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)