Talk:Bolesław III Wrymouth

Untitled

Who is he? King or something?

---

Boleslaus III or Boleslaw III Wrymouth, was duke of Poland. Between 1079 (+ Boleslaus II) and 1295, Bohemia/ Poland kings, there were only dukes of Poland. See dates on top of list of rulers. H.J.

judith of bohemia

I am confused about this reference because, while I do have Judith of Bohemia as his mother, I don't have Henry III as her father. I think Henry III is the father of Judith of Swabia, Ladislaus Herman's second wife (and Boleslaus III's stepmother).

Why Wrymouth?

Where does the nickname Wrymouth come from?

In the original Polish, "Krzywousty." He apparently had a "wry" ("krzywo-", "crooked") "mouth" ("-usty"). logologist|Talk 08:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Someone please check Wikipedia Boleslaw III Wrymouth

Bolesław III Wrymouth

In 1135, Bolesław gave a tribute to Emperor Lothair II (Lothar von Supplinburg) and the emperor received from Boleslaw parts of Western Pomerania and Rügen as fiefs. (the emperor received from Boleslaw a fief ??? Very odd) An Observer 15.6.2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.68.253 (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Rügen, Western Pomerania

Both were not included in Bogislaw's realm; Western Pomerania as it is used here is not the same as Western Pomerania as used in Poland, but refers to Hither Pomerania. That Rügen was given to Boleslaw as a fief in 1135 by the emperor who then did not even control it is already stated in the article, but should not be boosted as it was practically meaningless (neither the emperor nor Boleslaw asserted any control there, Rügen was only defeated in 1168 by the Danes). Skäpperöd (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Rather than doing Original Research we go with what the sources say. If you have sources which describe the situation as you describe it then please use them and elaborate in the text. Also, if they are in German and offline, please provide a translation of the relevant text.radek (talk) 17:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Radeks, of the sources you presented, the first one is a reference to an old wikipedia version that says "In their meeting in Merseburg 1135 duke Boleslaus III and the emperor Lothar II have agreed that Pomerania and Rugen will be the fiefs of Poland." This is true, but does not mean Rügen was controlled by either the emperor or Boleslaw. The 1979 source you presented [1] says "... in 1335 paid hommage to the emperor for the right on Western Pomerania and Rügen, on which the Polish duke aimed to establish himself against Danish influence." This is correct, but does not source that Boleslaw actually held Rügen, which was never the case. Remember that both the emperor and Boleslaw did not live another three years after they made that agreement. And there is really no need here to bring on sources older than that. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the 1979 source above, other modern sources also point out that Boleslaw did not hold Rügen:

• Jan M Piskorski, Pommern im Wandel der Zeit, 1999, ISBN 839061848: (German version, this book is also available in Polish)
  • Quote p.43: "Als Boleslaw 1135 in Merseburg vor dem Kaiser den Lehnseid ablegte, galt dieser [...] sogar Rügen, das nicht unterworfen worden war". "The oath Boleslaw gave to the emperor in Merseburg in 1135 was [..] even for Rügen, which had not been subdued."
• Norbert Buske, Pommern, Helms Schwerin 1997, ISBN 3-931185-07-9:
  • Quote p.11: "Mit der Eroberung des Peenegebietes, das nicht zum polnischen Einflußgebiet gehörte, gewann Wartislaw, der Fürst der Pommern, eine beachtliche Selbständigkeit." "With the conquest of the Peene area, which was not part of the Polish sphere of influence, Wartislaw, duke of Pomerania, gained significant independence."
  • Quote p.12: "1168 [...] war das Ende der ranischen Selbständigkeit gekommen." "1168 [...] the end of Rani independence had come."
• Kyra Inachim, Die Geschichte Pommerns, Hinstorff Rostock, 2008, ISBN 978-3-356-01044-2:
  • Quote p.17: "Das Interesse Waldemars richtete sich insbesondere auf das Siedlungsgebiet der Ranen, die nördlich des Ryck und auf Rügen siedelten und die sich bislang gegen Eroberer und Christianisierungsversuche gewehrt hatten." "Waldemar's interessed focussed on the territory of the Rani, who settled north of the Ryck and on Rügen, and who had so far resisted attempts of conquest and Christianization."

Skäpperöd (talk) 05:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Pomeranian bishopric subordinate to Gniezno?

This is also untrue, and it is backed up here by good sources that the bishopric was put directly under the Holy See and not subordinate to Gniezno. The first source [2] is only a list of dioceses established since 1000 AD, and does not mention subordination of Wolin to Gniezno. The second source [3] actually says it "did not remain in the province of Gniezno for long", without going into further detail. Here a comparison to the other sources would be suitable, and not the establishment of this "fact" in the lead. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The first source specifically refers to them as "Polish" bishoprics, hence they would obviously be subordinated to the archbishopric of Gniezno. The second source does state that the Kamien bishops acquired independence from Gniezno and were directly put under the Pope in 1188 - but originally, along with the other bishoprics, they were subordinate to Gniezno.radek (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I've read about it some time ago and I'm unable to provide the full bibliography now, but as far as I remember, the situation was following. When the see of Wolin was established, the archbishops of Gniezno considered it as their suffragan diocese and, as long as Poland retained the control over Pommern (until ca. 1181), they actually exercised metropolitan jurisdiction over it; additionally, bishops of Wolin (later of Kamień) participated in the Polish provincial councils (for the last time in 1180, see Paweł Jasienica, Polska Piastów, Warszawa 1979, p. 175). However, the metropolitan rights of Gniezno were never formally confirmed by the Holy See due to similar pretensions of the archbishops of Magdeburg. The quarrel between Gniezno and Magdeburg lasted over forty years and was finally resolved by the pope Clement III in 1188 by the privilege of exemtion for the see of Kamień. Before that date (or, more accurate, before 1181), it can be said that diocese of Wolin (Kamień) was actually subordinated to Gniezno, but only de facto, not de iure.CarlosPn (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I can provide quotes from three relatively new books on Pomeranian history all saying there was no such subordinance:

• Jan M Piskorski, Pommern im Wandel der Zeit, 1999, ISBN 839061848: (German version, this book is also available in Polish)
  • Quote p.47: "...gelang es ihm [Otto] nicht, ein pommersches Bistum ins Leben zu rufen - vermutlich eine Folge der Kompetenzstreitigkeiten zwischen den Erzbistümern Gnesen und Magdeburg." "...[Otto]] did not succeed in creating a Pomeranian diocese, most probably because of the conflict between the archdioceses of Gniezno and Magdeburg for competence."
  • Quote p.49: ""Schließlich entschied der Pabst die Frage der Zugehörigkeit und unterstellte das Bistum Cammin - sicherlich mit Zustimmung des pommerschen Klerus - direkt Rom." "Finally the pope decided the question of subordinance and placed the Cammin bishopric - sure in the interest of the Pomeranian clergy - directly under Rome."
• Kyra Inachim, Die Geschichte Pommerns, Hinstorff Rostock, 2008, ISBN 978-3-356-01044-2:
  • Quote p.15: "Zunächst waren die kirchlichen Verhältnisse noch ungeordnet, da sowohl Gnesen als auch Magdeburg Ansprüche auf die neue Kirchenprovinz erhoben. Erst nach dem Tod des Pommernapostels Otto von Bamberg (1139) bestätigte Papst Innozenz II 1140 das pommersche Landesbistum und unterstellte die Pomeraniae ecclesia dem Schutz des Heiligen Petrus. Es entstand ein unabhängiges pommersches Bistum mit Sitz in Wollin (Jumne)." "In the beginning, the ecclesial matters were still unsolved, because each Gnesen and Magdeburg pronounced claims on the new ecclesial province. Only after the death of Otto of Bamberg (1139) pope Innocent II confirmed the Pomeranian state bishopric and put the Pomeraniae ecclesia under the protection of the Holy Peter. An independent bishopric emerged with the see in Wollin (Jumne)."
  • Quote p.16: "1188 wurde schließlich Pommern als exemptes Bistum unmittelbar der römischen Kirche unterstellt und genoß damit eine außergewöhnliche rechtliche Selbstständigkeit. Damit waren die konkurrierenden Ansprüche der Erzbistümer Gnesen und Magdeburg beseitigt." "In 1188, Pomerania was finally put directly under the Roman church as an exempt bishopric and thus enjoyed an extraordinary judical independence. With this, the conflicting claims of the archdioceses of Gnesen and Magdeburg were annihilated."
• Norbert Buske, Pommern, Helms Schwerin 1997, ISBN 3-931185-07-9:
  • Quote p.14: "...erhoben sowohl das Erzbistum Gnesen [...] als auch das Erzbistum Magdeburg [...] Ansprüche auf das pommersche Gebiet. Die pommersche Kirche blieb deshalb zunächst unter der unmittelbaren Aufsicht von Bamberg." "...upheld the archdiocese of Gnesen [...] as well as the archdiocese of Magdeburg [...] claims on the Pomeranian territory. The Pomeranian church therefore initially remained under direct supervision of Bamberg."
  • Quote p.15: "Als 1188 die feierliche päpstliche Anerkennung der Verlegung des Bischofssitzes erfolgte, wurde die exempte Stellung des Bistums, die sich inzwischen herausgebildet hatte, bestätigt. Das in der Folgezeit als Bistum Kammin bezeichnete pommersche Bistum war damit unmittelbar dem Papst unterstellt und unabhängig gegenüber den benachbarten Erzbistümern. Es war ihnen unter diesem Gesichtspunkt etwa gleichgestellt." "When in 1188 the ritual papal approval of the move of the bishopric's see took place, the exempt position of the bishopric, that had evolved in the meantime, was confirmed. The bishopric Kammin, as it was thence addressed, by this [confirmation] was subordinate directly to the pope and independent from the neighboring archdioceses. It was in this respect in a position about equal to them."

Skäpperöd (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

@Skäpperöd - I think that the accounts you've placed above generally do not contradict what I've written - certainly Gniezno never obtained the privilege of metropolitan jurisdiction over Pommern. But the links of this diocese with Polish ecclesiestical province and the participation of Pommernian bishops in the Polish provincial councils until 1180 are undeniable - these links resulted from the political situation of the Pommern (at the time a fief of Poland), were not formally sanctioned by the Holy See but existed. That's why I've written that this see belonged to the province of Gniezno only de facto, not de iure, and I think that this is the best description of the actually unsolved status of this diocese between 1140 and ca.1180 CarlosPn (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

@Carlos: I agree that the Pomeranian and Gniezno clergy were in close contact. The dispute is about this line (verbatim): "the Polish archbishopric of Gniezno which added into its structures new Pomeranian diocese" which as shown above is not the case here. I also disagree with the duration of the dependence of the secular Pomeranian dukes from their Polish counterparts you mentioned above - with Boleslaw's death, that was about it. Thus I think the premise of your argument (Polish secular province = de facto Polish ecclesial province) does not work here. But I can only second my comment above that I do not dispute that there were in fact close contacts between the Pomeranian clergy (including the bishops) and their Gniezno counterparts. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not an expert on the political history of Pommern of that time, maybe you're right that after death of Bolesław it can not longer be said abouyt its dependence on Poland. But I can't agree with your statement that I've written that Pommern was part of Polish ecclesiestical province because it belonged to Polish secular province - I've written only that very strong religious links of Pommern and Poland (which I believe appeared from political links - but I've remarked I'm not an expert on political history, so maybe I'm wrong here), particularly participation of Pommern bishops in Polish provincial ecclesiestical councils justified the statement that it de facto belonged to the ecclesiestical province of Gniezno until ca. 1180. The term de facto concerns the situation not formally settled - and here I agree with you - diocese of Wolin-Kamień formally was never subordinated to Gniezno. Best regards CarlosPn (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Carlos' broad sources make it clear that officially the Kamien, Wolin and other bishoprics were subordinate to Gniezno as the text in the article read before Skapperod removed it based on OR. If needed a line can be added to indicate that the Kamien bishops' status was disputed and that they enjoyed a good deal of de facto autonomy until being declared independent in 1181. However the sentence still applies to the other bishoprics.radek (talk) 09:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Carlos presented one source, stating that the Pomeranian clergy met with the Gniezno clergy in 1180 (and I can confirm that with more recent sources) and not that the Pomeranian diocese was "officially" part of the Gniezno one. In addition, I presented three modern sources on Pomeranian history that say there was no such subordinance. Also, it was 1188 and not 1181. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The statement that Wolin formally was never subordinated to Gniezno is supported also by the work of Gerard Labuda, Marian Biskup, Historia dyplomacji polskiej, PWN 1980, vol. 3, p. 123 CarlosPn (talk) 11:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC

Ok, so the Polish bishopric at Wolin-Kamien was de jeure subordinated to Gniezno until 1188 (pardon the typo) but de facto enjoyed a good deal of autonomy. After 1188 the de facto status was made de jeure as well. I believe this still leaves the Lubusz bishopric. Why not write it in the article in this, neutral, way which reflects what the sources say, rather than try to present the situation in some other, pov, way (i.e. emphasize one aspect over another)?radek (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Please again review the sources, your above conclusion is not what they say. There was no subordination, there were mutual contacts with Gniezno (as there were with Magdeburg, remember that the see of the Pomeranian diocese was the Magdeburg off-set Grobe Abbey before it was moved to Cammin). Gniezno and Magdeburg both tried to establish a subordination, but neither one succeeded. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Change categories' sort orders

I hope nobody objects; I've changed the default sort order in the categories. It had been set to sort as Wrymouth, Bolesław III. At least in Category:House of Piast it makes more sense--and is more consistent with the bulk of the other entries--to have it sort as Bolesław. If anybody feels that it should be the other way in some other category, perhaps they could change it for that particular category, rather than across the board. 71.126.140.136 (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

???

Re [4] and [5]. There is no reason what so ever to put in the German translation of the guy's name here. Was he German? No. Is this German Wikipedia? No. All he did is fight some Germans (and allied with others).

As to the justification that he was the first to settle the German lands of Mecklenburg/Obodrite regions it's both incorrect and specious. It is specious because, well, so what? Even if it was true, that's simply not reason enough to put in the German translation of his name here. Should I go through and add in Polish name translations to all the Holy Emperors, border Dukes and other nobles simply because they sent some colonists into "Polish lands of Silesia and Pomerania"? And it is incorrect because the Mecklenburg/Obodrite region, at the time of Wrymouth was simply not "German lands". It was not inhabited by Germans. And the control over the lands was contested between local rulers, Wrymouth and German nobles - indeed, the fact you got the "Obodrite" in there pretty clearly indicates this.

Removing this as it simply does not belong in the article.Volunteer Marek 15:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Augustus II the Strong which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Depiction

@Surtsicna: - I was wondering whether this depiction of Boleslaus III in Chronica Polonorum would be appropriate enough for a placement in the article? Regards. Merangs (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Merangs, I would be cautious. It depicts him in 16th-century armour and what appears to be a beret. It might be appropriate in a legacy section with a caption to warn the reader, but there is no such section. That said, I do not think it can do much to improve any part of the article. Surtsicna (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. I do agree. It is a real shame that such an important Piast figure like Boleslaus III does not have a depiction featured in the article. After all, not every country had its own Matthew Paris and Historia Anglorum. Merangs (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

internal affairs of... Russia?

What Russia? There was no Russia before Peter the Great. Should be changed to Rus' (now known as Ukraine).