Talk:Battle of Ceresole

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Battle of Ceresole is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 6, 2007.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Maintained The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Kirill Lokshin (talk • contribs • email)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents

[edit] Featured Article

Congratulations on making this a featured article, Kirrill. It deserves it. (I have to get around to adding footnotes and rounding out some of the articles I've worked on -- so much to do, so little time. Anyway....) The article is a great addition to Wikipedia's sources on Early Modern Warfare.Larry Dunn 17:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and thank you for your comments during the peer review! Kirill Lokshin 17:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kudos on the pics

Sorry I can only offer this general note, but you really went above and beyond in making the diagrams for this Kirill. Marskell 22:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! (The WP:MILHIST peer review has suggested some further improvements to them, incidentally, so they're not done yet.) Kirill Lokshin 23:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, they could use a sharpening. But I think in general that sitting and staring at photosphop pixels can lead you to wonder "why the hell do I spend so much time with Wikipedia?" and the effort shouldn't go unnoticed. Marskell 23:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] punctuation

Actually, the punctuation should only fall outside the quotes if it isn't a proper ending to a sentence. Wow, that sentence made almost no sense... if a quote is a sentence, and the end of the quote is the end of the sentence, the fullstop (period) should fall within the quotes. It's a minor technical thing all spelled out in the MoS. Thanks. --198.185.18.207 13:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I figured that part out (eventually). The vast majority of the quotes aren't full sentences, though, so that (presumably) wouldn't apply, right? Kirill Lokshin 15:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addition for adventurous?

September 22, 1998 Renaissance Quarterly by the Renaissance Society of America has an article about the Vatican Galleria, and Walter Goffart (the author of the article on page 788, mentions the battle of Ceresole and a depiction (of a map by Ignazio Danti?) that is there. Speaking on the importance of the battle (as inquired about on the FAC page), Goffart describes the vignette there, "(Piedmont and Montferrat) Very violent battle (acerrimus conflictus) at Ceresole (1544). [Militarily brilliant success by French forces over imperial ones. Before the year was out, France, facing two invaders in the north, made peace at Crepy with Charles V. The victory in Piedmont was irrelevant.]" Also he writes, "The 'very violent' battle of Ceresole was won by the French, but inconsequentially, since Francis I, scant months later, was forced to make the Peace of Crepy with Charles V."

So really, not that important, historically (besides the loss of life).

Anyway, I'm sure if someone had time, they could find an image (take a picture?) of the Danti map. Cheers. --198.185.18.207 16:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep. There's a similar statement in Hackett, where the battle is called "brilliant, victorious, and fruitless".
As far as getting an image of that map: awesome idea, but does the Vatican Galleria allow photographs? (Not that I'd be able to go to Rome in any case, but perhaps somebody in that area might be able to obtain an image, if taking them is permitted.) Kirill Lokshin 16:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... don't know for sure, but this guy was able to take one of the Venice fresco from the Gallery of Maps, so it's probably likely. Also, this book would make it appear that they're allowed. Now if only there was someone in Rome. Oh well... probably would make an awesome gallery... the maps. We have a redlink in the Vatican Museums article for the Gallery of Maps. --198.185.18.207 16:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Here is the start! :-) --198.185.18.207 16:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Italian names and nationality

There were some misunderstandings about the name of the Spanish commander. He was Alfonso d'Avalos, and was Italian (I've corrected his entry also), despite what the name should let one think (he was born at Ischia). Further, to cite him continuously as "Del Vasto" is an error. "Del Vasto" was simply the title (he was marquis of Pescara and "del" Vasto, but the latter is a single city.. "del" probably refers to "del territorio di Vasto", "the territory of Vasto"). "Alfonso d'Avalos" is its more stricly correct name-surname form. Rodolfo or Ridolfo Baglioni was from Perugia. Aldobrando Madrazzo from Trento, and then Italian although he led Landsknecht troops. I didn't check the article as a whole, but I'm starting to guess it could contain further mistakes about Italian names and things, probably spred by the scarce attention paid to these matters by the 1930s main source used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Attilios (talk • contribs)

He was an Italian in Spanish service (as was Fernando d'Avalos), certainly; but, regardless, the convention followed by all historical works dealing with this period is to refer to such people by their titles rather than their names, as that's how they're most commonly known. (For example, "Nemours" for Gaston de Foix, "Lautrec" for Odet de Foix, "Pescara" for Fernando d'Avalos, etc.) All of my sources follow this usage consistently.
(As far as the spelling of the names: I appreciate any help with this. The Anglicization has wandered considerably over the years, so it's not uncommon for multiple spellings to be found—sometimes even within the same work!) Kirill Lokshin 23:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Del Vasto"

Please believe me that "Del Vasto" is wrong to be cited in this way. It is not his surname, don't matter what your sources write (probably they copy one from each other). As I wrote, his complete title was "Alfonso d'Avalos, Marchese di Pescara and del Vasto. It is largely an English (or French) misunderstating about this form of his name. An example of what using the "Del Vasto" format would sound in Italian speaking of somebody else (i.e. the Ludovico Gonzaga, Marquess of Mantua): "Of Mantua" then invited "of Bohemia" to his palace. "Of Bohemia"'s wife brought a present, which of Mantua liked much. Etc etc

I will wait for your consensus before reverting it again. Bye. (PS: if you need a source, I have Rendina, Claudio (1994). I capitani di ventura. Rome: Newton Compton.  --Attilios 23:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Meh, fair enough; it's a very common usage, but I suppose that the format for this particular name is bizarre enough from an Italian perspective that we can change it. I've replaced all the usages of "Del Vasto" with "d'Avalos"; hopefully that resolves the issue. Kirill Lokshin 00:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, thank you very much. I've only now read what you wrote in the previous section, and I agree with it. Also in Italian sources we have common examples: the most noteworthy is Count of Carmagnola, which is 100% of the time mentioned as "Il Carmagnola" (I don't even remember his true name). I've also the impression that the same is true for French people like Enghien or Lautrec in their national sources, while I've never noticed it for d'Avalos in Italian: that's why I've insisted! Thank you again and good work. Ah, a last note: if all people here were reasonable and exquisite like you, it would be a better place to work... --Attilios 00:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] François de Vendôme?

Shouldn't it be François de Bourbon? john k 07:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that "François de Bourbon" typically refers to an earlier individual (who died in 1495); but I'm not entirely sure what this one's full name is. He's generally referred to as "the Count of Enghien" in English-language sources, in any case. Kirill Lokshin 10:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
On the one hand, we have "François de Bourbon, comte d'Enghien," his grandfather (I believe) was "François de Bourbon, comte de Vendôme." They were both from the Vendôme branch of the Bourbon family, but Vendôme was not their surname. john k 14:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, ok; that explains it. Thanks for catching that! Kirill Lokshin 14:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] two-column notes section

IMO the notes section would benefit from columns. In even a narrow browser window, the notes have an unreadably long line length, given the smaller text size. I'll leave this to someone who has worked on the article to actually change though. Don't want to step on any toes. Oh also, some 'ibid's are in order in the notes. --jacobolus (t) 08:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Meh. I think that the two-column layout is more bothersome to scan through when there's so much additional text; but it's not something I'm adamant about.
(Ibids don't really work well in fluid text; if the order of the sentences is changed—or, worse, a different source is inserted on a prior sentence—they suddenly break, and nobody will typically notice until much later.) Kirill Lokshin 10:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, on further thought: you're probably right here; I've changed the article to use the two-column layout. Kirill Lokshin 11:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Personally I think a long footnotes section looks a lot neater as two columns. --kingboyk 13:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oman reliability

I think, we should sharply reconsider Oman's reliability, if he was able to to wrong "Eriprando Madruzzo" for a totally invented version "Aldobrand Madrazzo"... see [1] for the correct version of name. i found it just by chance, as I was writing Cristoforo Madruzzo lately (a cardinal!!) and got curious to read "Madrazzo" here... But, how many other giant faults we have copied here? --Attilios 23:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, it's a perfectly sensible Germanized version of the name. Presumably Oman uses it here because of Madru(a)zzo's role vis-à–vis the landsknechts.
In any case, I have yet to see any "error" mentioned beyond different renderings of names, which are quite normal among the various language historiographies of the period. Kirill Lokshin 23:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there must be some strange reason for such a deformation. However, "Aldobrando" is perfectly common for historical names in Italian too. and, the German version of "Eriprando" is just "Eriprand", not "Aldobrand". Further, the family at the time was still partly German-speaking. And why "Madrazzo"?? It looks the English pronunciation of Madruzzo; a German would not commit such an error. I guess, in the end it's clearly a slip of the pen propagated by Oman himself while copying from Italian texts of which he understood not so much (all I've read copied from him here let me think he didn't speak Italian at all, but maybe I'm wrong). Ciao and good work. --Attilios 23:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
It's possible that it's a slip of Oman's pen, I suppose. Equally, it could be a slip of some primary source's pen; Oman Could presumably have copied the name from any of a number of non-Italian sixteenth-century sources, which were not exactly known for consistent spelling (particularly among different authors).
As far as Oman's knowledge of Italian, he had enough to travel extensively in Italy and use Italian sources (e.g. Guicciardini, etc.). Whether he was actually fluent in the language per se, or merely was able to use documents written in it, I can't say.
I'm pretty confident in Oman's accuracy, overall, simply because the latest (English) works on this period explicitly mention it. That doesn't mean a total absence of errors, obviously; but I suspect that the ones he does make are more on the level of mistaken names, rather than substantial errors in the narrative. Kirill Lokshin 23:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Let's hope!!! Ciao e buon lavoro!!! --Attilios 00:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Quite simply, the piece relies too much on Oman. Whether Oman is correct or not, his work is prett much the sole source for the core of this piece. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 14:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)