Open main menu

Contents

MarchesEdit

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.

For Marken, it's short for Markgrafschaft (laut [:de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Brandenburg]), but I think originally comes from Latin marchia (see etymology of the words Ostmark forAustria). Mark Brandenburg has equivalents in a ton of languages but not in English, so I think your einenglisching of it is good.
As for this sentence: In Norddeutschland gingen der Ostsiedlung Auseinandersetzungen Karls des Großen mit den nicht-christlichen Sachsen voraus, als Karl seine Reichsgrenzen sichern wollte (siehe Sachsenkriege Karls des Großen).
My suggestion is: In northern Germany, the Ostsiedlung led to conflicts between Karl the Great and the non-Christian Saxons, ...
Adam Mathias 18:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
For Marken, see Marches. "Historical development of a few marches and regions" and "In northern Germany the Ostsiedlung led to conflicts between the pagan Saxons and Charlemagne as he secured the borders of his empire." Olessi 18:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah that's better! Adam Mathias 19:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Imiraven 9:39 16/2/2006 (UTC): I've corrected many grammatical mistakes, used American spelling, and marked some doubtful words and expression, e.g "markers" is perhaps incorrect.
User:Imiraven 15:40 20 February 2006 (UTC): I'll have completed "East Colonisation" on 3 March 2006.

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)

Well - please add the facts. But make it not anit-German POV - that would be if there is only one sentense about the peaceful processes and a large paragraph about massacres. By the way - not all the Slavs have been "Polish". The later "Polish rulers" have been expansionists themselves. To speak about "Slavic territory" in the context of 1945 makes also not so much sense. Lusatia for example has not always been inhabited by Slavs. There have been many tribes before, for example Germanic tribes and Illyrians. Around 700 Lusatia was nearly "uninhabited", but there was a smaler older population. Then there was a kind of West Colonisation of the Slavs - how "peaceful" this was is not known. But it is known that for the Milzener (today Sorbs in Lusatia) had not much to do with the Slavic tribes for example in Mecklenburg. The Milzener took never part in rebellions against the Germans (maybe thatswhy they could save there culture up to today) other tribes did. Around 1000 started the German East Colonisation to in comparison with their home areas also neary "uninhabited" areas. Many slavic rulers even invited them, because the rulers in this time mostly didn't care about Germans or Slaves, but wanted good farmers and craftsmen. In many nearly uninhabited areas for example the Upper Lusatian highlands the Slavs settled only 100 years before the first German settlers arived. For sure there have been also many conflicts, but the main process was assimilation and settlement in former forest and swamp at least in the most areas. 86.56.0.49 07:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Likewise, as not to enforce a double standard, not all Germanic tribes are German. I do however think that Molobo is referring to Slavonic peoples which made up the Poles (about today's borders). -- Anonymou

Poland had an emperor ?Edit

It's the first time I hear Poland had an Emperor Casimir. --Molobo 23:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


Peacefull ?Edit

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)

Possible Name changeEdit

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)

English-speaking scholars usually use the term Ostsiedlung in italics. This article shouldn't have been moved - it's the most common forumlation in English. On the other hand, we need to get rid of these references to "Heinrich the II": in English he's referred to as Henry II or Henry the Second, Holy Roman Emperor. --Jpbrenna 15:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Note moved from Marker of the Billungs sectionEdit

(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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. Haukur 09:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Move to OstsiedlungEdit

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)

  • Oppose moving to Ostsiedlung (WP:UE), although I think the current page name is not correct either, perhapse German eastwards colonisation, or German eastward expansion or German eastward migration --Philip Baird Shearer 10:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support 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)
  • Support either Ostsiedlung or East Colonization but not East Colonisation. Nobody says it like that. - 167.7.39.139 00:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • support move to Ostsiedlung, also, colonisation is not correct as the IP person above stated, it is spelled colonization by a vast majority. But I do not support moving it to East Colonization. otherwise, support for same reasons as Jpbrenna.

--Jadger 20:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Support--Aldux 00:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

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)

It is not "per nom" see the policy WP:NC#Use English words --Philip Baird Shearer 19:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I know it. It also says "unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the English form." Duja 07:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ostsiedelung = Settelement of the EastEdit

Colonization is the wrong translation, settlement is correct and fits with the genarl character of this undertaking

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

KrakówEdit

"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)

mapEdit

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)

Huh? Can someone explain this sentence?Edit

The sentence below is the last one in the introduciton. What is this sentence intended to say?

However, some of the areas that saw resettlement were not as far eastward and as such, they are a part of the current German state.

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.

During and after World War II, Germans were expelled east of the Oder-Neisse line, leaving the current German linguistic border smaller than that of the 10th century when expansion of German territories started. Population changes after the second World War largely reverted the Germanisation of Slavic or Baltic territory by , as it had taken place during Ostsiedlung. However, some of the areas that saw resettlement were not as far eastward and as such, they are a part of the current German state.

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)

Requested moveEdit

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


OstsiedlungGerman eastward expansion — No need to use German word where an adequate English equivalent exists. Also per WP:UE. —--Lysytalk 19:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

SurveyEdit

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''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.
  • Support. Wikipedia is not a German-English dictionary. The German word should stay as a redirect but the article can and should be named in English. --Lysytalk 19:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. The claim that English speakers use Ostseidlung in italics defeats its own purpose; if, like blitzkrieg, it had been adopted into English, it would have lost the italics. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Many foreign (italicized) words are used for encyclopedic terms without having been adopted into the language (e.g., guanxi). —  AjaxSmack  03:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • oppose. German eastward expansion is an geographical/historical accident. Ostsiedlung is a deliberate politcal concept and ideal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barliner (talkcontribs) 13:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC) [copied from WP:RM by Stemonitis 16:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)]

DiscussionEdit

Any additional comments:
  • "No need to use German word where an adequate English equivalent exists" is not what the guideline says, but "use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works". That being said, Ostsiedlung seems to be a commonly used English version, at least until you conduct a research to prove otherwise. Duja 19:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    Ostsiedlung may be used by authors trying to impress the readers with their knowledge of German, but the contents of the article can be perfectly well described in English. --Lysytalk 19:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    Lysy, are you trying to impress somebody with your recent edits to the English Wikipedia article Wolność i Niezawisłość, or do you think that the contents of that article can not be perfectly well described in English? There are still many articles on English Wikipedia that have Polish names which are a mystery to non-Poles, how about renaming them? -- Matthead discuß!     O       22:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    Many should be renamed, especially if they are not proper names, and where good English alternatives exist, e.g. Hala Ludowa. --Lysytalk 07:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    I handled that request myself, as it was reasonably demonstrated that Centennial Hall has greater prominence in English than Hala Ludowa. Thus, for this article, you just have to reasonably demonstrate that "East Colonisation" or "Eastward expansion" or whatever has greater prominence than "Ostsiedlung" in English scholar literature. Just asserting it is not enough. Duja 11:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    Not really. Unlike Centennial Hall, this article is rather a historical essay than a description of an object. It needs a descriptive title, not a proper name, so the prominence criterion does not make so much sense in this case. --Lysytalk 19:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    (BTW, I mentioned Hala Ludowa only to counter Mattheads hint that I'm not nominating Polish titles for rename; Not as an example to follow here, as the case is clearly a different one) --Lysytalk 19:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 06:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

MapEdit

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)

TagsEdit

Ok, let's talk...

 
Evolution of German linguistic area from 700 to 1950[dubious ]
Why is the map "dubious"?

- 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]

It appears the {{fact}} tags are being used here to challenge the assertions. Why?

--Richard 18:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

  • First the map.

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]

  • Second-"their ancestors. I don't know if the people who were invited to those lands by Polish and Slavic rulers were descendants of Germanic tribes moving through that area. Germanic tribes existed also in Scandinavia, North Germany and moved to Germany proper besides areas written about. People who came in Ostsiedlung could have been ancestors of those tribes, the current sentence makes the impression they were descendants of those who moved through those territories earlier. Also what is the connection to Ostsiedlung. Did they came because some Germanic tribes were here before establishing Germanic states in West ? If so that should be sourced by some neutral and objective source.
  • Third. Slavs in 8th century. It would be more correct 6-7th century.
  • Fourth. Mainly peacefull-This is an opinion that only shows part of the picture, for example:

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)

I removed the map from the article. What about the tags? Is the veracity of the assertions being challenged? If so, on what basis? --Richard 15:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
This useful map is covering 1250 years with an animation consisting of many maps, the majority of them undisputed. It replaces a whole bunch of single maps. Surely a lot of hard work was put in that, much more than a scan of a single map requires. It would be helpful if the creator of the map would have given detailed sources for each map instead of simply listing dozens of books on his German user page [4] Apparently, he has answered to criticism and has made changes in the past. Considering the abuse from other users [5], I can understand that he apparently does not bother to put more work into Wikipedia only to see it deleted. As anyone is permitted to modify the file, I was tempted to fix it myself, but that map would inevitably be attacked as OR and POV and whatnot, too, and share the same fate. Another victory for the tireless edit warriors who in some cases had year-long vacations. -- Matthead discuß!     O       19:12, 20 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

Can somebody upload this mapEdit

It is a historical map regarding this subject. Other maps by the author are on Wiki. [6] --Molobo 19:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not to discuss the expulsion of Poles in the leadEdit

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)

Molobos latest editEdit

I'm surprised no-one has reacted to Molobo (talk · contribs)s latest edit?!?

Under the edit summary: "minor npov , request confirmation of some claims", he amongst a number of citation requests also includes a sourced paragraph deletion.

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, 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, the Slavs.Ref:Wallbank and Schrier, Living World History, pp. 193

becomes

Ostsiedlung (German: Settlement in the East), also known as German eastward expansion, refers to the medieval eastward migration and settlement of Germans from modern day Western and Central Germany into regions like the Baltic and modern day Poland inhabited Baltic peoples and the Slavs

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 date of arrival of Slavs isn't clearly defined and open to debate, to present one version as undisputed fact is POV. --Molobo 03:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
"but I guess setlements that preseded them are not so popular in Poland.... I"
Celts and other people were there before Germanic tribes wandered from Scandinavia in their trek. I don't recall any notable states there before Piast times.--Molobo 03:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
My dearest Molobo. Maybe you are right, maybe you are wrong, but I'm not about to be dragged in to an irrelevant discussion. This you should have dealt with at the talk page before your edits. All I want do do here is to draw the attention to yet another example of how Molobo (talk · contribs)s uses misleading edit-summaries and hides his quiet deletion of sourced information interspaced with other seemingly legit edits. --Stor stark7 Talk 10:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

One-sided POV articleEdit

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)

Who was enslaved?
Which native settlements were eradicated?
Who destroyed how the ethnic identity of whom?
Skäpperöd (talk) 07:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Slav culture ?Edit

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)

Fixed: culture --> cultures Skäpperöd (talk) 08:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an essay.Edit

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)

The warfare you are talking about happened before German settlement, and is covered in the "Background" section. Except for the Teutonic Knights' state and the HRE marches (where a "German" nobility called in settlers) the settlers came upon invitation of Slavic (Wendish, Polish etc) nobility. The settlement itself was peaceful, no settler came in with a sword and threw the Wends out of their houses. There is no dispute in historiography about that. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:42, 16 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)

LandesausbauEdit

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)

Even as a native speaker, I had to look it up. de:Landesausbau defines it as "internal colonisation", i.e. "the process of developing and settling in areas that were formerly uninhabited although they are located within inhabited regions or countries." A Google search for "internal coloni[zs]ation" reveals that this actually seems to be the correct English term. -- 3247 (talk) 01:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
The concept might be better conveyed with the word Greenfield land, although this word has only recently come into use. —Fred114 06:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Koebner is outdatedEdit

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)

Rădvan actually says: "The pre-war German school has emphasized the concept that, before Germans arrived into Poland as part of a vast colonization to the East (Drang nach Osten), there were no towns, and they were created by the outlanders. German Historians would ground their theories in a definition of the town as a self-reliant settlement with a foundation charter.1 After the war, with Poland again finding its place on the European map as an independent state, a new trend in historiography saw the first towns as non-autonomous trade centers, predating the arrival of Germans.2 After World War II, archaeological excavations indicated pre-urban settlements at Gniezno, Szczecin, Wolin, [...]";
footnote 1 thereby is amongst others the line cited above ("For the trend ..."), footnote 2 is a reference to Tymieniecki and Zientara for the "new" trend.
What Radvan does is listing two trends in historiography, he does not say one is right and one is wrong.
The challenged position of Koebner was not included in the text until Molobo's addition [7] that Koebner's view is outdated, that is however not what the cited source says. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

We need to translate some parts of German wiki articleEdit

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's a list of people who are willing to do translations from German to English [8]. The only name I recognize on there is Jmabel. There is also a "expand language" template [9] that may be useful (I think that's the right one, the list is here [10]).Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I will check it out. Meanwhile I removed some very WP:UNDUE additions.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
You can also ask me for such things. I will do it unless someone else does it. Hans Adler 10:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I would welcome this.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Here it is:

The history of the German Ostsiedlung first found more attention in the 18th century. With the rise of nationalism in the 19th century an increasingly ideological Ostforschung (east research) arose, which reached its peak in the interwar period (see also Volks- und Kulturbodenforschung). To the "belated" Germans the German Ostsiedlung of the Middle Ages, then almost exclusively known as German eastward expansion, became a kind of substitute for a missed overseas expansion. After the political and military catastrophe of the First World War, which on one hand had ended the colonial dreams of the era and on the other hand had discredited the ruling class, Germanness and the German people in itself became became the most important source of identity. For populist-nationalist circles, the German Ostsiedlung became a model and the legitimation for a new "Drang nach Osten" (eastward drive). The ideas of the German "Drang nach Osten" and the racial superiority of the German people exerted significant influence on Adolf Hitler and the Nazi blood and soil ideology. The Second World War was to revive and accomplish the now ethnically interpreted German colonization of the east, even though not nearly enough people were available for settlement.
The Ostforschung of the Federal Republic of Germany was characterized by a high degree of personal and methodological continuity. It was placed in the service of the East-West Conflict and the complex of problems around displaced persons. The decidedly national, if not nationalist, perspective on the Ostsiedlung was terminated by Walter Schlesinger, who in 1975 edited and summarized the relevant presentations at the famous Reichenau Seminars of the Konstanz research group for medieval history: "The German Ostsiedlung of the Middle Ages as a problem of European history. " Only the end of the Cold War paved the way for a more unbiased approach to Ostforschung and the German Ostsiedlung.

Hans Adler 13:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I will look for ways to implement this in the article, along with sources supporting this. Many thanks for helping in developing this article to some manageable and acceptable form.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

JedlickiEdit

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 is a perfectly reliable source, published by Cambridge University Press. You are removing it simply per IDON'TLIKEIT. The opinion that the essay is "biased" is yours. I can even dig up some very positive reviews of the work from Western history journals. Please don't remove well sourced text simply because it doesn't agree with your POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Essential information missing from the articleEdit

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)

Terminology and nameEdit

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):

  • "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. 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. "
  • "However, it would be appropriate to include the medieval colonization of the Netherlands in this term, as this was the starting point for all European medieval eastern colonization. Before the German (sensu strictori) settlers reached the Slav lands, colonizers from Holland and Flanders appeared in northern and eastern Germany, bringing Dutch (ius Hollandensium) and Flemish law (ius Flamingicum) with them. It appears that this is the region of origin of many elements of the law used in the settlement process; this was called ‘German law’ further east, where it was mainly the German settlers who applied it."
  • "In sum, it would seem that the term ‘east colonization’—or better still, ‘medieval colonization of central Europe’—offers a better description of the phenomenon, with a very broad definition of central Europe to include the territory from Holland, Switzerland and Austria (including Carinthia) to Scandinavia, Latvia and Estonia, the historic states of Poland-Lithuania, and the Hungarian and Czech lands."

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)

Colonization might be a bit misleading,since it usually involves settlement in wild, unsettled areas. Settlement in Central and Eastern Europe perhaps should be better. Also while we can in general use Piskorski, there is a certain problem-we should add other scholars dealing with this subject like Labuda, otherwise we are risking basing the article and the subject on almost one scholar while ignoring views of whole range of scholars that could have another take on it. Piskorski after all isn't any "final authority" here. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:51, 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)

Rural development sectionEdit

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)

Primary Sources of Nutrition in Pre-Industrial Societies That Aren't Cereals.

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

Nowhere does the article claim that the pre-Ostsiedlung techniques/people were "backward" and the new ones "superior". The respective section closely follows Piskorski's essay about the current state of research. About grain: there is even a terminus technicus for this process, "Vergetreidung". Skäpperöd (talk) 06:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
"Nowhere does the article claim that the pre-Ostsiedlung techniques/people were "backward" and the new ones "superior"." While it may not say it directly, it is formed in such way that might suggest that and seems POV. Also closely follows Piskorski's essay-how closely? You removed the quote requests-what was your reason for doing so?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
@Skapp - Vergetreidung - yes, I've seen this term used before, particularly in reference to agricultural changes in Carolingian empire but I thought it referred more to just the conversion of pasture land into arable land, rather than "cerealization" per se. For the latter, there is Engel's Law (after the Prussian economist Ernst Engel). The Wikipedia article on it sort of sucks, so it doesn't mention the fact that E'sL holds not just for total food share but for various food sub-categories. And cereals are a category for which the share in income rises as income falls - because cereals are inferior or maybe even giffen goods. By comparison with England of the 14th century, when it was undergoing an economic boom in the aftermath of the Black Death, with incomes that weren't reached again until the 19th century - as those incomes went up consumption of cereals as a share fell significantly from something like 50% of all food consumed to 30% (the difference was made up by the "luxury goods" of meat and alcohol (the latter being something like a whopping 20% of all food expenditure)). If you think of the Mongol invasion as initially having essentially the same demographic effect as the (latter) BD (though the scale really was much much smaller) then the cerealization of the diet during the Ostsiedlung process would rather suggest a fall in living standards (perhaps from a high level, soon after the Mongol invasions). But yes, I'm getting into OR territory here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I'm pretty sure the thing with the plough is the same as the thing with the 3-field crop rotation. If you're farming freshly cleared virgin land then you want to use a different kind of plough then if you're farming that land that's been in use before. When land is abundant and population density low, the easiest way to farm is to "rotate" by clearing new land, usually by burning, and using one kind of plow. It's only when population density gets high and there's not much land left to clear and bring into cultivation do you want to (have to) stay with a particular parcel. Only then does it make sense to have the 3 field crop rotation and to switch to a plough which is suitable to that kind of farming. So again, it's not a question of these things being "unknown" prior to 13th/14th centuries - it's just that they weren't adopted because it didn't make economic sense to do so. Only the high population growth during this time - due both to "native" growth and, to a lesser extent, the migration associated with the Ostsiedlung - made the adoption of these practices economically rational.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
re grain: per Piskorski, grain only became the primary food then, before the diet was to a large degree composed of non-cereals (hunting, fishing, bee-keeping, foraging etc are mentioned). No matter whether the grain diet was/is more healthy or not, important here is (a) that it happened and (b) that as a consequence, barns and, most important, mills came up in large numbers, leading to further changes in society (just think of all the Millers).
re rotation: What you have in mind (burning, cultivating, moving to the next forest and start over) is typical for some tropical regions with unfertile soil, but not for Europe, where the same soil can be used over and over again for centuries.addendum: was done in Europe, too. Skäpperöd (talk) 02:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC) The three crop system is not a rotation from one clearance to another, but from different seeds/crops grown on the same area. Plenty of land was still available after the Ostsiedlung, population densities of 30 or so persons/sqkm are still very low compared to today's or contemporary Western European densities. There was no shortage of land due to a population growth. Per Piskorski, the benefits of the three field system etc caused a population growth.
re plough: you probably misunderstand the advantages of the so-called "German plough" - it was a tool optimized for both the three field system and the new division of farmland in the course of the Verhufung (division in Hufen), which resulted in very long, but very narrow stretches of land (Gewannfluren). You only need to turn the plough a few times on this kind of farmland, and thus you can make efficient use of heavy ploughs turning the soil around completely and thus increase its fertility (does not work with all soils though). My point is that the advantages of the new techniques result from the concert of new farmland organization, three field system, heavy plough, harrows, horses etc, and that it is not necessarily only one those that makes the difference, but their individual advantages come out best when several/all of them are applied together. Skäpperöd (talk) 23:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
grain - well, like I said, here I'm into OR territory so at the moment at least I'm not proposing changing the article text. But an increase in relative grain consumption usually is indicative of falling living standards. It's not an issue of what's a healthy diet (health ain't got nothing to do with it). Obviously, if we're talking about consumption SHARES, then that increase in cereal consumption had to replace the consumption of some other kind of food. The claim that it replaced "hunting, fishing, foraging" - are you seriously suggesting that pre-Ostsiedlung the Slavs were "hunter-gatherers"? - is almost completely false. The only exception I can think of where it had some merit was heavily wooden parts of the Przesieka, but even there the extent of it is doubtful. It was most certainly not true in Greater Poland, Lesser Poland, Western Pomerania and most of the other areas concerned.
Rotation - no, it's not true at all that this is "typical for some tropical regions". It is "typical for some tropical regions" TODAY. Historically it was typical for Europe as well. Same kinds of development patterns occurred in England and France - when population density was low they used one set of production techniques, when it got high enough they switched. You are also misunderstanding my comments about rotation, though probably because I wrote them in a somewhat confusing way. Of course I know what a 3-crop rotation entails. What I said is that this kind of rotation is adopted when there is not much other land a person can move to. Otherwise the rotation is more or less in terms of clearance, although this tends to take place on the order of decades rather than years (burn/clear an area, plant it for awhile, burn/clear another area, plant it for awhile, burn/clear another area, plant it for awhile, return to the first area, burn/clear it, repeat).
And I find it very strange to compare today's population densities to medieval population densities. There was something that happened in the mean time, called the Industrial Revolution - your comparison doesn't make much sense nor is it in any way useful. Likewise given that modern agricultural techniques were not available back then, the point at which land becomes in "shortage" is much lower than you'd think today, where 3% of the US population could feed the whole world and have surplus left over. One lesser known effect of the industrial revolution was that it actually made land MORE ABUNDANT in productivity terms. Bottomline here is that it's silly to compare medieval Poland and/or Germany to present day Western Europe. At best you can make comparisons to economies like medieval England or France where similar phenomenon were under way.
plough - I don't think your statements contradict what I said, aside from the fact that the article does not make this complementarity between the new plough, the 3-crop and the organization, clear. Yes, the rotation and the plough could not have been of much use without the re-organization and vice versa. But it's completely feasible that they all didn't make sense except in a situation of rising population density. I'll get Piskorski's work soon and check if he really says that these things CAUSED population growth rather than vice versa (and if he does I'll chalk it up to his lack of training in economics - I'm trying to but can't even think of a way one could separate out the data here to infer causality, especially given the data's sporadic and incomplete nature).Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Note VM that I added several times information contesting the plough theories pushed forward by Skapperod-it was deleted by him[11]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Medieval Russia is not within the scope of this article. Skäpperöd (talk) 01:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Problem is that it's not clear what the scope of this article actually is. If it's "migration of Germans" then no. If it's "East colonization" then yes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
population densities of 30 or so persons/sqkm are still very low compared to today's or contemporary Western European densities. - obviously the comparison with modern population densities is completely misplaced. For a relevant comparison however, medieval England at the dawn of the Black Death (when population was at a peak which was probably not reached again until the 18th century, and is generally considered to have been pushing the Malthusian constraints to their limit) was somewhere between 30 and 45 persons/sqkm. After the initial waves of the plague it probably dropped to below 20 persons/sqkm. So yeah, 30 persons/sqkm is fairly high for the middle (or even early modern) ages. (Note that there was a lot of regional variation and of course there is a good bit of measurement error in these pop numbers. In fact, I'd be suspicious of any pop size claims when even the best data available, for England, have a good bit of uncertainty to them).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've gotten the Piskorski book and read the article. Couple of points, some minor, and one substantial:

  • Piskorski does not say explicitly that these practices (3-crop rotation, plough etc.) lead to caused population growth (and honestly I don't see how anyone could make such a strong statement based on available data). But it's a plausible reading so ok. Incidentally, 3-crop rotation was in use in England from the 8th century until the beginning of Black Death (more or less - again, lots of regional variation). Yet, after the Black Death and the resulting fall in population densities, it was abandoned in many parts for a couple of centuries and farmers in many places went back to the slash/burn agriculture which the 3-crop rotation replaced at roughly the same time in Eastern Europe. This also suggests that it was population pressure which caused the adoption of these techniques, rather than vice versa.
  • There's a lot of stuff, especially in the beginning of that article on historiography of the subject that has been completely ignored in this particular article. At the very least this article needs a "historiography" section which would explain the origin of the term and the associated politics and ideology. A better option would be to split the article into several - one which has to do with explicitly German settlement in Eastern Europe in the middle ages, one which has to do with the process of East colonization and one which has to with the concept of "Ostsiedlung".
  • Related to that - and this is the major point as far as this particular issue is concerned - Piskorski discusses all the new production techniques (3-crop rotation, plough, etc.) in the context of "East colonization" NOT "Ostsiedlung" (or more precisely, the German settlement/migration). "East colonization", as he is careful to distinguish, involved BOTH strictly "German settlement", as well as internal migration and re-organization of economic activity (the founding of towns with local Slavic inhabitants but based on "German law"). So yeah, these techniques DID appear during this time (nobody's disputing that), and these techniques WERE related to the new system of organization (nobody's disputing that either) but there's nothing in Piskorski which says that they were imported from Germany with the German settlers (the number of which was fairly insignificant in the grand scheme of things).

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. Skäpperöd (talk) 01:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
A "In historography" or so section, based on Piskorski for a start, makes perfect sense. Skäpperöd (talk) 02:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
"East colonization" and "Ostsiedlung" are synonyms" - no, no they're not, despite being a direct translation. That's just a particular POV and OR.
"Ostsiedlung", according to this article "also called German eastward expansion, was the medieval eastward migration and settlement of Germans from modern day western and central Germany into less-populated regions and countries of eastern Central Europe and Eastern Europe. ". The "east colonization" or more precisely, "the so-called "east colonization"" (Piskorski's phrase) was a more general demographic/institutional process of migration and spread of German law (rather than German peoples) in Eastern and Central Europe and Piskorski is very careful to be precise about that. Only in one place does he refer specifically to "colonization by Germans" (where he lists the provinces where this migration WAS in fact significant), everywhere else he's talking about the broader process. The word "Ostsiedlung" does not appear anywhere in that article.
As long as this article is about "the medieval eastward migration and settlement of Germans from modern day western and central Germany into less-populated regions and countries of eastern Central Europe and Eastern Europe." the inclusion of that text is WP:SYNTH at best. It is also misleading in that it tries to suggest that these production techniques were introduced by German migrants - this is not stated in Piskorski anywhere.
To equate "Ostsiedlung" with "East colonization" is POV. The best way to solve this problem is to have separate articles on:
  • German migration eastward during middle ages, although we already have History of German settlement in Eastern Europe which covers the topic already so it'd be POV-forking. A split might be viable though.
  • The concept of "Ostsiedlung" as found in historiography and propaganda
  • The general process of "East colonization" where we're honest and upfront about the fact that, for example, "founded on German law" did not mean it was settled by Germans and we discuss the extensive internal rural urban migration (as well as for example Polish eastward migration) that took place (and most of the "founding" of towns and rural development even more was done with internal native colonists). The Piskorski info would then belong in such an article.
Until then the info does not belong here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:52, 25 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)

  • I don't know what you base your theories on - these are not MY theories but how these processes are described in reliable sources, Piskorski being one of them. Ostsiedlung was/is an ideological concept, much like Manifest Destiny. Medieval German colonization of Eastern and Central Europe was a process of migration of German speakers to EE and CE during the middle ages. This was part of a broader Medieval Colonization in Eastern Europe which involved not just Germans moving around, but also Poles, Czechs, Hungarians etc. and was to a large extent, if not primarily, a rural-to-urban movement of local populations. The fact that this particular article conflates these three distinct phenomenon to push a particular (19th century German nationalist) POV does not make all of the above "my theories"
  • Yes, nobody is disputing that translated directly "Ostsiedlung" means "east colonization" - but it's a very POV term (who's east?). It's not surprising that Germans, when talking about colonization of their east would identify "east colonization" with (per this article's lede) the medieval eastward migration and settlement of Germans from modern day western and central Germany into less-populated regions and countries of eastern Central Europe and Eastern Europe. But that's not what "east colonization" means generally and it's not what sources do and that's not what non-German (and even some German) historians do. What you are doing here is a classic example of the fallacy of equivocation - a "It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense".
  • Hence we need to either a) change the lede of this article and name or b) stick only to matters pertaining specifically to the settlement by Germans and not about phenomenon associated with broader population movements or legal reforms.
  • I am going to respond to your blatant mischaracterizations of Piskorski separately, as that deserves a section of its own.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:39, 27 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)

Again, these are not "my theories", they're how the subject is treated in reliable sources. And again, you're purposefully and deliberately leaving out key portions of the text, with your little "[...]" dot brackets, in order to misrepresent the source. "East colonization" includes colonization based on German law (mostly with non-Germans) - but this Wikipedia article is apparently about: Ostsiedlung, literally "settlement in the east", also called German eastward expansion, was the medieval eastward migration and settlement of Germans from modern day western and central Germany into less-populated regions and countries of eastern Central Europe and Eastern Europe. - that's not what Piskorski's essay is about (or at least not the parts you're quoting out of context).
The word "Ostsiedlung does not even appear in the relevant essay by Piskorski. This is your OR and SYNTH pure and simple.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, the word "east colonisation" is just the term chosen for the English translation of Piskorski's 1997 essay, where "Ostsiedlung" is used in every instance where "east colonisation" is used in the translation. No OR, no POV, no SYNTH here.
I ask you again to stop your rude language, e.g. "And again, you're purposefully and deliberately leaving out key portions of the text, with your little "[...]" dot brackets, in order to misrepresent the source." That is in no way an acceptable tone. If I quote the part where Piskorski says that two terms are identical to prove my statement that he says they are identical, I am doing nothing wrong. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I have the text now. The whole section inserted by Skapperod seems to be OR and Synthesis. Piskorski presents an overall development of Central and Eastern Europe, and inventions that coincided during that period with Ostsiedlung-they aren't presented solely as result of this event, which is what the version introduced by Skapperod suggests.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:11, 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)

If anybody's insulting Piskorski here it's the person who is misrepresenting his work. The essay on the "current state of research" is not about Ostsiedlung - the word is not used in the work - but rather about "so-called 'East colonization". That's Piskorski, not me, referring to it as "so-called" and that's Piskorski, not me, putting that in quotation marks.
When Piskorski is talking about what you're calling "Ostsiedlung" (which is a POV term particular to particular nation's historiography) he says "German settlement". When he's talking about colonization in the east he usually says "spread of German law" or similar. You are once again trying to pretend that "spread of German law" was somehow the same as "settlement by Germans", which is complete nonsense, as you well know. Hence your quote from Piskorski about the changes in the economic life, replacement of old tax systems, new model of land settlement, free towns - all that is true, but also irrelevant to this disagreement, as they all refer to "spread of German law" and the broader colonization and legal process (which involved mostly Slavs, not Germans). He is very specific about the the limited parts of the region where it did in fact have something to do with German settlers.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:49, 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)

Added POV tagEdit

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)

As share of populationEdit

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) refer to the first-generation settlers from west of the Elbe/Saale line. Skäpperöd (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
So the 2% is a fraction of the "west of the Elbe/Saale line" population or a fraction of the settlers in their destination location?Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
the former, obviously. Skäpperöd (talk) 01:56, 25 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)

Piskorski says: Although new research, especially that of Walter Kuhn, has shown that the number of settlers who migrated from Old Germany (I'm assuming this means west of Laba -VM) was not particularly great and perhaps did not represent more than 2% of the total population (making up therefore some 200,000 settlers per century), there was a change... (the ... is basically where the present article's text picks up).Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Hmm if Piskorski takes Kuhn without mentioning what he represents, that makes me sceptical if he is that good a source(I already noted that we are basing articles too much solely on him). Otherwise it might be possible that he doesn't know who Kuhn is and what he represents.In any case I wouldn't use Kuhn's research, at least without mentioning who he was. Btw-if even such nationalist and pro-Nazi researcher mentions that number was small than it must have been small indeed.So I would write that even former Nazi and nationalist researchers admit etc-something like that.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 08:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

"Ostsiedlung" vs. "East colonization" - PiskorskiEdit

Above Skapperod blatantly misrepresent the source Piskorski 2007 (available here if you got access [18]). The issue of conflict has to do with:

  1. Do the terms "Ostsiedlung" and "Colonization of the east" mean the same thing or do they refer to two different things"? Obviously "East colonization" is a translation from German of a particular German term "Ostsiedlung". But that doesn't mean that "East colonization", as used in English sources refers to the same thing.
  2. Can phenomenon which are associated by sources with "Eastern colonization" but not with "Ostsiedlung" itself be ascribed to being part of the "Ostsiedlung" or is that a violation of WP:OR, or at best WP:SYNTH.

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)

Why is a new setion necessary, if this was/is already discussed in Talk:Ostsiedlung#Rural_development_section? Also, your rude language, e.g. "manipulatively and selectively quoted," needs to stop: when I quote Piskorski saying "Ostsiedlung" and "east colonization" are identical, to prove my statement that "Ostsiedlung" and "east colonization" are identical and to refute your statement that they are something different, then it is in no way manipulative to not quote the rest of the page.
'*re "By "identical with" Piskorski is saying that that's how the term "Ostsiedlung" translates into English.": Not really. He says they are identical, plain and simple. Literally, "Ostsiedlung" does not translate as "east colonization" — Ostsiedlung is not just (one of) the German, but also (one of) the English term(s) for the same process.
  • That Piskorski in 2004 proposed to replace the term "Ostsiedlung", but views it as the most appropriate term available now and continues to use it in his later writing has already been shown above. If in the future, a scholary consensus is established on a new term, we can move the article there.
  • This article is not titled "Deutsche Ostsiedlung", but "Ostsiedlung." That it was not solely a German undertaking is undisputed, that German settlement/law etc were key features is likewise undisputed. Neither "Ostsiedlung" nor its synonym "east colonization" refer to German settlement alone, and the quote you cited above just illustrates that.
Skäpperöd (talk) 10:39, 28 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)

Again, "blatantly not true" is rude language and I want you to stop talking to me like that. Don't call me a liar just because you "don't know what the "original" he refers to is": if you don't know what the original is, and you know that I know it, ask.
The essay Piskorski, Jan Maria (1999). "The Historiography of the So-called "East Colonisation" and the Current State of Research". In Nagy, Balázs; Sebők, Marcell (eds.). The Man of Many Devices, Who Wandered Full Many Ways... Festschrift in Honour of Janos Bak. Budapest. pp. 654–667. 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. Explicit use of et al. in: |editor= (help).
Where the term "Ostsiedlung" is used in the original, the term "east colonisation" is used in the 1999 version. As an aside, Piskorski is fluent in German. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Rural developmentEdit

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)

This was discussed to death above. "East colonization" is NOT the same thing as "Ostsiedlung", if the latter term is taken to explicitly mean "German colonization" - which is the definition that this article implies - despite the fact that a literal translation of one is the other. Piskorski, as already pointed out several times above, explicitly rejects and criticizes the notion that "East colonization" was equivalent to "German colonization of the East".
This is a similar instance to the bad faithed trick sometimes employed by some nationalist German editors where they pretend that to "found" a town meant to "build it", whereas in fact it just meant to grant it some privileges. True, in some cases a new town was build, just like some of the participants in "East colonization" were in fact German (though modern research shows very clearly that the numbers involved were far far far less than claimed by 19th century propaganda), but in many cases the "founding privileges" were granted to already existing towns, and many many of the 'east colonizers" were Poles (internal migration), Armenians, Italians, Czechs, Ruthenians, Jews etc.
The section on urban development is problematic as well, but the above statement is particularly true about rural development. To pretend that Piskorski says that these developments were introduced by German colonists is a an audacious misrepresentation of the source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
And btw, in the future, it's a good idea to discuss first, then try to start an edit war, rather than me having to ask explicitly for you to articulate your reasons on talk.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
"My reasons" ?? I think it was you who removed a whole section of the article without giving a rationale here on talk. In the future, it would be a good idea to discuss such massive deletions first instead of starting an edit war. HerkusMonte (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
it was you who removed a whole section of the article without giving a rationale here on talk - I'm sorry, but I see my own name all over this talk page, while you have never commented here before. The section misquotes the source, entails a lot of SYNTH and OR and is plainly POV. Now, it's true that there is a general problem of this kind with this article as a whole, which should probably be split/moved/done something with so that it's not so blatantly biased, but before we get there, at the very least, let's get rid of the most inappropriate parts.
You have not addressed at all the issues I raised above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't see the relevance of your essay on "nationalist German editors" and the founding of towns for the rural development section. I also don't think it's necessary to repeat Skäpperöd's well-founded reasoning from above. HerkusMonte (talk) 09:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Nazi mapEdit

Please keep junk like this [20] out of the article. See Walter Kuhn and [21].Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you claim the Westermann Verlag, a leading educational publisher, and the dtv publishers (dtv Atlas zur Weltgeschichte [22]) are using a "Nazi map"? HerkusMonte (talk) 09:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Don't put words in my mouth. I claim that a map based on the work of a Nazi historian, Walter Kuhn, is inappropriate for the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Using work by dedicated Nazis is obviously non-acceptable, it can only be used in articles about Nazi propaganda. This should be fundamental in understanding of Wiki.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problemsEdit

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 (talkcontribs) 11:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Very poor articleEdit

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)

Removed map=Edit

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)

  • Agree, this map is extreme incorrect, e.g. Jihlava (Iglava) is in German sources called "Iglau sprachinsel", this mean island, without contact with other Germans. Mediaeval cities with "Magdeburg law" can be without German presence, this is only term like "Napoleonic codex".--Yopie (talk) 23:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

When was the Ostsiedlung?Edit

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)

It depends on the geographical area you're talking about. And it is a bit of a judgement call because you have to separate "regular" migration from mass migration and settlement.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Town lawEdit

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 ] Does someone know where the remarks came from and what exactly is here questionable or dubious?!--Zarbi1 (talk) 12:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

You could dissect article's edit history to elicit who added this sentences and ask them this questions. D_T_G (PL) 12:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Seems most unlikely whomever were said to be 'Walloons' were 'French-speaking' at the time?Edit

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)


ErnioEdit

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

This is much too long for a lead section. Condense it.Ernio48 (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ Wallbank and Schrier, Living World History, pp. 193
  2. ^ https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Frisia
  3. ^ https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oost-Friesland
  4. ^ https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friese_Vrijheid
  5. Return to "Ostsiedlung" page.