Talk:Mongol invasion of Kievan Rus'

message: Use of term Russia is anachronism and in some places it's used even in place when it should be used term Rus.
Rus is not Russia. Remember.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.150.224.69 (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  There was no Russia back in those times 

message: A significant number of historians consider the oppression of Rus' by the Mongols to be the major cause of what is sometimes called "the East-West gap" - approximately 200 years delay in introducing major social, political and economical reforms and scientific innovations in Russia compared to Western Europe. Specifically, the isolation from the West may have caused Russia's later non-involvement in the Renaissance, the Protestant Reformation, and failure to develop a middle class.
I doubt that you can call the share of historians who believe this significant. Also, the term 'delay' seems teleological and if you want to talk about this, was it not Orthodoxy with its Scripture in vernacular that cut off the Rus' lands off the Latin-speaking European countries? The Mongol invasion did cut off the Rus' from the Byzantine empire though. 83.83.1.229 (talk) 20:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome to introduce a section on alternative theories/interpretations or a criticism section provided your information is not based on fringe theories and is well cited using verifiable secondary sources which meet the criteria for being reliable. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedic resource and adheres strictly to policies of maintaining a neutral POV and no original research. Dependent on what you qualify as being 'a significant number of historians' (sic), introducing your wishlist to the article may or may not be acceptable as we avoid giving undue weight to spurious and non-mainstream theories. That being said (and given the constraints), I'd certainly encourage you to expand the article. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Cheers for picking up on that, ¿3fam. I dropped the ball on the fact that the first IP was quoting from the article and thought they wanted to add spurious content. I'd certainly want to see more than one citation in order to establish that there actually are 'some' scholars. There are, in fact, a large number of factors (namely the vastness of the territory) preventing the building of a comprehensive transport infrastructure which could accommodate the needs of a burgeoning industrial sector (industrial revolution); the majority of the population being rural inhabitants and, consequently, a lesser social impact resulting from the plague/s (persistence of serfdom); etc. Mongol yoke as a major cause? Nope, never encountered that in mainstream historical analysis. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that the above discussion is over a year old, but I just want to bring up that the discussion of an East-West gap looks even more absurd when you consider that Russia was one of the first countries after Italy to embrace the Renaissance.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Really? 

message: Is it a correct use of word for a country?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.171.162.29 (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Killed in action? 

message: In this article we have the name of the nation written as: Rus', Rusaa', Rusa', Ruas'. Let's get some consistency up in here, eh?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.60.254.11 (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent terminology 

message: One gets the feeling that the article was written by some stubborn Ukrainian nationalist, who considers the Russian Mongols.
1) Vasily II fought a lot with the Tatars, so blaming him for "Tatarophilia" is at least strange.
2) Most of the Tatar nobles in Russia appeared after the fall of the Golden Horde, during the conquest of the Kazan Khanate.
3) Obviously, the death penalty and torture were used only in Russia, in the rest of Europe it was not. (SARCASM)--Александр Ашкаров (talk) 03:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Statements are sourced Vernadsky, George. (1970). The Mongols and Russia. A History of Russia, Vol. III. New Haven: Yale University Press. pp. 354-357.  George Vernadsky was a Russian historian at Yale.Faustian (talk) 03:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: delete the article, if the narrow-eyed had won, they would have grazed deer in yurts 176.65.114.61 (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mongolian influence 

message: I adjusted a couple of things, one of which was the size of Batu's force - which was at least 4 tumens - not a mere 25,000 - about a third of this force (maybe even half, but that's doubtful) went to Poland after the submission of Russia, the rest to the Carpathaian basin.  Garrisons had to be left in Russia. The small recon of Subetai and Jebe was two tumens (20,000) - Batu's army was much larger.  I'll ref' it later. 50.111.5.65 (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: tweaks

message: frankly, what the article seems to mirror is the position taken by the american state department, under hillary clinton. it is not likely that edits designed to correct that bias will be maintained, if the page is being actively monitored by us intelligence, as seems to be apparent from the tone.
the idea that the mongol occupation of eastern europe had some benefit to the slavs is, quite frankly, overwhelmingly offensive. it's equivalent to arguing for the upsides of the nazi occupation of poland (they got sovereignty, right?), or the benefits that africans gained from slavery (increased literacy rates, for example).
this page should be rewritten from scratch.
but, if american intelligence is monitoring it, it will revert.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.179.229.130 (talk) 03:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It is way worse. Your comparisons are the wrong direction as Rus' states were more advanced than the Mongols. The Mongols did NOT bring any civilizational progress and/or knowledge to Rus' with the sole exception of new military concepts. The Mogols DID teach the (sedentary) culture Rus' people on how to wage mobile wars. About how critical it was to kill the enemy, and not bother with "holding" land. And that is about it. A better comparison would be the sacking of Rome (Kiev) and the dark ages that followed in the West (south and western Rus') with the legacy of the Roman (Russian) culture preserved in the Constantinople (Novgorod, Moscow) of the East Roman empire.145.224.105.244 (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  the article is clearly written with a pro-mongolian bias, and it seems to have a sinister intent 

message: «Modern Ukraine and Belarusian lands were almost fully liberated with help of Lithuanians in 1362 on Battle of Blue Waters. A joint state was formed with the name Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Rus' and Samogitia.» Bodia1406 (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  I suggest adding a paragraph that points to your difference in the experience of nations. 

message: "BY THE TIME Kyiv fell to the Mongols, it no longer reigned over others but was itself ruled by outsiders. The head of the city’s defenses, a military commander named Dmytro, owed allegiance to Prince Danylo (Daniel), ruler of Galicia and Volhynia in present-day western Ukraine. Prince Danylo had taken the Rus’ capital under his protection the previous year by arrangement with Prince Mykhailo of Kyiv, who fled after originally resisting the Mongols, then losing to them his main stronghold, the city of Chernihiv, and eventually the will to resist." - Plokhy, S. (2017). "The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine". Ch. 6 Pax Mongolica. (p. 49). Kobzar1917 (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: "The chronicler [Primary Chronicle], critical of the very idea of Christian Rus’ princes swearing allegiance to pagan Mongol khans, described three models of their behavior vis-à-vis the Mongols. Prince Mykhailo of Chernihiv exemplified the first, which met with the chronicler’s utmost approval. Since he allegedly refused Batu’s demand to kowtow before a bush and compromise his Christian religion, he was killed on orders of the khan. Prince Yaroslav of Vladimir-Suzdal represented the second model: apostasy. He allegedly agreed to bow to the bush and thereby earned the chronicler’s condemnation. Danylo followed a third model, which involved neither complete rejection of, nor full submission to, Mongol rule. According to the chronicler, who was sympathetic to Danylo, the prince did not kneel before the bush and besmirch his Christian faith, but he drank kumis, indicating acceptance of the khan’s secular authority." (Ibid., p. 53) Kobzar1917 (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be placed in the article. Faustian (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curious absence of almost any mention of the most significant Kyivan Rus' successor state of the time - Galicia-Volhynia