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)

Alexikua

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)