Talk:Cesare Borgia

Torgia

Sorry, but in "What if you were alone in an alley with Cesare Borgia And he was coming torgia..." - what does 'torgia' mean? Can't find explanation anywhere. Thx in anticipation :) 130.225.244.181 (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

no idea...but it sounds like slurred 'toward you' like how got you becomes 'gotcha'.38.104.78.230 (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a slant rhyme for "to'rd ya" = "toward ya." Probably you need to be a native English speaker to catch it. SBHarris 18:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thank you very much :D, I mean, it REALLY puzzled me :) and you guessed right, I'm not a native English-speaker ;)62.107.117.194 (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Date of birth

The article says he was born in 1476, but that he was "at the age of 33" when he died in 1507. As that's not possible, one of these two claims has to be wrong. --Delirium 08:49, Aug 25, 2003 (UTC)

I've read many Cesare Borgia books and none give the exact date of his birth. They even disagree on the year. Some say 1475, others 1476. --Cesare Borgia 03:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

According to SUNY prof Raymond Belliotti in Niccolo Machiavelli: The Laughing Lion and the Strutting Fox pg 109, Cesare lived 1475-1507. Uzmanei (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Not even Cesare's father wrote down same birth date more than once so who knows? 141.248.3.1 (talk) 01:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Duke of Valencia?

The article says that he is Duke of Valencia, to my best information he was not but was Archbishop of Valencia and was made Duke of Valatinois by Luis XII king of France. -- lwatson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lwatson (talk • contribs) 19:52, 15 February 2004

Yes, he was Duke of Valentinois. john 21:03, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The Prince

I'm surprised there's nothing in the article regarding Borgia's presence in Machiavelli's THE PRINCE... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.155.71 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 5 June 2004

See the last para. —Preceding unsigned comment added by mav (talk • contribs) 07:59, 6 June 2004

I find it interesting that this article describes Machiavelli's description of Cesare Borgia/Duke Valentino's rule as an example of poor leadership. Having just completed my second read through that section of The Prince, I have to conclude that Machiavelli's view of Cesare's leadership offers praise, not condemnation. He claims Cesare (I use the given name, as Machiavelli does, as there are several noteworthy Borgias of the period) did well with his actions regarding Ramiro d'Orco, first using Ramiro's harshness to tame the Romagna, then having him executed for his crimes - thus restoring order and obedience to his authority without becoming hated (and later chapters in The Prince clearly state that the hatred of the people is to be avoided). Similarly, he claims that the foundation of Cesare's power, the Romagna, was well laid, as the region waited a month for him while he was ill in Rome, and that on the day Julius II became Pope, he commented to Machiavelli (Machiavelli was, at the time, an official of some sort in the Florentine Republic, who during his time traveled as far as the lands that later became Germany) that "he had thought of everything that might occur at the death of his father, and had provided a remedy for all, except that he had never anticipated that, when the death did happen, he himself would be on the point to die." (Quoting the translation of The Prince that I have, released by planetpdf.com, who have seemingly not bothered to credit the translators). Machiavelli later goes on to say "When all the actions of the duke are recalled, I do not know how to blame him, but rather it appears to be, as I have said, that I ought to offer him for imitation to all those who, by the fortune or the arms of others, are raised to government." (Again quoting the aforementioned planetpdf release of the book). This clearly indicates, to me, at least, that Machiavelli approves of Cesare Borgia's rule, and the only thing he finds disagreeable about the situation is that Cesare Borgia came to power through another's power and not his own, which is a disadvantageous start to one's rule, according to The Prince. I do not dispute the historical claims to the contrary, but the article on Cesare Borgia currently indicates Machiavelli disapproves of the man. I must admit to not having read the entirety of Machiavelli's works, so I am not sure enough that he does not contradict the ideas presented in The Prince in other texts, and thus I am not confident enough to make such sweeping changes in that part of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rashkavar (talk • contribs) 12:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Machiavelli's praise of Cesare Borgia was unstinting. I do not understand how anyone could interpret it any other way. Jonathan Chin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.42.99.112 (talk) 07:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I have read historical commentary that suggests much of the Prince, including the praise of Borgia, was ironic. Machiavelli was a devoted republican in his own personal politics. There is much deabte over the Prince's interpretation and this should be reflected in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.69.100.176 (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Dumas

Under fiction - it lists The Borgias by Dumas - link goes to a BBC film, and Dumas article refers only to essay on celebrated crimes - anyone know what's right? 212.58.43.101 18:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Image of Jesus

I removed this text from the article:

"The standard image of Jesus Christ seen around the world today is acutally Cesare Borgia."

This is at least an exaggeration, as (a) there is no one 'standard image' of Jesus, and (b) most of the similarities that exist between commonly-used pictures of Jesus also exist in pictures predating Borgia by centuries (e.g. the 550AD 'Christ Pantocrator' icon in St. Catherine's Monastery, Sinai). I've replaced it with a greatly reduced claim saying that it has been suggested that pictures of Jesus produced around that time might have been influenced by Borgia's looks, which might in turn have influenced images since; can anyone comment on whether even this is justified? TSP 16:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not big on adding pop culture references of this sort, but Wu-tang affiliate Killah Priest mentions this fact [1], which means that some people (myself included) may be looking for an explination of how this story came to be. If anyone does know more, it would be interesting, if even to see some references. Smmurphy 23:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Your statment:

"It has been suggested that some pictures of Jesus Christ produced around Borgia's lifetime were based on Cesare Borgia, and that this in turn has influenced images of Jesus produced since that time."

was removed by another user but I for one believe that even if not true it should be addressed and as your statement says it has been suggested. More info on this would be greatly aprreciated

This claim is made in Volume One of Celebrated Crimes by Alexandre Dumas pere. However, Dumas was a notoriously uncritical researcher, and repeated any claim anyone had ever made, without doing any corroboration. Even Cesare's enemies agreed he was the best-looking man of his generation, so it wouldn't have been unreasonable to use him as a model for Jesus. But who knows. Fumblebruschi 15:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

If it has been suggested, even by an unreliable witness, it can be included as a claim by that witness; as this seems to be a well-known claim (as per the Killah Priest) reference, it seems to be worth including as a claim, even if it cannot be shown to have any truth to it. TSP (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have heard this claim made about the self-portrait of Albrecht Durer, too (the one currently at the top of the wikipedia page for Durer). He and Borgia were of an age, though I don't ever remember hearing that they met. So I don't believe that this can be truly attributed to Borgia or to Durer. Dvallere (talk) 03:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Last time i read this article it had an image of jesus on the cross painted by davinci. I notice it has since been removed, I'm starting to really question wikipedia's credibility. It seems any Joe Blow can come on here and edit information they don't agree with —Preceding unsigned comment added by Higrade (talk • contribs) 15:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Illegitimate

Cesare was 'thought' to be illegitimate however, Rodrigo Borgia acknowledged Cesare making him a legitimate heir and child as well as Cesare's siblings. Read your history books closer.

He was illegitimate, because his parents were not married at the time of his birth, and, in fact, never married. He may, I suppose, have been legitimized, but that is not the same thing at all. john k 07:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Controversial

The first paragraph states that Cesare was one of the most controversial people in history, but the article doesn't elaborate on this or explain what's controversial about him. Shouldn't it?

---

The section on Machievelli is flawed. Many scholars see Machievelli's praise of Borgia as satire.

The whole article is flawed. But quote your sources. In my opinion, quotations from Machiavelli would help. He called Borgia "the most perfect dissembler", which certainly sounds a little satirical. Perhaps cynical is a better word.

I believe Machiavelli genuinely approved of Borgia's methods; for two reasons: first, Cesare's interventions saved Florence, whose ambassador Machiavelli was; second, his removal of several tyrants in mid Italy benefited the people, which was the name of the game as far as Machiavelli was concerned. Before his work with Borgia, he had been an envoy to Forli, noted the regime's cruelty to the people there, and gave that as a reason for their preferring Borgia. Machiavelli saw Cesare's government of conquered territories as juster than that of the despots he had ousted. When Forli was later made forfeit to Julius II, the people at first stayed loyal to Cesare and refused to surrender.

You may tell from this that, like Machiavelli, I am a Borgia apologist. If there's any controversy about the Borgias, it concerns the accuracy of their reputation. (I don't see them as any worse than other dukes, popes, or noble nubiles of the time. Nor did Machiavelli.) qp10qp 19:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Saying that Machiavelli approved of Cesare Borgia shows a serious misunderstanding of Machiavelli. He was a strong supporter of republics, as can be seen in nearly all of his writings. He did not just disapprove of "tyrants," but of principalities in general. The Prince was not a book to be taken literally, it takes the opposite stance of nearly everything else he wrote. The book was a satire, and his praise for Cesare Borgia was about as genuine as Stephen Colbert's praise for Bush. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.178.110.53 (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no scholarly consensus on whether Machiavelli genuinely praised Borgia or not. However, some scholars - among them Joseph V Femia and Robert A Kocis - feel that, while Machiavelli did prefer republics, he recognized that only a prince would be able to unite Italy and thus free her from the foreign invasions that devastated the country. This is Machiavelli's exhortation in the last chapter of The Prince. So, instead of writing that Machiavelli offered Borgia as an example of "what not to do," this article should either be silent on the matter, or it should say exactly what Machiavelli said: that Cesare was a model prince. Uzmanei (talk) 04:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

To start with, there's always going to be contraversy about Machiavelli's writing, especially The Prince. I, personally, would argue that The Prince was, in a certain light, in keeping with his republican ideas. The Prince explains how you become a man like King Romulus. Other writings (such as the Discourses on Livy, according to Dr. William R. Cook, whose interpretation thereof is currently the only one I have access to as yet) state more or less directly that a republic cannot form except out of another form of government. In Rome, the early kings were eventually ousted as they slowly became more and more corrupt in a great civil revolution, replaced by the senate and the 2 leaders (whose title I forget). Later, they introduced the tribunes who represented the common people, at which point Rome became a full republic, according to the definition Machiavelli uses of a mixed constitution of a king-like position (the 2 leaders I mentioned), an aristocracy (the senate) and a democracy (the tribunes and through them the people. Note that Rome, considered at the time to be the greatest of all republics, started with some very strong kings. Romulus killed his brother Remus (or Rimas - I'm not sure which version of the name is correct), an act Machiavelli praises in the Discourses as it was necessary to affirm his rule of Rome. He similarly goes on to cite Romulus's successor (again, I forget the name) as making good political use of religion through his claim that he had a nymph as a lover. This image, if believed, suggests that the gods spoke through the nymph to the King, and thus what the King say is what the gods want and thus you have to follow them or be a heretic (and yes, I recognize the irony of using the term heresy to refer to not believing in a polytheistic religion). The vast majority of people in both Machiavelli's time and now would recognize that it is at least somewhat unlikely that any Roman King took a nymph as a lover, and it is even more unlikely that if he managed to find such a creature, that bedding her would make him a prophet of any higher being. But as the people of Rome believed him, it was a useful falsehood, quite in keeping with The Prince's model of how a Prince should use religion. With this in mind, it is arguable that The Prince is indeed not a satire, but rather a model of the early leaders of a society that later became what he considered to be an ideal (or nearly ideal) republic. My source for this is Dr. William R. Cook's series of audio-book style lectures entitled "Machiavelli in Context," which I believe is worth listening to even if (or perhaps especially if) you have already formed a different point of view of Machiavelli. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rashkavar (talk • contribs) 18:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Machiavelli's dispatches have survived until today and pretty much blow these experts' claims right out of the water. His first interest was in preserving the Republic of Florence, but at that time it was beset by Foreign invaders. Machiavelli saw Cesare as the best hope for a unified Italy that could to compete as a world power with France and Spain. When Cesare grew weak, Machiavelli distanced himself and said that he loved the idea of Cesare more than the man himself. But he did love him. 141.248.3.1 (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

borgia as false christ

the "white" image of Jesus Christ you talk of is acually Ceasar Borgia ! and did you know that Borgia was a homosexual too?The point is, the white portrayal of Jesus is evidence of White supremacy because this was helped by the Roman Catholic Church who was by Michelangelo to create pictures of a "white saviour" in the back of Newly printed Bibles.....It's pure blasphemy to me... using white supremacy for making Jesus...In my belief,Jesus was black ! and there is proof ! and I'm caucasian,but its true, The lion of The Tribe of Judah is a Dark-skinned man! -: signed, The Brother Love

I'm not with you. qp10qp 19:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Brother Love, your ideas are as random as your spelling and punctuation. Sergivs-en 22:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. There wasn't even a concept of "white supremacy" at the time. The only people Renaissance Italians ever interacted with that weren't "white" were the Turks and other Muslims, and the difference between these cultures was drawn almost exclusively on religious lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.160.132 (talk) 13:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Nietzsche as Fiction!

"The Antichrist (1895) by F. Nietzsche" listed under fiction! Get it right.

TV series

There was a fine series on BBC TV called "The Borgias" in late 1981. Adolfo Celi played the Pope and Oliver Cotton, Cesare (Borgia).

-Meltingpot

62.137.150.216 10:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Borgia's death

In the article it states that he died at the siege of Viana. But in Machiavelli's The Prince it says he died of sickness. Could someone please provide some clarification? --PiMaster3 ^talk 23:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

In The Prince, Machiavelli mentions that, at the time of Rodrigo de Borgia/Alexander the (sixth?), his father and benefactor died, he was very ill. The phrase "sick unto death" is used in the translation I have, which basically means he was severely bedridden. There are many illnesses (pnumonia being the first that comes to mind) that are severe enough to qualify as being on the point of dying (especially in the medicine of the 1500s, where the study of anatomy was still virtually taboo), that it is also reasonable to expect survival. There are also cases of more impressive survivals of illness, such as people becoming sick with Bubonic Plague and surviving, but such cases are exceedingly rare. Machiavelli views the time of Ceasare's father to be the critical juncture, during which, if not for the illness, he would have continued to rule well (according to the definition of good leadership and the version of facts regarding Ceasare's leadership found in The Prince). After this point, things started to spiral out of control (particularly with Julius II as pope, as there was a grudge of some sort between the two and high ranking catholics at the time were far more willing and able to exercise their political power than they are now. Since Cesare lost control of events at this point, and went through a steady downfall that all of Machiavelli's intellectual contemporaries would be familiar with, he drops the example at that point (I imagine Ceasare's activities in Italy at the time would be of at least equal relevance to Italians (of any city state) as any recent war is to us - at least to the intellectuals who would have access to information on contemporary events, since communication was pretty primative in those days.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rashkavar (talk • contribs) 17:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Pope's recognizing their children

The article says that Alexander VI was the first pope to formally recognize his children as his own, however it was actually his predecessor, Innocent VIII, that first recognized his son as his own child rather than as a nephew, or nipoti in Italian (a title they used to cover any number of relations). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.160.132 (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Bangles Song?

Always thought they were talking about Rudolph Valentino, the silent screen star, not Il Valentino. Anybody know for sure? Dvallere (talk) 03:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not know, but it seems so obvious that I commented out the claim. If anyone knows better, un-comment it. Queezbo (talk) 08:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Spanish-Italian: good, though not exactly

Because nor Spain -and specially- neither Italy existed "properly" in those times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.54.206.52 (talk) 11:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Death in 1507 or 1503?

I read a biography on Leonardo da Vinci which says Leonardo joined Cesare Borgia's household in 1502. It says that Cesare had a banquet at Imola, to which he invited a two mercenaries, one of them being Vitellozzo Vitelli. The book then says Cesare had these mercenaries assassinated. After this the book says Cesare died SHORTLY afterward and his court broke up. Since Cesare was dead, Leonardo da Vinci returned to Florence, were he was living before.

So, my question is, did Cesare die in 1503 or 4 whole years later in 1507?

72.9.8.88 (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Emily C.

Lucrezia Borgia

"Cesare was also father to at least eleven illegitimate children, among them Girolamo Borgia, who married Isabella Contessa di Carpi, and Lucrezia Borgia, who, after Cesare's death, was moved to Ferrara to the court of her aunt, Lucrezia Borgia."

So there were two Lucrezia Borgias? This should be made more clear. zafiroblue05 | Talk 19:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction

This article states, "The new pope, Pius III, supported him..." while the article on Pope Pius III says, "[Pius] at once took in hand the reform of the papal court and arrested Cesare Borgia." These are obviously contridictory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.33.58 (talk) 05:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The Pius article should be changed. Julius II had Cesare arrested. Uzmanei (talk) 04:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Melone portrait, off topic question

Simply out of curiosity: do any of you scholars know what is going on the background over Borgia's right shoulder in the portrait currently showing in the article? Are those monsters or demons of some kind? Or zombies? Was Borgia famous in his time for fighting off an invasion of the living dead? Spatrick99 (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)