Discuss Skanderbeg
No, this mod and description is a prime example of a historical fallacy, with connotations to a modern nationalistic (Albanian) narrative. Although today “Skanderberg” is celebrated as a national hero in Albania, that says very little about his historical identity. This figure is completely different on the 15th-century reality from 19th-century romantic nationalism.
Ottoman Empire was collapsing, and newly independent Balkan states (Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria) were expanding their borders, often into Albanian-populated territories. The Albanians faced a crisis. they were deeply divided by religion (Sunni Muslims, Bektashi, Orthodox, and Catholics) so that they desperately needed a secular, unifying mythos to prevent assimilation and partition.
Skanderbeg became the perfect avatar for the nationalist motto of the era: “The religion of Albanians is Albanianism.” Why him? Simply because his feudal state coincided with the region where these populations lived. His military banner, the black double-headed eagle on a red field, a direct heritage from the Byzantine empire, was adopted directly from his family crest to become the modern Albanian national flag in 1912.
Nationalists also deliberately downplayed Skanderbeg’s role as a Catholic figure. Because the majority of 19th-century Albanians were Muslim, so framing him purely as a Christian hero would have been divisive. Instead, they transformed him into a purely secular, ethno-national liberator.
Interestingly, he is also considered a hero in Greece and Serbia. In Greece because he spoke Greek, had greek education and his father was from Kastoria, in modern Greece. And in Serbia because his mother was Slavic. which is a widely accepted historical theory.
Among themselves, the people of the region identified as Arbënesh or Arbëresh, living in Arbëria. (The modern term Shqiptar and Shqipëria that Albanians use did not exist during Skanderbeg’s time, it emerged in the late 17th and 18th centuries).
Now, if we are to take Skanderberg’s own words, we would examine a 1460 letter written to Giovanni Antonio Orsini del Balzo (the Prince of Taranto). Skanderbeg explicitly referred to his origins to defend his people. He wrote that his forefathers were “Epirotans,” comparing his people to the ancient Greeks who produced Pyrrhus of Epirus, and explicitly distinguished his lineage from the Illyrians.
The problem here is that calling themselves “Epirotes" and Skanderbeg the “Prince of Epirus” was likely a way to elevate his status to Western European courts, linking him to the ancient glory of Pyrrhus. During Renaissance humanism, they loved to map classical antiquity onto contemporary geography for prestige.
The most historically compelling and grounded approach would be to say that Skanderbeg’s primary international identity was religious, not ethnic. Popes Callixtus III and Pius II bestowed upon him the titles Athleta Christi (Champion of Christ) and Defensor Fidei (Defender of the Faith). To the Christian West, he was the shield of Christendom against the Islamic Ottoman expansion, never a crusader for an "Albanian nation.
Bottom line? The most honest and not propagandistic approach would be to call him either Epirotan like he called himself or Arberesh like his people. Calling his rebellion a crusade for an “Albanian uprising” or calling him “Albanian Eagle” is complete and utter nationalistic nonsense and a modern narrative that simply took his 15th-century feudal rebellion and applied 19th-century political ideology to it.