The Draco standard

[Alanus]

[..] the draco, at the origin of its evolution, was a wind sock used by bow-oriented cultures, not a flag or banner. :whistle:

I agree, but as a multi-functional object.

Exactly! mile:

And it appears the functions multiplied. ;-)

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Sorry, I was reading the thread and it looked like it was devolving into an argument over steppe tribes, as sometimes happens here to converstations, and not just about steppe tribes. But It read like the discussion was losing it's focus.

I'm interested in the Draco, I've always heard it referred to as a cavalry standard. However, reading this, it seems like it was more proliferated than that within the Roman Army. So I wonder how standards did a Roman carry? We know of the Vexellum, the Signum, the Aquilla, and the Imagio, now it seems like there would many dragons appearing from within the Army as well... Seems like, before long, every Roamn infantryman will be a standard bearer of some type... :-o

I'm not the highest authority on this topic (obviously), but it seems to have been determined that the Draco was introduced by Sarmatian Mercenaries and Auxilliary units in the 2nd or 3rd century, and later became a standard for an Army led by the Roman Emperor. The Army didn't carry it otherwise, it seemed.

This could also have been psychological in effect - facing a Roman Army was bold, but knowing you were facing an army led by an Emperor (or possibly a Magister Militum) would have indeed struck fear into the Barbarians.

[Robert Vermaat]

it seems to have been determined that the Draco was introduced by Sarmatian Mercenaries and Auxilliary units in the 2nd or 3rd century, and later became a standard for an Army led by the Roman Emperor. The Army didn't carry it otherwise, it seemed.

Actually, the one to describe the use in a Roman army describes cavalry, but I'm not unwilling to see the Dacian Wars as point of introduction. :wink:

Later, it became not only the standard of the emperor, but of every cohort.

[Robert Vermaat]

Until evidence can be adduced that dracones were used as devices for assessing wind direction, we are safer regarding them as simply what we know them to have been - battle standards and pretty impressive ones at that. Indeed, I think that we would be well-advised to get away from referring to them as 'windsocks' altogether. Perhaps 'serpent-tail standards' would do, if a little cumbersome. Has anyone any other ideas?

I'm not willing to go that far yet, especially because we have some evidence for 'fabric' standards, which seem far more like a windsock than a brilliant battle standard.

Oh, I forgot to mention one of its functions - Arrian mentions that it was meant to strike fear into the opponent.

[Renatus]

I'm not willing to go that far yet, especially because we have some evidence for 'fabric' standards, which seem far more like a windsock than a brilliant battle standard.

I am not disputing that dracones (and I use the term to include those with and without animal heads) had the appearance of and acted like windsocks, i.e., that air passed through a fabric tube causing it to extend and flutter about. My point is that 'windsock' has connotations of purpose for which no evidence in the ancient world has been adduced. Therefore, we should be careful about using the word.

[koechlyruestow]

Renatus wrote:

I am not disputing that dracones (and I use the term to include those with and without animal heads) had the appearance of and acted like windsocks, i.e., that air passed through a fabric tube causing it to extend and flutter about. My point is that 'windsock' has connotations of purpose for which no evidence in the ancient world has been adduced. Therefore, we should be careful about using the word.

What I wanted to know is this: is there any ancient source for this "functional" association? Because the only ancient reference to its function I know is what Robert reminded us of: Arrian's contention that it was used to strike fear into the hearts of the enemy. I am not saying it might not have functioned as a windsock, but I agree with Renatus, it seems to me a modern inference.

[Robert Vermaat]

I am not disputing that dracones (and I use the term to include those with and without animal heads) had the appearance of and acted like windsocks, i.e., that air passed through a fabric tube causing it to extend and flutter about. My point is that 'windsock' has connotations of purpose for which no evidence in the ancient world has been adduced. Therefore, we should be careful about using the word.

I agree, but on the other hand we should also be careful with excluding the equally obvious: many battle standards are meant to be seen, but have several functions. Like flags, windsocks can have more than one purpose, one of them being to judge the direction and speed of the wind.
Also, we should not press our sources too much - I'm no supporter of 'absence of evidence', but I am familiar with sources from this period that simply 'don't state the obvious'. o when Arrian or Ammianus do not mention windsocks I'm not overly bothered by that.

What came first, the chicken or the egg, or in our case, the windsock or the draco?
We don't know is whether these windsocks/dracones started out as an attempt to make a dragon or a snake battle standard, and only then someone found that they performed as a wind-banner as well, or the other way around. Right now, seeing such windsocks/dracones being shaped also as wolves, dogs, even fish, I'm inclined to go for the functional purpose of windsock first, and only then for the artistic shape that resulted from windsocks being used as battle standards.

It's a bit like modern kites. When I was young we flew rhomboid pieces of fabric, while today they fly with all kinds of modern shapes and sizes, some of them birds. But in the future, they will probably debate on some forum whether kites resembled birds, or later birdkites started out as a toy that flew.

[Alanus]

I agree, but on the other hand we should also be careful with excluding the equally obvious... Right now, seeing such windsocks/dracones being shaped also as wolves, dogs, even fish, I'm inclined to go for the functional purpose of windsock first, and only then for the artistic shape that resulted from windsocks being used as battle standards....

It's a bit like modern kites. When I was young we flew rhomboid pieces of fabric, while today they fly with all kinds of modern shapes and sizes, some of them birds. But in the future, they will probably debate on some forum whether kites resembled birds, or later birdkites started out as a toy that flew.

That reminds me of not only excluding the obvious, but even changing it. The following is from the Rawlinson translation of Herodotus. Herodotus said this about the Massagetae (Book I, 215):

"They fight both on horseback and foot, neither method is strange to them: they use bows and lances, but their favorite weapon is the battle-axe.[sup]2[/sup]"

We then go down to Rawlinson's second footnote:

"2 ...in all probability the kahnjar of modern Persia, a short, curved, double-edged dagger, almost universally worn."

Hold it! :woot:
Wait a minute. :woot:

Suddenly-- and without warning, except in Rawlinson's imagination-- the battle-axe (sagaris) becomes a dagger! Talk about negative evidence? :whistle:

Sometimes it's wise NOT to overlook the obvious, no matter which way the wind blows.

[Renatus]

Also, we should not press our sources too much - I'm no supporter of 'absence of evidence', but I am familiar with sources from this period that simply 'don't state the obvious'. o when Arrian or Ammianus do not mention windsocks I'm not overly bothered by that.

Well, I would be, if no one else mentioned it either. What we have to guard against is a kind of perverse logic that says that, if the ancient sources do not mention it, it must be so because they must have regarded it as too obvious to mention.

What came first, the chicken or the egg, or in our case, the windsock or the draco?
We don't know is whether these windsocks/dracones started out as an attempt to make a dragon or a snake battle standard, and only then someone found that they performed as a wind-banner as well, or the other way around. Right now, seeing such windsocks/dracones being shaped also as wolves, dogs, even fish, I'm inclined to go for the functional purpose of windsock first, and only then for the artistic shape that resulted from windsocks being used as battle standards.

Now, I would take the opposite view: that the serpent-tail was adopted because, like flags, pennons, streamers, etc., it caught the wind and spread out, making it more conspicuous as a rallying point in battle. If (and, in my opinion, in the absence of confirmatory evidence, it is a pretty big 'if') the draco acquired an additional function as a windsock, this would have come later.

[koechlyruestow]

Alanus wrote:

That reminds me of not only excluding the obvious, but even changing it. The following is from the Rawlinson translation of Herodotus. Herodotus said this about the Massagetae (Book I, 215):

"They fight both on horseback and foot, neither method is strange to them: they use bows and lances, but their favorite weapon is the battle-axe.2"

We then go down to Rawlinson's second footnote:

"2 ...in all probability the kahnjar of modern Persia, a short, curved, double-edged dagger, almost universally worn."

Be carefull with Rawlinson on all acounts. A lot of humbug he believed to have read is still hampering modern reconstructions of ancient warfare, especially on Wiki.

[Alanus]

Eduard,

Well, if a supposedly educated person changes a sagaris into a dagger, then he can't be trusted as an authority. ;-)

[Timianus]

I have followed this thread with much interest, as I had little knowledge of this subject before. With that provisio, (and apologies in advance if I offend anyone), but I don't understand why this has to be a one or the other proposition. Given that the Romans were such a practical lot, isn't it entirely possible that they adopted the draco standard for aesthetic purposes while also appreciating its functional aspect as a wind-sock? In my mind, its sort of like asking whether a dagger was invented as a short range combat weapon or as a practical tool in the field to cut rope, food, etc. The object serves both purposes and is multi-functional.

[Robert Vermaat]

That reminds me of not only excluding the obvious, but even changing it.

I know of a similar occasion, where a modern researcher changed things a bit. This was about the plumbata as mention in the Strategikon. Translating the text to a singular, soldiers of Maurikios sudenly were armed with only one weapon instead of more in one quiver, and next thing you know is that the text is used to prove the evolution of the plumbata from a throwing dart to a mace!
Kolias, Taxiarchis G. (1988): Die Keule und der Streitkolben, in: Byzantinische Waffen. Ein Beitrag zur byzantinischen Waffenkunde, Von den Anfängen bis zur lateinischen Eroberung, Byzantina Vindobonensia, vol. 17 (Wien), pp. 173-184.

What we have to guard against is a kind of perverse logic that says that, if the ancient sources do not mention it, it must be so because they must have regarded it as too obvious to mention.

We have be wary of that indeed, which is why I don't support such perverse logic. But we still have to take into account that the possibility exists. If we exclude that possibility, we are forced to take each text literally. For instance, the Strategikon mentions cavalry far more than it does infantry. Should we conclude that the infantry was a minority on the batlefield and of no consequence? Or is it possible that the text concentrates on cavalry because this is where the innovations were concentrated? Whereas the infantry had not been subject to such innovations?

Now, I would take the opposite view: that the serpent-tail was adopted because, like flags, pennons, streamers, etc., it caught the wind and spread out, making it more conspicuous as a rallying point in battle. If (and, in my opinion, in the absence of confirmatory evidence, it is a pretty big 'if') the draco acquired an additional function as a windsock, this would have come later.

Eagles never had serpent tails, nor did a vexillum develop into a battle standard with a streaming tail. Neither do Celtic, Germanic, persian battle standards which arer solid objects without streamers.
No, can't follow you there, because if this was a logical development we would see many more battle standards with streamers or tails, and we don't, at least not in this period. The 'draco' therefore, in my opinion at least, is far more likely to have been originally something 'with a streaming tail' than something that aquired this in order to function better.

[Robert Vermaat]

Given that the Romans were such a practical lot, isn't it entirely possible that they adopted the draco standard for aesthetic purposes while also appreciating its functional aspect as a wind-sock?

I see no problem there, indeed. But what currently is being discussed is not the adoption by the Romans for one reason or another, but rather the origin of the standard, as a windsock or not as a windsock. ;-)

[diegis]

Two:
Arrianus, Tactica 35:
'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.'

Ammianus Marcellinus, 16.10.7:
'... the dragons, sewn from purple covers and placed on the gilded and jewel-studded tips of spears, letting wind through an enormous opening and in that way hissing as if they had been aroused in anger and the bodies of their tails flowing in the wind.'

Very good, this is what I was refering too. Keep these quote in mind for later :evil:

Then please do tell us why this one that was found was in fact a dragon's head, which was totally the same as the name for the things, which is recorded in a lot of sources.

Not the head made the dragon, but the entire body. A dragon doesnt had necessary a lizard head, but was a made up "entity", some have horns, wings, different heads, multiple heads etc. In Iranian mythology they are described in different ways, sometime even as a wolf, sometime as a dark mist etc.
A dragon was so a type of predatory mythological animal with a serpent like body eventually.

DACIANS ISN'T GETAE. please stop referring to them as if these are two names for the same people. I also noticed that you are also describing items from the 'Bronze Age Thracians' as if these belong to the very same group. They do not, there are centuries and centuries between them.
Of course they knew that other tribes beside the Dacians used windsocks of sorts, such as the Scythians (Arrian wrote that).

What, Dacians isn't Getae now :grin: ? Thats something new, and in contradiction with pretty much any ancient or modern sources we can find. At most you can say that not all Getae (northern Thracians) was Dacians (but all Dacians was Getae). Its like saying that Spartans isn't Greeks, or Gauls isn't Celts.
And its not me describing items from the 'Bronze Age Thracians' as if these belong to the very same group, I was just quoting some historians and archaeologists, like Parvan or those from Cambridge University. Check again the source
About what Arrian wrote, he said that:
'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.'

It is said pretty clear, 'when charging' and 'when a strong wind flows through much movement'.
So the "draco" of those people called Scythians (they surely wasnt Scythians however, as those was long gone by the time when Arrian wrote that) is filled with air when they galloping and when they are filled by air during that movement and as the horses speed up. This isnt helpful to know the speed and direction of wind, dont you think?
Not to mention that on the Column the "draco" is used by Dacian infantry or is put near a Dacian vexilium somehwere in a forest or in a fortress.
Using it in a static position as windsock is more helpful for the enemy actually, then for those who use it.

Now tell us please where you found the evidence that the Romans, in spite of that knowledge, related this symbol to the dacians ONLY, as you claim?
Frankly, I don't see any evidence for that besides your own wishful thinking. :-(

Hmm, on Trajan Column the "draco" is used exclusevly by Dacians, and then there is coins with Dacia name on them and with a "draco" stamped on them. Thats pretty much a tight relation in the view of Romans.
I am not saying however that Romans didnt saw such standards to other, but the strongets relation they made was with Dacians/Getae

So now you are indeed claiming that nobody but the Dacians are using a draco? What new evidence has come to light that would make us believe that anyone using a windsock on Trajan's Column is a dacian because they "exclusively" use the darco? I assume you found a letter by the artist assuring us that he was only depicting Dacians and Romans?

I said that on Trajan Column the draco is used just by Dacians, yes. If you disagree with what basically everyone (and I mean scholars too here) say, and you have some extraordinary evidence that those from the Trajan Column arent Dacians but Scythians or Sarmatians or whatever, please share it with us, I am quite curious.
You can use images from the Column and we can discuss them one by one if you wish. Not to mention that we can argue more argumented against the presence of Sarmatians there for example, as Dacians used too the scale armour (I posted a while ago an archeology source about that, with findings and such) and was great archers and cavalrymen too (I can show you several quotes from ancient sources on this).
Not to say that Sarmatians arent mentioned among the enemies of Trajan, which means that their presence in that wars wasnt too important.

My opinion about "draco" is that was a symbol from the mythology of proto-indoeuropean people, existing even before the indo-europeans split and developed in independent, separate populations. Some of those population retained some of the old spirituality and others adopted something different. Possibly was even a religious war or so, and thats why in most of indo-european mythologies the supreme god (Sky-Father of Marja Gimbutas) or some hero fought against a dragon/giant serpent at some point.
Same for the wolf who is a negative presence with just few exceptions, same as the dragon. Beyond the languages they aquired over time, few of such indo-european groups (beside Dacian/Getae I includ here Dahae/Parthians and Scythians/Sarmatians, and at least partially Romans, for the wolf part at least, later for the dragon too) kept some common mythology I suppose, and for them the "dragon" (or/and the wolf) was a positive force, instead for majority it became a negative symbol, because some religious changes or something.
So, I am not saying that the draco was exclusevly Dacian, but they was the most representatives people who use it in the eyes of Romans, and have the strongest connection with it. And the draco was a symbol, not a windsock (or a windsock is some later secondary use for it, if so, as I doubt even that).

The draco was introduced in Roman army with the introduction of Dacian/Getae and Thracian auxiliars, it was even some cults very spread in Roman army, as those of Thracian and Dacian/Danubian riders. Then when Rome started to be ruled by emperors with Thracian and Dacian origins and Thraco-Dacians became a significant presence in Roman army this symbol was widspread and adopted by the entire Roman army.
I already mentioned Maximinus Trax, but you can see Galerius, an emperor of Dacian origin and who used many troops from Thracia and Dacia areas in his army. On his Arch of Triumph from Salonic his troops use the same draco.
Lactantius even said that Galerius wished to change the name of the empire, from Roman empire to Dacian empire.
Then Constantin (the Great) who was of possible Dacian origin too (I am not say he was for sure) from his father side (Moesia was a teritory inhabited mostly by Getae/Dacians and part of Getae/Dacian kingdom of Dromichaetes and Burebista) fought the final war for the Roman empire with Licinius.
Licinius was as well of Dacian origin and a childhood friend of Galerius, in fact during Galerius rule the entire tetrarchy was at some point made of Thraco-Dacian emperors (with Maximinus Daia and such).
After Constantine will defeat Licinius and he will impose Christianity as the first religion in the empire, the symbol of the "bad dragon" reappeared and developed again.
Around V-VI century AD the Thraco-Daco-Roman element became ousted in Roman Eastern empire so their old symbols are eliminated too, especially as they was opressors of Christianity at some point, and enemies for western empire sometime.
The final struggle between St George who killed the dragon with his spear and saved a girl (the origin of medieval knights tales) represent in fact a reversed "draco" standard thrown on the ground. This symbolize the cut between the old Roman army made up in large part of Thraco-Dacians and who opressed the Christians (see Galerius, the worst opressor) and the new religion that became the only one allowed under Theodosius.