Talk:List of wars between Russia and Sweden

Requested move

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.

The result of the move request was: moved to List of wars between Russia and Sweden by participant as uncontroversial. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

---

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. bd2412 T 21:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support, looks uncontroversial to me. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - having looked at this again, I actually think there may be slightly better targets than the one proposed. At the very least, I think it should be List of Russo-Swedish wars with different capitalisation, since it is not a title, but possibly also something along the lines of List of wars between Russia and Sweden? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • 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. bd2412 T 15:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Clearly the truth is being suppressed by KGB goons. Wikipedia is not a tool of Putin. Many sources have debated the war and suspect that in a years time a new conflict will undoubtedly occur. 2A02:1810:3D25:CA00:8970:EF84:7BA4:19C0 (talk) 00:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 01:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

• 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)

Language

Someone needs to link the Swedish version of this, which does exist at https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rysk-svenska_krig. I have no idea how to do so myself so I would appreciate it. Gvssy (talk) 00:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I dont think there is a Swedish version Dencoolast33 (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

oh, sorry. there is a swedish version Dencoolast33 (talk) 10:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

More wars?

Should we include the invasion of Åland and the Swedish intervention in Persia? Dencoolast33 (talk) 10:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we should, since they weren't techniclly wars because of the lack of a declaration of war Gvssy (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

okay, then ill stand down. Dencoolast33 (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@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, 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)

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)

Okay, thank you Dencoolast33 (talk) 10:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Åland invasion

@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.

I suggest that you self revert and let the discussion here in the talk page decide what the content of the entry should be. Pinging all editors active on the page this year: @Gvssy, Dushnilkin, Tinkaer1991, Brandmeister, Sadustu Tau, and Julle: --T*U (talk) 22:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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;

VENÄLÄISSURMAT SUOMESSA 1914–22 (page 91)

Though, this is still active combat between Russians an Swedes which would mean (atleast in my opinion) that it deserves a spot on this list.

I hope this answers your questions! Dencoolast33 (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

Sorry, I did not realize that you couldent acces the link, it worked fine when i foung copy-pasteded it.

It should work now:

https://vnk.fi/documents/10616/622938/J0104_Ven%C3%A4l%C3%A4issurmat%20Suomessa%201914%E2%80%9322.pdf/2415ed54-b624-4a33-a3ce-300190a58cc8

Ill provide a quote and a translation:

'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)

Thanks, Dencoolast33, appreciated!

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)

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)

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)

Okay, fair enough. Dencoolast33 (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reasonable discussion about the topic! /Julle (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

its the least i can do! thanks to you too. Dencoolast33 (talk) 07:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Result

@Dolbegos To prevent an edit war I will begin a discussion here.

I would like to present some key points.

1. The Russian objective (to destroy Olofsborg) ended in complete failure
2. 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.

I will wait for your response. Gvssy (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

Oh, Wikipedia split my text, now there will be a normal answer,Wait Dolbegos (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

1 part:

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)

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)

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)

Also, this literally calls it a war. Gvssy (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

In the book by Alexey Shkvarov "Russia - Sweden. History of military conflicts. 1142-1809"

The conflict is described as follows: Dolbegos (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Does it say directly that the Russians had no plans of destroying Olofsborg? Gvssy (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Therefore, the result of this conflict is still indecisive Dolbegos (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

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."

This clearly indicates that the Russians began the war to destroy Olofsborg. Gvssy (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Again, Russia clearly cared about Olofsborg if they began an entire war in order to destroy it. Gvssy (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Please don't randomly leave a discussion, I would appreciate it if you replied. Gvssy (talk) 12:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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.

@Gvssy @Dolbegos

Thank you! - Dencoolast33 (talk) 11:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

I See, do you have any online sources? Dencoolast33 (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

No, sadly, neither of these books seem to have any online PDFs. Gvssy (talk) 12:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

Obviously the page where Ulf Sundberg claims the 1554-1557 war is not online, although I was able to find the statement by John Chrispinsson here: 1 Gvssy (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Could you tell me the statement so that i can search it up in the search bar? Dencoolast33 (talk) 12:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

"Kriget slutade med remi" should work Gvssy (talk) 13:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

I'll try to refute this, but not now Dolbegos (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I have already explained that the destruction of Olofsborg was not the main goal of the Russians in this war Dolbegos (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

make a reply containing all of your points instead, or this topic will get too long. provide your sources too Dencoolast33 (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

Okay, could you provide links to them again? Dencoolast33 (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, make a reply containing all of your points when you have the time. Dencoolast33 (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Åbo 1191

@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)

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)

here is Karamzin's book which is listed as the source. Dushnilkin (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

Thank you, shouldn't we then remove the conflict since it was just a vague raid into Finland? Gvssy (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

@Dolbegos Please respond. Gvssy (talk) 09:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

According to https://doi.org/10.1080/03468758208579009 (p.262) the 1191 attack is mentioned in the Novgorod Chronicle. This is what the chronicle says: The men of Novgorod went in sailing vessels with the Korel people against the Yem, and made war on their land and burned it, and cut to pieces the cattle.[1] I see no reason to call this an "Attack on Turku/Åbo", or even to include it in this list, since the Yem were not under a Swedish rule at the time. It was perhaps Birger Jarl in the 1240s who extended the Swedish rule to their territories. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 06:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Tiversk campaign

@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

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)

At the moment I can’t conduct a dialogue, tomorrow I’ll try to argue everything, so please wait Dolbegos (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

No problem. Gvssy (talk) 17:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Seperate article

Perhaps it would be best to create a seperate article for List of wars between Sweden and Novgorod, since Russia and Novgorod were very much seperate states. I would like to know other people's thoughts on this, though. Gvssy (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Chronicles such as Livonian Chronicle of Henry claim that the Novgorodians were Russians (Ruthenians), we should leave it as it is Polski Piast from Poland (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't change the fact that they were very seperate states, why should the wars seperate states be included in one article? Gvssy (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

That Duchy of Mazovia wasn't Polish either according to you? Novgorod is also counted as a history of the Swedish-Russian wars (see here) Polski Piast from Poland § (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

This comparison does not work. According to the leed of the article you cited, it was a fiefdom of Poland. Novgorod was not a fiefdom of Moscow, and wasnt under any type of subjugation until the 1470s. Furthermore, the fact that these wars are clumped together in the book does not, by any means, prove that these states were not seperate. They're probably included since the Russo-Swedish and Novgorodian-Swedish wars were primarily fought in the same locations. Gvssy (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean that the states are separate, Novgorod is Russian history, and I gave you the example of Mazovia because it was a Polish principality from the Feudal fragmentation of Poland (1138–1320) as well as Novgorod from Russian

I ping people who know Kievan Rus' history and will help you in this matter as I do @Dushnilkin @Nederlandse Leeuw Polski Piast from Poland § (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but again, Russia and Novgorod were not the same state, and thus should not be included in the same article, since it is also called "List of wars between Russia and Sweden" Your example Mazovia fails because it, as the article says, was a fiefdom and was under some Polish authority. Gvssy (talk) 10:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

At the time when the Russian-Swedish conflicts began, there was no single centralized state "Russia" or "Muscovy", however, authors such as Nikolai Karamzin emphasize that they should be considered as an integral system of relations, as well as a continuous connected story. So I don't think it would be appropriate to divide the article, everything is clearly highlighted, except that I think it is necessary to divide the conflicts between Sweden and Moscow Russia for the period from 1468-1658 and 1700-1809, but everything is within the framework of this article, of course. Dushnilkin (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Why does Wiki constantly copy part of the text... Dushnilkin (talk) 19:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Why should the Russo–Swedish conflicts from 1468–1658 and 1700–1809 be divided? The Russian Empire was a continuation of the Tsardom of Russia and these were barely different states, this is not the case with Novgorod and Muscovy. Gvssy (talk) 10:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Novgorod is one of the Russian states that was part of Kievan Rus before 1240, Muscovy is a natural continuation of Russia, just more centralized, but I want to note that territories such as Pskov and Novgorod led an independent policy until 1565, in your opinion is this a reason not to include them in the list of conflicts? Dushnilkin (talk) 11:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

If Pskov and/or Novgorod were independent of Russia then yes? Obviously. Seperate states should not be included in an article strictly about a list of wars between Russia and Sweden. If these states were simply autonomous, and had clear support by Russia if they fought wars against Sweden until 1565, they should be included. I don't see exactly how states that broke off from the Kievan Rus should be included in the same article, just for being a continuation of the state. Gvssy (talk) 11:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Pskov and Novgorod were part of Moscovy, but led an independent policy before the Oprichnina began, Novgorod did the same until 1240, after that the united Rus collapsed due to the invasion of Batu, I do not think this should be a sharp reason why the article should be postponed. It's just that according to your logic, conflicts with Novgorod before 1240 should be included in the article, and after that not. Just let's turn to WP:RS. Dushnilkin (talk) 11:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I believe I am misunderstanding you, but what I have gathered is that you're telling me Novgorod was less independent after 1240...? That seems completely wrong, would it not be the complete opposite? My point is this: Since the article title is very clear: "List of wars between Russia and Sweden" (i.e the Russia we all know) wars fought by other states (i.e Novgorod) should not be included, since again, they were seperate. If I have my history correct Novgorod would only become subservient to Muscovy in 1475 or close to that time.

If we're going to consult sources, it seems pretty clear that they agree with me. Historians like Ulf Sundberg make a very clear distinction between the two. For example, on p.47 of "Sveriges krig 1448–1630", when discussing a war between Sweden and Novgorod, he very clearly lists the belligerents as "Sweden & Novgorod". Then, if we go to p.110, discussing Tott's first Russian war, he lists the belligerents as "Sweden and Russia". Gvssy (talk) 11:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I will explain, Novgorod was part of Rus in the period from 862-1240, but led an independent policy, remember this, after the natural collapse of Kievan Rus, Novgorod became an independent cavity, from the Mongols, among others, after 1478 Novgorod de jure became Muscovy, Moscow generals arrived there, but the region continued to pursue an independent policy. Penskoi in his book on pages 10-11, writes: «Moscow was mainly interested in the southern front and the conflict with the Tatars, while the Novgorodian and Pskovian governors were responsible for the northern territories» The situation is comparable to the 12th century, when in a single state the Novgorod politicians were engaged in the northern front, and the Kievan princes in the southern. After that, do you think it would be appropriate to separate the articles? After all, for a hundred years since the beginning of the conflict in 1142, Sweden has been waging de jure wars with united Russia. Dushnilkin (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

My point again is very simple, these wars should not be included on an article about wars between Russia and Sweden. Even if Novgorod was autonomous until 1240 where it became independent, this doesn't change my point. This discussion would ironically be more fit for the talk page on an article on the wars between Sweden and Novgorod. If the governors in Novgorod and Pskov were responsible in the north, and had no real Russian intervention, I do not believe any conflicts waged there should be included here, since they acted independently in that case, which I also said previously:

"If Pskov and/or Novgorod were independent of Russia then yes? Obviously. Seperate states should not be included in an article strictly about a list of wars between Russia and Sweden. If these states were simply autonomous, and had clear support by Russia if they fought wars against Sweden until 1565, they should be included."

I personally don't see the reasoning to oppose my suggestion, it only seems logical that differing states should have differing articles about wars they were involved in. An article for Novgorodian wars exists too, so why should its wars with Sweden not also be seperated? Gvssy (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I see how you are trying to ape the word Russia, forgetting that Novgorod is part of it and is itself a Russian state I am against removing information from this article, you can change the title of the article to "conflict between Sweden and the Russian states" the essence will not change, you are making a mistake when you try to separate Novgorod from Russia. (Karamzine 2020 pp. 84-85)

After the rise of Moscow, the political and institutional situation of the country changed, as it changed after the reforms of Peter I, however, it is Russia, and the events taking place should be considered as a continuous Russian history. Dushnilkin (talk) 13:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure, Novgorod is apart of what is today Russia, but this does not change the fact that these were seperate states. Again, I am not arguing that Novgorod was not a "Russian state" I am arguing that it was a seperate state and thus should not be included in an article clearly about wars between Russia and Sweden.

I would still like for you to answer exactly why an article for Novgorodian wars should exist, but not an article for wars between Sweden and Novgorod. Gvssy (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

1: Please note that you have made such a division into Russia, without relying on any sources. Why do you consider some things to be Russia and some not?

2: The list of wars of Novgorod exists, because this is the only way to identify conflicts related to it, in our case, the issue covers a long period, and we do not need such a division. Dushnilkin (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

But I have relied on sources. For example, on a previous reply:

"For example, on p.47 of Sveriges krig 1448–1630, when discussing a war between Sweden and Novgorod, he very clearly lists the belligerents as 'Sweden & Novgorod'. Then, if we go to p.110, discussing Tott's first Russian war, he lists the belligerents as 'Sweden and Russia'."

So I'm not sure what you mean here, my criteria for things "to be Russia" is that they weren't seperate states, as I have explained. Novgorod was a seperate state from Russia until 1478.

Your second point is confusing me, but I'll try ro respond. Simply put, it is hypocritical for you to say that this article is needed (the one about wars involving Novgorod) but not one regarding wars involving Novgorod against Sweden, the wars spanning a long period is not a reason to not make the division.

I will reiterate my point that since Novgorod was a seperate state, it should not, by any means, be included in an article pertaining to Russian-Swedish wars. Gvssy (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

1: Russian authors also highlight "wars with Novgorod, Novgorodians, etc." this does not contradict my statement, I have already explained to you why Novgorod is Russia, like any other principality, whether it is Moscow, Suzdal, Tver or Polotsk, it does not matter, the civil wars characteristic of the era were almost all all countries. It's just that you called Russia the centralized Moscow state (although in 1478 the process of unification of the principalities had just begun)

2: Such a sheet exists, simply because in another way you will not highlight conflicts related to Novgorod, in our case such an allocation is optional, the title of the article does not contradict the content because Novgorod is Russia.

P.S. I generally oppose the articles listing the wars of Kievan Rus, the Moscow Principality, Novgorod and the like, I believe that this can be accommodated within the framework of one article. Dushnilkin (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Such a distinction in historical sources does very clearly imply that these two states were seperate, as I have reiterated.. 5 times now? It is actually contradictory to say that "Novgorod is Russia" but then also claim that books using "Wars against Novgorod" and then "Wars against Russia" is not contradictory, since that is literally what it is.

Such a split is by no means "optional". In this case, I view it as completely necessary, since, again, this article is meant to list wars between Russia and Sweden, not Russia & Novgorod against Sweden.

I believe that the wars involving Novgorod should be removed from this list and perhaps moved to Swedish–Novgorodian wars and then rename it to List of wars between Novgorod and Sweden, that would be the best way to solve this dispute. Gvssy (talk) 07:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I have pointed out to you a source claiming that Novgorod is Russia, he uses both terms because they do not contradict each other, I will ask you why, provided that we have WP:RS who claims that Novgorod is Russia and directly writes this, we continue to discuss the possibility of removing this from the list, and I will ask another question, why do you think that ONLY the Moscow principality is Russia? Dushnilkin (talk) 09:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure, you have one historian who says that "Novgorod is Russia" but I'm not sure what this takes away from my point? Are you denying that Novgorod and Russia were seperate entities before 1478? Because that would be very far from the truth.

They are distinctly seperated by Ulf Sundberg, and I have no doubt in my mind that other historians also make this distinction.

We are continuing the discussion because I am trying to tell you that since these two countries were seperate until 1478, the wars of one should obviously not be included in a list pertaining to one of the countries wars against Sweden. As I have reiterated, the article name is "List of wars between Russia and Sweden" not "List of wars between Russia & Novgorod and Sweden" There is a reason why there is a list for wars involving Novgorod and a seperate one for wars involving Russia (the states were seperate)

I "think" that only Muscovy is Russia because "Muscovy" and "Russia" are usually used interchangeably, while Muscovy and "Novgorod" are not.

I invite you to look at what NLeeuw has said, seeing as you originally tagged them. Gvssy (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Gvssy makes some good points. Muscovy, Moscow and Russia are to a certain extent interchangeable terms in historiography, while Novgorod and Russia are not. Novgorod and Muscovy have even fought several wars, so we really can't just lump them all together. It would confuse our readers and not paint a historically accurate picture.

For communication purposes, I would recommend that we all use {{xt| text }} when quoting or proposing texts. E.g. List of wars between Novgorod and Sweden. That often works a lot better than bolding words or double quotation marks. I would also recommend using italics instead of bold or all caps for emphasis of specific words that we would like to draw each other's attention to. Bold letters and all caps are quite visually expressive, and when over-used, we could end up with a sort of visual "shouting match", which will probably not help us to come to a consensus in this issue. Good day to everyone. NLeeuw (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

It seems that the discussion is dragging on, we just repeat the same thing, we need to make a verdict or connect other users.

@Polish Piast, @Dolbegos I want to hear your opinion.

Invite more users here who may have actively interacted with topics covering medieval Russia. Dushnilkin (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I think we should be careful about pinging editors to get involved on this contentious topic area, especially for people currently sanctioned under Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Balkans or Eastern Europe. (Pinging me was probably okay, I'm not under topic area sanctions, and the user who pinged me appears to have expected me to take their side, but I am actually taking the opposite side, so it's not WP:CANVAS.) That said, a few more participants might help to move the conversation forward towards a consensus, so they may be welcomed. NLeeuw (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, I didn't tag you, those, I marked the only people I contacted on the topic of medieval Russia. I didn't know about the aforementioned sanctions. Dushnilkin (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

That's okay. I thought I would mention it just in case, not only for your attention but to everyone else who might be reading along. :) NLeeuw (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the information anyway Dushnilkin (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support There is Swedish–Novgorodian Wars. We do not speak of the Tsardom of Russia until 1547, while the Novgorod Republic ceased to exist in 1478. One may argue, as this list does, that the Principality of Moscow is the predecessor of the Tsardom of Russia, and thus pre-1547 Muscovite-Swedish conflicts may be included in this list. But we can't have it both ways by arguing that the Novgorod Republic is also the predecessor of the Tsardom of Russia. It isn't. There is a 70-year gap, and that is filled by the Principality of Moscow. There is a List of wars involving the Novgorod Republic, and there is a List of wars involving the Principality of Moscow, and they are not the same things. NLeeuw (talk) 05:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Comment: This edit of 6 March 2024 is the first time that specific wars between Novgorod and Sweden have been added to this article (apart from the series of Swedish–Novgorodian Wars being in the list and later the "See also" section, where it probably should be). The rationale was: It might cuase a bit of a debate including novgorod on this list but Russia does consider itself a predecessor of the Nogorod republic, so i think its fair to include Novgorod in some capacity. This doesn't really make sense; perhaps Dencoolast33 meant to say 'successor' rather than 'predecessor'?

  Either way, legally speaking the Russian Federation is the successor of the Soviet Union, which is the successor of the Russian Republic, which is the successor of the Russian Empire, which is the successor of the Tsardom of Russia, which is the successor of the Principality of Moscow, which is an offshoot appanage of the Grand Principality of Vladimir (and later annexed Vladimir). At that point, the line stops, because Daniel of Moscow died before inheriting the title of grand prince of Vladimir. Vladimir itself was an offshoot appanage of Suzdal, which an offshoot appanage of Rostov, which was an offshoot appanage of Kiev (Kyiv). The Novgorod Republic began as the Principality of Novgorod, a separate appanage offshoot of Kiev (Kyiv). It had a completely different institutional, dynastic and political history.

  What the present-day government of the Russian Federation may claim about the Novgorod Republic holds no special value overriding Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Equally, if the present-day government of Ukraine began claiming that the Novgorod Republic is part of "Ukrainian history" because its origins lie in Kievan Rus' (Kyivan Rus'), which was based in Kiev/Kyiv, also the present-day capital of Ukraine, that would hold no special value for us Wikipedians in how we present our content. These arguments lead us nowhere but into WP:POV territory. Instead, we should have separate lists of wars, and add links to related lists of wars in the "See also" section at the bottom of the article. Readers can draw their own conclusions about how former states and present-day states relate to each other, which is usually a very subjective point of view, and which Wikipedia can therefore not present. NLeeuw (talk) 09:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  In general, the remark is good, but you forget that there are many representatives of Kiev or Vladimir who reigned in Novgorod, I think Yaroslav the wise or Alexander Nevsky do not need to be reposed, but I do not deny that in general the history of Novgorod was separate from Kiev or conditional Galich. Dushnilkin (talk) 16:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  True, you are right about that. So I think we generally agree. :)

  This is also one reason why I created the List of wars involving the Novgorod Republic, separate from the List of wars involving Kievan Rus'. There is a lot of overlap, but they were not the same. Often the prince of Kiev and the prince or city of Novgorod would be on opposite sides of a conflict, so we can't really lump them all together. I think it's better to have several lists that mention the same events, but from a different perspective, than to try and squeeze them all together in a way that may be misleading or confusing our readers. NLeeuw (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  In the case of Kievan Rus, this is logical, I wrote about it above. However, there is no such confrontation in the case of the Russian Tsardom, since there is obviously a second side to the conflict - the Swedes, and Novgorodians did not take their side against the Moscow principality. That's reason because I don't support splitting the article. Dushnilkin (talk) 17:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, I do not understand what you mean. Which confrontation in the case of the Russian Tsardom are you referring to? NLeeuw (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'm just saying that since there were no such conflicts, the comparison with Kievan Rus is not very correct, sorry if I somehow expressed myself incorrectly, my English level is quite weak Dushnilkin (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  It's okay if your English is not advanced. I think all of us here do not have English as our native language. Mine is Dutch, yours is apparently Russian, Gvssy's and Dencoolast33's is apparently Swedish, and Polish Piast's native language is probably... well, Polish.

  If I read back the discussions on this talk page during the past several months, I think that a lot of misunderstandings are due to the fact that non-native English speakers are trying to explain things to each other but often not able to find the right words, and therefore the others do not understand them. And so, often people seem to be talking past each other. I think that means we need to be patient and careful, so that we can understand what the other is saying.

  What kind of conflicts do you mean, between who and who, and when? If it helps, you could write it down in Russian, and I'll use DeepL or Google Translate to try and make sense of it. (I know some basic Russian and Ukrainian; I might be able to understand where something goes wrong in grammar or vocabulary when someone is trying to say something in English.) NLeeuw (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  I consider the division of articles between Kievan Rus and Novgorod logical, simply because at that time civil conflicts between the principalities were quite common, and the positions of the Novgorodians sometimes contradicted the positions of the Kievan princes. Based on this, it would be logical to divide the articles. Just to avoid confusion.

  In the case of the Russian-Swedish wars, this cannot happen, it is the conflicts between Sweden and some variation of Russia that stand out, so there should be no unclear moments with this, the question should be asked, then why the separation? Dushnilkin (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for clearly explaining what you mean! I see things in another way.

  • Novgorod and Kiev/Kievan Rus' had frequent conflicts.
    • So did Novgorod and Muscovy/Russia.
      • No reason to treat them differently.
  • The positions of the Novgorodians sometimes contradicted the positions of the Kievan princes.
    • So did the positions of the Novgorodians and Muscovites / princes of Moscow.
      • No reason to treat them differently.
  • There were conflicts between Sweden and some variation of Russia.
    • some variation of Russia is very vague, arbitrary and subjective. Someone else could join this conversation and claim that the Novgorod Republic, the Pskov Republic, the Principality of Smolensk, the Principality of Polotsk/Polatsk, the Principality of Chernigov/Chernihiv, the Principality of Pereyaslavl'-Russky etc. are all some variation of Ukraine if we are to accept the argument that Kyivan Rus' was a Ukrainian state. That is just a WP:POV that Wikipedia cannot present. On the other hand, one could claim that some of these conflicts between Novgorod and Sweden that mostly took place on present-day territory of Finland meant that when our sources say Sweden, that is really just some variation of Finland. So this series of Swedish-Novgorodian wars are really just Russo-Finnish wars. I don't think this is a very helpful way to be reasoning, and to be presenting our contents to our readers. Besides, even if we were to accept this argument, why wouldn't you just say that Novgorod was some variation of Kievan Rus'? That actually makes more sense, legally, dynastically, politically and institutionally speaking. But you agreed with me that it's best to keep those two separated. So why not Novgorod and Muscovy/Russia?
      • No reason to treat them differently.

  Conclusion: We separate Novgorod from Kievan Rus', and we separate Novgorod from Muscovy/Russia, because there is no reason to treat these two historical situations differently. Good night. NLeeuw (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  In the context of this article, the Novgorod-Moscow wars are not mentioned, the narrative is limited only to conflicts with Sweden. Therefore, the article cannot be compared with the list of wars of the Novgorod Republic / Kievan Rus, etc.

  The article on which we are discussing this separates Novgorod from Muscovy, everything is quite clearly divided here. And I don't think there will be a person who will claim that Novgorod is a Ukrainian state. Dushnilkin (talk) 11:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. I think what Dushnilkin is referring to is that even after the tsardom was proclaimed in 1547, there were still 'states' like Novgorod and Moscow that existed, but were not independent. For example, the following is found when referring to Fyodor Borisovich's accession in 1598: "... She blessed and commanded her son, our Great Sovereign, Tsarevich Prince Fyodor Borisovich of all Russia, to be tsar and autocrat over the Muscovite state and over all states of the Russian tsardom, just as also his father, the Great Sovereign Tsar, and Grand Prince Boris Fyodorovich, Autocrat of all Russia, had been tsar over the Russian state" (quote from Orthodox Russia in Crisis: Church and Nation in the Time of Troubles p. 95).

When the Swedes occupied Novgorod in 1611, they signed a treaty "on behalf of the Novgorod state" and the accession of the "Moscow and Vladimir states" was welcomed in the treaty. This is what I found from Accounts of an Occupied City: Catalogue of the Novgorod Occupation Archives, 1611-1617 which is a great piece of work on the occupation of Novgorod: "The feudal Novgorod Republic was incorporated in 1471 in Ivan III’s Muscovite kingdom in its capacity as the Novgorod State, which for a long time was able to retain a degree of autonomy. Its governors dealt with various types of business of a national and local character, without reporting everything to the tsar... For example, deliberations between the Russian realm and Sweden were held in Novgorod and agreements and treaties were concluded by the governors of that city and attested with a seal that had been made in 1565 solely to confirm peace treaties with Sweden..., in 1608,... Here Skopin-Šujskij concluded a preliminary agreement with the king’s secretary Måns Mårtensson Palm, and in April he confirmed the Treaty of Viborg and affixed to it the seal of the Novgorod State." (p. 37)

The dispute here seems to be whether this article should only cover wars between Sweden and a (unified) 'Russia' or whether it should include all wars between Sweden and Russians. If the latter option is deemed viable, then I would suggest to move the article to Russo-Swedish Wars instead, to make this clearer, as is done with ru:Русско-шведские войны. While Moscow and Novgorod were separate states, generally Moscow itself was not really too involved with Sweden until after Novgorod was annexed, but still Moscow was involved when it came to sending troops to Novgorod to fight Sweden, building fortresses like Orekhov, and signing treaties. Mellk (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

this article should only cover wars between Sweden and a (unified) 'Russia'. Yes, this is the best option, whereby it should be clarified that 'Russia' means the Principality of Moscow before 1547, and the Tsardom of Russia after 1547 etc.

You are both correct that 'Novgorod' still had some regional autonomy within Muscovy/Russia after 1478. But we are not talking about Novgorod after 1478. We are talking about Novgorod before 1478 in relation to Sweden, not in relation to Muscovy/Russia. Therefore, the scope of this article should be limited to wars between Sweden and Muscovy/Russia, while the pre-1478 wars between the Novgorod Republic and Sweden should be split off (either as a separate article, or as a section in Swedish–Novgorodian Wars).

The only overlap seems to be the 1468 Swedish landing at Narva, which should be included in both lists. Tott's first war of 1475–1476 with the Novgorodians apparently had nothing to do with Muscovy/Russia, except in the narrow sense that the Prince of Novgorod was also the Prince of Moscow at the time. Otherwise, it was a border dispute over the exact extent of territorial control of the Novgorod Republic versus the Kingdom of Sweden in present-day Finland (843 km away from Moscow).

all wars between Sweden and Russians is unfortunately going to be an untenable criterion. This is due to the ambiguous meaning of the terms Russians, Russian and Russia, particularly before it became universally and exclusively associated with Muscovy. Swedish sources may have referred to Novgorodians as Rus' or Russians (depending on how we choose to interpret and translate words in primary sources, which almost inevitably leads to WP:OR or WP:SYNTH), but that doesn't turn Novgorodians into Muscovites. In some Latin sources, the Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia was also called Russia (or Rusia, Ruscia, Ruthia, Rutia, Ruthenia, Rus' etc.), but that doesn't mean that anyone at war with Galicia–Volhynia was also immediately automatically at war with Moscow/Muscovy.

MOS:ID applies here: Use specific terminology. For example, it is often more appropriate for people or things from Ethiopia (a country in Africa) to be described as Ethiopian, not carelessly (with the risk of stereotyping) as African. Therefore, the specific term Novgorodian should be used over the more general and ambiguous term Russian, which did not yet have the meaning it has today, namely, association with a state based in Moscow. NLeeuw (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

For strictly a list, then I am inclined to agree that a "list of wars between Russia and Sweden" should only include wars after 1471/1478, even though there will also be a few people with silly claims such as that 'Russia' can only refer to post-1991. But if the scope was changed to Russo-Swedish wars in general, then I think it is fine to mention Novgorod in such an article (if necessary, then in a background section). This would require some majors changes in this article first, including a new title.

I disagree that "Russian" can only refer to a state based in Moscow, though. The Russian Empire was based in Saint Petersburg, for example, so I do not think that this is the correct definition. If only Muscovites are Russians, then this is contrary to what many sources say about this, as well as to attitudes at the time. Mellk (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

You're right, for a time the Russian Empire was based in Saint Petersburg (briefly named Petrograd during WW1). I agree with the rest of what you say. "Russia" is a fine shorthand for the Tsardom, the Empire and the Federation (but not the Soviet Union, for obvious reasons; and "Soviet Russia" sensu strictu only refers to the RSFSR). For the Principality of Moscow, it should be used very carefully as a loose synonym, and only towards the end of the 15th century and the early 16th century (as we previously agreed, based on the available literature).

As for Russians, Charles Halperin has argued that in the mid-15th century the Tverians also regarded themselves as Russians (Rus'?), and were arguing that the Muscovites did not have a monopoly on claiming to represent the Rus' land. About Novgorodians I am not sure, but we do know that they were quite late in calling themselves Rus', even after Kievan Rus' had already disappeared in 1240; they might have picked up on Russians even later. Either way, yes, it's possible, but we should be very careful about trying to project situations of centuries later unto situaties of centuries earlier and claim that something has always been the case.

I think this discussion in itself serves as good evidence that the scope should not be changed due to all the confusion and disagreements it leads to. Dencoolast33 was spot-on when writing It might cuase a bit of a debate including novgorod on this list. This could have been entirely avoided by keeping them separated. So let's keep 'em separated. NLeeuw (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if I disturb, but what now? The discussion has seemingly frozen. It seems weird to be to leave this undecided. Gvssy (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, a very strange decision to separate the articles when the whole article, as the name says List of wars between Russia and Sweden . This means that it should include all the wars that have ever been fought. The author of the Russian-Swedish wars himself mentions the Swedish-Novgorod wars among them see Shkvarov, Alexei Россия и Швеция. История военных конфликтов 1142-1809. I strongly object to the separation of the article, and no substantive justification is given as to why it should be separated. Polski Piast from Poland § (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support separating Novgorod from Muscovy and its successor states. I find NLeeuw's arguments compelling. On the other hand, the reasoning for merging the two lists seems largely based on the early 19th-century historiography of Nikolay Karamzin, as Shkvarov also very frequently cites him. In my view, such outdated sources cannot be considered reliable in the sense of WP:RS. The current structure of the article also shows the awkwardness of including Novgorod: The article title is List of wars between Russia and Sweden, and the second section has the title Wars between Sweden and Russia. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

  The second part of the article can be called «Wars between Sweden and Tsarist Russia» Dushnilkin (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

  The term "Tsarist Russia" can be ambiguous; it might refer to post-1547 Tsardom of Russia and its successors, since Ivan III used the title only tentatively. However, this is mostly a matter of style. A more important point is the need to avoid basing the article on 19th-century historiography. Older historical works often project modern national identities anachronistically into ancient history, but that's something that modern historians try to avoid, and so should we. Novgorod should not be subsumed under the modern conception of Russia, but instead recognized as a distinct historical entity.

  Also, the nature of warfare between Sweden and Novgorod, compared to Sweden and Muscovy/Russia, is quite different. Conflicts with Novgorod were mostly small scale skirmishes ("hikes" as some edit summary put it), and referring to all of them as "wars" does not seem appropriate. If they are to be collected in one list, List of conflicts between Sweden and Novgorod might be a better title. In contrast, when referring to Sweden and Russia, the term "war" seems more accurate. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 14:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  Well, everyone keeps Novgorod as a separate historical unit, but this does not negate belonging to the history of Russia as such, in this case, the categories are correctly designed in the article itself, which is why separation is not required.

  By WP:RS the history of Russia is divided into a period of feudal fragmentation and tsarist power, within the framework of this article everything is exactly done.

  P.S. I do not think that you will deny that Ivan 3 was de facto tsar, many sources can be added to this, so the argument is irrelevant. Dushnilkin (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Attack on Abo 1198

The 1198 Attack on Abo should be excluded from the list. I don't have access to Pashuto 1968, but the primary source from which this claimed attack originates is Paulus Juusten's Chronicon episcoporum Finlandensium from mid-16th century. This source is generally quite unreliable, and in this case he has accidentally duplicated the 1318 attack on Turku (Åbo). The two years are MCXCVIII and MCCCXVIII in roman numerals. For sources, see

• S. Heininen, Suomalaisen historiakirjoituksen synty. Tutkimus Paavali Juustenin piispainkronikasta (1989)
• Tarkiainen, Kari (2010). Ruotsin Itämaa (in Finnish). p. 93. ISBN 978-951-583-212-2.

Also, there was nothing to attack there in 12th century. Turku was founded sometime in the latter half of the 13th century. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

[2] link to the PDF book (at the very bottom in the comments!)

Quote from the source: «Around 1198, they attacked the Swedish strongholds in the land of Sumy, where they devastated the castle of Abo; moreover, Bishop Folquin either fled or was killed». Dushnilkin (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, the mention of Bishop Folquin confirms that it is directly based on Juusten. There is consensus in the literature that this attack never happened. This was first shown in 1954 by Jarl Gallen (Åbo forstorelse 1198). I don't think anyone has ever questioned Gallen's conclusions. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

The link points to another author. Maybe you are familiar with this « A. Oppermann, p. 206» Dushnilkin (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, which link? And that's too little information about Oppermann citation to find any article. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I tried to find the full title of the work on this subject myself, but I see only a brief citation Dushnilkin (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps it is C.J.A. Oppermann: The English Missionaries in Sweden and Finland (1938). The topic would fit. This is published before Gallen's article, so it might still contain an uncritical account of 1198 attack. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Then indeed, it is better to remove it, besides, there are no mentions in Russian primary sources either. Dushnilkin (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

1142

Hello @TylerBurden and Dushnilkin: about this and this edit... We must first be clear that this incident is only briefly mentioned in passing in an obscure entry of Svei in the Novgorod First Chronicle (NPL) under the year 1142. In fact, earlier today I corrected this in Swedish–Novgorodian Wars#12th century, where about 5 different references all ultimately went back to this same 1142 NPL entry. There, as here, it is frequently mixed up with the next NPL Svei entry under the year 1164.

In order to clear up all the confusion once and for all, I'll quote both entries in full from the 1914 English NPL edition of Michell & Forbes, The Chronicle of Novgorod 1016–1471. First, the entry for 1142 on pages 17–18:

A.D. 1142. A.M. 6650. (...) The same year came the Yem people, and made war on the Novgorod province; 400 of the men of Ladoga defeated them, and did not let one escape.
The same year a Knyaz of the Svei¹ with a Bishop in sixty boats attacked merchants who were coming from over sea in three boats; and they fought, they accomplished nothing, and they separated three of their boats, and they killed one hundred and fifty of them.
1. Swedes. For reference, the digitised PSRL critical edition of Nasonov 1950 has: Въ то же лЂто приходи Свьискеи князь съ епископомь въ 60 шнекъ на гость, иже и заморья шли въ 3 лодьяхъ; и бишася, не успеша ничтоже, и отлучиша ихъ 3 лодье, избиша ихъ полутораста.

See? The attack of the Yem people on Ladoga has nothing to do with what happened later that year, namely, that some Svei in boats attacked some "merchants who came across the sea". While I trust that Svei (Свьискеи) means "Swedes", these merchants (гость) are not identified.

• We don't know whether they were "Novgorodians" or not. The text doesn't say so. They could be Norwegian merchants, Danish merchants, German merchants, Yem merchants, Chud' merchants, Pskovian merchants, Kyivan merchants, Byzantine merchants, Arab merchants, Bolghar merchants etc. They could even be fellow Swedish merchants that this Swedish knyaz decided to plunder for some reason we are not told. Why should we assume they were Novgorodians? Merchants come and go from port city to port city all the time, and Novgorod was just a stop on various trade routes, not necessarily the end destination of these merchants (if they even "lived" there).
• We don't know whether they were sailing towards Novgorod, away from it, or just passing by. The most likely conclusion is that they were sailing towards Novgorod, because the chronicle is written from the perspective of Veliky Novgorod, and just like in the Primary Chronicle, "across the sea" (za more, in this case заморья zamor'ia) usually means from Scandinavia across the Baltic Sea towards (Kyivan) Rus' (reading tip: Inés García de la Puente, "Beyond the Sea: On the Use of за море in the Primary Chronicle". Ruthenica. 16. 28–36. 2022.) That means they were literally not "from Novgorod", but travelling towards Novgorod from somewhere else. Now these could just be Novgorodian traders returning home, but that's just speculation. We simply don't know their identities.
• Now perhaps Dushnilkin may be able to help Michell & Forbes out with the English translation a bit, because some of it does not appear to make sense. and they separated three of their boats? The digitised PSRL critical edition of Nasonov 1950 has: и отлучиша ихъ 3 лодье, which Google Translate renders as and they took away 3 boats, and DeepL as and separated them from the three boats. So I guess "to separate someone from something" was an Old East Slavic expression to say "to take away from" or "to steal"? A somewhat similar expression in English is "to part from" if you let go of a possession of yours that you care about. In this context, it may simply mean "to seize as war booty / loot". What's also a bit confusing is the repeated use of "they", where it is unclear when the Svei and when the merchants are mentioned. I interpret it as follows: and [the Svei and merchants] fought, [the merchants] accomplished nothing, and [the Svei] took away three of [the merchants'] boats, and [the Svei] killed one hundred and fifty of [the merchants]. That would make sense. What chances did a mere 150 or more merchants in 3 boats stand against soldiers of the Svei knyaz ("king?" "prince?") in 60 boats? If we assume the Svei had just 10 people per ship (while the merchants reportedly had 50 per ship), that would still mean 600 Svei versus 150 merchants.

Let's move on. The 1164 NPL entry (page 24) reads:

A.D. 1164. A.M. 6672. The Svei¹ approached Ladoga, and the people of Ladoga set fire to their dwellings, and shut themselves up in the town with Posadnik Nezhata, and sent for the Knyaz and for the men of Novgorod. And they came right up to the town on a Saturday, and could do nothing to the town, but took more harm themselves; and they retired to the river Voronai. The fifth day after this Knyaz Svyatoslav arrived with the men of Novgorod, and with Posadnik Zakhari, and turned upon them, on May 28, the day of Saint Eulali, on Thursday, at 5 of the day, and defeated them with God’s help, some they cut down, and others they took. They had come in 55 boats, 43 boats they took; only a few of them escaped, and those wounded.

• This time in 1164, the Svei do attack Ladoga.
• In 1142, it was Yem people who attacked Ladoga on land, and Svei who attacked unidentified merchants at sea.
• But because these passages look similar and are the first two times that Svei are mentioned in the NPL, as well as right next to attacks on Ladoga, they are often mentioned together, and often mixed up as if it was the Svei who attacked Ladoga in 1142. They did not.
• Dushnilkin said in the edit summary: The provided source claims that this is a major military campaign, and reinserted the text 1142: Swedish attack on Ladoga{{sfn|Shkvarov|2012|p=15}}.
• What does Shkvarov 2012 p. 15 say?
  • Летопись сообщает о том, как в 1142 году новгородцы совместно с псковичами и корелами отражали нападение финских племен на Ладоге. В том же году, пишет Карамзин, новгородцы “мужественно отразили флот короля шведского, выехавшего на разбой с шестьюдесятью ладьями и с епископом”1. В следующем, 1143 году, на емь ходили корелы. Пожалуй, это первое в русской истории упоминание о военном столкновении шведов и русских. До сего времени Русь имела на севере дело лишь с окружавшими ее племенами.

With DeepL, this is rendered as:

• The chronicle tells how in 1142 the Novgorodians together with the Pskovians and Korelians repelled an attack of Finnish tribes on Ladoga. In the same year, writes Karamzin, the Novgorodians ‘courageously repelled the fleet of the Swedish king, who went on a robbery with sixty rooks and a bishop ’1. In the next year, 1143, the Korelians went to Emya. Probably, it is the first mention in Rus' history about military collision of Swedes and Rus'. Until now, Rus' had dealt in the north only with the tribes that surrounded it.

Karamzin probably made a clever play on words here, as wikt:ладья both means a "boat" and a "rook" (chess piece), while a "bishop" is also a chess piece. Kidding aside, Karamzin seems to mix up 1142 and 1164, because according to the 1142 entry (unless I misinterpreted it), the Swedes defeated and killed the merchants, while according to the 1164 entry, the Ladogans and Novgorodians defeated and killed many Swedes. Shkvarov seems to separate them though: on p. 17 and p. 36, he wrote of the 1164 Swedish raid on Ladoga as a separate event.

In any event, the provided source, Shkvarov 2012 p. 15, does not claim that this [the 1142 event] is a major military campaign. Shkvarov calls the 1142 incident "perhaps a first mention of a clash (столкновении, wikt:столкновение)". He's not even sure if it should "count", so he says "perhaps" (wikt:Пожалуй). Given the small scale, the dubious nature of the obscure reference, combined with the fact that we don't even know who the "merchants" of 1142 are, but that they must not be mistaken with the Yem people attacking Ladoga in 1142, nor with the Ladogans and Novgorodians defending Ladoga against a Swedish raid in 1164, I must agree with TylerBurden, who said: If it is major, you should be able to easily provide references supporting that claim that are also referring to it as a war, I question how "major" it is when it doesn't have even have a standalone article, which on many of these types of lists is a basic standard for inclusion. This is simply a small and obscure problem that cannot be simplified to a row in a list and claimed as a "Novgorodian victory". If anything, I think this should be further discussed in the article Swedish–Novgorodian Wars#12th century, as I tried to do. Good day. NLeeuw (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

PS: wikt:гость#Old East Slavic explains:

гость (gostĭ) m

1. guest
2. stranger, foreigner
3. (foreign) merchant

I think it is pretty evident that these "merchants" were "foreigners, guests, strangers, visitors," not Novgorodians, who would be fellow townspeople of the Chronicler. Why did Karamzin assume they were "Novgorodians" (новгородцы)? Why did he conclude they "courageously repelled the fleet of the Swedish king", when it looks like the exact opposite happened to the merchants in 1142? Did Karamzin mix up the 1142 Yem, the 1142 Svei and the 1164 Svei; did Shkvarov; or did both mix them up? In any case, we can hardly blame Dushnilkin, who just tried to summarise what he read in the sources; it is the sources who are confused and unreliable. NLeeuw (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

и отлучиша ихъ 3 лодье - 3 rooks were confiscate.

1: In fact, I am surprised by such work with Russian chronicles, however, it should be borne in mind that Karamzin always works with sources from two sides, I will give examples: «In describing this bloody battle, Nestor (the tale of bygone years) and Byzantine historians don't agree. The first one gives honor and glory to the Russian prince, and the second to the emperor, and it looks more fair (His are talking about Sviatoslav's invasion of Bulgaria); When the Poles left Kiev, Polish historians claim that Yaroslav chased Boleslav and he defeated him a second time on the Bug».

Anyway, in order to come to a final consensus, we need to check the Swedish chronicles on this topic.

2: Karamzin also mentions the campaign of 1164: «In the same summer, the Novogorodians defeated the Swedes, who, having captured Finland at that time, wanted to conquer Ladoga and came by ships to the mouth of the Volkhov. The inhabitants burned down their country houses themselves, waited for the Prince and, under the command of a brave Posadnik, were gentle, defended themselves courageously, so that the enemy retreated to the Voronoi River, or Salma. On the fifth day, Svyatoslav arrived with the New Town Governor Zachariah, attacked the Swedes and took many prisoners; only twelve of their fifty-five ships escaped.»

@Nederlandse Leeuw A separate request to you, if you correct the page, then do it correctly, the article mentions the usual robbery of peaceful merchants, without a military clash. (Attack on Neva 1313,1317) Dushnilkin (talk) 09:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your response! So отлучиша means "to confiscate" here. That is good to know.

1. It would be nice to have sources from multiple sides, but sometimes only 1 source reports an event. I doubt there are any Swedish (Old Norse) sources for the 1142 Yem raid on Ladoga, or the 1142 Svei attack on the merchant boats at sea.

Philip Line (2007), p. 447 and 448, emphasises just how little we know from surviving sources. The Novgorod chronicles are often the only texts we've got about some events, and what these texts say is often uncertain:

The Vikings had played a major part in the foundation of Novgorod itself, but during the late tenth and eleventh centuries the rise of Russian [Rus'] principalities prevented further Viking adventures south of Ladoga, although many varjager continued to serve as mercenaries, at least before 1050. Nevertheless, according to the Novgorod chronicles, the trade route to Ladoga continued to be the target of Scandanavian attacks, though nothing suggests that these were more than raids. Whether any of these were sponsored by the king of Sweden is uncertain. It is also possible that an alignment of hämäläiset with Sweden and Karelians with Novgorod occurred before 1240. In 1142 both Swedes and jem raided, although there is no indication of co-ordination. Raids by jem alone are recorded in 1149 and 1228. Nor is it certain that there was any Novgorodian instigation behind the twelth-century raids of Karelians into Häme.

Lane does not mention any Swedish chronicles that might confirm that these raids really happened as described, how they were organised, by whom, against whom, and why.

2. Ok, then it is a mystery why Karamzin wrote in s:ru:История государства Российского (Карамзин)/Том II/Глава X [1140-1142 гг.] that Новгород успокоился: купеческие суда его ходили за море, привозили иноземные товары в Россию ив 1142 году мужественно отразили флот Шведского Короля, выехавшего на разбой с шестидесятью ладиями и с Епископом. Novgorod calmed down: its merchant ships travelled across the sea, brought foreign goods to Russia [sic] and in 1142 courageously repulsed the fleet of the Swedish King [korolja], who went on a robbery with sixty ships and a Bishop.

This has to be the 1142 Svei raid, because it mentions a Svei knyaz, a bishop, and 60 boats (Свьискеи князь съ епископомь въ 60 шнекъ), whereas the 1164 raid on Ladoga mentions only 55 Svei boats (полушестадьсятъ шнекъ), no knyaz, and no bishop. Karamzin just assumed that the merchant boats were Novgorodian (купеческие суда его "its merchant boats") and were on the way home ("brought foreign goods to Russia [sic]"), even though the text does not say that. As explained above, the word гость (gostĭ) has the primary meaning of guest, foreigner, stranger, or visitor; and when it is applied to merchants, it usually means foreign merchants.

In other words, we cannot take what Karamzin says at face value. He wrote this book in the 1820s, and WP:AGEMATTERS. If he wrote this as a Wikipedian, he would commit WP:SYNTH, because he drew a conclusion from the 1142 NPL entry that the text itself does not imply. For this incident, Karamzin is not a reliable source. Shkvarov 2012 p. 15 just uncritically went along with what Karamzin wrote in the 1820s, without fact-checking him, so he is not a reliable source either.

Philip Lane 2007 did not say anything about the merchants' identity, which is good, because the NPL did not either. Lane agrees with TylerBurden and me that nothing suggests that these were more than raids.

3. Could you clarify what you mean with the attack on the Neva in 1311 and 1317? I'm happy to be corrected if I got something wrong. NLeeuw (talk) 10:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

1: There are also events that turned out to be captured only in the Swedish chronicles, I think we need to attract more academic work for this.

2:The exact specifics of the merchants are given by Pashuto in his later work "The Foreign Policy of Rus» 1968: «The main area of conflict is Finland, where Sweden penetrated from the south through Sumy, apparently touching part of the land of It, because in 1142 the Smyans attacked the "Novgorod region" in Ladoga region, as the Ladozhans repelled the raid. In an effort to take over Finland and the trade route to the Baltic, the Swedish government resorted to piracy at sea. 60 augers (ships) attacked 3 Volga merchant ships in 1142; the attack ended in failure for the Swedes: the Novgorodians captured 3 ships and killed about 150 shipbuilders.» Although there is no exact mention of the nationality of the merchants in the chronicle itself, it seems to me, given all these sources, we can save the table at least based on the fact that the invasion took place on the territory of Novgorod.

3: Don't worry, this question is not addressed to you, it's just that TaylerBerden himself said that he would clean the page of inappropriate conflicts, while maintaining raids on fishermen without military action.

P.S. Just now I saw that I marked you, I'm sorry, I'll be more careful. Dushnilkin (talk) 10:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

1. I agree!

2. Pashuto has a creative interpretation, but it doesn't really make sense to me. Why does he assume that the merchant boats are connected to the river Volga? That river goes to the southeast, and runs nowhere near Veliky Novgorod. The NPL says that the merchant boats came from "beyond" or "across the sea" (zamor'ia), not up or down a river. Why does he think the merchants are Novgorodians? No reason to assume that. Why does he think the merchants won? It was 3 boats against 60 boats. Why does he think the merchants captured 3 Swedish boats? Isn't it obvious that the merchants began with 3 boats, they didn't stand a chance against the 60 Swedish boats, and they lost all 3 boats they began with? I guess we need an Old East Slavic linguist to help us explain who does what exactly, because what seems obvious to me might not be correct, but I do know that Karamzin, Pashuto and Shkvarov are making all sorts of unwarranted assumptions and they seem to be mixing things up and jumping to conclusions. I'll have to see if I can find specialised scholars dealing with this.

3. Oh OK, don't worry. Mistakes happen. NLeeuw (talk) 13:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I have now reread the source, there is no mention of the Volga, I may have made a mistake, corrected quote: 60 augers (ships) attacked 3 Novgorod merchant ships; the attack ended in failure for the Swedes...

Pashuto is an expert in the field of Rus, I think his translation of the text can be trusted, he is one of the leading historians of the second half of the XX century on the topic of medieval Eastern Europe. In addition, there are many examples when a small number of ships defeated entire flotillas, such as the battle of Meng Ryang. So there is nothing out of the ordinary about defensive success. Dushnilkin (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! I've struck the question about the Volga.

I don't doubt that Pashuto is an expert, but even experts can make mistakes. I'm looking at several other books and papers to see if anyone else has anything to say.

• Lelis, Arnold A. (2005). "The View From the Northwest: the Chronicle of Novgorod as the mirror of local experience of Rus' history, 1016–1333". Russian History. 32 (3/4). Brill: 389–399. ISSN 0094-288X. JSTOR 24663271. Retrieved 6 October 2024. mentions it in passing:

Of the forty-two episodes of warfare recorded [from 1111 to 1203], eighteen involve conflicts with other Rus' cities or states (...) Of the other twenty-four instances of warfare, almost half (11) are with the Chud or Estonians (...) If we add five cases of fighting with the Iem and two with the Swedes, then clearly the northwest frontier was Novgorod's primary "foreign policy concern," just as relations with the princes of Suzdalia tended to dominate their agenda within Rus' on the opposite side (...). In addition, there are a few interesting items that relate to Novgorod's Baltic trade. In 1142, Swedes attacked some Novgorodian (?) merchant ships. In 1156 comes the first explicit mention of overseas merchants in Novgorod. In 1188, Novgorodians were plundered in Gotland and Novgorod imposed a trade embargo. (...) All in all, Novgorod's trade relations must have been so routine as to attract the attention of the chroni clers only when something unusual or untoward happened.

Lelis doubts whether the 1142 merchant ships were Novgorodian by adding "(?)", and goes on to mention that the first explicit mention of foreign traders inside Novgorod is 1156 (Michell&Forbes 1914: The same year the oversea merchants put up the Church of the Holy Friday on the market place.), but that they must have been present in Novgorod much earlier.

Moreover, even if Novgorod was involved with this 1142 Swedish raid on merchant boats, it pales in comparison with the 42 other instances of warfare recorded in the NPL between 1111 and 1203 (most of which were Kyivan Rus' dynastic succession conflicts). The only unambiguous instance of Swedes and Novgorodians being at war is the 1164 Swedish raid on Ladoga; otherwise, the NPL provides no hard evidence that Sweden and Novgorod were ever at war in the 12th century. NLeeuw (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nederlandse Leeuw Thank you for starting the discussion and investigating the issue, having read it I remain unconvinced the entry belongs on this list.

If Dushnilkin could provide some clear references instead of their own interpretations I'm open to changing my mind.

@Dushnilkin I do not understand the whataboutism in your comments, I said "Then the entire page should probably be reviewed", how do you turn this into me saying I'm going to go and clean the page? Like I mentioned in my latest edit summary, if you think other entries are also inappropriate, then remove them. But again, please quote me on where I said I would "clean" the article, because that is a false claim. TylerBurden (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, my main complaint is that you selectively deleted some information, and not because you "promised something and did not do it". I may have expressed myself incorrectly somehow, but I meant something else. Dushnilkin (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Guys, maybe it's best not to make any edits to this list without agreement for now. Edit-warring is not going to help anything. In Swedish–Novgorodian Wars#12th century, we can work out the nuances and the open questions about the sources. NLeeuw (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I support it Dushnilkin (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Beñat Elortza Larrea (2023), Polity Consolidation and Military Transformation in Medieval Scandinavia, p. 273, has yet another interpretation: The Chronicle of Novgorod describes several Swedish attacks in the mid-12th century. In 1142, a Swedish fleet led by a knyaz or prince led a sixty ship fleet in the Baltic, intercepting three merchant ships from Novgorod and killing their crews. The author mentions CN (1142), p. 17 as the source, so Larrea used the Michell&Forbes 1914 translation for this interpretation.

I wholly agree with Larrea, except that I doubt that the three merchant ships were "from Novgorod"; the NPL says they were "coming from over the sea" (иже и заморья). Could it be a mistranslation? Could it actually mean "going over the sea"? I keep trying several machine translations, and Google Translate suggests иже и заморья шли въ 3 лодьяхъ might mean and those who went overseas in 3 boats. If so, that makes it a bit more likely that the merchants set sail from Novgorod, although it doesn't necessarily make them native Novgorodians. In any case, Larrea is the first to suggest the Swedes won and killed the merchants rather than vice versa, as Russian historians such as Karamzin, Pashuto and Shkvarov all seem to conclude. NLeeuw (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, this already radically changes the situation, I think it's worth postponing the issue in the disassembly of the nationality of merchants, I think we should start from the available literature, otherwise it's WP:OR. In the page section instead of "Novgorodian victory" We will put the result «Disputed» Dushnilkin (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Dushnilkin Could you say which page number Pashuto mentioned the 1142 raid? I've added some text to Swedish–Novgorodian Wars#12th century. NLeeuw (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

P. 147 Dushnilkin (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! NLeeuw (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• Question: is it a good idea to move this talk page section to Talk:Swedish–Novgorodian Wars? It is mostly relevant to Swedish–Novgorodian Wars#12th century anyway. NLeeuw (talk) 10:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  Well, the discussion itself has already ended, it seems to me that we have reached a consensus Dushnilkin (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

The ability to change the page name

Hello everyone, I suggest you measure the name of the page from the «list of Russian-Swedish wars» to «List armed conflicts between Sweden and Russia» Since only two conflicts clearly fall under the term war in the list of the Novgorod Republic, in order to preserve information, I think it's better to do so. @Gvssy, @Nederlandse Leeuw Dushnilkin (talk) 11:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I have no real opinion on this, although if the article is to be renamed it should instead be "List of armed conflicts involving Russia against Sweden" as this seems to be the norm: 1 2 3 4 5. Gvssy (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The name of other pages also needs to be taken into account, in general, let's wait for all active users and decide how to name the article, it seems to me that it will not be possible to create a normative conflict table without changing the name. Dushnilkin (talk) 13:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Or we could have this be a list of actually established wars between Russia and Sweden, what is the problem with that? TylerBurden (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Why would we delete a bunch of content and intend to complicate the process of adding information? Dushnilkin (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Because the article should be accurate to its title instead of full of WP:SYNTH content of every instance someone from the general direction of Sweden threw a rock into the Baltic Sea? Can you answer the question or not? TylerBurden (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Because the content does not correspond to this WP, I suggested changing the name, there are many incredibly important events that do not fall under the definition of "war" but at the same time should be here. The text I just wrote answers the question, but again, the problem is removing important material and the difficulty of adding information Dushnilkin (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose all renamings until we first establish a consensus on whether or not to split this article. This proposal is way premature. We are still figuring out what the contents of this article and connected article Swedish–Novgorodian Wars should even be. Let's do that first. One entry at a time. Finally, I strongly oppose any title along the lines of List of armed conflicts involving A against B. All articles recently created with that kind of title have serious WP:OR/WP:SYNTH/WP:POV/WP:RS/WP:V issues. (I'm already in discussion on Talk:List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Turkey#Requested move 3 October 2024; I suggest people take a look there to see what I mean). NLeeuw (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Formal Oppose per everything said by NLeeuw. TylerBurden (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)