Talk:State of the Teutonic Order

Gdansk
I changed this page to comply with the above notice, but my changes were reverted without any edit summary. I'm going to revert, if you want to revert again, please write here if I am misreading the above notice or if this article warrants special measures. - FrancisTyers 14:28, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Map
This article could really use a map illustrating the state's expansion from Chelmno Land. Ksenon 00:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm on it. Space Cadet 01:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Maps are now in Commons
Hi,

I just added the commons interwiki. I wondered where the hell was the template Template:NowInCommons (or alike) as far as I could remember ; sorry I was just unable to find it.

Could you please tag the 3 pics ? The sentence links the pic to the commons Counterpart.

Yours, --Lilliputian 21:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC) P.S. : Space Cadet : wonderful work !
 * Just found it. For the record : . Lilliputian

Chelmno
"...Konrad now suffered from retalliatory strikes, when Prussians sought to clear their territory in Culmerland/Culmigeria from partial take-over by Konrad's troops..."

In the relevant article it is stated that the city was founded by Poles in the XI century. What's the truth? Ksenon 15:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit sign problem
When the edit signs are showing, there's something amiss with the one for the 14th Century section. I don't know how to fix this.qp10qp 16:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Article content
The article in its present state is little more than a summary of information already at Teutonic Knights. Ideally, the article should address the composition of the order- rules, positions, administration etc. At some point in the future I would like to add such information, but others are more than welcome to instead. Olessi 16:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Holy Roman Empire
The article claimed that the state was part of the Holy Roman Empire, which it was not. The Teutonic order hold some territories in the Empire, but its state was not part of it, and subject only to the pope. I removed the claim from the box. -- Zz 14:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Teutonic Motto
Added the official motto of the Teutonic Order, taken from the Order's website http://imperialteutonicorder.org/_wsn/page3.htmlHere Rcduggan 22:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That is not the order's website, but a hoax site run by someone in England claiming to be "His Imperial and Royal Highness Prince Karl Friedrich von Deutschland", an utterly false title. The order's webpages are actually and . Olessi 23:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ooops... my bad. Sorry. Rcduggan 00:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

do you know what the ACTUAL motto is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcduggan (talk • contribs) 00:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of a motto used by them off the top of my head, but I'll add it if I can find an authentic one. Olessi 15:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the motto said to be "Help, defend, heal".... what about that? Rcduggan 21:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have a reputable source for it? Olessi 20:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

yes. from this actual site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Order Rcduggan 19:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That link, actually the Wikipedia article "German Order", was a mix between a disambiguation page (describing different "German Orders") and a content fork (two articles describing the Teutonic Knights). An anonymous user had expanded the article, but did not provide a source for the motto. Other Wikipedia articles are insufficient by themselves to be references. Olessi 19:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

A crusaders state does not need any motto! The teutonic order may have had several mottos or "devisae" in its history, but not... ...another thing: there was, is and never will be a real title "von Deutschland", that's utter rubbish. Official german websites end .de, those ending with .com are just a scam - selling visa or legal papers for non existing political entities (like the "Kingdom of Germany") to uneducated or misled foreigners, who pay thousands of euros for a hardy good laugh from the real burocracy, the customs inspectors, the police a.s.o.--78.52.76.166 (talk) 04:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

German name for the state?
for a while I have seen it written as "Ordenstaat" but now the change has been made to "Ordensstaat". Which one of these is correct, and why? was it an error, or had the previous spelling been a mistake? Rcduggan 19:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ordensstaat ("order's state") is the correct spelling. Compare to Ordensland ("order's land" or "order's country"). Ordenstaat is a relatively common misspelling. Olessi 19:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrong name
This article has the wrong name - very simply the knights were not monks, and the term has no currency in English. "Monastic state of the Teutonic Knights" gets precisely one hit from google scholar, and one further hit on Google books - both from Polish publications. Nearly all the web hits are from Wikipedia or mirrors, or Polish websites. As to the correct title, Norman Davies uses the "Teutonic State" but most seem just to use Prussia etc. Maybe State of the Teutonic Knights (or order). Johnbod (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * They were monks all right but I agree that the name itself is not the best choice, it's just way too long. You can't use "Prussia" since the Teutonic state included from 1237 the Livonian territories after the Livonian Brothers of the Sword and the territories they controlled were merged with the "Prussian" order. They only split again in the aftermath of Battle of Grunwald, the Livonian branch of the Teutonic order called Livonian order joined up with other local states up there and formed the Livonian Confederation in 1418-1420 or so.

possible options for a another title would include

The State of the Teutonic Order - > 266 returns @ google books;

The State of the Teutonic Knights - > 202 returns @ google books;

The Teutonic Order state -> 112 returns @ google books;

The State of Teutonic Knights -> 22 returns @ google books;

The State of Teutonic Order -> 8 returns @ google books

--Termer (talk) 04:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * PS. The maps in the article are messed up and need a good fix.--Termer (talk) 04:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was move to State of the Teutonic Order. Jafeluv (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Monastic state of the Teutonic Knights → Monastic State of the Teutonic Knights &mdash; Words in titles should be capitalized when they are proper nouns, and as this is the name of a country, it is a proper noun. If you are referring to the conventional long form name of Russia, for example, you don't say Russian federation, you say Russian Federation. As Monastic State of the Teutonic Knights is the proper name of the state, it is a proper noun and this should be refelcted in the title of the page. Mnmazur (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Move to "State of the Teutonic Order". I agree with your rationale, but looking at the section above, the title should be the most commonly used (and of course capitalized). Skäpperöd (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the rationale: "Monastic state of the Teutonic Knights" is not a proper name, but a description; it should not have a capital S. One of the few sensible things our style pages say is to avoid the Victorian State. However, Skäpperöd's State of the Teutonic Order is a better description. That he would link to it with a capital S and I with a small s can be dealt with if it comes up. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * May I ask, then, what you ould say the proper name of the territory was? In Shepherd's Historical Atlas, it is labelled as Teutonic Domains, but I figured that the conventional long form would be reflected in the title here - that's why I proposed te move. Mnmazur (talk)
 * In which language? In German, almost certainly Ordenstaat, with a longer full form; does it have a widely accepted proper name in English? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support move to State of the Teutonic Order pr Wp:Name as the most common name used in secondary published sources. 378 on "State of the Teutonic Order" vs. 29 on " Monastic State of the Teutonic Knights" @ google books.--Termer (talk) 06:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support move to State of the Teutonic Order per Termer.--Staberinde (talk) 10:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

after 1525
This article ignores the continued existence of a state or states ruled by the Teutonic Order within the Holy Roman Empire after 1525, centered on Mergentheim, which continued to exist until 1809. I'm not sure whether that should be covered here, or in its own article, but some discussion of it is surely in order, no? john k (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * the Order controlled further territory yes, but as far as I know they never had been part of the State of the Teutonic Order - so (if I'm right) those territories should be regarded separetly 46.223.176.176 (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Which
part of the former Ordensstaat is situated in todays Germany?--78.52.76.166 (talk) 03:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Infobox flag icons
I've restored the flag icons to the infobox, after they were removed by another editor, per my interpretation of the the guidelines in MOS:FLAG. This article deals with a particular historic/military/political entity, and its territory at present is divided among various successor sovereign states, so this seems an acceptable use. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * In the MOS:INFOBOXFLAG-section it reads: Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many. Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. Flag icons lead to unnecessary disputes when over-used.

It is also highly important to note that various editors like User:Underbar dk has been removing these miniature flags based on MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. At the moment, this is a common procedure, and these miniature flags dont add anything of real value to the articles, even if they are nice to look at! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Uh hi? I don't know why I am singled out on this article when it's far outside my usual area and I don't go around systematically removing flag icons, though I agree with MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. Perhaps you're thinking of another person? _dk (talk) 05:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You were the best example i could find on short notice, specifically because i had little time because it was really late! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 11:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)