Talk:Leo Belgicus

Dutch lion?
Leo Belgicus means Belgian lion. In roman times the area was known as Gallia Belgica and comprised more or less of Belgium and (parts of) the Netherlands and that's where the name originated. While it's true that when the Leo Belgicus was used the Netherlands were 'dominant', the translation still is Belgian Lion, NOT Dutch Lion. Maraud 11:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The maps described in this article are from the 16th and 17th century, when "Belgica" was the usual Latin translation for the Netherlands (which name covered both the present Netherlands and Belgium). Eugène van der Pijll 11:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree, I just thought that Dutch lion would confuse some readers since the literal translation would be Belgian. The compromise certainly suits me. Maraud 12:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Belgium was at times in use for the entire Low Countries, and it was at times similar in meaning to the Dutch term Nederlanden. The Netherlands are part of the Low Countries. Modern English uses the adjective "Dutch" for the Netherlands and its people. However, that does not mean that "Leo Belgicus" can be translated as "Dutch Lion". Modern equivalences can not be projected back into the past, onto non-comparable entities. I came to this article because it was cited at Dutch (people) to imply that the inhabitants of the ex-Austrian Netherlands in the Napoleonic period, who described themsleves as "Belgian", meant that they were in fact Dutch. This is the kind of politicised usage which Wikipedia should avoid. Since the icon was used primarily on maps, translating Leo Belgicus as Dutch Lion implies that the territory shown as the 'lion' was in fact Dutch. This is historically and geographically inaccurate and misleading.Paul111 19:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And translating it as "Belgian Lion" is equally inaccurate and misleading, because it implies that the territory shown as the 'lion' was in fact Belgian. So unless you have a better translation for the term, an adjective for all of the Low Countries, providing both, with a reference to the note at the bottom, is the best we can do. -- Eugène van der Pijll 19:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

User Rex Germanus says explicitly at the other article's talk page that the term does prove Belgian meant Dutch. That's the kind of inference which this article must avoid. The best solution is not to translate it into English at all, and to explain why it can not be translated into either of the modern English terms 'Belgian Lion' or 'Dutch Lion'. Incidentally there is no Belgian irredentism which claims the territory of the Netherlands, but there is a Greater Netherlands ideology which sometimes claimed all of Belgium.Paul111 19:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's very simple. Leo Belgicus means Dutch lion, Nederlandse leeuw. Just like New Netherlands (Nieuw Nederland) in America was Novum Belgium or Nova Belgica and the Dutch republic was Belgium Foederatum. This shouldn't be a complicated issue. It does however when people (like paul111) refuse to accept the fact that Flemings and the modern Dutch were a single people at that time ... called the Dutch.Rex 20:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The Dutch and the Flemings were never a single people. They were united in the United Kingdom of the Netherlands for 15 years from 1815 to 1830, that's the most that can be said. Leo Belgicus does not mean 'Dutch lion', nor does it mean Nederlandse leeuw in the modern sense. All of these terms have specific historical contexts, and are not equivalent from one period to another. They can certainly not be used to infer support for a Greater Netherlands, either now or in the past.Paul111 11:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with what you're saying about the translation: it does not exactly mean "Dutch lion"; and neither does it mean "Belgian lion"; both are approximate translations, and the article shows this. What more do you want? And please don't suggest that these translations are motivated by support for the Greater Netherlands movement; I find that somewhat offensive, and it is totally irrelevant for this article. -- Eugène van der Pijll 12:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I phrased it like this:

The Leo Belgicus is a map of the Low Countries (the Netherlands and Belgium) drawn in the shape of a lion (Latin leo). The term can not be accurately translated by either Belgian Lion or Dutch Lion or Lion of the Netherlands because all these terms denote non-equivalent modern states and their territory (see below).

but Rex Germanus reverted that. He does say that the Flemings and the modern Dutch were a single people at that time ... called the Dutch. and that is correctly described as a Greater Netherlands historiography. See the preface to Blom and Lamberts' Geschiedenis van de Nederlanden for use of the term. Claims that the Flemish and Dutch are a single people are ideological in nature, and the correct and standard term for that ideology is Greater Netherlands.Paul111 12:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the revert, because the introduction was getting a bit top-heavy; the discussion on the exact translation has been given its own section, so you dont have to repeat the whole argument in the first sentence. It looks awkward. I don't know if the Dutch and Flemish are a single people now; I don't know if they were ever; and I am not interested in that. I do know that there was a single term that referred to them both, which is used in this article. Above you say that the existence of this term "can certainly not be used to infer support for a Greater Netherlands", which seems to imply that that was what I was doing here. -- Eugène van der Pijll 12:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved the qualifiers up the page, so that the terminology is dealt with first, as is standard.Paul111 19:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And I moved it down again; the article is primarily about the maps; not about the name. But I haven't re-introduced either translation in the introduction. -- Eugène van der Pijll 19:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. The name was the problem. -- Paul111 19:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we have reached a conclusion that it acceptable to us both. Thanks for the discussion! -- Eugène van der Pijll 19:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Christies mention
The following link mentions that Michael von AITZING book in 1583 ''is the FIRST LEO BELGICUS, a cartographic interpretation of the Dutch Lion. It was originally published in the first edition of 1583, repeated in all subsequent ones, and widely imitated by cartographers in later Dutch histories and atlases.'' Does anyone have a source for this fact?
 * Gioto (talk) 08:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leo Belgicus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120825050353/http://cartweb.geography.ua.edu:9001/StyleServer/calcrgn?cat=Europe&item=France%20and%20Low%20Countries%2FEurope1745c.sid&wid=500&hei=400&props=item%28Name%2CDescription%29%2Ccat%28Name%2CDescription%29&style=simple%2Fview.xsl&plugin.xsl to http://cartweb.geography.ua.edu:9001/StyleServer/calcrgn?cat=Europe&item=France%20and%20Low%20Countries%2FEurope1745c.sid&wid=500&hei=400&props=item%28Name%2CDescription%29%2Ccat%28Name%2CDescription%29&style=simple%2Fview.xsl&plugin.xsl

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)