| Subject: |
[novaroma] New site feature |
| From: |
Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 6 Sep 2001 22:10:31 -0500 (CDT) |
|
Salvete,
I've added another bold and exciting new feature to the web site.
If you are a paterfamilias or materfamilias, you can indicate to the
Censores which prospective citizens should be accepted into your gens,
or should be rejected.
To do this, go to this URL:
http://www.novaroma.org/bin/editgens
...and choose "ACCEPT" or "REJECT" for any pending citizens. Once
you have done so, mail will be automatically sent to the Censores
indicating your choice; and the prospective citizens will display,
with a highlighted background, in a special section on the Censores'
own user administration tool.
Valete, Octavius.
--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneum et Senator
"... one of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that,
lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of
their C programs." -- Robert Firth
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: New site feature |
| From: |
trog99@-------- |
| Date: |
Fri, 07 Sep 2001 03:23:02 -0000 |
|
---
Salve Marce Octavi:
I know this would be out of sequence for you in the traditional
Cursus Honorum, but I must say, with your good judgement, wisdom and
obvious efficiency with computer data processing, you would surely
make a fine Censor.
How'd you get to be so smart so young?????
Pea Green With Envy :)
Pompeia Cornelia
In novaroma@--------, Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@c...> wrote:
>
> Salvete,
>
> I've added another bold and exciting new feature to the web site.
>
> If you are a paterfamilias or materfamilias, you can indicate to the
> Censores which prospective citizens should be accepted into your
gens,
> or should be rejected.
>
> To do this, go to this URL:
> http://www.novaroma.org/bin/editgens
>
> ...and choose "ACCEPT" or "REJECT" for any pending citizens. Once
> you have done so, mail will be automatically sent to the Censores
> indicating your choice; and the prospective citizens will display,
> with a highlighted background, in a special section on the Censores'
> own user administration tool.
>
> Valete, Octavius.
>
> --
> M. Octavius Germanicus
> Propraetor, Lacus Magni
> Curator Araneum et Senator
>
> "... one of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was
that,
> lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of
> their C programs." -- Robert Firth
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] New site feature |
| From: |
Steven - Piparskeggr <catamount_grange@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 06 Sep 2001 22:28:04 -0500 |
|
Ave Magna pro M. Octavius!
Marcus Octavius Germanicus wrote:
>
> Salvete,
>
> [excision]
>
> If you are a paterfamilias or materfamilias, [xcision]
>
> Valete, Octavius.
>
> --
> M. Octavius Germanicus
> Propraetor, Lacus Magni
> Curator Araneum et Senator
>
8-(
Just wish I had some prospective Cives with whom to work.
Great Job!
--
=========================================
In Amicus sub Fidelis
- Piperbarbus Ullerius Venator
Cives et Paterfamilias
Domus Familias
http://www.geocities.com/gens_ulleria/index.html
File of my Poems and Songs
http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/Pip_music/files/
113 Our forebears hands, reach out to us
And give the Horn, into our grasp.
They look upon, our efforts Trú
With knowing nod, and easy grin.
- Piparskeggrsmal
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] New site feature |
| From: |
Daniel Dreesbach <stakor2000@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 6 Sep 2001 20:53:48 -0700 (PDT) |
|
WHo is the paterfamilias of Geminia if I am not.
Gaius Geminius Germanus
Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@--------> wrote:
Salvete,
I've added another bold and exciting new feature to the web site.
If you are a paterfamilias or materfamilias, you can indicate to the
Censores which prospective citizens should be accepted into your gens,
or should be rejected.
To do this, go to this URL:
http://www.novaroma.org/bin/editgens
...and choose "ACCEPT" or "REJECT" for any pending citizens. Once
you have done so, mail will be automatically sent to the Censores
indicating your choice; and the prospective citizens will display,
with a highlighted background, in a special section on the Censores'
own user administration tool.
Valete, Octavius.
--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneum et Senator
"... one of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that,
lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of
their C programs." -- Robert Firth
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Adoption announcement |
| From: |
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 07 Sep 2001 00:13:55 -0700 |
|
Ave Citizens of Nova Roma,
It is my sincere pleasure to announce the adoption of Pompeia Antonia
Caesaria into the Gens Cornelia. She successfully petitioned the
paterfamilias of the Gens Antonia to be released and then requested to
join the Gens Cornelia. It is my pleasure to accept her into the Gens
Cornelia.
As per her request her new name will be: Pompeia Cornelia Antonia
Caesaria.
Respectfully,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Paterfamilias of the Gens Cornelia
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] The result of the Defeat of Varus. |
| From: |
Lucilla Cornelia Cinna <CorneliaLucilla@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 07 Sep 2001 09:31:56 +0200 |
|
Q. Fabio Maximo praetori omnibusque de clade Variana disputantibus L.
Cornelia Cinna salutem
QFabiusMaxmi@-------- wrote:
>Much was made of the loss of three legiones. (Presumably Varius got what he
>deserved) The question has to be asked why? Rome had received defeats like
>this before.
>
I have to object, Q. Fabi praetor. The loss of 3 legions and all
auxiliary troops posted in the area between Rhine and Weser (Visurgis)
decreased Roman military forces by more than 12%, that is 1/8.
Due to the geographical and topographical and military situation the
northern part of Gallia was stripped off any military defense. There
were 2 legions under Varus' nephew L. Nonius Asprenas, leg. exerc., in
Mogontiacum (Mainz) - that's all. Without at least the garrison of Aliso
(under Caedicius) keeping Arminius' spreading troops busy the north of
Gallia (i.e. today's Netherlands and Belgium) would have been invaded
instantly.
Without the Chatti keeping peace in 9/10, Asprenas wouldn't have been
able to hurry the complete garrison of Mogontiacum up north to Vetera to
defend the northern part of the Gallian provinces, i.e. Belgica.
The negative view of Varus is based on Velleius account only - and
Velleius account is colored by the conflict between Tiberius and
Agrippina maior, the wife and later widow of Germanicus. Velleius was a
"party liner" of Tiberius and his intentions to show the emperor in a
very favorable light are obvious. Varus' widow Claudia Pulchra, a
beloved grandniece of Caesar Augustus, and her son Quinctilius Varus had
just been exiled - senatu invito!
Apparently, Augustus made Varus - an experienced governor with high
expertise in legislation - governor (legatus pro praetore) of the three
Galliae to implement Roman law and to study the local institutions in
order to integrate them into the complex system of ius gentium. The main
problem of the peoples living beyond the Rhine was they did not see
themselves as one nation (Germani is a term introduced by Caesar), but
as Marsi, Bructeri, Cherusci, Sugambri etc. - there was little coherence
between the different peoples - an even within the peoples. The prime
structure was the "clan" (sippya), and feuds among clans either of the
same people or of different peoples were nothing unusual. Varus'
attempts to settle the perpetuous struggles using Roman law seem to have
been quite successful at the beginning; people appealed to his courts
frequently - but of course his activities made the power of the heads of
the clans shrink ... which was unacceptable for many of them.
Arminius himself had been a Roman soldier and officer; apparently, he
inherited Roman citizenship due to his father Segimerus being in pace
receptus even before the revolt of 1-4 CE. As it was use, he was an
officer within a native unti, used as auxiliary troops, apparently a
regular auxiliary like an ala. Most likely, he took part in the campaign
against Marbod and then was transferred to Pannonia (Illyricum), when
the rebellio started in 6 CE. During this campaign he was promoted to
tribune and gained a fortune of 400,000 sestertii which made him a Roman
knight (never forget that this fortune is assumed to be gained by
military activities so he was certainly a skilled commander - but
without doubt a ruthless person! Only few commanders of peregrine
origine ever entered the ordo equester).
When returning to Germania in 8 (presumably, but more than just likely),
Arminius became one of Varus confidants. Varus didn't have much trust in
Roman provincial magistrates - he knew that many of them were corrupt.
And he distrusted his staff officers who were out to solve every problem
by force; one of the few persons he trusted was his nephew Asprenas who
took care of the south part of the region, the home of the Chatti.
Apparently, Varus trusted Arminius because he was a native by birth but
a Roman soldier by education (not a high born staff officer - it's a bit
like Caesar trusting his centurions more like his tribunes).
Arminius did not stir an "all-Germanic rebellion" - there is no trace
for that. He was a commander of native auxiliary troops, well-trained,
well-equipped. There was no need to form a new army of farmers armed
with pitchforks and clubs. He seems to have served as Varus' liaison
officer and so got the opportunity to conspire with opposing nobles of
several tribes within the area of today's Münsterland and within the
native troops.
In the end, we have a mixture of conspiracy and mutiny which is the
conclusion drawn by Dieter Timpe (Arminius-Studien, Heidelberg 1970).
Varus did not "get what he deserved - he was cheated by someone he had
taken into his confidence when he attempted to create a new
administration as ordered by Augustus.
According to Tacitus, Arminius claimed the title of king - and I am sure
he was imitating Marbod and wanted to created a new center of power in
Germania and the north of Gallia. If this is true, he failed due to a
young prefect of centurion called Caedicius of who we hardly know more
than his name. And due to the fact that the Chatti did not rise, until
Caecina started to gather supplies from them during the campaign of 14
CE. In fact, they must have stayed loyal - otherwise Asprenas would not
have been able to leave for Vetera in late 9 CE, because the border of
central Gaul was left with hardly a few men to protect it from the
"barbari".
>However, as news of disaster spread, the citizens panics. The days of the
>Teutones returned, Romans expected German armies to come sweeping across the
>Rhine into Italy.
>And if the Gauls rose... The Gauls didn't. They were used to peace and even
>if they didn't
>Legatus Lucius Asprenas' force insured that they would stay quiet.
>
The 2 legions commanded by Asprenas were certainly stunned and panicked
at first, too.
I don't think that the old fear of Cimbri and Teutons returned ... the
Teutons were still assumed as Celts that time. Augustus was certainly
afraid of another center of power rising in the north which would
concentrate a lot of Roman military forces.
>However had Augustus still been a younger, vigorous, man this would be but a
>temporary setback, and Tiberius would have invaded Germania next year (CE 12)
>with eight legiones and 16 aux. But Augustus was fading he had but 2 years
>left to live, and as his successor, Tiberius, needed to be in Rome for the
>succession.
>
I must object .... Tiberius commanded the troops. I am sure he acted
like a Cunctator for good reasons beside the problems in Rome due to
Augustus getting a bit old and wavering between the 2 opposing parties
of his wife Livia and her familiy and his old contubernalis Agrippa.
Arminius had reached the height of his power, the iuventus of many
Germanic tribes, trained and equipped as auxiliaries, experienced in
Roman warfare (remember Pannonia!) cheered him. If Tiberius now had
entered those difficult regions for military campaigns, his soldiers
would have been confronted by highly motivated and well-prepared armies.
Tiberius, knowing the habits and the way of life of the barbari, just
stayed waiting and fortifying a frontier which certainly made Arminius'
star slowly fade for a while, and unnerved the barbari by ramming
"limites" (Tacitus) into the country.
Timpe thinks those limites are narrow passages in the Lupia/Lippe area
and the Nidderau/Wetterau between Frankfurt and Giessen, and concludes
Tiberius may have rebuilt supply camps, custodia and praesidia and
manned them with leatherneck Gaul auxiliaries, since the Gauls were
definitiely not interested in a barbarian invasion from beyond the Rhine.
>By 13 CE when Augustus had a law passed giving Tiberius the Tribunican power,
>and Imperium as Augustus' equal was Tiberius was finally able to breathe a
>sigh of relief. Still Augustus kept young Agrippa around to act as
>counterbalance to Tiberius. Only after his death could Tiberius move
>effectively against the Agrippa faction and render it harmless.
>
Well that's what caused the bad light shed on Varus, since he belonged
to the "Agrippa faction".
>To be fair he was probably correct. Germania was like no other province in
>the Empire.
>The thick woods, the unseasonal storms, the mercurial attitude of the people
>would make campaigning past the Lippes a dubious project, and since the Limes
>had been restored, Arminius punished, Eagles recovered, there was not much
>more to gain, and a lot to lose.
>Tacitus writing in the reign of Flavians disagreed. He tells us that "had
>the Emperor not been jealous of Germanicus' success and had giving him what
>he desired, Germania might be Rome's greatest province, greater then Gaul.
>But he was a frightened weak willed man, and so the conquest was never
>completed."
>
It's the usual interpretation of Tacitus' acount. However, Timpe and
other German scholars say that Tacitus admired Germanicus for his
military virtues, but admitted that Tiberius was the better one for the
job of emperor at that time and did right in giving up on Germania.
>So OK. Lets face it. If Hermann goes off to Pannonia, history is changed.
>
Arminius actually was in Pannonia - as Velleius points out. And that's
what raised the problem. So if Arminius had been wounded or killed in
Pannonia ...
>B. What if Gaul decides to follow their Pannoian brethren?
>
You're assuming pretty modern vies of national identities. ;o)
--
_
Lucilla Cornelia Cinna \\
Quaestrix C. Flavio Diocletiano Praetori /\~/\ / )
Propraetori provinciae Germaniae ( )~~~----...,, __/ /
Retaria Sodalitatis Egressus \` ´/ /
Musaea collegiorum Calliopes Cliusque \v/ _____( |
Sodalitatis Musarum / \| |~~~~´ \ \ \
Civis NovaRomana ( ( | | ) /\ )
Auctrix Bibliotheca Germaniae \_\| | _/ / _| |
http://www.geocities.com/CorneliaLucilla /__/ /__/ /__/
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Gens Cornelia milestone |
| From: |
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 07 Sep 2001 01:34:43 -0700 |
|
Ave,
Today the Gens Cornelia has reached a milestone. Today we have reached
50 members! I cant say just how pleased I am...and I just wanted to
share my pleasure with all of Nova Roma.
Respectfully,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Paterfamilias
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] A Healthy Organization |
| From: |
"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 7 Sep 2001 06:00:36 -0700 (PDT) |
|
--- Bill Gawne <gawne@--------> wrote:
> L. Sicinius Drusus writes:
>
> > I see the same tired old complaints about the
> content
> > of this list are surfacing again.
> >
> > We are having an ongoing debate about the future
> of
> > Nova Roma. We have citizens who care enough about
> that
> > future to comment on it, to engage in active
> debates
> > over where Nova Roma should be, Next year or in a
> more
> > distant future. Citizens this is a sign of a
> vibrant
> > healthy organization.
>
> While I agree that discussion and exchange of ideas
> is a Good Thing, I think that - as Pompeia Antonia
> mentioned - the concerns have more to do with tone,
> demeanor, and a lack of courtesy and respect that
> appears in certain posts.
DRUSUS: Very few posts on this list fall into that
catagory, in fact This list is downright wimpy
compared to many I subscribe to. Try subscribing to a
modern political list. Computer Nerds flame each other
far worse when they argue about text editors for Unix.
We have a small minority who wish to see politics
stripped from this list. They flog their dead horse
every time they can find an excuse. This resignation
is another excuse, and they jumped on it. Anything
that goes wrong is because of posts on the Main List.
They failed to get enough support in the recent Poll
to strip politics from this list, so they attempt to
do it by intimadating people, by making it sound like
posting here will drive away our citizens. A Direct
attack on a person isn't the only way to intimadate
them into silence.
The Victorian code of politness that we strive for on
this list is NOT Roman. Romans of Antiquita would
laugh at a person who was so sensative that he run
away because of things said about him in a debate.
They looked on Rhetoric as entertainment, not just as
a means of spreading information. Insults were part of
an Orators weapons. They didn't look down on insults
during a debate, they looked down on those who took it
Personal. If Two Great Roman Orators were facing each
other in a debate or a legal case, the Forum would be
packed, and not a person there would look down on a
Flame if it was delivered with style.
This is a part of Roma that we will have a very hard
time recreating. We have grown too used to the modern
idea that a person is susposed to be sheltered from
anything that might offend them. For now we will have
to seek a middle ground, One that avoids the more
insulting elements of debate, but also one that avoids
walking on eggshells for fear we will upset the
Hypersensitive.
Vale
L. Sicinius Drusus
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: I'm a Bad American |
| From: |
"Teleri ferch Nyfain" <rckovak@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 7 Sep 2001 09:52:46 -0400 |
|
Excuse me? Give peace a chance is a stupid idea somehow?
Beatles forever.
Helena
----- Original Message -----
From: gcassiusnerva@--------
To: novaroma@--------
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 7:04 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Re: I'm a Bad American
FORMOSANUS: {re: Ted Nugent}..but as a moral or political philosopher
he is a total failure."
But far, far more preferable than John Lennon. Now that poor guy was
a loss. Such musical talent, such stupid ideas. 'Imagine' that.
Nerva
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: I'm a Bad American |
| From: |
"Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 07 Sep 2001 14:04:36 -0000 |
|
--- In novaroma@--------, "Teleri ferch N--------n" <rckovak@e...> wrote:
> Excuse me? Give peace a chance is a stupid idea somehow?
> Beatles forever.
> Helena
That's Beatles 4ever ;o)
Drusus
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: I'm a Bad American |
| From: |
antoniuscorvusseptimius@-------- |
| Date: |
Fri, 07 Sep 2001 14:07:50 -0000 |
|
--- In novaroma@--------, "Teleri ferch N--------n" <rckovak@e...> wrote:
> Excuse me? Give peace a chance is a stupid idea somehow?
> Beatles forever.
> Helena
A good idea! As long as its not according to anyones terms.
Sept.
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: I'm a Bad American |
| From: |
antoniuscorvusseptimius@-------- |
| Date: |
Fri, 07 Sep 2001 14:32:55 -0000 |
|
Greetings all,
M. Apollonius Formosanus Wrote:
> Salvete Omnes!
>
> Ted Nugent's statement (lifted from another writer or not) that "I'm a
> Bad American-this pretty much sums it up for me" certainly seems
> accurate. His endless desire to be tough, his xenophobia, his
> misrepresentations of people and programmes and governments
> seriously and sincerely trying to improve the world, all bespeak
> immaturity and confusion of mind.
ACS: I agree with this statement.In that it may apply to so many
people.Including yourself, sir.
> I do not disagree with every word he says, and I laud him for his
> charitable gifts - but as a moral or political philosopher he is a
> total failure. Too much hate backed with a stubbornness which he
> obviously thinks we are to admire.
ACS: Does he expect us to admire his hate and stubborness? If so,
please expand on these. And let me know when the two of you met
personally.And for how long you have known this person (in reality).
I don't. Being stubborn in the
> cause of ignorance and prejudice is no virtue.
ACS: Blanket statements, such as this,requires thought?
> I think it might be relevant for us as Nova Romans to read this and
> then read a few chapters of Marcus Aurelius.
ACS: Relevant to compare writting styles,political ideologies, or
differences in cultural understanding?
Which of the two
> individuals is more mature and more admirable as a human being would,
ACS: In my BIASED opinion, of course I would choose the writtings of
Marcus Aurelius. But, in the manner of thought of his greatness,why
would it make anyone a lesser human being to have different views of
the universe?
> I think,
ACS: Thinking implies the weighing of different paths to a certain
goal. I offer this as a suggestion to you, sir.
Thank you for your time,
Septimius Arloro
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Re: Some responses |
| From: |
"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 7 Sep 2001 08:31:55 -0700 (PDT) |
|
--- bvm3@-------- wrote:
> M. Apollonius Formosanus Aedilis Plebeius omnibus
> Quiritibus S.P.D.
>
> Excuse the fact that certain affairs at the
> beginning of the new
> school year cause me to respond a bit tardily to
> this.
>
> I am perfectly happy for the whole world to know
> that I have
> informed the Senate of my willingness to serve until
> the end of the
> present year as propraetor of the new Venedia
> province in which
> I dwell. The Senate has also received two petitions
> requesting my
> appointment from Petrus Artorius Longinus
> representing the
> provincial population.
>
DRUSUS: Marcus Apollonius, I'm so glad that you have
decided to confirm that the post I made a week ago is
accurate.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/novaroma/message/25674
SNIP
> I thus feel fully qualified for the post. If anyone
> casts doubt upon
> this, it must be because of political differences.
DRUSUS: Well, I'm not going to deny that I have some
"political differences" with Marcus Apollonius, but I
do have some thoughts about his qualifications. I'll
leave it to the reader to decide if they are
political.
The first concerns his "willingness to serve until the
end of the present year". It is now September. The end
of the Year is only 115 days away. A Governor is
expected to make his first progress report to the
Senate at the 100 mark, and we have a Governor who is
planning on leaving office shortly after this first
report. Organizing a new Province is a major
undertaking, as I am finding out while reorganizing my
Province. Vendia deserves a Propraetor who will be
able to give her more time than this.
The second is a more serious matter. I refer you to
this post.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/novaroma/message/22049
Take note of this section
"Robotnik" in Polish means "worker", and certainly
Longinus is a
worker for Nova Roma: he has induced a number of
people to become
citizens (which he as a Polish speaker can do better
than I can
here), and he has been the motive force behind the
project to create
the Provincia Venedia for Poland, in which I am
collaborating (and
upon which we hope the Senate will act swiftly and
favourably...:-).
I have to be concerned about a canidate for Propraetor
of Vendia who dosen't speak Polish. Given Marcus
Apollonius' often stated views on citizens being
"forced" to use English on this list, I sure he shares
my concerns about having a Propraetor who dosen't
speak the native language of the majority of the
citizens of the province. I don't think we want to
"force" the citizens of Vendia to deal with their
Governor in any language than Polish.
Marcus Apollonius is lucky. I'm not a Senator. If I
were I would have to vote no, not because he is
"populares" but because he fails to meet theese
important qualifications. Perhaps the Senate will feel
different.
If the Senate does decide he isn't qualified, then
Vendia will still need a Propraetor. I think that this
will require someone who speaks Polish and who has the
time to devote to Vendia. Maia Apollonia Pica has
shown she has the intellagence for this job in her
posts to this list. Her English skills will allow her
to communicate with the Senate and the Magistrates of
Nova Roma without the need of a translator. She is a
very new citizen, but Vendia is a very new Province. I
think it would be a good idea to grant her a waiver on
the time if she is willing to serve as Propraetor, and
if Marcus Apollonius is willing to act as her Legate.
She is a member of the populares faction, so politics
isn't part of the choice. I would be more than happy
to send a recomendation to the Senate on her behalf.
Valete,
L. Sicinius Drusus
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] New Provincial |
| From: |
"Lucius Mauricius Procopious" <procopious@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 7 Sep 2001 09:06:08 -0700 |
|
Salvete Omnes,
I've been so busy getting ready for school (It's so weird after almost 20 yrs to be back in school) I almost missed a post from an Oregonian looking to contact others. I believe the name is Gnaeus Equitius Marinus. Please feel free to join our local mail list at the link below and join us this weekend if you are able. I recently provided the details of our upcoming get together on the ML. Please email me off list if I can help.
Lucius Mauricius Procopious
Propraetor America Boreoccidentalis
(This is an unofficial post for which I assume full responsibility)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
procopious@--------
ICQ# 83516618
*America Boreoccidentalis Mail List
http://www.egroups.com/group/AmBor_Waves
* The Gens Mauricia
http://www.geocities.com/procopious
"Indeed, it is not by the plans of men, but by the hand of God that the affairs of men are directed; and this men call Fate, not knowing the reason for what things they see occur; and what seems to be without cause is easy to call the accident of chance. Still, this is a matter every mortal will decide for himself according to his taste."
-Procopius of Caesarea (in Palestine) [born c.490/507- died c.560s]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] A Healthy Organization |
| From: |
Bill Gawne <gawne@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 07 Sep 2001 12:28:51 -0400 |
|
L. Sicinius Drusus writes:
[In response to my earlier comments]
> > While I agree that discussion and exchange of ideas
> > is a Good Thing, I think that - as Pompeia Antonia
> > mentioned - the concerns have more to do with tone,
> > demeanor, and a lack of courtesy and respect that
> > appears in certain posts.
>
> DRUSUS: Very few posts on this list fall into that
> catagory,
Reasonable people might differ on their opinions.
While I'm quite willing to accept that you, Drusus,
see the number as very few, I think others find the
number too high for their personal liking and thus
choose to absent themselves.
> in fact This list is downright wimpy
> compared to many I subscribe to.
Y'know, I don't really give a rat's posterior. If you
choose to associate with people whose prefered style of
communication includes gutter language and abuse, you
go right ahead. But don't offer that as an excuse for
bringing that sort of thing in here.
> We have a small minority who wish to see politics
> stripped from this list.
That may well be, but I think there's also a significant
number of citizens who don't mind the politics, but who
do object to rancor and abuse. I know I'm one of them,
and I suspect I'm not alone.
[...]
> The Victorian code of politness that we strive for on
> this list is NOT Roman.
I'm not accepting that it's Victorian, as you claim it to be.
But I do think that consideration and respect go a long way,
especially when trying to work out differences.
As for what is or is not Roman, I at least am not going to
toss away 20 centuries of human societal development in
order to slavishly adhere to the social mores of the late
Republic. In my conception of NovaRoma (which I understand
may only apply to me and my pet squirrel) we, the current
citizens, define what it means to be Roman by our everyday
actions. Yes, we strive to do so guided by the classic
virtues, but those virtues also tell us to be our best
selves.
> Romans of Antiquita would
> laugh at a person who was so sensative that he run
> away because of things said about him in a debate.
You, and perhaps others, seem to view any discussion
here as a debate. I think that's a very bad idea, and
that debates should only occur when both (or all) parties
have agreed to debate. Otherwise, I prefer to conduct
my conversations as if they are cordial discourse while
among friends and acquanitences.
> This is a part of Roma that we will have a very hard
> time recreating.
Here's a suggestion: Organize some debates as a part
of the Ludi Romani. Let those who would make word war
with each other come out as modern gladiators, stick
the keyword VICIOUS-DEBATE into the subject line, and
have at it. But do make sure that everyone knows that
the participants joined willingly, knowing what they
were getting into - and don't start trashing people
who don't choose to get in.
> We have grown too used
Too used? Have we now? Again, I think this is a
place where reasonable people might disagree.
> to the modern
> idea that a person is susposed to be sheltered from
> anything that might offend them.
When I'm involved in cordial discourse with my friends
and acquaintences, you can bet I'll make efforts to avoid offense.
> For now we will have
> to seek a middle ground, One that avoids the more
> insulting elements of debate, but also one that avoids
> walking on eggshells for fear we will upset the
> Hypersensitive.
I think you err in calling people who object to what
they see in here as Hypersensitive. It's an implication
of fault on their part, when in fact it is not. Manners
are the lubricant of society, and the more different the
various members, the more the need for that lubricant.
While we are all NovaRomans, we also all come from widely
diverse backgrounds, with a wide variety of attitudes,
values, and beliefs. The Romans of antiquity shared common
societal ideas that we do not, nor ever will. We can not
expect the worldwide population of NovaRoma to ever become
as homogeneous as Roma Antiqua was.
Cordially,
Gnaeus Equitius Marinus
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: A Healthy Organization |
| From: |
radams36@-------- |
| Date: |
Fri, 07 Sep 2001 17:06:09 -0000 |
|
--- In novaroma@--------, Bill Gawne <gawne@a...> wrote:
> L. Sicinius Drusus writes:
> [In response to my earlier comments]
> > > While I agree that discussion and exchange of ideas
> > > is a Good Thing, I think that - as Pompeia Antonia
> > > mentioned - the concerns have more to do with tone,
> > > demeanor, and a lack of courtesy and respect that
> > > appears in certain posts.
> >
> > DRUSUS: Very few posts on this list fall into that
> > catagory,
>
> Reasonable people might differ on their opinions.
> While I'm quite willing to accept that you, Drusus,
> see the number as very few, I think others find the
> number too high for their personal liking and thus
> choose to absent themselves.
>
I am in agreement with Marinus here, although the issue has not
forced me to absent myself as of yet.
> > in fact This list is downright wimpy
> > compared to many I subscribe to.
>
> Y'know, I don't really give a rat's posterior. If you
> choose to associate with people whose prefered style of
> communication includes gutter language and abuse, you
> go right ahead. But don't offer that as an excuse for
> bringing that sort of thing in here.
Again, I agree. Comparison to other lists is completely relative, and
not really a compelling argument at all. This is a common logical
fallacy that proves nothing at all. What goes on in other lists would
only be relevant AT ALL if the other lists involved Nova Roma.
>
> > We have a small minority who wish to see politics
> > stripped from this list.
>
> That may well be, but I think there's also a significant
> number of citizens who don't mind the politics, but who
> do object to rancor and abuse. I know I'm one of them,
> and I suspect I'm not alone.
>
You most certainly are not alone. I voted in the poll a while back
NOT to remove politics from the list, because I saw no way to
practically do so. Giving political issues their own list would keep
those who are not interested from having to slog through them, but
would be difficult to implement (IMHO).
>
> > The Victorian code of politness that we strive for on
> > this list is NOT Roman.
>
> I'm not accepting that it's Victorian, as you claim it to be.
> But I do think that consideration and respect go a long way,
> especially when trying to work out differences.
>
> As for what is or is not Roman, I at least am not going to
> toss away 20 centuries of human societal development in
> order to slavishly adhere to the social mores of the late
> Republic. In my conception of NovaRoma (which I understand
> may only apply to me and my pet squirrel) we, the current
> citizens, define what it means to be Roman by our everyday
> actions. Yes, we strive to do so guided by the classic
> virtues, but those virtues also tell us to be our best
> selves.
>
The idea that common courtesy is somehow detrimental or contrary to
Nova Roma is so bizarre that it defies intelligent debate. If we are
in any way required or expected to be rude, I'm not aware of it.
> > Romans of Antiquita would
> > laugh at a person who was so sensative that he run
> > away because of things said about him in a debate.
>
> You, and perhaps others, seem to view any discussion
> here as a debate. I think that's a very bad idea, and
> that debates should only occur when both (or all) parties
> have agreed to debate. Otherwise, I prefer to conduct
> my conversations as if they are cordial discourse while
> among friends and acquanitences.
>
I, too, regard the list as a conversational one, not a debating one.
Having one's honestly rendered statements or opinions savagely
attacked is not really debate, anyway. The frequent use of ad hominem
attacks by some individuals here is also a logical fallacy (used by
most people to compensate for lack of real ideas/arguments), and is
neither necessary nor enlightening.
> > This is a part of Roma that we will have a very hard
> > time recreating.
>
> Here's a suggestion: Organize some debates as a part
> of the Ludi Romani. Let those who would make word war
> with each other come out as modern gladiators, stick
> the keyword VICIOUS-DEBATE into the subject line, and
> have at it. But do make sure that everyone knows that
> the participants joined willingly, knowing what they
> were getting into - and don't start trashing people
> who don't choose to get in.
I would consider this an EXCELLENT suggestion. If you want to have a
debate, just label it as such so those who don't wish to participate
don't end up being drawn in accidentally.
>
> > We have grown too used
>
> Too used? Have we now? Again, I think this is a
> place where reasonable people might disagree.
>
> > to the modern
> > idea that a person is susposed to be sheltered from
> > anything that might offend them.
>
> When I'm involved in cordial discourse with my friends
> and acquaintences, you can bet I'll make efforts to avoid offense.
>
I am no proponent of the growing wave of 'political correctness' that
circumscribes our self-expression these days, but there's a
difference between people expecting to be sheltered from ideas that
might offend, and the expectation that people have that they should
not be subjected to outright abuse or rude behaviour.
> > For now we will have
> > to seek a middle ground, One that avoids the more
> > insulting elements of debate, but also one that avoids
> > walking on eggshells for fear we will upset the
> > Hypersensitive.
>
> I think you err in calling people who object to what
> they see in here as Hypersensitive. It's an implication
> of fault on their part, when in fact it is not. Manners
> are the lubricant of society, and the more different the
> various members, the more the need for that lubricant.
I have yet to see any listers that I would call 'Hypersensitive'.
Opinions can be expressed honestly and frankly without the necessity
for abuse and viciousness that frequently take place. I do support
the free exchange of ideas, Drusus, but I don't support blatant
logical fallacies masquerading as debate, nor ad hominem attacks, nor
abuse and rude behaviour. NONE of these contributes to an actual
debate or intelligent discussion, rather, they detract from it.
Marinus is quite right, courtesy and good manners are NEVER out of
place. I imagine it was not Drusus's intention to imply otherwise.
Respectfully,
Rufus Iulius Palaeologus
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: A Healthy Organization |
| From: |
"Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 07 Sep 2001 17:54:23 -0000 |
|
--- In novaroma@--------, radams36@j... wrote:
>
> I have yet to see any listers that I would call 'Hypersensitive'.
> Opinions can be expressed honestly and frankly without the
necessity
> for abuse and viciousness that frequently take place. I do support
> the free exchange of ideas, Drusus, but I don't support blatant
> logical fallacies masquerading as debate, nor ad hominem attacks,
nor
> abuse and rude behaviour. NONE of these contributes to an actual
> debate or intelligent discussion, rather, they detract from it.
> Marinus is quite right, courtesy and good manners are NEVER out of
> place. I imagine it was not Drusus's intention to imply otherwise.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Rufus Iulius Palaeologus
I Am not advocating general rudness, I am warning against demands
of "sensitivity" that ammount to self censorship.
If you want an example of Hypersensitivity I suggest that you read
the "offensive" statement that caused the recent resignation. One
citizen dared to state his pride in his Pagan faith extended to
asking people to leave his home if they made offensive remarks about
it. This remark was made on the Main List of a Pagan organization,
and another citizen interpated this as a remark directed against him
and resigned over it. Go read that remark and tell me that resigning
over it wasn't being Hypersensitive.
By far the most offensive statement made on this list this year was
the crack in the resignation post about "Made up religions". I await
a statement from the defenders of politness regarding a remark that
went beyond mere politics, that was a direct attack against the
religious views of many of our citizens.
Vale,
L. Sicinius Drusus
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Spoken of the Ludi Romani... |
| From: |
"J. Meuleman" <hendrik.meuleman@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 7 Sep 2001 20:24:38 +0200 |
|
Salvete Quirites,
Well, someone suggested a debate for the Ludi Romani. A similar thing, but
not quite, will be coming up, but two contests of the festival are still
open, and I thought this could be a nice opportunity to repeat it ;).
(1) Anthem: Compose your own anthem for NR!
(2) One-liners: Tell us what's best and worst about NR. Be witty.
The first contest definitely seems to have sparked interest, but I'm still
waiting for our comical cannons to come up with something...
Valete bene!
Draco
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] EDICTUM: Citizen of the Year |
| From: |
Odysseus49@-------- |
| Date: |
Fri, 07 Sep 2001 18:42:58 -0000 |
|
Salvete omnes!
I publish this edictum to continue the Ludi Romani.
Edictum begins:
**********************************************************
In cooperation with the leader of the unofficial Sodalitas Virtutis
(Marcus
Cassius Iulianus), I, Titus Sertorius Albinus, do hereby issue the
edictum
that pronounces the following project born.
Its purpose: To select and present to the SPQR, the man or woman most
voted
by others as "citizen of the year", for his or her admirable efforts
made
for Nova Roma. The nomination for this award will be done by M.
Cornelius
Scipio, M. Apollonius Formosanus and M. Arminius Maior, at the advice
of the
two organisers. The winner will receive a special award, to be given
at the discretion of the Senate.
Its rules:
* Voters must be citizens of Nova Roma.
* Their votes must be sent to both M. Cassius Iulianus
(cassius622@--------) and T. Sertorius Albinus
(odysseus49@--------),
including their Roman name, in order to be considered vali.
* Voters may only vote once, for one person.
* The votes must be sent in no later than September 13
* The winner shall be announced on September 18
**************************************************************
Edictum ends.
And may he who has done most for Nova Roma be truly recognised!
Vale,
Titus Sertorius Albinus.
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: A Healthy Organization |
| From: |
radams36@-------- |
| Date: |
Fri, 07 Sep 2001 19:01:16 -0000 |
|
--- In novaroma@--------, "Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@--------> wrote:
> --- In novaroma@--------, radams36@j... wrote:
>
> >
> > I have yet to see any listers that I would call 'Hypersensitive'.
> > Opinions can be expressed honestly and frankly without the
> necessity
> > for abuse and viciousness that frequently take place. I do
support
> > the free exchange of ideas, Drusus, but I don't support blatant
> > logical fallacies masquerading as debate, nor ad hominem attacks,
> nor
> > abuse and rude behaviour. NONE of these contributes to an actual
> > debate or intelligent discussion, rather, they detract from it.
> > Marinus is quite right, courtesy and good manners are NEVER out
of
> > place. I imagine it was not Drusus's intention to imply otherwise.
> >
> > Respectfully,
> >
> > Rufus Iulius Palaeologus
>
> I Am not advocating general rudness, I am warning against demands
> of "sensitivity" that ammount to self censorship.
I'm sure you weren't - my statement above was meant to make clear
that I didn't think that was your intent.
>
> If you want an example of Hypersensitivity I suggest that you read
> the "offensive" statement that caused the recent resignation. One
> citizen dared to state his pride in his Pagan faith extended to
> asking people to leave his home if they made offensive remarks
about
> it.
Which action I would support, BTW - no one has any right to come into
someone else's home as a guest and denigrate their religion - that is
unbelievably rude and completely unacceptable.
This remark was made on the Main List of a Pagan organization,
> and another citizen interpated this as a remark directed against
him
> and resigned over it. Go read that remark and tell me that
resigning
> over it wasn't being Hypersensitive.
I don't know all the details, but if you're referring to the incident
that I believe you are, the resigning citizen's problem was with his
religion being referred to as 'blasphemy', specifically. Technically,
the term 'blasphemy' would be applicable, according to my own
religious beliefs, to the Religio (or in most cases, to any religion
different from the speaker's own). I would never, however, use that
term because it has acquired a negative and disrespectful connotation
that I find inappropriate in my dealing with those whose beliefs
differ from my own. In short, usage of terms like 'blasphemy' is
incendiary and, IMHO, unnecessary. Personally, I would not consider
resigning over this 'blasphemy' reference alone, nor would I be
likely to respond to it (although I would privately consider the
speaker/writer to be quite obnoxious and rude). Again, if we're
talking about the same incident, I think the particular post was only
a part of the reason for resignation, not the sole reason in and of
itself. If one reference by one individual to Christianity as
a 'blasphemy' caused someone to resign, I would consider that
hypersensitive, indeed, I just don't think that was the case here.
>
> By far the most offensive statement made on this list this year was
> the crack in the resignation post about "Made up religions". I
await
> a statement from the defenders of politness regarding a remark that
> went beyond mere politics, that was a direct attack against the
> religious views of many of our citizens.
Well, wait no longer! I didn't catch that one, or don't recall it,
but my belief in religious tolerance is hardly of the variety, "You
have to tolerate my religion or else, and that's as far as it goes!"
For someone to make that statement was rude, small-minded, and
bigoted of them. My only caveats in re: responding to that statement
would be: 1) There is small point in responding to the individual if
they've already "left" - there is some point here, however, in
defending the rights of our fellow citizens to believe as they will;
and 2) Anything someone says in a resignation post, especially a
presumably hostile one, should be taken in that context. Criticisms
made while resigning may be valuable to us by encouraging self-
examination, but that kind of hostile and intolerant statement is
worthless, and reflects poorly on the person who made it.
>
> Vale,
> L. Sicinius Drusus
I appreciate your response and clarification. Your courteous and
moderate tone, along with your thoughtful points, do you great
credit, and I appreciate them.
Vale!
Rufus Iulius Palaeologus
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] The result of the Defeat of Varus. |
| From: |
QFabiusMaxmi@-------- |
| Date: |
Fri, 7 Sep 2001 15:35:27 EDT |
|
in a message dated 9/7/01 12:35:26 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
CorneliaLucilla@--------
writes:
Salvete!
>
>
> >>The loss of 3 legions and all auxiliary troops posted in the area between
> Rhine and Weser (Visurgis) decreased Roman military forces by more than
> 12%, that is 1/8.Due to the geographical and topographical and military
> situation the
> northern part of Gallia was stripped off any military defense. There
> were 2 legions under Varus' nephew L. Nonius Asprenas, leg. exerc., in
> Mogontiacum (Mainz) - that's all. Without at least the garrison of Aliso
> (under Caedicius) keeping Arminius' spreading troops busy the north of
> Gallia (i.e. today's Netherlands and Belgium) would have been invaded
> instantly.<<
>
> QFM
What do you estimate Caedicius total force to be, and of what composition?
>
>
>
> >> Without the Chatti keeping peace in 9/10, Asprenas wouldn't have been
> able to hurry the complete garrison of Mogontiacum up north to Vetera to
> defend the northern part of the Gallian provinces, i.e. Belgica.
> The negative view of Varus is based on Velleius account only - and
> Velleius account is colored by the conflict between Tiberius and
> Agrippina maior, the wife and later widow of Germanicus. Velleius was a
> "party liner" of Tiberius and his intentions to show the emperor in a
> very favorable light are obvious. Varus' widow Claudia Pulchra, a
> beloved grandniece of Caesar Augustus, and her son Quinctilius Varus had
> just been exiled - senatu invito!<<
>
> QFM: I did stress Vielleius Paterculus negative observation about Varus, I
> did not include that he was a member of Agrippa's faction, which, as you
> point out, I should have.
>
> >>Apparently, Augustus made Varus - an experienced governor with high
> expertise in legislation - governor (legatus pro praetore) of the three
> Galliae to implement Roman law and to study the local institutions in
> order to integrate them into the complex system of ius gentium. The main
> problem of the peoples living beyond the Rhine was they did not see
> themselves as one nation (Germani is a term introduced by Caesar), but
> as Marsi, Bructeri, Cherusci, Sugambri etc. - there was little coherence
> between the different peoples - an even within the peoples. The prime
> structure was the "clan" (sippya), and feuds among clans either of the
> same people or of different peoples were nothing unusual. Varus'
> attempts to settle the propitious struggles using Roman law seem to have
> been quite successful at the beginning; people appealed to his courts
> frequently - but of course his activities made the power of the heads of
> the clans shrink ... which was unacceptable for many of them.>>
>
> QFM : Excellent summation Cornelia! Mommsen would be proud. This lack of
> national unity was one his constant lemants about the German tribes.
>
> >>Arminius himself had been a Roman soldier and officer; apparently, he
> inherited Roman citizenship due to his father Segimerus being in pace
> receptus even before the revolt of 1-4 CE. As it was use, he was an
> officer within a native unti, used as auxiliary troops, apparently a
> regular auxiliary like an ala. Most likely, he took part in the campaign
> against Marbod and then was transferred to Pannonia (Illyricum), when
> the rebellion started in 6 CE. During this campaign he was promoted to
> tribune and gained a fortune of 400,000 sestertii which made him a Roman
> knight (never forget that this fortune is assumed to be gained by
> military activities so he was certainly a skilled commander - but
> without doubt a ruthless person! Only few commanders of peregrine
> origine ever entered the ordo equester).
> When returning to Germania in 8 (presumably, but more than just likely),
> Arminius became one of Varus confidants. Varus didn't have much trust in
> Roman provincial magistrates - he knew that many of them were corrupt.
> And he distrusted his staff officers who were out to solve every problem
> by force; one of the few persons he trusted was his nephew Asprenas who
> took care of the south part of the region, the home of the Chatti.
>
> QFM: Where are you getting this info? Reading in between lines from the
> narrative of
Vielleius Paterculus?
> >>Apparently, Varus trusted Arminius because he was a native by birth but
> a Roman soldier by education (not a high born staff officer - it's a bit
> like Caesar trusting his centurions more like his tribunes).
> >>
>
> QFM: There might be some truth in your assertion, but it sounds more
> legendary,
> I believe that like all good Roman military men, Varus was following the
> chain of command, Arminius after all was a chieftain. And with instincts,
> honed by years
> of Roman infighting, he might have decided to stay out what he saw as
> Cherusci party politics.
>
> >> Arminius did not stir an "all-Germanic rebellion" - there is no trace
> for that. He was a commander of native auxiliary troops, well-trained,
> well-equipped. There was no need to form a new army of farmers armed
> with pitchforks and clubs. He seems to have served as Varus' liaison
> officer and so got the opportunity to conspire with opposing nobles of
> several tribes within the area of today's Münsterland and within the
> native troops.
> In the end, we have a mixture of conspiracy and mutiny which is the
> conclusion drawn by Dieter Timpe (Arminius-Studien, Heidelberg 1970). <<
>
>
> I read that study. I think Timpe oversimplified. There is no mention of
> Germanic horse in the uprising. Hans Delbruck postulates that there was
> Germanic cavalry involved but he never says they are Roman Aux. I don't
> believe there were any major numbers German horse involved in the running
> battle. Maybe a hundred or so.
> Arminius commanded a Cohors Quingenaria, made up off members of his tribe,
> Romanized, a well trained unit, but only 6 centurae that is, 60 contubernia
> each of 6-8 men. So if he was staking his "rebellion" on this force, he
> was going to be defeated, and rather quickly. Assuming the rest of the
> Auxiliaries were in on the plot, that is only five, so Arminius had to have
> help from the tribes.
>
> >>Varus did not "get what he deserved - he was cheated by someone he had
> taken into his confidence when he attempted to create a new administration
> as ordered by Augustus. According to Tacitus, Arminius claimed the title of
> king - and I am sure he was imitating Marbod and wanted to created a new
> center of power in
> Germania and the north of Gallia.<<
>
> QFM: I never said he got what he deserved. After losing three legiones
> formally raised by Augustus, he never could return to Rome again.
> Paterculus was correct in that point. I was just echoing him.
>
>
>
> >>The 2 legions commanded by Asprenas were certainly stunned and panicked
> at first, too. <<
>
> I can't see two veteran legiones as I Germania and V Alaudae panicking. I
> can see them stunned by the turn of events once the news was out, and
> demanding revenge against the Germans.
>
>
>
> >>I don't think that the old fear of Cimbri and Teutons returned ... the
> Teutons were still assumed as Celts that time. Augustus was certainly
> afraid of another center of power rising in the North which would
> concentrate a lot of Roman military forces.<<
>
> QFM: But that is not what the Roman authors say. There was widespread
> panic in the streets of Rome. Urbi Cohortes were raised to augment the
> force of Asprenas, which for Rome was the equivalent of "Hannibal ad
> portas." Romans urbanites were scared of the Germans only because they
> were an unknown element, and possessed great numbers. The panic harkens
> also back to the legendary
> fear of the Cimbri and Teutones, many Grandfathers had probably used
> legendary tales of their destructive ability to get kids to go to bed at
> night. At any rate, the fear was still there.
>
> QFM: However had Augustus still been a younger, vigorous, man this would be
> but a temporary setback, and Tiberius would have invaded Germania next year
> (CE 12)
> with eight legiones and 16 aux. But Augustus was fading he had but 2 years
> left to live, and as his successor, Tiberius, needed to be in Rome for the
> succession.
>
>
> >>I must object .... Tiberius commanded the troops. I am sure he acted
> like a Cunctator for good reasons beside the problems in Rome due to
> Augustus getting a bit old and wavering between the 2 opposing parties
> of his wife Livia and her familiy and his old contubernalis Agrippa.
> Arminius had reached the height of his power, the iuventus of many
> Germanic tribes, trained and equipped as auxiliaries, experienced in
> Roman warfare (remember Pannonia!) cheered him. If Tiberius now had
> entered those difficult regions for military campaigns, his soldiers
> would have been confronted by highly motivated and well-prepared armies.
> Tiberius, knowing the habits and the way of life of the barbari, just
> stayed waiting and fortifying a frontier which certainly made Arminius'
> star slowly fade for a while, and unnerved the barbari by ramming
> "limites" (Tacitus) into the country.
> Timpe thinks those limites are narrow passages in the Lupia/Lippe area
> and the Nidderau/Wetterau between Frankfurt and Giessen, and concludes
> Tiberius may have rebuilt supply camps, custodia and praesidia and
> manned them with leatherneck Gaul auxiliaries, since the Gauls were
> definitely not interested in a barbarian invasion from beyond the Rhine.<<
>
>
> QFM: Object all you want. Eight Legiones and sixteen loyal auxiliary units
> would have put the rebellion to rest. That was the plan discussed in
> Suetonius and Dio. I see no reason why the Chatti would have risen, and
> Marcomanii stayed out of it.
> All that really was involved was the central German tribes, maybe 30,000
> warriors strong. I find Timpe does too much speculation. I prefer to read
> the authors, and make my own judgments based on my knowledge of military,
> after dismissing the rhetoric. Tiberius had always been aggressive against
> the Germans. Now he changed. Why? Because Live told him to hang near
> Rome to make sure he was the successor.
>
QFM: By 13 CE when Augustus had a law passed giving Tiberius the Tribunican
> and Imperium as Augustus' equal was Tiberius was finally able to
> breathe a
> sigh of relief. Still Augustus kept young Agrippa around to act as
> counterbalance to Tiberius. Only after his death could Tiberius move
> effectively against the Agrippa faction and render it harmless.
>
> >>Well that's what caused the bad light shed on Varus, since he belonged
> to the "Agrippa faction".<<
> Agreed.
>
QFM: To be fair he was probably correct. Germania was like no other province
in
> the Empire. The thick woods, the unseasonal storms, the mercurial attitude
> of the people would make campaigning past the Lippes a dubious project, and
> since the Limes had been restored, Arminius punished, Eagles recovered,
> there was not much more to gain, and a lot to lose.
> Tacitus writing in the reign of Flavians disagreed. He tells us that "had
> the Emperor not been jealous of Germanicus' success and had giving him
> what
> he desired, Germania might be Rome's greatest province, greater then Gaul.
> But he was a frightened weak willed man, and so the conquest was never
> completed."
>
> It's the usual interpretation of Tacitus' acount. However, Timpe and
> other German scholars say that Tacitus admired Germanicus for his
> military virtues, but admitted that Tiberius was the better one for
> the
> job of emperor at that time and did right in giving up on Germania.
>
> >So OK. Lets face it. If Hermann goes off to Pannonia, history is
> changed.
> Arminius actually was in Pannonia - as Velleius points out. And that's
> what raised the problem. So if Arminius had been wounded or killed in
> Pannonia ...
QFM: My point exactly. "What if"
> QFM: What if Gaul decides to follow their Pannoian brethren?
> >
>
>>You're assuming pretty modern vies of national identities. ;o)>>
Excuse me. I was using brethern as "Comrade in arms" So my usage was
correct.
Prima, Cinna! I look forward to your additional conclusions.
> Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: A Healthy Organization |
| From: |
labienus@-------- |
| Date: |
Fri, 7 Sep 2001 14:35:08 US/Central |
|
Salvete
> I don't know all the details, but if you're referring to the incident
> that I believe you are, the resigning citizen's problem was with his
> religion being referred to as 'blasphemy', specifically.
I have only just this minute, upon reading the text quoted above, understood
why my post might be seen as intolerant and offensive.
Neither I nor my wife has ever felt that the Christian religion is, in and of
itself, blasphemous. When my wife made her statement, she was referring simply
to the fact that, sooner or later, any missionary would eventually say
something that we would consider blasphemous and, therefore, offensive. My
wife is the sort of person who would quite happily have discussed religious
views with the uninvited visitors in our back yard--where such things as
suggestions that we were deluded by demons wouldn't occur under our roof--if
she had had the time to do so. However, she didn't have that luxury, and so
turned them away.
Again, neither of us believes that Christianity is blasphemous in its mere
existence. Likewise, we do not feel that Christians are an affront to our
religion by simply existing, either. Blasphemy is an act committed by
individuals, rather than being a necessary attribute of an institution or a
group.
I apologize to anyone who was in any way hurt by my inadequate explanation of
my opinions.
Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: A Healthy Organization |
| From: |
PompeiaAntoniaCaesaria <europamoon7@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 7 Sep 2001 13:14:43 -0700 (PDT) |
|
Salvete,
I have been reading posts pertaining to a certain
individual's exit with a great deal of interest and I
must say that there seems to be a lot of
misunderstanding involved here. The one thing I've
noticed and admired about this list is that when there
is a heated debate and comments are made that some are
offended by, the ensuing debate is usually resolved in
one way or another with an apology and a lesson
learned. This says a lot for Nova Roma and for the
individuals who humble themselves enough to do so.
It's a shame that some individuals don't stick around
long enough to realize this. We all make mistakes but
as long as we atone for them and attempt to
reestablish pax we are very worthwhile individuals
indeed.
Vale,
Pompeia Cornelia Antonia Caesaria
Scriba ad Proconsul de California
--- labienus@-------- wrote:
> Salvete
>
> > I don't know all the details, but if you're
> referring to the incident
> > that I believe you are, the resigning citizen's
> problem was with his
> > religion being referred to as 'blasphemy',
> specifically.
>
> I have only just this minute, upon reading the text
> quoted above, understood
> why my post might be seen as intolerant and
> offensive.
>
> Neither I nor my wife has ever felt that the
> Christian religion is, in and of
> itself, blasphemous. When my wife made her
> statement, she was referring simply
> to the fact that, sooner or later, any missionary
> would eventually say
> something that we would consider blasphemous and,
> therefore, offensive. My
> wife is the sort of person who would quite happily
> have discussed religious
> views with the uninvited visitors in our back
> yard--where such things as
> suggestions that we were deluded by demons wouldn't
> occur under our roof--if
> she had had the time to do so. However, she didn't
> have that luxury, and so
> turned them away.
>
> Again, neither of us believes that Christianity is
> blasphemous in its mere
> existence. Likewise, we do not feel that Christians
> are an affront to our
> religion by simply existing, either. Blasphemy is
> an act committed by
> individuals, rather than being a necessary attribute
> of an institution or a
> group.
>
> I apologize to anyone who was in any way hurt by my
> inadequate explanation of
> my opinions.
>
> Valete
> T Labienus Fortunatus
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] The result of the Defeat of Varus. |
| From: |
"M Arminius Maior" <m_arminius@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 07 Sep 2001 17:29:48 -0300 |
|
Salve
I only want to thanks for this discussion on the clades variana, i learned a lot. I never have heard for the motivations of Arminius and german chiefs before, and dont knew that he commanded german auxiliary troops.
Very interesting.
Marcus Arminius Maior
Aedilis Plebis
Propraetor Brasiliae
Post Scriptum:
I want to explain my name too, since the name of my gens is Arminia. Marcos is my "other name", Arminius is the latinized version of the founder of my city (Hermann Bruno Otto Blumenau) and Maior can be understood as "bigger", since im tall.
--
On Fri, 07 Sep 2001 09:31:56
Lucilla Cornelia Cinna wrote:
>Q. Fabio Maximo praetori omnibusque de clade Variana disputantibus L.
>Cornelia Cinna salutem
>
>QFabiusMaxmi@-------- wrote:
>
>[..]
The prime
>structure was the "clan" (sippya), and feuds among clans either of the
>same people or of different peoples were nothing unusual. Varus'
>attempts to settle the perpetuous struggles using Roman law seem to have
>been quite successful at the beginning; people appealed to his courts
>frequently - but of course his activities made the power of the heads of
>the clans shrink ... which was unacceptable for many of them.
[...]
>Lucilla Cornelia Cinna
>Quaestrix C. Flavio Diocletiano Praetori
Get 250 color business cards for FREE!
http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] A Healthy Organization |
| From: |
Bill Gawne <gawne@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 07 Sep 2001 16:36:07 -0400 |
|
Lucius Sicinius Drusus writes:
> I Am not advocating general rudness, I am warning against demands
> of "sensitivity" that ammount to self censorship.
Self-censorship happens all the time, in all kinds of discourse.
I've yet to see anybody suggest that people should censor themselves
here to the point where the exchange of ideas becomes impossible or
even difficult. Heck, we routinely ask our non-English speaking
citizens to censor themselves from writing in their native languages,
after all.
> If you want an example of Hypersensitivity I suggest that you read
> the "offensive" statement that caused the recent resignation.
Do you have a copy? Or a pointer to it? I read from the website,
and don't really feel like wading through all the Yahoo banner
ads it would take to dig around for it.
> One citizen dared to state his pride in his Pagan faith extended to
> asking people to leave his home if they made offensive remarks about
> it.
The details of phrasing may be important here. As you describe
it, this does seem to indeed be excessive. But I'll gladly look
over the particular wording if you (or anyone else) can point me
to it.
> This remark was made on the Main List of a Pagan organization,
Ahem... it was made on the main list here, right? While NovaRoma
exists in large part to promote the Religio Romana, I don't think
it characterizes itself as a Pagan organization in its charter.
There's an important - though perhaps subtle - distinction.
That's not to say that anyone reading the main list should be
surprised to find a lot of discussion of the Religio here. It
seems pretty obvious to me that it will be discussed in quite
a lot of detail. But I would also expect that in keeping with
NovaRoma's declaration of religious tolerance, other expressions
from citizens of other religions would also be welcome - provided
they didn't blatantly seek to demean or insult the practitioners
of the Religio Romana.
> and another citizen interpated this as a remark directed against him
> and resigned over it. Go read that remark and tell me that resigning
> over it wasn't being Hypersensitive.
I haven't read the remark, yet, but I think I know enough about
Jeff Smith to say with confidence that his resignation was not
hypersensitive. Beyond that, I don't wish to speak for him here
and now. He's quite capable of fending for himself.
> By far the most offensive statement made on this list this year was
> the crack in the resignation post about "Made up religions". I await
> a statement from the defenders of politness regarding a remark that
> went beyond mere politics, that was a direct attack against the
> religious views of many of our citizens.
Are you talking about the woman from LaWren's Nest back a few
months ago? (I forget her name, but think she's still with us).
If it's the case I think you mean, she self-identifies as a witch
and made some ill-advised comments about sacrifices, which then
led to a heated exchange where she said a few more ill-advised
things. As I recall, she was taken sternly to task for that by
no less than our list moderator. I can't imagine what other
'defender of politeness' would be needed after that.
Yeah, what she said that weekend was boneheaded. She wrote it
in a heated exchange, and she later apologised. What else would
you have from her?
Or since you say it was a resignation post, maybe I missed it
entirely and I'm thinking of the wrong thing. Do you happen
to recall about when this occured? Something I could search
the website for?
In any case, I'll look at those posts if you can give me something
to go on. But do please understand that no matter how much you
tell people that the main list isn't so bad, they're going to
continue to think it *is* that bad until they see a definite
and sustained change.
Thanks for your thoughts, and your time. I do appreciate them.
Valete,
Gnaeus Equitius Marinus
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] The new Strategikon is out. |
| From: |
QFabiusMaxmi@-------- |
| Date: |
Fri, 7 Sep 2001 16:54:15 EDT |
|
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Contents, Strategikon. |
| From: |
QFabiusMaxmi@-------- |
| Date: |
Fri, 7 Sep 2001 17:15:17 EDT |
|
Now that I have your attention :)
In this quarter's issue:
Homer's Greeks.
Was Homer writing about the Mycenaeans or someone else?
Myth of the Carthaginian Pikeman.
What does "longchephoroi" really mean?
A History of the Munus.
How much did "Gladiator" get correct?
Ave Imperator!
Be a gladiator for a day!
A Reevaluation of the Cannae Campaign.
Were Polybios and Livius numbers correct?
The Mummy Returns - A review.
Why do Archeologists get all the babes?
Check it out at
www.strategikonmag.com
Get your copy today
Q. Fabius Maximus
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] A Healthy Organization |
| From: |
Fortunatus <labienus@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 07 Sep 2001 16:13:18 -0500 |
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Salve Cn Equiti
> Do you have a copy? Or a pointer to it? I read from the website,
> and don't really feel like wading through all the Yahoo banner
> ads it would take to dig around for it.
He's talking about my response to the "Roman Family" thread.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/novaroma/message/25666
>>the crack in the resignation post about "Made up religions". I
>>await
> Are you talking about the woman from LaWren's Nest back a few
> > months ago?
No. He's referring to LtC Smith's resignation letter.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/novaroma/message/25764
Vale
T Labienus Fortunatus
- --
"The Earth is degenerating today. Bribery and corruption abound.
Children no longer obey their parents, every man wants to write a
book, and it is evident that the end of the world is fast
approaching."
- - Assyrian Tablet, c.2800 BC
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBO5k4MIFaqtEQUH2oEQKp2ACeInRWWrowp0lFa+nWsOurGcYTexsAoJdt
1jSKiUEqYDWZ5YJKyLo6U44F
=AoTx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Land Fund |
| From: |
Daniel Dreesbach <stakor2000@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 7 Sep 2001 13:32:20 -0700 (PDT) |
|
I was wondering what ever happened to the land fund? Will a portion of the membership fees be used to regularly set aside to a land/property fund? If this has not been considered perhaps it could be.
Gaius Geminius Germanus
---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: I'm a Bad American |
| From: |
gcassiusnerva@-------- |
| Date: |
Fri, 07 Sep 2001 21:33:36 -0000 |
|
--- In novaroma@--------, "Teleri ferch N--------n" <rckovak@e...> wrote:
> Excuse me? Give peace a chance is a stupid idea somehow?
> Beatles forever.
> Helena
No, 'Give Peace a Chance' was by the Plastic Ono Band, not the
Beatles. And yes, giving peace "a chance" by sitting in a bag,
planting an acorn, and getting naked with Yoko {yuk} on an album
cover accomplished so much for peace! And when a man of Lennon's net
worth in real estate tells you to imagine no possessions, it is time
to gag.
Nerva
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: A Healthy Organization |
| From: |
"Teleri ferch Nyfain" <rckovak@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 7 Sep 2001 18:48:12 -0400 |
|
Salvete,
I totally agree with Drusus' comment below -
<<<L. Sicinius Drusus scripsit:
By far the most offensive statement made on this list this year was
the crack in the resignation post about "Made up religions". I await
a statement from the defenders of politness regarding a remark that
went beyond mere politics, that was a direct attack against the
religious views of many of our citizens.>>>
I'm not sure exactly which religions constitute "made-up" ones here, but it doesn't matter. A case could be made that quite a few religions fall into this category. By those following other religions of course. This remark was irrelevant and insensitive, and I can only assume that LCOL Smith said it in extreme exasperation at what he considered slights against him.
Valete,
Helena Galeria
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Land Fund |
| From: |
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 07 Sep 2001 16:15:02 -0700 |
|
Ave,
The land fund has been in existence. Anyone can view the budget by
going to www.novaroma.org/main.html and click the Aerium Saturni. (sp.)
Respectfully,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Daniel Dreesbach wrote:
>
> I was wondering what ever happened to the land fund? Will a portion
> of the membership fees be used to regularly set aside to a
> land/property fund? If this has not been considered perhaps it
> could be.
>
> Gaius Geminius Germanus
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo!
> Messenger.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
> You can, too! Start
> here...
>
> Height:
> ft in
>
> Weight:
> lbs. kg.
>
>
>
> [Image]
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] A Healthy Organization |
| From: |
Bill Gawne <gawne@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 07 Sep 2001 19:33:20 -0400 |
|
Fortunatus writes:
> Salve Cn Equiti
Salve T Labienus.
[Quoting Drusus, earlier]
> > Do you have a copy? Or a pointer to it? I read from the website,
> > and don't really feel like wading through all the Yahoo banner
> > ads it would take to dig around for it.
>
> He's talking about my response to the "Roman Family" thread.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/novaroma/message/25666
Ah! Thank you.
I have to admit I only read the upper portion of that message when
it first came around. Reading it all now, I'll say it is just as
reasonable and touching as it appeared to me on first view. While
I don't follow your religious path, I admire and respect what you
are doing with your little girl. She's a fortunate child of
Fortunatus, if you'll forgive a well intentioned pun.
I can't really find anything to quibble about with your wife's
response to the Jehovas' Witnesses either. It was civil and
tame by comparison to some things I've known others to do.
(I sometimes think that JW missionaries get together to swap
stories about the most outrageous things that have happened
to them. Surely there's _some_ reason they keep coming?)
> >>the crack in the resignation post about "Made up religions". I
> >>await
> > Are you talking about the woman from LaWren's Nest back a few
> > > months ago?
>
> No. He's referring to LtC Smith's resignation letter.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/novaroma/message/25764
Ah! Where Jeff said "... including those who make up their own
religions", right?
Perhaps we read that differently. I have solitary practitioner
pagan friends who will quite proudly tell you that they have
made up their own religion. For their own reasons, they don't
care for religious organization imposed from anyone else, and
thus have created a religion that will live and die with them.
I read Jeff's comment as refering to such people. I didn't see
it as an oblique broadside against the Religio, nor for that
matter against people who do make up their own religions. He
was simply taking issue with the way that he's been treated
by some of those people. Or at least that's how I read his
words.
Thank you for finding those URL's. I appreciate your effort.
I also thank you for the very gracious apology post earlier,
and if you haven't forwarded a copy to Jeff Smith, I'd
encourage you to do so.
Vale,
Gnaeus Equitius Marinus
|
