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 17:24:22 -0700 (PDT)

" Gentes. Families and clans being the backbone of
Roman society, the prerogatives and responsibilities
of the family are of primary importance to Nova Roma.
Except where specifically dealt with in this
constitution and the law, each gens shall have the
right to determine its own course of action, and
parents shall have the undisputed right and
responsibility to see to the education and raising of
their children."

Gens Cornelia may not meet YOUR narrow definition of a
family, but it meets the definition set forth in the
Constitution. It does not meet any historic definition
of the Roman Family, but neither did your lex, which
discriminated against the traditional Roman Family (a
unit that is refered as a Extended Family in modern
terms) in favor of a narrowly defined modern nuclear
family which the Romans would have considered a
household within the family, not a seperate unit.

For years Cornelia was encouraged to think of
themselves as a family by Nova Roma, and leagaly is
one under Nova Roman law. In that sense you certainly
were interfering in the affairs of a Roman Family.

Your approach allmost resulted in the largest mass
resignation Nova Roma has ever seen, and has resulted
in Nova Roma's largest Gens which was very active
becoming disillusioned with the Res Publica. Many
Cornealians who took an active role in our affairs
this time last year are rarely heard from now.

Personally I would like to see Cornelia and the other
Gens adopt a more historic organization, but out of
choice, not by legal fiat.


--- Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
wrote:
>
> > 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/
>
>


=====
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] NOVA roma
From:	Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@cesmail.net>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:53:30 -0400

qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com writes:

> 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?

Most assuredly.

> Not because it is illegal?

It is illegal because it is immoral, and many died in the struggles
to settle that question forever.

> In otherwords if it was legal you'd still object,

With every means available to me.

> And if we refused citizenship, we'd be breaking our own constitution.
> We'll have to rewrite it.

We've ammended it before this. If such an ammendment is needed then
I think it would receive widespread support in commitia.

-- Marinus

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Modernist and Traditonalist Factions (was Re: Would
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:54:15 -0500 (CDT)

> Gens Cornelia may not meet YOUR narrow definition of a
> family,

Nor does it meet my narrow definition of a zebra, an airplane, or a
coke bottle. That's because it isn't any of those things.

> It does not meet any historic definition of the Roman Family,

Thanks for finally admitting that.

> but neither did your lex, which discriminated against the traditional
> Roman Family (a unit that is refered as a Extended Family in modern
> terms)

What traditional Roman Family? Are there any here that think they've
been "discriminated" against? Let these traditional Roman Families
that have been "discriminated" against speak up, if there are any.

All I sought to do was to prevent people from being locked into whatever
group they might have originally chosen when they joined Nova Roma, if
they later decided that they had chosen poorly. That's it. I do not feel
that adults should be forced to associate with people they want nothing
to do with.

> in favor of a narrowly defined modern nuclear
> family which the Romans would have considered a
> household within the family, not a seperate unit.

The Romans did not consider groups of strangers who had never met, who
had never been in the same household, and who are not descendents of
people who had never been in the same household to be a family, extended
or otherwise.

> For years Cornelia was encouraged to think of
> themselves as a family by Nova Roma,

They can think of themselves however they wish. However, if any individual
chooses to no longer think of himself as part of that "family", or tribe,
or clan, or mailing list, or whatnot, he is free to leave.

> and leagaly is one under Nova Roman law.

Incorrect. They are legally a "gens". The Constitution makes a passing
reference to a "family" in the section on gentes, yet nowhere defines
what the relationship between these two words is.

> Your approach allmost resulted in the largest mass
> resignation Nova Roma has ever seen,

"Almost" only counts in horseshoes.

A mass resignation didn't happen; instead, it was my colleague of last year
who still holds the record as the cause of the largest mass resignation
Nova Roma has ever seen.

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

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 18:00:50 -0700 (PDT)

--- Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@cesmail.net> wrote:
> "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
>


If it is historic and dosen't force our current
"families", ahistoric but still groups that we have
encouraged to think of themselves as families, to
break up you shall have my support.

I Remind you and others working on this lex that the
modern western definition of Male + Female + 2
children isn't what the Romans considered a family. I
have no objection if some wish to adapt this for
themselves as long as the lex recognizes the
traditional multigenrational family for those who wish
it.

I Am a grandfather who has been the head of his own
household for a great many years, but despite having
children and grandchildren I never considered myself
the head of the family, untill my father died last
fall. I considered him to be the head of my
Macronational family. That older concept of a family
is how the Romans viewed families.

That concept needs to be included as an option rather
than a narrow modernist nuclear family approach.


=====
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] Centuries
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:15:15 -0500 (CDT)

> 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?

Centuries are only recalculated in the days immediately before a Centuriate
election. There's no point in doing it earlier, because it would only have
to be redone whenever new citizens join and need assignment.

Vale, Octavius.

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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Modernist and Traditonalist Factions (was Re:
From:	Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@cesmail.net>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:17:04 -0400

Salve Drusus, et salvete omens,

> If it is historic and dosen't force our current
> "families", ahistoric but still groups that we have
> encouraged to think of themselves as families, to
> break up you shall have my support.

I've no intention of forcing anything. Neither does the
Senior Consul. As for the particular question of Gens
Cornelia, I have no objection to their continuing to be
the Borg of Nova Roma if they want to be.

> I Remind you and others working on this lex that the
> modern western definition of Male + Female + 2
> children isn't what the Romans considered a family.

Thank you Druse. We're well aware of that, but it does
bear repeating from time to time. We understand about the
extended and blended familia of Roma Antiqua.

> I have no objection if some wish to adapt this for
> themselves as long as the lex recognizes the
> traditional multigenrational family for those who wish
> it.

I'm right with you on that. In a pragmatic sense, I'm
already doing it, since I have two adult daughters who
are citizens. (They don't post here in the mainlist,
and consider me a bit daft for doing so, but there are
other aspects of NR they like.)

> I Am a grandfather who has been the head of his own
> household for a great many years, but despite having
> children and grandchildren I never considered myself
> the head of the family, untill my father died last
> fall. I considered him to be the head of my
> Macronational family. That older concept of a family
> is how the Romans viewed families.

I am in complete agreement with you on this.

My father died over half of my lifetime ago. I'm the
oldest of nine, and I've had my two youngest siblings
live in my home until they were both adults. The very
real responsibilities of the role of paterfamilias are
familiar to me. I've been there and done that. Today
my younger daughter and her infant daughter live in my
home due to economic circumstances, also very like
Roman familia of antiquity.

So yes, I think I "get it" when it comes to understanding
the multigenerational extended and blended family, and
how it works. I'd be pleased to see such familia formally
recognized in Nova Roma. If some number of years or decades
from now Nova Romani speak of the Sicinia Drusa and the
Equitia Marina as "fine old Nova Roman families" I'll be
pleased.

> That concept needs to be included as an option rather
> than a narrow modernist nuclear family approach.

I'm pleased to see that in this you and I are in full accord.

-- Marinus

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Modernist and Traditonalist Factions
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:09:32 -0700 (PDT)

--- "M. Octavius Solaris"
<scorpioinvictus@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

The Roman stste did not intrudeinto the affairs of it
families. That is the important primary concept. That
is not to say that Roman society didn't place preasure
on those who ran thier affairs outside the norms of
Roman culture. They would be laughed at, made the butt
of Jokes, find themselves cut off from social events,
derided in public, but NEVER hauled before a court for
failing to live up to the mos maiorum.

Social preasure, Not the force of law is the Roman way
of handling this situation, and by the way is also the
way of handling incorrect Roman names, which is why I
opposed the Gender Edicta.

>
> > 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!

They felt the power of the state was being used to
attack them, and they were prepared to place
themselves beyond that power, outside of Nova Roma.

That is something that we allways have to remember.
Nova Roma isn't surrounded by a "Berlin Wall" that
holds it's citizens within it's borders. Attempts to
force citizens into complying with someone's will is
more likely to result in departure than obediance.

>
> > 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?

The Lex would have forced them to accept changes in
how they run thier affairs. They were not willing to
do so, and were prepared to leave.



=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] The Ancient Roman Family in a nutshell - For our newbies
From:	"Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly)" <mjk@datanet.ab.ca>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 02:22:56 -0000

Salvete omnes et newbies,

Hopefully this will help some of you who are just learning of Rome
and trying to follow complex discussions. "You" decide how close we
get to a traditional Roman family:

Family

" As in many aspects of Roman life, much more is known of families of
the upper classes than of others. The household (familia) consisted
of the "nuclear" family - the congulal pair, their children and
slaves. There is no evidence for extended families of grandparents
and so on. The paterfamilias was the legal head of the family and had
absolute control (patria potestas- power of father) over all his
children whether or not they were married. His power extended to life
and death (ius vitae necisque)- he had the right to expose newborn
infants or to kill, disown or sell a child into slavery. Only at his
death did children become independent (sui iuris, although a son
could be emancipated by his father.


Women

"In practice women were excluded from public life, except for
occasionally as a priestess. From the late republic women gained much
greater freedom in managing their own financial and business affairs.
Unless married in manu (in her husbands control) she could own,
inherit and dispose of property. They were involved in the running of
the household and care of the children but had no legal rights over
children.
A women who married sine manu (without her husband's control)
nevertheless retained a gaurdian (tutela) throughout her life,
although from the time of Augustus she became independent if she had
three children (four children for a freed woman). From the 2nd
century the guardianship of adult women became a formality."


Adoption

" Adoptio was not the humanitarian adoption of orphans or abandoned
children, although this occasionally occured in response to a
couple's sterility. It was normally the transferring of a son from
the power of one paterfamilias to another, with the son losing all
rights within his own family. Adoption often occured for political
expediency, particularily where there was an absense of male
descendents. Most commonly adopted were close relations. Females were
rarely adopted, and women could not adopt by law. A person who was
(sui iuris)himself a paterfamilias could also place himself under the
power (potestas) of another of his own accord, known as adrogatio. In
the late republic several young patricians had themselves adopted by
plebians in order to become tribunate of the plebs." hmmmm!


Source: Quoted from ' A Handbook To Life In Ancient Rome - Adkins &
Adkins


Well I see similarities but huge differences also. I sure don't want
to run off our non authentic materfamilias or have my paterfamilias
and school teacher Gaius Falco slay me for daring to suggest spelling
is not important on our list. Also I'm not a blood relative of Gaius,
had my own parents so I'd never have been adopted to Lania in ancient
times. Also my friend Diana could not be a materfamilias so Nova Roma
should allow me to be her tutela (guardian) of her and her gens.(LOL)

Anyway, what do our newbie friends think of the traditional family
debate?

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

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 20:40:07 -0700 (PDT)

Salve G. Iuli,

Prior to the 1917 revoulation the Russian government
persued a policy of Russianification, of attempting to
force non Russians living in the Empire to become
Russians. It was a dismal failure, caused the other
nationalities to hate the Russian government, and
helped spur imigration. You can't force someone to
become a Russian.

By the same token you can't force someone to become a
Roman. Attempts to do so will only result in
resentment and in citizens leaving the Nova Roma.

In an election you have to have some procedures in
place for counting ballots and casting votes. How an
election is conducted affects all of Nova Roma, so
common procedures are needed.

The Family is different. By tradition the Roman state
didn't intrude into the life of the family. Unlike an
election the affairs of a family don't affect members
of Nova Roma outside that family.

In the case of the Gens it is better to use persusion
rather than legal force.

I Favor making changes to the law that would make it
legaly possible to set up Roman style families, but
not forcing those who want to retain thier present
ahistoric gens to change. I think most will adopt the
more histric model right away.

I Favor attempting to persuade those who prefer the
old system with words, not with the force of law. Peer
preasure, not legal preasure is how Romans handled
people who didn't meet the mores of Roman society.

Attempting to force someone into becoming a Roman
isn't going to cause them to adopt Roman habits, it
will simply result in them leaving the Res Publica.
You lose someone that you very well may have persuaded
if you hadn't used force.

There is an old Southern adage that "you can catch
more flies with honey than vinegar". Persuavive honey
will work better than legal vinegar in the area of
Gens Reform.


--- G¥IVLIVS¥SCAVRVS <gfr@intcon.net> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>


=====
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] Hibernia: A statement from Britannia
From:	"Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@msn.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:50:15 -0400

Salve

VERY NICE Praetor


Vale

Tiberius
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Gawne
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Hibernia: A statement from Britannia


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


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] Modernist and Traditonalist Factions (was Re: Would have, Could Have)
From:	=?iso-8859-1?B?R6VJVkxJVlOlU0NBVlJWUw==?= <gfr@intcon.net>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 05:34:24 -0000

G. Iulius Scaurus L. Sicinio Druso salutem dicit.

Salve, L. Sicini.

I agree entirely that it is extremely difficult to force people to
change their basic social relations and, even if it were possible, it
would be morally objectionable. I have no desire to debate the
pervious gens revision legislation. If you would, I'd like to get
your comments on a possible way to achieve greater historicity without
coercing anyone, since I think the current law is coercive in a way
that Roman practice never was.

The current law requires permission from a pater-/materfamilias for
entry into a gens and adoption into an existing or creation of a new
one in order for someone to become a citizen. In the Roman republic a
citizen's gens was either a matter of an hypothesised
blood-relationship of such antiquity that no one could firmly
establish its genealogy (a situation in which the claim of divine
ancestry by the Iulian gens could be used for political ends -- of
course that's the historian, not the loyal Iulian speaking here :-),
formal adoption, or the freeing of a slave (and the descendants of
that slave would also be gens-mates). In the earliest years of the
Republic gens membership probably still had some political content,
but by the third century BCE this was clearly no longer so. Even
closer familial relationships did not necessarily mean political
agreement or even common civility by the time we reach the period of
the republic which seems to be the focus of most Nova Romans. After
all, the instigator of T. Sempronius Gracchus' murder was his cognate
cousin and the two foremost Lucii Cornelii of the later republic,
Sulla and Cinna, were happily prepared to kill each other over
politics. In the last two centuries of the republic gentilic
association bound patrician Iulians to Alexandrian Jewish freedmen, to
Celtiberian clients who had made themselves useful to a quaestor, to
the descendants of distinctly unpatrician Alba Longans who were
probably unrelated to their patrician gens-mates by nothing but
enrollment into Roman citizenship at approximately the same time in
the cloudy history of regal Rome. Gens relationships did not have to
be close.

Since we are unlikely to have a majority of gentes in the bloodline
sense for several generations, and adoption brought one into the
familia and into the gens only as a consequence thereof, and
manumission brought the freedman into the gens by clientage, it makes
sense to ask why in Nova Roma people select the gentes they do and
whether and how that should be a matter of the state's cognisance.

I suspect that three factors are predominant in gens selection by
citizens. From what I have been told by many fellow citizens they
sought admission to a gens because of Roman historical associations
with the gens (that certainly played a role in my application to the
Iulii), to a lesser extent face-to-face friendship (especially from
the reenactor community), relationships established in email, some
because of the particular religious affinities of the sought-after
gens, and, for some, the fact that they were first denied adoption by
an absentee pater-/materfamilias' refusal to respond and were
befriended into another gens by a sympathetic Nova Roman. I doubt
that most gens selections have anything political about them, since
most citizens seem to enroll before they have a particularly fine
sense of what the political alignments in NR are.

On the basis of this analysis, why not start immediately doing things
the Roman way? All current citizens are grandfathered into the gens
of their preference and familia of their preference (if they want to
change gens within a year of the adoption of a new naming law, let
them have the right). Thereafter the children of Novi Romani are
entered on the citizenship rolls in the gens and familia of their
parents (I'd be inclined to adopt historical Roman law on custody for
NR purposes in cases of divorced families, but I'm not wedded, so to
speak, to the idea and am aware that other modern sensibilities would
prefer other dispositions) and may change only by formal adoption.
Any new applicant for citizenship would be free to choose praenomen,
nomen, and cognomen by application to the censores only (to ensure
historical onomastic practice), but then would be required either (1)
to apply to the pater-/materfamilias for membership in that familia by
adoption or marriage, or (2) found a familia, becoming
pater-/materfamilias and sui generis on the grant of citizenship.
Within three generations the majority of NR would have evolved under
such a proposal into something very like the historical model.

No one would be required to leave their gens or abandon their familia;
a current pater-/materfamilias could even convey the entirety of a
current gens into a familia by consensual adoption. No one would be
forced to disavow the personal or political relationships they
currently embrace. Family membership would arise from birth,
adoption, and marriage, while gens membership would arise from family
membership, but also from the myriad of reasons for gens selection
which Nova Romans currently have and which to some extent reflect the
myriad of ways in which persons could enter an gens in antiquity: not
a perfect match, but probably the best we can do for now. I would be
comfortable with adding the element of legal clientage for those who
freely chose it -- with contracts and oaths from which either party
could withdraw with notice and legal process -- although I am aware
that many Nova Romans would not be prepared to go that far.

I'm not proposing a lex here and I recognise that I've certainly left
details uncovered, but it strikes me that this approach is something
worth discussing and such a discussion is something which might lead
to a legislative solution in the future.

Vale.

G. Iulius Scaurus

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: The Proposed Lex Fabia de Ratione Comitiorum Centuriatorum and History
From:	Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@callahans.org>
Date:	Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:31:31 -0700

On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 05:17:49PM -0000, quintuscassiuscalvus wrote:
>
> 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 actually have no objection to either system, however the Iulian
> Proposal is more likely to help Nova Roma eventually receive grant
> monies, while the Fabian Proposal is going to hurt Nova Roma's
> chances to receive grant monies. Therefore the Iulian Proposal makes
> more economical sense in the long term than the Fabian.

That's quite a red herring; I'm highly impressed with your ability to
dredge out dead letters such as this one from the bottom of the
irrelevant issue junkpile. The grant question has been moot since about
five minutes after NR's inception; if you're looking for an absolute,
precise imitation of AR, this is most emphatically not the place to
start looking. I suggest joining some group that wants to roleplay
Ancient Rome; it's the only way you'll have a chance of getting those
grants. Here, mentioning it as even a possible issue is simply
laughable; the electoral system we choose will not affect this non-issue
in the slightest even if it obtained.

However, this argument has been used and abused many times previously by
those who decry the fact that we're not ancient Romans, so I'll state my
own viewpoint on the issue: all you folks need to get over yourselves,
Quintus Fabius Maximus first of all. Whining about how people here are
Just Not Committed Like They Should Be and It's All Because It's Too
Easy To Join, and how Ancient Romans Wouldn't Have Allowed It... it's
getting beyond old and past repetitive. Nobody would *want* to join the
Old Boys Club that would result, and the three or four Boni who
currently have a voice in this micronation - which has come about as the
result of that "too easy to join" method they whine about - would be
nothing more than another micro-batch of nut cases muttering about how
the world should be. I prefer this living, breathing, involved, active
organization - Nova Roma as she is, faults and all.

We don't live in the ancient world; we do not own slaves, engage in
wars, strangle people in the Tullianum, or have the power or preeminence
- for either good or evil - that our spiritual ancestors did. All the
wishing in the world won't make it so. My fondest hope for Nova Roma is
that it can grow - using all that we've learned from Ancient Rome - into
something far better than they had. I'm not here to play-act, role-play,
or pretend; I believe in Nova Roma's potential. Those who just want to
complain about how we don't represent something that cannot be
represented in reality are doing nothing more than insulting and
denigrating the accomplishments of all our citizens, and I, for one, do
not find it amusing.


Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Fortes fortuna adiuvat.
Fortune favours the brave.
-- Terence, "Phormio"

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: The Proposed Lex Fabia de Ratione Comitiorum Centuriatorum and History
From:	=?iso-8859-1?B?R6VJVkxJVlOlU0NBVlJWUw==?= <gfr@intcon.net>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 07:35:18 -0000

G. Iulius Scaurus C. Minucio Scaevolae salutem dicit.

Salve, C. Minuci.

As someone who has been a principal co-investigator on both NSF and
NEH grants in the past, I would be very surprised if grant money were
available in any significant amount based on the electoral system of
NR. I know chaps in political science and economics who have received
NSF grants to conduct electoral modelling and that sort of thing is
very different from anything anyone has proposed here.

I do, however, think that insulting one's fellow citizens over this
issue is counterproductive. If Q. Fabius Maximus thinks that the
"Iulian proposal" (by the Gods, I don't know how the sketch of an idea
has become a "proposal" for a lex, but carpe diem, I suppose :-), I
disagree with him, but I don't think he makes the argument
meretriciously. I urge you to reconsider your remarks. From my
perspective it does C. Fabius no good service when a member of his
cohors dresses down a consular in the forum. And if you think that a
desire for greater historicity is automatically an attack on the
citizenry, then you have misjudged the reasons I put forward my idea
entirely. The questions of what value we attach to citizenship and
how we implement that valuation are legitimate ones for discussion
here without such acrimony. I think we need less heat on all sides
and more light.

Vale.

G. Iulius Scaurus

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Simulations, Mock Elections &c.
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:44:33 -0700 (PDT)

How, pray tell, will your computer simulate citizen
Nemo's confusion over a novel system on the day
elections are held? How will it simulate voter
reaction to two canidates annoucing a pact to run as
partners? How will it simulate the emotions that are
generated during a campaign and thier effect on the
voting?

These aspects can only be tested by seeing what hapens
when real live people vote in the Centuries, not on a
computer, not in an E-mail polling.

Since your faction refuses to summon the Centuries for
a test run I have no choice but to view it as Dr.
Fabius' snake oil, an elixer that wonfrous claims are
made about, but who's indegreants are carefully hidden
from the purchaser.

Quirites,
I strongly advise you against approving this or any
other plan before you are given a chance to test it by
holding a vote in the centuries. Dr Fabius' snake oil
may have harmful side effects that you won't know
about until it's too late. If we had thought about
holding a test vote on the 2754, we could have avoided
the problems that surprised us when real people did go
to the polls. Lets not repeat our mistake by voting
for an untested system.

Perhaps next year we will have a Consul who will allow
you to test a voting reform plan. Untill then my
advice remains the same. Do not vote for any plan that
hasn't been tested.

Our biggest problem in the last election cycle was in
the Plebian assembly, not in the Centuries. Perhaps
the Tribunes will willing to do what the Senior Consul
is unwilling to do and let the Plebs hold a test of
any voting plan they plan on promulgating in a mock
election in the Plebian assembly.


--- "A. Apollonius Cordus" <cordus@strategikon.org>
wrote:
> A. Apollonius Cordus to all citizens and peregrines,
> greetings.
>
> I think the question of simulated elections is
> beginning to pall. No one, as far as I've heard, has
> any problems with testing any proposed or actual
> systems. The Consul is, indeed, currently preparing
> to
> run computer simulations in order to test the Fabian
> system for faults.
>
> Some have called for a mock election using real
> voters
> on the basis that a computer simulation will not be
> accurate. This is a misconception, and should be
> abandoned. If you want to know who would win a real
> election in Nova Roma, then obviously a computer
> can't
> tell you, because it doesn't know who people
> support.
> But this is not what we need to know. We need to
> know
> which system works best at representing the will of
> the voters and returning the requisite number of
> candidates. To find that out, it doesn't matter who
> supports whom. It makes no difference at all.
>
> Think about it carefully. If you run two mock
> elections, one after the other, with the same
> candidates and the same system, the results will be
> pretty much the same. All this will tell you is that
> the system works, or doesn't, under those specific
> circumstances. However many times you do that same
> mock election, the results will be the same until
> voters get bored and start voting for people they
> don't like in order to entertain themselves.
>
> With a computer simulation, you can change the
> number
> of voters, the number of candidates, the popularity
> of
> the candidates, the number of centuries, the number
> of
> voters in a century, and anything else you can think
> of. Every different simulations gives you a
> different
> result, and tests a different aspect of the system
> in
> question. A computer simulation does not need to
> take
> into account what real people really think. It needs
> to take into account *everything* that *anyone*
> could
> conceivably think. There are only so many things a
> voter can do. A voter can vote, or not vote; can
> vote
> yes, or no; can vote for A, or for B; and so on. A
> computer can simulate every possibility.
>
> That said, if anyone still has a distrust of
> computer
> simulations or an unfounded belief that a computer
> cannot adequately test an electoral system, there
> are
> several options. One is that one can sit down on
> one's
> own and think of possible situations which might
> occur, and see what happens when these are put
> through
> the system. I've done this; Iunius Silanus has done
> this; Rogator Cassius Calvus has done this; we did
> it
> in the Law & Politics Office when we wrote the
> Handbook. Anyone can do it.
>
> The second option is to organize one's own mock
> election. I've explained before how to do this, and
> I'll explain again. You announce the candidates, and
> the rules for the election (how many people are you
> allowed to vote for, &c.). The you invite everyone
> who
> wants to vote to e-mail you privately with their
> votes. You count them, you do the relevant
> calculations, you announce the result. Well done.
>
> The third option is to ask the Consul or his staff
> what would happen under the Fabian system in a given
> situation. If we have time, we'll think about it and
> tell you; if not, we'll encourage you to do it
> yourself.
>
> Some have suggested that the Rogators could re-run
> the
> last election using the various different systems.
> Well, first of all, why should they? Two Rogators
> have
> said they think the Fabian system works fine; the
> rest
> haven't said there's anything wrong with it. Why
> should they do all the work of staging a
> mock-election
> when we could do it ourselves using the method I
> outlined above, especially if they're satisfied that
> it works without having a mock-election?
>
> Secondly and more importantly, it can't be done.
> Even
> if they have all the votes stored, the Fabian system
> and the Iulian system both use different
> ballot-papers
> from the ones which were used in the last election,
> and it would be impossible for the Rogators to know
> what people would have voted if they'd had a
> different
> ballot-paper. Moreover, as Iulius Scaurus has
> pointed
> out, the Iulian system is impossible to simulate
> using
> votes which have already been cast because such a
> simulation doesn't take into account the sequential
> aspect of the system.
>
> Anyone who wants a mock-election can organize one.
> If
> people continue now to call for one to be organized
> by
> other people, you must conclude either that they are
> too lazy to do it themselves or that they do not
> really want to test the Fabian system because they
> know it will work and they will be deprived of their
> only argument. For myself, I hope no one here is
> guilty of either, and I look forward to my hope
> being
> confirmed by those who want mock-elections
> organizing
> them and those who do not want them refraining from
> demanding them.
>
> Thanks for your time,
>
> Cordus
>
> =====
> www.collapsibletheatre.co.uk
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
> Want to chat instantly with your online friends?
> Get the FREE Yahoo!
> Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/
>


=====
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] Modernist and Traditonalist Factions (was Re: Would have, Could Have)
From:	"Laureatus Armoricus" <laureatusarmoricus@tiscali.co.uk>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 08:51:46 +0100

Salve Druse,

Dixit Drusus :"Prior to the 1917 revoulation the Russian government
persued a policy of Russianification, of attempting to
force non Russians living in the Empire to become
Russians. It was a dismal failure, caused the other
nationalities to hate the Russian government, and
helped spur imigration. You can't force someone to
become a Russian.

By the same token you can't force someone to become a
Roman. Attempts to do so will only result in
resentment and in citizens leaving the Nova Roma."

Respondeo : No you can't ! But you can't either force them to remain all
their life locked in the same gens if they don't want to (that was the
spirit of the proposal, nonne?).
And for that matter, if we follow your theory, we cannot impose an archaic
voting system however interesting and historical if the bunch of people it
is applied to doesn't share a common culture. Once again integration and
learning is the key before we can move further in that field.

Optime Valete

Corn. Moravius Laureatus Armoricus
"To a man with a hammer, every issue looks like a nail"

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] NOVA roma
From:	MarcusAudens@webtv.net
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 04:02:31 -0400 (EDT)

Senator Drusus;

I thank you for your detailed response on the two different voting
mediums. However, my message really did not dwell on that specific
aspect of your previous comments , but rather on the aspects of the
generalized potential problems that you see eroding NR, specifically the
Roman part, and why the name should no longer be utilized.

My points to you dealt with four words, which as they are used and
placed in our Constitution can and do mean different things to different
people.

I see that problem as one of a need to perhaps standardize in some way,
or better define the meanngs of those terms as they refer to Nova Roma.

Additionally, there has been a lot of talk regarding "Historic" methods
of doing things, But as a "student" of Roman History here in Nova Roma,
I am often confused by speciically what history we are talking about.
In the past, we have had those who feel that they possess the proper
historic answers to a given question and hasten to enlighten us
citizens, only to have others immdiately provide references that show
the first historic information is flawed, incomplete or both.

I guess my question is, in regard to "Historic" functions, who will be
the final arbiter as to what historic example shall be used, and will
that final arbiter be recognized by all Gens or just a few.

On another topic, I am very sorry to hear that we nearly lost a large
number of citizens from the Gens Cornelia. It is the first that I have
heard about it. I have several good frends in that Gens and I would
have been sorry to have them move beyond the "Bounds" of Nova Roma. I
am surprised too that this is the first I have heard of this, since at
the time that this proposal was being debated, I had openly indicated
that I was in favor of the portion that dealt with freeing a Gens member
to leave any Gens that he or she found unsatisfactory for any reason. I
do not recall anyone contacting me personally to object to my stand in
that
matter. Perhaps if I had recieved some input from my friends in that
group, I would have reconsidered my position. Further, as a
Paterfamilas in my own right, I heard no objection from anyone in my own
Gens, and do not recall any objections from any other Gens. However, I
may be wrong about that, as my memory is not what it used to be.

If I recall correctly, the Paterfamilias of the Gens Cornelia firmly
stopped the proposal from being discussed in the Senate and voted on by
other Pater-Materfamilii or voted upon by the Citizens in Nova Roma,
which I think gives rise to the question why the members of the Gens
Cornelia's preferences are to be considered more important than a
majority of the NR Citizens. In my imperfect understanding of the inner
workngs of Nova Roma, the action of the then Junior Consul seemed to be
a bit obstructive, in my view, and not at all considerate of the wishes
of "all" the NR Citizens of the time, as I have been led to believe is
the duty of a Magistrate under the NR Constitution.

However, that aspect is over now, but we still seem to be involved in
the same arguement. It almost sounds as if you are saying that if the
Gens Cornelia doesn't get thier way in a free election then they will
leave Nova Roma. I am sure that those whom I know and have affection
for in that Gens are not of that mind, but of course you will know the
others better than I.

I know all this sounds terribly confusing, but the varius questions and
answers which seem so much at odds seem to have no real solution. I am
pledged to view these things as new citizens might, and the disagreement
back and forth, various past questionable actions, and the new work
being done, as well as the old demands being made, may be a very
difficult thing to sort out effectively by people who are not as deeply
understanding of the situation as you and your friends.

Since I have no faction, you have the advantage of me in that respect,
and I envy you that informative support, that such a organization can
bring.

In closing, my thanks again for taking the time to make those who have a
better understanding than myself in these matters your determined views.
I am sure that in time such will filter down to me in a more simplistic
and understandable manner.

Respectfully;

Marcus Minucius Audens
Nova Roman 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] NR Book Plate
From:	"Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@msn.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 04:07:12 -0400

Salve Romans

I am sitting here designing a book plate that I will place in books I give to local schools and libraries on Roman Civilization ( when printed any Nova Roman can use them)

These are three quotes that I am thinking of using any other suggestions?

A room without a book is like a body without a soul.
--Marcus Tullius Cicero

A library is an arsenal of liberty.
--Unknown

You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture.
Just get people to stop reading them.
-- Ray Bradbury


Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Curator Differum


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

Subject:	RE: [Nova-Roma] Modernist and Traditonalist Factions (was Re: Would have, Could Have)
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 01:14:58 -0700 (PDT)

--- Laureatus Armoricus
<laureatusarmoricus@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> Salve Druse,
>
> Dixit Drusus :"Prior to the 1917 revoulation the
> Russian government
> persued a policy of Russianification, of attempting
> to
> force non Russians living in the Empire to become
> Russians. It was a dismal failure, caused the other
> nationalities to hate the Russian government, and
> helped spur imigration. You can't force someone to
> become a Russian.
>
> By the same token you can't force someone to become
> a
> Roman. Attempts to do so will only result in
> resentment and in citizens leaving the Nova Roma."
>
> Respondeo : No you can't ! But you can't either
> force them to remain all
> their life locked in the same gens if they don't
> want to (that was the
> spirit of the proposal, nonne?).

LSD: So they should be able to "roll" the dice" and
create a new Character when they tire of playing the
old one? Gee I'll be a fighter today and an arch mage
tommorrow. Currently if you are unhappy with your Gens
you can seek adoption into another, a route many have
taken. Being "locked" into a Gens is a strawman.
Cornelia was held up as the bad example of "locking"
people in, yet many more citizens have asked Lucius
Cornelius if he would adopt them, than have left his
Gens seeking to be adopted into another Gens.

> And for that matter, if we follow your theory, we
> cannot impose an archaic
> voting system however interesting and historical if
> the bunch of people it
> is applied to doesn't share a common culture. Once
> again integration and
> learning is the key before we can move further in
> that field.
>
LSD: But we can impose a Novel and untested voting
system that has nothing to do with Roma on them? We DO
share a common culture, that of Roma. That culture and
it's religion is the reason Nova Roma was founded, not
as a testbed for the flavor of the month on the social
planners agenda.

If you think Roma's Culture is so archaic, then why
are you here? Wouldn't you be more at home in a new
Micronation who's goal is to implement the ideas of
modern Social planning instead of one who's clearly
stated goal is the revival of an "archaic" culture?


=====
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 proposal
From:	Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@callahans.org>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 01:07:29 -0700

Salve,

On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 02:21:08PM -0400, qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 6/24/03 9:49:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> ben@callahans.org writes:
>
>
> > I don't have the OCD at hand, but we are not Ancient Romans speaking
> > Latin with its original meanings. On this list, the common language is
> > English, and the meanings in common usage are the modern ones.
> >
> Q Fabius Maximus
> Salvete
>
> Boy you are nimble! You must be a politico. That was an answer to an
> interviewer.

Why, no. That was an answer to someone who is attempting to twist the
commonly accepted meaning of a word to his own shady purposes.

> But, the fact still remains. You and your friends are the faction in
> power at this current time. Deny it all you wish. We are being Roman, so we
> follow Roman precepts, not modern ones. Otherwise why are we even here?

<Yawn> Still trying to coopt the world, eh? I don't know whom your "we"
attempts to drag in, but you aren't Roman. Nova-Roman, yes; Roman, wish
and pretend as you might, no. As to why you're here, I can only guess -
and none of the answers interest me to any great degree or impress me in
any way.


Vale,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.
It is sweet and glorious to die for one's country.
-- Horace, "Carmina"

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Nova Roman citizenship
From:	Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@callahans.org>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 01:33:03 -0700

Salve -

On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 08:12:11PM +0100, Decimus Iunius Silanus wrote:
> Salve
>
> > Ouch! Have a pinch of snuff, Diana. :)
>
> I'm really not sure I should be doing this, but as its
> in reply to one of my posts would you mind explaining
> exactly what you mean?

Despite your somewhat unpleasant tone, I'll take the trouble to explain.
It was a humorous comment meaning "acknowledge that you've been scored
on"; I've heard it used a number of times and thought it would be easily
recognized. Apparently not. I believe it originates from Conan Doyle's
"A Case of Identity" from "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes":

----------------------------------------------------------------------
...
"The cases which come to light in the papers are, as a rule, bald
enough, and vulgar enough. We have in our police reports realism pushed
to its extreme limits, and yet the result is, it must be confessed,
neither fascinating nor artistic."

"A certain selection and discretion must be used in producing a
realistic effect," remarked Holmes. "This is wanting in the police
report, where more stress is laid, perhaps, upon the platitudes of the
magistrate than upon the details, which to an observer contain the vital
essence of the whole matter. Depend upon it, there is nothing so
unnatural as the commonplace."

I smiled and shook my head. "I can quite understand your thinking so." I
said. "Of course, in your position of unofficial adviser and helper to
everybody who is absolutely puzzled, throughout three continents, you
are brought in contact with all that is strange and bizarre. But here"?I
picked up the morning paper from the ground?"let us put it to a
practical test. Here is the first heading upon which I come. 'A
husband's cruelty to his wife.' There is half a column of print, but I
know without reading it that it is all perfectly familiar to me. There
is, of course, the other woman, the drink, the push, the blow, the
bruise, the sympathetic sister or landlady. The crudest of writers could
invent nothing more crude."

"Indeed, your example is an unfortunate one for your argument," said
Holmes, taking the paper and glancing his eye down it. "This is the
Dundas separation case, and, as it happens, I was engaged in clearing up
some small points in connection with it. The husband was a teetotaler,
there was no other woman, and the conduct complained of was that he had
drifted into the habit of winding up every meal by taking out his false
teeth and hurling them at his wife, which, you will allow, is not an
action likely to occur to the imagination of the average storyteller.
Take a pinch of snuff, Doctor, and acknowledge that I have scored over
you in your example."
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Vale,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Nam et ipsa scientia potestas es.
Knowledge is power.
-- Sir Francis Bacon

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] NR Book Plate
From:	qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 04:47:57 EDT

In a message dated 6/26/03 1:09:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time, spqr753@msn.com
writes:


> A room without a book is like a body without a soul.
> --Marcus Tullius Cicero
>
>

This one.

Fabius Maximus


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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Nova Roman citizenship
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Decimus=20Iunius=20Silanus?= <danedwardsuk@yahoo.co.uk>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:10:59 +0100 (BST)

Salve Cai Minuci,

> Despite your somewhat unpleasant tone,

?????

> I'll take the
> trouble to explain. <snipped>

Ok thanks. I'll admit that it was lost on me.

Vale

Decimus Iunius Silanus.

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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] NOVA roma
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 02:19:18 -0700 (PDT)

--- MarcusAudens@webtv.net wrote:
> Senator Drusus;
>
> I thank you for your detailed response on the two
> different voting
> mediums. However, my message really did not dwell
> on that specific
> aspect of your previous comments , but rather on the
> aspects of the
> generalized potential problems that you see eroding
> NR, specifically the
> Roman part, and why the name should no longer be
> utilized.

LSD: If we continue to move away from Roma the name
takes on an aspect of "false advertising" It we are
going to switch our goal from recreating the Roman
Republic to creating a "21st Century Micronation" then
we should be honest with ourselves and with
prospective citizens and not represent ourselves as
something that we aren't.

>
> My points to you dealt with four words, which as
> they are used and
> placed in our Constitution can and do mean different
> things to different
> people.
>
> I see that problem as one of a need to perhaps
> standardize in some way,
> or better define the meanngs of those terms as they
> refer to Nova Roma.

LSD: It won't matter how carefully we define those
words if many citizens choose to ignore them. In many
matters there is an unwillingness among some to even
attempt an effort at reconstruction. In many cases
it's like saying M-16's are better than swords, so we
are going to equip our legions with M-16s. In many
respects the gun is the better weapon, but a
reenactment legio armed with guns has lost it's
original purpose and retaining the Roman Helments
won't restore that purpose.
>
> Additionally, there has been a lot of talk regarding
> "Historic" methods
> of doing things, But as a "student" of Roman
> History here in Nova Roma,
> I am often confused by speciically what history we
> are talking about.
> In the past, we have had those who feel that they
> possess the proper
> historic answers to a given question and hasten to
> enlighten us
> citizens, only to have others immdiately provide
> references that show
> the first historic information is flawed, incomplete
> or both.

LSD: our big problem is we haven't gone beyond saying
our government will be based on the Roman Republic.
That republic changed over the course of 500 years. I
think it was at it's best during the time of the Punic
wars, the middle republic. The period that most of our
citizens are familar with is the late republic when it
was in the process of destroying itself.

I'll use the USA as an example to make it plainer. Say
we are recreating the US government but haven't
bothered to state which period. We will find
contradictary sources over the question if women can
or can't vote, or if the Department of Education is
part of the government. If we had said we are
recreating the US government as it existed in 1860 CE
or in 2003 CE there would be no question if women
could or couldn't vote.

This failure to clearly state that our model is the
Republic as it existed in 500 AUC or 700 AUC is the
reason the sources seem to conflict.

>
> I guess my question is, in regard to "Historic"
> functions, who will be
> the final arbiter as to what historic example shall
> be used, and will
> that final arbiter be recognized by all Gens or just
> a few.

LSD: In matters of Government, the Senate should
clearly state which era of the Republic will serve as
our model. Once that is done much of the confusion
over which text is correct will vanish. In the matter
of the Gens the state should stay as far removed from
them as possible.

>
> On another topic, I am very sorry to hear that we
> nearly lost a large
> number of citizens from the Gens Cornelia. It is
> the first that I have
> heard about it. I have several good frends in that
> Gens and I would
> have been sorry to have them move beyond the
> "Bounds" of Nova Roma. I
> am surprised too that this is the first I have heard
> of this, since at
> the time that this proposal was being debated, I had
> openly indicated
> that I was in favor of the portion that dealt with
> freeing a Gens member
> to leave any Gens that he or she found
> unsatisfactory for any reason. I
> do not recall anyone contacting me personally to
> object to my stand in
> that
> matter. Perhaps if I had recieved some input from
> my friends in that
> group, I would have reconsidered my position.
> Further, as a
> Paterfamilas in my own right, I heard no objection
> from anyone in my own
> Gens, and do not recall any objections from any
> other Gens. However, I
> may be wrong about that, as my memory is not what it
> used to be.
>
> If I recall correctly, the Paterfamilias of the Gens
> Cornelia firmly
> stopped the proposal from being discussed in the
> Senate and voted on by
> other Pater-Materfamilii or voted upon by the
> Citizens in Nova Roma,
> which I think gives rise to the question why the
> members of the Gens
> Cornelia's preferences are to be considered more
> important than a
> majority of the NR Citizens. In my imperfect
> understanding of the inner
> workngs of Nova Roma, the action of the then Junior
> Consul seemed to be
> a bit obstructive, in my view, and not at all
> considerate of the wishes
> of "all" the NR Citizens of the time, as I have been
> led to believe is
> the duty of a Magistrate under the NR Constitution.
>
> However, that aspect is over now, but we still seem
> to be involved in
> the same arguement. It almost sounds as if you are
> saying that if the
> Gens Cornelia doesn't get thier way in a free
> election then they will
> leave Nova Roma. I am sure that those whom I know
> and have affection
> for in that Gens are not of that mind, but of course
> you will know the
> others better than I.

LSD: Far to often the concept of being a Micronation
causes us to forget that we are also a voulantary
organization that is only held togather by common
consent. As in any voulantary organization attempting
to use force rather than persusion is more likely to
result in people leaving than in compliance. Would you
lose intrest if a law was passed requiring Legios to
be equiped with modern rifles? would you be more
likely to feel that you had been imposed apon, that
your services weren't appriciated? Wouldn't that make
you more likely to leave?
>
> I know all this sounds terribly confusing, but the
> varius questions and
> answers which seem so much at odds seem to have no
> real solution. I am
> pledged to view these things as new citizens might,
> and the disagreement
> back and forth, various past questionable actions,
> and the new work
> being done, as well as the old demands being made,
> may be a very
> difficult thing to sort out effectively by people
> who are not as deeply
> understanding of the situation as you and your
> friends.
>
> Since I have no faction, you have the advantage of
> me in that respect,
> and I envy you that informative support, that such a
> organization can
> bring.
>
> In closing, my thanks again for taking the time to
> make those who have a
> better understanding than myself in these matters
> your determined views.
> I am sure that in time such will filter down to me
> in a more simplistic
> and understandable manner.
>
> Respectfully;
>
> Marcus Minucius Audens
> Nova Roman 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:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: The Proposed Lex Fabia de Ratione Comitiorum Centuriatorum and History
From:	Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@callahans.org>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 02:34:14 -0700

On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 07:35:18AM -0000, G¥IVLIVS¥SCAVRVS wrote:
> G. Iulius Scaurus C. Minucio Scaevolae salutem dicit.
>
> Salve, C. Minuci.

Salve, G. Iuli -

> As someone who has been a principal co-investigator on both NSF and
> NEH grants in the past, I would be very surprised if grant money were
> available in any significant amount based on the electoral system of
> NR. I know chaps in political science and economics who have received
> NSF grants to conduct electoral modelling and that sort of thing is
> very different from anything anyone has proposed here.
>
> I do, however, think that insulting one's fellow citizens over this
> issue is counterproductive. If Q. Fabius Maximus thinks that the
> "Iulian proposal" (by the Gods, I don't know how the sketch of an idea
> has become a "proposal" for a lex, but carpe diem, I suppose :-), I
> disagree with him, but I don't think he makes the argument
> meretriciously. I urge you to reconsider your remarks.

My statement regarding QFM is based on more than simply his current
remarks. His insulting and disparaging attitude toward all cives not
aligned with his purposes has been made clear over and over again, and I
don't see that I'm restricted to expressing disagreement with those
attitudes in any sort of synchrony.

> From my
> perspective it does C. Fabius no good service when a member of his
> cohors dresses down a consular in the forum.

If I thought that my right to express my beliefs was in any way
curtailed by joining the Cohors, I would not have joined. Fortunately,
that is not the case.

> And if you think that a
> desire for greater historicity is automatically an attack on the
> citizenry, then you have misjudged the reasons I put forward my idea
> entirely.

Not at all. My statement was directed at the yet another turn of the
"you all don't act like [my conception of] Romans!" wheel - something I
find tiresome, stale, and boring after so many useless repetitions,
particularly when the accusers themselves blithely ignore any historical
precedent whenever it suits their purposes. I have my own reservations
about your idea, but I'm still letting those percolate; my apologies if
you thought that my comments applied to it.

> The questions of what value we attach to citizenship and
> how we implement that valuation are legitimate ones for discussion
> here without such acrimony. I think we need less heat on all sides
> and more light.

I agree. However, attempting to establish communication with an opponent
who uses manipulative tactics as the default method benefits only the
manipulator. Much as I like and prefer clear and honest communication,
it requires effort and application from both sides; the above tactics
will meet with nothing but scorn from me.


Vale,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla sapientia mundus regatur?
Don't you know then, my son, how little wisdom rules the world?
-- Said by the Swedish chancellor Axel Oxenstierna to encourage his son Johan when
he doubted his ability to represent Sweden at the Westphalian peace conference.

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Nova Roman citizenship
From:	Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@callahans.org>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 02:46:03 -0700

Salve, D. Iuni -

On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 10:10:59AM +0100, Decimus Iunius Silanus wrote:
> Salve Cai Minuci,
>
> > Despite your somewhat unpleasant tone,
>
> ?????

Given our previous interaction, I took "I'm really not sure I should be
doing this" as a less-than-pleasant comment. Feel free to let me know
what you meant if I was mistaken.

> > I'll take the
> > trouble to explain. <snipped>
>
> Ok thanks. I'll admit that it was lost on me.

You're welcome. I participate in several on-line groups with a wide
range of topics, and sometimes the "in" expressions spill over. Sorry
if I've confused anyone.


Vale,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Libertas inaestimabilis res est.
Liberty is a thing beyond all price.
-- Corpus Iuris Civilis: Digesta

Subject:	RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Nemo
From:	"Diana Moravia Aventina" <diana@pandora.be>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:56:42 +0200

Salve Christy,

< 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.

No sorry. But hey, don't let the lack of a gens stop you from posting! Just
use a pseudonym of your choice on this list until you pick a gens. And then
when you join a gens, you can announce that from then on you will be known
as _____. In any case, people from other Roman groups post here using their
name from the other groups and no one even notices that they aren't a
citizen here. This forum is for citizens, non-citizens and would-be
citizens, so not to worry. Your posts (whether you are a citizen or not) are
welcomed.Personally I think everyone should do what you have been doing--
hang around, get a feel for the group and then become a citizen.

Vale,
Diana Moravia

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] re: CMS definition of faction Part 2
From:	Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@callahans.org>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 02:53:40 -0700

Salve, Diana!

On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 10:21:57PM +0200, Diana Moravia Aventina wrote:
> Salve Scaevola,
>
> <Whoa, whoa - wind down the rhetoric machine, please. I wasn't accusing
> <you of slandering anyone, or trying to get anyone confused; what I said,
> <since it obviously was not clear to you, is that the meaning of
> <"faction" is not what you think it is, at least not in common usage, and
> <I disagree with your application of the term. Is that any clearer?
>
> Yes, perfectly clar now. Thanks!

Cool! :) As one US senator might say to another, it's always pleasant to
know that we're on the same page. :) (Sorry, couldn't resist - even
though the joke's pretty dated.)

> <Yup. I think that mine represents the more common perception of the
> <term;
> Yes, it does seem that everyone has a different dictionary than I do...
> That's the problem of living in a foreign country ya' know.
>
> <I think you know that if I wanted to be
> <disparaging of you or was trying to say that you slandered someone, I
> <would make it clear as day and leave no doubt whatsoever. <wink>
> I feel much better now. I think.
>
> snipped from your email to G Iulius Scaurus:
> <The Boni are a faction here, because they distinguish themselves by
> <their political "colors" -
>
> Just curious: a faction according to the definition that I found in the
> dictionary or the one that you found in the dictionary? :-p

Heh. I'd be false to my own argument if it was according to your
dictionary, wouldn't I? The latter, of course.


Vale,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Graeca sunt, non leguntur.
It is Greek, you don't read that.
-- N/A

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Citizenship too easy
From:	Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@callahans.org>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 03:02:23 -0700

Salve, Diana -

On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 10:30:24PM +0200, Diana Moravia Aventina wrote:
> Salve M Flavius Aurelius,
>
> <What's wrong with citizens
> <who sign up, then find NR does not deliver what they were seeking, and so
> <they wander away.
>
> Nothing really, except that they should tell someone that they are wandering
> away. We have citizens come in, start a new gens because they don't want to
> join someone else's, admit new citizens to their gens and then wander off
> never to be heard from again. This leaves the rest of the Gens in limbo with
> new people applying for citizenship and not getting a reply. The good news
> is this problem will be solved by the census.

You make a good point, one that has to do with honorable behavior (or
lack thereof) by the person in question, and I completely agree with
your point; unfortunately, given the nature of how NR works (I mean
specifically the fact that it's an on-line community), there's little
that can be done about it. The census, useful as it is, will provide a
static snapshot of NR at a given moment and should resolve the current
situations that fit the above pattern if any exist at that moment;
however, I can't think of anything that would prevent it from occurring
immediately afterwards.


Vale,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Faber est suae quisque fortunae.
Every man is the artisan of his own fortune.
-- Appius Claudius Caecus

Subject:	RE: [Nova-Roma] The Ancient Roman Family in a nutshell - For our newbies
From:	"Diana Moravia Aventina" <diana@pandora.be>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:22:40 +0200

Salve Quintus Lanius Paulinus

<Well I see similarities but huge differences also. I sure don't want
<to run off our non authentic materfamilias or have my paterfamilias
<and school teacher Gaius Falco slay me for daring to suggest spelling
<is not important on our list. Also I'm not a blood relative of Gaius,
<had my own parents so I'd never have been adopted to Lania in ancient
<times. Also my friend Diana could not be a materfamilias so Nova Roma
<should allow me to be her tutela (guardian) of her and her gens.(LOL)

LOL!! Just trust me-- I do needing guarding over most of the time, so maybe
having a tutela would not be such a bad idea after all!
Although I would like Nova Roma to be as close to ancient Rome as possible,
I have to admit that I am one of the females who have taken advantage of the
fact that Nova Roma is not an exact replica. So in this modernist vs.
traditionalist debate I'm going to keep quiet so that I don't sound like a
hypocrite!

Vale,
Diana Moravia

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Election proposal
From:	Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@callahans.org>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 03:38:13 -0700

Salve, G. Iuli -

On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 09:20:20AM -0000, G¥IVLIVS¥SCAVRVS wrote:
>
> 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).

I certainly would have no objection to the term if it was used in the
context of historical research. However, that's not how it's been used
here; the connotations are very different.

> 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.

Thank you for clarifying that. There are several people here who
purposely try to obscure that distinction, and I'm glad to have my
perception of you confirmed in that regard.

> 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" --

<chuckle> I will not, at this time, comment on whether I consider them
homologous...

> 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.

That is precisely what I would consider to be a faction.

> 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.

Well... in that case, I fail to see any cause for disagreement or even
confusion. You are, of course, welcome to assign any label you choose to
any group at all in your own constructs; no one else would have any say
in that, and I would certainly not presume to dictate what you should
choose. My reply to Diana had to do with the use of the term here,
particularly since it had been repeatedly misused previously. If, on the
other hand, you're asking for my opinion on where to place the Cohors
politically, I can only restate my previous position: I don't see it as
a single political entity. However, if you should develop a coherent
political model that fits the situation, please feel free to email me
privately; I'd be very interested to see that particular giraffe :)
("Thar ain't no sich animal!")


Vale,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Saepe creat molles aspera spina rosas.
Often the prickly thorn produces tender roses.
-- Ovid

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Colonia Ulpia Traiana (Xanten)
From:	=?iso-8859-1?B?R6VJVkxJVlOlU0NBVlJWUw==?= <gfr@intcon.net>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:48:23 -0000

G. Iulius Scaurus S. P. D.

Avete, Quirites.

Here's a link to a CAD-model of Colonia Ulpia Traiana:

http://www.bauwesen.uni-dortmund.de/forschung/xanten/english/xanten_stadtplan.html

This site, created by a seminar at the University of Dortmund,
provides a detailed visual reconstruction of Colonia Ulpia Traiana
(modern Xanten). For several years Colonia Ulpia Traiana

Valete, Quirities.

G. Iuslius Scaurus

Subject:	RE: [Nova-Roma] Re: Election proposal
From:	"Diana Moravia Aventina" <diana@pandora.be>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:09:59 +0200

Salvete,

G Iulius Scaurus:> From my perspective it does C. Fabius no good service
when a member of his cohors dresses down a consular in the forum.

C Minucius Scaevola:<If I thought that my right to express my beliefs was in
any way <curtailed by joining the Cohors, I would not have joined.
Fortunately, that is not the case.

Fortunately C Minucius, you are not one of my assistants because I would be
cringing every time you posted. But then again, what is your job in the
Cohors Consulis anyway? "Accensus Ordinarius" in charge of verbally
intimidating everyone on the mainlist that disagrees with the proposals of
the Cohors Consulis?

And if that isn't your specific job, then why the constant chip on your
shoulder? Today alone, at a glance I can count 3 emails where you sounded
as if you were looking for a fight...

But hey, you can write what you want-- I believe in freedom of speech: both
yours and my own.

Vale,

Diana Moravia



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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: The Proposed Lex Fabia de Ratione Comitiorum Centuriatorum and History
From:	"quintuscassiuscalvus" <richmal@attbi.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:27:44 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@c...>
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 05:17:49PM -0000, quintuscassiuscalvus
wrote:
> >
> > 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 actually have no objection to either system, however the Iulian
> > Proposal is more likely to help Nova Roma eventually receive
grant
> > monies, while the Fabian Proposal is going to hurt Nova Roma's
> > chances to receive grant monies. Therefore the Iulian Proposal
makes
> > more economical sense in the long term than the Fabian.
>
> That's quite a red herring; I'm highly impressed with your ability
to
> dredge out dead letters such as this one from the bottom of the
> irrelevant issue junkpile. The grant question has been moot since
about
> five minutes after NR's inception; if you're looking for an
absolute,
> precise imitation of AR, this is most emphatically not the place to
> start looking. I suggest joining some group that wants to roleplay
> Ancient Rome; it's the only way you'll have a chance of getting
those
> grants. Here, mentioning it as even a possible issue is simply
> laughable; the electoral system we choose will not affect this non-
issue
> in the slightest even if it obtained.
>
> However, this argument has been used and abused many times
previously by
> those who decry the fact that we're not ancient Romans, so I'll
state my
> own viewpoint on the issue: all you folks need to get over
yourselves,
> Quintus Fabius Maximus first of all. Whining about how people here
are
> Just Not Committed Like They Should Be and It's All Because It's Too
> Easy To Join, and how Ancient Romans Wouldn't Have Allowed It...
it's
> getting beyond old and past repetitive. Nobody would *want* to join
the
> Old Boys Club that would result, and the three or four Boni who
> currently have a voice in this micronation - which has come about
as the
> result of that "too easy to join" method they whine about - would be
> nothing more than another micro-batch of nut cases muttering about
how
> the world should be. I prefer this living, breathing, involved,
active
> organization - Nova Roma as she is, faults and all.
>
> We don't live in the ancient world; we do not own slaves, engage in
> wars, strangle people in the Tullianum, or have the power or
preeminence
> - for either good or evil - that our spiritual ancestors did. All
the
> wishing in the world won't make it so. My fondest hope for Nova
Roma is
> that it can grow - using all that we've learned from Ancient Rome -
into
> something far better than they had. I'm not here to play-act, role-
play,
> or pretend; I believe in Nova Roma's potential. Those who just want
to
> complain about how we don't represent something that cannot be
> represented in reality are doing nothing more than insulting and
> denigrating the accomplishments of all our citizens, and I, for
one, do
> not find it amusing.
>
>
> Caius Minucius Scaevola
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-
> Fortes fortuna adiuvat.
> Fortune favours the brave.
> -- Terence, "Phormio"

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Modernist and Traditonalist Factions (was Re: Would have, Could Have)
From:	"christyacb" <bryanta003@hawaii.rr.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:14:37 -0000

Salvete,

Back in the archives, and I do apologize for not
recalling the exact period for reference, this came
up more than once. As is hinted in this thread, on
one such occasion, LCSF resigned temporarily when
several of his gens members wanted to start out on
their own with a gens of their own. But that wasn't
the only time the organization of the gentes was an
issue.

By being required to join a gens before even aquiring
actual citizenship, NR effectively forces prospective
civis to sign up for a lifetime relationship with
people they don't really know. After reading the first
year of the archives I was ready to join and had even
made sure my paypal account was active so that I could
get going. But then I found the first of the gens
arguments and decided to delay. It is now 4 months later
and I'm still not in. Why? Because I have no wish to be
tied to people I don't really know and perhaps suffer
tirades and cause bad feelings if I 'jump' gens when
I do get to know some of you better.

Getting into NR is sort of like being on that
"Married by America" gameshow. You're hitched and you've
never met the fellow. Well, I hope you get what I mean.
No, people don't get to choose their macro families and
we are often stuck with folks we wouldn't have chosen in
the gene pool, but at least we have the consolation of
long association to become immune (or nearly so) to them.

Gens reform is a touchy subject and will probably
continue to be so. Getting rid of inactive gentes will
be a start, but even that is going to have a few up in arms
when it finally goes down. The idea of a probationary
period has merit..and flaws. Jumping gens isn't great
either, but to date we have very little to offer in it's
stead.

Why not combine all those ideas into something that
allows some flexibility while preserving the idea of
Roman bond making? Romans were ever fond of marrying off
this one or that to cememt a relationship, however
unsuccessfully, so the idea may not be too offensive to
those wishing to preserve the identity of RA within NR,
yet flexible enough to permit people who never really
see each other to find those compatible to them in a
natural way.

New civis join and are, unless they know their gens
of choice already, given the nomen Nemo and inserted into
that gens. While in that gens they are able to vote and do
all those things which come with citizenship with the
exception of serving in office, elected or appointed, or
to hold any religious position. In this gens, they are
students in reality and as such, are easily identified
by their nomen.

At any point, they may apply to join a gens. However, once
joined, they and their pater or mater, must make the joining
either in cement or elmer's glue, much like roman marriages
being either confarreatio, coemptio, usus and the like. Some
excellent citizen with better latin than I can coin the right
terms. This permits those who have looser gens connections to
state it right out in front with no loss of dignitas to any
party should the relationship be dissolved.

Perhaps I will be labeled a modernist, but I do think that
we must allow for progress in some ways. While I don't think
that means a loss of the spirit of Rome, I do think it means
to be practical. And if the Romans were anything, they were
practical. I certainly can't see the Romans of yore choosing
to broil during a summer Senate session if there was air
conditioning to be had simply because it wasn't available when
Rome was a little village. This is obviously different than
AC but the essence is the same. We are NR...not a recreationist
club.

Whew..what a way to start. I have put up the turtle of shields.
Let loose! :)

Valete, Christy Nemo

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Sicinius Drusus"
<lsicinius@y...> wrote:
>
> --- Laureatus Armoricus
> <laureatusarmoricus@t...> wrote:
> > Salve Druse,
> >
> > Dixit Drusus :"Prior to the 1917 revoulation the
> > Russian government
> > persued a policy of Russianification, of attempting
> > to
> > force non Russians living in the Empire to become
> > Russians. It was a dismal failure, caused the other
> > nationalities to hate the Russian government, and
> > helped spur imigration. You can't force someone to
> > become a Russian.
> >
> > By the same token you can't force someone to become
> > a
> > Roman. Attempts to do so will only result in
> > resentment and in citizens leaving the Nova Roma."
> >
> > Respondeo : No you can't ! But you can't either
> > force them to remain all
> > their life locked in the same gens if they don't
> > want to (that was the
> > spirit of the proposal, nonne?).
>
> LSD: So they should be able to "roll" the dice" and
> create a new Character when they tire of playing the
> old one? Gee I'll be a fighter today and an arch mage
> tommorrow. Currently if you are unhappy with your Gens
> you can seek adoption into another, a route many have
> taken. Being "locked" into a Gens is a strawman.
> Cornelia was held up as the bad example of "locking"
> people in, yet many more citizens have asked Lucius
> Cornelius if he would adopt them, than have left his
> Gens seeking to be adopted into another Gens.
>
> > And for that matter, if we follow your theory, we
> > cannot impose an archaic
> > voting system however interesting and historical if
> > the bunch of people it
> > is applied to doesn't share a common culture. Once
> > again integration and
> > learning is the key before we can move further in
> > that field.
> >
> LSD: But we can impose a Novel and untested voting
> system that has nothing to do with Roma on them? We DO
> share a common culture, that of Roma. That culture and
> it's religion is the reason Nova Roma was founded, not
> as a testbed for the flavor of the month on the social
> planners agenda.
>
> If you think Roma's Culture is so archaic, then why
> are you here? Wouldn't you be more at home in a new
> Micronation who's goal is to implement the ideas of
> modern Social planning instead of one who's clearly
> stated goal is the revival of an "archaic" culture?
>
>
> =====
> 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] Citizenship too easy
From:	"M Flavius Aurelius" <m.flavius.aurelius@iinet.net.au>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:40:24 +1000

Again, we want to blame the potential citizens when most wander off because NOVA ROMA does not live up to their expectations.

If we made the organisation more attuned to our target audience, then perhaps they might stay. And if they do not, who loses? No-one.

M Flavius Aurelius
----- Original Message -----
From: Caius Minucius Scaevola
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 8:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Citizenship too easy


Salve, Diana -

On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 10:30:24PM +0200, Diana Moravia Aventina wrote:
> Salve M Flavius Aurelius,
>
> <What's wrong with citizens
> <who sign up, then find NR does not deliver what they were seeking, and so
> <they wander away.
>
> Nothing really, except that they should tell someone that they are wandering
> away. We have citizens come in, start a new gens because they don't want to
> join someone else's, admit new citizens to their gens and then wander off
> never to be heard from again. This leaves the rest of the Gens in limbo with
> new people applying for citizenship and not getting a reply. The good news
> is this problem will be solved by the census.

You make a good point, one that has to do with honorable behavior (or
lack thereof) by the person in question, and I completely agree with
your point; unfortunately, given the nature of how NR works (I mean
specifically the fact that it's an on-line community), there's little
that can be done about it. The census, useful as it is, will provide a
static snapshot of NR at a given moment and should resolve the current
situations that fit the above pattern if any exist at that moment;
however, I can't think of anything that would prevent it from occurring
immediately afterwards.


Vale,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Faber est suae quisque fortunae.
Every man is the artisan of his own fortune.
-- Appius Claudius Caecus

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Hibernia: A statement from Britannia
From:	"Titus Maxentius Verus" <jgrady@lucent.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 09:43:11 -0000

Salve Marine,

Indeed, I am quite familiar with the history of the American Civil
War and that reconcialition was not an easy matter. For the most
part, after the passage of nearly one and a half centuries, that
reconciliation has been achieved.

The situation between Britannia and Hibernia, though, is not quite
the same to that of America. It is not like your North v South. It
is more like White v Black.

Also, I don't believe that the problem is any longer one between
Britannia and Hibernia. There has always been a love-hate
relationship between the two countries, but, for the most part, in
recent years, the "love" part has surpassed the "hate" part, and,
overall, the friendship and cooperation between the countries has
grown.

Where the problem still exists is in Northern Ireland, which is still
under British rule, and the problem is severly complicated by
religious issues. Historically, the Protestant population of the
North, who were brought in from Scotland and England to settle land
from which the Catholics were evicted as a result of their opposition
to the Crown, were granted the status of an "overseer" class, whereas
the Catholics were placed in a status of servitude and with few and
restricted rights. After nearly four hundred years of such
privilege, the "overseer" class has been reluctant, to say the least,
to surrender its traditional power to its former servants. In many
ways, the situation is similar to the problem that existed (and
continues to exist, to some extent) between Whites and Blacks in
Dixie and in other parts of America. Many of the Northern Irish
Protestants have regarded the Catholics as racially and socially
inferior as well as regarding them as politically and religiously
inferior.

For most Hibernians in the Republic, the fact of British rule in the
North is no longer considered to be a major problem, though Sinn Fein
Republicans would strongly disagree with us. In the Republic of
Ireland, though, Sinn Fein Republicans are in a very small minority;
in the North, however, Sinn Fein has a sizable percentage of the
Catholic voters on its side. On the other side of the fence, a
certain percentage of the Unionists are opposed to a peace that
allows for either a united Ireland or a British-controlled Northern
Ireland that grants Catholics equality.

Both Britannia and the Eire part of Hibernia have come a long way in
burying the sword, but the social divisions in the North continue to
keep that society divided. That is where the problem persists. That
is why the question was raised on whether Hibernia joining Britannia
would bother some Hibernians or whether Northern Ireland being
transferred from the Provincia Britannia to Provincia Hibernia would
be a problem for some people in the North. A suggested solution from
M. Arminius Maior was that we join with Britannia but call the
Province Britannia et Hibernia; thus Hibernians would continue to be
Hibernians, Britons would continue to be Britons and the Northern
Irish could live side-by-side as both Briton and Hibernian and claim
to be whichever one is their preference.

Also, since Britannia was not part of the Roman Republic but was
rather part of the Empire, a Province called Britannia et Hibernia
could exist in Nova Roma in the same fashion as your American
provinces do, as provinces of Nova Roma rather than of ancient Rome.

So, yes, I consider myself, on this issue, to be a Novaromani first
and foremost, and, therefore, I have no problem with joining
Britannia; in fact, it was I who suggested it. From an
administrative perspective, it would be wise. I am Roman first and
Celt second. Basically, my concern was with potential problems that
could arise with people who might be more sensitive to the issue.
Then again, perhaps people who carry such maconational baggage would
not be interested in becoming Novaromani anyway. In that case, the
problem would never arise.

Vale,

Titus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Bill Gawne <gawne@c...> wrote:
> 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:	[Nova-Roma] Re: The Proposed Lex Fabia de Ratione Comitiorum Centuriatorum and History
From:	"quintuscassiuscalvus" <richmal@attbi.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:49:15 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@c...>
> That's quite a red herring; I'm highly impressed with your ability
to
> dredge out dead letters such as this one from the bottom of the
> irrelevant issue junkpile.


> We don't live in the ancient world; we do not own slaves,

I smell a fish, oh yes, it's the red herring of slavery dragged up
from the depths once again.

>engage in wars,

Another red herring and completely non germane

>strangle people in the Tullianum,

non germane strawman dining on red herring

Well, Caius Minucius Scaevola, I'm so glad you're highly impressed
with my abilities. I take it as a compliment. I just wish
your "tone" were more in accord with the Senior Consul's desire of
returning Civility to Nova Roma's civil discourse.

Vale,

Q. Cassius Calvus

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Hibernia: A statement from Britannia
From:	"Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly)" <mjk@datanet.ab.ca>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:33:33 -0000

Salve Tite,

Your article and position were clear, eloquently expressed and very
informative. Thank you for enlightening us about the Anglo-Irish
situation and how it can be accomodated into NR.

Respectfully,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus





--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Titus Maxentius Verus"
<jgrady@l...> wrote:


Snip for space but read carefully.

> Hibernians, Britons would continue to be Britons and the Northern
> Irish could live side-by-side as both Briton and Hibernian and
claim
> to be whichever one is their preference.
>
> Also, since Britannia was not part of the Roman Republic but was
> rather part of the Empire, a Province called Britannia et Hibernia
> could exist in Nova Roma in the same fashion as your American
> provinces do, as provinces of Nova Roma rather than of ancient Rome.
>
> So, yes, I consider myself, on this issue, to be a Novaromani first
> and foremost, and, therefore, I have no problem with joining
> Britannia; in fact, it was I who suggested it. From an
> administrative perspective, it would be wise. I am Roman first and
> Celt second. Basically, my concern was with potential problems
that
> could arise with people who might be more sensitive to the issue.
> Then again, perhaps people who carry such maconational baggage
would
> not be interested in becoming Novaromani anyway. In that case, the
> problem would never arise.
>
> Vale,
>
> Titus
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Bill Gawne <gawne@c...> wrote:
> > 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:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Citizenship too easy?? Attn: L Lucillus Catiline
From:	"Marcus Ambrosius Belisarius" <mballetta@hotmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:32:50 -0000

Salve,
Your experiences are a great help for others like myself who follow a
similar situation.
I have recieved an introduction from my Materfamilias with a request
for information about myself but have not received an actual
approval. I too thought it could take weeks and have been waiting
for official approval. I have not been waiting long however but I
may be in the same boat, so to speak.
Thanks for the information.
Vale.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "lucius_lucillus_catiline"
<graymouser01@a...> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>SNIP

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Not built in one day
From:	"Marcus Ambrosius Belisarius" <mballetta@hotmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:43:51 -0000

Greetings and good points,
While ROME wasn't built in a day, NOVA ROMA has the benefit of all
their years of building as a starting point to lead to a shorter
bulding period towards the future. It is great to have others
mistakes from which to learn (we'll never have enough time to make
them all ourselves, lol).
We don't wish to dwell on the past for we may rob the present but we
can also not ignore the past for we just may rob the futre of Nova
Roma.
It is said that the seeds of our destiny are nurtured by the roots of
our past.
I would hate to see Nova Roma evolve into something not based on the
past Roman values and ideals.
Hail and fair well.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Laureatus Armoricus"
<laureatusarmoricus@t...> wrote:
> 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:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Just some wandering thoughts...
From:	"Marcus Ambrosius Belisarius" <mballetta@hotmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:04:49 -0000

Most Honorable Stephanus Ullerius Venator Piperbarbus,
For one who claims not to be a scholar, you could very well be a
teacher of life.
Your words are made for everyones ears, simple language,
uncomplicated meaning, easily understood with no pretense of
loftiness.
Noble sentiments, actions and my appreciation.
Your Tenets for living strike a chord within myself like the
tinkeling of brass and are ecchoed like a crashing symbol.

I couldn't agree more with all you have said and to try and repeat it
would not do you justice.
Blessed Be
Salve


>
> SNIP>
> 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:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Simulations, Mock Elections &c.
From:	"=?iso-8859-1?q?A.=20Apollonius=20Cordus?=" <cordus@strategikon.org>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:33:11 +0100 (BST)

A. Apollonius Cordus to Senator L. Sinicius Drusus and
all citizens and peregrines, greetings.

Senator, I must tell you that I am most frustrated by
your most recent message on this topic. I am on the
verge of becoming convinced that you have no interest
in testing the Fabian system at all, and are merely
using your demand for mock-elections as an excuse not
to discuss the system on its merits. However, I am not
quite there yet, and I must therefore assume that you
have simply overlooked or not fully understood what I
have been saying to you every time I write on this
issue.

You ask:
> How, pray tell, will your computer simulate citizen
> Nemo's confusion over a novel system on the day
> elections are held? How will it simulate voter
> reaction to two canidates annoucing a pact to run as
> partners? How will it simulate the emotions that are
> generated during a campaign and thier effect on the
> voting?

Senator, these items are all utterly irrelevant to
whether or not a system works. The purpose of a
simulation in this case is not to predict the winner,
but to test the system.

If citizen X (I gratefully decline your hypothetical
citizen Nemo since there is a prospective citizen
currently going under that name) is confused at the
ballot-box, he or she can still only vote in a limited
number of ways. If there are three candidates, the
only possible votes are: A; A & B; A, B & C; B; B & C;
C; A & C; none. Eight options. No matter how confused
voter X may be, he or she cannot possibly vote in any
way other than one of those eight. Therefore a
simulation that takes into account only those eight
options per voter will be entirely satisfactory and
will take into account confused voters.

Similarly, if two candidates run as a slate, voters
still only have those eight options (if there are
three candidates; more if there are more, obviously).
And no matter how emotional a voter is, he or she
still has only a limited number of options. It is
possible for a computer simulation to test each of
those options. Therefore nothing is missed.

> These aspects can only be tested by seeing what
> hapens when real live people vote in the Centuries,
> not on a computer, not in an E-mail polling.

As I have remarked above, a computer simulation is
perfectly capable of taking account of the aspects you
have mentioned, and any others. So is a mock election
conducted by e-mail. If, however, you still feel, in
spite of all logic, that a computer simulation is
inadequate, and wish to run a mock election taking
into account emotional campaigning, confusion, and
candidates running on slates, I suggest you take the
elections at the end of 1998 as a model and ask voters
who wish to participate in your mock election to read
the relevant section of archives to get the full
effect.

You would then, as I've outlined before, request
voters to e-mail you with their votes, and you would
calculate the results. This need be no different from
a real election in its important aspects; you could
make it however realistic you wished.

If you claim that there is an ineffable but real
difference between such a mock election and one which
is identical except for using the ballot-papers on the
website and being called by the Consuls, then I can
only ask you to produce some reason for thinking so. I
do not believe that an electoral system that works
when voting is done by e-mail would fail to work when
voting is done by filling out a web-form. I do not
believe that voters' preferences change depending on
whether they are asked to vote by the Consuls or by a
private citizen.

> Since your faction refuses to summon the Centuries
> for a test run I have no choice but to view it as
Dr.
> Fabius' snake oil, an elixer that wonfrous claims
are
> made about, but who's indegreants are carefully
> hidden from the purchaser.

I cannot comment on my 'faction' and its policy, since
as I have mentioned I am unaware of its nature or
membership, though I accept the opinion of those who
say that it exists unknown to myself.

As you know and have yourself commented in the past
only the Consuls (ordinarily) can convene the
centuries for a real election or legislative vote.
They are not, however, empowered by any law or
regulation that I know of to call the centuries to
vote in a mock election. Nor am I aware of any law
that forbids anyone else from calling the centuries
for a mock election. If you wish to have a mock
election that uses the official web-form as the
ballot-paper, then that is between you and Curator
Octavius Pius; perhaps he would be content to let you
use the relevant code, provided you were prepared to
re-write it to accommodate the changes required by the
Fabian system.

As for the ingredients of the potion, they are there
in the proposed law for all to see. Anyone is free to
study them and subject them to any sort of test they
please. To my recollection, every citizen who has so
far participated in this discussion apart from
yourself has made some attempt to think through at
least one hypothetical scenario to test the system.
Perhaps you too have done so, but you have not shared
with us the result.

Nothing is being concealed from anyone; no one is
being hindered from testing the system in any way they
wish. The only thing that only the Consuls can do in
relation to elections is to call a real one. Anybody
at all can call a mock election. No one has done so; I
presume therefore that everyone is content without
one.

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] Re: NR Book Plate
From:	"Marcus Ambrosius Belisarius" <mballetta@hotmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:21:46 -0000

All good quotes.
1 and 3 are a toss up but for a book on Roman civilations, it seems
appropriate to quote Cicero, no?
P.S.
Very noble task, the knowledge of our children becomes our greatest
future asset.


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@m...>
wrote:
> Salve Romans
>
> I am sitting here designing a book plate that I will place in
books I give to local schools and libraries on Roman Civilization (
when printed any Nova Roman can use them)
>
> These are three quotes that I am thinking of using any other
suggestions?
>
> A room without a book is like a body without a soul.
> --Marcus Tullius Cicero
>
> A library is an arsenal of liberty.
> --Unknown
>
> You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture.
> Just get people to stop reading them.
> -- Ray Bradbury
>
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> Curator Differum
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Would have, Could Have
From:	"Marcus Ambrosius Belisarius" <mballetta@hotmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:41:51 -0000

SNIP
There was no real reply to this question so
I'm guessing the answer is no.
Would it be possible to have this accomplished or would it be too
great an undertaking and possibly not worth the effort involed?
Others may know all the inricacies regarding the information and the
work time versus efficiency ratio so I would be understanding if not
greatful.
> 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] Simulations, Mock Elections &c.
From:	"Sp. Postumius Tubertus" <postumius@gmx.net>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:44:31 -0400

Sp. Postumius Tubertus L. Sicinio Druso S.P.D.

Salve,

> Perhaps next year we will have a Consul who will allow
> you to test a voting reform plan. Untill then my
> advice remains the same. Do not vote for any plan that
> hasn't been tested.
>
> Our biggest problem in the last election cycle was in
> the Plebian assembly, not in the Centuries. Perhaps
> the Tribunes will willing to do what the Senior Consul
> is unwilling to do and let the Plebs hold a test of
> any voting plan they plan on promulgating in a mock
> election in the Plebian assembly.

Respectfully, Druse, I should hope they don't plan on holding a mock election. As some have tried to bring you to understanding, the problem with holding a mock election is the simple fact that it will not be taken seriously by the voters. There will always be those who take everything seriously in their lives, and a mock election would indeed be one thing taken seriously, but you have to come to realize that not everyone conforms to this or anything like this ideal of a lifestyle, and because of this, the mock election/human simulation idea has failed with those who have tried to explain to you why it should not be done.

And, to comment on your first point, who do _you_ propose to be this 'great' consul you so eagerly desire to see in office?

Vale,

Sp. Postumius Tubertus
Citizen of Nova Roma

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Modernist and Traditonalist Factions (was Re: Would have, Could Have)
From:	"Sp. Postumius Tubertus" <postumius@gmx.net>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:45:29 -0400

Salvete Corneli Moravi et L. Sicini,

> And for that matter, if we follow your theory, we cannot impose an archaic
> voting system however interesting and historical if the bunch of people it
> is applied to doesn't share a common culture. Once again integration and
> learning is the key before we can move further in that field.

I second this point, with no additions to it. You make a wonderful point, Corneli Moravi, and one which I hope Senator Drusus takes under very serious consideration.

Valete,

Sp. Postumius Tubertus
Citizen of Nova Roma

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Critiques of Alternative Voting, et al.
From:	"=?iso-8859-1?q?A.=20Apollonius=20Cordus?=" <cordus@strategikon.org>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:54:05 +0100 (BST)

A. Apollonius Cordus to C. Iulius Scaurus and all
citizens and peregrines, greetings.

> 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...

I must confess, I am utterly at a loss to understand
why any faction, party or individual would attempt to
engage in strategic voting under the Alternative Vote
system, since all the research I have read indicates
that doing so can in fact cause one's preferred
candidate to lose in an election in which, had all the
voters simply voted according to their genuine
preferences, that candidate would have won.

> 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)...

Indeed, the Borda system does seem to be slightly more
accurate than AV, but it departs so extremely from any
concept of voting that the Romans would have
contemplated that I feel its advantage to be negated.
I do believe, contrary to the views of some, that AV
is not totally alien to a Roman way of thinking, since
it is logically identical to holding a sequence of
run-off elections.

> 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.

Well, if I may be permitted briefly to make light of
such an unpleasant development, I must say that that
anecdote surely puts to rest any fears that AV 'stacks
the deck' against extremists.

Seriously, however, I must point out that it is very
very unsafe to make any deductions about the nature of
an electoral system by looking at the political
colouring of the government in countries in which that
system is used. If used in a country in which fascism
were overwhelmingly popular, AV would produce a
fascist government; if used in a country in which
communism were the choice of the majority, the
government would be communist. This does not point to
a defect in AV, but to its faithful representation of
the will of the voters. I hasten to add that I do not
know how much support the party you mention enjoys in
Australia, and I do not for a moment suggest that
Australians are more racist than others; I merely flag
up the fact that this anecdote is perhaps not a safe
guide.

For an overview of the Australian experience using
both AV and STV, may I recommend George H. Hallett's
article in Lijphart & Grofman, 'Choosing an Electoral
System'. This mainly concentrates on STV, which is
similar to AV in some respects, but includes both, and
is very positive.

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] Re: Simulations, Mock Elections &c.
From:	"gaiuspopilliuslaenas" <ksterne@bellsouth.net>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:25:27 -0000

>>And, to comment on your first point, who do _you_ propose to be
this 'great' consul you so eagerly desire to see in office?

Vale,

Sp. Postumius Tubertus
Citizen of Nova Roma<<


GAIUS POPILLIUS LAENAS MANIFICUS!!!!

*Oh hell, did I say that out loud?* ;-O

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Would have, Could Have, High Tech Rome
From:	"Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly)" <mjk@datanet.ab.ca>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:33:44 -0000

Salve Marce,

Roman technology could have or would have?

That is difficult to say. I heard Carl Sagan talk about the dark ages
20 years ago and he mentioned that if Greek and Roman logic and
scientific thought had been left undisturbed and allowed to flourish
we may well have been in our present day technology 300 years ago and
travelling the stars by now. An interesting point but I doubt it.

1) First, with such a huge slave-based economy, I think a lot of
machine advances may well have been put on hold much like our fossil
fuel driven world economy today vs alternate enery forms. A classic
example discussed before was when a Greek inventor about 200 AD and
change invented a working type of steam engine. The Roman government
discouraged its development other than for opening temple doors or
religious special effects saying that empire's economy would
collapse. Try and imagine if the engine had been used in a ship etc.


2) I have a great book at home called "The Ancient Engineers" by L.
Sprague de Camp. He points out that the no. of geniuses in a gene
pool is very few and only a handful appear every century. Also 10,000
years ago the human population was a few million. People were hunter
gatherers and survival was the mode. No one other than priets had
time to contemplate their navals or new ideas or they'd be kicked out
or killed in the clan. One invention per century such as a spear with
a pivoting latching hook would be a discovery of the century. In the
time of Rome where civilizations had developed there was more time
for a portion of the population to be thinkers and inventors but the
world population was about 350 million and stayed at that level to
the 1500's, not allowing for enough high tech minds to develope as
you would in a population of 1 or more billion. People like blaming
religion for thwarting ideas and though partly true natural
disasters, the plagues that wiped out many of the people in the
dwindling years of the Roman Empire; not to mention the black death
of the 1300's would have had quite an effect on technology as well.


3) As we all know inventions and tecnology come step by step. You
must discover the relationship between magnetism and electric
current, invent a primative power source, evolve to an electron tube,
then to a transistor and finally a printed ciruit in combination with
many other steps like the invention of plastics etc. before you build
a computer. You must discover gun powder - cast cannon - machined
tube cannon - precussion cap - self contained cartridge before you
can invent a working automatic weapon. So Atlanteans flying aircraft,
super weapons and computers thousands of years ago or Rome being a
high tech society had she lasted another 1000 years is nonsense in my
opinion.


Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Modernist and Traditonalist Factions (was Re: Would have, Could Have)
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sardonicus <l_c_sardonicus@yahoo.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 08:15:20 -0700 (PDT)

Salve Marinus,

When I joined Nova Roma, I did what I believed was expected of me and joined a Gens immediately upon applying for citizenship. I direct your attention to Step II of the application process:

"The basic organizational unit of Nova Roma is the Gens, or family. You must choose a Gens to join. The choice of Gens determines your name.

A Gens name is always feminine in form (such as Iunia, Iulia, Claudia, or Octavia). The masculine or feminine form, as appropriate, is used as a person's nomen, or surname. For men, the nomen is always preceded by a praenomen and usually followed by a cognomen. Women always have a nomen, and may have a praenomen or cognomen, both, or neither.

Below is a list of currently active gentes in Nova Roma. You should now select a gens. When selecting a gens, consider its provincia (location) and its patron deities."

I chose a Gens based on Patron diety, the "cool sounding name" and a list of interests posted by the Gens Paterfamilias. When, after a short time, I found that I was unable to become a productive member of that Gens I applied for and changed Gens. Since the Paterfamili of both Gens were and are active, it was a simple process. The minor sticking point in the process was my fault entirely.

I have not been active on this list for some time, but that does not mean that I am not active in my own way. I practice the rites in my home as often as practicable. I am working on a Lorica Hamata so that I can become active in the military re-enactment part of things and I will publish a journal (as humble as it may be) of my experiences with that project when it is complete.

You said, "If some number of years or decades
from now Nova Romani speak of the Sicinia Drusa and the
Equitia Marina as "fine old Nova Roman families" I'll be
pleased."

You also said, "As for the particular question of Gens
Cornelia, I have no objection to their continuing to be
the Borg of Nova Roma if they want to be."

In the interests of regaining civility on this list, and regarding your wish to be remembered as a fine old Nova Roman family, I must politely ask you to stop the Cornelii bashing. I find your comment insulting. You do yourself, your Gens, and Nova Roma a disservice when you resort to off-hand comments such as this.

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sardonicus



Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@cesmail.net> wrote:
Salve Drusus, et salvete omens,

> If it is historic and dosen't force our current
> "families", ahistoric but still groups that we have
> encouraged to think of themselves as families, to
> break up you shall have my support.

I've no intention of forcing anything. Neither does the
Senior Consul. As for the particular question of Gens
Cornelia, I have no objection to their continuing to be
the Borg of Nova Roma if they want to be.

> I Remind you and others working on this lex that the
> modern western definition of Male + Female + 2
> children isn't what the Romans considered a family.

Thank you Druse. We're well aware of that, but it does
bear repeating from time to time. We understand about the
extended and blended familia of Roma Antiqua.

> I have no objection if some wish to adapt this for
> themselves as long as the lex recognizes the
> traditional multigenrational family for those who wish
> it.

I'm right with you on that. In a pragmatic sense, I'm
already doing it, since I have two adult daughters who
are citizens. (They don't post here in the mainlist,
and consider me a bit daft for doing so, but there are
other aspects of NR they like.)

> I Am a grandfather who has been the head of his own
> household for a great many years, but despite having
> children and grandchildren I never considered myself
> the head of the family, untill my father died last
> fall. I considered him to be the head of my
> Macronational family. That older concept of a family
> is how the Romans viewed families.

I am in complete agreement with you on this.

My father died over half of my lifetime ago. I'm the
oldest of nine, and I've had my two youngest siblings
live in my home until they were both adults. The very
real responsibilities of the role of paterfamilias are
familiar to me. I've been there and done that. Today
my younger daughter and her infant daughter live in my
home due to economic circumstances, also very like
Roman familia of antiquity.

So yes, I think I "get it" when it comes to understanding
the multigenerational extended and blended family, and
how it works. I'd be pleased to see such familia formally
recognized in Nova Roma. If some number of years or decades
from now Nova Romani speak of the Sicinia Drusa and the
Equitia Marina as "fine old Nova Roman families" I'll be
pleased.

> That concept needs to be included as an option rather
> than a narrow modernist nuclear family approach.

I'm pleased to see that in this you and I are in full accord.

-- Marinus

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Modernist and Traditonalist Factions (was Re: Would have, Could Have)
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 09:20:52 -0700 (PDT)

--- "Sp. Postumius Tubertus" <postumius@gmx.net>
wrote:
> Salvete Corneli Moravi et L. Sicini,
>
> > And for that matter, if we follow your theory, we
> cannot impose an archaic
> > voting system however interesting and historical
> if the bunch of people it
> > is applied to doesn't share a common culture. Once
> again integration and
> > learning is the key before we can move further in
> that field.
>
> I second this point, with no additions to it. You
> make a wonderful point, Corneli Moravi, and one
> which I hope Senator Drusus takes under very serious
> consideration.
>
> Valete,
>
> Sp. Postumius Tubertus
> Citizen of Nova Roma
>

"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."

We have a common culture, that of Roma.

Why are you here if Roma's culture is so unimportant
to you that you fail to realize that we do have a
common culture, that's it's promotion is one of the
primary reasons for the formation of this
organization.

Perhaps you would be more at home in a group dedicated
to promoting modernist social ideas rather than one
concerned with Roman Culture.




=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] High Tech World
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sardonicus <l_c_sardonicus@yahoo.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 08:57:03 -0700 (PDT)

Salve Paulinus,

You said, "As we all know inventions and tecnology come step by step. You
must discover the relationship between magnetism and electric
current, invent a primative power source, evolve to an electron tube,
then to a transistor and finally a printed ciruit in combination with
many other steps like the invention of plastics etc. before you build
a computer. You must discover gun powder - cast cannon - machined
tube cannon - precussion cap - self contained cartridge before you
can invent a working automatic weapon. So Atlanteans flying aircraft,
super weapons and computers thousands of years ago or Rome being a
high tech society had she lasted another 1000 years is nonsense in my
opinion.

The Byzantines had a working flame thrower as early as the 7th century.

"Black powder is thought to have originated in China, where it was used in fireworks and signals by the 10th century. It is possible that the Chinese also used black powder in bombs for military purposes, and there is written record that in the mid-13th century they put it in bamboo tubes to propel stone projectiles."
It is true that the development of plastics is necessary to produce what we now know as a personal or desktop computer. However, the ENIAC computer was assembled in 1945 with no transistors and very little in the way of plastic manufacturing technolgy. "By today's standards for electronic computers the ENIAC was a grotesque monster. Its thirty separate units, plus power supply and forced-air cooling, weighed over thirty tons. Its 19,000 vacuum tubes, 1,500 relays, and hundreds of thousands of resistors, capacitors, and inductors consumed almost 200 kilowatts of electrical power." -from the January-February 1961 issue of O R D N A N C E, Copyright 1961. The Journal of the American Ordnance Association, 708 Mills Building - Washington 6, DC.

Who knows what direction technology might have taken had the Roman empire (or republic for that matter) not fallen and there ensued an extended period of technological stagnation. Necessity is, after all, the mother of invention.

Vale,
Lucius Cornelius Sardonicus



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Would have, Could Have, High Tech Rome
From:	"Marcus Ambrosius Belisarius" <mballetta@hotmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:55:45 -0000

Salve Quintus,
Thanks for the amazing information but I feel bad you went to the
trouble.
The question I had posted was in regards to a statement by (I think)
Lucius (I don't remember who said it originally now). It wasn't on
technology but I thank you again for the great reply.

It was:
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



SNIP
> Salve Marce,
>
> Roman technology could have or would have?
>
> That is difficult to say. I heard Carl Sagan talk about the dark
ages
> 20 years ago and he mentioned that if Greek and Roman logic and
> scientific thought had been left undisturbed and allowed to
flourish
> we may well have been in our present day technology 300 years ago
and
> travelling the stars by now. An interesting point but I doubt it.
>
SNIP

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Modernist and Traditonalist Factions
From:	Kristoffer From <from@darkeye.net>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:37:21 +0200

Lucius Cornelius Sardonicus wrote:
> In the interests of regaining civility on
> this list, and regarding your wish to be
> remembered as a fine old Nova Roman family,
> I must politely ask you to stop the

> Cornelii bashing. I find your comment
> insulting. You do yourself, your Gens, and
> Nova Roma a disservice when you resort to
> off-hand comments such as this.

Salve, Luci Corneli Sardonice.

I do believe he was asked by Lucius Sicinius Drusus to laugh at the
Cornelia, make them the butt of jokes, cut them off from social events
and deride them in public. The paragraphs in question went (a bit
snipped) like this:

L. Sicinius Drusus wrote:
> That is not to say that Roman society didn't
> place preasure on those who ran thier affairs
> outside the norms of Roman culture. They would
> be laughed at, made the butt of Jokes, find
> themselves cut off from social events, derided
> in public, but NEVER hauled before a court for
> failing to live up to the mos maiorum.
> Social preasure, Not the force of law is the
> Roman way of handling this situation, and by
> the way is also the way of handling incorrect
> Roman names, which is why I opposed the Gender
> Edicta.

If this way of conducting things is unacceptable in our forums, then
perhaps you would care to explain to Drusus why this is so, so perhaps
he will change his attitude regarding any future gens reform?

Vale, Titus Octavius Pius.

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Would have, Could Have, High Tech Rome
From:	"Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly)" <mjk@datanet.ab.ca>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 16:54:18 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Marcus Ambrosius Belisarius"
<mballetta@h...> wrote:
> Salve Quintus,
> Thanks for the amazing information but I feel bad you went to the
> trouble.
> The question I had posted was in regards to a statement by (I
think)
> Lucius (I don't remember who said it originally now). It wasn't on
> technology but I thank you again for the great reply.
>
>
Salvete Marce et Sardonice,

Ah, ok I must have been a little confused as to the particular
question an star wars in a posting threw me off. No matter, I am
talking to the walls today and there are many bright people on our
drilling project but hockey, baseball, the latest horseless chariots
and carriages are their interests; not Rome or Rome of antiquity.
These postings are certainly a pleasure to do and no trouble at all.

I would also have to agree that technolgy does take some leeps and
bounds during wars. That is an additional good point.

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Modernist and Traditonalist Factions (was Re: Would have, Could Have)
From:	"Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@msn.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:00:27 -0400

Salve Christy Nemo

Here is a solution to your problem the 11 members of the gens Galeria are in the process of getting together for dinner some place in the lower 48 states. Most of us are on the east coast but it looks like our dinner (all day together) be in Little Rock or Hot Springs AR. Why not join us for dinner get to know the gens Galeria and then think about becoming our newest family member.

gens_galeria@yahoogroups.com


Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

----- Original Message -----
From: christyacb
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 8:14 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Modernist and Traditonalist Factions (was Re: Would have, Could Have)


Salvete,

Back in the archives, and I do apologize for not
recalling the exact period for reference, this came
up more than once. As is hinted in this thread, on
one such occasion, LCSF resigned temporarily when
several of his gens members wanted to start out on
their own with a gens of their own. But that wasn't
the only time the organization of the gentes was an
issue.

By being required to join a gens before even aquiring
actual citizenship, NR effectively forces prospective
civis to sign up for a lifetime relationship with
people they don't really know. After reading the first
year of the archives I was ready to join and had even
made sure my paypal account was active so that I could
get going. But then I found the first of the gens
arguments and decided to delay. It is now 4 months later
and I'm still not in. Why? Because I have no wish to be
tied to people I don't really know and perhaps suffer
tirades and cause bad feelings if I 'jump' gens when
I do get to know some of you better.

Getting into NR is sort of like being on that
"Married by America" gameshow. You're hitched and you've
never met the fellow. Well, I hope you get what I mean.
No, people don't get to choose their macro families and
we are often stuck with folks we wouldn't have chosen in
the gene pool, but at least we have the consolation of
long association to become immune (or nearly so) to them.

Gens reform is a touchy subject and will probably
continue to be so. Getting rid of inactive gentes will
be a start, but even that is going to have a few up in arms
when it finally goes down. The idea of a probationary
period has merit..and flaws. Jumping gens isn't great
either, but to date we have very little to offer in it's
stead.

Why not combine all those ideas into something that
allows some flexibility while preserving the idea of
Roman bond making? Romans were ever fond of marrying off
this one or that to cememt a relationship, however
unsuccessfully, so the idea may not be too offensive to
those wishing to preserve the identity of RA within NR,
yet flexible enough to permit people who never really
see each other to find those compatible to them in a
natural way.

New civis join and are, unless they know their gens
of choice already, given the nomen Nemo and inserted into
that gens. While in that gens they are able to vote and do
all those things which come with citizenship with the
exception of serving in office, elected or appointed, or
to hold any religious position. In this gens, they are
students in reality and as such, are easily identified
by their nomen.

At any point, they may apply to join a gens. However, once
joined, they and their pater or mater, must make the joining
either in cement or elmer's glue, much like roman marriages
being either confarreatio, coemptio, usus and the like. Some
excellent citizen with better latin than I can coin the right
terms. This permits those who have looser gens connections to
state it right out in front with no loss of dignitas to any
party should the relationship be dissolved.

Perhaps I will be labeled a modernist, but I do think that
we must allow for progress in some ways. While I don't think
that means a loss of the spirit of Rome, I do think it means
to be practical. And if the Romans were anything, they were
practical. I certainly can't see the Romans of yore choosing
to broil during a summer Senate session if there was air
conditioning to be had simply because it wasn't available when
Rome was a little village. This is obviously different than
AC but the essence is the same. We are NR...not a recreationist
club.

Whew..what a way to start. I have put up the turtle of shields.
Let loose! :)

Valete, Christy Nemo

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Sicinius Drusus"
<lsicinius@y...> wrote:
>
> --- Laureatus Armoricus
> <laureatusarmoricus@t...> wrote:
> > Salve Druse,
> >
> > Dixit Drusus :"Prior to the 1917 revoulation the
> > Russian government
> > persued a policy of Russianification, of attempting
> > to
> > force non Russians living in the Empire to become
> > Russians. It was a dismal failure, caused the other
> > nationalities to hate the Russian government, and
> > helped spur imigration. You can't force someone to
> > become a Russian.
> >
> > By the same token you can't force someone to become
> > a
> > Roman. Attempts to do so will only result in
> > resentment and in citizens leaving the Nova Roma."
> >
> > Respondeo : No you can't ! But you can't either
> > force them to remain all
> > their life locked in the same gens if they don't
> > want to (that was the
> > spirit of the proposal, nonne?).
>
> LSD: So they should be able to "roll" the dice" and
> create a new Character when they tire of playing the
> old one? Gee I'll be a fighter today and an arch mage
> tommorrow. Currently if you are unhappy with your Gens
> you can seek adoption into another, a route many have
> taken. Being "locked" into a Gens is a strawman.
> Cornelia was held up as the bad example of "locking"
> people in, yet many more citizens have asked Lucius
> Cornelius if he would adopt them, than have left his
> Gens seeking to be adopted into another Gens.
>
> > And for that matter, if we follow your theory, we
> > cannot impose an archaic
> > voting system however interesting and historical if
> > the bunch of people it
> > is applied to doesn't share a common culture. Once
> > again integration and
> > learning is the key before we can move further in
> > that field.
> >
> LSD: But we can impose a Novel and untested voting
> system that has nothing to do with Roma on them? We DO
> share a common culture, that of Roma. That culture and
> it's religion is the reason Nova Roma was founded, not
> as a testbed for the flavor of the month on the social
> planners agenda.
>
> If you think Roma's Culture is so archaic, then why
> are you here? Wouldn't you be more at home in a new
> Micronation who's goal is to implement the ideas of
> modern Social planning instead of one who's clearly
> stated goal is the revival of an "archaic" culture?
>
>
> =====
> 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] Modernist and Traditonalist Factions (was Re: Would
From:	Bill Gawne <gawne@cesmail.net>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:11:25 -0400

Salve Lucius Cornelius Sardonicus,

> In the interests of regaining civility on this list, and regarding your
> wish to be remembered as a fine old Nova Roman family, I must politely
> ask you to stop the Cornelii bashing. I find your comment insulting.

Please accept my most sincere apology. My reference to the Borg was
intended entirely in a gently joshing manner, and not *NOT* as any
kind of a bash. I regret that you, or anyone else, saw it as such.

> You do yourself, your Gens, and Nova Roma a disservice when you
> resort to off-hand comments such as this.

While I agree with the spirit of your statement, I do think there's
a place here for humorous comments among friends. I would hope that
you'd see me as such. Although I've had occassion to differ with
Lucius Cornelius Sulla at times, I've always tried to do so in a
spirit of politeness and collegiality. I am on very good terms with
other members of gens Cornelia, and I regret that you interpreted
my little jibe as anything other than a friendly quip.

Sincerely,

-- Marinus

Subject:	RE: [Nova-Roma] Modernist and Traditonalist Factions (was Re: Would have, Could Have)
From:	"Laureatus Armoricus" <laureatusarmoricus@tiscali.co.uk>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:20:15 +0100

Salvete Druse et omnes,

Dixit Drusus :
"If you think Roma's Culture is so archaic, then why
are you here? Wouldn't you be more at home in a new
Micronation who's goal is to implement the ideas of
modern Social planning instead of one who's clearly
stated goal is the revival of an "archaic" culture?"

Respondeo : I am glad, Drusus, that your talent in rhetorics and circling
argumentation has finally proven that I was a carthaginian worshipper ;-)

Seriously, my point was that before we start to establish a political system
based on the ancient Republic, the least we can do is to spread as far as we
can the roman culture. The current voting system, which was the starting
point of this discussion, may not be perfect but adequate until all citizens
of Nova Roma reach the level of knowledge to fully appreciate the beauty and
efficiency of the ancient Roman State. I for one, an eager student and
deeply interested in roman history (yes, I promise!), realise that I am far
behind the likes of Iulius Scaurus and cannot therefore hope to compete on
scholarly matters.Only until we all reach that ideal level of knowledge can
our already existing mutual culture be taken a step further in recreating
the deeds of our stepfathers.

But, I would like to publicly commend your passion on the matter and thank
you for you very interesting contributions on this list. In fact, the
"modernist" that I am is ready to offer you a compromise as an olive branch
: I will support any motion you put forward as to re-enact every aspect of
ancient Rome to the letter when all posts on this list are written AND
understood in latin. fair is fair...

Corn. Moravius Laureatus Armoricus
"To a man with a hammer, every issue looks like a nail"

Subject:	RE: [Nova-Roma] Modernist and Traditonalist Factions (was Re: Would have, Could Have)
From:	"Laureatus Armoricus" <laureatusarmoricus@tiscali.co.uk>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:20:18 +0100

Salvete,

Dixit Postumius Tubertus :
"I second this point, with no additions to it. You make a wonderful point,
Corneli Moravi, and one which I hope Senator Drusus takes under very serious
consideration."

Thank you for your support amice. Glad to see that others share my
views...;-)

Corn. Moravius Laureatus Armoricus
"To a man with a hammer, every issue looks like a nail"

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Modernist and Traditonalist Factions (was Re: Would have, Could Have)
From:	"Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly)" <mjk@datanet.ab.ca>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:14:17 -0000

>
> In the interests of regaining civility on this list, and regarding
your wish to be remembered as a fine old Nova Roman family, I must
politely ask you to stop the Cornelii bashing. I find your comment
insulting. You do yourself, your Gens, and Nova Roma a disservice
when you resort to off-hand comments such as this.
>
> Vale,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sardonicus
>
>
>
>Salve Luci Corneli Sardonice,

I'll be brief because politics discussed were before my time.
Nevertheless I see that gens Cornelius is the biggest 100+ citizens.
Say what you like but your family must be doing something right to
have attraced 1/4 of our "active" population. What's the recepie?

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Hibernia: A statement from Britannia
From:	Bill Gawne <gawne@cesmail.net>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:26:45 -0400

Salve Titus Maxentius Verus,

Thank you for the detailed history of "the troubles." It's quite
illustrative.

> Indeed, I am quite familiar with the history of the American Civil
> War and that reconcialition was not an easy matter. For the most
> part, after the passage of nearly one and a half centuries, that
> reconciliation has been achieved.

For the most part, yes. Though not entirely.

> The situation between Britannia and Hibernia, though, is not quite
> the same to that of America.

I know. One of the drawbacks of the way that we interact here in NR
is that we don't normally discuss our own macronational backgrounds.
While my surname is a common Manx name, I'm as Irish as Paddy's pig
on my mother's side. I grew up steeped in the stories you so
succinctly related.

Caed mille falthe,

-- Marinus

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Simulations, Mock Elections &c.
From:	Bill Gawne <gawne@cesmail.net>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:39:13 -0400

"L. Sicinius Drusus" wrote:

> Since your faction refuses to summon the Centuries for
> a test run [...]

Ah, Druse? Did you miss the place where I told you I'd
be willing to talk to the Senior Consul about doing just
exactly that if you would be willing to handle the logistics
of setting up whatever the heck it was you wanted done?

I know you saw the e-mail because you did reply to another
paragraph in it. I figured your lack of response to my
offer meant you didn't want to fool with it - which is
fine if you don't. But please don't go saying that we're
refusing to summon the Centuries. (We, in this case,
being the Marinus-Quintilianus "faction" since I for damn
sure don't presume to speak for anybody else, and I'm only
speaking for the Senior Consul in matters he has explicitly
told me I may.)

I will say in all candor that I have some doubts about
the utility of the sort of Mock Election you've proposed.
I don't think it's the best test of a system. But in as
much as it would serve to familiarize people with the
appearance of a new ballot it might be worth doing.

But so far all I'm seeing from you is flaming rhetoric
and accusations. When I offered to work with you to
actually DO something, you blew me off. Now you're
accusing Cordus of some sort of complicity with the
Senior Consul to prevent the very thing I offered to
do with you.

-- Marinus

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Would have, Could Have, High Tech Rome
From:	"Gaius Galerius Peregrinator" <gaiusgalerius@hotmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:00:12 +0000

Salve Lanii Pauline:

Very interesting post. I too remember Carl Sagan speculating and I
remember him say that the industrial revolution almost happened under the
reign of Tiberius, and he spoke at length about the library of Alexandria
where there was a book by a Greek scientist about the steam engine, but the
one book in that library he spoke of that stayed with me for years and I
always tried to find references to it whenever I could and never found any,
is the histories of Berossus. For those not familiar with the name,
Berossus was a Babylonia priest who wrote a history book in which he divided
the history of mankind into 3 phases: The first from the creation to the
flood, and the second starting from the flood, and then the third, and he
calculated the second phase to have spanned 400,000 years. Fascinating.

Vale

Gaius Galerius Peregrinator

----Original Message Follows----
From: "Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly)" <mjk@datanet.ab.ca>
Reply-To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Would have, Could Have, High Tech Rome
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:33:44 -0000

Salve Marce,

Roman technology could have or would have?

That is difficult to say. I heard Carl Sagan talk about the dark ages
20 years ago and he mentioned that if Greek and Roman logic and
scientific thought had been left undisturbed and allowed to flourish
we may well have been in our present day technology 300 years ago and
travelling the stars by now. An interesting point but I doubt it.

1) First, with ...

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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Would have, Could Have, High Tech Rome
From:	"Marcus Ambrosius Belisarius" <mballetta@hotmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:03:02 -0000

Necessety is the mother of invention.
If it can be conceived, it is only a matter of time before it becomes
a reality.
Take DaVinci for example. If he only had an engine or electricity,
it would be amazing to think of the things he could have invented.
SNIP>
> Ah, ok I must have been a little confused as to the particular
> question an star wars in a posting threw me off. No matter, I am
> talking to the walls today and there are many bright people on our
> drilling project but hockey, baseball, the latest horseless
chariots
> and carriages are their interests; not Rome or Rome of antiquity.
> These postings are certainly a pleasure to do and no trouble at all.
>
> I would also have to agree that technolgy does take some leeps and
> bounds during wars. That is an additional good point.
>
> Regards,
>
> Quintus Lanius Paulinus

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Modernist and Traditonalist Factions (was Re: Would have, Could Have)
From:	"Marcus Ambrosius Belisarius" <mballetta@hotmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:27:06 -0000

I had not realized that the topic to shich I responded had changed.
The following would be better placed here.

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 decision if there is one?

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

Salve





--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Laureatus Armoricus"
<laureatusarmoricus@t...> wrote:
> Salvete Druse et omnes,
>
> Dixit Drusus :
> "If you think Roma's Culture is so archaic, then why
> are you here? Wouldn't you be more at home in a new
> Micronation who's goal is to implement the ideas of
> modern Social planning instead of one who's clearly
> stated goal is the revival of an "archaic" culture?"
>
> Respondeo : I am glad, Drusus, that your talent in rhetorics and
circling
> argumentation has finally proven that I was a carthaginian
worshipper ;-)
>
> Seriously, my point was that before we start to establish a
political system
> based on the ancient Republic, the least we can do is to spread as
far as we
> can the roman culture. The current voting system, which was the
starting
> point of this discussion, may not be perfect but adequate until all
citizens
> of Nova Roma reach the level of knowledge to fully appreciate the
beauty and
> efficiency of the ancient Roman State. I for one, an eager student
and
> deeply interested in roman history (yes, I promise!), realise that
I am far
> behind the likes of Iulius Scaurus and cannot therefore hope to
compete on
> scholarly matters.Only until we all reach that ideal level of
knowledge can
> our already existing mutual culture be taken a step further in
recreating
> the deeds of our stepfathers.
>
> But, I would like to publicly commend your passion on the matter
and thank
> you for you very interesting contributions on this list. In fact,
the
> "modernist" that I am is ready to offer you a compromise as an
olive branch
> : I will support any motion you put forward as to re-enact every
aspect of
> ancient Rome to the letter when all posts on this list are written
AND
> understood in latin. fair is fair...
>
> Corn. Moravius Laureatus Armoricus
> "To a man with a hammer, every issue looks like a nail"

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Modernist and Traditonalist Factions (was Re: Would have, Could Have)
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sardonicus <l_c_sardonicus@yahoo.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:06:03 -0700 (PDT)

Salve Marinus,

As you intended no harm, no harm was done. I stopped paying attention to the main list last year when I began to feel that I had a large ballistae target painted on my arse by virtue of belonging to a controversial gens. I don't care to repeat that. I will, most likely, refrain from going off in a huff again, though :)

Vale,
LCS

















---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Modernist and Traditonalist Factions (was Re: Would have, Could Have)
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sardonicus <l_c_sardonicus@yahoo.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:06:22 -0700 (PDT)

Salve Marinus,

As you intended no harm, no harm was done. I stopped paying attention to the main list last year when I began to feel that I had a large ballistae target painted on my arse by virtue of belonging to a controversial gens. I don't care to repeat that. I will, most likely, refrain from going off in a huff again, though :)

Vale,
LCS


















---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Modernist and Traditonalist Factions (was Re: Would have, Could Have)
From:	"Sp. Postumius Tubertus" <postumius@gmx.net>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:11:54 -0000

Senator Druse,

> Perhaps you would be more at home in a group dedicated
> to promoting modernist social ideas rather than one
> concerned with Roman Culture.

Perhaps you would be more at home somewhere where you made _all_ the
rules. What I understood Cornelius Moravius to be saying by
mentioning that we are not all of the same culture is that
macronationally, we are quite scattered. Spiritually, I would agree
with you that we are all of the same culture. I see that you were
unable to consider that I may have taken his words differently than
you, or that you frankly had no care for how I understood them. You
took them merely as they meant on a first reading, rather than
asking, since you seem to have felt it to come down badly, what was
meant by my comment on Cornelius Moravius'.

Again, as some others, I think you are now starting to paint with
your true colors. Please, paint more, that we all might see exactly
what you are, or are not.

Spurius Postumius Tubertus

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] On the Iulian System
From:	"=?iso-8859-1?q?A.=20Apollonius=20Cordus?=" <cordus@strategikon.org>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:24:56 +0100 (BST)

A. Apollonius Cordus to all citizens and peregrines,
greetings.

I'm going to try to put all my comments on the Iulian
system and its merits or demerits relative to the
Fabian system in a single message, for clarity. If
this means I do not respond personally to some
messages on the issue, I hope my interlocutors will
not take it as impolite.

First of all, let us look at efficiency. One of the
major faults of the current voting system is, as we
all know, that it often necessitates run-off
elections. The Consul's initial purpose in devising
his system, and the goal to which he asked us, his
staff, to aim for was the reduction or, if possible,
elimination of the need for run-offs, without reducing
the fairness, accuracy or historicity of elections.
The Fabian system achieves this, in that is almost
entirely eliminates run-off elections, improves upon
the fairness of the current system, and is more
historical than the current system.

On the important test of efficiency, I'm afraid the
Iulian system fails. It does not reduce the likelihood
of run-off elections, and indeed it seems from the
examples I've tried that it increases it. I published
one such example in a previous message. It seems to me
highly irresponsible for anyone to clamour for this
system to be instituted without attempting to address
this point. (I do not refer to Iulius Scaurus himself,
of course, who has consistently made clear that he
does not advocate the immediate codification of the
system he suggested and does not claim that it is
necessarily foolproof.)

The Iulian system is also somewhat impractical. I do
not wish to stress this point too much, because
practicality should not necessarily overcome fairness
or historicity. The length of voting-periods, for
instance, is hardly a crucial issue. Consul
Fortunatus' point about dies nefastus &c. is well
made, and he is also correct in saying that elections
could be arranged to avoid the problem. This would be
extra work for someone every election-time, and might
make elections drag on. It would also, I think,
require a constitutional amendment to allow elections
to be held outside December, which would be a hassle,
but again perhaps not critical.

The Iulian system is unconstitutional, and not just in
the timing it might require. Regardless of whether a
given citizen's vote can possibly make a difference to
the outcome of an election, the constitution is very
clear that every citizen has a guaranteed right to
cast a vote. Nor do I think this could be circumvented
by saying to anyone in a century which would not
otherwise get to vote, 'well, your vote is completely
useless at this stage, but you can cast it if you
like' - anything more than a highly literal reading of
the constitution would surely demand that each citizen
have the right to cast not just a vote, but a vote
that has some chance of affecting the outcome of the
election.

It has been argued that the Iulian system is more
likely than the Fabian to enable Nova Roma to get a
grant. This sounds to me rather like an
ends-justify-means argument, and I must say a rather
mercenary one. Nova Roma is a community and society
primarily, and a tool designed to achieve a goal only
secondarily. Yes, we should seek to attain our goal in
the future, but not at the expense of our present
community. I have heard Senator Fabius Maximus say in
the past that a major obstacle to receiving grants is
the equal status accorded to women in Nova Roma. It
would, however, be so harmful to our community to
change this that we would all, I hope, consider it a
point of principle on which we are prepared to forfeit
a grant. To me, having a fair electoral system, within
the bounds of the tradition of giving more weight to
the votes of more active citizens, is a similar point
of principle, and one from which we ought not to be
diverted by financial considerations.

It should also be noted, as others have pointed out
and as its originator has never attempted to disguise,
that the Iulian system is not completely historical.
Not only does it not provide for voting to take place
in a single location in the course of a single day, it
also, like any attempt to determine how Roman voting
really worked, makes some guesses or judgements on
points for which we have no evidence. For instance, it
only permits voters to vote for as many candidates as
there are vacancies or fewer. There is no solid
evidence that I know of to suggest that this was
historically the case. It also allows each century to
choose its two preferred candidates; there is, again,
no reason to think that this was the case
historically. Finally, as Iulius Scaurus has himself
pointed out, there are no occasions on which the Roman
Centuriate Assembly is known to have failed to return
the requisite number of candidates. It is impossible
to say how it achieved this, but the fact that the
Iulian system does not achieve it may tell against its
historicity.

It is, of course, perfectly true that enough evidence
survives to enable us to say that certain aspects of
the Fabian system are almost certainly not
historically accurate. Nonetheless, it is more
historical than the current system, and it contains
all the important advantages of the historical system
as far as it can be known, with none of the drawbacks
the Iulian system seems to involve. This is not a
case, as some have tried to assert, in which we can
choose between what we know the Romans did and what we
know they did not do. It is a case in which we cannot,
as far as anyone can see, do what they did, because we
do not know what they did and cannot reconstruct
anything which fully fits the bill. We must therefore
attempt to determine what the principal advantages of
the historical system were (for we in Nova Roma are
interested in preserving the best of Rome, not
whatever we can get indiscriminately) and attempt to
incorporate them into our own system, which will
perforce be new and unhistorical.

I finally turn to the crucial argument: the Iulian
system is unfair. Now, to those who say that 'fair' is
a word for whingers and saps, I say that 'fair' is
what electoral systems are about, or there is no point
in having them at all. To those who say that 'fair' is
a loaded term and should not be used in technical
discussions, I say that it is a technical term
indicating the achievement of an accurate reflection
of the will of the centuries, and that is precisely
what I mean by it.

But I do not seek, like some critics of the Fabian
system, to make an assertion without backing it up
with data. So here is an example.

Let us imagine that in each of the 89 centuries only
five citizens cast votes, and that we are trying to
elect two Consuls from a selection of four candidates.
Thus, each century's preferences can only come in
twenty-four possible combinations: ABCD, ABDC, ACBD,
ACDB, ADBC, ADCB, BACD, BADC, BCAD, BCDA, BDAC, BDCA,
CABD, CADB, CBAD, CBDA, CDAB, CDBA, DABC, DACB, DBAC.
DBCA, DCAB, DCBA. We can therefore tabulate the
centuries in the following way:

Order of Number of Order of Number of
Preference Centuries Preference Centuries

ABCD 6 CABD 3
ABDC 8 CADB 4
ACBD 2 CBAD 2
ACDB 5 CBDA 3
ADBC 6 CDAB 0
ADCB 4 CDBA 0
BACD 4 DABC 5
BADC 4 DACB 5
BCAD 2 DBAC 6
BCDA 1 DBCA 6
BDAC 5 DCAB 3
BDCA 4 DCBA 1

To see how well the candidates are doing, we can look
at how many first-choice, first-or-second choice &c.
votes each candidate has:

| 1st | 1st or 2nd | 1st, 2nd or 3rd |
-----|-----|------------|-----------------|
A | 31 | 56 | 74 |
B | 20 | 51 | 68 |
C | 12 | 26 | 55 |
D | 26 | 49 | 74 |

A looks like the leader in the first two columns, but
is ultimately no more popular than D. To judge from
the second column, one would think that B was more
popular than D; but when one takes into account the
centuries' third preferences as well, D is actually
significantly more popular than B. And C... well, not
many centuries like C.

So the result we should get from a fair and accurate
system is for A and D to be elected.

Now, let's break this down by voting-classes. Each
'No. of Centuries' column is now divided into classes
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Order | No. of Centuries | Order | No. of Centuries
------|-------------------|-------|-------------------
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
------|---|---|---|---|---|-------|---|---|---|---|---
ABCD | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | CABD | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0
ABDC | 4 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | CADB | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0
ACBD | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | CBAD | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1
ACDB | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | CBDA | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0
ADBC | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | CDAB | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0
ADCB | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | CDBA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0
BACD | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | DABC | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1
BADC | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | DACB | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1
BCAD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | DBAC | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1
BCDA | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | DBCA | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0
BDAC | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | DCAB | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0
BDCA | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | DCBA | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0

Under the Iulian system, each century would choose its
two favourite candidates, rather than listing all
four, so, for example, the 7 ABCD centuries and the 8
ABDC centuries would come out identically, making 15
AB centuries.

The first class would vote first, and the results
would be:
A: 20
B: 19
C: 7
D: 10

Note of A's 20 votes, more than half were
first-preference votes, whereas of B's 19, less than a
third were first-preference votes. Of A and B,
therefore, A is plainly the more popular; but in the
Iulian system, which doesn't take into account the
difference between first and second preferences, they
are almost equal.

No candidate has a majority yet, so we move on to the
next class. Assuming no one changes his or her vote at
this stage (I'll come back to this later), the results
are:
A: 16
B: 9
C: 7
D: 10

When the results are added to those from the first
class, we have:
A: 36
B: 28
C: 14
D: 20

No one yet has a majority, so the third class votes,
again assuming no vote-changing:
A: 9
B: 12
C: 6
D: 9
... which totals to:
A: 45
B: 40
C: 20
D: 29

A now has a majority, and is elected. The fourth class
votes. We'll assume any century formerly supporting A
now reverts to its next choice:
B: 9
C: 7
D: 11
... which makes:
B: 49
C: 27
D: 40

So B is now elected. Note that after A was elected,
and therefore after the third preferences of those
fourth-class centuries that would have voted for A are
taken into account, D is actually the favourite in the
fourth class. This is, as we saw above, actually true
across the board, because D is as popular as A.
However, because the Iulian system does not take
account of third preferences until one candidate has
been elected, D's jump in the polls is too late. If
third preferences had been taken into account, D,
being more popular than B over all, would have been
elected.

In addition, it is quite possible that after the first
class voted many of C's and D's supporters would have
lost their nerve and voted for either A or B, meaning
that D would not even have got as many votes as he
did.

Let's see how the Fabian system handles the same
scenario. You've all seen the tabulated results of
elections under the Fabian system, so I shan't go
through this is long-hand. It comes out like this:

1st Round 2nd Round 3rd Round 4th
Round

A 31 38 50 -
(elected)
B 20 25 - -
(eliminated)
C 12 - - -
(eliminated)
D 26 26 39 89

(elected)

So A and D were elected, as they should have been.

I shan't produce further examples of the inaccuracy of
the Iulian system, for I'm sure most of my readers are
bored enough already, and they take a few hours a go,
but if anyone desperately wants more, they may contact
me.

I summary, I really think it must be back to the
drawing-board with the Iulian system. There is nothing
wrong with seeking greater historical accuracy, but I
for one cannot accept so great a sacrifice of fairness
in exchange. I urge any citizens who feel that the
Fabian system is insufficiently historical for their
tastes not to spend their time simply arguing in
favour of the Iulian system, but either to produce a
third option or to suggest how the Fabian system could
be made more to their tastes.

This is not, and should not be made, an exercise in
oratory or a battle between one side and another.
Those who wish to engage in those activites would
perhaps be better off in the gens reform debate, which
in the absence of any concrete proposal is exactly
that. The purpose of this exercise is to consider what
is the best electoral system for Nova Roma. It is not
the Iulian system, nor any other system that has been
proposed to date except perhaps the Fabian; but
perhaps the Fabian system too could be improved, and
this is what the Consul is trying to discover by
asking for your suggestions.

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] Re: Would have, Could Have, High Tech Rome
From:	"christyacb" <bryanta003@hawaii.rr.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:36:07 -0000

Salvete,

Oh, now this is a great topic! While we can only
do thought experiments on it, there are some interesting
tidbits that give hints. I too, remember Sagan mentioning
that book and I never found anything else about it either.
Unfortunately, we can't ask him what his sources were now.
Technologically there are a few things the Romans did
that were suprerior to our methods and only recently
rediscovered and put into use. If I'm not incorrect,
it was through the examination of Roman homes in Great
Britain in the fairly recent past (my lifetime) that gave
us under floor heating. The ducts running through the floors
of old Roman homes were filled with heated water that
circulated through gravity fed boilers, making for the most
effecient heating in that climate. Since heat rises and
stone or tile holds heat longer than air, it used far less
energy. Nowadays, you can have such a system installed in
a new home using water heater waste heat and something
very similar to garden hose. It's considered very green.
A simple example, but one that the west had lost
completely until recently. Other examples of ingenuity are
the aquaducts, the roads (something really unheard of then),
survey teams, under road sewage and waste water piping, the
hypocaust (from Greece), cliff-side dwellings (using pillars
at lower levels to leverage homes over embankments), cross
pollination and selective breeding in animals. Well, the
list goes on.
Slave based economies are terribly prone to eschew new
technology, but it does get invented.
It is interesting to speculate what might have happened
should the Dark Ages not have occurred and if those advances
in scientific thought not been so totally suppressed during
a further 600 years by the Catholic Church? Gallileo for
example. Genius is a rarity in terms of population density,
but it isn't just geniuses who invent or discover. It was
a mother with a baby that invented what became Pampers.
Personally, I think they would have cotton togas in summer
and the women would be running rampant in manufactured
cloth for their pallae and they'd be watching senate meetings
via NetMeeting.
What does anyone else think?

Valete, Christy Nemo


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Galerius Peregrinator"
<gaiusgalerius@h...> wrote:
>
> Salve Lanii Pauline:
>
> Very interesting post. I too remember Carl Sagan speculating
and I
> remember him say that the industrial revolution almost happened
under the
> reign of Tiberius, and he spoke at length about the library of
Alexandria
> where there was a book by a Greek scientist about the steam engine,
but the
> one book in that library he spoke of that stayed with me for years
and I
> always tried to find references to it whenever I could and never
found any,
> is the histories of Berossus. For those not familiar with the
name,
> Berossus was a Babylonia priest who wrote a history book in which
he divided
> the history of mankind into 3 phases: The first from the creation
to the
> flood, and the second starting from the flood, and then the third,
and he
> calculated the second phase to have spanned 400,000 years.
Fascinating.
>
> Vale
>
> Gaius Galerius Peregrinator
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: "Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly)" <mjk@d...>
> Reply-To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Would have, Could Have, High Tech Rome
> Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:33:44 -0000
>
> Salve Marce,
>
> Roman technology could have or would have?
>
> That is difficult to say. I heard Carl Sagan talk about the dark
ages
> 20 years ago and he mentioned that if Greek and Roman logic and
> scientific thought had been left undisturbed and allowed to flourish
> we may well have been in our present day technology 300 years ago
and
> travelling the stars by now. An interesting point but I doubt it.
>
> 1) First, with ...
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Would have, Could Have, High Tech Rome
From:	"Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly)" <mjk@datanet.ab.ca>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:00:13 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "christyacb" <bryanta003@h...>
wrote:
> Salvete,
>
>> It is interesting to speculate what might have happened
> should the Dark Ages not have occurred and if those advances
> in scientific thought not been so totally suppressed during
> a further 600 years by the Catholic Church? Gallileo for
> example. Genius is a rarity in terms of population density,
> but it isn't just geniuses who invent or discover. It was
> a mother with a baby that invented what became Pampers.
> Personally, I think they would have cotton togas in summer
> and the women would be running rampant in manufactured
> cloth for their pallae and they'd be watching senate meetings
> via NetMeeting.
> What does anyone else think?
>
> Valete, Christy Nemo



Salvete omnes,

Great comments Christy. This is not the most comfortable topic to
discuss but growing up with 4 sisters, I have a few ideas on women's
problems. Please don't be offended with this question but:

I understand that the ancient Greeks and Romans didn't use underwear
as we know it over the last few hundred years. There is a mosaic
showing female athletes in a type of bikini, similar leather trunks
found in Britain. Its thought that Roman women may have worn some
sort of loin cloth. Anyway I always wondered if women could not get
around or have to hide at home during their monthly cycles so as to
avoid public embarassment? Has anyone any ideas on this?

Regards,

Quintus

>
>



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:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Modernist and Traditonalist Factions
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:25:51 -0700 (PDT)

What, pray tell are the Corneli currently doing that
you find outside the norms of Roman society? Thier
Pater is on a respite from this list, they have
largely withdrawn from it, yet you still find fault.

Is it thier continued presance in Nova roma that
disrubs you? A personal dislike for thier Pater?

--- Kristoffer From <from@darkeye.net> wrote:
> Lucius Cornelius Sardonicus wrote:
> > In the interests of regaining civility on
> > this list, and regarding your wish to be
> > remembered as a fine old Nova Roman family,
> > I must politely ask you to stop the
>
> > Cornelii bashing. I find your comment
> > insulting. You do yourself, your Gens, and
> > Nova Roma a disservice when you resort to
> > off-hand comments such as this.
>
> Salve, Luci Corneli Sardonice.
>
> I do believe he was asked by Lucius Sicinius Drusus
> to laugh at the
> Cornelia, make them the butt of jokes, cut them off
> from social events
> and deride them in public. The paragraphs in
> question went (a bit
> snipped) like this:
>
> L. Sicinius Drusus wrote:
> > That is not to say that Roman society didn't
> > place preasure on those who ran thier affairs
> > outside the norms of Roman culture. They would
> > be laughed at, made the butt of Jokes, find
> > themselves cut off from social events, derided
> > in public, but NEVER hauled before a court for
> > failing to live up to the mos maiorum.
> > Social preasure, Not the force of law is the
> > Roman way of handling this situation, and by
> > the way is also the way of handling incorrect
> > Roman names, which is why I opposed the Gender
> > Edicta.
>
> If this way of conducting things is unacceptable in
> our forums, then
> perhaps you would care to explain to Drusus why this
> is so, so perhaps
> he will change his attitude regarding any future
> gens reform?
>
> Vale, Titus Octavius Pius.
>


=====
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] Modernist and Traditonalist Factions (was Re: Would have, Could Have)
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:47:08 -0700 (PDT)

--- "Sp. Postumius Tubertus" <postumius@gmx.net>
wrote:
> Senator Druse,
>
> > Perhaps you would be more at home in a group
> dedicated
> > to promoting modernist social ideas rather than
> one
> > concerned with Roman Culture.
>
> Perhaps you would be more at home somewhere where
> you made _all_ the
> rules.

That was quite amusing.
You are speaking to a person who fought the Gender
name lex so citizens could even have a choice, even a
bad choice in the manner of thier names, who spent
over a year working on compramises that opened this
list up to postings in all languages rather than
English only, Who has fought for Gens having a choice
to retain thier present structure if and when Gens
Reform arrives.

The Translaters were my idea, and the Lex that created
them was largely my work, again opening options for
citizens.

I have urged that we try mock elections to see if your
election plan would work better than Giaus Julius
suggestion, while you and your faction have opted for
the path of Procrustes. Just as Procrustes had his
ideal bed that he adjusted people to fit, you and
yours have your "ideal" election system that you are
determined to foist on Nova Roma, adjusting the nation
to fit your aims rather than setting your aims to meet
the goals and needs of the nation.

Do not try to lecture me on imposing your will on
others, that is the vice of your faction, not mine.


=====
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: Modernist and Traditonalist Factions
From:	Kristoffer From <from@darkeye.net>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:47:27 +0200

"L. Sicinius Drusus" wrote:
> What, pray tell are the Corneli currently doing that
> you find outside the norms of Roman society? Thier
> Pater is on a respite from this list, they have
> largely withdrawn from it, yet you still find fault.

Salve, Luci Sicini Druse.

First, I did not take advantage of your preferred methods of dealing
with "doings outside the norm", I merely commented on their usage.

Secondly, I do believe that in the post I was referring to, you yourself
cited those methods as preferrable to a gens reform, which you claimed
to be an attack on gens Cornelia. Logically, that would mean that you
prefer what I would label "unconstructive critiscism", if I was in a
good mood, to any alternative means to address what others may see as a
problem. I disagree with you in this preference, though.

Thirdly, please abstain from making assumptions regarding mine or anyone
else's thoughts and feelings.

Vale, Titus Octavius Pius.

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Modernist and Traditonalist Factions (was Re: Would have, Could
From:	Kristoffer From <from@darkeye.net>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:49:57 +0200

"L. Sicinius Drusus" wrote:
> Do not try to lecture me on imposing your will on
> others, that is the vice of your faction, not mine.

Salve, Luci Sicini Druse.

Did we not already address the "faction"-issue in this forum?

Vale, Titus Octavius Pius.

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Modernist and Traditonalist Factions (was Re: Would have, Could Have)
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:06:03 -0700 (PDT)

--- Kristoffer From <from@darkeye.net> wrote:
> "L. Sicinius Drusus" wrote:
> > Do not try to lecture me on imposing your will on
> > others, that is the vice of your faction, not
> mine.
>
> Salve, Luci Sicini Druse.
>
> Did we not already address the "faction"-issue in
> this forum?
>
> Vale, Titus Octavius Pius.
>

Yes, as in many cases your faction sought to evade
reality via the concept that if you refuse to apply a
label to a thing then it dosen't exist.


=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Neverending circles
From:	"M. Octavius Solaris" <scorpioinvictus@hotmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:09:37 +0200

Salvete Romani,

I believe this "debate" has come to a point where most of the people have actually stopped reading the various postings. I confess that I've also used the delete button numerous times during this conflict. However I've tried to read most opinions and so far, I've been able to distill the following.

On the one hand, everyone agrees that the current system is unworkable. Quintilianus launches a new proposal. The usual suspects drop in and deliver their criticism: (1) it should be tested before it's adopted and (2) it's unhistorical. I might agree that it should be tested first. After all, changing election laws is something important that will affect Nova Roma. On the other hand, I wonder if this effort will be really useful. In order to organise a good mock election you'd need participation! And since everyone is so wary of elections already, I wonder who would turn up for a vote.

The unhistorical argument however, paired with the usual innuendo, is ridiculous. Mock elections are, as far as I can tell, unhistorical, too. So is the use of internet, voter codes, English and modern political terms such as conservative and liberal (even the word Republic is frequently abused in modern contexts). It's *impossible* to escape the modern world unless you want to live in a roleplay dream. "It's not Roman" is the same old rabbit those who proudly advertise themselves as traditionalists pull out of their same old hat. "Roman" is never defined, but I'm sure it's pretty damn close to their views! To bluntly say if something is Roman or not is, in many cases, a sweeping generalisation based on fragmentary information. "Roman" encompasses a civilisation which existed for over a millennium (even if you narrow it down to the Republic you still have, give or take, about five hundred years).

Also, criticism is a good thing in itself. But have counter-proposals been launched yet to deal with possible errors in Quintilianus' new system? Are there, in fact, possible errors? All I see is pointless talking about factions and bringing up old issues over and over.

Valete bene,
M. Octavius Solaris


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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] The Paterfamilias of Gens Cornelius
From:	"Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly)" <mjk@datanet.ab.ca>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:11:23 -0000

Salvete omnes,

Lucius Felix has been writing a series of exams over the last 6 weeks
and said he'll be back in full force next week when he finishes. He
posted a few quick notes on the back alley and a note to me saying he
had to concentrate on his studies and take care of personal business.
He replied only because we worried what suddenly happened to him.
Similarily my cousins Drusilla Lania Iris and Honaria Lania wrote and
told me they have to disappear from NR for a few weeks because of
studies and deadlines. I can see how this list is very seductive from
drawing people away from their studies or commitments so sometimes
discipline and a clean break is needed - much as we miss them!


Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Back Alley
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sardonicus <l_c_sardonicus@yahoo.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:21:08 -0700 (PDT)

Salve,

The back alley exists again? Where? Can I play?

Vale
LCS

"Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly)" <mjk@datanet.ab.ca> wrote:
Salvete omnes,

Lucius Felix has been writing a series of exams over the last 6 weeks
and said he'll be back in full force next week when he finishes. He
posted a few quick notes on the back alley and a note to me saying he
had to concentrate on his studies and take care of personal business.
He replied only because we worried what suddenly happened to him.
Similarily my cousins Drusilla Lania Iris and Honaria Lania wrote and
told me they have to disappear from NR for a few weeks because of
studies and deadlines. I can see how this list is very seductive from
drawing people away from their studies or commitments so sometimes
discipline and a clean break is needed - much as we miss them!


Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Election proposal
From:	Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@callahans.org>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:25:23 -0700

Salve,

On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 01:09:59PM +0200, Diana Moravia Aventina wrote:
> Salvete,
>
> G Iulius Scaurus:> From my perspective it does C. Fabius no good service
> when a member of his cohors dresses down a consular in the forum.
>
> C Minucius Scaevola:<If I thought that my right to express my beliefs was in
> any way <curtailed by joining the Cohors, I would not have joined.
> Fortunately, that is not the case.
>
> Fortunately C Minucius, you are not one of my assistants because I would be
> cringing every time you posted.

Fortunately for both of us the point is moot, and we don't need to explore just
how much control you think you have over your assistants' freedom of speech.

> But then again, what is your job in the
> Cohors Consulis anyway? "Accensus Ordinarius" in charge of verbally
> intimidating everyone on the mainlist that disagrees with the proposals of
> the Cohors Consulis?

The above question doesn't really deserve an answer, since it's nothing more
than rhetoric and would be ridiculous if asked seriously. Everything you've
seen me post on this list is here because it's what I believe, and is not
influenced by my membership in any group smaller than Nova Roma.

> And if that isn't your specific job, then why the constant chip on your
> shoulder? Today alone, at a glance I can count 3 emails where you sounded
> as if you were looking for a fight...

I'd say that the answer to your question is contained in it; to paraphrase a
familiar quote, if you see a chip on my shoulder, you should examine your own
eye for a beam. The fact that you don't like what I'm saying doesn't mean
anything more than that; I don't run my life to suit anyone else's likes or
dislikes.


Vale,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Ave, imperator, morituri te salutant!
Hail, emperor, those who will die salute you.
-- Suetonius, Vitae Caesarum, Claudius. The fighters' greeting to the emperor
before gladiatorial games.

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: The Proposed Lex Fabia de Ratione Comitiorum Centuriatorum and History
From:	Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@callahans.org>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:52:00 -0700

On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 12:49:15PM -0000, quintuscassiuscalvus wrote:
>
> Well, Caius Minucius Scaevola, I'm so glad you're highly impressed
> with my abilities. I take it as a compliment. I just wish
> your "tone" were more in accord with the Senior Consul's desire of
> returning Civility to Nova Roma's civil discourse.

I'm perfectly willing to engage in civil discussion if it's a *discussion*
rather than the dredging up of old manipulative tactics; in fact, I would far
prefer that the discussion was a civil one. To quote from another group:

Remember: If you throw a strawman into a heated debate, flames are
likely to be the result.
-- Carl Lydick

The "progression", as I saw it, had gone something like this:

1. Proposal of the lex
2. Rational argument/discussion (including yours)
3. Strawmen and red herrings brought in by QFM, LSD, and yourself when #2
failed to expose any problems

I will admit that yours was by far not the worst example of the above, but it
just happened to be the drop that overflowed the cup. I had stayed out of #1 and #2
since Cordus, in my opinion, was explaining everything very capably and I had
nothing to add; when it turned into political wrangling, I felt that I had to
say something.

If you would like to place the discussion back on a civil footing, I would be
pleased to discuss any substantial issues with you in that manner; I believe
that you are fully capable of doing so, since I've seen you do it before. It's a
very simple equation: civility begets civility, underhanded tactics beget sharp
responses.


Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Stultum est timere quod vitare non potes.
It is foolish to fear what you cannot avoid.
-- Cicero, "De officiis"

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Back Alley
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:32:16 -0700 (PDT)

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BackAlley/

--- Lucius Cornelius Sardonicus
<l_c_sardonicus@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Salve,
>
> The back alley exists again? Where? Can I play?
>
> Vale
> LCS
>
> "Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly)"
> <mjk@datanet.ab.ca> wrote:
> Salvete omnes,
>
> Lucius Felix has been writing a series of exams over
> the last 6 weeks
> and said he'll be back in full force next week when
> he finishes. He
> posted a few quick notes on the back alley and a
> note to me saying he
> had to concentrate on his studies and take care of
> personal business.
> He replied only because we worried what suddenly
> happened to him.
> Similarily my cousins Drusilla Lania Iris and
> Honaria Lania wrote and
> told me they have to disappear from NR for a few
> weeks because of
> studies and deadlines. I can see how this list is
> very seductive from
> drawing people away from their studies or
> commitments so sometimes
> discipline and a clean break is needed - much as we
> miss them!
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Quintus Lanius Paulinus
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
>
> [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] Re: NOVA roma
From:	me-in-@disguise.co.uk
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:32:50 +0100 (BST)

-----Original Message-----
>From : quintuscassiuscalvus <richmal@attbi.com>
Date : 26 June 2003 00:48:29

>>
>> > ... 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.
>>
I can't offhand think of any African countries where slave ownership is actually legal and where it goes on are most unlikely to think about joining NR. I can think that Roman slaves were permitted to own property, including slaves and in many occupations expected regular pay and days off. In fact their conditions could be better than free employees well into the 19th century and if they could be sold off or executed at their owner's whim, that too was common among subordinates not technically slaves in some places, like Russia and China.
I doubt the Romans would understand our distinction between slave and free at all. They would more likely see a society where slavery has become ubiquitous under humane conditions. Apart from its practical unlikelihood, should NR come to function as a complete society, I would imagine modern employment practices to be regarded as the result of centuries of progressive liberalisation of Roman slavery.

Caesariensis

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:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Hibernia: A statement from Britannia
From:	me-in-@disguise.co.uk
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:56:22 +0100 (BST)

Palestine and Israel spring to mind, or Afrikaaner South Africa. For those involved, compromise is defeat and the other side has horns and eats babies. And when you hear some of them it is amazing how anybody can live in an area and know so little about their near-neighbours. However, it is most unlikely that anybody of the more serious political persuasions is likely to join Nova Roma and if they do they will have to put up with whatever is there when they do. The one thing extreme political sides in that debate do seem to agree upon is that the national governments they claim loyalty to are traitors both by dealing with the enemy and by enslaving their country to the Belgian-based Reich. The chances of anybody likely to be seriously offended one way or the other within NR wanting to join NR in the first place is close to that of folk in the Ozarks watching for the UN to invade.

Caesariensis

-----Original Message-----
>From : Titus Maxentius Verus <jgrady@lucent.com>
To : Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date : 26 June 2003 10:43:11
Subject : [Nova-Roma] Re: Hibernia: A statement from Britannia
Salve Marine,
>
>Indeed, I am quite familiar with the history of the American Civil
>War and that reconcialition was not an easy matter. For the most
>part, after the passage of nearly one and a half centuries, that
>reconciliation has been achieved.
>



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

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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Would have, Could Have, High Tech Rome
From:	me-in-@disguise.co.uk
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:09:52 +0100 (BST)

Rome, in the sense of Constantinople did last another thousand years of stagnation. China of course invented everything and developed it to the point where it sustained but did not disrupt the Centre of the Universe. I actually think the modern world suffers the same problem that we are so tied to employment and fast monetary return that we cannot take the next stage to automation and emphasis on production, nor can corporations risk long-term investment equivalent to rail and that only Cold War spending on development, lowering quality to force repeat sales and changeing women's priorities to men's instead of men's to women's has kept the creaking old beast alive since the late 50s.
For an alternative development though not Roman, see Kim Stanley Robinson's 'Years of Rice and Salt' where the Black Death annihilates Europe and he takes the world superpowers of Islam and China through an alternative development until worn out and ultimately replaced by a technological and almost democratic India with Japan (No Samurai - China conquered them) and 'Hodenosau' who appear to be the Algonquin forewarned of the Yellow Man's threat from the far West and bringing a freer form of democracy than ours to the mosques of Europe.

-----Original Message-----
>From : “Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly)“ <mjk@datanet.ab.ca>
To : Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date : 26 June 2003 16:33:44
Subject : [Nova-Roma] Re: Would have, Could Have, High Tech Rome
Salve Marce,
>
>Roman technology could have or would have?
>


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] Re: Would have, Could Have, High Tech Rome
From:	"christyacb" <bryanta003@hawaii.rr.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:37:12 -0000

Salve Quintus,

There is a great children's book, no longer in print,
titled "What's Under There?" that addresses the question
of historic underwear. No joke, really. It was written by
an expert in historic underthings and is surprisingly
accurate. So, if there is enough interest in underwear to
cause a book to come about, there is no harm in you asking
that. :)
There is little direct evidence for Romans, however
there is loads of indirect evidence to cover at least part
of that. In the ancient world a form of the loincloth was
very common in most civilizations. In Rome, there is some
evidence that a long shift, with the back being longer than
the front, was used by women. It was simply brought up from
the back, diaper style, and pinned. It would be, naturally,
very loose and not appropriate for the time you are speaking
of.
In Greece, some areas considered women unclean during
that time and she was isolated to some extent. Again, scant
evidence. However, after Alexander, Egypt was ruled by
Macedonians and the upper classes had a high proportion of
Greeks. Lots of evidence there and since much of the practical
side of life was transferrable during that time, it might be
inferred that women used a tighter fitting loincloth with
whatever passed for appropriate materials then.
There doesn't seem to have been a great deal of worry
over the body being seen given the regularity with which
immodest or downright pornographic imagery is seen in the
remnants that remain. And there isn't a darn thing about it
in the writings that I have ever been able to find, so I
don't think anyone knows the total answer. Some texts try
to point towards the unclean side for Romans, but a quick
look at their references plainly shows that it is based
on inference from Greek attitudes, a faulty assumption.
While practical items were transferrable, attitudes rarely
were. Sexual mores, the right of a women to own property,
even the state of suae iuris was different and Romans
didn't require women to be hidden from every man not
closely related to her either. So that is a false premise.
Ancient garbage piles are the best way to find out a
lot of things about daily life, however cloth rarely
survives. The recent unearthing of the young Roman lady
may provide some answers at to clothing, but it will be a
long time coming since it is simply mush in layers.
If you find out anything, do post it since I have a
real interest in the clothing of the time.

Vale, Christy Nemo


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael
Kelly)" <mjk@d...> wrote:
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "christyacb" <bryanta003@h...>
> wrote:
> > Salvete,
> >
> >> It is interesting to speculate what might have happened
> > should the Dark Ages not have occurred and if those advances
> > in scientific thought not been so totally suppressed during
> > a further 600 years by the Catholic Church? Gallileo for
> > example. Genius is a rarity in terms of population density,
> > but it isn't just geniuses who invent or discover. It was
> > a mother with a baby that invented what became Pampers.
> > Personally, I think they would have cotton togas in summer
> > and the women would be running rampant in manufactured
> > cloth for their pallae and they'd be watching senate meetings
> > via NetMeeting.
> > What does anyone else think?
> >
> > Valete, Christy Nemo
>
>
>
> Salvete omnes,
>
> Great comments Christy. This is not the most comfortable topic to
> discuss but growing up with 4 sisters, I have a few ideas on
women's
> problems. Please don't be offended with this question but:
>
> I understand that the ancient Greeks and Romans didn't use
underwear
> as we know it over the last few hundred years. There is a mosaic
> showing female athletes in a type of bikini, similar leather trunks
> found in Britain. Its thought that Roman women may have worn some
> sort of loin cloth. Anyway I always wondered if women could not get
> around or have to hide at home during their monthly cycles so as to
> avoid public embarassment? Has anyone any ideas on this?
>
> Regards,
>
> Quintus
>

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Would have, Could Have, High Tech Rome
From:	me-in-@disguise.co.uk
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:22:04 +0100 (BST)

-----Original Message-----
>From : “Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly)“ <mjk@datanet.ab.ca>
>
>I understand that the ancient Greeks and Romans didn't use underwear
>as we know it over the last few hundred years. There is a mosaic
>showing female athletes in a type of bikini, similar leather trunks
>found in Britain. Its thought that Roman women may have worn some
>sort of loin cloth. Anyway I always wondered if women could not get
>around or have to hide at home during their monthly cycles so as to
>avoid public embarassment? Has anyone any ideas on this?
>
One Christian bu favourable account, 5th century? of the life & death of Hypatia claims she remained a virgin all her life although a Philosopher and not Christian and on one occasion when a man professed his love for her produced the rags she had worn to prevent bleeding and told him "this is the shame you love". I don't know how her husband felt about that - or the perpetual virginity. It does suggest what women did.

Caesariensis


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

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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Would have, Could Have, High Tech Rome
From:	"Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly)" <mjk@datanet.ab.ca>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:30:09 -0000

Salve Christy,

Thank you for your really interesting reply. I'll check through some
websites on ancient clothing. It sounds like it would have been a
little awkward for women at times but sure much better than the 14 -
19th cenruries don't you think? You can be sure I greatly appreciate
the time and effort you put into answering my question.

On the learning channel they showed how modern the Roman flush
toilets were but I guess what we consider so private, the Romans
could not have cared less. Everyone just sat right next to one
another and probably gossiped or talked about the games while doing
their business. I guess today even husbands and wives like to be
totally private. People I talked to who had to do time in jail always
said the most humiliating thing there was having to use open
washrooms with people watching you all the time. Well this is one
aspect of ancient Roman culture that NR may not wish to emulate; it
would sure take some getting used to! (grin)

Yours respectfully,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus


Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "christyacb" <bryanta003@h...>
wrote:
> Salve Quintus,
>
> There is a great children's book, no longer in print,
> titled "What's Under There?" that addresses the question
> of historic underwear. No joke, really. It was written by
> an expert in historic underthings and is surprisingly
> accurate. So, if there is enough interest in underwear to
> cause a book to come about, there is no harm in you asking
> that. :)
> There is little direct evidence for Romans, however
> there is loads of indirect evidence to cover at least part
> of that. In the ancient world a form of the loincloth was
> very common in most civilizations. In Rome, there is some
> evidence that a long shift, with the back being longer than
> the front, was used by women. It was simply brought up from
> the back, diaper style, and pinned. It would be, naturally,
> very loose and not appropriate for the time you are speaking
> of.
> In Greece, some areas considered women unclean during
> that time and she was isolated to some extent. Again, scant
> evidence. However, after Alexander, Egypt was ruled by
> Macedonians and the upper classes had a high proportion of
> Greeks. Lots of evidence there and since much of the practical
> side of life was transferrable during that time, it might be
> inferred that women used a tighter fitting loincloth with
> whatever passed for appropriate materials then.
> There doesn't seem to have been a great deal of worry
> over the body being seen given the regularity with which
> immodest or downright pornographic imagery is seen in the
> remnants that remain. And there isn't a darn thing about it
> in the writings that I have ever been able to find, so I
> don't think anyone knows the total answer. Some texts try
> to point towards the unclean side for Romans, but a quick
> look at their references plainly shows that it is based
> on inference from Greek attitudes, a faulty assumption.
> While practical items were transferrable, attitudes rarely
> were. Sexual mores, the right of a women to own property,
> even the state of suae iuris was different and Romans
> didn't require women to be hidden from every man not
> closely related to her either. So that is a false premise.
> Ancient garbage piles are the best way to find out a
> lot of things about daily life, however cloth rarely
> survives. The recent unearthing of the young Roman lady
> may provide some answers at to clothing, but it will be a
> long time coming since it is simply mush in layers.
> If you find out anything, do post it since I have a
> real interest in the clothing of the time.
>
> Vale, Christy Nemo
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael
> Kelly)" <mjk@d...> wrote:
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "christyacb" <bryanta003@h...>
> > wrote:
> > > Salvete,
> > >
> > >> It is interesting to speculate what might have happened
> > > should the Dark Ages not have occurred and if those advances
> > > in scientific thought not been so totally suppressed during
> > > a further 600 years by the Catholic Church? Gallileo for
> > > example. Genius is a rarity in terms of population density,
> > > but it isn't just geniuses who invent or discover. It was
> > > a mother with a baby that invented what became Pampers.
> > > Personally, I think they would have cotton togas in summer
> > > and the women would be running rampant in manufactured
> > > cloth for their pallae and they'd be watching senate meetings
> > > via NetMeeting.
> > > What does anyone else think?
> > >
> > > Valete, Christy Nemo
> >
> >
> >
> > Salvete omnes,
> >
> > Great comments Christy. This is not the most comfortable topic to
> > discuss but growing up with 4 sisters, I have a few ideas on
> women's
> > problems. Please don't be offended with this question but:
> >
> > I understand that the ancient Greeks and Romans didn't use
> underwear
> > as we know it over the last few hundred years. There is a mosaic
> > showing female athletes in a type of bikini, similar leather
trunks
> > found in Britain. Its thought that Roman women may have worn some
> > sort of loin cloth. Anyway I always wondered if women could not
get
> > around or have to hide at home during their monthly cycles so as
to
> > avoid public embarassment? Has anyone any ideas on this?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Quintus
> >

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Simulations, Mock Elections &c.
From:	=?iso-8859-1?B?R6VJVkxJVlOlU0NBVlJWUw==?= <gfr@intcon.net>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:14:05 -0000

G. Iulius Scaurus G. Popillio Laeni salutem dicit.

Salve, G. Popilli.

> >>And, to comment on your first point, who do _you_ propose to be
> this 'great' consul you so eagerly desire to see in office?
>
> GAIUS POPILLIUS LAENAS MANIFICUS!!!!
>
> *Oh hell, did I say that out loud?* ;-O

So, amice, just how many did you kill to rate that agnomen? Enquiring
manes want to know :-).

Vale.

G. Iulius Scaurus

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] GAIUS POPILLIUS LAENAS MANIFICUS!!??
From:	"Diana Moravia Aventina" <diana@pandora.be>
Date:	Fri, 27 Jun 2003 01:31:30 +0200

>>And, to comment on your first point, who do _you_ propose to be
this 'great' consul you so eagerly desire to see in office?

<GAIUS POPILLIUS LAENAS MANIFICUS!!!!

<*Oh hell, did I say that out loud?* ;-O
Yes you did oh recently made tribune :-) I heard you all the way in Gallia !

But hey if you don't believe yourself that you are 'magnificus', then no one
else will either!
Vale!
Diana

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Scaurus's Gens Reform proposal (was Modernist and Traditonalist Factions)
From:	"Gnaeus Salix Astur" <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:31:53 -0000

Salvete Quirites; salve, Gai Iuli.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, G¥IVLIVS¥SCAVRVS <gfr@i...> wrote:

<<snipped>>

> All current citizens are grandfathered into the gens of their
> preference and familia of their preference (if they want to
> change gens within a year of the adoption of a new naming law, let
> them have the right). Thereafter the children of Novi Romani are
> entered on the citizenship rolls in the gens and familia of their
> parents (I'd be inclined to adopt historical Roman law on custody
> for NR purposes in cases of divorced families, but I'm not wedded,
> so to speak, to the idea and am aware that other modern
> sensibilities would prefer other dispositions) and may change only
> by formal adoption.
> Any new applicant for citizenship would be free to choose praenomen,
> nomen, and cognomen by application to the censores only (to ensure
> historical onomastic practice), but then would be required either
> (1) to apply to the pater-/materfamilias for membership in that
> familia by adoption or marriage, or (2) found a familia, becoming
> pater-/materfamilias and sui generis on the grant of citizenship.
> Within three generations the majority of NR would have evolved under
> such a proposal into something very like the historical model.
>
> No one would be required to leave their gens or abandon their
> familia; a current pater-/materfamilias could even convey the
> entirety of a current gens into a familia by consensual adoption.
> No one would be forced to disavow the personal or political
> relationships they currently embrace. Family membership would
> arise from birth, adoption, and marriage, while gens membership
> would arise from family membership, but also from the myriad of
> reasons for gens selection which Nova Romans currently have and
> which to some extent reflect the myriad of ways in which persons
> could enter an gens in antiquity: not a perfect match, but probably
> the best we can do for now.

I support C. Iulius's suggestions wholeheartedly. As they are.

An excellent proposal, Gai Iuli.

CN·SALIX·ASTVR·T·F·A·NEP·TRIB·OVF

Subject:	RE: [Nova-Roma] Modernist and Traditonalist Factions (was Re: Would have, Could Have)
From:	"Diana Moravia Aventina" <diana@pandora.be>
Date:	Fri, 27 Jun 2003 01:44:16 +0200

Salve Lucius Cornelius,

<I stopped paying attention to the main list last year when I began to feel
that I had a large ballistae target painted on my arse by virtue of
belonging to a controversial gens.

LOL! I certainly know how you feel since the name 'Moravia' was not so
popular Gens either when I returned to Nova Roma last year since the entire
Gens picked up and left NovaRoma with great drama while I was away...
Anyway, I am glad you are back! Like many others, Gens Cornelia is a fine
Gens to be in and so is the new & improved Gens Moravia :-)

Vale,
Diana Moravia