Talk:Sack of Rome (1527)

Military history: Early Modern Start‑class

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

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

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 met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)

Template:Maintained

Rome has been sacked on numerous occasions and this is hardly the most famous one. Could we consider redirecting this to History of Rome or at least creating more than "sack of Rome" article?

Peter Isotalo 23:19, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

This is a significant event in the Italian wars of the 1520s and should remain a separate article. It is only "hardly the most famous one" because of people like the above who want to submerge it under more general articles.

'Stub'

This article has been expanded significantly in recent months. Is it really still a stub?

Charles was greatly embarrassed

It says charles was greatly embarrassed by the conduct of his troops, but he was dead at the time - how could he be embarrassed then, or how would anyone know about it?

It's referring to Charles V, not Charles de Bourbon. (This is, admittedly, rather unclear from the text.) Kirill Lokshin 22:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned up the references to Charles de Bourbon and Emperor Charles V to make it clear which is which in each statement, hope this helps. Ratagonia 20:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think that Charles was likly not all that embarrassed because I think this was his intent all along. I have yet to see anything conclusive to show that the soldiers not getting paid was a sad accident. I am among those who believe that Charles V intentionally did not pay the Landsknechts. He must have known (as any leader and many regular citizens did) that this would make them more fierce, and destructive in fighting. I know that I do not have the proof, but Ihave not seen proof of non-intent either and wish that the lack of funds had not been mentioned here as fact.

Citations needed

Most of the history articles are packed with citations, this article has practically none. If folks could add citations, that would be helpful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ratagonia (talk • contribs) 19:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

New category suggested

I would like to suggest that this page be placed into a new category of "Plunder" or "Looting" along with articles like Nazi plunder, Czartoryski Museum, Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans, National Museum of Iraq, Looted art, Canicattì slaughter, Royal Casket, New York City blackout of 1977, Amber Room, Rescuing Da Vinci, Los Angeles riots of 1992, Laocoön and his Sons, The Rape of Europa and other similar articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.117.113 (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phillisuon?

"After three days of ravages, Phillisuon ordered the sack to cease..."

There's no mention of Phillisuon before this sentence -- who is he? --Jfruh (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is referring to Philibert. I will fix. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philibert_of_Ch%C3%A2lon is his page. Uberlieder (talk) 01:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fiction

The "in Fiction" section refers to the Sack being reference in Batman Begins and the basis for the sack in an Issac Asimov novel. I believe both of these are actually references to the sack of Rome by the Visigoths in 432(?) as they both are mentioned as the destructions of societies at their peak, or destruction of corrupt cultures; a check on excess. There may be more instances of this in the section, but those are the ones I noticed. Can we correct this? --151.191.175.232 (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)cem 10:27 8/12/08[reply]

References/Notes

What should be under notes is under references, if anyone wants to fix. I can later, since I am very new to wiki, but if anyone more experienced wants to, be my guest. Uberlieder (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other results of Sack of Rome

I was just reading a popular history book about 16th century Spain which mentioned other events that were influenced by the Sack of Rome. I don't have the book any longer (went back to the library) and it was a popular history so there is probably a better source out there, but could these events also be included?

The English Reformation - had the Pope been free to grant Henry VIII a divorce (there was ample precedent for this), Henry might not have broken with Rome. This is a standard charge in Tudor histories, based on the likelihood that if Henry and Anne Boleyn had married earlier they would have had a son who would have been raised Catholic.
The Spanish Inquisition - would it have taken a different direction if the Pope had been free to criticize Charles?
The horror that prominent Catholics in France and England felt (or professed to feel) specifically over the destruction of the convents and the multiple rapes of almost every nun in Rome. The writer of the book I read claimed that the violence toward the nuns was phenomenally outrageous even by 16th century military standards, and specifically deepened the rifts between the Empire and Spain on one hand and France and England on the other. --NellieBly (talk) 00:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the 400,000 ducats is important!

The article should explain in more detail the tremendous price human culture and history paid to make those 400k ducats the Pope offered as ransom to survive the pillage. In fact the Vatican chambers did not have that much money, Michelangelo personally had to melt down uncountable many sacred treasures to obtain enough raw gold and silver for new minting.

Besides whole rooms of communion vessels and gilded gold crosses, an original crown of St. Stephan I, founding King of Hungary was also among the relics melted down. He sent it back to the Vatican in 1038 AD from his deathbed, since he had no living heir.

(Whether the currently venerated Holy Crown of Hungary ever belonged is to King Stephan the First is a hotly debated matter. It is known to exist since 1200AD at least, possibly much older. Some argue the crown melted down in the Vatican was King Stephan I's daily use headgear and the Holy Crown was his ritual use only crown.) 91.83.16.58 (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]