Origins of the \'Hollywood\' Roman salute?

[Theodosius the Great]

Here's one of my figures saluting....<br>
<br>
[EDITED : Link no longer exists]
<br>
He's even got those Hollywood "armlets"<br>
<br>


<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=theodosiusthegreat>Theodosius the Great</A> at: 1/6/05 2:12 am<br></i>

[Anonymous]

Nice images Gregg.<br>
You wrote,<br>
"The seated guy isn't gesturing towards the soldier, he actually has his hand on the shoulder of the man standing next to him."<br>
<br>
Actually, I'm not so sure that arm belongs to the seated guy! From what I can see the seated official has his left hand planted beside him on the bench and his right on the other fella's shoulder?<br>
Seems to me the standing figure has his arm placed across his chest which is a fairly common posture in togate figures. An example that comes immediatly to mind is that of the mosaic portraying Virgil flanked by two muses.<br>
My own impression from the position of the seated man's body, is his attention is focused solely on his companion. I did wonder though, that if those two soldiers standing next to the officials are guards, the fact that they are looking in opposite directions could be interpreted as alertness as to what is going around them. I guess there would be a pretty large gathering at a census taking although the sculpture only depicts a small part of the scene. This might also explain why the one soldier has his hand to his forhead. If this was all going on outside in the sun, he might simply be shielding his eyes from the glare in order to see better. Just my denarius worth of speculation.<br>
Looking through a couple of books however, I did notice this hand to the forehead gesture appears in non military contexts too and could be interpreted in a number of ways. I saw one example on a funerary monument of a young man, where two figures by his couch have their hands to their forehead, and another on a sculpture of a bakery shop scene. There are also figures on the Parthenon frieze, including a young man amongst a group herding a bunch of sacrificial sheep. <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Oops sorry Gregg, I think I might have misread your post! I somehow got the impression that both arms were assumed to be the seated guy's (from Flavius Crispus' post too). Rereading the comments now I suddenly realised you were probably referring only to the one hand on the shoulder <p></p><i></i>

[FlaviusCrispus]

Avete, Aneten et Greg:<br>
<br>
Now that I look VERY closely at the image, you're absolutely right-- it looks like the "gesturing" arm belongs to the standing togate figure, while the "hand on shoulder" belongs to the seated one. That does, indeed, put a different complexion on things. I no longer think the seated figure is gesturing toward or directing an order at the soldier, and the "saluting" soldier does not seem to be directing acknowledging an order. He may, indeed, be just "fiddling with this helmet" or shielding his eyes.<br>
<br>
Now, just to add more possible confusion to the mix, I present the following image of a Roman Republican coin from ca. 110-109 BC:<br>
<br>
P. Laeca Denarius<br>
<br>
Most catalogues describe the scene here as "Roman soldier (or military governor) placing his hand on head of togate citizen, attendant behind", but as you can see from this piece, the soldier isn't placing his hand on the citizen's head, he's raising it, as if in... dare I say it.... SALUTE. The togate figure is pointing at the soldier, as if giving him an order.<br>
<br>
The soldier's slightly bent-armed gesture is somewhere between a stiff-armed "Nazi" like salute and the hand-to-helmet gestures of the Ahenobarbus and Mikkalus reliefs.<br>
<br>
The principal being illustrated here is the law of "provocatio," which supposedly protected common citizens against abuses of power by (military?) magistrates. But who is the magistrate here, the military figure, who has an attendant behind him bearing three rods, or the fellow in the toga? Is the soldier telling the fellow in the toga to "cease and desist" (hence the raised hand), or is it the other way around?<br>
<br>
It seems to me the gesture of the togate figure is clearly one of "you'd better do as I say, here!" and the soldier is acknowledging this by saying "yes, sir!" I think the coin is trying to get across that even figures as powerful as military governors are subject to civilian law, as embodied by the togate guy.<br>
<br>
I am, however, quite willing to be persuaded otherwise, as the subsequent posts on the Ahenobarbus relief have done. Any comments?<br>
<br>
T. Flavius Crispus<br>
Leg VI VPF<br>
CA, USA<br>
<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=flaviuscrispus@romanarmytalk>FlaviusCrispus</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/legiovi/vwp?.dir=/Flavius+photo&.src=gr&.dnm=flavhead2.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 1/10/05 11:25 pm<br></i>

[Jeroen Pelgrom]

regarding the Ahenobarbus relief, i find it hard to believe that on an official relief of the consul that they would show a soldier who is "feeling hot".<br>
<br>
i think that the 2 men to the left of the soldier are discussing "things to do" and that the soldier is getting his orders. <p>-------------------------------------------------------<br>
A great flame follows a little spark.<br>
Dante Alighieri,The Divine Comedy<br>
</p><i></i>

[Tarbicus]

I thought the modern salute was first started by medieval knights lifting the visor to show his face, and there was no aggression towards another knight, taking his hand away from a weapon. It also seems that it was customary for a subordinate to remove his hat or helmet in the presence of an officer. It was somewhere around 1745 that the British Army started what we know as the modern salute to stop the headgear getting constantly filthy from grubby hands, and the headgear was getting more cumbersome. I've read also that the salute may stretch back for centuries as a simple sign of non-aggression, even back to the stone age. If this were so then it's surely entirely feasible that it was common with the Roman Army. Maybe even to completely remove their helmets, exposing their heads to their officers and showing respect, as well as making it possible for the officer to recognise them for future reference? <p></p><i></i>

[ambrosius]

Tarbicus,<br>
<br>
I'm sure you're right about the origins of the<br>
modern salute. I'd heard that, too. It was a<br>
way of showing A.) Respect to your superior<br>
and B.) That you were not an imposter hiding<br>
inside his armour if you raised the visor of<br>
your medieval helmet (that's if you were on<br>
campaign). If you were jousting, I guess you<br>
would also need to prove your identity as the<br>
winning knight. It's all very well to bear a coat-<br>
of-arms for identification, but there would<br>
always be the chance that you might have paid<br>
a better knight to take you place in the lists,<br>
and then claim the credit for his success. But<br>
raising your visor to the president of the joust<br>
would be the proof that you were who you<br>
said you were. I guess the same principle<br>
'might' possibly have applied during the Roman<br>
cavalry exercises of the Hippika Gymnasia (where<br>
the opposing turmae are believed to have worn<br>
those parade-helmets with full-face visors (for<br>
extra protection). They, may have had to raise/<br>
remove their visors as the winning team.<br>
<br>
Ambrosius <p></p><i></i>

[Theodosius the Great]

Here's the original



[EDITED : Updated broken link]

~Theo

[John Maddox Roberts]

A common motif in madieval art is the knight's wife or mother giving him his helmet, even placing it on his head, while his father gives him his sword. The implication is that the female loved ones are more concerned with his safety, the father more with his honor. Perhaps the Romans had the same motif, in which case the lady has just placed the helmet on the warrior's head and he is adjusting it properly. That curly thing in the seated figure's hand is a lituus: the augur's staff. He has just taken the auguries for the warrior's mission. Presumably, they were favorable. <p></p><i></i>

[Nathan Ross]

Re. the origins of the modern salute - most of the explanations given make more sense in terms of the 'American' salute, with the palm level and horizonal. The 'British' salute with the palm vertical and outwards doesn't seem to reflect any visor-raising activity, really.<br>
<br>
Interestingly, in the film 'Master and Commander', tugging the forelock is portrayed as a sort of proto-salute in the British navy. I'm not sure of the historical validity of this custom in any era, but it does occur to me that the Ahenobarbus relief shown above might just depict precisely this gesture!<br>
<br>
I do recall a reference in some source (Minucius Felix?) to Romans touching their brow (with the first two fingers, perhaps) when passing the shrine of a God - this being a gesture of piety. IIRC, the gesture symbolised a desire for blessings from a higher power - similarly, the 'papal' two-fingered salute represents a conferral of blessings upon the assembled suppliants... <p></p><i></i>

[FlaviusCrispus]

RE: The Gemma Tiberiana<br>
<br>
Thanks, Theo, for posting that nice close-up. Also, gratias to John Maddox Roberts for your commentary. I believe the scene of a soldier's mother handing him a helmet is depicted on some Greek vases; if that is what is going on here, the female figure facing Germanicus would be Antonia, his mother-- she's placing the helmet on her son's head, and his hand-to-top-of-helmet gesture is not a "salute," per say, but just him adjusting it. The figure facing Germanicus, holding the lituus, is the Emperor Tiberius. The "augur's wand" is proper for his role as Pontifex Maximus.<br>
<br>
The Gemma Tiberiana is usually taken to represent Germanicus returning home victorious from his German campaigns and "saluting" his emperor. If you're right, John, it might more properly represent him setting out on campaign instead.<br>
<br>
T. Flavius Crispus<br>
Leg VI VPF<br>
CA, USA <p></p><i></i>

[aitor iriarte]

I'm fascinated with all these images portraying the would-be Roman military salute but, in this case, I must agree with John's view. Have you noticed the woman's right hand on the helmet's 'neckguard'?<br>
<br>
Aitor <p></p><i></i>

[drsrob]

The modern salute is a formalized gesture replacing th removal of the hat.<br>
Up to the 18th century the officer removed his hat when saluting, even when under arms (espontoon of short pike). This was difficult to accomplish elegantly with the grenadier cap, as it had no brim. Therefore grenadier officers just touched the lower edge of their headgear instead.<br>
In the Napoleonic era hats were generally replaced by helmets and shakos, which presented similar problems. So allmost all officers had to use the modern salute. Even so staff officers, wearing chapeaux, continued for a while to salute by taking off their hat.<br>
For this reason soldiers in most coutries do not salute when they are bareheaded.<br>
<br>
The English salute with the handpalm forewards was purposely introduced to symbolize the raising of the visor. 19th century romantics had thought up the idea that that was the origin of the mlitary salute. <p>Greetings<br>
<br>
Rob Wolters</p><i></i>

[Uwe Bahr]

Avete omnes,

I found an interesting picture of the Roman salute carried out with the straight right arm; it is on Traian's column, spiral 13, panel b:



Here a detail picture:

[url:27kmoata]http://cheiron.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~trajan/images/hi/2.12.h.jpg[/url]

The scene is described as citizens of a Dalmatian harbor town greeting the Emperor Traian and his troops when arriving by ship at the beginning of his second Dacian war.

Greets - Uwe

[Arthes]

Greetings,
I have always thought that is where it originated from......the Nazi salute I mean.
The had the standards and the Eagle too....
regards
Arthes