Talk:Principality of Valona

Name

 * "Lord of Valona" - 9 sources
 * "Lord of Avlona" - 3
 * "Despot of Valona" - 1
 * "Prince of Valona" - 1
 * "Prince of Avlona" - 1
 * "Principality of Vlora-Kanina" - 1
 * "Principality of Valona" - 0

Is "Principality of Valona" the best name? Fine says "MrkSe succeeded to the duchy, calling himself the Lord of Valona; he held the city until his own death in 1415.", Nicol says "Mrksa Zarkovic, who became lord of Valona and Berat in 1391." --Z oupan 22:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point . It seems that there was not one realm which existed continually in late medieval period. It was one realm under Byzantine Empire, another under Serbian Empire, and two or three different realms after SE collapsed. That is probably why inn many, if not most, sources this realm was referred to as Valona + something. That something is either Kanina or Berat or Himara, or all of them.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I found exceptional source which clarifies the situation about this realm.
 * This source explains that this province existed both in BE and SE. Therefore I propose to rename this article to include other towns in its name (just like sources do) and expand its scope to include Byzantine period (1281-1343(6)). There is much more sense to include Byzantine than post-1355 period and especially post-1385 period, when this estate (or its significant part) was not province within some empire, but more or less personal fief of local/regional chieftains. Any thoughts? ?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This source explains that this province existed both in BE and SE. Therefore I propose to rename this article to include other towns in its name (just like sources do) and expand its scope to include Byzantine period (1281-1343(6)). There is much more sense to include Byzantine than post-1355 period and especially post-1385 period, when this estate (or its significant part) was not province within some empire, but more or less personal fief of local/regional chieftains. Any thoughts? ?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi! I rather disagree with redefining the scope. Valona certainly was part of the Byzantine and Serbian empires; but it is a different thing to be simply one among many Byzantine provinces, with an appointed governor, and being an independent lordship. Valona within the Serbian Empire is pertinent to the degree that this was where the fully independent lordship began, as one cannot simply begin with the year 1355, when the same lord had controlled the same lands for a decade previously. If there is any info on the Byzantine province immediately prior to the Serbian conquest, this could be added, but briefly. As for the name, Valona seems to have been the capital throughout, and is the most persistent part of the titles used for this principality. Constantine  ✍  05:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks . After your explanation I agree and accept your position. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)