WI: A Different Papal Conclave of 1492

The papal conclave of 1492 is particularly notorious among the conclaves for Rodrigo Borja's alleged use of bribery to buy the votes of the other cardinal electors. There were several other men vying for the position as well. Oliviero Carafa, Jorge da Costa, Giovanni Michiel, and Giuliano della Rovere amassed several votes for themselves. What if Borja had failed to gain the votes of enough cardinals?

Would Jorge da Costa being elected pope substantially alter matters? He would be an interesting choice, the only other Portuguese pope being John XXI (pope from 1276 to 1277). I'm guessing da Costa wouldn't substantially alter matters, but neither would he be as corrupt as Alexander VI. Any guesses what his papal name would be?
 
notorious among the conclaves for Rodrigo Borja's alleged use of bribery to buy the votes of the other cardinal electors.

AIUI, the other cardinals (della Rovere for one) likewise bribed in attempts to amass votes - it wasn't because of their charm and good looks. However, Rodrigo's bribes were successful (and combined with his later reputation for excess (simony included)) and this has been levelled against him for the rest of eternity
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Indeed, the others were just as bad (and in some cases worse). The Borgias were certainly guilty of period-typical corruption and vice, but lots of charges levelled against them were either trumped-up by their political rivals, or were committed by said rivals to about the same degree. That the Borgias in particular get singled out as 'bad guys' is a combination of their enemies ultimately beating them (and thus writing the histories) and general anti-Spanish sentiment (no matter that they styled themselves 'Borgia'; to their critics they'd always be 'Borja' -- and therefore dirty foreign interlopers).

That said, without that one easy target, the taint of the period's corruption might be "smeared out" a bit more, with historians associating the corruption with all/most Popes (and their close supporters) of the period, instead of that reputation being unfairly plastered onto the Borgias in particular. Historical irony: by losing, the borgias might have less of a bad reputation, and by winning, their enemies would worsen their own reputation.

In the grand scheme of things, however, this doesn't change the culture of the period. The underlying problems will remain, the back-stabbing will still be business as usual, and the corruption at the heart of the Church will not be solved any more effectively.
 
Indeed, the others were just as bad (and in some cases worse). The Borgias were certainly guilty of period-typical corruption and vice, but lots of charges levelled against them were either trumped-up by their political rivals, or were committed by said rivals to about the same degree. That the Borgias in particular get singled out as 'bad guys' is a combination of their enemies ultimately beating them (and thus writing the histories) and general anti-Spanish sentiment (no matter that they styled themselves 'Borgia'; to their critics they'd always be 'Borja' -- and therefore dirty foreign interlopers).

That said, without that one easy target, the taint of the period's corruption might be "smeared out" a bit more, with historians associating the corruption with all/most Popes (and their close supporters) of the period, instead of that reputation being unfairly plastered onto the Borgias in particular. Historical irony: by losing, the borgias might have less of a bad reputation, and by winning, their enemies would worsen their own reputation.

In the grand scheme of things, however, this doesn't change the culture of the period. The underlying problems will remain, the back-stabbing will still be business as usual, and the corruption at the heart of the Church will not be solved any more effectively.
My OP was misleading, sorry - there were plenty of other simoniacs in the Church besides the Borjas.

Corruption in the Church will still be an issue regardless of who is elected. I can find few resources on Costa, but it doesn't seem he was any kind of reformer. At best, Costa will be above the corruption, without really fighting it. Carafa will probably be more amenable to dirty dealings.
 
It turns out Costa was in exile in Rome after a clash with John II in. 1478. Does anyone know what happened to make him lose favor with the king?
 
The papal conclave of 1492 is particularly notorious among the conclaves for Rodrigo Borja's alleged use of bribery to buy the votes of the other cardinal electors. There were several other men vying for the position as well. Oliviero Carafa, Jorge da Costa, Giovanni Michiel, and Giuliano della Rovere amassed several votes for themselves. What if Borja had failed to gain the votes of enough cardinals?

Would Jorge da Costa being elected pope substantially alter matters? He would be an interesting choice, the only other Portuguese pope being John XXI (pope from 1276 to 1277). I'm guessing da Costa wouldn't substantially alter matters, but neither would he be as corrupt as Alexander VI. Any guesses what his papal name would be?
Remember who before the beginning of the conclave Ascanio Sforza also looked to be a strong candidate (or at least had ambition to become the next Pope)
 
Remember who before the beginning of the conclave Ascanio Sforza also looked to be a strong candidate (or at least had ambition to become the next Pope)
Yeah, I'm not sure what made Sforza think he'd get elected. A Sforza pope in 1492 would be pretty interesting.
 
Would any of these alt-popes affect the Spanish royal court so as to disrupt funding for Colombus' voyages?

Probably not, since the election of a Spanish pope (AFAIK) made no difference to the Catholic monarchs' sponsorship of Colombus. Unless said pope were to start sponsoring the Granadine emirate.
 

Marc

Donor
The largest direct change would be in the career, or lack thereof, for Cesare Borgia.
For that matter also changing the history of the Duchy of Ferrara and of Modena (Lucrezia Borgia doesn't marry Alfonso d'Este). Which could easily spin the larger course of Italy into different directions.

Interesting notion. I will have to think on it some more.
 
The largest direct change would be in the career, or lack thereof, for Cesare Borgia.
For that matter also changing the history of the Duchy of Ferrara and of Modena (Lucrezia Borgia doesn't marry Alfonso d'Este). Which could easily spin the larger course of Italy into different directions.

Interesting notion. I will have to think on it some more.
Exactly... No Pope Alexander VI and no Cesare Borgia and all the husbands of Lucrezia plus the wives of Cesare and Joffre will marry differently
 
Exactly... No Pope Alexander VI and no Cesare Borgia and all the husbands of Lucrezia plus the wives of Cesare and Joffre will marry differently
I'm not sure they'll be able to marry as well as they did IOTL, as they're just a Spanish cardinal's bastards, rather than the pope's bastards.
 
I'm not sure they'll be able to marry as well as they did IOTL, as they're just a Spanish cardinal's bastards, rather than the pope's bastards.
I am pretty sure it that. Sancha of Aragon, Alfonso of Aragon and Giovanni Sforza were bastards but all of them were of an higher rank than the children of a cardinal... Alfonso d’Este well he is the legitimate son and heir of a powerful ruling Duke by a royal princess so without Pope Alexander VI he will likely remarry to a French lady (likely Louise of Savoy or also Charlotte d’Albret)
 
Does anyone have any ideas what some likely papal names would be for the 1492 papabile?

Would depend on their birthnames (Giuliano della Rovere went with Julius II - although both he and Rodrigo Borgia went with names to evoke power (Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great)), as well as country of birth (da Costa may go with John; while in the later elections, Wolsey and Bakocz may have gone with Adrian and Stephanus, the idea where Luther gets elected pope he goes as Martin VI or Germanicus, while Savonarola goes with Gregorius).

So I'd say that as long as the reason is plausible (no Ascanius I if Sforza gets elected, for instance), the field is pretty open.
 
Would any of these alt-popes affect the Spanish royal court so as to disrupt funding for Colombus' voyages?

As others have said, none of these popes will affect Isabella and Ferdinand´s decision of sponsoring Columbus (unless for some reason Columbus is declared an heretic by the new Pope or something like that). However, if you want to know about what effects a different pope could have over the Spanish and their relationship with the New World, there is the Inter Caetera (Papal Brief and minor bull) documents, issued by Pope Alexander VI, which granted to the Catholic Majesties of Ferdinand and Isabella (as sovereigns of Castile and Aragon) all lands to the "west and south" of a pole-to-pole line 100 leagues west and south of any of the islands of the Azores or the Cape Verde islands.These documents were the initial legal basis that Spain used (without much success) to support its claim of exclusivity on the colonization and domination of the New World. There is the possibility that without an Aragonese Pope like Rodrigo Borja/Alexander VI in the pontifical solium, The Papacy would not have granted such a broad donation and monopoly.
 
Top