text:
Batu Khan

Batu Khan (c. 1205–1255) was a Mongol ruler and founder of the Golden Horde, a constituent of the Mongol Empire. Batu was a son of Jochi, thus a grandson of Genghis Khan. His ulus ruled over the Kievan Rus', Volga Bulgaria, Cumania, and the Caucasus for around 250 years.

Personality and appearance
According to Giovanni da Pian del Carpine, Batu was "kind enough to his own people, but he is greatly feared by them. He is, however, most cruel in fight; he is very shrewd and extremely crafty in warfare, for he has been waging war for a long time." He received the nickname of сайн (lit. 'good'), by which he was referred to by Marco Polo. William of Rubruck described him as about the height of his lord John de Beaumont and as having his entire face covered with reddish spots.

Early years
After his son Jochi's death, Genghis Khan assigned Jochi's appanages to his sons. The Great Khan installed Batu as Khan of the Golden Horde (also known as the Ulus of Jochi or Kipchak Khanate). Jochi's eldest son, Orda Khan, also agreed that Batu should succeed their father. Genghis Khan's youngest brother Temüge attended the coronation ceremony as an official representative of Genghis. When Genghis Khan died in 1227, he left 4,000 Mongol men to Jochi's family. Jochi's lands were divided between Batu and his older brother Orda. Orda's White Horde ruled the lands roughly between the Volga river and Lake Balkhash, while Batu's Golden Horde ruled the lands west of the Volga.

In 1229, Ögedei dispatched three tumens under Kukhdei and Sundei to conquer the tribes on the lower Ural River. According to Abulghazi, Batu joined Ögedei's military campaign against the Jin dynasty in North China while his younger brother was fighting the Bashkirs, the Cumans, the Bulghars and the Alans in the west. Despite heavy resistance from their enemies, the Mongols conquered major cities of the Jurchens and made the Bashkirs their ally. In the 1230s, Ögedei distributed lands in Shanxi to Batu and the family of Jochi, but they appointed their officials under the supervision of the Imperial governor, and likewise in Khorasan.

Conquest of Kievan Rus'
At the kurultai in Mongolia after the end of the Mongol-Jin War, the Great Khan Ögedei ordered Batu to conquer western nations. In 1235 Batu, who earlier had directed the conquest of the Crimean Peninsula, was assigned an army of possibly 130,000 to oversee an invasion of Europe. His relatives and cousins Güyük, Büri, Möngke, Khulgen, Khadan, Baidar and notable Mongol generals Subutai (Subeedei), Borolday, and Mengguser joined him by the order of his uncle Ögedei. The army, actually commanded by Subutai, crossed the Volga and invaded Volga Bulgaria in 1236. It took them a year to extinguish the resistance of the Volga Bulgarians, Kypchaks, and Alani.

In November 1237 Batu Khan sent his envoys to the court of Yuri II of Vladimir-Suzdal and demanded his allegiance. When Yuri refused to surrender the Mongols besieged Ryazan. After six days of bloody battle, the city was totally annihilated and never restored to its former glory. Alarmed by the news, Yuri II sent his sons to detain the horde, but they were soundly defeated. Having burnt Kolomna and Moscow, the horde laid siege to the capital of Vladimir-Suzdal on 4 February 1238. Three days later the city was taken and burnt to the ground. The royal family perished in the fire, while the grand prince hastily retreated northward. Crossing the Volga, he mustered a new army, which was totally exterminated by the Mongols on the Sit' River on 4 March.

Thereupon Batu Khan divided his army into smaller units, which ransacked fourteen Rus' cities: Rostov, Uglich, Yaroslavl, Kostroma, Kashin, Ksnyatin, Gorodets, Galich, Pereslavl-Zalessky, Yuriev-Polsky, Dmitrov, Volokolamsk, Tver, and Torzhok. The most difficult to take was the small town of Kozelsk, whose boy-prince Titus and inhabitants resisted the Mongols for seven weeks. As the story goes, at the news of Mongol approach, the city of Kitezh was submerged in a lake with all its inhabitants, where it may be seen to this day. Khadan and Buri stormed the city in three days after they joined Batu. The only major cities to escape destruction were Smolensk, which submitted to the Mongols and agreed to pay tribute, and Novgorod with Pskov, which could not be reached by the Mongols on account of considerable distance and the intervening marshlands.

When Batu drank a cup of wine before the others at the victory banquet, Büri complained of the unfairness of Batu receiving such a vast and fertile steppe, and the Mongol army, along with Güyük and others, ridiculed Batu as an "old woman with a beard". They then left the banquet. Batu sent an envoy to his uncle Ögedei to complain of his cousins' rude behavior. Ögedei got angry on hearing the news and recalled Buri and Güyük. According to some sources, Buri, who was sent to his grandfather Chagatai, never returned to join the Mongol conquest of Europe; Güyük returned to the Russian steppe after his father Ögedei harshly criticized him.

In the summer of 1238, Batu Khan devastated the Crimea and pacified Mordovia and the Kipchak-controlled steppe. In the winter of 1239, he sacked Chernigov and Pereyaslav. After several days of siege, the Mongols stormed Kiev in December 1240. Despite fierce resistance by Danylo of Halych, Batu Khan managed to take the two principal capitals of his land, Halych and Volodymyr. Ruthenian principalities became vassals of the Mongol Empire.

Invasion of Central Europe
The Cuman refugees took shelter in the Kingdom of Hungary. Batu sent at least five messengers to Béla IV, the King of Hungary, but they were all killed. For the last time Batu demanded that Bela have the Cumans returned and warned: "It is much easier for the Cumans to escape than it is for you...you dwell in houses and have fixed towns and fortresses, so how will you escape me?" Batu Khan then decided to "reach the ultimate sea", where the Mongols could proceed no further. Some modern historians speculate that Batu intended primarily to assure his flanks were safe for the future from possible interference from the Europeans, and partially as a precursor to further conquest. Most believe he intended the conquest of all Europe, as soon as his flanks were safe and his forces ready.

Having devastated the various Rus' principalities, Subutai and Batu sent spies into Poland, Hungary, and as far as Austria in preparation for an attack into the heartland of Europe. With a clear picture of the European kingdoms, they brilliantly prepared an attack. Batu Khan was the overall leader, but Subutai was the actual commander in the field and as such was present in both the northern and southern campaigns against Rus'. The Mongols invaded central Europe in three groups. One group invaded and devastated Poland, defeating a combined force under Henry II the Pious, Duke of Silesia and the Grand Master of the Teutonic Order at Legnica. A second crossed the Carpathian Mountains, and a third followed the Danube. The armies swept the plains of Hungary over the summer, and in the spring of 1242 they regained impetus and extended their control into Austria and Dalmatia, as well as invading Morava.

While the northern force under Ögedei's son Khadan and Baidar, the son of Chagatai, won the Battle of Legnica, and another army of Güyük or Büri triumphed in Transylvania, Subutai was waiting for another victory over the Magyars, the Croats, and the Templars on the Hungarian plain. In 1241, a Tatar (Mongol) army led by Bujek crossed the mountains of the Kara Ulagh ("Black Vlachs"); Bujek defeated the Vlachs and one of their leader named Mišlav. However, the Mongol Army was defeated by Ivan Asen II of the Second Bulgarian Empire shortly afterward. After the siege of Pest, Batu's army withdrew to the Sajo River and inflicted a tremendous defeat on King Béla IV and his allies at the Battle of Mohi on 11 April. Khadan, Baidar, and Orda went to Hungary, devastating Moravia en route. The Mongols appointed a darughachi in Hungary and minted coins in the name of the Khagan. The country of Béla was assigned to Orda by Batu as an appanage; Batu sent Khadan in pursuit of Béla, who retreated to Croatia.

The Mongol battalions checked the forces of the Holy Roman Empire and Babenberg Austria. During his campaign in Central Europe, Batu demanded that Frederick II, the Holy Roman Emperor, dethrone himself, and said: "I am coming to usurp your throne instead of you". The latter only replied that he would make a good falconer, for he understood birds very well. The Emperor and Pope Gregory IX called for a crusade against the Mongol Empire, but Europe was plagued by internal strife. Subutai achieved lasting fame with his victories in Europe, as he had in Eastern Persia.

By late 1241, Batu and Subutai were finalizing plans to invade Austria, Italy, and Germany when the news came of the death of Ögedei Khan, who died in December 1241. Batu wanted to continue the war, but Subutai reminded him of the law of Yassa (Их Засаг). The Mongols withdrew in late spring of 1242, as the Princes of the blood, and Subutai, were recalled to Karakorum where the kurultai was held. Batu was a potential Great Khan, but when he failed to gain the title he turned to consolidate his conquests in Asia and the Urals.

Viceroy and struggle with Güyük
Withdrawing from Hungary, Batu made his camps along the banks of the Volga. When the Great Khatun Töregene invited him to elect the next Emperor of the Mongol Empire, Batu announced his inability to attend any immediate kurultai, thus delaying the succession for several years. Eventually, Güyük was elected Khagan in 1246, with Batu's brothers representing the Jochid lineage. As one of the oldest members of Chingisid Borjigin, Batu became a viceroy over all the western parts of the empire, controlling routine affairs among the Rus' princes, nominating Jochid retainers as governors of Iran, and receiving in audience grandees from the Caucasus. At no point, however, did he openly challenge the authority of the Great Khan.

During the absence of Batu, the Mongols who were left behind put to death Mstislav, the prince of Rylsk, in Kievan Rus'. On his return Batu summoned the Grand prince Yaroslav II of Vladimir to meet him. Yaroslav was well received by Batu, who confirmed him as suzerain over the other Rus' princes, and gave him authority of Kiev. The princes of Suzdal followed Yaroslav's example. Batu sent Yaroslav to the imperial court of Karakorum to assist at the inauguration of Güyük Khan in 1246. Plano Carpini, who got approval from Batu to go further, noted that the Great Khan's aunt was executed. At the same time Yaroslav was poisoned in Mongolia.

Batu had commissaries in the various towns where the dependent Rus' princes and other princes held their courts. The princes from Rus' principalities such as Vladimir Constantine, Boris, Gleb, Vasili, Constatantine, Vladimir Constantinovich, Vasil'ko and Sviatoslav Vsevolodovich of Vladimir, went to the court of Batu in person. When Michael of Chernigov, who had murdered the Mongol envoy in Kiev, arrived, the Mongol overseers were engaged in taking a census of the inhabitants for the poll tax. Michael was ordered to repair to Batu. When summoned before Batu, he was made to pass between two fires and ordered to prostrate himself before the tablets of Genghis Khan. According to the hagiographic vita written in praise of him decades later, Michael replied that he did not object to do obeisance to Batu himself, but to adore images of a dead man was repugnant. As he persisted in his refusal, Batu ordered his death.

Danylo of Halych was summoned to Batu in Sarai, and submitted himself to the Mongols, an act later decried in the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle, which otherwise glorified Danylo's exploits. Batu, addressing him, said "You have for a long time refused to come, but have effaced your ill conduct by your obedience" and saluted him with a draught of airag. They exchanged hostages whereby 100 families of Keraites were re-settled in Carpathian-Galicia. After the defeat of the Sultanate of Rum, Baiju freed David VII Ulu from Turkish imprisonment and sent him to Batu and Güyük. Fearing Baiju's aggressive policy, Queen Rusudan of Georgia sent her son David VI Narin to Batu's court to get official recognition as heir apparent. Batu supported David VI and granted him the rights above the Georgian and Armenian nobles and the Mongol tammachis. But Güyük made David Ulu the senior king of Georgia and ordered Batu's protege David Narin to be subordinate to David Ulu.

Suspicion between Batu and Güyük increased, and Güyük replaced the officials in Iran and the Caucasus with his own men, including Eljigidei. When Güyük began moving west, Sorghaghtani Beki, the widow of Tolui, warned Batu that he was actually the Great Khan's target. When Güyük summoned Batu to appear before him, Batu moved slowly. Before meeting Batu, Güyük died suddenly. According to William of Rubruck and a Muslim chronicle, one of Batu's brothers murdered or poisoned the Great Khan Güyük and Batu then killed the imperial envoy, though this account is not completely confirmed by other major sources.

Möngke and Batu

An opportunity had arrived for deposing the House of Ögedei from the overlordship of the Mongols, and Batu was determined to avail himself of it. But Batu seemed to allow Oghul Qaimish to serve as regent. He also suggested unruly princes listen to her words. When Batu was ill, Möngke Khan went to the Ulus of Jochi to greet him as his mother Sorghagtani advised. Batu was much delighted on seeing him.

At last, Batu called a kurultai on his own territory in 1250. Members of the Ögedeid and Chagataid families refused to attend the kurultai beyond the Mongolian heartland. The kurultai offered the throne to Batu Khan who had no interest in promoting himself as the new Grand Khan. Rejecting it, he instead nominated Möngke, who led a Mongol army in Rus', the Northern Caucasus, and Hungary. The pro-Tolui faction rose up and supported his choice. Given its limited attendance and location, this kurultai was of questionable validity. Batu sent Möngke under the protection of his brothers, Berke and Tukhtemur, and his son Sartaq to assemble a formal kurultai at Kodoe Aral in the heartland. The supporters of Möngke invited Oghul Qaimish and other main Ögedeid and Chagataid princes to attend the kurultai, but they refused each time, demanding descendants of Ögedei must be khan. In response, Batu accused them of killing his aunt Altalaun and defying Ögedei's nominee, Shiremun. After the assembled throng proclaimed Möngke Great Khan of the Mongol Empire in 1251, he punished the Ögedeid and Chagataid families for the organized plot against him. Möngke sent Buri to Batu who had him executed by Buri's opponent general. Eljigidei was also ordered to be executed.

Grand prince Andrey II of Vladimir allied with the rebellious-minded princes of western Rus', giving umbrage to the Mongols. Batu sent a punitive expedition under Nevrui. On their approach, Andrey fled to Pskov and thence to Sweden. The Mongols spread over Vladimir and harshly punished the people there. The Livonian Knights stopped their advance to Novgorod and Pskov on hearing the news about the Mongols. Thanks to his friendship with Sartaq, Alexander was installed as the grand prince of Vladimir by Batu in 1252. In 1256 Andrey travelled to Sarai to ask pardon for his former infidelity and was shown mercy.

During the reign of Möngke, Batu's prestige as kingmaker and viceroy of the great khans in the west reached its height. Even so, Batu allowed Möngke's census takers to operate freely in his realm. According to a Muslim chronicle and the History of Yuan, Batu had free access to the imperial treasury. Of all the grandsons of Genghis Khan, he and Möngke seemed most capable and the most dedicated to following the spirit of Mongol law.

Batu dispatched a large Jochid delegation to participate in Hulagu's expedition in the Middle East. However, Berke's persuasion might have forced him to delay to strengthen Hulagu's force, little suspecting that it would result in eliminating the Jochid predominance there, for few years.

Batu, Möngke, and other princely lines shared rule over the area from Afghanistan to Turkey. Batu left the affairs of state to his son, Sartaq, before dying in 1255.

Family and legacy
Batu Khan was approximately five feet and seven inches tall (1.70 m), and had at least four children:
 * Sartaq, khan of the Golden Horde from 1255 to 1256, son of Batu Khan and Boraqchin
 * Toqoqan
 * Andewan
 * Ulagchi – probably the son of Sartaq often named Ju Lai (Dzhulaibek)

Batu's mother Ukhaa ujin belonged to the Mongol Onggirat clan while his chief khatun Boraqchin was an Alchi-Tatar.

When Batu and his son Sartaq died, after a brief regency of Boraqchin for Ulagchi, Batu's brother Berke inherited the Golden Horde. Berke was not inclined to unity with his cousins in the Mongol family, making war on Hulagu Khan, though Berke officially recognized Möngke and the Empire of the Great Khan as his overlords. In fact, Berke was an independent ruler by then. Berke did not share Batu's interest in conquering it, however, he demanded Hungarian King Béla IV's submission and sent his general Borolday to Lithuania and Poland.

The Kipchak Khanate was known in Rus and Europe as the Golden Horde (Zolotaya Orda) some think because of the golden colour of the Khan's tent. "Horde" comes from the Mongol word "orda/ordu" or camp. "Golden" is thought to have had a similar meaning to "royal" (Royal Camp). Of all the Khanates, the Golden Horde ruled longest. Long after the expulsion of the Yuan dynasty from China to Mongolia, and the fall of Ilkhanate in Middle East, the descendants of Batu Khan continued to rule the steppes in what is now Ukraine, Russia, and Kazakhstan. Batu's line ruled the Jochid Ulus until 1360, a century after Berke's death in 1264. Descendants of his brothers, Orda and Tuqatimur, took the throne of the Golden Horde afterwards.

title: Batu Khan


text:
Kliment Voroshilov tank

The Kliment Voroshilov (KV; Климент Ворошилов, КВ) tanks are a series of Soviet heavy tanks named after the Soviet defence commissar and politician Kliment Voroshilov who operated with the Red Army during World War II. The KV tanks were known for their heavy armour protection during the early stages of the war, especially during the first year of the German invasion of the Soviet Union. In certain situations, even a single KV-1 or KV-2 supported by infantry could halt German formations. The German Wehrmacht at that time rarely deployed its tanks against KVs, as their own armament was too poor to deal with the "Russischer Koloss" – "Russian Colossus".

The KV tanks were practically immune to the 3.7 cm KwK 36 and howitzer-like, short-barreled 7.5 cm KwK 37 guns mounted, respectively, on the early Panzer III and Panzer IV tanks fielded by the invading German forces. Until the Germans developed more effective guns, the KV-1 was invulnerable to almost any German weapon except the 8.8 cm Flak gun.

Prior to the start of Operation Barbarossa in June 1941, about 500 of the over 22,000 tanks then in Soviet service were of the KV-1 type. As the war progressed, it became evident that there was little sense in producing the expensive KV tanks, as the T-34 medium tank performed better (or at least equally well) in all practical respects. In fact the only advantage the KV had over the T-34/76 was its larger and roomier three-man turret. Later in the war, the KV series became a base for the development of the IS (Iosif Stalin) series of tanks and self-propelled guns.

Development history
After disappointing results with the multi-turreted T-35 heavy tank, Soviet tank designers started drawing up replacements. The T-35 conformed to the 1920s notion of a "breakthrough tank" with very heavy firepower though its armour protection was lacking and it suffered from poor mobility. The Spanish Civil War demonstrated the need for much heavier armour on tanks, and was the main influence on Soviet tank design just prior to World War II.

Several competing designs were offered, and even more were drawn up prior to reaching prototype stage. All had heavy armour, torsion-bar suspension, wide tracks, and were of welded and cast construction. One of the main competing designs was the SMK, which in its final form had two turrets, mounting one 76.2 mm and one 45 mm weapon. The designers of the SMK independently drew up a single-turreted variant and this received approval at the highest level. Two of these, named after the People's Commissar for Defence, were ordered alongside a single SMK. The smaller hull and single turret enabled the designer to install heavy frontal and turret armour while keeping the weight within manageable limits.

The KV was ordered right off the drawing board. When the Soviets entered the Winter War, the SMK, KV and a third design, the T-100, were sent to be tested in combat conditions. The KV outperformed the SMK and T-100 designs. The KV's heavy armour proved highly resistant to Finnish anti-tank weapons, making it more difficult to stop. In 1939, the production of 50 KVs was ordered. During the war, the Soviets found it difficult to deal with the concrete bunkers used by the Finns and a request was made for a tank with a large howitzer. One of the rush projects to meet the request was to put the howitzer in a new turret on one of the KV tanks. Initially known as 'Malen'kaya Bashenka' (little turret) and 'Bol'shaya Bashnya' (big turret), the 76-mm-armed tank was redesignated as the KV-1 Heavy Tank and the 152 mm howitzer one as KV-2 Heavy Artillery Tank.

KV tanks first faced the Germans in the Battle of Raseiniai, just after the start of Operation Barbarossa. On 23 June, over 200 German tanks advancing through Lithuania encountered Soviet armor, including KV-1 and KV-2 tanks. While their frontal armor was sufficient to deflect anti-tank fire, German troops were able to outflank them and destroy them with explosive charges or lure them to within point-blank range of direct-fire artillery. Of the more than 200 Soviet tanks lost at Raseiniai, 29 were KVs.

The KV's strengths included armor that was impenetrable by any tank-mounted weapon then in service except at point-blank range, that it had good firepower, and that it had good flotation on soft ground. It also had serious flaws: it was difficult to steer; the transmission (which was a twenty-year-old Holt Caterpillar design) "was the main stumbling block of the KV-1, and there was some truth to rumors of Soviet drivers having to shift gears with a hand sledge"; and the ergonomics were poor, with limited visibility. Furthermore, at 45 tons, it was simply too heavy. This severely impacted the maneuverability, not so much in terms of maximum speed, as through inability to cross many bridges medium tanks could cross. The KV outweighed most other tanks of the era, being about twice as heavy as the heaviest German tank at that time (before the Tiger). As appliqué armour and other improvements were added without increasing engine power, later models were less capable of keeping up to speed with medium tanks and had more trouble with difficult terrain. In addition, its firepower was no better than that of the T-34. It took field reports from senior commanders "and certified heroes", who could be honest without risk of punishment, to reveal "what a dog the KV-1 really was".

Further development
By 1942, when the Germans were fielding large numbers of long-barreled 5 cm Pak 38 and 7.5 cm Pak 40 anti-tank guns, the KV's armour was no longer impenetrable, requiring the installation of additional appliqué armour. The KV-1's side (favorable approach: 30° at 300–500 m distance), top, and turret armor could also be penetrated by the high-velocity Mk 101 30 mm cannon carried by German ground attack aircraft, such as the Henschel Hs 129. The KV-1's 76.2 mm gun also came in for criticism. While adequate against all German tanks, it was the same gun as carried by smaller, faster, and cheaper T-34 medium tanks. In 1943, it was determined that this gun could not easily penetrate the frontal armour of the new Tiger, the first German heavy tank, one of which was captured near Leningrad. The KV-1 was also much more difficult to manufacture and thus more expensive than the T-34, its advantages no longer outweighed its drawbacks.

Because of its initial superior performance, the KV-1 was chosen as one of the few tanks to continue being built following the Soviet reorganization of tank production. Due to the new standardization, it shared a similar engine and gun as the T-34 (the KV used a 600 hp V-2K modification of the T-34's V-2 diesel engine, and had a ZiS-5 main gun while the T-34 had a similar F-34 main gun), was built in large quantities and received frequent upgrades. When production shifted to the "Tankograd" complex in the Ural Mountains, the KV-2 was dropped. While impressive on paper, it had been designed as a slow-moving bunker-buster. It was less useful in the highly mobile, fluid warfare that developed in World War II. The turret was so heavy it was difficult to traverse on uneven terrain. Finally, it was expensive to produce. Only about 210 KV-2s were made, all in 1940–1941, making it one of the rarest Soviet tanks. The KV-1 continued to get more armor to compensate for the increasing effectiveness of German weapons. This culminated in the KV-1 model 1942 (German designation KV-1C), which had very heavy armor but lacked a corresponding improvement to the engine. It now weighed about 52 tons. Tankers complained that, although they were well-protected, their mobility was poor and they had no firepower advantage over the T-34 medium tank.

KV-1S
In response to criticisms, the lighter KV-1S was developed, with thinner armor and a smaller, lower turret in order to reclaim some speed. The KV-1S had a commander's cupola with all-around vision blocks. It also had a sophisticated planetary transmission that significantly increased the reliability, and allowed use of more efficient regenerative geared steering, unlike the solely clutch and brake steering systems used by the Panzer III, IV and T-34 and previous KV tanks. Its reduced weight allowed it to achieve a top speed of 43.3 km/h. Over 1,300 were built before production ended in August 1943. Although the KV-1S was, according to some, the best of the KV tanks, overcoming its predecessors' problems (at a cost of losing the heavy armor that made the earlier tanks so valuable, making it more of a slow medium tank than a heavy tank), more modern tanks were already in sight. Up-arming the regular turret of the KV-1S with an 85 mm S-31 resulted in the KV-1S-85. This was rejected as it came with the unacceptable loss of a dedicated commander, reducing the turret crew to two (unlike the 3-man turret fitted to the T-34/85). However, the thinning-out of the armor called into question why the tank was being produced at all, when the T-34 could seemingly do everything the KV could do and much more cheaply. The Soviet heavy tank program was close to cancellation in mid-1943.

The appearance of the German Panther tank in the summer of 1943 persuaded the Red Army to make a serious upgrade of its tank force for the first time since 1941. Soviet tanks needed bigger guns to take on the growing numbers of Panthers and the few Tigers.

KV-85
A stopgap upgrade to the KV series was the short-lived KV-85 or Objekt 239. This was a KV-1S with the new turret from the Object 237 (IS-85) still in development, mounting the same 85 mm D-5T gun as the SU-85 and early versions of the T-34-85 (not yet in production at the time). The 85 mm proved capable of penetrating the Tiger I from 1000 m and the demand for it slowed production of the KV-85 tremendously, only 148 were built between August and October 1943. Soviet industry was therefore able to produce a heavy tank as well armed as the Tiger I before the end of 1943. Although the KV-85 was an excellent opponent to the Tigers and Panthers, it was a stopgap and thus was built in small numbers. Its weight had climbed up again to about 47 tons, which negated the whole point of trying to make a lighter KV. The complete Object 237 was accepted into service as the IS-85 and was produced in the autumn and winter of 1943-44; they were sent to the front as of October 1943 and production of the IS-85/IS-1 was stopped by the spring of 1944 once the IS-122/IS-2 entered full-scale production.

Successor
A new heavy tank design entered production late in 1943 based on the work done on the KV-13. Because Voroshilov had fallen out of political favour, the new heavy tank series was named the Iosif Stalin tank, after the Soviet leader Stalin. The KV-13 program's IS-85 prototype was accepted for production as the IS-1 (or IS-85, Object 237) heavy tank. After testing with both the 100 mm D-10 and 122 mm guns, the D-25T 122 mm gun was selected as the main armament of the new tank, primarily because of its ready availability and the effect of its large high-explosive shell when attacking German fortifications. The 122 mm D-25T used a separate shell and powder charge, resulting in a lower rate of fire and reduced ammunition capacity. While the 122 mm armour-piercing shell had a lower muzzle velocity than similar late German 7.5 cm and 8.8 cm guns, proving-ground tests established that the 122 mm could penetrate the frontal armour of the German Panther tank at 2500 metres and the HE shell would easily blow off the drive sprocket and tread of the heaviest German tank or self-propelled gun. The IS-122 replaced the IS-85, and began mass production as the IS-2. The 85 mm gun saw service in the lighter SU-85 and T-34-85.

Models
The Soviets did not recognize different production models of KV-1 during the war; designations like model 1939 (M1939, Russian: Obr. 1939) were introduced later in military publications. These designations, however, are not strict and describe leading changes, while other changes might be adapted earlier or later in specific production batches. Designations like KV-1A were applied by the Germans during the war. All tanks in the series were heavily based on the KV-1.

 * KV-0 - Prototype tank for KV-1. It was armed with 2 guns, 76mm and 45mm gun. It weighed 44tons.
 * KV-1
 * Model 1939 – First production models, these tanks were prone to frequent breakdowns, but were highly resistant to anti-tank weapons during the Winter War. Armed with the 76 mm L-11 tank gun, recognizable due to a recuperator above a barrel. Most tanks were lacking the hull machine gun, earlier ones also had cast turret (different from one used on 1941/42 models). 141 were built. .45 tons.
 * Model 1940 (German designation: KW-1A) – Used the F-32 gun 76 mm gun and a new mantlet. The main production model by the time of the German invasion. 46 tons.
 * Model 1940 s ekranami ("with shields") or KW-1E – with additional bolted-on appliqué armour and F-32 gun. 49 tons
 * Model 1941 (German designation: KW-1B) – Up-armoured with 25-35 mm added to the turret, hull front and sides. Later tanks had cast turrets. This tank was armed with the longer-barreled ZiS-5 tank gun. 47-50 tons.
 * Model 1942 (German designation: KW-1C) – Fully cast turret with thicker armour, again up-armoured, using an improved engine and the 76 mm ZiS-5 tank gun. 52 tons.
 * KV-1S – A variant with higher speed, but thinner armour. A new, smaller, cast turret and redesigned rear hull with a new planetary transmission. 1370 built. 45 tons.

 * KV-2 (204) – A heavy 52 ton assault tank with the M-10 152 mm howitzer, the KV-2 was produced at the same time as the KV-1. Due to the size of its heavy turret and gun, the KV-2 was slower and had a much higher profile than the KV-1. Those captured and used by the German Army were known as (Sturm)Panzerkampfwagen KW-II 754(r). Few were produced due to its combat ineffectiveness: The increased weight of the new gun and turret led to a decrease in speed and that the turret traverse mechanism could only be operated on level ground.
 * KV-2 (ZiS-6) - In March 1941 a single ZiS-6 tank gun was placed into a KV-2 turret for testing. It passed testing by June 1941, after which it was sent to the Artillery Scientific Test Range at Leningrad. While further fate of the vehicle is unknown, it was possibly used (and destroyed) in combat while defending Leningrad.
 * Т-150 (Object 150) - One of a pair of designs requested 17 June 1940. Armour specified at 90 mm, which caused weight to reach 50 tons, so the 600 hp V-2K was replaced with the 700 hp V-5 engine. In addition to the improved armour, the turret had a cupola but otherwise followed the design of the KV-1. One prototype was constructed in 1941 and was destroyed defending Leningrad. On 15 March 1941 the design was approved for production as the KV-3.
 * T-220 (Object 220) (also called KV-220) - One of a pair of designs requested 17 June 1940. Longer chassis with 7 rollers per side. Armour specified at 100 mm. Prototype trialed with V-2PUN and V-2SN engines. but suffered engine and suspension problems. New diamond-shaped turret fitted with 85 mm F-30 cannon, but development changed to fitting 107mm F-39 instead. One prototype was constructed in 1941 but did not enter serial production. The prototype later had its turret replaced by standard KV-1 turret and redesignated as KV-220-2; it was destroyed in its first battle with 124th Tank Division. Original turret was mounted as static pillbox, its further fate is unknown.

 * KV-3 (Objects 150, 220, 221, 222, and 223) - Designation initially approved 15 March 1941 for production version of Object 150 tank design. Further developments were made on the basis of the Object 220, in the form of the Object 221 (with an 85 mm gun), Object 222 (with the F-32 76.2 mm gun) and Object 223 (built to develop a new conical turret to house the 107 mm gun, now specified to be the ZiS-6 cannon). Series production was intended to start in late 1941, but the German invasion of the USSR halted these plans, and the only prototype hull was destroyed. The design was accepted for service May 1941 and was to have entered production at the Kirovsky Plant in August 1941, but the German invasion forced this to be abandoned.
 * KV-4 (Object 224) - A project for a super-heavy tank. About 20 different designs were proposed, but it was cancelled due to the outbreak of the war. Different versions would have been between roughly 85 and 110 tonnes, with armour thickness ranging from 120 to 190 mm. Armament consisted of the 107 mm ZiS-6 cannon. Different variants had various auxiliary weapons: 45 mm, 76 mm cannons, machine guns, and flamethrowers in addition to the main gun.
 * KV-5 (Object 225) - A cancelled project for a super-heavy tank. Armament was to be a 107 mm ZiS-6 gun in a large turret and a machine gun in a small secondary turret. Weight was projected as about 100 tons, and the tank was to have 150–180 mm of armour. Project development began in June 1941, however, was cancelled due to the Siege of Leningrad, in which all developmental operations at the Kirov Plant were halted. The project fell out of favour from the more advanced heavy tank designs, and no prototype was built.
 * KV-6 This vehicle was a flamethrower variant. At least four were used in the battle of Leningrad. It is not to be confused with the fictional KV-VI super heavy tank, built by modeler Brian Fowler in 1995.
 * KV-7 (Object 227) (also called U-13). - Experimental self-propelled gun with 100 mm of frontal armour, armed with 3 cannons: two 45 mm model 1932/34 and one 76 mm F-34. 200 rounds of ammunition were carried for the 45 mm guns and 93 rounds for the 76 mm gun. One unit was produced and tested in 1941.
 * KV-7-2 (improved variant) (also called U-14) had two 76 mm F-34 cannons, and 85 mm of frontal armour. Vehicles were not taken in service primarily because they could not fight tanks (the KV-7s had only 15-degree gun traverse to each side) and could not combat concrete bunkers due to the small caliber of the guns. After the failure of the KV-7 it was decided to put one 152 mm gun in the casemate instead of three smaller guns; this led to the development of the SU-152.
 * U-18 - Experimental self-propelled gun. KV-7 armed with 152 mm ML-20 gun-howitzer. Vehicle was projected in 1941. Wooden mockup was constructed. Project was cancelled, but this vehicle was a first step towards SU-152 design.
 * S-51 (also called U-19) - Experimental self-propelled gun projected by the Grabin Artillery Projects Central Department armed with the 203 mm howitzer M1931 (B-4) in a KV-1S hull. The vehicle was to have 75 mm of frontal armour, 60 mm on the side, and the roof was to be 30 mm (the roof would have been removable to facilitate loading). It was projected to weigh 66 tons, one prototype passed by the testing grounds in the spring of 1944 but was not very successful and cancelled within a year.
 * SU-152 - See SU-152. Heavy assault gun based on the KV-1S chassis using 152 mm ML-20 gun-howitzer.
 * ZiK-20 - The ZiK-20 was very similar to the U-19 (S-51), but had 105 mm of frontal armour, 75 mm of side armour, and was to mount a ML-20 gun. By the time its wooden mockup was made the KV-1 was phased out of production. However, just before the project was cancelled a blueprint was drawn up to equip the ZiK-20 with a 152 mm gun M1935 (Br-2), and to offset the weight the frontal armour was to be reduced to 75 mm (or 60 mm on the KV-1S chassis).
 * SU-203 - SU-152 equipped with 203 mm M-4 mortar. Never built.
 * KV-8 (102) – A KV-1 fitted with the ATO-41 flamethrower in the turret, beside a machine gun. In order to accommodate the new weapon, the 76.2 mm gun was replaced with a smaller 45 mm gun M1932, though it was disguised to look like the standard 76 mm (the cannon was placed inside a 76 mm tube).
 * KV-8S (35) – The same as KV-8 but based on KV-1S. Equipped with ATO-42 flamethrower (improved version of ATO-41). The smaller turret of the KV-1S caused space limitations, so 25 of the KV-8S had the original KV-8 turret mated to the KV-1S hull, while the remaining 10 had a KV-1S turret with ATO-42 flamethrower but lacked the coaxial machine gun.
 * KV-8M - Upgraded version of KV-8S. Equipped with two flamethrowers. Two prototypes were constructed.
 * KV-9 (Object 229) - A KV-1 with short 122 mm U-11 howitzer. One prototype was constructed and proved in 1941.
 * KV-10 (Object 230) - Also known as KV-1K. A KV-1 with 4 rocket launchers on the sides of its hull. Each launcher contained two 132 mm M-13 rockets. Early variant of KV-1K had two launchers on the back of the hull, each contained 6 rockets. One prototype was constructed and tested in 1942. Not taken into service.
 * KV-11 (Object 231) - KV-1 armed with 85 mm F-30 cannon. Projected in 1942. Not built.
 * KV-12 (Object 232) - Experimental chemical tank. Was equipped with 4 external toxin tanks on rear of chassis. Tanks surrounded with 30 mm armour. Not taken into service.
 * KV-13/IS Model 1 (Object 233) - Prototype of a medium tank. Designation for an advanced redesign of the KV series, which resulted in the production of the IS series.
 * IS Model 2 - A KV-13, with turret and armament of a KV-9. One prototype was constructed and proved in 1943. Tank had lost competition to IS-1 and was not taken into service.
 * KV-14 (Object 236) – Prototype designation for a 152 mm self-propelled gun, accepted for service as the SU-152.
 * KV-85 (Object 239) – A KV-1S with the 85 mm D-5T cannon in a new turret, with the ball mounted hull machine gun repositioned to the right of driver (now fixed mount) and the hole welded shut; 148 of these tanks were produced in the second half of 1943 until the spring of 1944 as a stopgap until the IS tank series entered production.
 * KV-85G - KV-1S with 85 mm S-31 cannon. Turret and mantlet remained from conventional KV-1S. This variant was a competitor of the KV-85 during proving. It lost the competition and was not taken into service.
 * KV-122 - A KV-1S with short 122 mm S-41 howitzer. One prototype was made in 1943. Not taken into service.
 * KV-100 - A KV-85 with the 100 mm S-34 cannon. One prototype was made in 1944. Not taken into service.
 * KV-122 - A KV-85 with the 122 mm D-25T cannon. One prototype was made in 1944. Not taken into service.
 * KV-152 - Proposal to fit a 152 mm gun into the turret of a KV-85. Nothing became of the project.

June 1941 Battle of Raseiniai
A KV-1 or KV-2 tank (accounts vary) advanced far behind the German lines after attacking a column of German trucks. The tank stopped on a road across soft ground and was engaged by four 50 mm anti-tank guns of the anti-tank battalion of the 6th Panzer Division. The tank was hit many times but returned fire, disabling all four guns. A heavy 8.8 cm gun of the German division's anti-aircraft battalion was moved about 730 m behind the tank but was knocked out by the tank gunner before it could score a hit. During the night, German combat engineers attempted to destroy the tank with satchel charges and failed, despite possibly damaging the tracks. Early on the morning of 25 June, German tanks fired on the KV from the woodland while an 88 mm targeted the tank from its rear. Of several shots fired, only two penetrated the tank. German infantry then advanced, with the KV opening machine-gun fire against them. The tank's resistance was finally ended by grenades thrown into the tank's hatches. According to some accounts, the crew was buried by the German soldiers with full military honours; in other accounts, the crew escaped during the night.

General Erhard Raus was commander of the Kampfgruppe of the 6th Panzer Division, the unit delayed by the lone vehicle. He described it as a KV-1, which was damaged by several 8.8 cm anti-tank gun shots fired from behind the vehicle while it was distracted by Panzer 35(t) tanks from Panzer Battalion 65, and the KV-1 crew were killed by members of a pioneer unit who pushed grenades through two holes made by the gun while the turret began moving again, the other five or six shots having not fully penetrated. Apparently, the KV-1 crew had remarkably only been stunned by the shots which had entered the turret. Afterwards, they were buried nearby with military honours by the German unit.

Krasnogvardeysk
On August 14, 1941, the vanguard of the German 8th Panzer Division approached Krasnogvardeysk (Gatchina) near Leningrad (St Petersburg), and the only Soviet force available at the time to attempt to stop the German advance consisted of five well-hidden KV-1 tanks, dug in within a grove at the edge of a swamp. KV-1 tank no. 864 was commanded by the leader of this small force, Lieutenant Zinoviy Kolobanov.

German forces attacked Krasnogvardeysk from three directions. Near Noviy Uchkhoz settlement the geography favoured the Soviet defenders as the only road in the region passed the swamp, and the defenders commanded this choke point from their hidden position. Lieutenant Kolobanov had carefully studied the situation and readied his detachment the day before. Each KV-1 tank carried twice the normal amount of ammunition, two-thirds being armour-piercing rounds. Kolobanov ordered his other commanders to hold their fire and await orders. He did not want to reveal the total force, so only one exposed tank at a time would engage the enemy.

On August 14, the German 8th Panzer Division's vanguard ventured directly into the well-prepared Soviet ambush, with Kolobanov's tank knocking out the lead German tank with its first shot. The Germans falsely assumed that their lead tank had hit an anti-tank mine and failed to realize that they had been ambushed. The German column stopped, giving Kolobanov the opportunity to destroy the second tank. Only then did the Germans realize they were under attack, but they failed to find the source of the shots. While the German tanks were firing blindly, Kolobanov knocked out the trailing German tank, thus boxing in the entire column.

Although the Germans correctly guessed the direction of fire, they could only spot Lieutenant Kolobanov's tank, and now attempted to engage an unseen enemy. German tanks moving off the road bogged down in the surrounding soft ground, becoming easy targets. 22 German tanks and 2 towed artillery pieces fell victim to Kolobanov's No. 864 before it ran out of ammunition. Kolobanov ordered in another KV-1, and 21 more German tanks were destroyed before the half-hour battle ended. A total of 43 German tanks were destroyed by just five Soviet KV-1s (two more remained in reserve).

After the battle, the crew of No. 864 counted a total of 135 hits on their tank, none of which had penetrated the KV-1's armour. Lieutenant Kolobanov was awarded the Order of Lenin, while his Gunner Usov was awarded the Order of the Red Banner. Later, former Captain Zinoviy Kolobanov was again decorated by Soviet authorities, despite having been convicted and downgraded after the Winter War for "fraternizing with the enemy." Lieutenant Kolobanov served in the post-war Soviet occupation zone in East Germany, where he was convicted again and transferred to the reserves when a subordinate escaped to the British occupation zone.

Kolobanov's feat was so great that when telling his story after the war, civilians and military personnel alike did not believe him, sometimes laughing in disbelief while listening to his tale. A monument dedicated to this battle was installed in the village of Noviy Uchkhoz in 1980, at the place where Kolobanov's KV-1 was dug in, due solely to the demands of the villagers. It was impossible to find a KV-1 tank, so an IS-2 heavy tank was installed there instead.

The Soviet victory was the result of a well-planned ambush in advantageous ground and of technical superiority. Most of the German tanks in this battle were Panzer IIs, armed with 20 mm guns, and a few Panzer IIIs armed with 37 mm KwK 36 L/46.5 guns. The German tank guns had neither the range nor the power of the 76 mm main gun of a KV-1, and the narrower track width of the German tanks caused them to become trapped in the swampy ground.

Other users
When German forces used captured KV-1s, they were renamed as "Panzerkampfwagen KV-IA 753(r)"

The Finnish forces had two KV-1s, nicknamed Klimi, a Model 1941 and Model 1942, both of which received minor upgrades in their service, and both of which survived the war.

Romanian forces captured one KV-1 as of 1 November 1942 and one more in March 1944.

Tanks of comparable role, performance and era

 * German Tiger I
 * United States Heavy Tank M6
 * British Matilda II

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Kliment Voroshilov tank


text:
Langley Park School for Boys

Langley Park School for Boys is a boys secondary academy school in Beckenham in the London Borough of Bromley, with a co-ed sixth form. On 31 March 2011, the school converted from a Foundation School to an academy and its current status is that of an "Academy Converter".

Location
It is situated near Eden Park and the Bethlem Royal Hospital on Hawksbrook Lane close to the boundary of the London Borough of Bromley with the London Borough of Croydon. Construction for the new school building was completed in December 2011, and the staff and pupils moved into the building in January 2012, following which the old buildings were demolished.

Admissions

 * At 11+, admission to the school is according to the London Borough of Bromley education admissions procedures.
 * At 16+, the school has changed its admissions policy and it is now also dependent on the proximity of the pupil's home to the school.
 * At 16+, the school is co-educational.

Sport
Langley Park School for Boys is one of the minority of state schools that play rugby and hockey, and is one of the top three hockey schools in the country, having competed in the last four national finals.

In 2004 the under-16 team were crowned national champions, the first comprehensive school to achieve this. More recently during the 2021/22 season the 1st XI finished 7th in the England Hockey Tier 1 Championship; of which 1 player (Dan Hamilton) carried on the success internationally, captaining England juniors in the 4 Nations Tournament and European Championships in Hanau, Germany.

In the 2021 Cricket season, the 1st XI won the Kent cup beating out Simon Langton Grammar School for Boys by 33 runs after 35 overs.

In 2021/22, the U15 rugby squad made it to the semi-finals of the Schools Vase, where they lost to Torquay Boys Grammar School. Despite the match ending in a 12-12 draw and taking place in a neutral venue, Torquay went through as they were drawn to be the away side in this tie, following standard tiebreaker practice in previous rounds.

The new buildings for the school provide private hockey facilities for the school, which are currently being shared with Langley Park School for Girls. Other sports include tennis, basketball, football and table tennis.

Music
Langley Park School for Boys' music department offers groups from the traditional concert band, chamber orchestra, brass band and choir, to world music styles, including a Cuban band and an African drumming group.

In 2013, the brass band was one of the finalists of the national Music for Youth competition who were selected to perform at Royal Albert Hall. The band played in the Primary Proms show, and performed Take That's "Shine", the theme from The Magnificent Seven and Concierto de Aranjuez.

History
The school was originally the Beckenham Technical Institute, opening in 1901 and situated in what is now Venue 28, Beckenham. The school went through a variety of name changes in its early days: the Technical Day School, Beckenham; Beckenham Secondary School; Beckenham County School for Boys; Beckenham and Penge County School for Boys; in 1944 it was the Beckenham and Penge County Grammar School under headmaster L.W. White, MA (Cantab). In 1950 the school was mentioned in the scientific journal Nature. The article in Nature explained that a periodical named "Beckenham and Penge Grammar School : Scientific Society Proceedings" existed in which scientific work done by the boys was reported. By 1954 it was called Beckenham and Penge Grammar School for Boys.

An increase in size meant the school moved to new buildings in High St, Penge, in 1931. It moved from Penge to its present location in Eden Park, Beckenham, in January 1969, at which point it adopted its current name. Around 1973 or 1974 Langley Park School for Boys converted from Grammar to a Comprehensive intake school, as many others did, in line with the policies of Labour Education Secretary Shirley Williams and the Comprehensive intake, including streaming, worked its way up the age-groups through subsequent years. In the late 1980s, schools could opt out of local government control by becoming a Grant-maintained school which were funded by a direct grant of money from the central government. This new arrangement enabled schools to have greater control of their finances than they would have had under local government control. Hansard indicates that a ballot of parents occurred on 8 March 1991 regarding the question of the school becoming a "grant maintained school". The school was given a grant of £60,000 as a transitional grant.

The school outgrew its present accommodation and a completely new building was constructed adjacent to the location of the former school, which was occupied from January 2012.

The school motto, Mores et Studia, means "good character and learning".

Headteachers
The school started in 1901, as the Beckenham Technical Institute at a site close to Beckenham's public baths the headmaster was Mr C.T.F. Watts, in 1931 he was replaced by Mr Sidney Gammon who had been at the Windsor County School. On 23 October 1940 Mr Gammon was killed by a bomb dropped during the war, he lived at 9 Foxgrove Avenue and his estate was valued at £4271 18 s and 5d.

Mr Gammon was replaced by Mr L.W. White who was appointed in September 1941. In December 1962, Mr white retired and was replaced with Mr D.A. Raeburn.

Five terms after the school relocated to its current site, off South Eden Park Road, headmaster David A. Raeburn retired, and was replaced by B.A. Phythian (a master from the Manchester Grammar School and a successful academic author), who led the school as it converted to comprehensive status. Brian Phythian had written and edited books on English language, and a book on the Manchester Grammar School. In 1993 on 23 March Brian Arthur Phythian of Brackenden Leafy Grove (Keston) died.

In December 1989, Brian Phythian was succeeded by R.V.P. Sheffield, who was in the post until 1999, leaving the school under allegations of financial irregularities. The deputy headteacher, K McGregor, took over as acting headteacher until the appointment of R Northcott in 2001, who retired in July 2013. It is stated in the 1990 year book that Mr Sheffield had a degree in Psychology from the University of Nottingham and a MEd from Birmingham University. The yearbook also states that Mr Sheffield was working in a school in Waddington before being senior master at a school in Worcester in 1978, in 1984 he became deputy head at Newent School. In July 2022, Steve Parsons resigned as Headmaster. He had an eight-year tenure, beginning in September 2013.

The current headteacher is Suzanne Munday, who took the role in April 2023.

Notable former pupils

 * Rory Allen, former Tottenham Hotspur and Portsmouth footballer
 * Matt Hankin, English rugby union player
 * Robert Key, Managing Director of the England Men's Cricket Team, former England cricketer and Kent captain
 * Nick Land, English philosopher
 * Jack McManus, singer/songwriter
 * Henry Mee, artist
 * Tom Misch, singer, songwriter, producer
 * Ben Phillips, former Kent cricketer
 * Bradley Pritchard, former Charlton Athletic footballer
 * Dave Roberts, author of The Bromley Boys (in which Roberts recounts his time as a pupil at Langley Park)

Beckenham and Penge County Grammar School
White Tricycle. Electric blues trio of Gordon Coxon, Andrew Kelsall and Martin Phillips
 * Hugh Bean CBE, professor of violin at the Royal College of Music 1954–2003
 * Carey Blyton, composer of Bananas in Pyjamas
 * Harold Sydney Bride, wireless operator on the RMS Titanic
 * David Case, air commodore, highest ranking black officer in the British Forces
 * Air Vice-Marshal Ronald Dick CB, station commander of RAF Honington 1978–80, and head of British Defence Staff – US 1984–88
 * Michael Finnissy, composer and professor of composition since 1999 at the University of Southampton
 * Patrick Ground, Conservative MP for Feltham and Heston 1983–92
 * Norman Hunter, writer, creator of Professor Branestawm
 * Keith Lewin, professor of international education and director of the Centre for International Education at the University of Sussex
 * John Clifford Strong CBE, Governor of the Turks and Caicos Islands 1978–82
 * John Tyndall, Neo-Nazi political activist
 * Derek Underwood, Kent and England bowler (known as "Deadly" by the Australians)
 * Bill Wyman, musician, ex-member of the Rolling Stones

Arms
The shield depicts the 'white horse of Kent' and the two families taking control of the Manor of Beckenham: Bruyns (1300-1465), and de la Rokele (1240-1300). An allusion to a neighbouring woodland owned by Westminster Abbey is made in the crest of an oak tree and a mitre. The motto was suggested by a master.

title: Langley Park School for Boys


text:
Talk:Trakai

The use of information (except for images on this website), taken from www.trakai.lt (a homepage built by Trakai Town Hall) was granted for wikipedia by Trakai Town Hall representitive, as it follows in this e-mail:

Excerpt from the email follows below. Anyone can get this email forwarded under direct request to darius_at_soften_dot_ktu_dot_lt or directly from Trakai Town Hall: info_at_trakai_dot_lt:

Original message
Laba diena,

galite naudotis musu savivaldybes puslapio tekstine mediaga. Sekmes darbuose!

Laima Balcytiene Vyr.specialiste

Translation
--- Hello,

you can use our Town Hall website text material. Good luck at work!

Laima Balcytiene Senior Specialist

Polish name
To reply to Darius' comments on my talk page:

Well, it is a commonly accepted policy to give alternative names to the cities that have changed names in the past. Such a mention in the lead section does not mean that the name is still in use locally, it simply informs the reader that there used to be some other name which she or he could find in books, for instance. Throughout much of its history, the town was referred to under its Polish name, most probably because it belonged to Polish-speaking szlachta. It was notable as a monastic centre of the Dominican friars (again, Polish spoken) and a centre of Bogusław Radziwiłł during the Deluge. Finally, until 1945 it was a part of Poland. Even now roughly 25% of local population are ethnic Poles.

All in all, the Polish name is by no means outdated. It is historical, but not outdated (not more than German name for Gdansk or Russian name for Kyiv. Also, informing the reader that the town used to be referred to under other names until not so long time ago has hardly anything to do with national pride - at least not for me. All in all, I'm putting the Polish name back. Halibutt 06:46, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * "Most probably" is bad argumentation - c'mon, please be specific, and if specific, please, put that information to the article page. Regarding reference to Polish name, it seems to me, that a alias Troki linking to Trakai article is fully sufficient. I still do not see enough of argumentation - even Dutch historic, but outdated "New Amsterdam" for New York looks more approriate than Troki for Trakai. Or even better, why not call Kyiv Russian name, because Ukrainian Ortodox religion centre is situated there. If no real argumentation is given, I will revert it back.

 * In my point of view, this is English wikipedia, not Polish - so let's leave Troki in pl.wikipedia.org, not here, since Trakai is the only acceptable English name for this city. It would be stupid puting local names in every language for each city - why Trakai should be an exception? DariusMazeika 09:55, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Ok, I'll be specific then:
 * Until 1945 the offficial name for that place was Troki
 * There are roughly 25 percent of people living there who still use that name
 * The place was a centre of Polish culture for ages and the Polish name was in use at least since 16th century.
 * As such, the place is mentioned in a plethora of English books under its Polish name
 * It is best known in the world because of the castle and its ruins; most of the castle's inhabitants were using Polish, with Boguslaw Radziwill being the best known, I suppose.
 * It is a commonly-accepted wikipedia policy to list the relevant alternative names if there's a chance that the reader might want to know it. I believe this is one of such cases.
 * The New Amsterdam example is invalid, since the place was named Troki not 400 years ago, but 60 years ago. There is a difference.
 * Also, other such places that have had their names changed in 1945, have their original names mentioned here in Wikipedia - Gdansk, Vilnius, Lviv, Wroclaw - to name but a few. I see no reason to treat Trakai differently
 * Also, exactly why the Polish name should not be mentioned? Halibutt 10:36, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * Official - according to what? Official to Poland nomenclature or something else? And why not to write an objective history pasage, why untill 1945 bit was named Troki officially in Poland (I don't believe Trakai was named in any context internationally during that period.
 * Roughly 25 percent using a mixture of Russian, bad Lithuanian and bad Polish and naming their place not Troki, as you would think, but Trakai. Troki is the official name for Polish senior turists only nowadays.
 * The place is mentioned in a plethora of English books under its Polish name - no problem with that. But if to be specific, it is not an official name in ENGLISH - so why to mistaken people by mangled outdated name. It is posible (but I have no proves, so this is not an argument), that Troki has appeared much ealier of some strange phonetic mangle. I think it would be acceptable, if in the history passage it would be mentioned, that "after Lithuania was incorporated into Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth, the town name in Polish sources was referred as Troki". Of course, it would be interesting to know, when this word first appeared in Polish written sources. So, this would make both sides (Lithuanians and Polish) happy and it would be historically correct, informative and not out of context.
 * Current bare wording (Polish: Troki) is taken out of context & irrelevant to this ENGLISH article.

 * Do we need woting (by non-interested parties: not pro-Jews, not pro-Lithuanians, not pro-Polish) on this? DariusMazeika 11:44, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is quite common on WP to use historical town names (look at Kaliningrad, Klaipeda, Kosice). I undestand that Lithuania as a newly independent country features a somewhat increased level of nationalism and respect this. However I don't see why using a valid historial name for Trakai would be a problem for you while French and Poles don't have problems with using German names for Strasbourg or Gdansk. In case of Trakai, mentioning the Polish name is justified not only by the historical reference needs (as it was the official name of the town before WW2). As you might know there is a siginificant Polish minority in the town and Polish language and Polish name is in wide contemporary use locally. Also the Karaites living in Trakai use Polish language. Therefore it seems fully justified to leave the Polish name there, especially that it does not cost anything and only adds valuable piece of information. I also don't see any reason for not keeping this name other than satisfying some nationalistic pride. Lysy 10:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * See my answer above - current version is out of context & irrelevant. DariusMazeika 11:44, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Official in that it was officially referred to as Troki by the local inhabitants, the local government of Wilno Voivodship, the government of Poland and all other official authorities. The town was simply a part of Poland and no wonder its official name was in Polish.
 * Hmmm... Your remark is a tad bizarre - hopefuly you did not mean to offend anyone. Or did you? If you suggest that those who declared Polish nationality in censae did it just for fun, then IMHO you should stop for a while and think of it again. If you have sources that prove that those who declared so in the censae are, as a matter of fact, not Poles but Polono-Lithuano-Russians, then please provide those sources. Finally, if you have some sources that prove that their language is not Polish but some crazed mixture, then please provide them as well.
 * and 4. - just check the other similar articles we mentioned to see how this system works. Halibutt 12:52, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Darius, I believe that the reason why Halibutt insists on mentioning Polish name is not "Polish nationalism" but an attempt to follow the same convention that was agreed for other European towns, that is to mention the historic official names in the header of the article. This follows the same rule that was applied to many of the Polish towns that were under German control, like Wroclaw or Szczecin and nobody takes any offence because of this. In fact it's hard to understand why Polish names for Lithuanian cities meet such a fierce opposition. It's good to follow consistent rules and conventions across WP where possible. Therefore I'd suggest to keep the article name as it is with official Lithuanian name and only mention name in Polish as historical for reference. I don't think it's relevant if Polish or Lithuanian version of the name was first, as quite likely the original name was in Ruthenian anyway. Lysy 16:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The castles
I thought the old (wooden) castle was built by Gediminas in 13th century on peninsula in Trakai, and Kęstutis built his castle in Senieji Trakai only in 1321. Is this correct ? Lysy 12:05, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * This is correct - it was built on the lake Galve pennisula in *14th century* (1321 if to be specific). But I am not sure if Old Trakai and current Trakai belong to the same article - will think on that when this mess with names will (ever) ends. I think, that some sort of constant agreement regarding international names on ENGLISH wikipedia between Jews, Lithuanians and Polish is needed, since people waste energy in this and cry 'vandals!', even iof they have not contributed a single line for aticles in question - typical old fashioned nationalism. Now I am sorting another problem - the genesis of Karaims. I have already fixed most of the changes introduced by some crazy nuts propogating and voicing Karaims that they are an Jewish sect of Karaites. Even if this would be true in any historic way (I will sort this out first), Karaims do not identify themselves as Karaites nor Jews (rather Muslims & Tiurks instead). Now working on this closely with Karaim representitive in Trakai DariusMazeika 12:41, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I would suugest that Old Trakai is described in a separate article, as this is a separate town after all. Otherwise it's going to be confusing for English readers. Lysy 16:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Karaims
As to the Karaims - they are simply the followers of Karaite Judaism (born in 7th century in Mesopotamia). My sources say that the Central and Eastern European branch of the Karaites/Karaims are descendants of Turkic Khazars who first settled in Crimea (Evpatoria) and then were resettled by Jogaila and Vytautas, along with Tartars. Halibutt 12:56, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * But what about the genesis - are they the ancestors of Jews? If yes, what sources to read to learn more. How tricky... DariusMazeika 13:06, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I seriously doubt it. The Karaites adopted Judaism (or rather some part of it, mostly Old Testament, but not the judaic traditions or Talmud) some time in 7th century, that is some 1000 years after the creation of Judaism and even more time after the Jews appeared as a distinct culture. I believe reading more on Anan ben David of Basrah would be helpful. Halibutt 14:17, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

I visited the kenesa in Trakai on Thursday and got the "Outline of Karaite religion" booklet there (in Polish, sorry but this was the only language they had). This religion differentiates itself to others in that reading the Old Testament is its fundament. They do not accept any "external" books or comments like Talmud, New Testament or Koran. Therefore calling it a sect of Judaism would be far from acceptable. The author explains that the religion was born in the beginning of 8th century in what today is Iraq. Initially the believers were called ananites and the arab sources named the religion Ananija. The name Karaites started to be used in 9th century as it was better describing the merit of the religion. Lysy 16:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Yesterday my talk with Karaim Cultural Association representitive Karina Firkovičiūtė was very productive. The concensus regarding genesis of Karaim nation is that they are NOT Jewish ancestors in any ay, the information regarding Tiurk origin is the correct one. The question regarding religion is much more tricky. Yes, Karaism is based on Old Testament, but they do not identify themselves with Judaism. I see ratio in this statement, because this like telling, that Christian or Muslim religion is a form of Judaism, too. Yes, the religion origin facts is clear, it has some common roots with Judaism, but I don't think it is correct to label them as a sect of Karaite Judaism. It's wrong, and even hostile.

 * This rises me a question, if labeling Karaims as Jews is a vandalism, or only a different POV issue? This looks disgusting and false, at least for me: []. I am not keen on this, please decide and act on the behalf of yourself.

 * Also regarding the passage "Some of the Karaims became wealthy and were admitted to the ranks of szlachta" - this is not true. There definetely have been noble & wealthy Karaims (there was one very influential, and well knowm as a servant at the family of Radžvilos, it would be very interesting to have his name on Trakai article), but there is no data, that someone has been ranked to. So I am correcting szlachta to just 'noble'. DariusMazeika 28 June 2005 09:40 (UTC)

 * Firstly, you might want to read this article. It gives a pretty good overview on the difference between the Karaite Jews and the so-called Karaylar-Karaites. To quote but a fragment: Alongside the Karaite Jews there is a second group who use the name "Karaite" or in their own language "Karaylar" (Zajaczkowski p.11). These Karaylar-Karaites are an ethnic group originating in Eastern Europe although their exact origins are a topic of much debate.  It seems they are in part descendants of Karaite Jews, who left Karaite Judaism in the late 19th or early 20th Century. According to the Karaylar-Karaites themselves, they are descended from Tataric-Turkic tribes and they readily back this up with linguistic and anthropological evidence.  Karaylar-Karaites are often confused with Karaite Jews and whenever this happens they are quick to point out that they are not Jews at all. . Anyway, these topics should be discussed in Crimean_Karaites article rather than here.

 * As to the admittance to the ranks of szlachta (there was no other nobility in PLC back then so saying that they were admitted to the nobility is equal to saying that they became szlachta), it seems probable. Note that many Tartars, who were in a similar situation and even inhabitated the same regions within the PLC, were often promoted to the ranks of szlachta. Among the most notable of them were the Chazbijewicz, Gliński, Korycki, Najman, Juszyński and Łowczycki families. It would be really strange if Karaites were except to that notion. On the other hand anything is possible in history. Halibutt June 28, 2005 10:16 (UTC)

Mass murders by Nazi in Trakai
Halibutt, you have to review your sources - they are very biased (I don't know to what, but these are the facts) and incorrect. I have contacted the official representitives of the Karaims and have asked, if there are known any facts or clues regarding mass genocide of Karaims during the WWII in Trakai - there have not been any. I believe, this was not the case for Poles, too (except Jews - WWII was cruel to them). So the sources you have used are under fire - please cross check the facts. DariusMazeika 28 June 2005 08:49 (UTC)

 * I don't think my sources are biased. They might be wrong here, but why biased? Also, it would seem quite strange if the Germans organized pogroms and mass murders in all towns of eastern Poland except for Troki. Why would they do so?

 * Anyway, this site (IE only) mentions roughly 3000 killed by the Nazis in 1941. This site mentions that there were some Karaite scholars who tried to convince the Nazis that the Karaites should be spared as they were not Jewish (check the section on Szapszal, Seraya Markovich). That would explain the lower casualty rate among Karaites from Troki. On the other hand the Karaites were but a minority in 1941, with majority of local inhabitants being Jewish, Polish and Belarusian. Also, many listed on that site perished in WWII as well. Same with those listed here. Halibutt June 28, 2005 09:53 (UTC)

 * According to this [] and this [] Karaims fortunately have been excluded from genocide by Nazi. Also, there is no evidence, that there have been a genocide of Polish in Trakai region. Also, number 3000 is very exagerated, when refering to inhabitant count in Trakai town (despite this number is too small for Trakai region as a whole - the real number confirmed in different studies conducted not only by Jewish researchers is 5000 of killed Jews). And I tend to believe, that locals have to know better. It can be the case, that the your source is using incorrect information, biased towards minimalisation of harm done to Jews and/or trying to whitewash participation of locals (Lithuanians and Polish) in the genocide of Jews. DariusMazeika 28 June 2005 11:31 (UTC)

 * Also, it is probable that among those killed in Troki itself most were Poles while Jews were sent to the mass murder site in Ponary. This site mentions that this was the fate of Jews from Landwarów, not far from Troki. Halibutt June 28, 2005 10:38 (UTC)

 * Your words are not proved by any research conducted. In opposite - only Jews are listed [] (sorry, in Lithuanian only, I was unable to find again English translation, but it exists somewhere on internet). Why genocide of Poles in Trakai, but not in Vilnius or other nearby place? Of course, I believe, there have been a relatively small percentage of Poles, Whiterussians & Lithuanians killed during military action, but this is not genocide - the oficials and local police always takes the bullets first in any military action. And of course, there are other victims (like landmines, random bullets, rapes by soldiers), too. But genocide - I still have to see any prove. DariusMazeika 28 June 2005 11:31 (UTC)

Halibutt: I think these were Poles and Jews that were murdered in Trakai but not Karaites. Hakham Seraj Szapszal provided Nazis with a list of Karaite community in Trakai, letting them this way discover Jews with false Karaite papers there. Darius: There were thousands of Poles murdered in Vilnius along with Jews in Paneriai by Lithuanians and Germans. Did not you know this ? Lysy 28 June 2005 15:40 (UTC)

 * The study I have found and reference is very specific - it lists every place in Trakai region, where mass killings have been conducted, and very detailed numbers of victims (thanks to Nazi pedantic mania to documentent their actions, including wrongdoings) and who has conducted those mass killings. But there are no facts or evidence supporting POLISH people genocide in this region. Sorry. 28 June 2005 19:07 (UTC)

 * Indeed, out of roughly 100.000 victims of Germans and Lithuanians in Ponaren, more than a half were Poles, including ethnic Jews, Poles (roughly 20.000), Belarusians and all other nationalities. But such massacres happened all along the front lines, in every single small town the Einsatzkommandos arrived. In Kaunas itself roughly 10.000 people were murdered as soon as they arrived and the Lithuanian administration came from the underground. On July 26 alone roughly 3800 people were killed, which gives a decent testimony to what they did. Same happened in a plethora of places between June and December of 1941, including Białystok (2200 killed on June 28), Tykocin (roughly 1500 killed in August), Ponary (30,000 until December), villages around Bialystok (including several hundred in Jedwabne), Babi Yar in the Ukraine (30.000 on two days in September)... Odessa, Riga, Simferopol, Kiev... and so on. Halibutt June 28, 2005 16:38 (UTC)

 * I do not deny the massacre of Polish and Whiterussian and Lithuanian people (actually, a relatively very small percentage of existing populaton) by Nazi, nor the fact, that thoses mass killings have been conducted by locals, mostly Lithuanians. But the WWII has proved, that every left wing politicians and local authorities, not obbeing orders have been the targets of "pogroms" everywhere. And telling, that there have been genocide conducted against Poles (Whiterussian, Lithuanians) by Nazi, well, is an exageration, especially when comparing to Jews, when almost 90% (well, almost everyone unable to hide) of their population has been killed. What these remote places you list have in common with Trakai, let me ask? If mass killings of Poles have took place in Trakai, there should be studies done in Poland or Lithuania. While I was not able to find any, I still don't believe it have happened (except episodic kills by Nazi, which have took place everywere). DariusMazeika 28 June 2005 19:07 (UTC)

 * I already posted a link to the site mentioning 3000 killed in 1941, after the Germans seized the city. If you don't dispute that there were mass murders (this site mentions many more mass executions in 1941, including Słonim, Wilejka, Mołodeczno, Nowogródek, Wołożyn and others) and you don't dispute the dates, then what is it that you actually dispute, if I may ask? The number of killed? I'm afraid I have no sources at hand to shed any light on this matter, perhaps some local museum would have more info. Or perhaps it's their nationality? If so, then how do you distinguish between Poles of Jewish extraction, polonized Jews and Poles of Polish extraction? The Nazis did not differentiate, but perhaps you have a source that could confirm that there were no Poles killed during WWII in Troki? Halibutt June 28, 2005 20:55 (UTC)

 * We have to return back to the point we have started. I have found by chance, that one of the passages regarding the Trakai history in the 20th century was greatly inaccurate and have asked to double check them. I just have checked 2 statements of the passage - the nations under genocide by Nazi, and the count of victims. Both have proved to be false. I have found a very serious and informative evidence based study I am using as a base of my statements. Considering that all WWII mass graves have been studied in the Vilnius reagion by historians (I am not sure, but it seems that this study was funded by British embassy []), and there was no single reference I was able to find regarding Pole genocide in Trakai, I have suspended this statement. If I find a trustable evidence based one, I will put it back. Your suggestion to ask a Trakai museum historians is a good one - I will try that. DariusMazeika 29 June 2005 06:39 (UTC)

 * Ok, so what is wrong with my source? Your source says that 5000 Jews of Troki perished in WWII. My source says that 3000 people of Troki (of all nationalities) were killed in 1941, shortly after the Germans arrived. Is there any contradiction here? Halibutt June 29, 2005 07:20 (UTC)

 * Numbers, numbers, numbers. They do not match. I just have lift a UNESCO demographic report for Trakai, which states, that after WWII Trakai population has started increasing in 1959 there have been 3.1 thousands of inhabitants. Let's asume, that there have been the same population numbers before the WWII, despite in that period Trakai was more like a village than it was then. So if there have been 3000 killed, the place would be totally deserted and would be the WWII symbol we all would know about. Apprently, this is not the case. So I still maintain, that you need to recheck your sources. DariusMazeika 29 June 2005 08:16 (UTC)

 * In 1946 there were 19107 people registered for depatriation from Troki, with 5429 people finally expelled for Poland. So perhaps either your data is not accurate or the difference is between the actual town and the commune, which was densely populated. Halibutt June 29, 2005 08:55 (UTC)

 * Yes, this disambiguation can take place, but still, this does not removes the question, if the source is reliable - there is an obvious error, that Karaims have been under genocide by Nazi, which is confirmed by numerus sources being false, and even more, those sources state, that Karaims have been excluded by Nazi from exterminations by "research" (how weird and unhuman this sounds). When I will find time, I will get through that passage statement by statement, if more errors proved othervise by evidence will be found, I will fix them. DariusMazeika 29 June 2005 09:46 (UTC)

 * Neither the source nor my edits suggested that the Karaims were targeted during the Holocaust. What you deleted was a mention of purges during and shortly after the German invasion. It had nothing to do with ghettos, concentration camps and so on. Also, I admit that I couldn't find any proof for the killed being Jews or Karaims as the source mentions only Poles (meaning citizens of Poland). It is probable that none of those killed in 1941 was a Karaite. After all their number was really low, comparing to the overall population of the town and its area. Halibutt June 29, 2005 10:20 (UTC)

 * OK, this discussion is getting too leghty and too hot :) I am not ignorant to you nor facts and I do not want to argue for the sake of arguing. Let's leave this question open - if I find any person with a knowledge of WWII history and Trakai or any real data regarding Nazi occupation in Trakai will be uncovered, I will put that information here. So I hope you do. Anyway, I have a hope to find real data - WWII history was well studied, so there should be numbers on WWII civil loses in the region of Trakai. Peace? DariusMazeika 29 June 2005 11:48 (UTC)

Voruta link
I'm going to remove the external link to Voruta. Firstly, it's not in English so seems useless on English language WP. Then, Voruta is a highly nationalistic magazine and should not be referenced to as an objective source. OK ? Lysy 28 June 2005 15:49 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately my Lithuanian is not good enough as to tell whether the content is nationalistic or not. However, an English version would be much more interesting. Halibutt June 28, 2005 16:43 (UTC)

 * If to be true, rzech-polita.pl or is no way better if I will follow your mind regarding Voruta. IMHO, it's like wikipedia, where different opinions are referenced with a preference to nationalistic ones. Combine these two sources and we will have a balanced information source on Polish-Lithuanian issues :) The study I have referenced was supported by Jews, so I believe it is objective. It provides lots of documented facts and evidence and is worthy to have for people interested in details of genocide in Trakai region. I will replace it with English one when I find it again.DariusMazeika 28 June 2005 19:26 (UTC)

 * OK, you certainly can judge better if it's a reliable source or not. English language version would be helpful, though. Lysy 28 June 2005 19:40 (UTC)

 * It's seems, there is another similar study (about holocaust in Vievis) authored by the same historian on Internet only. I will try to contact her for an English version of her study on Trakai region. DariusMazeika 5 July 2005 09:33 (UTC)

Troki Voivodship
"Voivodship" is an English word for Lithuanian "vaivadija". There's not reason to use Lithuanian words instead of English in English WP. Lysy 28 June 2005 20:13 (UTC)

 * I would agree on that, except the "Troki", especially when regarding to pre-commonwealth time period.DariusMazeika 28 June 2005 20:19 (UTC)

 * OK. However the official language used there in 15th century was probably neither Lithuanian nor Polish but Ruthenian. Lysy 29 June 2005 07:23 (UTC)

 * And the Ruthenian name for Troki is.... Troki. Halibutt June 29, 2005 07:26 (UTC)

 * I still prefer original local name for Trakai. Then it was not a Rhuthenia, anyway. DariusMazeika 29 June 2005 08:16 (UTC)

 * That's fine with me. Lysy 29 June 2005 14:41 (UTC)

 * I understand Lithuanian national pride and if I was to decide, we could call it with the Traku Vaivadija neologism all the way from 15th century to the end of the Republic. I think we can back down on this one, though such a solution is far from factually accurate. Halibutt June 29, 2005 15:07 (UTC)

 * Provide me with not biased data regarding Ruthenians living in Trakai in prehistoric times and I will read it and this will change my mind. Currently I believe this is not the case, since archeologic excavations and water localities (water locality names is a good indicator of prehistoric tribes living over some place, since these names are less likely to change over time) do not suport your hypotesis. Based on data I have, I think this is nationalistic rant and nothing else. DariusMazeika 30 June 2005 06:52 (UTC)

 * Well, the problem with toponymy in our part of the world is that most of rivers have names dating back to pre-historic times and Proto-Indo-European languages. Because of that and because of the nature of Lithuanian language which has many similarities to the ancient root of all European languages, you could most probably claim that Lithuanians once inhabitated all Europe, from Spain to Urals and from Baltic to Italy. While this is a helpful source of information, it can be misleading. Unless of course you claim that the name of Vendée River in France comes from Lithuanian vanduo (water) and not Proto-Indo-European root *[vn-]. Halibutt 17:21, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Tyszkiewicz palace on Galvė
Is there any quality picture of this? The current is hazy and blurry. DariusMazeika 28 June 2005 20:25 (UTC)

 * I don't have a better one. But this one looks quite all right on my screen (other than the dark, cloudy skye) and gives good impression of the architecture of the now renovated palace. Of course feel free to replace it if you have a better picture. Lysy 29 June 2005 07:17 (UTC)
 * Maybe using a larger thumbnail would help, if this is what you mean ?

 * No, I mean it is hazy - there is a light mist over the lake between the lense and object. This makes the photo romantic, but less informative on architecture details. I hope people will read this talk page and will find a better picture in their photo collections. (If not, I will try to take one on my next visit. God, I don't know when...). DariusMazeika 29 June 2005 08:16 (UTC)

Karaims
Regarding the "jewishness" of these people it doesn't seem to make sense following your previoust posters logic.. and the whole process of qualifying as "jewish" is dependant on your mother being jewish...

I'm jewish myself, by definition, but contain less than 8% jewish blood - It's just I'm from a bloodline which has been carried by the mothers only, as a jewish father is not enough to make his son jewish.

Two travel books on the Baltic States report that there *may* be some jewish blood in them, but the lineage is simply over such a long time span its impossible to prove.

Trakai
I have lived in Vilnius often over the past years, and have taken many photographs of Trakai - copyright free, you have some really good ones there but I am offering the ones I took free of use if you want to use them.

I do not feel comfortable editing the article so will leave it to you

http://frankied.com/fotoexpress/usr/10/+2005-09-09_Trakai/ for the directory http://frankied.com/fotoexpress/usr/10/+2005-09-09_Trakai/22.jpg example image

Labas Lysy
Hi Lysy, just wanted to know the basis for your claim that Trakai has a considerably Polish population today? And what represents considerable in your mind? What happened to 42, Btw? Dr. Dan 18:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Come one, everyone knows this, don't you ? Or are you pulling my leg again ? Trakai, Švenčionys, Šalčininkai and Varėna areas have the largest Polish communities outside Vilnius and the district. 42 had to give way to Polish ultra-catholic-nationalism. --Lysytalk 21:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Humor me, and some others that don't know. All I got was an answer to what happened to 42. Again what do you mean, that Trakai has a considerable Polish population. I'm not pulling your leg, I'd like a statistic and a source. Dr. Dan 22:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Sufficient time has elapsed for a response to the question. I will remove Troki from the "lead", as per my explanation as to why, many, many times. Everyone knows this is not exactly "common knowledge" in 2006, nor an acceptable explanation. Sorry, but I'm not pulling anyone's leg either. Dr. Dan 23:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I thought we could trust Lysy, he knows well ;-) If in need of sources, see statistikos departamentas. --Beaumont  (@)  11:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link and do not confuse city and municipality. M.K. 18:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Would never say we couldn't trust Lysy. But thank you Beaumont, for providing the information I requested. I would like the statistics on the city itself too (you know the 5000 or so inhabitants of the town, rather than the area surrounding it). The link is very appreciated as it will further help me with my position. I would assume that your argument applies in reverse, and therefore Druskininkai or the bigger joke per Space Cadet, Birzai, won't need their foreign toponyms in the lead per your argument about Trakai. Since you like Statistikos Departamentas so much Beaumont, thank you and let's use it to help us in this matter. Dr. Dan 14:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Oh, go to lt:Druskininkai and clean up the lead :P (other wikis are in the need as well) --Beaumont (@)  16:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the tip, this name in this particular article (which link you have), was added by annon...most likely from Poznan, Wielkopolskie. Anybody new contributors from Poznan? And it is very sad this is not the first time than annons from Poland adding their POV in different article across all wikipedia -FR,DE, RU and so on. M.K. 18:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wonder why it is more controversial on enwiki than on ltwiki, where it was never reverted so far. .. But you're right, those Polish anons are annoying. Did you consider complaining about it to the Wikimedia Foundation? At least you can propose to foribid it on ltwiki, just to prevent such a vandalism. --Beaumont  (@)  19:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you want Varšuva too? M.K. 19:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Did anybody ever speak Lithuanian in your ridiculous "Varšuva"?
 * Please don't drag beautiful Warszawa into this bagna, it insults me, Mieczyslaw Fogg, and millions of others. Dr. Dan 03:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speakers of Lithuanian live there even today. M.K. 10:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine. Is the number (or percentage) of people speaking Lithuanian over history in any remote way close to the analogical number of people speaking Polish over history in Troki or Wilno for that matter? Get it? Space Cadet 01:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In the logic of this section's discussion I have a few possibilities of responding, I do not know exactly which one to chose ;-) Did you find it on any wiki (pls note that I never cited plwiki)? Did you have some 30% Lithuanian minority there (now or earlier)? But, more seriously, if we were in twenties, or fifties, we could find other-language-names offensive. Now, it's 21st century. As for me, try e.g. to remove Breslau from the lead in Wrocław and I'll revert it. --Beaumont (@)  20:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Beaumont, do you find Varšuva ridiculous too? M.K. 10:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure he does. It's as ridiculous as not mentioning Polish names of Trakai or Vilnius. Space Cadet 01:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Yeah, Space Cadet. But I think you're on recent record regarding Birzai, and the dispute. Any change of heart there? Majority of it's inhabitants, blah, blah, blah? Dr. Dan 03:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Oh yeah, I forgot. It's as ridiculous as not mentioning Polish names of Trakai, Birzai or Vilnius. Thanks for your support and continuous improvement of the Wikipedia articles blah, blah, blah, blah... Space Cadet 19:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you forgot alright, the point was Birzai, kochany, and that per you, the majority of its inhabitants were Polish. Check out Beaumont's statistikai for an update. Btw, just love your little spaceship. Does it have a name? Dr. Dan 02:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes it has a name. It's name is "Dżygit" or "Djigit". I named it after a dog I loved when I was a kid. Don't tell Kuban Kazak, cause he could get mighty upset. Space Cadet 11:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Why, do you think Kuban hates dogs? Dr. Dan 14:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Dan, I'm a bit busy with my real life recently. Go to Trakai and try your Polish there if you don't believe it's spoken there. Not only by Poles but also Karaites and other locals. --Lysytalk 01:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No problemo Lysy, real life has that cruel tendency to sometimes take us away from our Wikipedian obligations. Happens to me all the time. After Beaumont provided the information from Departamentas Statistikos I have left it alone for now (still would like statistics pertaining to the town vs. the region). But a simple question: who are the other locals that I could try my Polish on? I mean after the Poles and the Karaites, who in this Polish speaking multi-national "region" are you talking about? And I suppose it would be fair of me to infer according to you that whoever they are, they are Polish speaking "locals". Right? Dr. Dan 14:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Trakai is a town built on water. The town is surrounded by the lakes of Lukos (Bernardinų), Totoriškių, Galvės, Akmenos, Gilušio. There are a number of architectural, cultural and historical monuments in Trakai. The history museum in the castle was established in 1962. Festivals and concerts take place in the island castle in summer.

A bit outdated - the coat of arms, lack of Lithuanian form of the city's name
Well, i suggest changing the coat of arms, because it's not the one that can be found on the city's homepage. And i suggest changing the "(Polish: Troki)" part to "(Lithuanian: Trakų)", and just mentioning the Polish name in the next section. WloczyKot 09:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The Historical region
I think you mention a wrong historical etnographical region in the top of the Artickle! I think the region should be Dzūkija?--PerV (talk) 21:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Trakai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120707120909/http://db1.stat.gov.lt/statbank/default.asp?w=1280 to http://db1.stat.gov.lt/statbank/default.asp?w=1280
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070317230848/http://viduramziu.lietuvos.net/socium/sostine2.htm to http://viduramziu.lietuvos.net/socium/sostine2.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070805112653/http://cja.huji.ac.il/Architecture/Wooden-synagogues-Lithuania.htm to http://cja.huji.ac.il/Architecture/Wooden-synagogues-Lithuania.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Trakai map.jpg

title: Talk:Trakai


text:
771 BC

Events

 * End of the Western Zhou Dynasty in China as Western barbarian tribes sack the capital Hao. The King You of Zhou is killed. Crown Prince Ji Yijiu escapes to the East where he reign as King Ping of Zhou.

Births

 * Romulus and Remus

Deaths

 * King You of Zhou, King of the Zhou Dynasty of China.

title: 771 BC


text:
781 BC

Events

 * Zhou you wang becomes King of the Zhou Dynasty of China.

title: 781 BC


text:
782 BC

Events

 * Founding of Erebuni Fortress, namesake of Yerevan, Armenia, by Argishti I of Urartu

Deaths

 * Zhou xuan wang, King of the Zhou Dynasty of China.

title: 782 BC


text:
Talk:Chromium

Possibly used in Ancient Persia
There are a number of articles based on one study that identifies chromium as having been used in ancient Persia. I don't know how much attention should be paid to that, but maybe it merits a mention? One of the articles is https://phys.org/news/2020-09-chromium-steel-ancient-persia.html Mrfoogles (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Chromium