Talk:Livonian Crusade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Livonian Crusade article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Article title

"Teutonic-Estonian War" does not seem to be a title used in English.[1] "Conquest of Estonia" has been used,[2] but can sometimes refer to campaigns in other centuries. Any other alternatives? Olessi 02:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Another option would be to expand the article into the "Livonian Crusade", a phrase certainly used in English.[3] Olessi 04:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
If the article is expanded in scope, Danish participation in the region should be detailed as well. Another reason not to use the current title, "Teutonic-Estonian War", is because the Teutonic Knights did NOT conquer this region. The Livonian Order conquered the area first and were then assimilated into the Teutonic Order. Olessi 00:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

article

I copyedited the article and removed some duplicate information. The content currently describes the medieval conquest of Estonia, so I moved it to Conquest of Estonia. Further changes to the title would be considered, of course, I just wanted to be bold and move it from the previous less accurate title. Ideally, I think the article should be expanded to Livonian Crusade and describe the conquest of lands south of Estonia. Olessi 03:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"Estonian Crusade" is not a phrase that has been accepted into English usage. IMO, the article should be expanded to describe the full conquest of Livonia, thereby allowing a move to "Livonian Crusade". Olessi 00:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This article seems to be meant for what Estonians call Eestlaste muistne vabadusvõitlus which can be translated to English as Estonian ancient fight for independence or Estonian ancient fight for freedom.--Staberinde 16:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This article seems to be an excellent expansion of my earlier contribution "Subjugation of Livonians, Latgalians, and Estonians" in the Northern Crusades article. Coming to the topic of the right name: Why does this need to be a separate article? Of course for Estonians " Eestlaste muistne vabadusvõitlus" is a topic of its own, but for the benefit of the rest of the world, wouldn't it be better to integrate the expanded article back into the Northern Crusades? Kevin Ehaver 194.126.101.135 07:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

for the benefit of the rest of the world? Please note that this artice is not a part of WikiProject World but WikiProject Estonia. Since Estonia is a country in the world, it has it's own history. Like nobody would integrate Occupation of Denmark into general article about WWII. nobody is going to integrate the "Muistne vabadusvõitlus" into Northern Crusades. The current name: "Estonian Crusade" is far from being factually accurate of course. There is no such thing in any history book. regarding the title, The Estonian "Muistne vabadusvõitlus" -the ancient fight for freedom, Since the "Eesti Vabadussõda" has been most often translated as Estonian War of Independence, I would call the article Ancient Estonian War of Independence--Termer 00:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

How about Estonia in the Northern Crusades ?--Termer 08:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This one could work. The previous one is problematic; if used, it should be reworded. I can propose Estonian Ancient Fight for Freedom.
This is better on two points: first, it places Estonian into the grammatically proper position; second, it takes into account the distinction of freedom and independence, and third, it properly considers the issue of low level of organisation in this "war", too low to be properly considered a war in its common meaning. Digwuren 16:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
With article length in mind, I would not support merging this article into Northern Crusades. While my preferred plan of action would be to expand the article so it could cover an entire Livonian Crusade, Estonia in the Northern Crusades makes sense for the current scope of the article. Titles using "independence" or "freedom" do not seem as neutral. Olessi 16:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Eestlaste muistne vabadusvõitlus is a well-accepted Estonian name for the concept. Vabadus, which can be translated as freedom or independence or liberty is a part of the name. Acceptance in scholarly circles trumps your weird neutrality concerns. Digwuren 21:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It may be an accepted concept in Estonian historiography, but it is not known in English. The article describes what happened to Estonia during the Livonian Crusade. As such, the more neutral title is Estonia in the Northern Crusades. Olessi 22:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The title Estonia in the Northern Crusades could be considered teuton-centric POV, because while the PR machine of the Teutonic Knights spun it as a crusade against unbelieveing heathens, the POV of the locals saw it simply as a struggle against a foreign power intent on subjugating them. I think we need to examine the sources further before settling on an appropriate name. Martintg 01:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Everything sounds good in here. The only thing I should point out to Olessi perhaps. There are many things not (commonly) known in English, that’s why it's good to have the section "did you know that..." on the front page. Since there are numerous books published in English that talk about The Estonia's Ancient Fight for Freedom. first of all the Historical Dictionary of Estonia By Miljan ISBN 0810849046 mentions the term of course on page 310 [4]. For example The Crusades and the Military Orders ISBN 9639241423 by József Laszlovszky and Zsolt Hunyadi [5] talks about the EAFfF on p. 470. The era is referred to as Estonia's ancient struggle for freedom in Old Estonia by Gustav Rank on p.42 ISBN 0700709126[6] etc. etc. There are at least 2 refs available at google scholar that speak of the EAFfF [7].So there shouldn't be any problems with introducing the term to WP. However, I agree that Estonia in the Northern Crusades would be more neutral title and the EAFfF can be referred to in the article that the chapter is called this and that in Estonian history. That would hopefully eliminate the fear of a teuton-centric POV , the one Martintg has mentioned.
Now, there is one "problem" remaining. The article in the current state needs to be rewritten from scratch. I'm on it and it's going to be written mostly with the attention to military history, date by date , battle by battle. It means most of this article is not very useful and would be wiped off. Since the article already contains facts from the Livonian crusade in general and things that belong to History of Latvia, I would rename this one Livonian Crusade like also has been suggested, leave it for extension the way it is and write the new one from scratch that would become main article linked into Northern Crusades+ this one. If everybody is OK with the plan? I'd get back to it latest in the end of October or so. Thanks--Termer 06:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I would have no problem with merging the information into a Livonian Crusade article similar to the other Crusades articles. Olessi 18:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I've redirected the Livonian Crusade to this one for now since the Northern Crusades is the root article and Livonian Crusade is a chapter, the closest to this one here. I'd wait with renaming the article as Livonian Crusade until the others have said what they think of the plan. And most likely I'd rename it only when the new Estonia in the Northern Crusades is ready --Termer 05:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Given all the references you found (excellent work!), I think I have to agree with Digwuren and say that Estonian Ancient Fight for Freedom as a more suitable title. Martintg 06:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, since we have Olessi here who has shown competence in (also elsewhere on WP) how the Germans look at things, I would need to have him confirmed this. In case there is going to be a dispute here regarding the title, a good article about the subject is never going to happen. I hope that this is not a coal here. Thanks--Termer 06:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a random thought, how about paying tribute to Henry of Livonia, thanks to whom mostly we can write articles about the subject nowadays. Since he named the relevant books of his chronicle, "Concerning Livonia" [8] and "Concerning Estonia"[9] it might be stylish perhaps to include it somehow instead of...what we talked about earlier. Lets say how about Crusades concerning Livonia and Crusades concerning Estonia? These 2 articles would make then addition to Wendish Crusade as main articles of the root article Northern crusades? --Termer 08:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Crusades concerning Estonia would be a better title than the current "Estonian Crusade", but I still think an expansion to "Livonian Crusade" would be best, as that is the terminology used most commonly in English. If the proposed "Livonian Crusade" article becomes too long, then I could see splitting it into separate articles. Even then, I think Estonia during the Livonian Crusade would be a better title for this portion of the split. Anyway, in order to receive greater input and discussion from the community, the proper avenue to pursue is Requested Moves. Olessi 16:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

"Livonian Crusade" like the "Baltic Crusade" has been introduced by William Urban I believe, who is one of the few if not the only author who has written on the subject more in depth. Other than Eric Christiansen and his The Northern Crusades that includes everything from the Wends, Prussians, Lithuanians all the way to Russia. Therefore saying that "the terminology is used most commonly in English" would be correct perhaps but its one guy only who has come up with this. At the same time the primary source Henry of Livonia clearly separates the events between Livonia and Estonia.
I don’t object to an idea expanding this article, calling it Livonian crusades (according to Urban) and then later making another main articles according to Henry of Livonia, Crusades concerning Latvia perhaps and Crusades concerning Estonia that are needed for History of Estonia and Latvia on WP. And please make it clear once more if you object the idea calling the future article Crusades concerning Estonia like suggested: Estonian Ancient Fight for Freedom.--Termer 17:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
PS. I strongly object the idea of Estonia during the Livonian Crusade simply because Livonians and Estonians back then were different people living in different territories.
I think Crusades concerning Estonia would be shorter and more precise unlike Estonia in the Northern Crusades.
While Olessi considers titles using "independence" or "freedom" not as neutral, the same could be said for "Crusade" which is rather POV in my view since it implies God was on the side of the Livonian Order against the Estonians. Martintg 21:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't use Estonian Ancient Fight for Freedom as the title actually by myself. Since the Letts and Livonians, after becoming Christians and after joining the crusaders were motivated fighters against still pagan Estonians due to ages of rivalry, constant raiding between the neighbors. Calling the whole thing Estonia's freedom wouldn't be exactly politically correct I'm afraid since it would imply like it was about the freedom to go on with the raiding. That was one of the reasons for the crusades to happen in the first place. to put an end to the pagan raids from the east coast of the Baltic Sea, to protect the German traders over there. Regarding mentioning "crusades" by itself as being a POV, well, it didn't sound too serious since it would be fair to say: from the Estonian, Latvian etc. POV the crusades were taken against them.--Termer 21:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This point does have merit, and it may be relevant that the term Estonian Ancient Fight for Freedom was, to some extent, chosen by the Soviets for propaganda purposes. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not in a position to create a new name for the concept. If another title is chosen for the article, it needs to be well-supported by the Sources. Digwuren 01:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
William Urban might have popularized the phrase "Livonian Crusade", but Google Books does present some publications using the terminology in the '60s and '70s, as well as one fiction book from the 1890s. Using Martintg's logic, would he support retitling other articles related to the Crusades? Perhaps "First Crusade" should be renamed, as it is POV since it implies God was on the side of the Franks against the Muslims. While I do not think Crusades concerning Estonia is the ideal title, I think it is better than the current title. Olessi 22:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Since this article is a sub-article of Northern crusades, and that article already as a section called Subjugation of Livonians, Latgalians and Estonians, would not a better title be Subjugation of Pagan Estonia? Martintg 00:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Livonian Crusade

Few points I'd like to make for a conclusion at this time. To sort things out, to make sure everybody is on the same page here. "Livonian Crusade" by itself makes only sense from a “POV” that the conquered lands all together were called Livonian Confederation later on. Therefore looking at it from very far away,(Like Urban from the US back in the 50-s when he started to write about the subject) calling the whole thing that preceded the Livonian Confederation accordingly-> Livonian Crusade, makes only sense in that context.
Now, since nowadays this involves 2 countries, Estonia and Latvia, the chapters of the crusade are also separated by the primary source: Henry of Livonia, it comes down to a question do we need one article that covers everything like urban put it + one for each that would concentrate on the events in each country separately or do we need only 2 additional articles to cover the subject, one for Latvia and another one for Estonia?

Well. Since we don’t have I think anything for each country separately at the moment. And since this already covers parts that belong to History of Latvia, how about proceeding with the plan for now like already also suggested: calling this one right now Livonian Crusade, expanding it so that it covers everything according to William Urban. Then it could be used as a chapter in history for both countries for now. ..That proceeds with Livonian Confederation that also involves the history of both countries, Estonia and Latvia. And then, once time permits, everybody can make the country specific articles as sub-articles for this one that's called the Livonian Crusade in general. That’s a quick solution to get rid of this Estonian crusade that doesn’t make any sense.
Especially because Subjugation of Livonians, Latgalians and Estonians is basically the Livonian Crusade by Urban, not the "Teutonic-Estonian War" or "Estonian Crusade" that again, doesn’t make any sense because it refs to Estonia only, not to Livonians, "Latgalians" and the link to "main" at Northern Crusades is therefore currently simply factually incorrect.

Therefore please let me know if we should proceed with the plan, calling the article "Livonian Crusade" for now that covers the history of Estonia and Latvia, would be in accordance with the Subjugation of Livonians, Latgalians and Estonians and then taking it from there until new main articles emerge for each country? Thanks--Termer 04:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with these proposals. The only thing I would point out is that Urban began publishing in the 1970s (according to the LOC), not the 1950s. Olessi 13:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Right on Olessi, my mistake, it was in 1975. --Termer 06:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, your proposal seems valid. Martintg 10:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've listed the article at WP:Requested_moves#Uncontroversial_proposals --Termer 08:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do not think that move was good idea. Those were effectively separate campaings, Estonians were attacked then Livonians and Latgalians were already subjugated. In fact Livonians and Latgalians actively participated on German side aganist Estonians. So having them on infobox at same side with Estonians is actualy quite inaccurate.--Staberinde 18:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The infobox is messed up, I agree. But the content of the article is currently in sync with the title. And all the other points you had have been covered here. Please take your time and read the talk page and the article. Thanks!--Termer 21:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
PS.Actually, simply because the Livonians and the Letts switched sides often it's going to be difficult to make this infobox proper. Only the Livonian chief Kaupo was one of the faithful allies of the crusaders until his death. Also, by the end of the war Estonians were used against Estonians by the crusaders, so it was a big mess. Perhaps it's better not to use the infobox at all?--Termer 23:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that Latgalians, and probably also Livonians, contributed on german side actualy more. I started thinking about creating separate article for Estonian campaign but then I noticed that in this article here practically everything is about Estonian war anyway, fighting aganist Livonians and Latgalians(who did not put up any real resistance as far as i know) is here limited to three sentences.--Staberinde 12:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latvians

Latvians did not exist in 13th century, these should be Latgalians---- Xil...sist! 18:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right, they were called also the Letts I think back then.--Termer 21:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No doubt about that, but that is not relevant, I corrected Latvians I spoted to Latgalians and Balts---- Xil...sist! 16:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anacronistic armour!

The pictured armour is not of this kind, that was used in early 13th Century! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.110.66 (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the armor is authentic, just that perhaps it would better illustrate Livonian Order. Meanwhile please feel free to provide an image of armor that was used in the early 13th Century. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)