Talk:Holy League (1594)

Grammar

Why is the expansion so painfully ungrammatical and sloppy, and why do we need sections that are one-line-long? Dahn (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Unneeded focus on Aleksandar Komulović instead of on Holy League

Aside from the atrocious grammar, the vast majority of the article seems dedicated to a one "Aleksandar Komulović" -- whose own page notes him as an "early Pan-Slavist" -- even where he has no reason to be highlighted. Aleksandar gives the Pope an "ambitious plan" to form a Holy League... despite the article saying in a separate sentence immediately afterwards that the League had been formed already by 1593, when Aleksandar Komulović proposed his plan to the Pope... despite the heading of the article stating that no, the League actually formed in 1594. Then we have the massive sub-section for Aleksandar and his mission -- which starts off with a "Background", despite the article beginning with its own "Preparations". The "Background" in fact gives more information than the "Preparations", as it lists three separate missions to the Pope, with Aleksandar being present only in a failed attempt to sway the Pope. The next part of Komulović's mission states a few other people in attendance with him, but only in conjunction with their leader (Giovanni Battista, who for no apparent reason is stated to have kept contact with the bishop of Pecs along with Aleksandar) or to contrast with his dedication (Thommaso Raggio, who leaves while Aleksandar submits "a detailed report" to the Pope) The rest of the sub-article is taken up by a list of countries "projected as members" (even though none of them were actually stated to join). That sub-sub-article is in itself filled with minor sub-sub-sub-articles focused on individual "countries projected as members". The longest, a mission to Serbia, contrasts the Serbs (who were "explicitly praised as brave") with the Bulgarians (who "were said to be unwilling to fight") -- though this was written in 1594, after the Long War that Komulović was attempting to build alliances for had started. The article for the Serbs goes on, saying "the mission inspired a series of uprisings in Serb-populated areas" -- such as the Uprising in Banat, although the article for that uprising makes no mention of Aleksandar's mission. Then the passage drifts to an unrelated statement about how the Pope chose not to support an uprising that occurred two years after the mission and how brutally those uprisings were crushed without "appropriate support" from the rest of the Christian world, with the only inset picture added for emphasis -- however, none of this content relates to the Holy League, which had formed already according to all the sources, and has more to do with blaming Western Europe for a failed uprising. Russia is given a cursory (and grammatically incorrect) statement about how it did not join, but it was Raggio, not Komulović, who is stated to have gone to Russia, so the obvious implication is that Russia does not matter in this case. The Cossacks section is short and makes no mention of the Pope or the Holy League, mentioning only that during the Long War the Holy Roman Emperor Rudolf II sent a Count as an envoy to the Zaporozhian Cossacks for no stated reason, and that some Cossacks of unknown origin were involved in two invasions, also during the Long War. Getting back to the pan-Slavist, he takes a trip to Venice at the behest of the Pope, where he stays in a house and "allegedly" meets with ""Albanians"" -- implying that readers should unquestioningly doubt the authenticity of both the Albanians and the meeting, though like everything it has nothing to do with the Holy League. Aleksandar sews important documents (including both his Papal instructions and some letters "by "the people of Albania"") into a cushion with no motive and forgets the cushion when leaving Venice. The Venetians find the letters written by Aleksandar in the cushion and deduce that Aleksandar is indeed the author. What does this have to do with the Holy League? Nothing. It mentions an Albanian assembly attended by some Venetian vassals, who elect someone as leader. What does that have to do with the Holy League? Nothing. And it finishes with a statement that the Hemara Uprising against the Ottomans was somehow ended by Venetians convincing some chiefs to not rebel. What does that have to do with the Holy League? Nothing, but like the rest of the passage, it makes Venetians look bad. Then we have the Ragusa section, where "according to some rumors"... Aleksandar Komulović might have been thrown out. OK, what is Wikipedia policy about using rumors as a credible source? The only other sentence is an unsourced statement that Ragusans were worried because some Ragusan Jesuits were doing some anti-Ottoman things, but we don't know what they were doing, whether they were in Ragusa or from Ragusa, or anything else besides that they were there and causing fear. Nothing to do, at all, with the Holy League or the Pope. Then Aleksandar returns home, stopping in Prague in 1597 to convince the Emperor Rudolf to capture a city from the Ottomans that had recently been held by some Croatian irregulars -- while Rudolf has already been at war with the Ottomans for four years... The section concluded with a single sentence summing up everything, saying the proposed Holy League was a failure, as exactly nobody joined. However, the following section says that four years prior, at the start of the war, there was a "strategy" between Rudolf and one Bathory to "include participation of Moldavia and Wallachia in the Holy League"... when neither of them had been asked to join. A year later, a Ragusan "led" the emissaries and "easily convinced" some Moldavian boyars to join the League -- not only non-neutral POV, but presumably this is a man from the same Ragusa that was rumored to contemplate ejecting Aleksandar's Papal-sanctioned mission because of Ottoman influence, and we are not told how he managed to convince the boyars to join a League that would not exist a few years later. In the next sentence, readers are informed of Bathory's full name and title, and that he made seperate treaty of alliance in late 1594 between himself and the leaders of Moldavia and Wallachia. Another treaty was signed sometime the next year by Rudolf II and Bathory, with presumably the same Moldavian and Wallachian leaders signing the next year, even though the names given are different. What does this have to do with the Holy League? Apparently, that alliance system was it, as the Pope who asked for the creation of the League "lent the Emperor valuable assistance in men and money" -- despite there being no mention in that entire passage of it being called, or in any way associated with, a "Holy League". The most egregious thing is that this passage is much shorter than the attempt by Aleksandar to forge alliances, and is in complete violation of its closing statement. As a final note, no mention is made of Spanish involvement, yet the map and side window both state that Spain was a part of the Holy League -- even though every single battle listed beneath the League involved none of those countries, much less Spain itself. Unless this article can be completely reformatted and refocused, there seems to be little reason to keep it. Mr. Phorcys (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I am to blame for all flaws of this article. If I remember well, I first created a draft of article about Mission of AK and then, based on opinion of another editor, added its content with this article (diff). Before I did that the article about this League had only one paragraph. Probably because this League was more projection than real existing alliance. That is why the article in its current state focus on Komulović and his (mostly futile) efforts. Help with improving this article is welcome.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)