Talk:Muscovite War of Succession

Background section

Hi @Ymblanter, I don't see the relevance of this piece of text. Why do we need to go back 200 years to talk about the Mongol invasion of Kievan Rus', about how there were many small Rus' principalities, about Kulikovo and about the title of Grand Prince of Vladimir? Why does that matter? This article is about the war of succession of 1425-1453, which broke out because a dispute over the dynastic succession in Moscow due to differing interpretations of the will of Dmitry Donskoy. That's all. It has nothing to do with Moscow annexing other principalities or the grand prince of Vladimir residing in Moscow. Unless this is relevant to the rest of the article, it does not need to be mentioned here. NLeeuw (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

i think it is relevant, and, tbh, you are the first user which calls the text I have written "an irrelevant nonsense". A good article should have a background section. The reader does not have to know what Dmitry Donskoy was and why the fuck his will was an issue at all in some state which is not even specified. I tried to solve this by writing this paragraph. Ymblanter (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, let's calm down. There is no need for expletives or hostility. I may have been a little too impolite by calling it "irrelevant nonsense", but it was not meant as an insult towards whoever wrote it. We should recall that there is no WP:OWNERSHIP of content. I just try to look at what the content is, and whether it is accurate and relevant in the given article.

I'll try to explain more clearly which issues I have with the current text in the Background section, and we could go through them and see whether they are accurate and relevant for explaining why this war of succession broke out in Moscow in 1425.

• The Mongol invasion of Kievan Rus' of 1236–1241 left the Rus' principalities subjugated by the Golden Horde. This is accurate, but I don't see the relevance.
• In the 13th–15th centuries, the Khan of the Golden Horde appointed the Great Prince, who in the 14th century resided in Moscow.[clarification needed] I added that clarification needed template over year ago, but nothing has been fixed. The issues here are manifold:

1. What is "the Great Prince", and why should the reader care?
2. The Great Prince of what? All we've read about so far is Kievan Rus', but it's apparently not about the Grand Prince of Kiev. Most likely you mean the Grand Prince of Vladimir; okay, then let's link to that and explain why it's important for the war that broke out in 1425. (I still don't see the relevance for 1425, but maybe we'll find it).
3. Did the Golden Horde Khan "appoint" the Grand Prince of Vladimir? Well yes and no. The jarlig (yarlik) is initially just a confirmation of one's right to be a prince of X after the Mongol submission of the Rus' principalities. But it becomes a tool of divide and rule in the 14th century when the khans start playing Tver, Moscow and Nizhny Novgorod-Suzdal against each other. So by then the jarlig is no longer a confirmation of the existing order, but a tool of appointment. In that sense it is accurate. This does play a role when the conflict starts in 1425 and Yuri and Vasily agreed to take their dispute to the khan (as I wrote down a few minutes ago). But that appears to be about the title of "prince of Moscow", not the title "grand prince of Vladimir" (as far as I know).
4. the Great Prince, who in the 14th century resided in Moscow is just plain incorrect. They resided in Moscow, Tver, Nizhny Novgorod, and arguably even elsewhere, but not in Moscow alone. Especially during the Great Troubles this changed all the time, because rival khans were handing out jarligs for title of Grand Prince of Vladimir to rival Rus' princes. The primary sources and literature are very clear about this. (More later).

NLeeuw (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• In the 13th century the medieval Rus' consisted of a set of relatively small and weak principalities, fighting and making alliances against each other. The larger states (like the Grand Duchy of Moscow and the Republic of Novgorod) progressively conquered or absorbed the smaller ones.

Honestly, I don't know a single principality conquered or absorbed by Moscow or the Novgorod Republic in the entire 13th or 14th century. Moscow annexing other principalities is really a thing of the late 15th century, after the Muscovite War of Succession that this "Background" section is meant to introduce. And I don't know if the Novgorod Republic ever conquered/absorbed another state after 1199; it sure lost the Pskov Republic in 1348 though...

In other words, either the first sentence doesn't match the second, or the second is taking a giant leap forward in time that is confusing and out of place. Moreover, why are we even talking about foreign policy and military expansionism when a war of succession like the 1425-1453 one in Moscow is an essentially domestic, internal affair that is not about conquering/absorbing other states? I just don't see the relevance.

• The same goes for the rest of the section. Why should the reader know how "big" Moscow was becoming due to expansionist wars? How does that explain why it ended up in an internal war? A succession crisis is not a logical consequence of conquering other states; it has to do with the order of succession in a hereditary monarchy. We're getting an introductory story towards something that has apparently nothing to do with it.
• Does Kulikovo explain why Yuri and Vasily couldn't agree in 1425? If not, why mention it at all? We might better mention that Donskoy abandoned Moscow 2 years later and that the Muscovite population elected a Lithuanian prince named Ostej instead to lead the defence against Tokhtamysh' Sack of Moscow (1382), as a sign that there were disputes about who was in power within Moscow in previous times as well, and connect that to 1425.

If we just want to write about the history of Moscow in general, then the place to do so is Principality of Moscow, not this article. The Background should introduce the subject of the article, and not miscellaneous facts and non-facts somewhat related to Moscow in general, but not to the Muscovite War of Succession specifically. NLeeuw (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, let us do this slowly. First, why do we care about the civil war in the principality of Moscow? Because Moscow was the strongest of the Russian/Rus/whatever you want to call it at the time. Should this information be in the article in some form? Yes, it should. Ymblanter (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

But then we see that even at the end of the 14th century, the prince of Moscow is not an independent hear of state but is appointed by the khan. Is this important for the article? Yes, I think so. Ymblanter (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

why do we care about the civil war in the principality of Moscow? Because Moscow was the strongest of the Russian/Rus/whatever you want to call it at the time.

Why should "the strongest" be a criterion? Could we turn that argument around, and say that we shouldn't write articles about wars of succession in states that were not the strongest in their country, region or whatever?

• No article on the War of the Breton Succession, because Burgundy was a much "stronger" duchy within France than Brittany at the time?
• No article on the Hessian War, because Austria was the "strongest" state within the Holy Roman Empire, so all wars about the other states are irrelevant?

Aside from a state being "strong" or "the strongest" being quite subjective (WP:POV), it is not really a criterion for writing about it. I've written an entire article on the nl:Katzenelnbogische Successieoorlog / War of the Katzenelnbogen Succession (1500–1557), a tiny county in the middle of Germany that very few people have ever heard of, and that was not "strong" at all, but it had enough WP:SIGCOV to be notable enough for a stand-alone article. "Being strong" just isn't relevant, and does not need to be mentioned.

• Indeed, that the Muscovite prince is still subjected to the khan of the Golden Horde is relevant to mention in relation to the fact that the Khan had the privilege of awarding the jarlig to be prince and collect taxes on his behalf to a candidate of his choosing (either according to established local succession practices and/or for their own personal interests). During a conflict over who had legitimacy to be the next prince of Moscow, the role of the Khan is therefore indeed quite crucial to be mentioned in the article (and I added some in recent days, with RS to back it up). Whether that means Moscow is "strong" or not seems an irrelevant question. The Novgorod Republic and Pskov Republic paid no taxes to the Horde at any point; indeed, they were never subjected to the Horde at all. Does that mean Veliky Novgorod and Pskov were "stronger" than Moscow? Maybe. I don't know. But I don't care. Because that had zero to do with the question whether Yuri or Vasily had legitimacy as prince of Moscow. Does that make sense? NLeeuw (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• Good that you have at least recognized the importance of the second point. Concerning the first point, I am sure if there were a succession war in Toropets Principality for example (there was non as far as I know) we would just mention it in one sentence, at most in one paragraph of that article. I can not imagine a standalone article on this hypothetic event. Ymblanter (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think that anyone's imagination or lack thereof that a hypothetical stand-alone article could or couldn't be written should serve as any criterion either. I could easily mention twenty wars of succession in tiny states you have never heard of that have their own stand-alone articles already because they meet WP:GNG there is WP:SIGCOV for it, despite not being "strong". Trust me, I've been writing about this topic for years like the history supernerd that I am. Let's just focus on what is relevant. But I'll be more careful, and review the current text sentence by sentence, as I have done above. Good day. NLeeuw (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)