Talk:Kingdom of Bohemia

message: I propose to remove these sentences: "The fighting changed the face of Bohemia to this day, as it would have a much larger ethnic German populace had they not been forced out." This is simply nonsense. Before Hussite revolution Germans shared something of 15% of entire Bohemian population. Areas traditionally considered as part of Sudetenland (Žatec, Litoměřice, Horšovský Týn) were ethnically Czech just before the Hussite revolution. German populace declined somewhat during Hussite revolution but definitely not so much to change face of Bohemia to this day. 15% of population in the 14th century (ie before Hussites) is definitely much lesser than one fourth of population in 19th and first half of 20th century. Actually proportion of Germans in Bohemian population significantly increased in the late 17th and early 18th century. In this time towns like Horšovský Týn, Žlutice, Žatec, Litoměřice, etc., previously ethnically Czech or mixed became ethnically predominantly German.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.181.34.142 (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Special:Contributions/84.242.103.199|84.242.103.199]]

message: Kingdom of Bohemia was only official name of Bohemia, nothing more. This article needs rework. --84.242.103.199 (talk) 00:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No thats not true Kingdom of Bohemia was official name of czech lands in this years 1085-92, 1158-72, 1198 -1348. In 1348 was created Lands of the Bohemian Crown which gived Bohemia king all lands including Lands of the Bohemian Crown (were under saint Venceslaus crown)  Otakarus (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As there is now a separate entry on the Lands of the Bohemian Crown, this article may be moved. However before their formal incorporation under Charles IV, the Bohemian kingdom did already involve the Moravian march as well as the Silesian Piast duchies and Upper Lusatia as fiefs. I admit that Moravians, Silesians etc. may have set great value upon the statement that they were not "Bohemians" but only subjects of the Bohemian kings. 78.52.204.225 (talk) 11:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Sorry, but

message: What language was mainly spoken in Bohemia? And were the Bohemians German or Slavic people? Pruis (talk) 11:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Czech language. In official documents (charts, chronicles etc.) until the end of 14th century the Latin was used. The patriciate in major towns (i.e. Prague, Kutná Hora, Plzeň, České Budějovice, Kolín, Hradec Králové, Litoměřice, Jihlava, Brno, Znojmo, Olomouc, Opava) was predominantly German-speaking, at least until Hussite Revolution. Aristocracy and clergy was Czech-speaking (although some bishops of Prague or Olomouc were native Germans). The Bohemians/Czechs were (and are) undoubtedly Slavonic nation – but with significant admixture of German (or even Celtic) blood. --Iaroslavvs (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the 1910 Austro-Hungarian census, in Bohemia proper 4.2 mil. spoke Czech and 2.2 mil. spoke German. 92.225.123.238 (talk) 09:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Language

message: It has been recently denied here that the King of Bohemia had been a vassal of the Rex Romanorum and the Holy Roman Emperor, referring to the Golden Bull of 1356. Apart from modern-day patriotic reasons (erroneously based on the equation of the Empire with the regnum Teutonicum), the presentation of Bohemia's historic constitutional status in the article may be worth a thorough discussion. AFAICS there is no source, neither in the Golden Bull nor other deeds issued by Charles IV, claiming that his Bohemian kingdom was a independent and sovereign entity. Instead he pursued the idea of Bohemia as the centre of the Empire by securing the king's hereditary electoral dignity (that had once been denied by Repgow's Sachsenspiegel "as he is no German"), which guaranteed a significant influence on the Empire's policies even if the Imperial and the Bohemian crown would no longer been held in personal union. Indeed Charles granted the Bohemian king — himself — and his vassals numerous privileges like the privilegium de non evocando and the right of a royal election upon the extinction of the line, elevating him to the first secular princeps of the Empire. Nevertheless Charles at the same time left no doubt about his intention to maintain the unity of his realm as a whole — the Bohemian king remained a liensman and had to receive his fiefdom from the hands of the Emperor. 92.225.121.37 (talk) 11:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only was he a vassal of the emperor but rather of the elected German king (Rex Romanorum) making the kingdom of Bohemia a sub-kingdom of the kingdom of Germany.--MacX85 (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Source? Because KoB was usually elected KoG, hardly so.--Yopie (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  State of the HRE? 

message: Re to:diff by User:Jirka.h23
:As i mentioned it can be seen in Kingdom of France, German Empire, Russian Empire, Austrian Empire how a former country should be represented in a map: it should show relation to its surrounding regions, not just internal divisions. Your example of Electorate of Mainz has a low quality raster map, so it is not a good example, unlike for instance Electorate of Cologne or Kingdom of Bavaria, which all have good quality maps showing surrounding territories. The fact that it was not always part of the Holy Roman Empire is not relevant as there is no rule that the map should show how the map of the state looked always. No country was always in any specific shape or condition. Prussia was not always part of German Empire, yet its map shows it within the German Empire. In fact the Kingdom of Bohemia was most of its history part of the Holy Roman Empire so it is the appropriate way to display it, as you can see in similar articles.
:If you have a better high quality vector map, you are free to share it on Wikipedia and add it to an article, but if you just remove a quality map without any justification and a better quality replacement, you risk being reported for disruptive editing, so consider yourself warned.--Der Golem (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to warn me, I know that I can always solve any contradiction with you in a civilized manner. Unfortunately I am now quite busy, but I will create an image more similar to your examles later.Jirka.h23 (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally done, Kingdom of Bohemia now he has similar locator as are all your examples. - Locator_Bohemia_within_Europe_(1714).svg Jirka.h23 (talk) 09:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a very nice map and I find it very suitable for the infobox. Thanks. I cleaned some of the unnecessary maps in the article and added a map showing a different, older administrative subdivision.--Der Golem (talk) 08:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I am sorry, but I do not see a reason for adding map showing almost the same but in differnet style (than are other examples of other kingdoms). Best whould be, as for example in German Empire: locator + more detailed map (as it was before your edit). Also in case of the Lands of the Bohemian Crown image, I think that maximum extend of the Kingdom is more related to the text on left.Jirka.h23 (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If you believe that the two images currently in the infobox are showing almost the same, then why did you insist in removing the original one, and then replaced it with this new one, when they show almost the same in the first place? That shows some contradiction in your intentions(?). Secondly, concerning the more detailed map, it does not function as does the detailed map in German Empire article. This map doesnt show any neighbours, and the regions inside are nearly invisible from the infobox, giving the reader very little useful information (if placed in infobox). Unlike the states in German Empire, the regions in Bohemia played rather small role in relation to each other historically. Besides this, the map is in German language, so it is quite unfitting for the English Wikipedia. On top of all, the regions displayed in this specific map show the regions following the late Austrian reform, so for overwhelming majority of the kingdom's history, the regions were not in this shape; were historically rather insignificant, therefore not relevant for infobox. The original map shows detailed relation to the Bohemian Crown (as I recently added the Crown Lands in pink) and to the relevant surrounding territories (maybe similarly to Kingdom of Bavaria), which does give the reader more important information than a foreign-language map with nearly unreadable divisions that existed for a short span of the state's history..--Der Golem (talk) 02:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This map under Charles IV does not display the Bohemian Crown, since Brandenburg, even though under the control of the king, was not part of the actual Crown Lands, so it is incorrect to display it there. Lower and Upper Lusatia, which were part of the Crown Lands are not shown in the new Europe map, as 1714 does not show the Crown Lands' maximum extent, which is in fact shown in the original map.--Der Golem (talk) 03:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I responded to your recent edit; where you claimed to Yopie that there is some consensus, but as I said, I do not see a reason to have two similar maps in infobox. Yes, firstly I was a bit sceptical about locator, but then I changed my mind as other countries have it too. Best would be to standardize all infoboxes. As for the second image, text is in both nearly invisible, but if you want remove it at all. About Brandenburg, your info is interesting, I will learn about it as much as I can later. Jirka.h23 (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Next time you have sudden changes in you mind, maybe you don't need to let it affect Wikipedia readers by randomly removing locator maps from Wikipedia infoboxes.--Der Golem (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

text: I agree with Jirka, is better to have map with locator within Europe in infobox. Two similar map locators is too much.--Yopie (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a locator map originally and you kept removing it, so your statements contradict your actions. At least have the decency to undo the part of the edits for which you explained your disagreement, and not re-add information that was proven wrong, so that I don't need to clean it up after you.--Der Golem (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

text: Errors are now corrected, revert. Jirka.h23 (talk) 10:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I changed my stance to neutral on Commons.--Der Golem (talk) 03:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: Der Golem, you stated in paragraph above, that Brandenburg was not part of the Bohemian Crown Lands and therefore you removed corresponding image, why do you think that? According to for example Hugh Agnew (Professor of History in Elliott School of International Affairs, who specializes in Central and Eastern Europe, with a focus on modern Czech history) clearly wrote that; Charles added Brandenburg (with its electoral vote) to the lands of the Bohemian crown, in his book "The Czechs and the Lands of the Bohemian Crown". I would say that your actions should be reverted. Source Jirka.h23 (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like corresponding text was changed by an annonymous ip in 2013. Jirka.h23 (talk) 11:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: My statement about Brandenburg was based on this edit by an editor who stated "Luxemburgs did not succeed in 1306, Brandenburg never part of Bohemian crown lands". I didn't expect that the editor would write an untruth about such a basic topic. Evidently, he is wrong and Brandenburg was indeed part of the Bohemian Crown, (from 1373 until 1415?). So the content about it should be re-added. Brandenburg as a part of the Crown Lands is also supported by this German language source (page 29). The Czech article on Bohemian Crown states it was "loosely connected" (without a source however). What "loosely connected" means in terms of formal political relations is unclear.--Der Golem (talk) 03:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brandenburg not part of Bohemian Crown? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . Community Tech bot (talk) 22:12, 18 July 2018 (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 deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue about copyright of the image is resolved and return to original condition. The charge of copyright infringement was absurd as expected. Thanks. — Dragovit (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: This Wikipedia page seems to be neglected. The last notable date this page was updated was in 2016.
This Wikipedia page needs a cleanup! It is a level 4 vital article (out of 5), and yet it is a C-Class article!
Feel free to add comments about the rewrite of this page underneath this topic. ObsessiveScribe (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Cleanup/Rewrite