Talk:Northern Crusades

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Rugians

The Rugians article describes some Proto-Germanic tribe that might've lived on the island of Rugen before the Slavs came there, not the Slavic tribe that was the target of one of the crusades. This needs correction - either in this article or in the Rugians article. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 16:40, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

Right! — This is one of the wonders with Wikipedia.
I guess slavicist knowledge is good for making this. I have none, so I'll refrain.
All in all, there is in my opinion a real problem with medieval and earlier sources. They tend to be too sparse, particularly here up in the North, so you don't really have that much of context and references to know for sure exactly what was ment by certain terms.
Maybe "Rugians", if there were any left, had been as disturbed by that notion as I was by the unhistorical notion of Finns — a term that today primarily is associated with the state of Finland that didn't exist before 1809, and that wasn't created even in the thought before the (late?) 18th century.
Maybe, it would be an improvement to characterize these "crusades" by their target areas instead of their target peoples, since the areas are not as controversial and diffuse.
Please go ahead! /Tuomas 13:23, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Lack of sources indeed is a problem but not in this case. One of the "crusades" was indeed aimed at the Rugians, or rather a Slavic people that inhabitated the island of Rugia (now Rugen). The problem is that the very term is geographical rather than ethnic so perhaps the Rugians article could either be made into a disambiguation or enhanced. I hope there are some Early Slavs freaks around here to do the job. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 14:49, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Orthodox

I expanded the section on Estonians/Livonians and tried to make the result a better fit with previous data relating to other aspects but the result is not a fully coherent article. Someone with detailed period knowledge should work up the existing article into a coherent whole. Ehaver.

Matsuhito, are you questioning that the assertions below are fact? "The Teutonic attempts to conquer Orthodox Russia (particulary Pskov and Novgorod), an enterprise ordered by the Pope [citation needed], can also be considered as a part of the Northern Crusades. Christians of other denominations who were not subordinated to Rome were put on the same level as heathens by the conquerors [citation needed]" . I do not know whether they are fact or not, I did not write them, but in my piece for example I have the pope declaring (a) that the crusades against the Baltic heathen were of equal status to a crusade in the Holy Land and (b) dedicating the Baltic Lands to the Virgin Mary. I agree that every assertion should be verifiable but if we are to support every idea with a quotation then Wikipedia will grow 1,000 times bigger. I suggest that if your research tells you the assertions are wrong you delete them, otherwise let them stand as they were. Ehaver 09.02.2006

well, it talks here about against orthodox crusades, not ones against pagan balts. such information indeed needs to be verified. Matsuhito 17:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russians?

Someone seems to keep adding "Russians" to the phrase "Between 1030 and 1197 pagan Estonia was attacked no fewer than thirteen times by Sweden and Denmark.". I'd like to see a reference to how Russia figures in this count. Also what is "Russia" in this context? The Kievan Rus'? And if they did attack, was it really a northern crusade, given that that term is for Western countries' forceful christianization of eastern ones? (Without more information, I suspect this edit is just Estonian anti-Russian POV-pushing) --BluePlatypus 18:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It is important not to confuse wars against pagan Estonians by Christians (ie crusades) with "crusades" by Catholic Christians against Orthodox Russians - the latter seems to be the bone of contention for some contributors. Between 1030 and 1192, pagan Estonian counties had to repel thirteen seperate attacks by Russians alone. These campaigns, led alernatively by the Princes of Kiev, Novgorod and Pskov, sometimes scored considerable successes, as in the years 1030, 1134 and 1192, when the important Estonian fortress of Tartu was conquered.

Not "conquered" but "founded". A big difference. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Similar military expeditions were carried out by Sweden and Denmark. The first Danish King to begin military operations against the Estonians was Knut the Holy, who reigned from 1040-86. In the year 1197 another Danish King Knut invaded Estonia. In 1191 the Swedes made an unsuccessful attempt to impose Christianity on the Estonians by force. The next Danish expedition, initiated by Bishop Albert, was the ultimately successful expedition of 1219. The Swedes tried again, unsuccessfully, in 1220. During the wars of the Knights of the Sword against Estonian counties, Russian principalities were involved on one side or the other ten times between 1210 and 1224. I have not included this information in the article because it seems to me far too detailed for an encyclopedia which should try to give a summary. -- Ehaver 08.03.2006

It is easy for contributors to write "POV" and use it to justify making changes but the changes must make sense. Someone who thinks they have imporved a text by deleting the word "Russia" from the sentence "attacked no fewer than thirteen times by Russia and also by Denmark and Sweden" is only demonstrating their own POV. If Denmark and Sweden did not attack Estonia thirteen times in the period in question there is no point in making the text say that they did.

Why is anyone surprised that pagan Estonia was attacked many more times by Russians than by Danes or Swedes prior to the arrival of the German Crusaders? The Russian principalities were near neighbours by land, Danes and Swedes had to mount a naval expedition to reach the place.

As for Tartu (see a little bit above in this discussion): Tartu was first mentioned in old Russian chronicles following its capture by Duke Jaroslav of Kiev in 1030. In 1061 it was recpatured by the local inhabitants. So whoever founded it and when, it was certainly not founded in 1192 as Ghirlandajo says above.

Where did I say something about 1192? Yaroslav (Christian name: Yuri) made a raid into Estonia and founded a fort which he named Yuriev after himself. This has been discussed ad nauseum before. Quite irrelevant in this article, however. --Ghirla -трёп- 13:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The article about the Northern Crusades DOES need more editing but this must be done by a period specialist who can integrate everything from the list of campaigns at the start of the article to the piece about the Teutonic Order at the end. Please will non-historians stop trying to "improve" the article by removing single words. -- Ehaver 09.03.2006

Russians were as much victims of the Crusades as the Estonians. To call the East Slavic expansion into Estonia "a crusade" is not proper, as there was no religious motivation behind it. If you feel that the subject is important, write an article about Early East Slavic colonization of Estonia. Just don't call their occasional raids "a crusade". Wikipedia doesn't need original research, you should know it. --Ghirla -трёп- 13:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not disputing that Russians most likely attacked Estonia in that time period. What I'm questioning is whether this qualifies as a Northern Crusade or not, under the common definition of the term? The above doesn't really clairify the issue. If the "13 attacks" figure includes Russian campaigns, and those campaigns aren't regarded as N. Crusades, then the number should be changed. --BluePlatypus 14:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
That's not a Northern Crusade...that's just a war. Adam Bishop 17:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

As I understand, the dispute is because 13 times is the count that includes both Danish-Swedish and Russian attacks, and after removing the word "Russian" the number becomes incorrect. Therefore, I am removing the number - add the new, correct number that would only count Danish-Swedish attacks if somebody here knows it. Alcatel 13:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I suppose I had written off Ghirlandajo as some kind of 21st century nationalist but his last comments shed some light on the picture and prompts further explanation. Our dispute is about one reference in one sentence at the beginning of a section "Subjugation of Livonians and Estonians" out of an article which is currently 49 sentences long. The sentence in question is an introduction to the situation of the Estonian counties PRIOR to the arrival of German Crusaders in the region, which was from 1193 onwards. The point being made does not concern crusades, the point is that since 1030 at least, the Estonian counties had been attacked many times by their neighbours.

Here a note for Alcatel: The original sentence was: "Between 1030 and 1197 pagan Estonia was attacked no fewer than thirteen times by Russians and also by Sweden and Denmark". That means that the Russian pricipalities attacked (OK Ghirlandajo says "raided" which is quite believable, he also talks about "colonisation" which is equally believable and I personally stick to my catch-all and neutral word "attack") thirteen times. To this we can add attacks by Swedes and Danes. According to my information the Swedes attacked once and the Danes at least twice but I do not have access to more specific information about the number of Danish attacks. Therefore 13 is not the total number of attacks the total is at least 16. Unfortunately historical records being what they are we may have missed a few here and there.

I am not calling the East Slavic expansion into Estonia a crusade though I am imagine that to the natives the difference was minimal - some guys come in bringing their own government and their own religion, which at the very least takes precedence over the old religion of the natives. Given the evangelical nature of the Christian gospel I am sure no Orthodox priest or monk slept easy in his bed knowing that the neighbours were worshipping Thor or tree spirits... OK OK this is pure speculation let me come back to the point. I accept the article's opening definition "The Northern Crusades, or Baltic Crusades, were undertaken by Western Europeans against the "still heathen" (i.e., non-Christian) people of North Eastern Europe around the Baltic Sea". I am also prepared to accept the attacks by the Teutonic order on Russian Principalities as part of the "Northern Crusades" or at least as a relevant footnote to them, which is why I took issue with Matsuhito (his edit 9th Feb 2006). Let me come back to our one sentence out of the 49 sentences in the article. It is important that the stage be set leading up to Bishop Albert's arrival at the mouth of the Daugava river in 1200. That includes 13 attacks by Russian Principalities. Don't try to take away events that have been recorded in chronicles. If you have anything to add about Estonian raids in the territory of Russian Principalities then please go ahead and add to the rich tapestry of history for us.

Finally, about Yuriev: According to Estonian historians and apparently according to Russian chronicles, in 1030 Yaroslav conquered an existing Estonian fortress at Tartu and established his own fortress of Yuriev on the same site. Therefore Tartu was not founded by Yaroslav, it existed before. -- Ehaver 12.03.2006

[edit] Explanation to Olessi

Regarding the inclusion of the wars against Novgorod as Northern Crusades, I would like to note that these wars are far from always included as a part of Northern Crusades (in fact, I have yet to read a single book that would claim that these wars were a part of the Northern Crusades (if you know any, give me the name of it) - these wars are usually explained in the books about the Northern Crusades as they are related, but not *because* they are part of the Northern Crusades). The crusades were (officially) against the pagans (to christianise them). Attacks on the Orthodox lands were largely related to the will of the attacking nations to expand their territories. As it says in the article, " can also be considered as a part of the Northern Crusades". "Can be considered" and "are considered" are two different things; minor theories should not be included in the introduction. Therefore, I will edit the introduction. Burann 18:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Salutations, Burann! Eric Christiansen's The Northern Crusades (Amazon), one of the more regarded books on the topic (in North America, at least), definitely includes the campaigns against Novgorod by Sweden and the Teutonic Knights as part of the Northern Crusades. From the back cover, "Inspired by the Pope's call for a Holy War, Scandinavian rulers and German military monks conquered and settled Finland, Estonia and Prussia, before turning on the eastern empires of Orthodox Novgorod and pagan Lithuania. These 'Northern Crusades' are less celebrated than those in the Middle East, but they were also far more successful." While you may be right in that in traditional historiography the Northern Crusades were restricted to the activities of the German knights, the campaigns against Orthodoxy are now sometimes included (Christiansen, Urban). Any objections if I include a phrase such as "...southern and eastern shores of the Baltic Sea. Swedish and German campaigns against Orthodox Russian principalities are also sometimes considered part of the Northern Crusades."? Olessi 20:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for providing the information, I haven't read the Christiansen's book. Ok, you can add it indeed. Also it would be good then if you would write in parenthesis the name of the particular book because, as you and I have said, in traditional historiography only the German Orders' conquests (the Orders were purposefully created for the crusades, unlike states like Sweden which were ordinary states) are considered to be Northern Crusades. Burann 20:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I recommend picking up a copy of Christiansen's book, if possible. His work seems balanced and comprehensive to me, and is not written in a dry style. Olessi 20:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I remember reading the first edition of Christiansen´s book several years ago. I recall it had a lot of errors and mistakes.217.112.242.181 11:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
From the introduction to his second edition: "The work on which the first edition of this book was based was composed in haste over twenty years ago, and the author has had time to repent of the many errors and misconceptions which it contained. The flowering of Baltic and Northern medieval research since then has made it necessary not only to correct mistakes, but to revise almost every conclusion from the evidence. The very notion of 'crusade', as it existed in the 1970s, has been largely discredited, and dark areas of Lithuanian and North Russian history are being continually lit. These developments have resulted in a fuller section of further reading at the end of the book; although work published in English or French is still scarce" (p. 5). Olessi 14:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Grunwald

The timeline says, that in 1410's Battle of Grunwald - Lithuanian forces led by Grand Duke Vytautas with a combined army of Russians, Tatars, Poles and Czechs defeated the Teutonic Knights. That is true, but most of the allied forces were Polish and led by the Polish king (who was... :) Lithuanian). I think the sentence should be rephrased somehow, so it wouldn't seem like the Polish knights were just part of the army that was fighting together with Lithuanians and second to last in significance judging by the order in which the nations are mentioned. Of course Lithuanians are most relevant to this article and probably Russians as well (although I guess these Russians might have been actually Ruthenians). I don't know how to rephrase this sentence, but it these little subtleties that make the truth in history go wander. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyzzer (talk • contribs)

Thank you for pointing that out. Looking into the situation more closely, the information has been copied directly from this external link. With Wikipedia:Copyright problems in mind, I will remove the text from the article. The actual information, of course, is accessible through the page history or through the external link itself. Olessi 17:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Norwegians, too

Should we add the Norwegian expedition to Finland, the attack of the (then young) Norwegian Christian king Olaf who became later the "Saint Olaf"? He was already Christian during the attack and became later widely known and worshipped (of course, not only because of taking part in the attack). Not only is he depicted in Medieval Scandinavian church paintings as sailing to pagan Finland but even in Finland there are surviving paintings of him in the walls of the Medieval church buildings. While his attack is not usually attributed as being crusade in nature, the connection to attacking then pagan Finland is extremely clear. The exact year is not clear but sometimes it is placed in the year 1008.

For some odd reason this whole matter is almost never mentioned in English-language sources, I believe many have not even heard about this before, but it's a well known thing amongst historians in Finland. For example there is nothing mentioned about this in Wikipedia's article on him (Olaf II Haraldsson) which is strange considering that both the Nordic sagas and church wall paintings agree on this matter.

The Northern Crusades is systematic warfare in the 12-13 century. The one Norwegian attack in 1008 doesn't fit in really. It belongs to Early Finnish wars and that's where the facts including Battle at Herdaler are listed. --Termer (talk) 02:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)