Talk:Hanseatic League/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Start

Yay, JHK! Good job. Very helpful. Questions on a first read:

1. 1st paragraph - any examples of special trading privileges to offer?
2. Nice on the limitations (segregation in merchant quarters)
3. To what extent was the League a league of merchants rather than a league of cities? Or, to what extent did the merchant-traders actually rule in their home cities?

--MichaelTinkler

• Luebeck isn't in the GDR. Fixed by JHK.

Do you think the info on Lubeck from that paragraph should go in the Lubeck entry? I'm thinking it might fit better there -- a worthwhile anecdote, but I'm not sure that it goes with much of the rest of the Hansa entry -- Paul Drye

Probably should, although I think the Hansa cities that actually WERE ( ;-) ) in the Eastern Bloc need mention -- I think there's an argument to be made that their traditions of independence may have helped them to assist in the collapse of the Iron Curtain. JHK

---

I know it's an attempt at being helpful, but I really *detest* adding weblinks to articles. Although there is a lot of great stuff on the web, the majority of scholarly literature is still to be found in libraries (remember books?). I would really hate to see the Wiki (or Nu) -pedias being used by lazy high-school and college students et al. as a glorified search engine. Don't laugh -- this is a very good possibility. I would ask other contributors to think about whether adding links is really to the benefit of the article. In regards to the ones added here, I have read Postel's article, but it is definitely not comprehensive. JHK

---

It may be a good idea to have the links show for a while for wikipedians (maybe in a seperate section as a reference) , then remove them ?? user:H.J.

I think that still defeats the purpose. And some links really are better than others -- for example, the Postel article gives a very good overview of the history of the Hanse cities. It's more informative than harmful, written by a member of the scholarly comunity whose other works we can presumably access. On the other hand, the average person hitting the link won't really ask himself if the article might have been geared towards a specific purpose -- I think I remember it being addressed to a chamber of commerce or something like that. That might have some influence on what facts were included or omitted. Other links that have been posted are to personal web pages or web pages of cities, economic or genealogical organizations, etc. Here, the information must be considered suspect and biased (or maybe just less reliable, since people don't have to verify their sources and can just say what they want) until proved otherwise. This is why I am so leery of adding links anywhere -- except maybe to public domain documents. I just think it's so much better to write an article that doesn't rely on random web sites to prove its point.

---

Like many other former Hansa cities that found themselves under Communist government (Gdansk, for example), it reciprocated by turning as much against Communism as possible, and a small but effective right-wing underground began to thrive. After the fall of the Eastern Bloc and Reunification, these cities, and those cities near the old border, like Lübeck, that became hosts to many immigrants from the former DDR, often were the sites of severe right-wing nationalist activity, including attacks on "foreigners," usually those of Turkish descent.

How is it relevant ? And stop calling foreigners-beaters "right-wing". If they want state to stop immigration then they are certainly left-wing, (remember - Hitler was LEFT wing, a SOCIALIST). Taw 22:43 Dec 1, 2002 (UTC)

• Hitler's campaign was largely focused on scaring people about the dangers of the Bolshevik menace.
• Before Hitler got to power, he re-assured German industrialists that he would respect private property and fight labor unions.
• Hitler only got to power with the help from the conservatives in the "Enabling Act" (left wing social democrats opposed it, communists had been arrested after the fire falsely blamed on them).
• After Hitler got to power, he sent thousands and thousands of communists, social democrats and unionists into concentration camps and killed the communist leaders in Germany. He outlawed labor unions and guaranteed corporate profits for Krupp & Co.
• Many of Hitler's moral values were perfectly compatible with typical Christian-conservative parties. He appealed to family values, destroyed "indecent" art and literature, had homosexuals arrested and killed, abortion of "Aryans" outlawed etc. He created extensive youth and family programs. He openly embraced Catholicism ("the basis of our collective morals").

Hitler did place heavy restrictions on industry production, imports, prices etc. But he did not outlaw corporations -- in fact, the profits of the large corporations soared during his regency. Many businessmen (except, of course, for the Jewish ones) continued to support Hitler and his party with much needed funds, knowing full well that he would make sure that communism couldn't gain a foothold. Ultimately, Hitler was of course interested in absolute power -- that's why we call his politics fascist.

But to call Hitler left-wing or socialist is ignorant to the extreme, and an insult to the millions who lost their lives fighting his politics. The strongest and most persistent resistance to Hitler's politics came from communists and socialists. The biggest support came from conservatives and businessmen.

As an aside, left-wing and right-wing are not really accurate labels. We have better terms: fascist, neo-fascist, liberal socialist, conservative socialist, communist, green, progressive, social democrat, christian-conservative, conservative, populist, libertarian ... "Left-wing", however, is typically associated with progressive positions on individual rights and more restrictive views on market regulation. --Eloquence

I agree, that racist pogroms are not appropriate here. It is necessary to mention them, but not in an article about a medieval trade alliance. Regarding your other statement: Of course racists are right-wing - calling them left-wing would completely reverse the habitual language use. -- Cordyph

Names

Wouldn't it be historically more correct, if only the German names of Hanse cities would be used? --::Slomox >< 30 June 2005 17:48 (UTC)

I doubt it. I'd be fine with giving the German names of most of the cities first, but modern names should certainly be given. john k 30 June 2005 18:58 (UTC)

The END?

Not exactly. See here:

The Modern Hansa, also called New Hansa, was established in 1980. It is an international voluntary city union grouping over 200 cities from 16 European states.

The first Convention of the New Hansa was held in Zwolle in 1980.

Hansa has been revived, though some of its goals may be different. And surely, for now its power is by no means comparable to that of the ages before XVI, but in few decades, who knows? See here (in English) : http://www.gdansk.pl/article.php?category=453&article=925&history=453: Cheerz, Critto

International Hanseatic League Forum

We have created a forum of the hanseatic league and hanseatic cities in Wikipedia, to coordinate form and content of articles and portals on an international level. If you like to join, please visit: International Hanseatic League Forum and write, what you think it could do on Hanseatic League Talk. Greetings from Rostock, N3MO 16:56, 20. Mär 2006 (CET)

Binding decisions

This statement: "Assemblies of the Hanseatic Towns met irregularly in Lübeck for Hansetag, from 1356 onwards, but many towns chose not to send representatives and decisions did not bind individual cities. "

Is absolutely wrong. Member cities could chose to either send or not send a delegate to the impromptu meetings, however, all decisions were binding. The Hansa enforced it's rule over it's member cities by exacting economic punishment to it's disobedient cities- as well as those who refused to join. In his book, "The Hansa" by E. Gee Nash, Mr. Nash makes it quite clear, that punishment was meted out for all infractions- including the selling of inferior merchandise, since a member was considered to represent all members.

Suggest you all do a little more research on the topic at hand before making blanket statements. The Hansa, along with the Venetians, were the forerunners of the modern age of capitalism and financial structures- without them, the rise to the "High Middle Ages" and thence to the Renaissance would not have been possible. It was these merchants who built the great armada that defeated the Turkish fleet at the Battle of Lepanto, thus turning back the high tide of the Ottoman Empire and forcing open the trade routes to the East, via the Mediterranean Sea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Epublius (talk • contribs) .

License plates

It should not be left unmentioned that for quite some cities the license plate for cars also shows them beeing a hanse city. Like HH for Hamburg, HB for Bremen, HL for Lübeck, HRO for Rostock e—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.176.213.226 (talk • contribs) .

Steelyard

Wasn't there some relationship between the Hanseatic League and London: an outpost, or something? -- The Anome 23:55, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

yes there was, Luebeck or better the Hanse was the owner of the Stahlhof a part of the riverbank (near the Tower Bridge at the Themse). This place was extra territorial.

Whatever the Hanse called it, in London it was The Steelyard.

List of former Hanse cities

It doesn't make sense to throw into one "list" every city that had a Hanse presence. Can someone separate out the major Hanse cities, where the Hanse affected the political structure? The rest go in "Cities that have had a Hanse community." --Wetman 11:24, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes in London it was called the STEELYARD(originally a weighing machine!!)and that developped into my surname STILLIARD!! I am very proud to be a descendant of members of the Hanseatic League(they had a wharf on the Thames labelled "THE STILIARDS"...on a map of London from around the 1600s)as they had a hand in the introduction of the pound sterling.

Hanseatic cities

In no way was London a member of the Hanseatic League. It had a significant League presence for trade (as did the east coast, and indeed Bristol) but it was not a member nor did it subscribe to the League. Given the current heading to the section I have deleted London from the list. I am not so au fait with the political history of Brugge and so leave it for others to determine whether it too should be removed. There may be other cities which should come off.--Silver149 4 July 2005 12:14 (UTC)

(The confidence of it is what's astonishing. A less assertive reader interested in London's place as a Hanse city might try googling "London Steelyard". --Wetman 5 July 2005 01:19 (UTC))

A less assertive non-contributor (did you notice the major edit on the english dimension of the League that I made?) might have added rather than destroyed. Being a forgiving and understanding soul I have googled as requested. The first four hits are

http://gallery.euroweb.hu/html/h/holbein/hans_y/1535/5born.html http://50.1911encyclopedia.org/L/LU/LUBECK.htm http://www2.hsu-hh.de/PWEB/hisfrn/hanse.html http://the-orb.net/encyclop/culture/towns/colchstr.html Not a great addition to the above - nor indeed anytjing not already included in the article. As for fingerpainting - WFMSS. --Silver149 5 July 2005 09:01 (UTC)

In a similar vein I have removed Boston. Having looked at old edits I liked the "Cities with a Hanse Presence" approach - seems more accurate. As it stands the title cannot include London or Boston (or Bristol, Bishops Lynn, York, Hull etc).--Silver149 4 July 2005 12:23 (UTC)

That "cannot" does not have a true historian's touch. Some time ago I inserted subdivisions for the "list of Hanse cities" viz. Members of the Hanseatic League; Hanse-built cities; Other Hanse-dominated cities; Cities with a Hanse community. The list was pertly removed by User:John Kenney, with the quip "Until we actually know how to divide up the list, it shouldn't be divided" That "shouldn't" did not have a deft touch either, as it turns out.

This is not editing. This is fingerpainting --Wetman 5 July 2005 01:19 (UTC)

The problem was that every city was in the "Cities with a Hanse community" section, implying that Lübeck, Hamburg, and so forth were not members of the Hanseatic League, but only "cities with a Hanse Community." If you want to change the heading to be "Cities with a Hanse community", that's fine, but we certainly shouldn't add a bunch of other empty subdivisions, implying that the cities on the current list are not part of those categories, when almost all of them are. john k 5 July 2005 02:05 (UTC)

And what on earth is this fingerpainting business? john k 5 July 2005 02:05 (UTC)

It was precisely to begin to resolve that issue that my former subheadings were introduced below the list, which I have taken the trouble to reinsert justabove, if one will look. I shall reinsert them into the article once again, this time below the list, so as not to addle. With your understanding of the Hanseatic League, perhaps you'd both be willing to set each city under its most appropriate subheading.

...Or not. At any rate, we have all weathered the deletions of User:John Kenney and User:Silver149. Now we await their contributions to this article— of a subtlety and clarity that will silence every critic, I am sure. (Removing this from my Watchlist --Wetman 5 July 2005 03:05 (UTC))

Just wilful bloody ignorance I suppose. See the (admittedly not boasted about) difference I made on 4 July at 13.08. L+K --Silver149 5 July 2005 09:01 (UTC)

You can't set up a major reorganization, and then not do it. I don't know enough about the Hanseatic League to divide the cities in that manner. Apparently, neither do you. As such, we should just leave a single list. There's no need to be obnoxious about it, either. john k 5 July 2005 03:51 (UTC)

Alright, I've been shamed into doing some research. My source is the Times Atlas of World History, which has a nice map of the Hanseatic League. Unfortunately, many of the cities on our list don't show up on it, so I left them in a miscellaneous category at the end... john k 5 July 2005 04:14 (UTC)

I like it and will dig into primary sources further. I will amend over the next few days but an excellent start. Good to see some build sandcastles where others knock them down. --Silver149 5 July 2005 09:01 (UTC)

I'm confused about London. Over here [1] it says Hanse (plural Hanses) (in Germany) A medieval guild of merchants or traders; especially a commercial league of Germanic towns that had a house in London. This article doesn't mention the origin of the name (unless I missed it). I'm not offering anything to the above argument - I was only here looking for the etymology. --Alastair Rae (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

"Port of Novgorod"

May be if the sea swells, or there's a major tectonic shift, but right now - unfortunately hundreds of kilometers away from being a port.

Ports can be inland - see Manchester. Ports are also where ships berth (cf Port of London) and Novgorod achieves that objective.--Silver149 06:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

List of cities

The list of Hanse cities should be sorted out a bit. Hamburg is not Wendish nor Pomeranian, but Saxon. The section Saxony, Thuringia, Brandenburg Circle should point out, that the area of the Saxons, not the state of Saxony is meant. What are the criteria for the chosen cities in the list? It is lacking many entries. --::Slomox:: >< 16:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The list (aside from the bottom part, which was a grab bag) was derived from a map in the Times Atlas of World History that I had at hand. As far as I can gather, the circle that Hamburg was in was not specifically based on geography, so that it was in the Wendish and Pomeranian Circle despite not being Wendish or Pomeranian. But I'm not completely sure that the source is correct. john k 18:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Hamburg belonged as Bremen to the Saxon Circle/Quarter.--Kresspahl 06:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Hanseatic League?

Should we create a category for towns in the Hanseatic League? Should it be hierarchical? --Leifern 01:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a Category in de:wiki called "Hanse", which is very helpful. It includes not only the cities, but also ships, treaties and wars of the Hanseatic League, and it is very helpful.--Kresspahl 06:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Missing Quotations

In its lacks of necesserary quotations this article is the beginning of the "Hanseatic overkill". Question is, from which side now this threat is coming, since Hanse is actually past...?.. and has the remaining League to react or merely to show containance? Questions over questions, the answers will be part of history 200 yrs. in future....--Kresspahl 00:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC) -- The system beginns to work again, thats history too ... Kresspahl 00:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

News: German Wiki Notice Board

Since it is much needed, I created the Wikipedia:German_Wikipedians'_notice_board. I am not a German, and (so) it needs people of the German wikipedian community to bring it up to scratch. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) File:UW Logo-secondary.gif 02:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Gallery of Maps

I have looked for some maps of the Baltic Region that might help to illustrate the changes in the territories during decades and centuries in the Baltic region, if someone could help to arrange them more properly I would be thankful. Together with the Carta Marina it may be start. Perhaps ther are some more. Since we do not know exactly which city was a member at which time - this changed from year to year too, and depending on the scale and the size of the area, I doubt that it is possible to produce a map with all hanseatic cities dotted.--Kresspahl 16:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey Kresspahl, I haven't yet created any new maps of Scandinavia, but look at this link and maybe you can find some pictures of value. Maps of all four countries in Scandinavia. All maps also have each major historical event in Scandinavia. I'll inform you or you can see when I have made some new maps of Scandinavia.--Kasper Holl 20:31, 1 Mar 2006 (CEST)

I've switched out the map at the top of the page with the map from H.F. Helmolt's History of the World, which is both easier to read and shows the Hanseatic League specifically. Hopefully, other similar maps can be found. - BanyanTree 07:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Improvements

This is a great article. It would be even greater if it had a section on the league's organisation - treaties, customary rules, central institutions. This might also address the question: to what extent the league was a state. A capital is mentioned; what was the difference beetween the capital and any other of the league's cities?

Some relevant stuff in the existing text:

"The League never became a closely-managed formal organisation. Assemblies of the Hanseatic Towns met irregularly in Lübeck for Hansetag, from 1356 onwards, but many towns chose not to send representatives and decisions did not bind individual cities."

"The League had a fluid structure, but its members shared some traits. First, most of the Hanseatic League (or Hanse) cities either started as independent cities or gained independence through the collective bargaining power of the League. Such independence remained, however, limited; it meant that the cities owed allegiance directly to the Emperor of the day, without any intermediate tie to the local nobility. Another similarity involved the cities' strategic locatations along trade routes. In fact, at the height of its power in the late 1300s, the merchants of the Hanseatic League succeeded in using their economic clout (and sometimes their military might - trade routes needed protecting, and the League's ships sailed well-armed) to influence Imperial policy."

Next point. (This might be beyond the remit of an encycolpedia.) Why did the Hanseatic League emerge? Would it be right to say that it emerged out of the anarchy resulting from the fragmentation of the Holy Roman Empire?

AWhiteC 14:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. The German-language version of this page contains a section entitled "Organisation", but unfortunately my German doesn't stretch to understanding much of it :-( AWhiteC 14:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistency in naming of cities

There is a general inconsistency in the naming of the cities in the article. Sometimes the modern name is given first with the German one in parentheses, sometimes the other way around. I that they should all change to conform to the same standard. I think putting the German name first with the modern one in parentheses for disambiguation would be best (this is, after all, a historical article). I will make the change soon if no-one objects.--Causantin 17:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The sounds like the best course of action to me. john k 19:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Gotlandic Gutagard?

The "Foundation" paragraph notes "To begin with the Germans used the Gotlandic Gutagard". What is the Gotlandic Gutagard? perhaps provide an explanation, or a reference? is it a currency, a flag of convenience, or other? cheers! --mgaved 19:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hansa capital

"Eventually, the Hansa capital moved to Danzig ..."

That's bullshit. No other city than Lübeck was ever called "Head of the Hanseatic Leage" ("Haupt der Hanse"). The assemblies called "Hansetag" used to meet at Lübeck. In its context, this suggest that at its peak, the Hanseatic Leage was lead by Danzig and no longer Lübeck, which is absolutely wrong. So it should be removed immediately.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.8.203.3 (talk • contribs) .

OK, I'll remove it. Maybe the original author meant Danzig was the largest Hansa city? Actually, it was - at least during the zenith of Hansa power. I may leave a sentence on this in place of the capital sentence. Friendly Neighbour 16:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Translations

Could we please keep the lead free of all the translations of the "Hanseatic League" in various languages? It only serves to clutter up the lead, and it's pretty darned irrelevant since those names aren't even consistent with the languages spoken in the Middle Ages. I'm rather tempted to suggest that we remove the German translation for the same reason.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense, since modern German wasn't spoken by the Hanseatic League. Modern German spread to Northern Germany only after the time of the Hanseatic League. --::Slomox:: >< 03:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If you look in the sources, I would bet that it's probably more likely that the majority of the references to the league were in Medieval Latin. And that raises another question: was the League perceived as a unified entity during its existence, or is it a modern historical term of convenience?

Peter ^Isotalo 09:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The Lingua franca from London and Flanders to Nowgorod, espeicially around the Baltic Sea was Middle Low German. Spoken and written, even in diplomatic documents.--Kresspahl 10:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

So is any of this really a good argument for having a translation that only gives the modern names? I mean, the only thing that's going to happen is that people will add the name in every single modern language that is spoken in areas once controlled by the League, and that's simply not interesting or relevant to the topic. People can just as well check out the other article links if they want the names in other languages.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

An alliance of guilds, or of cities?

The first paragraph reads "The Hanseatic League was an alliance of trading guilds..." Isn't it more correct to say that the Hanseatic League was an alliance of cities? I suggest rephrasing this.--Barend 17:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It started as an alliance of merchants, organized in guilds, and then, lateron became an alliance of cities.--Kresspahl 10:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, considering that it was an alliance of cities for quite a long period of its history, I think this should be in the opening paragraph.--Barend 23:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

User Sassisch's edits

On 4 November, user Sassisch made large changes to the article. He inserted large amounts of text in the code text of the article which more properly belongs on this discussion page. I am therefore moving his comments to the talk page, and reverting his changes as a whole, as most of them are controversial. I argue this case further below.--Barend 22:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sassisch's comments (moved from article page):

This article reflects heavy reliance on German and German-biased material as well as German language interference and ought to undergo further editing to neutralize this. Although the Hanseatic League was formally under the power of the empire Frankish Charlemagne had founded, the it enjoyed extensive autonomy and was a mostly Saxon organization that had few outposts in Germany proper but many outposts elsewhere. Its lingua franca was Middle Saxon, not a "German dialect." The use of "Hansa" and "Hanse" is German and is unorthodox in English. "City" ought to be used instead of "town" in many instances. The now current names of cities ought to come first, their German and Saxon equivalents second and parenthesized. Hanseatic-specific terminology ought to be given in Middle Saxon rather than in German.

The Hanseatic merchants were not Germans (irrespective of later German usurpation and propaganda) but were Saxons from (the real) Saxony: Northern Albingia, Angria (Engern), Westphalia, Eastphalia, the eastern provinces of today’s Netherlands, and the colonized regions along the Baltic Sea coast. Only some Saxonized Frisians participated, not Frisians in general. All references to the Hanseatic League ought to be revised accordingly.

We are not talking about a dialect here but about a LANGUAGE separate from German: Old Saxon > Middle Saxon > Low Saxon, now an officially recognized regional language in eight North German states and in the Northeastern Dutch provinces. References to "dialect" and "German" are based on outdated material that followed the now superceded German political line.

Sassisch's comments belong here on the discussion page where they can be debated, because although he makes some points, much of what he says is wrong. I agree that the language of the Hanseatics was a separate language from high German, but it is more common to call it Middle Low German than Saxon. His point about now current names is only partially correct. It is much more common in English (and indeed in most other languages) to use German than Polish or Baltic names for many of the cities in this article when referring to this period in time. For instance, it is wikipedia-policy (as stated at Talk:Gdańsk) to use the Danzig for that city when discussing the late middle ages. Lastly and most importantly, hearing that the Hanseatic merchants were not Germans would come as a great surprise to the merchants themselves, who for centuries referred to themselves as hansa Teutonicorum or Hansa Almaniae in latin, or dudesche hense or dutsche hanse in Low German. (Dudesch and dutsch being of course low German forms of the word which in high German is Deutsch). There is no need to talk about Lübeck being founded in "what is now Germany", as it is common practice to refer to this area as Germany, also in the middle ages, in scholarly litterature.--Barend 22:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Fictional references

Most of the "fictional references" seems to be "trivia cruft" and not particularly relevant to the article. Olessi (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Portal icon placement

FYI, you can add a link to Portal:Norway in this article, by placing {{Portal|Norway|Nuvola Norwegian flag.svg}} at the top of the see also section (or the external links section if the article has no see also section). This will display

Cirt (talk) 09:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Namespace change: Hanseatic League --> Hanse

I'm proposing that we change the namespace to Hanse instead of Hanseatic League based on the following reasoning:

18. Misnamed the Hanseatic League, which literally translated to "Leaguely" League, this organization of merchant guilds from various German cities functioned informally much before the fourteenth century.

Citation: Janet L. Abu-Lughod, Before European Hegemony: The World System A.D. 1250-1350 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), p. 100n18

Since Hanseatic League is a misnomer based on lack of understanding of the original meaning of the word "Hanse", I think there's a strong case for moving the namespace of this article to Hanse, leaving the redirect from Hanseatic League of course. We should also note in the text of the article why the more common name "Hanseatic League" is a misnomer, using the citation above.—Perceval 00:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I follow your reasoning, however "Hanseatic League" is the most common english name for that entity [2], while "Hanse" is really the common German form. Therefore, per WP:COMMONNAME, "Hanseatic League" ought be used as the article title. Martintg (talk)

Yes, it is the most common in English. Yet, it's still embarrassingly absurd (akin to talking about "the Battle of the El Alamein," which translates back from Spanish and Arabic into "the Battle of the the the Amein"). At the very least, I think a note about the name ought to be put into the article text.—Perceval 21:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, a note is definitely required. Martintg (talk) 03:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but there was no Swedish Empire Rising at the beginning of the 16th century. Sweden was not even independant at that time. When Gustav Wasa finally expelled the Danes in 1523, he had a kingdom to build before thinking of carving an empire in the Baltic. (julien.legrand@accenture.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.252.122.1 (talk) 13:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect "Century" References?

In section "Rise of Rival Powers" there are multiple references to the 14th century, but all the dates mentioned are 15th century (1478, 1466, etc.) This is either incorrect, or unclear. If the original author truly means to refer to 14th century (1300s) events, those events could be perhaps more clearly explained. Thanks! Jcfretts (talk) 03:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

New Time?

I am guessing that this phrase is a literal translation of the German Neuzeit, but nobody in English ever talks about the "New Time". A far better tramslation would be "Hanseatic League of the Modern Era". Fishal (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Most probably. I c/e-ed the section according to the "new Hanse" website, but a 3rd party reference is needed. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

famous ships of the Hanseatic league

Someone familiar with this, please tell me if there are any famous ships, other than the two listed already. List of ships of the Hanseatic League is up for deletion, since it has been around for years and only has two ships listed in it. I'm searching around but not finding any information freely accessible on the internet. Are there ships listed in history books in nations where this league was important? Anyone visit a museum that preserved one of these ships? If someone has a book about this league, would you please check to see if any famous ships are listed in it? Dream Focus 21:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Numerous errors in the article

Just one example-Prussia, Livonia, Sweden Circle lists Wrocław which wasn't conquered by Prussia till XVIII century, long after HL ceased to exist.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

As I've also just explained elsewhere, that's not what it's saying; it's the names of the subdivisions of the Hanseatic League, see File:Extent of the Hansa.jpg, for example. Accordingly, I've reverted your edits. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 18:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

First of all base your claim on something more reliable than a scan of a map. Second of all your map doesn't show Kraków or Wrocław in any of your claimed circles, so you are incorrect.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

anachronisms indeed

The justification for this revert [3] appears to be [4] this map [5]. But there's some obvious problems with this:

1. First and most importantly a number of cities, such as Krakow or Wroclaw do not appear as assigned to any section on that map. Hence including them in a "Prussia, Livonia, Sweden circle" is not just unsourced but simply wrong. Obviously these cities were not part of these states and neither does it seem like they were part of the any official division either.
2. Did these official divisions even exist? Or is it just someone's OR based on a single map?
3. Even if so, it should be clarified what was the actual location and sovereign status of these places, otherwise the information is being presented in a very misleading way.

For these reasons I'm undoing that edit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

This is the topic being discussed in the recent contentious edits section below. I'm working on finding some sources for subdivisions of the Hansa and will make it clear which sovereign state each city was in at the time when I integrate the results of this search into the article. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 20:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

pov tag

There's a pov tag at the bottom of the article, apparently due to the presence of a hidden category. The tag/category should either be removed (if there's no dispute) or placed at the top of the article where it belongs.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I've corrected the POV tag placement. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 20:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

New membership table

I've just pasted in the new membership table I've been working on, with a handful of references. Lemme know if there's anything in particular that isn't quite clear. Thanks! — OwenBlacker (Talk) 00:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I corrected some info on the Royal Prussian towns. Royal Prussia after 2nd Peace of Torun was PART of Poland, not its fief (that was Ducal Prussia). Likewise when these cities were part of the Teutonic Order, they were part of it, rather than fiefs.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I like the layout of the table. A couple of notes though.

1. Although you use the Penguin atlas as your main source, it has a different split into circles than the article now has. That means the table to a large extent is original research as you merge different contradicting sources. One of the sources for example says that the Wendish circle went as far as Stettin, which indeed in in Pemoerania, so maybe that circle is the same at the Wendish and Pomerianian circle. But then why is Visby and Stockholm included in it in the Penguin atlas? That's contradictory. Another sources says Kalmar and Visby is in a Swedish circle, and Stockholm is in no circle. The sources we have here contradict each other, and you have picked bits and pieces out of them. That's still original research, and we still can't do that.

2. Visby was Danish after 1361. How should that be handled in this table? --OpenFuture (talk) 07:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, OpenFuture; it was good to put it together to try to resolve the conflicts we were having. The table is almost exclusively based on the Penguin atlas (because I have that in hardcopy at home), so anywhere that it diverges from that is almost certainly my error (please do enumerate any such errors you notice). I did notice one of the references had shorter names for the circles and I made the assumption that was just abbreviation (particularly given it was in a footnote, so they will; have wanted to be more terse than they might otherwise have been). Which source was it that said Kalmar and Visby are in the Swedish source; have I forgotten reading that earlier?

With regard Visby becoming Danish, that kind of situation was my main intention for the Notes column, as you can see with the locations that were in Ducal Prussia, which all changed sovereignty during the period in question. Do you want to edit the Visby entry in a similar manner to the entries for Gdańsk and Elbląg?

I noted you'd added a couple of {{cn}} calls there; I'll try to find some references for those. My intention was that all the references for a row would go in the rightmost column, simply to make the table easier to read (with relatively small text, inline refs for every sentence would make it very difficult to read). The two statements you put {{cn}} against were both taken from the History section of the article Visby, where they don't have citations, but I would imagine it wouldn't be too difficult to find better references for those statements.

I'm not gonna be able to do much more work on this until Friday (which is a public holiday here in the UK), but I'll spend some more time on this article over the weekend. I'd like us all eventually to get the article to the Good article status, so I'm happy to put some more time into researching references and citations.

Thanks again for your help on the piece! — OwenBlacker (Talk)

This map [[6]] puts Visby and Kalmar in the Sweden circle (which I *still* claim never existed in the first place) and Stockholm outside of any circle. I still think it would be preferable to only refer to circles that have a independently well documented existence outside of some side notes on Hansa organization. If the Hansa really was organized like this, certainly loads of Hansa documents would refer to these circles? But yet I can't find anything about any Sweden circle (or Swedish circle or Scweden/Schwedische Kreis[e]) in conjunction to the Hansa.

If you can find sources for the claims about Visby that would be awesome, the references should of course go in the reference column, I just put them in the text to show what needed referencing. I'm not good at finding references, and suspect that some of this would be documents in German or Latin, none of which I read well enough. I can put in notes on the changing fortunes of Visby. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again, OpenFuture. It's well past my bedtime, so I shall take a look tomorrow evening or Thursday. My German and Latin aren't brilliant but, with the help of dictionaries and Google Translate, I can usually get by. I'll see what I can find though, as you suggest, finding references for mediæval history isn't very easy if you don't have access to a well-indexed university library :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 23:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

requested quotation

re [7] (and btw it is OK to have a ref at the end of a paragraph, if it is the same for every sentence therein)

source, as noted in the article: Hammel-Kiesow, Rolf (2008). Die Hanse (in German). Beck. pp. 10–11. ISBN 3406583520.

quotes (all from p. 10):

• "Die Hanse war eine Organisation von niederdeutschen Fernkaufleuten einerseits und von rund 70 großen und 100 bis 130 kleinen Städten andererseits, in denen diese Kaufleute das Bürgerrecht hatten."
• "Das entscheidende Kriterium für die Aufnahme eines Kaufmanns in die Hanse war nämlich das Recht, zu dem er geboren war. Die Mitgliedschaft in ihr war folglich sozusagen angeboren: Nur wer von deutschen Eltern geboren war und nach deutschem Recht lebte, außerdem durch das Erlernen des Kaufmannsberufs die Berechtigung zum selbständigen Auslandshandel erworben hatte, konnte in die Hanse aufgenommen werden. Das hat noch nichts mit dem Nationalismus des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts zu tun, sondern mit dem - ethnisch gebundenen - Recht als der grundsätzlichen Kategorie mittelalterlichen Daseins."

Skäpperöd (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Nur wer von deutschen Eltern geboren war und nach deutschem Recht lebte, außerdem durch das Erlernen des Kaufmannsberufs die Berechtigung zum selbständigen Auslandshandel erworben hatt

It looks like you directly copied a sentence from the book and translated it into English without any change. Please change it soon as it might constitute a copyright violation.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent contentious edits

1. The list of Circles has been stable for some time, is based on the only source we can currently see and it is irrelevant what modern or contemporaneous state the city is or was in; Circles are not named that way — compare the Imperial Circles of the Holy Roman Empire, for example.
2. That this article is within the purview of Wikipedia:WikiProject Former countries does not indicate that the Hansa was a former country, merely that the article is of interest to that WikiProject.

For goodness's sake, will people stop making PoV changes to an established text without discussing them. Can I suggest that we all go and find some sources, then we can make sure the article is accurate. Until that is done, we shouldn't be making unsubstantiated edits to an article (and certainly not screwing up the formatting in the process). On that basis, I'm reverting the recent contentious edits (which will be the third revert today, so we can all go find some sources to cite. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 19:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Just because your inaccurate information based on a single scan hasn't been corrected for long time, doesn't mean it should stay here. Secondly even your scan doesn't support your claims that somehow Krakow was in Sweden/Livonia/Prussia.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, it's not my information, based on my scan. Secondly, the way we edit here is by leaving long-standing text in-place and finding citations. I'm looking for citations right now, so we can make this article accurate; I suggest you do the same, rather than introducing further unreferenced POV claims to an article where we both accept that the information may be inaccurate and needs work. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 20:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

A basic knowledge in history makes POV claim regarding statements that Wrocław or Kraków was part of Sweden or Livonia justified. You yourself claimed that this claim is based on a scan you present, of course no such thing is mentioned in this scan and neither Wrocław or Kraków are in it as part of any circle. the way we edit here is by leaving long-standing text in-place and finding citations -what is we? Are you a member of a group editing under one account?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I see, you have added a section 'Administration' to the article, where you write, that a source mentions 4 circles. Unfourtunately you have forgotten to mention the time, when 4 circles existed. Circles were subgroups of Hanseatic cities, which had a certain name. The Wendish circle included quasi the founding members. With the expansion of the Hanseatic League it became useful, that member cities within a regional range organised themselves in reginals subgroups, handling local and regional affairs there. And by 1400, the date of the map, there were much more than 4 circles. Btw., if, for instance Oslo, (one of the cities, which once had applied for membership, which was declined) had become a member of the league and (theoretically) had joined the Wendish circle, it had had been member of this circle, regardless, in which part of Europe it was located. And if Breslau, not within the regional aerea of a circle, had joined the circle from the Zuiidersea, (more likely the Prussian or perhaps even no circle), it had been member of this circle.Henrig (talk) 21:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Since the list can't be determined and is un sourced, and would likely have to shift across different time periods, I suggest removing the unsourced section altogether.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The map is a source. Unclear are only cities outside the aereas of these circles. Until further sources, I would suggest for Cracow and Breslau an additional category 'Member cities outside these regional circle aereas'. This would be in any case correct. Henrig (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Noone is claiming that Wrocław or Kraków was ever part of Sweden or Livonia, merely (as Henrig mentions) that, for the purposes of the Hansa, they were in the administrative circles of those names. No, I meant "we" as in Wikipedians; assume good faith ;o)

Thanks for the addition of the reference, though. I'm finding very little at the moment, but will keep looking. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 00:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Please note that nobody claims that these cities was a part of Sweden or Livonia, but that they were part of the Sweden/Prussia/Livonia circle, which makes very much sense. The only alternative is in fact that they were not a part of any of the four circles, and that would also need a reliable source to claim that. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

But the template IS implicitly making that claim. At least that's what it looks like to the reader. The alternative would be not to use the template at all, since we can't source it either way - but I don't think that would be a very constructive solution.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

First, "stability" is no argument for preserving incorrect and unsourced material (in fact, in many circumstances it is an argument for rechecking suspicious material - even paper encyclopedias update their content, and that should hold even more so for a project such as Wikipedia). Second, the main problem is that the information is unsourced. Yes there is the map but reading stuff of the map smacks of OR - a written, accessible, source would be much better. One reason why reading stuff of the map is OR is because it doesn't tell us anything about whether this was true just in 1400 or in other periods etc - so as a basis for a definitive table it's pretty weak. Third, as has already been mentioned, neither Wroclaw nor Krakow are part of any of the circles listed on the map - so that part's definitely unsourced. Fourth - it's still not clear if these "circles" were some kind of official designation (and how "official" exactly?) or just a particular writer's taxonomy. In fact the map doesn't even use the term "circle" but "group". There's also other discrepancies. Szczecin, for example is in the "Pomeranian" group on the map but in the article text it is listed as part of the "Wendish circle". Frankfurt is listed in article but is not even on the map at all. The template is better than article text in this respect but I'm still not clear on what the sources are. Also, as I've said before, if we do include taxonomize these cities somehow - whether in article text or the template - I think it is important to make it clear to the reader that the designation does not imply what state the city was part of but rather what region.

Finally, I did find this [8] which talks about "circles", though it puts it into quotation marks, unfortunately only a snippet preview is available (this might be a better preview [9]). But it lists only four of these circles and only gives "chief towns" not a whole list. And even there it lists Danzig/Gdansk, not Torun/Thorn as chief city of the Prussia, Livonia and Sweden circle, Cologne not Dortmund as chief city of Netherlands et al, and Brunswick not Magdeburg as chief of Saxony et al (of course Lubeck is Lubeck).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The map clearly says, that these were the circles (just a English term for these subgroups) in 1400 (at the peak of the league). This year should be mentioned in the article. ( A few decades later, the western circles were shattered by inner class struggles and the league as league became incapable of action for a time. In this time, the members of the Prussian Circle decided to ally with the King of Poland against the Teutonic Order, which tried to take advantage of this situation. The circles themselves were groups of Hanseatic towns, established, to coordinate their handling in regional affairs, but each city had its own membership of the Hanseatic league and its vote at the 'Hansetag'. (Similar to a parliament, where the members usually were members of a party. ) ) Some things changed over the years. For instance, Cologne was the chief city of its circle, but during the war of the Hanseatic League against England and Burgundy (settled with the Peace of Utrecht in 1474), Cologne supported England and therefore was excluded from the league (Hanseatic term:verhanst), while Dortmund became the chief city. For such things, it's sometimes helpful, to mention a time.Henrig (talk) 10:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Wait, where does the map say "circles"? I don't see that. Also, where is that quote from? Perhaps we're not looking at the same map? The rest of the info is valuable but should have a source. Anyway, I think we have consensus to move at least Krakow and Wroclaw out of this taxonomy, both in the template and in the article text.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

And it does seem like the source calls it the "East Baltic Circle", which is more accurate, rather than "Prussia, Sweden and Livonia circle".Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

If the circles changed so much, it would be better to just describe them in general I think, and give a list of cities of Hansa, without their circles-as it would be impossible to date and verify them all. In any case, Kraków had a very loose association with Hansa, so it wasn't so closely integrated as other cities.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The references to circles doesn't seem to generally claim that the circles are official administrative organisations, and hence I think it's misguided to try to list the cities per circle, as this gives the impression that this was an official Hansa hierarchy. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I think VM is generally correct in the analysis. I'd suggest that the we discuss, in article, the different naming, with references. The list could be also more nicely formatted, adding information on the national allegiance of the towns. I think part of the problem here is that this template / list implies, at least to a casual reader, that (for example), Kraków was part of "Prussia, Livonia, Sweden", where obviously that wasn't true (it was a Kingdom of Poland's city that was also part of the "Prussia, Livonia, Sweden Hansa Circle" or such). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sourcing better references definitely makes sense. I'm not sure why you would fear a reader would think Kraków was in Prussia, Livonia or Sweden, when the template clearly says "Members of the Hanseatic League by circle", and the row headers read (eg) "Prussia, Livonia, Sweden Circle". Not only that, but the first row is the Wendish Circle, not even the name of a state.

Circle is the usual English term for subdivisions referred to in German as Kreise (such as the Imperial Circles (Reichskreise) but, if we add the contemporary political allegiance of each city (so “Lübeck, Free imperial city”, “Kraków, Kingdom of Poland” and “Breslau (now Wrocław), Kingdom of Bohemia”), then that would make it clearer that the Circles are not an indication of any city's political allegiance, then or now.

I'm sure we can find a solution that meets everyone's expectations. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 19:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that sounds goods, along with Henrig's suggestion of adding a category of 'Member cities outside these regional circle aereas' for Krakow and Wroclaw (there may be others). That works well for the article text. For the template it's a bit trickier because you don't want to clutter it with information. I would double list the "chief cities" where that changed over time though (so Cologne/Dortmund). I would also either double name "Prussia, Livonia and Sweden/East Baltic" or just go with "East Baltic" which avoids the suggestions of sovereignty.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the extra info is (desperatly) needed by the article more than the template. It is the article that I found more confusing, in fact. I'd suggest the problem can be solved by a nice table. We could even add city's CoAs and state's flags or such to make it pretty. Of course, inclusion of each city in a given circle should be referenced, and when sources differ, we should use footnotes (as distinct from references) to clarify the situation. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Remember that the source for which city is in which circle is a source that does not mention any of the circles and have a completely different subdivision than four circles. The source we have for there being four circles only mention the main cities. We can not list which cities are in which circle, because we simple have no source for this. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I spent so long looking for online sources, it completely didn't occur to me to look in the books on my shelf. The Penguin Historical Atlas of the Medieval World (ISBN 978-0-141-01449-4, p122–23) has a map listing the same four circles as the Atlas of Maritime History, with which cities were associated with each. The map is definitely still in copyright, so I can't upload it here, but I'll scan it and put it on another image host, so you can all see it. For what it's worth, the members of the circle unambiguously labelled the "Prussia, Livonia and Sweden circle" are listed as Danzig, Elbling, Thorn, Breslau, Krakow, Konigsberg, Riga, Tartu and Reval (none of which is in Sweden, making it even more confusing — Stockholm and Visby are both shown as being in the Wendish and Pomeranian circle!). The map also shows the trade routes linking these cities, which makes the membership of each circle make a little more sense. Irritatingly, the map doesn't specify at what date it is accurate, though the surrounding text suggests it's in the mid-15th century.

I completely agree with Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus that a table would make this much clearer. I haven't seen any evidence that that confusingly-named Prussia, Livonia and Sweden circle is referred to anywhere as the "East Baltic", so I have to disagree with Volunteer Marek's suggestion to use that name, but we can make the text very clear that this is not a territorial claim or an indication of sovereignty — which will be easier if we list the sovereignty of each city at the time, in any case.

I'm gonna go scan this map now, in any case, which at least provides us with a reference for membership of the circles. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The terminology of "East Baltic circle" is in the source found by Mymoloboaccount Regions and regionalism in Europe by Derek Urwin in Michael Keating, though it says "East Baltic circle embracing Prussia and Livonia".Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thank you; I hadn't seen a link for that. Anyway, I have scanned that map now: Map from The Penguin Historical Atlas of the Medieval World, so finally we have a reference for cities being in circles :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that will work as a source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

But the only Hanseatic cities that at any time was Swedish is Stockholm and Visby. And for some reason they are not a part of the Prussia, Livonia and Sweden circle. So that source can simply not be correct. I still want sources that these circles even existed as administrative concepts during the Hansa, and isn't some invention of a modern historian. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Ay, it does appear that Stockholm and Visby were "Wendish" rather than "Swedish". At least the other map has them as part of the "Swedish group".Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It's all more complicated and common sources often simplify. A table on such base would be insufficient. A somewhat complete table over timeframes would be very difficult and in my opinion perhaps impossible.

Regarding the 'circles': They had the character of political entities, which coordinated regional affairs and in some way had a bit the character of modern political parties at the 'Hansetage' (congresses of the Hanseatic League). (See my corresponding posting from yesterday). They had only in so far a bit the character of administrative tools, as they coordinated the decisions of the Hanseatic League among their members, but had also the character of a kind of subleagues and of (family(!)) parties within the Hanseatic League. The Wendish circle, for instance, even preceded the Hanseatic League of the cities and was founded by Lübeck in the early 13th century in a 'liberation' war against Danmark, which had occupied the cities during a power struggle in Germany. (It ended after a destruction(?) of Danmark's capital Copenhagen by a fleet of this league, 24 years after Lübeck's revolt.) It should also be said, that, especially before the class struggles in the 15th century, the 'Circles' and the Hanseatic League as a whole had somewhat the character of family enterprises. The Hanseatic League about 1400 was ruled by a large network of about estimated 500 families, with close family relations. These relations were especially close within the circles (but spread over the league as a whole) and the families took care, that no outsiders could participate in powership. (The possibility for outsiders was a wedding.) For instance, new city councillors were appointed by the existing City Council for their lifetime and this always was an act of policy among the families. (Among the biggest posts within the league were that of a councillor in Lübeck or of a member of the 'Kontor' in Bruegge.) The member cities of a circle had even the right of military intervention in another city of that circle, when the 'natural order' in this city was broken. This was practised in a few single cases during the class struggles in the western circles in the first half of the 15th century. (But with few success, for this struggles quickly developed into a large conflagration.)

Concerning the Swedish circle: There were Hanseatic communities within Swedish cities, which had not the power in these cities, but were members of the circle.

This as a bit of background information. Some day the article could easily be expanded a bit. (If I had the time, I would gather the necessary sources and try to add some information. But I don't have it. Therefore just a few comments here.)Henrig (talk) 10:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

@OpenFuture: The source is one of the most reputable publishers in the world, Penguin Books. I know it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, but unless we find a better source that refutes it, this is the information we have. Fwiw, there ARE Swedish cities in the Prussia/Livonia/Sweden circle — Reval (Tallinn) and Riga were both Swedish fiefs for some time. The membership of Circles definitely seems to relates to the trade routes linking the cities, which might explain "Sweden" being in that circle's name.

@Henrig: That's really useful, thank you. I'm compiling a table now (because it'll be better than the unclear, confusing and contentious information in the article at the moment), but if you could expand those notes once you do have the time, that would be very much appreciated! — OwenBlacker (Talk) 12:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You can create a incomplete list for a special time frame, based on a simplifying (and therefore potentially giving a wrong impression) source. But, for instance, you will never be able to list all the members of the Hanseatic League in a special time. Such a list was never published during the time of the Hanseatic League. After the treaty of Utrecht (1474), where England was forced to give the Hanseatic cities considerable privileges, they asked in Lübeck (the City Council was the highest representative and authorised body of the League between the 'Hansetage') for a list of the member cities. They refused to deliver such a list in order to be flexible. It has been written during the Hanse time, that at certain times, there were 70, 77 or 90 member cities. But the known names of these cities are incomplete and some towns, which claim today a former membership, really only were villages, which then were assoziated with a member town. A table should in any case mention such incompleteness.Henrig (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

@OwenBlacker: Yes, these cities was Swedish for some time during the end of the Hanseatic era, but then calling those two cities the "Swedish Circle" but not Stockholm clearly shows that the information is incorrect. There is still no indication of what it comes from, and still no source that this split into circles existed during the Hanseatic times, and isn't an invention of later historians. In addition to that, there is a completely separate split into "groups" in another source. As such, we can't list the cities in each circle, because we do not have a source that can be trusted on it, as the only source we have doesn't make sense, and is clearly incorrect. It doesn't matter how reliable the publisher is, everyone can make mistakes. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

@OpenFuture: circles existed during the Hanseatic times, and isn't an invention of later historians. It seems, you have not read my posting from 10:42 am, where I have written: The Wendish circle, for instance, even preceded the Hanseatic League of the cities and was founded by Lübeck in the early 13th century in a 'liberation' war against Danmark, which had occupied the cities during a power struggle in Germany. Sorry, that I write from my read knowledge and at the moment have not sources at hand. But this is a dicussion page and should add to some clearing of the background. I know it especially about the Wendish Circle, not about all the circles in the map. But about the important family influences in such circles and that there even existed treaties for a special military support, de facto for the purpose to secure such influences. There is no reason to assume, such circles were inventions of modern historians.Henrig (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Until we have sources, there is a reason. :-) When looking for Wendish Circle, there is indeed plenty of sources, so it clearly existed. But as you say it's earlier than the Hansa and from teh sources I rather get the feeling that this, as well as the Prussian circle, are parallel organization of cities, possibly for slightly different reasons than trade. But the article currently claims that the Hansa itself was organized into these circles. A source for that is necessary, and until one is found that section is worryingly close to original research.

This isn't helped by that every source have different circles and different cities in each circle. The Atlas map that was scanned has a completely different split into four circles, and is also at least partly incorrect, so it's not reliable. This image [10] is much better, but has nine circles. They can't both be right. And if I'm correct about the Wendish and Prussian circles being organizations in parallel to the Hansa, and not subdivisions of it, then the Swedish circle never existed, and in any case the area marked for the Swedish circle is doubtful as it covers what is modern county partitions, that didn't exist at this time. So there is just so much wrong with all the claims concerning these circles, and so much conjecture. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You point out, the complexity, I've mentioned this morning.

But the article currently claims that the Hansa itself was organized into these circles. This would be not correct so. But they were part and closely connected to the Hansa. I think, in my upper postings, I have described in detail the diverse functions of the circles. Btw., 'Circle' is just a possible English term.Henrig (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, the removal of the Administration heading means it no longer claims that Hansa was organized in circles. But if we drop that claim, then the listing by circles becomes irrelevant, and it implies that the circles was a Hanseatic organization when it is not. So unless we can find sources that *do* support this, then we should not list the cities by circle. Especially when source can't agree on what the circles where or which city was in which circle. I do not, for example, believe there ever was a Swedish circle. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

@OpenFuture: It seems you won't be satisfied by any sources that don't refute accept the cited division into Kreise (which are always translated into English as Circles in this context, compare the Reichskreise) or the existence of a Circle with "Swedish" in the name. It is amusing that you cite File:Extent of the Hansa.png as a source that proves something different to File:Extent of the Hansa.jpg, when I made the PNG map from the JPEG to looks more like other maps on Wikipedia. I'm sorry that you cannot accept that all the sources discussed here mention the Hansa being organised into Circles or that they all agree on a Swedish Circle, but your refusal to accept sources should not affect the content of an encyclopædic article. If you have better sources, of course, please do let us know so we can integrate them into the article. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 20:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this answer makes no sense. I've never claimed those two images say different things. I'll say what I aid again: You have not provided any contemporary sources that show that the Hansa was organized in circles. Those sources you have that claim there was circles do not agree on what those circles was, and at least one of those sources are obviously incorrect. I can't find any independent sources that even confirm the existence of some of these circles, as for example the Sweden circle. I still doubt that is ever existed. It seems like my requirements for sources to support these claims have now led to an impasse. That is unfortunate. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You can see in one of my upper postings, that there were Hanseatic communities in Swedish towns, which did not have the power in these towns. The merchants of these communities (not all merchants from these towns) had the same status like a merchant from a Hansa town). This 'Swedish Circle' (the special interest group of the communities) was more a baby circle like a small political party compared with big parties.Henrig (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The question is if the Swedish circle even existed. I have not seen it mentioned anywhere else. All of my criticism above still stands. I haven't misunderstood anything, I'm quite aware of Hanseatic history, especially in regards to Visby. The only way you will be able to convince me that there are sources that support the articles current claims and implications about these circles is to show those sources. Until then, that section is original research. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

No, my confusion is over your insistence that any of the sources is "obviously incorrect". I'm sorry, but I'm far more likely to believe Penguin Books and several sources that are quite certain of the existence of a Swedish Circle than a single Wikipedia user who doesn't want to believe it. I am currently working on a replacement to the "Members of the Hanseatic League" section, which will replace the current unreferenced content, but that the sources all disagree with you does not make them original research, I'm afraid. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 10:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The sources more importantly disagree with each other, and to then present something that neither of the sources independently presents is original research. And this is what is currently done in the article. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Drittel vs Kreise

The new edits claim that the Hansa was split up in "drittels", i.e. thirds, although that there was more than three thirds. Looking for sources for this was way more constructive than searching for Kreise, and here we hav for example such simple things as the german Wikipedia page, that claims the Hansa was first split into thirds, and then fourths, corroborated by several other sources, and most importantly, actual Hanseatic documents. As such, the charter of Bruges from 1347 clearly lists the thirds that at that time was relevant, namely the Wendish and Saxon towns, the Wesphalian and Prussian towns, and the Gotlandian, Livonian and Swedish towns. It does not list which towns are included, unfortunately.

some sources say the split into quarters was in 1554, but Das Völkerrecht der deutschen Hanse, actually refers to the 1554 Charter of the London Kontor, that lists all cities and it's groups, which are in fact ten. I haven't been able to find the original document online, so I don't know if the document is using the term Kreis[e] or not.

All of this, shows that first of all, the Hansa organization into circles/drittel/whatever was not fixed, and can't be presented as such. Secondly, none of these original documents agree with any of the used sources on what the organization was. We have to do something else here. Perhaps we should organize the list of cities after it's most widely accepted year of entry into the Hansa, instead. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The two sources for the 1554 revision of the circles are both good and correct, they only seemingly contradict each other:

• the 1554 division into revised Drittel, as printed in [Das Völkerrecht der deutschen Hanse], was used by the depot in London (1) for the purpose of electing the depot's leading council and Ältermänner and (2) to have an official Hanse document enabling them to claim rights for the merchant present there, who all were from towns on the list, in case those rights were denied by the English administration (it was the time when the Hanse depot in London faced many attempts to restrict the old privileges). These purposes are mentioned in the linked source, pages 56 and 57 as printed (is pages 19 and 20 in the pdf numbering).
• the 1554 division into quarters was a general re-organization of the Hanse circles, it was hoped that this would ease and enhance collaboration on local levels, as the new division reduced the circles' heterogenity. As a source, we have the article you linked [11] (have not checked myself but I trust you with that) and Fritze et al. (1985): Die Geschichte der Hanse, p. 217: "Den Bemühungen um eine Reorganisation des Hansebundes von außen, von den Kontoren her, folgten auch Versuche vor allem seit der Mitte des 16. Jahrhunderts, die hansische Gemeinschaft von innen zu festigen. So wurde, um eine straffere Organisation zu erreichen, vom Jahre 1554 an eine erneute Einteilung der Hansestädte in vier Quartiere vorgenommen" ["The efforts for a re-organization of the Hanseatic league from outside, i.e. from the depots, were followed by attempts especially since the mid-16th cty. to consolidate the Hanseatic community from inside. Thus, to achieve a more efficient form of organization, a new subdivision of the Hanseatic towns into four quarters was implemented from 1554 onwards"].

So what happened in 1554 were in fact two distinct re-organizations: one into revised Drittel for internal purposes of the London depot, and one re-structuring of the Hanseatic Drittel into quarters for the purpose of enhancing local collaboration of the league members and thus making the legue more efficient.

Regarding the translation of "circle": Circle(s) is just an English rendering of the German terms "Drittel", "Quartier(e)" and "Klasse(n)" (plural in brackets), the term "Kreis(e)", which is the literal translation of "circle(s)", was afaik not used. While Drittel and Quartier mostly describe definite entities, the term Klasse is more ambiguous and was used as a substitute for Drittel and Quartier as well as for denoting subgroups thereof.

Skäpperöd (talk) 08:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Now we are getting somewhere. This is starting to make sense. The term "circle" for the subdivisions is apparently ambiguous, which explains some of the confusion, and I think we should avoid it. We can expand the part about the Hansa organization based on these sources, and the list of cities still needs to be subdivided in some other way. It seems that possibly the drittel and quartiere are collcetions of other subdivisions (groups/klasse). Possibly these are more stable. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I compared the London Charter list and the Extent of the Hansa map, and these "Groups" look reasonably stable, except for in the Netherlands area, where apparently several groups in 1554 are mentioned as just one group in the "Extent of Hansa"-map. Also, some cities seem to have changed group, but it's not that many. The "Extent of Hansa"-map has one problem: It's very hard to determine what cities is actually part of the Hansa, as the difference to non-Hansa cities are just slight variations in the thickness of the typeface. We can't therefore use it as a source for what cities was members, but we can use it as a source for the grouping, once we decide what to do about the Netherlands-area. I think the Penguin Atlas can be disregarded, it claims that Wroclaw and Krakow was part of the Prussia circle, which as discussion above has shown is highly doubtful, and it claims Stockholm and Visby was a part of the Wendish and Pomeranian circle, which certainly never was true, and I also have string doubts about it's claim that Prague was a part of the same circle. In fact, to my knowlede, Stockhom was never a Hansa town, and I don't think Prague was either. I don't think we can use that map as a source at all, it seems wildly incorrect. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)