Tartarian Professional Knights: Tournaments and Parades in Nuremberg

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
3,489
Reactions
12,518
For right now I do think that the majority of the medieval knights were some sort of pro-sportsmen, rather than soldiers. We allegedly have this thing called hastilude, which was a generic term used in the Middle Ages to refer to many kinds of martial games. One of those martial games was jousting:

jousting_Paulus_Hector_Mair_Tjost.jpg

  • Jousting is a martial game between two horsemen wielding lances with blunted tips. The primary aim was to replicate a clash of heavy cavalry, with each participant trying hard to strike the opponent while riding towards him at high speed, if possible breaking the lance on the opponent's shield or jousting armour, or unhorsing him. The joust became an iconic characteristic of the knight in Romantic medievalism. The participants experience close to three and a quarter times their body weight in G-forces when the lances collide with their armour.
Tartary Flag / Crest
It appears that Tartary had at least two different flags. One of those flags represented the Emperor of Tartary, and the other one represented the actual Empire of Tartary. You can see those flags below. I have no clue why they had to have two different flags. May be only wisdom of the Owl could control the power of the Griffin. Then again, may be the power of the Griffin was supposed to safeguard the wisdom of the Owl.

flag_country.jpg

While browsing through the Album of Tournaments and Parades in Nuremberg (16th-17th centuries), I noticed a couple of knights sporting owls on their horse blankets.

tart_1-11.jpg

I think those owls could be indicating that these specific knights were representing the Tartarian Empire during the tournament. Well, at least, one of the below owls did. May be both, for if the Owl symbol did represent the Empire of Tartary, I'm not sure it could have been used by some other Kingdom, Empire, or whatever they had back then.

tart_68_1_1.jpg

Now I finally got to the point of this overinflated post. These two knights appear to have their names written above their heads.

tart_72_2_1.jpg

KD: If you can make out these two names, please let us know what they are. Also, if you have anything to share (related to this thread), please feel free to do so.
 

dreamtime

Well-known member
Messages
480
Reactions
2,462
For right now I do think that the majority of the medieval knights were some sort of pro-sportsmen, rather than soldiers. We allegedly have this thing called hastilude, which was a generic term used in the Middle Ages to refer to many kinds of martial games. One of those martial games was jousting:
I wrote this a while ago on Reddit:

I have the rough idea in mind that bloody wars are a relatively new thing, and evolved from something less serious. I don't think that history was without violence and people killing each other, but that bigger battles originally had certain rules to it that made the chance of dying relatively low and the chance of getting hurt reasonable. Maybe there was the possibility of death, but it wasn't as hopeless as portraied by historians. So instead of casualties in the realms of 10-100% it could have been more like 0-1%. Originally I thought about this because even in WW1 soldiers were basically faking the fights, and often miss their enemy consciously. Only in WW2 with the help of numbing drugs was this brotherly and humane behavior eliminated. Additionally most theories about ancient conflicts and battles are not supported by archeologists finding all those killed bodies, but by circumstantial evidence., i.e. later reports. I think even such reports may have been part of the "storyline", i.e. the winner exaggerating to create sympathy and pride for the war heroes in their populace. Then historians mis-interpreted these reports without knowing the true context. I think what is supportive of this idea is the growing evidence that natural catastrophes of some sort and famines probably killed most people during the last centuries, and not wars. Overall I think human conflicts may have begun as different factions only signaling their strength, and all involved parties honoring rules what would nowadays be interpreted as game rules. After some time with the rise of authoritarian kingdoms these games turned into something more bloody, but still manageable (i.e. people still went to war happily, because the chances of surviving were extremely good and winners would come home to a big party). I knew from my research that no one has excavated a single mass grave from the 30-Years War. I wondered if anyone in the professional field has already thought about the problems of finding archeological evidence for battle sites in general, and this is indeed the case. In fact, a paper I found discusses these problems.

And indeed the archeological evidence for battle sites is almost non-existent:

Intriguingly, there is one element in a medieval battle which is rarely mentioned in contemporary accounts – what happened to the dead of both sides.
Apparently medieval descriptions from the burial of the dead after the battle of Morat in 1476 aren't supported by any archeological evidence:
To date, it has proved impossible to find at Azincourt the burial pit described by Monstrelet, or indeed any bodies at all.

No dead people from the Napoleonic wars either:
In 1818, when British troops controlled the area in the aftermath of the Napoleonic wars, Lieutenant Colonel John Woodford claimed to have found human remains at the battlefield. We even have a map which he drew up where he marked ‘the place of interment of 5800 French knights’. Yet archaeological survey (...) failed to reveal anything.

Actually no evidence at all for dead people:
Modern archaeologists have so far drawn a blank in finding human remains at virtually all English and French battlefields of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries

These quotes send shivers down my spine because it confirms that the version of history that the majority of people believe in is an illusion and we are onto something here with the idea of humanity having a more worthy past.

All in all I think reports of battles are a mix of truth, myths, lies and exaggeration and often include the loss of life that happened due to cataclysms and natural catastrophes, whatever they were exactly.
Hans Jakob Christoffel von Grimmelshausen was either a veteran of the 30 Years War or at least heard a lot of stories from veterans. He wrote one of the first novels in early modern German, where the protagonists mocks pikemen thus:Therefore I believe that he who kills a pikeman (that he could have spared), murders an innocent [...] as they never hurt anybody who didn't deserve it by running onto the spit by himself. In Summary, I have seen many sharp occasions, but hardly ever percieved that a pikeman killed somebody.
Mike Duncan says this in his revolutions podcast (English civil war) so that might have been it. More specifically that it was more about shoving than stabbing and that often only one side really tried and the other was happy to give token resistance the withdraw. The awkward cases were where both side were trying to do the latter and they may have actually stayed just out of range trying to look like they were fighting
 

anotherlayer

Well-known member
Messages
587
Reactions
1,968
KD: If you can make out these two names, please let us know what they are. Also, if you have anything to share (related to this thread), please feel free to do so.
This first word "Xnders"(whatever it says) also appears in the middle of the second name. Might that be some sort of role? Perhaps denoting these dudes as a jockey or striker?

Closest I can get would be 'Xnders DeSmidmor' and his lovely wife, 'Rolff Xnders Linds'.
 

sonoman

Well-known member
Messages
312
Reactions
667
Closest I can get would be 'Xnders DeSmidmor' and his lovely wife, 'Rolff Xnders Linds'.
Ive read somewhere (dont recall where ATM, maybe here) that a 'hooked X' was actually the first letter of the AlphaBet. so this may have also been written like that?

Anders makes more sense than Xnders, yes?

p.s. the hooked X is quite interesting. heres a hit: The Hooked X: Book
 
Last edited:

PrincepAugus

Well-known member
Messages
421
Reactions
784
I wrote this a while ago on Reddit:

I have the rough idea in mind that bloody wars are a relatively new thing, and evolved from something less serious. I don't think that history was without violence and people killing each other, but that bigger battles originally had certain rules to it that made the chance of dying relatively low and the chance of getting hurt reasonable. Maybe there was the possibility of death, but it wasn't as hopeless as portraied by historians. So instead of casualties in the realms of 10-100% it could have been more like 0-1%. Originally I thought about this because even in WW1 soldiers were basically faking the fights, and often miss their enemy consciously. Only in WW2 with the help of numbing drugs was this brotherly and humane behavior eliminated. Additionally most theories about ancient conflicts and battles are not supported by archeologists finding all those killed bodies, but by circumstantial evidence., i.e. later reports. I think even such reports may have been part of the "storyline", i.e. the winner exaggerating to create sympathy and pride for the war heroes in their populace. Then historians mis-interpreted these reports without knowing the true context. I think what is supportive of this idea is the growing evidence that natural catastrophes of some sort and famines probably killed most people during the last centuries, and not wars. Overall I think human conflicts may have begun as different factions only signaling their strength, and all involved parties honoring rules what would nowadays be interpreted as game rules. After some time with the rise of authoritarian kingdoms these games turned into something more bloody, but still manageable (i.e. people still went to war happily, because the chances of surviving were extremely good and winners would come home to a big party). I knew from my research that no one has excavated a single mass grave from the 30-Years War. I wondered if anyone in the professional field has already thought about the problems of finding archeological evidence for battle sites in general, and this is indeed the case. In fact, a paper I found discusses these problems.

And indeed the archeological evidence for battle sites is almost non-existent:
Apparently medieval descriptions from the burial of the dead after the battle of Morat in 1476 aren't supported by any archeological evidence:

No dead people from the Napoleonic wars either:

Actually no evidence at all for dead people:

These quotes send shivers down my spine because it confirms that the version of history that the majority of people believe in is an illusion and we are onto something here with the idea of humanity having a more worthy past.

All in all I think reports of battles are a mix of truth, myths, lies and exaggeration and often include the loss of life that happened due to cataclysms and natural catastrophes, whatever they were exactly.
I remember this post when watching this video. It's a mainstream "explanation" of missing bodies:

 

Similar threads


Top