Talk:Battle of Grunwald

Template:WikiProjectBattles Template:WPMILHIST Middle Ages task force

Where was the battle fought?

The battle was fought in a plain betwwen the villages of Grunwald, Stebark/Tannenberg and Lodwigowo. -- cc 06:49, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Is it Grunwald, or Grünewald? JHK

In Polish it is certainly Grunwald. And it is in middle of Poland now, so that should be a default spelling on Wikipedia. Not to mention that its simpler (On the other hand this is etymologically clearly a German word.). If German spelling is Grünewald or whatever you can add a note about this spelling. --Taw

Taw, here's my take in it -- if the battle took place when the area had a German name, then the German name is the one most English-speakers would use. In the case of all of those Baltic ex-German places that now have Russian or Polish names, I think we should go by the current name -- the difference is that cities are living things, so to speak -- our point of reference is now, and then we trace back through history to see other names. For a battle or other event, like the Defenestration of Prague (not Praha), we default to the most normally used (in current English) name. Does that make sense? I'm still not sure about the name, though -- does Grunwald mean Green Forest in Polish? or is it a Polanization of a German name? I'll try to look up the Battle in English and see what the norm is. JHK

I believe it should be "Grunwald" - apart from the current name of the Polish location, this name is most common. Currently, the re-enacting groups are inviting to the battle of Grunwald, not Grünewald (and such is the name on roadmapes). Searching in Google, I've found 722 entries of "battle of Grunwald" and only 21 "battle of Grünewald". So, most speakers don't use it. There are also 477 entries of "battle of Tannenberg" 1410. This battle is not known in Poland as battle of Tannneberg at all. Therefore, I think, that there should be a redirect from battle of Tannenberg (1410) to battle of Grunwald, and the later should be supplemented with info: "also known as the battle of Tanneberg (1410)" Pibwl 12:35, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

In my opinion the preferred term is Battle of Grunwald as it is commonly known. The alternative name is Battle of Tannenberg(Stebark). Please note that there was another battle of Tannenberg in 1914 during WWI -- cc, 21:56, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I added merge boilerplates. For the record this Battle is called Battle of Tannenberg in Encyclopedia Britannica Online Przepla 19:22, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The text from Battle of Tannenberg seems to be the same:

This article should be merged with Battle of Grunwald.

1410 -- The Battle of Tannenberg or Battle of Grünwald (called also Battle of Zalgiris by Lithuanians) occurred July 15 1410.

(larger version)
Painting by Jan Matejko

It was a battle between two alliances. On the one hand, the Polish, Lithuanian, Ruthenian and Tatar forces under the command of the Lithuanian-Polish king Wladyslaw Jagiello (about 39,000 troops). On the other hand, forces of the Teutonic Knights and their allies from various parts of Europe (about 27,000 troops) under the Great Master of the Teutonic Order Ulrich von Jungingen.

The Battle was won by Jagiello's forces. Ulrich von Jungingen died in battle. After this battle the Teutonic Knights never regained its previous power.

Other battles at the same location: Battle of Tannenberg (1914).

See History -- Military history -- List of battles -- History of Poland -- History of Prussia -- History of Lithuania

I see this has been discussed already, but I thought I would mention (as someone who lives nowhere near the site of the battles) that both the 1410 one and the 1914 one are known as Tannenberg, to me. I'm not sure if it matters that it called Grunwald in Poland, since this is in English...we've had this debate over other things on the Wikipedia today, too. Ah well, I suppose Grunwald is acceptable...as long as it's not at Zalgris :) Adam Bishop 06:42, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

yes

Grunwald does mean "green forest" but in german not in polish and zalgiris(should be žalgiris) means the same in lithuanian, simply a translation :) --Vytautas 14:55, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC)

The Commander

Hmmm.. call me a nitpicker, but why is Vytautas/Witold/ always mentioned first? It gives an impression that it was him, not Jagiełło/Jogaila who commanded the joint forces. [[User:Halibutt|Halibu tt]] 21:25, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

And why is he called Vytautas, and not Vitaut (Вітаўт)? ;) rydel 22:48, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps because he himself was still not Ruthenised. [[User:Halibutt|Halibu tt]] 08:46, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Give a reason why he should be.

References and peer review

This needs references. And I think the lists need to go to separate article. Any other ideas for improvement before I submit this to Wikipedia:Peer review and eventually Wikipedia:Featured article candidates? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:07, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

no good/i don't like it

The article refered by the first external link is better then the wikipedian.
For one main reason.
It is not so inclined towards one point of view.

Dlugosz is the only source, no german sources, no letters, no good.

There are some interesting places.

--- "The battle of Grunwald is regarded as one of the most important battles in the Polish history. In Poland there is commonly known a symbol of two swords, which were supposedly given to king Jagiello before the battle by the Teutonic envoys to "raise Polish desire for battle"."

It was one of the most important battles in Order, Polish and Lithuanian history. That is in history of all together, each two, and each one of mentioned above.

Two swords for one man? Interesting. AFAIK the two unsheathed swords were for Vytautas & Jogaila, just the former was busy. Jogaila took them both but they were not both for him. This should be mentioned.

The story about "The commonly known symbol" was written down in some primary source(s) and now translated into other languages, including lithuanian. The story is actually known to all that study this matter, but in Lithuania it is in the school program, so we may say it is "commonly known" here also.

So it is not "in the Polish", "In Poland" and not "to raise Polish desire".

"In 1385 the Union of Krevo joined the crowns "

"of his cousin Vytautas the Great 
(to whom Jagiełło had ceded power in Lithuania in the wake of his marriage to the Polish queen)"

Lithuania had no crown at the time and joining of smthing else then bloodshed before the end of internal conflicts in 1392 is questionable.

Yes, Jogaila ceded power, but that should be evaluated as more or less formal act, for, actually, not ceding it he could loose it at any moment. One shouldn't write first without another and another is a separate paragraph.

I think it would look better without braces smth like.. In 1392 after internal conflict Vytautas became defacto ruler of GDL. and link.

"but soon the withdrawal turned into a rapid retreat towards the marshes and woods."

You forgot to cite the other polish author that states that lithuanians fled to the Vilnius itself. And still were important in the siege.

Now thats another point of view as an opposition.

Lithuanians commited a m a n e u v e r .

Read the first external link if nothing better is available to you.

It is as probable as the fact that it was polish peasantry that killed poor Jungingen or as real are the numbers. So it should be mentioned in the similar manner. ___maybe more remrks later___

", it was already to late for the"

If this is a grammar mistake this article is not ready to be a "featured article" candidate. And still "they were doomed" sounds so much better then "it was too late"

There are overestimations about every great battle. The fact that chroniclers were educated enough to know how big numbers(and not only "big hosts" or "as far as the eye can see") are written does not make their estimations more important. It should be better to write some probable,believable and/or agreed upon numbers o n l y. And then links links links to sources and excerpts if you wish.Vytautas

Ok, one by one:

Długosz and the anonymous report of the battle are the only credible sources out there (and even their credibility is somehow difficult to assess). That's why it is better to give the reader a choice, instead of supporting just one version. I believe that the Opposing forces chapter gives a pretty good insight in the matter. Could you be more specific as to what you think should be changed?
Also, what German sources or letters should be mentioned? Please put them down so that we could check them.
As to the symbol - feel free to change it. It's wikipedia, after all. It would take less time to correct that than to complain at the talk page ;)
As to the Union of Krevo - I believe that it is but a sidenote here. Both of us know the complexity of the matter, but IMHO it should be described in the Union of Krevo article, not here. For an average reader interested in the battle, the political background of the leaders is but a matter of secondary importance.
As to the retreat - again, feel free to add the Lithuanian point of view. It is not certain what actually happened, so both versions are correct. I find the Lithuanian version of the story with some sort of a strategic withdrawal slightly less credible (and especially so because of the exposed Polish flank after the Lithuanians fled the battlefield), but it is but my own oppinion. Feel free to add the other leg.
As to the too late/they were doomed - don't you think it's a matter of style? Halibu tt 15:34, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Confusing paragraph, possible translation errors?

The battle of Grunwald is regarded as one of the most important battles in the Polish history. In eve of WWI (1910 marking half millennium of the battle has been erected Grunwald monument in Krakow. The ceremony spawn demonstration of outraged of Polish society against aggressive politics of German Empire including forcible germanisation of Poles. Polish poet Konopnicka wrote fiercely anti-German poem Rota. About the same time Henryk Sienkiewicz wrote his anti-German book The Teutonic Knights. The book was eventually depicted in the propaganda film The Teutonic Knights (Polish: Krzyżacy) by Aleksander Ford.

Any chance we could get a rewrite of this so it flows better? I'd attempt it, but I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter to feel comfortable changing it.--Syrthiss 13:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1409-1411

Actually the article contains the most common error.. it's written as thought the battle was the war at the same time - but we cannot treat it in that way. BoG was a single battle of the whole war 1409-1411 (there were more battles like Koronowo for example that was also an interesting piece of warcraft). I dont know why (ok i know actually :P) but this is an example of a battle which is more important than the war. Try to imagine an article about e.g. Normandy without mentioning that it was a part of WWII... --213.199.192.226 18:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. It was mentioned in campaignbox, I added the info to the lead. Now all we need is for sb to create the article on the Polish-Lithuanian-Teutonic War (1409-1411). PS. If you know more releavant battles, add them to the Template:Campaignbox Polish-Lithuanian-Teutonic War (1409-1411). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Influences on modern culture section?

The Poland and Lithuania parts are well thought out, and the German part is ok. However I'm having a hard time with the Russia / Soviet Union / Belarus parts. They sound like they are referring to the 1914 battle, not the 1410. Can anyone clear this up? --Syrthiss 21:49, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

In official Soviet propaganda of post-Stalin times (maybe his times too, but I've yet to aquire sources) the battle of Grunwald is described as a battle of Polish-Lithuanian-Russian forces against German (Nemets) invaders.

Question

Does anyone know who's the fellow in the chain mail halfway between Witold and Zawisza Czarny, but lower, in Matejko's painting of the battle? He's the one swinging a sword with both arms. I've seen the detail of that part of the painting somewhere on WP, but I can't find it now. Appleseed 20:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Message

To whom it may concern. I would like to say that all information about the Army of GDL and names of their military leaders is twisted in peprouse by modern Lithuanians. Please try to find in any croniclas names such as Vitautas , Gediminas etc. and why as balt's regions presented Western Belarusian cities. That page have to be overworked so it may not compromise immage of Wikipedia because information about GDL not even twisted but make lough. Thank you very much for your attention. With respect, Viktar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.75.208.139 (talk • contribs) 23:39, February 10, 2006.

This message was left on the article. I am moving it here. Canderson7 ^(talk) 23:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The neutrality of this article must be marked as disputed. It seems strange when the authors enumerate almost all Belarusian and some Ukrainian cities in the description of the armies and allow themselves words like "Due to participation of Ruthenian squads in the battle Belarusians depicted the battle as Polish-Lithuanian-Belarusian coalition against evil Germans." These words sound sarcastically and have nothing in common with neutrality and historical truth. This is a clear attempt to lay false claim to common legacy of all the peoples of GDL. It is unscientifically to represent GDL as a monoethnic state or a state ruled by one ethnic group. Vlad

About Lithuania

Did you know, that Lithuania - historical name of Belarus. In past - Litva. Belarusian language was preoritable. Now "Lithuanians" has our herb and name...

And you, dear unsigned editor, sound like you've been smoking some of that herb, by logic of your above ramblings. Dr. Dan 19:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am more than sure he ment "verb"... He is actually correct, despite the mediocre english. If you look at a historic map of Europe couple of centuries before Tannenberg/Grunwald you shall see Kievan Rus, a country that was home to the ancient russians (eastern slavs). Or did you really think that Lithuania, a small country which got it's own writing in 17-18th centuries was a medieval superpower? Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, at it's peak, had 50 to 70 percent of it's population as ethnically russian (eastern slav).

Dear anon (you may want to register to differentiate itself from the previous one), note the difference between Ruthenian and Russian. As far as the population, do you have any sources for that? [1] This map of 1493 gives the number of people in the 'Jagellonian realm' as: Poles - 3,25m, Lithuanians 0,5m, Ukrainians 2,5m, Belorusians 1,25m. The 1618 map [2], one which would show the Commonwealth at it's peak, gives the numbers: Poles, 4,5m, Lithuanians, 0,75m, Belorusians 1,5m, Prussians 0,75m, Livionians 0,5m. It sais nothing about Ukrainians, but as the country population is 11,5 and the above totla only 8, that does live 3,5m unaccounted for which I'd guess looks like a logical number for Ukrainians. Nonetheless this gives us a breakdown of 5,25m P+L vs. 5m U+B - a little less then 50%, certainly nothing to support the high 70% number.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm more than sure he meant herb, the Polish (and Belarusian) generic word for a Coat of Arms. In that case the unsigned editor is right, the Lithuanians do not use the pillars of Gediminas as their symbol and instead they use the knight. //Halibu tt 17:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I cannot register. Halibutt, you are most likely right about the herb/gerb thing, I'm astonished how that interpretation hasn't crossed my mind. To Piotrus - the numbers were from my memory - unfortunately I was unable to locate any sorces that support the 70% as of yet, so I have to say that 50% sounds more reasonable. Ruthenians came from the same root as modern Russians, Ukrainians and Belorussians - the Ancient Russians (which are obviously not the same as the modern Russians). As a matter of fact, Ukrainians refered to themselves as Russians (руський) until the early 19th century. The Jagellonian dynasty itself had some solid Ancient Russian roots. Ruthenia is latin for Russia (ie. like the element Ruthenium). In Russian Ruthenians are known as Rusins (русины).

Right, I just wanted to make sure we are differentiating between ancient and modern Russians. Btw, if I may ask - what stops you from registering? I know users who didn't want to register, but I have never met anybody who couldn't register. I'd be more then happy to help with any technical troubles you may be having.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your offer. The problems are not technical. I shouldn't register from workstation.

Not with any valuable password, no. But as long as you purge the cookies and such, it shouldn't be a problem. I log in to wiki from quite a few workstations every week - the benefits of tools like one owns talk and userpage, and the watchlist are just too good to pass by.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, but you don't have your boss watching your every step, do you :) //Halibu tt 04:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About names

Why did you decide to name Grand Duke Vitovt - Vytautas? Why not to call him John? Vytautas is as close to the chronicles as John! His full name was Grand Duke Vitovt Alexander. In some chronicles you can see Vitold, but never Vytautas. Like for example here, where the page discusses the Order of Dragon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Dragon

There is a mistake though. Here the author called him Vitovd.

Wikipedia becomes a source of propoganda for small nations which want to steal other's history.

Obviously he is known as Vytautas today. If you're questioning the name, the proper place to discuss it would be talk:Vytautas the Great of course, not here. --_Lysy^talk 23:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand: "he is known as Vytautas today". In a tiny Lithuania maybe he is known as Vytautas. Nodoby argues about this. But what was his name? Vitovt Alexander. Plus, the name Vitovt is used by a much bigger number of people in Belarus, Ukraine, and even Russia. It simply a cheap lie - to flip flop names of people to satisfy your national ego --_{Max Kanowski}^talk

Perhaps you will find this reading interesting: Wikipedia:Naming conventions.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I am just following the rules of wikipedia: Convention: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. Max Kanowski 03:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, I would suggest for everyone to read this rule of Wikipedia:

NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense for having a predilection to one particular point of view or ideology. One is said to be biased if one is influenced by one's biases. A bias could, for example, lead one to accept or not-accept the truth of a claim, not because of the strength of the claim itself, but because it does or does not correspond to one's own preconceived ideas.

In the current article we can see a very good example of "Ethnic or racial bias, including racism, nationalism and regionalism" The only point of view represented here is the one of the modern day Lithuania. This country is very much different from the claimed ancestor Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which included Belarus, and some parts of Ukraine and Russia. Nowadays Lithuania was just a small part of it, which was mostly ethnically and linguistically different from the rest of the land.

This article abuses national feelings of other people who comprised the state. And the issue of a fictional name of Vytautas is just an egregious lie. What can I do with this? I just name things with their own names.Max Kanowski 03:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I responded at the Talk:Vytautas the Great . Burann 11:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two swords

Please note, that "two swords" emblem is a common mark for battlefield places, used tourist sign in guides and direction signs. Thank you! A.J. 21:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, this raises the question of whether the more generic use of two swords symbol has been influenced by Grundwald, or is it unrelated?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Separate article for the list of units ?

I suggest moving the rather long tables with the names and flags of single units to a separate article, e. g. "Banners in the Battle of Grunwald", in order to make the already long article more readable. Also, please help editing the new article on The Teutonic Knights (book). --Matthead 15:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps something with 'order of battle' in title, this seems to be the standard?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold. However, just a note: it is not a proper OOB, it's merely a list of units, without their relations to each other or their order mentioned. //Halibu tt 20:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]