Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:00, 10 September 2010

Synthesis

This new article is a synthesis of two different topics. It is also a content fork of the now out-of-process "deleted" article Peace of Bautzen (true it was unsourced, but the proper thing to do in such a case is to source the original article).

Bottom line is that there is no sources I am aware of - certainly not the ones used in the article - which treat the treaties which culminated in the Peace of Bautzen (1002, 1013, 1018) together with those which culminated in the Peace of Merseburg (1031, 1033). Of course some sources MENTION both, in the same way that a general source on the history of United States will mention both the War of Independence and the War of 1812, but that is different then treating them TOGETHER as this article does.

There is couple easy ways to see this;

1. The two sets of treaties involved different individuals, ended different conflicts and had a different focus. The first treaties (henceforth, Bautzen 1018) ended the German-Polish war between Henry and Boleslaw. Their locus was the struggle for control of Lusatia, Misnia and Bohemia. The second treaties (henceforth Merseburg 1033) ended the intra Polish civil war complicated by Ruthenian and German intervention and were signed between Conrad and Mieszko; different folks. Their locus of conflict was Polish succession.
2. The fact that this article is a synthesis is readily apparent in the lede, where the first two paragraphs focus exclusively on Bautzen 1018, and then the third paragraph is tacked on with "Another dimension was added"; the glue that synthesizes the two separate parts of the article together.
3. The fact that this article is a synthesis is readily apparent in how sources are used. Sources through are used to exclusively source Bautzen 1018 and its run ups. Then we get a whole new set of sources , and for the Merseburg part (1031 and 1033). As far as I can tell the sources used for Bautzen 1018 don't mention either Bautzen 1031 or Merseburg 1033 anywhere near where they talk about Bautzen 1018 and vice versa.
4. A google books search for "Treaties of Bautzen and Merseburg" yields zero hits . They're just simply not known under these names, particularly since they're not discussed together in sources.
5. On the other hand, a search for "Treaty of Bautzen" yields 36 hits . "Peace of Bautzen" 1018 - what the "deleted" article was under - yields 74 results. "Peace of Budziszyn" 1018 also gets a respectable 17 hits. "Peace of Merseburg" 1033 doesn't seem to have all that much coverage in English language sources (probably because it was overshadowed by the "Pagan revolt" that occurred around the time) and neither does "Treaty of Merseburg" 1033 . However, apparently there are German language sources which should be sufficient for a stand alone article.
6. While of course Misplaced Pages cannot be a source for itself, I do think that it is instructive that every single interwiki link of the article (including to German wikipedia) links to a version of "Peace of Bautzen" Pau de Bautzen, Frieden von Bautzen, Měr wót Budyšyna, Traité de Bautzen, Pokój w Budziszynie, Будишинский мир, Будишинський мир.

radek (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I've reinstated the "deleted" article on Peace of Bautzen and moved most of the relevant text from this article there .radek (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The treaties covered by this article all concern the same dispute, and were concluded within a period of only 29 years, between the same parties (emperor, Piasts, though in every party there was a succession in the 1020s). I therefore favor one comprehensive article instead of five stubs. This is not a synthesis, as no thesis is made at all. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

World War I and World War II also ended "within a period of only" 26 years, but that doesn't mean that we have a single article on World Wars I and II. Please present sources which treat the treaties of Bautzen 1018 and Merseburg 1033 together. The synthesis is obvious and part of it you are repeating in the statement above: all concern the same dispute. Bottomline: please provide sources (in fact what is required is that the majority of sources treat them together, not just one or two - though even that hasn't been provided). Otherwise two different articles are needed. Misplaced Pages is not a venue to present novel ideas about history.radek (talk) 05:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The sources that certify that this is about the same dispute (Lusatia and emperor-Piast relations) are already in the article. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Really? Can you quote where they explicitly link 1018 to 1033? Can you show where they state something like "all these treaties were all about the same dispute"? Again - need majority here.radek (talk) 06:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously disputing that all these treaties were about the same dispute? Skäpperöd (talk) 06:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I am seriously asking you to provide sources to support the SYNTHESIS you've made here - per Misplaced Pages content guidelines. Can you show where the sources state that all these were about the same dispute or even discuss Bautzen, 1018, and Merseburg, 1033, together?radek (talk) 06:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The sources that certify that this is about the same dispute (Lusatia and emperor-Piast relations) are already in the article. - which ones? Where? Quote? Don't just assert, show.radek (talk) 06:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I won't reproduce the article here, everyone may read through it by themselves. Additional sources that the treaties do not only deal with the same dispute, but are also covered together are eg

• Beier, Brigitte (2007). Die Chronik der Deutschen. p. 77.
• Schymalla, Joachim; et al., eds. (1993). Geschichte Sachsen-Anhalts. Das Mittelalter. p. 92. {{cite book}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |editor-first= (help)
• Hagenau, Gerda (1994). Polnisches Theater und Drama. p. 44.

Skäpperöd (talk) 08:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You really have something against English language sources don't you?radek (talk) 08:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh, a source on Polish Theater and Drama? Is that meant to be serious?radek (talk) 08:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The Beier source, the "Chronicle of the Germans", appears to be a quick general survey of history. Can you indicate where precisely it links the two events? As far as I can tell it's just going through history year by year so it mentions both Henry and Conrad. Words like "Bautzen", "Merseburg", "Lusatia", "Meissen", "Mieszko" do not even appear on the page in relation to 1033.radek (talk) 08:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I won't reproduce the article here, everyone may read through it by themselves. - yes, they can read the "synthesized" article which gives a false impression not supported by sources. The point is that readers deserve two articles, neither of which violates WP:SYNTH.radek (talk) 08:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

More sources covering the 1002-1033 dispute and the respective agreements together:

• Schmidt, Eberhard (1973). Die Mark Brandenburg unter den Askaniern. p. 20.
• Treichel, Peter (2009). 800 Jahre Pommern und seine Nachbarn. p. 45.
• Walther, Hans; et al. (2004). Namenkunde und geschichtliche Landeskunde. p. 351. {{cite book}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |first= (help)
• Biewer, Ludwig; et al. (1981). Preußen und Berlin. p. 54. {{cite book}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |first= (help)
• Gross, Reiner (2007). Geschichte Sachsens (3 ed.). p. 16.
• Hartmann, Hans-Günther (1987). Historische Stadtansichten von Bautzen.
• Czok, Karl (1989). Geschichte Sachsens. p. 89.
• Wróbel, Piotr; et al. (1996). Historical dictionary of Poland, 966-1945. p. 317. {{cite book}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |first= (help)
• Bahlcke, Joachim (2001). Geschichte der Oberlausitz (2 ed.). p. 57.

Skäpperöd (talk) 12:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Other problems

There are also additional problems with the article as is. I'll leave the details for later, but briefly;

1. There are some glaring errors of omission. For example, Thietmar of Merseburg, the chief chronicler of the time from whom we get most of the information on the Chrobry-Henry conflict is not even mentioned in the article! Or the friendship between German Emperor Otto and Boleslaw, an important piece of background, is omitted. There is no discussion on any kinds of military and political background which would contextualize why the treaties that were signed were actually signed. German-Polish War 1002-1018 doesn't get a mention (needs an article too). Death of Margrave Gero, an important development, is not there. Siege of Niemcza is presented... strangely, to say the least (again, see Thietmar on the subject). No mention of the "pagan reaction". Etc.
2. Some of the language is clearly POV. Polish dukes "invade" and "occupy" or "conquer". German rulers "protect" ( determined to protect the Bohemian duchy from Polish claims - why not write that "Boleslaw was determined to protect his fellow Slavs from German aggression"?)or "lead campaigns" or "refuse to accept" "conquests" by others. Etc. There's a confusion between recognizing Henry as Holy Roman Emperor and "pledging allegiance"; this is unclear at best.
3. Some controversial claims are presented as fact, probably due to the fact that the article is skewed in that it relies on almost exclusively German sources. For example, whether Boleslaw received Milsko and Lusatia in 1018 as imperial fiefs or did he hold on to them independently of the empire is uncertain. Thietmar, for example, does not give terms under which Boleslaw held these territories (except for saying that from a German POV, the terms of the peace were "shameful") and the subsequent opinions of historians on the matter are essentially speculation (which of course should be included, sourced and attributed). Schneidmüller apparently believes they were held as 'imperial fiefs'. Jasiennica says they were held without obligation. Cambridge Medieval History says that if there was an obligation it was on "purely nominal terms of vassalage" .

Ok I meant to save the details, so that's enough for now.radek (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The article also has a horrible over-linking problem with everything being wiki linked multiple times. Please see MOS:Overlinking and underlinking radek (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• ad 1a: Thietmar is not mentioned because he is not the only contemporary source. Instead, I used modern high quality sources, primarily of the Kohlhammer and Beck series. I would not mind adding an overview of contemporary sources, including Thietmar, to the article.
• ad 1b: German-Polish war is POV.
• ad 2: If someone invades another realm, this should be stated. Where is the problem?
• ad 3: If there are sources saying something different, the should be added with due weight. The sources used however have a high authority, they are standard books in German historiography. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• re 1a: Of course I'm not saying that Thietmar should be used as a source FOR the article, since he's a primary source. Rather since he is the one contemporary person who wrote most about the conflict, and since he is the one from whom most of our knowledge of the events comes from, he definitely needs to be mentioned. I've already added a bit. More is needed.
• re 1b: How is it referred to in the sources? That all that really matters here (of course I'm quite aware that many German nobles and knight supported the Polish duke in this one)
• re 2: Consistently stating that one party "invades" while the other party "protects" or some such is POV. Once or twice is fine. Doing it throughout the article is not.
• re 3: Done. Not questioning the reliability of sources here, but rather the one sided selection of sources, which can also lead to POV problems.radek (talk) 06:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

Why should I "discuss first" (which I have already done above - no response from Skapp) ? Skapperod was the one who deleted the original article on Peace of Bautzen without discussion. Is that how it works? One editor deletes an article without discussion and then when this is questioned insists that everyone else must discuss first, even though he himself never thought fit to do so in the first place?radek (talk) 05:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not delete the Peace of Bautzen article, neither was that the original article since the scope of this one is more extensive. I redirected an unsourced stub to this article, since this article covers the topic of the stub too and is referenced with high quality sources. This is not tendentious editing, but improving the encyclopedia. I have reverted your destruction of this article, since I feel that is something that should be discussed first. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you effectively deleted that article by making it into a redirect. The reason why "scope of this one is more extensive" is simply because you synthesized it with other historical phenomenon. I have not destroyed anything - rather moved the text to appropriate articles. You on the other hand, DID destroy an article by turning it into a redirect without any discussion what so ever. Despite the fact that sometimes it seems otherwise, there is no policy on Misplaced Pages which states that the "initiator has the advantage" when it comes to deleting/redirecting articles.radek (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Redirecting an unsourced stub to an article covering its subject also, and which is sourced to high quality references, is by no means "destruction" or "tendentious editing". Skäpperöd (talk) 08:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Keep as one article or split

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: History and geography When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

I wrote this article as a compound article about the five treaties of Bautzen and Merseburg, because

• they are all concerned with the same subject (investment with the Lusatian marches of the HRE and legal relation between the emperor and the Piasts)
• they were all concluded within a short period (1002-1033) between the same parties (emperor and Piasts, though each party had a succession in the 1020s)
• each mentioned treaty is the background for the respective following treaty (except for the last one, naturally), so separate articles would need to overlap extensively
• as of now, each treaty section on its own would only be a stub-size article, while the compound article is at about 17 kB

When I finished writing this article, I redirected an unsourced stub, tagged as such since 2009 and concerned with one of these treaties (Bautzen 1018) here .

Radeksz (talk · contribs) now split this article in two parts:

• the part of this article covering Merseburg (1002), Merseburg (1013) and Bautzen (1018) he moved to Peace of Bautzen
• the part of this article covering Merseburg (1031) and Bautzen (1033), he moved to Treaty of Merseburg

I disagree with this split. Both articles are concerned with treaties of Merseburg and Bautzen, and the arguments above point to keeping all five treaties in one article. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Please Note:The instructions for making a RfC request explicitly state "Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue below the template." . The above statement by Skapperod included with the RfC is neither brief nor neutral.radek (talk) 10:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see comment on individual points below: . No one wants to split this into five articles - this is pure strawman fallacy. The article does need to be split into two however.radek (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Skapperod has not provided a single source which treats the treaties of Bautzen 1018 and Merseburg 1033 together. There is some logic to keeping the treaties of 1002, 1013 and 1018 together as they involved the same persons; Boleslaw and Henry. There might be some sense in keeping the treaties of 1031 and 1033 together as well, since they involved the same persons; Conrad, Mieszko and Yaroslav. Indeed, some of the sources do that. However, there is no reason what so ever to synthesize the early treaties which ended one conflict (German-Polish War of 1002-1018) in 1018 with the latter treaties which concerned another conflict (Polish civil war over succession) in 1033. No sources conflate these two separate events. No sources treat these events together. This is pure WP:SYNTH. I've asked repeatedly for Skapperod to provide sources or to indicate where the present sources explicitly connect the two events and so far he has refused to do so. This is as if the articles on World War I and World War II were combined into a single article on World Wars I and II. Or as if the American War of Independence and the War of 1812 were combined into a single article on The Wars of American Independence and of 1812. Or as if the Treaty of Schönbrunn and the Treaty of Fontainebleau (1814) were combined into a single article on The Treaties of Schonbrunn and Fontainebleau. No sources do this. The ones currently in the article do not.

Please see my detailed comment above: . Please note that there Skapperod claims "The sources that certify that this is about the same dispute (Lusatia and emperor-Piast relations) are already in the article." but when asked to point out which sources actually do this and where, he has so far not been able to indicate this.

The article should be split into two articles (the suggestion by Skapperod that I want to split it into 5 different stubs is just a classic strawman fallacy); Peace of Bautzen and Treaty of Merseburg, as has already been done. This avoids the SYNTH problem while preserving most of the content, minus a few weasel sentences which awkwardly try to link the earlier and later treaties in a synthesis.radek (talk) 08:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I have provided additional sources here, but maintain that the sources provided for reference in the article qualify, too. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Above Skapperod makes a claim: The sources that certify that this is about the same dispute (Lusatia and emperor-Piast relations) are already in the article. and I ask - which ones? Where? Quote? Don't just assert, show. Since he's unwilling to answer the question let me go through them one by one (the sources are in German which makes any claims about them difficult to verify for non-German speakers). Here are the sources currently used in the article:

• Berger, pg. 225 (minor source in the article) google translate - as can be easily verified this source is only about the struggle between Henry and Boleslaw. It only goes up to 1018
• Bernhardt, pg. 41 (minor source in the article) - only source which mentions 1018 and 1032 in a somewhat connected way, mostly because it is a very general outline of the involved history.
• Boshof, pg. 72(minor source in the article) - source unavailable online. However, the source is used to only cite portions about the latter conflict between Mieszko and Conrad.
• Herbers & Neuhaus, pg. 56 (one of the major sources in the article) Only deals with the struggle between Boleslaw and Henry. Does not deal with the latter events of 1032/33.
• Keller, pg. 96 (minor source in the article) - source unavailable online. However, the only mentions of Merseburg appear to be in reference to Thietmar of Merseburg or are about pre-1018 events (this is also evident from how this source is used in the article) . The only "Mieszko" which appears in the source is a different, earlier Mieszko I than the one synthesized into this article. Again, no connection between 1018 and 1033.
• Knefelkamp, pg. 125, 137 (major source in the article) - this source is basically a year by year chronology . On page 125 it talks about the struggle between Henry and Boleslaw, without mentioning anything that happened in 1033 or mentioning Mieszko II or Conrad. 12 pages later it talks about the other events. Does not connect the two separate events as is being done in this article.
• Röckelein, pg. 113 (minor source in the article) - deals exclusively with the struggle between Henry and Boleslaw . Does not mention Mieszko, Conrad or the events of 1032/33.
• Schneidmüller, pg. 110 (major source in the article) - deals exclusively with the struggle between Henry and Boleslaw . Merseburg is mentioned but only in connection to events in 1002 and 1013, NOT in connection to 1032/33.
• Schwarz, pg. 24 ("medium" source in the article) - deals exclusively with the struggle between Henry and Boleslaw and only concerns events up to 1018 . Again, no connection to later events.

radek (talk) 08:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Since most of the sources are in German, I will provide a quote here from the English Cambridge source (see article) for convenience. It does not explicitely mention every treaty, but relates them as follows:

"The feud between Boleslav and Henry and its resultant hostilities found a compromise solution finally in 1018, but enmity continued throughout Henry's reign and not truly until 1032 did Conrad II re-establish German hegemony over Poland." Bernhardt, John W (1993). Itinerant Kingship... Cambridge University Press. p. 41.

Skäpperöd (talk) 08:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

And that's about all you got (please note I've already indicated this above). But this is no different than the fact that pretty much any work on World War II will also mention World War I and say something about how the Versailles Treaty might have led to World War II.

Your statement "Since most of the sources are in German" seems to imply that there is actually something in those German sources linking the two events, it's just that you don't feel like quoting it. There isn't.

Also, please keep in mind that in order to link these two disparate events together you need to show that the majority of sources treat them together. So far you got a single, sort of iffy connection (there's always an exception to the rule). The overwhelming majority of sources treat them as separate events. Misplaced Pages follows sources.radek (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Herbers&Neuhaus do also mention the Conrad II-Mieszko II continuation of the Henry II-Boleslaw I feud, on page 67. Sources dealing with Ottonians or Salians exclusively will naturally not mention the events together, as Henry II was an Ottonian and Conrad II a Salien. They do however certify that the dispute is Lusatian investment and emperor-Piast legal relation, if seperately for each treaty. Three other sources covering all the "feud" on one page have been provided above. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Herbers&Neuhaus do also mention the Conrad II-Mieszko II continuation of the Henry II-Boleslaw I feud, on page 67. - 1) page 67 is not used as a source for this article, 2) the fact that a source mentions both is meaningless unless it connects both in a direct way and discusses them together (as this article tries to do) - lots of sources mention both WWI and WWII but that's not enough for World Wars I and II, 3) pg. 67 of H&N talks about Conrad and Mieszko but does not even mention Boleslaw, Henry, Bautzen or 1018. Hence the claim that this source makes one event a "continuation of the Henry II-Boleslaw I feud" is simply false. Again, this is just two different events which are in the same historical book simply because in history some things happened after other things and other things happened before other things.

Sources dealing with Ottonians or Salians exclusively will naturally not mention the events together - thanks for admitting that the two topics are dealt with separately. Since on Misplaced Pages we follow sources rather than synthesize them, we don't really care why the sources do what they do, as long as they're reliable. If the fact that the two different events concerned two different dynasties is the reason for why sources don't connect events - maybe it is, though you're doing bit of a mind reading of historians here - then so be it.radek (talk) 09:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Three other sources covering all the "feud" on one page have been provided above - yes, some book on "Polish Theater and Drama"?!?!!!? I'm still puzzled about that one. Another source - non-academic - which appears to simply mention both Henry and Conrad but does not connect them. And another offline source impossible to verify. All three of course in German rather than English.radek (talk) 09:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) It should also be noted that this attempt at synthesis tries to exploit the fact that these treaties - different though they were, and different events did they concern - were conducted and concluded in the same two places; Bautzen and Merseburg. But this of course simply does not establish that they concerned the same events.radek (talk) 08:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

And you'd figure that if this wasn't a complete SYNTH, then there'd be at least one source which uses something like the title of the article. But alas, a google books search for "Treaties of Bautzen and Merseburg" yields zero hits . They're just simply not known under these names, particularly since they're not discussed together in sources.radek (talk) 09:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not see a synthesis, user Skapperod has a valid argument. I say this based upon the fact that the two treaties are mentioned together in the same paragraph on page 526 of the The New Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. 3. Both treaties are discussed in the context of the Polono-German wars at that time. BTW the New Cambridge Medieval History is a good read, well worth the price.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This is another instance where a history book is going through events chronologically so it mentions one thing after another - that's different than connecting them. Out of the nine sources used in the article only one makes a connection, and a weak one at that.radek (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Or consider another analogy. The Cambridge History of Eighteenth-century Political Thought mentions the treaties of Augsburg and Westphalia together in the same paragraph, on pg. 256. Indeed, it mentions them together and connects them in the same sentence. Those treaties too have more of a claim to be all about the "same dispute" then the treaties which are the subject of this article. Yet, Misplaced Pages has separate articles on Augsburg and Westphalia, rather than a single Treaties of Augsburg and Westphalia article - because there is enough sources which deal with each one separately. Same thing here.radek (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

These events were interconnected, a good analogy would be the Napoleonic Wars--Woogie10w (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that (Napoleonic Wars) would indeed be a good analogy. And so we have Peace of Pressburg, Treaties of Tilsit, Treaty of Fontainebleau (1814), Treaty of Paris (1815) and Congress of Vienna rather than a Treaties of Pressburg, Tilsit, Fontainebleau, Paris and Vienna article. I've made this point above already. Note also that at least in terms of Napoleonic Wars, one side - Napoleon - provides a common link between these treaties. Not so here, where the first treaties and the later treaties were concluded between completely different individuals on both sides.

Basically, there is many many sources which treat Bautzen, 1018, separately from the later treaties and hence Peace of Bautzen deserves an article of its own. There are no sources which explicitly treat Bauzten, 1018 and Merseburg, 1033 together, and only one or two "general history" sources which mention both in what could be considered a "proximity".radek (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The Cambridge History of Poland states on P 27 that the Mersberg Treaty of 1013 was "found to be only a truce" and then they narrate the events that led to the Bautzen treaty of 1018 concluding the war. In any case our knowledge of these events is rather limited, splitting the treaties into two separate articles is like splitting hairs.--Woogie10w (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ay Woogie, I think you're missing the point. Yes, the Mersberg Treaty of 1013 should be in the same article as the Treaty of Bautzen of 1018. I have no objection to that what so ever, and in fact I suggested it above. Same war, same people, same issue, sources treat them together. The problem is with putting the treaty of Mersberg of 1033 together with Bautzen 1018. Different war, different people, different issues, sources treat them separately.radek (talk) 22:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment (as requested) I think, from this discussion, that radek makes a convincing argument. In my opinion, it would be best to split the article in two as suggested. siafu (talk) 19:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

split to address individual points

Skapperod claims that: "I wrote this article as a compound article about the five treaties of Bautzen and Merseburg, because

• they are all concerned with the same subject (investment with the Lusatian marches of the HRE and legal relation between the emperor and the Piasts)
• they were all concluded within a short period (1002-1033) between the same parties (emperor and Piasts, though each party had a succession in the 1020s)
• each mentioned treaty is the background for the respective following treaty (except for the last one, naturally), so separate articles would need to overlap extensively
• as of now, each treaty section on its own would only be a stub-size article, while the compound article is at about 17 kB

When I finished writing this article, I redirected an unsourced stub, tagged as such since 2009 and concerned with one of these treaties (Bautzen 1018) here . "

• Re 1:they are all concerned with the same subject - no they are not. This is precisely the POV that the SYNTH tries to advance. No sources have been provided to show that they are.
• Re 2:they were all concluded within a short period - so what? The period between WWI and WWII was even shorter but that doesn't mean we have an article on World Wars I and II rather than two articles on the two separate wars. Same issue here.
• Re 3a:each mentioned treaty is the background for the respective following treaty - so what? In history, one event is always a background for another event. World War I and II again. What matters is whether sources connect these events and discuss them as a whole.
• Re 3b:so separate articles would need to overlap extensively - no they wouldn't (especially since they treaties concerned different issues). Please see Peace of Bautzen and Treaty of Merseburg as evidence that this is completely false (hopefully Skapp's not going to delete these again)
• Re 4b:as of now, each treaty section on its own would only be a stub-size article - no they wouldn't. Maybe they would if the article was split into five (six actually, I don't know why Poznan is being forgotten here) articles. But that's a pure strawman argument as no one wants to do that. Thematically there are two sets of treaties here; {1002, 1013 and 1018} and {1031, 1033} and two different events, two different sets of people {Boleslaw, Henry} and {Conrad, Mieszko, Yaroslav} and two different wars. Two articles are sufficient and they would not be stubs. Please see Peace of Bautzen and Treaty of Merseburg as evidence that this is completely false (hopefully Skapp's not going to delete these again).radek (talk) 09:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Asking for help and input at Misplaced Pages Project Military History

Here .radek (talk) 09:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Break down of sources (by Radeksz)

Sources already used in the article (as of roughly 00:50, Sept 10, 2010)

• Sources which treat Peace of Bautzen (1018) as a stand alone subject:

1. Berger, Sabine (2002) (in German) "Karte der Polenzüge Heinrichs II gegen Boleslaw Chrobry". in Kirmeier, Josef; Schneidmüller, Bernd; Weinfurter, Stefan et al. (in German). Kaiser Heinrich II. 1002-1024. Veröffentlichungen zur Bayerischen Geschichte und Kultur. 44. Theiss. pp. 224-226.
2. Herbers, Klaus; Neuhaus, Helmut (2005) (in German). Das Heilige Römische Reich. Böhlau. (mentions 1033 twelve pages later but does not connect it to 1018)
3. Jasienica, Pawel (2007) (in Polish). Polska Piastow. Proszynski Media.
4. Knefelkamp, Ulrich (2002) (in German). Das Mittelalter. UTB M. 2105 (2 ed.). UTB.
5. Previté-Orton, Charles William (1975) (in English). Cambridge Medieval History, Shorter: Volume 1, The Later Roman Empire to the Twelfth Century. CUP Archive.
6. Reksik, Stanislaw; Wiszewski, Przemyslaw (2007) (in Polish). Ksiega krolow i ksiazat Polskich. Wydawnictwo Dolnoslaskie.
7. Röckelein, Hedwig (2006) (in German). "Heiraten - ein Instrument hochmittelalterlicher Politik". in Ranft, Andreas (in German). Der Hoftag in Quedlinburg 973. Von den historischen Wurzeln zum Neuen Europa. Akademie Verlag. pp. 99-136
8. Schneidmüller, Bernd (2003) (in German). Die deutschen Herrscher des Mittelalters. Historische Portraits von Heinrich I. bis Maximilian I. (919-1519).
9. Schwarz, Jörg (2006) (in German). Herrschaftsbildungen und Reiche 900-1500. Das europäische Mittelalter. 2. Kohlhammer.

• Sources which mention both Bautzen (1018) and Merseburg (1033) in "proximity" but do not discuss these as a single whole

1. Bernhardt, John W (1993). Itinerant Kingship and Royal Monasteries in Early Medieval Germany, c. 936–1075. Cambridge University Press.

• Sources which are not available online hence are hard to verify

1. Boshof, Egon (2008) (in German). Die Salier (5 ed.). Kohlhammer. - (appears to be only about the events of 1033 and makes no connection to 1018 and is used that way in the article; Radeksz)
2. Keller, Hagen (2001) (in German). Die Ottonen (3 ed.). Beck. - (does not appear to mention 1033 at all and only talks about 1018 and is used that way in the article; Radeksz)

• Sources which explicitly link Bautzen 1018 and Merseburg 1033
  • None

Sources so far not used in the article

• Sources which treat Peace of Bautzen (1018) as a stand alone subject

1. Vlasto, A.P. (1970) (in English). The entry of the Slavs into Christendom: an introduction to the medieval history of the Slavs. CUP Archive.
2. Fried, Johannes (2001) (in German). Otto III. und Boleslaw Chrobry: das Widmungsbild des Aachener Evangeliars, der "Akt von Gnesen" und das frühe polnische und ungarische Königtum. Franz Steiner Verlag. (note the source is in German and it does not appear to explicitly mention either Bautzen 1018 or Merseburg 1033. As far as I can tell however, it discusses the Boleslaw-Henry war 1002-1018 as a self contained episode)
3. Wiszewski, Przemyslaw (2010) (in English). Domus Bolezlai: values and social identity in dynastic traditions of medieval Poland (c. 966-1138). BRILL, 2010.
4. Halecki, Oskar; Reddaway, F.; Penson, J. (?) (in English). The Cambridge History of Poland. Cambridge University Press.
5. Kłoczowski, Jerzy (2000) (in English). A history of Polish Christianity. Cambridge University Press

• Sources which mention both Bautzen (1018) and Merseburg (1033) in "proximity" but do not treat them as a single subject

1. Reuter, Timothy; McKitterick, Rosamond (2000) (in English). The New Cambridge Medieval History: c. 900-c. 1024. Cambridge University Press - (Peace of Bautzen 1018 is discussed in detail on pages 262-3. Then, more than two hundred and fifty pages later, on pages 525-6, Merseburg 1033 is discussed and a mention is made of Boleslaw and 1018 - Radeksz)
2. Lerski, Jerzy Jan; Wróbel, Piotr; Kozicki, Richard (1996) (in English). Historical dictionary of Poland, 966-1945. Greenwood Publishing Group. (The book actually only mentions Peace of Bautzen 1018. It does NOT mention Merseburg at all, only notes that in 1033 Poland lost control of Lusatia - Radeksz)

• Sources which treat Bautzen (1018) and Merseburg (1033) as a single subject
  • None

Hard to verify sources proposed by Skapperod

1. Schmidt, Eberhard (1973). Die Mark Brandenburg unter den Askaniern. p. 20.

German language source unavailable online . It's not even possible to do an internal search of the source .

2. Biewer, Ludwig et al (1981). Preußen und Berlin. p. 54.

German language source unavailable online . An internal search for "Bautzen" indicates no hits inside the book . An internal search for "Merseburg" has three hits one of which is page 53, close to page 54 indicated by Skapperod (although it appears to reference the year 968 rather than either 1013 or 1033). The only hit of an internal search for "Boleslaw" is to a footnote on page 75. There are no internal hits for "Mieszko" . There are no relevant internal hits for "Conrad" . Hence the relevance of the source is unclear.

3. Gross, Reiner (2007). Geschichte Sachsens (3 ed.). p. 16.

German language source unavailable online . The source does appear to mention "Bautzen" 1018 on page 16 . There are no internal hits for "Merseburg" anywhere near page 16 . "Boleslaw" is mentioned on page 16 as well , but the only reference to "Mieszko" appears to be that he participated in the 1015 campaign (as indeed he did). There are no internal hits for "Conrad" anywhere near page 16 . Hence, the source appears to discuss "Bautzen 1018" as a stand alone subject.

4. Hartmann, Hans-Günther (1987). Historische Stadtansichten von Bautzen

German language source unavailable online . It is not possible to even do an internal search of the source.

5. Czok, Karl (1989). Geschichte Sachsens. p. 89

German language source unavailable online . There is no hits to "Bautzen" on page 89 . There do appear to be some hits for "Merseburg" on pages 83, 84 and 94, which I guess are "close" to page 89 indicated by Skapperod. There does appear to be internal hits for both "Boleslaw" and "Mieszko" on page 89 . Ok, so we have a possibility of a source which supports the SYNTHESIS here.

6. Walther, Hans et al (2004). Namenkunde und geschichtliche Landeskunde. p. 351.

German language source the relevant portion of which is not available online

Sources proposed by Skapperod on which assistance of somebody fluent in German is needed

Note: these sources are available online, hence can be verified.

1. Treichel, Peter (2009). 800 Jahre Pommern und seine Nachbarn. p. 45 .

Source appears to cover the reign of Boleslaw on page 44 and 45, and then, chronologically, it moves on to the reign of Mieszko II. There is a mention of "Peace of Bautzen 1018" in the chapter on Boleslaw. Then the chapter on Mieszko states that he "followed" Boleslaw. In the chapter on Mieszko, the source mentions "Merseburg". It appears that this is a source which deals with the two different events "in proximity" though it does not appear to treat them together (and you'd figure that two different chapters are enough to imply two different Misplaced Pages articles).

2. Bahlcke, Joachim (2001). Geschichte der Oberlausitz (2 ed.). p. 57.

Source appears to discuss exclusively Boleslaw and Bautzen 1018 on pages 57. On page 58 it skips ahead to the year 1071. I guess the part being referenced is the sentence with "doch erst seit 1031 blieben die Landschaften Lusizi und Milzeni und damit auch die Burg Bautzen dann endgultig beim Deutchen Reich" which basically says that "only in 1031 did Lusatia and Milsko pass to the German Reich". This appears to be a source which focuses exclusively on Peace of Bautzen 1018 as a stand alone subject, though it mentions later developments.

• Misplaced Pages requests for comment