triplets
sequence | passage
stringlengths 0
32.9k
| label
stringlengths 4
48
⌀ | label_id
int64 0
1k
⌀ | synonyms
sequence | __index_level_1__
int64 312
64.1k
⌀ | __index_level_0__
int64 0
2.4k
⌀ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[
"Battle of York (867)",
"participant",
"Kingdom of Northumbria"
] | null | null | null | null | 5 |
|
[
"Battle of York (867)",
"participant",
"Great Heathen Army"
] | The Battle of York was fought between the Vikings of the Great Heathen Army and the Anglo-Saxon Kingdom of Northumbria on 21 March 867 in the city of York.
Formerly controlled by the Roman Empire, York had been taken over by the Anglo-Saxons and had become the capital of the Kingdom of Northumbria. In 866 this kingdom was in the middle of a civil war, with Ælla and Osberht both claiming the crown. The Vikings, who had arrived on the eastern shores of the British Isles led by Ubba and Ivar, were able to take the city.In the spring of 867 Ælla and Osberht united to try to push the Vikings out of York. Despite the Northumbrians making it inside the walls, the battle ended without success, and with the deaths of both Ælla and Osberht.
Following their victory the Vikings would initially set up a puppet king named Ecgberht, before later creating the Kingdom of Jórvík centred on York. | null | null | null | null | 6 |
[
"Battle of Anzen",
"participant",
"Byzantine Empire"
] | null | null | null | null | 0 |
|
[
"Battle of Anzen",
"participant",
"Abbasids"
] | null | null | null | null | 3 |
|
[
"Cnut the Great's invasion of England",
"participant",
"Denmark"
] | In the autumn of 1016, the Danish prince Cnut the Great (Canute) successfully invaded England. Cnut's father, Sweyn Forkbeard, had previously conquered and briefly ruled England for less than five weeks.
The Battle of Brentford was fought in 1016 some time between 9 May (the approximate date Canute landed at Greenwich) and 18 October (the date of the later Battle of Assandun) between the English led by Edmund Ironside and the Danes led by Cnut. It was one of a series of battles fought between Edmund and Canute, ultimately resulting in the lands held by Edmund's father Ethelred the Unready being divided between the two. Edmund was victorious in this particular battle, but ultimately failed to defend the lands inherited from his father.The Battle of Assandun (or Essendune) was fought between Danish and English armies on 18 October 1016. There is disagreement whether Assandun may be Ashdon near Saffron Walden in north Essex or, as long supposed, Ashingdon near Rochford in southeast Essex, England. It ended in victory for the Danes, led by Canute the Great, who triumphed over the English army led by King Edmund Ironside. The battle was the conclusion to the Danish reconquest of England.
The battle is mentioned briefly in Knýtlinga saga which quotes a verse of skaldic poetry by Óttarr svarti, one of Canute's court poets. | null | null | null | null | 1 |
[
"Battle of Clontarf",
"participant",
"Kingdom of Dublin"
] | null | null | null | null | 2 |
|
[
"Third conflict in the Goryeo–Khitan War",
"follows",
"Second conflict in the Goryeo–Khitan War"
] | null | null | null | null | 1 |
|
[
"Bolesław I's intervention in the Kievan succession crisis",
"different from",
"Wyprawa kijowska"
] | null | null | null | null | 1 |
|
[
"Battle of Lemnos (1024)",
"participant",
"Byzantine Empire"
] | null | null | null | null | 1 |
|
[
"Battle of Lemnos (1024)",
"participant",
"Kievan Rus'"
] | null | null | null | null | 3 |
|
[
"Battle of Cynwit",
"participant",
"Kingdom of Wessex"
] | null | null | null | null | 4 |
|
[
"Battle of Brissarthe",
"participant",
"Vikings"
] | null | null | null | null | 1 |
|
[
"Battle of Brissarthe",
"participant",
"Franks"
] | null | null | null | null | 2 |
|
[
"Battle of Brissarthe",
"participant",
"Bretons"
] | null | null | null | null | 5 |
|
[
"Rus'–Byzantine War (941)",
"participant",
"Byzantine Empire"
] | null | null | null | null | 1 |
|
[
"Rus'–Byzantine War (941)",
"participant",
"Kievan Rus'"
] | null | null | null | null | 4 |
|
[
"Battle of Fýrisvellir",
"participant",
"Jomsvikings"
] | null | null | null | null | 2 |
|
[
"Battle of Fýrisvellir",
"participant",
"Eric the Victorious"
] | null | null | null | null | 4 |
|
[
"Battle of Fýrisvellir",
"participant",
"Styrbjörn the Strong"
] | The Battle of Fýrisvellir was fought in the 980s on the plain called Fýrisvellir, where modern Uppsala is situated, between King Eric the Victorious and an invading force. According to Norse sagas, this force was led by his nephew Styrbjörn the Strong. Eric won the battle, and became known as "the Victorious".It is mentioned by Saxo Grammaticus in Gesta Danorum and in a number of medieval Icelandic sources, including Eyrbyggja saga, Knýtlinga saga, and Hervarar saga. An account is found in the Old Norse translation of Oddr Snorrason's lost Latin life of the Norwegian king Olaf Tryggvason, known as Odds saga munks, and a more detailed account in the short story Styrbjarnar þáttr Svíakappa, which is included in the saga of the Norwegian king Olaf II in Flateyjarbók; this version includes skaldic verses including two lausavísur by Þórvaldr Hjaltason. There are also possible references to the battle on runestones, three of which are in Scania.
The factuality of the battle, and its location, have been disputed. There are however primary sources that support its historicity. | null | null | null | null | 5 |
[
"Siege of Niemcza",
"participant",
"Germany"
] | null | null | null | null | 0 |
|
[
"Siege of Niemcza",
"participant",
"Holy Roman Empire"
] | null | null | null | null | 1 |
|
[
"Battle of Chippenham",
"participant",
"Kingdom of Wessex"
] | null | null | null | null | 1 |
|
[
"Battle of Chippenham",
"participant",
"Great Heathen Army"
] | null | null | null | null | 6 |
|
[
"Byzantine–Georgian wars",
"topic's main category",
"Category:Byzantine–Georgian wars"
] | null | null | null | null | 0 |
|
[
"Byzantine–Seljuk wars",
"topic's main category",
"Category:Byzantine–Seljuk wars"
] | null | null | null | null | 2 |
|
[
"Battle of Segré",
"participant",
"Duchy of Brittany"
] | The Battle of Segré was a battle between the forces of Conan II, Duke of Brittany, and an alliance of the rebel Rivallon I of Dol, the Angevin Empire, and the Duchy of Normandy.
During Conan's 1066 campaign against Anjou, he took Segré. | null | null | null | null | 1 |
[
"Byzantine–Norman wars",
"participant",
"Republic of Venice"
] | null | null | null | null | 1 |
|
[
"Byzantine–Norman wars",
"participant",
"Holy Roman Empire"
] | null | null | null | null | 4 |
|
[
"Byzantine–Norman wars",
"participant",
"Byzantine Empire"
] | Wars between the Normans and the Byzantine Empire were fought from c. 1040 until 1185, when the last Norman invasion of the Byzantine Empire was defeated. At the end of the conflict, neither the Normans nor the Byzantines could boast much power, as by the mid-13th century exhaustive fighting with other powers had weakened both, leading to the Byzantines losing Asia Minor to the Ottoman Empire in the 15th century, and the Normans losing Sicily to the Hohenstaufen. | null | null | null | null | 5 |
[
"Byzantine–Norman wars",
"participant",
"Lombards"
] | null | null | null | null | 6 |
|
[
"Byzantine–Norman wars",
"participant",
"Papal States"
] | null | null | null | null | 7 |
|
[
"Byzantine–Norman wars",
"participant",
"Kingdom of Sicily"
] | Second Norman invasion of the Balkans (1147–1149)
In 1147 the Byzantine empire under Manuel I Comnenus was faced with war by Roger II of Sicily, whose fleet had captured the Byzantine island of Corfu and plundered Thebes and Corinth. However, despite being distracted by a Cuman attack in the Balkans, in 1148 Manuel enlisted the alliance of Conrad III of Germany, and the help of the Venetians, who quickly defeated Roger with their powerful fleet. In ca.1148, the political situation in the Balkans was divided by two sides, one being the alliance of the Byzantines and Venice, the other the Normans and Hungarians. The Normans were sure of the danger that the battlefield would move from the Balkans to their area in Italy. The Serbs, Hungarians and Normans exchanged envoys, being in the interest of the Normans to stop Manuel's plans to recover Italy. In 1149, Manuel recovered Corfu and prepared to take the offensive against the Normans, while Roger II sent George of Antioch with a fleet of 40 ships to pillage Constantinople's suburbs. Manuel had already agreed with Conrad on a joint invasion and partition of southern Italy and Sicily. The renewal of the German alliance remained the principal orientation of Manuel's foreign policy for the rest of his reign, despite the gradual divergence of interests between the two empires after Conrad's death. However, while Manuel was in Valona planning the offensive across the Adriatic, the Serbs revolted, posing a danger to the Byzantine Adriatic bases. | null | null | null | null | 9 |
[
"Byzantine–Norman wars",
"participant",
"Italo-Normans"
] | Wars between the Normans and the Byzantine Empire were fought from c. 1040 until 1185, when the last Norman invasion of the Byzantine Empire was defeated. At the end of the conflict, neither the Normans nor the Byzantines could boast much power, as by the mid-13th century exhaustive fighting with other powers had weakened both, leading to the Byzantines losing Asia Minor to the Ottoman Empire in the 15th century, and the Normans losing Sicily to the Hohenstaufen. | null | null | null | null | 10 |
[
"Byzantine–Norman wars",
"topic's main category",
"Category:Byzantine–Norman wars"
] | null | null | null | null | 11 |
|
[
"Byzantine–Norman wars",
"participant",
"Kingdom of France"
] | null | null | null | null | 12 |
|
[
"Byzantine–Norman wars",
"participant",
"Serbs"
] | null | null | null | null | 13 |
|
[
"Battle at Chlumec (1040)",
"participant",
"Holy Roman Empire"
] | null | null | null | null | 0 |
|
[
"Battle of Sulcoit",
"participant",
"Dál gCais"
] | The Battle of Sulcoit was fought in the year 968 between the Irish of the Dál gCais, led by Brian Boru, and the Vikings of Limerick, led by Ivar of Limerick. It was a victory for the Dál gCais and marked the end of Norse expansion in Ireland. It was also the first of three battles that highlight the career of Brian Boru. The battle took place during a military campaign led by Ivar of Limerick into Dál gCais territory. After the battle, the Dál gCais seized and burned the Viking stronghold of Limerick. | null | null | null | null | 2 |
[
"Uprising of Peter Delyan",
"topic's main category",
"Category:Uprising of Peter Delyan"
] | null | null | null | null | 0 |
|
[
"Battle on the Raxa",
"participant",
"Holy Roman Empire"
] | null | null | null | null | 0 |
|
[
"Burning of Luimneach",
"participant",
"Dál gCais"
] | null | null | null | null | 1 |
|
[
"Battle of Hastings",
"participant",
"Anglo-Saxons"
] | null | null | null | null | 1 |
|
[
"Battle of Hastings",
"participant",
"William the Conqueror"
] | null | null | null | null | 2 |
|
[
"Battle of Hastings",
"participant",
"Harold Godwinson"
] | Succession crisis in England
King Edward's death on 5 January 1066 left no clear heir, and several contenders laid claim to the throne of England. Edward's immediate successor was the Earl of Wessex, Harold Godwinson, the richest and most powerful of the English aristocrats and son of Godwin, Edward's earlier opponent. Harold was elected king by the Witenagemot of England and crowned by Ealdred, the Archbishop of York, although Norman propaganda claimed that the ceremony was performed by Stigand, the uncanonically elected Archbishop of Canterbury. Harold was at once challenged by two powerful neighbouring rulers. Duke William claimed that he had been promised the throne by King Edward and that Harold had sworn agreement to this. Harald Hardrada of Norway also contested the succession. His claim to the throne was based on an agreement between his predecessor Magnus the Good and the earlier King of England Harthacnut, whereby, if either died without heir, the other would inherit both England and Norway. William and Harald Hardrada immediately set about assembling troops and ships for separate invasions. | null | null | null | null | 3 |
[
"Battle of Hastings",
"participant",
"Kingdom of England"
] | null | null | null | null | 6 |
|
[
"Battle of Hastings",
"topic's main category",
"Category:Battle of Hastings"
] | null | null | null | null | 7 |
|
[
"Battle of Hastings",
"participant",
"Duchy of Normandy"
] | null | null | null | null | 8 |
|
[
"Battle of Hastings",
"participant",
"Alan Rufus"
] | null | null | null | null | 10 |
|
[
"Battle of Hastings",
"participant",
"William FitzOsbern, 1st Earl of Hereford"
] | null | null | null | null | 13 |
|
[
"Battle of Hastings",
"participant",
"Leofwine Godwinson"
] | null | null | null | null | 14 |
|
[
"Battle of Hastings",
"participant",
"Gyrth Godwinson"
] | Beginning of the battle
The battle opened with the Norman archers shooting uphill at the English shield wall, to little effect. The uphill angle meant that the arrows either bounced off the shields of the English or overshot their targets and flew over the top of the hill. The lack of English archers hampered the Norman archers, as there were few English arrows to be gathered up and reused. After the attack from the archers, William sent the spearmen forward to attack the English. They were met with a barrage of missiles, not arrows but spears, axes and stones. The infantry was unable to force openings in the shield wall, and the cavalry advanced in support. The cavalry also failed to make headway, and a general retreat began, blamed on the Breton division on William's left. A rumour started that the duke had been killed, which added to the confusion. The English forces began to pursue the fleeing invaders, but William rode through his forces, showing his face and yelling that he was still alive. The duke then led a counter-attack against the pursuing English forces; some of the English rallied on a hillock before being overwhelmed.It is not known whether the English pursuit was ordered by Harold or if it was spontaneous. Wace relates that Harold ordered his men to stay in their formations but no other account gives this detail. The Bayeux Tapestry depicts the death of Harold's brothers Gyrth and Leofwine occurring just before the fight around the hillock. This may mean that the two brothers led the pursuit. The Carmen de Hastingae Proelio relates a different story for the death of Gyrth, stating that the duke slew Harold's brother in combat, perhaps thinking that Gyrth was Harold. William of Poitiers states that the bodies of Gyrth and Leofwine were found near Harold's, implying that they died late in the battle. It is possible that if the two brothers died early in the fighting their bodies were taken to Harold, thus accounting for their being found near his body after the battle. The military historian Peter Marren speculates that if Gyrth and Leofwine died early in the battle, that may have influenced Harold to stand and fight to the end. | null | null | null | null | 15 |
[
"Battle of Hastings",
"participant",
"Eustace II, Count of Boulogne"
] | Dispositions of forces and tactics
Harold's forces deployed in a small, dense formation at the top of a steep slope, with their flanks protected by woods and marshy ground in front of them. The line may have extended far enough to be anchored on a nearby stream. The English formed a shield wall, with the front ranks holding their shields close together or even overlapping to provide protection from attack. Sources differ on the exact site that the English fought on: some sources state the site of the abbey, but some newer sources suggest it was Caldbec Hill.More is known about the Norman deployment. Duke William appears to have arranged his forces in three groups, or "battles", which roughly corresponded to their origins. The left units were the Bretons, along with those from Anjou, Poitou and Maine. This division was led by Alan the Red, a relative of the Breton count. The centre was held by the Normans, under the direct command of the duke and with many of his relatives and kinsmen grouped around the ducal party. The final division, on the right, consisted of the Frenchmen, along with some men from Picardy, Boulogne, and Flanders. The right was commanded by William fitzOsbern and Count Eustace II of Boulogne. The front lines were made up of archers, with a line of foot soldiers armed with spears behind. There were probably a few crossbowmen and slingers in with the archers. The cavalry was held in reserve, and a small group of clergymen and servants situated at the base of Telham Hill was not expected to take part in the fighting.William's disposition of his forces implies that he planned to open the battle with archers in the front rank weakening the enemy with arrows, followed by infantry who would engage in close combat. The infantry would create openings in the English lines that could be exploited by a cavalry charge to break through the English forces and pursue the fleeing soldiers.Death of Harold
Harold appears to have died late in the battle, although accounts in the various sources are contradictory. William of Poitiers only mentions his death, without giving any details on how it occurred. The Tapestry is not helpful, as it shows a figure holding an arrow sticking out of his eye next to a falling fighter being hit with a sword. Over both figures is a statement "Here King Harold has been killed". It is not clear which figure is meant to be Harold, or if both are meant. The earliest written mention of the traditional account of Harold dying from an arrow to the eye dates to the 1080s from a history of the Normans written by an Italian monk, Amatus of Montecassino. William of Malmesbury stated that Harold died from an arrow to the eye that went into the brain, and that a knight wounded Harold at the same time. Wace repeats the arrow-to-the-eye account. The Carmen states that Duke William killed Harold, but this is unlikely, as such a feat would have been recorded elsewhere. The account of William of Jumièges is even more unlikely, as it has Harold dying in the morning, during the first fighting. The Chronicle of Battle Abbey states that no one knew who killed Harold, as it happened in the press of battle. A modern biographer of Harold, Ian Walker, states that Harold probably died from an arrow in the eye, although he also says it is possible that Harold was struck down by a Norman knight while mortally wounded in the eye. Another biographer of Harold, Peter Rex, after discussing the various accounts, concludes that it is not possible to declare how Harold died.Harold's death left the English forces leaderless, and they began to collapse. Many of them fled, but the soldiers of the royal household gathered around Harold's body and fought to the end. The Normans began to pursue the fleeing troops, and except for a rearguard action at a site known as the "Malfosse", the battle was over. Exactly what happened at the Malfosse, or "Evil Ditch", and where it took place, is unclear. It occurred at a small fortification or set of trenches where some Englishmen rallied and seriously wounded Eustace of Boulogne before being defeated by the Normans. | null | null | null | null | 16 |
[
"Former Nine Years' War",
"participant",
"Minamoto no Yoshiie"
] | Background
While most provinces were overseen by just a Governor, Mutsu, in what is now the Tohoku region, had a military general in charge of controlling the Emishi natives, who had been subjugated when the Japanese took over the area in the ninth century. Historically, this post was always held by a member of the Abe clan, and there were many conflicts between the Abe general and the Governor over administrative control of the province.
In 1050, the general overseeing the Ainu was Abe no Yoritoki, who levied taxes and confiscated property on his own, rarely paying any heed to the wishes of the province's Governor. The Governor sent word to the capital in Kyoto asking for help, and as a result Minamoto no Yoriyoshi was appointed both Governor and commander-in-chief over controlling the natives. He was sent with his son Yoshiie, then age fifteen, to stop Abe.Legacy
Minamoto no Yoshiie is thus considered the founder of the Minamoto clan's great martial legacy, and is worshiped as a particularly special and powerful ancestor kami of the clan. As a kami and a legend, he is often called Hachimantarō, "Child of Hachiman, the god of war."
A famous renga from the Kokon Chomonjū was exchanged between Sadato and Yoshiie when Sadato was forced to flee his castle on the Koromo River. Yoshiie said, Koromo no tate wa hokorobinikeri, Koromo Castle has been destroyed ("The warps of your robe have come undone"), to which Sadato replied, toshi o heshi ito no midare no kurushisa ni, "over the years its threads became tangled, and this pains me." | null | null | null | null | 4 |
[
"Former Nine Years' War",
"followed by",
"Gosannen War"
] | null | null | null | null | 6 |
|
[
"Former Nine Years' War",
"participant",
"Abe clan"
] | The Zenkunen War (前九年の役, Zenkunen no Eki), also known in English as the Former Nine Years' War or the Early Nine Years' War, was fought between the Imperial Court and the Abe clan in Mutsu Province, in Northeast Japan, from 1051 to 1063. It resulted in Imperial Court victory and the surrender of Abe no Sadato. Like the other major conflicts of the Heian period, such as the Gosannen War and the Genpei War, the Zenkunen war was a struggle for power within the samurai clans.Background
While most provinces were overseen by just a Governor, Mutsu, in what is now the Tohoku region, had a military general in charge of controlling the Emishi natives, who had been subjugated when the Japanese took over the area in the ninth century. Historically, this post was always held by a member of the Abe clan, and there were many conflicts between the Abe general and the Governor over administrative control of the province.
In 1050, the general overseeing the Ainu was Abe no Yoritoki, who levied taxes and confiscated property on his own, rarely paying any heed to the wishes of the province's Governor. The Governor sent word to the capital in Kyoto asking for help, and as a result Minamoto no Yoriyoshi was appointed both Governor and commander-in-chief over controlling the natives. He was sent with his son Yoshiie, then age fifteen, to stop Abe. | null | null | null | null | 7 |
[
"Former Nine Years' War",
"participant",
"Minamoto no Yoriyoshi"
] | Background
While most provinces were overseen by just a Governor, Mutsu, in what is now the Tohoku region, had a military general in charge of controlling the Emishi natives, who had been subjugated when the Japanese took over the area in the ninth century. Historically, this post was always held by a member of the Abe clan, and there were many conflicts between the Abe general and the Governor over administrative control of the province.
In 1050, the general overseeing the Ainu was Abe no Yoritoki, who levied taxes and confiscated property on his own, rarely paying any heed to the wishes of the province's Governor. The Governor sent word to the capital in Kyoto asking for help, and as a result Minamoto no Yoriyoshi was appointed both Governor and commander-in-chief over controlling the natives. He was sent with his son Yoshiie, then age fifteen, to stop Abe.War
The fighting lasted for twelve years, or nine if one subtracts short periods of ceasefire and peace. Skirmishes were fierce and many, but few major battles were fought until the Battle of Kawasaki in 1057. Abe no Yoritoki had been killed shortly before, and the Minamoto were now fighting his son, Abe no Sadato, who defeated them at Kawasaki and pursued them through a blizzard.The government forces, led by the Minamoto, had much trouble for quite some time, due to the harsh terrain and weather, but were eventually reinforced with new troops, including many offered by the Governor, a member of the Kiyohara clan, of the nearby Dewa Province. In 1062, Minamoto no Yoriyoshi, along with his son, led an assault on an Abe fortress at Siege of Kuriyagawa. They diverted the water supply, stormed the earthworks and stockade, and set the fortress aflame. After two days of fighting, Sadato surrendered. | null | null | null | null | 8 |
[
"Rus'–Byzantine War (1043)",
"participant",
"Vladimir of Novgorod"
] | In his 16th-century account of the 1043 campaign, Maciej Stryjkowski narrates that Yaroslav sent his son Vladimir to seize the Crimean emporia of the Greek empire, notably Chersonesos.
Novgorodian traditions link Vladimir's foundation of the Saint Sophia Cathedral in Novgorod in 1045 with his prior victory over the Greeks. The cathedral formerly boasted the so-called Korsun Treasure, which was reportedly brought to Novgorod by Prince Vladimir (usually identified by medieval authors with Vladimir the Great). Among foreign authors, Herberstein and Paul of Aleppo relate that the copper Korsun Gate of the cathedral was seized by the Novgorodians in Chersonesos, where it had been used as a city gate. The extant cathedral gate is decorated with complicated cross symbols, specifically associated by art historians with Chersonesos. Curiously enough, excavations of Chersonesos yielded an inscription reporting that the city gate had to be replaced in 1059. Apart from the gate, the treasure contained gold vessels, the miraculous icon of the Theotokos of Korsun and other early 11th-century Greek items (some of them still in situ, others looted by Ivan the Terrible after the Massacre of Novgorod and taken to Moscow).
Having visited Kiev in 1048, Roger II of Châlons reported that he had seen there the relics of St. Clement of Rome. According to Roger, Yaroslav told him that the relics had been taken by him from Chersonesos, where Clement had been supposedly martyred. Slavonic sources claim that Clement's relics were brought to Kiev from Crimea by Yaroslav's father Vladimir.Careful analysis of these facts led Vera Bryusova to conclude that hostilities were renewed in 1044 or 1045, when Vladimir advanced on Chersonesos and captured it, retaining the town until the Byzantines, involved in several other wars, agreed to conclude a favourable treaty with Rus' and give a princess in marriage to his younger brother. If so, the situation would be almost identical to the conquest of Chersonesos by Vladimir the Great, which, according to most Slavonic sources, precipitated the Christianization of Kievan Rus' back in 988.
Bryusova argues that later pious legends confused Vladimir of Novgorod with his more famous grandfather and canonized namesake, who most likely never waged wars against Byzantium. Some late medieval authors went as far as to ascribe this Crimean campaign to another celebrated Vladimir, Monomakh, who in fact derived his main foreign support from Constantinople. For instance, Vasily Tatishchev, writing in the 18th century from much earlier sources, erroneously reports that Monomakh engaged a Greek governor of Chersonesos in single combat. | null | null | null | null | 2 |
[
"Rus'–Byzantine War (1043)",
"participant",
"Yaroslav the Wise"
] | The final Byzantine–Rus' War was, in essence, an unsuccessful naval raid against Constantinople instigated by Yaroslav the Wise and led by his eldest son, Vladimir of Novgorod, in 1043.
The reasons for the war are disputed, as is its course. Michael Psellus, an eyewitness of the battle, left a hyperbolic account detailing how the invading Kievan Rus' were annihilated by a superior Imperial fleet with Greek fire off the Anatolian shore. According to the Slavonic chronicles, the Ruthenian fleet was destroyed by a tempest.
The Byzantines sent a squadron of 14 ships to pursue the dispersed monoxyla of the Rus'. They were sunk by the Ruthenian admiral Ivan Tvorimich, who also managed to rescue Prince Vladimir after the shipwreck. The Varangian Guard was also present. A 6,000-strong Ruthenian contingent under Vyshata, which did not take part in naval action, was captured and deported to Constantinople. Eight hundred of the Ruthenian prisoners were blinded.
Vyshata was allowed to return to Kiev at the conclusion of the peace treaty three years later. Under the terms of the peace settlement, Yaroslav's son Vsevolod I married a daughter of Emperor Constantine Monomachus. Vsevolod's son by this princess assumed his maternal grandfather's name and became known as Vladimir Monomakh.In his 16th-century account of the 1043 campaign, Maciej Stryjkowski narrates that Yaroslav sent his son Vladimir to seize the Crimean emporia of the Greek empire, notably Chersonesos.
Novgorodian traditions link Vladimir's foundation of the Saint Sophia Cathedral in Novgorod in 1045 with his prior victory over the Greeks. The cathedral formerly boasted the so-called Korsun Treasure, which was reportedly brought to Novgorod by Prince Vladimir (usually identified by medieval authors with Vladimir the Great). Among foreign authors, Herberstein and Paul of Aleppo relate that the copper Korsun Gate of the cathedral was seized by the Novgorodians in Chersonesos, where it had been used as a city gate. The extant cathedral gate is decorated with complicated cross symbols, specifically associated by art historians with Chersonesos. Curiously enough, excavations of Chersonesos yielded an inscription reporting that the city gate had to be replaced in 1059. Apart from the gate, the treasure contained gold vessels, the miraculous icon of the Theotokos of Korsun and other early 11th-century Greek items (some of them still in situ, others looted by Ivan the Terrible after the Massacre of Novgorod and taken to Moscow).
Having visited Kiev in 1048, Roger II of Châlons reported that he had seen there the relics of St. Clement of Rome. According to Roger, Yaroslav told him that the relics had been taken by him from Chersonesos, where Clement had been supposedly martyred. Slavonic sources claim that Clement's relics were brought to Kiev from Crimea by Yaroslav's father Vladimir.Careful analysis of these facts led Vera Bryusova to conclude that hostilities were renewed in 1044 or 1045, when Vladimir advanced on Chersonesos and captured it, retaining the town until the Byzantines, involved in several other wars, agreed to conclude a favourable treaty with Rus' and give a princess in marriage to his younger brother. If so, the situation would be almost identical to the conquest of Chersonesos by Vladimir the Great, which, according to most Slavonic sources, precipitated the Christianization of Kievan Rus' back in 988.
Bryusova argues that later pious legends confused Vladimir of Novgorod with his more famous grandfather and canonized namesake, who most likely never waged wars against Byzantium. Some late medieval authors went as far as to ascribe this Crimean campaign to another celebrated Vladimir, Monomakh, who in fact derived his main foreign support from Constantinople. For instance, Vasily Tatishchev, writing in the 18th century from much earlier sources, erroneously reports that Monomakh engaged a Greek governor of Chersonesos in single combat. | null | null | null | null | 3 |
[
"Rus'–Byzantine War (1043)",
"participant",
"Kievan Rus'"
] | null | null | null | null | 5 |
|
[
"Breton–Norman war",
"participant",
"Duchy of Brittany"
] | The Breton–Norman War of 1064–1066 was fought between the sovereign Duchy of Brittany and the Duchy of Normandy.
Brittany, an independent Celtic duchy, had a traditional rivalry with neighboring Normandy.Neighboring rivals
From a historical perspective, the Bretons had steadily lost lands to the Norman's ancestors, the Seine River Vikings.
The 1064–1065 animosity between Brittany and Normandy was sparked after William the Conqueror, as Duke of Normandy, supported a Breton, Rivallon I of Dol's rebellion against the hereditary Duke of Brittany, Conan II.In 1065, the year before his invasion of Anglo-Saxon England, William of Normandy sent word to the surrounding countries (including Brittany), warning them against attacking his lands, while he was away on the grounds that his mission bore the papal banner. However, Duke Conan promptly informed the Norman Duke that he would take the opportunity to invade the latter's Duchy.Loss of Breton lands
Duke William's army therefore set out to appease the Breton threat. While outside the monastery of Mont Saint-Michel, two Norman soldiers became mired in quicksand. Harold Godwinson, the Earl of Wessex and future King of England, saved them. | null | null | null | null | 2 |
[
"Battle at Brůdek",
"participant",
"Holy Roman Empire"
] | null | null | null | null | 0 |
|
[
"Battle of Stamford Bridge",
"participant",
"United Kingdom"
] | null | null | null | null | 1 |
|
[
"Battle of Stamford Bridge",
"participant",
"Kingdom of England"
] | null | null | null | null | 4 |
|
[
"Battle of Hjörungavágr",
"participant",
"Norway"
] | null | null | null | null | 1 |
|
[
"Battle of Stilo",
"participant",
"Holy Roman Empire"
] | null | null | null | null | 1 |
|
[
"Asturian architecture",
"topic's main category",
"Category:Pre-Romanesque art in Asturias"
] | null | null | null | null | 2 |
|
[
"Battle of Buttington",
"participant",
"Vikings"
] | null | null | null | null | 1 |
|
[
"Battle of Buttington",
"participant",
"Kingdom of Mercia"
] | null | null | null | null | 2 |
|
[
"Battle of Buttington",
"participant",
"Welsh people"
] | null | null | null | null | 6 |
|
[
"East–West Schism",
"topic's main category",
"Category:East–West Schism"
] | null | null | null | null | 1 |
|
[
"Battle of Sagrajas",
"participant",
"Almoravid dynasty"
] | The Battle of Sagrajas (23 October 1086), also called Zalaca or Zallaqa (Arabic: معركة الزلاقة, romanized: Maʿrakat az-Zallāqa), was a battle between the Almoravid army led by their King Yusuf ibn Tashfin and an army led by the Castilian King Alfonso VI. The Almoravids responded to the call of Jihad by the taifas which commonly fought amongst themselves however they had united to battle the powerful Christian states to the north. The Taifas aided the Almoravids during the battle with troops, favoring the battle for the Muslim side. The battleground was later called az-Zallaqah (in English "slippery ground") because of the poor footing caused by the tremendous amount of bloodshed that day, which gave rise to its name in Arabic. | null | null | null | null | 2 |
[
"Battle of Sagrajas",
"participant",
"taifa"
] | The Battle of Sagrajas (23 October 1086), also called Zalaca or Zallaqa (Arabic: معركة الزلاقة, romanized: Maʿrakat az-Zallāqa), was a battle between the Almoravid army led by their King Yusuf ibn Tashfin and an army led by the Castilian King Alfonso VI. The Almoravids responded to the call of Jihad by the taifas which commonly fought amongst themselves however they had united to battle the powerful Christian states to the north. The Taifas aided the Almoravids during the battle with troops, favoring the battle for the Muslim side. The battleground was later called az-Zallaqah (in English "slippery ground") because of the poor footing caused by the tremendous amount of bloodshed that day, which gave rise to its name in Arabic. | null | null | null | null | 4 |
[
"Goryeo–Khitan War",
"topic's main category",
"Category:Goryeo–Khitan War"
] | null | null | null | null | 1 |
|
[
"Siege of Weinsberg",
"participant",
"Holy Roman Empire"
] | null | null | null | null | 0 |
|
[
"Song–Đại Việt war",
"participant",
"Vietnam"
] | null | null | null | null | 1 |
|
[
"Song–Đại Việt war",
"participant",
"Song dynasty"
] | null | null | null | null | 3 |
|
[
"Battle of Lincoln (1141)",
"participant",
"United Kingdom"
] | null | null | null | null | 1 |
|
[
"Norwegian Crusade",
"participant",
"Sigurd the Crusader"
] | The Norwegian Crusade, led by Norwegian King Sigurd I, was a crusade or a pilgrimage (sources differ) that lasted from 1107 to 1111, in the aftermath of the First Crusade. The Norwegian Crusade marks the first time a European king personally went to the Holy Land. | null | null | null | null | 2 |
[
"Norwegian Crusade",
"topic's main category",
"Category:Norwegian Crusade"
] | null | null | null | null | 4 |
|
[
"Second conflict in the Goryeo–Khitan War",
"participant",
"Liao dynasty"
] | The Second Goryeo-Khitan War (Chinese: 第二次高麗契丹戰爭; Korean: 제2차 고려-거란 전쟁) was an 11th-century conflict between the Goryeo dynasty of Korea and the Khitan-led Liao dynasty of China near what is now the border between China and North Korea. It was the second of the Goryeo-Khitan Wars, with the First Goryeo-Khitan War occurring in 993, the second in 1010, and the third in 1018.
When King Seongjong died in 997, the Liao dynasty invested his successor Wang Song as king of Goryeo (King Mokjong, r. 997-1009). In 1009, he was assassinated by the forces of the general Gang Jo. Using it as a pretext, the Liao attacked Goryeo in the next year. They lost the first battle but won the second one, and Gang Jo was captured and killed. The Liao occupied and burnt the Goryeo capital Kaesong, but the Goryeo king had already escaped to Naju. The Liao troops withdrew then afterward Goryeo promised to reaffirm its tributary relationship with the Liao dynasty. Unable to establish a foothold and to avoid a counterattack by the regrouped Groyeo armies, the Liao forces withdrew. Afterward, the Goryeo king sued for peace, but the Liao emperor demanded that he come in person and also cede key border areas; the Goryeo court refused the demands, resulting in a decade of hostility between the two nations, during which both sides fortified their borders in preparation of war. Liao attacked Goryeo in 1015, 1016, and 1017, but the results were indecisive. | null | null | null | null | 1 |
[
"Second conflict in the Goryeo–Khitan War",
"participant",
"Goryeo"
] | null | null | null | null | 2 |
|
[
"Second conflict in the Goryeo–Khitan War",
"followed by",
"Third conflict in the Goryeo–Khitan War"
] | See also
Goryeo–Khitan War
First conflict in the Goryeo–Khitan War
Second conflict in the Goryeo–Khitan War
Third conflict in the Goryeo–Khitan War | null | null | null | null | 5 |
[
"Second conflict in the Goryeo–Khitan War",
"follows",
"First conflict in the Goryeo–Khitan Wars"
] | null | null | null | null | 6 |
|
[
"Battle of Peshawar (1001)",
"participant",
"Hindu Shahis"
] | The Battle of Peshawar was fought on 27 November 1001 between the Ghaznavid army of Mahmud of Ghazni and the Hindu Shahi army of Jayapala, near Peshawar. Jayapala was defeated and captured, and as a result of the humiliation of the defeat, he later immolated himself in a funeral pyre. This is the first of many major battles in the expansion of the Ghaznavid Empire into the Indian subcontinent by Mahmud.Background
In 962, Alp-Tegin, a Turkic ghulam or slave soldier, who rose to be the commander of the army in Khorasan in the service of the Samanids, seized Ghazna and set himself up as a ruler there. In 997, Mahmud ascended the throne at Ghazni, a successor to Sabuktigin, Mahmud started to vigorously expand his domain, and vowed to invade India every year until the northern lands were his. In 1001 he arrived at Peshawar with a select group of 15,000 cavalry, and a large corps of ghazis and Afghans. This began a struggle with the Hindu Shahi kingdom which extended from Laghman to Kashmir and from Sirhind to Multan The Hindu Shahi ruler Jayapala attacked the ghaznavids, but was defeated, then again later when his army of a reported size of over 100,000 was beaten. The territories were annexed by the Ghaznavids. | null | null | null | null | 0 |
[
"Battle of Peshawar (1001)",
"participant",
"Ghaznavid Empire"
] | The Battle of Peshawar was fought on 27 November 1001 between the Ghaznavid army of Mahmud of Ghazni and the Hindu Shahi army of Jayapala, near Peshawar. Jayapala was defeated and captured, and as a result of the humiliation of the defeat, he later immolated himself in a funeral pyre. This is the first of many major battles in the expansion of the Ghaznavid Empire into the Indian subcontinent by Mahmud.Background
In 962, Alp-Tegin, a Turkic ghulam or slave soldier, who rose to be the commander of the army in Khorasan in the service of the Samanids, seized Ghazna and set himself up as a ruler there. In 997, Mahmud ascended the throne at Ghazni, a successor to Sabuktigin, Mahmud started to vigorously expand his domain, and vowed to invade India every year until the northern lands were his. In 1001 he arrived at Peshawar with a select group of 15,000 cavalry, and a large corps of ghazis and Afghans. This began a struggle with the Hindu Shahi kingdom which extended from Laghman to Kashmir and from Sirhind to Multan The Hindu Shahi ruler Jayapala attacked the ghaznavids, but was defeated, then again later when his army of a reported size of over 100,000 was beaten. The territories were annexed by the Ghaznavids. | null | null | null | null | 2 |
[
"Battle of Eisenach (908)",
"participant",
"Holy Roman Empire"
] | null | null | null | null | 4 |
|
[
"Battle of Anglesey Sound",
"participant",
"Kingdom of England"
] | null | null | null | null | 2 |
|
[
"Siege of Jerusalem (1099)",
"follows",
"March from Antioch to Jerusalem during the First Crusade"
] | null | null | null | null | 0 |
|
[
"Siege of Jerusalem (1099)",
"different from",
"Siege of Jerusalem (1834)"
] | null | null | null | null | 3 |
|
[
"Siege of Jerusalem (1099)",
"different from",
"Siege of Jerusalem (37 BC)"
] | null | null | null | null | 4 |
|
[
"Siege of Jerusalem (1099)",
"different from",
"Siege of Jerusalem"
] | null | null | null | null | 6 |
|
[
"Siege of Jerusalem (1099)",
"different from",
"Siege of Jerusalem"
] | null | null | null | null | 7 |
|
[
"Siege of Jerusalem (1099)",
"different from",
"Assyrian Siege of Jerusalem"
] | null | null | null | null | 8 |
|
[
"Siege of Jerusalem (1099)",
"different from",
"Siege of Jerusalem"
] | null | null | null | null | 9 |
|
[
"Siege of Jerusalem (1099)",
"different from",
"Siege of Jerusalem"
] | null | null | null | null | 10 |
|
[
"Siege of Jerusalem (1099)",
"different from",
"Siege of Jerusalem"
] | null | null | null | null | 11 |
|
[
"Siege of Jerusalem (1099)",
"different from",
"Sasanian conquest of Jerusalem"
] | null | null | null | null | 12 |
|
[
"Siege of Jerusalem (1099)",
"different from",
"Siege of Jerusalem (63 BC)"
] | null | null | null | null | 13 |
|
[
"Siege of Jerusalem (1099)",
"different from",
"Siege of Jerusalem (1244)"
] | null | null | null | null | 14 |
|
[
"Siege of Jerusalem (1099)",
"different from",
"Siege of Jebus"
] | null | null | null | null | 15 |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.