Talk:Italian Wars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST 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.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Italy (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Former countries / Holy Roman Empire  (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Holy Roman Empire task force.


Someone with a good grasp of these events might expand this article, with a generous supply of Main article:... headings to blocks of text, and tie together many small articles on episodes (at "What links here" etc) within the general framework. The result? a great help to the Wikipedia reader. --Wetman 07:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Which viceroy?[edit]

By 1503, Louis, having been defeated at the Battle of Cerignola and Battle of Garigliano, was forced to withdraw from Naples, which was left under the control of the Spanish viceroy, Ramon de Cardona.

Was this particular viceroy not Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba? qp10qp 23:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like that's a mistake, as Córdoba apparently remained as viceroy until 1507. Kirill Lokshin 00:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If you don't mind . . .[edit]

If no one minds, I'd like to increase the "Italy 1494" map size here to at 250px from the recently down-sized 200px. I try to design maps and their text at a sufficient size to be read directly within the article. As I mention on my User Page, I believe that the maps should be tailored to the article so that, for example, the reader easily find specific locations (e.g. Naples) without having to click 2 or 3 times to get a map close-up.

Which is a long-winded way to saying that the map does best at 250px (or higher), so I'd like to move it up a bit in size in no one minds. MapMaster 03:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, sure, that seems fine; the 350px was a little wide, though. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 04:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn´t the map that is used in the german WIKI be better and more accurate than the one used here in the article about the Italian Wars and the 1494 Italian War? article ConjurerDragon (talk) 09:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It's more detailed, certainly; but also more difficult to read unless it's expanded to its full size. I'm not sure which factor is more important, particularly since this article isn't really written at a depth where a lot of the detail would be directly referenced. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The "Italy 1494" could use some improvements in the color palette. The Duchy of Milan looks like a big lake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Tercio tactics?[edit]

I'm pretty sure the Spaniards weren't using Tercio tactics in the Italian wars - they were certainly putting the Arquebusiers to good effect, but Michael Howard puts the date of the reorganisation into 3000 men tercios at 1534, and Jose Gonzalez de Leon at 1536. Either way, I think the Tercios came a little later. Do you want me to perhaps do a little rewrite to accomodate this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

The early stuff was not true tercios, certainly; but the Italian Wars lasted until 1559, well into the period when the actual tercio had developed.
(Having said that, the mention of tercios in 1521 seems to be slightly anachronistic—at least without further explanation—so I've removed it.) Kirill Lokshin 23:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

.."sometimes known as the Great Italian Wars"[edit]

Oh please. Wargaming babble, as googling for the phrase in quotes immediately reveals. Enthusiast sites like to the contrary, when Sir Charles Oman uses the phrase in History of the Art of War in the Sixteenth Century it is as "the great Italian Wars", as one might say "the devastating First World War". It does not follow that we have a topic the Devastating First World War. This is irresponsible semi-literate enthusiasm. Deleted. --Wetman 03:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be rather deeply offended by this. Please tone down the insults and keep the page polite. By the way, I can't help being a bit silly myself and point out that, as everyone knows, the First World War was itself called the Great War right up to World War II, so you might try for a different example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That's doesn't seem quite right. While Oman does, indeed, use the term lowercase (and occasionally shortens it to "the great wars"), he is not using "great" as a mere descriptive adjective, but as a way of disambiguating this conflict from the variety of other things that can be termed the "Italian Wars" (including both obvious cases like the Italian War and the Italian Wars of Independence, as well as a variety of differently-named conflicts in or involving Italy). Indeed, Oman is hardly the only historian to do so. The comparison with the First World War isn't particularly meaningful, since there's no need to disambiguate; a better one would be the Great Turkish War.
(A side note: Google searches aren't all that meaningful for sixteenth-century history; wargaming sites are pretty much the only result more because of the absence of any serious historiography from the web than because the term is only a wargaming one.) Kirill Lokshin 04:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, how excellent! I note that in the google book search quoted above every notice there of the "great Italian wars" is in lowercase, with one exception: a quote from Great Italian Wars 1494—1544: The Wargamer's Guide. Of course, no one is denying that the fifteenth-sixteenth-century Italian Wars were a great disturbance in Italian life. But only wargamers call the Italian Wars the "Great Italian Wars" [sic]. --Wetman 09:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
True; but as a point of terminology, I think it ought to be mentioned (in lowercase, of course). Kirill Lokshin 13:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
(Incidentally, the wargaming example may not be valid either, as it's the book's title which is being noted; it may very well be used lowercase in the text itself.) Kirill Lokshin 13:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Holy Roman empire[edit]

The Spanish emerged as the victors. What about the Holy Roman Empire. Did they gain or lose in the war? Within a hundred years, the Holy Roman Empire would be virtually destroyed after the Peace of Westaphilia or however you spell it. Did this affect it in any way?Tourskin 02:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The HRE was on the winning side, in a sense, but failed to significantly profit by it (due mostly to the way Charles V split his inheritance). The territory won in the wars wound up in Spanish hands, as did the bulk of the military advances, and the prestige of victory. The HRE, meanwhile, got saddled with a growing Catholic-Lutheran conflict (c.f. Schmalkaldic League) and the aftermath of several large Ottoman invasions, and lost out on the massive income Spain derived from her colonies.
(In some sense, the HRE was never involved on a national level in these wars; the involvement stemmed primarily from that of the Emperor himself. Once Charles abdicated, the war fell primarily to Philip; Ferdinand had little personal stake in it.) Kirill Lokshin 02:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

HRE as location[edit]

I don't see how specifying the HRE as a location versus "Germany" is the more helpful option here; the HRE at the time is not a monolithic or even clearly defined geographic entity, and includes both components that are already subsumed in the other listed locations (e.g. Milan, Tuscany) as well as components that had nothing to do with the wars (e.g. Bohemia). Kirill Lokshin 15:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


Should we perhaps add a 'causus belli' to the chart? Most battles and war articles have them.--Chopin-Ate-Liszt! 05:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


Scotland and Saxony are listed as belligerents but no mention is made of their role - presumably a minor one? At what point were they involved, on which side, and engaged in which locations? (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Spanish invasion of Navarre in 1519?[edit]

From the article:

In 1519, a Spanish invasion of Navarre, nominally a French fief, provided Francis with a pretext for starting a general war; French forces flooded into Italy and began a campaign to drive Charles from Naples.

Is this true? This was added way back in 2005 with Kirill Lokshin's original expansion of the article, but according to the article on War of the League of Cambrai#Holy League, this invasion occurred in 1512. The Kingdom of Navarre article backs that up, and lists that as the date when Ferdinand takes over most of Navarre. Was there some new provocation in 1519? Or are one of these article's dates wrong? (I ask because I recently spun out the Spanish conquest of Iberian Navarre article from Kingdom of Navarre, and if anything happened in 1519, it should probably be put in there. But I can't find anything on that, only the French invasion in 1521.)

Also, I think "fief" might be a bit strong. Navarre was a client state of France, I'd say - completely dependent on France for its survival, but nominally independent. At least that's my understanding? (Again, could be wrong here.) SnowFire (talk) 07:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you're right and this article is wrong; Francis used the d'Albret claim to Navarre as a pretext in 1519–21, but Navarre was, in fact, already in Spanish hands by then. Kirill (prof) 14:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


"were a series of conflicts from 1494 to 1559 that involved, at gaygaygay== Prelude ==" Please revert the obvious vandalism by — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Betrayal? Not quite[edit]

I've suppressed a very badly POV-tainted sentence about Ludovico Sforza's "betrayal" and a factual inaccuracy.

Lodovico Sforza was the Duke of Milan. He called the French into Italy, supporting the King of France's dynastic aims on the Kingdom of Naples. The French army soon proved to be no match for the weak Italian regional states, none of which could field a fifth of its numbers; French artillery also was technologically superior, inasmuch as the French guns could destroy the hitherto impregnable Italian fortifications. Ludovico Sforza realized he had invited a fox into a chicken coop. So he adhered to the Holy League, signing the relevant Treaty on 31st March. The battle of Fornovo took place in early July. So much for the sentence I deleted, which alleged that Lodovico Sforza "betrayed" the French while the battle of Fornovo was being fought.

I've also edited out the idea that Fornovo was a French victory. Ending out master of the battlefield, in those years, meant to be the victor. You don't flee from the battlefield without your carriages and provisions if you win a battle. The "Pyrrhic victory" was in fact just that, but it was the Italians who got... Pyrrhicized. The Italians' casualties were ten times greater than the French army's, as a consequence of outdated fighting techniques. And the history of the expedition showed that the regional states of Italy could not possibly defeat a large army from a major European power. The realization that such was the situation paved the way for the numerous invasions of Italy in the following centuries. Pan Brerus (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted your changes to the referenced sentences. IF this information is inaccurate, as you say, then you will have to provide reliable sources backing your claim, else your edits are simply your opinion, not fact. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Kansas Bear, but one source WAS provided: Luigi Barzini Jr., The Italians, already quoted (an international success). As to Ludovico Sforza, it is enough to read the Wikipedia articles about the Holy League to realize he couldn't possibly have "betrayed" Charles VIII "during the battle of Fornovo", since he had signed into the anti-French alliance more than 3 months before said battle. "Betray" is a word that is heavily POV-tainted and should not be used while speaking of states (as opposed to individuals), whose changing interests dictate alliances and enmities and the switches thereof. I've reverted your changes and explicitly quoted Barzini's book as the source. Pan Brerus (talk) 09:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Then you won't have any problems proving that Luigi Barzini, Jr. is a qualified academic in this field not simply a journalist or politician writing a book,[1] thus not a reliable source
Also, you haven't quite explained your edit which changes a referenced sentence from;
"The French army beat the League Army at the battle of Fornovo on July 6, 1495"
"At the battle of Fornovo on July 6, 1495, the League's army forced the French to withdraw, leaving their provisions behind".[2]
If you have a copy of The Italian Wars: 1494-1559, by Michael Mallett[3] and Christine Shaw,[4] please quote where it states this information.
You added an unsourced paragraph;
"Consequently, the regional states of Italy were shown once and for all to be both rich and comparatively weak, which sowed the seeds of the wars to come. In fact the individual Italian states could not field armies comparable to those of the great feudal monarchies of Europe in numbers and equipment."[5]
And these unsourced sentences;
"In contemporary tradition, that counted as an Italian victory, because the French forces had to leave the battlefield. To Italy, however, it was a pyrrhic victory."[6]
Because both of these unsourced additions appear to be personal opinion not factual history. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Once again, the source is Barzini's book, already mentioned. Does one have to cite the same book for each added sentence? That would be nonsense.

As to academic research, this is what the Guidelines say: "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications."

Luigi Barzini, Jr. is indeed such a source, and you really should have taken the pain to check it up. Having been an academic historian myself for a few years, I resent your continuing innuendos about my personal opinions: I form my personal opinions on historical matters by reading authoritative sources. In this case, Barzini Jr -- a journalist, not unlike Karl Marx, Ernest Hemingway and André Malraux. The Wikipedia Italian article about the Battle of Fornovo covers the topic in some detail: if you understand Italian, you might look it up ( BTW I'm not a contributor to that article; I've checked with the internal search engine in case I contributed and then forgot about it.

You might also see the Spanish Wiki article, at The French version stops just short of admitting the French defeat, by writing "L'armée vénitienne ne parvient pas à arrêter la retraite française vers Asti". The French historians' version of the battle is especially biased, and even the Wikipedia article does not source any single sentence it includes. The Polish Wiki article indicates "taktyczne zwycięstwo francuskie; strategiczne zwycięstwo włoskie", that is, a tactical French victory and a strategic Italian victory - while the Italian article speaks about a strategic French victory and a tactical Italian one, which seems to be closer to the truth. The article in Russian agrees with the Polish, indicating a Тактическая победа Франции - Стратегическая победа итальянцев; the one in Turkish speaks of a Fransız stratejik zaferi - Venedik taktik zaferi, ie it sides with the Italian article. The reasons for that double outcome I have tried to explain in my unexplicitly-Barzini-sourced paragraph. The Dutch article says "Het gevolg van de slag was dat de Fransen tijdelijk uit Italië verdreven werden." -- Translation: "The consequence of the battle was that the French were temporarily expulsed from Italy", which would be a peculiar consequence indeed of a victory.

The German Wikipedia also states ( Karl wollte sich nicht in Neapel abschneiden lassen und zog mit seinem Heer in die Lombardei, wo es am 6. Juli 1495 etwa 30 km südöstlich von Parma zur Schlacht bei Fornovo kam. Seine Verluste waren so schwer, dass er die Beute seines Italienzuges zurückließ und nach Frankreich zurückkehrte. Durch die hohe Schuldenlast war ihm eine Weiterführung des Krieges nicht möglich, er starb 27-jährig am 7. April 1498 an einem Unfall auf Schloss Amboise.

The bold part says: "His losses were so heavy that he left behind the booty of his Italian campaign and went back to France". A bizarre victory. The sentence, however, was unsourced.

The Spanish article quotes a Website ( where one can read an account of the battle by a Venitian official; the final paragraph is:

"60. Meanwhile the Frenchman (ie the King of France) called his leaders into conference and said, "Behold, nobles, after great slaughter and much bloodshed in this very cruel battle we have at length left the enemy behind us, yet we have been very unfortunate, for we have lost most of our baggage. Yet it was sufficient to have escaped so great peril with a small band. It would indeed have been the height of felicity if all had turned out well, but we must endure it if fortune has heaped on this one day all the evils of a whole year, a fortune which had been predicted to us as black, so that now, driven by hunger amid great danger, with glory and a kingdom and a triumph lost, with soldiers left behind in Puglia and Calabria, I must return home with a few forces. But in this one fact I rejoice, that our men fought with the utmost courage and true military discipline, and only a few of our nobles, and of the other soldiers not many, are missing, and even fewer are wounded. There is indeed nothing lasting under the heavens, and we must yield sometimes to fortune. The war with King Alfonso and his son we fought without bloodshed. But the Venetians have changed everything for us. This kingdom was not acquired for me, but for all of you; I enjoy a very extensive kingdom in a long succession. It remains to establish the whole army in safety with the greatest possible speed. But you, Trivulzio, proclaimed that the commander of the camp was a young man, or a boy, without military training. An evil boy he seemed to me on that day, but if the fight had taken place in the open he would have been far worse."

Not exactly the words of a victor.

To sum it up: the sentences you criticized were not unsourced; and even if I did not deem it expedient to add other references in the article, I have mined out quite a few, as you can read in this post of mine. Will that be enough for you? I do hope so. Pan Brerus (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

So Barzini is not a historian and has no specialization in this time period, therefore he is not a reliable source. Since you are an "academic historian", I am sure you can find a published work by a reliable source stating what you have added to the article.
For the second time, you have not explained why you changed the Mallett sourced sentence and did not provide a quote from that book to prove the source indicates this change. I find it odd that you ignored two academic historians(Mallett & Shaw) to promote the opinion of a journalist.
As for an "authoritive source", unless Barzini was alive in 1495, his opinion is simply that of a journalist and politician. I am sure, being an academic historian, you realize that. As for Karl Marx, Ernest Hemingway and André Malraux, these sources would only be useful in terms of their areas of expertise and possible usage as a primary source for the time periods in which they lived.
The only real source you provided, since wikipedia can not be used to reference wikipedia, is the Venetian source. It appears to be a primary source, thus containing bias, errors, and misinformation common for that time period and situation, and most certainly should be avoided. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Let us keep to the essentials. There is no law of physics saying journalists cannot be objective, and the Guidelines explicitly endorse the use of non-academic sources. I emphasize it: the Guidelines do not forbid it. If it is not forbidden, it is permitted, and you have no ground for criticizing my doing just that. Barzini Jr sold millions of copies worldwide of his insightful book, and the battle of Fornovo is very important within it. I did not use Wikipedia as a reference, but I showed YOU (not the general reader) that the interpretation of the battle of Fornovo as an unmitigated French victory was not present in any other Wikipedia - and also that many articles were poorly sourced but were not defied under that respect. Francesco Guicciardini (, accessed 20th March 2014) describes the battle of Fornovo. Guicciardini is a historian and political thinker whose reputation is not second to Machiavelli's. Unfortunately for me, he is not entirely on my side, since he testifies about both parties trying to adjudicate themselves the victory at Fornovo all right, but he also writes "E nondimeno, il consentimento universale aggiudicò la palma a' franzesi: per il numero de' morti tanto differente, e perché scacciorono gl'inimici di là dal fiume, e perché restò loro libero il passare innanzi, che era la contenzione per la quale proceduto si era al combattere." Meaning the eventual consensus was for a French victory, because the French repelled their enemies across the river, and succeeded in moving forward, which was their reason for fighting. Guicciardini, however, does not speak of an unconditional French victory, and he cites the same reasons as I did - their losing their carriages and even part of the King's arms, and their fleeing the battlefield. I think you and I might settle for the same formula as so many international Wiki articles (Italian tactical victory, French strategic victory), and a reference to Guicciardini. Pan Brerus (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

In response to your inability to answer why you changed the Mallett sourced sentence, I have added what the Mallett source states, removed Barzini who is nothing but a journalist and has no page numbers. I would suggest you find some secondary sources by historians and stay away from primary sources, since you appear to be using them to push a POV, and unreliable journalistic sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
You must be savoring your power, Kansas Bear. Barzini "is nothing but a journalist", you say. Look up Wikipedia to get to know how influential and respected he was, and then remember the WP Guidelines: "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications." You have no reason to stump over the Guidelines except your own unexplainable POV -- and no authority to do so, either. If it is permitted to use non-academic sources, you should prove this one is unreliable before disregarding it.
As to primary sources: why do you classify Guicciardini among "primary" sources? He's a well-known political thinker and did not take part in the battle, but wrote a few years later, based on other sources. Guicciardini's importance in Italian political thought is not second to Machiavelli's.
However, the difference is between an "unqualified French victory" and a "qualified French victory". Common sense suggest you don't flee from the battlefield in a hurry, leaving your provisions behind, if you've just won an unqualified victory. Is common sense an acceptable source? Pan Brerus (talk) 09:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I would suggest you fall back on your professionalism as an "academic historian", and not make this a personal issue. "You must be savoring your power, Kansas Bear.", "
"why do you classify Guicciardini among "primary" sources?"
Because Guicciardini was living and writing during the time period in which these events(ie. Italian wars) occurred, and therefore his perspective and bias would be colored by such events. Odd that you continue to ignore the works of Michael Mallett, Emeritus Professor of history at the University of Warwick and a distinguished historian of fifteenth and sixteenth century Italy, who uses Guicciardini.
Why should I use a journalist, when I can use Mallett or Christine Shaw? Why continue to ignore what Mallett has written in his books? "Mercenaries and their Masters:Warfare in Renaissance Italy", "The Military Organization of a Renaissance State:Venice c.1400 to 1617", "The Italian Wars 1494-1559" Why change a sentence referenced by Mallett and not give a reason or explanation?
"You have no reason to stump over the Guidelines except your own unexplainable POV"
This is the sentence(referenced by Mallet which you changed without explaining why) before I changed it, "At the battle of Fornovo on July 6, 1495, the League's army forced the French to withdraw, leaving their carriages and provisions behind."
This is the sentence after I changed it to what Mallett states in his book, "The battle of Fornovo was fought on July 6, 1495, after an hour the League's army was forced back across the river while the French continued marching to Asti, leaving their carriages and provisions behind."
I am not the one with a POV. I am taking what Mallett states and placing it in the article.
"This ill-discipline quickly spread to some of the infantry companies, and drew them away from the centre of the fighting. Francesco Gonzaga and Fortebraccio found themselves outnumbered in the centre and the death of Rodolfo Gonzaga left no one responsible for bringing in the reserves. After an hour's fierce fighting during which the king had been in considerable danger, the Italians fell back across the river, allowing the French to reform and continue their march." -- The Italian Wars 1494-1559, by Michael Mallett, page 31.
"However, the difference is between an "unqualified French victory" and a "qualified French victory". Common sense suggest you don't flee from the battlefield in a hurry, leaving your provisions behind, if you've just won an unqualified victory."
Sounds like original research to me. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Another source from a historian, Spencer C. Tucker;
"The battle occurs on July 6, 1495, when the French cross the Taro and head north into the Pass on Pontremoli. Their adversaries, positioned on the other side of the river, attempt to take the French in the flank but are handicapped by the swollen river and muddy conditions from heavy rains of the day before. The French employ their artillery with great effectiveness, then charge and rout the Italians. At a cost of only 200 dead and an equal number of wounded, the French kill 3,500 of their adversaries. Charles then marches on into Lombardy and returns to France." --A Global Chronology of Conflict: From the Ancient World to the Modern Middle East, Vol.I, by Spencer C. Tucker, page 361. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
"Of the thousands of Italians who withdrew from the scene of battle, some made their way to Parma, others to Reggio d'Emilia. The French might have converted the Italian defeat into a disaster if they had pursued them across the river. But they were tired, and the way to Asti lay open. Although neither side had succeeded in destroying the other, the French had won." --The Papacy and the Levant, 1204-1571:The Fifteenth century, by Kenneth Meyer Setton, page 494-495. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Guicciardini as a "primary source". From the Wikipedia definition of a primary source: "Information for which the writer has no personal knowledge is not primary, although it may be used by historians in the absence of a primary source." You styled Guicciardini as a "primary source" because "Guicciardini was living and writing during the time period in which these events(ie. Italian wars) occurred, and therefore his perspective and bias would be colored by such events". This is incorrect, and immaterial. To be a primary source, you have to have been a witness of the events or at least a strict contemporary; Guicciardini (6 March 1483 – 22 May 1540) was only 12 years old when the battle took place and he didn't take part in it — nor in the political play that surrounded it. His alleged bias, too, is immaterial in ascertaining whether he was a primary source or not. In fact, Guicciardini was a very influential political thinker and historian, almost the equal of Machiavelli, and no match for the historians you keep citing.
Eliminating subtle bias from research, even by simply refusing to consider the researcher at all, is the stuff of original research.
While common sense is NOT. You don't need original research to know Baron Munchhausen's great deeds were not real.Pan Brerus (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Odd you continue to harp on this, yet can not explain why you changed the Mallett referenced sentence!
Per Harvard University[7], "Emphasis on readings from primary sources including Machiavelli, Guicciardini, Francis Bacon, Voltaire and Gibbon.". Note the book listed, Guicciardini, Francesco. The History of Italy. ed Sidney Alexander. Princeton University Press. 1984. 0-691-00800-0 $22.95.
Per a paper written by Jason Scorza[8],[9], note the heading, "Bibliography of Primary Sources".
Here[10] according to "This bibliography is based on a bibliography © University of Oxford, Modern History Faculty, 2001", Guicciardini's work is again referred to as a primary source and not listed as a secondary source.
So it is very clear that universities consider Guicciardini's "The History of Italy" as a primary source. So I did not "style" Guicciardini a primary source, universities and academics have "styled" Guicciardini's work a primary source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)