What work cemented the visual look of western dragons?

[KorvinStarmast]

No love for Vermithrax?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ermithraxp.jpg

[LibraryOgre]

One thing I find interesting is prescriptivism about what is and is not a dragon.

Consider, for example, the dragons of Skyrim... arguably one of the most prominent representations of dragons in the last decade. And I still had to argue with my 9 year old that, yes, they are dragons, even though they don't have six limbs and a tail. Kid has never lived in a world without Skyrim dragons... and trying to tell me they aren't dragons because they have four limbs.

[Peelee]

Keep in mind that those, like me, browsing on mobile are seeing a black, "hairless" dragon next to your name. Not a silver dragon that, I assume, has some form of flowing accent.

Woe to you, oh earth and sea, for the Peelee sends his profile picture with happiness.

I left alone, my mind was blank
I needed time to think, to get the memories from my mind
What did I see? Can I believe?
That what I saw that night was real and not just fantasy

[Errorname]

I think Smaug likely did more cementing then other dragons before him although the one George killed likely did inspire him and there is an image of him from shortly after the above ~1270AD.

Honestly, given Tolkien's statements that Fafnir and Beowulf's Dragons are the only 'real' dragons I don't know if the St. George story was his biggest influence.

No love for Vermithrax?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ermithraxp.jpg

Frankly, I think Vermithrax can be entirely credited to the popularity of the Wyvern bodyplan in modern media, I don't think we see ASOIAF's Dragons or Skyrim's Dragons or even the film version of Smaug looking like they do without her influence. Some of those we have direct quotes for (Martin's spoken about how Vermithrax is his favourite dragon and several dragons in Fire and Blood (Vermax, Vermithor) are named for her, Reign of Fire concept artists are on record saying they based their dragons on her) and some of those I'm less certain for (although given the non-zero amount of ASOIAF in Skyrim I'd say Vermithrax is a grandparent even if she's not a direct ancestor).

I was also right about the Pterosaur influence, they looked at Rhamphorynchus as a guide for Vermithrax's flight profile. It's really cool how the discovery of extinct non-avian flying reptiles has informed how we design dragons.

Consider, for example, the dragons of Skyrim... arguably one of the most prominent representations of dragons in the last decade. And I still had to argue with my 9 year old that, yes, they are dragons, even though they don't have six limbs and a tail. Kid has never lived in a world without Skyrim dragons... and trying to tell me they aren't dragons because they have four limbs.

Sure, but that's classic nerd pedantry. Back when I was a kid and Skyrim had just come out I was doing the exact same nonsense, and it happens for more than just dragons. Humans love making boxes to put things into.

I do wonder where the "Wyvern / Dragon" distinction even came from though. Heraldry maybe?

[Bohandas]

I did not interpret that mohawk as being hair, I thought it was like a Basiliscus sail or something.

Or feathers

[Grim Portent]

I do wonder where the "Wyvern / Dragon" distinction even came from though. Heraldry maybe?

Mechalich brought up the idea back on the first page, and it does seem solid.

The visual depiction of dragons underwent significant change during the Middle Ages, with the modern look: winged, quadrupedal, long neck and tail; slowly acquiring dominance over an earlier, much more serpentine appearance that traces to Classical Greece if not earlier, sometime between 1250 and 1500. This 15th manuscript portrays the Vortigern Dragons (a minor component of Authurian legend) in recognizably modern fashion.

The reason for the change in the visual language and the codification of what a 'dragon' was in Europe appears to have been dictated by heraldry, which needed to determine what qualified as a dragon vs a wyvern, cockatrice, basilisk, or similar creature on coats of arms. This was especially important in the 15th century as major figures such as the Royal House of Wales and the Tudor monarchs of England used dragons as their badges - Henry VII used a coat of arms with a very recognizable, modern-style red dragon on it from 1485 onward.

But the wikipedia article does suggest the changes to heraldry, which started with dragons having a random mish-mash of limbs and other features, came from the spread of bestiaries. So some medieval nerd wrote a book making a distinction and it got spread around and became so popular it influenced other medieval nerds who wrote more books and eventually influenced the nerds who composed heraldic devices for the nobles.

To me this makes more sense than for the heraldic distinctions to come first, because if dragon just meant 'reptilian beast' in heraldry then that is still a workable definition, for the distinction between a dragon and a wyvern to make sense requires that people could fail to recognise one if both were being called dragons, so there must have been an idea of a properdragon already forming for the heraldry to be compared to.

[Errorname]

While on the subject of paleontology influencing dragon designs I want to shout out Caraxes from HOTD for his four-winged paravian inspired design. Microraptorians had a cool wing arrangement and applying it to a dragon resulted in the best looking dragon in a show with some pretty cool dragon designs.

[Rynjin]

While on the subject of paleontology influencing dragon designs I want to shout out Caraxes from HOTD for his four-winged paravian inspired design. Microraptorians had a cool wing arrangement and applying it to a dragon resulted in the best looking dragon in a show with some pretty cool dragon designs.

What season of Highschool of the Dead had a dragon in it?

[Errorname]

What season of Highschool of the Dead had a dragon in it?

I don't know enough about that show to really build on this joke beyond pointing out that I referenced HOTD as a show with multiple pretty cool dragon designs of which the Blood Wyrm is the coolest, not a show that features just one dragon.

[Bohandas]

While on the subject of paleontology influencing dragon designs I want to shout out Caraxes from HOTD for his four-winged paravian inspired design. Microraptorians had a cool wing arrangement and applying it to a dragon resulted in the best looking dragon in a show with some pretty cool dragon designs.

D&D also has a monster with that approximate wing arrangement, the Arrowhawk

[Soras Teva Gee]

Dragons with huge tracts of land aside, I'm not sure the mesoamerican critters are usually considered dragons. It's rather arbitrary I know, but for whatever reason Coatls and the like are off to the side. Really asian dragons should as well, but because of shoddy translation conventions they got the name and started to mix together with the western ones. It's like pandas and giant pandas, unrelated but conflated. And on certain sites, inflated.

Dragon just means serpent
Coatl just means serpent.

So the problem with this argument is it is really only in the West for the past few centuries that you could arguably not call a dragon a serpent so that's the culture should either revert to the snakey Greek form or stop squatting on the word and pretending these... scaly lizard cat things are any sort of dragon.

(Incidentially Coatls are seemingly a DND thing, Quezalcoatl is the dragon god of Mesoamerica but doesn't have dragon friends that I can discover)

[Grim Portent]

(Incidentially Coatls are seemingly a DND thing, Quezalcoatl is the dragon god of Mesoamerica but doesn't have dragon friends that I can discover)

They are a D&D thing originally to my knowledge, but one that's spread to other D&D influenced media. Winged snakes with feathers crop up in a few other franchises, Elder Scrolls and Warhammer for example, though not all refer to them as Coatl.

[Errorname]

(Incidentially Coatls are seemingly a DND thing, Quezalcoatl is the dragon god of Mesoamerica but doesn't have dragon friends that I can discover)

The feathered serpent is a recurring cultural motif in multiple mesoamerican cultures, so there is more than one, but it's a lot more akin to different cultures expressing the concept of 'storm god' differently rather than a race of monsters.

Although pluralizing singular monsters is a fantasy staple as this point, hardly unique to Quetzalcoatl, although that his original conception was as a top god makes it unique. I can't say I've run across many games where a "zeus" was a recurring sort of enemy.

[Peelee]

The Mod on the Silver Mountain: Let's move away from real-world religions and gods.

[Mechalich]

'Really big snake' is a very common artistic motif in pretty much all human cultures where snakes are found in the environment, since snakes are by far the deadliest animal to humans in the world (not counting mosquitos, because in that case the diseases are the actor). Humans are more afraid of snakes that pretty much any other animal, something that can be demonstrated psychologically using recognition tests. That this motif evolved into a variety of different forms in different areas, with enough cross-cultural contact in Eurasia to unite a lot of them under the 'dragon' umbrella is pretty normal.

[137beth]

You know, I genuinely forgot there was a dragon in Beowulf. My memory was purely Grendel and Grendel's Mother, and while I knew there was reference to a dragon I genuinely forgot it was a separate entity.

It's hard to argue with the descriptions I'm finding for the Beowulf dragon -- these are all pretty standard to the modern conception. Except for maybe the "venomous bite" which has fallen by the wayside in favor of focusing on the firebreath. Not too surprising, since breathing fire is cool as hell.

Fun fact: Dragons in Far to the North have venomous bites in addition to being able to breath fire. In appearance they are "typical" dragons, but in other ways they are very different from any other dragons I've read about.

Spoiler: FttN

Show

Dragon reproduction is a bit more like vampiric reproduction. Dragon venom can kill human men, or at least destroy some of their bodies. But human boys who get dragon venom in their body actually turn into young dragons.

Female humans are not affected in the same way by dragon venom. So far it is unknown if dragon venom affects girls at all, though the author has given hints outside the comic that if we get a sequel, she will provide a clear answer in the story. There's also so far no hint in the comic as to what dragon venom does to enbies, though again the author has hinted that she knows the answer and will reveal it in a later volume.

[Bartmanhomer]

If only dragons were real that would be awesome.

[Chronos]

I think there are two different questions being conflated, here. What most people seem to be answering is when the modern dragon body plan first appeared. But that's not what the OP is asking; the question is about when that dragon became the standard. It's a very different question: Sure, there were modern-style dragons in the Middle Ages, but there were also creatures like this

Spoiler

Show

that got called dragons, too (that's the original Tarrasque, for all us D&D players).

In other words, when did non-modern-style dragons (mostly) stop appearing?

[Mechalich]

In other words, when did non-modern-style dragons (mostly) stop appearing?

They never stopped appearing, they stopped being called dragons. The reason is heraldry, which was obligated to define what the various animal devices appearing on coats of arms were, with codification taking place gradually but being pretty much locked in place by the end of the 15th century. In British Heraldry, specifically, which matters for the English-speaking world, a dragon was defined as a four-legged creature. Creatures of similar appearance, such as the wyvern, cockatrice, and basilisk were defined as 'not dragons' for the purpose of heraldry.

[Bartmanhomer]

I think there are two different questions being conflated, here. What most people seem to be answering is when the modern dragon body plan first appeared. But that's not what the OP is asking; the question is about when that dragon became the standard. It's a very different question: Sure, there were modern-style dragons in the Middle Ages, but there were also creatures like this

Spoiler

Show

that got called dragons, too (that's the original Tarrasque, for all us D&D players).

In other words, when did non-modern-style dragons (mostly) stop appearing?

But isn't the Tarrasque a magical beast?

[Chronos]

On thinking about it some more, there is one notable exception: A highly-iconic modern dragon, that is massively large, with fore and hind limbs, a weaponized long tail, and a breath weapon... but with a short neck and no wings.

[Peelee]

They never stopped appearing, they stopped being called dragons. The reason is heraldry, which was obligated to define what the various animal devices appearing on coats of arms were, with codification taking place gradually but being pretty much locked in place by the end of the 15th century. In British Heraldry, specifically, which matters for the English-speaking world, a dragon was defined as a four-legged creature. Creatures of similar appearance, such as the wyvern, cockatrice, and basilisk were defined as 'not dragons' for the purpose of heraldry.

Ah, what i wanted to say was already said. Convenient!

But isn't the Tarrasque a magical beast?

What do you think a dragon is?

[Errorname]

They never stopped appearing, they stopped being called dragons. The reason is heraldry, which was obligated to define what the various animal devices appearing on coats of arms were, with codification taking place gradually but being pretty much locked in place by the end of the 15th century. In British Heraldry, specifically, which matters for the English-speaking world, a dragon was defined as a four-legged creature. Creatures of similar appearance, such as the wyvern, cockatrice, and basilisk were defined as 'not dragons' for the purpose of heraldry.

This also got reinforced by the need for games to have bestiaries of distinct enemy monsters, so a lot of splitting and taxonomization happened with loose folkloric concepts. With Dragons that was mostly colour coding the stock dragon, since so much of the work of splitting 'dragon' up had already been done.

On thinking about it some more, there is one notable exception: A highly-iconic modern dragon, that is massively large, with fore and hind limbs, a weaponized long tail, and a breath weapon... but with a short neck and no wings.

Wings are very important to the modern dragon, and Godzilla has always been more of a dinosaur.

[Bartmanhomer]

What do you think a dragon is?

A dragon is a mythical beast from medieval times.

[Seppl]

Wings are very important to the modern dragon, and Godzilla has always been more of a dinosaur.

Fun fact: Godzilla has used the atomic breath like a rocket to fly. Probably jumped over several sharks during that flight

(Sorry for the sound in that clip, I could not find any better)

[Bartmanhomer]

Godzilla is close to a dragon though in my opinion.

[Errorname]

Godzilla is close to a dragon though in my opinion.

He's a big destructive reptile with bad breath, but from a phylogenetic (phylomemetic?) standpoint I think we'd call that convergent evolution. Godzilla is a monstrous dinosaur who arrived at some dragon-like features by chance.

[Peelee]

A dragon is a mythical beast from medieval times.

So non-magical?

[Bartmanhomer]

He's a big destructive reptile with bad breath, but from a phylogenetic (phylogenetic?) standpoint I think we'd call that convergent evolution. Godzilla is a monstrous dinosaur who arrived at some dragon-like features by chance.

Ok. That sounds reasonable and valid.

So non-magical?

Are you serious or are you joking? But I'll play along anyway. Dragons are magical, so no, and also you're a dragon yourself Peelee. Speaking of which, why did you ask me those questions anyway? I'm not angry at you at all but I'm just curious.

[Keltest]

Ok. That sounds reasonable and valid.



Are you serious or are you joking? But I'll play along anyway. Dragons are magical, so no, and also you're a dragon yourself Peelee. Speaking of which, why did you ask me those questions anyway? I'm not angry at you at all but I'm just curious.

I believe Peelee is attempting to get you to walk through your thought processes so you can see the break in logic that he sees.