Talk:Samogitian nobility

Merge

Looking into this "article" I suggest speedy merge to Lithuanian nobility, as it hardly will be expanded in normal article, besides two issues highly correlates among each other. M.K. 13:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Why so? The term Samogitian nobility is used even in Lithuanian works, and is apparently different from the term Lithuanian nobility. Why exactly should we merge the two? Or should we merge it with the article on Polish nobility (if there was such)? By comparison, I doubt anyone would support merging a - hypotetical so far - article on nobility from Lorraine with either German nobility or French nobility. //Halibutt 11:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, has anyone got the results of the Russian 1897 census for the three Samogitian rayons (I mean Telshe, Shavle and Rasenie)? //Halibutt 12:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Samogitian nobility is as distinct as notable as Masovian or Prussian. Of course, we should remember that there are two distinct periods to consider: pre-PLC, with the main article being Lithuanian nobility, and PLC, with the main article being szlachta. Hence the question is - if we merge (which is not necessarily a good idea as the concept is somewhat notable), should we merge it to LN or SZ article? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me repeat myself here: As for Samogitians, while they do have selfidentity, they do consider themselves part of Lithuanians. As Lithuanians they were recognized in Konstanz and later in Bazel church councils. Special delegates were sent, who acknowledged the fact - that people in Samogitia and in Lithuania speak the same language and have the same customs. Since then no one would ever doubt this, until now. In other words you're creating a gargantuan WP:OR here. Ergo this article created as an classic example of WP:POINT should be merged into Lithuanian nobility article (and it will be).

As for szlachta vs Lithuanian nobility - Lithuanian nobility gained equal rights, intermarried but has never merged into szlachta. Up until the partitions no one from the Crown under no circumstances could get office in Grand Duchy of Lithuania, not becoming citizen of Grand Duchy first. You might want to think otherwise, and patriotic tygodniks may write otherwise. I do not really care - read specialists on this issue e.g. Juliusz Bardach, Henryk Łowmiański, Jerzy Ochmanski or if you want to understand, what did contemporary people "feel" read Tadeusz Czacki works for instance. Have a good reading.--Lokyz 19:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Only merged if the article Lithuanian nobility will be moved to Nobility of Lithuania which wil include Polish, German, Russian, Samogitian and other non-Lithuanian nobility living in it. I think its pretty obvious that not everybody who lived in Lithuania considered himself Lithuanian, disregarding the usuall nationalist claims.--Molobo 20:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me reply in points:

1. Whether modern Samogitians feel Lithuanian, Polish or Zulu is irrelevant here. This stub is focused on historical concept
2. There are sources to treat Samogitian nobility as a distinct entity (I provided some at Lokyz's request)
3. Your problem is that you treat szlachta as if it was synonymous with Polish nobility. In the real life szlachta members could be Polish, Lithuanian, German, Tatar, Ruthenian, Russian or even Scottish. It's not an ethnic term, szlachta was a social class.
4. You say that Lithuanian nobility has never merged into szlachta. Fine with me, though IMHO they didn't have to "merge", as szlachta already consisted of Lithuanians, Poles, Germans and so on.
5. Besides, we're not speaking of Lithuanian gentry here, but of Samogitian. Not of Lithuanian people, but of a class from a certain region.
6. How's the administrative division of the PLC related to this issue? I don't really get the idea behind your offices story. Do you mean that all people to hold positions in the GDL were Lithuanian by ethnicity? //Halibutt 23:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Per 3-weren't there also Jewish nobles in szlachta ?--Molobo 01:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Konstanz and Bazel Church Councils anyone?
2. Provide them once more, since I did not see them
3. No I do not treat it as "Polish", It's you who treat it as Polish. Hence separate articles on Lithuanian and Polish nobilities is required, because they formed in different ways, and had different privileges and different self identity (C of both nations, remember)?
4. Then we should use English word to avoyd confusion - i.e. Lithuanian nobility, Polish nobility and so on.
5. Konstanz and Bazel Church Councils anyone?
6. Read about Statutes of Lithuania, and you'll understand that it was not only administrative division. As a matter of fact, Union of Lublin was significantly revised when GDL accepted Stephan Bathory as a Grand Duke.

Ah, and Molobo, neofits are not considered Jews anymore--Lokyz 11:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Council of Constance took place between 1414-1418, Council of Florence in 1431. In early 15th century the szlachta (both in the Crown and in other parts of the country) was still forming from the local boyars, knights, king's administrative personnel and so on. Is the diplomatic game won by Jagiełło really related to this article? I doubt it.
2. Check the article page, they are in the Notes and references section.
3. No, I don't. That's why we have an article on szlachta, as they called themselves, and not on Polish nobility,, Mazovian nobility, Lesser Polish nobility, Prussian nobility and so on. In each of those regions the szlachta formed in a different way and held different privileges. Yet, they all were members of the single class, joining at the same Sejms. BTW, Sejm was originally a Lithuanian word, imported into Polish at the times of Jagiełło.
4. Why so? There's no confusion so far. szlachta = noble class of the Commonwealth = Lithuanian + Prussian + Ruthenian + Mazovian + Samogitian + Lesser Polish + Greater Polish + Pskovian + ...
5. No, the diplomatic game was not about defining ethnic aspect of a certain social class. It was about forcing the Teutons to stop their attacks.
6. Sure, I know that (I read the statutes as they are available in Polish; are they available in Lithuanian as well?). But that doesn't mean that all people to hold offices in any part of the country were members of that nation. Besides, we're not speaking of 19th or 20th century here. //Halibutt 12:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

"ah, and Molobo, neofits are not considered Jews anymore" Please explain, do you mean one had to convert to Roman Catholic faith to become a noble ?--Molobo 12:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Huh - please explain what country are you referring to in the middle of 15th century? Or will you be bold and fix the Szlachta article about so late formation? and what was Union of Horodlo then, by tis interpetation of yours (since szlachta was still not formed)? WP:OR if you'd ask me.
2. Nice, did you happen to read them?
3. Please state the year when Commonwealth was formed? Was there until the time no nobility?
4. Same as #3
5. The Vytautas diplomatic game certainly defined ethnic borders and affiliation [1], so all assumptions other way is WP:OR. Please stop wasting my time and yours also.
6. Sure they were - hence Commonwealth of BOTH nations, not a single one. And that was one of Lithuanian nobility privileges, and that what makes this one country not so one after all. You might be also interested in reading of addendum to May the 3rd constitution - Zaręczenie Wzajemne Obojga Narodów.--Lokyz 12:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Jewish people in PLC had to.--Lokyz 12:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

1. It's becoming boring... The Union of Horodło, along with dozens of other privileges granted to the nobles in 15th and 16th centuries laid foundation to what became the szlachta. It's one of the stones, not the stone. Read up more on the topic, I'd recommend some books by Janusz Tazbir, for instance the State without stakes, but also Sarmaci i świat. Actually the wiki article on szlachta could do as well.
2. Yup. Not the English translation though, I cited it to make it easier for those who don't speak Polish.
3. Lokyz, szlachta is different in that it was not just nobility. Otherwise we'd have no article on it and would simply merge it into the article on European noble class. Until the union there were noble classes in all of the states that formed the Commonwealth. However, it was not until the union (or rather unions) that the szlachta (or the nation, as they often called themselves) formed, as a distinct social class. Sure, there must've been some earlier Samogitian nobility as well, I simply don't have any sources on it to expand this stub (stub!) with info on the mediaeval nobility dwelling in the forests between Prussia and Lithuania.
4. same as 3
5. Sure, just like it convinced the Pope that there were no pagans in Lithuania at that time. Does it mean that there were no pagans there? Nope. It was a diplomatic game and we should not base our 21st century ethnic assumptions on 15th century diplomatic games. Besides, let me repeat for the umpteenth time, this article does not yet include info on pre-16th century nobles dwelling there. Want to add it - fine with me. Just try to spend your time constructively, writing and sourcing articles.
6. I did read all the documents you mention. I only wonder when were the statutes translated to Lithuanian... Anyway, your assumption that we can judge nationality or ethnicity by the fact that someone was a member of the GDL's administration is simply wrong, no matter what. This would mean that Italians at the court of Bona Sforza were also Polish people in terms of ethnicity. Is that what you suggest?
7. As to Jews within the szlachta, I've heard only of the Frankists, which are a tad special case. //Halibutt 14:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Nope, yopu're wrong - it's just becoming fun. Like your statement that there was no szlacha in 14th century. I had a really good laugh. So please tell me how would you call Polish nobility in 10-15th centuries?
2. -
3. Huh? Nobility was a special social class all around Europe, that does not make szlachta so outstanding. And since direct translation of szlachta is "nobility" - why should we not stick with English word, since it's English wikipedia here. "the mediaeval nobility dwelling in the forests between Prussia and Lithuania" - is funny, as it is insulting and WP:OR'ish. Take the Billewicz family from Bilūnai manor, family that is known since 15th century for an instance...
4. You may repeat as much as you like, since notable historians find it important, your personal opinion on this topic does not matter.
5. language matter does not matter here. I've topld you more than once - language does not define nationality.
6. Please cite, where did I mention enticity? I did mention nation - i.e. political entity with borders, citizenship, money, treasury, army. Your modern perception of nationality, that is projected to the past does not correspond to the contemporary meaning.

Ah another one thing - unless you get civilised and stop calling my nation "living in the woods" I am not gonna continue this conversation. You still miss me dozen appologies, so until then I'll stick with WP:DNFTT.--Lokyz 11:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

1. In Polish the division id pretty apparent: the early nobles are usually referred as stan rycerski (knight class) or możni (nobles). The term Szlachta is usually reserved for later periods, where it formed what is known in English as szlachta. See for instance Knight#Knighthood_and_the_feudal_system to get the idea.
2. -
3. It's neither funny nor insulting. Samogitia is located between Prussia and Lithuanian heartland. And the area was densely forested in middle ages, much like Prussia and Mazovia. What's so insulting in that? Besides, I never claimed there were no local nobles (counterpart of stan rycerski in Lesser Poland or noblesse in Ile de France). There were also boyars in Ruthenia, there were Ritters in Prussia and so on. However, it was not until much later that all of them merged into a single class of szlachta.
4. Yeah, they find it important. But do they actually write what you state? Nope. But feel free to expand this article instead of boycotting it.
5. Neither does geographic location.
6. So, you actually state that, while Lithuanian and Polish nobles alike were members of the nation of the Commonwealth, Samogitian nobles were loyal to GDL only? Do I get you right? //Halibutt 11:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

1. As for the 1st - for the third time I do ask you what period(s) are you refering to, and if you are ready to revrite your patron's literature on Szlachta?

As for the other parts - I'll stick to WP:DNFTT

BTW, when I'll have time I'll start a section on this talk page WP:OR by Halibutt- about Lithuania vs Samogitia, and, of course, szlachta. Or should we move that part to the Talk:Szlachta and Pact of Horodlo. The most prolific editor Piotrus, does it it seem more appropriate there? Cheers.--Lokyz 20:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you possibly stop offending me? I though we're getting somewhere, but now I'm lost. Do you actually have problems with this article that needs to be solved, or was it just another occasion to slander me, call me names and stuff? If this discussion is over (WP:DNFT), then let's remove the move tag from the article and forget the issue. //Halibutt 11:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Samogitian nobility is a notable subject that had could be expanded later (for example role in the Lithuanian national revival). --Doopdoop (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think, that Samogitian involvement in Lithuanian national revival is a perfect proof that Samogitians are Lithuanians? Because othervise tehy should have been involved in Samogitian national revival, don't you think?--Lokyz (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a wise comparision. Non-ethnic Poles in Poland have also played a role in Polish fights for independence but it doesn't mean they are Poles--Molobo (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and there is even a Samogitian wikipedia, likely edited by Samogitian szlachta [2]. --Doopdoop (talk) 01:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

What does lead you to this assumption?--Lokyz (talk) 03:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you think so or doo you have any references? Zmudzini being Polish, well. You've made my day for now:)--Lokyz (talk) 03:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Lithuanian nobility

This article should be a part of Lithuanian nobility because Vytautas diplomatic game certainly defined ethnic borders and affiliation [3] of Lithuanians. hence taggign again. Please do not remove this tag without a proper consensus and references.--Lokyz (talk) 05:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This was discussed above as merge, and no consensus for merge was reached. Please don't use other tags when the primary failed. If you want, you can suggest this article for WP:AFD. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

A proper WP:RM procedure was not started, hence it the move is in sight.--Lokyz (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)