Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Question about Boyar's

Expand Messages
  • christopher chastain
    I have been asked by several folks in my shire if the Boyar s were the Russian version of the western medieval knights. When I do a online search about them
    Message 1 of 13 , Nov 3, 2009
      I have been asked by several folks in my shire if the Boyar's were the Russian version of the western medieval knights. When I do a online search about them from the way they are described they do seem to fit into this mold. My Russian knowledge is growing but I will freely admit this is a area were I need to ask questions. From what I have been able to gather on them, Boyars wielded considerable power through their military support of the Kievan princes. Power and prestige of many of them, however, soon came to depend almost completely on service to the state, family history of service and to a lesser extent, landownership. The boyars occupied the highest state offices and through a council (Duma) advised the Grand Duke. They received extensive grants of land and, as members of the Boyars' Duma, were the major legislators of Kievan Rus'. To me this sounds extremely like a western knight, can anyone explain to me where the difference lies and if they are similar would'nt that be a good candidate for a alternate title for knight?



      Yours in Humble Service,
      Pomestnik Dmitrii Zarekoi Ivanov
      Chivalry, Honor, Duty, Not just words but a choice!


      _________________________________________________________________
      Find the right PC with Windows 7 and Windows Live.
      http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/pc-scout/laptop-set-criteria.aspx?cbid=wl&filt=200,2400,10,19,1,3,1,7,50,650,2,12,0,1000&cat=1,2,3,4,5,6&brands=5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16&addf=4,5,9&ocid=PID24727::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WWL_WIN_evergreen2:112009

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • jpkowal@mts.net
      Greetings; In general terms the answer would be Yes. If by a Knight You mean a warrior in service to a King. The analogy is roughly correct remembering that
      Message 2 of 13 , Nov 3, 2009
        Greetings;

        In general terms the answer would be Yes.

        If by a Knight You mean a warrior in service to a King. The analogy is roughly correct remembering that the King and Knight relationship evolved from the earlier relationship of a Warband Leader and His Trusted Warriors.

        The Kiev-Rus had the Grand Prince (King) to whom was attached His Druzhini(?)/Warband comprised of the Boyars (Knights).

        Were they exactly the same. No. But they serve similar purposes Yes.

        You have to be careful not to simply accept all concepts of Chivalry and Knighthood and transpose them onto the East from the West.

        Does that help?
        AVL


        > From: christopher chastain <ckchastain@...>
        > Date: 2009/11/03 Tue PM 04:16:34 CST
        > To: Slavic Interest group <sig@yahoogroups.com>
        > Subject: [sig] Question about Boyar's
        >
        >
        >
        > I have been asked by several folks in my shire if the Boyar's were the Russian version of the western medieval knights. When I do a online search about them from the way they are described they do seem to fit into this mold. My Russian knowledge is growing but I will freely admit this is a area were I need to ask questions. From what I have been able to gather on them, Boyars wielded considerable power through their military support of the Kievan princes. Power and prestige of many of them, however, soon came to depend almost completely on service to the state, family history of service and to a lesser extent, landownership. The boyars occupied the highest state offices and through a council (Duma) advised the Grand Duke. They received extensive grants of land and, as members of the Boyars' Duma, were the major legislators of Kievan Rus'. To me this sounds extremely like a western knight, can anyone explain to me where the difference lies and if they are similar would'nt that be a good candidate for a alternate title for knight?
        >
        >
        >
        > Yours in Humble Service,
        > Pomestnik Dmitrii Zarekoi Ivanov
        > Chivalry, Honor, Duty, Not just words but a choice!
        >
        >
        > _________________________________________________________________
        > Find the right PC with Windows 7 and Windows Live.
        > http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/pc-scout/laptop-set-criteria.aspx?cbid=wl&filt=200,2400,10,19,1,3,1,7,50,650,2,12,0,1000&cat=1,2,3,4,5,6&brands=5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16&addf=4,5,9&ocid=PID24727::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WWL_WIN_evergreen2:112009
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
      • christopher chastain
        Yes it does, I knew they weren t the same but wasn t sure on how to explain the differences. Most of my shire is western or a very few turk/persian persona s.
        Message 3 of 13 , Nov 3, 2009
          Yes it does, I knew they weren't the same but wasn't sure on how to explain the differences. Most of my shire is western or a very few turk/persian persona's. So explaining some aspects of Russia has been a learning experience for myself at the very least, which i'm enjoying. Thanks again for the clarification.





          Yours in Humble Service,
          Pomestnik Dmitrii Zarekoi Ivanov
          Chivalry, Honor, Duty, Not just words but a choice!



          To: sig@yahoogroups.com
          From: jpkowal@...
          Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 20:42:32 -0600
          Subject: Re: [sig] Question about Boyar's





















          Greetings;



          In general terms the answer would be Yes.



          If by a Knight You mean a warrior in service to a King. The analogy is roughly correct remembering that the King and Knight relationship evolved from the earlier relationship of a Warband Leader and His Trusted Warriors.



          The Kiev-Rus had the Grand Prince (King) to whom was attached His Druzhini(?)/Warband comprised of the Boyars (Knights).



          Were they exactly the same. No. But they serve similar purposes Yes.



          You have to be careful not to simply accept all concepts of Chivalry and Knighthood and transpose them onto the East from the West.



          Does that help?

          AVL



          > From: christopher chastain <ckchastain@...>

          > Date: 2009/11/03 Tue PM 04:16:34 CST

          > To: Slavic Interest group <sig@yahoogroups.com>

          > Subject: [sig] Question about Boyar's

          >

          >

          >

          > I have been asked by several folks in my shire if the Boyar's were the Russian version of the western medieval knights. When I do a online search about them from the way they are described they do seem to fit into this mold. My Russian knowledge is growing but I will freely admit this is a area were I need to ask questions. From what I have been able to gather on them, Boyars wielded considerable power through their military support of the Kievan princes. Power and prestige of many of them, however, soon came to depend almost completely on service to the state, family history of service and to a lesser extent, landownership. The boyars occupied the highest state offices and through a council (Duma) advised the Grand Duke. They received extensive grants of land and, as members of the Boyars' Duma, were the major legislators of Kievan Rus'. To me this sounds extremely like a western knight, can anyone explain to me where the difference lies and if they are similar would'nt that be a good candidate for a alternate title for knight?

          >

          >

          >

          > Yours in Humble Service,

          > Pomestnik Dmitrii Zarekoi Ivanov

          > Chivalry, Honor, Duty, Not just words but a choice!

          >

          >

          > __________________________________________________________

          > Find the right PC with Windows 7 and Windows Live.

          > http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/pc-scout/laptop-set-criteria.aspx?cbid=wl&filt=200,2400,10,19,1,3,1,7,50,650,2,12,0,1000&cat=1,2,3,4,5,6&brands=5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16&addf=4,5,9&ocid=PID24727::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WWL_WIN_evergreen2:112009

          >

          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

          >

          >

          >






















          _________________________________________________________________
          Find the right PC with Windows 7 and Windows Live.
          http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/pc-scout/laptop-set-criteria.aspx?cbid=wl&filt=200,2400,10,19,1,3,1,7,50,650,2,12,0,1000&cat=1,2,3,4,5,6&brands=5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16&addf=4,5,9&ocid=PID24727::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WWL_WIN_evergreen2:112009

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • V.D. Novach
          Actually the answer would be NO, The Boyar were the Nobles of area as well as well-to-do merchants, anyone capable of owning their own land. They were not
          Message 4 of 13 , Nov 3, 2009
            Actually the answer would be NO, The Boyar were the Nobles of area as well as well-to-do merchants, anyone capable of owning their own land. They were not knights. 

            --- On Tue, 11/3/09, jpkowal@... <jpkowal@...> wrote:


            From: jpkowal@... <jpkowal@...>
            Subject: Re: [sig] Question about Boyar's
            To: sig@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Tuesday, November 3, 2009, 8:42 PM


             



            Greetings;

            In general terms the answer would be Yes.

            If by a Knight You mean a warrior in service to a King. The analogy is roughly correct remembering that the King and Knight relationship evolved from the earlier relationship of a Warband Leader and His Trusted Warriors.

            The Kiev-Rus had the Grand Prince (King) to whom was attached His Druzhini(?)/ Warband comprised of the Boyars (Knights).

            Were they exactly the same. No. But they serve similar purposes Yes.

            You have to be careful not to simply accept all concepts of Chivalry and Knighthood and transpose them onto the East from the West.

            Does that help?
            AVL

            > From: christopher chastain <ckchastain@hotmail. com>
            > Date: 2009/11/03 Tue PM 04:16:34 CST
            > To: Slavic Interest group <sig@yahoogroups. com>
            > Subject: [sig] Question about Boyar's
            >
            >
            >
            > I have been asked by several folks in my shire if the Boyar's were the Russian version of the western medieval knights. When I do a online search about them from the way they are described they do seem to fit into this mold. My Russian knowledge is growing but I will freely admit this is a area were I need to ask questions. From what I have been able to gather on them, Boyars wielded considerable power through their military support of the Kievan princes. Power and prestige of many of them, however, soon came to depend almost completely on service to the state, family history of service and to a lesser extent, landownership. The boyars occupied the highest state offices and through a council (Duma) advised the Grand Duke. They received extensive grants of land and, as members of the Boyars' Duma, were the major legislators of Kievan Rus'. To me this sounds extremely like a western knight, can anyone explain to me where the difference lies and if they
            are similar would'nt that be a good candidate for a alternate title for knight?
            >
            >
            >
            > Yours in Humble Service,
            > Pomestnik Dmitrii Zarekoi Ivanov
            > Chivalry, Honor, Duty, Not just words but a choice!
            >
            >
            > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
            > Find the right PC with Windows 7 and Windows Live.
            > http://www.microsof t.com/Windows/ pc-scout/ laptop-set- criteria. aspx?cbid= wl&filt=200, 2400,10,19, 1,3,1,7,50, 650,2,12, 0,1000&cat= 1,2,3,4,5, 6&brands= 5,6,7,8,9, 10,11,12, 13,14,15, 16&addf=4, 5,9&ocid= PID24727: :T:WLMTAGL: ON:WL:en- US:WWL_WIN_ evergreen2: 112009
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            >



















            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • jpkowal@mts.net
            Please, Remember the answer. In general terms Yes . We are talking about a broad swath of History over many different lands. Under such a sweeping
            Message 5 of 13 , Nov 3, 2009
              Please, Remember the answer. In "general terms Yes". We are talking about a broad swath of History over many different lands. Under such a sweeping generalization I will stick with my Yes. I can find examples in the West of "well-to-do-merchants" being accepted as nobility as well. Does that invalidate the general King to Knight relationship. No it does not. Neither does it in the East.

              The Nobility often is divided between Greater and Lessor in station. Does that invalidate the general King to Knight relationship? Again No it does not.

              The original Warbands that travelled through Eastern Europes river systems were as much Traders/Merchants as they were Warbands. Does this early genesis invalidate the King to Knight relationship? again the answer is No.

              Now if You want to break it down into smaller time periods, and more local geographies then we could try and make the No arguement.

              AVL

              > From: "V.D. Novach" <vdnovach@...>
              > Date: 2009/11/03 Tue PM 09:19:12 CST
              > To: sig@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: Re: [sig] Question about Boyar's
              >
              > Actually the answer would be NO, The Boyar were the Nobles of area as well as well-to-do merchants, anyone capable of owning their own land. They were not knights.
              >
              > --- On Tue, 11/3/09, jpkowal@... <jpkowal@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > From: jpkowal@... <jpkowal@...>
              > Subject: Re: [sig] Question about Boyar's
              > To: sig@yahoogroups.com
              > Date: Tuesday, November 3, 2009, 8:42 PM
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Greetings;
              >
              > In general terms the answer would be Yes.
              >
              > If by a Knight You mean a warrior in service to a King. The analogy is roughly correct remembering that the King and Knight relationship evolved from the earlier relationship of a Warband Leader and His Trusted Warriors.
              >
              > The Kiev-Rus had the Grand Prince (King) to whom was attached His Druzhini(?)/ Warband comprised of the Boyars (Knights).
              >
              > Were they exactly the same. No. But they serve similar purposes Yes.
              >
              > You have to be careful not to simply accept all concepts of Chivalry and Knighthood and transpose them onto the East from the West.
              >
              > Does that help?
              > AVL
              >
              > > From: christopher chastain <ckchastain@hotmail. com>
              > > Date: 2009/11/03 Tue PM 04:16:34 CST
              > > To: Slavic Interest group <sig@yahoogroups. com>
              > > Subject: [sig] Question about Boyar's
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > I have been asked by several folks in my shire if the Boyar's were the Russian version of the western medieval knights. When I do a online search about them from the way they are described they do seem to fit into this mold. My Russian knowledge is growing but I will freely admit this is a area were I need to ask questions. From what I have been able to gather on them, Boyars wielded considerable power through their military support of the Kievan princes. Power and prestige of many of them, however, soon came to depend almost completely on service to the state, family history of service and to a lesser extent, landownership. The boyars occupied the highest state offices and through a council (Duma) advised the Grand Duke. They received extensive grants of land and, as members of the Boyars' Duma, were the major legislators of Kievan Rus'. To me this sounds extremely like a western knight, can anyone explain to me where the difference lies and if they
              > are similar would'nt that be a good candidate for a alternate title for knight?
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > Yours in Humble Service,
              > > Pomestnik Dmitrii Zarekoi Ivanov
              > > Chivalry, Honor, Duty, Not just words but a choice!
              > >
              > >
              > > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
              > > Find the right PC with Windows 7 and Windows Live.
              > > http://www.microsof t.com/Windows/ pc-scout/ laptop-set- criteria. aspx?cbid= wl&filt=200, 2400,10,19, 1,3,1,7,50, 650,2,12, 0,1000&cat= 1,2,3,4,5, 6&brands= 5,6,7,8,9, 10,11,12, 13,14,15, 16&addf=4, 5,9&ocid= PID24727: :T:WLMTAGL: ON:WL:en- US:WWL_WIN_ evergreen2: 112009
              > >
              > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              > >
              > >
              > >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >
              >
            • V.D. Novach
              But I beleive you are fogettig the definition of a knight as a horseback warrior. Not as a noble. While knights were sometimes nobles and in Western Europe
              Message 6 of 13 , Nov 3, 2009
                But I beleive you are fogettig the definition of a knight as a horseback warrior. Not as a noble. While knights were sometimes nobles and in Western Europe almost singularily as knights were made nobles by kings for services rendered. A noble is not even majorily a Knight. Boyars were not a brod term it was  term used particularily in RUSSIA, RUMANIA, GERMANY and POLAND

                --- On Tue, 11/3/09, jpkowal@... <jpkowal@...> wrote:


                From: jpkowal@... <jpkowal@...>
                Subject: Re: Re: [sig] Question about Boyar's
                To: sig@yahoogroups.com
                Date: Tuesday, November 3, 2009, 10:13 PM


                 



                Please, Remember the answer. In "general terms Yes". We are talking about a broad swath of History over many different lands. Under such a sweeping generalization I will stick with my Yes. I can find examples in the West of "well-to-do- merchants" being accepted as nobility as well. Does that invalidate the general King to Knight relationship. No it does not. Neither does it in the East.

                The Nobility often is divided between Greater and Lessor in station. Does that invalidate the general King to Knight relationship? Again No it does not.

                The original Warbands that travelled through Eastern Europes river systems were as much Traders/Merchants as they were Warbands. Does this early genesis invalidate the King to Knight relationship? again the answer is No.

                Now if You want to break it down into smaller time periods, and more local geographies then we could try and make the No arguement.

                AVL

                > From: "V.D. Novach" <vdnovach@yahoo. com>
                > Date: 2009/11/03 Tue PM 09:19:12 CST
                > To: sig@yahoogroups. com
                > Subject: Re: [sig] Question about Boyar's
                >
                > Actually the answer would be NO, The Boyar were the Nobles of area as well as well-to-do merchants, anyone capable of owning their own land. They were not knights.
                >
                > --- On Tue, 11/3/09, jpkowal@mts. net <jpkowal@mts. net> wrote:
                >
                >
                > From: jpkowal@mts. net <jpkowal@mts. net>
                > Subject: Re: [sig] Question about Boyar's
                > To: sig@yahoogroups. com
                > Date: Tuesday, November 3, 2009, 8:42 PM
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Greetings;
                >
                > In general terms the answer would be Yes.
                >
                > If by a Knight You mean a warrior in service to a King. The analogy is roughly correct remembering that the King and Knight relationship evolved from the earlier relationship of a Warband Leader and His Trusted Warriors.
                >
                > The Kiev-Rus had the Grand Prince (King) to whom was attached His Druzhini(?)/ Warband comprised of the Boyars (Knights).
                >
                > Were they exactly the same. No. But they serve similar purposes Yes.
                >
                > You have to be careful not to simply accept all concepts of Chivalry and Knighthood and transpose them onto the East from the West.
                >
                > Does that help?
                > AVL
                >
                > > From: christopher chastain <ckchastain@ hotmail. com>
                > > Date: 2009/11/03 Tue PM 04:16:34 CST
                > > To: Slavic Interest group <sig@yahoogroups. com>
                > > Subject: [sig] Question about Boyar's
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > I have been asked by several folks in my shire if the Boyar's were the Russian version of the western medieval knights. When I do a online search about them from the way they are described they do seem to fit into this mold. My Russian knowledge is growing but I will freely admit this is a area were I need to ask questions. From what I have been able to gather on them, Boyars wielded considerable power through their military support of the Kievan princes. Power and prestige of many of them, however, soon came to depend almost completely on service to the state, family history of service and to a lesser extent, landownership. The boyars occupied the highest state offices and through a council (Duma) advised the Grand Duke. They received extensive grants of land and, as members of the Boyars' Duma, were the major legislators of Kievan Rus'. To me this sounds extremely like a western knight, can anyone explain to me where the difference lies and if they
                > are similar would'nt that be a good candidate for a alternate title for knight?
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > Yours in Humble Service,
                > > Pomestnik Dmitrii Zarekoi Ivanov
                > > Chivalry, Honor, Duty, Not just words but a choice!
                > >
                > >
                > > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
                > > Find the right PC with Windows 7 and Windows Live.
                > > http://www.microsof t.com/Windows/ pc-scout/ laptop-set- criteria. aspx?cbid= wl&filt=200, 2400,10,19, 1,3,1,7,50, 650,2,12, 0,1000&cat= 1,2,3,4,5, 6&brands= 5,6,7,8,9, 10,11,12, 13,14,15, 16&addf=4, 5,9&ocid= PID24727: :T:WLMTAGL: ON:WL:en- US:WWL_WIN_ evergreen2: 112009
                > >
                > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                > >
                > >
                > >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >
                >



















                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • jjbober4@comcast.net
                I see them as very similar to the szlachta in Poland. They were the land owners - everyone from those who were termed close to the land to the great
                Message 7 of 13 , Nov 4, 2009
                  I see them as very similar to the "szlachta" in Poland. They were the land owners - everyone from those who were termed "close to the land" to the great magnates - and as part of the duty, military service was involved. In that regard there is a similarity to western knights, but the feudal structure in the east is so much different from that of the west that it is difficult to make a one to one association.

                  "In general terms Yes, BUT....." is an appropriate answer.

                  Jan
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: jpkowal@...
                  To: sig@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2009 11:13:03 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
                  Subject: Re: Re: [sig] Question about Boyar's






                  Please, Remember the answer. In "general terms Yes". We are talking about a broad swath of History over many different lands. Under such a sweeping generalization I will stick with my Yes. I can find examples in the West of "well-to-do-merchants" being accepted as nobility as well. Does that invalidate the general King to Knight relationship. No it does not. Neither does it in the East.

                  The Nobility often is divided between Greater and Lessor in station. Does that invalidate the general King to Knight relationship? Again No it does not.

                  The original Warbands that travelled through Eastern Europes river systems were as much Traders/Merchants as they were Warbands. Does this early genesis invalidate the King to Knight relationship? again the answer is No.

                  Now if You want to break it down into smaller time periods, and more local geographies then we could try and make the No arguement.

                  AVL

                  > From: "V.D. Novach" < vdnovach@... >
                  > Date: 2009/11/03 Tue PM 09:19:12 CST
                  > To: sig@yahoogroups.com
                  > Subject: Re: [sig] Question about Boyar's
                  >
                  > Actually the answer would be NO, The Boyar were the Nobles of area as well as well-to-do merchants, anyone capable of owning their own land. They were not knights.
                  >
                  > --- On Tue, 11/3/09, jpkowal@... < jpkowal@... > wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > From: jpkowal@... < jpkowal@... >
                  > Subject: Re: [sig] Question about Boyar's
                  > To: sig@yahoogroups.com
                  > Date: Tuesday, November 3, 2009, 8:42 PM
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Greetings;
                  >
                  > In general terms the answer would be Yes.
                  >
                  > If by a Knight You mean a warrior in service to a King. The analogy is roughly correct remembering that the King and Knight relationship evolved from the earlier relationship of a Warband Leader and His Trusted Warriors.
                  >
                  > The Kiev-Rus had the Grand Prince (King) to whom was attached His Druzhini(?)/ Warband comprised of the Boyars (Knights).
                  >
                  > Were they exactly the same. No. But they serve similar purposes Yes.
                  >
                  > You have to be careful not to simply accept all concepts of Chivalry and Knighthood and transpose them onto the East from the West.
                  >
                  > Does that help?
                  > AVL
                  >
                  > > From: christopher chastain <ckchastain@hotmail. com>
                  > > Date: 2009/11/03 Tue PM 04:16:34 CST
                  > > To: Slavic Interest group <sig@yahoogroups. com>
                  > > Subject: [sig] Question about Boyar's
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > I have been asked by several folks in my shire if the Boyar's were the Russian version of the western medieval knights. When I do a online search about them from the way they are described they do seem to fit into this mold. My Russian knowledge is growing but I will freely admit this is a area were I need to ask questions. From what I have been able to gather on them, Boyars wielded considerable power through their military support of the Kievan princes. Power and prestige of many of them, however, soon came to depend almost completely on service to the state, family history of service and to a lesser extent, landownership. The boyars occupied the highest state offices and through a council (Duma) advised the Grand Duke. They received extensive grants of land and, as members of the Boyars' Duma, were the major legislators of Kievan Rus'. To me this sounds extremely like a western knight, can anyone explain to me where the difference lies and if they
                  > are similar would'nt that be a good candidate for a alternate title for knight?
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Yours in Humble Service,
                  > > Pomestnik Dmitrii Zarekoi Ivanov
                  > > Chivalry, Honor, Duty, Not just words but a choice!
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
                  > > Find the right PC with Windows 7 and Windows Live.
                  > > http://www.microsof t.com/Windows/ pc-scout/ laptop-set- criteria. aspx?cbid= wl&filt=200, 2400,10,19, 1,3,1,7,50, 650,2,12, 0,1000&cat= 1,2,3,4,5, 6&brands= 5,6,7,8,9, 10,11,12, 13,14,15, 16&addf=4, 5,9&ocid= PID24727: :T:WLMTAGL: ON:WL:en- US:WWL_WIN_ evergreen2: 112009
                  > >
                  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                  >
                  >




                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Sfandra
                  Perhaps we should look more closely at the definition of a Knight first? A Knight is primarily a warrior (mounted) who himself physically fights for the king.
                  Message 8 of 13 , Nov 4, 2009
                    Perhaps we should look more closely at the definition of a Knight first?

                    A Knight is primarily a warrior (mounted) who himself physically fights for the king. An individual warrior, Knight Errant or Knight Bachelor. Leaving aside all the Victorian romanticism and Codex Chivalric, A Knight is a guy on a horse, doing battle for a Ruler. I believe the closest period term we can agree on for this basic definition is Druzhinnik.

                    Personally, I always think "Bogatyr" for that sort of Knight, but I'm familiar with several "super-dukes" who certainly fit THAT bill..... (and I'm fond of the art of Vasnetsov).

                    Sofya's brilliantly researched Alternate Title proposal includes "Boyarin" as an option, but I think this implies more of our SCA practice of our Knights being heads of fighting households and acting as Field Commanders of fighting units, leading warriors in service to a Ruler. A Knight Banneret. Still himself on the field, but also commanding lesser fighters.

                    We must remember that because the East didn't have the same rigid feudal system as the West, the ranks and titles are somewhat more fluid. We'd like to think of a Prince and his Druzhina as being the 'rulers', but so often, the Veche held the real domestic power in the Kievan era.

                    In addition, we should try to avoid indelibly tying the Late- and post-period mental definition of Boyars being wealthy, politically-powerful men, but not necessarily men who are on the battlefield themselves. Yes, they were rich influential landowners, which we western-indoctrinated types instinctively equate with a certain level of feudal nobility. No, they were probably unlikely to strap on armor and take the battlefield themselves. HOWEVER, they did likely command personal troops, paid no doubt, who would be sent to fight for the Ruler. A late-period Boyar has probably more in common with a English Baron than an English Knight.

                    So, were the "Boyar" the Russian version of the Western Knight? (the original question) Not entirely. Is "Boyar" a legitimate russian term for someone who is an SCA knight w/ an early medieval persona? In a certain sense, yes, presuming that SCA knight is head of a fighting household he commands in battle on behalf of the King. Is he a lone knight, fighting for honor and glory? Then probably "Druzhinnik", is a better term.

                    We ARE talking about a people with about a dozen different words for "coat" (depending on fabric, decoration, lining). Ask an Inuit for the word for "snow", you'd get as clear an answer. ;-)

                    Cheers,
                    Sfandra



                    ******************
                    Posadnitsa Sfandra Dmitrieva Chernigova
                    K.O.E., O.M., Haus VDK, EastKingdom
                    http://sfandra.webs.com
                    ******************
                    Never 'pearl' your butt.
                    ******************


                    --- On Wed, 11/4/09, jjbober4@... <jjbober4@...> wrote:

                    > From: jjbober4@... <jjbober4@...>
                    > Subject: Re: [sig] Question about Boyar's
                    > To: sig@yahoogroups.com
                    > Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2009, 8:51 AM
                    > I see them as very similar to the
                    > "szlachta" in Poland. They were the land owners - everyone
                    > from those who were termed "close to the land" to the great
                    > magnates - and as part of the duty, military service was
                    > involved. In that regard there is a similarity to western
                    > knights, but the feudal structure in the east is so much
                    > different from that of the west that it is difficult to make
                    > a one to one association.
                    >
                    > "In general terms Yes, BUT....." is an appropriate answer.
                    >
                    >
                    > Jan
                    > ----- Original Message -----
                    > From: jpkowal@...
                    >
                    > Please, Remember the answer. In "general terms Yes". We are
                    > talking about a broad swath of History over many different
                    > lands. Under such a sweeping generalization I will stick
                    > with my Yes. I can find examples in the West of
                    > "well-to-do-merchants" being accepted as nobility as well.
                    > Does that invalidate the general King to Knight
                    > relationship. No it does not. Neither does it in the East.
                    >
                    > The Nobility often is divided between Greater and Lessor in
                    > station. Does that invalidate the general King to Knight
                    > relationship? Again No it does not.
                    >
                    > The original Warbands that travelled through Eastern
                    > Europes river systems were as much Traders/Merchants as they
                    > were Warbands. Does this early genesis invalidate the King
                    > to Knight relationship? again the answer is No.
                    >
                    > Now if You want to break it down into smaller time periods,
                    > and more local geographies then we could try and make the No
                    > arguement.
                    >
                    > AVL
                    >
                    > > From: "V.D. Novach" < vdnovach@...
                    > >
                    > > Date: 2009/11/03 Tue PM 09:19:12 CST
                    > > To: sig@yahoogroups.com
                    >
                    > > Subject: Re: [sig] Question about Boyar's
                    > >
                    > > Actually the answer would be NO, The Boyar were the
                    > Nobles of area as well as well-to-do merchants, anyone
                    > capable of owning their own land. They were not knights.
                    > >
                    > > --- On Tue, 11/3/09, jpkowal@...
                    > < jpkowal@...
                    > > wrote:
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > From: jpkowal@...
                    > < jpkowal@...
                    > >
                    > > Subject: Re: [sig] Question about Boyar's
                    > > To: sig@yahoogroups.com
                    >
                    > > Date: Tuesday, November 3, 2009, 8:42 PM
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > Greetings;
                    > >
                    > > In general terms the answer would be Yes.
                    > >
                    > > If by a Knight You mean a warrior in service to a
                    > King. The analogy is roughly correct remembering that the
                    > King and Knight relationship evolved from the earlier
                    > relationship of a Warband Leader and His Trusted Warriors.
                    > >
                    > > The Kiev-Rus had the Grand Prince (King) to whom was
                    > attached His Druzhini(?)/ Warband comprised of the Boyars
                    > (Knights).
                    > >
                    > > Were they exactly the same. No. But they serve similar
                    > purposes Yes.
                    > >
                    > > You have to be careful not to simply accept all
                    > concepts of Chivalry and Knighthood and transpose them onto
                    > the East from the West.
                    > >
                    > > Does that help?
                    > > AVL
                    > >
                    > > > From: christopher chastain
                    > <ckchastain@hotmail. com>
                    > > > Date: 2009/11/03 Tue PM 04:16:34 CST
                    > > > To: Slavic Interest group <sig@yahoogroups.
                    > com>
                    > > > Subject: [sig] Question about Boyar's
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > I have been asked by several folks in my shire if
                    > the Boyar's were the Russian version of the western medieval
                    > knights. When I do a online search about them from the way
                    > they are described they do seem to fit into this mold. My
                    > Russian knowledge is growing but I will freely admit this is
                    > a area were I need to ask questions. From what I have been
                    > able to gather on them, Boyars wielded considerable power
                    > through their military support of the Kievan princes. Power
                    > and prestige of many of them, however, soon came to depend
                    > almost completely on service to the state, family history of
                    > service and to a lesser extent, landownership. The boyars
                    > occupied the highest state offices and through a council
                    > (Duma) advised the Grand Duke. They received extensive
                    > grants of land and, as members of the Boyars' Duma, were the
                    > major legislators of Kievan Rus'. To me this sounds
                    > extremely like a western knight, can anyone explain to me
                    > where the difference lies and if they
                    > > are similar would'nt that be a good candidate for a
                    > alternate title for knight?
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > Yours in Humble Service,
                    > > > Pomestnik Dmitrii Zarekoi Ivanov
                    > > > Chivalry, Honor, Duty, Not just words but a
                    > choice!
                  • jpkowal@mts.net
                    While I am not overly found of Wikipedia the articles below do cover many of the ideas that I have read elsewhere. AVL #1) Druzhina From Wikipedia, the free
                    Message 9 of 13 , Nov 4, 2009
                      While I am not overly found of Wikipedia the articles below do cover many of the ideas that I have read elsewhere.
                      AVL

                      #1) Druzhina
                      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                      Jump to: navigation, search
                      For other uses, see Druzhina (disambiguation).
                      Armies of Ukraine
                      Christos Acheiropoietos.jpg Kievan Rus'

                      * Druzhyna (862—1400s)

                      Flag of the Cossack Hetmanat.svg Zaporozhian Host

                      * Zaporozhian Host (1492—1775)

                      Flag of the Ukrainian People's Republic Ukrainian People's Republic

                      * Ukrainian People's Army (1917—21)
                      * Ukrainian Galician Army (1918—19)

                      Flag of the Ukrainian SSR Ukrainian SSR

                      * Soviet Armed Forces (1918—1991)

                      Flag of Ukraine Ukraine

                      * Armed Forces (1991—Present)

                      This box: view • talk • edit
                      Armies of Russia

                      Christos Acheiropoietos.jpg Kievan Rus'

                      * Druzhina (862–1400s)

                      Flag of Moscow.png Flag of Russia.svg Grand Duchy of Moscow / Tsardom of Russia

                      * Landed army
                      * Streltsy (1400s–1721)
                      * Regiments of the new order

                      Flag of Russia.svg Imperial Russia

                      * Army (1721–1917)

                      Flag of Russia.svg White Movement

                      * White Guard (1917–1921)

                      Flag RSFSR 1918.svg Flag of Russian SFSR.svg Flag of the Soviet Union.svg RSFSR / Soviet Union

                      * Red Army (1918–1991)

                      Flag of Russia.svg Russian Federation

                      * Army (1991–Present[update])

                      This box: view • talk • edit

                      Druzhina, Družyna or Drużyna (Russian and Ukrainian: Дружи́на, Druzhýna) in the history of early East Slavs and West Slavs was a detachment of select troops in personal service of a chieftain, later knyaz. Its original functions were bodyguarding, raising tribute from the conquered territories and serving as the core of an army during war campaigns. The druzhina organization varied with time and survived in one form or another until the 16th century.

                      The name is derived from the Slavic word drug (друг) with the meaning of "companion, friend". It is a cognate of the Germanic drottin (Proto-Germanic *druhtinaz) meaning "war band".

                      Archaeological excavations suggest that druzhinas existed in the region as far back as the 6th and 7th centuries.

                      Druzhinniks (members of the druzhina) served freely. At any moment any of them could leave one knyaz and join another one. Modern estimates of sizes of a druzhina match that of ibn Fadlan's: sizes varied, but never exceeded several hundred persons. During military campaigns a druzhina was a nucleus of the troops formed by means of a kind of levy.

                      A druzhina was paid by a knyaz, and received a share of military loot. For example Abraham ben Jacob who traveled in 961–62 in Central Europe describe that drużyna of Polish Mieszko I has 3000 men who was payed by duke.[1]

                      In the 11th and 12th centuries the druzhina separates into two layers: elder druzhina, also called better druzhina or fore druzhina, and younger druzhina. The elder druzhina consisted of knyaz's men (княжие мужи) who eventually became boyars. They held higher military and civil positions (posadnik, Voivode) and were advisors of a knyaz.

                      In addition to military service, druzhinniks of the younger druzhina (called otroki or gridni) ran errands for a knyaz and served as his bodyguards. Younger druzhina did not take part in knyaz's councils, with the exception of military ones, which had a very broad representation.
                      Vladimir Monomakh Feasting with His Druzhina, by Viktor Vasnetsov. Monomakh is regarded as a typical "druzhinnyi knyaz".

                      Manuscripts mention that elder druzhinniks had their own personal druzhinas.

                      When a knyaz died, his druzhina was inherited by his successor, who usually already had his own druzhina. This was usually a source of rivalry: the druzhina of the previous knyaz claimed experience, while the newcomers commanded the trust of the new leader.

                      Starting in the 12th century in northern principalities, a land-endowed military class had formed from druzhina.

                      #2)Boyar
                      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                      Jump to: navigation, search
                      Russian boyar from XVII century voivode of the great regiment

                      This article refers to the aristocratic title of boyar. For the Boyar caste of India, see Boyar (caste).

                      A boyar or bolyar (Bulgarian: боляр or болярин, Ukrainian: буй or боярин, Russian: боярин, Romanian: boier, Greek: βογιάρος) was a member of the highest rank of the feudal Moscovian, Kievan Rusian, Bulgarian, Wallachian, and Moldavian aristocracies, second only to the ruling princes (in Bulgaria, tsars), from the 10th century through the 17th century. The rank has lived on as a surname in Russia and Finland, where it is spelled "Pajari".[1]
                      Contents
                      [hide]

                      * 1 Etymology
                      * 2 Boyars in Bulgaria
                      * 3 Boyars in the lands of Kievan Rus
                      * 4 Boyars in Muscovy
                      * 5 Boyars in Wallachia and Moldavia
                      o 5.1 The boyar condition
                      o 5.2 Origin
                      o 5.3 Hierarchy
                      o 5.4 The Prince
                      * 6 Cultural references
                      * 7 References
                      * 8 Related article
                      * 9 External links

                      [edit] Etymology

                      According to most sources the word is of Turkic origin. Some believe that it is composed of the roots bai ("noble, rich") and är.[2] Another possibility is that the word originated from the Turkic title boila ("noble") which is attested in Bulgar inscriptions[3] and rendered as boilades or boliades in the Greek of Byzantine documents.[2][4] This title certainly did enter Old Russian as быля (byla).
                      [edit] Boyars in Bulgaria

                      The oldest Slavic form of boyar—bolyarin, pl. bolyari (Bulgarian: болярин, pl. боляри)—dates from the 10th century and it is found in Bulgaria, where it may have stemmed from the old Bulgar title boila, which denoted a high aristocratic status among the Bulgars. It was probably transformed through boilar or bilyar to bolyar and bolyarin. In support of this hypothesis is the 10th century diplomatic protocol of the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII where the Bulgarian nobles are called boliades,[4] while the 9th century Bulgar sources call them boila.[3]

                      A member of the nobility during the First Bulgarian Empire was called a boila, while in the Second Bulgarian Empire the corresponding title became bolyar or bolyarin. Bolyar, as well as its predecessor, boila, was a hereditary title. The Bulgarian bolyars were divided into veliki (great) and Mali (minor).

                      In Bulgaria at present the word bolyari is used as a nickname for the inhabitants of Veliko Tarnovo—once the capital of the Second Bulgarian Empire.
                      [edit] Boyars in the lands of Kievan Rus

                      Boyars wielded considerable power through their military support of the Kievan princes. Power and prestige of many of them, however, soon came to depend almost completely on service to the state, family history of service and to a lesser extent, landownership. Ukrainian and "Ruthenian" boyars visually were very similar to western knights, but after the Mongol invasion their cultural links were mostly lost.

                      The boyars occupied the highest state offices and through a council (Duma) advised the Grand Duke. They received extensive grants of land and, as members of the Boyars' Duma, were the major legislators of Kievan Rus'.

                      After the Mongol invasion in the 13th century, the boyars from central and southern parts of Kievan Rus' (modern Belarus and Ukraine) were incorporated into Lithuanian and Polish nobility (szlachta). In the 14th and 15th centuries many of those Ukrainian boyars who failed to get the status of a nobleman actively participated in the formation of Cossack army, based on the south of modern Ukraine.
                      [edit] Boyars in Muscovy
                      A Muscovite boyar visiting his family minster (1912), painting by Ivan Goryushkin-Sorokopudov. The domestic life of Muscovite boyars was regulated by a special codex, known as Domostroy.

                      In Moscow in the 14th and 15th centuries, the boyars retained their influence. However, as the knyazes of Muscovy consolidated their power, the influence of the boyars was gradually eroded, particularly under Ivan III and Ivan IV.

                      Tsar Ivan IV "Ivan the Terrible" severely restricted the Knyaz powers during the 16th century. Their ancient right to leave the service of one prince for another was curtailed, as was their right to hold land without giving obligatory service to the tsar.

                      The Boyar Duma expanded from around 30 people to around 100 in the 17th century and was finally abolished by Tsar Peter the Great in 1711 in his extensive reforms of government and administration.
                      [edit] Boyars in Wallachia and Moldavia
                      Question book-new.svg
                      This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2008)

                      In the Carpathian regions inhabited by Romanians, the boyar (Romanian: boier) class emerged from the chiefs (named cneaz (knight) or jude (judge) in the areas north of the Danube and celnic south of the river) of rural communities in the early Middle Ages, initially elected, who later made their judicial and administrative attributions hereditary and gradually expanded them upon other communities. After the appearance of more advanced political structures in the area, their privileged status had to be confirmed by the central power, which used this prerogative to include in the boyar class individuals that distinguished themselves in the military or civilian functions they performed (by allocating them lands from the princely domains).
                      [edit] The boyar condition

                      Being a boyar implied three things: being a land-owner, having serfs and having a military and/or administrative function. A boyar could have a state function and/or a court function. Being only a land owner was not enough to be considered boyar. If a land-owner had no function he was categorised as a "mazil", although he was said to be of noble origin ("din os boieresc", literally "of boyar bones"). Having such a function implied automatically being a boyar. This function was called "dregătorie" and some times "boierie" (literally "boyarness"). The Prince and only the Prince had the power to give a boierie to someone and to make him thus a boyar. The small land-owners, who possessed together a domain in indistinction ("devălmăşie") and had no serfs were called "răzeşi". According to some historians, they were descendants of mazil land-owners. In fact, their condition was identical to that of free peasantry. The Romanian nobility was thus composed of three categories to be distinguished: răzeş, mazil, and boyar.
                      [edit] Origin

                      Although functions could only be accorded by the Prince and were not hereditary, land possession was hereditary. The Prince could give land to somebody, but could not take it from its possessor, unless for serious reasons, such as treason. Therefore there were two kinds of boyars: those whose ancestors had land before the formation of the feudal states, the ancient chiefs of the rural communities, and who were only confirmed as land-owners by the prince; and those whose ancestors had acquired their domain by a princely donation (or had acquired the domain this way themselves). During Phanariot régime, there were also boyars who had no land at all, but had only a function. This way the number of boyars could be increased, by selling functions to those who could afford them.
                      [edit] Hierarchy

                      The close alliance between the boyar condition and the military-administrative functions led to a confusion, aggravated by the Phanariots: these functions began to be considered as noble titles, like in the Occident. In fact, this was not at all the case. Traditionally, the boyars were organized in three states: boyars of the first state, of the second state and of the third state. For example, there was a first or a grand postelnic, a second postelnic, and a third postelnic, each one with his different obligations and rights. The difference of condition was visible even in the vestimentation or physical aspect. Only the boyars of the first state had the right, for example, to grow a beard, the rest being entitled only to a mustache. Within the class of the boyars of the first state there was the subclass of the "grand boyars". Those were great land-owners and had also some very high functions, like the function of great vornic. Above those grand boyars was only the Prince.
                      [edit] The Prince

                      Although generally a Prince was a boyar before his election or appointment as Prince, this was not a condition sine qua non. Initially, only princiary descendants could be elected princes. During the Phanariot epoch, any man could be a Prince if appointed by the Sultan (and rich enough to buy this appointment from the Grand Vizier). During the Ottoman suzerainty, and especially during the Phanariot régime, the title of Prince became an administrative function within the imperial ottoman hierarchy, and thus the ultimate form of boyardness.
                    • Lisa Kies
                      Greetings from Sofya! Where do I start... I was just going to post a link to my webpage, but I realized that a lot of it is still in Russian so I ll try to
                      Message 10 of 13 , Nov 11, 2009
                        Greetings from Sofya!

                        Where do I start...

                        I was just going to post a link to my webpage, but I realized that a lot of
                        it is still in Russian so I'll try to distill it down.

                        The original poster actually posed two questions.
                        1.) Are the boyars the Russian equivalent of knights?
                        2.) Is Boiarin a reasonable Alternate Title for the title of Knight in the
                        SCA?

                        Or to put it another way, what is the Russian for a knight (lower case) and
                        a Knight (upper case).

                        As Sfandra has pointed out, the word "knight" even in English means lots of
                        things, and the definition changed considerably over SCA period. From the
                        huscarls of the Anglo-Saxons to the legendary Knights of the Round Table to
                        Knights Errant to the later period honorary orders such as the papal Order
                        of the Golden Spur.

                        Definition of "Knight" according to Random House Dictionary of the English
                        Language:

                        1. *Medieval Hist.* a. a mounted soldier serving under a feudal
                        superior. b. a man, usually of noble birth, who after an apprenticeship
                        as page and squire was raised to honorable military rank and bound to
                        chivalrous conduct.
                        2. any person of a rank similar to that of the medieval knight.
                        3. a man upon whom a certain nonhereditary dignity, correspoinding to
                        that of the medieval knight, is conferred by a sovereign because of personal
                        merit or services rendered...
                        4. Chess. a piece shaped like a horse's head...
                        5. a member of any order or association of men bearing the name of
                        Knights

                        Thus, there are lots of Russian words to translate the word "knight" -
                        vityaz, bogatyr (how usually the hero of epic folktales), latnik (lit. one
                        who wears armor), konnik (lit. horseman), bozhij dvoryanin (lit. God's
                        courtier), kmetij, druzhinnik, etc.

                        The problem is that none of these are very common in the period sources.

                        Bogatyr has 15 period quotes in Sreznevskij, which makes it rather
                        promising, but I haven't found any information about it as a "title of
                        rank". It does not appear in references about the social structure of Rus,
                        nor is it one of the positions in the princely retinue. Therefore, I did
                        not investigate it further in my Alternate Titles research. It may be a
                        very appropriate period Russian translation of knight (lower case). In an
                        ideal world, I'd research it further.

                        Druzhinnik is a strange term. The collective term, druzhina, appears over
                        and over and over in period Russian texts. But I have found the singular
                        form only once so far. In most of the situations where a text is talking
                        about the druzhina, and then talks about the members of the druzhina, it
                        usually uses the term boiarin. Maxime Kovalevsky has a nice, if
                        dated, discussion of the "knightly class" in medieval Russia. Kovalesky,
                        Maxime. "Old Russian Folkmotes." *Modern Customs and Ancient Laws of Russia:
                        The Ilchester Lectures.* 1891. (Google it.)

                        Someone has argued that, because the Russians didn't have a truly feudal
                        system, that there is no Russian word for "knight". In its simplest form,
                        fealty is simply a contract - I'll take care of you, you'll take care of
                        me. By that definition, Russian had a feudal system, it just organized the
                        contracts and the reward system differently. But plenty of scholars
                        disagree and that's a whole huge topic of its own.

                        It might more helpful be to ask WWIS, i.e. What Would Ivan Say? If Ivan saw
                        a well-armored horseman riding through Pskov in the retinue of a prince, he
                        wouldn't worry about the fact that the Teutonic knights have a different
                        salary package than the Russian druzhina.

                        I personally like the term druzhinnik, but I don't have enough evidence of
                        how it was used to be confident that it would be WIWS (what Ivan would
                        say). But it does convey the idea of a mounted warrior in service to a
                        superior noble more than the other terms, which is why I included it in my
                        original proposal to revise the Russian Alternate Titles list. But I
                        couldn't prove that it was used as a title of rank. The College of Arms
                        wants to see something along the lines of "Druzhinnik Ivan served his prince
                        well" or "Prince Vasilii rewarded Druzhinnik Boris with a new village". All
                        I had was "and the Derevlians came forth... and slew Igor' and his company
                        [druzhinniki], for the number of the latter was few..." [Russian Primary
                        Chronicle] . I haven't found any new references, yet.

                        The collective term, druzhina, is translated into English as retinue,
                        men-at-arms, company, etc. As noted in the Wiki article, it comes to
                        encompass both a senior druzhina (knyazhnie muzhi, boyare) and a junior
                        druzhina (otroki, gridi, detskie, dvoriane, deti boyarskie, etc.) So while
                        it may be a nice translation of knight (lower case) since we know that some
                        medieval knights were great nobles and others hardly had enough land to
                        support themselves, it doesn't fit the SCA title of Knight very well, since
                        in the SCA, all our Knights are Peers and considered greater nobility.

                        One big problem with having a term on the Alternate Titles Lists that I
                        didn't fully realize until after my original submission, was that any term
                        on it becomes a _restricted_ term, forbidden for use in any way other than
                        as delineated in the Alternate Title List. That's why we don't
                        have Webmasters in the SCA, but Web Ministers. Master is a
                        restricted/protected term. So I'm actually glad that druzhinnik wasn't
                        accepted - that way it can be used for anyone who considers themself in a
                        household/fealty/retinue relationship. You'll notice in my signature file
                        that I call myself "druzhinnitsa Kramolnikova", since I am in the household
                        of my Master Mikhail Kramolnikov. That wouldn't have been allowed if the
                        term had been accepted onto the Alternate Titles List.

                        *insert big sigh of relief here*

                        So that brings us to the title boiarin. It is used over and over
                        throughout SCA period for the highest rank of Russian society, whether
                        directly in service to a prince or not. Not all boyars were riding into
                        battle, it's true, but they all had military responsibilities, even if they
                        were "just" wealthy merchants or city oligarchs. The local city boyars in
                        Novgorod dominated the veche counsel, although their will was occasionally
                        disputed by the lower classes. These local city boyars were in charge of
                        the city militia, serving as the posadniks and tysiatski's. They weren't
                        sworn to the service of a prince, but to the service of their city, Lord
                        Velikii Novgorod.

                        The dual role of the Russian royal retinue originated when the members of
                        the prince's warband were given administrative tasks between battles. This
                        notion of a dual military/administrative function continued into late period
                        and through all levels of administration (tysiatsies, sotskis, desyatskis as
                        discussed by Vernadsky), although the relative expansion of the Muscovite
                        administrative apparatus meant that some boyars in late period were engaged
                        more in logistics and administrative support functions than in direct
                        combat, just as the grand prince/tsar himself was often _not_ acting as
                        a general on the field. But even if the Quartermaster General doesn't shoot
                        anyone himself, he is still a critical member of the military apparatus.
                        Not much of a knight in shining armor, granted, but by late period in the
                        West, not all Knights (capital K) were comfortable in armor, either.

                        Because of the fact that the boyar class combined duties/priviledges that in
                        the SCA generally belong to the Orders of the Chivalry, the Laurel and the
                        Pelican, I have come to the conclusion that the best SCA translation of
                        "boiarin" is "Bestowed Peer". Hopefully, the College of Arms agreed with me
                        when they considered my re-submission of the titles of Boiarin/Boiaryina
                        back in September as alternate titles for Knights, Laurels and Pelicans.
                        We'll find out in a month or two.

                        So WWIS? I think if Ivan saw a _group_ of armored horsemen riding through
                        Pskov in the retinue of a prince, he probably would have called them the
                        prince's druzhina. But if Ivan wanted to talk about the horseman with
                        the finest equipment (apart from the prince), he probably would have called
                        him a boyarin, since expensive armor, etc. would probably belong to a
                        greater noble, a Knight (capital K) in SCA terms, and all Knights are
                        boyars, even if not all Boyars are Knights. He might have used one of the
                        other terms (bogatyr, latnik, konnik, etc.) but boiarin is so much more
                        common in the period texts that the odds are in its favor, and it conveys
                        the prestige of an elite member of the prince's retinue.

                        http://www.strangelove.net/~kieser/Russia/titlesclasses.html
                        http://www.strangelove.net/~kieser/Russia/titlesmilitary.html

                        At your service,

                        Sofya

                        ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Lisa M. Kies, MD aka Sofya la Rus, OL, CW, CSH, druzhinnitsa Kramolnikova
                        Mason City, IA aka Shire of Heraldshill, Calontir
                        http://www.strangelove.net/~kieser
                        "Si no necare, sana." "Mir znachit Pax Romanov"
                        "Nasytivshimsya knizhnoj sladosti."
                        -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Barbara
                        ... You are so cool. ;-) Mir! Tatjana It s never too late to be what you might have been. Wolf and Tiger Woodworking http://www.wolfandtiger.com
                        Message 11 of 13 , Nov 11, 2009
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          > Where do I start...
                          >
                          > I was just going to post a link to my webpage, but I realized that a lot
                          > of
                          > it is still in Russian so I'll try to distill it down.
                          >> snip<<
                          > At your service,
                          >
                          > Sofya
                          >


                          You are so cool.

                          ;-)

                          Mir!
                          Tatjana

                          "It's never too late to be what you might have been."


                          Wolf and Tiger Woodworking
                          http://www.wolfandtiger.com
                        • Sfandra
                          Thanks Sofya -- that was both concise AND fun to read. I m so embroidering WWID? on something, ha ha ha.... --Sfandra ****************** Posadnitsa Sfandra
                          Message 12 of 13 , Nov 11, 2009
                            Thanks Sofya -- that was both concise AND fun to read.

                            I'm so embroidering "WWID?" on something, ha ha ha....

                            --Sfandra




                            ******************
                            Posadnitsa Sfandra Dmitrieva Chernigova
                            K.O.E., O.M., Haus VDK, EastKingdom
                            http://sfandra.webs.com
                            ******************
                            Never 'pearl' your butt.
                            ******************


                            --- On Wed, 11/11/09, Lisa Kies <lkies319@...> wrote:

                            > From: Lisa Kies <lkies319@...>
                            > Subject: Re: [sig] Question about Boyar's
                            > To: sig@yahoogroups.com
                            > Date: Wednesday, November 11, 2009, 10:15 AM
                            > Greetings from Sofya!
                            >
                            > Where do I start...
                            >
                            > I was just going to post a link to my webpage, but I
                            > realized that a lot of
                            > it is still in Russian so I'll try to distill it down.
                            >
                            > The original poster actually posed two questions.
                            > 1.) Are the boyars the Russian equivalent of knights?
                            > 2.) Is Boiarin a reasonable Alternate Title for the title
                            > of Knight in the
                            > SCA?
                            >
                            > Or to put it another way, what is the Russian for a knight
                            > (lower case) and
                            > a Knight (upper case).
                            >
                            > As Sfandra has pointed out, the word "knight" even in
                            > English means lots of
                            > things, and the definition changed considerably over SCA
                            > period.  From the
                            > huscarls of the Anglo-Saxons to the legendary Knights of
                            > the Round Table to
                            > Knights Errant to the later period honorary orders such as
                            > the papal Order
                            > of the Golden Spur.
                            >
                            > Definition of "Knight" according to Random House Dictionary
                            > of the English
                            > Language:
                            >
                            >    1. *Medieval Hist.*   a. a
                            > mounted soldier serving under a feudal
                            >    superior.    b. a man, usually
                            > of noble birth, who after an apprenticeship
                            >    as page and squire was raised to
                            > honorable military rank and bound to
                            >    chivalrous conduct.
                            >    2. any person of a rank similar to that
                            > of the medieval knight.
                            >    3. a man upon whom a certain
                            > nonhereditary dignity, correspoinding to
                            >    that of the medieval knight, is conferred
                            > by a sovereign because of personal
                            >    merit or services rendered...
                            >    4. Chess. a piece shaped like a horse's
                            > head...
                            >    5. a member of any order or association
                            > of men bearing the name of
                            >    Knights
                            >
                            >   Thus, there are lots of Russian words to translate
                            > the word "knight" -
                            > vityaz, bogatyr (how usually the hero of epic folktales),
                            > latnik (lit. one
                            > who wears armor), konnik (lit. horseman), bozhij dvoryanin
                            > (lit. God's
                            > courtier), kmetij, druzhinnik, etc.
                            >
                            > The problem is that none of these are very common in the
                            > period sources.
                            >
                            > Bogatyr has 15 period quotes in Sreznevskij, which makes it
                            > rather
                            > promising, but I haven't found any information about it as
                            > a "title of
                            > rank".  It does not appear in references about the
                            > social structure of Rus,
                            > nor is it one of the positions in the princely
                            > retinue.  Therefore, I did
                            > not investigate it further in my Alternate Titles
                            > research.  It may be a
                            > very appropriate period Russian translation of knight
                            > (lower case).  In an
                            > ideal world, I'd research it further.
                            >
                            > Druzhinnik is a strange term.  The collective term,
                            > druzhina, appears over
                            > and over and over in period Russian texts.  But I have
                            > found the singular
                            > form only once so far.  In most of the situations
                            > where a text is talking
                            > about the druzhina, and then talks about the members of the
                            > druzhina, it
                            > usually uses the term boiarin.  Maxime Kovalevsky has
                            > a nice, if
                            > dated, discussion of the "knightly class" in medieval
                            > Russia.  Kovalesky,
                            > Maxime. "Old Russian Folkmotes." *Modern Customs and
                            > Ancient Laws of Russia:
                            > The Ilchester Lectures.* 1891. (Google it.)
                            >
                            > Someone has argued that, because the Russians didn't have a
                            > truly feudal
                            > system, that there is no Russian word for "knight". 
                            > In its simplest form,
                            > fealty is simply a contract - I'll take care of you, you'll
                            > take care of
                            > me.  By that definition, Russian had a feudal system,
                            > it just organized the
                            > contracts and the reward system differently.  But
                            > plenty of scholars
                            > disagree and that's a whole huge topic of its own.
                            >
                            > It might more helpful be to ask WWIS, i.e. What Would Ivan
                            > Say?  If Ivan saw
                            > a well-armored horseman riding through Pskov in the retinue
                            > of a prince, he
                            > wouldn't worry about the fact that the Teutonic knights
                            > have a different
                            > salary package than the Russian druzhina.
                            >
                            > I personally like the term druzhinnik, but I don't have
                            > enough evidence of
                            > how it was used to be confident that it would be WIWS (what
                            > Ivan would
                            > say).  But it does convey the idea of a mounted
                            > warrior in service to a
                            > superior noble more than the other terms, which is why I
                            > included it in my
                            > original proposal to revise the Russian Alternate Titles
                            > list.  But I
                            > couldn't prove that it was used as a title of rank. 
                            > The College of Arms
                            > wants to see something along the lines of "Druzhinnik Ivan
                            > served his prince
                            > well" or "Prince Vasilii rewarded Druzhinnik Boris with a
                            > new village".  All
                            > I had was "and the Derevlians came forth... and slew Igor'
                            > and his company
                            > [druzhinniki], for the number of the latter was few..."
                            > [Russian Primary
                            > Chronicle] .  I haven't found any new references,
                            > yet.
                            >
                            > The collective term, druzhina, is translated into English
                            > as retinue,
                            > men-at-arms, company, etc.  As noted in the Wiki
                            > article, it comes to
                            > encompass both a senior druzhina (knyazhnie muzhi, boyare)
                            > and a junior
                            > druzhina (otroki, gridi, detskie, dvoriane, deti boyarskie,
                            > etc.)  So while
                            > it may be a nice translation of knight (lower case) since
                            > we know that some
                            > medieval knights were great nobles and others hardly had
                            > enough land to
                            > support themselves, it doesn't fit the SCA title of Knight
                            > very well, since
                            > in the SCA, all our Knights are Peers and considered
                            > greater nobility.
                            >
                            > One big problem with having a term on the Alternate Titles
                            > Lists that I
                            > didn't fully realize until after my original submission,
                            > was that any term
                            > on it becomes a _restricted_ term, forbidden for use in any
                            > way other than
                            > as delineated in the Alternate Title List.  That's why
                            > we don't
                            > have Webmasters in the SCA, but Web Ministers.  Master
                            > is a
                            > restricted/protected term.  So I'm actually glad that
                            > druzhinnik wasn't
                            > accepted - that way it can be used for anyone who considers
                            > themself in a
                            > household/fealty/retinue relationship.  You'll notice
                            > in my signature file
                            > that I call myself "druzhinnitsa Kramolnikova", since I am
                            > in the household
                            > of my Master Mikhail Kramolnikov.  That wouldn't have
                            > been allowed if the
                            > term had been accepted onto the Alternate Titles List.
                            >
                            > *insert big sigh of relief here*
                            >
                            > So that brings us to the title boiarin.   It
                            > is used over and over
                            > throughout SCA period for the highest rank of Russian
                            > society, whether
                            > directly in service to a prince or not.  Not all
                            > boyars were riding into
                            > battle, it's true, but they all had military
                            > responsibilities, even if they
                            > were "just" wealthy merchants or city oligarchs.  The
                            > local city boyars in
                            > Novgorod dominated the veche counsel, although their will
                            > was occasionally
                            > disputed by the lower classes.  These local city
                            > boyars were in charge of
                            > the city militia, serving as the posadniks and
                            > tysiatski's.  They weren't
                            > sworn to the service of a prince, but to the service of
                            > their city, Lord
                            > Velikii Novgorod.
                            >
                            > The dual role of the Russian royal retinue originated when
                            > the members of
                            > the prince's warband were given administrative tasks
                            > between battles.  This
                            > notion of a dual military/administrative function continued
                            > into late period
                            > and through all levels of administration (tysiatsies,
                            > sotskis, desyatskis as
                            > discussed by Vernadsky), although the relative expansion of
                            > the Muscovite
                            > administrative apparatus meant that some boyars in late
                            > period were engaged
                            > more in logistics and administrative support functions than
                            > in direct
                            > combat, just as the grand prince/tsar himself was often
                            > _not_ acting as
                            > a general on the field.  But even if the Quartermaster
                            > General doesn't shoot
                            > anyone himself, he is still a critical member of the
                            > military apparatus.
                            > Not much of a knight in shining armor, granted, but by late
                            > period in the
                            > West, not all Knights (capital K) were comfortable in
                            > armor, either.
                            >
                            > Because of the fact that the boyar class combined
                            > duties/priviledges that in
                            > the SCA generally belong to the Orders of the Chivalry, the
                            > Laurel and the
                            > Pelican, I have come to the conclusion that the best SCA
                            > translation of
                            > "boiarin" is "Bestowed Peer".  Hopefully, the College
                            > of Arms agreed with me
                            > when they considered my re-submission of the titles of
                            > Boiarin/Boiaryina
                            > back in September as alternate titles for Knights, Laurels
                            > and Pelicans.
                            > We'll find out in a month or two.
                            >
                            > So WWIS?  I think if Ivan saw a _group_ of armored
                            > horsemen riding through
                            > Pskov in the retinue of a prince, he probably would have
                            > called them the
                            > prince's druzhina.  But if Ivan wanted to talk about
                            > the horseman with
                            > the finest equipment (apart from the prince), he probably
                            > would have called
                            > him a boyarin, since expensive armor, etc. would probably
                            > belong to a
                            > greater noble, a Knight (capital K) in SCA terms, and all
                            > Knights are
                            > boyars, even if not all Boyars are Knights.  He might
                            > have used one of the
                            > other terms (bogatyr, latnik, konnik, etc.) but boiarin is
                            > so much more
                            > common in the period texts that the odds are in its favor,
                            > and it conveys
                            > the prestige of an elite member of the prince's retinue.
                            >
                            > http://www.strangelove.net/~kieser/Russia/titlesclasses.html
                            > http://www.strangelove.net/~kieser/Russia/titlesmilitary.html
                            >
                            > At your service,
                            >
                            > Sofya
                            >
                            > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            > Lisa M. Kies, MD aka Sofya la Rus, OL, CW, CSH,
                            > druzhinnitsa Kramolnikova
                            > Mason City, IA aka Shire of Heraldshill, Calontir
                            > http://www.strangelove.net/~kieser
                            > "Si no necare, sana."  "Mir znachit Pax Romanov"
                            > "Nasytivshimsya knizhnoj sladosti."
                            > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            >
                            >
                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > ------------------------------------
                            >
                            > Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >
                            >
                            >     sig-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
                            >
                            >
                            >
                          • jpkowal@mts.net
                            A most excellent article. Vivat! AVL
                            Message 13 of 13 , Nov 11, 2009
                              A most excellent article.
                              Vivat!
                              AVL

                              > From: Lisa Kies <lkies319@...>
                              > Date: 2009/11/11 Wed AM 09:15:47 CST
                              > To: sig@yahoogroups.com
                              > Subject: Re: [sig] Question about Boyar's
                              >
                              > Greetings from Sofya!
                              >
                              > Where do I start...
                              >
                              > I was just going to post a link to my webpage, but I realized that a lot of
                              > it is still in Russian so I'll try to distill it down.
                              >
                              > The original poster actually posed two questions.
                              > 1.) Are the boyars the Russian equivalent of knights?
                              > 2.) Is Boiarin a reasonable Alternate Title for the title of Knight in the
                              > SCA?
                              >
                              > Or to put it another way, what is the Russian for a knight (lower case) and
                              > a Knight (upper case).
                              >
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.