This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belarus, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belarus on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelarusWikipedia:WikiProject BelarusTemplate:WikiProject BelarusBelarus
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
For 1018, then sure it is an intervention, but what is the point of including it then? I mean, that's technically just "List of wars between Piast Poland, Kievan Rus' and Kievan Rus'". If it for some reason has to included even though it's an intervention and the Kievan Rus' is still fighting itself, why not go with the result of which side succeeded, in which case Poland gained. Of course I suppose what I say could be WP:OR, but I don't think anyone here has any source which straight up tells us the genuine result.
For 1065-1069 (or 1065-1071...?), why not just include Bolesław II the Bold's expedition to Kiev (1069–1071)? I mean, that's clearly just Piast Poland against the Kievan Rus', is it not? And that is a Polish victory.
I'd say 1018, if we're really gonna be sticking with the "Another result" thing, should just be removed and put in "See also". Setergh (talk) 10:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Setergh Hi, glad you brought it up. I'll recall my edit summary: Internal conflicts in country A in which country B intervenes do not count as a victory for B. This rule exists in all articles of lists of wars involving countries. The reason why this rule exists is that we need to maintain a neutral point of view. If there is an internal conflict in country A, in which belligerents 1 and 2 are fighting against each other, we can never say that belligerent 1 "represents country A", and that belligerent 2 "does not represent country A", because that means we are taking a side in the debate over who had legitimacy (political), which is usually the cause of the internal conflict.
Suppose that country A is Poland, its king was named Konrad, and he had two sons called Henryk (belligerent 1) and Jan (belligerent 2). Konrad died and then Henryk and Jan got into conflict over who had the right to succeed their father Konrad. All things being equal, we Wikipedians do not know which son was older, was designated heir (if any) or disinherited or otherwise favoured or disfavoured by Konrad, or had support from the nobility, cities, populace etc. or not, and our sources do not make this clear. All we know is that the two brothers started fighting. If Jan wins this conflict, should we label this a "Polish victory"? Probably not, because then we are saying that Jan "represented Poland" from the start to the end of the conflict and Henryk "did not represent Poland". But that would simply be the winner writing the history books. The point is that both claimed to represent Poland, and we Wikipedians do not take either side. (This is why we label it as Another result in an article like List of wars involving the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth; e.g. War of the Polish Succession (1587–1588) gets Sigismund victory with the colour #E6EAFF.)
Now suppose Jan formed an alliance with the prince of Kiev, let's call him Oleg), and that Oleg sent some troops to help Jan in his war against Henryk. Should we, in this list, then label the result a "Kievan Rus' victory"? I don't think so. Because even if Kievan support may have been crucial for Jan to win this war, Oleg was not a contestant for the kingship of Poland. So once again, we cannot claim a side in this internal conflict, even if the result was favourable for the intervening foreign power. NLeeuw (talk) 10:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the situations of 1018, the 1060s and the 1070s are very similar. Indeed, it is a good point to ask ourselves whether these Polish interventions in Kievan Rus' affairs are really "wars between Piast Poland and Kievan Rus'" as such. Because it would require us to assume that the other Kievan contestant does represent Kievan Rus'. E.g. Bolesław II represented "Poland", Yaroslav represented "Kievan Rus'", and Sviatopolk represented no country until he was restored to the throne of Kiev by Bolesław. But we can't really do that based on our NPOV policy. So maybe these conflicts should not be in this list at all? On the other hand, there is no problem mentioning these conflicts in a list like List of wars involving Kievan Rus', because even if Kievan Rus' was at war with itself, it was "involved" in this war. So, I'm not sure what the best solution is either. What do you think? NLeeuw (talk) 11:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think 1018 should likely be removed and be added to "See also".
Well, not really, because Bolesław II also intervened in an internal dynastic succession conflict of Kievan Rus', known as the Rebellion of Vseslav of Polotsk, which began as early as 1065 when Vseslav besieged Pskov and Novgorod. Vseslav was captured and imprisoned in Kiev, and then managed to exploit the Kiev uprising of 1068 to seize the throne from Iziaslav. Iziaslav then ran to Bolesław II in Poland asking for assistance to get the Kievan throne back from Vseslav of Polotsk. It was not "just Poland versus Kievan Rus'"; there were Rus' princes and troops on both sides, but only one side also received help from Poland. NLeeuw (talk) 11:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is the expedition not its own thing though? I mean, yes it is part of the Rebellion of Vseslav of Polotsk, although is the expedition unable to be counted as its own thing? It even continued onwards a few years after the rebellion, and I mean it is just Poles against the Kievan Rus'. Setergh (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's debatable. I can see your point that as far as Poland was concerned, all events up to the Polish intervention in 1069 are irrelevant. On the other hand, if we only included the Polish intervention in this list, that could be cherrypicking, and it implies that only Vseslav of Polotsk represented Kievan Rus' at this time (which is a pro-Vseslav WP:POV), and Iziaslav I of Kiev represented no country at all until he was restored to the throne by the Polish forces, and then suddenly Iziaslav and Iziaslav alone represented Kievan Rus' (which is a pro-Iziaslav WP:POV). It's just a complicated situation, and one of the main objections I have to creating lists of wars between country A and country B in general, and then assigning "victories" to A or B when the historical context of the conflict was just incredibly complex, and we are not certain which events were historical or not. NLeeuw (talk) 12:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I'd say that wouldn't exactly be cherrypicking, is because Iziaslav I of Kiev didn't exactly represent Kievan Rus' anymore. He was kicked out, was he not? Therefore, I'd say it's more of a case of Poland installing a leader backed by them rather than them intervening in a civil war, which is why I think it would still be fair to set the result as Polish victory. Setergh (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a case you could make. But I could make the counter-case of my fictional example, in which Henryk managed to take control of Warsaw, but then Jan kicks out Henryk from the throne of Warsaw with the help of troops from Oleg of Kiev, even though Jan had few or no troops of his own. Therefore, the war of the Polish succession between Jan and Henryk is a Kievan Rus' victory. Would that be logical? NLeeuw (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Glad we agree. This stuff is not easy to understand or explain, and there are no perfect answers, but this is the best option we've got at the moment. NLeeuw (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quick question, considering Bolesław II the Bold's expedition expanded past 1069 all the way to 1071, should the date not be considered something like 1065-1071? Or even just 1069-1071? Or perhaps the date should be split off into two? Setergh (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support Setergh's view if something has been a success then why shouldn't it be a success. Because according to this it is a different result even though each of these interventions Poland won without the support of anyone. You can't count the Kyiv Uprising (1018) probably a fairy tale as in the chronicle of Jan Długosz who wrote untruth and foolishness (if you count that Nederlandse) Polski Piast from Poland § (talk) 10:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I understand what Polski Piast from Poland is saying, but I would agree that the chronicle of Jan Długosz is very unreliable, and should not be used as a source. NLeeuw (talk) 11:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He's basically saying (at least I think so) that the 1018 intervention was most definitely a Polish success as not only did Poland gain the Cherven Cities, but also the Kiev Uprising of 1018 which is quite a major event in this intervention shouldn't be counted as a negative on Poland's side as it's unlikely it ever happened.
Also, quick question, does anything say that there even were troops on Sviatopolk's side? As in, there were Poles, Pechenegs, Hungarians and Germans, although I don't see any troops which are straight up just on Sviatopolk's side. Cause if quite literally none were, then I feel like it would actually be better to regard it as a Polish victory as it wouldn't be just an intervention in a civil war but more an expedition to put someone on the throne. Setergh (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good question what even happened. One thing that should be clear to us is that we can't cherrypick. We can't follow either Thietmar or the PVL blindly whenever we agree with them, and ignore them whenever we disagree with them. We can't say the Kiev Uprising of 1018 (...) shouldn't be counted as a negative on Poland's side as it's unlikely it ever happened, but on the other hand claim that the 1018 intervention was most definitely a Polish success [because] Poland gain[ed] the Cherven Cities. Both these events are mentioned only in the PVL, and not by Thietmar of Merseburg.
We are not sure whether the Cherven cities were taken by Bolesław I in 1018 or not, and later retaken by Yaroslav in 1022 or not, and then retaken by Bolesław II in 1071 or not. Thietmar (died 1 Dec 1018) does not say anything about the Cherven Cities, nor about some uprising in Kiev in which the Lyakh [Polish] garrison was killed by the order of Sviatopolk as in the PVL; just that Bolesław I returned [to Poland] in high spirits. (Warner 2001, p. 354). Whether this was a "Polish success" or not is not clear.
There are signs that Bolesław I intended to reign as prince in Kiev, and not just restore his son-in-law Sviatopolk to the throne, as well as take control of other Rus' cities with troops (as the PVL suggests).
He apparently also sought to establish recognition for his conquest of Kievan Rus' by the German emperor and Byzantine emperor (as the sending of emissaries to Germany and Constantinople according to Thietmar suggests). After Bolesław I left Kiev, it soon fell to Sviatopolk and later Yaroslav, and Bolesław I seems to have lost control over the rest of Kievan Rus' as well by 1019. Whatever caused Bolesław I to leave Kiev, if he picked up the Cherven Cities on his way back to Poland (which is possible, but yet unproven), that hardly compensated for the loss of the rest of Kievan Rus' if he intended to reign both realms as his personal possessions (in a personal union).
From Poland's point of view, the taking of Kiev (and by extension gaining control of several other cities, and nominal control of Kievan Rus' as a whole) was arguably a pyrrhic victory if it was lost again so soon, be it as Bolesław I's personal possession or as a vassal state ruled by his son-in-law Sviatopolk. If he took the Cherven Cities, it was a small success, but if it's true Yaroslav retook them as early as 1022, then that may also be a pyrrhic victory. If he didn't take the Cherven Cities for decades to come, the taking of Kiev was a tactical victory, but there was arguably no long-term, strategic benefit to Bolesław I's intervention. Perhaps something like that should be our solution? Pyrrhic victory Bolesław I? Tactical victory, strategic defeat for Bolesław I? Then again, that too is just WP:OR if we cannot base it on scholarly literature. NLeeuw (talk) 12:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's a really confusing matter as a whole. I personally don't know what to do in this scenario, so I mean if you want to leave it as it is, then I'm unsure I'm willing to argue against. Setergh (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I did a quick check, and I do not see either the PVL or Thietmar explicitly mention troops under the direct command of Sviatopolk during their joint campaign to Kiev in 1018.
Thietmar mentions
Subsequently, Duke Boleslav invaded the Russian [sic] king's [meaning Yaroslav's] realm with his army. (Warner 2001, p. 354)
Thereafter (p. 384), he notes: Among those rendering assistance to the aforesaid duke [Boleslav] were three hundred of our warriors, five hundred Hungarians, and one thousand Petchenegs. All of these were now sent home, since, as Sventipolk [Sviatopolk] was happy to see, the populace flocked to him and appeared loyal. Since Thietmar was German, the "our warriors" bit may mean 300 German soldiers.
In (p. 383), he calls the attacking army to which the city of Kiev surrenderd the foreign warriors, but that may just refer to the hostile Petchenegs in Bolesław's army in the previous sentence; it doesn't necessarily mean all soldiers were non-Rus'.
In the Battle of the River Bug, Thietmar used the Poles as a shorthand for Boleslav's large army, but that also must have included those Germans, Hungarians, Petchenegs and possibly others mentioned later.
But that doesn't necessarily mean Sviatopolk didn't have any troops of his own. He at least had a lot of popular support in Kiev, and Thietmar mentions that between the Battle of the Bug and the capture of Kiev that Jaroslav captured a city which had been subject to his brother [Sviatopolk] and abducted the inhabitants, so Sviatopolk likely still had troops garrisoned in other Rus' cities while this campaign was going on. The PVL mentions that
Boleslav entered Kiev in company with Svyatopolk.
Boleslav attacked Yaroslav with Svyatopolk and his Lyakhs.
While Boleslav was settled in Kiev, the impious Svyatopolk ordered that any Lyakhs found in the city should be killed, and so the Lyakhs were slain. (This is the supposed Kiev Uprising of 1018, which may have never happened. Supposing it did happen, it's difficult to see how Sviatopolk could have done this without troops of his own. Even with much support from Kievan civilians, it's difficult to see how those could exterminate an entire military garrison.)
Svyatopolk thus reigned alone in Kiev, but Yaroslav attacked him again, and Svyatopolk fled among the Pechenegs. 6527 (1019). Svyatopolk advanced with a large force of Pecheneg supporters,... In the PVL, Sviatopolk is repeatedly connected to the Pechenegs. He flees to them, and he returns with Pecheneg troops as his support several times. Also given the Pechenegs' historical settlement area to the southeast of Kievan Rus', it could be that the hostile Petchenegs mentioned within Bolesław's army were actually under Sviatopolk's direct command within the overall coalition army. It could be that these served as Sviatopolk's garrison in Kiev just after the takeover, and if there ever was a killing of the Lyakh garrison, it could have been the Pecheneg troops who carried out the order, rather than some Kievan civilians as suggested by the phrase Kiev uprising. Even if it didn't happen, as soon as Bolesław's army left Kiev for whatever reason, those Pecheneg troops weren't enough to defend Sviatopolk against another attack of Yaroslav; the first thing Sviatopolk reportedly did was flee to the Pechenegs again.
.svg){kind=small}
