inaccurate graphics

[unmerged(8523)]

Originally posted by Havard
Maybe a bit more discriptive (like i.e. "Inaccurate flag/shield graphics")?

a little better, but the thread has grown out of my initial conception for it (to point out serious and not so serious mistakes in the graphics or descriptions posted by the webmasters from which we make our sets) and is growing into some kind of encyclopedia of sorts...

i kind of want to have a name that reflects that if people want to know what the arms or a flag of a place were during ck, eu, or hoi they could come here as a first reference; that way, the next generation of "g.u.f/s.m."ers for each game could have a resource - a bit megalomaniacal i know, but any less and it wouldn't be me

 

[Birger]

Originally posted by stephanos


what about the crown? am i crazy in thinking i can just barely see it in the first version, or is that just a result of the dithering?

(it looks like the neck of the bull should not be included either)

at any rate, don't forget to take the shield off the breast of brandenburg's eagle, which wasn't added until the 1800's

steph

It's probably a bad pic, it says that the only thing that they changed in the coat of arms is the "nose ring"

This is what I've done so far for Mecklenburg and Brandenburg:

Based on a pic from Blaue Atlas

EDIT: added the words the nose ring, "forgot" to write that, what am I, drunk?!

 

[Birger]

I've done some additional shields based on pics found @ Blaue Atlas. I couldn't resist.

Archduchy of Austria

Archbishopric of Salzburg

Prussia


Haven't had the time to verify the accuracy on these yet...

 

[Birger]

While I'm at it, this site is really messing with my mind. It got some things I've never seen before, my only guess is that some of the mapmakers were drunk at the time...

Anyway checkout the Alcase seal taken from this map:
http://www.library.ucla.edu/yrl/reference/maps/blaeu/alsatia-preview.jpg

It looks like a combination of these two

 

[unmerged(8523)]

Originally posted by Birger Jarl
It's probably a bad pic, it says that the only thing that they changed in the coat of arms is ...

the ring, the neck, and the teeth; i found some depictions in lines of succession. in this, the earlier graphic is shown with a crown, without a neck, and the teeth aren't visible (the bull isn't "smiling"); so it's pretty much like you have it

those arms for austria and salzburg may or may not be personal to some noble or archbishop, i'll have a chance to look it up in a few

about alsace, can't tell just yet, but maybe it was an older form of a blazon for the whole (before they were joined in the familiar arrowhead shape)?

the one on the left is lower alsace or strassburg, while the one on the right is upper alsace or colmar

steph

 

[unmerged(8523)]

georgia on my mind

something more to consider: according to woodward's a treatise on heraldry, british and foreign, it is listed that the arms of georgia as depicted on the russian grand arms were or, saint george proper, mounted on a horse sable, slaying a dragon of the third [sable] winged vert
...

i thought this might give us soemthing to work with as to the colors of george and company, even though every indication so far seems to imply that an independent georgia should have a field of white (?)

(well, hey... at least it's not red...)

steph

p.s. of course, i'm going to e-mail ilya to confirm this

 

[Birger]

Do we all agree using these colors for the Ryazan arms?

Ryazan

Or do you prefer any other colors?

 

[unmerged(8523)]

Originally posted by Birger Jarl
Do we all agree using these colors for the Ryazan arms?

Ryazan

Or do you prefer any other colors?

right now those colors are the safest assumption given our ignorance; here's why:

basil i of muscowy married a lithuanian princess; it's conjectured that the first muscovite arms of a mounted knight on a white horse were based on hers - for lithuania, the horse is white and the field red

the contemparary (actually somewhat later) arms of tver were a mounted knight with a sword drawn behind him as he tramples a monster - white horse, red field

the assumption (which is a big one) is that the russian heraldic tradition was introduced via lithuania, and therefore the white horse on red was an "archetype" for later blazons

besides, it looks neat, isn't the same color red as hannover, doesn't face the same direction, has a different posture, and is just plain nifty

stephanos

 

[Havard]

Originally posted by stephanos


*snip*

and is just plain nifty

I agree

 

[Birger]

Originally posted by stephanos


right now those colors are the safest assumption given our ignorance; here's why:

basil i of muscowy married a lithuanian princess; it's conjectured that the first muscovite arms of a mounted knight on a white horse were based on hers - for lithuania, the horse is white and the field red

the contemparary (actually somewhat later) arms of tver were a mounted knight with a sword drawn behind him as he tramples a monster - white horse, red field

the assumption (which is a big one) is that the russian heraldic tradition was introduced via lithuania, and therefore the white horse on red was an "archetype" for later blazons

besides, it looks neat, isn't the same color red as hannover, doesn't face the same direction, has a different posture, and is just plain nifty

stephanos

Originally posted by Havard

I agree

thanks guys, I'll make it asap.

Btw, here's the correct arms for Tver that I got from Ilya, I'll see if I can find a better picture to work on.

 

[unmerged(8523)]

Originally posted by Birger Jarl
Btw, here's the correct arms for Tver that I got from Ilya, I'll see if I can find a better picture to work on.

for reference, according to lines of succession:

the knight's armor, the sword, and the horse are white, the dragon is black, and the saddle, reigns, the sword's hilt, and the knight's belt are yellow...

i realize that the design's elements don't exactly match the seal posted, so i'd say use your best guess, since the seal seems to depict an armorless rider with a cape and without a saddle...

i don't know which of the two blazons would then be older; whichever way you go, you might want to consider leaving out the cape to avoid undue confusion with muscowy unless ilya says otherwise

steph

 

[Birger]

Ok, this is what I've been able to do... (Had to make the pic myself)

Tver

Hmm, that underneath the knight doesn't really look like a dragon, I'll see if I can redo it...

 

[unmerged(8523)]

Originally posted by Birger Jarl
Ok, this is what I've been able to do... (Had to make the pic myself)

Hmm, that underneath the knight doesn't really look like a dragon, I'll see if I can redo it...

very, very good; you don't have to worry about making the "dragon" look too much like a dragon, earlier on it was a "monster" that slowly turned into a dragon because of saint george, i guess...

for the monster, think of a snake with small, bat-like wings, and tiny feet

steph

(sometimes you just have to feel jealous of the people buying the game today and downloading the art tomorrow... )

 

[Birger]

Originally posted by stephanos


very, very good; you don't have to worry about making the "dragon" look too much like a dragon, earlier on it was a "monster" that slowly turned into a dragon because of saint george, i guess...

for the monster, think of a snake with small, bat-like wings, and tiny feet

steph

(sometimes you just have to feel jealous of the people buying the game today and downloading the art tomorrow... )

yeah, I think we should get paid for doing this.
btw, a "monster" coming right up.

 

[Birger]

These are the new and correct arms that I've done so far.
I'll make the flags later this week, or perhaps ask the flagmaster himself (Korath)

Ryazan

Tver

Mecklenburg

Serbia or this

Serbia
Any votes on which one we should use?

Modena (the eagle on the preavious one I made was almost brown... )

Brandenburg

 

[Aetius]

Originally posted by Birger Jarl

Serbia or this

Serbia
Any votes on which one we should use?
[/B]

The one to the right looks like a dead two headed chicken hung up to dry, but then again what do I know about heraldry

 

[unmerged(7398)]

Originally posted by Birger Jarl
I'll make the flags later this week, or perhaps ask the flagmaster himself (Korath)

While I'm flattered, I'd just be doing exactly the same thing you would - plugging them into MKJ's template and letting it churn.

As for Serbia's arms - I like the one on the left better from a purely aesthetic viewpoint. They're two very different blazons (in West European terminology at least) though - any idea which is more correct?

 

[unmerged(7398)]

Originally posted by Birger Jarl
Or we can use a different color of the horse. Since it's suppose to picture a wild horse, brown, (or grey), could be a good color.

One of the defining characteristics of Russian heraldry, to my understanding, is charges shown proper. Though the white-on-red certainly does look better to my eye.

 

[Birger]

Originally posted by Birger Jarl


http://www.njegos.org/symbols/symbols.htm

Quote from the site:

"Double-headed eagle, the coat of arms of medieval Serb Empire, was accepted by the Crnojevics, the rulers of Zeta, the last free Serb medieval state, which fell under the Turks in 1499.

Double-headed eagle was always, even under the Turkish and Austro-Hungarian slavery, the symbol of Serb nation. It was natural that Nemanjics' coat of arms should be the Serb state symbol, the coat of arms of modern Serb states, Serbia and Montenegro.
One of the symbols used by Serb Emperor, Uros Nemanjic, was - the lion. The lion was also, very often, used by Serb medieval landed gentry as well as on the Serb coins".

It seems that I had the answer myself...
(See the yellow text)

Here are the arms of Nemanjics family, http://solair.eunet.yu/~zeljkoj/e-families-nemanjics.htm, so it's obvious that we should use this one:

 

[unmerged(8523)]

Originally posted by Birger Jarl

or this

Any votes on which one we should use?

i used the one on the left too, since the webmaster said it was scanned from the real coat of arms; from the herald's point of view, korath's right, but as long as we have a double headed eagle "displayed" (the wings fully out-stretched), we should be fine

the one on the right has the wings somewhat out, but the tips pointed down, called "disclosed"; which puzzles me, because i thought you got that from a scan of a real engraving or something... (?) it must have some additional meaning

...but i totally agree with using the eagle displayed; i don't know if you found anything to the contrary, but the webmaster i spoke to said the flag should be a red, double headed eagle on white, how it appeared on a (catalan?) map; he said the colors were reversed for the nemanjic arms

steph