Talk:Russo-Swedish War (1590–1595)

Untitled

"Three years elapsed before Sweden, in May 1595, agreed to sign the Treaty of Teusina (Tyavzino, Tyavzin, Täyssinä), which recognized Russian conquests and restored the borders predating the Livonian War."

This is plain wrong, Teusina borders are most significant territorial gains of Sweden ever. If author means compromise not in comparaison of Schisselburg borders of 1323, but in comparaison with some de-facto situation during war, it should be clearly indicated. Studio357 (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

result of the war

I claim that there is no Swedish victory in this war, at least because one of the main goals of the war for Russia-to return Ingermanland was fulfilled and even exceeded in part Dushnilkin (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Claiming Sweden did not win on the basis of returning Ingria and Russia restoring some of its territories is usually considered original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Gvssy (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Why is it not allowed? The cancellation of the Pluss peace treaty is one of the main goals (there are in my sources) Dushnilkin (talk) 23:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Because it assumes something, if it is not directly stated in the sources it is usually entirely rejected. Gvssy (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

This is explicitly stated in my sources Dushnilkin (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Your sources claim that this is a victory for Sweden only based on the fact that the Swedes defended Narva and the exit to the Baltic, but given such territorial acquisitions for Russia, this is not a victory Dushnilkin (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

You are once again engaging in original research and assumptions. To my knowledge atleast, if one specific text is supported by more or better sources it is preferred. Which the Swedish victory is, supported by scholarly libraries like JSTOR. Gvssy (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Библиотеки не являются авторитетным заявляением, и я лишь говорю факты из источников, я ничего не предполагаю Dushnilkin (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean? JSTOR only publishes scholarly papers and books, therefore it's probably one of the most reliable places to find information. Gvssy (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

There are many places that publish scientific data, but it still does not explain the authority. Dushnilkin (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean authority as in reliability? Gvssy (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

For me, the credibility of the source should be checked, the author should indicate which primary sources he refers to, I have it Dushnilkin (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The JSTOR source is absolutely reliable for multiple reasons,

1. All of the authors come from credible universities, which are the Universities of Washington, Las Vegas, and Minnesota.
2. They cite their primary sources at the bottom, as you have asked for.
3. Comes from JSTOR, which is again a reliable library of scholarly work

Gvssy (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

In this case, we both have sources that refer to primary sources, my work from recognized historians. Dushnilkin (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The work cited for the Swedish victory is also from historians, Ulf Sundberg has a PhD, likely the same with Edgar Kiser, Kriss A. Drass, and confirmed with William Brustein. Gvssy (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Works that confirm other data are available from Vitaly Pensky (Doctor of Historical Sciences, there is an article on Wikipedia you can check) Ruslan Skrynnikov (the same thing), There is also a story about the diplomatic success of the Russians Information in the book by Karamzin (one of the most educated people of the early 19th century) the book itself is authoritative and most consider it to be the primary source (the book was published in 1818) Dushnilkin (talk) 05:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't notice what language I was writing in. I suggest you go to another messenger, more convenient Dushnilkin (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

In this case, my data is supported by old literature that is generally accepted Dushnilkin (talk) 05:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Generally accepted among who? Gvssy (talk) 08:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not claiming a Russian victory, I am claiming an indecisive outcome of the war, but my sources say that the success of the Russians was only partial and that one of the main goals failed Dushnilkin (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but the war was not indecisive, as is stated by the 5 citations. Gvssy (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you admit that the result is indecisive if I show you 6 sources? Dushnilkin (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Probably not, since these Russian authors are hard to reliably check if they are good or not. But yes show me 6 sources supporting indecisive Gvssy (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I have the same situation, it's hard for me to verify your information. In that case, give me time, I will try to find 6 sources about this war Dushnilkin (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean? You are easily able to find information on Ulf Sundberg, the first citation, the JSTOR link is easily accessible, the Routledge source has a link directly going to the text, the only somewhat hard to find one is the one from SO Rummet, where the information seems to have been removed however when I cited it, it stated that the war was a Swedish victory near the bottom of the page, SO Rummet is also only written by experts. Gvssy (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

It's hard to read, in which case my sources are as easy to verify as yours. Dushnilkin (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean? Gvssy (talk) 08:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you can help, @TylerBurden. This is clearly not going anywhere and will just develop into an even bigger edit war. Some outside input could help. Gvssy (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Result

Let's discuss here instead @Dushnilkin. Gvssy (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

"Twenty-Five Years' War" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Twenty-Five Years' War has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 24 § Twenty-Five Years' War until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The result again

I want to avoid a war of edits right away, so I'll write here in advance. @TylerBurden, @Gvssy

I ask the first user to indicate where the information I added falls under the action of the WP, I did the same as the other page is designed, only entered more sources. Dushnilkin (talk) 16:26, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not against the addition of more sources, quite the opposite. Some better wording could probably be good though. Gvssy (talk) 07:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Kexholm

Hello again, in the text of the article in the infbox it says that the Russians handed Korela over to the Swedes, this is confirmed by the source, however, it seems to me that a mistake was made here, it says in the text of the article that Russia returned her. On another page it is written that the Swedes captured this fortress as a result of the Livonian war.

My words are also confirmed by another source on p.29: The compromise Tyavzin Peace Treaty of 1595 recognized Sweden's rights to Estonia, but returned the coastal cities of Yam, Koporye, Ivangorod and Kexholm (Korela) to the Moscow state.

It is also quoted in CHR on p.270: In 1595 in the village of Tiavzino a peace treaty was signed with the Swedes, in which Sweden returned to Russia Ivangorod, Iam, Kopor’e, Oreshek and Korela.

@Gvssy Dushnilkin (talk) 13:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I might be wrong, although is it not possible that the other sources say that the Korela fortress was returned to Russia, while Kexholm (according to the text Eastern Karelia) was given to Sweden? Or, it could just be a mistake made by the book. Gvssy (talk) 13:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, most likely I got the geographical signs mixed up, this particular Kexholm is mentioned in the text of the peace treaty, sorry to disturb. Dushnilkin (talk) 13:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

No problem at all, good to get this sorted out! ☺ Gvssy (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The source seems to be in error (Kexholm is also way too large on that map). See https://www.doria.fi/handle/10024/170155 (in Finnish) page 213 (and before) for a detailed description about the border negotiations. Both the Kexholm Fortress and the surrounding county were ceded to Russia. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not yet too sure how exactly we're supposed to navigate when sources contradict each other on topics like territorial changes after a war, but I would assume the larger Kexholm is simply either that the creator accidentally make the text too large or it was to emphasize it for whatever reason. Dushnilkin's sources also seem to agree with that only Korela was ceded to Russia:

In 1595 in the village of Tiavzino a peace treaty was signed with the Swedes, in which Sweden returned to Russia Ivangorod, Iam, Kopor’e, Oreshek and Korela.

The compromise Tyavzin Peace Treaty of 1595 recognized Sweden's rights to Estonia, but returned the coastal cities of Yam, Koporye, Ivangorod and Kexholm (Korela) to the Moscow state.

As for the Finnish document, I had trouble translating it, so if you would be so kind as to do so yourself if you have the time (or summarize it) I would appreciate it. Gvssy (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

By the way, referring to the text of the original source[1] (translation of the Swedish version, if you have any questions about the translation, write immediately), then the version proposed by another user is suitable.

And we, the Swedish great ambassadors, on behalf of King Sigismund and the Swedish state, return to Tsar John the native lands, Korela Castle (Kexholm) and all the territories that were under Novgorod or captured by Tsar John (Ivan)

Further information does not appear in the text about the transfer of at least some territory in Karelia to Sweden, so most likely this is really a mistake.

Original text

И мы, Шведскіе Вёликіе Послы,"возвратили, оть имени нашего могущественнаго Господина и Короля, Сигизмунда, и Шведскаго Государства, Великому Государю и Великому Князю, Феодору Іоанновичу, всея Русій Самодержцу, Его Царскаго Величества вотчину, замокъ Корелу (Кексгольмь), со всею землею и містностью, которыя изстари находились подь Великимь Новгородомь, вь такомь положеніи, как они взяты Королемь Іоанномъ..

Dushnilkin (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

(deindent) Here's a summary of Kirkinen. [After writing this I noticed that there is also an English summary at the end of Kirkinen's book. The discussion about Kexholm (Käkisalmi) starts from page 374.]

• From page 139 onwards Kirkinen describes how Sweden captured Kexholm Fortress in 1580 and started the occupation of Kexholm. On page 141, the area of occupation is described: At first, Sweden only had the immediate surroundings of Kexholm. [...] [The following] year, the entire southern county of Kexholm must have been taken over by Sweden, and the occupation area was also expanded northward.
• The Treaty of Teusina and the delineation of the border is described on pp. 198-213. Here's how Kirkinen summarizes the treaty (p. 199): The main content of the agreement was as follows: Russia gave up its claims to Estonia, which remained with Sweden up to the Narva River. Sweden gave up its claims to Ingria and Kexholm County, which had to be handed back to Russia after the border had been demarcated from the Gulf of Finland to the Arctic Ocean. This is in agreement with the above translation of the treaty given by Dushnilkin: ...all the territories that were under Novgorod or captured by Tsar John (Ivan), where "Tsar John (Ivan)" should be King Johan III (r. 1569-1592). The treaty can be read in old Swedish here. On page 213 Kirkinen states: With the departure of the occupation forces from Kexholm [fortress], Sweden's occupation over the entire Kexholm County ended.
• There is then a detailed description (until p. 213) on how the Swedish and Russian envoys negotiated the border step-by-step during 1595-97. Formally, this was not supposed to change the border, but to remove the ambiguity of the Treaty of Nöteborg (1323). In reality, this process was very favorable for Sweden, because (a) they used a fake copy of the 1323 Treaty to move the border to the east, (b) the Finnish population had expanded beyond the old border and this de facto border between the Lutheran and Orthodox population was acknowledged, and (c) the Swedes still held Kexholm Fortress and were able to coerce the Russian envoys with it when disputes arose. These gains are currently described in the infobox as Russia formally recognizes Finland as part of Sweden, but I think that should be changed into something like Russia formally recognizes northern Finland as part of Sweden, or however we want to describe the area between Teusina and Nöteborg borders.
• There is also a map about the borders of different treaties on page 285. Russia actually ceded Kexholm to Sweden in 1617, so it is the area between the Teusina and Stolbovo borders (excluding Ingria).
• About the general question on how to treat contradictory information: In this case, when there's one source that has accurate information and another which only treats the subject through a brief mention, it seems natural to prioritize the detailed one. Especially since Kirkinen is an expert on Karelian history. The fact that some sources only mention the fortress of Korela and not the county is not so much a disagreement but a difference in emphasis, since the surrounding region was controlled from the fortress. In cases with a documented scholarly disagreement, we ideally report both sides as neutrally as possible (with WP:DUE weight given to different viewpoints), but I agree that this can be difficult, and the exact solution is subject to consensus.

— Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! When reviewing your reply it does seem like a discrepancy on my part. Seeing as Kexholm was ceded to Sweden at Stolbovo, it wouldn't really make much sense if it was somehow ceded to Sweden in this war. Kexholm county was also promised to Sweden in the Treaty of Viborg of 1609.

Considering this it's probably just best to change it to Sweden cedes Kexholm to Russia or something similar, as I now see that the sources stating otherwise are in error.

Otherwise, we can do something else, but changing it seems like the best option. For your point on Russia "recognizing Finland as part of Sweden" I originally interpreted this from an encyclopedia.com article where it says: The Teusina/Tiavzino peace (1595) formally recognized Swedish control of Finland. but perhaps this is an oversimplification. Whatever the case, I feel like sources with more detail should be prioritized. Gvssy (talk) 10:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

In this case, I will change about Korela Dushnilkin (talk) 11:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)