Another hand salute?

[Mitra]

On must remember that raise the hat from the head is the normal form of respect/salute used before a magistrate/honourable men in roman civilian life. THis is used just to modern time (in Italy but i think also in other european nations).
Leave the helm isn't as much easy, so take the hand to the forehead can be only a simulated surrogate of the same salute (in a society where a general is also a magistrate and a soldier also a citizen).
Moreover one of theory on the origin of modern military is that derived from the raising of the visor of helm by the medieval knight like sign of salute (anyone viewed the film "The Fourth War" of John Frankenheimer?), and in some armies (like the italian army) the military salute have to be made only when the soldier has the beret on the head, not when he is without it.

So i think the picture evidences can be with good possibility a real salute (why depict a soldier with the helm crooked on an relief, i dont think romans love the neorealism school ).

[drsrob]

On must remember that raise the hat from the head is the normal form of respect/salute used before a magistrate/honourable men in roman civilian life. THis is used just to modern time (in Italy but i think also in other european nations).

I thought that Romans of the classical period did not normally wear hats?

Leave the helm isn't as much easy, so take the hand to the forehead can be only a simulated surrogate of the same salute (in a society where a general is also a magistrate and a soldier also a citizen).
Moreover one of theory on the origin of modern military is that derived from the raising of the visor of helm by the medieval knight like sign of salute (anyone viewed the film "The Fourth War" of John Frankenheimer?), and in some armies (like the italian army) the military salute have to be made only when the soldier has the beret on the head, not when he is without it.
[...]

The modern military salute did not originate from the raising of the helmet visor in Medieval Times. IMO that is 19th Century romantic nonsense.
In the 18th century soldier and civilian alike wore (tricornered) hats. Both saluted by taking of the hat, holding it at the brim.
Grenadiers and other elite troops used brimless caps, that could not be taken off easily. Therefore they were allowed to make do with a formalized gesture: touching the cap with the tip of the fingers.
At the beginning of the 19th century the general adoption of shakos and helmets made the use of this military salute almost universal. However (staff)officers wearing hats were for a long time expressly forbidden from using the military salute instead of taking off the hat.

[Salvianus]

Genuine question - I have picked up an impression from somewhere that Romans prostrated before the statues of their gods and bowed to each other. Would anyone be able to comment if this was the case?

I recall one poster in amongst these hundreds of posts noted that starting by assuming the salute (or being presented with it as fact by hollywood & HBO) & then looking for depictions was unsound & I have to agree. To test this, what would we find if we took an alternate hypothesis such as they bowed or (seriously) kissed their hands as they did to the statues of their gods (according, IIRC to Keith Hopkins in A World Full of Gods: The Strange Triumph of Christianity. New York: The Free Press (Simon & Schuster), 1999). Actually I think he described it as 'blowing a kiss'. :roll:

Seriously, though, could we find similar suporting evidence for these competing hypotheses? Maybe I ought to stop procrastinating & sew up my half made seax sheath ...

[Tarbicus]

The modern military salute did not originate from the raising of the helmet visor in Medieval Times. IMO that is 19th Century romantic nonsense.
In the 18th century soldier and civilian alike wore (tricornered) hats. Both saluted by taking of the hat, holding it at the brim.
Grenadiers and other elite troops used brimless caps, that could not be taken off easily. Therefore they were allowed to make do with a formalized gesture: touching the cap with the tip of the fingers.
At the beginning of the 19th century the general adoption of shakos and helmets made the use of this military salute almost universal. However (staff)officers wearing hats were for a long time expressly forbidden from using the military salute instead of taking off the hat.

As a gesture, we just don't know enough about the origins of the salute, and there are also reasonable theories going back all the way to the Stone Age. If a 19th C gesture of respect was to touch the hat then it surely also follows that the same gesture could have been in use in antiquity? A shako is far easier to remove than a properly tied Gallic G. One other point I have seen made is that the hand to hat salute keeps the saluter's head erect, as if an qual to the saluted, which would make sense citizen to citizen, yet still show an acknowledgment of rank and respect.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

True, only an o inion, but they are not consistent, identical gestures, just one hand reaching for the helm...... like Tobias was saying, no one really is aying too much attention to him. As for romans not going foe neorealism or whatever, well I think they tried to ortray realism quite often, and the guy on Ahenobarbus just looks a little knackered after a battle or something, and is reaching for his helmto either remove it, or ush it u a little to cool his head? Cant see too much more than that in it.

Where is there mention of doffing hats in re ublican rome? this would be interesting to read! I did not know of much hat wear in rome, other than riests etc!

Regards

[Tarbicus]

True, only an o inion, but they are not consistent, identical gestures, just one hand reaching for the helm......

They are all gestured with the right hand, not a single one with the left.

Also, compare a UK forces salute to a US one, especially as we are talking about centuries of time difference between some of these representations, just like they don't all dress the same or wear the same helmets.

[Tib. Gabinius]

So, in your opinion it's more logical that a salute traduated above over 2000 years than it's possible that close looking gestures can mean close looking but not identical gestures or something else, more practically orientated? :?

Like i said before: it's not possible to clear that.
In my opinion, if it's asked, i miss any mention of that in literatur or in context to the emperors propagandistic art.

[Tarbicus]

Where does it mention in literature that Roman legionaries wore iron segmented plate armour? The only mention I've ever seen is for gladiators fulfilling a combat role.

This has all been discussed before in the other threads I linked to, including the idea that the ad locutio gesture is applicable to those holding Imperium or very high office (particularly of senatorial rank), and to them from others, as seen in representational art.

[Mitra]

Romans use hats, the difference is these objects aren't part of clothing fashion, but only utility objects so they dont' appear commonly in art representation.

The pileus is used by freed-men and common workers, probably for create a difference with the slaves in a social context (the manual works) where the two categories are mixed. This hat is used also in coins like liberty symbol (also on gods heads).

The petasus (large hat) is used how sun protection; Augustus uses it also in his house garden (Suet.82). It is employed by travellers, shepherds, hunters. Caligola permit his use in theatres also to senators, probably for the sun problem. So we can imagine that normally the roman people which lives all the day on the streets, piazzas, anfitreatres, in italian summer used these for the same reason.
In winter skull-cap of felt can be a protection from the cold, if not supportable.

We must remember that the galea in origin are a skull-cap of felt, leather or other not metallic materials.

From Empire of honour, J.Lendon:

"On the streets of Rome men uncovered their heads when a distinguished men passed" cited by Plutarch, Quaest.Rom.266c

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Was there not a stigma attached to left handedness, or was that just a later thing?

I would assume that if it was so, they would only show peole making right handed gestures?

just guessing here after all! :wink:

[Tarbicus]

Look up the name Scaevola, where the name essentially means 'Lefty'.

Probably not practical in a shield wall, but I can't see it being a stigma unless someone can up with a direct primary source to say so? As there are references to notable men with that name it probably signifies it as unusual, but obviously not unheard of.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

OK Jim, you have a point there! the name rings a bell to be true! :oops:
As to the stigma, well it has been around for long enough, I just supposed the precednt would have existed in Roman times. Left handedness seems to have been viewed with varying degrees of predjudice by many societies throughout history, so it seemed a reasonable ass u metion! :wink:

BTW Would that direct primary source have to be from liturature? 8)

Still, just looking at the poise of the soldier on Ahenobarbus, looks like a weary person, not someone who is giving a significant gesture! More of a soldier who has exerted himself in a great endevour, and survived. Or not as the case may be?

Where does all this right handed, arm in the air, saluting come from?
Not the early 20th century version, but the one you see represented so often?

Thanks for the lesson Davide, it seems the cobwebs are definately thickening here! :oops:

[Tib. Gabinius]

Look up the name Scaevola, where the name essentially means 'Lefty'.

Probably not practical in a shield wall, but I can't see it being a stigma unless someone can up with a direct primary source to say so? As there are references to notable men with that name it probably signifies it as unusual, but obviously not unheard of.

This interpretation ignore something.
1. The roman cognomen was often a reflection of physical, psychological facts or events in the life of the owner.
But it hasn't. Look to the name Brutus and his meaning of "dump" or "idiot" or however it would be translated in english.
That neither means that all owner were really idiots nor that not a part of the whole family can used it.
Scaevola is an excellent example to that.
The first owner of the name is, from the story, the faboulos Gaius Mucius. He wasn't a lefty, like Jim indicates, he sacrefied his right hand to Lars Prosenna.
The name than became used by a big part of the family of the Mucii, e.g. both Quintus Mucius Scaevola, Augur and Pontifex, who teached Cicero.

So the name CAN mean a lefty or someone who has only the left hand, but not have to.

[Mitra]

I have found the Plutarch passage (two are interestings) on Lacus Curtius; a part from the hats, also the toga can be used to cover the head, how affirms Plutarch:

"
Why is it that when they worship the gods, they cover their heads, but when they meet any of their fellow-men worthy of honour, if they happen to have the toga over the head, they uncover?

This second fact seems to intensify the difficulty of the first. If, then, the tale told of Aeneas is true, that, when Diomedes passed by, he covered his head and completed the sacrifice, it is reasonable and consistent with the covering of one's head in the presence of an enemy that men who meet good men and their friends should uncover. In fact, the behaviour in regard to the gods is not properly related to this custom, but accidentally resembles it; and its observance has persisted since the days of Aeneas.

But if there is anything else to be said, consider whether it be not true that there is only one matter that needs investigation: why men cover their heads when they worship the gods; and the other follows from this. dFor they uncover their heads in the presence of men more influential than they: it is not to invest these men with additional honour, but rather to avert from them the jealousy of the gods, that these men may not seem to demand the same honours as the gods, nor to tolerate an attention like that bestowed on the gods, nor to rejoice therein. But they thus worshipped the gods, either humbling themselves by concealing the head, or rather by pulling the toga over their ears as a precaution lest any ill-omened and baleful sound from without should reach them while they were praying. That they were mightily vigilant in this matter is obvious from the fact that when they went forth for purposes of divination, they surrounded themselves with the clashing of bronze.

Or, as Castor states when he is trying to bring Roman customs into relation with Pythagorean doctrines: the Spirit within us entreats and supplicates the gods without, and thus he symbolizes by the covering of the head the covering and concealment of the soul by the body.
"

"
Why do they also sacrifice to the god called "Honor" with the head uncovered? One might translate Honor as "renown" or "honour."

Is it because renown is a brilliant thing, conspicuous, and widespread, and for the reason that they uncover in the presence of good and honoured men, is it for the same reason that they also worship the god who is named for "honour"?
"

So this geste (uncover the head) appears to have link with the honour concept (like in other ages). Plausible in roman army is the same.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Ok You seem to have a point there, as I was looking at some more photos, and it seems the chap in the ahenobarbus relief actually seems to have his right cheekguard in his hand, perhaps to remove the helmet!
Sorry to have been so dense here, just seemed to be a normal guesture of a tired soldier, though I do not know much about the hidden signifigance of these little things. forgive my ignorence!