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)

Karl Topia ?

There is litteraly no historical proof that Karl Topia, a lord of central Albania, ever took part in the battle of Achelous, Albanian tribes under Gjin Bua Shpata and Pjetër Losha lead the armies, yet whenever that is corrected for an unexplainable reason its always reverted back to Karl. QaifarShqiptari (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @QaifarShqiptari. I was initially under the impression that Pjeter Losha was the commander of the Albanians here, but that does not seem to be the case. Although it was entirely possible he played an important role, the main commander seems to be Karl Thopia, according to these sources:

[1] Zečević, Nada (2015). The Tocco of the Greek Realm. Central European University Press. pp. 136–137. ISBN 9788691944100.[7] - makes various references to Thopia's role at Achelous on pages 37, 78 and 136-137.

[2] Bartl, Peter (1981). "Topia, Karl". Biographisches Lexikon zur Geschichte Südosteuropas (Në gjermanisht). 4: 311–312.

[3] Soulis, George Christos (October 1985). "The Serbs and Byzantium during the Reign of Tsar Stephen Dušan (1331–1355) and His Successors. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks. 1984. Pp. xxvi, 353. $15.00". The American Historical Review. 90 (4): 110–117. doi:10.1086/ahr/90.4.918-a. - Soulis' work in particular includes this notable passage: Meanwhile, Nicephorus, wishing to bring the Albanian rebels into submission,⁶⁶ organized an expedition against them, taking with them as allies a group of Turkish corsairs⁶⁷ who had landed on the Thessalian coast. He met the Albanians, led by Charles Thopia, near Acheloos⁶⁸ in Aetolia. Nicephorus was killed in the battle, and his army utterly defeated.⁶⁹ Upon hearing of her husband's fate, Maria left the Peloponnese for Constantinople and soon afterward retired to the monastery of St. Martha, where she spent the rest of her life.⁷⁰

The date of the battle of Acheloos and the death of Despot Nicephorus has been the subject of much discussion. The only evidence we have comes from the Chronicle of "Proclus and Comnenus." There we read that "after having come to Acheloos and having engaged in war with the Albanians, (Nicephorus) was defeated and killed by them, after a reign of only three years, two months and a few days, the present year being 6866 [1357-1358J. "⁷¹ It has been shown earlier in this chapter that Nicephorus arrived in Thessaly shortly before, or during, the spring of 1356. Three years and two months later would take place the battle of Acheloos and Nicephorus's death late in the spring or early in the summer of 1359, a date that contradicts that mentioned in the chronicle. In an effort to settle this discrepancy, J. Voyatzidis⁷² suggested that Nicephorus's conquest of Thessaly must have taken place in 1355 and his death, after three years, two months, and a few days, in 1358. It is difficult to accept this theory, since it is certain that Nicephorus appeared in Thessaly after 1355--following the death of Dusan and Preljub.

On the other hand, C. Hopf proposed that the word tetéav in the text should be replaced by Suetiav.⁷³ Thus, according to Hopf, Nicephorus conquered Thessaly in the spring of 1356 and was killed by Charles Thopia, two years, two months, and a few days later at Acheloos--in 1358.⁷⁴ S. Cirac Estopañan expressed the view that at the battle of Acheloos Ghin (John) Boua Spata, the despot of Acheloos, was victor, as Chalcocondyles relates; and that Nicephorus arrived in Thessaly at the beginning of 1356, after the death of Dusan and Preljub. His death in the battle against the despot of Acheloos and the Albanians three years, three months, and a few days later would then have occurred in the spring of 1359.⁷⁵ However, Charles Thopia, the Albanian chieftain who defeated Nicephorus in the battle of Acheloos， began his rule over Nicephorus's territory in Epirus in 1358.⁷⁶ To support his theory, Cirac Estopañan⁷⁷ declared that Charles Thopia and the date of the beginning of his rule have nothing to do with our problem because it was Ghin Boua Spata⁷⁸ -- not Charles Thopia, as Hopf had suggested -- who defeated and killed Nicephorus. He based his theory on the following passage by Chalcocondyles: "When the Albanians arrived in Acarnania with the consent of its ruler, they took over the land and became its masters. They then joined together to attack the Greeks in case they came against them. And when the ruler (who was called Isaac) appeared once in a hunting expedition, he was attacked by the Albanians, led by Spata, a man displaying vigor and courage, both profitable and satisfactory to them under the conditions at that time. And they killed there the ruler."⁷⁹ Cirac Estopañan suggested that if we substitute the name Isaac for Nicephorus, we get the true story of Nicephorus's death: Nicephorus was killed by Ghin Spata.⁸⁰

There is no doubt, in my opinion, that Cirac Estopañan misunderstood Chalcocondyles, and that he confused two entirely different events. First, it seens difficult to suppose that Chalcocondyles was unfamiliar with Nicephorus's name and confused him with Isaac. Besides, Chalcocondyles does not imply that the Isaac he mentions had organized any campaign against the Albanians, as Cantacuzenus⁸¹ and the Chronicle of "proclus and Comnenus"⁸² do in the case of Nicephorus. Furthermore, Chalcocondyles refers to Isaac as an hreyóv, but Cantacuzenus⁸³ and the Chronicle of "Proclus and Comnenus"⁸⁴ always refer to Nicephorus as Seonórns, a title granted to him by Emperor Johl Cantacuzenus when the latter appointed him governor of Aenos. Finally, Chalcocondyles says that Isaac was killed by Spata while he was hunting -- an entirely different story from those reported by the other sources. Chalcocondyles's passage seems to refer to the death in Acarnania of a local governor, named Isaac, at the hand of Ghin Spata.⁸⁵ Consequently, C. Sathas and S. Cirac Estopañan have confused the two events and considered them as one. In my opinion, Hopf's solution to the contradiction in the chronicle is the soundest, since all facts lead us to believe that the battle of Acheloos and Nicephorus's death occurred in the late spring or early summer of 1358.

All of the superscripts are sources and footnotes expanded upon by Soulis in the book. It's a solid, in-depth and precise work, and expands upon the confusion surrounding the dates and leaders of the battle. Keep in mind the words "hreyov", "teteav", "suetiav" and "seonorn" are actually meant to be words in Greek script, but for some reason, I couldn't copy them over in Greek script, and instead they've automatically been turned into what seems to be random words in Latin script. Anyways, it would seem the attribution to Shpata is a misunderstanding. Hope that clears everything up. Thanks! Botushali (talk) 00:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)