Talk:Italian War of 1542–1546

message: Is it a misnomer to call this the "Italian War"? Seems like the Italian theatre of a wider war. It's an old reference, but the old edition of the Cambridge Modern History says of the war, "the alliance ... promised results, though not in Italy. The main objective this time was the Netherlands." . Really just another installment in the grudge match between the Habsburgs and Valois France. --Iacobus 01:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The name comes from "Italian Wars".  While the term is, admittedly, a bit of a misnomer in the sense that the latter wars focused less and less on Italy itself, it is, as far as I know, the most common historical term for this series of conflicts. Kirill Lokshin 01:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italian War? 

message: I have added a note on the French effectives for the crucial campaign of 1544, they are important not only in themselves, but because they are a highwater mark for the size of the French army in the whole century. It was a short lived strain on French resources, as Francis I himself stated thatat best, his subjects could support 50.000 troops--Ignacio Arrizabalaga (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very interesting point.  I've taken the liberty of cleaning up the footnote formatting a bit to bring it in line with the other ones in the article. Kirill 20:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  French numbers in 1544 

message: *It would be nice to have more markers for places. One has to peer at the map to discover that Vitry is Vitry-le-François: the link only goes to a Vitry disambiguation page; it is somewehat the same with Villefranche, whose link goes to a confusing disambiguation page, though with some difficulty I think I identified it on the right of the illustration at the top of the page: a phrase of explanation would have saved me the search time and eye strain.
** Fixed Villefranche.  Vitry is not, in fact, Vitry-le-François (which was the city as rebuilt by Francis after the war); I'll see if I can find the original name, but I'm fairly certain we don't have an article on the old one anyways. Kirill 04:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be Vitry-en-Perche, or en-Perchois. If it's vanished or been built over, I suppose that's why it doesn't have an article.qp10qp (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In practice, though, this rebellion was specific to Ghent (see Revolt of Ghent) and is a precise equivalent to the tax revolt in La Rochelle.qp10qp (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, we have an article on the specific revolt?  I hadn't even looked, to be honest. Kirill 10:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Should the terms of the truce be noted? qp10qp (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The important aspect is the terms that were omitted—the settlement of territorial claims; I could mention the French retention of Turin, but I'm not sure it would really mean much to the reader without the context of the rest of that war. Kirill 10:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Not the entire history, just the fact that he signed it when imprisoned by Charles. I believe that is helpful; and it is interesting.qp10qp (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, fair enough.  I'll see how I can work this and all the other terms-of-previous-treaties items into the article. Kirill 10:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Added some material on this. Kirill 20:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: At least now the reader can set that against Francis's alliance with Suleiman and the billeting of Turkish troops in Toulon. qp10qp (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't believe it was incidental. I believe it took place when it looked like Francis would be busy. And that for strategic reasons, he could not afford to ignore it. qp10qp (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The princes of the blood were a key factor in sixteenth-century royal politics. Why else would this young man be given the command if he was not a Bourbon? The Bourbons stood ready to take over if the Valois failed; they had to be accommodated, and, in particular, they had to be accommodated in the south of France. When the Valois dynasty ended, François de Bourbon's brother was the Catholics' choice of king (Charles X), and his nephew, Henry, became the first Bourbon king. I notice that in the Battle of Ceresole article, you do call him François de Bourbon—at least at first. You name Antoine de Bourbon this way, so consistency also comes into it. Still, it is up to you. qp10qp (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough; I hadn't noticed that I'd switched titles on him. Kirill 10:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: What was the intent of the campagn? To take Milan? qp10qp (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Eventually (as all French campaigning in northern Italy); but, as far as I know, the immediate goal was simply to break the stalemate. Kirill 10:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think at this stage in military history, fortified garrisons were very much a response. Especially if they were difficult to take or kept an army on the other side of a river. Look at what Montreuil did to the English; and that was no accident (it had recently been re-fortified). The English garrison proved unshiftable once in Boulogne, despite the size of the French army. qp10qp (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Except that this war takes place at a key moment in the Reformation, as the terms of Crépy indicate. qp10qp (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: On further looking, September 28—not that it matters much, I suppose. I just wanted to see how it timed with Henry's departure (simultaneous, it seems). The wording here perhaps could be clarified, because Norfolk withdrew on hearing of the Dauphin's approach (I'm not sure "descended on" makes that clear). qp10qp (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed. Kirill 10:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: But it is not satisfying to find out what the war was partly about once it is over. "Rehashed" isn't the word, in my opinion, since readers may come to the articles individually; I haven't read the earlier ones. qp10qp (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Noted; see above. Kirill 10:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mentioned in the article now, albeit briefly; the link to the Treaty of Madrid is hopefully sufficient for anyone looking for a blow-by-blow description. Kirill 20:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  Added some mentions of this. Kirill 20:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  Done. Kirill 20:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Clarified, hopefully. Kirill 20:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  Added in footnote. Kirill 20:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks!  This is by far the most thorough review one of my articles has received, incidentally; thank you very much for taking the time to go through it. Kirill 10:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Continued from FAC

message: Good featured article; I enjoyed reading it a lot.
One thing I would like to see in the article is more detail about that French expeditionary force to Scotland that landed in May, 1545.  Specifically: 1) How strong was it?  2) Who commanded it?  3)  Where in Scotland did it go?  4)  Did it ever do anything significant?  5)  Did it ever get back to France, and if so, how and when?
Pirate Dan (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any information about this force, other than that it existed. Given that there's no mention of any attacks from Scotland during that period, I suspect the force didn't do anything noteworhy. Kirill [talk] [pf] 15:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  If I can find out anything about it, I'll put it in.  Pirate Dan (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  French expeditionary force in Scotland 

message: The infobox suggest that Saxony and Bradenburg were part of the Charles V's empire, which wasn't the case. Izraías (talk) 02:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, you're correct; I've changed the formatting accordingly. Kirill [talk] 06:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The infobox never suggested such a thing. It stated that they were part of the Holy Roman Empire, which is a fact. Saxony and Brandenburg weren't great powers at the time, on par with Spain or England. The reverted version of the infobox suggests that. Hence, I'll change the format back accordingly. Str1977 (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  The nested layout in the infobox does suggest that Saxony and Brandenburg were under Charles' control, unfortunately; the two are listed as subsidiary items under the Holy Roman Empire, which is itself listed as a subsidiary item under the empire of Charles V. I've tried to clarify this by adding a second, separate header line for the states of the Holy Roman Empire and listing Saxony and Brandenburg under it rather than under Charles V directly; does that work for you? Kirill [talk] 12:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it doesn't. It would be better simply to get rid of the "Empire of Charles" bit since it was merely a personal union. Your new version implies that the war, among others, pitted the Holy Roman Empire against the Holy Roman Empire. However, Saxony and Brandenburg were in line with their King/Emperor while Jülich-Berg were in rebellion. BTW, as parts of the HRE, Saxony and Brandenburg were very well "under the control" of the Emperor, though not completely. In 1540s, the states of the HRE were far from being independent. Str1977 (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I've removed the "Empire of Charles V" line and put Spain and the HRE as top-level belligerents. Kirill [talk] 13:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Str1977 (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: infobox Belligerents