Talk:Vytautas

Untitled

 * /Archive

Explanation needed
Maed! Please explain what you wanted to say with this:

''< with the title didysis kunigaikštis which would be translated as High King according to the contemporary perception. The later construct for its translation is Grand Duke (for its etymology, see Grand Prince).>'' M.K. 20:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC) “de facto” religion is provided as “Romuva”, which is a modern neopagan movement in Lithuania having nothing to do with Vytautas times. There are no sources provided which would document that Vytautas was adhering to pagan religion after his baptism. Title as a “King” is very debatable as well since Vytautas was never legally coronated.

Birth place
Well, actually Vytautas was born in Trakai, but not the current geographical location known as Trakai, but rather in a place that was also called "Trakai", and that was renamed as "Senieji trakai" (Old Trakai). A monastery was later built on the older location. Because of this renaming there is occasional confusion. 

Kunigaikstis
Please clarify the question in Talk:Jogaila. `'mikka (t) 23:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The Great?
I won't discuss Vitovt/Vytautas question, cause it's allready talked in archives. But the fact remains: you won't find in sources of 13-14 centuries name Vytautas. The same is with "the Great" - Vytautas became "the Great" only in 1920-1939 in Lithuania, when he was declared a national hero, even a bit a cult of a person. In 1930 was a Vytautas mania years, boys were named Vytautas. --82.135.217.70 18:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There were no Lithuanian language chronicles at all, that is the case. Surprisingly, the boys are named Vytautas even today, and I know some :) Iulius 20:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Cult of Vytautas appeared in preWWI and interbellum years, please translate from lithuanian "Amþiaus pradþioje iðsikristalizuoja ir stipraus valdovo kultas, persmelktas romantinio individualizmo (V. Krëvës „Ðarûnas“, 1911, garsus pastatymas Valstybës teatre 1929; vëliau „Skirgaila“, 1916–1924, B. Sruogos „Milþino paunksmë“, 1932). Supaprastinta romantinë istorijos traktuotë, atliepianti jaunos nacionalinës valstybës ideologinius poreikius, ásigalëjo tarpukario laikais skatinama efektingø masiniø renginiø 6. Stereotipiniø „garbingos senovës“ vaizdiniø ideologinës eksploatacijos kulminacija tapo Vytauto Didþiojo mirties 500 metø jubiliejaus minëjimas 1930 m., palikæs neiðdildomø pëdsakø lietuviø vaizduotëje" "Palyginti neseniai - Lietuvos prieškaryje - vėl plačiai pasklinda, ar, tiksliau, yra paskleidžiamas Vytauto mitas. Pasak Lietuvos istorijos instituto doktoranto Dangiro Mačiulio, šis mitas padėjo įteisinti autoritarinę Antano Smetonos valdžią." --82.135.217.96 12:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I also do not see the need to include "the Great" within the article title. As per our naming conventions, "If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used, and there is then no need to disambiguate by adding Country." I do not see how this individual is overwhelmingly known in English as "the Great". Additionally, it should be mentioned that he has also been known in English language publications as Witold. Olessi 20:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think "the Great" in this case is more like a last name, you could probably say Vytautas Kestutaitis or Vytautas Gedminaitis, but most of the people won't understand you. Now if you remove "the Great" at all, and call Vytautas only, you have other problem, because boys are named Vytautas in Lithuanian even today it brings a confusion which one are you talking about (Is it Vytautas the Great? Is it Vytautas Landzbergis? Is it some other Vytautas?). I think in these days it's most commonly used form. Tautvydas 15:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

When he is referenced to, it is mostly as Vytautas the Great. Example from Encyclopaedia Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Vytautas-the-Great An example from a source like this should suffice to justify the usage of this form of the name. As Tautvydas rightly mentioned, otherwise it is unclear to which person we are referring. The citation that Olessi is referring to means a choice between adding or not adding the name of the country, in this case "of Lithuania". That citation does not talk about adding or not adding "the Great". Maiden of the lilies (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Showing one source does not justify it. Show 10 sources that say it and then it might get changed. "the Great" is not a surname and cannot be referred to as such. If someone does not know what "Kiejstutowicz" or "Kęstutaitis" is then that person should do more research on it. In addition, writing in an old discussion, which took place ~13 years ago is not a good idea since people would not bother to look at it. Creating a new section for that would be a better solution. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Approaching Good article status
Just a quick note: Editors may wish to take a look at What is a good article? as it appears that this article may meet several criteria.--DO11.10 02:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Rename
I would like to know rationale for the article rename, thanks M.K. (talk) 11:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

restored...
...text removed by anon.radek (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Postulated King?
Does he ever used those titles? I am pretty sure he naver officialy used title of "postulated king of Lithuania", I am not sure about Hussites. Marcelus (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Vytautas ? Why not Witold ?
Hello everyone Could you please provide a reference where ‘Vytautas’ mentioned ? I suppose it is contemporary Lithuanian rename which is not proved by sources Then I suggest change the name because Vitaūt is not just belong to contemporary Lithuanian historiography but to Belarusian also. Thanks Andrej (Belarus) (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * His real name Alexandre Vitoldus in translation Alexandre Strong his mother was likely Viking, Norway, becouse Vi taldus means strong that my discovery Александр Макович (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

I see that someone added links to the text and wrote that it is the fact that ‘Vytautas’ spoke in Lithuanian. Just want to be clear, please, do not share fakes! There is a part of this linked text: “ Ar Jogailaičiai kalbėjo lietuviškai? Šis klausimas buvo labai aktualus tarpukariu, įdomus ir šiandien. „Nėra jokių liudijimų, išskyrus vieną užuominą J. Dlugošo „Lenkijos kronikose“, kur aprašydamas Lucko suvažiavimą, nuo kurio ir prasidėjo Vytauto vainikavimo istorija, jis mini, kad Jogaila su Vytautu tarpusavy kalbėjosi sava kalba“, – sako prof. dr. G. Mickūnaitė. Ji pasakoja, kad šį klausimą labai rimtai sprendė tarpukario Lietuvos istorikai, jiems tai buvo svarbu, nes manyta, kad tik lietuviškai kalbantis asmuo gali būti lietuvis: „Tuomet manyta, kad Jogailos pirmoji kalba lietuvių ir su Vytautu jie kalbėjosi tik lietuviškai, Jogailos sūnus Kazimieras dar kalbėjo lietuviškai, Aleksandras, manoma, suprato, bet jau nekalbėjo. Tiesa, nėra šaltinių šioms interpretacijoms pagrįsti.“

[5] Statkuvienė, Regina. "Jogailaičiai. Kodėl ne Gediminaičiai?". 15min.lt (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 9 November 2018.”

1. There is no any clear mentions that he spoke. 2. Even he really spoke, it is could be not contemporary Lithuanian. 3. Dlugosh was not a servant at duke court at the time of Vitaut, and he was a historic with own ‘ideology’. It is not a truthful historical document.

I think you do not have any sources and the name of duke should be changed. The history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania doesn’t belong to contemporary Lithuania but to Lithuania and Belarus (and before Lublin to Ukraine too) that’s why we should speak in understandable historical language to avoid any misunderstanding and aggressive historical nationalism. Thanks. Andrej (Belarus) (talk) 08:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

P. S. I read all your texts that you put to archive. Anyway, we did not come to any common understanding. My suggestion is to rename his name to Latin version as an official language in GDL (despite the Ruthenian) and more neutral. As Lithuanian colleagues mentioned, there is Vytautas because of Google covering the name is more widespread but it is more un-historical thing that I ever heard. 600 years passed, our ancestors from GDL had names which are now unused (or not so usual). Andrej (Belarus) (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I built dynasty of VITOLT(Vitautas)[edit source]
 * 50508 Prince Palemo relative of Roman Cesar Nero took took 500 famalies on ships went to Baltic sea and settle on river Neman went up.The was 4 major houses Dospungus coat of arm Kitovras,Prosperce Cesarin coat of arm Kolumni or Primus,Korsinus coat of arm Ulianus,Hecktor coat arm Rosey.First Dynasty was Prince Palemo it ended on Voycelk who was kiled in monasrtry. 1 Palemo-2 Kunos-3 Gimbrutus-4 Montvil-5 Radivil(Erdvil)-6 Mikgayla-7 Skirmont-8 Troynut-9 Algimont-10 Ringolt-11 Mendog-12 Voyselk-chang of dynasty to Dovspungus Coat of arm Kitovras 1 Zhivibund-2 Kunovoyt-3 Utenes-4 Svintorog 5 Germont-6 Altimin-7 Ranut-8 Narimont-9 Troyden-10 Ginvil- he went to monastry change of dynasty to Coat of arm Kolumni(Primus) 1 Viten- 2 GEDEMIN(KGEDEMIN)-3 Evnut removed by 4 Kestut+Olgerd both-5 Skirgaylo-6 Yagaylo -7 Vitolt(Vitautas)-8 Svidrigaylo (ovethrown mooved to rule Rus lands Kiev)-9 Zhigimont-10 Kazimir-11 Alexand(remooved to be King of Poland)-12 Zhigimont-August(mooved to be King of Poland)-13 Zhigimont(Son of Zhigimont old) Poland incorporated Duchy of Lithuania, Rus and Zhmont but Duchy had separate army and money and constitution CONFEDERATION
 * http://litopys.org.ua/psrl3235/lytov07.htm Александр Макович (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

If anyone has any questions about why it should be Vytautas and not anything else
This website clearly explains why it is Vytautas and not anything else.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

"Postulated King of Hussites"?
What does the claim of Vytautas as being "postulated as the king of the Hussites" mean? It is well-known that he was offered the crown of Bohemia by the Jan Žižka, but responded that he would accept only on the condition that they reunited themselves with Latin Catholicism. This was refused by Žižka and his Hussites, and he never took the crown. I prepose this claim ought either to be deleted or substantially revised. Zusty001 (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course it should be removed, we don't include claims within titulature. I was going to remove it long time ago, but didn't want to cause another controversy Marcelus (talk) 07:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)