User talk:Nederlandse Leeuw/Lists of Rus' princes

Table

Hi @Nederlandse Leeuw:! I started editing in this draft. Made the experience of joining the Ukrainian and Belarusian tables of Rurik principalities. I'm starting to think that we should really separate the principalities, because it's too much information. But don't worry, I'm just testing, and I'll leave it like that for now. Any other doubt ping me! Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mhmrodrigues I'm not sure what you're doing, but it's okay to be testing things here, so yes, I'm not worried. :)

I didn't intend this to be a massive table at all, just more or less a disambiguation page in the form of a list of lists (which you've now named "Summary list"). Perhaps I should have been cleared about that from the start. But you already seemed to have reached the same conclusion that we should really separate the principalities, because it's too much information.

I also like the way you've now integrated all principalities into User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Lists of Rus' princes#Principalities under Kievan Rus' formed before 1240, that is certainly going to be useful somewhere somehow.

I think we should no longer speak in terms of "Rurik dynasty", not least because the main article has been renamed to Rurikids recently, and the concept has been criticised and rejected as artificial and pseudo-historical by many modern scholars. Instead, I think we should look at the various "branches", or houses (Category:Volodimerovichi family, Category:Monomakhovichi family, Category:Yurievichi family etc.). I built the Prince of Moscow list entirely on the Daniilovichi, for instance. Their connection to "Rurik" is highly dubious, not least because Daniel of Moscow was izgoi. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Nederlandse Leeuw:! Thank you for your understanding! I'm trying to reach a compromise here. You said you'd prefer separate lists for each principality; I defended a table that included everything. But, as I was working on it I noted, as I've said above, that it would be too much information. But for a list of separate rulers, you go to the page of the specific page of the princes of that principality. The idea is to simplfy the viewing of the tables by spliting them. I'm trying to group principalities: the main ones in the first table (Kyiv, Galicia-Volhynia, Vladimir-Suzdal). For the remaining ones, the idea is to group them by proximity of bloodline (or if you want, principalities ruled by the same branch). You can see that I've already separated the Polotskian line in a table of their own. For Chernihiv I was thinking in including Murom and Ryazan, for example, which were ruled by the same Chernihiv branch. Now, to your comments:

• Perhaps I should have been cleared about that from the start. But you already seemed to have reached the same conclusion I said that, but never mentioned that I would agree to a list of lists: it wasn't what I had in mind. For what I intend to do, you can see my edits (or the page as it is) in Maya monarchs, with the difference that in our page we would group principalities under ruling families (of course, if a principality changes branch it would be integrated in the branch of the founders of that principality).
• I also like the way you've now integrated all principalities into User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Lists of Rus' princes#Principalities under Kievan Rus' formed before 1240, that is certainly going to be useful somewhere somehow. The place for it is here and now. Don't you agree? And thank you for the compliment!
• I think we should no longer speak in terms of "Rurik dynasty", not least because the main article has been renamed to Rurikids recently (...) Instead, I think we should look at the various "branches", or houses (Category:Volodimerovichi family, Category:Monomakhovichi family, Category:Yurievichi family etc. Maybe we can agree here in a solution. In my opinion, it would be better 'Rurik dynasty (name of the branch)'. We can, this way, compromise with everyone, instead of forcing right away the vanishing of the concept of the Ruriks. And by the way, all branches were from the same family, and if you group them exclusively from branch, their traced same origin will be forgotten. You may be right about Rurik, and the doubts around the character are very interesting, but everyone will agree that any Rurikid will trace their ascendance at least to Vladimir the Great.
• I built the Prince of Moscow list entirely on the Daniilovichi, for instance. Their connection to "Rurik" is highly dubious, not least because Daniel of Moscow was izgoi I found this very interesting. We can doubt about the connection, but we can't explicitly say that he isn't a Rurikid. I presume that when you say that he was an izgoi, you also mean that, as an orphan protected by the Church, it's not explicitly stated that his parents were in fact the Grand Princes of Vladimir? However, if that's not properly backed, it would be W:POV. We would have to know then who were his parents to exclude him and his descendants from the family. Am I right? Please correct me if I'm not.
  • Take the case, for example, of Emperor Leo VI the Wise. His father is dubious, and would compromise the dynasty he would belong. As there are evidence to both fathers and there aren't absolute certainties, he is kept as part of the Macedonian dynasty, as traditional historiography would consider.

For any other doubts, don't hesitate and ping me! Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 00:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)