Talk:John of Bohemia

message: In the first paragraph it is said, he was Count of Luxemburg vom 1309, however, on the box on the right it is said from 1313.
Which is correct?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.219.26.121 (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates mixed up? 

message: ==== Here they are, for anyone to interrogate, change, or put back ====
*John was French by education, but deeply involved in the politics of Germany, taking part in the wars between the Wittelsbachs and the Habsburgs on the side of the former.
For me, his main concern in German politics was to further the Luxembourg cause against the Bavarian Wittelsbachs, though he allied with the Palatine Wittelsbachs, one of whom his son married. He did quarrel with Hapsburgs, but he sided with one branch of the Wittelsbachs which was at war with another branch. His son was set up as anti-king to the Wittelsbach Louis IV in the year John died. It was more complicated, I feel, than the sentence allows.
*The object of the hostility of the Czech nobility, however, he gave up the administration of Bohemia and embarked on a life of travel, spending time in Luxembourg and the French court. He did try to make Prague a centre of chivalry like the round table of Camelot of Arthurian legend.
I left the first part of this alone, though I wasn't sure about it (it's true that he was an absentee king, but I don't believe he gave up the administration of Bohemia; he started some major building projects there, for example, which made a considerable impact. His administration held firm, despite the chaos that preceded his reign, and he built a power base in Prague).
The second part, about Camelot, sounds fanciful to me. But if there is a source for this, I think it should be mentioned.
*For all this, he is an enigmatic figure: a blind knight-errant, warrior and diplomat, cosmopolitan and educated.
For me there's nothing enigmatic about a fouteenth-century king being the last four things. John certainly has an air of chivalry about him at Crécy in Froissart's account (though he is described as "nigh blind" and couldn't possibly have been totally blind — as someone above pointed out — if he was riding into battle and wellying opponents with his sword), but I'm not sure if "knight-errant" is the precise historical term required.
:--qp10qp 02:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I cut some statements that didn't feel right 

message: *John was French by education, but deeply involved in the politics of Germany, taking part in the wars between the Wittelsbachs and the Habsburgs on the side of the former.
For me, his main concern in German politics was to further the Luxembourg cause against the Bavarian Wittelsbachs, though he allied with the Palatine Wittelsbachs, one of whom his son married. He did quarrel with Hapsburgs, but he sided with one branch of the Wittelsbachs which was at war with another branch. His son was set up as anti-king to the Wittelsbach Louis IV in the year John died. It was more complicated, I feel, than the sentence allows.
*The object of the hostility of the Czech nobility, however, he gave up the administration of Bohemia and embarked on a life of travel, spending time in Luxembourg and the French court. He did try to make Prague a centre of chivalry like the round table of Camelot of Arthurian legend.
I left the first part of this alone, though I wasn't sure about it (it's true that he was an absentee king, but I don't believe he gave up the administration of Bohemia; he started some major building projects there, for example, which made a considerable impact. His administration held firm, despite the chaos that preceded his reign, and he built a power base in Prague).
The second part, about Camelot, sounds fanciful to me. But if there is a source for this, I think it should be mentioned.
*For all this, he is an enigmatic figure: a blind knight-errant, warrior and diplomat, cosmopolitan and educated.
For me there's nothing enigmatic about a fouteenth-century king being the last four things. John certainly has an air of chivalry about him at Crécy in Froissart's account (though he is described as "nigh blind" and couldn't possibly have been totally blind — as someone above pointed out — if he was riding into battle and wellying opponents with his sword), but I'm not sure if "knight-errant" is the precise historical term required.
:--qp10qp 02:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here they are, for anyone to interrogate, change, or put back 

message: I have no sources to back this up at present. But long before John became count he was crusading with the Teutonics (auxilliary, he obviously did not join the order) in the east (Poland and modern day Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia). I believe even as count and king he spent some campaigns there. He was not travelling to Poland for fun (as one might believe from the article right now). I will see whether I can find material to back this up (and in exactly which role he crusaded and during which years). Another point, he was a quite prominent jouster (and host for jousts) and of course loved battle. Lastly, if there is an interest I can go take a picture of his toombstone and add something about the transfer of his body to Luxembourg in the past century (19OO's, I just don't recall when this happened which is why I have to use a silly "past century" term:-(). Lastly, I'm adding the Luxembourgish name.--Caranorn 19:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crusading, Teutonic order... 

message: How did John depose him? Was it since Elisabeth was the elder sister of Anna Premyslid (Henry's wife) and thus gave him a better claim to the throne? What were the official rules of succession in Bohemia regarding such cases? Were there any? Top.Squark (talk) 09:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea, until now I wasn't even aware of this. From the German articles it seems like Anna was the oldest daughter of Wenceslas III. I'm not sure what sucession clauses were in practice for Bohemia, possibly there was no transmission at all through the female line and the throne automatically reverted (Bohemia was a vassal of the Roman Empire/German Kingdom). In any case, John and Elisabeth seem to have had the support of the Bohemian nobility and clergy. John was granted the crown by his own father, then Emperor of Rome. Then he marched to Bohemia under arms and was finally crowned king at Prague. Note, I don't find in out various articles whether Henry was ever actually crowned king of Bohemia. On the other hand I seem to find an explanation, the Bohemian Kingdom seems to have been elective, or at least have become elective after the death of Wenceslas III. So John was elected which explains the Bohemian delegation petitioning Henry VII to place his son John on the throne...--Caranorn (talk) 11:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henry I of Bohemia 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John of Bohemia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120612014408/http://users.ox.ac.uk/~tayl0010/history.htm to http://users.ox.ac.uk/~tayl0010/history.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: I don't know how you feel but as a Luxembourger i don't really like using the Name John of Bohemia as naming for this page, even though i get it that the title of King (of Bohemia) is higher than his other titles and that he frequently used that name himself.
That being said let me assure you that i'm also not advocating for calling it John of Luxembourg, but in my opinion the vast majority of people know him best as John the Blind.
In Luxembourg nobody would ever call him something else than Jang de Blannen, also in Germany he is frequently known as Johann der Blinde. Even in the Czech Rep. he is not known as John of Bohemia but as Jan Lucembursky (John of Luxembourg).
I would recommend to rename the page "John the Blind". 
Many tourists in Luxembourg, when visiting his tomb, want to research John the Blind in Wikipedia and are very confused to be directed to a page called John of Bohemia... 
Also there seems to be no one else in history with the Name John the Blind, making this situation (maybe) clearer ?
What do you think ?
Letzebuergerr  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Letzebuergerr (talk • contribs) 15:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming the page "John the Blind" ? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The Siege of Medvėgalis was significant, and should be mentioned. In that article it says he was in Lithuania three times. Victor Grigas (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  There should be more about crusades in Lithuania