Talk:Vytautas the Great
False Name of Vitovt the Great
The fictional name Vytautas is the form used in the modern day Lithuania, a country ethnically, linguistically, and geographically different from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL). GDL consisted of lands of Belarus, some parts of Ukraine, Russia, and Poland. The present day Lithuania was a small North-Western portion of this land.
During the life of Vytautas his actual name was Vitovt Alexander, as the dominant language in the Grand Duchy was the old version of Belarusian. The version Vytautas was invented by Lithuanian historians in the beginning of the 20th century as an attempt to show connection between GDL and today's Lithuania.
Thus, this article violates the neutrality principle, and abuses feelings of Belarusians and Ukrainians who claim Vitovt the Great as their Duke. Though I do not deny the right to call Vitovt Vytautas in the modern Lithuanian, this version cannot be used in the multi-national Wikipedia as his official name. Max Kanowski 04:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it is not as simple as you make it seem. There are many names for this person: Polish, Ruthenian, Belarusian, Russia, Ukrainian ones - and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania under this ruler incorporated lands of every of those nations or their part. All names are written in bold at the start of the article, redirects exists from each of the names to this article. Because there are many names, we cannot just pick one - of course, Poles will want to pick the Polish name, Belarusians - Belarusian, Lithuanians - Lithuanian and so on. Instead, we have to see what name is more applicable, and, as it is *English* wikipedia, what name is more used. Now, in Google for example, your proposed name Vitovt receives only 23.500 hits (most of them non-English), Vitovt Alexander receives no hits at all. Vytautas receives over two million hits - not all of them are related however, but Vytautas the Great and Vytautas Magnus together still receives over 100.000 primarilly English hits (and, of course, this grand duke is not always called "the great" or "magnus", so those are far from all hits). So, this indicated more popular name in English for this rler is indeed Vytautas, and this is English encyclopedia. None of the names were inventented by historians - all of them are what people of the respective nationality used to call their rulers all the time. Another question that you raise is a "moral one" - that is, what name these dukes *should* be called. Here again, understand that there was *no* nationalism in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. There was no official language as we understand it now - Ruthenian and Latin, later Polish and Latin were used to write various things such as laws, but the absolute majority of people (same a sin other countries at the time) were illiterate. And, of course, spoken business wasn't carried out in Latin or Ruthenian everywhere, but, depending on place, in the local language (be it Russian, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Lithuanian, Samogitian, Polish, Tatar, etc.). And the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was established at the territories inhabitted by then pagan Lithuanians, from where it expanded; the ruler families thus were also Lithuanian. However, as there was no nationalism by the time, it should be noted that if Lithuanian dukes were moving from ethnic Lithuania to ethnic Slavic lands, they usually used to adopt local language and religion and vice versa. Therefore, it would be indeed illogical if we would name *all* the local dukes in Lithaunain language. But this is not doen - now Wikipedia has a very good practice where those are more related to the Belarusians or Ukrainians nations are called in the respective names, the leaders that were related to ethnic-Lithuanian lands are called in the Lithuanian names while the leaders after the Polonization are reffered by Polish names (and, of course, redirects exist from every other name). This practice should stay, else we will get into countless revert wars. Burann 10:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Wow
Rarely have I heard a non-English speaking person, and of non-Lithuanian heritage put it more fairly and concisely than Buran just did. Dr. Dan 22:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you Burann 17:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Response to Buran
Indeed, this all seams logical. At this very point of time. Just answer me only one question: what shall we do when the number of hits for Vitovt in Google exceeds the one for Vutautas?
Following your logic we will need to change the name back to Vitovt. Something tells me that it won't be a long wait. Max Kanowski 22:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, regardless of its imperfection, the Google hit ratio is an important indicator of which form is most widely used in English. --Lysytalk 01:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- As I said however, the number of Google hits (which, by the way, should only be counted for usages of the word in the English pages, not in general, as this is English wikipedia) isn't of course the *only* means to decide what name we should use, we have common sense as well. I bet that probably for many leaders of the GDL, even older ones, who lived prior the polonization, the Polish name might be more used than Belarusian or Lithuanian ones - simlpy because there are more Poles, larger Polish diaspora, and because Poland stayed an independent country during the Cold War there were generally more Polish influence over world historians than Belarusian or Lithuanian influence. However, that does not means we should use Polish names everywhere. There is *common sense*, and we are not going to name some ruler who lived all his life in Belarus and ruled some local land in any other language than Belarusian of course. Burann 17:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- One correction: Poland did not stay an independent country during the Cold War. Soviet Army was present on Polish territory al the time. --Lysytalk 18:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Now you totally confused me. Google is good, but not good enough. You say:
- ...we are not going to name some ruler who lived all his life in Belarus and ruled some local land in any other language than Belarusian of course...
So, by saying that you assume that Vitovt was not a Belarusian ruler.
- Regardless the fact that the original lands named Litva (Lithuania) all without exception were within the territory of the nowadays Belarus;
- Regardless the fact that all his life Vitovt, as well as the majority of other citizens of the Grand Duchy, spoke Old Belarusian during the entire life and probably did not know a word in any Baltic language;
- Regardless the fact that Belarusian lands made the core of the Grand Duchy through its entire history;
- Regardless the fact that it were the lands of the present day Lithuanians that were conquered by Mindoug, lost, and later re-conquered by his son Voishalk in 1263-1264. Unlike the present-day Belarusian lands which never fought against the GDL, and joined it peacefully. Both before the conquest of the Balts and after that conquest;
- Regardless the fact the Vitovt himself presented Zhamoizt (present-day Lithuania) to the Teutonic knights;
- Regardless the fact that he called himself Vitovt. His farther called him Vitovt, and everyone in those times called him Vitov;
- Regardless many many many other facts....
You think that Vitovt was not a Belarusian duke, a Belarusian ruler??....
Well, I do not know what to say... I guess, that the last thing left for you to prove here is that the Vitovt's surname was Landsbergis. This would be more consistent with your desire to create the modern Lithuanian history from nothing.
I am not asking you to call Vitovt in the nowadays Belarusian, this would make him Vitawt which is as false as the nowadays-Lithuanian Vytautas. I just want you to respect this outstanding guy and name him by his own name.
Sometimes I think that Vitovt made a huge mistake. He should have left those ungrateful Balts in the hands of the Germans. Maybe they would extinguish them all then, so we would not need to fight for his legacy now.Max Kanowski 01:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Firstly, I am not trying to say what nationality he was. In fact, trying to find him ethnicity now is similar to calling Caesar Italian (which *might* be true, but still such assetion would be not encyclopedic). I said there are two ways to identify what form of name to use, one of them is widespread in English language and second is common sense. You, however, say many unprovable assumptions. There are no proves that this ruler spoke Belarusian all his life - chancery languages (used for writting) differed from the native language of ruler by the time, remember that all Europe used latin but that doesn't means everybody's native language was latin. As well, the first lands of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were not just the lands of modern-day Belarus - the first areas of duchy were in eastern Lithuania and western Belarus (I see the kind of map you provided (the one of early GDL) for the first time even though I saw many maps of early GDL - on what historical documents this map is based?). Of course, he is called Vitovt in written Ruthenian sources as this is the Ruthenian form of his name. Similarly, he is called Witold in written Polish sources as this is the Polish version of his name. As for the Samogitia (Zhmuzdzh), this is not whole present day Lithuania (only western part of it); in fact, Samogitians and Lithuanians by the time were considered to be different nations (Samogitian language is quite different from Lithuanian as well) and only latter both groups assimilated into a single nation. Similarly, nobody knows what langage the majority of GDL inhabittants *spoke* (there were no censuses about that or statistics). And indeed Samogitia has been many times lost and reconquered by GDL - but not so for Lithuania-proper. What I said is merely that as for rulers who had ruled local Belarusian lands, we will always use Belarusian names; for rulers, who ruled local Lithuanian lands, we will always use Lithuanian names, while for broader areas it will depend on situation; however, there is no need to try to put medieval history in the borders of present-day nations... Burann 07:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Not to mention that ethnic Lithuanians, religiosly defined first as pagans and then as catholics, were always in power in the Grand Duhcy - the Orthodox Belarusians, although made a majority, were for example not allowed to get land by testament, only catholics were allowed. It is considered that the Grand Duchy was christenized when the pagan Lithuanian nation (and the grand duchies' rulers together with them) adopted Christianity, despite of the fact that Slavs of GDL were Christian all the time 193.219.141.198 10:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Rename Belarus
The last thing I want to mention here just for your information.
You probably do not know yet, but there is a wide-spreading movement in Belarus to rename the country into Grand Litnuania (opposite to Small Lithuania nearby), or another version - the Belarusian Republic of Grand Lithuania.
I am not a proponent of this idea, but I wonder what will be the reaction of you Mr. Lysy, and you Dr. Dan on that fact ;) ? Max Kanowski 01:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
And which language will you use to name Vitovt in this case, Mr. Burann :)? Max Kanowski 01:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I am very sure that won't happen under Alexander Lukashenko; nor do I think that this idea is particularly wide-spread in Belarus. Nor do modern name changes change history. Burann 07:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Max, hopefully you are a very young man (perhaps even a teenager), then some of your ardor and foolish statements can be forgiven. Your many errors about history, your petty and mean-spirited biases, reached a pinnacle when you made the (see above) "statement", ...Vitovt made a huge mistake...ungrateful Balts...extinguish them all... Really. The totally uncalled for reference to Landsbergis might speak of your current political viewpoints. Lots of people in the former "Imperium" known as the Soviet Union, blame Landsbergis and the Balts for igniting the fuse that blew it up, and now dream of its resurrection. Personally, having travelled through, studying and living in the former "Socialist Block", I believe it was the economic inneptiude and unbelievable narrow mindedness amongst hardcore crypto-stalinist Marxists that did the trick. Some of the narrow mindedness that I'm talking about are displayed in your various writings. It will be hard for you to change the English name of Samogitia to Zhamoizt, in the English speaking world. Good Luck! Dr. Dan 14:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
To Byelorussian nationalist
Read this article:
http://www.laborunion.lt/memorandum/ru/modules/sections/index.php?op=viewarticle&artid=8
And yes Vytautas the Great was not slav.