Talk:Lithuanian Civil War (1432–1438)

Common English name

This "war" was between Svitrigaila (Lithuania) and Jogaila (Poland) as Svitrigaila became Grand Duke of Lithuania without approval from Poland and did not agree to acknowledge superiority of Jogaila. He allied himself with Teutonic Knights and others (Livonia, Ruthenia, Moldovia, Tatars, etc.) In 1432 Svitrigaila was deposed by Sigismund Kestutaitis and a civil war erupted. It all ended in the Battle of Pabaiskas and Sigismund became the Grand Duke. Would like to hear some suggestions were to move the article. Civil war in Lithuania (1431–1435)? Renata (talk) 01:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It is known as PTW in Polish historiography. How is it known in Lithuanian? And more important, in English? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

William Urban in his Tannenberg and After spends pages 306-313 to describe the conflict. He does not give a proper name, but mentions that it was a civil war caused by succession disputes. Usually his writing is from Teutonic perspective, but this time it's clear that the reason and force behind this war was Svitrigaila. Davis calls it "civil war in Lithuania" (God's playground, vol 1, page 135). There definite hostilities between PL and TE, but it was just a part of the larger civil-succession war in Lithuania. Renata (talk) 05:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Certainly a civil war in Lithuania was a part of it (and once this is expanded, will deserve its own article as a subarticle), but since other parties got involved, and fought each other, the civil war seems to have turned into a normal war. We can ask at WP:MILHIST if this argument is valid. As I've noted aboove, Polish historians use the term PTwar, and it is also used in English: Jędrzej Giertych, Brazilla Carroll Reece in Poland and Germany: A Reply to Congressman B. Carrol Reece of Tennessee: "There were new wars between Poland and the Teutonic Order in 1414, 1419, 1420—1422, 1431—1433, 1435, 1454—1466". Uniwersytet Warszawski Instytut Historyczny, Polskie Towarzystwo Historyczne Commission d'histoire médiévale, Quaestiones Medii Aevi: "This became the cause of a war in 1431 — 1435 between Poland and...". Stanislaus F. Belch, Paulus Vladimiri and His Doctrine Concerning International Law and Politic: "was occasioned by the renewal of war by the Order against Poland in 1431". Gerard Labuda, Stanisław Salmonowicz, Historia Pomorza, "Further hostilities between Poland and the Teutonic Knights; ... The war in the years 1431—1435". John France, The Crusades and the Expansion of Catholic Christendom, 1000-1714: "After Tannenberg, war between Poland and the Order dragged on until 1435". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

In all cases you cite the "war" is taken complete out of context and put with other wars - much different in circumstances. As I said, no one denies there were hostilities, but they were all part of a bigger conflict in Lithuania. Read the expanded article - though it still needs work, it gives a much better overview on what was going on. And you cannot really separate the PL-TE aspect from LT civil war. You would have two nearly identical articles repeating one another. Renata (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Eric Christiansen in his The Northern Crusades sums it up well: Grand Master von Russdof (...) grew friendly with the ancient Witold, and with his successor Svitrigal, but his intervention in the Lithuanian succession dispute of 1431-5 was not a success. (p. 242) Renata (talk) 22:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Piotrus, but none of your quotes have the ring of a proper name. To give a parallel more familiar to me, someone probably writes: "There was war between England and France between 1754 and 1763, 1778 and 1783, 1793 and 1802, and 1802 and 1815", but we don't call the American Revolutionary War "War between England and France", all the same. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 12:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's start with the new name: I am not convinced it is better either by the evidence provided (0 Google Print hits) and logic.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

One actually. We do not require that our disambiguator be common usage. That's not, I agree, much. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• It seems clearly too obscure to have a common name in English, unless it is something completely different, which is possible. "Lithuanian Civil War" would of course be the usual English form, and this does seem to have ghits. But the alternatives should be incorporated in the lead. Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • If it has no proper name in English, then we need a descriptive title. Although Piotrus' quotes come back into evidence for that, "Lithuanian civil war" has the advantage of not requiring dismabiguation, and the NCMedH appears to speak of it thus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, I don't know what we call them, but the ghits suggested other episodes in the 16th & 20th centuries can be so called - of course with dates the title could stand alone, but a disam page might be a good idea anyway. Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Incorrect. There is also a Civil war in Lithuania (1700) (although the name of that event is also disputable, see talk - comments appreciated).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course a part of the problem here is the issue of Polish/Lithuanian in name. There will be Lithuanian editors who will see the current name as some form of "diminishining Lithuanian role" and campaign for Lithuanian in name due to that, and vice versa for Polish editors. Perhaps another "Polish-Lithuanian–Teutonic War" would be a reasonable compromise (despite the fact that this is another invented name used to appease a certain group of editors...).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with current title is that it completely misses the entire point and reason for the conflict. PL-LT-TE war does not seem ok to me because there were two Lithuanians: one of Svitrigaila and another of Sigismund Kestutaitis, and the point of the war is still unclear. How about War of Lithuanian Succession (following Eric Christiansen)? No parties mentioned in the title, yet the point of the war is expressed exactly. Renata (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty name - but unused in literature. I've illustrated that this war has a clear name in Polish historiography (one that translates as the PTW); how is it called in Lithuanian? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It's been quite established that there is no name for it in English (as usual). In Lithuanian it also does not have a proper name, just generic "civil war", "succession dispute", etc. So we need a descriptive term. I believe "War of Lithuanian Succession" is the most descriptive & neutral. Renata (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe using the estabilished name from Polish historiography is better. We should try to find out if there is a German name, though.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's Polish-Teutonic(German) War in Hungarian, so let's leave it at that. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Analysis

There are at least 4 non-Polish & non-Lithuanian historians writing in English who refer to this conflict as some sort of "civil war" or "succession dispute" and spend at least a sentence to describe its essence:

• Daniel Stone: ... policies in Lithuania prolonged the civil war that had broken out after Vytautas died in 1430. (p. 22)
• Norman Davies: civil war in Lithuania (p.135)
• William Urban: succession crisis in Lithuania (p. 335)
• Eric Christiansen: Lithuanian succession dispute of 1431-5 (p. 242)

Those are only ones I have print copies of - instead of relying on scrapped Ghits. The first two are known for their works on Polish history, the last two - from works on Teutonic/Crusade history. None of Piotrus ghits hold any water:

• Jędrzej Giertych, Brazilla Carroll Reece in Poland and Germany: A Reply to Congressman B. Carrol Reece of Tennessee: "There were new wars between Poland and the Teutonic Order in 1414, 1419, 1420—1422, 1431—1433, 1435, 1454—1466". - As PMAnderson said, there was war between Russia and Sweden in 1700-1721, but it is known as the Great Northern War. And in the list given three wars have their proper names: Hunger, Gollub, and Thirteen Years' Wars
• Uniwersytet Warszawski Instytut Historyczny, Polskie Towarzystwo Historyczne Commission d'histoire médiévale, Quaestiones Medii Aevi: "This became the cause of a war in 1431 — 1435 between Poland and...". - you cannot even see what the "and" part is. Same as #1. Would be interesting to know the cause, though.
• Stanislaus F. Belch, Paulus Vladimiri and His Doctrine Concerning International Law and Politic: "was occasioned by the renewal of war by the Order against Poland in 1431". - all it says the order attacked Poland in 1431. "War" is not described.
• Gerard Labuda, Stanisław Salmonowicz, Historia Pomorza, "Further hostilities between Poland and the Teutonic Knights; ... The war in the years 1431—1435". - yes, there was a war in those years. What kind of war is quite another question.
• John France, The Crusades and the Expansion of Catholic Christendom, 1000-1714: "After Tannenberg, war between Poland and the Order dragged on until 1435". - Why? How were the wars in between called?

While the war remains too obscure to have any proper name, it's quite clear it was about succession in Lithuania. Wikipedia's title should reflect that. Renata (talk) 06:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about correcting or proving your history thesis. I even agree with your logic (not with your critique of sources) and the "Lithuanian War of Succession" is nice - but ORish. You should publish an article about this war, giving it a name and arguing for it. Then we can use your new name in our article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

My thesis? How about descriptions presented by non-Polish and non-Lithuanian historians in their well-respected works on Polish and Teutonic history? If you don't like War of Lithuanian Succession as a reasonable compromise, let's follow Davis, Stone, and Britannica (in article about Jogaila) by naming it Lithuanian civil war (1431–1435), my original proposal. I hope you won't argue that Davis and Britannica are ORish too. Renata (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Dubious. As I've shown above, the civil war was only a part of the larger Polish-Teutonic War, and this is why its referred to as a war (not a civil one) by so many authors..--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Shown above? Where? You need to get your history straight. Christiansen and Urban, who write extensively about Teutonic history, make it clear that Teutonic Knights got involved in the civil war in Lithuania, and not the other way around. I would like to see your sources, other than Ghit scraps where you cannot see more than five words. If you don't have them, I guess I'll proceed with the move. Renata (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You are free to proceed with a WP:RM, as I object to a move to the name hardly supported even by Lithuanian historiography, not to mention Polish/English/German and so on. I repeat: the civil war in Lithuania was only part of a wider conflict, which included hostilities along the Polish-Teutonic border, and involved also Pomeranian dukes and the Czech Hussites (and probably some other parties, too).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hardly supported? 5 pure indisputable English references provided. For Lithuanian historiography, there is no proper name, but there is plenty of descriptive names ("civil war", "succession dispute" and variations thereupon) when writing about Svitrigaila and Sigismund. Part of the larger PL-TE war? Any non-nationalistic sources on that to counter Urban and Christiansen? Which one started first? According to Britannica article on Jogaila, PL-TE war ended in 1432. According to your own addition from Polish sources, some historians fracture the "bigger and wider" PL-TE war into periods of 1431-33 and 1435, when Lithuanian civil war continued from 1431 to 1435 (and technically to 1437, when Svitrigaila gave up). Just how Battle of Pabaiskas fits into the PL-TE war? Neither Poland not Teutons were biggest forces in that battle. Hussite invasion is part of much wider and bigger Hussite Wars and sometimes actually better known then the entire PL-TE war (Stephen Turnbull in Tannenberg 1410 mentions the invasion, but not the war (p. 84)). Renata (talk) 22:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't move without consensus

Dear Renata, please use proper procedure - WP:RM - to move this article. I oppose the move from the original name, which I consider both better documented and logically more correct.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

...which you consider better... yet no evidence was provided in the ample time given. Renata (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious we need a third party to mediate here. You can select a procedure from WP:DR for that, although I believe WP:RM is simpler and the most adequate.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you consider using WP:RM in the Eldership of Samogitia case?--Lokyz (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Double redirects

Moving this page has created quite a few double redirects - see Special:WhatLinksHere/Polish-Teutonic War (1431-1435). TwoMightyGods^Persuasion_Necessity 23:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Name

Since I believe we should note the importance of Lithuania in this conflict, I'd like to propose a move to Polish–Lithuanian-Teutonic War (1431–1435). Granted, this is not the estabilished name - but neither really is any other name we discussed; this conflict is mostly unknown to English historiography, and when mentioned, it has no common name.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

In English "Teutonic" sounds odd without an "Order" or "Knights". Sorry to add a further complication, but it does. Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for reading some books and realizing how inadequate this title is. You criticized my proposal of War of Lithuanian Succession (which I think is most descriptive and least nationalistic) because it is made up and ORish. Your suggestion here has the exact same problem. Plus, since we are going for a descriptive name in absence of established proper name, it does not adequately describe the war. There were two Lithuania's: one of Svitrigaila, and another of Sigismund (thus civil war). Plus it does not give the character/cause of the war. It was nothing like the Polish-Lithuanian-Teutonic War in 1410.

So we are back at the Lithuanian Civil War. Supported by Norman Davies, Daniel Stone, Oskar Halecki (in several books), Dmytro Doroshenko, S. C. Rowell, Encyclopedia Britannica, and a whole bunch of Lithuanian historians who use the term "civil war" to describe the conflict. It is the least ORish name. Renata (talk) 02:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

And I have shown that plenty of historians use Polish-Teutonic war. And we are back to square one. Sigh.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

...and as seen in ==Analysis== above and PMAnderson they do not hold water. Most of them just say that Poland and Teutons waged wars against each other in these years.... Plus some sources say that war between PL and TE ended in 1432 (per Halecki and Britannica) or 1433 (per your own addition to the article and per Giertych). Plus Davies, Halecki, Urban, Christiancen, and our own Jogaila (FA, written by a Polish editor) make quite clear that fighting between PL and TE was just part of larger civil war or succession dispute in Lithuania. So no, we are not back at square one as I did not see a single argument against Lithuanian Civil War. Renata (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Renata, if you intend on simply ignoring my arguments, I am afraid there is little point in any conversation between the two of us regarding this issue.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not ignoring your arguments, I am rebutting them. The only time you cited any sources was this and it's been addressed by me several times and by PMAnderson. You criticized War of Lithuanian Succession, I accepted that. Now where is any argument against Lithuanian Civil War? I guess this opinion could be considered an argument, but it was debunked by me citing reliable sources showing exactly the contrary. Renata (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no intention of repeating myself. The sources you cite don't support Civil War; they talk of a civil war, part of the larger war. I have cited sources that talk of a larger war, not a civil war. The current name, based on a translation of a Polish term, seems quite applicable.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess I have to repeat myself. The only time you cited any sources was this. I do not see a single mention there that would talk about a separate war going on in Lithuania which was smaller and part of a bigger PL-TE war. How do my sources not support civil war? analysis please? Renata (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I am going to repeat is: if you think another name is better, do a WP:RM. A better name should get community support.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to insist on bureaucratic procedures if you have no decent arguments or sources to back up your opinion. PS. from WP:RM - In some situations, the value of a move may be under dispute, and discussion is necessary in order to reach a consensus. There is no obligation to list such move requests here; discussions of page moves can always be carried out at the article's talk page without adding an entry. We been doing a RM since June 23. Renata (talk) 01:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

So any arguments backed up by sources? It's been over a week now... Renata (talk) 01:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I have not yet seen you present any arguments, indeed.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

So what are these? [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]? If you bother looking at the diffs: sources, non-Polish, non-Lithuanian sources and not 5-word Google scraps. Just a list of them: Christiansen, Urban, Davis, Britannica, Halecki, our own Jogaila, Doroshenko, Rowell... I would appreciate if you would stop ignoring them. Renata (talk) 05:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

And what about the equal numbers of my counterargument and sources? As I said below, I have no intention on further discussion if you keep on ignoring any of my (or other editors) counterarguments and sources. And don't try to convince anybody that this is a proper RM, this is not going to fly. You want a RM, the procedure is outlined on that page.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Excommunication of Jogaila

I have never heard of it. It is not mentioned in our FA on Jogaila, neither. IIRC, the Order tried to get him excommunicated, but they never succeeded, and the papacy was actually relatively friendly to Poland (as the Lithuanian rebels were seen as more heretical).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Reversal of move

I reverted the move of earlier today by User:Renata3and moved Lithuanian Civil War (1431–1435) back to Polish–Teutonic War (1431–1435). The earlier move was made without discussing it here and there is a section Talk:Lithuanian Civil War (1431–1435)#Please don.27t move without consensus on this page making it clear that a move is contentious so do it properly and make a WP:RM if you (User:Renata3) want to move this page. -- PBS (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

With whom it should be discussed? Above "discussion" only shows that party which opposes a move is driven by personal preferences, father then established academic naming. M.K. (talk) 12:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Controversial moves should be listed at WP:RM. Do that and if the closing administrator judges that there is a consensus for the requested move, it will be moved, and it will not be moved back without another WP:RM. Discussions about sources etc can be presented during the requested move process. The RM is more than a simple vote count as the WP:AT policy and guidelines will be taken into consideration. But just moving the page without a WP:RM is unacceptable as such a move is controversial. -- PBS (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you please tell my how did you concluded that such move is "controversial" ? M.K. (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

See the sections above #Please don't move without consensus, #Name and the section immediately following this one. -- PBS (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Move

Is there any solid arguments why article should not be named under proper title Lithuanian Civil War (1431–1435)? Any arguments? M.K. (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The Polish-Teutonic War (1431-1435) began as an internal war of succession to the throne of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania; but, as has often happened with wars (including the 20th century's two World Wars), the conflagration quickly drew in neighboring powers and widened into something much greater. To call this war merely a "Lithuanian Civil War (1431-1435)" or "Lithuanian War of Succession (1431-1435)" would be like calling World War I "the Austro-Serbian Conflict of 1914-1918." Nihil novi (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The solid argument for the name of this war is a question: "What do the majority of English Language sources call this war?" Instead of speculating on what is the correct name for the war, do some research and find out what is the name used in reliable English language sources, then put in a request for a rename of the page based on those sources. -- PBS (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The Russians tend to refer to the Second Word War as the Great Patriotic War so using Russian sources to determine the name of the article World War II would be inappropriate and lead to a misnaming of the article. If this article is to have a new name it must be a name based on English Language sources, unless it can be shown that there are no English language sources, in which case a descriptive name will probably be the best solution based on what reliable English language sources call the parties to the dispute. -- PBS (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I cut the article in two pieces . Lithuanian civil war is notable enough to have a separate article on its own as PL-Teutonic war. I think by doing, this listed problems are solved for now. M.K. (talk) 12:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

M.K. your bold cut and past move of most of the content has been reverted. Currently the redirect takes care of notability for the other name if the other name is notable. If you think that the majority of the text belongs in another article them put in a requested move and have the article moved to the new name. As another editor has reverted your changes -- a correct editorial decision as cut and past moves are not acceptable for copyright reasons -- I have reverted your edits to Lithuanian Civil War (1431–1435) and have protected the page for two weeks. Now please use the WP:RM process and justify the move using reliable English language sources. -- PBS (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This Unfortunate Series of Events deserves a separate article with a distinct name. There looks to be a little more detail than necessary about the Hussite invasion of Prussia - it's otherwise pretty well focused on the civil war in LT. It is described as a civil war in quite a few books. Here are some samples. From Lithuania ascending: a pagan empire within east-central Europe, 1295-1345, Cambridge U Press 1994: "On the civil war in Lithuania between Švitrigaila and Jogaila Algidaiciai and Zygimantas Kestutaitis in the 1430s which almost destroyed the union of Lithuania with Poland, see..." [7] From The Cambridge History of Poland, Cambridge U Press: "The Grodno Union was ratified by the King and his council, but the settlement of the Ruthenian question was postponed and the hesitation in this most important matter prolonged the civil war. In the central lands of Lithuania, Sigismund defeated Svidrigello at the end of 1432..." [8]. From Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages, Volume 1, Routledge 2001, "After the death in 1430 of Vitold (Vytautas), who had governed the Grand Duchy under the nominal sovereignity of Jagiello, discrimination against the Ruthenians led to a civil war." [9]. From Latin books and the Eastern Orthodox clerical elite in Kiev, 1632-1780, Manchester U Press 2006: "On the civil war of 1432-1440 in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, between the adherents of a closer alliance with Poland and those who kept sides with the Ruthenian nobility, see..." [10]. From The Jews of Lithuania: a history of a remarkable community, 1316-1945, Gefen Publishing House 1995: "One year before his death in 1430, Vytautas reconfirmed the union with Poland. His death triggered a civil war..." [11].

Copy-pastes within WP are permitted, the attribution procedures are covered at WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Statements mentioning any copying at the talk pages of this article and the originating article will do.

Does this explanation suffice to move the article name back to LT civil war or do we still need a formal RM procedure? Novickas (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it does not suffice. I strongly oppose renaming the Polish-Teutonic War into "Lithianuan civil war".  Dr. Loosmark  16:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Any particular reason? Renata (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the reason is the current title better fits the article plus it is used by numerous sources.  Dr. Loosmark  19:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Please elaborate how the current title fits an armed conflict that started and ended as a power struggle between two Lithuanian dukes. Also, please list the "numerous sources". Thanks, Renata (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Polish–Teutonic War is a disambiguation page that includes nine conflicts. I am not suggesting that this particular article replace all the articles covered there. Only that this one be renamed. I'll create a category since it seems that some editors, presumably supported by reliable sources (haven't checked) sum them up this way. Novickas (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC) PS: new category - Category:Polish-Teutonic wars. Novickas (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Novickas at last someone who has bothered to bring a source to the table! I can see one that is used a title rather than as a description. The best of the bunch seems to be "On the civil war of 1432-1440" the others seem to be descriptive as is done in this sentence: "The Wars of the Roses were a series of dynastic civil wars between supporters of the rival houses of Lancaster and York, for the throne of England."

If "Lithuanian Civil War (1432–1440)" is the best name for the article then it should be moved to that title. What is not acceptable is a cut and past move to a new title or a WP:CONTENTFORK. The recent edits to the two pages "I cut the article in two pieces" was nothing but a cut and past move dressed up in a party frock. Of course copy within Wikipedia is allowed but WP:Copying within Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Splitting are not intended for this sort of situation. If the majority of the text belongs in a civil war article then move the article to that name and leave a redirect or cut and past back that which should be in this article. Any change like this should be done with consensus, and to date I have not see that consensus emerge. The advantage of using a WP:RM procedure is it is quick (seven days) and is likely to pull in outside opinions. I also think that those who wish to keep the article under the current name should also produce sources in English which show that the current name is a common name for the conflict. -- PBS (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Contested, so it needs an RM. Outside opinions would be welcome. I probably won't file till after M. Day. Novickas (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW, it's not accurate to describe me as the first to bring sources to this table, Renata has made major contributions to the article [12] and added good refs [13], [14], [15], etc. Novickas (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Move request

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.

The result of the proposal was a consensus to cleave the article. Personally I think that this is a mistake (WP:CONTENTFORK). But to facilitate the split I am going to move the article from Polish–Teutonic War (1431–1435) to Lithuanian Civil War (1431–1435) as most of the content seems to be about the Civil War and I think this is the best way to preserve the history of the article with most of the contents. Those that want an article at Polish–Teutonic War (1431–1435) are free to copy back any content they think is relevant, but I would suggest as an alternative to copy and translate the pl:Wojna polsko-krzyżacka w latach 1431-1435 article to here (along with that cartoon!). Either way attribution should be given by naming the source of the content either in the history of the article and/or on the talk page (see Wikipedia:PLAGARISM#Copying within Wikipedia). BTW Renata3 you should have added subst: at the start of the template "so a permanent record of the proposed page name can be placed on the talk page." -- PBS (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

---

• Support. This conflict started and ended as a power struggle of the Lithuanian dukes. PS. I made small fixes to the nomination. Renata (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Both articles are needed — "Polish–Teutonic War (1431–1435)," and "Lithuanian Civil War (1431–1435)." I support "doing a proper split, not a move," as argued convincingly by the article's original author, Piotrus ([16]). Nihil novi (talk) 08:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. Support two separate articles, any intersections can be dealt with by normal editing. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Polish.E2.80.93Teutonic_War_.281431.E2.80.931435.29. Now it's more a question of who will implement this. Novickas (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • • Here's a rough translation of the Polish WP version of this article - User:Novickas/Polish-Teutonic War (1431-1435). You can see that Swidrygiello's machinations were a factor in both conflicts. But if Oscar Halecki - the co-author of a Cambridge History of Poland - splits the conflicts - "..the renewed war between Poland and the Teutonic Order, as well as the civil war in Lithuania.." [17], page 154 - then WP should do this too. Novickas (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Good. When the two articles are both written, we can see if they will recombine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support clear indication that EN sources favoring to proposed move, in contrast to purely speculative attempt to prove opposite by supplying "sources" like this [18]. Regarding having two separate articles, actually I attempted to do so few weeks ago, but certain activists disrupted that process, providing rather comical "rationales".M.K. (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Background: the civil war involved control of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The Duchy and the Kingdom of Poland were somewhat tentatively united at this point; they would not be firmly united into the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth until the 1569 Union of Lublin. During internal power struggles one side or the other would ally themselves with the Teutonic Knights or Livonian Order, even tho these orders periodically attacked both countries.

If you skim the article you'll see if focuses on the civil war, altho related conflicts with the orders took place.

The tongue-twisting names of the civil war protagonists differ in the following sources so here's a guide: Švitrigaila (aka Svidrygiello or Swidrigello), his brother Jogaila (aka Jagiello), Sigismund Kęstutaitis (aka Zygimantas Kestutaitis or Zygmunt Kiejstutowicz). Began after the death of Vytautas (aka Witold, Vitold, Vitovt) in 1430.

Sources that describe a civil war in LT during the 1430s:

BORDERLANDS OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION, A History of East Central Europe, Oscar Halecki 1980, Corvinus Library of Hungarian History: "This was possible because in the meantime the renewed war between Poland and the Teutonic Order, as well as the civil war in Lithuania, both at least indirectly provoked by the Luxemburg’s eastern policy, had ended in 1435 in a victory of the Jagellonian political conception." [19] Ukraine: a history By Orest Subtelny, Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, Cambridge U Press 1988 [20] "The majority chose the Orthodox Svidrygiello, a brother of Jagiello...Civil war broke out, during which Jagiello's brother..." God's Playground: The origins to 1795 By Norman Davies, Columbia University Press, 2005 "The first years of his reign were engulfed by the shock waves from the civil war in Lithuania, where Jagiello's brother Swidrygiello was conspiring with the Teutonic Knights..." [21] Lithuania ascending: a pagan empire within east-central Europe, 1295-1345, Cambridge U Press 1994: "On concessions to the Orthodox from Jogaila and Zygimantas during the Lithuanian civil war, see..." [22] 'The Cambridge History of Poland, Cambridge U Press: "The Grodno Union was ratified by the King and his council, but the settlement of the Ruthenian question was postponed and the hesitation in this most important matter prolonged the civil war. In the central lands of Lithuania, Sigismund defeated Svidrigello at the end of 1432..." [23]. Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages, Volume 1, Routledge 2001, "After the death in 1430 of Vitold (Vytautas), who had governed the Grand Duchy under the nominal sovereignity of Jagiello, discrimination against the Ruthenians led to a civil war." [24]. Latin books and the Eastern Orthodox clerical elite in Kiev, 1632-1780, Manchester U Press 2006: "On the civil war of 1432-1440 in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, between the adherents of a closer alliance with Poland and those who kept sides with the Ruthenian nobility, see..." [25]. The northern crusades: the Baltic and the Catholic frontier, 1100-1525 by Eric Christiansen, Macmillan, 1980: "Grand Master von Russdof (...) grew friendly with the ancient Witold, and with his successor Svitrigal, but his intervention in the Lithuanian succession dispute of 1431-5 was not a success." [26] The Polish-Lithuanian state, 1386-1795 by Daniel Stone, University of Washington Press, 2001: "policies in Lithuania prolonged the civil war that had broken out after Vytautas died in 1430." [27] Tannenberg and After by William Urban: "succession crisis in Lithuania" (p. 335) The Jews of Lithuania: a history of a remarkable community, 1316-1945, Gefen Publishing House 1995: "One year before his death in 1430, Vytautas reconfirmed the union with Poland. His death triggered a civil war..." [28].

Sources that describe a Polish-Teutonic war 1431-1435:
Eternal Empire: The Ottomans at War By Richard Bodley Scott, Peter Dennis, Osprey Publishing: "The Teutonic Knights were defeated in the Battle of Grunwald,...the Polish-Teutonic War of 1431-1435 and the..." [29].

Novickas (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

And what exactly are all those sources supposed to prove? Yes, there was civil war in Lithuania but this article describes a much wider battle and sets of events rather than just a civil war in Lithuania. Poland and the Teutonic Knights battled a number of wars and each time for over another reason and this time they fought over Lithuania.  Dr. Loosmark  17:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

And it's quite comical that source number 1 says "This was possible because in the meantime the renewed war between Poland and the Teutonic Order, as well as the civil war in Lithuania, both at least indirectly provoked by the Luxemburg’s eastern policy, had ended in 1435 in a victory of the Jagellonian political conception." but Novickas counts under pro Lithuanian civil war sources.  Dr. Loosmark  17:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Loosmark you wrote above: "Yeah, the reason is the current title better fits the article plus it is used by numerous sources" Please could you list the half dozen or so English language sources you think are the best templates for the current name? -- PBS (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have much time at the moment but there are of course lots of sources:

More sources that describe a Polish-Teutonic war 1431-1435:

Trade and urban development in Poland by Francis W. Carter: page 81 refers to a war between Poland and Teutonic Knights in 1431-35 A history of Polish Christianity by Jerzy Kłoczowski: page 72 refers to the Teutonic Knights attack on Poland in 1431 Quaestiones medii aevi, Volume 3‎ - Page 131: page 131: The shorter Cambridge medieval history, Volume 2 by Charles William Previté-Orton: "Jagiello now had to deal with revolt in Lithuania and a fresh war with the Teutonic Order (1431-5)" page 1016 A concise history of Poland by Jerzy Lukowski, W. H. Zawadzki: page 45: refers to the war of 1431-35 (alongside the wars of 1409-11, 1414, 1422) etc, etc, etc.

 Dr. Loosmark  12:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Two separate articles? There are plenty of reliable refs describing a civil war in LT at this time. Also some describing a PL-Teutonic war at the same time. The question then is what is this article is mostly about. If its referenced text, context, and details are mostly about the civil war in LT, then that's what it should be called. Novickas (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I skim the article and see conflict beginning with a Teutonic invasion of Poland ending at Nakel, and continuing with a Czech invasion ending at Koenigsburg. This war may be inspired by a Lithuanian Civil War (as several wars have been inspired by Polish civil conflict), but it is not limited to it. (And would you all please consider, on both sides, whether you will look like stereotypes when WP:LAME hears about this one?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:53, 2 June 2010 (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.

Descriptive name?

I seem to me that there is no definitive name in English for this conflict. Consideration should be given to renaming the article to "Lithuanian civil war (1431–1435)" and/or not placing the title in bold in the introduction to indicate that it is a descriptive name (see Wikipedia:Lead section#First sentence) -- PBS (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is purely descriptive name. The capitals are there only to keep consistency with Lithuanian Civil War (1381–1384) and Lithuanian Civil War (1389–1392). But these are also descriptive names, so might be a good idea to lower-case them all. Renata (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Teutonic invasion of Poland

Given the removal of Polish–Teutonic War (1431–1435) from the lead, should not the section Teutonic invasion of Poland have the war placed at the top as main. Also oughtn't the section be indented by one so it becomes a subsection of the prelude? -- PBS (talk) 06:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Link to PL-TE war inserted. I'm not sure if it should be part of the prelude tho since so many of the sources say the civil war started after the death of Vytautas in 1430. Novickas (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Wrong chronological boundaries

This article theoretically should describe precisely the civil war in GDL, which began not in 1431, but in 1432 (attempted murder on a Svidrigajlo in Oshmyany). Battles were fought until 1439, though sluggish. The main scientific work on this topic is Powstanie Swidrygiełły by Lewicki (Kraków, 1892). See also some rather new articles by Jaroslaw Nikodem. --Azgar (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

B-class

Confirmed for WP:POLAND. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lithuanian Civil War (1431–35). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090306101544/http://www.pth.olsztyn.pl/abstrakty/Maciej%20Rynarzewski%20Abstract.pdf to http://www.pth.olsztyn.pl/abstrakty/Maciej%20Rynarzewski%20Abstract.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

When was this war anyway?

Can someone please clarify. And at least keep the whole thing consistent? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I moved the article name and the years mentioned back to what seems to amount to earlier consensus. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The person who argued for other date is User:Azgar, pinged (his edits are here). I'll also ping User:Renata3. Please note that the current ref for the dates is not valid if the article is using the 31-35 dates ([30]). Would be good to know what the source says. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gerard. The idea is that 1431–35 are not valid dates and just added by someone without any valid source reference. I'm not good in English (sorry for this), but I can try to explain. Some months ago new 700-pages monograph fully dedicated to the 1430-th Lithuanian Civil War was published (in Russian). The author is Sergey Polekhov from the Institute of Russian History (Russian Academy of Sciences). Sergey is a well-know researcher, he already did a great deal on Medieval Lithuanian studies, you can find his profile on Academia.edu or just google Sergey Polekhov/Sergejus Polechovas. The 2nd chapter of his monograph (pp. 259-433) called "The war for GDL (1432–1438)". Some quotation (in my translation):

When you reads sources about the events of 1431-32 it develops impression that the main potential danger for Švitrigaila was Poland. On this background event that occurred in less than two years after his enthronement seems to be quite unexpected. On the night of August 31 to September 1 1432 as a result of the conspiracy of the group of Švitrigaila's entourage Grand Duke of Lithuania was dethroned. Сonspirators gained the throne for Lithuanian Prince Sigismund Kęstutaitis - Vytautas brother. The deposed Grand Duke managed to escape to Polotsk, where he began to gather forces for the armed struggle for the Lithuanian throne. Thus began the dynastic [civil] war in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which lasted until the end of 1438.

— S. Poleknov. Vytautas' successors. P. 241.

So, this dates (1432–38) are accepted in historiography. The same dates you can find in Nikodem's (polish scientist) and Liutyis (belarusian scientist) papers. Regards, Azgar (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Some googling brought me to this paper - English Summary of the unpublished Polekhov's PhD thesis defended in 2011. --Azgar (talk) 09:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Any remarks/concerns? --Azgar (talk) 08:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, I put 1431 because the article includes "Lutsk War" with Poland in 1431. Or you could count that the "civil war" began with the August 1432 coup. Either way. I put the 1435 because that's when the armed conflict ended - from what I could gather from my sources. That the formal peace was not achieved until 1438 is not all that relevant, imho (c.f. List of wars extended by diplomatic irregularity). But it would be very interesting and helpful if you could add more info on events post Battle of Pabaiskas - my sources are very fragmentary and laconic about it. Renata (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Lutsk war is not a part of a civil war. So, I suggest to describe it as a part of civil war background. Vilkomir (Pabaiskas) battle is not the last battle, but I agree it is critical moment all over the war. Sources, as far as I know including Lithuanian (refer to J. Matusas Švitrigaila Lietuvos didysis kunigaikštis, 1991), agree that the war wasn't finished in 1435. Military operations were held until 1438, when Sigismunt gained control of all the GDL lands. If you doubt the Polehov's reliability, just ask prof. Rimvydas Petrauskas about him, I believe he is more reputable than me. --Azgar (talk) 09:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Since Polish sources I see focus on the Polish–Teutonic War (1431–35) dimension of this conflict, I think Lithuanian sources on this would be worth checking. I don't really see much in Polish sources on this. So far Azgar's sources and citations seem reasonable good to suggest that changing the date range of this article may be worthwhile. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Some of the J. Nikodem's papers were published online, but, unfortunately, links are broken now. But it is not difficult to find classic paper by A. Lewicki Powstanie Swidrygiełły (1892). It is fully obsolete in terms the causes and goals evaluation, but not in the pure event description. Or you may refer to M. Kosman's Orzeł i pogoń (1992). --Azgar (talk) 09:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• If there are no objections, I will revert to my version. Azgar (talk) 08:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lithuanian Civil War (1432–1438). 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/20080303191252/http://mkp.emokykla.lt/gimtoji/ to http://mkp.emokykla.lt/gimtoji/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110515185857/http://ausis.gf.vu.lt/mg/nr/99/10/10kar.html to http://ausis.gf.vu.lt/mg/nr/99/10/10kar.html

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) 17:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Hyperlink for rus

The hyperlink directs you to a Ukrainian page Mr anonymous username (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)