Talk:Sack of Rome (1527)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Charles was greatly embarrassed 

message: 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)
thread_title: Citations needed

message: 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)
thread_title:  New category suggested 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Phillisuon? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  In fiction 

message: 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)
thread_title:  References/Notes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Origin of the 400,000 ducats is important! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Roman Renaissance 

message: 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)
thread_title:  In fiction (again) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  15,000 losses 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Merger proposal with [[Stand of the Swiss Guard]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done. That passage is anything but "secret".ASchudak (talk) 09:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Passetto_di_Borgo|Passetto di Borgo]] is hardly a "secret passage" 

message: 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":
From Falkland Islands: 
From Saudi Arabia: 
From Pastorale officium: 
From Netherlands: 
From Poland: 
From Nigeria: 
From Pedro Fages: Maynard Geiger. The Life and Times of Fray Junípero Serra. Academy of American Franciscan History, 1959, vol. 1, p. 253.
From History of the Philippines: 
From Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor: 
From Sebastiano del Piombo: Lucco; Vasari
From Age of Discovery: Mancall 2006, p. 17.
From Swiss Guards: Jerome Bodin, page 259, "Les Suisses au Service de la France", 
From Roman Empire: Winterling, p. 16.
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)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Sack of Rome (1527)]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done. If you disagree please explain here. Thanks ASchudak (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern persecutions of the Catholic Church ??? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Introduction  

message: 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)
replies: text: "Annihilated" can simply mean thoroughly defeated  and not necessarily "wiped out". PJM (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers