| Subject: |
[novaroma] I AM excited....... |
| From: |
"Pompeia Cornelia" <scriba_forum@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 13 Apr 2001 03:05:17 -0000 |
|
........about the new coins, but not THAT excited!!!
I apologize for the multiple posts!!!
Some cybergremlin is having fun with me tonight!!!
Vale,
Po
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Rebirth versus Reconstruction |
| From: |
"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 16 Apr 2001 02:31:33 +0200 |
|
M. Apollonius Formosanus Omnibus S.P.D.
The Rebirth vs. Reconstruction debate is interesting. In my opinion,
both Draco and Fortunatus made very good statements. I myself would
willingly visit Rome by time machine in several of Her periods (and
Greece and other civilisations), but I would not wish to live in them
for the simple reason that I am not prepared for that. In my case I
could communicate a bit in Latin, and many things in Rome would look
a bit familiar, but the real interest beyond time tourism would be in
having a place in the society - not one, mind you, of a slave or
woman or even poor farmer or worker, which would exclude the vast
majority of the society - and anyone dropping in via time machine
would simply not have the right skills or background to appreciate
and participate in the really interesting and important things.
And how many of us would really enjoy watching whipped slaves,
crucifixions, men fighting to the death in the arena, and blood
sacrifices being made in front of those lovely pillared templa? How
could we enjoy a triumph seeing humiliated, enslaved people and
stolen property paraded through the streets? We have become softer
and more humane, especially in the past century or two, and I think
that entirely a good thing, one at least as important as better
dentistry and ophthamology.
I think that even the normal functioning of an animal-powered
society such as that of ancient Rome would make many of us
uncomfortable - for right up until the past century (and yet today in
some parts of the world) the way animals were made to work for Man
was not very pleasant for the animals. When it was virtually
necessary, one might with regret forgive it, but having seen a world
of mostly unenslaved animals, most of us would be uncomfortable going
back to the older economy, even ignoring the extremes of senseless
butchery for "entertainment" in the arena. (The manure in the roads
and streets would not please us much either, although this is
aesthetic rather than humanitarian.)
Speaking of anumals, it has been suggested here that it is an error
to regard a worm the equal of a man, and the opposite has been
defended. I think that it is obvious that a worm is *not* the equal
of a man - but that a worm is not absolutely a zero in its intrinsic
worth. And certainly higher animals such as cows, dogs, foxes, hares,
are each worth a considerable proportion of a human life, even if
definitely less. The ability to become less egoistic, less
nationalistic and less species-istic is a matter of gaining moral
objectivity in judgement and becoming more truely civilised. And I
think that the human race is improving in this. An ancient Roman
normally regarded a lion as a horrible beast fit to be killed more
than a regal one to be admired.
I also think that we gain a great deal by being in a world where we
have the technology to walk on the moon, travel round the world by
jumbo jet and communicate by internet, and where international
communications have reached a point where we can each be heir to
*all* the achievements of all the great (and many minor)
civilisations of history. Indeed, on a larger scale, this is similar
to the Roman experience, for the Romans were the supreme
technologists of the Western World until the time of the Renaissance,
and were the "World Empire" of their time in the Occident, uniting in
their experience the achievements of Greeks, Egyptians, Babylonians,
etc. I am therefore grateful to live now when technologigy is still
more perfected, and the world still more united.
However, Nova Roma is a place for Roman enthusiasts, and if we
romanticise a bit about our beloved Roma, that is natural and
understandable. There should, however, always be a bit of reality
control on that. Draco's list of the weaknesses of real Roman life
should be taken seriously (although I agree with Limitanus that the
orgies are not necessarily so bad :-).
We must remember this because we are *real*. One often sees a
contrast made between "virtual life" and "real life". I think this to
be nonesense as stated (although another difference does exist, one
of medium). Life here on the internet is every bit as real as life
anywhere else. People can learn, have love affairs (which are not
purely physical things), make people laugh or make them suffer enough
to commit suicide, arrange business deals, find jobs, or make
friends. Because what happens here in Nova Roma *is* real, and deals
with real living, breathing human beings who can suffer if treated
wrongly, we must be very responsible about introducing "bad" elements
from Roma Antiqua or from our own Victorian, neo-fascist or
wild-western phantasies.
Some things in ancient Rome are best studied, not imitated: all
those authoritarian, inhumane, and based on overemphatic dominance of
one human or social class over another. In our basic values we can
only afford to regress when something truely good has been lost. For
the most part modern civilisation has shown itself to have been
learning since Roman times, and we cannot seriously propose throwing
those improvements out of our 21st Century micronation.
Let us not take that as in any way a denigration of Rome's heritage!
The European civilisation that put its stamp on World civilisation
from the 16th Century to the present is an amalgam primarily of Roman
and Germanic traditions. Roman law through its history was steadily
more concerned with equity and protecting the weak of society. This
evolution has continued, and the French Revolution quite naturally
felt a love for things Roman in its painting, furniture, consuls, and
emperor - and also produced the "Déclaration des droits de l'homme
et du citoyen" in admiration of Roman republicanism and what it meant
in terms of democracy and human rights.
These precious attainments must not be banned from our Respublica,
for they are indeed the fruits of the best of Rome as they have
matured during the centuries. We come here modern people, not people
willing to be dominated by others undemocratically or to be looked
down upon or disadvantaged on account of our sexuality, native
language, or desire to express unpopular opinions.
I say, therefore, that we must *recreate* very carefully and
responsibly the *best* of Roma Antiqua - just as advertised on the
Nova Roman website. The only kind of wholesome New Rome that can
flourish and provide a natural and sound home of our studies and
creativity is one that is suited to modern people, because that is
what we are. In that I agree completely with Senator Labienus.
Valete!
From: Fortunatus <labienus@-------->
Subject: Re: Rebirth versus Reconstruction
Salvete Oppi Flacce Quiritesque
Thank you for reintroducing this topic, Oppi Flacce. For three years
now, I have been stating that the central tension in Nova Roma is
that of what to keep of the old versus what to include of the new.
> What are my thoughts? At the base level, quite simply if
> I could, I'd quite happily be plunked back in the
> height of the empire.
<amputatio>
> So in other words; I cherish
> Roma Mater in all the greatest of her glory and
> majesty; period. No disclaimers, no exceptions,
> no 'but I would like this, but I would not like that.'
I rather doubt that. There are always 'buts'. I expect that you
would prefer to keep modern dentistry, for example. I admit that
that's an empirical and technological example, however. So, let's
move to more subjective and social examples. You're honestly telling
me that you would have no problem with slavery, the oppression of
women, mass executions, et cetera? Even if you would, I expect that
you, like most people I know who make such statements, mean that you
would be quite happily plunked back in the height of the empire,
assuming you were a citizen who was wealthy enough to be free of debt
and have some free time. I doubt you'd appreciate being even a
well-kept slave.
> So Quirites, that is where Oppius is coming from. Nothing
> up my sleeve, I simply want Roma and as much of her
> as possible with all her glorious attributes -"good" and
> "bad."
I would argue that there was little that was 'glorious' in Roma
Antiqua's bad aspects, and that Nova Roma states explicitly that we
are attempting to recreate the *best* of ancient pagan Rome.
> Let's examine the other side of the coin. There is
> another group of people that have a vision that is
> diametrically opposed to mine. (Again disclaimer, -this
<amputatio>
> conduct the business of everyday life. This view 'seems'
> to desire to put a heavy face of socialistic ideals
> and superimpose onto Roma Mater and come up with
> some completely different entity.
>
> There is of course, a vast 'third' opinion, which is
> somewhere in between.
Speaking as one of those within that third option, and assuming that
your option is one that advocates as much pure historicity as
possible,
I would say that there is a fourth option that you did not cover.
There seems to also be a group of people who are here because they
view
Rome's main strength to have been a strict social hierarchy which
evinced itself in the patronus-cliens relationship, patria potestas,
elitism, et cetera. This group appears to have been attracted to
Nova
Roma as a reaction to (primarily) America's tendency toward
'political
correctness', which is mainly the unhealthy result of an
over-extended
attempt to be inclusive, democratic, and fair. For them, it seems, a
return to the past would be a return to a predictable world in which
everything makes sense on a human level because life operates by
predictable rules that favor not just the dominant human species, but
the dominant among humans. I see evidence for this group in the form
of
overly hostile reactions to political correctness, the use of terms
like
'Amerika' (which has long been a neo-Nazi code word for an America
that
favored brown people and homosexuals over right-thinking 'Aryans'),
and
the like.
> Those that like some or maybe
> even most of Roma's institutions -but might knock a
> couple of items off the list here and there, or add
> one or two things. Essentially though, it's still
> largely representative of Roma Mater with a bit of
> generalized modern touches.
As I said, I'm in this third group. I'm there primarily because all
history is a lie of one form or another, as all historians have
biases
which skew their interpretations of the evidence. Therefore, we will
never really know what Roma Antiqua was really like. Even if we come
extremely close, there wiil be plenty of historians who will validly
disagree with our interpretations. As it is, we have a constitution,
little difference between patricians and plebeians, very little
institutionalized sexism, a completely altered tribunate, et cetera.
We
have also run into deep, deep problems every time someone's tried to
legislate people into behaving a little more like their view of
ancient
Romans. We *cannot* escape the modern world, and we *cannot* expect
our
cives to behave like ancient people, even if we could agree upon how
the
ancients actually behaved. Therefore, it behooves us to work toward
some compromise that captures the *spirit* of Roma while accepting
that
we cannot escape modernity.
Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus
_________________________________________________
Marcus Apollonius Formosanus, Aedilis Plebeius Novae Romae
Amicus Dignitatis; Scriba Censorius
Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae (http://www.crosswinds.net/~bvm3/)
Moderator et Praeceptor Sodalitatis Latinitatis
Moderator Indicis protoprovincialis NR_Venediae
ICQ# 61698049 AIM: MAFormosanus MSN: Formosanus
Civis Novae Romae in Silesia, Polonia
Minervium Virtuale: http://www.crosswinds.net/~bvm3/Minervium.htm
The Gens Apollonia is open to new members.
Ave nostra Respublica Libera - Nova Roma!
____________________________________________________
Memento Idus Martias - non omnino bene Respublica se habet.
(Remember the Ides of March - it is not all well with the Republic.)
____________________________________________________
All that is needed for the forces of evil to triumph in the world is for
enough good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
___________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Rebirth versus Reconstruction |
| From: |
lsicinius@-------- |
| Date: |
Mon, 16 Apr 2001 01:56:10 -0000 |
|
--- In novaroma@--------, "M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@--------> wrote:
>
> M. Apollonius Formosanus Omnibus S.P.D.
>
> The Rebirth vs. Reconstruction debate is interesting. In my opinion,
> both Draco and Fortunatus made very good statements. I myself would
> willingly visit Rome by time machine in several of Her periods (and
> Greece and other civilisations), but I would not wish to live in them
> for the simple reason that I am not prepared for that. In my case I
> could communicate a bit in Latin, and many things in Rome would look
> a bit familiar, but the real interest beyond time tourism would be in
> having a place in the society - not one, mind you, of a slave or
> woman or even poor farmer or worker, which would exclude the vast
> majority of the society - and anyone dropping in via time machine
> would simply not have the right skills or background to appreciate
> and participate in the really interesting and important things.
>
> And how many of us would really enjoy watching whipped slaves,
> crucifixions, men fighting to the death in the arena, and blood
> sacrifices being made in front of those lovely pillared templa? How
> could we enjoy a triumph seeing humiliated, enslaved people and
> stolen property paraded through the streets? We have become softer
> and more humane, especially in the past century or two, and I think
> that entirely a good thing, one at least as important as better
> dentistry and ophthamology.
>
> I think that even the normal functioning of an animal-powered
> society such as that of ancient Rome would make many of us
> uncomfortable - for right up until the past century (and yet today in
> some parts of the world) the way animals were made to work for Man
> was not very pleasant for the animals. When it was virtually
> necessary, one might with regret forgive it, but having seen a world
> of mostly unenslaved animals, most of us would be uncomfortable going
> back to the older economy, even ignoring the extremes of senseless
> butchery for "entertainment" in the arena. (The manure in the roads
> and streets would not please us much either, although this is
> aesthetic rather than humanitarian.)
>
> Speaking of anumals, it has been suggested here that it is an error
> to regard a worm the equal of a man, and the opposite has been
> defended. I think that it is obvious that a worm is *not* the equal
> of a man - but that a worm is not absolutely a zero in its intrinsic
> worth. And certainly higher animals such as cows, dogs, foxes, hares,
> are each worth a considerable proportion of a human life, even if
> definitely less. The ability to become less egoistic, less
> nationalistic and less species-istic is a matter of gaining moral
> objectivity in judgement and becoming more truely civilised. And I
> think that the human race is improving in this. An ancient Roman
> normally regarded a lion as a horrible beast fit to be killed more
> than a regal one to be admired.
>
> I also think that we gain a great deal by being in a world where we
> have the technology to walk on the moon, travel round the world by
> jumbo jet and communicate by internet, and where international
> communications have reached a point where we can each be heir to
> *all* the achievements of all the great (and many minor)
> civilisations of history. Indeed, on a larger scale, this is similar
> to the Roman experience, for the Romans were the supreme
> technologists of the Western World until the time of the Renaissance,
> and were the "World Empire" of their time in the Occident, uniting in
> their experience the achievements of Greeks, Egyptians, Babylonians,
> etc. I am therefore grateful to live now when technologigy is still
> more perfected, and the world still more united.
>
> However, Nova Roma is a place for Roman enthusiasts, and if we
> romanticise a bit about our beloved Roma, that is natural and
> understandable. There should, however, always be a bit of reality
> control on that. Draco's list of the weaknesses of real Roman life
> should be taken seriously (although I agree with Limitanus that the
> orgies are not necessarily so bad :-).
>
> We must remember this because we are *real*. One often sees a
> contrast made between "virtual life" and "real life". I think this to
> be nonesense as stated (although another difference does exist, one
> of medium). Life here on the internet is every bit as real as life
> anywhere else. People can learn, have love affairs (which are not
> purely physical things), make people laugh or make them suffer enough
> to commit suicide, arrange business deals, find jobs, or make
> friends. Because what happens here in Nova Roma *is* real, and deals
> with real living, breathing human beings who can suffer if treated
> wrongly, we must be very responsible about introducing "bad" elements
> from Roma Antiqua or from our own Victorian, neo-fascist or
> wild-western phantasies.
>
> Some things in ancient Rome are best studied, not imitated: all
> those authoritarian, inhumane, and based on overemphatic dominance of
> one human or social class over another. In our basic values we can
> only afford to regress when something truely good has been lost. For
> the most part modern civilisation has shown itself to have been
> learning since Roman times, and we cannot seriously propose throwing
> those improvements out of our 21st Century micronation.
>
> Let us not take that as in any way a denigration of Rome's heritage!
> The European civilisation that put its stamp on World civilisation
> from the 16th Century to the present is an amalgam primarily of Roman
> and Germanic traditions. Roman law through its history was steadily
> more concerned with equity and protecting the weak of society. This
> evolution has continued, and the French Revolution quite naturally
> felt a love for things Roman in its painting, furniture, consuls, and
> emperor - and also produced the "Déclaration des droits de l'homme
> et du citoyen" in admiration of Roman republicanism and what it meant
> in terms of democracy and human rights.
>
> These precious attainments must not be banned from our Respublica,
> for they are indeed the fruits of the best of Rome as they have
> matured during the centuries. We come here modern people, not people
> willing to be dominated by others undemocratically or to be looked
> down upon or disadvantaged on account of our sexuality, native
> language, or desire to express unpopular opinions.
>
> I say, therefore, that we must *recreate* very carefully and
> responsibly the *best* of Roma Antiqua - just as advertised on the
> Nova Roman website. The only kind of wholesome New Rome that can
> flourish and provide a natural and sound home of our studies and
> creativity is one that is suited to modern people, because that is
> what we are. In that I agree completely with Senator Labienus.
>
> Valete!
>
Salvete,
Who were the Romans?
Think before you answer!
Roma was founded in 753 BCE, and how long did she endure? In wesren
Europe and America we often hear 476 CE (1229 AUC) But is only the
date the last Emperor IN THE WEST was desposed. The Eastern portion
did not fall untill 1453 CE (2206 AUC) and the people who lived in the
east regarded themselves as Romans until the day Constaninople (A City
that Constitine named Nova Roma when he founded it on the ruins of
Byzanthium) fell.
If you take the later date the ammount of time that Roma existed as a
Macro Nation is greater than the ammount of time that has passed since
the last days of the Republic!
Even if you try to cut the time to the shortest possible time, to the
removal of the center of power to Constantipole (Nova Roma) Then Roma
still lasted over a thousand years.
Roma wasn't Egypt. Along the Nilus life changed very little as the
centuries passed, but there were tremendus changes in peoples lives
and thier customs during the very long time that Roma was a nation,
and it's easy but misleading to pick a custom and say "this is how the
Romans lived."
I wish to capture the spirit of the Romans, not just to ape a two
thousand year old custom that may have died out during Roma long
reign. Here is an example of what I mean. I often here the Ancient
Romans decried for thier sexism. By 21st Century standards this may be
true, but how did the Romans compare to others in thier time?
Roman women weren't confined to the house as they were in Greece and
other parts of the Empire. They were considered Citizens even if they
couldn't vote, They had the right to refuse a marriage, to own
properity, to inheirit properity and to own a business. Roman women
were among the freest women of thier times, and some of the rights
that Roman Women enjoyed thier ancesters didn't regain untill well
into the 20th Century.
This is the spirit of Roma, and by recognizing the equality of Women
in our modern republic we have captured the spirit of Roma far better
than we could have by mearly mimicing customs that were very advanced
for thier times, but are outdated by 21st Century standards.
Valete,
Lucius Sicinius Drusus
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Rebirth versus Reconstruction-Response to Labienus |
| From: |
"Oppius Flaccus Severus" <oppiusflaccus@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 15 Apr 2001 19:03:54 -0700 |
|
Salvete Labiene et Quiritibus;
-----Original Message-----
From: Fortunatus [mailto:labienus@--------]
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 1:28 PM
To: novaroma@--------
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Rebirth versus Reconstruction
Salvete Oppi Flacce Quiritesque
Thank you for reintroducing this topic, Oppi Flacce. For three years
now, I have been stating that the central tension in Nova Roma is that
of what to keep of the old versus what to include of the new.
OFS: Then I happily lay down any credit for introducing
the discussion myself and am glad to be continuing to build
on your initial premise. As you see then, in this small point
we full concur -it *is* the central tension here.
<snipped>
Labienus writes:
I rather doubt that. There are always 'buts'.
OFS: Then good sir, before getting to the rest of my
response, I might add another tension to that premise
on which this mail was founded. -That tension would be
the tension of one civis taking a very direct statement
made by another civis and piling many vast
interpretations upon it. I do not blame you for this
personally -I have been guilty of this myself more than
once and in such cases additional clarification was
required. So let me say to you -there were *quite clearly*
no 'buts' stated or intimated in my previous post.
As you and I do not know each other personally, I admit
that you can but judge a few posts on a mailing list
as to what another civis 'would' or 'wouldn't' do, or
'would' or 'wouldn't' want. *Unfortunately,* (emphasis
mine -I *do* hope we all meet some day,) we do not know
each other and while you are of course free to disagree
with me all you want, please do not do me the insult
of 'presupposing' what I might or might not 'do' in any
given circumstance.
Now that we've hopefully cleared up that little point,
onwards...
Labienus writes:
I expect that you would
prefer to keep modern dentistry, for example.
OFS: See above. I will grant you another example -perhaps
more to the point since I'm not a major frequenter of the
dentist's chair: Latrines. Public latrines a time honored
tradition throughout the empire. So what about those? Would
I prefer my cushy fan-enhanced private bathroom experience?
Would I prefer to use my trusty Charmin instead of a 'sponge
on a stick?' Or, assuming we *do* have the public latrines,
do we still want them to blow their bilge into the Tiber,
or do we want them to run into a modern sewage treatment
plant?
Labienus writes:
I admit that that's an
empirical and technological example, however. So, let's move to more
subjective and social examples.
OFS: Yes, I knew you would get to those. Your sounding
board for emotive terms related to your modernist views.
Ok, let's see about those....
Labienus writes:
You're honestly telling me that you
would have no problem with slavery,
OFS: Let's stop here for a moment. Slavery. Well, first
of all mi Labiene, slavery was quite a different animal
than the popular conception of the 'Uncle Tom' variety.
Slavery is obviously a practice that has a great many
negative connotations; much like say...oh I don't know...
client/patron perhaps? Slavery is a topic that has already
seen a vast amount of contentious discussion on this list
before; a situation which I don't wish to propagate. Since
you and others that continually harp on the usage of
this term *seem* to be unable to view historical
scenarios in their actual context
without applying modern interpretations, there is little
hope of making you understand the institution in question.
Labienus:
the oppression of women,
OFS: No exceptions. Remember my original statement?
Why must you assume that I would share your apparent
characteristic of viewing a civilization that existed
2000 years ago through 21st century eyes? Roma Mater
was Roma Mater. One takes the good with the bad. Does
this mean I'm saying that Women's Rights is a bad
thing? Of course not. We're in the 21st century.
My statement had NOTHING to do with what may make sense
in a 21st century society. It had *everything* to do
with Antiqua. Period.
Labienus writes:
mass
executions, et cetera?
OFS: Yes, you can keep piling onto the et cetera list.
A nice little term 'et cetera.' It allows one's point
to be seemingly infinite.
Labienus writes:
Even if you would, I expect
OFS: Ah yes, what you would 'expect' me to do.
Please see opening paragraphs.
Labienus:
that you, like most
people I know who make such statements,
OFS: What type of people make 'such statements?' Those
that disagree with you? That don't share your own
particular vision of the world?
Labienus continues:
mean that you would be quite
happily plunked back in the height of the empire, assuming you were a
citizen who was wealthy enough to be free of debt and have some free
time. I doubt you'd appreciate being even a well-kept slave.
OFS: Two things. One, refer back to my initial statement.
No 'buts' or exceptions. For clarification 'no buts or
exceptions' means that a statement has no exceptions or
alternate meanings.
Perhaps you should go back and reread my initial post.
My role was not specified. I simply said Roma. Or
more precisely, Roma between its founding and 305 CE. If I were
to go back with my 'modern' ideals and my current mind set,
I'd know enough to make it work, create an opportunity
and introduce some of the modern comforts of which I
was aware. Also having the benefit of a fair smattering
of historical knowledge of the period, I might have
enough information to adjust. (Granted, my Latin is
abysmal but I could pick up enough to get by.)
To build on your previous example, I would know things
for instance like calcium was good for strong teeth, that
they need to be brushed and flossed (did you know that they
had toothbrushes back then?) and that the fluoride mineral
is good for reducing cavities.
If on the other hand, were I to go back *without*
my 'modern' knowledge, then I wouldn't know the difference
anyways since I would have no notion of a '21st century'
world.
Secondly, I am not of the school of thought that believes
we've meaningfully 'evolved' over the last two thousand
years. In fact quite the opposite; I think a darkness
descended upon the western world with the ascension of Constantine
; a darkness that we only barely *started* coming out of in
the very late 18th century.
The Roman world was quite a bit more advanced
than our 'modern' sensibilities will allow us to admit. This included
all major fields of study -from medicine, to science to all manner
of technology. There's no good reason to suspect that we
wouldn't have been walking on the moon in the 10th or 11th
centuries (if not sooner,) had Roma been able to maintain
its natural evolution.
Rome was also a place of opportunity. Slaves and women often
ran affairs of state and enjoyed vast wealth and influence.
Was this all good or evenly applied? No. Is this any sort
of statement on what is right or wrong to do in *today's*
world? No. But then you might
do well to remember that I am not making a 'goodness' or
'badness' case here in any sort of 'modern' context.
Would I 'rather' go back as someone of wealth and
influence? Well sure! Would I 'expect' it? Absolutely not.
<snipped>
Labienus writes:
I would argue that there was little that was 'glorious'
OFS: You can 'state' that things were or were not
'glorious,' but you haven't 'argued' them other than
saying that this or that thing was 'bad.'
Labienus states:
in Roma
Antiqua's bad aspects, and that Nova Roma states explicitly that we are
attempting to recreate the *best* of ancient pagan Rome.
OFS: *EXACTLY* my original point. 'Best' is subjective.
The term 'best' assumes a graded curve of bad, good, better,
best. I very clearly stated I was not at odds with the
charter of Nova Roma. -I was quite
simply stating my personal opinion and making my position clear.
I intend to stand by historical accuracy as much as
possible, but ONLY to the extent that it makes sense
for the welfare of our population. Obviously we are
discussing a 21st century institution within NR and
NOT antiqua, to which I was *specifically* referring.
<snipped>
Labienus writes:
Speaking as one of those within that third option, '
OFS: Actually, with some of the emotive terminology
used I would have pegged you more in the 'second' option.
But of course, using my own point -as we do not know
each other personally this is an assumption which I will
freely correct if mistaken.
Labienus writes:
and assuming that
your option is one that advocates as much pure historicity as possible,
OFS: This assumption is largely correct. Remember though,
I don't expect to make NR into an exact replica of antiqua.
Didn't say it at all. Institutional similarity as much
as possible in our 21st century world? Sure. If I expected
Antiqua; I would not have joined in the first place.
Labienus writes:
I would say that there is a fourth option that you did not cover.
OFS: Excellent! I want to ensure that all views are
represented.
Labienus writes:
There seems to also be a group of people who are here because they view
Rome's main strength to have been a strict social hierarchy which
evinced itself in the patronus-cliens relationship, patria potestas,
elitism, et cetera. This group appears to have been attracted to Nova
Roma as a reaction to (primarily) America's tendency toward 'political
correctness', which is mainly the unhealthy result of an over-extended
attempt to be inclusive, democratic, and fair. For them, it seems, a
return to the past would be a return to a predictable world in which
everything makes sense on a human level because life operates by
predictable rules that favor not just the dominant human species, but
the dominant among humans. I see evidence for this group in the form of
overly hostile reactions to political correctness, the use of terms like
'Amerika' (which has long been a neo-Nazi code word for an America that
favored brown people and homosexuals over right-thinking 'Aryans'), and
the like.
OFS: Well now! First of all, I haven't seen neo-nazi code words
used anywhere, but will trust you on that point. To a *very*
limited extent, I would agree that there are those that
would come here to escape their current vision of their macronational
world, to achieve some sense of personal power that they don't
enjoy in the macronational world or to try and get away
with doing or saying things that they never could in the
macronational world. -On these latter points, I would
fully agree that I've seen this from time to time. Something that
any 'alternative' society such as ours will have to endure.
While we're on the subject though, let's take a look
at 'political correctness.' In and of itself is fine, when it
serves as a tool to make 'right' some form of actual injustice.
Political correctness has *also* however, become a mask,
a place to hide for those that wish to 'stick it to' the
establishment for some sort of perceived wrong. I purposefully
am *not* going to get into macronational examples here,
but my own opinion(yes, the 'my own opinion disclaimer here,')
is that 'political correctness' is perfectly fine, as long
as those that practice it to an extreme degree do not
begrudge the opinions of those that believe otherwise
on any particular issue. I don't want to see 'political
correctness' for its own sake legislated in Nova Roma, any
more than I want to see any 'ultra conservative' agenda
legislated. We need a balance.
<snipped>
Labienus writes:
As I said, I'm in this third group. I'm there primarily because all
history is a lie of one form or another, as all historians have biases
which skew their interpretations of the evidence. Therefore, we will
never really know what Roma Antiqua was really like.
OFS: I partially agree with you. Not all history is
a 'lie' however, in the absolute sense. History is
a mixture of written 'fact' and interpretation. It
is the vast number of interpretations that are
placed on history which one has to sift through to
have a chance of forming any sort of semi-accurate
picture. That is why for instance, I read as many
different accounts of a particular event/time period
as possible so that my own opinion/interpretation
can be formed.
Going back to my original premise, I can't think
of any better way to 'know' a culture than to live
it in all its strengths and weaknesses. In my wistful
example for instance, I would of course have no
way of knowing how I would go back, whether or not
the period would be ideal, what my role would be or
anything of the sort. I also have to allow for the
possibility that I would get there and say: "oh,
this is awful! This isn't at all like the books say!"
But not having been there, I don't really know in
any 'absolute' sense. The same premise could be
applied to visiting another country. One can't go
to another country and start decrying all the local
practices -'good' or 'bad' simply because it offends
one's 'modern' sensibilities. One must deal with
the culture, laws and reality of the country in which
one lives or visits.
Labienus writes:
Even if we come
extremely close, there wiil be plenty of historians who will validly
disagree with our interpretations.
OFS: Fully agreed. History like any other field of
study is open to interpretation. I certainly am
not pompous enough to in any way, to assume that my own
vision is any better than anyone else's.
Labienus writes:
As it is, we have a constitution,
little difference between patricians and plebeians, very little
institutionalized sexism, a completely altered tribunate, et cetera.
OFS: Again agreed. Nova Roma is not antiqua, a point
I've openly declared in previous posts. I don't think
for a moment that there's anyone who really, *truly*
feels that NR will ever be anything ultra-close to
antiqua.
Labienus writes:
We
have also run into deep, deep problems every time someone's tried to
legislate people into behaving a little more like their view of ancient
Romans.
OFS: Your history with NR runs much longer than mine, so am
again more than content to take you at your word on the
legislative aspect. Personally, I see most of our reconstruction
here as needing to be more cultural than legislative. For
the record, nothing in my original post was intended to state
or imply that I favor passing 'let's behave like Romans'
leges.
Labienus writes:
We *cannot* escape the modern world, and we *cannot* expect our
cives to behave like ancient people, even if we could agree upon how the
ancients actually behaved. Therefore, it behooves us to work toward
some compromise that captures the *spirit* of Roma while accepting that
we cannot escape modernity.
OFS: I agree. It's all about compromise and the understanding
that compromise is something that we *all* have to be willing
to do from time to time to create that which best serves the
collective interests. On that point, you'll certainly get no
argument from me.
<snipped>
Bene valete,
Oppius
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Rebirth versus Reconstruction |
| From: |
Patrick Ferguson <pvitruviusiulianus@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 15 Apr 2001 20:03:42 -0700 (PDT) |
|
> LOL,
> I'm quite aware of which statements were made by you
> and which ones
> were made by Patricius Vitrivius. The first
> paragraph is the response
> to his statement, While the remainder was largely a
> response to your
> statement "I think killing a human being is not
> °fine° in any
> circumstance (well, maybe a really extreme
> circumstance)." As you can
> tell I hold that there are two (and only two)
> reasons to kill another
> person. I'll freely admit that I made use of your
> rhetorical questions
> in my reply, in order to drive my point home.
> Basically it comes down
> to this it's immoral to use any kind of force for
> any reason other
> than self defense, but there is nothing immoral
> about defending your
> self by means of force.
>
> I'm not really too worried that you'll fly from
> Gallia to America
> Austrorientalis just to break in my house (You'll
> lose money, the air
> fare will excede the value of anything you haul off)
> ;o). However if
> you want to visit (and leave your burgler's tools at
> home) ;o), I'll
> put the guns away and we can have a fine old time
> touring my rather
> unhistorical city (We had a little problem here in
> Atlanta with an
> arsonist in a blue uniform in 1864).
>
> Vale
> Drusus
>
>
What is wrong or immoral with defending those who can
not defend themselves? This category would include a
number of people: Jews under Hitler, Cartheginian
babies who would be sacrificed to the Gods, members of
various Celtic tribes also being sacrificed to the
Gods, a young women who would be raped by an African
male so he could cure his AIDS (I admit that this man
could simply be educated about AIDS and it would be
better than killing, however he may cling to his
former beliefs), and many others.
With apoligies for any offences but no beliefs,
Patricius Vitruvius Iulianus,
Civis Novae Romae.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Coins and Flag |
| From: |
"J. T. Sibley" <jrsibley@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 15 Apr 2001 23:38:36 -0400 |
|
Gnaeus Salix Astur wrote:
> Do you have any information about the SCA in Spain? I'd really
> appreciate any comments.
try the SCA homepage and go from there?
fulvia
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Coins and Flag |
| From: |
"J. T. Sibley" <jrsibley@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 15 Apr 2001 23:43:49 -0400 |
|
margali wrote:
> Are you doing Coronation next weekend? Any chance to get together?
Am on the merchant wait list; will know Wednesday. Have paid my troll, so
plan to go. Would prefer to set up my card table and huck my book and my
spice blends, though. Would be fun to get together!
fulvia/arwen
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Pennsic Plans |
| From: |
"J. T. Sibley" <jrsibley@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 15 Apr 2001 23:45:25 -0400 |
|
asseri@-------- wrote:
> Greetings all,
> I too am going to Pennsic and was planing a brunch or light meal
> meeting for Nova Roma in our camp the Thursday of the last week of War.
> perhaps we should join forces . I am a camp cook for the Shire Of Shadowed
> Stars (middle kingdom) on the Seregeti usally N1 . we may not get that space
> as they are putting all the royals in the same area/Zone for the next five
> years.
Hey, sounds *great*! Now, how many Nova Romans are coming to Pennsic?
fulvia
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Temple of Apollo website |
| From: |
Andrea Gladia Kyrinia <andrea_gladia@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 15 Apr 2001 20:51:35 -0700 (PDT) |
|
Salvete!
I have put up more information on my pages of the Temple of Apollo
website, and my site is ready for viewing. I hope that people will
feel free to comment on it and offer any suggestions, comments, or
criticisms where appropriate.
It is still a work in progress, as many of my websites often are, so
check back often.
It is located at http://TempleApollo.faithweb.com/index.html
Valete,
=====
Andrea Gladia Kyrinia
Apollinis Templi Sacerdos
Materfamilias of Gladia
*******************************************
Yahoo: kyreneariadne / andrea_gladia / andrea_m_berman
AIM: Kyrene Ariadne / la Amberman ICQ: 6663573
http://TempleApollo.faithweb.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Rebirth versus Reconstruction |
| From: |
"Oppius Flaccus Severus" <oppiusflaccus@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 15 Apr 2001 20:57:24 -0700 |
|
Salvete Gnae Salix et Quiritibus;
-----Original Message-----
From: Gnaeus Salix Astur [mailto:salixastur@--------]
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 7:53 AM
To: novaroma@--------
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Rebirth versus Reconstruction
Salvete omnes.
Once again, Flaccus has stated his thoughts in a precise and coherent
manner. Thank you. People like you make Nova Roma a much better place.
OFS: You are much too kind mi Gnae -gratias multas!
Some of you (not many, I guess) will be wondering where do I stand in
the three tier division suggested by Flaccus. Well, you could call me
the "Middle Point" man (just like Aristotles).
OFS: Your clarification here is much appreciated.
It's good for us all to know where we all stand
in relation to these issues.
Gnaeus Salix writes:
I certainly share with Flaccus a great love of Rome and everything
Roman, and I also believe we should try to rebuild the institutions,
traditions and aspects of Rome as closely as possible to Rome as it was
at the beginning of it's Golden Age (Middle Republic to Principate, in
my opinion).
OFS: For the purposes of our reconstruction within
Nova Roma, itself I'd fully agree with you. Manius Villius
has stated that it should go back even past Marius
and Sulla. For pure Respublican reconstruction, I'd
have to agree, though would go back even further
to the period encompassing the time of
repulsion of the Gallic invasion (roughly around 390
BCE if memory serves,) up until the time of the Gracchi.
Gnaeus Salix writes:
However, we should not believe that Rome was a static place. Rome
evolved, because change is unavoidable. At the beginning of her
History, Rome changed very rapidly, and that was exactly the key of her
success. She took just a couple of centuries to go from a small Italic
town to the rule over Italy; and then, during the Punic wars, Rome
changed in just fifty years from a regional Italian power-shifter with
a land based Army to be the absolute ruler of the Western
Mediterranean.
OFS: I could not agree more. Roma was a continually
evolving entity, though I think the subject of what
was actual 'evolution' and what was 'devolution' would
be the key subject of debate.
Gnaeus Salix writes:
It was when Rome lost this elasticity, this ability to adapt to
changing environments, that decadence began.
OFS: Interesting. I wonder if you could perhaps
clarify your context a little bit further so I can
see what you mean.
Gnaeus Salix:
So why should us be less wise than Rome herself? Aren't we trying to
resurrect "the Best of Rome"? Then, how could we leave behind the
ability to adapt that so much meant in Rome's success?
OFS: Your point regarding adaptation is an excellent one.
We must do the same here in NR and what seems right for
us in our first, second or third years might no longer
make sense in our 10th, 1lth or 12th years. As long as
we retain our elasticity then we will successfully weather
the storms of change and dissent.
Gnaeus Salix writes:
I'll also present my personal disclaimer. This is my opinion. I respect
different oppinions just as I respect my own. So don't you take offence
from any of my words. Remember it was not my intention to put it there
in the first place.
OFS: Disclaimer accepted :-) Please apply the same
to mine as well.
Bene valete,
Oppius
<snipped>
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Rebirth versus Reconstruction: "What is the best of Rome?" |
| From: |
Patrick Ferguson <pvitruviusiulianus@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 15 Apr 2001 21:56:39 -0700 (PDT) |
|
It seems that all of us wish to resurrect the best of
Rome. Yet we have made no clear definition as to what
that (the best of Rome is). I believe that the debate
which has been taken place ("Rebirth vs.
Reconstruction") would be more appropriately titled
"What is the best of Rome?", since this is what is
being discussed the most. So I will lay down what I
think the best of Rome was with as few ommitions as
possible.
-No, or perhaps an insignificant, animal rights
movement.
I do not see why animals should have special rights.
They have no emotions. I think it is perfectly fine
to use them for transportation, food, sacrifices, and
many other things.
-Cheap, accessable public institutions such as the
baths.
This allowed much social equality without dragging
anyone down. A poor Roman couldn't have a bath in his
home, but he could at least have it somewhere. The
same benefits would be available for the rich. This
is more than someone in the third world could have
now, and requires less giving on the part of the rich
(with the way things work now, everyone must pay
exorbiently high taxes so that everyone can have their
own private bath).
-Little diplomacy and more of a "let's get this
overwith" attitude.
While larger and stronger nations like the U.S. do
help other nations in turmoil, this weaker nation will
usually continue to suffer (from debts), or the
suffering will only be stopped and be returned later
(this would apply to some sort of military turmoil in
a nation). I believe it would be much better for if
nations in the world such as the U.S. to somehow make
these less fortunate nations a part of themselves. It
would encourage development and discourage civil war
and other such things. This, while probably not the
intentions of the Romans, is usually the effect they
had.
-Culturalism rather than racism.
I have seen no evidence for racism in Rome. In fact,
I have seen evidence against it. Some of the
wealthiest Romans were in North Africa and of African
background. By the time of the Servian dynasty, over
a third of the Senate was of African background.
Often today, people who are in fact culturalists, are
mistaken for racists. These two are not the same
thing. Racism is judging someone by the color of
their skin rather than the content of their character.
There is nothing just or reasonable in this.
Culturalism is judging someone by the content of their
character (such as beliefs and actions) rather than
the color of their skin. I do see culturalism in
modern and Roman times. In modern times it is used
against Nazis and the Knights of the KKK. This is
just. However, there are certain areas (such as
affirmative action) where it is more difficult to use
since it may be miscontrued into racism. The Romans
often did a much better job at distinguishing between
the two and applying them correctly than we do now.
And even where they lacked, they did a better job than
anyone else at it upto that time and for a long time
after.
-Upward social mobility.
Through the army, even non Romans could gain benefits
such as citizenship or land. This is more than
someone in the third world could do now.
-Social equity.
See above in "Cheap, accessable public institutions
such as the baths."
I certainly hope I have made my points in this clear.
If not, or if you simply desire to express your
reactions, please do so.
These are my opinions. I have no intentions to offend
anyone, but if I have, I am sorry, but still retain my
views.
Optime vale :->!,
Patricius Vitruvius Iulianus,
Civis Novae Romae.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Atlanta -- Off topic |
| From: |
QFabiusMax@-------- |
| Date: |
Mon, 16 Apr 2001 02:19:43 EDT |
|
In a message dated 4/15/2001 4:49:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
lsicinius@-------- writes:
<< (We had a little problem here in Atlanta with an arsonist in a blue
uniform in 1864). >>
Oh please. Not only is this off topic, no one even sure who started the
fires that burned Atlanta. But things being certain, Sherman never gave that
order. In the Offical Records of the War of the Rebellion, there was no
mention of any Union general officer giving such an order. Grant ordered the
burning of Jackson, he even admits it. There would be no stigma attached if
Sherman had ordered it done, Hood and AoT was still at large and once Sherman
left Atlanta in pursuit, Hood could double back and reoccupy it.
Instead of talking about American Historical Myths we should be talking about
taxes. I am still interested in reading the many deverse views posted so far.
Farewell
Stephen F. Phenow
Dir. DBBG
Drum Barracks ACW Museum
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Rebirth versus Reconstruction |
| From: |
JustiniaCassia@-------- |
| Date: |
Mon, 16 Apr 2001 02:20:40 EDT |
|
In a message dated 4/15/1 7:15:15 PM, pvitruviusiulianus@-------- writes:
<< It would be right to kill baby Hitler in
retrospect, but not if you didn't know what he would
do. Because in that case, you would be killing a baby
who, as far as you know, will grow to be a perfectly
fine human being.>>
It would be interesting to see if baby Hitler, taken and raised in a loving,
healthy environment, would turn out to be "good old Adolf, the artist who
likes to paint roses" instead of Der Fürher. Killing baby Hitler is only
justified if it can be proven he was indeed "bad to the bone" and could turn
out no other way.
> Yes, I do see something that makes animals inferior to
humans. They have no emotions, and therefore no soul.
Some people say that dogs have emotions and have
unconditional love for their masters, but I doubt that
that love would be so "unconditional" if the owner
were no longer able to feed it.>
While I agree that many pet owners anthropomorphize their animals to an
extreme, to say animals have no emotions portrays them as little robots in
fur coats, which I think goes too far in the other direction. It is likely
that while animals do not have human emotions, they do at least have emotions
suitable to their species. Studies with primates certainly suggest this.
Also, what constitutes an emotion? Surely we can think of instances where
dogs have been fearful, distressed, enraged, playful, excited or
affectionate. A cat's purr is said to indicate "profundity," which implies a
degree of emotion. I think the food argument is questionable in light of how
humans behave when starving (see Colin Turnbull's The Mountain People for a
study of the inhumanity of people dealing with famine).
Justinia Cassia
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Rebirth versus Reconstruction-Response to Labienus |
| From: |
"Lucius Mauricius Procopious" <procopious@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 15 Apr 2001 23:27:11 -0700 |
|
Salvete Omnes,
I'll add my "Hey you said what I've been trying to say" to the list. Thanks
Oppius! I agree with your assessment and am eagerly awaiting the formation
of the "Phoenix" political party. Sign me up. :-)
I'd like to add a different perspective to these rounds of debate. The
virtue of Piety. If we continue to rebuild the worship of the Gods of our
spiritual forefathers we will be cared for. Our nation will grow. It will be
conservative or liberal at their whim. The philosophers teach us it is
un-wise to yoke our happiness to such externals. If we seek to improve our
bond with our God/desses and strive to live the virtues we will be fine. So
let's strive to help each other live a life more in harmony with the virtues
and the Gods and we'll find a way to compromise.
Lucius Mauricius Procopious
Propraetor America Boreoccidentalis
(This is an unofficial post for which I assume full responsibility)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
procopious@--------
ICQ# 83516618
*America Boreoccidentalis Mail List
http://www.egroups.com/group/AmBor_Waves
* The Gens Mauricia
http://www.geocities.com/procopious
"Indeed, it is not by the plans of men, but by the hand of God that the
affairs of men are directed; and this men call Fate, not knowing the reason
for what things they see occur; and what seems to be without cause is easy
to call the accident of chance. Still, this is a matter every mortal will
decide for himself according to his taste."
-Procopius of Caesarea (in Palestine) [born c.490/507- died c.560s]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Oppius Flaccus Severus" <oppiusflaccus@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 7:03 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Rebirth versus Reconstruction-Response to Labienus
> Salvete Labiene et Quiritibus;
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fortunatus [mailto:labienus@--------]
> Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 1:28 PM
> To: novaroma@--------
> Subject: Re: [novaroma] Rebirth versus Reconstruction
>
>
> Salvete Oppi Flacce Quiritesque
>
> Thank you for reintroducing this topic, Oppi Flacce. For three years
> now, I have been stating that the central tension in Nova Roma is that
> of what to keep of the old versus what to include of the new.
>
> OFS: Then I happily lay down any credit for introducing
> the discussion myself and am glad to be continuing to build
> on your initial premise. As you see then, in this small point
> we full concur -it *is* the central tension here.
>
> <snipped>
>
> Labienus writes:
> I rather doubt that. There are always 'buts'.
>
> OFS: Then good sir, before getting to the rest of my
> response, I might add another tension to that premise
> on which this mail was founded. -That tension would be
> the tension of one civis taking a very direct statement
> made by another civis and piling many vast
> interpretations upon it. I do not blame you for this
> personally -I have been guilty of this myself more than
> once and in such cases additional clarification was
> required. So let me say to you -there were *quite clearly*
> no 'buts' stated or intimated in my previous post.
>
> As you and I do not know each other personally, I admit
> that you can but judge a few posts on a mailing list
> as to what another civis 'would' or 'wouldn't' do, or
> 'would' or 'wouldn't' want. *Unfortunately,* (emphasis
> mine -I *do* hope we all meet some day,) we do not know
> each other and while you are of course free to disagree
> with me all you want, please do not do me the insult
> of 'presupposing' what I might or might not 'do' in any
> given circumstance.
>
> Now that we've hopefully cleared up that little point,
> onwards...
>
> Labienus writes:
> I expect that you would
> prefer to keep modern dentistry, for example.
>
> OFS: See above. I will grant you another example -perhaps
> more to the point since I'm not a major frequenter of the
> dentist's chair: Latrines. Public latrines a time honored
> tradition throughout the empire. So what about those? Would
> I prefer my cushy fan-enhanced private bathroom experience?
> Would I prefer to use my trusty Charmin instead of a 'sponge
> on a stick?' Or, assuming we *do* have the public latrines,
> do we still want them to blow their bilge into the Tiber,
> or do we want them to run into a modern sewage treatment
> plant?
>
> Labienus writes:
> I admit that that's an
> empirical and technological example, however. So, let's move to more
> subjective and social examples.
>
> OFS: Yes, I knew you would get to those. Your sounding
> board for emotive terms related to your modernist views.
> Ok, let's see about those....
>
> Labienus writes:
> You're honestly telling me that you
> would have no problem with slavery,
>
> OFS: Let's stop here for a moment. Slavery. Well, first
> of all mi Labiene, slavery was quite a different animal
> than the popular conception of the 'Uncle Tom' variety.
> Slavery is obviously a practice that has a great many
> negative connotations; much like say...oh I don't know...
> client/patron perhaps? Slavery is a topic that has already
> seen a vast amount of contentious discussion on this list
> before; a situation which I don't wish to propagate. Since
> you and others that continually harp on the usage of
> this term *seem* to be unable to view historical
> scenarios in their actual context
> without applying modern interpretations, there is little
> hope of making you understand the institution in question.
>
> Labienus:
> the oppression of women,
>
> OFS: No exceptions. Remember my original statement?
> Why must you assume that I would share your apparent
> characteristic of viewing a civilization that existed
> 2000 years ago through 21st century eyes? Roma Mater
> was Roma Mater. One takes the good with the bad. Does
> this mean I'm saying that Women's Rights is a bad
> thing? Of course not. We're in the 21st century.
> My statement had NOTHING to do with what may make sense
> in a 21st century society. It had *everything* to do
> with Antiqua. Period.
>
> Labienus writes:
> mass
> executions, et cetera?
>
> OFS: Yes, you can keep piling onto the et cetera list.
> A nice little term 'et cetera.' It allows one's point
> to be seemingly infinite.
>
> Labienus writes:
> Even if you would, I expect
>
> OFS: Ah yes, what you would 'expect' me to do.
> Please see opening paragraphs.
>
> Labienus:
> that you, like most
> people I know who make such statements,
>
> OFS: What type of people make 'such statements?' Those
> that disagree with you? That don't share your own
> particular vision of the world?
>
> Labienus continues:
> mean that you would be quite
> happily plunked back in the height of the empire, assuming you were a
> citizen who was wealthy enough to be free of debt and have some free
> time. I doubt you'd appreciate being even a well-kept slave.
>
> OFS: Two things. One, refer back to my initial statement.
> No 'buts' or exceptions. For clarification 'no buts or
> exceptions' means that a statement has no exceptions or
> alternate meanings.
>
> Perhaps you should go back and reread my initial post.
> My role was not specified. I simply said Roma. Or
> more precisely, Roma between its founding and 305 CE. If I were
> to go back with my 'modern' ideals and my current mind set,
> I'd know enough to make it work, create an opportunity
> and introduce some of the modern comforts of which I
> was aware. Also having the benefit of a fair smattering
> of historical knowledge of the period, I might have
> enough information to adjust. (Granted, my Latin is
> abysmal but I could pick up enough to get by.)
>
> To build on your previous example, I would know things
> for instance like calcium was good for strong teeth, that
> they need to be brushed and flossed (did you know that they
> had toothbrushes back then?) and that the fluoride mineral
> is good for reducing cavities.
>
> If on the other hand, were I to go back *without*
> my 'modern' knowledge, then I wouldn't know the difference
> anyways since I would have no notion of a '21st century'
> world.
>
> Secondly, I am not of the school of thought that believes
> we've meaningfully 'evolved' over the last two thousand
> years. In fact quite the opposite; I think a darkness
> descended upon the western world with the ascension of Constantine
> ; a darkness that we only barely *started* coming out of in
> the very late 18th century.
>
> The Roman world was quite a bit more advanced
> than our 'modern' sensibilities will allow us to admit. This included
> all major fields of study -from medicine, to science to all manner
> of technology. There's no good reason to suspect that we
> wouldn't have been walking on the moon in the 10th or 11th
> centuries (if not sooner,) had Roma been able to maintain
> its natural evolution.
>
> Rome was also a place of opportunity. Slaves and women often
> ran affairs of state and enjoyed vast wealth and influence.
> Was this all good or evenly applied? No. Is this any sort
> of statement on what is right or wrong to do in *today's*
> world? No. But then you might
> do well to remember that I am not making a 'goodness' or
> 'badness' case here in any sort of 'modern' context.
> Would I 'rather' go back as someone of wealth and
> influence? Well sure! Would I 'expect' it? Absolutely not.
>
> <snipped>
>
> Labienus writes:
> I would argue that there was little that was 'glorious'
>
> OFS: You can 'state' that things were or were not
> 'glorious,' but you haven't 'argued' them other than
> saying that this or that thing was 'bad.'
>
> Labienus states:
> in Roma
> Antiqua's bad aspects, and that Nova Roma states explicitly that we are
> attempting to recreate the *best* of ancient pagan Rome.
>
> OFS: *EXACTLY* my original point. 'Best' is subjective.
> The term 'best' assumes a graded curve of bad, good, better,
> best. I very clearly stated I was not at odds with the
> charter of Nova Roma. -I was quite
> simply stating my personal opinion and making my position clear.
> I intend to stand by historical accuracy as much as
> possible, but ONLY to the extent that it makes sense
> for the welfare of our population. Obviously we are
> discussing a 21st century institution within NR and
> NOT antiqua, to which I was *specifically* referring.
>
> <snipped>
>
> Labienus writes:
> Speaking as one of those within that third option, '
>
> OFS: Actually, with some of the emotive terminology
> used I would have pegged you more in the 'second' option.
> But of course, using my own point -as we do not know
> each other personally this is an assumption which I will
> freely correct if mistaken.
>
> Labienus writes:
> and assuming that
> your option is one that advocates as much pure historicity as possible,
>
> OFS: This assumption is largely correct. Remember though,
> I don't expect to make NR into an exact replica of antiqua.
> Didn't say it at all. Institutional similarity as much
> as possible in our 21st century world? Sure. If I expected
> Antiqua; I would not have joined in the first place.
>
> Labienus writes:
> I would say that there is a fourth option that you did not cover.
>
> OFS: Excellent! I want to ensure that all views are
> represented.
>
> Labienus writes:
> There seems to also be a group of people who are here because they view
> Rome's main strength to have been a strict social hierarchy which
> evinced itself in the patronus-cliens relationship, patria potestas,
> elitism, et cetera. This group appears to have been attracted to Nova
> Roma as a reaction to (primarily) America's tendency toward 'political
> correctness', which is mainly the unhealthy result of an over-extended
> attempt to be inclusive, democratic, and fair. For them, it seems, a
> return to the past would be a return to a predictable world in which
> everything makes sense on a human level because life operates by
> predictable rules that favor not just the dominant human species, but
> the dominant among humans. I see evidence for this group in the form of
> overly hostile reactions to political correctness, the use of terms like
> 'Amerika' (which has long been a neo-Nazi code word for an America that
> favored brown people and homosexuals over right-thinking 'Aryans'), and
> the like.
>
> OFS: Well now! First of all, I haven't seen neo-nazi code words
> used anywhere, but will trust you on that point. To a *very*
> limited extent, I would agree that there are those that
> would come here to escape their current vision of their macronational
> world, to achieve some sense of personal power that they don't
> enjoy in the macronational world or to try and get away
> with doing or saying things that they never could in the
> macronational world. -On these latter points, I would
> fully agree that I've seen this from time to time. Something that
> any 'alternative' society such as ours will have to endure.
>
> While we're on the subject though, let's take a look
> at 'political correctness.' In and of itself is fine, when it
> serves as a tool to make 'right' some form of actual injustice.
> Political correctness has *also* however, become a mask,
> a place to hide for those that wish to 'stick it to' the
> establishment for some sort of perceived wrong. I purposefully
> am *not* going to get into macronational examples here,
> but my own opinion(yes, the 'my own opinion disclaimer here,')
> is that 'political correctness' is perfectly fine, as long
> as those that practice it to an extreme degree do not
> begrudge the opinions of those that believe otherwise
> on any particular issue. I don't want to see 'political
> correctness' for its own sake legislated in Nova Roma, any
> more than I want to see any 'ultra conservative' agenda
> legislated. We need a balance.
>
> <snipped>
>
> Labienus writes:
> As I said, I'm in this third group. I'm there primarily because all
> history is a lie of one form or another, as all historians have biases
> which skew their interpretations of the evidence. Therefore, we will
> never really know what Roma Antiqua was really like.
>
> OFS: I partially agree with you. Not all history is
> a 'lie' however, in the absolute sense. History is
> a mixture of written 'fact' and interpretation. It
> is the vast number of interpretations that are
> placed on history which one has to sift through to
> have a chance of forming any sort of semi-accurate
> picture. That is why for instance, I read as many
> different accounts of a particular event/time period
> as possible so that my own opinion/interpretation
> can be formed.
>
> Going back to my original premise, I can't think
> of any better way to 'know' a culture than to live
> it in all its strengths and weaknesses. In my wistful
> example for instance, I would of course have no
> way of knowing how I would go back, whether or not
> the period would be ideal, what my role would be or
> anything of the sort. I also have to allow for the
> possibility that I would get there and say: "oh,
> this is awful! This isn't at all like the books say!"
> But not having been there, I don't really know in
> any 'absolute' sense. The same premise could be
> applied to visiting another country. One can't go
> to another country and start decrying all the local
> practices -'good' or 'bad' simply because it offends
> one's 'modern' sensibilities. One must deal with
> the culture, laws and reality of the country in which
> one lives or visits.
>
> Labienus writes:
> Even if we come
> extremely close, there wiil be plenty of historians who will validly
> disagree with our interpretations.
>
> OFS: Fully agreed. History like any other field of
> study is open to interpretation. I certainly am
> not pompous enough to in any way, to assume that my own
> vision is any better than anyone else's.
>
> Labienus writes:
> As it is, we have a constitution,
> little difference between patricians and plebeians, very little
> institutionalized sexism, a completely altered tribunate, et cetera.
>
> OFS: Again agreed. Nova Roma is not antiqua, a point
> I've openly declared in previous posts. I don't think
> for a moment that there's anyone who really, *truly*
> feels that NR will ever be anything ultra-close to
> antiqua.
>
> Labienus writes:
> We
> have also run into deep, deep problems every time someone's tried to
> legislate people into behaving a little more like their view of ancient
> Romans.
>
> OFS: Your history with NR runs much longer than mine, so am
> again more than content to take you at your word on the
> legislative aspect. Personally, I see most of our reconstruction
> here as needing to be more cultural than legislative. For
> the record, nothing in my original post was intended to state
> or imply that I favor passing 'let's behave like Romans'
> leges.
>
> Labienus writes:
> We *cannot* escape the modern world, and we *cannot* expect our
> cives to behave like ancient people, even if we could agree upon how the
> ancients actually behaved. Therefore, it behooves us to work toward
> some compromise that captures the *spirit* of Roma while accepting that
> we cannot escape modernity.
>
> OFS: I agree. It's all about compromise and the understanding
> that compromise is something that we *all* have to be willing
> to do from time to time to create that which best serves the
> collective interests. On that point, you'll certainly get no
> argument from me.
>
> <snipped>
>
> Bene valete,
> Oppius
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] SENATUS POPULUSQUE ROMANUS |
| From: |
"Javier Mardones" <aries73@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 16 Apr 2001 02:08:54 -0000 |
|
SENATUS POPULUSQUE ROMANUS
I must to give praises to the deites and people that make the
building of NRoma a reality.
I took the right to speak in the forum for to proclaim my
entry in the Album Gentium in the Familia Cornelia. My eternal
gratitude to Pater familia, Cornelius Sulla, who gave me attention
and kindly welcome.
Quirites, The Pax Deorum be with you!
Iovis Pater, Thou almightest!
Venus Victrix! bless us!
MARCUS CORNELIUS CHILENSIS
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Rebirth versus Reconstruction |
| From: |
=?iso-8859-1?q?Tiberius=20Apollonius=20Cicatrix?= <consulromanus@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:10:07 +0100 (BST) |
|
Salve - response to the post of Lucius Sicinius Drusus
LUCIUS SICINUS DRUSUS (to M Apollonius Formosanus):
Who were the Romans? Think before you answer!
Roma was founded in 753 BCE, and how long did she
endure? In wesren Europe and America we often hear 476
CE (1229 AUC) But is only the date the last Emperor IN
THE WEST was desposed. The Eastern portion did not
fall untill 1453 CE (2206 AUC) and the people who
lived in the east regarded themselves as Romans until
the day Constaninople (A City that Constitine named
Nova Roma when he founded it on the ruins of
Byzanthium) fell.
MY COMMENTS:
But the Roma were are trying to reconstruct at Nova
Roma is the Roma of the Res Publica, from 509BC up to
around 50BC, when Iulius Caesar got all the powers.
=====
Tiberius Apollonius Cicatrix
civis Novae Romae
____________________________
"De te autem, Catilina, cum quiescunt, probant; cum patiuntur, decernunt; cum tacent, clamant." (M. Tullius Cicero: In Catilinam I, 20)
____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Rebirth versus Reconstruction |
| From: |
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 16 Apr 2001 02:13:55 -0700 |
|
Tiberius Apollonius Cicatrix wrote:
>
> Salve - response to the post of Lucius Sicinius Drusus
>
> LUCIUS SICINUS DRUSUS (to M Apollonius Formosanus):
> Who were the Romans? Think before you answer!
> Roma was founded in 753 BCE, and how long did she
> endure? In wesren Europe and America we often hear 476
> CE (1229 AUC) But is only the date the last Emperor IN
> THE WEST was desposed. The Eastern portion did not
> fall untill 1453 CE (2206 AUC) and the people who
> lived in the east regarded themselves as Romans until
> the day Constaninople (A City that Constitine named
> Nova Roma when he founded it on the ruins of
> Byzanthium) fell.
>
> MY COMMENTS:
> But the Roma were are trying to reconstruct at Nova
> Roma is the Roma of the Res Publica, from 509BC up to
> around 50BC, when Iulius Caesar got all the powers.
Ave,
Respectfully, that is not correct. I think you need to read the main
page of the website. Let me quote it here for you.
NOVA ROMA is an organization dedicated to the study and restoration of
ancient Roman culture. From its legendary founding in 753 BCE to 330 CE,
when it ceased to be the center of Imperial authority, Rome set the
standard and laid the foundation for our modern Western civilization.
It is the very first sentence. Please explore the NR website and read
what is listed there. That will answer many of your questions.
Respectfully,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> =====
> Tiberius Apollonius Cicatrix
> civis Novae Romae
> ____________________________
>
> "De te autem, Catilina, cum quiescunt, probant; cum patiuntur, decernunt; cum tacent, clamant." (M. Tullius Cicero: In Catilinam I, 20)
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
> or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Atlanta -- Off topic |
| From: |
lsicinius@-------- |
| Date: |
Mon, 16 Apr 2001 09:47:20 -0000 |
|
--- In novaroma@--------, QFabiusMax@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 4/15/2001 4:49:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> lsicinius@-------- writes:
>
> << (We had a little problem here in Atlanta with an arsonist in a blue
> uniform in 1864). >>
>
> Oh please. Not only is this off topic, no one even sure who started
the
> fires that burned Atlanta. But things being certain, Sherman never
gave that
> order. In the Offical Records of the War of the Rebellion, there
was no
> mention of any Union general officer giving such an order. Grant
ordered the
> burning of Jackson, he even admits it. There would be no stigma
attached if
> Sherman had ordered it done, Hood and AoT was still at large and
once Sherman
> left Atlanta in pursuit, Hood could double back and reoccupy it.
>
> Instead of talking about American Historical Myths we should be
talking about
> taxes. I am still interested in reading the many deverse views
posted so far.
>
> Farewell
> Stephen F. Phenow
> Dir. DBBG
> Drum Barracks ACW Museum
1. Atlanta was destroyed in three phases. The destruction started
during the siege when Hood lost the Battle of Peachtree Creek in July
1864 and was forced into the city. For 6 weeks widespread damage was
done by Union Shelling of Hoods postions in and near Atlanta. On Aug
30 Sherman cut the last major railline into the city at the battle of
Jonesbro forcing Hood to evacuate the city. Hood ordered the supplies
he couldn't carry burned. The Rail yards were set on fire by the Rebel
forces as part of this order resulting in more destruction to to city.
(This is the fire depected in "Gone With the Wind"). The final phase
of destruction occured in November when Sherman left for the March to
the Sea and may buildings were torched. This was a pattern the Union
army followed from Atlanta to Savanah leaving a swath of destruction
as part of Shermans plan to "make Georgia howl" It was the fires in
November and December that earned Sherman his Gerogia nickname of the
Arsonist. It's more of a fond nickname for our old advisary, who
recived a warm welcome when he revisted the city in the 1870's
2. I've gone beyond talking about taxes (which requires no more than a
senate vote) and am doing the research into New Hampshire's laws
regarding NPCs. Nova Roma Inc's bylaws regarding record keeping and
reports to the members (citizens) are inadequate to handle membership
fees (taxes). I hope to have a draft of a lex ready sometime this week
which I'll then send to the Consuls and the Praetors. This is the
first step towards laying the ground work for taxes. One warning about
the lex I'm trying to draft. I Am Not A Lawyer. Since this lex would
serve as a model for the Macro National Bylaws of Nova Roma Inc
regarding reporting of income I'd strongly advise that a lawyer
familar with New Hampshire's code look it over BEFORE it is presented
to a Comitia.
Drusus
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: European meeting |
| From: |
=?iso-8859-1?B?WWFubiBRdely6Q==?= <yquere@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 16 Apr 2001 12:21:26 +0200 |
|
Salvete M. Apollonio Formosano et omnibus
I think Roma should be a great idea for our first european meeting, and was
about to propose this site.
Rome also provides quite cheap accomodations facilities such as youth
hostels and so on.
Lutecia (paris) could be interesting for it is quite easily reachable from
almost anywhere but it is certainly not a cheap place !
Bene Valete
I.Querius Armoricus
Propraetor Galliae
----- Original Message -----
From: M. Apollonius Formosanus <bvm3@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 9:55 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Re: European meeting
M. Apollonius Formosanus Aedilis Plebeius omnibus Novoromanis
Europaeis S.P.D.
Inasmuch as I am asked about a pan-European Nova Roman get together,
let me state:
1. I think it is an especially good idea. Roma was always an idea and
reality uniting Europa, and being on the spot, as it were, we have a
special relationship with Rome which we should cherish and affirm.
2. If it happens while I am enjoying my tenure as Aedile and it is
agreed that the Aediles should be responsible, I am in principle
willing to undertake some of the organising responsibilities or
official sponsorship - although the people on the spot in the
selected location would obviously have the most to do by far.
3. The proposal of Colonia Agrippina (Cologne) no doubt has many
merits, but for many of us in Europa Orientalis the costs of
travelling and staying there might be prohibitive. Speaking for cives
in Venedia (the future provincia to comprise at least Polonia
moderna), it would be fairly easy and cheap to get as far as
Berolinum (Berlin), if inexpensive accomodation were available.
(There are special heavily discounted trains to and from Posnania
(Poznan).) Within Polonia and Pannonia (Bohemia, Moravia, Slovacia,
Hungaria) and even to Vindobona (Vienna) train transportation is
cheap, but as soon as we must travel large distances through Germania
to go west the expenses begin to look formidable.
I think that this problem of differential East-West incomes will be
a problem for years to come. For us in the East, Praga (Prague) or
Vindobona would be better. But of course they are not quite so
central for those further to the west. (Although Praga, for example,
offers the western European excellent value for money in terms of
accommodation, restaurants, etc.)
The above notwithstanding, I am surprised that no one suggested
meeting in Roma (Italia)!
I hope that interest in this idea will continue, and that we will be
able to realise it, even this year. I quite agree that summer would
be the best time.
Valete!
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Rebirth versus Reconstruction |
| From: |
Kristoffer From <kristoffer.from@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 16 Apr 2001 12:47:41 +0200 |
|
Fortunatus wrote:
> I see evidence for this group in the form of overly hostile reactions to
> political correctness, the use of terms like 'Amerika' (which has long been
> a neo-Nazi code word for an America that favored brown people and homosexuals
> over right-thinking 'Aryans'), and the like.
((snipped))
Salve, Labiene Fortunate.
You make an excellent argument, yet I must mention that in Sweden, for
instance, "America" is spelled "Amerika". This is rather similar to the
english spelling, and when you're typing a lot, and fast, it is quite
possible to employ the spelling form you've seen and used during your
entire upbringing, and keep on seeing in the newspapers, rather than
what you know is correct english.
What I'm trying to say, is that not everyone using that term is
neo-Nazi, some of us may be swedes...:)
((BTW: Any "stupid swede"-jokers will be flamed. And spammed. And yes,
I'm blond. And blue-eyed. You've got a problem with that? :) ))
Vale,
Titus Octavius Pius,
Consiliarius Thules,
Praeco Anarei Thules,
Scriba to the Curator Araneum
AKA Kristoffer From
---
Si hoc signum legere potes,
operis boni in rebus latinis alacribus
et fructuosis potiri potes.
- Not-so-famous quotation
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Rebirth versus Reconstruction |
| From: |
labienus@-------- |
| Date: |
Mon, 16 Apr 2001 08:42:05 US/Central |
|
Salve Tite Octavi
> You make an excellent argument, yet I must mention that in Sweden, for
> instance, "America" is spelled "Amerika".
Yes. It is also the German spelling, I believe. It is precisely because the
use of the 'k' is a foreign spelling of the word that neo-Nazis use it,
implying that America has been taken over by foreigners.
> What I'm trying to say, is that not everyone using that term is
> neo-Nazi, some of us may be swedes...:)
True enough. Due to the plethora of people for whom English is a second
language who use this list, I do my best to look at the context in which words
are used--especially inflammatory words that could be due to nothing more than
an innocent misspelling. And so, I see a great deal of difference between a
message that starts off, "I hear that you in Amerika like to ride horses..."
and, to use a recent example, one that talks about "Amerikanitas", compares
social enlightenment to barbarism, and berates those who show some tolerance
to "cinaeditas".
Vale
T Labienus Fortunatus
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Tribune's report: Britannia |
| From: |
"Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 16 Apr 2001 08:56:16 -0500 |
|
15 Apr 2001
Salve All
I would like to ask that Nova Romans please read the following post sent to the former Provincial Egroup for Britannia. It's content speaks for it's self, there is a grave situation currently occurring in Britannia! If there are any questions as to the nature of the resignations on march 15, the below post may answer some of them.
From the Britannia list;
From: BICURRATUS@--------
Date: Fri Apr 13, 2001 7:24am
Subject: Britannia and the future
To all members of the Britannia list.
As those of you who subscribed to the Nova Roma list will know, Propraetor
Vado, myself (Procurator Bicurratus) and Legati Nigellus et Natalia, plus a
number of prominent citizens both from this province and others withdrew Nova
Roma on the Ides (15th) of March. However, the members of the provincial
government didn't just leave, but seceded Provincia Britannia from Nova Roma
keeping most of the provincial treasury in the island.
Since that time there has been little about the change of status of the
Britannia list. Anyone who has visited the Britannia page at Yahoogroups will
have seen all references to Nova Roma have been removed. Vado is now the
list-owner and I am a moderator. Citizens of Nova Roma are welcome to stay on
this list (or join) or leave. There were only 3 people removed from the list
during the secession. They were Germanicus, Cassius and Sulla.
This list is now about Roman history in general and Roman Britain in
particular. It is not about Nova Roma. Postings about Nova Roma are not
welcome.
Hope this clarifies the situation regarding the status of Britannia and this
list. Whether a new group arises out of this or we remain solely a band of
interested people on a mailing list has yet to be decided. Perhaps the
promised summer sun will help the decision be made.
Britannia resurgo
Bicurratus
QS;
This same post has been sent to the Senate, and is current being informally debated. There is much discussion as to what should be done with this very serious situation, ranging from actions against what is clearly a misappropriation of Britannia's Nova Roman funds, to following a less direct approach in order to not enflame the situation. As I am Tribune, and have been entrusted with the following found in IV.A.7.c. of our Constitution "To be privy to the debates of the Senate, and keep the citizens informed as to the content and progress thereof;" I have informed our citizens of this informal debate, some of it's content, and I will keep the citizenry informed as to it's progress. There is also discussions on taxes whic |
