Ethnographic Arms & Armour
 

Go Back   Ethnographic Arms & Armour > Discussion Forums > European Armoury
FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 8th January 2023, 03:56 PM   #1
Teisani
Member
 
Teisani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2022
Location: Romania
Posts: 314
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reventlov View Post
I checked though, and it seems that actually the true original is a print of Mamelukes by Jan Swart van Groningen, made in 1526..
Nice find, thank you! One thing that intrigues me is coat of arms on the shields of the Turks and Mamluks of Jan Swart van Groningen and Daniel Hopfer. Any idea what it is? I searched briefly only, but it's upper left corners / lower right is reminiscent of the Serbian cross, itself adapted from the Byzantine tetragrammatic cross (like this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzant...tantinople.svg) maybe it symbolizes orthodox Christians incorporated into the Ottoman Empire? The other two corners have the crescent moon of Islam, I guess.
Attached Images
 

Last edited by Teisani; 8th January 2023 at 04:07 PM.
Teisani is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th January 2023, 01:09 AM   #2
Reventlov
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 138
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teisani View Post
One thing that intrigues me is coat of arms on the shields of the Turks and Mamluks of Jan Swart van Groningen and Daniel Hopfer. Any idea what it is?
I can only guess the same as you do. Western artistic depictions can't be taken too literally since the Ottomans were unfamiliar and exotic enemies. Probably there was some general understanding that the Mamluks were slave-soldiers, and the Ottomans recruited from Balkan peoples... so we get this depiction of "Mamelukes" who are more likely Serbians or what have you, or the shield is a generic symbol of the Ottoman union of Muslim/Orthodox lands.
Reventlov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th January 2023, 02:28 PM   #3
Teisani
Member
 
Teisani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2022
Location: Romania
Posts: 314
Default

Vlad's Duels

Here's an experience of mine, and a warning to anyone trying to research Vlad III "Țepeș".
It started with my viewing of this video about a year ago (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NA34EZACkWY), where it says that Țepeș fought two duels for the throne of Wallachia. One with Vladislav II, the other with Dan III. I decided to look it up, and started with the Wikipedia article on Vladislav III in Romanian. No mention of a duel. There is one in Wiki English, but no source is provided... so not trust worthy. Even less could be found for Dan III.
The only historical source that I could find was from "Letopisețul Cantacuzinesc - Istoria Țării Rumânești de când au descălecat pravoslavnicii creștini" which said:
Quote:
Vădislav-voievod Bătrânul au venit domn când au fost cursul anilor de la Adam 6935. Acesta au făcut bisérica domnească den Târșor. Și au pierit de sabie, în mijlocul Târșorului.
Which means "And he (Vladislav) died by the sabre in the middle of Târșor".

You may be wondering. "Sabre/sabie"? In 1456? Shouldn't it be "sword/spată". But you see, the text was written in the late 1600s, so nothing to write home about. Thus, no word of a duel. Confirmation for this lack of any duels came only recently with this video by Corpus Draculianum group which clearly states that there is no evidence for these duels happening https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i6mtzCJWF5Y
Why do I believe them? Because they are the best source of info on Vlad Țepeș that I have found thus far, and recommend them to anybody interested in this topic.

I can't recommend however the following (anything that uses Florescu and McNally as a source really):
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MY82EpsvbQ8
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BtCjc5OwBi4
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NA34EZACkWY

I can recommend this part 2 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9RoBspQiOiE and the Corpus Draculianum channel (audio is in Romanian, but there are English captions).
Teisani is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th January 2023, 05:40 PM   #4
Teisani
Member
 
Teisani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2022
Location: Romania
Posts: 314
Default

Damn! Found another one of those depictions. This one is from Códice De Trajes, 1547.
http://warfare.ueuo.com/Renaissance/...Trajes-59v.htm

And here's what that hat is "Mamluk red zamṭ hat". So his hat was very much associated with the Mamluks.
http://blog.slow-venice.com/fashion-...demia-gallery/
http://warfare.ga/16/Carpaccio-St_Ge...nites-zamt.htm
https://www.rct.uk/collection/990062...uk-dignitaries
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki...the_Louvre.jpg
https://it.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File...giorgio_01.jpg

So the similarity between Wallachian and Mamluk depictions seems to be a coincidence only.
Attached Images
 
Teisani is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th January 2023, 10:48 PM   #5
Reventlov
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 138
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teisani View Post
Damn! Found another one of those depictions. This one is from Códice De Trajes, 1547.
Nice! It is interesting to see how far the image circulated. A consequence of the original being a print that could be mass-produced, not a painting or drawing. In this case the caption Mosquwiter would mean "Muscovites"?! The other groups of horsemen are there too... the "Arabs" have become "Tatars".

http://bdh-rd.bne.es/viewer.vm?id=0000052132&page=1

Searching in connection with this new version I found that according to at least one 16th century Wappenbuch, the coat of arms seen in some of the versions was attributed to Osman I. I am quite sure that this should not be taken literally, but instead symbolizes the transfer of authority from the Byzantines to the Ottomans.

http://www.hubert-herald.nl/ByzantiumArms.htm
Attached Images
 
Reventlov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st January 2023, 07:35 AM   #6
Teisani
Member
 
Teisani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2022
Location: Romania
Posts: 314
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reventlov View Post
...In this case the caption Mosquwiter would mean "Muscovites"?! The other groups of horsemen are there too... the "Arabs" have become "Tatars".
Nice catch! I missed the Tatar picture. I have on more example that shows how unreliable these old prints can be. More on that later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reventlov View Post
Searching in connection with this new version I found that according to at least one 16th century Wappenbuch, the coat of arms seen in some of the versions was attributed to Osman I. I am quite sure that this should not be taken literally, but instead symbolizes the transfer of authority from the Byzantines to the ...
That's a really nice find! And I agree with your conclusion.
Attached Images
 
Teisani is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st January 2023, 09:36 AM   #7
Teisani
Member
 
Teisani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2022
Location: Romania
Posts: 314
Default

Here's another example how depictions get reused over time.

1 Báthory Zsigmond and George I Rákóczi.

https://ro.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiși...gmond_1596.jpg

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki...II_Rakoczy.jpg

2 Michael the Brave and Gheorghe Ștefan

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki...i_Viteazul.jpg

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki...and_02_311.jpg

========================

Also, another example of that wool hat that Wallachians are depicted with. Portrait of Michael the Brave. https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki...i_Viteazul.jpg
Teisani is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.