Talk:Duchy of Prussia

1660 Treaty

I would like to point out, that it is indeed an interesting footnote of history, that the treaty of 1660 accounts for the case if Hohenzollern looses rulership of prussia, the territory should revert to poland. Though, in this exclusive form this is pointed out here, it seems only rightful that east prussia was, after germany lost the war it began in 1939, going back to poland. This legal consequence might have been inevitable in the 1600's, but in the 1900's, especially at a time when the united nations just were created it was not. At that new time, usually the defining criteria was ones language and cultural heritage which decided what was which territory. This is as opposed to the 1600's when Germany, Russia etc. had many different territories under their rule not only by force of conquest, but also because it was usual for a king to have subjects of different nationalies under his rule. The Austro-Hungarian Empire as the last example of this concept ceased to exist in 1918, since then the nationalities usually live in their own statehood. As a footnote i might add that East Prussia was not joined to Poland at a time, when both Germany and Poland were relatively equal partners in the 1920's and when the league of nations brokered the new territorial border between this countries at the end of world war I. This fact contributes to the impression, that the treaty of 1660 was not valid anymore.

To declare (him) it still valid, would mean to unconditional apply principles of 1660 to 1945 AND to negate all the treaties after 1660 which effectively annulled this clause at the same time.

To sum up: I like the fact that this clause is mentioned (i did not know yet !) but urge not to justify the 1945 annexation of german territory (just as Germany annexed before polish territory) with some 3 centuries old treaty between feudal lords.

Chris

I agree - the last paragraph in particular sounds like it belongs to a tract from a Polish nationalist's organisation. (Anon user)

Last paragraph changed. Should be more NPOV now (?) — Jor 14:31, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)

---

Some answers to above conversations: About that 1660 treaty above, it was written, that 'in case the Hohenzollern died out, Prussia would revert to the king of Poland. There were constantly ongoing family arrangements with all the royal rulers of European territories. The last king of Poland abdicated, Stan Aug Poniatowski, abdicated in 1795. A kingdom of Poland was re-established by Austria and Germany at Treaty of Brest-Litowsk, but then the USA stepping in in WW I and completely altered the outcome. The ethnic Polish people (and 1/3 none-Polish people) in a newly created state Poland got a dictatorship.

I had inserted this in the article previously, but poor S.C., who honestly tries to understand, what strange country to the north of the actual Poland, some of his relatives have wound up in, reads not only his former countrymens rants but also American books on Prussia and thereby gets doubly confusing babble. He actually has been to (oops politically correct Former) Prussia, is learning the Prussian names and has taken lots of photos. He loves to create his maps and I believe he came up with this statement all by himself, because he is so proud of it. He is not an organization, but it is possible, that he read it somewhere.

---

Image

I have changed the image Ducal.png to image Royal_Ducal.png because they are mostly similar, and I believe Royal_Ducal.png is more clear. If nobody objects to this change, I will ask for Ducal.png to be deleted tomorrow.

---

It is true (and often forgotten) that Germany was the first state to officially reinstate Poland during WW I. It was of course only a political game. The reasons were to recruit Polish soldiers to fight for Germany. The puppet "polish" government was completely dependent on Germany. All those plans were abolished during the treaty of Brest Litovsk, which established a German-Soviet border.

---

Removed entirely the notion of the treaty clause, that prussia should go to Poland if Hohenzollern dies out. In the form it was presented here (and intentionally presented so, i presume), it seemed logical that 1918 Prussia would revert to Poland, with the explicit mentioning of Hohenzollern Rule ended, and the Kingdom of Poland existing, etc. etc. I dont think there is a way of mentioning the clause, without suggesting that Prussia should have reverted by right to Poland as it did 1945 - Uups, thats exactly the point. Prussia did not go to Poland due to this ancient treaty, it went to Poland due to a lost war. Let us not mudden the facts...

Chris

---

It's definitely a fact worth mentioning. History is supposed to be the Teacher of Life - Historia Magistra Vitae! Isn't it cool that this time it can teach us something about irony.Space Cadet 02:30, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

---

IF there would be a way of mentioning it WITHOUT justifying by the mention the takeover of prussia in 1945 by Poland, i am for it. Though, i doubt given the size of the article, the simple mentioning is already a severe bias - not to mention the centuries and the changes they brought with them after this treaty with this particular clause was signed.

THEREFORE i am against ist, because it is not only an interesting fact, but rather it serves the function of giving legacy to the Polish annexation of Prussia. And, again, i suspect the mentioning of this detail is exactly intended to do so.

Chris

---

Expiration of Treaty

I found this old conversation here about the Treaty of 1657/60.

Space Cadet and his follow Polish Patriots constantly inserts ideas that all of Prussia should have been 'given' to Poland in 1919 and finally in 1945 it was all given- 'returned' to Poland. Read the treaties again, you will find more information, such as the last time the dynastic inheritance treaty was renewed/ followed up, was before 1700, it was to be renewed every time a ruler changed or died. So this family inheritance dynastic arrangement had expired long ago.

Thre is repeated removal by more Patriots of the following information. Therefore I am posting it here:

Ducal Prussia became the first Protestant state, along the lines of the later religious Peace of Augsburg. Neither pope nore emperor sanctioned this arrangement and the Emperor Charles V granted the next grandmaster Walter von Cronberg the fief of Prussia. Albert of Prussia was put under imperial ban. When the duke Albert of Prussia died in 1569, his son Albert Frederick and then Joachim II Hector inherited Prussia.

MG 3/2/2006

I share your despair with all this. The Teutonic Knights lost against overwhelming odds and at the Treaty of Thorn they and their reduced state became feudal vassals of the crown of Poland. But that did not make it a "Polish province". It was a vassal-state. It may be that Polish-speakers simply cannot get the translations into English spot on, but it does seem to me that we are faced with people who are attempting to rewrite history so that it appears their nation were always the rightful owners of this and that, which is usually untrue. A few fishing huts suddenly becomes a 'town' or even a 'fort', etc. In the case of the place we all knew as East Prussia to 1945, there is no time in history that it could ever have been considered Polish. The original people there were not Poles, not even Christians. They were marauding Prussian tribes constantly raiding adjoining states (if, then, they could be categorised as such). Eventually the Duke of Marzovia, a Slav magnate, called upon the Pope and the Teutonic Knights to do something about the Prussians and said that if the knights crushed them they could have the province - not that it was his to give! It is also worth pointing out that when the plebiscites following The Great War were carried out on the borders of East Prussia a majority of Polish-speakers voted to stay in Germany! Can it be that Poles just cannot face the truth? Really I despair! Christchurch 19:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Polish town names on the map?

I think the use of polish names for cities in Pomerania and Ducal Prussia is a bit misleading. Maybe even for Royal Prussia. Most of the cities at the time were almost completely inhabited by Germans, and the english speaking world surely used the german names. The map looks like an attempt to create a consistent polish history to justify the new borders after '45.

If you look closer at the map, you'll most surely notice that the map uses both Polish and German names. The latter are there because most of the inhabitants of the region spoke German at the time and the former are there because those were the names used in administration. Halibutt 16:58, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Citation needed

Is there a listing of the possible inheritors of Ducal Prussia? The current version of the articles states that the Brandenburg Hohenzollerns should have been excluded from the succession. Olessi 03:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Because they were. I can bring the books (in Polish) next week. Szopen 06:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be useful. Do you know if such text documents have ever been produced in English or German volumes? I think they would be interesting to read.

The text currently reads "At this point Ducal Prussia should have been incorporated into Poland, because the Hohenzollerns from the Brandenburg branch were not included in the list of possible inheritors. However, Margrave John Sigismund of Brandenburg was able first to ensure the regency and then the inheritance of the duchy, despite the protests of pro-Polish opposition (which at one point proposed Polish king division of Ducal Prussia into three voivodshipd and inclusion of it into kingdom of Poland)."

In my opinion, this would sound better:

"According to Albert of Prussia's original terms of inheritance, Ducal Prussia should then have been incorporated into Poland proper, as the Brandenburg branch of the Hohenzollerns were not listed as possible inheritors. Despite the protests of a pro-Polish opposition which proposed to the Polish king the division of the duchy into three voivodships and their inclusion into the Kingdom of Poland, Margrave John Sigismund of Brandenburg was able to ensure the regency and then the inheritance of Ducal Prussia, with his heirs as possible future inheritors." What do you think? Olessi 16:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Scope of "first" unclear

It was the first Lutheran duchy with a dominant German-speaking population, as well as Polish and Lithuanian minorities.

One could even argue for a third interpretation:

It was the first Lutheran duchy with a dominant German-speaking population, as well [the first Lutheran duchy] with Polish and Lithuanian minorities.

Option 1) the narrow claim, with a journalistic "we can stuff more extraneous information here at the end of the sentence"; option 2) the Lotto 649 wide first; option 3) two separate firsts, with subtle elision.

"The first fish with wings, as well as with polka dots" not in the lead, please. — MaxEnt 16:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Please explain your revert

Better how exactly? Space Veteran (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC) Royal Prussia separated not "two fiefs", but two parts of the completely independent Kingdom of Prussia. (Please compare with the Polish Corridor situation.) And to that BMK responds: "better before". Space Veteran (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Possible(?) Split

Seems to me that since Ducal Prussia (Polish fief) and Duchy of Prussia (independent) differ from each other in many ways. Sunday Hippie (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

What ways? Marcelus (talk) 11:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)