Talk:Stratioti

More info

http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/pdfs/pedani.pdf

A picture http://www.nobili-napoletani.it/images/ALBANESI/Maipesi.gif —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.156.131 (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Barbarigo

Deucalionite, if as the source for your "Αρβανίτες Ελληνες" you mean the Ta Nea article you quoted to Matia the other day, read it carefully: it doesn't even ascribe that phrase to Barbarigo. If you know it is from Barbarigo nevertheless, quote me chapter and verse in the Sathas edition, plus the original wording in Italian or whatever language it was written in. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm changing this back, as no confirmation of this quote has been forthcoming. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Aigest 06:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the term Greek mercenaries is correct. In the same article it is described that they were recruited from Albanians, Greeks and Dalmatians which are all different nationalities. Let's use the term mercenaries instead without the nationality reference. Even the reference there "they are all greeks" I think probably it's used to describe their orthodox religion. There were no greeks at that time in Durazzo, not even in Napoli. Instead there were Albanian emigrants in Napoli (now called Arbëresh) and Albanians in Durazzo and they were all orthodox.

Oh yeah? Greeks had colonies in Albania, Dalmatia and South Italy since 7th c. BC and are still present there as ethnic or lingual minorities. "Durazzo" is the ancient Epidamnos. Romans changed name to Dyrrachium because of the "damn" in the Greek name, but we don't need to refer to Greek presence in Albania. For Greeks in Dalmatia see Epidaurus (Dalmatia) (today Cavtat), List of ancient cities in Illyria, Issa (today Vis (town)), Pharos (Hvar http://www.dalmatia.net/dalmatia-island-hvar/), and Trau (ancient Gr. Tragirion) with the nearby island of Bua. --Euzen (talk) 08:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

More than 80% of Stradiots were of Albanian origin the rest of them of Greek and slavic origin, most of them were of greek orthodox religion not of greek ethnicity.

Cyprus?

Is it certain Stradioti were "recruited" in Cyprus? I've seen references saying Arvanite stradioti units moved to Cyprus and settled there at some later stage, but was it also a recruiting area? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Albanian Stradioti

According to the history of my ancestors many of them (Stradioti) were of Albanian extraction too. Does anyone have more information about this? One article I've read and is mentioned here in the Wikipedia article in the past is at: http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Stradioti.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Contessa arberesh (talk • contribs) 18:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC). Aigest 06:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC) I am preparig something about it and yes you are right.

Roberto Damiani's website [1] and the list of the condottieri [2] are quite reliable and in fact has helped scholars in their research See comment of Pietro Bembo in his History of Venice: Books I-IV, Volume 1 [[3]. I think it may safely be used in this article as a RS. --Sulmues ^(talk) 15:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

-According to the sentence"Others seemed to be of South Slavic origin, such Soimiris, Vlastimiris, and Voicha." in the footnote, see a not good used analogu like soimir and vladimir,bouth ending with mir. In th case Soimir it is very transparent in albanian language from "the gentelmen kind" which is "gentelmen family"--Flokarti (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I've removed this part since this is complete of zero value. None of them meets wp:n. Guess another pointy edit by an old blocked troll Guildenrich.Alexikoua (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

We'll see if they are notable once that I start articles about them. It's very disruptive of you to ignore reliable sources.--Sulmues ^(talk) 18:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure go on. Actually this was nothing more than a povish list, added by a blocked user, that didn't meet wp:n, just to monopolize the Stratioti as Albanians only. What is disruptive here is that a user supports indef blocked editors with the excuse that they are just his coethnics.Alexikoua (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Btw per MOS please don't disrupt the alphabetical arrangement in order to put one ethnicity before the other ones and don't add irrelevant terms on the lead.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Alexi, leave aside these comments, and make a comment on on Roberto Damiani as a source. --Sulmues ^(talk) 14:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems you both are completely out of topic? Alphabetical order? lol. It was just a list added by a indef blocked user, and now it's gone because non of them met wp:n (ignore nationalist advocacy)Alexikoua (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The only out of topic is you. I am asking for the third time if you consider Roberto Damiani a reliable source. Say simply yes or no. --Sulmues ^(talk) 15:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

To what is this dispute related?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 15:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

To this edit. Reverted [4] and again Alexi's edit--Sulmues ^(talk) 15:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

To sum up, Zjarri (above) said this: don't add irrelevant terms on the lead., alphabetical arrangement? I'm sorry but he must mistaken me from somewhere else. He should read again wp:what wikipedia is not. Blindly accusing is really the worst extreme way of disruption in wikipedia.Alexikoua (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

That was the state of the article and I'm not blindly accusing anyone. I don't think that common mistakes are a reason for accusing someone because people make mistakes and learn from them. Btw Sulmues seems to have asked you about something 3 times so it would be prudent if you answered and didn't IDHT him.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 15:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Only an Albanian nationalist would place the sentence that 80% of Stratioti were Albanian in the second sentence of the lead. I mean, really. Athenean (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

That's what the article says. By the way you completely messed up the references with your disruptive editing. [5] --Sulmues ^(talk) 22:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

So what? Why should that be the second sentence of the article? Like I said, only an Albanian nationalist would....Athenean (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Why would only an Albanian nationalist add that on the lead?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Because is against wp:lead. @Zjarries: I still wait an explanation about your weird accusations here, as stated above (don't add irrelevant terms on the lead., alphabetical arrangement etc. empty accusation against me). Else I doubt if someone can take your comments serious here in general.Alexikoua (talk) 10:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)I didn't make any accusation against you. I don't think that common mistakes are a reason for accusing someone. Btw it would be prudent if you removed your comment about my comments. It's not against wp:lead because it's a summary of the section which includes names documentation etc.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

As long as we give information about the stradioti we should say where they were from, and as long as we say where they were from, and we have reliable sources on the percentages of nationalities, we might as well say them. A guy from Japan who hears "Stradioti" might be convinced that they are Italian. Then he discovered that that's not the case. So he thinks "where were these people from?" He reads a bunch of countries from the Balkans. Then he wonders, yes but who gave more Stradioti to Italy and other western countries? The answer is: 80% of them were Albanian. Very good information, which is important for the reader. --Sulmues ^(talk) 12:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for recognizing your mistake.Alexikoua (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I had to ask for full protection because you continued the edit-warring Alexikoua.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I still fail to understand why reporting sources in both the body of the article and the lede would qualify as Albanian nationalism. The source btw is a Greek. The accusation that I am an Albanian nationalist is a heavy one and I expect apologies. I'm here to write good articles, not to represent any nationalism. All I do is write based on secondary reliable sources. --Sulmues ^(talk) 19:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't heard a single valid reason why that sentence should be the second sentence of the article. I mean, should we make it the first sentence too? No one is saying it should be removed from the article, but how is the fact that one single author claims that 80% of them were Albanian deserve to be the second sentence in the article? It simply doesn't. It's too much. Leave where it is in the text, but it doesn't merit placement in the lede. Athenean (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

And why would it be too much? The author is an expert in the matter and he highlights a number. Why would you hate the fact that in the lede the Albanians appear to be 80% of the Stradiotes? Again, it seems like all you do is worry about the ledes. Please focus on the body of the article first and then the lede is a summary. I haven't seen you bring decent contributions to the body of the article and you already got this article stuck because you insist in the lede presentation only. This is disruptive editing and you are not proposing anything constructive, you're just saying "Do me a favor and get it out of the lede, becuase it's too much for me to see it". I fail to see any reasoning behind your request. --Sulmues ^(talk) 19:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm asking you a simple question, and you respond with personal attacks (I hate this, I don't propose anything constructive, I don't bring decent contributions, I worry too much about ledes...). Just try to answer my question. "Why not" is not a valid answer. Athenean (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I gave you a valid answer. I am following WP:Lede, which says that the lede should be a summary of the relevant points in the body of the article. The article mentions the 80% of the nationalities, so does the lede. You are not telling me why I shouldn't follow WP:Lede. --Sulmues ^(talk) 20:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You answer boils down to "why not", which is not a valid answer. There is simply no argument that the second sentence of the article should be a sentence about ethnic distribution. To the rest of us, ethnicity here just isn't that important that it should go right in the second sentence of the article. I bet if the Stratioti were 80% Greek, you would arguing the exact opposite. Athenean (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I am repeating you for the n-th time that my answer is I am following wp:lead. By the way this edit of yours [6] is unacceptable. Please don't take bets on my intellectual honesty, you might be surprized.--Sulmues ^(talk) 20:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

"I am following wp:lede" is not an argument. Anyone can claim to do so. Athenean (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

There is also no argument to keep any ethnicity on the lead, so when the full protection expires I'll add that they came from the Balkans and if the reader wants to know their exact origin he can read the origins section(per wp:lead that is a summary), otherwise since we're adding ethnicities there's no reason to not be precise about the ethnicity of the majority. Btw the source didn't say that just one Greek author made such a suggestion but that Most modern, as well as a good number of early authors have indicated that the stradioti were Albanian., so this isn't a one sided approach.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

OR

Euzen can you please stick to the sources and not make or deductions? Despite the fact that you're using a 1551 source, you're not even citing it correctly because the source says as you quoted it: Gli stradiotti erano un Corpo di cavalleria, constituito principalmente da albanesi, greci, dalmati, bulgari, which means that they were mercenary units from the Balkans, but you translated that as Contemporary historians call them Albanians (Albanesi) or Greeks (Greci). That speaks volumes regarding or. Also you don't even know what any of the terms meant at that time, and please don't delete other references.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Mr Zjar, there is no point in guarding articles and aggressively delete in real time. This practice has already been dealed with in the case of Sulmues. If you read carefully the references that you deleted you will see that ref. about "albanesi, greci, dalmati, bulgari" is of 2005. By "contemporary" I mean references of 16th c. If wording or syntax is wrong, we can correct it. The 1551 source is not a "research" but a well-known historical reference regarding medieval Italy. What about Enciclopedia Italiana? If you don' like them, present your arguments.

I paste here the paragraph that your deleted. It is full of sources. You may explain what exactly YOU understand as a "source" and as "Original Research". There are many sources, not only the ones that you select, and published in numerous secondary and tertiary sources, like the ones I refer to.
If you claim that you know better what the terms "Albanian" and "Greek" meaned at that time, let us know.

"They were known as stradioti from the Greek word for soldier." (Ref.: Grande Enciclopedia Italiana, ed. Treccani, article Stradioti: "dal basso greco στρατιώται"). Contemporary historians call them Albanians (Albanesi) or Greeks ("Greci") (Ref.:Pietro Bembo (original publication 1551), Storia Veneta, Venezia, 1780, transl. from latin to italian, pp. 154, 188, 198, 206 etc.), while modern essays recognise their mixed origin/ethnicity/language (Ref.: [7] Sul Tutto, p. 3: "Gli stradiotti erano un Corpo di cavalleria, constituito principalmente da albanesi, greci, dalmati, bulgari ..." (Pappas). A study of the stradiotti names in Venezian archives showed that around 80% of the listed names were Albanian while most of the remaining ones, especially those of officers, were Greek and a small minority were of South Slavic origin. (Pappas)"
You cannot erase and re-write history.--Euzen (talk) 08:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Euzen read WP:OR, then read the sentence you're citing and afterwards read your deduction. Btw Bembo wasn't even a historian but that doesn't matter because the fact the vast majority were from the Balkans is already part of the article.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You need an author to claim that sentence from XVI century, not your interpretation. If you would take care to read WP:OR, you would spare to others a lot of time. This is the n-th time the other users (including me) are saying this to you. Aigest (talk) 11:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, if there is one physical person behind each username, the "other users" are the known company of 3 or 4 (is S. still banned or off duty?).
You don't cheat anybody whith the trick of "OR". The issue is very simple. Cardinal Pietro Bembo was indeed a well-accepted historiographer (e.g. see http://www.enotes.com/literary-criticism/bembo-pietro ) and was contemporary of Stradiotti. His work is cited by many historians and this is why a Google search for "Pietro Bembo" or variants gives some hundred thousands of hits. However, if you feel that you can criticise him, go ahead. All I wrote in this article is that he calls the stradiotti "Greci" in more that 20 occasions in his History of Venezia. This is not my "interpretation", is the plain citation of an author. But if you do not like a 16th c. book and you prefer something 2nd or 3rd hand, I will bring one or two.
Still waiting suggestions for corrections in my paragraph. Bembo is here to stay.--Euzen (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Evidently either you don't get the concept of OR -ing or you are trolling as usual.Aigest (talk) 08:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Evidently YOU are trolling. Here is what WP sais about O.R.:

"The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research) If you are really particicating in this discussion, you are invited to indicate which source of mine is not reliable.--Euzen (talk) 08:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Still you don't get it. Let me put this simple. In your case first issue are the sources, they should meet WP:RS criteria. Apart other requirements for WP:RS, Bembo falls under the category of primary sources, since yourself admit that he was a contemporary of Stradioti and usually primary sources are not preferred to be used in wiki exactly for the risk of OR-ing(read more here). Second issue are how to cite them.

Though we may report the attributed opinions of reliable authors, articles should never include the opinions of Wikipedians themselves, even if you are an expert who has read any number of primary, secondary, or tertiary sources. Your opinions and interpretations do not belong in an article. But it is appropriate to document interpretations of events, data, or opinions, as published in reliable secondary source material. Peer-reviewed sources are especially valued. While secondary source material is most preferred, primary sources may also be used to report factual material provided the contributing editor states the fact in a manner that does not present an interpretation of the fact (original research) which is not itself explicitly contained in the primary source.

When you claim "Contemporary historians call them Albanians (Albanesi) or Greeks ("Greci")" You have interpreted a fact which is not itself explicitly contained in Bembo. If Bembo would have stated that "Historians call them Albanians or Greeks" that would have been ok up to the point of WP:RS of Bembo. But in this case that phrase is a conclusion made by you Euzen and not by any scholar. It is not important if it is right or wrong, it is your conclusion thus OR. Do you understand? Aigest (talk) 10:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

New version

I created a new version. Sorry about a small mistake I made, but I was working on both this and another article--Kushtrim123 (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

You accidentally removed a number of sources on the lead picture. Zjarri was also eager to remove them, as he told me in my talk page.Alexikoua (talk) 14:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Great job on the new version Kushtrim and Alexikoua your latest edit was totally OR apart from POV since the source didn't say French drawing of Greek and Albanian stradioti..." it said French drawing of Albanian stradioti and the other source which didn't say anything about the drawing said Albanians, Greeks, Italians.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Alexikoua do you have access at Oxford Journals? The page of that link says nothing about any Greek stradioti.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Zjarri: please avoid this endless campgain of disruption: the source is quite clear, and I gave the exact quote (which you removed together with all the reference and you admit that you haven't access on it).

Also if you have not access to Oxford Journals, although everyone can confirm this quote, you should better go to a library instead of blindly removing in wikipedia.Alexikoua (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you have access to Oxford Journals or are you again using google search without actually having access to the sources themselves? I think that you're using simple google search because if you had actual access you would be quoting whole sentences.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

(ignore trolling) I have. For future reference we don't remove sources just by using the hypothetical arguments.Alexikoua (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Then bring the full quote and I mean the whole sentence not just what the rest of us can see from google if that's true. If you don't bring the full quote since you claim that you have access I will assume that you don't have and remove the pov tag as WP:IDONTLIKEIT, otherwise I'll revert myself ,bring back the source and remove the tag.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you be a little more precise on the 'full quote'? I can give the 'entire' page.Alexikoua (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

[[8]] (hope it's visible).Alexikoua (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Yes, it's visible and as I said I'll revert myself, add the whole quote and remove the tag.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

At least very kind of you restoring a url that was previously removed [[9]] with the excuse that oxford journals isn't accessible.Alexikoua (talk) 14:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)I didn't restore your first url because you sourced the wrong one p.191 instead p.192.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Albanian "statistics"

The albanian editors grabbed the citation of Pappas about "80% of the names" and turned the names to nationality statistics. However, in other articles the same editors have showed that even if the name does not sound Albanian, they turn it so and ... voila! The person becomes Albananian (e.g. see application of this method in Gregorios Argyrokastritis (Gregory IV of Athens)).

Pappas is not "most modern historians", names do not mean nationality, and Sathas, who did the original research, does not refer to all stratioti.
However this is some info for the occasional "Japanese reader", provided that he will not read anything more about Albanian language.

Selective use of sources is applied in this article, as usual. Pietro Bembo, a first-hand witness of stratioti and widely cited historiographer, who calls the stratioti mostly "Greci", is vandalously erased by the albanian editors as ... original research! Poor Bembo! Does he have to remain out of WP together with Thukydides, Xenophon, Herodotus, Strabo and other "ORs" !--Euzen (talk) 07:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Concerns about development of the article

I have been concerned for some time that this article is failing to develop. Very little is being said about the service of stratioti, which is a weakly developed (coverage is noted as a weakness in the B class checklist). Yet a huge amount of e-ink is being spilled on the supposed ethnic origin of the troops. This seems to drift uncomfortably close to edit warring and, more disturbingly, seems to have a ethnic POV content. Could I then suggest that, in order to attract new editors who may be able to expand the deficient areas of the article, that this dispute is settled and the article stabilised? Thanks Monstrelet (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I have about 100 pages of material (including some pictures) for this article but there is no point in contributing and wasting time, when some editors behave like owners and use the article to beef up their national myth. See the history of the article and you will realize that some are deleting important references on funny explanations, just because they demolish the myth of "albanian stratioti".

This small article and its links are part of an albanian project aiming at creating a medieval "albanian nation", when modern literature is clear that albanian national identity was hardly existing by the end of 19th c (e.g. Bernd J. Fischer (2005) A Brief Historical Overview of the Development of Albanian Nationalism). Check for instance the link Mercurio Bua and discover that he was (what else?) "Albanian", when there are undeniable sources that he was a native Greek speaker, born in Greece and recognized by the Italians of his time as "Greco".
I will avoid edit-war. I am interested in military history and only history. If you can propose a way to bypass this electronic autarchism we can have a good war history article. --Euzen (talk) 12:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Euzen Monstrelet and others want to improve the article and Aigest has told you to read WP:OR about your deductions so please do that.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't think you and Aigest have any authority to give instructions to other users. --Euzen (talk) 09:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I have now gone through and restructured the text to help clarify where the weak points are and to make it more user friendly. I've added no text, nor have I altered the references.Monstrelet (talk) 08:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Many times in the Western Europe "Greco" was a description for christian orhodox believers, for example the Spanish did call everyone from eastern mediterranes and orthodoxs for "greco" later it become even a word for non latin speaker, the Mexicans use still "gringo" which is a version of word "greco" to describe the anglo speakers of America, even the word for northern Albanians "Gheg" is a version of "greek", probably first used by slavs who migrated to balkan to describe non slavics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.156.131 (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

List of vandalisms (info and references deleted)

The guardians of the albanian POV are online 24 hours a day and delete references in milliseconds, as they practice in all related articles. For the interested reader here is the list of the deletions.

15 Nov 2010, line 39, [[10]]. They try to create an impression of temporariness around the Greek identity. The Greek city of Argos, the oldest city of Europe, being Greek since at least the Mycenean period, the source of hundreds of texts on Linear B in Greek language, has to be a "modern Greek" city. Do they know history?

Here, [[11]] they erased the etymology of "carabins" just because refers to a Greek word. The erased phrase:

This term is believed to come from the medieval Greek word "caravi" (boat, ship), since these soldiers were also seamen and were transported by ships (Sathas K. (1885) Greek stratiotai in the West and the revival of Greek tactics, in "Estia", vol. 19, No 492, p. 371, in Greek language.)

They are affraid of the wordk "Greek" in linked articles!

Nov 6, 2010
I added: "From Laskaris family: Isaakios Laskaris, killed in the Battle of Fornovo (1495), Demetrios Laskaris, son of Isaakios, ..." and was deleted.

The fact that authors report his death just because he is "Laskaris" does not mean anything to the ruthless vandal.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Euzen (talk • contribs) 19:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

They are affraid of the word "Greeks" in all languages!

Nov 3, 2010
San Giorgio dei Greci is deleted and replaced by Eastern Orthodox Church in Venice!
Zar's rules! Does anybody else know the difference between the "Greek Orthodox Church" and a "Greek Orthodox Temple"?
--Euzen (talk) 12:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Oops! Instantly reverted before I even think of checking the WP rules on racism.--Euzen (talk) 12:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Nov 3, 2010.

According to Pappas, most modern historians as well as a good number of early authors have indicated that the stradioti were Albanian. This is accepted by the author as true to a certain extent but which has to be qualified (Nicolas Pappas, undated, http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Stradioti.html). According to a 1960 study by a Greek author, around 80% of the listed names attributed to the stradioti were of Albanian origin while most of the remaining ones, especially those of officers, were of Greek origin; a small minority were of South Slavic origin. (Pappas). Subsequent works support that at least the regiment of stradioti who served Venice were recruited entirely from Greeks (Harris J., Greek Emigres in the West, 1400-1520 (Camberley: Porphyrogenitus, 1995), cited in Harris J. (2002) Byzantines in Renaissance Italy.). Venice, due to its dependence on the military services of the stradioti, granted the Greeks initially the permission to use part of the church of San Biagio and later to build their own church, the San Giorgio dei Greci (Geanakoplos D. (1966) Byzantine East & Latin West: Two Worlds of Christendom in Middle Ages and Renaissance. Edit. The Academy Library Harper & Row Publishers, New York,exerpts online).
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Euzen (talk • contribs) 10:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Oct 27, 2010

Contemporary historians call them Albanians (Albanesi) or Greeks ("Greci") (Pietro Bembo (original publication 1551), Storia Veneta, Venezia, 1780, transl. from latin to italian, pp. 154, 188, 198, 206 etc.), while modern essays recognise their mixed origin/ethnicity/language.--Euzen (talk) 10:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Euzen all the outdated Bembo says is that they were from the Balkans so please stick to the sources and don't make OR deductions about the Venetian stradioti being entirely(huge or and pov) Greek. If you want to mention that apart from Albanian stradioti in Nafplio, Argos etc. Greek stradioti also fought go ahead but please don't make or deductions. As for the church you only had to add the name for the Byzantine rite church, but instead you chose to make or deductions.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Middle Ages

The current section marked Middle Ages seems to have no direct connection with the topic. It may be justified to have a section on the period if we can come up with some evidence from the Balkans of the development of a light cavalry type which later becomes known as stratioti but 12th. century military settlement in Asia Minor seems irrelevant. Is there relevant medieval evidence or should this section go, so that the story starts with the Venetians in the late 15th. century? Monstrelet (talk) 08:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

There is indeed medieval evidence. "Stratiotai" (the correct Greek) are mentioned by byzantine authors well before 15th c. When I find the time I will enrich this part.--Euzen (talk) 10:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Monstrelet that they are outside the topic of this article. The famous light cavalry of stradioti of 15-18 centuries AD (which is the topic of this article) have no connection whatsoever with those unknown troops (12th century prisoners of war in Asia, practically unknown to the history, their role, battles and even their military type, whether horsemen or infantry). Aigest (talk) 11:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be good to have a medieval prequel to the main text but only if the link is clear. I struggle to see how 12th. century Serb colonists in Turkey contribute to the development of mercenaries in Italy in the 15th. If there is a link, lets have it explicit. I think it highly likely that the troop type originated in the later Byzantine Empire in Greece and the Balkans but we need clearer evidence.Monstrelet (talk) 08:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

This small paragraph is really odd in an article that refers to 15th - 16th century refugee-mercenary soldiers from the Balkans occupied by ottomans. The term "stratiotai" in various spellings was contiuously used from classical Greek through roman and byzantine periods and a separate article is needed on them. The pre-15th c. stratiotai have certain differences compared to the post-15th c. ones. For example, in certain periods the former were timariots with the duty to collect taxes by the peasants and give it the state.
I suggest we delete this paragraph and reserve it for a future article "Stratiotai".--Euzen (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but we still have the issue of Stratioti suddenly appearing fully formed around 1470. Ideally we need something on the post Byzantine context which gave rise to these troops, who could be signed up as mercenaries in Western Europe.Monstrelet (talk) 08:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Stable version

I thank you for complimenting my work ZjarriRrethues and hope that you continue making good faith edits. Now if I'm not mistaken, your main grievance with my contributions is the removal of certain sentences and sources. Please bear in mind that no sources were removed, but that the the majority of the sources/citations I incorporated into the entry do not fully concur with the sentences I edited. Prior to my edits, the text in the first paragraph of the 'History' section seemed to appeal to only one perspective. Technically, the history of the entry is checkered with 'conflicts of perspective' none of which have brought any benefit to the quality of the entry.

To make a long story short, the changes I made to the article are necessary for three straightforward reasons: 1) balanced content, 2) professional content, 3) simple/intelligible content. Your good faith edits may have, in actuality, decreased the quality of the entry. And since my purpose on this project is quality management, I intend to restore the article to the version containing my edits. I will perform this action only once and write the following in my edit summary: "Stable Version: If quality of entry is diminished, please restore to this version. For more details, please consult discussion page. Thank you. [Inspector] No. 108". After I restore the article, I will cease making any further edits.

And as much as I'd love to participate in the "scintillating" debates here, I have no intention of quarreling with you or with anyone for that matter. Have a splendid day. :-) No. 108 (talk) 05:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

At least one source was removed. Btw please read WP:COPYVIO, because we can't quote large amounts of content from authors.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Technically, one citation, Floria, was accidentally removed (my apologies) from the first paragraph of the 'History' section even though the affiliated source was added to the roster. At the same time, however, the removal may have actually benefited the entry's quality given that non-English sources are difficult to verify by English-language readers unless translated (this applies to all non-English sources; please consult WP:SOURCES -> Accessibility -> Non-English sources).

As for WP:COPYVIO, its use in this case appears somewhat moot given that the Pappas quote was still present in the citations roster prior to my edits. And if I'm not mistaken, the sentences that certain COI's (of whom I don't care to name) insist on keeping are derived verbatim from the Pappas quote in clear violation of WP:COPYVIO. In any case, I cannot affirm any expertise on cyberspace policies and have little to no incentive towards fully comprehending the somewhat "Byzantine" nature of Wikipedia guidelines. All I know is that quality management is generally incompatible with COI edits that appear to exclude historically relevant facts in favor of unbalanced content. Moreover, if the ultimate goal of any policy citation is to preserve COI edits, then I'm afraid any effort towards providing readers with an impartially stable version is for naught.

Currently, the entry's level of quality has improved (aesthetically perhaps). But the article's development into a professional reference guide is, simply put, obstructed by unbalanced content. If and when the various COI's "migrate" elsewhere, I will gladly address the issues you've raised ZjarriRrethues and establish a more cogent version. And as always, please continue making good faith edits. Thank you. :-)

[This response is explicitly made for the sake of the record and not for the sake of debate.] No. 108 (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Carabins

Euzen please don't add fringe and outdated sources from the 19th century to change the obvious etymology of words like carabins, which has the same etymology as carabiniers.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Zar don't tell me what to do in WP. I know that you dislike everything that is GREEK but you cannot change history. If Sathas is "fringe" and "outdated" (provide sources on that), then other sources based on him (e.g. Pappas) are fringe & outdated, too. Be prepared for more Sathas, the only writer, as far as I am aware, that has studied stradioti extensively. He is cited by many. Article carabiniers does not say anything on the origin of the word. It just makes a cyclical explanation (points to carbine where there is no etymology). If you have other etymology please add it. And keep googling for "Albanian, stratioti".--Euzen (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

@Euzen, stop personal attacks. Just explain where do you see the relation between Stratioti and Carbine?! Carbine was invented centuries after their disappearance from the battlefield and AFAIK (and we all agree I hope) Stratioti never used Carbine rifles. The terms Stratioti and Carbine are not related. Aigest (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

For what it is worth, this is what the OED says about the origins of carabin

[a. F. carabin (16th c. in Littré), of disputed origin: Roquefort alleges an earlier calabrin, according to Diez, f. calabre an ancient engine of war, the name calabrin being transferred from the man who worked that to those who carried these fire-arms; but Littré inclines to see in it a transl. of Calabr{imac}nus Calabrian.

 Calabre, also Pr. and OSp., is regarded by Diez as repr. medL. chadabula an engine for throwing stones, earlier catabola, a. Gr. {kappa}{alpha}{tau}{alpha}{beta}{omicron}{lambda}{ghacu} overthrow, destruction.]  Monstrelet (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Alabarderos

I have reverted this [12] edit. The claim of an etymological connection between ancient Caria and 16th-century Spanish cavallery unit belongs to the category of "exceptional claims that require exceptional sourcing"; it is prima facie implausible. Especially since the source cited, Stephanus of Byzantium, is quite obviously irrelevant (he lived in the 6th century AD, so how could he conceivably be a source about Renaissance military?) According to Spanish etymological dictionaries [13], alabarderos has the obvious derivation that anybody with a scattering of Spanish could have guessed: it's from alabarda, the Spanish form of halberd (which, in turn, is probably derived from a Germanic word). Whatever it is that Sathas is saying, since we already had some rather outlandish speculation ascribed to him in the case of "carabiniers", we should be taking any further references to him with more than a grain of salt. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Update: just to note that I've now figured out that Stephanus is indeed the author who provides the Carian gloss for the ancient place name Alabanda ([14]); beyond that he is of course quite irrelevant. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on history of words, but I wonder who gives you the authority to filtrate the informations added in articles and delete what you don't like. All alternative views must be displayed and, apart from you, there are more readers around who can also judge and interpret information. Untill you find that "Germanic word probably alabarda derives from" we can leave this unique in english etymological testimony, possibly with "according to ... possibly ...". Sathas is the only author, as far as I know, who studied in length the history of stratioti and you are unlikely to challenge him. Btw, article halberd needs some of your intervention, as reference No 3 links to an unsourced text, written by a person with no detailed CV but advertised as "the author of some twenty books. His key genre is history, but he has also published novels, children's books and academic works on prints and printmaking ... trustee of various art galleries etc". Stick around for more Sathas. He is a hell of a source on this subject. Translation to english is my courtesy to WP.--Euzen (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

FUCK ÞEE FUTURE PERFECT AT SUNRISE, ÞOU ARE 666=FFF=FUCKED FUCKING FUCKER, NULLVIR IS ABOUT TO CRUSH ENEMY BEAST - I WAS ONCE WIKINGER, NOW I AM NULLVIR EMPEROR!!! http://www.wladcadyskietek.cba.pl/ 79.191.103.54 (talk) 11:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)