Subject:	[novaroma] Military History Inquiry
From:	Piparskeggr - Venator <catamount_grange@inwave.com>
Date:	Thu, 07 Mar 2002 12:16:50 -0600

Avete Omnes,

An Heathen friend is searching for writings, in English, by Publius Rutilius Rufus.

He is under the impression that Rufus wrote accounts of battle, plus a military manual.

Anyone have sources?

--
=========================================
In Amicus sub Fidelis
- Piperbarbus Ullerius Venator
Civis Nova Romana et Paterfamilias
Legatus Occidentalis pro Magna Lacus

Domus Familias
http://www.geocities.com/gens_ulleria/index.html

Dominus Sodalis
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sodalis_Coq_et_Coq/

Noli mictare en mura.
(Don't pee on the walls.)

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Opinion on Julian
From:	"gcassiusnerva" <gcassiusnerva@cs.com>
Date:	Thu, 07 Mar 2002 23:37:02 -0000

Salvete,

It has been a while since I read a book about Julian, and I don't
have it here with me.

I was not impressed with him. His education {if I am remembering
correctly} was really tilted towards the more mystical and
superstitious forms of neo-Platonism. I really do prefer something
more rationally based. Damn, I wish I had that book with me. It
would be much easier to take part in this talk had I my reference.

However, it is not true that all we know about him comes from his
enemies. If I am not mistaken, at least a few of his books survive.
I think our censor Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus has a few of them in
their Loeb editions.

Gaius Cassius Nerva

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: The interactive calendar
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Thu, 7 Mar 2002 18:02:23 -0600 (CST)

Salve Julilla Sempronia,

> Gnaeus Salix Astur, what a great opportunity for me to remind all
> that our calendar is interactive, and important dates can be easily
> added by everyone, from the provincial to the pontifex. Just go to
> the date, select the type of event from the pull-down menu, and, if
> it is an annual event, you can note that too!

The Dies Fasti, Nefasti, etc., are stored differently - I'll have
to enter these.

However, your suggestion is a good one - everyone should be making
more use of this calendar. Very few events have been placed within
it. I know there are several gatherings planned, in my own province
and others; there may be Roman TV shows upcoming; all of these
should be entered, and anyone can do it.

Vale, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus
Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
Curator Araneum et Senator

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] EDICTVM PROVINCE CALIFORNIA PROCONSVL SCRIBVS
From:	qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
Date:	Thu, 7 Mar 2002 18:53:30 EST

PROCONSVL CAL Q FABIVS MAXIMVS DEC

The Roman citizen Gaius Cornelius Ahenobarbus is hereby appointed my scribe,
with all the responsibilities and honors of the position

Done this day AD VIII ID MARTIAS MMDCCLV AVC

Q. Fabius Maximus





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: The interactive calendar
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Thu, 7 Mar 2002 23:58:25 +0000 (GMT)

Salvete, Quirites; et salve, Iulilla.

--- Julilla <curatrix@villaivlilla.com> wrote:
> --- In novaroma@y..., Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@y...> wrote:
> > Salvete Quirites.
> >
> > I would like to suggest to those in charge of mantaining the
> > interactive calendar on the web site to update it to include the
> dies
> > fasti, nefasti and comitiales for the next few months.
> >
> > I, at least, would find it very useful for my official duties as a
> > magistrate.
> >
> > Thank you.
>
> Gnaeus Salix Astur, what a great opportunity for me to remind all
> that our calendar is interactive, and important dates can be easily
> added by everyone, from the provincial to the pontifex. Just go to
> the date, select the type of event from the pull-down menu, and, if
> it is an annual event, you can note that too!

Yes, thank you, Iulilla. But since the Collegium Pontifices of Nova
Roma have agreed on a sacred calendar, I think that, at least, dies
comitiales should be indicated. We are expected to know them, so we
avoid summoning the assemblies on an unproper day.

Maybe the web site staff could contact the pontifices for a complete
report of the dies comitiales.

Thank you.

=====
Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Tribunus Plebis
Legatus Externis Rebus Provinciae Hispaniae
Triumvir Academiae Thules
Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Thules
Lictor Curiatus.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

Subject:	[novaroma] Diocletian {Was Thoughts On Julian}
From:	"gcassiusnerva" <gcassiusnerva@cs.com>
Date:	Thu, 07 Mar 2002 23:48:57 -0000

>In his days the Empire could still be reorganised,
> reenlivened for a time. A Diocletian or a Trajan would have been
> needed, not a Julian.
>
> I'm sure some citizens will be happy to give you more information
on
> this emperor.
>
> Vale.
>
> Marcus Salix Saverius

Salve Saverius!

I'm not sure Diocletian could be considered a good emperor in the
long run. That reorganization of the empire and the principate seems
to me a disaster. Did the man really believe that someone would be
content to be a "co-empeperor" and abdicate to allow their ceasars to
take over, all for the good of the empire? His cult of Imperial
divinity ceased to inspire the empire as soon as he stepped aside and
retired to Split, and his little Caesars began their civil wars all
across the empire. It is incredible, I think, that he thought his
system could actually survive him. Do you think he may have intended
this, so that people would remember him more fondly? {"Oh, things
were so much better run and we had none of this anarchy when
Diocletian was in power"}

Gaius Cassius Nerva

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] EDICTVM PROVINCE CALIFORNIA PROCONSVL SCRIBVS
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Thu, 7 Mar 2002 17:34:22 -0800

Avete Omnes et Family,

Congratulations on your appointment as a scribe to Proconsul Q. Fabius!

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

----- Original Message -----
From: qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
To: novaroma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] EDICTVM PROVINCE CALIFORNIA PROCONSVL SCRIBVS


PROCONSVL CAL Q FABIVS MAXIMVS DEC

The Roman citizen Gaius Cornelius Ahenobarbus is hereby appointed my scribe,
with all the responsibilities and honors of the position

Done this day AD VIII ID MARTIAS MMDCCLV AVC

Q. Fabius Maximus





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Opinion on Julian
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Thu, 7 Mar 2002 16:10:17 -0800

Ave,

There is a historian, and I am probably going to butcher his name...but Ammianus Marcellinus wrote quite a bit about Julian. He was not hostile...towards him at all. He idolized Julian, considering about 1/3 of his work evolves around the 3 years he was on the thrown.

Below is a link to amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140444068/qid=1015546096/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_3_1/103-1997452-6521406

You can read some of the reviews of individuals who have purchased this book.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

----- Original Message -----
From: gcassiusnerva
To: novaroma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 3:37 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Re: Opinion on Julian


Salvete,

It has been a while since I read a book about Julian, and I don't
have it here with me.

I was not impressed with him. His education {if I am remembering
correctly} was really tilted towards the more mystical and
superstitious forms of neo-Platonism. I really do prefer something
more rationally based. Damn, I wish I had that book with me. It
would be much easier to take part in this talk had I my reference.

However, it is not true that all we know about him comes from his
enemies. If I am not mistaken, at least a few of his books survive.
I think our censor Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus has a few of them in
their Loeb editions.

Gaius Cassius Nerva

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Opinion on Julian
From:	Michel Loos <loos@qt1.iq.usp.br>
Date:	07 Mar 2002 21:43:32 -0300

Em Qui, 2002-03-07 às 12:50, sceptia escreveu:
>
> Salvete omnes, et salve amice Saverii.
>
> --- In novaroma@y..., "javier_gil_ruiz" <javier_gil_ruiz@y...> wrote:
> > --- In novaroma@y..., Craig Stevenson <gaiussentius@y...> wrote:
> > > Salve omnes,
> > >
> > > I have recently been reading up on Julian, and was
> > > wondering if anyone could help me with something that
> > > has been bothering me. From works done on him, I was
> > > wondering if anyone thinks he was a heroic failure, or
> > > if there is some better way of describing his career?
> > > Any help would be appreciated.
> >
> >
> > Salvete omnes cives
> >
> > Well, I don't want to be offensive or anything but my sincere
> > appreciation of him is…
> >
> > He was nuts.
> >
> > No, really. I know he is sympathetic to pagans, as he tried to
> > restore and believed firmly in paganism (but hey, so did
> > heliogabalus). I also know we only know of him from his enemies, so
> > we should skip the historian's appreciations. He has nice moments
> > historians could not silence (as when he mocked his deification by
> > the senate), but still…
> >

This is absolutely not true. We have some of his own works and Ammianus
can not be described as his ennemy. Of course we have also a lot
of writings from the galileans but nobody forces you to read them.

> > First, he organised a bloody persecution of Christians. Yes, we
> > should judge people by the standards of their eras but back then
> many
> > people did deplore persecutions.

Absolutely and definitively untrue. Julianus did never organize a
persecution against christians: To the contrary he organized freedom of
cult, even between galilean factions. Galilean bishops claimed they were
persecuted because they were deprived of the "right" to use the imperial
travel facilities in order to run through the country and excomunicate
one another.

> Christians were also intolerant
> > then, and soon began with their own persecutions, but if you condemn
> > one side you also have to condemn the other too for the same evil
> > (equal in nature, albeit different in size).

The galilean persecutions began before Julianus's reign, mostly between
the various sects. The destruction of the temples of the Gods began much
earlier.

> > And he did so out of religious belief, not convenience, which is a
> > recipe for bloodiness and more unsympathetic to me.
> >
> > Then, he was unrealistic. When reading about roman emperors you get
> > the impression that it was difficult for them to stay in touch with
> > the reality of the empire. His was a lost cause, and had been so for
> > years. His paganism had also little to do with mainstream paganism
> or
> > the Religio, and seems to me more a figment of his inner world.

Yes, that's true: his hellenism was not the one of old times,it was
neo-platonisism of the 4th century. Strongly tainted by the mixture of
philosophy/moral with religion and magic.

>> His
> > cruelties are perhaps exaggerated by historians, but some of his
> more
> > deranged statements seem more genuine to me.
> >

WHich historian did you read. I can find no cruelty in Ammianus.

> > What bothers me most is perhaps that he missed a good opportunity to
> > do good. In his days the Empire could still be reorganised,
> > reenlivened for a time. A Diocletian or a Trajan would have been
> > needed, not a Julian.
> >

The empire was reorganized. The idea oif fighting the galilean plague
with their own weapons : letting them fight one another while organizing
a hellenic church was not necessarely bad. But this hellenic church was
in itself a sort of new religion not a revivasl of the old one,
therefore it faced the opposition both of the true followers of the
Religio which didn t want to be organized in a hierarchical church and
of the galileans.


> > I'm sure some citizens will be happy to give you more information on
> > this emperor.
> >

For me Julianus was perhaps a medium emperor, but he was for sure a
great general. He proved first in Gallia on the frontier with Germany
where the Roman forces regained the ascendant over the Germans.
And then his magistral, napoleonic, march THROUGH free Germany directly
to the Balkans, effectively turning the governors of Italia and Dalmatia
which were loyal to Constance II.
This is both a master piece of military art and a show of devotion for
the greater good of Rome. How many generals, when facing a civil war
took all their troops with them letting the borders unguarded ?
Julian achieved both goals through his march: pacifying the ennemy and
gaining the edge in the civil war.

What a contrast whith his galilean succesor: Jovian, who turned a
victorious (or at least stalemate) parthic campaign into a bitter defeat
by signing an ignominous peace treaty just in order to get back to the
Empire with an intact army in order to assure his throne.

Vale,

Manius Villius Limitanus

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Military History Inquiry
From:	qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
Date:	Thu, 7 Mar 2002 20:31:05 EST

In a message dated 3/7/02 4:05:08 PM Pacific Standard Time,
catamount_grange@inwave.com writes:


> Publius Rutilius Rufus. cica 160-75 BCE
> Wrote "de repetundis (c.92 BCE) which Cicero refers to in his writings in
78. He was excelled to Smyrana after this.

Famous in his time for his joint military reforms with Marius, as consul he
raised the 6 legione consular army that would later defeat the Cimbri. His
memiors are qouted by later historians, especially Sullust and Florus.
Nothing else of his work survives.
He was a Stoic taking instruction from Panaetius, in his youth.
Q. Fabius Maximus


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: The interactive calendar
From:	Gnaeus Marius <gnmariusasia@yahoo.com>
Date:	Thu, 7 Mar 2002 18:38:05 -0800 (PST)

>>
Just out of curiousity, would the birthday of the
first 'natural-born' cives be on the calender?

Cn Mari A
>>
--- Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
wrote:
> Salve Julilla Sempronia,
>
> > Gnaeus Salix Astur, what a great opportunity for
> me to remind all
> > that our calendar is interactive, and important
> dates can be easily
> > added by everyone, from the provincial to the
> pontifex. Just go to
> > the date, select the type of event from the
> pull-down menu, and, if
> > it is an annual event, you can note that too!
>
<snip>
>
> Vale, Octavius.
>
> --
> Marcus Octavius Germanicus
> Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
> Curator Araneum et Senator
>
>


=====
Cn Marius Asia

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email!
http://mail.yahoo.com/

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Opinion on Julian
From:	"javier_gil_ruiz" <javier_gil_ruiz@yahoo.es>
Date:	Fri, 08 Mar 2002 09:52:00 -0000

Salvete.

--- In novaroma@y..., qfabiusmaxmi@a... wrote:
> Salvete,
>
> We just had this discussion on the college of Pontiffs list.
>
> The Church did see him as a annoyance, and may have had him
> assassinated during the Persian campaign.

Well, "annoyance" is quite an understatement. Yes, the church would
have hated him heartily.
Although it is quite believable that the enemy would also have had
some interest in killing him in battle. :-D Facts are that he was
shot with an arrow. All else seems hypothesis to me.

Saverius

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Opinion on Julian
From:	"javier_gil_ruiz" <javier_gil_ruiz@yahoo.es>
Date:	Fri, 08 Mar 2002 10:42:25 -0000

Salvete omnes et salve, Limitane

--- In novaroma@y..., Michel Loos <loos@q...> wrote:
> Em Qui, 2002-03-07 às 12:50, sceptia escreveu:
> > > No, really. I know he is sympathetic to pagans, as he tried to
> > > restore and believed firmly in paganism (but hey, so did
> > > heliogabalus). I also know we only know of him from his
> > > enemies, so we should skip the historian's appreciations. He
> > > has nice moments historians could not silence (as when he
> > > mocked his deification by the senate), but still…
> > >
>
> This is absolutely not true. We have some of his own works and
> Ammianus can not be described as his ennemy. Of course we have also
> a lot of writings from the galileans but nobody forces you to read
> them.

Well, I reckon there is indeed some information from the other side.
But disregarding most sources about him completely just because they
are against him would be just as one sided as notreading Ammianus
because he supports him.

> > > First, he organised a bloody persecution of Christians. Yes, we
> > > should judge people by the standards of their eras but back
> > > then many people did deplore persecutions.
>
> Absolutely and definitively untrue. Julianus did never organize a
> persecution against christians: To the contrary he organized
> freedom of cult, even between galilean factions. Galilean bishops
> claimed they were persecuted because they were deprived of
> the "right" to use the imperial travel facilities in order to run
> through the country and excomunicate
> one another.

Well, our sources seem to be in deep contradiction there. I'm
surprised that such a thing as a religious persecution can be
invented if false or denied if true. There are many sad recent
examples of the latter, although the case is completely different.

We do know, though, that the "persecution" or mere amiable pressure
was intense enough to make a considerable amount of christians,
bishops and prelates aposthasize (is this the correct spellling?) the
catholic faith. Discussions about their readmission led to
Donatianism, which is an undeniable historical fact.

In short: My curiosity is picked, and I will go on reading on this.



> > > Christians were also intolerant
> > > then, and soon began with their own persecutions, but if you
> > > condemn one side you also have to condemn the other too for the
> > > same evil (equal in nature, albeit different in size).
>
> The galilean persecutions began before Julianus's reign, mostly
> between the various sects. The destruction of the temples of the
> Gods began much earlier.

I myself don't condemn on grounds of "who began what". I do
understand grudges and hatreds, but ruling on these grounds would not
be a siolution for the problems of today in the world (Please, forget
what I just said if you are going to flame this. I'm just not in the
mood).


> > > And he did so out of religious belief, not convenience, which
> > > is a recipe for bloodiness and more unsympathetic to me.
> > >
> > > Then, he was unrealistic. When reading about roman emperors you
> > > get the impression that it was difficult for them to stay in
> > > touch with the reality of the empire. His was a lost cause, and
> > > had been so for years. His paganism had also little to do with
> > > mainstream paganism or
> > > the Religio, and seems to me more a figment of his inner world.
>
> Yes, that's true: his hellenism was not the one of old times,it was
> neo-platonisism of the 4th century. Strongly tainted by the mixture
> of philosophy/moral with religion and magic.
>
> > > His cruelties are perhaps exaggerated by historians, but some
> > > of his more deranged statements seem more genuine to me.
> > >
>
> Which historian did you read. I can find no cruelty in Ammianus.

Modern spanish ones (I don't think the name "Díaz Plaja" will say
much here). But Ammianus (just downloaded a few things) seems at
first sight more of a hagiographer than a historian. I mean, it seems
he only tells great and marvellous things about Julian, and it is
highly suspicious when a historian only says good or bad things.

> > > What bothers me most is perhaps that he missed a good
> > > opportunity to do good. In his days the Empire could still be
> > > reorganised, reenlivened for a time. A Diocletian or a Trajan
> > > would have been needed, not a Julian.
> > >
>
> The empire was reorganized. The idea of fighting the galilean
> plague with their own weapons : letting them fight one another
> while organizing a hellenic church was not necessarely bad. But
> this hellenic church was in itself a sort of new religion not a
> revivasl of the old one, therefore it faced the opposition both of
> the true followers of the Religio which didn t want to be
> organized in a hierarchical church and of the galileans.

I meant the social, military and economical decline which was already
visible in the empire, which would take too long to post here.

And, BTW, the name "galilean" is not an insult nor a flattering. Just
an inexactitude.

> > > I'm sure some citizens will be happy to give you more
> > > information on this emperor.
> > >
>
> For me Julianus was perhaps a medium emperor, but he was for sure a
> great general. He proved first in Gallia on the frontier with
> Germany where the Roman forces regained the ascendant over the
> Germans.
> And then his magistral, napoleonic, march THROUGH free Germany
> directly to the Balkans, effectively turning the governors of
> Italia and Dalmatia which were loyal to Constance II.
> This is both a master piece of military art and a show of devotion
> for the greater good of Rome. How many generals, when facing a
> civil war took all their troops with them letting the borders
> guarded ?

A really good move.

> Julian achieved both goals through his march: pacifying the ennemy
> and gaining the edge in the civil war.

And perhaps taking the easier route through a rather unpopulated
region in comparative stalemate and peace, provoking yet more
resentment and bitterness towards the romans.

> What a contrast whith his galilean succesor: Jovian, who turned a
> victorious (or at least stalemate) parthic campaign into a bitter
> defeat by signing an ignominous peace treaty just in order to get
> back to the Empire with an intact army in order to assure his
> throne.

About the parthian campaign: An emperor had just died in it, so
perhaps it was not so victorious. That enemy had proved to be tiring
and difficult to defeat. in other campaigns they could lose battle
after battle without being defeated.

And even if the victory were at hand, I would argue that conquering
yet another "not so fruitful" province which would take many troops
to keep and defend would not have been overly wise. Sometimes
conquering more and more territory is not always the best decision.
That's another "napoleonic" lesson for you! ;-)

Valete bene!

Marcus Salix Saverius

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Need guidance on Stoics
From:	"javier_gil_ruiz" <javier_gil_ruiz@yahoo.es>
Date:	Fri, 08 Mar 2002 09:56:58 -0000

Salvete

--- In novaroma@y..., qfabiusmaxmi@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 3/7/02 6:51:59 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> labienus@t... writes:
> Augustine, (required reading for any student in St. Augustine High
> School which is where I met him) is a rabid catholic christian.

Yes, augustinian schools seem to be everywhere! I went to one in
Madrid till I was 12...

But he was not a christian nor an orthodox, nor a protestant. Those
concepts didn't exist. He was a convert though, and those are the
worst fanatics...

> However he goes to great lengths to explain his reasoning why his
> theology is superior then the old Roman worship. That in itself is
> rather entertaining.

Well, up to a point. His writings are homepathic: You have to take
them in small doses.

Valete, et Tomulus Bonus

Saverius

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Military History Inquiry
From:	"g_popillius_laenas" <ksterne@bellsouth.net>
Date:	Fri, 08 Mar 2002 14:40:58 -0000

>>Famous in his time for his joint military reforms with Marius<<

Salvete Omnes,

I am curious about this. In her books McCullough paints Marius and
Rutlius as great friends. In the Oxford Classical Dictionary, and I
think some other sources, I have read they were political enemies.

Does anybody know the real story?

Valete,
Gaius Popillius Laenas