Talk:Congress of Gniezno

Old discussion

I don't understand why it is supposed to be deleted. It is the main event in history of Poland, between 966 and 1138.

Well, it's a little cryptic to people who are not familiar with Polish history -- the article needs quite a bit of expansion, for example, to explain

• where is the tomb of Saint Adalbert?
• why did those monarchs meet there?
• what did they discuss? (if they discussed anything, for all we know they could have had a fight!)
• what was the outcome of the meeting?

-- Arwel 23:25, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Thanks for expanding the article. While I was tidying the English phrasing of the article, I removed:

i.e. Bohemia, that did get only bishopri, become one of its countries

because it's not quite clear what is meant by this (bishopri is not a word in English - perhaps you mean bishopric, a separate bishop?).

-- Arwel 17:21, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I don't like sentence "it became separate from Magdeburg province" since Poland was not under Magdeburg, ever. It was earlier missionary bishopric... Szopen

Title

The title of the article is awkward. Is there a better historical name for the meeting, such as Congress of Gniezno (which I've seen somewhere), to which we can move the article? I see that Meeting in Gniezno is a redirect, but it's not much better. Appleseed 22:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

There is common title in Polish "Zjazd Gnieznienski" but I had not seen any reference in English. Szopen 12:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Images to add

• The Congress
• Imperial crown
• St. Adalbert
• Gniezno Cathedral
• Matejko's 1025 Coronation

Appleseed (Talk) 16:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Changes

I added some NPOV to the article. Also Polans is no longer applicable since Poland was created in 966.There was a mistake since Cyril was the first Slavic saint not Adalbert. Additionally there were unsourced claims that were judgmental, and this is against neutrality of Wikipedia.--Molobo (talk) 09:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Cyril was a Slav? With that theory, you are all alone I fear. Also, I urge you to not change the meaning of sourced informations. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Cyril was the first Slavic saintSlavic Scriptures: The Formation of the Church Slavonic Version of the Holy BibleAuthor Henry R. Cooper Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press, 2003 page 51. Ethnic groups are based on culture and identity not on 'blood' so to speak and thus he is regarding as such. Also there is a lot of information here unsourced that you restored. And for neutrality sake it should be Poland not "duchy of Polan"(whatever that means), since Poland was an independent realm seperate from HRE, although HRE wanted it to become a duchy.--Molobo (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you discuss the Cyril issue at the Cyrill article. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not interested in that article but this one. Thank you.--Molobo (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well if you want to state here that Cyril was a Slav and the well sourced Saint Cyril article states he was a Greek, you need to discuss this issue there first, and if you gain consensus there that Cyril indeed was a Slav you may introduce this information here. For the "independency of Poland" issue: Neither was she part of the HRE, nor was she "independent" in the means of continously noone's vassal. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not interested in ethnic debates, one can be of many cultures and identities. You information though is incorrect(mind you just like the rest from the unknown German author). Glad that you agree to name Poland in the article. Of course it never was a a vassal of HRE, since its rulers had no control over it, and Polish rulers used their existance to further their own political means, while tricking the HRE rulers into no-binding oatsh which they broke when it fitted them.--Molobo (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If you mistrust a source, take it to the RS board. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect information

Bishopric of Poznań couldn't 'stay' with Madgeburg, since it was created earlier then the one of Madgeburg and was central Bishopric of Poland till the Congress.--Molobo (talk) 16:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

added debate Skäpperöd (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry what debate ? Bishopric of Poznań was created in 966, Bishopric of Magdeburg was created in 967. Till 1000 it was a seperate diocese. Also what "other historians" do you mean. I am a bit curious about your ability to add reference a minute after a question is raised-how do you find needed information so fast ?--Molobo (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I read the source you use, on google books. There is nothing about "older opinion". Its called "old idea". In fact the writer writes that Unger remained independent till 1004 and in 1013 Gniezno took the bishopric. The writes also writes that such statements were reflection of the attempts of the Magdeburg archbishopric to subordinate the Polish church. I am extremly worried by this attempt to manipulate the source. Additionally this doesn't change the fact that Poznan bishopric ws founded in 966 responsible only to Pope.--Molobo (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I just quoted the source given. Now your concerns are added within the article, I don't quite understand your excitement. Just like I don't understand how you and and another editor happened to show up here just after I added some content in the first place, the article never got that much attention before...

The exact quote is: "Thietmar claimed that the first bishop [ie of Poznan] was a suffragane of the archbishopric of Magdeburg ... [interpretable]... The prevalent opinion in Polish historiography has been that Jordanes and his successor Unger were missionary bishops directly subordinate to Rome. This old idea is still upheld, and has been supported by arguments from canon law. Nevertheless, the idea [...] is unacceptable to other historians." Show me just where I misquoted. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not the exact quote. You removed several sentences. Also there is nothing about "staying with Magdeburg". It would be impossible-Poznan was made to bishopric in 966, Magdeburg was in 967.

The full quote is:

The status of the early Church in the Piast state is still debated. Although Thietmar, claimed the the first bishop, Jordan, was a suffragan, of the archbishop of Magdeburg, this statement may be interpreted as a reflecton of the attempts of the Magdeburg archbishopric to subordinate, the Polish church (or at least the diocese of Poznań), during the war between Bolesław Chrobry and Henry II. The prevalent opinion in Polish histography has been that Jordan and his successor were missionary bishops directly subordinate to Rome. This old idea is still upheld and has been supported by arguments from canon law. Neverthless the idea of an episcopus immediate subiectus sedis apostolicae is unnaceptable to some historians. Yet at the same time, there is abundant evidence of direct contacts between Mieszko I as well as his son, and Rome, that suggests the independence of their ecclesiastical policy.

I bolded the letters you removed and thus misquoted the text.

Furthemore the author provides several evidence that Bolesław was tributary to Pope, additonally writes that Only the old Bishop Unger of Poznań maintained his independent position. From 1004 onwards he probably accepted subordination to the archibishopric of Magdeburg but after his death in 1013(?) the archibshopric of Gniezno gained full control of Poznań.

So your whole sentence is contradicted by the very source you use. The author makes it clear that till 1004 Poznań was not part of Magdeburg. --Molobo (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

...maintained his independent position from Gniezno is what the book says. This does NOT mean that it was not subordinate to Magdeburg, does it. Neither does the sentence that from 1004 to 1013 Unger was probably subordinate to Magdeburg mean that Jordan or he was not subordinate before, does it.

What is more important, is your repeated allegation I would "remove" text. That I did not cite the whole book here, and gave "...[interpretable]..." instead of citing the whole sentence why this could be interpretable, does not mean I "remove" anything. That I did not insert a full quote into the article does not mean that either. I inserted:

"An older opinion prevalent in Polish historiography sees the Poznan bishopric not as Magdeburg's suffragane, but Unger as a missionary bishop directly subordinated to the pope. This opinion is still upheld by some, but unacceptable to other historians.[3]"

which is covered by the respective paragraph of the source, of which it is merely a condensed version. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The sentence is in regards to the status after the congress not before it, now the sentence makes impression it was already there.--Molobo (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Concerning the Incorrect Info above

Correcting the incorrect information posted by Molobo

Bishopric of Poznań couldn't 'stay' with Madgeburg, since it was created earlier then the one of Madgeburg and was central Bishopric of Poland till the Congress.--

Sorry what debate ? Bishopric of Poznań was created in 966, Bishopric of Magdeburg was created in 967. Till 1000 it was a seperate diocese. User:Molobo|Molobo]]

Archbishopric of Magdeburg was planned in 955 upon Battle of the Lechfeld and founded in 967/968. Posen/Bishopric of Poznan was founded in 968 and not earlier than the one of Magdeburg. The Posen/Poznan bishopric was attached to, put under the jurisdiction of the archdiocese Magdeburg in 970. In 1133 it was stillverified as being under the jurisdiction of archdiocese Magdeburg. An Observer (71.137.197.97 (talk) 04:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC))