Talk:Road to Canossa

Untitled

The entry Canossa isn't very good either. Nevertheless, this material should be at Canossa, with a redirect. Without the historical context the story doesn't make much sense... --Wetman 03:15, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On it (see my note at Talk:Canossa). - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 13:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Done - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 13:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review

I wrote this article using German sources. Most of the things listed here are more or less considered accepted fact in German history, and therefore not particularly worthy of citations. I tried, however, to cite a couple of things I thought might be curiosities. Is there anything else here that anyone feels needs to be cited or supported? - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 16:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What happend to the theory that Canossa was besieged by Henry's troops? His army was strong enough for that. This conclusion could be drawn by German sources too, but it is not mentioned in this article. Obviously only the papal views were given especially Lambert of Hersfeld. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.76.98.125 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 4 December 2006

Canossa was besieged by Henry later, after his second deposition. His cousin Mathilda supported Pope Gregory and refused to allow Henry passage through Tuscany on his march to Rome, so he invaded. She retreated to Canossa, where Henry overpowered her. - Che Nuevara 21:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The painting

"Carlo Emanuelle" seems garbled. Could it be by Carlo Emanuele Lanfranchi, better known as a minor architect? --Wetman (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Mount Cenis

Mount Cenis is in the Alps not the Jura.--Grahame (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Noteworthiness and citations of "speculation"?

"Although no contemporary sources report this, it has since been speculated that Henry spent much of his time during these three days in the village at the foot of the hill."

Is there a source for this? Any such speculation without any evidence or at least a significant authority behind it doesn't seem to merit mention. Anyone can speculate about any particular fact. That doesn't make it part of the historical view. Does such speculation also infer that he was not acting in a penitent manner while in the village or was this just speculating about where exactly he was encamped?Bigjimleo (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Most creditable historians working on the middle ages in the last seventy years or so would tell you that the stories of medieval chronicles and even purported letters cannot always be taken at near face value, and this story in particular has been embellished quite a bit. It's very unlikely (read: out of the question) that Henry walked over the plains of northern Italy at the head of his troops dressed like a beggar and a penitent, or that he waited three days barefoot in the deep snow just outside the castle gates, begging to be let in. I've seen that pointed out in school textbooks, actually.

However, a lot of water has run under the bridges since this legend was any kind of hot research question, and academic historians are not in the habit of spending a huge amount of efforts debunking every single long-debunked legend or hyperbole they run into. If the criterion for removing some of the legendary statements here is that one needs to find a few top-rate historians who unequivocally said "this is a trumped-up story" then you'd have to go back to the days before WW2 or something. Anyone want to dig that deep in the library? The stories of Henry's hardships are being repeated by some popular historians/journalists and of course by the local tourist industry, but that doesn't make them any more reliable - or part of modern historical consensus. 83.254.154.164 (talk) 06:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

A good story told well

Yet, the story as told by Lambert is hardly believed these days. The article should reflect this. -- Zz (talk) 01:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)