Talk:Coat of arms of Dalmatia

Recent edit

I'm a bit confused... have a look at your version. Now, I'm not sure what the sources say exactly, but "gules, with three lion heads affrontes argent, langued and crowned Or" means they're facing front, and have tongues and crowns in gold (on a red background). That's not the facing dexter variant, where they're not only not affrontes, but also have no crowns and are langued in Argent (silver-tongued). These are clearly different versions of Dalmatian arms. -- Director (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what exactly were you trying to say with that last edit but whether the charges within the shield are crowned or not has nothing to do with something being kingdom or say mere lordship or a personal CoA. If you check the sources, the version with white lions has two variants: one with the lions being crowned (as it appears in Gelre Armorial, Werningrode Armorial and Conrad Grünenberg's Armorial) and one with the lions with no crowns from the Council of Konstanz book called Beschreibung der Reise von Konstanz nach Jerusalem which is basically a guide and description of all the countries east from Konstanz all the way to Jerusalem. The latter was also interpreted by the same Conrad Grünenberg mentioned above as he was the member of that same council. The difference is most likely to the authors personal interpretation at the moment when the book was written, probably even earlier version of the one later appearing in his heraldry manuscripts which probably date from 1486. Check the sources I have provided in that article...you have pictures and everything... Shokatz (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I misunderstood your intention when I wrote the edit summary, but the problem still stands: they're clearly different versions of the arms. -- Director (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems I have made a lapsus calami there, probably made when I was writing/expanding the article still heaving in mind the main (blue) coat of arms. As for the two variants with minor differences regarding the red shield with white lions, there are two variants of at arms as I have just explained on your talk page. The variants with lions being crowned appears in several armorials, most notable the Gelre Armorial from pre-1396 which shows the same arms as being part of the Louis I as can be seen here. The variant with the same white lions but without the crowns is from the Konstanz council which was interpreted by Conrad Grüenberg, the same author from whom we have this which is from his preserved heraldic manuscript and published in 1602-1604. It is clearly the same arms. These variations occurred often...either as mistakes or personal interpretations of the authors themselves, etc. Shokatz (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The major difference is that the first one is "affrontes" whereas the other is "dexter". Do you mean that the source doesn't say they're "affronte"?

Another point interests me. You say the gules dexter variant is "older" than the common azure variant, how so? The azure variant is pretty damn old..

As a side note, I've been looking at the argent lions on gules image in the article... it wouldn't surprise me at all if the Croatian chequy actually originated from this image. A sort of simplification thereof. -- Director (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

They are both dexter i.e. turned to left (from the viewers point of view), you can see this from the Gelre Armorial and other links I've posted and which are in the article, only the azure (blue) variant is affronte, meaning the leopards (lions) are facing the viewer. Venetian variant was the same as blue (modern variant) but on the red background - fully golden (and crowned) lion heads. The version with white lion heads is in fact the older version because it appears as part of the arms of King Louis I Anjou in Gelre Armorial, Gelre Armorial was considered to be compiled at least prior to 1396, Louis I ruled from 1370-1382. The blue affronte variant AFAIK appears as earliest as somewhere between 1458-1490, during the reign of King Matthias Corvinus as part of his small CoA as can be seen here (restored in 1893) and on his great CoA where it represented Croatia. As for the chequy origins I'd say that's a good guess as any, it is possible but we don't know. In fact as I mentioned before, there were some historians (can't really remember the names now) who suggested that the lions were in fact the main and original symbol of Croatia and they hypothesized that the lions on the arms of several Arpad kings in fact represented Croatia: Emeric I [1], Andrew II [2] and Ladislaus III [3] ;) Shokatz (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Minor correction, I seem to have forgotten about King Albert...the affrontes (blue) version in fact appears a bit before Matthias Corvinus on the great seal of King Albert [4]. Although the seal obviously didn't have colors I think it is obvious it is the same CoA. So the change between silver (white) lions dexter on red background to golden (yellow) lions affrontes on blue background must have happened either during Albert's reign (1438-1439) or, IMO most likely before that, during the reign of Queen Mary (1382-1385) and her husband King Sigismund (1386-1437). Or there is an alternative, meaning both variants were used in this period (from Mary to Albert) until the blue affrontes variation finally took primate and pushed the other older variant out of use. Either way we don't know...and we certainly have no sources stating explicitly when one replaced the other....all we know is which one appeared earlier than the other. Shokatz (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

So, to recap, the sources make no mention of a red coa where the lions #1 are white, and #2 face front?

Btw its unlikely that the Venetian coa was a "hybrid", but rather was simply the Venetian golden-lion-on-red "theme" that they had (the red tongues instead of gold are really just a detail); does the source use the term "hybrid coa"?

Its not unlikely that the coat of arms of Venice was somehow the source for the coat of arms of Dalmatia (and hence, possibly Croatia), originating in the 998 Orseolo expedition and the Emperor granting the Venetian doge the title "Duke of Dalmatia" (at the time a title Croatian kings liked to use, but with no power over the cities and islands; Svetoslav Suronja just took the throne, I believe). Interestingly, the shield in the Venetian arms is also at times blue and not red [5]... -- Director (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the red CoA is with white lions being dexter (crowned or not is irrelevant). The blue CoA with golden lions is affronte. And yes, I agree the Venetians basically used the same "blue" CoA but on the red background. Also I doubt that the Dalmatian CoA originated with the Venetians since it appeared before the Venetians actually asserted themselves in Dalmatia and they rarely used any other symbol besides their own Lion of St.Mark, they started using other CoA's much later in late 15th, 16th and 17th century, as they started acquiring other territories and expanding into eastern Adriatic and all the way over Greece as far as Cyprus. They even used the Croatian chequy as part of their large CoA. Also the Venetians never called themselves Dukes of Dalmatia, they in fact referred to themselves as Dukes of Dalmatians, which is quite the significant difference. There are some theories that the lion on the Dalmatian (and Croatian) CoA originated from Sigismund, being a derivative from his arms as Count of Luxembourg [6]. However like the Venetian "theory" that is easily debunked. The lions first officially appeared as part of the arms of Louis I of the Capetian House of Anjou. The theory about lions being associated with the Croatian kingdom during and since the period of the Arpad dynasty is much more viable.

So to recap, simplified:

• The original variant was - red shield with three silver-white lion heads dexter, crowned gold. First appeared as part of the arms of King Louis I in Gelre Armorial [7]. His daughter Mary almost certainly used the same arms as her father Louis I.
• Later variant was - blue shield with with three golden-yellow lion heads affrontes, crowned gold. First appeared on the great seal of King Albert [8] and then in the arms of Matthias Corvinus [9] [10]
• Venetian variant sometimes used by them on their great seals/CoA's from 15-16th century was - red shield with three golden-yellow lion heads affrontes, crowned gold. Shokatz (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

As I said, Pietro Orseolo was "Duke of Dalmatia" [11] in 998, by decree of Emperor Basil II (and at the demand of the Dalmatian cities, constantly harrassed by Croats). Then Basil reasserted direct Imperial rule there, but Alexius I re-appointed the doges in the same title. The doges apparently remained such at least until well into the reign of Manuel I, and then claimed the title again as the Comnenian dynasty collapsed, and then contended with the Hungarian kings, taking the cities again in the 13th century.. The Venetians have a much longer history administering Dalmatia than you seem to believe. How have you "debunked" the hypothesis? Golden lion on blue (or on red), facing front.. seems very easy indeed to take the Venetian lion's head and multiply it three times.. perhaps for the three cities (Jadera, Spalatro, Ragusa).

Re the affrontes/blue coa, didn't you just say it was in fact older in sources? -- Director (talk) 06:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Hehe you sure like to argue, don't you? Anyway...as I said he was not "Duke of Dalmatia" but "Duke of Dalmatians". We have a charter from Henry II where it says: qualiter venerabilis dux Ueneticorum et Dalmatianorum nomine Petrus (Most revered Duke of Venetians and Dalmatians by the name of Peter [Pietro]) [12]. If you look around Wikipedia on related articles you will find they agree with me on this as well. And let's please leave it that...

Now since we got this out of the way...it is also completely irrelevant how some guy from Venice styled and called himself because the Dalmatian CoA has nothing to do with the Venetian CoA. And there are several reasons for that: 1. During the time of Pietro Orseolo, there was no developed heraldry and thus there was no CoA's. Heraldic devices such as CoA's started to appear and originate from the mid-12th century in England and France from where they spread around Europe....that is some 150 years after the above mentioned Pietro Orseolo; 2. From a heraldic point of view the Venetian CoA shows a real lion, more specifically a Lion of Saint Mark. The Dalmatian CoA on the other hand, again from a heraldic point of view, has leopards not lions. They are also crowned, while the 'Lion of St.Mark' is not and is often depicted with a halo of a saint (as it represents St.Mark); 3. The arms with leopards was specifically referred to as CoA of Croatia while the early Dalmatian arms showed a hand holding a sword (also reflected on the arms of Primorje during the short Bosnian rule over Dalmatia and Dalmatian cities); 4. We have absolutely no valid reason to connect those two.

I have stated in almost all my replies here that the red arms with silver "lions" (once again...they are actually heraldic leopards) is the older one. Again...it originates from the arms of Louis I who ruled from 1370-1382. The version affrontes first officially appears on the great seal of King Albert who ruled from 1438-1439, that means over a half a century after Louis I (more specifically 56 years after Louis). Shokatz (talk) 07:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

You're again doing OR... you're claiming that "Duke of the Dalmatians" indicates a different title than "Duke of Dalmatia", and have no sources but your own interpretation to back that up. And even if that hypothesis were more than speculation, only two sources use the term "Duke of the Dalmatians" [13], compared to over a thousand for "Duke of Dalmatia" and Orseolo. Which, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, means that Pietro Orseolo and the doges were "Dukes of Dalmatia". I think you should realize, at some point, that professional historians can interpret primary sources better than you can. And, no offense, but I personally find the idea that "Duke of Dalmatia" and "Duke of the Dalmatians" were two separate titles - quite absurd.

The guy from Venice did not just "style himself" Duke of Dalmatia, he was formally granted the title by the guy who previously held the rights to it - the Emperor of the Roman Empire, Basil II the Bulgar Slayer (the most powerful Emperor since who knows when). And then again by the Emperor Alexius I Comnenus (the guy who called for the First Crusade). Now, all I'm doing is pointing to the inescapable similarity between the Dalmatian and Venetian coa: both have lions facing front, on a blue or red background. Venice, the one city, has a single lion, Dalmatia, with three major cities at the time - had three. Its speculation, of course, but imo pretty compelling in terms of some kind of logic.

This brings me to my content-relevant point: what source do you have that the Venetian front-facing/red-shield version came into use in 1420? -- Director (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't care less what the Venetian Doges called themselves. It's completely irreverent. And I care even less what you personally find or not. If you wish to argue with someone find someone else...I've said what I had on that issue, deal with it. Regarding the use of Dalmatian CoA by the Venetians, we have no references at all because the Venetian Republic had only one official symbol - the Lion of St. Mark. The only reference we have is some semi-official great arms dating somewhere in the 18th century, probably at the very end of the republic, with the so-called great arms of the Republic showing all their possessions (French: Grandes armes de la République de Venise au XVIIIème siècle - English: Great arms of the Republic of Venice in the 18th century [14]). Now are you really going to argue with me over your assertions over something you find compelling? Heraldry has been my interest for at least 10 years now and I can tell you openly, I sure do know a lot more about it than you do. I plainly explained, simply as I could, that there is no and there can't be any connection between them because of two main reasons: 1. Historical-political reasons (the arms were originally and specifically arms of Croatian kingdom) 2. Heraldic reasons as the charges on the Dalmatian CoA are not lions. What part do you not understand? Shokatz (talk) 17:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Says the guy who wrote the charge was facing both front and to the left :), among other things. I happen to know quite a bit about heraldry myself. Enough, for example, to know Wappenwiki is not a reliable source, being full of fantasy coats of arms (e.g. practically nothing here is historical).

Look, my point is that you do a WHOLE LOT OF OR. And that you need to stop, at least if you pan to introduce stuff to articles I'm watching. Why did you say that coat of arms was used since 1420 if you had no source to back that up? Why did you claim repeatedly that Orseolo was "Duke of Dalmatians" without any secondary sources for that?? Or that there were two "very different" titles ('Do Dalmatia' and 'Do Dalmatians')?? Stop that already.

Moving on. You claim that the coat of arms of Dalmatia represented Croatia as well at some point, and list three refs all pointing to one source - all without the essential page number. Please clean that up. I.e. choose one of the three refs, and provide a page number. However, more than likely "Croatia" wasn't represented in the relevant coa at all. -- Director (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

LOL! You know it's quite natural that I made an innocent typo since it was I who wrote this article in the first place. If you are such an expert on heraldry why didn't you write it yourself in the first place? Hilarious. Who ever claimed Wappenwiki is a source for anything, who ever used Wappenwiki as a source at all? If you have issues with what is on that site (which is totally irrelevant) you are free to contact the person who made that site and talk to him. I can assure you he certainly knows much more about heraldry than you ever will. And as for as it goes about OR, I posted you a direct source with a text from 11th century charter and you call that WP:OR? Hilarious. Now unless you have some relevant issues, this discussion is over. I have no intention going into yet another of yours little arguments about nothing. Shokatz (talk) 03:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Weird, I coulda sworn I was the guy who wrote this article "in the first place" :)... But never mind, if it makes you feel better, you're the WP:OWNER here.

This may come as a terrible shock, but you're not qualified to interpret 11th century texts. They are primary sources.

Finally, please re-read my last paragraph above. Please fix that reference (provide a page number and use only one ref to the same source). -- Director (talk) 11:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh let's see how you "wrote" this "article" [15] ... LOL! I could have sworn it was I who added the relevant content, heraldic descriptions, 99% of the sources and almost all images in the gallery...and you have the nerve to mock me because of one typo? Get a clue you thickheaded buffoon... And first, you don't know what I am qualified for, and second, citing and translating texts from "primary sources" isn't interpreting. If anyone is acting like the WP:OWNER it is you...and this is not the only article you do it on. The sources are just fine. Stop making an idiot out of yourself... Shokatz (talk) 12:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

All articles start small Shokatz. If you have another look you will see I both added the heraldic descriptions - and created the actual images [16] (newest and original). But as I said - you da man :). Thank you for expanding the article I created.

Your source is #1 posted three times in the same spot, and #2 is nissing a page number. Again: please fix that, otherwise I'll have to assume its misquoted. A ref without it is not verifiable per policy (again it seems like you don't get WP:V). What's the page number?

Even if you were a tenured professor you would need to publish your conclusions before they become relevant. Do not interpret primary sources. -- Director (talk) 13:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not ask for credit, I am reacting to your sarcastic and rude mocking in a previous reply. Either you lack proper manners or you have some other problems. I've said it before and I'll say it again...I do not appreciate your arrogant and condescending attitude. Get a grip. Also the source you talk about links directly to the correspoding page and you ask me what is the page number? What are you unable to do to do a simple left-click with your mouse? What part of quoting and translating a direct text is actually, as you say, "interpreting primary sources"? I tried to communicate with you in a civilized manner, disregarding the few previous interactions we had...and yet again you turn this into some ridiculous pissing contest quarrel. You are really starting to annoy me... Shokatz (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Look shut the heck up and add a page number to your source - please. I can't read German, and I can't confirm which page is relevant. You might also want to insert a note that your source is not in English. -- Director (talk) 07:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. Shokatz (talk) 11:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Director (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Coat of arms of Dalmatia (early).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)