Talk:Mongol invasion of Kievan Rus'

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mongol invasion of Kievan Rus' article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Belarus Mid‑importance

	Belarus portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belarus, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belarus on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelarusWikipedia:WikiProject BelarusTemplate:WikiProject BelarusBelarus articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Military history: Medieval C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)

Russia: History / Military Top‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.

Ukraine High‑importance

	Ukraine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Mid‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mongols: Mongol Empire Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mongols, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mongol culture, history, language, and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MongolsWikipedia:WikiProject MongolsTemplate:WikiProject MongolsMongols articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Mongol Empire task force.

There was no Russia back in those times

Use of term Russia is anachronism and in some places it's used even in place when it should be used term Rus. Rus is not Russia. Remember. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.150.224.69 (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really?

A significant number of historians consider the oppression of Rus' by the Mongols to be the major cause of what is sometimes called "the East-West gap" - approximately 200 years delay in introducing major social, political and economical reforms and scientific innovations in Russia compared to Western Europe. Specifically, the isolation from the West may have caused Russia's later non-involvement in the Renaissance, the Protestant Reformation, and failure to develop a middle class.

I doubt that you can call the share of historians who believe this significant. Also, the term 'delay' seems teleological and if you want to talk about this, was it not Orthodoxy with its Scripture in vernacular that cut off the Rus' lands off the Latin-speaking European countries? The Mongol invasion did cut off the Rus' from the Byzantine empire though. 83.83.1.229 (talk) 20:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to introduce a section on alternative theories/interpretations or a criticism section provided your information is not based on fringe theories and is well cited using verifiable secondary sources which meet the criteria for being reliable. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedic resource and adheres strictly to policies of maintaining a neutral POV and no original research. Dependent on what you qualify as being 'a significant number of historians' (sic), introducing your wishlist to the article may or may not be acceptable as we avoid giving undue weight to spurious and non-mainstream theories. That being said (and given the constraints), I'd certainly encourage you to expand the article. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that the east-west gap is borderline a fringe theory. Countries on the border of Russia which were equally invaded by the mongols had most or part of these things. The protestant reformation failed in most of western Europe, and had a presence in areas under the eastern part of the so-called gap. The renaissance, while it didn't involve Russia, did involve most of the Mediterranean, including the ottoman empire. It sounds mostly like weird germano (this term here includes the english) centric historiography of the Weberian kind. The renaissance, for one, started in Italy, nowhere near the protestant reformation, at a time when the mongol invasions were still going on. The country where the reformation was strongest missed most of it, or even almost all of it in the case of England and Scandinavia. 216.252.76.126 (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that the initial poster here was disagreeing with WHAT IS ALREADY in the article - the first half of their post is a quote from the article. Since consensus seems to regard that content is fringe, I'll remove it from the article.--¿3family6 _contribs 01:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted content: "A significant number of historians consider the oppression of Rus' by the Mongols to be the major cause of what is sometimes called "the East-West gap" - approximately 200 years delay in introducing major social, political and economical reforms and scientific innovations in Russia compared to Western Europe. Specifically, the isolation from the West may have caused Russia's later non-involvement in the Renaissance, the Protestant Reformation, and failure to develop a middle class.^[1]"

I'm archiving the above material here.--¿3family6 _contribs 01:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ O'Neill, Patrick H.; Karl Fields; Don Share (2006). Cases in Comparative Politics. New York: Norton. pp. 197–198. ISBN 978-0-393-92943-0.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Cheers for picking up on that, ¿3fam. I dropped the ball on the fact that the first IP was quoting from the article and thought they wanted to add spurious content. I'd certainly want to see more than one citation in order to establish that there actually are 'some' scholars. There are, in fact, a large number of factors (namely the vastness of the territory) preventing the building of a comprehensive transport infrastructure which could accommodate the needs of a burgeoning industrial sector (industrial revolution); the majority of the population being rural inhabitants and, consequently, a lesser social impact resulting from the plague/s (persistence of serfdom); etc. Mongol yoke as a major cause? Nope, never encountered that in mainstream historical analysis. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the above discussion is over a year old, but I just want to bring up that the discussion of an East-West gap looks even more absurd when you consider that Russia was one of the first countries after Italy to embrace the Renaissance.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Killed in action?

Is it a correct use of word for a country? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.171.162.29 (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent terminology

In this article we have the name of the nation written as: Rus', Rusaa', Rusa', Ruas'. Let's get some consistency up in here, eh?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.60.254.11 (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 September 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved, per consensus. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mongol invasion of Rus' → Mongol invasion of Kievan Rus' – for consistency with Kievan Rus'. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 09:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - per WP:TITLE. While the invasion of Rus' occurs within the body of academic texts in a more casual sense, it is only once the subject - being the meaning of the WP:COMMONNAME "Kievan Rus'" - has been established. "Kievan Rus'", in itself, was a scholarly device ascribed the polity in the 19th and 20th centuries. The event does not refer to any events or definitions of Rus' outside of this convention. --05:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iryna Harpy (talk • contribs)
Support per Iryna Harpy. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Kievan Rus' is commonly thought to have disintegrated ca. 1132. There was nothing Kievan about the state of Vladimir-Suzdal which bore the brunt of the invasion. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kievan Rus' is thought to have disintegrated 1240 with the Mongol invasion that the article discusses. Vladimir-Suzdal was until then one of the many states in the conglomerate ruled by the Rurik dynasty that we call Kievan Rus' nowadays. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It was the Rus' lands that were invaded not a defunct polity. Lappspira (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rus' lands has no meaning; Rus' is a redirect to Rus which is a disambiguation page. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support for Consistency in Article Titles, specifically WP:CONSUB. bd2412 T 13:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. We don't have an article on Rus' in a broad sense that covered the various states after c. 1132. We use Kievan Rus' to cover its own dissolution between 1132 and 1240. I think the proposed title will therefore better serve readers. Srnec (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mongolian influence

One gets the feeling that the article was written by some stubborn Ukrainian nationalist, who considers the Russian Mongols.

1) Vasily II fought a lot with the Tatars, so blaming him for "Tatarophilia" is at least strange.

2) Most of the Tatar nobles in Russia appeared after the fall of the Golden Horde, during the conquest of the Kazan Khanate.

3) Obviously, the death penalty and torture were used only in Russia, in the rest of Europe it was not. (SARCASM)--Александр Ашкаров (talk) 03:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statements are sourced Vernadsky, George. (1970). The Mongols and Russia. A History of Russia, Vol. III. New Haven: Yale University Press. pp. 354-357. George Vernadsky was a Russian historian at Yale.Faustian (talk) 03:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete the article, if the narrow-eyed had won, they would have grazed deer in yurts 176.65.114.61 (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

tweaks

I adjusted a couple of things, one of which was the size of Batu's force - which was at least 4 tumens - not a mere 25,000 - about a third of this force (maybe even half, but that's doubtful) went to Poland after the submission of Russia, the rest to the Carpathaian basin. Garrisons had to be left in Russia. The small recon of Subetai and Jebe was two tumens (20,000) - Batu's army was much larger. I'll ref' it later. 50.111.5.65 (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the article is clearly written with a pro-mongolian bias, and it seems to have a sinister intent

frankly, what the article seems to mirror is the position taken by the american state department, under hillary clinton. it is not likely that edits designed to correct that bias will be maintained, if the page is being actively monitored by us intelligence, as seems to be apparent from the tone.

the idea that the mongol occupation of eastern europe had some benefit to the slavs is, quite frankly, overwhelmingly offensive. it's equivalent to arguing for the upsides of the nazi occupation of poland (they got sovereignty, right?), or the benefits that africans gained from slavery (increased literacy rates, for example).

this page should be rewritten from scratch.

but, if american intelligence is monitoring it, it will revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.179.229.130 (talk) 03:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is way worse. Your comparisons are the wrong direction as Rus' states were more advanced than the Mongols. The Mongols did NOT bring any civilizational progress and/or knowledge to Rus' with the sole exception of new military concepts. The Mogols DID teach the (sedentary) culture Rus' people on how to wage mobile wars. About how critical it was to kill the enemy, and not bother with "holding" land. And that is about it. A better comparison would be the sacking of Rome (Kiev) and the dark ages that followed in the West (south and western Rus') with the legacy of the Roman (Russian) culture preserved in the Constantinople (Novgorod, Moscow) of the East Roman empire.145.224.105.244 (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest adding a paragraph that points to your difference in the experience of nations.

«Modern Ukraine and Belarusian lands were almost fully liberated with help of Lithuanians in 1362 on Battle of Blue Waters. A joint state was formed with the name Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Rus' and Samogitia.» Bodia1406 (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Previously this was moved from Mongol invasion of Rus' to the current title with the argument of WP:CONSISTENT. Judging by Ngram, Mongol invasion of Russia unsurprisingly is most used, but Mongol invasion of Rus' is also used more often than the current title. Thoughts? Mellk (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this article's current purpose it to cultivate the myth of a (centralised*) "Kievan Rus" state being separate entity from a (centralised*) "Novgorod" and a (centralised*) "Moscow" Rus. Thus as long as Ukraine exists, there is no chance factual history will show up on English WP. One just need to keep that in mind when reading anything relating Rus' and Russian history. As when reading in Soviet Pravda about happenings in the West. Just rotate 180 degrees and you are good.

(*) the key fake here is the deliberate treating of the Holy-Roman-Empire-like confederative supra-entities of Rus' as unitary states. That is completely fake but essential to sustain the Ukrainian narrative.145.224.105.244 (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Curious absence of almost any mention of the most significant Kyivan Rus' successor state of the time - Galicia-Volhynia

"BY THE TIME Kyiv fell to the Mongols, it no longer reigned over others but was itself ruled by outsiders. The head of the city’s defenses, a military commander named Dmytro, owed allegiance to Prince Danylo (Daniel), ruler of Galicia and Volhynia in present-day western Ukraine. Prince Danylo had taken the Rus’ capital under his protection the previous year by arrangement with Prince Mykhailo of Kyiv, who fled after originally resisting the Mongols, then losing to them his main stronghold, the city of Chernihiv, and eventually the will to resist." - Plokhy, S. (2017). "The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine". Ch. 6 Pax Mongolica. (p. 49). Kobzar1917 (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The chronicler [Primary Chronicle], critical of the very idea of Christian Rus’ princes swearing allegiance to pagan Mongol khans, described three models of their behavior vis-à-vis the Mongols. Prince Mykhailo of Chernihiv exemplified the first, which met with the chronicler’s utmost approval. Since he allegedly refused Batu’s demand to kowtow before a bush and compromise his Christian religion, he was killed on orders of the khan. Prince Yaroslav of Vladimir-Suzdal represented the second model: apostasy. He allegedly agreed to bow to the bush and thereby earned the chronicler’s condemnation. Danylo followed a third model, which involved neither complete rejection of, nor full submission to, Mongol rule. According to the chronicler, who was sympathetic to Danylo, the prince did not kneel before the bush and besmirch his Christian faith, but he drank kumis, indicating acceptance of the khan’s secular authority." (Ibid., p. 53) Kobzar1917 (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This should be placed in the article. Faustian (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Only Novgorod escaped foreign occupation."

In the introduction. Not only does it contradict the very preceding sentence and therefore make the intro unintelligible and contradictory to the rest of the article, but it's also contrary to the many sources cited. Not to mention any basic historical and geographical understanding of the Mongol conquest. I can't for the life of me imagine why an editor would keep insisting on restoring it, but here we are. Kobzar1917 (talk) 12:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Population migration

According to the Harvard historian Serhii Plokhy the population of the Kyiv and Pereiaslav lands did not abandon the region altogether and did not move to the Volga and Oka basins. In article there is just a opposite statement with a link to a Russian language source. Should it not be changed? Smirnoff80 (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy in lead

This is not a good summary of the legacy section, and does not mention the impact on society, culture and economy, for example. It only refers to Mongol institutions, and such a mention alone is WP:UNDUE. The cited source also does not refer to statehood so this is WP:OR. Not to mention the other views mentioned in the article e.g. certain institutions were adopted in the 16th century or were from the pre-Mongol era so presenting one person's view in wikivoice is also undue. Mellk (talk) 10:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The title and subject of this article is the "Mongol Invasion of Kievan Rus'". The direct quote from the source is "The forms of civil and military institutions in fourteenth century Muscovy were overwhelmingly Mongol in origin" Kobzar1917 (talk) 11:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Charles Halperin, in contrast, argues that the Muscovite rulers "turned to the Mongol legacy for inspiration" in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries in order to implement "a full-scale administrative bureaucracy..." (p. 527) Kobzar1917 (talk) 11:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Other institutions and practices that we can associate with the Mongol system continued into more recent times. The chelom bit'e, a petition, is a direct calque of the Turkic bag ur-, which in turn is a calque of the Chinese k'ou t'ou. The petition to the ruler served the important function of providing a means of upward communication of the needs of Muscovite society, and again one can propose that the practice came through the Kipchak Khanate. The Mongol-Kipchak system of taxation prevailed, as is evident through such Turkic terms as bakshei (public servant), dengi, kazna, kaznachei, kostka (a per capita toll tax), tamga (a seal or stamp and a type of customs duty), and tamozhnik (customs official)..." Kobzar1917 (talk) 11:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Finally, the entire military and cavalry system of Muscovy was based directly on the Mongol system, including tactics, strategies, formations, weapons, and materiel..." (p. 536) Kobzar1917 (talk) 11:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You did not address my concerns, you simply just dumped quotes. How does this show that there is no problem with original research or due weight? Mellk (talk) 11:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your "concerns" do not trump that of reliable sources. I can quote all day from preeminent historians of Russia and Ukraine about the impact of Mongol rule on the development of Muscovy. How many sources would satisfy you? Kobzar1917 (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how many times I have to reference WP:ONUS. Yes, you cited a source that mentions Mongol institutions, but this is still not a good summary of the legacy section and omits other key areas; therefore only referring to Mongol institutions when it comes to legacy and impact is WP:UNDUE. One of the authors mentioned in the quote refers to influence from the Kazan khanate in the period after Mongol suzerainty, so it is clear that there is some dispute on this. In addition, there is no mention of statehood so this is your own WP:OR. Can you address these points? Mellk (talk) 11:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you understand "statehood" to mean other than civil and military institutions? For example, Ostrowski - in his highly influential and widely-cited article - specifically cites Pelenski's "State and Society in Muscovite Russia and the Mongol-Turkic System". The body of the article refers to tax collection, judicial practices, postal networks, census taking... I could go on. If I changed "statehood" to "state practices", would that satisfy you? Or merely "governmental, judicial, and economic" practices? Kobzar1917 (talk) 11:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statehood has a different meaning. The term is not used by him and so we should not use it per WP:NOR in which the source must explicitly support what is being said. Even if you change "statehood", there is still the issue with WP:UNDUE that was not addressed. The legacy section is not adequately summarized, as the text is only referring to Mongol institutions in one principality, and this also does not adequately summarize the different views on the matter. Mellk (talk) 12:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So let's be clear. Is it your contention that the Mongol occupation had no effect on the development and character of the Muscovite state? Or, at least mentioning such effects is WP:UNDUE? Kobzar1917 (talk) 12:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that there was no Mongol influence. The very first sentence I wrote here is: This is not a good summary of the legacy section, and does not mention the impact on society, culture and economy, for example. I said this again just now: The legacy section is not adequately summarized, as the text is only referring to Mongol institutions in one principality. Mellk (talk) 12:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I encourage you to write a better sentence. It's all very well reverting and deleting my contributions, but if you never do the work yourself, and gather sources that support your POV, it does not reflect very well on you, does it? Kobzar1917 (talk) 12:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I simply told you that your edit was not a good summary of the legacy section. I have no problems proposing a different summary and discussing ways to improve upon this. Is it my fault that I had to explain the policies to you and to repeat my argument? I have made over 50,000 edits, you have made around 300 edits. Do you really want to argue about who is more useful? This is a pointless jab. Do you suggest that I write a summary of the legacy section or was this sarcastic? Mellk (talk) 12:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No sarcasm. You're clearly more entitled to edit than I am. I genuinely encourage you to write a sentence or two in the lead that refers to the legacy of Mongol rule. If not, you'd have to argue that Mongol rule was not significant... which is an argument, to be sure, but one that you'd be hard pressed to support with scholarly sources. Kobzar1917 (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] O'Neill, Patrick H.; Karl Fields; Don Share (2006). Cases in Comparative Politics. New York: Norton. pp. 197–198. ISBN 978-0-393-92943-0.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[1]