Talk:Sack of Rome (1527)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articleame[edit]

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'[edit]

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

Charles was greatly embarrassed[edit]

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[edit]

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]

The article has a dead link citing an 1891 book by Froude. I reckon it is this book. Page 27 may be worth citing, for the sentence beginning "To ask a...".--AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New category suggested[edit]

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?[edit]

"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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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]
I've now added in the English Reformation consequences, backed by a couple of reliable sources. Reliable sources for the other 2 points may be harder to find (I'm not planning to look, but somebody else might wish to try) Tlhslobus (talk) 07:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Historians always worry about what is called the "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy—the notion (so dear to conspiracy theorists) that when one event follows another, the first event is responsible for the second. It is sloppy thinking, though all too common. Let's try to avoid it, shall we?
As to specific suggestions, there were reformers all over England well before 1527. The suggestion about the English Reformation belongs in a "History-What if?" discussion group, not in Wikipedia. As to the Spanish Inquisition, it was begun by Ferdinand and Isabella, not Charles, and the Pope was powerless at any time to stop Charles. More "History--What if?"" --Vicedomino (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the 400,000 ducats is important![edit]

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]

[1] mentions that "pay the sum of four thousand ducats" and "Moreover, a ransom for the freedom of prisoners was demanded". --Mewaqua 16:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Renaissance[edit]

The article states that the sack marked the end of the Roman Renaissance. Is that fair to say when the successor of Clement VII was Pope Paul III (the Farnese Pope)? Paul III employed Michelangelo to design the Campidoglio (one of the most significant contributions to architecture) and the last Judgment in the Sistine Chapel. Paul III was also heavily active in European Politics. Some might even say that the end of the Roman Renaissance happens after the death of Pope Sixtus V. All this to say, such a harsh cut-off date is probably more of a speed-bump. any opinions on this matter?Yullover (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for future article expansion[edit]

"Other books" is not a very helpful section for a Wikipedia page. Kindly restore these as they are used to verify points in the article or once they have a gloss somewhere in the article explaining their importance/relevance:

  • Buonaparte, Jacopo (1830). Sac de Rome, écrit en 1527 par Jacques Bonaparte, témion oculaire: traduction de l'italien par N. L. B. (Napoléon-Louis Bonaparte). Florence: Imprimerie granducale.
  • Arborio di Gattinara, Mercurino (Marchese) (1866). Il sacco di Roma nel 1527: relazione. Ginevra: G.-G. Fick.
  • Carlo Milanesi, ed. (1867). Il Sacco di Roma del MDXXVII: narrazione di contemporanei (in Italian). Firenze: G. Barbèra.
  • Schulz, Hans (1894). Der Sacco di Roma: Karls V. Truppen in Rom, 1527-1528. Hallesche Abhandlungen zur neueren Geschichte (in German). Vol. Heft 32. Halle: Max Niemeyer.
  • Lenzi, Maria Ludovica (1978). Il sacco di Roma del 1527. Firenze: La nuova Italia.
  • Pitts, Vincent Joseph (1993). The man who sacked Rome: Charles de Bourbon, constable of France (1490-1527). American university studies / 9, Series 9, History, Vol. 142. New York: P. Lang. ISBN 978-0-8204-2456-9.
  • Gouwens, Kenneth (1998). Remembering the Renaissance: Humanist Narratives of the Sack of Rome. Leiden-New York: BRILL. ISBN 90-04-10969-2.
  • Gouwens, Kenneth; Reiss, Sheryl E. (2005). The Pontificate of Clement VII: History, Politics, Culture ((collected papers) ed.). Aldershot (UK); Burlington (Vt.): Ashgate. ISBN 978-0-7546-0680-2.

 — LlywelynII 05:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think that "Other Books" can be a very helpful section on a Wikipedia page. I also agree that anything that is used in 'References' or in 'Notes' has a right to be present in a Bibliography (Let's call it by its real name). I think that all of these books should be on the main article page, and I will put them there, unless there is rational argument to the contrary. Whether a person likes or dislikes a section is irrelevant. I also agree that having these books on the main page can be a stimulant for users to look at them and use them to expand the article.
--Vicedomino (talk) 03:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fiction (again)[edit]

The entire section 'In fiction' is trivia. It currently comprises nearly 40% of the article. It is tangential to the subject, and should, at least, be pruned of the more ephemeral references (e.g. Wolf Hall, which does not present the facts accurately).

--Vicedomino (talk) 03:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15,000 losses[edit]

15,000 losses to the Spanish? is this refering to desertion of the men? it says the walls were easily captured, doesnt seem easy if 3/4 of the force was lost..? If 15,000 losses because of desertion i feel that should be made clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:AA0C:2700:9D79:1576:565A:5452 (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal with Stand of the Swiss Guard[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge the pages.

I believe that Stand of the Swiss Guard should be merged into this article as most of the content on the page is described here. The only additional content it adds is a little blurb about the stand of the Swiss Guard. It could probably just be made into a section on this page. Blorper234 (talk) 04:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. MERGE. The separate article on the Stand of the Swiss Guard makes sense only in the context of the article on the Sack of Rome, however sketchy its quality might be. Micro-subdividing and creation of new articles may add to an editor's stats, but it makes it more difficult for someone consulting the Wikipedia to track down information. --Vicedomino (talk) 04:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Passetto di Borgo is hardly a "secret passage"[edit]

The Passetto is a several-story-tall wall that runs through the streets of Rome. Anyone can see that it goes from the Vatican to the Castel Sant'Angelo. You can even see it on satellite photos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeHaveTwelveFeet (talk • contribs) 19:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. That passage is anything but "secret".ASchudak (talk) 09:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Sack of Rome (1527)[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Sack of Rome (1527)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto1":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Modern persecutions of the Catholic Church ???[edit]

I am not sure wether this event is justified to be entered into this category, which takes up a pretty large space of the page with its list of other events. In 1527 Protestant Landsknechts formed less then half of the army, the rest being Catholic Italians, Spaniards and Germans, led by Catholic Leaders in the name of the Catholic Emperor (elect) and the event took part in a war where the pope was a clear war party. While there clearly were antipapal units within the German contingent, the actual Sacco had nothing to do with "persecutions of the catholic church", and I ask those in support of that categorization to please back that up with sources. If there are none within the next two weeks I will remove the categorization from this article. ASchudak (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. If you disagree please explain here. Thanks ASchudak (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction[edit]

I rephrased the content in the Introduction, especially concerning the reasons for the later abandonment of the city and the fate of the League. Some of the stuff should probably not be in the introduction but in the Aftermath-section, but that is currently more dwelling on the cultural consequences, not on the military and political operations. There is some major work ahead. I will dig up some references from Mallet and Arfaioli for my statements and add these to the sourcelist (in around a week). Comments and criticism welcome! ASchudak (talk) 11:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers[edit]

The text of the article says there were 189 Swiss Guards, of whom 42 survived (so 147 were killed). However, the infobox says there were 500 Swiss Guards, of whom 458 were killed (which is presumably based on the fact that 42 survived - although the specificity of 458 assumes that there were exactly 500 to start with, which seems somewhat unlikely). Clearly that's a pretty major discrepancy, although at least there's agreement on the number of survivors. Frustratingly, both figures are sourced; for the first:

"Of the 189 Swiss Guards, only 42 survived, the ones who, when all was lost, under the command of Hercules Göldli guarded Clement VII’s retreat to safety in Castel Sant’Angelo."

And for the second:

"Included in the dead were ... all but 42 of the Papacy's 500 Swiss Guards."

There's also the fact that the introduction says that "the Swiss Guard were annihilated". If 42 survived, "almost annihilated" would be more accurate. Proteus (Talk) 09:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Annihilated" can simply mean thoroughly defeated [2] and not necessarily "wiped out". PJM (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sack_of_Rome_(1527)&oldid=1209959498"