Talk:Principality of Achaea

[Untitled]

Er...what is the point of a table like that? I mean, "contemporary regnal name"? It's just their regular name. It's not like the Table of Chinese monarchs where they actually have several distinct names. This table seems unnecessarily complicated; I've fixed it up to make it somewhat less ugly, but I don't think it even needs to be there at all. Adam Bishop 03:46, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Adam,

---

Thanks for your input and comments Adam. (I have posted a more complete reply on your talks page, but for the purpose of my reasoning I have added a comment here).

My aim was to try to show slightly more than a list of Anglicized names and dates, by representing something of the place-and-times into it without making it too cumbersome or 'ugly' and without detracting from the fact that this is the English Wikipedia. Which is the reason I went for the table format. Because English has absorbed so much from so many other languages this leads to some duplication. And with 'ugliness' being a subjective quality I was bound to fail.

--JohnArmagh 05:56, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've added a map, though it's rather small. You'll notice that there's no date in the copyright; for some bizarre reason, there was no year given in the copyright. It's from an old edition of "Hammond's Historical Atlas."Erimus 23:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This article needs more tidying up

The second half of this article was as dense and difficult as anything I've come across on Wikipedia. I've tidied up some of the language and added a few details to clarify matters where the narrative became opaque. Unfortunately, there were some rank inaccuracies in there, too. And I can't be at all sure that there aren't still more. What date did John of Durazzo transfer his claim to Catherine of Valois, for example? Another page says 1332.

I'm afraid that I agree with the above criticism of the chart, not so much for its alternative nomenclature —- though that seems superfluous —- but because it isn't integrated with the information in the article, particularly in the dating. In the article we have "John of Durazzo", but in the table "John of Gravina", another of his titles. And the Spanish claimants seem left out altogether. In fact, the table favours the Angevins, several of whom never bothered with the place in person, and omits some individuals who were active on the ground in the principality, exercising their claims. It's hardly possible, anyway, to make a neat, linear table of such a messy sequence of contrasting claims, many of them carried through female lines.

--qp10qp 00:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)