Talk:Battle of Kulikovo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Incorrect translation removed:
Russian word "kulik" does not mean snipe, but shorebird or wader. Thus calling this battle Battle on the Snipes' Field is incorrect. You may as well call it Shorebird Field, Wader Field, or use many other shorebird names (Godwit, Woodcock, Sanpiper, etc.). The battle is not well known in the west, so calling it Battle of the Snipe Field only adds to confusion. Vitoldus44 18:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] A preceding battle is missing
The battle of Kulikovo was not the first Russian victory over the Golden Horde as it is often claimed. In 1378 or 1379 the Moskovites defeated an incursion force led by Begich at Voja or Vodja river. That Tatar failure lead Mamai into gathering a much larger punitive force and meet combined Russian forces at Kulikovo in 1380. Vitoldus44 18:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Genovese infantry
I have read that Genovese infantry (pikemen?) were hired by the Tatars and formed center of the Tatar battle order. Interestingly, some source mention the Genovese and other do not. I wonder if there are any Italian sources about this battle? Vitoldus44 18:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- this Italian source http://www.mondimedievali.net/medioevorusso/battaglia.htm does mention that Genovese infantry indeed formed the Tartar center, but it doesn't say what arms they used. I will translate the sentence where their presence is mentioned: "Il grande contingente genovese a piedi, che avrebbe dovuto affiancare la terribile cavalleria mongola con gli archi lunghi."= The great Genovese contingent, which should have flanked the terrible mongol cavalry with their Long Bows. (as my Italian is not perfect I'm unsure if the mongols or the Genovese are meant by their...) JHope, I could help. --noclador 17:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Russian affairs are "too west" for me, but I heard that some scholars claim that the Battle of Kulikovo didn't happen or at least it was a trivial incident because it was recorded only in a Russian chronicle and diplomatic documents nerver mentioned to the battle. --Nanshu 00:30, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
- In fact, in the time when Russia was under Mongols, even few west chronicle mention Russia, no words about russian events. But if you will study the influence of the Battle of Kulikovo, you will drop this claim of "some scholars". Alexandre Koriakine 14:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] How true were Vandals for we know of them only from the Romans?
But you can find the info of the Battle in the Timuride hystoriography as well as in polish and Lithuanian history. Though it seems that it was "too east" for the french and germans and obviously none of them were at the Kulikovo to observe the Battle. But there are other interesting ideas about this big event in the Russian hystory. Some evidents say that Prince Dmitry was supported by Tokhtamysh and the Golden Horde establishment while Mamay was blamed in the Horde as the usurper and sort of outlawed there. And Mamay was supported by the Lithuanian Grand Duke Yagailo and the Genoesemoney and forces. So the importance of this event for the Russian hystory may well differ from the view of the world hystory, the Horde hystory or the history of the East Europe. Regards, Dizzie.
>>for the french and germans and obviously none of them were at the Kulikovo to observe the Battle
The Genoese were. There were Genoese mercineries from the Genoese Crimean colonies fighting for the Tatars. Gaidash
Mamai was not a head of Golden Horde, he was rebelled military general opportunist using the split between Golden Horde hairs in his advantage, which had gathered quite significant forces and money in his hands with support of Genoese Traders from Crimea. He was in war with Tohtamich the legitimate khan of the Golden Horde, so Mamai cannot be called the head of Goldern Horde, or having any Golden Horde status as he him self was in war with Golden Horde, and his armies were heavily packed with mercenaries. Armancho
I'm sorry: "Mamai or Mamay was a powerful military commander of the Blue Horde in the 1370s" this is the text from "Mamai" article. And here I read that Mamai was the military leader of Golden Horde. What is correct version? I'm confused 124.32.179.154 00:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
You see, the problem is that there is almost no evidence of mongol rule in parts of Russia which were captured (Novgorod, strongest province, remained outside of anyone's influence), the only things we have is "timewritings" as russians call it. And these might have been written specifically for political purposes by people loyal to Moscow just to justify Moscow's ambitions for rule over the whole region of what would become Russia. This theopry gains more and more strength considering that more and more inconsistencies are found in so-called "timewritings".
That is why I added "supposed" to last paragraph, because it is not yet an established or at least disputed fact whether there was mongol rule over what would become central and southern parts Russia.
why it is "moskovian"??? in this battle were take part all people of rus
[edit] English Grammar - not!
Argue about the factual content by all means, but would it not be a good idea to ensure that the article is written in grammatically accurate English first of all? The text is riddled with examples of the characteristic errors that speakers of Slavonic languages make in using the definite and indefinite articles (including the omitted article)in English. Also errors of sentence structure and phraseology are present.
I have spent time on so many occasions in the past trying to render articles into correct English that I don't feel like tackling this one! 86.158.93.52 (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Link to article in Pravda on this battle
http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/87/347/16170_Kulikovo.html [1]
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.75.77 (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)