Dr Chris Flaherty's 'Ottoman Uniforms' site is useful. I'll repost my comments from TMP of Dec 2013, with new links:

Quote
The stuff on the early period could still do with some work.
On 1600 TILL 1800 JANISSARY CORPS

This picture:

needs a caption as a Janissary by Hans Weigel, 1577

The long white ostrich feather plumes were not invented by Knotel, he based it on a Janissary by Nicolas de Nicolay, 1577

Quote•The Janissary Corps Musketeers' buttoned kaftan is painted in various colours, yet was actually a uniform yellow or blue (as can be seen from these original pictures).

Knotel may have made up the stripes but Ottoman miniatures show also green, red & black. I would have used 'solid colours' rather than "uniform" so as not to give the impression a unit all wore the same colour, unless he can prove they did in the 17th century.

Pictures from an Album of Ottoman Soldiers dated 1805 which I wish he could have identified:

have a long s: ſ in the captions.
Bimbaſcha should be Bimbascha not Bimbalcha.
Janitſcharen should be Janitscharen not Janitjcharen.

On the same page there is a link to a Janissary on my Melchior Lorck, 1570-83, site but no mention that Melchior Lorck has a Janisary with an enourmous plume


Figure A, as he notes in a footnote, appears in The Costume of Turkey, Illustrated by a Series of Engravings, 1802 as "a Spahi, belonging to one of the Asiatic provinces", so he should do away with

Quote•Figure 'A': is identified specifically as a "SIPAHI TIMARIOTE" [1]. Which appears to identify him as a member of the Household cavalry.

I don't know much about 19th century Ottomans but on this page THE FIRST MODERN OTTOMAN ARMY UNIFORMS 1800 TILL 1826 has this claim:

QuoteIt should be noted, that a print illustration of 1808 Ottoman new army soldier clearly identifies a soldier (which can be dated to 1807-08 by the particular headgear he is wearing), as a "Soldier of the Bostandjees, or Corps from the Sultan's Gardeners" (New York Public Library's Digital Gallery, the Vinkhuizjen Collection). This primary evidence presents a very different picture of the origins of the soldiers in the new army, as part of the Sultan's personnel household.

The Vinkhuizjen Collection is not a primary source. Vinkhuizjen cut pictures out of books which were pasted in albums, losing most of the provenance and most of any text in these books. The dates Vinkhuizjen penciled on these are often the date of publication rather than the date the image represents or the date of the art it is based on. This can vary by decades and centuries.
On the NAPOLEONIC OTTOMAN JANISSARY CORPS UNIFORMS page is this image:

which has been stitched together after Vinkhuizjen cut it into pieces (so he had more pictures).
More effort would be needed to find all Vinkhuizjen's sources.
There is no "print illustration of 1808 Ottoman new army soldier" with that date in the Vinkhuizjen Collection but this plate:

dated 1817 by Vinkhuizjen is the one referred to. Vinkhuizjen has cut the caption "Soldier of ditto" from the contents page of McLean's The Military Costume of Turkey. Without the line that appeared above it – the caption is useless.


This picture on the fantasy Janissary costume page:

may have appeared in 1880-1900 illustrated encyclopaedias, as noted, but it is from Elbicei Atika. Musée des Anciens Costumes Turcs de Constantinople, par Jean Brindesi, 1855. It also appeared on a set of Turkish postcards made in the 1950s.

Since Dec 2013: Hans Weigel has been credited; Bimbascha & Janitscharen now appear (alongside the earlier missreadings); the NYPL's note on Vinkhuizjen's collection method is included, Jean Brindesi is noted; McLean's The Military Costume of Turkey is noted; and this footnote added:

Quote[1] The long white ostrich feather plumes were re-invented by Knotel. However, he based it on Nicolas de Nicolay (1577), as well as the Janissary by Melchior Lorck (1570-83). All these early illustrators show this feature –the Janissary with an enormous plume. However, this is more likely a fantasy element included in the illustrations.

This re-invention implies that Knotel was unaware of the earlier illustrations, but, it is obvious that Knotel's Janissaries are copied, directly or indirectly, from an Ottoman Janissary by Hans Weigel, Janissaire allant à la guerre by Nicolas de Nicolay & a Janissary by Melchior Lorck.



This

Quote•B: Is either: "Ein Janitsar in voller Rüstung"; or, "Ein Tanitfar in voller Rüftung". Translate into 'Tanitfar'= 'Romanian'; and 'in voller Rüftung' = 'in fuller dress'. The implication is that if this is "Janitsar", then this is an actual Ottoman Janissary soldier from 1805, in which case there has been a considerable Europeanization of the Janissary uniform by this date. If however, it is a 'Romanian' provincial soldier, then the costume is more in keeping with the troops from Eastern Europe.

can be easily discounted as being 'Tanitfar' by comparing the captions of other Janissaries in the same Album of Ottoman Soldiers dated 1805. The boast that these are "put-together for the first time" just means that the captions have been 'photo-shopped' out.

Druzhina
Illustrations of Ottoman Costume & Soldiers

Someone page Nik, his uniform guide just arrived! 😈

Nice one D

Dr Chris Flaherty's site goes through to WWI and also covers some of the Arab revolt so I am also a very happy camper

Nice find D.
Cheers - Phil

Really useful stuff - thanks.

Also from the '1600 TILL 1900 FANTASY JANISSARY UNIFORMS' page:

Quote
From 'The Design Book of Filippo Orsoni' (Victoria and Albert Museum): 14; "a Turkish-style outfit for the pageant", this figure from 1554, illustrates a European fantasy of the Ottoman warrior indented (sic) to awe the spectators in the great armorial pageants popular at the time.

As can be seen from the examples below, the practice of creating fantasy Janissary costumes continued through-out the 16th – 20th centuries. However, all these are treated in various museum and private collections, and by dealers as if they are authentic items.

Is it because he is wearing unusual headgear that this is assumed to be 'made up' by the European artist? 
The Ottomans had many official positions that could be identified by their headgear. See examples in Peter Mundy's Album, A briefe relation of the Turckes, their kings, Emperors, or Grandsigneurs, their conquests, religion, customes, habbits, etc. Unusual headgear is to be expected.

The figure shown above is not a janissary. The hat is no stranger than that of the weight lifters in

the Surname-i Vehbi, 1720.   

It may be an inaccurate depiction of the

Herald for Rumelia "Rumeli Chiaus" from the Rålamb Costume Book, 1657-58

Dr Chris Flaherty is making an assumption based on little evidence.

Druzhina
16th Century Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

Just like modern day festival ravers, where wearing a silly hat in a crowd stands out, and you can be found by your friends.

Something I frequently do at Wargamers tournaments...

Quote from: mad lemmey on 17 October 2014, 04:01:54 PM
Someone page Nik, his uniform guide just arrived! 😈

Nice one D

Yep - and nicely timed too, have just finished assembling my Ottoman army (a *lot* of cavalry!)

Most useful  

Quote from: mad lemmey on 19 October 2014, 07:42:10 AM
Just like modern day festival ravers, where wearing a silly hat in a crowd stands out, and you can be found by your friends.

Something I frequently do at Wargamers tournaments...

Fezzes are cool... 

The 1600 TILL 1900 FANTASY JANISSARY UNIFORMS page now has

Quote
As can be seen the "Turkish-style outfit for the pageant" (From 'The Design Book of Filippo Orsoni' (Victoria and Albert Museum): 14 - above), has a strong resemblance, to this illustration from the Herald for Rumelia, from the The Ralamb Costume Book, acquired in Constantinople in 1657-58 by Claes Ralamb who led a Swedish embassy to the Sublime Porte.

    The name Rumelia was largely applied to the Ottoman possessions in Europe, for the most part in Ottoman possession since the 14th respectively 15th century.

In the Filippo Orsoni design, the foot Herald (a diplomatic role to the Ottoman Court), has been substantially altered into a largely fantasy figure, namely:

•  A fully armoured cavalryman.
•  The four-pointed hat has been enlarged and heavy decorated.
•  The 'mace-of-state', has become a war-mace.

The Filippo Orsoni design has been created for a European pageant, and theatrical display.

with this picture of the herald:

Again, the caption has been cut off.

Dr Flaherty has assumed a foot Herald, but, all the figures in the Ralamb Costume Book are on foot including the spahi cavalry. An Ottoman Herald ("Rumeli Chiaus" in the Ralamb caption) is likely to have ridden when needed. He would have accompanied armies in the field and would take charge of prisoners. He is wearing spurs.

The Rumeli Chiaus is not a diplomatic role to the Ottoman Court; that would be the Chiaus Passi [Baş Çavuş] also pictured in the Ralamb Album.

Rycault, 1667, wrote "Of the Chiauses. These having both offensive and defensive arms assigned them, may be reckoned in the number of the militia, though their office being chiefly in relation to civil processes and laws, they may rather deserve the name of pursuivants of Serjeants ...  "
A pursuivant is a junior herald.

Of course the Ralamb Album is a century later so this herald is not the model for Filippo Orsoni's horseman.

1) There is no visible armour on Orsoni's horseman, except the possibility of mail sleeves (which may just be spots like the horseman on the left in 'The Ottoman Army at Tiflis', 1578). If he was "fully armoured" there might be vambraces and helmet visible even if other armour was hidden under the coat. It would not be unusual for 16th century Ottomans to have more armour than those of the 17th century.

2) It would be 'the four-pointed hat has been reduced and been less decorated' for the correct chronology. The hats are not that similar.
There is a Serbian saint with a red and blue hat similar to Orsoni's horseman:

Manasija Monastery, Serbia, XV century

The hat would have to be an "inaccurate depiction" for Orsoni's horseman to be an Ottoman Herald for Rumelia like Ralamb's (assuming the hat type is standard for the office, as it seems other hats were, and that this also applied in the 16th century).

3) If the mace is not a symbol of office then this is not a herald. It would not be unusual for the much later Ralamb figure to have a more symbolic mace. The maces look very similar to me – this is the reason I suggested this figure – there is not a "strong resemblance" to the rest of the costume, but more than for the Herald of Egypt who wears a red zamt hat in the Ralamb Album.


Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

Some pages have been reorganised so some links are redirected and some pictures above do not display. Here are the pictures:


a Janissary by Hans Weigel, 1577



Bimbaſcha should be Bimbascha not Bimbalcha.
Janitſcharen should be Janitscharen not Janitjcharen


B: Is either: "Ein Janitsar in voller Rüstung"; or, "Ein Tanitfar in voller Rüftung"

Druzhina
Ottoman Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

It seems Dr Flaherty has been complaining to forum administrators, although I have heard from only one:

Quote
Hi Druzhina,
Dr. Flaherty has noted your online posts about his book and is not happy. I have already defended your right to make such posts provided they are not libelous or slander. However I have to ask... why go on so many sites and post the same post? Can you give me a reason why you seem so hell bent on getting this info out to the masses?

Post in question: [dead link]

Thanks,
Jim

and my reply:

Quote
me
To
Jim Starkweather
Today at 2:19 PM
Hi Jim,

The link does not work. My account is suspended.

I always post on a lot of forums. Dr Flaherty may think he is receiving special treatment, but he is not. Most of my posts don't mention him. I know he has read my post somewhere as he has made changes to his web-site in response, which I have noted, and he has included links to my site. What is he unhappy about? If he doesn't want people to comment, criticize and make suggestions about his work he shouldn't put it on the net. He can always reply to my post and make his point. Why is his complaint based on how many forums this is on rather than the content? Why has he waited to complain about this when my opening post was so long ago? My latest reply was a small piece directly related to a change he had made to his site in response to my previous post - which is something I think is quite reasonable.

regards
Druzhina

Perhaps Dr Flaherty is embarrassed that the "foot Herald" is wearing spurs?

I haven't even got around to commenting about Peyks and Solaks yet.

Druzhina
15th Century Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

I suspect the frequent use of the title "Dr" on the website and aparantly in correspondence may be a clue as to the 'reason' for the "Dr's" reaction 

Quote from: paulr on 16 January 2015, 08:53:05 PM
I suspect the frequent use of the title "Dr" on the website and aparantly in correspondence may be a clue as to the 'reason' for the "Dr's" reaction  

What do you mean? I had interpreted his use of "Dr" as him assuming the role of 'expert'.

Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

I had, perhaps wrongly, interpreted it as him using this title of Dr to assert his expertise. Rather than letting his work demonstrate his expertise.

I suspect this may be a 'cultural difference', for a lot of New Zealanders someone using a title is considered presumptuous. I know that in other places it is more common.

A classic example is a is The Honourable and the Right Reverend Sir Paul Alfred Reeves, GCMG, GCVO, QSO a former Governor General of New Zealand. He is referred to by almost all as Paul, occasionally Sir Paul

I agree, but, I am Australian. I will call him Dr. as he prefers, but, where his lack of research and use of tertiary sources show a lack of expertise, I will point it out.

He isn't beyond criticising other historians. For one about Knotel - see above, which has now been removed from his site.
One of his criticisims of David Nicole is: "There is currently no explanation as to why is this particular costume is so elaborate for the senior officer in the 32nd Janissary Orta (Left: there were two - the 32nd Orta, and the Boluk 32nd Orta [3]). The only notes provided by Nicolle is that the "32nd (or 33rd): commanded by the Kahya Yeri or deputy Kahya" [4]. However, this is a complete fantasy attribution, when it is understood that the phrase 'Kahya Yeri', simply means itself "Commander" [5]. Whereas, Nicolle in his sentence - "commanded by the Kahya Yeri ... " (attempts to suggest this is some special title, which is a fantasy)."
Dr Flaherty uses so few sources that I would not be surprised if there is something he is unaware of, but, he is adamant. Fantasy seems to be one of his favourite words.
A quick Google translate gives:
Kâhya = butler
Yeri = place of
So it does not simply mean "Commander", it is more complicated. It is not unknown for the position of servant to an important Ottoman to become a much more important position. For example see the Rijkmuseum's text to a painting of Mehmet Kâhya of Kul Kâhyasî, adjudant van de Aga by Vanmour and my attempt at translation.

Druzhina
Paintings of Ottomans by Jean-Baptiste Vanmour, 1699-1737