This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all
list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a
WikiProject dedicated to coverage of
Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the
project page, or contribute to the
project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
The following discussion is an archived 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.
Russo-Swedish Wars →
List of Russo-Swedish Wars – Per
WP:DABCONCEPT, this appears to be a collection of links referring to a series of wars between Russia and Sweden (not all of which are even titled "Russo-Swedish War"). I think that this is better treated as a list, which can have the entries put in a table with additional information, than as a disambiguation page.
bd2412T21:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I have no objection to an alternative, so long as it makes clear that this is in fact a list of articles addressing wars between these two particular countries. My objection is to the current characterization of this list as a disambiguation topic.
bd2412T15:24, 2 January 2014 (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.
Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2015
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
My guess is that there's some continuing vandalism about adding yesterday's Eurovision Song Contest to the list. I saw a screenshot of the edit on another site and came here to see if it was still up; it's not, but my guess is that someone keeps trying to add it back in. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
50.158.178.23 (
talk)
19:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Gvssy, would you mind me opening this discussion again? I think that the
Invasion of Åland should be included. Sweden was even involved in the
Battles of Godby [
FI, and i dont think it needs to be a declearation of war for it to be included on the list. Although, i wont drag this discussion out, if i do not have your blessing to edit it in, then i wont.
Dencoolast33 (
talk)
09:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't have any objections to it, if Swedes actively fought against Russians during the Battles of Godby it should be included although perhaps put a note explicitly saying that there was no official declaration of war.
Gvssy (
talk)
09:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Dencoolast33: First of all, edit warring is not cool. After your suggestion was reverted, the best way to continue would have been to start a discussion in order to create consensus, see
WP:BRD. Failing that, I will start it, since I do not fight edit wars.
Re 'Soviets' / 'Soviet Russians': Not as strange as you suggest. The term 'Soviets' is a demonym that was used for citizens of the Soviet Union, which was founded in 1922. It does not make sense to use the term about people in connection with things that happened before that time. However, the Soviet Union was a union of states that had existed for some years, the first of them created with the October revolution of 1917. They were Soviet socialist republics, where the term 'Soviet' is a description of the form of government in those states. The largest of them was the Russian one, which also was a federation, so it was named the 'Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic' in short often called 'Soviet Russia'. It was an independent state from 1917 to 1922, and the demonym for citizens of that state is 'Russians', or, in order to distinguish from the pre-revolution citizenship, 'Soviet Russians'. So your piping [[Soviet Russia|Soviets]] is faulty. It will have to be [[Soviet Russia|Soviet Russians]] or simply [[Soviet Russia|Russians]]. Please correct this.
Re 'mistreatment' and fake news: This is a list article, where the target articles are supposed to give depth to the entries. In this case, the target article has a thorough analysis of the background and reasons for the actions of the various parties to the conflict, and it just mentions the alleged arbitrary and disorder of the Russian troops as a part of the reasoning behind the decision to send out the expedition. Rumours about chaos and bloodshed on Åland was certainly a part of the background for the invasion and not least for its timing. However, the sources do not give this as the only reason for sending the expedition. Your suggested text is completely
WP:UNDUE and bordering on
WP:OR and
WP:SYNTH.
Personally, I'm not very educated on this topic, but the note should be shortened to something else, although I don't have any suggestions for it. I won't get involved much.
Gvssy (
talk)
22:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Im sorry, i did not mean to edit war. I reverted your edits so i dident have to get back some my old text back manually and add a knew source that was to your liking as the reasson for your revertion of my edit in the first place was becuase you did not thinnk my source was credible enough. I do not know if thats rude as im unfamiliar with wikipedia customs, but if so, i am sorry. Do whatever you want with it, i think that both you and i would benifit if this discussion remained short, but please know that i did not mean any harm.
Dencoolast33 (
talk)
07:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Sources
Do the mainstream sources really treat this as a war? I can't remember ever having read anything which claims that Sweden was at war in 1918. I just re-read the pages on this in
sv:Sveriges historia (Norstedts) and that description doesn't really speak for including it here. Which books or articles do? /
Julle (
talk)
12:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Julle: In the section
#More wars? above, it is stated that Sweden was even involved in the Battles of Godby. If that is correct, it would probably mean that the invasion of Åland belongs here. However, I cannot see that any of the sources actually state that Sweden was directly involved in the Godby fightings. I agree that better sources are needed to include this at all.
Dencoolast33? --
T*U (
talk)
13:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
well, Swedens involvment in the battles of godby was pretty small. Sweden ambushed a russian military transport killing one, the response from the Russians was bombarding Finström (a small village in Åland were the ambush occured). However, all the sources that mentions this are all in Finnish, though, i can link one anyways;
The link you have given seems to be a dead link. Could you try to find a working link? And if the link is in Finnish, perhaps you could give the specific quote (in Finnish) together with your translation (in English, perhaps also in Swedish, if that is easier for you). --
T*U (
talk)
14:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry, I did not realize that you couldent acces the link, it worked fine when i foung copy-pasteded it.
'Aikaisemmin samana päivänä esiintyi laukaustenvaihtoa Finströmissä lähellä Bjärströmiä. Kylän idänpuoleisella maantiellä ahvenanmaalainen suojeluskunta oli pysäyttänyt venäläisen sotilaskuljetuksen, jota kolme sotilasta vartioi. Syntyneessä käsikähmässä yksi venäläisistä pyrki pakenemaan pellolle, jonne hänet ammuttiin. Kahden muun onnistui kuitenkin päästä pakoon. Kylää ammuttiin seuraavana päivänä kostoksi raskaalla tykistöllä kolmen tunnin ajan aiheuttamatta kuitenkaan vahinkoja.'
A synopisis of the quote in english:
The Åland protectorate (The Swedes) stopped a russian military transport of three in Finström. The Russians decided to flee from the Swedes when during their escape one Russian was gunned down. The response from the Russians was a three hour long bombardment of Finström, though, this did not result in any Swede dying.
(my finnish is not that good so i needed some help from translators, though, i do have a high enough understaning of Finnish to determine if the translator is just making things upp)
Dencoolast33 (
talk)
15:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
But this doesn't amount to the typical definition of a war – one isn't at war because one person died, these skirmishes happen quite often in some parts of the world. See
2020–2021 China–India skirmishes which left far more people dead without us considering India and China to be at war with each other, for example. Writings on Swedish history bring it up, but they don't call it a war. /
Julle (
talk)
22:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I see your point, but maybe in the context of a wider invasion by Sweden, it should be with. I am not saying that in a challenging way, just to share my look on things!
Dencoolast33 (
talk)
09:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes, but the way Wikipedia works is that we summarize information available elsewhere – we try to avoid drawing our own conclusions. In this case, I think that's what we'd be doing: defining this as a war because we've reasoned about it rather than because the sources define it as such. The way Wikipedia typically works, we'd go to what the key sources about Sweden and Swedish wars say – and as far as I can tell, they don't treat this conflict/skirmish as a Swedish war. /
Julle (
talk)
18:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Dolbegos To prevent an edit war I will begin a discussion here.
I would like to present some key points.
The Russian objective (to destroy Olofsborg) ended in complete failure
The Russian attacks were repelled
I ask you, in what world is this indecisive? The definition of "Defeat" is as follows: "win a victory over (someone) in a battle or other contest; overcome or beat" The Swedes BEAT the Russians, as is evident from the Russians failing to capture or destroy Olofsborg. Thus, we can conclude the Swedes defeated the Russians, i.e. a Swedish victory in the war.
It would be misleading to label this war as "Indecisive" as it simply wasn't.
This conflict cannot be called a war, because there were no active hostilities, war was not declared. Both sides carried out raids on each other, as a result of which they concluded a truce,Both sides gained nothing from this border conflict.provide a source that the Russians planned to take Olofsborg and destroy it. This was not the reason for the start of the conflict.
This conflict cannot be called a war, because there were no active hostilities, war was not declared. Both sides carried out raids on each other, as a result of which they concluded a truce,Both sides gained nothing from this border conflict.provide a source that the Russians planned to take Olofsborg and destroy it. This was not the reason for the start of the conflict.
This conflict cannot be called a war, because there were no active hostilities, war was not declared. Both sides carried out raids on each other, as a result of which they concluded a truce,Both sides gained nothing from this border conflict.provide a source that the Russians planned to take Olofsborg and destroy it. This was not the reason for the start of the conflict.
Dolbegos (
talk)
15:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The conquest of Veliky Novgorod by the Muscovite kingdom, the eviction of significant contingents of Novgorodians into the depths of Central Russia, the change of the Novgorod administration and, in connection with this, the loss of control,the decline of discipline in Novgorod Rus', including the lack of control of the Finnish border with Sweden, led to the fact that fugitives and defectors from among the Novgorodians, who did not want to remain under the Moscow administration, as well as part of the Novgorod militia, on the one hand, “accompanying” the defectors, and on the other, who wanted to, under the guise of general unrest in the country plunder the Swedish border lands.
Dolbegos (
talk)
16:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
2 part:
All this destabilized the situation on the Russian (Novgorod)-Swedish border in 1479-1481, especially since the Vyborg Vogts launched “local” punitive extermination in the Karelian land, also taking advantage of the temporary unrest in the Novgorod land.
Dolbegos (
talk)
16:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
3 part:
Since the Danish kings, who owned Sweden at that time, also could not control the situation in Finland,, then on the Russian-Swedish border, on the Karelian Isthmus, in fact, for three years (1479-1482) there was a “small”, “undeclared” war, which was waged by local authorities,solely based on selfish interests, in one’s own favor.
Dolbegos (
talk)
16:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
under the terms of the truce,Both sides stopped raiding each other,Russians received free right to trade with Swedes in Vyborg and Narva,Swedes received free right to trade in Novgorod
Dolbegos (
talk)
16:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It can most definetly be called a war, war does not necessarily HAVE to be declared in order for it to be one. This was fought as an active conflict, with both sides carrying out raids, yes.
Ulf Sundberg, in his book: "Medeltidens Svenska Krig" says on page 351: "Anläggningen av Nyslott (Olofsborg) fortsätter trots den år 1476 förnyade freden att vara en nagel i ögat för ryssarna. Erik Axelsson Tott, slottsherre på Viborg och även ansvarig för Nyslott, förväntar sig ett ryskt anfall i stor skala."
Rough translation: "The construction of Nyslott (Olofsborg) continues despite the renewed peace in 1476 being a thorn in the side of the Russians. Erik Axelsson Tott, castle lord of Viborg and also responsible for Nyslott, expects a Russian attack on a large scale."
This clearly means that the Russian objective was to halt the construction or completely destroy Olofsborg, there is no going around it. Also, for the source you gave for the war being indecisive does not say so, a truce does not immediately mean a war was indecisive. If this was the case, things like the
Polish-Swedish War (1626-1629) would be indecisive, which is absolutely was not.
Your source seems to have questionable reliability aswell, seems to be a forum of some sort centering around Saint Petersburg.
A belligerent in a war failing their main objective, is usually labled a victory for the other side. "Inconclusive" or "Indecisive" would be misleading.
Gvssy (
talk)
16:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The source I cited was based on a book "Foreign policy of Rus', Russia and the USSR for 1000 years in names, dates, facts."
Dolbegos (
talk)
16:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The war itself did not start because the Russians were going to prevent the construction of Olofsborg; above I described why the conflict began.
Dolbegos (
talk)
16:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes it did, why are you denying sourced information? The war was clearly started because of the Russian goal of destroying Olofsborg. The source you cited states a very ambigious reason: "solely based on selfish interests, in one’s own favor." which is clearly not true?
Gvssy (
talk)
17:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Give me a source proving that the Russians started a border war out of a desire to prevent the construction of Olofsborg. This did not coincide with the interests of the Russians,After all, there was a threat of a new war with Kazan.
Dolbegos (
talk)
17:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I did. Did you forget? "Anläggningen av Nyslott (Olofsborg) fortsätter trots den år 1476 förnyade freden att vara en nagel i ögat för ryssarna. Erik Axelsson Tott, slottsherre på Viborg och även ansvarig för Nyslott, förväntar sig ett ryskt anfall i stor skala." - Ulf Sundberg
This obviously means that the Russians started the war in order to destroy the fortification since it was a "thorn in their backside"
Gvssy (
talk)
17:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
In the book by Alexey Shkvarov "Russia - Sweden. History of military conflicts. 1142-1809"
The conquest of Novgorod, the eviction of a significant number of Novgorodians into the interior of Russia, led to the fact that settlers poured into Vyborg County, destabilizing the situation on the Russian-Swedish border. The Vyborg Vogts organized local punitive operations, which eventually resulted in the “small” war of 1479–1482, which ended with the signing of a truce in Vyborg.
Dolbegos (
talk)
17:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
And another source in which there is not a word that the Russians started the war because of the construction of Olofsborg
Dolbegos (
talk)
17:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Erik Axelsson Tott strengthened the walls of Vyborg and built a new fortress, calling it St. Olaf's Castle - the future Neuschlodt (modern Savonlinna). Moreover, he carried out this construction on lands that the Novgorodians considered their property. In 1481, the year of Erik Axelsson's death, they tried to destroy it, but were repulsed, and the next year, the deceased's brother Laurens restored peace
Dolbegos (
talk)
17:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The same book says that there were attempts to destroy Olofsborg in 1481, before that the Russians did not plan to destroy this fortress, which means that the war did not start because of an attempt to destroy Olofsborg
Dolbegos (
talk)
17:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The reasons for the war do not say this. It only says that the Novgorodians tried to destroy Olofsborg in 1481, but this was not the reason for the start of the war
Dolbegos (
talk)
18:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
But then it does not disprove the reason for the war being to destroy Olofsborg, additionally, even if the starting reason wasnt this, if it later became it, this war can still be described as a Russian strategic failure and thus more accurately called a Swedish victory.
Gvssy (
talk)
19:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The destruction of Olofsborg was not the reason even after the start of the war, the fact that the Novgorodians planned to destroy it, but could not, does not mean that this was the cause of the war, a plan to destroy it appeared Only during the fighting, Russia did not seek to destroy this fortress, it was not in the interests of the Russian state, therefore it cannot be said that this three-year conflict was won by Sweden,No one benefited from it and both sides signed a truce, which would then last until 1495.
Dolbegos (
talk)
19:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
You said "It only says that the Novgorodians tried to destroy Olofsborg in 1481" this would undoubtedly mean that it was an objective later in the war, and i'll say it again that Ulf Sundbergs words are: "Anläggningen av Nyslott (Olofsborg) fortsätter trots den år 1476 förnyade freden att vara en nagel i ögat för ryssarna. Erik Axelsson Tott, slottsherre på Viborg och även ansvarig för Nyslott, förväntar sig ett ryskt anfall i stor skala."
You interpret this in a way that suits your interests. But in fact, the destruction of Olofsborg did not cause the war at any stage.An attempt to destroy it was made by A small group of Novgorodians, this was not organized by the state itself, it did not pursue this goal, because at that time Russia was not going to fight with Sweden while there was a threat of war with Kazan khanate
Dolbegos (
talk)
08:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)reply
No I don't, it is quite literally the most accurate thing to be made from the text. Since the fortress was a "thorn in the backside" of the Russians, it is clearly the reason for the war since they first attacked it.
Gvssy (
talk)
09:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I cited 2 sources, and both of them do not say that Russia fought to destroy Olofsborg.The fact that the fortress was a thorn is an exaggeration,After all, a small group of Novgorodians tried to destroy it, and not a large detachment of Russians
Dolbegos (
talk)
12:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It does not mean that it is untrue if a source does not say something, and it is not an exaggeration, if I remember correctly the fortress itself threatened trade in the area. If a "small" amount of novgorodians attacked it doesn't change anything. The fortress was still a "thorn in the side" of the Russians.
Gvssy (
talk)
12:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)reply
If the fortress really was such a nuisance and would have been a problem for the Russians, then attempts to destroy it would have taken place throughout the war, and not just in 1481 by a small group of Novgorodians.Again, the Russian state would not start a war over one fortress, I described the reason for the start of this border war.the existence of Olofsborg interfered with the Russians, but not enough to start a war and pursue the goal of destroying it for 3 years, otherwise large detachments of the Russian army would have gone to destroy it
Dolbegos (
talk)
19:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Further attempts to destroy it did likely occur, as Ulf Sundberg points out: "År 1481 avlider Erik Axelsson och överlämnar Viborg till sin bror Lars Axelsson, som fortsätter driva gränsstriderna till år 1482 då ett stillestånd ingås"
Translation:
"In 1481, Erik Axelsson dies and his brother Lars Axelsson inherits Viborg, who continues the border skirmishes until 1482 when a truce is established"
These border skirmishes likely included further attempts to destroy Olofsborg, seeing as this was the reason for the war in the first place. Also, it was very common for countries at the time to begin wars over things such as a fortress that threatened their position.
Gvssy (
talk)
19:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
border skirmishes took place over a larger territory, and it was not necessary that these were skirmishes at Olofsborg. Russia had no interest in fighting over a fortress when there was a threat of war with the Tatars (Kazan).A full-scale war between Russia and Sweden did not happen until 1495, and Russia did not care about Olofsborg
Dolbegos (
talk)
19:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
If Russia were very concerned about Olofsborg, then a lot of forces would have been directed towards its destruction, rather than a small detachment. Novgorod detachments tried to destroy Olofsborg only in 1481.I repeat the same thing again
Dolbegos (
talk)
17:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
If a Novgorodian detachment tried to destroy Olofsborg in 1481, this clearly shows that it was concerning for Russia. If I have to repeat it again the fort is described as a "thorn in the side" for the Russians, clearly the reason for the war.
Gvssy (
talk)
17:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Maybe these are translation errors (I use a translator because I don’t know english), but there is no ambiguous reason here
Dolbegos (
talk)
17:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Result 2
There seems to be a dispute over the result of a conflict listed here, I would like to join the discussion and form an opinion but that is hard when i have to go through so much information from your disccusion. So would it be possible for you two to reply with your side of the argument and provide some sources? I understand if you're tired from all the disccusing but we cant continue edit warring.
The Russo-Swedish War (1479–1482) is clearly a Swedish victory due to the fact that the Russian goal (to destroy Olofsborg) clearly failed, as we can see from "Medeltidens Svenska krig" by Ulf Sundberg: "Anläggningen av Nyslott (Olofsborg) fortsätter trots den år 1476 förnyade freden att vara en nagel i ögat för ryssarna. Erik Axelsson Tott, slottsherre på Viborg och även ansvarig för Nyslott, förväntar sig ett ryskt anfall i stor skala."
If I remember correctly a book by John Chrispinsson also says this, but I'm not entirely sure.
From the fact that the construction of Olofsborg is considered a "thorn in the side" of the Russians, this can clearly be seen as the Russian goal in the war to destroy Olofsborg.
There is also a new dispute that has begun, namely around the Russo-Swedish War (1554–1557), where I correctly added a "result" heading, since the actual result of the war is disputed among historians, with some saying it was a Russian victory or a Draw. He tried to revert this by just saying it "isn't disputed" which is just plainly wrong. I have seriously lost alot of patience with him.
Gvssy (
talk)
11:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay, i doubt that you would just make those citations up, but online citations are prefered.
Regarding the Olofsborg dispute, i do agree that it should be counted as a Swedish victory. The Russians failed to achieve their aims of destroying Olofsborg, which would make it by definition a Swedish victory as the Swedes were the only party to succeed in their objectives.
I am not very educated on the war of 1554-57 though, but if the result of that conflict is disputed between historians, then there should be some online sources avalible confirming your statements.
Dencoolast33 (
talk)
12:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay, if there are statements of indicisiveness, then i think that adding a result heading is a fair and pretty harmless edit. However, i am yet to hear @
Dolbego's side of the argument, even though it will be hard for Dolbego to diss-proove sourced material.
Dencoolast33 (
talk)
13:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Your argument seems to be "My sources don't say it was the goal" which doesn't disprove anything, I also have books on Swedish history that don't explicitly state that the sky is blue, does this now mean that the sky is not blue? Obviously not.
Gvssy (
talk)
14:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
If all of your points are already in your first reply, then there shouldent be a need to respond, otherwise this topic will get as long as the last one.
Dencoolast33 (
talk)
14:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
my sources indicate the main reason for the start of the war, and this is not the existence of Olofsborg, I don’t know what else needs to be explained
Dolbegos (
talk)
14:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I have already described everything, provided sources and argued why this war is not a Swedish victory, I see no point in continuing to talk about this war
Dolbegos (
talk)
14:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Dolbegos What do the sources say about the Attack on Åbo in this 1191? The names are extremely vague and I can't find any online mentions of them.
Gvssy (
talk)
13:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I should also say, regarding one of your edit summaries, the Novgorodians raid against Viborg in 1351 should not be classified as "successful", as
Ulf Sundberg points out on p.155 of Medeltidens Svenska krig: "Den ryska hären förmår dock ingenting göra mot fästets murar och slår snart till reträtt." How is this successful? This text would make it seem like the Novgorodian goal was to take Viborg (which we can also assume) so how is raiding outside the city a success? Please explain
Gvssy (
talk)
13:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
In the book that I indicated, the city of Abo is not mentioned at all, it says that "The Novgorodians went to devastate the Finnish coast burning everything in their path" there is no more specific information
Dushnilkin (
talk)
17:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I did not add this information, perhaps the raid is mentioned in other sources. It is better to wait for the answer of the one who added it
Dushnilkin (
talk)
21:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Dolbegos Before you decide to revert my edit, please take the following facts into account, and see if the Novgorodians really "defeated" the Swedes.
The Swedes destroyed Tiversk
The Novgorodians went and besieged Viborg for a few days, until they retreated after its failure[1]
With these facts in mind, we cannot logically conclude that the Novgorodians supposedly "defeated" the Swedes, as you claimed in your edit summary. I would also like for you to respond to the section above this one, as I am not able to verify any of the sources you gave for the attack on åbo.
Gvssy (
talk)
16:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all
list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a
WikiProject dedicated to coverage of
Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the
project page, or contribute to the
project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
The following discussion is an archived 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.
Russo-Swedish Wars →
List of Russo-Swedish Wars – Per
WP:DABCONCEPT, this appears to be a collection of links referring to a series of wars between Russia and Sweden (not all of which are even titled "Russo-Swedish War"). I think that this is better treated as a list, which can have the entries put in a table with additional information, than as a disambiguation page.
bd2412T21:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I have no objection to an alternative, so long as it makes clear that this is in fact a list of articles addressing wars between these two particular countries. My objection is to the current characterization of this list as a disambiguation topic.
bd2412T15:24, 2 January 2014 (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.
Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2015
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
My guess is that there's some continuing vandalism about adding yesterday's Eurovision Song Contest to the list. I saw a screenshot of the edit on another site and came here to see if it was still up; it's not, but my guess is that someone keeps trying to add it back in. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
50.158.178.23 (
talk)
19:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Gvssy, would you mind me opening this discussion again? I think that the
Invasion of Åland should be included. Sweden was even involved in the
Battles of Godby [
FI, and i dont think it needs to be a declearation of war for it to be included on the list. Although, i wont drag this discussion out, if i do not have your blessing to edit it in, then i wont.
Dencoolast33 (
talk)
09:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't have any objections to it, if Swedes actively fought against Russians during the Battles of Godby it should be included although perhaps put a note explicitly saying that there was no official declaration of war.
Gvssy (
talk)
09:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Dencoolast33: First of all, edit warring is not cool. After your suggestion was reverted, the best way to continue would have been to start a discussion in order to create consensus, see
WP:BRD. Failing that, I will start it, since I do not fight edit wars.
Re 'Soviets' / 'Soviet Russians': Not as strange as you suggest. The term 'Soviets' is a demonym that was used for citizens of the Soviet Union, which was founded in 1922. It does not make sense to use the term about people in connection with things that happened before that time. However, the Soviet Union was a union of states that had existed for some years, the first of them created with the October revolution of 1917. They were Soviet socialist republics, where the term 'Soviet' is a description of the form of government in those states. The largest of them was the Russian one, which also was a federation, so it was named the 'Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic' in short often called 'Soviet Russia'. It was an independent state from 1917 to 1922, and the demonym for citizens of that state is 'Russians', or, in order to distinguish from the pre-revolution citizenship, 'Soviet Russians'. So your piping [[Soviet Russia|Soviets]] is faulty. It will have to be [[Soviet Russia|Soviet Russians]] or simply [[Soviet Russia|Russians]]. Please correct this.
Re 'mistreatment' and fake news: This is a list article, where the target articles are supposed to give depth to the entries. In this case, the target article has a thorough analysis of the background and reasons for the actions of the various parties to the conflict, and it just mentions the alleged arbitrary and disorder of the Russian troops as a part of the reasoning behind the decision to send out the expedition. Rumours about chaos and bloodshed on Åland was certainly a part of the background for the invasion and not least for its timing. However, the sources do not give this as the only reason for sending the expedition. Your suggested text is completely
WP:UNDUE and bordering on
WP:OR and
WP:SYNTH.
Personally, I'm not very educated on this topic, but the note should be shortened to something else, although I don't have any suggestions for it. I won't get involved much.
Gvssy (
talk)
22:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Im sorry, i did not mean to edit war. I reverted your edits so i dident have to get back some my old text back manually and add a knew source that was to your liking as the reasson for your revertion of my edit in the first place was becuase you did not thinnk my source was credible enough. I do not know if thats rude as im unfamiliar with wikipedia customs, but if so, i am sorry. Do whatever you want with it, i think that both you and i would benifit if this discussion remained short, but please know that i did not mean any harm.
Dencoolast33 (
talk)
07:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Sources
Do the mainstream sources really treat this as a war? I can't remember ever having read anything which claims that Sweden was at war in 1918. I just re-read the pages on this in
sv:Sveriges historia (Norstedts) and that description doesn't really speak for including it here. Which books or articles do? /
Julle (
talk)
12:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Julle: In the section
#More wars? above, it is stated that Sweden was even involved in the Battles of Godby. If that is correct, it would probably mean that the invasion of Åland belongs here. However, I cannot see that any of the sources actually state that Sweden was directly involved in the Godby fightings. I agree that better sources are needed to include this at all.
Dencoolast33? --
T*U (
talk)
13:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
well, Swedens involvment in the battles of godby was pretty small. Sweden ambushed a russian military transport killing one, the response from the Russians was bombarding Finström (a small village in Åland were the ambush occured). However, all the sources that mentions this are all in Finnish, though, i can link one anyways;
The link you have given seems to be a dead link. Could you try to find a working link? And if the link is in Finnish, perhaps you could give the specific quote (in Finnish) together with your translation (in English, perhaps also in Swedish, if that is easier for you). --
T*U (
talk)
14:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry, I did not realize that you couldent acces the link, it worked fine when i foung copy-pasteded it.
'Aikaisemmin samana päivänä esiintyi laukaustenvaihtoa Finströmissä lähellä Bjärströmiä. Kylän idänpuoleisella maantiellä ahvenanmaalainen suojeluskunta oli pysäyttänyt venäläisen sotilaskuljetuksen, jota kolme sotilasta vartioi. Syntyneessä käsikähmässä yksi venäläisistä pyrki pakenemaan pellolle, jonne hänet ammuttiin. Kahden muun onnistui kuitenkin päästä pakoon. Kylää ammuttiin seuraavana päivänä kostoksi raskaalla tykistöllä kolmen tunnin ajan aiheuttamatta kuitenkaan vahinkoja.'
A synopisis of the quote in english:
The Åland protectorate (The Swedes) stopped a russian military transport of three in Finström. The Russians decided to flee from the Swedes when during their escape one Russian was gunned down. The response from the Russians was a three hour long bombardment of Finström, though, this did not result in any Swede dying.
(my finnish is not that good so i needed some help from translators, though, i do have a high enough understaning of Finnish to determine if the translator is just making things upp)
Dencoolast33 (
talk)
15:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
But this doesn't amount to the typical definition of a war – one isn't at war because one person died, these skirmishes happen quite often in some parts of the world. See
2020–2021 China–India skirmishes which left far more people dead without us considering India and China to be at war with each other, for example. Writings on Swedish history bring it up, but they don't call it a war. /
Julle (
talk)
22:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I see your point, but maybe in the context of a wider invasion by Sweden, it should be with. I am not saying that in a challenging way, just to share my look on things!
Dencoolast33 (
talk)
09:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes, but the way Wikipedia works is that we summarize information available elsewhere – we try to avoid drawing our own conclusions. In this case, I think that's what we'd be doing: defining this as a war because we've reasoned about it rather than because the sources define it as such. The way Wikipedia typically works, we'd go to what the key sources about Sweden and Swedish wars say – and as far as I can tell, they don't treat this conflict/skirmish as a Swedish war. /
Julle (
talk)
18:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Dolbegos To prevent an edit war I will begin a discussion here.
I would like to present some key points.
The Russian objective (to destroy Olofsborg) ended in complete failure
The Russian attacks were repelled
I ask you, in what world is this indecisive? The definition of "Defeat" is as follows: "win a victory over (someone) in a battle or other contest; overcome or beat" The Swedes BEAT the Russians, as is evident from the Russians failing to capture or destroy Olofsborg. Thus, we can conclude the Swedes defeated the Russians, i.e. a Swedish victory in the war.
It would be misleading to label this war as "Indecisive" as it simply wasn't.
This conflict cannot be called a war, because there were no active hostilities, war was not declared. Both sides carried out raids on each other, as a result of which they concluded a truce,Both sides gained nothing from this border conflict.provide a source that the Russians planned to take Olofsborg and destroy it. This was not the reason for the start of the conflict.
This conflict cannot be called a war, because there were no active hostilities, war was not declared. Both sides carried out raids on each other, as a result of which they concluded a truce,Both sides gained nothing from this border conflict.provide a source that the Russians planned to take Olofsborg and destroy it. This was not the reason for the start of the conflict.
This conflict cannot be called a war, because there were no active hostilities, war was not declared. Both sides carried out raids on each other, as a result of which they concluded a truce,Both sides gained nothing from this border conflict.provide a source that the Russians planned to take Olofsborg and destroy it. This was not the reason for the start of the conflict.
Dolbegos (
talk)
15:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The conquest of Veliky Novgorod by the Muscovite kingdom, the eviction of significant contingents of Novgorodians into the depths of Central Russia, the change of the Novgorod administration and, in connection with this, the loss of control,the decline of discipline in Novgorod Rus', including the lack of control of the Finnish border with Sweden, led to the fact that fugitives and defectors from among the Novgorodians, who did not want to remain under the Moscow administration, as well as part of the Novgorod militia, on the one hand, “accompanying” the defectors, and on the other, who wanted to, under the guise of general unrest in the country plunder the Swedish border lands.
Dolbegos (
talk)
16:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
2 part:
All this destabilized the situation on the Russian (Novgorod)-Swedish border in 1479-1481, especially since the Vyborg Vogts launched “local” punitive extermination in the Karelian land, also taking advantage of the temporary unrest in the Novgorod land.
Dolbegos (
talk)
16:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
3 part:
Since the Danish kings, who owned Sweden at that time, also could not control the situation in Finland,, then on the Russian-Swedish border, on the Karelian Isthmus, in fact, for three years (1479-1482) there was a “small”, “undeclared” war, which was waged by local authorities,solely based on selfish interests, in one’s own favor.
Dolbegos (
talk)
16:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
under the terms of the truce,Both sides stopped raiding each other,Russians received free right to trade with Swedes in Vyborg and Narva,Swedes received free right to trade in Novgorod
Dolbegos (
talk)
16:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It can most definetly be called a war, war does not necessarily HAVE to be declared in order for it to be one. This was fought as an active conflict, with both sides carrying out raids, yes.
Ulf Sundberg, in his book: "Medeltidens Svenska Krig" says on page 351: "Anläggningen av Nyslott (Olofsborg) fortsätter trots den år 1476 förnyade freden att vara en nagel i ögat för ryssarna. Erik Axelsson Tott, slottsherre på Viborg och även ansvarig för Nyslott, förväntar sig ett ryskt anfall i stor skala."
Rough translation: "The construction of Nyslott (Olofsborg) continues despite the renewed peace in 1476 being a thorn in the side of the Russians. Erik Axelsson Tott, castle lord of Viborg and also responsible for Nyslott, expects a Russian attack on a large scale."
This clearly means that the Russian objective was to halt the construction or completely destroy Olofsborg, there is no going around it. Also, for the source you gave for the war being indecisive does not say so, a truce does not immediately mean a war was indecisive. If this was the case, things like the
Polish-Swedish War (1626-1629) would be indecisive, which is absolutely was not.
Your source seems to have questionable reliability aswell, seems to be a forum of some sort centering around Saint Petersburg.
A belligerent in a war failing their main objective, is usually labled a victory for the other side. "Inconclusive" or "Indecisive" would be misleading.
Gvssy (
talk)
16:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The source I cited was based on a book "Foreign policy of Rus', Russia and the USSR for 1000 years in names, dates, facts."
Dolbegos (
talk)
16:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The war itself did not start because the Russians were going to prevent the construction of Olofsborg; above I described why the conflict began.
Dolbegos (
talk)
16:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes it did, why are you denying sourced information? The war was clearly started because of the Russian goal of destroying Olofsborg. The source you cited states a very ambigious reason: "solely based on selfish interests, in one’s own favor." which is clearly not true?
Gvssy (
talk)
17:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Give me a source proving that the Russians started a border war out of a desire to prevent the construction of Olofsborg. This did not coincide with the interests of the Russians,After all, there was a threat of a new war with Kazan.
Dolbegos (
talk)
17:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I did. Did you forget? "Anläggningen av Nyslott (Olofsborg) fortsätter trots den år 1476 förnyade freden att vara en nagel i ögat för ryssarna. Erik Axelsson Tott, slottsherre på Viborg och även ansvarig för Nyslott, förväntar sig ett ryskt anfall i stor skala." - Ulf Sundberg
This obviously means that the Russians started the war in order to destroy the fortification since it was a "thorn in their backside"
Gvssy (
talk)
17:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
In the book by Alexey Shkvarov "Russia - Sweden. History of military conflicts. 1142-1809"
The conquest of Novgorod, the eviction of a significant number of Novgorodians into the interior of Russia, led to the fact that settlers poured into Vyborg County, destabilizing the situation on the Russian-Swedish border. The Vyborg Vogts organized local punitive operations, which eventually resulted in the “small” war of 1479–1482, which ended with the signing of a truce in Vyborg.
Dolbegos (
talk)
17:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
And another source in which there is not a word that the Russians started the war because of the construction of Olofsborg
Dolbegos (
talk)
17:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Erik Axelsson Tott strengthened the walls of Vyborg and built a new fortress, calling it St. Olaf's Castle - the future Neuschlodt (modern Savonlinna). Moreover, he carried out this construction on lands that the Novgorodians considered their property. In 1481, the year of Erik Axelsson's death, they tried to destroy it, but were repulsed, and the next year, the deceased's brother Laurens restored peace
Dolbegos (
talk)
17:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The same book says that there were attempts to destroy Olofsborg in 1481, before that the Russians did not plan to destroy this fortress, which means that the war did not start because of an attempt to destroy Olofsborg
Dolbegos (
talk)
17:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The reasons for the war do not say this. It only says that the Novgorodians tried to destroy Olofsborg in 1481, but this was not the reason for the start of the war
Dolbegos (
talk)
18:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
But then it does not disprove the reason for the war being to destroy Olofsborg, additionally, even if the starting reason wasnt this, if it later became it, this war can still be described as a Russian strategic failure and thus more accurately called a Swedish victory.
Gvssy (
talk)
19:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The destruction of Olofsborg was not the reason even after the start of the war, the fact that the Novgorodians planned to destroy it, but could not, does not mean that this was the cause of the war, a plan to destroy it appeared Only during the fighting, Russia did not seek to destroy this fortress, it was not in the interests of the Russian state, therefore it cannot be said that this three-year conflict was won by Sweden,No one benefited from it and both sides signed a truce, which would then last until 1495.
Dolbegos (
talk)
19:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
You said "It only says that the Novgorodians tried to destroy Olofsborg in 1481" this would undoubtedly mean that it was an objective later in the war, and i'll say it again that Ulf Sundbergs words are: "Anläggningen av Nyslott (Olofsborg) fortsätter trots den år 1476 förnyade freden att vara en nagel i ögat för ryssarna. Erik Axelsson Tott, slottsherre på Viborg och även ansvarig för Nyslott, förväntar sig ett ryskt anfall i stor skala."
You interpret this in a way that suits your interests. But in fact, the destruction of Olofsborg did not cause the war at any stage.An attempt to destroy it was made by A small group of Novgorodians, this was not organized by the state itself, it did not pursue this goal, because at that time Russia was not going to fight with Sweden while there was a threat of war with Kazan khanate
Dolbegos (
talk)
08:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)reply
No I don't, it is quite literally the most accurate thing to be made from the text. Since the fortress was a "thorn in the backside" of the Russians, it is clearly the reason for the war since they first attacked it.
Gvssy (
talk)
09:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I cited 2 sources, and both of them do not say that Russia fought to destroy Olofsborg.The fact that the fortress was a thorn is an exaggeration,After all, a small group of Novgorodians tried to destroy it, and not a large detachment of Russians
Dolbegos (
talk)
12:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It does not mean that it is untrue if a source does not say something, and it is not an exaggeration, if I remember correctly the fortress itself threatened trade in the area. If a "small" amount of novgorodians attacked it doesn't change anything. The fortress was still a "thorn in the side" of the Russians.
Gvssy (
talk)
12:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)reply
If the fortress really was such a nuisance and would have been a problem for the Russians, then attempts to destroy it would have taken place throughout the war, and not just in 1481 by a small group of Novgorodians.Again, the Russian state would not start a war over one fortress, I described the reason for the start of this border war.the existence of Olofsborg interfered with the Russians, but not enough to start a war and pursue the goal of destroying it for 3 years, otherwise large detachments of the Russian army would have gone to destroy it
Dolbegos (
talk)
19:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Further attempts to destroy it did likely occur, as Ulf Sundberg points out: "År 1481 avlider Erik Axelsson och överlämnar Viborg till sin bror Lars Axelsson, som fortsätter driva gränsstriderna till år 1482 då ett stillestånd ingås"
Translation:
"In 1481, Erik Axelsson dies and his brother Lars Axelsson inherits Viborg, who continues the border skirmishes until 1482 when a truce is established"
These border skirmishes likely included further attempts to destroy Olofsborg, seeing as this was the reason for the war in the first place. Also, it was very common for countries at the time to begin wars over things such as a fortress that threatened their position.
Gvssy (
talk)
19:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
border skirmishes took place over a larger territory, and it was not necessary that these were skirmishes at Olofsborg. Russia had no interest in fighting over a fortress when there was a threat of war with the Tatars (Kazan).A full-scale war between Russia and Sweden did not happen until 1495, and Russia did not care about Olofsborg
Dolbegos (
talk)
19:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
If Russia were very concerned about Olofsborg, then a lot of forces would have been directed towards its destruction, rather than a small detachment. Novgorod detachments tried to destroy Olofsborg only in 1481.I repeat the same thing again
Dolbegos (
talk)
17:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
If a Novgorodian detachment tried to destroy Olofsborg in 1481, this clearly shows that it was concerning for Russia. If I have to repeat it again the fort is described as a "thorn in the side" for the Russians, clearly the reason for the war.
Gvssy (
talk)
17:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Maybe these are translation errors (I use a translator because I don’t know english), but there is no ambiguous reason here
Dolbegos (
talk)
17:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Result 2
There seems to be a dispute over the result of a conflict listed here, I would like to join the discussion and form an opinion but that is hard when i have to go through so much information from your disccusion. So would it be possible for you two to reply with your side of the argument and provide some sources? I understand if you're tired from all the disccusing but we cant continue edit warring.
The Russo-Swedish War (1479–1482) is clearly a Swedish victory due to the fact that the Russian goal (to destroy Olofsborg) clearly failed, as we can see from "Medeltidens Svenska krig" by Ulf Sundberg: "Anläggningen av Nyslott (Olofsborg) fortsätter trots den år 1476 förnyade freden att vara en nagel i ögat för ryssarna. Erik Axelsson Tott, slottsherre på Viborg och även ansvarig för Nyslott, förväntar sig ett ryskt anfall i stor skala."
If I remember correctly a book by John Chrispinsson also says this, but I'm not entirely sure.
From the fact that the construction of Olofsborg is considered a "thorn in the side" of the Russians, this can clearly be seen as the Russian goal in the war to destroy Olofsborg.
There is also a new dispute that has begun, namely around the Russo-Swedish War (1554–1557), where I correctly added a "result" heading, since the actual result of the war is disputed among historians, with some saying it was a Russian victory or a Draw. He tried to revert this by just saying it "isn't disputed" which is just plainly wrong. I have seriously lost alot of patience with him.
Gvssy (
talk)
11:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay, i doubt that you would just make those citations up, but online citations are prefered.
Regarding the Olofsborg dispute, i do agree that it should be counted as a Swedish victory. The Russians failed to achieve their aims of destroying Olofsborg, which would make it by definition a Swedish victory as the Swedes were the only party to succeed in their objectives.
I am not very educated on the war of 1554-57 though, but if the result of that conflict is disputed between historians, then there should be some online sources avalible confirming your statements.
Dencoolast33 (
talk)
12:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay, if there are statements of indicisiveness, then i think that adding a result heading is a fair and pretty harmless edit. However, i am yet to hear @
Dolbego's side of the argument, even though it will be hard for Dolbego to diss-proove sourced material.
Dencoolast33 (
talk)
13:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Your argument seems to be "My sources don't say it was the goal" which doesn't disprove anything, I also have books on Swedish history that don't explicitly state that the sky is blue, does this now mean that the sky is not blue? Obviously not.
Gvssy (
talk)
14:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
If all of your points are already in your first reply, then there shouldent be a need to respond, otherwise this topic will get as long as the last one.
Dencoolast33 (
talk)
14:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
my sources indicate the main reason for the start of the war, and this is not the existence of Olofsborg, I don’t know what else needs to be explained
Dolbegos (
talk)
14:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I have already described everything, provided sources and argued why this war is not a Swedish victory, I see no point in continuing to talk about this war
Dolbegos (
talk)
14:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Dolbegos What do the sources say about the Attack on Åbo in this 1191? The names are extremely vague and I can't find any online mentions of them.
Gvssy (
talk)
13:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I should also say, regarding one of your edit summaries, the Novgorodians raid against Viborg in 1351 should not be classified as "successful", as
Ulf Sundberg points out on p.155 of Medeltidens Svenska krig: "Den ryska hären förmår dock ingenting göra mot fästets murar och slår snart till reträtt." How is this successful? This text would make it seem like the Novgorodian goal was to take Viborg (which we can also assume) so how is raiding outside the city a success? Please explain
Gvssy (
talk)
13:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
In the book that I indicated, the city of Abo is not mentioned at all, it says that "The Novgorodians went to devastate the Finnish coast burning everything in their path" there is no more specific information
Dushnilkin (
talk)
17:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I did not add this information, perhaps the raid is mentioned in other sources. It is better to wait for the answer of the one who added it
Dushnilkin (
talk)
21:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Dolbegos Before you decide to revert my edit, please take the following facts into account, and see if the Novgorodians really "defeated" the Swedes.
The Swedes destroyed Tiversk
The Novgorodians went and besieged Viborg for a few days, until they retreated after its failure[1]
With these facts in mind, we cannot logically conclude that the Novgorodians supposedly "defeated" the Swedes, as you claimed in your edit summary. I would also like for you to respond to the section above this one, as I am not able to verify any of the sources you gave for the attack on åbo.
Gvssy (
talk)
16:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply