This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Looking better I saw another problem. The phrase says that Leonardo received the title when his daughter married with Constantine, but the marriage happened after the battle of the Echinades in 1427. Considering, as I told above, that he died in 1418/1419, of course that there is a problem there, right? The only question is, is it a problem with the source or some mistake when the article was created? Could someone check?--Renato de carvalho ferreira (talk) 08:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Good catch. Guilland is explicit in ascribing the conferment to John VIII, but he also writes that the title was conferred not on the wedding, which he mentions, but on the occasion of repairs to the wall at the isthmus (i.e. the Hexamilion). I misread this to mean one of the later repairs, but clearly this is the repair under Manuel II in 1414/15, a fact which IIRC, is also mentioned in the Chronicle of the Tocco family as the occasion where Carlo I received his title of Despot. The PLP seems to also confirm this as the correct date. I'll fix this right away.Constantine ✍ 21:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Reading again the article I noticed other thing strange. The article says that there was a man named John Palaiologos who acted as envoy to Andronikos II Palaiologos. Until here ok. The question is, the following man, John Synadenos, that also was named John Palaiologos, according with his article was also a envoy to Andronikos II and, considering his ancestors, he is also a relative of Andronikos. So, aren't they the same person?--Renato de carvalho ferreira (talk) 07:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hello Renato! It is indeed likely. Guilland has the two personages clearly distinct, but the PLP seems to refer to both as the same, using the same source (Kantakouzenos, I.133). I will merge the two. Another nice catch! Constantine ✍ 09:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
