Talk:Union of Lublin

message: I think that maybe last lines should be removed (I mean ones about many historians considering it to be similar to EU), as it is kinda POV, unnecessary comparement (because EU has no direct connection to the Polish Lithuanian commonwealth), and such things could be written maybe by members of any nation/country about their nation/country being like something (considered "good") of our days. In fact, similar things about union being similar to that of EU, can be said at many unified countries, e.g. Switzerland, Austria-Hungary, maybe even Yugoslavia, etc. and such claims are probably an overpompastification (wrong word probably I know) DeirYassin 20:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the point of the author, as I interpret it, is to make the point that Poland-Lithuania was the *largest* such union in Europe until the formation of the EU, not that it was merely a unification. --Vegalabs 19:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: EU?

message: “Poland provided military aid in that war after the union of the two entities, but did not return the previously annexed territories. Lithuania had to recognize its incorporation into Poland.[5]”
Is any chance of merge this sentence with others because it looks a bit about of context especially if  trying to read aftermath part. 
Or at least  expand part –“ recognise its incorporation” to - Lithuania had to recognize incorporation of Podlachia, Volhynia, Podolia and the Kiev regions into Poland.  M.K 23:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold and show us what you mean?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: The following link and conclusion on Polish website about Lublin Union was removed  from wikipedia Union of Lublin
Info-Polen (link below) concludes "that the  common republic (Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) was a sluggish none-functioning body without political and legal mechanisms"    
Lublin Union on info-polen (German-Polish site)
 
MfG 30 Jan 2008
----------------------
=== Royal Prussia ===
The first paragraph somewhat misinforms. Poland was not in personal Union with ROyal Prussia. Royal Prussia was autonomous part of Poland. Szopen (talk) 11:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conclusion about Commonwealth 

message: The first paragraph somewhat misinforms. Poland was not in personal Union with ROyal Prussia. Royal Prussia was autonomous part of Poland. Szopen (talk) 11:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal Prussia 

message: I think the reference is wrong in the background chapter, where it is defined as 
Norman Davies, God's Playground: A History of Poland in Two Volumes, Oxford University Press, p.151.
The reference is alleready definded in the first chapther, second paragraph as 
Norman Davies, God's Playground: A History of Poland in Two Volumes, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0199253390, Google Print, p.50.
With the current definitions of the reference you don't get link to both sides in Google Print. On top of that, page 151 in the book don't give any meaning to the content in the chapter. I have glanced through the book and think the reference in the backgroundchapter should be like this: 
Norman Davies, God's Playground: A History of Poland in Two Volumes, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0199253390, Google Print, p.121
as page 121 in the book relates to the topic. PerV (talk) 01:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference "DavN" 

message: This sentence in the lede : "Polish historians concentrate on its positive aspects, emphasizing its peaceful, voluntary creation and its role in the spreading of Polish culture. Lithuanian historians are more critical of the Union, pointing out that it was dominated by Poland." is unsourced and unsupported by anything in the text. While it may be somewhat true I can also think of some Polish historians who are critical of the union. I think it should be removed unless it can be sourced.VolunteerMarek 16:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I vaguely think I added it a while ago. I agree it should be sourced, I thought it was. Perhaps we can source it or rewrite it with the similar content of Polish–Lithuanian_Commonwealth#Legacy. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think the Lithuanian side of it - that the PLC is viewed in a negative light - is historically mostly true and of course it appears to be true going by the attitudes of various users on Wikipedia. But even there I expect there is a lot more diversity of opinion and nuance. On the Polish side, it's not that hard to find historians who are critical of the union - Jasienica for example who though that by uniting, Poland inherited all of Lithuania's problems and reoriented itself eastward, rather than westward, which hampered its economic development. I've also seen some allusions to the argument that it was the union with Lithuania - and more specifically the acquisition of Ukraine - which was responsible for the re-emergence of serfdom in Poland.VolunteerMarek 21:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "Lithuanian" includes today Belarus and Ukrainian.Xx236 (talk) 06:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy 

message: What is Ks. Pomorskie, which appears on the legend of the map? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. :File:Irp1569.jpg, which is presumably the one you are discussing, should be translated to English (sadly, I don't have the skills to do so). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ks. Pomorskie 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Union of Lublin. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20130217222629/http://homepage.interaccess.com/%7Enetpol/POLISH/historia/MAPY/1618.jpg to http://homepage.interaccess.com/%7Enetpol/POLISH/historia/MAPY/1618.jpg
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130217222634/http://homepage.interaccess.com/%7Enetpol/POLISH/historia/MAPY/1717.jpg to http://homepage.interaccess.com/%7Enetpol/POLISH/historia/MAPY/1717.jpg
*Added  tag to http://aleph.ukma.kiev.ua/e-lib/V/Velychenko_The%20Influence.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Here are additional explanation and sourcing about the 1580 Lithuanian ceremony of Grand Duke Stephen Báthory. During the inauguration/elevation ceremony of the Grand Duke Stephen Báthory (29 May 1580) a blessed sword and hat (both were sanctified by Pope Gregory XIII himself) was used in the Vilnius Cathedral and the ceremony likely did not feature the usual Gediminas' Cap at all (it certainly wasn't placed on Báthory's head). Nevertheless, multiple WP:RS describe the ceremony of 29 May 1580 as elevation/enthronement ceremony of the new Grand Duke of Lithuania (Stephen Báthory) and this clearly was an ignoration of the stipulations of the Union of Lublin. Supporting sources:
 
1. "Iš pradžių, regis, buvo mėginama didžiajam kunigaikščiui rengti atskirą ceremoniją. 1580 m. gegužės 29 d. Vilniaus katedroje įvykęs popiežiaus kalavijo ir karūnos perdavimo aktas amžininkų akimis ir buvo Stepono Batoro, kaip didžiojo kunigaikščio, intronizavimas" (). Source: publication by Lithuanian Institute of History, p. 9.
 
2. Maciej Stryjkowski's Kronika polska, litewska, żmódzka i wszystkiéj Rusi Macieja Stryjkowskiego. T. 2. Warsaw, 1846, p. 432. This source is provided as a backing source in the publication by Lithuanian Institute of History (mentioned above).
 
3. "Vienas iš tokių, Lietuvos valstybingumą tvirtinančių valdovo gestų buvo jo pakėlimo į Lietuvos sostą ceremonija. 1580 m. gegužės 29 d. valdovas priešais Vilniaus katedros didįjį altorių iš žemaičių vyskupo Merkelio Giedraičio rankų priėmė popiežiaus Grigaliaus XIII atsiųstą kalaviją ir Lietuvos didžiojo kunigaikščio kepurę kartu su apaštališkuoju palaiminimu. Toks ritualas turėjo sąsajų su ankstesnių valdovų pakėlimo į Lietuvos dk sostą ceremonialu, nors sudarius Liublino sąjungą, jis neturėjo būti praktikuojamas." (). Source: publication by Vilnius University, p. 67 (title page claims that there also is a translation to the Hungarian language by BEATRIX TÖLGYESI).
 
4. "Vienas įdomiausių su Lietuva susijusių Naujosios Karalystės iždinės eksponatų – iš pirmo žvilgsnio neišvaizdi kalavijo geležtė. Iš tikrųjų – tai 1580 m. gegužės 29 d. priešais Vilniaus katedros didįjį altorių Lenkijos ir Lietuvos valdovui Steponui Batorui (1576–1586) įteiktas popiežiaus Grigaliaus XIII pašventintas kalavijas, per amžius praradęs savo puošnią rankeną. Kalaviją ir perlais puoštą popiežiaus pašventintą kepurę valdovui įteikė žemaičių vyskupas Merkelis Giedraitis. Lietuvoje ši ceremonija traktuota kaip Lietuvos didžiojo kunigaikščio pakėlimo iškilmės, kurias rengiant buvo ignoruojama Liublino unija ir manifestuojamas Lietuvos savarankiškumas." (). Source: article published by the Palace of the Grand Dukes of Lithuania.
 
5. Identical paragraph like in the 4th point (above) was (likely) later republished by the official website of the Lithuanian National Radio and Television (HERE) and a very popular Lithuanian news website 15min.lt (HERE).
 
By the way, the 1569 Union of Lublin was not accepted in the first try because of the Lithuanian nobles strong objection to it and its conditions. However, the Principality of Moscow was waging a successful war against the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (which lost important territories like Polotsk) and the Kingdom of Poland was not much willing to help the Lithuanians until a chunk of territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was transferred to the Kingdom of Poland and eventually they accepted the Union of Lublin. This led to successful reconquests by joint Polish-Lithuanian military forces (e.g. Polotsk, etc.). Moreover, this ceremony of Stephen Báthory is not the first example when the Lithuanian nobles violated previous agreements with the Poles (e.g. Casimir IV Jagiellon was separately proclaimed the Grand Duke of Lithuania by the Lithuanians and a ceremony inaugurating him as the Grand Duke of Lithuania was held in 1440, this way violating the Union of Grodno (1432) and terminating the Polish–Lithuanian union (first source, second source, p. 8). -- Pofka (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes and additional explanation about the 1580 ceremony of the Lithuanian Grand Duke Stephen Báthory