The purpose of the Late Roman Draco standard.

[Urselius]

I cannot agree with all of the above. The Labarum standard as used by Constantine the Great was a specific standard associated with him only. It was stored after his death in Constantinople. There is pictorial evidence of vexillum standards bareing the Chi-Rho symbol, this symbol was not limited to any standards donated by an emperor. It is probably linked to the claim that Constantine dreamt that God commanded him to have his army scribe the Chi-Rho symbol on their shields etc and he would be victorious. We have monumental evidence and line drawings of destroyed monuments that show troops upto at least the reigns of Arcadius and Honorius having shields with only the Chi-Rho on them, clearly they were not donated by the Emperor.

Yes, "The Labarum" was a singular talismanic standard used by Constantine the Great, and recorded as late as the 10th century as being housed in the imperial treasury in Constantinople. However, as I have said earlier, Eusebius stated that Constantine gave multiple labara (apparently visually distinct from The Labarum) to units in his army. Indeed their multiple status is confirmed on the coin of Vetranio, as a soldier is portrayed holding two such cho-rho monogrammed standards. A silver plate showing Constantius II has him accompanied by a guardsman bearing a chi-rho decorated shield, but shields are not standards so I don't see their relevance to a bald statement by a contemporary writer that an emperor donated labara to units of his army.

[ValentinianVictrix]

I cannot agree with all of the above. The Labarum standard as used by Constantine the Great was a specific standard associated with him only. It was stored after his death in Constantinople. There is pictorial evidence of vexillum standards bareing the Chi-Rho symbol, this symbol was not limited to any standards donated by an emperor. It is probably linked to the claim that Constantine dreamt that God commanded him to have his army scribe the Chi-Rho symbol on their shields etc and he would be victorious. We have monumental evidence and line drawings of destroyed monuments that show troops upto at least the reigns of Arcadius and Honorius having shields with only the Chi-Rho on them, clearly they were not donated by the Emperor.

Yes, "The Labarum" was a singular talismanic standard used by Constantine the Great, and recorded as late as the 10th century as being housed in the imperial treasury in Constantinople. However, as I have said earlier, Eusebius stated that Constantine gave multiple labara (apparently visually distinct from The Labarum) to units in his army. Indeed their multiple status is confirmed on the coin of Vetranio, as a soldier is portrayed holding two such cho-rho monogrammed standards. A silver plate showing Constantius II has him accompanied by a guardsman bearing a chi-rho decorated shield, but shields are not standards so I don't see their relevance to a bald statement by a contemporary writer that an emperor donated labara to units of his army.

I think modern authors counsel some caution when reading early Christian writers, they had an agenda to ensure that their faith was promoted at every opportunity. We cannot be too sure if what Eusbius states is bald fact or was it Christian propaganda?

[Urselius]

I think modern authors counsel some caution when reading early Christian writers, they had an agenda to ensure that their faith was promoted at every opportunity. We cannot be too sure if what Eusbius states is bald fact or was it Christian propaganda?

Any evidence is better than none, and bear in mind that Eusebius is supported by numismatic evidence.

[ValentinianVictrix]

I think modern authors counsel some caution when reading early Christian writers, they had an agenda to ensure that their faith was promoted at every opportunity. We cannot be too sure if what Eusbius states is bald fact or was it Christian propaganda?

Any evidence is better than none, and bear in mind that Eusebius is supported by numismatic evidence.

Agreed, but upto a point. I have championed the cause of Late Roman infantry not only wearing mail and scale hauberks, but also wearing muscle cuirasses, this based on wall paintings, murals, mosaics and monumental evidence. However, I find few who share my view based on this type of 'evidence'.

Do we also then believe Ammianus when he states Late Roman legiones were still made up of maniples, centuries, cohorts etc? That velites were still being used? (I've no reason to doubt him but most modern historians do)

Evidence is not always evidence it would seem.

[Ron Andrea]

Whatever the device--dragon or chi-rho--it would be useful for maneuver units to have some means of telling where to go. I always assumed that was one reason for the orientation of the centurion's crest. It the fog and friction of battle it's really easy to get disoriented.

[Epictetus]

This does not directly deal with the question at hand, but I thought it was a fascinating glimpse of symbolism with standards. Perhaps others with more knowledge of these standards could interpret it better than I.

One passage in particular (in Lucian’s On the Syrian Goddess) is interesting… At 31ff. he describes the inner sanctum wherein sit Hera and Zeus… Between them stands another object called the ‘standard (sêmêion)’ (33). It has been suggested that Lucian mistook the name of the goddess as the normal Greek word for a ‘sign’ or ‘standard’. But the ‘standard’ between Atargatis and Hadad is well known from representations of the cult at Hierapolis and from Hatra in central Mesopotamia. The object, which resembled a Roman legionary standard in form, was intended to symbolise the presence of the gods whose pictures it bore (as Lucian notes).

(Footnote): The iconography of the standards at Hierapolis and Hatra (which was not in the Empire) does seem to have been influenced by the Roman military standard (Seyrig 1960: 245; Millar 1993: 247), for which sêmêion is the Greek term…

Swain, Hellenism and Empire

The passage in question is:

33. Between the two there stands another image of gold, no part of it resembling the others. This possesses no special form of its own, but recalls the characteristics of other gods.

Lucian, On the Syrian Goddess

There is also an image from a 3rd century coin of the two gods with the standard in between:

[John Conyard]

Certainly standards could be used to give visual signals such as to advance and to retreat. But also to set the speed of maneuver, especially important for cavalry, both in Arrians games but also in the field. Hearing orders can be difficult in any armoured formation, but especially in a "cavalry" helmet bouncing around on a horse when you are well back in the file. But by watching the draco speeding up, slowing down, wheeling etc. you get an indication of what to do imediately in terms of speed as well as direction. The tail of the animal makes it easy to see and helps gives a visual sense of the direction to follow.

[kchetwynd]

Is there any particular evidence relating to the sound that they supposedly made? I was under the impression that the wind blowing through them was supposed to make an erie sound. Could it be a psychological thing?

Robert, does the Fectio Draco make noise?

Did I miss the answer where someone explained what material the draco tail was made from, and how Murex derived dye would actually tint it?

[jvrjenivs]

Is there any particular evidence relating to the sound that they supposedly made? I was under the impression that the wind blowing through them was supposed to make an erie sound. Could it be a psychological thing?

Hard to tell how the sounds was made. At the moment I know no reconstruction which actully produce sounds. It's still a mistery.

Robert, does the Fectio Draco make noise?

So, the answer is no. But we're still puzzling if we can get it make sound.

[ValentinianVictrix]

I've been scouring various ancient Late Roman works for information on standards associated with commanders. Its very interesting to note that the enemies of the Romans did not appear to have known when they were engaging the Emperor/Army commander in direct combat. Examples of this would be where Julian rallied the right wing at Strasburg, no Allemanni appeared to have recognised him so that he became a target for attack. Similarly, the Goth's at Adrianopolis did not know they were attacking Valens in person when he joined the Lanciarii and Mattarii Legions, or, if the legend is correct, that he was holed up in a farmhouse that was subsequently burned down. It also appears that neither Julian or Valens, nor Valentinian I who was almost killed in an ambush, were distinquishable from their men by wearing armour or clothing or their standards were different so that it singled them out as special target.

So, in relation to this thread I'm coming to the view that the Draco standards purpose was to denote the position of a units commander. It was probaly used as a rallying point and where those seeking orders could move to. I also believe all such standards were of a uniform colour, probably as a deliberate ploy so as not to reveal exactly where the overall commanders position was within the army.

[Robert Vermaat]

I'm coming to the view that the Draco standards purpose was to denote the position of a units commander.

Ah.

.. a deliberate ploy so as not to reveal exactly where the overall commanders position was within the army.

Oh?

Both statements together are a complete contradiction. :wink:

[ValentinianVictrix]

Both statements together are a complete contradiction. :wink:

Not really, if the Draco's purpose denotes exactly where every units commander is, the last thing you want is for the enemy to know exactly where the overall commander is, which would happen if the overall commanders Draco was a different colour ('Head for the Purple Draco men, thats where the Roman Emperor is'). Hence, by having every Draco a uniform colour, purple or a similar colour, makes complete sense as the enemy will have no idea where the Emperor or whoever else is in charge is located within the Roman army, they will only know where every commander is located.

[Robert Vermaat]

Not really, if the Draco's purpose denotes exactly where every units commander is, the last thing you want is for the enemy to know exactly where the overall commander is, which would happen if the overall commanders Draco was a different colour ('Head for the Purple Draco men, thats where the Roman Emperor is'). Hence, by having every Draco a uniform colour, purple or a similar colour, makes complete sense as the enemy will have no idea where the Emperor or whoever else is in charge is located within the Roman army, they will only know where every commander is located.

Since you would not want a 'wood of dracones' it would hardly make sense to award every commander with a draco. hence, either the Emperor is dressed as a common soldier (I think not) or he is dressed as a general (more likely), but he does not have a personal standard next to his other commanders. or else, he would have been 'visible' because he would be one of the officers at the spot where several dracones could be seen.

Btw, I don't think that Ammianus' remarks can tell us anything about the draco colour (which could have been uniform in colour, indeed. Or not). Rather, it tells us that the emperors were either not dressed as such, or too far back to become targets. Julian does not seem to have been anywhere in front at Srassbourg (when he was killed in Persia he had not dressed up properly) and Valens may not have had a draconarius with him anymore. It's not clear enough to draw such conclusions upon.

[ValentinianVictrix]

Ok, what we have is basically Vegetius telling us that every Roman unit, be it a legion or auxilia unit, had a Draco standard. The purpose of this standard is unclear, other than it had some sort of signalling purpose, which may well have been to signal the location of the units overall commander within the unit. This indeed would have lead to what you described as a 'wood of dracones', but not a forest as it would have been limited to one per unit.

The colour of the Draco itself appears to be purple or a similar colour and there is no evidence at present of them being of any other colour. This is derived not only from Ammianus but from several other sources that have been quoted here and elsewhere.

Unless some other evidence from the ancient sources comes to light, this is as good as any theory proposed about the purpose of the Draco standard, which of course upto now there appears to have been no theory at all!!!

[Urselius]

The draco appears to have been adopted from the Sarmatians and other related Iranian peoples. The probability is that it was adopted by the Romans because it was an inherently impressive object. The first appearance of dracones in Roman units must have been as battlefield trophies captured from Sarmatians, they may then have been retained as status symbols, visible proof of a unit's victorious record. Units of Sarmatians were incorporated into the Roman army and this would also tend to introduce the draco to Roman conciousness. From this the use of such standards may have spread by emulation before becoming officially sanctioned. The draco may not have had, or needed, a specific function in order to become a widespread feature of the Roman army.