Talk:Konrad I of Masovia

---

Untitled

Moved from Konrad of Mazovia because the Piast dynasty page already used the "s" spelling.Gwimpey 21:18, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

Does this gentleman belong in the category of Polish monarchs? I don't know my Polish history enough, and I can't tell from the article. Gwimpey 21:29, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

To answer Gwimpeys's question, no Konrad I of Masovia was not a Polish monarch, he was duke of the independend Duchy of Masovia and Kujavia. However by the 16th century Masovia was annexed by Poland.

A substancial amount of information was removed by Lysy, see:[1] Information on Konrad of Masovia in connection to his and previous attempts at conquering Prussia can be found at Christian of Oliva with the attached link Catholic Encyclopedia. MG 3/5/2006

I'm sorry but even the link you provided (to the article by an unknown author) does not support your claims that Chełmno was Prussian. --Lysy^talk 02:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

---

This conversation belongs here:

that would deny that the document granting Chełmno Land to Teutonic Knights was forged ? Most authors that I've read say that it was never seen, Konrad had no reason to grant such rights to the Order and that Teutonic Knights were known to use similar (forged documents) techniques. I would be suspicious if Polish historians claimed this but it seems quite common among modern German historians as well. --Lysytalk 02:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

---

short answer, whatever rumors are spread about a supposed document or forged document granting Chełmno Land to Teutonic Knights seems to be inconsequential, because papal and imperial documents prior and after exist and Konrad of Masovia had recently conquered parts of Prussia, but it did not belong to him anyway.

I have in a book a copy of the Imperial Bull of Rimini of 1226 by emperor Frederick II, witnesses on the same document by a number of people and a translation. The witnesses: archbishops of Magdeburg, Ravenna, Tyrus, Palermo and Reggio, Bishops of Bologna, Rimini, Dukes of Saxony and Spoleto, Margrave of Montferrat, Albrecht von Habsburg, Richard the Marshall and many more.

It says in there ... that our devoted brother Konrad, duke of Masovia and Kujavia, promised and offered to furnish brother Hermann, Honorable Master of the Holy House of Spitale St. Marien of the Germans in Jerusalem (Teutonic Order).. with the Kulmer Land between his march and the Prussians and equip them (T.O.) well, so they may take Preussenland (Terra Prussiae) in posession... we recognize the visible piety of the Master (Hermann) in the conquest of the land and the fact, that this land is included in the realm of the empire, we trust the judgement of the Master... we recognize all land in Prussia as an ancient right of the empire ...

Emperor Frederick II declared this Golden Bull as Emperor of the Romans, King of Jerusalem and Sicily in March 1226 at Rimini.

At the moment I do not have any English-language sources, but I do know that they are lagging greatly behind and that the HRE imperial sources are extremely far spread in distance (as this sample shows) and that massive amounts of info has never been coordinate. This requires experts MG 3/6/2006

---

Lysy I found this and am putting an excerp here for you to read and for you to take out the phony fraud claim you put in. I will remove this quote again soon

The Golden Bull of Rimini, March 1226. From: Historia diplomatica Fridericii secundi, ed. J. L. A. Huillard-Bréholles, 6 vols in 11 (Paris, 1852-61, repr. Turin, 1963), vol. 2.1, pp. 549-52.

... So he wishes to inform present and future men of the empire that his faithful man Brother Hermann of Salza has explained in his presence that Duke Conrad [of Cujavia-Masovia] has promised and offered them the land of Culm, which is within the frontier territory and boundaries of Prussia, intending that they should take up the work and press on with the opportunity to enter and obtain the land of Prussia for the honour and glory of the True God. But they have put off taking this gift so as to ask Frederick’s permission first.

MG 3/7/2006

---

Thanks for finding this. Please, don't think that I'm trying to be difficult, but while interesting, the above text does not shed any light on whether the Konrad's document was forged or not. Also, we should try to restrict ourselves from doing original research here, but cite secondary sources instead. If there are modern history works claiming that Konrad's document indeed existed and was genuine, we should add them in the references section and probably mention in the article's body that this fact is disputed among historians. How about that ? --Lysy^talk 14:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

---

I do not think, that you are trying to be difficult here. The history of Prussia and the Baltics and Germany and Europe in general is very complicated and difficult to understand, unless someone has actual knowledge of ancient, medival history of Europe. To the supposed Konrad document or no document, isn't that really irrelevant? because the Imperial Bull and a Papal Bull of Rieti exist. Prussian land did not belong to Konrad, he had only conquered some of it , therefore he did not have any document of ownership to begin with. It did not belong to him in the first place.

By the way, when you look at old maps, you will find, that adjacent to the south of Prussia's Kulmerland, there are two small areas Michelau (like a triangle) and Löbau (Latin Lobovia). These belonged to the Teutonic Order state of Prussia as well. They were later on traded by the TO. And to the Masovia territory it had expanded north around the year 1000 in territory, that originally also was Old Prussian land. The same for Old Prussian land Galindia and Sudauen-Sudovia, they originally reached further south and east, than what the actual State of Prussia under the Teutonic Order was. So if anyone talks about Konrad of Masovia conquering some Prussian Culmerland and of Masovia, that is area south of the Drewenz river, south of the city of Thorn. Thorn was built as the gateway into Prussia, because ships could come there and old records state 'from Thorn you can overlook the river and see into Poland'

One could state that there is dispute among historians about Konrad, it is also clear that Konrad did not actually own Kulmerland or any other part of Prussian land (though he had conquered some of it, which the Prussians were in the process of regaining from him. Therefore his call for the Teutonic Order to help him protect his own duchy territory.

The Imperial Bull identifies Kulmerland as Prussian territory and the map of 1500's, which I attached to the Thorn article, also identifies Culmigeria Culmerland Kulmerland inside Altes Preussenland Ancient Prussia

MG 3/8/2006

---

I do not question that the Bulls exist and are genuine. Firstly, however, were they made before or after the alleged promise of Konrad ? Is it not that the Papal Bull was supposed to sanction the forged document ? Secondly, since you believe that Konrad could not give the territory that was not his but was only conquered by him, it would be good to answer several questions: When and how did Konrad conquer these lands ? How did the emperor came to authority over this territory if you assume it was neither his nor Konrad's ?

I'm lost by your comments about Culmerland. Are yu trying to say that TO was there before Konrad allegedly conquered it ?

As for the map that you mentioned, did you ask yourself who mde this map and how did this influence its shape ?

Finally, what do you base your claim that "Prussians were in the process of regaining" the territory from Konrad on ?

Thanks for discussing this with me. --Lysy^talk 19:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Lysy,

you might also want to read [2]

Imperial bull was 1226, made because Konrad requested aid from T.O., for that he 'gave them' parts of Prussian land, he had conquered, but could not hold on to and T.O. said they will wait until they get official authorisation to back them up. Papal bull was made in 1234 taking Prussia as a (still to be) christianized country into papal protection.

About Culmerland- Culmigeria- I am saying that Prussians were there way before Konrad or the first Masovians or first Polans were ever near there there or even existed.

What came to be known as Masovia was first conquered at Mieszko II Lamberts time and when he died in 1034, Masos or Maslao, who served under Mieszko II, ruled the land as independ ruler... until they wanted to conquer it from him and chased him out and so on and so on ...

---

This is nonsense. Chelmno (Culm) the capitol of Culmerland, was first mentioned as Polish city in 1065. Archeological findings confirm Polish presence since much earlier times. It's nonsense to distinguish between "Poles" and "Masovians", of course, just as it wouldbe nonsense to distinguish between Bavarians and Germans. Anyway, it wasn't Prussian in XII century, it wasn't Prussian in XIII century, it was Konrad's own inherited province, devastated and depopulated due to Prussian raids (which were reason for Konrad to organise crusades and christianisation). I don't know how many times I have to repeat it. If in sources we have Chelmno mentioned UNIFORMLY as Polish city since 1065, how come it was "PRUSSIAN CITY" in 1226?! Szopen 08:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Who?

Konrad is blamed by Poles, that 'his actions began the process whereby the Teutonic Knights came to control much of the Baltic coastline through their monastic state, that had ultimately dire consequences for the Polish state'.

Who or what are we quoting here? Sca (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this needs a specific reference to who or where it is claimed. Ileanadu (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Death of Konrad I

I don't see anything about how he died. Looking at the info box it appears that he died in 1247 and that his son, Boleslaus I in Masovia, succeeded him. However, none of this info is in the article itself. The last information in the article deals with his attempt (1241-43) to take over (as High Duke of Poland?) after the death of Henry II the Pious. Did he die peacefully in his bed or in a battle? I should think this info would be in the main article along with his son's succession. Ileanadu (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Konrad I of Masovia. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20070311041739/http://www.mlimuziejus.lt:80/3/31/315/315F2d.htm to http://www.mlimuziejus.lt/3/31/315/315F2d.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 21:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Konrad I of Masovia. 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/20081218130218/http://dziedzictwo.polska.pl/ead/xml/pdf/piast/pub_zrod_863.pdf to http://dziedzictwo.polska.pl/ead/xml/pdf/piast/pub_zrod_863.pdf

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) 19:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Continuity

Towards the end of the Life section, it says "…and Roman was killed." But there’s no mention of Roman before this. Boscaswell talk 08:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

High Duke of Poland

Why Konrad is said to be High Duke of Poland from 1229 to 1232? He claimed this title, but didn't conquer Krakow - capital city. In polish historiography he is considered Princeps (High Duke, Duke of Krakow) only from 1241 to 1243. The list of polish monarchs traditionally goes:

...

Leszek the White 1211 - 1227 (4th time),

Wladyslaw III Spindleshanks (1228 - 1231),

Henry I the Bearded (1231 - 1238),

Henry II the Pious (1238 - 1241),

Boleslaw the Horned (1241),

Konrad of Masovia (1241 - 1243),

Boleslaw V the Chaste (1243 - 1279)

...

Are there any reasons why in this article Konrad is High Duke from 1229 to 1232? Maciej17 (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)