Was there a Scotsman at Constantinople in 1453?

Pangur Bán

Pangur Bán

Deconstructed
Joined
Jan 19, 2002
Messages
9,021
Location
Transtavia
Interesting question for me.

"In Giustiniani's company there was an engineer called Johannes Grant, usually described as a German but who may well have been a Scottish adventurer who had found his way through Germany to the Levant". (Runciman, TFOC, 1965, p.84)

But the Byzantine chronicler Phrantzes called him "Johannes the German". Why does Runciman think he is Scottish? Grant is a Scottish name, but Leonard of Chios calls him "Grande". Who calls him Grant, except Runciman?

Can anyone help me find an answer?
 
Phrantzes had limited knowledge of Scotland as did most Byzantines. The Scots were associated with Germans due to their stature and barbarous (by Byzantine standards) practices, manners, language and appearance. Don't forget that German meant barabrian so anything/anyone coming from 'that' direction would be given such a label. I'll check though to find another reference when I have some time if this isn't adeuqate for you.

Also, Scottish names would not have been familiar to Byzantines. Byzantine historians therefore gave approximate renderings of names. Runciman is riding on this fact when he translates the name, giving the possible suggestion of Johannes being Scottish.

PS More than likely he was of Germanic descent but I have read it elsewhere claimed that he was Scottish, just can't recall where. Will get back to you though. These things have a habit of popping up.
 
Thanks :goodjob: It is quite obscure. I might eventually ask Michael Angold, our Byzantine Prof. if nothing else is found :eek:
 
I edited the above post (added a line or two).

Professor Michael Angold of Edinburgh University? If so, he will be a treasure trove of information.

PS Is this for an essay?
 
Porphyrogenitos wrote:

Byzantine historians therefore gave approximate renderings of names.

This is true; Byzantine chronicallers had a habit of calling any group they couldn't recognize from southern Russia Turkoi. This has created great confusion among modern scholars, for instance in Hungarian pre-history.
 
Originally posted by Porphyrogenitos


Also, Scottish names would not have been familiar to Byzantines. Byzantine historians therefore gave approximate renderings of names. Runciman is riding on this fact when he translates the name, giving the possible suggestion of Johannes being Scottish.
Click to expand...

Johannes wouldn't be the Scottish part. "Grant" would be. Johannes, as I'm sure you know, is just the Latin version of John. Scottish "soldiers of fortune" were rife in this period, and did serve in France, Germany, Italy and Eastern Europe in large numbers. My guess is that this man can be traced, but if that's what Runciman was doing, then he left us no clues.


Originally posted by Porphyrogenitos
I edited the above post (added a line or two).

Professor Michael Angold of Edinburgh University? If so, he will be a treasure trove of information.
Click to expand...

Yep. But I've been bothering him lately, so I guess I'll go on his annoying list if I e-mail him another question :)
 
Originally posted by Vrylakas
Porphyrogenitos wrote:

Byzantine historians therefore gave approximate renderings of names.

This is true; Byzantine chronicallers had a habit of calling any group they couldn't recognize from southern Russia Turkoi. This has created great confusion among modern scholars, for instance in Hungarian pre-history.
Click to expand...

It may have something to do with the Crimea region (particularly around the city of Cherson) which was occupied by peoples of Turkic origin (the Khazars). This meant that anyone in the vicinity was Turkic (Turk).
 
Originally posted by calgacus


Johannes wouldn't be the Scottish part. "Grant" would be. Johannes, as I'm sure you know, is just the Latin version of John.
Click to expand...

Yes, I wasn't referring to his first name. I meant Johannes Grant as a person but only used his first name. It should read as "giving the possible suggestion of Johannes Grant (the person) being Scottish".

Must be careful how I write around you...;)
 
Originally posted by Porphyrogenitos



Must be careful how I write around you...;)
Click to expand...

Sorry ;)

BTW, I've just e-mailed him the question.

There I go on that annoying list :p

Sorry, my curiosity is just uncontrollable! :eek:
 
Has Michael e-mailed you a respnse yet?
 
Originally posted by Porphyrogenitos
Has Michael e-mailed you a respnse yet?
Click to expand...

Yeah! He responded within a few hours.

I have tried at different times to get to the bottom of this problem
with no
success. I don't know either about the etymology of Grant - whether
it is a
Celtic name or one of those French names like Fraser, Vipont and
Lamont. I
suspect Runciman was just making a nod in the direction of his
Scottish
roots. I suppose the thing in favour of taking Runciman seriously is
that
if this John was a German, he was unlikely to be called Grande or
variant.[
Click to expand...

So, it's all still to do. ;)
 
It is a very minor point and one which people are unlikely to find a suitable answer to. All opinions are as valid as each other. Note that Leonard was a Genoese and so Grant could easily become Grande. On the same note, this name may have been Johannes nickname (a common feature of the Middle Ages), ie. Johannes the Large/Big/Strong (Grande). Taking this train of thought he could well have been a Scot as they were in fact renowned for their prodigious size or a German for that matter (similarly large people). Take your pick. Most historians though simply opt for the German line but footnote the other options as well (Runciman in reverse).

As for another author naming him Grant I have yet to find one (haven't really been looking) but will keep you posted if I run into it.
 
Leonard of Chios' letters and other writings are still under wraps in the Vatican. Perhaps they contain more clarification on this matter. The problem is getting the Vatican to release them (an near impossible feat unless you like paperwork and have Biblical patience).
 
I know this is severe threadomancy, but as it concerns an event 550 years ago and a historical work some 180, the 10 years may be forgiven... (or not)


Porphyrogenitos said:
Leonard of Chios' letters and other writings are still under wraps in the Vatican. Perhaps they contain more clarification on this matter. The problem is getting the Vatican to release them (an near impossible feat unless you like paperwork and have Biblical patience).
Click to expand...

In 1834 in his history of the Ottoman Empire Joseph Freiherr von Hammer-Purgstall explicitely cites a reference of Leonard of Chios on Johann Grant with "Johannis Grandi Alemani".

he might err, too, of course, but I certainly would like to see the line of though that made Runciman believe Johann to be a Scot. All other references on this seem to come from his estimation.
 
Cheezy the Wiz said:
+1 for epic thread necromancy
+1 for epic justification for thread necromancy
+∞ for actually contributing in a decisive way to the thread which makes it worthwhile!

:hatsoff:
Click to expand...

This! I haven't seen a good necro in a very long while!
 
Much obliged :)

I was just looking for arguments pro or contra "John Grant" being a scot, and found this page with a fitting debate.

On the issue, it seems that Leonards reference to "Johannis Grandi" is the only reason for his being called "Grant", while I would think "the great" is a far better translation of this italian/latin term - with all its possible double-meanings. While he might have been particularly large, his performance at Constantinople certainly also justifies the "great" - as in "splendid".

Any reference to his being a Scotsman stem - as far as I found - from Runciman, or go back to him, and I failed to undig any work of him that explains this, beyond a: "Grant" sounds scottish. As Runciman lived and worked in Istanbul for a couple of years there might be more, and afaik there is no reason why Johann/John should not be Scottish, but I would certainly like to have more then the gut feeling of Runciman for it when all contemporaries call Johann a German. So if anybody knows wether Runciman has written more on this ingenious ingenieur, I would be most pleased - though I would be surprised, as this threat has been dormant for 10 years, and Runciman has left us even before.

Anyway, glad to have found this place :)
 
MaxPuster said:
I know this is severe threadomancy, but as it concerns an event 550 years ago and a historical work some 180, the 10 years may be forgiven... (or not)




In 1834 in his history of the Ottoman Empire Joseph Freiherr von Hammer-Purgstall explicitely cites a reference of Leonard of Chios on Johann Grant with "Johannis Grandi Alemani".

he might err, too, of course, but I certainly would like to see the line of though that made Runciman believe Johann to be a Scot. All other references on this seem to come from his estimation.
Click to expand...

Hats off to you! Great 2nd post, and welcome to the boards!
 
Seems that the issue has not moved much since the original posting, as it is Runciman alone who speculates about Johannes/John being a Scot, and we lack documents on his reasoning.

Alas, many newer sources use his speculation of "may be" as a "given", and while most state that he is "thought to be a German, but probably a Scot" or "a Scot thought by contemporaries to be a German" some do not even mention his likely German heritage anymore - especially novelists take the liberty here. Fiction aside, his wikipedia-entry is listed unter various "Scottish" lists and not at all under Germans.

We seem to see the birth of a "historical myth" here, going back to Runcimans speculation.

A similar (if slightly different) case was started deliberately by Papadopoli in 1726, claiming that Copernicus joined the Polish natio at Padua and thus must have been Polish (while in fact there was no such Polish natio at Padua, and records of Bologna where a Polish natio existed show that Copernikus joined the German natio there before) - a falsification that started some 290 years of - yet inconclusive - debate on Copernicus heritage.

While Runciman certainly did not make his case up (unlike Papadopoli), I am unable yet to find any substantial rationalization of his speculation - at least none that justifies the ongoing "Scottification" of Johannes the engineer.

Imho there is probably documentation out there that may shed more light upon this question, like rolls of muster in Genoa or on Rhodes where Johannes was with, or seems to have joined his Genoese companions - and I would give him a good chance of surviving the fall, which means he could be in local records or paylists for his later engegements (as a princeling or governor I would have hired him if possible).

I *REALLY* like these little facets of history. A mystery and a myth in the making :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom