The Draco standard.

[Valentinian Victor]

I'm in discussion with a number of well known historians around the purpose of the Late Roman Draco standard, and its colour. I would welcome the thoughts of others on this topic please.

I've put the below on various sites as a starting point for debate-

'I've read a number of articles etc about the Late Roman 'Draco' standard, and
I've never been entirely satisfied by the explainations given about its purpose.

My own thoughts are that the Draco actually represented the presence either
physically or by its presence alone, of the Emperor.

My stating this is from an examination of Ammianus. In the book where he
describes the attempted ursurpation by Silvanius, the Germanic troops who
'raised him to the purple', tore the purple from the draco standards to drap
around his shoulders in imitation of the purple cloak worn by the Emperor. There
are other books in Ammianus where he describes the draco as being purple
coloured.

Also there is another passage that describes all the draco's as being purple in colour.

Here are the relevant passages-

15.5.16:

... cultu purpureo a draconum et vexillorum insignibus ...'... by the purple adornment from the signs of dragon standards and flags ...'

16.10.7:

... purpureis subtegminibus texti circumdedere dracones hastarum aureis gemmatisque summitatibus inligati, hiatu vasto perflabiles et ideo velut ira perciti sibilantes caudarumque volumina relinquentes in ventum.'... 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.'

This indicated to me that all draco standards were purple in colour, and
therefore could not have anything to do with being a unit standard. Rather, it
suggests to me that the draco must be a representation of something that was
important, because it was purple and therefore the colour only an Emperor could
wear (there are many examples of those during the Late Roman time caught with
purple coloured items and being executed for having them). The only thing that
was important enough to be represented both by the figure of a dragon, and also
in Imperial colours can only one thing, the Emperor himself.

My thoughts are that every unit had a purple coloured draco that was the
representation of the Emperor, whether or not he was actually with the army.
This may have been to raise moral (The Emperor may not be here physically, but
he is still watching over you), but to also put fear into their opponents who
will never really know if the Emperor is present with the army or not.

What are your thoughts on this?'

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

That's very interesting. I'll have to consider this.

[Renatus]

Are you suggesting that, in effect, the draconarius stood in place of the imaginifer?

[Valentinian Victor]

Are you suggesting that, in effect, the draconarius stood in place of the imaginifer?

As your probably aware there is precious little we know about Late Roman standards, apart from what we know in Vegetius and some snippets in Ammianus and a few other Late Roman authors. It has been suggested that the imaginifer went out of favour/use after Constantine the Greats reign as the Emperors became increasingly more Christianised. For many years historians even doubted that the Late Roman legiones still carried the old Eagle standards, despite Ammianus claiming that they still existed, the historians stating that Ammianus was 'classicising' when discussing both them and 'cohorts', 'velites', 'maniples', 'centuries', 'triplex acies' etc (which is now being looked at anew apparently as there is the counter view that perhaps the old style units did not fully die out and still exisited in Ammianus' day, certainly papyrii found in Egypt with the rolls of units still calls some Cohorts, Alae etc).

My thoughts, not entirely discounted by others, is that the draco standard itself represented the Emperor, denoting his 'presence', whether he was with the army or not. I cannot think of any other reason for its existance as from a variety of sources we know the vexillum standard was the standard that denoted what unit it belonged to and displayed the Unit name and number, and in all likelyhood was the rallying point for the unit it belonged to. And the draco does not appear to have a signalling function either. So, taking that into account, what other purpose could it have had unless it was to signify the Emperor?

[ray243]

My thoughts, not entirely discounted by others, is that the draco standard itself represented the Emperor, denoting his 'presence', whether he was with the army or not. I cannot think of any other reason for its existance as from a variety of sources we know the vexillum standard was the standard that denoted what unit it belonged to and displayed the Unit name and number, and in all likelyhood was the rallying point for the unit it belonged to. And the draco does not appear to have a signalling function either. So, taking that into account, what other purpose could it have had unless it was to signify the Emperor?

I thought that there's a difference between an Imperial Draco and a regular Draco? The one that was torn by Silvanius could be the only Imperial Draco in the Gallic army.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Maybe fear tactic or religious purpose

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

This article online about the draco gives some interesting background.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Great post! How informative!

[Renatus]

It seems pertinent to ask whether there is any evidence of the Romans having adopted this type of symbolism in any other field. If there is, the idea becomes more plausible. This is not a subject to which I have devoted any thought, so I can do no more than raise the question and leave it to others to provide the answer, if there is one.

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

The quotations presented in the draco online article I referenced above seem to point to a ubiquitous use for the draco standard, after initially being a cavalry standard and then moving into a cohortal one, following Vegetius (I know, I know). I am not aware of any specific reference to it as standing in for the Roman Emperor save the colour of the windsock itself.

The fact that the draco is a primarily pagan totem would again offset any late Roman Christian tendency and I am not aware that the 'dragon' surfaces within Christian symbolism other than as a signifier (in non military circles at least) for paganism along with serpents. If, and I stress if, the late Roman Emperors adopted a mythological/totemic symbol to herald their presence among the battle-lines, then surely the eagle would have been the natural choice, I wonder?

Offset with these musings however is the notion that the later Welsh Dragon along with its precursor the 'Pendragon' mythos indicates an attempt to legitimate a military dynasty by referencing Roman splendour and legacy. However, if the draco served as the original motivation for the later Welsh claims that might simply be an attempt to build upon a general Roman military prestige and not a reference to Augustal power.

The Prudentius reference to a Magister Draconum is very interesting, though. I can't find the source yet but it may point to a hierarchy within the draco standards wherein one specific draco standard is raised up higher as it were and endowed with sacredotal presence. Does any one have the reference to Prudentius?

[Renatus]

The Prudentius reference to a Magister Draconum is very interesting, though. I can't find the source yet but it may point to a hierarchy within the draco standards wherein one specific draco standard is raised up higher as it were and endowed with sacredotal presence. Does any one have the reference to Prudentius?

You may have sorted this out for yourself by now but, in case you haven't, I will set out what I have found.

Robert Vermaat's online article is a little misleading, I think. I read it as saying that Prudentius refers to the rank of magister draconum in his writings. He does not; the term he uses is signorum magistri. Magister draconum appears in an inscription from Prusias mentioned in the article and the link with Prudentius is an inference drawn by Michael Speidel in his article cited (incorrectly) in the bibliography. (The correct reference is: Transactions of the American Philological Association 115 (1985), 283-287.) Many of the suggestions in the online article concerning the rank derive from Speidel's article.

The relevant passages in Prudentius occur in his Peristephanon, translated in the Loeb edition under the title "Crowns of Martyrdom". They concern two standard bearers who deserted the army for Christ and resisted all efforts by their superiors to change their minds. The passages are, in the Loeb translation:

Peristephanon 1.34-36
They abandoned Caesar's ensigns (vexilla), choosing the standard of the cross, and in place of the swelling draperies of the serpents (draconum) which they used to carry, led the way with the glorious wood which subdued the serpent (draconem).

Peristephanon 1.64-65
Away, ye masters of the standards (signorum magistri)! Stand off, ye tribunes! Take away the gold circlets (torques) that our wounds have won.

[Valentinian Victor]

It seems pertinent to ask whether there is any evidence of the Romans having adopted this type of symbolism in any other field. If there is, the idea becomes more plausible. This is not a subject to which I have devoted any thought, so I can do no more than raise the question and leave it to others to provide the answer, if there is one.

Actually, in the field of art the Romans did use symbolism, especially during the early Christian period. And I have been reminded that two Roman standards were symbolic, The Eagle symbolised the Legione it was attached to, whilst the Orb standard symbolised the might of the Empire. Therefore I can see nothing wrong with the idea that the Draco standard symbolised the presence of the Emperor.

[Renatus]

Actually, in the field of art the Romans did use symbolism, especially during the early Christian period. And I have been reminded that two Roman standards were symbolic, The Eagle symbolised the Legione it was attached to, whilst the Orb standard symbolised the might of the Empire. Therefore I can see nothing wrong with the idea that the Draco standard symbolised the presence of the Emperor.

I was not referring to symbolism in general but to "this type" of symbolism, i.e., in which a mythical creature represents a human who is then deemed to be present.

[Valentinian Victor]

I was not referring to symbolism in general but to "this type" of symbolism, i.e., in which a mythical creature represents a human who is then deemed to be present.

There is at least one example from the 4th Century AD where Julian was represented as a blazing Lion in some artwork.

[Renatus]

There is at least one example from the 4th Century AD where Julian was represented as a blazing Lion in some artwork.

That's interesting. I'd like to see that.

A couple of other random thoughts:

We should perhaps be careful how we visualise a draco in its original sense: maybe more as a serpent, as the form of the draco standard might suggest, than as a medieval dragon.

Your argument, as I understand it, is that the draco standard is to be associated with the emperor because its tail was made of purple cloth. However, in Amm. 15.5.16, which you quote, Silvanus takes purple decoration not only from dracones but also from vexilla, so the draco is not the only standard with purple cloth and, therefore, not uniquely to be associated with the emperor. As the vexillum had a variety of uses, might the same not apply to the draco?

[Renatus]

There is at least one example from the 4th Century AD where Julian was represented as a blazing Lion in some artwork.

You aren't thinking of Libanius Or. 24.19, are you? If so, the illustration is Persian, which doesn't help very much.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

The dragon was, a mighty creature so to speak, and the emperor was a mighty person...

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

Pompeius Magnus covers some of this ground here in an excellent post regarding the development of the late Roman military standards.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

That's interesting... can you provide us with a picture of this tomb?

[Renatus]

Or name the source?