Subject:	Re: Praefecti/Hispania
From:	"D. Iunius Palladius" amcgrath@--------
Date:	Thu, 4 Feb 1999 02:12:32 -0500 (EST)

On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Gaius Marius Merullus wrote:

> From: "Gaius Marius Merullus" <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=194232192180194153138149203043129208071" >rmerullo@--------</a>
>
> Salvete Lucia Maria et alii
>
> Thank you so much for filling us all in on Roman provincial administration
> nomenclature.

Yes, there has been a lot of good information being passed back and forth.

> :From: <a href="/po--------ovaroma?protectID=034056178009193116148218000036129208" >legion6@--------</a>

> ----excellent excerpts and explanations deleted for space----
>
> In light of this, and since Nova Roma seeks to model itself primarily on the
> Roman Republic, it would seem that the current system of naming provincial
> officials is quite appropriate. Praetors should remain praetors; if they
> are re-appointed, they become Propraetors.

The way the system is now, we have two praetors: Lucius Cornelius and M.
Mucius Scaevola, who were both elected to their positions. The governors
of provinces are propraetores--they have the imperium of a praetor within
their province without actually holding the office of praetor. If they are
reappointed they are still propraetores. Praetor and consul are elected
positions. The senate cannot appoint people as consul or praetor except in
the case of a magistrate leaving office before his or her term is up. The
senate can give people the limited (to a specific province) imperium of
either office with the prefix of pro- at the beginning of the title.

During the election there was a bit of confusion about the title of
praetor I remember, with some people asking why the senate appointed
praetors. Continuing to use the pro- (which we have used since the term
was first voted on by the senate) does alleviate that confusion somewhat
but not entirely.

I have to admit that I am still a little hesitant about these titles. I am
still leaning (though less so after all the discussion back and
forth) towards legatus based on all that has been discussed. Perhaps
Legatus Provinciae. A provincial legate or Legate of a province. It is not
historical but it does not necessarily have to be. We can alter the titles
somewhat if doing so would be beneficial to us. I think that perhaps it
would help for clarity though people seem to be clear on the subject that
this does not have to be done. :)

In service to Rome,

Decius Iunius Palladius, Consul


----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Non scholae sed vitae discimus.

Seneca


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Such things have often happened and still happen,
and how can these be signs of the end of the world?"

Julian, Emperor of Rome 361-363 A.D.
Extant 331-363 A.D.

Subject:	Re: Praefecti/Hispania
From:	"Antonio Grilo" amg@--------
Date:	Thu, 4 Feb 1999 11:50:21 -0000

Salvete

A little clarification, not to disturb the conclusions that were reached
yesterday.

>Proconsul/propraetor:
> - Under the Republic, any Provincial governor who served after having=20
> been a Consul or Praetor.
> - Under the Empire, any governor of a Senatorial Province, one=20
> without an army in it (all called Proconsuls).

And then I answered:

>This is not absolutely true... Provincia Tarraconensis was Imperial but had
>an army and a Proconsul (at least that's what Q. Fabius Maximus says).

Well, what I've stated is not true. In another reference I clearly solve my
doubts:

Augustus reorganized the provinces of Hispania in the following way:

The Senate kept the Provincia Boetica (Provincia Hispania Ulterior minus
Lusitania), and it was governed (like the Ulterior under the republic) by a
PRAETOR with PROCONSULARIS rank (M. Fimbria, a question of Praetorian
tradition, as in practice he had the power of a PROCONSUL, right?).
Augustus kept Lusitania and Tarraconnensis for himself, each governed by a
LEGATUS AUGUSTI PRO PRAETORE (Marius Fimbria you were right). The Lusitanian
Legatus had the rank of PRAETORIANUS. The Legatus of Tarraconnensis had the
rank of PROCONSULARIS (Q. Fabius, maybe it was this that made you think of a
PROCONSUL) and commanded all the 3 Legions stationed in Hispania.

So, can you clarify: What are 'ranks'? What is the difference PRAETORIANUS
rank and PROCONSULARIS rank (it cannot be the command of troops, as the
Praetor of Boetica commanded no troops but was PROCONSULARIS...)? Does it
mean that PROCONSULARIS stood directly below the Senate or Emperor and
PRAETORIANUS that it was yet under the authority of a governor of
PROCONSULARIS rank?

Valete

Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Propraetor Provinciae Lusitaniae

Subject:	Re: Praefecti/Hispania
From:	"RMerullo" rmerullo@--------
Date:	Thu, 4 Feb 1999 10:59:51 -0500

Salvete Consul Deci Iuni et alii


>The way the system is now, we have two praetors: Lucius Cornelius and M.
>Mucius Scaevola, who were both elected to their positions. The governors
>of provinces are propraetores--they have the imperium of a praetor within
>their province without actually holding the office of praetor. If they are
>reappointed they are still propraetores. Praetor and consul are elected

Well, we had been distinguishing the two types of praetor as far back as
last September at least, by referring to elected praetors by the title
"Praetor Urbanus", while those appointed to administer provinces were
usually referred as Praetor X province, where X was the name of the
province. That was the system to which I was referring when I said "now".

>
>During the election there was a bit of confusion about the title of
>praetor I remember, with some people asking why the senate appointed
>praetors.

Yes, I was one of those confused people actually. I am still confused and
probably always shall be :). I have since grasped the logic of the Praetor
Urbanus/Praetor provinciae differentiation, though.

Continuing to use the pro- (which we have used since the term
>was first voted on by the senate) does alleviate that confusion somewhat
>but not entirely.

Well, the "pro" prefix seems to have been used in the Roman republic mainly
to identify a magistrate whose imperium was being extended (prorogued? Is
that the word? anyone, Fabi, Fimbria, Callide?). It seems to contradict
Roman republican practice a little to start a magistrate off in their first
"term" with the title "propraetor".
>
>I have to admit that I am still a little hesitant about these titles. I am
>still leaning (though less so after all the discussion back and
>forth) towards legatus based on all that has been discussed. Perhaps
>Legatus Provinciae. A provincial legate or Legate of a province. It is not
>historical but it does not necessarily have to be.

Well, according to Fimbria's post, there were legati provinciarum under
Augustus, right? So there seems to have been some historical precedent, if
not truly Republican. "Legatus X provinciae, or of X province" is probably
about as compatible with the Roman Republican model as "Praefectus X
provinciae, or of X province"; both terms were used in the Empire (the
phrase "pro praetore" sticking itself in there as well to make things "clear
as mud" as Fimbria said). The reason that I prefer "praefectus" over
"legatus" is that the latter to me implies a subordinate military commander,
like Titus Labienus was Caesar's legatus in Gaul. If we use the title
"legatus" for people appointed to administer provinces, it seems to my mind
to imply that those provinces are hostile or contain elements that need to
be pacified forcibly. The same can probably be proven of the title
"praefectus", but the word, perhaps because it is unfamiliar to me, does not
carry in my mind the hostile implication.

We can alter the titles
>somewhat if doing so would be beneficial to us. I think that perhaps it
>would help for clarity though people seem to be clear on the subject that
>this does not have to be done. :)

Yes, I think that the praetor urbanus/praetor provinciae system works and is
perhaps preferable to alternatives, but will continue to cause confusion.
Maybe one/some of us should come up with a FAQ section explaining it, to
which people can point when a new citizen comes in like I did and gets all
hot under the collar about the Senate appointing praetors?
>
Valete

Gaius Marius Merullus

Subject:	Re: Praefecti/Hispania
From:	"Antonio Grilo" amg@--------
Date:	Thu, 4 Feb 1999 16:32:24 -0000

Salve

>The reason that I prefer "praefectus" over
>"legatus" is that the latter to me implies a subordinate military
commander,
>like Titus Labienus was Caesar's legatus in Gaul. If we use the title
>"legatus" for people appointed to administer provinces, it seems to my mind
>to imply that those provinces are hostile or contain elements that need to
>be pacified forcibly.
Not quite. Lusitania was completely pacified but had a Legatus Augusti pro
praetore.


Antonius Gryllus Graecus