Talk:Union of Krewo

Territories transferred?

Were any territories transferred during the Union of Krewo? Article on history of Belarus had a misleading sentence indicated it happened, but as I cannot find any confirmation, I removed it (in addition it also erroneusly stated that PLC existed in 1385).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they were. "The decision by the barons of Malopolska to offer the throne to a pagan ruler was one of the most remarkable in the annals of medieval Europe. While the Union of Kreva of 14 August 1385 obliged Jagiello, in very general terms to undertake the recovery of 'all the lands stolen from... the kingdom of Poland', the territories annexed by the Ordensstaat were a secondary issue. The lords of Malopolska were more concerned to neutralise the dangers from Lithuania itself. As recenty as 1376, Jogaila had participated in a savage raid which had laid wast the rich lands between the San and the Vistula. ". "To the suspicious nobility of Wielkopolska, Jagiello's elevation was a bid for political dominance by the baronage of Malopolska. The two provinces where physically separated by a belt of fiefs granted by Louis the Great to his helpmate, the Silesian Piast, Wladyslaw of Opole, who, in 1392 floated a scheme to divide the Crown between the Ordensstaat and Sigismund of Hungary. Only in 1396 were his lands forcibly annexed by Jadwiga and her husband. In 1387 disorder in Hungary helped Jadwiga to recover the Rus' territories transferred by her father from Poland." (from "A Concise History of Poland" by Jerzy Lukowski and Hubert Zawadski) Juraune 16:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Rename

The name of the article should be the [[Union of Kreva]].

• 1. This treaty was signed in a castle of medieval Lithuania. Krėva was and is its Lithuanian name.
• 2. It is now part of Belarus, where the name is also Kreva (Крева).
• 3. Krewo is its Polish name, and it's Krevo (Крево) in Ukrainian. At the time the treaty was signed, Krewa was in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, not in Poland. Today, its name remains Kreva. Why opt for the Polish name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juraune (talk • contribs)

Sign your edits, dear. Her position kind of makes sense, doesn't it, Gang? Dr. Dan 22:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC) P.S. do you mind if I copy edit your points a little?

I dont mind your edits at all, Dr. Dan. You are native speaker of English and a professional Historian, why should I mind. Juraune 13:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You should add that the name is Krėva in modern (ie. post-1918) Lithuanian. Before 20th century it was not written that way, was it. //Halibutt 22:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You have no idea about modern Lithuanian, have you? Do you know that some sentences in modern Lithuanian sound almost the same as sentences in Sanscrit, writen several thousand years ago? I have Indian friends that say words in Hindi, and they sound 100% Lithuanian and have similar meaning, for example, there is a mountain "šatrija" (Shatriya) in Lithuania, very famous and revered, and Kshatriya is an Indian caste of warriors? Since it is a little of topic, one example should be enough. Juraune 18:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Written, schmitten. What was it called in Lithuanian or Belarusian? That's the greater point, here. Otherwise, how was Kraków (see recent talk), written before the 20th century in English. You know "even English evolves". Can you live with it? Dr. Dan 22:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure. But in this very context we're discussing past tense, past accomplishments, and past documents. You won't rename Battle of Stalingrad to Battle of Volgograd just because the name has changed in the meantime. I'd say a good compromise solution would be to follow the spelling used in the document itself. Otherwise we'd have to decide ourselves who inhabited the village

back then, which would IMO be based on our own suppositions rather than on verifiable data (census?). What do you say? //Halibutt 09:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Polish were just guests in the castle when signing the agreement, so do we have to write in Polish every place, where Polish foot stepped in? :D Juraune 13:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I didn't say that. I though my solution is somehow clean, but perhaps there is some better solution to the problem of calling a pact after a name introduced several hundred years later? //Halibutt 16:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, I'm listening to both sides, and am a little undecided (believe it or not). So then, does the original document still exist? The name on it would have significance and bearing on the matter. What truly confounds me, more than anything about your edits on "these" subjects, is your persistence in thinking that Belarusians and Lithuanians did not have names for their geographical locations. And that their territory was mapped out in the Polish language, and hundreds of years later they "invented" names for these locations, and that furthermore these "inventions", were all based on the names that Poles gave them. Is there any possibility in your mind, that the Lithuanians (more so than Belarusians, because of Slavic linguistic similarities), had geographical names that the Poles patterned their naming of such locations, rather than the other way around? My studies in linguistics (including your native tongue), has opened my eyes to subjects that many Americans never become acquainted with. Lithuanian is very old, you'd be rather surprised to know how little was "invented", prior to the industrial age when products and concepts were imported from abroad. Like the Polish words for bicycle and razor blade were "invented", if those two, are examples enough. BTW, no offense, but the Stalingrad vs. Volgograd analogy, is no analogy, if Krewa was not renamed to Krewo by the Belarusians or Lithuanians. Dr. Dan 22:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Again Dan, you're judging me for what you believe I said and not for what I actually said. I can't comment much on modern Belarusian, but both mediaeval Lithuanian and Ruthenian did have their own toponyms, their own names for things and places and so on. Many of those were then copied into Polish, at times in a twisted form, at other times with their original spelling preserved. This was particularly visible in Masuria, where the Slavic settlers from Masovia (both the name for the inhabitants of Masuria, the name for their land and their dialect are in fact derived from the name of Masovia, from where the majority of its inhabitants came in the middle ages) named their villages after original Prussian names rather than German names invented by the Teutons. Hence there are so many "ll" clusters, "-iszki", "-ajny" suffixes and so on in that part of the world (as an interesting fact, many of those were later "Germanized", which resulted with even merrier changes). I agree to all of that as it would be idiocy not to.

However, the actual difference here is the problem of spelling, not the problem of language or toponyms. As far as I know until 1918 Lithuanian was simply written with a different set of characters, based on both Polish and German. Hence what is now put down with V (as Vilnius, Kreva, and so on) was actually written with W. Instead, the V signified U, much like in contemporary Polish or German - or Latin, for that matter. Hence if the document was written in Lithuanian, the place would most likely be never written the way it is now. This entire remark is of course an anachronism in itself, as the Lithuanian literary tradition is much younger than the treaty and it was not until 150 years later that Mazhvydas published his book (or rather Maszwidas, as he put his name down). //Halibutt 23:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

no, Mazvydas wrote his name in numerous different forms and different spellings, but pronounciation doesn't change because of that. Different spellings are just reflections of something real. Different kind of distorted mirror reflections are not a better form of reallity than the original object that is reflected. Juraune 19:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

"-iszki", "-ajny" suffixes in Masuria, where Yotvingians and Prussians lived and were assimilated by Lithuanians and Masurians remained probably for those Masurians lived with Lithuanians in the same places. -ishki is said to be specific for Lithuanian language. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.119.3.129 (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

O.K., So are you saying the Poles came to a locale, in Lithuania, in 1385, which had the toponym Krewo? Dr. Dan 23:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea, but this seems probable. What I'm saying is that:

1. In late 14th century the place was most surely not called Krėva. Krewa or Krewo - perhaps.
2. The latter is mentioned in the Polish version of the document - and is recorded as such in Polish historiography. Perhaps the Latin version of that document uses some Latinised spelling, I couldn't find it
3. If there was a Ruthenian version of that document as well, the name mentioned there would be crucial to this discussion as that was the lingua franca of Eastern Europe back then, Lithuania included. //Halibutt 00:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

"You (I) have no idea, but this seems probable", ..."If there was a Ruthenian document"... yadi, yada! I'll tell you how I'll compromise with those two remarks of yours, with two of my own. One, a telegram from Pan Twardowski (from the moon no less), supporting your last positions, or two, a sign from the False Dmitriy I (that will be harder as I understand his ashes were shot from a cannon in the direction of Poland) also supporting your position. I hope your laughing, because your remarks were funny to me . And I know you enough that you can do better than that. Dr. Dan 03:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC) P.S. I'm going to play some Chopin, and go beddy-by. It's 22.40, and I was at the Hospital at 5.30 this morning. The patient was a Rodak of yours. It went well.

I understand you had a hard day, but sadly I don't understand a word of your comment above. What is it that you actually don't like/find dubious/insulting/strange/funny/whatever? Me admitting that I'm not sure of something? Well, it's quite a common thing, I never said I know everything. Or perhaps my suggestion that if there was some Ruthenian version of this document, it might've solved the naming problem here? //Halibutt 04:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me help you understand. Focus like a laser. Your two words: Probable and If. You know like in the saying, "If my Aunt had a moustache, she'd probably be my Uncle (might not work in Sardinia though), or another variant of it. Dr. Dan 13:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC) p.s. I had a good night's sleep, thanks.

I am pretty sure that the toponym in Ruthenian was written Крево, which is also modern Russian and Ukrainian version (Final "a" in Belarusian variant Крэва Kreva comes from strictly phonetic nature of modern Belarusian orthography - unaccented "o" in Belarusian always becomes "a"; this phenomenon is called аканьне akańnie). In Latin, it certainly wasn't Krewo. I guess it was written Crevo (Creuo) or in similar manner. But in my opinion the whole discussion misses the point. The place still exists, its name hasn't changed, the only problem is to choose the right spelling. I think it would be nice if in such cases we just used the variant in the language of the country where the place is located presently. If it is in Belarus, use Belarusian, if in Lithuania - Lithuanian, in Poland - Polish. As simple as that. Of course, when the name of a place was changed much, one should use its traditional form, eg. Treaties of Tilsit, not Treaties of Sovetsk. Yet another case would be if the traditional version of the name was well known in historical contexts, but I don't think Krewo belongs to that category. Cyon 06:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If I understand the edit, the name of the toponym, in Belarusian and Lithuanian is Kreva, not Krewo. Correct? Dr. Dan 13:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have found the Latin text of the Union here: [1] and somewhat more legible here: [2]. I must admit I was wrong, in Latin text the name is written Krew. (And there is also an alternative name Кревъ in East Slavic: "Кревъ каменъ" - "Krev made of stone" [3], but still more often Крево - although it seems to be a later name [4], [5]). I give these examples not because I want to change the title of the article to Union of Krew, but in order to make clear that the idea of returning to the name used at the time of the events isn't the best solution here (especially when taken into account that spellings at that time weren't really fixed). Cyon 12:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Dan, I saw no reason to lie to anyone and pretend that I know something I don't. If you feel that I should've, then perhaps you might want to think of it for a while.

Cyon, excellent research. Kudos! How about ending the issue by adding a footnote explaining the names and their differences? That way we'd have it all without much more ado. I'll give it a try and we'll see if it works. //Halibutt 14:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Cyon, thank you very much. It was such an interesting read, the links you provided! And I agree with you that, locations that didn't change their name much should be written in a present day English form, so that an ordinary reader of encyclopedia article could find the location on a normal map (or on the Google maps, for example), without a need to refer to collections of old historical maps of various centuries. Juraune 19:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, never said you lied to anyone, or even inferred that. Dr. Dan 15:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It's the contrary, you mocked my remark in which I agreed that I'm not certain of something. So I assumed you wouldn't have mocked me if I asserted that I know everything with 100% certainty. //Halibutt 18:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are not certain of something, then, please, try to find reliable info and then start writting about contemporary Polish names :) The document under discussion was translated to Polish in the middle of 19 century, so it is pretty much modern Polish in your own terminology. Lithuanian language even without standard spelling is at least as old as Polish, no, actually it is much more archaic... Juraune 19:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, what you say I mocked, and I say I pointed out to you, is another oxymoronic type of statement that from time to time you make, and then resent being challeged about it. "I have no idea but this seems probable". Why does this seem probable? That the toponym was Krewo, at the time in question. Especially since you added that you have no idea. I'm really not mocking this with as much hostility as you might think, but read your sentence again, and ask yourself if my questioning it has any validity. Dr. Dan 20:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What you're forgetting is that I actually speak and/or understand most of Slavic languages, at least at some basic level. In addition, in my life I've read plenty of original texts, both in mediaeval Polish, Ruthenian, Czech and some more languages. And that's why some things seem probable to me. And, as Cyon wrote above seems to confirm that my assumptions were right. So where's the fire? //Halibutt 04:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Nor are you the only one that speaks and understands most of the Slavic laguages, at least at some basic level (and some of us, the Lithuanian language, and its philological history as well). No fire, no lies, and no mockery. So let's consider moving Krewo to Kreva, like Cracow to Krakow. Dr. Dan 04:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

According to this [6]:"Scholarship is beginning to bid farewell to the Union of „Krėva“ (ipsis verbis) theory, which is now regarded as open for discussion and re-evaluation" and "There is no basis for calling this document an interstate or inter-dynastic treaty or an Act of Lithuano-Polish Union, sensu strictu. Lithuanian history has no interstate agreement that could be called „the 1385 Union of Krėva“. On the invitation of the political elite of the Kingdom of Poland, Grand Duke Jogaila of Lithuania went to Poland, accepted baptism, married Jadwiga and, having safeguarded his patrimonial right to rule the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, he was crowned King of Poland. Via marriage a personal or dynastic union was created", calling the article "Union of ..." is also under question. The document was most likely just a marriage agreement confirmed in the castle of mediaeval Lithuanian state. Juraune 07:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Dan and others, I still fail to understand why should we move an article on a mediaeval treaty (regardless of its meaning) to conform with a modern Lithuanian name for what is now a Belarusian village/town. If anything we should move it to some modern Belarusian spelling, though this would be an anachronism as well. Moving it to conform with modern Lithuanian name would be as bizarre as moving articles on, say, Egyptian pharaohs to conform with their modern names in the language of, say, Israel or Sudan.

But still, should we similarly rename all other articles to conform with modern spelling every time something changes at the place the treaty was signed in? Say, rename Treaty of Nonsuch to some other name as the palace does not exist any more? Or perhaps rename Battle of Breslau and battle of Stalingrad to conform with the modern names of those places (Wrocław and Volgograd, respectively)? Let's move forward: should we rename the Treaty of Finkenstein to Treaty of Kamieniec? Peace and Treaty of Pressburg to Treaty of Bratislava, Treaty of Passarowitz to Treaty of Požarevac, Treaty of Teschen to Treaty of Cieszyn, Treaty of Stettin to Treaty of Szczecin, Treaty of Karlowitz to Treaty of Sremski Karlovci, Treaty of Oliva to Treaty of Oliwa, Treaty of Labiau to Treaty of Polessk...? And how about Napoleon Bonaparte meeting Alexander I of Russia to sign the Treaties of Sovetsk (too bad they didn't meet in Lenino, it would be even more hillarious)? I'd say leave them as they are. //Halibutt 10:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, it's not about when the names change upside-down, it's about spelling. And the proposal reads to move it to Kreva, modern Belarussian spelling (dunno where and why it got side-tracked by Lithuanian languages and Sanskrits). I personally see no reason to to have a gazillion of non-anarchroisms, different spellings, and a load of confusion. Regardless of Kreva-Krevo-Krewo-Krėva-Krev-Krew-whatever it's clearly one and the same thing and there is nothing to differentiate. But what's not clear - which is the "original" name? I don't trust medieval documents on spellings as far as you can throw them: every single time they spell things differently, monks make "typos", monks have no clue what they are writting about, etc. Renata 11:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, maybe I need to ask you this question again. Did the Polish delegation travel to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania to a castle called Kreva or Krewo? Did they go to meet with Jagiełło or Jogaila? I think this this the heart of the matter. Regarding your references to characters in changing alphabets (which includes Polish as well), it has nothing to do with phonetics. Instanbul is Istanbul, and was called that before, and after Attaturk, changed the Turkish alphabet. As to the analogies, regarding Lenino, Sovietsk, etc., if the name was (and we certainly know that it is now), Kreva, it would seem to me that the analogy doesn't support your argument at all. Dr. Dan 14:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Renata, sure, but what I wrote above is still true: why exactly should we move to modern spelling if the act was signed more than half a millenium ago? '

Dan, I cannot be sure what was the place called back then by the locals - which is what's crucial here. However, from both my and Cyon's study it seems that it was most definitely not called Kreva. Krew or Krewo - yup. Even Krevo might be acceptable as that was the Ruthenian name at the time. But it seems that the name (and the spelling) of Kreva seems much later - and seems to be the result of 19th century re-codification of the language. //Halibutt 15:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

And I'm absolutely sure, that by the time Krėva was nor called Krewo, neither written like that. And absolutely there was no sign by the entrance "Krewo":)--Lokyz 09:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Halibut, can you with all sincerity call your editions on this topic as your study, as you say: "both my and Cyon study"? Cyon demonstrated real scholarship on linguistics and history, and you didn't know even the basic facts about the agreement and the story behind it. Well, how is this: "both my and Cyon study" :) show that the place was certainly not called Krewo in the end of 14 century. The marriage agreement was written most likely by the bride's side in a far from perfect Latin language, so "Krew" in the document could be their simplification of Baltic/West Slavonic toponym Kreva in the same manner as the name of Jogaila was simplified to Jagalo. It is just natural, that in Eastern Slavonic the place was called Krev, and later Krevo. Cyon, sorry for using your name for my argument. Juraune 13:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Your certainty of how it was "called", it was definitely not called Kreva. Krew or Krewo - yup., is another matter entirely. If if is a matter of phonetics, it was never called Krełło by anybody except an English speaking person, who would pronounce Krewo in such a manner. Just as such a person would call Wrocław, Raw Claw. Perhaps another reason to use the current Belarusian name, and get the "V" sound that we all want, no? Dr. Dan 16:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me use some irony: it was not Krevo, it was Crakow, where poor lithuanian and ruthenian pagan barbaric ruler went on his knees begging for being accepted as a polite and contollable king of GRAND POLAND, and he saccrificed all of his Grand duchy and all ethnonyms, only to become Wladyslaw Jagiełło in XIX-th century polish historiography. Wow. This is real thing:)--Lokyz 21:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Lokyz, your edit was a "trip and a half" (feel free to email me for an idiomatic translation of the slang expression, trip and a half).

Halibutt, I forgot to add that some English speakers might also pronounce KREWO as KRIJŁŁO (possibly the current U.S. President), as spoken in Polish phonetic pronounciation. Thought you might want to know. Dr. Dan 22:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I accept "act of Kreva" - and I do not oppose "act of Krevo", not very much at least. But I oppose those variants with "w". Marrtel 02:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Dan, and what does "uninformed English speaker" have to do with proper naming? We're not writing this encyclopaedia to make their life easier by using only the names they are able to pronounce. We're writing it to let them know what the proper name is, regardless of their abilities to speak/write/read it. Would you seriously consider moving the article on Keratoconjunctivitis to, say, that eye disease in order to make the English speakers more comfortable with the name? //Halibutt 06:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

:D So, in your oppinion Polish Krewo is a proper name for Belorusian location? Are you expressing pollitical views here or day dreaming about glories of Polish historical past? Juraune 07:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, my remarks about phonetics, were a humorous digression on my part. Since you're not a native speaker of English, it might not have come across that way. Sorry! But what then, prompted this digression about "phonetics"? It was your informing us how the toponym was called ... "it was most definitely not called Kreva. Krewo or Krew - yup". So once again you're telling us that the place was called by its Polish name. BTW, Krew is not the way a Latin rendition would be written in any of my studies of the classical version of the language. Does the original document still exist (asked earlier), or a copy from a later period? Your link to the Polish translation of it, shows the document written in what would be a much more modern format. Dr. Dan 13:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Juraune, forgive me but I will not honour your remark with a comment. I'm trying to be serious here and your assertions are neither helpful nor welcome.

Sorry, Halibutt, I didn't follow your thought to the end probably. But please understand too, that your remarks about Lithuanian language being modern, as if it was invented and didn't exist before 1918 can also be considered rude. Your comparisons that Lithuanians have as much to do with medieval Lithuania, as Jewish or Arabic people with ancient Egipt, are also not an example of sensitive talk. Juraune 18:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Now it is getting interesing. Halibutt would you please state, what language do you believe Jogaila was speaking? I hope, you do not assume polish or ruthenian?

IF that was lithuanian how should it differ form "modern" Lithuanian. And why XIX-th century "modern" polish language term for Ruthenian city should be better?

Then maybe we should rename Kaunas to Kowno, Tauragė to Taurogi, or Kėdainiai tu Keidany, because supposedly they were never written that way until XIX-th century, and polish speaking szlachta knew better than autochtons lithuanian or ruthenian "chlopy". Aren't you trying to push this line? That tought comes to me after your statements, that you "feel" Krewo should be left as it is.

Another one thing: if would ask any philologist, he would tell you, that toponyms are most stable part of language and in spoken language of locals they stay unchanged for centuries.--Lokyz 19:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Dan, please read the posts (and links) by Cyon above. They answers all of your doubts. Including the original name of the place as mentioned in the document (written in mediaeval Latin, not Classical Latin; it was issued 500 years ago, not 5000). Oh, and apparently you also missed the link to the original manuscript. It's here. //Halibutt 14:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort, and the link. Unfortunately the magnifier doesn't work, so it's not as helpful as I hoped it might be. I enjoyed your disdain for Polglish, in a discusion we had some time ago, on another topic. Perhaps you can understand my disdain for Poltin, being used as a "Latin Language" proof of something written 500 years ago, as well. Even so, the "W" was a latecomer to Latin to approximate teutonic sounds resembling "V". Like you, I do appreciate Cyon's work, contributions, and links. They are excellent! However they in no way bolster any of your arguments about the the debate we are having. And yes, I agree that the snide side comments that are being shot at you are rude, and unnappreciated.

I would like to move some of our discussion to a related topic the article (which I think you originated), Union of Vilnius and Radom. What Union? Dr. Dan 15:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Juraune, Lokyz and others: please read my comments again, as you apparently missed the main point there. I'm not stating that the modern Lithuanian language is significantly different from its mediaeval forms. Nor am I arguing that Jogaila did not speak Lithuanian (though I believe his vernacular language was rather Ruthenian). Finally, I never said Lithuanian is a modern language nor did I suggest that it was invented in 19th century (though in fact the age of linguists has shaped it significantly, much like many Slavic languages). My point is that the spelling (SPELLING!) rules of the language changed and the set of charts used was modified. Hence what was put down as Wilnius is now put down as Vilnius. Hence also the Lithuanian name of Kreve is most probably a result of the post-1918 language reform. Similar things have passed in the Polish language as well, so I don't think I offend anyone by stating that his native language has been modernized and codified... Or am I?

Slightly, It never was called Kreve, but Kreva. Juraune 17:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Lokyz, I also do not propose to rename articles on modern Lithuanian towns to their Polish names, as it would be an absurd. I'm merely pointing to the fact that documents should not change their names if the town they were signed in did. Much like the other examples I listed up above. //Halibutt 15:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmh, so you'd have no objections that all treaties, that were signed in Cracow until XV-th century would be called in this spelling form? And neither would you mind calling Krewo uninion Crev Act without any diacritics? Because Crew Act (or union, whatewer it should be called) doesn't appear in modern polish language spelling up until late XVI-th century. if I'm wrong, would you correct me?--Lokyz 20:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Having said that I accept Kreva and possibly Krevo in its name, I have to say that I oppose the use of the word "union". We better find better term used in English historiography or at least which descibes better the nature of the thing, was it act, pact, treaty, "promises", commitment, declaration,... Did those from the bride's party commit to anything, or did they sign/seal the document? Marrtel 15:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

No Lokyz, I would not object moving articles on things that happened in 14th century Krakow to Cracow, as I like that name (though I can't think of any document known by such name). On the other hand I would object the name of http://www.google.pl/search?q=%22Crev+act%22&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:pl-PL:official Crev Act] or Union of Crev as it is not used by anyone-anywhere. As to what Marrtel wrote, the comments by Renata below seem instructive. //Halibutt 06:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Aplicare (applicare) – incorporare problem

Okay, is word in article - to incorporate – corresponds original word aplicare (applicare)? I believe that this form (incorporate) corresponds to incorporare, which was not used in this case. M.K. 14:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What time is meant? Coming together is apparently the meaning in 1385/86, but what happened in 1410 or around? did Jogaila make any new promises or treaties? Marrtel 02:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Halibutt had written originally that incorporate was a part of this act. Later, Piotrus changed the structure between paragraphs, so it started to refer to the time of battle of G. Hmmm. Marrtel 19:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Act of Kreva has a Latin word aplicare, which do not corresponds word to incorporate used in this article . To correspond formulation (and meaning) of to incorporate the Latin word incorporare would be used in the Act, but as I said it was not used. So to incorporate is not proper word to determine duties of Jogaila which was outline in the Act. M.K. 13:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not what I was asking. I am not talking about 1385 treaties, Krevo. I asked about what Jogaila did, if anything, in around 1410. The text in the article indicates a possibility of newer acts. Were there such, and did some of them include the word incorporare, or where has that word anyway come from to this discussion. please come out from the track of mind focusing on the 1385 document. I would be thankful for response to the question I pose. Marrtel 19:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe you answered to your original question by yourself. If you talking about other treaties, I can not recall formulation incorporare in them which could be linked with Act. But this is only a separate issue, because this is article of Act of Kreva not treaty X. And situation in this article is explained from this Act perspective. So your remark - come out from the track of mind focusing on the 1385 document - is not valid in this case.

As you said - written originally that incorporate was a part of this act - reference in this article (despite that you tried to write later, which is an artificial in my opinion) is based (and based wrongly because Act do not have formulation to incorporate) on Act of Kreva not treaty X formulation. M.K. 21:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, consequences and also developments of this act could and often should be presented. At the moment, we have a hort history of the future union at the article. However I am now satisfied that there presumably was nothing Jagiello did afterwards to incorporate anything more tightly. And now we should think about what is a good term in English to put there to say what "aplicare" was saying in Latin. Marrtel 01:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This might be helpful: "For over a hundred and fifty years the Poles were to insist on this. A series of further acts of 'union' (Vilnius, 1401; Horodlo, 1413; Grodno 1432; Vilnius, 1499) continued to stress Lithuania's incorporation or subordination... On the other hand, Jagiello and his successors had no intenion of implementig these purely tactical promises." "The Crown lacked the strength to enforce its annexationist claims on the Grand Duchy, whose leading lords remained wary of such aspirations, even after the extinction of the Jagiellonian dynasty. After 1422, Poland and Lithuania pursued different, if often complementary, foreign policies with Poland looking to the north and south and Lithuania to the east. Chronic strains dogged their relationship, not least over the possesion of the southern Rus' territories of Podole and Volhynia. In 1492, the separate, independent accessions of Jagiello's grandsons, John Albert (Jan Olbracht) in Poland and Alexander in Lithuania, represented, strictly speaking, a sundering of the dynastic union, stitched together once more in 1501, when Alexander succeeded his childless elder brother in Poland." This is from "A Concise History of Poland" by Jerzy Lukowski and Hubert Zawadski. Also they say: "The term used for 'incorporate' in 1385 - 'applicare' - has given rise to much acrimonious discussion between Polish and Lithuanian historians", so there cannot be one conclusion to satisfy both sides. I hope that future studies by professional historians will give the answer. Juraune 17:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"Latin, applicare: to join, fix, or attach to; ad + plicare to fold, to twist together." I believe we should use some "vulgar" expression, not some technically-tasting. How about: ...promised to attach Lithuania and Poland together... - What was the original Latin verbatim sentence or two? Marrtel 23:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that applicare could mean also adjust/fit, it is possible that we can write a “vulgar” word, but I believe the better solution is to write the original Latin word (I believe it was written in aplicare form, no -pp-) and make a footnote – providing translation of this word. M.K. 00:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The coronation of Jogaila as King of Poland

I read Lithuanian translation of the document and I didn't find any mention about the future coronation of Jogaila as King of Poland or that his name will be Wladislaus. Shoudn't this item be removed from the items of the treaty, and the explanation be given in the article text about what happened later? Juraune 07:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I should think the document should be represented and translated as it was. No more, no less. The results of the signing, should then be explained seperately, but in the article. Dr. Dan 15:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep. There already is that sort of division into two parts in the artucle: "and provided for the following:

• the marriage of Jadwiga of Poland and Lithuanian Grand Duke Jogaila
• the conversion of Jogaila and other leading Lithuanian nobles to Roman Catholicism
• paying two hundred thousand florins to William, Duke of Austria as a compensation for the dissolution of his engagement agreement with Jadwiga of Poland
• the return of the lost Polish lands by the means and funds of Jogaila
• the release of all Christian war prisoners held by the Lithuanians
• the personal union of Lithuanian and Polish lands under the sovereignty of the Polish Crown "for all eternity"

Parties in the act's negotiations were Jogaila and four of his close kinsmen on one part, and underage Jadwiga's mother the Dowager Queen Elisabeth, Regent of Hungary and some Polish representatives on the other. The act appears as Jogaila's promises given to bridal family for conditions of marriage, and no commitment from the bride's party seems to have been signed.

The result was the coronation of Jogaila as King of Poland, jure uxoris the same year and his baptism. Jogaila's new baptismal name Wladislaus was chosen in honor of Jadwiga's great-grandfather king Wladislaus the Short, the penultimate Piast to occupy the royal throne of Poland and the unifier of the fragmented country. The regnal number "II" for the new king is a later invention, as is his Lithuanian name's polonized version "Jagiełło". Any contemporaneous double use of both names Wladyslaw and Jagiello (or their toponyms) together is dubious. Today the Polish refer to him as Władysław II Jagiełło."

Now we just should check much better what actually belongs to the provisions of the act, and what to its consequences:

"...provided for the following:

• the marriage of Jadwiga of Poland and Lithuanian Grand Duke Jogaila - does this exist in the document

Formulation is different – in act was made a reference if queen will give support of marriage some commitments will be implemented from Jogaila side (Christianization, aplicare etc.). Document was formulated more closely to marriage proposal. Act itself speaks in this form -<We, Jogaila, by the grace of God Grand Duke of Lithuania, Lord and successor of Ruthenia , announcing to all..> .M.K. 00:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• the conversion of Jogaila and other leading Lithuanian nobles to Roman Catholicism - does this exist in the document

Yes it was, but not necessary leading noblemen - <.. lower and higher noblemen..> M.K. 00:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• paying two hundred thousand florins to William, Duke of Austria as a compensation for the dissolution of his engagement agreement with Jadwiga of Poland - does this exist in the document?

This sum is in Act, not mentioning Duke`s of Austria name (only Duke of Austrija), purpose of money is written in delicate manner some sort as deposit\pledge M.K. 00:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• the return of the lost Polish lands by the means and funds of Jogaila - does this exist in the document?

I believe formulation “by any means” would be more appropriate according to the Act. M.K. 00:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• the release of all Christian war prisoners held by the Lithuanians - does this exist in the document?

Yes it does. Stressing Polish Christians. M.K. 00:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• the personal union of Lithuanian and Polish lands under the sovereignty of the Polish Crown "for all eternity" - does this exist in the document, and what is its precise textual formulation?

This is more complicated issue. There was no talk about Union, only <aplicare Lithuania and Rus to the Polish Crown for eternal times>. Personal union as such was established then Jogaila was crowned as a king.

So the formulation part (personal union…) was not mentioned in Act and is an interpretation of later events. M.K. 00:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Any additional provisions?

Parties in the act's negotiations were Jogaila and four of his close kinsmen on one part, and underage Jadwiga's mother the Dowager Queen Elisabeth, Regent of Hungary and some Polish representatives on the other. The act appears as Jogaila's promises given to bridal family for conditions of marriage, and no commitment from the bride's party seems to have been signed. - are these mentioned in the document? who signed it? any signatures from the bride's representatives, mother or polish nobles? did they made any promises, or are there explicit conditions for them to fulfill?

The result was the coronation of Jogaila as King of Poland, jure uxoris the same year and his baptism. Jogaila's new baptismal name Wladislaus was chosen in honor of Jadwiga's great-grandfather king Wladislaus the Short, the penultimate Piast to occupy the royal throne of Poland and the unifier of the fragmented country. The regnal number "II" for the new king is a later invention, as is his Lithuanian name's polonized version "Jagiełło". Any contemporaneous double use of both names Wladyslaw and Jagiello (or their toponyms) together is dubious. Today the Polish refer to him as Władysław II Jagiełło."

Any other direct consequences to mention? Please fill us with details. Marrtel 23:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do prefer Queen Mother, to Dowager Queen, but a queen, is a queen, is a queen. Didn't Trotsky write a poem about it, no it was Gertrude Stein, and it was about a rose. I'm going to take a vacation on my boat. To take the laptop, or not to take the laptop, that is the question? Dr. Dan 05:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Object to "act of"

The article got renamed but I strongly object to the "act" part. In all languages I know it is known as "union." I am requesting a move. Renata 20:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Please give us all of the languages and names that you know it is called a 'Union' in. There's been a lot of discussion about this already. The best example to give you is my opening "volley" at the Union of Vilnius and Radom(talk). The title makes no sense in English, which is why efforts are being made to change that, too. And where did that error come from, a direct translation from Polish. So by your argument, if it's known by all the languages that you know, as the Union of Vilnius and Radom, it should stay that way.

A correct change is not a bad change, while keeping something, "because that's how we've been doing it for years", would not have helped to abolish slavery. Dr. Dan 20:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

"union of krewo" -> 9 google books & 198 simple googles (minusing all wikipedia mirrors)+8 Google Scholar

"act of krewo" -> 1 google books & 12 simple googles + 2 Google Scholar

"act of kreva" -> 0 google books & 6 simple googles + 1 Google ScholarRenata 21:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, oodles of googles. Now it's settled. Good! Dr. Dan 22:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

For a moment I was afraid we were going to have to vote on it, and I'd have to write to Mattergy, and ask him to participate. Dr. Dan 22:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Much of those google hits which say krewo and union, are from websites in Polish. Remember that they also show. I would like to know the situation in purely english websites, preferably yet excluding such that are results from direct translations from Polish. Shilkanni 23:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Why? I have done G Scholar search to back up Reneat's Books and Google, there results are clear. And FYI the Polish websites would not use the term 'Krewo Union', because in Polish it's 'Unia krewska' or 'Unia w Krewie' - see different spellings?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, what's your take on Union of Vilnius and Radom? Ditto? Dr. Dan 15:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

That I see the problem with it (confusing title can be interpreted in two ways), and I wonder what is the term used in scholarly literature? What about 'Vilnus-Radom Union'? Just a thought.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

"Act of Kreva" is a correct name. According to the newest research of historians, the document is not a "Union" of states. I repeat this once more, apparently Renata has skipped this:[7] "There is no basis for calling this document an interstate or inter-dynastic treaty or an Act of Lithuano-Polish Union, sensu strictu. Lithuanian history has no interstate agreement that could be called „the 1385 Union of Krėva“." As for me I object to calling this "Union". Everybody, that has read the original can say, that this is just a letter of Jogaila to Jadwyga's mother asking her hand. Juraune 17:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

So there is some new research suggesting an alternative name. Certainly worth mentioning in the article itself. But the most common name as used in English sources is 'Union of Krewo'. Until a new name is accepted by the English academic literature, we should not try to foresee whether majority of English schoolars will even agree with the research you are suggesting (for all we know it may be an exception - that sb suggested an alternate name doesn't mean they are right).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

In addition to what Renata and Piotrus wrote above, judging by the interwiki links the act is indeed called a Union in all languages, with the except of the Lithuanian wiki, where the article got renamed from Unija (Union) to Sutartis (Agreement) recently. And interestingly, what Shilkanni wrote above is not true: I did not notice a single Polish language link in those posted by Renata. Not a strange thing as Union is not a word of the Polish language.

"union of krewo" -> 9 google books & 198 simple googles (minusing all wikipedia mirrors)+8 Google Scholar

"union of kreva" -> 2 google books & 13 simple googles (minusing all wikipedia mirrors)+2 Google Scholar

Judging by the links above it seems that the former name of this article is between 4 and 15 times more popular than the current name. //Halibutt 06:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually refract my comments. It came to my attention that "union" in English has no meaning of "act, treaty, etc." See, for example, definiotion of word "union" at the American Heritage Dictionary. Such meaning of "union" as here does not exist, and it's not a place to invent new meanings. Renata 11:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The very definition you linked above begins with The act of uniting or the state of being united.... //Halibutt 14:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The word "act" refers there to "action" like in "I acted like a child" and not a treaty/written document. Renata 17:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

And Halibutt, I suppose this is why you feel the the title of the article, Union of Vilnius and Radom, is appropriate? Any objections to that one? If I'm not mistaken, you are the originator of that article in the English Wikipedia. Dr. Dan 14:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved back

Apparently, there is no consensus to have the article renamed to "Act of Kreva". I've looked into the history of the move and it's been renamed against the policy. I've moved it back until a consensus to rename is reached. --Lysy^talk 17:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I see no need for any unneccesary moves. Leave it here till something is decided. Renata 17:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I've just moved it back as you typed. --Lysy^talk 17:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Since this seems to lead to some revert war, I've opened a formal request to move the article. --Lysy^talk 17:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Then where is the RM template in this article? It should go on top.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

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 no consensus, page not moved. Eugène van der Pijll 21:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Union of Krewo → Act of Kreva – The document of Kreva is not a Union document according to the newest historical research. --Lysy^talk 17:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Survey

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

• Oppose. The widespread usage is "Union of Krewo". I would prefer "Union of Krevo", though, which also is often used in English language literature. A controversy of whether the act constitued a union or not should be expained in the article's text. --Lysy^talk 17:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support keeping the page here at Act of Kreva. The poll is wrongly set, the proposer of the move should speak for his own position, not try to present straws for position of others. Of substance: Union is clearly a wrong term knowing the English usage. There may be other good names, but Union of Krewo is not one of them. "Act" is used in some histories written in English. The action in question was not even a bilateral thing, so it is no union: it was a series of promises of one party. Marrtel 09:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose due to both act and Kreva. The first is, as pointed out by Renata and Dan somewhere on a related talk page, used to sighnify action and not a document in English. The latter It's an obvious anachronysm coined to push some POV, understandable, but POV nevertheless. //Halibutt 09:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you kidding me? Word "act" has double meaning: "The process of doing: action" and "The formal product of a legislative or judicial body: assize, bill, enactment, law, legislation, lex, measure, statute." It's "union" which has no meaning of "a written document." Renata 11:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, must've gotten you wrong somewhere. //Halibutt 06:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, as our Google search indicates the most common name is the old one. The article should use the common name as per naming guidelines if there are no good reasons for it not to - and I see no such reasons. One lithuanian publication arguing otherwise is an exception to the rule, nothing more.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support keeping the page here at Act of Kreva. And Piotrus, it is not one lithuanian publication as such.... M.K. 16:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support both Act and Kreva. This 1385 document is not a 'Union' document. It is only a set of promises made by Jogaila to the Queen Elisabeth, Regent of Hungary and a mother of 11 years old Queen Jadwiga of Poland, asking her daugher's hand. There are no other documents confirming that the real 'Union' of Poland and Lithuania did happened in year 1385. When Jogaila married Jadwiga and became a King of Poland Wladyslaw in 1386, in a terminology of historians he "started" a personal union. As to the name Krewo for the location, where the confirmation of the document took place, even Polish historians Jerzy Lukowski and Hubert Zawadski in "Concise history of Poland" call the place "Krėva". It was never a Polish location except short 16 years of direct Polish rule in 1922-1938. Juraune 07:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support Act of Kreva, because it was not an officially signed treaty between two countries/sides. Orionus 14:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Piotr.--Aldux 22:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

The present request for move was opened by its obvious opponent. Who formulated the "reason" for the move he opposes. The said person should reformulate the RM as to reflect what he requests. Henq 18:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm obviously against the move and opened the request for move only because the person who actually made the controversial rename did not care to do it. It should have been done in the first place, as the above talk shows, that there is an opposition to the rename. Also, as I explained in your talk, contrarty to what you claim, "Union of Krewo" is not my favourite title of the article, nevertheless I oppose a controversial rename without conducting a WP:RM first. --Lysy^talk 18:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Oposition bases its oppinion only on google counts, not on the historical facts and findings. Juraune 19:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Not only on google hit counts but primarily on established English usage in scholarly works. --Lysy^talk 19:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please read the arguments of those who oppose you before you state such nonsense. Knowing what the other side says before you oppose them kind of helps in solving disputes - and saves lots of blood. //Halibutt 09:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you meant, Ladies and gentlemen. And let's not have a vote about what you meant. Dr. Dan 13:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, stop!, this poll was started on a wrong basis. Halibutt, your arguments are based on oppinions of Renata and Dr. Dan, and on calling somebody "POV pushers". I don't think this applies to me, since my arguments are provided together with citations of books, written by professional historians, who are above narrow-minded nationalism. Why can't you speak for yourself and not use other people oppinions for your own use? Juraune 11:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I do support Jaurune - and for the last time will state my position: form now on I will not take any actions in any polls. It's not only because, nation with more editors allways wins. It's because aguments and voting repeats, and repeats, and repats the same. A new poll every two days - that's a "little" bit too much for me. And the last thing - I do sincerely doubt that this political-lingusitical dispute can be solved by kickstand by the parties concerned: lithuanians and poles. Maybe help form outside would help. Dixi.--Lokyz 19:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Lokyz, what do you mean by "nation with more editors wins" ? Does this rename have anything to do with nationality ? Indeed, it seems that most of the Polish editors vote in favour of "Union" while most of the Lithuanians prefer "Act". Why is that ? --Lysy^talk 19:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you ask yourself the same question - why? I don't have either time nor any wish to repeat last two weaks discussions again: Union of tradition, Act of modern research. Turn it otherwise - union of truth - act of nationalistics beliefs, turn it otherwise union of polish beliefs that clops were "taken" by this act. And all this in the worst XIX-th century fight in Vilnius/Wilno/Vilna church traditions when people litterary beat each others with stones and sticks, only to stop mess in other language. Really a thrustworthy discussion. I withdraw myself from this futile "friendly" chat.

I thought this is encyclopedia, based on modern research. Well, I was wrong, I have to admit it. Have a nice day.--Lokyz 21:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Lokyz, it's a "rigged" game. What does "rigged" mean (isdurti, apkvalintas), it's an idiom, it's slang, and I'd give you more examples, except that I would be accused of original research. When there are not sockpuppets voting, with administrators "inviting" more sock puppets to vote, they hide behind the skirt of "No Original Research". They can't let an obviously flawed name be corrected, because it opens the door for their whole "house of cards" to fall down. Need more proof? The name for Cracow in English, is Cracow. This is the way it's been written historically, and in all of the scholarly books in English, for the longest time before this spiderweb was woven. And before "google hits" were the "final" arbiter of historical, geographical, and philosophical questions. All of the arguments and "proofs" they present, don't apply in this case and melt like a snowball in July, when confronted with an opposing view that is taken in regards to returning Cracow to English. Now do you understand the problem? Do you see why there is the perception (right or wrong), that there is a cabal? Too bad you are leaving, if you stay you can always find out what scholarly research was used to name the article, Chicken War from Wojna kokosza. Dr. Dan 02:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I should've said Lady and Gentlemen, though I feel somehow excused by the fact that no lady took part in this discussion prior to my comment - or at least not easily identifiable. //Halibutt 06:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep, yep, Coś takiego, determining that the gender of Juraune is feminine, would probably be considered original research, and we know that's not allowed! BTW, since you converted the plural Ladies, to lady, as in "no lady took part in this discussion", I'm surprised at you. How unkind, and untypically po Polsku. Dr. Dan 07:03, 28 June 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.

She was King of Poland, not Queen

Her title was king, jeesh...just go and look at her page it's right at the top. --Rpm2004 (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)