Jump to content

Talk:Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Where Lithuanian tribe Yatviagi has gone?

[edit]

why Brest, Drohichin and Grodno is under Volyn rule????? while everyone knows that in these times in those lands Yatviagi lived and they belonged to Lithuania, they even came with king Mindaugas to sign piece treaty with Volyn...???????? can anyone explain me this nonsence in this article?????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.116.186 (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


and Hrodno is the capital city of what?????????? remove that delusional map from this article, otherwise you are simply spreading a lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.116.186 (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article's name

[edit]

It is not clear from the article whether it is an article about the territory, or about principality (the latter suggested by the lead). In the latter case it is unclear why it also goes into the post-principality time. If it is supposed to be the article about the region, the lead is misleading since it says the H-V was a state, etc.

We have two options, I think. We can make the article about the territory, and the time of the Principality would just be a chapter. But this solution to have it about the territory is a less favorable one, I think, because there are already articles about territoties and the articles are called Volhynia and Galicia. So, it is better for the article name to clearly say that this is the article about the state (principality).

And while we are at it, let's discuss renaming the article into Galician-Volhynian principality. This is a more common name in the literature and also used by Britannica. Thanks! --Irpen 23:44, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

The article is mostly about the state (principality) but because this state had a territory, it seems good to write what happened with that territory after the state ceased to exist.
Now, as to "Galicia-Volhynia", the naming issue is quite interesting, because Galicia means very different things to different people. The Spanish region aside, Galicia is still an ambiguous name even if we know we're talking about central Europe:
  1. Galicia (let's call it Galicia-1) may refer to the region around the city of Halych (Halicz, Galich, Galic), the territory of the Mediaeval Halych Principality. In Ukrainian it is called Halychyna, in Polish it is Ziemia Halicka (literally: Halicz Land). Some English-speaking Ukrainians might call it "Galicia" when talking in English The Poles, however, will never call it this way; they might call it Ziemia Halicka, Ruś Czerwona (Red Ruthenia) or Eastern Galicia, but not Galicia.
  2. Galicia (let's call it Galicia-2) may also refer to the Austrian province which existed from 1772 until 1918. This is what the Poles mean when they talk about Galicja. The Ukrainians call this entity Halychyna as well, but I guess it's not the first thing that comes to their minds when they hear this word.
Galicia-2 covered a different, larger area than Galicia-1. Actually, Galicia-2 included most of Galicia-1 but extended much farther to the west and included a large portion of Lesser Poland as well.
So to sum up, Galicia-1 and Galicia-2 were to different political entities, which covered different territories in different historical periods. Which means we need some nice disambiguation. I would suggest putting Galicia-2 at Galicia (Central Europe) and Galicia-1 at Halychyna (which now redirects to Galicia (Central Europe)) or to Red Ruthenia. But I guess this proposal just reflects my Polish POV so I'm open to other suggestions. – Kpalion (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It may save confusion to keep both political entities in the same article, since they didn't overlap in time, and very clearly differentiate them in the introduction. I realize it's still not 100% clear, because both geographic ranges are still referred to as Galicia/Halychyna today. I'm just concerned that if they're at separate articles, readers will assume that the difference between the names "Galicia" and "Halychyna" is more clear than it is. —Michael Z. 2005-08-4 15:04 Z

I support Michael's suggestion. The current article for Galicia-1 and Galicia-2 is already Galicia (Central Europe). It's lead should be modified to say that it's not only "the largest and northernmost province of Austria from 1772 until 1918" but a historic territory that changed hands in history as that article says further down anyway. But that's a separate issue. As for this article, if it gets the new name that includes the word "...principality", there won't be any confusion about territory/allocation. Two historic territories the state incorporated would not interfere with anything written here. If we agree on this, we only have to agree on Galician/Halych + Vohlynia/Volyn etc. choise of terms. I think that the state is most commonly called Galician-Volhynian principality in English and so should be the article with the alterantive names, given early on and redirects from them created. Moving from current Halych-Volhynia to Galician-Volhynian principality does not require an admin action, but we should give everyone who cares some time to object here first. Regards, --Irpen 21:53, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I don't object moving this article to Galician-Volhynian Principality if this is really what it's called in English. I only think that "Principality" should be capitalized since it's part of the name. BTW, I'm copying parts of this discussion to Talk:Galicia (Central Europe). – Kpalion (talk) 23:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on it is OK to name the land in Russian and Polish way, but it is not OK to call it by its native name. The histotical name for the land is the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria. What is with the Vohlynia part in it? If we to keep it as it was originally called then it should be consistent, if not the land should be called as Halych-Volyn and certaintly not Galicia-Vohlynia. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merging/connecting with article 'Galicia'

[edit]

As a lay reader on this subject, I feel I must describe my experience, which may be typical for other users too: I read the article Galicia a few times, without even noticing that the article Halych-Volhynia existed. I discovered Halych-Volhynia through a link in the article History of Russia. Therefore, I suggest that both articles be merged, or at the least be strongly connected, with links to the other article prominently placed in each. I believe that the eastern part of the Austrian province of Galicia could be characterised culturally as a successor to the Principality of Halych-Volhynia (after all, the majority of the population was Ruthenian-Ukrainian) and that therefore the article Galicia should be the master article, incorporating a chapter on Halych-Volhynia and linking to the article Halych-Volhynia for further information. RCSB 01:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am strongly against merging. I do intend to work on expanding Galicia when only I have more time than I have now (i.e. hopefully soon). Thanks for expressing your view on this. – Kpalion (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of Halych

[edit]

Shouldn't this redirect to Halych#Old_Halych? Btw, there is a list of rulers of this principality (I think...) at pl:Księstwo Halickie. There is also Halychyna. I am currently translating Piotr Włostowic and the pl article makes references to prince Wołodar of Halych-Przemyśl (Ruś Halicko-Przemyska), and there is prince Wołodar listed as ruler of Duchy of Halych (księtwo halickie) around (1092-1124) at the pl article above.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on current merging

[edit]

Please see Talk:Kingdom of Halicz-Wołyń for info re: merging, etc.--Riurik (discuss) 23:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge completed. --Riurik (discuss) 22:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

[edit]

I think that images of COA in the template contributes the article. There is no need to delete them. The golden lion on the blue field is a well-known COA of Halych-Volhynia in 13-14 centuries. Irpen, what the problem? --133.41.84.206 00:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

First, what is "known" about its color scheme? Second, please point a reliable source of the image. --Irpen 00:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here you are. Short information about Halych-Volhynia lions (2 pict) ([1]) based on Hrushevskyi work and description of collors of the Leopolis banner in the Battle of Tannenberg by Dlugosh. All links are in russian. There also numeros data in polish COA dictionaries of Bonecki and Niesicki([2] ) were you can find information about the history of HV coat of arms.

The image of lion is based on the lion charges of 13 th-14 th medieval rolls taken from Heraldik --133.41.84.206 03:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lets continue. What OR-ish elements do you find in the image of Kievan Rus? I agree, its not a COA, but a personal emblem of Volodymer. So what of it? It is made on the basis of this coin (You may see here http://www.gerb.bel.ru/pages/strani/ukraine2.htm) and can be used insted of empty COA as "Emblem of Volodymer", for exmpl. I see it is a common practice in Wikipedia. Look at Byzantine Empire article, and you will find self-made "Paleologs emblem" insted COA in the template. Nobody gets into a panic of it. Why should we avoid KR image?

The Palaiologoi family eagle should be removed. At least it does not flaunt the national colors of modern Greece or Turkey, like your picture does. --Ghirla-трёп- 09:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see you dislike yellow and blue, claiming them to be "national colours", and rejecting usefulness of templates :-). I think we shouldnt remove eagle (that actualy is not a COA but so-called shield-bearer) or Volodymer emblem (I can make it just gold if you like) because of such "arguments". Its better to standardize all article in the same style with the aid of the template. If you hate self-made images, please, be thoroughgoing and start the removing of self-made maps in Rus-related articles, (Rus Khanate or Sviatoslav) before critisizing my images. Those maps also using "natioanal" colours of Russia.--133.41.84.206 09:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian name

[edit]

The template renders the "native name" of the polity as "Галицко-Волинскоє Королѣвство". Please refer me to the chronicle or other medieval source that operates this term. If there are no contemporary sources using the modern Ukrainian name, it should be removed from the template. --Ghirla-трёп- 07:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This principality is normally called Galicia-Volhynia in English ... not the exotic Halych-Volhynia ... I can say that from experience, though doubtlessly google tests will show the Ukrainianized name has been boosted in English by loads of Ukrainian websites ... 336 hits on google books compared with 5 for Halych-Volhynia tells the real story though. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Galicia-Volhynia is transliterated from RUSSIAN. Halych-Volhynia is transliterated from UKRAINIAN. There were periods of time when the UKRAINIAN language was suppressed. People were sent to jail just for publishing in UKRAINIAN hence RUSSIAN transliterations became common in the "ENGLISH" world. Because of this suppression many Ukrainians now are offended by Russian transliteration of Ukrainian place names. Bobanni (talk) 08:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Galicia-Volhynia isn't Russian, it's English. Galicia comes from Eastern Slavic via Latin not Russian ... the fact that Ukrainians have decided to represent Г in English as "H" rather than "G" is neither here nor there. While how some names come into English may be unfortunate (I don't think this is an issue here though), that's the way it is and there's no part of WP:UE that states wikipedia should seek "de-russification" at the expense of usage. If you wish it to do that, go there first, not here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Per WP:NAME and WP:UE this page must be moved to "Galicia-Volhynia", the clear predominant way to refer to this kingdom in the language of this encyclopedia. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom, Duchy or Principality?

[edit]

Polish wiki's article is at pl:Księstwo Halicko-Wołyńskie, and księstwo in Polish translates as duchy, not a kingdom. The article doesn't make it clear why the entity should be treated as one with a crowned monarch. Google Book results do indicate, however, that Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia is a more correct name, as there are 34 results for Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia and none for Duchy of Galicia–Volhynia. However, Principality of Galicia–Volhynia seems even more correct: [3] (112 results). Could somebody clarify this? PS. Also, we need articles on the two principalities (of Galicia and Volhynia) before the merger (the literature, here, seems to favor the term duchy: Duchy of Volhynia (reds here) ([4] - 4), Principality of Volhynia ([5] - 92), Duchy of Galicia ([6] - 39), Principality of Galicia ([7] - 398) - some of them may however refer to the latter, merged entity...). Overall, the term Principality seems the most correct in this context, and I'd suggest a move. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the rulers - and the most significant ones, Daniel and Lev - were crowned King. It is often referred to as a principality in the context of the various successor states to Kieven Rus, because the others were all principalities. So if an article refers to various Russian or Kieven Rus principalities then Galicia-Volhynia will be included in that number. However, I suspect that sources which consider Galicia-Volhynia seperately refer to it as a kingdom. The Kingdom aspect is significant because these rulers were the only Rurikids (the family that had ruled Kieven Rus and its descendants including in Muscovy) to have been crowned Kings.Faustian (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, the title of the article is misleading. This political entity was described the Land of Galicia-Volhynia, union of principalities (duchies) of Galicia and Volhynia, later known as the Kingdom of Ruthenia (Rus'). NOT Kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia - Romanovich Rurikids didn't try to create a title to be separate from the Rus', but a title to have claims to all of Rus'. The same title (King of Ruthenia) was later used by Polish kings after they inherited Galicia from Yuri-Boleslaw II.212.87.174.235 (talk) 08:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Country's name

[edit]

The country was never called as Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia. It is totally invented name such as the Russian Panfilov's Twenty-Eight Guardsmen and rest of Soviet and Russian historiography such as denial of GULAG, existence of Hitler–Stalin military pact, the 1939 Soviet–Nazi Germany victory parade in Brest-Litovsk and other stuff. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The country's name on all maps of that period and couple of centuries later was Russia and therefore Poland following occupation of Western Ukraine named the territory as Ruthenian Voivodeship which means Russian Palatinate similar to count palatine. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we counting google search? How is that justifiable? Could it be that there are less older book contemporary with those times than books written later? Why are we turning Wikipedia into new reality by trusting amateur historians who count google search? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Coins, maps contemporary with that period show that the country at the right-bank Ukraine was known as Russia, yet Wikipedia editors count google search. Who can explain the reason? On the other hand there are no archaeological evindences, nor maps of that period that show existence of Russia around Moscow, yet the English Wikipedia continues to reflect Russian propaganda. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Halych/Galicia

I wondered if there was a connection between the name Galicia in Spain and Galicia in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. There is a connection, and it is not a coincidence. It comes down to salt mining and the Celts. See https://books.google.com/books?id=xNEaD1g7XScC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Kurlansky,+Mark+ salt+googlebooks&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAGoVChMI09WRivSayQIVSB0-Ch1QjwzY#v=onepage&q=Galicia&f=false

Even Halle, Germany, has a connection to salt!

Take a look at the first of the four pages.

I urge that there be some discussion of how Halych/Galicia as a name came to be.

Mr. Posen (talk) 11:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 September 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Rus' → Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia – While there is more than enough discussion about what should be the right article title (see above on this talk page) I do not see a clear consensus in favour of the recent bold rename to Kingdom of Rus'. Unless a new consensus emerges, the article should be moved back to its original title. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC) Marcocapelle (talk) 20:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rex Russiae

[edit]

This is an anachronistic title and so is "Regnum Rusiae" [sic]. "Russia" is a Greek exonym for Rus, not applied specifically to Halych or Volhynia and adopted by the Moscovites only in the sixteenth century. The word "Russia" doesn't appear in Latin texts before the sixteenth century.

In contrast, "Imperator Praxedem, RUTENORUM regis filiam, sibi in matrimonium sociavit." (Annales Augustani 1089). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pernambuco1 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Map Showing Louis' Domain

[edit]

This wasn't equipped with a link to the Louis in Question. It's Louis The Great of Hungary

Louis I of Hungary

Whoever wants to update the image description can do so. 2603:7080:CB3F:5032:D454:2277:890E:287F (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Королєвство Русь

[edit]

There no sources (except Wikipedia) for Old East Slavic Королєвство Русь, romanized: Korolevstvo Rusĭ, see

  • google search for "королєвство русь" and "королєвство"

— Yuri V. (t•c) 15:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Source 2 tagged as better source needed - why?

[edit]

Per the title, why is the second source regarding the name / pronunciation of the kingdom tagged for a need of a better source? Aliy Dawut (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kingdom_of_Galicia–Volhynia&oldid=1232858838"