Jump to content

Talk:Battle on the Ice

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article name

[edit]

I moved this page to a more direct translation from Russian and German. This in order to make place for a famous battle in English heroic legend and in Norse mythology, which has no other name but the Battle on the Ice. I hope that no one minds.--Wiglaf 06:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually the proper name of this battle is the Battle OF the Ice not the Battle ON the Ice, so I don't think anyone will mind.
If you want to use a direct translation from German, then you should use Battle on Lake Peipus, which I think is the best version. regards, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Torfgeist

Why was this article moved to a rather general "Battle of the Ice" anyway? Is it about a hockey game or something? Was there a discussion with a consensus? The name Battle of Lake Peipus or even better Battle on Lake Peipus is much more specific, and Peipus is even used by a rather neutral Italian artist. Is Peipus a place name which considered inconvenient from some POV, or what was the reason to move?

I suggest the move to "Battle on Lake Peipus".--Matthead 22:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never --Ghirla -трёп- 18:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some search results... Google Books:

Google Scholar:

The current name seems fine to me. Olessi 18:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that Lake Peipus is not a Russian name, it is not used in Russophone literature, and it is somewhat stupid to call the battle by a name given to the lake by those who were beaten there so badly. --Ghirla -трёп- 18:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That has little relevance here. What is relevant, however, is the terminology most frequently used in English to describe the battle. Olessi 19:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ghirla's POV is his POV, but meaningless for English wikipedia, even though it would be interesting if his "losers don't deserve to name a battle" theory would be extended to e.g. Battle of Cannae with a Carthagian name, and Battle of the Little Bighorn with one in Lakota-Northern Cheyenne tongue. --Matthead 05:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google counts are funny, especially if they are executed properly. Sorry Olessi, but you should try a little harder and make sure that at least the year is mentioned - if not, its surely no historical account of this battle.

Google scholar is similar:

If it is made sure that it is a history book mentioning the year 1242, and not one about Vikings, Norway, Eisenstein or Prokofiev, the counts for "Battle of/on the Ice" drop to one-digit numbers - surely not outnumbering the "Lake Peipus" variants. This article needs to be moved to the proper battlefield, and that is the name of the lake it took place. Sorry for the Russians which chose not to use their name of the lake at all. See also the Battle of the Nations which is at Battle of Leipzig. --Matthead 05:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel the title should be moved, feel free to use Wikipedia:Requested moves. Olessi 15:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is all very clever, but why is it called in the Alexander Nevsky article "Battle on Lake Chudskoe" without a link to this site? 80.235.63.116 20:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ледняное побоище - Frozen Slaughter UeArtemis (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it is Ледовое побоище. Then, the Ice Slaughter is a better translation, since Frozen Slaughter would be written as замороженное побоище.. Boron eye (talk) 06:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]
  • I support the name Battle on Lake Peipus as this is the way I learned it in German Gymnasium, and as it clearly includes the location. A "battle on the ice" could be anywhere not close enough to the equator.
    • I had never heard of a "Battle of the Ice" until I saw this article relating to Al Nevsky in 1242 - and then I thought I had the wrong battle. I have always heard the battle referred to as the "Battle of Lake Peipus", and "Battle of the Ice" is about as specific as calling Waterloo the "Battle in Belgium". If only for the sake of clarity, the article should be renamed. 122.162.159.49 (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

alternative interpretation

[edit]

I've removed the “alternative interpretation” section of this article. I'm a graduate student in Russian history and I can safely say that this information is factually wrong. If someone disagrees, please post any references you have to any historical work that supports these claims. I'd love to read them, thanks.

    • I added back in the "inaccurate information" a few weeks ago. I edited it according to information found in Eric Christiansen's The Northern Crusades and William Urban's The Teutonic Knights. Christiansen references the First Novgorod Chronicle and the Livonian Rhyme-Chronicle, while Urban focuses more on the Rhyme-Chronicle. Urban is the one who believes the traditional information on the Livonian contingent to be inaccurate (Grand Master, Livonian vs. Prussian knights etc.). Christiansen is more traditional, as he first quotes extensively from the Novgorod Chronicle, and then balances that with information from the Rhyme-Chronicle. I am not trying to present the "traditional" interpretation as being false. Rather, I have books which present information contrary to the traditional interpretation, and feel it noteworthy to include information from both the First Novgorod Chronicle and the Livonian Rhyme-Chronicle. Olessi 18:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm glad to see someone responded. I've read Christenson's book and although I'm unfamiliar with The Teutonic Knights, I've read another book on this subject written by William Urban, called The Baltic Crusade. In my view neither of these authors definitively support any sort of reinterpretation of the evens of this battle. First of all Christenson hardly even mentions this battle, there is barely a page devoted to it in his book. All he does is mention a passage from the Novgorod chronicle and then mentions another passage from the Livonian Rhymed chronicle. There is no analysis of the battle or the sources, it's virtually a side note in his book. Urban (in The Baltic Crusade) does go into some detail describing the battle and he does mention the Livonian Rhymed chronicle in detail. However he himself fully acknowledges the details of the battle, he says directly that the battle involved a large number of combatants on each side and the course of the battle as traditionally presented (Russian archers and the cavalry entering the battle, the knights retreating over the lake and drowning, etc.) is in fact accurate. He also clearly writes that the Livonian Brothers of the Sword ceased to exists in 1237 when they were merged with the Teutonic Knights. So, it was indeed the Teutonic Knights that attacked Russian territories. He does say that it's possible that the remnants of the Livonian Brothers within the Teutonic Knights pushed for this campaign, while others were not so sure of the wisdom of attacking the Russians. To me however, that seems more of an internal political matter within the Teutonic order rather then anything that is directly related to the historical interpretation of the battle itself. Furthermore, he fully admits that this is merely speculation on his part. Even if he is correct in this case, that does not change the scale, tactics, or significance of this battle. Which brings me to my last point. Both of these authors reference the Livonian Rhymed chronicle in their books, what is not mentioned however is that this chronicle is notorious biased and inaccurate. The first thing to mention is, unlike the Novgorod Chronicles, this is not a primary source, it was written over a decade after the battle. Likewise it's biased to the point of absurdity, in Urban's book he quotes a passages where the author claims that Nevsky's forces outnumbered the Teutons 60-1, something that Urban himself points out is blatantly made-up. Here is a link to a small article which describes the Livonian Rhymed chronicle as a historical source. As any historian will tell you these kind of sources can virtually never be taken as the truth. In any case, I think my point stands, what was written in the "alternative interpretation" simply does not stand up to the historical facts.
          • The current version falls short of an unbiased and neutral article. It would do more justice to an encyclopaedia article once the multiple allegorical references and pro-Russian ideological statements are removed. Novgorod Chronicles are fine and dandy, but one would probably benefit more from knowing, e.g., how many, if any, Estonians participated in the battle, what was the name of the "Grand Master", etc. -- even if that information is from other non-Novgorodian sources. Last, but not least, what is the source (legend?) for the claim under the picture of Kuremäe nunnery that Russian soldiers fallen in the Battle on Lake Peipus had been buried there? Kuremäe lies quite a distance from the battle site, in Virumaa (northeastern Estonia) and moreover, in an area that territory was under Danish control in 1242. 08 July 2005

"Twenty brothers lay dead and six were captured". >> Rather a minor skirmish than an event of major significance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.219.33.220 (talk • contribs)

There was always a relatively few number of actual Teutonic Knights, but each one had numerous foot soldiers and sergeants fighting with him. In some chronicles, such "grunts" were expendable and focus was put on the fallen noble knights instead. Olessi 16:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

[edit]

Most of the Knights were German, although there also were a large number of Danes, and the army also included large numbers of Swedish and Estonian mercenaries, there are different figures of how much knights there were, some say 10-12 thousand, some say 400, however, there is a version that there were only 2000-2500 actually german knights, the most forces of Order were probably composed of Estonians, Swedish and other mercenaries. And taking in to account at crushing defeat of knights from turks on 9 april 1241, the version that there were not many teutonic knights, but most were mercenaries from Sweden, Estonia and other. Therefore, Russian forces were numerically a bit more than that of knights, 10000-12000 from Teotonic knights, 15000-17000 from the russian side.

I got really curious after numbers as well, i would think the Livonian Order at that time would field at least 400-500 knights, or heavy cavalry.that would put the total number of their army at at least 1500-2000. The story here seems contradicting that. Then again they had some tradition of storming headlong into disaster and perhaps it was only a Dorpat detachment that fought. Novgorod would have fielded 5000 man rather easily and perhaps more as a major part of the city was Estonians with a grudge against the Teutonic ordres, wich explains after reading the Estonian contribution here, the portraying of prisoners as betrayers, it is a bit strange however when no archeological remains are known, common sense would expect the battle to be fought close to land and so does apparently the folklore, maybe the army went through the ice while crossing and most of the prisoners were survivors caught on the Russian side. Lake Peipsi sedimentation rate explains a lot after all, artefacts would be many many meters deep by now, anecdotically I think they could theoretically be 100s..62.194.105.42 (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

in the year of the battle, the Order had a max of about 350 knights in whole livland. (ordens-chronik), very unlikely that they all have been at that skirmirsh. all in all about 1000 - 1500 man fighting for the teutons. 78.50.53.102 (talk) 04:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed

[edit]

I added Template:Fact to "the Grand Master, some bishops, and a handful of mounted knights" as the quotation marks indicate the text is quoted from somewhere- if so, from where? Aside from unreferenced wiki-mirrors, Google gives me no indication that the Grand Master was there.[1],[2] This link from a 1900 book by Alfred Nicolas Rambaud indicates the Grand Master was not there. I have not found any sites indicating that Grand Master Gerhard von Malberg was at the battle. If he was there, he would have led the crusaders, not Hermann of Buxhoeveden. Olessi 18:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Yershov[3] played "Grand Master Von Balk" in Alexander Nevsky, presumably meaning de:Hermann von Balk, but Balk died in 1239. Olessi 19:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Grand Master was from the Livonian Order, not the Teutonic hochmeister.

Would you happen to have a source for that? The Livonian Order had merged into the Teutonic Order by this time; there was no Livonian Grand Master. The Landmeister of the Livonian Order at this time was Dietrich von Grüningen, but I haven't found any texts saying he was at the battle. The leader of the Catholic army was Bishop Hermann von Buxhoeveden of Dorpat (and who was not a Grand Master). Links mentioning a Grand Master being at the battle seem to be referencing Alexander Nevsky. Olessi 18:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the grandmaster..his name just slipped away....was at Outremer at that time. his second in command, the landmeister von Grüningen, still signing bulls and papers at that time 78.50.53.102 (talk) 04:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Battle of the Ice", facts and legend

[edit]

I can see that someone have deleted the common Estonian (and Latvian) folklore which I described here of the "Battle which was never fought" on the ice of Peipsen Lake. Or was it after all in Peipsen Lake? A closer study the area is important to study the claimed battlefield. What is for sure from written German sources recarding the Teutonic Knights, is that the Knights cathered together at the place then called Rabenstein. Some Knight Brothers were missing from Dorpat and Hermann von Buxhoeveden waited for them. According to other sources, as written by Kari Alenius and Toivo U. Raun "Viron, Latvian ja Liettuan Historia" and "Viron Historia", some, but not many, Estonian had been forced to join the Knights as footmen. There were much greater number of Latgales.

But where is Rabenstein? It makes little difficult for many users to locate the place. It is known now a days Räpina and the Knights most probably had some celebrations there because of Eastern 1242. Peharps the opening of new Roman Catholic church when the Bishop Hermann from Tarbata (Dorpat) was also personally in present. According to current Estonian map there is a place named Ristipalo (Crossburn) located about two km south east toward the confluence of Vöhandujogi and Mödajogi located about four km inland from Bay of Raigla on Pihkvajärv (Pskovskoje Ozero). The word Ristipalo (Crossburn) can mean also a place where cross was burned. In this case maybe later burned Roman Catholic church. The current Räbina Lutherian church was built in 1630s by the time of "Golden Swedish Time" in 1625 - 1717 as the Estonians used to call Swedish - Finnish rule later, when compared to the Russian rule in 1721 - 1918.

The Estonian side is only separated from Novgorodian side by less than five kilpometre bread strait and there are two small islands near Estonian shore on Pihkvajärv / Pskovskoje Ozero. The open iceway to the opposite shore to Cape of Mtesh is less than three kilometres.

If we now look to the Mustneem Puolsaar (Peninsula) on Novgorod side opposite Räbina and Meerapalu we find out some interesting geographical factors. Most of Mustneem (Cape of Black) is covered by inhospitable fen (swamp) landscape. This area had in 1242 only few samall villages as it has even today. On the south coast is only three villages; Peskovitsa, Lutva and Terepista all located along Mustjogi (Black River).

On the north coast along the Remda River there were only few small settlements, small villages Jaama, Lodgoje (on river lake Lodgoje) and Remola. On the shore was Samolva fisherman village.

On the west coast where open fen land ends were two small fisherman settlements, now a days still named Tshudskaja Rusditsa and Tshudskije Zahodo. All these place names gives an impression of original Fenno Baltic population which is infact proven as late as in 1927, taken from maps showing the area inhabited by Estonians and Vatjas in addition to mysterious Tshuudis.

The whole population of the Mustneem Peninsula must have been less than 1.000 inhabitants. The place where the "Great Battle of the Ice" (according to Russian topografic map) was fought on Mustneem Peninsula is located north west of Pskov / Pihkva / Pleskau / Pihkova / Pleskavas / Tolova / Plecekowe / Plicekowe / Plescekowe / Plescecowiec about 75 kilometres.

The battle place is marked to Russian maps on the western edge of north shore of Mustneem Peninsula where the land sharply turns to south.

Between Räbina (Rabenstein) and Mehikoorma (Usmeme) fisherman village (in 1929 total population of Räbinä county was 2795) Pihkvajärv / Ozero Pskovskaja the lake is known in Estonian side as Lämmijärv and in Russian side as Teploje Ozero. The name Peipsijärv / Peipsijärvi / Peipussee etc means that northern side of island chane Piirisaar (Border Island) locateded on Estonian side, and Ozero Osolets, Ozero Stanok, Ozero Voronij, Ozero Gorodets, Ozero Gorshuka located nearest of mainland, less than distance of two kilometres of Samolva fisherman village.

It was on the strait less than two kilometres wide between the marshy mainland fenland and Ozero Gorodets where the battle,according to Russian sources, took place on April 5, 1242. took place and according to written German chronicle on April 11, 1242 six days later.

The shortest route over the ice from Estonian side to Russian side is not at all here. It is between Mehikoorma (Usmene) on Estonian side and Pnjevo on the Russian side where the distance is about two kilometres of open iceway between the shores.

Everyone who has served in army knows well that it is the footman (that times infantry) who rules the speed on which army is marching. And that is in northern areas with a load of 30 kilos less than six kilometres per hour (exactly 5.71 km measured with MTM or Refa time measurement methods). And this in good conditions, witout any snow cover. When moving with skies this is doubled in snow cover. Those who have visited in this area of Estonia knows well that usually in April the snow has smelted away but the lakes have still somekind of ice cover and that is also rapidly smelting, starting from the shore side. We know only from one mention in Estonian folklore of the "Battle which was not fought on the lake of Peipsenjärv", that it was foggy morning. Unfortunately it is not known what kind of weather it was on the afternoon when the battle was said to taken place. Why the Teutonic Knights started to ride about 35 kilometres toward north from Rabenstein, followed by their Latgale and Estonian footmen? This would have taken at least six hours to reach Merepaalu Puolsaar (Peninsula). By this time the footmen would be quite tired and so the horses with the armoured protection covers. Did they choose route over ice by riding from island to island or sraight form shore to shore over open lake, a distance of about six kilometres.

And Aleksandr Nevski (Nevajokelainen), collecting Novgorod mititia, for sure also footmen, marching toward north west over the distance of 75 kilometres, a march which took at least 15 hours, probably much longer time, over the country side crossing flooding Starejeva, Talba, Lipenka, Tshernaja and Rovja Rivers to reach with his troops of 10.000 - 15.000 men the supposed battle place. What effect did the well known "rasputsa" have for this march? Why concentrate his troops to the swamps which effectively restricts even footmen to make any fast movements to say anything of Novgorodian cavalry units. Technically impossible in such weather conditions during that time a year. How was a army of 10.000 to 15.000 men suppied? Aleksandr must have been emptied both Novgorod and Pskov in addition to surrounding coutryside from all food supplies which,by that time a year, were the rest what was left of previous year harvest.

Why the spring thaw stopped Batu Khan and his professional Mongol army between Torzhok and Novgorod just in spring 1239, but not Aleksandr Nevski´s army in spring 1242. Batu Khan also discovered himself the power of weather conditions when he failed to take Novgorod. The thaw turned the hard,firm paths into swollen rivers of rushing water. Horses fell. The riders, trying to raise them, were themselves exhausted. It was decided to call to the gods for help through a woman shaman. She climbed to a tall pine. The pine leaned over, then crashed on the snow, braking its frozen surface. The shaman floundered, sucked down in the black, sticky mud beneath the snow. The Mongol army commander rode forward with a lasso to aid her, but his hoese sank into the morass. The head went under. No trace remained of the two sacrifices to the hungry swamp. The thousand captains stood in close circle, eagerly waiting to hear what their commander had to say. Batu Khan said:" Up till now there has been nothing that could stop me. My army has come across deserts, swum the mighty river Itil and many other great Oruss rivers. Now the evil Oruss mangus try to destroy all my soldiers, and the rivers melt and turn the ways into seas. I will go back. We will rest in Kiptshak steppes." "Back to the steppes," cried the Mongols. The joyous news spread through the whole Batu army, spread out along the black, mud-chured trial. This saved Novgorod and its Princes.

From all these evidents we can strongly assume that the Teutonic knights spent Eastern period of 1242 in Rabenstein and the battle or skirmish took place after Eastern. This also support the theory that the Teutonic Knights took another route toward Pskov and Aleksandr´s Army, which could not have more than in maximum about 5.000 men, most of them collected from Novgorod and Pskov half trained merchant militia forces, stopped at the flooding Starejeva and Talba Rivers about 25 kilometres north of Pskov. Meanwhile the Teutonic Knights rode southward from Rabenstein to Värskä River, had problems to cross it, and it was here that someone of them had an idea to use still existing ice cover on Pihkvajärv / Pskovskoje Ozero. They stayed there overnight and early next morning when the temperature was still under freezing point, rode to the ice of the lake. From mainland they rode at first to Kivisaar / Ostrova Kamenka. From Kivisaar there is open ice to Valgsaar / Ostrov Beloje about eight kilometres. Then to Ostrov Talaben a distance of two kilometres and from there they advanced just to the place of mouths of Rivers Starejeva and Talba where by their bad luck Aleksandr Nevsky´s militia and couple of hundred horsemen were staying, stopped by spring thawn. I believe it was here where the battle or skirmish took place. It seems that in reality the Knights lost about 40 men and six knights were taken prisoners. If it is to believe of this old Estonian / Latvian folklore they seems to have been those who survived, when the ice simply broke under the attacking Teutonic Knights and most of them were drowned with their horses.Alfred Rambaud, using his sources writes; "In the ice of Lake Peipus, Alexandr killed 400 of them (number of drowned?) took 50 prisoners. (number of them actually killed?)

And how the story continues? According to Alfred Rambaud "Russia" (1900) and other literature published in Imperial Russia, Alexander immediately after his triumphic return to Pskov arranged really "old medieval time people jubilee". " He arranged public execution of those Knights who he had captured and they had their necks cut off by their own swords. Honourable way to die. But then follows mysterious; "hang as traitors the captive Vojans (Vatjas / Vadjas) and Tshuudis (Tchouds) and put to death who fell in his hands, exrerminating multi. tude of Tshuudis (Tchouds)."

JN

Perhaps it's worth mentioning that there is NO material evidence that the battle was ever fought, no weapons, armor or bones on the ground of the shallow Peipus Lake near Räpina.80.235.63.116 18:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, both "commanders" of the German side, as stated here, survived the battle.80.235.63.116 08:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell do you want ? A footage of the battle? Heck there are plenty of battles that were fought trough out history yet no archeological remains were found. And the battle was thought on a frozen lake, for all we know the armor of the teutons might have drifted towards the baltic sea through the Neva by now.--GerojiYuga 09:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)--GerojiYuga 09:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, and all the armor, weapons and bones of the 30 knights are now gone. that´s why you never find sunken stuff. it floats away til it hits the Mariana trench. you are right, we want proof of that skirmirsh. 78.50.53.102 (talk) 05:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Order

[edit]

Wasn't it the battle with Livonian Order? Article states Teunonic one. What's wrong??--202.249.212.121 20:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Livonian Order was incorporated into the Teutonic Order in 1237. I changed the article to mention the Livonian branch. Olessi 22:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There were no Teutonic brothers in battle, but only Livonian knights. According to this russian source Livonians were branch of the Teutonic Order with very high level of authonomy. At the same time Novgorod was under Mongols nominal rule. Thus the article should has proper wordings/ Its either Novgorod vs. Livonian order, or Mongols vs. Teutons.--133.41.84.206 11:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Livonian brothers post-1237 are still considered part of the Teutonic Knights, even if they had a great deal of autonomy. The Teutonic Knights were not restricted to Prussia, but had brothers throughout the Holy Roman Empire, the Baltic, and Outremer. Many English language books refer to the Teutonic Knights in the battle, so the phrasing "Livonian branch of the Teutonic Knights" with relevant links seems fine to me. I am not especially knowledgeable about the Mongol/Novgorod ties, although mentioning them seems like overkill to me. Olessi 22:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should be a part of Northern Crusades. The campaigns were connected and at least Eric Christiansen includes this chapter as the Crusade against Novgorod in his book ISBN 0333262433 ; ISBN 0140266534. so there is the reference in case one is needed. --Termer 07:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wasn't actually a battle at all

[edit]

Recent archaeological evidence[citation needed] at the site lends to the now growing belief that the battle wasn't actually a battle at all. It was just a minor skirmish between opposing forces and in no way at all affected the Teutonic Knights future campaigns, as the actual casualties involved were so few. Many now belive that what was in actual fact just a minor skirmish between a couple of hundred men was embellished for propoganda reasons by Alexander Nevsky and his supporters, and in reality there was no such thing as the Battle on the Ice or the Battle of Lake Peipus[citation needed].

Strange thing the enemies of Russians,Teutons,did write about that "alleged skirmish" in a very deep detail stating that 20 knights died there.Taking into consideration that there was just about 70 knights in Livonia at that time,and the fact that 10 to 20 armed men accompanied each knight,it was a major battle of early Medieval age even in an enemies's eyes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.84.5.144 (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the nature of this topic, and the innate disagreement it produces as a result of historical ambiguity, it is quite clear that further discussion is futile. What is clear is that neither primary hisorical source, nor any tangential sources deliver an accurate, unbiased account of this particular event. However, what is also clear is that an actual battle did take place as can be inferred by the cross-referencing of the two sources' statements--they agree in mentioning some event of enough significance to be recorded. In addition, both accounts are very explicit in stating that the armies involved were large and casualties were heavy on both sides. Based on these primary sources, I see no reason to assume that it was a skirmish rather than a battle. The sources deserve the benefit of the doubt, and our own personal inclinations should not take precedent over eyewitness accounts. In my opinion, the article should be edited to reflect the ambiguity of the sources. Current statements are misleading and prone to personal interpretation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.109.122 (talk) 10:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20 Knights lost and 6 captives are from Livonian sources. There were probably more losses, and taking into account that for each Knight there were 10-20 knechts and servants, the total loss is probably 1,000-2,000, which by medieval standards is high. Saying that there was no battle and only a skirmish would be an understatement. It was actually a pretty serious battle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.96.116.49 (talk) 01:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


According to this Russian source, there were no more than 500 knights in the whole Teutonic Order. This means that at least 4% of Teutonic Order warrior elite was killed in a single battle. This source also cites the total German casualties (knights, knechts, squires etc.) were 400, with 50 captured. The Estonian casualties are referred to as 'countless'. This is anything but a minor skirmish. Boron eye (talk) 10:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article you cite relies mostly on Fennell's work, which means a minority point of view. The end of the "The battle" sections deals with this issue.--Darius (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it was fought on the ice, how could there be an archaeological site there? --Mcpaul1998 (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ice melt every spring from Pihkva Lake and the helmets, armours, skeletons etc, if exists, are still in the bottom of the shallow lake in mud. I know only one attempt to collect some reminiscencies from the supposed place where the battle was said to happened. This was done by a German officer during summer 1942 and summer 1943 but I do not know the results of his attemps using local people as divers equipped with German frog man diving equipment borrowed from German Navy (Gotenhafen U boat base). The man was by his civil profession working in one German University (I do not know in which one) and Propaganda Ministerium in Berlin paid some of the expensies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.122.217 (talk) 07:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still advise to remove section

The battle was a significant defeat sustained by the crusaders during the Northern Crusades, which were directed against pagans and Eastern Orthodox Christians rather than Muslims in the Holy Land. The Crusaders' defeat in the battle marked the end of their campaigns against the Orthodox Novgorod Republic and other Slavic territories for the next century.

from the head of the article. The battle's so called historical significance arises mostly from much later hype, like Eisenstein film, and Russian-Soviet propaganda. Speaking here as kinda specialist on Estonian Middle Ages. May I delete abovementioned part, when I will find citeable solid sources for point that in reality it was just one of many skirmishes between Novgorod-Pskov and Tartu bishopry and their allies? I know there are, good solid academic papers, just not now at hand. As of symbol in Russian culture, battle's significance remains great, whatever actual historical facts might be. BirgittaMTh (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

method of casualty calculation.

[edit]

Are we using standard German propaganda method for calculating casualties? All german alllies not included. Get the hint? Where are Estonian casualties? --99.231.48.138 (talk) 12:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.[reply] 

they are all in your mind.

like that "battle"^^ 78.50.53.102 (talk) 04:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disregarding the denialist comments of the IP address above (who hasn't edited anything other than this talk), this is an important question. Both Russian and Teutonic sources state that countless number of Chud' (native tribes) had died. Plus, the Teutonic Order had allied with the Sweden and Denmark, meaning that there would be knights and infantry from these two countries as well. However, no-one says anything about their casualties. As such, 20 knights killed and 6 captured cannot be the true numbers, because it only refers to the Order casualties. Boron eye (talk) 11:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While reading this article after related ones, I took the casualty count related in section "According to the Livonian Order's Livonian Rhymed Chronicle..." as exclusionary in explicitly referencing only "brothers" (at least as translated). According to the article on Teutonic Knights, "The military membership was always small, with volunteers and mercenaries augmenting the force as needed" so counting only "brothers" could omit significant numbers of their own force as well as the allied knights (not to mention Estonian, allied, and freebooter infantry). Would there have been internal sources for the chronicler(s) about other than members? Do histories of other campaigns in Rhymed report on casualties other than brothers? Yellow-lab (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy section

[edit]

The Fennell book, and its position on the battle, are given undue weight, see: WP:UNDUE and WP:GEVAL for a clearly minority view: "The neutrality policy does not state or imply that we must give equal validity to minority views." Further, the placement and size of the discussion of the book's theory is out of place in the Legacy Section as it skews the historical legacy to imply there is a general controversy about whether or not it was an important battle at all, when there is no such controversy. It should be removed from that section and its coverage reduced to make clear it is a minority view.Tttom1 (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I agree that the section exposing Fennell's point of view breaches WP:UNDUE. Fennell's assertions that the battle on Lake Peypus was a minor one are widely contradicted by two points reflected by mainstream historiography: first of all, the fact that there were two papal bulls (1232 and 1237) calling for a crusade to protect recently converted Finland from her neighbours (the first bull mentions the Russians by name). The second bull vows for the destruction of "the enemies of the cross", a term that includes Karelia and Russia. On the other hand, we have a well documented treaty between Novgorod and the Teutonic Order in 1243, in which the knights renounced to any territorial claim over Russian lands. Fennell's opinion should be summarized elsewhere in the article and the section removed.--Darius (talk) 02:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just performed a clean up of the section "Controversies". My proposal is that the section should be removed and the text which remains reduced to a single paragraph at the end of "The battle" section.--Darius (talk) 03:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There most definitely is controversy on Ice Battle. Fennell maybe just is not the best exemple of that kind of opinion. And what about minority...If 1 million Estonians/black slaves said: Estonia was forcibly annected to Soviet Union under military threat/slavery is bad, we do not want it; and 100 million Russians/white slaveowners said: no, it was voluntary entering this big peaceful family Soviet Union was/slavery is good for economy and slaves are willing, then the former opinion is also minority opinion, isn't it? :) BirgittaMTh (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The implications of loss

[edit]

Why doesn't this article mention the possible implications of Teutonic victory? According to this Russian magazine, Order victory would have had resulted in long-term conflict which the Order was highly unlikely to win. However, this conflict would also severely weaken the Novgorod and other Russian duchies, delaying the overthrow of Mongols. Boron eye (talk) 08:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia.....

[edit]

Removed trivia content (references to anime cartoon and some obscure heavy metal band) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.25.180.163 (talk) 05:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Troop numbers

[edit]

What are the correct estimation of troop numbers? The article cites a source that says 2000 on the Order's side, but that is the only citation and the summary in the top right corner says 4000 Order combatants with no citation. That's a huge difference. --70.29.223.113 (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russian article says 15000—17000 vs 10000—12000 with a source written by this proffessor

Requested move 14 February 2015

[edit]
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 to "Battle on the Ice". DrKiernan (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Battle on the ice → Battle on the Ice (1242)? – Noting multiple undiscussed moves of this topic (with use of admin tools to leave no redirects behind!), I request discussion. I believe "Battle on the Ice" is one proper noun name of this, but not "Battle of the ice". Appending the year (1242) is helpful for clarity, I think. "Battle of Lake Peipus" is also possible. -- doncram 14:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC) ----Relisted. Number 57 13:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I tend to think dates often aren't they best way of disambiguating. However I would go for plain "Battle on the Ice" as it is an important battle which quite a bit is known about, the earlier battle looks more obscure, although it should be a hatnote. PatGallacher (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that is a !vote then to move to "Battle on the Ice", which I agree with by my !vote below. --doncram 22:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While this RM has been open, the article has been moved from "Battle on the ice" to current "Battle of Lake Peipus (the Ice)", which is simply awful as an article name, IMO. Also the text of the article has been changed to give alternative name Battle of the Ice, which is simply wrong, also. Battle on the Ice is used, i.e. using ON rather than OF, but there's no support for "Battle of the Ice" --doncram 22:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I see it has been moved back to "Battle on the Ice (Lake Peipus)", thanks. --doncram 01:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to "Battle on the Ice", which is the first-listed choice of editor Srnec and is preferred by editors Ghirlandajo and PatGallacher, above. I opened this RM with a different possible suggestion, but it seems clear this is the common name for the 1242 event also sometimes known as "Battle of Lake Peipus", and this the primary usage for that term. The other asserted usage at the disambiguation page of "Battle on the Ice of Lake Vänern" is NOT exactly the same, and is not credibly supported in Battle on the Ice of Lake Vänern article as being actually used in practice....it could simply be the Wikipedia editor(s) coining that term. "Battle on the Ice" seems indisputably to refer primarily to the 1242 event. A hatnote or "See also" link to the Lake Vänern event can be provided. --doncram 22:11, 6 March 2015 (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.

Ice breaking and people drowning

[edit]

Donald Ostrowski in Alexander Nevskii’s “Battle on the Ice”: The Creation of a Legend contends that the part about the ice breaking and people drowning was a relatively recent embellishment to the original historical story. He cites a large number of scholars who have written about the battle, Karamzin, Solovev, Petrushevskii, Khitrov, Platonov, Grekov, Vernadsky, Razin, Myakotin, Pashuto, Fennell and Kirpichnikov, all of whom don't mention anything about the ice breaking up or anyone’s drowning when discussing the battle on the ice. After analysing all the sources Ostrowski concludes that the part about ice breaking and drowning made an appearance in the 1938 Alexander Nevsky (film) by Eisenstein. So why is this cinematic embellishment written as if it was fact? --Nug (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Location

[edit]

It ought to be a section discussing possible locations of the event. There is much controversy and no universally acknowledged position. But it is surely not the middle of the lake (in its widest part)! I moved the coordinate tag to the centre of Lämmijärv / Tyoploye ozero as a provisory solution. —2dk (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the term "Russia/Russians"

[edit]

Unless it's quoting/directly paraphrasing an English-language source, using the term "Russia/Russians" to refer to the Republic of Novgorod or Ruthenians is inaccurate. "Russia" - a modern nation state tracing back to the Duchy of Moscow, did not exist then, same as Belarus and Ukraine. In fact, in the article the term "Russians" was used in reference to the two Papal orders for a trade embargo, when the actual term used is "Ruthenians". Thus, "Novgorod(ian)(s)" or "Ruthenians" are the accurate terms. 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion, but making such unsourced blanket changes does not follow WP:V. Please update and verify the sources instead. The Papacy used the term "Ruthenia" well into the early modern era to refer to Muscovite Russia, but this has a different meaning in a modern sense, and this did not involve just Novgorodians. Mellk (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mellk there's no source for them being called Russians in present-day English. They could just as equally be called Belarusians or Ukrainians. The term translated is Ruthenians. Are you arguing at the of the current article on the Ruthenians where it says this was a historical term to refer to East Slavic peoples, is incorrectly broad?
Not claiming involved just Novgrodians, that's the primary combatant. 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you not read the secondary sources when you made changes? Mellk (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mellk I did for the latest update. Hence I corrected that one quote. that was understandable and we have to quote the source as written. doesn't explain why you reverted all the changes, including the correction to the paragraph based on a primary source that says "Ruthenian".
Have not seen these two sources?
3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it looked like you used CTRL+F to make these changes. These are also works under further reading and are not cited where you made the changes. Mellk (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I used CRTL+F, but not indiscriminately. In the one mistaken change of a direct quote that I made, I mistook the brackets to be a Wikipedian's editorial note, not themselves part of the quote. That's been rectified.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm seeing in the sources varies. Some switch between Rus' and Russian (Martin, Janet (2007). Medieval Russia, 980–1584.), some seem to use Rus' to describe the land and "Russian" as the demonym for Rus' (Hellie, Richard (2006). "Alexander Nevskii's April 5, 1242 Battle on the Ice". Russian History. 33 (2/4):).
My rationale for changing "Russia/ian" to Rus' or Ruthenia(n) is concerns about conflation with contemporary Russia, which is a different, though related, political polity. Since the sources cited do use Rus' as well as Russia(n), I see no reason that this change shouldn't be made, and good reason for making the change per the accuracy and nationalism issues.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also have notice that this source has the same quote from the Livonian Chronicle and translates it as Rus' rather than Russians. It's also ten years more recent. So this issue definitely has an element of editorial choice.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the specific instances you made changes, what does the cited source say there? Otherwise it looks like SYNTH/OR. For example in The popes and the Baltic crusades, 1147–1254, it says: "During the first decades of the thirteenth century the frontiers of the Christian expansion had moved eastwards, bringing missionaries and crusaders in Finland, Estonia and Livonia into confrontation with the Russians". But I will say that current sourcing is not great. Mellk (talk) 04:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many scholarly sources such as Martin 2007 are inconsistent, as pointed out. Ostrowski generally uses Rus', e.g. in his slight modification of the 1977 Smith & Urban English translation of the LRC, which other English-language scholars usually quote verbatim. He also added the Middle High German original phrasing between brackets to justify this decision, as well as supporting Smith & Urban in their crucial mentioning of "on the grass" (as opposed to "on the ice" in later, embellished, Slavonic sources):
  • Smith & Urban 1977: Nevertheless they decided to attack the Russians. (...) Many from both sides fell dead on the grass.
  • Ostrowski 2006: Nevertheless they decided to attack the Rus' [Rûʒen]. (...) Many from both sides fell dead on the grass [ûf daʒ gras].
This added context was the reason I modified the citation according to Ostrowski. When quoting scholarly sources, we should normally quote them as they are written, otherwise we risk SYNTH/OR as Mellk pointed out. But WP:AGEMATTERS, and more recent translations and renditions are generally to be favoured over older ones. 1977 is quite long ago, from Soviet times when "Russia"/"Russian(s)" was still commonly accepted as a modernisation of medieval Slavonic рѹсь and all its variations and declensions. When the source says Russian troops, but the wikitext is paraphrasing the source, making that Rus' troops is fine, and sometimes preferred. (See also our consensus on the title of Armies of the Rus' principalities.) We won't change quotes by sources/scholars, unless other sources/scholars changed those quotes, as Ostrowski 2006 did with Smith & Urban 1977.
On a slightly unrelated note, I noticed that the LRC makes a few historical errors, such as saying There is a great and powerful city, also in Russia [sic], named Suzdal, and Alexander was its king at that time. (...) Then King Alexander, together with many other Russians [sic], marched out from Suzdal. That's incorrect. The Principality of Suzdal (ru:Суздальское княжество) was an appanage of Vladimir on the Klyazma at the time, and its knyaz ("prince/king") was Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich (1238–1252), i.e. Sviatoslav III of Vladimir. Aleksandr "Nevsky" Yaroslavich's only position at the time was knyaz of Novgorod, and he never became knyaz of Suzdal at any point. The Laurentian continuation of the Suzdalian Chronicle does mention that veliky knyaz Yaroslav [of Vladimir] sent his son Andrey [Yaroslavich] to aid Aleksandr of Veliky Novgorod; thus, Andrey may well have taken a bunch of Rus' soldiers out of Suzdal as narrated in the LRC. But even Andrey was not knyaz of Suzdal until 1256–1264. The author of the LRC definitely got this wrong. Not sure how important it is or if any scholars noticed this, but I thought I might mention it here. NLeeuw (talk) 11:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Schmeller 1844 German edition:
ein stat ist grôz unde wît, diu ouch in Riuzen lande lît: Susdal is sie genant. Alexander was genant der bî der zît künic hiez (...) dô vuor künic Alexander, mit im vil manic ander Riuze her von Susdal.
It's funny how it rhymes in Middle High German, which unfortunately does lead to some choices that prefer literary style over historical accuracy. The relevant word here is Riuze, which as an exonym is very close to its Old East Slavic original Руси (Rusi), the plural denomym for its inhabitants. in Riuzen lande literally means 'in the land [accusative or dative] of the Riuze [genitive]'; the '-n' does not indicate a plural here (equivalent to modern German Russen), but a genitive. This is the Middle High German equivalent of вь Русьскаꙗ землꙗ, in the Rus' land. So I think that Russia is an incorrect, anachronistic translation here. Otherwise, Smith & Urban 1977 are very accurate. I myself would translate this sentence as: There is a city, great and wide, that also lies in the land of the Rus': Suzdal it is named. Alexander was mentioned as the one who at the time was called king (...) Then went/marched king Alexander, with him very many other Rus' from Suzdal. NLeeuw (talk) 12:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that nearly all of the English-language scholarship on this subject refer to Russians. Since it is considered to be part of Russian history only, this is not a surprise. This has not changed recently and it is not as if these authors only use 'Russian' because they are used to outdated terms. I looked at The Clash of Cultures on the Medieval Baltic Frontier (2016) and on the same page it says that Yaroslav the Wise was the "undisputed ruler of Rus' after 1036" and the phrase "thet samma land vart alt cristith – jak tror at rytzakonungen mistit" from the Eric Chronicle is translated as "that same land was wholly Christianized – I believe that the Russian king lost it" which refers to Birger Magnusson's expedition in the 13th century. I have also read older books (for example those published in the 1950s and earlier) that refer to 'Rus', so clearly the idea that most sources have stopped using 'Russian' in medieval contexts because it is now considered anachronistic is incorrect.
Therefore, blanket changes based on personal opinion or through synthesis is not helpful. There are also going to be people who insist that we can only use 'Russian' from the 17th/18th century onwards and that 'Russian' can only refer to 'rossiysky'. There are also going to be people who insist that we must only refer to 'Ukrainians' from the 20th century onwards because the ethnonym was not widely adopted until then and we should instead use 'Little Russian' or 'Ruthenian' for the period before this. Both cases are contrary to most RS. In future, I am going to revert such blanket changes. Mellk (talk) 07:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You also changed a quote here. This translation is from Crusade and Conversion on the Baltic Frontier 1150–1500. At this point, such edits are disruptive and this is not the first time I have had to raise concerns about such edits. Mellk (talk) 07:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I completely forgot about this discussion, I apologize for my edit today contrary to the consensus here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandr Uzhankov 2000

[edit]

A month ago, User:Alaexis and I agreed at Talk:1240 Izborsk and Pskov campaign#Sources to remove the Aleksandr Uzhankov 2000 source on pravoslavie.ru (a semi-official Russian Orthodox Church website). I think we should do so here as well; I'll explain why.

  1. pravoslavie.ru as a source. Although pravoslavie.ru is not necessarily an unreliable source (there is some editorial control, and many authors are experts), it takes a clear side in religious matters, expressing a WP:POV in favour of the beliefs, practices and traditions of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), of which it is a semi-official website. I think it falls into the WP:MREL category: it may be reliable, but should be checked on a case-by-case basis. And for this Uzhankov source, I think we should not use it.
  2. Uzhankov as an expert. Although the author ru:Ужанков, Александр Николаевич is arguably an expert in the field, he has been the subject of some criticism and controversy, and in this particular source also expresses a clear pro-ROC POV, proclaiming 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.
  3. Added value of Uzhankov 2000. Virtually all claims cited in this article either do not appear in the Uzhankov source, or are poorly supported in the Uzhankov source. The main claim is: Uzhankov suggested that Fennell distorted the picture by ignoring many historical facts and documents. I'll break that down here step by step in order to do the claim justice, and not dismiss it out of hand.
  4. A priori assumption of the battle's importance. To stress the importance of the battle,.... Not necessarily wrong, but it seems to assume a conclusion, namely that the battle was important, and then reason backwards to find evidence for that.
  5. Papal bulls. he cites two papal bulls of Gregory IX, promulgated in 1233 and 1237, which called for a crusade to protect Christianity in Finland against her neighbours. The first bull explicitly mentions Russia. I'm not sure if that's what Uzhankov even claims, because he is vague: Еще в булле от 24 ноября 1232 г. папа Григорий IX обратился к ливонским ряцарям-меченосцам с призывом начать активную деятельность в Финляндии, чтобы "защитить новое насаждение христианской веры против неверных русских". В очередном послании от 27 февраля 1233 г. русские (Rutheni) прямо называются "врагами" (inimici). In a булле [bull] of 24 November 1232, Pope Gregory IX appealed to the Livonian Mechenian Knights to become active in Finland in order to ‘defend the new planting of the Christian faith against the unfaithful Rus' ’. In a further послание [message] of 27 February 1233, the Rus' (Rutheni) are explicitly called ‘enemies’ (inimici).
    So first of all, it is not clear that the 27 February 1233 послание [message] should also be considered a papal булле [bull] or not. Second, it is unclear whether Gregory also wrote this second writing. Third, this text does not mention "Russia" (a country), but "Rutheni" (a people). Fourth, Uzkankov does not provide a reference for this claim. I have not been able to find this 27 February 1233 послание ANYWHERE on the Internet. Scholars such as Selart 2015 invoke the Diplomatarium Danicum (DD) or Hildebrand 1887's Livonica, vornämlich aus dem 13. Jahrhundert, im vaticanischen Archiv to study the Latin source texts, but Uzhankov doesn't. We should expect this supposed papal bull or 'message' of 27 February 1233 in Hildebrand's Livonica of 1887, p. 35 or 36, but it's not there. Whenever you google that, you only find websites in Russian repeating what Uzhankov wrote in 2000, usually verbatim. The only authentic Latin text that comes close to it that I have been able to find is this (p. 29): Somewhat post festum Pope Clement VI, in March 1351, issued a number of bulls that explicitly legitimised the crusade by singling out the Russians as 'enemies of the Catholic faith' (Rutheni, catholice fidei inimici), cf. Finlands medeltidsurkunder 1: no 299. But that was over 100 years after February 1233 when Pope Gregory supposedly wrote such words. What we do have are the writings of Baldwin of Alna and William of Modena, which at the time did not call the Ruteni inimici.
    As Selart 2015 pointed out, Baldwin is mostly rebuking the Livonian Sword Brothers for daring to defy him, and thereby the Pope, in 1233. Although there was a Pskovian attack on Dorpat in 1234, by 1236 the Pskovians were already again fighting alongside the Livonian Sword Brothers against the pagan Lithuanians at Saule. In those times, alliances changed so frequently and war and peace followed each other in such rapid succession that yesterday's enemies could be tomorrow's friends. Even if Gregory called the Rus' inimici in 1233 (which we do not have any evidence for, except that Uzhankov says so), the Orthodox Pskovians were allied with the Catholic Livonians again in 1236 (and again partially in 1240), so it says very little about the battle of Lake Peipus in 1242. Finally, who "Finland's neighbours" were in the 1237 bull is unclear, but it probably refers to the Karelians and other Finnic peoples, not the Rus'. At best, if these quotations are genuine, Uzhankov took them out of context, and they bear no relevance to the Pope's alleged involvement in the events of 1240–1242.
  6. Swedish and Danish involvement. The kingdoms of Sweden, Denmark and the Teutonic Order built up an alliance in June 1238, under the auspices of the Danish king Valdemar II. This is the classic Gustav Donner theory of coordination, for which there is zero evidence in our surviving sources. All we've got is the 1238 Treaty of Stensby, which never mentions Rus', Rutheni, Russia etc. If you don't believe me, here is the full text in the Diplomatarium Danicum (DD). It is only an agreement between the Livonian/Teutonic Order and king Valdemar II to share conquests of pagan lands on a 1:2 ratio (de terris acquirendis a paganis communibus expensis regis et fratrum. optineat rex duas partes. et fratres terciam). Sweden wasn't involved, and there was no plan whatsoever to attack, invade, conquer and convert Rus', Russia, Pskov, Novgorod, Orthodox lands, or whatever you might call it.
    Some Russian historians (including implicitly Uzhankov) have argued that this agreement between the Teutonic Order, Denmark and Sweden to conquer and convert Rus' must have been written down in a "secret clause" that is now lost. Now, secret clauses to treaties do exist (e.g. the Act of Seclusion as a secret annex to the Treaty of Westminster (1654)). But as long as you can't demonstrate that there was a secret clause to a specific treaty, it is an unfalsifiable claim that takes us nowhere in science and scholarship, and we cannot assume that such evidence will eventually be found in the future (WP:CRYSTAL). As it stands, we have no reason to believer there was a secret annex to the 1238 Treaty of Stensby containing an alliance between Sweden, Denmark and the Teutonic Order to conquer and convert Rus'.
    What we do have is strong motivations for nationalistically-oriented Russian historians to assert that there was one, so that defeating all three of them makes Nevsky and his Rus' soldiers all the more glorious in their victories. But that is precisely the reason why we should be skeptical of assertions that we cannot prove. Because otherwise, it is just an unproven conspiracy theory (WP:FRINGE), namely: that the Swedes, Danes and Teutons conspired to conquer and convert Rus', but that they kept it so secret that we've got literally no evidence for it.
    Fonnesberg-Schmidt 2007, Selart 2015, Ostrowski 2006 and others even cite evidence against it, such as the fact that Denmark descended into a war of succession when Valdemar II died on 28 March 1241, so that the Danes couldn't have participated in the 1240–1241 Votia campaign. His sons Eric and Abel were too busy fighting each other to launch a crusade in Estonia, Votia, Ingria, the Neva, Karelia, Finland, Pskov, Novgorod etc. until 1244. When they finally reconciled and did launch a crusade in 1244, they didn't get further than Ystad. Plus, the Treaty of 13 April 1241 between bishop Henry of Ösel and the Teutonic Order dividing the acquisitions in Votia was probably a violation of the 1238 Treaty of Stensby, which held that lands acquired from pagans were to be divided 1:2 between the Teutonic Order and the Danish king, not between the Teutonic Order and the Bishopric of Ösel-Wiek.
    Finally, as Selart 2015 points out, although some Danes participated in the 1240 Izborsk and Pskov campaign, there is no evidence that they participated in the 1242 battle of Lake Peipus:
    The participation of the Danish forces is mentioned in the contemporary sources for 1240, not 1242. (...) John Lind’s view that [Livonian Rhymed Chronicle], lines 2241–2242 (“die Rûzen hatten schutzen vil,/die hûben dô daz êrste spil/ menlich vor des kuniges schar”) refers to the troops of the Danish king in the Battle of the Ice is based on a misunderstanding. A Russian army is in fact being referred to, namely the army of kunic [i.e. prince] Alexander (cf. lines 2208–09, 2213, 2226, 2263).
  7. 1243 renunciation of territorial claims. Another point mentioned by Uzhankov is the 1243 treaty between Novgorod and the Teutonic Order, where the knights abandoned all claims to Russian lands. This is solely based on a stretched interpretation of the Novgorod First Chronicle entry sub anno 1243, which relates a prisoner exchange between the Nemtsy and Novgorodians, and the statement by the Nemtsy that they would withdraw their forces from the areas they had occupied, pretty much all of which were inhabited by Finnic peoples at the time, not Slavs. To say that there were "Russian lands" is a strange claim, because there barely lived any Rus'. The only alternative is that these lands were somehow politically controlled by Novgorod already, but as pointed out by Selart 2015, we don't know whether e.g. Votia was a vassal of Novgorod before the middle of the 13th century. That control may have been tenuous at best, challenged by the striving for continued independence by the indigenous Finnic peoples, the rivalry of the Swedes, Danes, Livonian Sword Brothers / Order etc. There are also no sources on the Livonian side confirming any "treaty" in which "territorial" claims on "Russian lands" were supposedly "renounced". One has to wonder whether they were ever made as such. The Novgorodians also couldn't speak for the Finnic peoples, nor the Pskovians etc.
  8. Nevsky's involvement in 1243 negotiations. I might add that Uzhankov is probably wrong when he asserts Если бы это было рядовое столкновение, то, думается, Тевтонский орден не стал бы в 1243 г. в Новгороде подписывать мирный договор с Александром Невским If this had been an ordinary clash, then, it seems, the Teutonic Order would not have signed a peace treaty with Alexander Nevsky in Novgorod in 1243. The NPL states:The same year the Nemtsy sent with greeting, in the absence of the Knyaz. In other words, Aleksandr wasn't there when the prisoner exchange and the supposed "treaty" happened, so he was no party to any peace agreement.
  9. How big and important the 1242 battle was. On the numbers I do not have a comment at the moment, other than that Uzhankov demonstrates an urge to prove that the battle was big and important, because he wants Aleksandr Nevsky to be big and important. That is whole reason for writing this source. He doesn't like the fact that John Fennell and fellow Russian historian Igor Danilevsky concluded the battle was less significant than traditional Russian historiography had been claiming. This is another sign that should caution us to the possibility that Uzkankov's judgement may have been clouded by his personal need for this battle to be big and important, even if the historical sources don't really seem to say so. (Incidentally, that seems to be the very reason why the Uzhankov source was originally [added to this article on 5 April 2009).
  10. Better source needed. We've already removed the Uzhankov source from 1240 Izborsk and Pskov campaign. I've tagged it with Template:better source needed over 3 months ago, but really, we've been waiting for someone to fix this situation ever since 2009. It's just not a very WP:RS in this case. It only adds claims that are dubious, false, unproven, or motivated by reasons other than to discover historically reliable information, but rather to preserve its status as a big and important battle in Russian history. I don't that's a good reason to start with that conclusion instead of examining the evidence before we reach a conclusion.

NLeeuw (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re 7. I think that the 1243 exchange/treaty is notable and should be mentioned, even it wasn't a fully-fledged treaty.
At that time Novgorod could speak for Pskov as it was still a dependency of Novgorod. Dovmont's reign when Pskov behaved more independently started in the 1260s and Novgorod recognised the independence of Pskov only in the 14th century. I think we should change the wording to follow the primary source, unless we have more secondary sources which interpret it. Alaexis¿question? 12:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Alaexis, nice to see you here to join the conversation. It's a good point, but I'm not sure how we should deal with it. Pskov already behaved quite autonomously and even independently decades before 1243, as we can see in the NPL itself. Pskov threw out Yaroslav Vsevolodich in 1228/29 and concluded a defensive alliance treaty with the City of Riga, and in subsequent years with other Livonian towns such as Odenpäh. It participated in the 1236 Battle of Saule, even though no Novgorodians appear to have been involved. Some Pskovians welcomed Yaroslav Vladimirovich (Ghereslawus, Gerpolt?) as their new knyaz in 1240, ousting the pro-Suzdalian faction of prince Aleksander Yaroslavich. All of these are evidence that the city of Pskov and the wider Pskov Land, with its own veche, already acted quite autonomously and independently long before Dovmont. I don't think we can assume Novgorod could always speak for Pskov de facto, even though it only recognised Pskov's independence de jure in 1348. NLeeuw (talk) 12:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yanin describes this as follows В 1243 между Новгородом и Ливонским орденом был заключен мирный договор. Орден отказался от своиx завоеваний в Новгородской земле. (p. 264 of his Encyclopedia of Veliky Novgorod).
The actual chronicle gives us the names of these lands
Perhaps it's debatable whether each of these lands can be considered part of Novgorod Land at that time but we can find a different wording (for example, "disputed territories" or "the land that had been occupied by the Livonian forces").
Yanin describes it as a renunciation of conquests while the source seems to be talking about a withdrawal from the invaded territories (at least if the meaning stayed the same - I'm def not a specialist in Old Russian). I don't think it's *that* important, so let's just mention that a treaty was signed, Livonian forces withdrew and prisoners were exchanged. Alaexis¿question? 22:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
let's just mention that a treaty was signed, Livonian forces withdrew and prisoners were exchanged.
I agree! Anything else is just going beyond what the source says, so WP:SYNTH. NLeeuw (talk) 11:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done [4]. NLeeuw (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Albeit as someone who is not a subject matter expert at all here, based on what you present here I agree that this source is fringe.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! It has taken me a lot of effort to gather all this information over the course of several weeks. I've had to read texts in Latin, Old East Slavic, Middle High German, modern Russian, modern Ukrainian, modern German, modern English, and probably a couple of other languages I'm forgetting right now, using a lot of DeepL, Google Translate, Wiktionary etc. and other language Wikipedias, because the primary sources and secondary literature on this and related topics are all over the place. Mistakes, misunderstandings, mistranslations and misinterpretations are very common. I made many mistakes myself and had to correct them later. Lots of things seem plausible, until you fact-check them. Your first interpretation is probably not your best. E.g. I had been assuming for months that "the king's men" referred to the Danish king. Just this morning, I first wondered whether it might refer to Alexander, and I just happened to find out that Selart 2015 p. 162 made that exact point (see below). The confusion is understandable, because two pages earlier in Smith & Urban 1977, "the king's men" probably does refer to nominal vassals of Valdemar II. It is as Ostrowski 2006 says, there are so many layers to the events of 1240 and 1242 that it is difficult to separate fact from fiction. But I'm trying. If I'm ever mistaken, feel free to point it out. NLeeuw (talk) 14:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've established a consensus to remove Uzhankov 2000 by now? I want to be careful to not act unilaterally. NLeeuw (talk) 14:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Removed Uzhankov 2000 for now. It's like a piece of a different puzzle that just doesn't fit in anywhere, even less so as you find other pieces that do fit. If anyone nonetheless feels it's relevant to include Uzhankov 2000 in some way, feel free to discuss it here below. I thank the contributions of others above to this complicated issue. Wikipedia is never finished, but always a work in progress. NLeeuw (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"the king's men"

[edit]

As mentioned above, Selart 2015 p. 162 wrote: The participation of the Danish forces is mentioned in the contemporary sources for 1240, not 1242. (...) John Lind’s view that [Livonian Rhymed Chronicle], lines 2241–2242 (“die Rûzen hatten schutzen vil,/die hûben dô daz êrste spil/ menlich vor des kuniges schar”) refers to the troops of the Danish king in the Battle of the Ice is based on a misunderstanding. A Russian army is in fact being referred to, namely the army of kunic [i.e. prince] Alexander (cf. lines 2208–09, 2213, 2226, 2263). I'd like to examine each of these here side by side. Refs: Meyer 1876 p. 51–52, Smith & Urban 1977 p. 31–33. NLeeuw (talk) 12:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2208–09: Alexander was genant, die bie der zît ir kunic hieʒ. Alexander was its king at that time. Literally, "Alexander was named, who at that time was called their king."
2213[–15]: dô vûr kunic Alexander, [mit im vil manich ander Rûʒe her von Susdal.] Then King Alexander, [together with many other Russians], marched out [from Suzdal]. Literally, "Then/there fared king Alexander, with him many other Rus', out from Suzdal."
2241–2243: die Rûzen hatten schutzen vil,/die hûben dô daz êrste spil/ menlich vor des kuniges schar. The latter had many archers, and the battle began with their bold assault on the king’s men. (see below)
[2225]–26: [Zû Darbete wart vernomen] / kunic Alexander wêre komen. [It was known in Dorpat that] King Alexander had come. Literally, "In Dorpat, it was found out that king Alexander were to ["would"] come."
2263[–64]: Kunic Alexander was vrô, [daʒ er den sig behielt alsô.] King Alexander was happy [that he had won the battle,] Literally, "King Alexander was happy, that he achieved the victory thus."
It seems clear indeed that the preceding and following verses all point to the kunic ("king") being Alexander. Smith & Urban's liberal translation in lines 2241–2243 is rather confusing and probably incorrect. The German preposition vor means "in front of, ahead of, before", not "on" (wikt:vor#German). Literally, it reads: The Rus' had many archers. They "raised" [initiated] the first "act" [combat, play] "manly" [boldly] in front of the king's army. In other words, the battle began with their bold assault in front of the king’s men. So to reconstruct: The Novgorodian archers stood in front of the army of king Alexander, and they opened the battle by firing arrows at the troops of the Livonian Order and bishop Hermann of Dorpat. That makes military sense, it makes linguistic sense, and also historical-political sense. The "Danish king" was not involved; Eric and Abel were still back in Denmark fighting over which of the two of them had the right to be the Danish king after Valdemar II died in March 1241. And it makes contextual-literary sense that, just like in the lines before and after it, "king" refers to Alexander. NLeeuw (talk) 12:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to correct assault on the to assault [in front of] the per WP:PMC. We could also do [sic], but that doesn't explain what's wrong with it, and what it should read. NLeeuw (talk) 14:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_on_the_Ice&oldid=1263132117"