Talk:Italian War of 1521–1526

A little mistake ?

Hi, I'm currently translating this very nice article and I'd like to report what (I think) is a little mistake in the first section. I tend to think that the king who got control of Navarra in 1512 was Ferdinand II of Aragon, and not an undetermined Ferdinand I. I'm not entirely sure, though, so feel free to check. Great work otherwise !

Best wishes, --- Manchot sanguinaire, June 28th 2006

Thanks for the kind words! Actually, the statement is technically correct, since Ferdinand II of Aragon is numbered as Ferdinand I of Spain in many sources. Still, I've changed the number to avoid confusion, since he seems to be more commonly known as the Second. Kirill Lokshin 12:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

And I would say that he was also known as Fernado el católico. That is why you don't tend to talk much about the numbers thus avoid the confussion with the numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.5.45.230 (talk • contribs)

In my experience, the English-language sources for this period tend to call him just "Ferdinand of Spain" or "Ferdinand of Aragon", since his identity is clear from the context; but this probably wouldn't work too well here. Kirill Lokshin 19:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It is rather puzzling that "Ferdinand I of Spain" would be followed, without any intermediate monarchs of the same name, by Ferdinand VI of Spain. Spanish numbering, as I've always understood it, follows Castilian numbering. john k (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The Pope and Martin Luther

What source is there that, as early as 1521, before any other violent Reformation battles had taken place, Leo X was looking for allies against Luther? I'm reading that as a result of the April, 1521 Diet of Worms, Charles V did give Luther safe passage, but had him branded a heretic. In other words, it appears to me that Leo X and Charles V were *already* aligned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshNarins (talk • contribs) 09:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

As I read it, the conflict between Luther and Leo was already in full swing before the Diet convened; from Hackett, pp. 227–228:

Even in 1520, while Charles V was heading towards Germany and the Diet of Worms, a tremendous tension had been generated. A condemnation and menace was issued by the Pope in May, while Luther, backed by Hutten and Sickingen, poured out pamphlets and defiances, inviting the German people to wash their hands in Roman blood.... Aleandro, the nuncio,... reported from Worms that 'all Germany was in a state of religious sedition, and nine-tenths of the people were adherents of Luther'".

Leo was in a position to need Imperial support, in other words, and he could not be certain of obtaining it until the agreement with Charles was actually made. Kirill ^[pf] 13:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. Thank you very much. JoshNarins (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

German linking suggestion

Hi! Thank you for this interesting article. I read it with delight and just tried the link to the German page also, which linked me to an article called "Vertrag_von_Windsor(1522)" (contract of windsor)... I'm not familiar with Italian wars but I thought, it would be better to refer to the German article "Italienische_Kriege", because the Four-Year-Wars were part of long-term-hostilities in Italy due the renaissance described in that article. Best regards Pgm78at (talk) 15:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that; I've changed the interwiki to point to your suggested target. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 06:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Louise of Savoy's Letter to Suleyman the Magnificient

During 1525, while his son was in prison, Francis' mother Louise of Savoy wrote a letter to the Ottoman emperor Suleyman the Magnificient, asking for his help in the release of his son. Suleyman wrote an ultimatum to Charles V, asking for the immediate release of Francis I and a yearly tax that the Holy Roman Empire had to pay to the Ottomans. Charles V released Francis but since he did not agree to pay tax to the Ottomans, the Turks invaded Hungary in the summer of 1526 and threathened to besiege Vienna, upon which Charles-V agreed to pay the tax. Thus, these disturbances in Southern Europe had repurcussions in Eastern Europe as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.190.110.166 (talk) 21:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but there's no reason to go into a blow-by-blow account of the Ottoman-Habsburg exchanges in the lead, since that's supposed to only be a summary of the article. I've condensed this material down to one sentence in the lead, and moved the other details into the "Madrid" section, which now has some other material on Louise's embassy to the Ottomans as well. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 06:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources

I made a remark on the use of sources in this article when it was on TFA. It seems strange that the article should rely so heavily on the work of Hackett (1937) when e.g Knecht has published several works on the age of Francis I much more recently. I am no expert on the subject, so maybe there's something I'm missing, but otherwise I think this should be looked into if the article aspires to remain at FA quality level. Lampman (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you're not missing anything; the article should, indeed, be updated to use Knecht instead of Hackett. (The short explanation here is simply that I didn't have a copy of Knecht at hand when I first wrote the article, and I haven't had an opportunity to go back through and make the needed changes.) My experience with comparing the two is that Hackett tends to match Knecht reasonably closely in terms of narrative details—at least at the fairly high level that's relevant to this article—so I suspect the bulk of the changes would simply be adding the corresponding citations to the later work; but everything does need to be checked over.

Thanks for bringing this up; I'll try to work on this when I get the chance. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 06:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured article review needed

Kirill Lokshin This Featured article was promoted in 2006, and is not at FA standards. There is a good deal of uncited text, and a MOS review is needed. Unless someone is willing/able to bring this article to standard, it should be submitted to Featured article review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kirill Lokshin, Sandy's concerns above have not been addressed yet, and there are several unsourced paragraphs in this article. Are you (or anyone else watching this page) interested in bringing this article back to FA standards? If not, it should be nominated to FAR. Z1720 (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Z1720, thanks for the reminder! I'll work on adding the needed citations, but it will likely take a couple of weeks to bring the article back up to standard. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Kirill Lokshin: There's no rush to get this completed, as long as editors are willing to make improvements. Feel free to ping me when edits are complete and I will do a copyedit/review. Z1720 (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin, I'm presently working through the style of this article, following MOS guidelines. I'd like to use the {{sfn}} referencing format throughout the article, which needs to have consistently formatted citations. I'm also looking to reformat the sources using {{cite book}} etc. Please give me your thoughts. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Infobox list of leaders and commanders

I think the unverified list of leaders should be included in the text and the list in the infobox reduced. This would help prevent the box from being so long it pushes into the main article. Thoughts? Amitchell125 (talk) 09:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)