Talk:Kievan Rus'/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2024

Change Vladimir had been prince of Novgorod when his father Sviatoslav I died in 972. He was forced to flee to Scandinavia in shortly after. In Scandinavia, with the help of his uncle Earl Håkon Sigurdsson, ruler of Norway

to Vladimir had been prince of Novgorod when his father Sviatoslav I died in 972. He was forced to flee to Scandinavia in shortly after. In Scandinavia, with the help of his ally Earl Håkon Sigurdsson, ruler of Norway. Hakon wasn't a child of Igor and Olga but instead Sigurd and Bergljot. If there is a family relation between the two it is not as close as uncle and nephew. RayquayZzZ (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. NLeeuw (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

 Question: @Nederlandse Leeuw: what seems fine to you, the proposal or the way it's currently phrased? M.Bitton (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The proposal seems fine. There seems to be no evidence of Volodimer' Sviatoslavich (Vladimir the Great) having Haakon Sigurdsson as an "uncle". The passage in question lacks a source. In fact, I do not recall ever having heard of Haakon Sigurdsson before, let alone in connection to Volodimer' Sviatoslavich. It is known that Volodimer' was expelled from Novgorod by Yaropolk following internecine conflict in the 970s, and that Volodimer' was exiled to Scandinavia, returning around 980 with warriors from Scandinavia, but the details are vague. I'll look some sources and literature up for details. NLeeuw (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC) PS: I think the proposal is not enough; the whole mention of Håkon Sigurdsson should be removed as unsubstantiated, see my detailed reply below. NLeeuw (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The whole sentence structure is poor, as if written by someone whose first language is not English. More like:

• Vladimir, prince of Novgorod when his father Sviatoslav I died in 972, was soon forced to flee to Scandinavia. With help from his ally, Norway ruler Earl Håkon Sigurdsson, Vladimir assembled a Viking army and defeated his half-brother Yaropolk in the reconquering of Novgorod and Kiev.

More concise and less wordy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I delved further into it, and I think the whole mention of Haakon Sigurdsson should be removed.

The Primary Chronicle (PVL) claims that in the year 6485 (977), after Yaropolk killed his brother Oleg (apparently reigning as prince in Derevlia), his other brother Volodimer (reigning as prince in Novgorod), [Volodimer] became afraid and fled overseas (za more, usually understood to mean 'across the Baltic Sea', therefore, 'to Scandinavia', most likely Sweden.) 3 years later in 6488 (980), Volodimer with Varangians marched on Novgorod, telling the governors of Yaropolk that he was declaring war on him. That's it. All we've got is 3 words: za more and "Varangians". There is no mention of 'Scandinavia', Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark' etc. let alone that Volodimer got help from a specific "ruler" called Haakon Sigurdsson. Now, we always need to stress that the PVL is not the only source, nor is it always a reliable source (in fact, it often isn't).

Janet L. B. Martin (2007) essentially recounts the same sequence of events: But after his father died (972) and one of his elder brothers killed the other (977), this prince, Vladimir (Volodimer) Sviatoslavich, fled abroad. After several years of exile he now led a band of Varangians (Norsemen) across the Baltic from Scandinavia. His intention was to depose his half-brother Iaropolk and assume the throne of Kiev. Again, that's it. Although his son and successor Yaroslav Volodimerovich would in 1019 marry Ingegerd Olofsdotter of Sweden, daughter of king Olof Skötkonung of Sweden (reigned c. 995–1022), there seems to be no familial or diplomatic link between Volodimer and any royalty or nobility in Norway around 980.

The enwiki page of Haakon Sigurdsson makes the same claim, but it is based on an unreliable source, namely http://www.katolsk.no/biografier/historisk/vladimi1. katolsk.no is the website of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Oslo, in other words, the Catholic Church in Norway. It says: Yaropolk deposed and killed Oleg, and when Vladimir feared the same fate, he fled to Sweden. Yaropolk conquered Novgorod in 977 and united all of [Rus'] under his rule. Vladimir also went to his relative Håkon Sigurdsson Ladejarl, Norwegian ruler under Danish rule (c. 970-95). In Scandinavia, he collected as many Viking soldiers as he could, and in 978 he returned to [Rus'] with a large mercenary army. Everything corroborates, except the dates (katolsk.no even contradicts itself here) and the third sentence; where does this "his relative Håkon Sigurdsson Ladejarl" come from? It comes out of nowhere, and is never mentioned again. Moreover, it does not say that Haakon actually provided Volodimer with any soldiers; that is a separate sentence. So even if it happened, Volodimer apparently only travelled to his relative in Norway to say 'hi', and then went on to gather some warriors to return to Rus'.

Church websites aren't necessarily unreliable; especially for dating feast days of saints (which scholarly sources usually don't mention), they may be accurate. But this web bio seems to be written by just a church employee (apparently no:Per Einar Odden. categorised as a 'hagiographer', 'architect' and 'Catholic priest'; I don't see any relevant scholarly qualifications for writing history or genealogy, though), mostly for devotional purposes. It seeks to make a connection between 'Saint Vladimir', Norway, and the Catholic Church in Norway, noting that the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church considers him a saint and also suggesting he has also been to Norway. But the sources mentioned below are a ragbag of dubious texts: Sources : Attwater/John, Attwater/Cumming, Farmer, Butler (VII), Benedictines, Delaney, Bunson, Schauber/Schindler, Gorys, Dammer/Adam, KIR, CE, CSO, Patron Saints SQPN, Infocatho, Bautz, Heiligenlexikon, santiebeati .it, en.wikipedia.org, britannica.com, oca.org, roca.org, mittelalter-genealogie.de, fmg.ac - Compilation and translation: Fr. Per Einar Odden Last updated: 2008-07-05 01:00

fmg.ac is notoriously unreliable and has de facto been blacklisted (I can link to AFDs but can't be bothered now), WP:BRITANNICA should also be avoided if possible (and it doesn't mention Haakon anyway), using 'en.wikipedia.org' in general without providing specific diffs is a huge problem and risks citogenesis, other saints websites and saints dictionaries aren't any more reliable than this website, and so on. Even if some sources are reliable, the lack of inline citations in the katolsk.no bio makes them untraceable. I think we should throw this out as probably false, or at least unsubstantiated. I've been actively reading and writing about Kievan Rus' for over 2 years, and never seen any reliable source mention this Haakon Sigurdsson dude in connection to Volodimer Sviatoslavich. NLeeuw (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

PS: https://maps-huri-ws.net/rusgen/ does not mention any familial ties between Volodimer Sviatoslavich and Haakon Sigurdsson either. If there was one, we could be sure Ostrowski, Raffensperger, Birnbaum and other scholars of Kievan Rus' would have written about it and mapped it. Especially Raffensperger has been making efforts to show these royal familial ties between the reigning families of Rus' and of the rest of Europe. NLeeuw (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a thorough analysis, thanks. I've also checked sources in all relevant languages and haven't found anything about the purported relationship. Alaexis_¿question? 20:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome! This kind of stuff is interesting to look up, but it also takes a lot of time to do it properly. I'm not surprised either that I was the one who first raised this issue over 1.5 years ago on 26 January 2023 when I was doing a verification spree of the entire article. But at the time I couldn't be bothered to completely figure it out yet, so I left behind a long note to be resolved later. I guess nobody else bothered to fix it either, so here I am finally doing it myself. NLeeuw (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done I've rewritten the whole paragraph [1]. NLeeuw (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

First capital

The article mentions the Varangians, notably Rurik, establishing their center of power in Novgorod by 862 from where they expended Russia southwards. By 882 Kiev was conquered and made capital of Russia. Therefore, the capitals list should include Novgorod for 862 - 882 and only afterwards Kiev. 2A02:8108:8A80:753A:D5A6:4021:71B1:ED37 (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

No. There have been extensive discussions about this issue in 2023, search the talk page archive for details. NLeeuw (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2024

In the section “Names” second picture and the text below should be deleted: “ When the Varangian princes arrived, the name Rus' was associated with them and came to be associated with the territories they controlled. Initially the cities of Kiev, Chernigov, and Pereyaslavl and their surroundings came under Varangian control.”

This text contradicts the recognized historical theory and the above-mentioned fact about Novgorod. The map is incorrect and not accurate, the text itself is biased and not proof-read. Rus’ did not consisted of only these three principalities at any time.

Please, alter and delete this text and map for the sake of academical honesty. 95.64.169.174 (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Decline, but open to slight rephrase. The two sentences cited are supported by two reliable sources, and there is no reason to delete them. It is true that Kievan Rus' had more than just these three principalities, but it is also clear these three were the most important in its earliest phase.

About the map: The relationship of Novgorod with early Kievan Rus' is debated (Holmgårdr having a prominent place in Old Norse sources, while some suggesting Veliky Novgorod was the capital of Rurik's realm, although Rurik's historicity is in dispute), but in Rus' chronicles it usually was not grammatically or geographically considered part of the so-called "Rus' land" (Роуськая земля), in which Kiev, Chernigov and Pereyaslavl were the central patrimonies, while Novgorod had to pay tribute to Kiev.

I don't think the request as formulated will improve the contents. I would recommend the requester to read previous discussions on this talk page about these issues in the past 2.5 years. The current texts are usually the result of careful compromise based on reliable sources in scholarly literature. I might be persuaded to slightly alter the phrasing though; the words "Varangian princes" could be left out and replaced by just "Varangians", as the early Varangians were perhaps not yet knyazi as later understood (and we could include their retinues as well as their commanders). Given that they also controlled other cities as the requester pointed out, we could make it a bit like Initially, the most prominent cities that came under their control were Kiev, Chernigov and Pereyaslavl and their surroundings. NLeeuw (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. TylerBurden (talk) 05:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Kyivan Rus'

The naming has changed. Modern sources tend to use Kyivan Rus. Even Magocsi in his latest works - Ukraina Redux: On Statehood and National Identity - Ukrainian World Congress - Ukrainian World Congress . We should start adopting the change. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

One example proves nothing, I can just as easily find many recent books which use the current title (A History of Russian Economic Thought (2023), Orthodox Mercantilism Political Economy in the Byzantine Commonwealth (2023), The Ukraine War & the Eurasian World Order (2024) etc). In any case there is no policy that says that only sources published in the last few years should be used when determining the name. Alaexis_¿question? 21:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Well of those sources which do use "Kyivan", whose write that as "... also known as Kyivan ..." ? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that any of the books I've mentioned predominantly uses "Kyivan Rus"? Alaexis_¿question? 21:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

No. It's our article that uses "... also known as Kyivan Rus". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

You still aren't being clear. Why would a source that uses "Kyivan" say "also known as Kyivan"? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The question is - why does the wiki article uses such a wording. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The article is titled "Kievan Rus'", in accordance with what has been determined to be the most widespread usage. However, "Kyivan Rus'" is used in some sources for the same thing. The phrase "also known as Kyivan Rus'" serves to let people know that these two names refer to the same thing. This is REALLY simple stuff. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The state in question is only predominantly called “Kievan Rus’” in English because of Russian imperial dominance over other Slavic peoples during the period that English-language academic study of Rus’ was first undertaken seriously.

There’s very literally a section of this page itself that deals with this. It was not called “Kievan Rus’” at the time; it was called “ро́усьскаѧ землѧ́” contemporaneously. The name “Kievan Rus’” was invented in the 1800s as a piece of Russian historiography, an invention that coincided with the coining of “Kyivan Rus’” as a piece of Ukrainian historiography. They are terms of equal tenure.

The Russian nomenclature was subsequently adopted into English in the early 1900s due to the influence of Klyuchevsky, an explicitly imperialist Russian historian who is responsible for formulating the Russian chauvinist view of Ukrainians as merely “Little Russians” whose language and culture should be understood as subordinate to the Russian imperial project.

The decision to retain the nomenclature “Kievan Rus’” on the basis that it is some undebatable fait accompli - despite knowing it is a recent, non-contemporaneous term invented by Russian imperial historians and that “Kyivan Rus’” has been around as an alternate for just as long - is not the obvious decision you want to cast it as, and it is certainly not a neutral choice as the de facto encyclopedia of record in 2024.

The polity was contemporaneously called ро́усьскаѧ землѧ́ by its residents in Old East Slavic. Actively choosing to retain the latter day Russian imperial recasting - one invented by the historian Putin quotes most frequently in his screeds about how Ukraine isn’t real, all because English imperial historians didn’t bother to listen to anyone about Slavic history aside from their Russian imperial counterparts - only serves to reinforce a Russian imperial worldview that is at the heart of the most intense bloodletting in Europe in 80 years. 2607:FEA8:51F:E000:8502:540E:26C5:B636 (talk) 04:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Last time I checked this still was a common name which is the only thing that matters for naming articles (see WP:COMMONNAME). A lot of time some people are unhappy with the common name (Bombay, Turkey) but we change it only when the new name becomes more widespread.

If you believe that the Kyivan Rus is the name most commonly used by scholars, then you should demonstrate it, and and RfC would probably be needed. I don't see much point in continuing this discussion to be honest. Alaexis_¿question? 06:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

We don't need a source so say "also known as Kyivan Rus". If we have a majority of sources using one name and a minority using the other one, then it's totally legitimate to say X also known as Y. Alaexis_¿question? 13:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

If we have a majority of sources using one name and a minority using the other one
But we don't.

Even Magocsi has changed his terminology. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

And? Magocsi is just one source. You were already given several sources that use Kievan. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)