Talk:1240 Izborsk and Pskov campaign

Name

@Nederlandse Leeuw, are you sure that the new name is better? I understand that there is one Estonian historian who thinks the Order didn't try to conquer all Rus', but we should use the common name and I haven't seen this name in scholarly sources. Alaexis_¿question? 21:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

There isn't a common name in scholarly sources. I looked for one, but there is none (at least not in English-language ones). So it just comes down to an accurate description of the event, and then it is clear that this is about a border skirmish with the Novgorod Republic only, not Rus', whatever that is supposed to mean. By analogy with Danish campaigns to Novgorod, this name follows WP:TITLECON. NLeeuw (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, there are sources that say that the attack targeted "the Orthodox Rus" (Janet Yellen, Medieval Russia, p. 180) but I guess that there is no dominant name in the English-language sources.

Anyway, the article clearly requires some work, so it doesn't make sense to argue about the title. Alaexis_¿question? 22:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I made some initial attempts by adding more sources and verifiable information. A lot of the current text could be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, by combining individual events into a 'campaign', which might or might not have been as coordinated as the text currently suggests. Selart appears to be one of the experts on the topic, although unfortunately much of his writings is behind really expensive paywalls. I'm not gonna pay €38.15 for 43 pages, even though this chapter might be the best WP:RS for this article. NLeeuw (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I might be able to access it. There are also some Russian-language sources about this campaign which are reliable if somewhat biased (Selart could be biased too, of course). Alaexis_¿question? 22:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

That could be valuable. NLeeuw (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that this article might be merged with Battle on the Ice. It's focussed on that, and all other events surrounding it do not necessarily appear to be a coordinated campaign by the Livonian Order, but rather a series of skirmishes involving ever-changing alliances. I don't think the Danish campaigns to Novgorod are necessary "part of" a "Livonian campaign to Novgorod" that lasted all the way from 1240 to 1242.

What happened in 1240 involving the Livonian Order and the Novgorod Republic? I don't see anything. The Battle of the Neva was a Swedish affair, also involving Finns, Tavastians, and Norwegians, but.... no Livonians. The Battle of the Neva was part of the Swedish–Novgorodian Wars, sure, but not of Livonian conflicts with Novgorod.

The Danish campaigns to Novgorod did involve Livonians, but those happened in Winter–August 1241, not earlier. Associating the Battle of the Neva of 1240 with the Danish 1241 campaigns and the Livonian 1242 campaign is just WP:SYNTH. It may all seem the same from the Novgorodian perspective, as Alexander "Nevsky" Yaroslavich is the supposedly heroic protagonist against the "Western" "Catholic" "crusaders" in both events, but it's not against the same belligerent(s). We shouldn't lump them all together unless WP:RS do. And the more recent RS including Selart and other scholars who refer to him reject the idea that we can lump them all together. NLeeuw (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Please send me an email via Email this user and I'll share the chapter in question.

Having reviewed it, I believe that we should keep this article. Selart says on p. 144 that A highly influential historiographical tradition sees these campaigns as a coordinated attack aimed at conquering Rus’ and/or converting it to Catholicism. He himself doesn't agree with it, but he acknowledges that it's an influential approach (see the sources he reviews on pp. 145-146).

When we have two opinions we should follow WP:DUE. It seems like we should give more weight to the "traditional" version and also discuss Selart's criticism of it. Naturally, the scholarly consensus may have shifted since 2007, I don't know if there are newer sources published about this relatively obscure topic. Alaexis_¿question? 20:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, sent you an email. It might be that the "traditional" version is still dominant in WP:RS from the last c. 50 years, but WP:AGEMATTERS, and Selart's new perspective has been quite influential ever since 2007. I'm seeing many scholars quote him as the go-to expert, and many positive reviews of his books (Sam Conedera, Christian Raffensperger etc.). It may have taken a bit longer for this perspective to be more widely accepted because his original 2007 book was apparently written in German, and not translated to English until several years later.

Donald Ostrowski wrote similar things in 2006, but mostly focused on refuting the myth that the battle of Lake Peipus took place on the frozen lake itself, that the ice broke and that the "Teutons" drowned en masse, as seen in the 1938 Eisenstein Soviet propaganda film that has captured popular imagination ever since. This is why I already undertook some efforts at rewriting Battle on the Ice first by analysing the primary sources. Whereas the LRC presents a modest and realistic story from the perspective of the defeated Livonians ("the army was too small, but they decided to attack anyway (...) they fought brave enough, but nevertheless were cut down"), the Slavonic sources show a big fish story, exaggerating the feats of Nevsky and adding more supernatural elements with every retelling. Most recent scholars recognise that we can't take the late Slavonic sources at face value. I'm not sure how many of them writing after 2006/2007 still assume that the battle primarily took place on a frozen lake and that the ice broke; I think that paradigm has, by now, been fundamentally discredited. NLeeuw (talk) 05:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, the consensus can change, my point was that Selart's book by itself is not a sufficient proof. Note that The Livonian Rhymed Chronicle by Smith and Urban (2017) says that William of Modena was planning a Livonian-Danish-Swedish attack on Novgorod without any caveats. Alaexis_¿question? 20:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Which verse? NLeeuw (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your email btw! It is very helpful. I've already expanded the article a lot, as you can see. But I'm wondering whether much of this content is suited for this article, or better moved somewhere else. Essentially, this is an 19-year introduction on what was essentially 3 or 4 barely related battles by different parties in 1241 and 1242. The periods of internal conflict within Livonia, Pskov, and Novgorod are probably best covered in the dedicated articles Livonia, Pskov Land, and Novgorod Republic, respectively. Nothing about, say, the 1229–1230 Rigan diocesan feud, nor the autumn 1231 Suzdalian-Novgorodian campaign to Chernigov, suggests that this or that event would automatically, inevitably, inescapably lead to the battle of Lake Peipus in 1242. That battle's supposed centrality in world history is unwarranted, and these 2 decades of events cannot serve as a mere prelude to that one battle.

At any rate, I'll see if I can rearrange things in a way that makes more sense than what I'm doing now haha. NLeeuw (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, I think that the scope of the article corresponds to part 3.3 The Treaty of Stensby of 1238 and the Military Campaigns against Rus’ of 1240–42 of Selart's book. The preceding events are indeed out of scope and should only be mentioned briefly as a background, if at all. Alaexis_¿question? 22:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the advice. Stensby does seem to be a better starting point for this article. I'm not sure what the best solutions are yet, but I'll continue summarising Selart with some maps, and eventually we could move the content to other pages on a case by case basis. All these events are linked together, but the battle of Lake Peipus is just not that important in the grand scheme of things, and so I agree with you that we should avoid a WP:COATRACK. NLeeuw (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for improving the article! Alaexis_¿question? 22:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you again for the chapter, it is really helpful and offers more reliable material than any other source I had. NLeeuw (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't specify the page. It's not in the chronicle itself but rather in the preface p. xvii. I realised that the book was written in 1977 so it's not a new source. Alaexis_¿question? 22:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check it out. It might not be useful to cite, but it does give some context to the LRC's perspective. Intros of primary sources are usually more reliable and scholarly than the primary sources themselves. NLeeuw (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Sources

How reliable is History of military art, originally published in 1955–1961, by Soviet general and professor of military history Yevgeniy Andreevich Razin (ru:Разин, Евгений Андреевич)? It seems quite ideologically coloured. E.g. In this difficult time, the "crusader scum", as Marx called the feudal lords of the West, decided to seize the rich Novgorodian lands, Novgorod itself and its suburbs, first of all the old Rus' city of Pskov. German and Swedish feudal lords were already taking over all the Baltic lands, destroying the native population, and turning the remaining inhabitants into slaves. I think it has a lot of WP:POV issues, and considering the date of publication, WP:AGEMATTERS. The best action seems to remove it from the external links for now, as it does little for reliable information on what happened in these years. NLeeuw (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Similarly, I think МЕЖ ДВУХ ЗОЛ Исторический выбор Александра Невского (BETWEEN TWO EVILS : The historical choice of Alexander Nevsky) is not a reliable source, but has serious WP:POV issues. The author Alexander Uzhankov repeatedly proclaims his Orthodox Christian faith as the only right one, glorifying Alexander Nevsky in many statements, including the last: By the way, the older I get, the more I honour my heavenly patron, the holy faithful prince Alexander Nevsky. The article is hosted on pravoslavie.ru, the semi-official website of the Russian Orthodox Church. I've seen Uzhankov's piece elsewhere on enwiki where I noted the same problems. I'm going to remove it for now. NLeeuw (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, these are not high-quality sources. Alaexis_¿question? 22:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Peace treaty

It is remarkable how in this and related articles, claims are made about how "the Germans" or "the crusaders" gave up on their territorial claims to "(Northern) Russia" [sic] or "Rus'" by peace treaty. No such treaty is mentioned in the LRC. But there is a brief mention of a peace negotiation in the NPL, and it goes like this (Michell & Forbes 1914, p. 87): The same year the Nemtsy sent with greeting, in the absence of the Knyaz: “ The land of the Vod people, of Luga, Pleskov, and Lotygola, which we invaded with the sword, from all this we withdraw, and those of your men whom we have taken we will exchange, we will let go yours, and you let go ours.” And they let go the Pleskov hostages, and made peace. There could be a written text underlining this verbal agreement, but it is not mentioned explicitly. Moreover, the Nemtsy envoys (diplomats from the Livonian Order) just offered that they would withdraw all troops they had currently stationed in contested areas.

Interestingly, knyaz Alexander "Nevsky" Yaroslavich was apparently absent, and thus presumably not party to any treaty which might have been signed between the Nemtsy and the Novgorodians. The following line just says that his father went to Batu Khan: The same year Knyaz Yaroslav Vsevolodich [was] summoned by the Tartar Tsar Baty, [and] went to him to the Horde. (Not clear whether Alexander travelled along with him, although he would personally submit himself to Batu in 1252.)

Therefore, it is quite a stretch to interpret this to mean,

• as the Territorial changes parameter in the infobox claims: Peace with Prince Alexander Nevsky, waiver of claims to present day Northern Russia.
• or, as the infobox in Battle on the Ice claims: Teutonic Order drops all territorial claims over Russian lands.

Well, not really. First, the knyaz was absent, so there was no peace (treaty) with Prince Alexander Nevsky according to the NPL. Second, there is no consensus on what the Russian North (Русский Север) even is, but even if we take a very broad definition like the Northern Economic Region, the Novgorod Oblast, Pskov Oblast, Leningrad Oblast (including Ingria, Luga, Leningrad Oblast etc.) are not part of it. Lotygola = Latgale, part of Latvia, outside of present-day Russia entirely. And however broad you may define Russian lands, these were by and large areas inhabited by non-Slavic, non-Rus' peoples, but instead Finnic and Baltic peoples. Finally, it was not the Teutonic Order per se, but the Livonian Order (recently formed out of the Livonian Brothers of the Sword).

I don't know if anyone else has good sources on any peace treaty, but all I see is this very stretched WP:SYNTH interpretation of a verbal agreement in the NPL in which POWs were exchanged, Livonian troops were withdrawn, and Alexander was absent. NLeeuw (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I was being bold and changed it to Withdrawal of Livonian forces from the Novgorodian lands. Maybe it's not perfect but I think it doesn't suffer from most of the issues that you've mentioned. Alaexis_¿question? 22:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, certainly better than what it was. Thank you. NLeeuw (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Future

@Alaexis Hey, I would like to thank you once again very much for the Selart chapter, it has been really useful in clearing things up! As you may have seen, I've moved a lot of the Background sections to other articles where they were more relevant. After that, I have thoroughly rewritten Danish campaigns to Novgorod to match reliable sources on the subject, carefully examining the scholarly studies with the primary sources (see Talk:Danish campaigns to Novgorod#Identifying the primary sources as well as my edit summaries for explanations of how I did my work).

It's still not quite finished, but I think we are at a point where we need to decide on the future of both articles: Livonian campaign to Novgorod and Danish campaigns to Novgorod. That has multiple problems and possible solutions.

• To me, Livonian campaign to Novgorod and Danish campaigns to Novgorod WP:OVERLAP so much in scope that they should be merged. On closer inspection, neither campaign was particularly "Danish". We might pragmatically call the ad hoc alliances formed between various parties (bishoprics, the Teutonic/Livonian Order, various cities, local leaders and the pretender-prince of Pskov) "Livonian" (as I have done), but it's not a great article title either.
• On the other hand, the Izborsk and Pskov campaign (1240) and the Votia campaign (1240–1241) are so distinct from each other that I think they should be split into separate articles. Izborsk and Pskov campaign (1240) and Votia campaign (1240–1241) might be okay as titles; they come very close to how various scholars write about the events, and avoid tricky political terminology such as "Livonian", "Teutonic", "Danish", "German", "Rus'", "Russian", "Novgorodian", "Pskovian" etc.
• So, we are left with two bad article titles, but we would need to have two separate articles for the two campaigns. I think the best pragmatic solution would be to just rename and rescope Danish campaigns to Novgorod to Votia campaign (1240–1241), and rename and rescope Livonian campaign to Novgorod to Izborsk and Pskov campaign (1240), based on the rewritten sections in Danish campaigns to Novgorod. That way we can preserve the edit history of both articles, and the interwikis of this article to other languages.

What do you think? Good idea? NLeeuw (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I've had very little time for Wikipedia lately so I'm still dealing with the backlog and can't review the articles and the sources to provide a meaningful response. Your suggestion seems sensible. All of these articles should have background sections describing the overall situation in the early 12th century Baltic and they should be cross-wikilinked. Even if it's a matter of contention to what extent various campaigns were coordinated, our sources discuss them together and we should follow them. Alaexis_¿question? 21:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Alaexis Thanks! I've performed the overhaul as agreed. Both articles still needs some copy editing, but most work is done. I've put Main article, Further, and See also templates where they seemed appropriate. E.g. there is a strong link between the 1240 Izborsk and Pskov campaign and the Battle of Lake Peipus, so that gets a Main template. But the link between the latter and the 1240–1241 Votia campaign is a lot less obvious, and a nation that many modern scholars have challenged as untenable. So, it's OK for a "See also." NLeeuw (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2024 (UTC)