Talk:Prince of Achaea

Was John Asen Zaccaria recognised as legitimate ruler of the Principality?
Lately, the user @Rheskopouris, reversed all my edits on the Prince of Achaea page concerning John Asen Zaccaria, edits that all had citations attached and have been made after a great time of research on the topic. He/she most likely didn't paid notice on these, something I strongly suggest he should from now on. In order to save Wikipedia from an unnecessary "edit war", I am bringing the concerns of the prementioned user to the talk page. @Rheskopouris pointed out that John Asen Zaccaria has not been written down as legitimate ruler of the Principality by the majority of historians and thus all my edits citing John as a real sovereign must be deleted.

Actually, John Asen Zaccaria was recognised as Prince on 1453 by some of the greatest western contemporary powers of the time, by Venice (the letter of the Doge Paul Foscari still survives), by the Papacy as after his exile from Morea he was bestowed a monthly pension by the Pope with the title of the titular Prince attached and most importantly by the Kingdom of Naples and Alfonso V of Aragon that confirmed him as Prince in his epistles. This last recognition was of great importance as the Crown of Naples since the time of William II Villehardouin was the feudal suzerain of the Principality and the only power able to confirm and even install Princes. All citations for these information are provided in the article that you must read before processing with the discussion.

John from 1453 and for 1 and half year, until the end of 1454, used the castle of Aetos as his center of power after he was declared there as prince by a great number of Latins, but also Greeks and Albanians that all compromised his army. More contemporary researchers such as Haberstumpf Walter or Sturdza Mihail Dimitri list John as a legitimate ruler of Achaea after a vacant period since his fathers death, Centurione II, on 1432.

The genealogy research that is included at the end of the article examines the descendants of Martino Zaccaria 2x great grandfather of John Asen Zaccaria today, actually it seems it was created about the family of Zaccarias overall and not exclusively about John. It was posted here in Wikipedia by an AGP accredited genealogist thus it is indeed a research interesting enough as to be included in the article without implying anything else than the plain and obvious, that Martino Zaccarias agnatic line still survives.

UPDATE: by 27.1.24 I dont regard this source as a trustworthy one anymore, thus I deleted all the contributions I made using this genealogical tree.It should be removed from the Damalas page as well if you ask me.

Sincerely Yours. Eugene de Moree (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * When the addition of new content is disputed, that content should reasonably be kept out of the article until the dispute has been resolved - therefore I have reverted your addition once more.
 * The history lesson you have provided here is unnecessary. I will list my objections to your edits as simply as possible:
 * As an unsuccessful and largely forgotten rebel leader, John Asen Zaccaria is way too small of an historical footnote to be mentioned as prominently in the lede as you've added. He also does not really deserve a place in the main list and is more appropriately relegated to "Later claimants" (where he was mentioned prior to your additions) since his support was largely nominal and he was defeated quite quickly - 21 years after virtually all historians see the principality as having ended.
 * The idea that John Asen Zaccaria was legitimate (something most historians seem to disagree with) and that he has legitimate descendants surviving to this day is very similar to the many claims of Byzantine descent that have been forwarded since that empire's fall; these are always supported by "genealogy research" and recognitions that are almost always forged - which I think is reasonable to assume is the case here as well since you can't provide academic sources to support it. That the research was "posted here in Wikipedia by an AGP accredited genealogist" means nothing if there is not reliable sources backing it up - otherwise it's original research which is not allowed on WP.
 * Grandes familles de Grèce: d'Albanie et de Constantinople does not seem like a reliable enough source on its own to support JAZ's legitimacy. I also question your sourcing in general.
 * Frankly, your additions here also make me question your other edits, especially at John Asen Zaccaria. Rheskouporis (talk) 12:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Greetings Rheskouporis.
 * John Asen Zaccaria is definitely not a forgotten prince. Actually Centuriones son is mentioned in many first sources of the period, including the Short History of George Sphrantzes or the Histories of Laonikos Chalokondyles. Translations of both in English can easily be found for you to read them. Theres also the Archivio storico per le province napoletano where John is confirmed as Prince by the King of Naples Alfonso V of Aragon, same for his wife Magdalene. As you noticed, if you paid actual attention to the sources, John also obtained recognition as Prince by the Venetian Doge (Setton Kenneth documents that) and the Papal court. As it's known the Kingdom of Naples was the suzerain of the Principality of Achaea officially after 1267 (Treaty of Viterbo, the Latin text is available for me to share with you and examine the treaty yourself), the books of the Greek professor Maria Dourou Iliopoulou are perfectly precise on the matter. She debates the Angevin presence in Frankish Greece to a great degree. All these elements attest that even shortly John Asen Zaccaria was Prince of Achaea, even for 1-2 years. The further defeat of John against the Ottomans and Thomas Palaiologos cannot obliterate the nearly two years of John controlling certain parts of Morea as a ruler and accepting support from a diverse group of communities: Greeks, Latins, Albanians. Overall I think there is some pro-Byzantine bias lurking there and an anti-Latin sentiment on your behalf against House Zaccaria.
 * The first source (the later works copied that one) that we have confirming John Asen Zaccaria as illegitimate is the work of Carl Hopf, a highly outdated historian who wrote about Frankish Greece in the late 19th century and shouldn't be trusted. More contemporary researchers such as Haberstumpf Walter list John as a legitimate Prince of Morea while Sturdza on the Grandes familles de Grèce: d'Albanie et de Constantinople list John as a legitimate son of Centurione and his Asenina-Palaiologina Byzantine wife. Other historians such as Bernard Hamilton, Karin Velez or Nada Zečević in the discreet mentions that they make about John Asen Zaccaria in their books do not question his legitimacy as member of house Zaccaria. Contemporary historians like the aforementioned Sphrantzes or Chalkokondyles, even if they are both Byzantines and pro-Palaiologoi, do not anoint John as "bastard" so as to delegitimatize his renovation of the Principality in both 1446 (first insurgency) and 1453 (during the great Morean revolt). Sphrantzes simply names him "the son of Centurione", while it seems strange that the Venetian Senate and Naples would congratulate and support an illegitimate prince as the de facto Prince of Achaea, thus recognizing him as the only heir of Centurione. Alfonso of Naples, goes as far as to address him with the title "Prince Centurione III" thus offering him the name of his father, same for Chalkokondyles who also calls John as Centurione occasionally in his text. Actually according to the contemporary Sphrantzes, John was married to a daughter of Leonardo II Tocco, a niece of the despot Carlo I Tocco, it seems astonishing that Carlo would offer one of his nieces as a wife to a "bastard second class son" of Centurione while Theodora Tocco, her sister married to Constantine Palaiologos.
 * Frankly, your continuous reverts also make me question your motives, as you don't provide any academic sources of your own and merely use generic language "does not really deserve a place" (doesnt deserve? that sounds too much) or "I am questioning your sourcing" as you seem to be driven by a pro-Byzantine agenda or an anti-Latin Greece/anti-Zaccaria-Italian sentiment. I will revert back the page Prince of Achaea to its previous form as I don't deem you a user acquainted with the Principality of Achaea. I am calling @Cplakidas or any other user or a committee of specialists with expertise or knowledge of the period to review ALL my edits and revert the parts he/she/they deem inaccurate so to have a proper discussion about them.
 * Thanks for your time, all parties involved. Eugene de Moree (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Cplakidas Eugene de Moree (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)