Polish maps
Poland has an interesting history of shifting borders. I will start off this thread quickly and post a few before I go out in the sun. No doubt others here will have better resources to share.
Piast dynasty, around 1020:
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (greatest extent of Poland), 1635:
How Poland's borders changed after World War II:
The areas were Polish/Kashubian (yellow) were being spoken during the 1920's
Here is a very good website which allows you to see how Polish borders changed throughout centuries:
http://www.polskiedzieje.pl/mapy-granic-polski/
Here is a map of Slavic world after expansion, in IX-X century:
Lechitic tribes, to which Poles belong, descending mostly from Sukow-Dziedzice spoke the same language at that time and marked by purple(?). Czechoslovakians and Moravians, descending from Prague-Korchak are marked by yellow. The Luastian-Serbian group is marked by green.
1. This is, more less, the initial range of the Piast dynasty state in IX, early X century:
2. Pagan Poland in X century, ruled by duke Mieszko I. Civitas Schinesghe (dark red) were the lands inherited by Mieszko from his ancestors Siemomysl and Lestek:
The rest was conquered by the duke in late X century. There is however some dispute as to the East Pomerania. It is unclear if it belonged to the Piast dynasty prior to Mieszko's reign. Many scholars think it did and so include East Pomerania in the ducal domain:
4. Poland in XI century under Boleslaw Chrobry and his son Mieszko II Lambert:
5. Poland in XI century under Kazimierz Odnowiciel, Boleslaw II and Wladyslaw I Herman:
6. Poland in XII century under Boleslaw III the Wrymouth:
Boleslaw III restored East Pomerania, which belonged to Poland in X-XI century during Mieszko's I, Boleslaw Chrobry and Mieszko II reign. He also conquered West Pomerania, and Warcislaw I, Pomeranian duke of the Gryfite dynasty became his vassal. Later, Boleslaw divided his kingdom into all of his sons, splitting it into several principalities - this would have a major impact on Polish history.
8. Boleslaw's III will, and division of Poland in XII century:
Divided Polish principalities in the XIIIth century:
After the division, Duchy of West Pomerania became independent, while East Pomerania became a province of the dukes of Cracow. However, it became independent due to the gradual erosion of the ducal power in 1227 and was rulet until 1294 by a local Sobiesławice dynasty - very likely related to West Pomeranian Gryfites and Polish Piasts. The division established the chief provinces of Poland:
1. Masovia - Mazowsze
2. Greater Poland - Wielkopolska
3. Lesser Poland - Malopolska
4. Śląsk - Silesia
The first 3 are historically the most important Polish provinces and have been part of Poland for most of their history. 2 and 3 were quite stably inherited from generation to generation. Masovia was by and large made of 1-3 principalities for most of its history. In XIV century it became a vassal of the Kingdom of Poland (mad chiefly of 2 and 3) ruled by a related branch of Masovian Piasts. In 1520 it was incorporated into Poland. However in case of 4 (Silesia) the divisions advanced much more rapidly and soon in XIV century Silesia was split into a dozen of different, weak principalities - all of them highly dependent on the Czech monarchy. These Piast states were gradually incorporated to the Czech crown, but some of them existed until second half of XVII century when the last of the Piasts died, leaving his domain in the hands of Habsburgs who were ruling neighbouring Bohemia. A good website with maps of early Silesian principalities:
http://www.piastowie.kei.pl/piast/mapy.htm
I also found another map - "The Western Slavs":
The two little "states" in Poland are: the IX-X century Piast state, in Greater Poland. And also, more to the South, on the upper Vistula and near the border with the Czecho-Moravo-Slovakian group (yellow), a state of the "Wislanie" tribe (ruled by a pagan duke), which was mentioned by early Czech sources.
Last edited by Jarl; 06-03-2009 at 09:37 AM.
Why Greater Poland (Wielkopolska) is Greater and Smaller Poland (Malopolska) is Smaller?
These terms were Polonia Minor and Maior. Polonia Maior dates back to XIII century. Apparently in a document from June, 1257, duke Bolesław Pobożny (the Pious) titled himself as "dux Polonie Maioris", most likely to emphasise he was the ruler of the original Piast domain. In this context the word meant more less "old" and was used to refer to the heartland of Poland. Polonia minor was coined later. Most likely in XIV century, when duke Wladyslaw Lokietek united most of the Polish provinces restoring the kingdom. Initially he ruled only two domains - Polonia Maior, and the Cracow domain whose name was then, as a result of unification, changed to Polonia Minor.Originally Posted by Hors
It is also worth mentioning that according to Constantinus Porphyrogennetus, Orosius, Dalimilova kronika and several other sources in Southern Poland (which means Polonia minor) and West Ukraine there existed the state of White Croatia between VI-X centuries. The "Wislane" state in Descriptio civitatum et regionum ad septentrionalem plagam Danubii written by the Bavarian monk most likely refers to White Croatia:
It must have been formed as a part of Prague-Korchak culture (temporo-spatial coincidence, Serb-link etc.) and remained wihtin Greater Moravia sphere of influence. Later annexed by Mieszko I and incorporated to Poland. On the map above it is marked as "Chrobatia".
Last edited by Jarl; 06-01-2009 at 03:27 PM.
In ancient geographyy the term "smaller" is applied usually to the original land, and the term "greater" is applied to extension of territories/colonies. For example, Small/Little and Great Russia, Small and Great Greece, Asia minor etc.
Apparently in case of Greater-Lesser Poland it was the other way round. At least that's how several Polish scholars see it. Definitely Polonia Maior appears long before Polonia Minor.
Anyway, here is Poland in XIV century:
The darker color marks the state of Wladyslaw Lokietek - the first king after unification of Poland. All remaining lands marked by red color were incorporated by his son - Kazimierz Wielki (the Great). These lands were mostly called Ruś Czewrona ("Red Ruthenia") and encompassed Ruthenian duchies of Halicz and Włodzimierz (so called "Ruś Halicko-Włodzimierska") (later changed by Austrians to bizarre "Galizia-Lodomeria"). In the North, Kazimierz annexed some lands from New Marchy to prevent its linking up with the domains of the Teutonic Order. Kazimierz also made the Masovian Piasts his vassals. He nonetheless failed to subjugate Silesian Piasts thanks to the Czech protectorate.
Łokietek lost East Pomerania to Teutonic Order in 1308-1309. It would remain in its hands until 1466.
The terms Malorossiya and Velikorossiya long postdate the expansion of Kievan rule, and make no reference to age or primacy. The little one was simply that part that had fallen out of Russian control and was reunited as a small appendage.
Asia Minor is not an area from which greater Asia grew or was conquered, its name refers only to its geography - the fact that it's a smallish peninsula sticking out westwards from the main landmass. The name Asia does seem to derive from the name of the small Anatolian kingdom 'Asuwa', but that fact was probably not foremost in the mind of the man who coined the later term Asia Minor.
Your Magna Graecia comments holds more water. However, there was no such thing as a uniform set of rules in 'ancient geography', for there were many ancient geographies.
Great Britain, incidentally, is the older partner, from which Britannia Minor - Bretagne/Breizh/Britanny - was colonised.
Beckery in Wiltshire has a surprising Gaelic etymology. Bec Eriu means Little Ireland, and was named by Irish monks in the pre Conquest period of our history - before 1066.
Colour terms are a fascinating part of old toponymy - there've been Red Russias, White ones, even Black ones, and this is long before 1917. The parallels with Altaic terms are intriguing. Have you heard much about this sort of thing, Khors?
Last edited by Osweo; 06-03-2009 at 01:00 AM.
And what's wrong with it?
Mr. Knowlittle strikes againThe little one was simply that part that had fallen out of Russian control and was reunited as a small appendage.
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%...83%D1%81%D1%8C
Prooflink?Asia Minor is not an area from which greater Asia grew or was conquered, its name refers only to its geography - the fact that it's a smallish peninsula sticking out westwards from the main landmass.
Not Greek tradition area.Great Britain, incidentally, is the older partner, from which Britannia Minor - Bretagne/Breizh/Britanny - was colonised.
They terms initially designated geographical directions: north, south, east, west.Colour terms are a fascinating part of old toponymy - there've been Red Russias, White ones, even Black ones, and this is long before 1917. The parallels with Altaic terms are intriguing. Have you heard much about this sort of thing, Khors?
В течение XIV—XVI веков наряду с прежним названием Русь (Россия) в источниках появляются новые - для обозначения двух ее частей: подчиненной Золотой Орде Великой Руси и оккупированной поляками и литовцами Малой Руси. Малая Русь и Великая Русь, произошли от греческих названий Μικρά Ρωσία — Микра Росиа и Μακρά Ρωσία — Макра Росиа, которые использовались в церковно-административной практике Византии с начала XIV в.
Why do I bother?
"From the 14th to 16th Centuries, two new names appear in sources, alongside the traditional 'Rus' or 'Rossia', to signify two parts: Great Russia under the Golden Horde, and Little Russia occupied by Polaks and Lithuanians. These come from Greek Byzantine sources of the early 14th Century."[/QUOTE]
Does that really go against what I said? The MAIN bit, and the other bit, that was retaken later...
My eyeballs, and common sense.Prooflink?
And Poland is? You just said 'Ancient Geography', not Greek. Be more accurate, if you insist on being such a pedant with other people's posts.Not Greek tradition area.
IF they were Turkic influenced, but that wasn't always the case. I've heard black and white also refer to 'free' and 'unfree'.They terms initially designated geographical directions: north, south, east, west.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Polska
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks