Talk:Despotate of Epirus

Definition of "despotate"

i'm guessing that it wadn't meant in today's definition but did despotate mean epirus was ruled by a despot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip Laurence (talk • contribs) 05:24, 29 July 2004 (UTC)

Yup, that's exactly what it meant. You're right that it doesn't mean the same as the modern definition - despot was just a Byzantine title (there is a list of titles at Byzantine aristocracy and bureaucracy), just below emperor. Usually it referred to the heir to the throne, and later the heirs ruled their own despotate in Morea (similar to the heir to the British throne being the Prince of Wales). Adam Bishop 05:39, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Did any other rulers besides Theodore Ducas claim the title emperor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.149.91 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 4 July 2005 (UTC)

This place name sometimes is is rendered Depotate of Epirus; please source the etymology. --Una Smith (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Where is it rendered like that? Adam Bishop (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

web pages: [1] [2] [3]; Spink Numismatic Circular 108 (2000), Spink & Son (Google books, snippet view with cite to ref out of view). See also "depotate" in Google books; in the sense of a province, depotate appears to be an alternate spelling of "despotate". I have started an entry on Wiktionary. --Una Smith (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It's probably just a typo. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I think not. The Latin phrase defunctorum ecclesiis depotate occurs in scholarly books in French, German, and Italian, and depotate (noun) and Depotate (office) appears in others, also in multiple languages. --Una Smith (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between the Latin depotate, derived from deputatus, and the "despotate", which is derived from the Greek despotes, "Lord". When used in reference to the Byzantine world, "Despotate" is the only correct spelling. Constantine ✍ 17:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

maps

are not in english. How useful.Tourskin 14:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Albanian despotate of Epirus / a nice suggestion for an unecyclopedia

it is "Albanian despotate of Epirus " Dodona —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.90.82.126 (talk) 10:24, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

There wasn't any "Albanian Despotate of Epirus" and please stop posting POV which are some times products of vivid imagination!! Seleukosa 14:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Zenebishti

When he captured Essau there is no source claiming that he was entitled Despot of Epirus in Ioannina. Perhaps he got the title 'titularly' when Essau was his hostage, but no source (primary and secondary) is stating this.

By the way, primary sources like the 'Ioannina chronicle' and 'Tocco chronicle' don't mention something like that. The despot that time was usually elected by a counsil of nobles in Ionnina [Citizenship in medieval Ioannina] has some usefull information about Ioannina of that time and how the local population felt about Zenebishti and his army.Alexikoua (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Albanian language

An admin(Adam Bishop) reverted the Albanian language back to the infobox, and then you vandalised the article by adding all languages of those who passed from DoP. We clearly told you that Albanian language remains in the infobox because it was one of the MAIN languages, but you still decided to continue the vandalisation. Please, stop vandalising articles--Sarandioti (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

First, this is not vandalism. Second, it makes absolutely no difference if I am an admin or not. Now, I don't know about Albanian, but obviously Greek was used there, and presumably also Latin and Italian (it was covered by the Archdiocese of Antivari, wasn't it?). It's difficult to say anything about Albanian because it wasn't written down yet. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Albanian language was the main language? there was a limited migration before 1358 and a partition of the region after that, but I can't see how Albanian is used in the Despotate's structure, court (except from some mercenaries, who were not only Albanian).

There is interesting academic material [[4]] about the period after 1358 of the Despotate of Epirus (based in Ioannina that time) and how were Albanians considered and described in the Epirotic chronicles of that time.Alexikoua (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say Byzantine chronicles, and not Epirotic since there was no epirotic consciouness, but nonetheless such beliefs about Albanians at the time are totally understandable, if we see what happened in the following years. The difference among Albanians, Italians, and Serbians was that Albanians were much more numerically and of warlike nature which eventually led to them controlling all of Epirus except Janina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarandioti (talk • contribs) 08:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

There was a invasion in 1358, nothing more, most of Epirus returned to the Despotate of Epirus 1367 during Thomas Prelubovic (called the Albanian-slayer) except Arta and Rogoi. Tell me something, why am I talking to a sockpupet? I knew you had been blocked with different names in the past... By the way, u don't know even to report someone, too bad it was fruitless...

According to Balkanian's criteria (in Despotate of Arta) a language to be mentioned on the template must have been used as official and in local administration. According to that criteria, Albanian should not be mentioned here. Sarandioti u read to much books of the Hotza period, transition to democracy is always a slow progress for a country's citizens .Alexikoua (talk) 10:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Alexikua the admin told you specifically(in the 3RR) that my additions were totally valid, and you have no right to put them in the same cetegory as italian/serbian. He was clear, as I was before. The issue has already been clarified. --Sarandioti (talk) 10:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

ALexikua this a passage from the source(in google books). [5]. You claimed that Albanian migrations were "limited". The source is clear, your claim was totally erroneous. --Sarandioti (talk) 10:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Read page 350 of the source [6] . It says: This enabled Albanians to migrate into Epirus in even greater numbers, soon they had settled throughout Epirus and taken over most of the towns as well, including Arta. At the end of the page: Thus, we can conclude that the Albanians became the true rulers of Epirus. Alexikua this is what you described as "limited migrations". Best Regards --Sarandioti (talk) 10:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You have already personally attacked me on several occasions, and now you call my account a sockpuppet. This is my first account in wikipedia, and because I manage to reveal your totally erroneous claims, you start accusing me. Facts are facts, and my sources showed what is factual and what is not. I am re-adding the passage from the source in oder to be clear again. Read page 350 of the source [7]. It says: This enabled Albanians to migrate into Epirus in even greater numbers, soon they had settled throughout Epirus and taken over most of the towns as well, including Arta. At the end of the page: Thus, we can conclude that the Albanians became the true rulers of Epirus. And to think that you Alexikua called that "limited migrations" --Sarandioti (talk) 11:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I know very well this book. Saradioti the article that is relative to that topic is Epirus as a geographic region (Epirus (region)), not this political identity, which was mainly Greek speaking (with some Italian and Serbian rulers). If you calm down and read the books you can realise that they say that the Despotate of Epirus fought against Albanian chieftains (they were considered enemies of the Despotates), there were continuous conflicts between this Despotate and the Albanian tribes nearby.

Where u see that this state was Albanian or half Albanian speaking?Alexikoua (talk) 11:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

About Arta, this is not the article of the despotate of Arta, you are confusing the despotates, its written on the first line, not to be confused with the Despotate of Arta, which was Albanian. Did we solve that?

by the way this discussion concerns the Epirus as geographic area, not the Despotate of Epirus, which was limited in Ioannina (for a few years after 1358) because of the Albanian invasion. (read the next pages on that book, it's good to know to entire truth). Have I to say that again?

Learn how to report others, you are not good even on that.Alexikoua (talk) 12:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Alexikua the source is about this article. The Despotate was ruled not by same rulers in all its existence(serbians, italians, albanians). The source is very clear. Do not try to distort it, facts are facts. And please stop dodging from the issue with personal insults. Your first argument about limited migrations was totally erroneous, now you try to avoid the issue of your errors by insulting others. This is truly sad. Calm down and accept facts. --Sarandioti (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Tell me one Albanian ruler of the Despotate of Epirus? By the way see this about your 'epire du nord' favorite map, that shows a fictious Albanian majority [[8]] ( you are far from reality and this proves it one more time)Alexikoua (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Provide a clear citation that proves partly Albanian administration, nobility, or even rulers in the Despote of Epirus (not to be comfused with Arta-again), else I will report you.Alexikoua (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Read page 350 of the source [9]. It says: This enabled Albanians to migrate into Epirus in even greater numbers, soon they had settled throughout Epirus and taken over most of the towns as well, including Arta. At the end of the page: Thus, we can conclude that the Albanians became the true rulers of Epirus. This the third time, and you still ask for references. You insulted me, and you tried to dodge your own errors, and now you are saying you are going o report me? Hmmm... Need I remind you that your first argument included : there was a limited migration before 1358. The source states the exact opposite Thus, we can conclude that the Albanians became the true rulers of Epirus. Best Regards. --Sarandioti (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It says in "Epirus" not the "Despotate of Epirus", which was limited in Ioannina for some years after 1358. You nationalistic feeling made you blind. It's the fourth time I say, it's about the region, not the state which was at war with Albanian clans.

Thank you for proving that you have wrong.Alexikoua (talk) 13:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Below the source states clearly that the Albanian rulers did NOT destroy the Despotate of Epirus state entity. Another erroneous claim by you. In addition to: This enabled Albanians to migrate into Epirus in even greater numbers, soon they had settled throughout Epirus and taken over most of the towns as well, including Arta, all is settled. Population and state entity. Need I remind that [Deacon of Pndapetzim], who is an admin agreed with me? --Sarandioti (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Who cares if the x or z user is an administrator?! Here, we discuss as editors, and we have equal status!--Yannismarou (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Both of you, can you please avoid irony ("best regards"), and personal attacks (unsubstantiated sock-puppetry accusations)? Sarandioti, allow me two remarks:

• Your source speaks about territorial expansion, and does not elaborate on the use of language within the Despotate. I do not say it was not used, but please provide a better source focused on language.
• By reverting Alexikua's and Adam's last version, you created a paradox. You placed Albanian at the same status with Greek! But this is not acceptable, since, as far as I know, Albanian did not have official status within the Despotate; Greek was the official language. If you go to the Byzantine Empire infobox, you'll see that it focuses on official language, and this is logical. Yes, they were spoken by the Albanians of the Despotate, but did they have any official use? I thus see two alternatives:

1. Either differentiate in the infobox between "official language" where only Greek can be added, and "other spoken languages" where I have no problem to see Albanian.
2. Either restore Alexikua's and Adam's previous version.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now another administrator decided that by removing the thread in the infobox he solved the problem. I am not sure whether infoboxes or administrators should burn in hell?!--Yannismarou (talk) 13:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Adam's version agreed with my version. It was Alexikua who added the other languages(italian, bulgarian etc.) Yanni, Albanians did not dissolve the DoE state entity. The source is clear. And [Deacon of Pndapetzim], who is an admin agreed with me. And I repeat Adam Bishop agreed with me, it was Alexikua who added the other languages.--Sarandioti (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

And I wasnt being ironic when I said "best regards. I say that most times--Sarandioti (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, try to create a section, where you'll deal about language. This is interesting information, and it shouldn't be missing from the article. After its removal from the infobox, there is nothing here about language, and I don't like that. I have no intention however to rt, even if I disagree with the removal of the information. Thus the best solution is a separate section where you'll expose all these facts with no ventures of "dominance": Greek was official and dominant; Albanian was broadly spoken especially after the x chronology; other languages were also spoken.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I doubt whether the whole concept of "official language" is applicable to medieval states in the first place. "Language used for written official purposes" is not the same as "official language" in the modern sense. What language(s) would members of the ruling classes use in speaking among each other? What language(s) would they use in communicating with their subjects for administrative purposes? The answers might well be different for each of these, and most likely we just don't know anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm ... Well, I am afraid it is applicable. At least in some cases: in the Roman and the Byzantine Empire, we had official languages in the full legal meaning of the term. The shift under Heraclius' reign is very characteristic. Official use of the language in all official documents makes it official. I do not know about the Despotate, but the notion of official language could also be applicable. The question you raise are also applicable to modern states: the x country (e.g. India, where English is an official language) may have the z official language, but "What language(s) would members of the ruling classes use in speaking among each other? What language(s) would they use in communicating with their subjects for administrative purposes?".--Yannismarou (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

As you'll read here, medieval states had also "local official languages". Official language is a necessary mechanism for the functioning of an organized state, and, in the 14th century we may not have the constitutional "ethnic states" of the 19th century with fixed boarders etc. etc., but state and bureaucratic development had reached a certain level of evolution, where the notion of "official language" seems relevant.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yanni, you are partially erroneous. For example the english language is the official language of the EU, but you wouln'd say that it is the dominant language, would you? And even if we could say that, such standards do not apply in medieval ages(no nation states in europe). So the basis should be the mother tongue of populations in each area. The other problem is which time period should be portrayed, because for instance in the DoE Albanians were initially one of the populations, but as the migrations rose, they became the dominant population numerically. There are many factors which affect the language section, the dominant population being the most important --Sarandioti (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI, English is just one of the about 20 official languages of the EU, and one of the three working languages. Thus your example is not the best one.--Yannismarou (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

We can add the infobox or a section instead of infobox by saying "x language was used for administrative purposes, while y language was used by the largest part of the population. Also z, m, and n language were of limited use." What do you think? --Sarandioti (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

No! Totally unacceptable. If it is to write something so uncyclopedic, then I prefer Fut.Perf.'s "solution"!--Yannismarou (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I agreed with both Sarandioti and Alexikoua. Originally there was a book listed without a page number, and one of you objected to it; so I looked the book up and added one of the pages that talked about Albanians, and of course there was still an objection to it; that particular book also mentions all the other people who happened to live there too, and I believe I said something to the effect that people spoke Greek, Italian, and Latin there, and presumably also Albanian even if there are no Albanian documents from that period. So, I don't see what anyone is trying to accomplish by claiming I agreed with one side or the other. If this is going to be the typical rabid nationalist dispute I don't see the point of having the discussion at all. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Adam we are discussing about the addition where the issue of the language will be explained as much as possible. The format I proposed is "x language was used for administrative purposes, while y language was used by the largest part of the population. Also z, m, and n language were of limited use." What do you think?--Sarandioti (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you both (I mean you and Alexikoua) sit down, gather sources, and write a proper section? Because this is what Wikipedia is about! Writing articles, and not quarreling about an entry in an infobox. It is easy to quarrel, and edit war. It is more difficult to write a properly sources article and section, but this is what reveals who's really a skilled editor, and who a POV-pusher who does not give a shit about the article itself.--Yannismarou (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yanni, did you see my proposition for the language section? What do you think? Is that format more NPOV? Let's discuss the issue.--Sarandioti (talk) 08:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Epiros?

Why the title spells 'Epiros', nor 'Epirus'(Latin, English..) or 'Epeiros'(Greek: Ἤπειρος)? It sounds weird.... any specific reason in this case? 116.43.8.39 (talk) 04:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved. Guildenrich (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Despotate of Epiros → Despotate of Epirus — - [Why do we have to use two names, one for Epirus and the other for the Despotate of Epiros page as per 20:07, 1 November 2009?] [[10]] --Guildenrich (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Support. Epirus is English usage, ancient and modern. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Support. Ditto... Dinkytown (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - this, and other articles relating to the Byzantine Empire, were moved a couple of years ago (and some have been involved in mini-move wars since then) because the Greek-ish forms are used in the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. Someone will eventually move it back if you manage to change it to the -us spelling. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium uses a bizarre mix of Anglicisms and Hellenisms (Constantine Doukas is typical in using two different versions of kappa), which no-one used before it existed and which is already following Browning's Aiskhulos into well-earned oblivion; when another work of reference on the subject is published, it will perish unmourned. It was adopted on Wikipedia by a bare majority, led by an incompetent mediator; away with it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The date of the end of the Despotate of Epirus

I'm surprised that this article states that this polity survived into the 15th century. As I remember my late Byzantine history -- based on reading one or another of the Cambridge Medieval Histories -- the Palaelogian rulers at Constantinople conquered it around 1312, & it drops out of the account in the usual history books. However, this article chronicles its existence down to Leonardo III Tocco's departure from Vonitsa in 1479. This would make it the longest-lasting post-1204 Greek successor state! My memory of late Byzantine history about this subject must then (1) be wrong; or (2) the usual accounts are mistaken or simplified & the Dspotate did persist this long; or (3) a number of local aristocrats perpetuated the title long after its demise, similar to what happened with the titles of "King of Jerusalem", "King of Lesser Armenia", & "Emperor of the Latin Empire". If (2) &/or (3) are the case, then the article needs to be expanded to explain that. -- llywrch (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't a continuous rule. In the 1337-1356 period it was annexed by Serbs.However, I'll check about 1479, nice notice.Alexikoua (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Notice of contention

The text below was moved from the front page, where it was improperly placed. (I also removed some of the bolding.) I am not taking a side in this discussion, but I am insisting that this matter be discussed here. Or appropriate measures will be taken. -- llywrch (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Warning - This topic frequently attracts highly politicized and contentious edits and bibliographical reference additions from outside the academic field of Byzantine Studies so as to impose a particular selection and interpretation on historical sources. These edits and additions clearly aim to undermine the ethnic Greek presence in Epirus before the Latin Conquest of Constantinople in 1204 and over-emphasize at their expense the Albanian element in the ethnic composition of the province.

State religion under the Toccos

Unlike the Orsinis, the Toccos did not abandoned their Catholic faith after coming to power in Epirus. So, did they changed Epirus' state religion from Eastern Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism? Симмах (talk) 13:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)