Talk:Welsh Dragon

Untitled

Henry VII flew both the dragon flag of Cymru and the yale flag of Beaufort in 1485. That beast had existed as the goat-lion yale of John of Lancaster, regent in 1422. The unicorn yale of Jane Beaufort of Somerset seems to have been adopted by James 1 in 1424 as supporter for the Arms of Kings of Scots. As Henry VII had relied on Wales to win his throne (and perhaps to save his life in battle), then his choice of national symbols was crucial. If the Red Dragon raised Welsh militant spirits, then logically the yale was also chosen for that. Hence, the goat-lion yale was equally a traditional cultural symbol. And Scots would not likely identify with the Welsh symbol, unless it was equally a Scots Celtic heritage. Dragon and goat-lion appear in Greek accounts of Celts. Echidna Kelto viper-woman was mother of Chimera goat-lion and of Keltos by Herakles /Hercules.- Diodorus 5.24. Etymologicon Magnum 502. Partheneion Alcman 30. "Dragon"< Gk. drakon. Latin draco "snake". "Chimera"< Gk. chimaira "goat". Y Ddraig Goch evidently derives from Homer's time and not from a copied Roman dragon-banner. Chimera lives on in UK Royal Coat of Arms, after 3000 years.

The point of adding this was what now? If you want to discuss the evolution of the dragon in general from Grecian times to modern European times, then go to the main European dragon article. And explain how you get from talking about King Henry and the yale (a Roman creature with a Hebrew name originally) to Hercules and the Chimaira (a Greek creature who is only part dragon/snake and part lion). Also, "3000 years"? The Greeks that wrote down the legend of the Chimaira didn't live in 1000 BC. I don't know the exact figures, but it was closer to between 500 BC and 100 AD. The Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom shows a lion and a unicorn, not the Chimaira, which is (again) a Greek composite creature unrelated to the yale or the Welsh dragon. 24.14.198.8 02:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Chris G.

A 'new' interpretation?

We seem to have an addition about a 'new interpretation' of the dragon without anything suggesting what the old interpretation(s) might be. (I presume the 'old' idea is that it's a dragon representing a dragon...) The authority for this is an article on a website. I don't know anything about www.vortigernstudies.org.uk or about the author of the article, but on a first glance it looks like a 'self-published source' (WP:SPS), and doesn't really cut it as a reference. I'm inclined to think it should be removed. Telsa (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Bad Rename?

The page should be renamed 'Brythonic Dragon'. It was used by the Brythonic people before Wales had even formed as a nation. Also 'Draig Goch' as it is called in Welsh, directly translates to Red Dragon.--86.146.2.149 (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't find the style guide right now but they do say that it should be titled what it is called in common useage. The common term is "Welsh Dragon" not "Brythonic Dragon" or even "Red Dragon". I would concede that it is sometimes called Red Dragon but Welsh is more common. Hypnoticmonkey (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Most Famous

"is the most famous dragon in Britain." ??? that would need a citation - most famous in Wales, yeah, I could see that - but the one that St George mythically fights has to be very famous in Britain, too, since St. G. is the patron saint of England, the most populous part. Des1974 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC).

I'm going to remove it. Famous-ness is fairly immeasurable and subjective and gets even worse when you're dealing with something which has never existed. Hypnoticmonkey (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Another Red Dragon

Hi. I own a red dragon flag. It is basically the same as the present flag of Wales, except for its front foot, which is 'fully' in the green-base. I've heard references about this specific version, many years ago. Can anyone give me any more information. This is for an article Royal Supporters of England. Ta Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Current Welch Flag.

The Current Welsh Flag, was first used by King Alfred the Great, and is the Orginal flag of the Kingdom of Wessex. Now ask why then does the English Province of Wales use this flag?

Well the first recorded Dragons used as symbols that we know of, are Dragon Boats. Yes, Vikings. The Feared White Dragons.

The Viking flag, was a White Dragon. To Oppose.....the "English" Red Dragon, as it was known in it's day. As for historum Brittonium. Anyone who has studied this treatise knows full well it's instrument of commission.

The Current modern Wessex flag of Red with a gold Dragon, only came about with William I. Duchy of normandy is Red and Gold Lions. Hence, his flag told were he came from. And where he is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.3.141.45 (talk) 11:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The White dragon flag isn't seen anywhere outside of welsh/breton traditions, the gold dragon flag for Wessex is 17th century antiquarian nonsense, a misreading of a medieval embelishment of the ASC at most. None of the anglosaxon realms used dragons in their known government symbolism, the welsh made alliances of convenience with the vikings which the ASC whines about regularly, and the first signs of dragon symbolism come from the roman military possibly from the dacian campaigns, long before the establishment of saxon foederati in southeastern england. The white dragon in Monmouth is sometimes interpreted as the english except the actual text of Monmouth uses it as symbolism of dynastic struggle between two welsh dynasts. 67.70.26.240 (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Welsh Dragon Memorial Mametz Wood.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Welsh Dragon Memorial Mametz Wood.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 27 October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Welsh Dragons Walking-With-Dinosaurs-style

A few years ago there was a BBC television programme about Welsh dragons as if they actually existed, filmed as a natural history mocumentary in the style of "Prehistoric Park" or "Walking With Dinosaurs". I Googled but couldn't find it. Would be worth adding to In Popular Culture if anyone knows about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantoid (talk • contribs) 05:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Y Draig Aur Owain Glyndŵr.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

reversions of added media

I added an example of the Welsh dragon in current heraldry, which was reverted by another editor as in their opinion, it wasn't "notable"... struggling to see why this is so (and why it is, for example, less relevant than a brewery pub sign!). The same editor had undone the previous version, but with a totally different reason given. So it seems it is merely offending their opinion, if I am honest. SkipsThomas (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

You haven't established notability for this particular example - are we going to include every heraldic shield with a welsh dragon in it? It is used in a Welsh Brewery (not a pub sign) based in Wales - good example but we wouldn't add lots and lots of pub signs. We have one possibly two heraldic images. Adding an "an agnatic descendant of the Cornish descendants" for an Australian hardly seems relevant. Although I assume this is linked to your recent set of edits to William ap Thomas which is obviously of interest. I gave you different reasons as you didn't listen the first time but broke WP:BRD and while I realise you are a new editor its generally a bad idea to make suggestions as to another editors motivations. -----Snowded ^TALK 13:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi - apologies if you took that the wrong way. I merely indicate how it came across! No worries. SkipsThomas (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Y Draig Aur Owain Glyndŵr.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Removal of poorly sourced information

An editor has just chopped out a huge amount of the article in this edit: [6]. I am unhappy about this because I had only just tagged some of the material as needing better sourcing, and because as per my edit summary, I believe the information is true (indeed I am certain I have read it) - it just lacks sources. Adding "citation needed" is appropriate, but removing true and long standing content merely because it is unsourced, and no one noticed, is not helpful. Because the information is substantial, I am going to revert it back in, or else reverts will become tricky if there are intervening edits. Pleas do ad citation requests and if they are unfilled after a suitable period then the challenged material should go. But please give editors a chance to fix the issue. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

No problem. Will look to add cited content to replace. Titus Gold (talk) 12:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Potential merger with Welsh Gold Dragon

Welsh Gold Dragon and this page clearly have significant overlaps. I wonder whether it would be better to merge these two pages or leave them as they are? Some of the theory of origins and history etc. seem to have strong common ground, particularly the reference to "ruddy gold" origins of dragon which suggests a common origin of both colours. Thoughts? Titus Gold (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support merger. A Welsh Gold Dragon does not have WP:SIGCOV for an article of its own. My thoughts on that can be seen on Talk:Welsh Gold Dragon#Notability. There may be WP:RS to suggest that the red dragon was originally perhaps a ruddy gold, but at this point that is not clearly demonstrated. If it can be demonstrated, it is useful history here but doesn't need its own article. What is uncontroversial is that Owain Glyndwr fought under a gold dragon banner, and that should be included in this page if discussing history and development of the Welsh Dragon. Content best sits on this single page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  Support merger. Will copy any new and relevant information over from Welsh Gold Dragon after consensus. Titus Gold (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support merger of Welsh Gold Dragon into this article – Largely duplicated content and not notable on its own. It seems most of Welsh Gold Dragon is shared with this article? So little in much of merging really. DankJae 15:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, similar content is due to my recent additions to Welsh Dragon which seemed relevant. I still support a merger here and a review of my additions to Welsh Dragon. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Accidental Revert?

User:Titus Gold Did you intend to revert my previous edit on the reflist or was that an accident? Your edsum only says you are removing an unsourced statement. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Think it was an accident. All I intended to do was remove the non-cited sentence. Titus Gold (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok thanks for clarifying. Easy enough to put it back. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Arthurian Legend

The Welsh dragon dates back to the prophet Merlin and King Arthur Pendragon in Nennius' Historia Brittonum which dates to around 828AD. This is not right. It is not right on several points. Have you read Historia Brittonum? Where are you getting this from? What is our basis for calling Merlin a prophet? Why are we saying things date from legendary figures? This does not belong in this article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I've re-worded a little to reflect the source. Seems like a reputable book by a reputable publisher. Titus Gold (talk) 00:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Which does not help with the fact that Nennius does not say that. I removed it before and you have reinserted it. I don't want to edit war with you but this statement remains nonsense in its reformulation, which now has:

According to one author, the Welsh dragon dates back to the "legendary prophet" Merlin and King Arthur Pendragon in Nennius' Historia Brittonum which was written in around 828AD. The word dragon, dragwn, draig in Welsh meant leader or chieftain.

I found where you are getting this from on page 41. Indeed your wording is so close to the book that I think you should just stick it in a quote or else it looks like a copyvio. However, the real problem here is that finding a quotation in a book is not good enough to make something suitable for mention in an encylopaedia. To be in this article the information must indeed be verifiable, but it also should have due weight, and more importantly, not demonstrably be false. Reiter is wrong. Demonstrably wrong! The legendary prophet (note, no scare quotes) Merlin is not mentioned in Historia Brittonum, not even as Myrddin. A dragon is mentioned there, of course, and that is the Vortigern's tower story that was already properly described on this page. Arthur is mentioned, but not in relation to dragons.

I believe Reiter has confused Historia Brittonum with Historia Regum Britanniae. The writer is in error. This may be in a published work, but published works contain errors too and this is demonstrably such. Could I gently suggest that you read Nennius before attempting to summarise Nennius? You can find it in English translation from project Gutenberg. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:17, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps we could include something like, "Flattun (nb not Reiter) suggests that an early reference to the Welsh dragon is found in Nennius's quasi-historical Historia Brittonum of 828 AD", without any reference to Merlin ("the boy" in Nennius' Historia?) or Arthur, but even that might be pushing it a bit.  Tewdar  08:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Tewdar. I have gone for a more historical approach and written a missing introduction to the History section. That was sorely needed as the page just jumped straight into a series of uses without any context. I have deleted the incorrect information. I also put the Arthurian legend stuff in its proper context as some of the later material on the use of the dragon symbol and Pendragon title - its usage was well established long before then. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Sirfurboy, thanks for your fantastic additions. Impressed with your use of early Welsh literature. I've added back some of the content on Uther etc. that you removed and grouped the content under sub-headings to make for more organised reading. Happy for you to critique any text for potential removal. Thanks again for your additions, excellent work. Titus Gold (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your copy edits wheich were helpful (although I dislike that spelling of Aneurin - but if that is what Wikipedia wants to use I will live with it). However I am not happy at all with some of these reinsertions and the way you moved my text around because:

1. The Welsh Dragon does not come from King Arthur. It is from Cadwaladr if it is any one person. It is from Roman usage and Romano-British adoption. It is intricately linked with everything Welsh, and the King Arthur tales grew from that. Arthur has dragons because of the Welsh dragon. The Welsh do not have dragons because of Arthur. It is POV pushing to keep trying to assert an Arthurian origin. The Arthurian material is the later material, and dragons and even pendragons were already well established before Arthur gets a mention. So that heading does not belong;

2. What I wrote had a strict chronology. Roman archaeology followed by the first writings in Welsh showing a clear development from use for war leaders to use as a representation of a nation. Re-ordering the timeline breaks that and is not helpful.

3. This gold dragon thing is not a thing. The dragon is red as early as it gets a colour mentioned. That Geoffrey of Monmouth stuff about Uther is from the 12th century. The sources you cited are highly problematic as per my comments on the gold dragon talk page. Wessex had a gold dragon, but the first usage of a gold dragon that I am aware of in Wales is Glyndwr. I expect one could find earlier gold dragons in heraldic symbols elsewhere but as per Historia Brittonum, the dragon that came to symbolise the people who would become associated with Wales (and elsewhere) was red.

4. The Uther stuff is not wrong per se but it is not relevant as above. I challenged it, and per WP:BRD please don't put it back without an editor consensus. It is fine on the Uther Pendragon page you got it from but here it is WP:UNDUE

5. The Historia Brittonum text was here as a chronological summary, with subsections allowing some of the material to be unpacked. However, if editors disagree with that structure, then the fuller information in the subheadings needs to be moved into the chronological structure and not vice versa.

6. Adding in the later Welsh leaders at the end of the chronology is a good edit, thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I just think that even legendary/mythical text should be included. Not trying to propose either Arthur or Cadwaldr as the first user of a dragon. I actually think that the chronology you've used is good so I'm happy to leave that as it is now. Out of curiosity, where does the Arthurian dragon come from then? Who was the first to suggest Arthur used a dragon? Titus Gold (talk) 11:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

So how about after the history section we have an "in legend" section or similar. That would then be a suitable heading for the various legendary sources including Nennius's pseudo history, the Mabinogion and Geoffrey of Monmouth at the end (being later than the other two). That would mean moving all the legendary material to after the history section (i.e. the Mabinogion and Historia Brittonum sub sections which would move from sections 1.1 and 1.2 to sections 2.1 and 2.2)

That would rearrange downwards some longstanding material thous, so it would be useful to have the thoughts of other editors on that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

That sounds sensible. Maybe keep one section as historically accurate as possible and the other section more on legend. As I understand it, Historia Brittonum is more historically reliable but Historia Regum Brittaniae by Geoffrey of Monmouth is not historically reliable. Titus Gold (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Historia Brittonum is indeed probably a little more reliable than Historia Regum Brittaniae - but we are only talking about extents of the fiction. They are both purveyors of legends. Neither reliably tells us about any characters. Ambrosius in Nennius is Ambrosius Aurelianus in Gildas. But what Nennius tells us is completely at odds with Gildas' (earlier) account. The myths are good though. I have no objection to the myths and legends being presented as legends on this page. After all, they are an example of early Welsh writing and the fondness for dragon myths. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I see, interesting. Thanks for your help on this, excellent work. Titus Gold (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy Is the name "pendragon" in the context of Arthur and Uther essentially made up by Geoffrey of Monmouth? Titus Gold (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Taliesin refers to Owain ben draic, so the epithet is clearly older than Geoffrey, but Pendragon, Like Merlin, is a deliberate corruption of that for a French speaking audience. Dragon comes to English from Old French, not from Welsh. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't 'Uther, Chief Dragon' be a better translation for the manuscript text image 'Ythr Ben Dragwn' than 'Uther Dragon Head'?  Tewdar  08:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. The sources may have worse translations! Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually, just noticed that this translation is not citing a source so we can just use the better translation. I changed it. Thanks User:Tewdar. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I think I do remember seeing that translation in one of the sources, except I forget which one. I imagine anyone calling him 'Uther Dragon-Head' to his face would have been insta-decapitated. 😁  Tewdar  19:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

References

References

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:17, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Roman use of Dragon symbols

Text was removed discussing Roman use of dragon symbols with the edsum: not sure about this sources' reliability. User:Titus Gold, Please stop removing text whenever you have doubts about the sourcing. You should not remove text that is very likely correct. There are templates for this. In this case, please see: Template:Better source needed. Place that beside the material where you have a concern around the source and an editor can address the issue. If the issue remains unaddressed after a suitable period, and if you cannot find a better source, and if you have reason to think the information is wrong, then the information can go. The danger in the way you are doing it is that by sandwiching these removals in a large number of other edits, information that is factually correct will be lost.

In this case the answer was right there in the source. Although the text cited was the Data Wales page written by John Weston, the author cited his source, which is (Lofmark 1995). A quick reference to that book turns up the information and a bit of extra detail which I have now added. It is just a matter of actually reading the source. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy This is probably the only cited sentence I've removed in recent times. Other removals were non-cited. Titus Gold (talk) 12:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

So where there is long standing text that is probably correct but lacking a citation, please use: Template:Citation needed and for the same reasons. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Sensible suggestion, but as I'm sure you know, adding a "citation needed" is often not addressed for years, even decades. In future, I will aim to replace or add a citation rather than remove the text. Titus Gold (talk) 14:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The oldest "citation needed" I ever filled was something like 16 years old! But you don't have to wait that long. Just give it at least a week, and not more than a month or so, where there is good reason to think the information is correct. Cheers. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Celtic and Roman Symbolism

This edit [7] gives me the strong impression you have been reading Mared Llywelyn's MPhil thesis, pages 28 and 29, yet I think you are inadvertently misrepresenting what she says, and certainly what Gwyn Thomas says. The point there is not to show that Celts had a dragon mythology before the Romans, but that the Celts had strong associations between gods and animals. The symbol of serpents as opposing powers shows how, for instance, the symbol of opposing dragons would find fertile ground in the Celtic imagination. We need to ensure that this page does not sow confusion in the reader's mind. Without a doubt, and all sources agree (including Llywelyn), the dragon as a symbol comes via the Romans. It is not speculation. The very word "draig" comes from latin "draco" and the symbol only appears once brought to Britannia by Romans and others in the Roman empire. Neither do I think it is helpful to have headings like "speculation about..." These appear to be unencyclopaedic, and also misrepresent that there is really no doubt that the dragon symbol arrived on these shores via a Roman route. I will make some edits. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

And edit to add: I have made an edit now. I removed this: There is archaeological evidence of continental Celts use of brooches and pins form of a dragon during the La téne period from c.500BC to 1 AD. Leaving it here to preserve for discussion. Continental dragon brooches are heavily stylised but can be interpreted as dragons (and are, indeed, thus their name), but that does not mean that there was a continental original culture of dragon mythology. Much more likely that they too got it from Romanised or eastern sources, through trade etc. This page is not the place to argue the toss on that. This page is about the Welsh dragon, and the evidence is clear that romanised celts adopted a Roman symbol. This is what the sources say. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

We shouldn't be thinking along theory lines and trying to push an article towards a particular theory. We should simply point toward any evidence of the use of dragon symbolism in Wales or by those who came to Wales. Titus Gold (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

That is not correct. We should be reporting what the sources say. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes of course, I agree. Titus Gold (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

So you restored the text I challenged before. Specifically this: There is archaeological evidence of continental Celts use of brooches and pins form of a dragon during the La téne period from c.500BC to 1 AD. with reference to Gwyn Thomas' Duwiau'r Celtiaid, page 38. I have been to the library today and consulted with the reference copy of this book, and this text is not to be found on page 38, nor anywhere else that I can see in the whole short work. I have thus removed the text again. Please can we get some kind of consensus on this talk page regarding this. Happy to request editor assitance from Wikiproject Wales to get more eyes on it, but as it stands, the sentence is rather out of place with the rest of the content, and certainly needs better sourcing. About sourcing: it is important to read sources and not just copy them from other articles. Context is key. I spent at least an hour of my time checking out that source today, only to find it does not say what is claimed for it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, I included the incorrect citation. I have since rectified this. Titus Gold (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

so now we have It is thought that the western Celtic peoples were familiar with dragons in the pre-Christian age and that native people of Britain wore Celtic decorations with motifs of dragons on them during the Roman invasion. There is also archaeological evidence that the continental Celts used brooches and pins in the form of a dragon during the La Téne period from c.500BC to 1 AD. This again shows you have been reading Mared Llywelyn's MPhil thesis (in Creative Writing). You have added her source, but I don't think you have read it, because you only refer to Francis Jones, The Princes and Principality of Wales (1969), yet a reading of the section of that book begining with mention of La Téne on page 167, shows that this book is, in fact, relying upon F. Haverfield, The Roman Occupation of Britain, 1924. Llywelyn cites this correctly, but you have just copied the 1969 source in here.

So what we have is a statement "it is thought that..." supported by a 100 year old source, interpreted in a creative writing master's thesis. It is a good thesis, btw. But on this point, we are now making way to much from this. It is not the case that "it is thought that ... native people of Britain wore Celtic decorations with motifs of dragons on them during the Roman invasion." This page already discussed the first century dragon brooches, but we do not know these predate the Roman invasion and we certainly do not know that these arrived independently of Roman influence. We are making too much of this from insufficient information. We simply have no good evidence of a pre-existing dragon mythology amongst insular Celts prior to Roman influence. Thinking has moved on in the last 99 years. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm simply collecting sourced sentences on the dragon in use by the Celts. (also corrected one previous citation).

My own theorising (not to be included in the article of course):

Just looking at when the Celts invaded Dacia, and this coincides with the first use of the dragon symbol by the Celts. It seems possible that the symbol originally comes from the Dacians with the Celts adopting it on the continent in the 4th century. The use of the draco as a military standard could then have been reinforced by the Dacian (and other) legions of the Romans both on the continent and later in Britain. Titus Gold (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

In order to develop a completely separate origin of the dragon to the Dacians (or other Roman/Greek influence), one would need to prove that the dragon was in use by the Celts before the 4th century I think. Titus Gold (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Just looking at when the Celts invaded Dacia, and this coincides with the first use of the dragon symbol by the Celts. It seems possible that the symbol originally comes from the Dacians with the Celts adopting it on the continent in the 4th century.

You appear to be making the error of thinking of the the Celts as a single people. This is irrelevant to the situation amongst insular Celts. I have spent a lot of time that I do not have chasing around on this today. There is no subject here. There is simply no evidence of a pre-Roman dragon mythology among the insular Celts. it is also undue weight in this article. We know that the Welsh Dragon derives from Roman influences on Romanised Celts in the post Roman period. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

You could well be absolutely right, just a theory.

I do think you're committing yourself to one particular theory rather than simply including all potentially relevant evidence. Any evidence showing use of the dragon by native britons is relevant and needs to be included. I have added some evidence of archaeology from the La Tene/Hallstat period of Celtic swords found in the Thames.

Whether or not evidence of dragon used by continental Celts is as relevant is debatable. It's still worth including as a potential source unless there is evidence against any migration or trading links with Britain between 4th century BC and Roman arrival (highly unlikely). Titus Gold (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

There is no other theory. What is the theory here? That pre Roman Britons already called their leaders "pendragon?" There is no evidence of this. None. We don't even have a native Celtic word for dragons. That is certainly not conclusive proof that no such word existed, nor that the Britons did not call their leader dragon, or horse or big hen. But we have nothing to say about it because there is no evidence. The only theory that has any evidence is the one we have in all the sources and what I described above, and what the page put forward until the last couple of days.

So this is an encylopaedia, a tertiary source. We present the reader with a finished article that explains what the scholarly consensus is, but in an accessible way and with sourcing. Again, we had that until a couple of days ago. But now you say, Any evidence showing use of the dragon by native britons is relevant and needs to be included. But no, that is not what we do. The article mentioned brooches and such, but made it clear that we know little about these, and did not spend time on these because they are clearly not relevant to the dominant theory, the only one out there, which is that the Pendragon label came from Romanised Britons. The article is not a dumping ground for a sentence about every one of these. By adding in the Hammersmith sword, you have made the article indiscriminate. That sword is just one example, and there are many more, of this design. They speak of a spread of a style of art, but tell us nothing about a dragon mythology. Your inclusion is out of context.

No one is saying there were no trading links between Celts, and indeed it is well established that there were (and between Celts and Romans for that matter). There has been debate about the extent to which the culture came to insular Celts, with, for instance, one theory being that the culture came to Britain via Ireland that had direct continental links. That theory, however, has been disputed as more evidence has come to light. But, see, none of that is relevant here, because if that is why leaders were called Pendragon, you would expect pendragons in all Celtic cultures, and we have no evidence for that.

And here is the thing, the article was written as prose. It needs to be prose, with a structure. Thesis, expansion, conclusion. The sources are used to expand the thesis, to demonstrate how the conclusion is not our conclusion, but that of the scholarly consensus. If you start throwing random sentences into the middle of the prose, you don't have prose anymore. The reader can no longer see a progression of ideas, because we have little asides about random scabbards. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Everything in the first paragraph is completely relevant. It even forms part of the theory that Mared Llywelyn suggested, in which the dragon was brought to Britain by the Celts and the symbol was then militarised by exposure to Roman rule/fighting under Dacian banners/draco etc.

Another theory is that the Romans brought the symbol to Britain with the Celts having had no exposure to it all (this is arguably disproved by the Hammersmith swords). The truth could be one or the other or a combination of both. Attention should be given to all cited theories and relevant content, not just one theory that you feel is most likely. If you find a citation that criticises what Llywelyn suggests, you're more than welcome to include that.

There is more than one reference of dragons on Celtic swords prior to the sentence on the Hammersmith swords and the paragraph has flow. The 3 swords are not at all random, but the earliest example that I have come across of archaeology containing dragon symbolism in Britain.

What is important is not saying that one particular theory is correct but using language such as "this author suggests this theory based on this evidence" if you see what I mean. Titus Gold (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure if the problem here is WP:LISTEN or WP:CIR, but again, there is NO such theory. You attribute it now to Mared Llywelyn, but Mared's masters thesis is not in history it is in creative writing, and in any case a masters thesis is not a WP:RS. Furthermore that is not actually what she even says. You copy citations left right and centre without reading them, and paste bits and pieces back and forth from different articles, and all to push a POVy point of view. This article is now less clear than it was a few days ago, and less accurate too, and it now has "it is thought" and "it is assumed" weasel words, passive voice that hides who is doing the thinking and assuming (but my money is on the editor). This needs to stop. I am going to revert all the bold additions. Per WP:BRD we now need another editor to come in and assist us in finding a consensus. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Think you're being a little unreasonable and making some incorrect accusations. I suggest a less confrontational approach. I have undone the large revert and suggest that you remove certain sentences that you are unhappy with to be discussed here. Happy to discuss any particular sentences for re-inclusion. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of two paragraphs

"Dragon symbolism

The dragon motif is known in Celtic art in diverse styles. The dragon is presumed to have derived from ancient folklore of the Middle East and Greece which is serpent-like. Both the Greeks and the Romans considered the serpent to be a guardian spirit, represented on their altars. Celtic art suggests an association in the Celtic imagination of gods and animals. Gods were represented with animal companions or as animals. Although there is no evidence of a dragon mythology among insular Celts, the serpent appears to have had a prominent place in the Celtic imagination, particularly as a symbol of powers in opposition. The Celtic dragon may have developed from a horned and poisonous and/or fire breathing snake. It is mostly a snake that is transformed into a monster.

Celtic use

Western Celtic peoples were familiar with dragons in the pre-Christian age and that native people of Britain wore Celtic decorations with motifs of dragons on them during the Roman invasion. There is also archaeological evidence that the continental Celts used brooches and pins in the form of a dragon during the La Téne period from c.500BC to 1 AD. Some suggest that the native Britons of Europe may have brought the dragon with them when they migrated to Britain before the Roman age. The earliest known use of the dragon by the Celts appear in swords and sheaths in the 4th century BC. One example found in Britain is an early iron age Celtic sword that features two opposing dragons, queried to be from the Hallstatt culture. Two other swords and scabbards (also from the bottom of the river Thames) are thought to include a dragon pair from the La Tène culture and/or Hallstatt culture. Discovery of Celtic dragon-pairs in the Thames suggests that links existed between Britain and the rest of the Celtic world in the decades around 300 B.C."

I think to ignore these two paragraphs or elements of them means that the article is partly lacking and does not portray a well rounded picture. Titus Gold (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

My concerns are in the section above, of course. The issue is that we have no information that the Welsh Dragon has anything to do with dragon motifs in Celtic art; that these additions are all based on (and sources mostly copied direct, and without checking, from a masters thesis in Creative Writing which is not a WP:RS for history articles; and that this is two paragraphs of guff before we actually start telling the reader what we actually know. It also misrepresents the evidence somewhat, and also misrepresents the thesis it purports to follow. It is indiscriminate (e.g. mentioning the Hammersmith Scabbard but not, for instance, the Fovant one), and fails to mention that there is not even unanimity of opinion that the depiction is of dragons. To provide all the evidence of this Celtic art in its context, with caveats and notes, would be an article in itself and is WP:UNDUE here, because here it is being used to propose a WP:POV and WP:FRINGE view that the Welsh Dragon, the page subject, is derived from a pre-Roman dragon mythology - something for which we have no evidence. Indeed, the lack of military use of the dragon symbol in other Celtic cultures argues strongly against it. So yes, the whole section is WP:UNDUE here.

Some information that is good information is not good information on every page. This page is about the Welsh Dragon and not about La Téne art. Information about La Téne influence amongst insular Celts is good information for a prehistory article. This page: Celtic art has appropriate sections you might wish to consider - although I would suggest that some background reading of Celtic prehistory might be in order before adding information to that page, as there are often reasons that pages have been curated the way they have.

What might be appropriate on this page is a sentence that explains that the dragon symbol existed in Celtic art already. Any such sentence needs to not distract from the mainstream theory about the development of the dragon as a military symbol in Wales. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Completely agree with Sirfurboy, this article is about the Welsh Dragon, not "Dragons and snakes in Celtic art". The citations don't seem to be about the Welsh Dragon. For that matter, several citations are blank, so I'm wondering whether this info has bee copy-pasted from somewhere. Sionk (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes the text is copied from the edit that @Sirfurboy Sirfurboy made, removing the text from the article. Titus Gold (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be conclusive evidence of one single mainstream theory. There only seems to be one citation mentioning Welsh dragon in the Roman section and it's inaccessible online. There's also a citation here saying that the Celts used the symbol and that they may have brought it from continental Europe. It's strange to remove evidence of one theory just because it's not the theory you perceive to be mainstream. This suggests a biased WP:POV, which I'm sure you would want to avoid. Surely Celtic/native briton use of dragon symbol is relevant to this article (even if you disagree with inclusion of first paragraph).

What I'm asking for is balanced coverage of everything here, not one slant on origins. Titus Gold (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Upon reassessment, I can accept that Mared Llywelyn's suggestion of Celts bringing symbol may not be the most reliable source so for now I will not look to re-add this section unless I find further evidence. Titus Gold (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Roman text not mentioning Welsh dragon

For consistency, this text does not mention the Welsh dragon either so also removed:

"The military use of the term "dragon" (in Latin, "draco") dates back to the Roman period and this in turn is likely inspired by the symbols of the Scythians, Indians, Persians, Dacians or Parthians. Cohorts were represented by the draco military standard from the third century in the same way that the eagle Aquila standard represented the legions. The standard bearer of the cohort was called draconarius and carried a gilded staff with a dragon at the top. After the Roman withdrawal it has long been suggested that resistance to the Saxon incursion was led either by Romans or Romanised Britons, and this is evident in the names attributed in legend to those who led the opposition, including Ambrosius Aurelianus and perhaps Artorius. This could account for how the Roman terminology came to be adopted by Britons." Titus Gold (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Again, what is needed here is balanced relevant content, not a particular slant towards the favoured theory of an editor. Titus Gold (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

A retaliatory edit? In this edit you have removed, among other references, three references, including quotations, to Lofmark's "A History of the Red Dragon." A source that Llywelyn also cites extensively, btw. As usual, your edits have also damaged the referencing on the page. The thesis, in Lofmark et al., is that the Welsh usage derives from Romanised celts (attested by medieval literature - Lofmark's academic specialism). He mentions the Roman cohorts because this is the first attested military use of the term Draco. Clearly relevant, and unlike what I removed, not a recent bold edit either. I suggest you self revert that back in. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

There is a need to maintaining consistency here. It doesn't directly mention the Welsh dragon and so by this standard is not entirely relevant. There's no point addressing referencing until the content is sorted otherwise it just makes more work for us than needed if content is agreed to be added back. Not disagreeing with language derivation.

I would add that other citations have suggested Celtic use of dragon symbol in a Welsh dragon context which is also arguably relevant. Can't have it both ways, the standard must be uniform, not bended to fit a Roman theory only and not others. Titus Gold (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for putting it back. I appreciate that.

So on the point of consistency, there is a difference, and the difference is this: In the period immediately following the Roman withdrawal, we have linguistic and written evidence that war leaders were being referred to as draco. This is military usage of a Latin term by Romanised Celts. Lofmark, et al., therefore pointed out that this was already a military term used by the Roman cohorts. Can we definitely say that this is why a military leader was called a draco? No. But it is relevant that, just prior to this usage amongst Romanised Britons, the cohorts marched under a draco banner, and that the standard bearer was himself the draconarius. The page does not say that this is definitely where the term came from, it merely follows the historians in saying This could account for how the Roman terminology came to be adopted by Britons.. (my emphasis). This is not the favoured theory of an editor, it is the favoured theory of historians, and, incidentally, also of Llywelyn, who follows Lofmark closely in her thesis.

Now, in our earlier discussion, I asked what the theory was that you were trying to propose. If a historian had put together a theory based on a pre-Roman military dragon culture among the Celts, and had argued, with evidence, that this was where the Welsh Dragon had come from, then of course we would be including that too. But there is no such theory, nor any good evidence upon which such a theory could be made. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Fair comments. Titus Gold (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Cadwaladr Myth

The use of the flag in Cadwaladr is potentially a (long standing) myth based on the available sources born out of a historical misunderstanding. While not a a reputable source on it's own, there's a well researched video on the topic whose sources seem to stand up to scrutiny. - LoomCreek (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Looks like this was added in these two edits: [8] and [9]. The usual problems with it as seen for other edits to this page (primary sourcing and poor sourcing). Llywelyn (2017) has been discussed before. It is a thesis for a masters in creative writing, and is therefore not a WP:RS. This should have been excised some time ago. Sorry I missed it. I'll remove it now. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, the association does go back to a reliable source from the early 18th century - it’s just that source wasn’t cited here. That source included a logical fallacy that has caused the modern misunderstanding that Cadwaladr was associated with and carried the flag. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 04:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the association of the dragon with Cadwaladr is clearly specious. That said, the fact that an association has been made is notable—article should discuss the fact that by no later than the late 17th century, sources had begun to associate the two (while clarifying that there is no contemporary evidence of an association). I don't think we can say for sure the exact date the association was first made—we'll have to leave it up to historians to verify whether Cambrian Chronicles' research was complete. SilverStar54 (talk) 05:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree. - LoomCreek (talk) 05:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

If we do want include a clarification about the "dragon of Cadwaladr" term being a misconception/late association, then it seems we may have the perfect source to use as a citation. A few hours after the video was published, at the prompting of a comment, Cambrian Chronicles managed to come across a 1961 article by historian Sydney Anglo, titled "The British History in Early Tudor Propaganda". Anglo's article comes to pretty much the same conclusion as C.C.'s video; that the red dragon was not associated with Cadwalader before or during the time of Henry VII, and that the misconception originated with people confusing together the Tudors' claim of association to Cadwalader with their use of the Welsh Dragon. (Anglo additionally identifies the earliest potential source to depict the dragon in conjunction with Cadwalader to any extent, as being a 16th century book of banners and badges.) The pertinent passage for all of this is the paragraph that spans pages 36–37.

So, though Cambrian Chronicles' research was a slight bit incomplete, it also means we won't actually be needing to wait on the historians for verification. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 09:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I just posted this on Flag of Wales:

I left mention under Henry VII but that has now been removed too. The facts were already correctly described in the Cadwaladr page based on suitable historical sources. That states that the dragon became associated with Cadwaladr after Henry VII began to use it. See the section Cadwaladr and the Wars of the Roses.

The problem with this article and Welsh dragon is that these articles were edited by an editor who persistently used newspapers and the BBC as a basis for editing articles, inserting those as the sources, and then would shoehorn in other sources when challenged. This happened in many articles, some of which have now been deleted and the editor was eventually topic banned from Welsh articles (because there were also POV issues. In this case an attempt to remove the English kings from the story). There is still cleanup to do. This is a textbook example of why editors should not start editing a history article based on something they read on a BBC/newspaper page. Any mention of Cadwaladr should be under the Henry VII usage, showing how, after his usage of the dragon, it became associated with Cadwaladr. This may be done per the Cadwaladr page.

The same comments apply here. Per the source James Eilat has above, what is said under Henry VII can be used, per that source, to explain that the actual usage and confusion came later, and that neither Henry nor any contemporary made that link. But it is still the appropriate place to discuss it as the link with Cadwaladr only occurred because of Henry's adoption of the dragon and the other claims about Henry's lineage. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing Cadwaladr. Are there any reliable sources that mention his use of the red dragon other than Tudor propaganda? Does Aneirin or Taliesin mention him and his use of a dragon standard? Titus Gold (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The thesis didn't source the red dragon as being used by Cadwaladr, just that Henry VII used the dragon to show a connected lineage to Cadwaladr. Titus Gold (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree news articles should be completely avoided in future. I agree that there is room to mention Cadwaladr under the Henry VII section but no earlier. Titus Gold (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Gwarchan Maelderw - (probably first mention of red dragon used by ancient Britons)

"Gwarchan Maelderw" is possibly the first ever mention of a red dragon being used by the ancient Britons so this needs a mention. It's in the Book of Aneirin.

Titus Gold (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The Book of Aneirin is a 13th century manuscript constructed from copying from earlier manuscripts and oral tradition. It is very much a primary source. What secondary source are you referring to (or getting this from)? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct.

Here are some sources that cite the red dragon being mentioned in the poem. They don't necessarily say it's the first ever mention.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3RxnAAAAcAAJ&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&pg=PA583&dq=druids+standard+of+sun+and+dragon&hl=en&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=druids%20standard%20of%20sun%20and%20dragon&f=false

https://journals.library.wales/view/2062893/2069265/78#?xywh=-1896%2C-190%2C5916%2C3796

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TIaQtbd-KJcC&pg=PA342&lpg=PA342&dq=welsh+dragon+gwarchan+maelderw&source=bl&ots=1OJh4VAkT8&sig=ACfU3U1sQDs18NlzgVKU90uPTuYjqgpscg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiXgfTMj_CDAxUsWkEAHddABE04ChDoAXoECAMQAw#v=onepage&q=welsh%20dragon%20gwarchan%20maelderw&f=false Titus Gold (talk) 04:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy As far as I can tell, this is perhaps the only mention of a dragon on a flag from the book of Aneirin or Taliesin. There are plenty of mentions of dragon as a personification/title however as is already mentioned in the article. Titus Gold (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

This one [10] is Edward Davies' "Mythology and Rites of the British Druids", part of the recovery and reinvention of druidic tradition in the 19th century. The flag is his interpretation. This is not going to do at all.

The Red Dragon article [11] is also 18th century, dating to 1882. I couldn't see what you were referring to in it, but this is not going to pass muster either.

This one [12] appears to be Massey's "Book of Beginnings". Another 18th century work. Massey is not noted for his accuracy.

You see the problem with these? Why we can't be writing a historical encyclopaedic article based on this kind of source? What are modern historians saying? Start with the source, not with googling "druids standard of sun and dragon". Having found the best sources, read what they say. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Mentioned here page 415 alsohttps://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Four_Ancient_Books_of_Wales/rzdNAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0 Titus Gold (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Page 70 here: https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Scottish_Myths/qrAsAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=ruddy+dragon+gwarchan&pg=PA70&printsec=frontcover Titus Gold (talk) 17:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

It does seem as though Gildas' mention of Maelgwn Gwynedd is potentially the first association made between a dragon and a Brythonic/Welsh leader (already mentioned in this article) and Gwarchan Maelderw seems to be the earliest mention of a dragon on a flag of a Brythonic person. Titus Gold (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll leave this as an exercise. Write those out as author/date bibliography references (or let Wikipedia do it for you). Take a look at what you have, and based on my earlier comment, you tell me what is wrong with those two references. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, some of these are 19th-century sources, but that may not mean that they cannot be used if reliable.

Perhaps you could contribute to the matter by bringing some sources on the topic to the table?

I appreciate your cooperation. Titus Gold (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy Just noticed that there is already a lower alpha note referring to this passage from "Gwarchan Maelderw" cited from Lofmark's "A History for the Red Dragon".

Would it be reasonable for you to move this into the body, make reference to "Gwarchan Maelderw" and include one cautious "interpretation" of it being used as a flag please?

Would appreciate this, thanks. Titus Gold (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, some of these are 19th-century sources. They are all 19th century sources, and age is not the only problem. So before I personally would make any edit to the page suggesting the passage in Y Gododdin refers to a flag, I really would like to see what modern scholarship has to say on the subject. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I can't seem to access any sources later than the late 19th century. Perhaps you could help remedy this? Titus Gold (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

That may be because no modern source is saying this? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Found some info which I've noted in a new section below. Titus Gold (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

First modern uses of flag and draped standards

Some evidence has come to light of the first modern use of the dragon on a flag or draped standard.

1. 1840 Liverpool Eisteddfod; silk dragon standard draped over a chair (Jobbins, page 43); suggestions for an "order of Knighthood for Wales" and suggestion of a golden dragon drape, Carnarvon & Denbigh Herald 1, the report of the event cited a red dragon with a motto "y ddraig goch a ddyle gychwyn", Carnarvon and Denbigh Herald 2
2. 1842 Abergavenny Eisteddfod; banners used with a red dragon (Illustrated London News)
3. Ship Mimosa in 1865 (Jobbins, page 40), (Sea Breezes) etc.

Titus Gold (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

This page is specifically about the dragon. You might be better putting that on Talk:Flag of Wales. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

That's fair enough. Titus Gold (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Lofmark: A history of the red dragon (additions to article needed)

As requested, I've found a modern source (published 1995) which examines the older history. Here is a summary of points made by the author:

1. "Dragon of Britain" (page 39) This chapter starts with the archaeology of serpent/dragon symbols on scabbards, brooches, and coins (which I originally included on this page before it was removed). Thankfully, this info can be easily translated from the Welsh language version of this page which is well cited (and this source can be added as a citation).
2. "The Military Dragon of Rome"(page 40) - The dragon is brought to Britain "as a military standard". This has thankfully been well covered in this article already.
3. "The Old Welsh Military Dragon" (page 43) - Interestingly, "It is possible that his dragon has nothing to do with the military dragon of the Romans " but does suggest the "strengthening of the association of the dragon with the warrior in Britain".
4. "The Red Dragon and Saxon Dragons" (page 46) - The red dragon before 800AD symbolises military resistance in Britain and Nennius established the red dragon of Wales before 800AD. "Gorchan Maelderw" by Aneirin is noted as dating to approximately 600AD and refers to a red dragon and "pharaon" refers to the old name of Dinas Emrys which features in Trioedd Ynys Prydain and Lludd and Llefelys. Although the text is too corrupt to "carry a great theory" it proves that the national red dragon of the Britons was current as early as 600AD (two centuries before being written in Latin by Nennius). (The author also dismisses a Saxon theory.)
5. "The Dragon of Arthur" (page 49) - In this section, the author dismisses any account of Arthur and Uther by Geoffrey of Monmouth as unreliable.

Link: https://archive.org/details/historyofreddrag0000lofm/page/38/mode/2up Titus Gold (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I already put extensive references in the article to Lofmark, but look carefully what he says on page 46:

By the time the Historia Brittonum was written, about 800 A.D. following chronicles of an earlier period, the dragon is not only the individual soldier, and not the coming deliverer, but a symbol of national independence, and, for the first time, the national dragon is described as red.

So Lofmark says Nennius is the first, not Aneirin. In your point 4 above you say Aneirin is noted as dating to approximately 600 AD. But that is your gloss, it is not what Lofmark says on those pages. And there is a good reason. Although Aneirin, the person (whoever he may have been) describes the Battle of Catraeth, meaning he was alive in about AD 600, we do not know how much of what was written down in the 13th century is what Aneirin actually said. A reading of the A and B of Y Gododdin would surely present that caution, even if there were not concerns about the translation. So Lofmark makes no such claim. He specifically says Historia Brittonum is the first time the dragon is described as red. That is what the source says. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome to present the information above in the context that you see fit. Assessments, critiques and caveats for each source is appropriate and valuable as far as I'm concerned, as long as significant background and sources are all discussed.

As far as I can see, points 1, 3 and 4 are not discussed adequately in this article at the moment and deserve more attention. Titus Gold (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Look, the above 1500 words of text in three sections was all off the back of you saying: "Gwarchan Maelderw" is possibly the first ever mention of a red dragon being used by the ancient Britons so this needs a mention. It's in the Book of Aneirin. As above, we still have no good source that says that, and Lofmark specifically does not say that but says something else. That ought to be the end of the matter.

But now you are saying we should have more of Lofmark in here, including restoring text that you placed and I removed last year.[13], but this is all discussed in the talk section Talk:Welsh Dragon#Celtic and Roman Symbolism above. And for the avoidance of doubt, what Lofmark says about Celtic decorative dragons is:

The island of Britain, like all the rest of the world, has been haunted by dragons since prehistoric times. The earliest known artefacts of the Celts, while not clearly showing the dragon, do give very clear evidence of a lively serpent-cult, and it is sometimes unclear whether the serpent is an ordinary snake or a dragon.'

Which is interesting in his work, but not very relevant to an encyclopaedic article on the Welsh Dragon. I mean, it is not irrelevant but any attempt to make it look like the Welsh dragon is based on images of Cernunnos or similar (whose horned serpent may or may not be a dragon, and whatever it was called is not known) would be SYNTH. Lofmark's thesis is the same as the one we present. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Point 1 would be most suited to a background, and I agree with you that no direct connection is made to a Welsh dragon. If no background of this sort is included then it could be assumed by a reader that the native Britons had never heard of or seen serpent/dragon symbols when in fact they were, in the words of Lofmark a "lively serpent-cult"! It's not really synth if it appears in a book specifically about the Welsh Dragon. The author deems it relevant as at least a background. I agree that no more weight should be given to it than that.

Points 3 - A mention of these quotes is important "It is possible that his dragon has nothing to do with the military dragon of the Romans " but does suggest the "strengthening of the association of the dragon with the warrior in Britain".

Point 4 - I've reiterated that you can provide whatever context or assessment of the sources that you see fit including a view on the date of origin. I simply ask that the dragon in Gwarchan Maelderw is at least mentioned as a minimum. I would add one interpretation that says it was a flag. (I'm not saying you have to present it as the first-ever mention of a dragon.)

Hope that seems reasonable. Titus Gold (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

1. I agree with you that no direct connection is made to a Welsh dragon. And so I do not support the kind of tangential coverage that you have put into the Welsh language article. Let's keep this one focussed on the subject.

3. Lofmark says that calling people dragons could have happened just because of the association of dragons with strength. They still used a Latin word for it, of course. But yes, he asserts that the link to the Roman military draco is not definite. And our page has "This could account..." Which is to say that we are equally not definite. So nothing to see here.

4. We say "Taliesin and Aneirin both extensively use dragons as an image for military leaders". In your edits on the Welsh language page you named all the leaders. I don't see the basis for doing that. The interpretation regarding the flag is discussed above. Modern scholarship does not support it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)