Talk:Chaonians

Not a separate archaic era?

I can only imagine that something's wrong on this revert [[1]]. The concept to prevent the creation of a separate 'archaic era' section with the excuse that its just a 'reconstruction' though not even changing the text is definitely not productive editing. Chaonians existed in this era so we should split the existing section. Alexikoua (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The terms Archaic or Classical refer to historical literature. The Chaonians are not mentioned before the Classical Period in ancient Greek literature, hence there is no such thing as Archaic era for Chaonians. It is quite reasonable to assume that a people which were known in the Classical Period as Chaones existed before this era, but it's also equally reasonable to argue that the Chaonians might have been a recently created polity of peoples. In itself, this hypothesis doesn't justify any "Archaic Period" section because no Chaonians are attested in this era.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Hecateus mentioned the Chaonians in 6th century BC. I'm sorry but this falls clearly in the Archaic period (pre-480BC). You need to become accustomed with Ancient Greek chronology. Take your time by reading the appropriate article here: Timeline_of_ancient_Greece and specifically Archaic_Greece where Chaonians were already recorded in this time period.Alexikoua (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The problem with many discussions is that editors don't read the sources carefully. Hecataeus lived in 550-476 BCE and - presumably - wrote the cited work in 520-480 BCE. The work itself doesn't exist, the information is a reference by Stephanus: The Dexari, a Chaonian people neighbouring upon the Enchelei, as is stated by Hecataeus in his book about Europe, who lived under Mount Amyron hence the Chaonians are not mentioned in primary sources which were preserved from this era. The statement belongs to Stephanus (6th century CE) who informs his readers that he's citing Hecataeus. The statement itself doesn't refer to the Chaonians per se but to the Dexari who may have been paying tribute tax to the Chaonians during that era and may actually be the Dassaretii. Hence the statement Hecataeus mentioned the Chaonians in the 6th century BCE is at best very inaccurate and at worst plainly wrong.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

What's important for us is that Hecateus describes the situation of the 6th century BC, not a later era. Off course almost the entirety of the ancient texts didn't survive directly to our day if you mean that. See several examples: Strabo for example lived much later though he describes the classical era. Also this quote: Hecataeus mentioned the Chaonians in the 6th century BCE is sourced by Hammond. Nevertheless there are several works that confirm that the Chaones were mentioned in Hecateus work. Alexikoua (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The issue is that we don't know what Hecataeus wrote. We know what Stephanus thought that Hecataeus wrote about a thousand years later. This difference by itself means that what Stephanus writes may be informed by what he considered to be correct, not by what Hecataeus wrote. This is something which many commentators have observed in citations by Stephanus of Byzantium, thus we don't consider historical chronology to start from secondary citations but from primary ones in ancient literature.--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

That's why there is a mountain of modern scholarship on the quality of the information provided by ancient historians including Hecataeus and the exact era they present. If modern scholarship is convinced that the information reflects a real historical event of a specific era then we have no reason to be negative.Alexikoua (talk) 02:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I corrected some statements in the subsection about modern/ancient views in particular the statement: Hecataeus of Miletus (6th century BC) and the Periplus of Pseudo-Scylax (4th century BC) note that the Greek city of Oricum, located within the territory of Illyrian Amantia, marked the northernmost border of Chaonia (and therefore of Epirus). Neither Hernandez (2017), nor Stocker (2009) claim that Oricum marked the northernmost border of Chaonia. I have added the relevant quotes. They both cite the Periplus - which includes Oricum in Illyrian territory - and Hernandez also mentions Pseudo-Scymnus. Stocker doesn't cite Hecataeus for any statement about Chaonia, she just mentions that Oricum is mentioned in the fragments preserved by Stephanus of Byzantium. The only exact quotation by Hecataeus which Stephanus claimed to have preserved is Hecataeus portum Epiri vocat Oricum: «Post vero Buthrotus urbs, post autem Oricus portus.» which doesn't mention Chaonia and doesn't include a statement by Hecataeus about the location of Oricum. Stephanus in his era writes that Oricum, a port of Epirus on the Ionian Sea is mentioned by Hecataeus and the includes the quote (supposedly by Hecataeus): Post vero Buthrotus urbs, post autem Oricus portus.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Structure

The article has a very confusing layout as it mixes historiographical assessment and discussion with the primary sources to such an extent that readers who are not familiar with literature won't understand which is which.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Sections got huge and are in need of split. Ideas on who to split the geography section or the 'clasical era'?Alexikoua (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree: This mixing up (historiographical assessment vs primary sources) is definitely an issue that needs to be solved. I'll proceed to re-structure the geography section.Alexikoua (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

In bibliography, there is a separation between primary sources and their historiographical assessment + archaeological theories. In all new edits, this distinction has been blurred even more.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

This part lacks proper context: As part of the southward expansion of Apollonia the lower Aoos region came under the control of this polis. As such Apollonia controlled the northern end of the land route that crossed all of Epirus; from south to north. Not to mention that it is offtopic content concerning Apollonian victory over Thronion in Abantis, not over Chaonians. – Βατο (talk) 10:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I slightly reworded it clarifying the suggestions made by the source. However it remains outside the scope of this article and should be removed as it concerns Apollonia and Thronion and the relative context, not Apollonia and Chaonians. – Βατο (talk) 10:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Instead of claiming WP:COATRACK of content that actually is directly relevant for the subject of this article, I would suggest to remove offtopic content that concerns Apollonia and Thronion as discussed hereabove. – Βατο (talk) 01:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Whether the Akorkeraunian mountains are part of the boundary of Chaonia is geographical, not historical information. Pasting the same information all over the article is both WP:COATRACK and WP:POINT behavior, not to mention WP:TEND. Since you do not listen, it is time to bring the article to attention of experienced, neutral editors. Khirurg (talk) 01:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

This info The ancient authors, starting from Hecataeus of Miletus (6th-5th centuriec BC), have highlighted the contiguity of the Chaonians to the Illyrian people settled north of the Acroceraunian Mountains. is not only about the "boundary of Chaonia", but about the fact that all ancient authors have highlighted the contiguity of Chaonians and Illyrians, specifically on the Acroceraunians. It is historical info, not only geographical. It seems that this specific information bothers you, why? And why are you not showing similar concerns about the repetition: The Periplus of Pseudo-Scylax makes a clear distinction between the Chaonians and their northern neighbours, the Illyrian tribes that occupied the coastal and hinterland regions further north. as well? But above all, if you are so worried about the quality of the article, why are you keeping offtopic information like Apollonia's expansion and conquest of Thronion? – Βατο (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

So now you removed the part about pseudo-Scylax, but kept in the off-topic additions about Hecataeus? Why? It's both or none, no double standards. Choose. Khirurg (talk) 14:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

That's not offtopic, De Maria & Mancini 2018 provides that specific information placed in the appropriate historical context. As for Pseudo-Skylax' part, feel free to insert it into the relevant historical contex. – Βατο (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The "historical context" is right where it was before. If you're going to mention that they were "contiguous" to the Illyrians, it should also be mentioned that they were considered distinct from them. Khirurg (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll add something about it in that sub-section, but not from the late Classical period like the Periplus of Pseudo-Skylax, as it would be out of context. – Βατο (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine. Btw Pseudo-Scylax should be mentioned in the "ancient sources" section, so I added him. Khirurg (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Alexikoua, Maleschreiber, I separated the content about the early phases in the History section naming the sub-section "Early period". If you don't agree, please propose another name or structure. – Βατο (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

It's ok with me. I expanded the name section based on Filos (2018). Full quote posted here to avoid cluttering the article with long quotes:

• The same etymological uncertainty surrounds the ethnic Χάονες. As is also the case with Μολοσσοί, who were allegedly named after the eponymous hero Μολοσσός, Chaonians too supposedly received their name from their eponymous ancestor Xάων, a Trojan hero (brother or friend of Helenus) who settled in Epirus (cf. Virgil, Aeneid 3.333-35). It is obvious, though, that the actual etymology ought to be analyzed outside the realm of mythology, which in the case of Epirus was largely linked to the nostoi of the Trojan War heroes, probably at a posterior time (cf. Malkin 2001). Nonetheless, there is still no reliable etymology for this ethnic name either. A link to words like χάος ‘void’ and χάσκω ‘to yawn, gape’, as proposed by V. Georgiev (1966, 181; cf. also Katičić 1976, I.122) seems semantically odd at first sight, even though it could in fact point to a rugged area. In addition, important phonemic differences between the two words in question (note e.g. the obvious vowel quantity difference between Χᾱον- vs. χᾰF-) render the association between the two forms even more improbable(12). (12) Note that the root *χάF- (cf. e.g. the cognate adj. χαῦνος ‘porous, spongy, frivolous’), may point to some kind of uneven surface (or terrain). But in any case, one may hardly rule out a completely different original root, which for some reason (e.g. phonological change, adaptation, contamination, folk etymology, etc.) may have become unrecognizable in due course.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The events of the 7th-6th century definitely warrant a separate subsection: 'Archaic era' is the correspondent historical era. Bato you need to use more appropriate summaries: [[2]].Alexikoua (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Alexikoua, the events of the 7th-6th century concerns the activity of Korkyra on the coast. A separate "Archaic era" sub-section is not appropriate for Chaonian chronology, as already stated by Maleschreiber. "Early period" can include all the relevant content about the pre-history of the region. As for Hecataeus, he provides only the information of the existence of Chaonians in the 6th-5th century BC. A creation of an Archaic era sub-section based only on that account is not reasonable, there are no Archaic events concerning Chaonians in early Greek historiography. – Βατο (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The events of the 7th-6th century concern the rising power of the Chaonians (fortification on the Peraia_and as such this is relevant to this article. This happened during the era which is called Archaic. 'Early period' on the other hand is very generic to the reader. It's ok about prehistory but 7th-6th century isn't prehistory. As such scholarship offers enough information about the Chaonians during pre-500 BC. Indeed an 'Archai era' subsection is warranted due to plenty of information in this period. there are no Archaic events concerning Chaonians in early Greek historiography? So what? Scholarship has a different view and this I propose should be reflected here too Alexikoua (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• Full quote by Dausse: Ainsi, d’après les études réalisées[142] D. Budina, « Le lieu et le rôle d’Antigonea dans la vallée du…, l’organisation de la vallée du Drino apparaît exemplaire, car une hiérarchie des sites y a été relevée : on distingue la ville d’Antigonea, l’agglomération secondaire de Melan et les forteresses de Lekel, de Labova (fig. 3) et de Sélo qui contrôlent les différents accès à la vallée The statement refers to the construction works by Pyrrhus, which are already mentioned in the section.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Thronion

Thronion was not under Chaonian control at the time of Apollonia's conquest. There are extensive studies on that historical event, notably by Malkin, Cabanes, Stocker, and more recently Quantin. Do not add WP:FRINGE content into the article. – Βατο (talk) 23:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Stocker states that Chaonia reached north to the region of Apollonia, Malkin also states that Thronium was a Greek settlement. Winnifrith also states it was a Greek settlement. As such there is no wonder that Dominguez (in several papers) is in full agreement with the rest of the scholarship. Nothing fringe, this was part of the Chaonian history. And I tell you for nth time: if you insist on removing mainstream scholarship from wikipedia take it better to RSN instead. This tendency is not good. Alexikoua (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Im addint the quote from Dominguez in case you don't have access on his paper:Finally, Apollonia's conquest of Thronium and part of Amantia received important recognition in the contruction of an imposing monument in Olympia and perhaps in Apollonia itself; it is hard to believe that a monument of this type was built to commemorate some obscure victory over a marginal barbarian population. In addition to the other meanings that this monument may have had, we must consider that Apolonnia might have wished to present itself before the rest of the Greeks as the conqueror of a people who undoubtedly were part of the Chaonians, who had governed the whole of Epirus in the past (Strabo) and who, in the last of the third of the 5th century, made an agreement with the Ambracians to conquer Acarnania. These peoples were considered the most belligerent of all the Epirotes. Dominguez has provided a mountain of scholarship on the Epirus. Removing information with the excuse that it doesn't fit a specific POV is quite disruptive.Alexikoua (talk) 00:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

The still unidentified Thronion (Illyria) was a Greek colony, but that has nothing to do with Chaonians. According to ancient tradition, Thronion was an Euboean-Locrian settlement in Illyria/Abantis/Thesprotia, it was not a Chaonian settlement. And Apollonia won against Euboean-Locrian Greeks, not Chaonians. Your selection of opinions that clearly contradicts ancient accounts and current scholarship, while WP:ASSERTING them as facts, decreases the quality of the articles. If I acted like you, I would have added that Buthrotum was an Illyrian site [3], that Phoinike and Chimera were southern Illyrian sites [4], and that Antigoneia was in Illyria [5], all based on WP:reliable sources. Not to mention the Illyrian confederacy of Atintanians including the Drino valley which belonged to Chaonians. But I am not selecting sources to push a specific ahistorical POV. So, please, stop with this unconstructive conduct. – Βατο (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

It's weird that you believe in ancient Greek mythology and the so-called foundation by Euboean-Locrians returning from Trojan war (but in the case of Amantia you reject this claim) is nothing more than ancient legend. We need to stick to wp:SCHOLARSHIP and Dominguez is an expert on the field. By the way Winnifrith reads: At some stage Apollonia seems to have taken over Thronium , another Greek city probably sited near Kanina . As you see there is nothing against Thronium being Chaonian.Alexikoua (talk) 02:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Again, Greek doesn't necessarily mean Chaonian. If you are going through this, Chaonians were not regarded as Greeks by the Greeks in the relevant historical period (5th century BC). Also Winnifrith (2021) considers Chaonians as a: "people of Epirotic origin and dubious ethnicity". So I would not insist on Thronion=Greek => Thronion=Chaonian. And what I could believe about the legend is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Thronion was regarded by its citizens and its Greek neighbors as an Euboean-Locrian foundation, and that the conquest made by Apollonia in mid-5th century BC was seen as a victory against Euboean-Locrian Greeks (see already mentioned extensive bibliography about it), not against barbarian Chaonians. I am not going to continue a discussion about WP:FRINGE theories that you want to WP:ASSERT in WP:WIKIVOICE as facts. – Βατο (talk) 10:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Wrong headings

[[6]] Bato: Why you added a '4rth century' section before a 'Hellenistic period' one, while the later section also discusses events of the 4rth century? You understand that c. 1/3 of the 4rth century is "part" of the Hellenistic period. I can't understand this persistent wp:OWN of you by changing the headings into misleading ones.Alexikoua (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

It remains accurate, 4th century BC within the Classical period. On the other hand, your heading "Unification process from Alcetas I to Alexander I" is WP:undue because most scholars don't agree on that, and because the historical events described in that sub-section do not concern only the "Unification process from Alcetas I to Alexander I". – Βατο (talk) 01:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Verifiability of a statement

This statement: The Chaonian region lay on the edge of the Greek world and was far from peaceful; for many centuries, its frontier was contested with the Illyrian peoples to the north., which is presumably supported by the citation: Hammond 1967, p. 473ff, appears not to be in that source. Proper reference should be provided, otherwise that part is to be be removed as original research. – Βατο (talk) 12:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I removed the statement: It has been claimed that Diodorus' account of the Illyrian invasion is difficult to interpret, and according to an interpretation that war appears to have involved the whole of Epirus and not only Molossia, and it could also reflect the dominance acquired by the Molossians in Epirus. According to this view, Epirus was possibly unified before the reign of Alexander I of Epirus, during a period like that of the war waged against the Illyrians, which would coincide with the reign of Alcetas I of Epirus (first half of the 4th century BC). According to the same view, it might be postulated that at that time the concept of an emerging Molossian kingdom was supported by the Epirotes as a good means of facing external threats, in particular, that of the Illyrians. The previous statement ("until the end of the 4th century BCE") covers the reign of every possible Molossian head without need for further discussion about which exact Molossian King it concerns. This might be a subject of discussion at Molossians but doesn't seem to be relevant here. The next statement about the "emerging Molossian kingdom" as a means of facing external threats concerns Molossians and their allies because Pascual (2018) clarifies that this exact expansion is what weakened the Chaonians. The statements about Illyrian invasions need to be expanded and clarified to the extent that they concern Chaonians or removed if they don't concern them. The major case of an Illyrian campaign can't even be described as an invasion as Sparta’s meddling has been suggested, which seems quite probable bearing in mind that after the defeat of 429, Molossia changed sides under King Tharyps, leaning towards Athens. At the same time, the conditions surrounding the return of King Alcetas would indicate, in addition to Spartan interference, the existence of conflicts within Molossian society, which the Spartans may have taken advantage of in order to force the king’s exile. Alcetas returned, clearly supported by Dionysius the Elder, who provided him with two thousand mercenaries and five hundred Greek panoplies in order to arm Illyrian troops. Thus equipped, the Illyrians entered Epirus and defeated the Molossians, causing 50,000 deaths, a figure that seems somewhat exaggerated. In the end, the Spartans were forced to intervene in order to stop the barbarians (Diod. Sic. 15.13.3; 385 B.C) and prevent the annihilation of their allies, who opposed the king’s return. Illyrians entered Epirus as mercenaries of a Molossian faction and basically plundered the opposing Molossian faction and then went back. A discussion about how Chaonians might have responded doesn't seem to be pertinent because the entire event didn't even concern Chaonia.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

The statement about the unification of Epirus concerns the Chaonians directly: Epirus is the state that they became part of it and the possible incorporation of Chaonia during Alcetas is an essential part of the Chaonian timeline. As I see Pascual also states that the Illyrian invasion had also an impact on the Thesprotians and Chaonians. I'm going to rephrase this paragraph since the second Illyrian invasion belongs to the Hellenistic era.Alexikoua (talk) 04:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

About the unification it was definitely a process that shaped Chaonian history in the pre-Pyrrhus period, Pascual provides some necessary context: In short, between the mid-fourth century and c. 330-324, a series of State structures had developed throughout Epirus. First of all, there were a good number of poleis and also at least two koina, the Thesprotians and the Chaonians, in addition to a kingdom, which may have incorporated, in turn, another koinon, that of the Molossians. None of these three koina nor any of the poleis, due to their mere fact of existence, were necessarily independent, and none of them had to have necessarily disappeared during the second half of the fourth century. In fact, it is possible that in around 330 the whole of Epirus was unified, although we cannot rule out the idea that this unification may have taken place sometime earlierAlexikoua (talk) 06:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Where is the difference in this comment in comparison to what I wrote in the previous comment?

• I merged some statements which are duplicates. The creation of a unified Epirote state in which the Chaones formed also part of it was achieved in c. 340-330 BC under Alexander I,[90] though it can't be ruled out that this unification may have taken place sometime earlier > Molossian expansion resulted in the inclusion of the Chaonians in a unified Epirote state in the era between c. 340-330 BC under Alexander I and 297-295 BCE. The statement sometime earlier refers to this quote by Pascual: In fact, it is possible that in around 330 the whole of Epirus was unified, although we cannot rule out the idea that this unification may have taken place sometime earlier. This refers to 330 BCE or sometime earlier which in fact is a reference to 340 BCE, but not an era before this period. Pascual writes (pp. 43-44): as the result in large part of the expansion of the Molossian kingdom before 330 the Molossians would have incorporated all of the previous independent States, except for the Chaonians. The creation of an “Epirote Alliance” or Symmachy or “Apeiros” between 340/30 and 230. Now, around the time of the rule of King Alexander I or between c. 340/30 and the attribution of Queen Antigoné's name to the Chaonian town located in the Drino Basin (297-295), the Chaonians would also have been included. At this point a unified State was formed, the Molossians and their allies were renamed Symmachy of the Apeirotes or Apeiros.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

It is important not to remove those important stages of the unification proccess. I'm highliting those parts since the need to stay on the text as stated on the final conclusion of the author: In short, between the mid-fourth century and c. 330-324, a series of State structures had developed throughout Epirus. First of all, there were a good number of poleis and also at least two koina, the Thesprotians and the Chaonians, in addition to a kingdom, which may have incorporated, in turn, another koinon, that of the Molossians. None of these three koina nor any of the poleis, due to their mere fact of existence, were necessarily independent, and none of them had to have necessarily disappeared during the second half of the fourth century. In fact, it is possible that in around 330 the whole of Epirus was unified, although we cannot rule out the idea that this unification may have taken place sometime earlier. This is actually on page 54 which is the conclusion of Pascual's paper (it's the last paragraph of the section that summarized his analysis. On the other hand the quote from page 43-44 simply summarizes earlier suggestions, since its begins with: ( As of the middle of last century, a certain schema has been defined regarding the historical development of Epirus...). It's based on older scholarship from the middle of the last century as he states and it's definitely not widely accepted in modern mainstream scholarship.Alexikoua (talk) 06:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Alexikoua you have included original research while also keeping to WP:ASSERT opinions as facts, that's negatively affecting the quality of the article. – Βατο (talk) 11:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Pascual writes that As of the middle of last century, a certain schema has been defined regarding the historical development of Epirus, one that would encompass a period stretching from at least the end of the fifth century to the imposition of Roman rule in the year 167. This statement doesn't refer to Chaonians but to the historical periods of Epirus in pre-Roman antiquity. Then the author argues for a specific periodization of the history of Epirus which ends with the statement that as the result in large part of the expansion of the Molossian kingdom before 330 the Molossians would have incorporated all of the previous independent States, except for the Chaonians.. It is quite clear that the author does not refer to any period before 340 BCE for a Chaonian inclusion in the Molossian state of Epirus. There's no ambiguity in Pascual (2018) about it.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

The statement Antigonea's foundation certainly represented a sign of a new alliance with the Mollosians and marked the political creation of a unified Epirus was removed because it directly contradicts the previous statement: It is unclear whether Pyrrhus founded Antigonea with approval from Chaonian elites or not which includes all possibilities. Side comment: While it is correct to describe all options as plausible, I'm pretty certain that Antigonea was founded as a result of Molossian expansion with very little Chaonian approval. The strongest piece of evidence for this theory is that Antigonea was burnt down by the Romans with strong Chaonian support.--Maleschreiber (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Well the full context provided by Dominguez in the case of Antigonea begins with a new city in Chaonia would seem to clearly indicate the monarchy’s capacity to interfere in the internal organisation of the kingdom. This is an essential part of the context and its followed by the less clear statement It is unclear whether Pyrrhus founded Antigonea with approval from Chaonian elites or not. I'm actually certain that Antigonea was founded as part of Pyrrhus' politics inside a unified kingdom. Dominguez argues also in that direction.Alexikoua (talk) 03:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it obviously was a project by Pyrrhus and not a Chaonian project, otherwise the Chaonians wouldn't have burnt it down after the disintegration of the Molossians.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

It's wp:OR to claim that there was a Chaonian-Mollosian conflict prior to the Roman conquest since all we know is that all Epirote tribes formed a unified state & Chaonian institutions were an integral part of the Apeirotan political system with Phoenice as its capital. Alexikoua (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• • I expanded the section about the Roman based on Giorgi (2017). The article doesn't have a page format, so I haven't included any page information but I can list the relevant quotes if necessary. For the case of Antigonea, Giorgi (2017) writes: As far as we know, only in Buthrotum did this situation have an evolution with grants of the Triumviral and Augustan colony. More complex is the valley of the Drinos, for which we have been unable to locate an urban center until at least the 1st century AD and we know that the city of Antigonea was destroyed at the end of the Third Macedonia War (168 BC) probably during the battles between various Epirus factions [37]. Thus, Antigonea, even if with noticeable differences, is the only case in Chaonia that could be close to the destructions that occurred in the same period in some settlements of the Thesprotians and especially in Molossia. Probably the fate of Antigonea is linked to the interest that the Molossians always had in the Drinos valley as an access point towards the Adriatic--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)