Disputatio Formulae:Insigne

Cur magnum insigne Cechiae?

Why not small coat of arms of the Czech Republic? Other states have here in "Formula:Insigne" the smallest possible variant of their coat of arms - even unofficial (e. g.  Austria has here only the red-white-red shield although the offical coat of arms is an eagle with this shield on the chest,  Hungaria has officially a crown on the shield, here it is without the crown... etc.). Czechia uses the parvum insigne (only lion) officially, so why should we here in "Insigne" (which is very small) use the magnum insigne Cechiae? The great coat of arms used in Insigne ( Cechia magna) is so small that nobody can see what is depicted on it (compare with the insigne of  Bohemia which is the same as the small coat of arms of Czechia). --Packare (disputatio) 17:41, 15 Iunii 2014 (UTC)

Id quod hic volumus monstrare est scutum tantum, sine aliis rebus. Si scuta "parva" et "magna" exstant (id quod rarius accidit), politicam nondum statuimus. Qui melius scit, rem idoneam faciat.

Ego heri mutavi. Bene scivi leonem Bohemiam repraesentare; scivi etiam Cechiam et Bohemiam non conterminas esse, sed fortasse rem heraldicam Cechicam male intellegi! Si "parvum insigne" re vera Cechiam omnem repraesentat, tibi suadeo corrigere, Packare. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:58, 15 Iunii 2014 (UTC)

In heraldry, for obvious historical reasons, shields (escutcheons) are the central element, the sine qua non of the genre. Coronets, helms, torses, crests, mottoes, supporters, animals, and whatnot may add to the visual achievement, but they're extra, often added for mere decoration; rules may or not affect them (in England, for example, only peers of the realm and a few others may officially display supporters, but examples prepared for nonpeers who desire their surname's coat of arms often have them). The Austrian escutcheon (left) is often displayed over the body of an eagle holding implements in its talons, but the indispensable thing is the shield. If the design on Cechia's shield is too small for comfort (in effect, an example of bad design), that's Cechia's problem. Cechia should be glad its escutcheon isn't the Stowe Armorial (right). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:38, 15 Iunii 2014 (UTC)

That said, heraldic shields properly identify persons, not nations, especially not republics! If nations are going to use heraldic-themed logos, the old rules may not apply, and variations appropriate for modern graphic design may be pertinent. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:44, 15 Iunii 2014 (UTC)

A splendid example, Iacobe! But whatever one might say of the Stowe arms, I wouldn't myself accuse the Czech quartered shield of bad design. I noticed yesterday that what Packare calls the "great coat of arms" marshals the three regions of the country (see Formula:Terrae Cechiae). And in that navbox it doesn't look too small to me: I can see what's on it. Click on my link and see if you agree. I also noticed, as I said above, that the rampant lion argent, on its own, is the escutcheon of Bohemia -- the largest one of those three regions. Those are the reasons why I amde the change that Packare is asking about.

I don't know whether Moravians and Czech Silesians are happy that the Bohemian lion should represent the whole country, or not. If they are happy, that's fine by me, and Packare can revert my change. It is also possible for us to include both the shields as alternatives in this formula, so that, where appropriate (as it would be in that particular navbox) we can call up a shield called "Cechia magna" instead of "Cechia". Whatever seems best. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:56, 15 Iunii 2014 (UTC)

I've done that now, in fact. See the difference between Formula:Terrae Cechiae and Formula:Praesides et primi ministri Cechiae. Does that seem OK to you, Packare? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:19, 15 Iunii 2014 (UTC)

Cechia's escutcheon is bizarre then, as triplicities don't go well into quarters, and the lion has apparently had to be doubled to finish the design. Bohemia's is simple and elegant; I suppose it's wholly described as "gules, a lion rampant argent" (but the lion seems to have a crown; is that couronné ? or does Norman French twist that a little, or use something else, like achevé ?). In any case, the question is hardly a compelling one at this hour over here! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:26, 15 Iunii 2014 (UTC)

OK, English may suffice: "gules, a lion rampant argent crowned." See an ample pride of heraldic lions. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:42, 15 Iunii 2014 (UTC)

"The national symbols of the Czech Republic shall be the large and the small state coat-of-arms, the national colours, the national flag, the standard of the President of the Republic, the state seal and the national anthem." ex constitutione Cechiae. Both large and small coat of arms represent the whole Czechia. The large is more prestigious, it is used mainly for external representation, you can see it on the buildings of state authorities. The small coat of arms is used on seals and stamps of the state authorities, on official state documents, it is used as a symbol of the state in cases when usage of the large coat of arms would seem too formal.

I think it has its historical roots. The 3 emblems are symbols of the Czech lands (Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia). These 3 lands have "always" been ruled by one person - the King of Bohemia. His coat of arms was the Bohemian lion. Therefore you could understand the Bohemian lion once as just a symbol of Bohemia (Kingdom of Bohemia) and for the second time as the symbol of the Bohemian king (government) who ruled over the all Bohemian=Czech lands (and therefore as the symbol of the whole Crown of Bohemia = Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia).

I think your solution, Andrew Dalby, is great! Sometimes it is better to use the large coat of arms and sometimes the small one (exactely like here in Formula:Terrae Cechiae - there is the large one much more appropriate than the small one which is better in Formula:Praesides et primi ministri Cechiae - the government uses as its logo only the lion).--Packare (disputatio) 20:52, 15 Iunii 2014 (UTC)