Jump to content

Talk:Finnish–Novgorodian wars

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 88.114.235.214 (talk) at 14:15, 12 September 2007 (The term is a neologism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconFinland GA‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Finland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Finland 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.WikiProject icon
GAThis article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Medieval GA‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
GAThis article has been rated as GA-class on the project's quality scale.
Associated task forces:
Taskforce icon
Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)


The term is a neologism

The term is a neologism; it has no usage in scholarly literature. There was no Finnish state at the period, so apply the term "war" to the conflicts in question is rather misleading. --Ghirla-трёп- 16:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finns did not form a unified "state" back then, but Novgorodians considered them as a single entity to fight with. How Finns organized their defences or attacks, is unknown. Wikipedia's definition of war is "prolonged state of violent, large-scale conflict involving two or more groups of people", which pretty much applies. As for the comment that it has "no usage in scholarly literature", it surely has usage in Finnish history, which is however largely written in Finnish for Finns themselves. --Drieakko 22:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope there is no objection to moving the page, so as to underscore the unilateral character of these conflicts. We may call them "wars" in the text. --Ghirla-трёп- 08:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly discuss the moves before doing them. I object this move. Attacks were not just Novgorodians against Finns, but Finns equally against Novgorod. Your new name "Novgorodian raids into Finland" is misleading. --Drieakko 08:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, there was no "Finland" at the time and Russian sources never mention that name. --Drieakko 08:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you are as stubborn as ever. Well, I don't care about the history of Finladn and I see no point in wasting my time on pointless bickering with you. I know from experience that may go on for days if not months. Bye, Ghirla-трёп- 08:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words. If you don't care about the history of Finland, it does not mean that it has no value. Personal commenting aside, criticizing your strange claim that the attacks were "unilateral" when the best described of these conflicts is a Finnish attack against Novgorod, is not "pointless bickering". --Drieakko 09:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Summary about Russian chronicles for the readers confused about this discussion:
* Novgorodians attacked Finns 4 times (5, if the 1042 attack was really against Finns)
* Karelians attacked Finns 1 time
* Finns attacked Novgorodians 3 times
It can be assumed that many more attacks took place, but this is what the Russian chroniclers considered worth writing down. --Drieakko 09:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some reiteration to my previous post. Just two of the chronicle entries tell about a Russian attack against the "country of the Finns", presumably Finland, that is. Three other entries (including the 1042 entry) leave the physical location of the war open, just mentioning that Novgorodian troops were at war with Finns, not revealing if that was defensive or offensive. So we have:
* Novgorodians attacked Finland 2 times
* Finns attacked Novgorodian area 3 times
* Novgorodians were at war with Finns 3 times, location open
* Karelians were at war with Finns 1 time, location open
At the end of the day, the sources are pretty open for an interpretation, that the more offensive party where the Finns, not Novgorod. --Drieakko 06:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't care about the history of Finland then why are you editing an article about the history of Finland? Jus so you could spread your biased Russophile lies? --88.114.235.214 14:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't a Russian state at this time neither. Still the Novgorodians were Russians. Since when has an independent state been needed for a people to exist? --88.114.235.214 14:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish - Novgorodian War 1042

Hehee, was there any Novgorodian State in 1042? I suggest Ghirla to take also little better study to history. Novgorod was in 1042 only one Principality (merely a declining "town") under Kywa (Kijev) Rosh. One quite reliable source list this war against Jems as a robbery expedition against the Finno Ugrian tribe living in the upper sources of Vienajoki. Thus, it could also have been the first fur robbery raid against Perma or Syrjäns (Komis). Just for your knowledge, Syrjääni (People living far away in the edge) meant originally Syrjässä asuvat or Syrjäläiset ( taken from Hämes side living in land which was far away from Vienajoki). If they would have attacked against the Baltic Finnish tribe in Häme located in the Peninsula of Suomi (Finland), they would have had attacked against Karelians at first even to get closer battle with the Häme tribe. Where is a mention in old Russian sources, written later, of war between Kywa Rosh and Karelians in 1042?

The first Orthodox Archbishop in Rostov, Leontij, mentions the tribes which spoke Russian as follows:

- Poljans

- Dreuljans

- Polotshans

- Dregovitshes

- Severjans

- Buzhans

- Novgorodians

All other spoke other languages than Russian (Old Slavonic).

Where there any Russian State at that moment? Only small Principalities, all smashed by Batu in 1237 - 1240. Then more than 200 years "Vassal Principalities" under Mongol - Tatars. The first Russian State can be said to have born with Romanovs in 1613. Please use Principalities for all other feodal Principalities and Commercial Republic of Novgorod when it exsisted. The Imperial Russian State 1613 - 1917. Sorry, but without knowledge of Finno Ugrian history you cannot write the history of Slavonic Russia.

JN

Finns

I don't want to open a can of worms, and it is not a big deal, so I won't change it in the article, but isn't Finn a bit ambiguous in this time and place? West Norse sources, and probably the Swedish rune stones as well, use Finn and Finland in the meaning Saami, and the place called Finland during the Middle Ages was the province of Varsinais-Suomi.--Berig 09:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comments. This discussion needs some wandering on the unrelated territory, so please excuse me. By the early Middle Ages, the usage of the word "finn" seems to have separated to two different meanings. On one hand, Norwegians called the Sami people as "finns" and apparently Finns as "kvens". On the other hand, Swedes called Finns as "finns" and the Sami people as "scridifinns" or "lapps", which became the dominant Swedish term later on. Separation of Finns and Sami people in Swedish sources is meaningful only from the 5-6th century onwards, when a specifically "Finnish" culture is detectable from archaeological finds. The then population of "Finland" seems to be a fusion of Swedish settlers (1st to 4th centuries) and the original coastal population. They lived mainly from cattle and farming, which clearly separated them from the wandering Sami people, living from gathering and herding of reindeers. The term "lapp" was loaned from Finnish, roughly meaning "outlying district" and its inhabitants. This division of terms remained dominant until the 20th century.
So, it seems rather certain that both Finns and the Sami people were originally called as "finns" by the Germanic people. Furthermore, both Finns and Sami people (or the people from which the later groups developed from) used a Baltic word *zeme ("earth") about themselves, which later on developed to indigenous nomenclatures "suomi" (Finn) and "sápmi" (Sami). Internally and externally, the forefathers of Finns and the Sami people seem to have been considered as a unified group of people.
In the Middle Ages (latest from the 11th century onwards), the word "finn" was already used about Finns outside the Norwegian/Icelandic cultural environment, which kept using "kven" for Finns and "finn" for the Sami people.
The word "Finland" seems to have meant the current southwestern Finland right from the beginning. The respective term for the Sami area was "Finnmark" (meaning exactly the same as Finland!) which developed in Swedish first to Lappmark and then to Lappland, but kept its old form in Norwegian.
Then to the terminology in this article. The Russian sources use the word "yem" about their opponents, which until the mid-13th century was the only label about the inhabitants living in today's Finland. From then on, "yem" started to mean specifically Tavastians and the word "sum" emerged in the meaning of southwestern Finns ("suomi"). This separation was apparently due to the establishment of the Catholic church and Swedish dominance in the southwestern part of today's Finland, while Tavastians still remained free.
The words "Finn" and "Finland" are already available in contemporary Catholic sources in their later medieval meanings, so using them about the Russians' opponents in general and about the country in which they lived, seems to me the closest meaningful approximation. --Drieakko 10:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One thing: the Swedish immigrants probably came to Finland beginning from the 13th century or maybe some came a couple of centuries earlier (with Ahvenanmaa being colonized by Swedes maybe in the 9th century or so). --88.114.235.214 14:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yam and Yem

Dispute whether the Yam were the same as the Yem requires a reference (will get it as I remember where I got that info). The dispute itself is not difficult to come in terms with as it stems from the following facts:

  • Year 1042 sounds way too early for a Finnish-Novgorodian conflict
  • Primary Chronicle's list of tributary people does not mention Karelians at all. This makes Yam as Finns sound strange, since Karelians lived closer to Novgorod than Finns
  • Prince Vladimir Yaroslavich was leading a fleet against the Byzantine Empire in 1043. In this context, it would sound awfully strange that a man of this kind of ambitions was personally fighting on the other side of the continent only a year before, wasting his time against a meaningless opponent.

Based on this, it has been speculated that the Yam were an altogether different people somewhere in the southern plains of Russia. And a reference would be nice. --Drieakko 15:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To continue the previous post, Izhorians, another Finnic people living in between the Novgorodian area and Finns, are also omitted from the Primary Chronicle. The probable reason why Novgorod had not yet been able to spread its influence on the areas of Karelians and Izhorians was the fact that the strategic fortress of Staraya Ladoga was still in Swedish possession, which ended only sometime later in the 11th century. Tensions between Finns and Novgorod seem to have escalated to war around the same time that the Swedish-Novgorodian relations soured and Novgorod took over rivers flowing in and out of Lake Ladoga latest in the early 12th century. --Drieakko 11:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GAC passed

I am pleased to inform you that this article has passed it's GA candidancy. I think that the article meets the GA criteria. However, there are a few things that could use improvement like the lead section needs expansion and there are some un cited paragrahphs that need to be cited. So congratulations and I hope this article can improve more. Kyriakos 02:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for spending time with the article! --Drieakko 04:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]