Forum Romanum


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: The Proposed Lex Fabia de Ratione Comitiorum Centuriatorum and History
From:	"=?iso-8859-1?q?A.=20Apollonius=20Cordus?=" <cordus@strategikon.org>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 01:07:11 +0100 (BST)

A. Apollonius Cordus to Rogator Q. Cassius Calvus and
all citizens and peregrines, greetings.

> > If I may follow up on your answer above: how is it
> > that a system which is quite likely to deprive
many
> > citizens of their chance to vote at all can
> > produce an
> > accurate reflection of the will of the voters?
>
> The only way a the Iulian proposal deprives a
> citizen of the chance to vote is if the individual
> citizen does not make the effort to vote.

Forgive me, I have failed to make myself clear. I am
not referring to the 24-hour voting period suggested
for each century. It still seems to me rather short,
but it is a minor detail.

When I say that the Iulian system deprives a citizen
of his chance to vote, I refer to the fact that voting
ceases as soon as two candidates have received a
majority, even if not all the centuries have voted. It
is therefore possible for a voter, however much effort
he may make to cast his vote, is denied the ability to
do so, for the result of the election had already been
decided without him.

It is with this in mind that I ask whether such a
system can really be considered accurately to reflect
the will of all those who choose to vote.

Cordus

=====
www.collapsibletheatre.co.uk

________________________________________________________________________
Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!
Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] wealth and centuries
From:	"=?iso-8859-1?q?A.=20Apollonius=20Cordus?=" <cordus@strategikon.org>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 01:19:14 +0100 (BST)

A. Apollonius Cordus to Cornelius Moravius Laureatus
and all citizens and peregrines, greetings.

> I would very much like to see that century points
> are awarded also to people who actively study latin
> and the like, who organise meetings, historical
> events etc.

This is a very fair point; the problem, I suppose, is
partly a practical one. It is fairly easy to measure a
person's political involvement, because involvement
tends to go with offices and vice versa. It would be
harder to find an objective measure of other
contributions. For instance, one could give a certain
number of points for organizing a meeting. But who
would know that you had organized one? And would the
same number of points be awarded for organizing an
event the size of Roman Days as for a small Roman
barbecue in one's garden?

I can see an appealing alternative along the lines of
having the Censors set up a small, impartial committee
to award century points every year for services to
Nova Roma, like the New Year's Honours List in the
U.K.; but of course this would be a lot of very
difficult work for the members of that committee, and
would unavoidably be more open to accusations of bias
or arbitrariness than a clear and objective system
like the current one.

So I'm afraid after all that I have no good
suggestion; but it is a question worth raising, and I
should be interested in discussing it further.

Cordus

=====
www.collapsibletheatre.co.uk

________________________________________________________________________
Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!
Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Newest member of Gens Lania
From:	lanius117@aol.com
Date:	Tue, 24 Jun 2003 20:26:42 EDT

Gaivs Lanivs Falco Quiritibus S.P.D.

It is with great pleasure that I formally welcome into Gens Lania its newest
member, Aulus Lanius Cogitatus. I invite all fellow cives to wish him well
and share with him our knowledge of all things Roman.

Valete, respectfully

G. Lanivs Falco
*************************
Paterfamilias Gens Lania

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] NOVA roma
From:	"Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@msn.com>
Date:	Tue, 24 Jun 2003 21:29:15 -0400

Salve L. Sicinius Drusus

????

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
----- Original Message -----
From: L. Sicinius Drusus
To: Nova Roma
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 5:43 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] NOVA roma

Salvete Quirites,

No the Subject line isn't a typo, it's a means of
expressing what some people's views of our seem to be.
NOVA in upper case as the "important" part, roma in
lower case as something unimportant tacked on to the
NOVA.

The roma part seems to be comming more and more
unimportant to those enthralled with the NOVA. Soon it
will be NOVA rom... Nova ro... Nova r... as more and
more of Roma gets tossed on the scrap heap.

Perhaps we should be discussing a name change along
with the other Modernisms. How about "New Republic".
It gets rid of that "outdated" Latin for a modern
language, and removes Roma from the name entirely.

We also need to remove the final sentence from the
Preamble of the Constitution. The one that reads "The
culture, religion, and society of Nova Roma shall be
patterned upon those of ancient Rome." Instead of
ignoring it, it would be more honest to delete it.

=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: The Proposed Lex Fabia de Ratione Comitiorum Centuriatorum and History
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Tue, 24 Jun 2003 18:33:39 -0700 (PDT)

--- "A. Apollonius Cordus" <cordus@strategikon.org>
wrote:
SNIP
>
> When I say that the Iulian system deprives a citizen
> of his chance to vote, I refer to the fact that
> voting
> ceases as soon as two candidates have received a
> majority, even if not all the centuries have voted.
> It
> is therefore possible for a voter, however much
> effort
> he may make to cast his vote, is denied the ability
> to
> do so, for the result of the election had already
> been
> decided without him.
>
> It is with this in mind that I ask whether such a
> system can really be considered accurately to
> reflect
> the will of all those who choose to vote.
>

Under our present system, and under the Fabian system
the result could also allready be decided before
everyone casts a ballot, the diference being that the
voter dosen't know this because the count hasn't been
made yet.

Some talk as if it will be the norm that the election
will soon be over. That would require that two
canidates carry the entire first and second class's
votes, a very unlikely situation. Even an extreamly
popular canidate is unlikely to elected before the
third class votes. That still leaves an open postion
for the lower classes to vote on.

In some cases the fifth class might not be called apon
to vote. Since we give century points for time as a
citizen and new citizens constantly enter, it's
unlikely that a citizen who pays his taxes will be in
the fifth class beyond his first year in Nova Roma.

It comes down to this. In some years a citizen may not
be called apon to vote the first year he is here. If
he pays his taxes it is unlikely that this will happen
a second time.

=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: The Proposed Lex Fabia de Ratione Comitiorum Centuriatorum and History
From:	"quintuscassiuscalvus" <richmal@attbi.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 01:34:49 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Apollonius Cordus"
<cordus@s...> wrote:
> A. Apollonius Cordus to Rogator Q. Cassius Calvus and
> all citizens and peregrines, greetings.

> > The only way a the Iulian proposal deprives a
> > citizen of the chance to vote is if the individual
> > citizen does not make the effort to vote.
>
> Forgive me, I have failed to make myself clear. I am
> not referring to the 24-hour voting period suggested
> for each century. It still seems to me rather short,
> but it is a minor detail.
>
> When I say that the Iulian system deprives a citizen
> of his chance to vote, I refer to the fact that voting
> ceases as soon as two candidates have received a
> majority, even if not all the centuries have voted. It
> is therefore possible for a voter, however much effort
> he may make to cast his vote, is denied the ability to
> do so, for the result of the election had already been
> decided without him.
>
> It is with this in mind that I ask whether such a
> system can really be considered accurately to reflect
> the will of all those who choose to vote.

Salve,

It will reflect the will of those who have voted. I do see your
point, but I see you snipped an important part of my posting. If I
may crib from the honorable Senator Drusus for a moment: "the final
sentence from the
Preamble of the Constitution. The one that reads "The
culture, religion, and society of Nova Roma shall be
patterned upon those of ancient Rome.""

If I may have a moment to crib from myself:

"A thing that has been mentioned several times is the past is Grant
Applications. One of the items that any grant issuing agency will be
looking at is how well our system of governance conforms to the
historical model and Nova Roma's own mission statement. If I were
looking over a Nova Roman grant application and saw the Fabian
Proposal as the electorial method being employed, I would have to
sincerely question Nova Roma's adherance to its own mission
statement. However ,if I saw the Iulian Proposal as the electorial
methodology being used, there would be no reasonable doubt as to
whether Nova Roma adheres to its own mission statement at least in so
far as the electorial process is concerned."

I again ask, if you were given the task to review a grant application
filed by Nova Roma and looking over the documentation such as our
Constitution and the Tabularium, which Election Proposal is more in
tune with the final sentence of the Preamble of the Constitution? In
other words which Proposal if it were a Lex would demonstrate that we
not only talk the talk of Roman revival but that we also walk the
walk?

As for the slavery "boogie man," it is not germane. Whether or not
slavery is legal is under the jurisdiction of macronational
authorities. A Nova Roman who lived in a nation that permitted
slavery, for example Sudan, could own as many slaves as he or she
wished. So to say that Nova Roma does not have slavery is a
misstatement. We don't have slavery because as far as I know not one
of us Nova Romans lives in a country that permits slavery.

As for women's suffrage, that is germane as Nova Roma can control who
it permits and does not permit to vote within its organizational
structure. It is a concession to the times in which we live and if
some grant giving authority rejected a Nova Roman application based
on Nova Roma allowing women to vote and hold public office within the
organizational structure, I'd personally say to that agency "Take
your money and shove it some place where it would cause one to walk
very funny."

However at some point Nova Roma may concede so much to modernity that
it ceases to really be Roman. At that point it is no longer the
Roman State and thusly the symbiotic relationship between the State
and the Religio is broken. Without a Roman State the Religio is no
more. While I'm not a practitioner of the Religio, I'd feel really
bad for those that are since should it come to pass that The State
ceases to be Roman they will have effectively had their Religion
terminated by the "will of the people."

Vale,

Q. Cassius Calvus


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Newest member of Gens Lania
From:	"Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@msn.com>
Date:	Tue, 24 Jun 2003 21:46:12 -0400

Salve and Welcome indeed Aulus Lanius Cogitatus.

Please take your time and walk around the Forum. You will meet a great variety of citizens and pending citizens engaged in conversations on almost any and all subjects. If you would like information on the Nova Roma newsletter, The Eagle, just pop me a note I will some the info to you before you can say:

Delenda est Carthago

again welcome and please enjoy the next 30-40 years with us.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Curator Differum et Quaestor
Citizen
Fortuna Favet Fortibus

----- Original Message -----
From: lanius117@aol.com
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 8:26 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Newest member of Gens Lania

Gaivs Lanivs Falco Quiritibus S.P.D.

It is with great pleasure that I formally welcome into Gens Lania its newest
member, Aulus Lanius Cogitatus. I invite all fellow cives to wish him well
and share with him our knowledge of all things Roman.

Valete, respectfully

G. Lanivs Falco
*************************
Paterfamilias Gens Lania

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

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] NOVA roma
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Tue, 24 Jun 2003 18:53:10 -0700 (PDT)

Salve Tiberi Galeri,

For years whenever we are faced with a choice between
emulating the Romans or some other modernist choice we
have had a substanial section of our citizens sya to
hell with the Romans.

Over and over it's "We are a 21st Century
Micronation", "We are creating the Best of Rome", "It
isn't fair".

The Modernist faction seems to be determined to
eradicate as much of Roma as posible out of Nova Roma,
favoring persuing creation of some Utopia based on
ideas that have nothing to do with Roma.

I'm perplexed why someone who has so little intrest in
recreating Roma would join an organization who's
constitution clearly states

"As the spiritual heir to the ancient Roman Republic
and Empire, Nova Roma shall endeavor to exist, in all
manners practical and acceptable, as the modern
restoration of the ancient Roman Republic. The
culture, religion, and society of Nova Roma shall be
patterned upon those of ancient Rome."

However a great many people have joined who have
little or no intrest in this recreation. If we are
going to abbandon this goal in favor of creating some
modernist idea of a Utopia, then continuing with the
name Nova Roma is a fraud.

--- Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@msn.com> wrote:
> Salve L. Sicinius Drusus
>
>
> ????
>
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: L. Sicinius Drusus
> To: Nova Roma
> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 5:43 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] NOVA roma
>
>
> Salvete Quirites,
>
> No the Subject line isn't a typo, it's a means of
> expressing what some people's views of our seem to
> be.
> NOVA in upper case as the "important" part, roma
> in
> lower case as something unimportant tacked on to
> the
> NOVA.
>
> The roma part seems to be comming more and more
> unimportant to those enthralled with the NOVA.
> Soon it
> will be NOVA rom... Nova ro... Nova r... as more
> and
> more of Roma gets tossed on the scrap heap.
>
> Perhaps we should be discussing a name change
> along
> with the other Modernisms. How about "New
> Republic".
> It gets rid of that "outdated" Latin for a modern
> language, and removes Roma from the name entirely.
>
> We also need to remove the final sentence from the
> Preamble of the Constitution. The one that reads
> "The
> culture, religion, and society of Nova Roma shall
> be
> patterned upon those of ancient Rome." Instead of
> ignoring it, it would be more honest to delete it.
>
> =====
> L. Sicinius Drusus
>
> Roman Citizen
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>

=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


Subject:	Digest No 666 Re: [Nova-Roma] ... Re: Proposed Lex Fabia ...
From:	"Lucius Equitius" <vergil@starpower.net>
Date:	Tue, 24 Jun 2003 22:08:08 -0400

Salvete iterum,

Lucius Equitius <vergil@s...> writes:
[concerning membership in the centuries]

> You know, I've considered this in the past and I've questions.
> Since 'century points' are allotted for 'involvement' within Nova Roma and
> those most involved are placed into centuries together do they not
'cancel'
> each other?

Marinus:
If that were the case, then yes, they would. But if you look at
the actual centuries you'll see that each one contains a range of
the active citizens (except for the last century, with all of the
inactive in it.)

For example, if we examine the 1st century as it is currently
configured:

http://novaroma.org/bin/view/century?century=1

You're the first person in the first century, with your
truly amazing 186 century points...

Gnaeus, you seem to mention this whenever we have contact, is it a
problem?
I've been active since I joined Nova Roma March 1998 (that's 50 points right
there, plus 10 for being Patrician). In fact I was the 9th person to join
Nova Roma and some of those who joined before me have 'disappeared'. We just
had the 6th Roman days, I've been at all of them, along with the Cassii,
Marcus and Patrica. I was the first non 'founder' co-opted to the Senate
(20) and the first to be elected Consul (10) after having been Praetor
Urbanus (10). I was also the first to make a real purchase using the Nova
Roma "Sestertius Signum" (0).
I perform the rites for Mars (20 Flamen Martialis +20 as Pontifex which
a Flamen Maior certainly was), as far as I'm able, on my own. In fact there
have been times in the past when I went through the Album Gentilium and
contacted every Gens that listed Mars as a 'patron deity' to see who would
be interested in beginning some sort of worship, I got replies from nearly
none and those two who did respond live far away or ended up being a student
that wanted me to do their work for them. I worked with the other Augures
(20) before they exiled themselves and I still have sporadic correspondence
with one.
After over five years of action, including the past two as Censor (10),
I've taken a lesser role. I'm still active, but I'm confident that there
are many others who are very capable of furthering our goals. Everything I
do, or have done, for Nova Roma isn't posted to this list.

Marinus:
You can examine the other centuries and you'll see the
same thing. Each of the centuries of the first class
has one "heavy hitter" with a stellar amount of century
points, and then a number of other Assidui who have fewer
century points. There's no single century in which you'll
find more than one person with over 100 century points.

L Equitius: OK... so ?

Marinus:
What this *does* mean is that each one of the "heavy
hitters" has a huge influence over which way their
own century votes.

L Equitius: Really, how is this done exactly? Each vote in a century is the
same. Mine isn't a trump on the others, not that I'd mind :-)

Marinus:
To a pretty good approximation,
each one represents a controling interest in the way
that their century's vote is cast.

L Equitius: This is simply wrong. I have no say whatsoever on how, or if,
the others vote. If one of them votes differently than me, then my vote is
negated. I would say that there is a good possibility that those who, like
me, have paid their, then they vote too.
However, if a person in a 'lower' century happens to be the only one who
bothers to vote then he has 'won' the century for his candidate, or
proposal.

Marinus:
But none of the
people who have done the most for Nova Roma are negated
by getting placed into the same century.

L Equitius: The point I was making is that those who do vote and pay their
tax are placed in the similar centuries. But, someone who joined recently,
and hasn't even necessarily paid tax, is placed in a lower century by virtue
of fewer points. These people through the novelty of their citizenship are
more likely to vote than many of their less active colleagues (yes this is
pure speculation).

> Also, (I'm not prone to lengthy posts) those who are in "lower"
> centuries more likely to be the only voter

Nope. The lower centuries have more people in them, ...,
assuming any of them do vote.

-- Marinus

L Equitius: That was my point. The lower century has more names, but that
certainly doesn't mean they vote. In fact, we can be reasonably sure most do
not vote, or pay tax, or ... anything... in Nova Roma.

Valete


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] wealth and centuries
From:	"Sp. Postumius Tubertus" <postumius@gmx.net>
Date:	Tue, 24 Jun 2003 22:23:51 -0400

Salve Laureate,

If I may, I should like to start directly with the end of what you say.

> For those of you who have read so far, thank you. I hope this interesting
> discussion will continue for a while for I find the underlying matter
> challenging : How would have Rome evolved in our modern world ? Can we
> emulate the romanitas without recreating every single piece of legislation ?

To answer your first question raised, I think we should all find ourselves greatly at a loss. We can theorize on things, but there is no way of knowing what other events would have happened within the development of Roma through time to get Her to this point, and so we cannot, in any way, begin to speculate on how our predecessors would have done things at this point. However, to answer your second question, my answer is yes. As you say, our ancestors too would have evolved to whatever point they would be in this time, and so too shall we -- I would say that this is part of the nature of time and existence. But I would add the caveat that I feel our ancestors would try to, in some small way, be similar to their ancestors, had they evolved to this time, and I feel this is what the Consul is trying to accomplish in his proposal. What we find is the compromise between modern where modern time and lifestyle, and the mos maiorum from which we strive to retain pieces. This is exactly how I percieve the Consul's proposal, on the level of historic content, and this is why, on that same level, I support it.

Vale Amice,

Spurius Postumius Tubertus
Citizen of Nova Roma


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] wealth and centuries
From:	"Sp. Postumius Tubertus" <postumius@gmx.net>
Date:	Tue, 24 Jun 2003 22:39:31 -0400

Sp. Postumius Populo Romano S.P.D.

Salvete,

> > Can we emulate the romanitas without recreating every single piece
> > of legislation?
>
> I think we can. Furthermore, I think we ought to.

To add to my previous reply to Laureatus, I have to agree here with Marinus. We ought to emualte with out recreation. The problem with recreation, at least in this organization, as I see it, is that we all have different ideas of what should be recreated, and what should be left behind. But, looking away from the Jovine side to the wreathed side of the coin, we all have different ideas of what should be emulated, and what should not, and while I doubt a compromise would ever come about, not to degrade the amicability or the rationality of our citizens, I think we could all live to respect even that which we have a distaste for, and I would further urge that it is a must for our survival.

Valete Amici,

Spurius Postumius Tubertus
Citizen of Nova Roma


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Campus Fair pics and Legio XXI
From:	"Tiberius" <Tiberius@leg-xxi.org>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 02:44:55 -0000

Salvete Milites et Cives

Our show at the University of Calgary went off very well and many
were very pleased with the demo my small Legion was able to put on.
They have a few pics currently up on the U of C website at
http://www.ucalgary.ca just not sure for how long. Hope you enjoy
what is there as I am waiting for my copies from the show and the U
of C newspaper to send to me.

Valete
Kaeso Maximius Tiberius
Legate Legio XXI Rapax
http://www.leg-xxi.org


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Election Lex
From:	"Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@msn.com>
Date:	Tue, 24 Jun 2003 22:51:38 -0400

Salve Romans

Having taken the time to read the proposed Lex Fabia de Ratione Comitiorum Centuriatorum I would like to make a few comments:

The Senior Consuls proposal is called in the macro world a preferential voting system or the Alternative Vote system.

"Countries that employ an alternative vote (also referred to as a preferential voting system or PV) require voters to rank-order their preferences on their ballots. Electors write number 1 down beside their first choice, 2 beside the second, and so on. If, when the ballots are tallied, no candidate receives an absolute majority, the candidate with the least votes is eliminated and his or her ballots are redistributed according to the second choices marked on them. This process continues until a winner emerges with more than half of the total vote. The alternative vote system has been used for elections to the Australian House of Representatives (Australia's lower house) since 1918."

I believe that with this system we will elect candidates that are in reality the third or four ( depends on number of candidates and offices to fill) choice of the electorate. I firmly believe that my behavior on election day when I am required to vote my preference for say up to five candidates would be different than it would be in a run-off with the lowest candidate dropped and a new ballot is put before me.
"An example

The table below shows a sample distribution of preferences for an electorate.

The "First Count" row shows the first preference votes for each candidate and the total number of formal first preference votes. The following rows show how preferences were distributed from defeated candidates and how those preferences affected the votes for the continuing candidates.

"Sample preference distribution for an electorate

CANDIDATES
Total

Marcus

Tiberius

Gaius

Julius

Diana

First Count - First preference votes
13,046
875
628
12,757
2,341
29,647

Distribution of ballot papers of GAIUS , first defeated candidate.
267
194
-
63
104
628

Totals after first distribution.
13,313
1,069
-
12,820
2,445
29,647

Distribution of ballot papers of TIBERIUS , second defeated candidate.
263
-
-
566
240
1,069

Totals after second distribution.
13,576
-
-
13,386
2,685
29,647

Distribution of ballot papers of DIANA, third defeated candidate.
885
-
-
1,800
-
2,685

FINAL COUNT
14,461

48.78%
-
-
15,186

51.22%
-
29,647

After the distribution of preferences, Julius is the successful candidate"

He was not the first, second or even third choice of a majority of voters

In a real Nova Roma election candidate Diana may want to throw her support toward Marcus and not Julius. By requiring a voter to select all their preferences before we know who came in first you remove the ability of candidates to endorse another candidate in a run-off election. In a run-off Diana's endorsement of Marcus might be all he need to will an absolute majority on the second ballot. We are an active community with the majority of our time together on the web. If I am candidate Diana and I came in third I MIGHT want to endorse a candidate in the next round but with this proposed Lex the second, third and ..... rounds votes have already been "cast" and an endorsement after the fact will not help.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

The Chart and the third paragraph are from VEC Home Electoral Information The chart was modified to reflect our Roman elections

http://www.vec.vic.gov.au/ElectoralInfo/WP_PreferentialVoting.htm

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: The Proposed Lex Fabia de Ratione Comitiorum Centuriatorum and History
From:	=?iso-8859-1?B?R6VJVkxJVlOlU0NBVlJWUw==?= <gfr@intcon.net>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 02:53:45 -0000

G. Iulius Scaurus S.P.D.

Salvete, Quirites.

The suggestion that the system I sketched out would _substantively_
deprive any more citizens of their votes than the current system is
simply wrong. Under the current system under which elections are held
in the Comitia Centuriata all it takes to electe a censor, consul, or
praetor is a simple majority in each of the first forty-five of
eighty-nine centuries. At this time with all citizens in the first
forty-five centuries voting such a majority could consist of 170 of
1737 citizens. Under the current system the minimal election criteria
for election is the following pattern of voting for a candidate: 3
each in centuries 1-8, 4 each in centuries 9-14, 3 in century 15, 4
each in centuries 16-27, 3 in century 28, and 4 each in centuries
29-45. If only one citizen in each for the first forty-five voted,
and all voted for the same candidate, 45 votes would elect a censor,
consul, or praetor.

If the winner can be determined under the current system by 45-170
citizens, in what sense the vote of a citizen 1737 in century 89 is
anything but a symbolic gesture? Is a system in which everyone can
vote, but a majority of the smaller centuries can absolutely determine
the outcome preferrable to one in which everyone is honestly told that
the voting will stop when a majority of centuries are polled in the
fashion of Roma antiqua? Perhaps it is in terms of public relations,
but it doesn't change the underlying reality.

I have run simulations under the proposed Lex Fabia de Ratione
Comitorum Centuriatorum and the results are no different in terms of
the minimum number of voters required for a candidate to prevail.

The principal determinants of how many centuries must vote to elect a
candidate under all three systems are voter turnout in century, number
of vacancies, number of candidates, and the the cardinal value each
voter assigns a candidate in his or her preference set. None of the
three systems of vote counting reduces the minimum number of voters
necessary to elect a candidate.

If someone were to advocate abolishing the century point system and
allocating citizens equally by lot across centuries, that is a
proposal which can be straightforwardly debate and it would be much
more democratic, if entirely alien to the historical Roman model. To
suggest, however, that the historical model would produce any less
democratic a result than the current system or the senior consul's
proposal simply doesn't do the math. If I thought that the historical
model model would effectively disenfranchise more citizens than either
of the other models, I wouldn't support it.

Valete.

G. Iulius Scaurus


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] ... Re: Proposed Lex Fabia ...
From:	=?iso-8859-1?B?R6VJVkxJVlOlU0NBVlJWUw==?= <gfr@intcon.net>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 03:29:56 -0000

G. Iulius Scaurus Gn. Equitio Marino salutem dicit.

Salve. Gn. Marine.

> In fact, it turns out that many of the lower centuries do
> contain Capiti Censi citizens who have remained active by
> voting. It's the truly inactive citizens who are placed
> into the 89th century.

I certainly agree that this is so, but I'm not certain why it should
be so. Under the Lex Cornelia Octavia de Assidui et Capiti Censi all
citizens who have not paid their current taxes (including newly
enrolled citizens whose tax payments have not yet been received) are
capites censi. Under the Lex Secunda Octavia de Centuriata the
capites censi are to be assigned to one century outside the five
classes. Unless I am missing something the law mandates that there
should be no capites censi outside the eighty-ninth century. Is this
an artifact of tax payment status being entered in the Album Civium,
while reassignment to centuries on the basis of tax payment hasn't
happened because there hasn't been a contio conducted in the Comitia
Centuriata since the tay deadline has passed (i.e., the assignment to
centuries reflects the payment status of voters at the last time the
Comitia Centuriata was convened and that happened before the most
recent tax deadline)?

Vale.

G. Iulius Scaurus


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Newest member of Gens Lania
From:	"Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly)" <mjk@datanet.ab.ca>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 03:49:14 -0000

Salve and welcome Aule!

Welcome to the gens Lania and Nova Roma. Your entry into our gens
today was indeed a great happy surprise for me. If you need any help
or have any questions you have my email in Album gentium and on this
list. I would have posted this early so you would see it today but
alas, the gods must be punishing me today because our satellite
server was down for the count for several hours. As Quaestor Manius
Constantine Serapio mentioned on an earlier posting, this particular
list is are main forum. It is amazing what you can learn from NR by
participating on this list. Have a great time with your fellow Nova
Romans, especially with your new cousin Quintus Paulinus.

Vale bene,

Quintus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, lanius117@a... wrote:
> Gaivs Lanivs Falco Quiritibus S.P.D.
>
> It is with great pleasure that I formally welcome into Gens Lania
its newest
> member, Aulus Lanius Cogitatus. I invite all fellow cives to wish
him well
> and share with him our knowledge of all things Roman.
>
> Valete, respectfully
>
> G. Lanivs Falco
> *************************
> Paterfamilias Gens Lania
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] ... Re: Proposed Lex Fabia ...
From:	Bill Gawne <gawne@cesmail.net>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 00:27:54 -0400

G�IVLIVS�SCAVRVS wrote:
>
> G. Iulius Scaurus Gn. Equitio Marino salutem dicit.
>
> Salve. Gn. Marine.

Salve G. Iuli,

> > In fact, it turns out that many of the lower centuries do
> > contain Capiti Censi citizens who have remained active by
> > voting. It's the truly inactive citizens who are placed
> > into the 89th century.
>
> I certainly agree that this is so, but I'm not certain why it should
> be so.

It came as quite a surprise to me too, because like you I thought
that the law required all Capiti Censi to be in the 89th century.

> Is this
> an artifact of tax payment status being entered in the Album Civium,
> while reassignment to centuries on the basis of tax payment hasn't
> happened because there hasn't been a contio conducted in the Comitia
> Centuriata since the tay deadline has passed (i.e., the assignment to
> centuries reflects the payment status of voters at the last time the
> Comitia Centuriata was convened and that happened before the most
> recent tax deadline)?

That seems a reasonable explanation. I don't know for sure that it
is the correct one. It seems like a question for the Censors.

-- Marinus


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: NOVA roma
From:	"Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly)" <mjk@datanet.ab.ca>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 04:45:00 -0000

Salve Druse,

Sorry, but I am not that clear on whether you mean our people in the
government of NR with all this discussion on the new election laws
and similar laws, the modern issues and problems drawn on to this
list off and on, or a combination of both?

In my opinion the success of Ancient Rome was due to its flexibility
in tolerating other ideas, customs, religion and cultures as well as
its own. I think we have to do this to a certain point in the modern
world as well but as you say, we cannot allow our ideals as stated
below to be put on the back burner. Hopefully this census coming up
in several months will give us a good idea who is in our out with
regards to interest and dedication to Res Republica.

Also I respectfully disagree with a few posts that say we are not
here to entertain people. Not everyone is highly self motivated.
There's no shame in that because the world needs leaders and
followers. When new people join Nova Roma which seems to be several a
month, we should find ways of stimulating their interests and leading
them in the direction of our ideals as you stated below. All you
military and ex military gentlemen should be well aware of this above
all other Nova Romans. How did you keep your units motivated and
interested? Is there anything you can suggest from your valuable past
experiences? If I want you to teach me to fly a chopper, operate a
vulcan phalnyx system or even survive in the field do you personally
teach, try and make the teaching interesting or do you give some
hands-on experience or do you just throw a complex dry written manual
in my face and say you're a college boy, figure it all out yourself.

One last thought. Some people have a hard time getting various
projects going, problems and interests addressed, approved and
completed. Sometimes it seems like there are 2 words that do not at
all exsist in NR classic Latin, modern Latin and modern
English: "TODAY" AND "NOW". Hopefully getting these cogs rolling
quickly will make for a little less apathy at times.

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Sicinius Drusus"

<lsicinius@y...> wrote:
> Salve Tiberi Galeri,
>
> For years whenever we are faced with a choice between
> emulating the Romans or some other modernist choice we
> have had a substanial section of our citizens sya to
> hell with the Romans.
>
> Over and over it's "We are a 21st Century
> Micronation", "We are creating the Best of Rome", "It
> isn't fair".
>
> The Modernist faction seems to be determined to
> eradicate as much of Roma as posible out of Nova Roma,
> favoring persuing creation of some Utopia based on
> ideas that have nothing to do with Roma.
>
> I'm perplexed why someone who has so little intrest in
> recreating Roma would join an organization who's
> constitution clearly states
>
> "As the spiritual heir to the ancient Roman Republic
> and Empire, Nova Roma shall endeavor to exist, in all
> manners practical and acceptable, as the modern
> restoration of the ancient Roman Republic. The
> culture, religion, and society of Nova Roma shall be
> patterned upon those of ancient Rome."
>
> However a great many people have joined who have
> little or no intrest in this recreation. If we are
> going to abbandon this goal in favor of creating some
> modernist idea of a Utopia, then continuing with the
> name Nova Roma is a fraud.
>
> --- Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@m...> wrote:
> > Salve L. Sicinius Drusus
> >
> >
> > ????
> >
> >
> > Vale
> >
> > Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: L. Sicinius Drusus
> > To: Nova Roma
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 5:43 PM
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] NOVA roma
> >
> >
> > Salvete Quirites,
> >
> > No the Subject line isn't a typo, it's a means of
> > expressing what some people's views of our seem to
> > be.
> > NOVA in upper case as the "important" part, roma
> > in
> > lower case as something unimportant tacked on to
> > the
> > NOVA.
> >
> > The roma part seems to be comming more and more
> > unimportant to those enthralled with the NOVA.
> > Soon it
> > will be NOVA rom... Nova ro... Nova r... as more
> > and
> > more of Roma gets tossed on the scrap heap.
> >
> > Perhaps we should be discussing a name change
> > along
> > with the other Modernisms. How about "New
> > Republic".
> > It gets rid of that "outdated" Latin for a modern
> > language, and removes Roma from the name entirely.
> >
> > We also need to remove the final sentence from the
> > Preamble of the Constitution. The one that reads
> > "The
> > culture, religion, and society of Nova Roma shall
> > be
> > patterned upon those of ancient Rome." Instead of
> > ignoring it, it would be more honest to delete it.
> >
> > =====
> > L. Sicinius Drusus
> >
> > Roman Citizen
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> > http://sbc.yahoo.com
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > removed]
> >
> >
>
>
> =====
> L. Sicinius Drusus
>
> Roman Citizen
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Election Lex
From:	"Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@msn.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 00:47:01 -0400

Salve my table did not come through sorry. I will try and fix it.

Vale

Tiberius
----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen Gallagher
To: Nova-Roma
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 10:51 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Election Lex

Salve Romans

Having taken the time to read the proposed Lex Fabia de Ratione Comitiorum Centuriatorum I would like to make a few comments:

The Senior Consuls proposal is called in the macro world a preferential voting system or the Alternative Vote system.

"Countries that employ an alternative vote (also referred to as a preferential voting system or PV) require voters to rank-order their preferences on their ballots. Electors write number 1 down beside their first choice, 2 beside the second, and so on. If, when the ballots are tallied, no candidate receives an absolute majority, the candidate with the least votes is eliminated and his or her ballots are redistributed according to the second choices marked on them. This process continues until a winner emerges with more than half of the total vote. The alternative vote system has been used for elections to the Australian House of Representatives (Australia's lower house) since 1918."

I believe that with this system we will elect candidates that are in reality the third or four ( depends on number of candidates and offices to fill) choice of the electorate. I firmly believe that my behavior on election day when I am required to vote my preference for say up to five candidates would be different than it would be in a run-off with the lowest candidate dropped and a new ballot is put before me.
"An example

The table below shows a sample distribution of preferences for an electorate.

The "First Count" row shows the first preference votes for each candidate and the total number of formal first preference votes. The following rows show how preferences were distributed from defeated candidates and how those preferences affected the votes for the continuing candidates.

"Sample preference distribution for an electorate

CANDIDATES
Total

Marcus

Tiberius

Gaius

Julius

Diana

First Count - First preference votes
13,046
875
628
12,757
2,341
29,647

Distribution of ballot papers of GAIUS , first defeated candidate.
267
194
-
63
104
628

Totals after first distribution.
13,313
1,069
-
12,820
2,445
29,647

Distribution of ballot papers of TIBERIUS , second defeated candidate.
263
-
-
566
240
1,069

Totals after second distribution.
13,576
-
-
13,386
2,685
29,647

Distribution of ballot papers of DIANA, third defeated candidate.
885
-
-
1,800
-
2,685

FINAL COUNT
14,461

48.78%
-
-
15,186

51.22%
-
29,647

After the distribution of preferences, Julius is the successful candidate"

He was not the first, second or even third choice of a majority of voters

In a real Nova Roma election candidate Diana may want to throw her support toward Marcus and not Julius. By requiring a voter to select all their preferences before we know who came in first you remove the ability of candidates to endorse another candidate in a run-off election. In a run-off Diana's endorsement of Marcus might be all he need to will an absolute majority on the second ballot. We are an active community with the majority of our time together on the web. If I am candidate Diana and I came in third I MIGHT want to endorse a candidate in the next round but with this proposed Lex the second, third and ..... rounds votes have already been "cast" and an endorsement after the fact will not help.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

The Chart and the third paragraph are from VEC Home Electoral Information The chart was modified to reflect our Roman elections

http://www.vec.vic.gov.au/ElectoralInfo/WP_PreferentialVoting.htm

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

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

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


Subject:	Re: Digest No 666 Re: [Nova-Roma] ... Re: Proposed Lex Fabia ...
From:	Bill Gawne <gawne@cesmail.net>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 00:52:22 -0400

Lucius Equitius writes:

[I had written earlier]
> For example, if we examine the 1st century as it is currently
> configured:
>
> http://novaroma.org/bin/view/century?century=1
>
> You're the first person in the first century, with your
> truly amazing 186 century points...

Lucius:
> Gnaeus, you seem to mention this whenever we have contact, is it a
> problem?

Heck no! It's something that I admire greatly. I'm amazed that
anybody has been able to accomplish so much in the years since
NR was founded. It's as if you had five Navy Commendation Medals,
to put it into the context of our military service.

But, if my mentioning it is bothersome to you, I'll stop. I know
that hero worship can be awkward for heros.

> Marinus:
> You can examine the other centuries and you'll see the
> same thing. Each of the centuries of the first class
> has one "heavy hitter" with a stellar amount of century
> points, and then a number of other Assidui who have fewer
> century points. There's no single century in which you'll
> find more than one person with over 100 century points.
>
> L Equitius: OK... so ?

So none of the people who've done the most for NR are lumped together
into a single century. Thus you're not negating one another's votes.

> Marinus:
> What this *does* mean is that each one of the "heavy
> hitters" has a huge influence over which way their
> own century votes.
>
> L Equitius: Really, how is this done exactly? Each vote in a century is the
> same. Mine isn't a trump on the others, not that I'd mind :-)

True, and I mis-stated that badly. In my idealized notion of how
the century points should work, they'd give you an voting weight
within your century proportional to the number. But of course that's
not how it really works. I wrote that during a break at work this
afternoon and I seem to have mistaken which was which.

Lucius:
> However, if a person in a 'lower' century happens to be the only one who
> bothers to vote then he has 'won' the century for his candidate, or
> proposal.

That is true. I think it's only going to be significant in the 89th
century though, since that's where all the inactive people are supposed
to be placed before the next election. With tax payers in every other
century I expect the first 88 centuries will be pretty active.

> L Equitius: The point I was making is that those who do vote and pay their
> tax are placed in the similar centuries.

It's true that right now those people seem to be grouped mostly into
the first 20 centuries, with a smattering of the more junior assidui
extending down to about the 35th century. Once century realignment
happens my understanding is that the first 88 centuries will have to
be made up entirely of the tax paying assidui.

> But, someone who joined recently, and hasn't even necessarily paid tax,

Yes, that is the one category of person who can skew the results,
the new citizen who is assidui by courtesy. However I don't see
that they would gain any additional influence in any of the several
proposed systems we're discussing.

> is placed in a lower century by virtue
> of fewer points. These people through the novelty of their citizenship are
> more likely to vote than many of their less active colleagues (yes this is
> pure speculation).

But very reasonable speculation. It does point out that a citizen may
possibly exercise more influence over an election in their first election
than in their second or third.

I do think that we've accomplished a good thing by requiring all of the
Capiti Censi to be in the 89th century. That does address the question
of having many of the lower centuries populated by people who aren't
likely to vote. Of course, it's also going to mean we have a lot of
2 and 3 person centuries come November.

-- Marinus


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Graeco-Roman science and medicine
From:	=?iso-8859-1?B?R6VJVkxJVlOlU0NBVlJWUw==?= <gfr@intcon.net>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 06:56:01 -0000

G. Iulius Scaurus S. P. D.

Avete, Quirites.

Since there was an expression of interest on the list earlier today in
ancient science and medicine, here's a link to "A Bibliography of
Greek and Roman Medicine from Prehistory to the Byzantine World":

http://medweb.bham.ac.uk/histmed/biblio.html

This bibliography, compiled by Robert Arnott (Centre of the History of
Medicine, Univ. of Birmingham), is an excellent survey of the literature.

The bibliography provided by David Noy (Dept. of Classics, Univ. of
Wales, Lampeter) for his "Ancient Medicine: Myth and Practice" course
has a number of useful links to internet resources on the subject as
well as hardcopy citations:

http://www.lamp.ac.uk/~noy/Medicine.htm

And I'll repeat the link to the Medicina Antiqua site:

http://www.ea.pvt.k12.pa.us/medant/

Valete, Quirites.

G. Iulius Scaurus


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: protest, too much list traffic
From:	"Franciscus Apulus Caesar" <sacro_barese_impero@libero.it>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 08:43:42 -0000

Salvete,
I agree with Quintus Lanius PAulinus but I agree with Gaius Galerius
Peregrinator too.
A limited and quiet list is too boring but a too animated list is
boring too. If I have 125 messages per day I don't read them and the
delete button of my pc become very hot. 5 messages for days don't
give animation to the list, but 125 messages less issues and
contents.
This is why I'm not so active in the international list.

I don't think the limitation by the moderator is a good idea. I'm
for the freedom of speech and if a citizen must be free to send 100
messages per day.
I think the solution s in the mind of the nova romans. The
mdoeration is not obliged by a moderator but apply from each of us.
I see several citizens send daily too messages without interest or
without useful informations or ideas.
I think we all have to think about a more intelligent use of the
list. The solution is in the "education" to the use of this list.

Valete bene
Fr. Apulus Caesar

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael
Kelly)" <mjk@d...> wrote:
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Galerius Peregrinator"
> <gaiusgalerius@h...> wrote:
> > Salve consobrine Galerii, and thank you for the compliment.
> >
> > I am afraid not many people are paying attention anylonger,
> > and I suspect aside from my own family and some friends nobody
> > read my post, and that goes for most in the list, and how can
one
> blame
> > anybody. Did you see how many "messages" we had yesterday.
> > I counted 125. I had a day off and couldn't keep up with it, and
> > thank heavens and internet engineers for the delete button. And
> > here I protest to the moderators. This is a massage board and
not
> > a chat room, and to those who'd disagree, don't be too sure, as
some
> > of you have interesting and intelligent things to say and you
will
> > not be heard because you will be drowned in the chat.
> >
> > Salvete Galerii et omnes,
>
> I understand your point Galerii. I'm sure all of us had some of
our
> postings missed with all the barrage of mail. I had a few private
> questions from some new potential Nova Romans and my question as
to
> why we can't use the "chat" here on this list under
home/message/post
> has not been addressed. The forumromanum chat is a valiant effort
but
> it is way too slow when compared with MSN chat etc that I use with
> some of our citizens. So once again, why not use the yahoo chat
on
> this list?
>
> All I can say about the postings here is "thems the breaks!" This
is
> the busiest I've seen the group for a while and everyone seems to
be
> having a great time over the last few days even if there is
> disagreement on things. I belong to other non- Roman groups and
you
> are at first lucky to see 1 - 5 emails a day. This is pretty
boring
> so I as well as others cut back our visits to once a week; again
less
> mail; once a month; again less interest or mail; every few months
and
> eventually - poof! List all gone. No more interest.
>
>
> Any suggestions on what to do about this? I can see busy traffic
is
> frustrating but if the moderators refuse to post our reasonable
and
> unoffensive letters they will find themselves unemployed
moderators
> becaus there shall be little or no citizens left to post.
>
>
> Regards
>
>
> Quintus Lanius Paulinus


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] NOVA roma
From:	"M. Octavius Solaris" <scorpioinvictus@hotmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 00:44:08 +0200

Salve Luci Sicini,

<< For years whenever we are faced with a choice between
emulating the Romans or some other modernist choice we
have had a substanial section of our citizens sya to
hell with the Romans. >>

MOS: IIRC, No one ever said that.

<< Over and over it's "We are a 21st Century
Micronation", "We are creating the Best of Rome", "It
isn't fair".

The Modernist faction seems to be determined to
eradicate as much of Roma as posible out of Nova Roma,
favoring persuing creation of some Utopia based on
ideas that have nothing to do with Roma.

I'm perplexed why someone who has so little intrest in
recreating Roma would join an organization who's
constitution clearly states

"As the spiritual heir to the ancient Roman Republic
and Empire, Nova Roma shall endeavor to exist, in all
manners practical and acceptable, as the modern
restoration of the ancient Roman Republic. The
culture, religion, and society of Nova Roma shall be
patterned upon those of ancient Rome."

However a great many people have joined who have
little or no intrest in this recreation. If we are
going to abbandon this goal in favor of creating some
modernist idea of a Utopia, then continuing with the
name Nova Roma is a fraud. >>

MOS: While I disagree that NR is split up in two factions only (there is a substantial grey zone, after all) which radically oppose each other, there is, at the other end of the spectrum, a group of people that is obsessed with recreating a socio-political culture and climate that is *impossible* to emulate without being reminiscent of roleplay. Fact is that today, only nutcases would accept some very Roman things like slavery, discrimination, blood sacrifice or conquest. It's impossible *not* to be a 21st century micronation because this *is* the 21st century.

I for one am much more interested in the revival of Latin language, Religio Romana and several other cultural aspects (games, clothing, architecture, sculpture, recreation). On the other end of the spectrum as I see it, some people are solely focused on political structures. And whenever they don't like something they say "this is not Roman". That's a cheap way out. It's very hard to determine what "Roman" really is, what it means, and cannot be forced into a single mindset, let alone two black/white opposing camps.

Vale bene,
M. Octavius Solaris

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Election proposal
From:	=?iso-8859-1?B?R6VJVkxJVlOlU0NBVlJWUw==?= <gfr@intcon.net>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 09:20:20 -0000

G. Iulius Scaurus C. Minucio Scaevolae salutem dicit.

Salve, C. Minuci.

> "Faction", to my mind, is specifically out - not because it's pejorative
> /per se/ but because it's inaccurate: the central meaning it carries in
> all the definitions I quoted is "minority party _not_ in power" or "in
> opposition to the government". This is in direct opposition to part of
> your own definition, above ("...while serving in government"). The
> Cohors works for the Consul, and I think that can definitely be
> described as being part of the government.

I think that there are almost always factions within governments and
it would be difficult to understand much of political history without
some theoretical constructs like "faction" as a way to indicate
commonality of purpose and some degree of coordination of effort.
Historians don't tend to regard "faction" as a particularly loaded
term and in the study of Roman politics it has tended to be a way of
avoiding the modern connotations of "party" and the counterfactual
implications of "clientele" (although clientage was frequently an
element in Roman political factionalisation).

> As to what term I would use to describe such a group, the answer would
> have to be "it depends". If I was trying to describe it functionally,
> I'd say "staff" or "cohors". If I was trying to describe it in political
> terms as you suggest, I would be in a false position no matter what term
> I used, since I don't know everyone's political alignment within this
> group - motivations for being on the Consul's staff probably have as
> many variations as there are staff members, and complete political
> agreement is neither required nor looked for (as far as I can tell.)
> What the Consul requires of us is good effort put forth on specific
> tasks that are assigned; your political beliefs are your own, what
> matters is the quality of work that you produce. Those with radically
> different beliefs would probably not have even been invited to join -
> although _that_ can be an interesting option as well - but this still
> leaves a very broad field for variations.

I don't mean to imply that you or anyone else agrees completely on all
issues with the people with whom they ally in political activity. I'm
simply trying to puzzle out a theoretical category that can be used to
analyse political activity while not offputting the grouping be
analysed (it isn't, I grant, much of a problem in analysing ancient or
medieval political history, but it does seem to be one in contemporary
analysis of NR politics :-). To a historian "faction " connotates a
commonality of purpose joined to coordinated action to realise that
purpose.

> The Boni are a faction here, because they distinguish themselves by
> their political "colors" - even if they're not organized as any
> functional group such as the Cohors; functionality, in this case, does
> not require an absolute alignment of political beliefs, nor does the
> presence of such an alignment indicate a functional grouping. These two
> things simply do not map onto each other here (although there's no
> denying that they can, to the point of overlapping completely.)

I have no problem regarding the "Boni" (although I cringe a bit at
using that term to describe them, since it arises from a very
sarcastic and prejudicial remark by G. Marius against his enemies, and
the Latin is too phologically rated to very distateful English
"boner" -- I prefer to call them "Optimates," a term which was
self-applied by an element of the Roman oligarchy) as a faction, in
part because the Optimates I've meet have never concealed the fact
that the share a common opposition to the current government and
coordinate their activities to promote the public policies they
support and to defeat those public policies with which they disagree.
I don't know what else to call them.

> Besides the above inaccuracy, I cannot apply "faction" in good
> conscience to a group whose members have not either stated their beliefs
> or acted on them in such a way as to make them obvious. People who are
> trying to create political targets to be shot at - I do not include you
> in this, erm, faction - will ignore that little nuance and do what they
> will. If you can define a need (other than that one) for describing the
> Cohors in political terms, I'd be very interested in knowing what it is.

I do political, economic, and cultural history for a living. I
frequently try to develop theoretical constructs which make it easier
for us to understand the complex of political actors with various
interests and various capacities who act in concert on some matters of
public policy. The need to define the cohors in political terms
arises from (1) the need to establish what alliances over public
policy result in what policy outcomes, (2) how these alliances
interact with other political formations within the polity, (3) how
does the government accomplish its purposes in a policy field over
which different alliances engage in varying forms of conflict. In
short, I'd like to be able to understand the political history of the
NR and contemporary NR politics in terms of a theoretical constrruct
with decent explanatory power. Faction's the best construct I've
found, but I am happy to examine any other you would care to put
forward. The need I have for such a construct regarding the cohors is
for a means by which the political history of NR can be understood
synchronologically and dichronologically, and which would provide a
useful comparandum for comparing NR to other polities. My question
arises from a historiographic, not a contemporary political, concern.

Vale.

G. Iulius Scaurus


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Would have, Could Have
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 02:46:34 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete Quirites,

The Romans would have done it this way! That bit of
speculation seems to crop up each time we have a
debate between the Modernist and the Traditionalist
factions. It is pure idle speculation, and there is no
way of knowing if the Romans "would" do X in any
modern situation.

If there wasn't a thousand year lapse in thought
during the dark ages the Romans might have developed
space flight centuries ago. That is no reson to
institute RASA (Roman Aeronautics and Space
Administration) as a new section of government. After
Centuries of space flight the Roman Empire "might"
resemble the galatic empire in the Star Wars movies,
but that is no reaso to found Gens Vader and
Skywalker. Idle speculation can lead anywhere, and
it's foolish to base policy on it.

We don't know what the Romans "Would" or "Could" do in
any situation. We often do know what the Romans did,
and that is what we should be basing our policies on.
We need to recreate the Roman state as closely as
possible as a first step, then once that is achived
let it evolve naturally, rather than seekin to create
someone's pipedream of what Roma "could" have been as
a starting point.

=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Hibernia: A statement from Britannia
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Decimus=20Iunius=20Silanus?= <danedwardsuk@yahoo.co.uk>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:03:11 +0100 (BST)

Salvete,

The subject of the provincial status of the citizens
of Hibernia has been broached by several on this list.
I agree that this is an issue that needs to be
resolved, and with a growing nucleus of active Irish
citizens, I believe that now is the time to do it.

Provincia Britannia has been mentioned as a potential
home for our Irish cousins so it is only right for me,
as the Governor of Britannia, to state the official
policy of this province.

Currently, no part of Hibernia lays within the
official confines of the province of Britannia. Irish
citizens are, in effect, citizens without a province.
As of yet, there has never been a core of active Irish
citizens large enough to warrant a change in this
situation. However, I have always acted as a first
point of support for any Irish citizen should it be
required, much as I have for any resident of
Britannia. I believe that this is a situation that
should no longer continue. Official status should now
be extended to citizens of Hibernia.

There are, in effect, three possible options.

1. Hibernia could be incorporated within Britannia as
a regio, with its own serving legate (deputy
governor).

This has been considered in the past. However, my own
policy has always been that local sensibilities
dictate that this should not be the case unless
specifically requested by citizens of Hibernia.

2. Hibernia as a whole could be established as an
independent provincia.

As of yet, I believe that there has never been a core
of active Irish citizens to warrant this. Maybe now
this has changed and can be considered.

3. Hibernia could be established as an independent
province with Ulster established as a regio within
Britannia.

For me, the least desirable option as it brings modern
macronational politics into the Nova Roman forum.
However, if this was what was wanted, I would work
with the senate to oblige.

I support the move by my legate, Aulus Apollonius
Cordus, in encouraging all interested citizens to
subscribe to our regional e-mail list at
britanniaprovincia at yahoogroups, where this issue
may be discussed and a consensus amongst our Irish
citizens reached. Alternatively, any may feel free to
contact me privately at danedwardsuk@yahoo.co.uk.

I close by pledging my own personal support to any
collective decision made and promise to petition the
senate on your behalf to assist with the
implementation of any proposed restructuring.

Valete

Decimus Iunius Silanus
Propraetor Britanniae

__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus - For a better Internet experience
http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/yplus/yoffer.html


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Boundary definitions of Provincia Britannia
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Decimus=20Iunius=20Silanus?= <danedwardsuk@yahoo.co.uk>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:08:55 +0100 (BST)

Salve Marce Armini,

> M.Arminius: To say the truth, the NR documents that
> mention the frontiers of Britannia are long time
> lost.
> That is, we dont have anything that says exactly
> what
> are the frontiers of half of our provinces, and our
> Gubernatores generally follow the common sense.

Actually, this is incorrect. In the absence of a
higher authority, my own edict issued in March last
year provides definate boundary definitions for
Britannia. I shall post it at the end of this message
for your perusal.

Vale

Decimus Iunius Silanus
Propraetor Britanniae

Ex Officio Propraetoris Britanniae.

Edictum Propraetoricium concerning the reorganisation
of Provincia Britannia.

I. The provincia of Britannia is hereby divided into
three regios as territorial sub-units.

II. Each regio will be governed by appointed Legati.
Regios without appointed Legati will be governed
directly by the Propraetor Britanniae.

III. Three regios are established.

The Regio of Britannia Superior.
Extent of regio: Greater London, the northern borders
of the counties of Gloucestershire, Oxfordshire,
Northamptonshire and Norfolk, and circumscribed by the
southern coastline of Britain, including all outlying
islands.

The Regio of Britannia Inferior.
Extent of regio: Wales, the Scottish border to the
north and the southern borders of the counties of
Hereford and Worcestershire, Warwickshire,
Leicestershire, Rutland and Lincolnshire, and the
coastlines between these two borders east and west,
including all outlying islands.

The Regio of Caledonia.
Extent of regio: Scotland, including all outlying
islands.

IV. Further division or amalgamation of these defined
regios remains at the discretion of the Propraetor
Britanniae.

V. This edictum becomes effective immediately.

Given on March 9th, in the year of the consulship of
Marcus Octavius Germanicus and Lucius Cornelius Sulla
Felix, 2755 AUC.

Decimus Iunius Silanus
Propraetor Britanniae.

__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus - For a better Internet experience
http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/yplus/yoffer.html


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] NOVA roma
From:	"Gaius Galerius Peregrinator" <gaiusgalerius@hotmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 05:35:52 +0000

Salve Senator Druse:

Why then don't we have slavery, and are we going to have gladiatorial
combats in the arena too. Oh, I see what you mean, you want a reenactment
republic. So it is all role playing then.

If that is what it is, I think Disney can do it much better.

Vale

Gaius Galerius Peregrinator.

----Original Message Follows----
From: "L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] NOVA roma
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 18:53:10 -0700 (PDT)

Salve Tiberi Galeri,

For years whenever we are faced with a choice between
emulating the Romans or some other modernist choice we
have had a substanial section of our citizens sya to
hell with the Romans.

Over and over it's "We are a 21st Century
Micronation", "We are creating the Best of Rome", "It
isn't fair".

The Modernist faction seems to be determined to
eradicate as much of Roma as posible out of Nova Roma,
favoring persuing creation of some Utopia based on
ideas that have nothing to do with Roma.

I'm perplexed why someone who has so little intrest in
recreating Roma would join an organization who's
constitution clearly states

"As the spiritual heir to the ancient Roman Republic
and Empire, Nova Roma shall endeavor to exist, in all
manners practical and acceptable, as the modern
restoration of the ancient Roman Republic. The
culture, religion, and society of Nova Roma shall be
patterned upon those of ancient Rome."

However a great many people have joined who have
little or no intrest in this recreation. If we are
going to abbandon this goal in favor of creating some
modernist idea of a Utopia, then continuing with the
name Nova Roma is a fraud.

--- Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@msn.com> wrote:
> Salve L. Sicinius Drusus
>
>
> ????
>
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: L. Sicinius Drusus
> To: Nova Roma
> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 5:43 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] NOVA roma
>
>
> Salvete Quirites,
>
> No the Subject line isn't a typo, it's a means of
> expressing what some people's views of our seem to
> be.
> NOVA in upper case as the "important" part, roma
> in
> lower case as something unimportant tacked on to
> the
> NOVA.
>
> The roma part seems to be comming more and more
> unimportant to those enthralled with the NOVA.
> Soon it
> will be NOVA rom... Nova ro... Nova r... as more
> and
> more of Roma gets tossed on the scrap heap.
>
> Perhaps we should be discussing a name change
> along
> with the other Modernisms. How about "New
> Republic".
> It gets rid of that "outdated" Latin for a modern
> language, and removes Roma from the name entirely.
>
> We also need to remove the final sentence from the
> Preamble of the Constitution. The one that reads
> "The
> culture, religion, and society of Nova Roma shall
> be
> patterned upon those of ancient Rome." Instead of
> ignoring it, it would be more honest to delete it.
>
> =====
> L. Sicinius Drusus
>
> Roman Citizen
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>

=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Would have, Could Have
From:	"Gaius Galerius Peregrinator" <gaiusgalerius@hotmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:00:45 +0000

Salve:

Would have, could have is what you are saying Senator. Nobody is saying
that, and to have us in the 21st Century run our lives like they did in 200
BC is good and well in Disneyland, but not if we're founding a Republic with
institutions to govern and be answerable to a real constituency with real
issues at stake that is 21st Century and not 200BC.

I am on moderated status, so this will not come out til later, and I
think that Solaris spoke more elequently than I do, so I'll let his reply
stand.

By the way, the RASA would be very nice.

Vale

Gaius Galerius Peregrinator.

----Original Message Follows----
From: "L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
To: Nova Roma <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Would have, Could Have
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 02:46:34 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete Quirites,

The Romans would have done it this way! That bit of
speculation seems to crop up each time we have a
debate between the Modernist and the Traditionalist
factions. It is pure idle speculation, and there is no
way of knowing if the Romans "would" do X in any
modern situation.

If there wasn't a thousand year lapse in thought
during the dark ages the Romans might have developed
space flight centuries ago. That is no reson to
institute RASA (Roman Aeronautics and Space
Administration) as a new section of government. After
Centuries of space flight the Roman Empire "might"
resemble the galatic empire in the Star Wars movies,
but that is no reaso to found Gens Vader and
Skywalker. Idle speculation can lead anywhere, and
it's foolish to base policy on it.

We don't know what the Romans "Would" or "Could" do in
any situation. We often do know what the Romans did,
and that is what we should be basing our policies on.
We need to recreate the Roman state as closely as
possible as a first step, then once that is achived
let it evolve naturally, rather than seekin to create
someone's pipedream of what Roma "could" have been as
a starting point.

=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Tradition and Modernity (was Re: NOVA roma)
From:	"Gnaeus Salix Astur" <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:49:20 -0000

Salvete Quirites; et salve, Q. Lani Pauline.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael
Kelly)" <mjk@d...> wrote:
> Salve Druse,
>
> Sorry, but I am not that clear on whether you mean our people in
> the government of NR with all this discussion on the new election
> laws and similar laws, the modern issues and problems drawn on to
> this list off and on, or a combination of both?
>
> In my opinion the success of Ancient Rome was due to its
> flexibility in tolerating other ideas, customs, religion and
> cultures as well as its own.

Now *this* is true!
Some people seem to think that our Forefathers were a bunch of
staunchy conservatives that never ever accepted a change. Not many
ideas are further from the truth.

The truth is that the Romans were masterful evolvers and adapters;
that was the key to their success. There are many examples, from the
way the Romans adapted to the Carthaginian naval warfare during the
First Punic War to the way in which they copied Gaulish military
equipment. But I am digressing...

> I think we have to do this to a certain point in the modern
> world as well but as you say, we cannot allow our ideals as stated
> below to be put on the back burner. Hopefully this census coming up
> in several months will give us a good idea who is in our out with
> regards to interest and dedication to Res Republica.
>
> Also I respectfully disagree with a few posts that say we are not
> here to entertain people. Not everyone is highly self motivated.
> There's no shame in that because the world needs leaders and
> followers. When new people join Nova Roma which seems to be several
> a month, we should find ways of stimulating their interests and
> leading them in the direction of our ideals as you stated below.

True again.
Those of us who are active on this mailing list have our own reasons
to stay in Nova Roma. Most of us needed some time to learn the
basics, to actually understand what Nova Roma is all about (because
it is not a simple thing). We got through that "learning process"
because of several different reasons: some of us found other citizens
who were willing to help us during the transition, others simply made
a lot of questions to everyone around, and yet others (like me)
learnt from our own mistakes. But there are no "true Romans" who will
automatically, innately understand what Nova Roma is all about.

The crave for "eliteness" of some of our citizens has always worried
me. What makes Nova Roma different from all those other Roman
micronations around? It's our openness, our willingness to accept all
those who love Rome in our ranks. "Restricting" our citizenship,
making it more difficult to join Nova Roma will simply harm Nova Roma.

It is true that many people join Nova Roma and then never become
active. But the answer to that should not be "getting rid of them".
It should be making an effort to incorporate them into our
micronation, teaching them, helping them to learn. Those who join us
are lovers of Rome; every single new citizen that becomes inactive is
a potential hard working, active citizen who would further the cause
of Rome but who has been lost. And that is *our* fault, gentlemen,
and not theirs.

> All you military and ex military gentlemen should be well aware of
> this above all other Nova Romans. How did you keep your units
> motivated and interested? Is there anything you can suggest from
> your valuable past experiences? If I want you to teach me to fly a
> chopper, operate a vulcan phalnyx system or even survive in the
> field do you personally teach, try and make the teaching
> interesting or do you give some hands-on experience or do you just
> throw a complex dry written manual in my face and say you're a
> college boy, figure it all out yourself.

I join Q. Lanius's call for help from our military men, and I extend
it to those who have experience as teachers or managers. Nova Roma
needs all the help we can get.

> One last thought. Some people have a hard time getting various
> projects going, problems and interests addressed, approved and
> completed. Sometimes it seems like there are 2 words that do not at
> all exsist in NR classic Latin, modern Latin and modern
> English: "TODAY" AND "NOW". Hopefully getting these cogs rolling
> quickly will make for a little less apathy at times.

I don't know if you are referring to me in this last sentence, Q.
Lani. If you are, please accept my apologies :-). I will sincerely
try to do things faster.


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Modernist and Traditonalist Factions (was Re: Would have, Could Have)
From:	"Gnaeus Salix Astur" <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 12:01:34 -0000

Salvete Quirites; et salve, L. Sicini Druse.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Sicinius Drusus"
<lsicinius@y...> wrote:
> Salvete Quirites,
>
> The Romans would have done it this way! That bit of
> speculation seems to crop up each time we have a
> debate between the Modernist and the Traditionalist
> factions. It is pure idle speculation, and there is no
> way of knowing if the Romans "would" do X in any
> modern situation.

I have seen you using those two terms ("modernist"
and "traditionalist"), and I would like to know what you actually
mean by them.

If by "Traditionalist faction" you are referring to those with whom
you tend to agree, I am not sure if it is an appropriate term. I have
seen many of those in your "Traditionalist faction" defending ideas
that were *against* Roman tradition, while those who would belong to
what you call the "Modernist facion" actually have smoetimes defended
an approach that was closer to Roman tradition. A good example of
what I am saying was what happened during the gens reform debate.

So perhaps you should try to look for two different terms to describe
those two political currents, senator. "Traditionalist"
and "modernist" are misleading.

CN�SALIX�ASTVR�T�F�A�NEP�TRIB�OVF


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Tradition and Modernity (was Re: NOVA roma)
From:	"Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly)" <mjk@datanet.ab.ca>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 12:51:47 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gnaeus Salix Astur"
<salixastur@y...> wrote:
> Salvete Quirites; et salve, Q. Lani Pauline.
>
>> > all exsist in NR classic Latin, modern Latin and modern
> > English: "TODAY" AND "NOW". Hopefully getting these cogs rolling
> > quickly will make for a little less apathy at times.
>
> I don't know if you are referring to me in this last sentence, Q.
> Lani. If you are, please accept my apologies :-). I will sincerely
> try to do things faster.

Salve Gnaei,

Of all people I am not referring to you. I greatly respect your work
and even though your English is excellent, I appreciate the extra
effort and mental energy it takes to have to operate in a second
language. That's why you don't see my daily 5 postings on the
hispanic list. (LOL). Also, the Thules Academy is the one bright
light for motivating Nova Romans.

I am just talking about the general scheme of things often being too
slow to achieve which can lead to frustration and apathy or
indifference. No one person is to blame for that.

Regards

Quintus Lanius Paulinus


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Provinciae et Hibernia
From:	"Titus Maxentius Verus" <jgrady@lucent.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 13:04:56 -0000

Salvete Marce Armini, Corde, et Omnes,

I imagine that organising and maintaining a provincia is not an
insignificant task and that it would be an easier task for a large
population than for a small one. At present, Hibernia has only six
cives. I believe that Britannia has nearly one hundred. The
relatively large population of Britannia puts that province at an
advantage, regarding political organisation, social events, religious
duties, etc. That, in itself, would be an inducement for the Hiberni
to welcome union with Britannia.

But, because of the historical problems that have, at one time or
another, existed between Britannia and Hibernia, some individuals on
both sides might not welcome such a union. If we could think of
ourselves as Romans rather than as Britons or Hibernians, such a
union would be easier, especially because, in Roman times, the
indigenous population of both countries was Celtic. It was only as a
result of the barbarian invasions of the Empire that the most
populated part of Britannia ceased to be Celtic.

Unfortunately, so much has happened in the many centuries that have
passed since the Fall of Rome. Maconational politics and their
consequences have left their mark on the populations, as, for
example, in Northern Ireland, where there is perhaps more division
between Briton and Hibernian (and ironically the majority of both
parties in Northern Ireland is Celtic) than there is between the
people of the nation of Hibernia (Eire) and those of the main island
of Britannia!

Thus, those factors have to be considered. Would the Hiberni of Nova
Roma have a problem with joining Britannia? If so and a separate
Provincia Hibernia were proposed, would the people of Northern
Ireland have a problem with joining Hibernia? Even if the answer to
either of the two questions is "No", there may conceivably be other
problems down the line. Would future prospective citizens in
Hibernia have a problem with joining a Provincia Britannia, or,
perhaps by a more generous name, a Provincia Britannia et Hibernia
(thank you, Marcus Arminius, for that idea)? Or, if Hibernia became a
separate province, would future prospective citizens from Northern
Ireland have a problem with being part of Provincia Hibernia, as they
might have with being in a united Ireland?

>From an administrative perspective, I would favour a unified
Provincia Britannia et Hibernia; but the above concerns must be
satisfactorily addressed before such a union could be proposed. And,
Marcus Arminius, your suggestion for a name may appease all potential
sensitivities.

Valete,

Titus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, M Arminius Maior <marminius@y...>
wrote:
> Salvete,
>
> --- Titus Maxentius Verus <jgrady@l...>
> escreveu: > Salvete Omnes et Hiberni,
> >
> > I noticed that the Province of Britannia comprises
> > England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland; [..]
> > Would it not then be logical for Hibernia to become
> > part of the Roman province of Britannia? One can
> > argue that [..]
>
> M.Arminius: To say the truth, the NR documents that
> mention the frontiers of Britannia are long time lost.
> That is, we dont have anything that says exactly what
> are the frontiers of half of our provinces, and our
> Gubernatores generally follow the common sense. For
> example, Alasca, Puerto Rico, Hawaii normally are
> unofficially included in the nearest US province.
>
> [..] So, if both
> > Scotland and Northern Ireland are included in
> > Britannia, why not Hibernia?
>
> M.Arminius: For me, since the Hibernian cives prefer
> to be included in Britannia, is a good idea! If it is
> practical, both for Britannia and Hibernia, lets to
> create a Provincia Britannia et Hibernia.
>
> > And, if for various reasons, including Hibernian
> > sensitivites due to some of the events of more
> > recent centuries, Hiberni do not want to be part
> > of Britannia, then should Northern Ireland not be
> > included as part of Hibernia instead of being part
> > of Britannia?
>
> M.Arminius: Yes, there is another possibility. The
> Senate of Nova Roma can create a Province Hibernia,
> and since there are an assidui there, he can be the
> first Propraetor. My suggestion is that the Hibernian
> cives organizes themselves a bit, and send a petition
> to our Senate and Consules.
>
> > Valete,
> > Titus
>
> Valete
> Marcus Arminius
> Senator, Propraetor Brasiliae
>
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
_
> Yahoo! Mail
> Mais espa�o, mais seguran�a e gratuito: caixa postal de 6MB,
antiv�rus, prote��o contra spam.
> http://br.mail.yahoo.com/


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Active Gens Involvement (was protest too)
From:	PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@aol.com
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 09:15:57 -0400

F. Galerius Aurelianus Secundus to his cousins, Tiberius Galerius and Gaius Galerius. Salvete.

I believe that the opinions of the Galerii are paid more attention than many others due to our family being more active in the government of NR and our action on the mainlist. Expecially considering that we are not known exclusively for our demagoguery or a high irritation factor (excuse me, I do have a high irritation factor). I am glad to see that other gens are becoming more involved on a family level and I see it as the beginning of more activity on the macronational level. Once gens begin to get together regularly, it follows that gens that are allied with each other or just like the members of other gens will start to meet and interact with each other. Once we have a Galerii gathering, we should invite some of the NR citizens in the area that we are meeting to come along and get to know each other.
No doubt, some citizens of suspicious character will see these efforts as some nefarious conspiracy to plot and plan to seize power and destroy the Republic by forming powerful, manipulative factions. To these individuals, I simply say: get a life! The Galerii party like it's 409 AD! Valete.


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Past Legal Occasions
From:	PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@aol.com
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 09:36:26 -0400

F. Galerius Aurelianus Secundus to M. Ambrosius Belisarius. Salvete.

After reading this post, I believe that you would find it beneficial and enjoyable to contact my friend, Violentilla Titania Saltatrix. Many of her spiritual beliefs coincide with your own beliefs and I am hopeful that you two could contribute to the Religio. Valete.


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Britannia Provincia e-list
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Decimus=20Iunius=20Silanus?= <danedwardsuk@yahoo.co.uk>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 14:37:10 +0100 (BST)

Salvete,

Those interested in subscribing to Britannia's
regional e-list can do so by subscribing at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/britanniaprovincia/.

The list is open to all with an interest in Britannia,
its history and its culture.

And a reminder to visit our website at
http://www.onlineera.com/britannia/history.htm

Valete

Decimus Iunius Silanus
Propraetor Britanniae.

__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus - For a better Internet experience
http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/yplus/yoffer.html


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Past Legal Occasions
From:	PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@aol.com
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 09:36:15 -0400


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Hibernia: A statement from Britannia
From:	"Titus Maxentius Verus" <jgrady@lucent.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 13:14:05 -0000

Titus Maxentius Verus Propraetori Decimo Iunio Silano Salutem
Plurimam Dicit.

I have subscribed to the Provincia Britannia group and will discuss
with you and others these matters relating to the status of Hibernia
as things develop.

Vale,

Titus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Decimus Iunius Silanus
<danedwardsuk@y...> wrote:
> Salvete,
>
> The subject of the provincial status of the citizens
> of Hibernia has been broached by several on this list.
> I agree that this is an issue that needs to be
> resolved, and with a growing nucleus of active Irish
> citizens, I believe that now is the time to do it.
>
> Provincia Britannia has been mentioned as a potential
> home for our Irish cousins so it is only right for me,
> as the Governor of Britannia, to state the official
> policy of this province.
>
> Currently, no part of Hibernia lays within the
> official confines of the province of Britannia. Irish
> citizens are, in effect, citizens without a province.
> As of yet, there has never been a core of active Irish
> citizens large enough to warrant a change in this
> situation. However, I have always acted as a first
> point of support for any Irish citizen should it be
> required, much as I have for any resident of
> Britannia. I believe that this is a situation that
> should no longer continue. Official status should now
> be extended to citizens of Hibernia.
>
> There are, in effect, three possible options.
>
> 1. Hibernia could be incorporated within Britannia as
> a regio, with its own serving legate (deputy
> governor).
>
> This has been considered in the past. However, my own
> policy has always been that local sensibilities
> dictate that this should not be the case unless
> specifically requested by citizens of Hibernia.
>
> 2. Hibernia as a whole could be established as an
> independent provincia.
>
> As of yet, I believe that there has never been a core
> of active Irish citizens to warrant this. Maybe now
> this has changed and can be considered.
>
> 3. Hibernia could be established as an independent
> province with Ulster established as a regio within
> Britannia.
>
> For me, the least desirable option as it brings modern
> macronational politics into the Nova Roman forum.
> However, if this was what was wanted, I would work
> with the senate to oblige.
>
> I support the move by my legate, Aulus Apollonius
> Cordus, in encouraging all interested citizens to
> subscribe to our regional e-mail list at
> britanniaprovincia at yahoogroups, where this issue
> may be discussed and a consensus amongst our Irish
> citizens reached. Alternatively, any may feel free to
> contact me privately at danedwardsuk@y...
>
> I close by pledging my own personal support to any
> collective decision made and promise to petition the
> senate on your behalf to assist with the
> implementation of any proposed restructuring.
>
> Valete
>
> Decimus Iunius Silanus
> Propraetor Britanniae
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Plus - For a better Internet experience
> http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/yplus/yoffer.html


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Newest member of Gens Lania
From:	"Marcus Ambrosius Belisarius" <mballetta@hotmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 13:18:25 -0000

Welcome, as a pending citizen, I hope to follow in your footsteps.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, lanius117@a... wrote:
> Gaivs Lanivs Falco Quiritibus S.P.D.
>
> It is with great pleasure that I formally welcome into Gens Lania
its newest
> member, Aulus Lanius Cogitatus. I invite all fellow cives to wish
him well
> and share with him our knowledge of all things Roman.
>
> Valete, respectfully
>
> G. Lanivs Falco
> *************************
> Paterfamilias Gens Lania
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Welcome, Aulus Lanius Cogitatus
From:	PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@aol.com
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 09:52:38 -0400

F. Galerius Aurelianus Secundus to Aulus Lanius Cogitatus. Salvete.

Welcome, Thinker. I hope that you will find a happy, micronational home here among the diverse citizens of Nova Roma. If there is ever anything that I can do for you or help you with that the Lanii cannot, please contact me or a member of the gens Galerii. I have always had the utmost respect for the contribution of your gens to NR and their comments on the mainlist. May the gods grant you good health and good fortune. Valete.


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Welcome, Aulus Lanius Cogitatus
From:	PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@aol.com
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 09:52:36 -0400


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Election Lex
From:	"=?iso-8859-1?q?A.=20Apollonius=20Cordus?=" <cordus@strategikon.org>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:20:15 +0100 (BST)

A. Apollonius Cordus to Ti. Galerius Paulinus and all
citizens and peregrines, greetings.

First of all, thanks for your time and thought in
relation to the Consul's proposed system. It is,
indeed, based in part upon AV, as mentioned in the
Voter's Handbook.

However, I think perhaps you have missed an important
element of the system. Individual voters are not
required to number the candidates 1, 2, 3 and so on;
AV only comes in at the stage of calculating the votes
of the centuries. Your example, therefore, is
impossible, since there can never be 29, 647
centuries. :)

Let us, however, imagine that there are 29, 647
centuries, and that your example is therefore
possible. In it, the first preferences of the
centuries were as follows:

Marcus 13 046 = 44.0044%
Tiberius 875 = 2.9513%
Gaius 628 = 2.1183%
Julius 12 757 = 43.0297%
Diana 2 341 = 7.8962%

Now, it is true that Marcus is the first preference of
fractionally more centuries than Julius is: 44%
against 43%. In a first-past-the-post system, such as
we have currently, Marcus would be elected. That,
however, would *not* be a fair and accurate reflection
of the will of the centuries.

What the results above mean is that if you asked
people who they would most like to be elected, 44%
would say Marcus, 43% would say Julius and so on. What
if you asked the same people, 'if you can't have who
you want, who else would you choose?' They might all
say Julius. If so, surely Julius ought to be elected
rather than Marcus, since a majority of voters support
him as either their first or their second preference,
whereas Marcus is not supported by a majority.

So first-preference votes are not a reliable guide to
which candidate genuinely has more support. The only
way to find out who has most support is to find out
not only the voters' (or in our case the centuries')
first choice, second choice, third choice and so on.

It is true that in your example, Julius "was not the
first, second or even third choice of a majority of
voters"; but the fact is that, when you come down to
it, he was the only candidate who was supported by a
majority of voters. *None* of the others was supported
by a majority. Julius was. Julius, therefore, is the
rightful winner.

To address your other point:

> In a real Nova Roma election candidate Diana may
> want to throw her support toward Marcus and not
> Julius.

This is true; what she should do, then, is to
encourage her supporters to vote 'yes' to both her and
Marcus, so that if she is eliminated Marcus will get
her supporters' votes. There is no need to have
run-off elections in order for this to be possible; it
can all be done before the elections begin.

To recap: Currently it is possible for candidates to
be elected without being supported by a majority of
centuries. The Fabian system ensures that no one is
elected who is not supported by a majority of
centuries. It is perfectly possible for candidates to
support other candidates under the Fabian system.

Cordus

=====
www.collapsibletheatre.co.uk

________________________________________________________________________
Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!
Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Hibernia Boundaries
From:	"Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly)" <mjk@datanet.ab.ca>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 14:19:59 -0000

Salvete Decimi Iuni Silane et Tite Maxenti Vere,

Thank you both for your ideas and feelings regarding the boundary
definitions of Hibernia and Britannia. I just have a few points here:

1) Maybe one could take some time and do some reasearch as to how the
Roman government made her provincial boundaries; how she organized
peoples with strong political differences that were former countries
having past grievences with one another. Do some of our scholars her
know of any particular models that were successful?

2) If Rome had taken Hibernia I have the gut feeling that the Island
would have been a separate province from Britanna. I was wondering if
Hibernia would have had more contact with Gaul and Spain by trade
with ships hugging the coasts from the Mediterranean to Ireland.

3) Will there enough practicing pagans and Roman culturally spirited
people from Britannia and Hibernia deep enough into the Religio
Romano and Roman culture that the issue of Northern Ireland is for
the Macro world and matters not in our micro nation. That thought is
for the future when there are a lot more citizens from Hibernia.

4) In reality the interest, reading, discussions and research will
always be concentrated more on Britannia since the Romans settled it
for 400 years and left Ireland alone. Similarily my area of Western
Canada is rarely discussed since there was no Roman settlement.

5) Agricola thought he could have taken Hibernia with 1 or 2 legions.
Fortunately for him, plans were put off. It may well have been
another Teutoburg Wald for the Romans with Vespasian calling, "
Agricola, give me back my legions!!!" (couldn't resist that comment)
grin

Regards,

Quintus


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] NOVA roma
From:	MarcusAudens@webtv.net
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 10:21:53 -0400 (EDT)

Senator Drusus;

I suspect that the key to the problem as you see it is in the words
which you so kindly have provided for us to read:

---Nova Roma shall "endeavor" to exist, in all manners "practical and
acceptable", as a "modern" restoration of the ancient Roman Republic.---

The below words and phrases, to my mind, seem to be the sticking point
between yourself and those with whom you disagree:

--"endeavor"--there are certainly many things in ancient Rome that are
desirable to do in the modern day, but we are restricted by the laws,
customs and culure of those macronations to which we belong or give our
allegiance. In many cases the loss of materials, techniques,
procedures, and skills present even more obstructions to what we wish to
do. To make things worse, not everyone is attuned to historical detail
in the same way, level or desire people being very different as your
will of course be aware.

--"in all manners practical and acceptable"--Wow, now there is a
mouthful! Can you imagine getting 100 (much less 1000+) people from
various cultures, languages, religions, and geographical areas around
the world to agree on any given idea??? We argue for days, about
various minor points of opinion and lash out at those who do not agree
in every point with our views. We have Roman "experts" who are called
into question by other Roman "experts" every day. Magistrates question
the citizenry, the Citizens question Magistrates, and under it all is
the constant underlying suspicion that "someone" is engaged in something
not quite on the up and up. Just what the heck is "acceptable?"
Obviously, over the years what has been acceptable to you has not been
acceptable to others, and what is acceptable to others, as you have
indicated is not acceptable, to you. When we can define that word a
little better from the point of view of "all" the Nova Roma Citizens,
then perhaps we will see more agreement.

"Practical"--Well, we no longer beat people with rods or cut off thier
heads as a punishment, and since our borders are really not in dispute
at the moment, our legions have not marched on the surrounding
macroworld governments. I am sure that you will say that such is
obvious as is slavery, women's rights, practices which might lead to
medical problems such as the use of common watering areas where desease
could spread without basic water purification. However to go a little
deeper into "practical" how much time, effort and attention that any
given Citizen of NR has to spend here in NR may be very different from
the gentleman who works ten hours a day in a country recoverig from
Communist Domination. Different needs and desires spawn differing
attitudes. History and the Arts are often the first to suffer this
concern. Religious views of a Pagan Pontiff in Spain may differ widely
from a Christain in California, and the extent of his / her religious
activities may well be different, in the practical sense, as well.

--"modern" restoration--Well it seems to me that these two words really
throw people off the beaten path. You see, when they pop up then people
just naturally refer to then along with thier views of "practical",
"acceptable." I suspect that these words were used with the author's
view of what they meant in his mind. However, it is openly apparent to
me that not everyone has the same view of just exacty what the term
"modern" means in relation to NR, how far it should be carried , wat
aspects it refers to, or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that
everyone just has thier own idea.

--Endeavor" To me the word "endeavor" means to try (no dictionary
corrections please -- it is what I think and only that). However, as I
pointed out several items earlier (by no means all) stand in the way and
make that "endeavor" in some areas a real trial requiring a lot of
thought and energy. Which brings to mind, the old idea about just how
much time, effort, and attention each person (read citizen) is willing
to devote to NR.

Senator; I certainly can understand your views, and I honor them, as
your own. I, however, must disagree that others who do not want to make
thier own wine by crushng grapes with thier feet, writing all thier
messages to each other on wax tablets, thin wooden sheets or papyrus
scrolls, or waiting in line at the town well for a jar of water are not
interested in ancient Rome. I am afraid that I do not see the terrible
erosion of NR that you see, nor do I see that new people this year are
any more fickle in thier wants, needs and desires, than they wre some
years ago when I first joined NR.

People are people Senator, and they will ever be. They are impressed by
Leadership, and drawn by something new and interesting, not by dismal
predictions. It is, to my mind, the task of those who occupy the seats
in the Senate to recognize those human foibles and try to deal with them
in positive and constructive ways for the long term benefit of Nova
Roma--

-- not NOVA roma,

--but niether nova ROMA.

Respectfully;

Marcus Minucius Audens
Nova Roma Citizen

A wet sheet and a flowing sea, and a wind follows fast, and fills the
white and rustling sail, and bends the gallant mast; and bends the
gallant mast my boys while like the eagle free, our good ship starts and
flies and leaves old England on our lee------Fair Winds and following
Seas!!!


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Centuries
From:	"Diana Moravia Aventina" <diana@pandora.be>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:25:35 +0200

Salve G Equitius Marinus,
Salve L Equitius Cincinnatus Augur,

I'm glad the century discussion has come up, because I am not 100% clear on
how the citizens are grouped into their centuries. I have a few questions in
response to G Equitius Marinus, but anyone else can feel free to jump in if
they have the anwsers.

A question:According to LEX CORNELIA OCTAVIA DE ASSIDUI ET CAPITI CENSI
http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/leges/2002-12-24-i.html new members are
Capite Censi until they pay their taxes. But how long is 'new'? I've noticed
that the centuries have Capite Censi whose citizenship began a year ago and
so were here during this year's collection of taxes, but didn't pay them.

> Marinus:
> You can examine the other centuries and you'll see the
> same thing. Each of the centuries of the first class
> has one "heavy hitter" with a stellar amount of century
> points, and then a number of other Assidui who have fewer
> century points.

More questions: According to the
http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/lex99073007.html there are 193 centuries.
and the first class has 55. 104 are empty. 89 list citizens. Call me
obsessive-compulsive but I have just gone through most of them. Maybe I've
missed something: Has there been a new law which has changed the number of
centuries down to 89? Has there been a new law that has changed the 'first
class' from 55 centuries?

As far as "heavy hitters' go, many many of the centuries do not have one.
And after around century 25, the most active citizen has from 30-10 century
points and for the most part are made up of Capite Censi who have been
citizens from last year.

Lucius:
> However, if a person in a 'lower' century happens to be the only one who
> bothers to vote then he has 'won' the century for his candidate, or
> proposal.

Marinus: Once century realignment happens my understanding is that the first
88 centuries will have to be made up entirely of the tax paying assidui.

Marinus: I do think that we've accomplished a good thing by requiring all of
the
Capiti Censi to be in the 89th century.

Sorry Marinus, but you said 2 opposite things above. I'm not trying to start
in with you, but have the centuries already been realigned?

Marinus: That does address the question of having many of the lower
centuries populated by people who aren't likely to vote. Of course, it's
also going to mean we have a lot of 2 and 3 person centuries come November.

Last questions: At the moment if there is a vote on something, the centuries
are still mostly filled with inactive citizens. From around 26 on down, I
very rarely recognized any names. Why aren't the Capite Censi who joined
Nova Roma before April 2003 in Century 89 when the deadline for paying taxes
was in April? Since each century seems to be made up of citizens with
various amounts of century points, will the centuries be realigned to
prevent certain centuries from having only 2 citizens? If not, it dos seem
like a citizen's vote from a citizen century carries a lot of weight.

Valete,
Diana Moravia


Subject:	RE: [Nova-Roma] Newest member of Gens Lania
From:	"Diana Moravia Aventina" <diana@pandora.be>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:32:32 +0200

Salve Aulus Lanius Cogitatus,

Welkom bij Nova Roma! Ik ben blij dat wij hebben nog een nederlandstalige
bewoner binnin Nova Roma!
(translation: hello and welcome to Nova Roma).

Groetjes van Limburg & vale,
Diana Moravia

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Centuries
From:	Kristoffer From <from@darkeye.net>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:40:43 +0200

Salve, Diana Moravia Aventina.

Diana Moravia Aventina wrote:
> Maybe I've missed something: Has there
> been a new law which has changed the
> number of centuries down to 89? Has
> there been a new law that has changed
> the 'first class' from 55 centuries?

Yes. Lex Secunda Octavia de Centuriata defines the number of centuries
to be one eighth of the total number of assidui, plus one for the
headcount, to be no less than 51 centuries and no more than 193
centuries total. The same law defines how large part of the centuries
will belong to each class.

Diana Moravia Aventina wrote:
> Sorry Marinus, but you said 2 opposite
> things above. I'm not trying to start in
> with you, but have the centuries already
> been realigned?

Yes, they have been, and will be again in time for the elections later
this year. It's a yearly task conducted by the censors at or before the
last day of november each year, according to the Lex Vedia Centuriata.

Diana Moravia Aventina wrote:
> Why aren't the Capite Censi who joined
> Nova Roma before April 2003 in Century
> 89 when the deadline for paying taxes
> was in April?

The citizens status have changed to capiti censi with the taxation
deadline reached. However, the recalculation hasn't been made yet, so
the data from the last reassignment to centuries is still present in the
album gentium.

Vale, Titus Octavius Pius.


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Tradition and Modernity (was Re: NOVA roma)
From:	"Lucius Arminius Faustus" <lafaustus@yahoo.com.br>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 14:56:22 -0000

Salix Astur wrote:

"> The crave for "eliteness" of some of our citizens has always
worried me. What makes Nova Roma different from all those other Roman
micronations around? It's our openness, our willingness to accept all
those who love Rome in our ranks. "Restricting" our citizenship,
making it more difficult to join Nova Roma will simply harm Nova
Roma."

Salve,

I have to make me partner on this fear of the excellent praetor Salix
Astur. I�m feeling the same about some statements on the list.
Really, they disgust me and shakes my faith on our work.

Actually, there is no glory on working for NR. There is just silent
and lonely ant work... for an ideal... NR is not the place to receive
aplauses, neither some colossal job for mankind. Just do your small
work, the sum of all small work will take ahead the Republic and make
difference on world. (Alas, past magistracies and long time
citizenship is not a honour, but a shame, when making arrogant
coments about own glory, causing unnecessary and factious turmoil,
intimidating new citizens, and helping on anything.)

There is no �elite� on NR. (Sure there is some bodies most dedicated
to government, naturally occupied by the elders citizens, people with
experience and reputation, working on humbleness and silence, but
never must be an spirit of �elite� on that, a spirit contrary to
service, which is more a responsability than an honour.)

May a good elite, an �elite� of willingness to help and romanitas
maybe is entering now on citizen application. Welcome aboard, so, new
ones, and may Iove Maximus allows you to shadow us all on hard work
and desire to help!

We must be very careful. Much the problems we have now of inatives
citizens is a kind of intimidation the �great ones� causes on the
�new ones�.

Vale,
L. Arminius Faustus
Senior Plebeian Aedile


Subject:	RE: [Nova-Roma] Citizenship too easy?? Attn: L Lucillus Catiline
From:	"Diana Moravia Aventina" <diana@pandora.be>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:02:53 +0200

Salve Lucius Lucillus Catiline,

<I filled in the application form several months ago, and have since
<sent an email to the Censors also, but have yet to hear any word on
<my citizenship.

I looked up Gens Lucillia on the Album Gentium and unfortunately I don't
recognize the name of your Materfamilias or the rest of the citizens in her
Gens. It is extremely possible that she is inactive in Nova Roma. Anyone
else can jump in and correct me if I am wrong.

As a Materfaimilias I can tell you that the entire approval process takes
only a few minutes, so I really think that she is 'missing in action' and
that you join apply to another gens. What area are you in? Let me know and I
(or someone else) can quickly let you know the names of gentes that have an
active Materfamilias/Paterfamilias who would be happy to approve you within
a matter of days.

The problem that you have is nearly an epidemic within Nova Roma.... The
good news is that after the Census at the end of the year, these inactive
Patresfamilias will lose this position.

Vale,
Diana Moravia
Tribunus Plebis


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Provinciae et Hibernia
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Decimus=20Iunius=20Silanus?= <danedwardsuk@yahoo.co.uk>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:14:15 +0100 (BST)

Salve Tite Maxenti,

> The
> relatively large population of Britannia puts that
> province at an
> advantage, regarding political organisation, social
> events, religious
> duties, etc. That, in itself, would be an inducement
> for the Hiberni
> to welcome union with Britannia.

A union I would welcome if that is what the our Irish
cives would wish.

> But, because of the historical problems that have,
> at one time or
> another, existed between Britannia and Hibernia,
> some individuals on
> both sides might not welcome such a union.

I agree entirely. This is why I have consistently
argued for caution on this rather sensitive issue.

> If we
> could think of
> ourselves as Romans rather than as Britons or
> Hibernians, such a
> union would be easier.....

Again I agree. Unfortunately we all come with
macronational baggage. To offload that is quite often
easier said than done.

> Thus, those factors have to be considered. Would the
> Hiberni of Nova
> Roma have a problem with joining Britannia? If so
> and a separate
> Provincia Hibernia were proposed, would the people
> of Northern
> Ireland have a problem with joining Hibernia? Even
> if the answer to
> either of the two questions is "No", there may
> conceivably be other
> problems down the line.

The fact is that we will probably never be able to
please everyone. It will come down to pleasing the
will of the majority. At the end of the day, nothing
should be cast in stone. Any decision made by the
senate will have to appreciate that the situation may
change in the future as more British and Irish cives
join NR and further restructuring may have to take
place.

> From an administrative perspective, I would favour a
> unified
> Provincia Britannia et Hibernia; but the above
> concerns must be
> satisfactorily addressed before such a union could
> be proposed.

Rest assured that should union be the way to go, I
will work to ensure that these concerns are indeed
addressed. It would be folly to proceed otherwise.

Vale

Decimus Iunius Silanus
Propraetor Britanniae.

__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus - For a better Internet experience
http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/yplus/yoffer.html


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: The Proposed Lex Fabia de Ratione Comitiorum Centuriatorum and History
From:	"gaiuspopilliuslaenas" <ksterne@bellsouth.net>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:16:05 -0000

Salve Alue Apolloni,

Thank you for your reply. In response, I think the following posts
say it better than I could:

"Under our present system, and under the Fabian system
the result could also allready be decided before
everyone casts a ballot, the diference being that the
voter dosen't know this because the count hasn't been
made yet."

L. Sicinius Drusus Full text at Post #11878

"The suggestion that the system I sketched out would _substantively_
deprive any more citizens of their votes than the current system is
simply wrong."

G. Iulius Scaurus Full text at Post #11887

Therefore, we are really not talking about something akin to slavery
or depriving a citizen of their vote (and I agree the salvery
and "no women" arguments are indeed spurious).

Both systems appear fair; both would appear to achieve the desired
result; both apparently are practical; the Julian, however, is
completely hisotrical, and;therefore,in my opinion -superior.

With all respect.

Vale,
Gaius Popillius Laenas


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Hibernia Boundaries
From:	"Titus Maxentius Verus" <jgrady@lucent.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:32:44 -0000

Salve Quinte, et Salvete Omnes,

Perhaps most of you are aware of this, but it is quite possible that
the Romans did visit our shores, in Hibernia. I refer you to this
article:

http://watarts.uwaterloo.ca/~lcurchin/light/ireland.html

Vale,

Titus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael
Kelly)" <mjk@d...> wrote:
> Salvete Decimi Iuni Silane et Tite Maxenti Vere,
>
> Thank you both for your ideas and feelings regarding the boundary
> definitions of Hibernia and Britannia. I just have a few points
here:
>
> 1) Maybe one could take some time and do some reasearch as to how
the
> Roman government made her provincial boundaries; how she organized
> peoples with strong political differences that were former
countries
> having past grievences with one another. Do some of our scholars
her
> know of any particular models that were successful?
>
> 2) If Rome had taken Hibernia I have the gut feeling that the
Island
> would have been a separate province from Britanna. I was wondering
if
> Hibernia would have had more contact with Gaul and Spain by trade
> with ships hugging the coasts from the Mediterranean to Ireland.
>
>
> 3) Will there enough practicing pagans and Roman culturally
spirited
> people from Britannia and Hibernia deep enough into the Religio
> Romano and Roman culture that the issue of Northern Ireland is for
> the Macro world and matters not in our micro nation. That thought
is
> for the future when there are a lot more citizens from Hibernia.
>
> 4) In reality the interest, reading, discussions and research will
> always be concentrated more on Britannia since the Romans settled
it
> for 400 years and left Ireland alone. Similarily my area of Western
> Canada is rarely discussed since there was no Roman settlement.
>
>
> 5) Agricola thought he could have taken Hibernia with 1 or 2
legions.
> Fortunately for him, plans were put off. It may well have been
> another Teutoburg Wald for the Romans with Vespasian calling, "
> Agricola, give me back my legions!!!" (couldn't resist that comment)
> grin
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Quintus


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Citizenship too easy?? Attn: L Lucillus Catiline
From:	"Sp. Postumius Tubertus" <postumius@gmx.net>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:41:59 -0400

Salve L. Lucille,

> As a Materfaimilias I can tell you that the entire approval process takes
> only a few minutes, so I really think that she is 'missing in action' and
> that you join apply to another gens. What area are you in? Let me know and I
> (or someone else) can quickly let you know the names of gentes that have an
> active Materfamilias/Paterfamilias who would be happy to approve you within
> a matter of days.

I can't say that my Paterfamilias is "Active," but there is at least one "Active" member of the Gens Postumia, and I can say that my Paterfamilias Quintus Postumius Albinus Maius would most likely accept you, if you're interested in being a Postumius.

Vale,

Sp. Postumius Tubertus


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Would have, Could Have
From:	"Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@msn.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:54:46 -0400

Salve My dear cousin Gaius Galerius Peregrinator said in part

" I am on moderated status, so this will not come out till later, and I
think that Solaris spoke more eloquently than I do, so I'll let his reply
stand.".....

Why the heck is he on moderated status????????????????????

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Citizen

----- Original Message -----
From: Gaius Galerius Peregrinator
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 7:00 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Would have, Could Have

Salve:

Would have, could have is what you are saying Senator. Nobody is saying
that, and to have us in the 21st Century run our lives like they did in 200
BC is good and well in Disneyland, but not if we're founding a Republic with
institutions to govern and be answerable to a real constituency with real
issues at stake that is 21st Century and not 200BC.

I am on moderated status, so this will not come out til later, and I
think that Solaris spoke more elequently than I do, so I'll let his reply
stand.

By the way, the RASA would be very nice.

Vale

Gaius Galerius Peregrinator.

----Original Message Follows----
From: "L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
To: Nova Roma <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Would have, Could Have
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 02:46:34 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete Quirites,

The Romans would have done it this way! That bit of
speculation seems to crop up each time we have a
debate between the Modernist and the Traditionalist
factions. It is pure idle speculation, and there is no
way of knowing if the Romans "would" do X in any
modern situation.

If there wasn't a thousand year lapse in thought
during the dark ages the Romans might have developed
space flight centuries ago. That is no reson to
institute RASA (Roman Aeronautics and Space
Administration) as a new section of government. After
Centuries of space flight the Roman Empire "might"
resemble the galatic empire in the Star Wars movies,
but that is no reaso to found Gens Vader and
Skywalker. Idle speculation can lead anywhere, and
it's foolish to base policy on it.

We don't know what the Romans "Would" or "Could" do in
any situation. We often do know what the Romans did,
and that is what we should be basing our policies on.
We need to recreate the Roman state as closely as
possible as a first step, then once that is achived
let it evolve naturally, rather than seekin to create
someone's pipedream of what Roma "could" have been as
a starting point.

=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Would have, Could Have
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 08:54:08 -0700 (PDT)

How, pray tell shall we know what is only workable in
"Disneyland", if we toss most of Roma in the trashbin
without even attempting to see if it is workable in
the 21st Century?

--- Gaius Galerius Peregrinator
<gaiusgalerius@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Salve:
>
> Would have, could have is what you are saying
> Senator. Nobody is saying
> that, and to have us in the 21st Century run our
> lives like they did in 200
> BC is good and well in Disneyland, but not if we're
> founding a Republic with
> institutions to govern and be answerable to a real
> constituency with real
> issues at stake that is 21st Century and not 200BC.
>
> I am on moderated status, so this will not come
> out til later, and I
> think that Solaris spoke more elequently than I do,
> so I'll let his reply
> stand.
>
> By the way, the RASA would be very nice.
>
> Vale
>
> Gaius Galerius Peregrinator.
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: "L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> To: Nova Roma <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Would have, Could Have
> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 02:46:34 -0700 (PDT)
>
> Salvete Quirites,
>
> The Romans would have done it this way! That bit of
> speculation seems to crop up each time we have a
> debate between the Modernist and the Traditionalist
> factions. It is pure idle speculation, and there is
> no
> way of knowing if the Romans "would" do X in any
> modern situation.
>
> If there wasn't a thousand year lapse in thought
> during the dark ages the Romans might have developed
> space flight centuries ago. That is no reson to
> institute RASA (Roman Aeronautics and Space
> Administration) as a new section of government.
> After
> Centuries of space flight the Roman Empire "might"
> resemble the galatic empire in the Star Wars movies,
> but that is no reaso to found Gens Vader and
> Skywalker. Idle speculation can lead anywhere, and
> it's foolish to base policy on it.
>
> We don't know what the Romans "Would" or "Could" do
> in
> any situation. We often do know what the Romans did,
> and that is what we should be basing our policies
> on.
> We need to recreate the Roman state as closely as
> possible as a first step, then once that is achived
> let it evolve naturally, rather than seekin to
> create
> someone's pipedream of what Roma "could" have been
> as
> a starting point.
>
>
> =====
> L. Sicinius Drusus
>
> Roman Citizen
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
> Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months
> FREE*.
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
>
>

=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Citizenship
From:	MarcusAudens@webtv.net
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:15:54 -0400 (EDT)

Master Catalene;

You will by now have recieved a response to your question from Tribune
Diana. She is better at computer "stuff" than I am, so I will take her
evaluation of the Ges to whom you have applied at face value.

The two things that delay citizeship in NR are:

--failure of a Mater / Paterfamilius to respond;

--election periods.

As the Tribue has said, the actualprocess takes just a few minutes and I
have infact had members added to my Gens with less than a day of the
time that they notified me as Paterfmilias.

There are several Gens who are very active on the Mainlst and the
Censors can provide that information to you.

If I can be of any further assistance to you in this area, please do not
hesitate to ask.

Respectfully;

Marcus Minucius Audens

A wet sheet and a flowing sea, and a wind follows fast, and fills the
white and rustling sail, and bends the gallant mast; and bends the
gallant mast my boys while like the eagle free, our good ship starts and
flies and leaves old England on our lee------Fair Winds and following
Seas!!!


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Election Lex
From:	"Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@msn.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 12:19:13 -0400

Salve Cordus And thanks for all the hard work on this on going debate on the election Lex.

I said

In a real Nova Roma election candidate Diana may want to throw her support toward Marcus and not Julius.

You said "This is true; what she should do, then, is to
encourage her supporters to vote 'yes' to both her and
Marcus, so that if she is eliminated Marcus will get
her supporters' votes. There is no need to have
run-off elections in order for this to be possible; it
can all be done before the elections begin."

If I am a candidate and we can vote for up to say 5 candidates I will encourage my supporters to vote FOR ONLY ME to get the most out of their votes. If after the first round I want want to endorse another candidate I would do so but not in the first round when I might have a chance to win out right election.

If we want all candidates who win to have a majority then there is NOTHING wrong with run-off elections. Maybe we should consider dropping more that the last place candidate in the first runoff election.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Citizen
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
----- Original Message -----
From: A. Apollonius Cordus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Election Lex

A. Apollonius Cordus to Ti. Galerius Paulinus and all
citizens and peregrines, greetings.

First of all, thanks for your time and thought in
relation to the Consul's proposed system. It is,
indeed, based in part upon AV, as mentioned in the
Voter's Handbook.

However, I think perhaps you have missed an important
element of the system. Individual voters are not
required to number the candidates 1, 2, 3 and so on;
AV only comes in at the stage of calculating the votes
of the centuries. Your example, therefore, is
impossible, since there can never be 29, 647
centuries. :)

Let us, however, imagine that there are 29, 647
centuries, and that your example is therefore
possible. In it, the first preferences of the
centuries were as follows:

Marcus 13 046 = 44.0044%
Tiberius 875 = 2.9513%
Gaius 628 = 2.1183%
Julius 12 757 = 43.0297%
Diana 2 341 = 7.8962%

Now, it is true that Marcus is the first preference of
fractionally more centuries than Julius is: 44%
against 43%. In a first-past-the-post system, such as
we have currently, Marcus would be elected. That,
however, would *not* be a fair and accurate reflection
of the will of the centuries.

What the results above mean is that if you asked
people who they would most like to be elected, 44%
would say Marcus, 43% would say Julius and so on. What
if you asked the same people, 'if you can't have who
you want, who else would you choose?' They might all
say Julius. If so, surely Julius ought to be elected
rather than Marcus, since a majority of voters support
him as either their first or their second preference,
whereas Marcus is not supported by a majority.

So first-preference votes are not a reliable guide to
which candidate genuinely has more support. The only
way to find out who has most support is to find out
not only the voters' (or in our case the centuries')
first choice, second choice, third choice and so on.

It is true that in your example, Julius "was not the
first, second or even third choice of a majority of
voters"; but the fact is that, when you come down to
it, he was the only candidate who was supported by a
majority of voters. *None* of the others was supported
by a majority. Julius was. Julius, therefore, is the
rightful winner.

To address your other point:

> In a real Nova Roma election candidate Diana may
> want to throw her support toward Marcus and not
> Julius.

This is true; what she should do, then, is to
encourage her supporters to vote 'yes' to both her and
Marcus, so that if she is eliminated Marcus will get
her supporters' votes. There is no need to have
run-off elections in order for this to be possible; it
can all be done before the elections begin.

To recap: Currently it is possible for candidates to
be elected without being supported by a majority of
centuries. The Fabian system ensures that no one is
elected who is not supported by a majority of
centuries. It is perfectly possible for candidates to
support other candidates under the Fabian system.

Cordus

=====
www.collapsibletheatre.co.uk

________________________________________________________________________
Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!
Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Hibernia Boundaries
From:	"Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly)" <mjk@datanet.ab.ca>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:38:28 -0000

Salve Tite,

Thank you for the article! That sure will shed a new light on things
and I will follow that project with eager anticipation. I am feeling
a little boastful that the last words of the author were the same as
mine on my posting regarding an embarrasing Roman defeat. LOL

Vale bene,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Titus Maxentius Verus"
<jgrady@l...> wrote:
> Salve Quinte, et Salvete Omnes,
>
> Perhaps most of you are aware of this, but it is quite possible
that
> the Romans did visit our shores, in Hibernia. I refer you to this
> article:
>
> http://watarts.uwaterloo.ca/~lcurchin/light/ireland.html
>
> Vale,
>
> Titus
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael
> Kelly)" <mjk@d...> wrote:
> > Salvete Decimi Iuni Silane et Tite Maxenti Vere,
> >
> > Thank you both for your ideas and feelings regarding the boundary
> > definitions of Hibernia and Britannia. I just have a few points
> here:
> >
> > 1) Maybe one could take some time and do some reasearch as to how
> the
> > Roman government made her provincial boundaries; how she
organized
> > peoples with strong political differences that were former
> countries
> > having past grievences with one another. Do some of our scholars
> her
> > know of any particular models that were successful?
> >
> > 2) If Rome had taken Hibernia I have the gut feeling that the
> Island
> > would have been a separate province from Britanna. I was
wondering
> if
> > Hibernia would have had more contact with Gaul and Spain by trade
> > with ships hugging the coasts from the Mediterranean to Ireland.
> >
> >
> > 3) Will there enough practicing pagans and Roman culturally
> spirited
> > people from Britannia and Hibernia deep enough into the Religio
> > Romano and Roman culture that the issue of Northern Ireland is
for
> > the Macro world and matters not in our micro nation. That thought
> is
> > for the future when there are a lot more citizens from Hibernia.
> >
> > 4) In reality the interest, reading, discussions and research
will
> > always be concentrated more on Britannia since the Romans settled
> it
> > for 400 years and left Ireland alone. Similarily my area of
Western
> > Canada is rarely discussed since there was no Roman settlement.
> >
> >
> > 5) Agricola thought he could have taken Hibernia with 1 or 2
> legions.
> > Fortunately for him, plans were put off. It may well have been
> > another Teutoburg Wald for the Romans with Vespasian calling, "
> > Agricola, give me back my legions!!!" (couldn't resist that
comment)
> > grin
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Quintus


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Would have, Could Have
From:	"Marcus Ambrosius Belisarius" <mballetta@hotmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:01:26 -0000

I just LOVE the following from L. Sicinius Drusus:

SNIP> >
> > If there wasn't a thousand year lapse in thought
> > during the dark ages the Romans might have developed
> > space flight centuries ago. That is no reson to
> > institute RASA (Roman Aeronautics and Space
> > Administration) as a new section of government.
> > After
> > Centuries of space flight the Roman Empire "might"
> > resemble the galatic empire in the Star Wars movies,
> > but that is no reaso to found Gens Vader and
> > Skywalker. Idle speculation can lead anywhere, and
> > it's foolish to base policy on it.
> >
> > We don't know what the Romans "Would" or "Could" do
> > in
> > any situation. We often do know what the Romans did,
> > and that is what we should be basing our policies
> > on.
> > We need to recreate the Roman state as closely as
> > possible as a first step, then once that is achived
> > let it evolve naturally, rather than seekin to
> > create
> > someone's pipedream of what Roma "could" have been
> > as
> > a starting point.
SNIP
I was definately interested in Nova Roma as a Roman Base model for
society with modern upgrades.
The Romans spoke Latin - not everyone her is fluent in Latin,
Women were not in politics - ours are,
Slavery - we do not have slaves,
Paganism was the dominant religious practice - this too seems not the
case here,
Assasination of leaders - . . . . . I'll assume that has been done
away with also, lol.

Forgetting what Nova Roma WAS and IS - is there someplace to find a
formalized bottom line proposal for what the "creators and powers
that are" want Nova Roma to be that can be reviewed?

It does make sense that it should be based on the Roman ways with
modern modifications as so many have already stated. If based on
something else or created to be something else, then it also makes
sense that it should not be called Nova Roma as that point has
already been made also.
What is the bottom line if there is one?

Love the Star Wars annalogy by the way and VIVA LA RASA!

Salve


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] De Comitiis
From:	labienus@novaroma.org
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 13:31:42 CDT

Salvete

Due to events beyond my control, I've not been able to follow the current
discussion of voting methods very closely. However, I was rather interested to
read C Iulius Scaurus' musings. I've also briefly scanned some of the ensuing
discussion about his description of the ancient system of voting and sketch of
a modern, online version of that system (note that such a system would not
be "totally historical" as someone recently described it). All of this leads
me to believe that it might be somewhat useful to present some of the thinking
that went into Fl Vedius' and my revision of the procedures for the trina
comitia during my tenure as a tribunus plebis.

First, let me say that we did consult some of the sources on the subject that C
Iulius kindly provided. Lily Taylor Ross' book was the source Fl Vedius and I
most relied upon. In other words, we didn't act out of ignorance.

Instead, we dealt with the opinions of the day. One of which was a
preoccupation with factions (which were substantially more of a problem back
then) and the notion that it should be made as difficult as possible to allow
any single faction to dominate the government. At the time, the solution was
to limit cives to voting for a single candidate for any given office, thereby
preventing block voting. The subject was debated at length in the senate, and
it was fairly clear that the general consensus at the time favored such a
system.

Additionally, we did (very) briefly consider the possibility of having
centuriae and tribus vote sequentially, as the ancient centuriae and tribus
did. The thing that tripped us up was *not* notions of fairness or a desire
for modernity. Instead, it was the religious issue of dies nefasti and dies
comitiales. A quick look at the Roman religious calendar will reveal how
prevalent dies nefasti are, and will show that dies comitiales do not always
form nice 8- or 10-day blocks. A look at the month of December, the (rather
unhistorical) month of our main elections, is illustrative.

First, some definitions (apologies to those not using a fixed width font):
Dies comitalis Citizens may vote on political or criminal matters.
Dies fastus Legal action is permitted.
Dies nefastus No legal action or public voting may occur.
Endotercisus Dies fastus in the morning and dies comitialis in the
afternoon.
Nefastus publicus A dies nefastus on which a public religious festival is
celebrated.

Now, let's look at December ('*' denotes a day upon which voting is
permissible, '+' denotes a partial day of voting):
1- 4 dies nefastus
5- 6 dies fastus
* 7-10 dies comitiales
11 nefastus publicus
+ 12 endotercisus
13 nefastus publicus
14 dies fastus
15 nefastus publicus
* 16 dies comitialis
17 nefastus publicus
* 18 dies comitialis
19 nefastus publicus
* 20 dies comitialis
21 nefastus publicus
* 22 dies comitialis
23 nefastus publicus
* 24-31 dies comitiales

Our constitution demands that the magisterial elections take place "no later
than December 15th", which has been interpreted to date as "voting must start
no later than December 15th". This means that any voting in the main elections
which occurs in December will span several days in which it is improper to vote.

So, any method which allows for sequential counting of centuriae and tribus
will involve either asking cives to vote on days in which it is impious to do
so or lengthening the voting period a great deal to accomodate enough dies
comitiales. Fl Vedius and I quickly decided that this was impractical ("...in
all manners practical and acceptable..."), and kept the original method of
simply having voting occur within a specific block of time. As the Collegium
Pontificum has unofficially ruled that it is not impious to do this so long as
voting *begins* on a dies comitialis, this allows cives to determine for
themselves whether or not to follow the ancient voting proscriptions without
either polluting the Res Publica with impiety or overly extending the length of
a voting period. We also wanted to allow cives more than 24 hours in which to
cast their votes, which would have extended the length of voting even further.
(Note that cives may not be granted civitas during a vote, and that votes
already take roughly two weeks with the contio included. Note also that the
problem has the potential to get worse in the Comitia Centuriata as our
population, and therefore the number of centuriae, grows.)

So much for some of the thinking that went into the basis of our current voting
leges. For the sake of intellectual honesty, I now need to point out that our
main elections don't *have* to occur in December. Exempli gratia, there are
plenty of dies comitiales at the end of November in which to hold them. In
other words, I'm *not* saying that the "Julian method" is impossible to
implement. I'm just saying that the current way of doing things was not,
contrary to what seems to be the common perception, entered into either blindly
or without knowledge of the ancient voting practices.

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Would have, Could Have / Alternate history fantasy
From:	"Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly)" <mjk@datanet.ab.ca>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 18:58:28 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Marcus Ambrosius Belisarius"
<mballetta@h...> wrote:
>
Salve Marce,

There are a few books on the market about alternate Roman history and
what the world may have been like if Rome lasted until now: by
Mitchel Kirk -"Procurator"(Pilate frees Jesus and Rome lasts 2000 yrs)
"The New Barbarians" (Rome expands to America - Aztec empire clash)

Sadler: The Casca series (about a Roman soldier who slaps Christ's
face and is condemned to live on as a mercenary for centuries.)

Ann Rice - Pandora - (a 2000 year old Roman vampiress.Her points
contrasting her ancient culture with our modern are good)

Fun to read and food for thought. Bookfinder.com has these available.

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Would have, Could Have / Alternate history fantasy
From:	lanius117@aol.com
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:45:47 EDT

Salve, Quinte

These book titles you mention - are they considered fiction, mystery, science
fiction? I would like to check for them next time I go to Barnes & Noble.

Thanks.....

Vale,

Falco

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Citizenship
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?M=20Arminius=20Maior?= <marminius@yahoo.com.br>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:18:41 -0300 (ART)

Salvete,

--- MarcusAudens@webtv.net escreveu: > Master
Catalene;
[..]
> The two things that delay citizeship in NR are:
> --failure of a Mater / Paterfamilius to respond;
> --election periods.

M.Arminius: Another delay factors can be:
- incomplete documentation (name, adress missing);
- problems with names (incorrect latin form, or a
strange name, like, say, Capitanus Kirkus);
- minority (if you is less than 18 years old, you will
need to show a written permission, from your parents,
to the Censores).

> As the Tribue has said, the actualprocess takes just
> a few minutes and I
> have infact had members added to my Gens with less
> than a day of the
> time that they notified me as Paterfmilias.
[..]
> Respectfully;
> Marcus Minucius Audens

Vale
Marcus Arminius

_______________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Mail
Mais espa�o, mais seguran�a e gratuito: caixa postal de 6MB, antiv�rus, prote��o contra spam.
http://br.mail.yahoo.com/


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Hibernia Boundaries
From:	=?iso-8859-1?B?R6VJVkxJVlOlU0NBVlJWUw==?= <gfr@intcon.net>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:23:11 -0000

G. Iulius Scaurus Q. Lanio Paulino salutem dicit.

Salve, Q. Lani.

> 1) Maybe one could take some time and do some reasearch as to how the
> Roman government made her provincial boundaries; how she organized
> peoples with strong political differences that were former countries
> having past grievences with one another. Do some of our scholars her
> know of any particular models that were successful?

We know the provincial boundaries of provinces in the Diocese of
Britannia only sketchily from epigraphic evidence, although I'd be
happy to go through my files and forward some citations on the issue
(post-367 CE the province names were Britannia Prima, Britannia
Secunda, Flavia Caesariensis, Maxima Caesariensis, and Valentia). I
don't mean to sound patronising, but for those unaware: the diocese
was the unit of civil administration immediately above province and
immediately below praetorian praefecture under the Diocletianic reform).

> 2) If Rome had taken Hibernia I have the gut feeling that the Island
> would have been a separate province from Britanna. I was wondering if
> Hibernia would have had more contact with Gaul and Spain by trade
> with ships hugging the coasts from the Mediterranean to Ireland.

If Ireland had been conquered by the Romans, it is almost certain that
it would have been a separate province at least by the end of the
second century CE (Britannia was divided into two, possibily three
provinces by then). Whether it was in the Diocletianic reform (which
tended to multiply the number of provinces in order to provide
governors with more compact geographical areas to govern) or
Constantine who reorganised Britannia, there were four provinciae in
Britannia by the Council of Arles in 314 CE with provincial capitals
at London, York, Lincoln, and Cirencester [cf., J.C. Mann, "The
Administration of Roman Britain", Antiquity 35 (1961) and my
discussion of the issue in "The Three 'Poor' 'Romano-British Bishops:
A Reconsideration of Sulpicius Severus' Account of the Council of
Ariminum, 359 CE," forthcoming in the Journal of Ecclesiastical
History]. The post-367 creation of a fifth province in the Diocese of
Britannia is attested in the Notitia Dignitatum [cf., J.G.F., Hind,
J.G.F. "The British `Provinces' of Valentia and Orcades." Historia 24
(1975) and A. Dornier, "The Province of Valentia," Britannia 23 (1982)].

> 5) Agricola thought he could have taken Hibernia with 1 or 2 legions.
> Fortunately for him, plans were put off. It may well have been
> another Teutoburg Wald for the Romans with Vespasian calling, "
> Agricola, give me back my legions!!!" (couldn't resist that comment)
> grin

Not likely. The victory of Arminius at Kalkriese was the product of
almost fifty years of Germans serving as auxiliaries and knowing Roman
tactics intimately, as well as direct familiarity with the military
shortcomings of the Roman commander. While Tacitus exaggerates the
military genius of his father-in-law considerably (and the likely
ease of a conquest of Ireland), the analogy with trans-Rhenine Germany
is not particularly apt.

Vale.

G. Iulius Scaurus


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Digest Number 668
From:	"Lucius Equitius" <vergil@starpower.net>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:02:44 -0400

Salvete iterum

Please accept my apology for my terse comment, Gnaeus.
I'm a bit under the weather, and we're having the house painted so we can
move .... I know, excuses are like a--h----, everybody has one and they all
stink :-)
________________________________________________________________________

Lucius Equitius writes:

[I had written earlier]
> You're the first person in the first century, with your
> truly amazing 186 century points...

Lucius:
> Gnaeus, you seem to mention this whenever we have contact, is it a
> problem?

Heck no! It's something that I admire greatly. I'm amazed that
anybody has been able to accomplish so much in the years since
NR was founded. It's as if you had five Navy Commendation Medals,
to put it into the context of our military service.

L Equitius: Well, I wouldn't go that far, but thank you none the less.
We've had quite a history here in Nova Roma in our short time and I've often
been very involved. It's actually a relief to be able to watch others...

But, if my mentioning it is bothersome to you, I'll stop. I know
that hero worship can be awkward for heros.

L Equitius: Doh! ... there you go again ;-)
In any case I'm pleased that I have inspired you and others to work building
Nova Roma and make a name for yourselves too.

> Marinus:
So none of the people who've done the most for NR are lumped together
into a single century. Thus you're not negating one another's votes.

L Equitius: True, but you can see that we can easly have our votes undercut
by those who haven't made nearly the commitment we have, nonne?

> Marinus:
> What this *does* mean is that each one of the "heavy
> hitters" has a huge influence over which way their
> own century votes.
>
> L Equitius: Really, how is this done exactly? Each vote in a century is
the
> same. Mine isn't a trump on the others, not that I'd mind :-)

True, and I mis-stated that badly. In my idealized notion of how
the century points should work, they'd give you an voting weight
within your century proportional to the number. But of course that's
not how it really works. I wrote that during a break at work this
afternoon and I seem to have mistaken which was which.

L Equitius: I understand, in fact I see that current allocation of centuries
as *somewhat* counter to how it should work. What I'm thinking is that
someone who has say 35 century points shouldn't be in the same century as
someone who has 100+, but since we have so few citizens who actually pay tax
and we must by law have citizens distributed proportionally then we are
'locked in' for the time being.

Lucius:
> However, if a person in a 'lower' century happens to be the only one who
> bothers to vote then he has 'won' the century for his candidate, or
> proposal.

Marinus:
That is true. I think it's only going to be significant in the 89th
century though,...

L Equitius: I'm not so sure it couldn't be others as well.

> L Equitius: The point I was making is that those who do vote and pay their
> tax are placed in the similar centuries.

Marinus:
It's true that right now those people seem to be grouped mostly into
the first 20 centuries, ...

> But, someone who joined recently, and hasn't even necessarily paid tax,

Marinus:Yes, that is the one category of person who can skew the results,
the new citizen who is assidui by courtesy. However I don't see
that they would gain any additional influence in any of the several
proposed systems we're discussing.

L Equitius: And a good thing too, that they wouldn't gain additional
influnce, unless they earn it anyway.

> is placed in a lower century by virtue
> of fewer points. These people through the novelty of their citizenship are
> more likely to vote than many of their less active colleagues (yes this is
> pure speculation).

Marinus:
But very reasonable speculation. It does point out that a citizen may
possibly exercise more influence over an election in their first election
than in their second or third.

L Equitius: I'm glad we agree.

Marinus:
I do think that we've accomplished a good thing by requiring all of the
Capiti Censi to be in the 89th century. That does address the question
of having many of the lower centuries populated by people who aren't
likely to vote. Of course, it's also going to mean we have a lot of
2 and 3 person centuries come November.

-- Marinus

L Equitius: We'll see... This is great we have ideas and we can plan, but
nobody knows what is going to happen for sure.

Vale atque valete, Cincinnatus
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 5
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 00:44:08 +0200
From: "M. Octavius Solaris" <scorpioinvictus@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: NOVA roma

Salve Luci Sicini,

<SNIP>

MOS: While I disagree that NR is split up in two factions only (there is a
substantial grey zone, after all) ... Fact is that today, only nutcases
would accept some very Roman things like slavery, discrimination, blood
sacrifice or conquest. It's impossible *not* to be a 21st century
micronation because this *is* the 21st century.

L Equitius: First, I don't know why you included *discrimination* as one of
the "Roman things".

Sencond, I and others do believe that *Some* proper Roman Rites/Ritual do
call for "blood sacirfice". You are entitled to your opinion, but I resent
being called a "nutcase" just as I'm sure you would. In fact it's not
against the law, the main thing is that we are not properly prepaired to
carry out a rite properly, yet.

Third, 'slavery', there are many people today who place themselves in
virtual slavery, it just isn't called slavery (not to mention S&M and other
situations...). Like it or not there are people who abdicate their freedom
for money, security, aproval, etc.

Forth, I'm all for conquest, I say we all should work to replace ignorance
with knowledge. Then people will chose the best way to live and behave.

MOS: I for one am much more interested in the revival of Latin language,
Religio Romana...

L Equitius: But I suppose the Religio would have to meet your appoval first.
You know, be up to date, none of those nasty sacrifices. Wer wouldn't want
to upset people enjoying their steak, rib or chicken dinners, would we?
(btw vegetables are life forms too, but I guess that since they don't live
as mammals they don't count)

Vale bene,
M. Octavius Solaris

Valete, L Equitius Cincinnatus


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Modernist and Traditonalist Factions (was Re: Would have, Could Have)
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 14:00:21 -0700 (PDT)

--- Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@yahoo.es> wrote:
> Salvete Quirites; et salve, L. Sicini Druse.
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Sicinius
> Drusus"
> <lsicinius@y...> wrote:
> > Salvete Quirites,
> >
> > The Romans would have done it this way! That bit
> of
> > speculation seems to crop up each time we have a
> > debate between the Modernist and the
> Traditionalist
> > factions. It is pure idle speculation, and there
> is no
> > way of knowing if the Romans "would" do X in any
> > modern situation.
>
> I have seen you using those two terms ("modernist"
> and "traditionalist"), and I would like to know what
> you actually
> mean by them.
>
> If by "Traditionalist faction" you are referring to
> those with whom
> you tend to agree, I am not sure if it is an
> appropriate term. I have
> seen many of those in your "Traditionalist faction"
> defending ideas
> that were *against* Roman tradition, while those who
> would belong to
> what you call the "Modernist facion" actually have
> smoetimes defended
> an approach that was closer to Roman tradition. A
> good example of
> what I am saying was what happened during the gens
> reform debate.
>
> So perhaps you should try to look for two different
> terms to describe
> those two political currents, senator.
> "Traditionalist"
> and "modernist" are misleading.
>
> CN�SALIX�ASTVR�T�F�A�NEP�TRIB�OVF
>
>

The very concept of a lex that tels Roman familes how
to conduct thier affairs goes against all the
traditions of Roma. If the Lex had simply been an
enabling lex that allowed Gens who wished to do so to
reconstruct them selves along historic lines, while
grandfathering the present ahistoric Gens who weren't
ready to change yet, you would have had my support.
Since your faction insisted on including a element of
coercion directed at Roman families, even ahistoric
ones like our Gens, you lost my support.

There was also another element of that debate. The
timing of the introduction of Gens reform caused many
members of Gens Cornelia to reach a conculsion,
rightly or wrongly, that the reform bill was a petty
spiteful act of political revenge because of a Veto
cast by thier Pater. Nothing in the manner your side
chose to handle the matter allayed thier fears. You
had one to two dozen active taxpaying citizens on the
brink of resiging thier citizenship. Members of that
Gens are not nearly asactive as they were a year ago,
and I fear that many of it's members have joined the
multitude who have left Nova Roma without bothering to
tender a resignation.

I repeatadly warned your faction that if force was
included in your lex it would cost Nova Roma citizens.
Just the threat of using force was enough to lower the
number of active citizens.

Draft a lex that allows Gens to set themselves up
along historic lines WITHOUT forcing those who do not
wish to change at the present time to do so, and you
shall have my support and most likely that of the
other members of my faction.

=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Would have, Could Have / Alternate history fantasy
From:	"Marcus Ambrosius Belisarius" <mballetta@hotmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:29:07 -0000

Thanks Quintus,
I have read Pandora as well as Blood and gold by Rice on ancient Rome
and Byzantium/Constantinople/Istanbul - actually all her books. A
favourite auther and I have been to her home several times in the
Garden District of New Orleans.
I am also familiar with Casca and the once refered to Longinus who's
spear pierced the side of Jesus and I don't remember the name of the
one who was to break his legs while being crucified. There is even
the old Gypsy tale of the copper nails and why there are only 3 out
of the 4 requested leading to the reason for Gysy Roaming - another
very interesting legend.

I was interested in the debate going on about the future of Nova Roma.
There is much talk and discussion going on regarding the tradition
and modernity of Nova ROma.
Is it based on Rome or not, etc.
Whatever the talk which doesn't appear to be boiling down to
decisions of what was and is, I'd be curious to know (after all is
said and done) what is it going to be? Is there one place to go and
review the proposals for the Nova Roma to be or the New Republic (not
based on Roman Values).

Thanks again for the other references, I will need to check them out.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael
Kelly)" <mjk@d...> wrote:
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Marcus Ambrosius Belisarius"
> <mballetta@h...> wrote:
> >
> Salve Marce,
>
> There are a few books on the market about alternate Roman history
and
> what the world may have been like if Rome lasted until now: by
> Mitchel Kirk -"Procurator"(Pilate frees Jesus and Rome lasts 2000
yrs)
> "The New Barbarians" (Rome expands to America - Aztec empire
clash)
>
> Sadler: The Casca series (about a Roman soldier who slaps Christ's
> face and is condemned to live on as a mercenary for centuries.)
>
> Ann Rice - Pandora - (a 2000 year old Roman vampiress.Her points
> contrasting her ancient culture with our modern are good)
>
> Fun to read and food for thought. Bookfinder.com has these
available.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Quintus Lanius Paulinus


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Chariot Racing
From:	"rory12001" <rory12001@yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:52:52 -0000

Salve Omnes;
one of the cives in the NR course, Gaia Flavia of Britannica,tells
that there will be chariot racing at the racetrack in Chester, with
full Roman dress. She is going to give us a report, but I wonder if
such events are happening in the other Provincae.
Being a native of Hibernia, I am a devotee of the Circus and I'm
sure there are others in our great nation.
Now if I can only party with the Galeri...
Vale,
Urania Calidia Antonina


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Citizenship too easy?? Attn: L Lucillus Catiline
From:	"lucius_lucillus_catiline" <graymouser01@aol.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:21:08 -0000

Salve

Many thanks for the positive responses to my post!

In defence of my Materfamilias I feel I ought to point out that my
considering myself a 'citizen aspirant' rather than a citizen may
well be the result of my own confusion, which originates from the
comment on the NR website that

"You've applied, waited the agonizing days to hear back from the
Censors, and finally got the email stating you're a Citizen of Nova
Roma"

I did in fact recieve a friendly response from the Gens Materfamilias
when I wrote to her asking for permission to join her Gens several
months ago, but have heard no corroborating response from NR, and
simply assumed such a response would be forthcoming in the event of
citizenship approval.

I have however recently written to my Materfamilias to clear up my
confusion over the issue, and await a response. Knowing how difficult
it can be to find time to answer mails and lead a busy life, I don't
really want to do anything about the matter until she has had time to
respond, and hope my original comments (which were never intended as
a complaint, more a comment from personal experience regarding 'easy'
membership!) have not done her or the Censors a disservice.

Peace and Prosperity

Lucius Lucillus Catiline

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Diana Moravia Aventina"
<diana@p...> wrote:
> Salve Lucius Lucillus Catiline,
>
> <I filled in the application form several months ago, and have since
> <sent an email to the Censors also, but have yet to hear any word on
> <my citizenship.
>
> I looked up Gens Lucillia on the Album Gentium and unfortunately I
don't
> recognize the name of your Materfamilias or the rest of the
citizens in her
> Gens. It is extremely possible that she is inactive in Nova Roma.
Anyone
> else can jump in and correct me if I am wrong.
>
> As a Materfaimilias I can tell you that the entire approval process
takes
> only a few minutes, so I really think that she is 'missing in
action' and
> that you join apply to another gens. What area are you in? Let me
know and I
> (or someone else) can quickly let you know the names of gentes that
have an
> active Materfamilias/Paterfamilias who would be happy to approve
you within
> a matter of days.
>
> The problem that you have is nearly an epidemic within Nova
Roma.... The
> good news is that after the Census at the end of the year, these
inactive
> Patresfamilias will lose this position.
>
> Vale,
> Diana Moravia
> Tribunus Plebis


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Modernist and Traditonalist Factions (was Re:
From:	Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@cesmail.net>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:07:13 -0400

"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com> writes:

> Draft a lex that allows Gens to set themselves up
> along historic lines WITHOUT forcing those who do not
> wish to change at the present time to do so, and you
> shall have my support and most likely that of the
> other members of my faction.

I look forward to the opportunity to do just that.

This is one of the issues that we've been working on
in the Senior Consul's cohort since last January, in
concert with the Junior Consul. I'm pleased to know
that we can count on your support.

-- Marinus


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Not built in one day
From:	"Laureatus Armoricus" <laureatusarmoricus@tiscali.co.uk>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:52:46 +0100

Salvete Druse et omnes,

Dixit Drusus :
"How, pray tell shall we know what is only workable in
"Disneyland", if we toss most of Roma in the trashbin
without even attempting to see if it is workable in
the 21st Century?"

Respondeo : Rome wasn't build in one day ! The political and cultural
achievements were the results of centuries of evolution and integration.We
just can't compete with that and expect to reach such a level of
civilisation after a few years. Should we implement today their political
constitution and the rest to the letter we will fail in gathering enough
supporters to do just what you an all of us want : Promoting the Romanitas.

Only a workable system based in essence on Roman way of doing things but
adapted to our modern sensitivities will bring tangible results.

Only if we can concentrate our efforts in actually learning from others AND
teaching to others can we one day hope to reach a consensus when we will be
able to slowly evolve to that ideal state of ours. There is a real work at
integrating all of us to be done first.

Optime valete

Moravius Laureatus


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Modernist and Traditonalist Factions
From:	"M. Octavius Solaris" <scorpioinvictus@hotmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:13:56 +0200

Salve Luci Sicini,

> The very concept of a lex that tels Roman familes how
> to conduct thier affairs goes against all the
> traditions of Roma. If the Lex had simply been an
> enabling lex that allowed Gens who wished to do so to
> reconstruct them selves along historic lines, while
> grandfathering the present ahistoric Gens who weren't
> ready to change yet, you would have had my support.
> Since your faction insisted on including a element of
> coercion directed at Roman families, even ahistoric
> ones like our Gens, you lost my support.

There's something here I don't understand. You identify yourself as
belonging to those, or holding similar views to those, who would like to see
as much return from the Roman Republic as possible, correct (moreover, the
middle Republic)? Then why would you leave the choice for gentes open to
organise themselves in a completely unhistorical, roleplay-esque way? It's
like demanding the right to choose names like Dredd Augustus which are
utterly false.

> There was also another element of that debate. The
> timing of the introduction of Gens reform caused many
> members of Gens Cornelia to reach a conculsion,
> rightly or wrongly, that the reform bill was a petty
> spiteful act of political revenge because of a Veto
> cast by thier Pater. Nothing in the manner your side
> chose to handle the matter allayed thier fears. You
> had one to two dozen active taxpaying citizens on the
> brink of resiging thier citizenship. Members of that
> Gens are not nearly asactive as they were a year ago,
> and I fear that many of it's members have joined the
> multitude who have left Nova Roma without bothering to
> tender a resignation.

But why? Nothing would have prevented these people from remaining in touch
cordially!

> I repeatadly warned your faction that if force was
> included in your lex it would cost Nova Roma citizens.
> Just the threat of using force was enough to lower the
> number of active citizens.

What force?

[snipped]

Optime vale!
M. Octavius Solaris


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Centuries
From:	politicog <politicog@yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 14:24:35 -0700 (PDT)

--- Diana Moravia Aventina <diana@pandora.be> wrote:
> >
> More questions: According to the
> http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/lex99073007.html
> there are 193 centuries.
> and the first class has 55. 104 are empty. 89 list
> citizens. Call me
> obsessive-compulsive but I have just gone through
> most of them. Maybe I've
> missed something: Has there been a new law which has
> changed the number of
> centuries down to 89? Has there been a new law that
> has changed the 'first
> class' from 55 centuries?
-----------------------------------------------------

In answer to this question, the Constituion states
(II.E.2): "There shall exist a number of centuries,
said number to be set by law enacted by the Comitia
Centuriata and not to exceed one-hundred ninety-three,
into which the censors shall divide all of the
citizens. Until such a law is passed, the number of
centuries shall be one-hundred ninety-three. The exact
composition of these centuries shall be determined by
law passed by the comitia centuriata, but shall be
weighted in favor of those citizens who have shown the
greatest committment to Nova Roma." This amendment to
the Constitution was passed by the Comitia Centuriata
in 2755 under the name of Lex Octavia de Centuriata.
I assume the 4 June 2755 is the date of approval by
the Comitia Centuriata. It was ratified by the Senate
9 August 2755.

text of Lex Octavia de Centruiata:
http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/leges/2002-06-05-iii.html

Senate vote link:
http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/senate/2002-08-09-i.htm

Then in accordance with the Constituion as amended,

the Comitia Centuriata passed the Lex Secunda Octavia
de Centuriata, which provided that the number of
centuries is the number of Assidui divided by eight,
rounding down. If after computing the quotient the
number in greater than 193, then the total number of
centuries, if it is less than 51, then there are 51
centuries.

The allocation to classes is based on a percentage:

29% in the First Class (26) 1-26
24% in the Second Class (21)27-47
20% in the Third Class (18) 48-65
16% in the Fourth Class (14)65-78
11% in the Fifth Class plus all Capiti Censi in the
last Century (10) 79-88, 89 (Capiti Censi century).

Though I have to wonder if this lex has legal
effect, since it shows an approval date of 1 August
2755, which is 8 days before the Senate ratified the
amendment made by the Lex Octavia de Centuriata.

Text of Lex Secunda Octavia de Centuriata:
http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/leges/2002-08-01-i.html

-----------------------------------------------------
> As far as "heavy hitters' go, many many of the
> centuries do not have one.
> And after around century 25, the most active citizen
> has from 30-10 century
> points and for the most part are made up of Capite
> Censi who have been
> citizens from last year.
>
>
----------------------------------------------------

I noticed on my own profile in the Album Gentium
that even though I am classified as an Assidui 2003, I
have so far been assigned only to a tribe, I have no
century allocation whatsoever. I then did an
investigation in the Album Gentium and discovered that
there are 3 Assidui who are not assigned to a Tribe or
a Century, 2 Assidui who are assigned to the 89th
Century, and 9 Assidui who are assigned to a Tribe but
not to a Century.
I have sent the results of this investigation to
the Censors, and have requested that they look into
this matter, so all Assidui will be assigned to the
proper century by the time the Consul calls the
Comitia Centuriata together to legislate.

Lucius Quintius Constantius (Lacus Magni)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Hibernia: A statement from Britannia
From:	me-in-@disguise.co.uk
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 22:30:15 +0100 (BST)

-----Original Message-----
>From : =?iso-8859-1?q?Decimus=20Iunius=20Silanus?= <danedwardsuk@yahoo.co.uk>
Date : 25 June 2003 11:03:11

Salvete,
>
My gens actually places me in Provincia Medioatlantica so change of status from Barbarian would not make much difference to me. However, I don't like the idea of introducing modern politics into Roman one little bit. There is no separate Caledonia and Anglia; the American provinces pay no attention contemporary State boundaries and I'm not even sure about National, and Britannia was never part of the Roman Republic. I would think it logical to settle either on the likely Roman approach of grouping all the islands together, or else we might as well be thinking of Diocletians reforms/
Caesariensis.

>
>Provincia Britannia has been mentioned as a potential
>home for our Irish cousins so it is only right for me,
>as the Governor of Britannia, to state the official
>policy of this province.
>

Truth hurts. Not the searching after, the running from. - John Eyberg

--
Personalised email by http://another.com

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

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Modernist and Traditonalist Factions (was Re: Would have, Could Have)
From:	=?iso-8859-1?B?R6VJVkxJVlOlU0NBVlJWUw==?= <gfr@intcon.net>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:30:58 -0000

G. Iulius Scaurus L. Sicinio Druso salutem dicit

Salve, L. Sicini.

I am a bit confused, partly because I was not here for the earlier
debate. You have proposed more historical electoral procedures. By
their very nature, such procedures would force citizens to organise
and do things differently than the current system. If the current
gens system is ahistorical (and I can't imagine that anyone would
judge it otherwise on careful examination), the legislation to make
the system more historical would, by its nature, force citizens to
organise and do things differently than the current system. Why is
legislative coercion in the first case acceptable and not in the
second case? Has it something to do with the specific proposal for
gens reform which was put forward or its timing? If a proposal to
place the gens system on a historically accurate basis were proposed
now, would you be inclined to support it? I am very sympathetic to
any reasonable movement to put NR on a more historical footing and am
a bit surprised that you wouldn't want the gens system included in the
agenda of that historicisation, given what you have said on the need
to hew more closely to the example of Roma antiqua.

Vale.

G. Iulius Scaurus


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Hibernia: A statement from Britannia
From:	Bill Gawne <gawne@cesmail.net>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:42:02 -0400

Caesariensis writes:

> the American provinces pay no attention contemporary State boundaries

That isn't quite true, but I agree with the sentiment.
My province of Mediatlantica does include six whole states
and the District of Columbia. Provincial boundaries tend
to be state boundaries.

But perhaps more importantly, I'm proud to say that Mediatlantica
incorporates states that are both north and south of the Mason
Dixon Line, long identified as the dividing line between North
and South. The capital cities of both the Union and the
Confederacy are found within this province. We count among
our number those who learned of the 1861-1865 war as "The War
of Northern Aggression" and "The Civil War" and "The War of
The Secession" and "The Late Unpleasantness." Within this
province you can walk the battlefields of Gettysburg, and
Fredericksburg; of The Wilderness and of Antietam. Places
where men in blue fought men in gray to the death in a
struggle which divided a nation.

Perhaps our Hibernian and Britannic friends can take an
example from this.

-- Marinus


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] NOVA roma
From:	qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:49:24 EDT

In a message dated 6/25/03 4:24:49 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
gaiusgalerius@hotmail.com writes:

> Why then don't we have slavery, and are we going to have gladiatorial
> combats in the arena too

Q. Fabius Maximus SPD
Salvete
I am at loss here. Why does the slavery issue is always coming up? Africa
have slaves, so any NR recruit from Africa could hold slaves. Since our
micronational constitution does not say you cannot have slaves, would his
macronational right to hold slaves be over turned?
I'm sure we historians have gone blue in the face explaining to you all, that
Rome was a slave driven economy so they had slaves. Nova Roma is a dues and
donation driven "economy." If I wanted to emulate Roma economy for Nova Roma
I would go more for an agrarian driven economy based on the middle republic,
before slavery replaced it.

Just because we cannot hold indentured servants does not make us less Roman.

We may miss out the Roman experience of being waited on hand and foot, but
not all
Romans had that experience anyway.

Valete

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


Subject:	RE: [Nova-Roma] Modernist and Traditonalist Factions (was Re: Would have, Could Have)
From:	"Laureatus Armoricus" <laureatusarmoricus@tiscali.co.uk>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:03:01 +0100

Salve Scaure et omnes,

Dixit Druso Scaurus :

"I am very sympathetic to any reasonable movement to put NR on a more
historical footing and am a bit surprised that you wouldn't want the gens
system included in the agenda of that historicisation, given what you have
said on the need to hew more closely to the example of Roma antiqua."

Respondeo : Your comments, as always, hit home. I agree with you that we
have been subjected all along by Drusus to a "double standard"
argumentation, ie historiticity as long as it agrees with his views ! It is
time we all say what we think and be consistent with our own ideals.

Once again, mi Scaure, thank you for your unvaluable contribution : Although
I wouldn't agree with your earlier proposal I deeply respect your views and
your most honourable ways of debating sticky topics.

Optime valete

Moravius Laureatus


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] NOVA roma
From:	Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@cesmail.net>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 18:04:32 -0400

qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com writes:

> ... any NR recruit from Africa could hold slaves. Since our
> micronational constitution does not say you cannot have slaves, would his
> macronational right to hold slaves be over turned?

Given that Nova Roma is a corporation chartered in the state
of Maine, I'd imagine our legal status would be in jeopardy
if we were to accept such a person for membership.

But in any case, I would object in the strongest possible
manner if Nova Roma ever were to have a slaveowner in our
midst. I feel quite sure I would not be alone in that.

-- Marinus


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] NOVA roma
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:07:17 -0700 (PDT)

Senator Audens,

At the present time we have two choices before us. Two
manners of electing our magistrates. One is far more
historic than the other. The Modernist proposal
introduces concepts that were not only unknown to the
Romans, but also ones that are used by few modern
nations. The other proposal has some ahistoric
concepts. There isn't a requirement that we travel to
Roma and meet on the field of Mars to elect our
canidates. It has concessions to modern times that
reflect aspects of Roman voting that wouldn't be
practicle in Nova Roma. It does capture the spirit of
Roman voting in a manner that is as historic as
possible.

Some are asking us to ignore this proposal in favor of
a utopian plan with many elements unknown to the
Romans simply because it's modern, because it meets
some arbitrary definition of "fair". Many of it's
supporters seem unwilling to even attempt a
traditional approach to Roman elections.

I Would like to give BOTH of these systems a trial run
with some mock elections before we vote on any change.
If the Mock Elections show major problems with either
system, then that system should be rejected by the
voters if it is presented to them.

If BOTH systems work turn out to be workable, then we
should opt for the historic system.

Strawmen like Slavery and Women's rights aren't on the
table. Myself and my friends don't seek to impose
historic matters that are clearly illegal under
Macronational law. All we ask is if there are two ways
to handle an issuse, a historic one and a modern one,
that work equally then we should opt for the historic.

We are not opposed to modern inovations when the
historic model fails, our problem is with modernity
for it's own sake at the expense of Roman Culture.

--- MarcusAudens@webtv.net wrote:
> Senator Drusus;
>
> I suspect that the key to the problem as you see it
> is in the words
> which you so kindly have provided for us to read:
>
> ---Nova Roma shall "endeavor" to exist, in all
> manners "practical and
> acceptable", as a "modern" restoration of the
> ancient Roman Republic.---
>
> The below words and phrases, to my mind, seem to be
> the sticking point
> between yourself and those with whom you disagree:
>
> --"endeavor"--there are certainly many things in
> ancient Rome that are
> desirable to do in the modern day, but we are
> restricted by the laws,
> customs and culure of those macronations to which we
> belong or give our
> allegiance. In many cases the loss of materials,
> techniques,
> procedures, and skills present even more
> obstructions to what we wish to
> do. To make things worse, not everyone is attuned
> to historical detail
> in the same way, level or desire people being very
> different as your
> will of course be aware.
>
> --"in all manners practical and acceptable"--Wow,
> now there is a
> mouthful! Can you imagine getting 100 (much less
> 1000+) people from
> various cultures, languages, religions, and
> geographical areas around
> the world to agree on any given idea??? We argue
> for days, about
> various minor points of opinion and lash out at
> those who do not agree
> in every point with our views. We have Roman
> "experts" who are called
> into question by other Roman "experts" every day.
> Magistrates question
> the citizenry, the Citizens question Magistrates,
> and under it all is
> the constant underlying suspicion that "someone" is
> engaged in something
> not quite on the up and up. Just what the heck is
> "acceptable?"
> Obviously, over the years what has been acceptable
> to you has not been
> acceptable to others, and what is acceptable to
> others, as you have
> indicated is not acceptable, to you. When we can
> define that word a
> little better from the point of view of "all" the
> Nova Roma Citizens,
> then perhaps we will see more agreement.
>
> "Practical"--Well, we no longer beat people with
> rods or cut off thier
> heads as a punishment, and since our borders are
> really not in dispute
> at the moment, our legions have not marched on the
> surrounding
> macroworld governments. I am sure that you will say
> that such is
> obvious as is slavery, women's rights, practices
> which might lead to
> medical problems such as the use of common watering
> areas where desease
> could spread without basic water purification.
> However to go a little
> deeper into "practical" how much time, effort and
> attention that any
> given Citizen of NR has to spend here in NR may be
> very different from
> the gentleman who works ten hours a day in a country
> recoverig from
> Communist Domination. Different needs and desires
> spawn differing
> attitudes. History and the Arts are often the first
> to suffer this
> concern. Religious views of a Pagan Pontiff in
> Spain may differ widely
> from a Christain in California, and the extent of
> his / her religious
> activities may well be different, in the practical
> sense, as well.
>
> --"modern" restoration--Well it seems to me that
> these two words really
> throw people off the beaten path. You see, when
> they pop up then people
> just naturally refer to then along with thier views
> of "practical",
> "acceptable." I suspect that these words were used
> with the author's
> view of what they meant in his mind. However, it is
> openly apparent to
> me that not everyone has the same view of just
> exacty what the term
> "modern" means in relation to NR, how far it should
> be carried , wat
> aspects it refers to, or perhaps it would be more
> accurate to say that
> everyone just has thier own idea.
>
> --Endeavor" To me the word "endeavor" means to try
> (no dictionary
> corrections please -- it is what I think and only
> that). However, as I
> pointed out several items earlier (by no means all)
> stand in the way and
> make that "endeavor" in some areas a real trial
> requiring a lot of
> thought and energy. Which brings to mind, the old
> idea about just how
> much time, effort, and attention each person (read
> citizen) is willing
> to devote to NR.
>
> Senator; I certainly can understand your views, and
> I honor them, as
> your own. I, however, must disagree that others who
> do not want to make
> thier own wine by crushng grapes with thier feet,
> writing all thier
> messages to each other on wax tablets, thin wooden
> sheets or papyrus
> scrolls, or waiting in line at the town well for a
> jar of water are not
> interested in ancient Rome. I am afraid that I do
> not see the terrible
> erosion of NR that you see, nor do I see that new
> people this year are
> any more fickle in thier wants, needs and desires,
> than they wre some
> years ago when I first joined NR.
>
> People are people Senator, and they will ever be.
> They are impressed by
> Leadership, and drawn by something new and
> interesting, not by dismal
> predictions. It is, to my mind, the task of those
> who occupy the seats
> in the Senate to recognize those human foibles and
> try to deal with them
> in positive and constructive ways for the long term
> benefit of Nova
> Roma--
>
> -- not NOVA roma,
>
> --but niether nova ROMA.
>
> Respectfully;
>
> Marcus Minucius Audens
> Nova Roma Citizen
>
> A wet sheet and a flowing sea, and a wind follows
> fast, and fills the
> white and rustling sail, and bends the gallant mast;
> and bends the
> gallant mast my boys while like the eagle free, our
> good ship starts and
> flies and leaves old England on our lee------Fair
> Winds and following
> Seas!!!
>
>

=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Hibernia: A statement from Britannia
From:	"rory12001" <rory12001@yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 22:03:12 -0000

Salve Vibi Amrbosi et Salvete Omnes;
I agree that we are Novi Romani first and foremost. I believe
Titus Maxentius thinks the same. If the other 3 cives are in
agreement we will join the Provincia Brianniae.
And this issue speaks to directly why the world needs Rome!
Valete,
Urania Calidia Antonina, Roman civis first & last

In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, me-in-@d... wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From : =?iso-8859-1?q?Decimus=20Iunius=20Silanus?=
<danedwardsuk@y...>
> Date : 25 June 2003 11:03:11
>
> Salvete,
> >
> My gens actually places me in Provincia Medioatlantica so change of
status from Barbarian would not make much difference to me. However,
I don't like the idea of introducing modern politics into Roman one
little bit. There is no separate Caledonia and Anglia; the American
provinces pay no attention contemporary State boundaries and I'm not
even sure about National, and Britannia was never part of the Roman
Republic. I would think it logical to settle either on the likely
Roman approach of grouping all the islands together, or else we might
as well be thinking of Diocletians reforms/
> Caesariensis.
>
> >
> >Provincia Britannia has been mentioned as a potential
> >home for our Irish cousins so it is only right for me,
> >as the Governor of Britannia, to state the official
> >policy of this province.
> >
>
>
> Truth hurts. Not the searching after, the running from. - John
Eyberg
>
>
>
> --
> Personalised email by http://another.com
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Tradition and Modernity (was Re: NOVA roma)
From:	"Gnaeus Salix Astur" <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 22:18:10 -0000

Salvete Quirites; et salve, Q. Lani Pauline.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael
Kelly)" <mjk@d...> wrote:

<<snipped>>

> Of all people I am not referring to you. I greatly respect your
> work and even though your English is excellent, I appreciate the
> extra effort and mental energy it takes to have to operate in a
> second language. That's why you don't see my daily 5 postings on
> the hispanic list. (LOL). Also, the Thules Academy is the one
> bright light for motivating Nova Romans.

Thank you very much for your kind words. And please do continue to
post to the Hispania mailing list; your contributions there are very
interesting.

> I am just talking about the general scheme of things often being
> too slow to achieve which can lead to frustration and apathy or
> indifference. No one person is to blame for that.

I think that you are right. We will have to think about that to see
if we can come up with a solution for it.

CN�SALIX�ASTVR�T�F�A�NEP�TRIB�OVF


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Critiques of Alternative Voting, et al.
From:	=?iso-8859-1?B?R6VJVkxJVlOlU0NBVlJWUw==?= <gfr@intcon.net>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 22:46:30 -0000

G. Iulius Scaurus S. P. D.

Salvete, Quirites.

I am a bit out of my field in this, but I have some familiarity with a
literature which bears directly on the proposed Lex Fabia de Ratione
Comitiorum Centuriatorum. Specifically, the public choice field of
political economy has exhaustively examined the ways in which various
voting procedures violate the axioms of Arrow's Impossibility Result
to aggregate transitive individual preference sets into a transitive
collective preference. In evaluating approval voting, alternative
voting, and single transferrable vote systems the general conclusion
is that these systems tend to increase factionalisation of the
electorate, strategic voting, and vote trading by the ways in which
the assumptions of these systems violate the axioms of Arrow's
Impossibility Result. While he concludes that Borda voting produces
the most accurate representation of electoral preferences in a modern
system (and is very unlike the historical Roman model), the critique
of these other systems which Donald Saari has made over the years
seems quite pertinent to me and the critical literature ranges
considerably beyond Saari's contribution (I can provide citations if
anyone is interested in pursuing this sort of analysis; the work of
Riker, Hinnich, McKelvey, and Ordeshook at a minimum is probably
relevant here). I should point out that I do not share the confidence
of most public choice theorists in unregulated markets to produce
optimal results, but that is irrelevant to their substantive critique
of voting systems. Anecdotally, I point out that alternative voting
has given a racist minority in the lower house of the Austrialian
parliament rather more influence than it would have had otherwise,
although the voting system is clearly not the only variable at play in
that outcome.

Valete.

G. Iulius Scaurus


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Modernist and Traditonalist Factions (was Re: Would have, Could Have)
From:	"Gnaeus Salix Astur" <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:09:39 -0000

Salvete Quirites; et salve, senator L. Sicini.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Sicinius Drusus"
<lsicinius@y...> wrote:

<<snipped>>

> > I have seen you using those two terms ("modernist"
> > and "traditionalist"), and I would like to know what
> > you actually
> > mean by them.
> >
> > If by "Traditionalist faction" you are referring to
> > those with whom
> > you tend to agree, I am not sure if it is an
> > appropriate term. I have
> > seen many of those in your "Traditionalist faction"
> > defending ideas
> > that were *against* Roman tradition, while those who
> > would belong to
> > what you call the "Modernist facion" actually have
> > smoetimes defended
> > an approach that was closer to Roman tradition. A
> > good example of
> > what I am saying was what happened during the gens
> > reform debate.
> >
> > So perhaps you should try to look for two different
> > terms to describe
> > those two political currents, senator.
> > "Traditionalist"
> > and "modernist" are misleading.
> >
> > CN�SALIX�ASTVR�T�F�A�NEP�TRIB�OVF

> The very concept of a lex that tels Roman familes how
> to conduct thier affairs goes against all the traditions of Roma.

But that is exactly what Roman civil law is mainly about, senator.
Our forefathers did consider that the law had something to say about
issues like divorce, adoption, inheritance and the like.

Besides, we are not talking about Roman *families* here. Gentes and
familiae are two different concepts.

> If the Lex had simply been an enabling lex that allowed Gens who
> wished to do so to reconstruct them selves along historic lines,
> while grandfathering the present ahistoric Gens who weren't
> ready to change yet, you would have had my support.
> Since your faction insisted on including a element of coercion
> directed at Roman families, even ahistoric ones like our Gens, you
> lost my support.

The proposal had provisions for those citizens who wanted to keep
their current status.

> There was also another element of that debate. The timing of the
> introduction of Gens reform caused many members of Gens Cornelia to
> reach a conculsion, rightly or wrongly, that the reform bill was a
> petty spiteful act of political revenge because of a Veto cast by
> thier Pater. Nothing in the manner your side chose to handle the
> matter allayed thier fears. You had one to two dozen active
> taxpaying citizens on the brink of resiging thier citizenship.
> Members of that Gens are not nearly asactive as they were a year
> ago, and I fear that many of it's members have joined the multitude
> who have left Nova Roma without bothering to tender a resignation.

First of all, the gens reform law was the cause of the leader of the
gens Cornelia's constant blocking of the government, and not its
consecuence. And given that the law was *not* presented to the
Comitia because of the manoeuvres of their leader, I wonder why they
left. They had won, after all.

> I repeatadly warned your faction that if force was included in your
> lex it would cost Nova Roma citizens. Just the threat of using
> force was enough to lower the number of active citizens.
>
> Draft a lex that allows Gens to set themselves up along historic
> lines WITHOUT forcing those who do not wish to change at the
> present time to do so, and you shall have my support and most
> likely that of the other members of my faction.

As I have said, the proposal had provisions for those who wanted to
keep their current status.

In any case, we are not discussing the gens reform (yet). The
question is: is it appropriate that you and your friends claim to be
the defenders of Roman tradition when you are *against* reforms that
would bring Nova Roma closer to the Roman tradition? That was what I
was asking.

CN�SALIX�ASTVR�T�F�A�NEP�TRIB�OVF


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] NOVA roma
From:	qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:22:18 EDT

In a message dated 6/25/03 3:05:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
gawne@cesmail.net writes:

> But in any case, I would object in the strongest possible
> manner if Nova Roma ever were to have a slaveowner in our
> midst. I feel quite sure I would not be alone in that.
>
Q. Fabius Maximius SPD
Salvete
But you object to slave owning on a moral issue, correct? Not because it is
illegal? In otherwords if it was legal you'd still object, is that not true?
And if we refused citizenship, we'd be breaking our own constitution. We'll
have to rewrite it.

Valete

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Just some wandering thoughts...
From:	Pipar - Steven <catamount_grange@inwave.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 18:23:49 -0500

Salus et Fortuna Omnes,

Venator scripsit:

For the newer Citizens - Well Come and thank you for entering the New City. Bless us with your
thoughts, words and deeds.

I am Stephanus Ullerius Venator Piperbarbus. I have been a Citizen since the Kalends of Quintilus
MMDCCLI AUC, the 78th name on the rolls IIRC. My Gens was originally Plebian, but we were elevated
to the ranks of the Patrician class due to my small services to our Republic. I have been a
Quaestor, am a Legate (though I have been woefully inactive due to ill health), am a Lictor and am
founder/Dominus of the society for the brewers and cooks of Nova Roma. I am a Germanic-Nordic
Heathen, an American Citizen (USA, that is ;-), a military veteran, a jack of many trades, a poet
and am husband to my wife, known here as Annia Ulleria Machinatrix.

So, I do think I have a bit of perspective of how Nova Roma has been and is...and, hopefully, of Her
becoming as well.

I am by no means a scholar; nor even very well read on the cultural details of Roma Antiqua. My
interest in Rome has always been that of an hobbyist about things historical, practical and
military.

I am however, deeply appreciative that Nova Roma exists to try and Re-Liven that which is Roman in
this modern age. My being here gives honor and respect to those of my ancestors who were Roman.
This Honoring is an important aspect of my Faithway, which is that of my northern European tribal
forebears (who do make up the majority of my ancestors). Some in my Faithway do take issue with the
emphasis on ancestry, this is as it is. My view is that pride in one's ancestry need never
translate to hatred of others.

Suffice to say, I chose to be here amongst you.

My nonscholarly view is that a Roman embodies the Virtues - Civic and Private - in their lives, with
every breath.

So as to not make this note longer than necessary, this is the link to the list of Virtues at the
Nova Roma website:
http://www.novaroma.org/via_romana/virtues.html

These set a difficult standard under which to live one's life, but it can be done. There are Romans
here in Nova Rome who live quite well as Romans, regardless of personal Faithway (or no Faithway),
of personal politics, of intimate "life style," of Macro-nationality, etc.

Being in many ways a simple man, mine own list of virtues is much smaller and is contained in my
take on how to live a Worthy Life (being an amalgam of my thoughts and those of modern Heathen
thinkers whose ideas I quite admire.)

Do that which is Right for Family and Community.
Do that which increases the Commonweal.
Always act with Wisdom, Generosity and Personal Honor.
Always keep in mind a respect for History, Knowledge, Truth and Freedom.
Always give True Worship to the Holy and have Honor for your Forebears.
Always strive to Do, for we are our deeds.
Know how to Read, know how to Write.

The core of all great cultures is similar in heart, I think.

Perhaps, better using the filter of the Virtues in our dealings with each other here, and with the
others with whom we interact in the broader world, would be of use.

Romanitas is the greatest achievement of Roma Antiqua, I believe.
Rome, the Rome of my heart, is a place where one and all are gathered because of our shared
Romanitas.

All the physical things which "Rome" created, all the personal deeds of Romans, all the
Philosophies, to be admired and emulated?
Most certainly.

To Create and Do with a Roman Heart and Spirit, this is where the Rebuilding should have its
foundation.

As for our governance, I favor a properly smithed Res Publica, with as little taint of Demos Kratia
as possible.

As to the gathering of the tools and materials to plan, forge and temper the Laws which will give us
a good, solid Republic; many minds, many hands will help, do help, with the work. I see many ideas
offered; some in reasoned opposition, very few at "crossed swords," so to speak.

Just a few thoughts from a Peregrinator who came in from the North and decided to stick around
awhile.

(Brevitas is seldom one of my Virtues ,-)

--
=========================================
In Amicus sub Fidelis
Stephanus Ullerius Venator Piperbarbus
Civis Nova Romana et Paterfamilias

"Without the sword, the law is only words."
- Cicero


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] A Question of Nemo
From:	"christyacb" <bryanta003@hawaii.rr.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:30:38 -0000

Salvete,

I posted first some time ago after
spending a few months reading all the
archives but still couldn't find a gens
to commit to. I got a few responses,
(Thank You), but still didn't want to
join a gens only to later find a gens
perhaps more local or amenable. I'm still
following, most faithfully, the boards,
but not posting since I don't want people
to get to used to my macro name.
So here is my question: Within the laws
there is accomodation made for members whose
pater or materfamilia is missing to be given
the nomen Nemo until such time as they find
a new gens. This doesn't in any way negate
their ability to interact within Nova Roma
should they become active again until they
are placed into a new gens. Why can't I join
with the gens name Nemo so that I can interact
with everyone and then find a gens in a more
natural way in which our affinity would grow
under normal communication?
There have been problems in the past when
cives wanted to change their gens, to the
point of a pater publicly quitting, (and then
quickly retracting it), so the choice of gens
should be one made based on more than a few
emails. Just my opinion.
Is there anyway I can do this? After all
the months of reading and watching, it is
ever so difficult *not* to get into these
topics so I would really like to get my
membership taken care of.

Valete, Christy Still Nemo


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Nemo
From:	Caeso Fabius Quintilianus <christer.edling@telia.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 01:45:38 +0200

Salve Chrsity!

I have forwarded your mail to the Censors asking them to help You!

>Salvete,
>
> I posted first some time ago after
>spending a few months reading all the
>archives but still couldn't find a gens
>to commit to. I got a few responses,
>(Thank You), but still didn't want to
>join a gens only to later find a gens
>perhaps more local or amenable. I'm still
>following, most faithfully, the boards,
>but not posting since I don't want people
>to get to used to my macro name.
> So here is my question: Within the laws
>there is accomodation made for members whose
>pater or materfamilia is missing to be given
>the nomen Nemo until such time as they find
>a new gens. This doesn't in any way negate
>their ability to interact within Nova Roma
>should they become active again until they
>are placed into a new gens. Why can't I join
>with the gens name Nemo so that I can interact
>with everyone and then find a gens in a more
>natural way in which our affinity would grow
>under normal communication?
> There have been problems in the past when
>cives wanted to change their gens, to the
>point of a pater publicly quitting, (and then
>quickly retracting it), so the choice of gens
>should be one made based on more than a few
>emails. Just my opinion.
> Is there anyway I can do this? After all
>the months of reading and watching, it is
>ever so difficult *not* to get into these
>topics so I would really like to get my
>membership taken care of.
>
>Valete, Christy Still Nemo
>
>
>
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--

Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Senior Consul et Senator
Propraetor Thules
Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
Civis Romanus sum
************************************************
Cohors Consulis CFQ
http://www.insulaumbra.com/cohors_consulis_cfq/
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: NOVA roma
From:	"quintuscassiuscalvus" <richmal@attbi.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:48:29 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Equitius Marinus
<gawne@c...> wrote:
> qfabiusmaxmi@a... writes:
>
> > ... any NR recruit from Africa could hold slaves. Since our
> > micronational constitution does not say you cannot have slaves,
would his
> > macronational right to hold slaves be over turned?
>
> Given that Nova Roma is a corporation chartered in the state
> of Maine, I'd imagine our legal status would be in jeopardy
> if we were to accept such a person for membership.
>
> But in any case, I would object in the strongest possible
> manner if Nova Roma ever were to have a slaveowner in our
> midst. I feel quite sure I would not be alone in that.

Salve,

I would sincerely doubt that Nova Roma's legal status would be in
jeapardy in the very remote chance that someone in a nation where
slave owning is legal would join Nova Roma.

Section II.B.2 of the Nova Roman Constitution states: "The right and
obligation to remain subject to the civil rights and laws of the
countries in which they reside and/or hold citizenship, regardless of
their status as dual citizens of Nova Roma;" Basically I read that
to mean that national laws trump Nova Roman laws.

The State of Maine (or the United States for that matter)does not
have jursidictional authority over someone living in a country that
permits slavery such as Sudan.

However that said, I don't think anyone who actually lived in a
nation where slavery was legal, had slaves, and actually joined Nova
Roma would likely receive a warm welcome no matter how well they
treated their slaves.

Vale,

Q. Cassius Calvus


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Modernist and Traditonalist Factions (was Re: Would
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 18:49:08 -0500 (CDT)

> The very concept of a lex that tels Roman familes how
> to conduct thier affairs goes against all the
> traditions of Roma.

No such thing was ever proposed, as you know very well. No interference
with "Roman Families" was ever desired by anyone.

Those who oppose gens reform cling despreately to the word "family" as if
it had the slightest relevance to this issue - which it does not. We are
talking about groups of people who know each other only through email or
the occasional phone call - not actual families.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus,
Censor, Consular, Citizen.
http://konoko.net/~haase/


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Druse Scaure, Gai Falco, Gnaei Salix Astur, Marce Ambriosius
From:	"Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly)" <mjk@datanet.ab.ca>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:56:44 -0000

Salvete Gentlemen,

Thank you all for your replies to my postings. I happily see lots of
letters and participation today so I condense my replies on this one
post to do reduce the traffic so other letters aren't missed.

1 Drusus - Thanks a million for your explaination of provincial
organization in Roman Britain. I agree, you are correct about
comparing a Roman invasion of Ireland to Teutoburg Wald. Armenius
(may the dogs gnaw his bones...grin), knew his Romans all right and
Irish attacks may have been very brave but follow the same pattern of
failed British tactics against the Romans. My comment tis but a
little Irish humor left in me blood from 5 generations back. I pray
more discoveries of Irish settlement are made there in future.

2 Gaius and Marcus - Those books I listed are under science fiction
and fantasy. They were out in the early to mid 80's so you'll need to
look in 2nd hand stores or order them off the net, Casca is still
available I believe. Also I just noticed a third book I haven't read
in the "Procurator" series called "Cry The Republic" which I shall
find as well.

3 Gnaeus - Gracias! Estoy muy feliz con tu comunicacion. Voy a
visitar hispania mas frequemente. Confieso que he estado un poco
perezoso en mi espanol. Ahi! Mi esposa me dijo tambien! Bien, a veces
es necesario recibir una patada en la cola! Verad?

Atentemente - Quintus