Talk:Antipope Clement VII/Archive 1

Avignon Pope is problematic, because it implies equivalence between the real Avignon popes (i.e. the popes who resided in Avignon between 1305 and 1377) and the Avignon antipopes of the Great Schism. john k 16:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is it really the business of Wikipedia to decide who was a real pope and who wasn't? From the point of view of half of Europe, Clement VII was the "real pope".RandomCritic 20:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

From the point of view of the Catholic Church, Clement was an antipope. At the time, there was considerable confusion about who was the authentic pope and who wasn't, but the Church's official position is that Clement wasn't the real article. Jhobson1 09:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The article states that Clement VII was born in 1342. It says that his father was Amadeus III of Savoy. When you follow the link for Amadeus III, it says that he died in 1148. This does not seem to add up.

It says that his father was Amadeus III of Geneva, of the House of Savoy, which is not the same thing at all. john k 17:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of what it may have said, the fact remained IT LINKED to Amadeus III, as the above user pointed out, to the Count of Savoy who indeed died in 1148. I have removed the link. Also, this is rather confusing since the Count of Geneva was absorbed into the House of Savoy. I assume that these are different people but wikipedia is not particularly clear or helpful in this area. It would help if people who know more, such as yourself, would add more info to help those of us who don't understand these relationships and people. At the very least, it would have helped if you had removed the link to the wrong person. Nil Einne 10:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thing is, he wasn't even of the House of Savoy. The House of Geneva is an entirely different dynasty, though the two houses did have very similar backgrounds (and there are actually some fancyful theories out there claiming Humbert the Whitehanded was in fact a junior son of the Count of Geneva). The direct line of the House of G went extinct with Robert; his nephew Humbert de Villars inherited the title, but he had problems getting himself recognized as Count. Finally, in 1415 (or so) his son Othon was pressured into selling his rights of inheritance to Amédée VIII de Savoie, and only from then on were the Counts of Geneva Savoyards. Also, though I'm not absolutely sure, IIRC Robert wasn't born in Geneva, but in Annency, seat of the Counts of G (another fascinating story: the Counts of Geneva were forced out of Geneva proper by the bishop and Count of Savoy; they called their dwindling possessions 'County of Genevois' and they ruled it from the rather magnificient castle of Annency). I left Geneva as PoB untouched, as I'm not absolutely sure about it, but I did delete the reference to Savoy: back then, in the 14th century, Geneva and the Genevois weren't regarded as parts of the Savoy area. This notion came about only after the Counts of S added G to their possessions, so I don't feel it appropriate to call it 'Geneva, Savoy'. Not to mention most people know where Geneva is.SáT 00:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source for the number of deaths in the town of Cesena? Cause i have a good source that puts it at b/w 2,500 to 5,000 also it has quotes that he was saying "sangue et sangue!" which has been translated as "Blood and more blood." I was thinking of adding it as it changes completly the image of him, as from the source i have he is presented as very blood thirsty... It goes on to say that he swore on his cardinal hat not to kill anyone if they surrendered, having agreed he slaughted them anyway.Imbored24 08:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources about the Schism whatsoever. What we do have is 500 years of malevolent propaganda; starting with St. Catherine of Siena, the Church was all too ready to blame every medieval failing of the Church on the Avignon side of the Schism, pretty much demonizing Robert in the process. Even modern historians tend to use the words "demonic" and "of great personal charm but of evil life" when speaking about him, which is massively silly. Robert was most certainly a repulsive character, but let's not accept every dismally fantastic tale spun about him. What we know about the massacre is very little, and we most certainly know nothing about the circumstances. Who promised the pardon (the Hawkwood legends claim that the good, chivalrous Hawkwood promised pardon but R intervened), was a pardon promised at all, who ordered the massacre, was the massacre ordered at all or the mercernaries just ran amok on their own -- it can't be determined. What did Robert say -- please, it all happened 500 years ago, is clouded by malignant propaganda, and isn't particularly well-documented. Btw, another version of the tale claims that Robert cited Ezekiel 9:5 when ordering the massacre ("Go after him through the city and kill; do not let your eye spare, nor have any pity. Utterly slay old and young men, maidens and little children and women"), which is just as apocryphal.

Anyhow, the only thing that seems more or less certain to me is that Cesena was pillaged, and it was clearly Robert's responsibility. Maybe the latter part should emphasized in the article indeed. As for the number of deaths: 4000 seems to be entrenched on the internet, no doubt because that's the figure presented in the Catholic Encyclopaedia. I've seen figures as high as 10,000. SáT 04:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)