title: Mystification of the baltic question
metadata.name: dc.contributor.author
metadata.value: Krotov, Pavel A.
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.accessioned
metadata.value: 2017-07-14T12:06:41Z
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.available
metadata.value: 2017-07-14T12:06:41Z
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.issued
metadata.value: 2017-06
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.identifier.citation
metadata.value: Krotov P. A. Mystification of the baltic question. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. History, 2017, vol. 62, issue 2, pp. 400–410.
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.identifier.other
metadata.value: 10.21638/11701/spbu02.2017.214
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.identifier.uri
metadata.value: http://hdl.handle.net/11701/6783
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.description.abstract
metadata.value: A. I. Filyushkin’s book (2013) is devoted to Russia’s participation in the Livonian War of 1558–
  1583 years. Its author claims a new approach to the study of traditional research the so-called Baltic
  question. A. I. Filyushkin regards the question about the purpose of the Livonian War to be instrumental. The author believes that Russia did not wage war for access to the Baltic Sea, since she already
  had a lot of sea coast with the most convenient access to the sea, as the river Neva. The author believes
  that “in the 16th century Russian nobility led war for land, for the seizure of new territories, which later
  followed the Local distribution”. A. I. Filyushkin came to the conclusion that Russia’s rulers just do not
  want to develop trade on the Russian ships in the Baltic Sea. Russians did not know “what to do with
  the sea”. They built coastal forts, but not commercial ports. Russian received merchant ships in Narva
  during the Livonian War but did not mount their own Baltic sea voyages. According to the author of
  the review, the findings of A. I. Filyushkin are purely speculative, based on a selective analysis of some
  of the facts. The author picks and chooses the facts of history, then developing his own “discourse” on
  this basis comes to “innovative” conclusions. Those facts and research findings which contradict the
  conclusions obtained in this way are ignored or dismissed with some witty remark without a thorough
  analysis. Thus the author gives generalized significance to the obtained conclusions. The author believes
  that the “innovation” on the part of A. I. Filyushkin is the result of ignoring the achievements
  Russian historiography in the 18th to the 21st — a significant step back in the development of Russian
  historical science. Refs 23.
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.language.iso
metadata.value: ru
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.publisher
metadata.value: St Petersburg State University
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.relation.ispartofseries
metadata.value: Vestnik of St Petersburg University. History;Volume 62; Issue 2
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: Livonian War of 1558–1583
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: the Baltic Sea
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: Russian merchant shipping
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.title
metadata.value: Mystification of the baltic question
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.type
metadata.value: Article
metadata.lang: en_GB
resources.filename: 14-Krotov.pdf
resources.url: https://dspace.spbu.ru/bitstream/11701/6783/1/14-Krotov.pdf
resources.format: Adobe PDF
resources.size: 1,13 MB