December 11, 2019, 05:10:11 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: New Membership Currently Closed.
 
   Boards Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Chevrons, Crusaders, Sea People?  (Read 7675 times)
Ronald L. Hughes
Newbie
*
Posts: 47


« on: May 26, 2010, 12:26:39 AM »

Since Charles has been willing for me to share his band-width, I guess I shall just post one element that seems to promote a word that might be an "anachronism", into the world much closer to our times!

On other sites found within the Inter-Net, I have made posts concerning the apparent use of "chevrons" in a military setting in times now considered as ancient. Specifically I was referring to the "chevrons" that can be seen upon the tunics or armour in a representation of what are today called "the people of the sea", or "Sea Peoples", or "People of the Isles",that had been inscribed upon the walls of a great church? / temple at Medinet Habu in Egypt.

Reproductions of these murals in stone can be found at various sites on the Net, as well as in numerous books and magazines. Some of the representations found are better than others, but the best one clearly shows the sailors or warriors of the "Sea People" clearly depict large "chevrons" emblazoned upon what can only be described as "tunics" or "breast-plates" and showing various versions, ranging from two chevrons to five chevrons.

Below are two of the best sites I have been able to find during an Internet search on the subject;

http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/rank_page/History_of_Enlisted_Ranks.htm

"Chevron" is an architectural term denoting the rafters of a roof meeting an angle at the upper apex. The chevron in heraldry was employed as a badge of honor to mark the main supporters of the head of the clan or "top of the house" and it came to be used in various forms as an emblem of rank for knights and men-at-arms in feudal days. One legend is that the chevron was awarded to a knight to show he had taken part in capturing a castle, town, or other building, of which the chevron resembled the roofs. It is believed from this resulted its use as an insignia of grade by the military.

The lozenge or diamond used to indicate first sergeant is a mark of distinction and was used in heraldry to indicate achievement."

Interestingly it seems information from the past concerning the use of this symbol seems to have come to us from a "legend!" What that legend was is unknown to me but it would be interesting to know about it.

In any case, from the above we see that it is considered that its useage is only traced to "feudal" times. So just what days were considered as "feudal?"



Now the second site;

http://www.history.navy.mil/trivia/triv4-4a.htm



"Chevrons

Chevron is a French word meaning rafter or roof, which is what a chevron looks like; two straight lines meeting at an angle just as rafters do in a roof. It has been an honourable ordinarie in heraldry since at least the Twelfth Century.”  (IE, the 1300's, in Italian it is called “trecente!”)    “Ordinaries are simple straight line forms that seem to have originated in the wood or iron bars used to fasten together or strengthen portions of shields. Other ordinaries include the cross, the diagonal cross or "x," the triangle, the "y," and horizontal, vertical and diagonal lines. The chevron was a basic part of the colorful and complicated science of heraldry. It appeared on the shields and coats-of-arms of knights, barons and kings.

Chevrons were thus easily recognized symbols of honor. That might by why French soldiers started wearing cloth chevrons with the points up on their coat sleeves in 1777 as length of service and good conduct badges. Some British units also used them to show length of service." (You must remember the above information, or “French soldiers started wearing cloth chevrons, with the points up.., for later connections!)

We see above a mention that the use of these symbols "has been an honourable ordinarie in heraldry since at least the Twelfth Century." The author(s) then seem to have knowledge of the use of at least some of these symbols such as "ordinaries include the cross, the diagonal cross or "x," the triangle, the "y," and horizontal, vertical and diagonal lines." during the times we now date as 1101 CE to 1200 CE! This period also seems to cover the "crusader" period as well and, at least back to the times of William the Conqueror, or about 1040 CE to 1100 CE.

At; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinary_(heraldry)

We can see an example of the coat of arms of a famous French Cardinal, thus;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:COA_Cardinal_de_Richelieu.svg .

As you can see, the coat has three chevrons or "three chrvronels guiles" emblazoned! Might not it make sense that an attack or crusade supported by such a powerful person might well wear the mark of the one who graced / "Graced?" the project?

Certainly we have all seen representations of the Crusader Knights emblazoned with various types of "crosses" upon their "tunics" or "armour!", but I do not know of any representations shown with the "chevron / chevronel" being apparent! But, it is obvious that I have not seen even a small percentage of the representations of knights (Che-Val-ier's) emblazoned or decorated with such designs, certainly some or many representations of chevaliers with such designs depicted upon them exist?

http://flagspot.net/flags/vxt-dvc1.html#chevron

http://www.coatsofarms.addr.com/about.htm And, as we have seen, since the "chevron" is said to represent a "rafter" of a home or church, then "Heraldry offers a fascinating study of medieval lifestyles where we can surmise  much regarding our forefathers. Historically, different creatures of nature denoted certain characteristics, and various inanimate shapes implied certain traits, historical factors or aspirations. For example, the chevron symbolized protection and has often been placed on Arms to tell others that its bearer achieved some notable feat."

We have already seen that the above sites mention "feudal times" as the period of the past whereby the use of these symbols is first apparent to us or at least, to representations of the knights / chevaliers of those times, etc. Maybe we could even consider that before vowel substitution was codified to a large degree, the use of vowels (in a language like Hebrew), was basically left in the hands of the reader or writer! 

I might suggest that the reader arm themselves with a dictionary for the next part!

It is even possible that at one time and at one or more place the word might have been spelled as chav-ron; the "cha" part might well be a key? With that in mind please look at words like Chasid, chasse, chassedpot, chasseur, chassis, chaste, chasten, chastise, chastity, chasuble and even chateau?

The list of such words could even be continued including words beginning with "chat" and "chau", such as Chaucer or chaussure? Or it could be begun with words like; chant, or Chanukah, or chap, or chape, or chapel, or chaperon, or char, or character, or charge, or charger, or chariot, or charter, etc.!

Please note that any or all of the above suggestions could be applied to the life of,  or the expectancy of a "Knight!"

Even in a game of "Chess" the knight is the only one allowed to jump over other pieces and even change direction while doing so! Please feel free to spend a few minutes looking in your favorite dictionary for the above words as well as other words not mentioned above as might well be appropriate? 

I might well even suggest that certain well known battles were really “games of chess” played by royalty in a form of gambling!  The winner took the spoils or won the wager, so to speak, without the expenditure of monies or loss of lives!

“FEUDAL TIMES

Feudal times technically refers to the "Middle Ages", so let us see what others have to say about this period of the past?

From this site; http://www.britainexpress.com/History/Feudalism_and_Medieval_life.htm

We find;

"Feudalism. The social structure of the Middle Ages was organized round the system of Feudalism. Feudalism in practice meant that the country was not governed by the king but by individual lords, or barons, who administered their own estates, dispensed their own justice, minted their own money, levied taxes and tolls, and demanded military service from vassals. Usually the lords could field greater armies than the king. In theory the king was the chief feudal lord, but in reality the individual lords were supreme in their own territory. Many kings were little more than figurehead rulers.

Feudal Ties. Feudalism was built upon a relationship of obligation and mutual service between vassals and lords. A vassal held his land, or fief, as a grant from a lord. When a vassal died, his heir was required to publicly renew his oath of faithfulness (fealty) to his lord (suzerain). This public oath was called "homage".

A Vassal's Obligations. The vassal was required to attend the lord at his court, help administer justice, and contribute money if needed. He must answer a summons to battle, bringing an agreed upon number of fighting men. As well, he must feed and house the lord and his company when they traveled across his land.

This last obligation could be an onerous one.

William the Conqueror traveled with a very large household, and if they extended their stay it could nearly bankrupt the lord hosting them. In a few days of Christmas feasting one year William and his retinue consumed 6,000 chickens, 1,000 rabbits, 90 boars, 50 peacocks, 200 geese, 10,000 eels, thousands of eggs and loaves of bread, and hundreds of casks of wine and cider.”

One must also consider that Charlemagne also had a traveling laager which followed his travels throughout his kingdom, as did Attila, Darius, and as is reported of the “sea peoples” in the Egyptian records, etc.!

“A Lord's Obligations. On the lord's side, he was obliged to protect the vassal, give military aid, and guard his children. If a daughter inherited, the lord arranged her marriage. If there were no heirs the lord disposed of the fief as he chose."

So we see that "feudal times" can be considered to have existed at least during the times of William (the Bastard) the Conqueror! It seems that "feudalism" and the "middle ages" are mostly synonymous? So, just what period of time is considered to be called "the Middle Ages?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages

From the above we see that most historians consider the "Middle Ages" to have existed for about one thousand years, or from the middle of the 5th century (ca. 450) CE until the 16th century CE (1480 -1520) !

Can we consider that the use of "chevrons" as an "emblem" of a "knight" or "chevalier" as a sign of rank, might have existed during the last times of the Roman Empire (ca. 400-460 CE) or even earlier?

While I would like each of you to actually read the entire Wikipedia site, here are some words I feel need be included in this posting;

"Until the Renaissance (and for some time after that), the standard scheme of history was to divide history into six ages, inspired by the biblical six days of creation, or four monarchies based on Daniel 2:40. The early Renaissance historians, in their glorification of all things classical, declared two periods in history, that of Ancient times and that of the period referred to as the "Dark Age".

Filippo Villani first mentioned a "middle period" between Antiquity and his present when he observed in a treatise of 1382 that the islands in the Mediterranean Sea were called by different names in priscis mediis modernisque temporibus ("primitive, middle, and modern times").

In the early 15th century, it was believed history had evolved from the Dark Age to a new period with its revival of things classical, so some scholars, such as Flavio Biondo, began to write about a middle period between the Ancient and Modern, which became known as the Middle Age. It was not until the late 17th century when German scholar Christoph Cellarius' published Universal History Divided into an Ancient, Medieval, and New Period that the tripartite periodization scheme began to be used more systemically.[2]
Logged

"Most of history is bunk"  Henry Ford
Ronald L. Hughes
Newbie
*
Posts: 47


« Reply #1 on: May 26, 2010, 12:28:20 AM »

Part two;

The plural form of the term, Middle Ages, is used in English, Dutch, Russian, Bulgarian, and Icelandic while other European languages use the singular form (Italian medioevo, French le moyen âge, German das Mittelalter, Spanish edad media, Romanian ev mediu, Russian С?р?е?д?н?и?е? в?е?к?а?). This difference originates in different Neo-Latin terms used for the Middle Ages before media aetas became the standard term. Some were singular (media aetas, media antiquitas, medium saeculum, and media tempestas),[3] others plural (media saecula and media tempora). There seems to be no simple reason why a particular language ended up with the singular or the plural form.[4] The term "medieval" (sometimes spelled "mediaeval") was first contracted from the Latin medium ćvum, or more precisely "middle epoch", by Enlightenment thinkers as a pejorative descriptor of the Middle Ages.

The common subdivision into Early, High, and Late Middle Ages came into use after World War I. It was caused by the works of Henri Pirenne (in particular the article "Les periodes de l'historie du capitalism" in Academie Royale de Belgique. Bulletin de la Classe des Lettres, 1914) and Johan Huizinga (The Autumn of the Middle Ages, 1919).

Dorothy Sayers, a noted scholar in medieval literature as well as a famous writer of detective books, strongly objected to the term. In the foreword to her translation of The Song of Roland, she writes "That new-washed world of clear sun and glittering colour, which we call the Middle Age (as though it were middle-aged), has perhaps a better right than the blown summer of the Renaissance to be called the Age of Re-Birth."

Please remember that all of the kings, dukes, emperors that existed during these times were interested in the "heir"/ “hier?”, to the position of power!  (To “ere” is human to forgive divine!)

Are we all clear about the situation now?

Here is a representation of the Mediterranean Area before the final fall of the Western Roman Empire;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_map_450.PNG

Please take the time to note the position of all of the sub-divisions that our consensual history place in Mediterranean area, circa 450 CE!  Please note that Egypt is a part of the Eastern (Byzantine) Roman (Roumanian) Empire! Please note the position of "Iberia!", as it relates to the Eastern Empire?, and then look at the better known? "Iberian Peninsula?", where we now know it as called, Spain / Ispania, etc.!

Then examine the lands of the "Franks" and the "Friesians!"

And, as a last point, note the location of the Vandals and the Visigoths!
                              
EGYPT, the bread-basket of the Roman Empire!

Since Egypt was “reportedly” the "breadbasket of Rome”, did the Eastern Empire consider it necessary to continue the supply of grain to the Western Empire at all times?

Did it (Constantinople / New Rome) transport / export grain to Italy (Rome / Ravenna?) after the fall of the West? Is there any information to even, consider? 

If so, would not the grain go to places in the Italian peninsula and including Sicily, that Eastern Romans still had access?  And, the ultimate question is, “just why would they send grain to a place that had become an enemy?”

Can we even consider that Egypt, at least as we see it today, was ever a "breadbasket" to any part of the world? In modern times, it cannot feed even its own people, can we really consider that it (Egypt) fed an Empire in earlier times?

In fact, in latter times (IE, the middle ages and later), the only part of the Med. / European area, that was considered a "bread-basket," was, and is, located in what we today refer to as either "Poland" / Russia or "Ukraine", and surrounding areas!

Since our consensual history is based upon a combination of accounts (some of dubious value) and conclusions made by historians (based upon these dubious accounts) also vary in considerable degrees, we then come to an example whereby the view of the past, placed upon a map, might show just how "considerable" those conclusions might become.

See;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visigothic_Kingdom

Note the dates accorded to this kingdom and compare to the view of the earlier map concerning 450 CE? Quite a difference of opinion isn't it?

I am sure that each of you, with a little bit of research, might well uncover other examples, which might disagree to a greater or lessor degree!  That is, you should easily find other examples of maps made by historians and chronologists of later times (including the recent past) which try to contain the places described by historians from the past into our modern world!

At this site, you can read about a great general of the Byzantine Empire;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belisarius

You will notice that he is given credit for a partial re-conquest of parts of the Iberian Pennisula (H-E(I)spania) from the Visigoths / or maybe the Bisi-goths?.   Belisarius (Velisarius?) reportedly operated under the great Justinian.  You might well notice that the last part of his assumed named is “arius!”

At the site there is a representation of a painting found in Ravenna, Italy. It is suggested that the central figure is Justinian and the man upon his right side is Belis-arius. Please note the insignia seen upon this figure's right shoulder? Could this be a version of the so called "star of David?"

Also note the young attendants to the right of Belis-arius? (Velisarius?), they might well be termed either, "pages" or "squires" or "esquires", or probably most correctly "Shield Bearers" or "Armour / Armor Bearers" and even "water / wine bearers?") since they carry both shields and spears.

Please note their hair cuts / styles!

They certainly have what we today would called "Page-Boy" cuts! Note; some historians have been forced to consider that Belisarius might well have been considered as a "Eunuch", as well as his successor / replacement! One might well consider that the Jews, who were considered amongst the first to demand "circumcision" of its males, may have led others to a mis-interpretation of the word "Eunuch", or "castrated one?" Or it may be that in the early days the Hebrew priests were castrated and eventually a "ritual" castration was substituted and called later called, "circumcision?"

One might well also note that the "Crescent", as a symbol of an Empire, is regarded as correct for both the Byzantine (Latin? / Rum / Roum? / Romanian) Empire as well as the Ottoman (Othoman / Attaman?) Empire!


And please take note of this site;

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthago_Spartaria&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=3&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dcarthago%2Bspartaria%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4GGLG_enUS308US308

Please make note (from the above site) of the name, of the Byzantine city "Carthago Spartaria!"

Just how would any of you translate those two words?  Could “Spartan Carthage” be a possibility?

Maybe a study of the Frankish / Flemish kingdoms / and their duchies in Greece and the surrounding area, after the taking of Constantinople by the Frankish / Flemish / "Freisian" / free?, crusaders might be in order?

Pay particular attention to the group of mercenaries known to us now as "The Catalan Company!"

But, you might well be asking right now, just what does all of the above have to do with "Chevrons?"

Well it is all connected in a manner that should not obvious to most, but that is not their fault. It is perhaps my weakness that I tend to wander around in the past, making connections that seem most obvious to me but less so to others as well as being wildly out of time and place and I shall waste no more time going in all directions at once.

So! Chevrons are found in the mortuary temple of Ramesses III,
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesses_III) , depicting the great Sea Battle either on a river or near a port city, etc., and one good example of a reproduction of it can be found here;

http://samilitaryhistory.org/vol074ic.html

Please look at example number 4!

There you will obviously see the chevrons upon the vestments of these warriors / sailors!

Note that they wear both a "tunic" and what can only be called a "kilt!" / skirt, or maybe it was a one piece outfit? Please remember the family "chrest?" / christ? / krest / crest, of Cardinal Richelieu!

You will notice that the above site is reportedly written by persons involved in military actions!

So, why is it that they (the military historians), who should best know about the use of chevrons, not even mention the occurrence of obvious military depictions in the panels?

Simply put, it is the 12th to 13th century BCE date which is assigned to Ramesses (Lamesses?) III that stops them!

These men obviously knew that the use of chevrons to denote rank, etc., was not in common usage until over 1,000 years later, at best (i.e. 12th cent. CE)!

See also;

http://txspace.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969/126/etd-tamu-2003C-ANTH-Romey-1.pdf?sequence=1
Logged

"Most of history is bunk"  Henry Ford
Ronald L. Hughes
Newbie
*
Posts: 47


« Reply #2 on: October 07, 2010, 09:47:15 PM »

Dear Carlous, et al!

Yes, it is I, Rondolius!  Still alive and kicking!  So what about dem Saints? Grin

I just wanted to post a little more explanation relating to my postings above!  First of all I would like the reader to read the last site mentioned above, as it concerns Vogelbarks (spelling variable) and reproductions of the battle of the river in Egypt!

One must notice that the use of "bird headed" boats seems to have survived for a very long time!  Maybe that is because history itself has been somewhat "stretched?"  Maybe the two examples have artifically been removed from each other as have the "Vogel-headed" boats of the Vikings?  But the Viking era most closely follows my time line!  Shallow drafted pole boats that resemble all of these boats still ply the waters of Venice until this very day!

I intend to seduce all of you to follow a totally differnet course of past history, as per some of the relevations found in the works of Fomenko, et al!

More to follow!

Regards,  Ron
Logged

"Most of history is bunk"  Henry Ford
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC

Clear Mind Theme, by burNMind with modifications by: WebDude
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.147 seconds with 17 queries.