Category talk:Grand Duchy of Lithuania
Related category discussions
[edit]| Expand to view current and archived category discussions related to this category |
|---|
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/11/Category:Seals of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic are historical forms of statehood of Lithuania and not different (former) countries (see: History of Lithuania). Kingdom of Poland/France are not regarded as former countries in the territory of Poland/France and such categories do not exist, so there should not be double standards for Lithuania. Consequently, this category should be deleted. -- Pofka (talk) 08:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
@Pofka and Blackcat: Closed (no objections) Josh (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC) 
en:Casimir IV Jagiellon (grand duke 1440–1492) was the last grand duke, who spoke Lithuaninan. For centuries Lithuania was governed by grand duke, who understood no Lithuanian at all. What kind of predecessor is such state? I do not know, who is the last grand duke, who spoke Belarussian language. Maybe it is even impossible to say, because Polish and Belarussian language are similar and were even more similar in the past. en:Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth has no legal successors, even Lithuanian SSR is not legal predecessor of Lithuania, but Lithuania has geographical predecessors and the disputed category is needed for collecting geographical predecessors. Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic are totally different countries from each other and from current Lithuania. Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is also not a predecessor of Belarus. Probably Belarus has only one predecessor: Belarussian SSR. Taivo (talk) 10:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
|
Vandalism (chauvinistic POV pushing) by removing the category History of Belarus
[edit]According to several specialized reliable sources the Grand Dutchy of Lithuania (own name "Litva") refers more to Belarus than to the Repuplic of Lithuania (own name "Lietuva"). Andrew Wilson, a British historian specializing in Eastern Europe, writes in his book Belarus: The Last European Dictatorship (Yale University Press, 2012): The entity referred to as medieval ‘Lithuania’ in fact had the full name of ‘Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Rus and Samogitia’. Its short name was ‘Litva’. This is not the same thing as ‘Lithuania’. In the modern Lithuanian language, the word for ‘Lithuania’ is Lietuva (p. 21—22). <...> Most of what is now Belarus was part of ‘Litva’ proper. (p. 33). Moreover, another historian specializing in the history of Central and Eastern Europe Dr. Prof. Timothy D. Snyder writes in his book The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569-1999 (Yale University Press, 2003): During the period of dynastic union with Poland, Lithuania became an East Slavic realm in which the gentry enjoyed rights relative to the sovereign (p. 22). Before 1863, the most common self-appellation of the largest group in Russia’s Northwest Territory — Belarusian-speaking peasants — was apparently “Lithuanian” (p. 49). By removing the historical sense of the term “Lithuanian” in the popular mind, Russian power cleared the way for a modern, ethnic definition of Lithuania, and simplified the task of Lithuanian activists (p. 50). <...> The conflation of an old politonym with a new ethnonym (“Lithuania”) prevented non-Belarusians from seeing the connection between modern Belarus and the early modern Grand Duchy of Lithuania (p. 81) <...> As we have seen, the traditions of the Grand Duchy were altered beyond recognition by Lithuanian and Polish national movements, as well as Russian imperial and Soviet states. They have changed least perhaps in the lands we now call Belarus (p. 281). Moreover, there are a lot of works by Belarusian historians (like "The History of the Belarusan Nation and State", published in English outside Belarus in 2005), that directly connect Belarusian statehood with the Grand Dutchy of Lithuania. Such connection is recognized by modern Lithuanian historians like, e.g., en:Alfredas Bumblauskas, ″one of the best known Lithuanian historians″ (English Wikipedia): Norwegian linguist Christian Schweigaard Stang determined that at first Vytautas’ office was dominated by Ukrainian language (Volhynia), which later switched to Belarusian (Novogrudok, Polock, Grodno). In a way, we offended Belarus by forgetting that there is no single sentence in Lithuanian in the Lithuanian Metrica. We called the language Chancery Slavonic (of GDL Slavs) – a term panned by Professor Gudavičius, as the language was used not only in GDL, but in Poland, as well; and, as Poles are Slavic, the definition becomes incorrect. The language was not used only in office, but in poetry, as well. However, the attitude of Lithuanians is slowly changing. At first everyone was outraged that Belarusians are stealing our history. I say, however, that they have been part of our history for a long time. <...> The present-day events in Belarus seem to allow us a more peaceful look to our common history and show kindness in sharing it». Therefore, removing Category:History of Belarus with adding Category:History of Lithuania is clearly an act of vandalism, nationalistic (more precise chauvinistic) POV pushing, which will be reported if the attempts will not stop. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- More reliable sources against nationalistic (chauvinistic) vandalism with removing category "History of Belarus".
- In the Historical dictionary of Belarus (a part of Historical Dictionaries series) an American historian of Belarusan descent Dr. Jan Zaprudnik (1998 edition) states: «In some cases the entire area of contemporary Belarus was referred to as Litva (Lithuania), because it had been part of the territorial core of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and the Belarusians were known as lićviny, litovtsy, litvaki, litwaks». (p. 31) <...> «Belarusian historians stress the economic potential of Belarus within the GDL and the state's cultural aspects, that is, the fact that Belarusian was the official language of the duchy and that Belarusian culture flourished in it, especially during the 16th century <...> One should also keep in mind the terminological specifity: the meaning of such terms as “Rus”, “Belarus”, and “Litva” (Lithuania) were quite different in past centuries from today» (p. 139).
- Welsh-Polish historian with special interest in Central and Eastern Europe Dr. Prof. Norman Davies, Professor at the Jagiellonian University, professor emeritus at University College London, a visiting professor at the Collège d'Europe, and an honorary fellow at St Antony's College, Oxford, writes in Litva: The Rise and Fall of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (2013): «In its modern spelling, written as Lietuva, it is the modern Lithuanian name for Lithuania. According to scholars of the Belarusian persuasion, however, Litva was originally the homeland of a Slavic tribe, and had no connection with the Balts until the Balts moved south, absorbed the Slavic tribe and purloined its name» <...> «The Metryka Litevska or ‘Lithuanian Register’ is the commonest collective name for the original indexes/archival inventories of the grand duchy’s central chancery. <...> The principal languages employed are ruski (Old Belarusian), Latin and Polish».
- Canadian historian Dr. Prof. David R. Marples, Distinguished University Professor at the Department of History & Classics at the University of Alberta, who specializes in history and contemporary politics of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, writes in Belarus: A Denationalized Nation (2013, Routledge): «Belarusian territory became a part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania with the capital at Vilna (Vilnius), a state in which Slavs heavily outnumbered the Lithuanians, retaining privileges, and in which state business was conducted in the Belarusian language». (p. 1).
- Quote from Ethnic Groups of Europe: An Encyclopedia (2011, ABC-Clio) by American anthropologist Dr. Prof. Jeffrey Cole, who is an expert on race and ethnicity in Europe, and Dr. Prof. Stephan E. Nikolov, a Senior Fellow researcher at the Bulgarian Academy of Science, Institute of Sociology and Associated Professor at the Neofit Rilski Southwestern University Blagoevgrad: «During the Middle Ages Belarusians were identified as Rusyns or Ruthenians as well as “Litviny” (Litvins, or Lithuanians). This later term refers to the state of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (Litva, Great Litva), part of which was White Ruthenian lands after the 13th to 14th centuries. The Ruthenian language, which later evolved into modern Belarusian, was the official language there. For this reason many historians argue that the medieval Grand Duchy of Lithuania was the first Belarusian nation state». (p. 43).
- --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- Very distorted perspective formed using a cherry-picked view. The view that Kazimier Lachnovič is perpetuating is clearly a Belarusian nationalist POV, as is clear if one reads about this topic:
- Two Belarusian historians, Vatslau Lastouski before World War I and Usevalad Ihnatouski, president of the Academy of Sciences of the Belarusian SSR, in the 1920s, have attempted to project current nationalism into the distant past. Belarusian nationalists looked for traces of Belarusian autonomy even in the Kievan Rus (10th to 11th centuries). They assumed that the Kievan Rus claimed by Ukrainian nationalists as the precursor of their modern state was not a centralized kingdom and that some of its northern-eastern parts, such as the city-states of Polotsk and Novgorod, were in fact pre-Belarusian states. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania that had enormously expanded eastward in the 13th and 14th centuries into the territory of present Belarus was regarded as a binational Lithuanian-Belarusian state. Belarusian nationalists even claimed that the Lithuanians who had lent the name to the principality were in fact Belarusians, only without naming themselves that way. Eventually everything that was ascribed to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, due to a fascinating linguistic twist, became at once part of Belarusian national history.
- According to such nationalistic interpretation, in 1795 after the third partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, it was not the Duchy but Belarus that was incorporated into the Russian Empire. The only real national statehood that could pass for being Belarusian in letter and in spirit was the Belarusian National Republic (BNR), declared in Minsk on March 25, 1918… – pages 44-45, Encyclopedia of Nationalism, Two-Volume Set, by Alexander J. Motyl, Professor of Political Science in Rutgers University in Newark, New Jersey.
- The problem for Belarusian nationalists, as for the would-be Padanians of northern Italy, is that there are no long-standing traditions of independent statehood that can be clearly identified as ancestral to the current Belarusian people and state. There was a short-lived period of quasi-independence in 1918-19, but that scarcely suffices. So to fill an awkward gap, the nationalists have adopted the medieval Grand Duchy of Lithuania, later part of the commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania, as a glorious antecedent and precedent for their modern state. – page 169, ‘’Rebels Pretenders and Imposters’’ Clive Cheesman.
- Moreover, Belarusian nationalists claimed an even longer tradition of statehood: the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. (...) As a result of this historical claim, in 1918 the Belarusian Democratic Republic adopted as its state emblem the state symbol of the Grand Duchy (...) – p. 135, National Purpose in the World Economy: Post-Soviet States in Comparative Perspective.
- I am writing this in order to show those less acquainted as to what is actually happening beyond the façade.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- First, I didn't refer to Vatslau Lastouski or Usevalad Ihnatouski, so the critics of their work is irrelevant. Second, Clive Cheesman as well as the Abdelal, Rawi E. are even not historians and surely not specialized ones in the subject. So once again the user proves that just ignores the list of specialized historical sources they don't like and try to refer to stereotypic non-specialized sources they like. Taking into account pushing such POV by means of edit warring that is clearly disruptive behaviour, that should be stopped by the administrators. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- It does not matter that Kazimier Lachnovič did not directly refer to Vatslau Lastouski or Usevalad Ihnatouski, because Kazimier Lachnovič still continues with a clearly Belarusian nationalistic interpretation of history. It is not disruptive behaviour to warn others of the real ideological background from which Kazimier Lachnovič is coming. Referencing sources showing that Kazimier Lachnovič's POV is nationalist is not something that should be stopped by administrators. Kazimier Lachnovič wanting it to be stopped by administrators only shows Kazimier Lachnovič's disingenuous intentions.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- The user just admits the lack of reliable sources to support their nationalistic (chauvinistic) POV. I believe there is enough evidence for any reasonable administrator. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- I am the one that provided the sources showing Kazimier Lachnovič's view is the nationalist one. The POV is the one that is clearly shown to be such by many sources. A reasonable administrator should understand that Kazimier Lachnovič is creating problems based on his ideological views, as is repeatedly evidenced through his actions. In a case of simple over-categorization, Kazimier Lachnovič talks about defending Belarusian history when no one is assaulting it.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- Calling Dr. Prof. Timothy D. Snyder, Dr. Andrew Wilson, Dr. Prof. Norman Davies, Dr. Prof. David R. Marples, Dr. Prof. Jeffrey Cole the “Belarusian nationalists” is another prove that the user in inadequate and should be stopped. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- The facts speak for themselves. Kazimier Lachnovič wanting to block a user based on the fact that the reliable sources provided by the user do not align with Kazimier Lachnovič's highly distorted and cherry-picked view of history is a clear indication that the inadequate user is actually Kazimier Lachnovič.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- The user just keep on claiming that the most prominent modern historians specialized in the subject show «highly distorted and cherry-picked view of history» without providing any reliable source really criticized to them. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- The facts speak for themselves. Kazimier Lachnovič wanting to block a user based on the fact that the reliable sources provided by the user do not align with Kazimier Lachnovič's highly distorted and cherry-picked view of history is a clear indication that the inadequate user is actually Kazimier Lachnovič.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- Calling Dr. Prof. Timothy D. Snyder, Dr. Andrew Wilson, Dr. Prof. Norman Davies, Dr. Prof. David R. Marples, Dr. Prof. Jeffrey Cole the “Belarusian nationalists” is another prove that the user in inadequate and should be stopped. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- I am the one that provided the sources showing Kazimier Lachnovič's view is the nationalist one. The POV is the one that is clearly shown to be such by many sources. A reasonable administrator should understand that Kazimier Lachnovič is creating problems based on his ideological views, as is repeatedly evidenced through his actions. In a case of simple over-categorization, Kazimier Lachnovič talks about defending Belarusian history when no one is assaulting it.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- The user just admits the lack of reliable sources to support their nationalistic (chauvinistic) POV. I believe there is enough evidence for any reasonable administrator. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- It does not matter that Kazimier Lachnovič did not directly refer to Vatslau Lastouski or Usevalad Ihnatouski, because Kazimier Lachnovič still continues with a clearly Belarusian nationalistic interpretation of history. It is not disruptive behaviour to warn others of the real ideological background from which Kazimier Lachnovič is coming. Referencing sources showing that Kazimier Lachnovič's POV is nationalist is not something that should be stopped by administrators. Kazimier Lachnovič wanting it to be stopped by administrators only shows Kazimier Lachnovič's disingenuous intentions.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- First, I didn't refer to Vatslau Lastouski or Usevalad Ihnatouski, so the critics of their work is irrelevant. Second, Clive Cheesman as well as the Abdelal, Rawi E. are even not historians and surely not specialized ones in the subject. So once again the user proves that just ignores the list of specialized historical sources they don't like and try to refer to stereotypic non-specialized sources they like. Taking into account pushing such POV by means of edit warring that is clearly disruptive behaviour, that should be stopped by the administrators. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- There is not a single source that claims that only the Republic of Lithuania has the right to the historical heritage of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Formally, in 1792-1795, all rights passed to the Russian Empire. The Republic of Lithuania was created on a part of the Russian Empire and is not a direct heir to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The Vilnius Region was received as a gift from Joseph Stalin in 1939. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 07:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Comment History of Lithuania is the same as History of Poland, History of Hungary, History of France, etc. We don't have separate categories for Kingdom of Poland, Kingdom of Hungary or Kingdom of France. Moreover, why then we do not add category History of Belarus to Category:Poland as well? Belarusian territories also were part of Poland, same as it was part of Lithuania (a state which was first mentioned in the written sources in 1009). On the contrary, Belarus is a modern state: "While Belarusians share a distinct ethnic identity and language, they never previously enjoyed unity and political sovereignty, except during a brief period in 1918." (article from Encyclopedia Britannica). -- Pofka (talk) 08:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
- No. The history of modern state Lithuania (with own name Lietuva) is not the same as History of Poland, History of Hungary, History of France. Many contemporary specialized reliable sources (quoted above Dr. Prof. Timothy D. Snyder, Dr. Andrew Wilson, Dr. Jan Zaprudnik, Dr. Prof. Norman Davies) clearly state that the historical meaning of term Lithuania (Lithuanian) differs significantly from the modern one. Moreover, according to Ethnic Groups of Europe: An Encyclopedia, ABC-Clio, 2011, p. 43, by American anthropologist Dr. Prof. Jeffrey Cole, who is an expert on race and ethnicity in Europe, and Dr. Prof. Stephan E. Nikolov, a Senior Fellow researcher at the Bulgarian Academy of Science, Institute of Sociology and Associated Professor at the Neofit Rilski Southwestern University Blagoevgrad, «For this reason many historians argue that the medieval Grand Duchy of Lithuania was the first Belarusian nation state». --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 13:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
- In addition to the provided quotes from several contemporary specialized reliable sources there are some very related quotes from The Rise and Fall of Belarusian Nationalism, 1906–1931 (2015, University of Pittsburgh Press) by Swedish-American historian Dr. Prof. Per Anders Rudling, specializing in the areas of nationalism: „Lithuania — or Letuva, Litva, Litwa, Lietuva, or Lite, as it was called in the five local languages — was commonly not thought of in the same terms as it is today, as an ethnic nation-state of the Lithuanian people. <...> In the early nineteenth century, “Belarusian” or “Lithuanian” did not yet denote any particular ethnic belonging. <...> As a state symbol, the BNR adopted the Pahonia, "the chase", a stylized image of an armed knight on a white stallion against a red background. This symbol had deep roots, going back to the fourteenth century. <...> ...the Pahonia was nearly identical to the coat of arms of the newly proclaimed Lithuanian state; <...> The Belarusian People's Republic had established a three-band white-red-white flag, and a modified version of the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.“ So, according to many contemporary specialized reliable sources, the proclaimed in the 20th century modern Lithuanian state (with own name Lietuva) has no exclusive rights on the heritage of the GDL (with own name Litva). --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- The way that Kazimier Lachnovič uses sources is indicative of his tendency to twist history. He leaves out important elements from the sources and ignores the wider context. The article on Belarusians in Ethnic Groups of Europe: An Encyclopedia only explains the view and does not state it as fact. In it, it is written that “The Ruthenian language, which later evolved into modern Belarusian, was the official language there.” Language itself is not a sufficient basis to claim a country, because some languages were used as lingua franca, and so to claim that the 18th-century Kingdom of Prussia was somehow a French state because it used French in its official proceedings is nonsense. It should be clear to all that the use of a certain language does not immediately mean the country belongs to those that write that language. Later on, the article itself states “In the 14th century, while being incorporated to Lithuania, Belarusians never lost their national identity.” This is a major statement that CONTRADICTS Kazimier Lachnovič’s whole argument. How can a country be incorporated into something which it supposedly already is? It can’t, and ergo the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was NOT Belarus. How can a national identity be lost in a state that is supposedly your own? This source clearly implies that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was not a Belarusian state, and the centre of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was always the ethnic Lithuanians, which still exist now, while the Belarusians were part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, but never were the Lithuanians. The sources that Kazimier Lachnovič uses contradict him. The name Litva is known to derive from Lietuva (see en:Name of Lithuania), and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was called Lietuva, as is clear in documents from GDL : [this document from 1641 http://lietuvos.istorija.net/lituanistica/wladislaus1641.htm] states dideje Kunigaykßtysteje Lietuwos and [this manifesto from 1794 https://www.epaveldas.lt/object/recordDescription/LMAVB/MAB01-000255435] calls the GDL - Letuwa, so Kazimier Lachnovič putting so much emphasis on separating the two is factually inaccurate.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- And once again (the statements ignored by the user are highlighted): Lithuania — or Letuva, Litva, Litwa, Lietuva, or Lite, as it was called in the five local languages — was commonly not thought of in the same terms as it is today, as an ethnic nation-state of the Lithuanian people. <...> In the early nineteenth century, “Belarusian” or “Lithuanian” did not yet denote any particular ethnic belonging (Swedish-American historian Dr. Prof. Per Anders Rudling, specializing in the areas of nationalism, University of Pittsburgh Press, 2015). --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 11:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- Once more, Kazimier Lachnovič totally ignored what was previously said and pointed out irrelevant citations. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania did not exist in the 19th century, because it was occupied by the Russian Empire in 1795. Moreover, it is not a surprise that different languages had different names for a certain country, that is normal and to be expected.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- And once again (the statements ignored by the user are highlighted): Lithuania or Litva was commonly not thought of in the same terms as it is today, as an ethnic nation-state of the Lithuanian people. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 10:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- Once more, Kazimier Lachnovič totally ignored what was previously said and pointed out irrelevant citations. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania did not exist in the 19th century, because it was occupied by the Russian Empire in 1795. Moreover, it is not a surprise that different languages had different names for a certain country, that is normal and to be expected.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- And once again (the statements ignored by the user are highlighted): Lithuania — or Letuva, Litva, Litwa, Lietuva, or Lite, as it was called in the five local languages — was commonly not thought of in the same terms as it is today, as an ethnic nation-state of the Lithuanian people. <...> In the early nineteenth century, “Belarusian” or “Lithuanian” did not yet denote any particular ethnic belonging (Swedish-American historian Dr. Prof. Per Anders Rudling, specializing in the areas of nationalism, University of Pittsburgh Press, 2015). --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 11:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- The way that Kazimier Lachnovič uses sources is indicative of his tendency to twist history. He leaves out important elements from the sources and ignores the wider context. The article on Belarusians in Ethnic Groups of Europe: An Encyclopedia only explains the view and does not state it as fact. In it, it is written that “The Ruthenian language, which later evolved into modern Belarusian, was the official language there.” Language itself is not a sufficient basis to claim a country, because some languages were used as lingua franca, and so to claim that the 18th-century Kingdom of Prussia was somehow a French state because it used French in its official proceedings is nonsense. It should be clear to all that the use of a certain language does not immediately mean the country belongs to those that write that language. Later on, the article itself states “In the 14th century, while being incorporated to Lithuania, Belarusians never lost their national identity.” This is a major statement that CONTRADICTS Kazimier Lachnovič’s whole argument. How can a country be incorporated into something which it supposedly already is? It can’t, and ergo the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was NOT Belarus. How can a national identity be lost in a state that is supposedly your own? This source clearly implies that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was not a Belarusian state, and the centre of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was always the ethnic Lithuanians, which still exist now, while the Belarusians were part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, but never were the Lithuanians. The sources that Kazimier Lachnovič uses contradict him. The name Litva is known to derive from Lietuva (see en:Name of Lithuania), and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was called Lietuva, as is clear in documents from GDL : [this document from 1641 http://lietuvos.istorija.net/lituanistica/wladislaus1641.htm] states dideje Kunigaykßtysteje Lietuwos and [this manifesto from 1794 https://www.epaveldas.lt/object/recordDescription/LMAVB/MAB01-000255435] calls the GDL - Letuwa, so Kazimier Lachnovič putting so much emphasis on separating the two is factually inaccurate.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Territory and ethnic composition
[edit]Sergey Elizarov History of Belarus in the context of European civilization, 2014:
In the middle of the XIV century, Russian lands occupied two-thirds of the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, amounting to more than 300 thousand km². At the same time, Lithuania itself with Samogitia (ethnic Lithuania) - less than 30%.
Under the Grand Duke Olgerd, the country's territory reached 630 thousand km², the share of ethnic Lithuanian lands decreased to 14%.
Was the Grand Duchy of Lithuania really Lithuanian?:
At its peak, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania did control lands well beyond ethnic Lithuania and, at the time, just 30% of its people were ethnic Lithuanians.
According to the documents of the Russian Empire, Vilna and Grodno provinces were "Lithuanian" (see en:Lithuania Governorate). In the Grodno province, the overwhelming majority of residents were Belarusians. In Vilenskaya, Belarusians were also in the majority. In 1812, during the occupation by Napoleon's army, two Governorate-Generals: Lithuanian and Belarusian. Lithuanian Governorate-General: en:Vilna Governorate, en:Grodno Governorate, en:Minsk Governorate, en:Belostok Oblast. The overwhelming majority of the population in the Lithuanian governorate was made up of Belarusians.
Vilna Governorate, 1864. Statistical table of the Western Russian region of the Russian Empire, by confession:
Orthodox Belarusians - 147 504 persons
Orthodox Lithuanians - 0 persons
Catholics of Belarusians - 270 785 persons
Lithuanian Catholics - 182 288 persons
--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 09:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- India was the largest part of the British Empire and Indians were the most numerous of its inhabitants. That does not make the British Empire into an Indian state. So, a Slavic majority in a country does not make that country Slavic. Your argument does not stand up to scrutiny.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)