Masuria
Put this back up when it correct and not insulting to fellow Wikipedians'''Masuria''' is the English name for ''Masuren'' or ''Masurenland'' (Polish ''Mazury'') situated in the southern part of what was East Free ringtones :Prussia/Prussia, Germany. In the post-Majo Mills :World War II/World War II redrawings of European borders, this territory was taken from Mosquito ringtone :Germany/Germany and given to Sabrina Martins :Poland/Poland.
The 'Masurenland' and 'Masurische Seenplatte' (Masurianland and Masurian Lakes Platteau), also called 'Land der Tausend Seen' , (Land of a thousand lakes) has a great many lakes. As in other parts of northern Germany from east of Nextel ringtones Hamburg on the Abbey Diaz :Elbe/Elbe river to Free ringtones :Mecklenburg/Mecklenburg
and Majo Mills :Pomerania/Pomerania at the Mosquito ringtone :Oder/Oder river to the Sabrina Martins :Vistula/Vistula river one continous strech of lakes
make it in our times a beautiful vacation paradise. These lakes are the remnants of the Cingular Ringtones :ice-age/ice-age , when all north eastern Germany ,present Poland and further north-eastern Europe was covered with ice. By ten thousand BC this ice started to melt. Great geological changes have taken place and even in the last 500 years the maps showing the lagoons and Haffs (peninsulas) at the camaro but :Baltic Sea/Baltic Sea have greatly altered appearances.
The southern part of eastern Prussia , the Old Prussian lands Sudauen and Galindien (Sudovia and Galindia) had remaining wilderness areas longer than most of Europe. The deep forrests in these territories made it possible for as failing :Ostpreus sische Elche/Ostpreussische Elche or moose , multiple cell :Aurochs/Aurochs , bears and many other mammals to survive. During the Baltic or student body :Northern Crusades/Northern Crusades native Prussian population also had the chance to survive in the remaining wilderness areas against the onslaught of mighty Crusader armies from all over Europe and from Asia.
During andros contributed :Reformation/Reformation and 1820s multiplied :Anti-Reformation/Anti-Reformation times people from lands south of Prussia , fromintersecting at :Masovia/Masovia, came north and took refuge in than islands :Protestant/Protestant Prussia. Later it became customary to call the Galindia land of Prussia 'Masurenland' or Masuria in honor of the many people from Masovia , who had come to Prussia .Communist nationalistic Poland laid claims to Masuria at next millennium :Treaty of Versailles/Treaty of Versailles , pointing out to the many Slavic sounding names of the Prussian Masurians. The be shooting :League of Nations/League of Nations held elections in 1920 as to whether the people in Prussia wanted to remain with Germany or join the state of Poland. In West Prussia over 92% voted to remain with Germany , in East Prussia 98% voted to remain with Germany.
Poland never gave up trying to conquer this land, as they had conquered the land of mergers the :Masovia/Masovia years ago.
Prussian Galindia was originally much larger and reached further south and east , but since Masovians and Poles conquered much of this land the borders between Prussia, Lithuania and Poland were set in 1422 by the Treaty of Melno Lake .These borders between Prussia, Lithuania and Poland were unchanged until the military take-over by Stalin in and after 1945.
Polish sources love to claim all of East and West Prussia , not outlive :Pomerania/Pomerania, official identification :Silesia/Silesia , Eastern atmosphere gives :Brandenburg/Brandenburg as regained original Polish land . The northern part of East Prussia, today definitely say :Oblast Kaliningrad/Oblast Kaliningrad , taken by Soviet Union is at least spared that aspect of twisted history. Vast Polish effords have shown great success with Westerners, where even learned history graduates can not tell the difference between Masovia and Masuria.
Masuria, or the Masurian Lakes Platteau is in the area of the cities of Angerburg, Loetzen, Nikolaiken,Allenstein today inverleith immediately :Olstyn/Olstyn, Angerburg, Rastenburg, Roessel, Rhein, Sensburg, Ortelsburg, Johannisburg, Treuburg.
A map of 1660 Prussia showing above cities and to the south of it Masovia : listeners confused :http://wwwtest.library.ucla.edu/libraries/mgi/maps/blaeu/prvssia-preview
same map larger mutations of :http://wwwtest.library.ucla.edu/libraries/mgi/maps/blaeu/prvssia
(The many lakes are shown in brownish color on this map, Spirding See is the largest ).
A current website for travels to Masuria busy fetching :http://www.launer-reisen.de/reisen/masuren.htm/http://www.launer-reisen.de/reisen/masuren.htm
affiliated apparently user:H.J.
What is wrong with the entry? It looks pretty good to me. User:sodium/sodium
:hi Sodium you have to go over a lot of wiki history to get this one...suffice it to say that a certain person finds it impossible to write an NPOV, historically correct article if it has to do with any part of the world that might once have been part of Prussia.
Are there Moose in Europe? Or are they Elk? Honestly am ot sure, but have had this conversation in pubs in Germany and seem to remember that Moose are North American, and Europe has elk that are moose-sized, but don't have horns like Bullwinkle...???User:JHK/JHK
Apparently they are moose, although sometimes called elk in Europe. Antlers and all. I am more concerned with the poor Prussia being assaulted all those years by the evil Poles in the article. And the claim that the Polish-Prussian border never changed between 1422 and 1945. Stretches belief. rmhermen
I took out "learned history graduates" and replaced it with "many".
User:JHK/JHK you constantly write snide remarks to other wikipedians about my entries on subjects you don't know about .
I am assuming that you are referring to this quote .
If the truth of the article is too strong for your taste , then look at the Masovia entry, where "yes it was conquered by Polish dukes", was immediately proudly verified. If someone else objects to stating it like it is, let them "water it down".
Do me a favor , get enough sleep and do look at a map when I ask you to repeatedly. It does help and then you will not put Luebeck in the communist GDR again , you won't mix up Masuria and Masovia ( which a lot of other people do too) and you can stop sniping at me. We'll both appreciate it ( and thereby I can fully appreciate your fine contributions).
As with the Aurochs , all you had to do , is what Paul Dry did, state the site that gives the exact location and for the time being clarify the question I posted several times, as to whether it was Masovia or Masuria. And do not try to tell me again, that :Masovia/Masovia in German is Masuria. Konrad von Masovien and Cymburga von Masovien ,mother of Habsburg emperor:Frederick III/Frederick III, are well known in German history (or at least used to be).
user:H.J.
The Ostpreussische Elch , moose like has Schaufeln (shovels see :Trakehner/Trakehner horses, whose brand is the Ostpreussische Elchschaufel (East Prussia elk/moose shovel)These Elch do go for a swim in the :Baltic Sea/Baltic Sea
user:H.J.
This is a very very bad entry. Many of the sentences are written in German (I'm guessing) and poorly translated into English. The editor does not follow standard typing conventions for spacing around punctuation marks (sometimes words follow periods with no intervening space). There is material here that is of no obvious relation to Masuria - is masuria in southern Prussia? If not, then what are the aurochs doing here? This is an example of why competent people despair of working here.
I tried a lot to make this entry into NPOV, then i forgot about it, and now, when i come back, i see that some 1/3 of my contribution is destroyed. First fact about plebiscite (that poeple were choosing between Prussia and Poland, not Germany and Poland), then about what happened about war, and when last Masurians left Masuria - first where turn into "intersting statement" then deleted. May i ask for explanation? I do not say that this deletion was wrong. I want only to know, why it was good, so in the future i could make better work.
user:szopen/szopen
Hi szopen, I think it was me who did most of the removing (though it's hard to tell, because the article had been subject to so many anonymous revisions). I don't normally view your contributions as candidates for heavy re-editing, but on this occasion I felt the article's integrity was already pretty much gone, and there were points whose accuracy I thought was deeply suspect (I don't know if these were your points, because there'd already been an "automated conversion"):
1. "Polish colonisers start to appear here in 13th century." - I'm no advocate of Gossdeutschland, as you've probably gathered, but I think the word here should be "Germans". I've read elsewhere that Poles started arriving in significant numbers a couple of centuries later: I may be wrong, but the 13th-century date sounds suspiciously early.
1. "For centuries Polish speakers consisted majority of the area." - The language data suggest that there ''wasn't'' a linguistic majority in the late 19th century, so I'd doubt that Poles were a majority earlier, given that they'd only been entering for a few centuries and many doubltless arrived in the 19th century.
3. "The League of Nations held plebiscite in 1920 as to whether the people in Masuria wanted to remain within Prussia or join the state of Poland. In Masuria region 98% voted to remain with Prussia. What they were not told, was that Prussia would not be an independent state, but part of Germany. This is more than probable, that if they had to choose between Poland (which at the time was fighting? fot its life with bolsheviks), Prussia and Germany, majority would choose Prussia too. What's more, Polish government wasn't really interested with receiving these lands, and envoys from Polish local organisation, oppressed by Germans, heard even once from Polish officials that nobody really care about Masuria and Warmia."
- I thought this section was particularly doubtful: (a) did the League ask people of plebiscite areas what state they wanted to be a part of within a country without mentioning the country? I doubt it. There wasn't a choice between Prussia and Germany because Prussia was a part of Germany, and separation hadn't been suggested as far as I'm aware. And I doubt that people who'd lived since 1871 in a Prussia that was a part of Germany would have been unaware of it.
4. New Polish government and Poles don't known anything abouth differences between Masurians and Germans and treat them all alike, like spoils of war. Plans of making evangelical voivodship for Masurians were abandonend quickly. After war there was around 100.000 Masurians in Poland; in 1956-62 most of them finally leaved Poland and today there is around six thousands of them left."
- The point about the Warsaw government not differentiating between Germans and Masurians is very interesting, but up to this point neither has the article! Who were these Masurians - not a post-WW2 invention, surely? But for the earlier reference to Masurian speakers, one would assume that Masurians were just inhabitants of Masuria. Clarification on this point would be most helpful.
I usually hold your contributions in considerable regard, and would be grateful if you could check up these points. By all means revise my revision if you still think it was destructive. Cheers, User:David Parker
:Thanks for explanations, David.
:ad 1) and ad 2) Most Polish settlements started there with conquest f teutonic knights. Teutons bring settlers from everywhere, from Germany and Poland too. Number of Polish settlers raised in 14th century, with conquest of Pomorze, Ziemia Chelminska and Michalowska, when Poles from this lands (and from elsewhere) started mass settling of sparsely settled lands.
: in 17th century, during Potop (1650 and later) this region of Prussia was already called "Polish lands" or something similar.
:Poles stopped to be majority there (Polish speakers to be more precise) in late 19th century.
:ad 3). In questionaire there was question of choice between Prussia and Poland, not between Germany and Poland. This is a fact. I think this could have impact of plebiscite, since they were choosing between state and home region.
:ad 4) Masurians weren't Germans, at least not all of them. Masurians weren't speakers of German language. This is case of all autochtones (non-German speakers, sometimes Polish patriots!), in Masuria and elsewhere - Polish government did much to awaken their national German consience simply by treating them as Germans (=enemy of the state) and sometimes expelling them just as Germans
The geogrpahic description of Masuria is outrageously wrong. Masuria and old GEast Prussia are not equivalent. Masuria only forms the southern portion of the territory. Though i dont know what poland calls the region for today, the historical import of Masuria makes the question irrelavent. Masuria never included the region inhabited by primarily germans or the earlier Balto-Slavic Prussians. It doesnt extend much farther than the so called "Masurian Lakes".
Plus, the explanation of of why Masurians decided for germany in the plebicite is simplistic and sounds defensive.
user tridesch
The explanation why the people of masuria voted with 97 % for germany/prussia is outrageously simplistic and biased. "It had nothing to do with nationality" is claiming that 97 % voted only out of fear from the soviets and there was no other motive at all.
CHris
: The problem is that this was no choice between Poland and Germany, but between Poland and Prussia, while nobody known whether Poland will exist at all. Large chunk of population gave their nationality as "Masurian", not German or Polish.
Well, i dont see your point, that the choice between Germany/Prussia is not the same. By stressing that again and again you are implying, that the vote would have been different if "Germany" would have been on the ballot. Which is, with due respect, very simplistic and even less true.
Prussia was since 1871 Part of the official 2nd German Empire, and, even besides that, Prussia was always part of "Deutschland", as was Austria as well.
I might further point your attention to the fact, that the German Empire 1871-1918 was a federation with ALL powers delegated to the member states, EXCEPT: Postal Services, Foreign Relations, War, Monetary affairs.
Everything else was left to the states, for example: When an saxon officer received in WW I the St. Heinrich Orden of Saxony, this was regarded higher than the Pour le merite because he was a SAXON citizen.
Or: There was no german citizenship per se, as you became german citizen only and automatically when becoming citizen of a member state of Germany. And, finally: You can be sure, that most Germans felt as such, but also and in many cases foremost, they felt as citizens of their particular state.
I would like therefore to sum up: There is IMHO no point in emphasising that the choice was Prussia/Poland and not Germany/Poland, as
a) i tried to explain the historical reason why Prussia was an option on the ballots instead of Germany, and
b) i also pointed out, that if Germany would have been put on the election ballot, the result would have been the same, as both were de facto the same, and, also regarded the same by the voters.
c) a final reason might be, that it was not sure, in which form Germany would emerge out of the struggle around the Versailles treaty. Would it be a Confederation ? A central state ? Would it be partly divided ? That is IMHO yet another reason why Prussia was put on the ballot, as the status of Germany was not really clear. (Same for Poland, as you mentioned)
A last point: I cede, that indeed large parts of the population (hoch much ?) considered themselves to be masurians. Though, i do not think this is relevant here, except maybe as a means to devaluate the result of the vote. "But they were not Germans, though they voted for it" . Nice point, but they voted in this particular situation for Prussia, which meant Germany. So what ?
Again, i would like to stress that this particular paragraph is simplistic. I agree with tridesh that it sounds quite defensive.
CHris
I still think that "Prussia" had different meaning than "Germany". "Poland" and "Germany" were nation state. Prussia was also common name for their "heimat" (for lack of better words in Polish). I guess it would be fair if the fact would be mantioned, with mentioning that it _mught_ influence the voting, but also explaining why decision to use "Prussia".
Again, majority of locals did not consider themselves "Poles" or "Germans" and they were not put in choice between Germany and Poland, but between their own heimat and Poland.
user:szopen
Of course Prussia has a different meaning than Germany. You pointed out correctly, that Prussia was more of an nation-mixed (sorry, didnt find a better word) than a national Germany, in the sense of "National State" would be. Nobody is denying this. Still, i would like to mention, that masuria was already part of such a "Nation State" since 1871, with the foundation of the German Empire.
Point is: An overwhelming majority voted for Prussia, and, let me make that very clear, aware that it would mean and meant since 1871, Germany. When you are stating that the voting resulted like it did because "Prussia" was on the ballots, you are implying that probably the voters would have opted in majority for Poland if Germany were on the ballot.
If you, however, are not this opinion but think that nothing would have changed in the final RESULT (Masuria stayed within the german empire) but only
in the numbers of the vote (maybe only 70 or 60 % for Prussia aka Germany) the mentioning of your arguments alone is distorting the fact that the majority voted not for poland.
Why ?
6 lines are devoted to the problem of voting and subsequently staying of masuria in Germany.
1
Line is neutral - "the league of nations held a referendum....."
0.25
line is stating the fact that 97.5 % voted for Prussia/Germany - this could be either considered neutral (fact) or pro-german, 'cause they won.
Whopping 5
lines however, are reserved for the explanations (of course, in the view of the author - not necessarily authoritative ! ) why the vote might have resulted like it did.
The last 1
line is not really to identify - disappointment by polish organisations, but also the mentioning of very strong polish organisations existing in masuria.
I dare to propose, that in every normal encyclopedia only the fact that masuria voted with majority for staying in Prussia/Germany, sometimes with %, sometimes without would have been mentioned. No explanation (which is necessarily not objective - who please knows exactly WHY the electorate voted like it did ? )
would have been given.
I finally would like to point out, that if we are underscoring that the electorate voted for "Prussia" and not for "Germany", we (2003) are implying that they (1918) did not know that Prussia meant also Germany. Who are we to judge that in hindsight and consider the people more or less stoic beings who put the vote on Prussia just because it was, subconscious and conscious their "heimat" ? I would rather suspect, they knew very well about the meaning and importance of this vote.
Proposal: First line and result in Percent, if desired, is kept. Last sentence, if desired, as well. NO interpretation of the (potential/suspected/guessed) intention of the masurian electorate is made.
CHris
Then lets move on to the next paragraph, much to do there as well ;-)
:I agree that there is too much interpretation and too much bias (POV) but at least some mention should be left of the location of the Russian army. Perhaps all the possible reasons could be condensed into one sentence. Rmhermen/Rmhermen 21:10, Oct 9, 2003
If in 1914 peasans in kielce weren't sure whether they are Poles or not, i guess the same may be applied about Masurians. "Poland" was new concept to most simple people, probably the same as "Germany". "Prussia" was not. They were members of Prussia and 1871 uniting does not change it much.
I am claiming that change in wording could've changing results in means of proportions (mabe from 90 to 80% or so), and different political situation could change it as well (say another few percents). If you are against it, then you could move those sentences to "Polosh organisation were believing, that...."
Fact is that majority of population before WWI did not describe themselves as Germans. They were describing themselves as Masurians.
user:szopen
@szopen: I do agree, that in Masuria lived indeed many people, who called themselves Masurians ( i dont know, i just believe you and others ;-) ). Though, i do not agree with the implicit suggestion in your first paragraph, that if they would have been aware of the "Poland-Concept" and familiar to it, they would have possibly voted for "Poland". Can Masurians be considered Poles ? Many Poles would without doubt say yes. Just as many Germans would say, they've been living in Germany since 1871 and voted for it in 1919, so they're Germans.
(Around Cottbus are living in Germany Sorbs, a slavic people. Guess, they would declare if you ask one, to be German and Sorb at the same time - though not polish. So not all slavic people bordering to nowadays-poland are automatically poles )
I would like to propose, that Masurians probably can not be claimed by either side absolutely as one of theirs. (This also refers to your last paragraph, "majority described themselves not as Germans" )
Okay, but that was'nt the point. Lets get back to the Elections. You and others pointed out insistently, that on the ballot "Prussia" was mentioned, and the red army was positioned in the east, waiting to attack. Okay, we consider that true. Now we come to the implications of these facts.
Question: Would the result have changed (much/decisive) ?
Szopens answer, i agree with, : No. Possibly, say, 80 % instead of 97.5 in Masuria would have voted like they did. Maybe a few percent less, maybe more.
Well, as long as the result would not have changed ( and i call 80 % still an overwhelming majority ) there is no point in mentioning facts, which MIGHT HAVE led to SOME UNKNOWN percents less result than the final 97.5 %. The mention serves only one purpose: to distort the impression that the majority voted for Prussia/Germany. If a reader reads that paragraph, the number 97.5 % will not as much stick in his mind as the following 1,2,5 lines explaining (actually, trying to explain, interpreting !) like that: "Yeees, the result was like this, buuut: there are some facts which make this result not really correct.." and so on. These sentences serve no purpose in an encyclopedia, with such a clear result in the background. They are only mudding the view to the naked number of the result.
One example, where a mentioning of the background is warranted, is the election 2000 in the U.S. of George W. Bush instead of Al Gore.
More than 50 % of all votes were Al Gore's, though finally the electoral college voted by a small margin (Florida) for George W. Bush. This is a situation which has happened several times in U.S. History, that the majority in terms of votes was on one side, tha majority of votes in the electoral college, which finally counted, on the other. Not much fuss about it. Though, this time, there have been lots of accidents or just strange things which surrounded the decisive voting in florida. You can bet, that in any major encyclopedia in 20 years, still only the fact is mentioned that Al Gore lost and Bush won. MAYBE, there will be a sentence about the circumstances which led to floridas vote for Bush. Maybe not. This is not done because they dont like Al Gore, it is done because if i say, "the voting procedure in florida was rigged" i have to have some evidence. If it is just my (by some facts justified, but not quantifiyable) opinion that the voting was rigged, i am not supposed to put that (though a reasonable guess in that case) in an encyclopedia. This es even more true, if we consider what was at stake in Florida: just a few votes to turn the tide for Al Gore. But what was at stake in Masuria ? A totally undecisive difference in percentage of 17.5 %. If there will probably no or few entrys in an encyclopedia about the decisive circumstances which led to Bush's victory over Gore, why entering a subjective (!) guess about only a few % difference which had no implication whatsoever for the final result in Masuria ?
CHris
CHris i am not implying that they were (Masurians) Poles (even if they were descendants of Polish colonisers and were speaking dialect of Polish). They weren't, as they weren't probably Germans. And they had choice between "Poland" and "Prussia", They could identify with Prussia, while i argue that their identification with Germany would be much less. I am not author of original wordings on the page, although from the (roughly) beginning i am trying to get some non-controversial version.
What's more, explaining the votes sometimes is needed, as the result was really surprise for Poles. The explaining why they (we) expected better results I say could be addon to article, even if this would be "the results was shock for Poles, because they were expecting... since... different explanation were later found, such as...". I many times found formulations such as "allied commissions were favouring Germans" and "German terror", but I wouldn't attach it to article as long as i can't find anything more except for slogans. I also found mentions that they had distinct "eastern prussian" identity and that theere were their own national rganisation in 1935, but had to do more research. Until that, rework the article as needed.
From very nationalistic pro-polish site:
(Bojowkarz - fighter???)
http://www.narodowcy.host.sk/walka/walka6.html
"German fighters were attacking Polish meetings, patriotic evenings, Warmiaks and Masurs admitting to Polishness, redactions of Polish newspapers. "Dom Polski" ... had to be patrolled by English army. Poles were fighting back. Many times fighters from "Sokol" were fighting with Germans fighters. There were victims too. In march 1920 brutally beaten by German fighters died Bogumil Linka. .... German propaganda was strenged. Clerks, priests, teachers,gendarms were agitating together. Right of vote had evryone born before 1905. That's how Germans received 157.000 additional votes by bringing emigrees from Reich, each of which had his travel paid. ... In July 1920 Soviets were on counteroffensive, thanks to which Germans could show cartoons (plaquets? plakaty...) with slogan "Bolsheviks close to Warsaw!".
The same site however admits that national movement there was weak... hmm...
szopen
What was exactly the wording during referendum? While reading abot Masurian National Park i found mentioning that it was choice between (both words used: Polen - Polska, Poland) and (Ostpreussen - Prusy Wschodnie, again both words used, Eastern Prussia). Does anyone has any info about what was exactly the question during referendum?? szopen
-
Found a piece of information:
"Ich wurde in Tilsit geboren. Meine durch Geburt erhaltene Staatsangehörigkeit war amtlich "preußisch-deutsch", im Anmeldezettel schrieb man deshalb in der Rubrik "Staatsangehörigkeit": -pr/dt.-"
Translation later, i'm too lazy now.
CHris
:My German is too weak to understand "I was born in Tilsit. My citizenship during birth was recorded as ??? prussian-german, in ??? was written ??? in the rubrik "citizenship" pr/ger" Is that right? User:Szopen/Szopen
I have an impression that massacres of the pRussians weren't of so large scale as presetned in article. Teutons were brutal conquerors, but they were genocidal maniacs. I think that should be reflected in article, and "survivors" should be replaced with some more neutral term.user::szopen/szopen
Edited some stuff, mainly removed the [subjective] explanations for the outcome of the league of nations ballot. You may bash me now :-)
CHris
1. ''is'' contra ''used to be''.
We have got 2004, not 1934. War is over.
2. Language of southern Prusia was "Masovian" dialect of Polish language. If regards its distribution you can have a look into the results of official GERMAN census.
3. ''Prussian immigrants from Masovia?'' - what is wrong with you?
4. ''Polish crown, at that time close Habsburg family members'' - were "close" to almost all royal families of Europe. Polish royal family used to marry the Germans, Ruthenians, French, Swedes, Hungarians etc. What do you want to prove?
5. ''southern (East) Prussia, which in 1818 was named Masuren(land)'' - the circumstancies of this were explained. Anyway the term Masuria was in common use long time before 1818.
Regards,
User:Yeti
Seems there is some edit war underway betwenn Yeti and an IP user. Anyway, what i want to say is that the last paragraph about the difference being in soviet Ostpreussen and polish Ostpreussen seems to me a bit euphemistic. I dont think there was such a big difference in the fate of the people living north and south of the new border, it certainly wasnt easy south of it in new Poland. Especially it sounds a bit biased, "all you have to do is to pass a citizenship exam and everything is fine".
CHris
-
Prussian original population was not exterminated.. TO were brutal conquerors, but not genocidal maniacs.. they slaughter "only" to convince oithers to subdue. User:Szopen/Szopen
-
Put some things straight. If someone could provide a map though, whis would be fine...
Chris
-
"By the 15th century, the original Prussian population were exterminated and the Prussians language suffered a decline." Ha! I suppose a language would "suffer a decline" if those who spoke it were "exterminated"! I edited this to say that the Baltic- Prussians had been largely assimilated understanding of course that many Old Prussians were indeed killed prior to the 15th century in the Order's conquest of what became known as East Prussia. But as noted elsewhere, many survived, accepted Teutonic overlordship and Chistianity, and were gradually assimilated into the expanding German population.
User:sca
posted @ 6:00 PM
0 comments
