Profile | Antonia Gatward Cevizli

Mavi Boncuk |

Antonia Gatward Cevizli

Course Leader, Foundations of Western Art, Semester Program, London
Contacta.gatward[at]sothebysinstitute[dot]com

PhD, University of Warwick
MA University of Warwick
BA (Hons), University of Birmingham

Antonia Gatward Cevizli's primary specialism is the Italian Renaissance with particular focus on cultural-exchange between Italy and the Islamic world. In the course of her studies she spent a year at the University of Siena Statale and also lived in Venice. However, her interests are wide-ranging. She has lectured on 15th-century Italian art for the Victoria and Albert Museum, and taught Modern Art from Impressionism to Pop at Sabancı University, Istanbul. She worked as a gallery lecturer across the collections of Tate Modern and Tate Britain for a number of years. In addition to Western art, Antonia has a strong interest in the Ottoman Empire and ran the Courtauld Institute summer school Art of the Sultans: Ottoman Art and Architecture for several years.

Publications

"Portraits, Turbans and Cuirasses: Material Exchange between Mantua and the Ottomans in the 1490s," in Global Gifts: The Material Culture of Diplomacy in Early Modern Eurasia, ed. Zoltán Biedermann, Anne Gerritsen and Giorgio Riello (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2018).

"R Mutt’s Fountain: Art literally turned pear-shaped: Duchamp’s Word Play" in National Gallery of Canada Review, 9 (May 2018).

"Review of Incontri di Civiltà nel Mediterraneo, ed. Alireza Naser Eslami," in Speculum, 93, n.1 (2018).

“Mehmed II, Malatesta and Matteo De’ Pasti: A Match of Mutual Benefit Between the ‘Terrible Turk and a ‘Citizen of Hell” in Renaissance Studies, 31, n. 1 (2017), 43-65.

“Bellini, Bronze and Bombards: Sultan Mehmed II’s Requests Reconsidered” in Renaissance Studies, 28, n. 5 (2014), 748-765.

“More than a Messenger: Embodied Expertise in Mantuan and Ottoman Envoys in the 1490s” in Mediterranean Studies, 23 (2014), 166-189.ABSTRACT

‘Bellini, Bronze and Bombards: Sultan Mehmed II’s Requests Reconsidered’

in Renaissance Studies, 28, n. 5 (2014), 748-765.

Gentile Bellini’s portrait of the Ottoman sultan Mehmed II, painted in 1480 during the artist’s stay in the Ottoman capital, has become emblematic of cultural exchange between Italy and the Ottomans. However, Bellini’s prominent role in subsequent historiography results from the level of preserved documentation for his visit and the survival of both his painted portrait and his portrait medal rather than a pre-eminent position at the Ottoman court. A re-consideration of the documents of the Venetian Senate in 1479–1480 will alter the perspective from which this episode is usually viewed, giving Bellini a less central role and indicating that the contemporary mission of the bronze founder Bartolomeo Bellano was of no less importance. The documents highlight the sultan’s eagerness to obtain bronze founders from Venice at the same time that he was requesting them from Florence. The requests for bronze founders have been interpreted as a sign of Mehmed’s enthusiasm for portrait medals. This explanation will be questioned and it will be argued that the sultan’s interest in bronze founders extended beyond their artistic production and related as much to cannon technology as it did to portrait medals.

Antonia Gatward Cevizli

ABSTRACT

Mehmed II, Malatesta and Matteo De’ Pasti: A Match of Mutual Benefit Between
The ‘Terrible Turk’ and a ‘Citizen of Hell’

Currently published online in Early View of Renaissance Studies DOI: 10.1111/rest.12183
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/rest.12183/abstract

In 1461 the notorious Sigismondo Pandolfo Malatesta, Lord of Rimini, sent his court artist Matteo De’ Pasti to portray the Ottoman sultan Mehmed II. The artist never reached his destination, being arrested as a spy by Venetian authorities in Crete. Despite the mission’s failure it has as much to contribute to our understanding of Italian–Ottoman relations as other fruitful visits. Malatesta had selected Valturio’s military treatise De re militari along with maps of Italy as gifts for the sultan. The treatise has been dismissed by many as having no practical use. However, this is to overlook the fact that it explained developments in Italian military architecture that would have been beneficial to the Ottomans. Furthermore, it will be argued that De’ Pasti’s services could have extended beyond the production of portrait medals by bringing to light his experience as an inspector of fortifications. The gifts that were sent and the knowledge possessed by the loaned artist highlight the diversity of attitudes to be found within the Italian city-states towards the ostensible enemy. In fact, the fractured political system of the Italian peninsula will be shown to have been fertile ground for the nurturing of this obliging friendship with the Ottomans.

Abstract

Antonia Gatward Cevizli

“Portraits, Turbans and Cuirasses: Material Exchange between Mantua and the Ottomans at the End of the Fifteenth Century”

The small, landlocked state of Mantua may seem an unlikely court to have formed a friendship with the Ottoman Sultan. However, the 1490s were a period of intense diplomacy between Francesco II Gonzaga and Bayezid II who both had much to gain from such an arrangement. A number of gifts were exchanged although their only trace is in the correspondence between the two rulers. Analysing these gifts reveals much about the nature of this relationship. As was customary, textiles were exchanged and through them messages about the giver’s power and wealth and also the perceived status of the receiver were communicated. The Ottoman envoy received robes in the finest fabrics that Francesco could find. The sultan bestowed a robe of honour on Francesco, who was probably oblivious to the connotations of vassalage. Other gifts were unusual: portraits sent to the sultan and a turban given to Francesco. Furthermore, in defiance of a papal ban on the sending of war materials to the infidel, Francesco sent sought-after Italian armour to the Ottomans. In fact, the fractured political system of the Italian city-states offered fertile ground for the nurturing of such a friendship with the Ottomans which enhanced the status of the Mantuan court.

1

This article is published in final form in in Mediterranean Studies, 23 (2014),
166-189.
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/mediterranean_studies/v022/22.2.cevizli.html
MORE THAN A MESSENGER:
EMBODIED EXPERTISE IN MANTUAN ENVOYS
TO THE OTTOMANS IN THE 1490S
Antonia Gatward Cevizli, Sotheby's Institute of Art, London.
ABSTRACT: The 1490s saw a period of intense diplomatic activity between Francesco II Gonzaga,
Marquis of Mantua (regn. 1484–1519), and the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid II (regn. 1481–1512).
Envoys are often overlooked while attention is paid to the messages or goods that they delivered. This
article, however, examines two important envoys in detail and argues that they were chosen for the
specific military and technical skills that they possessed. Both envoys delivered armor to the
Ottomans in defiance of a papal ban. The nature of the goods that were sent and the backgrounds of
the envoys brings nuance to the notion of a uniformly adversarial relationship between the Italian
city-states and the Ottomans.
Keywords: diplomacy; Mantua; Ottoman; armor; fortifications; Gonzaga; Bayezid II; envoys.
INTRODUCTION
The 1490s saw a period of intense diplomatic activity between Francesco II
Gonzaga, Marquis of Mantua (regn. 1484–1519), and the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid II
(regn. 1481–1512). Studies of diplomatic exchange tend to focus on the messages
and gifts that were transmitted rather than on the messengers who carried them. This
article, however, examines the two principal Mantuan envoys from a biographical
standpoint and argues that they were not simply career diplomats but that they were
chosen for the specific military and technical skills that they possessed, making them
important avenues of exchange themselves. That Italian armor was being delivered 
2
by Mantuan military men in defiance of a papal ban highlights the diverse nature of
the interactions between the Italian city-states and the Ottomans, interactions which
are often overshadowed by Venice’s predominant place in the historiography.
THE MANTUAN-OTTOMAN DIPLOMATIC RELATIONSHIP
Prior to examining the diplomatic missions themselves, the motivations
behind the development of the rather unlikely friendship between the sultan and a
marquis of a landlocked state must be examined. Hans Joachim Kissling’s seminal
research on Francesco II Gonzaga’s relations with Sultan Bayezid II reveals the
intensity of contact between the two states during the 1490s.
1 Between 1491 and
1500 at least one Mantuan envoy was sent to the Ottoman court every year – with
the possible exception of 1499.2 These visits continued with slightly less frequency
in the next decade. The Ottoman ambassador, Kasım Bey, spent six days in Mantua
in 1493 and was received with great pomp and pageantry.3 He stayed a second time
in 1494 and another Ottoman envoy named Davud visited Mantua in 1495.4
These were the years when Francesco was asserting his authority as Marquis
of Mantua and consolidating his growing power. For a small state sandwiched
between the Duchy of Milan and the Republic of Venice, the search for allies was
important. Friendship with the sultan, which brought with it the Ottomans’ offer to
give Francesco whatever services he might command, was a considerable asset on
the chessboard of European politics.
5 Venice’s relationship with Bayezid was
somewhat strained during these years since the Venetians were not permitted to have
a bailo (resident consul and ambassador) in the Ottoman capital.6 The sultan’s
preferential attitude towards Mantua at this time is clear from the Mantuan envoy
Bernardino Missaglia’s report of his first mission to Istanbul in 1491 in which he
relates that he had been more honored than the ambassadors of Naples or Florence.7
3
Bayezid’s power too was not yet fully secure. Since the Ottomans did not
follow the principle of primogeniture, his younger half-brother, Prince Cem, was a
rival for the Ottoman throne.
8
In 1482, having been defeated by Bayezid, Cem had
departed for Rhodes in search of refuge with the Knights of Saint John. The Knights,
however, struck a lucrative deal with Bayezid and the rest of Cem’s life was to be
spent in captivity in Europe: first in France and then, from 1489, in the Vatican, until
his death in Capua near Naples — once again in French custody — in 1495.9 While
Cem was alive and held hostage in Europe he was a threat to Bayezid on two counts:
his own subjects could turn against him in favour of Cem’s return or a foreign ruler
could use the pretender to attack the Ottoman Empire in return for territorial
concessions.
Bayezid’s adoption of a less belligerent foreign policy than that of his father,
Sultan Mehmed II, is a direct consequence of the threat posed by the exiled Cem,
rather than something that can simply be explained by their contrasting personalities.
Looking back on the modest territorial expansion of Bayezid’s reign, Machiavelli
considered him weak and insignificant and observed that a second ruler like Bayezid
would have ruined the Ottoman kingdom.10 However, it was Cem’s captivity that
acted as a deterrent to Bayezid’s territorial aggression, a fact that was recognized by
the Venetian Council of Ten who described him in 1490 as ‘a most precious treasure
of the church’ and ‘a magnificent gift to the Christian religion’.11 The sultan’s
foreign policy became more aggressive after Cem’s death in 1495.
Bayezid’s relations with the Mantuan state were motivated by his need for
accurate and up-to-date information regarding the whereabouts and health of Cem
and the pattern of alliances between the European states. Cem remained central to
Bayezid’s diplomacy even after his death in February 1495. The sultan, apart from 
4
reputedly wishing to provide Cem with an Islamic burial, needed to obtain his
brother’s body as definitive assurance, both personal and public, that his rival was
indeed dead.12 The intensity of Ottoman diplomatic engagement with Mantua must
be understood in the light of Cem’s captivity and the subsequent attempts to retrieve
his body.
MESSAGES, GIFTS, AND THEIR BEARERS
Envoys often remain obscure figures, overshadowed by our preoccupation
with the content of the letters that they conveyed, the gifts exchanged and the reports
that they wrote. Documents held in the Mantuan State Archives yield much fruit in
terms of preserved correspondence between Mantua and the Ottomans – both
incoming and outgoing – and evidence of material exchange, now limited to the
textual record. Some salient examples will be highlighted here before proceeding to
the men who delivered them.
The letters that were sent between the two rulers attest to the informationgathering aspect of Bayezid’s relations with Mantua; in one such example from
March 1495 the sultan asked Francesco to write especially on what was happening in
Italy.13 Following Cem’s death Francesco promised to diligently seek the truth of the
whereabouts of his body out of his love for the sultan (‘per amore de Vostra
Signoria’) although, despite his efforts, he does not ultimately seem to have been
instrumental in the return of the body.
14
Naturally, such diplomatic contact necessitated the exchange of gifts, which
included the customary luxury textiles. Among the other gifts were portraits,
Mantuan cheese and armor sent by Francesco, while the Marquis received horses and
the unusual gift of a turban from the sultan.15 Armor was sent from Mantua to the 
5
sultan and other Ottoman dignitaries on a number of occasions– a matter that we will
be returning to. Francesco's shipments of armor to the Ottomans were in defiance of
a papal ban on the export of war materials to Saracens, Turks, or other enemies of
the faith that dated back to 1363 and was reiterated annually on Maundy Thursday in
the papal bull In coena Domini.
16 Turkish permission for Mantuan agents to buy
horses in Ottoman territory – a requirement given the military importance of horses
– was another important outcome of the relationship between the two states.17 Some
of the most sought-after breeds came from Ottoman territory and Francesco was able
to perfect his breed of racehorses through selective crossing with imported horses.
The envoys who delivered these goods and messages were an important point
of contact between the two states. Biographical research into the two principal
Mantuan envoys – Bernardino Missaglia and Alessio Beccaguto – reveals that the
former came from a prominent family of armorers and that the latter was a military
man who went on to become the chief military engineer of the Gonzaga. Missaglia
and Beccaguto served as envoys to the Ottomans from 1491 and 1492 respectively
until 1495 and were the principal Mantuan envoys to the Ottomans during this
period undertaking seven missions between them. In June 1495 Missaglia and
Beccaguto were replaced as Mantuan envoys by Giorgio di Serbia at the request of
the Ottoman vizier Hersekoğlu Ahmed Pasha. Giorgio di Serbia was another military
man who had served as a member of Francesco’s stradioti unit (mercenaries from
the Balkans) for several years and was a relative of the Ottoman vizier.18 During
Kasım Bey’s first visit to Mantua it is recorded that a certain ‘Zorzo Schiavo’ served
as an interpreter; it is likely that this Zorzo (dialect for Giorgio) was Giorgio di
Serbia.19
6
The skills and knowledge that resided in these envoys makes it likely that
they also exchanged technological or military know-how. Such information could
easily have been transmitted to the Ottomans through personal contact. Studying
these envoys through a biographical approach can develop our understanding of the
less easily quantifiable avenues of exchange that may have opened up through the
individuals involved in diplomacy.
BERNARDINO MISSAGLIA: MANTUAN ENVOY TO THE OTTOMANS
The envoy Bernardino Missaglia (birth and death dates unknown, recorded in
Gonzaga service from 1482) visited the Ottoman Porte three times between 1491 and
1495 and delivered armor to the sultan and his officials.20 In the historiography of
Mantuan–Ottoman diplomatic relations, Missaglia has been no more than a name on
a page. The historian Pietro Ferrato reports only that Missaglia carried out many
duties for Francesco, while Kissling states that there was nothing detailed to be said
about him.21 Bernardino Missaglia has been identified by historians in other contexts
but without any reference to his role as an envoy to the Ottomans. Bringing these
pieces of information together has considerable implications both for the role of the
envoy as an agent of exchange and for what it reveals about the nature of Mantua’s
relationship with the sultan.
In the field of armor, the name Missaglia is a familiar one. Indeed, Vannozzo
Posio draws the analogy: "saying Missaglia at that time was like saying Krupp at the
beginning of the twentieth century" (Posio 1991: 24). In the fifteenth century the
renowned armor of the Milanese Missaglia family was exported all over Europe. By
the 1490s the Gonzaga had been among their clients for over thirty years. Andrea
Mantegna’s Madonna della Vittoria (Fig. 1) altarpiece of 1495 most probably 
7
depicts Francesco II Gonzaga in Missaglia armor, of which the panciera (stomach
armor) alone would have been worth at least as much as the painting.22
A Bernardino Missaglia was present in Mantua as early as 1482; Federico I
Gonzaga (regn. 1478–84) wrote to his envoy in Milan reporting that Bernardino had
ordered various pieces of armor from his father in Milan.23 Posio’s research reveals
that a Bernardino Missaglia was in the service of Francesco II Gonzaga for many
years and was in charge of the Mantuan armory for some time as well as being
entrusted with obtaining horses for the Gonzaga stables.24 The similar nature of the
duties relating to armor and horses that were undertaken by Bernardino Missaglia,
envoy to the sultan, strongly suggests that this was the same man.
NORTHERN ITALIAN ARMOR
The Ottomans not only received armor as gifts but they also purchased it through
Mantuan agents. A letter from the Bolognese humanist, Floriano Dolfo, to Francesco
in February 1504 recounts the scathing things that Cristoforo del Poggio, secretary to
the ruling Bentivoglio family in Bologna, had said about Francesco and his court in
relation to his gifts of armor to the sultan:
And furthermore, that against all reason and justice you have
maintained and continue to maintain friendship and confederacy with
the Grand Turk, the enemy of the Christian faith, and have sent him
presents of arms, that according to our law are prohibited, and there is
no other Lord who would undertake nor dare to commit such a 
8
flagrant act, and he said many other things that were sharper and more
serious than the things said above.
25
Dolfo’s letter reveals that Francesco’s illicit gifts of armor were known to his
contemporaries and that they found his actions scandalous.
The Mantuan envoys Bernardino Missaglia and Alessio Beccaguto both
delivered armor to the Ottomans. We know that armor was sent from Mantua to the
Ottoman sultan at least as early as 1491, since in April 1492 Francesco’s secretary
reported that the gift of some corazzine ( a corazzina is a type of cuirass, i.e., armor
that protected the breast and back), presented to the sultan the previous year by
Missaglia, had pleased him greatly.26 The sultan had requested more corazzine and
six or eight mules (used in this period to carry artillery and provisions).27 In 1492 it
was decided that both Missaglia and Beccaguto would be sent on this errand.
28 In
addition, some of the pashas were to receive a corazzina and panciere from the
Mantuan messengers.29 Such gifts helped to facilitate the horse trade.
Unfortunately, the precise quantities of armor to be delivered are not stated,
but letters from the armorer, Micheleto delle Corazzine, to Francesco provide further
insights. On 26 October 1492 Micheleto informed the marquis that he had done ‘a
lot of work for Your Lordship and especially those works for the Grand Turk’,
hinting that the quantity of armor being made for the Ottomans was considerable.30
Another letter reveals that a recipient of a corazzina made by Micheleto was a
janissary commander called Raynaldo.31 This janissary seems to have escorted
Missaglia back to Italy and continued with him as far as Mantua since their departure
dates from the Ottoman capital coincide.
32 In November 1492 the janissary entered
the workshop in Mantua and without payment took the corazzina that the armorer 
9
had made for him by force. The situation escalated when the janissary took
Micheleto by the hair and assaulted him, ‘dealing him many blows’ before the two
were separated.33
As we have seen, it was not only Bayezid who enjoyed access to such goods
but also his pashas and at least one janissary. Furthermore, in 1494 Francesco sent a
certain Messer Andrea to Vlorë (an important port city in what is now Albania) with
instructions to obtain ten or twelve horses.34 Mustafa Bey, the sancakbeyi (governor
of a sub-province) of Vlorë, then wrote to Francesco requesting a panciera, ‘even
though it would cost a hundred ducats’ and sent Messer Andrea back with his
measurements for a cuirass with a pair of mail sleeves and two or three gorzarini
(gorgets, i.e., armor that protected the throat).35
The sancakbeyi of Shkodër (a city in what is now northwest Albania) Firuz
Bey – considered one of Venice’s most dangerous enemies – also shrewdly exploited
his contact with Francesco in order to obtain armor. One of the routes to the Ottoman
capital taken by the Mantuan envoys was to cross the Adriatic and continue their
journey overland through the province of Shkodër. According to the Venetian
diarist, Marino Sanudo, Firuz Bey had previously visited Mantua as envoy of the
sultan.36 In December 1496 Firuz Bey thanked Francesco for the panciere that he
had sent, which he had been most pleased to receive since ‘such things cannot be
found or bought in these parts’.37 He went on to express his desire to remain supplied
and claimed to have heard about the armor worked ‘in this part’ (‘in questa parte’),
presumably Lombardy or northern Italy in general, and asked Francesco to seek out
a merchant supplied with stomach armor and gorgets.38
Northern Italy was at the forefront of armor technology and Firuz Bey’s
eagerness to obtain armor from this region is a sign of its renown. Italian armorers 
10
used steel with a much lower carbon content which enabled them to forge it into
curved shapes, something which the higher carbon content of the steel used by the
Ottomans severely limited (Williams 1997: 371). Italian armor was generally
hardened by a form of heat treatment. The wearer of Italian plate armor made of
hardened steel had greater protection from swords and arrows than that offered by
mail.
The Ottoman requests for armor focused particularly on corazzine and
panciere. A corazzina was made up of individual metal pieces riveted together with
large curved steel plates across the breast and back for greater protection, it was
generally covered with fabric, such as this earlier example in the Castello Sforzesco
(Fig. 2). An Ottoman equivalent for protection of the torso can be seen in the
Military Museum in Istanbul, which holds the mail shirt of Behram Pasha, the
Beylerbeyi of Rumelia (governor general of the province of the southern Balkans)
who died in 1532 (Fig. 3). A man of his standing would have had some of the most
protective armor available. Behram Pasha’s mail shirt was fitted over the breast and
back with small individual strengthening plates held by mail. An Italian corazzina
with its large plates of steel across the breast and back offered far greater protection.
This explains the Ottomans’ eagerness to obtain armor from Mantua.
The Ottomans' need for more advanced armor was particularly imperative in
the first half of the 1490s when they feared that the French King Charles VIII was
preparing to launch a crusade against them. The early 1490s saw a period of political
and dynastic wrangling which would lead in September 1494 to the French invasion
of the Italian peninsula as Charles began to make his way south to assert the rights of
the House of Anjou to the Kingdom of Naples. Charles presented the recovery of
Naples as the first stage of a crusade against the Turks, since southern Italy would 
11
provide a base from which to cross the Adriatic to Vlorë, gain control of Albania and
Greece and proceed to Constantinople and ultimately to Jerusalem – to which the
kings of Naples had a traditional claim.
39 Fourteenth-century prophecies of the
coming of a ‘second Charlemagne’, such as those of Telesphorus of Cosenza, were
widely applied to Charles VIII in late fifteenth-century France as seen in the writings
of the poet Guilloche de Bordeaux among others.
40 In Florence by late 1494 the fiery
Dominican friar, Domenico Savonarola, was publicly preaching about Charles VIII
in such terms.41
Mustafa Bey, the sancakbeyi of Vlorë, specifically related his requests for
armor from Mantua to the possible forthcoming conflict with the French. He stated
in a letter to Francesco in September 1494 that he needed the armor because he
expected to go to the help of King Alfonso II of Naples – the uncle of Francesco’s
consort, Isabella d’Este – in answer to Alfonso’s request for assistance from the
sultan.42 At this time, Bayezid was gathering troops and artillery on the Albanian
coast around Vlorë and Durrës in preparation for the potential crusade.43 The
Ottomans were well aware of the military might of the French king and it is
significant that they were seeking to obtain plate armor at this time (Vatin 2001: 86-
88). It is testament to the complexities of cross-cultural relations in this period that
armor sent from Mantua to the Ottomans could have been used to protect the
Ottomans against the French had the crusade gone ahead. Religious ideological
concerns were of little consequence to Francesco in comparison to the delicate
balance of power within the Italian peninsula. Friendship with Bayezid bolstered
Francesco’s power and influence with other Italian states, and the sale of armor was
part of the currency of that relationship. Even the pope was not enthusiastic about
12
this particular crusade since he considered French hegemony in the Italian peninsula
too high a price to pay.
44
The importance of armor in Francesco’s sustained relations with Bayezid,
Mustafa Bey and Firuz Bey throws into sharp relief the significance of the choice of
Bernardino Missaglia as a Mantuan envoy to the Ottomans. Since information about
Bernardino Missaglia’s background has been isolated from his role as envoy to the
Ottomans, he has been seen as no more than a messenger who transported goods
across the Adriatic. However, uniting the two strands of research gives us some
indication of why he was chosen for the role. It was a common practice for armorers
to both measure and fit their clients (Hale 1998: 220). For example, in 1464 Philip
the Good, Duke of Burgundy, called another member of the Missaglia family –
Francesco Missaglia – to his court to measure him for three suits of armor
(Belozerskaya 2005: 170). The fact that this task was not delegated to somebody
already at the court is a sign of the importance of the armorer’s expert knowledge
and experience. In addition to delivering armor to the Ottomans, Bernardino
Missaglia may have been taking measurements for future commissions and perhaps
offering advice on different types of armor.
ALESSIO BECCAGUTO: MANTUAN ENVOY TO THE OTTOMANS
The other principal Mantuan envoy to the Ottomans from 1492-1495 was
Alessio Beccaguto (c. first half of 1470s - 1528). Ostensibly, his sole purpose was to
purchase horses. Ferrato describes Beccaguto as a famous captain and military
architect and Kissling notes the envoy’s ‘rare combination of military and diplomatic
skills’.45 However, these military skills are not discussed further by either writer and
seem to have been considered tangential in the context of his diplomatic duties. 
13
Beccaguto went on to become military engineer to the Gonzaga family and
designed the city’s defence system. He was given the commission to renew the
fortifications of Mantua during Francesco’s rule and, following the Marquis’s death
in 1519, his role was confirmed in a decree by Federico II Gonzaga, which describes
Beccaguto as ‘a very knowledgeable man in military matters’.46 Only small portions
of the city’s defence system designed by Beccaguto have survived (Fig. 4), resulting
in the loss of the most overt sign of the esteem in which he was held: the bastion
dedicated to Saint’ Alessio in his honor (Davari 1875: 9). All that remains is a large
high relief sculpture of Saint Alessio (Fig. 5) in the Museo della Città, Mantua, that
once adorned the bastion. Beccaguto’s reputation was still high in the nineteenth
century when the historian Stefano Davari described him as ‘a most distinguished
fellow citizen of Mantua’ (Davari 1875: 5; distintissimo concittadino).
Beccaguto’s role as a military engineer is separated in time from his missions
to the Ottomans by around twenty years and was the culmination of a successful
military career. Immediately after his missions to the Ottomans, Beccaguto was a
companion in arms of Francesco at the Battle of Fornovo in July 1495 where he was
in charge of 600 Mantuan horsemen. He also fought with Francesco at Novara,
Naples and Genoa (Davari 1875: 7). Beccaguto would clearly have been
knowledgeable on a range of military matters including armor, weapons and
fortifications.
In 1498 Beccaguto was entrusted with inspecting the fortifications at
Ostiglia, an important stronghold in the Gonzaga territory that was of strategic
interest for control of the river Po and for guarding the borders with Venice and
Ferrara. The inspection of the fortifications at Ostiglia was a great responsibility for
a young man and Beccaguto himself seems to have felt the burden. In May 1498 he 
14
wrote to Isabella d’Este describing the serious degradation of the fortresses and
requested the presence of the renowned military engineer, Giovanni da Padova, who
by this time was around seventy years old. Beccaguto explained to Isabella that he
did not want to do anything without the presence of a mature and expert person since
he was a young man without too great an expertise.47 He was probably being rather
cautious since he added: ‘although it is certain that Messer Giovanni will be pleased
with my judgement’, indicating a considerable degree of knowledge.48 Isabella’s
reply also suggests that Beccaguto was being over modest; with warm words of
encouragement she stated that she and Francesco were ‘very satisfied’ with his
work.49 Indeed, Beccaguto would not have been entrusted with such a significant
task if he were not considered to have been of sufficient ability.
'MILITARY MATTERS': ITALIAN RENAISSANCE FORTIFICATIONS
A ‘military matter’ that Beccaguto would have been well-informed of is the
developments in Italian military architecture that responded to the demands of
cannon warfare. By the 1490s Italian architectural theorists had long recommended
that fortresses be constructed in polygonal shapes with inclined walls and angled
bulwarks from which artillerymen could protect adjacent sections of the wall,
offering much greater protection than tall, strictly vertical curtain walls with rounded
towers, which left areas of dead ground.
50 Such innovations were being put into
practice in this period; a notable example is Poggio Imperiale in Tuscany, designed
by Giuliano da Sangallo and built 1488-1511 (Fig. 6). The visit of a Venetian
proveditore (district governor) to Mantuan territory in 1493 to examine and learn
from the fortress of Ponte Molino near Ostiglia – now in ruins – testifies to the
advanced nature of the fortifications within Gonzaga territory. The Venetian had 
15
been sent there since the fortress of Ponte Molino was a ‘great’ and ‘terrible’ fortress
and ‘San Marco does not have one similar in the terra ferma’.51
The Ottomans had already gained some access to current information on
developments in Italian military architecture before Beccaguto's visits. Benedetto
Dei, a merchant and Florentine spy, recorded in his Cronica of the years 1400 to
1500 that in 1466 the Florentines had assisted the Ottomans in the construction of ‘il
chastello de la Grecia’, which he called ‘Vitupero’ (Infamy); he added that the
Florentines had also showed the Ottomans how to arrange thirty large cannon around
it.
52 The Castle of Vitupero has been identified by Franz Babinger as the fortress of
Kilitbahir (Lock of the Sea) (Fig. 7) on the European side of the entrance of the
Dardanelles, comprising a central tower surrounded by a trefoil-shaped enclosure
which was originally situated within a polygonal outer enclosure.53 The star-shaped
fortress of Yedikule (Seven Towers) (Fig. 8), constructed in 1457–58, on the shores
of the Sea of Marmara in Istanbul is often cited as an example of Italian influence on
Ottoman fortifications since its pentagonal shape corresponds to the
recommendations of Italian architectural theorists, although it predates any such
example that was built in Italy.
54 While Yedikule was a significant step forward in
terms of Ottoman fortifications, its strictly vertical walls and tall rounded towers did
not offer the same protection as the steeply sloping walls and lower towers that were
emerging in Italy at this time.
55
Bayezid’s envoy to Mantua, Kasım Bey, was also a military man; by April 1496
he had become the Kapudan (commander of the fleet) of Vlorë.56 His interest in
fortifications on his first visit to Mantua in 1493 is documented. A letter updating
Francesco concerning the Ottoman ambassador and his retinue’s progress toward
Mantua reported that Kasım Bey wanted to understand more about the fortress and 
16
palace of Mantua and control of the river with ‘very great insistence’ and that the
Mantuan officials that were accompanying him through Francesco’s territory gave
him ‘very full’ answers.57 Kasım Bey also particularly wanted to know whether
Mantua was stronger than Ferrara and had been told that there was no comparison
between them but that Francesco had understood that Mantua was the strongest and
most renowned in Italy.58 Kasım Bey’s interest in Ferrara is notable; just a few days
earlier he had snubbed the Ferrarese court’s offer of hospitality, preferring to stay in
a hostelry instead, presumably on account of the Ferrarese court’s pro-French
sympathies.59
As Kasım Bey travelled by boat along the Po from Ferrara to Mantua, he would
have seen a number of castles and fortresses, which, by 1493, would have been
reinforced to update them for modern warfare. The Ottomans were also modernizing
their existing fortifications at this time with very similar amendments to those being
made in Italy. During these years they were upgrading their fortifications in the
Balkans by adding slightly sloping outer walls that were lower than the previous
ones, polygonal towers and positions for cannons.60 Information gathered by Kasım
Bey and perhaps supplemented by discussion at subsequent meetings with Alessio
Beccaguto could have been extremely helpful in this regard. One of the aspects that
they might have talked about was the angle at which the walls should be sloped; the
Ottomans were only employing slightly sloping walls in contrast to the steep sloped
walls of Italian fortifications – back in 1455 Roberto Valturio’s treatise De re
militari had recommended that scarp walls should be inclined ‘like a pyramid’.61 The
contemporary development of angled bastions in Italy could also have been a topic
of discussion. Oral communication of such details could be the most effective as
demonstrated by a letter written some years later in 1522 to Federico II Gonzaga in 
17
which a castellano (commander of a castle) reports on Beccaguto’s plans for the city
walls of Mantua, adding that the details of which ‘he could explain better orally than
in writing’.62
The scope for exchange of information of a military nature could certainly have
continued after 1495, when Missaglia and Beccaguto were replaced by Giorgio di
Serbia at the Ottoman vizier’s request. Archival documents only refer to the
information-gathering aspect of Giorgio di Serbia’s role; he was asked to keep the
Ottomans abreast of the affairs of Christendom.
63 However, as a stradiot, he would
also have been well-informed on military matters.64 In 1496 another stradiot,
Bernardino d’Alessio, was sent to the Ottoman capital and in 1499 he is recorded to
have visited Shköder where he delivered gifts for Firuz Bey.65
KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER
The importance of experience and observation over the written word in the
acquisition of technical knowledge has been emphasized by Pamela Smith in her
research on artisans in the early modern period (Smith 2004). The significance of
individual encounters has been apparent in a number of instances in the present
study. Since it was important that an experienced armorer should measure and see
the body to be fitted, the true nature of Bernadino Missaglia’s function as an envoy
to the Ottomans is made clear. Beccaguto himself requested the presence of the
military engineer Giovanni da Padova to look at his work and offer advice; a written
treatise on military fortifications would have been much less effective. Similarly,
Kasım Bey took advantage of his personal contacts to learn first hand about the
fortress of Mantua and thus became a source of information himself upon his return. 
18
The individuals themselves, therefore, were important repositories of technical
knowledge.
When an individual is a source of knowledge it remains a matter of
speculation as to whether any useful information is transmitted. It is easier to
monitor the transfer of technological and militarily useful information when objects
are exchanged since some trace is often left in documents regarding their dispatch,
even if the objects themselves do not survive. Missaglia and Beccaguto would
certainly have built relationships with those they met through the seven visits to
Ottoman territory undertaken between them from 1491-1495. When Kasım Bey was
robbed near Senigallia (a port town just north of Ancona) in 1494 on his way to
Rome, for example, Francesco sent Missaglia – whom Kasım Bey already knew – to
bring him to Mantua and later to accompany him back to the Ottoman capital. On
another occasion Missaglia was accompanied on the long journey back from Istanbul
to Mantua by the janissary Raynaldo.66 There is no evidence of what topics
Missaglia and the Ottoman military men talked about. The only documentation of a
discussion is Kasım Bey’s questions about the fortress of Mantua and his enquiry as
to whether Mantua was stronger than Ferrara, which would certainly have involved
commentary on the fortifications of both cities.
Improved military technology is known to have passed to the Ottomans from
Europe through a number of routes, such as the employment of foreign technicians
in the cannon foundry, the importing of material goods, such as armor, from Mantua,
and the involvement of Florentines in the construction of Kilitbahir.
67 Personal
contact with individuals is likely to have played a significant role in the transmission
of military technology, although this is not always documented. It should be noted
that while weapons and strategic materials were considered merces prohibitae, the 
19
sending of experts themselves was a grey area and could have been an important
avenue for the transmission of technical knowledge.
The oral nature of this kind of knowledge transfer means that it cannot be
directly linked to any particular Ottoman fortification. It would also be difficult – if
not impossible – to trace the transfer of military expertise to a particular individual,
since such information is most likely to have been communicated by several
individuals on a number of occasions over a long period of time. However, the
personal contacts forged among individuals with a military background during this
period of Mantuan–Ottoman exchange certainly provided a number of opportunities
for the transfer of military and technological information.
CONCLUSION
Bernardino Missaglia and Alessio Beccaguto have previously been regarded
as no more than messengers, while attention has been focused on the letters that they
carried, the reports that they sent back and the gifts that they delivered. This article
has demonstrated, however, that the personal encounters between the Mantuan
envoys and Ottoman military men are a route through which know-how in the area
of armor and fortifications could have been transferred. The study of envoys can
enrich our understanding of the various types of exchange that could take place
within the diplomatic sphere. Examining the biographies of other envoys sent across
the Mediterranean may reveal further instances where an individual’s personal
experience and knowledge could have resulted in the delivery of more than a
message or a gift.
In addition to shedding light on the type of knowledge and skills that these
envoys possessed, an examination of their backgrounds also reveals that they were
20
not typical candidates for such a role. Mantuan diplomats in the fifteenth and
sixteenth centuries tended to be chancellery secretaries, alternating between work in
the central administration of government and missions abroad.
68 Missaglia and
Beccaguto presumably did have good administrative and diplomatic abilities but it is
their other skills – rather different from the skills of those with a chancellery
background – that are likely to have recommended them for these missions. The fact
that men with military backgrounds were chosen to deliver illicit goods to the
ostensible enemy makes it all the more likely that Missaglia and Beccaguto were
much more than messengers. On a broader level, the kinds of envoys that were sent
from Mantua and their delivery of armor bears witness to the diversity of attitudes
towards the Ottomans that were to be found from city-state to city-state in fifteenthcentury Italy.
21
WORKS CITED
Archival Sources
Archivio di Stato di Mantova, Archivio Gonzaga (hereafter ASMn, AG):
ASMn, AG, Libri dei Decreti, b. 35
ASMn, AG, b. 86
ASMn, AG, b. 795
ASMn, AG, b. 2441
ASMn, AG, b. 2443
ASMn, AG, b. 2444
ASMn, AG, b. 2452
ASMn, AG, b. 2904
ASMn, AG, b. 2962
ASMn, AG b. 2991
ASMn, AG, b. 2992
Printed Sources
Abulafia, David ed. 1995. The French Descent into Renaissance Italy, 1494-95: Antecedents
and Effects. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
Ágoston, Gábor. 2001. “Merces Prohibitae: The Anglo—Ottoman Trade in War Materials
and the Dependence Theory.” Oriente Moderno 20: 177–92.
Ágoston, Gábor. 2005. Guns for the Sultan: Military Power and the Weapons Industry in
the Ottoman Empire. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Alberti, Leon Battista. 1485/1966. L’architettura/ De re aedificatoria, eds. Renato Bonelli
and Paolo Portoghesi, trans. Giovanni Orlandi. 2 vols. Milan, Italy: Polifilo.
Aşıkpaşazade, Ahmed. c. 1484/2007. Osmanoğullarının tarihi: Tevârîh-i Âl-i Osmân. eds.
Kemal Yavuz and M. A. Yekta Saraç. Istanbul, Turkey: Gökkube.
Babinger, Franz. 1963. “Lorenzo de’ Medici e la corte ottomana.” Archivio storico italiano
121: 305–61.
22
Belozerskaya, Marina. 2005. Luxury Arts of the Renaissance. Los Angeles, CA: J. Paul
Getty Museum.
Bisaha, Nancy. 2004. Creating East and West: Renaissance Humanists and the Ottoman
Turks. Philadelphia, PA: Pennsylvania University Press.
Bourne, Molly. 2008. “Mantegna’s Madonna della Vittoria and the Rewriting of Gonzaga
History.” The Patron’s Payoff: Conspicuous Commissions in Italian Renaissance
Art. ed. Jonathan K. Nelson and Richard J. Zeckhauser. Princeton, NJ and Oxford,
UK: Princeton University Press. 167–83.
Coco, Carla and Flora Manzonetto. 1985. Baili veneziani alla sublime porta: storia e
caratteristiche dell’ambasciata veneta a Costantinopoli. Venice, Italy: Stamperia di
Venezia.
Ćurčić, Slobodan. 2010. Architecture in the Balkans from Diocletian to Süleyman the
Magnificent. New Haven, CT; London, UK: Yale University Press.
Davari, Stefano. 1875. Cenni storici intorno ad opera di fortificazione della citta di
Mantova del secolo XVI. Mantua, Italy: Eredi Segna.
Davari, Stefano. 1897/1975 2nd edn. Notizie storiche topografiche della città di Mantova
nei secoli XIII, XIV e XV. Mantua, Italy: A. Sartori.
Dei, Benedetto. 1492/1984. La cronica dall'anno 1400 all'anno 1500. ed. Roberto Barducci,
Fonti e studi, 1. Florence, Italy: Papafava.
Dolfo, Floriano. 2002. Lettere ai Gonzaga. ed. Marzia Minutelli. Rome, Italy: Edizioni di
storia e letteratura.
Durrieu, P. 1912. “La délivrance de la Grèce projetée en France à la fin du quinzième
siècle.” Revue d’histoire diplomatique 26: 333–51.
Ferrari, Daniela. 1999. La città fortificata: Mantova nelle mappe ottocentesche del
Kriegsarchiv di Vienna. Il Giardino delle Esperidi, 10. Modena, Italy: Il Bulino.
23
Ferrato, Pietro. 1876. Il marchesato di Mantova e l’impero ottomano alla fine del secolo XV.
Mantua, Italy: Mondovì.
Frigo, Daniela. 2000. “‘Small States’ and Diplomacy: Mantua and Modena.” Politics and
Diplomacy in Early Modern Italy: The Structure of Diplomatic Practice, 1450–1800.
ed. Daniela Frigo. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 147–75.
Gatward Cevizli, Antonia. Forthcoming. “Portraits, Turbans and Cuirasses: Material
Exchange between Mantua and the Ottomans in the 1490s”. Global Gifts: Material
Culture and Diplomatic Exchange between Asia and Europe, 1500–1800. eds.
Zoltan Biedermann, Anne Gerritsen and Giorgio Riello.
Gelli, Jacopo and Gaetano Moretti. 1903. Gli armaroli milanesi: i Missaglia e la loro casa.
Milan, Italy: U. Hoepli.
Giorgio Martini di, Francesco. 1482/1841. Trattato di architettura civile e militare di
Francesco di Giorgio Martini, architetto senese del secolo XV, ed. Cesare Saluzzo.
Turin, Italy: Chirio e Mina.
Hale, J. R. 1998. War and Society in Renaissance Europe. Stroud, UK: Sutton.
Howard, Deborah. 2005. “Venice, the Bazaar of Europe.” Bellini and the East (exhibition
catalogue, Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, Boston, 14 December 2005–26 March
2006; National Gallery, London, 12 April 2006–25 June 2006), eds. Caroline
Campbell and Alan Chong. London, UK: National Gallery. 12–31.
Kissling, Hans Joachim. 1965. Sultan Bajezid’s II. Beziehungen zu Markgraf Francesco II.
von Gonzaga. Munich, Germany: Max Hueber.
Kissling, Hans Joachim. 1967. Francesco II Gonzaga ed il Sultano Bayezid II. Florence,
Italy: L. S. Olschki.
24
Kritovoulos of Imbros. 1467/1954/1970. History of Mehmed the Conqueror. trans. Charles
T. Riggs. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lamansky, Vladimir. 1884/1968. 2nd edn. Secrets d'état de Venise: documents, extraits,
notices et études servant a éclaircir les rapports de la Seigneurie avec les Grecs, les
Slaves et la Porte ottomane à la fin du XVe et au XVIe siècle., 2 vols. New York,
NY: Franklin.
Machiavelli, Niccolò. 1531/1996. Discourses on Livy. trans. Harvey C. Mansfield and
Nathan Tarcov. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Malacarne, Giancarlo. 2003. I signori del cielo: la falconeria a Mantova al tempo dei
Gonzaga. Mantua, Italy: Artiglio.
Menavino, Giovanni. 1548. I cinque libri della legge, religione et vita de turchi. Florence,
Italy.
Pedani, Maria Pia. 1994. In nome del Gran Signore: inviati ottomani a Venezia dalla caduta
di Costantinopoli alla guerra di Candia. Miscellanea di studi e memorie, 30. Venice,
Italy: Deputazione editrice.
Posio,Vannozzo. 1991. Le armature delle Grazie tra storia e leggenda. Modena, Italy:
Mucchi.
Potter, David. 2008. Renaissance France at War: Armies, Culture and Society c. 1480–
1560. Woodbridge, UK and Rochester, NY: Boydell Press.
Reeves, Marjorie. 1969. The Influence of Prophecy in the Later Middle Ages. A Study in
Joachimism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Restle, Marcell. 1981. “Bauplanung und Baugesinnung unter Mehmet II. Fâtih.” Pantheon
39: 361–7.
25
Rodella, Giovanni. 1988. Giovanni da Padova: un ingegnere gonzaghesco nell’età
dell’Umanesimo. Quaderni del Dipartimento di conservazione delle risorse
architettoniche e ambientali, 5. Milan, Italy: Franco Angeli.
Sanudo, Marino. 1533/1969. I diarii di Marino Sanuto: 1496–1533 dall' autografo
Marciano ital. cl. VII cod. CDXIX–CDLXXVII. ed. Rinaldo Fulin and others, 59
vols. Bologna, Italy: Forni.
Salmazo, Alberta De Nicolò. 1997. Mantegna. Milan, Italy: Electa.
Setton, Kenneth M. 1976–1984. The Papacy and the Levant 1204–1571. 4 vols.
Philadelphia, PA: American Philosophical Society.
Smith, Pamela H. 2004. The Body of the Artisan: Art and Experience in the Scientific
Revolution. Chicago, IL and London, UK: University of Chicago Press.
Thiec G, le. 2002. “Le roi, le pape et l’otage: la croisade, entre théocratie pontificale et
messianisme royal (1494–1504).” Revue d’histoire de l’eglise de France 88: 41–82.
Valturio, Roberto. 2006. De re militari: umanesimo e arte della guerra tra medioevo e
rinascimento.eds. Paola Delbianco and Agostino Contò. 2 vols. and DVD. Rimini,
Italy: Guaraldi.
Vatin, Nicolas. 1997. Sultan Djem: un prince ottoman dans l'Europe du XVe siècle d’après
deux sources contemporaines, Vakiat-i Sultan Cem, Oeuvres de Guillaume
Caoursin. Ankara, Turkey: Imprimerie de la Société turque d’histoire.
Vatin, Nicolas. 2001. Les ottomans et l’Occident (Xve–XVIe siècles). Analecta Isisiana, 51.
Istanbul, Turkey: Isis.
Williams, Alan. 1997. “Ottoman Military Technology: The Metallurgy of Turkish Armour”
in War and Society in the Eastern Mediterranean: Seventh to Fifteenth Centuries,
ed. Yaacov Lev, The Medieval Mediterranean, 9: 363–98. 
26

* I am very grateful to the Francis Haskell Memorial Fund for sponsoring my research visit to the
Archivio di Stato in Mantua and to the University of Warwick for funding my PhD through a
Postgraduate Research Scholarship. I would also like to thank the editor, Susan Shapiro, and the
anonymous readers for their insightful comments and suggestions.
1 Kissling (1965); summarised in Kissling (1967). See also Ferrato (1876).
2 A Mantuan agent was documented in Shköder (a prominent city in what is now Albania) in 1499,
who delivered gifts for the absent sancakbeyi (a governor of a province), Firuz Bey, but it is not
known whether he continued to the Ottoman capital. See Kissling (1965: 80).
3 Archivio di Stato di Mantova, Archivio Gonzaga (hereafter ASMn, AG), b. 2443, fasc. 10, fols. 312
r–v; ASMn, AG, b. 2443, fasc. 2, fols. 86 r–v; ASMn, AG, b. 2443, fasc. 2, fol. 88r. See also Ferrato
(1876: 8–13); Kissling (1965: 19–25).
4 For Kasım Bey’s visit of 1494, see Kissling (1965: 41). For Davud’s visit, see ASMn, AG, b. 86,
fasc. 16, fol. 94 r. See also Kissling (1965: 46).
5 Such offers were made in March 1494 and April 1496. See ASMn, AG, b. 795, fasc. 15, fol. 46:
‘prego la vostra Excellentia che ce voglia comandar in tutte le cose a nui possibile, perchè ce trovarite
promptissimi a tutti li servicii et comandi de V. Signoria’: ‘I ask your Excellency that you should
command us in anything possible to us because you will find us most ready for all the services and
commands of your lordship.’ See also Ferrato (1876: 5–6). ASMn, AG, b. 795, fasc. 17, fol. 66: ‘simo
pronti e [aparati] qua per ogni cosa che comandarà la Illustrissima Signoria Vostra’: ‘We are ready
and equipped here for anything that your most illustrious lord should command.’See also Kissling
(1965: 59). All translations in this article are my own.
6 Coco and Manzonetto (1985: 26–7). In 1492 the Venetian bailo Girolamo Marcello was dismissed
following the interception of coded letters to Venice which contained secret information, probably of
a military nature. Bayezid had written to the doge stating that a bailo would no longer be needed. The
merchant and future doge Andrea Gritti fulfilled the function of a bailo, but the fact that the official
position remained empty was symbolic.
7 Kissling (1965: 7).
8 Note that alternative spellings of Cem are Jem, Djem and Zizim.
9 For further discussion of Cem’s imprisonment, see Vatin (1997) and Setton (1976–1984: 2.381–
416).
10 Machiavelli (1531/1996: 52–3).
11 Cited in Lamansky (1884/1968: 1.234–5): ‘thesaurum preciosissimum ecclesie Dei ac
saluberrimum munus christiane religionis diligentissime custodiatur ac tutissimum conservetur’.
12 Aşıkpaşazade (1484/2007: 498).
13 ASMn, AG, b. 86, fasc. 16, fol. 94r. See also Kissling (1965: 46). Other examples are ASMn, AG,
b. 2962, lib. 5, fols 2r–3r, a letter to the Ottoman ambassador Kasım in December 1494 (1495
according to the Mantuan calendar) informing him of the situation in Italy and ASMn, AG, b. 86,
fasc. 16, fol. 34r in which the vizier Hersekoğlu Ahmed Pasha comments on Francesco’s negligence
in supplying news of Christendom in a letter dated June 1495. See also Kissling (1965: 50).
14 ASMn, AG, b. 2962, lib. 5, fol. 25r–v: ‘volessimo fare ogni inquisitione per saperlo ad che per
amore de Vostra Signoria non siamo manchati de ogni diligentia per ritrovarne la verita...’: ‘We wish
to make every enquiry to find out about it and out of love for your lordship we have been most
diligent to find out the truth of the matter.’ Cem’s body passed to the King of Naples, Federico I of
Aragon, in 1496. Bayezid eventually received the body in the summer of 1499, apparently hastened
by his ultimatum to Federico that unless it was handed over in eight days he would attack his
kingdom. See Vatin (2001: 83–6).
15 Gatward Cevizli forthcoming.
16 See Ágoston (2001:177–92) for further discussion of merces prohibitae, the goods banned for
export to Islamic countries by papal bull, including metals, timber, ships and horses and the memnu
eşya, goods prohibited for export from Ottoman lands to Christian states, such as horses, metal,
saltpeter and sulphur.
17 ASMn, AG, b. 795, fasc.12, fols 33r-34r. See also Kissling (1965: 6–7).
18 Giorgio di Serbia is also known as Giorgio di Bosnia. For the Ottoman vizier Hersekoğlu Ahmed
Pasha’s request, see ASMn, AG, b. 86, fasc. 16, fol. 34r–v. See also Kissling (1965: 50). Giorgio was
an unlikely choice of envoy; he was no stranger to scandal having killed his wife in 1493 whom he 
27

had caught in the act of adultery, see Kissling (1965: 56). He was, however, connected to the
Herzegovinian house of Kosača to which Hersekoğlu Ahmed Pasha also belonged. Hersekoğlu
Ahmed Pasha (born Stjepan) was the youngest son of Duke Stjepan Vukčić Kosača. He referred to
Giorgio as a gentleman of ‘our house’ (‘gentil homo de li grandi de la casa nostra’), ASMn, AG, b.
795, fol. 83. See also Kissling (1965: 73). A letter from Bayezid describes Giorgio di Serbia as a
relative of those close to the sultan (‘è parente de li nostri stretti’), ASMn, AG, b. 86, fasc. 16, fol.
93v. See also Kissling (1965: 56).
19 ASMn, AG, b. 2443, fasc. 10, fols 313r-314r. See also Malacarne (2003: 283-84).
20 Note that the various spellings of Missaglia include Massaglia, Misalia and Messaglia. Bernardino
Missaglia was in Gonzaga service from 1482, he was in charge of the armory for some time and
responsible for procuring horses for the Gonzaga stables; see Posio (1991: 25-9).
21 Ferrato (1876:16) Kissling (1965: 5).
22 Altarpieces of the size of Mantegna’s Madonna della Vittoria cost an average of 100 ducats, the
same price as the panciera requested by Mustafa Bey, the sancakbeyi of Vlorë. For documentation of
the cost of Mantegna’s altarpiece; see Bourne (2008: 181).
23 Posio (1991: 26). There has been some debate surrounding the parentage of Bernardino. Posio
convincingly demonstrated that he was not the son of Antonio or Giovan Pietro Missaglia but was
instead the son of one of their many brothers or cousins. He emphasized that there is no doubt that he
was from the family of armorers, see 25–6. A Bernardino del Missaglia was included in Gelli and
Moretti (1903: 56–8) and supposed to be a member of the Milanese family of armorers.
24 Posio (1991: 24 and 29) .
25 Dolfo( 2002: 196): ‘et più, che contra ogni rasone et equitate haveti mantenuto et manteneti amicitia
et confederatione cum lo Gran Turcho, nimico de la fede Christiana, et mandatili presenti de arme
che, secondo la lege nostra, sono prohibite, et non è altro Signore che usi nè ardisca operare tale
flagitioso acto, et dicto molte altre parole più brusche et grave de le cose soprascripte’ (‘And
furthermore, that against all reason and justice you have maintained and continue to maintain
friendship and confederacy with the Grand Turk, the enemy of the Christian faith, and have sent him
presents of arms, that according to our law are prohibited, and there is no other Lord who would
undertake nor dare to commit such a flagrant act, and he said many other things that were sharper and
more serious than the things said above’).
26 ASMn, AG, b. 2904, fasc. 141, fols15v–16v. See also Kissling (1965: 7).
27 Kissling (1965: 7). For the use of mules, see the 16th-century account of Giovanni Menavino, a
Genoese captive at Bayezid’s court; Menavino (1548:150).
28 ASMn, AG, b. 2904, fasc. 141, fols15v–16v. See also Kissling (1965: 7).
29 Kissling 1965: 7.
30 ASMn, AG, b. 2441, fol. 250: ‘havendo facto lavorerii assai per Vostra Signoria et maxime quelli
lavorerii del grando turcho...’: ‘having done a lot of work for your Lordship and especially those
works for the Grand Turk’.
31 ASMn, AG, b. 2441, fol. 251. Micheleto described Raynaldo as the head of the janissaries; he was
perhaps the commander of a battalion.
32 Bayezid had written to Francesco on 30 September 1492 granting Missaglia leave to return to
Mantua. Raynaldo is recorded in Mantua in mid-November, a time frame which is feasible if he had
accompanied Francesco’s envoy.
33 ASMn, AG, b. 2441, fol. 251.
34 ASMn, AG, b. 86, fasc. 16, fol. 94r–v. See also Kissling (1965: 38).
35 Ibid.: ‘Per Messer Andrea mando a Vostra Excellentia la misura de una coracina con uno paro di
maniche de maglia et dui o tre gorzarini’.
36 Sanudo (1533/1969: 10.148): ‘...Feris Bei sanzacho de lì, qual fu alias a Mantoa hessendo orator dil
signor turcho fo charezato dal marchese...’. See also Kissling (1965: 109).
37 ASMn, AG, b. 795, fasc. 17, fol. 71: ‘perchè de tal cossa in queste parti non sono a trovare a
camprare’. See also Kissling (1965: 61–2).
38 ASMn, AG, b. 795, fasc. 17, fol. 71: ‘Et noi esendo molto desiderosi de star forniti et intendendo de
le armature lavorate in questa parte supplichamo la Signoria Vostra che per sua benignità et a piazuta
mea voglia fare recherca qualche marchadanto che sia fornido de panciere et gorzarini’. See also
Kissling 1965: 61.
39 For a summary of Charles’ invasion of Italy, see Abulafia (1995: 1-25). Charles publically
presented Naples as an important base for his intended crusade against the Turks. However, his 
28

dynastic and economic interests in the city should not be underestimated. Prince Cem was to play a
role in the planned crusade and Charles demanded that Pope Alexander VI loan him the valuable
hostage. In fact Cem died in French custody in February 1495 before he could be of any use to the
cause and Charles seems to have given up his plans for crusade after Cem’s death. In May 1495
Charles began his march northwards fearful of being cornered in Naples. In July 1495 at Fornovo he
would meet the army of the League of Venice, formed of opponents to French hegemony in Italy, led
by Francesco II Gonzaga.See also Potter (2008: 27–9); Durrieu (1912: 333–51); and Setton (1976–
1984: 2.468).
40 For further discussion, see Reeves (1969: 320–30 and 354–8); le Thiec (2002: 71–6).
41 Bishaha (2004: 40-41).
42 ASMn, AG, b. 86, fascicolo 16, fol. 94r–v: ‘... aciò che habia a mei bisogni perchè credo andar al
socorso del Signor Re Alfonso perchè ha richiesto de questo lo Impterator [sic] nostro’. See also
Kissling (1965: 38).
43 Setton (1976–1984: 2.468).
44 Setton (1976–1984: 2.456).
45 Ferrato (1876: 16n); Kissling (1965: 9).
46 ASMn, AG, Libri dei Decreti, b. 35, fol. 3r–v: ‘viro rei militaris scientissimo’: a very
knowledgeable man in military matters.’ See also Davari (1897/1975: 114).
47 ASMn, AG, b. 2452, fol. 353: ‘Suppliciamo voglia mandare qui Zoan da Padua... Io per non essere
troppo esperto e per essere giovane non vorei senza qualche persona esperta e matura fare alcuna
cosa...’: ‘We beseech you to send Giovanni da Padua here … not being so much of an expert myself
and given that I am young, I don’t want to do anything without an expert and mature person.’ See also
Rodella (1988: 153).
48 ASMn, AG, b. 2452, fol. 353: ‘benche sia certo che ad esso messer Zoan piacera el mio iudicio …’:
‘Although it is certain that this Messer Giovanni will be pleased with my judgement.’ See also
Rodella (1988: 153).
49 ASMn, AG, b. 2992, lib. 9, fol. 56r : ‘la excellentia sua & nui restamo molto satisfacte de le opere
vostre & confortamovi a continuare ne habiati paura de venire in fastichio perche facendo li facti
nostri sempre legerimo voluntieri le lettere vostre ...’: His Excellency and myself remain very
satisfied with your work and we would encourage you to continue not to worry about bothering us
because while going about our affairs we always gladly read your letters…’
50 Alberti (1485/1966: 1.348 and 350; Book 5, Chapter 4); Leon Battista Alberti’s treatise was
completed around 1452 and printed in 1485. One of the shapes he recommended for a citadel was the
form of an ‘O’ with rays running out to an external circuit, he also noted that the outside walls should
have a good slope and that the parts exposed to battery should be semicircular or rather with a sharp
angle like the head of a ship. In Filarete’s Libro architettonico, completed around 1464, the outer
walls of his ideal town, Sforzinda, form an eight-pointed star, for discussion see Restle (1981: 361).
Francesco di Giorgio Martini’s treatise, completed around 1482 and circulated in manuscript, also
emphasised the importance of the ground plan and his designs include bastions, see Giorgio Martini
(1482/1841: 76 and 134-8; Book 3, Chapter 2 and Book 5, Chapter 4).
51 ASMn, AG, b. 2444, fol. 259: ‘La Vostra fortezza è una magna cosa e terribele fortezza. San
Marcho non ha una simile in terra ferma’. Terra ferma was Venice's official name for her possessions
on the Italian mainland.
52 Dei (1492/1984: 164): ‘E allora li Fiorentini ordinarono chol gran turcho che di fatto e’ faciessi il
chastello del Vitupero, e llì pose 30 bonbarde grosse chome ’Fiorentini gli mostrarono’.
53 Dei (1492/1984: 122) and Babinger (1963: 359). See also Kritovoulos of Imbros (1467/1954/1970:
186 and 197); this 15th-century chronicle written by Mehmed’s biographer does not mention any
Florentines in the account of the building of two fortresses opposite each other on the Dardanelles but
the account of the completion and arming of those forts in 1464 corresponds roughly with the date
given by Dei.
54 For discussion of developments in Ottoman fortress architecture after 1453 and the writings of
Alberti and Filarete, see Restle 1981: 361. Deborah Howard has proposed that the direction of
influence may have been from east to west instead; Howard (2005: 17).
55 For an analysis of Yedikule, see Ćurčić (2010: 712-14).
56 ASMn, AG, b. 795, fasc. 17, fol. 66; Kasım Bey signed his letter to Francesco with his new title.
See also Kissling (1965: 59).
29

57 ASMn, AG, b. 2444, fol. 368 ‘...volendo intendere cum grandissima instantia di la forteza di
Mantua e dil Seraglio dimandando dove usciva il fiume di mezzo e s’el potteva essere tolto a la
Excellentia Vostra. Gli fu risposto amplissimamente e honorevolmente: ‘...wanting to understand with
great insistence about the fortress of Mantua and the Palace, asking where the Middle River flowed
and if it could be taken away from Your Excellency. He received very full and honourable replies.’
The river that flows through Mantua is the Fiume di Mincio, which forms three lakes including the
Lago di Mezzo; it seems that Kasım conflated the two in his enquiry about the ‘fiume di mezzo’.See
also Malacarne (2003: 280).
58 ‘Volse intendere particularmente se mantua era piu' forte di Ferrara. Gli fu risposto non esserli
comparatione alchuna dicendo perho' Sua Signoria de havere inteso essere la piu forte de Italia e de
piu reputtatione’: ‘He particularly wanted to understand if Mantua was stronger than Ferrara.He was
told that there was no comparison between them, although his Lordship had understood Mantua to be
the strongest in Italy and of the greatest renown’. See also Malacarne (2003: 280).
59 Kasım Bey’s avoidance of the Ferrarese court is recounted in a letter from Isabella to Francesco,
ASMn, AG b. 2991, lib 3, letter 257, fol. 72r. See also Malacarne (2003: 273 and 276-8).
60 For discussion of specific examples, see Ćurčić (2010: 771-2).
61 Valturio (2006: DVD of the 1483 translation of Valturio’s treatise into Italian by Paolo Ramusio,
fol. 17v) ‘a similanza de pyramide’: ‘like a pyramid’.
62 Part of the letter is published in Ferrari (1999: 31): ‘nella manera che meglio dirò a bocha che la
possa scrivere’: ‘the details of which I can better explain orally than in writing’.
63 ASMn, AG, b. 795, fol. 82. Kissling (1965: 74).
64 The stradiots (or stradioti) were mercenary soldiers from the Balkans who served various foreign
states from the 15th to the 18th centuries.
65 ASMn, AG, b. 795, fasc. 17, fol. 69. See also Kissling (1965: 60-1 and 80). Bernardino d’Alessio is
listed as a stradiot in ASMn, AG, b. 2904, lib. 140, fol. 37r.
66 Bayezid had written to Francesco on 30 September 1492 granting Missaglia leave to return to
Mantua. Raynaldo is recorded in Mantua in mid-November, a time frame which is feasible if he had
accompanied Francesco’s envoy. For the practice of janissaries escorting representatives between
Istanbul and Venice; see Pedani (1994: 45).
67 For foreign cannon founders, see Ágoston (2005: 43 and 46).
68 Frigo (2000:151). Mantuan—Ottoman diplomatic relations per se are not discussed in this study.
30

ILLUSTRATIONS
HTTP://MINI-SITE.LOUVRE.FR/MANTEGNA/IMAGES/SECTION7/ZOOM/07_03.JPG
Figure 1. Andrea Mantegna, The Madonna and Child or Madonna della Vittoria,
1495, oil on canvas, 280 cm x 166 cm, Musée du Louvre, Paris.
Figure 2. Milanese, Corazzina, 1380-1410, steel mail and plates and hemp cloth,
66.5 x 58 cm, Raccolta d’Arte Applicata, Castello Sforzesco, Milan. (Author’s
photograph).
31

Figure 3. Ottoman, Mail shirt of Behram Paşa, Beylerbeyi of Rumelia (d. 1532),
Askeri Müze, Istanbul. Author’s photograph.
Figure 4. Remains of the fortifications of Mantua, first half of the 16th century,
view from the footpath off Vicolo Maestro facing Lago Inferiore, Mantua. Author’s
photograph.
32

To see this image, please refer to the print version of this article.
Figure 5. Unknown sculptor, Saint Alessio, c. 1531, marble, Museo della Città,
Palazzo San Sebastiano, Mantua, 240 x 89 x 52 cm.
HTTP://WWW.BALLOONINTUSCANY.COM/HIGHRESPAGES/AERIAL-PHOTO-OF-ILCASSERO.HTM
Figure 6. Poggio Imperiale, 1488-1511, Poggibonsi, Tuscany.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilitbahir_Castle#/media/File:Kilitbahir.jpg
Figure 7. Kilitbahir Castle, c. 1463-4, near Çanakkale, Turkey.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Scarella_-_Yedikule.png
Figure 8. Francesco Scarella, The Seven Towers Fortress (Yedikule) in Disegni
della Città di Costantinopoli, Cod. 8627, fol. 5r, c. 1685.