File talk:Baltic Tribes c 1200.svg

Comments concerning the map

I would also be interested in knowing where you have concerns about the map: some boundaries, I would guess. MapMaster 02:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you really want to know... (1) Selonians seem too big. (2) Livonians had more territory along the Gulf of Riga (as Xil said). (3) Yotvingians crossed the Neman River. (4) Aukstaitians is written in a strange place. (5) Most maps I have seen like to separate Lithuanians as an individual tribe. (6) Skalvians are too long ;) (7) I thought Nadruvians are a separate tribe by itself. So that's that. But I mean the book is very authoriative and recognized source for info on Balts, so I don't really dare to argue. And it's not like everything is clear there (most things are just assumptions). I think I just need to get used to it. (btw, I changed the description to give full info, hope you don't mind) Renata 14:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting comments

1. I have compared the Selonian area in other maps and have moved the southern border a bit more to the north, as well as a bit east.

   Yes, north is good :) If I am correct Selonians are the most mysterious tribe (there is almost nothing known about them). Renata3 02:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

2. Yes, nearly every other map (other than Gimbutas') show Livonians along the eastern shore of the Gulf, and I have moved the Latgallian boundary eastward.
3. I would be interested in getting more information on the Yotvingians on the east bank of the Neman River. One map I saw showed an overlap between the Yotvingians and the Lithuanians.

   I would have to dig a little more here. But at the moment I am terribly busy in real life. Renata3 02:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

4. I will adjust the Aukstaitian label.
5. Well, this bit about Lithuanians and Aukstaitians and the Žemaičiai really confuses me. A number of maps show them as 3 separate tribes. But aren't the Aukstaitians and the Žemaitians both Lithuanians?? I know that Aukstaitian and Žemaitian are (now) considered dialects of Lithuanians.

   Yeah, it's horribly confusing because now there is no separate thing as Lithuanians. Aukstaitians and Samogitians and Dzukians and Sudovians are four "types" of Lithuanians (see en:Regions of Lithuania) and there is no fifth type as "Lithuanians". But there was back in the 12th century (at least that's what textbooks say). I am not too clear about Aukstaitians vs Lithuanians (they might have been the same), but Samogitians definitely were separate (some of them still demand special rights for the Samogitian language). And BTW, if you compare the region map, you will see some boudaries still exist. Renata3 02:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

6. Er, ok. Whatever you say!  : )

   ;) Renata3 02:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

7. In a similar way, it was hard for me to determine whether the Nadruvians were "just" a tribe of Prussians or whether they should be differentiated from the Prussians. In addition to looking thru various maps, I also tried to rely on their languages to answer this question. Yotvingian and Galindian are considered Prussian dialects (hence the separate areas) but there were few maps showing the Nadruvians separately, and there was very little info on them (and Wikipedia says they probably spoke Prussian), so I included their area under the Prussians. And what about the Sambians, Natangians, and Warmians? This is bewildering, and I'm thinking that there is no exact answer given our present state of knowledge.

   Well, this map maybe can shed some light (and result in more questions). Well, ok, Nadruvians might be just a "type" of Prussians. See, Prussians are well-studied (because they were the first ones to be conquesred by the Teutonic Knights) and their "types" (what's the proper word?) is quite well known. Renata3 02:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Your comments are welcome and have resulted in some adjustments to the map, not necessarily because you said so, but because you caused me to re-evaluate the sources. Thanks, MapMaster 01:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking so much thought in this! Renata3 02:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Liven

Die Liven lebten in heutigen Lettland, nicht in Estland. Saaremaa und andere heutige Kreise Estlands waren die estnischen Territorien (einz Metsepole livisches Land war). - Urmas 10:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Borders on the west and Kulmo žemė (Kulmerland)

Good morning, on the map is a mistake. The boundary between the Duchy of Pomerania, Polish and Prussia was different. Chelmno Land (Kulmerland) was under the control of the Duchy of Mazovia. Pomeranian Duchy reached areas a little farther to the east by the Vistula. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Prussian_clans_13th_century.png?uselang=lt Look at Osa and Nogat river. Bornholm (talk) 10:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Kulmerland was part of Baltic Tribes teritory, see map by Marija Gimbuts http://www.vaidilute.com/books/gimbutas/figure-1.jpg. West Baltic Prussian land reached to south of Drewenz River and further south to Narew R. by Lomza and Bialystok to Njemen River. Pomerania never reached east of the Vistula. Kulmerland was also not under the control of the Duchy of Masovia, but since about 1000 AD it had become a neighboring land and was subjected to several conquest attempts by several dukes of Poland (997 AD 1.time) and of Masovia. In 1209 Duke of Masovia called for a crusade to conquer Prussians and again later, because Prussians retaliated against the numerous conquest attempts, which had started ever since the Polans showed up in that area from further east. Kulmerland was in 1243 one of the four bishoprics of Prussia, assigned by William of Modena, legate of the pope. (71.137.194.11 21:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC))