Jump to content

Talk:League of Lezhë

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Whoever made the map doesn't know much about Balkan history.

Just look at the supposed territory of the Republic of Venice! It is 11 times expanded at the expense of Serb territory. And then there is this imaginary 'Morovian Serbia'?!?

Correct it then doctor.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only correction is to be made to the territories of the principality of Zeta and those of Prince Marko. The League of Lezhe territories are OK.sulmues--Sulmues 15:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some translation is needed

[edit]

SourceAigest (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't bother translating material that can be reverted, unless we know the sources. --Sulmues Let's talk 22:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muslims in League of Lezhë

[edit]

Which were the Muslims in League of Lezhë? What do you intend with that entry? Do you have a reference for that? Aigest (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assembly of Lezha?

[edit]
Resolved

"The League of Lezhë (2 March 1444-25 April 1479) was a confederation of all Albanian Principalities, created in the Assembly of Lezha in 2 March 1444."

I have not find any mention of Assembly of Lezha in referenced sources. I am not sure if author can provide with inline citations here. Considering the fact that we are talking about medieval principalities, I am not sure if it was possible that there were elections held there. If author is not able to submit inline citation, I propose to delete words "Assembly of Lezha".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting that two authors whose work was used as reference for assembly of Lezhe were involved with USA deffence. Robert Fox is "writer on western defence issues" [1] and Peter F. Sugar was intelligence officer of USA army. Regardless that fact, it is hard to believe that they can be credible source for Assembly of medieval principalities that were Albanian.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Try Peter Sugar or Jean W. Sedlar. Best! --Sulmues (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried. There is not mention of assembly at all. I will again kindly ask for inline citations. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I waited for somebody to bring inline citation for assembly, since quoted sources do not mention it. Since after four months nobody brought it, I deleted word Assembly from the text.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Free Albanian" principalities that are from "high mountains" against "Turkish" enemy?

[edit]

"Skanderbeg organized a meeting of Albanian nobles, the Arianits, Dukagjins, Spani, Thopias, Muzakas, and the leaders of the free Albanian principalities from the high mountains, in the town of Lezhë, where the nobles agreed to fight together for mutual gain against the common Turkish enemy and they voted Skanderbeg as their suzerain chief."

free Albanian principalities This article is describing medieval events. There were principalities that were ruled by medieval feudal families. They were not free nor national because there was little freedom for anybody in medieval principalities.

from the high mountains This expression is more suitable for fairy tale than encyclopedia. If you look at the map you will notice that there are not only high mountains under control of this medieval principalities.

common Turkish enemy They were fighting against army of Ottoman Empire that consisted not only from Turks, but also from Serbs, Albanians, Greeks,.... There were many Albanian generals of army of Ottoman Empire, and stating that enemy were only Turks is wrong and can mislead readers.

they voted Skanderbeg as their suzerain chief. It is medieval times we are talking about. I believe that instead of voting it should be better to write accepted.

Therefore I propose to change above mentioned sentence to: " Skanderbeg organized a meeting of Albanian nobles and the leaders of principalities, the Arianits, Dukagjins, Spani, Thopias, Muzakas, in the town of Lezhë, where the nobles agreed to fight together for mutual gain against the common Ottoman enemy and they accepted Skanderbeg as their suzerain chief. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that few would argue for a voting system in existance in the 15th century, however I wouldn't make any edits there, because I do not understand fully the Kanun of Skanderbeg, which might include a voting system for all I know. "Turkish enemy" refers to the Ottoman Empire and in general "Turkish" should be avoided. However the Turkish generals and politicians were the force behind the empire at that time, which is unavoidable: the local vassals just worked for them, so I wouldn't see that as a problem. In general this kind of edits are useful when the article is suitably referenced, meaning it has reached a B status, which is not the case now. "The high mountains" are actually all over (probably 80%) of the region represented by the League of Lezhe. Albania is 70% mountains: the north is pretty much 80% and I don't see a problem there. --Sulmues (talk) 14:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know Albania is mostly mountains, but it is more appropriate term for myths than for encyclopedia. And most mountains in Albania are not very high. About Ottoman empire, you would probably laugh if someone says to you that in 15th century Serbs and Greeks in Ottoman empire had maybe bigger power than Turks, therefore it is not completely true that Turkish generals and politicians were the force behind the empire at that time. As for voting, I think that without suitable more primar source, word voting should be avoided.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you think Albania's mountains are not high enough. Will it make a difference to remove that "high" word? It's all relative anyways. Vaalserberg, the highest point of the Netherlands, would be considerable very profitable arable land in northern Albania, where there are at least 20 peaks over 2500meters high. The Serbs, Greeks, and Albanian vassals: They often turned against the rebels to the Sultan, such as Skanderbeg or Huniady, but I haven't heard of a Serbian, Greek or Albanian sultan. Later there were grand viziers from these countries, meaning prime ministers, but they were mostly eunuchs anyway, meaning with no ability to procreate and no power to leave fame and wealth to their children. I doubt that the true power was in Balkanic people's hands, otherwise in our countries we wouldn't see so many destroyed castles, but would see something like the Loire ones, where the wars were a joke if compared to what happened in our peninsula in the 15th century. --Sulmues (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think that it will help the text of this article be better if I write here that I admit that there are mountains in Albania that are very high and that principalities on those mountains that are high were completely free (whatever that can mean in medieval times) and that they belonged only to those people who declared themselves as Albanians?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take look at my proposal, compare it with existing text and try to decide what text is better and following NPOV:
"Skanderbeg organized a meeting of Albanian nobles and the leaders of principalities, the Arianits, Dukagjins, Spani, Thopias, Muzakas, in the town of Lezhë, where the nobles agreed to fight together for mutual gain against the common Ottoman enemy and they accepted Skanderbeg as their suzerain chief."

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I need help with finding primary informations about existance of this confederation.

[edit]
Resolved

I would like to write article about League of Lezhe on Serbian language, but I am facing one problem that can be maybe also problem for the text of this article. I can not find any primary source of information about this confederation of Albanian medieval principalities. There is one that is written by Gibbon, more than 300 years after League existed. Even in the article about Skanderbeg there is one Gibbon refference and several references on sources in 20th century. Can someone help me and provide some primary sources for existance of this confederation?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very broad source base here: Skanderbeg#Sources, which I have carefully built. --Sulmues (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I admire you for source base in Skanderbeg article. But here in this article, there are not inline citations from 15th century. Is it possible that there was such strong confederation without any source of information at those days. How can anyone know anything about League of Lezhe 300 years after it supposedly existed, if there are no written sources about it? Please provide with some inline citations by people that wrote something about what they whitnessed. I am not asking for that because I want to deny it has happened. I say that because it is according to wikipolicies to provide suitable sources, and because I would like to do the same thing you did with Skanderbeg. To write proper source base for article about this league on Serbian language. Now, I can not do it, by writing the text based on sources written in 20th century by politicans not historicians. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in the Serbian wikipedia, and this project in general is separate. What happens there is completely irrelevant to the English Wikipedia. --Sulmues (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is interested in providing credible sources with inline citations for most important text in this article. Topic of this article and text in lede deserves more appropriate references than first three that are submited now (Robert Fox is "writer on western defence issues" [2] and Peter F. Sugar was XX century intelligence officer of USA army.) List of literature that is added recently is impressive, but most of referenced sources are not credible, and that is significantly reducing the quality of the article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody provided the source for confederation, I replaced it with union, like the provided source says.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Principalities that are Albanian?

[edit]

"The League of Lezhë (2 March 1444-25 April 1479) was a confederation of all Albanian Principalities, "

I have not been able to find citation in referenced sources that support above mentioned information. First reference does not even mention Albanian principalities. Second referenced source use completely different term, much more appropriate: feudal lords of region. Even if someone recently wrote somewhere that there were national principalities that belonged to Albanian nation in medieval times, it should not be written in the text of the article, because it is wrong for following reasons: 1) There were no national states or principalities in medieval times. Neither Albanian national state. 2) All those principalities had its own names, mostly by name of the family that ruled them or town that was center of principality. Their names did not have direct connection with Albanian nation 3) Those principalities togather did not match territory of Albania in sense of geographical region that nowdays belong to Albania. Therefore if author made mistake with linking Albanian to Albanians and not to geographical region that today belongs to Albania, it is again mistake.

Therefore I propose to delete word "all Albanian" from above mentioned sentence, because it is clear that there was no list of principalities that belonged to Albanian nation, neither its territory corresponds with territory of todays Albania and name is wrong because those principalities belonged to medieval noble families not nations.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to your logic, you should delete first "all Serbian" from Serbian Empire. Take your trollings elsewhere. Aigest (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if it is not supported by suitable referenced sources.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Albanian Principalities and start your fight from there. --Sulmues (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't have to go that much. He can click on the references when this expression is used. See the term used by scholars on the relevant pages. Aigest (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Natural leaders?

[edit]
Unresolved

"Usually when the Turkish forces conquered a territory they either eliminated or coopted the native nobility, thus depriving the population of its natural leaders."

I propose to delete word natural from above mentioned sentence.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Say those words to Sedlar maybe he will rewrite the book according to your suggestions. Up to then, they stay. Will you stop trolling? Aigest (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please try to explain what does it mean natural leader and what is making any nobility natural leaders of people in some region?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were already told to take it up with Mr. Sedlar, please don't argue here. --Sulmues (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only Albanian soldiers fighting for lands that belongs only to Albanians?

[edit]
Unresolved

"..thousands of Albanian soldiers lost their lives.."

"... Albanian lands were forced to ..."

Despite what is written in the source of information, it was written from perspective of the time when it is written (mostly period of national awakenings and seeing everything trough glasses of nation) we today know that there were not only Albanian soldiers in any army at that time and that there was/is no land that belong only to people that declare themselves as members of certain nation.

Therefore I propose to change above mentioned sentences to:

"... thousands of soldiers from Principality of Kastrioti lost theirs lives..."

" ..... League of Lezhë was forced to ..."

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources please. --Sulmues (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is me who should say sources please, but I will not. If you request source that there is no piece of land that belongs to certain people only because they declare themselves as members of certain nation, my answer is that I refuse to provide source for that because I consider your request as harassment. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained you in your talk page how this article has already problems: it doesn't have a B status [3]. Please read Wikipedia:References#Dealing_with_unsourced_material and act appropriately. I am sure that your work will cause editors to find some sources. --Sulmues (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice. I red policy and if I act according to it, I would delete disputed text because it is clearly stated that "If a claim is doubtful and harmful, remove it from the article. You may want to move it to the talk page and ask for a source, unless it is very harmful or absurd, in which case it should not be posted to the talk page either." If I followed this policy, I would delete text that I find absurd without discussion. But I will not do it because maybe I missed some point or did not understand it completely, so I will wait a little before proceeding with this issue.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The military commanders, leaders and simple soldiers, i.e. the whole army fighting against Scanderbeg, consisted of local Albanians, Bulgarians, Serbs and Vlachs. There were also Turkish Muslims in the Ottoman forces who owned timar lands. On the whole, it is evident that the rebels were not opposed by “foreign” invaders, but by local forces loyal to the new empire who were willing to fight members of their own ethnic groups longing for pre-Ottoman times. "Robert Elsie (absolutely non-antialbanian) web site with Oliver Schmitt book--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Duh, if you don't understand that this reference is for the composition of the Ottoman army, I've nothing to add more.....ah I forgot that I can add smth ...WP:OR ing.
P.S. on second thoughts I will explain this WP:OR. The same Ottoman army, composed of Albanians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Vlachs, Greeks etc fought against John Hunyadi and Vlad III the Impaler. By the same logic (of yours) the respective armies of Hunyadi and Dracula were composed of Albanians!? Greeks!?Bulgarians!? Just bring the sources on Scanderbeg's army will you? Aigest (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"rebels were not opposed by “foreign” invaders, but by local forces loyal to the new empire who were willing to fight members of their own ethnic groups longing for pre-Ottoman times".Robert Elsie (absolutely non-antialbanian) web site with Oliver Schmitt book --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Antid. this is about their enemies not their allies.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is additional inline citation that soldiers fighting for Skanderbeg were not only Albanians. Source for this citation is work
Setton, Kenneth M. (1976), The papacy and the Levant, 1204–1571: The thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, American Philosophical Society, ISBN 9780871691279(p.101):

Skanderbeg and a determined force of 8.000 men, among whom were Slavs, Germans, Italians and others....

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also

[edit]

In see also subtitle there are several articles about events that happened more than 400 years after League of Lezhe existed and that happened in region that has nothing to do with League of Lezhe because it is outside of its territories and Peć and Prizren had 0% of Albanian population when League of Lezhe existed. Therefore I propose to delete links to Prizren and Peja in subtitle See also.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are stretching it. This is not the Serbian Wikipedia. It is a little more serious and everything written down needs to be backed up. When the League of Lezhe existed there were Albanians in both Pec and Prizren. As a matter of fact you might be interested in reading some more about a large participation of Albanians in the Battle of Kosovo. If you keep trolling in these talk pages saying that there were no Albanians in Kosovo, you'll be reported for WP:Battleground mentality. That's your own OR and you'll have to back up that with sources. --Sulmues (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there were billion of Albanians in Prizren and Peje when league existed, it still does not have any connection with League of Lezhe.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you meant now. You meant under "See Also". Removed that, I agree that they were redundant. --Sulmues (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

NPOV

[edit]
Unresolved

I think that, based on all above mentioned disputes, this article is not following WP:NPOV rule and should be properly marked with NPOV tag untill disputes are settled.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First you bring the sources in the talk page and then we discuss, if we don't reach a conclusion, then you can place your tags. Until you just state your original research with no sources, there is nothing to discuss. --Sulmues (talk) 12:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the policy WP:NPOV. I dont have to provide sources, only comment on discussion page.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My 2¢, just to avoid this becoming a troll-fest: if all you want to do is change some phrases to make them more neutral-ish, then you can do that without any comments here or any NPOV tags. Just be bold. If you dispute specific facts and the way they are represented/interpreted here, then you are criticizing content, not style, and for that, it is best to to be backed up by some sources to support your view. Constantine ✍ 14:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Constantine.Thanks for your 2¢. I do not dispute specific facts, I dispute style of interpretation of text found in the sources using phrases that are breaking NPOV.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Antidiskriminator. Back your comments with WP:RS. Up to now you're just trolling. If you insist in this behavior you will be reported. Aigest (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Aigest. If you AGF you will realise that I am trying to improve quality of the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit what you don't like and see what other editors think. Please don't troll.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please find below reliable source to support my opinion that this article is against WP:NPOV. That is the work of Augusta Dimou Transition and the Politics of History Education in Southeast Europe, pages 240-242. Author is describing some of the contemporary interpretations of Skanderbeg and League of Lezha:
  1. "the albanian nobles are depicted as loyal and closely related to each other; their widespread rivalries, which seriously impended a strong union, are glossed over"... (this sentence looks like author was referring this article. There is no mention of how Lekë Dukagjini, ambushed and killed Lekë Zaharia Altisferi and how Lekë Dukagjini was fighting against Skanderbeg until pope made them signing peace trety, no mention of many albanian nobles changing sides and joining Ottomans, ...)
  2. "Skanderbeg is a symbol of lifelong resistance to a "foreign occupation"" (Ottoman occupation is also described in this article (and all articles about medieval history of Albania). Insisting on the term "Ottoman occupation" is absurd because that makes many Albanians that were Ottoman sipahis and soldiers (even Skanderbeg) ocupators of their own provinces and collaborators of the occupation forces.
  3. "authors points to the fact that two important battles against Ottomans took place in present day Western Macedonia ..... today is predominantly inhabited by Albanians. The insertion of Skanderbeg into Albanian historiography in Macedonia is recent phenomenon and both Albanian historians and officials pay particular tribute to it"... ""Macedonia" and "Albania" are ethnically compact units consisting of historical territories that remained virtually unaltered from antiquity up to contemporary times" "approach to ancient and medieval history is to a large extent influenced by actual political conflicts and ethnohistorical disputes" (Here is an easy question. What two battles are mentioned in the success section of the article? (Answer: Dibra and Ohrid in present day Western Macedonia)).
The text of this article fully corresponds to the description of some of the contemporary interpretations of Skanderbeg and the League of Lezha explained in above mentioned source.
Since I "backed up by some sources to support my view", using inline citations from reliable source, and proved that this article seriously violates WP:NPOV because its "approach to ancient and medieval history is to a large extent influenced by actual political conflicts and ethnohistorical disputes" this article has to be marked with appropriate POV tag. Comments with proposals how to improve the quality of the article and resolve POV issue are welcomed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These disputes will be settled when they meet your favor don't they?I do not understand your willingness to defame or alter Albanian history that much without providing NPOV sources. Nixious6 (talk) 11:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kastoria (Kostur) belonging to League of Lezhe?

[edit]
Resolved

Map of territory of principalities that consisted League of Lezhe is wrong because it shows that Kastoria is under League rule, although Kastoria was under Ottoman rule from 1385 (more than 50 years before League was created) till 1912 when it became part of Greece. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has to be brought up in commons by improving the map. --Sulmuesi (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Untill it is improved, map should be removed from the article in order not to mislead readers. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the map that more accurate show territory under control of notables that agreed to create League of Lezhe. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a map of Albania during the 1460's. Elbasan wasn't around till 1466. Kostur was owned by the Muzaka in the 14th century and once they united with other Albanian nobles it became part of the League of Lezhë. The map should present maximal territory -- as it does here and in featured articles like Byzantine Empire.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kastoria was under Ottoman control from 1385 till 1912, for 527 years. Muzaka or any other Albanian noble has never controled it in period 1385—1912, which is the period of existance of League of Lezhe. More precisely, Kastoria was under control of Ottoman empire 59 years before League of Lezhe was agreed, and remained within Ottoman empire 433 years after Leauge of Lezhe ceased to exist.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After 1912 Kastoria is in Greece, of course.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, but do not worry since new maps are being developed. This map is only temporary.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Borders change, especially during war, so your map can only be used when we deal with the appropriate time.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And it tells you where you found it that it's from 1468![4]--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, of course, that map can be used only when dealing with appropriate time. Since in this case Kastoria was not part of Leauge of Lezhe at any time, it is good that new maps are being developed. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This map (added by Vinnie 007) is wrong because it shows that Kastoria (Kostur) is under control of League of Lezhe, although Kastoria fell under Ottoman control in 1385 and remained under Ottoman control untill 1912. That means that Kastoria fell under continuous Ottoman control 59 year before League of Lezhe was created and remained under Ottoman control more than 440 years after it ceased to exist. Finally, map is not clearly showing territories that were not under control League of Lezhe and some readers could be misled to believe that Durres, Shengin, Shkodra, Tuzi.... were under control of League of Lezhe.

Here are couple of sources “confirming the opposite” describing Kastoria being conquered by Ottoman empire in 1385 and remained under it's control till 1912: Byzantinoslavica, Volume 3, Slovanský ústav v Praze. Byzantologická komise, Slovanský ústav ČSAV., Ústav dějin evropských socialistických zemí (Československá akademie věd), Československá akademie věd. Kabinet pro studia řecká, římská a latinská, Ústav dějin východní Evropy (Cěskoslovenská akademie věd), Greece, Stuart RossiterHellenica web site, Macedonia, Volume 1, Athanasios D. Paliouras, Greece By Dana Facaros, Linda Theodorou, Guide to places of the world, Reader's Digest Association (Great Britain), Griechenlandkunde, Ernst Kirsten, Wilhelm Kraiker The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Part 1. There are tons of sources that confirm that map is wrong because Kastoria was under control of Ottoman Empire in period 1385 — 1912.

I propose to remove the map from the article because it is obviously wrong. Map may be returned to the article but only after it is:

  1. corrected (Kastoria)
  2. referenced with relevant source
  3. with clear borders of territories which were under control of League of Lezhe,

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take the request to Vinie007 who created the map. By the way, the map doesn't say Shkodra, Durres, Shengjin, and Tuzi were under League control, but Venetian. It's not all too clear on that.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did. I hope he will participate in resolving this issues soon.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a map about the maximum expantion of the League of Lezhë before the Albanian–Venetian War (1447–1448) after that war venetian part came under Skanderbegs control! --Vinie007 14:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kastoria was under Ottoman control since 1385. Not Venetian. It is not allowed to use another article on wikipedia as source.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lezhe town in Venetian Empire

[edit]

I found in this book The grand Turk: Sultan Mehmet II, conqueror of Constantinople and master.... by John Freely that Lezhe was town within Venetian Empire. It is not mentioned in the text of the article, and it is obviously very important information which should be written in the article, so I propose to add this information in the article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty of Gaeta ending League of Lezhe?

[edit]
Unresolved

By signing the Treaty of Gaeta on March 26, 1451 Skanderbeg accepted suzerainty of King Alfonso of Naples. Confederation is "association of sovereign member states". Even if medieval principalities that existed in Albania (toponym) could be considered as sovereign states, when one of them (Kastrioti Principality) fall under suzerainty of Kingdom of Naples then League of Lezhë ceded to exist?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. It was a vassalhood.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the text of the article it is written that there were conflicts between principalities that agreed League of Lezhe and even piece treaties were signed between them, with help of Pope. I am maybe wrong, but it looks absurd to claim that there is a confederation if states that consist such confederation:
  1. are in war with each other,
  2. signing peace treaties with each other with Pope's help,
  3. are vassals of different Empires? Some of them (some members of Dukagjini or Kastrioti family i.e.) were under suzerainty of Ottoman Empire, some of them (i.e. Arianiti or other members of Dukagjini family) being vassals of Venetian Empire and some of them (like Kastrioti) vassals of Kingdom of Naples.
  4. if Venice created vojvodate in territory of such league and one of chieftans accepted Venice appointement of being "Great Vojvoda" of such vojvodate. (In this source (already listed in Sources section of the Skanderbeg article) "The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century" (p. 561) is clearly written some of them accepted titles that theoretically meant that they were in charge for other chieftans like Skanderbeg: "Liking the system of a major figure standing over the various local princes and chieftains, Venice in the following year (1456 - added by Antidiskriminator) established new and similar "great vojvoda" for the region south of Zeta, between Skadar and Durazzo. George Arianite was awarded this honor. He was not able to benefit from this position to the extent Crnojević was able, since there were other powerful figures including Skanderbeg - who was clearly was not going to submit to Arianite - within his theoretical vojvodate".
Taking in consideration above mentioned I propose to double check sources of informations about date when league of lezhe ceeded to exist. Maybe it could be good idea to use additional sources.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. See Toledo War. Two states nearly went to war against each other. Does this mean that the United States of America temporarily ceased to exist? Furthermore, there were no full-scale campaigns between two Albanian lords during Skanderbeg's leadership.
  2. Why can't they sign peace treaties with each other? In the Toledo War, the Frostbitten Convention was signed between Ohio and Michigan.
  3. These are not entirely correct since alliances changed frequently. Nevertheless, a member aligning himself with another power does not mean much. New England threatened to secede during the War of 1812 (see Hartford Convention). The Southern States were aligned with Great Britain and France even before the Civil War started. What about Canada? Quebec was, naturally, French aligned after the Seven Years' War. Does this mean that the Dominion of Canada never existed?
  4. Did you read the source? It says, In fact, however, Skanderbeg remained the independent ruler of his lands.
I have made parallels with the United States since it is too, in a sense, a confederation. If you disagree with what I said, I urge you to try and revise articles about America and other confederations which suffered internal conflict and whose members aligned themselves with outside powers -- Switzerland during the Thirty Years' War would be great.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a list of people that with support of Republic of Venice joined Skanderbeg's revolt[5]:
  1. Pal and Nikolla Dukagjini of Dukagjinin - Dukagjini family was fighting other members, killing Lekë Zaharia Altisferi, prince of Dagnum and also League member and allowing Venetian Empire to take control over Dagnum in 1447. In period till "1454, a peace treaty between them was finally reached" they were fighting against Skanderbeg.
  2. Lek Zacaria Altisferi of Dagno near Scutari - In 1447 when Lekë Dukagjini, lord of the Dukagjini and League member, ambushed and killed Lekë Zaharia Altisferi, prince of Dagnum and also League member. Venetian Empire then took control over Dagnum and League of Lezhe (if it existed at all anymore) lost another member principality.
  3. Peter Spani of Shala and Shoshi in Northern Albania - Peter Spani dynasty is of Byzantine-Greek origin Shala and Shosi in Northern Albania was region under control of Dukagjini family and in period when Skanderbeg was in war with Dukagjini (till 1454) he could not exercise any control over Peter Spani and any element of confederation did not exist.
  4. Lek Dushmani of Zadrima in Northwest Albania - Lek Dushmani of Zadrima, which was under control of Dukagjini family that was in war with Skanderbeg untill 1454, can hardly be considered as being a part of (non)existing confederation, at least in period till 1454.
  5. Gjergj Stresi Balsha of Misia between Kruja and Lezha - In 1456, one of Skanderbeg's nephews (the son of his sister Elena), Gjergj Stress Balsha, sold the fortress of Modric to the Ottomans for 30,000 silver ducats. That means that League of Lezhe (if it existed in 1456 anymore) lost this prince and his principality too.
  6. Andrea Topia of Scuria between Tirane and Durazzo - Andrea Topia of Scuria between Tirane and Durazzo was not in control of any castle or city and can not be considered as prince of some principality. There is serious mistake in article about Princedom of Albania that he had Durres under control.
  7. Tanush Topia (newphew of Andrea) - Tanush Topia, commander of the infantry, was killed during Second Siege of Kroja in 1466. There was no principality of Tahush Topia, he was only nephew of Andrea Topia. Therefore him being in Skanderbeg's service till 1466 does not have anything to do with existance of confederation of League of Lezhe.
  8. Gjergj Araniti Topia Comneni of Canina and Shpata - Gjergj Arianiti Topia, "whose role as the greatest supporter of Skanderbeg diminished after siege of Berat ended up in defeat" in 1455. Even if this diminished support existed after 1455, it could not exist after Gjergj Arianiti lost his princedom and fortress Sopoti in 1463.
  9. Teodor Korona Muzaka of Berat in Southern Albania - After Muzaka died in 1449 and Ottomans took over Berat, Muzaka Principality of Berat ceded to exist. That means that Muzaka Principality of Berat was not anymore part of League of Lezhe.
  10. Stephan Cernojevic of Zabiak in Montenegro with his sons - Although Stephan Cernojevic had biggest territory and force, he is from some reason forgotten to be included in the text of the article, although there are sources that shows that he had some joint actions with Skanderbeg supporting his attacks on Ulcinj and siege of Dagnum. In 1455 Stefan Crnojevic signed agreement with Republic of Venice accepting Venice as ruler of Upper Zeta. "He reigned peacefully without the intervention of Venice and the Ottomans until his death in late 1464 or the beginning of 1465." That means that Principality of Zeta was not anymore part of League of Lezhe.
I really find absurd claims that group of medieval principalities that agreed to fight against Ottoman Empire in 1443 could be considered as confederation of states if:
  1. they were fighting each other (Dukagjini fighting not only Kastrioti and Skanderbeg, but killing Zacharia and enabling Venice to take Dagnum)
  2. princes and principalities that formed League did not exist since they were lost to Ottomans (Berat, Sopoti, Modrica....) or Venice (Dagnum) with many princes dying
  3. they were not only fighting each other, but they were allied with different empires that were in war with each other (Venice and Ottoman Empire and Kingdom of Naples)
  4. Principality of Zeta accepted Venice as ruler in 1455 and refused to fight with Ottomans later in period of Skanderbeg's conflict with Ottomans
  5. Principality of Arianiti accepted Venice as ruler and them as "great vojvoda"....
I propose to consider substantial reconstruction of the article based on more reliable sources.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even know what a confederation is?--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will compare confederation with sarma which is made of minced meat, rice, onions, and various spices mixed together and then rolled into large cabbage leaves. If someone take out cabbage leaves out of sarma, and divide rice from meat, throwing meat away, then it is not sarma, but maybe only pilav, which is also nice, but it is not sarma.
Is it possible to have confederation of something and nothing? How can confederation exist if principalities that formed confederation do not exist any more, with some members killed by other members of same confederation or Ottomans, and other members in war with some other and all of them being under suzerainty of three different empires who are in war with each other?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the source which confirms that Dukagjini (who controlled the territory of Northern Albania) and Araniti (who controlled portion of the territory of Central Albania) abandoned their union with Skanderbeg leading independent policy and connected themselves with Ottoman Empire and Venice ("се отказали от съюза си със Скендербег и водели самостоятелна политика ").
This source directly confirms what Oliver Jens Schmitt says: The alliance of nobles used up most of its energy in feuds with Venice and the towns of northern Albania, wars that it waged in conjunction with the Serb despot and the leader of Montenegro on behalf of the Kingdom of Naples. This alliance collapsed during the attack of the sultan in 1450.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is another source which contain information that in 1450 Dukagjini family not only left the League of Lezhë together with Arianiti family, but they concluded a peace with Ottoman Empire and started their actions against Skanderbeg.
Source: - Frashëri, Kristo (1964), The history of Albania: a brief survey, Shqipëria: Tirana, p. 78, OCLC 230172517, retrieved 23 January 2012, In 1450 two powerful aristocratic families, Arianits and Dukagjins, left the league.... Skanderbeg tried to keep them near him. But his efforts failed. The Dukagjins not only did not accede, but on the contrary, concluded peace with Sultan and began to plot against Skanderbeg. {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help); More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help)--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even Harry Hodgkinson admits that League broke up, with some of its members even joining Skanderbeg's enemies (The League broke up and some of its members made their terms with the victor).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Elsie says : ... The so-called League of Lezhe broke down almost immediately and Skanderbeg allied himself with Serb despots, George Brankovic and Stephen Crnojevic.Albanian literature: a short history By Robert Elsie, Centre for Albanian Studies (London, England).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enven Fan S. Noli admits that the League of Lezhë was "smashed to pieces" because "Some chieftains, as for example, Spanis, Dushmanis and Altisferis, left the league after the Venetian war." [6] - Noli, Fan Stilian (1947), George Castrioti Scanderbeg (1405–1468), International Universities Press, OCLC 732882--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When was League of Lezhe ended

[edit]

Even if League of Lezha as confederation existed until Ottoman Empire captured it, there is another question concerning chronology. In this source (already listed in Sources section of the Skanderbeg article) "The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century" (p. 600) is written that Ottoman Empire armies captured Kroja in June 1478, Drivast in September 1478 and Lezha shortly after that.

In the text of the article there are no inline citation that League of Lezhe ceded to exist in 1479. I propose to double check sources about it and provide inline citations.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the League ceased to exist in 1478. Why don't you change it? It takes much less effort to change one number than to write a paragraph about it. Nobody claimed these articles were perfect. If they were, there would be no need to edit.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be great to find a source stating clearly when the League of Lezha ended — a specific date, not a general term like "shortly thereafter" or something like that. Anyone found anything?--Rereward (talk) 12:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would be very hard. But taking in consideration that members of this alliance started killing each other the same year it was founded (murder of Leke Zaharia in 1444) I think that Robert Elsie is right when he emphasize that "... the so called League of Lezha broke down almost immediately..." Immediately is not 25 years. Immediately means at once, now, instantly, straight away, directly, promptly, right now, right away, there and then, speedily, without delay, without hesitation,. Exact date when this alliance ended is not known because the exact date of the beginning of the conflicts between members of this alliance and Leke's murder is not known, except that it was in 1444. Immediately after this alliance was agreed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Nuray Bozbora (Shqipëria dhe nacionalizmi shqiptar në Perandorinë Osmane, 1997, trans. to Albanian in 2002, pp. 79-80) puts the specific date at ca. 1450. I will change this in the article ... the problem is that the character of the League of Lezha was a loose partnership of feudal lords with the great unifying principle of opposing the Ottoman incursions and the great motivation of retaining their individual possessions. As such, the great idea (and motivation) continued on for many years as Albanians formed cohesive resistance groups through to 1506. This makes the official ending of the League murky, because it was more a great idea than a cohesive political state or treaty. This is why, perhaps, this WP article chose the end of the League to be 1479. It is always easier to note the beginning of a movement than its ending. But I think it is fair to cite Bozbora here. I personally think the League's ideals and even local partnerships were alive enough that it could arguably extend further, but until someone cites a date, I agree with Antidiskriminator that an earlier date should be noted.--Rereward (talk) 09:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Taking in consideration what Oliver Schmitt wrote:
The nobles did not regard the alliance as a means of creating an expansive State in the southeastern Adriatic. They were more interested in restoring the largely anarchic conditions that had been prevalent between the fall of Serb rule over Albanian territory (in the 1370s) and the consolidation of Ottoman control (which became definitive around 1430). They refused to pay the new imperial taxes, to recognize the new laws and to submit to its supremacy. They understood “freedom” as the right to rule over groups of supporters and minor, local rulers who had escaped from all imperial authorities at the end of the 14th century. Yet, they themselves had no policies as a new alternative to Ottoman rule. Their objective with this alliance was to pursue their petty feuds, in particular against those living in the towns of Scutari and Drivasto under Venetian rule. Few of these leaders had much support of their own, and, what is most notable, they were never willing to subordinate themselves to Scanderbeg, to whom they had pledged allegiance in 1444. As far as can be seen from the source material, none of these leaders ever gave up command over their own men. It is to be noted that the followers had pledged allegiance to their direct masters who had pledged, for their part, to care for them, and not to Scanderbeg who was the commander of rival forces. At best, the nobles co-operated with one another, but it remains uncertain whether Scanderbeg was actually their primus inter pares or was just one leader among several. The alliance of nobles used up most of its energy in feuds with Venice and the towns of northern Albania, wars that it waged in conjunction with the Serb despot and the leader of Montenegro on behalf of the Kingdom of Naples. This alliance collapsed during the attack of the sultan in 1450.
I support your proposal.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about it. Scanderbeg fought with Lek Dukagjini and other Albanian Princes during 1466-1468. Some sort of military alliance was still in act that period.Aigest (talk) 14:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for one maybe offtopic comment. There were many branches of Dukagjini family and many Lekes Dukagjini with two Lekes being most notable, I think. One is Lekë Dukagjini and another belongs to the branch whoose member Pal Dukagjini founded LoL. His son Leke together with his brother Nicholas Pal Dukagjini supported Skanderbeg. On the other hand, the other branch often fought against Skanderbeg being loyal to the Ottomans. I apologize if I am wrong, but maybe it would be good to take care about this matter.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:Aigest's comment that military alliances and organized Albanian resistance existed, even well beyond 1468, until 1506. I think finding the official ending of LoL is very subjective. That is, if a few of the original members split off, then the LoL can still be considered intact. But if more than half the members split off, it is reasonable to consider it finished, even though its ideals may continue or be reincarnated in smaller, less official alliances. I am simply saying that we have several good sources using ca. 1450 as the date of its dissolution. I actually have been searching many sources for an end date, or for references to post-1450 Albanian wars as being League of Lezha initiatives, but "League of Lezha" is conspicuously absent once you get past 1450. I welcome any references to the contrary and would revert my revision to the page if I can be shown reputable sources. Anyone have anything? Thanks.--Rereward (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Jens Schmitt (2012). Die Albaner: eine Geschichte zwischen Orient und Okzident (in German). C.H.Beck. p. 55. ISBN 978-3-406-63031-6. Retrieved 19 June 2013. Ein 1444 geschlossenes Adelsbündnis brach beim Anmarsch eines Sultansheeres (1450) auseinander. [Alliance of the nobles forged in 1444 fell apart when Sultan approached with his army [1450]--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Korçë in League of Lezhe?

[edit]
Resolved

It is stated in sources and articles (Korçë, Iljaz Hoxha...) that Korçë fell under Ottoman control in 1440, and remained like that almost 600 years. At the beggining it was ruled by Iljaz Hoxha who was a leading Albanian Janissary, scientist, and personal teacher to Ottoman Empire's sultan Bayezid II. He dedicated his life to the service of the Emperor against Skanderbeg and (if sources of informations for this articles are not wrong) it is wrong to present Korçë like it is under control of League of Lezhë. In that case, map is again shown to be wrong and should be deleted from the article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems this map is 'or'. Kastoria, wasn't part of this League too, as already stated in talk:Skanderbeg.Alexikoua (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The map is based on a similar map of a 2002 book.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 10:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how wikipedia works, you need to prove that, because Antidiskrimator and me proved that this map is 'or'. Until you find this '2002 book', this map will go.Alexikoua (talk) 11:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gaius Cladius Nero has sent me the original sources maps, so ask him for the maps.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 12:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To sum up your arguments are: 1. this map is based on a '2002 source' (seems this work has not a name), 2. I should ask some user for the source. However, this is not how wikipedia works. Instead, 1. this map has to go for now, 2. in case someone gives a precise and verifable source it will be back.

As I see this map is just a copy from another 'or' map by Balkanian [[7]], while Balkanian's is patrly a copy from this [[8]]. Obviously Balkanian was wrong by including in the League all the territories of the 14th cent. Muzaki principality.Alexikoua (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How could this map be OR? It's obviously not even an original image. Anyways, it comes from Kristo Frashëri's book. He never really provides the exact borders in his writing so it's possible that someone else did it for him. All he says is that Skanderbeg's state stretched from the Black Drin to the Adriatic (aside from Durazzo and Alessio). In the disputed territory, he controlled Librazhd, Mokra, Gramsh, Tomorica (including Skrapar) along with the Myzeqe plains (aside from Berat). The map's authors most likely put Kastoria and Korça in since they were controlled by Albanian nobles who later allied with Skanderbeg. Anyways, it's really not that important, just like any other Balkan dispute, since Skanderbeg and his men rarely operated there. Once a new map comes out and appeases your demands, we will upload it, but for now, this is all we have.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Author of the map wrote: “I (Vinie007) created this work entirely by myself.” without stating the source of the map. That makes it OR, if i am not wrong.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Check out the new description.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you, Gaius Claudius Nero, sure that you are allowed to state what source Vinie007 used when he created that map?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes because I was the one who provided them. See: here. If you don't feel good about it, consult Vinie.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for ad hominem attacks and comments about my feelings. I asked if you are allowed to state what source Vinie007 used when he created that map. It is his creation, not yours. Are you sure that other users are allowed to change description of the sources that they used when they submitted files to commons?
Also, you wrote " this map ... comes from Kristo Frashëri's book. He never really provides the exact borders in his writing ... All he says is that Skanderbeg's state stretched from the Black Drin to the Adriatic (aside from Durazzo and Alessio).
I think that it is obvious:
# there are many reliable sources which show that Kastoria and Korça were never under control of Skanderbeg and League of Lezhe
# that user who scanned a page from the book that was allegedly used as source admits that author of he book “never really provides the exact borders in his writing”
and that map should be deleted from this article, and all articles on wikipedia until it is improved. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Antidiskriminator, you are misunderstanding me here. I never intended an ad hominem attack against you. I see now that I worded it wrongly, but all I meant was that you should ask Vinie about it if you don't feel safe about it. I'm positive he will maintain my edits. Also, I never tried to argue to keep the map. I said that we will put in a better map when we get one. Keep in mind that me, Vinie, and ZjarriRreethues are in WikiProject Albania, meaning that we work together and help each other out. This is why I included that in the description.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explanation about the wording. I also agree that we should not argue to keep the map, but to put in a better map when we get one. Maybe you are also misunderstanding me here. My question was aimed on the simple fact that you changed description of the source of the file uploaded by another user. I never intended to blame you for that, because me personally I believe that you provided source for the map. I don't have to ask Vinie about it. But it is not important if I trust you or not. There are maybe users that will not trust you on that and there are maybe policies that do not allow other users to change descriptions of the sources written by users that uploaded files on commons. I am sorry if you did not notice that I am also in WikiProject Albania. One of the most active members. Proud author of the two (for now) articles that are listed in template about history of Albania (Republic of Korçë and Albanian Revolt of 1912). And very interested in cooperation with other members. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did notice and gave you a barnstar which I had intended to give you. I will ask Vinie about it. Thanks for understanding.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There will be some controversy for that map because there is controversy about the documents and the books that talk about the regions that fought along Skanderbeg: Moker for example fought along Skandberbeg, but whereas Frasheri thinks that it's today's Moker, Schmitt thinks that it's the area around Gostivar. The map as it is, comes from Frasheri, so it's RS. --Sepastaj (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battles of the League of Lezha

[edit]

"The League of Lezha fought the following 26 battles against the Ottoman Empire in 35 years (1443–1478):"

There are 27 battles, sieges, campaigns and wars listed after this sentence. Some of were fought against Venice or Angevin Dynasty, not the Ottoman Empire. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar and the quality of english

[edit]

this is only a modest grammatical and aesthetic editing so stop reversing it.---besnikalushi

Wrong type of infobox

[edit]
Unresolved

League of Lezhë was military alliance, not a country. Infobox Former Country (now used in the article) should be replaced with Infobox Organization like in case of NATO.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please to stick to sources like [9] published by the Oxford University Press.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 23:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with you. Let us stick to the sources. But there is a problem with the sources you presented. The first is a tertiary source based on the non scholarly and non neutral work of Harry Hodgkinson, a British intelligence officer who during his career supported the Albanian cause and took up strong anti-Serb and anti-Bulgarian positions. The second is scholar who is not specialized in Skanderbeg.
According to the WP:SECONDARY: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Here is what is written in the secondary source written by contemporary historian, a work which is described as the best biography of Skanderbeg: a military alliance against the Ottomans in the spring of 1444 (Schmitt, Oliver Jens (2009), Skënderbeu (in Albanian), K&B Tiranë, ISBN 9789995666750)
Let us stick to more reliable secondary sources.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Babinger also refer to this league as military alliance. He, of course, did not forget to include Serb noblemen in this league. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please stick to the sources i.e. if a source mentions it as an alliance it doesn't exclude or contradict the notion of statehood. We don't attribute views to sources nor do we delete most reliable ones published by OUP.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 01:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it does. One entity can not ally with itself. Only different entities (in this case noblemen and chieftains) can make an alliance. Please revert yourself.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(unintend)Please read WP:OR as you're attributing your views to the sources.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 01:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stick to Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Don't comment me and my views. I presented very credible and reliable sources which support text I added to the article. Why did you delete text based on those sources? Don't you know that deletion of the cited additions of other users and accusing them for malice are forms of tendentious editing which is considered disruptive? Please revert yourself. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@ZjarriRrethues. Schmitt does not say that league of lezha is considered as " the first unified Albanian state". You are misinterpreting sources.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 01:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a source which additionally proves that you are misinterpreting sources. In his work Schmitt emphasize that Albanian state did not exist in Middle Ages.
Source: Schmitt, Oliver Jens (2001), Das venezianische Albanien (1392-1479), München: R. Oldenbourg Verlag GmbH München, p. 47, ISBN 3-486-56569--9, Albanien war im Mittelalter kein staat. (Albania was not a state in the Middle Ages.) {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |coauthors=, |doi-inactive-date=, |editorn-link=, |nopp=, |editorn=, |editorn-first=, |month=, |chapterurl=, |author-separator=, and |editorn-last= (help); More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help); Unknown parameter |firstn= ignored (help)--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Principality of Arbër, Kingdom of Albania, Princedom of Albania etc. i.e. An idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. Maybe you should rely on mainstream and not fringe sources, however, you could try to AfD those articles per your rationale but the result of those AfDs is obvious. That being said I won't/can't contribute anything else to a discussion about fringe theories.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 08:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disputing the reliability of apparently good sources is another form of tendentious editing. If Schmitt is "fringe source" I expect it will not remain unattended in your review of Siege of Krujë (1466) taking in consideration that Schmitt is cited 17 times in that article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another historian Hamilton Alexander Rosskeen Gibb says:
"It is true that he made an alliance... but the idea of an Albania unified by a national leader is far from reality. He controlled only northern Albania while central and southern Albania always remained under Ottoman control. Subashis and sanjakbeys based on ... Gjirokastra, Ohrida or Belgrade (Berat) tried to suppress him with local forces.... Many of the battles described by Marino Barlezio with such fantastic figures were nothing but local clashes. Iskander-beg's own forces seem never to exceed 1,000." - [10] [11].
Note: Hamilton Alexander Rosskeen Gibb has also published his work with Oxford University Press and even lectured in Oxford for 18 years. He was also professor at Harvard University which named a library in his honor. Is his work also a "fringe source" supporting "fringe theories"?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please stick to the sources and don't compare unrelated views (this article isnisn't dealing with national leaders etc.)--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let us stick to the source which emphasize the absence of medieval Albanian state (Schwandner-Sievers, Stephanie (2002), "Invention of nationalism: Myth and amnesia", Albanian identities: myth and history, USA: Indiana University Press, p. 43, ISBN 0-253-34189-2, ..an episode taken from medieval history was central for Albanian national mythology. In the absence of medieval kingdom or empire the Albanian nationalists choose Skanderbeg.... {{citation}}: More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |firstn= ignored (help))--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(unintend)If you think that there no medieval Albanian states start AfDs about the articles as I can't contribute anything else to your OR deductions.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you question the reliability of Harry Hodgkison,apparently an anti-serb,then I'd really like to know what makes Petrović Njegoš and Božić more reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nixious6 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian principality of Zaharia?

[edit]

Is there mistake in the article? Zaharia was the only one among nobleman who established this alliance who actually controlled independent entity, but his domain is not listed as 'Albanian principality'. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Period of existence

[edit]

Wikipedia articles on the Skanderbeg era are quite confusing about the period of time during which the League of Lezha and the constiuent principalities existed. The Ottoman Empire certainly did not succeed the League as the state authority over Albania until at least the late 1470s. The article here shows Ottoman Albania as succeeding the League around 1450. It is true that the League functioned from 1444 until around 1450, when it existed only nominally as the State of Albania (or the State of Skanderbeg) became the dominant entity. However, the State of Albania existed, so did other principalities (such as that of Dukagjini), and Skanderbeg revived the League in the later years of his reign. Therefore, I suggest we restore 1478 as the year the League was disestablished. At the same time, I suggest we add the State of Albania to all tables for the Ottoman-Albanian battles between 1443 and 1478.--Getoar TX (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The league functioned from 1444 until around 1450. It would be wrong to inform the readers that the league was disestablished in 1478.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced fllag

[edit]

With this edit (diff) one editor edit warred to insert the flag which is not sourced by reliable source. That is confirmed by admin Cplakidas with this edit (diff). No reliable sources - no addition to wikipedia. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly and I assume that the supposed flag with the helmet and the knives decorations is nothing more than an artistic product of a wikipedian.Alexikoua (talk) 08:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I've assumed the previous image with the knives and the helmets is nothing more than original research. I've restored the double-headed eagle without the artistic wp:or stuff.Alexikoua (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please understand that we are not talking about the flag, but about the coat of arms, as the caption says. And in a coat of arms, even during the period we are talking, would be normal to have swords or knifes around. You also have to keep in mind that we are talking about the League (unification of a group of pricipalities) and that the knifes and swords symbolize the united principalities. Here is an image from commons [12] that shows the monument dedicated to the league in Lezhe. As you can see the swords are not there casually, they are a part of the League.This specific monument would not have included them if they would be irrelevant to the coat of arms of the League of lezhe.
  • Regarding your last edit where you say "that's the black double eagle the reference describes" i want to say that i am not blind. We can see the eagle is white in your image, meanwhile the book [13] says clearly it was black, alongside the other reference [14].22:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)22:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)~~
Bot Flag and COA images have to be based on sources. No sources, no image. Monuments are not valid source for historical flags and COAs. Especially not Enver Hoxha era monuments.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The same argument can be said about the white eagle coa.
In the sources given the eagle was cited black and the flag red. Giving a white eagle eagle in the coa is source misinterpretation and a desinformation. The one with the black eagle is more suitable and should be reinserted.15:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)Michaltt (talk) Michaltt is a confirmed sock by checkuser. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RcLd-91. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You still need to provide an argument why this flag should include decorations such as knives an helms. Until a decent explanation is given this map has no place in a history article.Alexikoua (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added another image of a 100% black eagle, although the previous one wasn't exactly a white one.Alexikoua (talk) 16:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First of all Alexikoua these are swords and not knives, the swords and the Helmet of Skanderbeg in the coa as decorations are used to represent the league of Lezhë, even if you think that this file is unsourced you're wrong so please do not interfere in this case. AceDouble (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a clear consensus grounded in WP:V policy not to use ahistorical swords/knives artistic product. AceDouble please respect this consensus and revert yourelf.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Until now not a slightest argument has been presented, apart from ahistorical images of modern art, so I take the initiative to removed this wp:or coat of arms.Alexikoua (talk) 15:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we made it to the end now, i just removed the skanderbeg's helmet and swords. Let me be clear with one thing the eagle on the gif file was not white it was from this image http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a317/shkreli1/777skenderbeu-meltd.jpg the artist used the raster image and tried to compose the colors with MS Paint so he could not make the eagle black because it would destroy the details inside of it, on the other side be

mindful Alexikoua cause i will observe the greek heraldry files too. AceDouble (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears this new version is supported by some historical reference. Thanks for checking the issues with the fantastic (ahistorical) additions.Alexikoua (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Military alliance

[edit]

The League of Lezhë was a military alliance rather than political union.

The above sources were presented by Antidiskriminator (talk · contribs).--Zoupan 22:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


One relevant source I added in the "Legacy", deleted of course by the guardians, and replaced by the myth of "Albanian state". Rather, Albano-Serbian, if it was really a state.--Skylax30 (talk) 09:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rename: Albanian League

[edit]

This article should be renamed to the Albanian League, Albanian League of Lezha, or the League of Albanian Princes. Alternatively, the name of the city, Lezhë, should be given in its definite Albanian form, Lezha. --Getoar TX (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am against your proposal because it does not meet WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, especially recognizability, precision, naturalness and conciseness. Many of them were not from Albania, i.e. four of Crnojevic members. Many of them were not Albanians, i.e. four Crnojevic and three Balsic were Serbs, Spani was Greek while ethnic origin of almost all other, like Zacharia and Arianiti is unclear. Your proposal is longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. This alliance was forged in Venetian held Lezhe and many of its members were Venetian pronoiers or vassals, not "princes".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article should not be renamed. Please follow naming conventions.--Zoupan 19:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Berat

[edit]

Someone tried making the historian but failed.Theodore Muzaka was the Prince of Berat so Berat participated in this League .[BP 1][BP 2] Rolandi+ (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://books.google.al/books?id=v7_dJqc1udEC&pg=PA23&dq=Theodor++Muzaka+prince+of+berat&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAWoVChMInejenoXPxwIVh80UCh1WKgAN#v=onepage&q=Theodor%20%20Muzaka%20prince%20of%20berat&f=false
  2. ^ Sula, Abdul. Albania's Struggle for Independence. p. 23. In January 1450, Theodore Muzaka, the Prince of Berat died.
The fact that the entire region that latter became the Ottoman Sanjack of Albania participated in this League is nothing more than wp:OR. For the record this Sanjack included the regions of Gjirokaster, Permet and opposite Corfu (modern Greece). For now I'll add a cn tag, but in case no decent reference comes available this will be adjusted.Alexikoua (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
About Berat, it was under Ottoman control from 1417 and never changed hands the following decades. Nevertheless the fact is the same: nothing south from Berat region participated in this coalition, which means that the southern half of the Sanjack was unrelated with these developments.Alexikoua (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alexikua is right. Template:Infobox war faction says that area field should contain: "the area in which the faction operated;" League never operated in Berat or central or southern parts of the Sanjak of Albania. Skanderbeg tried to capture it in 1455, years after the league was dissolved. Schmitt, Oliver Jens (2012), Die Albaner: eine Geschichte zwischen Orient und Okzident (in German), C.H.Beck, ISBN 978-3-406-63031-6, Skanderbeg führte keinen allgemeinalbanischen Aufstand an, da der Süden Albaniens, dessen Erhebung die Osmanen 1436 unterdrückt hatten, weitgehend ruhig blieb. Ebenso wenig schlossen sich ihm die osmanischen Städte des Südens und die venezianischen Städte des Nordens an. {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even travel guides confirm that: Gloyer, Gillian (7 January 2015). Albania. Bradt Travel Guides. p. 119. ISBN 978-1-84162-855-4. The citadel of Berati fell to the Ottomans in 1417 and, despite an attempt to retake it, led by Skanderbeg (see box, pages 200-1) in 1455, it remained in their hands for nearly 500 years.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Travel guides do not meet Reliable Source standards - Wiki requires scholarly sources. While some travel guides overlap on this point, they are not vetted by any recognized historical organizations and must only be used for the most basic points, such as the location of a landmark, or some such. HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The editing I made

[edit]

Hello! The edit i made to the League of Lezha page is reasonable. All the information is sourced and i expect that no major changes will be made by those who do not want to admit the existence of an Albanian medieval state — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorzi Kastrioti (talk • contribs) 14:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:League_of_Lezhë&oldid=1195477973"