Talk:Globus cruciger

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Heraldry and vexillology

Globus cruciger is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Heraldry and vexillologyWikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyTemplate:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyheraldry and vexillology articles

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.
The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.)
Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.
Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

Closed deletion listing

This article was listed for deletion on 9 April, 2005. The discussion was closed with the result of merge and redirect to byzantine art. This article will not be deleted. You can view the discussion, which is no longer live: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Globus cruciger. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

dark ages

Dark Ages should almost never be used in history articles, it's pretty much a political term. Also "ignorant" could be seen as a pejorative term. Ill add some more context. Stbalbach 05:32, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes, I agree, I'm just in the middle of trying to make it sound better. Slight changes... --Dmcdevit 05:41, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- How's my reword? --Dmcdevit 05:46, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Looks good, this will take on a new life, thanks for your help. Funny timeing as I just read about it earlier tonight in the Dictionary of Middle Ages and came here and saw it just recently deleted. Its very illustrative of the way Christian culture is literally and figuratively built on top of pagan culture. Would be nice to have a real picture but dont see anything off hand thats PD. Stbalbach 05:56, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

about the pics

I recently found the Image:Heinrich III. (HRR) Miniatur.jpg, as well as the closeup. So now we have the four to choose from. I'll leave it up to your discretion, but I just wanted to let you know. (Though certainly it's helpful to have that close-up, and that's why I put it in already). --Dmcdevit 23:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Ive since run into a bunch as well, they seem to be everywhere once you start looking. The closeup is the most illustrative and crucial. If we want to create a gallery but I think people get the idea. It will depend if it gets competitive with editors to put up favorite pics, then we need a gallery, as the article is too short to hold more than two pics comfortably without overstacking problems. Im ok with how it is now. Stbalbach 02:14, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you include a gallery, I would suggest the inclusion of this painting; http://diglib.library.vanderbilt.edu/diglib-viewimage.pl?SID=2013031389843750&code=&RC=47430&Row=&code=act&return=act Regards, 96.19.147.40 (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes[reply]

Images

This is a small article there really is only room for 2 good pictures otherwise the text is overcrowded and disjointed. The Danish GC is by far the most visually instructive, the English queen picture is beautiful and improves the esthetic value of the article. There are tons of GC pictures that could be added here so I have started a gallery. Stbalbach 14:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on the limited number, but I think the Elizabeth picture does not show clearly the g.c., so I am going to swap it with the coin.--Panairjdde 15:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ill be honest, there are pictures of GC's, on Wikipedia allready uploaded, that much better than the coin picture. Is there a reason this particular picture is a personal favorite? The Queen picture really is esthetically much prettier, plus it demonstrates relevance to modern times, and not just some obscure 2 dimensional single color old coin. Stbalbach 15:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no preference for that particular coin. But the use of GC in modern times is already stated by the Danish GC, while the obscure [...] single color old coin demonstrates and illustrates the use in ancient times. From the information point of view, the Elizabeth picture is redundant, while the coin is far more important as a document.

--Panairjdde 08:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

cross symbolism

At the risk of being obvious, doesn't the cross on top of the globe symbolize Christ's dominion over the world? J S Ayer 23:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your right, I was looking at that sentence the other day and somthing didnt seem right. --Stbalbach 00:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How could it symbolize that, as the world was considered flat until Columbus proved it wasn't flat?Wzrd1 (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The world was known to be round since at Ancient Greece at least. (And it was Magellan's expedition that finally proved what everyone already knew). All Columbus proved was that Columbus's own estimate of the size of the world was wrong (he thought China was where America turned out to be). Iapetus (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

T&O map

Regarding this connection with T&O maps

The bands encircling the globus – usually a circle around the "waist" of the globe, and a semi-circle intersecting a point on the first circular band, the surmounting cross, and a point at the opposite pole of the first point – are reminiscent of the divisions of the world seen in the medieval T and O map, where they represent the major seas and rivers that divide Europe, Africa, and Asia. It may be noted, however, that some orbs have a different pattern of bands.

I've never seen this connection made before. Is there a source for this, or conjecture? -- Stbalbach 16:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First known use

Regarding this recent addition:

The first known use was between 395 and 408 on the reverse side of the coins of Emperor Arcadius.

I couldn't find a decent source for this. According to the Dictionary of the Middle Ages it is "the early 400s". The coin of Arcadius shows him holding a globe but it is not clearly a globus cruciger. I'll change the text to reflect the ambiguity unless someone has a better source to clear it up. -- Stbalbach 13:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but...

Sorry but the orb is not especifically a christianity symbol, i think that is better remove the "a Christian symbol of authority", replace by "a ancient symbol of authority". See at: here

Thank. Marcelo.Marcelognunez (talk) 04:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcelognunez (talk • contribs) 03:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say it is - only the globus cruciger. Johnbod (talk) 04:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-- OK i have added Orb like hyperlink to the proper page, i understand globus cruciger is a specific Orb with a croix. Thank.--Marcelognunez (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is Otto I (next to Eagdyth in Magdeburg) holding an orb with no cross?

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HerscherpaarMagdeburgCathedral.jpg and note that it is not without question that this IS Otto I and his wife Eagdyth. WHAT is he holding? An orb? A plan-view of a nearly-circular walled city? Something like the breast-plate of the Israelite High Priest?2604:2000:C682:B600:FC9C:4C2:2514:9A8F (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]