Talk:Battle of Fornovo

Untitled

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)

Southwest

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

Outcome

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) Actually, as the article says, the Venetians admitted to their own Senate that " the result of the battle was uncertain". Stammer 11:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Strength

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)

The French didn't break the "italian" line and there wasn't an italian retreat; when the venetian infantry started to march against them they asked a truce to rescue and bury the casualties, and in the night they escaped from the battlefield...This isn't a victorius behaviour. The final result isn't an Italian victory, sure, but isn't a French Victory too!--Dedofreg (talk) 08:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

"but isn't a french victory" ? Well as far as I know, the principal objective of the Venetian League was to stop the french retreat of the italian peninsula and they failed. They failed at this battle where they were not able to stop the french retreat, so how do you call that ? Tactically and stratigically, I call it a defeat for the League of Venice and a victory for France. Plus was it not at this battle that the Italian nicknamed the French warfare ability "furia francese" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.9.152.140 (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It would be better for someone to read the Italian sources too, not only the French ones. Gonzaga didn't win the battle but also Charles didn't. The Ligue's army didn't crush the outnumebered French army, but Charles escaped in the night and his army was virtually destroyed. After the battle the French retreated for more than 200 kms from Fornovo to Asti, in less than a week; for a Reinassance army 200 kms in less than a week it means that you are running and very fast! Charles avoided the big enemy towns of Parma and Piacenza, full of food and money but with walls and militias and guns, and passed the Po near Castel San Giovanni a little town, and he was so in hurry that he didn't assault the fortifyed borough, like he did at Pontremoli, a small town too, just before the battle. Pontremoli was burned. Pontremoli inhabitants, after Fornovo, slaughtered the french soldiers of the rearguard: <<Furia pontremolese>>. An amazing thing, the victorious king, in front of Castel San Giovanni, begged for bread from the citizens for his hungry men. << Artillery protected the first line from the front and the second toward the Taro>>; it was a rainy day, so the French artillery was out of order, and the French didn't use the guns!ah, by the way, this is another legend, Italian armies, in the Reinassance, also had artillery and was able to use the guns, expecially in the sieges! <<Furia francese>>: the expression come from the fact that French soldiers, usually, killed the surrendering knights. The Italian way to fight in the Reinassance, had rules: the first one was that the knight who surrendered was safe for ransom. In fact at Fornovo the Italians taken more prisoners than French, but after the battle the Italians, quite angry for the "furia francese", killed all the French woundeds still in the ground. By the way the woundeds, mainly infantrymen, was forgotten back by the "victorious" escaping monarch. << Furia francese>> is not an expression of fear or admiration but of disgust and contempt! It wasn't referred to <<warfare ability>>, and it wasn't created at Fornovo, where the French army had begged for truce and then escaped (strange kind, this, of <<warfare ability>>!). The king lost all the treasure, all the carriages, two royal flags, and his library... and escaped from the battlefield in the night during a truce. He didn't return to France, there was the "defeated" army still in the ground, between him and home, and so he run to Asti (that actually was French but isn't in France!). When he arrived in the town, he closed the doors and waited for the Ligue of Venice Army, but this army started to siege Novara, where there was a dangerous French garrison. The French commander (the Duke of Orleans) in Novara claimed for help from the king, but Charles didn't move from Asti and so the Orleans surrendered. You should remember Charles had lost all the money, because the "defeated" army, in Fornovo, had stormed his carriages, so the poor, victorious, king couldn't pay his mercenary troops. No money no swiss. Only in October, after a truce with Lodovico il Moro, he was able to return in France. After the Fornovo "victory", in a few months all the French garrisons in Italy, North and South, surrendered or was destroyed. (You can read better: DAVID NICOLLE, Fornovo 1495, the France's Bloody Fighting Retreat, Osprey Campaign, 1996,ISBN 1855325225, the book is in the references of the article too! or see: http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/sources/fornovo.htm, where the battle is depicted by an eye witness, a venetian military surgeon). Does someone think the Battle of Berezina was a Napoleon's victory? --Dedofreg (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Is that not what is written here in this article, an italian source? Make a search on internet of some sentences of the Battle section and Dedofreg would see that this section is only a copy and paste of another internet page presenting the lonely point of view of the venetian surgeon, Alessandro Beneditti. Well, this is just the link Dedofreg gave... I didn't know that copy and paste was the current rule of wikipedia... But I'm sure voluble Dedofreg could enlight me on this point. Maybe it would be better for someone to read italian sources but Dedofreg should read french sources. By the way, I agree on one point with Dedofreg, according to italian sources nobody won. 90.9.158.226 (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I've read the French sources, obviously. They wrote, for example, that French army had only 400 casualties, and the italians 3300 (Dupuy, an amazing and quite unrealistic reconstruction); and never described the aftermath of the battle (the escape!). I think the aftermath is important as the battle itself. Beneditti's work, actually, isn't cited in the footnotes of the articles - as you can see -. I think because it was used only to depicted the battle, but not the result! This is intersting: the best source of the battle, a "lonely" eyewitness, isn't used for establishing the battle result! So reading all Beneditti, not only a part, reading Nicole - who used Beneditti -, please can you answer me? Did the French win? Why? Did the Italians win? Why? By the way, I think nobody won the battle, what do you think and why (using sources, please, French too)? we have got almost one result, nobody talks about Furia Francese. One last thing, do you think we shouldn't use Beneditti as a source? Why? --Dedofreg (talk) 10:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, this was not obvious you read French sources. You should have a eye on the work of Commynes, who collected some French eyewitnesses version of the battle. And this is true that reading Beneditti then Commynes, this is hard to believe they are talking about the same battle. "Beneditti's work, actually, isn't cited in the footnotes of the articles - as you can see -." Yes, i saw it with a big surprise bacause i saw the Battle section is a copy and paste of another internet page talking solely of Beneditti's work and this is the link you gave earlier. How somebody describe a battle can obviously angle somebody else of the result he would like. And i say that concerning Beneditti and Commynes. What I wanted to say is whatever this version is from a direct eyewitness or this one is from somebody who talked with eyewitnesses, nobody is impartial, even us. And this is why this is necessary to use sources comming from the both sides not only from one. You should have a look to some other battles' articles on Wikipedia, some great things were done by using sources of the both sides. I recommand the article of Waterloo, which is today outstanding. In opposite of my fellow-citizen who let a message the 11th of november, my point is the both won their battle. Italian by putting off the French of the Peninsula and the French by sucessfully escaping of the Peninsula. So basically I agree with you for the result, but not for the sources' method and the article's method of writting. 86.206.58.12 (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, i'm surprised you talk of Dupuy as a french source, when he was an american soldier and military historian!!! You should look at his wikipedia page. 86.206.58.180 (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would not be meaningless to take a look at other Wikipedia pages about the battle or the Italian Wars at large. The Spanish Wikipedia article, at https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batalla_de_Fornovo gives the outcome as "Victoria de la Liga Veneciana", ie victory of the Venitian League. In the article "Guerras italianas", however, there is this sentence: "La Batalla de Fornovo (6 de julio de 1495) concluyó sin un vencedor militar claro, pero tras ella Carlos VIII tuvo que evacuar sus tropas del norte de Italia." That is: no clear victor, but Charles VIII had to evacuate northern Italy.

The French version stops just short of admitting French defeat, by writing "L'armée vénitienne ne parvient pas à arrêter la retraite française vers Asti". The French historians' version of the battle is especially biased, and the Wikipedia article does not source any single sentence it includes.

The Polish Wiki article indicates "taktyczne zwycięstwo francuskie; strategiczne zwycięstwo włoskie", that is, a tactical French victory and a strategic Italian victory - while the Italian article speaks about a strategic French victory and a tactical Italian one, which seems to be closer to the truth. The article in Russian agrees with the Polish, indicating a Тактическая победа Франции - Стратегическая победа итальянцев; the one in Turkish speaks of a Fransız stratejik zaferi - Venedik taktik zaferi, ie it sides with the Italian article. The Dutch article says "Het gevolg van de slag was dat de Fransen tijdelijk uit Italië verdreven werden." -- Translation: "The consequence of the battle was that the French were temporarily expulsed from Italy", which would be a peculiar consequence indeed of a victory. To borrow from Mark Aurelius's speech in Shakespeare's play, victory should be made of sterner stuff.

The German Wikipedia also states (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italienische_Kriege): "Karl wollte sich nicht in Neapel abschneiden lassen und zog mit seinem Heer in die Lombardei, wo es am 6. Juli 1495 etwa 30 km südöstlich von Parma zur Schlacht bei Fornovo kam. Seine Verluste waren so schwer, dass er die Beute seines Italienzuges zurückließ und nach Frankreich zurückkehrte. Durch die hohe Schuldenlast war ihm eine Weiterführung des Krieges nicht möglich, er starb 27-jährig am 7. April 1498 an einem Unfall auf Schloss Amboise."

The bold part says: "His losses were so heavy that he left behind the booty of his Italian campaign and went back to France". A bizarre victory.

The Spanish article about the Italian Wars quotes a Website (http://web.archive.org/web/20110730071410/http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/sources/fornovo.htm) where one can read an account of the battle by a Venitian official; the final paragraph is:

"60. Meanwhile the Frenchman (ie the King of France) called his leaders into conference and said, "Behold, nobles, after great slaughter and much bloodshed in this very cruel battle we have at length left the enemy behind us, yet we have been very unfortunate, for we have lost most of our baggage. Yet it was sufficient to have escaped so great peril with a small band. It would indeed have been the height of felicity if all had turned out well, but we must endure it if fortune has heaped on this one day all the evils of a whole year, a fortune which had been predicted to us as black, so that now, driven by hunger amid great danger, with glory and a kingdom and a triumph lost, with soldiers left behind in Puglia and Calabria, I must return home with a few forces. But in this one fact I rejoice, that our men fought with the utmost courage and true military discipline, and only a few of our nobles, and of the other soldiers not many, are missing, and even fewer are wounded. There is indeed nothing lasting under the heavens, and we must yield sometimes to fortune. The war with King Alfonso and his son we fought without bloodshed. But the Venetians have changed everything for us. This kingdom was not acquired for me, but for all of you; I enjoy a very extensive kingdom in a long succession. It remains to establish the whole army in safety with the greatest possible speed. But you, Trivulzio, proclaimed that the commander of the camp was a young man, or a boy, without military training. An evil boy he seemed to me on that day, but if the fight had taken place in the open he would have been far worse."

Again these are not exactly the words of a victor.

But— Francesco Guicciardini (http://www.filosofico.net/guicci1ardinistoriadital1iaia1.htm, accessed 20th March 2014) also describes the battle of Fornovo. Guicciardini is a historian and political thinker whose reputation is not second to Machiavelli's. He testifies about both parties trying to adjudicate themselves the victory at Fornovo, but he also writes "E nondimeno, il consentimento universale aggiudicò la palma a' franzesi: per il numero de' morti tanto differente, e perché scacciorono gl'inimici di là dal fiume, e perché restò loro libero il passare innanzi, che era la contenzione per la quale proceduto si era al combattere." Meaning the eventual consensus was for a French victory, because the French repelled their enemies across the river, and succeeded in moving forward, which was their reason for fighting in the first place. Guicciardini, however, does not speak of an unconditional French victory, citing the following reasons: the French losing their carriages and even part of the King's arms, and their fleeing the battlefield.

I think we all might settle for the same formula as so many international Wiki articles (Italian tactical victory, French strategic victory), and possibly a reference to Guicciardini. Pan Brerus (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

"Perhaps it would not be meaningless to take a look at other Wikipedia pages about the battle or the Italian Wars at large." Something quite astonishing is the difference of casualties between all the articles. There is only the Italian's one claiming that the French army did suffer more casualties at Fornovo. I love the quotation of the King of France coming from a Venitian official. Yes this is not the speech of a victor, but knowing that comes from a Venitian official, so his ennemy in this case, one should be cautious to use it and even question his objectivity. "my point is the both won their battle. Italian by putting off the French of the Peninsula and the French by sucessfully escaping of the Peninsula." That's the consensus to achieve here. 90.42.47.183 (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyright concerns

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 [1]. 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)

Battle of Fornovo

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)

Outcome

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)

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)

Victory

I am cancelling all about the French "victory",how can someone be victorius while losing all possesing and retreating — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.237.226.30 (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits, namely the changing of referenced figures[2], deletion of references,[3], and changing sourced information from French victory to Italian victory.[4]

These edits of yours constitute disruptive editing. Continued disruptive editing can lead to a block or ban. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Block me,ban me,I don't care,this page is biased:it don't take in account the french prisoners took by Italian,consider it a French victory when French retired all based on what? You take in account only what you want,then it's my duty to change it for the better — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.237.226.30 (talk) 07:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I would remind you that Wikipedia is written using reliable published sources, not your opinion.

• "You take in account only what you want.."

No. The article reflects what reliable sources state concerning the battle, not my opinion or your opinion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Sources

Reliable sources,you're kidding! And again,of one source you take only the part you like.Wikipedia is not a serious enciclopedia

Tactical and strategic

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)

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)

It's not a French victory. I know you English like to think Dunkirk was a great victory but that's your distorted view — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.14.71.189 (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

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)

Sources

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2020

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)

Do you have a source for this? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Will consider his source? I brought mine Mallet pg 77 quote (about why,by the rules of 1400 Italians were considered victorious) Pezzana A. Storia di Parma V 332 (Emperor Massimiliano considered Fornovo a French defeat) but you ignored them

Result of battle

• 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)

• per Modern France: A Companion to French Studies, Arthur Augustus Tilley, page 195,"From Fornovo ( 1495 ) to Rocroy ( 1643 ) victory was won by the cavalry charging the enemy's flank or counter - attacking him in front."
• per The Patron's Payoff: Conspicuous Commissions in Italian Renaissance Art,Jonathan K. Nelson, ‎Richard J. Zeckhauser, page 169,"Most sources, both the rewriting of Italian and French, state clearly that the French won at Fornovo, a triumph celebrated in a rare engraving of the battle made shortly after the event by an anonymous French artist. The conclusion of French victory is based on two factors: the Italians did not stop the northward march of the French, and the French sustained far fewer losses." --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• per The French Monarchy (1483-1789), Arthur James Grant, page 25, "The victory of Fornovo gave them little else than a safe return into France.
• per The Memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, Volume 2, Philippe de Commynes, ‎Sam Kinser, page 367, "The French army wins an ambiguous victory over the army of the Holy League at the battle of Fornovo. Badly outnumbered, the French hasten their retreat toward France." --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Commynes write in his memories after the battle: “… night fell and those

hosts that were ahead of us withdrew to their camp and we to the other side. We we went to place the housings a quarter of a league from where the battle .... everyone seemed to have escaped it beautifully and we were no longer so full of pride when we saw our enemies near ... that night the Alemannic mounted the guard and the king gave them three hundred scudi, they kept good guard and played loud i their drums… Commyes memoires pg. 23

• The king left leaving death and injuried on the battlefield, Massa E., La battaglia di Fornovo, 6 luglio 1495,
• Again historians like Gucciardini,Leani Malipiero, David Nicolle, the latter in his Fornovo 1495: France's bloody fighting retreat" 15 settembre 1996 agreed French casualties at 1000 death and 200 injured
• Mallet himself in his "Military organization of Venice in '400" at p 77 said that destroying the opponent army was not an target for Italians who aimed to chase French out and Ghiraldini in Fornovo 1495 una battaglia da ricordare o da dimenticare, Parma, ed. stor.

D’Italia,1981, p. 28 wrote that the French king was not the winner and always Ghiraldini mention that the king wrote after the battle to have resisted to the Italian army e avec l’aide de dieu et de notre dame. Furthermore I cited Pezzana A. Storia di Parma p 332, at that time the army who stood on the field at the end of the battle was considered victorious

• French fleet was captured at Rapallo, so all the claims of French comfortably retiring are biased and not based on History facts

In the light of these FACTS Fornovo cannot be considered only a french victory, so either incocnlusive or the Tactical French victory/Startegic Italian victory it's the right result

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)

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)

  It's typical of bullies to abuse one position:

  -Again, Mallet, p. 77 admit that in the mentality of the time the destruction of the French army wouldn't have been a target

  -Again, Nicholle, Gucciardini,Leani Malipiero calculate 1000 death among French's army and 200 prisoners

  In the light of these FACTS Fornovo cannot be considered only a french victory, so either incocnlusive or the Tactical French victory/Startegic Italian victory it's the right result 79.31.229.208 (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  -And again, Gucciardini doesn't consider French king victorious seeing hoiw he ran in the night leaving injured and the booty of the campaign, plus Pezzana A. Storia di Parma p 332, mention that, by mentality of the time, the army who stood on the battlefield at the end was considered victorious 79.31.229.208 (talk) 13:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Casualties

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)

Of course you didn't, you will never accept a source not of your likening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.50.200.77 (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Removal of referenced information, original research

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)

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)

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) globally-locked sock -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:01, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Tidy up

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,

• result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

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)

result

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)

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) globally-locked sock -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jannizzero1: 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)

Infobox

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)

Citations

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)

Vandalism

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

LOL, maybe because the sources should be considered by their entirety instead that fragmenting them into pieces? Many sources don't consider it a French victory, in fact only French and English think that, ignoring sources as Nicholle. Do you realize French DID, by all sources, retreat on the hill? That they could have continue the battle as well but instead fled with the night? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.8.206.114 (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)