Talk:Dagome iudex

To szopen The Chech and Lech is an old Polish story as is the Krok story.I do not believe, that there are any records at all of Poles, before the Polanen tribes under Mieszko I. And even the Piast rulers were only named Piasts in the 17th century. The family name was Lambert ( a good old German family name, also went to France :pronounced Lamber (silent t) . There were previous Lambert emperors. The son of emperor Arnulf of Carinthia, Bavaria was Zwentibolt (Slavic Swatopluk).And the Slavic Krol (king), derived from Karol(us) Karl, Charlemagne. It all shows that even when the Slavs moved into Germania, they also were part of the empire, that continued until 1804/6. Then you have to look at the original Rus history also. All the land under the Rus (before they were Russians) was called Gardarike. ( Rike ,Rix and Old Prussian Reiks or High German Reich = Rex=Regis = English kings)

Burislaf was also a markgrave of the Saxon empire. The Royal and noble genealogy of UK lists Mieszko I as aka Burislaf von Wendland of Wendland (Wendish land in northern Germany). Mieszko I , recorded Miecislaw (or something like that) may have been a name much later given to him by Polish writers, since the only record seems to be as Dago in Dagome Iudex. Since Ote is mentioned in this, I believe that this is the record for Mieszko I and wife Oda (von Haldensleben),when by marriage to her he (Dago-bert ?) accepted the position as margrave of the empire.

To the christianisation, all dukes, margraves etc had to accept baptism as part of receiving the position from the emperor ( see Moravians (Czechs, Slovacs) who came before the emperor in Regensburg before 900 AD). German kings/emperors never made any demarcation line between Slavic and German people or any others, such as Huns, Finns, Esthonians etc.

Taking on the required state religion and name is typical of the Russian rulers or any others also, where Sophie von Anhalt-Zerbst , took office as Czarina Catherine II and became orthodox. When Russia conquered the North the language of Couronia, Livonia,later Latvia continued to be German until 1891.

When you look for records, write down the current writers of the article, but also check for primary sources. This is what JHK keeps asking for. The primary source is ,when and who first recorded it.

I have read something to the effect, that the Dagome iudex is a 'gift certificate' , with which Dago (Mieszko I ?) gave all the land he had conquered into papal possession. He then received land back in lien. This was a standard procedure, because all land of Europe was considered as belonging to emperor and or pope, who then granted liens (loans). user:H.J.

To H.J.
I know legend about Czech and Lech, but this is Czech legend adopted to Polish by Wincent Ksdlubek in some XIII century (he made name Lech from Leszek, meaning probably smart). This legend goes: Lech, Czech and Rus decided that there is too small place for them in their homeland and went in different sides of world. Lech goes to West, when the settle in place when he saw an eagle fighting with hawk. He decided that this was good omen and founded city called Nest (Gniezno). End of story. What are connections to our discussion, because i can't see them?

That's true that Piasts were called like that in XVII century. Earlier Piasts was name given to any non-German ruler (we won't king Piast and to our throats we can't stand German were primary slogans of szlachta, that's why never Habsburgs ruled in Poland, although they had probably more Piast blood than Jagiellons)

However dynasty tradition, written in beginning of XII century by Gall Anonim (which large parts of chronicle i read in Polishm sicne i know only basic Latin), says that First Piast was Piast, son of Chosciszko, poor peasant. Then first Piast dukes were Ziemomysl, Leszek, uhmm one another, then Mieszko. We know also name of Mieszko brother: Czcibor.

Mieszko name was written in all documents from epoch: In Thietmat chronicle, in Kosmas chronicle (which however i read only little fragments dispersed in other books), in description of Poland by Ibrahim Ibn Jakub (Ms'ko), in roczniki (i don't know english name for that: yearsbooks? Priamry source of information about medieval tiems, pseudo-chronicles with short information about every year, kept in churches. Example of such infromation is 965: Dubrawka came to Mieszko). Thietmar lived i think generation after Mieszko, but Ibrahim lived during life of Mieszko (his relation is dated 961-962). All of them called Mieszko Mska, Mescum, as he was called in other documents. First mention of name Poland came also gfrom Thietmar chronicle.

Family anme was not Lamber or Lambert, because they don't have family name. They just have simple rule of naming: After Mieszko always was Boleslav and again Mieszko, then for younger sons names were choosen from Wladyslaw, Kazimierz, and sometimes from emperor names like Henryk or Otton. Note that except two last these are Slavic names. Other names, but given to sons which were for some reasons not suitable to ruling were Zbigniew, Bezprym etc - also Slavic names. Dagome iudex is only document which mentioned name of Dago, and this is _summary_, _copy_, with many other names so mangled that it is hard to understand them (like Shinesghe). Scribe whoo made that summary even don't know that this is about Poland. In original could be well ego Mesco dux (This is probable, you should now that there are parts of medieval texts which can be read in few differnt ways, like with chrs which for years was discussion if Gall anonim meant christian or christos.

I don't understand your argumentation. because krol comes from Karl, and Son of one Emperor had Slavic name, that means that all Slavs were part of Empire? Then, well, Germany was part of Poland because younger sons of Boleslav had German names.

Rus history is irrelevant here. Poland wasn't part of empire except some period of early medieval history, but not continously, since You can't call Boleslav Chrobry or Boleslav Smialy vassals of Emperor.

Burislaf, again, is not in any written source except sagas and later sources. That's why recently historians decided that he was either legendary, or component name for both Mieszko and Boleslav, or name for some other Slavic king. You can't believe anything which was written in medieval chronicles, otherwise you would have to believe that homeland of Slavs was Pannonia, Lublin was called Julin because it was founded by Julia, sister of Julius Caesar, and Szlachta came from Sarmats. Thietmar always used Boleslav, never Burislaf, and he lived in tiems of Boleslav.

This is true that German Emperors always considered whole Europe as their possesion, but that's all. If i will considered moon my property, that would not make it fact. Poland could be called part of Empire in some periods of its history only.

And you read true, Mieszko gave his land to Pope, because he wanted keeping his land as Popes lien, not Emperors. he also kept some lands from lien from Emperor, but we don;t know which were that lands, since all we have is enigmatic usque in Wurta fluvium.

Thietmar (975-1018) wrote that Mieszko took baptism _after_ he married Dobrawka, under her influence. He mentioned at least three Slavic names of nobleman from Poland (Odylen, Przybywoj, Stojgniew) nwver any German name, except of course from clergy.

Poland developed on its own without contact from Germany, sicne first mention of Poland is from 963 when Mieszko is mentioned as friend of Emperor, when he was defeated by Wielet army under commandment or with help of German banite Wichman (IIRC). Mieszko is mentioned as Mieszko (i can't remember if this was Mescum or Mesco)

Emperor couldn't make Mieszko duke, he was hereditary duke of Poland.

I will go to my home and i will bring more books about early history of Poland with me.

Some dates:

He started ruling probably in 960, ruling probably Great Poland, Kujawy, Mazowsze (Masovia) Leczyckie and probably Pomorze Gdanskie (Eastern Pomorze) in 960s conquered at least partly Western Pomorze, in 990 is the last term when he could conquer Silesia and Little Poland (although all we know is that Czechs tried to get back regnum sibi ablatum in 990, but we don' know what was that regnum). In 967 with help of Czech he defeated Wichman conquering Pomorze Nadodrzanskie. In 972 in probably defence of that new acquired lands he defeated in Cedynia Hodo, and is mentioned as loyal duke paying tribute to the river of Warta. In 979 he fought with Emperor, in 981 he lost Grody Czerwienskie to Rus, in 986 he finally became his vassal (of Otton III), and he helped him with fighting with Wielets, in 990 Germans helped him with war with Czechs (some historian argued that that war was about Lusitz, and Sielsia and LIttle Poland was conquered earlier). in 990 or shortly after he in Dagome Iudex offered his state to Pope. He probably divided his state between his sons, but his oldest son Boleslav expelled other sons, blinded Odylen and Przybywoj. (Although Czech historians believe that Little Poland was conquered by Boleslav in 999, but htis was analized and criticised by Labuda, who pointed some logical contradictions which would appear if we will believ Kosmas in that case)

Silesia was at the begining under bishops of Prague, but after 1000 it was (or rather after 999) under archibishop of Gniezno. First bishop of Poland was missionary bishop under direct command of Rome, founded in 968. Note that Poland in medieval times was used as decsricopton of whole state, and as description of todays Great Poland, that dualism is clearly seen for example in Gall Anonim Chronicle.

You seem also to think that Germany and Empire was the same thing. Not exaclt. Empire was Kingdom of Longobardia+ kingdom of Germania + Rome, if i am not mistaken.

I don't know also if you read about methods used by Germans when conquering Salvic lands (as in 939 murdering by Geron (accroding to Widukind from Korbea) 30 slavic dukes).

I also have here some bibliograophy, i don't read that books but they are mentioned in article of Klaus Zernack:

H. Ludat An Elbe und Oder um Jahr 1000, Koln 1971
Chr.Lubke Regesten zur Geschichte der Slawen an Elbe und Oder (vom Jahr 900 an) Berlin 1985-1987
W.H. Fritze Der Slawische aufstand von 983. Eine Schicksalswende in der Geschichte MittelEuropas (in: Festschrift der Landesgeschtlichen Vereinigung fur die Mark Brandenburg zu ihrem hunderjahirgen Bestehen 1884-1984) Berlin 1984
Ch Warnke Ursachen und Vorauseetzungen der Schenkung Polens an den Hl.Petrus,in Europa Slavica - Europa Orientalis. Festschrift fur Herbert Ludat Berlin 1980.
J Fried Otton III un Boleslav Chrobry. Das Widmungsbild des Aachener Evangeliars, der akt von Gnesen un das Fruhe polnische und ungarische Konigtum, Stuttgart 1989.

If you know Polish, see (I've read those two books, but i don't have them now)

G. Labuda Studia nad poczatkami panstwa polskiego Poznan 1946, reedited 1987-1988
H.Lowmianski Poczatki Polski Warszawa 1973

This is great -- if you've already read all of the discussion on Poland and Miezco -- otherwise, no one will know what the Dagome iudex is. Could someone please fill in the following details? I suggest something like "Dagome Iudex is the common name for a document dated x, probably written by x (or collected with other legal documents in x). It is important in the history of Poland because... and THEN talk about what it says. Remember -- WHAT, WHEN, WHO, and HOW or WHY IS IT IMPORTANT -- These are all key factors for a good article! JHK

Schinesghe is used twice in document. First, we know it's a state given to saint Peter, which borders with either sea or Pomerania, then with probably Russia, Prussia and land of Krakow, then with "Alemure" and Odra. Szczecin does not suit especially to that description, actually it would be absurd to made it so. Especially that from later history it seems that whole Poland was considered dominium of st peter.

BUT second time Schinesghe is described as somewhere near mouth of Oder. This second time, this could be Szczecin.

The question is, whether both times it's the same Schinesghe. Remember, it's and abstract. The copyist, maybe, could decipher the names and decided that those two separate names are the same, and came with name "Schinesghe" by joining Szczecin and Gniezno.

Editing[edit]

When some of this information is actually edited into the article, the reference "Labuda's book" might be made more explicit for the Wikipedia reader. --Wetman 06:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

szopen

What is first actual document of State of Poland ?[edit]

The Dagome Iudex seems rather to be a documentation for Oda and her sons, in order to safeguard their territory, because, as it did turn out, Mieszko I's son Boleslaw I from another wife, expelled the widow Ote Oda von Haldensleben and Mieszkos sons, Boleslaws stepbrothers in attempts to gain all territory for himself.

Whoever insists on this being (one of the first) actual documents, please post a photo copy of the original document here and state its present location. Without that its just a myth.

By the way, what is the actual first document (other than this Dagome Iudex), please post photocopy also ?

Thanks so much. Labbas 19 December 2006

Labbas, please post photo copy of Thietmar chronicle. (hint: it was burned in Dresden). As for "whoever insists", why, it's just all Polish and all serious German historians.

Within two seconds I was able to find this: http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/1508/dagomeiudex2ns.jpg Szopen 08:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, but it gives no information about were it is located or copied from or anything. Labbas 21 December 2006

Labbas, I am no historian, but an amateur. The document is a considered a reliable and valuable source by literally dozens of other historians, Polish and German alike. The authenticity cannot be doubted. Of course, the reservation about whether it is really about Poland and not about the Sardinians, are justifiable and you may freely choose whether to believe the arguments by historians, or not. Just get any book by German or Polish historian about early Polish state and surely you will find the relevant info, if it is good book (i.e. historic monography, not some "popular history" junk). In fact, many historians would be happy if the document would not exist, because it poses more questions than answers (e.g the very two first words: "Dagome iudex"? what the heck? Who is this Dagome?).

As for other questions, this is not the first document about Poland, of course. Other sources we have are contemporary chronicles (Widukind, Thietmar) relation by Jewish-Arabic Ibrahim ibn Jakub, and the later chronicles which had the access to the info which unavailable to us now (Adam from Bremen, Kosmas, Gall Anonim etc). In addition you have the yearsbook: "roczniki" in Polish. The church tables which were used for calculation of important church dates. On those tables later also short info about important events were added. The example of such event is: "965 – Dobrovca ad Mesconem venit" "Mesco, dux Poloniae, baptisatus" etc etc. As you may see, the amount of the info is not staggering. Szopen 08:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Territory[edit]

The mention of craccoa = Kraków without fines means that Lesser Poland is included, as Kraków was the capital of it. And a straight line from Olomouc (alemura) to Lausitz Region (country of the milzi=Milceni) would have included Silesia. Look, between alemura and milzi the border does not touch river oddera, therefore it lies west of the river.--Ulamm (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]