Alexander Nevsky and his military genius - Page 4 - Historum

Abracadabra123 · May 5th, 2012, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larrey

Of course I can. Or else you've somehow gotten hold of the wrong end entirely of how historical facts are established.

Specifically re a great victory over a Swedish army, where does the claim originate from? That's the logical place to start. Where is the first claim made?

And the problem is that there is nothing - nothing, zilch - to corroborate any such event from the other, Swedish side.

And It's not just that there is no contemporary chronicle stating that a great defeat was suffered in roughly the relevant time and place. (That in itself doesn't mean much.) I mean that there is also no other, indirect corroborating evidence. For comparison, a reltively large Swedish army was lost in Russia two centuries earlier (the Ingvar expedition to Kiev). It left us literally hundreds of commemorative inscriptions over a specific region in central Sweden, and that was generated by the loss of several hundred individuals, maximum.

Two centuries later, sketchy as the records might be, supposedly a Swedish army (serious business for Alexander Nevsky according to the accounts on that side, so of a certain magnitude one would imagine) is annihilated across the Baltic. And in Sweden we get? Nothing. Not just no detailed chronicle accounts, but literally no major players getting lost from Swedish politics, no extra masses said anywhere over those who lost their lives across the sea, as could be expected, etc. Just, nothing.

We have other accounts of Swedish crusading efforts across the Baltic from the period. And they were serious affairs requiring considerable effort. Except there is, again, nothing relating to any defeated expedition in relation to the target date of 1240, for Nevsky allegedly defeating a major Swedish army. Swedish crusaders were active both before and after. It was considered important enough to dwell upon in relatively contemporary chronicles like the "Erikskrönikan" (rhymed political chronicle of events up to 1319).

I've read positively weird popular history accounts of Nevsky's defeat of the Swedes where authors have bent over backwards to try to construct purely fictional probabilistic scenarios to show that the then Swedish political leader, Birger Jarl, theoretically COULD have been present. Not that he was. Just that maybe he could have been, if one really wants him to have been. Again with no corroborating evidence from anywhere at all. (And still this damning lack of any evidence of what we find after other defeats - traces of people having actually been killed through for the time standard Christian commemorative practices.) And yes, those kinds of things once written tend to become part of the historical record. The quality of said record however...

So, a matter of historical record, certainly. Just, whose record, based on what? The claim is easy enough to make. However, a weird form of silence meets all questions about corroboration and substantiation re Nevsky and the Swedes.

In 1240, three years after the Mongol invasion, Swedish forces under the command of Birger Jarl met the Novgorodian forces near the meeting of the River Neva and Izhora. A battle ensued and in a duel with Alexander Nevsky himself, Birger was wounded in the face.(That part is somewhat speculation but it explains the wound in Birger's cranium.) Here is an account of the battle:

Swedes came with a great army, and Norwegians and Finns and Tavastians with ships in great numbers, Swedes with their prince and bishops, and they stayed on the Neva, at the mouth of the Izhora, willing to take Ladoga, and to put it short, Novgorod and all of its lands. But still protected the merciful, man-loving God us and sheltered us from the foreign people, and the word came to Novgorod that Swedes were sailing to Ladoga; but prince Alexander did not hesitate at all, but went against them with Novgorodians and people of Ladoga and overcame them with the help of Saint Sophia and through prayers of our lady, the Mother of God and Virgin Mary, July 15, in the memory of Kirik and Ulita, on Sunday, (the same day that) the 630 holy fathers[2] held a meeting in Chalcedon; and there was a great gathering of the Swedes; and their leader called Spiridon[3] was killed there; but some claimed that even the bishop was slain;[4] and a great number of them fell; and when they had loaded two ships with the bodies of high-born men, they let them sail to the sea; but the others, that were unnumbered, they cast to a pit, that they buried, and many others were wounded; and that same night they fled, without waiting for the Monday light, with shame. Of Novgorodians there fell: Konstantin Lugotinitch, Yuryata Pinyashchinich, Namest Drochilo, Nesdylov son of Kozhevnik, but including the people of Ladoga 20 men or less, God knows. But prince Alexander came back home with Novgorodians and people of Ladoga, all well, protected by God and Saint Sophia and all the prayers of the holy men.

Now, had the Swedes won this battle, they would have seized the city of Ladoga (not far from the modern day city of St.Petersburg) and would be able to control the Greek-Varangian trade route, one that had been under the influence of the Novgorodians for a century. In addition, the battle also stopped a full on Swedish attack on Rus'.

The battle is well known in Russia, but there is an overwhelming amount of denial in Sweden. This is caused by a few reasons. First, the Swedes did not want people to know about their utter defeat by a smaller and less well armed force, as it would challenge their "superiority" in the region. Also, various political reasons conserning the Jarl and King John's death had to do with this battle being denied by Swedes.

MarloStanfield · May 5th, 2012, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abracadabra123

In 1240, three years after the Mongol invasion, Swedish forces under the command of Birger Jarl met the Novgorodian forces near the meeting of the River Neva and Izhora. A battle ensued and in a duel with Alexander Nevsky himself, Birger was wounded in the face.(That part is somewhat speculation but it explains the wound in Birger's cranium.) Here is an account of the battle:

Swedes came with a great army, and Norwegians and Finns and Tavastians with ships in great numbers, Swedes with their prince and bishops, and they stayed on the Neva, at the mouth of the Izhora, willing to take Ladoga, and to put it short, Novgorod and all of its lands. But still protected the merciful, man-loving God us and sheltered us from the foreign people, and the word came to Novgorod that Swedes were sailing to Ladoga; but prince Alexander did not hesitate at all, but went against them with Novgorodians and people of Ladoga and overcame them with the help of Saint Sophia and through prayers of our lady, the Mother of God and Virgin Mary, July 15, in the memory of Kirik and Ulita, on Sunday, (the same day that) the 630 holy fathers[2] held a meeting in Chalcedon; and there was a great gathering of the Swedes; and their leader called Spiridon[3] was killed there; but some claimed that even the bishop was slain;[4] and a great number of them fell; and when they had loaded two ships with the bodies of high-born men, they let them sail to the sea; but the others, that were unnumbered, they cast to a pit, that they buried, and many others were wounded; and that same night they fled, without waiting for the Monday light, with shame. Of Novgorodians there fell: Konstantin Lugotinitch, Yuryata Pinyashchinich, Namest Drochilo, Nesdylov son of Kozhevnik, but including the people of Ladoga 20 men or less, God knows. But prince Alexander came back home with Novgorodians and people of Ladoga, all well, protected by God and Saint Sophia and all the prayers of the holy men.

Now, had the Swedes won this battle, they would have seized the city of Ladoga (not far from the modern day city of St.Petersburg) and would be able to control the Greek-Varangian trade route, one that had been under the influence of the Novgorodians for a century. In addition, the battle also stopped a full on Swedish attack on Rus'.

The battle is well known in Russia, but there is an overwhelming amount of denial in Sweden. This is caused by a few reasons. First, the Swedes did not want people to know about their utter defeat by a smaller and less well armed force, as it would challenge their "superiority" in the region. Also, various political reasons conserning the Jarl and King John's death had to do with this battle being denied by Swedes.

Abracadabra123 · May 6th, 2012, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarloStanfield

Wow, its funny because you have no clue what you're talking about.

rehabnonono · May 6th, 2012, 06:13 PM

Abracadabra wrote

Quote:

In 1240, three years after the Mongol invasion, Swedish forces under the command of Birger Jarl met the Novgorodian forces near the meeting of the River Neva and Izhora. A battle ensued and in a duel with Alexander Nevsky himself, Birger was wounded in the face.(That part is somewhat speculation but it explains the wound in Birger's cranium.) Here is an account of the battle:

Swedes came with a great army, and Norwegians and Finns and Tavastians with ships in great numbers, Swedes with their prince and bishops, and they stayed on the Neva, at the mouth of the Izhora, willing to take Ladoga, and to put it short, Novgorod and all of its lands. But still protected the merciful, man-loving God us and sheltered us from the foreign people, and the word came to Novgorod that Swedes were sailing to Ladoga; but prince Alexander did not hesitate at all, but went against them with Novgorodians and people of Ladoga and overcame them with the help of Saint Sophia and through prayers of our lady, the Mother of God and Virgin Mary, July 15, in the memory of Kirik and Ulita, on Sunday, (the same day that) the 630 holy fathers[2] held a meeting in Chalcedon; and there was a great gathering of the Swedes; and their leader called Spiridon[3] was killed there; but some claimed that even the bishop was slain;[4] and a great number of them fell; and when they had loaded two ships with the bodies of high-born men, they let them sail to the sea; but the others, that were unnumbered, they cast to a pit, that they buried, and many others were wounded; and that same night they fled, without waiting for the Monday light, with shame. Of Novgorodians there fell: Konstantin Lugotinitch, Yuryata Pinyashchinich, Namest Drochilo, Nesdylov son of Kozhevnik, but including the people of Ladoga 20 men or less, God knows. But prince Alexander came back home with Novgorodians and people of Ladoga, all well, protected by God and Saint Sophia and all the prayers of the holy men.

Now, had the Swedes won this battle, they would have seized the city of Ladoga (not far from the modern day city of St.Petersburg) and would be able to control the Greek-Varangian trade route, one that had been under the influence of the Novgorodians for a century. In addition, the battle also stopped a full on Swedish attack on Rus'.

The battle is well known in Russia, but there is an overwhelming amount of denial in Sweden. This is caused by a few reasons. First, the Swedes did not want people to know about their utter defeat by a smaller and less well armed force, as it would challenge their "superiority" in the region. Also, various political reasons conserning the Jarl and King John's death had to do with this battle being denied by Swedes.

I've read that too, and think there are a few more reasons for denial in Sweden. First this account must have been written at least 60 years after the battle and states rather interestingly that the Swedes had Norwegian, Finn and Tavastian allies. Yet it seems that Swedish history records that they were none to fond of each other back in Alexander's day. In fact the Norwegians were on the brink of war with the Swedes and Sweden was in the middle of a civil war. That's what makes the modern day Swedes wonder how their ancestors managed to mount a massive undertaking into Russia, only to be defeated by the brave Alexander Nevsky (who fought under a different name at the time since he wasn't Nevsky or "of Neva", until after he defended the river from the invading Swedes). Now fast forward to the time the Chronicles were written in the next century and you find that the Swedes have patched up their differences (i.e. conquered) with the Norwegians, Finns and surprisingly even the Tavastians (who I had never heard of) and were a big threat to Russia. If this is starting to sound like what Stalin did with Alexander Nevsky's narrative some 600 years later, you'd be right.

I wrote this #18 as response to your assertions, looks like it slipped by you the first time.

Quote:

One of the most damning pieces of evidence comes from Swedish history, as it seems that there was a well documented civil war going on in Sweden at the time and they were apparently on the brink of war with Norway... thus

Quote:
In this situation, it seems unlikely that Sweden could have been able to organize a major expedition against Novgorod. Swedes are not known to have carried out any other military campaigns between 1222 and 1249, making the claims about their forceful appearance at the Neva with Norwegians as their allies seem questionable.
These other 13th and 14th Century accounts could also well have been written for political reasons that served the times. Just as Stalin used Nevsky's great victory over the Germans at the brink of war with Germany... so too did storytellers write of his great "victory" over the Swedes who where by that time in control of Norway, Finland and Tavastia and who had become a clear and present danger to Russia.

First you say, "Swedish forces under the command of Birger Jarl" and you go on to say that Nevsky put a big dent in his helmet, but then as I read further your quote from the Chronicle of the following century says...

"...and there was a great gathering of the Swedes; and their leader called Spiridon[3] was killed there". A guy whose name sounds more Greek (the other end of the river system trade apparently) than Swede. Interesting note on Wiki about Spiridon in later versions of the battle.

I just love Nevsky, his narrative is like an onion, the more layers you peel the more tears you get.

Whyte · May 7th, 2012, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rehabnonono

the Tavastians (who I had never heard of)

An old Finnish tribe, in central-south Finland. Funny that they were supposed to be helping Birger Jarl in 1240, since the pope had been calling for a crusade against the Tavastians in 1237, and the Second Swedish Crusade in 1249 (led by Birger Jarl) is generally thought to be against the Tavastians. The Swedes established Viaborg in Karelia in 1293.

I am inclined to believe that the Battle of Neva is a fabrication. However, the Swedes and the Novgorodians have been butting heads since ~1000, so it is not impossible that there would have been some smaller raid. But as written in the Chronicle? I don't believe it, due to arguments already presented in this thread.

Larrey · May 7th, 2012, 06:43 AM

Actually there has been at least one historic Swedish scenario constructed for how Swedish troops would be at the Neva in 1240 to be defeated by Alexander (Nevsky-to-be).

It hinges on the Swedish bishop Tomas of Åbo. The man was a powerful Prince of the Church in Sweden, and quite a hardass to boot.

Now, assumtion being that Thomas of his own accord mounted this expedition, which was then defeated in the indicated time an place, then it works.

Slaget_vid_Neva

It would however be a rather smaller force than perhaps expected, the personal retinue of the Swedish bishop mostly. While defeated, if defeated, Thomas himself certainly survived the ordeal. Five years later he stepped down from his position and entered a convent as a lowly monk.

And all that is part of the problematic bits with the scenario. If the assumption is - as indicated by the crafters of this scenario - that the defeat of bishop Thomas on the Neva was a catalyst for his downfall, as he was quite the fierce ecclesiastical despot, why the five year delay? And while a military defeat like this would be a blow to him, in light of the other factors in the five years after the assumed defeat, such a defeat is not a necessary causative agent for the fall of bishop Thomas. It was sufficient that he racked up a long list of enemies, throigh his attested cruelty (toruturing a political aversary to death), cuopled with Sinibaldo Fieschi's ascension to the Holy See, thus depriving Thomas of his political protection in Rome, to explain him being pushed out, and retired safely to cloistered life for the remainder of his days.

And we don't quite get proof of any massive Swedish descent on the Novgorodians, if it was an enterprising ecclesiastic, albeit a locally very powerful one, behind it. And again, there's still nothing to corroberate the scenario. What it does is simply to offer an alternative scenario not involving Birger Jarl, and the secular power in Sweden of the day.

Otherwise I think it entirely probable Nevsky won a victory which at the time and place was hugely significant for him and his state, even if the exact nature of the adversary is problematic. The chronicle accounts of the events, as said, however does seem more indicative of how the political situation developed after Nevsky's day. And I would also make a special note of the chronicler's claim of not just Swedes, but Norwegians, and even a Finnish tribe, turning up. It is precisely the kind of chronicler's claim which might more often than not be read as "the entire damn Scandinavia turned up, to visit Alexander and his nation with fire and sword". It's overwhelmingly likely to be a bit of hyperbole, and poetic licence on the part of the chronicler.

rehabnonono · May 7th, 2012, 08:08 AM

Yes agree, something happened, may have been a border skermish, maybe a small scale raid that Alexander saw off. One thing for certain is that he did not follow up the defeated knights nor did he take any land from the defeated armies... which is rather refreshing considering every other conqueror took large slabs of the defeated sides lands. The dead Scandinavian leader named Spiridon (a Greek/Slavic name I venture) I note, also appears as a Bishop in later chronicals. Must be a different Spiridon.

But definately no, there were no biblical scale battles over the Neva that year.

BulgarianPrime · July 27th, 2012, 01:03 PM

Mr. Stanfeld, wikipedia only analyses the majority facts of history, but it is very useful,

But I would also like to examine the film's setting. I wonder what was the reason Josef Stalin and Sergei Einstein's motive when they refused to have one seen of the Prince of the Republic of Novgorod refuses to accept admission into the Golden Horde, and I doubt that was Batu Kahn as the ambassador. Perhaps it as simply due to their neutrality against the Japanese. But this was a propaganda film after all.

Alexander was indeed a genius, but his rule would of course lead to the mongolian takeover of the Russian Orthodox Church. And his education would be the founding of both modern princilbilities and a united Russia.