Re: Anghiari Deck debate

#21
You're forgetting Vitelleschi's Venetian sucessor, Ludovico Trevisan (the papal commander at Anghiari), whose medal has been connected to Anghiari and most definitely shows a triumph:
When I look for triumphal habits before the battle of Anghiari ... then I'm not interested in Trevisan.

But let's look at Trevisan ...

http://www2.fiu.edu/~mirandas/bios1440.htm#Trevisano
Episcopate. Elected bishop of Traù, October 24, 1435; occupied the see until August 6, 1437; he governed the see through a vicar, Niccolò, abbot of the monastery of S. Giovanni Battista in Traù. Consecrated, probably shortly after his election (3) , (no further information found). Promoted to the metropolitan see of Florence, August 6, 1437; occupied the see until December 18, 1439. On January 23, 1438, he was with the pope in Ferrara. He subscribed the bull of union with the Greeks issued by Pope Eugenius IV on July 4, 1439. Promoted to the patriarchate of Aquileia, December 18, 1439; occupied the see until his death. Named legate in Romagna on April 3, 1440; he was with an army with the charge of recovering the lands of the Church; he left on July 30; returned on November 23; left again on December 10, 1440.
Cardinalate. Created cardinal priest in the consistory of July 1, 1440, with the title of S. Lorenzo in Damaso; his patriarchate was administered by Bishop Fortunato di Pellicanis of Sarsina; he entered Florence on July 12, 1440; on the 20th, the pope finished the ceremonies of his cardinalitial investiture. In the battle of Anghiari in 1440, he fought and defeated Niccolò Piccinino, Milanese condottiero. Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church, 1440 until his death. Named legate of Marche Anconitana and other provinces of central Italy, September 13, 1442; he left from Florence on September 16; returned on October 24; went to his legation on the following day; he entered Siena on March 28, 1443;
English wiki:
Trevisan was elected bishop of Traù on October 24, 1435, was consecrated soon after his election, and remained bishop until August 6, 1437, governing it through his vicar, Niccolò, abbot of the monastery of S. Giovanni Battista in Traù.[3] On August 6, 1437, Trevisan was promoted to metropolitan bishop of Florence, which he occupied until December 18, 1439.[3] There is record of Trevisan being in Ferrara with Eugene IV on January 23, 1438, and his subscription is found on the bull of union with the Greeks issued by Eugenius IV on July 4, 1439.[3]

Trevisan became Patriarch of Aquileia on December 18, 1439, and occupied that see until his death. On April 3, 1440, Trevisan was commissioned as papal legate in Romagna "with the army, with the aim of recovering the lands of the Church."[3][5] As a result, he undertook military operations starting on July 30 aimed at capturing Bologna but had to pause the campaign from November 23 to the following Spring, at which time he received a sizable sum from the Apostolic Camera.[5]
Well, he had a high position during the council ... if the situation of the council produced a game, which was called "Trionfi" for the first time, then he's relevant. If Trevisan was behind the organization of the three triumphal entries in Jan/Feb 1439, he surely did something.

But naturally there were a lot of persons in Florence, who participated in the organization of the council, and for the moment we cannot single out, who was especially responsible for the expansion of triumphal habits, which indeed took place. That was a group process with many actors.

Generally the council served to repair the rather bad reputation of pope Eugen against the council of Basel and they used all available cheap tricks to impress the world. The aim of the council to unite the both churches, wasn't really reached, and the claimed success was a fake.The Greek were disappointed, and Constantinople was taken. The Italian wars didn't really stop. The conflicts inside the Western church weren't solved, the solution was only moved to later times and then it was a heavy bill to pay.
... :-) ... nonetheless there was a lot of progress and the population number recovered from from the bad hit of 1350.

One of the cheap tricks at the council was the celebration of the Trionfi, the glamor, which with one could bury the real problems in silence. The Medici bank had a splendid business year in 1439.

Added later: The sentence about Trevisan above ..
As a result, he undertook military operations starting on July 30 aimed at capturing Bologna but had to pause the campaign from November 23 to the following Spring, at which time he received a sizable sum from the Apostolic Camera.
... is interesting.

I wasn't aware, that Trevisan followed this objective. The engagement of Giusto and his 800 men army, which appears in the diary, started at July 30, so this should have followed precisely this interest.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Anghiari Deck debate

#22
Huck wrote:
Well, [Trevisan] had a high position during the council ... if the situation of the council produced a game, which was called "Trionfi" for the first time, then he's relevant
Nothing is more relevant than Trevisan's medal which clearly depicts a triumph...and scholars have connected that medal with Anghiari. Where is there an artistic production, explicitly a triumph, associated with the Council? Neither Gozzoli's Magi painting in Cosimo's palazzo chapel nor his own expensive commemoration of the Council in the Old Sacristy of S. Lorenzo (specifically Donatello's bronze doors and the enigmatic astronomical fresco in the cupola), where he buried his father, has anything we can relate to the series of the tarot trumps.

You have to stretch 'triumph' metaphorically to fit the Council to begin with, as no one was triumphed over....it was a holy ecumenical synod - a UNION:
Let the heavens be glad and let the earth rejoice. For, the wall that divided the western and the eastern church has been removed, peace and harmony have returned, since the corner-stone, Christ, who made both one, has joined both sides with a very strong bond of love and peace, uniting and holding them together in a covenant of everlasting unity. After a long haze of grief and a dark and unlovely gloom of long-enduring strife, the radiance of hoped-for union has illuminated all.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm#3

Anghiari, on the other hand, restored the Papacy as a viable warring state (hence the inscription on Trevisan's medal), defeated the hated Visconti, and permanently setback the internal threat to Cosimo' grip on Florence - Albizzi, condemned as a traitor and forever forbidden to return to Florence. Everything about Anghiari was explicitly triumphal, the celebrations for which were precisely described as such by Machiavelli, and not in a metaphorical sense.

Your search for Florentine triumphs in the late 1430s continues to come up empty handed.

Phaeded

Re: Anghiari Deck debate

#23
Phaeded wrote:
Huck wrote:
Well, [Trevisan] had a high position during the council ... if the situation of the council produced a game, which was called "Trionfi" for the first time, then he's relevant
Nothing is more relevant than Trevisan's medal which clearly depicts a triumph...and scholars have connected that medal with Anghiari. Where is there an artistic production, explicitly a triumph, associated with the Council? Neither Gozzoli's Magi painting in Cosimo's palazzo chapel nor his own expensive commemoration of the Council in the Old Sacristy of S. Lorenzo (specifically Donatello's bronze doors and the enigmatic astronomical fresco in the cupola), where he buried his father, has anything we can relate to the series of the tarot trumps.

You have to stretch 'triumph' metaphorically to fit the Council to begin with, as no one was triumphed over....it was a holy ecumenical synod - a UNION:
Let the heavens be glad and let the earth rejoice. For, the wall that divided the western and the eastern church has been removed, peace and harmony have returned, since the corner-stone, Christ, who made both one, has joined both sides with a very strong bond of love and peace, uniting and holding them together in a covenant of everlasting unity. After a long haze of grief and a dark and unlovely gloom of long-enduring strife, the radiance of hoped-for union has illuminated all.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm#3

Anghiari, on the other hand, restored the Papacy as a viable warring state (hence the inscription on Trevisan's medal), defeated the hated Visconti, and permanently setback the internal threat to Cosimo' grip on Florence - Albizzi, condemned as a traitor and forever forbidden to return to Florence. Everything about Anghiari was explicitly triumphal, the celebrations for which were precisely described as such by Machiavelli, and not in a metaphorical sense.

Your search for Florentine triumphs in the late 1430s continues to come up empty handed.

Phaeded
.... :-) ...I've to say in all friendship, that you exaggerate your position and that of Trevisan. You have there a medal in a time, when medals were not rare, but just rather common in the wishes to save some personal fame in the unknown future.

Image

http://www.metmuseum.org/collection/the ... rch/460854

Image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medal_of_J ... alaeologus

You indeed compare this humble medal to a council celebration with possibly 100.000s of visitors about the length of a half year, which attempted to celebrate the union of two separated churches, which were separated for 100s of years, and each the both churches had millions of members. You also compare a one-man's work for a few days with the work of Gozzoli inside the chapel of the Medici project, which took 5 years not counting the building worker's operations to create the building, and the triumphal celebrations, when it was finished.

You compare it to these and then you assume, that somehow you have the "greater triumph" identified.

No, you haven't, and I think, you could see this, and, btw, I think, I've read, that the major military work at Anghiari was done by the Sforza troop, not by the papal troops.
Naturally there were personal and some greater units interests to claim the fame of Anghiari in a specific direction of their choice.

It was a hot day. Piccinino made a strategical mistake. His men were tired, when they arrived. There was an important bridge. Piccininino didn't get it. It was a battle and there were many other battles.

Later fame celebrators made the choice to have Leonardo da Vinci attempt to paint a picture. As theme was chosen the "battle of Anghiari".
The Florentine and papal people around 1440 didn't know, that this would happen in some future. They even didn't know Leonardo, who wasn't born, and they didn't know, that Leonardo would become a well-paid artist just in Milan, and they didn't know, that Leonardo became a hype in art history. A lot of the later fame of Anghiari wasn't known of them, and if somebody would have told them, I doubt, they wouldn't have believed it.

Naturally also nobody (even the possible inventor not) knew, that a humble Trionfi card deck would be discussed with enthusiasm 574 years later in a Tarot history forum with international participation.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Anghiari Deck debate

#24
Image

http://www.wga.hu/html_m/c/cristofo/cardinal.html
Cristoforo di Geremia is credited with the portrait medal of Cardinal Trevisan that is conspicuously based on Roman coinage. Cardinal Trevisan was a rich, powerful, and cultured figure who proved his military prowess in the Battle of Anghiari on June 29, 1440, between Milan and the Italian League, where he lead the papal troupes. He became cardinal in the same year. In the obverse of the medal, the cardinal, shown in profile, is described as patriarch of Aquileia rather than cardinal. On the reverse, which includes a Roman temple, a military triumph is depicted. It is therefore possible that the medal commemorates the victory at the Battle of Anghiari.
EXALTO

Latin:
Verb
present active exaltō, present infinitive exaltāre, perfect active exaltāvī, supine exaltātum

1. I exalt or elevate
2. I praise
3. I deepen

*********

If I interpret "Exalto" in the given situation of 1440, I would assume, that Trevian (not wishing to be finished like Vitelleschi) states "I praise (Pope Eugen)" or, if the scene means a religious event as an allegory of the political situation of the moment, just this scene (whatever this is).

If I look innocently at the scene, I would see, that somebody is kissed in the foregound. Kiss of Judas?


Giotto
http://history.hanover.edu/courses/art/giojud.html

If this should be the case, I would interpret, that Trevisan promises with "Exalto", that he will not be a traitor (like Vitelleschi).
Vitelleschi had once the desire to celebrate a personal Trionfo (1436). I don't know, what Eugen thought in this moment. Trevisan got the job of Vitelleschi in the same year 1440, after Vitelleschi was executed in April 1440.

**********

Added later:

Well, one shouldn't overlook "Ecclesia Restituta", which should mean something like "restored church". Possibly celebrating the new unity of Eastern and Western Church, and not the battle of Anghiari.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Anghiari Deck debate

#25
Huck,
My hypothesis is simple: the name for a new card came, trionfi, was chosen because the deck type in question was created in association with a military triumph. Comparing the magnitude of the Union vs the Battle is irrelevant as the union was categorically not a triumph no matter how badly you wish to apply that word as a metaphor for the Union. Your predictable addition of extraneous images does not aid your point.

Thanks to Giusti we now know the likely place for the creation of the card game, Florence, and there is only one triumph that falls close to that earliest reference – Anghiari, just three months prior. A battle that means little to us but was important enough to be painted decades later by no one less than Da Vinci, a painting which was to feature Cardinal Trevisan (however overblown his actual role in the battle was; but see Dati's extoling poem).

Only the Trevisan medal depicts a triumph and scholars have associated it with Anghiari (most recently,The Renaissance Portrait: From Donatello to Bellini, edited by Keith Christiansen, Stefan Weppelmann, 2011: 325), not the Church Union….the latter describing itself as precisely that in its bull, a Union.

Phaeded

Re: Anghiari Deck debate

#26
Phaeded wrote:Huck,
My hypothesis is simple: the name for a new card came, trionfi, was chosen because the deck type in question was created in association with a military triumph. Comparing the magnitude of the Union vs the Battle is irrelevant as the union was categorically not a triumph no matter how badly you wish to apply that word as a metaphor for the Union. Your predictable addition of extraneous images does not aid your point.

Thanks to Giusti we now know the likely place for the creation of the card game, Florence, and there is only one triumph that falls close to that earliest reference – Anghiari, just three months prior. A battle that means little to us but was important enough to be painted decades later by no one less than Da Vinci, a painting which was to feature Cardinal Trevisan (however overblown his actual role in the battle was; but see Dati's extoling poem).

Only the Trevisan medal depicts a triumph and scholars have associated it with Anghiari (most recently,The Renaissance Portrait: From Donatello to Bellini, edited by Keith Christiansen, Stefan Weppelmann, 2011: 325), not the Church Union….the latter describing itself as precisely that in its bull, a Union.

Phaeded
From the cardinals list:
Trevisan ...
Promoted to the metropolitan see of Florence, August 6, 1437; occupied the see until December 18, 1439. On January 23, 1438, he was with the pope in Ferrara. He subscribed the bull of union with the Greeks issued by Pope Eugenius IV on July 4, 1439. Promoted to the patriarchate of Aquileia, December 18, 1439; occupied the see until his death. Named legate in Romagna on April 3, 1440 [1 or 2 days after the death of Vitelleschi]; he was with an army with the charge of recovering the lands of the Church; he left on July 30[same time, when Giusto and his army gathered at Monterchi]; returned on November 23; left again on December 10, 1440.

Cardinalate. Created cardinal priest in the consistory of July 1, 1440, [one day after the battle of Anghiari] with the title of S. Lorenzo in Damaso; his patriarchate was administered by Bishop Fortunato di Pellicanis of Sarsina; he entered Florence on July 12, 1440; on the 20th, the pope finished the ceremonies of his cardinalitial investiture.[very quick in the wish to claim the victory of the battle as win of the papal part of the army]
The coin praises the Patriarch of Aquileja, not the cardinal. So perhaps one should suspect a date after December 18 1439, and likely for merits, that Trevisan had earned in Florence as archbishop during the council. Naturally the coin wasn't produced immediately.
But if it would have been made after the battle of Anghiari, shouldn't one suspect, that the cardinal would have been celebrated, not the patriarch?
The words at the coin

I don't get especially relevant arguments at ...
http://books.google.de/books?id=iPP55b2 ... an&f=false

Naturally one might interpret the scene as a triumph. But what sort of? Trevisan got already praise for his activity in Florence, reason enough for a triumphal coin.

In the case of Lorenzo Zane (1473) he also had ordered a coin for the title "patriarch".

********

The question of the medal stays open, if it was made for Anghiari or not. But even it was made at this occasion, would it change very much? It's just a medal, not more, a not very rare object. Trevisan got for Anghiari the cardinal title, that's already praise, and a celebration at 20th of July. Possibly Giusto stayed for this celebration, cause he left at the 21st of July.
Would be interesting to know, how big this celebration was in the public. Likely there were a lot of single celebrations.

Nero Capponi was also a winner. The Medici weren't interested, that he got too much fame, a least later. And not everybody had time, to participate in the celebrations, as there was still risk and danger.

The Florentines had often lost just against Piccinino. Perhaps this caused some special value for just this battle.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Anghiari Deck debate

#27
Huck wrote:
The coin praises the Patriarch of Aquileja, not the cardinal. So perhaps one should suspect a date after December 18 1439, and likely for merits, that Trevisan had earned in Florence as archbishop during the council.
Impossible for any connection to the Council because Trevisan did not have the Patriarch title when the bull was proclaimed. Also note this from The Renaissance Portrait:
“…the medal is unlikely to date after 1445 [not “until the end of his life” as your reference incorrectly stated], when the cardinal made over the temporal powers associated with the ancient patriarchate of Acquileia to Venice in return for an annual salary of five thousand ducats.” (325)

If the medal were celebrating an event while Trevisan was a cardinal it would have surely listed that title. But given he was Patriarch only from December 1439 (after the Council) until the day after Anghiari, July 1 1440, that means the medal celebrated an event within that narrow six month period. But there is no need to guess what the event was, he was elevated to cardinal right after Anghiari – the medal retrospectively lists his correct title at the time of the battle, his valor during which allowed his elevation. The soldiers parading before a classical temple on the medal clearly indicates a military victory – absolutely nothing to do with the Union.

Besides Neri (whom Cosimo dealt with the next year by having Neri’s personal ally, Baldaccio d’Anghiari, another character indirectly leading us to Giusti’s sphere of operations, unceremonially thrown out of the tower of the Palazzo Vecchio in September 1441), you are forgetting Benedetto de Medici, a cousin of Cosimo’s, who requested the same rewards as Neri in the same dispatches after the battle of Anghiari. In addition to those dispatches we have Machiavelli’s account where the specific term of triumphal is used:
Benedetto de' Medici, finding the report of Niccolo having proceeded either to Rome or to La Marca, incorrect, returned with his forces to Neri, and they proceeded together to Florence, where the highest honors were decreed to them which it was customary with the city to bestow upon her victorious citizens, and they were received by the Signory, the Capitani di Parte, and the whole city, in triumphal pomp. (History of Florence, Book V, Chapter VII).
And Castagno, who painted the Albizzi faction as hanged men on what we now call the Bargello after the battle, was patronized by this very same Benedetto. The Bargello is on the traditional processional route through Florence where a triumph would have been lead, leading to the Duomo, itself lit up (obviously with torches) to celebrate Anghiari (see the references to Anghiari in Kent, Cosimo’s Ouerve).

Naturally I see the creation of tarot as a species of triumphal objects for this event…and that it featured all seven virtues, as the theological virtues were closely associated with Florence’s ally, the Papacy (e.g., John XXII’s tomb in the Florentine baptistery). The CY deck retained the original 7 virtues, IMO, with Prudence elevated as the “world” (then-current Chancellor Bruni spoke of Prudence as the highest virtue) - only with the PMB deck do we find the theological virtues transformed/replaced, because insinuating that the Papacy was Sforza’s ally, via the theological virtues, would have been unacceptable in the eyes of anyone (the taking of Milan was contested by all), as it simply was not true. The CY deck, associated with a church-sanctioned wedding, did not need to deviate from the original trumps by leaving out the theological virtues.

In regard to the closeness of the Papacy, Medici and even Giusti at this juncture, I did not realize this tidbit you dredged up:
Trevisan got for Anghiari the cardinal title, that's already praise, and a celebration at 20th of July. Possibly Giusto stayed for this celebration, cause he left at the 21st of July.
So this shows the Papacy caught up in parallel celebrations of Anghiari to that of the Medici, and places Giusti as exposed to this ‘triumphal pomp’ (the proposed ur-tarot deck celebrating the “Holy Alliance” of Florence and the Papacy – the battle did not happen in the Veneto so obviously no need to celebrate absent Venice, also part of the alliance…an ambiguous partner at all events as events a decade later would prove). If Giusti never mentions ‘naibi’ before but is suddenly commissioning a deck for a condottiero prince re-allied with Cosimo, Malatesta, it seems natural that he is mimicking something already happening in Florence at this precise time in connection with Anghiari.

Phaeded

Re: Anghiari Deck debate

#28
Phaeded wrote:
Huck wrote:
The coin praises the Patriarch of Aquileja, not the cardinal. So perhaps one should suspect a date after December 18 1439, and likely for merits, that Trevisan had earned in Florence as archbishop during the council.
Impossible for any connection to the Council because Trevisan did not have the Patriarch title when the bull was proclaimed. Also note this from The Renaissance Portrait:
“…the medal is unlikely to date after 1445 [not “until the end of his life” as your reference incorrectly stated], when the cardinal made over the temporal powers associated with the ancient patriarchate of Acquileia to Venice in return for an annual salary of five thousand ducats.” (325)
... :-) ... no, if Trevisan still got 5000 ducats annually from Venice for it, then he still owned something. These patriarch titles often even belonged to places, which were totally out of control of the church, nonetheless they used the title of it (perhaps with the argument, that time might change the political situation). I think, that my source is correct.
So Lorenzo Zane had been "patriarca d'Antiochia" in 1473 ...
and got the commission to become active in crusade activities in 1473/74, which made him travel to Greece. As the situation didn't improve, he got military commission to help surrender rebellious cities close to Rome.

Image


Image


His coin used a motif from the Mantegna Tarocchi.
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=463&hilit=mantegna ... i&start=89

The researchers likely had a not justified consideration with their consideration. Nonetheless it seems plausible, that Trevisan would have used the cardinal title for the medal, if it presented the battle of Anghiari.
If the medal were celebrating an event while Trevisan was a cardinal it would have surely listed that title. But given he was Patriarch only from December 1439 (after the Council) until the day after Anghiari, July 1 1440, that means the medal celebrated an event within that narrow six month period. But there is no need to guess what the event was, he was elevated to cardinal right after Anghiari – the medal retrospectively lists his correct title at the time of the battle, his valor during which allowed his elevation. The soldiers parading before a classical temple on the medal clearly indicates a military victory – absolutely nothing to do with the Union.
It might be so, but it's by far not secure. The battle of Anghiari didn't restore Ecclesia ... or do you see an aspect? Perhaps it could be interpreted as a victory against the anti-pope Felix?

In the center of the medal scene there appear two persons, and one seem to kiss the other ... the figures are too small to recognize, if it's really a kiss. If "Western church kissed Eastern church" we would know, that it meant the result of the council.

Besides Neri (whom Cosimo dealt with the next year by having Neri’s personal ally, Baldaccio d’Anghiari, another character indirectly leading us to Giusti’s sphere of operations, unceremonially thrown out of the tower of the Palazzo Vecchio in September 1441), you are forgetting Benedetto de Medici, a cousin of Cosimo’s, who requested the same rewards as Neri in the same dispatches after the battle of Anghiari. In addition to those dispatches we have Machiavelli’s account where the specific term of triumphal is used:
Benedetto de' Medici, finding the report of Niccolo having proceeded either to Rome or to La Marca, incorrect, returned with his forces to Neri, and they proceeded together to Florence, where the highest honors were decreed to them which it was customary with the city to bestow upon her victorious citizens, and they were received by the Signory, the Capitani di Parte, and the whole city, in triumphal pomp. (History of Florence, Book V, Chapter VII).
Well, it would likely help, if we would have all arguments, which underline the triumphal activities following the battle of Anghiari together.
And Castagno, who painted the Albizzi faction as hanged men on what we now call the Bargello after the battle, was patronized by this very same Benedetto. The Bargello is on the traditional processional route through Florence where a triumph would have been lead, leading to the Duomo, itself lit up (obviously with torches) to celebrate Anghiari (see the references to Anghiari in Kent, Cosimo's Ouevre).
It would indeed be helpful, if you give such information with a direct link. At least in the case, that you're interested to be understood.

...
In regard to the closeness of the Papacy, Medici and even Giusti at this juncture, I did not realize this tidbit you dredged up:
Trevisan got for Anghiari the cardinal title, that's already praise, and a celebration at 20th of July. Possibly Giusto stayed for this celebration, cause he left at the 21st of July.
So this shows the Papacy caught up in parallel celebrations of Anghiari to that of the Medici, and places Giusti as exposed to this ‘triumphal pomp’ (the proposed ur-tarot deck celebrating the “Holy Alliance” of Florence and the Papacy – the battle did not happen in the Veneto so obviously no need to celebrate absent Venice, also part of the alliance…an ambiguous partner at all events as events a decade later would prove). If Giusti never mentions ‘naibi’ before but is suddenly commissioning a deck for a condottiero prince re-allied with Cosimo, Malatesta, it seems natural that he is mimicking something already happening in Florence at this precise time in connection with Anghiari.
The observation is, that Giusto left at the 21st of July, but his condottiero (likely in company of some of his soldiers) left at the 17th. As Giusto had "diplomatic function" for his condottiero, he might still have had a few things to do in Florence. Visiting the celebration for Trevisan might have been one of his points.

Giusto had indeed not much time to arrange something in Florence, arriving at 8th/9th of July and leaving at 21st. Well, he might have heard in his soldier camp, that a serial production of Trionfi decks had been done in Florence. He even might have heard about a project to produce something like this already during his stay. He might have commissioned a deck specified on Malatesta heraldry in expectation, that he wished to improve his personal relations to Malatesta.

Condottieridiventura.it has for Malatesta ...
http://condottieridiventura.it/index.ph ... di-brescia

June 1440:
Niccolò Piccinino è pesantemente sconfitto da Micheletto Attendolo e da Pietro Giampaolo Orsini ad Anghiari: Sigismondo Pandolfo Malatesta cerca di correre ai ripari ed ospita a Rimini Oddantonio da Montefeltro.
Malatesta has a visit of his earlier foe.

July 1440:
Stipula un trattato di alleanza con il signore di Faenza Guidantonio Manfredi; si incontra sulla porta di Cotogni con Pietro Giampaolo Orsini.
Guidantonio Manfredi belonged to those, who had attacked Anghiari.
http://condottieridiventura.it/index.ph ... o-manfredi
"Porta Cotogni" is a place in Forli, likely a door in the city wall.
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forl%C3%AC
The meeting with Pietro Giampaolo Orsini, who had fought in Anghiari on the side of Florence, should have caused, that Malatesta changed sides (?). We should find a better description of this action.


August 1440 ... Malatesta fights for Firenze against Milano
Combatte i ducali agli ordini di Francesco Sforza, mentre il fratello Domenico si conduce al soldo dei Visconti. Colloca il campo a Ronco ed assedia Forlimpopoli: i difensori hanno spesso la meglio sui suoi uomini. Si accampa a Selbagnone ed assedia Forlì.
The brother Domenico is at the other side. Malatesta should be already around Forli. Giusto (and his connected army) is possibly around Cesena (Domenico's location).

September/October 1440
Occupa Bagnacavallo, Massa Lombarda ed altre terre dell’imolese; non può, o non vuole, impedire a Francesco Piccinino l’ingresso in Forlì. Danneggia molti villaggi e tenta di espugnare il capoluogo. Vista l'inanità dell' impresa si sposta prima a Forlimpopoli con gli altri condottieri. A metà ottobre i fiorentini prendono la strada di Capodicolle e della val di Savio: Sigismondo Pandolfo Malatesta si ferma a San Vittore perché trattenuto dai fiumi in piena. Le milizie fiorentine proseguono per la Toscana; egli deve, invece, fermarsi per qualche giorno in quanto non può trovare riparo a Cesena dal momento che il fratello milita al soldo del duca di Milano. Rientra a Rimini.
At 16th September Malatesta gets the deck. This should have been in the camp near Forli.

*************

For Pietro Giampaolo Orsini we have after the battle of Anghiari ...
http://condottieridiventura.it/index.ph ... manoppello

July 1440
Si accampa con Micheletto Attendolo a Sansepolcro alla testa di 6000 cavalli, di 7000 fanti e di numerose cernite: Niccolò Piccinino si rifugia a Pistoia. Pietro Giampaolo Orsini può così spostarsi e con il commissario Neri Capponi costringe Francesco di Poppi, alleato dei viscontei, a cedere ai fiorentini Poppi ed a liberare tutti i prigionieri che sono nelle sue mani. Rientra, di seguito, in Romagna; si incontra con Sigismondo Pandolofo Malatesta sulla porta di Codogni a Forlì.
The same meeting with Malatesta, but no details. But we should see: Orsini seems not to belong to those, who celebrate in Florence and start to discuss, who had the greater merits in the battle. The word "incontra" reappears again and actually it means, that Malatesta and Orsini fight with each other.

August 1440
Si muove a Montevecchio, sopra Civitella di Romagna; si attenda a Galeata ed a San Zeno in Volpinara; si trasferisce nei pressi di Fiumana e con il cardinale Scarampo, alla testa di 6000 uomini, conquista Pedrignano. Attacca Forlimpopoli (caduta a maggio in potere di Antonio Ordelaffi) con Micheletto Attendolo; si unisce loro anche Sigismondo Pandolfo Malatesta (che nel frattempo ha mutato bandiera), pone i suoi alloggiamenti a Selbagnone ed assedia Forlì. Ottiene la rocca di Bagnacavallo, senza che Francesco Piccinino e Guidantonio Manfredi trovino l'ardire di venire in soccorso dei difensori. Si sposta nel forlivese con il cardinale Scarampo ed assedia vanamente il capoluogo.
This indicates, that Malatesta's change to the other side happened later than his "incontra" meeting with Orsini.

In summary:

As long Malatesta hadn't changed the sides, Giusto hadn't a good reason to think about a Trionfi deck for Malatesta. As it doesn't look really plausible (at least for the moment), that Giusto knew about "Malatesta on the side of Florence" before 21st of July, one has to conclude, that he couldn't think about a Trionfi deck for him before 21st of July.

Well, what do we know ...The Angari brothers were close to Malatesta. Perhaps they understood the intentions of Malatesta better than everybody else.
As long Malatesta was in risk, that Piccinino might get the idea, that he could attack with his army Rimini, Malatesta wasn't interested to be on another side as Piccinino.
If Piccinino was weakened enough, that wouldn't be such a big problem. And perhaps the Angari brothers and also Giusto had a secret understanding in this matter.
Giusto had visited Malatesta to trade the freedom of Gregorio in May 1440. And this worked. There was opportunity to talk "secret words" and declare the position of Malatesta against and for Florence and the reasons for it. Naturally this was nothing for the official records, and one can't find documents about such things. If this was done different, Malatesta would have looked as a traitor and this would have been bad for his reputation as condottiero.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Anghiari Deck debate

#29
Huck wrote
The battle of Anghiari didn't restore Ecclesia ... or do you see an aspect?
Not in the “spiritual” sense of the Union, but certainly the Church as a viable late medieval state – something that was most definitely not secure after the “Avignon captivity”, the Council in Basel (1331-1339) that challenged the Pope’s authority, and most importantly this (from Wiki):
These concessions [to the Council of Basel in 1433] also were due to the invasion of the Papal States by the former Papal condottiero Niccolò Fortebraccio and the troops of Filippo Maria Visconti led by Niccolò Piccinino in retaliation for Eugene's support of Florence and Venice against Milan . This situation led also to establishment of an insurrectionary republic at Rome controlled by the Colonna family. In early June 1434, disguised in the robes of a Benedictine monk, Eugene was rowed down the center of the Tiber, pelted by stones from either bank, to a Florentine vessel waiting to pick him up at Ostia. The city was restored to obedience by Giovanni Vitelleschi, the militant Bishop of Recanati, in the following October.[1] In August 1435 a peace treaty was signed at Ferrara by the various belligerents. The Pope moved to Bologna in April 1436. His condottieri Francesco Sforza and Vitelleschi in the meantime reconquered much of the Papal States. Traditional papal enemies such as the Prefetti di Vico were destroyed, while the Colonna were reduced to obedience after the destruction of their stronghold in Palestrina in August 1436
As far as Pope Eugene would have been concerned, Anghiari was a continuation of Visconti’s earlier hostilities towards him – hence the “Holy Alliance” and his military legate, Trevisan, leading papal troops in that battle alongside the Orsini-led Florentines and Attendolo (paid for by Venice). Remember, Eugene was still living in Florence at the time of the Anghiari, in an exile of sorts from Rome. Although Eugene would not return to Rome until 1443, Anghiari was a pivotal moment that would allow his restitution to Rome – hence the Roman temple on Trevisan’s medal. Dati’s description of Trevisan at Anghiari was as being inspired by a vision of St. Peter and St. Paul in the sky right before the culminating action of the battle (thus a God-ordained victory that allowed the “restoration”).

I will admit here that if the medal is as late as 1445 it very well may have been cast during Eugene’s entry into Rome in 1443, following Trevisan’s campaign to recapture the March of Ancona, to which he was named legate in September 1442. But Sforza held on to parts of the March until 1447 when he left for Milan, so I don’t see a major victory there, such as Anghiari was blown up as, propaganda-wise. At all events, the Papacy celebrated Anghiari just as equally as the Florentines (e.g., the parade for Trevisan – was it a joint one for Florence as well?), and it indeed restore the Pope’s reputation in matters of state.
Huck wrote:
As long Malatesta hadn't changed the sides, Giusto hadn't a good reason to think about a Trionfi deck for Malatesta. As it doesn't look really plausible (at least for the moment), that Giusto knew about "Malatesta on the side of Florence" before 21st of July, one has to conclude, that he couldn't think about a Trionfi deck for him before 21st of July.
It is precisely because Malatesta was not in the Florentine fold that the gift would have been useful. We already have the comparable evidence, as laid out by M. King, that Marcello sent both manuscripts to Rene and the Marziano deck to Isabelle in order to keep Rene friendly in 1449 and from joining with Sforza against Venice in the field. A very similar use of a deck as a diplomatic gift is made with Malatesta in mind. Malatesta, again, was at the consecration of the Duomo in Florence alongside Cosimo in 1435 – as much as condottieri switched sides, at this historical juncture he was primarily considered a Medici/Papacy partisan. It was only under military duress that had Malatesta wavering in his commitment. The victory at Anghiari showed the Florentine/Papal alliance was strong and would allow Malatesta to return to the fold – indeed he does before the deck even gets to him (perhaps its value now having strictly business objectives for Giusti - placing more orders of men with Malatesta).

Phaeded

Re: Anghiari Deck debate

#30
Phaeded wrote:
Huck wrote
The battle of Anghiari didn't restore Ecclesia ... or do you see an aspect?
Not in the “spiritual” sense of the Union, but certainly the Church as a viable late medieval state – something that was most definitely not secure after the “Avignon captivity”, the Council in Basel (1331-1339) that challenged the Pope’s authority, and most importantly this (from Wiki):
These concessions [to the Council of Basel in 1433] also were due to the invasion of the Papal States by the former Papal condottiero Niccolò Fortebraccio and the troops of Filippo Maria Visconti led by Niccolò Piccinino in retaliation for Eugene's support of Florence and Venice against Milan . This situation led also to establishment of an insurrectionary republic at Rome controlled by the Colonna family. In early June 1434, disguised in the robes of a Benedictine monk, Eugene was rowed down the center of the Tiber, pelted by stones from either bank, to a Florentine vessel waiting to pick him up at Ostia. The city was restored to obedience by Giovanni Vitelleschi, the militant Bishop of Recanati, in the following October.[1] In August 1435 a peace treaty was signed at Ferrara by the various belligerents. The Pope moved to Bologna in April 1436. His condottieri Francesco Sforza and Vitelleschi in the meantime reconquered much of the Papal States. Traditional papal enemies such as the Prefetti di Vico were destroyed, while the Colonna were reduced to obedience after the destruction of their stronghold in Palestrina in August 1436
But getting back control of Rome had been the work of Vitelleschi, who was then killed in Rome ... by Eugen's helpers, who already lived in a Rome under control.
And Trevisan got in the same time his merits in Florence and the operation council became a success ... at least it was presented as such, and it silenced the critical voices in Germany.
As far as Pope Eugene would have been concerned, Anghiari was a continuation of Visconti’s earlier hostilities towards him – hence the “Holy Alliance” and his military legate, Trevisan, leading papal troops in that battle alongside the Orsini-led Florentines and Attendolo (paid for by Venice). Remember, Eugene was still living in Florence at the time of the Anghiari, in an exile of sorts from Rome. Although Eugene would not return to Rome until 1443, Anghiari was a pivotal moment that would allow his restitution to Rome – hence the Roman temple on Trevisan’s medal. Dati’s description of Trevisan at Anghiari was as being inspired by a vision of St. Peter and St. Paul in the sky right before the culminating action of the battle (thus a God-ordained victory that allowed the “restoration”).
Rome was under control, but Eugen preferred the better life conditions in Florence.
I will admit here that if the medal is as late as 1445 it very well may have been cast during Eugene’s entry into Rome in 1443, following Trevisan’s campaign to recapture the March of Ancona, to which he was named legate in September 1442. But Sforza held on to parts of the March until 1447 when he left for Milan, so I don’t see a major victory there, such as Anghiari was blown up as, propaganda-wise. At all events, the Papacy celebrated Anghiari just as equally as the Florentines (e.g., the parade for Trevisan – was it a joint one for Florence as well?), and it indeed restore the Pope’s reputation in matters of state.
But if we assume, that the medal was made later and had its reasosn elsewhere, we cannot count it as triumphal sign of the Anghiari battle.
Huck wrote:
As long Malatesta hadn't changed the sides, Giusto hadn't a good reason to think about a Trionfi deck for Malatesta. As it doesn't look really plausible (at least for the moment), that Giusto knew about "Malatesta on the side of Florence" before 21st of July, one has to conclude, that he couldn't think about a Trionfi deck for him before 21st of July.
It is precisely because Malatesta was not in the Florentine fold that the gift would have been useful. We already have the comparable evidence, as laid out by M. King, that Marcello sent both manuscripts to Rene and the Marziano deck to Isabelle in order to keep Rene friendly in 1449 and from joining with Sforza against Venice in the field. A very similar use of a deck as a diplomatic gift is made with Malatesta in mind. Malatesta, again, was at the consecration of the Duomo in Florence alongside Cosimo in 1435 – as much as condottieri switched sides, at this historical juncture he was primarily considered a Medici/Papacy partisan. It was only under military duress that had Malatesta wavering in his commitment. The victory at Anghiari showed the Florentine/Papal alliance was strong and would allow Malatesta to return to the fold – indeed he does before the deck even gets to him (perhaps its value now having strictly business objectives for Giusti - placing more orders of men with Malatesta).
Sounds not probable. Generally it might be useful to know, how and when Malatesta changed the side. Perhaps we find something.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests

cron