Talk:Novgorod Republic

It is required to discuss the form of government.

The Novgorod Republic had an original form of government. It was - 1.the "Council of the Lord" (Soviet Gospod) of the boyars - nobles. 2. "Ivanovskaya Hundred" (Ivanovskaya Sotnya) - a place where you bought for a lot of money and required an annual large contribution to the budget. She represented the interests of merchants. 3. The role of the Minister of Finance and Treasurer was performed by the Novgorod Archbishop. It was he who controlled the money from the "Ivanovsky hundred" and from taxes. He spent spending on the construction of fortresses, the redemption of noblemen, the tribute to the Horde, education, the maintenance of the infirm in monasteries, the feeding of the poor, the purchase of weapons for the Novgorod militia and the organization of areas for foreign merchants. 4. The Lander (Posadnik) is a burgomaster was elected at the general meeting of all citizens (Veche).100% direct democracy. 5. Velikiy Kniaz - whose title is not properly translated by the Prince. This is a consequence of the fact that the Pope called him so. But the Russians never thought so. Correctly translate in current terms - the Great Leader. And in terms of the 12th century - the king.But he had the power of only two ministers - the minister of defense and the minister of justice. He tried the citizens of Novgorod. He defended it in wars. And by the way, he was not always Rurikovich. Just rurikovich brought their squad (Druzhina) - and they chose because the squad was paid by Kniaz. That strengthened the defense free of fee for Novgorodians. There was no real 100% of the head of state. But there was a differentiation of powers. Soviet Gospod controlled patrimonial lands, invited the Kniaz. He determined how many feudal lands would give soldiers and money to Novgorod. Defined the laws for the feudal lords. Defined international relations. But he could not declare war. It was the Kniaz privilege. Determined the size of taxes on the feudal lands. And as laws on the feudal lands. He could nominate candidatures for Posadniks. Ivanovskaya Sotnya Determined everything related to the organization of trade, including international trade. Heir decisions on trade were higher than the decisions of the Soviet Gospod. Posadnik - was a full burgomaster. Managed not only the city of Novgorod and was not alone. Among the Posadniks was a simple hierarchy - all recognized the supremacy of the Posadnik of Veliky Novgorod (city). In emergency cases, they rule as kniaz - Martha Posadnitsa. Oh yes, there were women among them. The posadnik was elected for life, but could at any time be deprived of the Veche.What was happening regularly. The posadnik of Veliky Novgorod together with the Ivanovskaya Sotnya determined the amount of taxes on not feudal lands and in trade. Novgorod Archbishop - He was "Minister of Finance", "treasurer" and administered church lands. But laws on church lands did not establish - it was done by posadniks. He also technically answered for the coinage. Kniaz - was "Minister of Defense", "Minister of Justice", was the chief judge of Novgorod (city), He declares and ends wars. Accepted foreign ambassadors and announced to them the decisions of Soviet Gospod. Participated in church ceremonies. However, it could at any time dismissed by the veche and was regularly happening. For example, even Alexander Nevsky was displaced three times. He was dismissed and again invited, but again.

And so on all grounds it is democracy. But which one? The right to vote had everything to do with women, too. Moreover, women chose what for medieval Europe is not realistic. However, the feudal lords retained power over their possessions and played a key role in governance. The analogue of the King was chosen by them as in Ireland. But the people could at any time democratically deprive the king. In addition, he did not have the power of European kings. And he was like a minister. At the same time, the real executive power was in the hands of democratically elected Posadnik. At the same time the Church had great power. The Archbishop had the power simply not to give money for any projects.

Since there are no analogues of such a system, it is not correct to talk about a merchant republic. I think that the Novgorod Republic is a special form of democracy. And it's easy to designate it simply - "republic" or "novgorod republic". 109.239.217.70 (talk) 02:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Anachronisims

The article has too many anachronisims eg:-

"[it had a]more participatory government than much of the rest of Russia, and it chose its officials locally, it still was very much a part of the Russian political and cultural landscape"

This would be tricky as Russia as an entity or concept didn't exist at that point...

It is akin to talking about Stonehenge as being part of the English tradition of stone circles.

---

I don't know if the Stonehenge comparison is a very apt one. A better one might be to call the Anglo-Saxons, "English" even if they really weren't in the modern sense of the word. The people who built Stonehenge were not English ethnically or linguistically. The Novgorodians were from the polity known as Rus' and were "russkii" which we would translate as "Russian"(they were also sometimes referred to as "Slovenes" and perhaps a few other such ethnic terms). While Rus' and its culture is not exclusive to modern Russia, and the area and peoples became modern-day Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus, the not uncommon practice in the scholarship is to use the term "Russia" even to refer to Rus', the Appanage, or the Muscovite periods. Thus Janet Martin's book, Medieval Russia, not Medieval Rus'. The alternatives (such as "Rus'ian" a rather silly modern construction) or others are rather cumbersome or even more unsatisfactory. For the sake of simplicity, I have used "Russia" and "Russian" in spite of the shortcomings of those terms.--Mcpaul1998 06:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

--- One more of this kind: "... and from 1156, the archbishop of Novgorod, subject to approval by the Russian metropolitan.[b][8]" In 1156 it must have been Kyiv metropolitan, under Byzantine patriarchy in ancient Rus. "Russian" as a name didn't exist before early 1700x, when the tsar Peter I "re-branded" the tsardom (by that moment) of Moscovie. It didn't have much to do with the ancient Rus or its successors, apart from the name that it borrowed - both culture and habits were different and both peoples barely knew about each other (see prof. Timothy Snyder lectures on the history of Ukraine - where he reviews its neighbors too, Russia included). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.35.154.226 (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Likewise, any usage of "Russian" applied to anything before early 1700x, when the "Russian Empire" was declared, is an anachronism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.35.154.226 (talk) 00:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Russian is also the adjective for Rus', not just Russia. Also note that there are books like "Medieval Russia, 980-1584" so some historians use this term for pre-1700 period as well. Alaexis_¿question? 19:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The Russian Church was de facto autocephalous beginning in 1448, so yes, we can refer to this as the Russian metropolitan. After all, the archbishop of Novgorod (along with other bishops) consented to the election of the metropolitan. Since the argument here is that "Russian" cannot be be used until 1700s, which is contrary to what the cited sources say, this will not convince anyone. Mellk (talk) 07:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Knyazs and posadniks

From http://www.genealogia.ru/ru/lib/catalog/rulers/3.htm . mikka (t)

Новгородская феодальная республика (Х в. - 1478).

Новгородская, Ленинградская, Архангельская, север Тверской обл., республики

Коми и Карелия.

Столица Новгород (Господин Великий Новгород).

1) Князья, назначаемые из Киева (ок. 970 - 1136).

1. Владимир Святославич Святой (970 - 78, 980, потом в Киеве).

2. Ярослав Владимирович (ок. 995 - 1019, потом в Киеве).

3. Вышеслав Владимирович (ок. 980 - 995).

4. Илья Ярославич (1019 - 21).

5. Брячислав Изяславич полоцкий (1021 - 36).

6. Владимир Ярославич (1036 - 52).

7. Изяслав Ярославич (1052 - 54, потом в Киеве).

8. Глеб Святославич тмутараканский (1054 - 78)*

9. Святополк Изяславич (1078 - 87, потом в Турове).

10. Мстислав Владимирович (1087 - 95, потом в Ростове)(1096 - 1113)(1114 - 16).

11. Давыд Святославич (1095 - 96, потом в Муроме).

12. Святослав Владимирович (1113 - 14).

13. Всеволод-Гавриил Мстиславич (1116 - 32)(1132 - 36).

2) Князья, избираемые новгородским вече (1136 - 1478).

14. Святослав Ольгович рыльский (1136 - 38, потом в Новгороде-Северском)(1139 - 41).

15. Ростислав Юрьевич суздальский (1138 - 39)(1141 - 42).

16. Всеволод Ольгович черниговский (1139).

17. Святополк Мстиславич полоцкий (1142 - 48).

18. Ярослав Изяславич киевский (1148 - 54).

19. Ростислав Мстиславич смоленский (1154).

20. Давыд Ростиславич смоленский (1154).

21. Мстислав Юрьевич суздальский (1154 - 57).

22. Святослав Ростиславич киевский (1157 - 60)(1161 - 68).

23. Мстислав Ростиславич суздальский (1160 - 61)(1175 - 76)(1177 - 78).

24. Роман Мстиславич волынский (1168 - 69).:

25. Рюрик Ростиславич киевский (1169 - 72).

26. Юрий Андреевич суздальский (1172 - 75).

27. Ярослав Мстиславич суздальский (1176 - 77).

28. Ярополк Ростиславич суздальский (1178).

29. Роман Ростиславич смоленский (1178 - 79).

30. Мстислав Ростиславич смоленский (1179 - 80).:

31. Владимир Святославич киевский (1180 - 81).

32. Ярослав Владимирович волынский (1181 - 82)(1187 - 96)(1197 - 99).

33. Мстислав Давыдович смоленский (1182 - 87).

34. Ярополк Ярославич черниговский (1196 - 97).

35. Святослав Всеволодович суздальский (1204 - 08).

36. Константин Всеволодович суздальский (1204 - 08).

37. Мстислав Мстиславич Удатный торопецкий (1210 - 14)(1216 - 17).

38. Ярослав Всеволодович переяславский (1214 - 16)(1225 - 28)(1230 - 36)*

39. Святослав Мстиславич смоленский (1217 - 19).

40. Всеволод Мстиславич смоленский (1219 - 21).

41. Всеволод Юрьевич суздальский (1221)(1223 - 24).

42. Ярослав Юрьевич суздальский (1221 - 23).

43. Михаил Всеволодович черниговский (1224 - 25)(1229)*

44. Федор Ярославич суздальский (форм. 1228 - 29).

45. Ростислав Михайлович черниговский (1229 - 30).

46. Александр Ярославич Невский переяславский (форм. 1228 - 29)(1236 - 40)

(1241 - 52).

47. Андрей Ярославич владимировский (1240 - 41).

48. Василий Александрович суздальский (1252 - 55)(1256 - 58).

49. Ярослав Ярославич тверской (1255 - 56)(1264 - 71).

50. Дмитрий Александрович суздальский (1258 - 64)(1271 - 73)(1275 - 81)(1283 - 94).

51. Василий Ярославич костромской (1273 - 76).

52. Андрей Александрович городецкий (1281 - 83)(1294 - 1304).

Борис Андреевич (наместник 1294 - 1304).

53. Михаил Ярославич тверской (1304 - 14)(1315 - 18).

54. Афанасий Данилович (1315).

55. Юрий Данилович московский (1318 - 22)*

56. Дмитрий Михайлович тверской (1322 - 25)*

57. Александр Михайлович тверской (1326 - 27)*

1328 - 1359 московские князья.

58. Дмитрий Константинович суздальский (1359 - 62).

1362 - 1478 московские князья.

3) Московские служилые князья-наместники (1403 - 78).

Юрий Святославич смоленский (1403 - 07)*

Семен-Лугвень Ольгердович литовский (1407 - 13).

Константин Дмитриевич (1413 - 25).

Юрий Семенович литовский (1432 - 40)(1446 - 47).

Иван Владимирович литовский (1444 - 46).

Александр Васильевич Чарторыйский (1447 - 55).

Василий Васильевич Шуйский-Гребенка (1455 - 71)(1472 - 78).

Михаил Олелькович (1471 - 72).

С 1478 московские воеводы.

1611 - 1617 шведская оккупация.

Карл-Филипп, сын Карла IХ шведского (форм. великий князь Новгорода 1611 - 17).

4) Посадники (ок. 950 - 1478).

Первоначально посадники избирались пожизненно, потом на два года.

С 1286 г. установлено коллективное посадничество представителей концов (районов)

Новгорода, из которых на год избирался степенной (главный) посадник.

Добрыня (киевский наместник ок. 980 - 990).

Воробей Стоянович (ок. 995).

Коснятин (Константин) Добрыньевич (ок. 1016 - 16/19).

Остромир (Иосиф)(ок. 1050 - 1054/58)

ок. 1058 - 1100 Завид, Петрята, Коснятин, Миронег, Савва, Улеб, Гюрята,

Микула (Никола).

Добрыня (ок. 1110 - 1117).

Дмитр Завидич (1117 - 18).

Коснятин Моисеевич (1118 - 19)(1125 - 26).

Борис (1120 - 25).

Мирослав Гюрятинич (1126 - 28)(1134 - 35).

Завид (Давид) Дмитрович (1128).

Данила (1129 - 31).

Петрила Микульчич (1131 - 32)*

Иванко Павлович (1132 - 34)*

Коснятин Микульчич (1135 - 36)(1146 - 47).

Якун Мирославич (1137 - 41)(1157 - 60)(1168 - 70).

Судила Иванкович (1141 - 44)(1147- 57).

Нежата Твердятич (1144 - 46)(1160 - 61).

Захария (1161 - 67)*

Якун Андреевич (1167 - 68).

Жирослав (1170 - 71)(1171 - 72)(1175).

Иванко Захарьинич (1171)(1172 - 75)(1184 - 86).

Завид Неревинич (1175 - 76)(1177 - 80).

Михалко Степанович (1176 - 77)(1180 - 84)(1186 - 89)(1204 - 05).:

Мирошка Нездинич (1189 - 1204).

Дмитр Мирошкинич (1205 - 07)*

Твердислав Михалкович (1207 - 11)(1213 - 15)(1216 - 19)(1219 - 20).

Дмитр Якунич (1211 - 12/13).

Юрий Иванкович (1215 - 16).

Семен Борисович (1219)*

Иванко Дмитрович (1220 - 29).

Внезд Водовик (1229 - 30).

Степан Твердиславич (1230 - 43).

Збыслав Якунович (1243 - 50).

Онания Феофилактович (ок. 1250 - 55).

Михалко Степанович (1255 - 58)*

Михаил Федорович (1258 - 68)*

Павша Онаньинич (1268 - 72)(1272 - 73).

Михаил Мишинич (1272)(1273 - 80).

Семен Михайлович (1280 - 86).

Андрей Климович (1286 - 91)(1294 - 95)(1295 - 97)(1299 - 1300)(1301 - 02)(1303 - 04)*

Юрий Мишинич (1291 - 92)(1297 - 98)(1304 - 05).

Семен Климович (1292 - 94)(1298 - 99)(1300 - 01)(1302 - 03)(1312 - 15)(1316 - 17).

Семен Иванович (1298/9 - 1300).

Михаил Павшинич (1310 - 12)*

Варфоломей Юрьевич (1323 - 24)(1331 - 32).

Данила (1327 - 28).

Федор Ахмыл (1329 - 30)(1332).

Захария Михайлович (1332).

Матвей Вафоломеевич Коска (1332 - 33)(1345 - 46).

Федор (Ахмыл ?) (1334 - 35).

Федор Данилович (1335 - 36)(1338 - 39)(1342 - 43)(1348 - 49)(1350).

Остафий Дворянинец (1340 - 41)(1344 - 45)(1347 - 48)*

Оницифор Лукич (1347/48)(1350 - 51)(1353 - 54).

Александр Дворянинцев (1346 - 47)(1354).

Федор Юрьевич (1349 - 50).

Ондреян Захарьинич (1359 - 60).

1360 - 70 неизвестные посадники.

Иван Семенович (1370 - 71).

Юрий Иванович (1371 - 72)(1373 - 74)(1374 - 75).

Михаил Данилович (1372 - 73).

Василий Иванович (1385).

Андреян Захарьинич (1390 - 91).

Есиф Захарьинич (1391 - 92).

Сильвестр Леонтьевич (1392 - 93).

Григорий Якунов (1393 - 94).

Федор Тимофеевич (1394 - 95).

Богдан Обакунович (1395 - 96).

Григорий Богданович (1396 - 97).

Тимофей Юрьевич (1397 - 98).

Александр Фоминич (1398 - 99).

Есиф Фалалеевич (1399 - 1400).

Юрий Дмитриевич (1400 - 01).

Иван Александрович (1401 - 02).

Фома Иванович (1402 - 03).

Кирилл Андреянович (1403 - 04).

Фома Есифович (1404 - 05).

Кирилл Дмитриевич (1405 - 06).

Иван Данилович (1406 - 07).

Андрей Иванович (1407 - 08).

Иван Богданович (1408 - 09).

Борис Васильевич (1415 - 16).

Семен Васильевич (1416 - 17).

Василий Есифович (1417 - 18).

Иван Богданович (1418 - 19).

Александр Игнатьевич (1419 - 20).

Василий Микитинич (1420 - 21).

Михаил Иванович (1421)(1424 - 25)

Тимофей Васильевич (1421 - 22).

Михаил Ананьич (1423 - 24).

1424 - 34 неизвестные посадники.

Самсон Иванович (1434).

Григорий Кириллович Посахно (1434 - 35)(1436).

Борис Юрьевич (1435 - 36)(1436).

Федор Данилович (1435).

Иван Васильевич (1436 - 37).

Федор Олисеевич (1437)(1441 - 42).

Дмитрий Васильевич (1437 - 38)(1450 - 51).

Иван Лукинич Щока (1438)(1455 - 56)(1456).

Исаак Андреевич Борецкий (1438 - 39)(1453 - 54).

Федор Яковлевич (1439).

Богдан Микитинич (1439 - 40).

Есиф Андреевич (1440).

Есиф Григорьевич Посахно (1440 - 41)(1447 - 48).

Есиф Яковлевич (1441).

Анания Семенович (1442).

Иван Максимович (1442 - 43).

Иван Лаврентьевич (1443)(1461).

Богдан Есифович (1443 - 44).

Захария Григорьевич (1444).

Василий Степанович (1444 - 45).

Михаил Иванович (1445).

Василий Сокира (1447).

Афанасий Остафьевич Груз (1448)(1461)(1466).

Дмитрий Васильевич Глухов (1450).

Иван Лукинич Щока (1455 - 56)(1456).

Михаил Иванович Туча (1456 - 57).

Алексей Васильевич Казимир (1459 - 60).

Василий Александрович (1460).

Иван Лаврентьевич (1461).

Яков Алексеевич Короб (1460 - 61).

Иван Немир (1461 - 62).

Василий Глазоемцев (1462).

Кузьма Григорьевич (1462 - 63).

Михайло Семенов (1463).

Александр Самсонов (1463 - 64).

Федор Самсонов (1464).

Афанасий Остафьевич (1466).

Дмитрий Исаакович Борецкий (1470 - 71)*

Тимофей Остафьевич (1471).

Марфа Борецкая (Посадница) (фактически 1470 - 78).

Василий Ананьич Голенище (1471)(1475).

Михаил Семенович (1474 - 75).

Фома Андреевич Курятник (1475 - 76)(1477 - 78).

Василий Александрович Казимир (1476 - 77)(факт. 1478).

Захар Овинов (1477)*

1478 присоединение к Московскому государству.

Map

'''This map is very incorrect as it presents the territories of different countries at completely different points in time! Please revert!!!'''

Does anyone have a map of Novgorod at its peak that could be put here? The Kievan Rus' article has an excellent map, and this article would benefit from one like it. Esn 09:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You could load the map from from ukrainian wiki --A4 12:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Added a map of Eurasia ca. 1200. Conscious 14:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any credible research puts Turkic peoples in the taiga region of Russia as in the map. As far as I know, by the 13th century the area was inhabited by Finno-Ugric people and Slavs.Tomppeli 10:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly object to the map shown, as it dates 1200 but writes "Russian principalities" over Ukrainian territories, known under various names, such as Kyevan Principality. However, no Russia or Russian territories could have possibly existed before the existence of Russia. "Kyivska Rus" would be a suitable and compromiseable name, otherwise this article would be an ukrainophobic propaganda. --Sylius 03:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid applying the unnecessarily strong labels to other people's edits. It does not help to advance the point you are trying to make. But to answer your question, the name "Russian principalities" was likely put there not due the Russian chauvinism of the map's creator (who is not even Russian) but due to the fact that Medieval Russia and Medieval Rus’ happen to be usable in English historiography interchangeably. This source is the best proof, the Janet Martin's classical study called "Medieval Russia, 980-1584", Cambridge University, 1995, ISBN 0521368324. This usage does not create any confusion among the specialists since they unmistakably realize that in the medieval and the modern context the two words do not mean the same thing and are rather treated as homonyms.

Of course there are people (that include some Wikipedia users and RL politicians) who claim that Rus' and Russia (in modern sense) are just one and the same but such claims are unrelated to the historic science and not considered seriously among historians. Similar (but opposite) claims are sometimes made by the Ukrainian nationalist circles. Such exclusivity claims are equally non-scholarly, although you can easily find the writings of nationalist Ukrainian and Russian historians who make such respective exclusivity claim.

But this question goes by far beyond the trivial dispute of the map you raise. I would support you if you say that in the particular map the "Russian principalities" should be replaced with the "Principalities of Rus’" as this removes the ambiguity that a non-specialist may see there and would help the world peace at the same time.

It would be wrong, however, to call Rus' as Kievan (or Kyivan) in this particular context as the addition of "Kievan" is a later one and made by historians. The contemporary usage that would have been Rus' or Rus('s)kaya zemlya did not include Kiev in any form. So, the term Kievan Rus is OK to use in a specific context but not left and right. I will contact the author of the map with the request to accommodate your concern. Regards, --Irpen 04:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism!

Smb cuted ru-sib interwiki. It's a ridiculous vandalism - there is no reason to delete ru-sib interwiki, it was quiet correct and siberian project is already adopted in wikipedia.

Please resrore interwiki!--A4 22:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

A4, this has been explained to you at your talk at length. The problem with rusib is someone turned a project into a propaganda machine. It needs either closed or cleaned up from ethnic slurs and obsenicities. Until then, links to it won't be tolerated as per: WP:EL. --Irpen 22:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, go fight with the project if you like. Do not fight with it's shadows.--Bryndza 04:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Now do you see that it is impossible to discuss gently with these russian wiki "specialists", who don't know Siberian, don't enough respect other peoples' opinions, but want to pry into something that they don't understand &don't like?--Ottorahn 02:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Any propaganda. The interwiki is a common thing for the project. The siberian article about Novgorod does not contain either propaganda or things that could be offensive. --A4 10:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

They do... only I don't think you saw them... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 11:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean we don't know? It's first and foremost a Russian dialect, and with a decent educational background you're able to understand it. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 11:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoever is interested in a more detailed analysis of sib-wiki, may check it at user talk:A4. If reading in Ukrainian is difficult to some, you can ommit the Ukrainian paragraphs of that page. --Irpen 20:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

But protecting this LEGITIMATE page prevents very legitimate edits from being performed, except by highly-trusted administrators. And why must one be highly trusted to edit this page for legitimate encyclopedia reasons? Lock up the "Siberian language Wikipedia" and shut down it's "propaganda machine", revert any attempts to keep the link in, and let everyone edit the page for POSITIVE CONTRIBUTIONS!!!! Demanding you need to be a very trusted member just to correct a typo is insane. Keep link off, keep RuSib wik down, keep legitimate edits open. Either that or make it a heck of a lot easier to gain adminship or special "edit protected pages" priviledges or something! 170.215.83.212 23:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Just I mentioned that the article about Novgorod Republic is not a place for discussion about what siberian language is. Please note, that siberain wikipedia is already working project and it is a part of the whole wikipedia project. Intewiki is a commons practice for wikipedia, so it is a vandalism to delete it. --A4 20:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This talk page is not a discussion on what the Siberian language is and whether it exists. But this talk is a place to discuss the attempts of certain users to link the decent article to the web-sites that promotes obscenities and hate speech. If A4 is willing to take a mission of cleaining the external site from crap, we can discuss linking after that. --Irpen 21:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Siberian article about Novgorod Republic do not contain either obscenities or hate speech. Nothing for cleaning-up!--A4 21:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, the web-sites that promotes obscenities and hate speech. that you are referring to are part of wikipedia project. Whether you like it or not - does not authorize you for deletion of any iw links. Except for when you are acting like a vandal. And please ton down your rhetorics here, Mr. MasterOfThisCornerOfWikipedia.--Bryndza 05:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Bryndza, I don't care whose part that obscene site is. Links to sites that promote racist views, obscene language, smut masqueraded as amateurish poetry and other crap will not be tolerated. If you think that the Ukrainian Wikicommunity will see it differently when several users push it into uk-wiki, you might get surprised. But anyway, English Wikipedia's reputation cannot be undermined by links to hate sites, be it the Ku Klux Klan, the American Nazi Party the Russian National-Bolshevik Party or UNA-UNSO. Zolotapedia's place in its current shape is among those sites. Clean it up, if it's possible, before linking anything to it. --Irpen 06:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I find it rather unnerving that you take on yourself the authority to decide what should be removed on the ground of "undermining English Wikipedia reputation", or even what constitutes "hate sites"; especially since Wikipedia is deliberately not censored. On a side note, en-wiki contains links to all things you've listed as "inappropriate"; e.g. the article on the National-Bolshevik Party has a link to NBP official website, National Socialist Movement (United States) links to NSM headquarters official website, etc. This is precisely the way things should be according to existing WP policies - just because someone finds the linked sites objectionable (for "hate speech" or otherwise), their relevance is not reduced in any way, and the links should be present for those interested in getting all relevant information more so than afraid of being offended.

Now to apply the same principle to the case here. It has long being implied that articles in other wikis on the same subject matter are not only relevant, but links to them deserve a special place on the article page. Thus, an article on Novgorod Republic in "Siberian" is no less revelant than the same article in e.g. Ukrainian; if one is linked, so should be the other. The debate over the actual status of "Siberian", POV-pushing or the lack of such on the part of its creators, and even the quality of Siberian Wikipedia are irrelevant to the matter. Issues relevant to sibwiki should be discussed there, or, better yet, on the removal proposal discussion page. If the community decides that sibwiki should not exist, than it shall be deleted together with all interwiki links to it. But, as long as it exists, the relevant articles from it should be linked to the same as for any other wiki. -- int19h 10:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, English Wikipedia's reputation cannot be undermined, because it is already too low. Thanks to such "curators" like yourself. Therefore new project will be coming to replace it, citizendium. I hope it will have better luck.--Bryndza 19:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If you think that people running Citizendium will approve OR about "Siberian language" and ethnic slurs, you're heavily mistaken. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

int19h, note, however, that WP links to the hate sites specifically in the articles devoted to such sites and their host organizations rather than from articles about arts or medieval states.

Additionally and for the record and despite Bryndza's ad hominem above, I am also looking forwards to what comes out of Citizendium. It has every chance to succeed since trolls are nationalist are more likely to be kept at bay in the moderated project. --Irpen 00:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not your call, WP:EL clearly does not apply here as this is not an external link. Now is there any policy that would allow the deletion of interwiki links based on the quality of articles?

There needs to be order, we can't just have waring gangs going through wikipedia and setting their own rules. As I understand the Siberian wikipedia is now being heavily disscussed on meta, if the community decides it should be closed the iwiki links will be deleted, but until this happens it's vandalism to delete them just as it is for all other iwiki links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.16.230.249 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, can you please point me to places in Wikipedia rules and guidelines that even use (and define) the term "hate site", and discuss specific issues when dealing with such sources? AFAIK, the only criteria is relevance. An article in Wikipedia in language on the same subject i, biased or not, is considered relevant by default, which is why we have a special place for those links. I've been dealing with a lot of Balkans-related articles in the last few months, and by your logic, many interwiki links on such subjects to Serbian, Croatian, Albanian ... Wikipedias should also be removed. Similarly, many articles in ru-wiki are quite biased, should we also delink them from en-wiki? Are you willing to go ahead and consistently apply that principle to all other Wikipedia projects on all articles? Besides, as the above anonymous comment correctly states, interlanguage wiki links are not normally considered external links. -- int19h 07:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. I am not saying we should not interwiki because other articles happen to be biased. We should and do interlink to other encyclopedias. Russian, Ukrainian, Serbian and all those wikis are encyclopedias. Most national ones are less NPOV than enwiki indeed but they all contain a lot of encyclopedic content. Zolotapedia contains none of this sort. It's encyclopedic value is useless as Zolotaryov is the only reader and writer of what he calls a sib-lang and the articles of that encyclopedias are either frivolous or offensive. The meta discussion will hopefully bring this disgrace to a closure. If the non-encyclopedic site happens to have an article on Novgorod republic, it does not warrant a link to it. There are articles on history in Nazi sites. We do not link to them. More at user talk:A4. --Irpen 07:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

My point is that the very existence of sib-wiki means that it exists with community consensus, unless and until established otherwise (i.e., when the voting to delete sib-wiki finishes, and if "Delete" will be the decision). So your statement that "... [other wikis] all contain a lot of encyclopedic content ... [sib-wiki] contains none of this sort." is, for now, just a personal opinion, and is irrelevant to the issue. Let's not run ahead of the train here and wait until the deletion poll ends. At least, consider that the very fact that the poll exists, and that there are genuine votes against deletion, shows that there is no consensus on this issue just yet. -- int19h 11:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ingria

A related vandalism/edit war is going on at Talk:Ingria (and, I guess on hundreds of other pages). -- Petri Krohn 15:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Dear admins who protected this page,

This is going too far.

Let's see: 1. You said that you reverted the adding of interwiki links to ru-sib according to policy on external links, but an interwiki link is not an external link. You may think that a link to ru-sib.wiki is external, because you don't recognize it as a part of the international Wikipedia, but for now Wikimedia foundation has a different opinion.

2. Protecting a whole page just because of a revert war with one editor is way too much. If you think that a certain editor is a vandal, you can block the editor. Protecting the page completely for all editing is totally against the wiki idea.

3. In the particular case of Novgorod, there is nothing stupid or obscene in the article about it in the ru-sib.wiki. If you think that it is a disgrace to link Hamlet to its silly Siberian translation, i actually agree with you - i think that the existence of that particular translation on a Wikipedia is vandalism and i expressed my opinion about it there. But there's nothing obscene in ru-sib:Великой Новгород. If you think that that article has a non-neutral POV or historical inaccuracy, you are welcome to fix it, not to block it or delete it.

Thanks for your attention. --Amir E. Aharoni 08:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, ru-sib links have been pestering more articles, including Kiev and Alexander Suvorov, among others. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Kola/Lapland/Finnmark

Vast parts of present Norway, Russia, Sweden and Finland were joint "tribute paying land" (Norwegian: skattland) between Norway, Sweden and Novgorod. This included the Kola penninsula, the present Norwegian coast to Malangen west of Tromsø, and the country behind. Would this fit somewhere in the article? Jon kare 09:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nevsky.jpg

Image:Nevsky.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Feudalism

Removed because it's inappropriate here.

Indeed, a number of western scholars question whether there really was feudalism in the medieval West and if the term is applied to such a variety of phenomena as to be practically useless. Ufwuct (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

References

Novgorod and Battle of Grundwald

As discussed at Talk:Battle_of_Grunwald#Participants, a banner from Novgorod took part in the battle, likely as part of the alliance with Poland-Lithuania. This likely should be mentioned in this article, and expanded upon (currently in battle of Grunwald Novgorod banner is simply listed among the banners of Grand Duchy of Lithuania, while it was probably only an allied unit (since GDL did not control Novgorod).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 11:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This Is A Terrible and Wretched Wikipedia Article

Good Lord, people! Wikipedia welcomes diverse points of view. Wikipedia welcomes multicultural points of view. Wikipedia welcomes translations between multi-language versions of the online encyclopedia.

Wikipedia does *not* welcome long, un-substantiated, obviously not-NPOV paragraphs written to serve some ho-hum current agenda. Or various agendas of the past.

If the Novgorod Republic was such an amazing state, which did so much over the course of its history -- please, kindly explain how and when and where and why this was done. In simple words. Personally, I'd like to learn about this, if it was so. But most of the current version of this article makes assertions without any evidence of proof.

Let me see if I can make this more clear... "In 1905, a fleet of Canadian Zeppelins appeared above Novgorod and Pskov and bombed both cities into submission. Nine out of ten Novgoradians and Psokians died in these horrible Canadian attacks, and many memorials have been erected in these cities to remember the glorious dead."

But... this didn't happen. No Canadian Zeppelins bombed. I just made that up.

And equally true -- as a Wikipedia reader, I have no way of knowing if anything anyone else has written in this article is equally invented, made-up, and non-NPOV.

To me, this article reads like a polemic. Rather than attacking me personally, or my personal POV, I'd suggest people edit this article to make it make more sense to ordinary people.

Please, if you disagree with me -- express your opinions freely and openly. But please don't imagine you have the freedom to attack me personally for expressing my POV. You don't.

I hope this article will be made better by my comments.

cheers, Madmagic (talk) 08:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Russifated Article

This is a classic example of "russification" of the pages in English Wikipedia. All mentions to Finno Ugrians who played important role in foundation and developing this Uuslinna has been deleted away making it totally Slavonic trade center which, in fact, it was not. It was a continuing threat to Moskovite despotismism of powerful internal concentration of ruling power into the hands of one ruling family, with its in origin Finno Ugrian laws and internal order. Votes (Vatjat) played the most important part in eaarly days of the town. The main road toward north was named Vatjaroad and at first the offical language in kerejet / käräjät was Vatjan language, not Russian language. The second language in use was old Slavonic Krivitshi dialect of which many (more than two hundred) borrowings appeared to Finnish, Estonian and Karelian languages used that time in the town. In addition old Swedish language, commercial Deutsch, and Liti and Läti languages were used. Also the map is somewhat questionable. It places whole Karelian Isthmus and East Karelia under Novgorod Commercial Empire, which they were not. The propaganda of Yeroslaff the Great by conquering the lands of Koreli pagans and convert them to be faithful Orthodox Christians since 1015 smells to the nose. This just like that during one robbing excursion to Finland. Thus, the first connections with Baltic Finno Ugrians with Slavs occurred at earlist in 700´s somewhere south of Staraja Russa with the Krivitshi tribe and along Väinäjoki (Russian Zapadnaja Dvina). The race which was later called Big Slavs had not even born at those days. All this means Novogorod (Navaharod) main commercial connections were in south western direction, not with vulgääri Moskova. Hansa had one of its main kontor in Navaharod, trade was fluorishing, Hansa influence become stronger in Torgovaja side of the town, so why make an attack against it by fellow Kalparitarit from Aesteland against Hanseatic commercial interests? Stupidness may one say, but you have to remember that all the history was later written with strong Moscovite bias showing the realm of Muscovite ideas of Greater Russia and its most dangerous internal enemy in Slavoniland had to be blackpainted in all ways. And Moskova managed to it and transfer the main base of power from north west Rushjiland to Center of Oka - Volga land after 1380 and finish it totally in 1478. Au dieu for somekind of demokratia of Russian style. The blood was flooding again on the streets of Navaharod.

The published list of Pjasadnakkis (Posadnaks) do not prove they were of Russian origin. One have to remember the habit of Slavonic Orthodox Church to rename all the baptized "pagans" (pagadnakkis), ie. Finno Ugrians with human new names. Thus, Timofei Jaroslavits can as well be Koreli (Karelian) Timo Jyrinpoika and so on. Those with slav inhired in their father´s name were supposedly of Slavonic origin of (Krivitshi) Crivitianni or Severjanni (The Northeners) tribes. The Kievan influence after Monomachus is really questionable.

From old oral stories of the life in this multi ethnic trade center (which was totally depending of imported grain due bad soil around the town), are the most lively describtions of everyday life and habits of the towns. The Arab visitors looked "eyes rounded" the drinking, imported Curtisans from all around the Europe, the Venetian women (one may call them the Venetsians) from certain blocks along Grande Canale were in fafour, the both sex going totally naked to sauna together and the native talk of different languages, really the only cosmopolitan town in Rushjiland. Slavonic Bot origanated from Swedish Båt, river pirate ships Uishkuis from Finnish Uisko etc. Regular small armed gang of mercenaries from Swedish en tusen man (one thousand man) which seems to have been the only regular armed force being paid by rich Navaharodian traders on their payroll playing important role in the taxcollecting business of which the chieftain of them rolled and turned in his own pockets the classic tenth of total of collected taxes as his annual reward. That was real Navaharod / Uuslinna in medieval time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.126.143 (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Novgorod as feudal fief of Polish Crown

Novgorod Republic was a fief of Polish Crown 1389-1392 and 1401-1412 and it`s historically sourced fact but Russian scope is dominating here changing verified historical sources into fables. Mathiasrex (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobody denies this insignificant episode. The only thing which is being opposed here is your effort to put Poland in the center of attention where it is not justified. --Voyevoda (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Objectiv article: The fall of Great Novgorod

When researching a great event of the past, especially one that had a crucial effect on further developments, a true historian, like any true scholar, will find it necessary to go beyond superficial vapidity and empty cliches, and to get to the root of certain sharp turns — the sources of victories and defeats of once powerful states. This approach is absolutely necessary if we are to comprehend the grandiose and terrible “gathering of Russian lands” around Moscow in the 14th-16th centuries that resulted in the formation of a centralized autocratic state. This state was extremely aggressive: it enlarged its area by 180 times between 1321 and 1581, and that was just the beginning! It “nourished” its ideology not with European “charters of liberties,” as England did, not with the reforms of the enlightened and liberal dukes, as, for example, Florence did, but with the unlimited right of a “grand sovereign” to deal with his “rabble” and “slaves” (the latter included even the boyars) as he pleased.

But what stood in the way of an unchecked and predatory expansion of grand Muscovite princes and tsars, from Ivan Kalita to Ivan IV the Terrible, which has been equally glorified by pre-Revolutionary and Soviet ready-to-serve historians, was an amazing state — His Majesty Lord Novgorod the Great [the way its citizens called the Novgorod Republic – Ed.], a free veche (people’s assembly)-ruled republic that had inherited the living democratic traditions of Ancient Rus’. At the peak of its power (the 14th-first half of the 15th centuries), this state controlled a northern territory as far as the Urals (called Yugra Rocks at the time), the White Sea, and even Siberia. This power maintained very close trade links with Western Europe, including the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, German free cities on the Baltic and North seas, and the Polish Kingdom. It used a complete Magdeburg Law system of privileges and was, in political terms, diametrically opposed to an autocratic Moscow.

All the important questions of the city’s and republic’s life — be it concluding trade agreements with Europe, electing the posadnik (mayor), mobilizing the militia, raising money for building a new temple, etc. — were usually settled at the assemblies (veche) of free Novgorod citizens. The Novgorod prince himself was in fact no more than a hired commander of the local military force (druzhina).

The Novgorod Republic truly embodied, to use modern parlance, the possible “European vector” of the development of the future “Great Russian” people. The unification of the latter into one state was an objective necessity in the 14th century. Speaking of the future Great Russian lands, the question was: who will lead the process of unification — the authoritarian Moscow or the Novgorod Republic? (It will be noted that a powerful ally, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which also included Ukrainian lands, supported Novgorod, albeit only for a while.) Our prominent historian Mykola Kostomarov once defined this as a rivalry between a “veche-appanage” and a “monarchic” Rus’. He explained: “The ideal of a veche-appanage life was that Rus’ lands be self-sufficient so that each land formed a whole in its local life and all of them were bound with the same, common to all, linchpin.” The idea of a monarchic setup was entirely different. In this case the freedom of constituent parts is sacrificed to a different idea, a single state with the component parts absorbed or destroyed. ... http://www.day.kiev.ua/208416 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.141.86.13 (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

B-class failed

Insufficient references: numerous unreferenced paragraphs. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Straw-man polemic against Marxist historiography

"Marxist scholars (e.g., Aleksandr Khoroshev) often spoke of class struggle in Novgorod. There were some 80 major uprisings in the republic, which often turned into armed rebellions. The most notable among these took place in 1136, 1207, 1228–29, 1270, 1418, and 1446–47. The extent to which these were based on "class struggle" is unclear. Many were between various boyar factions or, if a revolt did involve the peasants or tradesman against the boyars, it did not consist of the peasants wanting to overthrow the existing social order, but was more often than not a demand for better rule on the part of the ruling class. There did not seem to be a sense that the office of prince should be abolished (it didn't seem to cross the medieval mind to do that) or to let the peasants run the city."

An all too common objection against Marxist historiography, both crude and straw-man-based. Hardly any Marxist scholar, even in the worst years of Stalinist dogmatism, was stupid enough to think and claim that class struggle in pre-modern times was normally about the lower class consciously fighting to overthrow the existing social or political order. Class struggle doesn't require a clearcut conscious agenda for the transformation of society, it is just about different social classes struggling with each other (pursuing what they see as their interests, of course). Conflicts between non-socialist trade unions and employers are considered to be, objectively, class struggle by Marxists, even if the participants don't share the Marxists' notions. Similarly, Marxist historiography tends to see class struggle in past and present conflicts that the actual participants claim and, arguably, partly believe to be dynastic, ethnic, religious, legal, or ethical in nature. The idea is that the people involved, especially the oppressed classes, mostly don't realize what they are doing, since they are, to a large extent, blinded by the ideology of their society and don't understand its true mechanics. One may doubt and disagree with this approach, it does smack of Freudianism with its reliance on the subconscious, but hardly any historical research can do without the general understanding that historical events aren't always about what their participants have said or thought they're about. Just pointing out that rebels in the Jacquerie didn't issue a Declaration of Human Rights, and thinking that you've disproved 150 years of Marxist thought with that highly original observation, is ridiculous.--91.148.130.233 (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Republic?

Novgorod was nominally at least ruled by the Princes. It was therefore a principality not a republic. Is there any pre-Soviet source that calls the territory a republic?122.59.83.216 (talk) 09:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Novgorod Republic is the WP:COMMONNAME. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The article is absolute rubbish

1. No reference to archaeological findings

2. No reference to Russian chronicles including Novgorodian ones

3. No reference to pre-mongolian history including rivalty between Novgorod and Rostov-Suzdal

4. well, no references to any source at all, in fact. Authors invented "massacre" of Novgorodians by Ivan III (clearly mixing Ivan III with Ivan IV)

The only purpose of this article is to invent "Novgorodian" nation and crash it with "Moscovite" nation.

But good example why Wikipedia should NEVER be used as a source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.125.6.1 (talk) 08:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Novgorod Republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040817113342/http://www.eccentrix.com/members/figge33/inkeri/viking.htm to http://www.eccentrix.com/members/figge33/inkeri/viking.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

What accused Moscow of Novgorod

Moscow did not accuse Novgorod of the fact that they want to become Catholics. Moreover, in 1454 Moscow refused to recognize the restoration of the patriarchate in Constantinople (since it was annexed by the Turks). Novgorod recognized and sent gifts to Kiev (appointed Metropolitan 1458) and to Moscow - the self-proclaimed Moscow metropolitan whom the patriarchs did not recognize. During the war of 1456 when Moscow vassalized the Novgorod Republic and imposed a demand that the Velikiy Kniaz of Novgorod always be the Velikiy Kniaz of Moscow. Moscow in general did not blame Novgorod for anything religious. Simply claimed "the right of the strong" In 1478, when the Republic was finally dissolved, Moscow accused Novgorod of heresy. 1. Not honoring the God-given Tsar(the first crowned Tsar was Ivan 4 but the first self-proclaimed Ivan 3 after his marriage to Sophia Palaeologus in 1472, and the Tsar is not the king - a Sacred Emperor as Tenno in Japan) 2. Heresies of the Judaizers (Sect of Skhariya the Jew) - The accusations are false since the center of this heresy was in Tver. And this was ordinary Sadduceism. And the heretic was one of the sons of Ivan 3 - Ivan Young. 3. A conspiracy with Lithuania to overthrow the "Lawful Tsar" - and this was most likely true.

But in the Catholicism Moscow Novgorod never blamed - it was invented in the late 18th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.239.220.140 (talk) 08:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Bogus Info Deleted

Somebody wrote: The collection of birch-bark texts also includes chronicles of byliny (Russian folklore and epic stories). The heroes of these stories were most commonly men who represented the free and adventurous spirit of the Novgorod Republic. One popular figure of the time was Sadko, a business man and traveler. Another popular figure was Vasilii Buslaev, a young giant who gets into fights with his neighbors. This is absolutely bogus, the earliest Novgorodian bylinas are recorded in the 19th century and are NOT attested in any birchbark documents. Neither are chronicles. I deleted this claim. It was written either by a misinformed non-Russian or by some hyper-patriotic idiot.89.178.238.116 (talk) 13:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, you're right.--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Novgorodian Coinage After 1420

As per Russian wiki Novgorodian coinage had started in 1420. Will you add Novgorod Republic Coinage section and Novgorodian currency (Mordka=2 chetvertetss = 10 lobetss = 20 Belka (coin)s = 2/3 Nogata (coin) 2 belkas/vekshas/veveritas=14th century Denarius.----Numulunj pilgae (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I've added one sentence about the currency. I think there is a fair amount of controversy with regards to the nature of these units and the relationship between them and I don't know this topic well enough. Alaexis_¿question? 07:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Languages

The page lists Old Church Slavonic and Old Novgorodian as official languages, and Germanic and Uralic as widely spoken. First of all, is there any evidence of the official use of Old Novogorodian? If I understand correctly, it was solely a vernacular, and not used in official documents which were written in Church Slavonic. Furthermore, is there any source that explicitly states that some Germanic languages were still commonly spoken during these times? I especially doubt the former one. MichaelTheSlav (talk) 11:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC) Since nobody has replied so far I’m removing Old Novgorodian from official, and Germanic altogether per the lead of Varangians which says they had assimilated. MichaelTheSlav (talk) 10:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The "official" and "unofficial" languages looked like original research so it is best not to divide it and just leave it as common languages. But Old Church Slavonic was not the sole language for writing. Mellk (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

History

Danial Bass, I see that you're restored the information I've moved to the Novgorod Land article. The fact is that we have two overlapping articles Novgorod Republic and Novgorod Land. The latter is almost exclusively about the history of Novgorod Land, including the republican period

Novgorod Land contents:

• 1 Population
• 2 History
• 2.1 Oldest period (before 882)
• 2.2 As part of Kievan Rus (882–1136)
• 2.3 Republican period (1136–1478)
• 2.3.1 Vladimir–Suzdal influence
• 2.3.2 Victories of Mstislav Udatny
• 2.3.3 Between Moscow, Lithuania and Livonian Order
• 2.4 As part of a centralized Russian state (from 1478)
• 2.4.1 Reign of Ivan the Terrible
• 2.4.2 Time of Troubles. Swedish occupation
• 2.4.3 17th–18th centuries
• 3 Administrative division

This article, on the other hand, mostly describes various aspects of the society and culture of Novgorod during the republican period.

Novgorod Republic contents

• 1 History
• 2 Government
• 3 Economy
• 4 Society
• 5 Military
• 6 Foreign relations
• 7 Culture

However this article also contains the history section which is shorter and less detailed than that of Novgorod Land. Therefore, I've decided to merge the contents and only leave the history in the Land article, with only a brief summary and link here. I'm open to other suggestions how to organise these two articles, I just think that the status quo does not make sense. Alaexis_¿question? 19:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Alaexis, thanks for bringing this to the talk page instead of reverting it. I understand the reason of your moving of this content into Novgorod Land was that both the Republic of Novgorod and Novgorod Land articles both have history sections.

I agree with you on the fact that the Republic's page should hold a more basic overview under the "History" section. From the content that I written and re-inserted back, I believe it is already quite basic and also is an important overview of the early Republican period and its early founding and development.

Just as there is a basic overview of the latter Republic period (under the "Fall of the Republic"), I believe including the aforementioned content is also basic and important to the Republic. It is not too long, and looks around the length of the latter period too. Thank you. Danial Bass (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that the section Fall of the Republic is "not too long." However I haven't merged its contents with the Land article. Once I do it, I'll propose a shorter version. Alaexis_¿question? 20:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Coin of Vladimir the Great (reverse).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Council of Lords

This article only mentions the Council of Lords as possibly existing though I have seen a lot of details about it in literature and there is some useful information in ru:Новгородская республика. I think only the name that was used is uncertain. Mellk (talk) 09:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I also think it would also be useful to make references to oligarchy. Mellk (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I made a start on this but it needs more details about later reforms (after the Council of Lords was created). Mellk (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

It's hard for me to gauge the scholarly consensus but the Russian Encyclopaedia talks about it as a hypothesis and mentions both supporters and detractors [1]. Maybe we can qualify the description of the council in this article ("According to West European sources, ..."). Alaexis_¿question? 21:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we should probably not write everything as fact. It seems this term was introduced by Klyuchevsky. We could probably mention this being according to traditional historiography (also the composition according to Yanin) and also mention some criticism of the idea. Mellk (talk) 10:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good! Alaexis_¿question? 12:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Integrated into Principality of Moscow, not subjugated

Saying it was subjugated but then let it have autonomy makes no sense. subjugated would mean its autonomy was completely striped . It makes more sense to say 'conquered' and then integrated into the Principality of Moscow 203.10.91.84 (talk) 05:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

First of all, edit warring is never appropriate and changes to text need to be based on reliable sources, not personal preference. Please do not edit war in the future.

After the Battle of Shelon in 1471, Novgorod was forced to pledge allegiance and cede territories. I don't think calling it "subjugated" is inaccurate. The overall phrasing was not as clear and informative as it could be so I have revised that section of the text. It wasn't my goal to remove "subjugated", but it doesn't remain in the revised text. As to the final result, "integrated" is definitely not the appropriate word, "annexed" is the word used by sources. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

"Once again invaded"

@Mellk: Regarding this edit, my reading of Battle of Shelon and A Brief History of Russia was that Ivan III stopped short of invading or taking control of the city in previous conflict(s) with Novgorod. Is there a source that he had previously invaded the city? Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I changed this based on the same source: "In 1478 Ivan once again invaded and seized the city" (p. 25). Mellk (talk) 08:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The phrasing of that sentence is vague, but based on the text leading up to that sentence, the "once again" seems to apply to invading the principality, especially because none of the prior text mentions him invading the city. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean now. OK, hopefully it is closer to the source now.[2] Mellk (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)