Talk:Infantry Company of the Lithuanian Tribunal

Hungarian?

 * Can the article explain why is it "Hungarian" i.e. what's the etymology of such name? Did it have anything to do with Hungary or its people? Why does the name in English differ from name in Lithuanian and Polish? Thanks. --Mindaur (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The "Hungarian" is because of the Hajduk (Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth), which were called "Hungarian infantry" at the time (Piechota węgierska). The connection to Hungary is distant, and the soldiers of this unit were locals of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. By the 18th century, the hajduk had become more ceremonial than real fighting soldiers.
 * (Source for a part of what I am saying: Vengrų haidukų pavyzdžiu organizuoti vadinamieji lenkiškieji pėstininkai buvo komplektuojami iš vietinių LDK gyventojų. from p51, Vytauto Didžiojo karo muziejus 2011 metais).
 * As for the article's name, it is based on the Chorągiew Węgierska Trybunału Litewskiego. The Chorągiew can be translated variously, and I took the liberty of translating it as Company, because this unit was infantry and not cavalry. The Lithuanian name was found only as a mention, so perhaps it's not referring to this unit, I'll check. Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The thing is that now I have realised that there is something very unclear here, because one Polish source says the unit was created in 1790, but identical units existed before, with no clue as to whether perhaps they were one and the same, or where they different units that were suddenly disbanded, etc.
 * Here it is written Sapiegų varžovams kilo sumanymas įkurti specialią – Tribunolo vėliavą, kurią sudarytų vengrų rikiuotės pėstininkai., in addition the clarification of this Vyriausiojo Tribunolo „vengrų pėstininkų“ (kitaip dar – „janyčarų“) vėliavai.... However, this is talking about the years 1698-1699. The mention of Tribunolo pėstininkų kuopa by Daujotas is about 1766. Valdas Rakutis mentioned Vyriausiojo tribunolo janičarų vėliavain his article Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės Kariuomenė Baro Konfederacijos metais. VLE gives another variation Dar 2 kuopų – LDK maršalo ir Generalinio tribunolo – nebuvo kariuomenės etatuose. Mindaugas Šapoka in Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės kariuomenė 1710-1711 m. mentions LDK vyr. Tribunolo vėliavos. Here, it is written Vyriausiojo Tribunolo apsaugą ir suimtųjų apsaugą nuo pat XVII a. pabaigos užtikrino kariuomenės dalinys – vengrų pėstininkai, labiau žinomi Tribunolo Vėliavos pavadinimu.
 * As of now, I have changed the Lithuanian name to Lietuvos tribunolo vengrų vėliava, because that seemed most reasonable.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, so the "Hungarian" was a type of infantry at that time. I find the current title and naming misleading and confusing. At the very least, the article should have a separate section with an explanation, but I think it would be better to change the title. I suggest to use "Infantry of the Lithuanian Tribunal" or even, literally, the "Banner of the Lithuanian Tribunal" (with an explanation that a "banner" was a company-size unit in GDL). Not sure if there is a WP:COMMONNAME here, but your listed sources do use "Tribunolo pėstininkų kuopa" and "Tribunolo vėliava", so these are accepted in the historiography.
 * The current title is confusing because "Hungarian-style infantry" is unfamiliar to the readers. From the article on Hajduk: "colloquial term for a style of footsoldier, Hungarian or Turco-Balkan in inspiration"; one of your sources called it "janičarų" i.e. Janissary. Basically, it is a colloquialism specific to a particular region and historical events. If anything, using "Hajdukian" could perhaps be most the reasonable in contemporary language, but we would be making it up. Hence, I think the infantry type should be dropped from the title and instead be explained in a small section. -- Mindaur (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree.
 * Lithuanian Tribunal Infantry Company is a better name for this article, because this unit is sometimes named as Hungarian, Janissary, or even without any adjective, so just plain would make it clearest. Of course, the alternative names must be mentioned and explained in the article, along with the explanation of Banner.
 * I would be against the article's name starting with Banner of ..., because that would make it an unique case and might confuse the readers, so that they think at first glance that this article is about a flag (e.g. Banner, Banner of Poland, etc.).
 * The article will be fixed soon, because known information contradicts Gembarzewski's information that this unit only existed in 1790-1793, although this unit seems to have existed from 1698 until 1795, according to what is known. Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, although I find "Infantry [company] of the Lithuanian Tribunal" as more idiomatic English. -- Mindaur (talk) 10:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Just as a sidenote, Rospond calls the unit: Hungarian Company of the Lithuanian Court of Justice Marcelus (talk) 07:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)