Talk:Reinhold Curicke

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anti-Polish bias and vandalism renders Wikipedia untrustworthy[edit]

As we discussed it many times before he was born in the polish city of GGdańsk 220 years before the city became part of Germany, so the German name is inappropriate and part of the anti-polish bias shared by some lower class Wikipedians. "Massive" is spelled with a silent "e" at the end, my anonymous German friend. Space Cadet 23:04, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Weblink[edit]

R. Curicke on Official Polish Gdansk website with famous Danziger: [1]


Danzig Stadt Republik - City Republic[edit]

Danzig was Stadt Republik [2] (city republic), Danzig was in Prussia, was not Poland. Adding Poland in the article is incorrect.

Reinhold Curicke on Danzig [3]

A number of people keep adding Danzig, Poland, which is incorrect. Danzig was in Prussia, or Royal Prussia, Danzig was not in Poland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.64.78 (talk) 04:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • And Royal Prussia was a part of the Kingdom of Poland at the time that Curicke lived. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[4]

Danzig was in Prussia, not in Poland

Importance of Hanseatic League to Danzig[edit]

Note that as late as 1919, the city residents preferred the name Freie Hansestadt Danzig for the new free city instead of Freie Stadt Danzig. Gdańsk still uses a flag and seal using the Hanseatic colors. A number of cities, though not Gdańsk, still honor the memory of the Hansa by including it in their official names. To suggest that the principal city of one of the four Hansa circles didn't attach importance to its then current membership, even though the league was in its dying throes, is ludicrous. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. I'm not opposed to giving the Polish suzerainty of the de facto free city of Poland a higher prominence than it currently has, but to leave the Hansa out of the first mention of the city doesn't seem appropriate, especially in an article for someone who is mainly notable for chronicling the history of the city at a point near the end of its Hanseatic era. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Etchings[edit]

I find it unlikely that he would have commissioned etchings that supposedly weren't used until twenty years after his death. Possibly some drawings that were later used as the basis for the etchings included in the 1687 edition, or that the etchings were commissioned and used sooner, or that someone else commissioned the etchings based on his notes to go with his text. However the large gap in time makes me skeptical of that statement at face value without a reference to back it up. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Okay. That his son did it satisfies my sense of reasonable, and it held explaing the (Georg) that had been at the start of the article if there are two Curickes instead of one. I'd still like a ref that Georg was indeed a son and not some other male relative, but not so badly that I'd stick a dubious marker on the claim. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reinhold Curicke[edit]

Two points: (1) The ancient Polish city of Gdańsk was in the 17th century under the protection of Poland but was effectively a free city with privileges to have its own currency, taxation etc. It was still largely Germanic in outlook and population due to forced resettlement under the Teutonic Order in the 14th/15th centuries. Even during the period under Polish protection after the Teutonic Order was defeated, the city was known by variants of the name Danzig (e.g. Danzigke, Dantsic etc.) There is copious evidence for this (see for example 'God's Playground - A History of Poland' by Norman Davies, OUP 1981) Curicke himself called the city Danzig. (2) As a Danzig/Gdańsk historian myself I have a facsimile of the 1687 edition of 'Der Stadt Danzig historische Beschreibung' commissioned by Georg Reinhold Curicke who was indeed the son of the author. In an introduction to the 1687 edition Georg refers to the author as "meinen geliebten Vatter". Note that the book is written in German and Latin not Polish. Giles du Boulay 81.132.44.139 (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]