- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
Morten St George Theory
- Morten St George Theory
-
RE: Morten St George Theory
Linda > 05-03-2019, 09:58 PM
(05-03-2019, 09:11 PM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(05-03-2019, 07:40 AM)Linda Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.PHILIP II AUGUSTUS, 1165-1223, watches heretics burn during the Crusade against the Albigensians in 1209, manuscript illumination from the Grandes Chroniques de St Denis, c. 1400
I suppose it is from one of the many versions of the Grande Chronique and derived manuscripts. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
It was pretty specific about not being your bonfire. So it would make no difference to discuss whether or not this spire or that matches the vms unless you want to move your massacre down to this one, but even then, they are likely imagined, since it is 200 years later.
There may be a conflation of two separate episodes because the text below the illustration identifies the king "Philippe Dieudonné" a.k.a. Philippe II Auguste and the heretics: "amoriciens" (Almaricians), the disciples of Amaury de Bène. However the scenery does not look much like Paris (where 10 heretics were burned in 1210), with the generic rock or mountain in the background... The description matches the illustration from the Bibliothèque municipale de Lyon, Ms P.A. 30 (another version of the Grande Chronique de France) : You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and the illustrations posted by JKP.
(1st link) The first version (offered to king Philippe III in 1274) stops at year 1223.
(2nd link) This later version of the Chronicle stops at year 1380.
1380 may as well be 1400 in terms of believing any of the illustrations show real site situations, or the clothing they wore at the time. In this case there is no architecture, but Morten may possibly feel better that the king now wears a crown.
What i was trying to say earlier was that if you wanted a witness eye view of what happened in 1244, whether at Montsegur or elsewhere, you won't get it from manuscripts done up 40 to 60 years later that covered events only to 1223. Not to mention that illustrations cannot be trusted from the getgo, they are not photographs, they are artist's renditions, even if done sitting in a lawnchair at the very event it depicts. -
RE: Morten St George Theory
-JKP- > 05-03-2019, 11:49 PM
(05-03-2019, 11:30 PM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Bibliothèque de Toulouse You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Very good. Nice to see it in context.
Publication date, sometime in the first half of the 14th century.
![[Image: BonfireContext.png]](https://voynichportal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/BonfireContext.png)
-
RE: Morten St George Theory
Morten St. George > 06-03-2019, 01:07 AM
(05-03-2019, 09:11 PM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(05-03-2019, 07:40 AM)Linda Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.PHILIP II AUGUSTUS, 1165-1223, watches heretics burn during the Crusade against the Albigensians in 1209, manuscript illumination from the Grandes Chroniques de St Denis, c. 1400
I suppose it is from one of the many versions of the Grande Chronique and derived manuscripts. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
It was pretty specific about not being your bonfire. So it would make no difference to discuss whether or not this spire or that matches the vms unless you want to move your massacre down to this one, but even then, they are likely imagined, since it is 200 years later.
There may be a conflation of two separate episodes because the text below the illustration identifies the king "Philippe Dieudonné" a.k.a. Philippe II Auguste and the heretics: "amauriciens" (Almaricians), the disciples of Amaury de Bène. However the scenery does not look much like Paris (where 10 heretics were burned in 1210), with the generic rock or mountain in the background... The description matches the illustration from the Bibliothèque municipale de Lyon, Ms P.A. 30 (another version of the Grande Chronique de France) : You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and the illustrations posted by JKP.
(1st link) The first version (offered to king Philippe III in 1274) stops at year 1223.
(2nd link) This later version of the Chronicle stops at year 1380.
After the fall of Montségur, the Inquisition initiated a widespread interrogation and torture campaign to track down the Cathar treasure that escaped the siege (they never found it: off to America per my theory!). In those circumstances it might be foolish for an artist to openly express familiarity with Monstségur.
The French royal troops who attacked Montségur were in effect Philip II's troops, only now under the control of his grandson (or the mother of his grandson or something like that). So it fits appropriately into a book about Philip II.
The illustration under discussion depicts:
i. A fortress on top of a mountain.
ii. A group of people being burned in a field down below the fortress.
It happened at Montségur. Where else did it happen? It's hardly an everyday occurrence in any epoch. Essentially, that's why I and others have concluded that it has to be Montségur. -
RE: Morten St George Theory
Linda > 06-03-2019, 01:47 AM
Quote:After the fall of Montségur, the Inquisition initiated a widespread interrogation and torture campaign to track down the Cathar treasure that escaped the siege (they never found it: off to America per my theory!). In those circumstances it might be foolish for an artist to openly express familiarity with Monstségur.
You seem to be saying this looks like Montsegur, yet doesnt look like it, at the same time. Are you saying that it doesnt look like it is why it must be the castle in the vms?
Quote:The French royal troops who attacked Montségur were in effect Philip II's troops, only now under the control of his grandson (or the mother of his grandson or something like that). So it fits appropriately into a book about Philip II.
But what i am saying is the original manuscript, the one made in 1250 to 1274, only went to 1223 in time. Therefore did not include anything about Montsegur massacre for anyone to copy. Whatever was added to subsequent editions does not matter, it was not contemporary, nor a copy of one that was. It is like saying you found a likeness of Montsegur in a batman comic, and it looks exactly like the castle in the vms, therefore that is what it is.
Whether or not the troops belonged to Phillip or his son or whoever still means nothing, they were likely a century buried by the time this illustration was made.
We still also do not know yet, or i dont know, what the manuscript says this depicts. If indeed it is a 1209 event, this doesnt help your story at all.
Quote:The illustration under discussion depicts:
i. A fortress on top of a mountain.
No, it depicts the tops of towers. We dont know what other architecture might be there, we can only imagine.
Quote:ii. A group of people being burned in a field down below the fortress.
Take away below the fortress and then okay. I'll even believe they are Cathars, from the Shutterstock attribute, although now id like confirmation from the manuscript as to what is being depicted.
Quote:It happened at Montségur. Where else did it happen? It's hardly an everyday occurrence in any epoch. Essentially, that's why I and others have concluded that it has to be Montségur.
Quotes from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The next battle centered around Lastours and the adjacent castle of Cabaret. Attacked in December 1209, Pierre-Roger de Cabaret repulsed the assault. Fighting largely halted over the winter, but fresh crusaders arrived. In March 1210, Bram was captured after a short siege. In June, the well-fortified city of Minerve was besieged. It withstood a heavy bombardment, but in late June the main well was destroyed, and on July 22, the city surrendered. The Cathars of the city were given the opportunity to return to Catholicism. Most did so, but the 140 who refused were burned at the stake
By the time operations resumed in 1211, the harsh actions of the crusaders had alienated several important lords, including Raymond de Toulouse, who had been excommunicated again. The crusaders returned in force to Lastours in March, and Pierre-Roger de Cabaret soon agreed to surrender. In May, the castle of Lord Aimery of Montréal, south of Carcassonne, was retaken; he and his senior knights were hanged, and several hundred Cathars were burned. -
RE: Morten St George Theory
Linda > 06-03-2019, 02:06 AM
(05-03-2019, 11:49 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[quote="nablator" pid='25212' dateline='1551825027']
Bibliothèque de Toulouse You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Well there goes my medieval hat identification career. Oh well.
Quote:Very good. Nice to see it in context.
Publication date, sometime in the first half of the 14th century.
Do we know what it says about what we are looking at? -
RE: Morten St George Theory
Koen G > 06-03-2019, 04:43 AM
About the dating: when they look like they are just wearing bed sheets, there's a good chance we're not yet in the 15th century
The chaperon hat allows for a much less precise dating than the robes in the VM do. It was worn as early as 1300 until after 1450. -
RE: Morten St George Theory
Morten St. George > 06-03-2019, 05:30 AM
(06-03-2019, 01:47 AM)Linda Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But what i am saying is the original manuscript, the one made in 1250 to 1274, only went to 1223 in time. Therefore did not include anything about Montsegur massacre for anyone to copy.
Linda, since you have expressed no desire to point out King Philip's crown or royal attire in that illustration, I looked into the matter myself and found:
"Quand, en ce début d’année 1243, les quelques cinq mille hommes de l’armée du Sénéchal de Carcassonne Hugues des Arcis, accompagnés de l’archevêque de Narbonne, Pierre Amiel,..."
![[Image: img-montsegur.jpg]](http://mortenstgeorge.info/img-montsegur.jpg)
That has to be the answer. The guy on the left is royal officer Hugues who led the attack on Montségur, and next to him is archbishop Amiel (note the bishop's staff in his right hand). Don't be put off by his sword: bishop's engaged in combat during medieval times.
Years ago, I was naive like you, but I have since learned to be skeptical of the truthfulness of anything and everything that in any way relates to the demonic writings of Montségur. -
RE: Morten St George Theory
-JKP- > 06-03-2019, 06:18 AM
The text around Morten's picture describes the nobility (and history of France).
The rubricated text under the picture introduces King Philip and then we get the lead-up history in black text, starting with Thebes. In other words, the text following the image describes a long time period.
I think this may be relevant, from Wikipedia:
"The Crusaders captured the small village of Servian and then headed for Béziers, arriving on July 21, 1209. Under the command of the papal legate, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.,You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. they started to besiege the city, calling on the Catholics within to come out, and demanding that the Cathars surrender.You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. Neither group did as commanded. The city fell the following day when an abortive sortie was pursued back through the open gates.You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. The entire population was You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and the city burned to the ground. It was reported that Amalric, when asked how to distinguish Cathars from Catholics, responded, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. Historian You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. doubts that Amalric actually said this, but maintains that the statement captures the "spirit" of the Crusaders, who killed nearly every man, woman, and child in the town.
...
The Crusaders traversed the 45 miles between Béziers and Carcassonne in six days,You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. arriving in the city on August 1, 1209. The siege did not last long.You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. By August 7 they had cut the city's water supply. Raymond Roger sought negotiations but was taken prisoner while under truce, and Carcassonne surrendered on August 15. The people were not killed but were forced to leave the town."
At Lastours... "Simon wished to treat the occupants leniently, but was pressured by Arnaud Amalric to punish the Cathars. The Crusaders allowed the soldiers defending the town as well as the Catholics inside of it to go free, along with the non-perfect Cathars. The Cathar "perfects" were given the opportunity to return to Catholicism.You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. Simon and many of his soldiers made strong efforts to convert the Cathar perfects, but were highly unsuccessful.You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. Ultimately, only three women recanted.You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. The 140 who refused were burned at the stake. Some entered the flames voluntarily, not awaiting their executioners"
So they are saying Béziers was razed and burned and all the people killed, but in Carcassonne, the people were let go, and at Lastours the Cathars who refused to convert (which was most of them) were burned at the stake.
So the illustration could be referring to Béziers or to Lastours, but is probably Lastours since a stake is explicitly drawn.
.
As for this comment you made about Linda:
"Years ago, I was naive like you, but I have since learned to be skeptical of the truthfulness of anything and everything that in any way relates to the demonic writings of Montségur. "
I'm not even going to bother complaining to the moderators because I'm sure Linda is mature enough to laugh it off. It really is ridiculous, considering who it's coming from. -
RE: Morten St George Theory
Morten St. George > 06-03-2019, 06:20 AM
(05-03-2019, 11:49 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Very good. Nice to see it in context.
Publication date, sometime in the first half of the 14th century.
JP, the context as it relates to the drawing appears to be entirely generic: bad faith receiving its just punishment. In 1250 (the start of the original composition per Linda), the Montségur massacre of 1244 would have been fresh on their minds.