This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Fortifications / Balkan / European / Medieval 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 has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Fortifications task force Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present) European military history task force Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500) Greece Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hi, for anyone interested (not that it matters a lot, to be truthful...., only just when looking for bibliography, particularly in other languages apart from English...), the Villehardouin surname presents several forms (as with many other names, although the one appearing int the Chronicle of Morea could be the "correct" one according to the name of the French commune), including: Villehardonin, De Villehardouin, de Hardouin, de Ville-Hardouin, von Villardouin... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.246.129 ( talk) 09:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply

No. Villehardonin is nothing but a OCR failure. The OCR program incorrectly reads Villehardonin where it is in fact written Villehardouin, that's all.-- Phso2 ( talk) 11:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC) By the way, things like this or this are not real books, they are pieces of crap made from bad OCR of ancient books, whose "editors" didn't at least proof-read before selling them. -- Phso2 ( talk) 11:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Here you are, no OCR but exact reproduction, as you can find in other places (I have several books myself that are not OCR but exact copies, from academic sources), but again I agree it is Villehardouin, let's not continue this useless discussion, seriously we have better things to do..... I will leave it here.... http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Gottfried_Von_Villehardonin.html?id=hlcoSgAACAAJ&redir_esc=y — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.246.129 ( talk) 17:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply

What you are talking about is supposed to be an exact reproduction of this book from 1860, by some Dr Lucas or Lukas (both variants are to be found in the original book). The so-called editor plainly printed the digitalized version, and entitled it "G von Villehardonin" because it is the (wrong) title that is to be found on GoogleBooks, but the title is "Gottfried von Villehardouin indeed, as you can read on the first page.-- Phso2 ( talk) 10:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC) reply