84.242.103.199[edit]

I propose to remove these sentences: "The fighting changed the face of Bohemia to this day, as it would have a much larger ethnic German populace had they not been forced out." This is simply nonsense. Before Hussite revolution Germans shared something of 15% of entire Bohemian population. Areas traditionally considered as part of Sudetenland (Žatec, Litoměřice, Horšovský Týn) were ethnically Czech just before the Hussite revolution. German populace declined somewhat during Hussite revolution but definitely not so much to change face of Bohemia to this day. 15% of population in the 14th century (ie before Hussites) is definitely much lesser than one fourth of population in 19th and first half of 20th century. Actually proportion of Germans in Bohemian population significantly increased in the late 17th and early 18th century. In this time towns like Horšovský Týn, Žlutice, Žatec, Litoměřice, etc., previously ethnically Czech or mixed became ethnically predominantly German. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.181.34.142 (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, but[edit]

Kingdom of Bohemia was only official name of Bohemia, nothing more. This article needs rework. --84.242.103.199 (talk) 00:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No thats not true Kingdom of Bohemia was official name of czech lands in this years 1085-92, 1158-72, 1198 -1348. In 1348 was created Lands of the Bohemian Crown which gived Bohemia king all lands including Lands of the Bohemian Crown (were under saint Venceslaus crown) Otakarus (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As there is now a separate entry on the Lands of the Bohemian Crown, this article may be moved. However before their formal incorporation under Charles IV, the Bohemian kingdom did already involve the Moravian march as well as the Silesian Piast duchies and Upper Lusatia as fiefs. I admit that Moravians, Silesians etc. may have set great value upon the statement that they were not "Bohemians" but only subjects of the Bohemian kings. 78.52.204.225 (talk) 11:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


See this is were you have to take care when dealing with history. You're construeing the truth. Markgrafen Moravia Herzog Schlesian Herzog Pommern, Actually Not Pommern, it's Herzog Slavien of the Greifen House AD1000 at least Until the late AD1500's - mid AD1600's, (no Greifen is Not Griffen, only in the symbol sense), Pommern was the land between what we now know as Pommern, and Prussia; ie Danzig. Modern Pommern, the original Slavien Duchy, was never part of Bohemia or Poland. Take care with political egos as they are never true.

eg: Article states that Bohemia stretched from the Baltic to Ardiatic, That surprised everyone else in the world.

Point is, these territories / "lands of princes" were never, have never, been part of the Kingdom of Bohemia. They were part of the Lutzelburg Family, (Luxembourg today). Land holdings. HUGE DIFFERENCE. It would be more correct to say, The Kingdom of Bohemia was Subject to the Duchy of Lutzelburg.

In the Old sense, Herzog, or Duke was an independant ruler. Hence, the Duke of Swabia recognised the Duke of Bohemia. Also note, The Duke/King of Bohemia offered to do the same for Phillip of Swabia. Instead went for the big prize.

With the Lutzelburg Family Lands, from the Duchy of Lutzelburg, Neapolean spelling Luxembourg, All lands had the same ruler. And because the Lutzelburg family was an ancient german family of considerable standing, they were the HRE emperor. And hence got to dicatate the ability to certain titles as the current holders became extinct, or lines lost, Salic law of inheirtance. Same as the Hohenzollern, Ascanian, Salian, Welf, Wettin, Hohenstaufen, Lutzelburg, Hapsburgs...et cetera....

As to Bohemia being a Czech state, thats modern subjective. It's offically, atleast until 1920, A German state, as it was included in the Kingdom of Germany for one thousand years. Unlike, Austria, or the Kingdom of Arles. Which were not included in the Primas Germainae.

Same problem with Silesia, most say it was part of the Kingdom of Poland. Which is actually not true. It has at times been part of the Kingdom of Poland, but it had it's own Rulers, Duke; Who was sometimes polish, and who fought against the King of Poland, and Mosovia, Pommern, Slavien, Saschen et cetera...

It's a contrast of timing, dates, and rulers. Example: Pommern today was actually Slavien in AD1181, joined HRE in the Upper Saxon circle. But was still offically a Danish subjugate until AD1226, which Denmark was never part of. Poland claims to always have owned Pommern, but the area they owned was the Original Pommern between Slavien and Prussian Territory, And prussia was never polish because the Duke of Mosavia was an independant ruler not subject to the polish crown for another 300 years. Though they were allies of Poland and Prussia at different times. And Poles and Germans served in the teutonic order who fought Poles, Germans, Russ, Swedes, Danes et cetera...

So this article is more about modern politics/egos than historical fact.

As to Germans in Bohemia, they have always been there, in fact were there before the slavic peopls moved into central europe in the AD600's. So there is alot of cross over between the two. Espeically between Germans Czechs and Poles. Germanic form names in czechs make up just over 30% of the population, in poland they make up about 14%, In Russia, almost 16%.

So when you Look at Bohemia, you must look at it in the same sense as Austria in regards to the HRE. The Language of the Bohemian Army was actually German in the Middle Ages. Because it was lingua unversia within bohemia. All Laws were written in Czech & German. All judgements were both languages, for more detail on this, have a talk to Ansbach University in Germany. They have been doing this for about 80 years collecting all the old imperial, royal, medieval documents. 12:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.3.77.194 (talk)

You say "this article is more about modern politics/egos than historical fact". Sorry but the same I can say about your comment. For example: You say that "until 1920, Bohemia was a German state". Its totally nonsense. Since 1918 until 1920, Bohemia was part of Czechoslovakia. And I presume you can not consider Czechoslovakia to be German state. From 1804 to 1918, Bohemia was even not state, just one of the many province of Austrian empire, which was not even ethnically predominantly German. Yes, Bohemia was part of Holly Roman Empire, but king of Bohemia was even not considered to be German (according to Sachsenspiegel) and Bohemian nobility, until second half of 18th century (when they ceased to speak Czech) always considered themselves to be Czechs and NOT German (look at Dalimil Chronicle, one of many examples). You say that "all Laws were written in Czech & German". It is quite misleading. Until the end of 14th century, all laws were of course in Latin. Since that time Czech was increasingly grew in use and at the end of 15th century, all laws were in Czech. German was considered to be second official language since 1627. Than German significantly grew in importance whilst Czech, since the second half of 18th century, virtually fell into disuse. At the turn of 18th and 19th century, virtually all laws were in German. Czech was again used as language of publishing laws after 1848. After that date, you are right, all laws were simultaneously in Czech and German. Least but not last, you say that "Germans have always been in Bohemia, in fact were there before the slavic peopls moved into central europe in the AD600's." Sorry but Germanic settlement in Bohemia ceased to exist in 7th century. Majority of Germanic people from Bohemia, Marcomanni and Langobards, went away to Noricum and Italy, and the rest was assimilated by newly arrived Slavs. Since that time until 13th century, there was virtually no German settlement in Bohemia, of course except colonies of German merchants in Prague (but there were also French, Italian and other foreign merchants). By the way, Marcomanni or Langobards cannot be considered to be ancestors of modern Germans. This is the same nonsense as if you told that Goths, Gepids or Vandals were ancestors of Germans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.181.34.142 (talk) 09:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Language[edit]

What language was mainly spoken in Bohemia? And were the Bohemians German or Slavic people? Pruis (talk) 11:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Czech language. In official documents (charts, chronicles etc.) until the end of 14th century the Latin was used. The patriciate in major towns (i.e. Prague, Kutná Hora, Plzeň, České Budějovice, Kolín, Hradec Králové, Litoměřice, Jihlava, Brno, Znojmo, Olomouc, Opava) was predominantly German-speaking, at least until Hussite Revolution. Aristocracy and clergy was Czech-speaking (although some bishops of Prague or Olomouc were native Germans).
The Bohemians/Czechs were (and are) undoubtedly Slavonic nation – but with significant admixture of German (or even Celtic) blood. --Iaroslavvs (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to the 1910 Austro-Hungarian census, in Bohemia proper 4.2 mil. spoke Czech and 2.2 mil. spoke German. 92.225.123.238 (talk) 09:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


See you need to understand how and what the Austrian Census is saying. We know in 1939 over 50% of Czechslovkians could speak German (can't remember exact figure, but is around 60%, so being conservative). SO there must be a problem. in 1928-30 about 22-28% of the Czechslovkian population was Ethnically German, 14.6 million @ 22-28% so 3.2 to 4 million Germans, nearly all in Bohemia and Moravia of 9.8 Million. Excuding slovkia, espeically Pressburg that number climbs even more. 36% of Slovkia was ethnically Hungarian in 1939. About the same in 1928-30. So we have between 32% to 40% of Bohemia & Moravia as ethnically german in 1939, which was why Hitler wanted it, and Not Slovkia. Also Czechs historically stick with the germans though thick n Thin. Most wont admit, but there was alot of Czech support for Nazi Germany in 1939. To find out more, dont use anything after 1939, as both the Germans and Czechs distort the numbers right up till today. ie: Czech Republic has about 250,000 Germans still there, but wont allow them to be recognised. Same as Poland, where it's about 750,000 as of 2010. But they dont exist?

The Austrians practiced the only known Multi National Nation in history, each group had it's own Parliment, laws, et cetera..., so they were recording based on area definition. Certain areas were German representive, some Czech. Some germans went to Vennia, some to the Prague parliment. Hence the problem. In 1920's over half a million germans left the New State. Many stayed as history shows. But they left because of the same reason, all the new countries were practising their nationalism of race.

In 1930, 27 million people in central and eastern europe, outside of Germany Switzerland, and Austria spoke German. Gives an idea to the complexity of the problem. 1930's Romania had over 1.5 million Germans and about the same Hungarians. Even today Yugoslavia / Serbia has an entire region that is Hungarian. 1930's Hungary had 830,000 Germans. Alasce & Lorraine, Until AD1769 Elass & Lotharingia were German also, but France has forced many to become "French". Though 1 Million call themselves "Alastians".

Anyway, thats the fun for tonite.

123.3.77.194 (talk) 12:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

State of the HRE?[edit]

It has been recently denied here that the King of Bohemia had been a vassal of the Rex Romanorum and the Holy Roman Emperor, referring to the Golden Bull of 1356. Apart from modern-day patriotic reasons (erroneously based on the equation of the Empire with the regnum Teutonicum), the presentation of Bohemia's historic constitutional status in the article may be worth a thorough discussion. AFAICS there is no source, neither in the Golden Bull nor other deeds issued by Charles IV, claiming that his Bohemian kingdom was a independent and sovereign entity. Instead he pursued the idea of Bohemia as the centre of the Empire by securing the king's hereditary electoral dignity (that had once been denied by Repgow's Sachsenspiegel "as he is no German"), which guaranteed a significant influence on the Empire's policies even if the Imperial and the Bohemian crown would no longer been held in personal union. Indeed Charles granted the Bohemian king — himself — and his vassals numerous privileges like the privilegium de non evocando and the right of a royal election upon the extinction of the line, elevating him to the first secular princeps of the Empire. Nevertheless Charles at the same time left no doubt about his intention to maintain the unity of his realm as a whole — the Bohemian king remained a liensman and had to receive his fiefdom from the hands of the Emperor. 92.225.121.37 (talk) 11:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not only was he a vassal of the emperor but rather of the elected German king (Rex Romanorum) making the kingdom of Bohemia a sub-kingdom of the kingdom of Germany.--MacX85 (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Source? Because KoB was usually elected KoG, hardly so.--Yopie (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There was no distinction between king of Germany (or as you say "German king"), king of Italy and king of Arelat. All these titles were connected to title of elected king of Rome (who in turn had to be crowned by pope in order to become Holy Roman Emperor). King of Bohemia was by no means sub king of any entity. His accession to throne was either through law of succession (i. e. the oldest male heir of throne) or, in case of extinction of dynasty, by election of Bohemian nobility. Roman emperor, in turn, only officially confirmed the accession of king of Bohemia. But this confirmation was pure formality without real influence to accession to the throne. On the other hand, before Bohemia was promoted to kingdom, there were certain periods when Holy Roman emperor had real influence to accession to Bohemian throne, mainly in times of crissis in Bohemia. But it all virtually ceased after Bohemia was promoted to kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1028:919D:9726:867:B53B:E382:2887 (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Map[edit]

Re to:diff by User:Jirka.h23

As i mentioned it can be seen in Kingdom of France, German Empire, Russian Empire, Austrian Empire how a former country should be represented in a map: it should show relation to its surrounding regions, not just internal divisions. Your example of Electorate of Mainz has a low quality raster map, so it is not a good example, unlike for instance Electorate of Cologne or Kingdom of Bavaria, which all have good quality maps showing surrounding territories. The fact that it was not always part of the Holy Roman Empire is not relevant as there is no rule that the map should show how the map of the state looked always. No country was always in any specific shape or condition. Prussia was not always part of German Empire, yet its map shows it within the German Empire. In fact the Kingdom of Bohemia was most of its history part of the Holy Roman Empire so it is the appropriate way to display it, as you can see in similar articles.
If you have a better high quality vector map, you are free to share it on Wikipedia and add it to an article, but if you just remove a quality map without any justification and a better quality replacement, you risk being reported for disruptive editing, so consider yourself warned.--Der Golem (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No need to warn me, I know that I can always solve any contradiction with you in a civilized manner. Unfortunately I am now quite busy, but I will create an image more similar to your examles later.Jirka.h23 (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Finally done, Kingdom of Bohemia now he has similar locator as are all your examples. - Locator_Bohemia_within_Europe_(1714).svg Jirka.h23 (talk) 09:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is a very nice map and I find it very suitable for the infobox. Thanks. I cleaned some of the unnecessary maps in the article and added a map showing a different, older administrative subdivision.--Der Golem (talk) 08:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. I am sorry, but I do not see a reason for adding map showing almost the same but in differnet style (than are other examples of other kingdoms). Best whould be, as for example in German Empire: locator + more detailed map (as it was before your edit). Also in case of the Lands of the Bohemian Crown image, I think that maximum extend of the Kingdom is more related to the text on left.Jirka.h23 (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you believe that the two images currently in the infobox are showing almost the same, then why did you insist in removing the original one, and then replaced it with this new one, when they show almost the same in the first place? That shows some contradiction in your intentions(?). Secondly, concerning the more detailed map, it does not function as does the detailed map in German Empire article. This map doesnt show any neighbours, and the regions inside are nearly invisible from the infobox, giving the reader very little useful information (if placed in infobox). Unlike the states in German Empire, the regions in Bohemia played rather small role in relation to each other historically. Besides this, the map is in German language, so it is quite unfitting for the English Wikipedia. On top of all, the regions displayed in this specific map show the regions following the late Austrian reform, so for overwhelming majority of the kingdom's history, the regions were not in this shape; were historically rather insignificant, therefore not relevant for infobox. The original map shows detailed relation to the Bohemian Crown (as I recently added the Crown Lands in pink) and to the relevant surrounding territories (maybe similarly to Kingdom of Bavaria), which does give the reader more important information than a foreign-language map with nearly unreadable divisions that existed for a short span of the state's history..--Der Golem (talk) 02:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This map under Charles IV does not display the Bohemian Crown, since Brandenburg, even though under the control of the king, was not part of the actual Crown Lands, so it is incorrect to display it there. Lower and Upper Lusatia, which were part of the Crown Lands are not shown in the new Europe map, as 1714 does not show the Crown Lands' maximum extent, which is in fact shown in the original map.--Der Golem (talk) 03:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I responded to your recent edit; where you claimed to Yopie that there is some consensus, but as I said, I do not see a reason to have two similar maps in infobox. Yes, firstly I was a bit sceptical about locator, but then I changed my mind as other countries have it too. Best would be to standardize all infoboxes. As for the second image, text is in both nearly invisible, but if you want remove it at all. About Brandenburg, your info is interesting, I will learn about it as much as I can later. Jirka.h23 (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Next time you have sudden changes in you mind, maybe you don't need to let it affect Wikipedia readers by randomly removing locator maps from Wikipedia infoboxes.--Der Golem (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Jirka, is better to have map with locator within Europe in infobox. Two similar map locators is too much.--Yopie (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was a locator map originally and you kept removing it, so your statements contradict your actions. At least have the decency to undo the part of the edits for which you explained your disagreement, and not re-add information that was proven wrong, so that I don't need to clean it up after you.--Der Golem (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even though I was in favor of the map made by Jirka.h23, I found there are major errors coming from the map being a combination of 1618 map copy-pasted into a 1714 map of Europe. So unless these errors are fixed in the future, that file is currently unsuitable for an encyclopedic article. A correct map of Bohemia is in place instead.--Der Golem (talk) 07:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Errors are now corrected, revert. Jirka.h23 (talk) 10:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, I changed my stance to neutral on Commons.--Der Golem (talk) 03:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brandenburg not part of Bohemian Crown?[edit]

Der Golem, you stated in paragraph above, that Brandenburg was not part of the Bohemian Crown Lands and therefore you removed corresponding image, why do you think that? According to for example Hugh Agnew (Professor of History in Elliott School of International Affairs, who specializes in Central and Eastern Europe, with a focus on modern Czech history) clearly wrote that; Charles added Brandenburg (with its electoral vote) to the lands of the Bohemian crown, in his book "The Czechs and the Lands of the Bohemian Crown". I would say that your actions should be reverted. Source Jirka.h23 (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like corresponding text was changed by an annonymous ip in 2013. Jirka.h23 (talk) 11:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My statement about Brandenburg was based on this edit by an editor who stated "Luxemburgs did not succeed in 1306, Brandenburg never part of Bohemian crown lands". I didn't expect that the editor would write an untruth about such a basic topic. Evidently, he is wrong and Brandenburg was indeed part of the Bohemian Crown, (from 1373 until 1415?). So the content about it should be re-added. Brandenburg as a part of the Crown Lands is also supported by this German language source (page 29). The Czech article on Bohemian Crown states it was "loosely connected" (without a source however). What "loosely connected" means in terms of formal political relations is unclear.--Der Golem (talk) 03:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 22:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The issue about copyright of the image is resolved and return to original condition. The charge of copyright infringement was absurd as expected. Thanks. — Dragovit (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article Cleanup/Rewrite[edit]

This Wikipedia page seems to be neglected. The last notable date this page was updated was in 2016.

This Wikipedia page needs a cleanup! It is a level 4 vital article (out of 5), and yet it is a C-Class article!

Feel free to add comments about the rewrite of this page underneath this topic. ObsessiveScribe (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories