Forum Romanum


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Ca-ca-cacography
From:	"Razenna " <razenna@-------->
Date:	Tue, 05 Sep 2000 00:33:27 -0000


Subject:	[Fwd: [novaroma] Re: Ca-ca-cacography]
From:	<gmvick32@-------->
Date:	Mon, 04 Sep 2000 20:03:10 -0600


Subject:	[novaroma] Razenna-hahaha
From:	<gmvick32@-------->
Date:	Mon, 04 Sep 2000 20:07:01 -0600


Subject:	[novaroma] Gens Ulleria address
From:	Megas-Robinson <amgunn@-------->
Date:	Mon, 04 Sep 2000 21:43:41 -0500


Subject:	[novaroma] (unknown)
From:	"Redd" <jsimmons@-------->
Date:	Wed, 23 Aug 2000 23:41:37 -0700


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Fascist Rome
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <amg@-------->
Date:	Tue, 5 Sep 2000 10:36:07 +0100

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/968146908/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Salve Feste

>Rome's glory was the unparalleled Pax Romana, maintained by the force of
>Roman might and cunning under the principate. Imperial Rome gave the world
>the pax romana and the so-called "Golden and Silver" ages of art and
>literature. In these things, the corrupt Republic, ripped by endless civil
>wars and nearly lost by the incompetence and short sightedness of the
>senatorial class {and aided by richer plebs}. Rome was spared this and
went
>on to leave it's lasting mark, not by senatorial squabbling, but by the
>leadership of great men such as Julius and Augustus.
Well, the fall of Rome occured during the Principate too. The military
anarchy of the 3rd century AD due to the wars between the generals stroke a
blow on the Empire, of which it would never recover.

><<It is, moreover, a view commonly held among ancient historians that as
soon
>as ancient Rome ceased to expand (which happened under Hadrian), she
entered
>into the phase of crises in holding the frontier which eventually brought
>down the western
>empire.>>
>
>I hope the proponents of this view are not suggesting that Rome's ceasing
to
>expand brought her down. Perpetual expansion is not possible. In fact, it
>expanded too much, causing a strain on the military needed to secure the
>frontiers. A larger army requires more revenue, which in turn requires
more
>taxation. et al.
That's why Empires cannot escape their fate. Empires rise, expand, stop
expanding and fall. This is the rithm of the Universe. It happened to every
nation in History.

><<...but local government, far
>from being centrally controlled, was in a system of civitates each of which
>was a miniature Republic with its own elected magistrates and its own
laws.>>
>
>There is nothing incompatible with fascism here. The question is, from
where
>did these localities recieve these rights?
>They recieved them from the central government, and the central authority
>could alter, abolish, or restore these as it deemed fit. When the emperor
>Gaius told the Jews to set up his statue in their temple, they had no
>recourse to law. They could not sue Gaius or his government on the grounds
>that he was exceeding his authority. All they could do was send a
delegation
>to him *asking* he change his mind and withdraw the order. Rome could
allow
>a measure of self-government, or step in and turn the place into an
imperial
>province under Rome's direct control.
Yes, but I'm happy that you have mentioned the Jews. Do you know that the
"Roman" writer Josephus fought against the Romans at Jerusalem? He lived to
tell the story. Would that happen under a 20th century fascist regime?

>There are reasons why the Emperor might allow a limited self-government,
none
>of which deny the reality of the Emperors power. It can be expedient. A
>large empire is more difficult to micro-manage than a locality. So as long
>as the city or province does not counter Rome's will, some self-rule in
local
>affairs is practical and takes some burdon off Romes shoulders. But that
>burdon could be re-assumed at the will of the Emperor.
>Another reason is that in a large empire, the emperor will find himself
>ruling people of various cultures. Later fascist states were not nearly so
>large or long lived, and so this was not as much of an issue as it was for
>the Roman state. Taking a cue from the example of the Persians, the Romans
>would find it easier to control if they tried a policy of respecting local
>cultures instead of quashing them {a la the Assyrians}. But the
practicality
>of this approach in no way diminishes the power of the fascist Roman state.
Yes, but it comes against the definition of fascism, which states that the
central government has absolute power and must be obeyed. If the Romans had
followed the fascist definition, many a province would have revolted.

> Praetor Graecus brings up the freedom of speech and of belief in
ancient
>Rome as a proof that Rome was not fascistic. But I would ask the Praetor
if
>he would exercise such freedom of speech to criticize Tiberius in the later
>part of his reign?
I talked about freedom to discuss abstract ideas. One was free to criticize
Dictatorship and praise Democracy as long as the statements were purely
academic. Of course no one would dare to openly criticize the Principate
under the more autocratic Emperors.

> So, was the Roman Empire fascist? Yes. It had all the ingredients of
>fascist rule. A single ruler in whom rested supreme power, in command of
the
>military, with propaganda emphasizing the supremacy of the state over the
>individual in the form of temples to the emperors genius, temples to Roma,
>coinage proclaiming his virtues {real or imagined}, secret police and
>informers, and no way to democratically remove the ruler. The castrated
>senate could proclaim Nero a public enemy...ONLY with a new emperor like
>Galba leading an army to the city. Nothing republican in a coup or
military
>revolt. The word 'fascist' was coined in the 19th century, but its essence
>was already present in the Roman Empire.
But not the essence of turning men into stupid war machines. Unlike the
Spartan state (which you can better compare to fascism), conscription did
not exist from the late Republic onward (conscription came to be necessary
again in the later period). The people was not militarised, which was in
fact one of the reasons that lead to decadence.
So, even if the Roman Principate falls under the cathegory of Fascism, it
must be separated from 20th century fascism for many reasons:
1) The Arts and Philosophy flourished because human beings were considered
humans and not machines.
2) The Military functions were separated from the Civil functions. Military
functions were entrusted to professionals while the people was generally not
required to receive military training.
3) There was no genocide of other peoples. Instead, other peoples were
gradually assimilated and given the right of Roman citizenship.
4) There was no racism.
5) There was no destruction of other cultures. Instead, the Empire was based
on the respect of diversity. Fore example, foreign cults were allowed to
share the honours with the native Roman Gods.

Vale
Antonius Gryllus Graecus


Subject:	[novaroma] Roman quilts and other arts
From:	"pjane@-------- " <pjane@-------->
Date:	Tue, 05 Sep 2000 11:47:26 -0000


Subject:	[novaroma] Textile Arts
From:	"Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@-------->
Date:	Tue, 5 Sep 2000 07:13:16 -0500


Subject:	[novaroma] Fw: Fascist Rome
From:	"Robert Williamson" <robert@-------->
Date:	Tue, 5 Sep 2000 09:39:28 -0400


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Textile arts
From:	Megas-Robinson <amgunn@-------->
Date:	Tue, 05 Sep 2000 09:02:07 -0500

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Kids tested. Mom approved. And Dad liked it because
he got his loan approved in under 60 seconds.
Find out how. Click below
http://click.egroups.com/1/8423/8/_/61050/_/968163159/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Hailsa Porcia

Redd wrote:
>
> Ave,
> On to kinder and gentler discussions....
>
> Is anyone familiar with the textile arts of the Romans? (snip)
>
> Porcia

I'm not too familiar with any of the Roman "soft" arts. But, am always willing to look for info for others. I'll post
what I find. For a start though, you may want to go to Stefan's Florilegium. It is a collection of posts from Society
for Creative Anachronism related BBS's and Usenet postings. The SCA may not be the most rigorous of the historical
re-creationists out there, but I've found some very well read folk in my 26 years "playing" with them.

http://www.florilegium.org/

This is a link to a specificaly Ancient Clothing site, it may have bedding links?

http://www.uky.edu/ArtsSciences/Classics/diopeplos.html

Other than that, I have nothin to offer at this time.

In Officium - Venator

Post Scriptum: No worries about the private post, my e-box is always open.


Subject:	[novaroma] Roman Textile links
From:	Megas-Robinson <amgunn@-------->
Date:	Tue, 05 Sep 2000 09:42:51 -0500


Subject:	[novaroma] Livy on fasces
From:	Piscinus@--------
Date:	Tue, 5 Sep 2000 10:48:55 EDT

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Special Offer-Earn 300 Points from MyPoints.com for trying @Backup
Get automatic protection and access to your important computer files.
Install today:
http://click.egroups.com/1/6347/8/_/61050/_/968165345/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Gn. Moravius Piscinus Quiritibus SPD:

When the Ten exceeded their authority, plundering the Roman people,
scourging and beheading some, confiscating the land of others, using the
courts to seize free-women as chattel, murdering those who spoke out against
them, Livy especially pointed out that among their many crimes they had
brought fasces into the city of Rome itself.
Tradition held that fasces composed of bundled elm rods, from which
axheads protruded, were not permitted anywhere inside the pomerium of the
city wall. It was considered sacrilege. Inside the city, lictors only bore
bundles of rods. And when they escorted a magistrate into any assembly of
the people, the lictors lowered these bundles, in recognition that true
sovereignty in Rome rested with the people rather than with any magistrate.
When Appius Claudius attempted to have his lictors seize Valerius and
Horatius it was the people assembled who took the lictor's fasces and broke
their rods.

That which we in Nova Roma most admire in ancient Rome, that which we
seek most to emulate as the virtues of Romanitatis, that which we honor by
establishing Nova Roma, are all to be found in the Republic of Rome. Do we
praise Tarquinius Superbus, or Brutus? Do we praise Coriolanus who sought to
have the people of Rome give up their rights, to put aside their Tribunes, or
do we praise Veturia, Volumnia and the women of Rome who marched against his
treachery? Is it Kaeso Quinctius and his thugs attacking Tribunes, coercing
praetors, murdering the poor and the ill, who then fled when faced by trial
before the people, that we should praise? Or is it rather his father,
Quinctius Cincinnatus? Once ruined by his son's flight, do we praise
Cincinnatus for being raised again to dictator or, when his duty completed,
because he laid down the powers entrusted to him by the people of Rome?
When the sons of the leading Falerii were delivered by treachery to the
Roman commander Camillius, he responded in part by saying, "Neither the
general nor the people of Rome, to whom you have brought this wicked gift,
are like you...War has laws even as peace, and to these laws we have learnt
obedience." Ancient Romans understood where their duty lay, and how to stand
together against those who abused the law and would steal their liberty and
their freedom. They knew what was sacred. They knew from where true
sanctity was derived. They understood what sovereignty was, too, and from
whence it was derived. And they knew what true courage was, honoring it in
every story they told.
The Republican Rome, so long as it still held men of courage, virtue and
honor, would not become a fascist state. Fascists hold such values contempt,
as they hold their fellow citizens. Fascists are ignorant of what the
"state" means, that the state is composed of all the people and not just
some. They try to disenfranchise or otherwise eliminate whole groups of the
people from the body politic. Fascism, after all, is a minority movement,
dedicated to impose the will of a few on the whole populace. Fascists are
cowards who fear open forums. They murder those who speak against them,
brutalize those who would listen, burn books that hold ideas they cannot
understand. Fascists are lowly cowards who have to rely on brute force, name
calling, vulgarity, and derision rather than informed discussion. The very
concept of an open and free exchange of ideas is alien to fascists. Fascists
are paranoid cowards who prefer to hide in isolation, lurking in shadows,
rather than risk exposing their fragile personas in a free society.

In the end, it could be argued, the fascists did seize Rome. The Gracchi
Tribunes were murdered. Treasonous Sulla raised an army and marched on Rome
just as Mussolini was to do in 1922. Sulla, the first fascist dictator to
impose himself on Rome, who maintained his power solely through the use of
military power and thugs to oppress his own people. In doing so he set the
example whereby politics in Rome turned into a constant series of civil wars
between factions in an ever shrinking ruling class. The legacy of the
fascist regimes, even in ancient Rome, were brutality, violence, constant
strife, oppression. Sulla, Caesar, and Commodus, Franco, Mussolini, and
Hitler, Somoza, Pinochet, Castillo Armas, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, and all
such sullatorios in the end have only managed to destroy their own societies.
The political legacy that has endured from Rome, the Roman people and
Roman civilization was not the fascist aspects of their culture. The
principles of law, the rule of law, respect for the law, and the underlying
principle that law is a compact between all people within a society, are the
principles of Republican Rome. This is the legacy of Rome that forms the
basis of today's Western political culture. The rights of every citizen to
free speech and free assembly, redress of wrongs in a court of law, the
publication of laws and the equal application of law to every citizen, were
first won by Romans standing up for their rights. The plebeians who
assembled in peaceful protest during the Sacred Mount secessions, individuals
and Tribunes like Macer, the Gracchi, Sicinius, Volero Publius, who stood in
public to voice their dissent, offering themselves in self-sacrifice for the
cause of freedom, those are the true heroes of Rome who have inspired people
in Alabama, India, South Africa, Burma and everywhere. This is the legacy of
Republican Rome that endures and inspires the World today.
Which face of ancient Rome is now to inspire and guide Nova Roma? Do we
cherish the stories told by Livy, or are we to believe the self serving lies
of Sulla's accounts? Shall we submit to another would-be Sulla? Or should
we stand in the forum as a free people to shout down the sullatorios?


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Fascist Rome
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Mon, 4 Sep 2000 23:10:14 +0200

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Free @Backup service! Click here for your free trial of @Backup.
@Backup is the most convenient way to securely protect and access
your files online. Try it now and receive 300 MyPoints.
http://click.egroups.com/1/6348/8/_/61050/_/968171166/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Salve Feste,

> Rome's glory was the unparalleled Pax Romana, maintained by the force of
> Roman might and cunning under the principate. Imperial Rome gave the
world
> the pax romana and the so-called "Golden and Silver" ages of art and
> literature. In these things, the corrupt Republic, ripped by endless
civil
> wars and nearly lost by the incompetence and short sightedness of the
> senatorial class {and aided by richer plebs}. Rome was spared this and
went
> on to leave it's lasting mark, not by senatorial squabbling, but by the
> leadership of great men such as Julius and Augustus.

What is your point here? Do you mean it takes dictators to run a state
efficiently? It's a fact that the republic was totally corrupted in its
last era, but that was due to the many conflicting people we now see as
great, such as Marius, Sulla, Cicero, Caesar, Pompeius, Antionius,
Cleopatra and Octavianus. Also, it was the century in which the new era of
Roman artists dawned, such as Vergilius, Catullus, Horatius and Tibullus.
It was a turbulent period because there we so many problems, and, at the
same time, so many men with talent at work. "Senatorial squabbling" is
therefore a too broad generalization in my taste.

> <<(b) In any case, the principate was in no sense fascist. The
> central state was a disguised military regime...>>
>
> Fascist states are military regimes, disguised or not.

That does not mean that all regimes with a large army are fascist. Rome had
no real police officers, except for maybe the aediles, but for law
enforcement they usually used the army, whereas most modern countries have
a police force �nd an army.

> There is nothing incompatible with fascism here. The question is, from
where
> did these localities recieve these rights?
> They recieved them from the central government, and the central authority

> could alter, abolish, or restore these as it deemed fit. When the
emperor
> Gaius told the Jews to set up his statue in their temple, they had no
> recourse to law. They could not sue Gaius or his government on the
grounds
> that he was exceeding his authority. All they could do was send a
delegation
> to him *asking* he change his mind and withdraw the order. Rome could
allow
> a measure of self-government, or step in and turn the place into an
imperial
> province under Rome's direct control.
> There are reasons why the Emperor might allow a limited self-government,
none
> of which deny the reality of the Emperors power. It can be expedient. A

> large empire is more difficult to micro-manage than a locality. So as
long
> as the city or province does not counter Rome's will, some self-rule in
local
> affairs is practical and takes some burdon off Romes shoulders. But that

> burdon could be re-assumed at the will of the Emperor.
> Another reason is that in a large empire, the emperor will find himself
> ruling people of various cultures. Later fascist states were not nearly
so
> large or long lived, and so this was not as much of an issue as it was
for
> the Roman state. Taking a cue from the example of the Persians, the
Romans
> would find it easier to control if they tried a policy of respecting
local
> cultures instead of quashing them {a la the Assyrians}. But the
practicality
> of this approach in no way diminishes the power of the fascist Roman
state.

You keep coming with examples of mad emperors, and I'm sure that you'll
find much more madness. Next thing we hear about is Nero with his burning
christians and Caligula that killed people for fun. However, not *all*
emperors were crazy. Moreover, your examples have no relevance to Nova
Roma, since NR is trying to revive the republic, not the principate. The
emperors were more fascist than their republic counterparts, but that may
also be one of the reasons why NR tries to revive the *republic*.

> Praetor Graecus brings up the freedom of speech and of belief in
ancient
> Rome as a proof that Rome was not fascistic. But I would ask the Praetor
if
> he would exercise such freedom of speech to criticize Tiberius in the
later
> part of his reign? Some emperors were very autocratic; others less so.
All
> of them had the power to be so. It boils down to the individual
emperor's
> style. Tiberius was very tolerant in the first half of his reign. When
he
> began to use the treason laws, the picture changed. Because a ruler has
a
> certain power does not mean that the ruler will necessarily USE that
power.
> Roman law once allowed the power of life and death by the Paterfamilias
over
> his whole family. But were Roman dads executing their children right and

> left? Roman fathers could contract marriages for their children. The
law
> did not require them to get the consent of their children first. But did
all
> of them exercise this power? In the same way each emperor could relax or

> tighten the reins of government as he saw fit. Emperors endorsed or
> suppressed religious sects as they saw fit, depending on their own views
as
> to wheher or not such sects were treasonous to the state.

That is correct, of course, but Tiberius is again an example of an
*emperor*. But in this paragraph you are actually contradicting your own
thesis of the fascist Rome. What you are basically saying is that Rome had
it in her, by her constitution, to *become* fascistic in the hands of the
wrong people.

<snip>

> So, was the Roman Empire fascist? Yes. It had all the ingredients
of
> fascist rule. A single ruler in whom rested supreme power, in command of
the
> military, with propaganda emphasizing the supremacy of the state over the

> individual in the form of temples to the emperors genius, temples to
Roma,
> coinage proclaiming his virtues {real or imagined}, secret police and
> informers, and no way to democratically remove the ruler. The castrated
> senate could proclaim Nero a public enemy...ONLY with a new emperor like
> Galba leading an army to the city. Nothing republican in a coup or
military
> revolt. The word 'fascist' was coined in the 19th century, but its
essence
> was already present in the Roman Empire.
>
> We may give Augustus Caesar credit for this. His brilliance was in
> creating a system which continued to have the forms of the Republic, but
in
> which the Princeps held the real powers. In his hands lay the consular,
> tribunician, censorial and praetorian powers. He, like Julius before
him,
> had no reason to call themselves 'King'---they already had the powers of
a
> king without need for the title. So as to avoid offending the
sensibilities
> of the aristocracy and the people, he allowed the forms to remain,
proclaimed
> himself as "Savior of the Republic", while in truth he buried the carcass
of
> the inept and decayed republic. In one of my favorite lines from the TV
> production of I'Claudius, Livia says to Julia, "Your father follows the
> forms. It's very important. Romans like to think they govern
themselves".
> In truth however, they did not except in such areas as was ALLOWED them
by
> the Emperor. The Pax Romana was the most successful and long lived
Fascist
> state the western world has seen.

Regardless of the fact that the examples you give are usually
overgeneralizations, you seem to approve of your view of the fascist Rome.
Why are you defending that view with so much fire? I take it you became a
citizen of NR because you are a sincere admirer of Rome - which you see as
a fascist state. And I see you nowhere condemning fascism, too. Does that
mean you expect NR to become a fascist state? I hope not.

Vale,
Sextus Apollonius Draco, civis Novae Romae,
Wind Dragon, ICQ# 32924725
--**--
"There is no knowledge that is not power"
"Imagination is more important than knowledge"
--**--


Subject:	Fw: [novaroma] Fw: Fascist Rome
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <amg@-------->
Date:	Tue, 5 Sep 2000 17:49:06 +0100


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Livy on fasces
From:	"yquere" <yquere@-------->
Date:	Tue, 5 Sep 2000 20:01:12 +0200

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/968176408/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Ave Moravio Piscine Quiritibe,

I would like to thank you publically for these lines.
I think that some of your words should be added to the mainpage of NR
website. It seams to me that your note is the genuine example of the pure
roman virtues.
Besides your rethoric is impressive: concise, efficient and stirring.
I think you deserve much of every citizen's thanks and admiration for that.
Be sure that you've got mine.

I must admit that the initial mail about facism appalled me. I even
considered some of the words unbearable at the point I had a private
argument with the author. I feared for a while eventual connection between
Nova Roma and new facist movements. I doubted for a while, I even thought
about resignation, but I was still waiting to read the reaction of other
citizens. Your message fills me up with hope and pride that these true roman
virtues, that I praise, are really shared by a great number of us.

Maxima Gratia Deorum Tibiscum

Vale
Ianus Querius Armoricus

----- Original Message -----
From: <Piscinus@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 4:48 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Livy on fasces

>
> Gn. Moravius Piscinus Quiritibus SPD:
>
> When the Ten exceeded their authority, plundering the Roman people,
> scourging and beheading some, confiscating the land of others, using the
> courts to seize free-women as chattel, murdering those who spoke out
against
> them, Livy especially pointed out that among their many crimes they had
> brought fasces into the city of Rome itself.
> Tradition held that fasces composed of bundled elm rods, from which
> axheads protruded, were not permitted anywhere inside the pomerium of the
> city wall. It was considered sacrilege. Inside the city, lictors only
bore
> bundles of rods. And when they escorted a magistrate into any assembly of
> the people, the lictors lowered these bundles, in recognition that true
> sovereignty in Rome rested with the people rather than with any
magistrate.
> When Appius Claudius attempted to have his lictors seize Valerius and
> Horatius it was the people assembled who took the lictor's fasces and
broke
> their rods.
>
> That which we in Nova Roma most admire in ancient Rome, that which we
> seek most to emulate as the virtues of Romanitatis, that which we honor by
> establishing Nova Roma, are all to be found in the Republic of Rome. Do
we
> praise Tarquinius Superbus, or Brutus? Do we praise Coriolanus who sought
to
> have the people of Rome give up their rights, to put aside their Tribunes,
or
> do we praise Veturia, Volumnia and the women of Rome who marched against
his
> treachery? Is it Kaeso Quinctius and his thugs attacking Tribunes,
coercing
> praetors, murdering the poor and the ill, who then fled when faced by
trial
> before the people, that we should praise? Or is it rather his father,
> Quinctius Cincinnatus? Once ruined by his son's flight, do we praise
> Cincinnatus for being raised again to dictator or, when his duty
completed,
> because he laid down the powers entrusted to him by the people of Rome?
> When the sons of the leading Falerii were delivered by treachery to
the
> Roman commander Camillius, he responded in part by saying, "Neither the
> general nor the people of Rome, to whom you have brought this wicked gift,
> are like you...War has laws even as peace, and to these laws we have
learnt
> obedience." Ancient Romans understood where their duty lay, and how to
stand
> together against those who abused the law and would steal their liberty
and
> their freedom. They knew what was sacred. They knew from where true
> sanctity was derived. They understood what sovereignty was, too, and from
> whence it was derived. And they knew what true courage was, honoring it
in
> every story they told.
> The Republican Rome, so long as it still held men of courage, virtue
and
> honor, would not become a fascist state. Fascists hold such values
contempt,
> as they hold their fellow citizens. Fascists are ignorant of what the
> "state" means, that the state is composed of all the people and not just
> some. They try to disenfranchise or otherwise eliminate whole groups of
the
> people from the body politic. Fascism, after all, is a minority movement,
> dedicated to impose the will of a few on the whole populace. Fascists are
> cowards who fear open forums. They murder those who speak against them,
> brutalize those who would listen, burn books that hold ideas they cannot
> understand. Fascists are lowly cowards who have to rely on brute force,
name
> calling, vulgarity, and derision rather than informed discussion. The
very
> concept of an open and free exchange of ideas is alien to fascists.
Fascists
> are paranoid cowards who prefer to hide in isolation, lurking in shadows,
> rather than risk exposing their fragile personas in a free society.
>
> In the end, it could be argued, the fascists did seize Rome. The
Gracchi
> Tribunes were murdered. Treasonous Sulla raised an army and marched on
Rome
> just as Mussolini was to do in 1922. Sulla, the first fascist dictator to
> impose himself on Rome, who maintained his power solely through the use of
> military power and thugs to oppress his own people. In doing so he set
the
> example whereby politics in Rome turned into a constant series of civil
wars
> between factions in an ever shrinking ruling class. The legacy of the
> fascist regimes, even in ancient Rome, were brutality, violence, constant
> strife, oppression. Sulla, Caesar, and Commodus, Franco, Mussolini, and
> Hitler, Somoza, Pinochet, Castillo Armas, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, and
all
> such sullatorios in the end have only managed to destroy their own
societies.
> The political legacy that has endured from Rome, the Roman people and
> Roman civilization was not the fascist aspects of their culture. The
> principles of law, the rule of law, respect for the law, and the
underlying
> principle that law is a compact between all people within a society, are
the
> principles of Republican Rome. This is the legacy of Rome that forms the
> basis of today's Western political culture. The rights of every citizen
to
> free speech and free assembly, redress of wrongs in a court of law, the
> publication of laws and the equal application of law to every citizen,
were
> first won by Romans standing up for their rights. The plebeians who
> assembled in peaceful protest during the Sacred Mount secessions,
individuals
> and Tribunes like Macer, the Gracchi, Sicinius, Volero Publius, who stood
in
> public to voice their dissent, offering themselves in self-sacrifice for
the
> cause of freedom, those are the true heroes of Rome who have inspired
people
> in Alabama, India, South Africa, Burma and everywhere. This is the legacy
of
> Republican Rome that endures and inspires the World today.
> Which face of ancient Rome is now to inspire and guide Nova Roma? Do
we
> cherish the stories told by Livy, or are we to believe the self serving
lies
> of Sulla's accounts? Shall we submit to another would-be Sulla? Or
should
> we stand in the forum as a free people to shout down the sullatorios?
>
>
>


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Livy on fasces
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <amg@-------->
Date:	Tue, 5 Sep 2000 19:03:07 +0100


Subject:	[novaroma] [Fwd: [RomanDaysWest] FAQ III]
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@-------->
Date:	Tue, 05 Sep 2000 08:24:21 -0700


Subject:	[novaroma] ATTN: Poem by Marcus Minucius Audens available at the Cameneum
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <amg@-------->
Date:	Tue, 5 Sep 2000 20:11:48 +0100


Subject:	[novaroma] "Fascist Rome"
From:	Mike Macnair <MikeMacnair@-------->
Date:	Tue, 5 Sep 2000 15:23:07 -0400

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/968181825/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Salvete!

I am happy to see that Festus' extraordinary claims about the "fascist"
character of the Roman Principate are the result of a profound ignorance
about the nature of fascism. Hopefully when Festus learns more about
fascism he will find it less attractive.

There are many different kinds of non-democratic state forms - the Greeks,
for example, recognised hereditary monarchies, oligarchies, and tyrannies
created by usurpers - and of non-democratic political ideology - for
example, seventeenth century English divine right monarchism and nineteenth
century US Southern slaveowner conservatism. Military dictatorships, like
that of Pinochet in Chile and many others at different times in Latin
American history, often arise ad hoc because the generals are outraged by
disorder or by some particular event, and think they can do better than the
politicians, without any particular ideology.

Fascism is a particular (and particularly twentieth-century) ideology which
definitely opposes ideas of democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of
law, countering with the ideas that (1) all politics is founded in the
conflict of wills, which must be resolved by the role of the strongman
leader (Duce, Fuhrer, etc.); and (2) only nations can have a collective
will and life, thus opposing culture-mixing and advocating a politics of
"national unity" and "national strength". It is as true of Mussolini's
Italy as it is of Hitler's Germany that this ideology leads to attempts to
create a "total" or "totalitarian" state led from the top downwards and
seeking to mobilise and educate the state's population in the political
ideas of fascism. Monarchists and Conservatives, as well as democrats,
could oppose fascism.

Caesar and after him Augustus, like the modern generals, were led to
concentrate power in their own hands by responding ad hoc to contingent
events in the complex factional struggles of late Republican Rome. This is
the message both of Syme's classic The Roman Revolution, and of Gruen's
equally classic and opposed The Last Generation of the Roman Republic. So
far as Augustus' regime had an ideology, it was of "renovatio rei
publicae". The Principate slid into a hereditary character interrupted by
assassinations, usurpations and civil wars, but retained the ideological
claim that the principes were merely holders of tribunician authority and
proconsular imperium (and some other offices) appointed by the Senate.

Diocletian and the Tetrarchs abandoned this ideology, but proved unable to
replace it. Under Constantine and more clearly Constantius, and the
restored Christian regime after the death of Julian, it was replaced by
Christian divine right monarchy. THIS regime did tend towards
totalitarianism, attempting to extirpate paganism and heresy and to
prescribe that e.g. farmers may not leave their land, sons must follow
their fathers' profession, and so on. But this was still not a "fascism".
The Republic was still a memory under the Principate: the Christian
Dominate looked to the Kings of Old Testament Israel as their antecedents.
They did not legitimise themselves by the "failure of democracy". Nor were
they nationalists, but Christian universalists who supported attempts to
convert the barbarians.

As to some specific points, Festus wrote:

>Imperial Rome gave the world the pax romana and the so-called "Golden and
Silver" ages of art and
>literature. In these things, the corrupt Republic, ripped by endless
civil wars ...

The "Golden Age" of latin literature is usually taken to include the
authors of the Republic, - Sallust, Cicero, Lucretius, Caesar, etc., - and
those of the age of Augustus, when the republic was a recent memory which
Augustus claimed to have restored - Virgil, Horace, Livy, Ovid ... As to
the pax romana, it is as true of the Empire as of the Republic (as of any
state known to history) that "peace is the ideal which we deduce from the
fact that there have been intervals between wars".

>>local government, far from being centrally controlled, was in a system of
civitates each of which
>>was a miniature Republic with its own elected magistrates and its own
laws.>>

>There is nothing incompatible with fascism here. The question is, from
where did these localities recieve these rights?
>They recieved them from the central government, and the central authority
could alter, abolish, or restore these as it deemed fit.

As to where rights are received from, this is as true of American or
British local government as of Roman local government. There is however an
important practical difference between self-government under laws which are
only occasionally violated (by lunatics like Gaius) and government by
Gauleiter or local Fascist party boss - or, as tended to happen in the
Dominate, by the Bishop in collaboration with the tax officials and the
agentes in rebus secret police. If Festus thinks fascism is a matter of
"where rights come from" he should try living in, not a fascist state -
there is none in today's world - but a totalitarian state, like "People's"
China. The he may be less dismissive of the difference between the
Principate and the Dominate and understand what led citizens in Gaul to
flee to the barbarians to escape it.

>Courts of law operated in Spain and Italy, and today even the worthless
People's Republic of China has such things
>as the right to trial and the right of representation by an attorney.
Rome was no different.

This is a variant of the same point. In Fascist Italy (Spain is to some
extent a special case, since Franco adopted some of the trappings of
fascism while in reality maintaining a Catholic conservative-clericalist
regime), as in today's PRC and the old eastern bloc, a nomenklatura system
meant that while the forms of law existed, cases were actually decided on
the basis of the balance of forces in the system of party patronage
relationships. Such a system did operate in the Dominate, which we know
because of the unavailing attempts of the Emperors themselves to control
it.

None of these points are intended to make classical antiquity into modern
liberalism. That would be plainly false. But there are ideas and practices
have existed in history and continue to exist which are neither modern
liberalism, nor fascism. Festus pretends otherwise.

Valete,
M. Mucius Scaevola Magister


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Re: Ca-Ca-Cacography
From:	"Nick Ford" <gens_moravia@-------->
Date:	Tue, 5 Sep 2000 20:17:48 +0100


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Re: Ca-Ca-Cacography
From:	"C Marius Merullus" <c_marius_m@-------->
Date:	Tue, 5 Sep 2000 17:33:37 -0400


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Chats, official and not
From:	Megas-Robinson <amgunn@-------->
Date:	Tue, 05 Sep 2000 16:50:00 -0500


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Chats, official and not
From:	"pjane@-------- " <pjane@-------->
Date:	Tue, 05 Sep 2000 22:58:47 -0000


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Chats, official and not
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date:	Tue, 5 Sep 2000 18:12:57 -0500 (CDT)


Subject:	[novaroma] Senate Vote results
From:	benborgo@--------
Date:	Tue, 5 Sep 2000 19:55:27 EDT

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9068/8/_/61050/_/968198173/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

In a message dated 9/5/00 1:55:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time, sfp55@--------
writes:

Salvete, omnes.

In spite of my persisting absenteeism, to the probable dismay of some, I will
take this oppertunity to, at least this once within my term, announce the
results of Senate voting to you, the citizens of Nova Roma. Below I have
posted the results of the latest vote within the Senate.

<< We had the following Senators vote in the Sextilis call:
Gaius Aelius Ericius
Patricia Cassia
Marcus Cassius Julianus
Lucius Cornelius Sulla
Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus
Quintus Fabius Maximus
Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Marcus Iunius Iulianus
T Labienus Fortunatus
Caius Marius Merullus
Marcus Minucius Audens
Flavius Vedius Germanicus

Regrets
Quintus Caecilius Metellus No reason
Minervina Iucundia Flavia In Europe
Decius Iunius Palladius Computer down
Marcus Mucius Scaevola Moving
Gaius Tullius Triumphius Leave of absence

**Item the First: Rogator.**
The first candidate is Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus.
The second candidate is Lucia Cornelia Aurelia.
Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus: 1
Lucia Cornelia Aurelia: 11
Appointed as Rogator:
Lucia Cornelia Aurelia

**Item the Second was withdrawn as it is not needed.**

**Item the Third.**
Request to the Censors to add the following individuals to rolls of the
Senate:
N. Moravia Vado---------Uti Rogas (YES) 7 ; Antiquo (NO) 3 ; ABSTO (I
abstain) 2
M. Marcius Rex--------------Uti Rogas (YES) 8 ; Antiquo (NO) 2 ; ABSTO (I
abstain) 2
M. Octavius Germanicus--Uti Rogas (YES) 10 ; Antiquo (NO) 0 ; ABSTO (I
abstain) 2

N. Moravia Vado Approved
M.. Marcius Rex Approved
M. Octavius Germanicus Approved

**Item the Fourth.**
The Senate's rebuke to L. Marius Fimbria.**
Part I.
Should there be one?
Uti Rogas (YES) 8 ; Antiquo (NO) 3 ; ABSTO (I abstain) 1
Passed
Part II.
To drafted by the Praetors Urbanii?
Uti Rogas (YES) 8 ; Antiquo (NO) 2 ; ABSTO (I abstain) 2
Passed
Part III
If L. Marius Fimbria does not rejoin Nova Roma, then this is not be
carried out, even if approved.
Uti Rogas-4 ; Antiquo-3
Approved

**Item the Fourth.**
Mandatory list subscription on citizens applications
Uti Rogas (YES) 1 ; Antiquo (NO) 9 ; ABSTO (I abstain) 2
Failed
Part II
Shall the senate instruct the Curule Aedile to find
a way to do mandatory subscription easily and efficiently?
Yes-1 No-4 (The rest claimed that failure of the first measure negeted this
vote. We retained the formality.)
Failed

**Item the Fifth.**
Shall the proposed Lex Fabia de Vexatione Verbis
be sent to the comita to be voted into Law
Uti Rogas (YES) 7 ; Antiquo (NO) 3 ; ABSTO (I abstain) 2
Passes
>>

I do humbly congratulate our new Rogator and those elected to join the ranks
of the Senate, and wish them all my best in their commitment Nova Roma.

I hope my colleagues will not think too harshly of me for stepping from the
shadows (indeed the utter darkness) with such brief words.

That is all,
Valete,

Gn. Tarquinius Caesar
Tribune of the People