Talk:Grand Duchy of Lithuania/Archive

message: This chapter is written from Russian point of view. There is no reason why such a big country as Russia should stay unified thrugh history. I think we shall write more about GDL itself, rather then see it through the impact on Russia.
Cautious 13:28, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not so big at these times. Siberia, Northern Caucasus/Stavropol, Caspian steppes, etc. were added way later. Mikkalai 01:12, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy 

message: One of the most crucial effects of Lithuania's power was upon Ruthenia. Of great import was the division of the East Slavs.  The East Slavs had, until the Mongol conquest, been unified in one state, that of Kievan Rus.  The Mongols attempted to keep the East Slavs unified and succeeded in conquering virtually all of the former Rus lands, but half of them were soon seized by Lithuania.  This separation of the East Slavs among two outside powers created substantial differences that persist to this day.  While during Kievan Rus there were certainly substantial regional differences, it was the Lithuanian annexation of much of southern and western Rus that lead to the permanent division between Ukrainians, Belarusians, and Russians.  Without the presence of a strong empire it is likely that Kyiv, Minsk, and other now non Russian cities would have been as thoroughly annexed to Russia as Novgorod, a city which also had strong regional differences to Vladimir-Suzdal', but ones that were erased by total Muscovite regional domination.  
Lithuania brought the Ukraine and Belarus into much closer relations with the Western Europe and this lead to distinct cultural and linguistic differences between them and Russia.
1. This is not a philosophical essey but an encyclopedia based of FACTS. History as science does know words that something WOULD BE. 
2. Claim that GDL "created" Belarusian and Ukrainian nations has no founds. For example political separation of Red Ruthenia from other Ukrainian lands did not created a separate "nation". The same about Carpathian Ruthenia: this area was politically isolated from ther Ruthenian lands for 1000 years but it did not ceased ethnic connection with present day ethnic Ukrainians.
3. The claim that unification of Rus' by Moscow was historically determinated is a non sense. 
4. POV that the true Rus' was Moscow Rus' is biased. As far as I know inhabitans of 15th or 16th century Rus' had different opinion.
5. The serious ethnic and linguistical differences between different parts of Rus' were substantial even before 14th century and can not be reduced to influence of GDL. For example ethnic border between Belarusian and Ukrainian languages do not cover with any historical border and exists much longer than GDL.Yeti 13:55, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Legacy

message: On
“The word "conquest", although it's used often by international (especially Anglo-American) and Lithuanian historians, is not the most proper word to describe the process by which the Grand Duchy of Lithuania united the lands of White Ruthenia. It is worth noting that both peoples, the forefathers of modern Lithuanians and modern Belarusians, called themselves "Lithuanians" in their own tongue (respectively lietuviai in Lithuanian and litvins in Belarusian).” 
It's necessary to put a comment on it. This sentence was a bit out of context. And, there are analogous expressions (at least two) in this article, where is said that the unifying was more peaceful than military. I think it might be replaced. However, if You think, that it is very important here, revert it. It doesn't cost an editing war, not being totally false. The next point about the name of Lithuanians is dubious. Facts show that such usage of Lithuanian as You suggest was unpopular if it existed at all. Name Lithuanian(s) in old texts refers to: 1) Lithuanians, Lithuanian speaking people of the G. D. L. or Prussian state (Prussia). 2) Lithuanian nobles, i. e. Slavic speaking catholic nobles, who considered themselves Poles. After Polish national movement had grew in the 18th  - 19th centuries the second usage was repudiated by nobles ( except minority of them, later called by others ones litwomans), who started call themselves simply Poles. This development lead to present usage of Lithuanian. It's even laughable thing, that after 16 or 17 century Slavic persons from former Duchy (both Poles and Belarusians) categorically don't want to be even similar to Lithuanians, but they often pretend to the name. The reality is, that even if somebody was called Lithuanian being Pole or Russian, when aboriginal Lithuanians still exist, he was naturally referred with these Lithuanians. Such situations like one with Romanians (Romania) are possible in the world, but only when aboriginal root nation has no more exist. 
Linas 11:24, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
At this form  it might sound, that only true "litvins" vere belorussians (which is not true) and "lietuviai" were not part of that term. That suggestion is supported by the link "litvins", which points to  "belorussians" term. In that form lies some elements of modern belorussian nationalistic interpretation of the GDL origins. 
--Lokyz 00:03, 2005 July 13 (UTC)
::I think there should be done a separate chapter or even a separate article about the "heritage" of GDL. As Mikkalai said here, this might be very hard to get an agreement on as there are different versions. What needs to be done is to put these versions in one place and:
::*Write the claims of each version sorted by the type of these claims (e.g. first about chancery language, then about on lands of which nation the state actually started, then about nationality of rulers and how they used to assimilate, then about what first capital was, etc.)
::*Together with claims, mention on what documents or facts they are based. This is very important, becaus ethere are various nationalist versions on all sides which are based by various minor documents which might be interpreted in several ways. This is exactly what makes this discution hard because some articles takes one POV and does not explains on what it is based (e.g. that first capital was Navahradak) and so the reader is unable to decide where there is more truth. And on discutions for example Belarusian might link to some nationalist website where it is written that Navahradak was first capital of GDL, then a Lithuanian might link to a site giving information taht the capitals were Voruta, Kernavė and Trakai and they will never agree, as none of the sites will give sources so they'll just call each other nationalists. Therefore sources are very important.
::*If there are counterarguements to the claim on any of the other sides, mention them.
::At the end it would also be possible to mention better books and articles about GDL and which of the sides they support, also main historians and their opinions. Of course, this would take time to write, and I tried to write it but decided to stop because I am clearly having too few information about for example what documents supports Belarusian POV, I am not very knowldgable of exact documents supporting Lithuanian or Polish POVs either. Therefore maybe if there is someone who knows more about these things and is notseeing just one nationalistic idea could write more. Then that sentence which Linas mentioned would be moved from first paragraph to taht paragraph about the heritage of GDL.DeirYassin 21:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision 

message: Was Lithuanian indeed used as a chancery language of GDL ? Lysy 15:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: chancery languages

message: Zivinbudas is insisting that the GDL had a separate government. What was the government of GDL then? Halibutt 22:03, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
What time period? We know that gdl had a separate government during its personal union with Poland, it had chancellors etc, and sometimes even a separate grand duke. And of course it had its own government until Jegello's accession to Polish throne. Is the question about a separate government after the full union with Poland in late 16th century and afterwards? I think even then the gdl had certain separate functionaries - it could be called a separate government... 217.140.199.247 17:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Government 

message: The Grand Duchy of Lithuania began its rise to great power status under the reign of the king Mindaugas (or Mindoŭh in Belarusian) beginning in 1238. 
Mindaugas was crowned in 1253
GIt is misunderstanding to state yea at this historical period - maybe it should be said something about begining of XIII century ?  
Mindaugas was very important factor, but sure not main.
::12th century here is clearly a misunderstanding - even if there was a state in 12th century it was not called Grand Duchy. The theory that Lithuanian state might have been formed in 12th century is not very strong and disputed by historians. It is so called "Netimer Lithuania" mentioned in sources about first attempts to christianize Lithuania. 
nobody speaks about XII century, year 12** is XIII-th century
In Lithuanian historiography title Grand Duchy is used for the state in XIV century, for the earlier period - Duchy of Lithuania or at Mindaugas times - Kingdom of Lithuania. Dirgela 07:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  About begining of GDL 

message: These lands - Volyn and Halych were part of GDL, I think it should be mentioned why for a half century dukes of GDL still were speking about them as lands of GDL (first statute of GDL (codecs of law) in these lands was still valid until the breakup of Rzecpospolita Obojgo Narodow). And someone should point, that map in this article is late XVIth century, after 1569 "personal" Lublin Union, when "Polish Krown" had annexed Halych and Volyn, formerly part of GDL. 
This (union and annexation) was done because of GDL weakness in fighting against muscovites, and raised debates for many cenutries to come. There are loads of arguments, whether GDL because of this union ceased to exist, or it still had it's money, army and treasure, but nowadays most arguments tend to support that issue.
P.S. At least, the whidespread map should state century it is representing. If none would argue, i'd say it is after 1569 union.  And, i'd like to see another one, before 1569 union. 
--Lokyz 01:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volyn and Halych 

message: Perhaps you may be interested in commenting at Talk:Polish-Lithuanian-Muscovite_Commonwealth, although the discussion may better belong at Talk:Polish-Lithuanian_Commonwealth.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 06:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If any Lithuanian editors (or other readign this page) are intereasted in this question, see Talk:Polish-Lithuanian-Muscovite_Commonwealth#equality_and_religious_tolerances_in_Polish-dominated_federations. Whatever consensus is reached there will likely affect the PLC article and many others.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was PLC dominated by Poles? 

message: Again there is rise of disputable Belorussian historian Ermalovich fans "litvans" activity - people who do not even consider an opportunity to register, to participate.--Lokyz 17:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belorussian POV'ed attack 

message: http://viduramziu.lietuvos.net/etno/gudavicius-en.htm - in English   
    
http://viduramziu.lietuvos.net/etno/merkys-ru.htm - in Russian   
    
http://viduramziu.lietuvos.net/etno/gudavicius2-ru.htm - in Russian   
    
http://viduramziu.lietuvos.net/etno/nasevic-by.htm - In Belorusan 
Why did you, M.K., delete my comments?
:Is it relly need to be here, because now we donot have need to use these, then time come we will use them too M.K. 18:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something for Belarusans