# Talk:Albanian–Venetian War

AFAIK Venice Senate convinced Mustafa Pasha of attacking Scanderbeg in Diber and gave him 10000 ducats. Also a lifetime pension of 100 ducats was offered by the Senate to the person who could assassinate Scanderbeg. I think this should be added too Aigest (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Albania defiant Authors	Jan Myrdal, Gun Kessle Edition	illustrated Publisher	Monthly Review Press, 1976 ISBN 085345356X, 9780853453567 page 48
George Castroiti Scanderbeg (1405-1468) Author	Fan Stylian Noli Publisher International Universities Press, 1947 page 40 Aigest (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Agree--Vinie007 06:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree as well.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


### Albanian Victory
Text in the lede says:
"The war was the result of a dispute between the Republic and the Dukagjini family over possession of the Dagnum fortress. Skanderbeg, ally of the Dukagjini family, moved against several Venetian held towns along the Albanian coastline, in order to pressure the Venetians into restoring Dagnum. In response, the Republic sent a local force to relieve the besieged fortress of Dagnum, and urged the Ottoman Empire to send an expeditionary force into Albania. The Ottomans were already besieging the fortress of Svetigrad, stretching Skanderbeg's efforts thin."
Text of the article clearly says: Skanderbeg did not succeeded to capture Dagnum (which was the main reason for him to start the war) and additionally he lost Balsha and Svetigrad and lot of his men in the war. I think that information about result of the war which is described as "Albanian victory" in the infobox, is absurd, contradictory and misleading and claim that "all lands on the Albanian side of the Drin that are relinquished to the League of Lezhë" is misleading and vague.
I propose to change description of the result of the war to match the text of the article and include failure of Skanderbeg to capture Dagnum from Venetian Empire, loss of Balsha and loss of Svetigrad.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll just take out the Albanian victory part which a previous editor added a while back. The infobox is meant only as an aid to the article and I don't see why it's necessary to include information already in the article. The infobox is already quite lengthy.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I find the info boxes very useful, if properly created. I think that the peace treaty is not the result of the war because the war is ended with the peace treaty. The result of the war section in the info box should show who won the war. Skanderbeg declared war on Venice in order to capture Dagnum. He not only failed to capture Dagnum, but he additionally lost Balsha fortress to Venice and extremely important Svetigrad town to Ottoman Empire that joined Venice and even remained in war with Skanderbeg even after peace treaty with Venice was signed. I think that this is school example of lost war and that should be clearly stated in the appropriate section of the infobox. Besides results section, the section about territorial changes still does not mention important loss of Balsha fortress to Venice and much more important loss of Svetigrad to Ottoman Empire. Also, I am sorry but I really do not understand what "lands on the Albanian side of the Drin river are relinquished to the League of Lezhë" really means.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, even the most skeptical historians (Schmitt p. 90.) say Skanderbeg won this war. Skanderbeg strangled Venice's resources to the point where their only option was negotiation (details of the agreements are in the article). Even though Skanderbeg lost Dagnum, he gained what he really wanted: recognition from Venice as a political force. Carl von Clausewitz said that war was a means to achieve political ends and this is what Skanderbeg did. Had he wanted to, he could have taken all of the Venetian cities on the Albanian coastline (since they were on the point of surrender), but his brilliant wisdom -- something which neutrality prohibits me from explicitly stating in this article -- told him that he did not need these cities; it would have only incurred Venice's wrath which was supported by its never-ending wealth. Furthermore, he would need to maintain them, something which his treasury could not allow. And losing Svetigrad was a sacrifice to maintain Kruja, a much more important fortress. If his men hadn't made a stand at Svetigrad, Murad would have marched right into Kruja which was not ready for battle. Thermopylae had a similar strategic purpose and the Greeks won the war against Persia. The Turks, however, kept pouring into Albania, but Skanderbeg was able to hold out for twenty more years. Anyways, this was not an integral part of the Venetian War and the Ottoman Empire never openly made an alliance with Venice (which is why I split the two belligerents in the infobox). Schmitt, despite his many questions, maintains that Skanderbeg was a military genius of the highest caliber. He questions Skanderbeg's heroism, but he never questions his ability to lead men. Therefore, saying that Skanderbeg lost this war because he lost some fortresses would mean that we are ignoring the greater strategic perspective which is of much higher importance. Skanderbeg got what he wanted and had Venetia Albania on its knees. It's safe to say that the Turks won the siege of Svetigrad, however.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 01:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for such well written explanation. I will think about it and reply to it soon.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
@Gaius Claudius Nero: While I am thinking about your comment, can you please provide inline citation of Schmitt stating that Skanderbeg won the war against Venetian Empire in period 1447 - 1448? (Of course I believe you, but I am very interested in exact wording.)--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Mundimi i Venedikut doli se kishte qenë i kotë, ngaqë sulltan Murati II ishte nisur në marshim ... Roughly translates to The defeat of Venice came to little avail since Murad had begun his march ... Schmitt is saying even though Venice had been defeated, its results could do little to stop the Siege of Svetigrad (1448). (By the way, Google translates it wrong: mundim in this sense means to defeat not effort as Google translates it.) Nevertheless, the context of this article deals with the Venetian War which Schmitt recounts as a Venetian defeat.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for providing citation. War with Venice lasted till October 4, 1448, five months after Murad II had begun his march and started the Siege of Svetigrad (1448) on May 14. Venice could not be defeated five months before war was ended. Are you absolutelly sure that it is the whole war against Venice that Schmitt described as defeat? Will you please double check the context of Schmitt sentence and if he was describing the whole war or only one battle?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
He says it right after he discusses Venetian efforts to make peace with Skanderbeg.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
First Venetian efforts were in December 1447, at the beggining of the war "Venetians sent an ambassador to Skanderbeg offering him 1,000 ducats to lay aside all claims to Dagnum in return that the Albanians would protect the country and keep the roads free from violence. Skanderbeg, however, refused to accept the offer and hostilities continued". Second Venetian efforts to make peace with Skanderbeg were in June 1448, four months before war was over. "On 27 June 1448 Venice sent Andrea Venier, then provveditore at the Scutari's Rozafa Castle, to attempt to persuade the Ottomans to invade Albania. After, Venice also sent Venier to meet with Skanderbeg in order to convince him to break off hostilities". Final peace efforts were made when peace treaty was signed, on October 4, 1448, two months after Murat II captured Svetigrad. According to your citation, Schmitt is talking about Venetian defeat which happened before Siege of Svetigrad. In that case he could not be referring to "Albanian victory" in this war, because the war was far from being over. Am I right?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
By that time, the war was practically over. Venice was in no position to become an aggressor and they were searching for agreements with other nations. These are the acts of a militarily defeated nation. Sun Tzu says: "Too frequent rewards signify that the enemy is at the end of his resources..." and "When envoys are sent with compliments in their mouths, it is a sign that the enemy wishes for a truce." This was a military victory for the Albanian side. As I said earlier, the Albanians could have gone on and taken all of the Venetian city-ports but they did not due to Skanderbeg's restraint. Besides, the dates given Svetigrad-siege-article are wrong, I think, and I am in the process of checking them. Anyways, the date of signing a peace treaty cannot mean much. The Treaty of Paris (1783) was signed two years after the Siege of Yorktown.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Let us focus on Schmitt for the moment, and I will reply to your explanation about victory later.
According to the text of the article, the war was far from over in June. After June there was very important battle of Drini on July 23, loss of Svetigrad at the end of july and also there was Battle of Oranik (1448) on August 14. Only after Oranik Skanderbeg led his victorious armies to siege Venetian city ports. Am I right when I say that Schmitt could not refer to the whole war that lasted till October when describing Venetian defeat in June? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Alright, let me give you the whole context of what Schmitt says:

Skanderbeg fought the Drin battle and won Dagnum back. Skanderbeg tried to unite with the leaders of Zeta, but his men (some highlanders/shepherds) lost a battle in Montenegro -- something which Kristo Frashëri says is false. Then he talks about how Andrea Venier tried to negotiate a peace with Skanderbeg, something which would result in Venice's official handover of Dagnum. Then he says that even though he had defeated Venice, Murad still began his march. (He never discusses the battle of Oronichea.) He then talks about the siege of Svetigrad. Then he talks about how Skanderbeg besieged Durazzo and laid waste to the Scutari countryside and hundreds died. Then he signed a peace where he gave Dagnum back and gained everything on the Albanian side of the Drin.
There are historians who say this was a victory. But to be honest, I don't really care if this was a victory or not, but to say that it is a loss is a stretch. I tried to establish WP:CON earlier by taking out the Albanian victory part. Do you agree?--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with present formulation in the result field of infobox, since it looks that any other can hardly be supported with the clear non-contextualised  inline citation.
But the territorial changes field still hide the information about Skanderbeg's loss of Balsha and Svetigrad that happened during this war. Also, it still contains formulation: "lands on the Albanian side of the Drin river are relinquished to the League of Lezhë" which I honestly do not understand, and I believe that it is misleading and vague. I propose to add information about Skanerbeg's loss of Balsha and Svetigrad and to include better definition of his territorial gains. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I searched works of Schmitt available online. Here I found his work: “Das venezianische Albanien (1392-1479)”. In that work, on the page 306, Oliver Jens Schmitt describes peace treaty of Skanderbeg with Venetians as:
“This was nothing but a disguised surrender Skanderbeg, who had lost within a few months its important allied, John Hunyadi, and his main stronghold, Svetigrad, and feared that sultan will attack Kruja.” - Dies war nichts anderes als eine versteckte Kapitulation Skanderbegs, der innerhalb von wenigen Monaten seinen wichtigsten Verbundeten, Johann Hunyadi, und seine wichtigste Festung, Svetigrad, verloren hatte und einen Angriff des sultans auf Kruja befürchtete.
Any comment?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
This happened six months after the war ended. Besides, the Senate didn't accept it. Schmitt gives the same result for the war as the one in this article. Oktober 1448 schlossen Nikola Dukagjin und Skanderbeg mit Venedig Frieden.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I do not understand German and Google translate says nothing about victory of Albanians, just that in "October 1448 and joined Nikola Dukagjin Skanderbeg peace with Venice." If "there are historians who say this was a victory" of Albanians, I think that we should stick to the sources and add that information to the infobox. But concerning that according to Wikipedia:Exceptional_claims#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources we should provide high-quality sources (neutral, contemporary, secondary, verifyable and reliable).
Any comment on my proposal for territorial changes field to include information about Skanerbeg's loss of Balsha and Svetigrad and to include better definition of his territorial gains?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't see anything too wrong with including Balsha loss, but it was a relatively insignificant fortress. And it was not included in the peace deal. As for Svetigrad, that was really another war. The only reason the battle of Oranik is included is because it was Venetian-requested whereas the assault on Svetigrad was ordered by Murad independently.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 01:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 Modern neutral historian says that this war ended with peace treaty which was:“...nothing but a disguised surrender Skanderbeg, who had lost within a few months its important allied, John Hunyadi, and his main stronghold, Svetigrad, and feared that sultan will attack Kruja.” Skanderbeg started a war with Venice 6 months before the Siege of Svetigrad began. Albanian–Venetian War (1447–1448) obviously significantly contributed to loss of Svetigrad. There is no need to cite that sky is blue.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Again, you are misrepresenting the source. Like I said previously, this happened six months after the peace treaty with Venice was signed. Besides, this is Schmitt's interpretation and you are treating it as if it were the word of God.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Siege of Svetigrad (1448) was in period May 14 – July 31, 1448. It happened during this war, not “six months after the peace treaty with Venice was signed”. I am not misinterpreting the source. Like you wrote in this article: “peace was signed between the various representatives or princes of both parties on 4 October 1448.” --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
You are now misinterpreting what I said. The supposed "surrender" that Schmitt talks about happened six months after the war. I'm not talking about the siege of Svetigrad.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
No, I am not treating Schmitt's interpretations as if it were the word of God. It is you who claimed: "Well, even the most skeptical historians (Schmitt p. 90.) say Skanderbeg won this war." When I confronted you with your misinterpretation of the Schmitt's work, you started to talk about Sun Tzu. Now, when I presented the quote which proves that Schmitt did not say that "Skanderbeg won this war" but on the contrary, clearly said that his peace treaty with Venice was nothing but a disguised surrender you attacked me for misinterpretation of the source (again) and treating Schmitt's words “as if it were the word of God”.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
That doesn't help your argument any. Anyway, the "surrender" Schmitt talks about is referring to Skanderbeg's request to the Senate on 21 April 1449, not the peace treaty in 4 October 1448. I can't find the full page, but this is the closest I can get. Look at both links: [1] and [2].--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
No, I think you are wrong. Please look at the links you provided. They contain full page 306.
What Schmitt said is that George Arianiti after this war allied with Venice and started dispute with Skanderbeg. He described that situation as "additional severe blow to Skanderbeg" (Ein schwerer schlag für Skanderbeg war auch ...). When Schmitt wrote about Skanderbeg's surrender (Kapitulation Skanderbegs without quotation marks) he clearly referred to losses that happened during and because of his war with Venice (loss of his important ally (Hunyadi) because of Skanderbeg's failure to support him in second Kosovo Battle, lost peace with Ottoman Empire and loss of Svetigrad). If you add the facts that Skanderbeg failed to capture Venetian towns he seized (Bar, Durres, Dagnum...), lost his important ally Arianiti (who allied with Venice) and lost Balsha fortress, it is obvious that Skanderbeg lost the war. Schmitt referred to "Skanderbeg's request to the Senate on 21 April 1449" only as "additional severe blow to Skanderbeg", which was described as only one of many reasons for Kapitulation Skanderbegs.
In the same work (p. 306) Schmitt also wrote that Skanderbeg offered to pay for Venetian protectorate (!) ("Skanderbeg bat um eine Venezianische Schutzherrschaft und bot dafür 6000 dukaten,...").
I believe that it is absurd to claim that Skanderbeg was victorious in this war and brought himself in position to beg for Venetian protectorate, even to offer to pay for it.
Anyway, I will really do my best to assume good faith and to believe that you told the truth what you said: "There are historians who say this was a victory." Will you please be so kind to provide sources for your statement?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Antid, I have read the whole section of the book before and I am positive he is talking about Skanderbeg's approach in 1449. Furthermore, Hunyadi didn't lose until after the peace treaty with Venice was signed so he cannot be talking about this. Kristo Frasheri says it's a victory but I'm not here to argue for a victory.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I am not talking about your arguing for victory now. It is obvious that we don't agree about interpretation of Schmitt's work. I believe that it is absurd to claim that Skanderbeg's losses and failures in this war which resulted with Skanderbeg's begging to pay to be under Venetian protectorate as a vassal was anything else but what Schmitt wrote about it. A disguised capitulation (Kapitulation Skanderbegs). You don't believe it. You said "There are historians who say this was a victory.". I already wrote "I think that we should stick to the sources and add that information to the infobox." Maybe Schmitt is not right. Therefore let me repeat:
“I will really do my best to assume good faith and to believe that you told the truth what you said: "There are historians who say this was a victory." Will you please be so kind to provide sources for your statement?” Please don't avoid to answer my question and please provide links to the sources you mentioned together with quotes which support your statement.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Kristo Frashëri: Fitorja e Skënderbeut mbi Venedikasit vërtetohet nga traktati i paqes që u nënshkrua midi tyre më 4 tetor 1448.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


### Only Albanians?
"The Albanian-Venetian War of 1447–1448 was waged between allied Venetian and Ottoman forces against the Albanians under George Kastrioti Skanderbeg."

I think that the first sentence of the article can mislead the reader to believe that only ethnic Albanians were fighting under George Kastrioti Skanderbeg. That is not true because numerous sources show that there are many nationalities fighting for Skanderbeg. The men that fought for Skanderbeg were of different ethnic groups because both Albanians and Slavs lived in the part of Albania under Skanderbeg's control and fought for him. In case of the Siege of Svetigrad which happened during this war it is clearly emphasized by one of the first Skanderbeg's biographers, Marin Barleti. (Barletius, Marinus (1508), Historia de vita et gestis Scanderbegi Epirotarum Principis (in Latin), Bernardinus de Vitalibus, p. 122, OCLC 645065473, Superior Dibra montuosa est et aspera, ferax tarnen et Macedoniam tum ipsa loci vicinitate, tum similitudine morum contingens. Bulgari sive Tribali habitant, ferox in armis gens et non minus Scanderbego multis praeclarae virtutis fidelque meritis grata. Propior tamen externis quam Epiroticis moribus et adhorens multo ab Albano cultu, Graecanico ritu victitabant et plerasque eorum superstitiones sequebatur. (Upper Debar is a land of hills and rough ground, but fertile. There are many proximities with Macedonia both for being close to it and for resemblance of customs of people. It is inhabitet by Bulgarians or Triballi, tribe that has merciless arms, but very dear to Skanderbeg because in many cases it proved its bravery and loyalty to him. Though, customs of this tribe were more like alien customs than Epirot. There are many differences in religion compared to Albanians, due to fact they belong to Greek religion, having many of its superstitions.)).
Taking in consideration the sources which contain information that forces of Serbian Despotate under command of George Branković and Stefan Crnojević helped Skanderbeg and together with him attacked Venetian cities in Venetian Albania, we can conclude that the first sentence of the lede is even more wrong and  misleading.
Therefore I propose to improve the first sentence. Maybe it can be like this:
"The Albanian-Venetian War of 1447–1448 was waged between allied Venetian and Ottoman forces against the allied forces of Skanderbeg and Serbian Despotate."
--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Antid, what you say are not supported by the sources you give.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
What exactly I said is not supported with the sources?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
You are using WP:SYNTH to say that non-Albanians fought under Skanderbeg in this war. Furthermore, Barleti talks about Bulgarians in Pollog, not about Serbs under Brankovic. And Graecanico ritu means Greek rite which means that they were Orthodox, not Greek.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
No. There are two changes I proposed:
to delete Albanians, because Skanderbeg's forces were not composed of Albanians only. Siege of Svetigrad was part of this war. Barleti wrote about siege of Svetigrad and its population and soldiers as Slavs who are "dear to Skanderbeg because in many cases it proved its bravery and loyalty to him". Yes, you are right. Barleti described Skanderbeg's soldiers as Orthodox Slavs, not Greeks.
to include Serbian Despotate as participant in war against Venetian Albania. That is already agreed below.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I agreed to an inclusion if a proper source is given for Brankovic's full alliance with Skanderbeg. This does not mean that I'll just accept whatever you say. As for the first part, Skanderbeg's men are referred to as Albanians. Even if there were minority groups, they are still referred to as such, much like the Ottomans are commonly referred to as Turks despite many of their soldiers being non-Turkish. The vast majority of his men were Albanian. They are referred to as Albanians by primary sources. If a significant portion is not Albanian, it is mentioned.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
1)Serbian Despotate as one of belligerents
Although I consider your request for "a proper source .... for Brankovic's full alliance with Skanderbeg" as dispute of reliability of apparently good sources please find below a source  written by contemporary historian which use term alliance to describe relationship between Serbian Despotate and which support statement that Serbian Despotate and George Branković helped Skanderbeg in war with Venetian Albania.
"The alliance of nobles used up most of its energy in feuds with Venice and the towns of northern Albania, wars that it waged in conjunction with the Serb despot and the leader of Montenegro on behalf of the Kingdom of Naples. This alliance collapsed during the attack of the sultan in 1450." - “Skanderbeg: der neue Alexander auf dem Balkan”- Oliver Jens Schmitt.
Do you have any more requests before I add Serbian Despotate to the list of Belligerents?
2) Albanians as one of belligerents
You know very well that Scmitt wrote: “The military commanders, leaders and simple soldiers, i.e. the whole army fighting against Scanderbeg, consisted of local Albanians, Bulgarians, Serbs and Vlachs”.
Schmitt clearly underlined: Skanderbeg's men were not joined because of their “language or any feeling of belonging to an ethnic group.”
In numerous articles you write about Skanderbeg you are continuously and systematically emphasizing that ethnic Albanians fought for Skanderbeg. But when you are writing about their enemies, you usually do not inform users about their ethnicity. You use terms like Ottomans, Venetians, Angevin forces, Ferdinand's supporters, Ferdinand's forces, Neapolitan forces.... That way readers are mislead to believe that "foreign invaders" (in case of Ottoman Empire or Venetian Empire) attacked ethnic Albanians who were defending themselves in rebellion against the foreign invaders.
Even if ethnic Albanians were vast majority of Skanderbeg's forces in some battles it does not justify your approach, because ethnic Albanians were sometimes vast majority of the forces that fought against Skanderbeg. This war was not a war between ethnic Albanians and two Empires (Venetian and Ottoman). A lot of ethnic Albanians fought against Skanderbeg. Participants in this war were not divided by their ethnicity. It was war between Skanderbeg's realm (or League of Lezha, as it is written in infobox) and Venetian Albania.
Also, your claim written in the first sentence that Albanians were one of belligerents contradicts the text in infobox where League of Lezhe is described as one of belligerents.
Please think about what I wrote and let me know your opinion. If you fail to justify your approach, I will change the text of the article  according to arguments brought here. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Antid., you are arguing a moot point. His forces are referred to generally as Albanians in the sources. I did not make this up. Also, please be aware of WP:SYNTH. You are relying on a source which Kristo Frasheri has stated is unreliable. Please stop ignoring this.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 01:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Oliver Schmitt is of course very reliable and credible source. You used his work hundreds of times in the articles you wrote. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The same source says:
"Skanderbeg raids against Venetian Albania in 1447 failed. More promising was the major attack in alliance with Alfonso V who united Balkan men in the spring of 1448: Georg Branković, Stefan Crnojević and Skanderbeg appeared with a strong army before the Venetian cities." Skanderbegs Vorstösse gegen Venezianisch - Albanien im jahre 1447 scheiterten. Erfolgversprechender war der Grossangriff der im Bündnis mit Alfons V geeinten balkanischen Herren im Fruhjahr 1448:Georg Branković, Stefan Crnojević und Skanderbeg erschienen mit starken heeren vor den venezianischen Stadten.
Why this article does not mention failure of Skanderbeg's raids in 1447?
Why this article hide the information that Branković and Crnojević were united with Skanderbeg?
Considering that Branković was not member of League of Lezhe, and that Zacharia was killed by Dukagjini with Dagnum and Balsha belonging to Venice, is it correct to state that one of the belligerents was League of Lezhe?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

What happened to assuming good faith, one of the goals of the Albanian-Serbian cooperation board? The sources I used just didn't mention it. I'll check up on them then. Just don't assume that we're hiding information.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry. I used wrong expression (hide) which was related to the article not the editors.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
“Just don't assume that we're hiding information.” Who are WE?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
What do you think about the map?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, this article deals with Skanderbeg's war against Venice and not with Brankovic's. Perhaps a mention would be useful and a new article be created about it, but it shouldn't be dealt with in too much detail here. As for Brankovic and Crnojevic uniting with Skanderbeg, I can't find that in any sources and from the documents provided by Kristo Frasheri, there seems to be little to no correspondence. According to Schmitt, this alliance of sorts (I use the term loosely) was supposed to happen in 1447 when Skanderbeg supposedly tried to assault Bar. However, the source which he got this from is considered dubious by Kristo Frasheri and he has said that it should be ignored until a more reliable one is found.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 01:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
“ this alliance of sorts (I use the term loosely) was supposed to happen in 1447 when Skanderbeg supposedly tried to assault Bar.” You contradict yourself. If you found source that Crnojević and Branković allied with Skanderbeg and jointly attacked Venice, why did you say: “As for Brankovic and Crnojevic uniting with Skanderbeg, I can't find that in any sources”?
Schmitt, Oliver Jens (2001), Das venezianische Albanien (1392-1479) (in German), München: R. Oldenbourg Verlag GmbH München, ISBN 3-486-56569--9, Georg Branković, Stefan Crnojević und Skanderbeg erschienen mit starken heeren vor den venezianischen Stadten (Georg Branković, Stefan Crnojević and Skanderbeg appeared with a strong army before the Venetian cities) {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |lastauthoramp=, |month=, |laydate=, |laysummary=, |doi-inactive-date=, and |separator= (help)--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Please read what I said.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century ... By John Van Antwerp Fine support what Schmitt wrote about participation of Branković and Crnojević in attacks on Albanian. I think it is wrong and against WP:NPOV to present information about Ottoman Empire's participation in this war and hide not to present information about participation of Serbian Despotate in this war. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Antid, please assume good faith. The book you give does not mention an alliance, just correspondence.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine Page 557: "Venice quickly sent a force into Danj... Venice also took over Zacharija's other towns of Sati, Gladri and Dušmani,... Skanderbeg demanded that Venice restore these towns to him, and also Drivast. Venice refused. The Albanian league sent envoys to its Serbian neighbours, Crnojević and George Branković. George expressed his willingness to help against Venice.... However, George made it clear that he would assist the Albanians only against Venice and not against the Turks..."
Schmitt Page 302: "Skanderbeg raids against Venetian Albania in 1447 failed. More promising was the major attack in alliance with Alfonso V who united Balkan men in the spring of 1448: Georg Branković, Stefan Crnojević and Skanderbeg appeared with a strong army before the Venetian cities." Skanderbegs Vorstösse gegen Venezianisch - Albanien im jahre 1447 scheiterten. Erfolgversprechender war der Grossangriff der im Bündnis mit Alfons V geeinten balkanischen Herren im Fruhjahr 1448:Georg Branković, Stefan Crnojević und Skanderbeg erschienen mit starken heeren vor den venezianischen Stadten.
Fine Page 559: "In June 1448 Despots army of seven thousand marched into Zeta, reaching the Gulf of Kotor. This force was immediately joined by the Crnojevići, who had presumably participated in the planning of the campaign.... Having picked up support from the most of the Paštrovići, the despot's armies marched against Bar...
I presented sources which support not only the correspondence (like you said), but also organized agreed planned campaigns of united Balkan men against Venice. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Please understand that I am not against including Brankovic's involvement in these wars. As for the first source, read what is said in the article: Branković, a lord of Serbian Despotate, who was also in dispute with Venice over the Principality of Zeta, expressed his willingness to help Skanderbeg against the Republic but not against the Ottoman Empire. The second source is taken from a document whose reliability Frashëri disputes. And the third source is talking about another campaign in 1448 which is entirely different from the one Schmitt claims happened in 1447. Furthermore, I am not against including this last statement and would be willing to put it in if you agree.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I am glad that you are not against including involvement of Serbian Despotate in these wars. Don't worry about Principality of Zeta dispute. Take a look at the presented map instead. There was no dispute over the Prinicipality of Zeta. Principlity of Zeta was part of Serbian Despotate. When author wrote about despots army marching into Zeta to reach Kotor he probably referred to region (not principality) Zeta, which is valey of Zeta river.
I will find more sources about involvement of Serbian Despotate in this war. There are more (like Ćorović). After I find more sources I will prepare the proposal of the text to be added to the text of this article.
The sources I presented above say that: Skanderbeg sent envoys to despot of Serbian Despotate asking him for help against Venice. Branković accepted to help him against Venetian Albania but not against Ottoman Empire. When Skanderbeg's individual raids against Venetian Albania in 1447 failed, forces of Serbian Despotate and Skanderbeg's forces under command of united Balkan men: Georg Branković, Stefan Crnojević and Skanderbeg attacked cities of Venetian Albania in 1448. King Alphonso V supported this alliance which resulted with failure till September 1448.
Please provide a quote of what Frasheri said.
It is actually quite normal that Serbian Despotate allied with Skanderbeg in this war. Branković was in very good relations with Skanderbeg. Skanderbeg's mother was Branković. Skanderbeg's son later married Irena, a granddaughter of Đurađ Branković. Stefan Branković, son of Đurađ Branković found shelter in Skandebeg's territory when Ottoman Empire conquered Smederevo in 1459. He married sister of his wife, Angelina, known as Saint Angelina of Serbia. I think that presenting all this sources briefly can explain readers the context of this alliance.
Besides helping his relative, Serbian despot, of course, wanted to capture Venetian coastal towns that he wanted to control. He was like any other medieval lord. He wanted to gain control over as much land as possible. That was the main reason for alliances in medieval time, and not only in medieval times.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I am not against it as long as proper sources are given. As you said above, Wikipedia:Exceptional_claims#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources. As for your comments about Skanderbeg having good relations with Brankovic, see this: [3] and [4]. Furthermore, Skanderbeg was not just any other medieval lord: he resembled a chieftain who led a tribal army, unlike other Balkan populations who were more feudalistic in nature. This is very-well outlined by Frashëri. As for the document's unreliability: Por akti duket se është i dyshimtë, prandaj njoftimi duhet të merret me rezervë derisa të dalë një akt më bindës.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
The links you presented do not prove that Skanderbeg was not in good relations with Branković. Read what Schmitt wrote: Relations had always been close to the Serb princely dynasty of the Brankovići. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Antid. your sources mention it as another conflict not the Albanian-Venetian war.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
No, that is incorrect. The sources I brought support the fact that Skanderbeg's war against Venice was part of joint front with Serbian despot against Venice. Here is another source which support that fact. (quote: У борби против Млечана Скендербег је координирао своје акције са српским деспотом, са којим је и иначе одржавао пријатељске везе.... My translation: In his fight against Venetians Skanderbeg coordinated his actions with Serbian despot, with whom he kept friendly relationship. - p. 41, "Iz istorije Albanaca", Zavod za izdavanje udžbenika SR Srbije, 1969 --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Here is a quote which additionally supports assertion that joint Serbian-Albanian attacks on Venice unsuccessfully ended in Autumn 1448. (Skanderbeg hatte wohl nicht mit dem Misserfolg des serbisch-albanischen Angriffs auf Venedig gerechnet und stand im Herbst 1448 unter Gewaltigem Zeitdruck.) - Schmitt, Oliver Jens (2001), Das venezianische Albanien (1392–1479), München: R. Oldenbourg Verlag GmbH München, ISBN 3-486-56569-9--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
(unindent)How does that source misinterpretation translate to your OR of a Venetian victory? Per BRD and the existing sources it'd be prudent not to make such edits.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 07:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The source indeed does not say that Venetian were victorious, but it says pretty much the same thing by saying that Serbian-Albanian attack on Venice ended in defeat in Autumn 1448. The "result" parameter "may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive"." Therefore my edit was based both on source and instructions for use of the Template:Infobox military conflict. Signing peace treaty is not result of the conflict, so please don't replace sourced assertion with signing of treaty. In order to avoid this dispute I will make the compromise and strictly follow the source and add "Serbian-Albanian defeat".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Here is another quote from Schmitt's work that Skanderbeg was allied with Brankovic and Crnojevic in this war: "... den Schlachten gegen Skanderbeg und dessen montenegrinische und serbische Verbündete (1447/1448)" [transl: (the battles against Skanderbeg and his Montenegrin and Serbian allies (1447/1448)].
And a quote from work of Stavro Skendi "In the war which broke out against Venice, Skenderbeg seems to have been aided by the Serbian Despot Djuradj Smederevac" --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Konrad Clewing; Oliver Jens Schmitt; Edgar Hèosch (2005). Sèudosteuropa: von vormoderner Vielfalt und nationalstaatlicher Vereinheitlichung : Festschrift fèur Edgar Hèosch. Oldenbourg Verlag. p. 142. ISBN 978-3-486-57888-1. Retrieved 22 April 2013. Skanderbeg wirkte an diesem Bündnis im Verein mit dem serbischen Despoten Georg Brankovic und dem Herrn der Schwarzen Berge (Crna gora/Montenegro), Stefanica Crnojevic [Skanderbeg was involved in the alliance, together with the Serbian Despot George Brankovic and the Lord of the Black Mountains (Crna Gora / Montenegro), Stefanika Crnojevic]--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Anto Babić; Bogo Grafenauer (1953). Historija naroda Jugoslavije. Skolska knjiga. p. 503. Retrieved 25 April 2013. Skenderbeg... U početku je, pomažući despotu, ratovao i protiv Mletaka, ali su Mlečani 1448, u vrijeme ozbiljnih sukoba s despotom, uspjeli da s njime sklope mir. [Skanderbeg.... initially, to support Despot, waged the war against Venetians too, but they managed to sign a peace with him in 1448, during serious conflicts with despot.]--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
(unindent)Please don't restart debates that have ended. Don't expect to pass your edits just because Gaius isn't active.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 16:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that inactivity of wikipedia editors is irrelevant and does not mean that articles they contributed should not be improved.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Schmitt is the major expert in the topic in question and he emphasizes that Brankovic and Crnojevic were Skanderbeg's allies. This should be presented to the readers of this article. Source:
Oliver Jens Schmitt (2001). Das venezianische Albanien: (1392-1479). Oldenbourg Verlag. p. 511. ISBN 978-3-486-56569-0. Retrieved 22 June 2013. ...den Schlachten gegen Skanderbeg und dessen montenegrinische und serbische Verbündete (1447/1448)...--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Below presented work provide explanation about the context of Skanderbegs behaviour and explains maybe the most important reason why Skanderbeg started war with Venetian Albania in 1447 and 1448

Donald Nicol (1993), The Last Centuries of Byzantium, 1261–1453, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0521439916, Skanderbeg of Albania, who was ready to join Hunyadi of Hungary on his crusade, was seduced by Alfonso into making war on Venice.
I propose to all interested users to read the part on the page 365 which begin with "But a new factor..." Skanderbeg was obviously under significant influence of Alfonso even before he officially became his vassal.
Schmitt also wrote "The alliance of nobles used up most of its energy in feuds with Venice and the towns of northern Albania, wars that it waged in conjunction with the Serb despot and the leader of Montenegro on behalf of the Kingdom of Naples." when he talk about Albanian–Venetian War (1447–1448)
I believe this brings a whole new perspective to this article which does not inform readers about role of Naples in Skanderbegs hostilities with Venice, which significantly contributed his downfall. Especially because the sources about Alphonso's influence on Skanderbeg's attacks on Venice are supported with Schmitt's words:

Seen from another perspective, one could say that Scanderbeg was drawn into a power struggle between Venice and Naples over rule in the Adriatic. For centuries, the Albanian coast had been the theatre of such struggles for hegemony. Castriota was unable to extract himself from the demands of regional geopolitics. He had originally turned to Naples for support and in 1451 had sworn an oath of allegiance. This provided him with protection and support from King Alfonso V, but it made his forces party to the war against the Republic of San Marco. Like his feudal liege, he fought on two fronts, against the Ottomans and against the Signoria. His realm was no more than a link in a broadly spanned chain of Neapolitan vassals in the Balkans against which Venice had spun a net of regional princes in its pay. As such, the Balkans were the theatre of inner-Italian warfare to which Scanderbeg would eventually fall victim and perish. Castriota’s star declined definitively in 1467 when the Venetians expelled the Neapolitans from central Albania. His hostility towards Venice, influenced at least by Naples, was the reason for his downfall. 
I propose to inform readers of this article:

that Skanderbeg's hostility towards Venice was at least influenced by Naples.
That this hostility was at least one of the significant reasons for his downfall.
--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This article isn't about his downfall. Please read WP:NPOV. If you think Skanderbeg was a failure, feel free to write an essay about it. Encyclopedia aren't the place for that.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 01:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
The topic of this article is about Skanderbeg's hostility towards Venice. Because this hostility significantly contributed to his downfall, we should inform the readers about it.
“If you think Skanderbeg was a failure,”
It is not my opinion. I presented source written by contemporary historian who say so.
“feel free to write an essay about it”
I have no comment on this.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Since this article does not contain information about Naples' influence to Skanderbeg's hostility towards Venice and effect this hostilities had on Skanderbeg's downfall, I think it fails to meet Wikipedia:Good article criteria because it does not present all "viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
(unindent)This article isn't about a downfall, so please stick to the sources. Btw Skanderbeg died in 1468 i.e. 20 years later.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I am glad that you support my opinion that we should follow wikipedia policies and stick to the sources which contain two important viewpoints which are not presented in this article:
Skanderbeg was seduced by Alfonso into making war on Venice (this article is exactly on Albanian–Venetian War (1447–1448)) and
Skanderbeg's hostility towards Venice, influenced by Naples, was one of the significant reasons for Skanderbeg's downfall. Downfall does not mean death.
Even if you are right about the second viewpoint and even if source consider Skanderbeg's death as his downfall (although there are no such indications in the source) there is still important viewpoint about Alfonso of Naples seducing Skanderbeg into hostility towards Venice and making Albanian–Venetian War (1447–1448).
Do you think I should fix the problems myself (like suggested at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment) or start reassessment of the article?  --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
You don't have to make threats to get what you want. The Treaty of Gaeta was not signed until 1451, three years after this war ended. Schmitt is not talking about the war with Venice in 1447-1448. I added Nicol anyway.[5] The part about his downfall is irrelevant here.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The text of the article says:

The conference was held in Alessio and peace was signed between the various representatives or princes of both parties on 4 October 1448
Here is a source (written by Jorga on the basis of text written by Stefano Magno) which claims that in October peace was signed only by Skanderbeg and Aranit in their own behalf, and behalf of other "segneurs of Albania" with Dukagjin signing a separate treaty in December. (En cette année Aranite était aux côtés de Skanderbeg, en lutte contre Venise. En octobre, Skanderbeg et Nicolas Dukagjin ot conclu un traite de paix avec Venise en leur propre nom et en celui des autres "segneurs d'Albanie" autrement dit des autres membres de la Ligue qui avaient pris part a la guerre contre La Republique. ... 9. fl) Suivant le chroniqueur vénitien Stefano Magno, il semble que les Dukagjin ont signé une paix séparée avec la Republique en Decembre (Jorga pp 227-228))
If nobody objects I will include above mentioned information to the text of the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If you decided to add it, could you at least make the citation similar to the rest of the citations in the article so it won't be cluttered like it is here and here?--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
It is not a matter of my decision. I don't intend to make decision myself, without gaining a consensus. If you, as main contributor to this article, have anything against my proposal, please feel free to say so. Why would we ignore sources and write that Skanderbeg alone signed this treaty? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


### Who killed Lekë Zaharia?
### Why and how?
Numerous sources claim that Leke Zaharia was murdered by his vassal Nikola Dukagjin (not Leke) in open fight (not from ambush), motivated with his desire to gain control over Dagnum (which was Zaharia's fief). Here is one of the most recent:

Hösch, Edgar (2005), Südosteuropa : von vormoderner Vielfalt und nationalstaatlicher Vereinheitlichung : Festschrift für Edgar Hösch (in German), München: R. Oldenbourg, p. 140, ISBN 9783486578881, OCLC 62309552, retrieved 23 January 2012, Nikolla Dukagjin hatte auch als Vasall Lekas seine Hoffnung auf Dagno nicht aufgegeben. Im offenen Konflikt tötete er seinen Lehensherrn. {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Any comments?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

After I wrote the above comment the main contributor to this article (User:Gaius Claudius Nero) added information about the real motif of this murder: he organized the killing to more easily gain Dagnum. Still, the information about Leke Zaharia being killed from ambush remained inspite the presented sources. Any particular reason to stick with ambush version?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


### When?
### What happened with Zaharia's "princedom of Dagnum" after "prince" Zaharia has been murdered?
Here is what article says:

 Lekë Zaharia Altisferi, prince of Dagnum...The death of Zaharia left his princedom with no successor. As a result his mother handed the fortress over to Venetian Albania, a stretch of possessions of the Republic of Venice.
This assertion is supported by three sources, two from Franco/Hodgkinson/Francioni cocktail and one written by John Van Antwerp Fine. Since I don't have access to the first two sources I checked the third source, written by Fine.
Here is what source really says:

What Fine really says is that Zaharia's mother and population of the towns controlled by Lekë Zaharia were hostile toward the Skanderbeg's League of Lezha and preferred Venice to any local supporter of the League. That was the reason why they supported Venetian take over of their towns (Dagnum, Sati, Gladri and Dušmani) after Nicholas Dukagjini killed Zakaria.
Source:
Van Antwerp Fine, John (1987), The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century, University of Michigan Press, p. 557, ISBN 9780472100798, ...,Venice quickly sent a force into Danj and received support of Lek's mother and local populace, who preferred Venice to any of local Albanians who all supported Skanderbeg's league... The town's hostility toward Albanian league... Venice also took Zakarija's other towns of Sati, Gladri and Dušmani,... Dukagjini chiefs. A few members of this family, particulary some residing in Skadar, remained loyal to Venice. {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help)
Conclusion:

The existing version of this article (Zaharia's mother handed over fortresses to the Venice because prince Zaharia left his princedom without a successor) is unsupported and directly opposed by above mentioned cited source and absurd. Same goes for "prince of Dagnum" and his "princedom".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is what article says:

Skanderbeg urged the Venetian legates that Dagnum should be restored to the League since it guarded an important trade route, but Venice refused and, consequently, Skanderbeg prepared for war against the Republic itself.
This assertion is supported by all three sources from Franco/Hodgkinson/Francioni (FHF) cocktail.
Here is what other sources say what Skanderbeg really demanded:

Skanderbeg demanded all former Zaharia's towns (Dagnum, Sati, Gladri and Dušmani) to be restored to his League. He also demanded Drivast which was not part of Zaharia's fief. He explained the reason for his demand for Drivast with the fact that Drivast belonged to Serbian despote before Venice captured it.
Source:

Van Antwerp Fine, John (1987), The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century, University of Michigan Press, p. 557, ISBN 9780472100798, ... Venice also took Zakarija's other towns of Sati, Gladri and Dušmani,... Skanderbeg demanded that Venice restore to him these towns and also Drivast. {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help)
Glas, Volume 338. Serbian Academy for Science and Arts. 1983. p. 72. Retrieved 26 January 2012. Скендербег је захтевао да се њему преда, уз Дањ, и Дриваст зато што је тај град раније припадао деспоту
Conclusion:

I think that the existing version of this article (with Dagnum being presented as the only Skanderbeg's demand from Venice), does not address one of the main aspects of the topic (full list of towns Skanderbeg demanded from Venice). Justifying Skaderbeg's demand with explanation that Dagnum "guarded an important trade route" is absurd. Skanderbeg demanded all Venetian towns previously controlled by Leke Zaharia (Dagnum, Sati, Gladri and Dušmani), regardless of their position toward important trade routes. Besides, he also demanded very important town Drivast because it was controlled by Serbian Despot before Venetians captured it. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The text of the article presents information that Skanderbeg garrisoned the fort of Baleč between 23 July 1448 and 14. August. The above source imply that Baleč was captured by Venice in 1447.
Source: Schmitt, Oliver Jens (2001), Das venezianische Albanien (1392-1479), München: R. Oldenbourg Verlag GmbH München, ISBN 3-486-56569--9, In einer getreidearmen Gegend war dies ein Anschlag auf die Lebensgrundlagen der Gemeinde. Venedig ging in dieser Frage äusserst behutsam vor, denn Koja und Andreas Humoj hatten der Signoria bedeutende Dienste geleistet. Zusammen mit Simeon Vulkata waren sie an der Spitze der venezianischen Verbände gegen Skanderbeg ins Feld gezogen (1447). In ihren Machtgebieten um Balezo und Drivasto wurde besonders heftig gekämpft. {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help)
Are there any reliable sources which support the chronology which is presented in the article?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The article says:

Venetian forces were composed largely of local Albanian mercenaries
There are sources saying that Venetian forces were led not by Albanian mercenaries, but by members of local families who were Venetian pronoiers, like Andrija and Kojčin Humoj,  Simeon Vulkata, Vasilije Ugrin, Zapa family (Jovan and his brother), Pedantari family (seven Pedantari brothers and many other), Moneta family (three sons of Rajko Moneta), Malonši family (Petar with his two sons), Buša Sornja from Dagnum and many other. Pronoiars (those who had been granted a pronoia) were something like tax collectors and they were allowed to keep some of the revenue they collected but they were obliged to give a military service when requested.
Sources:

Schmitt, Oliver Jens (2001), Das venezianische Albanien (1392-1479), München: R. Oldenbourg Verlag GmbH München, ISBN 3-486-56569--9, In einer getreidearmen Gegend war dies ein Anschlag auf die Lebensgrundlagen der Gemeinde. Venedig ging in dieser Frage äusserst behutsam vor, denn Koja und Andreas Humoj hatten der Signoria bedeutende Dienste geleistet. Zusammen mit Simeon Vulkata waren sie an der Spitze der venezianischen Verbände gegen Skanderbeg ins Feld gezogen (1447). In ihren Machtgebieten um Balezo und Drivasto wurde besonders heftig gekämpft. {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help)
Univerzitet u Beogradu. Filozofski fakultet (1964). Zbornik Filozofskog fakulteta, Volume 8 (in Serbian). Belgrade: Naučno delo. p. 419. Retrieved 28 January 2012. Многи домаћи људи учествовали су у борбама на Млетачкој страни. Која Хумој... Василије Угрин,...Јован Запа и његов брат...седморице браће Педантари...више њихових рођака...три сина Рајка Монете...Петар Малонши са два сина...и Буша Сорња из Дања...Другима и нема трага...
I think that article is not broad enough in its coverage of the composition of Venetian forces which should be expanded. Not only with information about participation of local noble families and population but also with explanation about the Dalmatian forces. Comments are welcome.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't get why you are flooding this page with messages (and planning a GAR for the article) instead of just fixing the problems yourself. The only thing which I ask for is to use the same citation methods used in the article. (And of course, if I disagree with some edits, I will say so.) Or are you just trying to exhaust me in another WP:Battle? Anyway, the reason I don't engage here is because I learned my lesson above and I refuse to get caught in a discussion with someone who refuses to listen to me unless they get their way.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I am not worried about the "flood" of messages pointing to the problems in the article. What worries me is flooding the articles on wikipedia with problems (mostly because of extensive use of nonacademic sources) which remain unresolved while their main contributor refuses to discuss them.
Some of the problems which I found non-controversial and easy to fix I already fixed. Maybe it is possible to fix a couple more (I will check that).
Unfortunately, most of the problems are very serious and not easy to be fixed. That is exactly why I am considering to propose this article for GAR, since it obviously does not satisfy GA criteria. I don't have any experience with GAR, but I hope that GAR might help resolving many serious problems this article has and improve the quality of the article. Don't you agree with me? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
What is so controversial about such topics you started as Murder of Lekë Zaharia, Has [sic] Skanderbeg demanded only Dagnum?, The year of Venetian capture of Baleč and Local Albanian mercenaries that warrants a GAR? Since you wish to place the burden on me, I will try to fix them. I can't fix everything right now though because I have no access to my books right now and I want to see what they say.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

@ Antid. Seriously it is better if you stop editing here for a while, read some more books on the event and come back. Apparently you have not the slightest idea or you have your personal interpretation which is contradicted by scholars.  Aigest (talk) 08:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Please respect WP:NPA and Comment on content, not on the contributor. You removed sourced assertion. Please revert yourself.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
See aftermath section. What you are doing is deforming sources by extrapolating isolate sentences and interpreting them your way. This is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Aigest (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
The aftermath section can not justify your violation of WP:NPA.
The aftermath section relies solely on 1947 work of Fan Noli. Comparing to Setton, Babinger and especially Schmitt he is outdated. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Venice was defeated in the battlefield and was forced to pay an annual tribute for Dagnum (it also recognized Scanderbeg the sovereignty over the villages he had captured during the conflict, gave up from taxing Scanderbeg goods at the customs, gave him citizenship, offered him refugee should the Ottomans force Scandebeg out of Albania etc) and what's important Venice never tried to wage war on Scanderbeg afterwards. Calling it a defeat would be insane. Aigest (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect. Venice granted Skanderbeg their citizenship and safe conduct in 1445, not in 1448. Therefore Skanderbeg did not win those privileges in this war because he already had them. Skanderbeg allowed Alfonso V to seduce him into making this war. By entering this war Skanderbeg had to fight against two most powerful empires at that time ( Venetian Empire, supported by many local Albanian nobility, Ottoman Empire) and even agaist the Rebels in Italy(!?).
Skanderbeg lost: Many of his men and strategically very important Svetigrad. Maybe the most important thing he lost was the ability to support Hunyadi on Kosovo.
Skanderbeg won: Nothing. A worthless village and a promise of annual tribute which was never paid to him. That was only a farce meant to disguise Skanderbeg's capitulation. A battle or two lost on open field does not mean that Venice or Ottomans lost the war. Skanderbeg, on the contrary, made mistake of his life.
Taking above mentioned into consideration it is not a surprise that presented source say that Skanderbeg and his alies were defeated. A source written in 21st century by scholar who is specialized in this subject. If nobody presents valid arguments against this position within reasonable period of time, i will return the sourced version in to the text of the article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
The only thing which could be warranted by Schmitt's quote which you cherrypicked is that Skanderbeg's campaign was a strategic failure, ie. not a defeat. (Your GoogleTrans should have obviously told you that.) There is a big difference between a defeat and a failure.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. I will then use the word failure instead of defeat.
Will you please be so kind to write here the word from Schmitt's quote (Skanderbeg hatte wohl nicht mit dem Misserfolg des serbisch-albanischen Angriffs auf Venedig gerechnet und stand im Herbst 1448 unter Gewaltigem Zeitdruck) which means "strategic"?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Antid. please stick to the sources, don't attribute your POV to other users in order to justify your edits and finally BRD. Your changes aren't supported by the sources so please don't misrepresent isolated out-of-context sentences.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
The source supports the assertion I added to the article. It is confirmed by another user. Please revert yourself.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Please don't attribute your edits to others. However, since you're so sure that Gaius does support your revert allow me to ask for a confirmation from him. If Gaius (the main contributor who took this article to GA) agrees with your edit then I'll revert myself.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
That is easy. Here is a diff to the following comment of Gaius Claudius Nero which says that quote from Schmitt's work warrants that this war ended with  "a strategic failure, ie. not a defeat. (Your GoogleTrans should have obviously told you that.) There is a big difference between a defeat and a failure." So I changed defeat to failure.
The "result" parameter "may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive"." Therefore my edit was based both on source and instructions for use of the Template:Infobox military conflict. Signing peace treaty is not result of the conflict.
Please revert yourself. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
(unindent) I really don't see why the current result explanation is insufficient (as it already explains everything) and the only way I can understand why you want to change is to push your POV. All that aside, a "strategic failure" is a well known military term and you chose one sentence out of a whole chapter to describe the campaign's result.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The current result does not follow instructions on the Template:Infobox_military_conflict which says: The "result" parameter "may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive"." The same page explains that those standard terms should be used instead "instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat""
Will you please be so kind not to ignore my question. You wrote that quote from Schmitt's work warrants that this war ended with "a strategic failure, ie. not a defeat. Please be so kind to write here the word from Schmitt's quote (Skanderbeg hatte wohl nicht mit dem Misserfolg des serbisch-albanischen Angriffs auf Venedig gerechnet und stand im Herbst 1448 unter Gewaltigem Zeitdruck) which means "strategic"?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I didn't know that I had to explain common sense. Either way, your question is nothing more than a red herring. As for the parameters, they do not force you to use anything. Furthermore, as this is obviously a source of contention, there is no clear description of whether it was a "victory" or "defeat". You have carelessly misinterpreted the word "failure" as "defeat" when Skanderbeg obviously won the battle and forced Venice to the negotiating table. What happens afterwards is irrelevant. The current explanation of the result contains indisputable facts, not contentious POV (which I have in the past not included when you asked me to remove "Albanian victory" even though I had a reputable source to back it up and I expect the same from you). .--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
No. You don't have to explain a common sense. I politely asked you (twice) only to explain your own claim that quote from Schmitt's work warrants that this war ended with "a strategic failure, ie. not a defeat by pointing to the word from Schmitt's quote (Skanderbeg hatte wohl nicht mit dem Misserfolg des serbisch-albanischen Angriffs auf Venedig gerechnet und stand im Herbst 1448 unter Gewaltigem Zeitdruck) which means "strategic"?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Antid seriously what you are claiming seems totally WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and moreover not supported by the sources:
1.Antid claim "..Venice granted Skanderbeg their citizenship and safe conduct in 1445, not in 1448...."

Fact "Venice granted Scanderbeg citizenship in 1438" Men of Empire: Power and Negotiation in Venice's Maritime State, Volume 1271, Author Monique O'Connell Edition illustrated Publisher JHU Press, 2009 ISBN 0801891450, 9780801891458 link This privilege was confirmed to him many times after every quarrel link.
2. Antid claim: Skanderbeg lost: Many of his men and strategically very important Svetigrad. Maybe the most important thing he lost was the ability to support Hunyadi on Kosovo.  

Fact: Svetigrad was lost to the Ottomans. Hunuyadi was defeated by the Ottomans. The article is about Venetian-Albanian war 1448 not Albanian - Ottoman wars 1390-1490. Does this ring a bell to you?
3. Antid claim:Skanderbeg won: Nothing. A worthless village and a promise of annual tribute which was never paid to him. That was only a farce meant to disguise Skanderbeg's capitulation. A battle or two lost on open field does not mean that Venice or Ottomans lost the war. Skanderbeg, on the contrary, made mistake of his life.

Fact: Venice captured (actually it was donated by Lek Zaharia mother) the city in 1444. Scanderbeg opened war in 1447 (with a mere pretext IMO). In the end Venice decided to pay 1400 ducats annually so to keep the city. So the Venetians had to pay an annual rent for the city, although the city originally was donated to them. Scanderbeg had not possessed the city before and now the Venetians were paying an annual tax to him for that. They also offered free custom duties to Scanderbeg. It is clear that Scanderbeg was richer in the end. You Antid also say "promise of annual tribute which was never paid to him". Actually this was a peace treaty not promises in the air. What happened next is another story. Venice also learned a hard lesson messing with Scanderbeg as Noli notes. "But this treaty did not established a real peace between Venice and Scanderbeg. A kind of undeclared war went on, and on four occasions in 1450, 1452, 1457 and 1462, threatened to become official, but it was always Venice that yielded. In the end Venice never attacked any League of Lezhe members and never threatened League of Lezhe territories later on. Aigest (talk) 08:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I would like to add another thing:
4.Antid claim:Skanderbeg won: Nothing. A worthless village and a promise of annual tribute which was never paid to him. 

Fact: The provisions to Scanderbeg were paid "..In dispatching one of its representatives to Scanderbeg in April 26, 1456, the Seignory instructed him to give Scanderbeg his usual provisions which he had received since 1448, on conditions that Scanderbeg continued to allow the trade .." link
Result, either you are not familiar with the topic (that's why you WP:OR) and in this case you should do some reading before editing here, or you are making false claims in order to prove your point and that's not acceptable either. I strongly advise you to read further on the topic before editing here. Aigest (talk) 09:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Citizenship and refugee issue:
Aigest claimed:"Venice was defeated ... gave him citizenship, offered him refugee"
I wrote: "Skanderbeg did not win those privileges in this war because he already had them". Initially in 1438 and confirmed 1445. Your comment only confirms what I wrote.
What Skanderbeg lost issue:
Your comment confirms that during this war Skanderbeg indeed lost many of his men, Svetigrad and ability to support Hunyadi. Yes, he lost it to the Ottomans who were invited by Venetians to take care about "their Skanderbeg". Therefore Venetians were responsible for his losses.
What Skanderbeg gained issue:
Your comment again confirmed what I wrote. Skanderbeg gained a worthless village and a promise of annual tribute.  Thank you for your comment in which you added another important fact that I missed to add. Skanderbeg even did not win a peace. He remained in "a kind of undeclared war" which "went on, and on four occasions in 1450, 1452, 1457 and 1462, threatened to become official".
Annual tribute:
I will find a source which claims that Venice never paid tribute to him. Even if they really did pay him 1,400 dukats of annual pension (which I will check if it was really paid) it is still much less than 6,000 dukats he had to pay to the sultan after this war. His situation after this war was so desperate that ended with his disguised capitulation when "he even offered offering to pay the Republic the annual census of 6,000 ducats which he had to pay the Porte" in spring 1449. Venice, of course, exploited miserable situation in which Skanderbeg put himself and his people, denied to take them under its protection and used them as a shield against Ottomans earning a lot of money by selling supplies to both parties.
I still believe that it is absurd to claim that Skanderbeg's losses and failures in this war which resulted with him begging to pay to be Venetian vassal was anything else but what Schmitt wrote about it. A failure.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
You're extrapolating an isolated sentence, your OR-based edit wasn't accepted and there's nothing new under the sun regarding the sources, therefore that part of the discussion is over so please go about your business. --— ZjarriRrethues — talk 12:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)