Talk:War of the Galician Succession (1205–1245)

About the table

Maybe we'll create a table where we'll include the main battles and campaigns of the war? It obviously won't be superfluous. @Polish Piast Dushnilkin (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion this is not a good idea better to create another article on this topic, you could expand the campaignbox Polski Piast from Poland § (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

As you wish Dushnilkin (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

You'll move the article to mainspace because this Draft will be checked for a long time? Polski Piast from Poland § (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I've moved it, please add the tags. Dushnilkin (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I have submitted the article to good and added sources. Now wait for someone to check it out Polski Piast from Poland § (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

B-class review

@Piotrus You would check this article if it meets the conditions for B class and in terms of content if the text is well written for readers who do not understand the topic? Polski Piast from Poland § (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Polish Piast Seems fine. Note the disambig from Metropolis of Kiev (I recommend enabling the gadget in Preferences to highlight them in orange). Then ask for B-class review at WP:MILHIST (WPPOLAND no longer does it - I was the only one who did it few years back and stopped due to nobody caring to help out, or ask - your request is the first one in many years...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Possible WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues

I'd like to compliment Polish Piast and Dushnilkin again on writing this article. It's a good effort on an important period of Eastern European military history. Nevertheless, I am concerned about WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. None of the English names bolded in the lead section yield results when you Google them. Can these names be found in the sources cited? This is the main reason why I hesitated to write this article myself. You can find sources for individual facts, but maybe not an overarching 1205–1245 narrative. The equivalent ruwiki and ukwiki articles have the same issues. They can cite sources for individual events, but not for names given to this conflict, nor the overarching periodisation.

Of course, it makes sense to regard this as the narrative of Danylo Romanovych rising to power after the fall of his father in 1205, but we should be aware that this is only one perspective of many. Nevertheless, it is also the perspective taken by the main primary source of the events, the Galician–Volhynian Chronicle (GVC), and therefore not without merit, but also not without its problems. If there are actual sources calling this "the forty year's war" or something, then the matter could be resolved fairly quickly, but I haven't seen such sources. That is why I held back from writing this article myself for several years. I hope its existence now can be justified vis-a-vis WP:SYNTH. Good day. NLeeuw (talk) 07:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

For reference: Talk:List of wars of succession#Conventions for the list of wars of succession. I've been writing a lot about wars of succession since about 2018, striving to establish a comprehensive overview of all wars of succession in recorded history. But this has come with countless problems, ranging from semantic to historiographic issues and definitely WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:RS and WP:V. For starters, the terminology of "war of succession" and such originated in Europe and therefore Europe dominates in historiography, but I strive to include other continents as well. However, we need to satisfy WP:LISTCRITERIA, i.e., show that a conflict was actually a war of succession and not something else. The phrase "war of succession" doesn't have to be in the name, but the way the conflict is described in RS must meet commonly used definitions. It's also not necessary for a conflict regularly discussed in RS to have a WP:COMMONNAME, but the article title we choose to give it must be picked very carefully so as to avoid WP:OR. This is why I have developed the Talk:List of wars of succession#Conventions for the list of wars of succession, as an extension of all existing policies, guidelines, conventions and good practices, specifically for writing about wars of succession that appear to lack a commonly used name or periodisation. This article is a prime example of that. If we follow these conventions, we can often write articles such as this one, but we need to get the basics right first:

1. Was this an actual war of succession according to RS?
2. How long did it last according to RS?
3. What do we call this conflict, in accordance with RS and conventions?

As I mentioned above and in an edit summary, I've been thinking about writing an article about exactly this purported war of succession in Galicia and Volhynia between 1205 and 1245, as it was already framed on ruwiki and ukwiki for the past several years. But exactly because I could not answer these questions properly on the basis of RS that I could find, I decided not to write this article yet. As interesting as the ukwiki and especially ruwiki article (which has GA status) are, I regarded, and still regard, those as essentially WP:SYNTHed articles, combining loose facts based on RS to build an overarching narrative not found in those RS.

I'm afraid that this enwiki article now suffers from the very same issues. Although GA status is too early now, I do not want this article to fail altogether. I would like to work with the creators and others to improve it so that it does comply to all our enwiki standards. We need to get the answers to those basic questions right first. Good day. NLeeuw (talk) 13:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Generally I will start with an introduction English literature is very poor from what I checked. And Polish and Ukrainian is very rich in these events. I will start with the name of the war in itself qualifies for the War of Succession so Foryt calls it at the end of the story of the Battle of Yaroslavl. Could you explain why the tritium of the article should not be based on these foundations? in addition in ru wiki there is a separate heading about the name for this war and the battles that were fought as historians call it. In fact, the article needs to be checked because I may have added it too quickly on GA, but in terms of the spelling of the rulers and such small details which someone will correct themselves. And rest assured the article will not fall down because in terms of grammar etc. it is ok. It just needs to be discussed properly. I recommend to look at Russian sources, not only English because you did not get the results due to the fact that the English literature as I said at the beginning is poor and there is almost nothing.

To sum up your concerns also the historiography defines the period from 1205-1245 so does the Foryt using even the 3rd name of the Struggle for the legacy of the Duke of Roman. You should do a vote on this already. And after solving all these problems also with photos. I think we could report this to GA Polski Piast from Poland § (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm certainly open to reading Polish, Ukrainian and Russian sources, starting with the ones you and Dushnilkin cited in this article. But that will take some time, and I've got other commitments on enwiki and in real life, so I can't promise to be able to read all those sources quickly and properly. (If they're open-access and digitised so that I can use machine translations on them, that would certainly help. My knowledge of these three languages is still rather elementary.) NLeeuw (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I've read a summary of Foryt 2021, and it looks pretty good. If you could cite the specific pages, perhaps quote the relevant sentence(s) and translate them to English in a footnote, that could answers most or all of my concerns. You may well be right that English-language literature on the 1205–1245 period has so far failed to identify a unified "war of succession" narrative that we would need to avoid original research, but that Slavic RS could provide those. NLeeuw (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The last, seventh chapter concerns the direct aftermath of the titular battle, and thus forty years of unprecedented political turmoil in the lands of Galicia and Volhynia.

Czytaj więcej: https://histmag.org/Artur-Foryt-Zawichost-1205-recenzja-i-ocena-22544

Looks good. It's certainly not something I've read in English RS before (only in some non-RS YouTube videos that centre on Danylo Romanovych's life, and treat it all as one single, united war "to retrieve his father's throne" for that reason). NLeeuw (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I think I've cleared up your doubts and will correct the article based on the templates you carried Polski Piast from Poland § (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

It's a great improvement! Perhaps you could add specific page numbers? NLeeuw (talk) 08:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I've re-read the chapter 6 "Roman Mstislavich and His Family" in Raffensperger & Ostrowski 2023. At no point do they specifically identify a 1205 to 1245 period, in which a constant or intermittent war of succession was fought. The closest they get to such a framing is Daniil's life was a difficult one beset by conflict, especially in his attempt to regain and hold on to his throne. But unfortunately it's quite a stretch to use this in support of the naming and periodisation used here. Earlier in the chapter, they stress that neither Galicia or Volhynia was the personal hereditary property of Daniil and Vasylko, that their mother's attempt to establish a regency for them there was not successful, they were driven to flight in exile at the Hungarian royal court, which eventually ceased supporting her claims when Leszek and Bela partitioned Galicia and Volhynia between them in 1214. Maybe it would be better to regard the 1205 to 1245 period as one of a series of conflicts rather than a unified war of succession that puts the Romanovichi front and centre? This is just a preliminary impression, I'm open to a lot of ideas. NLeeuw (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:War of the Galician Succession (1205–1245)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Polish Piast (talk · contribs) 17:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 09:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

According to WP:GAFAIL 3: "An article may fail without further review (known as a quick fail) if, prior to the review: ... It has ... cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include ... large numbers of "citation needed" [tags]..." Nederlandse Leeuw raised possible WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues at the article's talk page. Although I am not convinced that the article represents original synthesis, I think their concerns are valid and are to be addressed before the GAN. Further issues:

• references 18, 29 and 55 are to be fixed. Borsoka (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• File:Даниил Галицкий на памятнике 1000-летия России.jpg: source is unclear at Commons; copyright status is unclear.
• File:Печать Романа II Великого.png: copyright status is unclear.
• File:Даниил Галицкий.png: copyright status is unclear.
• File:Seal of Mstislav Mstislavich Udatny.png: copyright status is unclear.
• File:Мстислав Удатный выгоняет венгерского королевича из Галича.png: copyright status is unclear.
• File:KOnrad.jpg: US PD tag is needed at Commons.
• File:Konrad I Mazowiecki seal 1218.PNG: US PD tag is needed.
• File:Facial Chronicle - b.06, p.417 - Mikhail of Chernigov enthroned.png: the source is unclear at Commons.
• File:Ростислав Михайлович.png: copyright status is unclear.
• A map is needed to provide our readers with a geographical context. Borsoka (talk) 10:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Oh wow. I think it is way too early to consider this article for GA status, as much as I appreciate the efforts taken in writing it. It has barely been vetted by the community yet. The few edits I, Setergh and Norden1990 made and issues I raised were only a start. There are other issues of secondary concern that I would like to raise at a later stage, but first I think we should address the concerns around naming and periodisation, which involve possible WP:OR or WP:SYNTH (as Borsoka pointed out above). We just need more time, probably a lot of small fixes and perhaps a few big ones, with constructive feedback where needed. I certainly can't do that on my own, we'll need probably about 10 people who examine this article thoroughly before GA comes into view. But never say never; it's ambitious but it could probably be done. NLeeuw (talk) 11:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  I mean, Polski Piast is obviously the person trying to bring this to GA-class the most. But he seems to just be doing tons and tons randomly, so I don't know if he's really checking what he's doing. Also wasn't a fan of him randomly going onto my page practically demanding that I begin suddenly working on a page to raise it to GA-class seemingly without offering help and as if I still have motivation to edit consistently. Personally it just seems like he's in a random rush out of nowhere after at least a month of inactivity. Setergh (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  That aligns with some of my impressions as well. Being a passionate and active Wikipedian is good, but we always need to ensure that we maintain quality in our work. It's much more important to show the quality of our work than to tell people that our work is great because we've got an official GA stamp of approval. Show, don't tell. NLeeuw (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Mongol impact on Galicia and Volhynia around 1240/41

I've added some general material on the Mongol invasion of Kievan Rus' and Batu's raid of 1240 in Ruthenia, but it might be worth mentioning more than just the fall of Kiev (December 1240), and skip ahead to the first Mongol invasions of Poland and Hungary (April 1241). After all, the focus this article is on Galicia and Volhynia (two regions within "Ruthenia"). I happen to know that the Galician–Volhynian Chronicle mentions the Mongol siege and sack of both capital cities of Halych in Galicia and Volodymyr in Volyn, but as a WP:PRIMARY source we need to be careful with that. The section Batu's raid of 1240 in Ruthenia#Siege of Kiev does provide some details on what happened in the Ruthenian and Polish border regions that we might recycle, particularly this passage: Batu Khan continued to Kamianets upon Sluch (today Myropil) and Izyaslav, taking both of the cities. After that Batu sacked many other cities including the capital cities Volodymyr and Halych. The only cities which survived were Kremenets, Chełm, and Danyliv. But as you can see, it is mostly WP:UNSOURCED. Can we find some secondary sources to support these statements? NLeeuw (talk) 09:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Chełm#History adds: In 1235, Daniel of Galicia granted the town a city charter and moved the capital of his domain in 1241–1272 after destruction of Halych by the Mongols in 1240–1241. Daniel also built a new castle atop the hill in 1237, one of the few Ruthenian castles that withstood Mongol attacks,...

This is quite significant for the war of succession, which up until this point had been all about which prince could control the throne of Halych. But apparently the Mongols "destroyed Halych" so much that Danylo had to relocate his capital to Chełm (Kholm). This isn't mentioned yet. In fact, no dates between 1241 and 1245 are mentioned so far. I think there is a gap to fill in our chronology. When did Danylo and Vasylko return to Ruthenia to restore the destroyed cities?

It might also be worth mentioning that Danylo captured Kiev in 1239 and installed his voivode Dmytro there, just before the Mongol siege in November–December 1240. (The literature is often wrong in claiming that Michael of Chernigov was in control of Kiev at the time). NLeeuw (talk) 09:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I found a little bit from my sources about the consequences of the Mongol invasion, but there is nothing about the transfer of the capital to the Holm. The first, slightly Marxist quote from Pashuto: The unification of southwestern Russia had to begin almost from the beginning; the administrative and economic apparatus of state power was seriously disorganized; as we will see, the local, especially the Galician boyars, taking advantage of the situation, actually seized all political and economic power; the weakening of princely power was facilitated by the ruin of a number of large cities, the trade and craft elite of which, along with The "court" and the "serving boyars" formed the prince's social support; finally, the increasing exploitation and constant devastation caused by the feudal wars caused a widespread peasant anti-feudal movement, which forced all groups of the feudal estate to rally around the grand ducal power for a time.

The second quote from Kostomarov: Batu's conquering hordes moved from Kiev to the west, destroying and destroying everything in their path. The city of Kolodyazhny (now Ladyzhin), contrary to the example of other Russian cities, surrendered voluntarily in the hope of being spared. But the Tatars exterminated all the inhabitants in it, although they often showed mercy to the defeated in such cases. All the Volyn cities were ravaged; only Kremenets, located on an inaccessible mountain, did not succumb to the Tatars. In Vladimir, all the inhabitants were exterminated. Caught off guard, Russians abandoned their homes in towns and villages, hid in forests or fled without knowing where. Danilo was in Hungary at the time; having not yet heard anything about the approach of the Tatars, he went to Hungary to woo his son, which at that time he failed. In his absence, the Tatars ravaged the deserted Galich. Dimitri of Tysyatsky, wanting to save his land from further ruin, convinced Batu to hurry to Hungary and imagine that otherwise the Hungarians and Germans would gather against him with great force.

I think we can state that the Mongol invasion literally stopped (for a while) the war of succession, since Daniel had nowhere to reign, and his opponents were busy fighting the Mongols. Dushnilkin (talk) 11:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

That seems quite likely. I think I'll be able to fill some of the gaps with citations to English literature when I get back home (on the train now). Especially English-language historiography of Ukraine has been nuancing some of the more untenable ideas in Ukrainian-language historiography that Danylo somehow managed to maintain independence or autonomy from the Mongols. (Similar myths about Suzdalia exist in Russian historiography). It seems that he was quite heavily defeated in the early 1240s, then submitted himself to Batu in 1245/6, and in the mid-1250s attemped to reassert some autonomy until defeated in 1259. In the end, the Mongols did not interfere in the succession itself, as long as whoever won the war, would recognise their suzerainty over all Rus' principalities that they conquered in the late 1230s amd early 1240s. Danylo was that prince for Galicia and Volhynia. NLeeuw (talk) 12:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Most likely you are right, after the victory over Kuremsa (1254) Daniel regained his independence, but only temporarily. In any case, I hope that you will bring the article to mind. Dushnilkin (talk) 12:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I concur. Incidentally, it might be a good idea to write/translate articles about several post-1240 Mongol campaigns in Rus' principalities. Traditional historiography has a tendency to present these as "attempts to conquer Rus' ", even though Rus' had already been conquered. Instead, a campaign like that of Dyuden (Дюден) in 1293 was most likely a punitive expedition against Tver, Vladimir on the Klyazma, and Moscow, because their princes had failed to travel to Sarai and pay homage to the new Khan in exchange for a renewed jarlig. Something similar seems to have happened when Danylo Romanovych and Andrey II of Vladimir in 1251 refused to do so. (Was that Nevruy's campaign?). NLeeuw (talk) 12:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it was Nevruy's expedition in 1252. Dushnilkin (talk) 12:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! That's another article we could translate from ruwiki and then improve. NLeeuw (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Found them again:

ru:Неврюева рать

uk:Неврюєва рать NLeeuw (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

One of the more cryptic episodes described in Russian chronicles is the Tatar campaign to the Suzdal' land against Alexander Nevskii’s brother Andrei in 1252. The problem is compounded by contradictory reporting in the source evidence. The chronicles and the Life of Alexander Nevskii treat the Tatar campaign in a variety of ways and are notoriously chary about supplying crucial details. Historians, in contrast, are very good about filling in the gaps with imaginative speculation that fits their own views of things, but not so good about distinguishing between what is source testimony and what are their own conjectures. Donald Ostrowski 2009. Heh, this is one of the sources mentioned on ukwiki, and is illustrating what I mean pretty well.

Anyway, that's off-topic for this article. I've added Halperin 1987 as a start, but he isn't very detailed on the early 1240s either, and seems not to mention the succession struggle in Halych at all. Raffensperger & Ostrowski 2023 didn't mention Kholm or the early 1240s in Halych in detail either. Hopefully Martin 2007 or Plokhy 2006 have more to say. NLeeuw (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll also probably look for modern Russian-language literature on this subject, otherwise the works of Kostomarov (1870s) and Pashuto (1950) are honestly outdated. By the way, the latter separates the Mongol invasion from the struggle for the inheritance in Galicia, but in my opinion, this is not very correct. Dushnilkin (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

According to WP:OLDSOURCES Sometimes sources are too new to use, such as with breaking news (where later reports might be more accurate), and primary sources which purport to debunk a long-standing consensus or introduce a new discovery (in which case awaiting studies that attempt to replicate the discovery might be a good idea, or reviews that validate the methods used to make the discovery).

Pashuto actually fails to meet these conditions due to the huge lack of literature on the subject. He is a very important source of knowledge in the article. I recommend reviewing the article for content and spelling, as corrections can make things sound meaningless. This paragraph is addressed to Nederlandse Leeuw and you Dushnilkin.

I must also add my penny to the discussion. Artur Foryt writes as follows: However, it was not long before the Mongol army moved westwards in two columns, invading the Halych and Volhyn lands along the way, which, apart from some strongholds, offered no serious resistance. They fell, among others: Volodymyr, Halych, Kamenets, Danilov, Brest and many other centres. Princes Daniel and Michael fled, the former temporarily to Hungary, the latter as far as Silesia and from there to Mazovia, to Konrad Mazowiecki. Later, Foryt writes about Vasylko's escape to Masovia also. Despite looking at the Galician-Volhynian chronicle, Foryt does not include this Polski Piast from Poland § (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good to add. Whenever a modern source like Foryt is in conflict with Pashuto, I would recommend following Foryt. But there is one occasion where it is mentioned that they disagree whether a campaign of Danylo was a success or a failure, in which case it is a good idea to mention both. NLeeuw (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

It will be done. It would be useful to add another source of some sort and after checking other issues these photos (I will solve the problem myself or you guys want?) Then we can think about some kind of featured, after time I realised that reporting the article on GA was a bit too fast and required people to do it but unfortunately on the issue of Rus' I did not see anyone who could help except you. I appreciate your work done in the amendment of article which is very much appreciated. The article was difficult to write due to the fact that you had to think about what to include and what not. Polski Piast from Poland § (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome! If we work together, we can achieve great things. If I want to write a proper article, it sometimes takes me 2 or 3 weeks to get everything right, and only then I publish it. I have never nominated any article for GA status. I prefer to think of articles as always waiting for further improvement. GA status will always just be a snapshot in time. Some articles which were given GA status many years ago may no longer deserve it anymore, as our quality standards have improved. I don't think any articles I've written need some sort of GA stamp of approval, I just try to make sure that the article is written like it should be written, and let others correct my mistakes and add things I forgot to mention. NLeeuw (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

👍 Polski Piast from Poland § (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I found an interesting article about Danil's Horde policy (Ivanova 2011). I will add information from it a little later, since I am currently in another city. Dushnilkin (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good. Safe travels! I just got home, I can now access a lot of literature on my pc. NLeeuw (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Martin 2007 p. 183 briefly mentions Danylo moving his capital to Kholm, but she does not state clearly when this happened exactly: In southwestern Rus' the situation was not immediately so grim. Prince Daniil of Galicia and Volynia was able to construct the new fortifications that the Mongols shortly afterward obliged him to dismantle. Daniil also founded new towns and encouraged commerce. He moved his capital city to Kholm, located northeast of Vladimir in Volynia, and developed that town into a vital cultural center.

That sounds as if the moving of the capital to Kholm (1241? according to article Chełm#History) and the dismantling of fortifications (1259) happened around the same time, but there are about 18 years in between. It's a bit incoherent. We can't really cite this as a source, unfortunately. NLeeuw (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

The GVC itself does not clearly identify a year or period in which the capital was moved from Halych to Kholm. In the 1973 Perfecky translation, where it is spelt "Xolm", it is a confused mess. They tell about 4x when Kholm was founded, it even includes some sort of foundation myth, but there is no sentence that goes like: And in the year 1241, Prince Danilo decided to move his capital from Halyč to Xolm.

Plokhy 2006 p. 62, however, points to an interesting passage: The border separating the Rus' from the Poles did not negate the sense of a certain commonality between them. In some documentary references, such as the list of peoples invited by Danylo to settle his new capital of Kholm, Poles were even excluded from the category of “foreigners” (inoplemennyky).

In Perfecky 1973's translation, this passage reads (p. 75):

And he (Danylo/Danilo/Daniil/Daniel of Galicia) built a small city, but when he saw that God and St. John were helping him, he built another city - one which the Tatars could not take [even] when Batyj occupied all of Rus'. At that time the Church of the Holy Trinity was set afire and then built anew. When Prince Danilo saw that God placed [Xolm] under His protection, he began to invite immigrants - Germans, Rus'ians, [all kinds of] foreigners, and Poles - [to the city]. This does suggest that Danylo made Kholm his capital after Baty [Batu] and the Tatars [Mongols] had devastated the rest in late 1240 / early 1241. But we still need WP:SECONDARY sources to pin down the year. NLeeuw (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

This 2015 Maiorov article suggests in passing that Kholm was always intended to be constructed as the new capital of Danylo: Pillar-towers in Western Volhynia were concentrated mainly in the town of Kholm built by Daniel Romanovich as the new capital of Galician-Volhynian Rus'. In the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle account of the construction of Chelm "a high vezha (tower)" is mentioned that Prince Daniel erected in the center of the town (Ipat 844). The foundations of this structure were excavated by archeologist cum architect Peter P. Pokryshkin in 1910-1912 on the hill Vysokaya Gorka in Chelm. The tower was built in the 1230s-1240s. Perhaps it was, although it seems to me that the Mongol invasion forced Danylo to relocate from Halych to Kholm earlier than he had planned, otherwise he would obviously have moved there already before the Mongols came. Alternately, he didn't originally intend to make it his capital, but due to the circumstances, it was a better option than trying to rebuild Halych and retain it as the capital in the short, medium and long term. (Anyway, that's my OR speculation, now back to what RS say). NLeeuw (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Clan tree

Hey folks, I made a clan tree over at Template:Princely clans Kievan Rus' early 13th century (working title):

Princely clans Kievan Rus' early 13th century

Olgovichi of Chernigov Oleg I of Chernigov Mstislavichi Mstislav I Vsevolod II Iziaslavichi of Volhynia Iziaslav II Rostislavichi of Smolensk Rostislav I Sviatoslav III Mstislav II Mstislav of Smolensk Roman I Riurik Vsevolod Chermnyi Anna-Euphrosyne Romanovichi of Galicia Roman the Great Michael of Chernigov Elena Romanovna Mstislav Mstislavich Mstislav III Rostislav Mikhailovich Vasylko Daniel Anna

Hopefully it helps readers understand the genealogical connections between some of the main players. I know that Mstislav Mstislavich's daughter Rostislava was married to Yaroslav II of Vladimir, but because the Yurievichi of Suzdalia weren't involved in the Galician war of succession, I have decided not to show them here. But I'm sure I'm still missing some relevant connections. E.g. weren't there also some marriage ties between the Romanovichi, Piasts and Arpads? Suggestions are welcome! NLeeuw (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Well done! Polski Piast from Poland § (talk) 06:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added some Rostislavichi who were involved as well. NLeeuw (talk) 09:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Layout (images, galleries, infobox)

Maybe we should discuss some of the layout options? It seems we've got different ideas about how images, galleries and infoboxes should be used. There are no hard and fast rules, but in general, what I have been trying to do is prevent MOS:SANDWICH, and galleries are one way of doing that.
Separately, in an Template:Infobox military conflict, it is common practice to place a map of the region where the conflict took place, or an iconic depiction (e.g. a painting or photograph) of the conflict that many people would easily recognise. Sometimes, an image of one of the most important players of the conflict (usually the victor) may be used instead, but only if there are no better images, because the image of the victor may be WP:UNDUE.
Curious to hear your thoughts. NLeeuw (talk) 09:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I decided to make such a list in the infobox to make the most important images from the conflict and the characters. I gave pictures of Daniel because the whole article revolves around him mostly and Hungary and Poland. Polski Piast from Poland § (talk) 09:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I think a collage could be a clever solution; they work best if you've got 4 images that are about the same size that you then put together with a clockwise description in the caption, e.g. File:Pictures of Libyan Civil War (2011).png in the article Libyan civil war (2011). But as it is now in this article, I worry that the smallest images (especially File:Даниил Галицкий передаёт Киев тысяцкому Дмитрию.png) are now so tiny that the reader can barely see what they are supposed to represent. WP:COLLAGETIPS suggests that [collages] have the drawback of taking up additional space and reducing image size. This makes them a poor fit for leads of articles that already have an excessively long infobox or for topics whose images require a lot of detail. When many images are desired, galleries are often a better choice. Maybe there is a better option? NLeeuw (talk) 10:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea. Will you be improving anything else in the article? Polski Piast from Poland § (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I propose to go back to the old layout where Daniel's picture was in the infobox. The map is not needed as we already have a header associated with it. In addition, a few things need to be improved. And the article will be ready. I propose to remove the gallery and paste as it was before, because it looked more aesthetically pleasing and was much more comfortable. Polski Piast from Poland § (talk) 10:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I am probably going to improve some more things here and there, yes. I'd like to include the clan tree somewhere at the bottom, for example. Some grammar corrections probably, some clarifications and copyediting.

it looked more aesthetically pleasing and was much more comfortable. I understand that perspective, but you do recognise that we should follow MOS:SANDWICH to keep the text readable, right? NLeeuw (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

The text is extremely long. For this reason we can do something like this. I wanted to propose doing something similar to the Nothern War of 1655-1660. Some sentences have hard words that do not comport with the lightness of the text, there are few of them but they need to be corrected and that will probably be enough. Polski Piast from Poland § (talk) 10:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)