![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
It is ghost date. Battle for Moscow took place on October 22 Old Style. Now (In 2006 year ) October 22 by Julian calendar correlates to 4 November by Gregorian calendar, but in 1612 gap between Old Style and New Style was smaller, it was November 1 by Gregorian calendar.
See en Russian ru:День народного единства and "ЧТО БУДУТ ПРАЗДНОВАТЬ В РОССИИ 4 НОЯБРЯ 2005 ГОДА?" -- ajvol 18:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The article language shows it is obviously based on 1911 article, thus the 1911 pov tag. Usage of 19th century nationalist sources for some massacres, not mentioned in FA-class Polish-Muscovite War (1605-1618) is a 'no-no'; please provide proper reliable sources if you want to keep such unknown massacres in the article. Usage of such sources was demonstrated as very unreliable at FA Warsaw Uprising (1794), among other pages.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Instead of revert warring over tags, please adopt my strategy and reference the article with proper reliable and verifiable references.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
It has been now clearly shown - on talk, as well as in the unfortunate revert war on article - that there is no consensus article is reliable or neutral. Thus the tags should stay until there is consensus the problems have been addressed. Per my comments above, the problem will not go away if the tags (and edits) are reverted; what is needed is expansion and better references.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The world has changed since 1911. Get some reading and write an article. Xx236 16:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry guys but 1911 is not a fully reliable source nowadays. Or do you think refering to Papuans as "vicious cannibals with less intelligence than white man" and many others like that, is an example of todays professional academic work? - Darwinek 17:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Briefly: coming from the perspective of someone who does a lot of work here with opera/classical music articles, I've found the 1911 Britannica to be a bit of joke: very POV, very Anglocentric, and way too flowery. Avoid at all costs. As to the rest, no opinion due to ignorance. Moreschi Talk 17:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment: modern Britannica has article on ToT. It would be acceptable reference. It mentions no 'brigands' or 'massacres'. On another note, assuming this is the 1911 article, the 1911 issue is not that crucial - although language of that article indicates it probably incorporates other 1911 articles (more general 'history of Russia' probably). Update: as history of Russia mentions WWII, this is probably not a 1911 article...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a policy, that Solovyev can be oposed. Xx236 17:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
If we like, we can have a section about the historiography of the Time of Troubles, and discuss what 19th century Russian historians thought and wrote about it. The work of Sergey Solovyov can be cited there. But we simply cannot use the work of that author, who died in 1879, as the primary source here for events described in the main body of the article. There is such a thing as progress in historical research, and Wikipedia should endavour to provide its readers with the latest research information, not dig up works written over a century ago, and completely corrupted by the POV prevalent at that time and place.
After all, were we to allow this, the next logical step would be citing works of authors from the American South written before 1861 "proving" the inferiority of African-Americans, or citing 19th century British works lauding the British Empire for its benevolent and enlightened approach to the natives. Balcer 18:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Ineed, Balcer. I'd also like to direct readers attention to Polish-Muscovite_War_(1605–1618)#Modern_legacy, where we note that that period of history was greatly misrepresented in local national histories (Russian and Polish). It is a normal approach to treat old local historical sources carefully and balance them ( WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, WP:RS#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources come to mind). This article should be referenced with proper modern (not reprints!) academic works, preferably from neutral historians (i.e. Western English are best for English Wikipedia). Claims of massacres certainly cannot be supported by 19th century sources alone; inserting such claims backed with dubious sources is simply fringe POV pushing. If those massacres happened, use better references which cannot be disputed - as mentioned above, if you want this info to stay, providing proper refs is your responsibility, anybody can dispute unreferenced or unreliably referenced information.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
In the future, if you accuse me of incivility, please care to cite the specific WP:CIV clause or just the clause from the common sense or dictionary definition of civility. As for the book, perhaps I was not making myself clear. Of course the ISBN defines the book uniquely. No doubt about that. The point is that this particular edition (happens to be indexed by google) is an abridged one and I have a full edition which does not have an ISBN. I simply added an ISBN I found on google books to make the checking easier without realizing that the particular edition may matter. I will correct that. -- Irpen 03:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, finally got it cleared up. The LOC catalog did not mention which LCCN, ISBN or LCC refers to which edition, the single volume abridged one or the 5-volume one. In fact, the first edition (first four volumes was published for the first time in 1943) and was revised for multiple editions that followed. Each volume had a title on its own in addition to the generic History of Russia V.2 or other.
However, the fifth volume in two parts was published by Yale U Press only in 1969. The book in Russian I am reading says that it is a translation of this 1969 version.
The English version is too old to have ISBN. LCC DK40 .V44 points to a first four volumes in LOC. The code for the separate fifth volume apparently cannot be found in LOC but I found it in Saint Anselm College library under [4] (hope the link works for you.) The Russian edition I am reading is published in 2001 under ISBN 5-85929-016-0 . Thanks again, Piotrus, for motivating me to clear this up. -- Irpen 04:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 05:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Contoversies of the PSW was [ not started by me and you know that. My mistake was to create that section in the PSW article instead of properly integrating the relevant info in the text and the less relevant info to the proper subarticles. Not only this choice of me was stylistically poor but it allowed you to simply remove it all from the article in one step in a convenient way. I will certainly merge the content with the articles according to the degree of relevance when I have time and won't repeat that mistake again. Artificial sections, like "trivia", "controversies", etc, damage articles more than I realized back than. They are actually more harmful as sections than as articles. The latter is just a bad by design article, no big deal to have it on a backburner. The former is also a damage to an article that may otherwise be good. For what it's worse, I even created the delete proposal of tl:Trivia in Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedias. -- Irpen 05:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
And now, great news, I found the war diary of rotmistr Mikolaj Marchocki "Historia Wojny Moskiewskiej", a witness of these events. It has been republished in Russian in 2000. Maybe you can find a Polish version. Or Halibutt who owns an impressive library can get his hands on this one? Of course we can't use his own speculations and conclusions since he obviously lacked perspective and hindsight available to later historians but it would be very useful for fact checking, won't it? The online version of the Russian translation is available. It is published along with amazingly interesting MM's correspondence with Shuyski, Zborowski, etc., supplied with foreword, maps and plenty of annotations. BTW, do you want to know what word is used for the March 1911 event? In the Russian translation it says "Резня" (literary "slaughter") and he gives some quite graphic account. Should we replace the massacre by slaughter by any chance? I think in Polish it would be "Rzeź" but I have not seen the Polish version. I would like to thank you again for prompting me to bring more sources to WP. -- Irpen 22:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Seven thousand are cited by both Vernadsky i Solovyov. -- Irpen 04:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Piotrus, we are talking not the opinions here (liberated vsoccupied) but mere facts. A serious historian of the 19th century used the same sources than the modern one (few chronicles were dug out from the library stacks, fewer than the number of chronicles lost in fire.) Solovyov is certainly a reputable historian. He may have had a POV but he certainly would not lie. Any book on the Russian history refers to him frequently. Same applies to Karamzin and Kostomarov. Please do not be ridiculous. -- Irpen 05:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
These aren't. It's you turn to prove they are reliable. Xx236 12:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
and don't use offensive language. Xx236 12:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Piotrus, did you read the Muscovy article? Both in WP and in EB? Also check Tsardom of Russia. Please do not reinstall the anachronistic term. Thank you. -- Irpen 19:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I did not link to [[Russia]] anywhere, I double checked again. I linked to Tsardom. The rest of your edit is an overall unexplained revert with the removal of well referenced and relevant info. I am restoring the info. Please note that article does have inline refs. More can be added by the tl on top is out of place. Stop attacking the article whatever your motivations are. -- Irpen 19:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Muscovy is a redirect, the article is Grand Duchy of Moscow. Xx236 11:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
When reading this article from Finnish viewpoint it is still missing lot of reliable information. If start from Vasili Shuiski´s agreement with Sweden made in Viipuri (Viborg) located in Karelian Isthmus in Finland (then part of Swedish Kingdom) in 1609. In this agreement Vasili Shuiski promised to cede Käkisalmi (Kexholm) province to Sweden-Finland if Carolus (Charles) IX would help him (Vasili) in the battle against Carolus own brother, Sigismund III, The King of Poland. The main reason for this was religion, Vasili was an Orthodox, Sigismund an Catholic and Carolus an Lutherian. Vasili knew that the Lutherians had no claims to convert Othodoxs in "Whole Holy Russian Land" to Lutherian fate, as the Catholic Sigismund had, with the warm support of Holy Seat in Rome. After this agreement was signed the commander of Swedish-Finnish forces, supplemented by some, in number less than 1.000 pay soldiers from Netherlands, Scotland and France (Hugenots), Jacob (Jaakko) De la Gardie, son of Pontus De la Gardie, and a young Finnish Evert ( Eevartti) Horn of whose main body were Finnish soldiers, started its march from Northern Estonia (so called Virumaa) which Russia had to have ceded to Sweden in Treaty of Teusina (Täysinä / Täyssinä) in 1595. This army of about 14.000 to 15.000 soldiers marched through Pihkova (Pskov / Pihkva / Pleskau / Pleskavas etc) and arrived to Novgorod where it stopped for couple of weeks. Of course Carolus (Kaarle) wanted at first by personal family reasons to avoid any open confict with his brother´s army, the United Polish-Lithuanian Personal Union´s Forces which operated against the Russians in farther sourhern direction. After a stop in Novgorod this Swedish-Finnish army started to its march to Moscow where it arrived in early 1610. It repressed all disturbances in City and repressed the open mution by some Russian factions against Vasili Shuiski. Its participation to the battle of Klushino in summer 1610, and particularly its huge losses claimed by the Russians is questionable. If there would have been a destroying an armed force of nearly 15.000 men, most of them Finns, there would have been "land sorrow" in Finland. Instead of this, main force of Jacob De la Gardie´s army left Moscow (exact date still to be verified) and returned to Novgorod. It did not move nowhere from Novgorod until the Treaty of Stolbova was signed in 1617. From this "Army in Beeing" in Novgorod without doing any important military operations Jacob (Jaakko) De la Gardie received his nickname "Lazy Jacob or Laiska Jaakko". Here again, from military point of view it would be impossible to defend the Novgorod and Pihkova areas against the Russian attacks with only 200 men. Meanwhile some Finnish troops captured Käkisalmi in 1611 without fight, when the Karelian chief of Käkisalmi Fortress ceded the castle to approaching (Swedish-)Finnish troops which kept it until the Peace Treaty in Stolbova was signed. How all this could have been possible with only 200 men which were left to Jacob De la Gardie and Evert Horn after the Battle of Kjushino, (according to Russian sources) to have Novgorod and Pskov areas occupied and Käkisalmi captured both in 1611 after the Battle of Kjushino. Maybe the only ones who perished from Jacob De la Gardie´s army where the pay soldiers to whom the foreign origin Moscow merchants collected money to join to the Russian forces and had a well known tendency to change a side to that side which payed the best salary. Anyway, Battle of Kjushino is not marked in Finnish military history in any importance. Only a mention that Jacob De la Gardie´s battles in Livonia were not a success against the combined Polish-Lithuanian forces. The article rises more questions of its relibiality than gives answers to the people interested in Russian history.
Peharps some interested could seek more information by name of Ponce Scorperier from Lancuedoc in France. He was Pontus De la Gardie, Jacob´s father who drowned into Narva River on November 5,1585. The Swedish Wikipedia says that Jacob was buried in Sweden, but his grave is also in Tallinn Dome Church together with his father´s grave. Was his coffin later removed from Sweden to Tallinn or by that time better known as Reval? There reads Jacobus De la Gardie. Evert (Eevartti) Horn died in 1615 at the age of only 21 in the Siege of Pihkova (Pskov). He is buried in Turku (Åbo) Dome Church.
For the non Swedish and non Finnish it is sometimes difficult to sepatate who was Swede and who was Finn by their names. The Finnish upper class adopted Swedish names and there were also Finnish-Swedes, descenders of Swedes who moved to Finland in 1100-1200 for separation of Riksvensk ( State Swedes) living in Sweden not Finland.
Regarding the Russian sources, I have found those published in Imperial Russia before the Bolshevik revolution very trustable when the Panslavonic propaganda is omitted, but nearly all 1918-1988 Soviet sources untrustable in viewing historical events. I think that in all edge states Turkey, Roumania, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland this have been clearly remarked. It is a pity that most of Russian historians are still prisoners of this era propaganda fullfilled stories, only created to serve one course the Russian history of areas which were not originally Russians.
For example, how many of the writers in these pages know that there was a fluorishing town, the capital of Grand Duke of Purgaz, named Obranjosh located on the confuence of Rivers Oka and Raw (Russian Volga). Complete destroyed by one Vladimir Prince in 1221. Most of the defenders including also women and children committed mass suecide by voluntarely drowning themselves to Raw to avoid serfdom under Russian Princes and pajars (bojars). More then half of the population escaped behind Raw. Capital of Grand Duke was removed to Arzamas. The Russians founded a new Russian Nizhnij Novgorod to the place where former Obranjosh had been. No wonder that many joined to Tatar-Mongolian troops during Mongol-Tatar invasion in 1237-1240.
JN
Chester Dunning's Russia's First Civil War would be an excellent source to update this article.-- Mcpaul1998 07:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The article is very good. But! Where is the describing of the Bolotnikov's uprising? It was a very important part of the time of troubles. Chulman ( talk) 16:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not an expert here but just a reader. However, the term I have usually seen (in other cultures and histories) is always given as "Master of the Horse," not "Master of the House." It's possible "Master of the House" is a translation of a legitimate Russian term, but followed by the word "equerry" it makes me think this is either a typo or a flat-out mistake and should be "Master of the Horse." Just putting this here for the experts to review. 2601:5CC:C900:345:50F1:ABA9:666:8826 ( talk) 13:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
It is ghost date. Battle for Moscow took place on October 22 Old Style. Now (In 2006 year ) October 22 by Julian calendar correlates to 4 November by Gregorian calendar, but in 1612 gap between Old Style and New Style was smaller, it was November 1 by Gregorian calendar.
See en Russian ru:День народного единства and "ЧТО БУДУТ ПРАЗДНОВАТЬ В РОССИИ 4 НОЯБРЯ 2005 ГОДА?" -- ajvol 18:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The article language shows it is obviously based on 1911 article, thus the 1911 pov tag. Usage of 19th century nationalist sources for some massacres, not mentioned in FA-class Polish-Muscovite War (1605-1618) is a 'no-no'; please provide proper reliable sources if you want to keep such unknown massacres in the article. Usage of such sources was demonstrated as very unreliable at FA Warsaw Uprising (1794), among other pages.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Instead of revert warring over tags, please adopt my strategy and reference the article with proper reliable and verifiable references.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
It has been now clearly shown - on talk, as well as in the unfortunate revert war on article - that there is no consensus article is reliable or neutral. Thus the tags should stay until there is consensus the problems have been addressed. Per my comments above, the problem will not go away if the tags (and edits) are reverted; what is needed is expansion and better references.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The world has changed since 1911. Get some reading and write an article. Xx236 16:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry guys but 1911 is not a fully reliable source nowadays. Or do you think refering to Papuans as "vicious cannibals with less intelligence than white man" and many others like that, is an example of todays professional academic work? - Darwinek 17:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Briefly: coming from the perspective of someone who does a lot of work here with opera/classical music articles, I've found the 1911 Britannica to be a bit of joke: very POV, very Anglocentric, and way too flowery. Avoid at all costs. As to the rest, no opinion due to ignorance. Moreschi Talk 17:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment: modern Britannica has article on ToT. It would be acceptable reference. It mentions no 'brigands' or 'massacres'. On another note, assuming this is the 1911 article, the 1911 issue is not that crucial - although language of that article indicates it probably incorporates other 1911 articles (more general 'history of Russia' probably). Update: as history of Russia mentions WWII, this is probably not a 1911 article...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a policy, that Solovyev can be oposed. Xx236 17:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
If we like, we can have a section about the historiography of the Time of Troubles, and discuss what 19th century Russian historians thought and wrote about it. The work of Sergey Solovyov can be cited there. But we simply cannot use the work of that author, who died in 1879, as the primary source here for events described in the main body of the article. There is such a thing as progress in historical research, and Wikipedia should endavour to provide its readers with the latest research information, not dig up works written over a century ago, and completely corrupted by the POV prevalent at that time and place.
After all, were we to allow this, the next logical step would be citing works of authors from the American South written before 1861 "proving" the inferiority of African-Americans, or citing 19th century British works lauding the British Empire for its benevolent and enlightened approach to the natives. Balcer 18:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Ineed, Balcer. I'd also like to direct readers attention to Polish-Muscovite_War_(1605–1618)#Modern_legacy, where we note that that period of history was greatly misrepresented in local national histories (Russian and Polish). It is a normal approach to treat old local historical sources carefully and balance them ( WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, WP:RS#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources come to mind). This article should be referenced with proper modern (not reprints!) academic works, preferably from neutral historians (i.e. Western English are best for English Wikipedia). Claims of massacres certainly cannot be supported by 19th century sources alone; inserting such claims backed with dubious sources is simply fringe POV pushing. If those massacres happened, use better references which cannot be disputed - as mentioned above, if you want this info to stay, providing proper refs is your responsibility, anybody can dispute unreferenced or unreliably referenced information.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
In the future, if you accuse me of incivility, please care to cite the specific WP:CIV clause or just the clause from the common sense or dictionary definition of civility. As for the book, perhaps I was not making myself clear. Of course the ISBN defines the book uniquely. No doubt about that. The point is that this particular edition (happens to be indexed by google) is an abridged one and I have a full edition which does not have an ISBN. I simply added an ISBN I found on google books to make the checking easier without realizing that the particular edition may matter. I will correct that. -- Irpen 03:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, finally got it cleared up. The LOC catalog did not mention which LCCN, ISBN or LCC refers to which edition, the single volume abridged one or the 5-volume one. In fact, the first edition (first four volumes was published for the first time in 1943) and was revised for multiple editions that followed. Each volume had a title on its own in addition to the generic History of Russia V.2 or other.
However, the fifth volume in two parts was published by Yale U Press only in 1969. The book in Russian I am reading says that it is a translation of this 1969 version.
The English version is too old to have ISBN. LCC DK40 .V44 points to a first four volumes in LOC. The code for the separate fifth volume apparently cannot be found in LOC but I found it in Saint Anselm College library under [4] (hope the link works for you.) The Russian edition I am reading is published in 2001 under ISBN 5-85929-016-0 . Thanks again, Piotrus, for motivating me to clear this up. -- Irpen 04:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 05:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Contoversies of the PSW was [ not started by me and you know that. My mistake was to create that section in the PSW article instead of properly integrating the relevant info in the text and the less relevant info to the proper subarticles. Not only this choice of me was stylistically poor but it allowed you to simply remove it all from the article in one step in a convenient way. I will certainly merge the content with the articles according to the degree of relevance when I have time and won't repeat that mistake again. Artificial sections, like "trivia", "controversies", etc, damage articles more than I realized back than. They are actually more harmful as sections than as articles. The latter is just a bad by design article, no big deal to have it on a backburner. The former is also a damage to an article that may otherwise be good. For what it's worse, I even created the delete proposal of tl:Trivia in Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedias. -- Irpen 05:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
And now, great news, I found the war diary of rotmistr Mikolaj Marchocki "Historia Wojny Moskiewskiej", a witness of these events. It has been republished in Russian in 2000. Maybe you can find a Polish version. Or Halibutt who owns an impressive library can get his hands on this one? Of course we can't use his own speculations and conclusions since he obviously lacked perspective and hindsight available to later historians but it would be very useful for fact checking, won't it? The online version of the Russian translation is available. It is published along with amazingly interesting MM's correspondence with Shuyski, Zborowski, etc., supplied with foreword, maps and plenty of annotations. BTW, do you want to know what word is used for the March 1911 event? In the Russian translation it says "Резня" (literary "slaughter") and he gives some quite graphic account. Should we replace the massacre by slaughter by any chance? I think in Polish it would be "Rzeź" but I have not seen the Polish version. I would like to thank you again for prompting me to bring more sources to WP. -- Irpen 22:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Seven thousand are cited by both Vernadsky i Solovyov. -- Irpen 04:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Piotrus, we are talking not the opinions here (liberated vsoccupied) but mere facts. A serious historian of the 19th century used the same sources than the modern one (few chronicles were dug out from the library stacks, fewer than the number of chronicles lost in fire.) Solovyov is certainly a reputable historian. He may have had a POV but he certainly would not lie. Any book on the Russian history refers to him frequently. Same applies to Karamzin and Kostomarov. Please do not be ridiculous. -- Irpen 05:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
These aren't. It's you turn to prove they are reliable. Xx236 12:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
and don't use offensive language. Xx236 12:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Piotrus, did you read the Muscovy article? Both in WP and in EB? Also check Tsardom of Russia. Please do not reinstall the anachronistic term. Thank you. -- Irpen 19:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I did not link to [[Russia]] anywhere, I double checked again. I linked to Tsardom. The rest of your edit is an overall unexplained revert with the removal of well referenced and relevant info. I am restoring the info. Please note that article does have inline refs. More can be added by the tl on top is out of place. Stop attacking the article whatever your motivations are. -- Irpen 19:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Muscovy is a redirect, the article is Grand Duchy of Moscow. Xx236 11:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
When reading this article from Finnish viewpoint it is still missing lot of reliable information. If start from Vasili Shuiski´s agreement with Sweden made in Viipuri (Viborg) located in Karelian Isthmus in Finland (then part of Swedish Kingdom) in 1609. In this agreement Vasili Shuiski promised to cede Käkisalmi (Kexholm) province to Sweden-Finland if Carolus (Charles) IX would help him (Vasili) in the battle against Carolus own brother, Sigismund III, The King of Poland. The main reason for this was religion, Vasili was an Orthodox, Sigismund an Catholic and Carolus an Lutherian. Vasili knew that the Lutherians had no claims to convert Othodoxs in "Whole Holy Russian Land" to Lutherian fate, as the Catholic Sigismund had, with the warm support of Holy Seat in Rome. After this agreement was signed the commander of Swedish-Finnish forces, supplemented by some, in number less than 1.000 pay soldiers from Netherlands, Scotland and France (Hugenots), Jacob (Jaakko) De la Gardie, son of Pontus De la Gardie, and a young Finnish Evert ( Eevartti) Horn of whose main body were Finnish soldiers, started its march from Northern Estonia (so called Virumaa) which Russia had to have ceded to Sweden in Treaty of Teusina (Täysinä / Täyssinä) in 1595. This army of about 14.000 to 15.000 soldiers marched through Pihkova (Pskov / Pihkva / Pleskau / Pleskavas etc) and arrived to Novgorod where it stopped for couple of weeks. Of course Carolus (Kaarle) wanted at first by personal family reasons to avoid any open confict with his brother´s army, the United Polish-Lithuanian Personal Union´s Forces which operated against the Russians in farther sourhern direction. After a stop in Novgorod this Swedish-Finnish army started to its march to Moscow where it arrived in early 1610. It repressed all disturbances in City and repressed the open mution by some Russian factions against Vasili Shuiski. Its participation to the battle of Klushino in summer 1610, and particularly its huge losses claimed by the Russians is questionable. If there would have been a destroying an armed force of nearly 15.000 men, most of them Finns, there would have been "land sorrow" in Finland. Instead of this, main force of Jacob De la Gardie´s army left Moscow (exact date still to be verified) and returned to Novgorod. It did not move nowhere from Novgorod until the Treaty of Stolbova was signed in 1617. From this "Army in Beeing" in Novgorod without doing any important military operations Jacob (Jaakko) De la Gardie received his nickname "Lazy Jacob or Laiska Jaakko". Here again, from military point of view it would be impossible to defend the Novgorod and Pihkova areas against the Russian attacks with only 200 men. Meanwhile some Finnish troops captured Käkisalmi in 1611 without fight, when the Karelian chief of Käkisalmi Fortress ceded the castle to approaching (Swedish-)Finnish troops which kept it until the Peace Treaty in Stolbova was signed. How all this could have been possible with only 200 men which were left to Jacob De la Gardie and Evert Horn after the Battle of Kjushino, (according to Russian sources) to have Novgorod and Pskov areas occupied and Käkisalmi captured both in 1611 after the Battle of Kjushino. Maybe the only ones who perished from Jacob De la Gardie´s army where the pay soldiers to whom the foreign origin Moscow merchants collected money to join to the Russian forces and had a well known tendency to change a side to that side which payed the best salary. Anyway, Battle of Kjushino is not marked in Finnish military history in any importance. Only a mention that Jacob De la Gardie´s battles in Livonia were not a success against the combined Polish-Lithuanian forces. The article rises more questions of its relibiality than gives answers to the people interested in Russian history.
Peharps some interested could seek more information by name of Ponce Scorperier from Lancuedoc in France. He was Pontus De la Gardie, Jacob´s father who drowned into Narva River on November 5,1585. The Swedish Wikipedia says that Jacob was buried in Sweden, but his grave is also in Tallinn Dome Church together with his father´s grave. Was his coffin later removed from Sweden to Tallinn or by that time better known as Reval? There reads Jacobus De la Gardie. Evert (Eevartti) Horn died in 1615 at the age of only 21 in the Siege of Pihkova (Pskov). He is buried in Turku (Åbo) Dome Church.
For the non Swedish and non Finnish it is sometimes difficult to sepatate who was Swede and who was Finn by their names. The Finnish upper class adopted Swedish names and there were also Finnish-Swedes, descenders of Swedes who moved to Finland in 1100-1200 for separation of Riksvensk ( State Swedes) living in Sweden not Finland.
Regarding the Russian sources, I have found those published in Imperial Russia before the Bolshevik revolution very trustable when the Panslavonic propaganda is omitted, but nearly all 1918-1988 Soviet sources untrustable in viewing historical events. I think that in all edge states Turkey, Roumania, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland this have been clearly remarked. It is a pity that most of Russian historians are still prisoners of this era propaganda fullfilled stories, only created to serve one course the Russian history of areas which were not originally Russians.
For example, how many of the writers in these pages know that there was a fluorishing town, the capital of Grand Duke of Purgaz, named Obranjosh located on the confuence of Rivers Oka and Raw (Russian Volga). Complete destroyed by one Vladimir Prince in 1221. Most of the defenders including also women and children committed mass suecide by voluntarely drowning themselves to Raw to avoid serfdom under Russian Princes and pajars (bojars). More then half of the population escaped behind Raw. Capital of Grand Duke was removed to Arzamas. The Russians founded a new Russian Nizhnij Novgorod to the place where former Obranjosh had been. No wonder that many joined to Tatar-Mongolian troops during Mongol-Tatar invasion in 1237-1240.
JN
Chester Dunning's Russia's First Civil War would be an excellent source to update this article.-- Mcpaul1998 07:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The article is very good. But! Where is the describing of the Bolotnikov's uprising? It was a very important part of the time of troubles. Chulman ( talk) 16:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not an expert here but just a reader. However, the term I have usually seen (in other cultures and histories) is always given as "Master of the Horse," not "Master of the House." It's possible "Master of the House" is a translation of a legitimate Russian term, but followed by the word "equerry" it makes me think this is either a typo or a flat-out mistake and should be "Master of the Horse." Just putting this here for the experts to review. 2601:5CC:C900:345:50F1:ABA9:666:8826 ( talk) 13:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)