Forum Romanum


Subject:	Barbarians in Nova Roma........
From:	"Stefaan" mercurius@--------
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 1999 00:25:20 +0100

> I am Marcus Virginius Julianus,

Heilsa Julianus!
>I am writing this because I feel that Barbarians are
> not getting any coverage in Nova Roma.
But this is Nova Roman and not Neue Uppsala ....

I am an ex-Asatruar who decided to listen to the call of the Gods of my
ancestors--the Romans. I am very much pro-Norse
Tradition/Asatru/Odinism/Vanatru but the reason why I joined Nova Roma was
specifically because it was "Roman". And as the Nova Roma website
describes: Nova Roma is dedicated to the restoration of Classical Roman
religion, culture, and virtues. The world of our "New Rome" (November 29,
1999) doesn't have Vikings.

Having "barbarians" incorporated into Nova Roma is just turning Nova Roma
from a group that is "dedicated to the restoration of Classical Roman
religion, culture, and virtues" into a group that is just playing
"make-believe that it is 2000 years ago". Or is this a only a re-enactment
group and I misread the website :-)

>and eventually sacked the very city that claimed rulership over them.
Uh-oh. Are you going to rally your cyber-barbarian friends and sack the
list? :-)

Waes hael!
Diana


Subject:	Vigintisexviri
From:	Decius Iunius Palladius amcgrath@--------
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 1999 00:23:38 -0500 (EST)

Salvete! I have reposted the Vigintisexviri below, with more mundane
descriptions of their duties than previously:

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

Vigintisexviri (The Twenty-Six). Collectively, the Twenty-Six
are minor magistrates elected to fulfill those necessary
functions as shall be assigned to them by law enacted by one
of the comitia. ALL are elected in the
*Comitia Populi Tributa and have 1 year terms of office.*

While these positions are considered minor magistrates and are not
historical (the rogator is historical, the others are not), they were
created to aid us communicate in the modern world and are considered vital
to the functioning of Nova Roma. These positions give one the
responsibilty far beyond one would normally expect in a junior magistrate.
There are no unimportant positions in Nova Roma.

8. Curator Araneum--Webmaster. 1 position. The curator araneum (overseer
of the web) shall be responsible for the design, expansion, and
maintenance of the official web site(s) sponsored by the State.
This person essentially keeps Nova Roma running electronically. It is one
of the most vital positions in all of Nova Roma and gives one experience
dealing with all levels of government and citizens and constantly trying
to keep up with their demands. It is a difficult but can give one the
experience and responsibility of a senior magistrate.

9. Curator Sermo--Moderator. 1 position. The curator sermo (overseer of
the conversation) shall be responsible for the maintenance and moderation
of the official email discussion list(s) sponsored by the State.
This person moderates the list and the forum discussion board as well as
from time to time, the forum chat room.

10. Curator Differum--Editor of the Eagle. 1 position. The curator
differum (overseer of the news) shall be responsible for the production,
publication, and distribution of the official publications sponsored by
the State. Currently this person puts together and publishes the Eagle.
Another

11. Rogatores--Vote counters. Two rogatores (voting officials) shall be
responsible for the administration of elections and the recording of votes
among the curia. These people independently count the votes cast in the
comitiae and report the results to the magistrate who called the comitia
to order.

Valete,

Decius Iunius Palladius,
Consul


Subject:	Open offices
From:	Decius Iunius Palladius amcgrath@--------
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 1999 00:26:14 -0500 (EST)

Salvete,

This is the list of all open offices. All but one elected magistrate
position is open, and that is one of the censor positions, which expires
next year.

Valete,

Decius Iunius Palladius,
Consul

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 21:54:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Decius Iunius Palladius <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=243232219108127031050199203252129208071" >amcgrath@--------</a>
To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
Cc: Decius Iunius &l--------href="/pos--------varoma?pro--------ID=014158113165021154015057190036129" &g--------a----------------&l--------&g--------br> Flavius Vedius Germa--------s <a href="/post/--------roma?protectID=123056091213158116036102228219114090071048139" >germa--------s@--------</a>

Subject: ELECTION Announcement

Salvete Cives! The campaign season is upon us. As of this moment, you may
officially announce your candidacy for any of the various offices open
for the coming year. (listed below) There are many and all are important.
Nova Roma needs your time and effort in the next year. All of the
offices have one year terms except for the one open censor position (my
position, whose term ends next month), which has a two year term. The
other censor position, held by Flavius Vedius Germanicus, has one year
remaining.

All positions are a commitment that will require an investment of your
time but Nova Roma can only benefit by your participation if you are
willing to give her your time. It is the only way that Nova Roma can
continue to grow and thrive.

If you have never held an office and would like to, I would suggest
(it is a suggestion only, not a requirement) that you run for a minor
magistracy. Every position at every level is important and it it will help
Nova Roma by keeping her running from the ground up. If you currently hold
a magistracy, then consider moving up the cursus honorum and run for
another office. Nova Roma needs your experience. Serve if you can!

(There is currently no law enforcing the cursus honorum, these are only
suggestions, fully in keeping with Roman political tradition. We frankly
do not have enough people with experience to enforce the cursus honorum
yet.)

The open offices are listed below, followed by the length of the term and
which comitia elects the position. The Comitia Plebis Tributa will be
convened by a Tribune of the Plebs; the Comitia Centuriata and the
Comitia Populi Tributa will each be convened by a consul.

TO ANNOUNCE YOUR CANDIDACY, publicly state you are running for an office
here on the list or in the forum message board. You may announce your
candidacy up until November 30, 6 PM (1800) Roman time, 1200 EST. At that
point, NO MORE CANDIDACIES WILL BE ACCEPTED. You may begin campaigning
immediately after announcing your candidacy.

Open Positions, Number of positions; Terms, Comitiae:

1. Censor; 1 open position; Two year term, Comitia Centuriata.

2. Consul; Two open positions; 1 year term; Comitia Centuriata.

3. Praetor. Two open positions; 1 year term, Comitia Centuriata.

4. Aediles Curules (Curule Aedile); Two open positions; 1 year
term; elected by the comitia populi tributa.

5. Quaestor; 8 open positions; 1 year term; comitia populi tributa.
(The number of quaestors is equal to the number of consuls,
praetors, and aediles)

The Following two offices are plebeian magistrates and can only be voted
on by plebeians:

6. Tribune of the Plebs. Two open positions; 1 year term; comitia plebis
tributa.

7. Aediles plebis (Plebeian Aedile); Two open positions; 1 year
term; comitia plebis tributa.

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

Vigintisexviri (The Twenty-Six). Collectively, the Twenty-Six
are minor magistrates elected to fulfill those necessary
functions as shall be assigned to them by law enacted by one
of the comitia. ALL are elected in the
*Comitia Populi Tributa and have 1 year terms of office.*

While these positions are considered minor magistrates and are not
historical, they were created to aid us communicate in the modern world
and are considered vital to the functioning of Nova Roma.

8. Curator Araneum. 1 position. The curator araneum (overseer of the web)
shall be responsible for the design, expansion, and maintenance of the
official web site(s) sponsored by the State.

9. Curator Sermo. 1 position. The curator sermo (overseer of the
conversation) shall be responsible for the maintenance and moderation of
the official email discussion list(s) sponsored by the State.

10. Curator Differum. 1 position. The curator differum (overseer of the
news) shall be responsible for the production, publication, and
distribution of the official publications sponsored by the State.

11. Rogatores. Two rogatores (voting officials) shall be responsible for
the administration of elections and the recording of votes among the
curia.

Good luck and good campaigning! Nova Roma needs you!

Valete,

Decius Iunius Palladius,
Consul of Nova Roma


Subject:	Re: Barbarians in Nova Roma........
From:	Decius Iunius Palladius amcgrath@--------
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 1999 00:51:22 -0500 (EST)

On Sun, 28 Nov 1999, Ira Adams wrote:

> From: Ira Adams <a hr--------/post/novaroma?prot--------D=210166080237038233015038190036129" >iadams@--------</a>
>
> Salve Lucius Cornelius,
>
> When I last looked, the Nova Roma Web site said that we were dedicated to
> reviving the Roman values and virtues of the Roman Republic. When was
> that expanded to include "all periods of Roman history?" Was this a
> decision made by the Comitiae and the Senate or is this just one person's
> reinterpretation of the charter?
>
> I'm certain many here will eagerly await your clarification on this.

Salve,

It is no one's reinterpretation of anything. The Nova Roman vision of
being the heir to all of Roman Pagan Civilization has been with us from
the very beginning. If you look at the old or the new Constitution, you
will find the following words:

"The primary functions of Nova Roma shall be to promote the study and
practice of pagan Roman civilization, defined as the period from the
founding of the City of Rome in 753 BCE to the removal of the altar of
Victory from the Senate in 394 CE and encompassing such fields as
religion, culture, politics, art, literature, language, and philosophy."

Vale,

Decius Iunius Palladius,
Consul


Subject:	Re: A Rome for all periods, was Barbarians in Nova Roma........
From:	SFP55@--------
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 1999 03:29:42 EST

In a message dated 11/28/99 9:14:35 PM Pacific Standard Time,
<a hr--------/post/novaroma?prot--------D=210166080237038233015038190036129" >iadams@--------</a> writ--------br>
<< Salve Lucius Cornelius,

When I last looked, the Nova Roma Web site said that we were dedicated to
reviving the Roman values and virtues of the Roman Republic. When was
that expanded to include "all periods of Roman history?" Was this a
decision made by the Comitiae and the Senate or is this just one person's
reinterpretation of the charter?

I'm certain many here will eagerly await your clarification on this.

Vale,

L. Sergius Aust.
>>
Salve Lucius Sergius
Actually Nova Roma encompasses the Early, Middle, Late Republic, Early Middle
and Late Principate. This is until the removal of the Altar of Victory, from
the temple and the implied setting aside of the old gods for the Christian
one.
No doubt if we could figure out how we could do it, we'd include the
Etruscian period as well.

Our offices are a mishmash of Middle and Late Republic. (No doubt the word
Imperator would be offsetting to a lot of people.) We glorify Rome's culture
through study, imitation, and portrayal. There is still much to be done. I
personally like to study the middle republic but I find myself tugged this
way and that.
Currently I'm studying the tables of XII (what rements remain) in attempt to
finish work on codification for online conduct in NR. But alas the work
proceeds slowly.
I hope this clarifies your confusion (if any) about NRs periods.
Vale
Q. Fabius Maximus (the gimp)


Subject:	ATTN: Re: Running for office?
From:	"Antonio Grilo" amg@--------
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 1999 11:53:35 -0000

Salvete Consul Palladi et omnes

I apologize for not having been available during the last few days... I also
did not notice that the deadline for candidacies was November 30...

In fact I wanted to present my candidacy, and will present it if for some
reason there is a prorrogation of the deadline. If not, I am open to receive
any needed senate appointment, otherwise, I will stick to improve my
missions as Propraetor Lusitaniae and now Pontifex.

One thing you can all be sure. I will keep working for Nova Roma, elected or
not, appointed or not.

Valete
Antonius Gryllus Graecus

-----Original Message-----
From: Decius Iunius Palladius <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=243232219108127031050199203252129208071" >amcgrath@--------</a>
To: Antonio Grilo <amg>
Date: Saturday, November 27, 1999 5:05 AM
Subject: Running for office?

>
>Salve! I notice that you have not declared a candidacy for any office yet.
>You are going to run for an office, aren't you?
>
>Vale,
>
>Palladius
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "Quis ita familiaris est barbaris,
> ut aram Victoriae non requirat!"
>
> Quintus Aurelius Symmachus
>
>
>
>
>
>


Subject:	AHAHAH!
From:	"Antonio Grilo" amg@--------
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 1999 12:21:19 -0000

I though today was December 2!!!! =)))))))))))))))))))))))))
It's just November 29th!

Of course I will present my candidacy! Ave Roma!
=)))))))))))))))

Valete
Antonius Gryllus Graecus


Subject:	Re: Interesting Site
From:	"Antonio Grilo" amg@--------
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 1999 12:55:51 -0000

Salvete

About the site <a href="http://www0.delphi.com/theol/mithras.html" target="_top" >http://www0.delphi.com/theol/mithras.html</a>...

Much things included there are a copy from the traditional authors such as
Cumont and Vermaseren and others. Nevertheless, many of these things are
unlikely such as the belief in Hell.
People should read a lot of authors (e.g David Ulansey) and analyse Mithraic
iconography impartially in order to build a more complete view of what is
currently known about this cult.

Valete
Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Pontifex


Subject:	Re: Barbarians in Nova Roma........
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 1999 08:38:36 EST

I did read that again and I have to admit it is not as clearly stated as
I remembered it. However, I also re-read the founding documents,
including both constitutions, and they state very clearly that it is the
Republic that is to be revived.

Additionally there have been numerous posts to this list by the Founders
in which it was stated that Nova Roma focuses on recreating the Rome of
the Republican period.

However, legalisms notwithstanding, I am at a loss as to why anyone would
want to emulate the period of Rome's deterioration and decline.

Perhaps we will need to hear from our new crop of candidates how each of
them stands on what parts of the Roman heritage are most deserving of
revival -- Cato or Caligula, which will it be?

BTW, Sulla, don't "hate saying this," -- it's a good idea for all civies
to re-read these things from time to time before waxing eloquent about
what we're about. Perhaps if you had re-read them before posting, you
wouldn't have said what you did.

Vale,

L. Sergius Aust.

On 11/28/99 11:19 PM RCW (<a hr--------/post/novaroma?prot--------D=243128192154082190130232203077129208071" >al--------us@--------</a>) wrot--------r>
>From: "RCW" <a hr--------/post/novaroma?prot--------D=243128192154082190130232203077129208071" >al--------us@--------</a>
>
>As much as I hate saying this, please read the www.novaroma.org/main.html.
>The very first sentence states: NOVA ROMA is an organization dedicated to
>the study and restoration of ancient Roman culture. From its legendary
>founding in 753 BCE to 330 CE, when it ceased to be the center of Imperial
>authority, Rome set the standard and laid the foundation for our modern
>Western civilization.
>
>I hope that answers your question.
>
>L. Cornelius Sulla
>Consul

certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.

(You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)


Subject:	Re: Barbarians in Nova Roma........
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 1999 08:38:38 EST

Salve Decius Iunius,

It does indeed appear to be a matter of interpretation, since the words
you kindly quote are clearly in conflict with the opening statements of
both the old and new constitutions, and with the declarations of
Germanicus and others when this questions has previously arisen here --
that Nova Roma is aimed at recreating the Republic and not the Empire.
While Roman culture encompasses the period from 753 to 394, the
_Republican_ period doesn't.

But beyond that, why would we want to emulate the period of Rome's
decline?

Vale,

L. Sergius Aust.

On 11/28/99 11:51 PM Decius Iunius Palladius (<a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=243232219108127031050199203252129208071" >amcgrath@--------</a>) wrote:

>Salve,
>
>It is no one's reinterpretation of anything. The Nova Roman vision of
>being the heir to all of Roman Pagan Civilization has been with us from
>the very beginning. If you look at the old or the new Constitution, you
>will find the following words:
>
>
>"The primary functions of Nova Roma shall be to promote the study and
>practice of pagan Roman civilization, defined as the period from the
>founding of the City of Rome in 753 BCE to the removal of the altar of
>Victory from the Senate in 394 CE and encompassing such fields as
>religion, culture, politics, art, literature, language, and philosophy."
>
>
>Vale,
>
>
>Decius Iunius Palladius,
>Consul

certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.

(You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)


Subject:	Re: A Rome for all periods, was Barbarians in Nova Roma........
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 1999 08:38:40 EST

Salve Quintus Fabius,

I am not confused (except as to why anyone wants to emulate the period of
Rome's degeneration and fall). Our documents are. However both
constitutions, and our founders' early postings to the list, clearly
state that we are focusing on reviving the Roman Republic. This change to
include the Empire in the recreation seems to represent a significant
alteration of the original plan. I am merely interested in learning when
and how it came about.

There have long been people here who openly expressed a preference for
the Imperial period -- I think you have been one of them. There was even
a thread concerned with whether we should include Byzantium.

It is the virtues of the Republic that the world needs from Rome -- not
the vices of the Empire. Our governmental structures are a "mishmash" of
efforts to adapt them to the modern world. I don't recall any of them
having been modified in order to conform to the practices of the Imperial
period.

Romans! Don't be seduced by the degenerates of the Empire! It's bad
enough that we've already let the corrupting Greek influence, with their
anthropomorphic Olympic deities, back into our pure and distinct Religio
Romana!

Now are we to invite more Caligulas? More Neros?

Stand firm for the virtues of the Republic! (Go naked under your togas?)

Let us know how our candidates stand on this issue -- Republic or Empire?
Virtue or degeneration? Glory or decline? What are we to stand for?

Valete,

L. Sergius Aust.

On 11/29/99 2:29 AM <--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=246157057089235135169082190036" >SFP55@--------</--------; (<--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=246157057089235135169082190036" >SFP55@--------</--------;) wrote:

>Salve Lucius Sergius
>Actually Nova Roma encompasses the Early, Middle, Late Republic, Early
>Middle
>and Late Principate. This is until the removal of the Altar of Victory,
>from
>the temple and the implied setting aside of the old gods for the Christian
>one.
>No doubt if we could figure out how we could do it, we'd include the
>Etruscian period as well.
>
>Our offices are a mishmash of Middle and Late Republic. (No doubt the word
>Imperator would be offsetting to a lot of people.) We glorify Rome's
>culture
>through study, imitation, and portrayal. There is still much to be done. I
>personally like to study the middle republic but I find myself tugged this
>way and that.
>Currently I'm studying the tables of XII (what rements remain) in attempt to
>finish work on codification for online conduct in NR. But alas the work
>proceeds slowly.
>I hope this clarifies your confusion (if any) about NRs periods.
>Vale
>Q. Fabius Maximus (the gimp)

certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.

(You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)


Subject:	Re: Re: Office descriptions - longish
From:	jmath669642reng@--------)
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 1999 08:49:15 -0500 (EST)

Salve. Rogator Merrullus;

I congratulate you on an excellent overview of the Nova Roman
Magistracies. You have demonstrated an excellent insight into the roles
of the offices and have experessed them well.

I also applaud your efforts at rallyng the NR membership to take part in
the government of NR. There are many things that need to be dealt with
in the coming year , and for that NR needs it's best people on the job.
In concert with Rogator Merrullus, I strongly urge that all members
consider the positions open to allow them to serve NR in the most
effective ways.

Citizens of NR, I also join with Rogator Merrullus in reminding all the
the Cursus Honorium was established in the Republic of Rome to provide a
growth of experience as well as to fill important positions within the
Republic in the governing of the state. It is not required to be sure,
but the obvious advantage of the concept must be clear to all, and the
service undertaken by a Magistrate is after all to the citizens of the
micro-nation and I believe that they have the right to the very best
magistrates who are available. I have found in my own experiene that
the Cursus Honorium has been extremely helpful to me in that regard, and
I support the instittion very strongly.

Vale;
Very Respectfully;
Marcus Minucius Audens
Praetor et Senator
Candidate For Consul

Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!


Subject:	Re: A Rome for all periods, was Barbarians in Nova Roma........
From:	"Antonio Grilo" amg@--------
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 1999 13:54:31 -0000

Salve

>I am not confused (except as to why anyone wants to emulate the period of
>Rome's degeneration and fall). Our documents are. However both
>constitutions, and our founders' early postings to the list, clearly
>state that we are focusing on reviving the Roman Republic.
Not quite. Documents state that WE ARE a REPUBLIC as a political system.
Nevertheless they also state either explicity or implicity that Nova Roma is
the HEIR of both Monarchic, Republican and Imperial Rome until Emperors
became officially christian.

>Romans! Don't be seduced by the degenerates of the Empire! It's bad
>enough that we've already let the corrupting Greek influence, with their
>anthropomorphic Olympic deities, back into our pure and distinct Religio
>Romana!
>
>Now are we to invite more Caligulas? More Neros?
>
>Stand firm for the virtues of the Republic! (Go naked under your togas?)
>
>Let us know how our candidates stand on this issue -- Republic or Empire?
>Virtue or degeneration? Glory or decline? What are we to stand for?
With all respect, are you becoming paranoyd =)? We are a REPUBLIC. We have
no vices of an Empire. Nevertheless, we are also magnanimous enough to
recognise both the good things and bad things that Roman Emperors have done.
We don't want Empire as a political system, but we cannot deny Empire as
part of our History, the History of Rome!

Valete
Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Senator, Magistratus et Pontifex


Subject:	SPQR (was Anthem & Question)
From:	"Nicolaus Moravius" n_moravius@--------
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 1999 06:04:35 PST

Salvete!

Scripsit Merullus:

>Salvete Nicolaue Moravi et alii
>
>I believe that SPQR, by bizarre Roman logic, actually stands for Senatus
>Populusque Romanus, which would seem to defy the simplest rule of Latin
>grammar, agreement of adjectives with nouns in number. Hey, I didn't make
>this stuff up.

Wow! (Vah!) Do you realise, O sons and daughters of Quirinus, that 'Senatus
Populusque Romanus' must therefore be of most ancient origin, dating back to
a time before Latin grammar was ever invented?
I can imagine Romulus himself saying (in between mouthfuls of boiled
turnip): "To Hades with word-endings! Full speed ahead!"

Then later, of course, our historic cultural forebears like Varro never
'corrected' the interpretation of the four letters, because to change such a
venerable tradition would have been sacriligeous.

See too, O friends and fellow-citizens, how such manly disdain for effete
cultural refinements like grammar links us across the millennia with Rome's
first founders... like us, they were busy, hardworking men, magistrates with
one hand on the plough and the other on a printout of the day's Main List
Digest, returning home in the evening to tap away on their wooden,
treadle-operated IBM PS/2s by lamplight, while their wives uncomplainingly
knitted their own togas etc.

In those primitive but vigorous times they had no leisure idly to copy
decadent fancy Greek flim-flams like case declensions. I can't think why
Cato himself never considered this :-).

Coniugete bene,

Vado.


Subject:	Re: SPQR (was Anthem & Question)
From:	"Antonio Grilo" amg@--------
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 1999 16:21:40 -0000

Salvete

In my opinion "Senatus Populusque Romanus" is in complete agreement with
Latin grammair (more specifically the way particle -que is used). I will
bring a definite answer to you tomorrow.

Valete
Antonius Gryllus Graecus

-----Original Message-----
From: Nicolaus Moravius <a --------="/post/novaroma?protectID=091089014007127031215056228219114187071048139" >n_moravius@--------</a>
To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a> <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
Date: Monday, November 29, 1999 2:05 PM
Subject: [novaroma] SPQR (was Anthem & Question)

>From: "Nicolaus Moravius" <a --------="/post/novaroma?protectID=091089014007127031215056228219114187071048139" >n_moravius@--------</a>
>
>Salvete!
>
>Scripsit Merullus:
>
>>Salvete Nicolaue Moravi et alii
>>
>>I believe that SPQR, by bizarre Roman logic, actually stands for Senatus
>>Populusque Romanus, which would seem to defy the simplest rule of Latin
>>grammar, agreement of adjectives with nouns in number. Hey, I didn't make
>>this stuff up.
>
>Wow! (Vah!) Do you realise, O sons and daughters of Quirinus, that 'Senatus
>Populusque Romanus' must therefore be of most ancient origin, dating back
to
>a time before Latin grammar was ever invented?
>I can imagine Romulus himself saying (in between mouthfuls of boiled
>turnip): "To Hades with word-endings! Full speed ahead!"
>
>Then later, of course, our historic cultural forebears like Varro never
>'corrected' the interpretation of the four letters, because to change such
a
>venerable tradition would have been sacriligeous.
>
>See too, O friends and fellow-citizens, how such manly disdain for effete
>cultural refinements like grammar links us across the millennia with Rome's
>first founders... like us, they were busy, hardworking men, magistrates
with
>one hand on the plough and the other on a printout of the day's Main List
>Digest, returning home in the evening to tap away on their wooden,
>treadle-operated IBM PS/2s by lamplight, while their wives uncomplainingly
>knitted their own togas etc.
>
>In those primitive but vigorous times they had no leisure idly to copy
>decadent fancy Greek flim-flams like case declensions. I can't think why
>Cato himself never considered this :-).
>
>Coniugete bene,
>
>Vado.
>
>>


Subject:	ATTN: Re: Running for office?
From:	"RMerullo" rmerullo@--------
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 1999 12:23:09 -0500

Salvete Antoni Grylle et alii

>From: "Antonio Grilo" <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=243232178003185091033082" >amg@--------</a>
>
>
>I apologize for not having been available during the last few days... I
also
>did not notice that the deadline for candidacies was November 30...

It's not too late. It's the 29th. Dont apologize -- run for office instead
:).
>
>In fact I wanted to present my candidacy, and will present it if for some
>reason there is a prorrogation of the deadline.

Huh? You don't need an extension of the deadline (yet), do you? You have a
day, Graece!

>One thing you can all be sure. I will keep working for Nova Roma, elected
or
>not, appointed or not.

I for one have no doubt :).
>
>Valete
>Antonius Gryllus Graecus
>
Valete

C Marius Merullus


Subject:	Re: AHAHAH!
From:	"RMerullo" rmerullo@--------
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 1999 12:26:18 -0500

Salvete Antoni Grylle et alii

>From: "Antonio Grilo" <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=243232178003185091033082" >amg@--------</a>
>
>I though today was December 2!!!! =)))))))))))))))))))))))))
>It's just November 29th!

All right, Graece, let's hear it: what has you so distracted :)?
>
>Of course I will present my candidacy! Ave Roma!
>=)))))))))))))))

For what office? Don't forget to send the declaration to the censores :)!

>
>Valete
>Antonius Gryllus Graecus
>
Valete

C Marius Merullus
curious and amused


Subject:	Dicing (not knuckle bones)
From:	Razenna razenna@--------
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 1999 10:30:11 -0800

Valete.

I have some questions about Roman dicing games. We know that our
modern dice, in design,
go back at least as far as the middle Etruscan period. We also know
that the Etruscans were
known as being very passionate about gambling, the story of their
origin attests to this, as does
all the dice found in their tombs. In my readings I have come across
many references to the
Romans of all stations gambling with dice. Unfortunately these
snippets and comments have
never formed together into a whole in my mind. So I ask the list
members:

How many dice did the Romans game with?
A six (6) was called Venus. What were the other dice throws called?
There was one called "the Dog(s)" and one called "Raven", but I do not

recall which ones they were.
When Romans were dicing as a form of gambling, was it similar to
"craps" or
was it a more involved game? [I do not know much at all about the
game "craps",
other than it is a game played with two dice, and what I've seen in
motion pictures.]
I have heard of things being marketed called "Roman Dice Game"s.
Does anyone have any knowledge of these? Are they truly ancient
Roman?
What are they?

Thank you for your indulgence.

Valete.
C. Aelius Ericius.


Subject:	Re: Office descriptions - longish
From:	"RMerullo" rmerullo@--------
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 1999 13:58:30 -0500

Salvete Luna et alii

>From: Jenn--------nt <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=029233253185018190112158203026129208071" >moonloon@--------</a>
>
>
>I'm game. I'd also be interested in helping out with the Eagle. I'm
>already copy editor for one journal, but I don't know much about desktop
>publishing, so I couldn't do the job myself. If someone wanted to take me
>on as a sort of apprentice, however, I'd be willing.
>
>So where does that put me?
>

Maybe in the position of choosing which magistracy is right for you at this
time. If I may be so bold, I would recommend that, having weighed the
magistracies, considering your talents, experience and time available for
commitment, you declare your candidacy for one. You can later offer your
services to assist a magistrate in another area of interest to you, as
scriba or accensa.

Just the suggestion of an observer, not assuming that I know what's right
for you. I wish you well in whatever decision that you make.

Valete

C Marius Merullus


Subject:	Re: Nova Roma needs you
From:	"RMerullo" rmerullo@--------
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 1999 14:22:17 -0500

Salvete Erici et alii

>From: Raz-------- <a hr--------/post/novaroma?prot--------D=194166216056078116169218163036129208" >raz--------@--------</a>
>
>
>

>It is my understanding from the past that some of the positions can not be
>filled by appointment.

Which ones? I don't remember anything like that from the constitution.
Actually, never mind my memory. Article V D of the constitution:

"Should a magistrate's office become vacant during the course of his term,
the Senate may appoint a replacement to serve out the remainder of the term
{!}should there be less than three months remaining therein{!}."

So, we're in a worse pickle than I thought, because we're looking at a
series of special elections conducted by two new consules (by the way, since
my term, and Fortunatus', end with this year, who is going to count the
votes in these special elections -- can magistrates in the central
administration be prorogued? -- I thought that that option was valid only
for provincial magistrates). Because the Senate does not have the power,
under the constitution, to appoint people for year-long terms. Folks, if we
don't fill the majority of these offices now as provided by the
constitution, another dictatorship is just around the corner.

Or, we could leave the offices vacant for a year as you suggest:

If there is no one for that post, they will be left
>empty
>until next year at this time. I'm sure that some of the positions would be
>filled
>in some way.

I only see three ways:

-- election in a special assembly (centuriata, plebis tributa or populi
tributa depending on the office to be filled)
-- appointment by Senate (only toward the end of the year, if at all, given
the limitation in the consitution)
-- dictatorial appoinment

As long as we have a few magistrates, including two censores, we could limp
along in some fashion I'm sure. But none of us should be surprised six
months from now when we look around and see that nothing has progressed.

>
>Thank you, Merullus, for you helpful response to my question.
>
My pleasure.

>Bene vale.
>
>C. Aelius Ericius.
>
Valete

C Marius Merullus


Subject:	ATTN - Candidacy announcement of Antonius Gryllus Graecus
From:	"Antonio Grilo" amg@--------
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 1999 19:46:36 -0000

Salvete cives

I hereby announce my candidacy to the office of Praetor.

I think that all of you know most of my work during the last year. I can
summarize it as follows:

1) Aedilis Plebis:
- Started the Ludi (public games) together with Curulis Aedilis Quintus
Fabius Maximus.
- Organized the Ludi Apollinaris (the Curator shall soon add the winner
texts to the NR Web site).
- Built an Web page on the Ludi to be added to the NR Web site (the Curator
will make it available soon).

2) Tribunus Plebis
- Protagonist on putting an end to the civil war of Nova Roma. Negotiated
secret talks between Marcus Cassius Iulianus and Gangalius.
- Accepted dictatorship of Flavius Vedius Germanicus with some reserve, but
became a supporter of the dictator once his competent work started to show
results.
- Contrary to the fears of many, I kept an eye on political stability. Where
I failed to legislate, I had no problem on quitting my ideas and taking into
account the ideas of others whenever the welfare of Nova Roma required it.

3) Propraetor Provinciae Lusitaniae
- Presented Nova Roma at the 3rd Congress of Peninsular Archaeology, at Vila
Real in September.
- As researcher on Roman Religion, I'm currently helping Legata Emilia
Camuna Britannia in her archaeologic study of the Serapaeum of Panoias.

4) Pontifex
- Started to build the Electronic Journal of Roman Religion which will be
available soon as an Web site. Gathered the support of important scholars
such as Dr. Jaime Alvar, Dr. Richard Robinson, Dr. Jose d'Encarnacao.
- Doing research on the cult of Mithras together with Cassius, the Pontifex
Maximus. Current work is likely to lead to scientific publication with an
original view on the theology of Mithras.

As such, I humbly ask for you vote in the upcoming elections.

Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Senator et Magistratus


Subject:	Re: Re: Nova Roma needs you
From:	Razenna razenna@--------
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 1999 12:10:21 -0800

RMerullo wrote:

> >From: Raz-------- <a hr--------/post/novaroma?prot--------D=194166216056078116169218163036129208" >raz--------@--------</a>
> >
> >It is my understanding from the past that some of the positions can not be
> >filled by appointment.
>
> Which ones?

I do not recall exactly. I do recall that this was stated during last year's
elections.By a Censor or a founding member.
Different constitution, but I believe both are similar on this issue. Which
doesn't
help in itself. NR has not had a full compliment of office holder yet, and with
the
"26" we will not have it yet. :-) We function. We keep going on. If the Senate
is able to
fill needed positions, okay. If we can have special elections, that could be
okay too --
except that it could give us an on going election cycle until all "must be
filled" positions
are filled. But this is really into the area of conjecture now. I simply
brought up what
I recalled from previous elections.

> Actually, never mind my memory. Article V D of the constitution:
>
> "Should a magistrate's office become vacant during the course of his term,
> the Senate may appoint a replacement to serve out the remainder of the term
> {!}should there be less than three months remaining therein{!}."
>
> So, we're in a worse pickle than I thought, because we're looking at a
> series of special elections conducted by two new consules (by the way, since
> my term, and Fortunatus', end with this year, who is going to count the
> votes in these special elections -- can magistrates in the central
> administration be prorogued? -- I thought that that option was valid only
> for provincial magistrates). Because the Senate does not have the power,
> under the constitution, to appoint people for year-long terms. Folks, if we
> don't fill the majority of these offices now as provided by the
> constitution, another dictatorship is just around the corner.
>
> Or, we could leave the offices vacant for a year as you suggest:
>
> If there is no one for that post, they will be left
> >empty
> >until next year at this time. I'm sure that some of the positions would be
> >filled
> >in some way.
>
> I only see three ways:
>
> -- election in a special assembly (centuriata, plebis tributa or populi
> tributa depending on the office to be filled)
> -- appointment by Senate (only toward the end of the year, if at all, given
> the limitation in the consitution)
> -- dictatorial appoinment
>
> As long as we have a few magistrates, including two censores, we could limp
> along in some fashion I'm sure. But none of us should be surprised six
> months from now when we look around and see that nothing has progressed.

Valete.C. Aelius Ericius.


Subject:	Re: Barbarians in Nova Roma........
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla alexious@--------
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 1999 12:11:15 -0800

Salve L. Sergius

But I do have to point out to you that there are many of our citizens that
prefer the Imperial Period. And I dont think that they would appreciate some
of your comments.

Both periods, the Republic and the Imperial Periods have their good points and
their bad points. To throw one out is to deny what Rome was! Let us not
disregard and write off part of our past. Remember those who do not remember
the past are condemned to repeat it. It is much better that we are
knowledgable about it. Than to ignore it as the poor ignorant step-child. :)

Besides, I while I personally enjoy the Late Republic, I also enjoy the
Imperial period up to Constantine. With that in mind, the book I am reading
now is the Fall of Rome, which specifically is dealing with the sack on 410 ce
by the Visigoths. The previous book I read was a book by Samuel Dill about The
History of Roman Society in the last Century of the Western Empire.

There is much we can learn from the entire History of Rome. I do not believe
we should alienate just becuase we dont agree with it. Remember, L. Sergius,
it took 500 years for the Empire to finally dissolve.

L. Cornelius Sulla
Consul

<--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=226107192180229130130232031248147208071048" >LSergAust@--------</--------; wrote:

> From: <--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=226107192180229130130232031248147208071048" >LSergAust@--------</--------;
>
> I did read that again and I have to admit it is not as clearly stated as
> I remembered it. However, I also re-read the founding documents,
> including both constitutions, and they state very clearly that it is the
> Republic that is to be revived.
>
> Additionally there have been numerous posts to this list by the Founders
> in which it was stated that Nova Roma focuses on recreating the Rome of
> the Republican period.
>
> However, legalisms notwithstanding, I am at a loss as to why anyone would
> want to emulate the period of Rome's deterioration and decline.
>
> Perhaps we will need to hear from our new crop of candidates how each of
> them stands on what parts of the Roman heritage are most deserving of
> revival -- Cato or Caligula, which will it be?
>
> BTW, Sulla, don't "hate saying this," -- it's a good idea for all civies
> to re-read these things from time to time before waxing eloquent about
> what we're about. Perhaps if you had re-read them before posting, you
> wouldn't have said what you did.
>
> Vale,
>
> L. Sergius Aust.
>
> On 11/28/99 11:19 PM RCW (<a hr--------/post/novaroma?prot--------D=243128192154082190130232203077129208071" >al--------us@--------</a>) wrot--------font>
>
> >From: "RCW" <a hr--------/post/novaroma?prot--------D=243128192154082190130232203077129208071" >al--------us@--------</a>
> >
> >As much as I hate saying this, please read the www.novaroma.org/main.html.
> >The very first sentence states: NOVA ROMA is an organization dedicated to
> >the study and restoration of ancient Roman culture. From its legendary
> >founding in 753 BCE to 330 CE, when it ceased to be the center of Imperial
> >authority, Rome set the standard and laid the foundation for our modern
> >Western civilization.
> >
> >I hope that answers your question.
> >
> >L. Cornelius Sulla
> >Consul
>
> certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.
>
> (You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)
>
>


Subject:	Re: A Rome for all periods
From:	Marius Fimbria legion6@--------
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 1999 14:24:55 -0600 (CST)

Salve, Sergi Austale, et salvete omnes...

[Disclaimer: The following are the opinions and responses of L Marius
Fimbria only, and do not in any way represent the official policies or
positions of Nova Roma, Nova Roma Inc., or the NovaRoma E-List.]

I am one of those cited who has openly expressed a preference for the
Imperial era; as such, I must take issue with some of the statements
and assumptions being made here about that era, to whit:

>I am not confused (except as to why anyone wants to emulate the period
>of Rome's degeneration and fall).

Is that all the age of Empire was to you, friend? With all due
respect, surely no one believes that Roman civilization was in a
continual state of decline, in *all* aspects, for going on four hundred
years! In many respects (such as law and administration), Rome did not
arrive at Her fullest potential until the Imperial period. I suppose,
as with much of human opinion, it all depends on whose ox was being
gored...

I am a Roman of the Provinces, Hispania Baetica to be exact. For
people like myself, the concepts of 'Rome' and 'Romanitas' were
meaningless until Iulius Caesar granted Citizenship to northern Italy
and certain inhabitants of Gaul and Spain. Your beloved Republic had
to go through the Social Wars before it would recognize even other
peninsular Italians as Citizens, and then the Senate relegated the 'new
hires' to the largest tribes and lowest classes in order to dilute
their votes!

Na, I remember the Republic best as a hotbed of exclusionism and
bigotry, corruption and political maneuverings; a Provincial
governorship was, for the appointee, merely 'My Year to Get Rich', and
the Catos of the Big City were telling the rest of us that we were not
really fit to be treated as human beings, let alone potential Romans.

It was only with the Empire that Citizenship became a live possibility
for large numbers of people all over the Mediterranean world. Indeed,
what 'makes' Rome for me--what I consider Her crowning achievement--was
Her ability (and, finally, after Republic's fall, Her willingness) to
take in other peoples, embrace other cultures, and give Her own in
exchange. This was so without precedent in the world; so unlike the
peevish little Greek City-states, each clutching its citizenship so
tightly to its breast that the poor thing suffocated for lack of new
blood!

Don't get me wrong: I am no fan of one-man government. Nova Roma
does, indeed, attempt to revive the Republican political structure, and
indeed has improved upon it in some respects. But civilization is much
more than politics; and Republican Roman civilization was too small to
welcome the likes of me. In law, in Provincial administration, in
development and support of the arts and sciences, in medicine, in
military science, in standard of living, and in cosmopolitanism, the
Empire had it all over the Republic. I see nothing wrong with doing as
the Romans did and emulating the BEST of both worlds.

>Romans! Don't be seduced by the degenerates of the Empire!

HEY!!! I Resemble That Remark!!!!! >({|;-)

In amicitia et fides,
************************************************************
Lucius Marius Fimbria |>[SPQR]<|
mka M�ria Villarroel |\=/|
<a href="/po--------ovaroma?protectID=034056178009193116148218000036129208" >legion6@--------</a> ( ~ 6 )~~~----...,,__
Roman Historical Re-Creationist `\*/, `` }`^~`,,, \ \
and Citizen of Nova Roma ``=.\ (__==\_ /\ }
'Just a-hangin' around the Universe, | | / )\ \| /
bein' a Roman... It's hard work, _|_| / _/_| /`(
but SOMEbody's gotta do it!!' /./..=' /./..'


Subject:	Re: A Rome for all periods,
From:	Marius Fimbria legion6@--------
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 1999 16:00:40 -0600 (CST)

Salvete iterum...

[Disclaimer: 'The following is the sententia of L Marius Fimbria in his
capacity as a private Citizen, and does not represent nor claim to
represent the official views of Nova Roma, Nova Roma Inc., or the
NovaRoma OneList.']

...More thoughts on the subject:

I had said that one's preference for Republic or Empire might depend
rather greatly on whose ox was being gored; allow me to explain:

History, it is said, is written by the winners; yet strangely enough,
Roman Imperial history seems to have been the exception as far as our
choice of contemporary authors is concerned. The most influential
Roman historians tended to be Senators--and the Republican Senate was,
of course, the institution that lost the most in the Augustan
settlement. Tacitus et alii are very valuable for telling us 'what
happened' and how the Senatorial class felt about it; but they cannot
be counted on to give an unbiased view of Imperial institutions.
Somewhat friendlier sources, like Pliny the Younger, tend to come from
the Provinces or from the ranks of the civil service--a thing that did
not even exist in Republican times, but became painfully necessary once
Roma had expanded Her horizons. So understand that a lot of what's
been passed down to us about the Empire has gone through a filter of
Senatorial envy at having been displaced in the scheme of things. (In
hindsight I can forgive the Senate; they got caught flat-footed by a
paradigm-shift, and they just weren't ready for it.)

The big winners, OTOH, were the Romans of the Provinces; for one thing,
they could actually *become* Romans, and 25 years in the Auxilia could
get you a Senate seat for your grandson. The power of this idea, this
*hope*, should not be underestimated as a force for cultural change
(Romanization). The presence of veterans' colonies helped; the
appointment of Provincial governors by the Emperor, instead of by that
querulous, self-centered Senate, helped; the creation of the appointive
civil service, to which anyone could aspire and in which anyone could
find useful work, helped immensely. (All of this was rabidly debated
and just as rabidly rejected by the Senate of the late Republic.) In
similar vein, the Provinces were not particularly affected by the
goings-on in any given Emperor's court; whether the City was witnessing
Caligula's rage or Vespasian's reforms, the Provinces went quietly
about their business.

I will say that, if we were being strictly-Republican about it, the
admission of new members from anywhere except the upper classes of the
City of Rome would be considered a dangerous weakening of the blood and
moral fiber of our micronation...a line of reasoning that some scholars
have tried to use to explain Rome's Fall, but which has always struck
me as being slightly bigoted. If Nova Roma truly hopes to attract and
retain Citizens from many lands and diverse cultures, She would do much
better to emulate the Empire in terms of Her attitude towards the
inhabitants of the Provinces.

>It is the virtues of the Republic that the world needs from Rome --
>not the vices of the Empire.

The Empire was not without virtues of its own, nor the Republic without
vice; the world needs the virtues of Rome, period, from the entire
1200-year span of Her history: Roman discipline, Roman virtue, Roman
practicality, Roman adaptability, Roman cosmopolitanism, and the
unremitting strength of Roman character...of which cosmopolitanism and
adaptability were far more in evidence during the Age of Empire.

Mea sententia...
************************************************************
Lucius Marius Fimbria |>[SPQR]<|
mka M�ria Villarroel |\=/|
<a href="/po--------ovaroma?protectID=034056178009193116148218000036129208" >legion6@--------</a> ( ~ 6 )~~~----...,,__
Roman Historical Re-Creationist `\*/, `` }`^~`,,, \ \
and Citizen of Nova Roma ``=.\ (__==\_ /\ }
'Just a-hangin' around the Universe, | | / )\ \| /
bein' a Roman... It's hard work, _|_| / _/_| /`(
but SOMEbody's gotta do it!!' /./..=' /./..'


Subject:	Re: A Rome for all periods
From:	"RMerullo" rmerullo@--------
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 1999 17:29:06 -0500

Salvete Fimbria et Australice et alii

This is one of those debates that can loop endlessly. I hope that noone is
holding his/her breath waiting for the "right" answer to come out of it.
I'll feed into the loop with this:

Like Australicus, I hold the Republic up as a golden age. I am all for
reviving Republican political structures, and religio romana as practiced in
the Republic. I consider the Latin language of Cicero and Caesar to be the
one to try to use (try is the operative word here).

At the same time, I believe that much of what Fimbria says about the
downsides of the Republic is true. Even in terms of religio romana, the
Republican elite seems to have dropped the ball, letting the position of
flamen dialis go empty for decades, for example. We in Nova Roma are by no
means the first people to try "to fix" the Roman Republic -- Augustus fixed
it first (destroying it in the process, I guess). In putting Nova Roma
together on the basis of the ancient Republic, we cannot ignore the fixes of
the past, including those of Augustus, and later emperors as well. If we
set out with the goal of recreating exactly the Roman Republic as it was at
any point in time, we shall fail (unless maybe we do it in miniature). If,
however, we try to adapt the institutions of the Roman Republic to work for
us today, borrowing from other periods of Roman history, and adding
innovation by consensus where we run into total blanks, we have at least a
fighting chance, I think.

A couple of questions, comments and tirades:

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

>

>
>I am a Roman of the Provinces, Hispania Baetica to be exact. For
>people like myself, the concepts of 'Rome' and 'Romanitas' were
>meaningless until Iulius Caesar granted Citizenship to northern Italy
>and certain inhabitants of Gaul and Spain.

Right. And the idea that an individual with no blood connection to a noble
Roman family could have worth is evident in Marius' speech during the war
against Iugurtha, as quoted by Sallustus. This idea, I think, was crucial
to the progression that resulted in extension of citizenship to other
Italians, and later the Roman "near abroad" to borrow a term that Russians
use a lot nowadays.

(To the extent that you're a Roman of Hispania Baetica, I may be a Samnite,
a Volscian, or a combination thereof -- with lots of Gaul and a tiny bit of
Germanus in there :))
>
>Na, I remember the Republic best as a hotbed of exclusionism and
>bigotry, corruption and political maneuverings;

Ah, but let us remember that Your beloved Caesar was a product of that
hotbed, as was Augustus. I would say that the chief reason that Augustus
succeeded, was his creation of the impression that he was mending, not
replacing, the broken republican institutions.

>
>Don't get me wrong: I am no fan of one-man government. Nova Roma
>does, indeed, attempt to revive the Republican political structure, and
>indeed has improved upon it in some respects. But civilization is much
>more than politics; and Republican Roman civilization was too small to
>welcome the likes of me. In law, in Provincial administration, in
>development and support of the arts and sciences, in medicine, in
>military science, in standard of living, and in cosmopolitanism, the
>Empire had it all over the Republic.

Ahhh, not necessarily. I for one am skeptical about the efficiency and
fairness of provincial administration during the years when series of
generals were battling over the power. How fair and efficient could their
deputies be, if they had no idea to whom to report legitimately? And,
standard of living no doubt reached a peak during the time of the
Julio-Claudian emperors, but started to head south subsequently. This is a
tough issue to examine, like you said, it depends whose ox is getting gored.
When were large-scale colliseum games last performed in Rome, and why? It
was not stopped because people grew out of enjoying the spectacle, I'd say,
so much as there was no longer money to go round up the beasts and prisoners
necessary for a really good round of entertainment -- the army and
bureaucracy were sucking up all the money. Why did Diocletianus have to
institute a caste system, which was later expanded by successors? Same
thing -- all the wealth was being devoured to support a military machine
that had ceased to bring in booty. And why didn't Diocletianus want his
palace on the Palatine, where one would assume it belonged? Probably
because Rome the city, the center of the religio romana, was becoming a
dirty, festering hole. Why couldn't he and other late emperors embark on
ambitious temple-building campaigns in Rome and revived public festivals to
strengthen religio romana, rather than imposing regimes of mandatory
sacrifice? Again, I'd say because the institution that was growing and
sucking up resources, the army, didn't leave enough for such proactive
approaches; they left only enough resources for people to stumble along in
fear, hatred and poverty, and devote themselves to traditions that promised
a glorious afterlife in lieu of a good life on this mudball. In addition to
the escalating costs of maintaining the army and provincial administration,
there was the frequent struggle for power among rival generals that would
surely have interrupted and effectively erased normal or positive
development of society. True, the struggles of Marius and Sulla, Caesar and
Pompeius, weakened the Republic; but in fact, military infighting continued
throughout the Empire, and weakened it too. And to top it off, the
ambitious generals of the Empire tended to have really long, annoying names,
so as to be totally incompatible with memorization, and thus continue to vex
us armchair historians to this day...

I see nothing wrong with doing as
>the Romans did and emulating the BEST of both worlds.

Right, let's not ignore the valuable developments of the Empire. But I for
one don't believe for a second that the Empire was, throughout history, a
joyous experience for all.
>
>>Romans! Don't be seduced by the degenerates of the Empire!

Right, let's not seduce ourselves with our own idealism. Both Republic and
Empire fell, let's try to identify and re-build those elements that we most
treasure and think will work.
>
Valete

C Marius Merullus
The opinions above are my own and do not reflect any official line, even
within gens Maria, obviously :).


Subject:	Re: SPQR (was Anthem & Question)
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 1999 20:33:12 EST

Salve,

You bring to mind a modern observation of mine -- that many of the people
with whom I work are totally unfamiliar with the vocabulary and many of
the grammatical niceties of the English that I and other professional
people speak here, and obviously often don't understand much of what
we're talking about. In effect, they speak a dialect that is much
different from ours, and the assumption that we share a common language
is really a pretty shakey one. Oftentimes they actually seem to focus on
familiar words and miss overall point. But they nod their heads and say
they understand.

Given what seems to be the greater complexity and subtlety of Latin
grammar, I can't help but suspect that the common people of Rome probably
had a similar language barrier when it came to communicating with the
educated upper classes. Probably many of the people in the Forum didn't
grasp half of what Cicero was saying in his oratories! Sophistication of
language may have been an important determinant of social stratification
and upward mobility (and lack of it).

Just a thought -- probably not even appropriate to the topic at hand.

Vale,

L. Sergius Aust.

On 11/29/99 8:04 AM Nicolaus Moravius (<a --------="/post/novaroma?protectID=091089014007127031215056228219114187071048139" >n_moravius@--------</a>) wrote:

>From: "Nicolaus Moravius" <a --------="/post/novaroma?protectID=091089014007127031215056228219114187071048139" >n_moravius@--------</a>
>
>Salvete!
>
>Scripsit Merullus:
>
>>Salvete Nicolaue Moravi et alii
>>
>>I believe that SPQR, by bizarre Roman logic, actually stands for Senatus
>>Populusque Romanus, which would seem to defy the simplest rule of Latin
>>grammar, agreement of adjectives with nouns in number. Hey, I didn't make
>>this stuff up.
>
>Wow! (Vah!) Do you realise, O sons and daughters of Quirinus, that 'Senatus
>Populusque Romanus' must therefore be of most ancient origin, dating back to
>a time before Latin grammar was ever invented?
>I can imagine Romulus himself saying (in between mouthfuls of boiled
>turnip): "To Hades with word-endings! Full speed ahead!"
>
>Then later, of course, our historic cultural forebears like Varro never
>'corrected' the interpretation of the four letters, because to change such a
>venerable tradition would have been sacriligeous.
>
>See too, O friends and fellow-citizens, how such manly disdain for effete
>cultural refinements like grammar links us across the millennia with Rome's
>first founders... like us, they were busy, hardworking men, magistrates with
>one hand on the plough and the other on a printout of the day's Main List
>Digest, returning home in the evening to tap away on their wooden,
>treadle-operated IBM PS/2s by lamplight, while their wives uncomplainingly
>knitted their own togas etc.
>
>In those primitive but vigorous times they had no leisure idly to copy
>decadent fancy Greek flim-flams like case declensions. I can't think why
>Cato himself never considered this :-).
>
>Coniugete bene,
>
>Vado.

certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.

(You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)


Subject:	Re: Re: A Rome for all periods,
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 1999 20:33:10 EST

Salve Lucia Fimbria,

Thank you very much for your very thoughtful and erudite response to my
provocative rhetoric. And thank you for recognizing (I think) the humor
intended in it.

Honestly, I think that the seeds of Rome's fall were sown in her
beginnings with the special privileges reserved for the patrician class,
by the lack of meaningful participation in government by the "capite
censi," by the later infusion of huge amounts of wealth from foreign
conquests, by the corruption of personal and public morals, and of Roman
religion, by foreign ideas, and by the Republic's failure to protect
itself from the influence of "great" men who used the state as a tool to
serve their own personal ends (the "fuhrerprinzip" or "cult of
personality" that has also brought down more modern nations and is
currently eating away at the USA).

Lots was done wrong during the Republican era and lots was done right
(now and then) during the Principate and the Empire.

I do think that the virtues espoused on our Web site are genuinely
important and deserve more than lip service, and I think that those faded
rapidly with the fading of Republican Rome. I would honestly much rather
see us revive a Roman Republic and not a Principate or an Empire. And, as
I mentioned earlier, that is what our constitutions, old and new, say we
are doing.

For some reason, at this point I am reminded of what B. Franklin is
reported to have said in response to a question about the form of the new
government adopted for the American colonies "A republic -- if you can
keep it."

Rome didn't keep it, and America seems to be losing it. Who knows, maybe
Nova Roma can make it work?

Keep up the good work.

Vale,

L. Sergius Aust.

certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.

(You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)


Subject:	Re: Barbarians in Nova Roma........
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 1999 20:33:08 EST

Salve Lucius Cornelius,

This deserves to be answered in detail.

On 11/29/99 2:11 PM Lucius Corn--------s Sulla (<a hr--------/post/novaroma?prot--------D=243128192154082190130232203077129208071" >al--------us@--------</a>) wrot--------r>
>From: Lucius Corn--------s Sulla <a hr--------/post/novaroma?prot--------D=243128192154082190130232203077129208071" >al--------us@--------</a>
>
>Salve L. Sergius
>
>But I do have to point out to you that there are many of our citizens that
>prefer the Imperial Period. And I dont think that they would appreciate some
>of your comments.
I truly do not understand how a preference for one or another period in
the development of an ancient nation-state could honestly be the cause of
friction between grown-ups in the present age.

>Both periods, the Republic and the Imperial Periods have their good points
>and
>their bad points. To throw one out is to deny what Rome was! Let us not
>disregard and write off part of our past. Remember those who do not remember
>the past are condemned to repeat it. It is much better that we are
>knowledgable about it. Than to ignore it as the poor ignorant step-child.
> :)
I think one or both of us has misinterpreted/misunderstood the statements
of the other. Of course Rome had both good things and bad going on during
all stages of her history. And of course I don't propose any such thing
as to "throw out" any part of that history. Indeed, it is important to
look at and learn from the bad things -- the more so because we don't
want to repeat them if we can avoid it. I was originally responding to
what I thought was your assertion that Nova Roma is dedicated to
recreating/reviving all of the history of Rome. I don't think most of us
want to find ourselves subject to some "Emperor" or "Princeps." (The
incident of the dissolution of Nova Roma, followed by Germanicus'
dictatorship, was close enough to that, at least in one respect -- but we
needn't "go there" again.) The modern micronation we are creating is a
republic. That's what I was trying to point out.

>Besides, I while I personally enjoy the Late Republic, I also enjoy the
>Imperial period up to Constantine. With that in mind, the book I am reading
>now is the Fall of Rome, which specifically is dealing with the sack on
>410 ce
>by the Visigoths. The previous book I read was a book by Samuel Dill
>about The
>History of Roman Society in the last Century of the Western Empire.
I, too, enjoy readings from all periods of Roman history, although I am
most interested in the late Republic period and the Principate.

>There is much we can learn from the entire History of Rome. I do not believe
>we should alienate just becuase we dont agree with it. Remember, L. Sergius,
>it took 500 years for the Empire to finally dissolve.
Agreed.

>L. Cornelius Sulla
>Consul

L. Sergius Aust.

certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.

(You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)


Subject:	Dicing (not knuckle bones)
From:
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 1999 21:00:14 -0500

Salve Ericius

For information on Roman gaming I highly recommend this site.
<a href="http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/w/x/wxk116/roma/rbgames.html" target="_top" >http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/w/x/wxk116/roma/rbgames.html</a>
of particular intrest would be the pages dedicated to TESSERAE
<a href="http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/w/x/wxk116/roma/tesserae.html" target="_top" >http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/w/x/wxk116/roma/tesserae.html</a>
And TALI & TROPA
<a href="http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/w/x/wxk116/roma/tali.html" target="_top" >http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/w/x/wxk116/roma/tali.html</a>

Bene Valete, Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus
Mars nos Protegis!

Message: 14
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 10:30:11 -0800
From: Raz-------- <a hr--------/post/novaroma?prot--------D=194166216056078116169218163036129208" >raz--------@--------</a>
Subject: Dicing (not knuckle bones)

Valete.

I have some questions about Roman dicing games. We know that our
modern dice, in design,
go back at least as far as the middle Etruscan period. We also know
that the Etruscans were
known as being very passionate about gambling, the story of their
origin attests to this, as does
all the dice found in their tombs. In my readings I have come across
many references to the
Romans of all stations gambling with dice. Unfortunately these
snippets and comments have
never formed together into a whole in my mind. So I ask the list
members:

How many dice did the Romans game with?
A six (6) was called Venus. What were the other dice throws called?
There was one called "the Dog(s)" and one called "Raven", but I do not

recall which ones they were.
When Romans were dicing as a form of gambling, was it similar to
"craps" or
was it a more involved game? [I do not know much at all about the
game "craps",
other than it is a game played with two dice, and what I've seen in
motion pictures.]
I have heard of things being marketed called "Roman Dice Game"s.
Does anyone have any knowledge of these? Are they truly ancient
Roman?
What are they?

Thank you for your indulgence.

Valete.
C. Aelius Ericius.


Subject:	Re: Barbarians in Nova Roma........
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla alexious@--------
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 1999 18:19:28 -0800

<--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=226107192180229130130232031248147208071048" >LSergAust@--------</--------; wrote:

> From: <--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=226107192180229130130232031248147208071048" >LSergAust@--------</--------;
>
> Salve Lucius Cornelius,
>
> This deserves to be answered in detail.
>

Sulla: I believe it has been answered in complete detail by myself, L. Marius
Fimbria, by Decius Iunius Palladius. What else do you want?

>
> On 11/29/99 2:11 PM Lucius Corn--------s Sulla (<a hr--------/post/novaroma?prot--------D=243128192154082190130232203077129208071" >al--------us@--------</a>) wrot--------font>
>
> >From: Lucius Corn--------s Sulla <a hr--------/post/novaroma?prot--------D=243128192154082190130232203077129208071" >al--------us@--------</a>
> >
> >Salve L. Sergius
> >
> >But I do have to point out to you that there are many of our citizens that
> >prefer the Imperial Period. And I dont think that they would appreciate some
> >of your comments.
> I truly do not understand how a preference for one or another period in
> the development of an ancient nation-state could honestly be the cause of
> friction between grown-ups in the present age.
>

Sulla: Well by you stating to "throw out the period of decline and fall of Rome,"
can cause friction between grown-ups. We all strive together to incorporte the
best of Republican and Imperial periods. That in a nutshell is what we are trying
to do. Thus the front page of the Nova Roma site (and I do not believe that that
statement has changed since the very first day of Nova Roma) cites the entire
timeframe that we cater too. That being 753 bce to 330 ce. What part of the Nova
Roma Main website do you not understand?

>
> >Both periods, the Republic and the Imperial Periods have their good points
> >and
> >their bad points. To throw one out is to deny what Rome was! Let us not
> >disregard and write off part of our past. Remember those who do not remember
> >the past are condemned to repeat it. It is much better that we are
> >knowledgable about it. Than to ignore it as the poor ignorant step-child.
> > :)
> I think one or both of us has misinterpreted/misunderstood the statements
> of the other. Of course Rome had both good things and bad going on during
> all stages of her history. And of course I don't propose any such thing
> as to "throw out" any part of that history. Indeed, it is important to
> look at and learn from the bad things -- the more so because we don't
> want to repeat them if we can avoid it. I was originally responding to
> what I thought was your assertion that Nova Roma is dedicated to
> recreating/reviving all of the history of Rome. I don't think most of us
> want to find ourselves subject to some "Emperor" or "Princeps." (The
> incident of the dissolution of Nova Roma, followed by Germanicus'
> dictatorship, was close enough to that, at least in one respect -- but we
> needn't "go there" again.) The modern micronation we are creating is a
> republic. That's what I was trying to point out.
>

Sulla: What I said was regarding the incorporation of various other peoples who
lived in the Roman Republic and in the Roman Empire. I specifically stated we are
not a reenactment group. But that we strive to incorporate all periods of Roman
History. Again, please go back and reread what I typed. As a matter of fact I
will reinclude it here:

(Taken from my post dated Sunday 3:39 pm)

Sulla: Nova Roma's point of historical reference goes from the Republic era
to the Imperial Era. With that in mind, it does incorporate the time frame
where citizenship was granted to everyone. Nova Roma is not a re-enactment
group. We are a micronation dedicated to establishing our sovernigty in
today's modern world. With that in mind, Nova Roma is striven to
incorporate all periods of Roman History, from 753 bce - 395 ce. As we all
know from history the term Roman has definately changed and evolved from the
time of the Early Republic til the time of Caracalla when he granted
citizenship to everyone in the Empire. There might be specific differences
in each one of us, but in the end what binds us all together is our love of
Roman Culture and Virtues. Nova Roma is very much like ancient Rome, we
have people of different religious beliefs, different cultures and different
norms....but our belief in the Res Publica and the Spirit that was and now
is Rome binds us together.

>
> >Besides, I while I personally enjoy the Late Republic, I also enjoy the
> >Imperial period up to Constantine. With that in mind, the book I am reading
> >now is the Fall of Rome, which specifically is dealing with the sack on
> >410 ce
> >by the Visigoths. The previous book I read was a book by Samuel Dill
> >about The
> >History of Roman Society in the last Century of the Western Empire.
> I, too, enjoy readings from all periods of Roman history, although I am
> most interested in the late Republic period and the Principate.
>

Sulla: As do I. :)

>
> >There is much we can learn from the entire History of Rome. I do not believe
> >we should alienate just becuase we dont agree with it. Remember, L. Sergius,
> >it took 500 years for the Empire to finally dissolve.
> Agreed.
>

Sulla: I am glad we agree here. :)

L. Cornelius Sulla
Consul


Subject:	Friends, Romans, Micro-countrypersons -- announcement of candidacy
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 1999 21:39:42 EST

Salvete Omnes,

I, Lucius Sergius Australicus, hereby announce that I stand for the
office of Tribune of the Plebs. Having previously held off from
involvement in public office for a number of reasons, including wanting
to see how the nation would shake out following the dissolution and
reestablishment of the past year, I think now is the time to get more
directly involved.

Historically the office of Tribunis Plebis has been an important one, and
sometimes a violently controversial and confrontative one. Interestingly,
it is one of the few features of Roman Republican government that the
Founding Fathers of the United States chose not to copy. One wonders how
the history of the U.S. might have differed had they incorporated it...
But I digress (often!).

Although we don't have the mortal conflict between patrician and plebian
that Roma Antiqua suffered, and some suggest that we don't really need
the Tribuni Plebii, I think this can be a useful magistracy in helping to
maintain communication between differing groups and cliques within Nova
Roma. Occasionally, there may still be a need for a magistrate empowered
to stand up for the underdog and the out-of-favor.

I think I can honestly say that I will not be a part of any cliques or
special interest group -- it would go against my ornery, iconoclastic
nature. I do have a quirky, sometimes sharp-edged sense of humor, which
sometimes raises other peoples' ire. But I generally mean well. ;-)

Background: I am a dual national -- Australian and U. S. -- thanks to
Hitler, Tojo, Roosevelt, the Congress of the United States, and the
hormones of young men and women in wartime. I grew up on military bases
as the dependent of an officer in the Air Defense Command. I am the head
of the Psychology Department in a state-operated mental health facility.
I have a doctorate in clinical psychology and a background in physics,
math, and vertebrate biology, with a smattering of philosophy and
history. I could go on, but I don't see much relevance to doing so.

I thanks all for their consideration of my candidacy.

Valete,

Lucius Sergius Australicus

certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.

(You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)


Subject:	Re: Barbarians in Nova Roma........
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 1999 21:39:44 EST

Salve again Lucius Cornelius,

Looking back through your original post on this topic, I don't see where
it says what I thought I was responding to. Hence it is I who seem to
have misinterpreted your words. Please accept my apology for my careless
reading.

(But it did make for a short, fine discussion, didn't it? ;-) )

Vale,

L. Sergius Aust.

certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.

(You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)


Subject:	Re: Barbarians in Nova Roma........
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla alexious@--------
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 1999 18:49:10 -0800


Subject:	Re: Barbarians in Nova Roma........
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 1999 22:00:44 EST

On 11/29/99 8:19 PM Lucius Corn--------s Sulla (<a hr--------/post/novaroma?prot--------D=243128192154082190130232203077129208071" >al--------us@--------</a>) wrot--------r>
>From: Lucius Corn--------s Sulla <a hr--------/post/novaroma?prot--------D=243128192154082190130232203077129208071" >al--------us@--------</a>
>
>
>
><--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=226107192180229130130232031248147208071048" >LSergAust@--------</--------; wrote:
>
>> From: <--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=226107192180229130130232031248147208071048" >LSergAust@--------</--------;
>>
>> Salve Lucius Cornelius,
>>
>> This deserves to be answered in detail.
>>
>
>Sulla: I believe it has been answered in complete detail by myself, L.
>Marius
>Fimbria, by Decius Iunius Palladius. What else do you want?
So you propose to answer your own posts? Learn to read, Sulla, before you
presume to lecture to me! Although, considering that this whole thread
started when I mis-read you, maybe we're even at this point!

>
>>
>> On 11/29/99 2:11 PM Lucius Corn--------s Sulla (<a hr--------/post/novaroma?prot--------D=243128192154082190130232203077129208071" >al--------us@--------</a>) wrot--------font>
>>
>> >From: Lucius Corn--------s Sulla <a hr--------/post/novaroma?prot--------D=243128192154082190130232203077129208071" >al--------us@--------</a>
>> >
>> >Salve L. Sergius
>> >
>> >But I do have to point out to you that there are many of our citizens that
>> >prefer the Imperial Period. And I dont think that they would appreciate
>some
>> >of your comments.
>> I truly do not understand how a preference for one or another period in
>> the development of an ancient nation-state could honestly be the cause of
>> friction between grown-ups in the present age.
>>
>
>Sulla: Well by you stating to "throw out the period of decline and fall
>of Rome,"
>can cause friction between grown-ups. We all strive together to
>incorporte the
>best of Republican and Imperial periods. That in a nutshell is what we
>are trying
>to do. Thus the front page of the Nova Roma site (and I do not believe
>that that
>statement has changed since the very first day of Nova Roma) cites the entire
>timeframe that we cater too. That being 753 bce to 330 ce. What part of
>the Nova
>Roma Main website do you not understand?
Don't worry -- there won't be anything posted on the Web site that _I_
won't understand. A number of other people seem to have trouble grasping
it, however, because it isn't really as straightforward as you want to
make it out to be.

Yes it does mention the whole span of Roman history, but it also
specifies in many places that it is a republic that is to be recreated.
We've been talking at cross-purposes here, Sulla -- got it now? We're
talking about different things. Up to this point I've enjoyed the debate,
but you seem unable to debate a point without getting personally nasty
somewhere along the way. Although it's tempting to respond further in
kind, that's too easy and too childish, and I choose to drop it here. My
side of this conversation is over.

Bona Fortuna!

L. Sergius Aust.

certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.

(You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)


Subject:	Re: Dicing (not knuckle bones)
From:	Razenna razenna@--------
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 1999 19:32:06 -0800

Thanks, Cincinatus, this is something. It adds a fair amount to what
I have
even if there are still a number of the holes still left. Maybe it is
just another
one of those pieces of Lost Knowledge.
This site:
<a href="http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/w/x/wxk116/roma/tali.html" target="_top" >http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/w/x/wxk116/roma/tali.html</a>
in particular had some new material for me. Mostly it is about the
bone game, but
the names for some of the throws are there. Dogs being ones is what I
had read
elsewhere. Venus as six, with the bones it is a total sum of six.
The birds, "Vultures"
or "Ravens", is for the throwing objects being all of the same number
seems logical if
viewed as a "flock" of that number. Unfortunately there is not a
straight connection to names
for dice throws from the names for knucklebones. (BTW: "bones" is
still a nickname
for dice in some quarters.)
One problem I have with the sites is that the author has a few
glitches in his writing.
e.g. when he says, "The only difference between these Roman dice and
modern dice is that
the numbers were arranged such that any two opposite sides would add
up to seven."
But modern dice and ancient dice, going back even for the Etruscan
examples, have exactly
this characteristic in common.
The Heads or Ships coin toss game reminds me of one that some
Australian friends
talked about playing. [look at the site ;-) ]
Maybe the answer to the Dice Question is lost. I have run
into a number of dice games
through the years, so it is not simply that it is a matter of there
not being much on an answer
in the first place. Still, it seems as though there is more
information on knucklebones than on dice.
As with all things pertaing in to Roma, the search goes on,
and I've got to read more of that site.
And thank you again, Equitius.

Valete.
Iovi Pater conservis nos.
C. Aelius Ericius


Subject:	Re: A Rome for all periods,
From:	Marius Fimbria legion6@--------
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:08:37 -0600 (CST)

Salve iterum, Luci Sergi!

>Thank you very much for your very thoughtful and erudite response to
>my provocative rhetoric. And thank you for recognizing (I think) the
>humor intended in it.

You're very welcome; and, yes, I did at least suspect your purple prose
of having humorous intent. (I think I can trust my fellow Nova Romans
not to spout the same moralizing rot that drove me out of Sunday School
in a huff--or at least not to mean it seriously if they do!) >({|;-)

>...the Republic's failure to protect itself from the influence of
>"great" men who used the state as a tool to serve their own personal
>ends...

Again, I'm no hero-worshipper...but it seems to me this matter of
'great men' can be looked at from more than one angle; here's mine:

The Republican Senate for much of its history was a meritocracy; its
members all men who had served the State in some capacity. That they
were all Patrician to begin with only reflected the limitation of the
right to hold office to men of that class. Of course, as Plebeians won
the right to Consulship and other offices, 'noble Plebeians'
(Consulars) became eligible for the Senate; and Censorial review of
Citizens' economic status also provided a mechanism for upward
mobility--a rare thing indeed in the ancient world.

However, sometime between the Carthaginian Wars and the time of Gaius
Gracchus, the Senate went from being a responsible governing body to
one of those self-perpetuating committees one sees so much of in
American government these days. The chief concern of its most
influential members was to maintain their office and therefore their
influence; the chief concern of the back-benchers was to be seen with
the right 'heavy hitters'. Eventually the system choked on its own
inertia; and the people who really wanted to get things done were
forced to resort to other-than-constitutional means.

I think most of the late Republic's 'great men' might have actually
become exemplary Romans and Senators in an earlier time, a time still
open to talent and willing to grant same its appropriate recognition.
But in that final century-and-a half before the Great Change, a
remarkable man could not get anywhere 'through channels'--so most of
them chafed, then rebelled, then blazed their own trails...with fatal
consequences to the State as it then existed.

Frustrated talent is a dangerous thing.

>For some reason, at this point I am reminded of what B. Franklin is
>reported to have said in response to a question about the form of the
>new government adopted for the American colonies "A republic -- if you
>can keep it."

The republican form of government has not historically proven suited to
governing a diverse population spread out over a wide area. It's
worked fine for city-states and small nation-states and clusters of
ex-colonies; but in the past it has been something less likely to be
preserved than to be outgrown... For this reason, I am not wedded to
any particular form of government except the one that works. Nova Roma
is working right now. I hope it will continue to do so after our next
change-of-command; perhaps we can then expand Her horizons a bit...

>Keep up the good work.

Thank you! I've enjoyed this discussion very much! >({|:-)
************************************************************
Lucius Marius Fimbria |>[SPQR]<|
mka M�ria Villarroel |\=/|
<a href="/po--------ovaroma?protectID=034056178009193116148218000036129208" >legion6@--------</a> ( ~ 6 )~~~----...,,__
Roman Historical Re-Creationist `\*/, `` }`^~`,,, \ \
and Citizen of Nova Roma ``=.\ (__==\_ /\ }
'Just a-hangin' around the Universe, | | / )\ \| /
bein' a Roman... It's hard work, _|_| / _/_| /`(
but SOMEbody's gotta do it!!' /./..=' /./..'


Subject:	Hotlinks.com
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla alexious@--------
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:01:10 -0800

Salvete Omnes.

Many of us have various links to various web sites. There is a site,
located at hotlinks.com where you can post bookmarked websites where you
and others can view them. For example if you search for Alexious, you
can see my bookmarks. I hope many of you start accounts and we can each
swap websites that we all enjoy.

Vale!

L. Cornelius Sulla
Consul