"STOP WITH PENDRAGON AND THE DRACO, ALREADY!"

                     A Draco's Head

The title used for this brief blog is an exact quote from the author. It is meant to evoke his frustration over the continued misuse of the epithet Pendragon by Arthurians who ought, by now, to know better.

Simply put, Pendragon does not mean "dragon's head."  As pointed out by the Welsh scholars who really know and understand the language of poetic metaphor, Pendragon is properly rendered as either "Chief Warrior" or "Chief of Warriors." 

Here is the authoritative treatment of Uther's epithet, from the late great Rachel Bromwich (note to her TRIADS):

A related misconception also needs to be addressed (for the thousandth time!): while the Sarmatians may well have possessed their own version of a draco, there is absolutely no evidence that such was the case.

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2024/02/there-is-absolutely-no-evidence-for.html

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2024/11/a-wolf-head-insignia-for-dacians-at.html

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-wolf-serpent-standard-of-dacians.html

I once challenged Dr. Linda A. Malcor, the leading champion of the bogus connection between the Pendragon epithet and the Roman draco, to produce a single, viable piece of evidence, textual or archaeological, to support her contention. The result of the challenge?

She failed to produce anything. And then went right on persisting in her futile attempts to make everything Arthurian Sarmatian.

This blog is my last word on the subject of the draco standard. The Uther Pendragon name/epithet translates as "terrible chief warrior/chief of warriors". As it happens, Uther does not even designate a real historical entity, but was concocted by Geoffrey of Monmouth or his source from the Irish story of the mil uathmar/"terrible warrior" brought forward (chend, cognate with W. pen) by the English against Aedan of Dalriada at Degsastan (see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2017/10/degsastan-and-origin-of-mil-uathmarfer.html?m=1). 

[There might be a curious sort of middle ground for an Uther Pendragon and the draco, of course. I pointed out years ago that Pendragon, if taken more literally, matched perfectly the late Roman rank (found only in the eastern Empire, however!) of magister draconum, the head of the draconarii. And I once very tentatively hypothesized that a ruler residing at Birdoswald, where the draco-loving Dacians were long garrisoned, might have been referred to as the Chief Dragon. This was based on my identification of the Banna fort as the "Aelian dragon" of the Ilam pan, a nickname for the place where the Dacian draco was held in special reverence. This idea was considered plausible by historians, epigraphers and archaeologists. Had the Chief Dragon been a title for the ruler at Birdoswald, he may have been fancifully identified with the mil uathmar of the Irish tale.] 

Geoffrey or his source then genealogically linked this purely fictional father of Arthur to a fusion of identically named 4th and 5th century Roman emperors (see 

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/07/the-ghost-ambrosius-reading-4th-century.html).

CONCLUDING STATEMENT:

The Romans adopted the draco standard in the 2nd century. So far as we know, it continued to be used throughout the Roman era. If we must associate a 6th century Arthur in some way with dragons, we can only point to the later Roman draco standard.

Or we can opt (see the two serpents on Arthur's sword in CULHWCH AC OLWEN) for linking our hero instead to the dragons of Dinas Emrys, which are of an entirely different nature.

The Sarmatians are not the prototype for the Arthurian knights. Not only can't we associate a Sarmatian draco with Uther Pendragon, the notion that cataphracts somehow contributed to the development of the heavily armored, late medieval knight is absurd. Students of medieval romance literature, when encountering the same kind of knights in the Charlemagne and Alexander the Great cycles, for example, recognize that the characters of these stories were merely dressed up in the fashion of the day.  They are not reflections of 2nd century Sarmatian cavalrymen in Roman Britain.

If L. Artorius Castus had utilized his legionary forces in Britain, Sarmatian auxiliaries may have been attached to those forces for special purposes. But they would have had their own commander. It is simply a lie that Castus specifically, directly commanded Sarmatian cavalry. Had he done so, he would have included that particular function on his memorial stone.

He did not do so.

And with that I rest my case.