You can call me Nick! And that's also part of the article.
Maybe my wording was a little bit unfortunate, but I never stated this was actually used in ancient Rome. It's traceable through the painting you're referring to and also part of the article.
The argument is moreso that it could very well be that Mussolini got the inspiration for that kind of a salute from the painting and the link with ancient Rome it suggests.
Yes it did begin in ancient Rome. I beg to differ in the poorly written part. I think it's more a misunderstanding of what the argument is. Or better said, what "it" is. Because it did start in ancient Rome. The link started there. At no point does the article argue the Romans used this salute. It's also not the core argument the article makes, that's the link with Hitler
Dictators love to use symbolism that links the regime to the country’s ancient roots and then make those symbols stand out. It’s part of the nationalistic drive. If it doesn’t exist or doesn’t fit somehow, it’s invented or adjusted.
Mussolini would draw on the greatness of Rome even in architecture and mix it with modern to look towards the future. The lasting empire. Hitler had no such powerful local symbolism so also drew a lot from Rome for his “1000 year Reich”. And what wasn’t really Roman was just called Roman to make it easy.
> Maybe my wording was a little bit unfortunate, but I never stated this was actually used in ancient Rome.
If I didn’t want people to think that I was suggesting that something began in ancient Rome I would rewrite the first sentence of the article: “It began in ancient Rome.”
And probably this bit, two sentences later: “Its origins go back much further, as it was based on the Roman salute”
As a perfectly reasonable, not-horrifically-pedantic interpretation of those statements would be that you are flat out stating that the salute was used in ancient Rome and then the Nazis later used it.
Pro tip: if you want people to know that the salute didn’t start in ancient Rome, you could change “It started in ancient Rome” to “It didn’t start in ancient Rome”
Thank you for your tip! I'll take it to heart and improve my writing.
But I do stand by my wording. As calling it the Roman Salute is genuine. Just Google it. But, more important I never stated that it was used in ancient Rome. The link to Mussolini starts there is the argument. So it did start in ancient Rome, but only if you look at it analytically deeper, like the article does!
I’m confused here. By your own writing the first depiction of that salute was from 1784 and you don’t provide any corroboration to the notion that it actually has any connection to any salute used by Romans. Jacques-Louis David could’ve painted the brothers dabbing or doing various stages of the Macarena (and if he did, he’d be closer in time to the popular use of those gestures than he was to ancient Rome)
How on earth could you possibly know that it was “based on” some maybe-kinda-similar-or-not Roman salute, but it also definitely wasn’t used in Rome? It originated there but wasn’t used there? That isn’t a coherent position.
It seems like you’ve established, with documentation, that an Italian guy saw and liked a painting made by a French guy that lived a thousand years closer in history to Gangnam Style than the fall of Rome. If you did some sort of rich analysis that extrapolates that into the history of the Roman empire it didn’t make its way into your article.
Regardless of where it originated or what it may have meant in other contexts, it’s been used enough to represent and be associated with the Nazi party and its ideology that today it’s almost universally recognized as a symbol of that history. Regardless of intent, that association is what it communicates.
Given the current rise of fascism around the world, this whole “well, actually, it’s really the Roman salute” discussion feels like a Nebelkerze — a smoke screen that distracts from the symbol’s actual, present-day meaning and function.
This overeggs a bit the idea that Hitler "lied about where it came from".
Hitler openly admired the Roman empire and alluded to Germany being the spiritual heir to it. Look at the neoclassical architecture, or the German imperial eagle, or even just identifying as the Third Reich, where the first Reich was the Holy Roman Empire.
If he was misleading about the links with Rome, it was in retconning the founders of Rome as Nordics or "Aryans" rather than the sallow-skinned Mediterranean people everyone else assumes lived there at the time.
> Although it originated during the 18th century in France, it is pseudohistorically associated with ancient Rome.
> According to an apocryphal legend, the fascist gesture was based on a customary greeting which was claimed to have been used in ancient Rome. However, no Roman text describes such a gesture, and the Roman works of art that display salutational gestures bear little resemblance to the modern "Roman" salute. The salute had in fact originated more than a millennium later, in Jacques-Louis David's painting The Oath of the Horatii (1784)
Wrong WarCommons.
it started during the 18th century in France with The Oath of the Horatii. It is pseudohistorically associated with ancient Rome afterwards.
Ancient Romans did not use that salute.
You can call me Nick! And that's also part of the article. Maybe my wording was a little bit unfortunate, but I never stated this was actually used in ancient Rome. It's traceable through the painting you're referring to and also part of the article. The argument is moreso that it could very well be that Mussolini got the inspiration for that kind of a salute from the painting and the link with ancient Rome it suggests.
Your very first sentence is "It began in ancient Rome." That's more than 'unfortunate wording'.
The very first sentence in your article is:
"It began in ancient Rome."
It's not there as a quote, it's not there as "it was claimed to begin in ancient Rome". It's just the simple assertion: "It began in ancient Rome."
If you didn't really mean to assert that statement or suggest that it's true, then, frankly, you've written that pretty poorly.
Yes it did begin in ancient Rome. I beg to differ in the poorly written part. I think it's more a misunderstanding of what the argument is. Or better said, what "it" is. Because it did start in ancient Rome. The link started there. At no point does the article argue the Romans used this salute. It's also not the core argument the article makes, that's the link with Hitler
From your own original comment to which I replied:
"but I never stated this was actually used in ancient Rome."
Now you're saying:
"Yes it did begin in ancient Rome." which the article expressly started with as well.
What are you actually asserting?
Dictators love to use symbolism that links the regime to the country’s ancient roots and then make those symbols stand out. It’s part of the nationalistic drive. If it doesn’t exist or doesn’t fit somehow, it’s invented or adjusted.
Mussolini would draw on the greatness of Rome even in architecture and mix it with modern to look towards the future. The lasting empire. Hitler had no such powerful local symbolism so also drew a lot from Rome for his “1000 year Reich”. And what wasn’t really Roman was just called Roman to make it easy.
That's a valid take, I agree with you!
> Maybe my wording was a little bit unfortunate, but I never stated this was actually used in ancient Rome.
If I didn’t want people to think that I was suggesting that something began in ancient Rome I would rewrite the first sentence of the article: “It began in ancient Rome.”
And probably this bit, two sentences later: “Its origins go back much further, as it was based on the Roman salute”
As a perfectly reasonable, not-horrifically-pedantic interpretation of those statements would be that you are flat out stating that the salute was used in ancient Rome and then the Nazis later used it.
Pro tip: if you want people to know that the salute didn’t start in ancient Rome, you could change “It started in ancient Rome” to “It didn’t start in ancient Rome”
Thank you for your tip! I'll take it to heart and improve my writing.
But I do stand by my wording. As calling it the Roman Salute is genuine. Just Google it. But, more important I never stated that it was used in ancient Rome. The link to Mussolini starts there is the argument. So it did start in ancient Rome, but only if you look at it analytically deeper, like the article does!
I’m confused here. By your own writing the first depiction of that salute was from 1784 and you don’t provide any corroboration to the notion that it actually has any connection to any salute used by Romans. Jacques-Louis David could’ve painted the brothers dabbing or doing various stages of the Macarena (and if he did, he’d be closer in time to the popular use of those gestures than he was to ancient Rome)
How on earth could you possibly know that it was “based on” some maybe-kinda-similar-or-not Roman salute, but it also definitely wasn’t used in Rome? It originated there but wasn’t used there? That isn’t a coherent position.
It seems like you’ve established, with documentation, that an Italian guy saw and liked a painting made by a French guy that lived a thousand years closer in history to Gangnam Style than the fall of Rome. If you did some sort of rich analysis that extrapolates that into the history of the Roman empire it didn’t make its way into your article.
Regardless of where it originated or what it may have meant in other contexts, it’s been used enough to represent and be associated with the Nazi party and its ideology that today it’s almost universally recognized as a symbol of that history. Regardless of intent, that association is what it communicates.
Given the current rise of fascism around the world, this whole “well, actually, it’s really the Roman salute” discussion feels like a Nebelkerze — a smoke screen that distracts from the symbol’s actual, present-day meaning and function.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellamy_salute
Buddhists didnt erase swastikas from their culture - its odd that others have such mindless reflex to reappropriate symbols
Thank you for reading, and it's great to see that you share the exact same conclusion as the article does at the end!
This overeggs a bit the idea that Hitler "lied about where it came from".
Hitler openly admired the Roman empire and alluded to Germany being the spiritual heir to it. Look at the neoclassical architecture, or the German imperial eagle, or even just identifying as the Third Reich, where the first Reich was the Holy Roman Empire.
If he was misleading about the links with Rome, it was in retconning the founders of Rome as Nordics or "Aryans" rather than the sallow-skinned Mediterranean people everyone else assumes lived there at the time.
Fair point, thank you for reading the article!
Maybe more relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_salute
> Although it originated during the 18th century in France, it is pseudohistorically associated with ancient Rome.
> According to an apocryphal legend, the fascist gesture was based on a customary greeting which was claimed to have been used in ancient Rome. However, no Roman text describes such a gesture, and the Roman works of art that display salutational gestures bear little resemblance to the modern "Roman" salute. The salute had in fact originated more than a millennium later, in Jacques-Louis David's painting The Oath of the Horatii (1784)