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.
back
1 comments
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'.
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!
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
You don't have to argue. You are saying it.
It's not a misunderstanding from readers part. If you write "is started in ancient Rome" and think it does not imply that Romans used it, you have problems in writing.
"It" does not imply that the Romans used it, in the context of the article and analysis that is about WWII (and not ancient Rome). Reading and writing an article doesn't stop at the first sentence you encounter.
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?
>It began in ancient Rome. Mussolini adopted it. Hitler copied it, and then lied about where it came from.
>The Nazi salute.
As an opening paragraph to a topic that you're about to educate/clarify your audience on, maybe using a generic word to describe what your article goes into depth is a poor way of going about.. it.
Thanks you for reading it! And yes, my audience gets what 'it' means!
> 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.