The Draco standard

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Bryan,

I've seen this site (http://www.fectio.org.uk/articles/draco.htm) but still find it lacking in detail.

Exactly which detail do you find lacking? Apart from the draco not being gilded/silvered that is?

[Robert Vermaat]

They made a quite cool draco standard inspired by those from the Trajan Column and Tropaeum Traiani monument at Adamclisi and from literrary sources

Actually Trajan's Column does not only shows 'draco' standards. The 'draco' is a Roman military standard made in to a dragon's head, which was typical for all Roman units. Most Dacian and other (Scythian, Persian) standards which we know were not only dragon's heads, but also wolves and other animals (even fish!). I do not know how these peoples referred to their battle standards, but it's extremely unlikely that they referred to them as 'dracos'.

Does the Adamclisi monument show a draco?

[diegis]

Well, the name given by Romans was "draco", we dont know how Dacians or others name them but we use the name "draco" for such flags, a serpentiform body with a wolf or some other animals head.

As far as i know the first appeareance of a "draco" was on Trajan Column where is used exclusevly by Dacians. The presumed Sarmatian cavalry appear in couple scenes but they dont use such standard.

Some author mention an even earlier presence ("Roman Military Equipment from the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome" de M. C. Bishop - 2005)

"The type is first seen with a wolf's head and a beribboned tail on a Domitianic(?) trophy frieze, and carried by Dacians on Trajan's Column."

The head of the Dacian "draco" is usually a wolf (and many times appear near a "vexilium" standard alos used by Dacians who suppsoedly inspirde from Roman army and had a professional army as well, or at least had a core of professional army similar with Romans)

This is the battle from Tapae, the draco and a vexilium appear in the upper right corner. Dacians are in upper position and kinda overcome the Roman army (mostly auxiliars) when Jupiter appear from the skies and throw lightinings against Dacian army



This is a "draco" (near a vexilium, they are shown in the middle and upper part of the scene) in a Dacian fortress that is abandoned under Roman assault (the heads of killed Romans are put on stakes on the walls)



This are "Draco" used by Dacians during the crossing of Danube and attack of Moesia

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dacian...Column.jpg



http://quadratus.files.wordpress.com/201...jpghttp://

Here among the trophies from Trajan Column



Same image in some engravings made in XVIII century (when Column was in a better shape)

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b20...24.highres
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b20...25.highres

Other various images and reproductions




This is from Tropaeum Traiani (Adamclisi) monument (original ancient frieze inside the museum)



And the reproduced one



Tropaeum Traiani monument is a bit controversial, some say is an older Dacian monument there, and then Romans re-worked it in their own one or build another one but preserving parts from the older Dacian one. Then in modern times "suffered" another reconstruction and preservation work based on the ruins and pieces found there

It is supposed that the "draco" (not the Roman name used but the actual stindard) originated from Bonze Age when was found braceletes (of gold, silver or bronze) with a serpent form and having other animal heads (or snake heads) at both ends.
Another theory is that they was inspired by some Hittites imagery, as proto-Thracians had contacts with Hittites (which themselves might have inspired from Sumerian/Babylonian imagery of Tiamat).

However, due to fact that Dacian draco use in general a wolf head and the Dacian name in Greek was "daoi", similar with the Phrygian word "daoi" which mean "wolf/wolves" (and Thracian, Dacian and Phrygian are considered "sister" languages) it might be more probably a local development originating in bronze age, from where it spread to Scythians/Sarmatians and Parthians.

Romans adopted the "draco" after Trajan wars and after Dacian and Thracian auxiliars begin to form an important segment in Roman Army. Another element that start to spread in Roman army was the so called "Thracian, Danubian or Dacian rider that had a cult among Roman soldiers.

Even the draco bearer found in Britania (Chester/Deva) might be as well a Dacian auxiliar, as a Dacian unit was located right there as far as i know

[Decimus Brutius Varus]

Hi Bryan,

I've seen this site (http://www.fectio.org.uk/articles/draco.htm) but still find it lacking in detail.

Exactly which detail do you find lacking? Apart from the draco not being gilded/silvered that is?

Well, I assume he used a hammer on anvil technique, but I'd like to see it as I've never done anything quite like that before!

[Decimus Brutius Varus]

Great photos there, diegis!

[Robert Vermaat]

Well, I assume he used a hammer on anvil technique, but I'd like to see it as I've never done anything quite like that before!

I think he did so too, but why would that not be correct? As far as I know it was made from two hammerd sheets.

The result is very close to the detailed images that I have of the (only existing) original.
Two images:

[Robert Vermaat]

As far as i know the first appeareance of a "draco" was on Trajan Column where is used exclusevly by Dacians. The presumed Sarmatian cavalry appear in couple scenes but they dont use such standard.

Maybe because the artist meant to identify 'Dacians' to his audience, and giving Sarmatians a draco would have been confusing? Just a hypothesis, but we know that such things play a part in the imagery of the Column, and we lack evidence either way.

About an exclusively Dacian origin, I must reject that. A draco is essentially a battle standard which also shows the wind conditions, and we find it with all peoples of this period who predominantly use the bow as a weapon. Which includes peoples which had no Dacian connections at all, such as the Persians (we even find it in India). The Dacians, as far as I know, used more infantry tactics that archery, for which reason I see the Dacian use of the draco standard (let's indeed forget about the real name) as derived from other peoples, and not originating with them.

For a source we have Arrian, who describes it clearly as a Scythian standard, and if he really meant Sarmatian makes little difference in this case:

Arrian, Tactica 35:
... Sèmeios de diakerimenoi epelaunousin, ou tois Rhoomaikos monon alla kai tois Skythikois, tou poikilooteran te kai hama phoberooteran gignesthai tèn elasi. Ta Skythika de sèmeia estin epi kontoon en mèkei xymmetrooi drakontes apaiooroumenoi. Poiountai de xyrraptoi ek rhakoon bebammenoon, tas te kephalas kai to sooma pan este epi tas ouras eikasmenoi ophesin, hoos phoberootata hoion te eikasthènai. Kai ta sophismata tauta atremountoon men toon hippoon ouden pleon è rhakè an idois pepoikilmena es to katoo apokremamena, elaunomenoon de empneomena exonkountai, hooste hoos malista tois thèriois epeoikenai, kai ti kai episyrizein pros tèn agan kinèsin hypo tèi pnoèi biaiai dierchomenèi.
'... They attack separated by standards, not only the Roman but the Scythian ones as well, so the charge becomes more colourful and fearsome at the same time. The Scythian standards are snakes of equal length held up on top of spearshafts. They are made of coloured pieces of cloth sewn together, the heads and their entire body up to the tail resembling serpents, so in order that they appear thus more frightening. And when the horses are not trembling from them the multicoloured bodies can be seen hanging down, however when charging they fill with air through the wind so they are most like the beasts and even hiss when a strong wind flows through much movement.'

Tropaeum Traiani monument is a bit controversial, some say is an older Dacian monument there, and then Romans re-worked it in their own one or build another one but preserving parts from the older Dacian one. Then in modern times "suffered" another reconstruction and preservation work based on the ruins and pieces found there

I see no draco here beyond any doubt, just a wolf-like motiv. I was wondering already about that one, because for some reason the (quite realistic style of the) artist did not show any draco with the dacian troops on that monumnet. I stick to that position.

However, due to fact that Dacian draco use in general a wolf head and the Dacian name in Greek was "daoi", similar with the Phrygian word "daoi" which mean "wolf/wolves" (and Thracian, Dacian and Phrygian are considered "sister" languages) it might be more probably a local development originating in bronze age, from where it spread to Scythians/Sarmatians and Parthians.

I'm willing to see that the 'wolf-head battle standard' was something typically Dacian, but that does not mean that the entire development of the draco standard was also original to the dacian region. That does not make sense either way (as suggested above).
Even more so that you claim that the Roman adoption of the draco was also due to the influx of Dacians into the Roman army:

Romans adopted the "draco" after Trajan wars and after Dacian and Thracian auxiliars begin to form an important segment in Roman Army. Another element that start to spread in Roman army was the so called "Thracian, Danubian or Dacian rider that had a cult among Roman soldiers.
Even the draco bearer found in Britania (Chester/Deva) might be as well a Dacian auxiliar, as a Dacian unit was located right there as far as i know

You see the flaw in your logic?
(1) we see Dacians using wolfs heads (which you claim as particularly Dacian) - the Romans are not using that but a dragon.
(2) we see the Dacian infantry using it - the Romans adopt it for their cavalry, not the unfantry (not for a century at least).
(3) written sources never tie it down to Dacians.

It's a discussion that raises its (wolf) head time and again, and it comes down to one thing: the draco is Dacian and shows Dacian influence everywhere. Yet the signs are that the development of the draco is much older and much more pluriform that that, and shows no singular ethnic or even cultural background. It was adopted by the Romans, like so many, many other items.

[diegis]

Great photos there, diegis!

Thank you Varus, hope it was helpful :-)

[diegis]

Salve Robert

Maybe because the artist meant to identify 'Dacians' to his audience, and giving Sarmatians a draco would have been confusing? Just a hypothesis, but we know that such things play a part in the imagery of the Column, and we lack evidence either way.

That maybe an interpretation, it is said that Dacians wasnt depicted wearing their armours precisely to not be confused with Roman soldiers by a less knowleadgeable audicence at Rome. Still if the "draco" (for convenience lets use this Roman name) was a Sarmatian standard first, i dont see why was put in Dacian hands and not in Sarmatian ones?

About an exclusively Dacian origin, I must reject that. A draco is essentially a battle standard which also shows the wind conditions, and we find it with all peoples of this period who predominantly use the bow as a weapon. Which includes peoples which had no Dacian connections at all, such as the Persians (we even find it in India). The Dacians, as far as I know, used more infantry tactics that archery, for which reason I see the Dacian use of the draco standard (let's indeed forget about the real name) as derived from other peoples, and not originating with them.

For a source we have Arrian, who describes it clearly as a Scythian standard, and if he really meant Sarmatian makes little difference in this case:

Arrian, Tactica 35:
... Sèmeios de diakerimenoi epelaunousin, ou tois Rhoomaikos monon alla kai tois Skythikois, tou poikilooteran te kai hama phoberooteran gignesthai tèn elasi. Ta Skythika de sèmeia estin epi kontoon en mèkei xymmetrooi drakontes apaiooroumenoi. Poiountai de xyrraptoi ek rhakoon bebammenoon, tas te kephalas kai to sooma pan este epi tas ouras eikasmenoi ophesin, hoos phoberootata hoion te eikasthènai. Kai ta sophismata tauta atremountoon men toon hippoon ouden pleon è rhakè an idois pepoikilmena es to katoo apokremamena, elaunomenoon de empneomena exonkountai, hooste hoos malista tois thèriois epeoikenai, kai ti kai episyrizein pros tèn agan kinèsin hypo tèi pnoèi biaiai dierchomenèi.
'... They attack separated by standards, not only the Roman but the Scythian ones as well, so the charge becomes more colourful and fearsome at the same time. The Scythian standards are snakes of equal length held up on top of spearshafts. They are made of coloured pieces of cloth sewn together, the heads and their entire body up to the tail resembling serpents, so in order that they appear thus more frightening. And when the horses are not trembling from them the multicoloured bodies can be seen hanging down, however when charging they fill with air through the wind so they are most like the beasts and even hiss when a strong wind flows through much movement.'

First of all, this Arrian work appear at few good decades after Trajan Dacian wars. Then I think you may be a bit confused by images from the Column. Dacians do make use of cavalry and archery quite a lot. Even on the Column they are depicted as cavalry when they cross the Danube, but we have other mentions from Greek authors (about Getae), from Ovidius and even from Column (use of recurved bows or of poisoned arrows).
In the same time draco may be a battle standard with a religious or symbolic meaning and not necessary or just (as in headless hollow Parthian draco) a meaning to show the wind direction and speed

I see no draco here beyond any doubt, just a wolf-like motiv. I was wondering already about that one, because for some reason the (quite realistic style of the) artist did not show any draco with the dacian troops on that monumnet. I stick to that position.

Well, it is a serpentiform like body with a wolf head. Not to mention that are fewer imagery (metopes) at Adamclisi compared with the Column, and some was losted over the time. And maybe Romans considered that frize enough as symbolism of draco (especially if it was more a religious symbol then a device to help arrow shooting). And that frize may be even Dacian and older then the Roman work at Tropaeum Traiani

I'm willing to see that the 'wolf-head battle standard' was something typically Dacian, but that does not mean that the entire development of the draco standard was also original to the dacian region. That does not make sense either way (as suggested above).
Even more so that you claim that the Roman adoption of the draco was also due to the influx of Dacians into the Roman army:

You see the flaw in your logic?
(1) we see Dacians using wolfs heads (which you claim as particularly Dacian) - the Romans are not using that but a dragon.
(2) we see the Dacian infantry using it - the Romans adopt it for their cavalry, not the unfantry (not for a century at least).
(3) written sources never tie it down to Dacians.

It isnt necessary that Romans to use just the "Dacian draco" model. As well we can't know from one single example discovered or preserved, that all Roman Draco's was like that.
We seen it used by Dacian infantry, yes, but Dacian cavalry (or for that matter Sarmatian too) appear in just couple scenes on the Column. So, is not impossible to be used by them too.
About written sources, well, we have even better and older ones, like Trajan Column.
And is a fact that Romans adopted "draco" at some time after Dacian wars and after many Dacians (and Thracians, even before) entered in the Roman army, first as auxiliars and later in legions too. And that was a strong presence, as the first "soldier emperor" of "barbarian" origins was Maximinus Trax from what i know. And he was of Getae/Dacian origins too

It's a discussion that raises its (wolf) head time and again, and it comes down to one thing: the draco is Dacian and shows Dacian influence everywhere. Yet the signs are that the development of the draco is much older and much more pluriform that that, and shows no singular ethnic or even cultural background. It was adopted by the Romans, like so many, many other items.

I dont have time to search now, but there are bracelets from Bronze Age found in what was Dacia teritory that are serpentiform and end with animal heads (or snake heads) at both ends. Like a small metalic draco with a head at both ends if you wish.
Then it is known that at the end of Bronze Age/begining of Iron Age was a large movement of people originating right in same Dacian area (Carpathian basin and Danube valley). This is proved by archeology too, by spread of cremation (even that urnfield culture), Naue 2 type of swords, start of replacing bronze with iron, sea people invasions etc.

But then again, the "draco" can originate as well in Sumer with Tiamat imagery, from where it spread to Hitties and then to Thracians/Getae/Dacians and later to Iranic people arrived there in former Babylon area. Or as you said, it was a pluriform development that appear to few population, either as independent or if inspired from one to another and then adapted to each culture custom and purposes

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Razvan,

First I split our discussion from the original topic (which was about the construction) since we veered widely off from that! :wink:

Still if the "draco" (for convenience lets use this Roman name) was a Sarmatian standard first, i dont see why was put in Dacian hands and not in Sarmatian ones?

I'm not saying that the draco (indeed, let's stick to that name despite the different forms) wasn't used by the Dacians, to the contrary. It was no doubt very much common among Dacian troops, hence my suggestion that the artist lilited the depiction to Dacian troops only. I think he would not have been bothered by the origins of the standard, and equip Sarmatian troops with it for that very reason. Hence, the draco as 'typical' for Dacians is not strange, but it does not mean that the draco was also Dacian in origin, for which I believe no grounds exist.

First of all, this Arrian work appear at few good decades after Trajan Dacian wars. Then I think you may be a bit confused by images from the Column. Dacians do make use of cavalry and archery quite a lot. Even on the Column they are depicted as cavalry when they cross the Danube, but we have other mentions from Greek authors (about Getae), from Ovidius and even from Column (use of recurved bows or of poisoned arrows).

That Arrian is later than the column has no bearing on this discussion. We can discuss what Arrian meant by 'Scythian'; the actual Scythyans or other peoples. Anyway, he did not name the Dacians, whom he would have known.
That the Dacian used cavalry as well as archery I have no doubt about. yet, the draco as an object is a windsock, and if you claim that the Dacians developed the draco, that would be strange. We see so many 'horse archer' peoples use a windsock, it would be illogical to suppose that it was the Dacians (afaik not exactly 'horse archers') who would for some reason be the developing party. Of course we have no straight proof who actually thought of this first, but logic commands that they horse archers (Scythians, Sarmnatians, others) rather than Dacians, who afaik were far more infantry rather than horse-archers.

[diegis]

Hi Razvan,

First I split our discussion from the original topic (which was about the construction) since we veered widely off from that! :wink:

That the Dacian used cavalry as well as archery I have no doubt about. yet, the draco as an object is a windsock, and if you claim that the Dacians developed the draco, that would be strange. We see so many 'horse archer' peoples use a windsock, it would be illogical to suppose that it was the Dacians (afaik not exactly 'horse archers') who would for some reason be the developing party. Of course we have no straight proof who actually thought of this first, but logic commands that they horse archers (Scythians, Sarmnatians, others) rather than Dacians, who afaik were far more infantry rather than horse-archers.

Hi Robert

About the Dacians/Getae as horse archers or having a significant part of their troops as cavalry, we have Thucydides and his work Peloponnesian Wars, Book II, were he said that "[Getae] border on the Scythians and are armed in the same manner, being all mounted archers".

Dacia did had some stepes like areas too, but as on the Trajan Column many fights are done in mountains areas or involve as well some sieges the cavalry are not presented too much

The possible expansion of some Getae/Dacian groups toward east, at the end of bronze age and begining of iron age may be responsable for the spread of "draco" including as windsock. In the same time "dacian draco" may have more a religious means so not be necessary a windsock, and some stepes people developed one as such, independently or copying the Dacian one.

[daryush]

They made a quite cool draco standard inspired by those from the Trajan Column and Tropaeum Traiani monument at Adamclisi and from literrary sources

Actually Trajan's Column does not only shows 'draco' standards. The 'draco' is a Roman military standard made in to a dragon's head, which was typical for all Roman units. Most Dacian and other (Scythian, Persian) standards which we know were not only dragon's heads, but also wolves and other animals (even fish!). I do not know how these peoples referred to their battle standards, but it's extremely unlikely that they referred to them as 'dracos'.

I'm glad someone else is making this point too! I hope we can extend this nomenclature principle to other military words as well (eg: using the word cataphract / clibinarius with non-Roman / non-Greek cultures)

/digression :mrgreen:

About an exclusively Dacian origin, I must reject that. A draco is essentially a battle standard which also shows the wind conditions, and we find it with all peoples of this period who predominantly use the bow as a weapon. Which includes peoples which had no Dacian connections at all, such as the Persians (we even find it in India). The Dacians, as far as I know, used more infantry tactics that archery, for which reason I see the Dacian use of the draco standard (let's indeed forget about the real name) as derived from other peoples, and not originating with them.

For a source we have Arrian, who describes it clearly as a Scythian standard, and if he really meant Sarmatian makes little difference in this case:

Do you have a reference for the dragon standard in India? I know of no such standards in use in India at this time, at least, nothing conclusive (the standards represented on Gupta coins may well be long cloth banners just as easily as dragon standards)


If you guys haven't seen it yet, it may be worth reading this (perhaps with the help of Google translate): http://kronk.narod.ru/library/sovetova-m...a-2005.htm

I favour a Central Asian origin for the wind-sock banner, although I am not well versed in European (Roman and Dacian) developments.

[Renatus]

I hope we can extend this nomenclature principle to other military words as well (eg: using the word cataphract / clibinarius with non-Roman / non-Greek cultures)

/digression :mrgreen:

Do I detect a kindred spirit here? Off topic, I know, but you may be interested in the relevant parts of my post here:
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/17-roma...=15#286514

[Robert Vermaat]

About the Dacians/Getae as horse archers or having a significant part of their troops as cavalry, we have Thucydides and his work Peloponnesian Wars, Book II, were he said that "[Getae] border on the Scythians and are armed in the same manner, being all mounted archers".

I'm sure that most of us agree that there are no depictions of Dacians as horse-archers, and that Thucydides had Scythians in mind. Or are you suggesting that the steppe horse archers received their influences from the Dacians? I find that a very remarkable thought, especially when we usually see the influences (horse, archery, stirrups etc) going the other way around. Are you sure there's no nationalistic pride involved here? :unsure:

[Robert Vermaat]

Do you have a reference for the dragon standard in India? I know of know such standards in use in India at this time, at least, nothing conclusive (the standards represented on Gupta coins may well be long cloth banners just as easily as dragon standards).

I have some images of a Mogul windsock.