Was Cesare Borgia nearly as batshit crazy as he's descr

>>3152094
Who says he was crazy?

He was doing the done thing at the time

>>3152113
In one scene, he threatens another dude with rabid dogs. Then at another point slams a dude's eye into blunt end of of a dagger planted into a table out of anger and possible revenge.
In the American showtime version, he is a bit more white washed until the end of the last season but then he sets a guy on fire for not doing what he says while they were talking.
The ass Creed game has him just as edge desu.

Because le corrupt papists. Anglos are shit.

Read Machiavelli, Cesare was the man.

>>3152128
They weren't fucking around man. The Papal States was a country as well as a Church. So balance the running of a country in the Italian city states period with their dynastic interests, the Borgia's were in some minds upstarts, but had held the Office of Pope previously. I mean of course they did a bit of badness.

You would think that the introduction of the example of Cesare Borgia would be meant purely negatively; after all, he is supposed to be an example of how not to become prince. And yet, Machiavelli goes into great detail describing both Alexander VI's actions in achieving power for his son and Cesare's own efforts to govern, not in order to condemn these but to suggest that they are often admirable. For instance, Machiavelli describes the incredible political savvy of Alexander as he plotted the future success of his son by creating and manipulating political intrigue and unrest in Italy. One of his most ingenious moves (and one of the most famous passages in The Prince ) concerned the government of the Romagna province. Alexander knew that weak government had allowed all manner of crime and violence to flourish there, and knew that it needed cleaning up so that he could govern it more easily. He appointed a harsh deputy governor, Remirro de Orco, to punish criminals and crack down on law-breakers of all kinds. Remirro did his work well. Alexander, however, knew that his deputy's harsh measures were both necessary and hated by the people (no one likes a cruel enforcer of the laws). So, after Remirro had successfully wiped out most of the crime in the Romagna, Alexander "had him cut in half, and placed one morning in the public square. . . with a piece of wood and a blood-stained knife by his side." In other words, Alexander used Remirro to take care of his dirty work, then earned the "thanks" of the people by executing him. Suddenly, Romagna was both free of crime, and well-disposed toward Alexander's rule.

Just how it was

>>3152136
>>3152138
So it was not an exaggeration and he really acted like this for the most part? Wow
Well I guess the negative personification as one of the most evil people in history was due to his rivals even if they did the same things sometimes.

>>3152236
He was a warlord. Everyone doing anything of notice in Italy at the time was. That's it, really.

>>3152236
I mean its not evil as such. Also the Borgias are heavily romanticised.

Go read The Prince man.

He was literally HITLER

>>3152252
I mean actually I feel that the Condotteri age has been heavily passed over in history. Was actually super cool

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAfNQ_XiPjQ