Saluting?

[Marcus Mummius]

To hail another man whilst having your head covered was an insult to the gods, and you ran the danger of their jealousy and wrath, as this gesture while covered up top was a sign of piety and respect to them.

Jim, is this somewhere in an ancient source? It's very interesting.

[Tarbicus]

To hail another man whilst having your head covered was an insult to the gods, and you ran the danger of their jealousy and wrath, as this gesture while covered up top was a sign of piety and respect to them.

Jim, is this somewhere in an ancient source? It's very interesting.

Jef, it's been discussed a lot in an earlier salute thread from about two years ago.

[Maiorianus]

To hail another man whilst having your head covered was an insult to the gods, and you ran the danger of their jealousy and wrath, as this gesture while covered up top was a sign of piety and respect to them.

Jim, is this somewhere in an ancient source? It's very interesting.

To complete the answer you already received, the primary source quoted is Plutarch's "Roman Questions", that you can find here [url:3651pp5h]http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Moralia/Roman_Questions*/A.html#10[/url]. What is stated as a fact by Plutarch is that Romans covered their heads with their togas when they sacrificed and uncovered their heads when they meet somebody "worth of honour". So, Plutarch asks, how comes they cover their heads in front of the Gods and uncover in front of mere men? The issue of the jealousy of the Gods to be averted is actually a possible interpretation put forward by Plutarch of these contradictory (for him) Roman customs. He suggests other possibilities, such as the fact that covering the head with the toga might be a way to insulate the person who is sacrificing from the outside world and show that his full attention is only directed to the Gods.

Beyond Plutarch's own interpretations, however, what I think is important is that he states as a fact that Roman citizens uncovered their heads (if covered with the toga) when they encountered somebody senior or worth of respect. To assume that, as a consequence , they always uncovered their head, whatever they might be wearing, when they met somebody of higher rank and that soldiers (who might have had problems to uncover their head quickly) made a stylized gesture to indicate the removal of the helmet in front of somebody senior, sounds then as a reasonable possibility...

[Bill Thayer]

My gut feeling is hardly evidence! but that makes very good sense to me. In the U. S. even today, if a (well-bred) man is wearing a hat, even a baseball cap, and is in some kind of situation where he'd normally uncover but say the meeting is very quick — as two people passing in an airport — you still see him make a salute-like gesture, if very casual, of touching the brim of his hat.

[Scipio Bristolus]

Perhaps saluting derived from the social structures, as stated about the toga over the head, and went into the military as the military rank structure followed the social structure? The averting the eyes and later bowing thing is a straight read over from the animal way of showing subservience (substitute the top of the human head for the subservient dog or canine exposing its throat). C16th and C17th bowing also emphasises that the right hand is away from the sword hilt and hence you cannot attack the person you are greeting. Perhaps raising the arm is a similar thing? Or calling down the gods favour to the person in whise direction you are raising the arm????

Visor lifting is I think just showing the face as in 'Look, it's me' - supposedly obviated by heraldry though see William doing it at Senlac as per the tapestry. My memory of the origin of modern saluting is a shortened version of removing the hat, starting as touching the brim, which either came about through sailors with tarry hands not wanting to mess up or their hats or through soldiers ditto following the introduction of often white or yellow worsted braid on hat brims in the late C17th.......could have originated with the issue of not wanting to remove a helmet?

....looking for continuity of practice i.e. evolution and not revolution always fascinates me.....

[derek forrest]

We have been over this time and time again and there is no way of finding a solution.We do need an agreed method for all reenactors particuarly as in Europe we seem to be coming together in large numbers as recently at Namur. We had the spectacle of Chris Haines presenting awards to another group and using the oustretched arm being met with a chest thump from the recipient!
Incidentally this is not the main problem which is the words of command which seem to be different for each unit and when coupled with a foreign pronunciation makes them totally incomprehensible to others. To make progress why not accept the Guard as the senior group and everybody else agree to follow our salute and commands.

[ARudling]

Maybe Derek thats because not everyone wants to do everything the ESG way, maybe also because much of Europe still sees the outstretched arm in a significantly negative way too.

Basic commands should however be somewhat easier to agree on at multi group events, even if the occasional accent is hard for some to understand.

[Magnus]

To make progress why not accept the Guard as the senior group and everybody else agree to follow our salute and commands.

Because the ESG in some cases have made poor historical blunders when it comes to their drill. In a vacuum of evidence, they've incorporated modern militarisms (ie sin-dex-sin) making an ancient military look and function like a modern one. The same can be said of the salute. Do we even know they saluted? Not really. But because the modern military salutes, the ESG decides to use something more akin to a hollywood movie. Yeah, don't think I'll be following that any time soon. But thanks.

[derek forrest]

We seem to be missing the point . Until we find the 79AD edition of "The Infantry Century in Battle" there are lots of gaps in our knowledge which we have to fill if we are going to mount a display.
Sometimes we can work backwards from later works as with the commands ; sometimes we can list a number of possibilities such as here with saluting.In the end though we need someone or some body to set out what we all do and we have cracked the problem. We might disagree but as long as what we adopt is possible then all should accept the decision.
The beneficiaries will be the watching Public ;the event organisers and ultimately ourselves who will have more events and better peripherals.
We have no controlling body so seniority is as good a way of deciding as any other. Until last year I thought cooperation was impossible but Marles ; Xanthen and Namur have given the lie to that and the way is open for further international agreement.
Maybe the initiative should come from event organizers who could insist on agreement to a protocol from all groups as the price for participation.
We do have one big advantage and that is our common language- Latin- which gives us a veneer of authenticity but only if we all react as one to the latin words we use.
One final thought (and here I speak as one who listens to rather than gives commands) if we all adoped emphasis on the last syllable as the execute it would be easier and look better. Latin is wonderful as the imperative gives us the "te" in every case.
Its almost as though it was invented for marching!!

[Magnus]

Derek, I must disagree with you wholeheartedly.

Filling in gaps with modern "anything" is just plain wrong! If your group's purpose is to try and accurately as possible portray an ancient army, then adding modern drill to it will ruin your impression. Most people won't bat an eye at it for the simple reason that literally everyone today has been exposed to modern drill at some point. Whether that's from the news, movies, tv etc. Thus it's "comfortable" because it is familiar to us. However, being a Roman reenactor is about leaving our comfort zone, and just because something may look better to us, does not mean it did to the Romans. <---- That should be the golden rule of Roman reenacting. Unfortunately many people seem to miss out on that.

The better idea, is to avoid things that we actually don't have anything beyond suspicion of. Saluting is a great example. We don't know if, when, how or why they did or didn't. Why not leave that out of your impression altogether? I can guess why you guys do it...it's because of your modern expectation that soldiers salute officers. Not because of any historical evidence, and therein lies the massive flaw with your reenactment philosophy so to speak. Having said that, there are some times when historical accuracy can be pushed a bit, but when it comes to something as obvious as doing drill, that's a huge no-no.

Also, there is ZERO requirement for any type of precautionary and executive commands to relay drill movements. Have you guys tried it without? We have...and it works perfectly! Our last event in September we did away with cadenced marching, left and right, calling movements on given feet, no precautionary and executive. Our movements were just as well executed. No-one bumped feet or gear.

Too much emphasis is put on "Parade" drill. Did the Romans even have such a concept? To me, looking at Arrian, Maurice, reading Livy and Vegetius it would seem that aside from a Roman Triumph (which again, we don't know the protocols of), that the Roman Army was concerned with getting from point A to B in order to initiate some type of military operation. None of this frilly, redundant drill that we think of when we picture an army. The drill commands all point to practical, non "parade" situations. So why is it some groups become fixated on it? I think it's a lack of perspective, IMO.

Too often the people in charge of reenactment groups come from a military backround. This puts too much of a heavy bias on "how" things are done in said group. The unfortunate aspect is that the average joe, be it public spectator or participant doesn't know anybetter, because modern drill is what we're all exposed to.

The ESG may have been around for the longest, but they've also perpetuated some serious faux-pas, without modifying or attempting to change them. Again, a vacuum of evidence doesn't mean we must replace it with modern ideas. This disqualifies the ESG in my mind as being a likely candidate for following anything of theirs.

Why spend thousands of dollars on perfecting your gear and making it historically accurate when your overall impression becomes ruined when you act and operate like a modern army? It doesn't get anymore wrong than that.

[Bill Thayer]

Don't know about parading on regular occasions like the reviews on the Plain at West Point, but decursiones are repeatedly recorded at imperial funerals.

[Praefectusclassis]

I think the best model for reenactment displays to follow would be found in Hadrian's speech to III Aug in Lambaesis. That's where the emperor actually lists what the troops do to show off their wonderfullness.

[M. Demetrius]

Is there a link to that speech, Jasper? Or a book title in which it's found?

[Praefectusclassis]

There are two recent editions of the full text, one in German (by Speidel the Elder) and one in French (iirc). I don't think the relevant parts are online, unless I'm mistaken.

[D B Campbell]

I don't think the relevant parts are online, unless I'm mistaken.

Brian Campbell's translation can be accessed on Google Books here (p.18 no.17).