Origins of the \'Hollywood\' Roman salute?

[tlclark]

But that said, I can't seem to find any images of soldiers using the raised hand (adlocutio style) when wearing their helmets. Could it be that simple? Can anyone point to an image?

Maybe! The hand raised may just be the civilian gesture. For that matter, how firm are we on the literary evidence that there is a specific military salute different from the "hailing the cab" gesture?

Brilliant says nothing about the Ahenobarbus relief BTW - I checked.

Travis

[Graham Sumner]

Sadly it seems that the spectre of modern politics is never too far away. Only recently the Italian footballer Paulo Di Canio has rightly been criticized for giving a Fascist salute towards the crowd on more than one occasion. In his defense Di Canio argues that his gesture is not political but based on the ancient Roman salute. Perhaps we should ask him what his sources are?

The news item which showed one incident at a football stadium also showed the reaction of the crowd many of whom were returning the salute and wearing T shirts with an eagle motif almost exactly like those worn by the soldiers in the mini series 'Rome'. Life imitating art? Either way it shows how influential these films can be and that the producers have a duty to show more care when making them. Incidentally the salute in that series seems to combine the chest thump from other epics together with the outstretched arm.

I have since read on the Yahoo Sport Football page that the ANSA news agency report that Di Canio has appointed Lawyer Gabriele Bordoni to defend him. Bordoni aims not only to win the case but to prove that the salute is legal as Di Canio's supporters claim the salute is ancient Roman in origin. Perhaps the Italian members of the RAT forum can keep us updated on the proceedings.

Graham.

[Gaivs Antonivs Satvrninvs]

Avete.

I know this thread was supposed to
die peacefully but I recently saw
something on tv that brought this
to mind.
I was watching "TROY" again last night
and noticed the Trojan warrior who brings
Paris his helmet as he is about to face
Menelaus. As the helmet is passed
the soldier silently does the "chest thump"salute
(no stiff arm, though) and departs.

Did anyone else notice this?

[Jeroen Pelgrom]

i saw this also. In the Rome-series they use this also but combined with the raised arm salute. I'm curious what their sources are on that one.

[Luca]

I have noticed that the Flavius Mikkalus image has been lost in the imagebase. Jasper can you check it? I was looking for that.
Thanks!

[Dan Diffendale]

Mikkalus is back. Will have to fix the Greek later...

[Primitivus]

That's a much clearer image of the gem. Germanicus' fingers are clearly visible and clearly "bent," and they seem to be resting alongside his helmet.

That is certainly an odd posture/gesture on the gem. It appears to me to be more of a stretching motion than a salute. Even more odd is the hand (presumably of the person beside him) which almost caresses the bottom of his helmet. Does not look like the sort of thing a person would do at any time--much less when an officer is rendering a salute!

[A_Volpe]

My brother has a great idea, we need to make the standard salute to be the one used in the movie "Spaceballs".

Then we can all be happy.

outstretch right arm, at same time, bring left arm out and across the chest at 90 degrees, so the left wrist rests ontop of the crook of right elbow.
Right arm is then bent upwards (like lifting a weight), knuckles facing out, after a quick pause, hand is turned so palm faces out, and fingers are extended and wiggled out towards person saluting.

All Hail President Skroob!

[A_Volpe]

Sorry if this has already been mentioned...

But it's also possible that the Salute changed over the course of Rome's history.....?

And isn't it possible that different salutes were used for different ranks....

[Robert Vermaat]

But it's also possible that the Salute changed over the course of Rome's history.....?

Sure. Thing is, we can't as yet even prove IF there was a salute.

And isn't it possible that different salutes were used for different ranks....

Everything's possible, but it sounds awfully complicated..

[Tarbicus]

Everything's possible, but it sounds awfully complicated..

Maybe not. Perhaps footwear could be used for telling you which salute to use?

[tlclark]

But it's also possible that the Salute changed over the course of Rome's history.....?

Sure. Thing is, we can't as yet even prove IF there was a salute.

And isn't it possible that different salutes were used for different ranks....

Everything's possible, but it sounds awfully complicated..

It definitely seems that the open handed raised arm, with fingers and elbow slightly bent and held naturally is the gesture used by higher ranking officers to lower officers and soldiers.

A salute of this type would be easy to figure out based on status. Everyone of equestrian or patrician status uses this salute to their superiors and inferiors. Everyone else uses the other hand to forehead or helmet gesture.

Maybe the salute is based not on rank, as much as it is on CLASS. There are dozens of ranks, but only a few classes, basically two, plebs and patricians, with equestrians being the middle ground between, but I'm guessing they would fall into the upper group since they were officers. Everyone would immediately know which class they were from and not easily cross over the lines and make the inappropriate gesture.

Since we see patricians making the raised hand gesture outside of the military context as well, this would make sense. Rather than the military salute, this is the "patrician" upper class salute. AND, it's the only one we seem to have any conclusive proof for. All others are conjectural. We know this one was commonly used in the art. Assuming it isn't just some convention "Hey look at me! I'm important!" then it's the salute that should be used. - IMO.

Also, Romans aren't Byzantines. I think any attitude towards the emperor, as long as it was sufficiently submissive and groveling would be fine. They didn't create the elaborate bowing and scraping that Byzantines insisted upon, so a simple system ought to suffice I think, so I think you are right that it was probably very natural and straightforward.

Travis

[Praefectusclassis]

There are dozens of ranks, but only a few classes, basically two, plebs and patricians, with equestrians being the middle ground between

That's not what Roman History 101 would tell you! Patricians were those families in the early Roman republic who used to make up senate and magistracies. The plebs was everyone else. When wealthy plebeians (yes, that is possible) wanted in, that caused a conflict between plebeians and patricians that lasted till the Lex Hortensia in 287BC. The tribunus plebis is the most obvious result of the redistribution of power. The ancestral status could still differ (e.g. the Julii were patricians, while the Claudii were plebeians), but wealth, connections, and recent magistries were more decisive when it came to getting new high-ranking jobs & senate seats. The new class system of Rome from the late Republic on was wholly based on wealth & jobs. The top layer were senators, those men with both great wealth ànd who had fullfilled the qualifying magistracies to gain entry into the senate. Below them came the equestrians, below them the decurionate (magistrates in cities outside of Rome), and then the rest. The lowest freeborn people are the proletarii, those who only had children and nothing else.

Here endeth the lesson. :wink:

[Tarbicus]

That's not what Roman History 101 would tell you!.... Here endeth the lesson. Wink

Blimey. He's gone and taken his books with him to America hock:

Are shoes a good way to differentiate between classes. For example, if you're approaching someone and have never seen them before, and if they are wearing a cloak, or the rest of their clothes are hard to distinguish for whatever reason?

[tlclark]

There are dozens of ranks, but only a few classes, basically two, plebs and patricians, with equestrians being the middle ground between

That's not what Roman History 101 would tell you! Patricians were those families in the early Roman republic who used to make up senate and magistracies. The plebs was everyone else. When wealthy plebeians (yes, that is possible) wanted in, that caused a conflict between plebeians and patricians that lasted till the Lex Hortensia in 287BC. The tribunus plebis is the most obvious result of the redistribution of power.

Too true!, but I don't think it impacts my ideas that much. Presumably plebs in positions of power would adopt patrician manners/customs.

You could buy your way into the senate with as little as 100,000 sestercii which was a significant, but not outrageous sum. And many patricians who were denied the right to hold the tribunate changed their names (and thus tribes) to qualify for the powerful plebian offices. The best demonstration of the value of the plebs is that Augustus permanently assumes the tribune powers in 23 BCE.

But I think late republic politics is very complicated for just this very reason because social mobility becomes so fluid. By the time of the empire, many of the so-called patricians in positions of leadership were actually plebs that had acquired the patrician status by a combination of marriage, politics and outright buying it.

Class became less about birth, and more about politics, but I don't think they every gave up the notion of "class". The question is did native born patricians distinguish themselves from the noveau riche and upstarts? Would it even have mattered by the latter empire?

And getting back to the discussion, did the nouveau riche and recently elevated ranks of plebs adopt the customs and gestures of their new rank? I mean, isn't that the whole point of the Satyricon that this social mobility had created cultural chaos?

Let's look at this another way. If a newly minted officer whose parents had been plebs (or even freedmen!) used a patrician gesture, or adopted patrician manners, what did the native born patricians think of that? OR...did they NOT adopt the patrician gestures out of pride of their humble beginnings? (This latter example is common in American politics. Both Bush and Clinton's southern accents get THICKER on camera, which is sort of a reverse pretension.)

I don't know if a lot of this is relevant much past the early imperial period.

Fun to talk about though.