Talk:Sicilian Vespers

message: According to legend, the rebellion started after a Sicilian woman went to a church in Palermo to look for her young daughter, who had spent the whole day there praying, only to find her being raped in the church by a French soldier - whereupon the mother then ran into the streets, shouting Ma fia! Ma fia! (meaning "My daughter! My daughter!" in medieval Sicilian dialect). Some have claimed that this tale provides a plausible explanation as to where the word "Mafia" might have originated. Part of my "Legend has it..." collection. This hasn't been checked against any published etymology of "Mafia," I surmise. Oh well.
This entry needs work. Wetman 07:15, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: According to a travel video I saw, the Sicilians executed anyone who could not pronounce the Sicilian word for "chickpea". This is how they picked out the French and other non-natives. The word sounded like "ciccero", but I'm no expert. Can anyone else shed some light on this? - Mcasey666 18:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you have other fairy tales to tell us? The "French" left Sicily 750 years ago. Your grandpa sure had a very good memory. If you were 80, your grandpa must have been at least 115 then. He was thus 60 years old when he bravely served in WWII? Get outta here. Your story doesn't check out. Phony. Or, as they say in old Sicilian dialect, Phoni. Phone in plural.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.230.30.143 (talk) 12:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL trollbait is you. Jersey John (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Chickpea

message: I added a second image, and one editor reverted because they were the same.  ???  Same painter; because they were part of a series, same title, but not same image.  Goldfritha 00:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, my fault. Looked the same at first. -- Stbalbach 13:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Two images

message: The Risorgimento has created many myths. For example the idea that the Sicilian Vespers were patriotic because they were against the French. This is nonsense. It was a separatistic revolt against the legitimate King of Naples (legitimated by the Pope!), who was of French origin but he had nothing to do with the "Kingdom of France". The Sicilian revolt had its good reasons but it was "separatistic" not "patriotic" because it weakened the South Italian Kingdom, the only Italian monarchy similar to the other European kingdoms.
:And if the Sicilians didn't consider themselves Italians but Sicilians?  One's definition of patriotism must be dependant on one's definition of one's nation.  Goldfritha 01:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sicilian Vespers weren`t patriotic. 

message: Weren't the Vespers part of the struggle between these two factions? Shouldn't this be expressly stated and linked?--Major Bonkers (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. JoshNarins (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Guelphs and Ghibellines]]

message: The Vespers was the beginning of what would eventually become the Spanish Empire, the first Empire on which the sun never set. After making Sicily a hereditary possession, and after the principal kingdoms on the Iberian penninsula Aragon, Murcia, Valencia, and Castille were united, it took Spain about two hundred years to dominate the commerce on the island and use to its advantage military and commercial possibilities that the island's central location in the Med. offered. In 1442 Spain expanded her empire again and took control of the mainland part of the Kingdom, unifying them under the ridiculous name of the Kingdom of the two Sicilies. Thereafter nothing was ridiculous, Spain grew very wealthy on her new unified kingdom. By 1492 she was rich enough to finance an insane mission by an explorer who suggested he could find India by sailing West and going around the globe. His name was Columbus, and the riches he brought to Spain further enhanced its ability to build colonies all around the world. And it all began with the Vespers.
We should also find a place for Goethe's famous comment "Italy without Sicily cannot be understood; here lies the key to all." From "Italienische Reise" or "Italian Journey"
It seems that the article simply does not flow well, with historical references necessary for understanding the causes of the Vespers being located within the aftermath. I sugest we start with a rewrite and rearangement of some of the paragraphs, begining with a simple synopsis of the Vespers for those who are not inclined to read the whole story set in its mid-13th Century context. Then we next move on to the events that preceded and were causal to the revolt, and then finally give its aftermath and repercussions. The latter would include: 
1. Sicily was as island of very "mixed blood". Norman, Eastern Rite Greek, Jews, Latin Christians, Roman Christians and Arabs all had been there for centuries, a mosiac that Runciman describes, as it is located in the center of the Med and provides an optimal military and trading location. The fact that people of such a varied cultural background could join together to strike a blow for their freedom seems to me to be the first known attempt to establish a nascent form of what we today call a free multi-cultural "Nation-State" rather than a feudal Kingdom. I know of no source that has incorporated this obvious fact into a peer reviewed book or journal. Am I the first to notice this?
2. Had Charles succeeded in his conquest of Constantinople, he would have created an empire as large as any seen since the age of Justinian. Many more people would be speaking French today if he had won.
Cipolla also notes the opposite, in Arba Sicula Vol XXV, he ruminates that if Charles had lost at Benvenuto or Tagliacozzo to the Imperialists, Italy would be speaking Sicilian, and Tuscan-Italian considered a dialect.
3. Sicily was the first significant possession Aragon gained, the first stepping stone towards what would eventually become her empire. After the unification of Spain's various kingdoms on the Iberian peninsula, in 1442 she took the mainland part of the Sicilian Kingdom, thus increasing her wealth many fold. With this wealth, her naval expertise grew and this would eventually lead Spain's famed Armada, and with the wealth it generated it financed Columbus' journey to New World. I believe that is approximately the view of Gaetano Cipolla, proferror at St. Johns in NY, and I agree with it, although I don't remember which vol. Cipolla published this in Arba Sicula, and he is P.O. at me so he is not answering my e-mails. Could someone else please e-mail him for the volume number.
4. The Vespers rearranged the constellation of of power in Europe. After he as unable to retake the island over the course of several years, Charles knew that it was the beginning of the end for him in Western Europe. He had gone deeply in debt to pay for the fleet that he intended to use to take Constantinople. The burning of the fleet in Messina and the taking of the remainder of the fleet by the excellent admiral Roger of Lauria made Charles much less feared and respected. After it became apparent that he would not live to see the island retaken, his famous quote was roughly "Please God, if I must fall, let it come in small steps." Even his heirs tried to take the island many times, and always failed. But it was just the beginning of Spain's rise, as aforesaid.
5. Given the oral history of the mafia on the island and information gleaned from testimony of members located within the United States, such as "The Valachi Papers" and Keafauer (phonetic) Commission hearings, the Gotti trials, the orgaization is best described as a feudel type organization of serf to vassal. Virtually all members cooperating with the government in Sicily and the US, have testified that by oral tradition they were told of the organization's origin in the "rape of a woman in a church" although most did not cite the name as the Vespers. I'm sure I can write a short non-offensive paragraph on this, or place it in the Notes section.Siciliano99 (talk) 04:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Vespers as the Beginning of the Spanish Empire 

message: Would anyone mind if I substutited the following paragraphs in lieu of the existing one describing how the Howhenstaufen came to control the Kingdom of Sicily? I think it gives a better sense of the rivalry between the Papacy and the Imperialists. It would read as follows:
Frederick I, King of Germany, King of the Romans and Emperor of the West was known to the world as Barbarossa. He had been the most powerful member of the Hohenstaufen dynasty, he often quarreled with the Pope and he often won these quarrels with a large army of Teutonic knights as his persuasive force. His ancestor Henry IV had fought with Pope Gregory VII over the issue of “lay investiture”, i.e...the authority of Kings to appoint Bishops and high church officials within their realm, which derived from their position as permanent Papal Legates. When Henry ignored the Pope’s prohibition of the practice he was excommunicated; in turn his vassals withdrew their support until he had reconciled his differences with the Pope. In order to maintain his crown he appeared at Canossa in a penitent’s sackcloth to ask forgiveness from the Pope. Gregory made him wait outdoors three days and nights in freezing weather, then relented and demanded Henry make a public promise that he would obey the Pope in all things before the he lifted the ban. This humiliation was not easily forgotten by the Hohenstaufen.   (See Robinson, infra @ p. 6-7)
Barbarossa’s son Henry VI was married to Constance of Sicily, a daughter of the Norman King Roger II. William II King of Sicily died in 1189 leaving Constance his lawful heir, but at that time her husband was in Germany acting as regent for his father who was on crusade, she was therefore unable to assert her rights. Barbarossa died during the Third Crusade in 1190, Henry was crowned Emperor at Rome in 1191. After restoring order in Germany, in 1194 Henry marched troops to claim the Sicilian crown for his wife, whose hereditary claim had been admitted by a Parliament at the time of her engagement to Henry; so there was no doubt of legality of Henry's claim. (See Runciman, at p. 10) After some negotiation and promises to William’s heirs, they deferred their claim to Constance and Henry was crowned King of Sicily at the cathedral in Palermo on Christmas Day 1194, thus bringing the Kingdom of Sicily under Hohenstaufen control.  Constance was delayed on the mainland in labor, she gave birth the very next day to Fredrick II; many years later, upon his majority and ascension to the throne he would be known to the world as Antichrist, because of his immoral and blasphemous behavior.(Runciman, supra at p.11) Upon receiving news of the death of Antichrist, the Holy Roman Emperor Fredrick II, the previous December 1250, Pope Innocent IV rejoiced. Now was the chance for the church to forever separate the Hohenstaufen from the Kingdom of Sicily, which stretched from the southern suburbs of Rome, down the entire Italian boot and included the Island of Sicily. (See Runciman @ p.16)
74.108.17.78 (talk) 03:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rephrasing the description of the Hohenstaufen inheritance 

message: Ok, I'm gonna do a major rewrite here. Main planks of the plan: remove duplicate and unnecessary background, neutralize the tone. Bazuz (talk) 10:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  majpor rewrite commencing 

message: The text mentions the Kingdom of Aragon as a belligerent, however by that time the Kingdom of Aragon belonged to the Crown of Aragon, which is the combination of the Kingdom of Aragon, Catalan Counties and the Kingdom of Valencia. So, I think it should be changed to Crown of Aragon. In the Spanish and Catalan page it is refered as Crown of Aragon aswell.--Byblios (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Missunderstanding

message: It is first stated in the Background section that the Sicilians rebelled although "Charles' rule was quite just"...
Then, you can read: "Charles' island officials were far removed from his oversight; he did not see the avarice, the abusive behavior manifesting itself as rape, theft and murder, nor did he see the high taxes levied against the meager possessions of the peasants, which kept them impoverished, but made no improvement in their lives."
The article contradicts itself. --82.49.188.222 (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: Substituted at 06:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Under the section for Michael Palaiologos' commentary, it states that he gave the cited quote years later, in his own autobiography. However, Michael died the same year that the Revolt of the Sicilian Vespers began, in 1282. Moreover, I don't know of any autobiography he ever wrote. Does anybody know where the quote comes from? 202.24.81.201 (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael VIII's comments on the Sicilian Vespers