Saluting?

[Matthew Amt]

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

OH yeah. As I like to say, good research questions the answers more than it answers the questions.

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.

Huh, never heard you guys say that. Strictly speaking, it would have been "Domine", in the vocative. But I don't think they would have used that word in any case, since it was how slaves addressed their master (as I understand it). But otherwise, yeah, if you want to say something as simple as "Yes, sir!" you have to grope around in the Latin dictionary and patch something together.

As for the "Oath of the Horatii" painting

It's a neo-classical painting from the Renaissance or later, with no relation to reality except for the possibility that the artist had seen some Roman sculpture. Such as the statue of Aurelius!

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?

That's all we can do! Well, not really "make something up", but use whatever meager evidence there is and decide how best to interpret it. A surprising amount comes down to gut feelings, based on years of accumulated knowledge (and you have to watch out for influence from "I, Claudius"!), and of course sometimes you have to go with an affordable option. If you meet up with other Romans and disagree with something their doing, and you really have to say something, be tactful. Some folks I know well enough to be blatant: "Dudicus, what the HELL are you wearing?? Get that piece of trash off my field!!" But he understands me. (And he has probably dragged out a couple pieces of garbage just to see if I'm paying attention, ha!) For other folks, I'd probably wait until the public is out of earshot, and then *ask* them why the particular item is made or worn as it is. If you are about to turn out with a group for the first time, beat them to the punch and ask if any of your gear is not up to their standards. Be ready to set aside anything that they disagree with, or just doesn't fit in with their time-span or scenario.

Valete,

Matthew

[Magnus]

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).

Best not to do it at all. You don't really need to salute do you? Making things up based on modern examples is probably worse than not doing it.

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.

Not really lol. We don't have any evidence that the romans had or didn't have photon torpedos either...

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.

I think you need to look at it from the other angle...or rather, scale your leeway thinking down. For example...the romans borrowed a fair amount from the greek military. I recently made a crest based on a greek design for my roman helmet. Is there evidence for that particular crest pattern being used in a roman context? No...is it based entirely on theory? Not quite...

Basically some groups/people find some things acceptable and others don't. You need to pick your battles...but in this case I'd be personally leery about saluting a la supposed roman way (it's more hollywood than anything).

[Titus Juventius Tertius]

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.

I think you need to look at it from the other angle...or rather, scale your leeway thinking down. For example...the romans borrowed a fair amount from the greek military. I recently made a crest based on a greek design for my roman helmet. Is there evidence for that particular crest pattern being used in a roman context? No...is it based entirely on theory? Not quite...

Basically some groups/people find some things acceptable and others don't. You need to pick your battles...but in this case I'd be personally leery about saluting a la supposed roman way (it's more hollywood than anything).

Well I'm not here to argue, but instead educate myself. But your argument or rather your point is that even if it's documented, don't do it unless there's solid of the era proof (with detailed descriptions of what's being done). Ok maybe you're not saying it in that extreme of terms. But, we have artwork, monuments, or archeological finds that support or at least demonstrate a "possible" salute. One could say that any one piece of evidence is proof of the forms existence. Of course, a movie poster for Gladiator depicting a specific sword, helmet, shield etc may not (and shouldn't) hold weight to say a 2nd century document or sculpture. I agree completely with you on the grounds that modern "proof" sometimes isn't proof at all.

But I guess my question is... where is the line drawn? My example (the painting above), and it was just something that was referenced, is just one theory based on someones drawing. The artist could very well have had completely different intentions on what is being shown there. The same could be said of any piece of history that depicts the hand to the helmet, or other such possible salutes. We'll probably never know everything there is to know even if we dug up all of Europe/Asia for more evidence. So you take what you're given and make a sound judgment call on it.

I guess I find it difficult to just "not do it". At least when it comes to saluting. For hundreds upon hundreds of years military forces saluted in some fashion as a sign of respect/honor. We know this. There HAS to be some sort of technique in which the Romans did it. I'm not saying the stiff armed salute is correct, or the hand to the helmet, or raised open hand, etc. But it's one of those things I just can't see being left as ignored. Maybe that's just my military background speaking for me. There's little things I picked up during my service that I'd be very mindful of when reenacting any period.

I guess my purpose of the thread was to find out what's acceptable. I agree with you Magnus that ignoring or at least not doing certain things is probably safer, more accurate, and better in the long run. I agree that picking battles is probably best as well. I'd just hate to think that there's something out there that we've already seen that says it all, and we're just not looking at it the right way. I'd hate to think that enough minds (or evidence) haven't come together and pieced us a whole answer.

I suppose an even better question posed to the members here of the forum could be, how does your Legion (if you reenact) handle the saluting, and why did you decide to do it that way? Maybe someone has a reference that the rest of us aren't seeing.

[Matthew Amt]

But I guess my question is... where is the line drawn?

Basically, wherever each group decides to draw it, or each individual if not with a group (or if their group gives them that leeway).

So you take what you're given and make a sound judgment call on it.

Exactly.

I guess I find it difficult to just "not do it". At least when it comes to saluting. For hundreds upon hundreds of years military forces saluted in some fashion as a sign of respect/honor. We know this. There HAS to be some sort of technique in which the Romans did it. I'm not saying the stiff armed salute is correct, or the hand to the helmet, or raised open hand, etc. But it's one of those things I just can't see being left as ignored. Maybe that's just my military background speaking for me. There's little things I picked up during my service that I'd be very mindful of when reenacting any period.

Ah, at this point you probably see that your upbringing and preconceptions are influencing your thinking! I think most of us would agree that Roman culture had its own body language, probably more formal than what we have today (just judging on how more formal it was only a couple generations ago!). So it's quite possible that bowing or a formal nod was a common response to an order. We can't really prove that the Roman army did anything that was not already done in the civilian world--though I personally believe they did because of those depictions that we have.

I agree that picking battles is probably best as well. I'd just hate to think that there's something out there that we've already seen that says it all, and we're just not looking at it the right way. I'd hate to think that enough minds (or evidence) haven't come together and pieced us a whole answer.

New evidence is very rare, and rarely is it unambiguous or earth-shaking. Actual new finds of sculpture or artifacts are common, of course, but most of the time they fall into what we know already, or have some sort of special significance that is completely unrelated to what Roman army reenactors do. Now, every once in a while someone will go and review what we know and come up with a conclusion different from what we had believed before, but of course there will usually be a lot of debate as to whether that conclusion is valid or not. For instance, Jon Lendon's book "Soldiers and Ghosts" should be required reading, as it gets into the mindset of the Greek and Roman soldier and finds out what makes them tick. Virtually every ancient source he quotes was already at least vaguely known to me, but his conclusions completely changed the way I visualize the Roman army! Absolutely brilliant. But for a lot of this stuff, even the experts can only point to a few scattered and ambiguous bits, and shrug. And of course no one has the authority to tell the rest of us how to do something, except in our own organizations. (And suggestions to form larger umbrella organizations with standardized rules generally collapse in flames within a few hours!)

It should be pointed out that there *could* be a lot of evidence we are missing because it has not been made available in English, or is locked away in some museum back room or restricted archeological library. Sure, we have folks from many countries on this board, and there are works in English that draw on material in other languages, so there is a lot of cross-over. But not everything will filter through, and it can be next to impossible to get some original publication with vital photographs and drawings that are not reproduced elsewhere. It can also take decades for important finds to be properly published (Alesia, Corbridge, Dura Europas, and the Herculaneum soldier are just a few examples), and in the meantime there are all kinds of incorrect interpretations that spring up from the hints that leak through.

I suppose an even better question posed to the members here of the forum could be, how does your Legion (if you reenact) handle the saluting, and why did you decide to do it that way?

The highest rank in my group so far is optio, so we usually don't worry about saluting (which is not to be saying that an optio is not a godlike person worthy of praise and worship!). But when we do salute, we use the brow touch shown on the Ahenobarbus relief and those other depictions. To me, that's the best-documented option.

Vale,

Matthew

[Titus Juventius Tertius]

Thanks Matthew... that's what I'm looking for. Anyone else have their style and why?

[Magnus]

You're going to have to abandon most of your pre-existing military ways of thinking when it comes to the Roman Army. Just because it makes sense to us, doesn't mean it did so for them. And using modern examples of military doctrine as a comparison to the Roman army more often than not doesn't work.

The only "evidence" as you suggest of saluting is hand gestures which we assume to be some kind of salute. That's a large assumption considering we don't know the context of those gestures.

Another aspect that is going to back your noodle is that there is ZERO evidence for the romans using a specific foot to call drill movements on, and also no evidence for an executive and precautionary part of a drill command. Yet many reenactment groups do it, because they can't get their heads around it.

[M. Demetrius]

Another aspect that is going to back your noodle is that there is ZERO evidence for the romans using a specific foot to call drill movements on, and also no evidence for an executive and precautionary part of a drill command. Yet many reenactment groups do it, because they can't get their heads around it.

And because we can't keep our feet from tripping over our heads, most of us, owing to a lack of years of experience marching in the REAL Roman army. We're not really Romans, when we get right down to it.

[Magnus]

But I guess my question is... where is the line drawn? My example (the painting above), and it was just something that was referenced, is just one theory based on someones drawing. The artist could very well have had completely different intentions on what is being shown there. The same could be said of any piece of history that depicts the hand to the helmet, or other such possible salutes. We'll probably never know everything there is to know even if we dug up all of Europe/Asia for more evidence. So you take what you're given and make a sound judgment call on it.

I think a better idea is to let those with solid backrounds and education in Roman history make the judgement calls. And as you say, we don't know the artist's intention...it's always tricky going by art when making a decision.

I guess I find it difficult to just "not do it". At least when it comes to saluting. For hundreds upon hundreds of years military forces saluted in some fashion as a sign of respect/honor. We know this. There HAS to be some sort of technique in which the Romans did it. I'm not saying the stiff armed salute is correct, or the hand to the helmet, or raised open hand, etc. But it's one of those things I just can't see being left as ignored. Maybe that's just my military background speaking for me. There's little things I picked up during my service that I'd be very mindful of when reenacting any period.

But you have to abandon this thinking and keep an open mind about the roman army. The more ideas you have about the modern military the harder it is to see the roman army for what it is they did or how they behaved. Sure, there were lots of similarities, but there were just as many differences. I'm ex-military too and its a hard adjustment lol.

I guess my purpose of the thread was to find out what's acceptable. I agree with you Magnus that ignoring or at least not doing certain things is probably safer, more accurate, and better in the long run. I agree that picking battles is probably best as well. I'd just hate to think that there's something out there that we've already seen that says it all, and we're just not looking at it the right way. I'd hate to think that enough minds (or evidence) haven't come together and pieced us a whole answer.

For sure, sometimes things get re-visited, but usually the only way to draw a new conclusion is when new evidence is brought to light. But, this has been debated here before (not that RAT is the end-all to debates in the roman world ), and we've come to the same conclusion. We just don't know...

And trust me, RAT is probably one of the greatest venues for Roman knowledge in the world...

I suppose an even better question posed to the members here of the forum could be, how does your Legion (if you reenact) handle the saluting, and why did you decide to do it that way? Maybe someone has a reference that the rest of us aren't seeing.

Personally, we don't salute. When I'm at another event hosted by another group, I don't salute there either. Partly because they're not "real" officers, and more often than not, it's because they use the salute used by the Nazi's in WW II. I normally don't have an issue with this if there is enough historical proof that it was an ancient thing borrowed or taken by a modern group, but in this case there just isn't. So I try and avoid it.

That probably doesn't help too much... 8)

[Celtic505]

Theres a releif which depicts a diogmitoi saluting his superior, and he looks like hes giving a nazi salute. Its shown in Graham Sumners Roman Military Clothing #1.

[Magnus]

On page 47 you mean...hard to say if that is a salute...the thumb is outstretched and pointing straight up...given his superior officer is on a horse, maybe he's lending him a hand? It also looks more like he's waving at him...

[M. Demetrius]

You are probably talking about the picture on p. 47. The caption says he's giving a salute, but that doesn't automatically mean he's giving a salute. He could just as easily be pointing back down the road for any number of reasons.

I'll drop Mr. Sumner a note and see if he can lend any clarification to this drawing. BTW, you'll notice his hand is perpendicular to the ground, which makes it not the "Nazi" salute anyway.

[edited in: Note sent via PM]

[A_Volpe]

Matthew Amt: "Dudicus, what the HELL are you wearing?? Get that piece of trash off my field!!"

It's called the Black Russian, Matt, you ought to get one yourself, It's all the rage!

Matthew Amt: "But he understands me. (And he has probably dragged out a couple pieces of garbage just to see if I'm paying attention, ha!)"

Yeah, like my pugio, and my Gladius scabbard, two woefully neglected projects I need to finish!

Speaking of which, there is a good example of what we're talking about in terms of evidence vs. using it. The Pugio I have is Deepeeka's AH3264E "Embossed", when I got it several years ago, it was the only pugio that was available/in stock at the time and one I felt was halfway-descent enough to use (as well as 'affordable'). My intent is to eventually re-work the whole thing - replace the innaccurate/unsubstantiated scabbard with a wooden-core, metal-framed one, and slightly re-work the handle/hilt of the blade itself. (I had already ground down the point to make it look a little bit better)

Matt Amt and Leg XX do not accept this Pugio type in their unit, because they don't feel it's a good representation of surviving examples. We in Leg III Cyr, however, are more accepting of that type, because we want people to be able to get gear, and that we are willing and able to modify or re-work pieces to make them better, which is what a few of our members have done, with Gladius scabbards and such. Randi / Clodius even 'converted' an infamously junky "Trooper" helmet for his Cornicern portrayal, and since his bear pelt covers 90% of the helmet anyway, no-one knows it's a Trooper, and it fits his head and works great for him.

Even though Leg III accepts the pugio type, I still want to replace/rework mine to be 'better', but that doesn't mean we refuse other Leg III members from the type, although we do encourage (new) people getting other types.

But, those are the two "differences" between our groups, each has a different level of what is 'acceptable' and which is 're-workable' We still get together and have a great time when we do.

"Ita Dominus" - Believe it or not, Matt, we DID throw around some ideas, even here on RAT about what to use/what to say/how to say it, as well as with our own Latin and Roman Scholars and Geeks...But, that's why I said we "sometimes" use it. For the most part, we just "do as told". I think I nod my head more than anything to acknowledge a command/order from Mike (Leg III's Centurion), probably without even realizing it. We have also done the 'brow touch' as suggested by the Ahenobarbus sculpture.

When someone in the public does the chest-bump-and/or-straight arm salute, I'll respond with the brow-touch, if only to throw them off...And that usually gets them asking How Romans Saluted and then I explain we don't know actually, et cetera.

In either case, as Matt mentioned, the better bet is to talk to other groups/individuals before or after public presentations and to reach a consensus about what to wear and how to do things. I'm very pleased that despite some occasional 'hiccups' at past Roman Days in Maryland and Virginia, we have never had a 'reality TV screaming match' or some other silly "ego stroking" maneuver infront of public or other reenactors. We've been able to work things out and discuss. It's also the kind of thing where that specific event is Legion XX's domain and their event, we adhere to their standards and commands as best we can, we would expect the same kind of respect and camaraderie if groups came up to a Legion III event, or a Legion VI event down south (Like the Mobile AL-Pompeii event.)

What we're also talking about is say, you do this "salute" you believe is what the Romans did, but then you proclaim "this is exactly how the Romans did it, everyone else needs to do it this way, because I said so". That kind of talk will lose you friends fast. As we've pointed out, there is no 'proof' of what/how the Romans saluted, IF they "saluted" at all. If you honestly feel doing a salute is what you want to do, then go for it, but don't go running around saying "This is how it was done"....That is unless you have a lot of proof in your pocket you're willing to share. *wink* That is not to say you cannot salute, salute all you like, and if you honestly feel that is your best conclusion, go for it. But just don't say it's the only way and we're all wrong, and do not be afraid to be open to other ideas / research / opinions, or afraid to change/alter what you do to fit the research done. It's a two-way street

My Roman programs I do for schools and such, as well as my 'portrayal' with Leg III has gone through dozens of changes and revisions, and will continue to do so as I learn more. That's what makes this stuff fun.

[Titus Juventius Tertius]

Anyone able to provide that image here? A scanner perhaps?

[Graham Sumner]

Hello David

I'll drop Mr. Sumner a note and see if he can lend any clarification to this drawing. BTW, you'll notice his hand is perpendicular to the ground, which makes it not the "Nazi" salute anyway.

Thanks for the message. No need to be so formal. Graham will do.

The illustration and reconstruction in 'Roman Military Clothing 1' were based on several pictures of a tombstone found near Ephesos, Turkey.

The complete image, it was cropped for the book, shows a mounted figure with the man on foot facing him and two other men facing the other way but dressed in the same manner. One picture I have (found years before I needed to keep such references, so I do not know now where it came from!) says the man on the horse is a paraphylax with three attendants probably diogmitai ,one of whom salutes his commanding officer.

The most substantial text regarding the picture is to be found in an article by M.P. Speidel. The Police Officer, A Hero, An Inscribed relief from near Ephesos. Spiedel describes the men on foot as wearing tunics, broad belts ( possibly a Fascia Ventrales) a small oval shield and a curved stick or club, with one man also holding what looks like a mace. He says the man to the right of the officer is greeting him. Mr Spiedel was kind enough to say that my reconstruction of the police soldier was "a beauty!" He made no direct comment about the salute however.

Claudio Antonucci a friend of Raffaele D'Amato nevertheless added that in his opinion the soldier was not saluting. The gesture was Pollice Recto his translation being that it meant either 'condemned to death' or 'ready for combat'. It was also at his suggestion that the wide waistband was actually the cloak wrapped around the body, which was what I followed. Either reconstruction in terms of both the gesture and the waistband could be correct, which is the problem when faced with interpretations of sculpture alone.

As an artist myself I would find it easier to show the palm held vertically as shown in the sculpture rather than horizontally as I did in fact illustrate in my reconstruction, because then you only see the thumb and one finger and it is difficult to execute. Perhaps faced with the same problem the sculptor showed it as he did but then that is only my opinion.

Trying a quick Google search to find out more on this before I replied, it was somewhat disconcerting to discover that in many cases my illustration and caption note was the only reference to this topic! This included the Italian Wikipedia page on the Roman Salute.

I never heard anything more about the legal case which was brought aagainst the Italian footballer Paulo De Canio for giving a 'Roman' salute to the crowd. His lawyer was supposed to bring evidence to the fact that he was giving a genuine historical salute and not something with the sinister tones that many might associate with such a gesture. It would have been interesting to discover what this lawyer found out.

In my previous post on another thread on this topic I mention that another reconstruction of mine in 'Roman Military Clothing 3' showed a Roman salute. This was based on information supplied by Raffaele D'Amato and was copied from several late Roman sources, some of which are illustrated in the previous threads. Essentially this was holding the hand up to the head as if grasping and about to throw a spear but indicating that no weapon was being carried. I think at the time it was around the first discussion on RAT regarding Roman salutes, so I asked Raffaele specifically to find something so a salute could be included in the book and that was what he came up with.

Hope this helps a bit.

Graham.

[M. Demetrius]

Thank you for your reply, Graham (sorry about the formality, my Dad's training seems to stick better than I'd have admitted back when I was younger).

Here's the picture in question, from Roman Military Clothing [1]