The purpose of the Late Roman Draco standard.

[Vindex]

... and that there must have been a reason for this other than the Draco being a signalling device as stated by Vegetius (although, having served in the armed forces myself I fail to see how such a standard would be used in a signalling role, waving it about would appear to be a complete and utter nonsense!).

The development of semaphore I believe, came from a simple but effect use of flags (perhaps dracos too) and timings delays between signals to send a coded message...I don't think it should be dismissed so lightly.

Nor do I think field signalling and static location signalling would be necessarily different to avoid confusion.

This has some interesting points...(not that I agree with all of it!)

http://www.theromangaskproject.org.uk/P ... lling.html

[Ron Andrea]

Hadn't realized the extent of Roman activity beyond the Antonine Wall. hock:

[ValentinianVictrix]

... and that there must have been a reason for this other than the Draco being a signalling device as stated by Vegetius (although, having served in the armed forces myself I fail to see how such a standard would be used in a signalling role, waving it about would appear to be a complete and utter nonsense!).

The development of semaphore I believe, came from a simple but effect use of flags (perhaps dracos too) and timings delays between signals to send a coded message...I don't think it should be dismissed so lightly.

Nor do I think field signalling and static location signalling would be necessarily different to avoid confusion.

This has some interesting points...(not that I agree with all of it!)

http://www.theromangaskproject.org.uk/P ... lling.html

I was in probably in one of the very last Royal Navy recruitments to be actually taught semaphore! It's nowhere near the same as waving a large spear around with a several metres long windsock attached to it! No, I thats why I stated I cannot for the life of me see how it was used as a communication device.

[Vindex]

I was in probably in one of the very last Royal Navy recruitments to be actually taught semaphore! It's nowhere near the same as waving a large spear around with a several metres long windsock attached to it! No, I thats why I stated I cannot for the life of me see how it was used as a communication device.

Did you look at the link at all...to look at some suggested uses? It could also explain the other coloured dracos...nor did I say it was sempahore, merely the signalling from which semaphore evolved...

[ValentinianVictrix]

Did you look at the link at all...to look at some suggested uses? It could also explain the other coloured dracos...nor did I say it was sempahore, merely the signalling from which semaphore evolved...

Still cannot see how it was used as a signalling device. How about Robert telling us from a reenactment perspective considering Fecto has a replica?

[Vindex]

Still cannot see how it was used as a signalling device. How about Robert telling us from a reenactment perspective considering Fecto has a replica?

Let your imagination run riot... :wink:

[Robert Vermaat]

It would depend on how complicated you want your signals to be. My guess is that (apart from showing wind direction and -strenght) it shows where the commander is. Nco's would of course have to know how to listen for commands etc. Maybe the draco (like any flag in Roman and Medieval times) signalled an advance or a retreat? Commands, afaik, were mostly vocal, or by horn/tuba/cornu etc..

[ValentinianVictrix]

It would depend on how complicated you want your signals to be. My guess is that (apart from showing wind direction and -strenght) it shows where the commander is. Nco's would of course have to know how to listen for commands etc. Maybe the draco (like any flag in Roman and Medieval times) signalled an advance or a retreat? Commands, afaik, were mostly vocal, or by horn/tuba/cornu etc...

This may be an acceptable alternative to my original theory- the Draco standard was a uniform colour and its purpose was to denote the presence on the battlefield the units commander, the vexillum standard denoting the unit?

[Forty-One]

In Book II of de re militari, Vegetius, when discusing legionary standards, says that a dragon was carried in action by the dragon-bearer of each cohort:
"Dracones etiam per singulas cohortes a draconariis feruntur ad praelium." . One might perhaps think that if it in fact represented the imperial person then each and every cohort is unlikely to have been issued one.

Vegetius also says in the same passage that the standards served to keep the men from becoming disordered in battle by marking the position of the unit and indicating its direction of advance. Nothing more sophisticated than that. I don't think the notion of the standards "semaphoring" complex orders really rests on any ancient authority.

[Urselius]

Henry V at Agincourt reputedly indicated to his army to move forward towards the French with the words "Banners advance!" Presumably any standard could be used to indicate such basic movements as advance and retreat.

For most Christian emperors the Labarum and its variants were the main indicator of the imperial presence. Honorius is depicted carrying a labarum on an ivory, and a miniature labarum served the purpose of a sceptre for later Byzantine autocrats. Eusebius states that Constantine I gave multiple labara to the units of the army, a coin of Vetranio shows two such with chi-rhos on the cloth (unlike Constantine's original which had a jewelled chi-rho above the crossbar) and phalerae-decorated staffs. I would think that these labara are better candidates for directly Imperial insignia given to units.

[markhebb]

I'm of the view that the Labarum wasn't actually used in a widespread manner by the 4th century Roman army. Yes it appears very frequently on coinage - especially in the second half of the century although I believe this is primarily as an iconographic tool not as a reflection of actual usage. Writing in the reign of Theodosius the Bishop Ambrose still references the Roman eagle and a quick skim of Ammianus shows how prevalent the dracones were - especially on important ceremonial occasions such as Constantius II's adventus into Rome.

If there are any Australians or New Zealanders here I'm giving a paper at the Australasian Society Classical Studies conference in Auckland early next year on all things 'signa' in the fourth century (cheeky plug finished). Come along and hear me!!! D

[ValentinianVictrix]

My belief is that the vexillum (Labarum) standard was to indicate the unit it belonged to, so that each unit it was attached to on the battle field could be seen and then directed by the commander of that portion of the army it was in. It also would give commanders an indication of whether the unit was advancing, retreating etc. I'm still unsure of the purpose of the Draco standard, the interpretation that it was used to indicate the position of the unit commander is not unreasonable.

It's also not unreasonable to suggest that most, if not all, battlefield commands were given by audible signals, as indicated in a number of passages in Ammianus.

[Urselius]

A vexillum and a labarum were similar, but distinct. A vexillum could carry any device, but a labarum always incorporated the chi-rho monogram.

I think you miss my point slightly, the earlier assertion was that the draco somehow represented a tie between the emperor and a particular unit. As was pointed out there is no contemporary written evidence that this was the case, however, Eusebius (a contemporary writer) states that Constantine gave labara directly to the units of his army. I believe that this is the only written statement concerning the wholesale donation of standards directly by an emperor to military units in the Late Period. It therefore has priority, due to its primary source origins, over any other theory proposed for the type of standard used by emperors to tie units to themselves.

[Robert Vermaat]

A vexillum and a labarum were similar, but distinct. A vexillum could carry any device, but a labarum always incorporated the chi-rho monogram.

Agreed!

[ValentinianVictrix]

A vexillum and a labarum were similar, but distinct. A vexillum could carry any device, but a labarum always incorporated the chi-rho monogram.

I think you miss my point slightly, the earlier assertion was that the draco somehow represented a tie between the emperor and a particular unit. As was pointed out there is no contemporary written evidence that this was the case, however, Eusebius (a contemporary writer) states that Constantine gave labara directly to the units of his army. I believe that this is the only written statement concerning the wholesale donation of standards directly by an emperor to military units in the Late Period. It therefore has priority, due to its primary source origins, over any other theory proposed for the type of standard used by emperors to tie units to themselves.

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.