Talk:Republic of Venice

message: ICUALL.    ; )
HI.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.50.71.238 (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation

message: There are no primary three footnotes.  The Machiavelli reference is a secondary footnote to back up the second footnote.  That there is cooraborating evidence for the case. Please understand that.WHEELER 14:23, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: footnotes

message: This articles needs to be expanded in the History.  It stops in 1848 and leaves a large blank spot.  It doesn't cover any important events after 1848 or tell what happened when it became a self goverining state/country.
209.129.85.4 02:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. If you know about this, please help us make this article better.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion 

message: I received this message, after my request of use of material to
[www.veneto.org www.veneto.org]
I'll slowly add material from their historical section. In exchange, I promised to mantain a link to their site at the en of the article, so please leave it. Bye.
--Attilios 21:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authorisation of use of material from www.veneto.org 

message: I split the history section off into its own article.--KrossTalk 21:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? As I found it today, there seemed to be a lot of duplicate material. In the future, I would suggest shortening the sections which you split into a new article (there's also the consideration of the history of the text, which gets lost in a simple copy/paste maneuver). Generally, the reasoning to create a new article in such a manner is because the original section has grown too big to be efficiently managable. If you had felt like being really bold, you would've simply deleted the entire history section from this article when you created the History article, leaving a link to the new article in the old section. Such a section would have been a stub, and others would've gotten around to fleshing it out as a summary of the History article, rather than a verbatim copy of the History article, as it now stands. Xaxafrad 07:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I typed too soon: after actually comparing the two articles, it turns out only the 1st paragraphs from each section were retained in this article. Xaxafrad 07:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  split history 

message: I think is better if someone able put a map of the Maximum extent of the repubblic.
The map posted show just the republic at the end.
At the maximum extent there was also an half Greece, Cyprus, etc.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.50.31.86 (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Map 

message: The map that show the repubblic at the end in 1796 is wrong.
There is also a part of lombardy that was alredy lost by the repubblic —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.50.31.86 (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wrong Borders 

message: Why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Euyyn (talk • contribs) 14:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why "serene"? 

message: If you follow the lineage here a decent argument could be made that Venice consitutes a legitimate successor state of the Roman Empire. You have: Roman Empire; Empire Splits; Western Empire Falls, Eastern Empire reconquers Italy, Venice forms initially as a Byzantine province, Venice breaks away from Byzantine control (but not because it is conquered by anybody); Byzantine Empire falls to Turks.....is this too much of a stretch....Can it be said that the Roman Empire didn't completely fall until 1797? ;-)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.196.210 (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is a stretch as you could make the same (faulty) reasoning for any breakaway province of the Empire. BTW, the last Roman Emperor abdicated in 1806. Str1977 (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The third Rome was most arguably Russia, due to the title effectively being inherited via marriage to the princes of Moscow (I believe Ivan III of Russia was the first). The Russians did lay a mild claim to it (hence things like the title of Tsar/Caesar as the ruler's title), but they were pretty casual about it and never really referred to themselves as Romans (as the Byzantine Greeks did), which is why the fall of Rome is typically associated with the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople. So one could argue that the Roman empire really died in 1917, but Venice never had even a marginal claim just by virtue of formerly being part of the Empire. (Heck, one might even say that the Roman Empire itself was really just Troy 2.0.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.72.200.10 (talk) 10:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Successor State to Roman Empire? 

message: Official name was "Ducatus Venetus" (latin).--Vu Duc Thang 17:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put the Italian name befor local Venetian one because even at that time Italian language was used for official names and acts, while the local idiom was used in informal occasion, as in the states of italian peninsula.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.40.31.122 (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Official name

message: I have a concern about the lead paragraph of the article.  In what sense can we say that the "Republic of Venice ... was an Italian state", especially in the 12th through 14th centuries when the Republic was at its height?  It seems rather presentist to say that the Republic (1100-1490) was Italian.  It is probably more correct to say that it, along with other city states and peninsular territories became Italian.  We would not call Attila the Hun German.  What do others think? N2e (talk) 13:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is "Italian" descriptive for this time period? 

message: Some islands which are nowadays in Greece were once Venitian weren't they? How come they do not feature in the main map. - Tigris the Majestic (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Map, Greek islands

message: I do not recall that Venice had built up an empire in Dalmatia by 1000 AD. In fact, it was still nominally subservient to Byzantines at this time. The dalmatian cities were factually independent, nominally under Byzantine rule. Hxseek (talk) 14:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And who says that? You? --95.246.153.122 (talk) 13:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Map 1000 AD

message: The enormous importance Venice has in these fields surely deserves some mention? It was one of the leading musical centers of the world from at least early 1600 to the middle of the 1700 century. "Venetian opera" is a key concept within opera today with works such as L‘incoronazione di Poppea by Monteverdi (1642) along with several others still being played all over the world. 80.202.84.36 (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Opera and music?

message: I removed this:
===Assicurazioni Generali===
The insurance company "Assicurazioni Generali" adopted on its foundation in 1831, and uses up to the present, a logo derived from the flag of the Republic of Venice.
This is advertising - not allowed. The article is not about the company, which has its own article. Give us a break, will you?Dave (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The Assurance company

message: The insurance company "Assicurazioni Generali" adopted on its foundation in 1831, and uses up to the present, a logo derived from the flag of the Republic of Venice.
This is advertising - not allowed. The article is not about the company, which has its own article. Give us a break, will you?Dave (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Assicurazioni Generali

message: The labels on :File:Republik Venedig.png and :File:Venezianische Kolonien.png are not in English. -- Beland (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map translation needed 

message: While trying to stub-sort a new stub on  Great Council of Venice (is this the same thing?), I notice that the text of this article, Government section, says "powers were shared with the [[Major Council of Venice|(Major) Council}} , composed of 480 members taken from certain families," but the diagram beside it describes the "Maggior Consiglio" as having "more than 2000 members". Someone might like to check and sort this out? PamD (talk) 11:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  How large was the Major Council? 

message: You say: 'At some point in the first decades of the eighth century, the people of the lagoon elected their first leader Ursus (or Orso Ipato), who was confirmed by Byzantium and given the titles of hypatus and dux. He was the first historical Doge of Venice.'
But in the Ursus article I found: 'Orso Ipato (Latin Ursus) was the third traditional Doge of Venice (726–742) and the first historically known.' 
Other articles, like 'List of Doges of Venice' also say that there were other leaders before him. 
So what is correct? And could you please name your sources?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.162.21.121 (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Traditionally Paoluccio Anafesto is believed to be the first doge, elected in 697. See Henry Simonsfeld (ed.): Chronicon Venetum quod vulgo dicunt Altinate (MGH SS 14), Hanover 1883, p. 1-69. In the Altinate chronicle (Antonio Rossi (ed.): La Cronaca Veneta Detta Altinate di autore anonimo, Florence 1845) you'll find it in Liber Primus, on p. 20.  --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 05:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Doge 

message: are a slavic tribe called veneti or wends. there is another venice in eastern republic of Macedonia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.125.224.4 (talk) 11:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: venetians

message: Saved from user's first edit, interesting, but needs citing and wikifying:
Actually, in maritime terms, Venice was able to defend itself quite adequately. Buonaparte's attempt to enter the lagoon, entrusted to the ill-named Libérateur d'Italie, was quite easily repulsed. (The failure of this incursion was one of his reasons for fury at the Venetian Republic.) Venetian land forces were relatively weak, but after the rising of Verona against French aggression, it was principally the fear of reprisals that prompted the Venetian state to decide against any form of armed resistance. Norwich is not a trustworthy source on this topic.
There are various works that might be usefully cited on the fall of Venice, but in English one might start with David Laven, Venice and Venetia under the Habsburgs (OUP, 2002).
The mayor of Yurp (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judas1204 edit 

message: This is a photo of somebody's dog. OK? This is either misplaced or someone's idea of a joke.
Why is it that there is not option to "report" a photograph? (ie, as irrelevant.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.255.102.135 (talk) 04:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just vandalism. The same person keeps putting the same image in Doge and Doge of Venice. Probably not much point getting an admin to ban them as they keep changing IP address; just have to keep reverting until they get bored. 86.26.207.24 (talk) 07:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo of image of PASTOR GARAFIANO 

message: *These gains were not meant to last, however: in December 1714, the Turks began the last Turkish–Venetian War, when the Morea was "without any of those supplies which are so desirable even in countries where aid is near at hand which are not liable to attack from the sea".
Where is this statement coming from? Sounds reasonable but if it is included in brackets, the source should be mentioned. The article as a whole lacks citations and, it being blocked, doesn't allow for people to make changes.--88.117.59.144 (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Says who?

message: I just found that that there is a Republic of Venice article, and a History of the Republic of Venice article! 
Talk about redundancy! One article has to go, Pronto! --Lubiesque (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but we're all tied up merging the various dynasties to the China article, not to mention History of the world and History of earth to the Earth article, so go ahead and get a start on it and we'll catch up later. — LlywelynII 13:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  So silly! So Wikipedia! 

message: Any proof that Juditha triumphans have had such status?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.252.126.70 (talk) 08:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anthem 

message: The Venetian names don't agree in the text and in the side bar; compare:
"Serenìsima Repùblica de Venesia"
with 
"Serenìsima Respùblica de Venexia"
Is anyone sure which of these two, if either is accurate?
acrichmond (talk) 13:58, 07 Oct 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venetian name 

message: this categories need to be removed:
- History of Lebanon
- History of Russia
- Modern history of Slovenia
- History of Syria
- History of Tunisia
- Medieval Ukraine
they have no place in the article  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.30.94.108 (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: Could somebody verify this? The map doesn't show the Republic of Venice reaching as far as Ukraine. I'd be very curious to find out.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.61.188.192 (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The map in the infobox does not. However, Venice held colonies in the Crimea for a short while, before Genoa took over, and there is a map in the article, under the "15th century" sub-section, that reflects this. --¿3family6 contribs 03:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

text: Further comment: I understand the status of Crimea is hotly contested. I'm not sure how to deal with this on Wiki.--¿3family6 contribs 03:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Today part of Ukraine? 

message: This article overstates the importance of military actions in being the causes of venice becoming a significant european power. The article doesn't even mention the Collegantia, which (alongside Byzantine's help) was the driving force behind the economic prominence of the city. It was the economics that enabled the military, not the other way around. Also, the decline of venice started when the people made rich because of the Collegantia institution abandoned it in greedy attempts to hoard more money for themselves. Fresheneesz (talk) 08:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's no article on the collegantia. Care to go into some detail with sourcing? — LlywelynII 09:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overstates the importance millitary actions 

message: This article (+ Wikipedia generally) need more background on the legal codes and history of Venice. One of the Tiepolo doges has a note on his personal page mentioning he finished a codification of the statutes begun under Enrico Dandolo but there's no other information anywhere in the encyclopedia. Help? — LlywelynII 09:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal history

message: The Venetian lira page doesn't give a date for its introduction, but the dates it does provide suggest it far postdates the Republic's glory period. What were people using in the 13th–16th centuries? Florins? — LlywelynII 11:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Currency

message: 'Republic' did not have the democratic connotations as it does today.  By the time of Venice, a republic WAS a mixed government model (E.g. Roman republic), so you can't say that the city claimed to be a republic when that exactly was what a republic was, and judge it by today's standards.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.8.194 (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Whilst Venice claimed to be a "Republic", in reality it followed a mixed government model

message: "to capture Zara, a city that had rebelled years ago and was a concurrent to Venice" - the word "concurrent" means "occurring at the same time". It makes no sense in this context. Is this a mistranslation? 74.79.159.31 (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably it should say "competitor" (and it must have been translated from Italian or French, where that's what "concurrent" means). Adam Bishop (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Concurrent"? 

message: Just curious...why are there two completely different versions of the coat of arms? English Wikipedia Italian Wikipedia Seloloving (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coat of arms 

message: I find it dubious that the Republic of Venice had a national anthem. As the article on National anthems explains, they mostly became a thing in the 1830s (the Marseillaise is a bit earlier, but even the time between its adoption and the fall of the Republic of Venice was very brief). A few royal anthems from the Early Modern period predated them, but obviously, being a republic, Venice couldn't have one. 87.126.21.225 (talk) 06:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anthem 

message: The language of the original names given in the lede is Venetian, but I believe that the actual republic just used standard Italian (and Latin) and it seems appropriate to give those first and Venetian afterwards. 87.126.21.225 (talk) 06:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language of original names in the lede