Saluting?

[Titus Juventius Tertius]

I ran a search and it didn't come up with much (a few started discussions but never really any end to them). There's some references to a few discussions/debates that no longer show up or are covered with HTML code that isn't recognized by this forum.

So I ask... what is a proper Roman salute in the Late Republic/Early Imperial era? When was it used/given?

I hate using it as a reference... but it's easy to explain because most of you have probably already watched it. But the tv show Rome (from HBO) which I know is not entirely accurate (more inaccurate than not)... there is a salute which resembles the Nazi style extended arm, flat palm salute. In the show it starts from a fist to the chest then extends forward.

Is there any documentation that this actually occurred? Is there anything definitive that shows what a salute looked like or when it was done?

Thanks guys... I know this probably has come up many times, but I just don't see it in a forum search. At least, no discussions that came to any conclusions (and they're 4+ years old).

[M. Demetrius]

Well, sir, the reason that the threads on Roman salutes are inconclusive is because we really just don't know. There are, as you probably saw, some pretty good indications that the outstretched arm was used, and also one form of a head touch (though many think that started with the use of the visor, and signified raising it for recognition). But so far, nobody has dug up a cache of wax tablets that give the rules of military protocol. I just do whatever the group I'm with does, and call it authentic for the time being.

[Titus Juventius Tertius]

I saw a few examples of both the tipping and saluting which is why I brought up the discussion. I was hoping there was more evidence to support one direction or the other found in the last few years. There was talk of Hitler taking the salute from ancient history... but then who can confirm that?

But as you said... maybe it's best to pick something and do it and until someone shows up later to say otherwise, then so be it. That's better than not knowing at all I suppose.

[Epictetus]

I have seen some argue that this panel from Trajan's column is evidence of a salute, but personally I'm doubtful. To me it looks more like excited listeners reaching out to the speaker. You see that today at rock concerts or even some political rallies. I guess it is human nature to have a desire to reach out towards a moving speaker.


I could swear I've read something from Mary Beard about this, but I couldn't seem to find anything. But while Googling I came across a potentially interesting book from Martin Winkler called The Roman Salute.

The raised-arm salute was the most popular symbol of Fascism, Nazism, and related political ideologies in the twentieth century and is said to have derived from an ancient Roman custom. Although modern historians and others employ it as a matter of course, the term “Roman salute” is a misnomer. The true origins of this salute can be traced back to the popular culture of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that dealt with ancient Rome: historical plays and films. The visual culture of stage and screen from the 1890s to the 1920s was chiefly responsible for the wide familiarity of Europeans and Americans with forms of the raised-arm salute and made it readily available for political purposes.

The Roman Salute: Cinema, History, Ideology by Martin M. Winkler presents extensive evidence for the modern origin of the raised-arm salute from well before the birth of Fascism and traces its varieties and its dissemination. The continuing presence of certain aspects of Fascism makes an examination of all its facets desirable, especially when the true origins of a symbol as potent as the salute and the history of its dissemination are barely known to classicists and historians of ancient Rome on the one hand, and to scholars of modern European history, on the other. Thus this book will appeal to classicists and historians, including film historians, and will be of interest to readers beyond the academy.

Martin M. Winkler is professor of classics at George Mason University.

You can find it here: http://www.ohiostatepress.org/ and searching for Martin Winkler.

As cover art they use the popular 18th century painting Oath of the Horatii which is often cited as starting the "roman salute" idea.

[jho]

For evidence on the "hand to helmet" theory, see Flavius Mikkalus in the imagebase (the guy on the far right). There is also a statuette from Strasbourg showing a similar pose and I believe one or two depictions from late roman / early byzantine contexts for this pose. Far from conclusive.

[Peroni]

IIRC there is also what could be a 'Hand to brow' salute depicted on the Domitius Ahenobarbus relief in the Louvre.

See the second photo on this page.. http://www.providence.edu/art/arh200/week8.htm

[Matthew Amt]

There's a famous statue of an emperor on horseback (Marcus Aurelius?) giving the raised-arm salute. But I've never seen any suggestion that it started with a chest-thump. It's possible that the raised arm was a cavalry salute, while infantry touched the brow. Or maybe it was the difference between officers and men? Or simply a different salute used in the presence of the emperor?

Matthew

[M. Demetrius]

Or even possibly not a salute at all, just a wave to the troops? We see that in other sculptures from time periods when we know the salute position to be different.

Ok, Matt, cough up that wax tablet from Marcus Antonius library that details the salute system, tunic color regulations, and -- what? Those were stored at Alexandria in the library?? Well, never mind, then.

[Epictetus]

I believe Jona uses an image of that statue as his avatar, Matt.

[Matthew Amt]

DOH! That's him, officer, that's the man. Wait a sec, you can see his thumb sticking out--I think he's about to catch a Frisbee.

All seriousness aside, I think that in a Roman setting "waving to the troops", especially by the Emperor, WAS a salute. It just doesn't strike me as something they'd do with a casual "Hi, y'all" gesture. Moreover, the hand extended like that could have implied the concept of manus or authority.

But you can see the "maybes" and "possiblys" stacking up, here...

Matthew

[Titus Juventius Tertius]

I believe Jona uses an image of that statue as his avatar, Matt.

I've seen that many times too and I think it's probably just an acknowledgment. Of course nothing I have backs that theory up... but we still see it today when speakers or leaders see a crowd.

I find it odd, even if the timeframe is so lengthy that at least word to mouth evidence (which would then be written down) hasn't survived. We're dealing with arguably the largest and structured military force of history... you'd think something would have been known about saluting.

Is there any evidence on how surrounding militaries saluted? Specifically, those that might have been conquered by the Romans? That might shed some light on the discussion. If conquered, you'd think they would take certain aspects of the military from them.

I hate using it as a reference... but the Wikipedia mentions this:

The Roman salute is the right hand held flat, palm down and fingers closed, and the right arm raised at an angle of about 45 degrees. It was used by the Roman Republic, by armies of the Middle East (even before being adopted by the Romans)[citation needed] and South America at various times. It was also the historical civilian salute of the United States, from about 1787 to 1934, known since 1892 as the Bellamy salute.

When the Nazi party of Germany adopted the Roman salute from the Italian fascists, President of the United States Franklin Roosevelt instituted the hand-over-the heart as the salute to be rendered by civilians during the Pledge of Allegiance and the national anthem in the United States. This was done when Congress officially adopted the Flag Code on June 22, 1942.

Because of its associations with fascism, the Roman salute is now rarely used outside of neo-Nazi groups. There are several exceptions; one is the Republic of China (Taiwan), where the salute is still used during the inaugurations of government officials. The salute is also still used by some Palestinian militant groups, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the swearing-in oath of the President of Mexico, the Basij militia in Iran, and some Maronite movements in Lebanon.

In Germany showing the Roman salute is - as it was a symbol of the Nazis - prohibited. Even rendering similar salutes, for example raising the left instead of the right hand, or raising only three fingers, are put under prosecution. The punishment derives from § 86a of the German Criminal Code and can be up to three years of prison or fine (in minor cases).

There's an art piece called the Oath of the Horatii dated 1784 (oil painting) that depicts the Romans in a salute. But I have no idea what the basis for the painting was:

[M. Demetrius]

WAS a salute. It just doesn't strike me as something they'd do with a casual "Hi, y'all"

Well, yes, of course. That's what I was thinking when I wrote that. With a wave of a hand, an officer can "salute" hundreds of men in a general direction, without singling out a particular soldier.

[Praefectusclassis]

I find it odd, even if the timeframe is so lengthy that at least word to mouth evidence (which would then be written down) hasn't survived. We're dealing with arguably the largest and structured military force of history...

Hi TJ
A few things that you ought to know:
- only a tiny percentage of all ancient Roman writings has survived
- the Roman army is only partially equal to its popular image. On the one hand, it seems to have been a huge bureaucracy that registered soldiers careers, income and feats quite precisely. On the other hand it retained properties of a militia army in a shame/honor/status culture with very primitive aspects. In some aspects it seems similar to a modern army, in others, it is very alien.
- the answer to many questions is: we just don't know / can't prove any theory more than another theory

[A_Volpe]

there is so much we don't know and yet still learning.

Keep in mind our ideas and concept of a "salute" is only modern. There could have been ways of 'acknowledging', in this case, 'saluting' that the Romans did that we are just not aware of, and may be looking over. They may not have had a hand-gesture at all, it could just as well be a "yes sir" (We in Leg III Cyrenaica currently use "Ita, Dominus!" sometimes), or it could just be the soldiers did whatever they were ordered with no salute, no gesture, not even a grunt. They just did it.

There is a lot to say about showing one's status with different clothing, gear, patterns, even shoes and belts to indicate rank and status for Romans, I believe there is a reference somewhere that now escapes me that suggests that 'inferior' people did not look their commander/higher-ups in the eyes as a form of dominance and respect. I think it's similar to the idea of "speak when spoken to" attitude. But, was this Roman? - [we] don't know. And how would we be able to see that in surviving art and writing?

As for the "Oath of the Horatii" painting - who's to say that straight-arm gesture pointing to the swords is not instead a gesture of reciting an oath? (and was that a gesture uniquely from the 1780's?) Nothing in the [painting] suggests they are "saluting", and nothing really shows the guy holding the swords is a commander/officer. If I remember the legend that inspired the painting, the Horatii referred to 3 brothers who took up arms to defend their land and protect each other - so it could be they are giving their word to the (grandfather?) holding the swords...But then they were to go and report to the Army....And the painting was done with 18th century "ideals" of Roman legend...They made up a lot of stuff to fill in gaps to what they thought was "proper Roman"...If the 'accuracy' of their armor and swords is any indication. (but could also be what the Artist had on hand to look really cool)

The evidence seen in Trajan's column IMHO still points to a gesture of greeting, since it's a 'snapshot' in time, these guys could all be waving and pointing/reaching out to whomever. As has been mentioned before, it appears to be "human" to wave at someone, a celebrity, whomever, as a form of greeting and acknowledgement.
It still doesn't make it a "salute". (at the same time, as noted above, the soldiers who are straight-arm "waving" appear to be looking directly at whoever, so the eyes-dominance thing may not happen here, either)

Even the modern word "Salute" has origins to the Latin "Salve" as well as "Salutation", which to the best of my knowledge means "a form of greeting"...Nothing in the etymology there suggests anything "military", and saluting as we know it today did not start with Knights opening their visors...(in the Late Medieval/Burgundian group I'm with, I'm not aware of any kind of 'military salute' or 'salute' - when ordered, we just do it....In the heat of battle there isn't much time to be nice and formal? ) I've only seen a formal kind of "salute" appear in fencing manuals in the late 1600's.

There is no evidence that I know of for any kind of "chest bump" - I think that is clearly Hollywood, and drawn up for dramatic effect.

Although the Ahenobarbus sculpture as pointed out earlier is an intriguing idea that, at least in the (Late) Republic, the bent-arm-touching-helmet could have been a 'salute', but could have fallen out of fashion during part of the Empire...Fashions in dress, armor and etiquette change constantly... Soldiers saluting in the American Civil War is very different than today, and very different from years (and even armies) earlier - much of today's 'etiquette' is really from post-World War 1 patriotism. (ie: "Eyes Right/Left" while marching in review) In the 15th-19th centuries, it was the Officers who did all of the saluting and gesturing...The troops got to stand there and not do too much (save for something like "Present Arms"), and that was partly an indication of how they are viewed in society and in military status. (which I think is very similar to how the Romans viewed and ranked themselves)

anyway, the sad truth is we don't really know what the 'salute' was, if they even 'saluted' in the same way we think of it today. If you want to have your own Salute you feel is strongly backed by evidence and research, all the power to ya. But don't get offended if other "Romans" don't do it your way ;D

blah blah blah

[Titus Juventius Tertius]

Your last sentence brings up another point. With WWII and other waring periods, reenactors have a lot to go on. So if there's nothing that supports something one way or the other (as in this case of saluting), could you not make something up based on a piece of evidence and be all right with running with it? In my example, I could use that hand salute based on that painting (or anyone could).

Is that acceptable? You say don't be offended if other people do it or don't do it... but should anyone say anything about it? If I adopt something for say, saluting... is it ok to do it even if the books don't agree because no evidence exists? I guess the same could be said about armor, weapons etc. that are mentioned but never set in stone as to when they are used.

If that is the case... then one could say that Roman (or Greek, or any other ancient period) reenacting has probably the most leeway of any other reenactment.