Talk:Polish–Russian War (1609–1618)

Name, start date?

Dymitriads seems to be the name invented, well, by me :) by translation of the Polish name. Perhaps we should move it to Polish-Muscovy War (160?-1618)? Btw, what is the recognized start date - 1605 or 1609? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:09, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If the Polish/Russian term is not ok, then I'm fine with the current one, but I guess we should set some things straight. Shouldn't it be "Polish-Muscovite Wars"? Halibutt 20:50, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure what is the Russian name. Polish Dymitriady which are rarely translated into English, and besides, they are the proper name only for the conflict between 1605-1609. This would be too small for a proper FA, so I decided to move it to a more general name. I am not sure about the difference between Muscovy and Muscovite, but I think you are right, the latter being and adjective would be more proper. Anybody care to change it and move the page? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

IMO the name must be symmetric: "Poland-Muscovy" or "Polish-Muscovite". The latter is preferrable, since this style seems to be common for wars: Polish-Swedish, Russo-Turkish, etc. mikka (t) 19:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Amen. logologist 03:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Whence attempting to correct the ahistoric term “Tsardom Russia” to the period accurate name Tsardom of Muscovy, it immediately gets reverted.

Why is that so? 77.219.2.35 (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Done. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Reverted article back

Not entirely sure why Poitrus reverted my edits. All I did was fix the Main article wikilinks. Atleast now they point somewhere. --Kross 18:02, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Errr, what do you mean 'fix'? You replaced the {{main|[[article name]]}} template with ''Main article: [[article name]]'' string. While the difference to a reader is null, I think templates are more useful, if only because they can be easily modified using 'what links here' function (and the main article template does need help, i.e. dividing between main article and subarticle confusion). Please correct me if I am wrong here and explain why your version is better? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The {{main|[[article name]]}} didn't link to *anything*. I was using the proper template. Look at the version before mine, the main article links were messed up. --Kross 22:01, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

My mistake, there are no [[]] tags in the template, it should be {{main|article name}}. It does seem there was an error with the templates used. Fixed now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion to change the article title

The term "Muscovy" is not quite correct in the context of historical events. After the establishment of a unified centralized authority, the country called itself the Tsardom of Russia, not Muscovy. Such a name was relevant only during the times when Moscow existed independently, but the formation of the Tsardom of Russia happened long before the war. This can also confuse the reader since the article refers to Tsardom of Russia, which uses a different designation. Additionally, it should be clarified that this term was often used by the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth during the conflict between it and the Tsardom of Russia for propaganda purposes, as the term clearly implies feudal fragmentation of the state. Nowadays, the term is also used as a derogatory term towards Russia - https://www.svoboda.org/a/ukraina-moskoviya-i-drugie-yaroslav-shimov-o-borjbe-za-vostok-evropy/32330846.html, https://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2022/11/29/7378557/.

I propose renaming the article to Polish–Russian War (1605–1618). Please note that such a title exists in almost all translations of this article; it is named as such in Russian, and in Polish as well. To summarize, the title may be politicized and clearly does not reflect either the tone of the article or the realities of that time. PawelSULKUL (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:RM to initiate this. I would suggest to also look at WP:CRITERIA and then to make an argument based on this. Mellk (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm asking again to remember that the "Polish-Russian War" is how this event is known in Russian, Polish, and other languages on wiki, which I believe captures what we're talking about accurately. The alternatives I've seen, like "Polish intervention in Russia" or during Russia's Time of Troubles, don't seem right. They're not neutral and don't fit the article's tone. I hope we can all see the importance of keeping the title consistent across languages, without leaning towards titles that could mislead or politicize the historical facts.

I'd like to change the title of the article, I'm not sure how I could do that, apparently I should create a new article with the correct title, move it completely there, and propose this one for deletion? I'm afraid that it might affect other languages, I've never done it before and I'm a little afraid of messing it up)). I understand that the article will not be deleted without a vote, but still I do not understand the process well PawelSULKUL (talk) 10:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:PCM. Also please self-revert, this change should not be made until after a successful requested move. Mellk (talk) 10:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 12 April 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 06:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

---

Polish–Muscovite Wars (1605–1618) → Polish–Russian War (1605–1618) – The term "Muscovy" is not quite correct in the context of historical events. After the establishment of a unified centralized authority, the country called itself the Tsardom of Russia, not Muscovy. Such a name was relevant only during the times when Moscow existed independently, but the formation of the Tsardom of Russia happened long before the war. This can also confuse the reader since the article refers to Tsardom of Russia, which uses a different designation. Additionally, it should be clarified that this term was often used by the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth during the conflict between it and the Tsardom of Russia for propaganda purposes, as the term clearly implies feudal fragmentation of the state. Nowadays, the term is also used as a derogatory term towards Russia - https://www.svoboda.org/a/ukraina-moskoviya-i-drugie-yaroslav-shimov-o-borjbe-za-vostok-evropy/32330846.html, https://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2022/11/29/7378557/. PawelSULKUL (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I also ask you to pay attention once again to the fact that we have the correct name in all languages, including Polish and Russian, the correct name is Polish–Russian War (1605-1618). There is nothing to discuss here, this title is standard and reflects the essence of the article, unlike the current one, which misleads the reader PawelSULKUL (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that these conflict are primarily referred to by the proposed name, the sources in the article tend to use 'Moscovy' slightly more that 'russia'—blindlynx 00:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Also i'm not clear on why the articles you linked are relevant, could you please clarify?—blindlynx 00:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support It's a moot point when Muscovy became Russia, but a recent discussion at Ivan III of Russia decided to use the term Russia as far back as his reign. PatGallacher (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support or move to Russo-Polish War (1609–1618). In line with Russo-Polish War (1654–1667) concerning the same states. From what I can see the war itself it considered to last from 1609 to 1618 (declaration of war in 1609 and peace treaty in 1618), not including invasions from 1605 to 1609.[1][2] This is also in line with ru:Русско-польская война (1609—1618) and pl:Wojna polsko-rosyjska (1609–1618). Alternatively move to Russo-Polish War (1605–1618) if there is no consensus to change the years. Mellk (talk) 05:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, Polish–Muscovite War is the common name for this war. Aldij (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  Really? There are 26 results on Google Scholar for "Polish–Muscovite War" referring to this war, meanwhile there are 66 results for "Polish–Russian War" and another 60 results for "Russo-Polish War" referring to this war. The above references also support this. Mellk (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 12 June 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Polish-Russian War (1609–1618). (closed by non-admin page mover) PadFoot (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

---

Polish–Russian War (1605–1618) → Russo-Polish War (1609–1618) – Sources tend to put the start date of the war to 1609 [3][4], when there was a declaration of war, excluding invasions in the preceding years. This is also consistent with ru:Русско-польская война (1609—1618) and pl:Wojna polsko-rosyjska (1609–1618), as well as consistent with Russo-Polish War (1654–1667). Mellk (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Partially support I prefer Polish-Russian article title to kept due to the alphabetical nature of English, but moved them to (1609—1618) for those part only. 103.111.100.82 (talk) 07:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  According to Ngram, "Russo-Polish War" is more commonly used (also the same in the sources mentioned above), but I would prefer for both articles to follow the same format whichever way it is. Mellk (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom

Gvssy (talk) 10:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Partial support. The updated date range seems like a clear improvement, but I'd like to see more evidence to be convinced that "Russo-Polish War" is preferable for this war specifically. The WP:CONSISTENT argument seems dubious (sure, there's Russo-Polish War (1654–1667), but there's also Polish–Russian War of 1792). The Ngram doesn't convince me much either, since it doesn't attempt to distinguish this war from any other wars between Russia and Poland. If there isn't an English WP:COMMONNAME for this war, my instinct is to stick with alphabetical order. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 18:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Clear consensus to change the data; relist to allow additional discussion on "Russo-Polish war" BilledMammal (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that this article combines two concepts that overlap. The series of two Polish military interventions conducted for control over Russia in the years around 1604-1609 is called "Dymitriads". It is difficult to indicate the unambiguous end of the second Dimitriad, but it certainly did not last longer than 1610. The Polish-Russian war of 1609-1618 is a direct consequence and extension of the Dimitriads and this article covers both of these periods, which means that after changing the date in the title to 1609-1618 half of the issue will be artificially orphaned. These concepts have their own articles on the Polish and Russian Wikipedias. As for the order, I believe that regardless of whether we use alphabetical order, cultural/geographical proximity, or simply put the side that made the first move first, the name remains "Polish-Russian war" in any case. Utryss (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

We can move pre-1609 to a background section. Mellk (talk) 07:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Result

Earlier there was a Polish-Cossack-Lithuanian victory and now it has been seen after the match, for what reason it was changed? Poland and Lithuania literally won this war and weakened Russia. AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 07:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Please explain your action here, or ask the administration to intervene @Mellk. You change the result without stating why, despite it being a Polish-Lithuanian victory AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 09:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The aftermath does not say it was a Polish victory, it simply says: In the end, Sigismund did not succeed in becoming tsar or in securing the throne for Władysław, but he was able to expand the Commonwealth's territory. The infobox is supposed to the summarize the article, which is why I linked WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, so you can simply say you do not understand the policy without mentioning that you will be "forced to ask the adminsitration". Mellk (talk) 22:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

This source mentions that the Poles invaded to secure the claim the throne for themselves, but they had to abandon this, while achieving only some territorial gains. I do not see much evidence that the common viewpoint is that this war was ultimately a Polish success, rather a mixed result. Mellk (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

But this was not the purpose of the war fought with Russia, the real purpose was to exploit Russia's weaknesses during the Dmitry, it was the private affairs of the ruler, it is worth noting that the author he mentions and even in the article it is said "Poland exploited Russia's civil wars when powerful members of the Polish szlachta began influencing Russian boyars and supporting imposters to the throne for the title of tsar of Russia against the crowned Boris Godunov and Vasili IV Shuysky. In 1605, Polish nobles conducted a series of skirmishes until the death of False Dmitry I in 1606, and invaded again in 1607 until Russia formed a military alliance with Sweden two years later. The king of Poland, Sigismund, declared war on Russia in response in 1609, aiming to gain territorial concessions and weaken Sweden's ally, winning many early victories such as the Battle of Klushino. In 1610, Polish forces entered Moscow and Sweden withdrew from the military alliance with Russia, instead triggering the Ingrian War" AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Are there any sources that describe the outcome as Polish-Lithuanian victory? Ru:wiki says it was PLC victory. In any case, the "outcome" must be the same as in Prince Władysław's March on Moscow - the finale of the war. --Altenmann >talk 21:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Feliks Koneczny's source is cited only the person @Dark4tune accuses the source of bias without justifying why AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 07:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Altenmann, the end of the war should be listed as the Truce of Deulino. Dark4tune (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Great, only in this case also the result of the Polish-Swedish War from (1626-1629) has a similar situation and is a Swedish victory, despite the Prussian campaign ending inconclusively AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

It remains the only option is to find several reputable sources and see what the majority say. --Altenmann >talk 19:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Here are all the sources I could find that describe a Truce of Deulino:

Dark4tune (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unclear: which sources say that it was PLC victory in the war? --Altenmann >talk 03:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The other issue is that the infobox is supposed to summarize the body per MOS:LEAD, but the aftermath section does not explicitly describe this as a PLC victory. Mellk (talk) 06:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Ask Alesz what other sources describe a PLC victory, these are my sources for a truce ending the war. Dark4tune (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The sources you cited do not in any way dispute the Polish victory AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 11:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, just cause the source gives you Truce of Delino as the supposed result, does not mean it is valid.

Talk:Polish–Swedish War (1617–1618)#Result is an example of something like this.

If I were to go by how you want it to be, then World War 1's result should not dare be "Allied Powers victory", but "Treaty of Versailles". The Napoleonic Wars shall not have the result of "Coalition victory", but just "Congress of Vienna" instead. What kind of logic is this exactly? If you had no other result, then sure, go with this, but if there is another result (aka PLC victory), then this argument makes zero sense. Setergh (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Koneczny, Feliks (2016). Dzieje Polski (in Polish). p. 236. ISBN 9788382026658 AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 11:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

So @Altenmann, what do the majority of sources say about how the war ended? Dark4tune (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

But we will say this @AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam, we understand if the fact of Poland being driven out of Moscow is a source of "national shame" for you, but we'll tell you right now, your country is nothing to be ashamed of. Poland is stronger than ever! Just think about that. Dark4tune (talk) 18:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

And referring to this comment you should read in my opinion the course of the Polish-Russian war, how Poland and Lithuania dominated Russia, in addition it is logical that any book will tell you that the war ended with an Truce of Deulino because it ended with this truce just like this war [1]. AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 09:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello.

What kind of logic is "Uhhhh that article puts the treaty as a result so this one should too!"??

You have zero reason to remove a quite literally sourced result (Polish–Lithuanian victory).

Your opinion does not matter, you are not a historian. You have no good justification to be removing this result.

Sources such as: https://archive.org/details/polandhistorical00pogo/page/114/mode/1up?q=1618 consider this a Polish–Lithuanian victory (p. 114)

And sources such as: https://wpolonia2polska.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/koneczny-feliks-dzieje-polski-opowiedziane-dla-mc582odziec5bcy.pdf say that the treaty's conditions were excellent for the Commonwealth and testified to their great power, also being the peak of Polish power. This seems to further support the PLC's victory. (p. 158)

I don't see why the result shouldn't be the way it was suggested. I understand that if there was nothing supporting this claim then it would be invalid, although sources seem to have been brought up. Setergh (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Dark4tune I remind you about my comments. Not saying you're ignoring me, but just making sure you know they're here. Setergh (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

You know perfectly well what the result was. If you continue this edit war I will ask for admin intervention. Dark4tune (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

My apologies, you did not revert my edit. Good. Keep it that way and maybe you will not be blocked. Dark4tune (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me???

What kind of way is this to speak to someone exactly?

"You know perfectly well what the result was.",

Well, as the sources mentioned say/imply, Polish–Lithuanian victory.

"If you continue this edit war I will ask for admin intervention."

"My apologies, you did not revert my edit."

Alright, it happens...

"Good. Keep it that way and maybe you will not be blocked."

Blocked?? By who or what? Are you planning to somehow block me on Wikipedia?? Or are you trying to get my account blocked? Please, go ahead and get an admin involved, I'd love to see how this goes. I had much higher expectations in your response, but wow. Setergh (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

And @Gvssy not to try and get you involved, but I saw that you posted your own comment a few days ago then deleted it due to misreading the conversation. Would you perhaps want to make another one? Would be nice to have a WP:3O. Setergh (talk) 22:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot to make a new response. But it seems to me that this whole argument is based off of a few sources saying that the war ended with the Truce of Deulino, or that is at least what I am gathering. In my opinion, this argument is very faulty. These sources are not disagreeing with a Polish-Lithuanian victory, they're just pointing out the obvious. It's like claiming a source disagrees with a Protestant victory in the Thirty Years' War just because it says the war ended with the Peace of Westphalia.

According to WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX, the result should be confined to "X victory" or "Inconclusive". Not a treaty or truce. Since there are sources claiming the war ended in a Polish-Lithuanian victory, that should very obviously be displayed in the infobox.

The article itself also claims a victory in the aftermath section, saying: While the Commonwealth gained some territories in the east, in terms of finance and lives it was a very costly victory. And since we cannot use "Pyrrhic X victory" we should instead just label it a Polish-Lithuanian victory.

I apologize if this response came out as a word salad or something like that, it was a bit rushed on my part. Gvssy (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, good to know someone's willing to agree with my and @AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam's view. Setergh (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Setergh

Well, if the Russian Wikipedia says it was a Polish-Lithuanian victory, then it must be so. You are not doing anything significant. Dark4tune (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

"Well, if the Russian Wikipedia says it was a Polish-Lithuanian victory, then it must be so."

Where the hell does the Russian wiki come into play exactly...? It's set as a Polish–Lithuanian victory due to the sources attached, not cause of the Russian wiki.

"You are not doing anything significant."

Uh, thanks, I guess? I don't particularly think what I'm doing here is very significant either, but alright. Setergh (talk) 08:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

References