Tarot History Forum

Since originally posting, I have added one sentence, in red below.

Magic Moon: The first part of your post was very difficult to read, due to problems translating from your Spanish into English. Are you writing in English, or in Spanish and then translating it using Google Translate? The latter would probably be better. You can also post in Spanish first and then offer a translation into English. That way, we can go back to your Spanish when we are puzzled by the English. I could guess that by "letter" you meant "card." I thought that "stick" would be "baton", but I am not sure. Sometimes it seems that you mean "suit". Other words I could not guess. There is also a problem with the prepositions. It seems to be a valuable contribution, perhaps suggesting ways of playing "VIII Imperadori" that I had not thought of - but I cannot understand the English!

I have no opinion about the "Imperatori" games after 1423, as far as how many superior cards they had. It may also be that the subjects became defined differently, more like those of Kaiserspiel. To me 1423 is enough. For the rest, it is relevant that Ferrara's 1434 decks were again imported from Florence, but the 1440s decks were made locally (see Pratesi at https://www.naibi.net/p/55-IMPER-Z-1OCR.pdf).

About the assignment to Alessandro Sforza, the chief argument has to do with the heraldic emblem on the shield. The argument is not conclusive, as the device was used by others, too, as you point out. This has been discussed in numerous posts on THF (search term "Alessandro") and articles in The Playing-Card and elsewhere. If you search "Alessandro" on the Ask Alexander" search engine, some good articles appear, in vol. 42, 44, 49, and 51. There are also articles in the books Il Mondo in Mano (reviewed by Depaulis in vol. 48), and Les Tarots Illumines. Here is a nice summary, by Pratesi in an August 2024 note I translated recently as "The Countess's embroidered trionfi", viewtopic.php?p=26584#p26584)

It may be significant that the name Alessandro Sforza is used for the well-known Catania tarocchi, discussed by Thierry Depaulis, Emilia Maggio [note 2] and others. The motif of the ring with an intertwined flower that is the basis of the proposal has, however, been convincingly linked to Nicholas III of Ferrara, and therefore either the Pesaro attribution is rejected,[note 3] or it is considered ‒ as in a study that would limit the production of the deck to the period 1445-1468 ‒ that Alessandro was the only Sforza to have received that emblem from the Ferrarese court where he grew up.[note 4]
____________
2. For example E. Maggio, The Playing-Card, Vol. 44, No. 4 2016, pp. 256-268.
3. C. Dorsini, “Tarocchi rinascimentali fra Milano e Ferrara,” in S. Bonaccorsi and E. Maggio, editors, Il Mondo in Mano, [Ragusa] 2019, on p. 25.
4. S. Abele-Hipp, The Playing-Card, Vol. 49, No. 1, 2020, pp. 14-17.

"Alessandro Sforza" is mainly just a convenient tag for talking about that set of cards. The youthfulness of the figure is not definitive of its date: if it is meant to commemorate his days of glory, he can be as he was then. They are mostly of interest as reflecting Florence of around 1450, probably by the workshop of Lo Scheggia, as Huck and I have said for many years, although art historians only recently. Likewise the attribution of the Rothschild cards to the Dal Ponte workshop is generally accepted now, the art historians give meager arguments if any. I think the best study is still mine, from 2014 with revisions up to 2017, at https://rothschildcards.blogspot.com/.

In discussing the Visconti-Sforza deck in this context, I think it is important to disregard the 6 "second artist" cards. They are of a different time and style than the others, including the suit cards.

Since originally posting, I have added (now April 3) one additional sentence, in red.

In this post I want to explore further the idea that the game of “VIII Imperatori” influenced the game of triumphs at its inception rather than after a 14 triumph game was already established. I am meaning this as a challenge to 14+8, since those 8, added after a 14-triumph game had been established, are claimed to be those of Imperatori. I don’t expect it to be definitive, but perhaps plausible. I am posting this now rather than waiting for a response to my last post from Magic Moon, because I needed to say more about "VIII Imperadori" perhaps anticipating Magic Moon's questions.

“VIII Imperadori” existed in 1423, known in Ferrara but produced in Florence. So probably it was known in Florence, too, even if the only record of it is elsewhere. From the name, the “imperadori” would appear to be above the other cards in rank, just as Emperors are above Kings, Queens and their subjects. From the number VIII, they were plausibly 2 per suit. If so, there is a similarity to Marziano’s game: it is one in which the special cards are both trumps and extensions of the regular suits. That similarity also supports this hypothesis about “VIII Imperatori.”

There is no need to suppose that these “Imperadori” are ranked across suits, however: if two of the same rank are played to a trick, the winner can be the highest in the suit led, and if neither is, of the one who played theirs last.

This is obviously similar to the “equal papi” rule seen in Bologna and Piedmont, albeit there without any distinctive connection to a suit. In both Bologna and Piedmont, there were four such personages. In Piedmont, since they used French cards, the titles would have been Pope, Empress, Emperor, and Popess. Piscina, who would have used such cards, simply calls them Popes and Emperors, without explicitly indicating gender. However, the masculine covered mixed company. In Bologna, Sivello in 1594 Bologna ("Villanella sopra il gioco di Tarochi,” in Villanelle Nuove del Sivello, in Google Books) refers just to “papi,” but “papi,” besides popes, just means “important people.” Croce in 1602 (Lotto festevole fatto in villa, in BUB digitale) speaks of an Empress and an Emperor, while omitting the papal dignitaries, perhaps out of deference to ecclesiastical authorities who might have found those subjects offensive.

“VIII Imperadori” presumably was Florentine; if so, the “equal papi” rule would have originated there, and probably the game itself, if it came about by adding more superior cards to those of “VIII Imperadori”. It is true that Minchiate had five “papi”. But this was for scoring purposes: getting three or more of them earned extra points. That there are five balances out the top five, the "aire," also high point-getters. In Bologna, what matters in scoring sequences is the top four, balancing the bottom four; the Bagatino is a wild card like the Fool, able to be inserted in any scoring combination.

A difficulty is that both Bologna and Piedmont had only four such cards, not eight. If the game of triumphs started by adding two superior cards in each suit to the two of “VIII Imperadori”, why would the number of “equal papi” have been reduced to four, one per suit? Or even two? The rule allows that sometimes one wins and sometimes another – in other words, an abandonment of hierarchy. But in Petrarch it is not that Time sometimes triumphs over Eternity and sometimes not: nor does Fame sometimes triumph over Time. And Death eventually wins out over Chastity, even if between Chastity and Love, it can go either way. Likewise, while there can be conflicts of duty, it is not that Hope conflicts with Faith, or Prudence with Justice, etc.; even while being in a hierarchy, the lower virtues do not vie with the higher ones. But Popes and Emperors often did conflict, and likewise Empresses with Emperors and Popes with Church officials below them, sometimes one winning and sometimes another, and the same for secular vs. religious officials in smaller jurisdictions. So it would be natural to resist imposing a hierarchy on them, even if the city which served as the Pope’s banker, Florence, could not accept this arrangement for long. Bologna, where Ghibelline (pro-Emperor) families lived in a state overlorded by the papacy, seems to have loved it.

Four “equal papi” can still fit into a 4x4 grid. They might simply have been two Emperors and two Empresses, with the Empresses taking the “feminine” suits and the Emperors the “masculine” ones. Two of the Modrone’s hypothesized trumps would have been absent. I would think the Wheel would be one, not being a Petrarchan, and Chastity the other. It is a virtue as well as a Petrarchan, and it is covered adequately enough by Temperance and Fortitude. The virtues put in its place would explain why, of all the Petrarchans, only Love is before the virtues in the early A orders. A less likely alternative would be to suppose the theological virtues absent and a second representative for another Petrarchan present: Time both high and low, or Fame both worldly and eternal, for example.

How did the "equal papi" rule get to Piedmont? Since the Piedmontese order of trumps was mostly C order, it seems more likely to have been by way of Lombardy instead of directly from the A region. If so, Lombardy would have itself received the "equal papi" rule from its source, probably Florence, along with another A-region derived rule found in Piedmont, that of making Judgment the highest trump. Judgment high with a C order distribution of virtues is also a characteristic of my hypothetical Modrone. In that way, Piedmont supports the hypothesis for that deck I have advanced.

Since the Visconti-Sforza deck of the 1450s had all four dignitaries, the Piedmontese would have gotten their four “equal papi” then or a little later, the game entering Piedmont at the same time. It is also possible that Piedmont would have learned the game with only two “equal papi,” such as the Modrone’s: it would have been easy enough for them to add two more “equal papi” later. Of course, very early on, Marziano introduced a full hierarchy, which the Modrone may have also reflected. As long as such a structure wasn’t yet entrenched, it would be possible for Piedmont to adjust its game to follow Lombardy’s lead.

In relation to the 14+8 hypothesis, the question then is, which would have come first, “equal papi” as a primitive rule of the game, or as something that carried over when those trumps entered the game, having first been established without them? There are reasons for thinking the former. First, “VIII Imperatori,” if it had trumps added to the four regular suits, would have been in that respect a shorter and simpler version of Marziano’s game, and equally of any version of trionfi with a similar structure. If so, “VIII Imperatori” would likely be earlier than both. Secondly, “equal papi” allows for a game in which the trumps are without a hierarchy across suits. This is a more primitive structure than one with such a hierarchy, and so likely earlier. Third, “VIII Imperadori” is currently documented 17 years earlier than trionfi. If the two are connected, the chances are that “VIII Imperadori”, and hence “equal papi,” predates trionfi.

Hello. Sorry my translating mistakes. The problem is google. Sometimes, it translate CARTA (card) writing LETTER and sometimes it translate PALO (suit) writing STICK. Spanish word PALO is stick and also is suit. We in spanish dont write TRAJE (suit) to say PALO (suit) but I understand this english influence in the bad translations to spanish. Other times, google translate right becouse the bot understand the context in my text. My english is not very good. I dont have lot of vocabulary and I do some wrong ortography but I think that it is easy to understand my limited english. I dont mix concepts as google does. Naw here I write directly in english. Usually, some frases I write directly and the big part of the text I write in spanish to translate it later with google. The thing is that google translator do big mistakes sometimes becouse it change concepts when a word has differents meanings. Usually I review to correct details but yesterday my mind was saturated. I have corrected the text in my yesterday post and you have here the same text. I hope that naw it was easy to understand my text corrected:

As for the way of playing with the alleged 4 emperors and 4 empresses, I understand what Mikeh say: the Empress range under the kings range (as a possibility). I understand it easily because something similar happens in Kaiserspiel. That is, certain cards exceed many cards but not all. It is complex but interesting. What I don't know is whether you suggest that emperors behave differently to other ranges of the deck or not. I would have to learn to play Tarot, Tarocchino and Minchiate to understand it well: I have this limitation. But I will try now to explain the doubt I have. For example, the four kings have the same power. That is, they are not hierarchized. One king can win another if his suit is a leader or if his suit has been chosen as a trump suit, according to the standard game with common deck of four suits. In games with special triumph cards (for example, the tarot) there is not a latin suit chosen as a triumph becouse there is already a permanent suit that are the special tarot cards. This is basic but I mention it because I think it is like that. At the time of the game of the eight emperors, the notion of suits or cards with a total triumph power had not yet been completely invented. That is, the fante (unter) of the chosen stick was already like a triumph and was called Karnöffel. It was the powerest card in the germany game called Karnöffel. But the other powerful cards of the chosen stick were not above all the cards of sticks and therefore were not really triumphs or trumps (it was only one word originally in italian and naw it is one word in spanish: triunfos). Something similar to the limited power of Empress range of your hypothesis happened: in Karnöffel game, for example, Emperor and Pope had a limited power, that is, they were in the middle of the hierarchy of suit ranges. But my question is simple. The emperors were above the kings and we assume that there was an emperor of each stick. Ok. The emperors were simply above just like the kings were above the queens and queens are above the horses? Or there was some special advantage of the emperors, for example, perhaps: the kings only exceeded the cards of the same suit but the emperors exceeded any card of the four suits. I proposed this advantage but perhaps you conceive some advantage of the emperors that I do not occur to me now. It seems normal to me that emperors are equal without hierarchy, as well as the four kings are the same range, the four horses are equal, etc

Magic Moon wrote

But my question is simple. The emperors were above the kings and we assume that there was an emperor of each stick. Ok. The emperors were simply above just like the kings were above the queens and queens are above the horses? Or there was some special advantage of the emperors, for example, perhaps: the kings only exceeded the cards of the same suit but the emperors exceeded any card of the four suits. I proposed this advantage but perhaps you conceive some advantage of the emperors that I do not occur to me now. It seems normal to me that emperors are equal without hierarchy, as well as the four kings are the same range, the four horses are equal, etc.

Yes, I agree that the emperors are without hierarchy. There might be one thing special about them: that they be superior to the Empress, or second in command, in their suit and perhaps in other suits. But perhaps not. My proposal is

(1) there is no trump suit in "VIII Imperadori" in the sense of either a permanent hierarchy of 8 or a suit chosen by lot among the 4 suits,

(2) Each of the 4 suits has 2 permanent superior cards above the Kings and other cards in their suit.

(3) The winner of a trick is the highest card played in the suit led, except in all or some cases where a superior card of a different suit is played. There are rules governing when those cards can be played and what cards win in those cases, which may not be the same for each of the two. When the rules do not determine the outcome, the trick is won by the superior card played last.

The idea is that in this way the winner of a trick is always clear, even though there is no hierarchy among the eight. I do not see a direct parallel with Karnöffel, in that there is no trump suit and in Karnöffel there was no obligation to play a card in the suit led. There could be other parallels, such as Empresses not being able to beat Kings outside their own suit. Exactly what the other rules would have been is of concern only in regard to showing that such a game is possible and not hard to understand. It should also make for an interesting game and be a plausible forerunner to the "equal papi" rule in tarot. Perhaps it will have something in common with Marziano's game and/or Karnöffel.

In this regard, if the superior cards are Emperor and Empress, under what conditions can an Empress (or 2nd in command) beat an Emperor? Yes, you are right in suspecting that I had given the Emperors (male gender) a special power. But it was only that they would always beat an Empress or second-in-command, so that breaking that convention would be the innovation of trionfi, a consequence of going from 8 to 4. There would seem to be too much disorder otherwise. But perhaps not. Maybe the 4 Emperors have no special power over the 4 Empresses or seconds-in-command, and the trick is won by whoever played theirs last. Well, it doesn't matter that I can see, as long as one is aware of one's assumptions.

Magic Moon wrote (I have interpolated what I think are the correct words in English)

But the other powerful cards of the chosen stick [suit] were not above all the cards of sticks [the suits] and therefore were not really triumphs or trumps (it was only one word originally in italian and naw [now] it is one word in spanish: triunfos). Something similar to the limited power of Empress range [rank] of your hypothesis happened: in Karnöffel game, for example, Emperor and Pope had a limited power, that is, they were in the middle of the hierarchy of suit ranges [ranks].

It seems to me that the Emperor and Pope were full trumps in the sense of being above all the cards of the suits. But among those full trumps, the Pope was higher than the Emperor. About a 19th-century Swiss version, Dummett says (Game of Tarot, p. 186, viewtopic.php?p=22205#p22205):

In the nineteenth-century game, the Königstecher [king-beaters] were, in descending order: the Unter of the trump suit, called the Jos; the 6 of the trump suit; the Deuce or Sau of the trump suit; and the Kaiser of Roses (if declared), called Blass (pale).

That would be 4 full trumps. Then came 2 ober-beaters, 2 unter-beaters, and 2 number-card-beaters.

Dummett lists 6 full trumps in the modern Swiss game. The Frisian game had 5. The Thuringian game had 5.

In the Meissner poem (p. 188), two seem "good": Kaiser, Pope; and two "bad": Devil, Karnöffel. There was also the Sow. They all seem to me full trumps, in the sense of being above all the cards in the regular suits; but among themselves, they were in a hierarchy. The Karnöffel was highest, then Sow, then Pope, then Kaiser. The Devil beat all but the Karnöffel if led, otherwise wasn't even a trump. Dummett doesn't mention what Meissner's "partial trumps" were called, except that there were 4 of them (2 less than the 19th-century game he describes). The Karnöffel was also known as the Fool in one of the other games.

In trionfi there are the four "papi," presumably good, plus the Bagatto, Hanged Man, and Devil, presumably bad. The Tower is bad, but to bad people, in that sense good. The Fool is bad, but serves a good purpose. That division seems to favor the 14+8 hypothesis (or more precisely 14 - 1 + 9). But Meissner is rather late, ca. 1450, so it could have gone the other way, Karnöffel borrowing titles from trionfi or a 1440s version of Imperatori.

So if Emperors are above Empresses or seconds-in-commend, but both are full trumps, to that extent like Karnöffel's full trumps. If Empresses only have power over Queens and below, they are like Karnöffel's partial trumps.

Important background readings about "Imperatori" are Pratesi's "Les 'Imperatori' a la cour de Ferrara" and "Altri Commenti sui trionfi." The latter is translated at https://pratesitranslations.blogspot.co ... about.html. I like it because of its very minimalistic characterization of Imperatori, although mine is even more minimalistic, since there are trumps but no trump suit. I am working on a translation of the former, which is about 1434 but would seem to apply to 1423 as well. Both are Florentine productions, suggesting an enduring game there. The imperatori of 1440s Ferrara were made locally.

Thanks Mikeh for the details about Karnöffel. The explanations about one way to play Eight Emperors are very interesting. I'm traveling these days, and it's always difficult for me to understand the nuances of the game, but I want to study it and think about it. I have a question. I'm sorry if it's perhaps answered in the rules you've explained.

Let's imagine a situation like Emperors, but with a common rank in the deck. For example, let's imagine several players put a king on the table, and in that trick, there is no card higher than the kings. Does the last player to put a king on the table win the trick?

Thanks a lot. I like how all of you study and investigate.

There are various ways the game could be played. In all of them, it is the highest card in the suit led that wins the trick, unless someone who is out of that suit plays a trump.

In the case you imagine, it would be the person who played the King of the suit led that would win. The "last played" rule only applies to the superior cards, Emperors and (say) Empresses.

(The only exception would be if there are two of the same rank and the same suit in the deck. For example, in the Modrone, there is a male Knight of Coins and a female Knight of Coins. If both were played to the same trick, led by a card in the suit of Coins, the Knight of Coins played last would win. It might also be that the King and Queen were considered of the same rank. But let us assume that there is only one card of each rank in each suit.)

Another rule would likely be that if you have a card in the suit led, you have to play it, and otherwise, if you have a trump you have to play it. These are rules in every tarot game I know of - (not of Karnoffel, according to Dummett; but there is no connection between trumps and suits in that game).

But what counts as "nothing in that suit"? Is it only the King and below that are "in the suit"? Or are the Emperor and Empress like any other card in the suit? That has to be specified.

What if Coins was led, someone out of Coins played the Emperor of Cups, and another person played the Empress of Coins? Who would win? In one way of playing, the Emperor would win, being higher than any Empress. In another way of playing, it would be the Empress, because it was a superior card in the suit led. Then suppose someone else, out of Coins, played the Emperor of Batons. Under the first way of playing, it wins, because besides being above the Empress, it is the last one played. Under the second way, the Empress would still win.

But suppose there is no hierarchy among Empresses and Emperors. In that case, suppose that the second player played the Emperor of Cups, the third player played the Empress of Batons and the fourth played the 3 of Coins. Then, under the first way of playing, the Empress of Batons would win, being the last superior card to be played.

It is just a matter of how you decide to play it. I don't know what would make for the most interesting game. The important thing is that it make a difference whether an Empress or Emperor is of the suit led or not. Otherwise the suit is meaningless.

One way to make a difference is if the Empress or Emperor can be played anytime they are of the suit led. Another is if all you have left is an Emperor or Empress of the suit led, you have to play it. Another is to give priority over Empresses and Emperors in other suits as far as winning the trick. The third way (regardless of how one decides the others) would make the game like that of Marziano (as I interpret him), but with the proviso that if two of the same rank but not of the suit led were played to the same trick, the last one played would win. If Empress and Emperor were considered of the same rank, that would be most like the "equal papi" rule in Bologna and Piedmont. But there are other ways the "equal papi" rule could apply, for example only among Emperors or only among Empresses, with Emperors beating Empresses. I think the other way would be more fun (no hierarchy), especially in mixed company. Or people could choose which way to play at the beginning of the hand, like people do in Poker.

I hope that helps.

Hi Mikeh

Very good. Thank you. Now I understand. The highest card of the suit led (leader, starting) is the card that wins. If there are two kings in a trick on the table, then the king of the same suit as the first card played in that trick wins. If neither of those kings is of the suit led (perhaps this is unlikely or inconvenient for the players), then the card that wins the trick is the highest card of the suit led (leading suit, starting card suit): for example, it could be a seven of cups if the cup is the leading suit in that trick and there are no cups cards higher than the seven card.

You are right that Karnöffel has several trump cards: fante (karnöffel), devil, pope, emperor. I were confused about that some days ago. Ok. And below it, it has other special partial power cards that I believe were called: troubadour, duke, knight. In Karnöffel, I believe the strong suit (similar to a trump suit but not exactly the same concept) is chosen at the beginning of the game, meaning it's the same for several tricks. However, in the game of Emperors, the lead suit (leader suit, starting suit card) is different for each trick, if I understand you correctly.

Now I understand your suggestion about the difference between emperors and other cards. Basically, it's similar to what I initially thought: any emperor can beat any card of any suit, but common court figures only beat cards of their own suit. So now I think that perhaps the four emperors didn't need to be of a specific latin suit, unless some rule of the game took that detail into account. That is, if the last emperor tossed onto the table wins, then perhaps there wasn't a suit drawn on the supposed four emperor cards. For example, they could be four identical emperors, or they could be distinguished by having a coat of arms from a different empire. By the way, I like your theory about the four empires of that time, but I'm doubting whether the Mamluk Sultanate could be considered an empire. Strictly speaking, the Mamluks probably didn't have an emperor. In that case, I don't know which would be the fourth empire. In 1423, neither the Mongol nor the Persian Empire existed. And the Chinese Empire existed but it was very far away.

I'm not thinking about empresses because I don't want to get too complicated yet. Perhaps they ranked above the queens, as you say, or above the kings. As for the female court figures on the Modrone deck, you say they perhaps had the same value or range as the male figures. You've explained it well. But probably an other posibility is possible. Perhaps the female court figures ranked below their male counterparts. In other words, I imagine there was perhaps a hierarchy of six court ranks: woman, fante, woman on horseback, man on horseback, queen, king. I imagine that the Eight Emperors game perhaps only had three common court ranks, without queens, and the imperial cards above the kings: Fante, Cavalier, King, Empress, Emperor. I suppose this is a possibility, either with or without suits on the eight imperial cards. Or perhaps there were more court figures but I dont think so. I suspect perhaps the four queens were confused with the four empresses. This is a personal theory of mine. I don't know if there's a problem with this theory. That is, I imagine there weren't queens but empresses, in addition to emperors, kings, cavaliers, and fanti. Those four empresses could have been replaced by four queens or vice versa. Just change the name and the type of crown. It's easy to confuse them.

So now I think that perhaps the four emperors didn't need to be of a specific latin suit, unless some rule of the game took that detail into account. That is, if the last emperor tossed onto the table wins, then perhaps there wasn't a suit drawn on the supposed four emperor cards. For example, they could be four identical emperors, or they could be distinguished by having a coat of arms from a different empire.

You are right that the four emperors didn't need to be assigned to a specific Latin suit. That is just the hypothesis I favor (but certainly can't prove), based on three considerations.

One consideration is the number VIII in "VIII Imperatori," which is evenly divisible by 4, for 2 to a suit.

The second reason is that I imagine a relationship to Marziano's game, which is built on the same principle of trumps assigned to particular suits - dropping, however, the rule about the last one played ruling and replacing it with a hierarchy from 1 to 16.

The third reason is that it would explain the correlation of trumps with suits I hypothesize for the Modrone, descending from the suit-assignment plus hierarchy of the Marziano. However, it may have been that the Empress and Emperor used the "last played wins" rule of "VIII Imperatori." It also may have been that they were in hierarchies.

As for the female court figures on the Modrone deck, you say they perhaps had the same value or range as the male figures. You've explained it well. But probably an other posibility is possible. Perhaps the female court figures ranked below their male counterparts. In other words, I imagine there was perhaps a hierarchy of six court ranks: woman, fante, woman on horseback, man on horseback, queen, king.

The same two alternatives, "last played" vs. hierarchy - apply to the males and females in the same ranks in all the suits in the Modrone - they may have been hierarchical or may not have been. My main reason for preferring "last played" is that it is quite unusual - unheard of otherwise - for there to be a male and a female with the same rank in the same suit. And again, the proximity to "VIII Imperadori" and later to the "equal papi" rule in Piedmont suggests that this type of thinking was not foreign to card games in the region.

I see no reason why "VIII Imperadori" would have had so many court figures: three or four would be plenty. Suits at that time did have all four, at least as reported by Bernardino of Siena in his sermon on games in Bologna 1423. That does not preclude their having three sometimes, too.

By the way, I like your theory about the four empires of that time, but I'm doubting whether the Mamluk Sultanate could be considered an empire. Strictly speaking, the Mamluks probably didn't have an emperor. In that case, I don't know which would be the fourth empire. In 1423, neither the Mongol nor the Persian Empire existed. And the Chinese Empire existed but it was very far away.

I was thinking of the Ottoman Empire as the fourth empire. As for the Mamluks, their Sultan ruled over many lands, including Syria, parts of Anatolia, all of Libya, even Cyprus, to which its Frankish king had to submit starting in 1426. (Source: Wikipedia) That is my definition of an empire, not a word meaning "emperor" - a political and geographical entity of many lands formerly independent and still fairly autonomous, but with one ruler or ruling body (for example, Venice also had a small empire). The Venetians took Cyprus in 1489, then the Turks in the late 16th century. The Turks had a Sultan, too. Whether the word "Sultan" would have prevented them from being allegorically identified with two of the emperors of "VIII Imperadori" I don't know. Perhaps only the suit-sign would differentiate them and not the headgear. Besides the Ottoman and Mamluk empires, Genoa and Venice had small empires, mostly just islands or cities. Other places around the Mediterranean, did, too - with their possessions constantly changing. It is this idea - of an Empire based in one place (i.e. suit) but extending itself outward in various ways, that I see mirrored in suit-based Emperors: Byzantium, Rome (uniting the various Christian kingdoms), Egypt, Germany, Genoa, Venice - but none of these in particular. I suppose in that sense Lombardy and Tuscany could be considered empires of a sort. The problem with Emperors detached from suits is that they are unlike actual empires, which are usually based in particular countries (or cities). An exception might be the Holy Roman Empire, whose emperor could come from any of a variety of essentially independent principalities. But even it was thought of as based in Germany.

VIII Imperatori cards + an 4x13-deck would make a 4x15-deck.
John of Rheinfelden described a 4x15-deck with 60 cards in 1377. His addtional 8 cards were 4 Queens and 4 court ladies or were 4 knigths and 4 court lkadies, depending on that, what the basic structure of the 4x13-deck was, either King, Queen and Marshall or King, Knight on horse (Ober) and Foot soldier (Unter).

Hi Mikeh

Thanks for your explanations. I thought there were several sultans in the Mamluk Sultanate (GPT chat lied to me once again), and that's why I doubted more intensely that it could be considered an empire. However, it seems that a sultan had power over different territories, so the structure is similar to an empire, even though the name is sultanate. As for the republics (for example, Venice), I think that's less like an empire. So let's accept the four empires you propose. Thanks.

Let's imagine something. Two players put two high cards of equal rank and different suits on the table, but neither corresponds to the trump suit or the lead suit. No one puts a card more powerful than those two on the table. From your point of view, I suppose the player who put down one of those two cards last wins. Correct? That situation seems unusual to me, but it's possible, and I was interested in imagining it correctly.

In the game of Briscola, it's the other way around. The one who puts down their card first wins. Perhaps in ancient times, the winner of the Emperors game was the one who was the last to lay down their card, as you say. The Briscola game seems to be later, and possibly that rule was modified from an older Emperors game, changing it to Briscola.

I mentioned the two coins in the Bolognese fantasia of coins and thought I might suggest that the suit of diamonds is worth more. Diamonds could be considered a trump suit in some games. Many card games randomly choose the trump suit at the start of the game. Other games might always have coins as the higher trump suit. Or some court figures of a certain suit were more powerful.

I also think there could be a hierarchy between suits for some games. That's similar to a trump suit, but it's different. You say we don't know of any card games with a hierarchy between suits. It's true that we should look for those games. I would find it strange if there weren't some ancient games with a hierarchy between suits. The Spanish deck has an indirect hierarchy in the dashed lines of the frame or margin that indicate the suit: one discontinuity, two discontinuities, etc. Some card games could have this hierarchy or another hierarchy among the four suits. I don't know of any specific examples. Sorry.

When we organize Modrone trumps into four suits, we are thinking that there is a hierarchy between suits, whether the order is by rank or by suit. In both cases, there is a hierarchy between suits. They are not suit cards but trumps associated with suits, but I think that at that time there must have been games with some hierarchy between suits or between court figures of equal rank and different suits. The Chinese coin deck had a hierarchy between suits. Now I don't know if this hierarchy was taken into account in Chinese games. I hope to find examples, or I'll have to give up this belief. I don't know if it comes from evidence I've read at a time I can't remember, or if I accidentally made it up.

Perhaps there are French card games with suit hierarchy, like Bridge or Whist. The order in those games is usually spades, hearts, diamonds, clubs. That's what chat gpt says. It's probably a lie.