Talk:Battle of Monte Porzio

"Rome"
I have a problem with all the talk of a "Roman" army and one of the sides in the battle being "Rome." I suppose in sense this is strictly speaking true, but it's also confusing, as it summons up images of ancient Rome -- particularly confusing when the other side in the fight is the "Holy Roman Empire". As near as I can tell from the article, the army in question actually answered to the Pope; it would be more correct to call it a "Papal" army, I think. This has resulted in some incoherence on the front page right now. --Jfruh (talk) 03:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it is quite confusing to the reader and should be changed. For a battle listed as the "Cannae" of the middle ages, the article is quite poor.

And also it has an untranslated Latin phrase and the bottom para is in a box that strays over the page margins Cosnahang 07:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not find the phrase in List of Latin phrases. It should probubly be added when it is translated.--208.102.210.163 (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I found that the phrase appeared on the Italian Wikipedia article (on 22:34, 8 nov 2007 compared to the English 20:09, 9 November 2007) a day before it appeared on the English one. The contributor was Luiclemens for both. Maybe we can ask him what apud Montem Portium means. Also, why does it have to be Latin? It very well could be but Luiclemens speaks Italian (according to his user page) and the user never explained (I think) the quote in the Italian Wikipedia article. Even so, in the Italian Wkipedia the quote is italizized, which might mean it is not Italian itself.--208.102.210.163 (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)(--208.102.210.163 (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC) this to that)

Have made some changes but still no Latin translation, I will ask my daughter this evening. Cosnahang 08:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's Latin, and means, as far as I can see, 'near Mount Porzio'. 68.227.184.123 (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The "Battle" section is ridiculously confusing. When both sides are "Roman", attempting to distinguish one side by referring to it as "Roman" is ineffective. It seems that an attempt to distinguish between actions is made by constantly referring to the leader of the respective army. However, for someone unfamiliar with subject, this results in the reader jumping back and forth to see which side the leader is representing. Mojodaddy (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Confusion
This was one of the Wikipedia daily articles for May 28, 2007. After reading it I was confused, even though I have some familiarity of the election system of the Holy Roman empire. I added a few clarifications, especially Prince-elector which I believe might help. But the layman's question would be, "Why are archbishops in battle against the Pope?" Question number two would be, "Why is the Holy Roman emperor battling with Rome and the Pope?" Taking the article from these points might help clarify this historical battle. Group29 13:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Also Brabantine - Brabançons is confusing as well Group29 13:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

So far I have read the first paragraph and there are numerous spelling, language and tense errors, I am trying to edit them, but I just wanted to read the article, not work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.245.185.2 (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think besides one short paragraph, the article is missing a reference to the power struggle between power-hungry popes and german kings in their title as holy roman emperors, which greatly influenced the history of medieval Italy and Germany. If there is an article about that series of conflicts in the english wikipedia, one should put a link to it in the background section of this article. When you learned history in german schools, and did in fact listen, the struggle for investiture is a well-known topic and you don't wonder at all why archbishops from Germany battle the pope on behalf of the holy roman emperor. However, since this is the english wikipedia, an expert should probably put up said links so that people who had a different curriculum can understand what the battle was about. 141.76.40.160 (talk) 06:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

caesarianos
This is the only article on the English Wikipedia that refers to caesarianos, it isn't the only one that refers to Milites, but apparently they ceased to exist 700 years earlier. I suspect that both terms should be linked to the relevant article on the byzantine military.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  15:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Milites was just medieval Latin for "knight". I've clarified. (There were no "Byzantines" at Monte Porzio.) As for caesarianos, I can't figure it out, but it seems to be a Biblical phrase, from the Vulgate with which every medieval writer would have been familiar, meaning "[those] belonging to Caesar", in this case referring, I presume, to the troops who owed service to the emperor (caesar) as opposed to one of the great lords, or perhaps, in contrast with milites, who were not vassals of the emperor but owed service. I have copyedited the article to clear things up. Srnec (talk) 05:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Suspect bias section
The section below "Account of the battle from the Monumenta Germanica Historica Scriptores SS., 20." looks pretty a bias against Romans (Italians). The part about the 30.000 Romans, the 500 Germans and the supposed natural "cowardice" of the Romans is quite funny. This shouldn't fit in a Wikipedia article. It is possible to use less "Germanic-centred" and more neutral point of view? -- MarcusVetus ✠ 17:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)