Talk:Condottiero

The French sentence under Hawkswood - something about a funeral? - doesn't seem to fit. --Quadalpha 23:24, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

These cities, such as Venice, Florence, and Genoa had woefully small armies and were increasingly becoming targets of attack by foreign powers as well as envious neighbors.

I don't think that's really true, especially of Venice. In times of emergency, all males between 17 and 60 years were registered and their weapons were surveyed. The register of 1338 estimated that 30,000 Venetian men were capable of bearing arms; many of them were skilled crossbowmen. In their 1426 alliance with Florence, Venice agreed to supply 8,000 cavalry and 3,000 infantry -- very few of whom were mercenaries. I think later events and trends are being pushed to a too-early period. ---Michael K. Smith 21:21, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Singular form

I don't know in English language, but the original Italian word is condottiero.

Our confident but anonymous contributor is in error, as the briefest glance into OED would have established. In OED under condottiere, "erron." stands for "erroneously." See De Mauro dizionario della lingua italiana. It is not an alternative spelling; it is a gaffe akin to calling a waiter camariero. I have corrected this twice now and shall again, if necessary. --Wetman 02:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Wetman, for Italian I think you are wrong. The De Mauro is referring to condottiere as "someone who drives a vehicle", whereas condottiero as a military or political leader. Also, you should note that Michael Mallet, probably the most important historian for the period and condottieri in paritcular, uses the word condottiero. Paolo

"Camariero, un piatto di spaghetto!" Wouldn't that be odd! The ending -iere means "the one who". The modern condottiere of the motor vehicle is simply a modern extension of "the one who leads or conducts"; a member of the elite corps of bersaglieri is not a "bersagliero" but a "bersagliere", after all. --Wetman 23:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

...just as a carabiniere is a member of the carabinieri, and a portiere is an essential member of a calcio team. --Wetman 08:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Wetman, I will repeat again. The standard italian use is condottiero, not condottiere. It is the term used (for example) by professor Eugenio Garin, which is a major authority for the italian history of the 400. And it is the term used by professor Michael Mallet, which is the standard reference for military history of the period. For both of them, see for example "L'Uomo del Rinascimento" (The Man of Renaissance), edited by Eugenio Garin; it include an essay by Michael Mallet, titled "Il Condottiero". pibizza 08:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Can I assume there is a consensus to use condottiero as a singular form, and not condottiere ? If there is consensus, I will make the change. pibizza 11:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Assume consensus? My Cassell's Italian-English and English-Italian Dictionary does list both forms. I shall add "or condottiero". --Wetman 23:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to interupt here but as Wetman asked my opinion here it is, I have always said condottiero, but I would not correct anyone who said condottiere, allthough for some inexplicable reason it does not sound right - I follow Wetman's logic but we are a very odd lot! Giano | talk 18:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

From a little bit of research of mine, the current most used form is condottiero. Condottiere was more used in the past. As for the ending of the word, my understanding is that both are used (for example, you have nocchiero and scudiero). I do not know which are the rules, but my understanding is that is more a matter of use than a matter of rule. pibizza 15:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you are right, I can immagine my American grandmother (who learnt very correct Italian in the 1920s) sayng condottiere, with a heavy stress on the final syllable, but today it is most definitly condottiero - it's almost as though the "O" is for swashbucklers, soldiers and the risque and the like and "iere" has become for public servants and the dull etc - just my own theory you understand. Giano | talk 21:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd always trust Giano's ear. The next time I'm overcharged in the market, I shall be sure to shout masdaniero! --Wetman 21:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)--Wetman 21:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The word "condottiere" exists, as already documented, I could only add Petrocchi's 1891 dictionary, which reports together both condottiere and condottiero without distinction between the principal meanings of "driver" and (social, political, etc) "leader". Among the many references, in Alessandro Manzoni's "I promessi sposi", "Don Abbondio pagò in fretta, e licenziò il condottiere" (cap. XXX). In modern Italian, "condottiere" in the sense of "driver" has been replaced by "conducente", nevertheless it still is a correct form for both meanings. All forms in "-ere" always are slightly more correct than those in "-ero", which are their popular corruptions. But sometimes the popular form becomes prevalent and this is one of those cases. I personally wouldn't delete the redirect from "condottiere", it still is the original form and it simply is little used (and little known in Italy :-) --g 11:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The Condottieri, Machiavelli, and comments.

Machiavelli wrote a lot of nonsense about the "Condottieri". For example he wrote that the battles of the "Condottieri" were rather "frivolous". This is not true. The modern historiography has demonstrated how bloody were the battles of the 15th Century in Italy. Gian Giacomo Trivulzio was considered a traitor by the Milanese who contempted him. Andrea Doria fought alongside "everybody" but his goal was a strong Republic of Genoa. A comparison between Trivulzio and Doria is misleading. The last famous battle of the "Condottieri" was Governolo (1526) when Giovanni delle Bande Nere fought against the Germans to shield Rome.

Mm... if I thought I was better informed and smarter than Machiavelli, I'd stay anonymous too! --Wetman 09:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

2021

Whereas if I were naive enough to take a primary source at face value and ignore advances in historical scholarship I would be too ashamed to give my name. Perhaps you should stop editing this article and leave it to somebody competent. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.5.142.234 (talk) 12:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

2010

I knew that the article about the Condottieri had to cointain the tall story about the "bloodless" battles. It is always the same. Read in internet "Perdite segnalate dalle fonti coeve relative ad alcune battaglie e scontri" and you will see how bloody the battles were. Machiavelli`s books are full of wrong statements. The Condottiere Carmagnola was beheaded by Venice when the Venetians started to believe he didn`t fight enough.

It seems that Machievelli's account is widely accepted. Original accounts of casualties from contemporary sources about particular battles are scarce and usually relate to great battles, sometimes against foriegners, which may have been fought in different ways than usual and been the exception rather than the rule. In any case, it seems that departing from the accepted view would amount to original research.Revcasy (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Spelling Errors

Why is it the condotta means contract here, when all my sources tell me condotta means 'conduct' and contract means 'contratto'? Furthermore, barbuta and barbute are names of an early Italian helmet, also known as a Italian Sallet in Germany and a French sallet in France. Rev. James Triggs 20:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

About condotta I agree: condottiero comes from the verb "condurre", meaning "to lead". So "condottiero" literaly means "leader". There is no idea of contract. In fact, in Italian condottieri are also the generals of the regular army. Lele giannoni (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Huh?

Now as many the condottieri comprised as many Italian companies as foreign, creating soon a host of national companies

I can't make heads or tails of that. I'd fix it, but I don't even know what it's supposed to mean. Kafziel ^Talk 15:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Werner von Urslingen died when?

The article says that Werner was executed by Rienzo in 1347, but Oscar Browning's 19th century book Guelphs and Ghibellines says that Urslingen fought for Johanna, Queen of Naples form 1348 to 1350 and went back to Germany with his plunder,[1] which would be difficult for a man three years dead to do. Any source for Urslingen dying in 1347? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piratedan (talk • contribs) 02:24, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

In contemporary Italian, condottiero DOESNT mean contractor

it should mean leader of an army or armed bands and is used only in a historical way, it is not used to indicate a contemporary leaders. this should be checked Melaen (talk) 14:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The Great Company and Cavalry

The Ventura Company increased in number until becoming the fearsome “Great Company” of some 3,000 barbute (each barbuta comprised a knight and a sergeant). To this, the Italian nobleman Lodrisio Visconti countered with the “Company of St. George”—featuring cavalrymen as the key fighting men, and not infantrymen.

This seems self-contradictory, and checking the wikipedia entry for Great Company I see that it says that they were mainly cavalry, and the first sentence, describing the make-up of the company, seems to agree with this. However, the second sentence above seems to imply that they were not. Anyone care to clarify? Revcasy (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Did some further research and amended the above passage, including additional information, and resolving contradictions. Revcasy (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Scope of Article

The introduction to the article states that, in English, the term "Condottieri" has come to signify any mercenary, or mercenary captain, not just mercanaries who fought on the Italian Penninsula, or in the service of an Italian city-state. In my experience this is true, and I have seen the term applied to mercenaries all over Europe during the Middle Ages. However the article only covers the history of condottieri in its strictest, original sense. This should either be clarified in the intro or the article should be expanded to include mercanaries outside of Italy. Revcasy (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to clear things up with as few words as possible, and keeping the scope of the article limited to Italy.Revcasy (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Calliano - objectivity needed

Can someone check the information about battle of Calliano? Internet sources including Italian wiki (Battaglia_di_Calliano) tell completely different story - strategic victory of German forces, who were largely outnumbered by Italians. Italians even lost general in that battle, and the battle is considered proof of German military dominance by Italian wiki article! Arxi (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arxi (talk • contribs) 20:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Meaning in contemporary Italian

The article used to say: "in contemporary Italian, condottiero means "contractor", and is synonymous with the modern English title Mercenary Captain". This is somewhat incorrect. In contemporary Italian, "condottiero" acquired the broader meaning of "military leader" (e.g., not restricted to mercenaries). This is especially used for great military leaders of the past. For example, if you look up "alessandro magno condottiero" on Google, you will find lots of references to Alexander the Great as a "condottiero". The same goes for Julius Caesar or Napoleon. Many modern Italian speakers do not even know the original meaning of "condottiero", they just assume it means "leader" or "dux" (the verb condurre primary meaning is "to lead"; in the past it used to mean "to hire", "to sign a contract with", but today this meaning is lost). The usual translation for "contractor" in contemporary Italian is mercenario; in recent years (e.g., after the War on Terror and Blackwater), the English word contractor is widely used in Italian, too. I corrected the article to reflect this. --Lupo1982 (talk) 11:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

actually, "condottiero" literally means "leader" ("condurre" = "to lead"; "condottiero"="man who lead"="leader"). a condottiero led many mercenari (contractors, or mercenaries) as a mercenary officer. in fact, the condottieri are also called "capitani di ventura", which means "mercenary captain", because a mercenary company was called "compagnia di ventura" LAUD (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Per condotta militare si intende un contratto di tipo militare stipulato nel Medioevo e nel Rinascimento che stabiliva le condizioni di servizio alle quali il capitano o condottiero, generalmente di nobili origini, si sottoponevano fornendo uomini in armi e mezzi ad un richiedente, che era di solito un altro condottiero o il capo di uno stato o di una signoria.

Quick translation: Condotta Militare was a military contract as used during the middle ages and the renaissance establishing the conditions of service to which the captain or condottiero, usually a nobleman, would agree to provide men at arms and equipment to a client, usually another condottiero or the head of a state or principality.Murlisin (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

References

Modern Mercenary Captains

This term is a bit confusing to me - is there a source for it? I am assuming the term "modern" is being used in the modern period sense, versus the industrial or right now sense, but I don't know. What period would this term refer to? Would one refer to a mercenary captain now? And isn't it a term rather than a title? I know I'm being picky, but I am big on trying to make Wikipedia more easily comprehensible to the average reader. Thank you. 173.73.113.18 (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Concern over lack of citations

It surprises me that an article on something as famous as the condottieri is so poorly cited. In the "Mercenary Captains" section of the article, which makes up the bulk, I count only two citations, although there are numerous references to other articles. The final subsection ("Decline") however, not only is completely lacking in citations but also does not make any reference to any other article. This (in addition to concerns brought up elsewhere in Talk about the reliability of Machiavelli as a source of information on the condottieri) leads me to question many of the statements in this section. For example this conclusion section states: "They were always ready to change sides at the prospect of higher pay – the enemy of today might be the comrade-in-arms of tomorrow." Which seems in conflict with a statement in the previous section: "If the condotta expired definitively, the condottiere could not declare war against the contracting city-state for two years. [...] professional reputation (business credibility) was everything to the condottieri; a deceived employer was a reputation ruined." -A — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.154.203.137 (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)