Talk:Truce of Deulino

Reannexed or regained
I consider this a minor issue. It is true that Smolensk area was never before a part of Poland or the PLC, however, as it is explained at Smolensk, it was a part of GDL, thus it would be correct to say it was regained by the GDL. Polish-Lithuanian_Commonwealth states that the Smoleńsk Voivodship was a part of the GDL. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I would need to do some reading to catch on things known to the editors here, so I will not contribute right now. Just one note. We should be cautious in using the term "annexed". Annexation usually means a uniletaral action (actually, this was added to the A. article by me, but I consulted a dictionary and some international terminology sites and it is there for a while unreverted). In this sense, one cannot "annex" something through the treaty. The country may be "forced to cede" the territory in the treaty that's "forced upon" it, or the country may "gain" the territory through an equal, or unequal treaty (the latter being forced upon the party that looses something). One can say sometimes that the treaty confirmed control over the "captured" or "conquered" area. There were several disputes elsewhere over the usage of "annex" at this line of reasoning seemed to sound convinsing in the past. Again, this comment is only about the term "annex" and nothing else in this dispute. --Irpen 21:49, August 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * For now, I am using the term gained. Considering that those territories were given by the treaty, I think that cede would be a better term, though. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

GDL sovereignity
Ghirlandajo wrote in his recent article comment: By 1618, Eastern Orthodox GDL was effectively swallowed by Roman Catholic Poland and didn't exist as a sovereign state. I would dispute that. GDL had much authonomy, including its own army and laws. PLC was not Poland, it was A Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were Polish and Lithuanian nobles had exactly the same rights and priviliges. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * ...except the fact that those speaking Ruthenian or not acknowledging the Pope's supreme authority were ruthlessly persecuted, which led to Khmelnitsky's Revolt and the Polish Deluge...
 * As an aside, do you really think that Ruthenians would have revolted, if they had "exactly the same rights and priviliges" as the Polish szlachta.--Ghirlandajo 09:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm, you're confusing facts here. I doubt there were many nobles among the men of Chmielnicki (apart from Chmielnicki himself). In fact, I bet his men killed as many local nobles as they killed the Polish ones. Also, what persecution do you mean? Of course, Vasa was an ultra-Catholic monarch, and his rule led to, for instance, persecution of protestants, but I have yet to see some example of such persecution of Orthodox Christians happening (that is outside of the 19th century Russian rhetorics). Were they killed en masse because they were Orthodox? Or perhaps their churches were burnt and themselves expelled to Muscovy? I doubt it... Much of the GDL was Orthodox and anyone persecuting Orthodox faith in Poland would find himself surrounded by revolts. Finally, the revolt in Smolensk was carried out not by the boyars but by the townspeople and was aimed not against Polish rule but against overtaxation. Halibutt 10:23, August 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * You will learn more if you care to read something besides Polish hack-writers and cheap propaganda. But, as your edits show, you are determined to prove that all the Poles have been angels and "martyrs" (as you termed it in the List of Polish Martyrdom sites). It seems that your only aim in Wiki is pushing this extreme POV. --Ghirlandajo 10:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Be civil and quote facts. Perhaps you should also widen your reading list, because what you write seems like the stuff only found in the 19th century Russian sources. Lithuanian and Ruthenian szlachta had exactly the same rights as Polish speaking one. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Avoid personal remarks, Ghirlandajo. And keep it civil. I'm discussing with your statements, not with you personally and I expect the same kind of treatment from you. Accusing me of being half-intelligent or a proponent of some propaganda is not exactly a counhter-argument. Also, please note that I didn't take part in creation of the article on, nor in the discussion of that page, so you apparently confuse me with someone.


 * Anyway, which part of my explanation you don't understand or question? Or perhaps there's something else you have a problem with? Please, be bold and inform me.


 * As to Russia's existence in 15th century - it existed in Russian language, as for Russian speakers there's no difference between Ruthenia and Russia. However, most of other people make that distinction and there is a reason why the article on Princedom of Muscovy is at Muscovy and not at Russia... Halibutt 11:52, August 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * The word "Muscovy" was invented by the Poles and slowly spread to several other languages, where it coexisted with the older form "Russia". Your statement about Russia's absence in the 15th century is tantamount to the statement that "Russia" of Old English chronicles, Chaucer, Mandeville, Shakespeare, etc was a fictional country. Perhaps they were talking about Poland? --Ghirlandajo 12:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, perhaps you're right that it were the Poles to invent the name of Moscow, but I seriously doubt it. In Poland the state named Muscovy in English is called Moskwa. Note that it's also the Polish name for Moscow and that in Polish there is no such thing as Muscovy as such.


 * Also, the discussion about Russia being Russia in 15th century is too long and too disturbing to repeat it here just to make one of us happier. Anyway, are you fine with the version I proposed? Halibutt 12:22, August 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * BTW, I wonder whether the terms Княжество Московское, Великое Княжество Московское and Московская Земля were also invented by Poles... if so, then perhaps the whole History of Russia ought to be rewritten from an entirely new perspective... Halibutt 13:36, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Not that it is very relevant to the Truce of Deulino, but a brief comment on two contentious issues. We are talking about the time when populace who would call themselves "Russkie" were divided between political etnities. OTOH, what Halibutt insists on calling just Muscovy was the only country where Russkie dominated not only the populace but also the governent. So, Muscovy certainly was "Russia" at the time, but OTOH, nobles and commoners that we call "Ruthenian" in WP would self-identify with the "Rus" -rooted word for sure. It is correct to call Muscovy by the name Russia, but just to make things less confusing, Muscovite Russia is more precise for that time, when we are talking about the state ruled from Moscow. Later, when the control of the Russian leaders expanded over the most of Russkie lyudi (Russian people) and these people have actually diverged somehwat both ethnically and culturally and would probably self-identify as "Orthodox" first of all (but also as "Russkie"), a larger country started to be called Russia not only by its own people, but by the world too,

As for two opposing claims: "Lithuanian and Ruthenian szlachta had exactly the same rights as Polish speaking one" or "ruthelessly prosecuted", I invite all parties to visit the Kostomarov article in WP and read a discussion I had with another editor at its talk:Nikolay Kostomarov page. Better yet is to consult Kostomarov's 3-volume History (I am not sure what translations were made, but the RU version is online and links to Ostrogsky and Mogila chapters are provided at Kostomarov talk). Kostomarov was not a Russian Imperialist whatsoever, as main participants here undoubtly know. I would also invite all editors to look at the articles linked from there and you will certainly enjoy reading the chapters of his History. Cheers, --Irpen 08:34, August 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that 'Russia' is broadly correct and could be used for Muscovy; however, Muscovy is more specific and links to the more relevant historical period. For the same reason I advocate using Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Second Polish Republic or People's Republic of Poland and other names from Template:Polish statehood instead of Poland, unless referring to the lastest post-1989 history. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, and using Muscovite Russia, whenever possible would be both correct and acceptable to everyone, I think. --Irpen 09:21, August 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. This should also help educating those people who never heard of 'Muscovy' name. Perhaps you could use a bot to go through Wiki and make those changes? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

date?
Polish Wiki article gives the date for the signing of the treaty as 3 January 1618. This article presently states 11 December 1619. Google search in Polish language shows about 75% sources for 1618, and 25% for 1619. PWN encyclopedia states that the truce was signed in 1618 and *begun* in 1619, but don't give any dates. My current hypothesis: it has been signed on 11Dec1618, and begun in 3Jan1619. Any respectable sources to verify my guess? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Or maybe it's some calendar/date shift issue? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)