Talk:Siege of Shkodra

Specific Needs and Objectives Requested

Solved:Collapsed per author.

I have spent considerable time trying to address any specific issue raised with this article. I would appreciate any further comments by the Wikipedia community concerning objective and specific measures needed to improve the article. For now the only main need that I see is the impasse with Antidiskriminator about the Belligerents (see above). To justify maintaining Antidiskriminator's change on 23:11, 4 August 2012 to remove the Albanians from the defense in the Lede box‎, or at least to not implement my proposed compromise of putting the League of Lezha into that box, I request documentation or a clear guideline about belligerent which demonstrably supports Antid.'s opinion. This is the only issue I am aware of—and have agreed to wait before acting further. But I also welcome any more specific input so this article can be rated higher. --Rereward (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Y This section moved to section below, "Nominating". Can be collapsed but my attempts to do so failed (deleted everything beneath it) Rereward (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Nominating for Good Article status?

Anyone object to nominating this article to good article status? If so, how can we improve it? Rereward (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

A very good idea! I will go trough the text of this article and see if there is anything I can suggest to improve its quality, besides the apples and pears belligerents issue of ethnicity + citizens vs. nationality (ethnic Albanians + Venetian citizens vs. Ottomans) of the infobox. After eventual changes it would be good to have it copy edited before the nomination. Maybe at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I look forward to suggestions for improvements and working together with you and any others interested.Rereward (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• It would be good to have sources within "primary sources" presented with citation or cite book template.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

DoneRereward (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You reverted it, was that a mistake?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I think when I finished this, it demanded that these sources be referenced directly in the article so I reverted. Indeed, they are all actually referenced in the text and listed in the References, however, I was envisioning "Primary Sources" as a separate section outlining primary sources in the scholarly sense of "primary sources" ... basically, my attempt failed.Rereward (talk) 08:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Solved:Book of Marin Barleti removed from the lede since it exists in the other uses link
Taking in consideration that "Other uses" template is added above the lede there is no need to explain that the Siege of Shkodra is also a book written by Marin Barleti.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Y DoneRereward (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Solved:Result parameter of the infobox adjusted according the template's page

Per Template:Infobox military conflict about the result parameter: " this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much." The result of this siege was that Shkodra was captured by the Ottomans. I think it would be better to write "Ottomans captured Shkodra" and to avoid speculations about the Ottoman defeat. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Y Done. Good improvements. More?Rereward (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Solved:Siege of Krujë is mentioned in the article
Siege of Krujë (1478) is not mentioned, though I think it is certainly important fact for the context of the events. Actually the siege of Krujë is mentioned in the third paragraph of section "The Siege".Rereward (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, it is mentioned in the third paragraph of the siege section. I consider Kruje siege very important for this event and expected to see it in the lede and background section, together with information about other fortresess captured by Ottomans before or during Scutari siege. Don't you agree?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I misunderstood. Well, I am fine with that. I just think we should be careful 1) not to overload the lede and 2) to avoid redundancy. I will defer to you on this and if you make a change, I will check it and make any suggestions needed for improvement. Thx.Rereward (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Solved:Sourced information about region of Friuli-Venezia Giulia attacked by Ottomans from Bosnia added to the article

The Ottoman forces from bosnia attacked Venetian possessions in 1477 in the region of Friuli-Venezia Giulia, between Soča and Tagliamento (Док су турске трупе држале под опсадом Кроју,босански паша је харао по Фурланској, палећи села између Сочеи Таљамента.) This information is also important for the context of the conflict.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Y I agree with you (and Franz Babinger!) that the siege of Kruja 1478 is directly relevant to the siege and should be noted (I'll try to do that soon). I also agree that the Bosnian Ottoman attack in 1477 would be part of the wider context — my question is just how wide this article should be (and how many other incidents of equal contextual value we would have to include to be consistent). I am refererring to Good Article Criteria, which says "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail." I have personally not seen this Bosnian>Friuli attack noted in my reading of historians dealing directly with the siege of Shkodra; and based on the amount of reading I have done on the siege of Shkodra, I would expect to have read about this if it were a "necessary detail" for this siege. Does anyone (say, like Franz Babinger) discuss this as a significant factor affecting the siege of Shkodra? Again, feel free to add this, but I advise that we not bog the article down with too much and only when reputable sources describing the siege of Shkodra show us the direct connection. Rereward (talk) 08:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC) Alas, Babinger does discuss this and note relevance! I answered my own question. I'll work to add.Rereward (talk) 08:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC) Done. Please have a look. Rereward (talk) 09:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• In the Background section, there is a quote "Among the population of Shkodra there were people who were suspected to be connected to the Ottomans and who supported the surrender of the city". I think this should be removed or relocated for the following reasons: 1) "Suspected" is somewhat subjective and speculative. 2) In any siege this would likely be true and doesn't add much to the factual background. 3) Even if true, the influence of such people was meaningless, because the Shkodrans resisted fiercely and did not surrender or engage in treachery. 4) Sources report a strong unity among the defenders all resisting. Especially, I object to concluding the background section with this idea, because it sets up the notion of a lack of resolve among the defenders, when the exact opposite was demonstrated. Does this make sense? Any thoughts?

First of all, I would like to thank you for your efforts to bring this article to GA level.

I will prepare detailed reply to your question.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

"Sources report a strong unity among the defenders all resisting". I don't think so. In case of this Venetian stronghold the situation was completely different. Here is why:

In most of the articles about battles involving Ottoman Empire the situation is black/white. Ottomans are black and other party, especially in case of European Christians, is white. Ottomans are almost dehumanized.

1. Venice:
   1. There was complete chaos in Venetian tax policies toward population of Scutari region. In many cases local Venetian pronoiers, often struggling against each other, were able to set taxes according to their free will. Some people were so heavily taxed that they decided to move to other regions, while other were not obliged to pay taxes at all. In some cases complete villages were almost left without any population.
   2. One of the consequences was that Venetians simply did not have enough funds to finance reconstruction of the city and its garrison. Even the existing garrison was not paid regularly so sometimes complete units deserted.
   3. Cities were full of hungry people who left their land and criminal rate was very high.
   4. Orthodox population and their religious objects were subjected to constant pressure and removal of their legal rights. They were often treated as schismatics
   5. Population was socially very differentiated with not much opportunity for those who were not members of nobility or rich trading families.
   6. Venetians were not so determined to defend Scutari. Their modest funds were allocated to fortify Durazo and Venetian coastal towns in Montenegro as their new defense positions. Scutari was almost sacrificed. Venetian Scutari governors sent false reports with underestimated strength and position of Scutari garrison with intention to deceive Senate to make decision to cede Scutari to the Ottomans. Senate actually did it and after they learned about the deception they put those governors to trial.
2. Ottomans:
   1. brought order to tax policy.
   2. initially returned rights of the Orthodox Christian population in areas around Scutari they captured.
   3. offered significant social perspective to those who convert to Islam and join the ranks of the Ottoman army

• Conclusion: There was no "strong unity among the defenders all resisting". People were not satisfied with Venetian rule, except for a small number of Venetian pronoiers who had a big interest to protect their privileges. They were rich enough to send their families to safe places before Scutari was besieged. To Ulcinj, Bar... some even to Venice. Poor people had to suffer or to run away to the mountains. Taking all of that into consideration it is of no surprise that some people openly advocated surrender of Scutari to the Ottomans. That was not an isolated event. At that time there was aso a pro-Ottoman plot in Ulcinj which was discovered and prevented by some Christian priests. Readers of the background section of this article are not presented with all those facts. On the contrary. The background section is used to glorify Scanderbeg, who is completely irrelevant for this section, to attribute ethnicity to the garrison, coastline, towns.... all of them are misleadingly referred to as Albanian while in fact they were Venetian. Its population was of mixed ethnicity and remained as such until the beginning of 20th century. On the other hand this section is misleadingly referring to Ottomans as to "Turkish bands", invaders... although they were not predominantly Turkish with many Albanians being members of the Ottoman forces. An unitiated reader is presented with clear message. The coast and towns which are Albanian are defended by united Albanians from invading Turks. Albanians are that way presented as the "last bastion" which protected Europe from Turkish invasion, like Skanderbeg did for decades. Almost all myths of Albanian nationalism in one section. But not much of the real background of the events. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Solved:A relief commemorating the siege refer to both 1474 and 1478/79 siege
A relief commemorating the siege from the 15th century School of the Albanians in Venice might be related to 1474 siege? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC) The relief at the former "Scuola Albanesi" commemorates both sieges. Crests of the commanders of both sieges (1474 and 1478) appear on the relief.Rereward (talk) 06:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Y

Solved:It is clarified how Venetians got Shkoder

The first paragraph of the Background section should be improved: Venetians did not take Shkoder in 1396 by force. Djuradj II Balsic ceded it to them together with a couple of other nearby fortresses while Venetians promised in exchange to pay rent for it to him. It would be informative to clarify to whom Shkoder belonged before it was ceded to Venetians. I made this improvement, please have a look.Rereward (talk) 10:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Very good, though I think that instead of Svač it should be Sati (castle)?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Sati makes good sense, but the source (in Albanian) says "Shas (Suaç)." If there is a question in your mind, we can eliminate it altogether, as neither Svač nor Sati is not 100% essential to this article.Rereward (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC) You are right and I was wrong. Apparently Balšić ceded to Venice both Sati and Svač, together with Drivast, Dagnum, St. Srđ.... I thought you made mistake because I think that in 1396 Sati was much more important because it was Scutari's neighbouring fortress and subject of big dispute with Koja Zaharia and OE while Svac was almost deserted village. For this battle it is not essential. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Solved:War issue clarified.

"The Venetians were waging war against the Ottoman Empire..." I think it was completely the opposite. Ottomans were waging war against Venice. In 1478 Venetians were in very difficult situation. They did not fully recover from the previous siege of Scutari in 1474. They wanted to avoid war and tried to negotiate a piece but Ottomans increased their requests every time and made it impossible. Venetians could not count on Tatars as allies because there was no Tatar threat to Ottomans on the eastern frontiers. Y Did not the Venetian Senate vote to declare war on the O.E.? See Ottoman–Venetian_War_(1463–1479)#Outbreak_of_the_war. Rereward (talk) 05:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Rereward (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Yes, 15 years before this siege started Venetians declared war to OE. Since then both of parties were waging war against the other party. But in case of this siege which was one of the battles in this war, Venetians wanted to conclude a peace and stop the war, as I explained. I think this should be clarified in the background section. If you don't object, I could do it?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC) I have made a change ... see what you think.Rereward (talk) 05:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC) I think it is better now. Thank you.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Solved:“To Rome! To Rome!” assertion based on the primary source temporarily removed from the article

Merula is primary source and his assertion “To Rome! To Rome!” should be supported with secondary source. Y For now I removed this quote. I have seen it in secondary sources but cannot recall where. More importantly, it seems that "Roma! Roma!" was a common battlecry not isolated to Scutari (Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror, 494, quoting Ladislas Vetesius). Therefore it is not crucial to the background. I did add the Ottoman chronicler A. Pashazade's quote, because it highlights the value the Ottomans placed on the city as a platform for the Empire's Western aims. I think that is very important because the sultan himself came personally to ensure victory in Shkodra.Rereward (talk) 05:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Thank you. I agree with addition of the carefully attributed opinion of the Ottoman chronicler.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Solved:Improved wording to avoid simplification that capture of Scutari was necessary for OE advance into Italy.

Sultan did not have to "to secure the Albanian coastline so he could focus his efforts on crossing the Adriatic and marching on Rome". I know there are sources for such claim, but that is simplification which does not have much in common with reality. Ottoman invasion of Otranto happened in 1480, although Albanian coastline was not secured and Durrës remained in Venetian hands until 1501. Venice did not join other Italian states in 1480. Venice actually perceived other Italian (and not only Italian) states as enemies and rivals and rarely supported them when some of them faced external enemy. Y Ottoman chronicler Ashik Pashazade chronicled about the siege and claimed (sometime between in 1479-81) that "Allah had given to our sultan Shkodra, the hope of passage to the lands of Italy." A Piri Reis map from 1520, showing the Adriatic coastline, depicts Shkodra as the most prominent and most central fortress. I am glad you acknowledge that "there are sources for such a claim." There are many — and strong. OK, I agree to edit it some, because I think your objection is to potentially misleading or over-simplified wording ... but I don't think you are arguing with the strong sources and the obvious and logical strategic realities of a sultan wanting a coastline which would so favor his advance upon Italy. (See edit on page.) Rereward (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Very good. Thank you.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Solved:Concerns about connecting Shkodra and Ottoman advance to Italy reduced with very good explanation

I don't mind adding the opinion of Pashazade, though it might be a little overestimation of the Scutari's importance. After Ottomans captured Scutari nearby towns of Durrazo, Bar, Ulcinj, Kotor... remained under Venetian control for decades without being any problem for Ottomans to attack Italy, like they did in 1480. 'Ashik Pashazade's interpretation of the events of his own age is strongly colored or distorted by his prejudices and interests.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC) The PDF preview contains really no detail about whether this general criticism of A Pashazade applies to this comment about the importance of Shkodra, and how his "prejudice and interest" would affect this (if at all). It would be very interesting to read Inalcik's entire work, as he is in my opinion a top historian. Of course, A. Pashazade is not alone — other Ottoman historians expressed similar opinions about Shkodra's importance for trans-Adriatic campaigns. And of course Merula and Barleti expressed the same thing about Shkodra — so a combo of many sources combined with Mehmed II's personal interest (coming personally across the mountains to ensure victory, after his first commanders botched it in 1474), all become very convincing that this city was indeed of utmost significance to Mehmed's greater goals across the Adriatic. Indeed there was Durres and the Montenegrin castles, but this only emphasizes the point that, with Shkodra under control, they had enough significance on the Adriatic to commence attacks. (I.e., not until AFTER Shkodra did the Ottomans attack the Italian peninsula).Rereward (talk) 15:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC) All of them are outdated or biased primary sources. If contemporary top historian refer to "Pashazade' interpretation of the events of his age" like Inalcik did it then it is better not to use it. Ottomans attacked Italian peninsula before they captured Durres (Ulcinj, Bar, Budva....or any other town in Albania Veneto), which is Adriatic port much more near Otranto. Scutari is not even on Adriatic sea because it is situated on lake. Mehmed II in fact left the place 7 months before the end of the siege so his presence can not be used to underline importance of the Scutari. If it was so important Venetians would not cede it to the Ottomas moving their defense line to Durres, Ulcinj, Bar... and other towns of Albania Veneto. If it was so important for the protection of Italy the other Italian states would help Venetians to protect it. I repeat, I don't mind adding the opinion of Pashazade which connects Venetian defence of Scutari with Ottoman advance to Italy since it is carefully attributed, though I don't find it particularly useful and informative. On the other hand it can easily serve to support nationalistic antemurale myths. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Thank you for this agreement. I understand your concern to avoid supporting Balkan nationalism and myth, but I do think we are safe here and, of course, any fact can be taken out of context. Of course, I realize that Shkodra was not directly on the seashore, but being accessible to the navies by the Bojana River, it was considered a key Adriatic fortress by those such as Ottoman cartographer Piri Reis. Perhaps it is a coincidence, but I think from sources that there is a strategic progression in Mehmed's mind (first taking Kruje/Lezha/Drivast/Scutari/Zabljak, only then proceeding to Italian Peninsula). As to Mehmed's presence, I maintain my point and disagree with the premise that he left Shkodra with doubts about its fate. Mehmed accomplished his mission and left only after he had commanded its near-destruction by cannon fire, only after Lezha, Zabljak, Drivast were conquered (eliminating local resistance), only after blockading the Bojana from Venetian reinforcements, only after the damage to Scutari was significant enough to guarantee its fall, and only after leaving a siege force in place to finish the job. Though frustrated he could not take it immediately by direct force, the sultan did not question the eventual outcome. Just three months later (not 7), the peace treaty was signed (Jan 25). His presence and expense in Shkodra is significant indeed. Yes, any fact can be used out of context to support Balkan nationalism and myth, but the importance of Shkodra on the Adriatic is well-documented by both besiegers and besieged alike, and one well supported by secondary sources. Thank you for accepting this.Rereward (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• • Scanderbeg of course did not "thwart Ottoman advance for a quarter of a century". In fact he fought for Ottoman Empire for alamost a quarter of century. Even when he deserted Ottomans they continued to expand further to the Europe and captured Serbia, Morea, Bosnia .... in period of its biggest expansion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Of course Scanderbeg is not irrelevant to the background of the siege of Shkodra (else he wouldn't be mentioned by so many sources that discuss the siege), but I agree to edit the article to localize his impact and not accidentally mislead people. The word "thwart" does not mean "halt" — I meant that he opposed and frustrated Ottoman advance for 25 years, which he did, though it wasn't complete. I will continue to respond little by little to improve this article based on your suggestions. You've brought up a lot of material. So please be patient. I agree with most, will need to follow up with some things. Thanks for your time.Rereward (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts. Yes, you are right. Skanderbeg is not completely irrelevant. But it would not be completely correct to assert that he frustrated Ottoman advance into Albania for 25 years. Ottomans actually advanced into most of what is today region of Albania in 1385. That is almost a hundred years before this siege and two decades before Skanderbeg was born. When Skanderbeg deserted Ottomans at the end of 1443 the only Ottoman town in Albania he captured was Kruje. Rest of his territory was in Macedonia in Debar region and included fortresses of Svetigrad and Modric. I don't object mentioning Skanderbeg in the background section, but if he is to be mentioned it would be simplification to say that he "protected Albania from Ottomans" or "frustrated Ottoman advance into Albania" for 25 years. Readers are informed about the start of Venetian suzerainty in Scutari in 1396, but not about start of Ottoman suzerainty of most of Albania in 1385. Therefore I think it is much more important to explain readers that Ottomans controlled most of Albania for almost a century before this siege then to mention Skanderbeg and only his anti-Ottoman struggle without even mentioning his anti-Venetian struggle. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• • • "'Sources report a strong unity among the defenders all resisting'. I don't think so." Question — you don't think sources report this, or you don't think the sources are accurate? Rereward (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You are right, I was not completely clear here. I wrote that I don't think there was a strong unity among the defenders all resisting. And I explained why. I think that every word of my explanation can be supported by sources. Though I am, of course, ready to discuss any of my points from above you might find incorrect.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Solved:Two month sultan's participation clarified in the infobox.

If I am not wrong, Mehmed II was commander of the besieging forces for about three months, in period between july and september 1478. It is not clarified in the infobox and the lede of the article about this siege which lasted for nine months. In the remaining period the Ottoman armies were commanded by the beylerbey of Anatolia, Davud Pasha, and the new beylerbey of Rumelia, Mustafa Bey. If I am right it might be a good idea to clarify this in the lede and infobox.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Y You are right with a few clarifications ... the sultan was there closer to two months. And you confused the two beylerbeys: it is Davud Pasha - Rumelia, Mustafa Bey - Anatolia. Davud Pasha arrived May 19, Mustafa Bey arrived June 8, Mehmed II arrived July 1. Mehmed leaves Sept 8, Mustafa leaves Sept. 18, Davud Gaiola leaves Dec. 8. A small siege force is left to seal the city – I don't know who was left in charge for the final few months. Please change the info box / lede with these details as you feel necessary.Rereward (talk) 10:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC) If Mustafa Bey was not a beglerbey of Rumelia but from Anatolia, then the text of the article should be corrected accordingly (currently it says: "the new beylerbey of Rumelia, Mustafa Bey") Probably my mistake months ago. Corrected now.Rereward (talk) 12:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC) I don't think it is necessary to precise exact dates for the Ottomans commanders but it is maybe misleading to present Mehmed II as commander of the siege if he was there only for a couple of months. What about clarification within brackets only for him, ie: (July-September)?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Mehmed presided over the entire bombardment and attack phase, but not the whole encirclement process. Infobox updated per your suggestion. Rereward (talk) 12:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Solved:The date of the end of the siege is correct.

When was this siege ended? The article says that Venetians ceded Scutari to Ottomans in January 1479. The infobox says that the siege lasted until April 1479. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Y On Dec. 20, Italian messengers inform Shkodrans of peace talks Venice-O.E.; on Jan 25, the Treaty of Constantinople is signed but not ratified in Venice until April 25. I am not sure, but it appears that the Shkodrans abandoned the city before the treaty was actually ratified. I do not know the politics of ratification (it seems to have been mere bureaucracy). It is probably safe to keep the January 25 date as the consistent date ... you can change this when you rework the lede and infobox? Thanks.Rereward (talk) 10:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC) It is better to check the sources. If the siege was ended in January then the date of ratification is irrelevant. But if Scutari garrison waited for peace to be ratified before leaving the city, then it is relevant.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Franz Babinger says, "On April 25, when news of the peace reached Shkodër, its inhabitants were offered the choice of remaining in the city under Turkish rule or of leaving freely with their belongings. All without exception chose to emigrate." (Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time, 370). So we must leave April 25 as the end date. But the treaty was signed on Jan 25.Rereward (talk) 11:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Solved:Forces involved should not be merged into background section based on the relevant guide.

The Background and Forces Involved sections of this seem to be similar ... Shouldn't more of the content "Forces Involved" be actually in the "Background" section? I am ready to make some more changes based on Antidiskriminator's suggestions, but first I need your opinion on this ... it is hard making all the edits and continue to keep a nice flow and organization to the article ... Rereward (talk) 10:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC) You are doing a great job. Thank you for that. Here is a link to the content guide of the wikiproject military history which actually confirms the current structure and separate section for forces involved which should explain "What forces were involved? How did they arrive at the battleground? Was there a plan?". Therefore I don't think the two sections should be merged.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Number of the Ottoman forces is confusing and contradicting trough the article.:
  • Modern estimations: Tens of thousands - infobox
  • About 8,000 after sultan left the siege in September - infobox
  • Ottoman casualties were: At least 12,000 on July 22 Allegedly one-third of the Ottoman forces on July - that would mean that Ottoman forces were about 36,000.
  • He ordered a siege force to remain in Shkodra—led by Gedik Ahmet Pasha and said to have contained between 10,000 and 40,000 soldiers[6]:365—to starve the city into surrender.[10]:135 Then, "disappointed at the outcome of his Albanian campaign, Mehmed started the return journey" to Constantinople, "with 40,000 men."[6]:365 - the text of the article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Ha! Sorry to laugh, but sieges from this period always have confusing and conflicting estimates of forces! But let me try to work on this, too. Thank you for your editing. Rereward (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are of course right. But in such cases it is probably better better to avoid using precise numbers, like in case of total number of the Ottoman forces estimated to tens of thousands by modern sources. Can you please double check page 365 of Babinger's work and if Babinger really wrote that between 10 and 40,000 Ottomans remained at Scutari while 40,000 left with sultan?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure ... p. 365, "Disappointed at the outcome of his Albanian campaign, Mehmed started the return journey by torchlight in the night of September 7, 1478. With him went 40,000 men. In the same month the governor of Anatolia followed. At the beginning of December the Rumelian army, disinclined to winter in inhospitable Albania, raised camp and set out eastward. Only Gedik Ahmed Pasha stayed behind with 10,000 men—or 40,000, according to other versions—to keep up the blockade of the starving city."Rereward (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the quote. Based on Babinger's text which implies the total number of Ottoman forces to more than 100,000 it is probably necessary to check the source for unsourced modern estimation assertion of "tens of thousands"?

Babinger is pretty clear about four Ottoman commanders and their armies:

1. Sultan's army of 40,000 which left the siege in September to return to Constantinople together with Sultan
2. Anatolian army under Mustafa Pasha (unknown number) which followed sultan in September.
3. Rumelian army under Davud Pasha (with unknown number of men) which left the siege in December
4. Vlore army of 10,000 — 40,000 men under Gedik Ahmet Pasha, a sanjakbey of Vlore, besieged Shkoder in period December 1478 — late April 1479 and actually captured the city.

• It might be a good idea to clarify this in the "forces involved" section because Gedik Ahmet Pasha is somehow forgotten there although it was him and his Vlore army which actually captured the city. Though, I am not sure if he could be there from the beginning of the siege. This is something that needs to be investigated.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• "a massive Ottoman force containing artillery cast on site[10]:134 and an army reported (though widely disputed) to have been as many as 350,000 in number" I think that estimation from 1828 work about the Ottoman force of 350,000 probably should not have its place in the article, nor in the lede. Also there is no need to present assertion about disputed number of the Ottoman forces in the lede. Modern sources say tens of thousands. I think that is enough for the lede. "Massive" could be seen as WP:PEACOCK. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I will continue working on improving this article and your suggestions make sense ... will take a little time, of course. I do want to make one more comment today ... Franz Babinger, a highly regarded historian of this period, writes extensively about this siege, perhaps more extensively than any other modern reputable historian with specific expertise in this field. He records the figures given (e.g., 300.000 men) but then says this figure "must have been vastly exaggerated." But I am intrigued that he does not himself give an estimation. He would be much more qualified to have done that. Inalcik doesn't do it either, from what I have read. Therefore, when I first posted this WP article, I followed Babinger's pattern — reporting the numbers reported (which, in itself, has historical and encyclopedic value) – and then casting doubt upon it. In the absence of reputable sources who give scientific estimates based on more than a guess, I think, personally, that it is both the prudent and scholarly to follow Babinger's example. Or, if reputable modern sources say "tens of thousands", it would be important to quote them. I do think that, at least, the article should mention the existence of higher estimates, because if someone reads the new English Barleti translation, for example, and reads 350,000, they should know that the Wikipedia editors know about that and have refuted it on the basis of Babinger, etc. This actually protects the article's integrity. Does that make sense?Rereward (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I admit you are right. If Babinger mentions this high estimations then the article should also mention it. But I think not in the lede. Please see above comment about figures presented by Babinger. He clearly implies that total number of forces was more than 100,000. It would be good to double check the source for "tens of thousands" assertion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Solved:The source supports the wording.

"The city of Shkodra was not defended by a Venetian garrison but by the local population and Venetian mercenaries" - I think that source for this assertion should be doublechecked. I double checked and it is the assertion. It goes on to emphasize the local population's desire to preserve their culture and lifestyle, which is why they all emigrated to Venice instead of accepting Ottomans' terms. Schmitt mentions the bas relief at the Scuola degli Albanesi in Venice as evidence of this pride ... He concludes by saying "Identitetet lokale dhe venedikase kështu janë shkrirë në një të vetëm në këtë rast” (This is a case when the local and Venetian identities were merged together into one).Rereward (talk) 10:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC) The assertion was not about cultural identity of the local population. Can you please present the quote which supports the above assertion?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC) I think I now understand your point. You did not want to say that "The city of Shkodra was not defended by a Venetian garrison" but that "united Venetian solders and civilians from Scutari" fought against the Ottomans. Am I right?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC) I am not telling what I am saying, but what Schmitt said, and I clarify that he said: "The city of Shkodra was not defended by a Venetian garrison but by the local population and Venetian mercenaries."Rereward (talk) 12:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Good. Please present the quote which directly support that assertion.--Antidiskriminator(talk) 13:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC) I do not understand. The quote is already there in the article ... the one you asked me to doublecheck. It is already presented and documented with link. Rereward (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC) The quote from Schmitt's work, not from the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC) I apologize. I overlooked the quote in the article. Your English is better than mine so please double-check the wording and if the existing text might imply that Venetian garrison refused to fight so Scutarines and mercenaries had to struggle instead.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Wording is fine. Existing text does not imply that anyone refused to fight. I have not read any source saying that someone refused to fight. I have secured a partial copy of Schmitt's book (below) in Albanian and it has helpful info. In time I can analyze.Rereward (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Solved:Schmitt's work added to Further reading section until hopefully someone uses it in the article.

There is one very important work of contemporary historian Schmitt, Oliver Jens (2001), Das venezianische Albanien (1392-1479), München: R. Oldenbourg Verlag GmbH München, ISBN 3-486-56569--9 {{citation}}: |first2= missing |last2= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |separator=, |nopp=, |month=, |laysummary=, |chapterurl=, |author-separator=, and |lastauthoramp= (help); More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link). I think it should be used in this article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC) It is a respected book and author. I do not have access to it at the moment, unfortunately, and my German is not good enough. Unfortunately the Albanian copies were burned in a house or warehouse fire and the Albanian translator / publisher is deceased. The book was praised in Albania but then the author's next book on Scanderbeg was hotly debated and subsequently revised, corrected, expanded, and reprinted. Feel free to use it if you have access and adds necessary detail.Rereward (talk) 10:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC) I will add this work into further reading section until it is used in the article if you don't mind it?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Of course. I assume it is highly valuable.Rereward (talk) 12:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• "hundreds of Albanian men and youths from the region helped from without, making guerilla attacks on the Ottoman tent camps" - This is another example of the potential misleading emphasizing of "Albanianess" of one party in this conflict. I think it is wrong. This was not an ethnicity based conflict therefore there is no need to potentially mislead readers with irrelevant ethnicity issues, especially taking in consideration that Albanians were on both sides. Additionally, it is impossible that only Albanians of all people living in Scutari region struggled against the Ottomans. I propose to replace misleading use of demonym in "Albanian men an youths" with "local people".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The above mentioned is not isolated example of the emphasize on Albanianess. "Many Albanians, however, did remain in their fatherland." In this case it is even source misinterpretation because the source does not discuss Albanians and their fatherland but noble families from Albania. Many Serbs also remained in their fatherland and continued to live in Scutari region until 20th and 21st century. But that is not something which should be the emphasized in this article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

* We will certainly have solve this issue of Albanians defending Shkodra. I want to go back and re-read the arguments and counter-arguments made previously, in order to reevaluate and not waste time repeating the same thing over and over. My key issue is not pushing a nationalistic or mythical viewpoint but being fair to the abundant, reputable sources who report Albanian local forces defending with the Venetians against the Ottomans. If we need to try to tone down what seems like dogmatism, or acknowledge different viewpoints, or acknowledge that Albanians south of Kruja had become part of the Ottoman Empire, then I am in agreement, but I think it will be hard for me to agree to totally eliminate the strong Albanian presence fighting for what they perceived as their home. Too many sources saying the same thing. I will traveling for several days so I will be silent, but I am in agreement to work on this.

* As to the alleged source misrepresentation, I see your concern, however please note there are three sources in the sentence you are referring to, Babinger, Shpuza and Pulaha. I think you are referring exclusively to the Babinger quote on page 372. He says, "The sultan obtained unrestricted rule over Albania, whose old families, such as the Arianiti, the Dukagjins, the Castriotas, the Musachi, and the Topias, were obliged to take refuge in Naples, Venice, ..." Then, the footnote #4 at the end of that sentence says, "For more details on one of these Albanian families, see Babinger's 'Das Ende der Arianiten' ..." The plain interpretation seemed like Albanian families, not noble families from Albania. Combined with the other references from Shpuza and Pulaha, I do not feel I misrepresented.Rereward (talk) 11:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• See the same page of Babinger's work where he refer to Budva, Bar and Ulcinj as Albanian towns. The term Albanian is obviously used as demonym in case of population and as geographical designation in case of the towns and families. In documents from that age and historical works about it sometimes the whole Montenegrin coast was referred to as Albanian and its population as Albanians. Using this terminology in wikipedia articles today would be misleading, especially because it perfectly well match nationalistic mythology of the modern age. I of course AGF and don't insist that you did it intentionally.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• First three sentences of the Forces involved section are already, more or less, presented within Background section. It is maybe a good idea to remove them as double entry and to copy detail about Suleyman pasha being commander of 1474 siege to the Background section.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, much needed improvement. Done. Rereward (talk) 08:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Fifteenth century Ottoman bombard

This source (pages 65-67) explains details of the Ottoman bombards used during this siege. It would be great if some Istanbul based editor could take and upload its picture at Military museum in Istanbul.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The Combatants

To Antidiskriminator:

As you reverted all my edits, i am instead writing on this section. I added that the conflict was part of the 'Albanian-Ottoman Wars' and the 'Ottoman-Serb Wars'. Why did you change this? I only linked 'Albanian-Ottoman Wars' to the page for the League of Lezha as it is the only page which includes a section for the wars. It includes conflicts from 1432 (before the league was created) to 1478 (after the league was disbanded). Also, regarding the flags, the Albanians should be represented by : . As Zeta was a Montengrin/Serb state, surely the battle comes under the Serb-Ottoman Wars? --- iRi. Dirifer (talk) 11:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Your edits can not be supported by reliable sources nor common sense.

• This battle was not ethnic conflict between Serbs/Albanians and Turks, but between Venetian and Ottoman Empire. Therefore it is classified as such.
• Short-lived League of Lezhe which was disbanded almost 30 years before this conflict is irrelevant for its classification.
• Flag used by Ottoman merchants from Albania can not be attributed to Venetian soldiers from Albania who actually struggled against Ottoman forces. It was probably used by some Ottoman units composed of Albanians.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• I do not think you read my writing properly. I aknowledged that the league of lezhe had already been disbanded, but mentioned that this battle was part of the Ottoman-Albanian wars which is only listed on the page for the League of Lezhe. This battle was part of the Ottoman-Albanian conflict, which spanned from 1432 to 1478.
• Regarding an 'ethnic battle', this was already settled by an earlier section in this talk page, which ended with the additional mention of Albanian forces participating in defending their native city.
• Zeta does not refer to ethnic groups of people, it refers to the actual state of Zeta (which was Montengrin or Serb) participating in the battle.
• The flag should be: . This flag was commonly used by Albanians who did not have a state, or by rebels. That applies in this case, as the Albanians fighting were fighting with the Venetians but also to protect their city.

Dirifer (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I think I gave a fairly clear explanation that your position is not supported by reliable sources (original research) nor common sense. I don't really have much to add to that now. You are of course free to disagree, but I don't think you should expect everybody to be now somehow obliged to keep discussing this with you for as long as you are dissatisfied.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey, User:Dirifer. You claim, "The flag should be: . This flag was commonly used by Albanians who did not have a state, or by rebels. That applies in this case, as the Albanians fighting were fighting with the Venetians but also to protect their city." Do you have any research backing this claim? I have debated strongly on this page—and with copious documentation—that Albanians were a coherent, self-aware force defending their city alongside Italians and under Venetian rule. But I conceded to User:Antidiskriminator that I had no evidence for an Albanian flag such as the merchant flag or the League's flag. Therefore I would welcome evidence if you can produce it. To this point, I have not found such evidence. Rereward (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rereward. Yes, i understand, I guess it's wrong to say they were 'rebels' if they were in fact organised. Thanks for replying to me. Dirifer (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Dubious sentence included.

"Among the population of Shkodra there were people who were suspected to be connected to the Ottomans and who supported the surrender of the city.[23]" The source of this article is in a Slavic language (Serbian?), so I cannot read it to make up my own mind, but can anyone confirm the status of the reputability of the source? The inclusion of the sentence sounds gratuitous given that the source might have propagandistic motives/interests.

Also, if you are to include a sentence as vague as this one, I think it should at best be backed up by additional statements that flesh out the context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.149.39.90 (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

In addition, you might want to consult some Albanian sources, esp. Catholic ones, as relating to the history of Shkodra. I would think that the people who have fought for centuries to defend their heritage know something about it.

The source is authored by Zarija Bešić, member of Montenegrin Academy. There is nothing dubious in this statement. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)