The Voynich Ninja

(03-03-2019, 07:26 PM)Morten St. George Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. 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 

That seems fair enough.

Quote: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.

I see two towers and no swallowtail merlons. So all you can be going by is the one tower, if that is the only depiction you have. 

Given the shape of the current chateau, i doubt anything shaped like the vms fortification would have fit in its place.
Also, none of that explains all the raised walls that seem to extend from it in various directions. You said they didnt need them, due to the steepness of the location, so why are they in the vms?

(03-03-2019, 07:34 PM)Linda Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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

Thanks, Linda. It's nice to see that there is at least one person around here who likes to check things out before jumping to conclusions!

(03-03-2019, 07:47 PM)Morten St. George Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(03-03-2019, 07:34 PM)Linda Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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.

Thanks, Linda. It's nice to see that there is at least one person around here who likes to check things out before jumping to conclusions!

Well we all want to get to the truth of the matter, right? Insofar as jumping to conclusions, i am sure we all have our own various initial reactions to new information, and I am sure i hold some preconceived notions through which i view  subsequent data, myself. That is why evidence is needed.

I still think it is a stretch to place the vms castle at this location, with this meaning. In the vms the castle appears to lead to somewhere else, and is not necessarily a destination in and of itself, but an indication of transition of culture, i think. In your interpretation the story seems to end there, with the bonfire. If that rosette were a standalone image you might be able to pin the story on it as you have, but how does the rest of it fit into your narrative?

(03-03-2019, 07:30 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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.

Montségur mountain didn't just look steep. It was steep:



It was no doubt common to build castles on mountain tops because that made them easier to defend, but perhaps nowhere else were the vertical slopes so pronounced as at Montségur. Moreover, the Cathar fortress is the most likely for another reason: it was completely dismantled and hence cannot be matched with the VMS depiction, whereas we know for certain that the other mountaintop castles, still extant, do not produce a match.

(03-03-2019, 07:45 PM)Linda Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I see two towers and no swallowtail merlons. So all you can be going by is the one tower, if that is the only depiction you have. 

Given the shape of the current chateau, i doubt anything shaped like the vms fortification would have fit in its place.
Also, none of that explains all the raised walls that seem to extend from it in various directions. You said they didnt need them, due to the steepness of the location, so why are they in the vms?

Unfortunately, the mountain itself hides view of the merlons in this depiction as well as the lower windows of the tower. Also, I think it highly unlikely that the current château is of the same size and shape, or occupies the same position, as the original fortress.

I said they didn't find it necessary to put a wall around the village, but this doesn't apply to the fortress itself which was on the side of the only pathway up to the top. In the end, the attacking army reached to top on the side of the village. I suspect that the skinny tower you see (not in the VMS depiction) might have been built by the attackers as a lookout pole for guiding their catapult.

(03-03-2019, 08:26 PM)Morten St. George Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(03-03-2019, 07:30 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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.

Montségur mountain didn't just look steep. It was steep:



It was no doubt common to build castles on mountain tops because that made them easier to defend, but perhaps nowhere else were the vertical slopes so pronounced as at Montségur. Moreover, the Cathar fortress is the most likely for another reason: it was completely dismantled and hence cannot be matched with the VMS depiction, whereas we know for certain that the other mountaintop castles, still extant, do not produce a match.

So because we dont know what it looked like, it makes it a better match than anything still in existence that doesnt look like it? Only because your imagination is set free by the lack of constraint. What about all the other castles that no longer exist? They are discounted because it would not add to your theory.

However i cannot see anything resembling the vms castle fitting on your hill. It would need all the unexplained steep walls to be built to keep it from toppling off the back end of the mountain.

(03-03-2019, 08:53 PM)Morten St. George Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Unfortunately, the mountain itself hides view of the merlons in this depiction as well as the lower windows of the tower. Also, I think it highly unlikely that the current château is of the same size and shape, or occupies the same position, as the original fortress.

I said they didn't find it necessary to put a wall around the village, but this doesn't apply to the fortress itself which was on the side of the only pathway up to the top. In the end, the attacking army reached to top on the side of the village. I suspect that the skinny tower you see (not in the VMS depiction) might have been built by the attackers as a lookout pole for guiding their catapult.

Did you ever consider that the mountain could also hide the lack of merlons? It could be hiding elephant statues for all we know, it hides everything but the two towers.

Then, you explain away the second one as being something built by the attackers, since it is not depicted in the vms. 

Why in the world would they build something on top of the mountain to guide their catapult when they obviously would have had to win the mountain to be able to build anything there, not to mention the time and effort that would take for no reason whatsoever, and it certainly wouldnt be done before the bonfire, which appears to be the point of the drawing. Or are you suggesting this second tower was built in the valley but just happens to be higher than the castle tower? Maybe they made it out of the walls that are no longer there?

The simpler answer is that this is not what the vms depicts at all.

(03-03-2019, 09:29 PM)Linda Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.However i cannot see anything resembling the vms castle fitting on your hill. It would need all the unexplained steep walls to be built to keep it from toppling off the back end of the mountain.

Exactly.
The topography severely limits what could be built.
There have been archaeological excavations done and the old 13thC castle plan is known. It is pretty much the same as the new one, except for an additional row of walls. An illustration can be found on page 119 at the link below:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

By the way Morten, the article explains that the water storage was not up in a tower as you presume but in a cistern on one of the artificial terraces where housing was built below the castle.
None of these inhabited terraces are visible in the VMS description: the "cliffs" are bare.

This premise of yours that "it is not known, therefore I'm right" is a logical fallacy. Especially when things are known.

(03-03-2019, 08:04 PM)Linda Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If that rosette were a standalone image you might be able to pin the story on it as you have, but how does the rest of it fit into your narrative?

From the bonfire of Montségur (in the top right-hand corner of the rosettes page), the Cathar martyrs ascend to the spiritual world (note the streams and funnel pointing away from the field to other parts of the rosettes page). That's my best guess: most of the rosettes folio is intended to depict the spiritual world (or call it paradise or heaven). Note circulating energies and movement from one real to another, note the serenity of the celestial blue color, note the pipes that might reflect organ music. 

Do you have a better idea on how to depict the spiritual world?

Per Cathar beliefs, martyrdom shortly after receiving the sacrament of consolamentum guaranteed them eternal life in the spiritual world, a permanent escape from repeated reincarnations in the material world. That's why two hundred Cathars voluntarily walked onto the wood of the bonfire. They didn't even have to be tied down.

(03-03-2019, 09:49 PM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(03-03-2019, 09:29 PM)Linda Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.However i cannot see anything resembling the vms castle fitting on your hill. It would need all the unexplained steep walls to be built to keep it from toppling off the back end of the mountain.

Exactly.
The topography severely limits what could be built.
There have been archaeological excavations done and the old 13thC castle plan is known. It is pretty much the same as the new one, except for an additional row of walls. An illustration can be found on page 119 at the link below:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

By the way Morten, the article explains that the water storage was not up in a tower as you presume but in a cistern on one of the artificial terraces where housing was built below the castle.
None of these inhabited terraces are visible in the VMS description: the "cliffs" are bare.

This premise of yours that "it is not known, therefore I'm right" is a logical fallacy. Especially when things are known.

Thats funny, i was looking at the pics and that is how it seemed to me too, not that i trusted myself to know better than what is written, but now that you mention it, looks like they used broken bits to build it up, then added another storey at a later time. I also doubted anyone would completely destroy something at the top of a mountain, you would get it down to safe, so it wouldnt topple, then build onto it,  which is what appears to have happened. To do otherwise would be a waste of resources.


I also agree with your identification of the logical fallacy. It is super convenient if we can't prove otherwise, but i think there are enough problems here that we can feel confident that this solution is not the correct one.