Historically, heraldry as a specific symbol language is closely related to military affairs. It, in fact, arose in the XII century in Europe among professional military men-knights and their retinue-squires to identify the status of a warrior, his national and ancestral affiliation. In Russia, it was actively developed in the late XVII-early XVIII centuries. In those days, heraldic symbols were applied in various ways (sewing, chasing, painting) to the attributes of military life and weapons. Later, family (personal and ancestral), maritime, religious, urban, and other types of heraldry emerged.

Modern military heraldry deals with the creation of heraldic symbols to indicate the affiliation of military personnel to specific military units, as well as the identification of military equipment and weapons, and other attributes of military life, and the issues of their application. It encompasses the entire range of military-service symbols, including uniforms, insignia, banners, flags, pennants, standards, and elements of the award system. In short, modern heraldry studies all aspects of symbolism and emblems. Therefore, when creating new heraldic symbols or modifying the revived symbols of the pre-revolutionary Russian army, it is necessary to use the rules and principles of "friendly" areas of sign-creating activity, such as phaleristics, which deals with the creation of breastplates and badges, or vexillology, which is the theory and practice of designing banners and flags. In this process, it is also necessary to use information from the field of uniformology, which is the science of military clothing.

Today, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation are clearly striving to revive the regimental insignia that were lost during the Soviet period on military uniforms, as well as to create symbols of belonging to a specific branch (type) of the Armed Forces for formations and units. The most common form of such symbols is the sleeve chevron and breast insignia. However, when creating these symbols, it is important to remember that military heraldry, as well as general heraldry, is very conservative and based on centuries-old rules and principles that should not be violated.

it should not. Without taking this into account, newly created armbands and breastplates are at least doomed to be misunderstood by others, and at most will be unclaimed or forgotten in a few years. However, the reasonable application of heraldic rules makes the language of military symbols understandable to people of various professions, nationalities, and even eras.

An actual problem of military heraldic support is the almost complete absence of specialists in military heraldry in the troops, especially in such links as district (fleet), army (flotilla), corps (squadron), division. It is no secret that often the signs on the ground are developed spontaneously, without taking into account the traditions of our state and its Armed Forces, history, heraldic and phaleristic requirements. Unfortunately, as the analysis of the sketches of sleeve and breast insignia provided to the Naval Heraldic College shows, many officers in units and on ships do not know the history of their unit, which affects the creation of military symbols. Blind copying of Western models, the desire for multi-color, and the lack of thoughtfulness in the shapes and sizes of the symbol are the main drawbacks of most projects. This is unacceptable, as symbols play a significant role in the educational process of military personnel and have an impact on the moral and psychological climate in military units.

page 68

it largely shapes public opinion.

But there are also positive examples of the creation of military symbols. I would like to note the successful work of the Chief Herald of the Black Sea Fleet, Captain 1st Rank V. Doroshko, who was the first in the Navy to create a coherent system of naval symbols. There have also been significant advancements in the Northern Fleet. However, unfortunately, due to the frequent rotation of leadership personnel and the lack of a well-established system for training naval enthusiasts in heraldry, there are still many "home-made" and "primitive" projects.

The Commander-in-Chief of the Navy and the General Staff have recently made significant efforts to rectify the current situation. On June 2, 1998, the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy signed Order No. 193 "On Improving Heraldic Work in the Navy and Appointing the Members of the Navy Heraldic Board." The College was established primarily to try to streamline heraldic work in the Navy, strengthen control over the abundance and content of the coats of arms and insignia of naval units and ships, and prepare heraldic materials for submission to the Department of Military Heraldry and Symbology of the Military Information Center of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation and the Heraldic Council under the President of the Russian Federation. Despite the fact that the Heraldic Board is a non-staffed body, it includes representatives from all relevant departments of the Navy: the Department of Educational Work, the Navy Research and Historical Group, the Skipper Service, the Material Service, the Central Naval Museum, the editorial office of the magazine "Morskoi Sbornik", and the naval institutes. Due to its "non-staffed" nature, the Board has faced numerous challenges. Here is just one example.

Preparation of the draft order of the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation "On the military heraldic sign-emblem of the Navy" took more than four months. The draft order was reworked four times, and more than ten signatures were collected - all of which required a lot of effort. Members of the Heraldic College had to work mainly in their free time from their main official duties.

Over the course of more than 2 years of our work, we have received dozens of requests for assistance in developing a heraldic symbol, an emblem, and a sleeve badge for the management (service). We have developed a comprehensive concept in these areas. The regional public organization "Academy of Russian Symbols" has provided significant assistance in creating these symbols by offering conceptual approaches to their development. In order to resolve this issue more quickly and improve the work on creating symbols for military sailors, on July 2, 1999, the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy signed Directive DF-23 "On the Declaration of the Naval Heraldic Code." This code does not claim to be perfect, but its introduction at this stage should help local enthusiasts in creating and developing symbols for naval units and formations.

Today, the Naval Heraldic Board, together with the Academy of Russian Symbols, has developed and subsequently approved by orders of the Naval Heraldic Board, the emblems and shoulder patches of the following formations: the International Legal Service, the Department of Search, Rescue, and Repair Operations, the Department of Radiation, Chemical, and Biological Protection, the Department of Personnel, and a number of central-level units. All the signs are designed according to a unified system: the basis is the military heraldic sign - the emblem of the Navy, depicting a golden double-headed eagle crowned with a crown and holding two silver Admiralty anchors crossed behind its back in its paws. On the eagle's chest are symbols that reveal the specifics of a particular formation. For example, on the emblem of the Navy's Radiation, Chemical, and Biological Protection Service, there is a benzene ring with alpha, beta, and gamma radiation rays. A diving helmet on a stylized porthole-shaped shield is featured on the emblem of the Search and Rescue and Repair Department.

The arm insignia of these units correspond (shape, size) to the accepted standards approved by Order of the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation No. 210 of March 28, 1997 "On the rules for wearing military uniforms by military personnel of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation". Background - black, with gold edging (for coastal troops of the Navy-red, for naval aviation-blue). It was also taken into account that the sleeve badge should be as concise as possible, but at the same time reflect two mandatory criteria: the affiliation of military personnel to the Navy and their affiliation to a specific military unit. This task was solved by depicting two crossed anchors (affiliation to the Navy is an element of the military heraldic badge, the emblem of the Navy). In the center of the crossed anchors, there is a symbol representing a specific department, branch, or service.

Thus, the created symbols have not only become the basic symbols of the Main Command of the Navy, but they can also serve as the basis for the development of symbols for other parts and formations of the Navy, which have been granted this right in the Heraldic Code.

page 69

Permanent link to this publication: