Talk:Concordats of Constance

The "Nationes"
Sorry User:Srnec, i think that there is a misunderstanding. It's probably a fault in explaining things from my part. You say "Papal states don't make sense. the source don't support what you say but I'll leave Venice". I have re-added everything (sources + facts) for the simple reason that there is a misunderstanding here. The sources do actually support what is written, and I don't want to leave something in (Venice) without the source with which it was introduced. Again, it's probably been a fault in explaining things from my part. Here's the issue:

1)The papal states were not part of imperial Italy (they maybe were in the early Holy Roman Empire, but definetely not in the 15th century). It's a term used to describe a collection of Italian states under the temporal authority of the Pope (Rome and Bologna for example, even if city-states, were part of the papal states). So, just like all the other Italian states, by default the Papal states were part of the Italian "nation".

2)That specific source about Constance mentions explicitely the Papal states. I have put the whole sentence verbatim. But you can also read the following pages of that book and realize what was the "Italian nation". A collection of prelates from the Italian peninsula. Example: a cardinal from Rome, another from Florence etc etc. It's crystal clear.

3)If you pick a single random session of the council of constance you'll find the names of the Papal States representatives of the Italian nation, such as Cerretano (mentioned by the first source) or Leonardo Dati or Panfoldo Malatesta or the guy elected Pope (Oddo Colonna, Martin V). One of his main supporters was from Venice. Both were Italians and part of the Italian nation, and co-operated within that framework. This is the second source (it's in Italian but if you want I can translate it as I speak it).

4)The concept of Nation was present at many councils up to Trent. And the Italian nation always included the entire Italian peninsula. My only doubt is actually about Sicily in some councils. Especially because Sicily meant both Naples and Sicily.

So what is the issue? What's wrong with my reasoning? Thank you. Barjimoa (talk) 08:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Nothing is wrong with your reasoning. I think you have the wrong question! It is not "were the Papal States part of the Italian natio?", but rather "what were the states covered by the concordat with the Italian natio?" I do not dispute that the Papal States were part of the Italian nation at Constance. What I dispute is that it makes sense to say that they were the subject of the Italian concordat, assuming one existed. Why would the pope make a treaty with himself? Also, the Duchy of Milan was a part of Imperial Italy. Srnec (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's the problem of not having the Italian concordat. So we don't know who signed this pact and if the Pope disciplined things unilaterally for the Papal states outside of the pact. Or maybe inside of it. But since this thing has not survived, I guess it was probably just a general agreement made between all the prelates and deputies from Italy. As you said it, we assume it to have existed but we don't actually have it.Barjimoa (talk) 06:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)