Talk:Battle of Seminara

Untitled
Added page. Will make a simple map over the weekend and add it. Will do editing as well .... Larry Dunn 20:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"greatest captain"?
I'm guessing (as I unfortunately don't have a copy of the book on hand) that this evaluation is from Lanning? It would probably be best to attribute that directly in the text (e.g. "according to Lanning, the greatest captain..."). Lanning isn't really an authority on this particular period (or uncontroversial in his opinions, for that matter), and the evaluation isn't something that couldn't be open to debate; presenting it as a particular historian's judgement seems more appropriate than simply stating it as fact. Kirill Lokshin 23:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not just according to Lanning. For instance, Tom Arnold (in a book edited by Geoffrey Parker, BTW) says he was "known as the Great Captain for his peerless martial skill."  I don't have Oman with me now, but I'd be surprised if he didn't say something quite similar.  I'll add a cite to Arnold in the footnote, and I'll check for a similar cite in Oman.Larry Dunn 15:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. I'll see if I can find something similar in Oman; I don't recall, offhand, such a statement, but it's been a while since I've read the chapters for this period.  In any case, the gist of my point (somewhat broadened to "according to many historians, the greatest captain..."?) is probably still something I'd suggest considering; absolute evaluations of best/greatest/worst/etc. usually work better as (even vague) attributions rather than statements of fact.  Kirill Lokshin 16:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll take second look at the language and see if I can couch it differently.  BTW, Kirill, have you seen the wiki page called Cavalry tactics? It's in a rather sad shape.  Perhaps we can get some attention to it to whip it into shape?Larry Dunn 19:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the central topics are generally in much poorer shape than particular events/people/etc. It's more time-consuming to collect comprehensive sources for a broader topic, so they tend to be mostly composed of scraps of material that people have added over time. Kirill Lokshin 19:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Done (the change to the reference to Corboba). How is the article looking so far?  It's my first attmept to exhaustively cite my sources.  I will be creating maps as well -- the battle map should be fairly simple, but any suggestions on how to create the campaign map showing Calabria?Larry Dunn 16:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks good so far. Campaign maps have always been a weak point for me as well—I'm rather lacking in actual drawing ability—so the most useful suggestion I can make would be to crop out part of an existing map (such as this one) to use as a background and then draw the needed symbols over top of it. Kirill Lokshin 18:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Where was this Battle??
On Jim Dunn's request, I am creating a map of the campaign leading to this battle. According to the article, Seminara is way down in the "toe" of Italy, perhaps 80 miles from Naples, but that doesn't tie in to the article well:


 * "Ferdinand led the allied army out of Naples on June 28 and crossed over an easterly line of hills approximately 3 miles out from Seminara."

This sentence implies that Seminara is right next to Naples. Moreover, the battle was on June 28th, according to the article, the same date that Ferdinand left Naples.

Let me know your thoughts on this matter, if you would. Thanks, MapMaster 23:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * According to this map, it's quite far from Naples. I'm not sure how to make sense of the dates, though, unless there's been some sort of Julian/Gregorian error. Kirill Lokshin 23:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I know. I know. I figured it out.  The sentence should say:
 * "Ferdinand led the allied army out of Seminara on June 28 and crossed over a n easterly line of hills approximately 3 miles east of town."
 * Re-reading the article carefully, Ferdinand had already made it to Seminara. I am going to change the article to the wording above.  MapMaster 00:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Larry Dunn. Jim is my evil twin.  (Some would say, my good twin.  :-> )


 * Thanks so much for the map, including the correction on the Swiss!


 * Actually, my sources do not indicate in what direction Ferdinand led the army out of Seminara, only that the line of hills he got to was easterly.  (That is, running along to the east.)


 * Quote Prescott:


 * and King Ferdinand led his little army without further delay against the enemy.


 * After traversing a chain of hills, stretching in an easterly direction from Seminara, at a distance of about three miles, he arrived before s small stream ...


 * As you can see, that's quite ambiguous as to the direction of the movement of Ferdinand's force. All we can assume with any confidence is that he did not go west, because he crossed these hills, and they are to the east of Seminara.


 * Some confusion was obviously caused by my saying that Ferdinand left Naples. It was a brain fart, to be honest.  I meant Seminara.  Thanks for the catch.


 * Mapmaster, Im going to make a simple, crude schematic of the deployment and tactical operations on the battlefield. Would you be able to do your magic on that map and make it look good?  Larry Dunn 15:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Who Commanded the Allied Side?
The information box states Gonzalo de Cordoba as the allied commander, but the "Battle" section seems to attribute all the relevant decisons to Ferdinand of Naples. It seems a bit contradictory to me. Could someone clarify that? M.Campos (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I added Ferdinand II of Naples as Allied commander. M.Campos (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh look, you are triggered and called friend to help. I put my sources, who are you to decide they are unreliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.117.59.167 (talk) 13:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Victory
If Fornovo is a French victory( and I've doubt about that)then this is an Italo-Spanish victory


 * As usual some IP thinks their opinion is how Wikipedia is written. Since they can not continue their WP:OR at battle of Fornovo, they start disruptive editing in other articles.


 * War in the World: A Comparative History, 1450-1600, Jeremy Black, page 46;"In southern Italy, heavy cavalry and Swiss pikemen also brought the French victory at Seminara..."
 * A Global Chronology of Conflict: From the Ancient World to the Modern Middle East, edited by Spencer C. Tucker, page 361;The French are victorious..[..]..Cordoba's first and last military defeat, the Battle of Seminara.."
 * The Italian Wars 1494-1559: War, State and Society in Early Modern Europe, Michael Mallet and Christine Shaw, page 32;"..at Seminara the combine Neapolitan and Spanish forces were badly beaten..''"
 * The Routledge Companion to Medieval Warfare, Jim Bradbury. page 235;"Defeat for the Aragonese under Gonzalo de Cordoba by the French."
 * The Santa Hermandad and the First Italian Campaign of Gonzalo de Córdoba, 1495-1498, Paul Stewart, Renaissance Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 1 (Spring, 1975), page 34;"...which he sees as unsuitable for use overseas and only extended to aid Gonzalo after the defeat of Seminara.", page 36;"He largely ignores Gonzalo's own explanation of the disastrous first battle of Seminara...''"
 * Knights, Squires and Foot Soldiers in Portugal during the Sixteenth-Century Military Revolution, Pedro de Brito, Mediterranean Studies, Vol. 17 (2008), page 129;"This commander's[Gonzalo Fernandex de Cordoba] first encounter with the French at Seminara (June 1495) ran sour, and he withdrew into the guerrilla warfare he had observed the Moors practicing at Granada. Meanwhile, a coalition had been formed by the divided Italian city states, and at the risk of having his lines of communication with France cut, Charles withdrew to the north of Italy. Notwithstanding his victory over the coalesced Italian forces at Fornovo, one week after Seminara.." --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

"The Spanish themselves were then able to reach the safety of Seminara, the French troops apparently being content to remain in occupancy of the field(...) Prescott, 278–279 Like a Fornovo, but there the army on the field was the Italian As usual you use only the sources you like and your bias. I'll tell you again, only because you don't have a life or something to be proud of it does not mean you have to pretend to be a big man here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.30.216.217 (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The History of Italy, by Francesco Guicciardini, transl.Sidney Alexander, Princeton University Press, page 105;"Nevertheless, the palm of victory was universally accorded to the French: Because of the great difference in the number of dead, and because they had routed the enemy to the other side of the river, and because they had won free passage to advance, which was the very issue for which the battle[Fornovo] had been contended. The King remained all the following day encamped in the same place...."
 * Still only reading what you want. Ignore the facts all you want. It will not change anything.


 * "I'll tell you again, only because you don't have a life or something to be proud.."(WP:PA)
 * So instead of anything productive from you instead it is the same childish insults. You know nothing of me or my life, so stick with your own silly nonsense and leave the real world to the adults. I am done wasting time with you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Gucciardini too didn't consider this a French nor an Italian victory and Mallet himself said at. pg. 77 of his book "Military organisation " that destroying the enemy was NOT the mentality of the time. Again:"The Spanish themselves were then able to reach the safety of Seminara, the French troops apparently being content to remain in occupancy of the field(...) Prescott, 278–279 So if Fornovo is a French victory this is not. Unless you adopt the formula like on other wiki, French tactical victory but Italian strategic victory ( the contrary here). Be biased all you want, both in History and about your behaviour towards others( who insulted who? Beside, it seem I hit a nerve here...maybe there's some Truth). Now you can run, possibly towards a library or a school where you can make yourself a culture. Come back when you have and you grew up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.211.180.105 (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Still nothing but outdated Prescott?? While ignoring modern sources?


 * "Gucciardini too didn't consider this a French nor an Italian victory
 * Still ignoring what sources say when they disagree with you. Per the source,"Nevertheless, the palm of victory was universally accorded to the French"


 * "So if Fornovo is a French victory this is not."
 * Your opinion is not how Wikipedia is written.


 * Anatomy of Defeat in Renaissance Italy: The Battle of Fornovo in 1495, Antonio Santosuosso, "The International History Review", Vol. 16, No. 2 (May, 1994), pp. 221-250;"The defeat of the Holy League by Charles VIII of France at the battle of Fornovo on 6 July 1495..."
 * And Charles was not driven out of Italy;


 * An Unpublished 'Pronosticatio' on the Return of Charles VIII to Italy, Amnon Linder, "Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes", Vol. 47 (1984), pp. 200-203;"Although the battle of Fornovo (6 July 1495) was later seen as the veritable end of the expedition, Charles stayed in Northern Italy until 22 October, when he left Turin for France."
 * "Be biased all you want, both in History and about your behaviour towards others( who insulted who? Beside, it seem I hit a nerve here...maybe there's some Truth)."
 * Still talking about another editor, instead of bringing facts. That is where the "truth" is. I deal in facts not childish bullshit spewed by someone intent on writing their opinion(s) into an article. You want to cry about my "behaviour", then notify an Admin. Hell, I will do it for you.
 * Admins, be sure to check the edits of ,


 * "Now you can run, possibly towards a library or a school where you can make yourself a culture."
 * I do not understand gibberish, sounds like the facts hit a nerve! --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello Kansas Bear. Let me know if you think any pages need to be semiprotected. I am unsure if blocks would be worth the trouble. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * yes, no point in blocking which probably wouldn't work, better to semiprotect. Doug Weller  talk 13:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , . Please semi-protect the article. As you can tell from their latest edit(below), more of the same childish comments with no purpose but to make it personal. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have semiprotected Battle of Seminara. Suggest you keep a log of the multiple IPs used in case a filing at SPI might eventually be worthwhile, just for record-keeping. EdJohnston (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Will do. Thank you! --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Per, Prescott, Vol. II, who is outdated and an unreliable source; This is exactly what Prescott writes about Seminara. There is no mention of Seminara by Prescott on page 278-279, therefore it is original research. This article will be rewritten, using reliable sources and not some tripe or personal opinions. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "After traversing a chain of hills, stretching in an easterly direction from Seminara, at the distance of about three miles he arrived before a small stream, on the plains beyond which he discerned the French army in rapid advance against him. He resolved to wait its approach; and, taking position on the slope of the hills towards the river, he drew up his horse on the right wing, and his infantry on the left."-- page 309.
 * "The French generals, D'Aubigny and Precy, putting themselves at the head of their cavalry on the left, consisting of about four hundred heavy-armed, and twice as many light horse, dashed into the water without hesitation. Their right was occupied by the bristling phalanx of Swiss spearman in close array; behind these were the militia of the country. The Spanish "ginetes" succeeded in throwing the French gendarmerie into some disorder, before it could form after crossing the stream; but, no sooner was this accomplished, than the Spaniards, incapable of withstanding the charge of their enemy, suddenly wheeled about and precipitately retreated with the intention of again returning on their assailants, after the fashion of the Moorish tactics. The Calabrian militia, not comprehending this maneuvre, interpreted it into a defeat. They thought the battle lost, and, seized with a panic, broke their ranks, and fled to a man, before the Swiss infantry had time so much as to lower its lances against them."--page 309.
 * "King Ferdinand in vain attempted to rally the dastardly fugitives. The French cavalry was soon upon them, making frightful slaughter in their ranks. The young monarch, whose splendid arms and towering plumes made him a conspicuous mark in the field, was exposed to imminent peril. He had broken his lance in the body of one of the foremost of the French cavaliers, when his horse fell under him, and as his feet were entagled in the stirrups, he would inevitably have perished in the melee, but for the prompt assistance of a young nobleman name Juan de Altavilla, who mounted his master on his own horse, and calmly awaited the approach of the enemy, by whom he was immediately slain. Instance of this affecting loyalty and self-devotion not unfrequently occur in these wars, throwing a melancholy grace over the darker and more ferocious features of the time."--page 309-310.
 * "Gonsalvo was seen in the thickest of the fight, long after the king's escape, charging the enemy briskly at the head of his handful of Spaniards, not in the hope of retrieving the day, but of covering the flight of the panic-struck Neapolitans. At length he was borne along by the rushing tide, and succeeded in bringing off the greater part of his cavalry safe to Seminara. Had the French followed up the blow, the greater part of the royal army, with probably King Ferdinand and Gonsalvo at it head, would have fallen into their hands, and thus not only the fate of the campaign, but of Naples itself, would have been permanently decided by this battle. Fortunately the French did not understand so well how to use a victory, as to gain it. They made no attempt to pursue. This is imputed to the illness of their general, D'Aubigny, occasioned by the extreme unhealthiness of the climate. He was too feeble to sit long on his horse, and was removed into a litter as soon as the action was decided. Whatever was the cause, the victors by this inaction suffer the golden fruits of victory to escape them. Ferdinand made his escape on the same day on board a vessel, which conveyed him back to Sicily; and Gonsalvo, on the following morning before break of day, effected his retreat across the mountains to Reggio, at the head of four hundred Spanish lances. Thus terminated the first battle of importance in which Gonsalvo of Cordova held a distinguished command; the only one which he lost during his long and fortunate career." -page 310-311.