Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:55, 30 August 2005

Fact move to talk, because of repeated rev. vandal. Johann Georg Adam Forster (November 26, 1754 - January 10, 1794) was a German botanical collector and artist. He was born near the Hanse city of Danzig (Mokry Dwór near Gdansk) in Prussia at the time of the government of Prince Elector Kurfürst Friedrich August II. Wettin. Georg Forster was the son of Johann Reinhold Forster of Dirschau in Prussia.

Hi, are you who I think you are? Welcome back, again. Space Cadet 20:29, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi, reference to incorrect and unreliable wikipedia entries.

Who had the idea, that Forster had to do something with the Bounty mutiny. The year of the mutiny was 1789 - at this time Forster was professor (I think at Göttingen or librarian in Mainz.--Shug 22:29, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

See german talk of William Bligh: http://de.wikipedia.org/Diskussion:William_Bligh

         Dietmar 9:22, 4 May 2004

Below is the translated fragment of Treaty of Torun II from 1466. The translation is my, but I tried to do it as literally as possible. You can check with the German or English version if you like: „The Land of Chelmno (Culmen) with its towns (...), the Land of Michalow with (...), as well as the all Land of Pomerania within its ancient borders with all castles, towns (...) will be property of King Casimir and KINGDOM OF POLAND”. And: „For the mentioned His Majesty the King and kings and Kingdom of Poland will belong (from now) for all times the castles and towns mentioned on the basis of this agreement, will belong to law, property and title of KINGDOM OF POLAND and should remain the property (of the KINGDOM) for ever.”

In 1466 it was annexed to Poland (Royal Prussia was not separate entity, it was part of kingdom of Poland - this are words of the treaty. Whoever was corwned king of Poland, automathically became duke of Masovia, Red Ruthenia, Prussia or whatever etc - it was just feudal titles. OTOH, there was separate ceremony to became grand duke of Lithuania (and then he automatically received more titles reserved to dukes of Lithuania). OK? Anyone who became king of Poland AUTOMATICALLY got title of Prussian duke since Royal Prussia was part of Polish kingdom.

Until 1525 or so Royal PRussia had very substantial authonomy: separate treasury for example, also many times envoys from Royal Prussia were not sitting in Polish parliament, despite having right to it. But in 1525 the differences in law and administration of Royal Prussia was finally (and other polish separatism) was removed. So, for the best you could claim that it was Prussian 1309-1525 (Ignoring the fact, that legally Royal Prussia was part of Polish kingdom - with substantial authonomy - in 1466).

Take for example grand duchy of Poznan. IIRC Prussian kings had the title of grand duke of Poznan, right? But that does not mean that Poznan was not part of Prussia kingdom.

So, it was Polish for some time before 1309 (no time to count: it would be to tedious, since there are times when it was Polish, then indirectly Polish, independent, again Polish etc etc etc) so it was not 300 years but say half of that amount at least then Prussian for 1466-1309 = 157 years, then authonomy part of Polish kingdom 1466-1525 = 59 years, then Polish 1525 - 17.. umm 1700 something, say 225 years for equal count, then Prussian to 1919 - say 170 years, then again Polish 19 years. So we have circa ~327 years of Prussian + 59 of authonomy, and circa ~400 years of Polish rule + 59 years when Royal Prussia was authonomous part of Polish kingdom. No matter how you turn the cat around you can still see his tail

P.S. Comment by User:Szopen. I did not want to duplicate the same arguments again.Yeti 11:49, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yeti, please read the article Personal union and try to understand it. The king of Poland was king in Poland, but Grand Duke in Prussia (only in West Prussia of course). As to the concept of Personal union, Royal Prussia was never part of Poland. Some kings wanted it to become a part of Poland, but the West Prussian always rejected.

What would you think if I would fool around and declare everyone who was born in Congress Poland between 1815 and 1917 to be born in XXX, (Russia) ? --Irredenta 13:44, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunatelly, personal union does not apply to Royal Prussia. I have given you strong FACTS that in 17th and 18th centuries Royal prussia was integral part of Poland (Greater Poland province). You continue your blah, blah. If you think that you are right, please give ARGUMENTS. Citation from original documents would be appreciated. Bye.Yeti 13:53, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Irredenta, you are not quite with agreement with facts. The 1525 unification of laws and administration between provinces of Royal Prussia and other Polish provinces were strongly opposed by kings and Prussian elites, but on the other hands they were storngly backed by Polish parliament and lower Prussian gentry (the deputes to Polish parliament were blackmailed, threatened etc by Prussian elites). The leaders of those Prussian elites were for example direct descendatns of emigrees from Greater Poland in second or third generation.

Royal Prussia was not in Personal union with Poland. You could find some arguments for that BEFORE 1525 (separate treasury, local parliament, spearate laws) but definetely not after 1525, when unification of laws etc was introduced. And even before 1525 it was still not tied with personal union, because it was province of Polish kingdom, property of Polish kings. The only way to became duke of Royal Prussia was to be elected king of Poland. Could you please provide any arguments for "it was in personal union with Poland", except of course of "it was, because i think it was". The arguments backing it would be:

1. there had to be separate ceremony to became duke of Royal Prussia (but there wasn't !)
2. there was separate treasury, army, parliament (two of those were existing BEFORE 1525)
3. There was a treaty in which it is stated that Royal Prussia and POland will be tied by person of monarch only (but there wasn't any treaty between Royal Prussia and Poland!)
4. There was not a treaty stating that Royal Prussia is simply annexed into Poland (but there was!)
5. There were no common institutions between Poland and Royal Prussia (But there were!)
6. Documents issued in Royal Prussia would be issued as "Duke of Prussia" and not as "King of Poland" - don't know over that, i guess if you search, you could find some before 1525 (damn, or was it 1569? I had to go to my library and find the exact date.. i tend to think it was the same year when UoL was signed and also unification of Duchy of Auschwitz took place), since Polish kings tried to preserve separate status of Royal Prussia against the will of executionist' movement

For you information, for example Poland and Lithuania were in personal union BEFORE UoL, after that it became something more; (the high point of achievements of Polish executionist's movement - when finally king agreed to most of proposed reforms - ironically, today it is HE who is credited for them, not people who were fighting for them for so long...)

I am not saying you are lying out of purpose or you were not reading enough history books, i rather prefer to think that maybe you know something we don't. If so, please write it, i am always very glad to learn something new. But i have some feeling that any try to prove that Royal Prussia was not part of Poland, especially AFTER 1525, are doomed to fail.

Anyway, i wonder what is your opinion of Grand Duchy of Poznan - which WAS tied in personal union with PRussia, since there are TREATIES which confirm it: do you think, that basing on that you could ignore later changes to legal system of Poznan and still claim that say in 1918 anyone born in Posen was in fact born in Polish Grand Duchy of Poznan? If no, could you please explain the differences between situation of Royal Prussia and Grand Duchy of Poznan which would explain your opinion? Szopen 07:41, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Szopen, let's abuse User_talk:John_Kenney#Conflict for this discussion, there is no sence in copying it over to half a dozen seperate pages. --Irredenta 15:23, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Anti-Polonism

• "Despite being born in Poland, Forster expressed extreme antipolish views, and often insulted Poles in his writings, thus being one of the creators of antipolonism in Prussia".

Looks like someone doesn't want readers to know what he wrote about Poland. What did he write? Please cite reliable sources(WP:CITE).NightBeAsT

• "Despite being born in Poland, Forster expressed extreme antipolish views, and often insulted Poles in his writings, thus being one of the creators of antipolonism in Prussia".

How many times did he insult? How many times did he not insult? Source required by someone who knows about all he has ever written in his life.NightBeAsT

• "Despite being born in Poland, Forster expressed extreme antipolish views, and often insulted Poles in his writings, thus being one of the creators of antipolonism in Prussia".

Source. NightBeAsT 00:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Done. Although I think you're exaggerating, requesting references for almost every single word. --Wojsyl 03:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)