text:
Andrzej Wajda

Andrzej Witold Wajda (6 March 1926 – 9 October 2016) was a Polish film and theatre director. Recipient of an Honorary Oscar, the Palme d'Or, as well as Honorary Golden Lion and Honorary Golden Bear Awards, he was a prominent member of the "Polish Film School". He was known especially for his trilogy of war films consisting of A Generation (1955), Kanał (1957) and Ashes and Diamonds (1958).

He is considered one of the world's most renowned filmmakers, whose works chronicled his native country's political and social evolution and dealt with the myths of Polish national identity offering insightful analyses of the universal element of the Polish experience – the struggle to maintain dignity under the most trying circumstances.

Four of his films have been nominated for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film: The Promised Land (1975), The Maids of Wilko (1979), Man of Iron (1981) and Katyń (2007).

Early life
Wajda was born in Suwałki, the son of Aniela (née Białowąs), a school teacher, and Jakub Wajda, an army officer. In 1942, he joined the Polish resistance and served in the Home Army. After the war, he studied to be a painter at Kraków's Academy of Fine Arts before entering the Łódź Film School, where many famous Polish directors, such as Roman Polanski, studied.

Early career
After Wajda's apprenticeship to director Aleksander Ford, Wajda was given the opportunity to direct his own film. A Generation (1955) was his first major film. At the same time Wajda began his work as a director in theatre, including Michael V. Gazzo's A Hatful of Rain (1959), Hamlet (1960), and Two for the Seesaw (1963) by William Gibson. Wajda made two more increasingly accomplished films, which developed further the anti-war theme of A Generation: Kanał (1957) (Special Jury Prize at Cannes Film Festival in 1957, shared with Bergman's The Seventh Seal) and Ashes and Diamonds (1958) with Zbigniew Cybulski.

While capable of turning out mainstream commercial fare (often dismissed as "trivial" by critics), Wajda was more interested in works of allegory and symbolism, and certain symbols (such as setting fire to a glass of liquor, representing the flame of youthful idealism that was extinguished by the war) recur often in his films. Lotna (1959) is full of surrealistic and symbolic scenes and shots, but he managed to explore other styles, making new wave style Innocent Sorcerers (1960) with music by Krzysztof Komeda, starring Roman Polanski and Jerzy Skolimowski (who was also a co-script writer) in the episodes. Then Wajda directed Samson (1961), the story of Jacob, a Jewish boy, who wants to survive during the Nazi occupation of Poland. In the mid-1960s Wajda made The Ashes (1965) based on the novel by Polish writer Stefan Żeromski and directed several films abroad: Love at Twenty (1962), Siberian Lady Macbeth (1962) and Gates To Paradise (1968).

In 1967, Cybulski was killed in a train accident, whereupon the director articulated his grief with Everything for Sale (1968), considered one of his most personal films, using the technique of a film-within-a-film to tell the story of a film maker's life and work. The following year he directed an ironic satire Hunting Flies with the script written by Janusz Głowacki and a short television film called Przekładaniec based on a screenplay by Stanisław Lem.

Artistic recognition
The 1970s were the most prolific artistic period for Wajda, who made over ten films: Landscape After the Battle (1970), Pilate and Others (1971), The Wedding (1972) – the film version of the famous Polish poetic drama by Stanisław Wyspiański, The Promised Land (1974), Man of Marble (1977) – the film takes place in two time periods, the first film showing the episodes of Stalinism in Poland, The Shadow Line (1976), Rough Treatment (a.k.a. Without Anesthesia) (1978), The Orchestra Conductor (1980), starring John Gielgud; and two psychological and existential films based upon novels by Jarosław Iwaszkiewicz – The Birch Wood (1970) and The Maids of Wilko (1979). The Birch Wood was entered into the 7th Moscow International Film Festival where Wajda won the Golden Prize for Direction.

Wajda continued to work in theatre, including Play Strindberg, Dostoyevsky's The Possessed and Nastasja Filippovna – Wajda's version of The Idiot, November Night by Wyspiański, The Immigrants by Sławomir Mrożek, The Danton Affair or The Dreams of Reason. Wajda's later commitment to Poland's burgeoning Solidarity movement was manifested in Man of Iron (1981), a thematic sequel to The Man of Marble, with Solidarity leader Lech Wałęsa appearing as himself in the latter film. The film sequence is loosely based on the life of Anna Walentynowicz, a hero of socialist labor Stakhanovite turned dissident and alludes to events from real life, such as the firing of Walentynowicz from the shipyard and the underground wedding of Bogdan Borusewicz to Alina Pienkowska. The director's involvement in this movement would prompt the Polish government to force Wajda's production company out of business. For the film, Wajda won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival.

In 1983, he directed Danton, starring Gérard Depardieu in the title role, a film set in 1794 (Year Two of the French Republican calendar) dealing with the Post-Revolutionary Terror. Made against the backdrop of the martial law in Poland, Wajda showed how easily revolution can change into terror and start to "eat its own children." For this film Wajda was honoured with the Louis Delluc Prize and a César Award for Best Director. In the 1980s, he also made A Love in Germany (1983) featuring Hanna Schygulla, The Chronicle of Amorous Incidents (1986) an adaptation of Tadeusz Konwicki's novel and The Possessed (1988) based on Dostoyevsky's novel. In theatre he prepared an interpretation of Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment (1984) and other unique spectacles such as Antygone, his sequential Hamlet versions and the early 20th-century Jewish play The Dybbuk. In 1989, he was the president of the jury at the 16th Moscow International Film Festival.

Career after 1990
In 1990, Andrzej Wajda was honoured by the European Film Awards for his lifetime achievement, only the third director to be so honoured, after Federico Fellini and Ingmar Bergman. In the early 1990s, he was elected a senator and also appointed artistic director of Warsaw's Teatr Powszechny. He continued to make films set during World War II, including Korczak (1990), a story about a Jewish-Polish doctor who takes care of orphan children, in The Crowned-Eagle Ring (1993) and Holy Week (1995) specifically on Jewish-Polish relations. In 1994, Wajda presented his own film version of Dostoyevsky's novel The Idiot in the movie Nastasja, starring Japanese actor Tamasoburo Bando in the double role of Prince Mishkin and Nastasja. The film's cinematographer was Paweł Edelman, who subsequently became one of Wajda's great collaborators. In 1996, the director went in a different direction with Miss Nobody, a coming-of-age drama that explored the darker and more spiritual aspects of a relationship between three high-school girls. In 1999, Wajda released the epic film Pan Tadeusz, based on the epic poem of the Polish 19th-century romantic poet Adam Mickiewicz.

A year later, at the 2000 Academy Awards, Wajda was presented with an honorary Oscar for his contribution to world cinema; he subsequently donated the award to Kraków's Jagiellonian University. In 2002, Wajda directed The Revenge, a film version of his 1980s comedy theatre production, with Roman Polanski in one of the main roles. In February 2006, Wajda received an Honorary Golden Bear for lifetime achievement at the Berlin International Film Festival. In 2007, Katyń was released, a well-received film about the Katyń massacre, in which Wajda's father was murdered; the director also shows the dramatic situation of those who await their relatives (mothers, wives and children). The film was nominated for the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar in 2008. Wajda followed it with Sweet Rush (2009) with Krystyna Janda as a main character. It is partly based upon a short Jarosław Iwaszkiewicz novel. The film is dedicated to Edward Kłosiński, Janda's husband, a cinematographer and a long-time Wajda friend and co-worker who died of cancer the same year. For this film Wajda was awarded by Alfred Bauer Prize at the 2009 Berlin International Film Festival. He received the Prix FIPRESCI during the 2009 European Film Awards. Walesa. Man of Hope (Wałęsa. Człowiek z nadziei), Wajda's biography of Lech Wałęsa, based on a script by Janusz Głowacki and starring Robert Więckiewicz in the title role, had its world premiere at the 2013 Venice International Film Festival. His last film was the 2016 Afterimage (Powidoki), starring Bogusław Linda as Polish avant-garde painter Władysław Strzemiński.

Wajda founded The Japanese Centre of Art and Technology in Kraków in 1994. In 2002, he founded and led his own film school with Polish filmmaker Wojciech Marczewski. Students of Wajda School take part in different film courses led by famous European film makers.

Personal life and death
Wajda was married four times. His third wife was actress Beata Tyszkiewicz with whom he had a daughter, Karolina (born 1967). His fourth wife was the theatre costume designer and actress Krystyna Zachwatowicz.

In September 2009, Wajda called for the release of director Roman Polanski after Polanski was arrested in Switzerland in relation to his 1977 charge for drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl.

Wajda died in Warsaw on 9 October 2016 at the age of 90 from pulmonary failure. He was buried at Salwator Cemetery in Kraków.

Awards and honours

 * 2012: Order of Merit of the Republic of Hungary;
 * 2011: Order of the White Eagle (the highest Polish distinction), Commander of the Order of Three Stars (Latvia);
 * 2010: Order of Friendship of the Russian Federation, Order of Danica Hrvatska (Croatia);
 * 2008: Order of Prince Yaroslav the Wise (Ukraine), Order of the Cross of Terra Mariana (Estonia);
 * 2007: Nomination for an Academy Award for Katyń;
 * 2006: Order for Merits to Lithuania;
 * 2006: Honorary Golden Bear for lifetime achievement at the 56th Berlin International Film Festival;
 * 2005: Gold Medal for Merit to Culture – Gloria Artis;
 * 2001: Commander's Cross of Legion d'Honneur of the French Republic, Great Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany, Doctor Honoris Causa of the Moscow State Academy of Choreography;
 * 2000: Academy Honorary Award from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences;
 * 2000: Doctor Honoris Causa of the Warsaw Academy of Fine Arts, Order of Merit of the Italian Republic;
 * 1999: Grand Cross of the Order of Polonia Restituta, Freedom Award for film-making and for "unparalleled commitment to freedom" at the Freedom Film Festival in Berlin, the Crystal Iris for life achievement at the National Film Festival in Brussels;
 * 1997: Praemium Imperiale Award of the Japanese Society for the Promotion of Art, Silver Bear for life achievement and, specifically, for Holy Week, at the 46th Berlin Film Festival (1996); Best Director Award for Miss Nobody at the 13th Festroia International Film Festival, Portugal;
 * 1997: Honourable Mention at the 47th Berlin International Film Festival for Miss Nobody;
 * 1996: Silver Bear for an outstanding artistic contribution at the 46th Berlin International Film Festival for Wielki tydzień;
 * 1995: Order of the Rising Sun (Japan), Doctor Honoris Causa of Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium, Witkacy Prize – Critics' Circle Award of the Polish ITI Centre for the promotion of the Polish theatre abroad and Doctor Honoris Causa of the Lumière University Lyon 2 in Lyon, France;
 * 1994: Ordre des Arts et des Lettres (France);
 * 1990: European Felix Award for life achievement and an outstanding achievement and artistic conduct at the Cannes International Film Festival;
 * 1989: Doctor Honoris Causa of the Jagiellonian University;
 * 1988: Nomination for the Golden Bear at the 38th Berlin International Film Festival for Les Possédés;
 * 1987: Kyoto Prize of the Japanese Inamori Foundation for contribution to the development of science, technology and ideas;
 * 1986: The Luigi Pirandello Award for activity and achievement in the area of theatre;
 * 1985: Herder Prize for contribution to strengthening cultural relations with nations of Eastern and Southern Europe;
 * 1983: César Award of the French Academy of Film Art and Technology for Danton;
 * 1982: Knight of Legion d'Honneur (France); Onassis Foundation Award for work for human rights and dignity;
 * 1981: Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival for Man of Iron;
 * 1981: Nomination of an Academy Award for Man of Iron;
 * 1981: Doctor Honoris Causa of the University of Washington;
 * 1980: FIPRESCI and Basque Cultural Society awards at the San Sebastián International Film Festival for The Orchestra Conductor;
 * 1979: Golden Lions at the 6th Gdynia Film Festival for The Maids of Wilko, Prize of the Ecumenical Jury at the Cannes International Film Festival for Without Anesthesia, Life Achievement Award at the La Rochelle International Film Festival and Order of Saints Cyril and Methodius for contribution to the development of Polish-Bulgarian cultural co-operation;
 * 1979: Nomination for an Academy Award for The Maids of Wilko;
 * 1978: Golden Lions at the 5th Gdynia Film Festival for Without Anesthesia, Jury Award and Best Director Award at the 18th Cartagena Film Festival (Colombia) for Promised Land;
 * 1976: Journalists Award at the 3rd Brussels International Film Festival for Promised Land, Golden Spike for The Promised Land at the Valladolid Film Festival;
 * 1975: Golden Prize at the 9th Moscow International Film Festival for The Promised Land.;
 * 1975: Nomination for an Academy Award for The Promised Land;
 * 1973: Silver Shell at the San Sebastian International Film Festival for directing The Wedding;
 * 1964: Officer's Cross of the Order of Polonia Restituta;
 * 1959: Jury and FIPRESCI Award at the Venice Film Festival for Ashes and Diamonds, Knight's Cross of the Order of Polonia Restituta;
 * 1957: Special Jury Prize at the Cannes International Film Festival for Kanał.

title: Andrzej Wajda


text:
Claudius Gothicus

Marcus Aurelius Claudius "Gothicus" (10 May 214 – August/September 270), also known as Claudius II, was Roman emperor from 268 to 270. During his reign he fought successfully against the Alemanni and decisively defeated the Goths at the Battle of Naissus. He died after succumbing to a "pestilence", possibly the Plague of Cyprian that had ravaged the provinces of the Empire.

Early life and origin
The most significant source for Claudius II (and the only one regarding his early life) is the collection of imperial biographies called the Historia Augusta. However, his story, like the rest of the Historia Augusta, is riddled with fabrications and obsequious praises. In 4th century, Claudius was declared a relative of Constantine the Great's father, Constantius Chlorus, and, consequently, of the ruling dynasty. The Historia Augusta should be used with extreme caution and supplemented with information from other sources: the works of Aurelius Victor, Pseudo-Aurelius Victor, Eutropius, Orosius, Joannes Zonaras, and Zosimus, as well as coins and inscriptions.

The future emperor Marcus Aurelius Claudius was born on 10 May 214. Some researchers suggest a later date – 219 or 220. Nevertheless, most historians adhere to the first version. Moreover, as the 6th century Byzantine historian John Malalas reports, at the time of his death Claudius was 56 years old. The birthplace of Claudius is unknown. He might have been born somewhere near the Danube river.

According to the fourth-century Epitome de Caesaribus, he was thought to be a bastard son of Gordian II, although this is doubted by some historians.

The Historia Augusta refers to him as a member of the gens Flavia, likely an attempt to further connect him with the future emperor Flavius Valerius Constantius.

Rise to power
Before coming to power, Claudius served with the Roman army, where he had a successful career and secured appointments to the highest military posts. During the reign of Decius (249–251) he served as a military tribune. In this post, Claudius was sent to defend Thermopylae, in connection with which the governor of Achaea was ordered to send him 200 Dardanian soldiers, 60 horsemen, 60 Cretan archers, and a thousand well-armed recruits. However, there is no evidence that the Goths who invaded at that time threatened the region, since their invasion did not extend beyond the middle Balkans. Most likely the message of the "History of the Augustus" is an anachronism, since it is known that the garrison at Thermopylae appeared in 254. Historian François Pashau suggests that this passage was invented in order to contrast the successful pagan commander Claudius with the unlucky Christian generals who allowed the ruin of Greece by the Gothic leader Alaric I in 396. In addition, Trebellius Pollio reveals that Decius rewarded Claudius after he demonstrated his strength while fighting another soldier at the Games of Mars.

His troops then proclaimed him emperor amid charges, never proven, that he murdered his predecessor Gallienus. However, he soon showed himself to be less than bloodthirsty, as he asked the Roman Senate to spare the lives of Gallienus's family and supporters. He was less magnanimous toward Rome's enemies and it was to this that he owed his popularity.

It is possible Claudius gained his position and the respect of the soldiers by being physically strong and especially cruel. A legend tells of Claudius knocking out a horse's teeth with one punch. When Claudius performed as a wrestler in the 250s, he supposedly knocked out the teeth of his opponent when his genitalia had been grabbed in the match.

Claudius, like Maximinus Thrax before him, was of barbarian birth. After a period of failed aristocratic Roman emperors following Maximinus's death, Claudius was the first in a series of tough "soldier emperors" who would eventually restore the Empire after the Crisis of the Third Century.

Downfall of Gallienus
During the 260s, the breakup of the Roman Empire into three distinct governing entities (the core Roman Empire, the Gallic Empire and the Palmyrene Empire) placed the whole Roman imperium in a precarious position. Gallienus was seriously weakened by his failure to defeat Postumus in the West, and his acceptance of Odaenathus ruling a de facto independent kingdom within the Roman Empire in the East. By 268, this situation had changed, as Odaenathus was assassinated, most likely due to court intrigue, and Gallienus fell victim to a mutiny in his own ranks. Upon the death of Odaenathus, power fell to his younger son, who was dominated by his mother, Zenobia.

Under threat of invasion in the Balkans by multiple Germanic tribes, Gallienus's troubles primarily lay with Postumus, whom he could not attack because his attention was required in dealing with an insurrection led by Macrianus and the threats created by the invading Scythians. After four years of delay, Postumus had established some control over the Empire. In 265, when Gallienus and his men crossed the Alps, they defeated and besieged Postumus in an (unnamed) Gallic city. When victory appeared to be near, Gallienus made the mistake of approaching the city walls too closely and was gravely injured, compelling him to cease his campaign against Postumus. Over the next three years, Gallienus's troubles only got worse. The Scythians successfully invaded the Balkans in the early months of 268, and Aureolus, a commander of the Roman cavalry based in Milan, declared himself an ally of Postumus and went so far as to claim the imperial throne for himself.

At this time, another invasion was taking place. In 268, a tribe or grouping called the Herulians moved through Asia Minor and then into Greece on a naval expedition. Despite this, scholars assume Gallienus's efforts were focused on Aureolus, the officer who betrayed him, and the defeat of the Herulians was left to his successor, Claudius Gothicus.

The death of Gallienus was surrounded by conspiracy and betrayal, as were many emperors' deaths. Different accounts of the incident have been recorded, but they agree that senior officials wanted Gallienus dead. According to two accounts, the prime conspirator was Aurelius Heraclianus, the Praetorian Prefect. One version of the story tells of Heraclianus bringing Claudius into the plot while the account given by the Historia Augusta exculpates the soon-to-be emperor and adds the prominent general Lucius Aurelius Marcianus into the plot. The removal of Claudius from the conspiracy may be due to his later role as the progenitor of the house of Constantine, a fiction of Constantine's time, and suggests that the original version from which these two accounts derive was current prior to the reign of Constantine. It was written that while sitting down at dinner, Gallienus was told that Aureolus and his men were approaching the camp. Gallienus rushed to the front lines, ready to give orders, when he was struck down by a commander of his cavalry. In a different and more controversial account, Aureolus forges a document in which Gallienus appears to be plotting against his generals and makes sure it falls into the hands of the emperor's senior staff. In this plot, Aurelian is added as a possible conspirator. The tale of his involvement in the conspiracy might be seen as at least partial justification for the murder of Aurelian himself under circumstances that seem remarkably similar to those in this story.

Whichever story is true, Gallienus was killed in the summer of 268, probably between July and October,  and Claudius was chosen by the army outside of Milan to succeed him. Accounts tell of people hearing the news of the new emperor, and reacting by murdering Gallienus's family members until Claudius declared he would respect the memory of his predecessor. Claudius had the deceased emperor deified and buried in a family tomb on the Appian Way. The traitor Aureolus was not treated with the same reverence, as he was killed by his besiegers after a failed attempt to surrender.

Reign
At the time of Claudius's accession, the Roman Empire was in serious danger from several incursions, both inside and outside its borders. The most pressing of these was an invasion of Illyricum and Pannonia by the Goths. Although Gallienus had already inflicted some damage on them at the Battle of Nestus, Claudius, not long after being named emperor, followed this up by winning his greatest victory, and one of the greatest in the history of Roman arms.

At the Battle of Naissus, Claudius and his legions routed a huge Gothic army. Together with his cavalry commander, the future Emperor Aurelian, the Romans took thousands of prisoners and destroyed the Gothic cavalry as a force. The victory earned Claudius his surname of "Gothicus" (conqueror of the Goths). The Goths were soon driven back across the Danube River by Aurelian, and nearly a century passed before they again posed a serious threat to the empire.

Around the same time, the Alamanni had crossed the Alps and attacked the empire. Claudius responded quickly, routing the Alamanni at the Battle of Lake Benacus in the late fall of 268, a few months after the Battle of Naissus. For this he was awarded the title of "Germanicus Maximus." He then turned on the Gallic Empire, ruled by a pretender for the past eight years and encompassing Britain, Gaul, and the Iberian Peninsula. He won several victories and soon regained control of Hispania and the Rhone river valley of Gaul. This set the stage for the later destruction of the Gallic Empire under Aurelian.

Government and foreign affairs
Claudius was not the only man to reap the benefits of holding high office after the death of Gallienus. Before the rule of Claudius Gothicus, there had only been two emperors from the Balkans, but afterwards there would only be one emperor who did not hail from the provinces of Pannonia, Moesia or Illyricum until 378, when Theodosius I from Hispania would take the throne. Four inscriptions provide an insight into the government at the time. The first is a dedication to Aurelius Heraclianus, the prefect involved in the conspiracy against Gallienus, from Traianus Mucianus, who also gave a dedication to Heraclianus's brother, Aurelius Appollinaris, who was the equestrian governor of the province of Thracia in 267–68 AD. Because these men shared the family name, Marcus Aurelius, a name given to those made citizens by the constitutio Antoniniana, these men did not come from the imperial élite. The third inscription reveals the career of Marcianus, another leading general by the time that Gallienus died. The fourth honours Julius Placidianus, the prefect of the vigiles. Heraclianus, Appollinaris, Placidianus, or Marcianus may not have been of Danubian origin themselves, but none of them were members of the Severan aristocracy, and all of them appear to owe their prominence to their military roles. Marcus Aurelius Probus (another emperor in waiting) was also of Balkan background, and from a family enfranchised in the time of Caracalla.

Although their influence was weakened, there were still a number of men with influence from the older aristocracy. Claudius assumed the consulship in 269 with Paternus, a member of the prominent senatorial family, the Paterni, who had supplied consuls and urban prefects throughout Gallienus's reign, and thus were quite influential. In addition, Flavius Antiochianus, one of the consuls of 270, who was an urban prefect the year before, would continue to hold his office for the following year. A colleague of Antiochianus, Virius Orfitus, also the descendant of a powerful family, would continue to hold influence during his father's term as prefect. Aurelian's colleague as consul was another such man, Pomponius Bassus, a member of one of the oldest senatorial families, as was one of the consuls in 272, Junius Veldumnianus.

In his first full year of power, Claudius was greatly assisted by the sudden destruction of the imperium Galliarum. When Ulpius Cornelius Laelianus, a high official under Postumus, declared himself emperor in Germania Superior, in the spring of 269, Postumus defeated him, but in doing so, refused to allow the sack of Mainz, which had served as Laelianus's headquarters. This proved to be his downfall, for out of anger, Postumus's army mutinied and murdered him. Selected by the troops, Marcus Aurelius Marius was to replace Postumus as ruler. Marius's rule did not last long though, as Victorinus, Postumus's praetorian prefect, defeated him. Now emperor of the Gauls, Victorinus was soon in a precarious position, for the Spanish provinces had deserted the Gallic Empire and declared their loyalty to Claudius, while in southern Gaul, Placidianus had captured Grenoble. Luckily, it was there that Placidianus stopped and Victorinus's position stabilized. In the next year, when Autun revolted, declaring itself for Claudius, the central government made no moves to support it. As a result, the city went through a siege, lasting many weeks, until it was finally captured and sacked by Victorinus. It is still unknown why Claudius did nothing to help the city of Autun, but sources tell us his relations with Palmyra were waning in the course of 269. An obscure passage in the Historia Augusta's life of Gallienus states that he had sent an army under Aurelius Heraclianus to the region that had been annihilated by Zenobia. But because Heraclianus was not actually in the east in 268 (instead, at this time, he was involved in the conspiracy of Gallienus's death), this cannot be correct. But the confusion evident in this passage, which also places the bulk of Scythian activity during 269 a year earlier, under Gallienus, may stem from a later effort to pile all possible disasters in this year into the reign of the former emperor. This would keep Claudius's record of being an ancestor of Constantine from being tainted. If this understanding of the sources is correct, it might also be correct to see the expedition of Heraclianus to the east as an event of Claudius's time.

The victories of Claudius over the Goths would not only make him a hero in Latin tradition, but an admirable choice as an ancestor for Constantine I, who was born at Naissus, the site of Claudius's victory in 269. Claudius is also held in high esteem by Zonaras, whose Greek tradition seems to have been influenced by Latin. For Zosimus, a more reasoned contemporary view shows Claudius as less grand. Claudius's successes in the year 269 were not continued in his next year as emperor. As the Scythians starved in the mountains or surrendered, the legions pursuing them began to see an epidemic spreading throughout the men. Also, Claudius's unwillingness to do anything at the siege of Autun likely provoked a quarrel with Zenobia.

Although it is not proven that the invasion of Gaul was the breaking point between Claudius and Zenobia, the sequence of events point to the siege as an important factor. The issue at hand was the position that Odaenathus held as corrector totius orientis (imparting overall command of the Roman armies and authority over the Roman provincial governors in the designated region). Vaballathus, the son of Zenobia, was given this title when Zenobia claimed it for him. From then on, tension between the two empires would only get worse. Aurelius Heraclianus's fabled arrival might have been an effort to reassert central control after the death of Odaenathus, but, if so, it failed. Although coins were never minted with the face of Odaenathus, soon after his death coins were made with image of his son – outstripping his authority under the emperor.

Under Zabdas, a Palmyrene army invaded Arabia and moved into Egypt in the late summer. At this time, the prefect of Egypt was Tenagino Probus, described as an able soldier who not only defeated an invasion of Cyrenaica by the nomadic tribes to the south in 269, but also was successful in hunting down Scythian ships in the Mediterranean. However, he did not see the same success in Egypt, for a group allied to the Palmyrene empire, led by Timagenes, undermined Probus, defeated his army, and killed him in a battle near the modern city of Cairo in the late summer of 270. Generally, when a Roman commander is killed it is taken as a sign that a state of war is in existence, and if we can associate the death of Heraclianus in 270, as well as an inscription from Bostra recording the rebuilding of a temple destroyed by the Palmyrene army, then these violent acts could be interpreted the same way. Yet they apparently were not. As David Potter writes, "The coins of Vaballathus avoid claims to imperial power: he remains vir consularis, rex, imperator, dux Romanorum, a range of titles that did not mimic those of the central government. The status vir consularis was, as we have seen, conferred upon Odaenathus; the title rex, or king, is simply a Latin translation of mlk, or king; imperator in this context simply means "victorious general"; and dux Romanorum looks like yet another version of corrector totius orientis" (Potter, 263). These titles suggest that Odaenathus's position was inheritable. In Roman culture, the status gained in procuring a position could be passed on, but not the position itself. It is possible that the thin line between office and the status that accompanied it were dismissed in the Palmyrene court, especially when the circumstance worked against the interests of a regime that was able to defeat Persia, which a number of Roman emperors had failed to do. Vaballathus stressed the meanings of titles, because in the Palmyrene context, the titles of Odaenathus meant a great deal. When the summer of 270 ended, things were looking very different in the empire than they did a year before. After its success, Gaul was in a state of inactivity and the empire was failing in the east. Insufficient resources plagued the state, as a great deal of silver was used for the antoninianus, which was again diluted.

Death
Claudius did not live long enough to fulfil his goal of reuniting all the lost territories of the empire. Late in 269 he had travelled to Sirmium and was preparing to go to war against the Vandals, who were raiding in Pannonia. However, he fell victim to the Plague of Cyprian (possibly smallpox), and died early in 270. Before his death, he is thought to have named Aurelian as his successor, though Claudius's brother Quintillus briefly seized power. The Senate immediately deified Claudius as "Divus Claudius Gothicus".

Historians date Claudius's death in either January, April, August, or September. These discrepancies are the result of the various conflicting sources. The Chronograph of 354 gives Claudius a reign of "1 year and 4 months", Jerome and Aurelius Victor both give "1 year and 9 months". Some Alexandrian coins have been dated to his third year, suggesting that he died in September 270 (the Coptic calendar began on 29 August). Arthur Stein dated Claudius' death to April, citing a document of Aurelian that he dated to 25 May 270. However, modern scholars believe this document to be dated to 271. The date is strangely given as the "3rd" and "1st year", which most likely refers to the third year of Claudius and first of Aurelian (who dated his reign from Claudius' death). The last confirmed document is dated to 20 September 270, although another undated papyri could be tentatively dated to October.

Religion
A short history of imperial Rome, entitled De Caesaribus, written by Aurelius Victor in AD 361 states that Claudius consulted the Sibylline Books prior to his campaigns against the Goths. Hinting that Claudius "revived the tradition of the Decii", Victor illustrates the senatorial view, which saw Claudius's predecessor, Gallienus, as too relaxed when it came to religious policies.

Links to the Constantinian dynasty
The unreliable Historia Augusta reports Claudius and Quintillus having another brother named Crispus and through him a niece, Claudia, who reportedly married Eutropius and was mother to Constantius Chlorus. The same source also gives Claudius the nomina "Flavius Valerius" to strengthen his connection to Constantius. Zonaras and Eutropius on the other hand claim Chlorus was Claudia's daughter's son. Historians suspect these accounts to be a genealogical fabrication intended to link the family of Constantine I to that of a well-respected emperor.

Saint Valentine
Claudius Gothicus has been linked to Saint Valentine since the Middle Ages. Contemporary records of his deeds were most probably destroyed during the Diocletianic Persecution in early 4th century and a tale of martyrdom was recorded in Passio Marii et Marthae, a work published in the 5th or 6th century. Twentieth-century historians agree that the accounts from this period cannot be verified. The legend refers to "Emperor Claudius", but Claudius I did not persecute Christians (minus the one mention by Suetonius of Jewish followers of "Chrestus" being expelled from Rome; see Suetonius on Christians), so people believe he was Claudius II even though this emperor spent most of his time warring outside his territory.

The legend was retold in later texts, and in the Nuremberg Chronicle of 1493 AD, involved the Roman priest being martyred during a general persecution of Christians. The text states that St. Valentine was beaten with clubs and finally beheaded for giving aid to Christians in Rome. The Golden Legend of 1260 AD recounts how St. Valentine refused to deny Christ before the "Emperor Claudius" in 270 AD and as a result was beheaded. Since then, February 14 marks Valentine's Day, a day set aside by the Christian church in memory of the Roman priest and physician.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Claudius Gothicus


text:
Talk:Low Saxon

How many dialects are being spoken by the angels dancing on the head of a pin, by which I mean ...
The difference between Low and High German was illustrated for me as such: in High German, you have a tissue for your nose; in Low German, you have a snotrag.

I have no idea how these are correctly spelled, but something like High "tassenteuch" vs. Low "schneppeldorf". firepink

I've never heard that before, but that's funny!

 * As well as being a very precise linguistic criterion... ^^

 * One of the phenomena that happen for non-prestigious minority languages across the board is that their usage is increasingly severely restricted to specific domains. This includes not just increasing restriction to private domestic verbal communication in small rural communities, but also a greater restriction to humorous usage, whether in humorous sketches on stage or on the radio, the sharing of jokes and puns, or the creation of lists of vulgar expressions. The latter are then incorrectly perceived as being typical of the language in question to a much greater extent than vulgarity can feature in any given language. By the way, tissue (handkerchief) in Dutch Low Saxon is büüsdook (pocket cloth). Ni'jluuseger (talk) 13:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Two small things: First, Low German is a dialect or group of dialects, not a language. Second, is the reference to Low German as the lingua franca of the Baltic region correct? I find that hard -- but not impossible -- to believe. Just checking that it wasn't a typing error. :-) If it is true, where can I learn more about how Low German spread so far afield? GreenPen

 * Of course Low German is a language. Why do you differ e.g. Belorussian and Russian? The difference between them might be as small as between Low German and German.

 * Are Russian and Belarusan even that far apart? High German is no more closely related to Low Saxon than it is to Dutch. (By a forgiving definition, of course, these are all the same language; by a strict definition, they are all groups of several different languages.) -- Toby 17:50 Feb 4, 2003 (UTC)

 * Low Saxon is even more closely related to Frisian, English and probably Dutch than it is to High German -- User:JanTäufer 14:58 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)

 * Concerning sound shifts?

 * Why is there a link to create an Occitan Wikipedia, a Moldovan Wikipedia, a Frisian Wikipedia and many other - dialects or languages?? Why isn't there a link to create Wikipedia in Low Saxon? If you click there you only reach nupedia.com.

 * Why in terms of cause and effect? Probably because Occitan is a well-known invented language, Moldovan has a country, and Frisian has speakers active in Wikipedia -- any of these is likely to get you a link. Why in terms of justification? None. If you want a Low Saxon link, then find out the official language code and bring to Intlwiki-L. There's no reason that Low Saxon couldn't have a Wikipedia. -- Toby 00:08 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)

 * And where did you get the idea that Occitan is an "invented" language, Toby? It's directly descended from the Langue d'Oc that was spoken in southern France in the Middle Ages, and if anything, if one doesn't consider it a single language, it's because one considers it to be a language group, incorporating dialects/languages/whatever like Gascon and Provençal.  It's not spoken by that many people today, but it was the primary language of southern France prior to the French Revolution, and it was still significantly spoken in many areas into the 20th century.  Also, notably, it is quite close to Catalan (which has far more speakers than it today), to the extent that one could theoretically consider Catalan to be simply a divergent sort of it, were one to use a very broad definition of what "Occitan" is. -- Travis 2:48, 2 June 2005 (CDT)

Low German has been the lingua franca in this region because the city of Lubeck was the most important member of the hanseatic league in these days. People there used to speak Lübsch, the local version of Low German. For many Baltic cities used to maintain close trade contacts to Lubeck, traders there were able to speak Lübsch. http://www.sassisch.net/rhahn/low-saxon/index-engl.htm http://www.sassisch.net/rhahn/low-saxon/po-engl.htm http://www.einst.ee/publications/language/history.html

It is my understanding that Low German was spoken by the peasant class, and that High German would have been spoken by the upper classes. The distinction 'low' vs 'high' is based on the class of people that spoke the language. This info comes from the elder people in my community, which was settled by immigrants from northern Netherlands & surrounding parts of Germany. This provides an explanation why there are multiple dialects that are called Low German and High German.

 * "Low" and "High" refer to the relative elevation of the traditional regions the languages are from: Low German is from the North, which is at or near sea level, while High German (originally!) came from farther south, which is much more mountainous. This is what I have always heard. -Branddobbe 07:04, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

According to this article (and Niedersächsische Sprache, which it was based on), Hamburger is a Northern Low Saxon dialect. Northern Low Saxon language implies otherwise. Is it? -- Toby 18:30 Feb 4, 2003 (UTC)

Hello! When does Wikipedia start a version in Low Saxon? -- Horst

The article on Low German states that initial /k/ /p/ /t/ developed to /h/ /pf/ /ts/ in High German and were conserved in Low German. Can you provide examples for all three sounds? I am not sure, but I think that Engl. heart -- Dutch hart -- German Herz come all from */k-/. Besides, it is hard to give a clear distinction between language and dialect; so, rather don't take an all-too-strict strict position. -- dnjansen 21:39 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the /k/ to /h/... I've heard it developed to /kx/ in some dialects, but stayed /k/ in others. Examples: koek vs. Kuche (no /k/ to /h/ shift), paard vs. Pferd, tot vs. zu. Also you should note that those shifts were only when the sounds occured at the beginning of a word. They changed to other sounds in other positions. Benji man 21:40, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) P.S.: All non-German examples given are Dutch.

Plattdüütsch => Low Saxon and East Low German
There is the major problem that Plattdüütsch is not only the name for the northern german slang but for some eastern german and ancient polish slangs as well. Anyone a good hint on how to resolve that other than by having three distinct WikiPedia articles for each of those three terms in all WP versions? -- Alexander.stohr 05:09, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why has the interlanguage link been changed to "Platdüütsch"? The language calls itself "Plattdüütsch", with two ts; follow the link and you'll see that. -Branddobbe 17:44, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

Could you include the amount of speakers?--Arjuna 18:04, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

By which I mean ...
By which I mean, the fact that Low German was a group of dialects does not mean that it was not a language, a similar case to that of modern day Norwegian. Robert Greer (talk) 01:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

oldenburgisch
As far as I know, 'Oldenburgisch' (this is the High German name for it, as I do neither know a Plattdüütsch nor an English one) is a dialect of Northern (Standard) Low Saxon just like Bremisch or Hamburgisch. Can anyone here confirm that? I must confess, I am from Butjadingen, which is in exactly that region, and still do not know that. (My parents did not teach me the language when I was a child. Today I'm sorry for that, earlier I did not care :-(.) Besserwissi 17:34, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Again Low Saxon vs. Plattdüütsch
After moving the former Low German languages to Low Germanic languages, I've sorted out the links to that page. Since most links did not refer to that group of languages, but rather to the specifically German varieties, I've changed these links to Plattdüütsch. However, I've also noted that Plattdüütsch doesn't figure in any of the language trees on Wikipedia even though this page, the East Low German page and the Plattdüütsch page all agree that Plattdüütsch embraces both Low Saxon and East Low German.

Furthermore, none of these articles describes what distinguishes the different branches of the Low Germanic languages. It would be a real improvement if someone could mention the distinctive features between the Low Franconian languages and Plattdüütsch in general, and more specifically the differences between East Low German and Low Saxon. -- j. 'mach' wust | ✑ 13:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I've consulted the Metzler Lexikon Sprache (ISBN 3-476-01519-X) and the site of the Institut für niederdeutsche Sprache. Both sources agree that the subdivision is as follows:

 * Niederdeutsch (on wikipedia: Plattdüütsch)
 * Westniederdeutsch (Low Saxon language??)
 * Nordniederdeutsch/Niedersächsisch/Nordniedersächsisch (Northern Low Saxon language)
 * Westfälisch (Westphalian language)
 * Ostfälisch (Eastphalian language)
 * Ostniederdeutsch (East Low German)
 * Mecklenburg-Vorpommersch (Mecklenburgisch-Pommersch)
 * Brandenburgisch/Märkisch (Brandenburgisch)
 * Mittelpommersch (no article?)
 * †Ostpommersch (East Pomeranian)
 * †Niederpreussisch (Low Prussian)

 * Currently, this article does not fit neatly in this categorization:

 * Judging from its content, this article can mainly be identified with the Westniederdeutsch from the above sources. However, based on the above sources, the name West Low German seems to be more appropiate, especially in order to match with the article East Low German.

 * However, this article–especially in the first paragraphs–also contains certain information that belongs not to Westniederdeutsch, but rather to all of Niederdeutsch (recognition by Germany according to the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages) or even to the entire group of Low Germanic languages (any of a variety of [...] dialects spoken in [...] the Netherlands).

 * Neither source includes any dialects from the Netherlands, such as stated also in Westplatt. Please provide sources for the inclusion of dialects from the Netherlands! -- j. 'mach' wust | ✑ 12:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * de:Niederdeutsche_Sprache (includes a source) and nl:Overleg:Nedersaksisch both cast doubts on the division East Low German versus West Low German. Sarcelles (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move
See Talk:Low Germanic languages. ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 15:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

West Low Saxon
Should this really link hence and not rather to Westneddersassisch ? Sarcelles (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

10,000,000 speakers? ??
I have lived in various regions of Niedersachsen for over 20 years and have yet to meet a single person who can speak Niedersächsisch. From what source is the number taken? Isomorphismus (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

 * You've met them; they've just always spoken High German to you. One of the phenomena that happen for non-prestigious minority languages across the board is that their usage is increasingly severely restricted to specific domains. This includes increasing restriction to private domestic verbal communication in small rural communities. If you're not part of a small cluster of Saxon speakers in such a setting (typically older persons who've known each other all their life), Saxon speakers will almost always speak the national language to you, because they themselves have been steeped all their life in the notion that their language is inferior and vulgar, and should not be shared or passed on, let alone taught. That said, you probably don't spend much time in the countryside. Ni'jluuseger (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 26 January 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

West Low German → Low Saxon – much more popular in the sources, see ngram. Heanor (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC) — Relisted. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 14:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's one of these things that go by many names. I'd agree with a change to Low Saxon, for the stated reasons, but I'm also content with the current situation where Low Saxon redirects to West Low German, and the alternative name is given right in the intro. LandLing 21:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. This is also the primary name given on German Wikipedia. Bermicourt (talk) 08:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME based on the Ngrams. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 1 July 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus that the current title is the WP:COMMONNAME. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Low Saxon → West Low German.
 * 1) "ngram" above is no argument, as ngrams is misleading:
 * 2) "Low Saxon" also occurs in terms like "Northern Low Saxon" or "North Low Saxon", and ngrams can't distinguish that.
 * 3) Low Saxon is an ambiguous term, at least meaning: (a) the complete Low German language and (b) West Low German (including e.g. Westphalian and Northern Low Saxon). ngrams can't distinguish that too.
 * (In English, meaning (a) probably is more common than (b).)
 * 1) Low Saxon is an ambigious term, see above. West Low German is less ambigious.
 * 2) With "West Low German" and "East Low German" there is a conceptual pair, and an easy distinction (regionally, west vs. east). With "Low Saxon" this is lost.
 * 3) "Low Saxon" can be associated with Lower Saxony (the Bundesland Niedersachsen), but West Low German is also spoken in Bremen, Schleswig-Holstein, Westphalia. So the term can cause wrong associations, and be impolite towards West Low German speakers who aren't from Lower Saxony. 2003:DE:3702:B26D:F9DF:183D:B1D5:2BEF (talk) 09:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)  — Relisting.   WP scatter  t/c 19:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

 * Weak support (needs more discussion) based primarily on point 2 (that Low Saxon is also a prominent name for Low German). Indeed, the ISO code for Low German is nds, where the s stands for Saxon. (As to point 1.1, Ngram can show those phrases. Northern Low Saxon occurs zero times on Ngrams, which incidentally makes that a poorly titled article (it should be "North," and I assume that change would be non-controversial). North Low Saxon is about a tenth of the Low Saxon results. And Dutch Low Saxon is a little less. Here is a Google Ngram search with those added, plus [] Low Saxon and [] Low Saxon as a whole.) However, I would like some more discussion first from people who are familiar with this subject. SilverLocust 💬 22:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * More ngrams: and . I believe this shows that point 1.1 is moot. : 3 F4U (they/it) 04:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Netherlands has been notified of this discussion. SilverLocust 💬 23:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Languages has been notified of this discussion. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

 * Do you have thoughts? (Participants in the prior requested move.) SilverLocust 💬 21:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose. As far as I can tell, "Low German" is German terminology, whereas "Low Saxon" is the terminology chosen by non-German writers. This is reflected by the various ngrams. Low German doesn't really have much traction in the English language. As this is the English Wikipedia, I think we should stick to English majority terminology. LandLing 02:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Both terms are used in German and mean the same thing, but Low Saxon is the WP:COMMONNAME in both languages. Argument 1 fails because ngram can distinguish the various types of Low German or Low Saxon by using the asterisk feature. This shows that Low Saxon is way more common that "West Low German" which doesn't even register. Argument 2 is weak because, although even in German "Low Saxon" is used in different ways by different authors, this is the most common definition (see that article). Argument 3 fails because we go from the sources, not from conceptual neatness which does not really exist e.g. North Low German is part of West Low German aka Low Saxon. Argument 4 is not cited and appears to be made up - Wikipedia aims to reflect reality regardless of whether or not it offends some group or another. Let's stay with the most common title.Bermicourt (talk) 08:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

There are many more native speakers than 300.000
The number of 300.000 native speakers must refer to a single subvariety. On the German Wikipedia it says: Das Institut für niederdeutsche Sprache nannte 2,6 Millionen Sprecher oder 14 Prozent (2009) der Bevölkerung in Norddeutschland, die „gut oder sehr gut Platt“ sprechen. That value is for Germany alone, so surely, 15 years later, we still have over 2 million native speakers and even more if we include the Netherlands.. Such incorrect low speaker numbers can downplay the value of the language and can delay things such as the language being added to Google Translate! Hunsrik and Limburgish are on there already - this language can be part of the next batch and giving machine translation builders the right demographic data to work with can really help with that! Tom9358 (talk) 06:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Low Saxon


text:
Talk:High German languages

=
In Low German, you mention it's called "Plautdeutch". What's the equivalent term for High German?
 * Hochdeutsch, i believe

I'd like to comment a bit (I'm a native German and live in Germany):

The association between "High German" and "Hochdeutsch" appears to be highly misleading because (almost) everyone here uses the term "Hochdeutsch" to refer to the standard written language which is compulsory for all schools and authorities, and most widely accepted in all media. I've seen a map here on Wikipedia that subsumes several vastly different dialects under the umbrella of "Hochdeutsch" which no-one,m except perhaps linguists and local jingoists, would call "Hochdeutsch". What you write "Plautdeutch" - I've never seen that term. Perhaps you mean "Plattdeutsch" or "Plattdütsch" (as they say there, in the northern parts of the country)?

I'd like you to place a big flashing warning sign on the main page that makes it clear to the casual reader that the definition of "High German" used there is highly incompatible with what every native German speaker experiences every day (when in Germany, of course), and that this definition only represents some linguistic classification that means next-to-nothing in everyday's life.

Thank you for listening!

193.221.127.48 10:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Toni Müller Thu Nov 30 11:14:07 CET 2006

 * That is true for almost anyone in Germany who is not a linguist. However, where I am, in a language department in a German university, the situation is rather different.  Here Hochdeutsch means all German dialects south of the Benrath line; linguists are not usually too concerned with standard versions of languages anyway, except in sociolinguistics.  You will find the warning you want at High German languages.  However, in English there is no confusion, because High German is Hochdeutsch in the technical sense, and Hochdeutsch in the popular sense is "standard German".  --Doric Loon 11:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

2002.04.09: In some High German dialects - the High Alemannic dialects spoken in parts of Germany and Switzerland, there is even initial [x] and [kx], which makes the second sound shifting complete.

I'm not sure this is accurate. Note that English /p/ and /t/ correspond to High German initial & medial affricates and to final fricatives, but /k/ follows an unexpected pattern of /k/ initially and /x/ medially, rather than the expected /kx/:

Linguistically, I suspect that rather than the sound shift being from [x] to [kx], it was from [kx] to [x]. That is, the sequence was stop-affricate-fricative: [k]~[kx]~[x], which would follow the linguistic rule of thumb of sound tending to undergo lenition rather than fortition. This would mean that High German [x] is a later development than Swiss German [kx], which would require revision of the above text. But then why does initial /k/ stay put? Or am I using faulty examples? Anybody know for sure? pgdudda

 * This table is rather good visually, and could be adapted and put into the article. But no, mitten is not related to Mütze. --Doric Loon 22:40, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * You will find answers to this and many of the other questions asked her in the German Wiki under http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hochdeutsche_Lautverschiebung. --Doric Loon 22:49, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why is "Fränkisch" described as extinct? afaik, there are dialects in Northern Bavaria and in Hesse that are called "Fränkisch". --zeno 08:25 Jan 7, 2003 (UTC)

I described it as extinct because Ethnologue says that it is. But their information is surprisingly brief; maybe it's wrong. -- Toby 01:09 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

I have to correct myself, the "Fränkisch" I was referring to is called "Franconian" in English. Frankish was the language of the Franks, but I think it became "extinct" a long time before the 1827 century (this date is stated by Ethnologue). This is the best overview of German dialects (including Lower German) I have seen so far: http://www.genealogienetz.de/misc/dialect-e.html -- zeno

 * I'm not sure that I buy something that classifies Frisian under Low German but doesn't so classify Dutch. (At least the text corrects this.) -- Toby 20:51 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)

You have to be carfeul not to mix something up!
 * There is a Low Franconian Dialect of Low German, which developed further to Dutch and is related to Low Saxon.
 * Secondly there is a region called "Franken" in Northern Bavaria. It has absolutely nothing to do with Dutch dialects.
 * The empire of Charlemagne (Karl der Grosse) stretched across Germany and France so many dialects and regions in these two countries, the Netherlands or Belgium have names refering to his empire (Franconian Empire), which itself was named after a tribe which spoke a now extinct language: Franconian.

Ethnologue is probably not speaking of a Bavarian dialect, or they'd classify it as Upper German. But they don't classify it at all, so who knows? Probably they're not sure! -- Toby 20:51 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)

 * Of course they don't - Ethnologue is generally unreliable. For historical linguistics there is nothing truly reliable on the internet yet - but if you go to a library, it's all there. Kirk's History of the New High German Language is the place to look for a quick answer.  --Doric Loon 22:40, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The /k/ to /kx/ shift can also be watched in some Bavarian dialects spoken in Austria and northern Italy. However, I do not know about any literature about that. --zeno 08:32 Jan 7, 2003 (UTC)

P. Stoltzfus: Is Pennsylvania Dutch really a kind of Pfälzisch, or are you making that assumption since the Pennsylvania Dutch originally came from the Palatinate? I wouldn't want to assume that the dialects predominant in that area have stayed the same over the past few centuries. -- Toby 20:40 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)

There is a dialect called Plattdeutsch which is spoken in the north western part of Schleswig Holstein (that is near the Danish border) I dunno where it fits in here but if somebody coud make that out it would be worth mentioning here. Hexren me@hexren.net

 * Plattdeutsch is a colloquial term for dialects in northern Germany. Because of the colloquial property and because of its Low German property Plattdeutsch does not fit to one of the meanings of High German

 * More information about Plattdeutsch: Low Saxon language 82.82.129.206

There's a Hessisch dialect which drops final 'n' (Kleine Langen -> Klaa Lange, Main -> Maa). Where does it fit in this chart? -phma 11:52, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Hessisch is a form of High German. Keep in mind that many Low German dialects have changed to sound like High German and vice versa: Swiss German sounds almost like Dutch, but Swiss German is High Germanic and Dutch is related to Low Germanic. Jor 22:32, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Swiss German sounds like Dutch??? (Sorry, just trying to imagine Heidi with clogs!) --Doric Loon 22:40, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Move to "High Germanic languages" (done)

 * The following is an archived move proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made below. No further edits should be made to this section.

I intend to move this page to High Germanic languages because this group of languages does not only include the German language, but also the Yiddish language and the Luxembourgish language and because this is in accordance with Naming conventions (languages). This would clean up the “family tree” in the following manner: -- j. 'mach' wust | ✍ 13:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * West Germanic languages
 * Anglo-Frisian languages
 * Low Germanic languages
 * High Germanic languages

Additionally, this makes an end to the confusion of "High German" used as a reference for the standard German language and "High German" used as a reference to the High Germanic languages, a widespread confusion as I see now that I'm resolving the redirects... -- j. 'mach' wust | ✍ 13:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't doubt that this was done with good intentions, but to repeat the point I've already made at Talk:Low_Germanic_languages: "High Germanic languages" is simply not a term used by anglophone historical linguists. If you doubt it, see how many of the standard works on the History of German you can find that use the term.
 * And it shouldn't be the place of Wikipedia to promote a terminological innovation (however well motivated) which ignores the accepted conventions in the subject - to use idiosyncratic terminology that no one in the subject would recignize is not NPOV. It really has to be "German" not "Germanic".
 * Not to mention the fact that no one talks or writes about High German languages, but about High German dialects (which doesn't change the fact that some such as Yiddish are individually called languages). --Pfold 19:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No one talks or writes about High German languages? The Vennemann hypothesis (formulated in good English as well as in good German) offers good evidence showing that the North Sea Germanic languages are closer related to the North Germanic languages than they are to the High Germanic ones. You and I, we are not here to decide on what constitutes "good" evidence, we are here to report on the research results of others. Our own research, we publish it in peer reviewed journals and let others report on it. Eklir (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

High Germanic doesn't exist
Where is the sense in creating a neologism that isn't used in linguistics? People come here and they want information then they encounter this term "high germanic" (low germanic, respectively) this is just wrong information :S

Category:West Germanic languages vs. Category:High German languages
Category:High German languages is itself a category within Category:West Germanic languages. — Robert Greer (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

"High" is "South". Only.
As a technical term, the "high" in High German is a geographic reference to Southern German. In the same way, the "low" in Low German refers to the geographic North. The reason behind that is the positions of the language areas on maps which, at the time when the terms were coined, hat the South at their high ends, and the North at their low ends. Anything else is coincidental. Specifically, the references to high lands and low lands happens to be popular belief and is both factually and historically wrong. (Btw., it had been strongly supported by NAZI pseudoscience, afaik)

 * Sorry, but this is not correct. The maps of Germany that I have seen from the relevant period (14th-18th century) all have north at the top. The reason our article has a footnote referencing the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of "high" is because that dictionary clearly says that the phrase "High German" is using the word "high" in the literal sense of "up high". Similarly if you explore the etymologies of "Low German", "the Low countries" or "the Netherlands", you will not find that it has anything to do with "low" meaning "north". In Scotland, the Highlands are futher north than the Lowlands. Final thought: in German, the Low German language is formally called "Niederdeutsch" (Low German), but it also has another name, "Plattdeutsch" (Flat German). This is not because the north part of maps are flatter than the south part. It is because of the land itself. --Doric Loon (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

language family template
The language family template is necessary in order to make the subdivision visible (field child). In the language template they are not available. -- ZH8000 (talk) 02:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

West Germanic dialect continuum
Here and in an number of related articles there is mention of a "(continental) West Germanic dialect continuum" and the presence in it of some or other WGmc dialect or language. As far as I can see, not one of these claims in WP is sourced. In a quick of check of a number of English-language books on the history of German (OK, I haven't had time to start checking the German-language stuff yet), I haven't been able to find an index entry for the term anywhere. The only reference one I can find is in Chambers and Trudgill's Dialectology book (Map 1-1) but the accompanying text mentions only German, Dutch and Flemish. Also, their claim is not sourced.

Now, of course, I'm not questioning the High German dialect continuum, nor that there is a German-Dutch continuum (Frankish dialects on both sides of the border). But is it clear that there is a Dutch/LG continuum, and is there really a LG/Frisian continuum? I don't mean, do the speakers in neighbouring communities understand each other's varieties, or have neighbouring varieties borrowed a few words from each other or the standard language, but are there genuine transitional varieties between LG and Dutch, LG and Frisian?

It is worth noting that even the fairly detailed Kontinentalwestgermanisches Dialektkontinuum article does not deal with these issues, and its secondary lit. seems only to deal with Dutch/High German.

If the claim is true, it must be possible to find better and more comprehensive sources in peer-reviewed publications than this. Please can we find them! --Pfold (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Isn't "normal" German also a High German language?
Maybe I am missing a nuance or something, but if not, then our article opening needs a fix.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Colloquial varieties of "German" throughout Germany are mostly if not always varieties of High German. The sociolinguistic situation is comparable to the one prevailing in neighboring France. Dialectology sees France as Gallo-Romance in the North and Occitano-Romance in the South though colloquially, say in the bistros, it's a variety of Gallo-Romance that's prévailing. Locals and tourists not trained in linguistics refer to such varieties simply as French and German. The decline of Low German and Occitano-Romance might be attributable to some sort of small-scale linguistic imperialism where all sorts of social forces can have a sway favoring the emergence of lingua francas lexically based on language varieties of prestige. Eklir (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Ethnicities
I've taken a look at your recent edit, and I'm confused. What makes you think Ashkenazi Jews, Austrians, Germans, Hutterites, Liechtensteiners, Luxembourgers, Pennsylvania Dutch, Silesians, and Vilamovians aren't ethnic groups? ~Nai of Arctic Circle System (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

 * Apart from Ashkenazi Jews, about which there is no argument, what makes you think they are? You're not seriously going to argue that Bavarians and Austrians are ethnically distinct? Confusing modern nation state boundaries with ancient ethnic (or even tribal) boundaries is exactly that: confusion. --Pfold (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

 * Template:Ethnic groups in Germany and articles like Luxembourgers ("Luxembourgers [...] are an ethnic group [...]") call them ethnic groups (or similar, e.g. the article Swabians uses the term people: "Swabians [...] are a Germanic speaking people [...]"). --05:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.221.62.136 (talk)

 * I am probably missing something but the edit involved does not seem to be about ethnicities, but simply about the "regions" in which High German languages are spoken? Are you both looking at another edit?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

 * If this is the type of edit intended, then the above discussion makes more sense. I am wondering whether your preferred version is not pushing Wikipedia to say that Austrians are a type of German?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

 * Firstly, I would doubt that the inheritors of the multi-ethnic Habsburg empire can be ascribed any single ethnicity, and surely the same goes for tri-lingual Switzerland (Italian-speaking Swiss are ethnically German, seriously!?). Secondly, the political boundary is irrelevant - Austro-Bavarian is a single dialect area, and the German-speaking Austrians share their ethnic origins with the Bavarians in the Elbe Gmc tribes which settled the area in the early middle ages. As Bavarians says, "There is no ethno-linguistic distinction between Bavarians and Austrians." And surely there can be no one who believes that the East Frisians and the Swabians are ethnically close and equally belong to a supposed German ethnic group, while the Swabians and the German-speaking Swiss (both use Alemannic varieties) are ethnically distinct. The idea that ethnicity exactly follows the boundaries of modern, in some cases very recently created nation states is surely self-evident nonsense. --Pfold (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

 * If an infobox refers to Austrians it will be understood that it is referring to citizens of the modern country of that name, and not the historical empire you mention? I think you are avoiding my simple question a bit? Austrians do not see themselves as Germans do they? :) I think on WP we need to avoid making statements about ethnic identity that are based on the simple equation of language and ethnicity. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I would argue that it's much sounder than basing it on present-day national boundaries - don't forget that before 1870 German meant a cultural and linguistic identity not one based on national borders. As I said, surely it is utterly absurd to argue that there is Swiss ethnicity. To me the whole ethnicity question is entirely pointless for this article - not a single future reader is helped by the proposed revision --22:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * People in Germany and Austria traditionally don't really self-identify in an ethnic sense or along dialect lines, but by nation and region. Old political entities play a more significant than linguistic boundaries (Baden-Württemberg is a prime example for this). –Austronesier (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * So do we always need to fill in a box about ethnicities in cases like this? Can we just remove this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That would be my view, certainly. --Pfold (talk) 07:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Title "High German languages"
Hello, I was just wondering about the title of this article. "Hochdeutsche Sprachen" is very unusual and also not used in professional scholarship. It is about developments in High German dialects, not about the standardisation of modern languages (such as Luxembourgish). The current title is rather confusing and does not correspond to the use in linguistics. Therefore, I am in favour of changing the title back to "High German dialects". Ziko (talk) 12:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * A much straightforward solution is to move it to "High German", without the natural disambiguator "languages", because it's unnecessary since there is no disambiguity with "High German" (unless you are talking about a German indivdual under the influence–not quite an encyclopedic topic). See, Low German, Upper German, Low Franconian etc. Also, it helps to maintain NPOV. While a few High German varieties have undergone Ausbau to become distinct literary varieties, High German as a whole forms a dialect continuum without clearcut language borders. –Austronesier (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "High German dialects" would give people a misleading impression. I'm with Austronesier on this - I've never seen the point of "languages" in the title. "High German" is the term used in the literature, so I don't see there's really a case for anything different here.--Pfold (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the word "languages" was put in by someone who wanted to highlight that Yiddish is not German, and even Luxemburgisch makes claims to "separate language" status, whatever that fraught idea might mean. I don't see the phrase used much outside Wikipedia though, so I agree there has to be a better solution. Maybe call it "High German", focus mainly on the southern dialects of German, which is what the phrase mostly refers to, and have a section explaining how Yiddish fits in? Doric Loon (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Central German vs Middle German
I changed 'Middle German' to 'Central German'. 'Middle' refers to chronology (in contrast to 'Old' and 'New'), 'Central' to Geography (in contrast to 'Upper' and 'Low'). Eklir (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:High German languages


text:
Talk:Hallowe'en documents

why the apostrophe in hallowe`en? i looked at the external links, and they appeared as halloween.

--

That's how I'd spell Hallowe'en - if the American way is Halloween, then it should be that way, since Eric Raymond/Microsoft are American.

-- There is already an article called Halloween documents. We should join the pages together and set up a redirect. -Guppie

title: Talk:Hallowe'en documents


text:
Defenestrations of Prague

The Defenestrations of Prague (Pražská defenestrace, Prager Fenstersturz, Defenestratio Pragensis) were three incidents in the history of Bohemia in which people were defenestrated (thrown out of a window). Though already existing in Middle French, the word defenestrate ("out of the window") is believed to have first been used in English in reference to the episodes in Prague in 1618 when the disgruntled Protestant estates threw two royal governors and their secretary out of a window of the Hradčany Castle and wrote an extensive apologia explaining their action. In the Middle Ages and early modern times, defenestration was not uncommon—the act carried elements of lynching and mob violence in the form of murder committed together.

The first governmental defenestration occurred in 1419, the second in 1483 and the third in 1618, although the term "Defenestration of Prague" more commonly refers to the third. Often, however, the 1483 event is not recognized as a "significant defenestration", which leads to some ambiguity when the 1618 defenestration is referred to as the "second Prague defenestration". The first and third defenestrations helped to trigger a prolonged religious conflict inside Bohemia (the Hussite Wars, 1st defenestration) or beyond (Thirty Years' War, 3rd defenestration), while the second helped establish a religious peace in the country for 31 years (Peace of Kutná Hora, 2nd defenestration).

The 1419 Defenestration of Prague
The First Defenestration of Prague involved the killing of several members of the city council by a crowd of Czech Hussites on 30 July 1419.

Jan Želivský, a Hussite priest at the church of the Virgin Mary of the Snows, led his congregation on a procession through the streets of Prague to the New Town Hall on Charles Square. The town council members had refused to exchange their Hussite prisoners. While they were marching, a stone was thrown at Želivský from the town hall and allegedly hit him. This enraged the mob and they stormed the town hall. Once inside the hall, the group defenestrated the judge, the burgomaster, and several members of the town council. They were all killed by the fall.

King Wenceslaus IV of Bohemia, after hearing the news, was stunned and died shortly after, supposedly due to shock.

The procession was a result of the growing discontent at the contemporary direction of the Church and the inequality between the peasants, the Church's prelates, and the nobility. This discontent combined with rising feelings of nationalism increased the influence of preachers such as Jan Želivský, influenced by John Wycliffe, who saw the state of the Catholic Church as corrupt.

The First Defenestration was thus the turning point between talk and action leading to the prolonged Hussite Wars.

The 1483 Defenestration of Prague
This defenestration took place on 24 September 1483 during the storms of the Prague population during the reign of King Vladislaus II of Hungary. He was king of Bohemia at that time but he became the ruler of Moravia and Hungary only after Matthias Corvinus died in 1490.

It was then that the party of the Communion under both kinds, fearing for their influence, carried out a violent coup in the Old and New Towns and Lesser Town. The Old Town Burgomaster and the dead bodies of seven New Town councilors were defenestrated from the respective town halls. The coup in Prague contributed to the limitation of ruling power and prevented the resumption of pre-Hussite conditions.

On October 6, 1483, three Prague municipalities signed a treaty on unity and common action, which brought the dominion of the Utraquism. The development then led to religious reconciliation and the declaration of equality of both churches at the Kutná Hora Assembly in 1485.

The 1618 Defenestration of Prague
This defenestration significantly influenced the history of Europe and led to the Thirty Years' War.

Background
In 1555, the Peace of Augsburg had settled religious disputes in the Holy Roman Empire by enshrining the principle of Cuius regio, eius religio, allowing a prince to determine the religion of his subjects. The Kingdom of Bohemia since 1526 had been governed by Habsburg kings, who did not force their Catholic religion on their largely Protestant subjects. In 1609, Rudolf II, Holy Roman Emperor and King of Bohemia (1576–1612), increased Protestant rights. He was increasingly viewed as unfit to govern, and other members of the Habsburg dynasty declared his younger brother, Matthias, to be family head in 1606. Matthias began to gradually wrest territory from Rudolf, beginning with Hungary. In 1609, to strengthen his hold on Bohemia, Rudolf issued the Letter of Majesty, which granted Bohemia's largely Protestant estates the right to freely exercise their religion, essentially setting up a Protestant Bohemian state church controlled by the estates, "dominated by the towns and rural nobility". Upon Rudolf's death, Matthias succeeded in the rule of Bohemia (1612–1619) and extended his offer of more legal and religious concessions to Bohemia, relying mostly on the advice of his chancellor, Bishop Melchior Klesl.

Conflict was precipitated by two factors: Matthias, already aging, and without children, made his cousin Ferdinand of Styria his heir and had him elected king in 1617. Ferdinand was a proponent of the Catholic Counter-Reformation and not likely to be well-disposed to Protestantism or Bohemian freedoms. Bohemian Protestants opposed the royal government as they interpreted the Letter of Majesty to extend not only to the land controlled by the nobility or self-governing towns but also to the king's own lands. Whereas Matthias and Klesl were prepared to appease these demands, Ferdinand was not; in 1618 he forced the emperor to order the cessation of construction of some Protestant chapels on royal land. When the Bohemian estates protested against this order, Ferdinand had their assembly dissolved.

The Defenestration
On 23 May 1618, four Catholic Lords Regent, Count Jaroslav Bořita of Martinice, Count Vilem Slavata of Chlum, Adam II von Sternberg (who was the supreme burgrave), and Matthew Leopold Popel Lobkowitz (who was the grand prior), arrived at the Bohemian Chancellery at 8:30 am. After preparing the meeting hall, members of the dissolved assembly of the three main Protestant estates gathered at 9:00 am, led by Count Thurn, who had been deprived of his post as castellan (burgrave) of Karlštejn Castle by the emperor. The Protestant lords' agenda was to clarify whether the four regents present were responsible for persuading the Emperor to order the cessation of Protestant church construction on royal lands. According to count of Martinice himself:

"Lord Paul Rziczan read aloud... a letter with the following approximate content: His Imperial Majesty had sent to their graces the lord regents a sharp letter that was, by our request, issued to us as a copy after the original had been read aloud, and in which His Majesty declared all of our lives and honour already forfeit, thereby greatly frightening all three Protestant estates. As they also absolutely intended to proceed with the execution against us, we came to a unanimous agreement among ourselves that, regardless of any loss of life and limb, honour and property, we would stand firm, with all for one and one for all... nor would we be subservient, but rather we would loyally help and protect each other to the utmost, against all difficulties. Because, however, it is clear that such a letter came about through the advice of some of our religious enemies, we wish to know, and hereby ask the lord regents present, if all or some of them knew of the letter, recommended it, and approved of it."

Before the regents gave any answer, they requested that the Protestants give them the opportunity to confer with their superior, Adam von Waldstein, who was not present. If they were given the opportunity, the Protestants were to receive an official answer to their grievance by the next Friday (the encounter took place on the eve of Ascension Day, and they all had to observe the holy day). The Protestant lords, however, demanded an immediate answer. Two regents, Adam II von Sternberg and Matthew Leopold Popel Lobkowitz, were declared innocent by the Protestant Estate holders, deemed to be too pious to have any responsibility in the preparation of the emperor's letter. They were removed from the room; before leaving, Adam II von Sternberg made it clear that they "did not advise anything that was contrary to the Letter of Majesty". This left Count Vilem Slavata of Chlum and Count Jaroslav Bořita of Martinice (who had replaced Thurn as castellan), both known Catholic hard-liners, and Philip Fabricius, the secretary to the regents. They eventually acknowledged responsibility for the letter and, presuming they would only be arrested, welcomed any punishment the Protestants had planned.

Count von Thurn turned to both Martinice and Slavata and said, "You are enemies of us and of our religion, have desired to deprive us of our Letter of Majesty, have horribly plagued your Protestant subjects... and have tried to force them to adopt your religion against their wills or have had them expelled for this reason." Then to the crowd of Protestants, he continued, "Were we to keep these men alive, then we would lose the Letter of Majesty and our religion... for there can be no justice to be gained from or by them". Shortly thereafter, the two regents and their secretary were defenestrated, but they survived the 70 ft fall from the third floor. Catholics maintained the men were saved by angels or by the intercession of the Virgin Mary, who caught them; later Protestant pamphleteers asserted that they survived due to falling onto a dung heap, a story unknown to contemporaries and probably coined in response to divine intervention claims. Philip Fabricius was later ennobled by the emperor and granted the title Baron von Hohenfall (literally "Baron of Highfall").

Aftermath
Immediately after the defenestration, the Protestant estates and Catholic Habsburgs started gathering allies for war. After the death of Matthias in 1619, Ferdinand II was elected Holy Roman Emperor. At the same time, the Bohemian estates deposed him as King of Bohemia and replaced him with Frederick V, Elector Palatine, a leading Calvinist and son-in-law of the Protestant James VI and I, King of Scotland, England and Ireland.

Because they deposed a properly chosen king, who also happened to be emperor, the Protestants could not gather the international support they needed for war. Just two years after the defenestration, Ferdinand and the Catholics regained power in the Battle of White Mountain on November 8, 1620. This became known as the first battle in the Thirty Years' War.

There was plundering and pillaging in Prague for weeks following the battle. Several months later, twenty-seven nobles and citizens were tortured and executed in the Old Town Square. Twelve of their heads were impaled on iron hooks and hung from the Old Town Bridge Tower as a warning. This contributed to the resentment that gave rise to the Thirty Years' War.

Further defenestrations
More events of defenestration have occurred in Prague during its history, but they are not usually called defenestrations of Prague.

Sometimes, the name the fourth or the third defenestration of Prague is used, although it has no standard meaning. For example, it has been used to describe the death of Jan Masaryk, who was found below the bathroom window of the building of the Czechoslovak Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 10 March 1948. The official report listed the death as a suicide. However, it was widely believed he was murdered, either by the nascent Communist government in which he served as a non-partisan Foreign Minister, or by the Soviet secret services. A Prague police report in 2004 concluded after forensic research that at least one other person was involved in Masaryk's death. This report was seemingly corroborated in 2006 when a Russian journalist said that his mother knew the Russian intelligence officer who defenestrated Masaryk. However, a more recent investigation opened in 2019 again called those findings into question, with new research claiming that Masaryk fell not from the bathroom window, but from the adjacent exterior ledge. That investigation was shelved in 2021, with investigators citing a continuing lack of sufficient evidence to make conclusive determinations regarding the events of Masaryk's death.

title: Defenestrations of Prague