Talk:Battle of Fornovo

message: I changed "8 miles from Parma" to "some 30km southeast of Parma" because there isn't any Fornovo nearer than that. But I may be wrong in that the former Fornovo may have been integrated into the Parma community since then, so please correct me... dab (ᛏ) 10:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Fornovo (di Taro) is here ℍenry, encyclophile (speak slowly, please) 05:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Southwest 

message: I do not see how Fornovo can be regarded as a victory of the League. The French broke through, as they intended to do.  Piero Pieri, in his "Il Rinascimento e la crisi militare italiana" acknowledges, as Guicciardini did centuries before him, that the battle should be regarded as a French victory. I suggest  "Narrow, strategic French victory" as more accurate. Stammer 11:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Outcome

message: I am a bit uncertain about the given Strength in the battle. Particularly those of the League. Even the source quoted per un totale di quasi 26000 uomini, that is, if my Italian is good enough, 26,000 men for the League and not the 10,800 written. And furthermore I agree with the previously mentionned point about the final victory. The French obviously assume they won, but the Italian are unsure about the final result. Bilbo pingouin 14:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if it isn't a victory from any of the side it should written such in the article. That was the main point of the discussion here. Bilbo pingouin (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strength 

message: This article was listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 January 29 because the "Battle" section utilized text taken directly from an English translation of Alessandro Beneditti's diary and also utilized text directly from . Although Beneditti's account is public domain due to age, the English translation utilized was produced in 1967. Translation is a derivative work and bears its own copyright. Since the original text is public domain, that copyright belongs to the translator. A new translation may be provided to the original text, but we cannot utilize direct language of a copyrighted translation without following the provisions of our non-free content guidelines or obtaining permission from the copyright holder to release it under GFDL. The section has been revised to remove duplication of language and also set off to indicate single source, which obviously may not neutrally present facts of the battle. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright concerns

message: I reinstated a paragraph that Dougweller (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dougweller#Twelve_Visions_Party) had reverted. He gave the following reason for erasing it: "(Google translation of Guicciardini doesn't seem to say that, so please explain on talk page, quoting Benedetti would be fine but I don't seem him as an RS for a statement of act like this)".
I'm a professional translator, my native language is Italian, and while my English prose is not necessarily flawless, I believe I was accurate in translating Guicciardini's text (cited in the Talk in Italian). Guicciardini does say that the consensus was for a French victory. Machine translation is not a reliable source, as one may infer from the following Bing translation of the copy:  
	
"Nevertheless, the universal consent won the palma to ' French cannot: for the number of dead much different, and why scacciorono gl ' hostile across the River, and because it was their free over first, which was the restraint for which proceeded had to fight."
I can't make head or tail of that translation, but I see it doesn't translate the Italian word "palma", meaning "palm tree" or "branch from a palm tree". "Dare la palma", in Italian, means "to adjudicate victory"; it's a well-known idiom.
On the other hand Barzini Jr (also cited in the paragraph as a source) says contemporary conventions would have assigned victory to the Italians (the Holy League) because the French left the battlefield and lost their provisions. Beneditti's being a RS or not is not very important and I shall not discuss it here; for the other two sources abundantly confirm the imbalance. In fact, no source denies the Italians suffered much heavier casualties than the French. HTH. Pan Brerus (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Battle of Fornovo

message: How can it be a French victory if they retreated? Dunkerque battle was,by chance, a victory? They lost many soldiers,and lots were taken as prisoners! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.14.196.196 (talk) 13:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Easy to understand, first of all the French were retreating from Naples and Fornovo took place between Naples and France, at that place the Italian wanted to prevent the French army to go back to France, they failed to do so. More than that in the process the Italian even lost more soldiers than the French, so once back at home the French army continued to be a threatening fighting force keen to invade the Italian peninsula again as they did later. 2A01:CB15:806A:1E00:71CA:CFA5:93F9:6971 (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outcome 

message: I think that the potted outcomes of the battle (in the infobox) are at present both confusing and incorrect. The French won a tactical victory, they managed to proceed in their march and leave Italy. The Italians won a strategic victory, the French left Italy with a somewhat dented reputation, which before Fornovo was very high due to their previous success. The French army suffered a considerable loss in manpower (proportionally similar to the Italian loss as their army was smaller) but especially they lost all their plunder. Charles was unable to intervene in Italy in the years before his death; had he been able to leave Italy with his martial renown intact, and with all his army's plunder, he would have certainly been able to return to Italy the next year. In short, tactical = small scale (in this case the French could continue their march), strategic = large scale (in this case the French left Italy and, more importantly, were unable to return for a number of years). Urselius (talk) 10:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as there are reliable source(s) supporting what you have stated, I see no problem. Without sources, however, this is just Wikipedia:OR. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

text: I noticed you bring zero sources to support your "distorted view". The Patron's Payoff: Conspicuous Commissions in Italian Renaissance Art, by Jonathan K. Nelson, Richard J. Zeckhauser, page 169. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tactical and strategic 

message: I did bring source. But I noticed how you only consider one source, the one that tell what you want  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.30.216.217 (talk) 08:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Albanian mercenaries must changed to Albanian and Greek mercenaries, in order to be more accurate. 139.91.183.59 (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source for this? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2020 

message: *per    Dupuy page 438, "played an important part of the significant French victory of Fornovo", page 462, "Total French losses were 200 killed and possibly an equal number wounded".
*per    Mallett page 31, " Guicciardini’s  verdict  was  that 'general  consent awarded the palm to the French'."
*per   Setton page 494-495, "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." --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no need to respond to an IP that continues to issue personal attacks and lies about the Dupuy source.
*per    Dupuy page 438, "          played an important part of the significant French victory of Fornovo", per Dupuy page 462, "      Total French losses were 200 killed and possibly an equal number wounded". Done here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the Mallett source;
*"Fornovo was clearly a French  victory in the  sense that  Charles achieved his aim of breaking through into Lombardy." -- M.E. Mallett and J.R. Hale,    The Military Organisation of a Renaissance State Venice c. 1400 to 1617, page 56. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Result of battle 

message: The casualties presented in the box don't seem to be accurate. The french certainly did not lose only 200 men. According to Massimo Predonzani and Vincenzo Alberici, the French lost between 1,000 and 1,500 men 
:I have found nothing that indicates this is a reliable source. Neither author is an historian(one is a model builder!), so I see no reason to add this to the article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties 

message: User:Jannizzero1 has decided to removed referenced information(quotes), add unreliable, outdated sources(Sarah Bradford, Bernardo Corio).
:Deletion of:
*"The French army of 10,000-11,000 men came down the valley of the Taro towards Parma. Gonzaga had about 20,000 troops..." -- referenced quote by Mallett and Shaw.
*"Casualties:100 killed"  -- referenced by Nolan
*"Casualties:200 wounded" -- referenced by Dupuy and Tucker
*"Of the 100 French and 3,500 Italian dead" --cited by Nolan
:Original research:
*"casualties1   = *1,000 killed, 1,000 captured"  --not cited by Dupuy, p438, Tucker, or Dupuy, p462.
*"casualties2       = *2,000-3,500 killed and wounded"  -- not cited by Tucker, or Nolan, or Dupuy, p462.
*"South of Milan, the path of his army of some 10,000 to 12,000 French and Swiss was blocked by Venetian and Mantuan troops under Gonzaga, whose strength is estimated between 14,000 and 20,000." -- not cited by Nolan
:Non-consensus change to the Lead(ie. no discussion or consensus).
:Storia di Milano is a primary source and should not be used since secondary sources do not support its view, per WP:PRIMARY.
:Sarah Bradford is not an historian, simply a writer.
:The Dupuy source, touted by previous IPs, does not state 1,000 French killed and 1,000 French wounded. 
:Per Dupuy, page 462, "1495, July 6. Battle of Fornovo. Gonzaga, who had approximately 4,000 men-at-arms, 2,500 light cavalry, and 15,000 infantry (mostly crossbowmen) and some artillery, blocked the northern side of the Pass of Pontremoli, where there was adequate room for his condottiere cavalry to maneuver. The French army consisted of approximately 950 French and 100 Italian lances, plus 200 archers of the Royal Guard(4,200), with 4,300 French and 3,000 Swiss infantry, plus the highly efficient field artillery corps. The French, realizing that the Italians would attempt to interfere with their passage, marched through the pass prepared for battles."
:"When the Italians attempted a flank attack in the defile, they were hampered by the river Taro's steep banks and its high waters, swollen by a heavy thunderstorm the day before, which had also muddied the ground. The alert French unlimbered their artillery and counterattacked vigorously. The Italians, used to a highly formalized and relatively apathetic form of combat (see p.466), were dismayed by the violence of the French onslaught and were quickly routed. Total French losses were 200 killed and possibly an equal number wounded. The Italians lost 3,350 men killed, most of their wounded being cut down by the vigorously attacking French. Charles marched on into northern Italy and back to France."
:No mention of 1,000 killed French or 1,000 wounded French. Thus, original research. So instead of discussion, Jannizzero1 had decided to to edit war. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Nolan source pages 303-304 states;
*"Early in the Italian Wars (1494–1559), Charles VIII was forced to retreat from Naples. South of Milan the path of hisarmy of just 10,000 French and Swiss was blocked by 20,000 Venetians and Mantuans led by the condottieri captain Giovanni Gonzaga. Instead of the usual feckless and nearly bloodless affair then common in Italian condottieri warfare, the French opened with an artillery bombardment, intending to kill as many of their enemy as possible. Then they charged with heavy cavalry, destroying and scattering the disordered Italian ranks in just minutes. The fight was perhaps most memorable for the ineffectiveness of artillery on either side, other than the psychological effect achieved by the French guns: of the 100 French and 3,500 Italian dead, one eyewitness estimated that fewer than 10 men were killed by cannon fire."  --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As expected, you game the rules, carry out personal attacks, make up false and unreferenced claims about who is a historian and who is not and what is a primary source and what is not, and delete sources that contradict you wild claims at your own whim. All sources with the exception of the one that you cherry-picked, some of which I have referenced, estimate no less than 1,000 French casualties and mention the battle as lasting far more than a few minutes of your charge, with Charles quietly slipping away on the night following the truce. As I said, there is no point in discussing with a disruptive editor like you. --Jannizzero1 (talk) 07:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of referenced information, [[WP:OR|original research]] 

message: CE, rv dupe wikilinks, auto ed, citations scan and alphasort. I gather there are differences of opinion between editors over the meaning of the battle. According to what I read in the article, there is confusion between the tactical, strategic, economic and diplomatic consequences. I see no point in editors trying to adjudicate on this, it is OR. I suggest that editors try to reach consensus, limit conclusions of the OR to the aftermath and leave it to the reader to decide. Template:Infobox military conflict has,
* 
Trying to defeat a retreating French army and failing obviously makes the battle a French victory but at the end of a campaign which was a strategic French failure. This is too complicated for result, the subtlety of this distinction ought to be kept to the Aftermath section. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tidy up 

message: Hi everyone I want to point out that in the Italian version of the battle, the result was the Italian victory, I would like to ask that the voice in the information could be a little more faithful to the Italian one, because to say that it was an entirely French victory, and a big mistake, which makes me suspect that a Frenchman rewrote it. E questo da italiano mi irrita moltissimo, per cortesia rimediare subito--2.36.103.189 (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: My dear friend, you will obtain nothing by asking nicely to a manipulative, disruptive individual as the kansas bear. You will also obtain nothing by using normal discussion procedures, as this individual is extremely well versed in WP:Gaming the system. The only thing you can do if you want to help is to get an autoconfirmed account and then intervene here yourself. --Jannizzero1 (talk) 08:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Arguing here is what the talk page is for but putting edits in the article that can be predicted to be disputable undermines your point of view. It doesn't matter how biased the sources are if you lay out the differences in the descriptive parts of the article using caveats in the text [mainstream consensus if there is one (exception: Smith wrote...blah).] and Notes for more discursive points. I suggest that everyone keep explanation for the aftermath where it belongs, rather than foreshadowing or putting conclusions into the Background, Prelude and Battle sections. Have a look at the Analysis section of First day on the Somme, it was easy, a chronological list of conclusions from RS that laid out the differences; no-one's seriously disputed it. Instead of calling Kansas Bear names, let his edits speak for themselves. If other editors doubt his sincerity or his sources, they can write it here. By taking such obivious sides, you risk being ostracised by other editors of the article and edit blocked by the admins. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: result

message: The infobox is full of citations, which ought to be in a casualties section, below the Analysis section, in the Aftermath. Where sources differ, ranges of numbers should be given in the infobox, along with a RS on how precision in the mediaeal and early renaissaince periods is rarely achieveable in the casualties section. The citation style is sfn so anyone can look at the references. Keith-264 (talk) 09:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: Would the editor who has added citations in the text put the book details into Sources pls. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: Why was the whole article rewritten in the first place? 
Especially when the new article contradicts itself and is (strangely) largely inspired by the Italian page of the battle, which can't even get the casualties right according to the source they use (and which pretends that the battle was an Italian victory). I mean, the new article is literally a translation word for word of the Italian page. This is vandalism. Trying to revert to the original article is not.
I'm not even talking of all the "citation needed" or the way it's sourced. You don't put five sources at the end of a paragraph. It's ridiculous. 
Even the analysis, which is the only good part of the article, totally contradicts the battle section. Do you realize that according to the latter, the Italians won the battle since the French supposedly withdrew to a hill (which never happened) and that the Italians could have pursued them (which also never happened)? And that in the analysis, it is written that the French cavalry scattered the Italian ranks (which is what happened), winning a definite victory? The article is a nonsense written by an Italian guy using dubious sources, putting aside all the accepted sources that tell a completely different account of the battle. And not only you're letting it been done but you're encouraging it, calling the act of reverting to the true article vandalism? LaHire07 (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you aren't a sock of Jannizzero1 but your prose in the edit note is a good approximation of that former editor, hence me reverting your revert under a mistaken impression of who did it. The article is a bit of a battleground and a mess. I don't claim any knowledge of the battle but I do know something about sloppy prose, repetition, confusing description and explanation and how to parse a sentence. I was asked to have a look by someone and did so in good faith, even as I began to doubt that editor's intentions and methods. Since intervening, I've fallen foul of two other editors who exhibit some of the traits of Jannizzero1 so I will bow out. Best of luck with the article. Keith-264 (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I forgot, putting citations in the middle of sentences is a bad idea, it disrupts the flow. If you are using sfns and don't like more than one at the end of the sentence or paragraph, you can consolidate citations by using the sfnm formula. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

text: All I'm trying to do is going back to the original article of a couple days ago before Jannizzero decided to mess it up. Sorry if I was too vehement in the edit note, I just don't like if when some people hijack a wikipedia page like that, especially when the original page didn't need at all to be modified in such a way. Regarding citations, in my opinion, it's not very appropriate for the reader to give him a large paragraph with a bunch of citations at the end, basically saying "here are the sources, now just figure out by yourself who said what". If you want to improve the form of the article, could you do it on the original one? Thanks a lot for the answer. LaHire07 (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, the wikimilhist rule of thumb is that a minium of one citation per paragraph is necessary, unless several sources are described in it. Where there are lots of disputes it might help to cite each sentence but this is unusual (not here I fear). Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism