Talk:Caspian expeditions of the Rus'

No data in Slavic sources

I urge Beit Or to remove requests for quotations from the article. How can you back up by sources an assertion which denies the existence of sources? I don't see any disputable in the current version of the article. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

So, you've conceded that the claim regarding the absence of sources is your original research. I'm removing this sentence. Beit Or 14:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You still fail to produce a Greek of Slavic source mentioning the expedition of 945 or those undertaken earlier. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 23:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm only required to produce reliable secondary sources supporting my edits. Beit Or 06:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

We usually try to provide a balanced mix of sources to avoid POV issues and in case ask someone for help who knows sources we hardly find in our English-based community. Wandalstouring 18:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Expansion

Beit Or, I appreciate your expansion of the article but still find some points dubitable or objectionable. I hope that we shall work out a solution on talk, without resorting to revert warring.

• My main objection concerns your a priori identification of the Rus with Varangians or Vikings, at the expense of anti-Normanist theories. As long as these theories exist and have substantial support, we should refer our readers to the article Rus' (people) which examines the subject in detail. Any mention of Vikings or Varangians should be eliminated from the article.
  • I'm glad you have conceded that certain Arab authors identify the Rus as Slavs. This makes their identification with Varangians in the lead highly inappropriate, not to say insulting. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 23:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Please read the article carefully. Al-Saqaliba was used to refer to all northeastern Europeans, both Slavs and Scandinavians. If you want to assert that the Caspian raids were undertaken by the Slavs, you'll have to produce reliable sources saying so. All the sources I'm aware of describe these raids as perpetrated by the Vikings in a typical Viking manner. Beit Or 06:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
      • There has been no consensus that the Rus is a brand of Vikings, particularly in the mid-10th century, when their leader had a typical Slavonic name. We have a separate article on this issue. There is no need to bring it up on every article about early Russian history. Your peremptory identification of the Rus with Vikings may be qualified as OR. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
        • No, these are reliable sources that identify the Rus with the Vikings, so no OR is involved. Beit Or 06:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
          • And as reliable (primary) sources identify the Rus with Slavs. Since you chose to highlight the former and to suppress the latter, your approach is tendentious. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Not sure what you're talking about. There is no such thing as reliable primary sources, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Beit Or 17:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
              • Would you consider Boris Rybakov (among other anti-Normanists) a reliable secondary source? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
                • In the Normanist vs. anti-Normanist dispute, the latter view is found only among Russian scholars; no distinguished currently active Western scholar supports the anti-Normanist position. Presenting these two views as equally legitimate is a violation of NPOV because the anit-Nomranists are clearly a minority. Beit Or 18:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
                  • It may be a minority, yet it is supported by some sources, as you himself admitted. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that the Rus of the 860s and 960s were identical. I tend to agree that the 8th-century Rus was predominantly Scandinavian, while the Rus of the 960s, led by a Slavic prince with a Slavic name, was composed primarily of Slavic warriors. Do you think that in 1043, when Yaroslav waged a war against Byzantium, the Rus' army was still Varangian? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
                    • Sviatoslav was not a Slavic prince: both of his parents were Scandinavians with Scandinavian names. Do you have any source discussing the ethnic origins of Sviatoslav's army? Beit Or 12:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Theories on the Rus'. I think we can avoid this pro and anti-Normanist discussion. The key point of this discussion is to what extend the Rus' were part of one or another ethnic group. The difference between both groups is quite marginal as far as archeological evidence is concerned, so this dispute is unlikely to be ever solved. Furthermore, far away "Norman" lands like Iceland have shown evidence of Slavic structures for the first permanent housing there, so it is likely these groups were quite intermixed. What all agree upon, the Rus' do have Slavic, do have Norman (even if it is one Norman per 1,000 Slavs) and Finno-Ugrian ancestors. Baltics, Slavs and Normans knew how to built fast longships, but the Norman Vikings became famous for their raids on Western Europe. Wandalstouring 17:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

issue 2

• My second objection follows from the first. The last section, dealing with "the Viking campaign in the Caspian in 1041", is very tenuously related to the previous ones. As best I know, the invaders are nowhere identified as "Rus". Therefore I would move this section elsewhere. Since we still don't have the article about Yngvar's saga, perhaps the last section should be split into this article. Furthermore, I have my reservations as to validity of this saga as a historical source. Like every other saga, it is primarily a work of fiction (what is its date?)
  • I have delinked Yngvars saga, as the article is a redirect to Ingvar the Far-Travelled. Again, please read the article with more care: it is mentioned that the saga intertwines facts with fiction, and what historians find to be factual has found its way into the article. This campaign is treated by Peter B. Golden in the section on Caspian raids of his article "Rus" in the Encyclopaedia of Islam, so apparently he finds it relevant. Logan, too, calls it the last of a series of raids described in this article. Beit Or 06:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • As I understand, the saga was recorded at a rather late date. I don't see how it may be trusted, in the absence of other sources documenting the event. Perhaps it might be given some credit in the text, but still I don't see how his expedition relates to the Russian expeditions of the early 10th century. If we are to expand the scope of the article ad infinitum, we should mention Stepan Razin's attack on Resht as well. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
      • That's all your original research; we are only supposed to report what the reliable sources say. Beit Or 08:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Please don't try to avoid answering the question whether the saga is considered a reliable source for 11th-century history of Azerbaijan. It seems that the answer is obvious, that's why you fail to provide answers to any of my queries and concerns. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
          • The only thing that matters is what reliable modern secondary sources write about those events. Beit Or 17:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Once again, you eschewed to respond my question. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
              • No, I've given a direct response. A reliable secondary source finds parts of the saga factual, and there is no other source disputing its findings. Beit Or 18:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Ghirlandajo is right with her objection of using oral traditions, that clearly contain fictional elements are not reliable sources. Often there exist rivaling interpretations. We do not judge recognized scientific work, but in some cases, we can present them from a critical point of view, giving the reader enough info to make his own judgement (like mentioning very late recording of an oral tradition). Beit Or should use a better expression, for what he really wanted to say. The evidence for modern scientists he quotes, was not the saga, but other hard facts (not told here). The saga was a source of inspiration and as hard facts combined to a picture that corresponded to certain parts of the saga, this was taken as verification for the truth of these parts. Wandalstouring 17:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

issue 3

• My third objection concerns the section about "destruction of Khazaria", which was copied and pasted from Svyatoslav I. Not only this approach is regrettable, but most data in this section is quite irrelevant to the subject of the present article. The invasion of Khazaria took place outside the Caspian, with the only exception of Svyatoslav's brief sally towards Samandar (which is anyway not mentioned in the text). Therefore, I propose to reduce this section to one or two sentences, referring our readers to the article about Svyatoslav for details. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 23:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • See above. Svyatoslav's war against Khozaria is treated at length by Golden in the aforementioned section. Similarly, Logan counts it among the other campaigns, alongside those of 864, 910, 913 etc. Here, again, you may find this particular campaign irrelevant to the subject of the article, but respected historians tend to disagree. Beit Or 06:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I would not hold my breath for what EI says. It is not the most authoritative source in the world. Actually, in my part of the world it is regarded as one of many compilations (just like Wikipedia itself). Either Svyatoslav sailed into the Caspian (as Ibn Haukal reports) and we should redirect our readers to Svyatoslav I, or he did not (the article is silent on this point), and then we should remove this campaign from this article altogether. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I am astonished at your attempt to equate an authoritative scholarly source, where article were written by renowned historians, with Wikipedia. Strangely, you seem to believe that we can somehow establish the truth in writing this article, which is totally against the policies and the spirit of Wikipedia. Beit Or 08:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia is also an authoritative scholarly source, or at least aspires to be one. There is no material difference between the two. Please don't assign to me your own opinions. I don't "reasearch" or "establish the truth", but I insist on reporting all points of view, not just one that suits your (or my) opinion. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Wikipedia is not an authoritative scholarly source; it's not considered a reliable source even for its own articles. If you are aware of any points of view that are currently underrepresented, just go ahead and add them to the article. Beit Or 17:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
            • OK, I will edit the article according to my proposal, but don't start revert warring, as you did on Igor, Grand Prince of Kiev (hate this title! why not Igor of Kiev?) --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
              • I have restored much of the material on 965 and 1041 campaigns and added more. Such large-scale deletions are simply unacceptable. Beit Or 21:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
                • Dude, what are you talking about? Not a single sentence was suppressed, let alone deleted. The stuff that you pillaged from Svyatoslav I was restored to the relevant article; details about the Swedish expedition of 1041 went into Ingvar the Far-Travelled. I also added new details which you did not hesitate to delete without explanation. Your recentmost edits seem to reveal your agenda: the identification of early Russians with Swedes. This is the only explanation why you insist on packing the article about the expedition of the Rus with details of the Swedish campaign. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Both of you take a break (drink a cup of tea and relax). There is lots of nonsense written in wikipedia, military and history are even magnets for this. First we have to make clear what this article is exactly about. As far as I could judge from the title, this should be an overview of all expeditions to the Caspian sea conducted during the existance of the Rus' as a political entity. In this case an expedition to a certain point would still be one if the target was not reached. Contrary, expeditions against a political entity being in between oneself and an objective you want to have access to, the target is the hostile political entity and not the objective. Wandalstouring 18:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Sakharov

You may want to balance your sources by a quote from Andrey Nikolayevich Sakharov, Svyatoslav's Diplomacy (1982): "On their way to Transcaucasia in 912, the Rus' were constrained to ask the Khazars to let them pass along the Don and the Volga. During their next expedition (945), keeping in mind the animosity of the Khazars and their allies on the Oka and Volga, the Rus chose to penetrate into the Caspian by land, through Northern Caucasus, bypassing the Khazar territories." --Ghirla ^-трёп- 23:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This claim is extremely dubious. The Khazars controlled pretty much the whole of the Northern Caucasus, so bypassing them would be difficult. In addition, they arrived to Berda and retreated from it by the Kura River. If Sakharov were correct, then they would have to carry boats on their shoulders, all the way through the plain and the mountains (!) to the source of the Kura. George Vernadsky in The Origins of Russia writes something entirely different, but logical: "This time the rich city of Berdaa in Azerbaijan was chosen by the Tmutorokan Russes for their invasion. As in their preceding oriental campaign, they went through Khazaria, via the lower Don and the lower Volga, and sailed south along the western shore of the Caspian Sea to the mouth of the Kura River." Beit Or 18:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

There are no mountains in Stavropol Krai or southern Kalmykia. I don't think much about Sakharov as a scholar (although he is the model of reliability if compared to Pritsak), therefore you are free to make amends. On the other hand, Vernadsky's theory is obviously influenced by his strange idea that Tmutarakan was the centre of early Rus, a doctrine which most authorities dismiss as untenable. Another point I would like you to address is the fate of the Rus during the 913 expedition. Lev Gumilev and Sakharov deplore their eventual annihilation by the Khazars and their allies (Bulgars, Burtas) while they were heading home. Are there any sources behind this? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You can see the sources by looking into the "Notes" section of the article? Beit Or 12:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Has Andrey Nikolayevich Sakharov given more information about the route of this expedition? Possibly they used small waterways and rolled their ships on trees. The Khazar Empire had some opponents in the Caucasus, so perhaps Khazar territory was not passed, but there is insufficient data. Wandalstouring 18:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Illustrations

There is Kochergin's painting illustrating the approach of the Rus army to Berdaa. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for an interesting suggestion, but where is a description of this painting? Beit Or 12:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Here, for instance. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)