Talk:Vytautas/Archive

False Name of Vitovt the Great
The fictional name Vytautas is the form used in the modern day Lithuania, a country ethnically, linguistically, and geographically different from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL). GDL consisted of lands of Belarus, some parts of Ukraine, Russia, and Poland. The present day Lithuania was a small North-Western portion of this land.

During the life of Vytautas his actual name was Vitovt Alexander, as the dominant language in the Grand Duchy was the old version of Belarusian. The version Vytautas was invented by Lithuanian historians in the beginning of the 20th century as an attempt to show connection between GDL and today's Lithuania.

Thus, this article violates the neutrality principle, and abuses feelings of Belarusians and Ukrainians who claim Vitovt the Great as their Duke. Though I do not deny the right to call Vitovt Vytautas in the modern Lithuanian, this version cannot be used in the multi-national Wikipedia as his official name. Max Kanowski 04:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it is not as simple as you make it seem. There are many names for this person: Polish, Ruthenian, Belarusian, Russia, Ukrainian ones - and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania under this ruler incorporated lands of every of those nations or their part. All names are written in bold at the start of the article, redirects exists from each of the names to this article. Because there are many names, we cannot just pick one - of course, Poles will want to pick the Polish name, Belarusians - Belarusian, Lithuanians - Lithuanian and so on. Instead, we have to see what name is more applicable, and, as it is *English* wikipedia, what name is more used. Now, in Google for example, your proposed name Vitovt receives only 23.500 hits (most of them non-English), Vitovt Alexander receives no hits at all. Vytautas receives over two million hits - not all of them are related however, but Vytautas the Great and Vytautas Magnus together still receives over 100.000 primarilly English hits (and, of course, this grand duke is not always called "the great" or "magnus", so those are far from all hits). So, this indicated more popular name in English for this rler is indeed Vytautas, and this is English encyclopedia. None of the names were inventented by historians - all of them are what people of the respective nationality used to call their rulers all the time. Another question that you raise is a "moral one" - that is, what name these dukes *should* be called. Here again, understand that there was *no* nationalism in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. There was no official language as we understand it now - Ruthenian and Latin, later Polish and Latin were used to write various things such as laws, but the absolute majority of people (same a sin other countries at the time) were illiterate. And, of course, spoken business wasn't carried out in Latin or Ruthenian everywhere, but, depending on place, in the local language (be it Russian, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Lithuanian, Samogitian, Polish, Tatar, etc.). And the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was established at the territories inhabitted by then pagan Lithuanians, from where it expanded; the ruler families thus were also Lithuanian. However, as there was no nationalism by the time, it should be noted that if Lithuanian dukes were moving from ethnic Lithuania to ethnic Slavic lands, they usually used to adopt local language and religion and vice versa. Therefore, it would be indeed illogical if we would name *all* the local dukes in Lithaunain language. But this is not doen - now Wikipedia has a very good practice where those are more related to the Belarusians or Ukrainians nations are called in the respective names, the leaders that were related to ethnic-Lithuanian lands are called in the Lithuanian names while the leaders after the Polonization are reffered by Polish names (and, of course, redirects exist from every other name). This practice should stay, else we will get into countless revert wars. Burann 10:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, Google search is good indeed, so just count how much you will receive for "Witold"… “Just” about 3.000.000.--Torden 23:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow
Rarely have I heard a non-English speaking person, and of non-Lithuanian heritage put it more fairly and concisely than Buran just did. Dr. Dan 22:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you Burann 17:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Response to Buran
Indeed, this all seams logical. At this very point of time. Just answer me only one question: what shall we do when the number of hits for Vitovt in Google exceeds the one for Vutautas?

Following your logic we will need to change the name back to Vitovt. Something tells me that it won't be a long wait. Max Kanowski 22:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, regardless of its imperfection, the Google hit ratio is an important indicator of which form is most widely used in English. --Lysytalk 01:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said however, the number of Google hits (which, by the way, should only be counted for usages of the word in the English pages, not in general, as this is English wikipedia) isn't of course the *only* means to decide what name we should use, we have common sense as well. I bet that probably for many leaders of the GDL, even older ones, who lived prior the polonization, the Polish name might be more used than Belarusian or Lithuanian ones - simlpy because there are more Poles, larger Polish diaspora, and because Poland stayed an independent country during the Cold War there were generally more Polish influence over world historians than Belarusian or Lithuanian influence. However, that does not means we should use Polish names everywhere. There is *common sense*, and we are not going to name some ruler who lived all his life in Belarus and ruled some local land in any other language than Belarusian of course. Burann 17:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * One correction: Poland did not stay an independent country during the Cold War. Soviet Army was present on Polish territory al the time. --Lysytalk 18:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Now you totally confused me. Google is good, but not good enough. You say:
 * ...we are not going to name some ruler who lived all his life in Belarus and ruled some local land in any other language than Belarusian of course...

So, by saying that you assume that Vitovt was not a Belarusian ruler.

- Regardless the fact that the original lands named Litva (Lithuania) all without exception were within the territory of the nowadays Belarus;

- Regardless the fact that all his life Vitovt, as well as the majority of other citizens of the Grand Duchy, spoke Old Belarusian during the entire life and probably did not know a word in any Baltic language;

- Regardless the fact that Belarusian lands made the core of the Grand Duchy through its entire history;

- Regardless the fact that it were the lands of the present day Lithuanians that were conquered by Mindoug, lost, and later re-conquered by his son Voishalk in 1263-1264. Unlike the present-day Belarusian lands which never fought against the GDL, and joined it peacefully. Both before the conquest of the Balts and after that conquest;

- Regardless the fact the Vitovt himself presented Zhamoizt (present-day Lithuania) to the Teutonic knights;

- Regardless the fact that he called himself Vitovt. His farther called him Vitovt, and everyone in those times called him Vitov;

- Regardless many many many other facts....

You think that Vitovt was not a Belarusian duke, a Belarusian ruler??....

Well, I do not know what to say... I guess, that the last thing left for you to prove here is that the Vitovt's surname was Landsbergis. This would be more consistent with your desire to create the modern Lithuanian history from nothing.

I am not asking you to call Vitovt in the nowadays Belarusian, this would make him Vitawt which is as false as the nowadays-Lithuanian Vytautas. I just want you to respect this outstanding guy and name him by his own name.

Sometimes I think that Vitovt made a huge mistake. He should have left those ungrateful Balts in the hands of the Germans. Maybe they would extinguish them all then, so we would not need to fight for his legacy now.Max Kanowski 01:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I am not trying to say what nationality he was. In fact, trying to find him ethnicity now is similar to calling Caesar Italian (which *might* be true, but still such assetion would be not encyclopedic). I said there are two ways to identify what form of name to use, one of them is widespread in English language and second is common sense. You, however, say many unprovable assumptions. There are no proves that this ruler spoke Belarusian all his life - chancery languages (used for writting) differed from the native language of ruler by the time, remember that all Europe used latin but that doesn't means everybody's native language was latin. As well, the first lands of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were not just the lands of modern-day Belarus - the first areas of duchy were in eastern Lithuania and western Belarus (I see the kind of map you provided (the one of early GDL) for the first time even though I saw many maps of early GDL - on what historical documents this map is based?). Of course, he is called Vitovt in written Ruthenian sources as this is the Ruthenian form of his name. Similarly, he is called Witold in written Polish sources as this is the Polish version of his name. As for the Samogitia (Zhmuzdzh), this is not whole present day Lithuania (only western part of it); in fact, Samogitians and Lithuanians by the time were considered to be different nations (Samogitian language is quite different from Lithuanian as well) and only latter both groups assimilated into a single nation. Similarly, nobody knows what langage the majority of GDL inhabittants *spoke* (there were no censuses about that or statistics). And indeed Samogitia has been many times lost and reconquered by GDL - but not so for Lithuania-proper. What I said is merely that as for rulers who had ruled local Belarusian lands, we will always use Belarusian names; for rulers, who ruled local Lithuanian lands, we will always use Lithuanian names, while for broader areas it will depend on situation; however, there is no need to try to put medieval history in the borders of present-day nations... Burann 07:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually there is a historical evidence, that the language that Lithuanians and Samogitians spoke was considered the same. There is a letter written by Vytautas the Great himself, where he says that Lithuanians and Samogitians are the same people, some living in the highland, some in the lowland. Juraune 20:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure! ""one language and one people" Vytautas the Great letter to Emperor of HRE 1420. "I told you it in Lithuanian" Vytautas the Great letter to Jogaila 1429. letters in latin.M.K 19:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Not to mention that ethnic Lithuanians, religiosly defined first as pagans and then as catholics, were always in power in the Grand Duhcy - the Orthodox Belarusians, although made a majority, were for example not allowed to get land by testament, only catholics were allowed. It is considered that the Grand Duchy was christenized when the pagan Lithuanian nation (and the grand duchies' rulers together with them) adopted Christianity, despite of the fact that Slavs of GDL were Christian all the time 193.219.141.198 10:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Burann - thank you for your answer - satisfied. Max Kanowski 23:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

User 193.219.141.198 - stop giving this lie again. You know that the laws prefereble for Catholics existed 1 - because of the Polish pressures, 2 - because of the pro-Rome politics of GDL in some periods of time. It had nothing to do with the Lithuanians. There were as many Ruthenian Catholics, as Orthodox. My mother, for example is a Catholic, yet she is a Belarusian. Max Kanowski 23:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * However, many of the Catholics are Uniates (Greek or Eastern Rite Catholics). This form of catholicism is fairly recent there, it was spread in the times of Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth as an attempt to convert Orthodox population into catholicism. It did not prevailed before late commonwealth times. Burann 23:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Rename Belarus
The last thing I want to mention here just for your information.

You probably do not know yet, but there is a wide-spreading movement in Belarus to rename the country into Grand Litnuania (opposite to Small Lithuania nearby), or another version - the Belarusian Republic of Grand Lithuania.

I am not a proponent of this idea, but I wonder what will be the reaction of you Mr. Lysy, and you Dr. Dan on that fact ;) ? Max Kanowski 01:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

And which language will you use to name Vitovt in this case, Mr. Burann :)? Max Kanowski 01:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I am very sure that won't happen under Alexander Lukashenko; nor do I think that this idea is particularly wide-spread in Belarus. Nor do modern name changes change history. Burann 07:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Max, hopefully you are a very young man (perhaps even a teenager), then some of your ardor and foolish statements can be forgiven. Your many errors about history, your petty and mean-spirited biases, reached a pinnacle when you made the (see above) "statement", ...Vitovt made a huge mistake...ungrateful Balts...extinguish them all... Really. The totally uncalled for reference to Landsbergis might speak of your current political viewpoints. Lots of people in the former "Imperium" known as the Soviet Union, blame Landsbergis and the Balts for igniting the fuse that blew it up, and now dream of its resurrection. Personally, having travelled through, studying and living in the former "Socialist Block", I believe it was the economic inneptiude and unbelievable narrow mindedness amongst hardcore crypto-stalinist Marxists that did the trick. Some of the narrow mindedness that I'm talking about are displayed in your various writings. It will be hard for you to change the English name of Samogitia to Zhamoizt, in the English speaking world. Good Luck! Dr. Dan 14:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Call your Samogitia as you want, trust me - nobody cares on that one.


 * As per Ladsbergis - sorry, it is simply as Ivanov for Russians. I do not know what is the most popular surname in Litva.


 * As per myself - I work in invesment banking in New York. Not a teenager :)


 * As per Lithuanians - as I said - you even do not understand why this disrespectful attitude is bad, and what might be the consequences. My reaction (overreaction?) is just one of them. Max Kanowski 19:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Your remarks speak for themselves. As for your work in New York, it appears that proficiency in the English Language, is not a requirement for the work that you do. "My Samogitia", trust me, is not mine, it's simply a geographical name in English. "Your Zhamoizt", trust me, is not likely to be accepted in the English language, soon. Lastly, (and I'm giving serious thoughts about making this my last involvement in this discussion with you), will zoom in on your," ...- nobody cares on that one." If your future contributions to articles and discussions are mirrored by this one, you can be sure that for many people, they will say " who Max Kalinowski?  -no one cares on that one (sic)." Dr. Dan 02:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You see indeed there are Samogitia and Lithuania, not Žemaitija and Lietuva, but through some reason Vytautas and Mindaugas, not Vitold and Mindoug. Interesting when modern Lithuanian forms were adopted in English? Is not it like from 1920s?--Torden 23:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

To Belarusian nationalist
Read this article:

http://www.laborunion.lt/memorandum/ru/modules/sections/index.php?op=viewarticle&artid=8

And yes Vytautas the Great was not slav.

Reply to a Lithuanian nationalist
I never mentioned that Vitotv was a slav. There are tons of works in Lithuania, Belarus, and Russia which state that the modern-day Belarusians are equally Slavs and Balts. So, many people who live in Belarus today have the same non-slavic blood as Vitovt had. No time to browse internet in search for these articles, I am sure you can do it yourself.

I just want to say that this disrespectful behavior of the Lithuanian Wikipedians is not a healthy attitude. Example - look at the Battle of Grunwald. The most of people who fought in this battle on the GDL side were ancestors of the Belarusians (look at the cities). AND YOU KNOW IT! However, you prefer to show this battle as a Lithuanian victory. And to talk as little about Belarus as possible.

Here is what I will tell you. I have no time to turn all these false statements back. If the Lithuanians have so much spare time, and such a big necessity to revert everything that was written about Belarus - they are welcome. We will get you in the real life. Now if I see a Lithuanian in my field of work, I will at least never help him/her, at most -... you know yourself. I guess you do not understand it. And you underestimate the power of these feelings.

This is how national hatred is born - through such a stupid attitude in some Wikipedia. Trust me, you will reap the results of your attitude later. Tribe. Max Kanowski 18:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to tell that I am a Russian from Latvia, User:Mikkalai who removed mentioning of Old Belarusian from Battle of Grunwald is in fact a Belarusian himself, while User:Dr. Dan's native language is English so I assume he is from USA or UK. The only Lithuanians here are perhaps those few posters who had edited without logging in (the one who signed by his IP address and the one who written the "To Belarusian nationalist..." section). But it is clearly not a nationalist war or something as you see it. Burann 19:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I know that you are Russian, and this post is not for you. Questions to you are a little bit higher. User:Dr. Dan, though living in the US, is a Lithuanian himself, so here you are wrong.

As per these articles - too bad for Lithuanians than. They seam to be satisfied with how they are written. As I said - reap the "benefits".... Max Kanowski 19:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry I did not introduce my self, yes I am from Republic of Lithuania. Secondly I posted very nice academic article; sadly you, as I assume, did not read it.
 * Secondly about Tannenberg it is very nice written; and every groups role in it is very clearly written, it was a fine victory for allies; not for only Lithuanians, nor Polish, nor Tatars;nor for Slavs, but Allies.
 * Thirdly if you want to hear neutral side’s opinion read western books, articles and so on.
 * P.S not nice to edit and remove word “Byelorussian”; this is a word from English vocabulary; I do not want to insult anybody if this word wrong please correct it, but be so kind and say loudly that you made a corrections.

Lithy


 * 1. Thank you for your article. I will read it, but later when I have time for that. By now I looked it through. As far as I understand - critisizm of Yermalovich, right?


 * 2. Sorry for not saying loudly about my correction. I was sure you did not mean to insult anyone, so I allowed myself to silently put it in order. I hoped that at least this word did not matter for you. FYI, you use a Soviet era dictionary. I thought that if it was a "statement" - you will correct me back ;) Max Kanowski 20:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think word Belarusian is more used now (the country is known as Belarus rather than Byelorussia, as was when it was a Soviet Socialist Republic - in Lithuanian language, however, it always was "Baltarusija" (or, now rarely used traditional word "Gudija") so it might be hard to see the difference for some whose native language is Lithuanian. I agree with what was already said by Burann, Dr. Dan and others more or less. I wonder what is still disputed in the article? Is it just name, or something else as well? Good luck. DeirYassin 21:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
Yeah, it is criticism of Yermalovich, but it is common to your case, Max Kanowski, too. Espaecialy by calming Mindaugas conqueror :) and Balts lands. “you use a Soviet era dictionary” oh no, Max Kanowski, I use brand new one which has many versions of Belarus meaning ; why I picked that one – because it was more common to my use that  word. But this is not a case I assume, right? I am very happy that you not allowed your self silently edit topic Vytautas the Great word as you did with my post :)

My attention draw how you tried to backed your case. I not try to quote you word by word, but only one “Belarusian duke, a Belarusian ruler” this is top one :) look at his royal stamp – “…die gra(tia) Ducis Lithwanie alie et cetera” (latin!; yes it is proof of multilanguage usage in Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) ) so as you see he was first of all duke of Lithuania; others like salvs tatars which are not identify as something important  or something as unit. Secondly as you may already know GDL was a multinational empire which used many languages to communicate with; I would not be so sure as you are that Vytautas did not talked in Lithuanian language too. Lithuanian language is the most archaic a live language of indo-European group. Acknowledge that may many very many your sayings of your first post is simply not true; “Sometimes I think that Vitovt made a huge mistake. He should have left those ungrateful Balts in the hands of the Germans. Maybe they would extinguish them all then, so we would not need to fight for his legacy now” these Balts  established Kingdom of Lithuania and later Grand Duchy of Lithuania, gave birth of one of the finest dynasties of al time and so on…..

Never the less some of your post are insulting and I believe that “insults” and nationalist bias are not facts. Sadly to you. But don’t remove or edit them because let every body see which type of arguments your are using. Ok?

Ok lest stick to the name.

@DeirYassin, it is much more just look to, Max Kanowski, “arguments”.

EDIT: "Unlike the present-day Belarusian lands which never fought against the GDL, and joined it peacefully" - you killing your self with your own spear.

Lithy.

Lithy, I would like to see you editing Wikipedia more often. You seem as a very knowledgeable person. I suggest you register an account and help me and other Wikipedians improve the articles related to Lithuania and not only. I believe you have much knowledge to share. A good start could be WP:BSNB. Renata 23:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Max Kalinowski, where did you get that I'm a Lithuanian, living in the United States? Hmmm? Could it be from the same "bag of information", that you get your other facts. Dr. Dan 02:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok. It becomes personal
It looks like instead of discussing Vitovt you prefer to discuss me. How about personal discussions - to personal talk pages.

Burann and Lithy, thank you for you replies. (Lithy, I have a ton of arguments against you, but I need to read your article first) Max Kanowski 03:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
Max Kanowski, I am discussion Vytautas name case. And it linked directly to your case.( maybe you forget that you posted already). Look at your posts – to back your case you publicly wrote those “Regardless the fact…” points as “arguments”, I noted, as I assume everybody a part of you of course, that they are false in almost all cases…… And if you think that is personal, so all your case is based on personal level presumptions….

Max Kanowski, I am sure that you have much more “arguments” then you already posted; and I believe that much more Yermalovich hearsay is still not discussed….

“Lithy, I have a ton of arguments against you” this shows your discussion and your personal skills….

As Burann, kindly explain why this form of name is used.

Secondly this name, as many others, has many forms of it, in Latin Vitowdi, in Japan, Chinese language they write it even more different and complex…

Lithy.

@Renata, I will think about it, ok? :)

EDIT: some of Vytautas the Great name version which were used in chronicales: Witowdi, Witoldus, Woythowdus, Wythowdus.....

What's really the question here?
This seems to be a contest where everyone is saying, "MINE!" "MINE!" "NO, MINE!" and trying to come up with reasons why... let's see, Duchy of Lithuania, today's Belarus was bulk of territory at that time, what was the prevalent language of the time whether written or spoken in court or on the street, etc. etc. It's really quite fascinating what "nationals" try and claim for themselves. After all, most Latvians are quite proud that there's a Bay of Kurzeme in Tobago (and that the Courland Duchy's reign is remembered as one of the more progresive)--though I sincerely doubt that there was an ethnic Latvian in any position of leadership. And so we have it, what's in a name after all? Unless someone can through (non-original) genealogical research argue that Vytautas (ala modern Lithuanian) is Byellorussian/Slavic, then we should leave him to the Lithuanian historians who have laid claim and note alternate historical appelations for anyone interested in doing further research. --Pēters 06:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Historical sources?
It is all very good and interesting but it will be nice if any supporter of Lithuanian (as well as several Belarusian with their “Vitaut”) nationalistic antiscientific researches around Vitold (which is in fact at last HISTORICAL and logical name to be used in English) the Great, could give even a SINGLE historical source since the XV-XVII centuries, where the name of this Grand Duke is mentioned as “Vytautas” (not “Witold” or “Витовт”). I have no idea who was the first “romantic nature” to create the myth about “Vytautas” in the XIX century, but all this Lithuanian demagogue about “Lithuanian nation” in the Medieval times (what a surprise - the first European nation to be!) and similar crazy things without basing on any historical sources is absolutely ridiculous. The academic historical science is based and grounded on historical sources and chronicles, not on somebody’s bad fantasy and empty rhetoric…

Those “arguments” about the toponyms of Lithuaniae and Alba Russiae show the extremely low educational level of the people stating them, because the situation with these names is much more complex as through the history they were very changeable: while Lithuania originally is one of the names of the tribes, which was later assimilated and disappeared; White Ruthenia is original name from Muscovy, Smolensk and Novgorod-Pskov region (XIII-XVI centuries) later, in the early XIX century, adopted to the most of the present-day Belarusian territory.

@ Lithy, Interesting, why you all the time mentioning this unprofessional historians (Jermałovič etc) instead of naming some people, who really contributed a lot to this problem? What about Kraŭcevič or Łowmiański? And what is the point to use in English “Lithuanian” (as it is modern Lithuanian, not this died language of the XI-XIII centuries Lithuanian tribe) variant of the name instead of the Latin one?--Torden 16:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * About "not this died language of the XI-XIII centuries Lithuanian tribe", I have to say, ??????? Just because we don't necessarily have surviving writing doesn't mean something "died." I can read and understand the first written account of Latvian (bad Germanic transliteration and all) from the 16th century much more easily than I can navigate, say Chaucer in English. And so I suspect I could navigate 13th century Latvian too. And a Lithuanian could most likely navigate 13th century Lithuanian as well. Because of all the "foreign" powers in the Baltics at least, many words have been assimilated from other languages, but those are recognizeable as such. The "native" language still remained fairly intact because of the general lack of social interaction between the indigenous peoples and invading powers. You disparage the "low educational level" of others. It would be constructive to the discussions you engage in for you to put up a personal page listing your own interests and qualifications. —Pēters 04:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You see the historical tribe of “Lithuania” (“Leituva”/“Letava”, later transformed to modern term “Lietuva”) was only inhabitants of extremely small territory within the lands of the Aukshtaits and absolutely were not a dominant within the Baltic tribes later formed Lithuanian ethnos and modern Lithuanian nation. http://www.istorija.net/photos/get-photo.asp?photoid=379
 * They indeed played quite important role in ethnic processes here in the XIII-XIV centuries, but later in mutually contradictory processes of interpenetrative assimilation lost their original distinctive language and culture, forming bigger identity together with the neighbor Baltic tribes (saving the same ethnonim - “Lietuva”) and absorbing the Slavic influences (mainly from the towns and their culture). As you pointed there are no sources of these language left, and there is absolutely no way to reconstruct the correct forms of the Lithuanian Grand Dukes’ names in the real grammatical forms of the Lietuva tribe language. In the light of these facts, do you really think it is justified to use some modern language grammar to adopt these names?.. Is not it more logical to use these names in foreign languages (English, Italian, Danish etc) according to the forms from real historical sources (written in Latin and Slavic)?
 * And sorry please if I was harsh first, but I really hate to see all these endless nationalistic quarrels between East Europeans on every forum and place connected with history.
 * PS btw, what did you mean under “13th century Latvian”??..--Torden 23:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

English Language
All this bitterness enveloped in raw nationalism. Has everyone digressed so far from the point that this is about a name that is used in the English language. Its got to be something, and since even Encyclopedia Britannica uses Vytautas today, its simply a question of some people wanting to change it because of their biases, into something else. An analogy would be for an Italian wanting to change the English accepted version of Rome to Roma, because this is its original name. On this question, the train has left the station, and for the record the likelyhood of Vytautas being changed in English, has about as much chance of Grodno being changed to Gardinas. Put in the vernacular, "it ain't gonna happen". Have a nice day. Dr. Dan 15:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, for your information this city is named Hrodna… ;) Seriously, this is not only a one historical case. Then what about “Pahonia” and the XIX century’s Lithuanian modern term “Vytis”?.. Finally, it is quite strange to see that medieval history in most of wiki articles is written from primitive “national” positions. Such as for example in article about Grunwald, where the authors “separated” the Grand Duchy’s army on the modern national principle: “Belarusians”, “Lithuanians”, “Russians”. It is absolutely unrealistic for medieval Europe, which did not have any nations until the end of the XVIII century at all except marginal regional ethnic groups united under the authority of various Crowns. They were considering themselves “French” or “Lithaunians” in mean that they were the subjects to the French king or Lithuanian Grand Duke. There were also “regional” names (such as “Ruthenians”, “Polesians”, Polačans” etc), but this is another issue. --Torden 16:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Torden, you are not rihgt. The language did matter in medieval times, although not in all regions and not in all times. Otherwise, how you would explain for example Dlugosz ranting about Poles living in meklemburg, Polish crown right to Pomorze because Poles live there, and calling Silesians traitors because they, although being Poles, fight against Polish kings. Or the accidents with Czech hussite burning Czech mercenaries who fight under TO, because they became traitors of "Slavic language" ... Szopen 07:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I can agree that language could be considered for the important factor of ethnic identification at this period for certain degree, especially for Poland (but much less for the Grand Duchy). Still, not so long time ago I read Polish historian Tymowski’s analyzes of the medieval Polish kingdom genesis; so he pointed that the factor gens polonica (in medieval understating - native speakers of Polish) was only a secondary and quite insignificant issue in understanding of the original territory and claims of the Polish Crown. The main factor was the lands claimed by the divine right of the Crown: as for example Władysław I Lokietek in 1339 claimed Pomerelia by the argument that these lands were de regno - i.e. occupied lands of his kingdom. So, the terms corona and regno were much more important for Medieval and Early Modern Europe than “ethnicity” or even language IMO…--Torden 23:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Go to an English encyclopedia and see what you'll find under Hrodna. This is the point and you are ignoring it. Look up Rzym and you'll find nothing. Look up Warschau, look up Varshe, and what do you get? Paris got lucky and stayed the same, but they are pronounced entirely differently in English and French. If you want to change the major English encyclopedias (in which you are unable to rant in or edit), I suggest you start a campaign to do so. And my Belarusian friends and I will be amused until you produce results. Dr. Dan 18:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello all. Had a nice work day?

First of all let me answer some questions and make some remarks.

First: @Torden, I do not know from which country you are, but you do not understand Lithuanian language, don’t you? You are not expert-linguist of Lithuanian language, aren’t you? If you have, you should understand many things.

First of all let me explain the word “nation”. In Lithuanian language there are these words which are translated to English identically – “tauta” (closer to ethnos meaning) and “nacija” (nation XIXc.). But these words (“tauta”, “nacija”) are quite different, but they mostly translated to English, as one word -“nation”. So if you notice this “nation” do not imagine an elephant were is no elephant :) in translated text.

Let my ask you - do you understand everything correctly from that map legend (expanded version - http://photobucket.com/albums/d101/no_name_2/?action=view&current=lietuva13.jpg )? Do you know that Aukštaitija (as you wrote Aukshtaits) means and why Lithuanians placed there? Yes in that map you can see Lithuanian tribe as one of Baltic tribes. Yes they had relatively small territory at that period.

“absolutely were not a dominant within the Baltic tribes”

By mater of the land size, yes. But if you trying to say that in that time Lithuanian tribe did not dominate in military and political/social integration level comparing with other tribes – you are totally wrong. So how you came to this conclusion? Simply looked over the map and saw – OH! So small territory they were nothing, they defiantly had to die out - “not this died language of the XI-XIII centuries Lithuanian tribe”, they had defiantly assimilated and disappeared – “Lithuania originally is one of the names of the tribes, which was later assimilated and disappeared”, or because Grand Duchy of Lithuania chancellery was using many languages. And you definitely do not know on with dialect common Lithuanian language is based. XII c. was a big bang to Lithuanian tribe, they successfully not even stopped paying tribute to Slav principalities, but attacked them inflicting big loses to Slavs (1183-84), raids to Slav lands became so intense that the image of Lithuanian was transferred to Slav chronicles and prayers, Lithuanian began not even to attack their closes tribes but and Livonian too. When Lithuanian might arise it was good opportunity expand lands. Some tribes were defeated, some driven out from their lands, some surrendered. And that map of XIII, exactly show so called Lithuanian land confederation (green line) with original positions of the tribe lands. Two blocks – Aukštaičiai and Žemaičiai. And you wrong Lithuanian tribe not lost its customs (no voluntary Christianization yet) or language. Lithuanian customs spread to other tribes (archeological evidence) like custom of burial and so on. By Lithuanian model dialect formed, only Žemaičiai for a while had been autonomous …… Paganism slowly begin to die in Lithuania in XIV c., firmly died out in XVI-XVII c. But even in now days Lithuania we have customs from pagan times. And then talking about culture separate Christian and pagan times.

“you pointed there are no sources of these language left”

Yes you are right if you are talking about medieval written Lithuanian texts, they did not survived. But writing is a part; the spoken language is another part. I do not understand from there you took “not this died language”, but then your begin talking about Lithuanian language have in your head this:

“There is one more very important feature of Lithuania which is impossible to omit. The language which is the most conservative (archaic, Lithy note) in the whole Indo-European family and so one of the closest to the Common Indo-European stage of language. That is why when analyzing Proto-Indo-European we consider Lithuanian examples together with those from Latin, Greek and Hittite.”

“Anyone wishing to hear how Indo-Europeans spoke should come and listen to a Lithuanian peasant. (French linguist Antoine Meillet) More - Lithuanian language have interesting dialects which it preserve all its life.

“do you really think it is justified to use some modern language grammar (leaning to Lithuanian language, Lithy note) to adopt these names”

This “modern” language is used to reconstruct Proto-Indo-European language with parallel with Sanskrit, Latin, old Greek.

This “modern” language is used to translate Old Prussian texts.

This “modern” language is much closer to Latin then most of its direct decadents, and so on.

Ask your self ,Torden, why. And your beloved English language is so far from Latin.

I do not going to deny that during ages language is not chanced, yes it changed – Latin alphabet was expanded, but suffered limited impact and foreign influence, its word structure, word endings, grammatical forms and so on is still the most archaic and intact.

Pēters, you are right Lithuanians quite easily read and understand so called old Lithuanian texts even more - majority of Lithuanian pupil know them by heart:

“Bralei, seseris, imkiet mani ir skaitikiet Jr tatai skaitidami permanikiet. Maksla šito tevai iusu trakždava tureti,

le to negaleia ne venu budu gauti”

Begin to study Lithuanian language history, Torden. And yes Pēters made a very good, straight remark about this.

“Is not it more logical to use these names in foreign languages (English, Italian, Danish etc) according to the forms from real historical sources (written in Latin and Slavic)”

If respected linguist-historian will begin to reconstruct names he would never use those foreign languages (English, Italian, Danish etc) within Latin base.

Secondly, Torden, you asked my –“ why you all the time mentioning this unprofessional historians……”; because - Max Kanowski-used similar and almost identical “arguments” (even placing XVc. Map of Grand Duchy of Lithuania and in it showed borders of modern XXc. Belarusian (Byelorussians in Lithuania we call Gudiai, because we do not like to call our neighbors by color)  Republic and made it as an “argument” to his case)  which used Jarmalovic. You call him unprofessional historian and I could hardly call him a historian. H. Lowmianski is Polish historian (if we talk about same person). I encounter him in several cases. His ideas are interesting, but at least in some cases, he made speedy and hasty conclusions (like TO influence in building Lithuanian state, Aukštaitija case, centers of lands and so on).

But lest stick to the name “problem”.

You, Torden, mension Vitold name. Yes this one but not only his Latin name, it was used on one of his seals too. Other variants in his others seals (latin):

Witawt (seal of 1385)

Vitoldi (seal of 1389)

Vitold (seal of 1390)

Vitowdi (seal of 1413)

Wytowdy (seal of 1415)

Chronicles use these variants of name:

in German documents are: Wytawt, Witholde, Alexander anders Witowdt, Alexander anders Witowt, Alexander anders Witowd, Alexander anders Wytold, Alexander andirs Wytoldt, etc.

In Latin documents: Alexander alias Withowdus, Allexander alias Withawdus, Alexander alias Wytowdus, Alexander alias Witold, Alexander alias Witoldus, etc. (Codex epistolaris Vitoldi)

In Ruthenian documents: usually Vitovt, Vitoft (in other slav, rare)

You don’t see any problem? Buran explained how names are written in wiki, Dr. Dan also showed interesting points. And they made good point.

Sadly I had no time to talk about others matters which was touched in this discussion :( maybe next time with bigger time reserve   !

Have good time. Cya.

Lithy a.k.a. M.K