Talk:Chaonians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

NPOV Talk[edit]

Can someone strip out the disputed notions of which ethnic group the Chaonians belong to and move these disputes to a lower section? Can we use more neutral language, especially throughout the introduction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.86.19 (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I urge you to read the discussion of this article. And read it well. And again. And again. All sources (and there are very many) and editors are in agreement that the Chaonians were an ancient Greek tribe. Wikipedia is based on sources, and that's what the sources say. Period. Every once in a while, we get some nationalist Albanian user (such as yourself presumably) who has a problem with this, but if you read the discussion, you will see that they usually do not know what they are talking about and that the matter has been settled. --Tsourkpk (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Chaonians are Greeks[edit]

Chaonians are Greeks

The Molossians were the strongest and, decisive for Macedonia, most easterly of the three most important Epeirot tribes, which, like Macedonia but unlike the Thesprotians and the Chaonians, still retained their monarchy. They were Greeks, spoke a similar dialect to that of Macedonia, suffered just as much from the depredations of the Illyrians and were in principle the natural partners of the Macedonian king who wished to tackle the Illyrian problem at its roots." Malcolm Errington, "A History of Macedonia", California University Press, 1990.

Quote: Epirus was a land of milk and animal products...The social unit was a small tribe, consisting of several nomadic or semi-nomadic groups, and these tribes, of which more than seventy names are known, coalesced into large tribal coalitions, three in number: Thesprotians, Molossians and Chaonians...We know from the discovery of inscriptions that these tribes were speaking the Greek language (in a West-Greek dialect).

NGL Hammond, "Philip of Macedon", Duckworth, London, 1994

"The Cambridge Ancient History - The Expansion of the Greek World, Eighth to Sixth Centuries B.C., Part 3: Volume 3" by P Mack Crew

Quote: That the molossians, who were immediately adjacent to the Dodonaeans in the time of Hecataeus but engulfed them soon afterwards, spoke Illyrian or another barbaric tongue was nowhere suggested, although Aeschylus and Pindar wrote of Molossian lands. That they in fact spoke greek was implied by Herodotus' inclusion of Molossi among the greek colonists of Asia minor, but became demonstranable only when D. Evangelides published two long inscriptions of the Molossian State, set up p. 369 B.C at Dodona, in Greek and with Greek names, Greek patronymies and Greek tribal names such as Celaethi, Omphales, Tripolitae, Triphylae, etc. As the Molossian cluster of tribes in the time of Hecataeus included the Orestae, Pelagones, Lyncestae, Tymphaei and Elimeotae,as we have argued above, we may be confindent that they too were Greek-speaking; Quote: Inscriptional evidence of the Chaones is lacking until the Hellinistic period; but Ps-Scylax, describing the situation of c. 380-360 put the Southern limit of the Illyrians just north of the Chaones, which indicates that the Chaones did not speak Illyrian, and the acceptance of the Chaones into the Epirote alliance in the 330s suggest strongly that they were Greek-speaking Page 284

"The Cambridge Ancient History: Volume 6, the Fourth Century BC" by D M Lewis, Martin Ostwald, Simon Hornblower, John Boardman

Quote: however, in central Epirus the only fortified places were in the plain of Ioannina, the centre of the Molossian state. Thus the North-west Greek-speaking tribes were at a half-way stage economically and politically, retaining the vigour of a tribal society and reaching out in a typically Greek manner towards a larger political organization. Quote: In 322 B.C when Antipater banished banished the anti-Macedonian leaders of the Greek states to live 'beyond the Ceraunian Mountains' (plut. Phoc. 29.3) he regarded Epirus as an integral part of the Greek-speaking mainland. Page 443

Quote: The chaones as we will see were a group of Greek-speaking tribes, and the Dexari, or as they were called later the Dassarete, were the most northernly member of the group. Page 423

Inscriptional evidence of the Chaones is lacking until the Hellinistic period; but Ps-Scylax, describing the situation of c. 380-360 put the Southern limit of the Illyrians just north of the Chaones, which indicates that the Chaones did not speak Illyrian, and the acceptance of the Chaones into the Epirote alliance in the 330s suggest strongly that they were Greek-speaking. "The Cambridge Ancient History - The Expansion of the Greek World, Eighth to Sixth Centuries B.C., Part 3: Volume 3" by P Mack Crew ,page 284.

Quote: The Epirotes, who may fairly be considered as Greeks by blood, long maintained a rugged independence under native chiefs, who were little more than leaders in war. A Manual of Greek Antiquities Book by Percy Gardner, Frank Byron Jevons; Charles Scribner's Sons, 1895, page 8

Chaonians were not greek[edit]

Sertantly, Chaonians were a different ethnicity, from greeks. We can prove it, not through modern historians, who just interpret certain, not fully proved data, but through ancient greek historians. Thucidydes says: the barbarian of a thousand Chaonians, who, belonging to a nation that has no king, were led by Photys and Nicanor, the two members of the royal family to whom the chieftainship for that year had been confided. And also mentions: ...and afterwards during the war they collected this armament among themselves and the Chaonians, and other of the neighbouring barbarians This surely proves that chaonians were barbarians, i.e. not greek, and it shows that they are not neighboured by greeks. Another proof comes from Plutarch. In his book he says that Achilles had another language from epirotans, and thus there was a different pronunciation of his name: "From him Achilles came to have divine honours in Epirus, under the name of Aspetus, in the language of the country" The external links are on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.24.247.194 (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Read the above section they were Greek.Sourced and referenced.And dont ruin pages againMegistias (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
They are Greek in Secondary sources[1]

and in primary sources[2]Megistias (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I want a pact with you. I will not go on undoing this page, if you provide real proof, not from modern time historians, but from ancient (Greek) historians, who surely know more. Don`t you think so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.24.247.116 (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be original research.But i gave you even primary sources in the 2nd link.Megistias (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


The only real proof is this "Greece starts at Oricus and the most ancient part of Greece is Epirus.", all others speak that Pyrrhos had a Greek origin. Plutarch says that Pyrrhos was a descendent of Achileus, who was not "epirotan" and who did not speak their language. "From him Achilles came to have divine honours in Epirus, under the name of Aspetus, in the language of the country". So all others are not a proof of "greek" chaonians, but of greek descendent Pyrros. Do you agree? As of the above mentioned proof, i wold like from you an external link if that is possible, in order to see whats going on. Thnx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.24.247.116 (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Aristotle,Meteorologica "so in determined periods there comes a great winter of a great year and with it excess of rain. But this excess does not always occur in the same place. The deluge in the time of Deucalion, for instance, took place chiefly in the Greek world and in it especially about ancient Hellas, the country about Dodona and the Achelous, a river which has often changed its course. Here the Selli dwelt and those who were formerly called Graeci and now Hellenes."[3] MITMegistias (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
You have been reported.Megistias (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Ancient Greek philosophers also believed the world was flat. Clearly the modern scientists are wrong about that, too? Neıl 17:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Come on. I do not think you belive what you said. Ancient Greeks could not go to the "end of the world" to prove if that was flat or not, but surely they could go to Epirus and hear the language.

You are a disruptive user.17:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I've put the quote from Plutarch in the "Ancient Sources" section, where it sits better. Is that a reasonable compromise? Neıl 17:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
They are Greek in Secondary sources[4]

and in primary sources[5].The revertor user just wants to get me banned and is a sockpuppetMegistias (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Megistas i do not care who you are and what you do. I found evidences, that were not in the text. Why weren`t these references? I did add them. Why did you banned them?? That`s what i want to know. Plutarch has said that Achileus, a greek, did not speak the language of Epirotans and Thucydides says that chaonians were barbarians, i.e. not greek. Prove me wrong, if you can. These are the external links: http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/plpwr10.txt to Thucydides and http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/pyrrhus.html to Plutarch

Explained below.And no original research.Megistias (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion[edit]

How about "Both modern scholars and ancient sources disagree as to whether the Chaonians could be considered 'Greek'; Plutarch said one thing, Scylax said another. Joseph Historian said a third thing, but Bill Nairotsih said a fourth thing."

How's that? (And no, I don't really know who "Scylax" was) DS (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That`s what i did, in my last edit. I totally agree

No they were Greek in ancient and modern sources.Sourced and referenced above.Plutarch also says they are Greeks the aspetos is the local dialect word.Thycidides adopts the Athenian name calling against Spartan,Macedonians,Acarnanians,Thessalians as barbarians to indicate Athenian superiorityMegistias (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

They were Greeks[edit]

Quote: "Speakers of these various Greek dialects settled different parts of Greece at different times during the Middle Bronze Age, with one group, the "northwest" Greeks, developing their own dialect and peopling central Epirus. This was the origin of the Molossian or Epirotic tribes."

E.N.Borza "In the shadow of Olympus; The emergence of Macedon" (revised edition, 1992), page 62

Quote: "We have seen that the "Makedones" or "highlanders" of mountainous western Macedonia may have been derived from northwest Greek stock. That is, northwest Greece provided a pool of Indo-European speakers of proto-Greek from which emerged the tribes who were later known by different names as they established their regional identities in separate parts of the country. Thus the Macedonians may have been related to those peoples who at an earlier time migrated south to become the historical Dorians, and to other Pindus tribes who were the ancestors of the Epirotes or Molossians. If it were known that Macedonian was a proper dialect of Greek, like the dialects spoken by Dorians and Molossians, we would be on much firmer ground in this hypothesis." E.N.Borza "In the shadow of Olympus; The emergence of Macedon" (revised edition, 1992), page 78


Quote: "When Amyntas became king of the Macedonians sometime during the latter third of the sixth century, he controlled a territory that included the central Macedonian plain and its peripheral foothills, the Pierian coastal plain beneath Mt. Olympus, and perhaps the fertile, mountain-encircled plain of Almopia. To the south lay the Greeks of Thessaly. The western mountains were peopled by the Molossians (the western Greeks of Epirus), tribes of non-Argead Macedonians, and other populations." E.N.Borza "In the shadow of Olympus; The emergence of Macedon" (revised edition, 1992), page 98


Quote: "As subjects of the king the Upper Macedonians were henceforth on the same footing as the original Macedonians, in that they could qualify for service in the King's Forces and thereby obtain the elite citizenship. At one bound the territory, the population and wealth of the kingdom were doubled. Moreover since the great majority of the new subjects were speakers of the West Greek dialect, the enlarged army was Greek-speaking throughout."

NGL Hammond, "Philip of Macedon", Gerald Duckword & Ltd, London, 1994

Quote: "Certainly the Thracians and the Illyrians were non-Greek speakers, but in the northwest, the peoples of Molossis {Epirot province}, Orestis and Lynkestis spoke West Greek. It is also accepted that the Macedonians spoke a dialect of Greek and although they absorbed other groups into their territory, they were essentially Greeks." Robert Morkot, "The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Greece", Penguin Publ., 1996

EPIRUS ("Hpeiros", Mainland)

North-west area of Greece, from Acroceraunian point to Nicopolis, with harbours at Buthrotum and Glycys Limen (at Acheron's mouth); bordered on south by gulf of Ambracia, and on east by Pindus range with pass via Metsovo to Thessaly.

Three limestone ranges parallel to the coast and the Pindus range enclose narrow valleys and plateaux with good pasture and extensive woods; alluvial plains were formed near Buthrotum, Glycys Limen, and Ambracia.

Epirus had a humid climate and cold winters. In terrain and in history it resembled Upper Macedonia. Known in the 'Iliad' only for the oracle of Dodona, and to Herodotus for the oracle of the dead at Ephyra, Epirus received Hellenic influence from the Elean colonies in Cassopaea and the Corinthian colonies at Ambracia and Corcyra, and the oracle of Dodona drew pilgrims from northern and central Greece especially.

Theopompus knew fourteen Epirote tribes, speakers of a strong west-Greek dialect, of which the Chaones held the plain of Buthrotum, the Thesproti the plain of Acheron, and the Molossi the plain of Dodona, which forms the highland centre of Epirus with an outlet southwards to Ambracia.

A strong Molossian state, which included some Thesprotian tribes, existed in the reign of Neoptolemos c.370-368 ("Arx.Ef".1956, 1ff). The unification of Epirus in a symmachy led by the Molossian king was finally achieved by Alexander, brother-in-law of Philip II of Macedon. His conquests in southern Italy and his alliance with Rome showed the potentialities of the Epirote Confederacy, but he was killed in 330 BC.

Dynastic troubles weakened the Molossian state, until Pyrrhus removed his fellow king and embarked on his adventurous career.

The most lasting of his achievements were the conquest of southern Illyria, the development of Ambracia as his capital, and the building of fortifications and theaters, especially the large one at Dodona.

His successors suffered from wars with Aetolia, Macedon, and Illyria, until in c.232 BC the Molossian monarchy fell.

An Epirote League with a federal citizenship was then created, and the meetings of its council were held probably by rotation at Dodona or Passaron in Molossis, at Gitana in Thesprotis, and at Phoenice in Chaonia.

It was soon involved in the wars between Rome and Macedon, and it split apart when the Molossian state alone supported Macedon and was sacked by the Romans in 167 BC, when 150,000 captives were deported.

Central Epirus never recovered; but northern Epirus prospered during the late republic, and Augustus celebrated his victory at Actium by founding a Roman colony at Nicopolis.

Under the empire a coastal road and a road through the interior were built from north to south, and Buthrotum was a Roman colony.

Ancient remains testify to the great prosperity of Epirus in Hellenistic times. N.G.L.Hammond, "Oxford Classical Dictionary," 3rd ed. (1996), pp.546,547

The Molossians were the strongest and, decisive for Macedonia, most easterly of the three most important Epeirot tribes, which, like Macedonia but unlike the Thesprotians and the Chaonians, still retained their monarchy. They were Greeks, spoke a similar dialect to that of Macedonia, suffered just as much from the depredations of the Illyrians and were in principle the natural partners of the Macedonian king who wished to tackle the Illyrian problem at its roots." Malcolm Errington, "A History of Macedonia", California University Press, 1990.


Quote: The West Greek dialect group denotes the dialects spoken in: (i) the northwest Greek regions of Epeiros, Akarnania, Pthiotid Akhaia.... Johnathan M. Hall, "Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity", Cambridge University Press, 1997

Quote: Alexander was King Philip's eldest legitimate child. His mother, Olympias,came from the ruling clan of the northwestern Greek region of Epirus.

David Sacks, "A Dictionary of the Ancient Greek World", Oxford, 1995

Quote: Epirus was a land of milk and animal products...The social unit was a small tribe, consisting of several nomadic or semi-nomadic groups, and these tribes, of which more than seventy names are known, coalesced into large tribal coalitions, three in number: Thesprotians, Molossians and Chaonians...We know from the discovery of inscriptions that these tribes were speaking the Greek language (in a West-Greek dialect).

NGL Hammond, "Philip of Macedon", Duckworth, London, 1994

the Satyres by Juvenal

Quote: The molossians were the most powerfull people of Epirus, whose kings had extended their dominion over the whole country. They traced their descent back to Pyrrhus, son of Acchilles.. Page 225


"The Cambridge Ancient History - The Expansion of the Greek World, Eighth to Sixth Centuries B.C., Part 3: Volume 3" by P Mack Crew

Quote: That the molossians, who were immediately adjacent to the Dodonaeans in the time of Hecataeus but engulfed them soon afterwards, spoke Illyrian or another barbaric tongue was nowhere suggested, although Aeschylus and Pindar wrote of Molossian lands. That they in fact spoke greek was implied by Herodotus' inclusion of Molossi among the greek colonists of Asia minor, but became demonstranable only when D. Evangelides published two long inscriptions of the Molossian State, set up p. 369 B.C at Dodona, in Greek and with Greek names, Greek patronymies and Greek tribal names such as Celaethi, Omphales, Tripolitae, Triphylae, etc. As the Molossian cluster of tribes in the time of Hecataeus included the Orestae, Pelagones, Lyncestae, Tymphaei and Elimeotae,as we have argued above, we may be confindent that they too were Greek-speaking; Quote: Inscriptional evidence of the Chaones is lacking until the Hellinistic period; but Ps-Scylax, describing the situation of c. 380-360 put the Southern limit of the Illyrians just north of the Chaones, which indicates that the Chaones did not speak Illyrian, and the acceptance of the Chaones into the Epirote alliance in the 330s suggest strongly that they were Greek-speaking Page 284

"The Cambridge Ancient History: Volume 6, the Fourth Century BC" by D M Lewis, Martin Ostwald, Simon Hornblower, John Boardman

Quote: however, in central Epirus the only fortified places were in the plain of Ioannina, the centre of the Molossian state. Thus the North-west Greek-speaking tribes were at a half-way stage economically and politically, retaining the vigour of a tribal society and reaching out in a typically Greek manner towards a larger political organization. Quote: In 322 B.C when Antipater banished banished the anti-Macedonian leaders of the Greek states to live 'beyond the Ceraunian Mountains' (plut. Phoc. 29.3) he regarded Epirus as an integral part of the Greek-speaking mainland. Page 443

Quote: The chaones as we will see were a group of Greek-speaking tribes, and the Dexari, or as they were called later the Dassarete, were the most northernly member of the group. Page 423

A New Classical Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography, Mythology and Geography" by William Smith

Quote: Molossi (Μολοσσοί), a people in Epirus, who inhabited a narrow slip of country, called after them Molossia (Μολοσσία) or Molossis, which extended from the Aous, along the western bank of the Arachthus, as far as the Ambracian Gulf. The Molossi were Greek people, who claimed descent from Molossus, the son of Pyrrhus (Neoptolemus) and Andromache, and are said to have emigrated from Thessaly into Epirus, under the guidance of Pyrrhus himself. In their new abodes they intermingled with the original inhabitants of the land and with the neighbouring illyrian tribes of which they were regarded by the other Greeks as half barbarians. They were, however, by far the most powerful people in Epirus, and their kings gradually extended their dominion over the whole of the country. The first of their kings, who took the title of King of Epirus, was Alexander, who perished in Italy B.C. 326. The ancient capital of the Molossi was Pasaron,but Ambracia afterward became their chief town, and the residence of their kings. The Molossian hounds were celebrated in antiquity, and were much prized for hunting.

That they [Dorians] were related to the North-West Dialects (of Phocis, Locris, Aetolia, Acarnania and Epirus) was not perceived clearly by the ancients

History of the Language Sciences: I. Approaches to Gender II. Manifestations By Sylvain Auroux, page 439


Quote: the western greek people (with affinities to the Epirotic tribes) in Orestis, Lyncus, and parts of Pelagonia; "In the shadow of Olympus.." By Eugene Borza, page 74


Quote: Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, was himself simply a military adventurer. He was none the less a soldier of fortune that he traced back his pedigree to Aeacus and Achilles Quote: He [Pyrrhus] has been compared to Alexander of Macedonia; and certainly the idea of founding a Hellenic empire of the west--which would have had as its core Epirus, Magna Graecia, and Sicily, would have commanded both the Italian seas, and would have reduced Rome and Carthage to the rank of barbarian peoples bordering on the Hellenistic state-system,like the Celts and the Indians--was analogous in greatness and boldness to the idea which led the Macedonian king over the Hellespont.

Quote: he was the first Greek that met the Romans in battle. With him began those direct relations between Rome and Hellas, on which the whole subsequent development of ancient, and an essential part of modern, civilization are based. Quote: this struggle between Rome and Hellenism was first fought out in the battles between Pyrrhus and the Roman generals; Quote: But while the Greeks were beaten in the battlefield as well as in the senate-hall, their superiority was none the less decided on every other field of rivalry than that of politics; and these very struggles already betokened that the victory of Rome over the Hellenes would be different from her victories over Gauls and Phoenicians, and that the charm of Aphrodite only begins to work when the lance is broken and the helmet and shield are laid aside. Theodor Mommsen History of Rome, From the Abolition of the Monarchy in Rome to the Union of Italy, The Historical Position Of Pyrrhus


Quote: That the molossians, who were immediately adjacent to the Dodonaeans in the time of Hecataeus but engulfed them soon afterwards, spoke Illyrian or another barbaric tongue was NOWHERE suggested, although Aeschylus and Pindar wrote of Molossian lands. That they in fact spoke greek was implied by Herodotus' inclusion of Molossi among the greek colonists of Asia minor, but became demonstranable only when D. Evangelides published two long inscriptions of the Molossian State, set up p. 369 B.C at Dodona, in Greek and with Greek names, Greek patronymies and Greek tribal names such as Celaethi, Omphales, Tripolitae, Triphylae, etc. As the Molossian cluster of tribes in the time of Hecataeus included the Orestae, Pelagones, Lyncestae, Tymphaei and Elimeotae,as we have argued above, we may be confindent that they too were Greek-speaking;

Inscriptional evidence of the Chaones is lacking until the Hellinistic period; but Ps-Scylax, describing the situation of c. 380-360 put the Southern limit of the Illyrians just north of the Chaones, which indicates that the Chaones did not speak Illyrian, and the acceptance of the Chaones into the Epirote alliance in the 330s suggest strongly that they were Greek-speaking. "The Cambridge Ancient History - The Expansion of the Greek World, Eighth to Sixth Centuries B.C., Part 3: Volume 3" by P Mack Crew ,page 284.


Quote: The Epirotes, who may fairly be considered as Greeks by blood, long maintained a rugged independence under native chiefs, who were little more than leaders in war. A Manual of Greek Antiquities Book by Percy Gardner, Frank Byron Jevons; Charles Scribner's Sons, 1895, page 8Megistias (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


THe only problems with that is that the Dorian invasion hypothesis is old school. ANd if they were proto-Greek, it doesnlt mean they are Greek. Proto-Greek is a very abstract term, like proto-Balto-Slavic meaning that Lithuanians are Russian ( or vice versa) ! Hxseek (talk) 08:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources[edit]

Primary sources on Epirus Hellenicity
   Sources on the Epirotes

"Zeus Archon, Dodonean, Pelasgian, who dwells afar, ruling on rough wintered Dodona, surrounded by the Selloi, the interpreters of your divine will, whose feet are unwashed and sleep on the ground".

Homer, Iliad 16:127 (Achilles prayer)

XI. "War was at the same time proclaimed against the Tarentines (who are still a people at the extremity of Italy), because they had offered violence to some Roman ambassadors. These people asked aid against the Romans of Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, who derived his origin from the family of Achilles...

XIII. "...Thus the ambassador of Pyrrhus returned; and, when Pyrrhus asked him "what kind of a place he had found Rome to be," Cineas replied, that "he had seen a country of kings, for that all there were such, as Pyrrhus alone was thought to be in Epirus and the rest of Greece."

Eutropius (Abridgment of Roman History) Historiae Romanae Breviarium


"Arha Ellas apo Oricias kai arhegonos Ellas Epiros"

"Greece starts at Oricus and the most ancient part of Greece is Epirus."

Claudius Ptolemy, The Geographer


“Peleus is the forefather of the kings of Epiros”

Pausanias, II (Corinth).

Peleus being the son of King Aeacus (the dynasty's name) and the father of Achilles.

“but we know of no Greek before Pyrros who fought against Rome.”

Pausanias, 1.11

“So Pyrros was the first to cross over against Rome from mainland Greece, and even so he went over only because he was called in by Tarentum”

Pausanias, 1.12

[6] Being apprized of Alcmaeon's untimely end and courted by Zeus, Callirrhoe requested that the sons she had by Alcmaeon might be full grown in order to avenge their father's murder. And being suddenly full-grown, the sons went forth to right their father's wrong. Now Pronous and Agenor, the sons of Phegeus, carrying the necklace and robe to Delphi to dedicate them, turned in at the house of Agapenor at the same time as Amphoterus and Acarnan, the sons of Alcmaeon; and the sons of Alcmaeon killed their father's murderers, and going to Psophis and entering the palace they slew both Phegeus and his wife. They were pursued as far as Tegea, but saved by the intervention of the Tegeans and some Argives, and the Psophidians took to flight.

[7] Having acquainted their mother with these things, they went to Delphi and dedicated the necklace and robe according to the injunction of Achelous. Then they journeyed to Epirus, collected settlers, and colonized Acarnania.

Apollodorus, 3.76-3.77.

Acarnania was Greek and settlers from Epirus helped colonize it...

[12] After remaining in Tenedos two days at the advice of Thetis, Neoptolemus set out for the country of the Molossians by land with Helenus, and on the way Phoenix died, and Neoptolemus buried him; and having vanquished the Molossians in battle he reigned as king and begat Molossus on Andromache. And Helenus founded a city in Molossia and inhabited it, and Neoptolemus gave him his mother Deidamia to wife. And when Peleus was expelled from Phthia by the sons of Acastus and died, Neoptolemus succeeded to his father's kingdom."

Apollodorus, 6.12

"Alexander, the Epirote, when waging war against the Illyrians, first placed a force in ambush, and then dressed up some of his own men in Illyrian garb, ordering them to lay waste his own, that is to say, Epirote territory. When the Illyrians saw that this was being done, they themselves began to pillage right and left — the more confidently since they thought that those who led the way were scouts. But when they had been designedly brought by the latter into a disadvantageous position, they were routed and killed."

Frontinus, Strategemata, On Ambushes, 10

"When Harrybas, king of the Molossians, was attacked in war by Bardylis, the Illyrian, who commanded a considerably larger army, he dispatched the non-combatant portion of his subjects to the neighbouring district of Aetolia, and spread the report that he was yielding up his towns and possessions to the Aetolians. He himself, with those who could bear arms, placed ambuscades here and there on the mountains and in other inaccessible places. The Illyrians, fearful lest the possessions of the Molossians should be seized by the Aetolians, began to race along in disorder, in their eagerness for plunder. As soon as they became scattered, Harrybas, emerging from his concealment and taking them unawares, routed them and put them to flight."

Frontinus, Strategemata, 13

Seems clear that the Epirotes were NOT Illyrians...

"It was for this reason that Pyrrhus was defeated by the Romans also in a battle to the finish. For it was no mean or untrained army that he had, but the mightiest of those then in existence among the Greeks and one that had fought a great many wars; nor was it a small body of men that was then arrayed under him, but even three times as large as his adversary's, nor was its general any chance leader, but rather the man whom all admit to have been the greatest of all the generals who flourish at that same period;"


Dionysius of Halicarnnasus, Roman Antiquities, 19.11

"Theopompus says, that there are fourteen Epirotic nations. Of these, the most celebrated are the Chaones and Molotti, because the whole of Epirus was at one time subject, first to Chaones, afterwards to Molotti. Their power was greatly strengthened by the family of their kings being descended from the Æacidæ, and because the ancient and famous oracle of Dodona was in their country. Chaones, Thesproti, and next after these Cassopæi, (who are Thesproti,) occupy the coast, a fertile tract reaching from the Ceraunian mountains to the Ambracian Gulf."

"The Molotti also were Epirotæ, and were subjects of Pyrrhus Neoptolemus, the son of Achilles, and of his descendants, who were Thessalians. The rest were governed by native princes. Some tribes were continually endeavouring to obtain the mastery over the others, but all were finally subdued by the Macedonians, except a few situated above the Ionian Gulf."

Strabo, 7.7.1

"Pyrrhus, the king of Epirus, had a particularly high opinion of his powers because he was deemed by foreign nations a match for the Romans; and he believed that it would be opportune to assist the fugitives who had taken refuge with him, especially as they were Greeks, and at the same time so forestall the Romans with some plausible excuse before he should suffer injury at their hands. For so careful was he about his good reputation that though he had long had his eye on Sicily and had been considering how he could overthrow the power of the Romans, he shrank from taking the initiative in hostilities against them, when no wrong had been done him."

Cassius Dio, Book 9.420:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Megistias (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Come on, even logically, Aspetos can not be a dialectical word for Achileus????? Eventhough, how can you interpret Thucydides. He says "From him Achilles came to have divine honours in Epirus, under the name of Aspetus, in the language of the country". Were is dialect mentioned? As for the barbarians, were does Plutarch call other tribes as barbarians? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arditbido (talkcontribs) 17:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Secondary sources say they were Greeks if you cant read it your problem not mine and not of wiki's.Megistias (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Arditbido, please could you sign your comments on talk pages with four tildes (like this: ~~~~) to help us know who is saying what? You are clearly both knowelgable about the subject. Have any modern scholars described the Chaonians as barbarians? If only ancient sources do so, then it's not really considered as reliable as recent work. Neıl 17:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Even Aristotle says it was Greece and all the other ancient ones.99% of ancient sources say they were Greek and secondary reliable sources as well.Megistias (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Margalit Finkelberg(Greeks and Pre-Greeks, Gambridge, edition 2007).Prehistoric Greece,ISBN-13: 9780521852166 | ISBN-10: 0521852161),[6].They spoke a Greek dialect in Epirus since prehistory.Megistias (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Listen! History is written as of primary resorces. Secondarly ones are just interpreting certain aspects, due to new evidences. The evidences provided by Harmmond are just because of written greek in that part of the world. In ancient world, not only Illyrians, but even Daks, or a large group of celtic nations, did not have a writting system and so wrote in Greek, or Latin, the tow main languages in antiquity. Prove me wrong, if i am. Now, as far as modern time historians, which are not reliable because are writting for evidences they have never seen, there are a lot historians saying that epirotans were not greek, and maybe illyrians. Francis Fallon writtes that chaonians and thesprotians had no kings, and were the only ones to do that in the "barbarian", i.e. non-greek world, in Balkan Pennisula and a lot of modern historians say that too.~~~~ARDITBIDO

No original research in wiki.What you say does not apply here.I have more than enough sources to fill a valley that say they were Greek .Megistias (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don`t know what university have you graduated, but you must know that having references is one thing and choosing reliable evidences is another thing. Thucdydes and Plutarch are the most well known historians in ancient world and surely Fallon, is most respectable than Harmmond. So, you should prove Thucydides and Fallon wrong, as i am doing with Harmmond.~~~~arditbido

I have provided sources in this page and you have provided insistence.No original research.Megistias (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You say that Plutarch tells us that Chaonians were one of the three "greek speaking tribes" of Epirus. Can you give us the setence where Plutarch mentions a "greek speaking tribe", because in this work i founded just, Plutarch speaking about, a non-greek speaking tribe. Arditbido

He doesnt say they are not Greeks.He doesnt say that Achilees didnt speak the language.Megistias (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
"where it was fordable, and with the horse in several places, so that the Greeks, fearing to be surrounded, were obliged to retreat, and Pyrrhus, perceiving this and being much surprised, bade his foot officers draw their men up in line of battle"

So you seee the Epirotan Army of Pyrrhus a greek army.[7].Plutarch say they were Greeks.Megistias (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Again he says it."These spoils being carried about and shown among the ranks, the Romans were transported with joy, and shouted aloud; while equal discouragement and terror prevailed among the Greeks, until Pyrrhus," [8]Megistias (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

So first of all, you tell me that you`re lying, because you have written: "Plutarch tells us that Chaonians were one of the three greek speaking tribes". Secondly, what language did Achileus speak? Everyone knows he spoke greek. What were this tribes? Plutarch says not-Achilleus-Leanguage speakers, i.e. not-greek speaking. arditbidobalkanian (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No original research.I have not written that anyways.Megistias (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Its correct actually since he says they are Greeks.You want something else?Megistias (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


Hahaha, you`re speaking, about the wars in Southern Italy. Pyrrhos was invited there, and had a litlle army. The greek tribes of Southern Italy were fighting under Pyrrhos rules. You`re proving me that you don`t know anything about history, and just copy-pasting arguments. He does not say they are greeks, you should prove it once again. Arditbido balkanian (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep dreaming he says they were Greeks.Megistias (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Plutarch says: "Pyrrhus was an instance of this; for setting himself against the rise of Demetrius again, and endeavouring to hinder the recovery of his power, as it were from a kind of sickness, he assisted the Greeks, and came to Athens, where, having ascended the Acropolis, he offered sacrifice to the goddess, and the same day came down again..." How do you assist your nation?? You can assist the Illyrians, if you are greek, not the greeks. balkanian (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Plutarch does not explicitly say they did not speak Greek. You are assuming that. Consequently, I am removing that clause, which is your own interpretation of an ancient source. You should also be aware that Wikipedia relies on secondary sources, not primary sources. You might not agree with that, but that's the way it works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsourkpk (talkcontribs) 18:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not assuming it. Listen up! If you do not speak my language that means that you are not albanian-speaker. Plutarch says that they spoke a different language then Achileus and also confirms that a language is different from a dialect, when he speaks about the Spartan Dialect. Nevertheless, i like the new page. It needs some additional sources that i will provide you maybe tomorrow morning. balkanian (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This has absolutely nothing to with Albanian. Albanian did not exist back then. And remember, modern, reliable secondary sources only. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Albanian was a comparison, ok? Neither greek did exist, existed Illyrian, Ancient Greek, etc. First of all, when i was talking about primarly and secondarly sources, i was talking about, Ancient and Modern rescources. In history, a primary resource is a confess, or a testimony, and a secondary resource is a study or a book. In historiographical term, Thucydides, Plutarch, etc, are secondary resorces. Tsourpkp we had a conflict once about the Saranda editing, and i proved what i was talking about, and i will do it again balkanian (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You proved nothing.Secondary sources and primary say they were Greeks and they are all over this page.Megistias (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you understand what a secondary source is. All ancient sources are considered primary. You need to familiarize yourself with WP:RS. Oh, and by the way, the Greek language did exist back then. It has an attested history of over 3,500 years. That's why it's still called "Greek". --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Please consult ancient Greek, Koine Greek, and ancient Greek dialects (as well as Medieval Greek). DS (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Please consult Greek language. All languages evolve, but the continuity is undeniable. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Dragon please restore the page.It looks like a primary source fest.Its about secondary sources and it was fine beforeMegistias (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Wiki rules say its about secondary sources .This is any abuse of power.Megistias (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, this user called Megistas, continuously is copy-pasting from this site to wikipedia. I suggest measures should be taken at once, as every interpretation or quotes here is represented from that site to WIKI... For the sake of Better WIKIPEDIA refrain from posting Biased material here!--Pinjolli 23:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinjolli (talkcontribs)

Rules and the page[edit]

Please restore the page.This talk page is full of secondary sources.And the way the page is now is this "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position."Megistias (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course Greek is a descendent of Ancient Greek, as Albanian is of Illyrian language. this doesn`t mean that it`s the same language. All indo-european languages have that histry. French and Italian, etc, derives from Latin, it doesn`t mean that they`re latin. Whatever, it is another discussion. balkanian (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Albanian is not a descendant of Illyrian. You don't know what you're talking about. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


I learned a lot of things talking to you guys. First of all I learned that Albanian does not derive from Illyrian. Fact it! Linguistics and historians say that it derives from. Secondly I understood that it is not a reliable source Thucydides (?!), who is cited by almost every single historian, that talks about ancient world. And I really thoughtfully understood that that ancient greek historians facts are unpublished, speculation, ore just ideas, according to wiki. I am sure that they`re not "speculations", so wiki does not treat them as such.balkanian (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Which linguists? Which historians? Have you even read the article on Illyrian language? And nobody said Thucydides was unreliable. You are making that up and putting words in people's mouths. He merely describes the Choanians as barbarians in one passage, which really doesn't mean anything. And nowhere does he say they were Illyrians. --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course I have read it. But, wiki is my hoby, and so I have read 500 times more than that to speak about the Illyrian and Albanian Language. Have you read the article about the Albanian language, there are some sources, and i can give you more, if that is not enough. If you did not say that Thucidydes is not reliable, why you do not want that the passage when Thucydides tells that Chaonians are barbarians not to be added? Because he is telling clearly that Chaonians were barbarians? He says they`re not greek, and nowhere says the oposit, it surely says something. I did not say that Chaonians were Illyrians in my edits. I edited the page, saying "Barbarian|non-greek". Who is putting words to others` mouth? balkanian (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course I have read the article on the Albanian language, and I know that it says that there simply isn't enough evidence for a connection between Albanian and Illyrian. And for the last time, just because an ancient author says that a people is "barbarian" doesn't necessarily mean that they are not Greek. It can very well mean that they spoke and unsophisticated dialect of Greek. So the fact fact that Thucidydes refers to them as "barbarians" proves absolutely nothing. And nowhere does he explicitly say they were "not Greeks". That is your own interpretation. --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to run some errands now; when I come back, I'll edit the page some more. (Hint: goatse) DS (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I want the page restored to normalcynormal state not the shambles it is now and Balkanian to understand what Secondary sources are.Megistias (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


Have you ever read, ancient greek writters? If you had, you would understand that "non greek" is not mentioned anywhere, and the word which means "non greek" is barbarian. Whatever, Plutarch says that there is a language, different from Achilleus, not a dialect, as Plutarch refers to the Spartan one, but a language. Also, tell me one lingusit or historian, that says that albanian does not derive from illyrian, or illyro-thracian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arditbido (talkcontribs) 21:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Vladimir Georgiev, for one. There is no such thing as Thraco-Illyrian. That classification is obsolete. This just shows you do not know what you're talking about. And please familiarize yourself with the article on barbarian. --Tsourkpk (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hm[edit]

Can we agree that the rotting fleshless bones of the millennia-dead Chaonians are claimed by both the modern-day Greeks and the modern-day Albanians? DS (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Who "claims" them is irrelevant, don't you think? --Tsourkpk (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with modern peoples.Just bring the page to normalcy.normal stateMegistias (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Who "claims" them has everything to do with it. Why do you think there are people who say that the long-dead Chaonians were NOT greek? For that matter, why do you care whether they were? Look. I'm just trying to get the best possible article, so as to satisfy everyone - or, if necessary, to dissatisfy the least amount of people. Accuracy, verifiability, and keeping people from shitting themselves in rage. DS (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, people will just need to stick to WP:RS. It is clear that the party disregarding policy was the anon (now Arditbido (talk · contribs)). I have read stuff like "Linguistics and historians say that it derives from" too often. That's not how we play. It is really irrelevant who may be dissatisfied with the situation as depicted in the article, if they cannot cite academic references, they'll just have to swallow it. dab (𒁳) 21:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It has to do with something called historical integrity.Just bring the page to normalcy people.normal state.i got punished and the Original research fellow did nto and the page changed as he wished.Look at all the sources i have.What is up? Just bring the page back and lets get on with our business.Megistias (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
All right, here's the way I see it from a purely logical standpoint. There are only two possibilities here, considering the geopgraphy: The Chaonians could only have been either Greek or Illyrian. While numerous sources, both ancient and modern, attest that they were Greek, not a single source mentions them as Illyrian. User:Arditbido is taking the fact that not every single ancient source explicitly states that they were Greek as proof of the fact that they were not Greek. This is a logically false argument. Specifically, he cites a passage in Thucydides that states they were "barbarian" as proof that were not Greek, but everyone knows that the word barbarian had a an ambivalent meaning in those times. In addition, the fact that Pseudo-scylax does not mentions as either Greeks or Illyrians seems to me empty and meaningless. They were either one or the other, so that source seems irrelevant to me and should be removed. These two apart, every other source I have seen mentions them as Greek-speakers. --Tsourkpk (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

as with the notorious Macedonians, the question is when. I have no doubts that by Hellenistic times they had been Hellenized. For earlier times, I don't suppose it even makes sense to ask the question, since "Greekness" was a rather fluid term that sort of faded out towards the north. If we are going to debate "were they Greeks" we need attribution that the question has been discussed in these terms in notable literature. Anything else is WP:SYNTH. dab (𒁳) 21:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, ethnicity is a modern notion, but there is the question of what language they spoke. I think that has been discussed in the literature. --Tsourkpk (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

PMFJI, but -- "Thucydides[5] noted that their neighbors considered them "barbarians", a term typically (but not exclusively) reserved for those who did not speak Greek." -- is WP:SYNTH from here to Kalamazoo and back. Who in a WP:RS has advanced this interpretation of what Thucydides meant? rudra (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Quieted down?[edit]

Have tempers quieted down enough to get the article unprotected again? I see there seems to be consensus that the "Greek-speaking" view is indeed predominant in the modern literature. I'd suggest taking out the "Were they Greek?" heading and the following sentence (it could be replaced with a "Language" heading, perhaps?) Fut.Perf. 07:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you admins ignoring all the myriad primary and SECONDARY sources on this page? Just return the article to its pre attack state and will work it from there to merge it with the other one as Dbachmann said.Just bring the page to normalcy people.normal state.I am the one that abides by the rules and brought proper sources and i got punished and the page has changed to fit the invader's wishes.Megistias (talk) 08:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The current version is unacceptable.Its all primary sources & misinterpreted ones.The previous state had reached a consensus for months of editing now and this thing it has become has nothing to do with it.Its against the Rules.
  • What should have been done is
  • The article protected in its normal state and then the disruptor taken care of
  • Then we go on with our bussiness

The above didnt happen but the opossite did .Megistias (talk) 08:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The rules support my suggestion and the state the page was is before the incident.Admins in general didnt take proper measures.You first protect the page in its pre-edit-war state and then see the talk page and the situation.You dont just change the pages lights and then start doing things that turn out to be wrong and against the rules.My position remains the page should become like so normal state and then work to merge it with the other page as Dbachman suggested.The obvious dispruptor should be checked and not allowed to disrupt pages that are sourced with secondary sources in the talk page and article as this one.Thats adhering to historical & wiki rules intergrity.Megistias (talk) 09:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, relax. Most people who were involved yesterday in stopping the edit war haven't even been online again. Have a cup of tea. People will want to check that the sourcing situation is really the way you present it. I'm sure somebody will unprotect the article pretty soon, as soon as people are again able to have a friendly talk about those sources in a relaxed manner. Make it happen. Fut.Perf. 12:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no controversy or issue other than a sockpuppet disruptor who knew his way around better than most of use in here and by breaking rules he succeeded his goal -and me by adhering to 2ndary sources rules got punished and the page changed.When legality crumbles of course i am not relaxed.You know for a fact that is not a new user and he is a familiar individual.If i am gonna spend my time in wiki fighting off disruptors in half the pages and fringe theories on another like pelasgian talk and other ones there is no reason for me to edit.The only reason i edit here is because of Source rules.And admins should be less lenient against users that simply waste and have wasted our time in abundance in the past.Megistias (talk) 12:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
You just need to learn to meet these people more efficiently. Less excitement. Less alarmism. More light, less heat. More flexibility. Less personal accusations. If you are certain about the sources, just point it out briefly, in a matter-of-fact way, on talk. Then wait. Ever heard of the trick of "slow reverts"? It works great.
Fast reverting beyond 3rr is definitely not the way to respond. Once you'd gone up to 9 reverts in a row, admins had no other choice but to either protect the article or to block you both. Those are the rules. You were lucky. Fut.Perf. 12:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Megistias has provided a lot of secondary and primary sources. Even the fact that {Borza agrees of the Greek character of the Epirotans should have been enough. (Borza who is by far the most skeptic of all!)}. It is not a matter of “equal representation of all sides”. The vast majority of the historians and the ancient sources agree that Epirotes were Greeks. Only a handful (I personally don’t know anyone but I assume there is probably at list one. ) Megistias sources are enough and since they exist they should be mention. Other articles are based only on one questionable source! Perfectly good cited material should be entered in the site. I do also notice the complete absence of the archaeological discoveries. {(was there any not Greek ever found? As I know the archaeological discoveries are the ones that have proven the Greek character of the Epirotans and the Macedonians (the ancient ones)} (By the way none has ever linked Ancient Epirotans with Albanians.) Seleukosa (talk) 11:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  • This situation is a failiure from the side of the Admins.It would have been not an issue if what i suggest above was done and the Admins themselves adhered to Wiki rules regarding sources.I did.Megistias (talk) 11:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I am watching the current debate and I honestly don’t see what was the problem prior to the edit by the unregistered user who started that whole thing at the first place! Indeed we got sources declaring that Chaonians were Greeks, Greek-speaking, or even barbarians (which btw can mean a bunch of things), but we don’t have even one reliable source in fact declaring they were not Greeks, at least as far as I know!! I strongly believe the page should return to here. Not to mention the current section’s title “Were they Greek?”! Shouldn’t it change to “Weren’t they Greek?”??? The Cat and the Owl (talk) 12:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

there is no problem. This article was under attack by an anon. Megistias threw a fit and entered a wild revert-war with the anon, then FutPerf and I simultaneously semiprotected the article. It could have ended there, but DragonflySixtyseven joined in the merry reverting, then fully protected the article, and then told me he doesn't have time to figure out what is going on. I suggest we just unprotect the article at this point and resume business as usual. dab (𒁳) 15:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree, that’s the best thing to do at this point. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC:Restore the page to normalcy[edit]

Restore the page here. normal state Why are my many secondary sources ignored by the admins and the page changed and ruined to say the least according to the disruptors wishes? I adhered by wiki rules on sources but the disruptors and the admins did not.Why?

I've already asked the protecting admin to unprotect the page. He feels he wants to wait until he finds the time to evaluate the case and edit the article himself. I find this, and three consecutive edits like this: [9][10] [11], a bit dubious wrt WP:PROT (DS reverted, then applied full protection, and then edited the protected article once again), but Megistias, you really need to cool down. Less alarmism, less hysteria, there is no deadline. dab (𒁳) 15:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys I am back again. First of all, I am not a new user, i have logged in a year ago, but I hadn`t contribute as much as you, so i respect you. Secondlly, I had a message from Akhillues who told me not to start a edit warr. I did not start that. I just added, tow references, which said that chaonians were barbarians, without getting off any reference, and than this was reverted. It is said in this conversation that barbaros, does not mean only foriegner. I want a reference to that, because in dicitionaries[12] it is clear that barbaros meant only "non-greek", or "not-greek-speaking". I asked, even one greek ancient writter that has said the words "non-greek", and nobody found it, because "non-greek" in Ancient Greek, is "barbarous". Nevertheles. Plutarch says that "Achileos, (a greek hero) had a different language from chaonians" (you can find the external links to the books in my edits. In todays page, it is still citied Plutarch tellin "greek-speaking tribes", which is totally unproved. You can read Plutarch`s book here[13]. Adidtionally, it is said that Hammond says that greek due to "archeological evidence", which are epigraphs in greek language in todays Epirus. This means that the written language for Epirus was greek, but does not mean that the spoken language was that too. Even Galls, Illyrians, Dachians, and all Celts, did not have a written language, and they wrote in Greek or/and Latin. Whatever, it is said that every modern day author, says that Chaonians were Greek. It is just not true. Francis Fallon wrote: "Chaonians had a language different from Greek, as Plutarch and Thucydides say, and it is posibly Illyrian" in his book Illyria. I gave you this reference too. Not even him, but a lot of other respectable modern time historians writte the same thing.Why? Becouse the tow biggest historians of antiquity say that Chaonians and Epirotans did not speak greek. Nevertheless, in my edits, i did NOT even a single time say that Epirotans were Illyrians, as Fallon, eg, says, becouse i belive in ancient historians, and they clearly say that Epirotans were not greek, but do NOT specify their ethnicity. It is said that ancient historians, whom books are published, are primary resources. I had not, but i read, wiki`s rules, and i did not found that. HISTORIOGRAPHY DEFINES THAT PRIMARY SOURCES ARE PERSONAL THOUGHTS, TESTIMONIES, OR WITTNESES. THUCYDIDES AND PLUTARCH WERE HISTORIANS, WHO WROTE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCES AND NOT WITTNESES. I would like that an administrator explain what a primary and a secondary source means. balkanian (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources are those sources that are so close to the topic and so distant from the present that we can't just rely on taking their word at face value, because reading them requires a non-trivial amount of interpretation. That's exactly the point here, where these guys speak of barbarian: you need to be an expert historian to form a judgment about what they meant by that. Therefore, we should rely on those expert modern historians who have made such an informed judgment for us, and report how they interpret it. Okay, we'll check who this Fallon guy is and whether that's a position that warrants inclusion. Fut.Perf. 16:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Exept of those facts that I gave you, I am prviding tow great sources. An ancient one and a modern time. Pliny, the third ancient source i provide in his book Appian, part Illyrike, chapter 1 says: The Greeks call those people Illyrian who dwell beyond Macedonia and Thrace, from Chaonia and Thesprotia to the river Danube." And the modern one, is even greater. Enciclopedia Britanica: "The Illyrians were not a uniform body of people but a conglomeration of many tribes that inhabited the western part of the Balkans, from what is now Slovenia in the northwest to (and including) the region of Epirus, which extends about halfway down the mainland of modern Greece" - says Enciclopedia Britanica. I think that that is enough. The biggest enciclopedia in the world, and the most respected one, says that Epirus was Illyrian.[14]. balkanian (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't find anything about that "Francis Fallon". Ref please? Fut.Perf. 17:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Is encyclpedia Britanica secondary source? About the "barbarian" thing, please read this [15]. We need expertise, and I am giving it to you. Give me a single historian who says that barbarian means greek-not civilised. In such a case I would accept it. But, if you can not provide it, and i provide evidence that barbarian means "not-greek", it means that I am wright, or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arditbido (talkcontribs) 17:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you need to provide evidence that scholars who have specifically addressed the question of the Chaonians have interpreted "barbarian" as non-Greek-speaking. As for Britannica, it's actually a "tertiary source", and the Albania article you quote is unfortunately an example showing that its articles are not always written by the most competent experts. The author, Peter Prifti, does not seem to be an expert historian, certainly not for ancient history, and he cites the book by Edwin E. Jacques as "a panoramic yet detailed and generally objective study of Albanian history, based on an impressive amount of source material" - which casts rather a lot of doubt on his own competence. We should definitely take that article with a pinch of salt. Fut.Perf. 17:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
And again, ref for Fallon please? Fut.Perf. 17:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

About Fallon, I cannot find his whole work in internet (you can see the first page here[16], my references are in the second and third page, i have the work published, not online. You can purchase the work if you want so). About britanica, this is written in wiki`s page of Enciclopedia Britanica: "The articles in the Britannica are aimed at educated adult readers, and written by a staff of 19 full-time editors and over 4,000 expert contributors. It is widely perceived as the most scholarly of encyclopaedias"(with referencies)[17]. If you do not belive, what is written and edited in wiki (with references), than I cannot belive, your sources. About the barbarian thing, I gave you a refference, I will give you one more: "Nobody ever called themselves barbarians. It’s not that sort of word. It’s a word used about other people. It was used by the ancient Greeks to describe non-Greek people whose language they could not understand and who therefore seemed to babble unintelligibly: “ba ba ba”." - as from Terry Jone. This is an extract of the book retrived by Sunday Times[18]. Your argument was...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arditbido (talkcontribs) 17:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That Fallon is apparently a theologian, writing about a topic totally unrelated to ours, and only mentioning Illyrians or Chaonians in passing. There's no evidence he has any expert knowledge on this issue. You said above he wrote a book "Illyria". Did you just make that up? About the Britannica article, the guy is writing an article about the whole of the history and society of Albania, spanning several millenia. He was apparently chosen because he was an expert on modern Albanian politics. Nobody can be an expert for all those topics at once. There's no reason to believe he is also an expert on ancient Epirotic tribes. And my argument about the "barbarian" issue was stated already, so I'll not repeat it here just because you chose to overlook it. Fut.Perf. 17:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The Plutarch ref gives nothing. He just says that they had a different local name for Achilles in Epirus. Fut.Perf. 17:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Fallon is a historian, and not a theologian. This essay that you found online, is part of his book "Illyrians". The page when he talks about is 2-3, in the essay and 244-245 in the book. Read the Britanica`s page on wiki. Encyclopedia Britanica says that there are a lot of contributors, for every page, and editors too. Prifti maybe one of the contributors, or an editor. Plutarch says that there is another name for Achileus in their language, neither in dialect, nor in pronanunciation, but in their language. balkanian (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Fallon is a doctor of divinity, got his degree at Harvard in 1970 and wrote books on gnostics, the New Testament and related topics. If he wrote a book on Illyrians, there is no reference to it on the web anywhere. The reference you gave us is not to a book but to a theological journal. If such a book exists, give us the full bibliographical citation and ISBN please. – Prifti is the author of the whole Britannica article on Albania, he signs his name under it. – Ploutarch doesn't say "in their language", he says "επιχωρίω φωνή", lit. 'in the local voice', which can mean dialect or language or anything. Fut.Perf. 18:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Plutarch uses the word phonE. I doubt the ancients had a specific understanding of 'dialects' and 'languages' like we do. Also, afaik, 'Aspetos' (the name of Achilles in the language of Epirus as given by Plutarch) is a Greek word meaning '(unutterably) great' but someone more qualified could of course confirm whether this is right or not. Edit: bad timing on my part, apologies! 3rdAlcove (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Aspetos is a nice Greek word meaning "unspeakable" or "boundless". I haven't looked at the Plutarch, but it's hard to see how he would have thought it was a non-Greek word; probably what he's saying is that this was the local title for Achilles. (You'd think, given my username, that I'd know more about this!) --Akhilleus (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
You are unspeakably great too. :-) Fut.Perf. 18:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I am restoring the page to normalcy.If the involved admins and users whether they agree with me or not is irrelevant as the secondary sources that are abound here are according to WIKI RULES and so am i last time i checked them.The "new" user is the heretic here and not me.Megistias (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Aspetos[edit]

Aspetos - according to Albanian language means quick, fast in the context of the warrior —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavronjoti (talkcontribs) 11:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant.Megistias (talk) 11:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Ἄσπετος Aspetos divine epithet of Achilles in Epirus (Homeric aspetos 'unspeakable,unspeakably great,endless' (Aristotle F 563 Rose; Plutarch, Pyrrhus 1; SH 960,4) its Doric Greek,Megistias (talk) 08:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned up article[edit]

Just so everyone knows, I tweaked the article so that it is easier for both users and readers to navigate through the text and references. Moreover, I created the "Barbarians" section in order to ensure that the article's overall content is broken down properly. That is all. Deucalionite (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

it needs more work. It is perfectly unclear why the article harps on the question of "Greekness". This may be of interest to nationalists of various descriptions, but it shouldn't be the main focus of an encyclopedia entry. dab (𒁳) 15:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
If we don't put the "barbarians" from Thucydides in it will be called POV .Megistias (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the article may need some more tweaking here and there Dbachmann. However, the Greek identity of the Chaonians has been (and still is) attested by the reliable secondary sources Megistias provided. Whether the question of the Chaonians' "Greekness" is of interest to "nationalists" is a POV argument based on perception. As users, we shouldn't care about whether the direct evidence associated with the Chaonians coincides with misguided ideologies supported by "nationalists" of any creed or color.
So far, all arguments and statements in the article are sourced in accordance to WP:RS. If the evidence directly shows an "emphasized stance" pertaining to the identity of the Chaonians, then that in of itself constitutes a form of academic consensus. Anyone who wants to question this consensus needs to provide serious evidence. End of story.
Granted, NPOV should be maintained. However, the tone of the article seems neutral enough since the purpose of the encyclopedia entry is to provide evidence-based facts and not misguided ideological banter. Deucalionite (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a bunch of the sources that supposedly say that the Chaonians were Greeks don't say that. E.g. Cassius Dio 9.40.3-4 doesn't mention Chaonians, and it's unclear whether he's saying that Pyrrhus was a Greek or whether Greek fugitives had come to stay with him (it looks like the latter). Pausanias 1.11.7-12.2 is all about Pyrrhus, and says that he's a descendant of Neoptolemos; but that's not the same thing as saying the Chaonians are Greek. Strabo 7.7.5 says that the Chaonians once ruled over all of Epirus, but it doesn't say that they were Greeks.

On this talk page, we have many secondary sources that say that the Chaonians were Greek-speaking, and at least one that says that the Chaonians were trying to emulate Greek forms of political organization; this probably justifies a claim that the Chaonians were Greek. (Although I think the approach to ethnicity/identity taken here is over-simplified, but this is Wikipedia, so I'm not expecting too much subtlety.) But none of this justifies claiming that primary sources say things that they don't. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Those are on Epirus and the Epirotes in general and on the fact it was ancient greece with anceint Greeks .That meant the epirotic tribes that chaonians were part of.Megistias (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The references that I mentioned (Cassius Dio, Pausanias, Strabo) do not say that the Epirotes were Greeks. Some of them say that Pyrrhus is a descendant of Neoptolemos, but that's not the same thing as saying the Epirotes were Greeks (nor is it the same thing as saying the Chaonians were Greeks). --Akhilleus (talk) 04:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The quotes in generaly are on Epirus/Epirotes being Hellenic ,the "Chaonian" particular can change.

Pyrrhus, the king of Epirus, had a particularly high opinion of his powers because he was deemed by foreign nations a match for the Romans; and he believed that it would be opportune to assist the fugitives who had taken refuge with him, especially as they were Greeks, and at the same time so forestall the Romans with some plausible excuse before he should suffer injury at their hands. For so careful was he about his good reputation that though he had long had his eye on Sicily and had been considering how he could overthrow the power of the Romans, he shrank from taking the initiative in hostilities against them, when no wrong had been done him. I am still looking into more of Cassius dio.He mentions it 80 times +48 times. I dont know where this below corresponds in the internet link in the already given one. cassius text

  • We didnt quote Strabo for this element but for another.
  • Pausanias mentiones Epirus 82 times alone in Attica, ". But the rivers of Greece contain no terrors from wild beasts, for the sharks of the Aous, which flows through

Thesprotia, are not river beasts but migrants from the sea." 4.34.1 http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Paus.+4.34.1

  • Aristotle and others have mentions in Chaonians particular,i ll start adding & removing more writers on the whole.

Since Pyrrhus is considered Greek and secondary sources(which matter) say they -Epirotes-were Greek and a number of primary sources say the same on Epirus the position is that it was and thats the "planet" where other points are "satellite" to .Being thus any mention of them not being Greek explicit are the ones that matter from a point of interest like Thucydides i.e. . Megistias (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Peloponnesian war[edit]

This was their involvement in the Peloponessian war.diff.Megistias (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Someone put it back in and add this as well.And no m cloak and dagger please.
  • Inventing Homer: The Early Reception of Epic by Barbara Graziosi,2002,ISBN 0521809665-page 118,"Thucydides defines himself simultaneously against Homer and against Herodotus ,though he explicity mentions only Homer.In this respect as in many others the beggining of the Histories is programmatic.He starts by describing his subject matter the war between the Peloponnesians and the Athenians and by stating the reason why he chose it ; it is the greatest event that ever happened . He adds that what happened before the war (Heordotus subject matter ) and the remote past cannot be known but do not seem to have been as great as the present events.In order to make this claim plausible Thucydides must undermine the Greek vs Barbarian dichotomy .Otherwise he would be open to objection that while Homer and Herodotus depict a war fought by the whole of Greece against the Barbarian world Thucydides is only concerned with an internal Greek affair."Megistias (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
You did not readd itdiff.The paragraph is still missing.Megistias (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the whole paragraph. I checked the first four or five of the sources quoted there, and none of them seemed to be even mentioning Chaonians. This is total OR junk and needs to be rewritten from scratch, and based on reliable secondary sources. Fut.Perf. 23:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

They refer to Epirotes/Epirus.And you removed quoted ones that gave more data.diff.You removed the salty river
  • a salty river-http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/meteorology.2.ii.html Meteorology By Aristotle, "In Chaonia there is a spring of brackish water that flows into a neighbouring river which is sweet but contains no fish."- whose water is sweet but bears no fish
  • And the small headed oxen "Κεστρινικοί βόες οι έν Χαονία"Megistias (talk) 08:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Obviously, those were the trivial ones. What are they supposed to show, beyond that the word "Chaonia" was known to these writers? If you want to write articles on Ancient Chaonian cattle husbandry and Ancient Chaonian sweetwater ecology, you are of course welcome. Fut.Perf. 09:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Trivial doesnt make it unimportant.Its still data.Megistias (talk) 09:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Trivial is, by definition, unimportant. That's why we call it trivial, you know. Fut.Perf. 09:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Strabo is the only one who actually mentions them in a non-trivial way, so I've re-added him. --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, good call. Sorry I hadn't the patience to check them all this morning. Fut.Perf. 18:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I went through them one by one and Strabo was the only one worthy of inclusion in the article. --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Someone add the "trivia" in a trivia section.They are very nice.Megistias (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hellenized Illyrians?[edit]

Is there any concrete proof to substantiate the notion that the Chaonians were "Hellenized Illyrians"? Are there "Illyrian" settlements in Chaon by any chance? Deucalionite (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Albania TF[edit]

I am placing the Albania TF tag and I hope no one will revert me. Since there is a lot of archaeological research in Albania about the Chaonians (they lived in today's Albania), I think it's important to include this under the Albania TF. --sulmues (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I reverted what appears to be POV tagging by the banned Sockpuppeter Sulmues. -- SILENTRESIDENT 00:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Revert andalism[edit]

I reverted this edit which was made by the same anonymous user identified as vandalism; the anonymous user changed the word "ancient Greek" with the word "Illyrian" contrary to the sources that state the opposite. The same user has vandalised the page in the same way many times before, see article's history. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The Chaonians / Molossians inhabited Epirus / Southern Illyria since Mycenaean times[edit]

At that period, Greek tribes existed only in the very southern tip of what is now the modern nation state of Greece (possibly offshore on some varied islands as well) but only barely north of the Peloponnese. If the Molossians and the Chaonians were in Epirus before the Greeks had heard of Epirus, I am not sure how these tribes came to be Greek. Need I remind anyone that Epirus was never considered part of Greece until, essentially, Byzantine times? Alexander the Great, whose mother was an Epirote, did not even annex the region into his empire. The Romans considered it a separate entity as well. Strange for so Greek a place to be so unaffiliated with Greece for so much of its history…

There were myriad tribes on the mainland with whom the Greeks traded and assimilated during the undocumented years which we know in contemporary scholarship as the Dark Ages, when the enormous non-Greek powers of the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean collapsed in a sudden cataclysm. The Pelasgians, as they are called, were a real population. They are not the stuff of fiction and they were indeed pre-Hellenic. This presents something of an inconvenient truth for Greek scholars (past and present). Unfortunately, Greek historians have taken it upon themselves to explain away the Pelasgians, and this was accomplished in antiquity through mass assimilation into the Greek way of life of various regional peoples.

History is written by those who have come to be victorious enough to make the account. The Greeks prevailed in the territories into which they came to settle. Largely, we accept the Greek perspective in our evaluations of the ancient world. There are far too many inconsistencies in that perspective, however, for our casual ignorance of the facts to continue unchallenged. The Greeks have a kind of monopoly on ancient history. While the Barbarian Alexander put his adopted country on the map, aggrandized its ideals, and perpetuated its standard, the philhellenic Romans helped to excise much of the pre-Greek way of life during their tenure, especially in their systematic decimation of the Illyrians over several centuries. The debate in this talk section is important to a fostering of the larger debate which exists between the Greek interpretation and the reality of history. I am glad that there are those who have come to this forum to discuss this matter with an open mind and an unprejudiced outlook.

No one will take Greek history and the accomplishments of Greece away. No one wants to. No one can. But the facts cannot be buried by nationalism and zeal. We need to reexamine the historical implications suppressed by biased authorship and reopen the affairs in glossed-over antiquities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.47.58 (talk) 08:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Your first paragraph is a plain proof that you have no idea about history. The rest of the text is the outcome of your biased personal view of the issue. - Sthenel (talk) 10:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

My first paragraph presents information that is consistent with every map of the Mycenaean period on display in the Greek galleries at the Metropolitan Museum in New York. In a legitimate institution, resources are far more accurate than whatever Wikipedia can muster. Greece began in the Peloponnesian region. In pre-classical Greece, during which point the Molossians were already in Epirus and flourishing there, Greeks had barely penetrated the hinterlands of the Mainland. Eventually, they made their way north. You may choose to consult a pre-Twentieth century map; they tend to be more neutral.

During Magna Graecia and colonization, Greek culture flourished in all parts of the Med, the Ionian, the Adriatic, and the Euxine seas, as you know. The Greek city of Massilia was in Gaul. Were the Gauls also Greek? Were the peoples indigenous to that region Greeks? They traded with Greeks, they may have spoken Greek, and they may have embraced Hellenic norms, but they were not Greek. This, of course, is based on our understanding of what it means to be "Greek," which I take to refer to an ethnicity, although to what extent the early Greeks consisted of one unified ethnic group is not very clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.47.58 (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Useful source[edit]

There is a good, lenghty discussion article about this by Hammond The Illyrian Atintani, the Epirotic Atintanes and the Roman Protectorate

I have access to it if anyone wants it Hxseek (talk) 08:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)