This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Slovenia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Slovenia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SloveniaWikipedia:WikiProject SloveniaTemplate:WikiProject SloveniaSlovenia articles
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)
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.
209.129.85.402:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reference to Heraclea article does not include the Heraclea in question for Venice, which I assume is an island or community in the lagoon....all Heraclea cities mentioned in the link are cities in other parts of the Mediterrean.,
Authorisation of use of material from www.veneto.org
I received this message, after my request of use of material to
[www.veneto.org www.veneto.org]
“
Dear Attilio,
feel free to use the contents of Veneto.org as you wish.
Lodovico Pizzati
President
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)--Attilios21:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.Xaxafrad07:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Xaxafrad07:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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).[reply]
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).[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I don't see anywhere references to the environmental destruction wreaked by Venice on the forests of the area, and their subsequent inability to build their own ships (having to import hulls from other countries), which circumstance contributed to their decline.
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 HunGerman. What do others think? N2e (talk) 13:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't claim that Venice was of Italian nationality; it says it was Italian. Italian by culture, and by geography (Italy did exist as a geographical expression at the time, to rephrase Bismark —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.237.142.7 (talk) 09:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
The so called "terra ferma" was an imperial fief possesed by Venice untill the death of Emp. Sigismond of Luxembourg in 1437 (opus cit.: Baum, Wilhelm.: Emperor Sigismond).
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).
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --¿3family6contribs03:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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? — LlywelynII09:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't really what RfCs were designed for. Per WP:RFC, RfCs are for resolution of content disputes, not generating sourcing information on a specific topic nor mass notifying other editors that an article needs additional work. LavaBaron (talk) 09:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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? — LlywelynII11:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst Venice claimed to be a "Republic", in reality it followed a mixed government model
'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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"The most serene" and formally known as most serene, simply no
Hey, I am just coming here as somebody has used wikipedia to edit a historical mod on a video game and found out that La Serenissima along Wikipedia was formally known (I'd say informally, sure, but if formally it was La Serenissima) as "The most Serene". This could be working in 1800 .- 1900 times of nationalism and distortion of heritage and cultural goods theft and creation of "race" which has brought problems up to today, all these came with the new socialist movements that created huge problems and wars in our communities, but this is a time in which we have UNESCO, UN, we have the Universal Cultural Goods charts, we know Cultural Goods are universal, we are in time of diversity respect and most of all we have developed a deep enough sensibility to know that a proper noun cannot be translated if at the stake there are unsure origins that still need to be researched.
If we use for formally known "the most serene" we are using an informal and divulgative tone over historical facts that should be treated with respect:
imagine a newspaper that in England or in English speaking communities at the time was calling "The most serene" republic of Venice has declared war on the Ottomans and on Piracy ...
This would never happen, imagine this happening in France in the Prussian territories... they would all refer to Venice as Republic Of Venice or anyway Wenedig, La Serenissima or simply La Serenissima.
This is not an adjective even if it is sounding and "comes from adjectives" this is a noble title originating title. Nothing strange, but yet it's not supposed to be translated. Sure one can say "this is the meaning" but calling it officially "the most serene" is a pure hole in the water.
Sorry but I can't stand these imprecision, and also see a "revert" back because "what I am saying is too mysthical"!
Hey... I gave multiple times explanations and I am referred as "evanescent and mystically transported? in my theories" ...
The thing is clear.
La Serenissima is not an adjective and there is no way in any time you can refer to Venezia as "The most serene" because it simply doesn't mean the most serene, we don't yet know what it means and thus you are stating the false if you say, just because you need to translate it, that that's the meaning. The meaning can be written of course I am not discussing it, but that's not going to be ever a proper decision if it goes also to influence the MAIN NAME which people should know to understand that it's about more than an adjective. Falsifying the value of entries is something that Wikipedia cannot afford if it wants to be called an Encyclopedia, or we are going to discuss what an Encyclopedia is, now here.
Albero1 17:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
And, just to make sure no-one is confused, the whole incoherent rambling above is completely baseless, the term has been used even in official context in diplomatic documents with the actual Republic of Venice at least as far back as John Milton's time. this is from 2 seconds' search in Google Books... Constantine ✍ 17:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, if this is rambling then there is no possible discussion on wikipedia that really put in doubt anything, culture is based on doubt, not following the herd. If there has been use in the past then let's post the sources. La Serenissima reached a level of unicity is known world wide, nobody knows of the Polish Najjaśniejsza, or Lucca etc.This is a matter of fact and shall be recognized in the translation by a NON translation. Anyway there has been explained several reasons why it should not be translated and this has been posted by others too: Most Serene is not even English. Forcing translation, if you ever really translated or have been into Cultural Management and enhancement you would know that takes sensibility and understanding that stuff cannot be transported literally on the other side, some times like in this one it simply can't. This is my last word, there is no need for further explanation, only a wall or a herd would need more explanation or sheeps to follow. It's an error and what is important is how it sounds today. It's amazing to put in "same pool" Most Serene with other in a Wikipedia Entry so that people can learn and discover that Serenissima is something not "so unique" (but especially because wikipedia and digital can serve the purpose to create bridges between cultures and places and people, simply because it was used also by others, and mostly probably for other reasons. These reasons and doubt which is the root of every discovery, wonder, and understanding can be optimally delivered by keeping the original form in the Wikipedia entries and not trying to translate in an improbable "most serene" all these noble titles like they were all the same. This is how AI bot at first stage of machine learning would work. Fortunately I am above that. Hopefully Wikipedia won't lead others into this bot \ AI mindset, but I have tons of experiences where people do (most people that have no chance to take studies until post college or college), nor have the chance to have a family or strenght to form their mind properly around studies to develop if not knowledge at least wisdom, where individuals go "oh it is said on wikipedia, so I used it" "Oh it's written online so it's right" (and no, this is not on their fault, this is about responsibility that Wikipedia since people hide behind nickname and a screen using it like a shield do not have). Responsibility today is crucial much more then before, it is a mission that we all must share. There is no future and no wikipedia without responsibility, it's easy to say "it was used before", but do you really use your opinion like you say I do, or you actually are knowledgable about these topics and disciplines? Using past as a source is not the way to build an Open, alive and quotable encyclopedia! It's actually the contrary. I find this the problem with wikipedia, big lack of wisdom and competence in handling the delicate items it tells to be about. Take care. Albero1 12:27, August 8th 2020 (UTC)
The last word is that it's clearly incorrect to write "Formally known" as "most serene. It doesn't make sense at all. Formally known should be "La Serenissima or "Najjaśniejsza" if we are in the english and non english article of the Najjaśniejsza of Lithuania-Poland, and if one wants to add "which means - serene" then that will work perfectly, but there is no way this is english nor it is formally known. Because you can ask anybody knowledgable about knowledge that will tell you "Oh the Najjaśniejsza" , "oh La Serenissima" ... of course. But not the most Serene. IT's just a joke that Google translator stuff would do.You are bringing up as you say (because nobody has really done it yet) documents from the past that mention La Serenissima as "The most Serene Republic Of Venice" ... but actually what value do these documents have in the context of today and (in relation to the core mission of an Encyclopedia like Wikipedia, accessible from anyone, which is) the understanding of the Entry.This is the point. We are writing for today not to show the entire HISTORY of entries that have been done, for that there is other tools or a longer entry with a longer text explaining stuff, but it cannot affect the direct name and understanding. I do not recognize a Republic or State as "The most Serene" but as the Najjaśniejsza or La Serenissima, or whatever SPECIFIC LOCAL TITLE they had. It cannot be translated. You are just playing tricks like tricksters do here and they are called "admins"... but I do not see any love and passion for knowledge on wikipedia, dead space. Albero1 12:42, August 8th 2020 (UTC)
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that Turkish and possibly Arabic were majority or at least minority languages in various overseas territories possessed by the Venetians at different points in history, no? Aliy Dawut (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
_crowned.svg)
