Talk:Maniots

Old comments
Why on earth are Maniots classified as a distinct ethnic group? Rastapopoulos 12:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I dont think they're actually discussed as a separate ethnic group, though some mention of their actually being Greek might be helpful, as this is not so self-evident to non-Greeks as the undoubtedly well-intioned author might think. If no one objects to their being Greek, I will proceed to add something to that effect Druworos 22:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If Maniots showed no resistance in adopting 'Romiosyni', or Christianity, why did they become Christian in the 9th century? It must be obvious that the reason for such a belated christianisation must be their bitter resistance to an imposed religion, and the mountainous nature of the terrain, which made access relativelly hard. Furthermore, i strongly doubt Homer would mention the cities of Mani and refer to them as such. If no one objects, i will indeed edit this article, at least as far as their willing adoption of Christianity is concerned. Druworos 22:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC

Well it's wierd because there are churches in Mani that date back to around 3 and 4 AD. Homer's mention of the Maniot towns seem logical.

Maybe it's just me, but Kardamli and Kotronas dont quite sound like Ancient Greek names. However, before I go into this further, I should look it up in the Iliad. What's more, Homer wouldnt have classified those cities as 'Maniot', because the name Mani did not exist in Homeric times. As far as Christianity is concerned, it was not disputed so far that the Maniots did indeed become Christian in the 9th century. This is what the article said when I edited it. The difference is that according to the previous version, the Maniots became Christian willingly in the 9th century. What would be most useful here would be references, to support either that they were willingly or forcibly Christianised in the 9th century, or in fact, as you claim, earlier. Could you provide data on these churches? Or could anyone else, at that, provide some references to make this a more scholarly article? It is certainly in need of improvement Druworos 22:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont have the time to put up the tag right now, so this is a totally unofficial thing for now, but I was wondering how people would feel about a merge to Mani. Most of the info can be found there too, and it does seem appropriate. Druworos 17:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Druworos, I think that this page pertaining to the Maniots should remain separate from the page that discusses about the area of Mani. Granted, there is information from both articles that are coincidal and may lead one to think that it would be a good idea to place the information from the Maniots article into the Mani article. However, this may potentially lead to omissions from the Maniots page in order to prevent the extended Mani article from being too long.


 * In other words, I am against this merger only because the new merged article would force a more condensed version of the history of the Maniots. This page was specifically written to discuss, in detail, the experiences and encounters of the Greeks of the Mani Peninsula. You can condemn me if you want for being "narrow-minded", but it would be wrong to sacrifice essential details about the Maniots just to accomodate a merger with another article that may not have enough room to fit all of the information in the Maniots article. Respond as soon as possible. Over and out. - Deucalionite 4/8/06 10:20 A.M.

Don't forget the other glorious deed of a maniot family : They killed off the first Governor of Greece and former minister of the Russian Empire, because they didn't like him. Couldn't they just continue to kill each other ?

Merger
I agree with Druworos that most of this article should be merged with Mani Peninsula, as it is about the history of the region and not about a distinct group of people. Moreover, it is filled with anachronisms. The name "Mani" doesn't appear until about the 10th century AD; I believe it was called the Peninsula of Tainaros in ancient times. --Macrakis 16:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I second this suggestion. - At the same time, thanks to Kyriakos for his great efforts to improve this article! Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Question. If the article is indeed merged wit Mani Peninsula would all of this article be shift of just of parts? Kyriakos 11:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That's up to whoever does the merger. :-) Of course, the good stuff you added should be preserved. We'd just have to make adjustments wherever material is duplicate with that in the other article, to create a smooth unified structure. And I'm a bit skeptical about the quality of some of the text that was here before you came to work on it. Of course, all the text would still be accessible in the article history and anybody could always go and get some of it back and insert it in the new one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Just thinking, what if this article is renamed History of Mani and the Mani Peninsula article only has a brief description of the history. For similiar article look at Sparta and Crete, which only have a brief description of the history of the region while the full through history is under the articles History of Sparta and History of Crete. What does everyone think? Kyriakos 12:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, yes, that could work too. Given the fact that this article is now substantially longer than the Mani Peninsula one. Of course, it would leave the other article pretty small. Anyway, History of Mani would be a perfectly decent title for an article. We'd need to change the intro accordingly - which isn't very good at the moment anyway, see your very appropriate "dubious" tag. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Before any move is made I want to hear the opinion of User:Deucalionite who is a major contributor to the article. I left a message at his talk page and once he has his say I'll assess the situation. Kyriakos 12:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

- Thanks to Kyriakos for the great work in expanding this article. I'd still say the two articles can be merged now. Everything that is now in this article can just as well stand in an article titled simply Mani Peninsula. Look at it this way: if a reader has read this article here, why would they then want to go and read a second article? Mani Peninsula now contains only one or two paragraphs that are not covered much more fully here.

I therefore propose the following: merge the contents of the other article into this one (because this one now has the more interesting edit history), and then move the resulting article back to Mani Peninsula. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have been think about the situation and I have come to my desicion. I think that this article should be renamed History of Mani. However, the Mani Peninsula article's history section is lacking so I suggest if it is possible that we merge certain important aspects of the history into the Mani Peninsua article to improve it. But I don;t think this article should be merge into the Mani Peninsula article because of the fact that if it was merge then we would lose details and a better history. As for the culture section I think that that could be merged into the Mani Peninsula article as can the ethnology section. Over all I don't think that the whole article should be merged with the Mani Peninsula article and that only certain aspects should be merged. Thanks. Kyriakos 12:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have said in the article's peer-review that this is mostly a History of Mani article and not an article about Maniots. So, the problems that FutPer and Druworos point out are real. What I can propose is the creation of three distinct articles:
 * One about Mani Peninsula, containing a history section.
 * The History of Mani article based on the current article's historican sections.
 * A real Maniots article with ethnological, cultural and linguistic info about Maniots.--Yannismarou 18:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

So whatever happened to the proposed merger, seeing as there was no real disagreement to it. The article reads rather well as a history of Mani, but shouldn't it at least be moved to that title? Druworos (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of February 15, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: For the most part, the article is well-written. However, there are numerous errors in punctuation, grammar and spelling (see, as a random example, the subsection "17th Century"). Also in some places (again see the "17th century" section for an example) the sentences are short and choppy and feel redundant.  A thorough copyediting by a couple sets of new eyes will help immensely.
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Article appears accurate in its presentation of the information. Impressive use of references.  However, a few statements that need references are not sourced.  The first example I see is in the Intro "the Maniots were also known to have conducted acts of piracy".  "Known" by whom?  There must be a reference.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Article is very thorough. Impressive.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: I didn't pick up on any POV.
 * 5. Article stability? Probably the main reason for failure. Judging by the edit history, the article appears stable, little to no vandalism.  However judging by the very recent discussion on the talk page above regarding merges and/or splitting, there are many opinions about the content and its appropriateness to the title. In light of this, I don't consider this article to be stable.  Work out what exactly "Maniots" is going to mean in the context of this particular article (e.g. an ethnolinguistic group, an historical population of the peninsula, etc.).  Also, reach a consensus on the merge or split issues and act on them.
 * 6. Images?: The use of images is worthy of GA status, but to get to FA, I would suggest subtly varying the sizes and positions of the images (they're a little plain currently).

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. --William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 03:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC) It is evident there has been a lot of quality work on this page but the stability and writting issues prevent it from being a GA.--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 03:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)=

Second GA nomination
Though it was clearly requested in the previous nomination, the task of switching some of the images to the left side of the page was not fulfilled; I took the time to do so. THe article is overcited, only statements which are questionable or warrant a citation should get one; here it seems every sentence is cited. The article is on hold until the number of citations to the same references are reduced. Also, please remember to put a new GA nominee at the top of pages listed on WP:GAC. PhoenixTwo 15:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Third GA nomination
Finally. The majority of outstanding issues have been addressed. I'll be back to this article to do a little more cleanup. -Phoenix 02:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Source problems
I am currently writing a book on the Kladas affair, & have written the Kladas entry for Wikipedia. I find a number of problems with the content for that period, and enormous problems with the sources chosen. Just because something is in a book does not mean it is accurate. I really do not have time to rework the references & text on this entry. Venice did not abandon the Mani. Venice did not put a price on Kladas' head -- the vote failed, & innumerable Greeks since Sathas have failed to read correctly the document he published on the vote. And so on & so forth. Nauplion (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: On Hold
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that need to be addressed. I have made minor corrections and have included several points below that need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA. Please address them within seven days and the article will maintain its GA status. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you disagree with any of the issues, leave a comment after the specific issue and I'll be happy to discuss/agree with you. To keep tabs on your progress so far, either strike through the completed tasks or put checks next to them.

Needs inline citations:
 * 1) "In 468, Gaiseric of the Vandals attempted to conquer Mani with the purpose of using it as a base to raid and then conquer the Peloponnese." This has been tagged since July 2007.
 * 2) "It is described as at a fearful cliff with a headland above."
 * 3) "This plan was described by Greenhalgh and Eliopoulos as "excellent" because it would catch Areopolis by surprise since it was ill defended."
 * 4) The entire section of "The Maniot Dialect of Demotic Greek" is unsourced. Sources should be added that describe the dialect.

Other issues:
 * 1) To better summarize the article, the lead needs to be expanded to three or four paragraphs. See WP:LEAD for guidelines.
 * 2) The paragraphs in the "The Maniot Dialect of Demotic Greek" section needs to be rewritten as they are hard to follow. Consider splitting some of the sentences into shorter sentences.
 * 3) All of the expansion tags need to be addressed, or if no information/sources can be found at this time, remove it for now until information/sources can be added later.
 * 4) "According to Constantine Porphyrogenitus, the Maniots were not conquered by the Slavs, Be it known that the inhabitants of Castle Maina are not from the race of aforesaid Slavs but from the older Romaioi, who up to the present time are termed Hellenes." The quote is repeated from earlier in the article, and appears redundant. If possible, just summarize the quote.

This article covers the topic well and if the above issues are addressed, I believe the article can remain a GA. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, I will be happy to extend the deadline. I will leave messages on the talk pages of the main contributors to the article along with the related WikiProject so that the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Good job on addressing the issues so far. I'll check back in another week to re-review the article. Let me know if you have any questions about the other issues. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No further progress on the article has been made. Are editors planning on addressing the rest of the issues? If not, please let me know on my talk page and I'll delist it for now. Otherwise, if the issues are addressed, let me know and I'll re-review it. I'll look at the article again otherwise in one week. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Failed
Unfortunately, since the issues weren't addressed, I have regrettably delisted the article according to the requirements of the GA criteria. If the issues are fixed, consider renominating the article at WP:GAN, or if you wish, contact me and I'll be happy to re-review the article for you. With a little work, especially with a collaboration with the WikiProject, it should have no problems getting back up to GA status. If you disagree with this review, you can seek an alternate opinion at Good article reassessment. If you have any questions let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"Well written" good article criterion
Article still has some style/grammar issues; perhaps some of those sections were written by a non-native speaker of English. IMO, not a deal breaker, and also not uncommon in history articles in en.WP, but perhaps someone else would like to clean up those aspects. Acwilson9 (talk) 23:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Maniot dialect
This article is an obvious copypaste from the corresponding section of the article on Maniots. Since its creation on June 7, there have been only two sentences (which btw. I've already imported here) added to the original version. I have tagged the article on Maniot dialect as unreferenced since October but nobody took action or even explained why there should exist a separate article on this subject; an article whose content is copypasted from an another article, is uncontextualized, and is unreferenced. For all the above reasons I've merged Maniot dialect with Maniots. --Omnipaedista (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

An IP has been adding unsourced claims here and elsewhere that the Maniot dialect is a form of Doric Greek. I found some evidence that this possibility may have been discussed, but I have no full access to this paper (which is in German). It appears to me that some more recent sources claim it's based on the old Athenian dialect, but I have trouble researching this topic. Hans Adler 11:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC) --- I'm not sure how to add a comment on this.

But The Maniot dialect is a sub form of Doric Greek and not from Athenian Greek. The "Doricness" can be seen in its grammar and mutual intelligibility with other Doric sub dialects such as Tsakonian and Cretan.

the "ω" in Attic-Ionian translates to "ου" in Maniot like all other Doric sub dialects. This can be seen in the word "γρατζουνίζω" (gratzounizw) which corresponds to γριγκανιού (grigkaniou) meaning "to stratch" in the Maniot dialect. Also in other words such as Attic-Ionian "πάω" (paw) corresponds to the Maniot πάου (paou) meaning "to go". Another example of this is the word "good" which is "καλώ" (kalw) in the Attic-Ionian dialect and "καλούρ" (kalour) in Maniot and also Tsakonian dialect which is another indicator of "Doricness" of the Maniot dialect.

Also the transformation of "k" to "ts" like in Tsakonian. The Attic-Ionian "καί" (kai) become "τσαί" (tsai) in the Maniot Dialect just like it does in the Tsakonian dialect. The Attic-Ionian word for "new" is "καινούργιo" which corresponds to the Maniot "τσαινούρζιο" and the Tsakonian "τζαινούρζο"

The transformation of "υ" to "ου" which is a Doric attribute is also found in the Maniot dialect. The Attic-Ionian word "Χυρινό" (Xyrino) meaning pig or fat become "Χιούρ" (Xiour) in the Maniot dialect and "Χιούρε" in the Tsakonian dialect.

Here is a web site which a lexicon of the Maniot dialect. It is in Greek but a sourced web site none the less.

http://www.mani.org.gr/ithi/idioma/id.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.99.88 (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This may all be true, but Wikipedia does not rely on its editors' expertise but on published information. Your way of arguing is generally fine for a scientific paper (and mutual intelligibility with Tsakonian certainly convinces me!), but someone else may well argue the opposite based on deeper features of the dialect (or whatever), and then we have no way of finding out who is right. Therefore we do not rely on our own research – even editors who are known to be actual, real-life scholars are not allowed to do this – and only republish information that has already been published elsewhere. (Rephrased and reorganised, of course, not simply copied.) See our No original research policy.


 * What we need so that we can include your information is not a convincing scientific argument, but sufficiently high-quality publication that has made the point previously. When I searched for that I found instead various sources that seemed to indicate a connection to Athenian. Perhaps the research paper that I indicated above would help – but I can only read the first page, and after reading it I still wasn't sure it's relevant. I will ask User:Future Perfect at Sunrise for help. He is a Wikipedia admin and a German linguist who speaks Greek. But he is quite busy, and it would be best if you could provide a source yourself. A linguistics book saying that Maniot is related to Doric would be best; but anything that claims mutual intelligibility with Tsakonian would help. Unfortunately we can't rely on personal experience, even in clear cases. Hans Adler 09:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for notifying me of this discussion. I haven't checked the references cited above yet (I'll be rather busy for the next few days). I recommend reading our Varieties of Modern Greek article, which is well sourced to works by Trudgill, Kontosopoulos and Triantaphyllides. What I can say for now is that none of the features cited above seem to be specific to Doric as such. The /o/ > /u/ change in final syllables (páo > páu etc.) looks quite similar to "Northern Vocalism", an extremely common feature in a lot of mainstream Koine-derived dialects (although it may be differently conditioned in this dialect; I haven't researched that yet). The /y/ ~ /u/ alternation is known as an archaic feature shared between Maniot and Tsakonic, but also Old Athenian -- i.e. a Attic-Ionic-derived dialect par excellence. The /k/ > /ts/ change is characteristic of all southern dialects of modern Greek, again including all the mainstream Koine-derived ones. As far as I am aware, the mainstream consensus view in the relevant literature, as expressed by Hatzidakis, Triantaphyllides and others following them, is still that Maniot is no exception to the general Attic-Ionic Koine view of Modern Greek. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

To revise source.
I really don't understand the heavy use of the term Turko-Albanians. If Kyriakos Kassis uses it, it will need to be revised as a source. It's completely unclear to me what a "Turko-Albanian" is, and I have noticed that it's used only by Greek authors. A "Good Article" should not be based on controversial terminology. --  S undefined ulmues (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Turko-Albanian means Muslim Albanian; at this time every Muslim was called "Turk", which doesn't mean "from Anatolia", there is no relation to ethnicity there. It's the same mechanism with the orthodox arvanites who belong to the "Greeks" in spite of their mother tongue being albanian.--Phso2 (talk) 00:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Turko-Albanians means Turks and Albanians (mostly Labs), its an ethnographic term and it should remain as such, since we have plenty of sources confirming this.Alexikoua (talk) 06:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a religious term and all the authors use it as a religious term Alexikoua so please avoid OR deductions.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 06:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In the same sense, the Moslem Albanians of the Ottoman army are referred to during this time as Turcalbanians, despite the fact that racially they have nothing to do with the Turks-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 06:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course it's not a religious term... it's about both Turks and Albanian: used to denote the Turkish and Albanian Muslim elites and military units", Turks or Ljapidhes, the latter term explained as 'Turk-Albanians'.

To sum up 'Turkoalbanians' was a widely used ethnographic term (like Austrohugarians etc.), it means "Turks and Albanians" who were also the military authority in Ottoman Balkans.

By the way, we can create a new article about this, I would appreciate if we can cooperate this time.Alexikoua (talk) 06:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Alexikoua you misused the source because the second link refers to the Labs as Turk-Albanians not the Turks(as the latter term is "Ljapidhes"), while the first source offers that as a direct translation about Balkans Muslims as it explains, although it isn't concise regarding the term the author prefers


 * Muslim Albanians have been called "Turkalvanoi" in Greek, and this is pejorative.

Btw all similar terms like Tourkokritikoi and Tourkogianniotes are religious terms.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 07:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * lol, actually I provide full sources and you just play with snippets (without even the authors mentioned and context). Anyway, since this is a widely accepted historical term with some hundreds of gbooks hits it should stay as such.Alexikoua (talk) 07:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Alexikoua you provided:


 * Turks or Ljapidhes, the latter term explained as 'Turk-Albanians'. That refers to the Labs only not the Turks i.e it refers only to the Muslim Albanians. There are 4 sources 3 of which are concise about the religious nature of the term, and one which isn't so your deductions are or.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 07:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Upshot of this is, the term "Tourko-Albanian" is ambiguous and outdated, and as such problematic, especially when taken over uncritically from a source without making clear in what context and meaning it is used there. Judging from just the sentences I found, which are all sourced to that pamphlet by Kassis, Mani's History. If someone has access to that source and can work out in which sense the author is using it, then we can clarify, by replacing the term with either "Turkish and Albanian" or with "Muslim Albanian". If the source itself doesn't make this clear, that would be a rather strong signal the source isn't reliable in the first place. It's a 46-page pamphlet by an author of unknown qualification and from a publishing house I at least don't recognize as among the reputable publishing houses of Greece ("Presoft" sounds more like a self-publishing service, and all hits I get for "Presoft Athens" are to derivatives of Wikipedia articles citing this particular work, no hits on Google books); it also seems to be poorly translated – at least the unidiomatic title "Mani's History" (rather than the obvious "History of Mani") indicates low quality. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This term has to be explained somewhere inside. As I see it was a dominant term in 19th-early 20th century. It's like the term 'Albanians' that was used to describe 'Arvanite' communities, which is also problematic today.Alexikoua (talk) 07:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The term will be replaced with the term (Muslim) Albanians. The term Albanians for those called today Arvanites was used by all authors, while this one is just a term used by some Greek authors of that period.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 08:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You should respect all the given bibliography. I'm sorry Turkoalbanians was also used by non-Greek authors (try on gbooks froe example).Alexikoua (talk) 08:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Out of the 4 sources given 3 describe it as a term used for Muslim Albanians, so I'll proceed based on that.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 08:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the 2 sources you provide lack context&author. I would appreciate if you avoid this disruptive strategy (by the way the one says Liapides the other Turks&Albanians).Alexikoua (talk) 09:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Inanitas inanitatum et omnia inanitas. I've removed the term, it was of no relevance to the article anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources and scope of article
BTW, besides Kassis, there may be reliability issues also about the other main work used for the history section, Paroulakis' The Greeks: their struggle for independence. No scholarly echo that I can find; publishing info is: "Available from The Manager, Hellenic International Press, G.P.O. Box 3070, Darwin, N.T. 5794" (i.e. another dubious publishing house).

And I still don't know why we even have this article. There isn't and never has been any reason to have two separate articles for the territory (Mani peninsula) and its inhabitants (Maniots). The history of the one is the history of the other, by definition. This article is in reality nothing but an overblown History of the Mani peninsula. It should be merged back into the main Mani peninsula article, or, if after excising unreliable and over-extensive history stuff it is still too long, it should be turned into a properly delineated history detail article in a proper summary-plus-detail article structure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Sections
Shouldn't all the pre-medieval sections be moved to Mani itself? On the other hand, the history of the people is the history of the place so inevitably many parts will overlap.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 22:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Reference to Kastania (village) in Maniots article
Can anyone answer the question below:

Presently, the Maniots article has 3 references to "Kastania."

The first two have links to the same article: Kastania, Laconia. The third is not linked. There are, however, two Kastania towns very close by to one another; one is on the Laconian side of Taygetus and one is on the Messinian side (which unfortunately has no article).

The first reference to Kastania appears in the 17th century section. From the context, I am guessing that this reference to Kastania is to the Messinian Kastania (which means the link is wrong). My reasoning is that if the Ottoman forces were in retreat from Kelefa, which is on the Messinian coast, the Messinian Kastania is more easily accessible. The Laconian Kastania is on the other side of the Taygetus mountain range, and (I could be wrong but) it would be hard to march a retreating army there from Kelefa.

The other two reference are in the 18th century section. These definitely refer to the Laconian Kastania, because they are in the context of the 1770 Orlov result and aftermath, which unambiguously occurred at the Laconian Kastania (due to the Venetsanakis fighting towers there).

Question: Is the reference to Kastania in the 17th century to the Messinian Kastania or to the Laconian Kastania?

DC Chazz (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Problematic map
The problematic map accompanied by the subtitle "A map showing classical Mani and Laconia" ("") had no labels within that identify either Mani or Laconia, and also has no citation. I have therefore replaced it with a more informative map, copied from the Mani Peninsula article. Acwilson9 (talk) 00:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Mavromichalis and the albanian host ?
"Mavromichalis became the first indigenous commander of Albankoi Voisko (which means" Albanian host "), a refugee unit that was resettled in Crimea and later transformed into Grecheskii Pekhotnyi Polk."

I would like to know the source of this information. This passage is part of a large paragraph that contains no references. I also did research on the Mavromichalis family, and apart from the fact that it would be an old medieval family of the 15th century attested in Eastern Thrace, nowhere did I find any information supporting the idea that Mavromichalis is from an allogeneic group.

Before the greek revolution, those who represented non-Greek volunteer regiments were most often men from these groups. Indirectly, this would imply that Mavromichalis was an Albanian.

So where does this statement come from saying that Mavromichalis would have commanded this refugee unit called Albankoi Voisko (the Albanian host)?

Is there really a source that would confirm this, or would it be an imaginary idea sprouted by an Albanian nationalist who would have been here, who has fun converting all Greek leaders into Albanian?

sakinou85 21 september 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.134.69.212 (talk) 06:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

"In other cases vendettas, particularly long-running ones, were ended in a peaceful to terms or exchange of property."
Something's missing here. Coming to terms? Agreement to terms? 2003:F5:FF2B:4D5:D445:B555:ED5:32B8 (talk) 09:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)