Future of Belarus - Poland and EU or Russia?

[Pangur Bán]

The large city is a 18th/19th/20th century phenomenon. The rise of such cities is why German ceased to be the dominant public language in many EE urban centres, outnumbered by the influx of Slavic monolinguals. I.e. your response has very little to do with my comment about PLC (which didn't say anything about 'ethnic Germans' either btw).

 

[Domen]

The large city is a 18th/19th/20th century phenomenon.

No, Pangur. In every single era, people distinguish the relative size of things.

Medieval people were also distinguishing between various sizes of towns and cities.

In the 15th and 16th century Poland, there were the following types of urban centres:

1) civitates primi ordinis / civitates principales

2) civitates et oppida secundi ordinis

3) oppida habenti fora annualia et septimanalia

4) oppida non habentes fora

This is the actual, most common typology for Polish towns from sources of that period (legal acts, tax resolutions, etc.).

In some sources from that period there were even more types of towns and cities distinguished.

Modern literature distinguishes between 4 and 7 types of Medieval urban centres, depending on author.

Typology of Medieval towns is given historians such as Mols, Keyser, Amman, Samsonowicz, Stoob, etc.

 

[Traitorfish]

The fact that in majority of towns there were no communities of ethnic German settlers.

Why does the use of the German language suppose German settlement? Languages aren't straightforwardly hereditary, and it's quite common for non-indigenous languages to be adopted by urban populations which are plugged into trans-local economy. English was the characteristic urban language of Medieval Scotland, for example, even though the indigenous languages of the region were Gaelic and British and there having been no demographically significant influx of English settlers. All we need to suppose for widespread German-speaking is that German was a better trade-language than the various local Slavic dialects, which shouldn't be particularly contentious.

 

[Domen]

Why does the use of the German language suppose German settlement?

Exactly - this is what I wrote.

In the Middle Ages German was - among Latin - "Lingua" (in case of German, mostly Lingua of business - due to the existence of Hansa).

Just like today English is "Lingua".

The fact that I am now writing in English language, does not mean that I am ethnic English and that English is my primary language.

 

[Pangur Bán]

No, Pangur. In every single era, people distinguish the relative size of things.

Medieval people were also distinguishing between various sizes of towns and cities.

In the 15th and 16th century Poland, there were the following types of urban centres:

1) civitates primi ordinis / civitates principales

2) civitates et oppida secundi ordinis

3) oppida habenti fora annualia et septimanalia

4) oppida non habentes fora

This is the actual, most common typology for Polish towns from sources of that period (legal acts, tax resolutions, etc.).

In some sources from that period there were even more types of towns and cities distinguished.

Modern literature distinguishes between 4 and 7 types of Medieval urban centres, depending on author.

Typology of Medieval towns is given historians such as Mols, Keyser, Amman, Samsonowicz, Stoob, etc.

So your methodology is say I am wrong, make some inaccurate assertion, and then back it up with a misunderstanding of some 'evidence'.

As far as this 'debate' is concerned, I couldn't care less how some historians or primary documents classify settlements, not relevant. The modern city didn't exist in the PLC or elsewhere in Europe at the same time (with some arguable exceptions like Constantinople, Paris, etc), end of story.

 

[Pangur Bán]

The fact that I am now writing in English language, does not mean that I am ethnic English and that English is my primary language.

Exactly.

 

[Traitorfish]

Exactly - this is what I wrote.

In the Middle Ages German was - among Latin - "Lingua" (in case of German, mostly Lingua of business - due to the existence of Hansa).

Just like today English is "Lingua".

The fact that I am now writing in English language, does not mean that I am ethnic English and that English is my primary language.

But if you were living in a Scottish burgh in the 16th century, speaking English as a native and primary language, it's quite probable that it would, regardless of your personal ancestry, and that's a much closer analogy to the question of Commonwealth burghers than the one you offer.

 

[Domen]

and then back it up with a misunderstanding of some 'evidence'.

What "misunderstanding" ??? Those 4 types of urban centres, differed in size.

In the 15th century, for example, "civitates principales" were basically cities with ca. 4,000 - 5,000 and more inhabitants, "civitates et oppida secundi ordinis" - with ca. 2,000 or more; "oppida habenti fora annualia et septimanalia" - ca. 800 - 1,000 or more and "oppida non habentes fora" - anything over 400 citizens.

Of course these are average levels of population for each type (there were several "civitates principales" with over 10,000 and even over 20,000).

the modern city didn't exist in the PLC or elsewhere in Europe at the same time (with some arguable exceptions like Constantinople, Paris, etc)

There were many cities in Medieval Italy and Medieval Iberia with over 50,000 and even over 100,000 people.

Actually Paris was an exception in France. France was among regions with low urbanization levels.

Much more urbanized than Medieval France, was Medieval Italy, Iberia and Low Countries.

Even Kiev Rus before the Mongol Invasion had a bigger number of large cities than France or England.

The modern city didn't exist in the PLC

Warsaw had over 100,000 inhabitants during the 18th century, already before the partitions.

 

[Domen]

speaking English as a native and primary language

But most of burghers in Medieval Poland did not speak German as a native and primary language. Many spoke German only as a "Lingua" of business, sometimes as a language of writings. But Latin was still more popular than German (overall ratio of Latin to German texts was like ca. 70% to 30% in favour of Latin).

And remember - this refers to Medieval Poland, not to Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (which is not a Medieval period).

After the decline of the Hanseatic League, German as a "Lingua" of business in Poland became less important than it used to be before that.

 

[Traitorfish]

Exactly - this is what I wrote.

In the Middle Ages German was - among Latin - "Lingua" (in case of German, mostly Lingua of business - due to the existence of Hansa).

Just like today English is "Lingua".

The fact that I am now writing in English language, does not mean that I am ethnic English and that English is my primary language.

Are those categories actually contemporary? I can't think of anywhere else in the Catholic world that distinguished settlements on the basis of population size, instead preferring political and ecclesiastical distinctions which were only broadly coincidental with population.

But most of burghers in Medieval Poland did not speak German as a native and primary language. Many spoke German only as a "Lingua" of business, sometimes as a language of writings. But Latin was still more popular than German (overall ratio of Latin to German texts was like ca. 70% to 30% in favour of Latin).

Why would they all speak Polish at home and German in the street?

 

[Pangur Bán]

Not cities in the modern sense, large industrial factory centres routinely above 200,000 in size with complex sewage systems, transportation, etc. Even if one accepted that the larger medieval urban centres like Kiev or Paris were essentially earlier versions of the same thing, it doesn't make your comment any more relevant since PLC was definitely not urbanized in the industrial sense and thus the town versus city distinction you tried to make is anachronistic.

 

[Domen]

Are those categories actually contemporary?

No, categories are taken from original, 15th century documents (legal acts, tax resolutions, military calls to arms, etc.).

The bigger and richer the town / city was, the more rights and privileges it had, but also the more tax and military obligations it had.

Population estimations are counted on the basis of many sources (from archaeology via written sources to demographic studies ).

Even if one accepted that the larger medieval urban centres like Kiev or Paris

Not to mention Florence, Genoa, Bologna, Pisa, Venice, Siena, etc., etc. (there were dozens of cities over 50,000 population in Italy).

since PLC was definitely not urbanized in the industrial sense

Definitely there were manufactories in the PLC during the 1550 - 1660 period and then during the 1740 - 1795 period. And at that time, I guess, there was nothing more "industrial" than manufactories. Factories in its modern sense emerged later. On the other hand, during the Middle Ages urban industry were basically crafts (but of course there was also mining, steel works, etc. - however, mining and steel works were not urban, but countryside industries).

 

[Pangur Bán]

Are those categories actually contemporary? I can't think of anywhere else in the Catholic world that distinguished settlements on the basis of population size, instead preferring political and ecclesiastical distinctions which were only broadly coincidental with population.

Indeed, 'city' we took from a word basically meaning 'episcopal seat' and 'town' from a word meaning 'farm settlement' ... quite recently too.

 

[Traitorfish]

No, categories are taken from original, 15th century documents (legal acts, tax resolutions, military calls to arms, etc.).

The bigger and richer the town / city was, the more rights and privileges it had, but also the more tax and military obligations it had.

Population estimations are counted on the basis of many sources (from archaeology via written sources to demographic studies ).

(I meant "contemporary" as in "contemporary with the Commonwealth", rather than "modern".)

That seems very eccentric. Why did the Commonwealth categorise its settlements on the basis of head-count, when the rest of the Catholic world categorised its settlements on an ecclesiastical basis?

 

[Domen]

and 'town' from a word meaning 'farm settlement'

Even in small towns, large part of population were busy with crafts and trade.

I have exact data for my home town (at that time ca. 800 people) in year 1585. But at first let's establish how many of those 800 were men and how many were children. Basing on demographic data from the book "Demografia Rzeczypospolitej Przedrozbiorowej" by Cezary Kukło, we can estimate that in a small town with 800 people, ca. 50% (400) would be men and of them ca. 35% (140) would be children between 0 and 14 years old. So we have in total 260 men aged between 15 and 65+ years old (of them ca. 4% - or 10 - would be over 65 years old and ca. 20% - or 26 - would be between 15 and 24 years old). The book provides exact demographic data from a large city (one of urban parishes in Cracow) and from countryside (one of rural parishes in Cuiavia). My estimation is averaged (I assumed that demographic structure of population in small towns was something intermediary between large cities and villages).

So we have ca. 220 men between 25 and 65 years old.

And the town had in total around 100 artisans of 12 different professions in year 1585.

Of course not everyone who was not a craftsman, was a farmer. There were for example 3 inns and 11 pubs in my town in year 1609 - someone had to work there. There were also merchants and tradesmen apart from craftsmen, etc., etc. Of 11 pubs, 3 were owned by nobility and 8 by townsmen.

There was a parochial school, as well as a hospital (asylum) and several churches as well.

 

[Pangur Bán]

What Domen is talking about is just top-down classification of resource capability, the way England grouped its shires and boroughs, monasteries, baronies, and so on, by how much tax they paid; or by legal status (cf. Scottish 'royal burghs' and 'burghs of barony', which had differing trade monopolies and burghess rights). The distinctions have no relevance to this topic and are a distraction.

 

[Domen]

What Domen is talking about is just top-down classification of resource capability

This classification resembles also the population size of classified towns and cities, as is proven by studies in historical demography.

The distinctions have no relevance to this topic and are a distraction.

To which topic ??? All of our current discussion has no relevance to the "Future of Belarus" topic.

 

[Domen]

(I meant "contemporary" as in "contemporary with the Commonwealth", rather than "modern".)

That seems very eccentric. Why did the Commonwealth categorise its settlements on the basis of head-count,

Those "contemporary with the 15th century (1400s)" sources, do not mention numbers of inhabitants of course.

Poland did not categorize on the basis of head-count. But demographic studies prove, that towns qualified as "civitates principales" had - on average - much higher population than cities qualified as "civitates secundi ordinis", and so on ("civitates secundi ordinis" had on average more people than oppida, etc.).

Sources say, which cities were qualified as "civitates principales" (in case of Greater Poland region, such city in the 15th century was Pozna&#324.

Sources also say, which cities were qualified as "civitates secundi ordinis" (in the 15th century in Greater Poland region those were, for example, Pyzdry, Kalisz, Kościan, Wschowa, Piotrków, Łęczyca, Warta, Gniezno, Kłodawa, Śrem, Koło, Konin, Stawiszyn, Pobiedziska, Sieradz, Brześć Kujawski).

Then expert scholars specializing in historical demography, compare how big was average population of cities and towns of each type.

==========================================

Classification of 196 towns and cities from Greater Poland region according to a document from year 1458:

1st category (civitates principales) - 1
2nd category (civitates secundi ordinis) - 38
3rd category - 77
4th category - 80

And here a map showing locations of 39 civitates of 1st and 2nd category mentioned by this document:

The 2 ones which are very close to each other (almost totally overlapping on map of this scale) are Uniejów and Brzeziny:

Why did the Commonwealth

There was no such state called Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodów) before 1569 - the Union of Lublin.

Before 1569, there were two separate states - Kingdom of Poland and Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

Those two separate states were only connected by a personal union (monarchs from the same dynasty) since 1385 - the Union of Krewo.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Even in small towns, large part of population were busy with crafts and trade.

I have exact data for my home town (at that time ca. 800 people) in year 1580.

But at first let's establish how many of those 800 were men and how many were children. Basing on demographic data from the book "Demografia Rzeczypospolitej Przedrozbiorowej" by Cezary Kukło, we can estimate that in a small town with 800 people, ca. 50% (400) would be men and of them ca. 35% (140) would be children between 0 and 14 years old. So we have in total 260 men aged between 15 and 65+ years old (of them ca. 4% - or 10 - would be over 65 years old and ca. 20% - or 26 - would be between 15 and 24 years old).

So we have ca. 220 men between 25 and 65 years old.

And the town had in total around 100 craftsmen in year 1585.

Of course not everyone who was not a craftsman, was a farmer. There were for example 3 inns and 11 pubs in my town in year 1609 - someone had to work there. There were also merchants and tradesmen apart from craftsmen, etc., etc.

Of 11 pubs, 3 were owned by nobility and 8 by townsmen.

As a point of reference on English etymology and thus usage in relation to historical settings:
a 'town'/'township', in the general sense recognized by medievalists, is basically a farmstead and dependent houses. A 'village' is a place where the dependents of a villa, i.e. an aristocratic manor, lived. A city, or civitas, was where a bishop stayed. Then there was a borough/burgh/burg, which is, etymologically, a settlement dependent on a royal stronghold (originally the stronghold itself!), but came to be a royally protected merchant/craftsman base ... more like a series of factories and a shopping complex next to a barracks than a modern city. Villages and townships can grow into decent-sized early modern settlements that you could call 'small towns' or 'large villages', but it's the royally-patronised boroughs and episcopal centres that are home to the most specialized craftsmen (gun makers, book publishers, goldsmiths, etc) and generally form the base for biggest modern cities.

Anyway, what you describe here is not what I was talking about. No-one argues these sites were mainly German-speaking outside coastal regions (though doubtless many learned German for business in 'big cities'), but since you think this is what I am arguing it obviously relates to use of different terminology.

 

[Domen]

Sorry for a double post. This one can be removed.