Talk:Treaty of Oliva

Friede von Oliva

The Treaty of Oliva, (also known as Peace of Oliwa, German Friede von Oliva, Polish Pokój oliwski) was a treaty by Holy Roman Empire emperor Leopold I, prince-elector Friedrich Wilhelm of Brandenburg-Prussia, Swedens king Karl X Gustav (Charles X of Sweden), and king of Poland John II Casimir of Poland, at Oliva near Danzig ( now Oliwa ,Gdansk in Poland), on April 23, 1660.

---

It is a pleasure, Piotrus, to notice that you recognize the importance of the fact, that the document depicted, states, that the emperor Leopold I agreed to this treaty. This is in stark contrast to the other submitter, who feels the need to constantly change historical facts by deliberately misstatements and ommissions.

By the way,

Oliwa versus Oliva, google results

• Treaty of Oliwa 748
• Peace of Oliwa 1.380
• Treaty of Oliva 8.240
• Peace of Oliva 45.500

But despite the clear use of Oliva in English language publications, Space Cadet keeps changing it to Oliwa.

---

It does appear that Peace of Oliva is the name we should use. Note it would be much easier for everybody, Dear Anon, if you would consider registering and signing your messages, so I could now who (and how many whoms) I am talking to. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:17, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Charles X of Sweden did not sign that treaty

King Charles X of Sweden died on February 13, 1660. Yet this article says that he signed the treaty on April 23, 1660. Clearly this needs to be corrected. Who was running Sweden after the king's death? I seem to remember reading that it was precisely the early and unexpected death of the rather warlike Charles X that allowed the peace to be signed at all. Balcer 20:48, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

It was agreed on by Charles X, and continued by his son Charles XI.

---

(Inserted here, because of constant removal by Molobo, Space Cadet etc)

Treaty of Oliva

The Treaty of Oliva, PAX OLIVENSIS (also known as Peace of Oliva, Swedish Freden i Oliva, Polish Pokój oliwski) was a treaty signed by Holy Roman Empire emperor Leopold I, prince-elector Friedrich Wilhelm of Brandenburg-Prussia, Swedens king Charles X of Sweden, and king of Poland John II Casimir of Poland, at Oliva in Prussia (now Oliwa near Gdansk in Poland), on April 23, 1660. The plaque commemmorating this treaty states: PACIS OLIVIENSIS ANNO MDCLX III MAJI. AD GEDANUM IN PRVSSIA CONCLVSAE MONVMENTVM

---

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. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 06:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Treaty of Oliwa → Treaty of Oliva – "Treaty of Oliva" (or "Peace of Oliva") is used much more frequently than "... of Oliwa" in English.

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support as originator. Olessi 17:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support I agree, I have heard more of the Treaty of Oliva with a "v", even if the place today is called differently today. Gryffindor 20:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. We're not going to change all historical names to their Latin counterparts, are we. Also, I'd oppose moving the article on battle of Stalingrad to battle of Сталинград, just because the name was used in locally-made documents at the time. //Halibutt 23:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Use the most common English name for the particular context. The comparison above is frivolous. All English language books say Battle of Stalingrad. Similarly, WW2 books use Battle of Kharkov (compare to more common now Kharkiv). By Halibutt's logic, the name of Polish voivodships even in historic contexts should also be changed. Let's move Kijów Voivodship, Czernihów Voivodship, etc, articles to Kiev and Chernihiv voivodships, respectively. --Irpen 00:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Please take a note that Molobo frantically spams the talk pages of all Polish wikipedians, asking them to vote in his favour. Therefore I will not be surprised if the result will turn out to be rigged up. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Edwy ^(talk) 11:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support This appears to be the contemporary name. Septentrionalis 17:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Halibutt. --Molobo 17:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

I ran some English-language Google tests with the mirror filter. It is important to keep in mind that when using regular Google, the number of total search hits differs on the first page and the last page. I have put the actual total number of hits (given on the last page) in parentheses.

• Treaty of Oliwa: 274 (76)
• Treaty of Oliva: 1,090 (207)
• Peace of Oliwa: 126 (47)
• Peace of Oliva: 693 (166)

Google Books

• Treaty of Oliwa: 2
• Treaty of Oliva: 136 (88)
• Peace of Oliwa: 5
• Peace of Oliva: 142 (81)

Google Scholar

• Treaty of Oliwa: 0
• Treaty of Oliva: 25
• Peace of Oliwa: 0
• Peace of Oliva: 14

Columbia uses "Peace of Oliva". Britannica does not seem to have a dedicated article to the treaty. Olessi 17:09, 6 April 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.

Date

Can someone confirm the April 23 date? I've also come across May 3. Appleseed (Talk) 18:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's always good to consider what calendar were the dates in, sometimes it's the same day, different dates in different calendars.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice catch. That would explain the 10 day difference. Appleseed (Talk) 00:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Map

I don't believe it's appropriate for the map to show Polish names for places inhabited at the time by Germans, such as Königsberg and (dare I say it?) Danzig, which at the time were known primarily by their German names. Sca (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Livonia

We have Livonia passing from Poland to Sweden at WP:Truce of Altmark in 1629. So is it accurate for us to say Livonia passed from Poland to Sweden at Oliva? -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Both articles are correct, it is the 'passing' that is ambiguous:

• In the early 1600s, Swedish forces started advancing through Livonia, were expelled after Kircholm, but since 1617 renewed their advance and had occupied all of the later Swedish Livonia by 1625/26, so de facto, Livonia had passed to Sweden by then.
• In Altmark, the PLC accepted the Swedish gain, but did not recognise a permanent cession (Altmark Art. IV: "In Livonia utraque pars, uti nunc possidet, ita possideat, durantibus induciis") [1]. Altmark was prolonged at Stuhmsdorf, but that was not a permanent solution either.
• In contrast, Oliva is an actual peace treaty backed by the great powers of the time, and in Art. IV after the reference to Altmark/Stuhmsdorf ("Livoniam trans dunanam, quam Suecia hactenus, per tempus induciarum tenuit et possedit") eventually transfers Swedish Livonia to Sweden: "haec [...] Sueciae transferunt" [2].

So we have a ('permanent') military possession of Swedish Livonia since 1617-26, then a bilateral, Brandenburg-Prussian-brokered truce temporarily freezing this status in 1629 (prolonged in Stuhmsdorf), and an international treaty guaranteed by the great powers wherein Swedish Livonia is de jure ceded in 1660. Either date thus qualifies as the 'passing' event, depending on one's perspective. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)