Talk:Italian War of 1551–1559

untitled
I don't really agree with some of the concluding analysis. According to Braudel, it was the Papacy that instigated this phase of the Italian Wars by recruiting France to rid Italy of Spanish influence. It's not correct that Spain and the Pope were "natural allies" or anything like that, and it was only after the Turkish naval threat recommenced in 1560 that the Pope started subsidizing the Spanish budget.

Furthermore, I don't believe that Savoy was effectively independent after the war. It was, like Genoa and Florence, pretty well a Spanish satellite. Only Venice was functionally an independent power.

Cateau-Cambrésis
With respect to the other wikipedias, I propose to move the section "Peace of Cateau-Cambrésis" to a separate article. --Rudoleska (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't really think that's a good idea at the moment. While Cateau-Cambrésis might, indeed, have enough potential material to warrant a separate article at some point, all splitting will do now is turn one almost-stub into two stubs, which won't really benefit the reader. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Siege of Metz
I'm surprised to see there is no mention of this battle which happened in 1552 and arguably was the worst defeat of Charles V.90.9.27.67 (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Anglo-French Wars
Search of Wikipedia for the 16th century "Anglo-French Wars" automatically redirects to "Italian Wars", but the Anglo-French conflicts of that century had virtually no connection with what was going on in the Mediterranean. Much of the conflicts between France, its Scottish allies and England at this time (particularly the 1540s and 1550s) resolved around naval conflict in the Channel, but the articles ignore this theatre totally and ignore the separate conflicts involving the northern states. If the "Italian Wars" articles are not going to discuss what was happening with conflicts in the non-Mediterranean world, can the redirect be removed so that useful articles on Anglo-French Wars (16th century) can be input? Rif Winfield (talk) 08:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, keep in mind that many of the articles in question—and this one in particular—are quite incomplete; they omit the northern theater simply because that material hasn't been written yet. So, if you have the time and inclination, please feel free to add in the missing sections here.  Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There are no mentions of how the Ottoman Empire withdrew from the war. For such an important role they had in the initial offensive it seems odd not to mention if they succeeded or failed in their campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.90.240.229 (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Ottoman participation was inconsistent, unfocused, and for this conflict mostly engaged by privateers. This explains the lack of any grand strategy. The ottomans remained in low level conflict with Spain until almost 1580! Conflict was the Safavids were the Turks main focus Joeykev (talk) 13:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Papacy
The article on Pius IV refers the "disastrous experience in the Italian War of 1551-59", but this article does not mention that the Papacy was involved at all. Can someone correct this omission?. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE19:6A40:1C14:8DC7:244E:92D9 (talk) 00:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Since the statement about alba is incited I added another statement about how alba sacked settlements in the Papal States in his preemptive attack. More info can be found on Italian Wikipedia under “salt war” Joeykev (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)