Talk:Lordship of Argos and Nauplia/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Looking forward to reviewing this article. Llywrch (talk · contribs) 06:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I've looked this article over. It is well written, & I know the sources meet the criteria for GA, so I'm not worried about that. (Although if I find the time, I plan to read them anyway.) But there are two holes in coverage I am concerned with.

• Comparing the narrative of this article with the Wikipedia articles on the members of the de la Roche & Brienne families, I notice there is a gap in coverage. Guy I de la Roche receives title to both the Lordship of Argos & Nauplia, & the Dukedom of Athens; then nothing more is heard of the Lordship -- although the Dukedom of Athens is handed from one person to another -- until Walter I Brienne. More importantly, his heirs assume the Lordship when they lose the more important Dukedom. I'm wondering what happened to the Lordship during that period. Was it absorbed into the larger entity during that period? Or was it akin to an apanage, something that came into existence when the head of the house needed something to satisfy a relative? Or the Dukedom was lost?
  • Well, the article focuses on the lordship, and there is not much to report on it. In so far as something happened in the lordship or its lords were involved in an affair as lords of Argos and Nauplia rather than as Dukes of Athens, this is noted. Otherwise it would be pointless to discuss what the de la Roche dukes did, e.g. in Thessaly. On the second part, I am not sure I follow. As the article says, "the Catalans took over the Duchy of Athens" in 1311, but the Briennes continued to claim it and were still recognized in the lordship; in 1331, Sohier of Enghien "received the County of Brienne and the rights to Athens" but the lordship passed to Guy, so the lordship was decoupled from the (titular) Duchy of Athens and became an separate principality until its being sold to Venice. Constantine ✍ 09:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• Is there any information available about the resources of the Lordship -- for example, how many troops he had to call on? Specifically, I wonder if this was a viable political entity, or was it a tenuous entity -- like the Crusader states further east -- that threatened to fall apart at any moment? I'm well aware from my work on the Empire of Trebizond there is a limit to what either the primary or secondary sources can provide, but I believe the information is there to provide some indication of how the Lordship waxed & waned under the different dynasties.
  • Argos and Nauplia were very much a backwater; furthermore, as an exclave in the much larger and powerful Principality of Achaea, they did not really wax and wane at all, at least not territorially, and was always dependent on its larger neighbours, and later Venice, for security. What sources there are I tried to include here, to the best of my knowledge there is no information on troop strength or the economy, aside from the taxation on figs and raisins. Constantine ✍ 09:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Do these sound like fair criticisms? -- llywrch (talk) 06:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi llywrch! I've tried to answer as best I can. The problem, as usual, is a lack of sources to add details to the lordship's internal history. Constantine ✍ 09:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Just a note to let you know I've been working on this as Real Life (tm) allows. I'm hoping to have a response shortly, but trust me that I think this is close to being a GA. -- llywrch (talk) 07:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Between work & family I've been scrambling for time to work on this review. But I've been trying to figure out a way to easily address the issues I raised. I'm finding that while the material is there, it needs a bit of tuning so the themes are clear. So I'm mentioning three new (sorta) points:

• I pointed out there was a gap in coverage: "Guy I de la Roche receives title to both the Lordship of Argos & Nauplia, & the Dukedom of Athens; then nothing more is heard of the Lordship -- although the Dukedom of Athens is handed from one person to another -- until Walter I Brienne." This could be fixed by revising the passage in the second paragraph of the section "Under the de la Roche Dukes of Athens"; perhaps by stating that being Lords of Argos & Nauplia the Dukes of Athens made themselves vassals. While this was not a problem for Otto de la Roche & Geoffrey I of Villehardouin, who were close friends, it caused friction for their heirs. This relationship changed under Guy's successors, who served as the bailles -- or representatives -- of the Princes of Achaea. (Jean Lognon's essay "The Frankish States in Greece 1204-1311" provides the details that support this narrative. There is a link to an online copy in Guy I de la Roche.)

• Well, "being Lords of Argos & Nauplia the Dukes of Athens made themselves vassals. While this was not a problem for Otto de la Roche & Geoffrey I of Villehardouin, who were close friends, it caused friction for their heirs." is not exactly correct; for about 30 years, Argos and Nauplia were not united with Athens, and when they became, the resulting is dealt with, I think, with the reference to the war over Euboea. For the period after that, there was no friction, since the Villehardouins had effectively established themselves as the pre-eminent rulers of Frankish Greece. I've rewritten the section to give some more details and context, but since a dedicated article exists, I won't add any more details here. On the baillage, that is not quite correct; the Dukes of Athens who served as baillis did so after Achaea passed under Angevin dominion, and were appointed to the post as the senior-most vassal of the principality, and furthermore one who was resident in the vicinity and knew local affairs, particularly when compared to the rather disastrous tenures of French or Italian baillis. It has nothing to do with the Villehardouin-de la Roche split as it played out in 1256–58, and no direct relation with Argos and Nauplia; the Dukes of Athens were important barons because they ruled Athens and Thebes, not because of Argos. Constantine ✍ 13:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• Not so crucial, but I thought I should suggest that you make the role of the Foucherolles family a little more prominent. According to the first page of McLeod's article in Hesperia, Gautier de Foucherolles was responsible for holding the fief together after the disaster of the Battle of Halmyros; their story is part of the story of the Lordship -- although it may be too hard to gather more information than what you have. (If you push this article to FA status, this is something you should consider.)

• Hmmm, I considered that statement somewhat hyperbolic, to be honest; the Catalans did not make any serious attempt to expand to the Morea, and Miller, whom McLeod cites, merely praises their loyalty. On the other hand, the Foucherolles certainly were loyal servants, and their loyalty was probably crucial, so I've added that. Constantine ✍ 13:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• Third point, a rephrasing of my original second point about the resources of the Lordship. Both of these concerns emerged from the sense this article was too much just an account of the descent of the title of the Lordship -- & that really shouldn't be found in a Good Article. Re-reading the article carefully, I noticed that there is a choppy sense to the narrative. You mention one event happening, then another, without any clear transition between the two events. Let me provide some specific examples:
  • When Walter II of Brienne failed in his attempt to recover Athens, the narrative immediately jumps to "further ventures & adventures in Italy & France." (Which is, I must say, a nice turn of phrase.) Are there no details about how he ended his campaign, such as marching his troops back to Epirus? Or did he simply disband the troops in Boeotia with his best wishes that they arrived home safely? Adding a sentence about that would make the transition to his activities in Italy & France more smooth.
    • The sources I have at my disposal don't mention too many details on the expedition itself. I have rewritten the entire section, however, and provided more context and information on Walter's activities. Initially I considered them not directly relevant because they did not impact the lordship in any meaningful way, and were properly more a subject dealt with in Walter's article. However it is probably better to include them here for completeness' sake. Constantine ✍ 12:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • At the beginning of the section "Under the Enghien family" you have an unclear referent in "He was succeeded in his titles and claims by his sister Isabella of Brienne and her husband Walter of Enghien, but were immediately devolved on their numerous children." -- What immediately devolved? I'm assuming the titles & claims; adding at least the word "these" to the last part of this sentence helps.
    • Fixed and expanded. Constantine ✍ 14:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • A little further in the same paragraph, you mention Guy having "an increasingly troubled relation with the local populace, who in 1360 rebelled against increased taxation on figs and raisins and blockaded Guy's men in their castles." Then what happened? Were Guy's men ever allowed to leave their castles? I'm assuming they were, but explaining how long the blockade lasted helps to avoid the choppiness.
    • This is not further elaborated in the sources, but I have clarified that this was (obviously) not permanent. Constantine ✍ 14:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Konylis has some suggestions in this regard that i have included. Constantine ✍ 08:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Next sentence you state that Guy became a citizen of Venice. This is a point to which you should devote a paragraph: Venice has a growing role in the region, & is important to the story of the Lordship. Obviously the earlier major powers of the region -- France, Naples, the Pope -- have either faded in importance, or refused to aid the Enghien in their quest to recover Athens. At the same time Venice has maintained its level of influence. (Thinking about it, I'm surprised Genoa, which was a rival to the Queen of the Adriatic in Greece, Anatolia & the Black Sea, played no role in this Lordship. But I'm simply sharing a thought, not saying you need to include anything about its absence.) And as history progresses, Venice acquires a growing presence for Argos & Nauplia. (Luttrell's article in the Proceedings of the British School at Rome should provide you with what you need, but any standard history of Venice would have the necessary material.)
    • I have added some of this further on, since Venetian control really begins with Pietro Cornaro. Going into an extensive discussion on why he chose Venice is beyond the scope of the article; I think the mention of the critical role played by Venice (or rather, her refusal to play a role) in the previous attempts to recover Athens suffices for the uninformed reader to appreciate the Republic's power and influence in the region. Constantine ✍ 08:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Same paragraph: "Two years later, he sided with Philip II of Taranto in the civil war over possession of the Principality of Achaea against the Princess-dowager Maria of Bourbon and her supporters." -- What is the point of this sentence? Did you mean to discuss Guy's role in this struggle & how it effected the Lordship? If you want to do this, be careful since it could distract from the subject of this article. Personally, I would remove the sentence since it's distracting, & feels as if you're tossing into this article everything you could scrape up about the Lordship.
    • I have expanded this section rather than removing it. Unlike his father, Guy actually resided in his lordship, and led these campaigns as "Lord of Argos and Nauplia" first and foremost, not under any other title like "Duke of Athens". So this represents the direct involvement of the lordship and its ruler in the affairs of Achaea. Constantine ✍ 08:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Next sentence begins "In 1371, the Enghien brothers launched another attempt to recover the Duchy of Athens..." So far you've only mentioned Guy; Louis only appears in this military action to fall sick. I'd either explain how Louis came to have a role in the operations of the Lordship, or rewrite this quotation as "In 1371, Guy and his brother Louis launched another attempt to recover the Duchy of Athens". But in doing even that, I would feel compelled to explain how & why Louis was in the Lordship to begin with -- even to say he had simply joined his brother in search of something to do. Or words implying that,
    • The relevant section has been expanded and the ambiguity resolved, I hope. Constantine ✍ 08:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Next paragraph: "Although the Venetians were quickly able to oust Nerio from Nauplia, Argos remained in Theodore's hands for six years, until 11 June 1394." I'd drop the three words "for six years" because they are superfluous. Or perhaps point out this recovery came only after Maria of Enghien's death. Just in time for Engelbert to appear & demand the lands be handed over to him.
    • "Six years" removed. As the recovery is unrelated to Engelbert's claim, I left them separate. Constantine ✍ 08:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully these points are more actionable. Because I do want to be able to acknowledge this article as GA, yet I want to be able to do that in good faith. -- llywrch (talk) 07:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi llywrch, don't worry about the delay, I know how it is. Thanks for a detailed review, I much prefer it when an article is not simply waved through ;). I'll have look over the next days (I am myself rather busy both in RL and elsewhere in WP). Cheers, Constantine ✍ 13:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi llywrch, it's my turn to apologize for the delay, I had almost forgotten about this. I've begun to address the concerns you raised above. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 13:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem. Ping me when you want me to have a look. -- llywrch (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi llywrch! I've greatly rewritten some sections, and I think most concerns are addressed. Please have a look whenever you have time. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 08:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Great. I'll have a look & respond as soon as possible. -- llywrch (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Finally had a chance to evaluate your changes. I feel they address the point of my concerns, of making this more of a history of the polity than an account of the descent of a manor. And I especially like that you added Kondylis, since I believe when writing on the history of a country one should use writers of that nationality. I believe this now meets or exceeds all criteria for a Good Article. -- llywrch (talk) 06:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot llywrch for taking the time, for your patience, and for the in-depth review. I too feel that it is now a much improved article. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 07:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)