Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Smerus (talk | contribs) at 13:54, 20 August 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

What about that "consent of the then Polish king"? How he expressed that, who was he and how was he entitled to express consent to such things? (btw, a hint: Sejm) Halibutt 08:02, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

What you see in in the article now is all my source says. I see absolutely no reason for deleting that part of the text. And actually I do not understand your question - why should a king in the 18th century have no right to give an official consent to something? And, by the way, as for "only economy" - such a pawn of territory was a frequent economic arrangement at that time. In this case it was the economic use that was pawned and the starosta and guards ( that does not mean whole administration and whole defence ! ) was the collateral. Juro 21:46, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, in 17th and 18th century the power of Polish kings was close to none and his consent or lack of thereof was a secondary matter. What really mattered was the decisions of the Sejm - check the article on Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth for more details. That's why I found this statement highly doubtful and that's why I have no idea why to mention the Polish king: he might've known about the matter, just like millions of other inhabitants of Poland and Lithuania. So what?

Also, in Polish historiography the area is commonly described as a Polish fief. It might've been pawned for debts, but in reality the political system introduced there did not differ from the system of the rest of Poland. The towns (like any other town in Poland or Lithuania) had their own defence, mostly organised of local merchants. And the starosta was not the one who gained most profits from the area - it was the Crown. Starosta was simply the highest member of local administration, and had the same rights as in other Polish or Lithuanian cities. The only difference was that there was a huge problem with banditism in the area and the Crown sponsored local standing army of guards (much like in Podolia or Ukraine).

So, all in all, the area adopted Polish administration system, Polish military defence, Polish overlordship and Polish tax system. It remained historically, politically and culturally a part of the Crown of the Kingdom of Hungary and was internationally considered part of it, to be returned after the debt is repaid. Halibutt 09:01, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

I will remove the dispute warning, because "the factual accuracy" is certainly not disputed. Except for parts of the modern history, I have used sources of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, Hungarian and German sources. Nothing of what the article says is wrong. If you have problems with some interpretations, I have no problem if you add sentences saying that "But Polish historiography says XY", provided that you use serious Polish material and do not delete facts. I have no emitional link to Spis or anything associated with it. Juro 21:25, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I reinserted the {{disputed}} tag. Currently the factual accuracy is disputed between me and you. If you want to remove the tag - please provide more info on the following:

1. The consent of the Polish king, as well as its importance and validity
2. those Polish noble insurrections - could you be more specific?
3. Explain the idea of a region that is subject to administration, jurisdiction, taxation and military of another state, yet it is only the economic use of the territories that is subject to pawn to Poland. How does it differ from being a typical fief? Note that I'm not disputing the very fact that Spis was a part of the Crown of Hungary, just like Pomerania or Opole were a part of the Crown of Poland, eventhough both these areas were lost by Poland relatively early.

-- Thanks in advance, Halibutt 00:12, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm the whole modern history part if definetely NPOVed. I changed few obvious mistakes. Pelbiscite was agreed by both gvt - Polish and Czechoslovakian, but it was withdrawed after Czechoslovakian pressure. The Polish taking of the Spisz was after local organisations issued calls for incorporation into the Poland. Population: the census quoted IIRC was for whole area, including territories which were not disputed by Poland. I've ever heard about battle under Kiezmark, I know however that Polishunits were withdrawed after Ententa demanded it. There are questions of murders of plebiscite workers (e.g. was Wisniowiecki slain, or he drowned while escpaing? ) Gorals which formed majority in disputed territory LINGUISTICALLY were Polish, but many of them indeed considered themselves Slovaks. Not to mention that plebiscite region was (against all wishes of allied commision) virtually occupied by Czech forces. Czechs also wanted to annex Zakopane and Polish Podhale to Czechoslovakia. It wasn't that it was just eveil Polish expansionists you know... In short, this modern section is WILDLY POV and come times even counterfactual. Szopen 12:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aa far as I remember, I have used a book from the Slovak Academy of Sciencies for that part, so the real problem might be that you know Polish sources only ...But that does not matter...Juro 01:18, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

That's the problem. You have used Slovakian sources only, I used Polish sources only :) I've read an artcile about Spisz problem, which pointed that controversies are large mainly because nobody really cared aboput the region (as contrary to what the article claims, it were local leaders which puyshed hard Warsaw to start noticing the Spisz). Just one example: death of Wisniowiecki: Polish side claims that he was killed by Czechs and then his body thrown into the river, and for "proof" the section results are shown. Czecho-Slovak side claims that he incited the quarrel and then he was escaping, and during escape he drowned in river, and for the "proof" THE SECTION RESULTS ARE SHOWN. Wunderbar, nicht war? Szopen 07:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

That's the world of history ...The more you go into details, the more complicated it gets - and finally you almost always find out that you cannot make any unambiguous judgement... Ancient history is more interesting, because all the details are not known...:) Juro 03:20, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Juro, taking aside the NPOV wording which I do not want to touch right now, I DO dispute the claims about Slovakians. First, they were Gorals, speaking mostly Polish dialect and all Polish sources I touched call them just flatly Polish. Second, sigh, just see the whole our discussion above. It was local population activists who wanted to join Poland, not Warsaw. In Warsaw initially no one realy cared about that.

Székely population in Szepes county

The present article contains significant misinformation regarding the early history of Szepes county, since the residents of the ten lance bearer districts were in fact Székely border guards, as attested by contemporary documents and original place names. Árpád 03:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

No, that's wrong, dear fascist vandal. Juro 03:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You may feel free to include any exact proof that they were indeed Slovak. The administrative unit "sedes" (=szék in Hungarian) was highly characteristic of the organization of Székely territories. Among other things, the names of old settlements like Eőr, Strázsa, etc. give exact proof that they were settled by the Hungarian kings in an uninhabited forest area to guard the borders of the kingdom (called "Gyepű" at the time). Árpád 05:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

According to all new Slovak texts they were Slovak, according to all old texts they were not. And you can be sure that I do not care about the nationality of some border guards. Juro 12:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, in order to create a NPOV article, all mainstream theories should be mentioned, in my opinion (the devil is in the details). History is always a synthesis of small facets that cannot be overlooked if the criteria of objective scientific research are observed. Árpád 06:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Changes to the article

I have copyedited the article to conform to standard English. Also I have sought to remove POVs where I found them. I have removed the description of the Czechoslovak-Polish border dispute (1918-1947) to a separate article, as it unbalanced the present article. Lastly I have taken out information about contemporary Spiš to a new article Spiš region, Slovakia so as to prevent confusion.Smerus 13:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)