The Medieval Ostsiedlung Myth

In Germany there functions what I would call the Ostsiedlung Myth, acccording to which Germans constructed all cities in Central and Eastern Europe, and according to which the Magdeburg Law was something originally created by the "nation of German burghers" as a collective, rather than by two people (Archbishop of Magdeburg Wichman and Emperor Frederick Barbarossa).

They also think that no cities existed there before settlers from Germany came.

The reality is a lot more complex.

This is why they call that phenomenon the "Ostsiedlung", which translates as "settlement in the east" or "eastward expansion".

In Poland we have a more realistic name - "settlement on German law" ("osadnictwo na prawie niemieckim").

In reality, the phenomenon of the so called "Ostsiedlung" should be divided into several aspects:

1) Reorganizing already existing cities and towns according to legal systems modelled on those of Magdeburg, Lubeck, or some others (i.e. charters, or lokacje in Polish).

1a) The history of German urban law dates back to year 1188, when Archbishop Wichman granted a privilege for Magdeburg, and Emperor Frederick granted a privilege for Lubeck (these two privileges became known as respectively Magdeburg Law and Lubeck Law, and they were gradually adopted - usually with some modifications - by most other cities and towns within the HRE as well as in other countries, many of which modelled their legal systems on Magdeburg or Lubeck). In Poland first town which adopted the Magdeburg Law from 1188 was Złotoryja in 1211.

1a) Soon also new local variants of that urban law from 1188 were created, initially modelled on one of two original versions, Magdeburg or Lubeck. Later they themselves became models for other towns. In Poland one of such locally developed variants of urban law was for example Prawo Średzkie (Środa Law) from 1235, which was created with help of an advice / assistance given to the people of Środa by the people of Halle at the Saale River.

2) Establishing new cities & towns from scratch (lokacje na surowym korzeniu in Polish)

3) Founding villages organized according to German rural law.

4) Immigration of people from the HRE and other countries (e.g. Walloons).

4a) Initially (since ca. year 1175) those settlers from the HRE settled only in villages, shortly later immigrants started to settle in towns and cities as well (both in existing ones and in newly established ones). In case of villages they usually settled in new villages, established after land was granted to them by local dukes. Less often they settled in already existing villages.

5) Internal migrations of local people from villages or towns to new towns or villages.

6) That some city or town was granted the legal system (privilege) based on Magdeburg or Lubeck Law does not yet mean, that settlers from the HRE came to that city or town. On the other hand, that some city or town remained more traditional in forms of organization and law, also does not yet mean, that no immigrants / settlers from the HRE came to that płace.

Thus, the chartering of towns on Magdeburg Law (or laws modelled on the original Magdeburg Privilege from 1188) and the eastward emigration or expansion of settlers from Germany (but also from other places - for example Walloons from what is now Belgium) should be researched as two relatively separate things (even though to some extent overlapping each other), rather than as one and innately interrelated phenomenon.

========================================

I have also started discussing the same topic on another forum - see the link below:

http://historum.com/european-history/68063-medieval-ostsiedlung-myth.html


Edited by Domen - 15-Feb-2014 at 06:34

Originally posted by Domen In Germany there functions what I would call the Ostsiedlung Myth, acccording to which Germans constructed all cities in Central and Eastern Europe, and according to which the Magdeburg Law was something originally created by the "nation of German burghers" as a collective, rather than by two people (Archbishop of Magdeburg Wichman and Emperor Frederick Barbarossa).

Maybe you should not only read german works from the past, but as well modern works. Then you would see, that you claim is absolutely. I am as well surprised, that you only speak about a German myth. In Poland science is changing too, since the fall of the Iron curtain, even if it is a slowly process. Therefor you should have mentioned as well the Polish myth of a "Drang nach Osten", a brutal german colonisation. A myth you like to use so often, if you need it.

Originally posted by Domen They also think that no cities existed there before settlers from Germany came.

They? Who is they? The germans, the German scientists? It was the nationalistic historiography in our both countries in the 19th and early 20th century, which constructed a german-slavic fight. maybe you say "Hello" to the 21st century!?

Originally posted by Domen The reality is a lot more complex.

Reality is usually more complex than described.

Originally posted by Domen This is why they call that phenomenon the "Ostsiedlung", which translates as "settlement in the east" or "eastward expansion". In Poland we have a more realistic name - "settlement on German law" ("osadnictwo na prawie niemieckim").

Indeed some polish historiographic schools like to replace Ostsiedlung by settlement of German law. There is generally no obvious need to refute these term. But I am sceptically, because the right-winged circles in Poland love to reduce the influence of German settlers.

Originally posted by Domen In reality, the phenomenon of the so called "Ostsiedlung" should be divided into several aspects: 1) Reorganizing already existing cities and towns according to legal systems modelled on those of Magdeburg, Lubeck, or some others (i.e. charters, or lokacje in Polish).

This is correct, but it is usually accompanied by the foundation of German suburbs.

Originally posted by Domen 1a) The history of German urban law dates back to year 1188, when Archbishop Wichman granted a privilege for Magdeburg, and Emperor Frederick granted a privilege for Lubeck (these two privileges became known as respectively Magdeburg Law and Lubeck Law, and they were gradually adopted - usually with some modifications - by most other cities and towns within the HRE as well as in other countries, many of which modelled their legal systems on Magdeburg or Lubeck). In Poland first town which adopted the Magdeburg Law from 1188 was Złotoryja in 1211.

Indeed Goldberg was the oldest town in Silesia and Poland with Magdeburg law. There seem to have been as well older slavic settlements and it is as well probable, that a city existed already before 1210/1. But Henryk I Brodaty called the citizens "hospitibus nostris de Auro." So the settlers of Auro were already germans.

Originally posted by Domen 1a) Soon also new local variants of that urban law from 1188 were created, initially modelled on one of two original versions, Magdeburg or Lubeck. Later they themselves became models for other towns. In Poland one of such locally developed variants of urban law was for example Prawo Średzkie (Środa Law) from 1235, which was created with help of an advice / assistance given to the people of Środa by the people of Halle at the Saale River.

correct

Originally posted by Domen 2) Establishing new cities & towns from scratch (lokacje na surowym korzeniu in Polish) 3) Founding villages organized according to German rural law.

correct

Originally posted by Domen 4) Immigration of people from the HRE and other countries (e.g. Walloons).

Werner Buchholz, Pommern, 1999, "Die deutschen Siedlungsvorgänge in Pommern folgten ebensowenig wie die übrigen Wanderungsbewegungen einer wie auch immer gearteten Ideologie. Vielmehr war die deutsche Siedlung in Pommern ausschließlich von praktischen Erfordernissen geprägt. [...] Erst die um die Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts sich durchsetzende nationale Geschichtsschreibung konstruierte rückblickend einen slawisch-germanischen Gegensatz in die deutsche Ostsiedlung des Hochmittelalters hinein. Aber das war die Ideologie des 19. Jahrhunderts, nicht des Mittelalters. [...] Angesiedelt werden sollten "cuiuscunque gentis et cuiuscunque artis homines" (Menschen welcher Herkunft und welchen Handwerks auch immer), so steht es in zahlreichen von pommerschen Herzögen und rügischen Fürsten ausgestellten Urkunden."

(Translation:"The German settlement operations in Pomerania followed as little as the rest of the migratory movements of whatever kind of ideology. Rather, the German settlements in Pomerania was dominated exclusively by practical requirements. [...] It was not until around the middle of the 19th century, passing through national historiography constructed in retrospect, a Slavic-Germanic unlike in the German eastern settlement of the Middle Ages into it. But that was the ideology of the 19th century, not the Middle Ages. [...] should be Settled "cuiuscunque gentis et cuiuscunque artis homines" (people, unimportant of their origin or their skills in craftswork), what can be found in many of the Pomeranian dukes and Rugian princes issued certificates. ")

Originally posted by Domen 4a) Initially (since ca. year 1175) those settlers from the HRE settled only in villages, shortly later immigrants started to settle in towns and cities as well (both in existing ones and in newly established ones). In case of villages they usually settled in new villages, established after land was granted to them by local dukes. Less often they settled in already existing villages.

widely correct

Originally posted by Domen 5) Internal migrations of local people from villages or towns to new towns or villages.

yes, correct as well.

Originally posted by Domen 6) That some city or town was granted the legal system (privilege) based on Magdeburg or Lubeck Law does not yet mean, that settlers from the HRE came to that city or town. On the other hand, that some city or town remained more traditional in forms of organization and law, also does not yet mean, that no immigrants / settlers from the HRE came to that płace.

That is probably correct

Originally posted by Domen Thus, the chartering of towns on Magdeburg Law (or laws modelled on the original Magdeburg Privilege from 1188) and the eastward emigration or expansion of settlers from Germany (but also from other places - for example Walloons from what is now Belgium) should be researched as two relatively separate things (even though to some extent overlapping each other), rather than as one and innately interrelated phenomenon.

The thesis, Wroclaw has always been a Polish city in the core, forced the Polish Historiography, to marginalize the immigration of German settlers since the 13th Century as much as possible. Although the medieval Ostsiedlung could not be conceal, it was possible to leave more detailed information on the origin of the settlers away or to speak primarily of walloons, Flemish or French. Ewa Maleczynska writes about the ethnic composition of the city of Breslau in the 13th Century: "One must keep in mind that all this extensive settlement has been built and managed by Polish hands. Strangers there were still a few: these are the group we already know as the Walloons, the others were Jews who have had a cemetery of their own. Germans, however, as far as we do not want to count temporarily present merchants, had barely settled. " I searched a few days ago for some ancestors in Pomerania. Some of them were dutch or frisian mennonites. When I looked into wiki, it was astonishing, that the dutch settlers were sometimes mentioned, but the german history of these cities and villages in Pommerellia was widely ignored.
It seems you are a supporter of those nationalistic, cold war historiography, just veiled in a new look.

Regarding Jews in Poland - they started to settler here during the same period as the Ostsiedlung.

And I provided some detailed numbers in this thread linked below, if you are interested:

http://historum.com/european-history/6383-origins-antisemitism-24.html

http://historum.com/european-history/6383-origins-antisemitism-26.html

http://historum.com/european-history/6383-origins-antisemitism-27.html

http://historum.com/european-history/6383-origins-antisemitism-28.html#post1723133?postcount=277

(Translation:"The German settlement operations in Pomerania followed as little as the rest of the migratory movements of whatever kind of ideology. Rather, the German settlements in Pomerania was dominated exclusively by practical requirements. [...]

This statement is not correct because the German settlement in Western Pomerania (Polish definition of what is Western Pomerania, not that small region in Germany) started only after the Wendisch crusades and after the conquest of that region by Denmark and Saxons.

So it was motivated by political reasons, not by practical reasons, since nobody invited the German settlers there (well - maybe the Danish overlords did, but during the Danish rules only small groups of Germans came to West Pomerania, while a major-scale settlement started only after the region was conquered from Denmark by the Saxons - that was during the 1220s if I remember correctly).

Indeed some polish historiographic schools like to replace Ostsiedlung by settlement of German law. There is generally no obvious need to refute these term.

There is no obvious need to refute the term "Ostsiedlung", but it should be recognized that the Ostsiedlung was not exactly the same as the settlement on German law, even though the two things were to some extent overlapping each other.

Assuming that all towns which adopted Magdeburg Law were founded and settled by Germans, is obviously wrong. The date when a town was chartered on Magdeburg Law did not have to be equal to the date when German immigrants came. Of course I agree that groups of Germans settled in many cities, but they were most probably not as numerous as Old Day German historians (like Kurt Luck - see the link) claimed:

http://historum.com/european-history/57157-why-did-hitler-invade-poland-51.html#post1719110

For example Kurt Luck claimed that Germans were majority (well over 50%) in Cracow.

Modern Polish historians write that the peak number of Germans in Cracow was ca. 30% of the city's total population.

Later that number of 30% started to decrease, as Germans from Cracow were gradually Polonizing themselves.

So both agree that Germans did settle there, but there is no consensus regarding the numbers.

Kurt Luck also agrees that Germans were Polonized, but he called it "Verpolung" and considered it as something bad (he was a Nazi and considered the Poles as culturally inferior). He also blamed the "aggressive Polish nobility", claiming that they "forcefully Polonized" German settlers.

My info that "Verpolung" is considered offensive, comes from Grimald (I asked him about this).

So if you disagree and think that "Verpolung" had no offensive meaning at that time, then please explain.

But Henryk I Brodaty called the citizens "hospitibus nostris de Auro." So the settlers of Auro were already germans.

Why do you think that "hospitibus nostris" indicates that settlers (all of them?) were german-speaking, and not internal immigrants?

They could as well be people from land of another duke. BTW - I know also example of a settler from Germany, who however was a Sorb, not a German.

So such cases were also taking place. Add to this the fact, that "Germans" was not one ethnic group at that time.

You like to divide the Poles into various Slavic ethnic groups (even though Germans started doing that only during the 1800s), but you forget how distinct from each other used to be various German dialects and languages.

Kashubians used to speak a language very similar to all other Polish tribes (from which the Polish ethnos was developed). Many linguists agree, that language differences were minor - much smaller than language differences between many German dialects from various parts of the HRE.

Thomas Kantzow, a 16th century Western Pomeranian chronicler (1505 - 1542), author of chronicle "Pomerania", writes this about bishop Otto von Bamberg, who - being in Polish service - was a Christian missionary in Western Pomerania since 1124 - after it was conquered (once again) by Poland (conquest was completed in 1122 - in that year Western Pomerania became Poland's vassal state) under Bolesław III Wrymouth.

"... und wie er ihne taufen wollte, hat er seine Hende aufgehoben, und hat auf wendisch gesagt: - Bog dal yzem zia nye zabel."

"Bog dal yzem zia nye zabel" - this is pronounced the same way as as modern Polish "Bóg dał iżem cię nie zabił."

This excerpt refers to Otto's missionary activities in the city of Wolin. And please note, that Kantzow was a 16th century chronicler, he didn't know the language of the 1100s. So this statement is clearly an example of 16th century wendisch (Pomeranian). I can understand everything from that language, so similar it is even to modern Polish. There are other surviving documents written in Pomeranian of the 1500s. All of them prove, that the Pomeranian language in the 1500s was basically a dialect of Polish language.

Here is a long text written in West Pomeranian dialect, which is from year 1601. I can understand it to exactly the same extent, as I can understand Old Polish language from the same period (i.e. from the 1600s). There are some archaic words which are hard to understand today, but in general I have no problem with reading this text and understanding what it is about:

http://historum.com/european-history/65895-kashubians-3.html

Originally posted by : Text in West Pomeranian dialect - from document of Duke Barnim X, published in year 1601: Ja ... przimawiony obieczuye y przissiegam Nayassnieyssemu wisoko urodzonemu Kziażecziu y panu Panu Boguslawowy, kiazecziu Sczeczinskie[mu], Pomorskie[mu], Kassubskiemu, Wandalskiemu, Rugiskiemu Graffowie[s] Guczkowskiemu, panu powiatow Lamborskiemu, Bithowskiemu, thei ziemie kziazecziu y panu y Jego M'lczi pothomkom prawa y wierną przirodzona hulda, thak ze Jego M'czi chcze bicz wiernim, poslusnym y pokornim Jego M'lczi lepsse go wiedziecz skodi wistrzecz wedle mego przemozenia zabiegacz. Nathim mieczschu nye stane, gdzie by Jego M'lcz w ossobie we czczy wasneschi y dobr ktore Jego M'lcz theras ma y przislich czasów dostanie, obrazon albo zaskodzon. Jeśli o dobra rade bede napomnion zawzi, tho chcze radzicz, czo wedlug mojego rozumu Jego Mi'czi do czczi y dobrego przichodzi. Od thego mye niema odwiescz ynssego laski albo niełaski. Thaiemnosczi, które mnye beda od Jego Ml'czi zawierzone nie chcze do skody albo utrathy wyjawicz ale do smierczi y pogrzebu mego zachowacz. Jesli bim ja jakich dobr mi[s] zathaionich sie dowiedzial, chcze trish wiernie wyjawicz. Ja chcze moie Dobra lenne, ktore mam od Jego Ml'czi y Domu thego Sczeczinskie[go], Pomorskie[go] indzie nie jako od Jego Mczi y od pothomkow // ktorzi ssie bedo po Jego Ml'czi rodzili. A jesli bi thich nie bolo od Naiasniejssego, Wisoko Urodzone[go] kziazeczia y Pana, Pana Kazimira, Kziazeczia Sczecinskie[go], Pomorskiego etc, mojemu the[mu] Ml'czi kziazecziu y Panu y Jego Ml'czi pothomkom mescziznom y thak dalej według zgody y zapisu, ktora ssie stala Wolyniu od inssich Ich Ml'czi kziazad[s] Sczecinskich, Pomorskich etc. Ich Mlczi pothomkom mesczizni zawzdi prossicz, sukacz, odebracz prawa, dochodzicz y zasiugowacz. A jeslibi ssie przigodzilo, ys bi czi therazniejssi Ich Ml'czi wisocze drodzoni kziazetha y panowie Sczecinskie, Pomorskie etc, moie przirodzone kziazeta y panowie y ich Mll'czi potomkowie mesczizni przes smiercz czto Pan Bog Wssechmogaczi na dlugi czas przestrzecz y zachowacz raczy, odesly przes potomkow swoich wlasnich mesczizni zesle zamarly, yze by tak moich przyrodzonich panow pomorskich narodu wieczej nie stale, thak w tim przimierzu chcze themu Najaśnieissemu, Wisoczo Urodzonemu kziazecziu y Panu Panu Jochimowi Fridrichowi, Margraby Brandeburskie[mu], Swiethej Rzessy Aerczikomornikowi y Korfirstowi w Sląsku; na Korsnewie kziazecziu, Burgraby Nur//berskie[mu] Jego M'lczi y pothomkom Margrabom Brandeborskim zawsse thim korfirsthamy bedaczim y thim, ktorzi ssie od nich rodzą, za moye Pani thei ziemie przyacz y zaras jako thi przimierza wyssey wspomionen staną przes odmowy y odwloki przirodna holda y wszistko tho czinicz mam y chcze, czo mnie wiernemu podanemu nalezi swoiemu przirodzonemu panu y kziazecziu powinien y zawiazani jest wiernie przes wsselakiej zdrady, jako mnye Pan Bog pomoze przes Jezu Christa.

Originally posted by Beorna Reality is usually more complex than described

Here we agree. This is why discussing history and arguing about history is so interesting.

====================================

Edit:

Is this related to the "Germanic Migrations" of the early Medieval period?

No, it is related to a much later period - since, approximately, the High Medieval period.


Edited by Domen - 15-Feb-2014 at 15:22

I won't reveal to you what is my exact age, however if you have basic skills at maths, you should notice that people who attended history at school in Communist times had to be born before 1980. Everyone born in 1980 or later learned history at school already in 3rd Polish Republic.

As written above, was it no gradual process

It was a gradual process as can be seen for example in these maps:

This is situation in Silesia after the end of the Thirty Years' War (around year 1650):

Please note, that it is only accurate within the black boundaries of Silesia:

http://s22.postimg.org/tokpr7tlb/Silesia_17th.png



By comparison here is a map from 1333 (in the south it can be inaccurate, and in general it is less accurate than the one above):



And here is situation in Pomerania from year ca. 1650 to year 1945:

http://s17.postimg.org/yqawdplfh/Germ_Kash_1.png
http://s1.postimg.org/p21g0fqkd/Germ_Kash_2.png





Map is from the website of Kaszëbskô Jednota - Association of Kashubian People.

Masurian is a Polish dialects as well, but Masurians did not see themselves as Poles.

Interesting, so apparently you sit inside their brains and you know this ??? BTW - Rhinelanders also did not consider themselves as Prussians. However, they were "reunited" with Germany (Prussia) by use of military force, not by voting in plebiscites as in case of Polish reunifications.

"Pan-German" nationalism is a relatively modern construct as well:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=515712

==================================================

Masurians were "invented" by Germans after year 1850:

Here is a German map from 1847 - it does not have any "Masurians" - only Poles:

Source:







And here - to compare with situation in 1847 - language boundaries around year 1650:

Pink - Polish majority
Blue - German majority
Olive green - Prussian majority
Yellow - Sorbian majority
And also Lithuanian-speaking areas in the north-east.



No "German majority strip" along the Vistula River ranging from Danzig in the north to Thorn in the south, as in the map from 1847.

That "German majority strip" was formed later - after 1650 and before 1847. Most likely between the First Partition and 1847.


Edited by Domen - 18-Feb-2014 at 09:10

it is the Polish side which wants to show, that germans did not really lived for long in the so-called "recovered territories"

German organizations want to create such impression. For example parents of Erika Steinbach, the leader of "Bund der Vertriebenen", settled in Poland during WW2 - if I remember correctly, at some point between 1941 and 1943. So she is making a negative impression of entire "Bund" and I suppose the leader should be a person with a longer tradition of living in Poland, not a person who settled here during Nazi-sponsored colonization.

BTW - I have some problems with getting links to work properly on this forum.

But migration did not only come from the west. After the heavy lossed during the 30y-war there was also a migration of Poles

This is why I wrote that migrations came "mostly from the west, rather than from the east".

I did not claim that it came "only" from the west.

But the demographic potential was higher in the west, especially considering the "Deluge" in Poland.

Soon after the end of the Thirty Years' War, Poland itself suffered huge demographic losses in period 1655 - 1667. So I really don't think that there were enough people to migrate westward, especially that after those losses of 1655 - 1667 new waves of settlers came to Poland from the west, and helped to replace the demographic losses of that period. That included also Jews.

Comparison of population in two historical regions - Wielkopolska and Małopolska - in ca. 1580 and in ca. 1670:

A) Estimated opulation in years ca. 1578-1580:

Total population - 2,352,700
Urban population - 676,700
Number of Jews - 26,500

B) Estimated opulation in years ca. 1662-1676:

Total population: 1,883,300
Urban population: 351,700
Number of Jews: 43,500

As you can see population in 1580 was 20% higher than after the war of 1655-1660.
Urban population in 1580 was 48% higher than after the war of 1655-1660.
But Jewish population was 64% lower in 1580 than after the war of 1655-1660.

This indicates immigration of Jews - most likely from Germany - during that period.

Sources for these figures above:

Bogucka, Samsonowicz, "Dzieje miast i mieszczaństwa w Polsce" ("History of cities and burghers in Poland"), Wrocław 1986

Schiper, Tartakower, Hafftka, "Żydzi w Polsce Odrodzonej" ("Jews in Reborn Poland"), Warsaw 1933


Edited by Domen - 18-Feb-2014 at 09:36

Originally posted by Domen I won't reveal to you what is my exact age, however if you have basic skills at maths, you should notice that people who attended history at school in Communist times had to be born before 1980. Everyone born in 1980 or later learned history at school already in 3rd Polish Republic.

And for sure the curricula changed immediately, isn't it?

Originally posted by Domen It was a gradual process as can be seen for example in these maps: This is situation in Silesia after the end of the Thirty Years' War (around year 1650): Please note, that it is only accurate within the black boundaries of Silesia: http://s22.postimg.org/tokpr7tlb/Silesia_17th.png

It was not a gradual process as you can read it my Polish link. There was a maximum around 1400, then a polonisation and a germanisation again

Originally posted by Domen Map is from the website of Kaszëbskô Jednota - Association of Kashubian People. Interesting, so apparently you sit inside their brains and you know this ??? BTW - Rhinelanders also did not consider themselves as Prussians. However, they were "reunited" with Germany (Prussia) by use of military force, not by voting in plebiscites as in case of Polish reunifications. "Pan-German" nationalism is a relatively modern construct as well:

-Yes, kashubians were once more widespread. But what you permanently ignore is, that they weren't poles thru history, but a western slavic ethnos, as well known as Pomorani.
-Masurians weren't a native people. They are migrants in Prussia, from manly masowia. Most of them came during the 15th century and later. As you know, voted these "Poles" in masuria in 1920 with 98% against Poland.
-About what reunification of Rhinelanders are you talking?
-Yes, Pan-Germanism is a young phenomenon, and?

Originally posted by Domen Masurians were "invented" by Germans after year 1850: Here is a German map from 1847 - it does not have any "Masurians" - only Poles: Source:

Masuria is called so, since the 18th century. Ut is not an invention, but a term that spread for the people there. The map indeed does not differentiate between kashubians, masurians, poles and other slavic minorities. And that means, that all Polish speaking people have to be part of a Great Poland? The masurians, as i wrote, did not want. And when you forced them to stay after 1945, they left, as soon as they were allowed to.

Originally posted by Domen And here - to compare with situation in 1847 - language boundaries around year 1650: Pink - Polish majority Blue - German majority Olive green - Prussian majority Yellow - Sorbian majority And also Lithuanian-speaking areas in the north-east. No "German majority strip" along the Vistula River ranging from Danzig in the north to Thorn in the south, as in the map from 1847. That "German majority strip" was formed later - after 1650 and before 1847. Most likely between the First Partition and 1847.

And you call the maps I present ridiculous?

Masuria is called so, since the 18th century.

Mazury is a name of people from Mazowsze, who settled in Prussia.

Mazurians was the very same ethnos as Polish people from Mazovia (Mazovians).

Only different religion, as most of them (Mazurians) adopted Protestantism.


Edited by Domen - 18-Feb-2014 at 16:07

Originally posted by Domen Masuria is called so, since the 18th century. Mazury is a name of people from Mazowsze, who settled in Prussia. Mazurians was the very same ethnos as Polish people from Mazovia (Mazovians). Only different religion, as most of them (Mazurians) adopted Protestantism.

Was, indeed. Dutch people, Flemish ü
people, Swiss people, Austrian people were once german. Were, things change.

As you know, voted these "Poles" in masuria in 1920 with 98% against Poland.

Maybe you should as well include other factors to why they voted for Germany (not "against" Poland). Such as the fact that Germany had better economy and that Poland was at war against the Bolsheviks, the outcome of which was uncertain. Nobody wants to be a "cannon fodder".

My own cousin currently lives in Hannover - it does not mean, that she does not consider herself Polish.

However, you wouldn't even know that she is Polish unless she told you, because she has a German surname (like entire maternal branch of my family - we have ancestors among the Hollanders - osadnictwo na prawie olęderskim - those Olędrzy came from Germany and from Holland).

But you are confusing the choice of political / state option, with the choice of ethnic option. These are not the same.

Also I wonder how big would be Prussia / German Empire, if Frederick / Bismarck carried out plebiscites instead of incorporating areas with use of force. Did you wonder about this? In the 1700s and throughout much of the 1800s Germans were not one ethnos, but many ethnoses.

Saxons were loyal to Saxony, Rhinelanders to Rhineland, Prussians (including ethnic Polish Mazurians) to Prussia, etc.

As for Mazury:

It is an ethnographic region. Just like Pałuki, Kujawy, Mazowsze, etc.

Mazurians are an ethnographic group of Poles. Just like Cuiavians, Kurpie, Gorals, etc.

Gorals was yet another "ethnos" which German propaganda attempted to "exclude" from the Polish people.

However, only 700 Gorals volunteered to the "Goralenvolk" project. Not enough for the planned Goral Waffen SS division.

That is historiography as it was done in the 19th century. Polish tribes before a Polish state.

They became Polish tribes after (and precisely because) they were incorporated to Poland:

Early expansion of Poland from 880 to 990:

1) Original territory of the Polan tribal state, located between rivers Odra and Warta and also to the north-east of Warta:



2) Extending Polish control into what later became known as the regions of Mazovia (tribe of Mazovians) and Cuiavia (tribe of Goplans):



3) Extending Polish control into the Noteć (Netze) River area and into what later became the Lands of Sieradz, Łęczyca and Sandomir:

In this phase the western part of the tribe of Lendians became inhabitants of Poland:

Archaeology + dendrochronology show construction of numerous "Piast-style" strongholds along the Noteć River area soon after 960:



4) Extending Polish control into Pomerania, Land of Lublin (eastern groups of Lendians) and the region known as Grody Czerwieńskie:



5) Kievan Rus captures the region of Cherven or Red Strongholds (Grody Czerwieńskie) from Poland:



6) Extending Polish control into the regions of Silesia and the tribal territory of Vistulans (later known as Land of Cracow / Lesser Poland):



Another version:




Edited by Domen - 18-Feb-2014 at 18:08

I wonder what would be the result of a plebiscite in Rhineland in the 1920s ???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhenish_Republic

I suppose Rhineland would no longer be part of Germany if a plebiscite was allowed there...

Swiss people, Austrian people were once german. Were, things change.

They were only German-speaking. But according to your definition of "ethnos" (i.e. according to you ethnos involves some kind of political loyalty as well - at least this is my conclusion after what you wrote about Mazurians) they were never Germans.  If you deny the Polishness of Mazurians just because they were loyal to their "little homeland" (Heimat) - i.e. East Prussia - then I can as well say, that Austrians were never German.

Please note, that Mazurians never considered themselves as Germans.

They were not loyal to their German "Vaterland", but only to their East Prussian "Heimat", which was never an exclusively German land.

In Poland we also have the concept of local patriotism and loyalty to "Heimat", but we call it "mała ojczyzna" ("little homeland").

Also in the USA you can find people who identify first as Texans or Virginians, and only then as Americans.

BTW - when it comes to Catholicism / Protestantism and Polish / German issues in Upper Silesia.

In Upper Silesia during the 1921 Plebiscite most of Polish people who were Protestants, voted for Germany.

This can be seen from the results of the plebiscite in heavily Protestant regions (such as Kreuzburg):

Kreis Kreuzburg had Polish majority according to all sources (including 1910 census), but Poles there were overwhelmingly Protestants:

http://s14.postimg.org/nrkdssrch/1921_Plebiscyt_B.png



http://s3.postimg.org/dy5lxvtxv/Plebiscite_1921_B.png



Edited by Domen - 18-Feb-2014 at 19:00