| Subject: |
[novaroma] Imperium ? |
| From: |
"Franciscus Apulus Caesar" <sacro_barese_impero@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 28 Dec 2001 01:49:30 +0100 |
|
Franciscus Apulus Caesar omnibus S.P.D.
Surfing on the Ancient Roman websites I found the IMPERIUM, "an ancient
re-enactment society": http://members.aol.com/Agamedes/
The websites says:
"We are primarilly a household within the Society for Creative Anachronism
with chapters (Domus, Municips, Provinces etc...) in many Kingdoms."
and
"We are the only group doing ancient reenactment on this scale."
In understand Imperium is just a Club not a real (micro) nation aimed to the
Roman reenactment. They say about *members* but they talk about *senate and
government*.
What do you know about Imperium? Is it like SVR? What is the level of
Imperium?
Valete
Franciscus Apulus Caesar
-------------------------------------------
Soon Quaestor
-------------------------------------------
Provincia Italia
Alme Sol ... Possis Nihil Urbe Roma Visere Maius
Support me as Propraetor Italiae Provinciae
----------------------------------------
Paterfamilias Gens Apula
www.gensapula.too.it
----------------------------------------
Web Nova Roman Experiments
http://lab.novaroma.org/wnre
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Imperium ? |
| From: |
Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 27 Dec 2001 19:36:15 -0600 (CST) |
|
Salve Francisce Apule,
I'm on two of their mailing lists. There is not much activity there -
but they do seem to actively participate in SCA battles and similar
combat-orientied events.
Vale, Octavius.
> In understand Imperium is just a Club not a real (micro) nation aimed to the
> Roman reenactment. They say about *members* but they talk about *senate and
> government*.
> What do you know about Imperium? Is it like SVR? What is the level of
> Imperium?
--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus
Curator Araneum et Senator, Nova Roma
Senior Consul-Elect, MMDCCLV (2002)
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Fw: Some cool info. on the ancient grape.... |
| From: |
"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 27 Dec 2001 17:41:51 -0800 |
|
I got this article from Oppius Flaccus Severus....I thought you'll might
enjoy it.
Vale,
Sulla
----- Original Message -----
From: "Oppius Flaccus Severus" <oppiusflaccus@-------->
To: <alexious@-------->
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 5:37 PM
Subject: Some cool info. on the ancient grape....
> Makes me thirsty...
>
>
http://interactive.wsj.com/fr/emailthis/retrieve.cgi?id=SB100941842854507480
.djm
>
> -Oppius
>
>
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Appointment of Gaia Claudia Lucentia Livia |
| From: |
"Caius Cornelius Puteanus" <puteus@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 28 Dec 2001 03:16:30 +0100 |
|
Ave M. Minucie Audens Honorabilis!
Ave Collaboratores Sodalitatis Egressi!
Ave Quirites!
As Praefectus Sodalitatis Egressi Germaniae Inferioris Europaeque
Occidentalis I hereby appoint Gaia Claudia Lucentia Livia as Scriba
Praefecti Sodalitatis Egressi Britaniae Europaeque Occidentalis.
Livia will assist me in the fulfillment of my duties as Praefectus (Section
Chief) of the Sodalitas Egressus. This means in short that she will gather
information on all Rome related instancies, groups etc. in Britain and their
activities. The information will be publicly accessible via the internet.
Her endavours will be similar to those I have already established for the
region of Germania Inferior and which can be viewed via the website of this
region:
www.geocities.com/Germania_Inferior/ (click Scriba's report).
I hereby ask all Nova Romans to assist both Livia and me in the gathering of
information as it comes to you. We would be delighted to receive all
Rome-related information from these regions (archeological finding,
activities of institutions and reenactment groups, press releases and the
like).
We will be working closely together aiming at the integration of our
websites and with the official website of the Sodalitas.
I hope this small step will allow us to continualy expand the information
Nova Romans will be able to dispose of.
Please note that I make this appointment as Caius Puteus Germanicus, since
the adoption into gens Cornelia is not yet completed.
Vale bene!
Caius Cornelius Puteanus
www.geocities.com/puteanus/
www.geocities.com/Germania_Inferior/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Dutch-English translation needed |
| From: |
"JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 27 Dec 2001 21:46:06 -0500 |
|
Salve,
If there are any citizens capable of translating a text from Dutch into
English, please contact me *privately* at justicecmo@--------
Thank you in advance!!
Vale,
Priscilla Vedia Serena
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Movie: Amazons and Gladiators |
| From: |
"Gaius Cornelius Publicus" <gaius-cornelius-publicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 27 Dec 2001 20:08:46 -0800 |
|
Well, I just watched "Amazons & Gladiators".
Not a bad B-level flick, if you are *not* into historical accuracy that is. Basically Xena meets Gladiator. Complete with t&a and, well, rather erotic scenes. Battle/Action scenes are acceptable, no where near as graphic as Gladiator.
Check it out on Jan 8th or so when it's available to the general public (it's going straight to DVD).
Publicus
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] History: consular approval? |
| From: |
"racheledugdale" <racheledugdale@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 27 Dec 2001 13:21:29 -0000 |
|
Since I'm a wordy sort of guy, I've had to break my reply to Vedia
Serena's mail into two mails, this one dealing with my statement that
I have consular approval, and the other answering her other queries.
--- In novaroma@--------, "JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@g...> wrote:
> I can only speak for Flavius Vedius Germanicus
> <and do so with his permission here> but he has not given any sort
of
> permission on the matter.
You make a fair point. Let me clarify what caused me to believe that
I had been given official approval. I wrote a group e-mail to the two
current and the two elected consuls asking their permission to
undertake the history. It was my intention in that mail to make it
clear that I was writing to them in their capacity as magistrates and
magistrates-elect of Nova Roma, not as private individuals, and that
I expected their reply therefore to carry this force. If this was not
clear, then I apologise for misunderstanding.
Likewise, when I received a reply from Marcus Octavius Germanicus
saying of my offer to write the history:
> That would be very much appreciated!
And:
> Please, visit the archives and write your history. I trust that
> you'll remain unbiased and not take sides in the battles we've
> had. If you write it, I'll post it on the site.
... I understood from the fact that the reply was carbon-copied to
the consuls and the other consul-elect and from the tone of the reply
that this was an official response either resulting from discussion
between those four, or else written by the consul-elect in the belief
that his colleagues would endorse it. Once again, if this was not the
intention, I apologise for my misapprehension.
As it happens, since I received Octavius Germanicus' e-mail I have
also received what I take to be approval from Cornelius Sulla and
Cassius Iulianus on different occasions. You are, however, quite
right to say that I have received no explicit endorsement from Vedius
Germanicus, and if he has any reservations about my project, I urge
him to contact me to discuss them. I certainly would not wish to be
undertaking this research against the wishes of the consul.
Similarly I encourage anyone who has any misgivings to express them
to me.
Jamie
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Historical enquiry |
| From: |
"racheledugdale" <racheledugdale@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 27 Dec 2001 14:14:51 -0000 |
|
--- In novaroma@--------, Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@b...> wrote:
> If you are having difficulty with gathering the resources, I would
be more
> than happy to help you out in the new year. I am sure the other
aediles
> would also be as enthusiastic as I am. Feel free to email me
privately if
> you require anything, I will do my best to get it to you.
Many thanks for your offer of help. At the moment I'm gathering raw
materials, but when I've got a general outline of events and know
more clearly what the important questions are, I shall certainly ask.
> It would be good to have a few different versions of our history.
I agree - I shall certainly feel my history is incomplete if I can't
include a digression on why all my rival historians are wrong. :)
But seriously, yes, history is very much a dialectical process, and
there's always a need for revisionists and reactionaries to push
historical thought forwards.
Jamie
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Appointment of Gaia Claudia Lucentia Livia |
| From: |
"Rachel" <racheledugdale@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 28 Dec 2001 02:51:23 -0000 |
|
I would just like to thank Caius Cornelius Puteanus for appointing me as his
scribe, and I hope I will be able to do this job effectively. Since this is
not a magisterial position, I am not aware of having an official oath to
swear, but I would like to take this opportunity to publically issue a
promise to the people of Nova Roma that I will do my very best to fulfil all
the duties allocated to me, for as long as I hold this position.
One of the duties involved in this role is to accumulate information about
Roman related societies and groups in Britain (and Western Europe, where
possible). I invite anyone with information on Roman activities in Britain
and Western Europe (other than those covered by C. Cornelius' excellent
Germania Inferior site) to submit that information to me. Any links to
websites which you supply can be linked to from the site that I'm going to
put together.
Thank you all in advance for your support.
Livia.
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] History: consular approval? |
| From: |
"Rachel" <racheledugdale@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 28 Dec 2001 05:31:44 -0000 |
|
Ave,
I'd just like to point out that a couple of mails - including the one I'm
replying to here - which Jamie (my fiance) wrote on my computer, have
accidentally shown up as being posted from my account, due to the fact that
I had asked Yahoo to save my password at a time when I wasn't sharing my
computer. Then Jamie signed in to his Yahoo account - or thought he had -
to read the messages in the archives, and wrote his replies, but it seems
that his login didn't register, or he assumed he'd done it but hadn't, or
something like that, and he inadvertantly sent his replies from my account
in stead, as I am logged in as default on my computer.
Really sorry for any confusion caused to anyone by this mix-up - we will try
doubly hard to make sure nothing like this happens again.
To reiterate: the two recent messages 'History: consular approval?' and 'Re:
Historical enquiry' sent from my account and signed with Jamie's name were
sent by him, not me, and he believed he was sending them from his own Yahoo
account, not mine.
Again, my sincerest apologies.
Livia.
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] PC crash is to be expected!! |
| From: |
"Caius Cornelius Puteanus" <puteus@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 28 Dec 2001 15:36:23 +0100 |
|
Salve Quirites!
I send you this message, just to inform you that my computer is about to
crash and I have many difficulties in sending and receiving email messages.
It is possible that you will not hear from me for a few days, due to this
problem. This will of course not prevent me from catching up later.
For those who know which deity provides help with computer problems, please
be so kind to say a tiny little prayer to him/her in order to prevent this
crash from happening... In a few days the new PC will be well in place and
the problems would be something from the past!
I will fulfill my duties within the Res Publica as faithful as possible!
Vale bene!
Caius Cornelius Puteanus
www.geocities.com/puteanus/
www.geocities.com/Germania_Inferior/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Common Law in NR? |
| From: |
"Anderson Esteves" <esteves@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 28 Dec 2001 13:25:10 -0200 |
|
Salve Labiene
Salvete Quirites
That is how I thought the decision (both juridical and administrative) system worked in Nova Roma, before I read the message from Quintus Fabius, in which he said that Apollonius could not waive the 9 days period for reconsideration because there was no precedent for that.
Of course, as you said, a precedent can serve to help the magistrate in judging the case. That is how things work all over the ocidental world. But it cannot pre-determine the judgement. Only the Law can do so.
Now all is clear for me. I hope it is clear also to our magistrates and to the Senate. It is a question of great significance, not only an empty juridical discussion. It affects the rights of the citizenry.
Valete
Atticus
----- Original Message -----
From: labienus@--------
To: novaroma@--------
Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2001 7:43 PM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Common Law in NR?
Salvete Attice aliique
> What I want to know is how this works here in Nova Roma.
<amputatio>
> Or maybe the power of precedents is so normal and evident for our cives
> living in an anlgo-saxon culture, that it seems also natural that they must
> have a rolle in NR too.
To date, our magistrati have relied on precedent to guide them in their various
decisions. And, one at least has mistakenly referred to the principal of
"stare decisis" ("let the decision stand"), which is one of the bases of
common, as opposed to Roman, law.
> My question is: is the common law fons legis (source of law)in NR? And if it
> is, where is it in the Constitution?
Common law is not the source of Nova Roman law, and it cannot be found in the
constitution. Indeed, the primary passages that might be considered to mandate
the form of Nova Roman law are section I.B. (establishing the precedence of
law), section IV.A.3 (outlining the praetores' powers), and the preamble which
states that ancient Roman practices should be the guiding factor in Nova Roma's
government (though it does not mention law in specific).
Therefore, it is my interpretation that precedence, while a valuable tool for
magistrati and other government officials, does not in any way establish law in
Nova Roma, and that our leges are therefore our sole recourse to determine what
is and is not legally permissible. Precedents can serve as a guide for
interpreting the law, but they cannot ever establish it.
Note, by the way, that the particular law in question--Lex Cornelia et Maria De
Civitate Eiuranda, which establishes, among other things, cives' right to a
reconsideration nundina--both gives cives a right and binds the censores to a
certain course of action. While it is reasonable to assume that a civis may
waive a right if he or she wishes, it is dangerous at best to allow magistrati
to ignore restrictions even if the civis affected by such a disregard for the
law is amenable.
Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] History posts confusion |
| From: |
James Johnston <james.johnston@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 28 Dec 2001 15:37:47 +0000 (GMT) |
|
It appears that due to a computer malfunction several of my posts of yesterday were sent from the wrong yahoogroups account. I apologise for any confusion or inconvenience. I should like to assure everyone that the messages 'History: consular approval?' and 'Re: Historical enquiry' should not be taken to express the views of anyone other than myself (except where other individuals are quoted).
Also, the promised second part of my reply to Vedia Serena's message did not get through at all, and I shall re-submit it now. Apologies to Vedia Serena and anyone else who was interested to know the answer to her question for the delay.
Thanks for your patience.
Jamie
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] HIstory: why? |
| From: |
James Johnston <james.johnston@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 28 Dec 2001 15:48:29 +0000 (GMT) |
|
So here's the other part of my reply (first part available
in 'History: consular approval?). I should explain that in the first paragraph after my quotation of Vedia Serena's question, I have had to remove a reference to a particular sexual practice, since it has been quite rightly pointed out to me that it might be inappropriate for subscribers under 18. I have, however, allowed the rest of the sentence to remain, since it is important both to the rhetorical structure of the paragraph and to the point I was making. Hope no one minds. :)
--- In novaroma@--------, "JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@g...> wrote:
> I would be curious to know what drew you to
> make such an offer [to write a history of Nova Roma]. You are not
> a citizen, and there is no insult or attack
> meant by that observation, so it rather surprises me that someone
> who is not
> even a member of our nation would offer to undertake such a huge
> task for
> our benefit. As I said, I am simply curious and would very much
> enjoy
> hearing how you came to this decision.
My attention was first drawn to Nova Roma by my fiancee, Rachel, who
has since become a citizen, Gaia Claudia Lucentia Livia. I'm
interested in Roman history, in politics and constitutional law,
experimental history, and funky things in general, so you can see why
I found the Nova Roma project interesting. I'm not one to rush into
things, though, and I was reluctant to dive into citizenship without
knowing more about the nation and its values, particularly about how
scrupulously its citizens reproduced Ancient Roman value-systems. I
wasn't keen on throwing in my lot with people who held authentic
Roman views like 'it's okay to fight people so long as they're
barbarians', 'a man should only embrace his wife during a
thunderstorm' and 'performing [removed to avoid offence] is degrading to men'. I was also concerned that my Latin, which I haven't studied since age 16,
wouldn't be up to scratch. I'm glad to say that I no longer hold any
of these reservations, and am in fact giving serious thought to
applying to citizenship. Nonetheless, I know that citizenship in any
nation is nothing to take lightly, hence my deliberation.
Anyway, as to why I want to write this history: when I looked around
the website I was pleased to see the 'annals' link, but rather
disappointed to see that they weren't an annalistic narrative history
like Livy's or Tacitus'. It seemed to me a shame, since history and
the interpretation of the past was so important to the ancient Romans
(note Cato's history-writing sideline, and the impact of Polybius on
Roman political thought) and is indeed important to any culture. It
also struck me that here was an historical opportunity which hadn't
occurred since Arthur Evans' excavations at Knossos: well-preserved
evidence for the history of a nation which had not yet been studied
or interpreted by any historian.
All periods of 'real-world' history for which evidence survives have
of course already been studied, and so when one comes to study any
period, although there is still work to be done, one can look up the
standard works and find out the rough sequence of events, the
problems and the possible solutions, essentially the shape of the
history. Here however, except for the useful but minimal structured
narrative of the 'crisis' and dictatorship in the annals, there is no
such work: only the records themselves. This of course makes
historical study much more difficult, but it represents a challenge
which I don't think any historian could resist. And as if this were
not enough, it's also a chance to be another Polybius, Livy or
Tacitus: to write a history in the classical 'grand style' (as
Ammianus Marcellinus called it) without simply paraphrasing what has
already been written - the same opportunity Gibbon saw and exploited
in writing his 'History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire',
which he saw as a continuation of Tacitus.
So there, at great and probably tedious length, is why I want to
write this history. I hope it answers your question.
Jamie
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Imperium ? |
| From: |
mike rasschaert <morosbe2001@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 28 Dec 2001 02:51:01 -0800 (PST) |
|
Salve Franciscus Apulus Caesar
In understand Imperium is just a Club not a real
> (micro) nation aimed to the
> Roman reenactment. They say about *members* but they
> talk about *senate and
> government*.
> What do you know about Imperium? Is it like SVR?
> What is the level of
> Imperium?
I must object. Is every organisation or club 'like
SVr' as you put it. Have you ever visited the website
of SVR. If you did you will know that SVR is after to
reconstruct Roman society and unlike NR politics does
not dominates the organisation/society like in NR and
Imperium. In fact, Imperium emphasizes on the military
saide of Rome. So the comparisment between SVR and
Imperium is invaled here.
Vale optimi pax deorum
Tiberius Apollonius Callias
=====
Permissum Orcus(Hades)et Trivia(Hekate) tu beate et defendi
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Imperium ? |
| From: |
QFabiusMaxmi@-------- |
| Date: |
Fri, 28 Dec 2001 15:06:46 EST |
|
In a message dated 12/28/01 9:26:56 AM Pacific Standard Time,
morosbe2001@-------- writes:
> I must object. Is every organisation or club 'like
> SVr' as you put it. Have you ever visited the website
> of SVR. If you did you will know that SVR is after to
> reconstruct Roman society and unlike NR politics does
> not dominates the organisation/society like in NR and
> Imperium. In fact, Imperium emphasizes on the military
> saide of Rome. So the comparisment between SVR and
> Imperium is invaled here.
> Vale optimi pax deorum
> Tiberius Apollonius Callias
>
Salvete
I have to agree with Tiberius Apollonius Callias here. Imperium is an SCA
based "house" that imitates, rather poorly I might add, Roman military
offices in the Principate.
SVR does not do anything similar.
Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Common Law in NR? |
| From: |
QFabiusMaxmi@-------- |
| Date: |
Fri, 28 Dec 2001 15:42:02 EST |
|
In a message dated 12/28/01 8:28:25 AM Pacific Standard Time,
esteves@-------- writes:
> That is how I thought the decision (both juridical and administrative)
> system worked in Nova Roma, before I read the message from Quintus Fabius,
> in which he said that Apollonius could not waive the 9 days period for
> reconsideration because there was no precedent for that.
>
> Of course, as you said, a precedent can serve to help the magistrate in
> judging the case. That is how things work all over the ocidental world. But
> it cannot pre-determine the judgement. Only the Law can do so.
>
> Now all is clear for me. I hope it is clear also to our magistrates and to
> the Senate. It is a question of great significance, not only an empty
> juridical discussion. It affects the rights of the citizenry.
>
> Valete
>
> Atticus
>
>
Salvete
I was gone during the start this debate, and since have heard a mishmash of
law quotes including Gaius who is a Principate writer and not from the
republic to get points across.
What I said, was neither Flavius or I would let Apollonius Draco waive his 9
day waiting period, if we were asked. Why? Because it would set a precedent.
To say that Precedent was not involved in the early Roman Republic is to not
understand Roman Law. The Table of Twelve was set up by the commission of 10
(decemvirs) based on tribal precedents, traditions and varies city state
laws. The idea of a code was Greek, but execution was Roman. Since Romans
were such traditionalists, they adopted and codified these traditions and
precedents into Law. However the table had mostly laws to do with the Cult
of Farmers, since Rome was an agricultural community.
Such laws do not help NR today, but it is a starting point. I think it would
be unwise to ignore precedent and tradition. Our early spiritual ancestors
did not. It would be a vain magistrate who would do so.
English common law uses precedent but in a different way. These were based
on tribal customs, and eventually codified into a rigid system, with no
leeway of decision.
Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Legio Romana |
| From: |
"kaesoqvintvs" <kaesoqvintvs@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 28 Dec 2001 18:20:26 -0000 |
|
Salvete qvirites omnes!
I amn interested in create the Legio of my province, but I dont know
how I can register it in the list of Legions of Nova Roma.
I m Kaeso Qvintvs Bellicvs from Argentina province..
Thanks!
Valete qvirites omnes!
- SPQR -
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Imperium ? |
| From: |
"fraelov" <sacro_barese_impero@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 28 Dec 2001 19:00:51 -0000 |
|
Franciscus Apulus Caesar Tiberio Apollonio Callias S.P.D.
Sorry, Tiberius, I don't want compare SVR with Imperium about the
organization or ideas or nature. I wanted know if the Nova Roman
consideration about Imperium is like SVR.
I know very well SVR, I surfed many times on th website and I thing
it have a good organization. I'm displeased for the division about NR
and SVR and often I looked in SVR something of more *democratic* (but
I'm nova roman :-)
I don't know Imperium and I would understand the maps of renactment
societies and own "level of Romanitas".
Please, sorry if I was clear and my hope is the re-union between NR e
SVR.
Valete
Franciscus Apulus Caesar
> I must object. Is every organisation or club 'like
> SVr' as you put it. Have you ever visited the website
> of SVR. If you did you will know that SVR is after to
> reconstruct Roman society and unlike NR politics does
> not dominates the organisation/society like in NR and
> Imperium. In fact, Imperium emphasizes on the military
> saide of Rome. So the comparisment between SVR and
> Imperium is invaled here.
> Vale optimi pax deorum
> Tiberius Apollonius Callias
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Imperium ? |
| From: |
mike rasschaert <morosbe2001@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 28 Dec 2001 12:33:11 -0800 (PST) |
|
Salvete Q. Fabius and Priscilla Vedia
How can my email reach Q. Fabius when it never got
through the mainlist. I never received it in my
mailbox. Enlighten my please?
> > I must object. Is every organisation or club 'like
> > SVr' as you put it. Have you ever visited the
> website
> > of SVR. If you did you will know that SVR is after
> to
> > reconstruct Roman society and unlike NR politics
> does
> > not dominates the organisation/society like in NR
> and
> > Imperium. In fact, Imperium emphasizes on the
> military
> > saide of Rome. So the comparisment between SVR and
> > Imperium is invaled here.
> > Vale optimi pax deorum
> > Tiberius Apollonius Callias
> Salvete
> I have to agree with Tiberius Apollonius Callias
> here. Imperium is an SCA
> based "house" that imitates, rather poorly I might
> add, Roman military
> offices in the Principate.
> SVR does not do anything similar.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Imperium ? |
| From: |
mike rasschaert <morosbe2001@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 28 Dec 2001 12:41:52 -0800 (PST) |
|
Salvete Q. Fabius and Priscilla Vedia
I feel i owe you two a apology since i responded to
quickly because after reading throug all f my mails i
came across the email which i had sent to NR mainlist.
I'm sorry but i was wrong and i thought you kept my
mail from the public for some reason. I hope you
accept my apologies.
Valete optimi pax deorum.
Tiberius Apollonius Callias
=====
Permissum Orcus(Hades)et Trivia(Hekate) tu beate et defendi
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Digest 1780-1777 |
| From: |
"Theresa Irwin" <twright56@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 28 Dec 2001 16:22:39 -0500 |
|
I have a proposition to make. I have a lot of classics websites including the usual suspects. I also have approxiamately 10MB of webspace for a personal websiteand have a good level of HTML experience both hand coding and using FrontPage. I would be willing to donate this for Nova Roma in addition to other duties. I could assisit in preparing the bibliography of the resources for Nova Roma.
Alexandria Iulia Agrippa
ICQ# 25205373
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Imperium ? |
| From: |
QFabiusMaxmi@-------- |
| Date: |
Fri, 28 Dec 2001 17:16:10 EST |
|
In a message dated 12/28/01 2:10:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
morosbe2001@-------- writes:
> Salvete Q. Fabius and Priscilla Vedia
> How can my email reach Q. Fabius when it never got
> through the mainlist. I never received it in my
> mailbox. Enlighten my please?
>
Salvete!
It never reached my mailbox, since I closed it to NR traffic. I have been
reading mail off the Yahoo site. My mailbox is open again if you wish to
speak to me.
I felt that you needed support.
Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Legio Romana |
| From: |
QFabiusMaxmi@-------- |
| Date: |
Fri, 28 Dec 2001 17:32:10 EST |
|
In a message dated 12/28/01 2:09:18 PM Pacific Standard Time,
kaesoqvintvs@-------- writes:
> I amn interested in create the Legio of my province, but I dont know
> how I can register it in the list of Legions of Nova Roma.
> I m Kaeso Qvintvs Bellicvs from Argentina province..
> Thanks!
>
>
Salve Caseo Quinte Bellice.
The Senate would need some information about your proposed Legio before NR
sponsorship.
How many members, is it named after a historical Roman Legio, or is it just a
made up name?
Where will the Legio be headquartered, Etc? You might join the <A HREF="mailto:SodalitasMilitarium@--------">
SodalitasMilitarium@--------</A> which is the place most Legio reinactors
stay and communicate. You'd be among like members in military history.
Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus
To subscribe to the SodalitasMilitarium, send an email to:
SodalitasMilitarium-subscribe@--------
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] an undemocratic Republic |
| From: |
"Caius Cornelius Puteanus" <puteus@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 28 Dec 2001 23:47:15 +0100 |
|
Ave Quirites!
I just have one little note, since I noticed that once again the word
'democratic' is used in a discussion. It seems there are many more
democratic Rome-related organizations out there, and NR is the uncorrigable
aristocracy? Please have a quick laugh and realize that (and I will take the
approximate numbers of a previous vote) about 300 people vote on a
population of 1150 cives and when we look at the C Centuriate they are
devided in 193 centuriae. 300 voters is a large turnout and means that
approximately 30-40 centuries have no voters at all and that all the rest
has voters in it. This leaves us with about 150 centuriae. Is it really so
that all the senatores etc. as some think loudly have a century of their
own? Minus 18 then. And by the tone of this you can guess that this is not
true!
The leges ruling the Comitiae are faithful to Roma antiqua and try to reward
those who actively contribute to the fulfillment of our mission. So, please
let the 'undemocratic' argument drop, it has very little value here...
I explicitely didn't reply to this person to not make this into something
personal, it is merely meant as a light consideration to become a bit more
realistic ;-)
Observations from a soon to become ex-Rogator!
Vale bene!
Caius Cornelius Puteanus
www.geocities.com/puteanus/
www.geocities.com/Germania_Inferior/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Digest 1780-1777 |
| From: |
Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 28 Dec 2001 18:07:33 -0500 |
|
Salve Alexandria Iulia,
I am happy to see yet another citizen among us with web skills. They are in
high demand here in Nova Roma. I invite you to join a mailing list
concerning Nova Roma websites at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NovaRomaWebSites/.
Here you will be able to discuss your proposal with other citizens with
experience in web design and with the Curator Araneum. There is also
currently a lab set up were people like you can submit any work they have
done on improving NovaRoma.org. You can visit this lab at
http://lab.novaroma.org/wnre/. I hope you find these suggestions useful, and
look forward to seeing your skills put to work.
Vale,
"Quamquam cupido sit delictum ab suis crebro est mater virtutum"
"Though ambition may be a fault in itself it is often the mother of virtues"
--
Amulius Claudius Petrus
Aedile Curule Elect
Provincia Legatus Canada Orientalis
Retarius Officium Canada Orientalis
Retarius Officium Gens Claudia
Canada Orientalis Provincia
Canada Orientalis Website:
www25.brinkster.com/canorien/
Gens Claudia Website:
www.freehost.nu/members/gensclaudia/
--
>Alexandria Iulia at twright56@-------- wrote:
>
> I have a proposition to make. I have a lot of classics websites including the
> usual suspects. I also have approxiamately 10MB of webspace for a personal
> websiteand have a good level of HTML experience both hand coding and using
> FrontPage. I would be willing to donate this for Nova Roma in addition to
> other duties. I could assisit in preparing the bibliography of the resources
> for Nova Roma.
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Common Law in NR? |
| From: |
"Martins-Esteves" <esteves@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 18 Dec 2011 14:02:28 -0200 |
|
Salvete
(q. fabius)
Salvete
<<I was gone during the start this debate, and since have heard a mishmash of
law quotes including Gaius who is a Principate writer and not from the
republic to get points across. >>
I don't understand English well enough to estimate your intentions by using the word "mishmash". I don't know if there is something like "shut up cause I know what I am talking about" behind your words. But I'd rather believe that your intentions were the best and that you respected your interlocutors. I hope you understand you are not the only one here who knows Roman Law.
(q. fabius)
<<What I said, was neither Flavius or I would let Apollonius Draco waive his 9
day waiting period, if we were asked. Why? Because it would set a precedent.>>
No. What you said was, in verbis,
<<May he find it to please his soul. He cannot waive his 9 days privilege, however. We have no precedent for that. >>
As if you needed a precedent in order to accept or to reject something asked by a civis.
<<To say that Precedent was not involved in the early Roman Republic is to not
understand Roman Law. The Table of Twelve was set up by the commission of 10
(decemvirs) based on tribal precedents, traditions and varies city state
laws. The idea of a code was Greek, but execution was Roman. Since Romans
were such traditionalists, they adopted and codified these traditions and
precedents into Law. However the table had mostly laws to do with the Cult
of Farmers, since Rome was an agricultural community.>>
Perhaps you haven't read all the messages carefully enough. What you wrote here had already been said mutatis mutandis. We know that Precedents were very important in the early Republic, and perhaps the only fons legis under the Reges.
<<Such laws do not help NR today, but it is a starting point. I think it would
be unwise to ignore precedent and tradition. Our early spiritual ancestors
did not. It would be a vain magistrate who would do so. >>
That is of course the way you, a traditionalist, feel about it. And there is nothing wrong about feelings... But you couldn't say that somebody cannot do this or that because there is no precedent. Obviously you can judge one's request using the precedents, but these are merely adjuvants, that help you to interpret and to apply the Law.
Respectfully
Valete
Atticus
<<English common law uses precedent but in a different way. These were based
on tribal customs, and eventually codified into a rigid system, with no
leeway of decision.
Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus >>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] an undemocratic Republic |
| From: |
QFabiusMaxmi@-------- |
| Date: |
Fri, 28 Dec 2001 18:38:30 EST |
|
In a message dated 12/28/01 2:50:17 PM Pacific Standard Time,
puteus@-------- writes:
> It seems there are many more
> democratic Rome-related organizations out there, and NR is the incorrigible
>
Salvete.
Our foes make this claim, since our 1st class centuries are top heavy with
the few members that are service vets, who with our voting system, have a
better chance to help shape Roman policy. This no accident. Unlike old Rome
there is no wealth qualification for the first class. It is based on service
to Rome.
In fact had if we had an equivalent wealth qualification for the first class,
as old Rome, I and Marcus Octavious would likely be the only two Nova Romans
to be allowed in.
You gain power through service to Rome, citizens. The more you do for her,
the more she rewards you. For three years only a handful have been doing
service, and the power of the vote has become concentrated, giving rise to
the Oligarchic claims of our detractors. This is slowly changing, as more
citizens become involved in things Roman. So in several years at our present
growth, this imagined Oligarchy voting power will cease to exist, and if
there was any danger at all, it will be past.
Vale
Q. Fabius Maximus
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
