or Historiography of the issue
The fact that "Battle of Blue Water" was never occur, does not mean that there were no dead or wounded in this battle. Generations of historians have fallen victims of this myth.
Having found out in the above paragraphs the facts of the case, I can now with a touch of irony to see the attempts of "historians", who have managed to make these simple stories "Blue Water problem" for themselves and their readers.
Historiography topics can be divided into two periods: before publication Rogozhsky chronicler in 1922 and thereafter. In the first period, scientists did not yet had a full set of sources to clarify the myth, so to their works would be possible to treat more leniently.
But! Nikon Chronicle in the part need for us was published in 1788 [Russian chronicle by Nikon copy. – SPb.: Imperial Academy of Sciences, 1788, part 4 (up to 1407), ], Gustynsky Chronicle (in addition to Hypatian one) – in 1843, Stryjkowski Chronicle was published in 1582 and then in 1846 years. So, to find out the dependence Gustynsky annals of Nikon and Stryjkowski ones – it was not a problem since 1843 and map A. I. Mende labeled Blue River waiting for researchers since 1853. And Moscow charts about parish Blue also waiting from the end of the 18th century.
And if the "historians" of these 170 years have not been able to put the vegetables in a pan and cook the soup – then who is to blame them?
But we consider that until 1922 the researchers did not have enough information, and consider how historians have used the full set of texts for the past 95 years.
1. The false opinion N. Karamzin, that Blue Water – is a Synjukha (a tributary of the Southern Bug), have fatal influence on all subsequent historiography of topic. Thus was given a false context for consideration sources testimony. This error in the next 200 years it has not been overcome.
2. From Gustynsky chronicles and Karamzin goes erroneous dating news 1362nd year.
3. All of the researchers who have written on the subject of Blue Water can be divided into two groups by asking one simple question: entry by Stryjkowski of Blue Water – a historical source or literary fantasy?
4. The first group of researchers, which propose a rational look and considered Stryjkowski dreamer, not numerous. It should be called E. V. Rusina and N. I. Zharkikh. One can regret that Rusina expressed her correct view only in passing, and not having developed reasoning in the vast work.
5. A second group of researchers, who said Stryjkowski "historical source", unconsciously and against their will acquire the status of researchers literary fantasies 16 cent., although they said the articles on political history, and not on the history of literature. All these works are certainly false and did not promoted the study of the "Blue Water" one millimeter since Karamzin.
6. Over the past 20 years (1996 – 2015) in Ukraine, there is a certain rise in interest in the topic, which results in quite a rich stream of books, collections of individual articles, conferences and roundtables. The quality of these works does not hold any water, often occur article openly empty language, ones contains a large amount of plagiarism from the previously published articles. Plagiarism from erroneous work is also erroneous.