Opinion of Pope Alexander VI

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Yes, the "Borgia Pope".

I agree with Roberto Gervaso's assessment that he was a very bad Pontiff but a very good ruler and politician (and during that time Papacy was a very political and temporal institution).

Although certainly ruthless and "amoral", he wasn't much diffrent from his predecessors and contemporaries. Most of bad things we've heard of him was manufactured under Julius II, who, due to his irresponsible policies, undone much of Borgia's achievements in entrenching the Papacy.

[The Mikado]

Governed first and foremost as Prince of the Papal States rather than as Vicar of Christ.  If he weren't held to artificially high moral standards that we hold religious leaders to, he would be considered one of the most skilled leaders of his day for his adroit maneuvering between the Scylla of Spain and the Charybdis of France, both of whom threatened to absorb all of Italy.

His son is incredibly overrated, though.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

His son is incredibly overrated, though.

Indeed he is. Cesare was doing well as long as his father lived. Then he made the dumbest mistake by not opposing della Rovere's election (and he could have blocked him thanks to loyal Spanish Cardinals). Naturally, Julius II quickly got rid off him.

[Lumine]

I prefer him to Giuliano della Rovere, I must say. He certainly made a crucial mistake in ignoring propaganda and allowing the Borgia family to be portrayed as true monsters (they had a lot of bad propaganda before even with Borgia's skills as Vice-Chancellor, but allowing people like Giovanni Sforza to spread such tales without a consecuence damaged his reputation), when in context they acted just like the Orsini, the Colonna, the Sforza and all the other families.

His son is incredibly overrated, though.

Indeed he is. Cesare was doing well as long as his father lived. Then he made the dumbest mistake by not opposing della Rovere's election (and he could have blocked him thanks to loyal Spanish Cardinals). Naturally, Julius II quickly got rid off him.

While I do believe Alexander VI was the one with the actual strategic vision, I wonder if Cesare made the choice to back della Rovere under the influence of his disease/poisoning and perhaps his stage of syphills as well. I mean, why on earth was he naive enough to believe in della Rovere?

Which leads me to think, was there any chance for Cesare to consolidate a lasting Duchy of Romagna had D'Amboise won the past election or had Piccolomini lived a few years instead of mere weeks?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

While I do believe Alexander VI was the one with the actual strategic vision, I wonder if Cesare made the choice to back della Rovere under the influence of his disease/poisoning and perhaps his stage of syphills as well. I mean, why on earth was he naive enough to believe in della Rovere?

Which leads me to think, was there any chance for Cesare to consolidate a lasting Duchy of Romagna had D'Amboise won the past election or had Piccolomini lived a few years instead of mere weeks?

I've never really thought of this, but his deteriorating health could be a factor in making such a poor decision.

One can wonder whether Cesare's career would be better off had he remained a Cardinal. After all, despite all dangers of the Roman politics, cardinalate was much safer and more stable position than Condotierro-Prince (for example, our friend della Rovere did not lose his position within the College thorough the entire Borgia's rule). Cesare might not have become the third Borgia Pope, as his father intended, but he'd remain a powerful figure.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You've just remind me of very colorful description of the 1316 Conclave in Maurice Druon's novels: Cardinals Napoleon Orsini and Collona Bros putting curses at each other during the proceedings

[Lumine]

I've never really thought of this, but his deteriorating health could be a factor in making such a poor decision.

One can wonder whether Cesare's career would be better off had he remained a Cardinal. After all, despite all dangers of the Roman politics, cardinalate was much safer and more stable position than Condotierro-Prince (for example, our friend della Rovere did not lose his position within the College thorough the entire Borgia's rule). Cesare might not have become the third Borgia Pope, as his father intended, but he'd remain a powerful figure.

In a way, yes, but it should be noted that della Rovere expelled (at least until his death) several members of the college, thus potentially putting Cesare at a disadvantage anyway. Successfully returning to his lands in France might have been a safer bet, and if he had managed to stay put and quiet (easier said than done) until Luis XII and Julius II had to go to war, he might have a last chance for gaining some power in Italy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

xD, one has to wonder how could they last centuries backstabbing and murdering each other...

Are Maurice Druon's novels the ones about the end of the Capets and the rise of the house of Valois? (I haven't read them yet)

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Are Maurice Druon's novels the ones about the end of the Capets and the rise of the house of Valois? (I haven't read them yet)

Yes, the Accursed Kings. A great read.