Talk:Dacian draco

More dates needed

This article definitely needs more dates, or date ranges, or something like that so the reader can get a grip on the chronology. Many of the happenings and phenomena described are simply adrift in time (or nearly so) and might, for all the reader can tell, have happened in the medieval era, for example. Even relative time would help. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Somehow, there is a chronology, since the article begins with the origin, continues with the later adoption by Roman army and ends with legacy. But, I totally agree with your opinion It needs more dates and date ranges. I will try to work more on this Thank you Boldwin (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Recommendations for cleaning up the article

First and foremost, I think the article could use a good copyedit. I suggest directly contacting individuals at WP:Guild of copyeditors. Also, the lead does not meet WP:Lead. Overall, I think clarification and preciseness of language would be useful. That was from a brief scan of the article, Sadads (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and suggestions! Much appreciated. --Codrin.B (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

We have promises we'll have help Boldwin (talk) 02:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Use of sources

I'm still trying to understand how this article got DYKed. Just take this source: Sturm, Max; Von Drang, Ludwig; Waldman, Bruce, Illustrator; Schwalb, Suzanne, Translator; Rubiano, Margaret, Translator (2010). Vampires, Werewolves, Zombies Compendium Monstrum: From the Papers of Herr Doktor Max Sturm & Baron Ludwig Von Drang. Peter Pauper Press. ISBN 978-1593596477. It's not expected from DYK reviewers to be acquainted with European artistic movements, but the title of the source should be itself an indicator that further verification is needed. And indeed, a quick Google check shows that the "source" is actually just one of the countless humorous books (see book presentation on publisher website). I think their description of the authors is appropriate

“ Doktor Max Sturm, Ph.D., B.A.T., has held the title of Professor Emeritus, Unterwelt University, for five hundred years. An esteemed monstrologist and contributing editor of The Journal of Comparative Creature Studies, Dr. Sturm lives in a coffin beneath a schloss. Artist and adventurer Baron Ludwig Von Drang had a creature change in his childhood that led to an ongoing preoccupation with the supernatural. Mad Ludwig lives in a wood near a castle in Bavaria ”

.

Anonimu (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Since I presume Codrinb is incommunicado with Anonimu, I'm going to have to ask the direct question: Codrinb, your leadership of the Dacia project and your claims about Dacian history have so far stirred up much controversy; whether or not that was a valid concern, whether or not Anonimu is in the wrong about various other issues, how do you suppose this type of research and/or use of sources helps wikipedia? (Having glanced at the article, I have a few questions of my own, but, since I'm mostly off-wiki right now, I'll wait for Codrinb to at least reply to this one.) Dahn (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The article does not cite that book anymore, from where it took something about the tourism in the area. As for the article’s use, it was at the section art (literature, sculpture, books a.s.o.) Yet, the article needed a sub-section or even a section called comic books, for those who see dragons everywhere. It is good to read comic books sometimes. Now, I know that garlic could help when facing a DracoBoldwin (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You can attack me all day long, even for content that I didn't create if you think that what you do is constructive or makes you look very wise... But given the amount of extremism, nationalism, and all kinds of other negative manifestations around the history of Dacia and the Balkans in general, I reached the conclusion that it is impossible for a project like WP:DACIA to not create controversy, regardless of who is the presumed "leader". Like I said before, it is easy to stay on the side and criticize and attack someone who is trying to do something. At least I had the balls to create the project, while others who present themselves as much more "qualified" and "competent", are simply lurking in the shadows, waiting for projects and articles to be created, so they can "constructively" (they think) attack them. Yet, I won't yield. There is a lot of content missing about the Dacian history and the ancient history of Balkans, and WP:DACIA is the right framework for that. And maybe, conflicts on each article will lead to progress, convergence towards the truth, create publicity and in the end, lead to some good articles about Dacians and bring more awareness to the topic, which are exactly the project's goals and mine. Cheers! --Codrin.B (talk) 04:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Roman Army

The article Imperial Roman army state that:

From around the time of Hadrian (r. 117-38), some auxiliary alae adopted the dragon-standard (draco) commonly carried by Sarmatian cavalry squadrons. This was a long cloth wind-sock attached to an ornate sculpture of an open dragon's mouth. When the bearer (draconarius) was galloping, it would make a strong hissing-sound.

I would be nice to find references to the above informations.

Also it would be nice to have a picture of The Draco found in Niederbieber, Germany. http://www.allempires.com/Forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=16760

Nice link and yes, I added that request for finding this picture and others on the todo list above, in the WP:DACIA tag. --Codrin.B (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

"Autochtonous" POV

According to several scholars, the Dacian draco is of Sarmatian or steppe origin.

• Richard Brzezinski, Mariusz Mielczarek, Sarmatians, 600 BC-AD 450 (2002), pp. 38-39: [The windsock-like dragon standards']geographical origins are lost among the horse-archer societies of Central Asia, but their original purpose was probably to provide wind-direction of archery. [...] But not all such standards had dragon heads: some had just the fabric tube and no head, others had heads that resembled wolves or fishes, and Trajan's Column depicts Dacian warriors carrying standards with dog-like heads. As a group, however, such wind-sock standards are now generally termed 'draco' standards.
• Jon C. N. Coulston, "The 'draco' standard" in Journal of Military Equipment Studies, vol. 2 (1991) pp. 101-114, p. 106: [T]he westward advance of Sarmatian groups spread 'dracones' from Asia into Europe. The first sedentary people to use these standards were perhaps the Dacians. Roman cavalry adopted 'dracones' during a series of Flavian and Trajanic conflicts with trans-Danubian peoples. Daizus (talk) 14:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

There are many other indirect references calling the draco a Sarmatian or Scythian standard/device/etc., moreover claiming the Romans adopted the standard from Sarmatians, not from Dacians as currently stated in the article. For example:

• Pat Southern, Karen R. Dixon, The Roman cavalry (1997), p. 61: [The dragon standards] were introduced into the Roman army by the Sarmatians during the second century AD. Daizus (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Then please add that info. I don`t see any NPOV dispute, only limited use of references. ¬¬¬¬ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.122.25.236 (talk) 13:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

First, a few words about the standard considered by R. P. Wright of Dacian or Sarmatian type. It seems clear to me that the depiction of the standard shows us the traditional Dacian standard, the draco. The origin of this symbol has been discussed since a long time. Arrrianus thinks it was a Scythian symbol12. A Thracian origin is attributed by V. Pârvan13 and F. Kiechle14, while O. Gamber15, M. C. Bishop and J. C. N. Coulston16 think that the dracones have an Sarmatian origin. E. Gabba17 et E. L. Wheeler18 consider the origin of the symbol as coming from Parthia. A. S. Ştefan, analysing this sign in the Daco‐Roman war context, does not pay much attention to this origin: for him, more important is that, at the end of the 1st c. A. D., the Romans associate the dragon with Dacians and the standard has become one of their recognition symbols19. It is indeed difficult to establish a certain origin or, more precisely, a direct origin. An Oriental influence, brought by Sarmatians, seems to be reasonable. But, at the moment when that funerary monument was built, the draco was assimilated, as A. S. Ştefan has pointed out, with the Dacians. - L. I. Mihailescu-Birliba - A Funerary Sculptured Monument of Chester and its Representation [1]. I would rather trust the Romanian scholars listed above, than the foreign researchers with limited knowledge of Eastern European history and who, in most case, only touch upon the topic cursory and, as I've noticed it is often the case, cite each-other and are given credit solely based on the fact that they are "western" (albeit quasi-anonymous popularisers).... ¬¬¬¬ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.122.25.236 (talk) 13:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

From the same source, a quote worthy of consideration: The standard depicted on the monument at Chester is undoubtfully a Dacian standard, taking into account the other representations of the draco and its identification with the Dacian at the end of the 1st c. and the beginning of the 2nd c. A. D. Even if we admit the Sarmatian origin of the standard, in the 2nd c. A. D., when our monument was built, the draco symbol was assimilated with the Dacian ethnos26. ¬¬¬¬ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.122.25.236 (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

You prove my point. Since this article is only about what Romanian scholars think, it is not neutral. I cannot add that info, because it's only about some quotes to prove there's some other point of view, I have not researched this topic in detail, I'm not even sure how to change the article (all should be changed from the lede: "the standard and ensign of troops of the ancient Eastern European Dacian people" to the structure and the content in it) Daizus (talk)

And you definitely wrong about those authors, they are not quasi-anonymous, nor popularisers. Daizus (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

And btw, Bîrliba says "It is indeed difficult to establish a certain origin or, more precisely, a direct origin. An Oriental influence, brought by Sarmatians, seems to be reasonable." so again, no attested Dacian origin. He only claims the Chester cavalryman was a Dacian not a Sarmatian. The Chester cavalryman is widely considered of Sarmatian origin. Another blatant POV. Daizus (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm rather confused... If you have not researched the topic, than how do you know that the article is not neutral? Or, to address the issue from another angle, I could ask if the article is not neutral because it does not include content, specifically certain content which you think it should include? I say, do add it then, dear chap, it only takes some typing... If you have a contention (also requires an argument advanced in a dispute which I still fail to identify), than present it and don't expect others to infer it (from the "bad cuz so say you" lead, structure, style, etc.). ¬¬¬¬--85.122.25.236 (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I did present my objection. There are many authors claiming the draco is of Sarmatian origin (or from Central Asia from somewhere). This view is not properly presented in the article, therefore it's not neutral. The article wrongly suggests the draco is only/mostly Dacian. I don't have to be an expert to see that this article is at variance with a considerable number of books and studies.

You may be new here, so please note that you're edit-warring. Please also note that you're not allowed to undo my edit for more than 3 times in 24 hours, the fourth time may result in a block. Please discuss and reach a consensus on this talk page, before reverting my change again. Daizus (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

God have mercy with me! If you think that "there are many authors claiming that the draco is of Sarmatian origin", then add-the-bloody-content-yourself! Otherwise, you're being absurd. What you are basically saying is that it is the article's non-content that renders it NPOV, not it's actual content, in defiance of logic and the spirit of the NPOV rules. ¬¬¬¬ --85.122.25.236 (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I have warned you not to continue with edit-warring. As for content, I'm not being absurd, I don't have time (for reasons like this) nor the access to trace the origins and all the theories on draco. All I know this article presents only one POV as mainstream and that's why is not neutral. Daizus (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

And all I know is that it is not POV. It follows then that the article is indeed not POV-ish. Now how do you like them apples? ¬¬¬¬--85.122.25.236 (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Your own sophistry and opinions are irrelevant if cannot be supported by arguments. All you claimed so far this article is not POV, but you failed to prove it. Per WP:NPOV, it must represent "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". Daizus (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

And if you're so gallant in introducing me to the rules of Wikipedia, care to direct me to a higher authority or community tribunal where I can take the issue? ¬¬¬¬--85.122.25.236 (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

See WP:DR. Daizus (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's the article in French: fr:Dragon dace. Daizus (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I see you're again edit-warring, though using a different IP from the same range (85.122.25.*) Stop removing sourced content, and discuss your changes here and reach a consensus before removing what's in the article. Daizus (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

As for the ludicrous claim that Bîrliba 2009, p. 147 doesn't support the Sarmatian attribution, here's the full quote (p. 146-7): "In the catalogue of Roman epigraphic and non‐epigraphic stones in the Grosvenor Museum in Chester, R. P. Wright and I. A. Richmond described the horseman as holding “aloft with both hands a dragon standard or pennon of Dacian or Sarmatian type, while his tall conical helmet, with vertical metal frame, is of Sarmatian pattern. A sword hangs at his right side”. Wright and Richmond also considered that the scene is typical for Sarmatian cavalry. They do not exclude E. Birley’s hypothesis that the image “might depict a cavalryman taking part in the Ludus Troiae and dressed in Eastern fashion with a parade‐helmet of the Straubing type” (fig. 1). D. J. P. Mason writes that the tomb’s owner can be a Sarmatian who came in Britain after the 170; according to the sources, 5000 Iazyges were deported to this province by Marcus Aurelius. All the quoted authors considered the helmet and the standard as Sarmatian." So it's not only the Chester standard which was considered Sarmatian, but an entire class of standards ("standard or pennon of [...] Sarmatian type", "the scene is typical for Sarmatian cavalry"). Daizus (talk) 14:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Dacian and Sarmatian Draco

Instead of trying to make the Dacian Draco a generic draco article, I would put the general/generic/common information in the Draco (military standard) article and also create a Sarmatian Draco article for the Sarmatian side. Then I would connect/point each article to the others. I think this is the wrong place to write the general article... --Codrin.B (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, but at the moment the Draco article read just as a summary of "Dacian Draco as adopted by the Roman army after 106 AD" so here it makes more sense to expand and work on the content. Most claims that a certain draco is Dacian are countered by other claims that it is not, or that it is not only Dacian (e.g. the Chester draco - Dacian or Sarmatian, or some other authors wrote that the dracones on the column were carried by "Sarmatians and their Dacian allies", etc.) It will be difficult to write the three neutral articles, but I don't oppose the idea. In my opinion it would be easier to work on a single article, with sections and sub-sections dedicated to various draco types and the existing interpretations for each, and eventually create more articles when such sections become too large and hard to read. Daizus (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. Thanks for the understanding. But that single article should be the Draco (military standard). Probably we should copy and/or move sections (or parts of them) like "Origins", "Significance", "Dacian Draco as adopted by the Roman army after 106 AD", "Legacy" into the Draco (military standard) article. Then, indeed, create there sections like "Dacian Draco", "Sarmatian Draco", "Roman Draconarius", "Medieval Draco" etc which point back to corresponding expanded articles on the specific draco, if any. There is certainly a lot of work here. The Dacian Draco article should also point the reader to the Draco (military standard) and a possible Sarmatian Draco article due to the diverse interpretations. And I know is a controversial topic, like any around Dacia ;-) --Codrin.B (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography

The bibliograpy is inconsistently cited. E.g. Harry Scott Ashmore was just the editor-in-chief for Encyclopaedia Britannica, so it's not fair to say "scholars such as ... Ashmore (1961)". The same goes for Walter Yust (why are there two editions of Britannica cited?) John Bagnell Bury et al were the editors of Cambridge Ancient History, you should get the author and the chapter (and actually you should use the latest editions of both Britannica and CAH). Journal of Hellenic Studies is a journal not a book, so use the right template. Paul Martin Janicke is a lawyer, I don't understand why is his book (Modern Patent Litigation: Cases, Comments, and Notes) cited? The 'Scorobete' entry is confusing - is that a book, a journal? Again, why is it cited, apparently the title of his paper is "In memoriam Nicolae Adam".

I also removed the references to Coulston's other paper (initially cited as Henig). I don't see how the citations supported the claims in the article (e.g. on p. 46: "Defences in scene XXV are identified as Dacian by the presence of draco standards and impaled heads.") Daizus (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Draco of Dacians in the view of non-Romanians

The Sarmatian Draco could be edited with a separated article. We don’t know for sure where Romans took the draco from. But, you can not include only the Sarmatian opportunity and totally exclude the Dacian one from this article. See the following clues. Thank youBoldwin (talk) 10:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Dennys Rodney (1976) The heraldic imagination Studies the fabulous and monstrous creatures and other flamboyant manifestations of heraldry

• Page 189 “….The Dragon was the emblem of the Dacians, from whom the Romans adopted it in Trajan's time, and just as the Eagle was the emblem of the legion of ten cohorts, so the Dragon became the emblem of the cohort…

Gwynn-Jones Peter - 1998 - The art of heraldry: origins, symbols and designs

• Page 62 “ The dragon now associated with heraldry certainly has a pre-heraldic history. It was brought to Britain by the Romans who are said to have used it as a badge for their cohorts. The Romans were seemingly inspired by Dacian tribesmen whom they conquered during the reign of the emperor Trajan at the beginning of the”

Haynes Denys 1995 in The Journal of Hellenic studies edited by Percy Gardner, Max Cary, Ernest Arthur Gardner -

• Page 147 “…Though they too are canine, the heads of the Dacian draco-standards represented on Trajan's column are of an entirely different type, having short, round-nosed muzzles, protruding eyes, upright ears, gaping, circular jaws and no-gill fins…”

Hunter Fraser (2009) Les ateliers de sculpture régionaux : techniques, styles, et iconographie

• Page 798 The Dacian icons, the draco and falx, are another good example of this iconic variability
• Page 798 “ Some more specific icons did catch and became symbolic of partticular groups – notably the carnyx, torc and boar standard for the Gauls and the falx and draco for the Dacians “

Jones David 1963 The anathemata: fragments of an attempted writing

• page 154 “… Rome borrowed the draco from the Dacians in the second century ad and later it became the Royal Standard of the Eastern Emperors, to be again imitated in the West as a symbol of power. West-Saxon kings and others used it….”

Jonge Pieter, J. den Boeft, Daniël den Hengst – 1972 in ‘Philological and historical commentary on Ammianus Marcellinus’ Publisher: Bouma’s Boekhuis

• page 97 “…The draco as a standard, probably Dacian in origin, was generally introduced in the fourth century. Cf. the note ad 15.5.16. ….”

Mattingly Harold , John Allan Edward Stanley Gotch Robinson – 1938 Transactions of the International Numismatic Congress

• “….Moreover, the Dacians too used such dragon-like ensigns, and it was from them or from the Parthians — according to Fiebiger — that the Romans adopted them….

Minns Ellis Hovell 2011 [1913] Scythians and Greeks: a survey of ancient history and archaeology

• Page 78 “….Arrian [note 6] speaks of the dragon standards of the Scythians,…..

Note 6: They seem really to have been Dacian (v. Pauly-Wissowa sv Draco) and appear on M. Antonine's Column

Moss Henry St. Lawrence Beaufort – 1964 The birth of the middle ages

• Page 20 ... a Dragon {draco) — an emblem perhaps borrowed from the Dacians — a huge creature of barbaric aspect, inflated with air and fastened to the top of a spear

Osborne Harold - 1975 in The Oxford companion to the decorative arts

• Page 301 “… In the time of the Emperor Trajan the serpent (draco) was adopted by the Romans from the Dacians as the standard of a cohort and the purple dragon later became an imperial ensign. In the Middle Ages the Draco was carried as a banner in

Scott-Giles Charles Wilfrid - 1957 in The romance of heraldry

• Page 16 “….On the other hand, the dragon, the standard of the cohort, has had a practically uninterrupted career in these islands from the Roman conquest to the present day. In Europe, the dragon was originally a Dacian emblem. It was adopted by the Romans from the Dacians, after their defeat….”

The Encyclopaedia Britannica: a new survey of universal knowledge (1961) edited by Harry S. Ashmore, Harry S. Ashmore – 1961 (Also Encyclopaedia from 1953)

• From the conquered Dacians, the Romans in Trajan's time borrowed the dragon ensign which became the standard of the

The Encyclopedia Americana, Alexander Hopkins McDannald - 1943

• …..Trajan adopted it [draco] from the Dacians, after their defeat. ……

Vacher Burch (1927) Myth & Constantine the Great, Oxford university press, H. Milford,

• “... Rome borrowed the draco from the Dacians in the second century ad and later it became the Royal Standard of the”
• “….that animal (draco) was the national emblem of Dacia.”

Vékony Gàbor (2000) Dacians, Romans, Romanians

• We know that the martial symbol of the Dacians was the draco, a dragon made of linen. lt had a wolf-like head which was carried on a stick. The lranian origin of this symbol has already been pointed out

Vere Nicholas (2004)

• Dragon lords, the Sarmations, Cimmerians and the Dacians (who had a winged serpent or Dragon cult going back to the post-migrational Ubaid culture of Transylvania in 3000 BC), as well as the later Danes, all wore fish-scale armour

Walford Edward , John Charles Cox, George Latimer Apperson (1904) The Antiquary

• A Dacian dragon is, in fact, to be seen on the east front of the Trajan Column, representing a body made of linen, with spikes or claws at intervals, a head with erect ears and an open mouth, down which the air passed and inflated the

Williams Henry Smith – 1907 The Historians' History of the World: The early Roman empire

• The Dacian army with the dragon ensign and the Dacian cap, the symbol of superior rank

Boldwin (talk) 10:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

This is hilarious. This article is mostly about the Dacian Draco and it claims repeatedly and annoyingly that the draco is of Dacian origin (e.g. read carefully this text: "Scholars believe that the draco was adopted by the Roman army following their conquest of the Dacians. Some scholars consider that serpent (draco) was adopted by the Romans from the Dacians" or note that Bîrliba is cited for the same argument both in Origins and in the section on Roman army). There are many more references that the same standard is of Sarmatian origin, starting with ancient authors. Citing non-reliable sources (e.g. the "scholar of magic" Nicholas de Vere and really now, Dacians in Transylvania in 3000 BC???, or "post-migrational" Ubaid culture????) or irrelevant sources (e.g. Vékony only says the draco was used by Dacians) is not a way to prove a point. I mean the problem here is not that the Dacians did or didn't use the draco (they all agree they did), but what are the origins of this standard, and if Roman draco was of Dacian or some other origin. Daizus (talk) 11:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

J. Harmatta “At the present level of linguistic and archaeological research, the following Indo-European groups could be distinguished on the territory of central and eastern Europe in the Early Neolithic: ….Daco-Mysian group, represented by the Cucuteni-Tripolye culture…..” PS Ariusd-Cucuteni-Tripolye culture flourished between ca. 5500 BC and 2750 BC and János Harmatta (1917- 2004) was a Hungarian linguist

It seems some scholars don’t bother to classify people: pre-Dacian in Dacia, proto-Dacian or Dacians’ ancestors or something like this even when it is about language as his article was about Boldwin (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dacian Draco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mnir.ro/publicat/damian/numis.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Merge with Draco (military standard)

Both articles cover the exact same material, with Dacian Draco being more indepth than the other. I find it redundant to let both articles exist. I propose that we should incorporate the Roman information covered in Draco (military standard) into this article and turn it into a redirect. The Verified Cactus 100% 23:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Pinging @Iazyges: @Codrinb: who appear to still be active members of WikiProject Dacia, for their opinions on this proposal. Richard3120 (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• I think a merge is a good idea, with no opposition to the articles being split again if the Roman section becomes big enough to warrant its own article (extremely unlikely). I do think that it would best be moved to Draco (military standard) however, as the Draco appears to have belonged to the Sarmatians (probably Iazyges), Romans and Dacians at various points. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

  Have to change my vote per Codrinb (talk), vote to keep them separated now, as they can both arguably be expanded. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• I understand the concerns, but I would keep them separate. The Dacian Draco covers the symbol/flag of the Dacians, while the Draco (military standard) focuses on the later Roman cavalry standard. While related, they are two different concepts from different space/time frames. I think that both articles can continue to grow (and diverge) if additional relevant and focused material is added to them. For example, I think that the Draco (military standard) and Draconarius articles could get more content on the Roman usage of the cavalry standard, by expanding the Dacian Draco#Dacian Draco as adopted by the Roman army after 106_AD section in the respective main articles.--Codrin.B (talk) 11:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, I understand. The Verified Cactus 100% 15:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)