Talk:Mongol invasion of Kievan Rus'/Archive 1

rename
Shall we rename it to Mongol invasion of Rus? Mikkalai 20:44, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Battle of the Kalka River
This duplicates material from Battle of the Kalka River -- several paragraphs narrate the same events in the same fashion. The entire account of that battle should I think be removed from this article. -- Danny Yee 11:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Novgorod
Why did someone write about the mongol rule of Novgorod? That never happened. Novgorod did not even pay tribute, that is why it was called the free lands. I corrected the article. I also added word "parts" where it mentiones Russia or Rus, since Mongolians did not ocupy all of the territories of what is Russia now. Same Novgorod has not been occupied by mongols. So, saying that mongols occupied territories of what is Russia now is wrong, since even back then, russian lands were not all under mongols.

Mongol invasion of Rus vs. Russia
Peni were a common passtime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.108.164.67 (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The article considers Mongol invasion of several Ruthenian principalities (not Russian), The title "Mongol invasion of Rus" is exactly appropriate.--AndriyK 10:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This move was long overdue. I am glad to see a sensible edit from this user. If you have proposed it first, there would have been a clear support, BTW. So, feel free to propose any sensible moves to find out consensus, because some of your other moves were not sensible and will now require a waste of everyone's time at WP:RM. But be sure, they will be there. However, with this move you were absolutely right. --Irpen 19:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think it matters. "Rus'" and "Ancient Russia" are synonymous, as the Slavic heartland of the Russian Empire and Soviet Union were encompassed by it and since in those days Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians were one people (Russians, or East Slavs). I don't see any need for excessive political correctness in an encyclopedia just to placate a few nationalists. Kazak 17:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Clearly, the only nationalist is you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.7.139 (talk) 06:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Valeriya Novodvorskaya???
Really? is it scientific now, what does she know about mongol period of Russian history? Is she some kind of historian? Is she more AUTHORITATIVE than Gumilev. whoever wrote this article it s..ks. and Gumilev deserves more than that. imho, he was by far the most brilliant academician on the medieval history of Russia    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torebay (talk • contribs) 18:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the Mongolian invasion was terrible disaster for inhabitants of Russia (or Rus')
The Mongol invasion was catastrophic, almost all cities (Kiev, Vladimir, Rayzan, Suzdal etc) have been destroyed, their inhabitants  have died.


 * Read Lev Gumilyov. His numerous followers contend that there was no invasion at all. Archaeologists were not able to find evidence of wide-scale destruction in major cities, except Kiev, Vladimir and Ryazan, to quote just one of their arguments. --Ghirlandajo 15:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

About half of Russian population was lost during the invasion.


 * Sources? --Ghirlandajo 15:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The advanced city culture practically has been completely destroyed. Construction of buildings from a stone has stopped on two hundred years.


 * A 19th-century cliche. The first stone cathedrals of Tver, the church of Sts Boris and Gleb in Rostov, and several other structures date from the later 13th century. The 14th-century is viewed by some as a kind of architectural renaissance in Russia, with dozens structures surviving to this day. --Ghirlandajo 15:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The Country of Cities, Gardarika as it was named by Scandinavians-Varangians, has disappeared. That's fact.


 * Gardarika is a Russian cliche, the Norse word was different. It it is a moot point whether it really translates as the "country of cities". Ru-lang. websites are not the ultimate authority on history topics. --Ghirlandajo 15:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Please read the notes of wandering monk Plano Carpini (for Example by Kluchevsky).


 * Ironically, it was me who initiated the present version of Giovanni da Pian del Carpine and is responsible for Garðaríki in its present form. --Ghirlandajo 15:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Russians who left southern Russia to escape the Mongols gravitated mostly to the northeast, in forest region between northern Volga and Oka (междуречье Волги и Оки).


 * They did it a century before the Mongol invasion, read my article on Zalesye. --Ghirlandajo 15:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

In new region of dwelling soils were poor, the climate is colder and trading ways were under the control of a horde. The exit to sea has been lost. Please visit region of northern Volga and compare it to region of Dnieper (former Kievan Rus).


 * I don't have to visit "region of northern Volga" as I live there since my birth. --Ghirlandajo 15:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

After 1480 Russia continued to be at war against successors of Golden Horde, the Tatar hordes. The Crimean Khanate and the Nogai-Tatar hordes wandering from Irtysh to Danube were successors of Golden Horde.


 * And so what? --Ghirlandajo 15:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "After 1480 Russia continued to be at war against successors of Golden Horde" Only now Russia was starting to conquer them. That should not be in Mongol Invasion of Rus article, but in expansion of Russian Empire article.

Until the 18th century the Russian state (as well as the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth) suffered of Tatar invasions, the goal of which was to loot, pillage and capture slaves. (See Tatar Invasions).


 * So they were black, and we were white. Unsurprizingly, the Tatars view this from another perspective. Just try to tell it to User:Untifler, and he will prove it to you that Tatars inhabited Tatarstan for centuries before the Mongol invasion. --Ghirlandajo 15:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The Mongolian invasion cannot be named the positive phenomenon. As well as the Second World War. First of all because both events were accompanied by mass killing of people and huge material destructions.


 * I'd leave this comparison without comment. It's worth noting that POV statements in this projects are discouraged. --Ghirlandajo 15:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Development of technology accompanying destructive war is already absolutely other theme.


 * Indeed. --Ghirlandajo 15:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Citation. "But some historians agree that Kievan Rus' was not a homogeneous political, cultural, or ethnic entity and that the Mongols merely accelerated a fragmentation that had begun before the invasion. "

All medieval states (France, England, Germany, Italy) are not homogeneous. Why do you think, that the Mongolian yoke has divided Kievan Rus in the most reasonable and logical way?

(source: Vasily Klyuchevsky, "The course of russian History").


 * As the author of article on Vasily Klyuchevsky, I may notice that Klyuchevsky lived in Imperial Russia, was quite of a nationalist, so his views should be cited nowadays with certain reservations. --Ghirlandajo 15:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Some no doubt say similar things about Lev Gumilyov, the "anti-Semite."

Ben-Velvel 10:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

p.s. I am sorry, I have loaded my version before discussion. But that is a small addition only.

To avoid a dispute
You have begun this article, but please do not privatize the "Mongol invasion of Rus". Gumilev is the exotic historian, panturkist. His and your opinions cannot be more important than views of Kluchevsky.

You should give, at least, to other people an opportunity to state traditional view.

Our friendship with Tatarstan and Mongolia will not suffer, if we write about the Mongolian and Tatar invasions. France is not littered with England, if  French historians write about "centenary war".

Old Ryazan, Vladimir and Kiev have been destroyed during the Mongolian invasion. It is the archeologic fact. You could not name any large Russian city which has safely survived the Mongolian invasion (exept Novgorod naturally). The tradition of construction from a stone as a whole has been lost. It is the fact too. In 13th and 14th centuries all Europe is built up with huge stone cathedrals, in Russia does not occur anything similar. At the end of 15 centuries the Italian architects are invited to Moscow.

Migration of the population on northeast occured before the Mongolian invasion, but after the Mongolian invasion Dnieper region remained practically deserted.

To avoid a dispute

1. I suggest to return section about the Tatar attacks after 1480. Voronezh, Orel, Samara, Tsaritsyn, Saratov were found for protection against attacks. In 1571 crimean Tatars ruined Moscow. The Poles do not hesitate to speak about the Tatar invasions. And we should not hesitate.


 * You are free to start an article on Tatar incursions on Muscovy, but this data is definitely out of place here, in the article that treats 13th-century events. --Ghirlandajo 20:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

2. Positive influence of the Mongolian invasion is not the point of view of a majority of historians. The massacre of urban population was usual action at Mongols. Mongols adhered to such tactics and in Central Asia, Iran, Afghanistan. I suggest to write about total destruction of large Russian cities. --Ben-Velvel


 * It is not our business to assess their influence, whether good or bad. I believe "total destruction" is an urban legend. I'm aware of only two or three Russian churches that perished from the Mongols. No big deal, to say the least. --Ghirlandajo 20:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Guys, I respectfully request that you try to find a common ground. Judging from your positions, I think it won't be difficult. I totally agree that the so called "traditional" view should be presented as the main one. OTOH, it is useful to add whatever serious challenges were posed to the traditional view by respected historians and Gumilev is one of them. Of course, Fomenko's view don't need a place here since they are, so far, totally rejected by the academic historian community. For now, his own article is a good place for them. --Irpen 17:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, and please don't start injecting accusations of vandalism into your edit summaries, or bad feelings will lead to a more difficult time of resolving the point of view (Vandalism has a specific meaning, which does not apply here). Please continue to discuss the individual points, supported by sources if necessary, on the talk page and not in edit summaries.  —Michael Z. 2005-11-29 18:43 Z 


 * The only problem here is Ben-Velvel's unconditioned enthusiasm for his antiquated schoolbooks. He apparently thinks that this article was written by ignorant fools or russophobes - i.e., Library of Congress, 1911 Britannica, and myself - whose prime intention was to denigrate the great Russian nation. I don't know why he calls me - who contribued a sizable portion of the article - a vandal. Perhaps his command of the language is to blame for identifying me with Gumilev, although my opinion on that historian - as is well known to anyone scanning my contributions - is quite low. My only intention is to rescue these well-balanced articles from being submerged in POV cliches, which only result in endless and pointless edit warring. --Ghirlandajo 20:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * We're all tempted to bite the newbies now and then. I'm sure you can be forgiven.  —Michael Z. 2005-11-29 21:44 Z 
 * "inserts of vandals". Here I meant strange fragments of phrases in the beginning of the page. Now I believe, that it were simply program failures.Ben-Velvel 00:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

If to compare 1911 Britannica, Gumilev and Kluchevsky, I certainly prefer Kluchevsky. Scientists from Britannica did not read Russian annals. Library of Congress and 1911 Britannica are not sources at all! Gumilev is not expert in the Russian  history, he is turcolog.

"Cliches" of Kluchevsky and Solovyov is the true science basing on annalistic and archeologic sources. (Newton's laws are "cliches" too.) Ghirlandajo, it is very interesting to me, what sources are used by you?

Ben-Velvel 23:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yoke
http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/russia/lectures/07tartar.html There were also important cultural effects. Mongol domination retarded Russia's cultural development. It delayed for at least two centuries any contact between Russia and Europe, which was at that time the only fountain of progress and enlightenment. The Russian Middle Ages were barren of achievement in any field of creative endeavor, except perhaps that of icon painting, which reached high standards in the fifteenth century.

In the economic field the most spectacular development was that of the invasion. It took time before the Russian economy recovered from the devastation wrought, although the extremely low technical and economic levels prevalent during this period facilitated the task. Foreign trade, which came to a standstill with the conquest, revived substantially thereafter. There was little progress in agriculture and industry, but there is no evidence that these pursuits sank below their modest pre-Mongol level. As with cultural endeavor it was a case of stagnation and arrested development rather than of deterioration and decline. The Russian economy, however, was severely affected by two manifestations of the Mongol rule: exaction of tribute, often exorbitant ones, and warlike action that took the form either of invasions of Russia or of foreign wars in which the Russians were forced to participate side by side with their masters.

The blending of the Byzantine tradition embodied in the church and Mongol ideas and administrative usages paved the way for the establishment of the semi-oriental absolutism of the Muscovite tsars. The window on Europe, which might have admitted the refreshing breeze of western influences, was still tightly shut, while the deadening storms from the Asiatic steppes swept freely through the length and breadth of the land. Moscow autocracy of the 16th century was no different form that of the Tartar Khans. The landed aristocracy became servile to the Moscow grand dukes and tsars. the veche lost the right to choose and expel princes - a function which had been taken over by the khans. The common people began to drift quite noticeably into the dark night of serfdom. --Molobo 12:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

please learn to express your ideas on talk
It seems obvious to me that a NPOV is far more important than keeping a form of words simply because it was in a very old second-hand source. Do correct me if you think I am wrong. Guinnog 19:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Fifteen years of peace?
I would suggest changing the second sentence of the article from "After fifteen years of peace, it was followed by Batu Khan's full-scale invasion in 1237-40. " to "After fifteen years of relative peace, it was followed by Batu Khan's full-scale invasion in 1237-40. "

My rationale behind this suggestion is that, according to Osprey series book on Kalka Battle, there were several local incursions undertaken by Mongol horde against border lands of various Southern Rus principalities. These were usually contained but the very fact of their occurence suggests that there was no true peace for 15 years.

For the same reason, I think the following sentence needs to be edited heavily:

"Although this defeat left the Kievan principality at the mercy of invaders, the Mongol forces retreated and did not reappear for thirteen years, during which time the princes of Rus' went on quarreling and fighting as before, until they were startled by a new and much more formidable invading forces than at Kalka."

I suggest "Although this defeat left the Kievan principality at the mercy of invaders, the main Mongol forces retreated and did not reappear major incursions did not occur for thirteen years, during which time the princes of Rus' went on quarreling and fighting as before, until they were startled by a new and much more formidable invading forces than at Kalka."

Goliath74 16:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Too much emphasis on Gumilev
This has been said before, but this article focuses far too much on Gumilev's view of what happened, while pretty much ignoring or only paying scant lip service to the more traditional version of events. There article is desperately in need of someone who can contribute expert edits and is not a fan of Gumilev's ideas. When you have such a strikingly different version of events from two sources (1 - that there was NO invasion but rather a beneficial alliance, 2 - that it was the most horrible thing to happen in Russian history), you have a responsibility to tell the reader exactly WHY there are two such strikingly diffent views. This article does not currently do this - it just mentions both but implies that Gumilev's view is the correct one. Esn 02:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Gumilev was a Soviet era propagandist whose methods were controversial, and his views should be presented with caution. This needs an NPOV tag.Shield2 00:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Not really a propagandist, more of a person with very peculiar views. Like Fomenko, for instance. --Humanophage (talk) 02:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Mongol invasion of Russia?
I synced the title of the article - tufkaa 16:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly, your statements that the Mongol invasion is "central" to the history of Belarus is highly misleading. If it was central for some country's history, it was for the history of Russia, where the Mongol domination persisted for more than two centuries. Perhaps this page is not the best place to discuss it, but I have strong objections to the new template as well. Such things should be discussed before inserting here and there. Specifically, I can't understand why the History of Slavic lands starts with Khazaria (and not with Scythians or Bosporan Kingdom, for instance). I can't understand why Halych-Volynia, which had been partitioned by the mid-14th century, should follow after Muscovy, which survived until the 18th century, while such key polities as Vladimir-Suzdal and Novgorod Republic are discarded. I can't understand why Volga Bulgaria and Khanate of Kazan should be replaced by Zaporozhian Host and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which is completely irrelevant and even offensive for any student of Russian history. Until the heavy ukrainization basis persists, I remove the inflammatory template altogether. -- Ghirla -трёп-  18:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I take it you don't agree with the Early East Slavs article? I originally was going to add the History of Ukraine Template which links to this article, however, I realized that there was a combined template for all Early East Slavs in the Early East Slavs article. I don't understand why this article would be limited to Russian history. In fact, I was going to propose that List of Turkic punitive expeditions to Russia be expanded into List of Turkic punitive expeditions in successor states to Kievan Rus or something along those lines. This wass not an attempt to push a POV, just a good faith effort in linking shared articles. I'm sorry if my earlier edit seemed hostile.--tufkaa 03:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the idea to have the common template for the common history is a good one and could prevent a lot of unnecessary edit warring. On the other hand, the template is new and quite possibly is deficient. Everybody is welcome to edit the template it is wiki after all. abakharev 04:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

So what was the reason to change the opening paragraph back to Mongol invasion of Russia? I proposed changes at Template talk:History of East Slavs regarding Ghirlandajo's concerns that the template was inacurate.--tufkaa 06:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Changed back to Mongol invasion of Rus' . Maybe we can have just two templates here (and in similar places): History of Ukraine and History of Russia? The Belarusan history is less actual here and so we would prevent an almost inevitable edit war over the content of the joint template. Or do as Ghirlandajo propose and remove all the templates? Any other ideas? Please discuss the issue on talk abakharev 06:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the changes to the lead. Many Russia history accounts I've seen, for instance the History of RU article in EB emphasize the devastation of Kiev as a particucar catastrophic event for Russian history. I am less sure about the template. Certainly, the effect of the conquest on Russia was longer lasting and more significant since the lands of UA and BE fell under LT and PL after a relatively short time. --Irpen 07:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Fierce resistance of Danylo of Halych ?
Danylo was at Hungary at time of invasion of Halych. Ref: Ipatiev chronicle. Finalyzer 22:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested move
According to this article's current opening line and the names of other related articles (Rus' Khaganate, Kievan Rus') it looks like there's an apostrophe missing from the end of this article's name. So, suggest move to Mongol invasion of Rus'. Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Moved. Renata (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Novgorod was vassal of Mongols
No matter what people say, the city-state was a vassal. Alexander Nevsky was tax collector of Golden Horde and Bichigeech Berkhchir who was sent by Kublai khan had worked in Novgorod for a while even after civil war of 1260. Enerelt —Preceding comment was added at 10:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

2010 rewrites
User:Abu Shawka seems to be intent on rewriting the page based on such questionable sources as http://www.parallelsixty.com/history-russia.shtml and http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm. The theory of a wide-scale Mongol invasion of Rus has been under siege from several generations of historians, but now we have the page peppered with broad generalisations ("every second Russian died as a result") and non-neutral terms ("slaughter", "exterminate the entire population", etc). Even George Vernadsky half a century ago put the number of casualties at 10% of the total population. --Ghirla-трёп- 11:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed a lot of that stuff. Phrases such as "almost unimaginable slaughter" are not encyclopedic and the sources described above are clearly not reliable.Faustian (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is this Parallel Sixty website cited in the article? They are not experts in the field, they're a tour company! I've moved the PS figures after McEvedy's who has a published book on the subject (Colin McEvedy, Atlas of World Population History (1978)) but frankly, the PS site should be removed entirely. I don't believe it qualifies as a reliable source.173.206.42.18 (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)