Talk:War of the League of Cambrai

Early comments

Seamless meld! Was that all the material that wasn't already here? Good edit! --Wetman 10:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I think this article is ready for Primetime FA status. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 12:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

There are still some things I'd like to add, actually; maybe in a week or two. Kirill Lokshin 18:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

alliances

I thought about making a war info box but its almost impossible because of the shifting alliances. Do I have this right: it starts out with the Pope & France vs. Venice (1508-10), then its the Pope & Venice vs. France (1510-12).. and finally its Venice & France vs. the Pope (1512-1516) (not to mention all the other countries involved) Astrokey44 12:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

It's important to mention Spain and the HRE, at the very least. We then have:

1. Pope + Spain/HRE + France v. Venice (1508–1510)
2. Pope + Venice v. France + Spain/HRE (1510–1511)
3. Pope + Venice + Spain/HRE v. France (1511–1512)
4. Pope + Spain/HRE v. Venice + France (1513–1516)

I'll point out, however, that the reason there isn't a warbox on this article is because the Military history WikiProject is currently discussing a new (standard) format for them (partially to deal with complicated cases like this); I think a badly-written warbox using the existing template is worse than no warbox at all. I encourage you to comment on the project page if the matter interests you further; we're happy for any suggestions. Kirill Lokshin 12:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok I tried making a box just to explain the alliances, not the standard one. but I didnt see Spain and the HRE on the French side 1510-1511. Is that right? Astrokey44 12:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

They were formally in the League, but didn't really do anything. I've left them omitted to avoid over-complicating things. I've also moved the box down the page to where the League is first discussed; I don't think it's necessary to hit the reader with so many details as soon as they try to read the article, since the lead section is supposed to be of more general interest. Kirill Lokshin 13:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Result box

War of the League of Cambrai results
1508-1510 League of Cambrai against Venice Result: France defeated Venice, Venice defeated the HRE and the Papacy, but Venice surrendered to the Papacy; increased French presence in Italy 1510-1511 Venice-Papal alliance against France Result: French victory 1511-1513 Holy League against France Result: Holy League victory; Germans refuse to surrender territory to Venice - Venice turns to France for help 1513-1516 Venetian-French alliance against Holy League Result: Venice and French victory over the Holy League

I've removed the box listing the results. It drastically over-simplifies both the phases of the war and the actual results; a correct description of the result would be a paragraph of text for each phase. I see no need to use such simplified information merely for the dubious benefit of having another box on the page, which already has two. Kirill Lokshin 14:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Some further clarification on why the result box is a bad idea:

1. Unlike the alliances, there is little need for someone to refer back to the box as a reference while reading. It is particularly useless in its place at the bottom of the article, since anyone seeing it will already have read through the relevant sections. The text, I think, quite adequately explains the results of each phase without needing to resort to a special table.
2. The results are simplified; in the case of the first phase, particularly, the over-simplification is a gross one: properly, France defeated Venice, Venice defeated the HRE and the Papacy, but surrendered to the Papacy. Further, the large French presence in Italy is an artifact of the Second Italian War, and was merely increased by the French victory here. I believe that it is better to omit the box entirely rather than put a grossly simplified explanation into place.

Hopefully this makes clear why I decided to remove it. Kirill Lokshin 16:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok fine, it just seems that the article needs some simplification. It seems to be one of the most confusing wars in history. I wanted it because theres always a "result" section of the standard warboxes. Astrokey44 21:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I've added a result section to the warbox at the top (thanks for pointing that out — I'm surprised I missed its absence). I think the result of the war as a whole should be quite sufficient for the casual reader; if anyone is really interested in finding out how each phase ended, they probably don't need a separate box to tell them, as they'll likely be reading the article fully. Kirill Lokshin 21:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Shaw citation

"Christine Shaw, Julius II: the Warrior Pope (Oxford:Blackwell) 1993." - can we get a page number with that? It's not really a citation, otherwise.

(And, in any case, there's no need to revert stylistic cleanup merely because you want to add the citations back; nor to arbitrarily change citation styles; and particularly not to alter citations to point to an entirely different place without realizing that a different edition is being used.) Kirill 13:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Will do. How could I have thought the citations were being deleted? --Wetman 19:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding them. (I suppose I ought to get a copy of that book at some point, so I can do that myself. ;-) Kirill 20:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow...

While I'm not suppose to make forum discussion comments, I just have to say, clicking on the link on the main page and reading the box. I just can't help but laugh. So much side switching! DarkGhost89 (talk) 12:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Emergency! Link is WRONG!

Wowowow! All stop!

The link to the Council of Pisa, which occurred in the text that narrated how Julius and Spain agreed punish Florence because Florence had slighted the Pope by allowing Louis to hold the Council of Pisa in Florentine territory, incorrectly lead the reader to the Wiki article on the Council of Pisa (1409) during the Western Schism in which a second antipope was elected. This event transpired more than one century ago before the Wars of the League of Cambrai and obviously had nothing to do with Florence or Julius II or the Spaniards; the source of the confusion is that there were TWO Councils of Pisa, the First at 1409, the Second at 1511. The Second Council of Pisa was also known as the Fifth Council of the Lateran, which was a debate over clerical reform and sovereignty of the monarchs v. Papal claims and the source of Julius II's irritation.

Jonathan Chin

Good catch! If I'm not mistaken, the 1511 Council of Pisa was the French-sponsored preliminary to the Fifth Lateran Council, not the Fifth Lateran itself; but, since the Lateran article seems to be the only one that mentions the events in Pisa, I've changed the link to point to that for the time being. Eventually, we'll probably want either a full article on the earlier council, or more material in the Lateran article covering the full sequence of events. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on major conflict infobox

A discussion on a major conflict infobox is taking place at Template talk:WW2InfoBox#Allies.. All input welcome. Thank you. ^walk victor falk ^talk 07:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Featured article status

This article was on a list to be considered for Wikipedia:Featured article review. I've added a few "citation needed" tags; there may be more places citations are needed. Major contributors, for notification purposes: User:Kirill Lokshin, User:Wetman, User:Viator slovenicus. -- Beland (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Noted for the side switching done by the papal states and venice

Do I need to talk about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.162.64.232 (talk) 06:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

'Spain'

I don't have much knowledge of the League, but it seems to me that the Crown of Castile did not play much of a role, if any in the war. Is there any evidence of Ferdinand using his regency over Castile to become involved? If not then it doesn't seem like mentions of 'Spain' are accurate, and references to it should be replaced with the Crown of Aragon. Linking the Spanish Empire is certainly wrong, as this refers mostly to Spain's colonial empire in the Americas. Ecrm87 (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Certain Habsburg Pavia flags contain the quartered Castile/aragon coat of arms. Spain is hard to say but there would have been Aragon’s, Catalan, and neapolitan men. Neapolitan army contain Albanians and at times Greek mercenaries. Yes Spain is a simplification but it beats “Ferdinand II king of Aragon, regent of Castile, lord of the indies (Castilian possession)and king of Naples) 2601:140:4101:DA40:AD49:D0B8:CD2D:166C (talk) 06:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Since Ferdinand held the Crown of Aragon, his territories probably included the Principality of Catalonia, the Kingdom of Majorca, the Kingdom of Valencia, and Southern Italy. He was the regent of the Crown of Castile from 1507 to his death in 1516. He also managed to conquer the southern areas of the Kingdom of Navarre in his 1512 campaign. Dimadick (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)