Talk:John III Sobieski

Opening comments

In English, we don't usually put the ruler's family name. Just to repeat myself. Again. JHK

---

I'm pretty sure the Poles didn't call him John; what was his original name, Jan? I think it should at least be mentioned in the article. Jeronimo

Lithuanians call him Jonas. So the name have to be translated (Poles also dont't write Elisabeth 2, but Elżbieta II) or write it also in lithuanian an ruthenian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karolis-lt (talk • contribs) 11:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ermm...all respect to JHK, now departed, but in English we very usually call this fellow "John Sobieski". I think that for elected, non-dynastic Kings like the Polish ones, the surnames should be included when appropriate - as in this instance. john k 20:02, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Jeronimo, mayhaps the Poles didn't translate his name Jan into John, but this is an english-language encyclopedia, and the English name should be provided, correct? -Alex, 12.220.157.93 04:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC).

The Sobieski, Stuart Connection

I have just been watching Michael Portillo's Great Railway Journeys and, travelling in the Highlands, he investigates the history of tartan and two Sobieski-Stuart brothers claimed to have an old book on Scottish tartans which was used to reintroduce them after they were banned after the Battle of Culloden. As it turns out, this book was fake.

I decided to investigate this Polish-Scottish connection, dating back to Bonnie Prince Charlie as it seems a very interesting one. He was the son of the Old Pretender, Prince James, son of exiled Stuart King, James II & VII and his wife Maria Clementina Sobieska and great-grandson of John III Sobieski, most famous for the victory over the Ottoman Turks in the 1683 Battle of Vienna. It is John Sobieski who features as the hetman and who makes the grand entrance at the funeral of Michal Wolodeyowski at the end of Henryk Sienkiewicz's historical novel Fire in the Steppe. Ivankinsman (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

When was Jan III Sobieski elected the new monarch of the Commonwealth ?

The infobox and the main text have different dates for the Jan III Sobieski's election as the new monarch of the Commonwealth. Was it May 19 or May 21 ? --199.71.174.100 00:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"Only 22 years"

Okay, 22 years is quite a while. I'm removing some of that. Reinsert it if you will. Aaрон Кинни (t) 23:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Move. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Renaming proposal - John III Sobieski

This article was moved to the Polish name in December 2005, along with several other articles. Many of the others have since been moved back to English names and this article should be moved back too, to the English name of "John III Sobieski", as it appears in English-language reference works [1], per the Wikipedia guideline of Use English. Please indicate below if you support or oppose this move. --Elonka 04:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support, as nominator. --Elonka 04:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Well, if I remember well we already decided on Jan III Sobieski because the name was much more popular in English. Google Books Jan 297 [2] John 295 [3], Google hits Jan 95,800 [4] John 14,000 [5]--SylwiaS | talk 07:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

If ones excludes "hotel", these 95,800 hits are reduced to 19,000 [6] , or less when "street" or other place names are also excluded. According to Google counts, "Jan III Sobieski" would be a good name for a traveller's guide to Poland then ... -- Matthead ^discuß!   O    16:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the same then -hotel, -street Jan 15,600 [7] John 12,800 [8].--SylwiaS | talk 18:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Among the first results for Jan, impartial sites like "gov.pl" pop up, pages titled "Jan III Sobieski: Listy do królowej Marysieńki" (do we have to consider that english?), and coins sold on ebay. For John, sites like britannica.com oder .edu sites show up first. So better stop beating this dead horse. -- Matthead ^discuß!   O    06:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute, the first two sentences of the very first result for Jan deserves an honourable mention: "“He is a perfect oval which from a distance looks like a very large egg stood on the small end,” wrote one French observer, as he watched the Polish king, Jan III Sobieski. Blessed with a large head, enormous belly, and small feet, Jan Sobieski did indeed look something like an egg." -- Matthead ^discuß!   O    06:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you simply bring some evidence that John is more often used than Jan in English? BTW That page with Letters to Queen Marysieńka has his biography in English. I can't help it that people often look it up.--SylwiaS | talk 11:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support Should be moved back to English name. If it gets left here, there will be two monarchs of Poland called John, and one call Jan (this one). Doesn't really make sense. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 09:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support, as by nomination and Calgacus. -- Matthead ^discuß!   O    14:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - as Sylwia pointed out, Jan is already the most popular ENGLISH name for this king.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Sylwia pointed out that Google can be (mis)used as a funny and useless source for naming historic figures. -- Matthead ^discuß!   O    16:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support per above. Charles 14:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I would actually prefer John III of Poland, but within the limits of the proposal, I vote for the requested move. Shilkanni 18:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose As soon as I saw "Jan" and "Sobieski", "Polish Monarchs" popped right into my head. "John" and "III" meant I was fumbling for my List of Popes. Per Sylwia, Jan is the common name. — MrDolomite | Talk 22:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I would, however support any combination of redirects which take all the various Jan/John/Sobieski/KingOfPoland and still get a reader where they need to go. — MrDolomite | Talk 22:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• While I prefer Jan, I wonder what do you think about John III Sobieski as compared to John III of Poland? See also John I of Poland, a monarch virtualy unknown to anybody but some people who put a very specific Wikipedia Naming Convention about rulers above such things as, oh, 99,9% of printed academic works in English language.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support per WP:UE. -  AjaxSmack  00:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Name as it appears in encyclopedias and dictionaries

I really hate Google tests as a justification for "common usage in English", when we're talking about an individual who already has entire articles in major English-language encyclopedias. Here's a list of what I have easily available at the moment. If you have others, please feel free to add to the list. --Elonka 16:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedias

• John III Sobieski {Online Britannica [9])
• John III, king of Poland (Online Columbia [10])
• John III Sobieski (Encyclopedia of World History [11])

That's nice, but since we don't care about encyclopedic use at Jogaila, why care about it here? :( -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Trivia: Scutum Sobieski modifications

The constellation Scutum Sobieski was named after John III Sobieski. The trivia section speculated that the name Sobieski was dropped since no other person/house kept it's constellation person/house connection. That's speculation – fascinating – but not proper for an encyclopedia. For talk page's it might be OK, however, since some editor might know a doctor, that actually know an old pergament where astronomer X writes to astronomer Y, saying that "this family stuff in the stars is unacceptable, I will speak for removing the name sobieski", etc. (just speculation – don't take this for truth, please!). Now speculation alternatives:

1. the name Scutum Sobieski was too long and awkward, and since there was no other shield in the sky, the astronomers decided Scutum was enough,
2. all other "fawning" constellations were removed, f.ex. Sceptrum Brandenburgicum, Taurus Poniatovii, Telescopium Herschelii etc., but since Scutum was too well established, then only the the last name was dropped ...

Speculated: Rursus declamavi; 17:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

But ... Stars named after individuals are seldom older than from the 19th century, and almost exclusively called after their "discoverers". Earlier star names named after persons ... well ... the practical joke names Rotanev and Sualocin (allegedly after Niccolò_Cacciatore), and then Cor Caroli. Only Cor Caroli after a non-astronomer Charles II of England, which makes person names after non-astronomers among the stars incredibly rare! Rursus declamavi; 17:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Any defeats?

Can anyone tell me if Sobieski ever lost a military engagement? I checked all the articles that wikipedia has on his battles and they're all victories. I wasn't able to find much on the smaller battles so I can't tell what their result was. Help is much appreciated. JRWalko 20:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

laurel wreath

Do the depictions of him wearing the triumphant commander's laurel wreath start after the Battle of Vienna? It seems a safe bet, but I'd like to be sure before mentioning it in the article. —Charles P._(Mirv) 14:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Leelee Sobieski

She has the same last name, but I don't think her Jewish descent as it pertains to bagels warrants inclusion in this article. Any assertion of lineage to Jan III Sobieski belongs in Leelee's bio. Rstandefer 16:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Jan III Sobieski

Here's the beef. "Jan III Sobieski" Google Book Search yields 1087 results. These are English language titles of course. Although the same Google Book Search yields 1385 results for John III Sobieski, I would argue that, since the numbers are comparable, Wikipedia ought to promote the name most reflective of both English and Polish scientific literature. --Poeticbent talk 15:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

See above, consensus is John III Sobieski. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       14:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

What consensus are you talking about? Please read the writing on the wall. There was no consensus, just a vote that went both ways and could be interpreted both ways depending on who contributed and why. I suspect however, that you wouldn't be making it difficult for the others if you actually cared.

Also: I would like to stress the importance of guidelines provided for your consideration at Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Quote: “Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another.”

Somebody, please, write in the opening line that almost half of all English language titles speak of Jan III Sobieski instead of John III Sobieski. User:Matthead carefully removed that fact from the opening paragraph which speaks volumes about his intentions. --Poeticbent talk 16:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Jan III Sobieski (Ministry of Foreigns Affairs of Poland [12])
• Jan III Sobieski (Hyperhistory.net [13])
• Jan III Sobieski (University of Twente in Enschede [14])
• Jan III Sobieski (Modern History Sourcebook [15])
• Jan III Sobieski (IntraText Digital Library [16])
• John III Sobieski, or Jan III Sobieski, king of Poland (www.britannica.com [17])
• Jan III Sobieski (The Royal Collection, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II [18])
• Jan III Sobieski (Norman Davies, God's Playground: A History of Poland [19])
• Jan III Sobieski (Library of Congress [20]), etc.
  
  

You can try a proper WP:RM.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Before my edits, the article violated WP:MOS#Article_titles which says "If possible, the article’s title is the subject of the first sentence of the article, for example, “This Manual of Style is a style guide”". And besides, what were your unilateral move and edits, if not "for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another"? -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       00:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I made an edit that fixed the intro according to the article name (English Wikipedia), defended it (rv - John as per consensus article name) and then reverted back to the state before your unilateral move and changes (revert back to consensus Talk:Jan_III_Sobieski#Renaming_proposal_-_John_III_Sobieski). Poeticbent, better explain now where I "carefully removed that fact" "that almost half of all English language titles speak of Jan". All there is is this diff [21], which, compared to the last version of Piotrus, adds the underwhelming also referred to as before the other name version. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       00:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don’t play dumb with me, Matthead. One look at your contributions proves that you have no interest in Polish history and the only reason you reverted all my good faith edits is to get back at Polish editors with whom you’ve been edit-warring for months over a couple of unrelated articles. A number of editors objected to John III Sobieski name change (see above), therefore my move was far from “unilateral”. It was inspired by comments from those who care about Polish history and are poised to promote it from the the same perspective.

When I changed the name of the article to Jan III Sobieski as per Ministry of Foreigns Affairs of Poland, I also included in the opening paragraph: “Jan III Sobieski, also referred to as John III Sobieski,” to indicate that both are established names in English. You removed that alternative name. You also removed all phrases and captions referring to English name Jan Sobieski, like “Monument to King Jan III Sobieski”, etc. You know better than that. --Poeticbent talk 15:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

John III Sobieski → Jan III Sobieski as per Ministry of Foreigns Affairs of Poland.[22] See above.

• Oppose unless the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs has taken control of English Wikipedia. Has anything changed since the last round? —  AjaxSmack  06:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Per the last round, indeed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  10:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose as per above, the last round, and other John and John III. No privileges for Poland, Ministry of Foreigns Affairs or Jan Sobieski. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       14:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support for reasons already mentioned, Space Cadet 15:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support. As explained earlier, both names are used in English on equal footing and both are used by highly reputable sources. Wikipedia stands in the forefront of change though, allowing for names acceptable from multilingual perspective. The most important difference coming from the proposed name-change reflects the guidelines established at the source, promoted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Poland among numerous English language scholars who devote their life to the study of Polish history, Norman Davies being one of them. Besides, we are far from setting the precedence here. Please see other prominent Poles whose names could hardly be questioned, like Jan Długosz, Jan Matejko, Ignacy Jan Paderewski, Jan Kochanowski, Jan Zamoyski, Jan Potocki, Jan Piotr Sapieha, Jan Wielopolski, etc. The name John derives from the Latin Johanne (see: John (name)), simplified from Johannes. Seventeenth Century English texts still spelt the name Iohn (compare the Romanian Ion). Alternative and other language forms are: Yohanna (arabic: يوحنا), Eoin (Irish language derivation of Seán), Evan (Welsh a pre-Christian Celtic), Jevan (variation of Evan), Giovanni, Gianni (Italian), and Jan (Norwegian, Dutch, and Polish). It is my belief that the name Jan III Sobieski will serve the article better. --Poeticbent talk 15:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support for reasons stated above.--Molobo 20:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Polish monarch articles need to be mass-moved by name, not individually. Not against using modern orthographically Polish names for Polish monarchs in principle, irrespective of their popularity or lack of it, just needs to be consistent and must not mislead people into thinking that monarchs had only Polish culture, when indeed some were international in culture, or often bi-cultural Polish/German, Polish/Lithuanian, etc. Not sure if this vote has even been registered. In this case, it is clear that John is primarily Polish, but I'm opposing solely because such a move would result in some Polish Johns being John, while this guy would be Jan. Does it even make that much difference? John's an international name, not a name particularly associated with any other culture (i.e. German culture), and most English speakers will think of Jan not as Polish, but as Scandinavian. Anyways, properly propose a vote on all the Johns and I may change my vote. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose English names for historical monarchs, regardless of what the treatment is in Poland or the English form given by Polish agencies. Charles 04:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia uses the most common name used in English scholarship. Noel S McFerran 04:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose as per AjaxSmack and Charles. Olessi 19:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose; use English. We say Henry IV of France; how is this different? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, this is an English wikipedia.--Aldux 12:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, currently there is no valid ground for changing established English name. M.K. 17:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 06:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Royal titles

I think that polish translation is wrong, there are two times "litewski" but it rather should be "inflancki". Please check it.--77.253.55.110 (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This page was vandalized

I deleted the whole thing until it can be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunslinger1812 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This is an article?

Seriously? An article about a baby who died at two years old? He wasn't even the heir to the throne, since Poland was an elective monarchy. john k (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed: content moved to his father's article.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahnentafel removal

Here is a copy of the ahnentafel which was removed from the article, as seen in this edit. While I agree with the removal as so many persons are not notable, I have included here so that other editors can view it decide if those notable relations should be incorporated into the text. — MrDolomite • Talk 20:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ancestors of John III Sobieski

32. Stanisław Sobieski 16. Sebastian Sobieski 33. Małgorzata Krzyniecka 8. Jan Sobieski 34. Stanisław Gielczewski 17. Barbara Giełczewska 35. Katarzyna Pszończanka 4. Marek Sobieski 36. Jan Gdeszyński 18. Paweł Gdeszyński 37. - 9. Katarzyna Gdeszyńska 38. Jan Markuszowski 19. Barbara Markuszowska 39. Elżbieta Wapowska 2. Jakub Sobieski 40. Jakub Snopkowski 20. Stefan Snopkowski 41. Jadwiga Herburtowska 10. Jakub Snopkowski 42. Adam Firlej 21. Anna Firlejówna 43. Anna Przeńska 5. Jadwiga Snopkowska 44. Jan Herburt 22. Jan Herburt 45. Anna Fredrówna 11. Anna Herburtówna 46. Balcer Dąbrowski 23. Anna Dąbrowska 47. Barbara Herburtówna 1. John III Sobieski 48. Michał Daniłowicz 24. Jerzy Daniłowicz 49. Lady Paniowska 12. Stanisław Daniłowicz 50. Fryderyk Herburt 25. Jadwiga Herburtówna 51. Anna Sienieńska 6. Jan Daniłowicz 52. Andrzej Tarło 26. Jan Tarło 53. Katarzyna Michowska 13. Katarzyna Tarło 54. Jan Malczycki 27. Regina Malczycka 55. Katarzyna Drohojowska 3. Zofia Teofila Daniłowicz 56. Mikołaj Żółkiewski 28. Stanisław Żółkiewski 57. Zofia Herburtówna 14. Stanisław Żółkiewski 58. Jan Lipski 29. Zofia Lipska 59. Zofia Bobrowska 7. Zofia Żółkiewska 60. - 30. Jakub Herburt 61. - 15. Regina Herburt 62. Piotr Wapowski 31. Katarzyna Wapowska 63. Beata Tęczyńska

B-class review

This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. Also, some parts need expansion, the current article does not look comprehensive. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The ur-bagel?

A legend of the origins of the bagel refers to John III Sobieski as the king to whom a Jewish baker gave the very first bagel in commemoration of his victory at Vienna in 1683. The round shape of the bagel was said to resemble the stirrups of Sobieski and his mounted warriors.

Nothing against Jan Sobieski, but this sounds bogus. Cf. the entry on bagel: "Contrary to common legend, the bagel was not created in the shape of a stirrup to commemorate the victory of Poland's King Jan III Sobieski over the Ottoman Turks in the Battle of Vienna in 1683."

I read somewhere that the word "bagel" is etymologically related to the German verb beugen, to bend.

Sca (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that's why it says "A legend of...". Having said that, I thought the legend was about the croissant, not the bagel.VolunteerMarek 21:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's a source [23] thought it seems to mix up the croissant and the bagel thing into one.VolunteerMarek 21:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Also it should be noted that the entry in the bagel article has a tag in it, while there are actually quite number of sources which make the connection between the bagel and Sobieski [24]. True or not, it is a common origins story and I'm not seeing any sources which definitely disprove this particular one (of course personally I don't think this is the kind of thing that can actually be known).VolunteerMarek 22:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my Webster's New World Dictionary says "bagel" is related to etymologically to both Bügel (stirrup) and beugen — Bügel the noun presumably stemming from beugen the verb.

Also for what it's worth, the German Wiki entry says, in translation: "The name of the baked good probably stems from Middle High German bougel (ring) or from the Yiddish beigen (to bend)."

Footnote: In my Warsaw days, I used to buy bagels from a stand in an underground pedestrian passageway beneath Al. Ujazdowskie, near the north end of Łazienki Park. They had more body than the Americanized version here. Sca (talk) 14:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC).

You might mean pl:Obwarzanek krakowski, which needs translation to English Wikipedia. In Poland we classify it (I think) as a Pretzel, not a bagel, which is relatively unpopular (I have almost never seen it in Poland). Polish Wikipedia credits the Sobieski story to [25]. We should probably add the references we found to the article... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Tak, that's what they looked like, all right. But they weren't totally hard, like pretzels are here (although we also have a soft pretzel variant sold at stands, but they are very soft). Sca (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Obwarzanki are neither pretzels nor bagels (there are regular pretzels in Poland) but their own (pretty awesome) thing.VolunteerMarek 16:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The connection of the name to Yiddish or even German makes perfect sense but it doesn't really contradict the (true, probably invented) Sobieski legend.VolunteerMarek 16:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Sca (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I reverted that last addition - though I have no problem with it if a source can be found. Many of the sources I linked to above seem to take the legend at face value.16:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

hello

hello, am new here. please just get back — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian225 (talk • contribs) 09:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Picture removed

- Portrait of John III Sobieski (Anonymous, 4th quarter of XVII century)

Hello, user Oliszydlowski reverted this picture when I added it to this article. Oliszydlowski, I realize that you have not yet had the opportunity to realise why that picture was added that you reverted. Maybe you didn't realize we are trying to nominate this picture Portrait of John III Sobieski as a Featured Picture. The same way there are Featured articles, there are Featured pictures too. That would be Wikipedia:Featured Pictures.

The painting is a google file and is from the project Google art project, that deliver high-resolution images of artworks in collaboration with the museums. The Google Art Project is noted for its accuracy in the depictions of the artworks. This one was comming directly from the museum, and has a good chance to make it as a very good scan of high quality of a notable and important person. I am familiar with the requirements.

I tried to add a file that had a fair fighting chance, because I know how pictures are judged and what it takes to became a FP. The picture that in the lead and the other pictures in the article would get quickly Oppose votes for a number of reasons. It is about how pictures are judged. I'm afraid that I if you remove the picture, we are not going to make it to nominate a painting of John III Sobieski as Featured picture. That would be a great pity. Please add back the picture to the article. If I don't get any response I will add it back for all the reasons above. Hafspajen (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Trivia legacy

I am moving this terrible and mostly unreferenced section here. I will write a new legacy and significance section, and I don't see much here worth retaining. Still, maybe somebody will want to do something with that.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• After World War II, a statue of John III Sobieski was "repatriated" to Gdańsk from Lwów (a city now in Ukraine currently named Lviv). The statue overlooks a little park at the old Gdańsk City Hall museum.
• After the Battle of Vienna, the newly delineated Constellation of Scutum (Latin for shield) was originally named Scutum Sobiescianum by the astronomer Johannes Hevelius, in honor of John III Sobieski. While there are a few stars named after non-astronomers, this is the only constellation named after a real non-astronomer, moreover, one who was still alive when the constellation was named.
• A legend of the origins of the bagel refers to John III Sobieski as the king to whom a Jewish baker gave the very first bagel in commemoration of his victory at Vienna in 1683. The round shape of the bagel was said to resemble the stirrups of Sobieski and his mounted warriors.
• The EuroCity train route between Vienna and Warsaw (trains 104/105) are named after Sobieski.
• A fragrance named Bouquet Sobieski created in 1908 by Polish American perfumer John Blocki
• There is a modern proposition from non-Polish European newspapers to name the A2 highway in Poland after Sobieski.
• Sobieski, a vodka brand named after His Majesty John III
• A cigarette brand owned by British American Tobacco is called Jan III Sobieski

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John III Sobieski. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20161112212930/https://www.msz.gov.pl/resource/21badcbf-0c18-4fb8-8b19-3d382469d25f%3AJCR to https://www.msz.gov.pl/resource/21badcbf-0c18-4fb8-8b19-3d382469d25f%3AJCR
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://wielkisobieski.pl/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)