Imperial politics[edit]

I would like to point out here something that clearly demonstrates HJ's lack of understanding of the period and the inner workings of imperial politics. She continually points out "Imperial alliances", generally marriages between the Habsburgs and some other family, and has said that we cannot underestimate how important these ties were. Yet strangely, it doesn't seem to through a spanner into her logic when the very-allied-to-the -imperial-house-of-Habsburg Casimir Jagiello annexes Prussia AND THE EMPEROR REFUSES TO RECOGNIZE THIS!

BTW, I am not sure that annex is the correct term. As I understand it, several cities in the region of Prussia (which was not at the time a nation-state or any other political entity, merely a greographical one) wanted to rid themselves of the overlordship of the Teutonic Knights. They asked Casimir for help, and promised to transfer allegiance to him in exchange (they had never been given a choice in the matter of the Knights).

Also, for those of you who keep track...

Casimir Jagiello of Poland is tied to the Habsburg emperors through his marriage to Elisabeth of Austria, granddaughter of the Habsburg emperor (I think -- emperor at any rate) Sigismund. Their son, Ladislaus, benefits by getting to be king of Hungary and Bohemia.

Here's the fun bit: Their daughter, Sophia, married Frederick Hohenzollern, prince of Ansbach and Bayreuth (and nowhere near Prussia) -- their son is Albert, Grand Master of the Teutonic Order, who converts to Lutheranism and claims Brandenburg-Prussia as his own duchy. The duchy won't exist without the support of Sigismund (his Polish uncle, Sophia's brother, now king) -- and he has to agree to Sigismund as his overlord for that support.

....and then there's the Reformation

JHK

According to my archives of genealogical data on European houses, Elisabeth of Austria was indeed the granddaughter of Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor. the family tree looks like this.

Sigismund married Maria of Hungary and had a duaghter Elizabeth who married Albert II Holy Roman Emperor. Elizabeth of Austria mentioned above was the daughter of Albert II. -- Ktsquare

Let me clarify -- I knew Sigismund was Emperor -- I was not sure if he belonged to the Habsburg house. JHK

Sigismund of Luxembourg -- Ktsquare

THanks -- so, if Elizabeth was a Habsburg, that was entirely different from her connection to the "Imperial" house of Luxembourg. aha -- she is connected to two emperors -- one a Habsburg (her father) one not. Try to be a bit more clear, HJ. JHK

First off, there were 2 Elizabeth, the first Elizabeth (the mother) and the second was the daughter of Elizabeth the mother.

more detailed version of the tree which shall clarify you:

Sigsmund of Luxembourg, Holy Roman Emperor married Maria, Queen of Hungary and has a daughter:

Elizabeth (the mother), married to Albert II of Habsburg, Holy Roman Emperor and has 2 children:
1. Ladislas Posthumous (as Ladislas V of Hungary or Ladislas of Bohemia)
2. Elizabeth (the daughter) of Habsburg, married to Casimir IV of Poland and has a child
1. Vladislas (or Ladislas, which is just omitting the "V") (as Vladislas II of Hungary or Vladislas II of Bohemia) -- Ktsquare


SIGH. All sorts of small problems above, mostly due to inaccuracies, ignorance and thoughtlessness.

Casimir was married with Elisabeth of Habsburg. Who was daughter of Albert of Habsburg (an Emperir) and Elisabeth of Luxembourg, heiress of Bohemia. However, those Habsburgs ceased to be emperirs when Elisabeth was a little girl and not yet married.

Elisabeth's distant cousin Frederick III was the next emperor. That emperor who reigned when Casimir was king. Elisabeth and Frederick were rather distant. In some senses, even rivals. Therefore, no big ideas about Habsburg alliance should be entertained regarding that time,

Besides, they were more or less realists and, as relatives everywhere, tended their own interests. Sometimes interests collided, sometimes joined. A sign of divergent interests is that none of Casimir's numerous children married a family member of emperor Frederick, during their reigns.

It is no secret that Frederick would have liked to have his own family members in Eastern thrones - not distant relatives such as Elisabeth and her brood. And Casimir, who through Elisabeth had good hereditary claims, wanted such for his own children. 62.78.126.145 17:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

English name - Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to Casimir IV Jagiellon. -- Eugène van der Pijll 16:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Survey[edit]

One sentence comments here please; this should be on the first name, as proposed.

I would suggest to change the name of this Polish king to "Casimir IV Jagiellon" as he is usualy referred to as Casimir in the english literatur.--Dagox 09:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shilkanni, are you willing to also support a move to Casimir IV Jagiellon? I am definitely willing to also discuss the "of Poland" suffix, but for now I'd like to make a clear case that the name should be at least moved off of "Kazimierz" to "Casimir". I give you my word that we can engage in a good faith discussion about the other suffix afterwards. :) --Elonka 17:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've separated the two discussions. If we can get them done at the same time, why not? Septentrionalis 18:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, within parameters of this poll (choices are Kazimierz IV Jagiellon and Casimir IV Jagiellon), I prefer of course the proposed move to "Casimir...". I can accept it, though it is not my fist choice (I have already presented my first choice). Shilkanni 10:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Surname[edit]

Also comments above

it is a bit different story in this case because Casimir was a Grand Duke of Lithuania at first place while Ca. I;II;III did not so i oppose adding "of poland" M.K. 20:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion[edit]

I would be persuaded by evidence that it is weird, in English, not to use Jagiellon. Septentrionalis 17:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is not weird for an Anglophone to see that name without "Jagiellon". Poland's Casimir IV, or just Casimir IV, are names well seen in English materials. Shilkanni 10:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Casimir IV Jagiellon is very consistent with his son Alexander Jagiellon, who was Alexander of Lithuania from 1492 to 1501, while his brother John Albert was John of Poland. Don't forget also that Casimir IV of Poland is also just a Casimir of Lithuania from 1440 to 1447. This Casimir as a King was a ruler of two equally big and important countries Poland and medieval Lithuania (Lithuania + Ruthenia: nowday Belarus and Ukraine and parts of Russia). Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth not yet created. Casimir and Alexander, and his brother Sigismund I the Old and Sigismund II August were not from the birth predestined to be Kings of Poland, as it might look from reading the articles, written many years later. There was a struggle between Lithuanian Lords and Polish Lords, Lithuania seeking to have it's own King, and Polish Lords were forced to choose Lithuanian Grand Duke as King of Poland to keep Lithuania as a fief of Polish crown. If Jagiellon doesn't sound English, change it to Jagellon. Juraune 14:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Infobox[edit]

In the current infobox, the "reign" and "coronation" information appears to be scrambled.

I can't make sense of the king having reigned "1440 (June 7, 1492 as Grand Duke of Lithuania [he died on that date]) to June 7, 1492."

And I would think that "Coronation June 29, 1440, June 25, 1447, in Vilna Cathedral, Vilna, Wawel Cathedral, Kraków" should instead read: "Coronation June 29, 1440, in Vilna Cathedral, Vilna, June 25, 1447, at Wawel Cathedral, Kraków."

KonradWallenrod 16:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let me explain you. He was born on 1427, not 1440. He was first crowned as Grand Duke of Lithuania in 1440 in Vilnius Cathedral, and only then in 1447 in Wawel, Poland as King of Poland. To name it Vilna Cathedral is complete nonsense, since Vilna is Jewish name, and Cathedral is Catholic. Juraune 19:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The infobox "reign" and "coronation" data are still hopelessly scrambled and unintelligible. Could somebody correct them, so they will make sense? logologist|Talk 20:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I noticed, that a 'template:infobox Polish monarch' was applied, but this template did not provide for different corronation date and place and for different reign span as Grand Duke of Lithuania. I created similar 'template:infobox Polish Lithuanian monarch', which has additional parameters for these dates and places. If there is a plan to appy Polish monarch infobox for all Polish monarchs, this template should be expanded to include different GDL reign and coronation possibility, in a similar way. Also, I didn't like the centered position of the text in the first column, and applied left alignment. Juraune 19:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sophia of Halshany or Zofia Holszańska[edit]

To Hallibut and other Polish editors of this page: Why do you keep polonizing the names of family members? For example, Sophia of Halshany you constantly revert to Zofia Holszańska, as if Holszanska is her family name. Her English name is more informative: it shows that she came from Halshany ruler family. By the way, she wasn't even Polish. Juraune 19:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps this should be "Kasimieras IV", seeing how little Polish he had in his genetics. Maed 16:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How 'bout Casey? Dr. Dan 22:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC) p.s. It would have a "Z", in the Lithuanian version, tak samo, jak po Polsku. p.p.s How 'bout sticking with English?Reply[reply]

Ethnicity[edit]

It should be reminded that Casimir was quite totally of non-Polish origin, whereas his wife was from the Piast descent, having ancestry in Masovian, Sandomir, Kujavian, Sileasian and Greater Poland branches of Piasdts as well as among earlier dukes of Pomerania.

Casimir's mother was Sophia of Halshany, belarusian/Lithuanian. Father was Jogaila, Lithuanian-Ruthenian. Maed 16:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Encyclopedias and dictionaries[edit]

This is how this individual's name is listed in major English-language reference works. If you have access to any such books which are not already listed here, please feel free to add to the list. Thanks! --Elonka 00:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Encyclopedias

Dictionaries

Map[edit]

I saw that someone had added a map:

However, it was then removed as "Totally Polish". May I ask the reasoning? It looked to me like it might have been a useful addition to the page. --Elonka 03:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's oversized (2200x2400 or so), and names can hardly be read, to small and in Polish, so useless. Besides, maps belong to articles on the kingdoms, not to biographies of kings. -- Matthead discuß!   O    14:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that it's a bit large, but it still looks useful as an indication of the size of this particular monarch's kingdom, especially because borders were changing so rapidly in that era. As for the language, I don't see that as a major issue. A map with English names would be preferable, but there are plenty of places on Wikipedia where local language is used in a diagram, when a comparable English equivalent is not yet available. I have trouble labeling it as "useless". --Elonka 17:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This map corresponds at best as secondary source of this article. I do not doubt that clear map of top importance in article could be installed in different lang. But this is not the case.
Just imagine the average English speaking person who came and looking in the map, how he could pin point as you said particular monarch's kingdom ? Which kingdom? In dark green or in blue? Whatthese different colors means? What region is this ? The city names looks a bit familiar. Africa? Is it have a seas? Maybe blue color is seas, but maybe it is different sate – with big desert similar like in Africa. Maybe this is not different states at all!
As you see it is a big problem. And utility of this map is questionable here (said in softest words). M.K. 19:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, without knowing the details, my own impression on looking at the map is, "This monarch ruled over the area marked in yellow." If that's not the case, then a simple caption could be added, like, "Casimir IV ruled over the white section of this area of northern Europe" (or green, or whatever). --Elonka 19:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

regarding "bajorai"[edit]

I would oppose the use of the term "bajorai" in this text. It's just unhistoric since in the GDL "the situation was disastrous for Lithuanian: it was not allowed to flourish, it was being pushed out of common usage and it was difficult to publish written Lithuanian texts" (Zinkevičius, Zigmas. History of the Lithuanian Language. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 1998, p. 244). CityElefant (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The idea is to keep this term but not in the current Lithuanised form. CityElefant (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Casimir IV Jagiellon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Plagued by exaggerations and nationalistic undertones[edit]

Reading this article, I´ve noticed that it is plagued by exaggerations and nationalistic undertones. Potentially as some parts are based on a translation of the polish version where Casimir is a iconic figure. Some examples:

Linked source: "His reign was remembered as being both successful and peaceful." -> Article: "his reign was remembered as being both successful and the most peaceful in the history of Poland" - This is a willful corruption.

"because of his steady and patriotic resistance to papal aggression" - This type of wording is suitable for political propaganda but not for a wiki with scientific/unbiased self-understanding.

"Yet his liberality to his ministers and servants was proverbial, and his vanquished enemies he always treated with magnificent generosity." - Again, this reads like an advertisement or political extolment but not like a objective, netural and unbiased information. In addition, not a single source is given for this hymn of praise.

I tried to clean up some of the worst parts of this article. However, there is still a lot to do to transform it from a "patriotic" prais into a neutral source. 2001:16B8:2629:1300:1D57:A7B:70A7:58B (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://archive.org/details/newencyclopaedia03chic/page/978/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/newencyclopaedia03chic/page/980/mode/2up https://web.archive.org/web/20010815115238/http://www.catchpenny.org/curse.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories