Talk:Sack of Rome (1527)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

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.

Contents 1 'Stub' 2 Charles was greatly embarrassed 3 Citations needed 4 New category suggested 5 Phillisuon?

[edit] 'Stub'

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

[edit] Charles was greatly embarrassed

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)

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)

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.

[edit] Citations needed

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).

[edit] New category suggested

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)

[edit] Phillisuon?

"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)