The history of saluting

[Wilson Gray]

On Jul 30, 2004, at 3:09 PM, James A. Landau wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       "James A. Landau" <JJJRLandau at AOL.COM>
> Subject:      The history of saluting
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
>
> In a message dated  Thu, 29 Jul 2004 23:29:39 -0400  Wilson Gray
> <hwgray at EARTHLINK.NET> writes:
>
> <snip>  This book also had a brief section
>>  debunking the claim that "EM must salute officers as a sign of
>>  respect." Needless to say, I can't remember the author's analysis in
>>  any detail. But I do remember its thrust. If the rendering of the
>> hand
>>  salute has to do with respect, then why don't EM salute one another,
>>  given that they have far more respect for one another than they have
>>  for any officer? Why aren't REMF-officers forced to salute enlisted
>>  combat troops? Why doesn't everyone, regardless of rank, salute
>> anyone
>>  wounded in combat, regardless of rank?
>
> This idea that saluting is a sign of _respect_ is a long-standing
> etymythology, frequently resorted to  by those who have no idea the
> real reason for
> saluting, which is rather the opposite.
>
> It can be summed up in one word, or more exactly name: "Wallenstein"
>
> The armies that fought in the Thirty Year's War were mostly
> mercenaries,
> which means the soldiers in them owed allegiance only to the
> entrepreneur who
> recruited them, sometimes paid them, and most importantly fed them.
> The most
> notorious of these entrepreneurs was Albrecht Wenzel Eusebius von
> Wallenstein
> (1583-1634), a first-rate general, strategist, and businessman who for
> several
> years was de facto the commander for the Holy Roman Empire.  He was
> also a man
> who followed his own agenda, rather than that of his nominal boss the
> Holy Roman
> Emperor, who finally decided there was no choice but to have
> Wallenstein
> assassinated.
>
> The Thirty Year's War ended (in Germany) in 1648 with the Peace of
> Westphalia, but it took until 1650 to get all those mercenaries
> rounded up and pacified.
>  The Crowned Heads of Europe said, "Never again!  No more
> Wallensteins!  From
> now on armies will be agents of the State and do what the State
> wants."  This
> new objective was so successful that when, two centuries later,
> Clausewitz
> said "War is a continuation of policy by other means", no one laughed.

It's nice to see "Politik" translated correctly for a change!:-)

>
> How did the Crowned Heads of Europe accomplish these?  By three
> policies:
> 1) armies from now on will consist of two castes, officers and
> enlisted, and
> these two castes will be kept rigidly separated.
> 2) the enlisted caste will strictly obey the officer caste
> 3) the officer caste will do what the State wants them to do
>
> A number of rules, rituals, and customs sprang up to enforce policies
> 1) and
> 2).  Some were planned; others just grew but were kept when they proved
> useful.  Saluting was one of those rituals.  Originally, when an
> enlisted man
> saluted an officer, it meant that the EM was acknowledging that he was
> segregated
> from and owed deference to the officer.  When the officer returned the
> salute he
> was acknowledging that the enlisted man had offered the proper
> deference.
>
> Hence it makes sense to salute the flag (which outranks an officer)
> but not
> to salute fellow enlisted men.
>
> At least that was the original idea behind saluting.  However, saluting
> quickly became such an accustomed and habitual ritual that to all but
> the most
> thin-skinned enlisted man it was merely a way of saying "the officer
> and I are
> both soldiers rather than civilians."

This reminds me of the quartermaster sgt in my BT Co, who used to say,
"I don't like officers, but I HATE civilians!

>
> (The custom of enlisted men in English-speaking armies addressing
> officers as
> "sir" has the same purpose of acknowledging deference towards the
> superior
> caste.)
>
> The origin of the saluting gesture is obscure.  I have read in several
> sources that it originated when knights in armor had to raise the
> visors of their
> helmets in order to recognize each other, since the visors covered
> their faces.
> I doubt this explanation, since knights didn't ride around in public
> with their
> visors down (too difficult to breathe) .

I didn't believe this one when I was a kid. Lifting a visor, as least
as they are shown in the usual children's-book illustrations and
judging by museum suits of armor, wouldn't show enough of a face to
permit an ID, nor does it have anything to say about what happened when
two knights met who were strangers to each other. Besides, if they knew
each other, they wouldn't need to see face. If you can believe
"Ivanhoe," it was heraldry that permitted the ID of a fully-caparisoned
knight.

>
> What about policy 3)?  Remember that the commander of an army can do
> anything
> he wishes, and is restrained ONLY by his personal social and ethical
> code.
> Wallenstein, for example, had a particularly low level of ethics.  So
> by the
> beginning of the 18th century the custom arose that all officers were
> to be
> *gentlemen.*  (Hence the phrase "an officer and a gentleman").  This
> did not mean
> that an officer had to be of superior social standing (although many
> were from
> the nobility, one reason being that an officer needs to be able to
> read and
> in many places only the nobility were literate.)  Rather it meant that
> the
> officer adhered strictly to the "code of the gentleman", the most
> important part
> of which was that he kept his word no matter what.
>
> (You are commander of a town under siege and you surrender on a
> promise from
> the opposing commader to protect the civilian townspeople.  It will be
> a great
> relief to you to know that the man you surrendered to is a gentleman,
> because
> his word is the only thing that protects your people from being raped
> and
> murdered.)
>
>          - James A. Landau

Very Interesting!

-Wilson Gray