The Voynich Ninja

Morten,
There are 122 stars in that "field".
You resort to also counting text glyphs to make up for the discrepancy with the 200 you would like to see... really?

Also, as Paris points out, your statement that there are no ruins of Montsegur is patently false. A quick Google search would have allowed you to see this. I don't know what "historical records" you are reading, but they are clearly inaccurate.

(03-03-2019, 09:57 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.if

(03-03-2019, 09:29 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.JKP the date on your sleeves map for the tapestry is still that of younger ones. The one that's most relevant for us fashion-wise is the Boar and Bear Hunt, which has been dated to the 1420's.

If I recall correctly, they adjusted the dated based specifically on fashion, which shows how strong of an indicator this is considered.

Thanks for pointing this out. I have found quite a few manuscripts (and other media) whose date estimates have shifted since I first recorded them in my files (or blogged about them). It's a challenge to keep up with a constantly moving target, but it has to be that way. I'll have to carve out some time to add a postscript.

Quote:On the castles, I made out for myself that the task is too daunting to find a match. So many of them have been destroyed, altered or renovated without proper records. And the VM drawing is so small. I'm not even sure if they mean a castle or a walled city..

That's basically where I ended up too. I found that so many had been completely rebuilt or completely destroyed (and never rebuilt), that it's nearly impossible to get enough data to come to any conclusions.

It may be that it is simply a generic castle, and has merlons only because that is what the artist has seen on castles in the culture he is referencing, similar to why the archer is wearing hunting clothes of the time, though it is not aligned with any particular sagittarius. It might just be pointing out the general region. To me its placement next to what seems to be Vesuvius, standing in for the Italian peninsula, puts it in what is today northwestern Italy, which then leads to France, ie the bridge. The dunes on the western edge of the bridge would be the edge of the Atlantic, the inner ones the Mediterranean shore south of where France joins to Italy.


The lower portion of France is reminiscent of the bridge. If you extend the metaphor to all of France, the outer edge would include Belgium and the Netherlands, as they were not considered countries in their own right at the time.


Here you can see the connection i am referencing between italy and france.


Here are nations as of 1400. France extends to encompas the area of the mouth of the Rhine.


The old dunes are where the mouth of the Rhine is, which corresponds to the river coming off what would be the northern part of this landmass on the bridge in the vms, which you can follow through various connections to get to northwestern Asia, as indicated.

(03-03-2019, 12:36 PM)Morten St. George Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(03-03-2019, 06:17 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.From the Wiki on Soncino castle, the one you illustrated:

"In 1200 it was besieged several times by the armies of Milan and Brescia, and in 1283, after being destroyed by the attacks of those armies, the commune of Soncino decided to rebuild the castle. In 1312 the castle was occupied by the Cremonese army, and in 1391 by the Milanese army, using it during the war against the Venetian Republic. In the year 1426 new walls were added to raise the previous ones."

It's possible the swallowtail merlons were added in 1426 when they raised the walls. They might even have been added in the 16th or 17th century when a lot of castles were remodeled or expanded.

JP, For the purpose of our investigation, the timeline stops circa 1420, the carbon date of the VMS. Anything that happened after that is irrelevant.

Supporters of the Northern Italy theory claim that the swallowtail merlons were in use by 1420. A while back, I checked out in google.it every named castle with those merlons that I could find in image searches. I was satisfied that at least some of those swallowtails were extant in the 14th century though I could not affirm that any of them predate the fall of Montségur in 1244.

If, as you say, the swallowtails had religious or political significance, it would make sense to reinstate the swallowtails when rebuilding a destroyed castle.

The carbon dating does not pinpoint to 1420. 

I agree that it seems plausible the merlons were added in 1426, especially given the different brick colour. The only way to prove they were there prior to that is to find a descrption, drawing, or painting of them from prior to that date. 

Whether or not this is relevant to the vms is another question. I dont think the depiction is specific to anything in particular other than the general concentration of this style of architecture in northern italy at the time, of which your offering is an example. However if it does represent a specific castle or city, as you suggest, your example does not appear to match the rest of the architecture depicted, which i would expect it to, if indeed it is meant to portray this specific place.

Interesting though, this might support some of your thoughts on the matter. But it would have nothing to do with the subsequent usage or reparations to the castle you speak of. 
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(03-03-2019, 03:17 PM)Paris Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Morten St. George,

Are you sure that cathar castles had swallowtail merlons ?

A few cathar castles have not been destroyed.
I don't see any of these merlons on any of these castles ?

Please, have a look on these pictures :
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(03-03-2019, 02:30 PM)Morten St. George Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.After the fall, the Cathar fortress was completely dismantled stone by stone, unfortunately leaving not even ruins that could be tied to the VMS drawing, but luckily we see enough to know that it's Montségur.

Montségur hasn't been destroyed completely.
With documents, a scale model has been done.
No swallowtail merlons.

I found similar looking castles in my search for cathar castles, and this appears to reflect their style.

I did find that ghibbelines were sympathetic to heretic movements and may have housed them. That, however, does not put swallowtails on their own castles.

(03-03-2019, 02:30 PM)Morten St. George Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
Am I the only person capable of seeing that this fortress as depicted is built on top of a mountain with vertical slopes?
...

No, you're not. Many people have commented on this looking steep. It has always looked steep to me too, but I try to be careful about assuming too much too soon.

(03-03-2019, 02:30 PM)Morten St. George Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Am I the only person capable of seeing that this fortress as depicted is built on top of a mountain with vertical slopes?

I see it as some sort of raised gateway, not necessarily the top of a mountain.

Quote:Montségur mountain is famous for its vertical slopes. That is why a hundred knights were able to hold out against an army of ten thousand for nine months. Note a water storage facility on the left and that might be a food storage facility on the right. Historical records refer to storage facilities and to a single besieged tower.

Interesting note re water storage. 

Quote:Also note a doorway on the side opposite to the tower. Towers were normally built above the main entrance, so this doorway likely opens to the village that shared the mountaintop with the fortress. The village did not need walls because it was protected by the vertical slopes (again, all according to historical records).

I dont think this accurately describes the montsegur architecture.

Quote:

After the fall of the fortress, roughly two hundred Cathars were burned alive in a giant bonfire set up in a field below the fortress. The number of stars and glyphs in the depicted field sum up to roughly two hundred. Below the field the VMS might be depicting the flames of the bonfire.

The numbers of stars and glyphs? Are the glyphs indicative of a special kind of Cathar? The ones that could be identified, perhaps? I don't think those are flames, i think they are waves.

Quote:After the fall, the Cathar fortress was completely dismantled stone by stone, unfortunately leaving not even ruins that could be tied to the VMS drawing, but luckily we see enough to know that it's Montségur.

This idea makes it easy for you to see it in anything. I think probably it is the case that only you see enough to believe this is Montsegur. If it is, then how do the rest of the rosettes figure into it?

(03-03-2019, 03:17 PM)Paris Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.A few cathar castles have not been destroyed.

I don't see any of these merlons on any of these castles ?

Montségur hasn't been destroyed completely.

With documents, a scale model has been done.
No swallowtail merlons.

Paris, Except for Montséqur, the Cathars did not build castles, but when regions converted to their religion, they acquired the older castles that were there. Montségur was rebuilt and expanded by Cathars in the early 13th century, then destroyed in 1244.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

The chateau that you depict was built during the 17th century and has absolutely nothing to do with the Cathars of the 13th century. Here is a real medieval depiction of the Cathar Montségur: 



Do you see a coned tower with balcony and window in your depiction? But I see one in the VMS depiction.

Morten, to understand the EARLY Ghibelline merlons, you have to read about the Ghibellines and the Guelfs. The Ghibellines supported the Holy Roman Empire. The Guelfs supported the pope and Rome.

The Ghibelline merlons were originally a political statement, just like the Rebel flag in America.

By the mid-15th century, this meaning was starting to wear off and they began to be seen as decorative items rather than political and by the 16th century, they were spreading all over the place.

The Guelfs and Ghibellines were Germans who migrated to the Italian states and Italianized their names.

---

(03-03-2019, 02:30 PM)Morten St. George Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
Am I the only person capable of seeing that this fortress as depicted is built on top of a mountain with vertical slopes?
...

No, you're not. Many people have commented on this looking steep. It has always looked steep to me too, but I try to be careful not to assume too much too soon.


There are thousands of mountain-top fortresses in Europe, parts of the Middle East, and parts of Africa. Many of those in Ethiopia and parts of Greece were built according to European designs.

(03-03-2019, 03:45 PM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Morten,
There are 122 stars in that "field".
You resort to also counting text glyphs to make up for the discrepancy with the 200 you would like to see... really?

Also, as Paris points out, your statement that there are no ruins of Montsegur is patently false. A quick Google search would have allowed you to see this. I don't know what "historical records" you are reading, but they are clearly inaccurate.

Wiki states variously

The present fortress on the site, though described as one of the "Cathar castles," is from a later period.

The present fortress ruin at Montségur is not from the Cathar era. The original Cathar fortress of Montségur was entirely pulled down by the victorious royal forces after its capture in 1244. It was gradually rebuilt and upgraded over the next three centuries by royal forces. The current ruin so dramatically occupying the site, and featured in illustrations, is referred to by French archeologists as "Montsegur III" and is typical of post-medieval royal French defensive architecture of the 17th century. It is not "Montsegur II," the structure in which the Cathars lived and were besieged and of which few traces remain today.

The Groupe de Recherches Archéologiques de Montségur et Environs (GRAME) (Archeological Research Group of Montsegur and Vicinity), which conducted a 13-year archeological excavation of Montségur with minimal funds and the technology available at the time in 1964–76, concluded in its final report, which was not widely published, is not viewed as solid archeological research, and is hotly disputed by many, that: "There remains no trace within the present-day ruins, neither of the first fortress which was abandoned before the 13th century (Montsegur I), nor of the one which was built by Raymond de Péreille around 1210 (Montsegur II)..." (Il ne reste aucune trace dans les ruines actuelles ni du premier château qui était à l'abandon au début du XIIIe siècle (Montségur I), ni de celui que construisit Raimon de Pereilles vers 1210 (Montségur II)...)[4] The small ruins of the terraced dwellings, immediately outside the perimeter of the current fortress walls on the north-eastern flank are, however, confirmed to be traces of authentic former Cathar habitations. This small quote is all that can be found of this study, and no other study has been done. Despite its questionable veracity and ethics, it has been repeated and quoted in virtually every document to be found on the subject

(03-03-2019, 03:45 PM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Morten,
There are 122 stars in that "field".
You resort to also counting text glyphs to make up for the discrepancy with the 200 you would like to see... really?

Also, as Paris points out, your statement that there are no ruins of Montsegur is patently false. A quick Google search would have allowed you to see this. I don't know what "historical records" you are reading, but they are clearly inaccurate.

Just to think that I'm the one who is often accused of jumping to conclusions!


Please see my response to Paris below.