Category talk:Former duchies of the Kingdom of Bohemia
 | Czech Republic Category‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
This category is absurd[edit]
Listed Silesian duchies weren't part of the Kingdom of Bohemia! Except short period 1289–1305 & 1327–1348 when these states were adjoined to Bohemia as fiefs, since April 7, 1348 there were established as part of higher entity: the Crown of Bohemia, a commonwealth-type state. Although the Kingdom had a privileged position (Head of the Crown), its territorial scope was actually reduced to Bohemia proper, so the only autonomous regions that were directly subjected to Bohemia were the Egerland and County of Kladsko.
Other Czech/Bohemian lands – Moravia, Bishopric of Olomouc, Opavian Silesia, Silesia (divided into many duchies), Upper Lusatia, Lower Lusatia – weren't included in Bohemia (there weren't duchies and lands of the Bohemian Kingdom) but with this country formed the Crown. It is similar e.g. to the case of Scotland in relation to England and Kingdom of Great Britain.
The author of this nonsensical category, PANONIAN, once again demonstrated he doesn't understand this matter – while he enforces to organize the categories about historical regions according to him... --Iaroslavvs (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- If I do not "understand the matter" then please be so kind to explain it to me. How exactly these duchies were "historically Czech"? First you claimed that they were "historically Czech" because they were part of Czech state and now you claiming that they didn't. So, please decide what of these two things you will claim and please say what thing exactly make these duchies "Czech"? PANONIAN 20:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- This discussion begins to remind me a child's quarrel... Tell me please, do You understand the differences and mutual relations between these lands/states? (Just examples.)
|
United Provinces (later the Netherlands) |
Crown of Castile (later Kingdom of Spain) |
|
• |
• |
• |
• |
- If not, then we cannot talk each other. If yes, so what is Your problem? This category has a wrong (because anachronistic and historical/geographical mistaken) name. End of story.
- P.S. As for relations "Duchy/Kingdom of Bohemia-Crown of Bohemia-other Crown countries (including Silesia)" – for better visualization also see this map (Królestwo Czech is pictured in yellow). --Iaroslavvs (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- I just asked you according to what exactly these territories are "Czech" regions? I have historical atlas of Europe published by Times Books in 2002 where in the map that show year 1430 there is state named "Lands of the Bohemian crown" and this state include these Silesian duchies. In another map that show 14th century, Silesian duchies are described as "vassals of the Crown of Bohemia". So, I really do not see how category named "Former duchies of the Kingdom of Bohemia" could be wrong? PANONIAN 11:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- I just repeat, that You write about something You don't understand. Your incomprehension is bothering me.
- For the last time:
- Czech is modern equivalent of Bohemian (Cimmerian praetor already told You this fact here – see his entry at 17:55, 10 March).
- Kingdom of Bohemia (1198–1348/1918) and Crown of Bohemia (1348–1749/1918) are two different entities. (Cf. the examples above.)
- As for territories of Silesia, Kladsko land and Lusatia – there are "Czech" from two point of views: a) these lands were (in various time periods and territorial scale) either parts of Duchy of Bohemia (c. 888–1198) or parts of Kingdom of Bohemia or fiefs of this kingdom or fiefs of the Crown of Bohemia; b) Kladsko land, part of Upper Lusatia and some Upper Silesian duchies were – and partially still are – inhabited by Czech-speaking people or by people with Czech roots. (The first aspect (i.e. historical statehood) is much more important in case of historical regions categories.) These are objective facts – without any nationalism, irredentism or "eternal claims".
- If You call for precise, undoubted categorization then You can't summarize 4 types of statehood and mutual relations under the name only one of them. On the other side, proper rightly detailed listing of all categories (i.e., in this case: Former duchies of the Duchy of Bohemia, Former duchies of the Kingdom of Bohemia, Former fiefs of the Kingdom of Bohemia, Former duchies of the Crown of Bohemia), will causes another problem: Wikipedia will be plagued by numerous redundant categories... Is it desirable?
- Understand? --Iaroslavvs (talk) 23:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- I just asked you according to what exactly these territories are "Czech" regions? I have historical atlas of Europe published by Times Books in 2002 where in the map that show year 1430 there is state named "Lands of the Bohemian crown" and this state include these Silesian duchies. In another map that show 14th century, Silesian duchies are described as "vassals of the Crown of Bohemia". So, I really do not see how category named "Former duchies of the Kingdom of Bohemia" could be wrong? PANONIAN 11:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Well if term "Kingdom of Bohemia" is wrong, why so many sources are using this term and Why we have an article about it? Perhaps you can be so kind to explain these two things. Anyway, you did not said what name you would use for this category. Please provide some renaming proposal. You cannot just say that name of a category is wrong without of proposing some alternative. Speaking about Silesia, Kladsko land and Lusatia, if they were administrative units of Bohemia then we should have separate articles about these administrative units and these articles should be connected to former Bohemian state. Geographical articles about modern regions are having no any connection with any Czech state and cannot be located in any Czech-related category. The fact that some ethnic Czechs live in these regions is irrelevant because there are many Czechs in USA, but that is not reason that we describe USA as "Czech region". In fact, number of ethnic Czechs in USA is significantly greater than number of Czechs in Poland or Germany, but obvious reason why you do not claiming USA as "Czech region" is because you have no illusions that USA can become a part of the Czech state in the future. However, seems that you have such illusions in relation to parts of Poland and Germany and that is very bad thing. In the 21st century Europe we should seek peace with our neighbors and we should not claims parts of their countries as our own. Every land belong only to people who live in that land and there is no state, nation or ethnic group that have "historical right" to anything. Every opposite claim is nationalistic and Wikipedia is not obligated to support propagandist claims that aiming to establish false "historical rights" of one nation or ethnicity over another one. So called "Czech historical rights" cannot be an exception from this in any way. If Czech state had larger territory in the past that should be noted in appropriate article about that state and if it organized some administrative units in some territories that are today part of Poland or Germany then we should have separate articles about these administrative units and we should connect these articles with historical Czech state. But, modern geographical units that are entirely located outside of the Czech Republic are factually unrelated to any "Czech" category, so attempt to include them into some category that will glorify so called "Czech historical rights" would be nothing but nationalistic forgery. As for your last sentence, if some of the duchies that I included into this category were not "duchies of the Kingdom of Bohemia" but rather "duchies/fiefs of the Duchy of Bohemia/Crown of Bohemia" then we can move such articles to new parent category named "Former administrative units of Bohemia", which can cover all these subjects. Just tell me which of the duchies should not be categorized as "Former duchies of the Kingdom of Bohemia"? PANONIAN 06:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)