This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe 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.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark 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.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark articles
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 articles
Latest comment: 4 hours ago7 comments1 person in discussion
According to Iben Fonnesberg-Schmidt 2007 and Anti Selart 2001/2015, the Battle of the Neva, the campaign in Votia and the campaign in Izborsk/Pskov had nothing to do with each other. We must study the primary sources separately, before drawing conclusions on whether to draw any links between them, otherwise we risk WP:SYNTH, which this article appears to be full of. Earlier historians such as fi:Gustav Donner (1929) appear to have done so, but modern scholars such as Fonnesberg-Schmidt, Selart and Ostrowski are much more skeptical of the Donner theory of co-ordination.
Just for completeness, as Donner theory adherents claim that this text is full of evidence of "a comprehensive Western Catholic plan to conquer Rus'/Russia/Novgorod/Pskov/etc. and convert it to Catholicism and make it a Papal state". No such thing is mentioned in the text, though. It's all about fighting against the "pagans" (paganis), and the Danish king and Teutonic Order sharing territories newly acquired from the pagans by a 2:1 ratio:
Hedemann, Markus. "1238. 7. juni. Stensby". Diplomatarium Danicum – Tekstnet.dk (in Latin and Danish). Retrieved 25 November 2024. – original Latin text of the Treaty of Stensby, with a modern Danish translation and introduction.
Sources for the Battle of the Neva of 1240
Selart 2015: Three independent written sources can be drawn upon for the Battle of the Neva:
and the so-called ‘Testament of Magnus’ (Рукописание Магнуша). The latter was a fictitious testament drawn up in Novgorod in the 15th century under the name of the Swedish king, Magnus Eriksson (1319–63). It in turn influenced the description of the battle in the late chronicles.
Sources for the Votia campaign of 1240–1241
Selart 2015: Independent sources for the campaign against Votia are provided by
the chronicle of the Livonian branch of the Teutonic Order by Hermann von Wartberge (1360s and 1370s), > Chronicon Livoniale by Hermann von Wartberge (1863 critical edition)
and an extant charter of the Bishop of Ösel from 1241. > haven't been able to find this text yet, but Selart translates a quote from it to English: between already converted Estonia and Rus, that is, in Votia, the Neva, Ingria, and Karelia, and hoped for their conversion to the Christian faith. Fonnesberg-Schmidt seems to quote the original here: inter Estoniam iam conversam et Rutiam, in terris videlicet Watlande, Nouve, Ingriae et Carelae, de quibus spes erat conversionis ad fidem Christi. That should make googling the fulltext in Latin a lot easier. Edit: Found here, a digitisation of Schirren 1863.
Treaty of 13 April 1241 between bishop Henry of Ösel and the Teutonic Order
Frater H(enricus), de ordine praedicatorum, Osiliae et Maritimae Divina miseratione episcopus, cunctis Christi fidelibus, ad quos praesens scriptum pervenerit, salutem in Domino Jhesu Christo. Ne labantur cum tempore, quae geruntur in tempore, perennari solent litteris, ac testibus roborari. Notum ergo facimus tarn posteris, quam praesentibus, quod fratres domus s. Mariae Theuton. in Livonia nobiscum concordaverunt, cum а sede apostolica postularent, iurisdictionem nostrum extendi ad terras inter Estoniam iam conversam et Rutiam, in terras videlicet Watlande, Nouve, Ingria et Carelae, de quibus spes erat conversionis ad fidem Christi, cum iam occupatae essent а praedictis fratribus per quoddam castrum, multorum de ipsis terris consensu, sub hac forma compositionis, ut videlicet nos, in spiritualibus in terris Ulis providentes, decimam decimae perciperemus in omnigenis proventibus, exceptis variis pelliculis, ipsis autem fratribus omne reliquum cederumus emolimentum, tarn in iure patronatus ecclesiarum, quam piscationibus, advocatis et ceteris imperalibus, pro eo, quod ipsis incumberet labor, expensa et periculum in barbarorum subiugatione. Neque vero possit in posterum suboriri calumnia, compositionem nostram litteris mandari fecimus, sigillio nostro communitus ac testibus, qui praesentes fuerunt, cum haec fierent, fratres Sinderammus, Hugo, ordinis praedicatorum; frater Henricus et frater Wemerus, ordinis fratrum minorum; fratres domus s. Mariae Theuton. Andreas, commendator, Wernerus, marschalcus, Gerardus, camerarius, Remboldus et alii quam plures. Actum publice in Riga, Dominicae incamationis anno MCCXLI, idus Aprilis. Insuper iam infeodati Theutonici in eodem castro ab agrorum suorum decimis sint exemti, et insuper fratrum de domo Theutonica agricultura.
(Autotranslated from modern Russian translation and manually corrected:)
Brother Henry of the Order of Preachers, by the grace of God Bishop of Ösel and Wiek to all true Christians to whom this letter will reach, [wishes] salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ. So that what has been done until now will not be lost in time, it should be preserved in writing and confirmed by witnesses. Therefore, we inform both descendants and contemporaries that the Brothers of the Teutonic House of St. Mary in Livonia, having asked the consent of the Apostolic See, have agreed with us to include in our jurisdiction the lands between already converted Estonia and Rus' [Rutiam], that is, in Votia [Watlande], the Neva [Nouve], Ingria, and Karelia [Carelae], and hoped for their conversion to the Christian faith and which are already occupied by the Brothers and [they] have built a castle with the consent of many in these lands. The treaty was concluded in such a way that we, thinking primarily about the clergy in these lands, would receive a tenth of the tithe of everything except furs. Everything else, including fishing, we will leave to these Brothers, but without violating the right of the ecclesiastical patronage of the fiefdoms and other officials to compensation for their labour, expenses and dangers in subduing the barbarians. And so that false slanders could not arise in the future, we have set down our treaty on paper, sealed with our seal and the signatures of the witnesses present here: the brothers of the Order of Preachers Sinderam, Hugo; brother Heinrich and brother Werner - brothers of the Order of the Minorites, Brothers of the Teutonic House of St. Mary: Andreas, commander, Werner, marshal, Gerard, cameralion, Rembold and many others. Done publicly at Riga, in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1241, on the Ides of April. Furthermore, the Teutons, who have already entered into their rights in that castle, are exempted from paying tithes on their fields and on the agricultural products of the Brothers of the Teutonic House.
Sources for the Izborsk/Pskov/Peipus period of 1240–1242
Selart 2015: The independent sources for these events include:
and the Chronicle of Suzdal. > not sure what he means, but it's probably the Academic Chronicle, which in this section has a text that is virtually identical to the Sofia First Chronicle. It's a later source, but perhaps indeed an independent source.
PS: I checked the Galician–Volhynian Chronicle (GVC), and it does not seem to mention any of these events at all (English translation Perfecky 1973). There are just two brief mentions of "Novgorod" in 1212 and 1228, otherwise only mentions of "Novgoroduk" (Novogrudok / Navahrudak / Nowogródek / Naugardukas in present-day Belarus), and zero mentions to "Pskov". The GVC is very concerned with Galicia and Volhynia (as the title says), the rest of present-day Ukraine and Belarus, Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, occasional mentions of Smolensk and Suzdal', and of course the Mongol conquest and the Golden Horde. There are about 3 suspected references to the Teutonic Knights around 1248/1250, but that is after our period of interest. There is only a mention of the Order of Dobrzyń, which in the context of the March 1238 Battle of Drohiczyn (uk:Битва під Дорогичином) are called Templar [Knights], but this is still very far removed from the Baltics, and out of our geographic scope. Between 1237 and 1245, it is almost wholly concerned with the Mongol invasion of Kievan Rus' (as we would expect), and has nothing to say about Livonian, Novgorodian, Pskovian etc. affairs, let alone the dynastic, political and religious tensions in those regions. NLeeuw (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
For the Votia campaign, it seems pretty important to establish whether the Votians (Vod, Vod') were vassals or tributaries to Novgorod prior to 1241. My first quick search through the 1914 English NPL suggests they were not. All prior mentions of the Vod describe violent conflicts with the Novgorodians or others. Only the passage [Aleksandr Yaroslavich] took the town [of Koporya] and brought some Nemtsy to Novgorod and let others go free; but the Vod and Chud traitors he hanged. This might suggests they had previously sworn loyalty or submission to him or to Novgorod, but there seems to be no such mention in the NPL. If so, the Nemtsy were not encroaching on any "Novgorodian land", but that of a hitherto independent, pagan tribe, exactly the kind of target envisioned at Stensby 1238. NLeeuw (talk) 11:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Selart says: The following year when peace was made Votia and Luga were returned by “the Germans” to Novgorod.
That's not what the NPL says, though: The same year [1242] the Nemtsy sent with greeting, in the absence of the Knyaz: “ The land of the Vod people, of Luga, Pleskov, and Lotygola, which we invaded with the sword, from all this we withdraw, and those of your men whom we have taken we will exchange, we will let go yours, and you let go ours.” And they let go the Pleskov hostages, and made peace.
Where does it say Votia and Luga were "returned to Novgorod"? Nowhere. Selart implies that Novgorod "owned" Votia and Luga prior to 1240/1241, but the NPL makes no such claim. The Nemtsy just withdrew out of those areas, exchanged prisoners with Novgorod, and went home. That doesn't mean Votia, Luga, P(le)skov and Lotygola (Latgale) were now "owned" by Novgorod. In fact, Pskov would only further its efforts to become independent in the subsequent 150 years. Moreover, the idea that Latgate was ceded from the Livonian Order, Archbishopric of Riga and/or Bishopric of Dorpat seems to defy what we know from other documents of the time. I think Selart is wrong here to speak of 'return'; if he makes such a claim for Votia and Luga, why not for Pskov and Latgale? If not for Pskov and Latgale, why would he claim it for Votia and Luga in the first place?! NLeeuw (talk) 12:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
But, Selart corrects himself very well after that: However, it is not clear how secure Novgorod’s control was in Votia at the time [1240/41]. Two dates are cited in the early history of Votia: 1069, when the Votians went to war against Novgorod, and 1149, when Novgorod attacked the Tavastians, who had invaded Votia.122 Evidence of the firm link between Votia, or at least a part of it, and Novgorod emerges in the first half of the 13th century. The Novgorod Chronicle records a famine among the Votians in 1215. This shows that the region fell within the chronicler’s range of interest, as does the description of the military campaign of 1241. According to Henry of Livonia, the Livonians took “Russian captives” from Votia and Ingria; the latter was described as belonging “to the kingdom of Novgorod”.123 There are a number of references to Votia’s dependence on Novgorod from the second half of the 13th century.124 It is nevertheless unknown how much of Votia fell within this dependency c. 1240.125
Exactly the question I was asking above!
If Votia was not dependent on Novgorod, there was nothing "treacherous" in Votian support for Teutonic/Livonian expansion into Votia, because the Votians owed Novgorod or Aleksandr no loyalty to begin with. The Novgorodians at the time certainly did not control the Chuds (Estonians), over whom the Danish king, the Livonian and Teutonic Orders and the various Prince-Bishops were consolidating their authority since c. 1200. Calling the Chuds "traitors" to Novgorod makes no sense if they had no prior loyalty to Novgorod to begin with.
This suggests an anachronism by a later Novgorodian chronicler who assumes both the Chuds and Votians were already under Novgorodian suzerainty, when at the very least the Chuds weren't, and the Votians may very well not have been either. In fact, Aleksandr Yaroslavich's campaign into Votia kicking out the Livonian Order may have been the actual Novgorodian conquest rather than "recapture" of Votia. NLeeuw (talk) 13:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
