Talk:Molossians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Quoting from Britannica (2006 edition):

"After the Mycenaean civilization declined, Epirus was the launching area of the Dorian invasions (1100–1000 BC) of Greece. The region's original inhabitants were driven southward by the Dorians, and out of the ensuing migrations three main clusters of Greek-speaking tribes emerged in Epirus: the Thesproti of southwestern Epirus, the Molossi of central Epirus, and the Chaones of northwestern Epirus. They lived in clusters of small villages, in contrast to most other Greeks, who lived in or around city-states." ...continues... "In the 5th century Epirus was still on the periphery of the Greek world. To the 5th-century historian Thucydides, the Epirotes were “barbarians.” The only Epirotes regarded as Greek were the Aeacidae, who were members of the Molossian royal house and claimed descent from Achilles"

According to the odds, the Molossians were Greek-speaking peoples who got gradually semi-barbarized and then re-Hellenized during the Hellenistic period. By any interpretation, they were originally a Greek (i.e. Greek-speaking) tribal people, most likely of Dorian blood. Miskin 02:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The thing about Wikipedia — hate it ot love it — is that what would be acceptable in a work by a classical historian (such as presenting the Molossians as Greek tribe without mentioning the dispute in the specific literature, which classical historians often do in their books) or even in Britannica is not necessarily acceptable in Wikipedia. If indeed the scholars who disagreed have withdrawn their disagreement---or their arguments have been completely disproven---then it would be fine to say "the Molossians were a Greek tribe". However, I have a reference from 1992 (Wilkes) that ended up inconclusive, yet agreeing that the Molossians were most likely a Greek tribe. I don't think things have changed much since 1992 on this topic. We have to report things in this alleged encyclopedia, even if "the odds are" (and I don't quite disagree, because I've seen no strong evidence otherwise) that the Molossians were a Greek tribe from the beginning.
Britannica by the way is not the only encyclopedia on earth. The sentence "the Molossians were a Greek tribe of ancient Epirus", when it comes down to it, is a POV that is not agreed upon by the specialists, and keeping that sentence in this article---with or without me removing it---is not going to be easy to do. The thing to do here, it seems, is present more evidence from the literature and let the readers decide. I'll find more references for the dispute, their arguments, etc.
And here is an example of Britannica promoting one POV while not mentioning others:[1]. To quote Britannica, the Albanians "appear to be the descendants of the Illyrian populations..."; so I guess an Albanian, with this quote in hand, has the license to speedily delete Origin of Albanians, for not accepting this POV and rather presenting the scholarly dispute. If you revert me, I or someone else will revert you back, unless you demonstrate that the dispute among scholars is just a historical phenomenon. Alexander 007 03:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


I feel quite funny to have to point the obvious to simple-minded people but what the hell, here goes. A couple of points on how this encyclopedia works:

  1. That Britannica article mentions a bunch of other sources, and something tells me that its author has done a greater research than you before reaching to his conclusions.
  2. Is Britannica the only encyclopedia? No. But it's one which is generally regarded unbiased and reliable, and WP mentions it as an example of a trustworthy source which can take precedence over others.
  3. An encyclopedia article is not used in the same way as an independent scholarly reference. The research is already done, you can't just quote from Britannica as if it was the work of an individual scholar.
  4. You're not exactly what I'd call an unbiased editor on this subject, so I've got good reasons to trust Britannica over your ranting. Miskin 04:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
If you feel quite funny, that should tell you something.
  1. That Britannica article pontificating on the Molossians seems no more trustworthy than the one pontificating on the Albanians being Illyrians: what are its references?
  2. Britannica is not always unbiased nor always reliable; many errors in Britannica have been corrected in Wikipedia, and its bias is shown even by that link that I posted.
  3. I am unbiased on the topic of Molossians, and I have no "convictions" on whether they were or were not a Greek tribe; on the other hand, you do seem to be convinced, and that's fine for you. I will bring my Wilkes reference tomorrow, which is more specialized than Britannica's mish-mash; but to Britannica, the Albanians "appear to be descended from Illyrians" (which is interesting, because most linguists who have written on the subject consider the Illyrian languages to have been centum languages, not satem like Albanian).
  4. Rantings? Just trying to keep Wikipedia objective and even more scholarly than Britannica on this subject. You on the other hand are only interested in "making it clear" that the "Molossians were Greek" because of Alexander the Great being half-Molossian (that seems simple-minded of you). I notice you didn't edit Thesprotians or Chaonians (again, that seems simple-minded of you). And your edits in Wikipedia as a whole seem to be nationalist Greek rantings.
Alexander 007 06:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not the Molossians were originally a Greek tribe, it is pretty much a fact that their culture imported "southern" Greek culture later on. See Plutarch, biography of Pyrrhus of Epirus opening paragraphs. However, to write as you did "a Greek-speaking people who later got Hellenized" is a bit clumsy and not what we want to present to our readers, who may not be familiar with any of this. Alexander 007 06:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC) (in the meanwhile, I'm not going to babysit this article tonight folks; till I get Wilkes' book again, here is a link from www.livius.org, a website maintained by a scholar and which is generally regarded as a reliable site:[2] Alexander 007 08:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC))
Yes livius is a quite good site. But I'm wondering... is "classical pov" the pov of Athenians? (I'm talking about the intro of the Pyrrhus article) ::Herodotus on book I:146 analyses the divisions of Athenians and traces some of them back to Molossians, Thesprotians, Avantians (Άβαντες)...
By the way, I think that all the Molossians and not just Pyrrhus, their leader, traced their origins to Neoptolemus (in a myth of theirs). talk to +MATIA 13:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  1. Anyway I just checked on 'Epirus', but it's one of the articles that do not mention sources nor names of the authors. Those are generally articles that can be trusted. Besides it has no contect that can imply otherwise. #I never said that Britannica is flawless, but you don't have a single argument to question the neutrality of this article, except that it doesn't agree with what you generally tend to support (in here and other articles).
  2. Nah, the article on the Albanians (which mentions them as Illyrians) is one of the most disgraceful articles in Britannica. It contradicts a bunch of other articles and wastes good hdd space to speak about the authors' POV on the Albanian-Illyrian connection as if it was something factual. The cherry on the cake is the 2 authors' Albanian names. What most hilarious is that the article is so long and mentions such a great deal of crap, that you get "Albania" as query result from string such as "Ptolemy", "Julius Cesar" etc, and the little window will say section 'Roman empire' from Albania".
  3. I don't have any convictions about Molossians whatsoever. In fact I don't give a crap about them, if they were Greek from the beginning that's fine, otherwise what's the difference, they got Hellenized anyway. I think Pyrrhus was a dumb barbarian who had it coming, and I'm quite glad that he was chewed by Romans and Spartans alike.
  4. The Royal families of the Molossians and the Macedonians were regarded to be of Greek origin according to both ancients and contemporary scholars, which makes your claim moot. I never touched Thesprotians and Chaonians in the first place so I don't know what you're talking about.

Arguing with you has in several occasions proved to be a case of mental masturbation, which is why I'm not affected by your petty attempts of delivering insult. If I'm a nationalist, then you're not so different from the simple-minded Macedonian Slav and Albanian editors whose only purpose is to put down other peoples in order to feel better about their pathetic existence. Your constant anthellenic attitude on historical articles has proven this. Miskin 16:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Britannica's articles are often a product of mental masturbation, and they often seem to be written for junior high students. It appears that: you found a Britannica article which states that the Molossians were a Greek tribe; thus, case closed. But ah: I don't agree that Wikipedia should be a parrot and echo Britannica in this case, since there are other just as reputable references out there which say otherwise---or rather, are inconclusive. You can accuse all you want, that is the reason behind my edits. I'll get my references later. Alexander 007 18:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV applies

This is a case where Wikipedia:Neutral point of view applies, because — despite Britannica and probably many other sources — the evidence is sparse and differing opinions among the scholars do not represent an insignificant minority. See Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial. Jimmy Wales: "The NPOV policy is absolute and non-negotiable." Alexander 007 19:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

How were my edits a "parrot" to Britannica? Britannica takes for granted that all Epirotes were originally Greek-speaking peoples, however I specifically included that this is not factual. What bothers you is the label of "Greek" when applied to the origin of various ancient peoples for which an alternative theory exists. You completely ignore the fact that a source like Britannica is supposed to reflect the most widely accepted opinion. What bothers me in turn in this biased attitude of yours. Miskin 22:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't try to intimidate me be parroting Jimmy Wales. I know what NPOV policy is about. Britannica is actually presented by WP:POLICY as an example of a neutral source ("Tertiary sources like reputable encyclopedias, such as the Encyclopædia Britannica" [3]). I wouldn't even take it that far, fallacies and biased content can be found everywhere, nevertheless, none of it is present on the specific article. Miskin 22:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

A different article states: "Toward the end of the Mycenaean period the Thessali entered the fertile plain from Thesprotía in southern Epirus and imposed an aristocratic rule on the older inhabitants. " [4] (on the origin of the Thessalians. Are all the ancient greek related articles biased and badly informed or maybe it's time for you to start accepting facts? Miskin 22:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I am satisfied with your latest revision of the lead sentence; it is accurate. I accept facts after I have reviewed the evidence, not because Britannica says this or that. Alexander 007 22:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I respect both of you and I really wish you could relax a bit here :) talk to +MATIA 22:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Herodotus etc

Any comment on Herodotus and the origin of some of the Athenians? talk to +MATIA 22:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

According to my translation of Herodotus 1:146, he is describing the original tribes who later became part of the Ionian Greeks in Asia Minor and the Ionian islands. Molossians, Pelasgi, Dorians, and Dryopians are some of the tribes he mentions as adding to the population that emigrated with the Ionians. Because Herodotus includes Pelasgi in the same sentence, the quote cannot tell us much about the Molossians' ethnicity, though very likely they were a Greek tribe. Alexander 007 23:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that after mentioning the 12 cities of the Ionian League, he has a small comment about the ten "tribes" and relates some of them with Molossians (or a mythical descendant of Molossus). talk to +MATIA 23:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/o/l/Talk%7EMolossians_19b3.html"