Talk:List of banners in the Battle of Grunwald

Lithuania Mid‑importance

	Lithuania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lithuania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LithuaniaWikipedia:WikiProject LithuaniaTemplate:WikiProject LithuaniaLithuania articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Review comments: M.K. (talk) 09:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poland Low‑importance

	Poland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Vytis in 1410?![edit]

The term Vytis not existed in 1410. I will remove this nonsence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.80.224.242 (talk) 10:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a historical nonsense when you call the GDL banner "Vytis". It was Pohonia or Pahonia - and we can find a quote of Władysław Jagiełło/Jahajła/Jogaila who mentioned exactly this name. Please, stop Lithuanian anti-historical nationalism in Wiki. CityElefant (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vytis did not exist prior to 1845![edit]

For Lokyz, unless you prove that "Vytis" (as the name of the GDL coat of arms) existed before 1845 you may not apply this term in a historically-related article. Otherwise, the term Pahonia/Pogoń shall be used. I can prove any change I made by using academic sources. CityElefant (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do know that for Lithuanians their history is a part of the state ideology since the establishing of the 1st Lithuanian Republic. It is kind of "sacred cow". But you may not ignore the historical facts and avoid discussion by simply ignoring inappropriate questions. CityElefant (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you show sources that Pahonia/Pogoń is more correct then Vytis here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, have a look at two quotations from the article on the Vytis both proved by reliable sources:
"The earliest name of the Lithuanian coat of arms is unknown; possibly, it had no specific name at all. Later it was known as Pogonia, as approved in the Statutes of Lithuania". The passage in bold makes some confusions in fact but it is accepted that the Chaser as the CoA of the GDL appeared in 1366 during the rule of Olgierd/Alhierd/Algirdas.
Next, "The earliest known name of the Coat of Arms in Lithuanian is a 17th century translation of Pogonia by Konstantinas Sirvydas as Waikimas ("Vaikymas" in the modern Lithuanian orthography), which had been used until the 19th century together with Pagaunia". The latter form is a Slavic borrowing and there is no "Vytis" during the period of the GDL existence.
Secondly, there is also Władysław Jagiełło/Jahajła/Jogaila charter dated back to February, 20 or February, 22 1387 where he states that the popular name of the levée en masse (pospolite ruszenie) is "pogonia". Original is in Latin, but the word "pogonia" is used in the text. For the exact quotation I will try to find a more "reliable" source than some (post-)Soviet books and it will take some time.
Thirdly, Ruthenian aka Old Belarusian was the official language of the GDL during the Jagiełło/Jahajła/Jogaila's lifetime. This quote refers to his cousin Witold/Vitaut/Vytautas: "Soll er [Witaut] sich doch mit Gedanken getragen haben, an Stelle des Russischen, d.i. Weißrussischen oder Weißruthenischen, das Litauische zur Hof- und Kanzleisprache zu machen" (Source: Dr. W. Gaigalat. Litauen das besetzte Gebiet / sein Volk und dessen geistige Strömungen. Frankfurter Vereinsdruckerei, Verlag, Frankfurt a/M, 1917, pp. 37-38) Brief translation: "He ought to have thought, to abolish Belarusian as the language of court and chancery and introduce Lithuanian instead". It means that Lithuanian had not been the language of the court and chancery at the period of the Battle of Grunwald. The argument that Witold/Vitaut/Vytautas wanted to introduce Lithuanian is not applicable since we cannot analyze his intentions or thoughts. If he wanted, he did not do this. Or he just did not want it. Or he did not even think about it, who knows now. The exact translation of the part regarding the language is "Russian, i.e. Belarusian or Whiteruthenian... as the language of the court and chancery" but it does not alter the meaning of the phrase.
But to sum up, the name "Vytis" is not applicable to the events of 1410 anyhow. CityElefant (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would add to my previous comment the reference to Aleksander Brückner which I also posted here. Brückner states that "Mikołaj Rej jeżeli później o Rusinach opowiadał, prawili mu po "litewsku" (tj. po białorusku; Litwin u nego zawsze tyle co Białorusin), nigdy po małorusku" (source: Aleksander Brückner. Mikołaj Rej. PWN: Warszawa, 1988, p. 14). Translation: When Mikołaj Rej later described Ruthenians they addressed him in "Lithuanian" (i.e. Belarusian language, for him a Lithuanian [person] is exclusively a Belarusian) but newer in Ukrainian (here literally: Little Russian). Another example of Brückner's opinion may be found in his article "Rusko-Polski rękopis roku 1510" published in Slavia: časopis pro slovanskou filologii, #7: "Mówimy ciągle "litewski, Litwin" ale to tylko zamiast "białoruski, Białorusin", bo w roku 1510 nic o Litwie właściwej etnograficznej ani się nie śniło, jeszcze Rej w roku 1562 Litwinem Białorusina nazywał, a w Moskwie i w XVII wieku "Litowskij" tyle co białoruski". Translation: "We are constantly saying "Lithuanian (adj., noun)" but only instead of "Belarusian (adj., noun)". It has not even been dreamt about proper ethnographic Lithuania in 1510. Mikołaj Rej in 1562 referred to Belarusian as "Lithuanian", and even in the 17th century in Moscow the word "Lithuanian" had the same meaning as "Belarusian".
That is why the name "Pahonia" shall be seen equal to "Pogonia" and shall be used in the article. CityElefant (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teutonic?[edit]

The article states that it lists "the banners of the forces participating in the Battle of Grunwald, (1410)" but I don't see the banners of the Teutonic Knights? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not here. Yet. Go looking around. -- Matthead Discuß 00:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

Shouldn't the name be banners of forces at the battle of Grunwald? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Names of the flags[edit]

Perhaps much of the edit war could be stopped by simply using more then one name? The table has ample room (the entire remarks section, for example). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content or title change, misleading headline[edit]

"the banners of the forces participating in the Battle of Grunwald" is literally half-correct. The other side is missing. Thus, either the article has to be renamed to "the banners of the Polish and Lithuanian forces participating in the Battle of Grunwald", or the banners of the opponent in this important historical fight have to be displayed as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C0:DF30:E200:505D:1009:F10B:6418 (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]