Wallachian Swords of the 15th Century: What Types?

[Teisani]

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.

[Reventlov]

Originally Posted by Teisani

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

[Teisani]

Originally Posted by Reventlov

...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.

Originally Posted by Reventlov

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.

[Teisani]

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]

Here's another example of the same depiction used for two different people, Bathory Istvan and False Dmitry I.

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki...33_-_1586).jpg

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki...ump-to-license

[Teisani]

This just gets weirder and weirder.

1 - two Michael the Brave portraits combined to give on Andrei Movilă/Andrzej Mohyła.
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki...i_Viteazul.jpg

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

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...rij_Mohyla.jpg

2 - how about this portrait of Bethlen Gabor (see attached picture), which is actually another portrait of Michael the Brave. Although this likely is a more modern mistaken identity.
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki..._Viteazul).png

[Teisani]

Last examples:

1 - Gabor Bethlen with and without hat.
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki...d_01_439_2.jpg
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki...d_01_437_2.jpg

2 - Bocskai István with and without sabre.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ay-istvan1.jpg
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki...re_bocskai.jpg

After seeing all of this, I now have a healthy dose of scepticism when looking at these old depictions.