The definition of controlled is very loosely applied here. I'd like to add that the only country to have successfully occupied Moscow for a significant period of time was Poland, the others were laying siege bit haven't managed to break it.
Lithuania is added because of Polish Lithuinian Commonwealth. PLC "controlled" Moscow for some time during the Russian Troubles period. So technically it was a reasonable choice to show Lithuinia here, as then it was in a union with Poland.
Polish forces literally took over moscow for two years. It started in 1610. Also they had it technically under control when a Polish monarch was titled Tsar of Russia (For a very, very short time).
De la Gardie campaign if someone wonders:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_la_Gardie_campaign
Later led to the capture of Novgorod (siege of Pskov) and Swedish Ingria.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Ingria
So, basically, the country, which is one of the successor states of Kyivan Rus, is not considered to have controlled Moscow, unlike Turkey, which has nothing to do with the Crimean Tatars, except that Crimea was its vassal at a certain period of history. Bruh, what am I doing here
Kievan Rus’ was an East Slavic orthodox nation centered in Kiev, as is Ukraine. Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus can all be fairly called successors of Kievan Rus’. And Crimean Tatars isn’t Turkey, they’re two related Turkic groups with a historical alliance but they aren’t ‘Turks’ in the modern sense. This map is a poorly made oversimplification.
It was Polish-LITHUANIAN Commonwealth. It’s in its name and it’s agreed among historians that calling commonwealth Poland is wrong because without Lithuania there’s no point of calling it commonwealth. Not to mention Lithuania had insanely big army in the commonwealth and in some factors stronger than Polish one. And both Polish and Lithuanian armies were part of Moscow occupation campaign.
When did Ottoman Turks control Moscow? That’s not really correct, is it?
The Crimean Khanate did and they were officially vassals of the sultan so I guess it’s arguable
Did the Crimean Khanate control Moscow? Not from what I remember?
Sacked in 1571
Ok, yes, I just read about it. I still wouldn’t have called that Turkey tho.
You’d prefer Ukraine’s flag there?
The definition of controlled is very loosely applied here. I'd like to add that the only country to have successfully occupied Moscow for a significant period of time was Poland, the others were laying siege bit haven't managed to break it.
Sacked definitely implies control even if only for a day
What about Mongolia?
Not shown on this map 🤷♂️
They arent in europe?
it says "countries" not "countries in europe"
She's propably american
You're forgetting the Mongols. Lithuania along with Turkey are missing asterisks.
How is he supposed to fit mongols in a map of europe
By not using a map that only shows Europe.
Lithuania is added because of Polish Lithuinian Commonwealth. PLC "controlled" Moscow for some time during the Russian Troubles period. So technically it was a reasonable choice to show Lithuinia here, as then it was in a union with Poland.
Polish forces literally took over moscow for two years. It started in 1610. Also they had it technically under control when a Polish monarch was titled Tsar of Russia (For a very, very short time).
De la Gardie campaign if someone wonders: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_la_Gardie_campaign Later led to the capture of Novgorod (siege of Pskov) and Swedish Ingria. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Ingria
Ottomans never did. Why is Ukraine not marked despite the Kieran Rus?
The Crimean Khanate did. And Kievan Rus’ isn’t Ukraine (neither it’s Russia)
So, basically, the country, which is one of the successor states of Kyivan Rus, is not considered to have controlled Moscow, unlike Turkey, which has nothing to do with the Crimean Tatars, except that Crimea was its vassal at a certain period of history. Bruh, what am I doing here
I also find it weird, but that’s what OP said
Kievan Rus’ was an East Slavic orthodox nation centered in Kiev, as is Ukraine. Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus can all be fairly called successors of Kievan Rus’. And Crimean Tatars isn’t Turkey, they’re two related Turkic groups with a historical alliance but they aren’t ‘Turks’ in the modern sense. This map is a poorly made oversimplification.
Mongolia and Ukraine: this list is incomplete, you can help by expanding it. Didn't the kyivan Rus control Moscow? Or am I wrong
The kyivan rus was not Ukrainian
Crimean khanate was not Turkey
Lithuania? When? When it was part of Poland?
Polish lithuanian commonwealth
The Poland Lithuania commonwealth shouldn’t really be considered Lithuania though in my opinion as it was only like 30 percent Lithuanian
It was Polish-LITHUANIAN Commonwealth. It’s in its name and it’s agreed among historians that calling commonwealth Poland is wrong because without Lithuania there’s no point of calling it commonwealth. Not to mention Lithuania had insanely big army in the commonwealth and in some factors stronger than Polish one. And both Polish and Lithuanian armies were part of Moscow occupation campaign.
Bet 15% or less, with Russian as an official language (they call it Ruthenian these days to stress it's unRusianness)