languages
Was Lithuanian indeed used as a chancery language of GDL ? Lysy 15:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ruthenian was used to print and such.Languages of respective nations were used in their territories however, for administrational things and such too, except for printed things or correspondance. So in courts and such of course it wasnt so that everybody spoke Ruthenian everywhere, because peasants and such didnt even know the language if it wasnt native language to them DeirYassin 20:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Government
Zivinbudas is insisting that the GDL had a separate government. What was the government of GDL then? Halibutt 22:03, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

What time period? We know that gdl had a separate government during its personal union with Poland, it had chancellors etc, and sometimes even a separate grand duke. And of course it had its own government until Jegello's accession to Polish throne. Is the question about a separate government after the full union with Poland in late 16th century and afterwards? I think even then the gdl had certain separate functionaries - it could be called a separate government... 217.140.199.247 17:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Anon contributions
An anonymous user added a table and a long list of rulers to the article list. I'm moving it here for further discussion.

Major dates :: The Timeline of the Grand Principality of Litvania

 * 1240-1263: Rule of Mindouh, who consolidates east Litvanian and West Belarusan territories into the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) and Ruthenia, with a capital in Navahradak.
 * 1315-1341: Rule of Grand Duke Hedymin, who transfers the capital of the Grand Duchy of Litvania and Ruthenia from Navahradak to Vilnia (Vilnius) in 1323.
 * 1341-1377: Rule of Grand Duke Alhierd, who expands eastward the territory of the duchy, thereby clashing with neighboring Muscovy.
 * 1385: Grand Duke Jahajla (baptized Wladyslaw) establishes tight connections with Poland by marrying the Polish queen and promising to catholicize Litvania.
 * 1387, 1390, 1391: Self-government bestowed on the cities of Vilnia (Vilnius), Bierascie (Brest), and Horadnia (Grodno).
 * 1392: Grand Duke Vitaut recognized by king Jahaila as the independent ruler of the Grand Duchy 1410: The great Battle of Grunwald, during which the united armies of Poland and the Grand Duchy crush the Germans of the Teutonic Order
 * 1432,1434,1447: Royal charters establish equality of feudal lords of both Catholic and Orthodox confessions
 * 1468: King Kazimir's Code of Laws (Statut Kazimira), the first code of criminal and procedural laws of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (written in Old Litvanian-Belarusan).
 * 1480: Muscovy free of the Tatar dependency
 * 1498,1499: Self-government privilege granted to Polacak and Miensk
 * 1500: Beginning of the defensive wars of the Grand Duchy of Litvuania, Ruthenia, and Samogitia against Muscovy (Moscow dukedom)
 * Early 16th century: First Litvanian printing shop founded in Vilnia (Vilnius)
 * 1517-1519: Francysak Skaryna of Polacak translates and publishes the Bible in the Old Litvanian (Old Belarusian) vernacular in Prague.
 * 1529: Adoption of the first code of laws, the "Statute of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania," written in Old Litvanian (Old Belarusian).
 * 1560s: Wave of conversion of Litvanian gentry to Calvinism
 * 1563: Polacak occupied by Muscovite (Russian) army
 * 1569: Political union of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia and Samogitia with Poland establishing the Commonwealth of Poland. Arrival of the first Jesuits in Vilnia; start of the Counter-Reformation in the Grand Duchy.
 * 1579: Polacak taken back from Muscovites by the army of King Stefan Batory; The Vilnia (Vilnius) University is founded.
 * 1581: Establishment of the Tribunal of the GDL, an appellate court that fortified the rights of the gentry.
 * 1603-1613: Muscovy's "Time of Troubles," when a Polish king of Swedish lineage, Sigismund III, attempts to take over Russian throne.
 * 1632-1634: War of the Litvanian Polish Commonwealth against Muscovy.
 * 1654: Bahdan Chmielnicki unites Ukraine with Russia.
 * 1654-1667: War of the Commonwealth with Russia; loss of Smolensk to Muscovy.
 * 1686: Russian-Polish "Eternal Peace": Russia retains Smalensk, Czarnihau, and Kiew.
 * 1696: the Old Litvanian (Old Belarusian) language is replaced by Polish in the official documents of the Grand Duchy of Litvania. The Latin alphabet replaces Cyrillic in popular usage.
 * 1772, 1793, 1795: Three partitions of the Polish Commonwealth among Russia, Prussia, and Austria. All of Belarus is incorporated into the Russian Empire, with the exception of a small northwestern corner, taken by Prussia.
 * 1791: The Constitution of May 3rd merges the Polish Crown and the Grand Duchy of Litvania, Ruthenia, and Samogitia into a unitary state.
 * 1794: Anti-Russian uprising led by Tadewusz Kasciuszka


 * 1863-1864: Massive anti-tsarist uprising in Poland, Belarus, and Litvania, led in Belarus by Kastus Kalinowski.
 * 1864-1915: The Vilnia Archeological Commission publishes forty-nine volumes of documents pertaining to Litvanian and Belarusian history.
 * 1870: Publication of The Dictionary Of the Litvanian (Belarusian) Language by Nasovich.
 * 1918: On March 9, the Executive Committee of the Council of the First All-Belarusian Congress declares Belarus a democratic Republic.
 * 1919-1921: The Russian-Polish War results in the partitioning of Belarus between the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic and Poland.
 * 1939: On October 10, Moscow transfers Vilnia from the Byelorussian SSR to the Lithuanian SSR.
 * 1941-1944: The German occupation of Belarus results in the deaths of 2.2 million people, the destruction of 209 cities and townships, and 9,200 villages, and immeasurable material losses.
 * 1944: At the Moscow conference (October 9-22), the Polish delegation agrees to accept the Curzon Line as Poland's eastern frontier.
 * 1945: On April 25, delegates from Belarus and Ukraine are invited to the San Francisco Conference. Recognized for their role in the war effort, both countries become members of the United Nations.
 * 1991: On August 25, Belarus declares independence.

Answer
The adding is POV one by a nationalist Belarussian, which tries to associate Grand Duchy of Lithuania only with Belarus and delete all of it's associations with Lithuanians, Poles and other nations of GDL. The used rethorics, such as the ridiculous Litvania instead of Lithuania (because it is Lithvania in latin, but latin "v" is usually changed to "u", that is how term Lithuania came in the first place), are common at certain Belorussian nationalist websites, aimed at recreating supposed Litvanian nation, who would speak Old Belorussian (also known as Black Ruthenian, article on which was deleted from Wikipedia), a recreated language. The supposed national motto is a quote from Adam Mickewicz and is not a national motto at all. The only arguement why GDL was supposedly Belorussian is because Old Belorussian was a chancery language, however the language was later changed to Polish and also GDL was established by Lithuanians in Lithuanian territory, Roman catholicism became the prime religion once Lithuanian dropped paganism (at first after the christianisation of Lithuanian nation, eastern orthodoxes (mostly Eastern Slavs) weren't allowed to get land by testaments unlike catholics) and such. What these people must understand is that back then there were no national states unlike there are now, and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania did not have any dominating nation. DeirYassin 15:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * For persons who enters Belorussian version of history in this artcicle: please enter it together with evidence the Belarussian historians who supports that version uses and together with other versions and their evidence; it shouldn't be entered as a sole existing undisputed fact because it is not like that. Also, someone who is more knowledgable about things related to Belarus, please check the article on Lukashenka which was also edited recently by same IP as this article; it might be so that some anti-Lukashenka POV was added there, but I am not sure as I don't know these things well. DeirYassin 20:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I really don't feel up to it, but this page is still very unclear English writing and very difficult to make much sense of. 66.238.96.85 22:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * "GDL was established by Lithuanians in Lithuanian territory"

But Lithuanians (BTW when did the Lithuanian tribes unify?) were since a certain moment a small part of the population. Xx236 11:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC) ---

I have got an impression that Belarusians of that time (which is almost identical to the term Ruthenians) were the biggest ethnical group in the grand duchy. In that sense, they have been said to have dominated. Also, there are indications that the Gediminid dynasty is much more Belarusian than Lithuanian in ethnic sense. I cannot say about ethnicity of earlier princes (Mindowe, Trojden) -actually, so little and fragmentary is known about their time... But, the princes from and including Gediminas apparently lived in Ruthenian parts, had most relatives there... Do we know anything about which language they primarily spoke? And, their names - are they etymologically Baltic or Ruthenian? 217.140.199.247 17:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Gediminas (probably son of Vytenis) was aukstait, he spoke Lithuanian, also did his sons Jaunutis, Kęstutis, Algirdas and others (this is proven also by ethymology of their names. Recostruction orf their names as they are wiritten in lithuanian nowadays is done by prof. Kazimieras Būga, and noone argued about quality of that reconstruction ). Another proof that they were not ruthenians is fact, that none of them was baptised, and all ruthenian lands and rulers by the time were all baptised. Another one proof is that in ruthenian language written laws there are loads of lithuanian words and terms.
 * About "ruthenian parts" - Gediminas ruled from Vilnius, that is located in Lithuanian area (that is proven by toponyms)and chronicles. And yes, naturaly, by expanding teritory of GDL many of dukes (sons or brothers of the ruler) went to rule newly aquired lands (also by marriage).--Lokyz 20:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

suggestion to POV disucussion
There would be quite a good point to create historiography site of GDL, because Lithuanians an Poles have already established historiographical tradition, and both traditions has come to agreement at certain points. And that would limit (or at least discredit) some one or other side emotional or fantastical POV based posts.

This would be at least scientific arguments. IMHO this is needed, because there are really difficult and painful questions (Vilnius for example, and many others), which could not be resolved through enciclopaedical explanation. Each nation has it's own opinion. At least there could be given some arguments and explanations, not just "views". This could be short referral to research of modern historians, and critics of them (scientific). Well this is just idea; it might need some thinking through. --Lokyz 21:12, 2005 July 17 (UTC)

Eastern slavs
It's quite doubtfull "description" Eastern slavs. because same are also called russians and (sometimes)poles. I'd suggest term ruthenian (lithuanian: rusinai, gudai, latin ruthenian. Take a look at Ruthenian_language). This version is widely used in modern lithuanian (and afaik polish) historiography.


 * Maybe you are right. Poles are Western Slavs though, Eastern Slavs are (modern nations of) Ukrainians, Belarusians and Russians. However, these national borders weren't well established back then; at various times GDL included many of now-Russian lands too (such as Smolensk) and Russians would have been in this Eastern Slavs too. The term Ruthenian can be used IMO however. DeirYassin 09:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Seems reasonable to me. Halibutt 13:03, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

About begining of GDL
The Grand Duchy of Lithuania began its rise to great power status under the reign of the king Mindaugas (or Mindoŭh in Belarusian) beginning in 1238.

Mindaugas was crowned in 1253 GIt is misunderstanding to state yea at this historical period - maybe it should be said something about begining of XIII century ? Mindaugas was very important factor, but sure not main.


 * 12th century here is clearly a misunderstanding - even if there was a state in 12th century it was not called Grand Duchy. The theory that Lithuanian state might have been formed in 12th century is not very strong and disputed by historians. It is so called "Netimer Lithuania" mentioned in sources about first attempts to christianize Lithuania.

nobody speaks about XII century, year 12** is XIII-th century

In Lithuanian historiography title Grand Duchy is used for the state in XIV century, for the earlier period - Duchy of Lithuania or at Mindaugas times - Kingdom of Lithuania. Dirgela 07:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC) ___

Volyn and Halych
These lands - Volyn and Halych were part of GDL, I think it should be mentioned why for a half century dukes of GDL still were speking about them as lands of GDL (first statute of GDL (codecs of law) in these lands was still valid until the breakup of Rzecpospolita Obojgo Narodow). And someone should point, that map in this article is late XVIth century, after 1569 "personal" Lublin Union, when "Polish Krown" had annexed Halych and Volyn, formerly part of GDL. This (union and annexation) was done because of GDL weakness in fighting against muscovites, and raised debates for many cenutries to come. There are loads of arguments, whether GDL because of this union ceased to exist, or it still had it's money, army and treasure, but nowadays most arguments tend to support that issue. P.S. At least, the whidespread map should state century it is representing. If none would argue, i'd say it is after 1569 union. And, i'd like to see another one, before 1569 union. --Lokyz 01:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Lokyz's contributions
Check Lokyz's edits from the last two days... I love "lithuanians". --rydel 23:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you have against Lithuanians??? (kidding ;)) More serious, what you don't like in the contributions? Me personally, don't like "no culture superior" thing. Renata 00:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What quantitave measures would you use to prove culture superiority? Many cultures are different, and from modern sociological perspective "superiority" is only a matter of side on which you stand (often regarded as patronising).
 * Any issue in my edits is free for discussion (or even revert if you can prove they're wrong). --Lokyz 11:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Was PLC dominated by Poles?
Perhaps you may be interested in commenting at Talk:Polish-Lithuanian-Muscovite_Commonwealth, although the discussion may better belong at Talk:Polish-Lithuanian_Commonwealth.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 06:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If any Lithuanian editors (or other readign this page) are intereasted in this question, see Talk:Polish-Lithuanian-Muscovite_Commonwealth. Whatever consensus is reached there will likely affect the PLC article and many others.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Belorussian POV'ed attack
Again there is rise of disputable Belorussian historian Ermalovich fans "litvans" activity - people who do not even consider an opportunity to register, to participate.--Lokyz 17:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Clarity question
The following sentence from the second paragraph is confusing:

"Baltic pagan gentes, who later became Catholic united called Lithuanians acquired Ruthenian lands who in the 18th century separated into Belorussian and Ukrainian Nations and were Orthodox."

To improve readability in English, could this be rewritten as:

"Baltic pagan gentes, who later became Catholic and called themselves Lithuanians, acquired lands from Ruthenians, who became Orthodox and in the 18th century separated into the Belorussian and Ukrainian nations."

Does this maintain the original meaning of the sentences? --Neoplatonic 21:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe this is a bit better:
 * Baltic pagan Lithuanians, which later became Catholic, acquired Ruthenian lands, which people were Orthodox and in the 18th century separated into the Belorussian and Ukrainian nations. ? M.K. 22:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you want to lose the "gentes" from the sentence? I assume by that you mean "nobility".--Neoplatonic 12:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, using gentes it was ment tribes.--Lokyz 14:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely -- unsigned comment by [[User:MarkWyle|MarkWyle]

Something for Belarusans
http://viduramziu.lietuvos.net/etno/gudavicius-en.htm - in English http://viduramziu.lietuvos.net/etno/merkys-ru.htm - in Russian http://viduramziu.lietuvos.net/etno/gudavicius2-ru.htm - in Russian http://viduramziu.lietuvos.net/etno/nasevic-by.htm - In Belorusan

Why did you, M.K., delete my comments?
 * Is it relly need to be here, because now we donot have need to use these, then time come we will use them too M.K. 18:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)