Jump to content

Talk:List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Russia

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

Comments

[edit]

Although I know on my own experience how difficult it is to argue with dozens Polish editors, who always vote for each other, nevertheless here go my comments:

  • Polish-Soviet War of 1919-1920
    • Should this really be listed as a polish victory? The polish state initial war goals were to create a puppet Ukraine and buffers states between them and the russian state, and they nearly got sovietised in the process. Should their survival as a smaller state they hoped for, and the lack of real buffers states between them and the soviets be classified as "indecisive" instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.35.165.29 (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ghirlandajo, first of all, I believe your arguments would be much easier to follow if you spared us the preamble. Really, it's nice that you started to use talk pages and there's no need to offend other people or create conflicts when there are none.
As to your arguments, I believe you got it all wrong. This page is not to decide whether certain conflicts were indeed wars between two states, namely Poland and Russia, without any other parties involved. IMO such pages are to list either the conflicts that could be described as a Ruso-Polish War or the conflicts that indeed are at times called as such in sources. Take a look at Battle of Warsaw, which perfectly explains what I am talking about. So, in other words, whether there was an independent state of Russia in 1939 is quite irrelevant as the war is indeed at times called as such - though mostly by Polish authors. And yes, the country used to be called Soviet Russia eventhough it was in fact USSR.
As to the conflicts that are ommitted - be bold and add them, I clearly mentioned in the edit history that this list is by no means complete. I merely created a stub out of my head, add more if you feel they fit.
As to the wars of 1605-1618 - indeed, we might call them a war since there was an armed conflict. We might also call them an intervention, invasion, conflict, struggle, or any other name.
As to the Smolensk War - indeed we could shorten the name, though personally I see no need to.
The War of the Polish Succession was indeed quite a complicated case, but there was pretty much Pol-Rus fighting involved so I decided to list it here.
As to the War in Defence of the Constitution - I doubt it has a name of its own in modern Russian. The name indeed reflects the Polish perspective, but alternatively we could call it War Against the Constitution if you prefer the Russian side. Or perhaps create a redirect? Halibutt 00:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Using Google Books I cannot find the term Russo-Polish War used for the 1939 conflict. Nonetheless the question is should we list all Polish-Russian cofnlicts here, or only wars? If only wars, then for example Uprisings must go, too. Also, is this the right name for the dismabig? Google books search:

Russian-Polish War 10 books
Polish-Russian War 10 books
Russo-Polish War 10 books
Polish-Russo War none
Polish-Muscovite War 2 books

Russian is a more popular adjective to Russo, so the correct order and term should be Russian-Polish War.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You should've searched for Polono-Russian War instead of Polish-Russo War :). It sounds similar to Wojna Polska-Radziecko in Polish...
As to Ghirlandajo's commenting out of my addition of the war of 1939 to the list - I personally do not use the term (as I prefer the Polish Defensive War myself), but it is used in at least one serious source: Ryszard Szawłowski (Karol Liszewski), Wojna polsko-sowiecka 1939, Warszawa 1995 (1988), who uses the term of Polish-Russian war as a replacement for the Polish-Soviet War. So no, contrary to what Ghirlandajo suggests, it's not only "Polish prop booklets nobody but me reads". Halibutt 02:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm not going to join the revert war just because someone wants it. On the other hand a word of explanation on why do we ignore this source would be nice. And no, Ghirlandajo's "No Polish booklets" comment is not an explanation for me. Halibutt 20:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Polish-Soviet"/Soviet-Polish would be OK. Still, Polish September Campaign clearly states that there was not any "war" on the Soviet front: it was just annexation. Of course, this is hair splitting, but the term "war" normally assumes notable mutual hostilities. Otherwise other terms are used: e.g., "invasion", to stress the one-sided character of the event. Finally, this is an English language wikipedia; I am not aware of significant English usage of the term in application to 1939, and there is no reason to propagate incorrect terminology. mikka (t) 20:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noting that, I'll fix the article to mention the Polish-Russian hostilities as well (as there were plenty of them, not in such scale as against the Germans, but still pretty much fighting). It was definitely not as one-sided as commie propaganda tried to portray it. Even in Poland during the 45 years of communism there was barely a mention of the battles against the Soviets, as the USSR was to be peacefully defending the peoples of Poland against the Nazis... In reality, despite Rydz-Śmigły's orders, there were some 50 major and minor battles between the Soviets and Poles in 1939. The biggest was Władysław Anders' attempt to break through at Władypol, I believe. There were also some 40 clashes of the KOP and later the SGO Polesie under Orlik-Rueckemann. The latter also took part in two major battles at Szack and Wytyczno.
Also, it is to be noted that the Russian wiki article is named Советско-польская война 1939 года. Halibutt 11:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Polish–Muscovite War (1605–1618)

[edit]

Truce of Deulino was favorable for Commonwealth [1] [2] [3].

One of the main objectives of Sigismund III was breaking Swedish-Russian alliance which was signed in Viborg in February 1609, and that was the main reason for the intervention of Sigismund in Russia. After the battle of Klushino, boyars together with Żółkiewski signed a treaty, Władysław was elected as Tsar, and Poles had to break the siege of Smolensk, Sigismund however continued a siege. This means that one of his objectives was also a desire to conquer new lands for their country.Kcdlp (talk) 13:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be renamed

[edit]

Listed wars belong to Lithuanian-Polish Commonwealth but not only Poland itself. Poland was just a part of union. We are not describing WW2 war as a war between only one country but something related to word 'allies'. Same this subject shouldn't be distorted too.

How should it be renamed then? I have created sections to make better distinctions between the various states and periods. If we want to make it even clearer, then I think this article should be split. Because whatever name we choose, it will always be somewhat inaccurate and arbitrary. NLeeuw (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The article need to be renamed to Lithuanian-Polish Commonwealth. Moreover, the part of the list before Moscow principality does not fit to the list Lithuanian-Polish Commonwealth against Russia or Poland against Russia. Nbarchaeo (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have absolutely zero clue what any of this means.
This article does not need any sort of renaming. It's perfectly fine as it is, other articles following a similar theme (such as List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Germany or List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Ukraine). And what if it wasn't just Poland but the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth? Still counts as Poland, that's like excluding Kievan Rus' because it was also Ukrainian and Swedish. The page is called "List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Russia", anything that has Poland in any sort of form against Russia in any sort of form counts."
This article does not need renaming. Setergh (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

False Dimitri 1

[edit]

@Querty1231 you said to look at the discussion article, but there was nothing here. Please do not edit the page yet "war of edits" will not be resolved. Write your arguments here and explain why you put the victory of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth here, although the facts and sources refuting this have already been indicated[1][2] Dushnilkin (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Лжедимитрий I // Энциклопедический словарь Брокгауза и Ефрона : в 86 т. (82 т. и 4 доп.). — СПб., 1890—1907
  2. ^ Записки Станислава Немоевского (1606—1608). Рукопись Жолкевского. — Рязань: Александрия, 2006.

Fake wars

[edit]

@Dolbegos Stop changing the content of the article incessantly because Poland has more victories, your sources are not backed up by secondary (WP:SECONDARY) only primary sources (WP:PRIMARY) and that means they are unreliable and need to be approached with caution, all these campaigns are made up by you like this one The campaign of Prince Yaroslav Vladimirovich to Mazovia(1041). It was not a campaign against Poland only the Ruthenians were helping Casimir the Restorer to fight against Miecław (see Battle of Pobiedziska, Battle of 1047 between Casimir I and Miecław)

I would also like to invite @Setergh and other experienced people to this discussion Polski Piast from Poland (talk) 05:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added reliable secondary sources on the Kiev uprising of 1018, it should be noted that in the Polish chronicles it also appears that Boleslav left Kiev and was persecuted by the Russians. Your criticism of this conflict does not carry specific facts, you are simply violating WP:NPOV
I won't add anything about the other conflicts. Dushnilkin (talk) 08:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In what way am I violating WP:NPOV, it is not a violation at all you should read the article here Bolesław I's intervention in the Kievan succession crisis and see what other chronicles write on the subject etc. and other secondary sources. What Polish sources your making up (What polish sources are writing about that uprising)? :) Polski Piast from Poland (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Heya!
More to add on, I checked all these wars to see if any Polish source supports them, I could not find a single one. Sure you can claim that it's due to Polish chronicles trying their hardest to ignore these defeats, but would there seriously be zero Polish sources supporting it?
This is either a misinterpretation of text or just bias.
The wars added shouldn't stay on. Setergh (talk) 09:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote only about the Kiev uprising of 1018, I do not claim that the rest of the conflicts were real, it is not in my jurisdiction, regarding the indirect mention of this uprising in Polish sources I added a source that mentioned them Dushnilkin (talk) 09:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd personally say the supposed Kiev uprising did happen, although it seems to more be a part of Bolesław I's intervention in the Kievan succession crisis, therefore I wouldn't treat it seperately. I think it'd be good to note it but the intervention should still be counted as a Polish victory. Setergh (talk) 10:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The intervention is definitely a victory for Poland, but the Kiev uprising, I think, should be written as a separate article and inserted here as a sub-article for Boislav's intervention.
I'll deal with it later Dushnilkin (talk) 10:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have already written about the indirect mention in Polish sources, you violate this WP by literally chronic distrust of Russian chronicles, unreasonably accusing them of falsification, this is not done on Wikipedia Dushnilkin (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend reading what I have added, also the Polish historian Stanislaw Zakrzewski himself claims that there was no uprising and that Boleslaw stayed a few months in Kyiv and returned from it (Zakrzewski S, (2006) Bolesław Chrobry Wielki, Krakow, p. 305—306.) Polski Piast from Poland (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Russian sources claim that Boleslav left the city before the uprising, because he learned in advance that Svyatopolk wanted to kill him (Karamzin 2020 pp. 105-106) Dushnilkin (talk) 07:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to add that I created the category controversy Polski Piast from Poland (talk) 07:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to ask you off topic, but it seems to me that the Russo-Polish war of 1506 does not exist, because according to the source it began in December 1506, and in February 1507 the Russian-Lithuanian war began, it seems to me the source just made a little mistake with the dates, and this applies to the Russian-Lithuanian War Dushnilkin (talk) 07:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about it, because I only deal with the Middle Ages and that's it. Remove it if you wish this war from 1506. This list of the Polish-Ruthenian wars is still incomplete, as there are no other expeditions of Leszek and still other wars. I will complete this list a little more, but that is later Polski Piast from Poland (talk) 08:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again!
Could you guys please add your wars with multiple sources instead of one like @Polish Piast is doing? I get that you both want to add your wars and everything, but stop just randomly going at it and make sure they're fully verifiable.
I'm glad you're both trying to contribute, but once again, just make sure you stuff is verifiable. Setergh (talk) 09:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of the new conflicts that I have added, I have left a link to a similar article on the Russian wikipedia everywhere, so you should not have any questions when checking Dushnilkin (talk) 09:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see, just provide a link from another wikipedia, no need to provide footnotes (unless there is no such article on any wikipedia, then yes). Polski Piast from Poland (talk) 09:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, if I added footnotes, it was until such an article was written, for example, with the uprising in Kiev 1018 Dushnilkin (talk) 09:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As something there are links from the Russian Wikipedia and also with footnotes. Polski Piast from Poland (talk) 09:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What it says in the article Bolesław I's intervention in the Kievan succession crisis:I'm on my phone so I couldn't paste (my unattributed comment) Polski Piast from Poland (talk) 09:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
???I added little-known conflicts that are in the chronicles!!! Poland never had more victories, but I don’t care, why aren’t you confused by the fake article about the war of 1506, which In fact, it wasn’t? I also added a conflict in which Poland won, and was going to add more. I didn’t add without sources, but with an indication of the chronicle, full of collections of Russian chronicles, where everything was written.1041 is a campaign against Mazovia, which separated from Poland, but despite this, it is still a Polish state, which Yaroslav ruined with his campaigns, as indicated in both Russian and Polish Chronicles Dolbegos (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the footnotes are misunderstood because they have some numbers and that's it, what campaigns? Is that your guess? In addition, it is enough to know history to know that what you gave is stupidity, that Yaroslav the wise in the years 1041-1047 was suppressing the rebellion of Miecław with Casimir the restorer. You have created a lot of confusion and everything needs to be cleaned up after you. Polski Piast from Poland (talk) 11:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
??? I do not argue that Kievan Rus supported Poland in suppressing the uprising in Mazovia, but the fact remains that Yaroslav organized campaigns against Mazovia and ruined it, he benefited from the campaigns against Mazovia,This is a similar analogy to Boleslav's intervention in Rus' in 1018 Dolbegos (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even Jan Długosz does not mention any campaigns only that Yaroslavl helped Casimir Polski Piast from Poland (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colour scheme is not correct

[edit]
The used colour is not proper for such list. All the lists involving an armed conflict of a country against another country have following scheme:
   Victory
   Defeat
Examples:

Following that, I suggest changing the colour scheme.Nbarchaeo (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The version from before 19:55, 26 March 2024 had no colours. Then it was changed by @User:Olek Novy - (link)[4].
See:
talk on the page of the (user)[5]
Nbarchaeo (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What should we use then?
For Russia, I agree we should probably change the colour, perhaps to blue like on the current Russian flag?
As for Poland, it's a bit more complicated. I think Red resembles Poland very well, and the only other colour we could use is white which is obviously not the appropriate colour to use.
So, what do we use? I think we should definitely keep colours as well. Setergh (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The colours currently used are frequently utilised by Wikipedia to mark positive vs negative, right vs wrong [1]
   Positive
   Negative
   Neutral
Check for instance
* Green#Symbolism and associations
* Wikipedia Manual of style
The colour of the Polish flag is different Flag of Poland
   White
   Red
Green colour is not a part of Russian flag either
   White
   Blue
   Red
List of armed conflicts are oriented from the perspective of one side, which means if Russia is a first side, its victories are marked with green, and red is used to mark the defeat. In that situation conflicts are shows from the perspective Poland / Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.
The use of reversed colours suggest manipulation WP:NPOV.
Nbarchaeo (talk) 11:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, what do we use?
I think Blue works well for Russia.
Although, if we can't use Red for Poland, we can only use White, and I don't think that works very well in the slightest, especially as it blends in with the background of Wikipedia (unless you use dark mode, of course). Setergh (talk) 12:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should use the following colour scheme:
   Victory
   Defeat
 Second opinion requested Nbarchaeo (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page isn't a "List of wars involving _______" page, it's a "List of armed conflicts involving _______ against _______". Therefore, we cannot just use Victory and Defeat, as these are two different countries. What we want to use is two different colours for the victories of the two different countries. Setergh (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have created another webpage, which alike this one Draft:List of armed conflicts involving Ireland against the United Kingdom. In that webpage you use standard, non biased colour scheme Nbarchaeo (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's an old page.
I also use a colour scheme such as this in List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Germany.
Your issue was that the colour scheme used here was like the Victory and Defeat in "List of wars involving _______" pages, but now you want to use that? I'm confused. Setergh (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The mentioned webpage is also affected by this problem, because you have created it (see: First version) Nbarchaeo (talk) 15:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are three lists of similar character, that have symbology, which I am suggesting
The opposite:
Non standard
No colour
I am suggesting to make them more standardized Nbarchaeo (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Gil, S., Le Bigot, L. (6 August 2014). Longo, M. (ed.). "Seeing Life through Positive-Tinted Glasses: Color–Meaning Associations". PLoS ONE. 9 (8): e104291. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0104291. ISSN 1932-6203.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

Adding and deleting articles for no reason and off topic

[edit]

Stop deleting the article about Yaroslav’s campaigns in Mazovia. All sources are provided for it, it has the right to exist.And it also makes no sense to present the participation of Polish volunteers as a full-fledged conflict against Russia, the Poles did not rebel against Russia, they fought on the side of France as volunteers.Why then was the article about the war in Hungary of 1848 deleted, if Polish volunteers fought on the side of Hungary and lost? Dolbegos (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ТТ if you think that an article about the participation of Polish volunteers in the war of the fourth coalition is appropriate, then please return the article about the war in Hungary in 1848 Dolbegos (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You even gave evidence yourself that these campaigns were together with Casimir the Restorer, i.e. against Mazovia, not against Poland
a series of military actions of the Kiev prince, carried out under an alliance treaty with the Polish king Casimir I in the period from 1038 to 1047. Polski Piast from Poland (talk) 04:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But Mazovia is a Polish state, and Yaroslav the Wise benefited from campaigns against it, he strengthened his authority and seized part of the Mazovia land, why doesn’t this article take place? Dolbegos (talk) 08:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At that time, Mazovia was a separate state, Kazimir and Yaroslavl united in order to defeat Mieclaw and his state. Polski Piast from Poland (talk) 08:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop adding political and social events on a list of armored conflicts. Any further adition of the Solidarity movement will be considered WP:OR.Mr.User200 (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos

[edit]

The article is in compelt chaos, it keeps coming to WP:EDITWAR, I am starting to think about WP:PROTECT, I don't know what your opinion is on this(with what your opinion is, I was thinking of people like Seterg,Dushnilkin), in my opinion extended users will only be able to edit like @Setergh, @Dushnilkin and me, in addition I am thinking whether to report @Dolbegos for WP:3RR Polski Piast from Poland (talk) 09:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why report me? I prove my edits, insert sources, what’s the problem? Dolbegos (talk) 09:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are organizing a war of edits and illiterate the sources, from now on, please report here if you want to add anything Dushnilkin (talk) 09:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no point in a war of edits for me, I edit for a reason Dolbegos (talk) 09:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello.
Don't rush things, @Dolbegos shouldn't be reported. I'd go by WP:AGF, although I do think this is quite problematic.
Another thing, @Polish Piast, you also inserted a few wars with only one reference to go for it, and they were all from the exact same book (or whatever it was).
I don't think anyone should report the other for an edit war, but I do think that if both of you continue (with both of you in the wrong) a report should happen.
I have also cleaned up things, removing the tons of random wars you guys added which I don't find reliable enough yet to be on here. Setergh (talk) 10:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you removed these wars, one footnote is enough for verification, because the book I gave is one of the best works on Leszek the White and his Ruthenian politics. Also Dushnilkin has provided sources for things, just link the thing in question from another wikipedia as he did. Polski Piast from Poland (talk) 10:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One footnote is enough for verification but when someone such as Dolbegos does it then it isn't? I just want to be fair, sure I personally do not know just how good these works are, but if you can add one reference, surely you can add more as well? Setergh (talk) 10:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only difference between me and him is that I don't add primary sources that are unreliable( see Primary sources) These sources he cites, even the Polish ones, are the invention of chroniclers of the time; primary sources can be relied upon, insofar as they are considered reliable. Polski Piast from Poland (talk) 10:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't going to complain about him, no way, I just pointed out his mistakes, that's all. Dushnilkin (talk) 10:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the farce in the article begins again, discuss everything here and then make edits.
@Dolbegos, @Polish Piast
A separate question for @Polish Piast I think we need to bring back the Battle of Zvenigorod, Siege of Halich 1221, Michael campaign against Volyn and Leszek the White's campaigns. Dushnilkin (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with what you say Polski Piast from Poland (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A separate request to @Gvssy, you keep adding "the Russian-Polish war of 1506" in fact, I very much doubt its existence, you said that Poland then captured Smolensk.
1: Russia returned Smolensk only in 1514, before that it belonged to Lithuania, which was allied with Poland in 1508, this is a relatively successful campaign for the allies, which more confirms my idea of a banal typo in the dates.
2: Are there any other sources or evidence about the existence of the conflict or evidence of a peace treaty? Dushnilkin (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My only concern with its removal is that it has not been definitvely proven to be fake, rather only speculation of such. Perhaps it is not my place to argue on topics regarding wars between Poland and Russia, and I certainly do not have any evidence to say that you are wrong.
All in all, my main concern was simply removing sourced content with the reasoning of it having been "proven" to be fake, while it had only been "thought" to be fake. Gvssy (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, as a Pole myself, I wouldn't add this conflict as it doesn't particularly seem real in the slightest. Setergh (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to every active participant here, the conflict seems to be a mistake, there are too many inconsistencies and too few mentions in authoritative sources, please leave the page unchanged for now. Dushnilkin (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for now, I'd recommend you and Polski Piast deciding what pages to add, along with good references to support them. Setergh (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have already decided that we will bring back several conflicts with Ruthenia and Poland, such as the siege of Galich or the campaigns of Leszek the White. Dushnilkin (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear, glad you two are being fair towards both sides. Setergh (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dushnilkin, @Polish Piast, could you please send me a link to access the two main sources (if you have one that's free) so I can make sure all of these wars are legit?
There seems to be ton getting added right now and they're literally all based on one source, I get they may be reliable but I want to see if this text isn't getting misinterpreted and just how reliable it is. Setergh (talk) 06:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pashuto «The foreign policy of Rus» [6] at the very bottom is a book in PDF edition.
I did not find Kotlar's book, which I indicated last on the Internet, although I tried Dushnilkin (talk) 10:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello!
Sorry for the insanely late response, and thank you so much for providing your main source. Problem is, how the hell do I open it? I can easily download it, but when it comes to opening it, I just have nothing to open it into.
Do you perhaps know what I could do about this? Setergh (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scroll to the bottom, the file attached in the post itself does not work, and there is a pdf file in the comments below Dushnilkin (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again!
Just wanted to say, thank you so much for helping and providing me your source. This is what I have found:
1092 - Confirmed
1120–1125 - Confirmed
1135 - Exists, result unknown? (Doesn't give an exact result for the Polish–Russian War)
1142–1143 - Confirmed
1229–1230 - Wrong result? (Says Daniel was defeated)
Perhaps this could be mistranslation of some sorts (as well, I obviously don't speak Russian and had to translate it), but once again, this is what I got. Could you double check the source and see what you get? (And then tell me what you found)
Thank you! Setergh (talk) 11:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1: The source says that in 1135 there was a campaign against Vislitsa, on the city page it is written that the Rus plundered the city this year. Converges with the source.
2: Regarding the expedition to Kalish, I quote: «The city of Kalish surrendered to Daniel's army, giving the prince a ransom for prisoners (for "many servants and boyars")» p. 252 Dushnilkin (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. All I can see that it says is that Bolesław III suffered a defeat at Sajo in 1132 and that the conflict was settled at the Merseburg Congress, although I don't see any mention of a Ruthenian victory for the entire war.
  2. Yes, this is true, although right before I also see a mention of Sandomierz and Wiślica forces? Wouldn't this mean that Poles fought on both sides?
Setergh (talk) 17:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1: There is a mention of the raid here, this data agrees with the source. For convenience, we can transfer the text of the mentioned article here.
2: As I understood it, it was an intervention against the usurper and murderer Leszek the White, almost identical to the situation with 1018. Dushnilkin (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "The town was allegedly sacked in 1135 by a Ruthenian raid under Volodymyrko Volodarovych, although all primary sources from that time are unreliable, and show signs of exaggeration and invention."
  2. What do you mean "as I understood it"?? Were there Poles fighting against Poles or not, because from what I saw, it seems like that's the case. "the usurper and murderer Leszek the White" Unnecessary emotional opinion, serves no purpose.
Setergh (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1: there is a contradiction in the content of the campaigns, I do not see here a denial of the raid or the destruction of the city, for reliability I can look at a couple more WP:RS.
2: By "as I understood it," I meant the reason for the start of the campaign, I said bluntly that yes, it was an intervention in the civil war. Dushnilkin (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I mean, I'd like for you to find a source which actually supports a Ruthenian victory, as your current one doesn't mention anything of the sorts.
  2. It was an intervention in a civil war, therefore it should not count as solely a Ruthenian victory. From what I'm gathering, it was the Duchy of Sandomierz and Duchy of Wiślica supported by the Kievan Rus' against the Kingdom of Poland itself. If this is true, this war should not be included on here.
Setergh (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1: I added a source where it is explicitly stated that vislitsa was taken and looted. [7]
2: I added this conflict because it is similar to the same intervention of 1018, in both cases the interventionists benefited from the campaigns, but if it needs to be removed, then I do not mind. Dushnilkin (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Honestly, I cannod find where it states that, but I'll take your word for it.
  2. I understand what you mean. I suppose that it might as well be kept then and perhaps someone else may intervene in the future. Thank you so much for cooperating!
Setergh (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Polish Piast
Why did you remove citation needed on the Bolesław III Wrymouth thing? You quite literally inserted this war without a single source... Setergh (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This campaign is mentioned in these sources (Karamzin 1824) Dushnilkin (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then that should probably be referenced. Setergh (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish raid on Kievan Rus' (1136) Polski Piast from Poland § (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, alright? So, what does this excuse exactly? Setergh (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_armed_conflicts_involving_Poland_against_Russia&oldid=1249408826"