Talk:Vasily I of Moscow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Unclear passage[edit]

During the reign of Vasiliy I, feudal landownership kept growing. With the growth of princely authority in Moscow, feudals' judicial powers were partially diminished and transferred to Vasili's deputies and heads of volosts.

So, was feudalism growing or declining? My guess would be that the first sentence refers to the centralization of royal powers at the expense of local feudal lordships, but I haven't any books upon which to change the present unsatisfactory wording (though "feudal's" is certainly faulty English).

qp10qp 16:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


Irpen and others, calm down a bit. of Russia? See [1], [2], [3] Colchicum 22:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What is so peculiar about these two sources? Google books gives
"basil OR vasili OR vasily i OR ii OR iii of muscovy" 19 mentions.
"basil OR vasili OR vasily i OR ii OR iii of russia" 20 mentions.
"basil OR vasili OR vasily i OR ii OR iii of moscow" 93 mentions.
So, in fact, even for these three, Russia is now more frequent than Muscovy. But Moscow is even more frequent. It was the self-name at the time, by the way, not "Muscovy" which was only used by foreigners. --Paul Pieniezny 23:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Google Books is a garbage (useful garbage, to avoid misunderstanding. -- Colchicum 00:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)). There are good books and books with poor editorial oversight there. Journals are far more reliable. Note, however, that of Russia is applied mostly to Vasily III. I guess you know why. Colchicum 23:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Among the 6 (really 5) mentioning "of Russia" for Vassily I or II is such garbage as the New Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1993 and the Encyclopedia of World History ... --Paul Pieniezny 00:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Amazing. Is it now yet another holy political crusade to struggle against renaming of this article? Why? Well, IMHO the fact that both are non-specialized tertiary sources is quite telling (as well as the quality of their articles on the topics I am more intimately familiar with). Most probably, it is just a result of some random editorial conventions. Colchicum 00:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, well, so do you mean that of Moscow would be better? This is ok with me. Colchicum 00:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Muscovy was NOT a self-name, like "Polacks". As for the holy political crusade, have a look at the book googles for "of Muscovy". One of the most recent of them is the 1991 New Encyclopaedia Britannica (it seems like in 1991 they used "Muscovy" exclusively, and after that started to switch to Russia and Moscow). Of the two googles after 1991, one is really German (Forschungen zur osteuropäischen Geschichte) and the other one is ... "The Catholic Church and Russia: Popes, Patriarchs, Tsars, and Commissars" by Dennis J. Dunn. Yes, you were right, perhaps this is a holy political crusade ([4]) Last point: yes, I am in favour of using "of Moscow" here for the first two Vasilis and probably Ivan III, of always using "Grand Duchy of Moscow" instead of "Muscovy", and of using "Russian" for the inhabitant and the adjective instead of Muscovite (where Muscovite does not mean "of the town of Moscow", of course). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Pieniezny (talkcontribs) 13:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)