The battle of La Motta was another significant battle of the Italian Wars, fought on 7 October 1513 between Republic of Venice and combined forces of Spain and Holy Roman Empire. Venice lost yet another battle, but its enemies were once again unable to take advantage of victory!
Another battle that happened during the War of the League of Cambrai (1508-1516), a particularly bloody episode during the Italian Wars where territory of Venice was often contested. Venetian forces were already crushed in 1509 at the battle of Agnadello, but had recovered.
Despite defeat, Venice was able to restore its possessions in the Italian Mainlands, the Terrafirma. Meanwhile the forces of the anti-Venetian League of Cambrai were busy fighting each other. In 1513, Venitians would ally with the French who had previously crushed them in 1509.
This was just another example how volatile and unpredictable the Italians Wars were. As part of alliance, the French released Venetian commander Bartolomeo d'Alviano whom they imprisoned at Agnadello. D'Alviano would now have to lead Venetian army against Spanish and Imperials.
The French invaded Italy but suffered a humiliating loss by the Swiss at Novara in June of 1513 and were routed back. Venice was now on its own and facing an invasion of combined Spanish and Imperial forces. D'Alviano retreated to Padua and was besieged there in August.
The combined army decided to lift the siege and plundered the Venetian lands instead in hopes of provoking D'Alviano to come out of Padua and face them on the open field. For entire September the Spanish and ferocious German Landsknecht mercenaries looted Venetian Terrafirma!
The pillaging was brutal and was also specifically designed to have a psychological effect as they burned down the villas of Venetian nobles to humiliate them! They even came close to Venice and fired some taunting shots with canons! D'Alviano fell for the provocation and moved.
The armies would meet on 7 October near Vicenza. The Venetians brought more men and a better more experienced cavalry, but regarding the quality of infantry the Spanish-Imperial side had a big advantage, the core of its troops being hardened Spanish and Landksnecht veterans.
D'Alviano commanded around 3000 cavalry. The 10000 Venetian infantry he brought were mostly city militias. Meanwhile the Spanish had only 1000 light cavalry, 4000 Spanish infantrymen and 3500 Imperial Landsknechts. Both sides had an impressive number of guns and artillery.
The Spanish-Imperial army was commanded by Ramon de Cordona, a rather mediocre commander who had lost to French at Ravenna a year earlier, but the infantry contingents were commanded by two capable and charismatic men Georg von Frundsberg and Fernando d'Ávalos of Pescara.
Frundsberg and Pescara understood the new pike and shot warfare and this battle would once again prove the importance of this infantry-based tactic that the Venetians had not yet mastered. Their leader D'Alviano used a much more cavalry-heavy tactic and tried to outflank the foe.
The Venetians started the battle well with their superior cavalry pushing the Spanish cavalry back, but when the two infantry forces clashed, the Spanish and the Landsknecht formations stood firm against the larger Venetian infantry which collapsed and was routed.
After the collapse of the Venetian infantry, their cavalry began to rout in panic as well. The battle was won by the Spanish and Imperial forces! The Landsknechts in particular were relentless in killing the fleeing Venetian infantry as they had scores to settle with hated Venice
The result was a total disaster for Venetians, losing around 5000 men in chaos that ensued. Many cavalrymen drowned trying to cross nearby rivers, while the commander of Vicenza didn't let the fleeing Venetian infantry in, afraid that the pursuers might enter with them!
The Spanish and Imperials then captured Vicenza but despite their big victory, they were not able to take any crucial advantage of it. D'Alviano escaped and would not take risks anymore. The combined Spanish-Imperial army continue to pillage, but could not hold the territories.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It's crazy how Americans bought the myth that during the time of Columbus people thought that the earth was flat, a complete lie popularized by quasi-historian Washington Irving in 1828.
This globe was literally made before Columbus' discovery, and has no America on it.
Washington Irving completely invented a fictional dialogue between Columbus and the Council of Salamanca, where the clergy supposedly objected him on the ground that the earth was flat.
His fraudulent book would become the most popular book on Columbus in English-speaking world.
This lie was then picked on in America and expended as some sort of anti-Catholic anti-medieval founding myth, where Columbus was supposedly representing enlightenment rationalism against irrationality and dogmatism of the Church.
The idea that monarchy and republic are opposed to each other is a modern thing.
The term republic (res publica) was often used to describe medieval kingdoms.
Even by 16th century the Kingdom of France was still called both a republic and a monarchy at the same time!
The Kingdom of France defined itself by the phrase of "chose publique" (res publica) from 1350s to 1580s, also using the word respublique, to describe the relation between the King of France and his subject.
The term was then replaced by State (État).
The absolutist French monarchy which emerged in 17th century preferred the term State over republic, and talked of the "good of the State".
However the term state also comes from earlier medieval concepts like status regis at regni (the state of the king and the kingdom).
16th century Romans developed an interesting tradition of "talking statues", attaching anonymous political commentary on statues.
The Pasquino was the first of such statues.🧵
The Pasquino is an old statue in Rome dating back to Antiquity.
It was one of many random statues in Rome until early 16th century when Cardinal Oliveiro Carafa decorated the statue with Latin epigrams on the occasion of the Feast of Saint Mark.
The Cardinal's actions unintentionally inspired ordinary Roman people to start writing satirical poems and attaching them to the Pasquino.
It is speculated that these were first only consisting of lowbrow humor, but they soon began including controversial political criticism!