(2023-07-06,09:16)Nemo123 a écrit : Je pense que nous nous faisons tous mal sur cette statue.
Le vrai document historique est la représentation de constantinoble de Hartmann Schedel, dans ses chroniques du monde/ chronique de Nuremberg
Dessus, il s'agit d'une vrai statue équestre.

La litérrature nous indique qu'il s'agit de la colonne de Justinien sur la place augustaion.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233496914_The_Representations_of_Constantinople_in_Hartmann_Sehedel's_World_Chronicle_and_Related_Pictures


Ce document nous explique dans la partie N°2 un second visuel avec les colonne et l'auteur nous donne plus de détails.

" Originally, the equestrian statue on top of the column had stood in the Forum of Tauros further to the west, and had represented either
Arkadios (395-408), Theodosios I (379-395) or Theodosios II (408- 450).2°
Under Justinian I (527-565) it was transferred to the Augustaion and was erected under the emperor’s own name, perhaps with a new
head.
In the Late Byzantine period it was often said to be a depiction of Constantine and this is how it is described in Schedel’s text.
It is not entirely clear from the text whether the lightning destroyed the statue or the The second possibility is more likely, since
the statue apparently no longer existed at the time of the thunderstorm. According to Ottoman sources and the report of the Venetian G.M.
Angiolello, who was a prisoner in Constantinople between 1470 and 1482, it had been destroyed on the orders of Mehmet Fatih (1451-
1481), because his fortune-tellers considered it to be a talisman of the Considering the general accuracy of the representation
of the city in this wood-cut, it is hard to explain why it should show the column in its original form. The presence of the statue has been
explained by the assumption that some details of the picture are not contemporary, as for example the cross on one of the towers of Hagia
But since these towers are actually minarets and had no byzantine predecessors, this is no proof for the use of a pre-conquest
source."


Enfin, le document qui est l'origine de notre illustration, pour la chasse, n'est pas celui ci, mais se base dessus d'apres moi.
Il se trouve dans un musée et ni l'auteur ni la date n'est mentionnée. Par contre c'est sa position dans le musée qui semble ressortir.
Ma conclusion personnelle est donc que ce personnage a peu d'importance, mais ce à quoi il nous amène en a plus.
Elle pourrait etre "celle qui manque"