Talk:Krivichs

First of all you must understand that Krivich teritory coincided with Baltic ethnic teritory (which was Baltic for more than 4000 years) and it's probably the bigest mistake in history to call them a Slavian tribe while all evidences pointing towards the Baltic tribe. I know that it's difficult to acknowleadge that the reality is the opposite to what you are already knowing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.173.242 (talk) 12:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

In "De adiministrando Emperio" it is the Scandinavians who made the ships and traded with Constantinople. See the following link [1].--Wiglaf 19:07, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

By the way, isn't Rogvolod (Ragnvald) a Scandinavian name? Are you certain that he was a tribal chief of the Krivichs?--Wiglaf 19:09, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kryvian or Krivichs?

I just wrote a page Kryvian and then I found that there already exists a page called Krivichs dealing with the same subject matter. Apart from the fact that it uses Russian (not Belarusan) spellings of the geographic names, it is very good and contains a lot of useful information. Now I guess I'll have to make a compilation of the two pages, and make a redirect to one of them. I think Kryvian (or Krivian) is a better word in English, than Krivichs (which is just a transliteration from Russian(sic!)). What do you think? - rydel 16:05, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh, by the way! There is exactly the same problem with Radimichs and Dregovichs. I think the articles should be renamed to Radzimians and Drehovians, and make redirects from the previous names and also correct the spelling of geographic names. Does that sound reasonable? -- rydel 16:28, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd vote for whichever form may appear in Encyclopedia Britannica, as I am indifferent to which slavic language the form is taken. I'd rather you stayed to "established usage" and it is not because it is "right" only because it is established.--Wiglaf 16:55, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What about the village of Uličské Krivé? Its a north eastern village in Slovakia by the Carpathian Mountains. Could this of been the homeland of the Kryvian or Krivichs?

Dregovich and Radimich are of Baltic origin too - radimas in Lithuanian language means the finding, and drauguvyciai means friendly chaps (Lith. draugas - Rus. drug). Like and Polocak/Polotsk this name originates from Lithuanian word puolauchiai meaning the people who attack (puola)

Thanks for your input Wiglaf!

(Well, if the tribe relates mostly to Belarus and if modern Belarusians associate with it, it makes more sense to use their spelling, with a "y". And most English sources, of course, in the past used transliteration from Russian. I don't think that's correct.)

As for the established form in English, that's a bit problematic. I think there is none. For example, here is some sample data from Google:

• Krivich - 1260 (possibly some are simply last names of Belarusans or other Slavic nationals)
• Kryvich - 123

• Krivichi - 621
• Kryvichy - 199
• Kryvichi - 65

• Krivichs - 62
• Kryvichs - 3

• Krivian - 207
• Kryvian - 27

• Kryvians - 6
• Krivians - 2

• Kryvia - 1080
• Kryvija - 25

• Kriwi - 1540 (but that also includes the pages about Belarusan folk-band of this name)

In Wikipedia we can straigten things out by using the most proper term from the historical point of view and from the point of view of the English language. In my opinion, it should start with "kry-" (not "kri-"). As for the suffix, I think it is up to native English speakers to decide.

Regards rydel 17:18, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As I said, I don't care too much about the naming. I just don't want you to end up in a naming war with a Russian. Sorry for caring.--Wiglaf 18:39, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sure. Me neither. I'll wait for a week or so. If during this period nobody will raise any objections (together with presenting their reasons for objections), I guess I will move the three entries and create redirects. -- rydel 19:01, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rogvolod (Rahvalod)

Wiglaf deleted this: "The last tribal prince of the Krivichs was Rogvolod, who would be killed together with his sons by the Prince of Novgorod Vladimir the Great in 980."

And in the comment wrote: "(1) this was way after their tribal lands had been conquered by Kievan Rus, (2) the name is Scandinavian."

(1) There was Polatsk (Polacak) Principality that was quite indepdendent. Are you aware of that?

(2) Yes, the guy Rogvolod (Рогволод, Рагвалод) was most probably a Viking Rogvald. So what's your point here?

(3) Although the sentence you deleted has many grammar mistakes (being written apparently by a non-native speaker), I don't quite get the connection between the deleted sentence and your comments about it.

rydel 18:34, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If he was a Varangian, he was hardly a tribal prince, was he? He was the ruler of an independent Polotsk principality and that does not imply that he was the tribal ruler of the Krivichi.--Wiglaf 18:38, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are right. Got your point. -- rydel 19:01, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Expansion

Does anybody have absolutely any books on this subject? just give me a book, I will read it I really want to expand this article but cant find any material or sources on it, any help would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.96.46 (talk) 02:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is it dubious? I gave my sources, it sounds reasonable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koliak2991 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

this website is no way a source of wisdom: written by unknown people of unknown expertise, not to say that theior content is based on outdated versions of wikipedia :-) Please see wikipedia:Reliable sources for hints whom you can believe. Internet is not a source of information: it is a source of misinformation for one who has no judgement. `'Míkka 04:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)