Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Roman seamen
From:	MCARTHUR JAMES <jmmcart@yahoo.com>
Date:	Sun, 16 Jun 2002 18:14:18 -0700 (PDT)

Thanks for the information, Padruig. I'll check out
their site.

William

--- PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@aol.com wrote:
> Salve, William.
>
> There is a Roman reenactment group the portrays the
> Legio I (or II) Adjutrix
> which was made up of Roman marines and was recruited
> in the Flavian period.
> Try to locate it through the links on the Legio XX
> website.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Roman seamen
From:	MCARTHUR JAMES <jmmcart@yahoo.com>
Date:	Sun, 16 Jun 2002 18:47:48 -0700 (PDT)

Salve, Pompeia!

I've subscribed to the Sodalitas mail list, and wish
to be enrolled as a socci, pending word on my
application for Novam Roman citizenship.

Jim McArthur (2002)

William MacArthur (1310, 1580's)

Marcus Ursus Marius (awaiting approval!)


--- pompeia_cornelia <trog99@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ---Salve William:
>
> You are welcome to join our Military Society,
> Sodalitas Militarium,
> where you will find discussion on all aspects of the
> military of Roma
> antiquita. The only requirement is that you must be
> 18 years of age
> or older. Noncitizens or citizens in waiting may
> join Militarium as
> socci (associate members)
>
> There are also some excellent links, book
> recommendations, pictures,
> graphics, and the like in our files/bookmark section
> of the
> Militarium site at Yahoogroups (I'll send you the
> link) which are
> worth attention.
>
> Just contact me at trog99@hotmail.com
>
> Vale,
> Pompeia Cornelia
> Benefacarius Praefectum
> Sodalitas Militarium
> Nova Roma
>
> In Nova-Roma@y..., "seadoggecaptain" <jmmcart@y...>
> wrote:
> > Salve!
> >
> > I am new to this list. I am William MacArthur in
> the SCA, a
> medieval
> > and renaissance recreational group, where I play a
> 1310 Templar sea
> > captain turned Scottish Independence fighter. I am
> also the Patron
> > for the Society's nautical guild in Meridies, a
> kingdom in the
> > Southeast U.S.
> >
> > I am anxious to learn more about nautical
> activities in the Roman
> > era, and in Nova Roma. Are there any members who
> portray nautical
> > types, or who otherwise are interested in Roman
> nautical matters?
> >
> >
> > William
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Lex Cornelia Senatoria
From:	cassius622@aol.com
Date:	Sun, 16 Jun 2002 22:18:57 EDT

Salvete,

While it is unfortunate that our Consuls disagree over the proposed law, this
sort of problem does crop up now and again and is hopefully easily dealt
with.

This law seems to directly apply directly to Senators, Consuls and Censors.
All those officers are present in the Senate. Perhaps discussion of this
matter might be moved to the Senate floor for a few days so that tempers may
cool and details may be sorted out? Small arguments are easier to solve than
large ones, after all.

If this matter is to be put before the public, there will be plenty of time
to bring all sides of the issue to the lists in a considered and finished
form. If not then the public forums can certainly be used for more agreeable
topics. :)

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Cornelia Octavia de Ratione Comitiorum Centuriatorum
From:	Fortunatus <labienus@texas.net>
Date:	Mon, 17 Jun 2002 00:10:02 -0500

Salvete Corneli Consul aliique

I have two comments on this proposed lex.

> II. Calling the Comitia to Order.
>
> A. This shall be done by making a public announcement announcing the
> call in those public fora which shall have been designated for such
> purpose, in which must be included:
>
> 1. The names of candidates for office and the office for which they are
> running (when the Comitia is being called for an election);
>
> 2. Past experiences of other major positions within the Central
> Government of the candidates in question and date of citizenship;

There is no compelling reason to include this in the announcement. The
candidates themselves will surely proclaim such information if they want
to be elected. Indeed, the consules and praetores should not be
required to perform the research necessary to provide this information.
If it is to be required by law, the burden should be on the
candidates. This most likely would be better mandated in a separate lex.

> B. During the Contio, the following conditions shall apply:
>
> 1. Those constitutionally empowered to do so may exercise their
> powers of intercessio or nuntiatio.
>
> a. The exercise of intercessio will remove an individual item from
> the vote, but voting on the other items will still be allowed.

I suggest the following wording:
a. Intercessio may be exercised against either the entire
election or vote, or against one or more individual items on the ballot.
If there are any items on the ballot that have not been subjected to
intercessio, voting on them shall proceed normally. The removal of an
item from the ballot due to intercessio shall not prevent that item from
being placed upon the ballot for a different vote at a later time.

In this way, the lex will avoid the possibility of infringing upon the
constitutional rights of magistrates to intercede against either the
actual call to vote or to more than one item on a given ballot.

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus
--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Ta i quetes Quenyanen séya vanima

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Cornelia Octavia de Ratione Comitiorum Centuriatorum
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Sun, 16 Jun 2002 23:40:23 -0700

Fortunatus wrote:

> Salvete Corneli Consul aliique
>
> I have two comments on this proposed lex.
>

Ave Praetor T. Labienus et Omes,

>
> > II. Calling the Comitia to Order.
> >
> > A. This shall be done by making a public announcement announcing
> the
> > call in those public fora which shall have been designated for such
> > purpose, in which must be included:
> >
> > 1. The names of candidates for office and the office for which they
> are
> > running (when the Comitia is being called for an election);
> >
> > 2. Past experiences of other major positions within the Central
> > Government of the candidates in question and date of citizenship;
>
> There is no compelling reason to include this in the announcement.
> The
> candidates themselves will surely proclaim such information if they
> want
> to be elected. Indeed, the consules and praetores should not be
> required to perform the research necessary to provide this
> information.
> If it is to be required by law, the burden should be on the
> candidates. This most likely would be better mandated in a separate
> lex.
>

Candidates might not know their exact date of citizenship. I added this
clause specifically because we have had candidates who did not know the
qualifications of the office they were running for. This would serve as
a check. However, I understand your point and would be willing to
compromise and state that the date of citizenship would be sufficent.
Would that be acceptable?

>
> > B. During the Contio, the following conditions shall apply:
> >
> > 1. Those constitutionally empowered to do so may exercise their
> > powers of intercessio or nuntiatio.
> >
> > a. The exercise of intercessio will remove an individual item
> from
> > the vote, but voting on the other items will still be allowed.
>
> I suggest the following wording:
> a. Intercessio may be exercised against either the entire
> election or vote, or against one or more individual items on the
> ballot.
> If there are any items on the ballot that have not been subjected to
>
> intercessio, voting on them shall proceed normally. The removal of an
>
> item from the ballot due to intercessio shall not prevent that item
> from
> being placed upon the ballot for a different vote at a later time.
>
> In this way, the lex will avoid the possibility of infringing upon the
>
> constitutional rights of magistrates to intercede against either the
> actual call to vote or to more than one item on a given ballot.
>

My colleague came up with this revision if he is acceptable with your
rewrite I would be happy to incorporate this on the final draft.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Consul

>
> Valete
> T Labienus Fortunatus
> --
> Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
> Ta i quetes Quenyanen séya vanima
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Flavius Aetius
From:	qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
Date:	Mon, 17 Jun 2002 04:01:34 EDT

In a message dated 6/15/02 5:06:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@aol.com writes:


> A popular account of the life of Flavius Aetius can be found in MEDIEVAL
> WARLORDS by Tim Newark

I have this scanned for Adobe.

Q. Fabius Maximus


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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Cornelia Senatoria
From:	"M. Octavius Solaris" <hendrik.meuleman@pi.be>
Date:	Sun, 16 Jun 2002 21:04:14 +0200

Salve,

(snipped)

> The System is already unbalanced. The discretion of the Censors is the
> only check. What is to prevent the Censors from deciding that opposing
> the views of their faction is immoral? If the Censors have no
> accountability what is to prevent them from secretly altering the
> album? To prevent them from tossing a few key Senators out prior to a
> vote that will go against their faction. Imagine a worse case scenario
> that the Censors were Marcus Apollonius and Gnaeus Moravius Piscnus.
> How many Senators would be tossed for opposing their "democratic"
> program?

More democratic than yours, I can imagine.

Aside from your sniping in the dark, I must say that the idea has
considerable merit.

Vale,
M. Octavius Solaris.

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] On the Lex Cornelia Senatoria
From:	qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
Date:	Mon, 17 Jun 2002 06:14:57 EDT

Salvete Conscript Fathers, Magistrates, and Citizens of Rome.

I have returned to find rioting in the streets of Rome! And for what
purpose? Because of a proposed law that the Illustrious Cornelius Sulla
wishes to put forth to the people. Mark that well now, a proposed law. Not
an edict. It would be something the people would decide, presumably after
the Senate issued their comments on the subject.

So, for those who wish to watch Roman law making in action, here is your
chance. Because you have seen two of our most powerful leaders calling each
other names, and flinging dung at each other. Shocking? Not really. This
was the constant state of affairs in the late Republic, Consuls Cornelius
Sulla and Octavius, represent the worst in historical Roman leadership,
unless of course, you like dictatorships. And like their namesakes our two
consuls are locked in a collusion course. I on the other hand hail from the
middle republic. A much saner time.
So what is this all about, you may ask?
Simply stated, it is about power. Who will have it, and who will lose it. A
great man once said "When we are in doubt in how Nova Roma shall conduct
itself, we will look to ancient Rome for our answers." The problem here, is
because the unwritten Roman constitution changed through out its history we
cannot look to ancient Rome for answers. Because the answers themselves
contradict.
In our early inception of our republic, we have back engineered offices of
the republic, that corresponds with the greatest glory of the republic, the
middle. After the post Punic wars, Rome was on a period of conquest, and
self discovery. Empires fell before the legiones, the Macedonian, Seleucids,
Ptolmaics, Illyrians, even Greece. Rome became rich. Based on its slave
economy, and plunder Rome reached its pinnacle. Some of the greatest figures
of the republic lived during this time or would be born.
Alas, our dictator for whatever his reason, me thinks lack of research
frankly, saddled these offices with an office from the late republic, one
that was so corrupt that Augustus Caesar himself ordered its abolishment. I
speak about the Censorship.

The censorship of course was not only in the late republic, it was in the
earlier as well, but in its early days it checked financial considerations
for employment of the legiones, wealth determined the Roman citizen's place
in the ranks, and most important, wealth determined the two highest classes
of citizens, the Senators, and the Knights. It was up to the censors to
ascertain this. This was done through the census. The censor would sit on
his platform, in the campus and citizens would come forth one by one, and
give their assests. Based on this info, the censor would assign the citizen
his place in the levy and determine his tributum (property tax) to the state.
This was done every two years, and as Rome increased in size, every five
years.
Now the original Senators were political appointees of the Rex, as his
advisers, and when the kingship was abolished this same practice continued
with the Consuls. It would appear that a "spoils system" was in place, as
Consuls rewarded their friends with seats on the marble benches.
Consider the upheaval, Romans, as Senators came and went, loyal to the consul
of the moment.
This changed in mid 300s, as the censors who up to now had been patricians
only, could now be plebeians in the office. This meant that pelebians could
be allowed entry to the senate. The lex told the censors to pick the best
qualified, but a Senator, patrician or plebe, now had to have a certain sum
of money to be a senator. While this seemed harsh, it makes sense. The
Senate was often involved in long deliberations, and unless the members were
independently wealthy, they could not take part, being forced to work to
survive.
By Polybios time (150s) the censors are not even mentioned in regards to his
brilliant work of comparison of the governments of the Romans and Greeks.
They are included within the Senate. He makes it very clear, the Senate
chose its members, and dismissed them. Presumably, the censors checked on
the qualifications. But if nominees passed they were in the senate.

Which brings us to the Nova Roman censors. Our censors determine who our new
senators will be. They can accept input from the consuls and the Senate, but
they make the final determination, with no set guidelines, and worse, they
are under no timetable to do ANYTHING!
We saw this appallingly manifested recently. The Senate had put forth its
nomineees, even issued a Consultum and clearly demonstrated they wished these
persons to be confirmed. In a powerplay, I know no other way to describe it,
the censors defied the wishes of the senate, its consuls, picked its own
candidates, which is NOT what the constitution says. They must accept input
from the consuls and the senate.
By doing this, the censors for all intents became "kingmakers" something that
only happened in the late Republic, where a bribe to a censor could get one
on the Senate.
This PROPOSED law, not an edict, not a deceleration, will limit the power of
the censors, get them to respond to the senate's request in a timely matter,
something that the constitution does not FORCE them to do, and set forth
qualifications of Senators, something else that does not exist right now in
the constitution. And it will reward Provincial Praetors for their hard work
for Rome's benefit.
So you see Romans, you may now watch our mighty republic as it redefines its
constitution, something that you all will take part. But instead of just
voting for a lex, you will watch as it becomes law.
Since it is only a proposal, not even debated in the senate yet, as a
Advocate of Roman law,
I have to say the Illustrious Consul Octavius' veto of his colleagues
proposal was premature and illegal. Had Cornelius Sulla attempted to make
this PROPOSED lex a edictum, Consul Octavius would be within his right under
the imperium granted by the college, to impose his intercessio on said
edictum. Had it been voted into law, which it clearly has not, he could also
attempt a veto, but more correctly this would be done by the Tribunes, if
they felt the spirit of the Nova Roman constitution had been violated by said
lex.
Thank you for listening, Romans. Fortuna preserve our republic!

Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus
Proconsul.


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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Locutio
From:	Sextus Apollonius Scipio <scipio_apollonius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Mon, 17 Jun 2002 05:35:24 -0700 (PDT)

Salve,

Some Locutio that might be useful to read...

Alium silere quod voles primus sile. (Seneca)
(Do not say what you would not like to hear)

Ratio et oratio conciliant inter sese homines.(Cicero)
(Wisdom and Words unite people all togother).

Valete,


=====
Sextus Apollonius Scipio
Acting Praefectus for France, Sodalitatis Egressus

Terrarum dea gentiumque, Roma
Cui par est nihil et nihil secundum.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] On the Lex Cornelia Senatoria
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Mon, 17 Jun 2002 08:57:33 -0500 (CDT)

> Salvete Conscript Fathers, Magistrates, and Citizens of Rome.

Please take this debate to the Senate list where it belongs.

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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Cornelia Senatoria
From:	Michel Loos <loos@qt1.iq.usp.br>
Date:	17 Jun 2002 11:02:28 -0300

Em Dom, 2002-06-16 às 20:37, Marcus Octavius Germanicus escreveu:
>
> > There is nothing illegal, or against the Constitution to define a window
> > when the Censores may exercise their discretionary powers.
>
> There is absoulutely no need for it either.
>
> > Remember the numerous requests that were made to have our Censores
> > send her an email..over a period of 6-8 weeks. Don't you think
> > that was unprofessional?
>
> It was unprofessional of the outgoing consul to attempt to force the
> Censores to act when they had no intention of creating any new
> Senators at that time.
>
> > And disrespectful for Vedia to be forced to wait so long after the
> > Senate deemed her qualified to take her seat with us?
>
> That certainly wasn't the Censores fault. They stated up front they
> would not be adding new Senators until well after the elections were
> done; Vedius chose to jump the gun, and manufactured the disagreement
> that eventually led to his leaving.
>
> Now, as a result of that, you seek to curtail the powers of the
> persons who were the wronged parties. That is utterly bizarre.
>
> > It is not. Censorial discretion is maintained, you act like it is it is
> > removed permanently, when it is not. I have quoted and re-quoted the
> > law.
>
> As have I. The Censors add Senators; they do not merely have an
> opportunity to object when the Consuls decide to do so.
>
> > The People of Nova Roma should be able to judge this for
> > themselves, you have taken that ability away from them with your veto.
>
> I will veto every attempt to shatter our fragile balance of power.
> Our system has three types of authority: magisterial/autocratic,
> oligarchic, and democratic. You seek to use one to reduce the other,
> and I will not be a party to that.
>
> > This is entirely wrong and I request our Tribunes to
> > draft an Open Governmental Act, in order to prevent our magistrates from
> > acting in secret especially when it comes to the removal of Board
> > members who have a direct say in the policies of Nova Roma!
>
> You are in no position to chastise anyone about acting in secret. You
> neglected to tell your colleague about a very controversial proposal,
> even though I asked you repeatedly for the full text of what you
> intended. You have disgraced the office we both hold with that
> dishonorable behavior.
>
> Never again will I trust that you are telling the whole truth.
>
> > And your attempt to protect a system that allows for secret governmental
> > maneuverings in an effort to remove board members at the whim of Censors
> > with virtually no check is wrong and it weakens the Board of Directors
> > of Nova Roma.
>
> I do not support such, and you continued insistance that I do brands
> you a liar and a fraud. YOU KNOW AS WELL AS I DO that there is indeed
> a check on the Censores - the Tribunes can and did act to stop the
> Censores from removing the two inactive Senators.
>
> It is a historical fact that the Tribunes acted to stop the Censores.
> Why do you continue to distort this? Why do you continue to insist
> that your incoherent attempt at a lex is needed, when that problem
> was already solved months ago?
>
> > Your unwillingness to add a necessary check potentially
> > exposes Nova Roma to potential crises in the future.
>
> It is not necessary. The Tribunes are a check. By what leap of logic
> can you possibly say that another solution is needed, when the Tribunes'
> veto already accomplished what you wanted?
>

The censors and the tribunes are democratically elected, the senate is
not. Removing power from the representants of the people
(Censors/Tribunes) to give it to the oligarchy (Senate) is definitively
reducing the democratic part in our Republic.

What I don't understand in this discussion is that the proposal of that
law has already been vetoed by Consul M. Octavius and since no tribune
has objected to this Veto, there is no further point of discussion.


Vale

Manius Villius Limitanus, Tribune of the Plebs

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Cornelia Octavia de Ratione Comitiorum Centuriatorum
From:	Fortunatus <labienus@texas.net>
Date:	Mon, 17 Jun 2002 10:59:43 -0500

Salve iterum Corneli Consul et salvete omnes

> Candidates might not know their exact date of citizenship. I added this
> clause specifically because we have had candidates who did not know the
> qualifications of the office they were running for. This would serve as
> a check. However, I understand your point and would be willing to
> compromise and state that the date of citizenship would be sufficent.
> Would that be acceptable?

It would be acceptable, though I am uncertain as to why it's necessary.
After all, Section II.B. of both your proposed lex and the current Lex
Vedia de Ratione Comitiorum Centuriatorum says:

"The presiding magistrate shall have the responsibility for taking all
reasonable precautions to ensure that candidates for a vote hold
whatever qualifications are required by law. The Censors shall assist in
such efforts as to the best of their ability."

Surely this is sufficient to guarantee the check you seek, nonne? After
all, no codicile in any lex will ever prevent human error.

Nota bene:
For the record, and hopefully for the edification of some, one's date of
citizenship is displayed publicly on one's record in the Album Gentium
on the Nova Roma site ( http://www.novaroma.org/bin/view/gentes ). For
example, if I click on Gens Labiena's entry under the column
"Members/Status" in the Album Gentium, then on my name, I can see that I
have officially been a civis since the first of July, 1998 CE. (I
actually received confirmation of my citizenship on 7 July, 1998, but
the date is reasonably accurate.) So, this information is available to
any civis at any time.

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus
--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Ta i quetes Quenyanen séya vanima

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Chainquiz IX
From:	"curiobritannicus" <Marcusaemiliusscaurus@hotmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 17 Jun 2002 18:52:46 -0000

Salvete omnes,

Time for the next question! Yesterday's question was first answered
correctly by Gaius Marcius Coriolanus, who knew that Romulus killed
Remus because Remus jumped over the fortifications of the fledgling
Rome in a territorial dispute.

He asks: What was the relationship between L.Cornelius Cinna and
G.Iulius Caesar?

If you know the answer, please e-mail me at
marcusscribonius@hotmail.com with your answer, your Roman name, *and*
the question that you would like to ask. Some people did not include
a question!

Bene valete,
Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus.

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Discussion about the Lex Cornelia Senatoria
From:	Caeso Fabius Quintilianus <tjalens.h@telia.com>
Date:	Mon, 17 Jun 2002 22:54:56 +0200

Salve Tribune of the Plebs, Honorable Manius Villius Limitanus!

I agree to some extent with your thoughts, but it now seems that the
members of the Senate have decided to take back this discussion to
the Senate. It should have been discussed there before until there
was a constructive solution to the problems that we have just touched
upon here on the main list.

Then it should have been presented to the public, but that is only my
humble opinion. The Senate is the advisors of the Magistrati of New
Rome and should have had the chance to discuss this issue before it
became public. The Senate should be consulted and is as far I have
seen always ready to give as good advise as possible to any high
Magistrate.

>The censors and the tribunes are democratically elected, the senate is
>not. Removing power from the representants of the people
>(Censors/Tribunes) to give it to the oligarchy (Senate) is definitively
>reducing the democratic part in our Republic.
>
>What I don't understand in this discussion is that the proposal of that
>law has already been vetoed by Consul M. Octavius and since no tribune
>has objected to this Veto, there is no further point of discussion.
>
>
>Vale
>
>Manius Villius Limitanus, Tribune of the Plebs

--
Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Senator et Senior Curule Aedile
Propraetor of Thule
AUCTOR LEGIONIS, Legio VII "Res Publica"
Sodalitas Egressus Praefectus Provincia Thules

The Opinions expressed are my own,
and not an official opinion of Nova Roma
************************************************
The homepage of Senior Curule Aedile
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus and his Cohors Aedilis
http://italia.novaroma.org/cohorsaedilis/
************************************************
The homepage of the Nova Roma Provincia Thule:
http://thule.novaroma.org/
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
"Do not give in to hate. That leads to the dark side."
************************************************
Caeso, he who also is known as Christer Edling.
************************************************
PRIVATE PHONE: +90 - 10 09 10

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Master James McArthur
From:	"radams36" <radams36@yahoo.com>
Date:	Mon, 17 Jun 2002 21:05:38 -0000

> Ladies and Gentlemen;
>
> I am pleased to introduce to you a friend of long standing, Master
James
> McArthur. He is, as he has indicated, been long involved with SCA,
and
> is also a member of the SCA Nautical List, an organization to which
I
> was appointed Diplomatic Legate some time ago. He is to my mind an
> intelligent gentleman who does excellent research, and has been
helpful
> to me in the past on the above list in several different venues.
>
> I am pleased to welcome him to the Nova Roma List, and very pleased
to
> be able to sponsor his request for Citizenship. I have invited him
to
> join Militarium, due to his naval interest, and I present him to
you as
> a swordsman of the first class. He may not be immediately familar
with
> the gladius, but his other skills I am sure will "take up the
slack," as
> the saying goes. Please welcome to Nova Roma, the application of
James
> McArthur for Citizenship in our micrnation.
>
> Respectfully;
>
> Marcus Minucius Audens
>
> Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!
>

Any friend of Marcus Minucius Audens can consider himself a friend of
mine! Salvete, amice!

Rufus Iulius Palaeologus