Quote Originally Posted by Yora View Post
So was the standard usually with the commander? That would probably indicate that a lost standard means the leader has fallen.
It would depend upon the era, but I don't think the loss of a flag typically indicated that the leader had fallen (see below). As stated before, one battlefield function of a standard (or colors) was to indicate where the unit should be. The commander could move around a bit, to observe different aspects of his unit in battle, and hopefully have a better understanding of the overall situation. -- That wasn't always the case, sometimes the commander stuck himself in the front, to have more direct control over the unit, although that was probably rare in the "gunpowder" age.

The colors had an emotional appeal to them, and in a sense they represented the heart and "spiritual" center of the unit. They were the rallying point when things got bad. To lose the colors was considered very disgraceful. Likewise to capture an enemy's colors was usually considered an almost heroic act. It's also possible that the loss of the colors could lead to confusion, as the visual indicator of the point to organize around was now lost.

Also a note about terminology:
"The standard" refers to the standard colors -- i.e. the colors that are standard to the army, or the "national colors". In the American Civil War, Union troops had the basic American battle flag (the stars and stripes).

Alongside this flag would be another flag that represented the particular unit, in the American Civil War: "The regimental colors" (sometimes just the "regimentals", I think). Those colors were personalized, although they may be set to a regulated design. The standard could also have some personalization (the name of the regiment for example), but always had the standard colors and format. Thus the term "standard".

The colors were typically carried together at the center of the regiment. Smaller flags may be carried at either end, known as "guidons", i.e. "guide on" as the flanks of the unit could be the "guides". They are most well known from cavalry depictions, but infantry units could have them too. I've seen a considerable variety of them.

Finally, officially, the colors were not flags -- flags were flown from flagpoles over forts, towns, camps, etc. Colors were carried into battle. "Flags" could be considerably different from standards.

-------
That's all nineteenth century practice though. I'm sure it extends to the 18th century, but earlier than that it probably gets a bit different. Standards do seem to have been fairly common by the time of Emperor Charles V (the cross of burgundy, and the Hapsburg Eagle). Flags were of course used well before that -- but how often they were standard, I don't know. In the Middle Ages more household flags were probably common, and mercenary companies often had their own designs. I would imagine that an army might adopt a common flag to carry to help identify its own units in battle? When commanders typically had an entourage with household banners, to help locate them on the field, then perhaps the loss of *those* banners might indicate a fallen or captured leader. During the 19th century high ranking officers might have similar flags, to aid in the location of headquarters (Division, Corps, Army colors) -- but the flags would stay with the headquarters, and not necessarily with the particular officer (although distinguishing the two could be tricky).