![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
User:Imiraven How should I translate this sentence in Historische Entwicklung einiger Marken und Regionen: "In Norddeutschland gingen der Ostsiedlung Auseinandersetzungen Karls des Großen mit den nicht-christlichen Sachsen voraus, als Karl seine Reichsgrenzen sichern wollte". Unfortunately I haven't found any appropriate translation for "vorausgehen" in this case.
The article is loaded heavily with German POV, I will wait its final version, for now however obvious POVish sentences are spotted,for example: The East Colonisation was predominantly a peaceful process; the rulers of Hungary, Bohemia, Silesia, Pomerania, Mecklenburg, and Poland encouraged German settlement to promote the development of their lands. The sentence completely avoids the massacres of native populations that were made for German settlers to arrive, for example in Prussia, it avoids mentioning that while initially indeed German settlers were invited, soon ethnic conflicts followed as native people were forced into lower social status by their German guests. It avoids mentioning that arrival of Germanic knights in the area has led to conflict that endured for centuries in Poland, it doesn't mention the wars Brandeburgia led in order to capture and settle Polish territory etc. The conflict between Polish rulers and Germans within Poland isn't touched at all.No information is given on massive uprisings of original Prussians against Teutonic Knights, no information is given on enslavment of local population by Germanic knights in Baltic countries, and so on. And that problems are only those seen at one glance. -- Molobo 23:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
It's the first time I hear Poland had an Emperor Casimir. -- Molobo 23:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
From history of Brandenburg on Wiki: In the great uprising in 983 the Slavs wiped out German control from the territory of present day Brandenburg. The monasteries were buried, priests and Germans officials killed or expelled. The Slavic tribes living east of Elbe remained independent and pagan for the next 150 years. 12th Century In the beginning of the 12th century the Saxon German kings and emperors conquered the Slavic-inhabited lands of present-day Brandenburg. Many Slavic inhabitants survived the conquests and live there still today - Sorbs, Lusatians. The church brought bishoprics, which with their walled towns, afforded protection for the townspeople from attack. With the monks and bishops, the history of the town of Brandenburg, which in time became the state of Brandenburg, began. In 1134, in the wake of a German crusade against the Wends, the German magnate Albert the Bear was granted the Northern March by the Holy Roman Emperor Lothar II. For some time up until the 15th century, some part of the area that would become Brandenburg was inhabited by the Slavic Wends, who still make up a part of the area's modern population. -- Molobo 23:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Kinda a small detail, but is east colonization really the right phrase in english? are you sure its not supposed to be "eastern colonization" or something?.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
(to edit: there is a lack of e.g details about the expansion to Pomerania, to Wartheland and to the Baltic States. The whole chapter has to be arranged again). (unknown; moved here by -- Jpbrenna 15:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC))
The result of the debate was move. Haukur 09:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
As I wrote on the Ostsiedlung talk page before the article was redirected here, Ostsiedlung has gained currency in academia as the term to describe German eastern colonization, and performing an English Google test shows it is three times more productive than the English calques "East Colonization" and "East Colonisation." All of my medieval history texts have used the term Ostsiedlung in discussing this phenomenon (without the adjective Deutsche); the first time I read the termEast Colonisation was on Wikipedia! We're supposed to use the most common English-language name, and that just happens to be a borrowed German word, so let's use it! -- Jpbrenna 21:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-- Jadger 20:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
per nom (and also in line with Drang nach Osten, which I initially mistaken the English name for). Duja 10:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Colonization is the wrong translation, settlement is correct and fits with the genarl character of this undertaking
"Ethnic Germans, along with Azkhenazi Jews, also formed a large part of the town population of Kraków".
The Jews lived rather in Kazimierz, a separate town, than in Kraków. Xx236 11:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I have left my comments on the new map on the image's discussion page, I would like further input.
-- Jadger 00:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The sentence below is the last one in the introduciton. What is this sentence intended to say?
I would guess that it is trying to say that parts of the territory that was settled during "Ostsiedlung" is still part of the current German state. However, if that is what is meant, this sentence does not say that and should be fixed.
-- Richard 15:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Right- modern German regions like Mecklenburg, Vorpommern, Brandenburg, and Saxony were populated by Slavs before the medieval Germans arrived.
-- Olessi 00:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The sentence doesn't make sense, because most of the last paragraph of the introduction is a mess.
The next to last sentence misses a part (... territory by , as ...) and the sentence before that is factually incorrect. The Ostsiedlung started at the Elbe and Saale rivers, which are quite a bit west of the Oder-Neisse line.
-- Tibors 21:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Ostsiedlung →
German eastward expansion — No need to use German word where an adequate English equivalent exists. Also per
WP:UE. —--
Lysy
talk
19:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. -- Stemonitis 06:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Why does the map present Wielkopolska as completely German, while the fact is it was Polish linguist area with German minority ? -- Molobo 07:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
it does not represent Greater Poland as completely German, please explain this misconception you have? -- Jadger 17:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC) Of course it does-just as Silesia and Pomorze. -- Molobo 18:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, let's talk...
- Ostsiedlung ( German: Settlement in the East), also known as German eastward expansion, refers to the medieval eastward migration and mainly peaceful settlement of Germans from modern day Western and Central Germany into less-populated regions like the Baltic and modern day Poland. These areas had been left by their ancestors citation needed, the Germanic tribes, in the Migration Period partly due to incursions by the Huns, and since had been settled by Baltic peoples, and, since about the 8th century citation needed, the Slavs. [1]
-- Richard 18:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
It presents Pomorze, Silesia and Wielkopolska as almost completely German in 18,19, 20 century which contradicts knowledge about those areas. See scholary maps regarding those areas [1] [2] [3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polabian_Slavs "Many of the Polabian tribes were subjugated by the Franks in the 7th century and their lands were soon afterwards occupied by German bishops and nobles. They liberated themselves in a pagan uprising in 983, but were again subdued by the Germans in the mid-12th century. Despite the forced conversion to Christianity, the Slavic language was spoken by the descendants of the Drevani in the area of the lower Elbe until the early 18th century. The Lusatian Sorbs remained independent to a large extent. They were temporarily subdued by Charlemagne, but upon his death the links with the Franks were broken. In a series of bloody wars between 929 and 963 their lands were conquered by King Henry the Fowler and his son Otto the Great and were incorporated into the German domain" So it wasn't peacefull. Later they were also uprisings in Poland-Wójt Albert and Bohemia against German people. -- Molobo 19:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
A major problem of this map is that it cites no sources it is based upon; in essence, it's an OR map. Thus dubious, particularly if contrary maps can be presented.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 20:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
"What about the tags? Is the veracity of the assertions being challenged? If so, on what basis?" Right now it says that people that were part of Ostsiedlung were ancestors of Germanic tribes that moved on that territory while migrating from Scandinavia. However there were also Germanic tribes in North Germany and Scandinavia-how do we know that people in Ostedlung were ancestors of certain Germanic tribes and not the others.Seems far fatched to say the least. -- Molobo 13:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for this very retarded reaction. Your misunderstandings may mainly be a consequence of anachronistic-nationalistic thinking and of using concepts - German, Polish, Slavic - in a modern national connotation. The colonizers you are talking about were no Germans and no Poles but people with different regional and social identities. The so called Germans spoke a variety of German dialects, often mutually not quite understandable: vs. Flemish, Frisian, Rhinish, Westfalian and from their standpoint linguistically very remote Bavarian and Swabian. High German as a coordinating standard language did not yet exist. Even the written language of the chancaries varied considerably up to the 17th century. The colonizers did not came as Germans to occupy Slavic lands for the future German nation. This was what nationalism wanted our parents to believe: one organic and continuous development from the 12th century up to now. Our German parents believed it to be a missionary triumph for civilisation. Our Polish parents couldn't accept that and rather felt humiliation and rape. Stop thinking and talking that way. Nationalism is over, now we have to look to history as a common inheritace. In the end, the 15 millions Germans, driven out of present day Poland and Czechia after 1945, were partly of Slav and partly of a diversity of German descent. But in the course of time they were inextricably mixed up. What matters is that they spoke German already for many generations and centuries and thus, at first culturally and later on also politically had become German. And this made them unacceptable for the modern Polish and Czech nation state. -- Kwaremont-- 1 June 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 18:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
To the west of the map, it makes no sense to consider the Dutch / Flemish and Frisian languages to be part of the German language speaking region until 1910.
Frisian has been rather distinct since the 6th century, and Frisian is represented as a separate language in linguistic and historical texts in English, Dutch, and German. It developed from a mix of dialects spoken by the old Frisii, Angles, and Sachsen tribes present in the region since the 1st century BC or so, in a similar way to Old English. Frisian territory stretched along the North Sea coast from current Belgium to Weser River in current Germany, as well as the Schleswig coast, at its greatest extent from around 650-734
[2]. The Frisians are also considered to have been a group occupying territory that was gradually absorbed by Dutch political entities. Nominal authority over West Frisia was gained by the County Holland around 1000, but was essentially independent for the next 300 years. After that, the region was colonized by Hollanders and most of the population assimilated. This happened to a lesser extent in the East Frisia region of the modern Netherlands, which is now divided into the provinces of Friesland and Groenigen
[3]. A large part of what is now the German states of Lower Saxony and Schleswig-Holstein remained under Frisian control through the 15th century
[4]. The Frisian region of Germany is now limited to islands off the coast of Schleswig Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page)..
I would remove the Netherlands and Flanders regions from the German language area from around year 1000. Or at least have a progression starting with what are now the provinces of North and South Holland, Zeeland, Friesland, Groenigen, the coastal area of Belgium as not German around 1000, spreading east to the current borders of Germany by 1400 or so. And if there's going to be a finer-level resolution than the current borders to reflect that certain areas remained part of the German language region for longer than that by historical standards (including small areas where German is currently dominant), than areas of modern Germany that where Frisian was/is spoken should also be distinguished.
Bowlweevils (
talk)
09:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)bowlweevils
References
It is a historical map regarding this subject. Other maps by the author are on Wiki. [6] -- Molobo 19:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I think I agree with Jagder that it is getting a bit off-topic to discuss the expulsion of Poles during WWII in the lead. I know it seems like a balancing explanation for why Germans were expelled but it doesn't need to be explained in the lead.
I will comment that the lead mentions the 19th century concepts of Drang nach Osten and Lebensraum but the article doesn't discuss it. If it's mentioned in the lead, it should be explained in greater detail in the article. Same goes for the expulsions at the end of WWII. These points should be discussed briefly because they are not specifically part of Ostsiedlung but rather the political ramifications of the romanticization of Ostsiedlung 500 years after the fact. They are also useful to make sure the reader is aware that much of Ostsiedlung was reversed by the expulsions. Mostly this section should state the facts briefly with links to the appropriate articles for the reader to learn more if he/she is interested.
As for the {{fact}} tags, I am generally in favor of finding citations for stuff unless it's commonly known stuff like "The neoconservatives in the U.S. supported the election of George Bush."
-- Richard 15:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm surprised no-one has reacted to Molobo ( talk · contribs)s latest ?!?
Under the edit summary: "minor npov , request confirmation of some claims", he amongst a number of citation requests also includes a sourced paragraph deletion.
becomes
In Many articles Molobo seems to be very keen on including the Piast Dukes in the text, to show that Polish rule once extended over the eastern areas, but I guess setlements that preseded them are not so popular in Poland.... If we are going to "drop" sourced facts, it should be done openly and not quietly hidden away under the pretence of other edits. -- Stor stark7 Talk 23:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The article is extremely one sided and consists of a single Point of View. The resistance of local population to Germanisation is almost completely overlooked. The whole process is presented as peacefull, even as civilisational mission. This might be the view of certain historians and parts of German histography that is influenced by the nationalistic notion that Germanic influence brought civilisational development, but that certainly isn't the only view and only information about the process. There is enough information about enslavement of local people, eradication of native settlements, local cultures as well as destruction of ethnic identities that is part of this process as well. Right now the article takes one side and completely distorts the picture and thus can't be seen as neutral.-- Molobo ( talk) 21:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
instead the new Slav culture arose and became dominating in Eastern and large parts of Central Europe.
There was no unified Slav culture. -- Molobo ( talk) 21:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Yet, discrimination of the Wends should not be mistaken for being part of a general concept of the Ostsiedlung. Is this a polemic ? Another unfortunete example how the article downgraded. It now represents a cross-over between personal views, polemic-like statements, and picked selectively quotes to present a un-neutral point of view that conceals several events connected to Germanisation of Central and Eastern Europe, like extinction of Prussians, several Slavic people's and destruction of local cultures. Event the lead is made one-sides claiming it was done peacefully. Of course this not true, as they were crusades and destruction of Prussian settlements. I am sorry but this article is POV and I will add a tag to it, until this is settled. -- Molobo ( talk) 20:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
no settler came in with a sword and threw the Wends out of their houses. Funny that Piskorski you are fond of using actually does mention throwing native population out of their houses...-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 15:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I changed the translation of this word, maybe too hurriedly (as my German is pretty basic). Maybe it really does mean rural development? German speakers: please correct.-- Kotniski ( talk) 11:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
See even older reviews such as those in The Economic history review Economic History Society Popper & Co., 1966 page 18 where it is explained that Koebner thesis holds no truth and that he severely underestimated organization of Slavic settlements before German arrival. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 15:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Storia della storiografia: Volume 2007, Issue 52 - Page 141
In the section for social and economic history R. Koebner (Breslau) emphasized the German origins of major Polish cities and was opposed by K. Tymieniecki, who believed in the importance of older Slavic foundations of these cities
At Europe's Borders: Medieval Towns in the Romanian Principalities - Page 27
Laurențiu Rădvan - 2010
For the trend in historiography that discards a possible continuity between towns before the German colonization and those afterwards, see Richard Koebn He mentions this in context of outdated theories.
It seems again that very outdated concepts from German historiography-based on XIX century and early XX century prejudices are being pushed on articles in Wiki. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 16:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
This fragment below seems informative, and I would welcome translation.It comes from German wiki article on the subject.
Im 18. Jahrhundert fand die Geschichte der Deutschen Ostsiedlung erstmals stärkere Beachtung. Mit dem Aufkommen des Nationalismus im 19. Jahrhundert entstand eine zunehmend ideologisierte Ostforschung, die ihren Höhepunkt in der Zwischenkriegszeit erreichte (siehe auch Volks- und Kulturbodenforschung). Die Deutsche Ostsiedlung des Mittelalters, damals nahezu ausschließlich als Deutsche Ostkolonisation bezeichnet, wurde für die „zu spät gekommenen“ Deutschen eine Art Ersatz für eine verpasste Überseeexpansion. Nach der politisch-militärischen Katastrophe des Ersten Weltkrieges, die einerseits den kolonialen Träumen der Wilhelminischen Ära ein Ende bereitet und andererseits die herrschende Klasse diskreditiert hatte, wurden das Deutschtum und das Deutsche Volk an sich zur wichtigsten Identifikationsquelle. Die Deutsche Ostsiedlung wurde für völkisch-nationale Kreise zum Vorbild und zur Legitimation für einen neuen „Drang nach Osten“. Die Ideen vom „deutschen Drang nach Osten“ und von der rassischen Überlegenheit des deutschen Volkes haben Adolf Hitler und die nationalsozialistische Blut-und-Boden-Ideologie maßgeblich beeinflusst. Der Zweite Weltkrieg sollte die nun völkisch interpretierte deutsche Ostkolonisation wiederbeleben und vollenden, obwohl nicht annähernd genügend viele Menschen zur Siedlung zur Verfügung standen.
Die Ostforschung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland zeichnete sich durch ein hohes Maß an personeller und methodischer Kontinuität aus. Sie wurde in den Dienst des Ost-West-Konflikts und der Vertriebenenproblematik gestellt. Der dezidiert nationale, wenn nicht gar nationalistische Blickwinkel auf die Ostsiedlung wurde beendet durch Walter Schlesinger, der 1975 die einschlägigen Referate der berühmten Reichenau-Tagungen des Konstanzer Arbeitskreises für mittelalterliche Geschichte als Herausgeber zusammenfasste: „Die deutsche Ostsiedlung des Mittelalters als Problem der europäischen Geschichte.“ Erst das Ende des Kalten Krieges machte den Weg frei für einen unbefangeneren Umgang mit Ostforschung und der Deutschen Ostsiedlung.
-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 16:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Here it is:
Hans Adler 13:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I removed the references to Marian Zygmunt Jedlicki (1899-1954), author of "Thousand years of German aggression", whose essay "German Settlement in Poland and the Rise of the Teutonic Order" (first published in 1950) was cited here, as biased. Skäpperöd ( talk) 08:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
This article is missing information about exploitation of Ostsiedlung by German nationalism and Nazi movement to reject urban, scientific and cultural development by non-German people. German wiki has extensive section about this, and the Ostsiedlung is tied strongly to German nationalism-the effect it had on it, and how it was exploited and effected German historiography, must be included in the article. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 10:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm reading through Piskorski's article in the German History journal (Journal of the German History Society) and he makes a pretty strong case that the term "Ostsiedlung" (or related terms) is inappropriate. I don't want to quote to much from the article so as not to risk violating copy right laws but here's some key points he makes (my emphasis):
The ideal situation in my view would be to have one article on "medieval colonization of central Europe" - essentially something like this present one but more balanced and without the POV problems, and another on the term "Ostsiedlung" itself. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Piskorski's proposal is interesting, well-founded and it needs to be watched if it will cause a debate among scholars or even a consensus for a new designation. For now, Ostsiedlung remains Piskorski's preferred term of those terms widely in use (as cited above :"or even Ostsiedlung. The latter, identical with ‘east colonization’, is the most suitable"; Ostsiedlung is also used by Piskorski throughout e.g. in his 2007 essay "Slawen und Deutsche in Pommern im Mittelalter", with pointing out his abovecited proposal of 2004 in a footnote). Skäpperöd ( talk) 06:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Since pages 659 and 660 of Piskorski are not available in gbooks preview, I can't at the moment comment much on the information regarding the supposed introduction of various "superior" technologies to "backward" East Europe as a result of German colonization, except to note that these notions have been very much questioned and debunked. The whole "plow" canard is a pretty old theme in German nationalist literature of the 19th century. The introduction of the three-crop rotation system is true enough in a literal sense but it's association with German colonization is is partial at best; if land is abundant and labor is scare it makes no sense to use a land-intensive technique like 3-crop rotation, only when the situation reverses itself do you want to switch. As such the introduction of 3-crop rotation was driven by increases in population during this period (only part of which was due to settlement by Germans) rather than it being "imported" from Germany - the technique was well known in Eastern Europe prior to the Ostsiedlung, it just wasn't the most efficient one, given the abundance of land, hence it wasn't much used until population grew sufficiently.
A lot of these themes are your basic "standard imperialist narrative", where these noble colonizers bring amazing new technologies to a backward barbarian people. That kind of nonsense wouldn't be tolerated in articles on, say, colonial India, so I'm not sure why it is ok here.
But aside from that, the other parts of Pisorski are in fact available and even there a lot of problems with the section - and with how the source is being misused - quickly become apparent.
For example, the article text claims: Ostsiedlung also led to a rapid population growth throughout East Central Europe. and then there follows a fairly accurate discussion of the relative contributions of colonization and native population growth to this phenomenon - though I would remove the explicit casual link made in the claim; i.e. it wasn't the "Ostsiedlung" which led to rapid population growth, at least not totally, but rather the introduction of new administrative system. As already mentioned above, the problem here is with the term "Ostsiedlung" itself - does it describe the actual movement of people West to East? The movement of people, whatever their ethnicity, from rural areas to towns? The spread of "German" (actually "Dutch") law eastward? I think Piskorsi is fairly explicit about the fact that outside of the areas specifically enumerated, it was the "law" that gave rise to population growth, mostly native, rather than the "colonization". The present wording is confusing.
Another problem is with the claim With the introduction of these techniques, cereals became the primary nutrition, making up for an averaged 70% of the peoples' calorie intake. - ok. What was the primary source of nutrition/caloric intake before that? From what I know of other medieval and historical, economies, prior to the Industrial Revolution, cereals were ALWAYS the primary source of nutrition. The only possible competitor here would be meat and dairy, but generally, these are not even close. And to the extent that prior to the Industrial Revolution, meat and dairy were actually "luxury goods" in most cases, the fact that there was a switch to cereals would indicate a pretty significant deterioration in standards of living, at least of the native populations. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
A cereal is an edible component of a grass, of which wheat, rye, and barley would be the most common for northern Europe. There are many other crops that are not cereals that are commonly eaten around the world, and form the primary source of nutrition in many places. The most prominent non-cereals that serve as primary nutrition sources are yams and potatoes, both root vegetables. Non-cereals that were commonly eaten in pre-industrial include root vegetables like turnips and beets, legumes such as peas, beans, and lentils, and leaf vegetables such as cabbage. Various fruits from vines (grapes) and trees (apples, pears) would form a lesser part of the diet, along with nuts such as walnuts and chestnuts. And, as is mentioned below, alcoholic beverages - specifically beer - formed a large component of the diet for people in pre-industrial Europe.
In some coastal regions and river valleys fish, shellfish, and other aquatic animals formed the primary sources of nutrition for pre-industrial cultures, such as the Coastal Salish peoples of what is now the Cascadia region of the northwest United States and southern British Columbia.
In arctic regions, marine mammals formed the primary source of nutrition.
Herd animals - their milk, blood, and meat - sometimes composed the primary source of nutrition for cultures of steppe and grassland regions, such as sheep, goats, horses, and cattle. Certain cultures of the northern Eurasian and North American taiga relied primarily on reindeer or caribou.
Bowlweevils ( talk) 10:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)bowlweevils
Well, I've gotten the Piskorski book and read the article. Couple of points, some minor, and one substantial:
The basic problem with this article and how it uses the sources is that it pretends that "Ostsiedlung" (i.e. German settlement in Eastern Europe) was synonymous with "East Colonization" (and yes, the two phrases translate as the same thing - but they do not DENOTE the same thing), which was a broader process which involved other factors; rural-urban migration, movement of native Slavic populations from more populated areas (Malopolska) to less populated areas (Silesia, Masuria, Pomerania, Ukraine), and the legal reforms of urban charters. In doing this it ascribes all the developments that occurred during this time to "German settlers" which is not how it worked. And that's not in the sources either, Piskorski or otherwise, at least not since the 19th century.
So I'm going to once again repeat my suggestion to split this article into several more accurate ones, each of which can cover its subject in a more satisfactory manner. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 02:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
"East colonization" and "Ostsiedlung" are synonyms. I don't know what you base your theories on, but you can't take this as a basis for the deletion of a whole section claiming OR, POV and SYNTH [12]. The primary source for this section is an essay from Piskorski about the current state of research; in the original Piskorski used the term "Ostsiedlung", and in the direct English translation (linked in the footnote), "east colonization". So here we have a case were east colonization is used as an English translation of Ostsiedlung, and if your theory was true for other major scholars on this field, it is evidently not true for Piskorski, who is using them synonymously.
Piskorski also spells this out in another essay, in a quote brought up by you above, so you should be aware of that. The quote is "[...]or even Ostsiedlung. The latter, identical with ‘east colonization’, is the most suitable, since it includes both German colonization in particular, and also colonization based on German law [...]" (Piskorski 2007, emphasis added). Piskorski is a leading scholar on this field, so trust him that he knows about the terminology. That these terms are synonyms is also explicitely spelled out in several other books, e.g. Delanty (1995) "The Ostsiedlung, the colonisation of the east, which stretched from the shores of the Baltic to the Carpathians [...]" [13]; Fuchs (1999) "Ostsiedlung (eastward colonisation) during the Middle Ages" [14]; Jurado et al (2001) "Ostsiedlung ('Eastern Colonisation')" [15]; Golden (2006) "medieval German Ostsiedlung (the colonization of the east)" [16] etc. Bartlett in his very short Ostsiedlung entry in the Atlas of medieval Europe also includes the rural development, as done here [17]. I thus reinstate the section, which was here for a long time and evidently belongs here as a key part of Ostsiedlung. Skäpperöd ( talk) 06:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Repeating your theories ad nauseam does not make them right. Neither the terms "Ostsiedlung" nor its synonym "east colonization" refer to German settlement exclusively. This, and that Piskorski thinks that these terms should probably be replaced in the future, and that he nevertheless prefers these terms as the most appropriate ones of the many terms currently in use, is also evident from his quote: "[...] Ostsiedlung [...], identical with ‘east colonization’, is the most suitable, since it includes both German colonization in particular, and also colonization based on German law [...]" (Piskorski 2007) Skäpperöd ( talk) 09:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek ( talk) 09:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
You are insulting Piskorski's scholary abilities by claiming that he, in the (short) chapter "current state of research" in his (short) essay about Ostsiedlung, is not referring to the current state of research regarding the Ostsiedlung. The chapter even starts: "is not easy to give a brief overview of the state of current research into the medieval German settlement in East Central Europe. I would stress, though, that the vast majority of scholars today agree that the German settlement east of the Elbe and Saale and south-east of the Iron Mountains and the spread of German law represent the most important events in the economic life of the twelfth to the fourteenth centuries. It contributed to the collapse of the old, less successful economic and tax system and formed the model of land settlement right up to the twentieth century. In addition, it brought into being the so-called free or new towns and [...]" (Piskorski 1999: 657–8) Piskorski is not talking about "coincidences" and "an overall development." Skäpperöd ( talk) 09:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
You are still basing your argumentation on the erroneous assumption that "Ostsiedlung" and "east colonization" are different things, whereas I have already shown here (and again below) that Piskorski (and others) consider them to be identical (quote "Ostsiedlung [...], identical with ‘east colonization’"), and that where P. uses "east colonization" in the English version of the particluar essay I cited, he uses "Ostsiedlung" in the German version. Skäpperöd ( talk) 10:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Since the information about supposed "improvement" is disputed, and scholarly information about contradicting views has been deleted I added the POV tag to the appropriate section.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 12:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Piskorski mentions that overall about 200,000 individuals migrated from the German territories over a course of a century, and then says that represented about 2% of the population. I think statistics like these are useful as they put the scale of the phenomenon into perspective. However, I haven't added it to the article because it's not clear what the "of the population" refers to. Does he mean 2% of the "source" (German) population left? Or that the settlers constituted 2% of the population at their destination? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 14:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
The numbers used by Piskorski (from Kuhn)-Kuhn? As if Walter Kuhn the infamous Nazi activist who dedicated his life to racial and pseudoscientific theories that were to present superiority of Germans and who published works regarding Poland which were aimed at presenting its western territories as German? Please confirm that is untrue, otherwise this is a shocking revelation. No Nazi data should be used.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 23:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Above Skapperod blatantly misrepresent the source Piskorski 2007 (available here if you got access [18]). The issue of conflict has to do with:
Skapperod states:
Piskorski also spells this out in another essay, in a quote brought up by you above, so you should be aware of that. The quote is "[...]or even Ostsiedlung. The latter, identical with ‘east colonization’, is the most suitable, since it includes both German colonization in particular, and also colonization based on German law [...]" (Piskorski 2007, emphasis added). Piskorski is a leading scholar on this field, so trust him that he knows about the terminology.
as a justification for the equivocating "Ostsiedlung" with "East colonization". However this is a misrepresentation of the source - note the little "[...]" marks. And here what is left out is as important of what is being manipulatively and selectively quoted. Here is the whole paragraph from Piskorski with the parts which were left out:
Before attempting to answer the two questions formulated above, it is essential to clarify what is meant here by the concept of medieval ‘colonization of the east’; this is a historically loaded expression, particularly in German, where such colonization is usually described as a ‘German’ movement. It is therefore proposed to replace terms such as deutsche Ostbewegung or deutsche Ostsiedlung or even Ostsiedlung.
Hence Piskorski is actually saying that the terms like "deutsche Ostbewegun" or "deutsche Ostsiedlung" or " Ostsiedlung" should NOT be used to describe "Colonization of the East". He then gets to the part Skapperod selectively quoted out of context:
The latter, identical with ‘east colonization’, is the most suitable, since it includes both German colonization in particular, and also colonization based on German law, without the participation of settlers from German-speaking lands.
By "identical with" Piskorski is saying that that's how the term "Ostsiedlung" translates into English. It is preferable to the other terms simply because it doesn't contain the adjective "deutsche". So what he is saying that among the three terms frequently used by German writes, "Ostsiedlung" is "the most suitable", but it's usage should still be dropped. And as Skapperod says, he is an expert in this field.
The final part of the paragraph is:
A similar term is used in the Czech Republic and Poland—‘kolonizacja wschodnia’ (east colonization). Klaus Zernack also defends the latter term in German, although by ‘east colonization’ (Ostkolonisation) he understands the whole phenomenon of settlement from Germany all the way to the Russian coast of the Pacific Ocean, where these colonization processes extended from west to east.6
In other works Piskorski makes the same point, that "Colonization of the East" is not synonymous with "German settlement in the East" (or the Ostisedlung).
For example here [19], the author says:
Until recently eastern colonization was equated with the migration of Germans. However, it is now known that handfuls, rather than crowds, of people went in east in search of bread, freedom and adventure.
He goes on to mention the numbers constructed by Walter Kuhn which give 2,000 to 2,500 migrants per year, spread out over a pretty vast area. On page 30 of the same work, Piskorski discusses how "Colonization of the East" also involved Italians, Poles, Armenians, and Tatars. On the same page he specifically mentions the areas which did have more significant German migration. But "Colonization of the East" covered a far greater area. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
(will expand with other works). Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
This part of Skapperod's statement: in the original Piskorski used the term "Ostsiedlung", and in the direct English translation (linked in the footnote), "east colonization". is also blatantly not true. I don't know what the "original" he refers to is, this was an essay written for an international conference, hence whatever manuscript there might have been it was probably in English or Polish. But, in fact, Piskorski does not use "direct English translation" of "Ostisedlung" as "East colonization". What he uses in the title is '"The so-called 'east-colonization'" where the scare quotes are in Piskorski. Obviously the "so-called" part is in there for a reason, and that's to underlie the difficulty with this term. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link) is merely a translation of Piskorski, Jan Maria (1997). "Die mittelalterliche Ostsiedlung - ein alter Streit und neue Ergebnisse". In Seibt; et al. (eds.). Transit Brügge-Novgorod. Eine Straße durch die europäische Geschichte. Essen. pp. 194–203. {{
cite book}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |editor=
(
help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link).This section is largely based on Jan Piskorski's "The Historiography of the So-called "East Colonisation" and the Current State of Research". Piskorski explicitly mentions the role of the Ostsiedlung (East Colonisation) and its influence on agriculture. This is not a case of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, it's just what Piskorski writes. User:Volunteer Marek's latest revert is rather a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. HerkusMonte ( talk) 10:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Please keep junk like this [20] out of the article. See Walter Kuhn and [21]. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 00:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
This article has been reverted to facilitate cleanup of a copyright problem. Content added by User:Silar duplicates multiple external sources. For instance, see:
This is just one of many passages he placed in this and related articles which precisely duplicated external publications.
In accordance with copyright policy and Terms of Use, we may not duplicate previously published content, aside from brief and clearly marked quotations, unless they are demonstrably public domain or compatibly licensed. Please see Wikipedia:Copy-paste. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for this very retarded reaction. Your misunderstandings may mainly be a consequence of anachronistic-nationalistic thinking and of using concepts - German, Polish, Slavic - in a modern national(istic) connotation. The colonizers you are talking about were no Germans and but people with different regional and social identities. The so called Germans spoke a variety of German dialects, often mutually not quite understandable: vs. Flemish, Frisian, Rhinish, Westfalian and from their standpoint linguistically very remote Bavarian and Swabian. High German as a coordinating standard language and a national identity did not exist at that moment. Even the written language of the chancaries in German countries varied considerably up to the 17th century. The colonizers did not came as Germans to occupy Slavic lands for the future German nation and a Great German State. This was what nationalism wanted our parents to believe: one organic and continuous development from the 12th century up to now. Our German parents believed it to be a missionary triumph for civilisation. Our Polish parents couldn't accept that and rather felt humiliation and rape. Stop thinking and talking that way. Nationalism is over, now we have to look to history as a common inheritace. In the end, the 15 millions Germans, driven out of present day Poland and Czechia after 1945, were partly of Slav and partly of a diversity of German descent. But in the course of time they were inextricably mixed up. What matters is that they spoke German already for many generations and centuries and thus, at first culturally and later on also politically had become German. And this made them unacceptable for the modern Polish and Czech nation state. We have to ocus on this tragic European history and not on a supposed struggle between mediaeval Germans and Slavs, in a society dominated by feodality and diversed by free townspeople. Indeed, they came from the west (the German lands) just as modernization in the German lands came from the south (France and Italy). The difference in the Ostsiedlung is that culture was accompanied with language and next to the settlement of many speakers of German variaties, caused a massive language shift among the Slav autochtones, at the expense of their Slavic idioms.
--Kwaremont-- 1 June 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 18:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
[edit] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwaremont ( talk • contribs) 11:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
This is a very poor article, a strange mix of propaganda, bad English, nationalist mythology and (occasionally) history. It needs to be rewritten from scratch by someone who is across the sources, and not affiliated with any school of nationalist apologetics. Intelligent Mr Toad ( talk) 09:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I have removed map that was copied from map prepared by known Nazi Walter Kuhn.We should only use reliable works. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 20:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Most of this article treats it as a time period, but I fail to find a range. I did some online searching, and some people treat it as spanning from Charlemagne's subjecting the Saxons till the end of WWII. Tinynanorobots ( talk) 05:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
In connection with the town laws applied a few sentences in the article are marked with why and dubious, e.g. in the introduction: According to Jedlicki (1950), in many cases the term "German colonization" does not refer to an actual migration of Germans, but rather to the internal migration of native populations (Poles, Hungarians, etc.) from the countryside to the cities, which then adopted laws modeled on those of the German towns of Magdeburg and Lübeck why?. or in the Poland section: Since the beginning of the 14/15th centuries, the Polish-Silesian Piast dynasty – ( Władysław Opolczyk), reinforced German settlers on the land, who in decades founded more than 150 towns and villages under German town law, particularly under the law of the town Magdeburg ( Magdeburg law). dubious – discuss Does someone know where the remarks came from and what exactly is here questionable or dubious?!-- Zarbi1 ( talk) 12:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I think (in those times) Walloons spoke sundry Romance tongues akin to French but NOT French itself. The following needs citations and dates, it reads: "Significant numbers of Dutch as well as (though to a lesser extent) Danes, Scots or local Wends and (French speaking) Walloons also participated" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:411:1600:226:8FF:FEDC:FD74 ( talk) 14:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
You may critizise me for doubling in some respects the text of the Ostsiedlung/kolonisation lemma. Soberness would have been better. I am sorry. But what I added was an important source contribution too (two German and one Polish, English translated). And without such sources and their contents the text cannot be called balanced, with the present dominance of English and Polish references. Now, you are complaining of a bias ???
Kwaremont ( talk) 10:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC) Kwaremont, 19-1-2017; 11.13
Hi everybody! I am attempting to clean up here! The article is pretty messy, though. I am certain, i am going to miss and confuse stuff. Please join in and help, criticise, correct etc. All the best Wikirictor 18:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Irrespective of what the term “Ostsiedlung” represents, the literal translation can be expressed as “east settling”. “Eastern settlement” in that formation conveys not the process of “colonisation” or “settling”, but rather a settlement, like a village or colony, which is not what “Siedlung” means in this context. I have altered the translation accordingly. Steepleman ( t) 04:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Can we change this article's spelling style from American to British English? Any objections? Crainsaw ( talk) 13:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
As noted in the map file, this animated map cites no sources and strangely includes contemporary Belgium and the Netherlands until the 20th century. BCorr| Брайен 02:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians! I have made a large number of changes to the section on Bohemia, which was incredibly messy, inadequately sourced, and contained sentences that were borderline unintelligible as well as irrelevant and downright incorrect content. Please take a minute to review my changes, if you will. (Further improvements are needed, but I have no more time for now). Sincerely, Nikolaj1905 ( talk) 08:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
At the end the article says: "Only the oldest 12th-century and partially 13th-century colonization areas remained German in language and culture, that are situated within the area of the post-1945 Eastern Germany and part of Eastern Austria; in which Eastern Germany is a part of Germany, especially from German reunification on 3 October 1990."
This literally says that within current Germany and Austria, only areas of colonization in the 12th and 13th centuries remained German in language, which can't be true.
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
User:Imiraven How should I translate this sentence in Historische Entwicklung einiger Marken und Regionen: "In Norddeutschland gingen der Ostsiedlung Auseinandersetzungen Karls des Großen mit den nicht-christlichen Sachsen voraus, als Karl seine Reichsgrenzen sichern wollte". Unfortunately I haven't found any appropriate translation for "vorausgehen" in this case.
The article is loaded heavily with German POV, I will wait its final version, for now however obvious POVish sentences are spotted,for example: The East Colonisation was predominantly a peaceful process; the rulers of Hungary, Bohemia, Silesia, Pomerania, Mecklenburg, and Poland encouraged German settlement to promote the development of their lands. The sentence completely avoids the massacres of native populations that were made for German settlers to arrive, for example in Prussia, it avoids mentioning that while initially indeed German settlers were invited, soon ethnic conflicts followed as native people were forced into lower social status by their German guests. It avoids mentioning that arrival of Germanic knights in the area has led to conflict that endured for centuries in Poland, it doesn't mention the wars Brandeburgia led in order to capture and settle Polish territory etc. The conflict between Polish rulers and Germans within Poland isn't touched at all.No information is given on massive uprisings of original Prussians against Teutonic Knights, no information is given on enslavment of local population by Germanic knights in Baltic countries, and so on. And that problems are only those seen at one glance. -- Molobo 23:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
It's the first time I hear Poland had an Emperor Casimir. -- Molobo 23:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
From history of Brandenburg on Wiki: In the great uprising in 983 the Slavs wiped out German control from the territory of present day Brandenburg. The monasteries were buried, priests and Germans officials killed or expelled. The Slavic tribes living east of Elbe remained independent and pagan for the next 150 years. 12th Century In the beginning of the 12th century the Saxon German kings and emperors conquered the Slavic-inhabited lands of present-day Brandenburg. Many Slavic inhabitants survived the conquests and live there still today - Sorbs, Lusatians. The church brought bishoprics, which with their walled towns, afforded protection for the townspeople from attack. With the monks and bishops, the history of the town of Brandenburg, which in time became the state of Brandenburg, began. In 1134, in the wake of a German crusade against the Wends, the German magnate Albert the Bear was granted the Northern March by the Holy Roman Emperor Lothar II. For some time up until the 15th century, some part of the area that would become Brandenburg was inhabited by the Slavic Wends, who still make up a part of the area's modern population. -- Molobo 23:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Kinda a small detail, but is east colonization really the right phrase in english? are you sure its not supposed to be "eastern colonization" or something?.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
(to edit: there is a lack of e.g details about the expansion to Pomerania, to Wartheland and to the Baltic States. The whole chapter has to be arranged again). (unknown; moved here by -- Jpbrenna 15:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC))
The result of the debate was move. Haukur 09:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
As I wrote on the Ostsiedlung talk page before the article was redirected here, Ostsiedlung has gained currency in academia as the term to describe German eastern colonization, and performing an English Google test shows it is three times more productive than the English calques "East Colonization" and "East Colonisation." All of my medieval history texts have used the term Ostsiedlung in discussing this phenomenon (without the adjective Deutsche); the first time I read the termEast Colonisation was on Wikipedia! We're supposed to use the most common English-language name, and that just happens to be a borrowed German word, so let's use it! -- Jpbrenna 21:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-- Jadger 20:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
per nom (and also in line with Drang nach Osten, which I initially mistaken the English name for). Duja 10:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Colonization is the wrong translation, settlement is correct and fits with the genarl character of this undertaking
"Ethnic Germans, along with Azkhenazi Jews, also formed a large part of the town population of Kraków".
The Jews lived rather in Kazimierz, a separate town, than in Kraków. Xx236 11:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I have left my comments on the new map on the image's discussion page, I would like further input.
-- Jadger 00:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The sentence below is the last one in the introduciton. What is this sentence intended to say?
I would guess that it is trying to say that parts of the territory that was settled during "Ostsiedlung" is still part of the current German state. However, if that is what is meant, this sentence does not say that and should be fixed.
-- Richard 15:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Right- modern German regions like Mecklenburg, Vorpommern, Brandenburg, and Saxony were populated by Slavs before the medieval Germans arrived.
-- Olessi 00:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The sentence doesn't make sense, because most of the last paragraph of the introduction is a mess.
The next to last sentence misses a part (... territory by , as ...) and the sentence before that is factually incorrect. The Ostsiedlung started at the Elbe and Saale rivers, which are quite a bit west of the Oder-Neisse line.
-- Tibors 21:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Ostsiedlung →
German eastward expansion — No need to use German word where an adequate English equivalent exists. Also per
WP:UE. —--
Lysy
talk
19:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. -- Stemonitis 06:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Why does the map present Wielkopolska as completely German, while the fact is it was Polish linguist area with German minority ? -- Molobo 07:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
it does not represent Greater Poland as completely German, please explain this misconception you have? -- Jadger 17:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC) Of course it does-just as Silesia and Pomorze. -- Molobo 18:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, let's talk...
- Ostsiedlung ( German: Settlement in the East), also known as German eastward expansion, refers to the medieval eastward migration and mainly peaceful settlement of Germans from modern day Western and Central Germany into less-populated regions like the Baltic and modern day Poland. These areas had been left by their ancestors citation needed, the Germanic tribes, in the Migration Period partly due to incursions by the Huns, and since had been settled by Baltic peoples, and, since about the 8th century citation needed, the Slavs. [1]
-- Richard 18:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
It presents Pomorze, Silesia and Wielkopolska as almost completely German in 18,19, 20 century which contradicts knowledge about those areas. See scholary maps regarding those areas [1] [2] [3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polabian_Slavs "Many of the Polabian tribes were subjugated by the Franks in the 7th century and their lands were soon afterwards occupied by German bishops and nobles. They liberated themselves in a pagan uprising in 983, but were again subdued by the Germans in the mid-12th century. Despite the forced conversion to Christianity, the Slavic language was spoken by the descendants of the Drevani in the area of the lower Elbe until the early 18th century. The Lusatian Sorbs remained independent to a large extent. They were temporarily subdued by Charlemagne, but upon his death the links with the Franks were broken. In a series of bloody wars between 929 and 963 their lands were conquered by King Henry the Fowler and his son Otto the Great and were incorporated into the German domain" So it wasn't peacefull. Later they were also uprisings in Poland-Wójt Albert and Bohemia against German people. -- Molobo 19:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
A major problem of this map is that it cites no sources it is based upon; in essence, it's an OR map. Thus dubious, particularly if contrary maps can be presented.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 20:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
"What about the tags? Is the veracity of the assertions being challenged? If so, on what basis?" Right now it says that people that were part of Ostsiedlung were ancestors of Germanic tribes that moved on that territory while migrating from Scandinavia. However there were also Germanic tribes in North Germany and Scandinavia-how do we know that people in Ostedlung were ancestors of certain Germanic tribes and not the others.Seems far fatched to say the least. -- Molobo 13:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for this very retarded reaction. Your misunderstandings may mainly be a consequence of anachronistic-nationalistic thinking and of using concepts - German, Polish, Slavic - in a modern national connotation. The colonizers you are talking about were no Germans and no Poles but people with different regional and social identities. The so called Germans spoke a variety of German dialects, often mutually not quite understandable: vs. Flemish, Frisian, Rhinish, Westfalian and from their standpoint linguistically very remote Bavarian and Swabian. High German as a coordinating standard language did not yet exist. Even the written language of the chancaries varied considerably up to the 17th century. The colonizers did not came as Germans to occupy Slavic lands for the future German nation. This was what nationalism wanted our parents to believe: one organic and continuous development from the 12th century up to now. Our German parents believed it to be a missionary triumph for civilisation. Our Polish parents couldn't accept that and rather felt humiliation and rape. Stop thinking and talking that way. Nationalism is over, now we have to look to history as a common inheritace. In the end, the 15 millions Germans, driven out of present day Poland and Czechia after 1945, were partly of Slav and partly of a diversity of German descent. But in the course of time they were inextricably mixed up. What matters is that they spoke German already for many generations and centuries and thus, at first culturally and later on also politically had become German. And this made them unacceptable for the modern Polish and Czech nation state. -- Kwaremont-- 1 June 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 18:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
To the west of the map, it makes no sense to consider the Dutch / Flemish and Frisian languages to be part of the German language speaking region until 1910.
Frisian has been rather distinct since the 6th century, and Frisian is represented as a separate language in linguistic and historical texts in English, Dutch, and German. It developed from a mix of dialects spoken by the old Frisii, Angles, and Sachsen tribes present in the region since the 1st century BC or so, in a similar way to Old English. Frisian territory stretched along the North Sea coast from current Belgium to Weser River in current Germany, as well as the Schleswig coast, at its greatest extent from around 650-734
[2]. The Frisians are also considered to have been a group occupying territory that was gradually absorbed by Dutch political entities. Nominal authority over West Frisia was gained by the County Holland around 1000, but was essentially independent for the next 300 years. After that, the region was colonized by Hollanders and most of the population assimilated. This happened to a lesser extent in the East Frisia region of the modern Netherlands, which is now divided into the provinces of Friesland and Groenigen
[3]. A large part of what is now the German states of Lower Saxony and Schleswig-Holstein remained under Frisian control through the 15th century
[4]. The Frisian region of Germany is now limited to islands off the coast of Schleswig Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page)..
I would remove the Netherlands and Flanders regions from the German language area from around year 1000. Or at least have a progression starting with what are now the provinces of North and South Holland, Zeeland, Friesland, Groenigen, the coastal area of Belgium as not German around 1000, spreading east to the current borders of Germany by 1400 or so. And if there's going to be a finer-level resolution than the current borders to reflect that certain areas remained part of the German language region for longer than that by historical standards (including small areas where German is currently dominant), than areas of modern Germany that where Frisian was/is spoken should also be distinguished.
Bowlweevils (
talk)
09:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)bowlweevils
References
It is a historical map regarding this subject. Other maps by the author are on Wiki. [6] -- Molobo 19:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I think I agree with Jagder that it is getting a bit off-topic to discuss the expulsion of Poles during WWII in the lead. I know it seems like a balancing explanation for why Germans were expelled but it doesn't need to be explained in the lead.
I will comment that the lead mentions the 19th century concepts of Drang nach Osten and Lebensraum but the article doesn't discuss it. If it's mentioned in the lead, it should be explained in greater detail in the article. Same goes for the expulsions at the end of WWII. These points should be discussed briefly because they are not specifically part of Ostsiedlung but rather the political ramifications of the romanticization of Ostsiedlung 500 years after the fact. They are also useful to make sure the reader is aware that much of Ostsiedlung was reversed by the expulsions. Mostly this section should state the facts briefly with links to the appropriate articles for the reader to learn more if he/she is interested.
As for the {{fact}} tags, I am generally in favor of finding citations for stuff unless it's commonly known stuff like "The neoconservatives in the U.S. supported the election of George Bush."
-- Richard 15:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm surprised no-one has reacted to Molobo ( talk · contribs)s latest ?!?
Under the edit summary: "minor npov , request confirmation of some claims", he amongst a number of citation requests also includes a sourced paragraph deletion.
becomes
In Many articles Molobo seems to be very keen on including the Piast Dukes in the text, to show that Polish rule once extended over the eastern areas, but I guess setlements that preseded them are not so popular in Poland.... If we are going to "drop" sourced facts, it should be done openly and not quietly hidden away under the pretence of other edits. -- Stor stark7 Talk 23:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The article is extremely one sided and consists of a single Point of View. The resistance of local population to Germanisation is almost completely overlooked. The whole process is presented as peacefull, even as civilisational mission. This might be the view of certain historians and parts of German histography that is influenced by the nationalistic notion that Germanic influence brought civilisational development, but that certainly isn't the only view and only information about the process. There is enough information about enslavement of local people, eradication of native settlements, local cultures as well as destruction of ethnic identities that is part of this process as well. Right now the article takes one side and completely distorts the picture and thus can't be seen as neutral.-- Molobo ( talk) 21:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
instead the new Slav culture arose and became dominating in Eastern and large parts of Central Europe.
There was no unified Slav culture. -- Molobo ( talk) 21:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Yet, discrimination of the Wends should not be mistaken for being part of a general concept of the Ostsiedlung. Is this a polemic ? Another unfortunete example how the article downgraded. It now represents a cross-over between personal views, polemic-like statements, and picked selectively quotes to present a un-neutral point of view that conceals several events connected to Germanisation of Central and Eastern Europe, like extinction of Prussians, several Slavic people's and destruction of local cultures. Event the lead is made one-sides claiming it was done peacefully. Of course this not true, as they were crusades and destruction of Prussian settlements. I am sorry but this article is POV and I will add a tag to it, until this is settled. -- Molobo ( talk) 20:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
no settler came in with a sword and threw the Wends out of their houses. Funny that Piskorski you are fond of using actually does mention throwing native population out of their houses...-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 15:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I changed the translation of this word, maybe too hurriedly (as my German is pretty basic). Maybe it really does mean rural development? German speakers: please correct.-- Kotniski ( talk) 11:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
See even older reviews such as those in The Economic history review Economic History Society Popper & Co., 1966 page 18 where it is explained that Koebner thesis holds no truth and that he severely underestimated organization of Slavic settlements before German arrival. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 15:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Storia della storiografia: Volume 2007, Issue 52 - Page 141
In the section for social and economic history R. Koebner (Breslau) emphasized the German origins of major Polish cities and was opposed by K. Tymieniecki, who believed in the importance of older Slavic foundations of these cities
At Europe's Borders: Medieval Towns in the Romanian Principalities - Page 27
Laurențiu Rădvan - 2010
For the trend in historiography that discards a possible continuity between towns before the German colonization and those afterwards, see Richard Koebn He mentions this in context of outdated theories.
It seems again that very outdated concepts from German historiography-based on XIX century and early XX century prejudices are being pushed on articles in Wiki. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 16:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
This fragment below seems informative, and I would welcome translation.It comes from German wiki article on the subject.
Im 18. Jahrhundert fand die Geschichte der Deutschen Ostsiedlung erstmals stärkere Beachtung. Mit dem Aufkommen des Nationalismus im 19. Jahrhundert entstand eine zunehmend ideologisierte Ostforschung, die ihren Höhepunkt in der Zwischenkriegszeit erreichte (siehe auch Volks- und Kulturbodenforschung). Die Deutsche Ostsiedlung des Mittelalters, damals nahezu ausschließlich als Deutsche Ostkolonisation bezeichnet, wurde für die „zu spät gekommenen“ Deutschen eine Art Ersatz für eine verpasste Überseeexpansion. Nach der politisch-militärischen Katastrophe des Ersten Weltkrieges, die einerseits den kolonialen Träumen der Wilhelminischen Ära ein Ende bereitet und andererseits die herrschende Klasse diskreditiert hatte, wurden das Deutschtum und das Deutsche Volk an sich zur wichtigsten Identifikationsquelle. Die Deutsche Ostsiedlung wurde für völkisch-nationale Kreise zum Vorbild und zur Legitimation für einen neuen „Drang nach Osten“. Die Ideen vom „deutschen Drang nach Osten“ und von der rassischen Überlegenheit des deutschen Volkes haben Adolf Hitler und die nationalsozialistische Blut-und-Boden-Ideologie maßgeblich beeinflusst. Der Zweite Weltkrieg sollte die nun völkisch interpretierte deutsche Ostkolonisation wiederbeleben und vollenden, obwohl nicht annähernd genügend viele Menschen zur Siedlung zur Verfügung standen.
Die Ostforschung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland zeichnete sich durch ein hohes Maß an personeller und methodischer Kontinuität aus. Sie wurde in den Dienst des Ost-West-Konflikts und der Vertriebenenproblematik gestellt. Der dezidiert nationale, wenn nicht gar nationalistische Blickwinkel auf die Ostsiedlung wurde beendet durch Walter Schlesinger, der 1975 die einschlägigen Referate der berühmten Reichenau-Tagungen des Konstanzer Arbeitskreises für mittelalterliche Geschichte als Herausgeber zusammenfasste: „Die deutsche Ostsiedlung des Mittelalters als Problem der europäischen Geschichte.“ Erst das Ende des Kalten Krieges machte den Weg frei für einen unbefangeneren Umgang mit Ostforschung und der Deutschen Ostsiedlung.
-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 16:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Here it is:
Hans Adler 13:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I removed the references to Marian Zygmunt Jedlicki (1899-1954), author of "Thousand years of German aggression", whose essay "German Settlement in Poland and the Rise of the Teutonic Order" (first published in 1950) was cited here, as biased. Skäpperöd ( talk) 08:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
This article is missing information about exploitation of Ostsiedlung by German nationalism and Nazi movement to reject urban, scientific and cultural development by non-German people. German wiki has extensive section about this, and the Ostsiedlung is tied strongly to German nationalism-the effect it had on it, and how it was exploited and effected German historiography, must be included in the article. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 10:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm reading through Piskorski's article in the German History journal (Journal of the German History Society) and he makes a pretty strong case that the term "Ostsiedlung" (or related terms) is inappropriate. I don't want to quote to much from the article so as not to risk violating copy right laws but here's some key points he makes (my emphasis):
The ideal situation in my view would be to have one article on "medieval colonization of central Europe" - essentially something like this present one but more balanced and without the POV problems, and another on the term "Ostsiedlung" itself. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Piskorski's proposal is interesting, well-founded and it needs to be watched if it will cause a debate among scholars or even a consensus for a new designation. For now, Ostsiedlung remains Piskorski's preferred term of those terms widely in use (as cited above :"or even Ostsiedlung. The latter, identical with ‘east colonization’, is the most suitable"; Ostsiedlung is also used by Piskorski throughout e.g. in his 2007 essay "Slawen und Deutsche in Pommern im Mittelalter", with pointing out his abovecited proposal of 2004 in a footnote). Skäpperöd ( talk) 06:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Since pages 659 and 660 of Piskorski are not available in gbooks preview, I can't at the moment comment much on the information regarding the supposed introduction of various "superior" technologies to "backward" East Europe as a result of German colonization, except to note that these notions have been very much questioned and debunked. The whole "plow" canard is a pretty old theme in German nationalist literature of the 19th century. The introduction of the three-crop rotation system is true enough in a literal sense but it's association with German colonization is is partial at best; if land is abundant and labor is scare it makes no sense to use a land-intensive technique like 3-crop rotation, only when the situation reverses itself do you want to switch. As such the introduction of 3-crop rotation was driven by increases in population during this period (only part of which was due to settlement by Germans) rather than it being "imported" from Germany - the technique was well known in Eastern Europe prior to the Ostsiedlung, it just wasn't the most efficient one, given the abundance of land, hence it wasn't much used until population grew sufficiently.
A lot of these themes are your basic "standard imperialist narrative", where these noble colonizers bring amazing new technologies to a backward barbarian people. That kind of nonsense wouldn't be tolerated in articles on, say, colonial India, so I'm not sure why it is ok here.
But aside from that, the other parts of Pisorski are in fact available and even there a lot of problems with the section - and with how the source is being misused - quickly become apparent.
For example, the article text claims: Ostsiedlung also led to a rapid population growth throughout East Central Europe. and then there follows a fairly accurate discussion of the relative contributions of colonization and native population growth to this phenomenon - though I would remove the explicit casual link made in the claim; i.e. it wasn't the "Ostsiedlung" which led to rapid population growth, at least not totally, but rather the introduction of new administrative system. As already mentioned above, the problem here is with the term "Ostsiedlung" itself - does it describe the actual movement of people West to East? The movement of people, whatever their ethnicity, from rural areas to towns? The spread of "German" (actually "Dutch") law eastward? I think Piskorsi is fairly explicit about the fact that outside of the areas specifically enumerated, it was the "law" that gave rise to population growth, mostly native, rather than the "colonization". The present wording is confusing.
Another problem is with the claim With the introduction of these techniques, cereals became the primary nutrition, making up for an averaged 70% of the peoples' calorie intake. - ok. What was the primary source of nutrition/caloric intake before that? From what I know of other medieval and historical, economies, prior to the Industrial Revolution, cereals were ALWAYS the primary source of nutrition. The only possible competitor here would be meat and dairy, but generally, these are not even close. And to the extent that prior to the Industrial Revolution, meat and dairy were actually "luxury goods" in most cases, the fact that there was a switch to cereals would indicate a pretty significant deterioration in standards of living, at least of the native populations. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
A cereal is an edible component of a grass, of which wheat, rye, and barley would be the most common for northern Europe. There are many other crops that are not cereals that are commonly eaten around the world, and form the primary source of nutrition in many places. The most prominent non-cereals that serve as primary nutrition sources are yams and potatoes, both root vegetables. Non-cereals that were commonly eaten in pre-industrial include root vegetables like turnips and beets, legumes such as peas, beans, and lentils, and leaf vegetables such as cabbage. Various fruits from vines (grapes) and trees (apples, pears) would form a lesser part of the diet, along with nuts such as walnuts and chestnuts. And, as is mentioned below, alcoholic beverages - specifically beer - formed a large component of the diet for people in pre-industrial Europe.
In some coastal regions and river valleys fish, shellfish, and other aquatic animals formed the primary sources of nutrition for pre-industrial cultures, such as the Coastal Salish peoples of what is now the Cascadia region of the northwest United States and southern British Columbia.
In arctic regions, marine mammals formed the primary source of nutrition.
Herd animals - their milk, blood, and meat - sometimes composed the primary source of nutrition for cultures of steppe and grassland regions, such as sheep, goats, horses, and cattle. Certain cultures of the northern Eurasian and North American taiga relied primarily on reindeer or caribou.
Bowlweevils ( talk) 10:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)bowlweevils
Well, I've gotten the Piskorski book and read the article. Couple of points, some minor, and one substantial:
The basic problem with this article and how it uses the sources is that it pretends that "Ostsiedlung" (i.e. German settlement in Eastern Europe) was synonymous with "East Colonization" (and yes, the two phrases translate as the same thing - but they do not DENOTE the same thing), which was a broader process which involved other factors; rural-urban migration, movement of native Slavic populations from more populated areas (Malopolska) to less populated areas (Silesia, Masuria, Pomerania, Ukraine), and the legal reforms of urban charters. In doing this it ascribes all the developments that occurred during this time to "German settlers" which is not how it worked. And that's not in the sources either, Piskorski or otherwise, at least not since the 19th century.
So I'm going to once again repeat my suggestion to split this article into several more accurate ones, each of which can cover its subject in a more satisfactory manner. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 02:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
"East colonization" and "Ostsiedlung" are synonyms. I don't know what you base your theories on, but you can't take this as a basis for the deletion of a whole section claiming OR, POV and SYNTH [12]. The primary source for this section is an essay from Piskorski about the current state of research; in the original Piskorski used the term "Ostsiedlung", and in the direct English translation (linked in the footnote), "east colonization". So here we have a case were east colonization is used as an English translation of Ostsiedlung, and if your theory was true for other major scholars on this field, it is evidently not true for Piskorski, who is using them synonymously.
Piskorski also spells this out in another essay, in a quote brought up by you above, so you should be aware of that. The quote is "[...]or even Ostsiedlung. The latter, identical with ‘east colonization’, is the most suitable, since it includes both German colonization in particular, and also colonization based on German law [...]" (Piskorski 2007, emphasis added). Piskorski is a leading scholar on this field, so trust him that he knows about the terminology. That these terms are synonyms is also explicitely spelled out in several other books, e.g. Delanty (1995) "The Ostsiedlung, the colonisation of the east, which stretched from the shores of the Baltic to the Carpathians [...]" [13]; Fuchs (1999) "Ostsiedlung (eastward colonisation) during the Middle Ages" [14]; Jurado et al (2001) "Ostsiedlung ('Eastern Colonisation')" [15]; Golden (2006) "medieval German Ostsiedlung (the colonization of the east)" [16] etc. Bartlett in his very short Ostsiedlung entry in the Atlas of medieval Europe also includes the rural development, as done here [17]. I thus reinstate the section, which was here for a long time and evidently belongs here as a key part of Ostsiedlung. Skäpperöd ( talk) 06:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Repeating your theories ad nauseam does not make them right. Neither the terms "Ostsiedlung" nor its synonym "east colonization" refer to German settlement exclusively. This, and that Piskorski thinks that these terms should probably be replaced in the future, and that he nevertheless prefers these terms as the most appropriate ones of the many terms currently in use, is also evident from his quote: "[...] Ostsiedlung [...], identical with ‘east colonization’, is the most suitable, since it includes both German colonization in particular, and also colonization based on German law [...]" (Piskorski 2007) Skäpperöd ( talk) 09:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek ( talk) 09:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
You are insulting Piskorski's scholary abilities by claiming that he, in the (short) chapter "current state of research" in his (short) essay about Ostsiedlung, is not referring to the current state of research regarding the Ostsiedlung. The chapter even starts: "is not easy to give a brief overview of the state of current research into the medieval German settlement in East Central Europe. I would stress, though, that the vast majority of scholars today agree that the German settlement east of the Elbe and Saale and south-east of the Iron Mountains and the spread of German law represent the most important events in the economic life of the twelfth to the fourteenth centuries. It contributed to the collapse of the old, less successful economic and tax system and formed the model of land settlement right up to the twentieth century. In addition, it brought into being the so-called free or new towns and [...]" (Piskorski 1999: 657–8) Piskorski is not talking about "coincidences" and "an overall development." Skäpperöd ( talk) 09:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
You are still basing your argumentation on the erroneous assumption that "Ostsiedlung" and "east colonization" are different things, whereas I have already shown here (and again below) that Piskorski (and others) consider them to be identical (quote "Ostsiedlung [...], identical with ‘east colonization’"), and that where P. uses "east colonization" in the English version of the particluar essay I cited, he uses "Ostsiedlung" in the German version. Skäpperöd ( talk) 10:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Since the information about supposed "improvement" is disputed, and scholarly information about contradicting views has been deleted I added the POV tag to the appropriate section.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 12:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Piskorski mentions that overall about 200,000 individuals migrated from the German territories over a course of a century, and then says that represented about 2% of the population. I think statistics like these are useful as they put the scale of the phenomenon into perspective. However, I haven't added it to the article because it's not clear what the "of the population" refers to. Does he mean 2% of the "source" (German) population left? Or that the settlers constituted 2% of the population at their destination? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 14:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
The numbers used by Piskorski (from Kuhn)-Kuhn? As if Walter Kuhn the infamous Nazi activist who dedicated his life to racial and pseudoscientific theories that were to present superiority of Germans and who published works regarding Poland which were aimed at presenting its western territories as German? Please confirm that is untrue, otherwise this is a shocking revelation. No Nazi data should be used.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 23:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Above Skapperod blatantly misrepresent the source Piskorski 2007 (available here if you got access [18]). The issue of conflict has to do with:
Skapperod states:
Piskorski also spells this out in another essay, in a quote brought up by you above, so you should be aware of that. The quote is "[...]or even Ostsiedlung. The latter, identical with ‘east colonization’, is the most suitable, since it includes both German colonization in particular, and also colonization based on German law [...]" (Piskorski 2007, emphasis added). Piskorski is a leading scholar on this field, so trust him that he knows about the terminology.
as a justification for the equivocating "Ostsiedlung" with "East colonization". However this is a misrepresentation of the source - note the little "[...]" marks. And here what is left out is as important of what is being manipulatively and selectively quoted. Here is the whole paragraph from Piskorski with the parts which were left out:
Before attempting to answer the two questions formulated above, it is essential to clarify what is meant here by the concept of medieval ‘colonization of the east’; this is a historically loaded expression, particularly in German, where such colonization is usually described as a ‘German’ movement. It is therefore proposed to replace terms such as deutsche Ostbewegung or deutsche Ostsiedlung or even Ostsiedlung.
Hence Piskorski is actually saying that the terms like "deutsche Ostbewegun" or "deutsche Ostsiedlung" or " Ostsiedlung" should NOT be used to describe "Colonization of the East". He then gets to the part Skapperod selectively quoted out of context:
The latter, identical with ‘east colonization’, is the most suitable, since it includes both German colonization in particular, and also colonization based on German law, without the participation of settlers from German-speaking lands.
By "identical with" Piskorski is saying that that's how the term "Ostsiedlung" translates into English. It is preferable to the other terms simply because it doesn't contain the adjective "deutsche". So what he is saying that among the three terms frequently used by German writes, "Ostsiedlung" is "the most suitable", but it's usage should still be dropped. And as Skapperod says, he is an expert in this field.
The final part of the paragraph is:
A similar term is used in the Czech Republic and Poland—‘kolonizacja wschodnia’ (east colonization). Klaus Zernack also defends the latter term in German, although by ‘east colonization’ (Ostkolonisation) he understands the whole phenomenon of settlement from Germany all the way to the Russian coast of the Pacific Ocean, where these colonization processes extended from west to east.6
In other works Piskorski makes the same point, that "Colonization of the East" is not synonymous with "German settlement in the East" (or the Ostisedlung).
For example here [19], the author says:
Until recently eastern colonization was equated with the migration of Germans. However, it is now known that handfuls, rather than crowds, of people went in east in search of bread, freedom and adventure.
He goes on to mention the numbers constructed by Walter Kuhn which give 2,000 to 2,500 migrants per year, spread out over a pretty vast area. On page 30 of the same work, Piskorski discusses how "Colonization of the East" also involved Italians, Poles, Armenians, and Tatars. On the same page he specifically mentions the areas which did have more significant German migration. But "Colonization of the East" covered a far greater area. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
(will expand with other works). Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
This part of Skapperod's statement: in the original Piskorski used the term "Ostsiedlung", and in the direct English translation (linked in the footnote), "east colonization". is also blatantly not true. I don't know what the "original" he refers to is, this was an essay written for an international conference, hence whatever manuscript there might have been it was probably in English or Polish. But, in fact, Piskorski does not use "direct English translation" of "Ostisedlung" as "East colonization". What he uses in the title is '"The so-called 'east-colonization'" where the scare quotes are in Piskorski. Obviously the "so-called" part is in there for a reason, and that's to underlie the difficulty with this term. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link) is merely a translation of Piskorski, Jan Maria (1997). "Die mittelalterliche Ostsiedlung - ein alter Streit und neue Ergebnisse". In Seibt; et al. (eds.). Transit Brügge-Novgorod. Eine Straße durch die europäische Geschichte. Essen. pp. 194–203. {{
cite book}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |editor=
(
help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link).This section is largely based on Jan Piskorski's "The Historiography of the So-called "East Colonisation" and the Current State of Research". Piskorski explicitly mentions the role of the Ostsiedlung (East Colonisation) and its influence on agriculture. This is not a case of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, it's just what Piskorski writes. User:Volunteer Marek's latest revert is rather a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. HerkusMonte ( talk) 10:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Please keep junk like this [20] out of the article. See Walter Kuhn and [21]. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 00:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
This article has been reverted to facilitate cleanup of a copyright problem. Content added by User:Silar duplicates multiple external sources. For instance, see:
This is just one of many passages he placed in this and related articles which precisely duplicated external publications.
In accordance with copyright policy and Terms of Use, we may not duplicate previously published content, aside from brief and clearly marked quotations, unless they are demonstrably public domain or compatibly licensed. Please see Wikipedia:Copy-paste. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for this very retarded reaction. Your misunderstandings may mainly be a consequence of anachronistic-nationalistic thinking and of using concepts - German, Polish, Slavic - in a modern national(istic) connotation. The colonizers you are talking about were no Germans and but people with different regional and social identities. The so called Germans spoke a variety of German dialects, often mutually not quite understandable: vs. Flemish, Frisian, Rhinish, Westfalian and from their standpoint linguistically very remote Bavarian and Swabian. High German as a coordinating standard language and a national identity did not exist at that moment. Even the written language of the chancaries in German countries varied considerably up to the 17th century. The colonizers did not came as Germans to occupy Slavic lands for the future German nation and a Great German State. This was what nationalism wanted our parents to believe: one organic and continuous development from the 12th century up to now. Our German parents believed it to be a missionary triumph for civilisation. Our Polish parents couldn't accept that and rather felt humiliation and rape. Stop thinking and talking that way. Nationalism is over, now we have to look to history as a common inheritace. In the end, the 15 millions Germans, driven out of present day Poland and Czechia after 1945, were partly of Slav and partly of a diversity of German descent. But in the course of time they were inextricably mixed up. What matters is that they spoke German already for many generations and centuries and thus, at first culturally and later on also politically had become German. And this made them unacceptable for the modern Polish and Czech nation state. We have to ocus on this tragic European history and not on a supposed struggle between mediaeval Germans and Slavs, in a society dominated by feodality and diversed by free townspeople. Indeed, they came from the west (the German lands) just as modernization in the German lands came from the south (France and Italy). The difference in the Ostsiedlung is that culture was accompanied with language and next to the settlement of many speakers of German variaties, caused a massive language shift among the Slav autochtones, at the expense of their Slavic idioms.
--Kwaremont-- 1 June 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 18:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
[edit] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwaremont ( talk • contribs) 11:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
This is a very poor article, a strange mix of propaganda, bad English, nationalist mythology and (occasionally) history. It needs to be rewritten from scratch by someone who is across the sources, and not affiliated with any school of nationalist apologetics. Intelligent Mr Toad ( talk) 09:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I have removed map that was copied from map prepared by known Nazi Walter Kuhn.We should only use reliable works. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 20:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Most of this article treats it as a time period, but I fail to find a range. I did some online searching, and some people treat it as spanning from Charlemagne's subjecting the Saxons till the end of WWII. Tinynanorobots ( talk) 05:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
In connection with the town laws applied a few sentences in the article are marked with why and dubious, e.g. in the introduction: According to Jedlicki (1950), in many cases the term "German colonization" does not refer to an actual migration of Germans, but rather to the internal migration of native populations (Poles, Hungarians, etc.) from the countryside to the cities, which then adopted laws modeled on those of the German towns of Magdeburg and Lübeck why?. or in the Poland section: Since the beginning of the 14/15th centuries, the Polish-Silesian Piast dynasty – ( Władysław Opolczyk), reinforced German settlers on the land, who in decades founded more than 150 towns and villages under German town law, particularly under the law of the town Magdeburg ( Magdeburg law). dubious – discuss Does someone know where the remarks came from and what exactly is here questionable or dubious?!-- Zarbi1 ( talk) 12:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I think (in those times) Walloons spoke sundry Romance tongues akin to French but NOT French itself. The following needs citations and dates, it reads: "Significant numbers of Dutch as well as (though to a lesser extent) Danes, Scots or local Wends and (French speaking) Walloons also participated" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:411:1600:226:8FF:FEDC:FD74 ( talk) 14:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
You may critizise me for doubling in some respects the text of the Ostsiedlung/kolonisation lemma. Soberness would have been better. I am sorry. But what I added was an important source contribution too (two German and one Polish, English translated). And without such sources and their contents the text cannot be called balanced, with the present dominance of English and Polish references. Now, you are complaining of a bias ???
Kwaremont ( talk) 10:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC) Kwaremont, 19-1-2017; 11.13
Hi everybody! I am attempting to clean up here! The article is pretty messy, though. I am certain, i am going to miss and confuse stuff. Please join in and help, criticise, correct etc. All the best Wikirictor 18:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Irrespective of what the term “Ostsiedlung” represents, the literal translation can be expressed as “east settling”. “Eastern settlement” in that formation conveys not the process of “colonisation” or “settling”, but rather a settlement, like a village or colony, which is not what “Siedlung” means in this context. I have altered the translation accordingly. Steepleman ( t) 04:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Can we change this article's spelling style from American to British English? Any objections? Crainsaw ( talk) 13:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
As noted in the map file, this animated map cites no sources and strangely includes contemporary Belgium and the Netherlands until the 20th century. BCorr| Брайен 02:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians! I have made a large number of changes to the section on Bohemia, which was incredibly messy, inadequately sourced, and contained sentences that were borderline unintelligible as well as irrelevant and downright incorrect content. Please take a minute to review my changes, if you will. (Further improvements are needed, but I have no more time for now). Sincerely, Nikolaj1905 ( talk) 08:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
At the end the article says: "Only the oldest 12th-century and partially 13th-century colonization areas remained German in language and culture, that are situated within the area of the post-1945 Eastern Germany and part of Eastern Austria; in which Eastern Germany is a part of Germany, especially from German reunification on 3 October 1990."
This literally says that within current Germany and Austria, only areas of colonization in the 12th and 13th centuries remained German in language, which can't be true.