Category talk:Governors (Nova Roma)
- An interesting question. My instinct is that governors are not magistrates, or at least that they don't fall entirely comfortably within that class. For what it's worth, the lex constitutiva doesn't classify them as such, though in my opinion the lex constitutiva isn't worth much. The recent change of technical terms has complicated the matter somewhat. The term 'governor' can now refer to a proconsul, a propraetor, or a legatus pro praetore. In ancient Roman law a proconsul and a propraetor are magistrates, though lacking some of the normal characteristics of magistrates, but a legatus pro praetore is decidedly not a magistrate. The majority of our governors are, and for some time probably will be, legati pro praetore. Given the difficulties, I'm inclined to think that it's safer to classify governors as a different animal for the time being. One day the whole messy business of governors in Nova Roma will be sorted out.
- - Cordus 19:55, 3 September 2007 (CEST)
- This question is as old as the Republic. When my provincial governor, Scipio Hyeanius Africanus, recruited me in Iul 1998, he expressed a desire to make me a "local magistrate" (his term) for the Dallas area (he was in San Antonio). Never did get to find out what he meant. The question came up of whether provincial magistrates or appointees had to take the oath of office. The original oath made it mandatory for NR magistrates to conduct (not just participate in) rites to the gods of Rome. Myself being a Christian, this could have presented difficulties... Big fuss. Our first schism, maybe; it's in the old (onsite) NR List archives. The oath was eventually modified; and when I became Propraetor America Austroccidentalis myself, I was required to take it...so at least as of '99, a provincial governor was considered an oath-taking magistrate. Not sure how much light that sheds on things nowadays. -- Marius Peregrinus 20:12, 3 September 2007 (CEST)
How we categorize them doesn't make law. One plus I would see is that it might make governors easier to find for the average person. The negative would be that we would be implying a status that does not, (at least clearly) exist. Where is the balance point on this? Agricola 05:09, 4 September 2007 (CEST)
- Have we any reason to believe that people are having trouble finding governors? My inclination is to leave things as they are unless there's a real problem.
- - Cordus 14:29, 4 September 2007 (CEST)