Flag Thread IV

I decided to make a few small changes to this, to make it more inclusive/accurate:

View attachment 514300

- Swapped Iran's symbol for a combination of the RSII Coalition's flag and emblem

- Swapped Syria's star with ALBA's coat of arms

- Swapped Venezuela's crescent of stars with Serbia's lesser coat of arms

- Swapped Venezuela's blue for Serbia's
Absurdly busy and just asking for internal argument about whose symbol is more prominent or wrongly placed.
International blocs tend to have single very nonnational symbols.
 
Some potential flags for a Kingdom of Portugal in a world where coat-of-arms on a flag is frowned upon. Thoughts? Preferences?

View attachment 514196
Those are nice! I like them a lot. I'm torn between the first and second ones as a main state flag, although a modern (19th Century) state would drop the cross and have only a bi-color blue-white flag, very simple but different from Britain's, France's or many other European major powers. The one with the cross can be used as a sort of ceremonial banner, maybe prime-ministerial or head of state ensign (red cross for the sea ensign, of course, like in the old sailing ships of the Discovery Age)

I decided to make a few small changes to this, to make it more inclusive/accurate:

View attachment 514300
It's... not great. Like the Professor said, coalitions tend to create new symbols to avoid bickering over prominence. It's a practical thing. The Western Bloc would fly NATO's compass, which I find a perfectly recognisable, neutral and serviceable symbol.

As for the Eastern bloc, I think it's absurd to imagine a scenario in which all of these countries would unite against the West. It's equally absurd to think that, if they went with national symbols in their flag, they'd place Serbia's at the same level as China's, Iran's or the Russian coalition thing. Besides, it looks like the flag of Russia with some stickers on it. Like a Berkley guy went on an edgy backpack tour.

But it's salvageable. I think the colours and general shapes can point us torwars a direction. Since blue is the color of choice for the Western Bloc, this one should be red. Black is too ominous, white looks like surrender and green is too identified today with Islam (and Brazil). Red and blue are the only remaining colors that can have a positive spin on a flag.

You've got some stars, and white in the flags of Russia and the Middle Eastern Iran bloc. Blue is in North Korea and Venezuela, but I'd leave it out for simplicity's sake. Here's what I came up with:

Flag East Asia Union.png


Granted, there's no "iconic symbol", but if I could create iconic symbols, I would be working as an iconic symbol maker.
 
Those are nice! I like them a lot. I'm torn between the first and second ones as a main state flag,
Thanks.

although a modern (19th Century) state would drop the cross and have only a bi-color blue-white flag
I'm not sure I agree here. There are plenty of modern flags that include a cross. If we include non-Christian symbology, nearly 1/3 of current national flags include religious design elements, albeit some as minor elements.

The world this Kingdom of Portugal inhabits never saw the rise of romantic nationalism or atheistic communism. European socialism is philosophically tied to Christian theology. There are more surviving monarchies in the West while republicanism is historically associated with mercantile oligarchies and despotic autocracies. In such a world, I suspect more flags bearing crosses would not be exceptional.
 
I'm not sure I agree here. There are plenty of modern flags that include a cross. If we include non-Christian symbology, nearly 1/3 of current national flags include religious design elements, albeit some as minor elements.
Most, IRL, follow the French revolutionary example, wich itself took inspirational cues from the Dutch (if tangentially). If the designs were there for religious reasons, they're not necessarily thought of as religious today. And even then, they're highly simplified. Your design fits well, I think, a 17th-18th Century vexillological aesthetics, but for our 20th century, they're a tad too ornate. It's not the cross I object, It's the cross' design. It's not integral to the flag's recognisability and it's way too complex.

Of course, your Portugal can be whatever you want it to be :) And within the bounds of what you describe (no romantic nationalism to look for simplified or generalised national symbols, no utilitary mentality which forces flags to be recognisable from afar and easy to mass produce...), it makes sense.
 
And even then, they're highly simplified.
...
It's not integral to the flag's recognisability and it's way too complex
Let's look at some OTL examples (from wikimedia), beginning with Portugal



It bears both the cost of arms and armillary that are far more complicated than a counter charged cross. I would also argue that it these play exactly the same role as my cross with regards to recognisability. It was adopted in 1911.

Spain:



As with OTL Portugal, this COA is more complicated and serves the same role. Although designed in 1785, it was re-adopted in 1981.

The current Algerian flag was designed in the mid XX Century



I could concede that the crescent and star are simpler than cross I used, but I would emphasize the crescent and star plays the same role. However, removing it would not cause the flag to be confused with another.

What about the flags of some of the successors of Yugoslavia?






All three were adopted in the late XX or early XXI Century. Each charge is more complicated than my cross. They might add to the recogniazability of the flags, though the ordering of the stripes does that already. In any case, the details of the charges are not useful at a distance.

I'm not going to link all of the XX Century communist flags that added complicated seals that, with the exception of the DDR, were not needed to make the flag recognizable. I only mention them because the flags that replaced them are the only examples that are immediately obvoius to me as examples of XX Century flags that were simplified to tricolors. However, these changes were motivated by political, not aesthetic, reasons. And in those cases, the tricolors they reverted to were tricolors associated with romantic nationalist movements.

Edit: Italy also comes to mind, but the same applies.

Your design fits well, I think, a 17th-18th Century vexillological aesthetics, but for our 20th century, they're a tad too ornate.
I'm at a loss to determine to which XX Century vexillogical aesthetics you refer. As demonstrated above, there were many flags adopted in the XX Century that are at least as ornate as the flags I supplied.

Even so, I'm not sure why OTL aesthetics are even reverent. As I mentioned earlier, this Kingdom of Portugal exists in a world that never saw the rise of romantic nationalism nor atheistic communism. This should suggest a XVIII Century POD at the latest. In fact, the POD is late XV.
 
Last edited:
First of all, let me say that I mostly agree with you, I overdid my previous position and that was a bit rash of me.

Let's look at some OTL examples (from wikimedia), beginning with Portugal
It bears both the cost of arms and armillary that are far more complicated than a counter charged cross. I would also argue that it these play exactly the same role as my cross with regards to recognisability. It was adopted in 1911.
I'd argue that the armillary and the coat of arms are not integral parts of the flag, but that's just my opinion. I see flags as having a field, and then charges. The coat of arms of Portugal or Spain in the flag is not integral, and as a matter of fact, more often than not, you'll see versions of the flag (on stickers, wristbands, cutouts and toursm booths, among other places) without the charge, because the flag itself is recognisable enough. The moon on the Algerian flag, though, doesn't "feel" like a charge. It's big, it's not encased or delined, and it makes red a part of what the Algerian flag and colours are. This sort of relation between field and charge is what I had in mind, I wasn't clear enough, sorry.

Some other European flags need the charge because of evident similarities with their neighbours, but that would not be a problem for your Portugal. Besides, the ex-Iugoslavian and Balkan flags are generally a mess; they all look the same and rearranging the colours doesn't really make them easier to identify unless you're from there.

But that said, I agree that the official flag is this one and I didn't really think my position through when it comes to what "feels" like a realistic 20th Century flag would look like. Again, it's your TL and it looks like you have put solid thought in it.

Even so, I'm not sure why OTL aesthetics are even reverent. As I mentioned earlier, this Kingdom of Portugal exists in a world that never saw the rise of romantic nationalism nor atheistic communism. This should suggest a XVIII Century POD at the latest. In fact, the POD is late XV.
Sure.
 
Some potential flags for a Kingdom of Portugal in a world where coat-of-arms on a flag is frowned upon. Thoughts? Preferences?
no 1 would work but I think the cross should be slightly smaller so it doesn't merge into the lower division. 2-3 feel like they lack a bit of contrast, maybe have a red cross outlined in white ? last one just feels too scandinavian.
 
This is NOT my flag here but I want to show case it since I really like it. A fascist, French-Speaking America.
It combines the cross of lorraine of the Free French Force with the Petainist emblems and the monarchist fleur-de-lys. Even for France it would be a weird juxtaposition of 20th and 18th century symbols but considering this is an alt-*USA* flag, it seems to make even less sense.
 
no 1 would work but I think the cross should be slightly smaller so it doesn't merge into the lower division
I can see that. In my defense, it was clearer on the larger version I made before posting.

2-3 feel like they lack a bit of contrast, maybe have a red cross outlined in white ?
I'll play around with that.

last one just feels too scandinavian.
While acknowledging the similarities, it was actually inspired by several of the 1785 proposals for the Spanish flag like this one:


 
Last edited:
Me: The (current) US flag is overrated and not really all that good design.
People: But the symbolism!
Me: I'll give you symbolism.
symbol.png

L.png
 
Last edited:
Top