Talk:Battle of Achelous (1359)

MILHIST initial assessment

Rated as stub as there is little information given about the battle, just context. On a related point, wikipedia doesn't list another Battle of Achelous, so date disambiguation isn't required, unless there are concerns about confusion with the Battle of Acheloos.Monstrelet (talk) 08:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Inacurracies and blind reverts

It seems that the present form of the article, suffers from serious historical inaccuracies. Some examples:

• these two Despotates are named 'independent', where is this written? actually accordint to this [[1]] the Albanian tribesmen obtained the titles of Despot from the Serbian ruler.
• "After defeating Orsini the Albanians captured Arta and other towns, establishing two independent states", well this is wrong too: Arta submitted to Symeon after beeing threteaned by the Albanian tribesmen and followingly Symeon agreed to divide Aetolia (and south Epirus) between the two Albanian tribesmen (Boua&Losha) [[[[2]] (p. 350).

This blind revert policy, hiding specific historical events, and giving the wrong summary 'pointy' is simply unacceptable. [[3]]Alexikoua (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

After checking the current sources the article seems to have additional inaccuracies: according to this:[[4]] 'due to their tribal structure, the Albanian tribes that settled in the region didn't replace any existing Greek or Serbian rule with an Albanian state.' it seems the lead needs some rewording accoring to this.Alexikoua (talk) 09:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• 1)where the Albanians were able to take over Arta and other after defeating Nicephorus II

2)read pages 350-51 of Antwerp. By 1366-67 Albanians controlled all of Epirus except the city of Ioannina.

There is no dispute since the sources are precise so please don't insist on WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I added per source with the parts you omitted to quote the Simeon Uros involvement. Thus the dispute has been resolved and the tag can be removed.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The two issues i've initially mentioned above: (After defeating Orsini the Albanians captured Arta and other towns & the independent Despotates) are still complete wp:or according to the sources.Alexikoua (talk) 09:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• 1)the Albanians were able to take over Arta and other towns after defeating Nicephorus II

2)read pages 350-51 of Antwerp. By 1366-67 Albanians controlled all of Epirus except the city of Ioannina, but since that is your main objection I replaced independent states with despotates

There is no dispute since the sources are precise so please don't insist on WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Still can't understand what you mean idontlikeit here, the article had several inacurracies, but mysteriously you insist on blind reverting with the wrong summary 'pointy'. By the way you seem avoid this piece of information, which is quite important for the context: "The towns of Epirus were threatened by the Albanian tribesmen, so Nicephorus' cities of Arta and Jannina , as well as various lesser towns, quickly submitted to Symeon." without a clear reason [[5]]. To sum up: Arta wasn't simply captured by the Albanians, but given to them after agreement with Symeon. This sequence of historical events is quite clear and I don't see why we should hide specific parts of the story that need to be mentioned Alexikoua (talk) 11:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You should judge that quote in comparison to the rest of the page mainly Symeon being unable to confront them and that by 1366 they controlled most of the area.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That's what I said, there is no need to hide specific facts that are essential for the context. To take it simple the sequence is: 1. B. of Acheloous->2. local towns submit to the Serbian ruler Symeon in order to avoid Albanian domination->3. Symeon isn't interrested in Epirus settles in Thessalia->4.Symeon offers the title of Despot to 2 Albanian tribesmen +specific regions (Arta, Aetolia)->5.establishemnt of Albanian Despotates.

For a reason I can't explain you say that points 2 and 3 (and partially 4) shouldn't be mentioned. Off course this results in historical inaccuracies.Alexikoua (talk) 09:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You're ommiting the part that Symeon is unable to confront them>after leaving his counsellors were unable to confront them>Symeon agrees to their demands trying to maintain indirect control.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That's part of point 3. (more pecicesly: Symeon isn't interested to rule Epirus directly due to the anarchy that ruled in the region). 2., the precceding event, is still needed, because in fact Albanian tribes didn't control Arta and other cities before approval of Symeon (first sentence of aftermath section is chronologically wrong->in fact wp:or) Alexikoua (talk) 10:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I've made some readjustments, hope everything is ok. Aftermath section corrected according to the right historical sequence of events.Alexikoua (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Alternative names

I can't understand the meaning to add translations of a medieval military event: it doesn't fall to any wp:NC policy and it's useless to the reader whether it is modern Albanian or Greek. I wouldn't object however an addition if those alternative names were used in contemporary literature. As far I know even the precise location of the conflict is unknown (it was perhaps somewhere in Akarnania).Alexikoua (talk) 03:19, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

See the Battle of Kosovo, Battle of Sarantaporo, Battle of Pente Pigadia, Battle of Yenidje, Battle of Elli, Battle of Lemnos (1913), Battle of Bizani, etc etc. Of course there are also many examples of the opposite, in which articles about battles do not have translations. Nonetheless, there is no protocol it seems regarding their inclusion or exclusion, so unless you have a policy-based argument as to why the Albanian translation should be removed, it's probably best you RV yourself, or I can add it back. Up to you. Botushali (talk) 06:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

In general, it is useless to have translations of titles that are generic descriptive terms and not really proper names. The English reader doesn't need to be told how you say "battle of ..." in Albanian – if the reader knows Albanian, they will already know this; if they don't, they will never care; either way, that's not really an encyclopedic fact about this battle but a trivial piece of lexicon info about a language. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Improvements on Syntax and Grammar

Hi @Alexikoua. Before I begin, I just want to say that I do not necessarily disagree with the sentence you removed as its not too relevant to the point where I feel that I need to participate in an edit war over the matter. Also, your additions from Fine's work are a nice touch to the aftermath section that bridges the gap between Nikephoros' death and the creation of the Albanian Despotates. However, I take issue with the substandard sentences you keep reinstating on the article. Perhaps they make sense to you, but they are very poorly written and do not make perfect sense to native English speakers, not to mention your personal additions of terms such as "temporary" which are not even present in the source itself. There are issues with grammar and syntax which I believe can be rectified without sacrificing source precision (which seems to be your primary concern). I have gone through Fine's work and I have added additions throughout the whole article. I've utilised him in the Aftermath section in an even more precise and extensive way than you did. Everything is as according to the source and actually makes sense, now.

I also take issue with you adding "allegedly barbarous Albanians" on the article, because that term is used in the context of the description of Albanians in contemporary Greco-Byzantine sources (especially with the added context of Ioannina being viewed as a centre of Byzantine Imperial ideology, as is indicated by Osswald's source). If the "allegedly barbarous Albanians" destroyed the Greco-Serbian forces in Epirus, does that make the Greek men weak and helpless in comparison to the Albanians who prevailed over them multiple times? Politically charged terminology should be avoided for this very reason - something like Contemporary Greek sources depicted the Albanians as barbarous... is much more in line with WP:NPOV, but you'd have to get a source for that as it is not what Osswald explictly says. Botushali (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

""Contemporary Greek sources depicted the Albanians as barbarous... is precisely how high quality scholarship describes the historical context. Nothing POV at all.Alexikoua (talk) 05:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is not what you wrote in the article. What you just quoted was my suggestion, but you'll need to find sources for that. Botushali (talk) 06:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Erroneous Edit Summary

Hi @Alexikoua, I'd like to draw your attention to a erroneous edit summary that you made for this edit [6], in which you claimed that the content was "not in the citation". Unfortunately, this is incorrect. Here is the direct quote from Osswald on page 136:

Carlo Tocco, once he obtained the submission of Albanian clans, had no reason to expel them. His army, from the beginning of his conquests, was composed mainly of Albanians. So was the army of Ioannina before he ruled the city.

Carlo was the last of the three despots of Janina appointed in succession after the death of Nikephoros. Next time, I suggest you actually read through the citation properly so that you may avoid claiming falsehoods. Botushali (talk) 06:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

They even tried to add discredited stuff from Osswald who makes the wild claim that Albanians first settled Epirus in the 13th century. In mainstream scholarship there is no doubt that Albanians first settled Epirus in the early Middle Ages, centuries earlier that Osswald does imagine. I do not doubt Osswald's neutrality as a scholar, but it is clear he has not done research for some of his claims and has only relied on 13th century documents. This has been explained to Alexikoua in the past, but somehow they forget it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

It was me who added some of those statements, but I am not opposed to their removal as they do not fall in-line with other, in-depth research. Botushali (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Since Alexikoua repeatedly used Osswald in the past, I thought it was he who added the content. Cheers to both. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The part that's not in source is "the army of Ioannina during the rule of these three despots primarily consisted of Albanians" and is removed. Osswalt never claimed something close to this. Botushali is kindly advised to provide a quote that proves the opposite.Alexikoua (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually, it's already in the discussion, but I'll write it out again:

Carlo Tocco, once he obtained the submission of Albanian clans, had no reason to expel them. His army, from the beginning of his conquests, was composed mainly of Albanians. So was the army of Ioannina before he ruled the city.

Carlo Tocco was the third Despot of the three. According to the quote above, Carlo's army was composed mainly of Albanians; immediately after, he states that So was the army of Ioannina before he ruled the city - the other two despots preceded Carlo's rule, and according to the quote above, the army of Ioannina prior to Carlo's rule was also composed mainly of Albanians. So, to summarise what that quote says and to avoid plagiarism, it's very much suitable to say that the army of Ioannina during the rule of these three despots primarily consisted of Albanians. It is very much present in the source.

Hope that clears up the issue! Tossing it up to another language barrier. Botushali (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

You understand that interpreting this as spanning to the rule of three Despots equals OR and SYNTH. Osswalt per quote you provided refers to a period "before and during C. Tocco rule." without any reference to any previous Despot and claiming that this also was Prelubovic' army makes this claim quite fictional. Alexikoua (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

So who ruled Ioannina prior to Tocco’s reign? This is WP:BLUESKY. Also, Prejubovic wished to style himself as the supposed “Albanian-slayer” even though he only managed to torture Albanian prisoners. He was continuously defeated by the Albanians in actual conflicts (not the torturing of prisoners) and was forced to hand over his daughter Irena and his sister Helena to the Albanians. So much for the “Albanian-Slayer”; it’s an epithet he wished to style himself as, but I will add that sourced content in soon.

Meanwhile, I don’t mind sourced additions, but the grammar is extremely poor, so I’ll try and rectify that. Botushali (talk) 05:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I've decided to remove information about Thomas' reign considering this is an article about a battle that predates his reign. If you want to include information about Preljubovic, then you need to include the whole picture; he wished to style himself as the "Albanian-Slayer" by torturing Albanian prisoners even though he was slapped around by the Albanians on multiple occasions and was forced to hand over his sister and daughter as a result. However, including all this information about the specific details regarding Preljubovic's reign would be excessive for an article centred on the Battle of Achelous. Doesn't really fit the scope of the article.

Instead, I focused the section on Carlo's reign (the third and final despot), because that is when the Albanian tribes were finally subdued (with the help of Albanians loyal to Carlo, of course). That's a more rounded way to end the aftermath section whilst avoiding unnecessary details about Carlo's reign or the reign of any previous despots. Botushali (talk) 06:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)