Selected messages in Nova-Roma group. Nov 1-11, 2004

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29877 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: about European Constitution
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29878 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: about European Constitution
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29879 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29880 From: Vivien Thiry Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: can someone please help me with translation.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29881 From: me-in-@disguise.co.uk Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: European Union (Another Twist)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29882 From: t_octavius_salvius Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: European Union (Another Twist)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29883 From: Marcus Iulius Perusianus Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: about European Constitution
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29884 From: Mike Abboud Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: A new Constitution.......
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29885 From: Quintus Brutus Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: yahoo groups
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29886 From: Gnaeus Equitius Marinus Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: yahoo groups
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29887 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: The purpose of the tribunes (WAS: A small thought about procedu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29888 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29889 From: Quintus Brutus Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: yahoo groups
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29890 From: Stephen Gallagher Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Senator Drusus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29891 From: Quintus Brutus Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29892 From: me-in-@disguise.co.uk Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Fwd: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: European Union (Another Twist)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29893 From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: EUC Discussion
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29894 From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Fwd: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: European Union (Another Twist)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29895 From: C. Fabia Livia Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29896 From: C. Fabia Livia Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29897 From: Quintus Brutus Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: European Union (Another Twist)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29898 From: Danny Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Avis History group
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29899 From: t_octavius_salvius Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Fwd: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: European Union (Another Twist)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29900 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29901 From: jmath669642reng@webtv.net Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Ancient Roman Information.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29902 From: Quintus Brutus Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29903 From: Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: Senator Drusus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29904 From: Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29905 From: Quintus Brutus Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29906 From: H. Rutilius Bardulus Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: A new Constitution.......
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29907 From: Quintus Brutus Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: A new Constitution.......
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29908 From: t_octavius_salvius Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: A new Constitution.......
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29909 From: t_octavius_salvius Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: A new Constitution.......
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29910 From: Quintus Brutus Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: A new Constitution.......
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29911 From: Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: The purpose of the tribunes (WAS: A small thought about procedu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29912 From: Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29913 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29914 From: Quintus Brutus Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29915 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: The purpose of the tribunes (WAS: A small thought about procedu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29916 From: Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: The purpose of the tribunes (WAS: A small thought about procedu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29917 From: Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29918 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29919 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: The purpose of the tribunes (WAS: A small thought about procedu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29920 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29921 From: Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: The purpose of the tribunes (WAS: A small thought about procedu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29922 From: C. Fabia Livia Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29923 From: C. Fabia Livia Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: A new Constitution.......
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29924 From: FAC Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: A new Constitution.......
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29925 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29926 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: The purpose of the tribunes (WAS: A small thought about procedu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29927 From: t_octavius_salvius Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: A new Constitution.......
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29928 From: H. Rutilius Bardulus Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: A new Constitution.......
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29929 From: FAC Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: about EU ... OT and dangerous discussion
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29930 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: A new Constitution.......
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29931 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29932 From: t_octavius_salvius Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: A new Constitution.......
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29933 From: C. Fabia Livia Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29934 From: t_octavius_salvius Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Greeks v Romans
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29935 From: jtomaselli@factset.com Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: [Spam: 06.8] [Nova-Roma] Greeks v Romans
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29936 From: Patrick D. Owen Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: Greeks v Romans
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29937 From: John Gunn III Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: Greeks v Romans
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29938 From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: OT discussions
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29939 From: t_octavius_salvius Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: Greeks v Romans
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29940 From: me-in-@disguise.co.uk Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: European Union (Another Twist)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29941 From: jtomaselli@factset.com Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: [Spam: 06.3] [Nova-Roma] Re: Greeks v Romans
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29942 From: Julius Caesar Cornelianus Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29943 From: Gn. Julius Caesar Cornelianus Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29944 From: gaiuspopilliuslaenas Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: Greeks v Romans
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29945 From: t_octavius_salvius Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: Greeks v Romans
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29946 From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: Greeks v Romans - From The Horse's Mouth
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29947 From: John Gunn III Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: [Spam: 06.3] [Nova-Roma] Re: Greeks v Romans
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29948 From: Lucius Iulius Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Interview the Expert / 2 more days
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29949 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29950 From: Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29951 From: Gn. Julius Caesar Cornelianus Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29952 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29953 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29954 From: L·DIDIVS·GEMINVS·SCEPTIVS Date: 2004-11-03
Subject: Provincia Hispania annual report and propraetorial resign for 2757
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29955 From: M.ADRIANVS COMPLVTENSIS Date: 2004-11-03
Subject: NEW WEB
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29956 From: Emilia Curia Finnica Date: 2004-11-03
Subject: LUDI PLEBEII - Participate now!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29957 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2004-11-03
Subject: Re: Greeks v Romans
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29958 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2004-11-03
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29959 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2004-11-03
Subject: Rome, international law &c. revisited
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29960 From: t_octavius_salvius Date: 2004-11-03
Subject: Re: Greeks v Romans
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29961 From: Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus Date: 2004-11-03
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29962 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2004-11-03
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29963 From: Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus Date: 2004-11-03
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29964 From: Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus Date: 2004-11-03
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29965 From: Gn. Julius Caesar Cornelianus Date: 2004-11-03
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29966 From: Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus Date: 2004-11-03
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29967 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2004-11-04
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29968 From: Gn. Julius Caesar Cornelianus Date: 2004-11-04
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29969 From: Gnaeus Equitius Marinus Date: 2004-11-04
Subject: Ancient Roman Skin Cream Gave Women Beautiful Complexion
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29970 From: FAC Date: 2004-11-04
Subject: Re: Ancient Roman Skin Cream Gave Women Beautiful Complexion
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29971 From: Numerius Gladius Bibulus Date: 2004-11-04
Subject: Re: Ancient Roman Skin Cream Gave Women Beautiful Complexion
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29972 From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) Date: 2004-11-04
Subject: Re: Ancient Roman Skin Cream Gave Women Beautiful Complexion
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29973 From: Salix Cantaber Uranicus Date: 2004-11-04
Subject: A question for the Aediles plebei
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29974 From: Emilia Curia Finnica Date: 2004-11-04
Subject: LUDI PLEBEII has begun!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29975 From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) Date: 2004-11-05
Subject: Cost Of Living In Ancient Rome
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29976 From: QFabiusMaxmi@aol.com Date: 2004-11-05
Subject: Re: Rome, international law &c. revisited
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29977 From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) Date: 2004-11-05
Subject: Penalties For Roman Citizens?
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29978 From: quintuscassiuscalvus Date: 2004-11-05
Subject: Re: Penalties For Roman Citizens?
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29979 From: Emilia Curia Finnica Date: 2004-11-05
Subject: LUDI PLEBEII day 2
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29980 From: Legion XXIV Date: 2004-11-05
Subject: Legion XXIV Vicesima Quarta Newsletter November 2004
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29981 From: brcincy Date: 2004-11-05
Subject: posting photo on the Album Cives site
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29982 From: Q. Caecilius Metellus Date: 2004-11-05
Subject: Re: posting photo on the Album Cives site
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29983 From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) Date: 2004-11-06
Subject: Re: Penalties For Roman Citizens?
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29984 From: John Date: 2004-11-06
Subject: Relocation to California
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29985 From: Gn. Julius Caesar Cornelianus Date: 2004-11-06
Subject: Re: Relocation to California
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29986 From: Lucius Rutilius Minervalis Date: 2004-11-06
Subject: Gallia's NewsLetter
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29987 From: Gaius Minucius Hadrianus Felix Date: 2004-11-06
Subject: Re: Cost Of Living In Ancient Rome
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29988 From: sa-mann@libero.it Date: 2004-11-07
Subject: Re: Women in the Religio Romana
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29989 From: raymond fuentes Date: 2004-11-07
Subject: Re: Women in the Religio Romana
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29990 From: John Date: 2004-11-07
Subject: Roman Ethics
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29991 From: Q. Caecilius Metellus Date: 2004-11-07
Subject: Ludi Plebeii
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29992 From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) Date: 2004-11-07
Subject: Re: Cost Of Living In Ancient Rome
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29993 From: sa-mann@libero.it Date: 2004-11-07
Subject: Re: Women in the Religio Romana
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29994 From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) Date: 2004-11-07
Subject: Re: translation was Re: Women in the Religio Romana
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29995 From: Bill Gawne Date: 2004-11-07
Subject: Re: Cost Of Living In Ancient Rome
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29996 From: sa-mann@libero.it Date: 2004-11-07
Subject: Re: Vestal: was Women in the Religio Romana
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29997 From: Bill Gawne Date: 2004-11-07
Subject: Re: Vestal: was Women in the Religio Romana
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29998 From: AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com Date: 2004-11-07
Subject: Re: Vestal: was Women in the Religio Romana
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29999 From: AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com Date: 2004-11-07
Subject: Re: Vestal: was Women in the Religio Romana
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30000 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2004-11-08
Subject: Re: Roman Ethics
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30001 From: sa-mann@libero.it Date: 2004-11-08
Subject: Re: Vestal: was Women in the Religio Romana
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30002 From: AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com Date: 2004-11-08
Subject: Re: Vestal: was Women in the Religio Romana
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30003 From: Gnaeus Equitius Marinus Date: 2004-11-08
Subject: Re: Roman Ethics
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30004 From: GAIVS IVLIANVS Date: 2004-11-08
Subject: DIES RELIGIOSVS TODAY!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30005 From: Lucius Arminius Faustus Date: 2004-11-08
Subject: THE COMITIA POPULI TRIBUTA IS CALLED
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30006 From: John Date: 2004-11-08
Subject: Re: Roman Ethics
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30007 From: Emilia Curia Finnica Date: 2004-11-08
Subject: LUDI PLEBEII days 3 and 4
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30008 From: Caeso Fabius Quintilianus Date: 2004-11-08
Subject: Edictum Censoris CFQ XX about the appointment of one new Scribae Ce
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30009 From: Flavius Vedius Germanicus Date: 2004-11-08
Subject: Re: THE COMITIA POPULI TRIBUTA IS CALLED
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30010 From: Stephen Gallagher Date: 2004-11-08
Subject: Senator Drusus PAX
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30011 From: Lucius Arminius Faustus Date: 2004-11-09
Subject: Re: THE COMITIA POPULI TRIBUTA IS CALLED
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30012 From: Lucius Arminius Faustus Date: 2004-11-09
Subject: Re: THE COMITIA POPULI TRIBUTA IS CALLED
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30013 From: Q. Caecilius Metellus Date: 2004-11-09
Subject: Re: THE COMITIA POPULI TRIBUTA IS CALLED
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30014 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2004-11-09
Subject: Re: THE COMITIA POPULI TRIBUTA IS CALLED
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30015 From: Lucius Arminius Faustus Date: 2004-11-09
Subject: Re: THE COMITIA POPULI TRIBUTA IS CALLED
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30016 From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) Date: 2004-11-09
Subject: Re: Senator Drusus PAX
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30017 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2004-11-09
Subject: Re: THE COMITIA POPULI TRIBUTA IS CALLED
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30018 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2004-11-09
Subject: Re: THE COMITIA POPULI TRIBUTA IS CALLED
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30019 From: Emilia Curia Finnica Date: 2004-11-09
Subject: LUDI PLEBEII day 5
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30020 From: fabruwil Date: 2004-11-09
Subject: Re: LUDI PLEBEII day 5
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30021 From: P. Minucia Tiberia Date: 2004-11-09
Subject: Use of Comitia and NR History
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30022 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2004-11-09
Subject: Ludi Plebii Day 5
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30023 From: Maior Date: 2004-11-09
Subject: Re: LUDI PLEBEII day 5
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30024 From: Maior Date: 2004-11-09
Subject: Re: THE COMITIA POPULI TRIBUTA IS CALLED
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30025 From: QFabiusMaxmi@aol.com Date: 2004-11-09
Subject: Re: Use of Comitia and NR History
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30026 From: P. Minucia Tiberia Date: 2004-11-09
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [Nova-Roma] Use of Comitia and NR History
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30027 From: quintuscassiuscalvus Date: 2004-11-09
Subject: Re: THE COMITIA POPULI TRIBUTA IS CALLED
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30028 From: shiarraeltradaik Date: 2004-11-10
Subject: Cost of living in Ancient Rome
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30029 From: hucke@cynico.net Date: 2004-11-10
Subject: Hello
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30030 From: sa-mann@libero.it Date: 2004-11-10
Subject: Re: Vestal, women, Rome
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30031 From: sa-mann@libero.it Date: 2004-11-10
Subject: Re: Vestal: was Women in the Religio Romana
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30032 From: Lucius Arminius Faustus Date: 2004-11-10
Subject: Re: THE COMITIA POPULI TRIBUTA IS CALLED
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30033 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2004-11-10
Subject: Re: Use of Comitia and NR History
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30034 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2004-11-10
Subject: Re: THE COMITIA POPULI TRIBUTA IS CALLED
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30035 From: Q. Caecilius Metellus Date: 2004-11-10
Subject: Re: THE COMITIA POPULI TRIBUTA IS CALLED
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30036 From: Q. Caecilius Metellus Date: 2004-11-10
Subject: Re: THE COMITIA POPULI TRIBUTA IS CALLED
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30037 From: Emilia Curia Finnica Date: 2004-11-10
Subject: LUDI PLEBEII days 6 and 7
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30038 From: Flavius Vedius Germanicus Date: 2004-11-10
Subject: Re: THE COMITIA POPULI TRIBUTA IS CALLED
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30039 From: quintuscassiuscalvus Date: 2004-11-10
Subject: Re: THE COMITIA POPULI TRIBUTA IS CALLED
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30040 From: fabruwil Date: 2004-11-10
Subject: Re: LUDI PLEBEII days 6 and 7
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30041 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2004-11-10
Subject: Re: THE COMITIA POPULI TRIBUTA IS CALLED
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30042 From: Flavius Vedius Germanicus Date: 2004-11-10
Subject: Re: THE COMITIA POPULI TRIBUTA IS CALLED
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30043 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2004-11-10
Subject: Re: THE COMITIA POPULI TRIBUTA IS CALLED
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30044 From: Stephen Gallagher Date: 2004-11-10
Subject: Re: THE COMITIA POPULI TRIBUTA IS CALLED
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30045 From: Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus Date: 2004-11-11
Subject: Happy Birthday USMC
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30046 From: nefer_seba Date: 2004-11-11
Subject: Hi from a new member
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30047 From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) Date: 2004-11-11
Subject: Re: Hi from a new member
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30048 From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) Date: 2004-11-11
Subject: Re: Happy Birthday USMC
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30049 From: Lucius Arminius Faustus Date: 2004-11-11
Subject: The Comitia Populi Tributa text revised
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30050 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2004-11-11
Subject: Test
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30051 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2004-11-11
Subject: Re: Hi from a new member
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30052 From: Gnaeus Equitius Marinus Date: 2004-11-11
Subject: Re: Happy Birthday USMC



Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29877 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: about European Constitution
---Salvete Luci Iuli et Omnes:


In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Lucius Iulius" <21aprile@e...> wrote:
>
> AVETE OMNES
>
> It is extremely sad to see how some non-european Cives, during
these
> happy days of birth of the new European Constitution, make
comments
> about it talking about "military force", "offensive and
> defensive", "death penalty", "peace is merely a break from war".

Pompeia: Ahh, amicus, 'some' nonEuropean citizens, not this one.

> Apart from some superficial proverbs (everyone with a mediocre
> culture knows when Plato was born and in what period did live), I
> think we should start talking about what is there of beautiful
> and common in this document. Then we'll have to talk how to grow
it
> better and better; we do not need to talk about foolish
imperialism,
> death and conquers, now.
> As my dear friend Fr Apulus Caesar pointed out, European Nations
are
> trying to forget and mend to the madness of the last century,
> renouncing to some of their sovranity and independence. I can add
> this: a same Roman heritage, and, finally, a common future.

Pompeia: There is always a longlasting gain from honest and
commited collaboration from all involved parties. Those who
collaborate for evil do not last long. I am not personally
threatened by this move in Europe; many have collaborated to produce
great things. Examples: our Confederation of Canada in 1867 (we are
a very young country, and well, the babes of Europeans, Orientals
basically), and the founding of the 13 colonies of the U.S. (they
are to a good extent, offspring of Europe too, right? ) and the
final Declaration of Independence of the U.S....these were of a
common collaboration. Canada was not founded on general friendships
purely, although that was a part of it; it was on general economic
and socially equitable well-being. Canadian history is not lilly
pure, as I'm sure some would mention. I am aware of that. Moreover,
the U.S. did not grow a consensual antagonism toward the King of
England overnight, or out of anything, I am sure, but necessity, due
to what they perceived as abuse. Either way, collaboration proved
beneficial, and in either case, I do not think the outcomes were
evil. Do you? Nor do I have reason to think this agreement in
Europe will be. Perhaps those who naysay it, do so perhaps because
of a lack of control and subsequent insecurity over the situation?
Just speculating. I don't know. In either case, I see the tone is
getting rather 'ugly' on the ML when the situation was brought up
largely to demonstrate that the elements of Rome were being, in a
sense, reborn amongst comrads in Europe, for reasons they
collectively define as beneficial, and for reasons I shall respect
and not challenge or complain about. Plus, perhaps the topic seemed
more Roman in nature in comparison to other things we had been
chatting about.

Atleast I have never known the Curule Aedile M. Iulius
Perusianus 'ever' to start a topic for purposes of initiating a
flame war. He is one of the hardest working and honest magistrates
in NR, and I know them all :)

The bottom line is: There is nobody on this side of the pond
(Canada, U.S. and even Mexico) who can't trace themselves to a
common collaboration amongst their respective citizens for the
common good. This is not a crime. We also cannot claim, either
Canada or the U.S., any independence in our achievement apart from
Europe...Europeans (and orientals) who either served in an immigrant
capacity to help build this country and help forge an integral part
of American or Canadian culture, or who have served soley by virtue
of being our genetic forefathers. Next time those in Canada ride the
railway, remember that many Chinese workers were blown to bits in
dynamite to split the mountains to make it happen.

Quirites, the reason we are all here is to celebrate cultural and
spiritual ancestories legacied by Rome...so why are we so upset at
an inter-macronational collaboration which essentially, looks to
celebrate and to facilitate the common good for them, just as we
likewise pledge here for citizens in Nova Roma?

There are those on this list who will speak as if our Nova Roma
Europeans wrote the very agreement which is being pledged; it is
like they are holding them responsible for what they perceive are
it's flaws. By the height of the passion it seems this way. Before
we criticize anothers flaws, we must remember our own. Have those
who are taking such a caustic stance here on the ML regarding all
this, seen fit to take their passions regarding this matter
elsewhere, in say, complaining to those who are actually in charge
of the actual agreements? You tell me and we'll both know :)

There are those who will argue and say that Europe is going to
receive 'mega' flack due to an interpretation of a prophecy of the
Book of Revelations which speaks of a European union, preceding a
devilish beast (as if we haven't seen enough 'without' prophecy)

Heavens to Mergatroide.........**eyerolling**

Well, such a European union has existed for a few years, in an
ecomonic capacity, and I think the time to get
prophetically 'shocked' over such matters has passed, but I guess it
is better to get upset 'late' than never, to some. Such prophesies
are the interpretations of strict fundamentalist preachers, who live
on 'this' side of the pond, and not in Europe. Fundamentalist author
Hal Lindsay, and Hal Lindsay wannabees, have authored books which
make for bibilically provocative reading, but I am not going to live
in 'fear' of him, and neither should the Europeans. He is not God.
I do not think you will all be 'blamed' for your good intentions by
the divine, because of what the perspectives of a few men suggest.

Hal Lindsay is not without his scholarly critics, by the way.

At any rate, I do not think it is worth a flame war here in NR. And
personally, I wish Europe well. Why wouldn't I? I do not wish my
fellow Canadian or a U.S. citizen illwill either. And the average
U.S. and Canadian citizen, I do not think, is as bent out of shape
about all this as some of the speakers here over the weekend appear
to be...those who are supposed to be united in a common brotherhood
in Rome... We have better things to do here in NR than get rancid
over this, no?

Valete,

Po




>
> VALETE
> L IUL SULLA
> Italia
> Europa
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29878 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: about European Constitution
Salve Pompeia.

I am puzzled why anyone would think that a "flamewar" has errupted.
The constitution in question has been discussed, openly and frankly.
If however when ever someone were to put a legitimate contrary
viewpoint, (that exists throughout Europe - not just here in NR),
and the red flag of a "flamewar" were to be run up, two things
happen. Firstly, topics are never openly discussed, and will always
be constrained in some straight jacket and secondly those that post
contrary view points are subliminally labelled as disruptive.
Neither are acceptable results of posting honestly held viewpoints.
Taking issue with statements does not intitiate a "flamewar".

> Pompeia: There is always a longlasting gain from honest and
> commited collaboration from all involved parties. Those who
> collaborate for evil do not last long. I am not personally
> threatened by this move in Europe; many have collaborated to
produce great things.

Many europeans would not share your sentiment regarding the level
of "threat".

>>At any rate, I do not think it is worth a flame war here in NR.
And personally, I wish Europe well. Why wouldn't I? I do not wish
my fellow Canadian or a U.S. citizen illwill either. And the average
U.S. and Canadian citizen, I do not think, is as bent out of shape
about all this as some of the speakers here over the weekend appear
to be...those who are supposed to be united in a common brotherhood
in Rome... We have better things to do here in NR than get rancid
over this, no?<<

I don't consider higlighting a legitimate (if unwelcome) view on the
EU as rancid. Neither am I "bent out of shape". I just happen to
firmly believe, as others do, that the EU is a paper tiger as far as
the rest of the world is concerned, but one that has sucked up
national resources, energies and powers of its own citizens.
Ineffective abroad, debilitating to its own citizens within its
borders. If Nova Roma, some of its provinces or organisations within
it seek financial grants from the EU then the nature of the EU is an
acceptable and valid topic for discussion.

Vale
Caesar
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29879 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
---Salvete, Fabia Quaestor, Quinte Brute et Omnes:

In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Quintus Brutus <quintus_cassius@y...>
wrote:
> "I'm personally dead set against the idea of parties at all
> (and I have noticed from your posts that you seem to
> largely agree with me on that point), and I wouldn't
> support any system which institutionalised parties or
> even encouraged them."

Pompeia: I think this was actually Fabia Quaestor's text above, but
correct me if I am wrong. And no, as much as you would prefer not
to have institutionalized parties, you will always have certain
groups with a basic mindset, agreeing on a few political
principles. This does not mean they are so militant that they
consensually agree on every minute thing. And when it comes down to
a Tribune, for example, people will look at x and y who might have
both the same general political mindset, but, from the eyes of the
voter, if x is an airhead, he will not get a dot beside his name at
the cista. Period. I do not think the 'party line' is quite as
much of a threat as you perceive, in my opinion. Most people in Nova
Roma are learned enough to make an intelligent and objective
decision...the 'majority' are, anyway. I do believe that.

If I chose to run for a given office, I know there are people who
agree with me in principle, but who would not likely not vote me in
for certain positions, because, maybe they feel I could not do the
job...an example...

I think the best offer we can give to the citizens is to produce the
voting system that will tally the votes to allow the most accurate
representation of what their wishes are, and this I discussed in my
last post; the lex Moravia regarding election of Tribunes, with
respect to her good intentions, stops a bit short of this...it does
not tally votes correctly, although it allows for votes of more than
one candidate. What is 'fair' is what the citizens want...if it
happens to be representative of one 'party' as you call them, then
that is the plebian wish, and it must be respected. You cannot
insist that the voters elect so many 'minor' candidates, like a
university must admit 'so many' minority students, to make the whole
thing 'fair'. "Fair' is what the consensus of the voters is, and
the election system revised to assay that, is the best we can do.

Rogators, for example could all be of one political mindset as
well...what can we do about that do make it 'more fair'?? Nothing.
Use our good sense at the cista, and that is it, and check the
election system where it can be least influenced by potential
subjective actions on the rogatores' part..that's it. If the people
want all 5 to be of a given mindset, as per their visit to the
cista, that is the way it is.
>
> --As it pertains to Nova Roma I would oppose such a system or
format. Romans didn't have party's per se but rather Alliance.
Case and Point would be the events after the assassination of Julius
Caesar. You had your Caesarian's and anti-caesarian's. To me those
were nothing more than alliances similar to the divisions here right
now....but thats just my opinion.
>
> "proportional representation is not dependent on the party
system. As anyone who's known me for any length of time can
doubtless tell you"
>
> --From my point of view it is. I don't have my Dahl On Democracy
in front of me so I can't reference that so I had to resort to
internet info to refresh my mind the best I could. But for PR to
work you need groups. Depending on the percentage of votes a group
gets they get that percentage of seats (ideally). Just as you 70-30
example showed with the larger segment receiving 7 seats as opposed
to 3 for the minority.
>
> "This is *not* the only way it can work: it can be done in such a
way as to allow voters to choose the precise candidates they prefer,
and still allow minorities to be represented. This can be done,
simply, by putting candidates (rather than parties) on the ballot."

Pompeia: I believe this is Fabia Quaestor again above. Now, when
have we had an election in NR, which said for example "Iulia Magna"
BONI, or POPULARIBUS at the cista? And regarding the
minorities...all voters have to use good sense in selecting Tribunes
who will look after 'all the plebs'. Macronational politics isn't
this predicable either, Fabia, nor is it always 'fair' in the sense
that you are pontificating.
>
> --So are you suggesting lets say we have X number of candidates.
All eligible to vote cast multiples votes of all their options
available. and those candidates that receive the highest number of
votes are in? So Plebs could say pick the 10 they prefer and of all
the votes cast the 10 with the highest count get in. Correct?

Pompeia: To make a long story short, yes, Quinte; but with multiple
votes you have to assign a 'ceiling' number of votes to determine a
candidates win, depending on the number of candidacies open and the
number of tribes, etc.; say for each of three candidates, 25% of the
votes, ... now if the rogators counted the votes as if the voter
were only allowed to case one vote, as opposed to more than one, it
doesn't give a fair representation of who the people 'truly' want to
see.....I can give you an example privately if you like. But this
is the flaw, I think in the current voting system for Tribune..it
allows the plebs for more than one selection, but tallies the votes
incorrectly to give an erroneous represenatation of the most desired
Tribs of the people...if it were to be corrected, it would give
the 'fairness' I think Fabia Questor seeks, perhaps, while helping
to minimize worry about party influence or party overrepresentation
to the detriment of minorities, which really we can do only so much
about, whilst allowing the voters freedom to choose whom they wish.
The Plebs themselves have to turn out to vote, which has not
happened consistently in the past...another factor.
>
> As far as concerns go people will always have concerns. Politics
is politics. People will always be divided in opinion on a wide
array of issues. It is simply unavoidable.

Pompeia: I so agree with you Quinte Brute in this regard.

Valete,
Pompeia
>
> vale, Quintus Brutus
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29880 From: Vivien Thiry Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: can someone please help me with translation.
Salve

Passio, -onis, f. 1. to endure, suffering 2. sickness, indisposition 3. passion, affection, moral perturbation 4. accident, perturbation (in elements) 5. passivity.

Cor, Cordis, n. 1. hearth 2. stomac 3. person (individual), 4. soul (place of sentimentals...) 5. Courage, value, 6. Intelligence, good sense,

Lucius Moravius Hellenicus




lmclint <lee1976rugby@...> wrote:

is there anyone who can tell me what the latin translation is for
these two words. 'passio' and 'cor'if this can be done i would be
gratefull. thank you




Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Créez gratuitement votre Yahoo! Mail avec 100 Mo de stockage !
Créez votre Yahoo! Mail

Le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger est arrivé ! Découvrez toutes les nouveautés pour dialoguer instantanément avec vos amis.Téléchargez GRATUITEMENT ici !

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29881 From: me-in-@disguise.co.uk Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: European Union (Another Twist)
Obviously American rightists don't like the EU since it
offers a more humane and more modern alternative to their
own Cromwellian puritan fascism. British don't like it
either because they imagine the American empire simply the
British come again (to some extent true) without
understanding that London really does stand to Washington as
Rome to Constantinople around 800 when it had been plundered
to destruction and popes taken off for a good seeing-to. The
myth is independent nations, the reality is global
corporatist divide-&-rule. Europe is the only potential
rival to the USA and in most parts can wave an overall
higher quality of life. The only answer is that they've all
sold their souls and are going to Hell come the Rapture.
given the state of the Elect certain they'll be Taken,
eternity with them would be anybdy's Hell. Besides, what I
love about all these Funnymentals is that at the same time
they're saying "It is writ, Law of God" they are frantically
going round preaching follow them and change it all. If it's
destined it's destined, so why bother? If it isn't, why
bother?


> Salvete L Iul Sulla et omnes,
>
> I want to let you know that the Baptist, Pentacostals,
> Television evangelists and other Protestant sects in the
> US are preaching their version of the Book Of Revelations
> or the Apocalyps. They constantly teach that this
> European Union will become the "New Roman Empire", the
> Anti-Christ will eventually appear, and lead it.There will
> also be the restoration of the temple in Jerusalem, we'll
> all have to have computer chip implants (mark of the
> beast)to work or feed our families, the guillotine will
> reappear again (severing heads dosen't damage the other
> organs needed for transplants) to slaughter Christians
> who refuse to kneel and worship him, finally the rapture
> and Armageddon.
>
> Now the version of that book is taught rather differently
> to RC's and other Christians. It uses the Hebrew way of
> writing which is parallaelism of thoughts in which you
> tell a story in several different ways. Some scholars in
> this Church think that the book is describing more or
> less the end of the Roman Empire and Rome of course, was
> the world at that time. The souls of the martyred ask
> when justice is coming so you see that the end was
> expected so long ago. Also we regard it as more of a
> survival guide saying rough times both natural and
> political will come but keep your steadfast faith to the
> end.
>
> Now I know most Nova Romans are not caught up in or buy
> this stuff but I merely want to point out that great
> apprehension about the EUC will be coming up from these
> particular groups of people who do carry a fair bit of
> political weight.
>
> Regards,
>
> Quintus Lanius Paulinus
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> --------------------~--> $9.95 domain names from Yahoo!.
> Register anything.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/wWQplB/TM
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ----------~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29882 From: t_octavius_salvius Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: European Union (Another Twist)
Salvete Omnes


"Europe is the only potential rival to the USA"

This gives some insight into the Continental Inferiority complex
that the governments of Europe have. The EU is often seen in terms
of being in conflict with the US. So we must all band together to
beat the Americans.

Of course this makes no economic sense. China is the only potential
rival to the US. With running costs a fraction of what they are in
Europe, and without the over-regulation that is crippling European
businesses, China easily eclipses Europe economically.

I have never seen the American "Empire" as a sucessor to the British
one, but I do see the megalomania of Continental Despots reflected
in the EU.


salvete

Salvius
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29883 From: Marcus Iulius Perusianus Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: about European Constitution
Avete Po and omnes,

well, after this long holiday-vacation weekend (at least here in
Italy) I thought to check on the ML to see what was about my mail on
the signature of the EU Constitution... :-) wow! what a thread!

Finding myself sometime in agreement and sometime not with what was
here written, I was considering to not answer and add anything at
all.
you know, this is one of those arguments that has no end....

but, maybe a couple of things, why not ;-)

first I have to answer at least to this:

>He is one of the hardest working and honest magistrates
>in NR, and I know them all :)

thank you so much amica :-)

Let me state that I'm absolutely pro EU, as most of Italians use to
be (more in the past than nowadays, of course). The trend of EU-
enthusiastics seemed to slow down but I guess it's normal when, after
the rich and wealthy countries of north Europe, poorer countries from
the East join the Union. At first a good slice of the cake of the
financial helps went to the South countries. Now, no more ;-) that's
one aspect which move one's way of thinking: his own pocket.

But the general sensation to give up money and freedom (just a very
few though) are still worthy if this means the building of a stronger
community. I'm using the term 'community' not country, even
less 'nation'. This is perfectly known for every European, nobody has
fear to lose its identity as a nation: the virtual elimination of the
borders happened with some countries something like 10-15 years ago
and I still feel that I'm really in another nation when crossing the
borderline entering France, Austria or Slovenia, not a mere sign on
the highway; this process, if ever happen, will take centuries. But I
guess everyone is happy with his own culture, and able to renounce to
just a little part of it, as a name of the banknotes. Having 20
official languages, not imposing French or English; this is the way
and the political guidelines.

So, in general, through the unification many see (and IMHO correctly)
the only way to be a valid counterpart in the world sceneries (both
politically and, with more fear, economically), something that
countries as Italy, and nowadays also for more powerful countries
like UK, Germany of France, cannot afford alone.

What I hope is that in a short time we should see in Europe the
benefit of being together, as the worst period could be at our backs:
euro was terrible for the prices, but this is men's fault of the
ideals'. :-)

vale
M IVL PERVSIANVS
one who thinks that the difference between cultures could be the EU
strenght. It is happened elsewhere, why not here? ;-)

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "pompeia_minucia_tiberia"
<pompeia_minucia_tiberia@y...> wrote:
>
> ---Salvete Luci Iuli et Omnes:
>
>
> In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Lucius Iulius" <21aprile@e...>
wrote:
> >
> > AVETE OMNES
> >
> > It is extremely sad to see how some non-european Cives, during
> these
> > happy days of birth of the new European Constitution, make
> comments
> > about it talking about "military force", "offensive and
> > defensive", "death penalty", "peace is merely a break from war".
>
> Pompeia: Ahh, amicus, 'some' nonEuropean citizens, not this one.
>
> > Apart from some superficial proverbs (everyone with a mediocre
> > culture knows when Plato was born and in what period did live), I
> > think we should start talking about what is there of beautiful
> > and common in this document. Then we'll have to talk how to grow
> it
> > better and better; we do not need to talk about foolish
> imperialism,
> > death and conquers, now.
> > As my dear friend Fr Apulus Caesar pointed out, European Nations
> are
> > trying to forget and mend to the madness of the last century,
> > renouncing to some of their sovranity and independence. I can add
> > this: a same Roman heritage, and, finally, a common future.
>
> Pompeia: There is always a longlasting gain from honest and
> commited collaboration from all involved parties. Those who
> collaborate for evil do not last long. I am not personally
> threatened by this move in Europe; many have collaborated to
produce
> great things. Examples: our Confederation of Canada in 1867 (we
are
> a very young country, and well, the babes of Europeans, Orientals
> basically), and the founding of the 13 colonies of the U.S. (they
> are to a good extent, offspring of Europe too, right? ) and the
> final Declaration of Independence of the U.S....these were of a
> common collaboration. Canada was not founded on general
friendships
> purely, although that was a part of it; it was on general economic
> and socially equitable well-being. Canadian history is not lilly
> pure, as I'm sure some would mention. I am aware of that.
Moreover,
> the U.S. did not grow a consensual antagonism toward the King of
> England overnight, or out of anything, I am sure, but necessity,
due
> to what they perceived as abuse. Either way, collaboration proved
> beneficial, and in either case, I do not think the outcomes were
> evil. Do you? Nor do I have reason to think this agreement in
> Europe will be. Perhaps those who naysay it, do so perhaps because
> of a lack of control and subsequent insecurity over the situation?
> Just speculating. I don't know. In either case, I see the tone is
> getting rather 'ugly' on the ML when the situation was brought up
> largely to demonstrate that the elements of Rome were being, in a
> sense, reborn amongst comrads in Europe, for reasons they
> collectively define as beneficial, and for reasons I shall respect
> and not challenge or complain about. Plus, perhaps the topic seemed
> more Roman in nature in comparison to other things we had been
> chatting about.
>
> Atleast I have never known the Curule Aedile M. Iulius
> Perusianus 'ever' to start a topic for purposes of initiating a
> flame war. He is one of the hardest working and honest magistrates
> in NR, and I know them all :)
>
> The bottom line is: There is nobody on this side of the pond
> (Canada, U.S. and even Mexico) who can't trace themselves to a
> common collaboration amongst their respective citizens for the
> common good. This is not a crime. We also cannot claim, either
> Canada or the U.S., any independence in our achievement apart from
> Europe...Europeans (and orientals) who either served in an
immigrant
> capacity to help build this country and help forge an integral part
> of American or Canadian culture, or who have served soley by virtue
> of being our genetic forefathers. Next time those in Canada ride
the
> railway, remember that many Chinese workers were blown to bits in
> dynamite to split the mountains to make it happen.
>
> Quirites, the reason we are all here is to celebrate cultural and
> spiritual ancestories legacied by Rome...so why are we so upset at
> an inter-macronational collaboration which essentially, looks to
> celebrate and to facilitate the common good for them, just as we
> likewise pledge here for citizens in Nova Roma?
>
> There are those on this list who will speak as if our Nova Roma
> Europeans wrote the very agreement which is being pledged; it is
> like they are holding them responsible for what they perceive are
> it's flaws. By the height of the passion it seems this way. Before
> we criticize anothers flaws, we must remember our own. Have those
> who are taking such a caustic stance here on the ML regarding all
> this, seen fit to take their passions regarding this matter
> elsewhere, in say, complaining to those who are actually in charge
> of the actual agreements? You tell me and we'll both know :)
>
> There are those who will argue and say that Europe is going to
> receive 'mega' flack due to an interpretation of a prophecy of the
> Book of Revelations which speaks of a European union, preceding a
> devilish beast (as if we haven't seen enough 'without' prophecy)
>
> Heavens to Mergatroide.........**eyerolling**
>
> Well, such a European union has existed for a few years, in an
> ecomonic capacity, and I think the time to get
> prophetically 'shocked' over such matters has passed, but I guess
it
> is better to get upset 'late' than never, to some. Such prophesies
> are the interpretations of strict fundamentalist preachers, who
live
> on 'this' side of the pond, and not in Europe. Fundamentalist
author
> Hal Lindsay, and Hal Lindsay wannabees, have authored books which
> make for bibilically provocative reading, but I am not going to
live
> in 'fear' of him, and neither should the Europeans. He is not God.
> I do not think you will all be 'blamed' for your good intentions by
> the divine, because of what the perspectives of a few men suggest.
>
> Hal Lindsay is not without his scholarly critics, by the way.
>
> At any rate, I do not think it is worth a flame war here in NR.
And
> personally, I wish Europe well. Why wouldn't I? I do not wish my
> fellow Canadian or a U.S. citizen illwill either. And the average
> U.S. and Canadian citizen, I do not think, is as bent out of shape
> about all this as some of the speakers here over the weekend appear
> to be...those who are supposed to be united in a common brotherhood
> in Rome... We have better things to do here in NR than get rancid
> over this, no?
>
> Valete,
>
> Po
>
>
>
>
> >
> > VALETE
> > L IUL SULLA
> > Italia
> > Europa
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29884 From: Mike Abboud Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: A new Constitution.......
Salvete



I don't want to seem too much like a ninny but could end the new
constitution thread its hardly Roman, and I am sure we all have opinions
about the Europeans and the EU or what ever it's called.



Vale

Tiberius Arcanus Agricola

<mailto:mikeabboud@...> mikeabboud@...

<http://www.mikeabboud.com> www.mikeabboud.com,

<http://mikeabboud.blogspot.com/> http://mikeabboud.blogspot.com/

_____

From: t_octavius_salvius [mailto:fin37@...]
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 4:53 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: A new Constitution.......




Salvete,


>
> The problem I see it is a non-European, is
that it falls along the lines of do you want an outsider telling you
whats best for you and your country?

Personally I'd prefer the opinions of an outsider than the laws of
an outsider.

But you are right, you have to be careful when making comments on
another government that your opinions do not turn into commands.
This happens on both sides of the Atlantic, as you say. The European
who tells the American who to vote for is just as much at fault.

valete

Salvius








Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



ADVERTISEMENT

<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129pcboc8/M=315388.5543473.6613715.3001176/D=gr
oups/S=1705313712:HM/EXP=1099349614/A=2372354/R=0/SIG=12id813k2/*https:/www.
orchardbank.com/hcs/hcsapplication?pf=PLApply&media=EMYHNL40F21004SS> click
here



<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=315388.5543473.6613715.3001176/D=groups/S=
:HM/A=2372354/rand=326759770>



_____

Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29885 From: Quintus Brutus Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: yahoo groups
okay I switching e-mail accounts and the open mebership groups like the ML etc and others I have been approved for have yet to kick in and start working, i.e. the ML etc and a few others that have received messages since the account was activated...can someone help explain why? I do have them setup exactly the same to receive individual e-mails to that account so I can close this one out...but I find myself still using this one which I wanty to end soon....does anyone know why? Vale, quintus brutus


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29886 From: Gnaeus Equitius Marinus Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: yahoo groups
Salve Quinte Brute,

Quintus Brutus wrote:

> okay I switching e-mail accounts and the open mebership groups
> like the ML etc and others I have been approved for have yet to
> kick in and start working, i.e. the ML etc and a few others that
> have received messages since the account was activated...can
> someone help explain why?

Yahoo lag. It can take Yahoo up to a week to actually comply with a
user requested change. I know that when I have attempted to switch from
"individual e-mails" to "read on web only" before going on vacation,
it's taken between 5 and 7 days for the change to become effective.

Please be patient. It'll start coming through eventually.

Vale,

-- Marinus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29887 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: The purpose of the tribunes (WAS: A small thought about procedu
A. Apollónius Cordus Ti. Galerió Paulínó tribúnó
plébis Ser. Equitió Troiánó Pompeiae Minuciae Strabóní
omnibusque sal.

Troiánus wrote:

> I don't think it is quite so bad as you make it
> seem: Any illegal act
> or edict is likely to find three supporters for a
> Veto, provided they
> have enough time to discuss and research the matter.

I agree that often legal and historical questions can
be resolved given enough time and research, because
these are generally questions of fact. It's not always
so, though, because facts require interpretation, and
people can spend their whole lives disagreeing about
points of law or history, no matter how much research
they do. But this is beside the point, because the
tribúní are not there to consider questions of law or
history. I know that the constitution seems to
envisage the tribúní doing the job of a constitutional
court, but that's an absurd idea. These are junior
magistrates we're talking about. People often became
tribunes with no prior political experience
whatsoever, and it's the same in Nova Róma. They
aren't required to be legal experts or historians, or
even to have any experience of politics. This is
because their job is not to consider technical
questions. Their job was, and must necessarily remain
(unless we are going to require tribunces to be
ex-cónsulés or professional lawyers and historians),
to make political decisions based on their own ideas.
They don't veto a thing because it's illegal or
unhistorical but because they don't agree with it.
Perhaps that sounds like a bad idea - surely it
shouldn't be allowed for a single person to block the
will of the government at his own whim? But of course
he's not only a single person acting on his own whim.
He's been elected to represent the voters, and
therefore he acts on their behalf. When a tribune
vetoes a thing, he does so with the power of those who
elected him, so it in fact they who have vetoed that
thing. And, though questions of law or history may
come into it, it's essentially a matter of what that
tribune thinks is best - and no matter how long you
may allow, you can't expect five people always to
agree on what's best. So requiring them to work
collegially is like sending a team of five gymnasts to
the Olympics with their all legs tied together.

> Again, I see your point but I see it more as a
> question of having
> enough time to conclude that the Magistrates'
> actions are wrong, which
> means enough time to discuss it and think about the
> long term
> consequences.

Sadly, I must point out that some people seem unable
to come to the correct conclusion no matter how long
they are given and no matter how much evidence they
are shown. There are even one or two such people in
this forum; perhaps you can guess who I have in mind.
;)

> As it is, the time constraints have caused a number
> of very hasty Veto
> announcements in the past; veto announcements that
> were later
> retracted, after reasoned discussion, precisely
> because our current
> arrangement almost forces the Tribunes to Veto first
> and ask questions
> later. I hope you will agree that such premature
> actions actually
> degrade the Office of Tribune, rather than enhance
> it, even though the
> need to act fast is forced upon them.

Indeed; and it would seem a sensible move for
magistrates who intend to propose legislation to show
the tribunes the text beforehand in order to avoid
precisely this sort of thing happening. That would, I
think, be a better way to get around this problem in
at least some cases than extending the time-limit for
vetoes too far (I think you and I agree that a week is
the outer limit).

> They HAD to take the neighbor's reaction into
> consideration, something
> that our current arrangement doesn't do. We are in
> the unfortunate
> situation that a Tribune who becomes unhappy with NR
> could, just for
> spite, stick around 'til the end of the year and
> veto everything that
> anyone tries to do. No fellow Romans live next
> door, we have no
> effective "peer pressure", even appeals to be
> reasonable can be avoided
> simply by not reading their NR e-mail Inbox.

That's true, and it would be frustrating if that were
to happen, but really, what is our hurry? We will all,
I very much hope, be alive next year, and if we have
to wait until then to get around an irresponsible
tribune, well, never mind. The issues we deal with in
Nova Róma are important, but they are very rarely
genuinely urgent. And one must also remember that it's
pretty unlikely that anyone who had got fed up with
Nova Róma would choose to remain here, reading the
main list every day or two, just to veto things and
annoy people. History shows us that when people get
fed up with Nova Róma they just quit - a problem in
itself, but that's another story. And anyone who does
wish to remain in Nova Róma and to continue up the
cursus will, if he has any sense, listen to (though he
may choose not to go along with) the entreaties of his
peers, because otherwise he won't get much further up
the ladder.

If this should turn out to be a real problem, though,
we could consider (with caution) the idea suggested by
Paulínus (see below) of allowing tribunes to propose
the deposition of their colleagues.


Strabó wrote:

> One wonders if the 'reforms' of T. Labienus
> Fortunatus of the
> Tribunes here in NR would have perhaps prolonged the
> glory of the
> republic, if implemented.

I very much doubt it. Precisely what would have
happened depends on at what point in history you're
imagining this happening, of course, but if it had
been, say, shortly before 133 B.C., then the answer is
probably that the murder of Ti. Gracchus would have
happened a few days earlier than it did, and that's
probably about it. The activities of Ti. and C.
Gracchus, M. Lívius Drúsus, L. Appuleius Saturnínus,
and the rest which provoked hostile reactions among
the optimátés and contributed to the increase of
violence in republican politics had nothing to do with
vetoes. The troublesome tribunes were troublesome
because of the legislation they proposed, not because
of the legislation they vetoed. When Sulla wanted to
stop tribunes being troublesome he took their
legislative power away but left their power of veto
intact. That in itself shows you that the ability of
each tribune to veto things on his own contributed
precisely nothing to the collapse of the republic.

> ... It works both
> ways...those in antiquita
> and in NR are all human, and good ideas start in NR
> as well as back
> then. Not all that was 'great' back then, is
> necessarily so for NR.
> As for the historical accuracy, well, the notion of
> the intercessio
> powers here in NR isn't historically accurate, but
> in NR it has
> proven necessary. We do not have any physical means
> of checking an
> irreligious, illegal, partisan, whatever..
> loose-cannon tribune; the
> only means we have is the veto of collegia, if it is
> felt necessary.
> Back in the days of antiqua, one wasn't by 'law'
> allowed to lay
> hands on a Tribune...oh, they wouldn't just 'hit'
> the naughty
> Tribune:)...they would 'kill' him..simply because he
> was interposing
> well beyond his religious and constitutional
> capacity, impersonating
> a dictator, tightening a noose around civil and just
> process of
> law...most Tribunes 'seem' to be aware of the
> consequences of any
> misbehaviour back then, but the Tribunes here in NR,
> the central
> government of which is connected largely by
> cyberspace, do not have
> these worries. No Goon Squad, no Mod Squad, no
> Army, no Blues
> Brothers-types in suits to knock on his door and say
> "We're on a
> mission from the Gods....knock it off"

I'm rather puzzled. It sounds very much like you're
saying something like "in the old republic tribunes
wouldn't misbehave and do things the senate didn't
like because they knew that if they did then some
senátórés would murder them; sadly we can't murder
tribunes in Nova Róma because they're too far away, so
we have to settle for some other way to stop them
doing things the senate doesn't like". If that's not
what you're saying, then could you have another go at
explaining what you are trying to saying?

> I wonder, if the voting system used for Plebians is
> cause for
> concern as opposed to the current number of Tribunes
> being voted
> for. (Actually there were 10 Tribs in antiqua, but
> the plebian
> numbers were larger too) Granted, Tribune Diana's
> concerns were
> staving the several runoff elections, which is
> equally inefficient
> for NR, but I can see theoretically where the end
> product of elected
> tribunes isn't an accurate display of what the
> voter's truly
> desire. If you can vote for more than one Tribune,
> the votes have
> to be tallied differently, to produce an accurate
> interpretation.

Yes, you're quite right that the system under which
the tribunes are elected needs to be changed in order
to make them more accurately represent the plebs. But
without also allowing them to veto individually this
reform would simply make them even less able to act
effectively, because they would be more likely to
disagree with one another than they are now.

> Without intent of prejudice against the Tribune
> body, I present it
> as an example in point. It was the intercessio on
> the calling of
> the Comitia Centuriata in May of this year to elect
> a Praetor.

Yes, I had forgotten about that one. But it's hardly
earth-shaking stuff, is it? The result was precisely
the same, it was just delayed for a month or two. It
was a matter of procedure. Well, okay, I'll concede
that the tribunes have shown themselves in that
example to be efficient checkers of correct procedure.
If that were what tribunes were for, I would be
persuaded. But if the purpose of the tribunes were to
protect an inactive magistrate from being deposed by
an active one without jumping through some hoops,
well, we'd be talking about whether the tribunate was
really worth having at all, wouldn't we? That's not
what they're for - they're there to make important
decisions about matters of principle and to protect
people from other magistrates. This example proves
precisely what I was saying to Troiánus above: the
current system works fine when it's a matter of
checking a point of law, but it's pretty useless when
it comes to important and difficult questions.

This issue is really quite simple: if you think it's a
good idea for ordinary citizens to have
representatives to protect them from the executive
powers, then untie the hands of those representatives;
if you think it's better for the executive powers to
have unfettered freedom of action and for the ordinary
citizens to have no protection against them, then the
current system is okay.

> I personally believe that if each tribune held an
> absolute veto most holders of that office would use
> it with great care. In the event we has one who got
> out of hand we could take a page from the history of
> Rome. The first of the Gracchi, Tiberius deposed his
> colleague Octavius. He did so by calling for a vote
> in the Comitia on whether Octavius should keep his
> office. We could change the NR constitution to allow
> the Comitia Plebis Tributa to remove a Tribune if a
> majority of the tribes voted to do so.

We could do that, but we should think very, very
carefully before doing it. The decision of Ti.
Gracchus to attempt to depose Octávius was
unconstitutional and contributed significantly to the
collapse of order and the murder of Gracchus himself.
I'll try to explain why.

As I've said before, the system by which the tribunes
were elected ensured, in theory, that a broad range of
candidates would be elected and that most shades of
opinion would be represented. This meant that the
system tended towards caution and stability - it erred
on the side of activity. If any large sector of the
community was sufficiently opposed to a measure, it
could probably persuade at least one tribune to veto
the measure. Thus everyone could feel safe in the
knowledge that when any seriously controversial matter
came up, the system was designed to make sure nothing
was done hastily and without the largest possible
measure of consensus. This was the very nature of the
Roman system - it was a cautious system.

But then Gracchus deposed Octávius on a vote of the
majority of the tribes. Now, think about this
carefully. The tribunes are elected so that some of
them represent minority opinions. But if, after they
have been elected, the majority can conspire to depose
them again, then the minorities are no longer
protected. The representatives who were elected to
protect them can now be removed by the majority. The
minority in this particular case was the senatorial
aristocracy, which (wrongly, as it happens) felt
threatened by Gracchus' legislation. The senátórés
panicked, and Gracchus' murder was the result. The
reason was simply that by a single act of Gracchus a
cautious system which erred on the side of inaction
had been transformed into a system in which the
majority could ride roughshod over any minority by
deposing the magistrate elected to protect that
minority.

I should mention, incidentally, that the reason for
Gracchus' unconstitutional action was that Octávius in
his turn had acted unconstitutionally by vetoing a
bill which the plebseian assembly had the traditional
right to vote on. This doesn't excuse Gracchus, of
course, and nor does Gracchus' action excuse Nasica.
It was a terrible business in which all sides were at
fault. It was not a good episode to base legislation on.





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29888 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
A. Apollónius Cordus Q. Cassió Brútó Pompeiae Minuciae
Strabóní omnibusque sal.

There is a system of proportional representation in
which the voter votes for a particular person and not
a political party. The system, if you want to look it
up, is called the single transferable vote system, or
STV for short. The voter gets a list of candidates and
votes for one (or some, depending on the details). No
political parties are involved. So we can elect the
tribunes using a proportional electoral system without
needing to create political parties. I think we can
all agree that having political parties in Nova Róma
would be daft.

This is, I think, what Lívia means when she says:

> ... proportional representation is not dependent on
the
> party system.

And when, Brúte, you reply:

> --From my point of view it is. I don't have my Dahl
> On Democracy in front of me so I can't reference
> that so I had to resort to internet info to refresh
> my mind the best I could. But for PR to work you
> need groups. Depending on the percentage of votes a
> group gets they get that percentage of seats
> (ideally). Just as you 70-30 example showed with
> the larger segment receiving 7 seats as opposed to 3
> for the minority.

I hate to be dogmatic, but the fact is that whether
political parties are necessary for proportional
representation isn’t a matter of ‘this point of view
or that point of viewÂ’. Proportional representation
does not need to involve political parties, and if
your point of view is that it does, then your point of
view is simply mistaken. What youÂ’re talking about is
one particular type of proportional representation.
There are other types. STV is one of the other types.
I believe it's used in some states in the USA, as well
as in other countries. A quick search on the internet
will reveal plenty of sites which will tell you (more
or less accurately) how it works. As you'll see, it
does not involve political parties.

You also say:

> --So are you suggesting lets say we have X number of
> candidates. All eligible to vote cast multiples
> votes of all their options available. and those
> candidates that receive the highest number of votes
> are in? So Plebs could say pick the 10 they prefer
> and of all the votes cast the 10 with the highest
> count get in. Correct?

And Strabó replies:

> Pompeia: To make a long story short, yes, Quinte

Well, Strabó, I don't know how you are able
confidently to reply to a question about what Lívia is
suggesting. I would have thought the best person to
answer that question would be Lívia. But until she
does, let me suggest that it's very unlikely that
she's suggesting what Brútus says, because she is
sufficiently well-informed about electoral mechanics
to realize quite quickly that the system Brútus is
describing is not proportional representation at all.
In fact what he has described is pretty much the
current (Morávian) system, which is not so much
proportional as nonsensical.

By the way, Strabó, I noticed that you said:

> .... Macronational
> politics isn't
> this predicable either, Fabia, nor is it always
> 'fair' in the sense
> that you are pontificating.

I'm sure you didn't mean to insult Lívia, so I presume
that you simply donÂ’t know what the word
‘pontificating’ means. In fact your use of the word
seems to confirm this, since if you knew what it means
you would also know that itÂ’s an intransitive verb:
you can pontificate, but you canÂ’t pontificate
such-and-such-a-thing. So take my word for it that
saying that someone is pontificating is not a friendly
thing to do; in fact itÂ’s downright insulting. Perhaps
a quick note of apology to Lívia would be in order.





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29889 From: Quintus Brutus Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: yahoo groups
Ave, thank you Equitius Marinus

Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@...> wrote:Salve Quinte Brute,

Quintus Brutus wrote:

> okay I switching e-mail accounts and the open mebership groups
> like the ML etc and others I have been approved for have yet to
> kick in and start working, i.e. the ML etc and a few others that
> have received messages since the account was activated...can
> someone help explain why?

Yahoo lag. It can take Yahoo up to a week to actually comply with a
user requested change. I know that when I have attempted to switch from
"individual e-mails" to "read on web only" before going on vacation,
it's taken between 5 and 7 days for the change to become effective.

Please be patient. It'll start coming through eventually.

Vale,

-- Marinus


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
Get unlimited calls to

U.S./Canada


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29890 From: Stephen Gallagher Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Senator Drusus
Tiberius Galerius Paulinus Tribunus Plebs

Ex Officio

Salve Romans

As I will not be available for the next couple of days I want to publicly state my view on the matter of Senator Drusus. I wanted my views to be public so no one could mistake my absence for indifference to the matters at hand.

I have been fighting these past few weeks to insure that the Senator received his day in court and that he was given due process in accord with the agreement he signed in February. I firmly believed that under the agreement the Praetors or those who had exercised the office of Praetor were the only ones who could render an opinion as to wither the Senator had remained "civil" on the main list as required by section IV of the agreement.

A majority have now declared he has not remained "civil" on the main list and so is in violation of said section IV.

Now the College of Pontifices and the College of Tribunes, meeting collectively must decided if this violation is enough reason to remove Senator Drusus from the Senate and to strip him of his Nova Roman citizenship and dam him in the eyes of his Gods, without the ability to appeal, forever.

I believe that if you review the posts of the Senator and the ones before and after of the people he was debating with the Senator gave no more that he got. The Senator IS a PAIN IN THE A__ for a considerable amount of the time that he posts but I can not find it in me to strip a person of their citizenship for the THINGS THEY SAY.

My vote is that violation of section IV is not enough to find him in violation of his oath, in that he clearly kept 80% of the agreement and WAS "civil" in excess of 90% of the time on the main list. I do however recommend to the Censors of Nova Roma that he be removed from the Senate rolls for no more that one year for the violation of section IV of the Agreement.

I believe this penalty serves both justice and mercy.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Tribunus Plebs







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29891 From: Quintus Brutus Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
"Proportional representation does not need to involve political parties, and if your point of view is that it does, then your point of view is simply mistaken."

--It is not mistaken. I can assure you that much. I am just as aware of what PR is as Livia may very well be. But it is relevent to political parties. The Single Transferable Vote system or STV is nothing more than a direct-elect system. Based on the way you described it, whoever (whether a single seat or multiple seats) gets the most votes gets the seat(s). So if you vote for multiple candidates for multiple seats then that is a direct-elect. There is no proportionality in a candidate who gets more votes than another getting the seat over the other candidate. PR is what it says. Even if the electorate can vote for more than one candidate, it is still direct elect not proportional. They are directly voting for a candidate. Trying to link their ability to dircetly choose multiple candidates to PR is a stretch. The reality is if your STV were applied to the tribunes and you had more than 10 running for the position, whichever 10 candidates got the most votes got the seats.
How is this any different than a first past the post system? It has simply a winner take all mentality to it.

"but you can�t pontificate such-and-such-a-thing."

--yea you can. To pontificate is to express an idea or judgment in a dogmatic way. How's that insulting? Perhaps thicker skin is required.


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29892 From: me-in-@disguise.co.uk Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Fwd: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: European Union (Another Twist)
Who said economics? China is fine for the US, a
low-cost dictatorship happy for the moment to provide cheap
goods with little or no - since many are emprisonned - care
about workforce conditions. No doubt there is plenty of US
investment reaping the profit anyway. China is just another
dictatorship of the sort US Inc adores. It offers no
/cultural/ rivalry, no attractive socio-political and
cultural alternative. Europe does. Standards of living,
democratic accountability, protection against overbearing
enterprises range from worse to far better depending on
state in both unions. The US would like to present itself
(like Athens) as head of the 'free' world, as long as the
free world follows its structures exactly and gives it free
reign. Europe offers an alternative structure of the same
kind to turn to. Other structures are entirely different,
State capitalism discreditted and can be forgotten, violent
theocracy popular (where the US can also make a showing) but
unattractive to most of the world. But will developing
African democracies and South America look to the US as
their model or to the old colonisers?
Caesariensis
> Salvete Omnes
>
>
> "Europe is the only potential rival to the USA"
>
> This gives some insight into the Continental Inferiority
> complex that the governments of Europe have. The EU is
> often seen in terms of being in conflict with the US. So
> we must all band together to beat the Americans.
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29893 From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: EUC Discussion
Salvete omnes,

I think the discussion on the EUC has been interesting and
informative from both sides of the issue. It is a good debate about
history, politics and current affairs with no personal attacks or
issues. This is what I personally like to see in our discussions.

One thing I want to point out that has not been particularily good
with the EUC has come from French, Spanish and German ex-patriots
that are friends of mine here in Canada. Since joining the EUC
prices is Spain went way up so 50 dollar a night hotels,
restaurants and all went up to 200, 300 US etc. Tourists have
noticed this as well. My German friends' families were crying the
blues at how much basic things have risen and are very upset at how
their savings took a kicking when converting from the Deutch Mark to
the Euro; in other words, not a great start.

I see a problem with currency conversion and Europe is not alone;
these conversions are awful. For example our Canadian dollar is .81
US. I bought the NR ring by credit card and you'd think that it
should be 179.20 Canadian - nope, 214.00 so in reality I got
clobbered 15% more. That's nothing on this amount but imagine on
214,000. Now we converted our 2 dollar bills and one dollar bills to
coins. What happens? All dispensing machines from pop to carwashes
were just recalibrated to take these coins and those prices jumped
20% overnight. All in all many people do hate getting hit or ripped
of in the name of social or political revolution.


Regards,

QLP
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29894 From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Fwd: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: European Union (Another Twist)
Salve Caesariensis,

Long time no see, good to hear from you again.
I have to run but I'll be brief. A few years ago I went to replace
my stereo. I saw a make from Europe (Switz.) called Revox. A basic
tape deck was 2500.00, 3200.00 for the amp etc. A similar sounding
machine made in Taiwan under a a European name cost 1700.00 for
everything. Harmon and Kardon and Telefunken that I own are or were
made in Asia now.

Apparently if we used our skilled workers here, 20 - 30 Cdn an hour,
computer would cost over 10,000.00, a 500 dollar TV would be the
price of a 40 in plasma now etc. The whole situation seems to me to
be a two edged sword; drop Asia or pay higher wages, bring in
protection legislation and make these products in North America or
Europe but then again we'd have massive unemployment since 10,000
dollar eletronics would be only play toys for the rich.


Regards,

QLP




--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, me-in-@d... wrote:
> Who said economics? China is fine for the US, a
> low-cost dictatorship happy for the moment to provide cheap
> goods with little or no - since many are emprisonned - care
> about workforce conditions. No doubt there is plenty of US
> investment reaping the profit anyway. China is just another
> dictatorship of the sort US Inc adores. It offers no
> /cultural/ rivalry, no attractive socio-political and
> cultural alternative. Europe does. Standards of living,
> democratic accountability, protection against overbearing
> enterprises range from worse to far better depending on
> state in both unions. The US would like to present itself









> (like Athens) as head of the 'free' world, as long as the
> free world follows its structures exactly and gives it free
> reign. Europe offers an alternative structure of the same
> kind to turn to. Other structures are entirely different,
> State capitalism discreditted and can be forgotten, violent
> theocracy popular (where the US can also make a showing) but
> unattractive to most of the world. But will developing
> African democracies and South America look to the US as
> their model or to the old colonisers?
> Caesariensis
> > Salvete Omnes
> >
> >
> > "Europe is the only potential rival to the USA"
> >
> > This gives some insight into the Continental Inferiority
> > complex that the governments of Europe have. The EU is
> > often seen in terms of being in conflict with the US. So
> > we must all band together to beat the Americans.
> >
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29895 From: C. Fabia Livia Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Well, I'm finally back to the internet following a
fantastic provincial meeting, so I'll try to do better
this time on explaining what I mean about PR (since I
obviously went wrong somewhere, as I've been
misunderstood in my absence). I'm very tired, though,
so we'll see how well I do!

Brutus wrote:

> --As it pertains to Nova Roma I would oppose such a
> system or format.

Well, then, we are in agreement on one thing, at least
:)

It's fine that there are divisions amongst people - it
wouldn't be so much fun if everyone agreed (and we
wouldn't be forced to check so often whether we're
going in the right direction). But those divisions
should be issue-based, as is largely the case at the
moment, rather than imposed by some arbitrary "party"
which decides upon a policy which its members must
follow.

Perhaps where we begin to differ is that I dislike
parties in general (in macronational contexts as well
as NR), and as macronational politics is where I've
seen parties, that's what I've drawn upon in providing
my explanations.

> "proportional representation is not dependent on the
> party system. As anyone who's known me for any
> length of time can doubtless tell you"
>
> --From my point of view it is. I don't have my Dahl
> On Democracy in front of me so I can't reference
> that so I had to resort to internet info to refresh
> my mind the best I could.

I'm afraid that whether or not you think something has
no effect on how an electoral system works. Methods
of calculating votes are not subjective, in fact
they're rather mathematical, and work in the same way
every time. This is why I'm able to say, with some
certainty, that there are proportional representation
systems which do not rely on the party system. That
doesn't mean that they're *incompatible* with parties,
simply that it is not *necessary* to have parties in
order to hold successful elections using them.

Maybe in your *experience* you have only come across
forms of proportional representation which do rely on
the party list system - that would not surprise me, as
it is the most common type of proportional
representation in use at a national level.

> But for PR to work you
> need groups. Depending on the percentage of votes a
> group gets they get that percentage of seats
> (ideally). Just as you 70-30 example showed with
> the larger segment receiving 7 seats as opposed to 3
> for the minority.

You need people to have opinions, and if they all have
the same opinion, then everyone they like will be
elected - that's not the same as "needing groups".

Imagine a situation in which there are 3 positions up
for election, where (irrespective of parties) 60% of
the population would like A, B and C to be elected,
but 40% would particularly like D to be elected. Most
systems would elect A, B, and C, because each
individually has majority support. STV would elect D
and two of the others. It's up to you which you think
is fairer: personally I prefer the latter, but that
has nothing to do with how the system works (which is
mostly what I'm going to be talking about).

> --So are you suggesting lets say we have X number of
> candidates. All eligible to vote cast multiples
> votes of all their options available. and those
> candidates that receive the highest number of votes
> are in? So Plebs could say pick the 10 they prefer
> and of all the votes cast the 10 with the highest
> count get in. Correct?

Not at all.

Let me tell you (briefly - I don't want to bore
everyone) about the way in which the Single
Transferrable Vote (STV) system works, and then see if
you understand what I mean - if not, I'll try again :)

I'm going to explain it as it would work in a "normal"
electoral system, that is to say one without tribes
and centuries, because those simply complicate the
issue, and we are trying to talk here about the facts
of how electoral systems work. I don't want to muddy
the waters with the way in which tribes and centuries
distort the vote, as it will make the rest less clear
:)

In an STV election, a voter can mark all the
candidates in order of preference. However many
candidates there are, and however many vacancies, each
voter gets one vote (just like in a normal election).
The difference is that, if their first-preference
candidate is elected or eliminated, the part of their
vote which they have not used can be redistributed.

For example, in an election to fill 2 vacancies, if
there is a candidate in the first round (ie. simply
counting the candidates who are marked "1" on the
ballot papers) who has more than 1/3 of the available
votes, that candidate is elected. Then, the people
who voted for that candidate get to vote again for
their candidate of next preference, *but* not with the
whole of their vote - only with the part of it which
they haven't already used to vote in the first
candidate.

Now, I can't type the mathematical equations which
govern this in to my e-mail, but if you don't believe
it can be done, I can put them in a PDF and send them
to you.

However, if no candidate reaches this threshold of
1/3, the candidate with the lowest number of votes is
eliminated, and *all* of the votes which were cast for
the eliminated candidate are redistributed to the next
preference candidates of the voters who put him first.

This process carries on throughout as many rounds as
necessary to elect as many candidates as there are
vacancies.

I don't know if I've made sense, but let me know if
not, and I'll try again.

> As far as concerns go people will always have
> concerns. Politics is politics. People will always
> be divided in opinion on a wide array of issues. It
> is simply unavoidable.

Yes, of course, but there's no need for anyone to be
concerned incorrectly. If you are concerned about
something which can be alleviated with a simple (well,
okay, maybe simple is not quite the right word!)
examination of the facts, I feel obliged to help you
out with that, because I'm a friendly kind of person
and I don't want to see you suffer unduly :)

Livia





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29896 From: C. Fabia Livia Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
> Pompeia: I think this was actually Fabia Quaestor's
> text above, but
> correct me if I am wrong.

You're right, that was me.

I've snipped some of your post, but I hope that what
I'm saying still makes sense.

> And no, as much as you
> would prefer not
> to have institutionalized parties, you will always
> have certain
> groups with a basic mindset, agreeing on a few
> political
> principles. This does not mean they are so militant
> that they
> consensually agree on every minute thing.

Of course there will usually be groups of people who
tend to agree with one another. That is not the same
as an institutionalised party system: by
"institutionalised" I mean built in to the
constitiution of whatever state we may be talking
about - so, for instance, countries which use the
"list" system of proportional representation (where
each party supplies one list) could be said to have
institutionalised parties. As I see it, the problems
with institionalised parties are:

1) the likelihood of a party whip (which makes sense
from the point of view of the party, because who is
going to vote for a party when they don't know whether
the candidates who are elected will actually toe the
party line?)

and

2) the fact that it becomes virtually impossible to
participate in politics *without* joining a party.
This second point means that, for example, individuals
with good ideas who want to make any progress in
politics may have to sign up for a party which forces
them to compromise on some of their principles/ideals.

I'm *not* saying that we have these problems in Nova
Roma - I'm saying that, in introducing any new
systems, we want to be sure to avoid them.

> I think the best offer we can give to the citizens
> is to produce the
> voting system that will tally the votes to allow the
> most accurate
> representation of what their wishes are

Yes, of course. Everyone thinks so, surely?

The question is whether we are interested in the views
only of the majority, or whether we are in fact
interested in having the views of all parts of the
population represented in proportion to their presence
in the population.

There is no 'right' or 'wrong' answer to this - you're
free to disagree with me about whether proportional
representation is a good thing. All I can tell you is
that I think it is, and (more helpfully, perhaps) how
either system would work. Which is what I'm trying to
do now :)

> You cannot
> insist that the voters elect so many 'minor'
> candidates, like a
> university must admit 'so many' minority students,
> to make the whole
> thing 'fair'.

I'm not suggesting that we "must" elect anyone - I'm
not saying we should have quotas for how many
different types of people should be elected. I am
saying that, in my opinion, elections should be held
in such a way that 49% of the population's opinion is
not ignored, but *mostly* what I'm doing is to try and
explain how STV works so that people can decide for
themselves whether they like it.

> > "This is *not* the only way it can work: it can be
> done in such a
> way as to allow voters to choose the precise
> candidates they prefer,
> and still allow minorities to be represented. This
> can be done,
> simply, by putting candidates (rather than parties)
> on the ballot."
>
> Pompeia: I believe this is Fabia Quaestor again
> above. Now, when
> have we had an election in NR, which said for
> example "Iulia Magna"
> BONI, or POPULARIBUS at the cista?

No, we never have. My point was that Brutus seemed to
think this was the only way of having a proportional
election: it is not. (For a detailed explanation of
which, see my earlier post on the topic, in response
to Brutus himself.)

> And regarding
> the
> minorities...all voters have to use good sense in
> selecting Tribunes
> who will look after 'all the plebs'.

We might hope so, but it is frankly silly to base an
electoral system (NR or macronational) on the
assumption that everyone will behave well at all
times.

> Macronational
> politics isn't
> this predicable either, Fabia, nor is it always
> 'fair' in the sense
> that you are pontificating.

Of course, you're right: I'm in favour of massive
electoral reforms here in Britain, too (and generally,
but I don't feel so entitled to advocate reforms in
countries in which I don't live).

Livia





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29897 From: Quintus Brutus Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: European Union (Another Twist)
Don't take swipes at the US if you don't want them tossed back. If you really think the US that bad you might want to reflect on Europe's own history. Then look at it now. Remember appeasement? That must of worked wonders for the millions that died because of Europe's political and military genius. Because of your blustering incompetence and the Versaille Treaty you created WW2!! You created the despair in Germany, the shame by admittance of wrong!! Europe then thought appeasement was a novel idea. Meanwhile while ever reluctant French (with British involvement) blockaded Germany, Italy Germany and Russia seized Poland, Albania, Czechoslovakia...by the time Europe realized how stupid it was Germany managed to role over all of Czechoslovakia, Albania, Denmark, Norway, Poland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Belgium, and on June 22 France capitulated. Britain was now effectively the only Allied power left. Finally when those big bad people the Americans entered we and what was left
of your debacle and Great Briatin bailed the rest of Europe out of its own stupidity. Now again we find appeasement by saying your going tp punish Saddam but never acting and finally the Us did something and low and behold what do we find Europe was on the take, with some US companies albeit, and skimming millions out of Food for Oil. Europe is no ideal. If we sought to be like you we'd be negotiating with Al Qaeda already suing for peace....


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. - www.yahoo.com/a

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29898 From: Danny Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Avis History group
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN,

Firstly, I would like to thank the Founder of this great group for
accepting my message to you all.

Recently I founded a new history group, 'Avis History' - a fresh forum
which seeks to make history fun and invigorating - also to spread that
interest. Currently I am seeking new members to build it up and I
would be honoured if you would like to join it.

If you're interested in joining, or simply want to look, the address is:

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

Thank you for your time,

Best wishes,

Danny Bird

marauder_avis2004@...
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29899 From: t_octavius_salvius Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Fwd: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: European Union (Another Twist)
> Who said economics? China is fine for the US, a
> low-cost dictatorship happy for the moment to provide cheap
> goods with little or no - since many are emprisonned - care
> about workforce conditions.




No doubt there is plenty of US
> investment reaping the profit anyway. China is just another
> dictatorship of the sort US Inc adores.

It offers no cultural rivalry, no attractive socio-political and
cultural alternative.


Chinese culture pre-dates Europe's by at least 3000 years. It is the
basis for much of the culture of Eastern Asia. As for an attractive
socio-political alternative, well, there are many parallels between
their dictatorship and Europe's own. China and the EU are level
pegging in democratic terms.



> democratic accountability,

That's a joke. I have dealt with the EU as a Democracy-free zone in
previous posts.

The US would like to present itself
> (like Athens) as head of the 'free' world, as long as the
> free world follows its structures exactly and gives it free
> reign.

In the same way the the EU presents itself as the head of a 'free'
Europe? As long as the nations of Europe follows the EU's structures?
This is like the pot calling the kettle black.

Europe offers an alternative structure of the same
> kind to turn to.

Europe offers oppressive regulation, high taxes, high interference
in private affairs and massive corruption (eg. Eurostat,
the 'resignation' of a former Commission over corruption).


This topic seems to have drifted away from anything to do with
Ancient Rome. I will agree to stop posting about it (unless there is
an obvious connection), and hopefully the others who have
contributed will do the same.

valete

Salvius
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29900 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
A. Apollónius Cordus Q. Cassió Brútó omnibusque sal.

> "Proportional representation does not need to
> involve political parties, and if your point of view
> is that it does, then your point of view is simply
> mistaken."
>
> --It is not mistaken. I can assure you that much.
> I am just as aware of what PR is as Livia may very
> well be. But it is relevent to political parties.
> The Single Transferable Vote system or STV is
> nothing more than a direct-elect system.

If STV is not a system of proportional representation,
then perhaps you would like to explain that to the
Electoral Reform Society, which has spent the last 120
years campaigning for proportional representation in
Britain (its original name was the Proportional
Representation Society) and which advocates STV as the
best system of proportional representation:

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/

Perhaps, while youÂ’re at it, youÂ’d like to explain it
to Enid Lakeman, Andrew Reeve, Alan Ware, Arend
Lijphard, Bernard Grofman, and the hundreds of other
academics who have spent their working lives analyzing
electoral systems and seem to be in universal
agreement that STV is a system or proportional
representation.

And perhaps, finally, youÂ’d like to explain it to the
citizens of Ireland, Malta, and Australia, all of whom
use STV in the belief that it is a system of
proportional representation.

Or, on the other hand, you could try reading a book or
two about it, or even a few websites, before
pretending that you know what youÂ’re talking about.





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29901 From: jmath669642reng@webtv.net Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Ancient Roman Information.
Ladies and Gentlemen;

I am very pleased to report to you some information provided by the new
Cultural Scriba in Nova Britannia. He offers this information for your
use and records as you will be pleased to recieve i:

In his first response he offers the folwing information for those who
may be interested:

Dartmouth College, NH on the banks of the Connecticut River is a small
university but does have a Classics Dept.

http:www.dartmouth.edu./~classics

The Hood Museum in Dartmouth is a small museum, but does have some
classical items in their permanent collection. From time to time they
have exibits of ancient items

http://hoodmuseum.dartmouth.edu/

The biggest school in Vermont is the Unversity of Vermont in Burlington
Vermont is also the home to Middlebury College and Norwich University,
but both of these are reala]tively small schools..

In his second response in two days Master Bibulus offers the following:

In reading the "Eagle" article on the "Hadrian's Wall" e mentions two
links of interest. The first is a BBC site on ancient history and the
Roman influence on Britain:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/hadrian_gallery.shtml

and the second which is a site put together by the Hadrian Wall Tourism
Partnership to encourage visitors to the area. They have some good
links to museums and things to see in the area:

http://www.hadrians-wall.org/

My thanks to Nm. Gladius Bibulus, Culture Scriba for Nova Britannia.

Respectfully Submitted;

Marcus Minucius-Tiberius Audens -- ProConsul -- Nova Britannia -- Nova
Roma


Wishing you all the best, with Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29902 From: Quintus Brutus Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
I was reacting based on the way you described it Cordus. Nothing more. The way you expressed it in a short little blip it comes across as anything but PR. Secondly Arend
Lijphard is a freaking idiot. Of all the people I had to read throughout school I found Lijphard to be the most boring and idiotic of them all. Personally while I think PR regardless of method or what you call it might be more reflective of the populous I think it quite simply is a system for people who can't handle being told more people don't care about their views.

A problem with PR, or the unfortunate negative to it is it allows fringe groups such as the extremist one's I hear about periodically in the news in Europe have the opportunity to actually get seats. Granted all have a right to have their voices heard but do you really want people like that in gov't? Even the US has some nutjob groups that would have a field day at that opportunity. Granted right now only one independent has gotten into Congress but PR would allow these groups to have a voice in serious politics not petty politics. I can only imagine what the platform for these groups would be. I think the US needs to move beyond the 2 party system but I don't want to have a choice between Republican, democrat, Green Party, and then have to see White Supremacist, Neo-Nazi's, and every other whacko group...granted this is an extreme but its a reality...FPTP basically ensures these groups don't have a bloody prayer in passing 10% of the vote if that...Nader is barely
mustering 1% now in polls...that is likely to drop and go Democratic...




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. - www.yahoo.com/a

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29903 From: Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: Senator Drusus
Salve Tiberius Galerius Paulinus Tribune ~

Several points need addressing in this matter:

1) The agreement was that Sen. Drusus would be Civil, not just be civil
a certain percentage of the time; you have conceded that the conclusion
is that he in fact was deemed to be UnCivil. You do not get to revise
the agreement to read "most of the time", as that was not a stipulation.

2) As Drusus agreed to resign his position should he be deemed uncivil,
and he has in fact been deemed to have been uncivil, he should resign
from the Senate immediately.

3) As for resigning his Citizenship, it is traditional (our NR Mos
Maiorum) that a Citizen may voluntarily resign or be forced to resign
their Citizenship as a result of NR Law. This agreement is NOT a
matter of Law; therefore Drusus cannot be compelled to resign his
Citizenship ~ not unless someone wants to press charges and he is found
guilty. In demanding his Citizenship be forfeit without due process of
Law this Agreement went too far.

4) This Agreement did NOT go too far in stipulating his continued
holding of titles of rank. The CP and the Senate, as Institutions,
have a right to expect certain standards of conduct; it is their right
to create or enter into an Agreement such as this one, as stipulation
for continued membership in each Institution. As Drusus entered into
this Agreement and has been found to have violated it, he should tender
his resignation or face having it revoked.

5) Your insistence that the CP and College of Tribunes must meet
collectively does not hold up: They are separate Institutions and must
therefore meet separately. The collective phrasing merely indicates
that they must present their separate findings to each other,
presumably in order to determine what must be done next. The CP
obviously has a membership matter to consider, and given the Oath
attached to the Agreement they may have other religious actions to
consider. Honestly, I don't see where the College of Tribunes enters
into it ~ I suppose the Tribunes are simply to issue a "Finding", which
the CP and/or Senate may then use as a basis for their deliberations on
whether Drusus' resignation should be called for from either or both
Institutions. As you have already determined the findings of the
Praetors, this would seem to conclude the part of the College of
Tribunes (to whit: To inquire and verify, which has been done); it is
also the Tribune's job to look out for the rights of Citizens, which
you have done well: I agree that the forfeiture of Citizenship cannot
be compelled as a result of this Agreement. Requested, but not
compelled. Loss of title and rank is a separate matter, and CAN be
compelled by those Institutions as a result of this Agreement.

CONCLUSION: The Agreement stipulated Civility, not "mostly" Civility,
and Drusus has been found to have been UnCivil by the Praetors within
the period of the Agreement. This has been verified by a Tribune.
Thus the Senate and CP should proceed to requesting Drusus'
resignation, without Appeal; this Agreement is binding in this regard
as both of these Institutions have the right to maintain standards
within their membership. However, Drusus cannot be compelled to resign
his NR Citizenship, as this Agreement does not constitute an adverse
finding by NR Law and thus a demand for his Citizenship to be resigned
would be extra-legal: It may be requested as having been agreed upon,
but it cannot be compelled.

This is merely my interpretation of the circumstances.

Vale
~ S E M Troianus

On Monday, November 1, 2004, at 12:31 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:

>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus Tribunus Plebs
>
> Ex Officio
>
> Salve Romans
>
> As I will not be available for the next couple of days I want to
> publicly state my view on the matter of Senator Drusus. I wanted my
> views to be public so no one could mistake my absence for indifference
> to the matters at hand.
>
> I have been fighting these past few weeks to insure that the Senator
> received his day in court and that he was given due process in accord
> with the agreement he signed in February. I firmly believed that
> under the agreement the Praetors or those who had exercised the office
> of Praetor were the only ones who could render an opinion as to wither
> the Senator had remained "civil" on the main list as required by
> section IV of the agreement.
>
> A majority have now declared he has not remained "civil" on the main
> list and so is in violation of said section IV.
>
> Now the College of Pontifices and the College of Tribunes, meeting
> collectively must decided if this violation is enough reason to remove
> Senator Drusus from the Senate and to strip him of his Nova Roman
> citizenship and dam him in the eyes of his Gods, without the ability
> to appeal, forever.
>
> I believe that if you review the posts of the Senator and the ones
> before and after of the people he was debating with the Senator gave
> no more that he got. The Senator IS a PAIN IN THE A__ for a
> considerable amount of the time that he posts but I can not find it in
> me to strip a person of their citizenship for the THINGS THEY SAY.
>
> My vote is that violation of section IV is not enough to find him in
> violation of his oath, in that he clearly kept 80% of the agreement
> and WAS "civil" in excess of 90% of the time on the main list. I do
> however recommend to the Censors of Nova Roma that he be removed from
> the Senate rolls for no more that one year for the violation of
> section IV of the Agreement.
>
> I believe this penalty serves both justice and mercy.
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> Tribunus Plebs
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29904 From: Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Salve Brutus ~

On Monday, November 1, 2004, at 03:42 PM, Quintus Brutus wrote:

> Personally while I think PR regardless of method or what you call it
> might be more reflective of the populous I think it quite simply is a
> system for people who can't handle being told more people don't care
> about their views.
>
That's why it's called a MINORITY OPINION, Brutus! ;-)
The question is whether this Minority Opinion should be represented or
not. As the purpose of the Tribunes is to protect the rights of
Citizens ~ not just the Majority but ALL Citizens, I think the answer
is probably Yes.

If this is what we want, then we should institute an election form that
permits all Citizens to have a Tribune that will look out for their
interest. I yield to the authority of those more knowledgeable about
the different systems, to decide which version would be best.

However, it isn't about which author is "boring" ~ it's about the
Ideas. That part of your answer really annoyed me, Brutus: 90% of my
Philosophy of Science class didn't understand Thomas Kuhn's work, but
that doesn't make him wrong ~ it just means they found his writing
style difficult to understand or "boring". Now, of course, "Paradigm"
is a buzz word (especially among Business Majors ~ go figure!) without
most users even knowing what it means, yet alone having read Kuhn.

If you got the idea, great ~ that's what counts! Whether you found the
author "boring" or not is really irrelevant to the discussion of ideas.
Your seeming dismissal of an idea on the grounds that you found the
style of presentation "boring" is disturbing. Much of Science makes
for dull reading, but without those Ideas we'd be living in caves and
pounding on rocks.

Vale
~ Troianus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29905 From: Quintus Brutus Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
I did not dismiss the concept of PR based on the "boring" writing of one author. It allows too much slack. If you have someone who sympathizes with this poor fellow because he got out of line and the system is coming down on him well you handicap the system by allowing everybodies personal bodyguard to come to the rescue everytime they screw up. Frankly I think any responsible person who wishes to be a Tribune could do the job honestly. There is a difference between viciously going after the words of someone and their arguments and going after the person viciously (which includes the use of obscenities). If its the prior and the Tribunes have reason tos tep in. If its the latter I would hope they'd step aside and let the offender get lashed by the system for his offense. If you want to have Pr then why don't we institute more Tribunes so every Pleb can have their own personal guardian angel to save them everytime they mess up. I broke the rules I was treated accordingly and
the system will atkes its course. If someone else does then likewise should happen to them and not have some sympathizing official step in to save their butt.

vale


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com/a

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29906 From: H. Rutilius Bardulus Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: A new Constitution.......
Salve, T. Octavi Salvi.


> That's a joke. I have dealt with the EU as a Democracy-free
> zone in previous posts.

[Bardulus] Are you sure? Let's see the joke...


> Starting with what is supposed to be the most democratic
> layer of the EU, the parliament. With turn-outs as low as 14%
> in the Eurpean elections, how can this body have any sort of
> legitimacy as representing "the people" of Europe. Especially
> when you consider only about half of the people who bothered
> to vote chose the winning candidate. The elections are a fig
> leaf for the illegitimacy of the system

[Bardulus] Yes, the last EP was elected with a participation of
over 45.5% of the Europeans. It was very sad. But George W. Bush
was elected with an abstention of about 50% of the voters. This
means that only 25% of Americans wanted Bush as President of the
US. Following your reasons... illegitimacy of the system?

And about the UK, there is a chamber of non-elected deputies in
the British Parliament: the House of Lords, that "considers
legislation, debates issues of importance and provides a forum
for government ministers to be questioned. The Committees of the
House consider a wide range of issues and produce reports on
them. The House of Lords is also the highest court in the United
Kingdom" (from their webpage). They are deputies because they
inherited their titles from their fathers, or by royal
appointment, or because they are bishops of the Church of
England. No election here. Illegitimacy of the system?


> The Commission is made up of people nominated by the member's
> government. Usually a crop of failed or disgraced politicians
> (eg. Neil Kinnock- Former Commission Vice President and Peter
> Mandelson- resigned from the Cabinet in disgrace twice). Here
> there is no election. Whoever fits the Premier's ideology is
> appointed to the office.

[Bardulus] The Governments of the States are elected by their
Parliaments or directly by their people. The Commission isn't
the Government of the EU, but only its administration main
commitee. And yes, here is democracy: the EP must give its
agreement to the Commission, or there is no Commission.

The role of "Government of the EU" belongs to the Council of
Ministers, composed by the Chiefs of State (in presidential
republics) or Prime Ministers (in monarchies and parliamentary
republics) and the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of each State,
plus the President of the Commission.


> Finally, the Council of Europe. Again this is a cabal of
> people who, if you are a democrat, have no legitimacy to be
> where they are.

[Bardulus] Again, you are wrong. The Council of Europe *is not*
an EU institution. The Council of Europe is only a regional
organization, like the OAS for the Americas, and has nothing to
do with the EU. Please, be informed before making such a
statement.


> On the issue of non-Europeans commenting, I think it is very
> helpful to have an objective look. The battle-lines are more
> or less drawn here, so a fresh perspective is a nice change.

[Bardulus] I agree, but you and Brutus are not exactly
objectives.


> The EU also acts as a warning to other states to never, ever,
> surrender their sovereignty. Sovereignty is the blood of a
> nation, and the countries of Europe have been bled dry.

[Bardulus] As Apullus Caesar and other European citizens said,
if two or more sovereign nations want to collaborate together in
a common project, just because they are sovereign nations, they
have all the right to do so.


Vale bene,

H. Rutilius Bardulus




______________________________________________
Renovamos el Correo Yahoo!: ¡100 MB GRATIS!
Nuevos servicios, más seguridad
http://correo.yahoo.es
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29907 From: Quintus Brutus Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: A new Constitution.......
"But George W. Bush was elected with an abstention of about 50% of the voters. This means that only 25% of Americans wanted Bush as President of the US."

--No offense but what is the proportion age wise of the European populous that did vote? Most American who vote tend to be older and in the work force. Most 18 year olds and college students really don't vote because they just don't care or have in their eyes better things to do. Tomorrow may very well show otherwise being that candidates are tied at 49% and 1% going towards the lone ranger Nader. Do many young men and women in Europe neglect to vote?

Does the House of Lords solely issue reports or do they make the call on issues? Perhaps a UK resident could clarify. Personally as an outsider I see it as tradition and not illegitimacy. But to each his own..

I think Bardulus this is more than collaboration. The member nations have surrendered to others certain aspects of their sovereignty. Welcome a guest into your home and pretty soon they're moving in.


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com/a

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29908 From: t_octavius_salvius Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: A new Constitution.......
Salve

I know I said my last post was the last on this subject, but this is
the one (and only) exception. And I'm only replying because I want
to ensure that whatever I base my arguments on is factually accurate.


> > Finally, the Council of Europe. Again this is a cabal of
> > people who, if you are a democrat, have no legitimacy to be
> > where they are.
>
> [Bardulus] Again, you are wrong. The Council of Europe *is not*
> an EU institution. The Council of Europe is only a regional
> organization, like the OAS for the Americas, and has nothing to
> do with the EU. Please, be informed before making such a
> statement.

I am not wrong. From the Council's own website:

"The Council is the main decision-making body of the European Union.

The ministers of the member states meet within the Council of the
European Union. Depending on the issue on the agenda, each country
will be represented by the minister responsible for that subject
(foreign affairs, finance, social affairs, transport, agriculture,
etc.)."

That would appear to suggest that it has a lot to do with the EU,
being its prime decision making body.

As someone who holds a qualification in Law, one third of which was
exclusively about Europe, I think you will agree that I am very
informed on this topic.

Right. Case closed. No more EU posting from me unless it's directly
relevent to Nova Roma.

salve

Salvius
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29909 From: t_octavius_salvius Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: A new Constitution.......
Salvete,

"Does the House of Lords solely issue reports or do they make the
call on issues?
Perhaps a UK resident could clarify. Personally as an outsider I see
it as
tradition and not illegitimacy. But to each his own.."

The House of Lords is supposed to be a collection of experienced
politicians on what is called a "Life-Peerage". The idea is that an
MP or Cabinet minister who has contributed a lot to the nation
during his time in the House of Commons is rewarded with a peerage
and sent to the House of Lords. Only around 20 are hereditary peers
(there is an argument, which I think has some merit, that hereditary
acts as a safeguard against party interests, as there is pressure on
the individual from anyone else). The rest are the senior judges.

Legislation can begin in either House for its first reading and
amendments, pass to the other House for another reading and
amendments, then pass back to the original House where it will be
voted on. Both Houses must agree to the proposed legislation. If the
Commons wants something approved and the Lords reject it, they can,
on rare occasions, use the Parliament Act to force the legislation
through.

The House of Lords is the highest court in the UK, with the
exception of the European Court of Justice (whose supremacy was
proven in the Factortame case). A panel of senior Law Lords make up
the Court, and the House of Lords is often a wealth of legal
experience.

The odd thing about the Lords is that it is often more in tune with
the mood of the country than the Commons. This is partly explained
by the numerous Cross-benchers (with no political affiliation),
which are almost non-existant in the commons (there are a few
independants).

Now that I've explained that, would you mind explaining how that
Congress/Senate thing works? ;)

valete

Salvius
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29910 From: Quintus Brutus Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: A new Constitution.......
They're in some sense similar. Think of it as the House of Representatives as the Lower house and the Senate as your House of Lords. Legally speaking you can run for the House of representatives at the age of 25 and 7 years as a US citizen. These tend to be junior politicians making their way up the ladder or would rather serve in public office at the lower level. Senate minimum age is 30 and 9 years a US citizen. This is all layed out in the Constitution. The Senate and Congress both consider and vote on legislation. I do believe off hand without crossreferencing proper procedure that they both have to vote and agree on legislation. The legislation then goes to the President to sign into law. The president has veto power however, if he vetoes and goes back to Congress, a 2/3 vote sinks the Veto and its law.

For example Bush tried to pass that Gay Marriage amendment. well if Congress tried today to pass a gay marriage legalization Bill, Bush would look at the title of the bill and promptly veto. Back to Congress it goes and a 2/3 vote makes Bush swallow his pride and live with the fact that Gays can marry.

Now the House of Reps is broken down state by state. Article I section 3 states:

"The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three."

Senate: each state gets two no matter whether its the largest or smallest. The senate is the one that has power to impeach so they were frying Slick Willy's, Billy Clinton, balls.

Together they both make the law. However, they usually mesh in so much BS in between that only a lawyer can decipher what the hell the bill is about. Which is why you get statements from John Kerry like "well I voted for it before I voted against it" which probably means there was some other stuff slipped in there that he voted against it. No I'm not a supporter of his. So basically if you're in Congress and you cast a vote for a bill you better pick your issue because whatever else is in the bill will be ammo for rivals.

technically speaking they are supposed to represent the states and the people thereof. But by the time the end of their term comes round or before they're thinking of how they're going to win it so the states don't get the representation they deserve. There are some standout politicians but for the most part they are worthless. For example Senator Ted Kennedy. Each state is divided up into district as well so we don't vote on all our reps all at once. Each district gets one rep. Then divided in 2 for senators. So I live in Ct and I may very well have a different set of reps to choose from than say Marcus Audens who amy live in another district. The states are similar. here is our Constitution...taking some sleeping pills while reading you'll be out before you finsih the 1st article :)

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

Someone else may have a different PoV


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com/a

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29911 From: Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: The purpose of the tribunes (WAS: A small thought about procedu
Salvete ~

This is getting long!
I shall try to snip judiciously....

On Monday, November 1, 2004, at 11:19 AM, A. Apollonius Cordus wrote:
>
> A. Apollónius Cordus Ti. Galerió Paulínó tribúnó
> plébis Ser. Equitió Troiánó Pompeiae Minuciae Strabóní
> omnibusque sal.
>
> Troiánus wrote:
>
>> I don't think it is quite so bad as you make it
>> seem: Any illegal act
>> or edict is likely to find three supporters for a
>> Veto, provided they
>> have enough time to discuss and research the matter.
>
> I agree that often legal and historical questions can
> be resolved given enough time and research, because
> these are generally questions of fact. It's not always
> so, though, because facts require interpretation [snipped]...

True, hence the need for extending the time limit.

> I know that the constitution seems to
> envisage the tribúní doing the job of a constitutional
> court, but that's an absurd idea.

Still, it's there & needs to be taken into account until such time as a
new Constitution is written and passed.

> These are junior magistrates we're talking about.
[Snipped]
> ... but because they don't agree with it.
> [snipped]
> surely it shouldn't be allowed for a single person to block the
> will of the government at his own whim? But of course
> he's not only a single person acting on his own whim.
> He's been elected to represent the voters,
[Snipped]
> , so it in fact they who have vetoed that
> thing. And, though questions of law or history may
> come into it, it's essentially a matter of what that
> tribune thinks is best - and no matter how long you
> may allow, you can't expect five people always to
> agree on what's best.

I'm not - I'm only asking for a majority to agree, as a means of
limiting an individual's whim, and requesting more time for them to
reach agreement.

> So requiring them to work
> collegially is like sending a team of five gymnasts to
> the Olympics with their all legs tied together.
>
This is hyperbole, my friend! Asking five people to confer and reach a
majority decision - in an extended period of time - is not the same
thing as hobbling Olympic Gymnasts!
>
> Sadly, I must point out that some people seem unable
> to come to the correct conclusion no matter how long
> they are given and no matter how much evidence they
> are shown. There are even one or two such people in
> this forum; perhaps you can guess who I have in mind.
> ;)

Oh, true, too true, but surely granting extra time for conferring and
soliciting other opinions and feedback would enhance the likelihood of
a well considered outcome? We are speaking here of Good Government, or
at least Better Government, not expecting Perfection.
>
>> As it is, the time constraints have caused a number
>> of very hasty Veto
>> announcements in the past; veto announcements that
>> were later
>> retracted, after reasoned discussion, precisely
>> because our current
>> arrangement almost forces the Tribunes to Veto first
>> and ask questions
>> later. I hope you will agree that such premature
>> actions actually
>> degrade the Office of Tribune, rather than enhance
>> it, even though the
>> need to act fast is forced upon them.
>
> Indeed; and it would seem a sensible move for
> magistrates who intend to propose legislation to show
> the tribunes the text beforehand in order to avoid
> precisely this sort of thing happening.

Agreed! However, NR is in many ways still "new" and developing, and it
will take time for such sensible habits of proceedure to come into
being and become Traditional. In the meantime, we can only recommend
and encourage ~ and try to build in safeguards (especially in the new
Constitution).

> That would, I
> think, be a better way to get around this problem in
> at least some cases than extending the time-limit for
> vetoes too far (I think you and I agree that a week is
> the outer limit).
>
I was only asking for five days, but a week is even better! I agree
that more than a week is too much - People will lose track of what's
being vetoed! Which means the Tribunes must find a way to check in
when on Vacation, or confer and stagger the times they are unavailable.

>> They HAD to take the neighbor's reaction into
>> consideration, something
>> that our current arrangement doesn't do.
[Snipped]
>> No fellow Romans live next
>> door, we have no
>> effective "peer pressure", even appeals to be
>> reasonable can be avoided
>> simply by not reading their NR e-mail Inbox.
>
> That's true, and it would be frustrating if that were
> to happen, but really, what is our hurry? We will all,
> I very much hope, be alive next year, and if we have
> to wait until then to get around an irresponsible
> tribune, well, never mind.

Patience is indeed a Virtue, but the People have a right to a
functioning Government. After all, the (hypothetically) halted-by-Veto
Government was also elected by the People, with the expectation that it
would work; to say the People's Will in the Tribune's Veto outweighs
the People's obvious desire for a functioning Government doesn't hold
up under scrutiny: ALL Magistrates represent the Will of the People!
To allow one Tribune's Veto to hold up the whole of Government
indefinitely when said Government is also the Will of the People is
absurd. Which "Will of the People" wins? Why should NR be on hold for
a year just because the People made a single bad choice in electing a
Tribune?

Obviously, it shouldn't. Thus the need to temper the will of a single
Tribune by requiring a majority (said majority also representing the
Will of the People, remember!).

> The issues we deal with in
> Nova Róma are important, but they are very rarely
> genuinely urgent. And one must also remember that it's
> pretty unlikely that anyone who had got fed up with
> Nova Róma would choose to remain here, reading the
> main list every day or two, just to veto things and
> annoy people.

Recall, if you will, a certain Yahoo Incident, where a certain Citizen
refused to undo his complaint to Yahoo, refused to yield to the Will of
the People, refused to resign his Citizenship and deliberately gloated
over the maelstrom he had created. Now imagine if this Citizen had
been a Tribune and just as willful, in a situation where a single Veto
was all that was needed to halt Government and essentially shut Nova
Roma down.

Knowing for a fact that such a person has just such a temperament, and
not personally being able to bar him from becoming Tribune, I urge the
strongest caution in how we design our Government ~ including stringent
safeguards against abuse!

> History shows us that when people get
> fed up with Nova Róma they just quit - a problem in
> itself, but that's another story.

Not always! The Yahoo Incident should be a caution to us all.

> [Snipped]

> If this should turn out to be a real problem, though,
> we could consider (with caution) the idea suggested by
> Paulínus (see below) of allowing tribunes to propose
> the deposition of their colleagues.
>
It may be worth considering, but your own Historical example argues
strongly against it.
>
> Strabó wrote:
> [Snipped]

> The troublesome tribunes were troublesome
> because of the legislation they proposed, not because
> of the legislation they vetoed. When Sulla wanted to
> stop tribunes being troublesome he took their
> legislative power away but left their power of veto
> intact. That in itself shows you that the ability of
> each tribune to veto things on his own contributed
> precisely nothing to the collapse of the republic.
>
Likely so, but this doesn't really apply to our own Tribunes.
>>
[Snipped]

>> As for the historical accuracy, well, the notion of
>> the intercessio
>> powers here in NR isn't historically accurate, but
>> in NR it has
>> proven necessary. We do not have any physical means
>> of checking an
>> irreligious, illegal, partisan, whatever..
>> loose-cannon tribune; the
>> only means we have is the veto of collegia, if it is
>> felt necessary.
>> Back in the days of antiqua, one wasn't by 'law'
>> allowed to lay
>> hands on a Tribune...oh, they wouldn't just 'hit'
>> the naughty
>> Tribune:)...they would 'kill' him..
[Snipped]
>> , but the Tribunes here in NR,
>> the central
>> government of which is connected largely by
>> cyberspace, do not have
>> these worries. No Goon Squad, no Mod Squad, no
>> Army, no Blues
>> Brothers-types in suits to knock on his door and say
>> "We're on a
>> mission from the Gods....knock it off"
>
> I'm rather puzzled. It sounds very much like you're
> saying something like "in the old republic tribunes
> wouldn't misbehave and do things the senate didn't
> like because they knew that if they did then some
> senátórés would murder them; sadly we can't murder
> tribunes in Nova Róma because they're too far away, so
> we have to settle for some other way to stop them
> doing things the senate doesn't like". If that's not
> what you're saying, then could you have another go at
> explaining what you are trying to saying?
>
Heh heh... I thought the same thing when I first read what she wrote;
I'm quite sure what she meant was that we lack the means available in a
Community to express our displeasure at a Magistrate's conduct ~ like
reciting rude Limericks about them underneath their window; therefore
we need other restraints.
>>
[Snipped]

>> I can see theoretically where the end
>> product of elected
>> tribunes isn't an accurate display of what the
>> voter's truly
>> desire. If you can vote for more than one Tribune,
>> the votes have
>> to be tallied differently, to produce an accurate
>> interpretation.
>
> Yes, you're quite right that the system under which
> the tribunes are elected needs to be changed in order
> to make them more accurately represent the plebs. But
> without also allowing them to veto individually this
> reform would simply make them even less able to act
> effectively, because they would be more likely to
> disagree with one another than they are now.
>
While this may seem the case on the face of it, in reality any Tribunes
representing "Minority Opinion" will still likely agree on matters of
clear illegality or general wrongness, and only on minor concerns or
details will they be unable to attain the needed majority. Looked at
another way, this prevents Government from being halted over petty
concerns ~ not necessarily a bad thing.
>>
[Snipped]

>> It was the intercessio on
>> the calling of
>> the Comitia Centuriata in May of this year to elect
>> a Praetor.
>
[Snipped]

> The result was precisely
> the same, it was just delayed for a month or two. It
> was a matter of procedure. Well, okay, I'll concede
> that the tribunes have shown themselves in that
> example to be efficient checkers of correct procedure.
>
This in itself makes the office worthwhile, though I'll agree it's not
their primary purpose.

[Snipped]
> , we'd be talking about whether the tribunate was
> really worth having at all, wouldn't we? That's not
> what they're for - they're there to make important
> decisions about matters of principle and to protect
> people from other magistrates. This example proves
> precisely what I was saying to Troiánus above: the
> current system works fine when it's a matter of
> checking a point of law, but it's pretty useless when
> it comes to important and difficult questions.
>
Give it time; it was only last year that a Tribune's Handbook was
created, if I recall correctly. It's going to take a while for
Tribune's to fully realize the potential of their Office, and longer
for this to become Traditional.

> This issue is really quite simple: if you think it's a
> good idea for ordinary citizens to have
> representatives to protect them from the executive
> powers, then untie the hands of those representatives;
> if you think it's better for the executive powers to
> have unfettered freedom of action and for the ordinary
> citizens to have no protection against them, then the
> current system is okay.

Again, this is hyperbole: Requiring a majority (with a longer time in
which to achieve this majority) is a far cry from stripping the
Tribunes of any authority whatsoever.
>
>> I personally believe that if each tribune held an
>> absolute veto most holders of that office would use
>> it with great care.

Yes, undoubtedly most would. It's the exceptions we need to be
concerned with.

[Snipped]

>> We could change the NR constitution to allow
>> the Comitia Plebis Tributa to remove a Tribune if a
>> majority of the tribes voted to do so.
>
> We could do that, but we should think very, very
> carefully before doing it. The decision of Ti.
> Gracchus to attempt to depose Octávius was
> unconstitutional

[Snipped]

> the system by which the tribunes
> were elected ensured, in theory, that a broad range of
> candidates would be elected and that most shades of
> opinion would be represented. This meant that the
> system tended towards caution and stability - it erred
> on the side of activity. If any large sector of the
> community was sufficiently opposed to a measure, it
> could probably persuade at least one tribune to veto
> the measure. Thus everyone could feel safe in the
> knowledge that when any seriously controversial matter
> came up, the system was designed to make sure nothing
> was done hastily and without the largest possible
> measure of consensus. This was the very nature of the
> Roman system - it was a cautious system.

I think you've made a good point against having a Tribune removed;
after all, the mere fact of their election proves that they represented
SOMEONE's viewpoint, and each such segment of the People needs its
Tribunal protection.

So, to recap:

We agree, I think, that a Tribune should not be removed from office.

We disagree about the individual Veto, since I still believe a majority
offers better protection against trivial or harassing Vetoes.

We seem to agree that the period for Tribunal action should be
extended, but that it should not exceed a week.

We surely agree that the Office of Tribune should be better described
to Candidates, whether in the Constitution or the Handbook remains to
be decided.

I'm not sure if we agree that the unhistorical duties are a good thing
~ personally, I think that they are: Tribunes are the only check we
have, if someone else fails to note improper proceedure or an illegal
action. It may not be their primary duty, but it's a valuable service.
No, it's not their job to be Supreme Court Justices, but it's useful.

As for their traditional duty, I'd like to point out the recent action
of T. Galerius in protecting Drusus' Citizenship, which I agree with:
I'd venture to say the traditional duties of the Tribunes in protecting
the rights of Citizens simply doesn't come up very often. If you ever
see a case where a Tribune's traditional intervention is called for, a
Tribune can always be called for. It's not like either of us is shy
about speaking up!

Vale
~ Troianus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29912 From: Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Salve Brutus ~

On Monday, November 1, 2004, at 05:08 PM, Quintus Brutus wrote:
>
> I did not dismiss the concept of PR based on the "boring" writing of
> one author.

Glad to hear it! The way it was phrased seemed, well, cause for
concern.
Thanks for the correction.

> It allows too much slack.

When it comes to protecting Citizen's Rights, how much is too much?

> If you have someone who sympathizes with this poor fellow because he
> got out of line and the system is coming down on him well you handicap
> the system by allowing everybodies personal bodyguard to come to the
> rescue everytime they screw up.

The purpose of the Tribunes is to protect Citizens from Magistrate
abuse, not to shield violators from the effect of the Law. If someone
violates the Law and is charged, any Tribune intervening just to
protect a buddy would be essentially ending his political career.
Perhaps we should let Tribunes veto other Tribunes?

> Frankly I think any responsible person who wishes to be a Tribune
> could do the job honestly.

True.

> There is a difference between viciously going after the words of
> someone and their arguments and going after the person viciously
> (which includes the use of obscenities).

Also true: Going after a person's argument is acceptable, going after
the person is not ~ the latter can result in charges.

> If its the prior and the Tribunes have reason tos tep in.

No, not really: Tribunes don't Veto an argument, they Veto an official
act by a Magistrate.

> If its the latter I would hope they'd step aside and let the
> offender get lashed by the system for his offense.

That's correct: If a Praetor set the Law in motion because of a
Citizen's wrongful actions, it would be improper for the Tribunes to
intervene.

> If you want to have Pr then why don't we institute more Tribunes so
> every Pleb can have their own personal guardian angel to save them
> everytime they mess up.

Because it would be redundant and unnecessary, and "guardian angel"
isn't part of the Tribune job description. Tribunes aren't there to
prevent malefactors from being charged for their actions, they are
there to veto wrongful actions. We have had a Tribune veto a commitia
being improperly convened, veto an invalid Law, and most recently
intervene where a Citizen's citizenship was threatened by a mere
agreement (loss of Citizenship requires due process of Law, not some
backroom Agreement).

> I broke the rules I was treated accordingly and
> the system will atkes its course. If someone else does then likewise
> should happen to them and not have some sympathizing official step in
> to save their butt.

Of course not ~ that's not what Tribune's are for. Tribune's are there
to stop what is improper, not impede the Due Process of Law. If you
were minding your own business and a hostile Praetor decided to go
through the Laws and charge you just because he doesn't like you, then
the Tribune's should intervene. If you defame the Senate and Consuls
without any provocation, then the Tribunes should stand aside and let
the full weight of the Law come crashing down on you. It's as simple
as that, really. (It's the grey areas where it gets tricky....)
>
> vale
Vale
~ Troianus
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com/a
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29913 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
- C. Fabia Livia Quaestrix et Propraetor Britannia S.P.D.

I hope your provincial gathering went well. You indicated in a
prior post that you would be back today to add further thoughts on
this thread, and, as one who has posted on related threads, I
thought I would chime in. I trust that you take this in the spirit
of discussion, with which from my vantage, it is intended.


In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "C. Fabia Livia" <c_fabia_livia@y...>
wrote:
> > Pompeia: I think this was actually Fabia Quaestor's
> > text above, but
> > correct me if I am wrong.
>
> You're right, that was me.
>
> I've snipped some of your post, but I hope that what
> I'm saying still makes sense.

Pompeia: I snip extraneous material too which I don't intend to
refer to, and just mark 'snip'...
>
> > And no, as much as you
> > would prefer not
> > to have institutionalized parties, you will always
> > have certain
> > groups with a basic mindset, agreeing on a few
> > political
> > principles. This does not mean they are so militant
> > that they
> > consensually agree on every minute thing.
>
> Of course there will usually be groups of people who
> tend to agree with one another. That is not the same
> as an institutionalised party system: by
> "institutionalised" I mean built in to the
> constitiution of whatever state we may be talking
> about - so, for instance, countries which use the
> "list" system of proportional representation (where
> each party supplies one list) could be said to have
> institutionalised parties. As I see it, the problems
> with institionalised parties are:
>
> 1) the likelihood of a party whip (which makes sense
> from the point of view of the party, because who is
> going to vote for a party when they don't know whether
> the candidates who are elected will actually toe the
> party line?)

Pompeia: This is certainly a legitimate concern with organized
party policy to a good degree, although you always entertain
exceptions to that rule, which admittedly are not predictable. I
believe one reason why is that parliamentary representatives do not
want to antagonize the region they represent by agreeing, say, with
a materialized party 'policy' that doesn't 'sit well' with those who
voted for them. The people often crack the whip too, is what I am
suggesting.
>
> and
>
> 2) the fact that it becomes virtually impossible to
> participate in politics *without* joining a party.
> This second point means that, for example, individuals
> with good ideas who want to make any progress in
> politics may have to sign up for a party which forces
> them to compromise on some of their principles/ideals.
>
> I'm *not* saying that we have these problems in Nova
> Roma - I'm saying that, in introducing any new
> systems, we want to be sure to avoid them.

Pompeia: Uh huh. An ounce of prevention is a pound of cure. I do
not think we will ever have organized and officially recognized
parties in NR. I hope not anyway. But political comradries, even
if loosely affiliated in their principles and policies are, in my
view, inevitable.
>
> > I think the best offer we can give to the citizens
> > is to produce the
> > voting system that will tally the votes to allow the
> > most accurate
> > representation of what their wishes are
>
> Yes, of course. Everyone thinks so, surely?
>
> The question is whether we are interested in the views
> only of the majority, or whether we are in fact
> interested in having the views of all parts of the
> population represented in proportion to their presence
> in the population.
>
> There is no 'right' or 'wrong' answer to this - you're
> free to disagree with me about whether proportional
> representation is a good thing. All I can tell you is
> that I think it is, and (more helpfully, perhaps) how
> either system would work. Which is what I'm trying to
> do now :)

Pompeia: No, there isn't a cut and dry answer. Proportional
representation is an ideal I totally agree with. And by amending
our electorial system so that it is as fair as possible, especially
regarding the interpretation of the results relative to the
populace' wishes, is the best means of providing this, imo. Other
factors can be entertained which would perhaps help...to wit,
educating citizens on the dynamics of the voting system and the
roles of the various magistrates...looking at prerequisite
qualifications for given magisterial positions, etc. And, part of
being a citizen in a republic, to me, is taking responsibility to
cast an informed vote for an electorial candidate. One can only do
so much to make the system fair; but to make the system 'work'
requires a proactive effort on the voter's part too.
>
> > You cannot
> > insist that the voters elect so many 'minor'
> > candidates, like a
> > university must admit 'so many' minority students,
> > to make the whole
> > thing 'fair'.
>
> I'm not suggesting that we "must" elect anyone - I'm
> not saying we should have quotas for how many
> different types of people should be elected. I am
> saying that, in my opinion, elections should be held
> in such a way that 49% of the population's opinion is
> not ignored, but *mostly* what I'm doing is to try and
> explain how STV works so that people can decide for
> themselves whether they like it.


Pompeia: I see. I think the Fabian system lends to this, and I
think the Lex Moravia governing Tribune elections would too, if the
accreditation of votes were executed in the same manner as the Lex
Fabia, to make a long story short (you are doubtless familiar with
both so I won't disgress unecessarily) The result would be less of
a 'false reading' and a more true representation of the peoples'
wishes. Of course this doesn't guarantee a foolproof representation
for minorities, but it is certainlt a long stride toward same, in my
opinion.
>
> > > "This is *not* the only way it can work: it can be
> > done in such a
> > way as to allow voters to choose the precise
> > candidates they prefer,
> > and still allow minorities to be represented. This
> > can be done,
> > simply, by putting candidates (rather than parties)
> > on the ballot."
> >
> > Pompeia: I believe this is Fabia Quaestor again
> > above. Now, when
> > have we had an election in NR, which said for
> > example "Iulia Magna"
> > BONI, or POPULARIBUS at the cista?
>
> No, we never have. My point was that Brutus seemed to
> think this was the only way of having a proportional
> election: it is not. (For a detailed explanation of
> which, see my earlier post on the topic, in response
> to Brutus himself.)

Pompeia: I'll have to look again at his words, thank you. I know
Brutus and I are in agreement in some areas, and so are you and I.
>
> > And regarding
> > the
> > minorities...all voters have to use good sense in
> > selecting Tribunes
> > who will look after 'all the plebs'.
>
> We might hope so, but it is frankly silly to base an
> electoral system (NR or macronational) on the
> assumption that everyone will behave well at all
> times.

Pompeia: You have said a mouthful :) No, we cannot. Especially
when we have little or no means to enforce good behaviour. But the
voters have responsibilities to, and if they are not willing to make
informed and educated choices, they only add to the failure of any
election system. Apathy...our worst enemy...in NR and
macronationally.
>
> > Macronational
> > politics isn't
> > this predicable either, Fabia, nor is it always
> > 'fair' in the sense
> > that you are pontificating.
>
> Of course, you're right: I'm in favour of massive
> electoral reforms here in Britain, too (and generally,
> but I don't feel so entitled to advocate reforms in
> countries in which I don't live).

Pompeia: I very much agree with you in principle.

And our election system in Canada needs a spit and polish...the
trouble is..."they" don't listen to me, and a number of other
Canadians, apparently :) Maybe you could try writing "them?" :)

Vale,
Pompeia
>
> Livia
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW
Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29914 From: Quintus Brutus Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
When it comes to protecting Citizen's Rights, how much is too much?

--I'm addressing this at the macronational level not from a micronational PoV. If this were ever seriously discussed I would adapt accordingly to address the issue as such. But since this is nothing more than an ongoing discussion of PR I'm addressing it as I see it and understand it in the macronational level.

The purpose of the Tribunes is to protect Citizens from Magistrate abuse, not to shield violators from the effect of the Law.

--Perhaps I worded it wrong but I am aware of what their functions are and powers are. I was reacting to how the previous post was worded and responded how I saw fit based on my initial reading.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29915 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: The purpose of the tribunes (WAS: A small thought about procedu
---Salvete Troianus et Omnes:

In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus
<hermeticagnosis@e...> wrote:
> Salvete ~
>
> (snip)
>
> > Pompeia wrote:
> >> , but the Tribunes here in NR,
> >> the central
> >> government of which is connected largely by
> >> cyberspace, do not have
> >> these worries. No Goon Squad, no Mod Squad, no
> >> Army, no Blues
> >> Brothers-types in suits to knock on his door and say
> >> "We're on a
> >> mission from the Gods....knock it off"
> >
> > (snip)

And Troi responded :
> >
> Heh heh... I thought the same thing when I first read what she
wrote;
> I'm quite sure what she meant was that we lack the means available
in a
> Community to express our displeasure at a Magistrate's conduct ~
like
> reciting rude Limericks about them underneath their window;
therefore
> we need other restraints.

Pompeia Respondeo to Troi: Ahh the potential ambiguities resulting
from time constraints and fast typing...Yes, Troi, that is what I
meant. And Tribune L. Arminius Faustus seemed to weed through the
quick typing...atleast I think he understood where I was coming
from, as he augmented my respondeo in message 29798, where he cited
four potential historical demises of naughty Tribunes, which
couldn't be enforced with any practicality and/or 'legality' here in
NR. They are all a bit more grizzly than rude limericks, though :)
> >>
> [Snipped]
>
> >> (snip)
>
>
>
> Vale
> ~ Troianus

Valete,
Po
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29916 From: Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus Date: 2004-11-01
Subject: Re: The purpose of the tribunes (WAS: A small thought about procedu
Salva Po ~

On Monday, November 1, 2004, at 09:39 PM, pompeia_minucia_tiberia
wrote:

[snippeth]
> ...historical demises of naughty Tribunes, which
> couldn't be enforced with any practicality and/or 'legality' here in
> NR. They are all a bit more grizzly than rude limericks, though :)
>
No doubt, but were they as much FUN as rude limericks??
(& if that doesn't work, one can always move on to bawdy ditties...)

Vale bene
~ Troi.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29917 From: Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Salve Brutus ~

Since the whole purpose of the discussion is reform of the office of
Tribune within NR, perhaps that perspective should be kept in mind.

There is a new Constitution being written, you know ~ these are serious
considerations, not just hypothetical. Please keep the focus on NR's
offices ~ the results of these discussions could very well be used!

Vale
~ Troianus
On Monday, November 1, 2004, at 09:36 PM, Quintus Brutus wrote:

>
>
> When it comes to protecting Citizen's Rights, how much is too much?
>
> --I'm addressing this at the macronational level not from a
> micronational PoV. If this were ever seriously discussed I would
> adapt accordingly to address the issue as such. But since this is
> nothing more than an ongoing discussion of PR I'm addressing it as I
> see it and understand it in the macronational level.
>
> The purpose of the Tribunes is to protect Citizens from Magistrate
> abuse, not to shield violators from the effect of the Law.
>
> --Perhaps I worded it wrong but I am aware of what their functions are
> and powers are. I was reacting to how the previous post was worded
> and responded how I saw fit based on my initial reading.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29918 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
---Salvete Q. Brute et Salve Apollonius Cordus:

***eyerolling***


In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Apollonius Cordus"
<a_apollonius_cordus@y...> wrote:
> A. Apollónius Cordus Q. Cassió Brútó Pompeiae Minuciae
> Strabóní omnibusque sal.
>
> There is a system of proportional representation in
> which the voter votes for a particular person and not
> a political party. The system, if you want to look it
> up, is called the single transferable vote system, or
> STV for short. The voter gets a list of candidates and
> votes for one (or some, depending on the details). No
> political parties are involved. So we can elect the
> tribunes using a proportional electoral system without
> needing to create political parties. I think we can
> all agree that having political parties in Nova Róma
> would be daft.
>
> This is, I think, what Lívia means when she says:
>
> > ... proportional representation is not dependent on
> the
> > party system.

STRABO: Well, Cordus, you astound me; you are proceeding to
interpret the words of another human being for Brutus on the basis
of what she, namely Livia, wrote...no need to really, as Brutus,
myself and most people on this list can read and draw conclusions
accordingly :) Really! :) ;,..... but...... *just* what *is* it
that compels you to criticize someone else for doing just the same
thing???.... when you 'think' they might be commiting the same self-
interpretive 'no no's' as you liberally permit yourself to
do..without question... all in the same post..hmmm


??????????????????????????



I smell a bit of acute self-righteousness here, my good Rogator :)
I *know* you know Livia better than any of us, but I truly doubt
you can read her mind any better than we can. Thus we rely on what
she wrote, and we are thus equally permitted to do so, nonne?
>
> And when, Brúte, you reply:
>
> > --From my point of view it is. I don't have my Dahl
> > On Democracy in front of me so I can't reference
> > that so I had to resort to internet info to refresh
> > my mind the best I could. But for PR to work you
> > need groups. Depending on the percentage of votes a
> > group gets they get that percentage of seats
> > (ideally). Just as you 70-30 example showed with
> > the larger segment receiving 7 seats as opposed to 3
> > for the minority.
>
> I hate to be dogmatic,

STRABO: If you are asserting ideas, elements, etc. in a 'dogmatic'
manner Cordus, which you evidently admit to doing, see above, you
are, by definition *pontificating*. And if this term offends you
Cordus, as you indicate below when someone else uses it to your
apparent displeasure, you have thusly insulted yourself, and I
therefore insist that you write yourself a 'quick' note of apology,
ok ? :)


but the fact is that whether
> political parties are necessary for proportional
> representation isn't a matter of `this point of view
> or that point of view'. Proportional representation
> does not need to involve political parties, and if
> your point of view is that it does, then your point of
> view is simply mistaken. What you're talking about is
> one particular type of proportional representation.
> There are other types. STV is one of the other types.
> I believe it's used in some states in the USA, as well
> as in other countries. A quick search on the internet
> will reveal plenty of sites which will tell you (more
> or less accurately) how it works. As you'll see, it
> does not involve political parties.
>
> You also say:
>
> > --So are you suggesting lets say we have X number of
> > candidates. All eligible to vote cast multiples
> > votes of all their options available. and those
> > candidates that receive the highest number of votes
> > are in? So Plebs could say pick the 10 they prefer
> > and of all the votes cast the 10 with the highest
> > count get in. Correct?
>
> And Strabó replies:
>
> > Pompeia: To make a long story short, yes, Quinte

STRABO: Where's the rest of my paragraph Cordus, which qualifies
the above 'opening' statement? SNIPPED WITHOUT (snipped)...
GONE!... LIKE MAGIC! :) How typical. And, alas... he gets upset
when I compare his communication/debate tactics to those of the
Daily Mirror or the National Enquirer....:) I can't or won't credit
such habitual modi as having the remotest association with
Stratikegon content and strategies..*sp* (sorry, know too many
wargamers to go that far)

For those who care to read the 'whole' missing paragraph of which
this sentence of mine as displayed above by Cordus, is but a mere
opening, you may visit 29879..otherwise, never mind:)


Your behaviour never changes in this regard Cordus...but
individual's views of you eventually will, if you keep it up.
Intelligence never justifies misuse of same...just a tip.
>
> Well, Strabó, I don't know how you are able
> confidently to reply to a question about what Lívia is
> suggesting.

STRABO: Actually, I was giving Brutus my take on the theory of PR;
I responded directly to a segment of Brutus' text where he was
asking questions as a respondeo to Livia, and politely speculating
the elements of proportional electorial representation and asking
for general theoretical clarification,...maybe this is where you
felt at liberty to polevault to such tempestuous conclusions..you
tell me Cordus and we'll both know: I was applying Livia's expressed
advocacy of PR perhaps, and also my perceptions of PR, to how I
thought they could be practically applied in Nova Roma, and
digressing/suggesting to Brutus how they might be achieved by simple
amendments to an electorial system in NR. I share to a good extent,
Brutus' skepticism with respect to the futility of keeping political
parties and their influences at bay, but that is where my head, over
all, was at, in this aspect of the post...it was in no way an
attempt to be a psychic.... **yawn**.

I would have thought the best person to
> answer that question would be Lívia. But until she
> does, let me suggest that it's very unlikely that
> she's suggesting what Brútus says, because she is
> sufficiently well-informed about electoral mechanics
> to realize quite quickly that the system Brútus is
> describing is not proportional representation at all.
> In fact what he has described is pretty much the
> current (Morávian) system, which is not so much
> proportional as nonsensical.

STRABO: Read above. Again, I was not speaking 'for' Livia, in the
interpretive sense.

And Cordus, regarding the current Plebian voting legislation,do I
have to say this again? :) Moravia was on the right track, but the
awarding of votes has to be done differently to make more a more
accurate representation of voter-desired tribunes. You agreed with
me on this, in 29887. To make a long story short, Brutus is correct
in the broad-spectrum, in the 'ball park' so to speak, but a
modified Moravian System would make it more 'accurately' correct
with respect to the Tribune elections...

And cut out the digs against the existing Tribune legislation
please... They are boring now....Are you going to write on Diana's
tombstone that her legislation was a bit short of the mark? That
line has 'been played' and is getting rather stale.

Heavens (Hades?) to Murgatroids!!! There should be a threshold on
the number of insults you can levy on someone on the ML over the
same magisterial 'iniquity' in one lifetime, nonne?
>
> By the way, Strabó, I noticed that you said:

STRABO: Oh don't be cute Cordus; you 'noticed' nothing...you are on
an obvious mission here...combing my dialogues with a fine-toothed
comb is what you are doing, to see what you can possibly complain
about... you must have alot of free time...read above....
>
> > .... Macronational
> > politics isn't
> > this predicable either, Fabia, nor is it always
> > 'fair' in the sense
> > that you are pontificating.
>
> I'm sure you didn't mean to insult Lívia, so I presume
> that you simply don't know what the word
> `pontificating' means. In fact your use of the word
> seems to confirm this, since if you knew what it means
> you would also know that it's an intransitive verb:
> you can pontificate, but you can't pontificate
> such-and-such-a-thing. So take my word for it that
> saying that someone is pontificating is not a friendly
> thing to do; in fact it's downright insulting. Perhaps
> a quick note of apology to Lívia would be in order.

STRABO: Well, the term is used in multiplicity by many writers as
an active verb. So my jumping on the bandwagon in this regard is no
more a measure of malicious guilt than a similar action of all the
others. Livia made two posts on the issue with a commitment to
return Monday (today) to clarify her ideas even further. This
suggests a strong commitment in her convictions, and coupled with
the firmitus with which she expressed her ideas (not rudeness but
firmitus) I chose the word 'pontificate'....heck I pontificate
her 'ideals'...I just don't know if it can be realized fully in NR,
just 'more' realized,imo.

Why do you feel the need to intervene in this post as Livia's
personal lictor or goon squad, Cordus? If my husband did that to
me, I'd be furious. This is more of an embarrassment to you, IMO,
than a help to Livia. It is a discussion, Cordus, and not a
linching. Livia is quite competent, intelligent and articulate, and
I dare say, much more eloquent than you are at criticizing other's
ideas, and knowing when to agree to disagree. She does not attack
other peoples' intellect or wisdom randomly like others do, whose
names will remain unmentioned due to their obvious inability to cope
with the most gingerly of levied criticism :)

Quick note of apology to Livia from Po? .........ahh, nahh, I'm
thinking perhaps more along the lines of a sympathy card to Livia
from Po.

Valete,
Po....oh whoops....STRABO
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW
Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29919 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: The purpose of the tribunes (WAS: A small thought about procedu
---Salvete Troi et Omnes:

Nooooh, nooooh, not, no *NOT* the bawdies....Fauste never mentioned
*those*........ AAAAHHHHHHGGGGEEEEEEEE

Oh, Troi, this is getting, well, right down to the 'ditty' gritti,
nonne?

Po :)

In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus
<hermeticagnosis@e...> wrote:
> Salva Po ~
>
> On Monday, November 1, 2004, at 09:39 PM, pompeia_minucia_tiberia
> wrote:
>
> [snippeth]
> > ...historical demises of naughty Tribunes, which
> > couldn't be enforced with any practicality and/or 'legality'
here in
> > NR. They are all a bit more grizzly than rude limericks,
though :)
> >
> No doubt, but were they as much FUN as rude limericks??
> (& if that doesn't work, one can always move on to bawdy
ditties...)
>
> Vale bene
> ~ Troi.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29920 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Apollonius Cordus"
<a_apollonius_cordus@y...> wrote:
> A. Apollónius Cordus Q. Cassió Brútó omnibusque sal.
>
> > Cordus wrote to Q. Brutus, most of which is snipped, save the
last paragraph.....
>
> Or, on the other hand, you could try reading a book or
> two about it, or even a few websites, before
> pretending that you know what you're talking about.

STRABO RESPONDEO: This is an example of how you might want to
convey your point a bit more gently; someone may perhaps be
interpretively mistaken in your point of view , or fall short of
your acclaimed academics, but this does not unquestionably render
them an 'imposter' or BS'er, or a 'confabulator' of the issues being
discussed. Nor is it fruitful for you to seize the opportunity to
pounce on them as though you command hidden cavalry in a
battlefield :) Oh, carry on as you wish...far be it for me to tell
you what how to conduct yourself...that is the Praetores job on the
ML; but what I am saying is that is you would like to cultivate any
semblence of lasting friendship in NR, which you should if you plan
on a lengthy stay, or if you would like to see a magistracy in the
future, you should consider perhaps not unnecessarily alienating
citizens with this abraisive and judgemental tone. There are more
pallatible means of being truthful. If citizens feel they cannot
talk to you without receiving a litany of petty, self-indulging
insults, chances are they won't be rioting at the cista for 'first
in line' to vote for you.

STRABO :)
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW
Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29921 From: Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: The purpose of the tribunes (WAS: A small thought about procedu
Salva Po ~

Maybe this coming Election the campaigning should all be done in dirty
ditties, lusty limericks and cutting Haikus. Wouldn't that be fun?

~ Troi.
On Tuesday, November 2, 2004, at 01:10 AM, pompeia_minucia_tiberia
wrote:

>
>
> ---Salvete Troi et Omnes:
>
> Nooooh, nooooh, not, no *NOT* the bawdies....Fauste never mentioned
> *those*........ AAAAHHHHHHGGGGEEEEEEEE
>
> Oh, Troi, this is getting, well, right down to the 'ditty' gritti,
> nonne?
>
> Po :)
>
> In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus
> <hermeticagnosis@e...> wrote:
>> Salva Po ~
>>
>> On Monday, November 1, 2004, at 09:39 PM, pompeia_minucia_tiberia
>> wrote:
>>
>> [snippeth]
>>> ...historical demises of naughty Tribunes, which
>>> couldn't be enforced with any practicality and/or 'legality'
> here in
>>> NR. They are all a bit more grizzly than rude limericks,
> though :)
>>>
>> No doubt, but were they as much FUN as rude limericks??
>> (& if that doesn't work, one can always move on to bawdy
> ditties...)
>>
>> Vale bene
>> ~ Troi.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29922 From: C. Fabia Livia Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
> I hope your provincial gathering went well.

It did, it was fabulous :) You must try to come along
to Hadrian's Wall in the summer of 2006, which will be
just as fantastic (maybe even better!) but on a larger
scale.

> You
> indicated in a
> prior post that you would be back today to add
> further thoughts on
> this thread, [snip]

And I did come back, didn't I? How boring of me! I'm
terribly predictable.

> I trust that you take
> this in the spirit
> of discussion, with which from my vantage, it is
> intended.

Of course! I think we largely agree.

[snip]
> Pompeia: I snip extraneous material too which I
> don't intend to
> refer to, and just mark 'snip'...

I'll try to do that for a bit of extra clarity.

[snip]
> > 1) the likelihood of a party whip (which makes
> sense
> > from the point of view of the party, because who
> is
> > going to vote for a party when they don't know
> whether
> > the candidates who are elected will actually toe
> the
> > party line?)
>
> Pompeia: This is certainly a legitimate concern
> with organized
> party policy to a good degree, although you always
> entertain
> exceptions to that rule, which admittedly are not
> predictable. I
> believe one reason why is that parliamentary
> representatives do not
> want to antagonize the region they represent by
> agreeing, say, with
> a materialized party 'policy' that doesn't 'sit
> well' with those who
> voted for them. The people often crack the whip
> too, is what I am
> suggesting.

Yes, but as it's the people who give the magistrates
their mandate in the first place, I'd say that they
have the right to do so, and so I don't perceive that
as a problem.

[snip]
> > I'm *not* saying that we have these problems in
> Nova
> > Roma - I'm saying that, in introducing any new
> > systems, we want to be sure to avoid them.
>
> Pompeia: Uh huh. An ounce of prevention is a pound
> of cure. I do
> not think we will ever have organized and officially
> recognized
> parties in NR. I hope not anyway. But political
> comradries, even
> if loosely affiliated in their principles and
> policies are, in my
> view, inevitable.

Of course, and I know who I tend to agree with as much
as anyone. (I just don't need to express this through
membership of a faction, something in which I'm
becoming more and more unusual, I fear.)

[snip]
> Pompeia: No, there isn't a cut and dry answer.
> Proportional
> representation is an ideal I totally agree with.
> And by amending
> our electorial system so that it is as fair as
> possible, especially
> regarding the interpretation of the results relative
> to the
> populace' wishes, is the best means of providing
> this, imo.

I'm glad we agree about this :)

> Other
> factors can be entertained which would perhaps
> help...to wit,
> educating citizens on the dynamics of the voting
> system and the
> roles of the various magistrates...looking at
> prerequisite
> qualifications for given magisterial positions, etc.

More education for the voters is always good, yes -
although I think it's fair to say that some of the
finer points of electoral mechanics are rather
complicated, and that actually understanding how the
votes are counted may take more effort than some
citizens wish to put in. But certainly it's important
that the citizens know such basics as when to vote,
how many candidates they should vote for, and so on.

Prerequisites for magistracies is another ball game
entirely, but it's certainly something we should bear
in mind over time - in time, we should get our own
traditions in this respect. I fear that requiring too
many prerequisites at this stage would criple the
system as there may not be enough qualified
candidates, so this is something for the long term. A
compulsory cursus would be a start :)

> And, part of
> being a citizen in a republic, to me, is taking
> responsibility to
> cast an informed vote for an electorial candidate.
> One can only do
> so much to make the system fair; but to make the
> system 'work'
> requires a proactive effort on the voter's part too.

Of course. Any "fair" electoral system will only take
account of the views of those who vote, for starters,
and there's nothing to be done about that (unless we
want to take the line of compulsory voting, like some
countries do, but I'm not sure that's the right thing
for us here!)

[snip]
> > I'm not suggesting that we "must" elect anyone -
> I'm
> > not saying we should have quotas for how many
> > different types of people should be elected. I am
> > saying that, in my opinion, elections should be
> held
> > in such a way that 49% of the population's opinion
> is
> > not ignored, but *mostly* what I'm doing is to try
> and
> > explain how STV works so that people can decide
> for
> > themselves whether they like it.
>
> Pompeia: I see. I think the Fabian system lends to
> this, and I
> think the Lex Moravia governing Tribune elections
> would too, if the
> accreditation of votes were executed in the same
> manner as the Lex
> Fabia, to make a long story short (you are doubtless
> familiar with
> both so I won't disgress unecessarily) The result
> would be less of
> a 'false reading' and a more true representation of
> the peoples'
> wishes. Of course this doesn't guarantee a
> foolproof representation
> for minorities, but it is certainlt a long stride
> toward same, in my
> opinion.

Yes, I think some changes in the way the votes are
tallied under the Moravian law would be a good step
forward. And you *know* I supported the Fabian law
(I'm a Fabia, after all!).

[snip]
> Pompeia: I'll have to look again at his words, thank
> you. I know
> Brutus and I are in agreement in some areas, and so
> are you and I.

We seem to broadly agree, yes.

[snip]
> > We might hope so, but it is frankly silly to base
> an
> > electoral system (NR or macronational) on the
> > assumption that everyone will behave well at all
> > times.
>
> Pompeia: You have said a mouthful :) No, we
> cannot. Especially
> when we have little or no means to enforce good
> behaviour. But the
> voters have responsibilities to, and if they are not
> willing to make
> informed and educated choices, they only add to the
> failure of any
> election system. Apathy...our worst enemy...in NR
> and
> macronationally.

Well, yes. I think having real life meetings (like
the one I just returned from) is a good way to
encourage people to be more active in general. Once
you have firm friendships which are more than just
e-mails, it's much harder to be antipathetic, I think.

[snip]
> > Of course, you're right: I'm in favour of massive
> > electoral reforms here in Britain, too (and
> generally,
> > but I don't feel so entitled to advocate reforms
> in
> > countries in which I don't live).
>
> Pompeia: I very much agree with you in principle.
>
> And our election system in Canada needs a spit and
> polish...the
> trouble is..."they" don't listen to me, and a number
> of other
> Canadians, apparently :) Maybe you could try writing
> "them?" :)

LOL. I have a feeling that "they", at least the
Canadian "they", would not be very interested in my
views. However, once I've worked out how I think
British elections and parliament should ideally work,
I may attemt to propose some changes on this side of
the Atlantic - maybe if it works really well then
"they" will copy us!

Livia





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29923 From: C. Fabia Livia Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: A new Constitution.......
Brutus wrote:

> I think Bardulus this is more than collaboration.
> The member nations have surrendered to others
> certain aspects of their sovereignty. Welcome a
> guest into your home and pretty soon they're moving
> in.

I realise this is meant to illustrate a point, but I
can't help feeling the last sentence is a little
negative as a general principle. Welcome a guest in
to your home and enjoy their company. I *like*
guests, and tend to see hospitality as a virtue rather
than a potential problem.

Livia





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29924 From: FAC Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: A new Constitution.......
Salve Caesar,

it's quite clear that we're on different side. You live in teh Nation
which doubted about UE since the beginning of this adventure. UK was
ever "isolated" by the Continent thinking to be a "different" culture.
So I could understand your euro-scepticism and your critics about the
Union.
However you're discussing with an euro-supporter living in South-Italy
and being sure that an Europe united by the peace and freedom, with a
democratical elected Parliament is the best thing of the modern
History. And I think that without our Union our little but proud
Nations would be crashed in the world.

During the last summer in front of European Parliament at Bruxelles
there was an interesting exposition of young modern and conceptualist
artists. The topic of the expo was the future of UE. Someone indicated
the UE as the new real modern Roman Res Publica, someone saw in the
future an Union composed by more than 50 States working in agreement
and freedom, someone suggested a new bipolarist world between Europe
and China, etc. Avoiding ridicolous comments about the fanatsies of
young provocatorial artists, it was quite clear that the bottom of the
"euro-concepts" was the best democracy obtained by a free and peaceful
agreement.

> This is a somewhat idealistic viewpoint, to put it mildly. I doubt
> whether you will find many an average citizen of the United Kingdom
> that would identify themselves first as European and British second.
> Even less would you find that they thought that they had much in
> common culturally with Europe. The first question they would ask
> is "who in Europe and what is European culture?" To be told that it
> was a commonality of blended influences from the Romans, Celts and
> Germans would cut no ice with the British.
>
> Their cultural background you would be told, is British, and
> specifically English, Welsh, Scottish or Irish. Morris dancing
> (totally inexplicable to anyone but an Englishman), black pudding,
> haggis, bagpipes, pantomimes, the local pub on a Friday night, the
> darts team, Manchester United, rugby, cricket. Regardless of
> whatever commonalities any of these have with counterparts in
> Europe, few would see their culture as anything but unique. You see
> it doesn't matter even if it is shared. If the people of the UK deny
> that link and prefer the splendid isolation of John Bullism, that
> attitude will negate even the most detailed of studies. Few British
> politicians have the nerve to explain to their voters that the
> British culture is all inherited from Europe (which it isn't).

You're right but you're wrong in the same time. What the euro-sceptics
don't understand is that the UE doesn't mean the loosing of the own
culture. I'll continue to eat pasta and pizza, play guitar, dance
pizzica, play soccer and drink red hard wine and you'll continue to be
in your darts team, dring bear in your english pub talking about rugby
. Nobody would thief this elements from your culture. I suppose there
are several differences between englishmen of London and scottishmen
of Glasgow: however you're britain. Why there could be no differences
between an italian and a britain thinghink yo be europeans?

About the cultures, I think you're wrong. I talk for my direct
experience: I had the lucky to talk with the directors of the civic
social museums of the welsh and english cultures. They were two good
historical experts and confirmed me that the welsh-men (meaning
"foreigner" looking from the side of the saxons, is it?) were very
very influenced by the roman culture like the english-men have many
traces of teh central-european cultures. So you're refusing the
history saying that the "Romans, Celts and Germans would cut no ice
with the British". This is your culture too and this is the culture of
all Europeans. ;-)

> >> "Democracy in the EU works."<<
>
> The EU parliament is indeed the repositry for washed up or second
> rate politicians who never managed to make the leap into the
> national arena. You know that you have really scored as a bottom
> feeder in British politics when they send you into exile as an EU
> Commissioner.

You're wrong, Caesar. I recall you that the former President of teh
Commission is Romano Prodi, italian premier for 4 years and next first
candidate for the political italian elections. The new coming
President, Barroso, was a very good premier in his past national
government. The office of EU Commissioner is very important and
appreciated and the proof is the last political turnmoil about the
refused appointment of the italian Rocco Buttiglione as Commissioner.
I'm not giving opinion about the last affairs, I'm only saying that if
the Commissioner and the Parliament is in "a second place", why people
and politicians fight to take it ;-)

>A 150 years ago they were sending failures to become
> Governor Generals etc. of places like St. Helena. Now they put you
> on the train to Brussels. Democracy does not work in the EU as the
> members of the EU parliament have neither the experience nor the
> will to safeguard it at the expense of the bureacracy that keeps
> them employed (far from gainfully - but employed).

I don't know who are the elected english members in the EU Parliament.
It's quite clear that you and your politicians take with very
superficiality the european elections. What I could say from Italy is
that in the last elections I votes for experienced and skilled
candidated coming from the political and cultural and fincial fields
of the italian society, with a very good experience.

Vale bene
Fr. Apulus Caesar
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29925 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
A. Apollónius Cordus Q. Cassió Brútó omnibusque sal.

> I was reacting based on the way you described it
> Cordus. Nothing more. The way you expressed it in
> a short little blip it comes across as anything but
> PR.

I think where you went wrong was in thinking that I
had described it to you at all. I certainly never
meant to give the impression that I was telling you
how STV works, and I thought I had been quite careful
to make that clear. What I was saying to you was, in
essence, this:

1. STV is a system of proportional representation.
2. STV does not require political parties.
3. For more information, go and look on the internet
for STV.

Perhaps where you got the idea that I had described
STV was where I explained that on the ballot-paper the
voter votes for candidates and not for parties. Well,
that's true, but it's certainly not a complete
description of the system. As surely you know if you
have any acquaintance with electoral mechanics, what
really makes the difference between one system and
another is how you count the votes after they've been
cast, not what the ballot looks like. Otherwise the
single transferable vote system would be identical to
the alternative vote system which is currently used in
the comitia centuriáta and the comitia tribúta.

I really don't understand why you didn't at any stage
go and actually look up what STV is. It's astoundingly
easy to find information about it. Given that the
whole point of my messages to you has been to tell you
that STV is a proportional system, would it not have
been sensible for you to find out how STV works before
convincing yourself that it's not a proportional
system?

> ... Secondly Arend
> Lijphard is a freaking idiot. Of all the people I
> had to read throughout school I found Lijphard to be
> the most boring and idiotic of them all.

You may well be right, but on this particular point
Lijphard agrees with any other author you'll find: STV
is a system of proportional representation.

> A problem with PR, or the unfortunate negative
> to it is it allows fringe groups such as the
> extremist one's I hear about periodically in the
> news in Europe have the opportunity to actually get
> seats. Granted all have a right to have their
> voices heard but do you really want people like that
> in gov't? Even the US has some nutjob groups that
> would have a field day at that opportunity. Granted
> right now only one independent has gotten into
> Congress but PR would allow these groups to have a
> voice in serious politics not petty politics. I can
> only imagine what the platform for these groups
> would be. I think the US needs to move beyond the 2
> party system but I don't want to have a choice
> between Republican, democrat, Green Party, and then
> have to see White Supremacist, Neo-Nazi's, and every
> other whacko group...granted this is an extreme but
> its a reality...FPTP basically ensures these groups
> don't have a bloody prayer in passing 10% of the
> vote if that...Nader is barely
> mustering 1% now in polls...that is likely to drop
> and go Democratic...

I can understand where you're coming from with that
view, but you're thinking about STV as a device for
electing the US congress. That's not what we're
talking about here. The tribunes are not a legislative
chamber. You need to look at it in the context of the
whole Roman political system.

The Roman system is characterized by a very strong and
independent executive. The cónsulés and the praetórés
had imperium, which was a very wide and strong power -
it was the power to do more or less anything, within
certain constraints. They controlled the judicial
system, the armies, corporal and even capital
punishment, and legislation could only happen on their
initiative. The Roman executive power was much more
powerful and dynamic than the executive power in
almost any modern democracy. It's also important to
note how the executive power was chosen: by election
in the comitia centuriáta. This assembly was, first of
all, deliberately biased in favour of the upper
classes, and, secondly, designed to work on a strong
majoritarian basis which ignored the opinions of
electoral minorities. So the executive was both
powerful and representative of the most powerful
electoral group.

The counterbalance to this powerful executive was the
tribunate. The tribunes had the power to block
executive actions in the interests of ordinary
citizens, or of the citizenry as a whole, but not to
take any executive action of their own (except
initiating legislation). So the purpose of the
tribunate was essentially to keep the executive powers
in check. Accordingly, they were elected not in a
majoritarian way but in a proportional way - by
tribes. Remember that originally the tribes were
geographical units, and that because of the relatively
static nature of ancient communities and the poor
quality of communications, most people in a given
community would have roughly the same political
interests: one tribe would be mostly farmers who grew
grain and kept pigs, another would have more cattle,
another would be close to the city and include many
businessmen and craftsmen. People would be born, grow
up, and die in the same community, and, as in most
small and relatively isolated communities, they would
tend to agree about many things - like the way some
U.S. states are mostly Republican, others are mostly
Democratic, except that these trends would have been
much stronger and much more stable over generations.
So the electoral system in the tribal assembly, which
was based on these geographical voting units, was
effectively a system of proportional representation.

By the late republic, increased physical and social
mobility had broken down those communities somewhat,
and of course in the modern world the tendency of
people who live near one another to agree about most
things has largely broken down. Certainly we can say
that on average Europe is somewhat to the left of
North America, but that's a pretty vague statement -
there are many, many Europeans who are further right
than many, many North Americans. So simply recreating
a geographical division of tribes won't help us to get
back to what the Romans had. We have to look for some
more reliable way to represent various different
sectors of the community in a proportional way. STV
seems the most obvious one, since it's the best
proportional system which doesn't require organized
political parties. If we use STV in the tribal
assemblies, we'll get tribunes who can effectively
counterbalance the strong Roman executive powers of
the cónsulés.

As for neo-Nazis and so on, remember that there are
only 5 tribunes, and there will never be more than 10
(the maximum number in republican history). So
although a proportional system will ensure that
minorities will get some representation, they will
still have to be fairly large minorities: a minority
which if less than a fifth will still probably not get
a tribune, unless it votes for the same tribune as
several other minorities. And even if were were to get
a bunch of crazy minority groups clubbing together to
elect a crazy tribune, how much harm could he really
do? He could veto some things: well, they could be
done again next year. He could propose legislation:
but it won't be passed into law unless a majority of
the people agree with it. We'd just have to put up
with a nut for a year, and then the next year we could
prosecute him for anything he'd done wrong. As
disgusting as it would be to have a neo-Nazi tribune,
the republic would not collapse.





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29926 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: The purpose of the tribunes (WAS: A small thought about procedu
A. Apollónius Cordus Ser. Equitió Troiánó amícó
omnibusque sal.

I'll transpose your summary to the beginning here,
because it seems a handly place to start.

> We agree, I think, that a Tribune should not be
> removed from office.

Yes; unless, of course, he simply goes missing or
something like that.

> We disagree about the individual Veto, since I still
> believe a majority
> offers better protection against trivial or
> harassing Vetoes.

More on this later.

> We seem to agree that the period for Tribunal action
> should be
> extended, but that it should not exceed a week.

Yes, that sounds fine.

> We surely agree that the Office of Tribune should be
> better described
> to Candidates, whether in the Constitution or the
> Handbook remains to
> be decided.

It would be a good idea to begin by changing the
constitution so that it gives tribunes their proper
powers and duties. I think one of the main reasons
tribunes are sometimes confused about their job is
because the constitution tells them that their job is
X but then gives them the power to do job Y.

> I'm not sure if we agree that the unhistorical
> duties are a good thing
> ~ personally, I think that they are: Tribunes are
> the only check we
> have, if someone else fails to note improper
> proceedure or an illegal
> action. It may not be their primary duty, but it's
> a valuable service.
> No, it's not their job to be Supreme Court
> Justices, but it's useful.

I wouldn't say it's unhistorical for tribunes to veto
illegal or unconstitutional acts. That's certainly
part of their prper historical function, because their
duty is to protect the interests of the plébs, and
it's never in the interests of the plébs to allow
magistrates to break the law. The thing is that that's
not their only proper function, and in many ways the
more important part is the part which their current
powers prevent them doing effectively.

> As for their traditional duty, I'd like to point out
> the recent action
> of T. Galerius in protecting Drusus' Citizenship,
> which I agree with:
> I'd venture to say the traditional duties of the
> Tribunes in protecting
> the rights of Citizens simply doesn't come up very
> often. If you ever
> see a case where a Tribune's traditional
> intervention is called for, a
> Tribune can always be called for. It's not like
> either of us is shy
> about speaking up!

But the tribunes are not there only to protect
individual citizens; they're there to protect groups
of citizens, or the whole citizenry. So they have to
be free to exercise their own judgement about what is
good for the populus and what's not. That's a very
difficult question, and people are likely to disagree
about it. That's why the Roman system, which, as I've
said, errs on the side of inaction, allows us to elect
a slate of tribunes who have different answers to that
question, and then allows them each to veto things
they think are bad for the populus. That way, it's
true, some things which are in fact good for the
populus may get vetoed; but at least we can be
confident that nothing which is bad for the populus
will go unchallenged. And something good for the
populus will, we can be sure, get done eventually,
even if not in the year when someone first suggested
it.

A good example is the old ghost, 'géns reform'. The
idea has been around for years, and most people have
always agreed that in principle it's a good idea. But
various proposals have fallen by the wayside because
they would in this or that way have been bad for this
or that sector of the community. Eventually our
present cónsulés (yes, both of them - the project was
begun by Salix Astur at the beginning of the year, and
carried to completion by Equitius Marínus) found a
plan which would not be harmful, and now we have
reformed gentés. But all that wasn't achieved by
tribunician veto; the populus itself was having to do
the job of the tribunes, because the tribunes were
handicapped by the unhistorical limitation of their
powers.

> > I know that the constitution seems to
> > envisage the tribúní doing the job of a
> constitutional
> > court, but that's an absurd idea.
>
> Still, it's there & needs to be taken into account
> until such time as a
> new Constitution is written and passed.

It simply can't be taken into account. I'm not someone
who lightly suggests ignoring the constitution, but
the cosntitution itself forces us to ignore it in this
case, because it has given the tribunes the duty to do
this unhistorical thing but not the necessary powers
and expertise to do it. They simply can't do it,
however hard they try. It would be totally
unreasonable for us to expect them to do it. So what
can we do? As far as I can see we just have to let
them ignore that particular aspect of the constitution
until either the duty is taken away from them or the
power to do it properly is given to them.

> > He's been elected to represent the voters,
> [Snipped]
> > , so it in fact they who have vetoed that
> > thing. And, though questions of law or history may
> > come into it, it's essentially a matter of what
> that
> > tribune thinks is best - and no matter how long
> you
> > may allow, you can't expect five people always to
> > agree on what's best.
>
> I'm not - I'm only asking for a majority to agree,
> as a means of
> limiting an individual's whim, and requesting more
> time for them to
> reach agreement.

Sorry, I ought to have said "one can't expect". I
don't think it's reasonable even to expect three
people to agree on what's best for the populus. It's a
very difficult and subjective question. Sure, we can
give them more time; we're agreed on that. But there
are some things which that won't solve.

> > So requiring them to work
> > collegially is like sending a team of five
> gymnasts to
> > the Olympics with their all legs tied together.
> >
> This is hyperbole, my friend! Asking five people to
> confer and reach a
> majority decision - in an extended period of time -
> is not the same
> thing as hobbling Olympic Gymnasts!

The point of my analogy is this: when you send
gymnasts to the Olympics, it is to compete in a sport
which is, by its very nature, a matter of individual
achievement. Gymnastics is something that people do on
their own. If you force your gymnasts to work as a
team, they'll simply be unable to compete at all,
because you can't do gymnastics as a team. That's the
point. Being a tribune is not a team sport.

> Patience is indeed a Virtue, but the People have a
> right to a
> functioning Government. After all, the
> (hypothetically) halted-by-Veto
> Government was also elected by the People, with the
> expectation that it
> would work; to say the People's Will in the
> Tribune's Veto outweighs
> the People's obvious desire for a functioning
> Government doesn't hold
> up under scrutiny: ALL Magistrates represent the
> Will of the People!
> To allow one Tribune's Veto to hold up the whole of
> Government
> indefinitely when said Government is also the Will
> of the People is
> absurd. Which "Will of the People" wins? Why
> should NR be on hold for
> a year just because the People made a single bad
> choice in electing a
> Tribune?

This is precisely the point. The higher magistrates
represent the will of the political elite: they are
elected on a majoritarian basis in an assembly which
is weighted in favour of the political class. The
tribunes represent the will of the various sectors of
the ordinary population. The tribunate is the device
by which the Romans stopped the governing magistrates
from getting out of touch with the ordinary people and
pursuing policies which were of interest only to the
elite. It's exactly the same idea as lies behind all
modern bicameral legislatures: one chamber elected in
a certain way to represent one sort of 'will of the
people', another elected, or appointed, in a different
way to represent a different 'will of the people', and
then they can each obstruct each other in order to
ensure that only the best legislation will result.

I think you're thinking of vetoes as a purely
obstructive device. On the contrary, most vetoes are
ultimately constructive. They make the higher
magistrates aware that they are out of touch with a
significant segment of the population, and they give
them time to reconsider. If they remain convinced,
then they can keep trying. But remember that tribunes,
too, are subject to limitations. They can veto one
another (though of course they can't veto a veto);
they can't use a veto to prevent the comitia voting on
something which the comitia has a traditional right to
vote on. In 188 a tribune presented a bill to the
assembly proposing to give voting-rights to the
citizens of a certain Italian town. Four other
tribunes threatened to veto it because it hadn't been
approved by the senate; but then, when it was pointed
out to them that the assembly had always had the right
to decide matters of this kind without consulting the
senate, they withdrew their threat. So a tribune can't
veto legislation unless it's concerning a matter which
the assembly isn't allowed to vote on (like, say,
appointing governors or setting rates of tax). The
people are always the ultimate arbiters - they can
overrule the tribunes, and the tribunes cannot prevent
them from being convened to do so. I don't really see
the problem.

> Recall, if you will, a certain Yahoo Incident, where
> a certain Citizen
> refused to undo his complaint to Yahoo, refused to
> yield to the Will of
> the People, refused to resign his Citizenship and
> deliberately gloated
> over the maelstrom he had created. Now imagine if
> this Citizen had
> been a Tribune and just as willful, in a situation
> where a single Veto
> was all that was needed to halt Government and
> essentially shut Nova
> Roma down.
>
> Knowing for a fact that such a person has just such
> a temperament, and
> not personally being able to bar him from becoming
> Tribune, I urge the
> strongest caution in how we design our Government ~
> including stringent
> safeguards against abuse!

Well, we shall see whether said person, if he is
allowed to remain a citizen long enough, chooses to
run for office again this month. If so, I think we can
safely conclude that he is not the sort of person you
were talking about but the sort of person I was
talking about - one who still hopes for a political
career and is therefore unlikely to alienate the vast
majority of voters by vetoing things at random.

> While this may seem the case on the face of it, in
> reality any Tribunes
> representing "Minority Opinion" will still likely
> agree on matters of
> clear illegality or general wrongness, and only on
> minor concerns or
> details will they be unable to attain the needed
> majority. Looked at
> another way, this prevents Government from being
> halted over petty
> concerns ~ not necessarily a bad thing.

I see it quite the other way. Matters of clear
illegality, though of course important, ought not to
be what tribunes spend most of their time thinking
about. Acts which are clearly illegal are rare and
easily resolved by pointing out the illegality. Ever
magistrate has sworn an oath to obey the law, and very
few will deliberately and knowingly break it. Once the
illegality is pointed out, the measure is usually
withdrawn. It doesn't take tribúnicia potestás to
point out a clearly illegal act. Issues which are less
clear - the ones which you call "petty concerns" - are
likely to include the vast majority of political
issues which arise in any given year. These are the
issues which the tribunes ought to be examining, and
concerning which they ought to be free to use their
vetoes to protect the populus from the whim of the
representatives of the political elite.

> Give it time; it was only last year that a Tribune's
> Handbook was
> created, if I recall correctly. It's going to take
> a while for
> Tribune's to fully realize the potential of their
> Office, and longer
> for this to become Traditional.

It will take them forever to realize the full
potential of their office if they're not given that
full potential to start with. :)

> > This issue is really quite simple: if you think
> it's a
> > good idea for ordinary citizens to have
> > representatives to protect them from the executive
> > powers, then untie the hands of those
> representatives;
> > if you think it's better for the executive powers
> to
> > have unfettered freedom of action and for the
> ordinary
> > citizens to have no protection against them, then
> the
> > current system is okay.
>
> Again, this is hyperbole: Requiring a majority (with
> a longer time in
> which to achieve this majority) is a far cry from
> stripping the
> Tribunes of any authority whatsoever.

It strips them of the power to do the core part of
their job effectively. At the moment both the
electoral system and majority-veto rule tend to ensure
that the tribunes agree with the higher magistrates
and that any who don't are unable to do anything about
it. This is quite the opposite of the basic purpose of
the tribunate, which is to provide the ordinary
population with a mechanism to frustrate the political
elite when the latter has become out of touch with the former.





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29927 From: t_octavius_salvius Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: A new Constitution.......
Must.....not.....reply Not....relevent....to.....Rome....

vale

Salvius
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29928 From: H. Rutilius Bardulus Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: A new Constitution.......
Salve, T. Octavi Salvi.

You said:

> I am not wrong. From the Council's own website:
> "The Council is the main decision-making body of the European
> Union. The ministers of the member states meet within the
> Council of the European Union. Depending on the issue on the
> agenda, each country will be represented by the minister
> responsible for that subject (foreign affairs, finance,
> social affairs, transport, agriculture, etc.)."
> That would appear to suggest that it has a lot to do with the
> EU, being its prime decision making body.


[Bardulus] Ok, now let me explain you some differences between
the Council of Europe, the Council of Ministers of the EU and
the European Council.

The COUNCIL OF EUROPE is, as I said in my past mail, an
organization that has nothing to do with the EU. Here is its
homepage: http://www.coe.int
As you will see, countries that aren't members of the EU, are
members of the Council of Europe, like Russia, Romania, Iceland,
and even Turkey.

The COUNCIL OF MINISTERS OF THE EU is, again as I said in my
past mail, the "government" of the EU. It can be formed by the
sectorial ministers of each State (agriculture, industry,
trade...), or as its formation of "general affairs", by the
Chiefs of State or Government of the member States with the
Foreign Affairs ministers and with the presence of the President
of the Commission. For further information, you can read
articles 202-210 of the Treaty of the European Community (Treaty
of Rome, consolidated version including the Treaty of Nize).

Finally, there is the EUROPEAN COUNCIL. This is like the Council
of Ministers in its "general affairs" formation, but here the
Ministers are only assistants, and the President of the
Commission is also assisted by a Commissioner. It's not exactly
a "regular institution" of the EU, and its mission is to promote
the development of the EU and the definition of its general
politic orientations. More information can be read in the
article 4 of the Treaty of the European Union (Treaty of
Maastricht, consolidated version including the Treaty of Nize).


> As someone who holds a qualification in Law, one third of
> which was exclusively about Europe, I think you will agree
> that I am very informed on this topic.

[Bardulus] I think you were not very well informed, after all.


Vale bene,

H. Rutilius Bardulus




______________________________________________
Renovamos el Correo Yahoo!: ¡100 MB GRATIS!
Nuevos servicios, más seguridad
http://correo.yahoo.es
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29929 From: FAC Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: about EU ... OT and dangerous discussion
Salvete Omnes,
I have read all the posts about this matter. I agree with my friend
Aedile Perusianus saying that this thread aboutan happy and important
event in the world history is becoming the hearth of an hard discussion.

Caesar was correct, the discussion was "topic" and useful and
interesting when we talked about structures, history, cultures and
horizons for NR.
But now we're not talking about them.

I have read that EU is something like a "social dictatorship", that
we're invidious of our friends USA, that what we have choosen and
elected freely and democratically is a foreigner distatorial
parliament, that our wonderful agreement is only a stupid utopy
creating to fight with USA, China and Congo, that our democratical
dream is only a ridicolous attempt to generate the anti-christ, that
we europeans couldn't create anything democratically thanking to our
bad past...

Well, I respect the opinion of everyone but honestly I' hurted by
american and britain nova romans offending our dream.
I trust in this dream as you trust in the capitalistic "american
dream". I have a negative opinion about USA but I never say you, my
dearest friends, that your model of freedom and society IN MY OPINION
is wrong, that your life-style and your ideas are trasforming this
poor world ina bad place. My culture is different, I have a different
idea of freedom, democracy, solidariety, agreement, society and life.
And this is normal and acceptable. As I accept your model, I would you
accept my model of life. As you wouldn't be criticed about your
national affairs, we wouldn't be offended about our dream of Liberty
and Union.

So, I'm sure that an union of States in peace is possible, that the EU
is the best democracy in the world now, that this Union guarantee (of
course with some problems) the rights of everyone and everything in
Europe, that the model given by the EU could be the best political
system for the world, etc.
So I trust in it and I'm offended by your words.

I could say 1 million of things against USA, UK, China, Bush, the
terrorism and the defence against it, the britain society and the
scandals of the its governemnt, a world of war, the concept of
democracy, the real freedom, the respect for the rights of the
citizens, the bad history of other Nations, the absence of a Nations
called USA without the job of europeans, etc. and I'm quite sure you
all would be hurted by my words because I could critice and move
against your dream, your life, your faith, your national History, your
Gods, your Nations, your ideas, etc.
But I'll do nothing, I'll say no words about, never you'll hear my
comments because I wouldn't hurt anyone and because this would be off
topic here. Because I know that we wouldn't generalize, because every
thing has two faces.

The respect for everything and everyone must to be a rule. The world
is in war, maybe we're living in the WWIII bwtween Cultures (and not
States). The world is a bad place now, we don't need to have other
little discussions and fights in our little community ABOUT ROME. We
must to be close united by Roma, and not far divided by geopolitical
discussions.

So I would invite everybody, particularly Salvius, Brutus, Bardulus,
Paulinus, Caesariensis, etc. to stop this discussion becoming the
beginning of a "war" between EU and others.
If you would like to talk again about EU, I would invite you to talk
about history and heritages, not about offenses, personal opinions,
political tendences, invidious nationalism, etc.

I hope you hear and take my invitation, thank you.

I'll try to write no words more about this discussion and offenses.
I'm sure that if we'll continue in this way, we'll have again another
pathetic battle between amricans and europeans.

Valete
Fr. Apulus Caesar
Senator
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29930 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: A new Constitution.......
Salve Caesar.

Thank you for the reply.

I agree that we are coming at this issue from two different cultural
backgrounds, and you are quite correct that the UK was, as a
community, either at best disinterested, then suspicious and finally
(generally speaking) hostile to Europe as a whole. Again you are
totally correct about the isolation issue, but of course that was
not only geographical, it was by choice. You may recall the famous
quote from the Times of London in the late 1800's - "Fog in the
English Channel, continent isolated" <g>, as opposed to England
isolated. This has been a theme for years. Europe was always seen as
a place where disorganised despots lived.

On culture. I don't know that the English have ever been known for
exporting a specific culture of a "high brow" sort. Ours is a
practical culture at best. I agree that it isn't under threat, but
the very attempt to define a common cultural link actually will
produce a negative and derisory response in large sectors of the
British population. For that reason I think the attempt is doomed in
the UK.

I also agree totally with you that in FACT the Romans had a large
influence on our early history. The point I was trying to make was
that that linkage simply doesn't translate for many Britons into
seeing a direct correlation between the culture of say Italy today
and England. That failure is partly due to the way in which history
is taught today, sadly.

Just so you understand clearly, there are aspects of the EU that I
agree are very beneficial. I regard the ability of Europeans to
migrate freely and seek jobs without visas to be a tremendous
benefit. Having jumped through many hoops to get a visa in Canada I
often compared the fact I could enter Italy with ease, and yet in a
Commonwealth country with ties to the UK I had to wait a
considerable period of time. One of the aspects I detest about the
EU is the trend towards a state rather than a trading union. Each
time a further chunk of British sovereignty is surrendered it just
makes my blood boil. Part of this nationally of course is due the
fact that as a nation we have not had a successful "government
altering" invasion since 1066.

Sovereignty int he UK is equated to freedom and loss of it is
equated to subjugation. There simply is no way to cut around that
for the vast majority of Britons. There are too many war cemetries
and war graves (throughout our history) all over the world full of
Britons who died to ensure that freedom was preserved and any
dilution of it is seen by my parents generation as a slap in the
face for those that never returned. That attitude has passed to my
generation in large part as well.

Regarding the poor nature of the politicians in the EU, that was
soley a comment on British politicians. I agree that for Italy,
maybe your best politicians do migrate to the EU. In the UK the EU
is regarded as a backwater career, or one where tired old
politicians (or ones in disfavour) get packaged off to. This in
itself is indicative that even in political circles in the UK,
national rather than European politics is seen as the pinancle. Euro
elections also command little interest. In my twenties I was heavily
involved in UK national politics both as candidate and a party
member. In a number of EU elections the vote was pitiful. People
then (and I doubt much has changed) were just disinterested.

If I knew there was a finite end to the loss of sovereignty short of
the elimantion of the UK as a state in its own right with control
over the majority of its destiny and certainly the major areas of
defence, foreign policy, taxation etc. I would at least feel less
hostile to the EU as a state - not hostile to Europeans, but the
mechanism of the EU, which is in less favour now than before even in
Europe. Too much too fast has been taken from us all.

Anyway - good points.

Vale
Gnaeus Iulius Caesar

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "FAC" <sacro_barese_impero@l...>
wrote:
>
> Salve Caesar,
>
> it's quite clear that we're on different side. You live in teh
Nation
> which doubted about UE since the beginning of this adventure. UK
was
> ever "isolated" by the Continent thinking to be a "different"
culture.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29931 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
A. Apollónius Cordus Pompeiae Minuciae Strabóní
omnibusque sal.

A digression, before we start.

> Pompeia: This is certainly a legitimate concern
> with organized
> party policy to a good degree, although you always
> entertain
> exceptions to that rule, which admittedly are not
> predictable. I
> believe one reason why is that parliamentary
> representatives do not
> want to antagonize the region they represent by
> agreeing, say, with
> a materialized party 'policy' that doesn't 'sit
> well' with those who
> voted for them. The people often crack the whip
> too, is what I am
> suggesting.

It can happen, yes. I don't know about Canada, but in
the U.S. the control parties have over their elected
members is relatively weak, while the power of the
constituency is strong. But that's very much the
exception. In most European countries, including
Britain, you'll find that parties have more control
over members of parliament than their constituencies
have. Most politicians are career politicians, and the
party can give or take away a political career. No one
who habitually votes against the policies of his own
party is going to get a good job when that party gets
into power. But constituencies can safely be ignored,
because even if you lose the election in one
constituency, your party can move you to another
constituency where you're likely to be elected - if
the party likes you. Seriously, very, very few members
of the British parliament represent constituencies
they were born in or grew up in. The party moves them
around so as to give safe seats to its favourite
members.

> > This is, I think, what Lívia means when she says:
> >
> > > ... proportional representation is not dependent
> on
> > the
> > > party system.
>
> STRABO: Well, Cordus, you astound me; you are
> proceeding to
> interpret the words of another human being for
> Brutus on the basis
> of what she, namely Livia, wrote...no need to
> really, as Brutus,
> myself and most people on this list can read and
> draw conclusions
> accordingly :)

Yes, indeed - this is why I was careful to say "I
think". You see, I wasn't telling Brútus what Lívia
meant, I was telling him what I think she meant. And,
as I'm sure you'll agree, I am free to tell Brútus
about my own opinions, even if those opinions are
about someone else.

> ... Really! :) ;,..... but...... *just*
> what *is* it
> that compels you to criticize someone else for doing
> just the same
> thing???.... when you 'think' they might be
> commiting the same self-
> interpretive 'no no's' as you liberally permit
> yourself to
> do..without question... all in the same post..hmmm

The difference is that you simply answered on another
person's behalf. Let's look at the exchange in
question:

Brútus:
> > > --So are you suggesting lets say we have X
> number of
> > > candidates. All eligible to vote cast multiples
> > > votes of all their options available. and those
> > > candidates that receive the highest number of
> votes
> > > are in? So Plebs could say pick the 10 they
> prefer
> > > and of all the votes cast the 10 with the
> highest
> > > count get in. Correct?

You:
> Pompeia: To make a long story short, yes,
> Quinte

And then you elaborated. No doubt you will complain
about my having omitted the rest of the paragraph, but
the fact is that. as you yourself can surely remember,
it did not contain any indication that you were making
a guess about what another person was thinking. You
simply answered the question for her. Brútus asked
Lívia (I paraphrase) "is this what you're
suggesting?", and you said (I paraphrase) "yes". Not
"I think this is what she's suggesting", but "yes".
That's the difference.

Isn't it you who always reprimands me for expressing
my opinions as though they were facts?

> I smell a bit of acute self-righteousness here, my
> good Rogator :)
> I *know* you know Livia better than any of us, but I
> truly doubt
> you can read her mind any better than we can. Thus
> we rely on what
> she wrote, and we are thus equally permitted to do
> so, nonne?

Yes: we are equally entitled to say "I think this is
what she meant", and we are both equally in the wrong
if we say "she meant this".

Nor is it irrelevant that when I said "I think this is
what she meant" (paraphrase) I turned out to be
correct, and when you said "This is definitely what
she meant" (another paraphrase), you turned out to be
completely wrong. This shows, I think, that it's
prudent, when making aguess about the contents of
someone else's brain, to say "I think".

> > I hate to be dogmatic,
>
> STRABO: If you are asserting ideas, elements, etc.
> in a 'dogmatic'
> manner Cordus, which you evidently admit to doing,
> see above, you
> are, by definition *pontificating*. And if this
> term offends you
> Cordus, as you indicate below when someone else uses
> it to your
> apparent displeasure, you have thusly insulted
> yourself, and I
> therefore insist that you write yourself a 'quick'
> note of apology,
> ok ? :)

There's no need - I forgave myself in advance. :)

> > > Pompeia: To make a long story short, yes,
> Quinte
>
> STRABO: Where's the rest of my paragraph Cordus,
> which qualifies
> the above 'opening' statement? SNIPPED WITHOUT
> (snipped)...
> GONE!... LIKE MAGIC! :) How typical. And, alas...
> he gets upset
> when I compare his communication/debate tactics to
> those of the
> Daily Mirror or the National Enquirer....:) I can't
> or won't credit
> such habitual modi as having the remotest
> association with
> Stratikegon content and strategies..*sp* (sorry,
> know too many
> wargamers to go that far)

Strategikon? What on earth has that got to do with
anything? That's the magazine Fabius Máximus edits, or
used to edit. It's also a game that I was helping to
make a while ago, nothing to do with the magazine.
What either of them has to do with me snipping your
paragraphs I really can't guess.

Yes, I snipped your paragraph. Shock! Horror! Isn't it
a scandal that not every post contains the entirety of
the conversation up to that point! Imagine the
suffering of the poor people who have to remember as
far back as yesterday with the aid of nothing but
their own brain! :)

I used the standard academic method of indicating when
a text has been edited, which is the ellipsis: ...
Three dots, you see. This is how people show
'snipping' in my native culture (i.e. Oxford). I
accord your text exactly the same respect as I accord
to the works of Ciceró or Walbank: when I quote a
section but cut it off in the middle of a sentence, I
indicate that the sentence continued by using an
ellipsis. Perhaps I sometimes get it wrong when I
quote you, because I'm afraid I often find it
difficult to work out quite where your sentences end;
but when I think I've cut off the beginning, end, or
middle of a sentence, I always use the ellipsis,
according to standard academic protocol. When I quote
Ciceró, do you expect me to quote his complete works
every time? Or is it just that you dislike academic
notation which has been used by scholars for decades
and insist that I must use '<snip>'?

> For those who care to read the 'whole' missing
> paragraph of which
> this sentence of mine as displayed above by Cordus,
> is but a mere
> opening, you may visit 29879..otherwise, never
> mind:)

I'm glad you agree with me that people are capable of
looking things up if they want to.

> Your behaviour never changes in this regard
> Cordus...but
> individual's views of you eventually will, if you
> keep it up.
> Intelligence never justifies misuse of same...just a
> tip.

My behaviour never changes in this regard because it
is perfectly reasonable and harms no one, and because
the number of people who object to it is precisely
one: you. I'm not going to change my habits for your
benefit.

> > Well, Strabó, I don't know how you are able
> > confidently to reply to a question about what
> Lívia is
> > suggesting.
>
> STRABO: Actually, I was giving Brutus my take on
> the theory of PR;
> I responded directly to a segment of Brutus' text
> where he was
> asking questions as a respondeo to Livia, and
> politely speculating
> the elements of proportional electorial
> representation and asking
> for general theoretical clarification,...maybe this
> is where you
> felt at liberty to polevault to such tempestuous
> conclusions...

Well, maybe in your mind this is what was happening.
In fact, if you look at Brútus' question, he was
asking "so are you suggesting..." and you said "...
yes". He didn't ask "is this how PR works?" (and if he
had, your answer to him would have been wrong in any
case) - he asked what Lívia was suggesting. If you
wanted to tell him how PR works, then you ought to
have said "I don't know what she's suggesting, but PR
works like this...". It never hurts to actually read
what someone has written before responding. I know
that if you were actually to read carefully what I
write before responding you would not have spent so
many hours over the last couple of years berating me
for things I never said.

> ... you
> tell me Cordus and we'll both know: I was applying
> Livia's expressed
> advocacy of PR perhaps, and also my perceptions of
> PR, to how I
> thought they could be practically applied in Nova
> Roma, and
> digressing/suggesting to Brutus how they might be
> achieved by simple
> amendments to an electorial system in NR. I share
> to a good extent,
> Brutus' skepticism with respect to the futility of
> keeping political
> parties and their influences at bay, but that is
> where my head, over
> all, was at, in this aspect of the post...it was in
> no way an
> attempt to be a psychic.... **yawn**.

Again, I really do think you ought to read what people
write. Brútus has consistently said that he opposes
political parties in Nova Róma - I have not heard him
say anything about the futility of keeping them at
bay. He is saying, as far as I can see from his own
writings, that we *ought* to keep them at bay. And
with that I agree.

As I've mentioned above, if you were trying to explain
to Brútus how PR works, that's very helpful of you,
even though it's not what he was asking for; but
actually the system you described isn't PR.

> I would have thought the best person to
> > answer that question would be Lívia. But until she
> > does, let me suggest that it's very unlikely that
> > she's suggesting what Brútus says, because she is
> > sufficiently well-informed about electoral
> mechanics
> > to realize quite quickly that the system Brútus is
> > describing is not proportional representation at
> all.
> > In fact what he has described is pretty much the
> > current (Morávian) system, which is not so much
> > proportional as nonsensical.
>
> STRABO: Read above. Again, I was not speaking
> 'for' Livia, in the
> interpretive sense.

Regardless of what you intended, the question was
about what she was saying, and you answered it in such
a way that anyone with a basic grasp of English would
naturally interpret your comments as an explanation of
what she meant. If that's not what you intended, then
somewhere between your brain and your fingers
something went wrong. All others have to go on is what
you write - if you write something you don't mean, you
can't blame people for failing to understand you.

> And Cordus, regarding the current Plebian voting
> legislation,do I
> have to say this again? :) Moravia was on the right
> track, but the
> awarding of votes has to be done differently to make
> more a more
> accurate representation of voter-desired tribunes.
> You agreed with
> me on this, in 29887. To make a long story short,
> Brutus is correct
> in the broad-spectrum, in the 'ball park' so to
> speak, but a
> modified Moravian System would make it more
> 'accurately' correct
> with respect to the Tribune elections...

29877 is a message your wrote about the EU. I can't
find anything in it about electoral systems, and I
don't think I replied to it; so I'm afraid I'm not
sure what you mean when you say that I agreed with
you. Are you sure you've got the right number?

Anyway, was the Morávian system on the right track?
Not really. It eliminated run-off elections, which is
fine, but it also made the outcome of elections
virtually arbitrary. I suppose you could say that it
was on the right track in that it allowed people to
cast more votes each, which is an important
ingredient. The problem was in the way the votes are
counted, which in the Morávian system results in some
fairly random distortions. She didn't intend to do
that, I'm sure, but that's the way it is.

> And cut out the digs against the existing Tribune
> legislation
> please... They are boring now....Are you going to
> write on Diana's
> tombstone that her legislation was a bit short of
> the mark? That
> line has 'been played' and is getting rather stale.

It wasn't a dig. Someone said it was a good system. I
said it wasn't. If someone says "crucifixion is a
humane and comfortable experience", would it be
unreasonable for me to say "no, it isn't"?

> Heavens (Hades?) to Murgatroids!!! There should be
> a threshold on
> the number of insults you can levy on someone on the
> ML over the
> same magisterial 'iniquity' in one lifetime, nonne?

Good grief, how many times must I say this to you?
Criticizing what someone does is not the same as an
insult! I think Aventína was a fine tribune, but she
did one thing wrong. Is it an insult to say that
someone made a mistake? You criticize me constantly,
but I only take it as an insult when you actually
criticize my personal character (which you do from
time to time). Aventína herself understood that I
wasn't insulting her - why can't you understand it?
It's really not that hard.

> > By the way, Strabó, I noticed that you said:
>
> STRABO: Oh don't be cute Cordus; you 'noticed'
> nothing...you are on
> an obvious mission here...combing my dialogues with
> a fine-toothed
> comb is what you are doing, to see what you can
> possibly complain
> about... you must have alot of free time...read
> above....

Why on earth would I have a personal vendetta against
you? What would it gain me? It's not like you're my
political opponent. But okay, if it makes you feel
special, carry on imagining that I'm obsessed with
criticizing you; to me it feels more like the reverse,
but there we are.

> > I'm sure you didn't mean to insult Lívia, so I
> presume
> > that you simply don't know what the word
> > `pontificating' means. In fact your use of the
> word
> > seems to confirm this, since if you knew what it
> means
> > you would also know that it's an intransitive
> verb:
> > you can pontificate, but you can't pontificate
> > such-and-such-a-thing. So take my word for it that
> > saying that someone is pontificating is not a
> friendly
> > thing to do; in fact it's downright insulting.
> Perhaps
> > a quick note of apology to Lívia would be in
> order.
>
> STRABO: Well, the term is used in multiplicity by
> many writers as
> an active verb.

Writers who actually speak English? Really? Which
writers?

> ... So my jumping on the bandwagon in
> this regard is no
> more a measure of malicious guilt than a similar
> action of all the
> others. Livia made two posts on the issue with a
> commitment to
> return Monday (today) to clarify her ideas even
> further. This
> suggests a strong commitment in her convictions, and
> coupled with
> the firmitus with which she expressed her ideas (not
> rudeness but
> firmitus) I chose the word 'pontificate'....heck I
> pontificate
> her 'ideals'...I just don't know if it can be
> realized fully in NR,
> just 'more' realized,imo.

For heaven's sake, just look the word up in a
dictionary. It's an insult.

> Why do you feel the need to intervene in this post
> as Livia's
> personal lictor or goon squad, Cordus? If my
> husband did that to
> me, I'd be furious.

And if my wife tried to tell me what to say and what
not say, I'd ignore her. :)

> ... This is more of an embarrassment
> to you, IMO,
> than a help to Livia. It is a discussion, Cordus,
> and not a
> linching.

It's a discussion in which you insulted your
interlocutor. Now, as I was very careful to say in my
response (see above), I don't think you intended it as
an insult. I think you just misunderstood what
'pontificate' means. If you say you've read it used
like that in many books, then of course it's not your
fault. But I happen to know that Lívia does know what
'pontificate' means, because she speaks good English,
and that therefore she would most likely find it
insulting (because it is). So it was for that reason
that I pointed out to you the insulting nature of the
word, and suggested that you might like to apologize
(I know that Lívia is too polite and friendly to say
so herself).

If you think that saying "by the way, you've just
accidentally insulted someone, maybe you ought to say
sorry" is a calculated attack, you have a very strange
idea of what it's like to receive a calculated attack.
Maybe one of these days I should make a calculated
attack on you - then you'd be able to tell the
difference.

> Quick note of apology to Livia from Po?
> .........ahh, nahh, I'm
> thinking perhaps more along the lines of a sympathy
> card to Livia
> from Po.

I'll be interested to see it when it arrives. :)

> Valete,
> Po....oh whoops....STRABO

I find it pretty irritating that you're complaining
about me *not* being rude to you now! No matter how
much you insist on calling yourself by your praenómen,
I am not going to call you by it, because calling a
Roman by his praenómen is simply rude. If you want me
to call you Pompeia, make Pompeia your cognómen.





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29932 From: t_octavius_salvius Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: A new Constitution.......
Salve,


I repeat. From the Council of the European Union's own web site:

"The Council is the main decision-making body of the European Union.
The ministers of the member states meet within the Council of the
European Union. Depending on the issue on the agenda, each country
will be represented by the minister responsible for that subject
(foreign affairs, finance, social affairs, transport, agriculture,
etc.)."

It's name is dependant on which issue is debated, but as an entity,
it is called the Council of the European Union.

In any case this is just semantics. Whatever you call it, it has no
democratic mandate to be there. I certainly didn't vote for anyone
to be on this council.

As someone who holds a qualification in Law, one third of
> > which was exclusively about Europe, I think you will agree
> > that I am very informed on this topic.
>
> [Bardulus] I think you were not very well informed, after all.


If I'm not, you'll have to blame the EU's website, as this is where
I've been getting my information.


vale

Salvius


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "H. Rutilius Bardulus"
<gens_rutilia@y...> wrote:
> Salve, T. Octavi Salvi.
>
> You said:
>
> > I am not wrong. From the Council's own website:
> > "The Council is the main decision-making body of the European
> > Union. The ministers of the member states meet within the
> > Council of the European Union. Depending on the issue on the
> > agenda, each country will be represented by the minister
> > responsible for that subject (foreign affairs, finance,
> > social affairs, transport, agriculture, etc.)."
> > That would appear to suggest that it has a lot to do with the
> > EU, being its prime decision making body.
>
>
> [Bardulus] Ok, now let me explain you some differences between
> the Council of Europe, the Council of Ministers of the EU and
> the European Council.
>
> The COUNCIL OF EUROPE is, as I said in my past mail, an
> organization that has nothing to do with the EU. Here is its
> homepage: http://www.coe.int
> As you will see, countries that aren't members of the EU, are
> members of the Council of Europe, like Russia, Romania, Iceland,
> and even Turkey.
>
> The COUNCIL OF MINISTERS OF THE EU is, again as I said in my
> past mail, the "government" of the EU. It can be formed by the
> sectorial ministers of each State (agriculture, industry,
> trade...), or as its formation of "general affairs", by the
> Chiefs of State or Government of the member States with the
> Foreign Affairs ministers and with the presence of the President
> of the Commission. For further information, you can read
> articles 202-210 of the Treaty of the European Community (Treaty
> of Rome, consolidated version including the Treaty of Nize).
>
> Finally, there is the EUROPEAN COUNCIL. This is like the Council
> of Ministers in its "general affairs" formation, but here the
> Ministers are only assistants, and the President of the
> Commission is also assisted by a Commissioner. It's not exactly
> a "regular institution" of the EU, and its mission is to promote
> the development of the EU and the definition of its general
> politic orientations. More information can be read in the
> article 4 of the Treaty of the European Union (Treaty of
> Maastricht, consolidated version including the Treaty of Nize).
>
>
> > As someone who holds a qualification in Law, one third of
> > which was exclusively about Europe, I think you will agree
> > that I am very informed on this topic.
>
> [Bardulus] I think you were not very well informed, after all.
>
>
> Vale bene,
>
> H. Rutilius Bardulus
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> Renovamos el Correo Yahoo!: ¡100 MB GRATIS!
> Nuevos servicios, más seguridad
> http://correo.yahoo.es
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29933 From: C. Fabia Livia Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Cordus wrote, among other things:

> But I happen to know that Lívia does know
> what
> 'pontificate' means, because she speaks good
> English,
> and that therefore she would most likely find it
> insulting (because it is).

As a matter of fact, I didn't know what it meant, and
so I wasn't insulted. And I'm not sure that, even now
that I do know what it means, I care. At all, and
particularly since I know it wasn't meant as an
insult. :)

> So it was for that reason
> that I pointed out to you the insulting nature of
> the
> word, and suggested that you might like to apologize
> (I know that Lívia is too polite and friendly to say
> so herself).

Although, in general, I don't *mind* being apologised
to (or sympathised with), I do find it rather silly
that two of my friends are currently fighting over
what I might think, feel, want, etc. It's really
silly. The three of us are largely in agreement about
all the important things that this thread once
contained - I can tell, because I largely agree with
both of you.

So, I'd like to ask you both to stop. At least the
bits that are about me and what I may or may not like:
if you want to go on bickering about other things, I
obviously can't stop you. But while I appreciate that
you're both trying to stick up for me, I am here, and
if I feel I need to be stuck up for, I can do it
myself. So, in your discussions of what I would
prefer on any given point, take it as read that what I
would really like is for you not to argue about it.
Thank you.

> > Why do you feel the need to intervene in this post
> > as Livia's
> > personal lictor or goon squad, Cordus? If my
> > husband did that to
> > me, I'd be furious.
>
> And if my wife tried to tell me what to say and what
> not say, I'd ignore her. :)

I have no doubt. But I'm hoping that when I make a
polite request, you'll at least consider it.

Livia





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29934 From: t_octavius_salvius Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Greeks v Romans
Salvete Omnes,

I would like to ask the more military-minded among us a question
about tactics.

When the Republic fought Greece, how did the legions manage to
defeat the phalanxes? I would have thought it was difficult for
soliders armed with a short swords to get close to a solid mass of
spear-points.

valete

Salvius
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29935 From: jtomaselli@factset.com Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: [Spam: 06.8] [Nova-Roma] Greeks v Romans
Salve,
I haven't read too much about tactics but I believe the main reasons
behind Roman victory in Greece were:

1) Discipline of Roman troops under adversity. The Romans were so well
trained and battle -hardened that they were able to face the phalanxes
without losing their heads.
2) Mobility(perhaps the greatest factor). The Roman army was organized in a
more flexible and "modular" way. Legions could be quickly divided into
smaller more mobile units which could outmaneuver the larger phalanxes and
outflank them quickly.

I believe the battle of Cynoscephalae was the first great test of between
the Legion and the Phalanx after the Punic Wars.




"t_octavius_salvi
us"
<fin37@... To
m> Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
cc
11/02/2004 09:31
AM Subject
[Spam: 06.8] [Nova-Roma] Greeks v
Romans
Please respond to
Nova-Roma@yahoogr
oups.com








Salvete Omnes,

I would like to ask the more military-minded among us a question
about tactics.

When the Republic fought Greece, how did the legions manage to
defeat the phalanxes? I would have thought it was difficult for
soliders armed with a short swords to get close to a solid mass of
spear-points.

valete

Salvius




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

(Embedded image moved to file: pic24464.gif)


Get unlimited calls to


U.S./Canada


(Embedded image moved to file: pic05705.gif)

(Embedded image moved to file: pic28145.gif)




Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29936 From: Patrick D. Owen Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: Greeks v Romans
F. Galerius Aurelianus T. Octavio Salvio. Salve.

When the Romans and Greek main bodies made contact at Pydna around
197 B.C., the phalanx was initially more successful than the legion
on flat even ground. While the pila were able to render some of the
phalangites' shields unusable, the pikes in the back ranks could
move up and the mass of pikes at various angles in the back ranks
gave some protection against the incoming pila. However, the Roman
commander drew the phalanx on to uneven ground and then allowed the
maniples (the basic tactical unit of the legion consisting of 3-5
centuries) to act independently. The maniples drew swords, moved
over the rough ground into the gaps left in the phalanx and, at
close quarters, cut Perseus' phalangites to pieces. At this date,
many of the phalangites (pikemen) had abandoned the use of a kopis,
machaeria, or short sword and many may have only carried a dagger
(or nothing) for close quarter combat. Compared with the gladius,
none of the normal Greek side arms were very effective since they
were either shorter than the gladius or required a chopping motion
to attack. Also, the shields of the phalangites were smaller than
the old hoplite shields and were meant to be used in conjuction with
a pike, so they also lacked the proper guisse-and-enarme straps to
use as effectively as the Republican scutum (center grip and guisse
strap) could be used.
The same situation occurred during the late 15th century C.E. when
the Swiss and Lanzknecht pike formations fought against the
combination of Spanish arquebus and armored sword-and-buckler men.
Their rigid formations were no match for firepower and fluid
tactical formations.

Vale.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "t_octavius_salvius" <fin37@h...>
wrote:
>
> Salvete Omnes,
>
> I would like to ask the more military-minded among us a question
> about tactics.
>
> When the Republic fought Greece, how did the legions manage to
> defeat the phalanxes? I would have thought it was difficult for
> soliders armed with a short swords to get close to a solid mass of
> spear-points.
>
> valete
>
> Salvius
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29937 From: John Gunn III Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: Greeks v Romans
I would say due to the flexibility of the Legion. A phalanx on uneven ground can become broken up, where as a legion had a very flexible formation.


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com/a

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29938 From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: OT discussions
Salvete omnes,

I think one of the main ideas of studying history is to learn from
mistakes or great things done in the past. Therefore I think it is a
prudent thing to equate situations in the past and see how they
relate to what we are doing today. For example we all know that
Generals in WWII on both sides studied Ancient Rome, Carthagenian
and Greek tactics in the tank battles of N. Africa; American civil
war generals did the same and we see how they profited greatly.
Similarily when it comes to world economics, strive for global
power, uniting cultures and nations it should not be a problem in
discussing modern situations. Sometimes, the Romans before taking
over a new area in the Mediterranean world would first send
delegates, a few military advisors, sympathize with one side or
another, have some problems, send in more troops, more problems,
more troops etc and eventually run the place. That has happened over
again in modern times. I could go on and on here but if we cannot
apply ancient situations to today's modern world, drift off topic
off and on then learning all about ths past is a waste of time.
Perhaps our time might be better spent developing our personal
careers, starting another business so our eggs are not all in one
basket in this unstable world economy and all. The thing we have to
do is to be polite and civil in our conversation or debates and not
try to take differences of opinion as personal insults. If someone
knows more on a particular topic than me, I will do a little less
talking and more listening.

My final point on the EUC discussion is this. When you look back at
history uniting various nations and states has not been a happy
situation at times. Ancient Empires fell, the British Empire came to
an end, the US had her civil war which has never really ended
(fighting yes, some attitude and bad feelings, no), Napoleon dreams,
Canada with some Western alienation and the Sword Of Democlese of
Quebec separation over our head, Simon Bolivar's dream and failure
to have a United States Of South America and so on. Actually, I
think some of our citizens were concerned and aware of what could
happen in a united Europe. Many of us realize in North America that
we owe our whole culture and western way of life to Greece, Italy
(Rome), Spain, England, France and others and no disrespect is meant
in discussions such as this.


Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29939 From: t_octavius_salvius Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: Greeks v Romans
Salvete F. Galerius Aurelianus et Omnes (or should I say Miles),

Thank you for this explaination. I find this all very interesting.
Especially how the Hoplites seem to have changed into a lighter
Pikeman force.

I suppose if you do have to option of breaking off a few units to
attack the Phalanx from the side, then there isn't anything the
Pikemen can do, especially if they don't have swords for close
combat. I would also imagine that Cavalry would be very useful in
flanking a Phalanx.

Still, I like the old Phalanx. It has its uses against lightly
armoured opponants, and horsemen won't go near them from the front.

So, the next question is, how do you get a Phalanx army to beat a
Roman legion? The winner gets to be Despot of Epirus (as long as he
proves his theory on an actual battlefield).

valete

Salvius





--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick D. Owen"
<Patrick.Owen@s...> wrote:
>
> F. Galerius Aurelianus T. Octavio Salvio. Salve.
>
> When the Romans and Greek main bodies made contact at Pydna around
> 197 B.C., the phalanx was initially more successful than the
legion
> on flat even ground. While the pila were able to render some of
the
> phalangites' shields unusable, the pikes in the back ranks could
> move up and the mass of pikes at various angles in the back ranks
> gave some protection against the incoming pila. However, the
Roman
> commander drew the phalanx on to uneven ground and then allowed
the
> maniples (the basic tactical unit of the legion consisting of 3-5
> centuries) to act independently. The maniples drew swords, moved
> over the rough ground into the gaps left in the phalanx and, at
> close quarters, cut Perseus' phalangites to pieces. At this date,
> many of the phalangites (pikemen) had abandoned the use of a
kopis,
> machaeria, or short sword and many may have only carried a dagger
> (or nothing) for close quarter combat. Compared with the gladius,
> none of the normal Greek side arms were very effective since they
> were either shorter than the gladius or required a chopping motion
> to attack. Also, the shields of the phalangites were smaller than
> the old hoplite shields and were meant to be used in conjuction
with
> a pike, so they also lacked the proper guisse-and-enarme straps to
> use as effectively as the Republican scutum (center grip and
guisse
> strap) could be used.
> The same situation occurred during the late 15th century C.E. when
> the Swiss and Lanzknecht pike formations fought against the
> combination of Spanish arquebus and armored sword-and-buckler
men.
> Their rigid formations were no match for firepower and fluid
> tactical formations.
>
> Vale.
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "t_octavius_salvius"
<fin37@h...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Salvete Omnes,
> >
> > I would like to ask the more military-minded among us a question
> > about tactics.
> >
> > When the Republic fought Greece, how did the legions manage to
> > defeat the phalanxes? I would have thought it was difficult for
> > soliders armed with a short swords to get close to a solid mass
of
> > spear-points.
> >
> > valete
> >
> > Salvius
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29940 From: me-in-@disguise.co.uk Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: European Union (Another Twist)
Salve

Agreed on the two-edge sword. One way, of course Asian-made
goods are rich man's toys as far as most of the Asians are
concerned and a few are very rich indeed. As the world's
banker Switzerland is in a very special position and it is
one of the most expensive and high-paying countries to live
in. The question is who does what well I suppose. They had
their stuffing knocked out when digital watches took over.
They do banking very well though and no questions asked. If
you remember that fuss about Nazi funds, what might not be
so apparant is that where revealing bank secrets like fund
ownership might be breach of trust anywhere else, the jolly
old Confederatio Helvetica makes it a serious federal crime.
At one time instead of paying interest, they used to charge
interest on all deposit accounts and probably is true if you
want to make a quick fortune from a small one, federal law
mandates banks to have 100% funds on hand at month end. So
guess the kind of daily interest rates on SFr (Euro no!)
loans over the last couple of days of the month. We had a
RIBS computer system written in Zuerich and that couldn't
cope with 90%+ rates either.

Caesariensis

> Salve Caesariensis,
>
> Long time no see, good to hear from you again.
> I have to run but I'll be brief. A few years ago I went to
> replace my stereo. I saw a make from Europe (Switz.)
> called Revox. A basic tape deck was 2500.00, 3200.00 for
> the amp etc. A similar sounding machine made in Taiwan
> under a a European name cost 1700.00 for everything.
> Harmon and Kardon and Telefunken that I own are or were
> made in Asia now.
>
> Apparently if we used our skilled workers here, 20 - 30
> Cdn an hour, computer would cost over 10,000.00, a 500
> dollar TV would be the price of a 40 in plasma now etc.
> The whole situation seems to me to be a two edged sword;
> drop Asia or pay higher wages, bring in protection
> legislation and make these products in North America or
> Europe but then again we'd have massive unemployment since
> 10,000 dollar eletronics would be only play toys for the
> rich.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> QLP
>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, me-in-@d... wrote:
> > Who said economics? China is fine for the US, a
> > low-cost dictatorship happy for the moment to provide
> > cheap goods with little or no - since many are
> > emprisonned - care about workforce conditions. No doubt
> > there is plenty of US investment reaping the profit
> > anyway. China is just another dictatorship of the sort
> > US Inc adores. It offers no /cultural/ rivalry, no
> > attractive socio-political and cultural alternative.
> > Europe does. Standards of living, democratic
> > accountability, protection against overbearing
> > enterprises range from worse to far better depending on
> state in both unions. The US would like to present itself
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > (like Athens) as head of the 'free' world, as long as
> > the free world follows its structures exactly and gives
> > it free reign. Europe offers an alternative structure of
> > the same kind to turn to. Other structures are entirely
> > different, State capitalism discreditted and can be
> > forgotten, violent theocracy popular (where the US can
> > also make a showing) but unattractive to most of the
> > world. But will developing African democracies and South
> > America look to the US as their model or to the old
> > colonisers? Caesariensis
> > > Salvete Omnes
> > >
> > >
> > > "Europe is the only potential rival to the USA"
> > >
> > > This gives some insight into the Continental
> > > Inferiority complex that the governments of Europe
> > > have. The EU is often seen in terms of being in
> > > conflict with the US. So we must all band together to
> > beat the Americans. >
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> --------------------~--> Make a clean sweep of pop-up
> ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar. Now with Pop-Up Blocker.
> Get it for free!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/wWQplB/TM
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ----------~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29941 From: jtomaselli@factset.com Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: [Spam: 06.3] [Nova-Roma] Re: Greeks v Romans
Salve,
If I may put my two cents in, my guess would be that Macedonians would
have needed the following to beat the Roman legions:

1) Strong cavalry support on both wings to suppress any attempts to
outflank.
2) The phalanx itself would have to be more flexible and allow for units to
detach and turn efectively to meet any possible outflanking manouver with
their pikes.
3) lightly armed troops in front of the Phalanx to harrass the front lines
prior to their clashing with the Phalanx.
4) The Phalanx troops must be prepared to release their pikes towards their
enemy and fight in close quarters using smaller weapons in the event that
their flanks are being pressured.
5) Phalanxes could also be thinned out and deployed in two or three waves
like the classic Roman setup employing Hastates, principes, and Trarii.




"t_octavius_salvi
us"
<fin37@... To
m> Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
cc
11/02/2004 11:47
AM Subject
[Spam: 06.3] [Nova-Roma] Re: Greeks
v Romans
Please respond to
Nova-Roma@yahoogr
oups.com








Salvete F. Galerius Aurelianus et Omnes (or should I say Miles),

Thank you for this explaination. I find this all very interesting.
Especially how the Hoplites seem to have changed into a lighter
Pikeman force.

I suppose if you do have to option of breaking off a few units to
attack the Phalanx from the side, then there isn't anything the
Pikemen can do, especially if they don't have swords for close
combat. I would also imagine that Cavalry would be very useful in
flanking a Phalanx.

Still, I like the old Phalanx. It has its uses against lightly
armoured opponants, and horsemen won't go near them from the front.

So, the next question is, how do you get a Phalanx army to beat a
Roman legion? The winner gets to be Despot of Epirus (as long as he
proves his theory on an actual battlefield).

valete

Salvius





--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick D. Owen"
<Patrick.Owen@s...> wrote:
>
> F. Galerius Aurelianus T. Octavio Salvio. Salve.
>
> When the Romans and Greek main bodies made contact at Pydna around
> 197 B.C., the phalanx was initially more successful than the
legion
> on flat even ground. While the pila were able to render some of
the
> phalangites' shields unusable, the pikes in the back ranks could
> move up and the mass of pikes at various angles in the back ranks
> gave some protection against the incoming pila. However, the
Roman
> commander drew the phalanx on to uneven ground and then allowed
the
> maniples (the basic tactical unit of the legion consisting of 3-5
> centuries) to act independently. The maniples drew swords, moved
> over the rough ground into the gaps left in the phalanx and, at
> close quarters, cut Perseus' phalangites to pieces. At this date,
> many of the phalangites (pikemen) had abandoned the use of a
kopis,
> machaeria, or short sword and many may have only carried a dagger
> (or nothing) for close quarter combat. Compared with the gladius,
> none of the normal Greek side arms were very effective since they
> were either shorter than the gladius or required a chopping motion
> to attack. Also, the shields of the phalangites were smaller than
> the old hoplite shields and were meant to be used in conjuction
with
> a pike, so they also lacked the proper guisse-and-enarme straps to
> use as effectively as the Republican scutum (center grip and
guisse
> strap) could be used.
> The same situation occurred during the late 15th century C.E. when
> the Swiss and Lanzknecht pike formations fought against the
> combination of Spanish arquebus and armored sword-and-buckler
men.
> Their rigid formations were no match for firepower and fluid
> tactical formations.
>
> Vale.
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "t_octavius_salvius"
<fin37@h...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Salvete Omnes,
> >
> > I would like to ask the more military-minded among us a question
> > about tactics.
> >
> > When the Republic fought Greece, how did the legions manage to
> > defeat the phalanxes? I would have thought it was difficult for
> > soliders armed with a short swords to get close to a solid mass
of
> > spear-points.
> >
> > valete
> >
> > Salvius




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

(Embedded image moved to file: pic23281.gif)


Get unlimited calls to


U.S./Canada


(Embedded image moved to file: pic16827.gif)

(Embedded image moved to file: pic09961.gif)




Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29942 From: Julius Caesar Cornelianus Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Well Cordus I did react based on your quick summary. Which it came across as a roughed out meaning of STV. So yes that may very well have been where I went wrong. I will make it clear though that when I did study politics and government the PR we studied was what I'll call the basic one where parties are involved and you vote party and the party appoints officials based on the # of seats allocated. When I studied this STV and any other form were never mentioned. So to me as far as I'm concerned PR is what I viewed it as. If it has evolved since or other forms are available I am wrong in respect to those forms. But I do know I am not wrong in respect to the basic premise of what PR is designed to do.

Frankly, Europeans politics, as in procedures and who is running are not my biz. I can have an opinion of Jaques Chriac or Gerhard Schroeder all I want but I voice and opinion are irrelevent. I do not follow European politics nor have the desire to. Certain things I pay attention to such as the UK's Ministry of Defense axing the Scottish regiments but my opinion will not matter. The EU I have negative feelings on but its for Europeans to decide their future. That does not mean I cannot express my opinion just simply it is irrelevent. This has gone far OT enough so I'll stop with that there....Point being STV is not familiar to me....I do not follow European Politics and its evolution for the most part....my voice their is irrelevent....

"you're thinking about STV as a device for electing the US congress. That's not what we're talking about here."

--Easier for me to try to get a grasp for thinking of it in a macronational sense and applying it to a system I am familiar with.

"The tribunes are not a legislative chamber."

--I know they are not. They protect the Plebs from magesterial abuse....they can veto (intercessio) an act as well as veto each other...that much I know...

"And even if were were to get a bunch of crazy minority groups clubbing together to elect a crazy tribune, how much harm could he really do?"

--That reference of mine was meant at the marconational level...I have read of those Far-Left/Right parties getting seats (somehow) in European politics because of PR systems....that's my one peeve with it...though NR would have no trouble getting rid of any such person...and reporting it to the proper authorities depending on circumstances and any offense committed against any citizen....

"neo-Nazi tribune"

--Never happen

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29943 From: Gn. Julius Caesar Cornelianus Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
"Since the whole purpose of the discussion is reform of the office of Tribune within NR, perhaps that perspective should be kept in mind...There is a new Constitution being written, you know ~ these are serious considerations, not just hypothetical. Please keep the focus on NR's offices ~ the results of these discussions could very well be used!"

--When the subject matter of this issue is seriously being considered then I will do so...However, right now I have yet to see anything suggesting a change in the electoral process is officially being considered for change...

Vale,

Gnaeus Julius Caesar Cornelianus

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29944 From: gaiuspopilliuslaenas Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: Greeks v Romans
Salvete Omnes,

I agree with what has been posted so far on this topic. I want to
add that there is a way one can find out for one's self if you are
willing to spend a little money.

Mi amice Decimus Iunius Silanus first posted here some time ago
about a PC game called "Rome - Total War". The game not only allows
one to capture and manage towns and cities on the way to becomming
Princeps, it also allows one to fight historical and customizable
battles against a wide variety of opponents.

The player can select from a wide variety of historical units both
Roman and "enemy" so Legions against Phalanx, for example, can be
easily created.

If you have seen the History Channel's "Decisive Battles", the
amination they use in the show is from this game.

I have to agree that the Phalanx is difficult to defeat if one
cannot outflank it (and elephants are a bitch ;-).

The game is distributed by Activision and can be found at Amazon.com

Valete,

Gaius Popillius Laenas


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "t_octavius_salvius" <fin37@h...>
wrote:
>
> Salvete F. Galerius Aurelianus et Omnes (or should I say Miles),
>
> Thank you for this explaination. I find this all very interesting.
> Especially how the Hoplites seem to have changed into a lighter
> Pikeman force.
>
> I suppose if you do have to option of breaking off a few units to
> attack the Phalanx from the side, then there isn't anything the
> Pikemen can do, especially if they don't have swords for close
> combat. I would also imagine that Cavalry would be very useful in
> flanking a Phalanx.
>
> Still, I like the old Phalanx. It has its uses against lightly
> armoured opponants, and horsemen won't go near them from the front.
>
> So, the next question is, how do you get a Phalanx army to beat a
> Roman legion? The winner gets to be Despot of Epirus (as long as
he
> proves his theory on an actual battlefield).
>
> valete
>
> Salvius
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick D. Owen"
> <Patrick.Owen@s...> wrote:
> >
> > F. Galerius Aurelianus T. Octavio Salvio. Salve.
> >
> > When the Romans and Greek main bodies made contact at Pydna
around
> > 197 B.C., the phalanx was initially more successful than the
> legion
> > on flat even ground. While the pila were able to render some of
> the
> > phalangites' shields unusable, the pikes in the back ranks could
> > move up and the mass of pikes at various angles in the back
ranks
> > gave some protection against the incoming pila. However, the
> Roman
> > commander drew the phalanx on to uneven ground and then allowed
> the
> > maniples (the basic tactical unit of the legion consisting of 3-
5
> > centuries) to act independently. The maniples drew swords,
moved
> > over the rough ground into the gaps left in the phalanx and, at
> > close quarters, cut Perseus' phalangites to pieces. At this
date,
> > many of the phalangites (pikemen) had abandoned the use of a
> kopis,
> > machaeria, or short sword and many may have only carried a
dagger
> > (or nothing) for close quarter combat. Compared with the
gladius,
> > none of the normal Greek side arms were very effective since
they
> > were either shorter than the gladius or required a chopping
motion
> > to attack. Also, the shields of the phalangites were smaller
than
> > the old hoplite shields and were meant to be used in conjuction
> with
> > a pike, so they also lacked the proper guisse-and-enarme straps
to
> > use as effectively as the Republican scutum (center grip and
> guisse
> > strap) could be used.
> > The same situation occurred during the late 15th century C.E.
when
> > the Swiss and Lanzknecht pike formations fought against the
> > combination of Spanish arquebus and armored sword-and-buckler
> men.
> > Their rigid formations were no match for firepower and fluid
> > tactical formations.
> >
> > Vale.
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "t_octavius_salvius"
> <fin37@h...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Salvete Omnes,
> > >
> > > I would like to ask the more military-minded among us a
question
> > > about tactics.
> > >
> > > When the Republic fought Greece, how did the legions manage to
> > > defeat the phalanxes? I would have thought it was difficult
for
> > > soliders armed with a short swords to get close to a solid
mass
> of
> > > spear-points.
> > >
> > > valete
> > >
> > > Salvius
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29945 From: t_octavius_salvius Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: Greeks v Romans
Salvete,

I've got it and I can hammer the armies of Rome, and the rest, with
Greek Hoplites.

Not sure whether I'd be able to do it in real life though.

Valete

Salvius



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gaiuspopilliuslaenas"
<ksterne@b...> wrote:
>
> Salvete Omnes,
>
> I agree with what has been posted so far on this topic. I want to
> add that there is a way one can find out for one's self if you are
> willing to spend a little money.
>
> Mi amice Decimus Iunius Silanus first posted here some time ago
> about a PC game called "Rome - Total War". The game not only
allows
> one to capture and manage towns and cities on the way to becomming
> Princeps, it also allows one to fight historical and customizable
> battles against a wide variety of opponents.
>
> The player can select from a wide variety of historical units both
> Roman and "enemy" so Legions against Phalanx, for example, can be
> easily created.
>
> If you have seen the History Channel's "Decisive Battles", the
> amination they use in the show is from this game.
>
> I have to agree that the Phalanx is difficult to defeat if one
> cannot outflank it (and elephants are a bitch ;-).
>
> The game is distributed by Activision and can be found at
Amazon.com
>
> Valete,
>
> Gaius Popillius Laenas
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "t_octavius_salvius"
<fin37@h...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Salvete F. Galerius Aurelianus et Omnes (or should I say Miles),
> >
> > Thank you for this explaination. I find this all very
interesting.
> > Especially how the Hoplites seem to have changed into a lighter
> > Pikeman force.
> >
> > I suppose if you do have to option of breaking off a few units
to
> > attack the Phalanx from the side, then there isn't anything the
> > Pikemen can do, especially if they don't have swords for close
> > combat. I would also imagine that Cavalry would be very useful
in
> > flanking a Phalanx.
> >
> > Still, I like the old Phalanx. It has its uses against lightly
> > armoured opponants, and horsemen won't go near them from the
front.
> >
> > So, the next question is, how do you get a Phalanx army to beat
a
> > Roman legion? The winner gets to be Despot of Epirus (as long as
> he
> > proves his theory on an actual battlefield).
> >
> > valete
> >
> > Salvius
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick D. Owen"
> > <Patrick.Owen@s...> wrote:
> > >
> > > F. Galerius Aurelianus T. Octavio Salvio. Salve.
> > >
> > > When the Romans and Greek main bodies made contact at Pydna
> around
> > > 197 B.C., the phalanx was initially more successful than the
> > legion
> > > on flat even ground. While the pila were able to render some
of
> > the
> > > phalangites' shields unusable, the pikes in the back ranks
could
> > > move up and the mass of pikes at various angles in the back
> ranks
> > > gave some protection against the incoming pila. However, the
> > Roman
> > > commander drew the phalanx on to uneven ground and then
allowed
> > the
> > > maniples (the basic tactical unit of the legion consisting of
3-
> 5
> > > centuries) to act independently. The maniples drew swords,
> moved
> > > over the rough ground into the gaps left in the phalanx and,
at
> > > close quarters, cut Perseus' phalangites to pieces. At this
> date,
> > > many of the phalangites (pikemen) had abandoned the use of a
> > kopis,
> > > machaeria, or short sword and many may have only carried a
> dagger
> > > (or nothing) for close quarter combat. Compared with the
> gladius,
> > > none of the normal Greek side arms were very effective since
> they
> > > were either shorter than the gladius or required a chopping
> motion
> > > to attack. Also, the shields of the phalangites were smaller
> than
> > > the old hoplite shields and were meant to be used in
conjuction
> > with
> > > a pike, so they also lacked the proper guisse-and-enarme
straps
> to
> > > use as effectively as the Republican scutum (center grip and
> > guisse
> > > strap) could be used.
> > > The same situation occurred during the late 15th century C.E.
> when
> > > the Swiss and Lanzknecht pike formations fought against the
> > > combination of Spanish arquebus and armored sword-and-buckler
> > men.
> > > Their rigid formations were no match for firepower and fluid
> > > tactical formations.
> > >
> > > Vale.
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "t_octavius_salvius"
> > <fin37@h...>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Salvete Omnes,
> > > >
> > > > I would like to ask the more military-minded among us a
> question
> > > > about tactics.
> > > >
> > > > When the Republic fought Greece, how did the legions manage
to
> > > > defeat the phalanxes? I would have thought it was difficult
> for
> > > > soliders armed with a short swords to get close to a solid
> mass
> > of
> > > > spear-points.
> > > >
> > > > valete
> > > >
> > > > Salvius
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29946 From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: Greeks v Romans - From The Horse's Mouth
Salvete omnes,

Great answers but I found this article by Polybius which should
prove useful:

QLP



Ancient History Sourcebook:
Polybius (c.200-after 118 BCE):
The Roman Maniple vs. The Macedonian Phalanx

---------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------

The Histories, Book XVIII, Chapters 28-32:

In my sixth book I made a promise, still unfulfilled, of taking a
fitting opportunity of drawing a comparison between the arms of the
Romans and Macedonians, and their respective system of tactics, and
pointing out how they differ for better or worse from each other. I
will now endeavor by a reference to actual facts to fulfil that
promise. For since in former times the Macedonian tactics proved
themselves by experience capable of conquering those of Asia and
Greece; while the Roman tactics sufficed to conquer the nations of
Africa and all those of Western Europe; and since in our own day
there have been numerous opportunities of comparing the men as well
as their tactics, it will be, I think, a useful and worthy task to
investigate their differences, and discover why it is that the
Romans conquer and carry off the palm from their enemies in the
operations of war: that we may not put it all down to Fortune, and
congratulate them on their good luck, as the thoughtless of mankind
do; but, from a knowledge of the true causes, may give their leaders
the tribute of praise and admiration which they deserve.

Now as to the battles which the Romans fought with Hannibal and the
defeats which they sustained in them, I need say no more. It was not
owing to their arms or their tactics, but to the skill and genius of
Hannibal that they met with those defeats: and that I made quite
clear in my account of the battles themselves. And my contention is
supported by two facts. First, by the conclusion of the war: for as
soon as the Romans got a general of ability comparable with that of
Hannibal, victory was not long in following their banners. Secondly,
Hannibal himself, being dissatisfied with the original arms of his
men, and having immediately after his first victory furnished his
troops with the arms of the Romans, continued to employ them
thenceforth to the end. Pyrrhus, again, availed himself not only of
the arms, but also of the troops of Italy, placing a maniple of
Italians and a company of his own phalanx alternately, in his
battles against the Romans. Yet even this did not enable him to win;
the battles were somehow or another always indecisive.

It was necessary to speak first on these points, to anticipate any
instances which might seem to make against my theory. I will now
return to my comparison.

Many considerations may easily convince us that, if only the phalanx
has its proper formation and strength, nothing can resist it face to
face or withstand its charge. For as a man in close order of battle
occupies a space of three feet; and as the length of the sarissae
are sixteen cubits according to the original design, which has been
reduced in practice to fourteen; and as of these fourteen four must
be deducted, to allow for the weight in front; it follows clearly
that each hoplite will have ten cubits of his sarissa projecting
beyond his body, when he lowers it with both hands, as he advances
against the enemy: hence, too, though the men of the second, third,
and fourth rank will have their sarissae projecting farther beyond
the front rank than the men of the fifth, yet even these last will
have two cubits of their sarissae beyond the front rank; if only the
phalanx is properly formed and the men close up properly both flank
and rear, like the description in Homer:

So buckler pressed on buckler; helm on helm; And man on man; and
waving horse-hair plumes In polished head-piece mingled, as they
swayed In order: in such serried rank they stood. [Iliad, 13.131]



And if my description is true and exact, it is clear that in front
of each man of the front rank there will be five sarissae projecting
to distances varying by a descending scale of two cubits.

With this point in our minds, it will not be difficult to imagine
what the appearance and strength of the whole phalanx is likely to
be, when, with lowered sarissae, it advances to the charge sixteen
deep. Of these sixteen ranks, all above the fifth are unable to
reach with their sarissae far enough to take actual part in the
fighting. They, therefore, do not lower them, but hold them with the
points inclined upwards over the shoulders of the ranks in front of
them, to shield the heads of the whole phalanx; for the sarissae are
so closely serried, that they repel missiles which have carried over
the front ranks and might fall upon the heads of those in the rear.
These rear ranks, however, during an advance, press forward those in
front by the weight of their bodies; and thus make the charge very
forcible, and at the same time render it impossible for the front
ranks to face about.

Such is the arrangement, general and detailed of the phalanx. It
remains now to compare with it the peculiarities and distinctive
features of the Roman arms and tactics. Now, a Roman soldier in full
armor also requires a space of three square feet. But as their
method of fighting admits of individual motion for each man---
because he defends his body with a shield, which he moves about to
any point from which a blow is coming, and because he uses his sword
both for cutting and stabbing---it is evident that each man must
have a clear space, and an interval of at least three feet both on
flank and rear if he is to do his duty with any effect. The result
of this will be that each Roman soldier will face two of the front
rank of a phalanx, so that he has to encounter and fight against ten
spears, which one man cannot find time even to cut away, when once
the two lines are engaged, nor force his way through easily---seeing
that the Roman front ranks are not supported by the rear ranks,
either by way of adding weight to their charge, or vigor to the use
of their swords. Therefore, it may readily be understood that, as I
said before, it is impossible to confront a charge of the phalanx,
so long as it retains its proper formation and strength.

Why is it then that the Romans conquer? And what is it that brings
disaster on those who employ the phalanx? Why, just because war is
full of uncertainties both as to time and place; whereas there is
but one time and one kind of ground in which a phalanx can fully
work. If, then, there were anything to compel the enemy to
accommodate himself to the time and place of the phalanx, when about
to fight a general engagement, it would be but natural to expect
that those who employed the phalanx would always carry off the
victory. But if the enemy finds it possible, and even easy, to avoid
its attack, what becomes of its formidable character? Again, no one
denies that for its employment it is indispensable to have a country
flat, bare, and without such impediments as ditches, cavities,
depressions, steep banks, or beds of rivers: for all such obstacles
are sufficient to hinder and dislocate this particular formation.
And that it is, I may say, impossible, or at any rate exceedingly
rare to find a piece of country of twenty stades, or sometimes of
even greater extent, without any such obstacles, every one will also
admit. However, let us suppose that such a district has been found.
If the enemy decline to come down into it, but traverse the country
sacking the towns and territories of the allies, what use will the
phalanx be? For if it remains on the ground suited to itself, it
will not only fail to benefit its friends, but will be incapable
even of preserving itself; for the carriage of provisions will be
easily stopped by the enemy, seeing that they are in undisputed
possession of the country: while if it quits its proper ground, from
the wish to strike a blow, it will be an easy prey to the enemy.
Nay, if a general does descend into the plain, and yet does not risk
his whole army upon one charge of the phalanx or upon one chance,
but maneuvers for a time to avoid coming to close quarters in the
engagement, it is easy to learn what will be the result from what
the Romans are now actually doing.

For no speculation is any longer required to test the accuracy of
what I am now saying: that can be done by referring to accomplished
facts. The Romans do not, then, attempt to extend their front to
equal that of a phalanx, and then charge directly upon it with their
whole force: but some of their divisions are kept in reserve, while
others join battle with the enemy at close quarters. Now, whether
the phalanx in its charge drives its opponents from their ground, or
is itself driven back, in either case its peculiar order is
dislocated; for whether in following the retiring, or flying from
the advancing enemy, they quit the rest of their forces: and when
this takes place, the enemy's reserves can occupy the space thus
left, and the ground which the phalanx had just before been holding,
and so no longer charge them face to face, but fall upon them on
their flank and rear. If, then, it is easy to take precautions
against the opportunities and peculiar advantages of the phalanx,
but impossible to do so in the case of its disadvantages, must it
not follow that in practice the difference between these two systems
is enormous? Of course, those generals who employ the phalanx must
march over ground of every description, must pitch camps, occupy
points of advantage, besiege, and be besieged, and meet with
unexpected appearances of the enemy: for all these are part and
parcel of war, and have an important and sometimes decisive
influence on the ultimate victory. And in all these cases the
Macedonian phalanx is difficult, and sometimes impossible, to
handle, because the men cannot act either in squads or separately.

The Roman order on the other hand is flexible: for every Roman, once
armed and on the field, is equally well-equipped for every place,
time, or appearance of the enemy. He is, moreover, quite ready and
needs to make no change, whether he is required to fight in the main
body, or in a detachment, or in a single maniple, or even by
himself. Therefore, as the individual members of the Roman force are
so much more serviceable, their plans are also much more often
attended by success than those of others.

I thought it necessary to discuss this subject at some length,
because at the actual time of the occurrence many Greeks supposed
when the Macedonians were beaten that it was incredible; and many
will afterwards be at a loss to account for the inferiority of the
phalanx to the Roman system of arming.




---------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------

Source:

From: Polybius, The Histories of Polybius, 2 Vols., trans. Evelyn S.
Shuckburgh (London: Macmillan, 1889), pp. 226-230.

Scanned by: J. S. Arkenberg, Dept. of History, Cal. State Fullerton.
Prof. Arkenberg has modernized the text.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29947 From: John Gunn III Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: [Spam: 06.3] [Nova-Roma] Re: Greeks v Romans
Yes i have Rome Total War and find it to be very fun. i have beaten the game as Rome and many times i have lost trying to break phalanxes and i have also won, it is a good way to see the differences between different armies. For instance the early and late roman armies.


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com/a

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29948 From: Lucius Iulius Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Interview the Expert / 2 more days
AVETE CIVES

One of Nova Roma^s cultural activities.

Two more days to the end of our monthly appointment with the
Interview the Expert project:
thanks to Academia Italica you can interview a famous expert about
Ancient Rome just sending me your questions about the chosen theme.

This month our Expert will be Prof A. Giardina, one of the most
important historians in Europe.
Prof. Andrea Giardina (Palermo, 1949) teaches roman history at the
University of La sapienza, Rome. He is the president of the Istituto
italiano per la storia antica. Among his recent works and
publications: 'L'Italia romana. Storie di un'identità incompiuta',
Laterza, Roma-Bari 1997 (terza ed. 2004). 'Il mito di Roma da Carlo
Magno a Mussolini' (in collaboration with A. Vauchez), Laterza, Roma-
Bari 2000; french ed.: 'Rome, l'idée, le mythe', Fayard, Paris 2000.
His volume 'L'uomo romano' (the Roman Man) is at its nineth italian
edition and has been translated into english, spanish, portugese,
german, polish and some other languages. He also wrote 'Roma
antica', second ed. Laterza, Roma-Bari 2003.

Prof. Giardina will answer to your questions about:

"Slavery in Ancient Rome".

Send me here your questions: 21aprile AT email DOT it.
You have just 2 more days to solve your doubts!

Now, give a look to our web page:

http://www.novaroma.org/expert/index.htm

VALETE!
L IUL SULLA
Rector Academiae Italicae
Quaestor
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29949 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
---Salve C. Fabia Livia Quaestrix et Propraetrix Britannia :

First off, although I didn't introduce you into this recent dialogue
with Cordus, I am sorry if I indirectly contributed to his apparent
need to do so. I truly am. I am pleased that you did not feel
threatened or insulted by my offering of ideas to both you and Q.
Brutus. I didn't imagine you would, given that I was already
actively engaged in related threads.

At any rate, I think in the future I shall correspond with you
privately on any matters you may present in this forum; hopefully
this will eliminate the akward "walking on eggshells" situation you
have been placed in.

I will not bother pursuing the perseverant "concerns" of Rogator A.
Apollonius Cordus, relative to this. One perceives that civil
discourse in no longer on the agenda when the poster is carrying an
etiquette manual, whilst wielding a machetti . Atleast that is
my 'first' clue :)

I can't say that I won't ever question or contest Cordus in this
forum, presenting any reasons as to why, for the benefit of the
people. This would be a totally unrealistic pledge to you, as I am
concerned about good government, just as you have so demonstrated.
Besides, most people who know me know I can't keep my mouth shut for
that long <g>

But you have, again, my word that I will keep dialogues between you
and me a matter of privacy.

I hope you find this an acceptable arrangement, Fabia.

Vale,
Po


In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "C. Fabia Livia" <c_fabia_livia@y...>
wrote:
> Cordus wrote, among other things:
>
> > But I happen to know that Lívia does know
> > what
> > 'pontificate' means, because she speaks good
> > English,
> > and that therefore she would most likely find it
> > insulting (because it is).
>
> As a matter of fact, I didn't know what it meant, and
> so I wasn't insulted. And I'm not sure that, even now
> that I do know what it means, I care. At all, and
> particularly since I know it wasn't meant as an
> insult. :)
>
> > So it was for that reason
> > that I pointed out to you the insulting nature of
> > the
> > word, and suggested that you might like to apologize
> > (I know that Lívia is too polite and friendly to say
> > so herself).
>
> Although, in general, I don't *mind* being apologised
> to (or sympathised with), I do find it rather silly
> that two of my friends are currently fighting over
> what I might think, feel, want, etc. It's really
> silly. The three of us are largely in agreement about
> all the important things that this thread once
> contained - I can tell, because I largely agree with
> both of you.
>
> So, I'd like to ask you both to stop. At least the
> bits that are about me and what I may or may not like:
> if you want to go on bickering about other things, I
> obviously can't stop you. But while I appreciate that
> you're both trying to stick up for me, I am here, and
> if I feel I need to be stuck up for, I can do it
> myself. So, in your discussions of what I would
> prefer on any given point, take it as read that what I
> would really like is for you not to argue about it.
> Thank you.
>
> > > Why do you feel the need to intervene in this post
> > > as Livia's
> > > personal lictor or goon squad, Cordus? If my
> > > husband did that to
> > > me, I'd be furious.
> >
> > And if my wife tried to tell me what to say and what
> > not say, I'd ignore her. :)
>
> I have no doubt. But I'm hoping that when I make a
> polite request, you'll at least consider it.
>
> Livia
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW
Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29950 From: Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
What you don't seem to get, Caesar, is that those involved in writing
the new Constitution read this list regularly, they pay attention to
serious discussions and make notes on good ideas.

As for the process itself, the Constitution List has indeed been
quiescent of late, but the members of that List are paying attention to
the Main List ~ this I know for a fact.

As for an announcement that a change is in the works, this was made
months ago when the Constitution List was created ~ Read the Archives.

Or not ~ your choice. You can just wait until the completed document
is up for a vote, and miss any opportunity to contribute to its
creation.

If you don't take this discussion seriously, then why are you involving
yourself in it?

Vale
~ Troianus

On Tuesday, November 2, 2004, at 12:48 PM, Gn. Julius Caesar
Cornelianus wrote:

>
>
> "Since the whole purpose of the discussion is reform of the office of
> Tribune within NR, perhaps that perspective should be kept in
> mind...There is a new Constitution being written, you know ~ these are
> serious considerations, not just hypothetical. Please keep the focus
> on NR's offices ~ the results of these discussions could very well be
> used!"
>
> --When the subject matter of this issue is seriously being considered
> then I will do so...However, right now I have yet to see anything
> suggesting a change in the electoral process is officially being
> considered for change...
>
> Vale,
>
> Gnaeus Julius
> Caesar Cornelianus
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29951 From: Gn. Julius Caesar Cornelianus Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
"If you don't take this discussion seriously, then why are you involving yourself in it?"

--Very well consider me through with it...buh-bye

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29952 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Salve Troianus.

I can see why it isn't obvious that this discussion could lay the
foundation stones for changes in the constitution. The Main List
discussions aren't formally structured and unless you are made aware
that plagiarists lurk in the wings waiting to snaffle up good ideas
as they fall to the ground seemingly unoticed, you could be forgiven
for assuming this all so much "shooting the breeze".

I don't know if Cornelianus was back in NR when the constitution
list was started, and even if he was one could also be forgiven for
thinking that the "serious" discussions were limited to the forum
specifically created to discuss them.

People involve themselves in discussions consistently that maybe
serious in terms of gravity of idea, but not serious in terms of the
impact they will have or their potential to effect change.

Anyway - you have so helpfully instructed Cornelianus on ML
protocol, I am sure he won't forget to look out for lurking
plagiarists :)

Vale
Gnaeus Iulius Caesar

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Servius Equitius Mercurius
Troianus <hermeticagnosis@e...> wrote:
> What you don't seem to get,
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29953 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2004-11-02
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Salve Cornelianus.

Now now - don't take Troianus seriously. I don't. I consider your
input and indeed anyone's valuable, and now you know that Troianus
is waiting to collect any gem of an idea you have and run off and
insert it into the constituion re-write, you can act accordlingly.

Vale
Caesar

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gn. Julius Caesar Cornelianus"
<julius_cornelianus@y...> wrote:
>
> "If you don't take this discussion seriously, then why are you
involving yourself in it?"
>
> --Very well consider me through with it...buh-bye
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29954 From: L·DIDIVS·GEMINVS·SCEPTIVS Date: 2004-11-03
Subject: Provincia Hispania annual report and propraetorial resign for 2757
Senate Report 2757 a.u.c.



Provincia Hispania annual report and propraetorial resign

Lucius Didius Geminus Sceptius Senato S.P.D.Ex officio propraetoris Hispaniae Salvete Patres et Conscripti.
This is the report for the Senate of year 2757 a.u.c. for Hispania Provincia. I have divided it in parts for an easier comprehension.





I. Provincial Budget. For this year more than 20 citizens has paid their taxes. This money has been used mainly in Hispania in order to pay the provincial domain (www.nrhispania.org) and its mantaining, together with personal subscriptions. Therefore there is no money from taxes left this year for the provincial treasure. Next year's income is to be likely the same.





II. Oppidum Complutum. The oppidum has appointed recently their Aediles for 2758 a.u.c. and has good health. More than five meetings have been held during the last months since it was created. We are looking for new members and more activities for the remain of the year and next one. Adrianus Complutensis and Rutilius Bardulus have been the Aediles who improved this Oppidum this year.





III. Legio VIIII. The re-enactment group of Provincia Hispania, Legio VIIII Hispanica, has grown till it has more than five fully-equiped members and more than ten waiting to complete their equipation. Next year, they'll start specific activities like lectures in schools and cultural places, participation in re-enactment gatherings through the Province and such. Aedilis Militarium Durmia Gemina has done an excellent job in this direction.





IV. Provincial website. We have been working in a better provincial website with new contents and a better image. So our Procurator Retis Minicius Iordannes has improve it and doesn't stop yet. Besides, I can say that the activity of our Provincial List is quite good. 4633 posts since 1st of january, 115 members registered (44 new since 1st of january), and a good ranking in the spanish Ancient History pages for our website and contents.





V. Recruiment policies. There has been a hard job in order to raise new members for Nova Roma Hispania that is currently going on. In order to improve the policies, I suggest to keep specially the eye in the language problem (Translations in Nova Roma main web page) and to improve a system to make easier the access to citizenship. In that way, Italia and Hispania are working in such system to use it for both provinces as an experiment. Soon we'll produce it to the Censors.





VI. Lusitanian citizens. There has been a complete lack of communication between the citizens of modern Portugal and Spain. Although there has been several attempts to communicate with them individually, it seems that just Senator A. Gryllus Graecus has a normal level of communication. Therefore I take on personally the blame for the failure in that way, specially after promoting the union between former Lusitania and Hispania.





Finally, we are having elections and it seems to be that M. Adrianus Complutensis will be the chosen candidate to be presented to the Senate in order to be the next Propraetore of Hispania. I strongly suggest his recognition as Propraetor for the 1st of january as far as he is very skillfull and will do a great job. I'll finish myself the 31th of december of this year, and I hope my services would have came to a good end. I have done my best for Hispania and Nova Roma, and I will on the same way next year, but as a privatus.





vale bene in pace deorum



L·DIDIVS·GEMINVS·SCEPTIVS
PROPRAETOR·HISPANIAE


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29955 From: M.ADRIANVS COMPLVTENSIS Date: 2004-11-03
Subject: NEW WEB
Salvete omnes,
Opening of the new Web of the Provincia Hispania: www.nrhispania.org.

Valete bene




M·ADR·COMPLVTENSIS
LEGATVS·HISP·PROV·N·R·
AEDILIS·OP·COMPLVTVM

VERBA VOLANT

PROV.HISPANIA NOVAE ROMAE
LEGIO VIIII HISPANA
NOVA ROMA
















---------------------------------



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29956 From: Emilia Curia Finnica Date: 2004-11-03
Subject: LUDI PLEBEII - Participate now!
Salvete quirites,

Ludi Plebeii, November 4th - 17th, is coming! Most events are now
available for subscription and everyone can attend. Your beast,
gladiator or auriga could be the most spectacular of them all. Don't
wait! Participate now, here's how!

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

IN THIS MAIL:
-Venationes
-Munera
-Ludi Circenses
-EDICTUM AEDILICIUM VIII - LUDI PLEBEII 2757

* The official website:
http://www.insulaumbra.com/aediles/emiliacuria/index_ludiplebeii.html

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*


----------


VENATIONES
November 6th - 7th
SUBSCRIPTIONS ACCEPTED UNTIL NOVEMBER 5TH!

The players can choose two gladiators, animals or both. The player will
have to order the aedilis a message, send it to Quintus Caecilius
Metellus Postumianus at jonlr@..., with the following
information:

-header "Venationes"
-name of the gladiator or animal
-type of gladiator or animal
-the tactics, that he will choose among these three:

1) "Defensive" tactics. It adds one point, but the gladiator or animal
has 40 % of probabilities of surviving in case of defeat, because the
public does not like these tactics.
2) "Yourself" tactics. It neither adds nor take points. 50 % of
probabilities of which the public asks for the death in case of defeat.
3) "Total attack" tactics. It reduced one point, but the gladiator or
animal has 65 % of probabilities of surviving in case of defeat,
because the public likes these tactics.

For more information about types of gladiators, animals and tactics see
for the RULES at:
http://www.insulaumbra.com/aediles/emiliacuria/index_ple_venationes.html

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*


----------


MUNERA
November 8th - 9th
SUBSCRIPTIONS ACCEPTED UNTIL NOVEMBER 7TH!

The players can choose two gladiators, animals or both. The player will
have to order the aedilis a message, send it to Quintus Caecilius
Metellus Postumianus at jonlr@..., with the following
information:

-header "Munera"
-name of the gladiator or animal
-type of gladiator or animal
-the tactics, that he will choose among these three:

1) "Defensive" tactics. It adds one point, but the gladiator or animal
has 40 % of probabilities of surviving in case of defeat, because the
public does not like these tactics.
2) "Yourself" tactics. It neither adds nor take points. 50 % of
probabilities of which the public asks for the death in case of defeat.
3) "Total attack" tactics. It reduced one point, but the gladiator or
animal has 65 % of probabilities of surviving in case of defeat,
because the public likes these tactics.

For more information about types of gladiators, animals and tactics see
for the RULES at:
http://www.insulaumbra.com/aediles/emiliacuria/
index_ple_gladiatorii.html

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*


----------


LUDI CIRCENSES
November 15th - 17th
SUBSCRIPTIONS ACCEPTED UNTIL NOVEMBER 12TH!

An entrant who wishes to participate in the Ludi Circenses must send a
subscription to Quintus Caecilius Metellus Postumianus at
jonlr@.... Each subscription must bear the subject header
"Ludi Circenses" and include the following information:

A. His/her name in Nova Roma;
B. The name of his/her driver;
C. The name of his/her chariot;
D. His/her tactics for the Quarter and Semifinals;
E. His/her tactics for the Finals;
F. The name of his/her "factio" or team (Albata, Praesina, Russata, or
Veneta);
G. Dirty actions against another factio in a specific round
(quarter-final, semi-final, or final) and amount of sesterces paid in
support of it (an entrant does not have to pay sesterces to commission
a dirty action, but doing so increases the chances of success);
H. Defence against dirty actions in a specific round (quarter-final,
semi-final, or final) and amount of sesterces paid in support of it (an
entrant does not have to pay sesterces to defend against a dirty
action, but doing so decreases the chances of success of the dirty
action);
I. If sesterces from multiple entrants are pooled to take a dirty
action or defend against a dirty action, the subscription of each
entrant of the pool must so indicate.

For more specific information about dirty actions and tactics, have a
look at the RULES at:
http://www.insulaumbra.com/aediles/emiliacuria/index_ple_circenses.html

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

EMILIA CURIA FINNICA QUIRITIBUS SPD

EDICTUM AEDILICIUM VIII - LUDI PLEBEII 2757

1. According to the Official Calendar of the Nova Roman festivals (at
http://www.novaroma.org/calendar/november.html), from November 4th to
April 17th, Ludi Plebeii will be celebrated.

2. The Calendar of the Ludi Plebeii is the following:

a. 4th November:
1. Opening of the Ludi
2. Religious Celebrations

b. 5th November:
1. History of Ludi Plebeii and Juppiter

c. 6th November:
1. Venationes

d. 7th November:
1. Venationes

e. 8th November:
1. Munera

f. 9th November:
1. Munera

g. 10th November:
1. Quiz 1

h. 11th November:
1. Quiz 2

i. 12th November:
1. Quiz 3

j. 13th November:
1. Quiz 4

k. 14th November:
1. Quiz 5

l. 15th November:
1. Ludi Circenses Quarter Races

m. 16th November:
1. Ludi Circenses Semifinal Races

n. 17th November:
1. Ludi Circenses Final Races
2. Closing

3. This general plan and rules, time schedules and more details of each
game at:
http://www.insulaumbra.com/aediles/emiliacuria/index_ludiplebeii.html.
A detailed program, rules and modalities of each of these events will
be published on the NR main list before the beginning of Ludi Plebeii.

4. Ludi Plebeii are organized by the Officina Aedilis Emiliae Curiae
Finnicae.

5. This edictum becomes effective immediately.

Given on November 3rd 2757, in the year of Consulship of Cn. Salix
Astur and Cn. Equitus Marinus

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

Valete,

Emilia Curia Finnica
Scriba Araniae Academia Thules ad Studia Romana Antiqua et Nova
Aedilis Plebis

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29957 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2004-11-03
Subject: Re: Greeks v Romans
A. Apollonius Cordus T. Octavio Salvio omnibusque sal.

How strange - I think you're the first citizen I've
ever conversed with by e-mail *after* meeting in
person for the first time!

Just a little to add to this. Lots of people have
quite rightly mentioned that the Macedonian phalanx
tended to break apart on rough ground (and of course
once the phalanx breaks apart it becomes completely
useless because the enemy line can simply funnel
itself into the gap). But it's worth realizing that
actually the phalanx tended to break up even on
virtually flat ground.

You can see the tendency if you look at the sources
for Alexander's battles. Annoyingly very little of the
primary evidence for Alexander is on the internet, but
it's Diodorus, Arrian, and Plutarch. Most of his
battles were fought on very flat ground (because
Alexander always made sure he got to choose the
battlefield) and with very experienced and disciplined
men (the ones used by Philip V and Antiochus against
the Romans were much less so). But even so, if you
look at the descriptions of the battles you'll see
that in almost all of them the phalanx was actually
beginning to break up, and in some cases losing quite
badly.

Of course that's where Alexander's personal tactical
mastery comes in, because that's precisely the moment
when he brings the cavalry in and saves the battle
every time. Without a commander of the calibre of
Philip II or Alexander, the phalanx was a decidedly
unreliable formation, despite its obvious benefits.





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29958 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2004-11-03
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
A. Apollonius Cordus Cn. Julio Caesari Corneliano
omnibusque sal.

I can understand why you're thinking about STV as it
would relate to a modern legislative chamber, but, as
I said to Troianus, it's important to consider the
effect not only on the tribunes but on the whole
constitutional system. The Roman constitution was a
very tightly interwoven thing, and every part affects
every other part.

The upshot is that, although electing tribunes by STV
may seem, when considered on its own, a bad idea, it
works extremely when when placed in the wider
constitution because it counterbalances the consules,
elected in the majoritarian comitia centuriata which
is biased in favour of the political elite (and
actually ought to be more biased, because our current
set-up is much less strongly weighted than the ancient
assembly was). So, like the two houses of a democratic
legislature, the concilium plebis (with the tribunes
as its officers) and the comitia centuriata (with the
consules as its officers) represent two different ways
of expressing the will of essentially the same
community, in order to ensure that neither aspect is
dominated by the other.

It's a very clever system, and sadly our current
reconstruction fails to do it justice. I hope we'll
soon see some moves to improve on the current system.





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29959 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2004-11-03
Subject: Rome, international law &c. revisited
A. Apollonius Cordus omnibus sal.

We were talking a while back about Romans and moderns,
and someone said that the Romans would have laughed at
the idea of putting soldiers on trial for torturing or
killing enemy civilians and suchlike.

Well, here's an interesting episode from Diodorus
XXIV.12, set during the war against the Carthaginians:

"The mother of the young men was bitter at the death
of her husband, and believing that he had died of
neglect she made her sons maltreat the prisoners. They
were accordingly cooped up in an extremely narrow
room, where for lack of space they were forced to make
do by contorting their bodies like coiling serpents.
Later, when they had been deprived of food for five
days, Bodostor died of despair and privation.
Hamilcar, however, being a man of exceptional spirit,
held out...

When he was at the point of death as a result of the
effluvia from the corpse and his general maltreatment,
some of the household slaves recounted to certain
persons what was going on. They were scandalized, and
reported it to the tribunes. Since in any case the
cruelty that had been revealed was shocking, the
magistrates summoned the Atilii and very nearly
brought them to trial on a capital charge, on the
ground that they were bringing disgrace upon Rome; and
they threatened to exact fitting punishment from them
if they should not bestow all possible care upon the
prisoners."

(That's from the Loeb edition, translated by Walton.)

And while we're in the area, here's an interesting
example from Livy (VI.1.6) which apparently shows a
Roman being prosecuted for a breach of international
law (jus gentium):

"Quintus Fabius had no sooner quitted his magistracy
than he was indicted by Gnaeus Marcius, a tribune of
the plebs, on the ground of having fought in violation
of the law of nations [contra jus gentium] against the
Gauls, to whom he had been sent as an envoy - a trial
which he escaped by a death so opportune that the
majority believed it voluntary."

(Loeb edition, trans. Foster.)

Not so different to the modern world after all, then...





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29960 From: t_octavius_salvius Date: 2004-11-03
Subject: Re: Greeks v Romans
Salvete Corde

> How strange - I think you're the first citizen I've
> ever conversed with by e-mail *after* meeting in
> person for the first time!

Well, I'm all for setting precedents!

Thank you for your answer. It has been catalogued with the rest!
What really amazes me about Alexander was that he was able to take a
force of heavily armed infantrymen, equipped with heavy armour,
across some of the hottest and most barren terrain in the Ancient
world. And still win at the end of it.

Persian soldiers tended to wear light armour (if I remember rightly,
they carried something akin to wicker shields) because of the
practicality. So how did he do it?

By the way, I hope my first attempt at properly-declined Latin at
the beginning is accurate.

valete

Salvius
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29961 From: Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus Date: 2004-11-03
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Salve Caesar et salvete omnes~

On Tuesday, November 2, 2004, at 10:48 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar wrote:

> Anyway - you have so helpfully instructed Cornelianus on ML
> protocol, I am sure he won't forget to look out for lurking
> plagiarists :)

Several of NR's leading Citizens keep a folder marked "Good Ideas" in
their computer. To the best of my knowledge, they have ALWAYS given
credit where credit is due for the sources of these ideas.

Thus it is not plagiarism, nor is it "lurking". All of NR's leadership
are openly enrolled on the Main List, and good ideas are what keeps the
organization improving. Look at the latest recruiting idea, Going
Roman, which has since moved to the Egressus list: Senator Audens has
credited EVERY person who has contributed to the idea and effort.

Perhaps you have some bizarre notion that NR should not improve, that
good ideas should be kept to oneself lest something you consider
dreadful like Progress should happen....

Once again the word "Boni" proves to be ironic ~ What's "good" about
shielding good ideas lest they be used?

~ Troianus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29962 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2004-11-03
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Salve Troianus.

I was endeavouring to point out to Cornelianus to take your
strictures with a pinch of salt. As to the rest of your post, since
you missed the point of my post to him I won't even bother to address
it.

Vale
Caesar


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus
<hermeticagnosis@e...> wrote:
> Salve Caesar et salvete omnes~
>
> On Tuesday, November 2, 2004, at 10:48 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar
wrote:
>
> > Anyway - you have so helpfully instructed Cornelianus on ML
> > protocol, I am sure he won't forget to look out for lurking
> > plagiarists :)
>
> Several of NR's leading Citizens keep a folder marked "Good Ideas"
in
> their computer. To the best of my knowledge, they have ALWAYS
given
> credit where credit is due for the sources of these ideas.
>
> Thus it is not plagiarism, nor is it "lurking". All of NR's
leadership
> are openly enrolled on the Main List, and good ideas are what keeps
the
> organization improving. Look at the latest recruiting idea, Going
> Roman, which has since moved to the Egressus list: Senator Audens
has
> credited EVERY person who has contributed to the idea and effort.
>
> Perhaps you have some bizarre notion that NR should not improve,
that
> good ideas should be kept to oneself lest something you consider
> dreadful like Progress should happen....
>
> Once again the word "Boni" proves to be ironic ~ What's "good"
about
> shielding good ideas lest they be used?
>
> ~ Troianus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29963 From: Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus Date: 2004-11-03
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Salvete Cornelianus, Caesar et omnes ~

On Tuesday, November 2, 2004, at 10:51 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar wrote:
>
> Salve Cornelianus.
>
> Now now - don't take Troianus seriously. I don't.

Consider the source, Cornelianus. Caesar has a reputation.

> I consider your
> input and indeed anyone's valuable,

Likewise, which is why I was urging Cornelius to take it seriously.

> and now you know that Troianus
> is waiting to collect any gem of an idea you have and run off and
> insert it into the constituion re-write, you can act accordlingly.
>
You give me too much credit, Caesar: I'm not doing the re-write, I'm
just one of many interested Citizens who are participating in the
discussions. Consul Marinus is leading the re-write effort, with the
help of several learned Citizens. *NOT* including myself ~ I'm merely
participating in the discussions and am not involved in the actual
Constitution re-write.

I should also point out that this re-write has been urged by the author
of our current Constitution, Vedius Germanicus, in order that we may
fix its many flaws in a coherent document instead of many patch-work
Leges.

To this end, the ideas and input of ALL interested Citizens is
encouraged, hence my urging Cornelius to take such discussions as we
have been having on the ML seriously: The office of Tribune is in
serious need of reform. Many aspects of the current Constitution need
to be fixed, and all Citizens are encouraged to participate.

> Vale
> Caesar

Vale
~ Troianus
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gn. Julius Caesar Cornelianus"
> <julius_cornelianus@y...> wrote:
>>
>> "If you don't take this discussion seriously, then why are you
> involving yourself in it?"
>>
>> --Very well consider me through with it...buh-bye
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> Do You Yahoo!?
>> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>> http://mail.yahoo.com
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29964 From: Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus Date: 2004-11-03
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Salve Caesar ~

What point is that? You were quite clear in recommending that
Cornelius NOT participate in serious discussions lest his ideas
actually get used.

Of course, you also failed to tell him of a single instance of ideas
being used without credit being given ~ in other words, you engaged in
unsubstantiated fearmongering.

Why are you trying to discourage him from participating in discussions
that could lead to the improvement of NR?

One purpose of discussing Constitutional matters is so the new
Constitution will actually be done right the first time, instead of
being kicked back for constant revision.

Those who are doing the writing are looking for all the feedback and
good ideas they can get.

The discussions about the Tribunes involved other people as well ~ Are
you also recommending to Cornelianus that he avoid discussions with
Cordus, just because of your personal dislike of me? I hope
Cornelianus can see you for what you are, and will take what you say
with many grains of salt and form his own opinions.

Vale
~ Troianus

On Wednesday, November 3, 2004, at 04:22 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar
wrote:

>
>
> Salve Troianus.
>
> I was endeavouring to point out to Cornelianus to take your
> strictures with a pinch of salt. As to the rest of your post, since
> you missed the point of my post to him I won't even bother to address
> it.
>
> Vale
> Caesar
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus
> <hermeticagnosis@e...> wrote:
>> Salve Caesar et salvete omnes~
>>
>> On Tuesday, November 2, 2004, at 10:48 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar
> wrote:
>>
>>> Anyway - you have so helpfully instructed Cornelianus on ML
>>> protocol, I am sure he won't forget to look out for lurking
>>> plagiarists :)
>>
>> Several of NR's leading Citizens keep a folder marked "Good Ideas"
> in
>> their computer. To the best of my knowledge, they have ALWAYS
> given
>> credit where credit is due for the sources of these ideas.
>>
>> Thus it is not plagiarism, nor is it "lurking". All of NR's
> leadership
>> are openly enrolled on the Main List, and good ideas are what keeps
> the
>> organization improving. Look at the latest recruiting idea, Going
>> Roman, which has since moved to the Egressus list: Senator Audens
> has
>> credited EVERY person who has contributed to the idea and effort.
>>
>> Perhaps you have some bizarre notion that NR should not improve,
> that
>> good ideas should be kept to oneself lest something you consider
>> dreadful like Progress should happen....
>>
>> Once again the word "Boni" proves to be ironic ~ What's "good"
> about
>> shielding good ideas lest they be used?
>>
>> ~ Troianus
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29965 From: Gn. Julius Caesar Cornelianus Date: 2004-11-03
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
"Cornelius NOT participate in serious discussions lest his ideas actually get used."

--He has never directly told me not to particpate in any conversation.

"in other words, you engaged in unsubstantiated fearmongering."

--I have no fear based upon his words.

"Why are you trying to discourage him from participating in discussions that could lead to the improvement of NR?"

--I am not discouraged nor has he discouraged me or made any effort to do so...I can choose willfully on my own when to engage in a discussion and when to withdraw...

"One purpose of discussing Constitutional matters is so the new
Constitution will actually be done right the first time, instead of being kicked back for constant revision."

--I can't wait to see it...Can I throw in a Moderati snipe here since the Boni were brought previosuly? Or better yet how about the whole Boni/Moderati business be left on the back burner where it has been for a while

"Are you also recommending to Cornelianus that he avoid discussions with Cordus, just because of your personal dislike of me?"

--I need not any member of the Nova Roman communities opinion of you or their recommendation on engaging in discussions...I have already seen how some arrogantly respond to anything I say and I can decide what I think of them based on my own observations....

"I hope Cornelianus can see you for what you are, and will take what you say with many grains of salt and form his own opinions."

Vale,

Gnaeus Julius Caesar Cornelianus


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com/a

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29966 From: Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus Date: 2004-11-03
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Salve Cornelianus ~

On Wednesday, November 3, 2004, at 05:26 PM, Gn. Julius Caesar
Cornelianus wrote:
>
> "Cornelius NOT participate in serious discussions lest his ideas
> actually get used."
>
> --He has never directly told me not to particpate in any conversation.
>
Not in a direct and declarative way, but it was certainly what he was
recommending.

> "in other words, you engaged in unsubstantiated fearmongering."
>
> --I have no fear based upon his words.
>
That's good, however his statements could have had that effect upon
other new Citizens and they need to know that their contributions to
discussions are encouraged and appreciated.

> "Why are you trying to discourage him from participating in
> discussions that could lead to the improvement of NR?"
>
> --I am not discouraged nor has he discouraged me or made any effort to
> do so...I can choose willfully on my own when to engage in a
> discussion and when to withdraw...

Yes, he most certainly did ~ go back and re-read what Caesar wrote.
It's good that you choose to decide for yourself.
>
> "One purpose of discussing Constitutional matters is so the new
> Constitution will actually be done right the first time, instead of
> being kicked back for constant revision."
>
> --I can't wait to see it...Can I throw in a Moderati snipe here since
> the Boni were brought previosuly? Or better yet how about the whole
> Boni/Moderati business be left on the back burner where it has been
> for a while

Just pointing out that Caesar was intervening from a partisan
perspective: It had nothing to do with ideas or "plagiarism" and
everything to do with the politics of the people involved.
>
> "Are you also recommending to Cornelianus that he avoid discussions
> with Cordus, just because of your personal dislike of me?"
>
> --I need not any member of the Nova Roman communities opinion of you
> or their recommendation on engaging in discussions...I have already
> seen how some arrogantly respond to anything I say and I can decide
> what I think of them based on my own observations....

Then tell that to Caesar: He was the one trying to influence your
involvement in discussions through his false accusations of
plagiaristic intent.
>
> "I hope Cornelianus can see you for what you are, and will take what
> you say with many grains of salt and form his own opinions."
>

> Vale,
>
> Gnaeus Julius Caesar Cornelianus

Vale
~ S E M Troianus
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com/a
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29967 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2004-11-04
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
Salve Troianus.

It was a jocular comment, irrespective of whether you consider it
so - it was. Take the starch out of your shirt once in a while and
try not to take everything so seriously. I suppose I should have
added "charge royalties if he does use an idea", then that may have
provided an extra hint that that part was not serious. In future,
for your benefit, I will include [jocular comment] to indicate I am
joking. I have in fact encouraged him to contribute.

My serious point in that post was to encourage Cornelianus not to
withdraw from the debate, just on account of your latest lecture to
him.

As for disliking you - I don't know you. In fact you barely figure
on my radar scale at all - the smallest of blips. You by contrast
appear to have had Cornelianus firmly in your sights ever since you
incorrectly concluded he was a misogynist. I haven't concluded yet
whether through such posts of yours you just hope to bait him into a
response he will regret.

As for Egressus - I am fully aware of that project as I happen to be
one of those coordinating Egressus's contribution through the
development of a website for Egressus with content directed at
assisting those involved in their goals.

Vale
Caesar

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Servius Equitius Mercurius
Troianus <hermeticagnosis@e...> wrote:
> Salve Cornelianus ~
>
> On Wednesday, November 3, 2004, at 05:26 PM, Gn. Julius Caesar
> Cornelianus wrote:
> >
> > "Cornelius NOT participate in serious discussions lest his ideas
> > actually get used."
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29968 From: Gn. Julius Caesar Cornelianus Date: 2004-11-04
Subject: Re: Tribunes and PR
"Not in a direct and declarative way, but it was certainly what he was recommending."

--I do not see as such but ok...

"That's good, however his statements could have had that effect upon other new Citizens and they need to know that their contributions to discussions are encouraged and appreciated."

--and I'll provide you with his words "I consider your input and indeed anyone's valuable" so they are clearly not cast aside and neglected...In respect to other cives they should want to participate and contribute and not be discouraged in the least by anyone's words...I certainly didn't back down over the Religio matter when I had everyone and their cousin coming after me. Nor will I back down from anything else...Marcus Audens has given due credit because those working to move Go Roman! forward went to him regarding the involvement of Egressus in the endeavour...They sought his opinion on it and the involvement of Egressus...As it is I'm probably not held in high regard by some but they does not stop me from making the effort to be involved in some aspect of Nova Roman affairs...

"Yes, he most certainly did"

--Tell me why are you trying to smear him? Why do you try and portray him as some kind of bad nugget in Nova Roma or a bad man? What does it matter if he is Boni or not? Suggesting someone opposes progress or finds it "dreadful" isn't exactly complimentary. Perhaps the Moderati have a different view on progress. Perhaps I share Boni views. Perhaps I would find the Moderati progress a darn retardation of Nova Roma. But lets just start another BS Moderati Boni flame war over yet again something so freaking stupid.

"Just pointing out that Caesar was intervening from a partisan
perspective"

--Perhaps I have a partisan perspective...Recall our little Religio debate? I do. Shall we pick that up to where we left off? As I recall we left off where I accused you of hypocrisy and you proceeded to accuse me of slander while at the same time accusing me of being a misogynist. I see slander in this case would have a lopsided definition.

"Then tell that to Caesar"

--No need to.

"He was the one trying to influence your involvement"

--Actually he has encouraged my involvement in several things. Go Roman being one of them.

Vale,

Cornelianus

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29969 From: Gnaeus Equitius Marinus Date: 2004-11-04
Subject: Ancient Roman Skin Cream Gave Women Beautiful Complexion
From Medical News Today

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=15884#

04 Nov 2004

Ancient Roman women had beautiful skin, apparently, they had a
foundation skin cream which until recently, no one knew how to
reproduce. Researchers at the University of Bristol, UK, have recreated
the 2000 year old cosmetic skin cream.

They managed to do this because an original was discovered in perfect
condition during an archaeological excavation in London.

During the Roman Empire, Roman women in London used to use this
foundation cream. The cream is made of refined animal fat, starch and tin.

When you apply it to your face you have a smooth, white powdery texture
- probably due to the starch, say the researchers.

Romans loved white faces. Tin, say the researchers, was a better option
than lead, because tin is not toxic. Lead had been a popular ingredient
for cosmetics throughout history.

The original cream was found in its metal container in perfect condition.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29970 From: FAC Date: 2004-11-04
Subject: Re: Ancient Roman Skin Cream Gave Women Beautiful Complexion
Salvete Omnes,

pictures about the roman cream discovered in UK are published by the
italian newspaper La Repubblica at
http://www.repubblica.it/2003/e/gallerie/scienzaetecnologia/romancrea
m/1.html

valete
Fr. Apulus Caesar

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Equitius Marinus
<gawne@c...> wrote:
> From Medical News Today
>
> http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=15884#
>
> 04 Nov 2004
>
> Ancient Roman women had beautiful skin, apparently, they had a
> foundation skin cream which until recently, no one knew how to
> reproduce. Researchers at the University of Bristol, UK, have
recreated
> the 2000 year old cosmetic skin cream.
>
> They managed to do this because an original was discovered in
perfect
> condition during an archaeological excavation in London.
>
> During the Roman Empire, Roman women in London used to use this
> foundation cream. The cream is made of refined animal fat, starch
and tin.
>
> When you apply it to your face you have a smooth, white powdery
texture
> - probably due to the starch, say the researchers.
>
> Romans loved white faces. Tin, say the researchers, was a better
option
> than lead, because tin is not toxic. Lead had been a popular
ingredient
> for cosmetics throughout history.
>
> The original cream was found in its metal container in perfect
condition.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29971 From: Numerius Gladius Bibulus Date: 2004-11-04
Subject: Re: Ancient Roman Skin Cream Gave Women Beautiful Complexion
The BBC had this story with a photo here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3978775.stm

I thought this was interesting: "Marks left by the last fingers to use
the cream pot were still visible on the lid." Amazing, something
bearing the indentation of it's Roman owner being found in such
perfect condition.

On the other hand, it does not sound like it would make much of a gift
for a loved one: "I remember when the jar was opened I took a sharp
step backwards. The smell was strong and pungent; it smelt of rotten
eggs." Lovely!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29972 From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) Date: 2004-11-04
Subject: Re: Ancient Roman Skin Cream Gave Women Beautiful Complexion
Salvete omnes,

Well after 2000 years one would expect to see some deterioration of
a sealed animal fat product. I doubt it would be much worse though
than being around during the aftermath of a chili eating contest or
being near people in a small room who had been drinking Guiness all
night just as I was a few weeks ago! Lovely as well!

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus




--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Numerius Gladius Bibulus"
<bobochan_vt@y...> wrote:
>
> The BBC had this story with a photo here:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3978775.stm
>
> I thought this was interesting: "Marks left by the last fingers to
use
> the cream pot were still visible on the lid." Amazing, something
> bearing the indentation of it's Roman owner being found in such
> perfect condition.
>
> On the other hand, it does not sound like it would make much of a
gift
> for a loved one: "I remember when the jar was opened I took a sharp
> step backwards. The smell was strong and pungent; it smelt of
rotten
> eggs." Lovely!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29973 From: Salix Cantaber Uranicus Date: 2004-11-04
Subject: A question for the Aediles plebei
Salvete.


Only some questions about the Ludi Plebei

The Munera and the Venationes is the same spectacle or they are separate events?

Can I participate in both spectacles?

Can I send two gladiators to the Munera and other two to theVenationes?

Thank you.

Valete bene.

Q. Salix Cantaber Uranicus


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29974 From: Emilia Curia Finnica Date: 2004-11-04
Subject: LUDI PLEBEII has begun!
EMILIA CURIA FINNICA AEDILIS PLEBIS QUIRITIBUS SPD,

As an Aedilis Plebis elected by the people of Nova Roma I declare the
Ludi Plebeii 2757 officially opened starting from today, November 4th.
Although Ludi Plebeii is originally a plebeian festival, everyone is
invited to honour Iuppiter with participation and offerings. The
festivities last for fourteen days and follow this program:

4th November Opening of the Ludi
5th November History of Ludi Plebeii and Juppiter
6th November Venationes
7th November Venationes
8th November Munera
9th November Munera
10th November Quiz 1
11th November Quiz 2
12th November Quiz 3
13th November Quiz 4
14th November Quiz 5
15th November Ludi Circenses Quarter Races
16th November Ludi Circenses Semifinal Races
17th November Ludi Circenses Final Races, Closing

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

The official website:
http://www.insulaumbra.com/aediles/emiliacuria/index_ludiplebeii.html

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

Subscribe to the events of the festival:

-Venationes, send your subscription NOW!
-Munera
-Ludi Circenses

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*


----------


VENATIONES
November 6th - 7th
SUBSCRIPTIONS ACCEPTED UNTIL NOVEMBER 5TH!

The players can choose two gladiators, animals or both. The player will
have to order the aedilis a message, send it to Quintus Caecilius
Metellus Postumianus at jonlr@..., with the following
information:

-header "Venationes"
-name of the gladiator or animal
-type of gladiator or animal
-the tactics, that he will choose among these three:

1) "Defensive" tactics. It adds one point, but the gladiator or animal
has 40 % of probabilities of surviving in case of defeat, because the
public does not like these tactics.
2) "Yourself" tactics. It neither adds nor take points. 50 % of
probabilities of which the public asks for the death in case of defeat.
3) "Total attack" tactics. It reduced one point, but the gladiator or
animal has 65 % of probabilities of surviving in case of defeat,
because the public likes these tactics.

For more information about types of gladiators, animals and tactics see
for the RULES at:
http://www.insulaumbra.com/aediles/emiliacuria/index_ple_venationes.html

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*


----------


MUNERA
November 8th - 9th
SUBSCRIPTIONS ACCEPTED UNTIL NOVEMBER 7TH!

The players can choose two gladiators, animals or both. The player will
have to order the aedilis a message, send it to Quintus Caecilius
Metellus Postumianus at jonlr@..., with the following
information:

-header "Munera"
-name of the gladiator or animal
-type of gladiator or animal
-the tactics, that he will choose among these three:

1) "Defensive" tactics. It adds one point, but the gladiator or animal
has 40 % of probabilities of surviving in case of defeat, because the
public does not like these tactics.
2) "Yourself" tactics. It neither adds nor take points. 50 % of
probabilities of which the public asks for the death in case of defeat.
3) "Total attack" tactics. It reduced one point, but the gladiator or
animal has 65 % of probabilities of surviving in case of defeat,
because the public likes these tactics.

For more information about types of gladiators, animals and tactics see
for the RULES at:
http://www.insulaumbra.com/aediles/emiliacuria/
index_ple_gladiatorii.html

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*


----------


LUDI CIRCENSES
November 15th - 17th
SUBSCRIPTIONS ACCEPTED UNTIL NOVEMBER 12TH!

An entrant who wishes to participate in the Ludi Circenses must send a
subscription to Quintus Caecilius Metellus Postumianus at
jonlr@.... Each subscription must bear the subject header
"Ludi Circenses" and include the following information:

A. His/her name in Nova Roma;
B. The name of his/her driver;
C. The name of his/her chariot;
D. His/her tactics for the Quarter and Semifinals;
E. His/her tactics for the Finals;
F. The name of his/her "factio" or team (Albata, Praesina, Russata, or
Veneta);
G. Dirty actions against another factio in a specific round
(quarter-final, semi-final, or final) and amount of sesterces paid in
support of it (an entrant does not have to pay sesterces to commission
a dirty action, but doing so increases the chances of success);
H. Defence against dirty actions in a specific round (quarter-final,
semi-final, or final) and amount of sesterces paid in support of it (an
entrant does not have to pay sesterces to defend against a dirty
action, but doing so decreases the chances of success of the dirty
action);
I. If sesterces from multiple entrants are pooled to take a dirty
action or defend against a dirty action, the subscription of each
entrant of the pool must so indicate.

For more specific information about dirty actions and tactics, have a
look at the RULES at:
http://www.insulaumbra.com/aediles/emiliacuria/index_ple_circenses.html

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

Valete,

Emilia Curia Finnica
Scriba Araniae Academia Thules ad Studia Romana Antiqua et Nova
Aedilis Plebis

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29975 From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) Date: 2004-11-05
Subject: Cost Of Living In Ancient Rome
Salvete omnes,

I wondered how we would have fared from day to day living in Ancient
Rome. I found interesting data here. The only thing not covered is
the cost of slaves which like the Old American South, was well
beyond the income of your average middle class joe.


What things cost in Ancient Rome
When studying Ancient Rome, it is only natural to wonder what the
price of everyday items might have
been. In order to fully understand the price of an item, you must
also consider the wages workers
received at the time the item was purchased.
Before you study the information below, it is helpful to understand
that professions were valued
differently in ancient times than they are today. Likewise, the
value of items was different then than
now. For instance, in today's world, one might spend 20% of their
total income on food, but in ancient
times the cost may have been 50% or more of one's total income. In
fact, during parts of the history of
Rome, food costs were so high that without free wheat subsidies from
the government, the common
people would not have been able to survive! These subsidies were
known as `doles' and according to
AEJ Morris's History of Urban Form [1970 George Godwin LTD], up to
1/3 of the citizens of the capital city
received this public assistance.
Grain formed the foundation of the common Roman's diet. It was not
uncommon for grain to be the
only thing a poor Roman ever ate. The cost of baking bread was very
high to a poor Roman, so if no
access to a communal, public oven could be had, the grain would be
crushed and made into a porridge
known as `puls' that was likely similar in taste and texture to
modern polenta. While we take it for
granted today, meat was an extravagant luxury that most Romans could
not afford to indulge in.
Clothing was another expensive proposition. One `libra' (Roman
pound, just under _ of a modern
pound - 326 grams), of fine silk cost more than a dozen human
beings. It seems absurd to us today, but
such was the case, because Ancient Romans lacked the production
machines of today that make cheap
fabric possible. For the commoners, fashion was not a consideration-
clothing was utilitarian, had to be
durable, and was patched until finally the garment became the thing
from which patches were taken for
its replacement.
Historically, the cost of living has expanded to consume all of the
income that is available to the
majority of the people in the society. As technology has enabled
faster production, technology has also
introduced new things to consume the income the increased
productivity creates. The ancient Romans
did not have many things to pay for in comparison to life today, yet
it was every bit as much a struggle
for them to survive as it is today- and probably, it was even more
of a struggle for them.
As you read the data below, consider what you might have been in
Ancient Rome. Would you have
been a carpenter? A mason? Would you have been fortunate enough to
receive an education and
become an advocate (ancient equivalent of the modern lawyer)? Pick
your profession, and then take a
look at the kind of food and clothing you would have been able to
afford. You might gain a new
appreciation for modern life!
All the prices and wages are listed in denarii communes, which were
not actually silver denarii as we
usually think of when discussing ancient Roman coinage. Denarii
communes, or d.c., were notational
currency. What this means is, an exchange rate was given, telling
how much of the currency in
circulation at that time (nummii) it took to equal one d.c. This
made it easy to change the value of the
money in circulation, without having to rewrite and redistribute the
entire Edict. A series of exchange
tables are at the end of this handout.
Wages in 301 AD in the Roman Empire
All data based on Diocletian's "Edict of Maximum Prices" issued in
301 AD
General Laborers
brick maker, for every 4 fired bricks and preparation of the
clay ................ 2
brick maker, for every 8 sun dried bricks, and preparation of the
clay......... 2
clerk (based on specified bath attendant
wage) ........................................... 25
farm laborer, with
maintenance .........................................................
......... 25
lime burner, with
maintenance .........................................................
.......... 50
mule driver, camel driver, with
maintenance .............................................. 25
sewer cleaner, working a full day, with
maintenance .................................. 25
shepherd, with
maintenance .........................................................
.............. 25
water carrier, working a full day, with
maintenance.................................... 25
all other general
labor................................................................
................. 25
Skilled Laborers
barber, per
customer.............................................................
...................... 2
cabinet maker, with
maintenance..........................................................
...... 50
carpenter, with maintenance,
daily .............................................................
50
stone mason, with
maintenance .........................................................
......... 50
figure painter, with
maintenance .........................................................
....... 150
fuller (Wool weaver), per
cloak................................................................
.. 175
marble paving and walls custodian, with
maintenance................................ 60
wall mosaics worker, with
maintenance ..................................................... 60
model maker, with
maintenance .........................................................
........ 75
other plaster worker, with
maintenance........................................... 50
parchment maker, for a quaternion, white or yellow
parchment.................. 40
shipwright of a river vessel, with
maintenance ........................................... 50
shipwright of a seagoing vessel, with
maintenance ..................................... 60
tessellated floormaker , with
maintenance .................................................. 50
wagon blacksmith, with
maintenance .........................................................
50
wagonwright, with
maintenance .........................................................
........ 50
wall painter, with
maintenance .........................................................
.......... 75
Professionals
advocate, for opening a
case.................................................................
...... 250
for pleading a
case.................................................................
..................... 1000
scribe, for the best writing 100
lines ........................................................... 25
for second quality
writing .............................................................
.. 20
secretary............................................................
......................................... 35
notary, for writing a petition or legal
document .......................................... 10
Teachers in Ancient Rome
A teacher in ancient Rome would have lived in the home of a wealthy
patrician, who would have
provided the teacher with food and clothing appropriate to the
house. The teacher would not
have had much spending money, but would have lived comfortably just
the same. These are
salaries in denarii per month, per student.
elementary
teacher..............................................................
............ 50
arithmetic
teacher .............................................................
.............. 75
greek or Latin literature or
Geometry.............................................. 200
teacher of rhetoric or public
speaking ............................................. 250
Soldiers in Ancient Rome
Soldiering was one of the best ways a Roman male could provide for
his family. The base wage was
low, not enough to live on. Four times a year, a soldier received
a "Donative" greater than his annual
base pay. Additionally, soldiers received an annual "Annona" subsidy
for grain purchases. The best
soldiers hoped to be recruited to the Praetorian Guard, the soldiers
who guarded the Emperor. These
soldiers were paid roughly 3 times the base wage of the average
soldier, and likely enjoyed many
additional privileges as well.
Soldiers had high expenses in their profession, but they still came
out much better than the average
citizen even after expenses. The soldiers were expected to pay for
much of their own equipment,
rations, and clothing. They even had to pay part of the cost of
burial for their fallen from their unit.
Soldiers' Pay:
average Roman
soldier,annually.....................................................
............ 1800
Praetorian Guard,
annually.............................................................
............ 5500
annual grain annona (1 per
year) ...............................................................
. 600
donative (4 per
year) ...............................................................
................... 2500
Additionally, every soldier received a grain allotment of
30 modii of wheat per year that would be
worth.............................. 3000
Total Annual Pay for an average Roman
Soldier ........................................ 15,400
For a Praetorian
Guard ...............................................................
................ 19,100
Compare that to a general laborer working 305 days a
year ...................................................7625
Soldiers' Costs:
boots, without
hobnails ............................................................
.................. 100
shoes,
soldiers ............................................................
................................ 75
saddle...............................................................
.......................................... 500
polisher, for a
sword................................................................
................... 25
for a
helmet ..............................................................
........................... 25
for an
axe .................................................................
........................... 6
for a double
axe..................................................................
................. 8
for a sword
scabbard.............................................................
............... 100
Prices in 301 AD in the Roman Empire
All data based on Diocletian's "Edict of Maximum Prices" issued in
301 AD
The Edict of Maximum Prices was an attempt to control runaway
inflation and poverty in the Empire.
The penalty for exceeding the prices of the Edict was severe: death.
Not satisfied to execute just the
seller, Diocletian decreed that the buyer was to be executed as
well. As a final measure, if a seller
refused to sell his goods at the stated price, the penalty was death.
Food
Dry Foods
Prices refer to one modius unless otherwise indicated. 1 modius=8
liters dry measure.
alfalfa
seed.................................................................
................................ 150
barley...............................................................
.......................................... 60
barley,
cleaned .............................................................
.............................. 100
beans................................................................
.......................................... 60
beans,
crushed..............................................................
.............................. 100
chickpeas ...........................................................
........................................ 100
flaxseed.............................................................
......................................... 150
hayseed .............................................................
......................................... 30
lentils .............................................................
............................................ 100
millet,
crushed..............................................................
.............................. 100
millet,
whole ...............................................................
............................... 50
oats ................................................................
............................................ 30
peas,
crushed..............................................................
................................ 100
peas.................................................................
........................................... 60
rice,
cleaned .............................................................
.................................. 200
rye..................................................................
............................................ 60
salt ................................................................
............................................. 100
sesame ..............................................................
......................................... 200
wheat ...............................................................
.......................................... 100
Fruits & Vegetables
cabbage or lettuce,
head ................................................................
............. _
dessert grapes,
libra................................................................
.................... 1
fenugreek,
modius...............................................................
....................... 100
peaches, one, up
to ..................................................................
................... _
Prices in 301 AD in the Roman Empire
Food (continued)
Meats and Fish
Prices refer to one libra unless otherwise noted. 1 libra=326 grams
or just under _ pound.
beef.................................................................
........................................... 8
chicken..............................................................
......................................... 60
fish,
freshwater...........................................................
................................ 12
second
quality..............................................................
................... 8
fish,
saltwater............................................................
................................. 25
second
quality..............................................................
................... 16
goose,
fattened ............................................................
............................... 200
not
fattened.............................................................
........................ 100
goat.................................................................
........................................... 12
lamb.................................................................
.......................................... 12
pheasant, depending on
variety..............................................................
..... 125-250
pork ................................................................
........................................... 12
sausage, depending on
variety .............................................................
....... 10-16
Wine, Beer & Oil
Prices refer to one sextarius. 1 sextarius=1.14 Pints or .546 liters
beer, Celtic or
Pannonian ...........................................................
................ 4
Egyptian ............................................................
............................. 2
Aminean, Falernian, Picene, Sabine, Tiburtine regional
wines.................... 30
aged
wine.................................................................
.................................. 24
second
quality..............................................................
................... 16
chrysattic
wine ................................................................
........................... 24
Maeonian wine, boiled down one-
third....................................................... 30
must, boiled
down.................................................................
..................... 16
must, boiled down one-
half ................................................................
........ 20
rose
wine.................................................................
................................... 20
spiced
wine ................................................................
................................ 24
wine with
wormwood.............................................................
.................... 20
vin ordinaire (ordinary
wine)................................................................
...... 8
olive oil,
fresh ...............................................................
............................. 40
second
quality..............................................................
................... 24
liquamen (fish sauce
seasoning) ..........................................................
....... 16
second
quality..............................................................
................... 12
vinegar and wine
vinegar .............................................................
.............. 6
Prices in 301 AD in the Roman Empire
Clothing
Fabric
Prices are per item or libra for raw materials.
african
cloak ...............................................................
............................... 500
Dalmatian
tunic................................................................
.......................... 2000
hooded cloak,
Laodicean............................................................
................ 4500
soldier's winter
tunic................................................................
.................. 75
wool from
Tarentum ............................................................
...................... 75
white
silk ................................................................
................................... 12,000
purple silk
† ...................................................................
............................. 150,000
† Purple silk was to be used only at the direction of the Emperor
under penalty of death.
Boots and Shoes
boots for mule drivers or farm workers, without
hobnails ........................... 120
boots for soldiers, without
hobnails ............................................................
100
women's
boots ...............................................................
............................ 60
patrician's
shoes................................................................
......................... 150
senatorial
shoes ...............................................................
........................... 100
equestrian's
shoes ...............................................................
....................... 70
soldier's
shoes................................................................
............................ 75
Sandals and Gallic Sandals
double-soled Gallic sandals for farm
workers............................................. 80
single soled Gallic
sandals..............................................................
............ 50
Gallic sandals for
runners..............................................................
............. 60
women's oxhide sandals double-
soled........................................................ 50
women's oxhide sandals single-
soled ........................................................ 30
Exchange Rates of Currency to Denarii Communes
From 297 to 308 A.D.
Number of Denarii Communes exchanged for:
Period
Coin (mat'l.) 293-300 300-301 301-307
Aureus (gold) 600 1200 2400
Argenteus (silver) 25 50 100
Nummus ‡ (billon) 5 12.5 25
Radiate (billon) 2 2.5 5
Laureate (bronze) 1 1 1
‡Base Currency Unit

To determine the buying power of the currencies above for a given
time period, compare the exchange
rate of the actual currency to the prices or wages listed on the
preceding pages in denarii communes
using the formula below:
(Price from list in d.c.) X (Number of coins exchanged per d.c. from
chart above) = Cost or Wage in actual currency
Suggestions for further reading
Tenney Frank, Economic Survey of Ancient Rome (Baltimore, 1940)
Jo-Ann Shelton, As The Romans Did (New York: Oxford Univ. Press,
1998)

©2002 Mike Dalka. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and
distribute this document for any noncommercial educational purpose.
Distributed by
Ancient Coins for Education, Inc., a nonprofit corporation. PO Box
3115, Burbank, CA 91508
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29976 From: QFabiusMaxmi@aol.com Date: 2004-11-05
Subject: Re: Rome, international law &c. revisited
In a message dated 11/3/04 10:21:04 AM Pacific Standard Time,
a_apollonius_cordus@... writes:

> "Quintus Fabius had no sooner quitted his magistracy
> than he was indicted by Gnaeus Marcius, a tribune of
> the plebs, on the ground of having fought in violation
> of the law of nations [contra jus gentium] against the
> Gauls, to whom he had been sent as an envoy - a trial
> which he escaped by a death so opportune that the
> majority believed it voluntary."
>

Well, no different then Nova Roma, anyway.
Marcius was an old enemy of a Fabius, and he was out to get him. Sound
familiar?

Q. Fabius Maximus


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29977 From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) Date: 2004-11-05
Subject: Penalties For Roman Citizens?
Salvete Omnes,

Last week I was watching the series on Canadian History channel
called Megalopois where the city of ancient Rome was covered. Within
this documentary they had a sub plot about a Roman policeman who was
trying to track down a wine and garum merchant who had been altering
his imporation seals on the vessels and dotoring his books, thus
cheating the Emperor out of some tax revenue. At the end of the
program he was caught passed out in a tavern, dragged out by the
police and taken directly to the basement of the colleseum; there
was no mercy for cheating the Emperor of his dues the narrator said.
The policeman is seen buying some food at the entrance of the arena
that day and was off see the spectacle.

Knowing there were laws protecting Roman citizens from cruxcifiction
and flogging, I was surprised that a citizen who did such a thing
could be that easily arrested without a hearing and shipped to the
arena as lion fodder. Was this sort of thing the norm for citizens
or did it happen under the wing of the more eccentric eccentric
emperors?

Thanks,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29978 From: quintuscassiuscalvus Date: 2004-11-05
Subject: Re: Penalties For Roman Citizens?
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael
Kelly)" <mjk@d...> wrote:

> Knowing there were laws protecting Roman citizens from
cruxcifiction
> and flogging, I was surprised that a citizen who did such a thing
> could be that easily arrested without a hearing and shipped to the
> arena as lion fodder. Was this sort of thing the norm for citizens
> or did it happen under the wing of the more eccentric eccentric
> emperors?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Quintus Lanius Paulinus

Salve,

It all depends on the time frame. During the 3rd Century CE when
Roman citizenship was extended to all free peoples of the Empire
there was a change where the citizenry was divided into two classes
the honestiores (members of the senatorial and equestrian orders,
local officials, ect) and the humiliores (everyone else). The
honestiores got off much lighter than the humiliores for the same
crime. Generally speaking the honestiores would be fined and driven
into exile on an island (and if they were smart criminals they had a
nice villa and a goodly chunk of their wealth waiting for them)
while everyone else got the punishments formerly forbidden to be
imposed upon a citizen of Rome and were only doled out to slaves.

Vale,

Q. Cassius Calvus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29979 From: Emilia Curia Finnica Date: 2004-11-05
Subject: LUDI PLEBEII day 2
EMILIA CURIA FINNICA AEDILIS PLEBIS QUIRITIBUS SPD,

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

TODAY

-History of Ludi Plebeii and Iuppiter

Subscribe to the events of the festival:
-Munera
-Ludi Circenses

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

History of Ludi Plebeii and Iuppiter

Originally the god of the sky and it�s phenomena, Iuppiter, later
assimilated with the Greek deity Zeus, was the main god for the Romans.
As such he was called Iuppiter Optimus Maximus, but was worshipped with
numerous epithets and for different functions. Every Idus was sacred to
Iuppiter and his priest was flamen Dialis.

Iuppiter�s temple in Rome was founded on a high point on the Capitoline
hill. This major project was started by the Roman king Tarquinius
Priscus, but finished only in the early republican era. The temple
itself was impressing in size and decoration looking much like Etruscan
temples with it�s terracotta statues on top, with Iuppiter in a chariot
of four horses, and hexastylos order. Later many restaurations took
place. In the temple there were two other cellae: Iuno�s on the left
and Minerva�s on the right, the goddesses forming the Capitoline triad
with Iuppiter. Two of the many previous althars of the site also
remained within the temple: Terminus and Iuventas. This was where every
triumph would end, where the senate would have the first meeting of the
year and where newly elected consuls would make the first offering.

Ludi Plebeii, that took place in every November 4th to 17th, was
something like Ludi Romani for the common people. It was first
celebrated in 216 bcr and it included races, games and theatre
performances. The first nine days were for ludi scaenici. November 13th
was the central point of the festival with the Fiest of Iuppiter and
festivals of Feronia and Fortuna Primigenia and Pietas. It was followed
by ludi circenses. Also Mundes Patet (for Dis and Proserpina), November
8th, a cavalry parade in honour of Castor and Pollux, November 14th,
and a festival of Ceres, November 18th, coincided with the Ludi
Plebeii.

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*


----------


MUNERA
November 8th - 9th
SUBSCRIPTIONS ACCEPTED UNTIL NOVEMBER 7TH!

The players can choose two gladiators, animals or both. The player will
have to order the aedilis a message, send it to Quintus Caecilius
Metellus Postumianus at jonlr@..., with the following
information:

-header "Munera"
-name of the gladiator or animal
-type of gladiator or animal
-the tactics, that he will choose among these three:

1) "Defensive" tactics. It adds one point, but the gladiator or animal
has 40 % of probabilities of surviving in case of defeat, because the
public does not like these tactics.
2) "Yourself" tactics. It neither adds nor take points. 50 % of
probabilities of which the public asks for the death in case of defeat.
3) "Total attack" tactics. It reduced one point, but the gladiator or
animal has 65 % of probabilities of surviving in case of defeat,
because the public likes these tactics.

For more information about types of gladiators, animals and tactics see
for the RULES at:
http://www.insulaumbra.com/aediles/emiliacuria/
index_ple_gladiatorii.html

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*


----------


LUDI CIRCENSES
November 15th - 17th
SUBSCRIPTIONS ACCEPTED UNTIL NOVEMBER 12TH!

An entrant who wishes to participate in the Ludi Circenses must send a
subscription to Quintus Caecilius Metellus Postumianus at
jonlr@.... Each subscription must bear the subject header
"Ludi Circenses" and include the following information:

A. His/her name in Nova Roma;
B. The name of his/her driver;
C. The name of his/her chariot;
D. His/her tactics for the Quarter and Semifinals;
E. His/her tactics for the Finals;
F. The name of his/her "factio" or team (Albata, Praesina, Russata, or
Veneta);
G. Dirty actions against another factio in a specific round
(quarter-final, semi-final, or final) and amount of sesterces paid in
support of it (an entrant does not have to pay sesterces to commission
a dirty action, but doing so increases the chances of success);
H. Defence against dirty actions in a specific round (quarter-final,
semi-final, or final) and amount of sesterces paid in support of it (an
entrant does not have to pay sesterces to defend against a dirty
action, but doing so decreases the chances of success of the dirty
action);
I. If sesterces from multiple entrants are pooled to take a dirty
action or defend against a dirty action, the subscription of each
entrant of the pool must so indicate.

For more specific information about dirty actions and tactics, have a
look at the RULES at:
http://www.insulaumbra.com/aediles/emiliacuria/index_ple_circenses.html

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

Valete,

Emilia Curia Finnica
Scriba Araniae Academia Thules ad Studia Romana Antiqua et Nova
Aedilis Plebis

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29980 From: Legion XXIV Date: 2004-11-05
Subject: Legion XXIV Vicesima Quarta Newsletter November 2004
VICESIMA QUARTA
The Newsletter of
LEGION XXIV - MEDIA ATLANTIA

NOVEMBER 2004

Gallio Velius Marsallas / George Metz
Praefectus - Commander
13 Post Run - Newtown Square PA 19073-3014
610-353-4982
legionxxiv@... www.legionxxiv.org

Commilitones

ADVENAE - Newcomers
*** Travis Clark (Gaius Vibidius Falco) tlclark@... is signing on as a conscribere recruit. He hails from Drexel Hill, PA, only 8 miles from the Legion Castra. Gaius is a historian at Temple University and is working on his PHD. His primarily focus is the Late Roman - Early Byzantine, an impression we can use to expand the periods represented during our events. We certainly look forward to having him with us at upcoming events.
*** Robert Ivinson rivinson@... has is joining-up as a conscribere recruit. Being 6 foot 3, and from nearby Randolph, NJ, he should be an asset to the Legion as a Roman "giant" in our ranks.
*** Remy Pohl has come onboard as a Squire recruit. He will be learning the ropes and assisting with Legion duties as he gets more experience and assembles his kit.
*** Christopher Reid Neilson (Marcus Velius Crispian) crneilson@... has become a member of our NovaRoma Family Gens Velia. He is from Richmond VA and is interested in many of the ancient aspects of Rome.
*** Gaius Velius Caesar sammic@... from Cantania, Italy has joined NovaRoma and has elected to become a member of our Gens Velia.
*** Please join me in welcoming these new members to our ranks.

RETURN TO WINTER QUARTERS
As the Legion completes a rather full and successful 2004 campaign season and returns to Winter Quarters, it is hoped that our legionaries will take the time to clean, repair, improve and possibly add-to their gear and equipment. The 2005 Campaign Season promises to be at least as busy, if not maybe even busier and there could be little time to effect those needed repairs and maintenance once the 2005 Campaigns begin. So, get out that helmet and clean it up. Fix that broken hinge or strap on the segmentata. Oil, clean and attend to those caligae and belts that have served you well, but need some attention for continued good service. Now Is The Time !!

NASHVILLE EVENT AFTER ACTION

The Nashville Event was without a doubt the largest gathering of Roman soldiers your Commander has witnessed to date and this sentiment seemed to be echoed by many others as well. It was awesome to be in the presence of so many other Roman reenactors in one place. Gary Barbosa of Champion One Productions really went all out for this event, providing us with an exciting venue in front of the Parthenon replica in Centennial Park in Nashville, TN. Things seemed to go quite well, considering the complexity of having a "movie shoot" in conjunction with a Roman themed festival open to the public.
Unfortunately, attendance by the public was very sparse, probably less than 100 for the two days. The primary reason for the gathering was not the event itself, but rather the filming of the Gary's speculative "Charioteers Trailer", meant to give a prospective
producer an idea of how the film would look, if produced.
Some 60 fully equipped, 1st century legionaries, took part, most in red tunics, "segmentata" armor and with red faced scuta; with a number of others in "hamata" maile armor. It looked like one nearly up to strength century. Added to this were another 20 or so gladiators, senators, citizens and barbarian impressions of every description. Gary had 300 tunics ready for use by any willing public participants, but very few of the local populace elected to come, much less take part in the filming. There were apparently many "no-shows" who had told Gary they would show up, and didn't, meaning that most of the time we were participating in scenes and couldn't spend as much time telling the public about Roman history and reenactment and demonstrating our equipment.

A highlight of the event was the forming of a testudo formation by 40 legionaries (eight wide and 5 deep) on Saturday afternoon under command of Dan Peterson, author of the well known book "The Roman Legions recreated in Colour Photographs". Dan, using commands in Latin, formed up one of two "half-centuries" and marched the troops around the park, including a campaign march out onto the streets of Nashville to show that the Romans were in command. On returning to the Park we met the other half-century back from their own urban expedition and the two units joined-up for a triumphal march up through the center of Centennial Park to the Parthenon. Then the troops practiced forming the testudo and maneuvering with the shields over their heads. Only by participating can you really appreciate the skill and endurance it must have taken to execute this rather clumsy formation under battle conditions! This was likely the largest testudo formation in the United States to date. Dan also commented that "the testudo was as big and good as any I have experienced seeing in Europe".
The realism of the final battle scene was intense, yielding a number of bruises, scrapes, cuts, blood, a groin hit and a bruised nose. During the battle a couple of us came to realize that the groin apron can offer some protection - not much protection mind you - but some protection. There were a couple of other Legionaries who went "Down" not from combat or exhaustion, but more likely from boredom waiting around for the next "take"! The Ludus Magnus Gladiators also put-on their usual good show and the Mighty Maximus John Ebel even had a speaking role in the filming of the trailer. He will never be humble again?! Gary Barbosa himself took part as a gladiator fighting the "Daughter of Athena" in the sand arena created in front of the Parthenon structure. Her name was Monica - No! - Not That Monica!! See some photos from Nashville and other Legion XXIV filming events at www.legionxxiv.org/moviepage
Another highlight was the opening of the great bronze temple doors to reveal the 30 foot high Athena statue within the Parthenon replica building, which was illuminated with special lighting for the filming. These great 25 foot high doors, weighing 7 tons each, are normally not opened for the public.
There were several Roman merchants including a Deepeeka stand run by Sam Agarwal himself. It featured a first showing of several new items including the Pompeii Stove, Roman saddle, and magnificent and huge leather command tent.
Dan had his huge collection of roman gear on display. Legions taking part, that I am aware of, were: III (MA), IV (SC), IX (MA), XIV (KY), XX (CA), XXIV (PA), XXX (NY-Ont.), and I'm sure others were there as well.
It was great to finally meet dozens of fellow Roman legionaries who I had met only once or twice before and many more only known through mail and internet contact. Quintus Johanson, Gnaius Scribonius and yours truly represented Legion XXIV.
The Parthenon site could be a great central location for an annual Roman Living History Event, as it offers probably the best ancient replica structure in the United States, along with a large expanse of lawn, nearby hotels and restaurants.

As Dan Peterson has said, and I and many others would certainly concur "We all owe Gary Barbosa a big "Hats-Off" for daring to attempt this, and kudos to all the Romans who supported it, all no doubt, at a fair amount of personal cost. I am sure every attendee wishes Gary the greatest success with his project. We all dream of doing this kind of thing, and Gary had the courage to fulfill his dream despite the adversities. Damnatio Memoria to all those "Romans" who could have, but failed to, support this great endeavor". Well said Dan!

MEDIEVAL FESTIVAL AFTER ACTION
The Commander, along with faithful Quintus Johanson and "Roman Dude" Andy Volpe took part in the New Jersey Family Medieval Festival on Sunday, October 24, at the Waterloo Village, Netcong, NJ. The event sponsored by Palidin Music & Entertainment Inc. ran from 11AM to 6PM and benefited the Make A Wish Foundation, which sends very ill children on the trips of their dreams.
It comprised a number of fighting demonstrations and tournaments, period music and singing performances, a fire show, vendors, and of course, historical reenactment groups. The crowds were quite heavy at times and Us Romans were kept busy explaining and answering questions about the heritage and military prowess of Ancient Rome. The catapulta put on its usual crowd pleasing performance. Coming only a week after the Nashville Campaign, your Commander was not particularly looking forward to this event, but it proved to be well worth our while and effort to take part, if for no other reason than "For the Kids". The weather was cloudy and a bit chilly at times. But this was preferable to the usual hot and humid conditions during the summer season! We would expect that the Legion will again take part in this Festival in 2005. Mark your calendars for Oct. 22-23, 2005, when they expect to have a jousting tournament and more new shows.

NEED A SEGMENTATA ? RLQM Special!
The Roman Legion Quartermaster, Sean Richards of Legion VI, is having a Sale!
If two of our legionaries can go in together for a set of "seg" armor, before January 1, 2005,
you can each get a custom-fit, hand-made Corbridge style Lorica Segmentata for only $525,
$25 off the $550 retail price.
This offer ends Dec 31, 2004. Contact Sean at www.rlqm.com for the details.


LEGIO VI CASTRA ROMANO NOVEMBER IN S.C.


The ISPA and the Legionaries and Supporters of Legio VI Ferrata Fidelas Constans formally

invite all to their Second Annual Castra Romana, November 11 thru 15, 2004.

This event will be held at Givhans State Park in South Carolina, about 20 miles northwest

of Charleston, South Carolina. There are maps on the www.castroromani.com website.

Knowing it is a bit of a drive for most, they are pulling out all the stops to make this an

experience you will not want to miss, nor ever forget!

While this event will be advertised and open to the public, their primary goal is to provide a

unique experience to the participants. To this end, a great number of events are planned,

which will interest the Roman Reenactor, be they soldier or civilian! This will include a

period smithy, potter, baker, and more. If you have a unique impression you would like

to bring and add, please contact Legio VI. There is no cost to the participants for any

of the events they can participate in or for the encampment itself. Last year was an

outstanding success, and this year will be even better!

Soldiers will get the opportunity to drill and train with double weighted weapons, pila range,

live sword (against a post of course!), in addition to participating in Military Games,

a 1.5 mile nature trail road march, guard mount, pay issue, and more.

The highlight of the event will be the Centurios Convivium, a Grande Roman Banquet

prepared by their gourmet Roman Chef, and hosted by the Centurio.

The timing of the event allows for the long Veterans Day weekend for units that must

travel far. Average Temperature in November in South Carolina is 70-75 degrees.

In addition there are few if any events on the calendar for that period of time.

Plus the mosquitoes are mostly dead! Legio VI will be onsite Thursday the 11th to

Monday the 15th, but you should try to arrive sometime Thursday or Friday unless

you are setting up a special event or station. Vendors are welcome to set up a display,

but we ask that they remain in period as much as possible, and you must contact Legio VI

as soon as possible. There is limited room for vendors, but they will endeavor to

accommodate you. Remember this event is being planned for the participants,

so we need you to attend! Please RSVP justuslonginus@... by October 1st with

firm numbers so they can plan for the feast. In other words, Call Him Now!

It is their sincerest hope you will plan to attend and be there to celebrate the growth of

Roman Living Archeology!





Justus Rustius Longinus justuslonginus@...

Centurio, Cohrs I

Legio VI FFC




UPCOMING CAMPAIGNS for 2005

*** June 3-5, Roman Days, Marietta Mansion, Glenn Dale, MD. Includes visits by school groups on Friday, and possibly a mini-symposium on Thursday.
*** August 6-7, Annual Fort Malden Military Days, Amherstburg, Ontario
*** August 16-20, Pennsic War, Coopers Lake Campground, New Castle, PA, I-79 and Rt 422
*** October 22-23, Probable Ren Faire appearance, Waterloo Village, Netcong, NJ, I-80-exit 25 11AM-5PM

Be sure to check the website from time to time. It is updated at least once a month and generally more than once.
www.legionxxiv.org A new Movie Page covering the several filming campaigns of Legion XXIV and its Allies has been put-up, along with other updates throughout the website. Check in often.

Thanking you for your continued support of Legion XXIV, I remain;

Yours in the Bonds of Ancient Rome

Gallio / George



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29981 From: brcincy Date: 2004-11-05
Subject: posting photo on the Album Cives site
Salvete:

Is there a way to get Nova Roma to post my photo by my name on the
Album Cives site?

Q. Bianchius Rufinus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29982 From: Q. Caecilius Metellus Date: 2004-11-05
Subject: Re: posting photo on the Album Cives site
Salve,

> Is there a way to get Nova Roma to post my photo by my name
> on the Album Cives site?

Certainly. I'd be happy to get it in the right spot for you. Just email
the picture to me (postumianus 'at' gmx 'dot' net) and I'll get it right up
for you. Same applies to anyone else.

Vale Bene,

Quintus Caecilius Metellus
Scriba Magistri Araneari
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29983 From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) Date: 2004-11-06
Subject: Re: Penalties For Roman Citizens?
Salve Quinte Cassi Calve,

That is very interesting; thank you for your reply to my question.

QLP








>
> It all depends on the time frame. During the 3rd Century CE when
> Roman citizenship was extended to all free peoples of the Empire
> there was a change where the citizenry was divided into two
classes
> the honestiores (members of the senatorial and equestrian orders,
> local officials, ect) and the humiliores (everyone else). The
> honestiores got off much lighter than the humiliores for the same
> crime. Generally speaking the honestiores would be fined and
driven
> into exile on an island (and if they were smart criminals they had
a
> nice villa and a goodly chunk of their wealth waiting for them)
> while everyone else got the punishments formerly forbidden to be
> imposed upon a citizen of Rome and were only doled out to slaves.
>
> Vale,
>
> Q. Cassius Calvus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29984 From: John Date: 2004-11-06
Subject: Relocation to California
Greetings Fellow Romans,
It is with great honour that I return to Nova Roma after a long
absent in the service of our great military. Upon leaving my
campaign in the middle east, I have chosen to reside in California.
Now that my life has settled back down, I intend to use my services
to benefit our great Empire. Feel free to contact me with any
questions or comments, or if you simply wish to talk.

Pontius Sejanus Marius
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29985 From: Gn. Julius Caesar Cornelianus Date: 2004-11-06
Subject: Re: Relocation to California
Welcome back and enjoy Cali!!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29986 From: Lucius Rutilius Minervalis Date: 2004-11-06
Subject: Gallia's NewsLetter
Salvete Omnes,

As Galliae Propraetor, I'm particularly proud and pleased to announce
the birth... of the Gallia's newsletter ! The first issue, carried out
by Praefectus Palladius and his staff, I publicly congratulate on
this, is available at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NRGallia/files/Codex%20I/

This issue is in French and is made up of 24 jpg-files. But an English
Version will be available soon.

Valete !

Lucius Rutilius Minervalis
Provinciae Galliae Propraetor
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29987 From: Gaius Minucius Hadrianus Felix Date: 2004-11-06
Subject: Re: Cost Of Living In Ancient Rome
C. Minucius Hadrianus Felix Q. Lanio Paulino S.P.D.

Salve amice.

My wife just gave me one of the books you referenced for my birthday:
Jo-Ann Shelton, As The Romans Did (New York: Oxford Univ. Press,1998).
I'm about half-way through it and it is a wonderful read. I highly
recommend it to any Romanophile.

Vale bene,

C. Minucius Hadrianus Felix
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29988 From: sa-mann@libero.it Date: 2004-11-07
Subject: Re: Women in the Religio Romana
>
>
>
> > You'll get more satisfaction being what you are than playing to be something that you
> will never be able to be.
>
> Again, I am not playing. Nor, for the record, do I have any desire to be a man. I am a
> woman whose beliefs, interests, and talents lead her in the direction of public service to
> the Goddesses and Gods of her faith. If you cannot conceive of such a thing, this is your
> limitation and not mine.
>
> Patricia Cassia
>
Spectata Patricia,

sorry for replying this late to your post of october 8th: I noticed it only now.
What can I tell you? Our beliefs are so distant that is very hard to try and explain my point again.

The only thing I can say: I can conceive that that you want to give public service to the Gods. But in Rome, male and female WERE DIFFERENT. Luckily enough, as seen from Italy, Rome is not America: its social attitudes being more distant from Rome that bin-Laden's . Much more distant. Your attitude, which I entirely respect is, in my humble conception, UNROMAN. I intended to give my advice from a Roman point of view. That's all.
The last thing I humbly suggest is: Beware, the Gods, methinks, don't like any kind of mockery. What you are going yo perform IS very dangerous.

JUST OPINION; NOT A THREAT OF ANY KIND.

Good luck

Reverenter

Gallus Solaris Alexander
Bononia

ITALIA!




____________________________________________________________
Libero ADSL: navighi gratis a 1.2 Mega, senza canone e costi di attivazione.
Abbonati subito su http://www.libero.it
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29989 From: raymond fuentes Date: 2004-11-07
Subject: Re: Women in the Religio Romana
this absolutely has to be the longest running thread
ever. no offense to any one but i for one am done w/
the ML. Pompeia, one less headcount scum to bear. vale
--- sa-mann@... <sa-mann@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > You'll get more satisfaction being what you are
than playing to be some
> thing that you
> > will never be able to be.
> >
> > Again, I am not playing. Nor, for the record, do I
have any desire to be
> a man. I am a
> > woman whose beliefs, interests, and talents lead
her in the direction of
> public service to
> > the Goddesses and Gods of her faith. If you cannot
conceive of such a thi
> ng, this is your
> > limitation and not mine.
> >
> > Patricia Cassia
> >
> Spectata Patricia,
>
> sorry for replying this late to your post of october
8th: I noticed it only
> now.
> What can I tell you? Our beliefs are so distant that
is very hard to try an
> d explain my point again.
>
> The only thing I can say: I can conceive that that
you want to give public
> service to the Gods. But in Rome, male and female
WERE DIFFERENT. Luckily e
> nough, as seen from Italy, Rome is not America: its
social attitudes being
> more distant from Rome that bin-Laden's . Much more
distant. Your attitude,
> which I entirely respect is, in my humble
conception, UNROMAN. I intended
> to give my advice from a Roman point of view. That's
all.
> The last thing I humbly suggest is: Beware, the
Gods, methinks, don't like
> any kind of mockery. What you are going yo perform
IS very dangerous.
>
> JUST OPINION; NOT A THREAT OF ANY KIND.
>
> Good luck
>
> Reverenter
>
> Gallus Solaris Alexander
> Bononia
>
> ITALIA!
>
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
> Libero ADSL: navighi gratis a 1.2 Mega, senza canone
e costi di attivazione
> .
> Abbonati subito su http://www.libero.it
>
>


=====
S P Q R

Fidelis Ad Mortem.

Marcvs Flavivs Fides
Roman Citizen



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29990 From: John Date: 2004-11-07
Subject: Roman Ethics
I need to get a crash course in Roman ethics under the reigh of the
Julio-Claudains. Can any one help?

Pontius Sejanus Marius
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29991 From: Q. Caecilius Metellus Date: 2004-11-07
Subject: Ludi Plebeii
Q. Caecilius Metellus Postumianus Omnibus salutem dicit.

Salvete Omnes,

Just a reminder that today, 7 November, is the last day to subscribe to the
Munera Gladiatorum of the Ludi Plebeii that Aedile Emilia Curia is holding.
I will continue to accept entries until the clock on the Nova Roma website
meets 00:00 a.d. VI Id. Nov.. The deadline for the Ludi Circenses, which is
getting good turn out, is 12 November, and so I will be accepting
subscriptions for that until the clock reads 00:00 Id. Nov. Every horse has
a chance!

Valete Optime,

Quintus Caecilius Metellus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29992 From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) Date: 2004-11-07
Subject: Re: Cost Of Living In Ancient Rome
Salve my friend!

Thank you for that information. I'll add it on to my want list since
I'm ordering a few books this week.

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus





--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gaius Minucius Hadrianus Felix
<c.minucius.hadrianus@n...> wrote:
> C. Minucius Hadrianus Felix Q. Lanio Paulino S.P.D.
>
> Salve amice.
>
> My wife just gave me one of the books you referenced for my
birthday:
> Jo-Ann Shelton, As The Romans Did (New York: Oxford Univ.
Press,1998).
> I'm about half-way through it and it is a wonderful read. I
highly
> recommend it to any Romanophile.
>
> Vale bene,
>
> C. Minucius Hadrianus Felix
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29993 From: sa-mann@libero.it Date: 2004-11-07
Subject: Re: Women in the Religio Romana
Headcount scum?

Well, not being English, I really have no idea of the meaning of this.

No kidding, cives. I don't even understand if it is an insult or a support.
And, in any case was it sent to me or to my "opponent"?

Sorry, can anyone translate, better: explain?

Gallus Solaris Alexander



____________________________________________________________
Libero ADSL: navighi gratis a 1.2 Mega, senza canone e costi di attivazione.
Abbonati subito su http://www.libero.it
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29994 From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) Date: 2004-11-07
Subject: Re: translation was Re: Women in the Religio Romana
Salve Galle Solari,

I don't see any personal insult or complement. He is saying that the
discussion of women in the Roman religion has been going far too
long. Tired of all the arguing, "he" is going to leave this list so
there will be one less * headcount scum (*sarcastically refering to
himself and some others who have been criticized on the ML before).

Well, I hope he'll reconsider later. I like his posts and he is a
good contributer to list discussions.


Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "sa-mann\@l...\.it" <sa-mann@l...>
wrote:
> Headcount scum?
>
> Well, not being English, I really have no idea of the meaning of
this.
>
> No kidding, cives. I don't even understand if it is an insult or a
support.
> And, in any case was it sent to me or to my "opponent"?
>
> Sorry, can anyone translate, better: explain?
>
> Gallus Solaris Alexander
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Libero ADSL: navighi gratis a 1.2 Mega, senza canone e costi di
attivazione.
> Abbonati subito su http://www.libero.it
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29995 From: Bill Gawne Date: 2004-11-07
Subject: Re: Cost Of Living In Ancient Rome
Salvete Quirites, et salve Gai Minuci,

Gaius Minucius Hadrianus Felix wrote:

> My wife just gave me one of the books you referenced for my birthday:
> Jo-Ann Shelton, As The Romans Did (New York: Oxford Univ. Press,1998).
> I'm about half-way through it and it is a wonderful read. I highly
> recommend it to any Romanophile.

It is a wonderful book. I've used it for years as one of the books I keep
close at hand when considering aspects of Roman law and culture. I'm
pleased to know you're enjoying it.

Vale,

--
Gnaeus Equitius Marinus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29996 From: sa-mann@libero.it Date: 2004-11-07
Subject: Re: Vestal: was Women in the Religio Romana
Salvete

Has anyone realized out there that Vestals performed a whorship of the state when a Roman State existed?

Has anyone like Lupa realized that the Vestals themselves extinguished the Fire that DOES NOT EXIST ANYMORE?

Has anyone realized that this fire was in the Temple of Vesta in ROME next to the REGIA and it is now in ruin as anyone troddling in the Forum can see?

But, I repeat, has anyone realized the Vestals acted FOR ACCOUNT OF THE STATE???

Sorry, cives, the State of Rome, sadly, is not in existence at present. So, no Vestals are needed.

Reverenter

Gallus Solaris Alexander




____________________________________________________________
Libero ADSL: navighi gratis a 1.2 Mega, senza canone e costi di attivazione.
Abbonati subito su http://www.libero.it
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29997 From: Bill Gawne Date: 2004-11-07
Subject: Re: Vestal: was Women in the Religio Romana
Salvete Quirites, et salve Galle Solari,

Gallus Solaris Alexander writes:
> Has anyone realized out there that Vestals performed a whorship of
> the state when a Roman State existed?

Yes Alexander, many of us are keenly aware of exactly what the role of
the Vestals was. How they lived in the Domus Publicus, under the potestas
of the Pontifex Maximus.

> Has anyone like Lupa realized that the Vestals themselves extinguished
> the Fire that DOES NOT EXIST ANYMORE?

I don't know how much like Lupa I might be, but I do know that this happened.

> Has anyone realized that this fire was in the Temple of Vesta in
> ROME next to the REGIA and it is now in ruin as anyone troddling in
> the Forum can see?

Yes Alexander. I think it's safe to say that a great many of us
recognize this.

> But, I repeat, has anyone realized the Vestals acted FOR ACCOUNT OF THE STATE???

Yes. Again, yes.

> Sorry, cives, the State of Rome, sadly, is not in existence at present.

That's right, that state is gone. On the other hand, Nova Roma exists
here and now. We have brought a new Republic into existence, and have
made a new pact with the Dii Immortales.

> So, no Vestals are needed.

That is where we differ. It is my opinion that Nova Roma, if it is to
be able to fully support the Religio Romana, should have Vestals as well
as pontifices and flamines. Though I will also allow as we should also
have our cives in their familia honoring Vesta in their homes.

Nova Roma places great reverence in the institutions of Roma Antiqua, but
we also believe that we can create this Roma Resurgens without having to
own the land along the Tiber.

Vale,

--
Gnaeus Equitius Marinus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29998 From: AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com Date: 2004-11-07
Subject: Re: Vestal: was Women in the Religio Romana
Gallus Solaris Alexander:

You are correct. Old Rome is no more.

This is New Rome, or as we call it Nova Roma. We have our own laws, and we
have our own traditions. We attempt, as best as possible to establish the
ancient customs of old Rome and adapt them for our own times as New Romans.

So I don't understand the point you are trying to make Alexander. Do you
think that Nova Roma should not have Vestals? What about Pontifices, Augurs,
etc...

Valete;

Gaius Modius Athanasius

In a message dated 11/7/2004 3:05:43 PM Eastern Standard Time,
sa-mann@... writes:

Salvete

Has anyone realized out there that Vestals performed a whorship of the state
when a Roman State existed?

Has anyone like Lupa realized that the Vestals themselves extinguished the
Fire that DOES NOT EXIST ANYMORE?

Has anyone realized that this fire was in the Temple of Vesta in ROME next
to the REGIA and it is now in ruin as anyone troddling in the Forum can see?

But, I repeat, has anyone realized the Vestals acted FOR ACCOUNT OF THE
STATE???

Sorry, cives, the State of Rome, sadly, is not in existence at present. So,
no Vestals are needed.

Reverenter

Gallus Solaris Alexander





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 29999 From: AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com Date: 2004-11-07
Subject: Re: Vestal: was Women in the Religio Romana
Very well said Consul, I couldn't have said it better myself.

Valete;

Gaius Modius Athanasius

In a message dated 11/7/2004 3:48:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,
gawne@... writes:

That's right, that state is gone. On the other hand, Nova Roma exists
here and now. We have brought a new Republic into existence, and have
made a new pact with the Dii Immortales.

> So, no Vestals are needed.

That is where we differ. It is my opinion that Nova Roma, if it is to
be able to fully support the Religio Romana, should have Vestals as well
as pontifices and flamines. Though I will also allow as we should also
have our cives in their familia honoring Vesta in their homes.

Nova Roma places great reverence in the institutions of Roma Antiqua, but
we also believe that we can create this Roma Resurgens without having to
own the land along the Tiber.

Vale,

--
Gnaeus Equitius Marinus





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30000 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2004-11-08
Subject: Re: Roman Ethics
A. Apollónius Cordus Pontió Sejánó Marió omnibusque
sal.

> I need to get a crash course in Roman ethics under
> the reigh of the
> Julio-Claudains. Can any one help?

The principate isn't a period I'm very strong on, but
let me have a go. There were four main approaches to
ethics in that period. Three - the stoic school, the
epicurean school, and the Academic school - were of
Greek origin, and the fourth was the set of
traditional - one might say 'Catonian' - Roman values.

The fourth trend had rather died out among the
nobility, or rather it had been absorbed by stoicism,
which was probably the most popular of the other three
(partly because it was quite close to traditional
values). Ciceró had been strongly influenced by stoic
ideas, and Seneca, who of course was the tutor of
Neró, was an out-and-out stoic. A good introduction to
stoic ethics is at:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/StoicEth.htm

And obviously if you have the time it would be a good
idea to look at Seneca's own writings. Unfortunately I
see Perseus lacks anything by Seneca, but you can
probably find some of his work on the internet
somewhere.

Epicureanism was less popular, but still fairly
common. In the late republic people like Cornélius
Sisenna and the poet Lucretius were adherents of this
school, and it may have had some influence on Caesar
also. Look at:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/epicur.htm

Academics were relatively few (Ciceró was one), and
were more concerned with logical and epistemological
problems than with ethics. See the last paragraph of:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/academy.htm

I hope that helps to begin with. Also, if you can find
it, look at a book called 'Philosophia Togata', edited
by Griffin and somebody else.





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30001 From: sa-mann@libero.it Date: 2004-11-08
Subject: Re: Vestal: was Women in the Religio Romana
Spectati Cives Modius ac Equitius imprimis

I wasn't able to explain what I meant.

I shall try again.

No, Marine I don't think we need some land in Rome itself. The irreligious masonic italian government is not willing to restore Rome and it is not ready to give us some land. We don't have papacy anymore(a real one at least) but I don't think they would consider restoring Rome either: after all they used to say THEY are Rome.
I don't even think some land is necessary, anywhere it could be. We can do pretty well without land: had I not believed this I would have not considered applying for citizenship, hadn't I?

But you all must realize, ALIQVANDO, that Nova Roma is not a State in the way Rome stated. We can love Rome, we can live as Romans: we can do everything we do here but we still are not a Roman State, as sad as it can be. Indeed we don't have the Vesta's fire. But left this aside I repeat we are not a state: yet if you want, but still NOT.

For this reason, spectate Modie, is licit to whorship the Gods by means of Pontifices and Flamines: but is senseless to perform Statual Rites. The difference between private and public religion is the ground on which whorshipping privately is compulsory, if you are Roman.

I suggest to realize seriously that if we want to behave "Roman", we have Rome there at hand, easy and clear. And we know what was meant in Rome by the concept of State.

Otherwise we can be like those people, citizens of Rome, who are so interested in whorshipping......Isis!!! An egyptian Goddess!!??

In this case we shall only LIVE in Rome, we won't be Romans.

At each one his own choice: something like....Vnicuique Suum as they said right in Rome.

Bene valete omnes

Gallus Solaris Alexander



____________________________________________________________
Libero ADSL: navighi gratis a 1.2 Mega, senza canone e costi di attivazione.
Abbonati subito su http://www.libero.it
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30002 From: AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com Date: 2004-11-08
Subject: Re: Vestal: was Women in the Religio Romana
Salve;

That is correct; we all have choices and we have our own opinions.

BTW...not ALL Masons are irreligious. I know several Masons in Nova Roma,
myself being one of them.

Vale;

Gaius Modius Athanasius

In a message dated 11/8/2004 8:56:11 AM Eastern Standard Time,
sa-mann@... writes:

At each one his own choice: something like....Vnicuique Suum as they said
right in Rome.

Bene valete omnes

Gallus Solaris Alexander





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30003 From: Gnaeus Equitius Marinus Date: 2004-11-08
Subject: Re: Roman Ethics
Salvete Quirites,

A. Apollonius Cordus wrote:

[...]

> And obviously if you have the time it would be a good
> idea to look at Seneca's own writings. Unfortunately I
> see Perseus lacks anything by Seneca, but you can
> probably find some of his work on the internet
> somewhere.

There's a nice selection available at

http://www.geocities.com/westhollywood/heights/4617/stoic/seneca.html

Valete,

-- Marinus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30004 From: GAIVS IVLIANVS Date: 2004-11-08
Subject: DIES RELIGIOSVS TODAY!
Salvete Romani! Today, Nov. 8th is Dies Religiosus and
the Mundus Patet! It is a day of caution and no rites
should be performed privately or publicly. Valete!
Frater GAIVS IVLIVS IVLIANVS



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30005 From: Lucius Arminius Faustus Date: 2004-11-08
Subject: THE COMITIA POPULI TRIBUTA IS CALLED
L. Arminius Faustus, Tribunus Plebs, to all roman people of the quirites,

I pray to Ceres and Diana, patronessess of the plebeians and its magistrates. Using my Tribunicia Potestas, the Comitia Populi Tributa is called to vote.

Contio starts since the issuing of this call on NR Main List
The Contio will be suspended all day on 13th november (Nefastus Publicus).
The Contio ends on the opening of the Cista, 14th November, 0:00 Rome Time.
The voting starts 14th November, 0:00 Rome Time
The voting ends 28th November, 23:59 Rome Time

On this Comitia Populi Tributa all citizens are called to vote the following law proposal:

1. Lex Arminia de Ratione Comitiorum Plebis et Populi Tributorum

On this call, quirites, let me express my deepest gratitude and thanks to citizen A. Apolonius Cordus by all his hard work that made this proposal possible. This law is intended to merge and correct all texts of the Comitia laws.

Valete bene in pacem deorum,
L. Arminius Faustus TRP


************************************
TEXT OF THE LAW PROPOSAL STARTS HERE
************************************

Lex Arminia de ratione comitiorum plebis et populi tributorum

This law is intended to bring Nova Roma closer to the Ancient Way of voting and to unify the current legislation of voting on the Comitia. This law replaces the lex Moravia de suffragiis in comitia plebis tributa et ratione comitiorum plebis tributorum, the lex Fabia de ratione comitiorum populi tributorum, the lex Arminia de ratione comitiorum plebis tributorum, the lex Arminia de potestate tribunicia ad comitia convocanda, the lex Arminina de suffragiis in comitiis tributiis, and the lex Salicia de tribunicia comitiorum convocatione. It regulates the procedures to be observed in the comitia plebis tributa (herein called the concilium plebis) and in the comitia populi tributa (herein called the comitia tributa).


I. Who May Convene The Comitia

A. A consul may convene the comitia tributa.

B. A praetor may convene the comitia tributa.

C. A dictator may convene the comitia tributa.

D. A tribunus plebis may convene the concilium plebis to legislate concerning the internal procedures of the concilium plebis and to elect magistrates of the plebs.

E. A tribunus plebis may convene the concilium plebis for any purpose if the plebs constitutes 90% or more of the population, or otherwise may convene the comitia tributa.
i. Between the first and the last day of June and again between the first and the last day of December every year the censores, or whatever magistrates shall be responsible for the album civium, shall announce:
a. the total number of full citizens;
b. the total number of patrician full citizens;
c. the ratio between those two numbers (i.e. the number of patricians divided by the number of citizens).
ii. If the number described in E.i.c is greater than 0.1, the tribunus plebis may convene the comitia tributa.
iii. If the number described in E.i.c is equal to or less than 0.1, the tribunus plebis may convene the concilium plebis.
iV. When the Tribune convene the comitia tributa, all other procedures not described by this or any other law are the same of the concilium plebis convening.

F. The magistrate who convenes the comitia shall be referred to as the presiding magistrate, if the Comitia was called with auspices taken, the presiding magistrate will be the holder of the Comitia auspices.


II. Whether And How The Auspices Shall Be Taken

A. A magistrate possessing Curule Dignitatis (called curule magistrate), wishing to convene the comitia tributa may take the auspices or arrange for the auspices to be taken on his behalf in whatever manner is laid down in law, and shall be liable to any penalties laid down in law for failing to observe the proper procedures for the taking of auspices.

B. A tribunus plebis wishing to convene the comitia tributa or the concilium plebis shall not take auspices or have auspices taken.


III. How The Comitia Shall Be Convened

A. The presiding magistrate may convene the comitia by making a public announcement in whatever public fora are established for public announcements.

B. In this announcement he shall state:
i. the names of any candidates for office, the office for which they are running, and their dates of citizenship;
ii. the full text of any leges or plebiscita to be proposed;
iii. the name of anyone to be tried or anyone that has appealed to the Comitia, and the details of the charges against him (each defendant and each charge shall be listed and voted upon separately);
iv. the dates on which contiones (public discussions regarding the agenda of the comitia) may take place;
v. the dates on which voters may vote;
vi. any additional instructions concerning the meeting of the comitia.

C. The presiding magistrate is responsible for ensuring, as far as possible and with the assistance of the censores, that any candidates for office are legally qualified to stand for election to that office.


IV. When Contiones And Voting May Occur, And How Meetings May Be Obstructed

A. The announcement of the convention of the comitia (described in III.A & III.B) must be made at least 72 hours before the first day of voting.
i. A magistrate capable of calling the comitia may add itens and the agenda of a Comitia already called, if there is time available until the begging of the voting, following the procedures of this law. However, the presiding magistrate will be only the first one who called the Comitia. Any problem ou doubt about entering new itens during the Contio will be solved by the decision of the presiding magistrate.
B. Between the day of the announcement and the first day of voting, a contio can be held on every day on which it is proper for a contio to be held. The Contio can start since the issuing of the calling.

C. Veto or other forms of legal obstruction may occur up to the beginning of voting. Once voting has begun, no one shall obstruct the vote.
i. Veto or other forms of legal obstruction may be used either to cancel the meeting of the comitia in its entirety, or to remove any election, legislative proposal, or trial from the agenda of the meeting.
ii. Veto or other forms of legal obstruction may not be used to remove a candidate from an election, or a section from a legislative proposal, or any other part of an item.

D. Obnuntiatio or other forms of religious obstruction may occur up to the beginning of voting. Once voting has begun, no one shall obstruct the vote.
i. Obnuntiatio or other forms of religious obstruction may not cancel the meeting of the comitia or remove any item from its agenda, but may postpone the beginning of voting until the next comitial day after the day on which voting would otherwise have begun.
ii. If the beginning of voting is postponed in this way, the end of voting shall be postponed to allow at least the same number of days of voting as would previously have occurred.

E. At least 120 hours of voting must be allowed, except that if the comitia is meeting to hear a trial at least 198 hours of voting must be allowed.
F. For an appeal to the Comitia Populi, the procedures of time for starting the voting above on this law will change. Due to the urgency of the appelation voting, a Tribune (due to the lack of auspices) can call the Comitia to start imediately. In this case, the Cista will start as soon as possible after the call, as soon as the magister aranearius is able to create and announce the opening. However, at least 120 hours of voting must be allowed.


V. How Votes May Be Cast

A. The censores shall issue to each citizen who may vote a unique voter-code. Only votes marked with valid voter-codes shall be counted.
i. No vote cast by a patrician shall be counted in the concilium plebis.

B. In consultation with the magistrates responsible for counting votes, the magister aranearius shall create a cista (a secure web-based form to allow voters to vote directly through the Nova Roma website).
i. The cista shall deliver to the magistrates responsible for counting votes a record of each vote, marked with the voter's voter-code, order (patrician or plebeian), and desired votes.
ii. The cista shall give the voter a record of his votes.

C. Alternative procedures for voting may be enacted by law in addition to the web-based cista.

D. Each ballot shall offer the following options:
i. For each candidate for public office, each voter may either mark the candidate 'yes (vti rogas)' or leave him unmarked.
ii. For each legislative proposal, each voter may vote either 'yes (vti rogas)' or 'no (antiqvo)'.
iii. For each charge against a defendant, each voter may vote either 'condemn (condemno)' or 'absolve (absolvo)'.

E. When the agenda for the meeting includes an election for public office, each ballot shall carry the following direction: 'you may vote for as many candidates as you wish, but you are advised to vote only for those candidates you strongly support'.

F. If more than one vote is cast carrying the same voter-code, only the last vote cast shall be counted.


VI. How Votes For Election Shall Be Counted

A. Votes shall be grouped by tribe.
i. For each tribe, the candidates shall be listed by the number of 'yes' votes they receive from voters in that tribe.
ii. The candidate who receives most 'yes' votes (ties being broken according specific law. If there is no law specifically available about ties, the ties will be broken randomly) shall be the first preference of that tribe, and so on.
iii. Any candidate who receives no 'yes' votes in that tribe shall not be listed in that tribe's preference-list.
iv. Any tribe which contains no 'yes' votes at all shall be considered void.

B. The threshold for election is as follows:
i. For 1 vacancy, one half of the tribes (not counting void tribes);
ii. For 2 vacancies, one third of the tribes (not counting void tribes);
iii. For 3 vacancies, one quarter of the tribes (not counting void tribes);
iv. For 4 vacancies, one fifth of the tribes (not counting void tribes);
v. For 5 vacancies, one sixth of the tribes (not counting void tribes);
vi. For 6 vacancies, one seventh of the tribes (not counting void tribes);
vii. For 7 vacancies, one eighth of the tribes (not counting void tribes);
viii. For 8 vacancies, one ninth of the tribes (not counting void tribes);
ix. ... and so on. These numbers must not be rounded up or down.

C. Votes shall be counted in several rounds. The first round shall proceed as follows.
i. Assign each tribe to the candidate at the top of its preference-list.
ii. Calculated the threshold as in VI.C.

iii. Count the total value of each candidate's tribes. Each tribe has a value of 1.
iv. If a candidate meets the threshold he is elected. If more than one candidate meets the threshold, all are elected, in the order of the number of tribes they have, up to the number of vacancies available. Ties are broken according specific law. If there is no law specifically available about ties, the ties will be broken randomly.
v. If no candidate meets the threshold, the candidate with the lowest number of tribes is eliminated. Ties are broken according specific law. If there is no law specifically available about ties, the ties will be broken randomly.
vi. Once a candidate or candidates have been elected, or a candidate has been eliminated, the round ends. If there are still vacancies to be filled, another round begins.

D. All further rounds shall proceed as follows.
i. If a candidate was elected in the previous round, calculate the new value of each of his tribes in the following way:
a. First, calculate the total value of all the tribes being redistributed;
b. Subtract the threshold;
c. Divide by the total value of all the tribes being redistributed;
d. For each tribe, multiply by the previous value of that tribe.

ii. Having calculated the new value of each of his tribes, redistribute them all (see v).
iii. If more than one candidate was elected in the previous round, start with the one who was elected first, calculate the new value of each of his tribes, then do the same for the next candidate who was elected, and so on for all the candidates who were elected. Then redistribute all their tribes (see v).
iv. If a candidate was eliminated in the previous round, do not change the values of his tribes, but redistribute them (see v) with the same values as they had in the previous round.
v. When redistributing tribes, assign each tribe to the candidate at the top of its preference-list (not counting any candidates who have already been elected or eliminated). Any tribes which have no further preferences become void.
vi. Calculate the threshold again. Take the number of vacancies as whatever number there were to begin with, regardless of whether any vacancies have been filled in previous rounds; but adjust the total number of tribes to account for tribes which have become void (see v).
vii. Count the total value of each candidate's tribes.
viii. If a candidate meets the threshold he is elected. If more than one candidate meets the threshold, all are elected, in the order of the number of tribes they have, up to the number of vacancies available. Ties are broken according specific law. If there is no law specifically available about ties, the ties will be broken randomly.
ix. If no candidate meets the threshold, the candidate with the lowest number of tribes is eliminated. Ties are broken according specific law. If there is no law specifically available about ties, the ties will be broken randomly.
x. Once a candidate or candidates have been elected, or a candidate has been eliminated, the round ends. If there are still vacancies to be filled, another round begins.


VII. How Votes For Legislation Shall Be Counted

A. Votes shall be grouped by tribe.
i. Each tribe shall vote 'yes' to the proposal if more voters in that tribe voted 'yes' than voted 'no'.
ii. Each tribe shall vote 'no' to the proposal if more voters in that tribes voted 'no' than voted 'yes'.
iii. Ties are broken according specific law. If there is no law specifically available about ties, the ties will be broken randomly.
iv. Any tribe which contains no 'yes' or 'no' votes at all shall be considered void.

B. The proposal shall be passed if more tribes vote 'yes' to the proposal than vote 'no'.


VII. How Votes For Trial and Appelation Shall Be Counted

A. Votes shall be grouped by tribe.
i. Each tribe shall vote to condemn if more voters in that tribe voted 'condemn' than voted 'absolve'.
ii. Each tribe shall vote to absolve if more voters in that tribe voted 'absolve' than voted 'condemn'.
iii. Tied tribes shall vote to absolve for trial, and condemn for appelation.
iv. Any tribe which contains no 'condemn' or 'absolve' votes at all shall be considered void.

B. The defendant shall be condemned if 18 or more tribes vote to condemn. The appeal will pass if 18 or more tribes vote to absolve.


VIII. How The Results Shall Be Announced

A. The magistrates responsible for counting votes shall deliver the results to the presiding magistrate no more than 96 hours after the end of voting.
B. Only the votes of the tribes shall be delivered to the presiding magistrate; the votes of individuals shall remain secret.
C. The presiding magistrate shall announce the results no more than 48 hours after he receives it from the magistrates responsible for counting votes. He shall announce the results in the same fora as those where he originally announced the meeting of the comitia.
D. The presiding magistrate can pass the right to announce the results to another magistrate able to call the Comitia.

**********************************
TEXT OF THE LAW PROPOSAL ENDS HERE
**********************************



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30006 From: John Date: 2004-11-08
Subject: Re: Roman Ethics
Thank you all for the help.
Pontius Sejanus Marius




--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jsames@s...> wrote:
>
> I need to get a crash course in Roman ethics under the reigh of
the
> Julio-Claudains. Can any one help?
>
> Pontius Sejanus Marius
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30007 From: Emilia Curia Finnica Date: 2004-11-08
Subject: LUDI PLEBEII days 3 and 4
EMILIA CURIA FINNICA AEDILIS PLEBIS QUIRITIBUS SPD,

Nuntius just arrived sharing with us the news of the spectacles of a
great weekend.

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

DAY 3
-Venationes

DAY 4
-Venationes

Subscribe to the events of the festival:
-Ludi Circenses

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

DAY 3


----------


VENATIONES
November 6th
reported by Arnamentia Moravia Aurelia

First combats:

1) Fight 1
Ultramontanus vs. Tetricus:
Tetricus wins, Ultramontanus barely survives alive.

Participant: Quintus Salix Cantaber Uranicus
Gladiator: Ultramontanus
Type: Homoplachus

Participant: Tiberius Arminius Hyacinthus
Gladiator: Tetricus
Type: Dimachaerius

The air is electric as the combatants prepare for the first fight. The
crowd has been waiting for hours already, each one of us determined to
have a good view of the show. The two gladiators, Ultramontanus and
Tetricus, both strut their stuff at the edge of the arena, looking
fearsome and confident.

Ultramontanus makes his sponsor proud, flashing his lance and dagger in
wide, low arcs. His muscular frame is defended by a small circular
shield, and the armor on his right arm and shins increase his size. The
crowd is mesmerized, and with each gasp of awe he bows low to the
audience in all directions.

Tetricus is eager to begin the battle, sharpening his two curved blades
against each other in his opponent�s direction. His arms and legs are
lightly covered, leaving visible many scars from previous fights. He
has proven his strength again and again.

Suddenly, they are upon each other. Blade clashes against blade as the
two gladiators begin the fight in earnest. They circle each other,
cat-like, in a predatory dance. Ultramontanus jabs with his lance,
Tetricus steps deftly out of the way. Tetricus cuts quickly towards
Ultramontanus� knees, but is met with a shield instead. Ultramontanus�
blade slices Tetricus� shoulder. Tetricus� blades cut both
Ultramontanus� thighs at once. These men are true professionals, at
time gymnasts, and the crowd reacts dramatically to each clever move.
Although they are both bleeding, this fight could last quite some time!

Wait! Tetricus is going down! Just as he is about to lunge, Tetricus is
tripped by Ultramontanus� strategically placed weapon and heads, face
first, into the sand. Ultramontanus looks momentarily triumphant and
waves to the onlookers. He is saying something to Tetricus � did you
hear that? It sounded like �Give in while you have the chance.� (The
man next to me heard �Give a smile to my lance.�)

That cocky remark is all it takes to inspire Tetricus. In a split
second, he is up and crouched on his heels and then lunging at
Ultramontanus, careless with his siccae and cutting his opponent
rapidly. When they get too close to spar, a quick elbow to the face
serves nicely to knock Ultramontanus off his feet and onto his back. He
is now bleeding heavily from cuts on the thighs, shoulders, and face,
and his nose and eye are quickly blackening. The homoplachus, so
impressive in size, now lays bloodied and disoriented in the sand.
Tetricus, a sportsman to the last, does not finish him. He merely
places one dirty, sandaled foot on the other man�s chest and soaks in
the cheers from the adoring crowd.

2) Fight 2
Pilosus vs. Citius:
Pilosus wins, Citius dies.

Participant: Quintus Salix Cantaber Uranicus
Animal: Pilosus
Type: Ursus Cantabricus (species of Bear)

Participant: Tiberius Ariminius Hyacinthus
Gladiator: Citius
Type: Retiarius

Citius is back! This beloved gladiator has been the object of men�s
envy and women�s desire for many years, always proving himself to be a
fearsome warrior. His skill with a net, trident, and dagger are
legendary. Now he returns to fight in this very arena! The anticipation
is thick in the air as people struggle for seats with the best view of
the Retarius.

Today, Citius� opponent is Pilosus, a fearsome and feisty bear known as
Ursus Cantabricus. Each time the crowd jeers at him he growls, and each
time they cheer for Citius he growls even louder. Normally a slow
moving sort of animal, today Pilosus seems to be alert and angry.

Citius pokes and prods the animal with his trident, each prod earning
him a roar and a swipe of the bear�s mighty paw. Very quickly the bear
is bleeding from several cuts to his front legs and shoulders, and the
gashes on Citius� legs and abdomen are flowing freely.

The worry in the crowd is palpable, and the woman to my left chews her
fingernails down to nothing while watching this fight. Someone calls
out �Citius! Net him!� His protected arm moves quickly, throwing the
net like a true artist and catching Pilosus directly in the middle of
it. The onlookers cheer wildly as Citius readies the dagger in his left
hand. Pilosus is quick, however, and slashes through the net with one
swipe of his mammoth paw, charging through the hole towards the
gladiator. Shards of net dangle from his body as he lunges and flattens
Citius into the sand. A collective gasp breaks the silence in the
stands. Citius, going down? This has never happened. Trident abandoned,
Citius clutches at the dagger in his hand as his only defense. With the
weight of the Ursus Cantabricus full upon his torso, he thrusts the
blade towards his attacker, unable to make contact before a hungry
mouth closes around his arm. Citius doesn�t cry out, and kicks at
Pilosus fiercely with both feet. Annoyed, Pilosus sinks his teeth
ferociously into Citius� neck, shaking his head back and forth as he
bites into the flesh. Citius stops struggling.

Citius is dead.

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

DAY 4


----------


VENATIONES
November 7th
reported by Arnamentia Moravia Aurelia

Final combat:

Pilosus vs. Tetricus:
Pilosus wins, Tetricus dies

Participant: Quintus Salix Cantaber Uranicus
Animal: Pilosus
Type: Ursus Cantabricus (species of Bear)

Participant: Tiberius Arminius Hyacinthus
Gladiator: Tetricus
Type: Dimachaerius

For the last fight, the triumphant Tetricus and Pilosus return. Both
are rested and refreshed for this, the last fight of the day. The crowd
is apprehensive after the loss of Citius, a favorite at the games for
many years, but still eager for the combat.

The opponents waste no time. Tetricus slashes at Pilosus? wounds from
round 2, deepening them and causing blood to flow freshly from the
broken skin. Pilosus swipes at the uncovered flesh of Tetricus? thighs
and shoulders, his roar echoing around us. The two struggle for
dominance of the arena amidst the cheering and applause of onlookers.

Pilosus? claw catches a hold of Tetricus arm covering and rips it off,
breaking the gladiator?s right arm in the process. He struggles to hold
his blade. I hear someone behind me cry out ?Watch out!? as he sways a
bit on his feet. The loss of blood and the heat are affecting his
consciousness, and he swipes halfheartedly at his opponent again. The
bear seems to find this amusing. Pilosus just steps closer, sniffing at
the hot scent of blood in the air.

Suddenly, Pilosus lunges forward and cuts through Tetricus like butter.
They both crash to the ground, but the gladiator has no weapon and no
fight left in him. The crowd is stunned silent as the fearsome Ursus
Cantabricus settles in for his second meal of the day.

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*


----------


LUDI CIRCENSES
November 15th - 17th
SUBSCRIPTIONS ACCEPTED UNTIL NOVEMBER 12TH!

An entrant who wishes to participate in the Ludi Circenses must send a
subscription to Quintus Caecilius Metellus Postumianus at
jonlr@.... Each subscription must bear the subject header
"Ludi Circenses" and include the following information:

A. His/her name in Nova Roma;
B. The name of his/her driver;
C. The name of his/her chariot;
D. His/her tactics for the Quarter and Semifinals;
E. His/her tactics for the Finals;
F. The name of his/her "factio" or team (Albata, Praesina, Russata, or
Veneta);
G. Dirty actions against another factio in a specific round
(quarter-final, semi-final, or final) and amount of sesterces paid in
support of it (an entrant does not have to pay sesterces to commission
a dirty action, but doing so increases the chances of success);
H. Defence against dirty actions in a specific round (quarter-final,
semi-final, or final) and amount of sesterces paid in support of it (an
entrant does not have to pay sesterces to defend against a dirty
action, but doing so decreases the chances of success of the dirty
action);
I. If sesterces from multiple entrants are pooled to take a dirty
action or defend against a dirty action, the subscription of each
entrant of the pool must so indicate.

For more specific information about dirty actions and tactics, have a
look at the RULES at:
http://www.insulaumbra.com/aediles/emiliacuria/index_ple_circenses.html

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

Valete,

Emilia Curia Finnica
Scriba Araniae Academia Thules ad Studia Romana Antiqua et Nova
Aedilis Plebis

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30008 From: Caeso Fabius Quintilianus Date: 2004-11-08
Subject: Edictum Censoris CFQ XX about the appointment of one new Scribae Ce
Ex Officio Censoris Senioris Caesonis Fabii Quintiliani

Edictum Censoris CFQ XX about the appointment of one new Scribae
Cenoris CFQ instead of one that has left Nova Roma

The need for the preparations for the coming elections in
November/December according to Lex Vedia Centuriata and Lex Fabia
Centuriata require that I appoint a replacement for Agrippina Modia
Aurelia who has left Nova Roma after a period of splendid work in my
Cohors Censoris CFQ.

I. I hereby appoint Annia Octavia Indagatrix as Scriba Censoris CFQ
in "Officina_ad_Communicationes".

II. This Edictum becomes effective immediately.

Given the 8th November, in the year of the Consulship of Gnaeus Salix
Astur and Gnaeus Equitius Marinus, 2757 AUC.
--

Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Senior Censor, Consularis et Senator
Proconsul Thules
Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
Civis Romanus sum
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30009 From: Flavius Vedius Germanicus Date: 2004-11-08
Subject: Re: THE COMITIA POPULI TRIBUTA IS CALLED
Salvete,

A technical point of Nova Roman law, if I may.

According to our Constitution (paragraph III.C.), the rules by which the
Comitia Plebis operates can only be altered by a vote of the Comitia
Plebis itself. What needs to happen, in order for this lex to have legal
standing, would be for those parts that pertain to the Comitia Plebis to
be voted on by the Comitia Plebis, and those parts that pertain to the
Comitia Populi to be voted on by the Comitia Populi.

In other words, you can't alter the rules for both Comitiae with a
single lex, since one Comitia can't change the rules for another.

The good news is that the solution is simple; just put up an identical
lex for consideration by the Comitia Plebis.

That way, as long as the lex is passed in both Comitiae, there should be
no problem, since both Comitiae will be in synch (in a very technical,
legalistic sense, those elements of the lex that apply to the Comitia
Populi would be invalid in the version passed by the Comitia Plebis, and
vice-versa, but that's a fine distinction and irrelevant on a practical
level, as long as they both pass the same lex).

Otherwise, the Comitia Populi cannot change the rules of the Comitia
Plebis.

Also, as a general thing, what does this lex change from the current
procedure? I confess I don't see anything really obvious.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus

----------



Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 14:56:02 -0300 (ART)
From: Lucius Arminius Faustus <lafaustus@...>
Subject: THE COMITIA POPULI TRIBUTA IS CALLED

L. Arminius Faustus, Tribunus Plebs, to all roman people of the quirites,

I pray to Ceres and Diana, patronessess of the plebeians and its magistrates. Using my Tribunicia Potestas, the Comitia Populi Tributa is called to vote.

Contio starts since the issuing of this call on NR Main List
The Contio will be suspended all day on 13th november (Nefastus Publicus).
The Contio ends on the opening of the Cista, 14th November, 0:00 Rome Time.
The voting starts 14th November, 0:00 Rome Time
The voting ends 28th November, 23:59 Rome Time

On this Comitia Populi Tributa all citizens are called to vote the following law proposal:

1. Lex Arminia de Ratione Comitiorum Plebis et Populi Tributorum

On this call, quirites, let me express my deepest gratitude and thanks to citizen A. Apolonius Cordus by all his hard work that made this proposal possible. This law is intended to merge and correct all texts of the Comitia laws.

Valete bene in pacem deorum,
L. Arminius Faustus TRP


************************************
TEXT OF THE LAW PROPOSAL STARTS HERE
************************************

Lex Arminia de ratione comitiorum plebis et populi tributorum

This law is intended to bring Nova Roma closer to the Ancient Way of voting and to unify the current legislation of voting on the Comitia. This law replaces the lex Moravia de suffragiis in comitia plebis tributa et ratione comitiorum plebis tributorum, the lex Fabia de ratione comitiorum populi tributorum, the lex Arminia de ratione comitiorum plebis tributorum, the lex Arminia de potestate tribunicia ad comitia convocanda, the lex Arminina de suffragiis in comitiis tributiis, and the lex Salicia de tribunicia comitiorum convocatione. It regulates the procedures to be observed in the comitia plebis tributa (herein called the concilium plebis) and in the comitia populi tributa (herein called the comitia tributa).


I. Who May Convene The Comitia

A. A consul may convene the comitia tributa.

B. A praetor may convene the comitia tributa.

C. A dictator may convene the comitia tributa.

D. A tribunus plebis may convene the concilium plebis to legislate concerning the internal procedures of the concilium plebis and to elect magistrates of the plebs.

E. A tribunus plebis may convene the concilium plebis for any purpose if the plebs constitutes 90% or more of the population, or otherwise may convene the comitia tributa.
i. Between the first and the last day of June and again between the first and the last day of December every year the censores, or whatever magistrates shall be responsible for the album civium, shall announce:
a. the total number of full citizens;
b. the total number of patrician full citizens;
c. the ratio between those two numbers (i.e. the number of patricians divided by the number of citizens).
ii. If the number described in E.i.c is greater than 0.1, the tribunus plebis may convene the comitia tributa.
iii. If the number described in E.i.c is equal to or less than 0.1, the tribunus plebis may convene the concilium plebis.
iV. When the Tribune convene the comitia tributa, all other procedures not described by this or any other law are the same of the concilium plebis convening.

F. The magistrate who convenes the comitia shall be referred to as the presiding magistrate, if the Comitia was called with auspices taken, the presiding magistrate will be the holder of the Comitia auspices.


II. Whether And How The Auspices Shall Be Taken

A. A magistrate possessing Curule Dignitatis (called curule magistrate), wishing to convene the comitia tributa may take the auspices or arrange for the auspices to be taken on his behalf in whatever manner is laid down in law, and shall be liable to any penalties laid down in law for failing to observe the proper procedures for the taking of auspices.

B. A tribunus plebis wishing to convene the comitia tributa or the concilium plebis shall not take auspices or have auspices taken.


III. How The Comitia Shall Be Convened

A. The presiding magistrate may convene the comitia by making a public announcement in whatever public fora are established for public announcements.

B. In this announcement he shall state:
i. the names of any candidates for office, the office for which they are running, and their dates of citizenship;
ii. the full text of any leges or plebiscita to be proposed;
iii. the name of anyone to be tried or anyone that has appealed to the Comitia, and the details of the charges against him (each defendant and each charge shall be listed and voted upon separately);
iv. the dates on which contiones (public discussions regarding the agenda of the comitia) may take place;
v. the dates on which voters may vote;
vi. any additional instructions concerning the meeting of the comitia.

C. The presiding magistrate is responsible for ensuring, as far as possible and with the assistance of the censores, that any candidates for office are legally qualified to stand for election to that office.


IV. When Contiones And Voting May Occur, And How Meetings May Be Obstructed

A. The announcement of the convention of the comitia (described in III.A & III.B) must be made at least 72 hours before the first day of voting.
i. A magistrate capable of calling the comitia may add itens and the agenda of a Comitia already called, if there is time available until the begging of the voting, following the procedures of this law. However, the presiding magistrate will be only the first one who called the Comitia. Any problem ou doubt about entering new itens during the Contio will be solved by the decision of the presiding magistrate.
B. Between the day of the announcement and the first day of voting, a contio can be held on every day on which it is proper for a contio to be held. The Contio can start since the issuing of the calling.

C. Veto or other forms of legal obstruction may occur up to the beginning of voting. Once voting has begun, no one shall obstruct the vote.
i. Veto or other forms of legal obstruction may be used either to cancel the meeting of the comitia in its entirety, or to remove any election, legislative proposal, or trial from the agenda of the meeting.
ii. Veto or other forms of legal obstruction may not be used to remove a candidate from an election, or a section from a legislative proposal, or any other part of an item.

D. Obnuntiatio or other forms of religious obstruction may occur up to the beginning of voting. Once voting has begun, no one shall obstruct the vote.
i. Obnuntiatio or other forms of religious obstruction may not cancel the meeting of the comitia or remove any item from its agenda, but may postpone the beginning of voting until the next comitial day after the day on which voting would otherwise have begun.
ii. If the beginning of voting is postponed in this way, the end of voting shall be postponed to allow at least the same number of days of voting as would previously have occurred.

E. At least 120 hours of voting must be allowed, except that if the comitia is meeting to hear a trial at least 198 hours of voting must be allowed.
F. For an appeal to the Comitia Populi, the procedures of time for starting the voting above on this law will change. Due to the urgency of the appelation voting, a Tribune (due to the lack of auspices) can call the Comitia to start imediately. In this case, the Cista will start as soon as possible after the call, as soon as the magister aranearius is able to create and announce the opening. However, at least 120 hours of voting must be allowed.


V. How Votes May Be Cast

A. The censores shall issue to each citizen who may vote a unique voter-code. Only votes marked with valid voter-codes shall be counted.
i. No vote cast by a patrician shall be counted in the concilium plebis.

B. In consultation with the magistrates responsible for counting votes, the magister aranearius shall create a cista (a secure web-based form to allow voters to vote directly through the Nova Roma website).
i. The cista shall deliver to the magistrates responsible for counting votes a record of each vote, marked with the voter's voter-code, order (patrician or plebeian), and desired votes.
ii. The cista shall give the voter a record of his votes.

C. Alternative procedures for voting may be enacted by law in addition to the web-based cista.

D. Each ballot shall offer the following options:
i. For each candidate for public office, each voter may either mark the candidate 'yes (vti rogas)' or leave him unmarked.
ii. For each legislative proposal, each voter may vote either 'yes (vti rogas)' or 'no (antiqvo)'.
iii. For each charge against a defendant, each voter may vote either 'condemn (condemno)' or 'absolve (absolvo)'.

E. When the agenda for the meeting includes an election for public office, each ballot shall carry the following direction: 'you may vote for as many candidates as you wish, but you are advised to vote only for those candidates you strongly support'.

F. If more than one vote is cast carrying the same voter-code, only the last vote cast shall be counted.


VI. How Votes For Election Shall Be Counted

A. Votes shall be grouped by tribe.
i. For each tribe, the candidates shall be listed by the number of 'yes' votes they receive from voters in that tribe.
ii. The candidate who receives most 'yes' votes (ties being broken according specific law. If there is no law specifically available about ties, the ties will be broken randomly) shall be the first preference of that tribe, and so on.
iii. Any candidate who receives no 'yes' votes in that tribe shall not be listed in that tribe's preference-list.
iv. Any tribe which contains no 'yes' votes at all shall be considered void.

B. The threshold for election is as follows:
i. For 1 vacancy, one half of the tribes (not counting void tribes);
ii. For 2 vacancies, one third of the tribes (not counting void tribes);
iii. For 3 vacancies, one quarter of the tribes (not counting void tribes);
iv. For 4 vacancies, one fifth of the tribes (not counting void tribes);
v. For 5 vacancies, one sixth of the tribes (not counting void tribes);
vi. For 6 vacancies, one seventh of the tribes (not counting void tribes);
vii. For 7 vacancies, one eighth of the tribes (not counting void tribes);
viii. For 8 vacancies, one ninth of the tribes (not counting void tribes);
ix. ... and so on. These numbers must not be rounded up or down.

C. Votes shall be counted in several rounds. The first round shall proceed as follows.
i. Assign each tribe to the candidate at the top of its preference-list.
ii. Calculated the threshold as in VI.C.

iii. Count the total value of each candidate's tribes. Each tribe has a value of 1.
iv. If a candidate meets the threshold he is elected. If more than one candidate meets the threshold, all are elected, in the order of the number of tribes they have, up to the number of vacancies available. Ties are broken according specific law. If there is no law specifically available about ties, the ties will be broken randomly.
v. If no candidate meets the threshold, the candidate with the lowest number of tribes is eliminated. Ties are broken according specific law. If there is no law specifically available about ties, the ties will be broken randomly.
vi. Once a candidate or candidates have been elected, or a candidate has been eliminated, the round ends. If there are still vacancies to be filled, another round begins.

D. All further rounds shall proceed as follows.
i. If a candidate was elected in the previous round, calculate the new value of each of his tribes in the following way:
a. First, calculate the total value of all the tribes being redistributed;
b. Subtract the threshold;
c. Divide by the total value of all the tribes being redistributed;
d. For each tribe, multiply by the previous value of that tribe.

ii. Having calculated the new value of each of his tribes, redistribute them all (see v).
iii. If more than one candidate was elected in the previous round, start with the one who was elected first, calculate the new value of each of his tribes, then do the same for the next candidate who was elected, and so on for all the candidates who were elected. Then redistribute all their tribes (see v).
iv. If a candidate was eliminated in the previous round, do not change the values of his tribes, but redistribute them (see v) with the same values as they had in the previous round.
v. When redistributing tribes, assign each tribe to the candidate at the top of its preference-list (not counting any candidates who have already been elected or eliminated). Any tribes which have no further preferences become void.
vi. Calculate the threshold again. Take the number of vacancies as whatever number there were to begin with, regardless of whether any vacancies have been filled in previous rounds; but adjust the total number of tribes to account for tribes which have become void (see v).
vii. Count the total value of each candidate's tribes.
viii. If a candidate meets the threshold he is elected. If more than one candidate meets the threshold, all are elected, in the order of the number of tribes they have, up to the number of vacancies available. Ties are broken according specific law. If there is no law specifically available about ties, the ties will be broken randomly.
ix. If no candidate meets the threshold, the candidate with the lowest number of tribes is eliminated. Ties are broken according specific law. If there is no law specifically available about ties, the ties will be broken randomly.
x. Once a candidate or candidates have been elected, or a candidate has been eliminated, the round ends. If there are still vacancies to be filled, another round begins.


VII. How Votes For Legislation Shall Be Counted

A. Votes shall be grouped by tribe.
i. Each tribe shall vote 'yes' to the proposal if more voters in that tribe voted 'yes' than voted 'no'.
ii. Each tribe shall vote 'no' to the proposal if more voters in that tribes voted 'no' than voted 'yes'.
iii. Ties are broken according specific law. If there is no law specifically available about ties, the ties will be broken randomly.
iv. Any tribe which contains no 'yes' or 'no' votes at all shall be considered void.

B. The proposal shall be passed if more tribes vote 'yes' to the proposal than vote 'no'.


VII. How Votes For Trial and Appelation Shall Be Counted

A. Votes shall be grouped by tribe.
i. Each tribe shall vote to condemn if more voters in that tribe voted 'condemn' than voted 'absolve'.
ii. Each tribe shall vote to absolve if more voters in that tribe voted 'absolve' than voted 'condemn'.
iii. Tied tribes shall vote to absolve for trial, and condemn for appelation.
iv. Any tribe which contains no 'condemn' or 'absolve' votes at all shall be considered void.

B. The defendant shall be condemned if 18 or more tribes vote to condemn. The appeal will pass if 18 or more tribes vote to absolve.


VIII. How The Results Shall Be Announced

A. The magistrates responsible for counting votes shall deliver the results to the presiding magistrate no more than 96 hours after the end of voting.
B. Only the votes of the tribes shall be delivered to the presiding magistrate; the votes of individuals shall remain secret.
C. The presiding magistrate shall announce the results no more than 48 hours after he receives it from the magistrates responsible for counting votes. He shall announce the results in the same fora as those where he originally announced the meeting of the comitia.
D. The presiding magistrate can pass the right to announce the results to another magistrate able to call the Comitia.

**********************************
TEXT OF THE LAW PROPOSAL ENDS HERE
**********************************

>
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30010 From: Stephen Gallagher Date: 2004-11-08
Subject: Senator Drusus PAX
Salve Romans

"sunt lacrimae rerum et mentem mortalia tangunt"


I have just received word from Senator Drusus that he has suffered a death in his family and that he is now focused on that at this moment in time and not, rightly, on Nova Roma.

His brother-in law has died after a long fight with diabetes.

I wish to convey to the Senator and his family my sincerer condolences and to wish them peace in this trying time


Pax

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Tribunus Plebs

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30011 From: Lucius Arminius Faustus Date: 2004-11-09
Subject: Re: THE COMITIA POPULI TRIBUTA IS CALLED
Salve,

Excuse me, but I must correct some concepts.

Since Lex Salicia, farter three years go, the Tribunus Plebis have
acted throught calling the Comitia Populi, specially because of the
proportional difference of the orders. This is also confirmed by Lex
Arminia de Tribunicia Potestas ad Comitia Convocanda, voted on the
beggining of this very year, alas by the sucessful practice of NR
since these three years.

So, this ´constitutional point´ is not the practice of NR. Specially
because this principle ´the Comitia rule itself´ is not roman. The
Comitia Populi, Comitia Centuriata and Plebiscite on Ancient Rome had
the very same legislative power, differenciating themselves just for
magistrate election. Alas, the Comitia Centuriata have soon lost its
legislative uses to the Comitia Populi, and the Comitia Populi turned
itself on the Plebiscite, since 99,99% of the roman population were
plebeians, plebiscite called by a Tribune (although the Consules and
praetores havent lost the power to call, just have lost the use to
call).

Another point is, I have throught many times recived lots of
complains about the number of legislations, specially of a Tribune.
Although on this Tribunate I have tried many times to respect the
leges before, and make amendments to turn our somewhat a-historical
system more historical, this has turned into many laws, still with
some flaws, and - I confess - a bit difficult to understand as a
hole.

A example: If a consul calls the CPT is different from the calling of
a Tribune. Another point to correct, the law of time for veto and the
starting of cista were provoking a bit of confusion. Now one law
oversees the necessities of orders.

This law unifies the pratices of the Comitia Populi and Comitia
Plebis, according to our necessities. The law turns itself more
universal and prevents the many ammendments of laws. As you could
see, quirites, many of the revoked laws were the MINES! :) There is
also time to correct...

Alas, another thing I urge as magistrate is to a deep look into the
section of the Constitution about the Comitia. There is many things
to correct there, and it makes some historical mistakes to be spread
throught the Republic.


Vale,
L. Arminius Faustus TRP




--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Flavius Vedius Germanicus
<germanicus@g...> wrote:
> Salvete,
>
> A technical point of Nova Roman law, if I may.
>
> According to our Constitution (paragraph III.C.), the rules by
which the
> Comitia Plebis operates can only be altered by a vote of the
Comitia
> Plebis itself. What needs to happen, in order for this lex to have
legal
> standing, would be for those parts that pertain to the Comitia
Plebis to
> be voted on by the Comitia Plebis, and those parts that pertain to
the
> Comitia Populi to be voted on by the Comitia Populi.
>
> In other words, you can't alter the rules for both Comitiae with a
> single lex, since one Comitia can't change the rules for another.
>
> The good news is that the solution is simple; just put up an
identical
> lex for consideration by the Comitia Plebis.
>
> That way, as long as the lex is passed in both Comitiae, there
should be
> no problem, since both Comitiae will be in synch (in a very
technical,
> legalistic sense, those elements of the lex that apply to the
Comitia
> Populi would be invalid in the version passed by the Comitia
Plebis, and
> vice-versa, but that's a fine distinction and irrelevant on a
practical
> level, as long as they both pass the same lex).
>
> Otherwise, the Comitia Populi cannot change the rules of the
Comitia
> Plebis.
>
> Also, as a general thing, what does this lex change from the
current
> procedure? I confess I don't see anything really obvious.
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus
>
> ----------
>
>
>
> Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 14:56:02 -0300 (ART)
> From: Lucius Arminius Faustus <lafaustus@y...>
> Subject: THE COMITIA POPULI TRIBUTA IS CALLED
>
> L. Arminius Faustus, Tribunus Plebs, to all roman people of the
quirites,
>
> I pray to Ceres and Diana, patronessess of the plebeians and its
magistrates. Using my Tribunicia Potestas, the Comitia Populi Tributa
is called to vote.
>
> Contio starts since the issuing of this call on NR Main List
> The Contio will be suspended all day on 13th november (Nefastus
Publicus).
> The Contio ends on the opening of the Cista, 14th November, 0:00
Rome Time.
> The voting starts 14th November, 0:00 Rome Time
> The voting ends 28th November, 23:59 Rome Time
>
> On this Comitia Populi Tributa all citizens are called to vote the
following law proposal:
>
> 1. Lex Arminia de Ratione Comitiorum Plebis et Populi Tributorum
>
> On this call, quirites, let me express my deepest gratitude and
thanks to citizen A. Apolonius Cordus by all his hard work that made
this proposal possible. This law is intended to merge and correct all
texts of the Comitia laws.
>
> Valete bene in pacem deorum,
> L. Arminius Faustus TRP
>
>
> ************************************
> TEXT OF THE LAW PROPOSAL STARTS HERE
> ************************************
>
> Lex Arminia de ratione comitiorum plebis et populi tributorum
>
> This law is intended to bring Nova Roma closer to the Ancient Way
of voting and to unify the current legislation of voting on the
Comitia. This law replaces the lex Moravia de suffragiis in comitia
plebis tributa et ratione comitiorum plebis tributorum, the lex Fabia
de ratione comitiorum populi tributorum, the lex Arminia de ratione
comitiorum plebis tributorum, the lex Arminia de potestate tribunicia
ad comitia convocanda, the lex Arminina de suffragiis in comitiis
tributiis, and the lex Salicia de tribunicia comitiorum convocatione.
It regulates the procedures to be observed in the comitia plebis
tributa (herein called the concilium plebis) and in the comitia
populi tributa (herein called the comitia tributa).
>
>
> I. Who May Convene The Comitia
>
> A. A consul may convene the comitia tributa.
>
> B. A praetor may convene the comitia tributa.
>
> C. A dictator may convene the comitia tributa.
>
> D. A tribunus plebis may convene the concilium plebis to legislate
concerning the internal procedures of the concilium plebis and to
elect magistrates of the plebs.
>
> E. A tribunus plebis may convene the concilium plebis for any
purpose if the plebs constitutes 90% or more of the population, or
otherwise may convene the comitia tributa.
> i. Between the first and the last day of June and again between
the first and the last day of December every year the censores, or
whatever magistrates shall be responsible for the album civium, shall
announce:
> a. the total number of full citizens;
> b. the total number of patrician full citizens;
> c. the ratio between those two numbers (i.e. the number of
patricians divided by the number of citizens).
> ii. If the number described in E.i.c is greater than 0.1, the
tribunus plebis may convene the comitia tributa.
> iii. If the number described in E.i.c is equal to or less than
0.1, the tribunus plebis may convene the concilium plebis.
> iV. When the Tribune convene the comitia tributa, all other
procedures not described by this or any other law are the same of the
concilium plebis convening.
>
> F. The magistrate who convenes the comitia shall be referred to as
the presiding magistrate, if the Comitia was called with auspices
taken, the presiding magistrate will be the holder of the Comitia
auspices.
>
>
> II. Whether And How The Auspices Shall Be Taken
>
> A. A magistrate possessing Curule Dignitatis (called curule
magistrate), wishing to convene the comitia tributa may take the
auspices or arrange for the auspices to be taken on his behalf in
whatever manner is laid down in law, and shall be liable to any
penalties laid down in law for failing to observe the proper
procedures for the taking of auspices.
>
> B. A tribunus plebis wishing to convene the comitia tributa or the
concilium plebis shall not take auspices or have auspices taken.
>
>
> III. How The Comitia Shall Be Convened
>
> A. The presiding magistrate may convene the comitia by making a
public announcement in whatever public fora are established for
public announcements.
>
> B. In this announcement he shall state:
> i. the names of any candidates for office, the office for which
they are running, and their dates of citizenship;
> ii. the full text of any leges or plebiscita to be proposed;
> iii. the name of anyone to be tried or anyone that has appealed to
the Comitia, and the details of the charges against him (each
defendant and each charge shall be listed and voted upon separately);
> iv. the dates on which contiones (public discussions regarding
the agenda of the comitia) may take place;
> v. the dates on which voters may vote;
> vi. any additional instructions concerning the meeting of the
comitia.
>
> C. The presiding magistrate is responsible for ensuring, as far as
possible and with the assistance of the censores, that any candidates
for office are legally qualified to stand for election to that office.
>
>
> IV. When Contiones And Voting May Occur, And How Meetings May Be
Obstructed
>
> A. The announcement of the convention of the comitia (described in
III.A & III.B) must be made at least 72 hours before the first day of
voting.
> i. A magistrate capable of calling the comitia may add itens and
the agenda of a Comitia already called, if there is time available
until the begging of the voting, following the procedures of this
law. However, the presiding magistrate will be only the first one who
called the Comitia. Any problem ou doubt about entering new itens
during the Contio will be solved by the decision of the presiding
magistrate.
> B. Between the day of the announcement and the first day of
voting, a contio can be held on every day on which it is proper for a
contio to be held. The Contio can start since the issuing of the
calling.
>
> C. Veto or other forms of legal obstruction may occur up to the
beginning of voting. Once voting has begun, no one shall obstruct the
vote.
> i. Veto or other forms of legal obstruction may be used either
to cancel the meeting of the comitia in its entirety, or to remove
any election, legislative proposal, or trial from the agenda of the
meeting.
> ii. Veto or other forms of legal obstruction may not be used to
remove a candidate from an election, or a section from a legislative
proposal, or any other part of an item.
>
> D. Obnuntiatio or other forms of religious obstruction may occur
up to the beginning of voting. Once voting has begun, no one shall
obstruct the vote.
> i. Obnuntiatio or other forms of religious obstruction may not
cancel the meeting of the comitia or remove any item from its agenda,
but may postpone the beginning of voting until the next comitial day
after the day on which voting would otherwise have begun.
> ii. If the beginning of voting is postponed in this way, the end
of voting shall be postponed to allow at least the same number of
days of voting as would previously have occurred.
>
> E. At least 120 hours of voting must be allowed, except that if
the comitia is meeting to hear a trial at least 198 hours of voting
must be allowed.
> F. For an appeal to the Comitia Populi, the procedures of time for
starting the voting above on this law will change. Due to the urgency
of the appelation voting, a Tribune (due to the lack of auspices) can
call the Comitia to start imediately. In this case, the Cista will
start as soon as possible after the call, as soon as the magister
aranearius is able to create and announce the opening. However, at
least 120 hours of voting must be allowed.
>
>
> V. How Votes May Be Cast
>
> A. The censores shall issue to each citizen who may vote a unique
voter-code. Only votes marked with valid voter-codes shall be counted.
> i. No vote cast by a patrician shall be counted in the concilium
plebis.
>
> B. In consultation with the magistrates responsible for counting
votes, the magister aranearius shall create a cista (a secure web-
based form to allow voters to vote directly through the Nova Roma
website).
> i. The cista shall deliver to the magistrates responsible for
counting votes a record of each vote, marked with the voter's voter-
code, order (patrician or plebeian), and desired votes.
> ii. The cista shall give the voter a record of his votes.
>
> C. Alternative procedures for voting may be enacted by law in
addition to the web-based cista.
>
> D. Each ballot shall offer the following options:
> i. For each candidate for public office, each voter may either
mark the candidate 'yes (vti rogas)' or leave him unmarked.
> ii. For each legislative proposal, each voter may vote
either 'yes (vti rogas)' or 'no (antiqvo)'.
> iii. For each charge against a defendant, each voter may vote
either 'condemn (condemno)' or 'absolve (absolvo)'.
>
> E. When the agenda for the meeting includes an election for public
office, each ballot shall carry the following direction: 'you may
vote for as many candidates as you wish, but you are advised to vote
only for those candidates you strongly support'.
>
> F. If more than one vote is cast carrying the same voter-code,
only the last vote cast shall be counted.
>
>
> VI. How Votes For Election Shall Be Counted
>
> A. Votes shall be grouped by tribe.
> i. For each tribe, the candidates shall be listed by the number
of 'yes' votes they receive from voters in that tribe.
> ii. The candidate who receives most 'yes' votes (ties being
broken according specific law. If there is no law specifically
available about ties, the ties will be broken randomly) shall be the
first preference of that tribe, and so on.
> iii. Any candidate who receives no 'yes' votes in that tribe shall
not be listed in that tribe's preference-list.
> iv. Any tribe which contains no 'yes' votes at all shall be
considered void.
>
> B. The threshold for election is as follows:
> i. For 1 vacancy, one half of the tribes (not counting void
tribes);
> ii. For 2 vacancies, one third of the tribes (not counting void
tribes);
> iii. For 3 vacancies, one quarter of the tribes (not counting void
tribes);
> iv. For 4 vacancies, one fifth of the tribes (not counting void
tribes);
> v. For 5 vacancies, one sixth of the tribes (not counting void
tribes);
> vi. For 6 vacancies, one seventh of the tribes (not counting void
tribes);
> vii. For 7 vacancies, one eighth of the tribes (not counting void
tribes);
> viii. For 8 vacancies, one ninth of the tribes (not counting void
tribes);
> ix. ... and so on. These numbers must not be rounded up or down.
>
> C. Votes shall be counted in several rounds. The first round shall
proceed as follows.
> i. Assign each tribe to the candidate at the top of its
preference-list.
> ii. Calculated the threshold as in VI.C.
>
> iii. Count the total value of each candidate's tribes. Each tribe
has a value of 1.
> iv. If a candidate meets the threshold he is elected. If more
than one candidate meets the threshold, all are elected, in the order
of the number of tribes they have, up to the number of vacancies
available. Ties are broken according specific law. If there is no law
specifically available about ties, the ties will be broken randomly.
> v. If no candidate meets the threshold, the candidate with the
lowest number of tribes is eliminated. Ties are broken according
specific law. If there is no law specifically available about ties,
the ties will be broken randomly.
> vi. Once a candidate or candidates have been elected, or a
candidate has been eliminated, the round ends. If there are still
vacancies to be filled, another round begins.
>
> D. All further rounds shall proceed as follows.
> i. If a candidate was elected in the previous round, calculate
the new value of each of his tribes in the following way:
> a. First, calculate the total value of all the tribes being
redistributed;
> b. Subtract the threshold;
> c. Divide by the total value of all the tribes being redistributed;
> d. For each tribe, multiply by the previous value of that tribe.
>
> ii. Having calculated the new value of each of his tribes,
redistribute them all (see v).
> iii. If more than one candidate was elected in the previous round,
start with the one who was elected first, calculate the new value of
each of his tribes, then do the same for the next candidate who was
elected, and so on for all the candidates who were elected. Then
redistribute all their tribes (see v).
> iv. If a candidate was eliminated in the previous round, do not
change the values of his tribes, but redistribute them (see v) with
the same values as they had in the previous round.
> v. When redistributing tribes, assign each tribe to the
candidate at the top of its preference-list (not counting any
candidates who have already been elected or eliminated). Any tribes
which have no further preferences become void.
> vi. Calculate the threshold again. Take the number of vacancies
as whatever number there were to begin with, regardless of whether
any vacancies have been filled in previous rounds; but adjust the
total number of tribes to account for tribes which have become void
(see v).
> vii. Count the total value of each candidate's tribes.
> viii. If a candidate meets the threshold he is elected. If more
than one candidate meets the threshold, all are elected, in the order
of the number of tribes they have, up to the number of vacancies
available. Ties are broken according specific law. If there is no law
specifically available about ties, the ties will be broken randomly.
> ix. If no candidate meets the threshold, the candidate with the
lowest number of tribes is eliminated. Ties are broken according
specific law. If there is no law specifically available about ties,
the ties will be broken randomly.
> x. Once a candidate or candidates have been elected, or a
candidate has been eliminated, the round ends. If there are still
vacancies to be filled, another round begins.
>
>
> VII. How Votes For Legislation Shall Be Counted
>
> A. Votes shall be grouped by tribe.
> i. Each tribe shall vote 'yes' to the proposal if more voters in
that tribe voted 'yes' than voted 'no'.
> ii. Each tribe shall vote 'no' to the proposal if more voters in
that tribes voted 'no' than voted 'yes'.
> iii. Ties are broken according specific law. If there is no law
specifically available about ties, the ties will be broken randomly.
> iv. Any tribe which contains no 'yes' or 'no' votes at all shall
be considered void.
>
> B. The proposal shall be passed if more tribes vote 'yes' to the
proposal than vote 'no'.
>
>
> VII. How Votes For Trial and Appelation Shall Be Counted
>
> A. Votes shall be grouped by tribe.
> i. Each tribe shall vote to condemn if more voters in that tribe
voted 'condemn' than voted 'absolve'.
> ii. Each tribe shall vote to absolve if more voters in that tribe
voted 'absolve' than voted 'condemn'.
> iii. Tied tribes shall vote to absolve for trial, and condemn for
appelation.
> iv. Any tribe which contains no 'condemn' or 'absolve' votes at
all shall be considered void.
>
> B. The defendant shall be condemned if 18 or more tribes vote to
condemn. The appeal will pass if 18 or more tribes vote to absolve.
>
>
> VIII. How The Results Shall Be Announced
>
> A. The magistrates responsible for counting votes shall deliver
the results to the presiding magistrate no more than 96 hours after
the end of voting.
> B. Only the votes of the tribes shall be delivered to the
presiding magistrate; the votes of individuals shall remain secret.
> C. The presiding magistrate shall announce the results no more
than 48 hours after he receives it from the magistrates responsible
for counting votes. He shall announce the results in the same fora as
those where he originally announced the meeting of the comitia.
> D. The presiding magistrate can pass the right to announce the
results to another magistrate able to call the Comitia.
>
> **********************************
> TEXT OF THE LAW PROPOSAL ENDS HERE
> **********************************
>
> >
> >
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30012 From: Lucius Arminius Faustus Date: 2004-11-09
Subject: Re: THE COMITIA POPULI TRIBUTA IS CALLED
Salve,

But surely I would like to enforce that I fell very thankful by
hearing some feedback during the Contio. Throught discussion we
advance... hum... a bit peripathetic, hum? :)

Vale,
L. Arminius Faustus


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Lucius Arminius Faustus"
<lafaustus@y...> wrote:
>
> Salve,
>
> Excuse me, but I must correct some concepts.
>
> Since Lex Salicia, farter three years go, the Tribunus Plebis have
> acted throught calling the Comitia Populi, specially because of the
> proportional difference of the orders. This is also confirmed by
Lex
> Arminia de Tribunicia Potestas ad Comitia Convocanda, voted on the
> beggining of this very year, alas by the sucessful practice of NR
> since these three years.
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30013 From: Q. Caecilius Metellus Date: 2004-11-09
Subject: Re: THE COMITIA POPULI TRIBUTA IS CALLED
Q. Caecilius Metellus L. Arminio Fausto sal. dic.

Salve, Tribune,

You are right, somewhat, that it has been the practice of our tribuni plebis
to act through the Comitia Populi Tributa. You are also right that this is
done because of the misproportion of plebeians to patricians. But you are
wrong on the whole, as Flavius Vedius rightly demonstrated, and as I had
intended to as well, in that the Constitution does state that no comitia may
alter the rules of another comitia. This point was brought up earlier
shortly after you forced the Lex Arminia de Ratione Comitiorum Plebis
Tributorum through the Comitia Populi Tributa. As a Tribune you ought to
know that the Constitution states: "III.C. ...only the comitia plebis
tributa shall pass laws governing the rules by which it shall operate
internally." Unless a Constitutional amendment is brought to the Comitia
Centuriata and approved there, then also approved by the Senate, as the
provision I quote above is found in the respective sections for the other
comitia, NO COMITIA MAY LEGISLATE THE RULES FOR ANOTHER COMITIA! Is it,
Tribune, that you choose to ignore the same constitution which you swore to
uphold and protect? Or is it that you are simply ignorant of its provisions?

Optime Vale,

Quintus Caecilius Metellus
Plebeian
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30014 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2004-11-09
Subject: Re: THE COMITIA POPULI TRIBUTA IS CALLED
---Salvete Q. Caecili Metelle, L. Armini Fauste et omnes:

A couple of comments below. Uhem....I hope it is okay for me to
comment; I realize that I am a patrician, but I would like to see
the best for all, nonetheless, so I'll say a few things in testudo
formation :)


(snip)
Metellus wrote:
>
> Salve, Tribune,
>
> You are right, somewhat, that it has been the practice of our
tribuni plebis
> to act through the Comitia Populi Tributa. You are also right
that this is
> done because of the misproportion of plebeians to patricians. But
you are
> wrong on the whole, as Flavius Vedius rightly demonstrated, and as
I had
> intended to as well, in that the Constitution does state that no
comitia may
> alter the rules of another comitia.

Pompeia: You are technically correct, as you say, in the one area
that this proposal governs the internal affairs of another comitia,
as you state below. I will give you that. Why, after a couple of
years, this corresponding constitutional language hasn't been
corrected, I don't know, but it should be, as it is an inaccurate
stumbling block to a very effective means of promulgating
legislation affecting most of the people. I think it is just a case
of 'whoops', and nobody picked up on it.

But, nonetheless it is 'still there' and being that the Constitution
is the highest ruler of legislation, our 'Ace of Spades' it might be
prudent for the good Tribune to present this as two separate comitia
calls, to satisfy the constitutional language suggesting he needs
to, technical and somewhat nonconsensual to current laws as it may
be. Quite frankly, as the Tribune had indicated, the CPT has been
an open venue for the Tribune to work through if it is full of
plebians, I never questioned this myself, although I've read the
constitution more than once :) and this lex proposal a few times.

You do realize, and likely I'm just refreshing your memory Metellus,
that at one point the Tribune's legislation had binding authority
over all the people (I'll fish for the lex if you like)...the notion
that they were in this comitia or that went out the
window....so 'legally and technically' our constitution is an
applicable, techinically legal stumbling block to the manner in
which Tribune Faustus' proposals are presented in NR.

Metellus wrote:


This point was brought up earlier
> shortly after you forced the Lex Arminia de Ratione Comitiorum
Plebis
> Tributorum through the Comitia Populi Tributa. As a Tribune you
ought to
> know that the Constitution states: "III.C. ...only the comitia
plebis
> tributa shall pass laws governing the rules by which it shall
operate
> internally." Unless a Constitutional amendment is brought to the
Comitia
> Centuriata and approved there, then also approved by the Senate,
as the
> provision I quote above is found in the respective sections for
the other
> comitia, NO COMITIA MAY LEGISLATE THE RULES FOR ANOTHER COMITIA!

Pompeia: The Tribune may not call the Comitia Centuriata into
session, so such a thing was unfixable by the Tribunes. Again, I
think it's one of those things which feel through the
cracks...goodness knows, all of the active magistrates have had more
than enough to divert their attentions this year...they deserve paid
holidays....but.....


And regarding the forcing of legislation through the CPT earlier, as
you refer to above...I am not sure how you are assigning the
term 'force'...such promulgation was as subject to collegial
intercessio by fellow Tribunes as any other of their legislation,
and moreover, the citizens did not have to vote for anything they
thought was a bad idea.....and it passed......so I think you use of
the word 'force' is rather harsh, to be honest.

And speaking of this 'forced' legislation, it amended the Language
of the Lex Moravia de Suffragiis in Comitia Plebis Tributa which
stipulated that Tribunes must take auspices. This was not the
historical modality, and certainly hamstrings power which is already
checked by potential collegial intercessio, when you look at it from
an NR perspective.

Let us know throw out the baby with the bathwater. This proposal
presents with a better tallying system of votes for the Plebs which
produces a more accurate representation of the peoples' wishes re
elected tribunes, it affirms when it is appropriate for a Tribune to
call the CPT and when to call the the Comitia Plebis. It tidies up
the Lex Moravia a bit. And I've said before myself that I think she
was on the right track with respect to allowing a voting system
of 'approval', but fell a bit short in her methodology of counting
votes.

And in my view, if it must be presented as two separate proposals,
so be it. But that is my two cents and I shall leave said decision
up to the Tribunes, although Metelle, I see where you are coming
from, in your pursuit (and mine) to satisfy all aspects of the law,
technical and otherwise.

Metellus wrote:


Is it,
> Tribune, that you choose to ignore the same constitution which you
swore to
> uphold and protect? Or is it that you are simply ignorant of its
provisions?

Pompeia: See above

Valete,
Pompeia

>
> Optime Vale,
>
> Quintus Caecilius Metellus
> Plebeian
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30015 From: Lucius Arminius Faustus Date: 2004-11-09
Subject: Re: THE COMITIA POPULI TRIBUTA IS CALLED
Salve,

Excuse me, but you are mistaken.

Since Lex Salicia - unvetoed it time - and Lex Arminia - unvetoed
also - and all leges before passed throught Comitia Populi. So, this
interpretation of the Constituion is not the current used by NR
people (that approved these many laws) neither by NR magistrates
(that uses it). Alas, a very un-historical interpretation, since all
roman Comitias had the same legislative ruling. No matter if you
divide people by centuries or tribes, the will of the people is the
same. That is why I dont know why only the Comitia Centuriata can
propose constitutional ammendments, and I hole-hearted disagree.

This division of powers is a modern idea. Not roman. There is just
one roman people of the quirites, this roman people express on the
Comitia Populi - and on rare cases - Comitia Plebis. Both are the
same tribal assembly. I dont see why make difference on the
procedures, since the Legislative power is the same. Alas, perhaps
our problem is we think on modern terms, on ´Power of the Comitia´.
We are not dealing about Power of the Comitia, but on ´Power of the
Magistrate´

What I mean?
The Tribunicia Potestas that calls the Comitia Plebis is the same of
the Comitia Populi. Since it is under the same ´auspices´ (although
this is not a correct term on the tribunicia potestas) these auspices
cannot see diference on both ways of calling.

I´m acting according the law and the roman constitution I defend.
This is just a interpretation, I dont agree, neither we - magistrates
and people that have approved the laws - agree. We already have
Jurisprudence on this matter. Indeed, the question was raised before,
I explained why it wasn´t right and the People - the ultimate source
of legislation - gave the last word agreeing with Lex Salicia. So,
this interpretation, the current interpretation that Lex Salicia and
now Lex Arminia is done, is the word of the roman people of the
quirites.

Remember, this - Lex Salicia which spirit is mantained on the law
bellow - is a very historical lex. Since we have the population
balance of the Early Republic, Lex Salicia forescated the uses of the
Early Republic - Comitia Populi rules all. As Plebeian I perhaps
would love to see 50% of our citizens decing for 100%. But it is not
fair, isnt?

So, a law that rules the procedures of the Comitia Populi goes to the
Comitia Populi. Very simple. However, if - perhaps - a patrician
think offended to voting in a measure that can be used for a
Plebiscite, feel free to not vote.

I urge the next magistrates (since the year is on its end) to make
urgently a Constitution reform that will remake these sections of the
Constitution. They causes much confusions and adds nothing to the
compreenshion of the mechanisms of the Roman Legislative System,
alas, they pass a wrong idea.

We need a deep reform on these descriptions. This proposal is the
last contribution of a ending Tribunate that all year acted on it.
Anyway, I feel very thankful by the comments, they are good to
correct some mistakes we still have on our concepts.


Valete bene in pacem deorum,
L. Arminius Faustus TRP





-- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Q. Caecilius Metellus"
<postumianus@g...> wrote:
> Q. Caecilius Metellus L. Arminio Fausto sal. dic.
>
> Salve, Tribune,
>
> You are right, somewhat, that it has been the practice of our
tribuni plebis
> to act through the Comitia Populi Tributa. You are also right that
this is
> done because of the misproportion of plebeians to patricians. But
you are
> wrong on the whole, as Flavius Vedius rightly demonstrated, and as
I had
> intended to as well, in that the Constitution does state that no
comitia may
> alter the rules of another comitia. This point was brought up
earlier
> shortly after you forced the Lex Arminia de Ratione Comitiorum
Plebis
> Tributorum through the Comitia Populi Tributa. As a Tribune you
ought to
> know that the Constitution states: "III.C. ...only the comitia
plebis
> tributa shall pass laws governing the rules by which it shall
operate
> internally." Unless a Constitutional amendment is brought to the
Comitia
> Centuriata and approved there, then also approved by the Senate, as
the
> provision I quote above is found in the respective sections for the
other
> comitia, NO COMITIA MAY LEGISLATE THE RULES FOR ANOTHER COMITIA!
Is it,
> Tribune, that you choose to ignore the same constitution which you
swore to
> uphold and protect? Or is it that you are simply ignorant of its
provisions?
>
> Optime Vale,
>
> Quintus Caecilius Metellus
> Plebeian
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30016 From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) Date: 2004-11-09
Subject: Re: Senator Drusus PAX
Salvete Senator Druse et omnes,

Tribune Pauline,

Thank you for letting us know about Drusi family situation. I was
wondering where he was since he hadn't posted here or in the back
alley.

I send Drusus my condolences and sympathy at the passing away of his
brother. I hope he shall be happy and fufilled in the next life.
Diabetes is tough, silent slow killer for many. I recently lost some
friends and aquaintences and one of my family members has it.
Hopefully there will be cures found in the near future.

Respectfully,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@m...>
wrote:
> Salve Romans
>
> "sunt lacrimae rerum et mentem mortalia tangunt"
>
>
> I have just received word from Senator Drusus that he has suffered
a death in his family and that he is now focused on that at this
moment in time and not, rightly, on Nova Roma.
>
> His brother-in law has died after a long fight with diabetes.
>
> I wish to convey to the Senator and his family my sincerer
condolences and to wish them peace in this trying time
>
>
> Pax
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> Tribunus Plebs
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30017 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2004-11-09
Subject: Re: THE COMITIA POPULI TRIBUTA IS CALLED
A. Apollonius Cordus Flavio Vedio Germanico p.p. Q.
Caecilio Metello amico L. Arminio Fausto omnibusque
sal.

It's important first of all to separate what is from
what ought to be. If we can agree about what ought to
be, that's a good start.

I think it's pretty clear what ought to be in this
case. The tribal assemblies must, by definition and by
historical precedent, have the same procedures as one
another. When these procedures need to be changed,
therefore, it is obvious that they ought to be changed
for both simultaneously. Any idea of separation of
powers is, as the tribune has said, an absurd
anachronism, since not only was the separation of
powers a concept alien to Roman thinking but it was in
fact the precise opposite of the principle on which
the Roman republic operated. So I hope we can agree
that if what the tribune is seeking to do is in fact
unconstitutional, it is the constitution which is at
fault and which needs to be changed.

So now the second question - is it unconstitutional?
Well, this raises the question of what
'unconstitutional' actually means in our political
system. The constitution says that certain things must
be or must not be. It also provides a mechanism which
protects it from being overruled. That mechanism is
the tribunician veto. The tribunician veto, however,
has two built-in features which make it flexible.

The first is that it has a time limit. If something is
done and not vetoed within that time, then the
constitution itself makes it very clear that no one
has the power to undo that thing. So although a thing
may be 'unconstitutional' in the sense that it seems
to contradict what the constitution itself says, in
another sense anything which is not vetoed must
necessarily be constitutional, because the mechanism
which prevents unconstitutional things happening has
not prevented it.

But this leads to the second feature of the
tribunician veto: it is discretionary. It doesn't
automatically occur when anything is done which
contravenes the words of the constitution. It has to
be activated deliberately by a tribune, and ratified
by others. Moreover, the tribunes themselves are under
no legal duty to veto anything; they may choose to do
so to not to do so. It is up to them.

So this tells us something about the nature of the
constitution itself. It provides itself with
protection, but a limited protection. If it were the
intent of the constitution that anything which
contradicts its words should be invalid, then it would
provide some fool-proof mechanism for making sure that
anything which contradicts its words would be struck
down. Instead, it chooses a more limited protection
and thereby allows itself to be overruled. Therefore
it is clearly the intent of the constitution itself
that anything which is not vetoed be considered
constitutional.

Of course, the objection to this is that the
constitution was not in fact designed in that way at
all, and the fact that it contains no fool-proof
protection is simply because its designers made a
silly mistake. Well, that's as may be, but the law is
the law, and the constitution says what it says. If it
seems self-contradictory, we have to interpret it as
best we can. When in one place it seems to imply that
it cannot be overruled, but then again it gives no one
the power and obligation to stop it being overruled,
we have no choice but to assume that it can be
overruled, so long as the tribunes are happy with
that. To put it another way: how can it be
unconstitutional if the constitution itself permits it
to be done?

As the tribune himself has pointed out, we have been
operating all year on the principle that one tribal
assembly has the power to change the procedures of the
other. It has never been vetoed, and quite rightly so,
because it is a very sensible and necessary principle.
The tribunes could, it is true, do a U-turn at this
stage and try to block this particular vote, but since
they are not legally obliged to do so, and since they
would thereby be replacing a sensible and necessary
principle with an anachronistic and inconvenient one,
they would clearly be daft to do it.

So the best solution is to say, 'yes, the constitution
does say this, but on the other hand the constitution
also allows us to overrule it at the discretion of the
tribunes, and in this case the tribunes are going to
maintain the policy they have adopted all year,
namely, not allowing the constitution to get in the
way of good sense'.





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30018 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2004-11-09
Subject: Re: THE COMITIA POPULI TRIBUTA IS CALLED
A. Apollonius Cordus Flavio Vedio Germancio p.p.
omnibusque sal.

> Also, as a general thing, what does this lex change
> from the current
> procedure? I confess I don't see anything really
> obvious.

From my reading I'd say it contains a number of small
but useful changes. There may be others I've missed or
forgotten.

1. Currently if a voter votes several times the
rogatores are required to count only the first vote.
This law would allow the rogatores to count the last
vote instead. The overwhelming majority of instances
of multiple voting occur when someone makes a mistake
at the cista and fails to vote on a certain item -
quite often we get a ballot which says 'abstain' on
every item, followed immediately by another from the
same voter which clearly represents what the voter
actually wanted to do. It's extremely frustrating that
currently we have to ignore what is clearly the true
wish of the voter and instead register his vote as an
abstention.

2. It gets rid of the requirement for the tribunes to
take auspices, which is not only unhistorical but
positively impious.

3. It changes the method by which the votes are
calculated to a proportional system which will ensure
that the tribunes (and the other magistrates elected
by the tribes) are representative of the various
different sectors of the electorate, as was the case
in the historical tribal assembly.

4. It simplifies the currently over-complicated
procedure by which the tribunes work out whether the
patricians are more or less than 10% of the
population.

5. It clarifies some unclear points relating to when
and how intercessio and obnuntiatio may be used.

6. It gives a little more time between the end of
voting and the announcement of the result, which will
be necessary now that the number of magistrates
involved in counting the votes and checking the result
has increased (since the lex Equitia de
vigintisexviris).

I think that's about all it does. Oh, here's another:

7. It gives the dictator the power to call the
comitia, which of course is historical.





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30019 From: Emilia Curia Finnica Date: 2004-11-09
Subject: LUDI PLEBEII day 5
EMILIA CURIA FINNICA AEDILIS PLEBIS QUIRITIBUS SPD,

The first fights of Munera took place on Monday, and since my most
industrious scriba ludorum, C. Curius Saturninus, has no objections,
I'll repeat his letter of remarkable description and detail to you all.

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

DAY 5
-Munera

Subscribe to the events of the festival:
-Ludi Circenses

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

DAY 5


----------


MUNERA
November 8th

C. Curius amico suo Marco Alexandrio S.P.D.

In your last letter to me you asked me to report you about what is
happening in Rome in these days. It must be simply awful to be so far
away from our beloved city and without too many Roman citizens to talk
with. On the other hand, it must also be great to have the possibility
to find great teachers to listen to, and hopefully also the businesses
are doing well, while you are staying in Athens.

But now to the news you have waited so anxiously. On past days there
has going on, as you probably realised, Ludi Plebeii. The events have
been wonderful and the crowds have been exhilerated by all the
spectacles we have had the opportunity to see. As you are a fan of
gladiatorial fights, I thought it would be proper to dedicate this
letter to the Munera Gladiatoria. I went to see every fight myself and
even asked my slave to come with and write down notes about each fight,
so that I would not forget a tiniest detail. I have now just come back
to my house and only had a frugal dinner and now I'm going through all
the notes and memories I have of the fights. I really wish you could
have been there with me to enjoy the spectacles and that we could have
spent happy dinner party discussing the fights!

Quarters:

The quarter matches were held on Monday 8th of November. The sun shone
from cloudless sky, and those nasty Autumn winds were totally missing,
in fact you could have thought it was Spring, not Autumn, such a
beautiful day we had. So just about everyone in the city were on the
move, and there wasn't going to be a single seat left unused we
gathered. I had agreed to meet M' Con. Serapio before the event and
walked to his house. I wish I would have his talents of writing, but
the muses have not been so kind to me as to him. Only a writer's like
his text would make justice to event. After a nice stroll we arrived to
the theater where the fights were staged. There was a very lively crowd
already there, air was getting warmer through sunshine, and you could
feel the waiting and excitement of the crowd. You can imagine how it
feels like, after a quite slow and peaceful morning, to arrive midst
all the excited crowd and noise. At first one feels surprised and is a
little weary for all the sounds and motion, then one starts to relax
and feels how the excitement is getting a hold on ones mind. After some
nervous moments one is already taken up by the somewhat hilarious and
even a bit scary emotion of excitement and starts to talk louder than
usual, gestures become more lively and then one notices it, that one is
the same with the cheering and roaring crowd and feels terribly well
for being it.

This is what I and thousands and thousands of other spectators felt,
when going to the theatre, entering this other world. At once one
starts to remember past fights one has seen, starts to speak about
spectacular escapes, heroic deaths, bravery, skill of utmost excellence
of those glorious fighters of past. One thinks differently, with the
concepts of fights with the language of battle. My friend, you know
well how it feels, so many fights we have seen together.

We took our seats at the mid-ring, with almost perfect view for all the
arena. There were the usual opening ceremonies, and the crowd was so
taken up by the spirit that they had difficulties waiting for the
ceremonies to end, and constantly there was a wave of shouting going
through the benches.

Finally it was the moment of first fight to begin.

Fight 1
Sponsor: Titus Aurelius Ursus
Gladiator: Achilles
Type: Thraex

Sponsor: Titus Aurelius Ursus
Gladiator: Arkos
Type: Murmillo

Titus Aurelius Ursus from the province of Mediatlantica has sent two
fighters for this event. For is ill-luck the ever unpredictable Fortuna
judged that his fighters would be fighting against each other, and at
the first fight of the event! There was a rumor amongst the crowd that
Achilles and Arkos would be even brothers, but some said that they were
cousins. In any case the usually reliable sources said that they have
known each other for all their life and trained together. Oh, Fortuna,
what a judgement you have done! Justice has a blind over her eyes to
make her judgements fair, but so too must Fortuna have a blind,
otherwise such a tragedy would not be possible.

Achilles was the more muscular one of the fighters, a thraex. He is not
typical thraex, agile and speedy, but as I know you like a thraex to
be, strong and determined. He greeted the audience by raising up his
sicca and the rays of sun glittered on its sharp blade. Arkos was the
smaller one of the fighters, and should I say, that was not totally to
my tastes, as murmillo should be more defensive of fighters, and fast
fighter with large scutum does not sound that attractive. Perhaps it is
the times we are living, that new things have to be experimented.

One could expect that two fighters knowing each other well would start
their fight carefully and that the fight could become boring and slow,
but this was not certainly the case. Achilles started his attack with a
thrust forward holding his parmula ready to take possible counterstroke
from Arkos' gladius and open up a gap in his defences. Arkos however
anticipated this and used his scutums edge and tried to hit Achilles
out of balance. Achilles balance was almost lost, but with surprisingly
quick steps he maintained it and the crowd started to cheer immediately
in the very first moments of the fight.

After this both fighters tried couple of series of moves to try to find
weak spots of each others defence. Arkos even challenged Achilles by
aiming couple of fast strokes behind his scutum with his gladius
against the parmula of Achilles. Achilles however without difficulties
managed to counter these, because might he be largish to be thraex, the
light equipment allowed him to move with relative easyness even while
being naturally a little slow. Achilles also manages to deliver couple
of strong slicing hits to the scutum of Arkos, and you could almost
hear the muscle tension of Arkos to take those hits back with his body
behind the shield.

Both fighters moved a lot and the tempo of battle was tremendous. Those
sitting in the first rows, this I heard after the fights, could see the
sweat flying in big drops through the air when these two extremenly
skillful and well-trained fighters tested each others skills. Crowd
cheered and the violent dance to the death in the arena touched the
souls of everyone. Such battle of skills would have made even our
illustrious forefathers to present their admiration for this test of
human skills that had almost a divine beauty.

In the course of fight it became clear that Achilles was the more
attacking one and Arkos, as suitable for murmillo, was the more
defensive one. Achilles' attacks were firece and full of strenght,
those beautiful attacks without fear and he seemed to be the very
personification of courage. Arkos was more careful, but he lacked
nothing in skill compared to Achilles.

The finale of battle was spectacular and complicated set of moves, and
to this day I have not been able to understand was it the skill or luck
that determined the winner of the fight. Arkos managed to deliver a
mighty hit to the parmula of Achilles, who was not prepared to take
such a fierce hit, because if the hit had been misplaced or otherwise
incomplete, Arkos' defences would have been opened probably faithfully.
But this didn't happen, Arkos put all his strenght to the blow, even
jumping at the same time to get his body weight fully to support the
hit, and managed to perhaps brake some bones in Achilleus' hand or
displace his arm. Strong and brave as he was, Achilles did not fall, or
even seriously lose his overall balance, he even managed to use his
sicca to inflict a long wound to the left hand of Arkos, from which
dark red blood bursted out. Arkos had to drop his shield, and this
happened within a blink of an eye, he diverted his movement to all-out
run towards Achilles with his right hand ready to use gladius. Achilles
tried to rise his parmula-holding left hand, but couldn't move it
properly, and as a last measure he tried to rise his sicca and to aim
it to the neck of running Arkos, but he was that one blink of an eye
too late and even where I sat I could hear the crack of his body armour
when Arkos' gladius penetrated through it straight to his heart. Both
fighters fell to the ground, and the cheering of the crowds was such
that you must have heard it all the way to the Athens, everyone stood
up and threw thousands of gold coins to the arena cheering all the
time. After some short moment that felt like eternity, Arkos rose up,
left his sword to the dead body of Achilles and waived his hand above
his head, until you could see how he realised that he had killed
Achilles, and suddenly you could see him dropping to his knees and
crying. The big tears dropped to the bloody sand of the arena, which
only some moments ago had recieved drops of sweat of fighters and then
the rain of gold coins from the spectators, truly that sand had seen
most tragic and heroic moments. Arkos rose up again and in the manner
of a great fighter started to enjoy his victory and saluted the
audience, which did not stop cheering until moments after he had left
the arena.

My friend, what a fight you missed!

Fight 2
Sponsor: Quintus Salix Cantaber Uranicus
Gladiator: Carnifex Peritus
Type: Homoplachus

Sponsor: Marca Arminia Maior Fabiana
Gladiator: Verecunda of the Cherusci
Type: Retiarius

The second fight of the Munera was between Carnifex Peritus and
Verecunda of the Cherusci, brought here by respectively Quintus Salix
Cantaber Uranicus and Marca Arminia Maior Fabiana. Carnifex Peritus was
a homoplachus with pectoral plate and lance. Verecunda had the normal
net and trident. Both of the fighters seemed to me to be quite
aggressive in their fighting style. Carnifex Peritus seemed to have a
lot of strength, there was something brutal in him. Verecunda was also
quite a big fellow and both were a perhaps a little slow in their
movement.

Verecunda's tactic was to try to drive Carnifex Peritus back against
the wall, but that proved to be difficult. Cornifex on the other hand
tried primarily to avoid to get caught to the net of Verecunda, but
also to try to find a moment for using his lance against the
unprotected arm of Verecunda.

Both fighters thus moved carefully and there wasn't the same speed or
show of skills as in the first fight. Verecunda first got his chance
when he managed to capture the lance-holding hand of Carnifex Peritus
into his net and at the same time drive him back against the wall.
Carnifex Peritus however finally showed why he is called Peritus, and
managed to detach himself from the net, and while losing his lance, it
seemed that he had played a trick on Verecunda by pretending to be more
badly trapped with the net than he really was.

Now the pace of action rose up tremendously as Verecunda noticed that
Carnifex Peritus was about to get away leaving his lance mixed to the
net making the net also useless. So Verecunda raised his trident and
aimed straight to the head of Carnifex Peritus and with huge force and
speed the trident moved forward, but in the very last moment Carnifex
Peritus managed free himself off from the net and in fact fell down,
which saved his life. The trident of Verecunda crashed to the wall of
arena and it's spikes were shattered from the strenght of the hit.

Now both fighters had only their daggers left, Carnifex Peritus even
threw his shield away, and the crowd started to cheer for this action.
Both fighters stood up and looked at each other straight in the eyes,
the sun glittered on their armour and the very ominous-looking blades
of their daggers. Then they both started to move closer each other at
the same time circling slowly. Carnifex Peritus dashed forward, managed
to inflict a small wound to Verecunda, but Verecunda was fast enough to
move aside and the wound was not bad anyhow. While correcting his
position and movement Carnifex Peritus used a little too much time and
Verecunda got a chance to deliver a good sting with his dagger for
Carnifex Peritus, but for some unknown reason lost his balance and
while falling down, managed only to scratch Carnifex Peritus' pectoral
plate and inflict a small wound to the bare part of his chest.
Verecunda now was on the ground and had to find a way to rise up in
safe way. Carnifex Peritus decided to make his move and started to dash
towards Verecunda and aimed his dagger to the neck of Verecunda.
Verecunda saw what was coming and did not get up, as one could have
expected, instead he dropped down again, and when Carnifex Peritus
noticed this, it was too late for him to stop, instead he tried to jump
over Verecunda, but Verecunda anticipated this and practically sliced
the calf of Carnifex Peritus in half from the unprotected backside.
Carnifex Peritus shouted in pain and blood started immediately to flow
from the very nasty looking wound. The crowd cheered and stood up to
show their appreciation for the very skillful move of Verecunda.
Verecunda rose up, ready to attack Carnifex Peritus, but the battle was
over, as Carnifex Peritus could not stand anymore. Verecunda decided to
drop attack and the audience and Aedile did not wish to see Carnifex
Peritus dying, as the fight had been even and fair.

If this fight seems to be lacking of events, it is because of my
inadequate skills of using words. The first fight was so spectacular,
that it was wrong for any fight to follow it, as the following fight
would inevitably stay in the shadows of the first one. After this
battle, by the way, I heard a rumour amongst the crowd, that the winner
Verecunda's large size is because he is from Germania, and apparently
of a tribe whose warriors are so fierce that we are lucky to have them
as our allies and not as our opponents. This information seems to me to
be not very liable, but I write down here just in case you are
interested in it. But now to the 3rd fight.

Fight 3
Sponsor: Aulus Minicius Iordannes Pompeianus
Gladiator: Carnifex
Type: Dimachaerus

Sponsor: Quintus Salix Cantaber Uranicus
Gladiator: Diogenes Pugilator
Type: Retiarius

The gladiators fighting in the third fight were both from the provincia
Hispania. Carnifex was a dimachaerus sponsored by Aulus Minicius
Iordannes Pompeianus and Diogenes Pugilator was a retiarius sposored by
Quintus Salix Cantaber Uranicus. Carnifex had two very dangerously
looking siccae, and he was of course very fast and agile fighter. It
seems that these fighters are at the moment very popular amongst the
younger citizens, they are fast and spectable, as you, I personally
prefer old-style fighters more, but I'm first to admit also, that these
new fighter types have given us some very entertaining moments. There
was a rumour in the crowd, that Carnifex had been born and raised among
the desert tribes in the North African plains, but you know how these
rumours are.

Definetly not a rumour, but a fact is that Diogenes Pugilator was from
Hispania. You know the hispanic type, dark, proud and very skillful and
devoted. There is a new saying going around that claims that hispanic
fighter can only be beaten in two ways: either with brute force or by
him losing his fighting spirit.

In this fight, too, there was two attacking style fighters, so the
start was maybe a bit uneventful. Carnifex moved so fast, that Diogenes
Pugilator had difficulties in trying to get him caught with the net. It
must be twenty times he threw his net for nothing. But then after very
skillful movement to left he surprised Carnifex, who did not expect
such swift change of direction and was trapped right in the middle of
the net. The crowd started to cheer, and perhaps this, perhaps surprise
of his good luck, Diogenes Pugilator was not fast enough to try to
tackle Carnifex with his net, and instead stopped for an eye blink to
see what has happened. During this blink of an eye Carnifex placed both
his swords to a single seam of the net and sliced the whole net in two
pieces, which he then fastly kicked away from his feet and was free
again. This took Diogenes Pugilator by complete surprise, he had had
everything there, and suddenly he was the one who was in trouble.
Without his net Diogenes had to first take some steps back, then
quickly take his dagger to his free hand and then start defending
himself against the fierce fast-paced attack of Carnifex. The crowd
went wild at this moment.

Carnifex had maybe even planned the move, by which he rendered the net
useless, and if that is so, I cannot say how much I admire his courage
and resourcefulness, such a tactic would perhaps never occurred to me
had I been in his place. Carnifex used his swords with such speed, that
Diogenes was very much in trouble to try to defend himself and was
almost running backwords in seeking an opportunity to reverse the
situation.

Even strong and skillful Carnifex was, he probably had underestimated
the strenghts of Diogenes Pugilator, and had to slow down the tempo of
strokes, now one could actually see his siccae moving in the air, not
just assume where they were. It seems to have been an excellent choice
that Diogenes Pugilator had taken a trident that had a metallic or wood
covered with a layer of metal spine in his trident, he could use it to
take the hits from the siccae, which normal wooden spine could have not
taken.

Now with the tempo of Carnifex's attack slowing down and Diogenes
Pugilator finding again his balance and stopped retreating, the last
phase of the battle begun. First Diogenes Pugilator got the opportunity
to croach down, and to use his trident as a shield against the swords
of Carnifex, to roll over on the ground, and stick his dagger to the
left side of Carnifex. With horrible scream Carnifex jumped away and
thus gave Diogenes Pugilator the chance to stand up again and wipe the
spilled blood from his face. Carnifex was now bleeding, but probably he
didn't noticed it or at least did not paid any attention to it.
Diogenes Pugilator started an another attack, to the same left side he
had already wounded. He used his trident to strike against the hand of
Carnifex, and the middle spike of the trident went straight through his
palm and he dropped his other sword. Cleverly Diogenes pushed the
trident, and his opponents hand with it, to the back side of his
opponent, and revealed the already bleeding side. Diogenes managed to
hit there twice with his dagger, not too serious wounds, but still
bleeding ones. At this moment Carnifex had collected his remaining
strenghts and with one desperate move tried to hit Diogenes Pugilator
to the thigh, but Diogenes Pugilator managed to use his arm protection
manica to take most force out from the hit, however, this made him to
drop his trident, and the sicca of Carnifex continued its movement and
made a very nasty looking wound to Diogenes Pugilators leg. The force
of the hit was enough that Diogenes could not use his right hand
properly anymore and therefor had only the left hand dagger left.
Diogenes Pugilator set himself ready, the crowds were wildly cheering,
but the bleeding was maybe too much for Carnifex, who fell to the
arena. So Diogenes Pugilator was declared as winner. Later on I heard
that Carnifex had actually survived, but in very weak condition, some
of the best army doctors had saved his life, but still regarded it as a
miracle that he survived.

Fight 4
Sponsor: Emilia Curia Finnica
Gladiator: Testudo Magnus
Type: Secutor

Sponsor: Aulus Minicius Iordannes Pompeianus
Gladiator: Cassius
Type: Retiarius

Oh, my friend, how the time flies both in the rows of spectators as
well as here in my home writing all these fights! But even when it
started to be late and time for the last fight of the day, and as it is
now very late when writing these words, the fight was absolutely one
not to miss, even in this poorly written account.

There was a retiarius against secutor, the classic fight, you know how
I love them! Retiarius, named as Cassius, was sponsored by Aulus
Minicius Iordannes Pompeianus and the secutor, named as Testudo Magnus,
was sponsored by Aedile herself, Emilia Curia Finnica.

As it was the last fight of the day the crowd was warm right from the
beginning, even while the Sun was steadily going down and air getting
cooler. When the fighters entered the arena there was already loud
cheering and clapping of hands. And of course everyone loves the
retiarius against secutor fights. The trident of Cassius was the old
fashioned wooden with metallic spikes, his net was large. Testudo
Magnus had shining new body armour, blood red scutum with golden
lightning and gladius.

The fight started with Cassius trying to trap Testudo Magnus with his
net. At the first throw he missed Testudo Magnus, who was big and a bit
slow moving, as secutor should. Then Cassius clasped his trident couple
of times to the scutum of Testudo Magnus, probing out some possible
weaknesses in the grip of the shield. Or at least this what Testudo
Magnus and the spectators at the rows thought, but Cassius had a clever
plan, he was in fact not probing, but waiting to get Testudo Magnus
into position, where Cassius could trap him to the net. My friend, I'm
sure that you appreciate his clever move as much as I, instead of
normal probing out, he was actually making his attack in disguise!

And so he got Testudo Magnus into an akward position and managed to
throw his net and caught his opponents right hand with gladius trapped
to the net. However Testudo Magnus did not panic, and as experienced
secutor he knew, that only panicking was the only sure way for
destruction. So, instead of moving, he took a firmer stand, dropped his
sword, took a grip of the net, and with the huge muscles of his right
hand pulled the net towards himself and turning his scutum forward
crashed Cassius against himself and his scutum. Cassius had not
expected this at all, and when he noticed, that he was the one being
put out of balance and pulled by net, it was too late for him to use
his trident, he was now too close to Testudo Magnus. So with a bang
Cassius hit the Testudo Magnus. The crwod jumped right to the air, and
started to cheer.

Testudo used the little time when Cassius was stunned by the blow to
free himself from the net and to get his gladius back. Then he simply
jumped backwards to avoid the trident of Cassius, who tried to hit him
off balance. My friend, the skill of these fighters was phenomenal.

They were again against each other, Cassius trying to use his net, and
Testudo Magnus just waiting and defending. After some extremely
skillful attacks and defences, which I sadly have no time to write for
you, I'll save them to the day when we'll meet again, Cassius decided
to try a different tactic.

Cassius started to make quick probing attacks to the both sides of
Testudo Magnus, trying to get him tired of moving with his heavy
equipment. The crowd cheered and at the other moment held it's breath.
The sand of the arena had started to dry out and small clouds of dust
rose from the hectic movement of the two fighters. Testudo Magnus was
getting tired and his movement slower, but Cassius, too, was tired.

Cassius eventually made a mistake when attacking, and plunged too deep
and too close to Testudo Magnus' left side, and Testudo Magnus swiftly
used his gladius, while jumping to the back side of Cassius, to inflict
a wound to the right arm of Cassius, who had to drop his net due the
pain. Cassius was quick to recover however and turned around like a
lightning bolt, and hit the scutum of Testudo Magnus with his trident.
The hit landed to the top left corner of the shield and it was powerful
enough to get the shield unbalanced, and the left arm of Testudo Magnus
to bend backwards to a very ugly looking way. His left side now
exposed, Testudo Magnus turned and tried to hit with his gladius to the
Cassius' left side, which had been revealed when he raised his trident
to deliver the blow against his opponents shield. Testudo Magnus
managed to slice a small wound there. Cassius at the same time was
continuing his drive forwards and had managed to get his dagger to his
right hand where he had lost the net. Cassius had both feet up the
ground and was flying forwards after he lost his balance due the
counterattack of Testudo Magnus. Even while flying those couple of
eyeblink's time, he managed to throw his dagger against the unprotected
left side of Testudo Magnus. Testudo Magnus was also going to hit the
ground on the reverse direction, and miraculously his left arm had not
been dislocated or broken, so he by instinct started to move it back to
its normal position, even during his falling down. He was too late
however, as the dagger of Cassius flew and hit his left arm its blade
going straight through it. The blood started to run immediately, and
when Testudo Magnus finally hit the sand of arena, he lost the grip
from his shield, which flew several feets away.

Cassius was also hitting the ground at the same time, and both fighters
rose up bewildered and grasping their equipment while turning to look
where the other one was and all this time the crowd was cheering like
madmans, how on earth the theatre building did not tremble from uproar
in the benches is a mystery to me!

Both fighters were now up again. Testudo Magnus had lost his shield and
his left side was thus without protection, also his left arm was now
bleeding and most probably useless, so he only had his armour and his
gladius. Cassius had lost his net and his dagger, so he had only his
trident as weapon, he was also bleeding in his right arm and left side.
Where I was in the crowd, I could not see how serious those wounds of
both fighters were.

At that moment Testudo Magnus made his mistake, he thought that Cassius
would still be stunned out of the hit and had bled enough to been
weakened. So Testudo Magnus started an attack, trying to get close
enough that Cassius could not effectively use his trident. He ran
against Cassius, but Cassius was not as weak as he may have looked like
and took a grip of the trident by both hands and crouched down. This
surprised Testudo Magnus, who was too close to stop the motion of his
heavy body, and practically ran straight through to the trident of
Cassius, which penetrated his stomach just under the body armour. The
trident shattered into pieces, and Testudo Magnus fell to the ground at
the same time his gladius made last wound for Cassius' cheek, but it
was nothing. Testudo Magnus was lying on the arena, but he was not dead
yet. Cassius asked from the crowd and from the Aedile, and everyone
agreed, that Testudo Magnus had deserved death in the arena, not on the
doctors table. So Cassius took the gladius of Testudo Magnus, and after
proper pause, when the crowd went totally silent, he with single stroke
killed Testudo Magnus by driving the blade of the sword from the neck
to his heart.

Cassius was tired, but still he paid proper respects to his dead
opponent, and the crowd was cheering again. And for the second time at
that day, there was blood, sweat, tears and golden coins on the dusty
sand of arena.

That, my friend, was an extraordinary fight of skillful men who knew
their place and who knew their trade, you would have appreaciated it.
It reminded me of the heroes of the past.

Here I must now end this letter, my eyes are heavy, but my heart is
light, once again noble fight has lifted the spirits and once again the
gods are looking favourably towards us!

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*


----------


LUDI CIRCENSES
November 15th - 17th
SUBSCRIPTIONS ACCEPTED UNTIL NOVEMBER 12TH!

An entrant who wishes to participate in the Ludi Circenses must send a
subscription to Quintus Caecilius Metellus Postumianus at
jonlr@.... Each subscription must bear the subject header
"Ludi Circenses" and include the following information:

A. His/her name in Nova Roma;
B. The name of his/her driver;
C. The name of his/her chariot;
D. His/her tactics for the Quarter and Semifinals;
E. His/her tactics for the Finals;
F. The name of his/her "factio" or team (Albata, Praesina, Russata, or
Veneta);
G. Dirty actions against another factio in a specific round
(quarter-final, semi-final, or final) and amount of sesterces paid in
support of it (an entrant does not have to pay sesterces to commission
a dirty action, but doing so increases the chances of success);
H. Defence against dirty actions in a specific round (quarter-final,
semi-final, or final) and amount of sesterces paid in support of it (an
entrant does not have to pay sesterces to defend against a dirty
action, but doing so decreases the chances of success of the dirty
action);
I. If sesterces from multiple entrants are pooled to take a dirty
action or defend against a dirty action, the subscription of each
entrant of the pool must so indicate.

For more specific information about dirty actions and tactics, have a
look at the RULES at:
http://www.insulaumbra.com/aediles/emiliacuria/index_ple_circenses.html

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

Valete,

Emilia Curia Finnica
Scriba Araniae Academia Thules ad Studia Romana Antiqua et Nova
Aedilis Plebis

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30020 From: fabruwil Date: 2004-11-09
Subject: Re: LUDI PLEBEII day 5
NOOOOO ACHILLLEEEESSSSSS!!!

There goes an investment down the toilet... :-P

~T Aurelius Ursus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30021 From: P. Minucia Tiberia Date: 2004-11-09
Subject: Use of Comitia and NR History
Salvete Omnes Novae Romae:

To add to discussions regarding the recent summoning of the CPT by the Tribune, I thought I would lend a bit of NR history, in light of our discussions on 'technical' language of the constitution regarding Comitia internal procedures, etc. vs. subsequent laws passed which have served to interpret this constitutional language in a more jurisprudent manner. Now, granted the 'language' is in the constitution verbatim, no doubt, but the Tribune et al produce, I think, a more solid rationale for it not to be interpreted verbatim. Incidentally,a couple of points have been clarified for me, and I thank those who have lent to the discussion. Anyway, the history:

On May 5 2000, (2753 AUC) Censor F. Vedius Germanicus found himself having to resign. A Censor suffectus election was held and G. Marius Merullus was elected Censor Suffectus. At the same time, a Curule Aedile Suffectus was elected.....

http://www.novaroma.org/forum/mainlist/2000/2000-05-05.htm#MOOO7

What's wrong with this picture? They were both elected in the CPT: Censors are to be elected in the Comitia Centuriata and Curule Aediles are to be elected by the CPT. The constitutional language in any of the three versions of 2753 AUC shows where the Consul presiding over this election was 'technically' in error, according to the Constitution.

http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/index.html#other%20 documents

Now there are two possibilities as I see it: one is that the presiding Consul, Q. Fabius Maximus had historical rationale for this move other than going by the 'technical' letter of the constitution. This is not ~not~ an attempt to speak for him...just airing a possibility. I would be interested in hearing his rationale, if this was indeed a planned maneuver. He is, after all, an historian.

The other possibility is that it was a 'technical' mistake...using the wrong comitia. He goofed. Whoops. If this is the case,then technically, we never had a Censor suffectus in 2000, if one wants to get verbatimly orthodox about it. And none of his laws are laws..etc. Or, alternatively, in a broader spectrum we can accept a technical error as such, resolve to be more careful in the future, and contend that the Censor suffectus in question was duly elected by the will of the people (we are all in the CPT), which is the most important element to be satisfied. I prefer to adopt the latter perspective. And incidentally, he earned every sestertii in his performance of his duties, IMO.

To relate it to this discussion...laws have been written and rewritten here and there since 2755 allowing the Tribs to call the CPT under precribed circumstances, the Lex Salicia de Tribunicia Comitorum Convocatione I think being the first:

http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/leges/2002-11-24-iv.html

Duly elected, and properly, by the Senate and populus of Nova Roma. And so, this proposal we are entertaining today is condensing some laws which govern the CPT summoning, and tidying them a bit, whilst providing a more efficient system for plebian elections, etc. But somewhere along the line the constitution didn't get amended to reflect the interpretation in this regard of the will of the Senate and people......shall we throw all our laws away of the past two years due to this technical error, the baby out with the bathwater so to speak, or shall we say 'whoops' and resolve at our earliest convenience to amend the constitutional language to reflect how it is pursued today, as determined by the will of the people.

And one more glitch, which has nothing to do with the above, necessarily, but something I don't think that I myself made very clear, but the Tribune did and I think it is worth repeating. Regarding the Lex Moravia and its pursuit to mandate the taking of auspices by the Tribune. This is hardly an 'internal procedure' of one given comitia...it is the stripping of ancient and sacred potestas by one comitia...an action by one small comitia which can affect the whole body of citizens. Good point. Hardly an internal procedure by any stretch.

I did not digress comprehensively on the benefits and objectives of the legislation. This was handsomely covered in a previous post by A. Apollonius Cordus. Read it, ye Plebs :)

So I hope this lends itself to a better understanding of the technical vs the just and lawful interpretation of things with respect to this matter. Don't get me wrong, I look at the actual language of things too, in the balance of weighing out the prudent from the imprudent. Sometimes I look at things in this manner to see how they can and will be interpreted by others...I do this within my macronational work. But when I reflect on this historical example, it helps me put things into perspective.

Valete,
Pompeia





---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30022 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2004-11-09
Subject: Ludi Plebii Day 5
Salvete Omnes:

I am enjoying the scripts of these encounters of the games. I love
the letter format...good stuff

Po
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30023 From: Maior Date: 2004-11-09
Subject: Re: LUDI PLEBEII day 5
Verecunda Victrix!
(some of these Germanae do look like men;-)

M. Arminia Maior Fabiana
>


NOOOOO ACHILLLEEEESSSSSS!!!
>
> There goes an investment down the toilet... :-P
>
> ~T Aurelius Ursus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30024 From: Maior Date: 2004-11-09
Subject: Re: THE COMITIA POPULI TRIBUTA IS CALLED
Avete Quirites;
my hat (or apex if I had one) is off in tribute to both our
Tribune Faustus, who is big enough to admit & correct his mistakes
and is doing so much to restore the legal status of the Tribunes to
the ways of Roma Antiqua.
Equally my learned friend A.Apollonius Cordus is doing so much work
and research to correct our voting procedures. How many cives get
excited over this topic; but think what happens after we have
elections...;-)
bene valete in pace deorum
M. Arminia Maior Fabiana
Propraetrix Hibeniae
caput Officina Iuriis
et Investigatio CFQ


In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Apollonius Cordus"
<a_apollonius_cordus@y...> wrote:
> A. Apollonius Cordus Flavio Vedio Germancio p.p.
> omnibusque sal.
>
> > Also, as a general thing, what does this lex change
> > from the current
> > procedure? I confess I don't see anything really
> > obvious.
>
> From my reading I'd say it contains a number of small
> but useful changes. There may be others I've missed or
> forgotten.
>
> 1. Currently if a voter votes several times the
> rogatores are required to count only the first vote.
> This law would allow the rogatores to count the last
> vote instead. The overwhelming majority of instances
> of multiple voting occur when someone makes a mistake
> at the cista and fails to vote on a certain item -
> quite often we get a ballot which says 'abstain' on
> every item, followed immediately by another from the
> same voter which clearly represents what the voter
> actually wanted to do. It's extremely frustrating that
> currently we have to ignore what is clearly the true
> wish of the voter and instead register his vote as an
> abstention.
>
> 2. It gets rid of the requirement for the tribunes to
> take auspices, which is not only unhistorical but
> positively impious.
>
> 3. It changes the method by which the votes are
> calculated to a proportional system which will ensure
> that the tribunes (and the other magistrates elected
> by the tribes) are representative of the various
> different sectors of the electorate, as was the case
> in the historical tribal assembly.
>
> 4. It simplifies the currently over-complicated
> procedure by which the tribunes work out whether the
> patricians are more or less than 10% of the
> population.
>
> 5. It clarifies some unclear points relating to when
> and how intercessio and obnuntiatio may be used.
>
> 6. It gives a little more time between the end of
> voting and the announcement of the result, which will
> be necessary now that the number of magistrates
> involved in counting the votes and checking the result
> has increased (since the lex Equitia de
> vigintisexviris).
>
> I think that's about all it does. Oh, here's another:
>
> 7. It gives the dictator the power to call the
> comitia, which of course is historical.
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW
Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30025 From: QFabiusMaxmi@aol.com Date: 2004-11-09
Subject: Re: Use of Comitia and NR History
In a message dated 11/9/04 2:27:59 PM Pacific Standard Time,
pompeia_minucia_tiberia@... writes:

> Now there are two possibilities as I see it: one is that the presiding
> Consul, Q. Fabius Maximus had historical rationale for this move other than
> going by the 'technical' letter of the constitution. This is not ~not~ an
> attempt to speak for him...just airing a possibility. I would be interested in
> hearing his rationale, if this was indeed a planned maneuver. He is, after all,
> an historian.
>
Q. Fabius Maximus S.P.D
Salvete
Interesting you should mention that. I was looking at that very thing
recently in my memoirs.
It became a matter of expediency. At the time we had a rash of resignations
including regators. My concern was getting the machinery operating as fast
possible, once again.
Without rogators the assemblies were paralyzed.

Second, we were using the old election system, without Octavius' wizardry.
And the candidates were running unopposed. So the CPT became more of a
ratification then anything else. If I was to do it today, I'd use both bodies. The
Centuries for the Censor,
the CPT for the other.

Now about legitimacy. If there were an opposition to Censor I'd say that
using the CPT to elect one would be against the constitution. However since it
was more of a ratification of an unopposed candidate which the Senate accepted,
the Senate had already endorsed him by SC, I saw the ratification as proof of
the people' will and acceptance. Finally, no Tribune raised any objection,
or decried the dual use of the CPT.

I saw nothing wrong with it. If I was in violation of the constitution the
Tribune never said.
The election was legitimate, and Marius did sterling work for the rest of my
consulship.

Valete


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30026 From: P. Minucia Tiberia Date: 2004-11-09
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [Nova-Roma] Use of Comitia and NR History
Salvete Q. Fabius Maximus Consularis et Omnes Novae Romae:

(snip)

Thank you for your explanation. I remember there were a few resignations, amongst many other things happening. Incidentally, I noticed that the link providing these election results was mistyped...I don't have good luck with links for some reason. Anyway, here is the corrected URL. And I share your sentiment regarding the work of G. Marius Merullus.

Pompeia



http://www.novaroma.org/forum/mainlist/2000/2000-05-05.html#MOOO7


-- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, QFabiusMaxmi@a... wrote:
In a message dated 11/9/04 2:27:59 PM Pacific Standard Time,
pompeia_minucia_tiberia@y... writes:

> Now there are two possibilities as I see it: one is that the
presiding
> Consul, Q. Fabius Maximus had historical rationale for this move
other than
> going by the 'technical' letter of the constitution. This is not
~not~ an
> attempt to speak for him...just airing a possibility. I would be
interested in
> hearing his rationale, if this was indeed a planned maneuver. He
is, after all,
> an historian.
>
Q. Fabius Maximus S.P.D
Salvete
Interesting you should mention that. I was looking at that very
thing
recently in my memoirs.
It became a matter of expediency. At the time we had a rash of
resignations
including regators. My concern was getting the machinery operating
as fast
possible, once again.
Without rogators the assemblies were paralyzed.

Second, we were using the old election system, without Octavius'
wizardry.
And the candidates were running unopposed. So the CPT became more
of a
ratification then anything else. If I was to do it today, I'd use
both bodies. The
Centuries for the Censor,
the CPT for the other.

Now about legitimacy. If there were an opposition to Censor I'd say
that
using the CPT to elect one would be against the constitution.
However since it
was more of a ratification of an unopposed candidate which the
Senate accepted,
the Senate had already endorsed him by SC, I saw the ratification as
proof of
the people' will and acceptance. Finally, no Tribune raised any
objection,
or decried the dual use of the CPT.

I saw nothing wrong with it. If I was in violation of the
constitution the
Tribune never said.
The election was legitimate, and Marius did sterling work for the
rest of my
consulship.

Valete


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








---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30027 From: quintuscassiuscalvus Date: 2004-11-09
Subject: Re: THE COMITIA POPULI TRIBUTA IS CALLED
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Lucius Arminius Faustus
<lafaustus@y...> wrote:
> L. Arminius Faustus, Tribunus Plebs, to all roman people of the

Salve,

Please pardon the snippage. As the webmaster I have to set up the
Cista. I know there is a controversy as to whether this should be
two laws in the two comitia or just this one in the CPT. As a
former Rogator I can say from experience a uniform set of election
laws for both the Populi Tributa and the Plebian Tributa is a very
good and long overdue idea!

What I do need to know is will this law be sent to both comitia or
just the CPT?

Vale,

Q. Cassius Calvus
Magister Aranearius
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30028 From: shiarraeltradaik Date: 2004-11-10
Subject: Cost of living in Ancient Rome
Salve amice
Several weeks ago I was on the Amazon site looking for books on Rome.
I found several and one of them was "As the Romans did" at the time
and since them I have wanted to ask on the ML if this book is acurate
and if anyone had read it. I missed the reference in the "Cost of
living but I am pleased to see the two references to it in the list.
Just another experience of something that happens to me often. I do
not know if it is through the Gods and Goddeses but in matters
religion or metaphysical if i want to find something it is like I am
led to it. This is a case in point. Just thought I would share this
with the list.
Vale bene
Iusta Sempronia Iustina
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30029 From: hucke@cynico.net Date: 2004-11-10
Subject: Hello
Important!



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30030 From: sa-mann@libero.it Date: 2004-11-10
Subject: Re: Vestal, women, Rome
Sorry

Yahhoo sent me back just now my post of two days ago.
Here it is:



I shall try again.

No, Marine I don't think we need some land in Rome itself. The irreligious masonic italian government is not willing to restore Rome and it is not ready to give us some land. We don't have papacy anymore(a real one at least) but I don't think they would consider restoring Rome either: after all they used to say THEY are Rome.
I don't even think some land is necessary, anywhere it could be. We can do pretty well without land: had I not believed this I would have not considered applying for citizenship, hadn't I?

But you all must realize, ALIQVANDO, that Nova Roma is not a State in the way Rome stated. We can love Rome, we can live as Romans: we can do everything we do here but we still are not a Roman State, as sad as it can be. Indeed we don't have the Vesta's fire. But left this aside I repeat we are not a state: yet if you want, but still NOT.

For this reason, spectate Modie, is licit to whorship the Gods by means of Pontifices and Flamines: but is senseless to perform Statual Rites. The difference between private and public religion is the ground on which whorshipping privately is compulsory, if you are Roman.

I suggest to realize seriously that if we want to behave "Roman", we have Rome there at hand, easy and clear. And we know what was meant in Rome by the concept of State.

Otherwise we can be like those people, citizens of Rome, who are so interested in whorshipping......Isis!!! An egyptian Goddess!!??

In this case we shall only LIVE in Rome, we won't be Romans.

At each one his own choice: something like....Vnicuique Suum as they said right in Rome.

Bene valete omnes

Gallus Solaris Alexander






____________________________________________________________
Libero ADSL: navighi gratis a 1.2 Mega, senza canone e costi di attivazione.
Abbonati subito su http://www.libero.it
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30031 From: sa-mann@libero.it Date: 2004-11-10
Subject: Re: Vestal: was Women in the Religio Romana
>
>
> Salve;
>
> That is correct; we all have choices and we have our own opinions.
>
> BTW...not ALL Masons are irreligious. I know several Masons in Nova Roma,
> myself being one of them.
>
> Vale;
>
> Gaius Modius Athanasius
>

Well...being a Mason...that's not the least UNROMAN attitude you displayed since I started reading your posts.

I really hope, spectate Modie, you won't read my opinio as derogatory or offensive.
I respect your choice: but you see, we had problems here in Italy with Masonry. If they are for sure offtopic, it is not offtopic to repeat again my respect for you.

Bene vale

Gallus Soalris Alexander

ITALIA



____________________________________________________________
Libero ADSL: navighi gratis a 1.2 Mega, senza canone e costi di attivazione.
Abbonati subito su http://www.libero.it
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30032 From: Lucius Arminius Faustus Date: 2004-11-10
Subject: Re: THE COMITIA POPULI TRIBUTA IS CALLED
Salve, Calve, dearest

I am very glad and thankful to hear your. I apreciate very much your
coments.

According to Lex Salicia, due to the proportion on patricians and
plebeians into NR is higher than 0.1, the Tribunus Plebis is allowed
to call the Comitia Populi Tributa.

As presiding magistrate, I confirm the calling, the law will go to
the Comitia Populi Tributa as the law orders me.

I am worried because this confusion I am seeing on this contio
between many citizens arent supposed to happen, the law is very
clear. However, we are here always to ratify the uses NR uses already
approved by the people. Besides my Tribunate is ending, this law is
the last attempt of reform, it is a good point I will bring next year
for a Constitution Reform continuing the efforts to have a Comitialis
System closer to the Ancient Way.


Valete bene in pacem deorum,
L. Arminius Faustus TRP

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "quintuscassiuscalvus"
<richmal@c...> wrote:
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Lucius Arminius Faustus
> <lafaustus@y...> wrote:
> > L. Arminius Faustus, Tribunus Plebs, to all roman people of the
>
> Salve,
>
> Please pardon the snippage. As the webmaster I have to set up the
> Cista. I know there is a controversy as to whether this should be
> two laws in the two comitia or just this one in the CPT. As a
> former Rogator I can say from experience a uniform set of election
> laws for both the Populi Tributa and the Plebian Tributa is a very
> good and long overdue idea!
>
> What I do need to know is will this law be sent to both comitia or
> just the CPT?
>
> Vale,
>
> Q. Cassius Calvus
> Magister Aranearius
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30033 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2004-11-10
Subject: Re: Use of Comitia and NR History
A. Apollonius Cordus Q. Fabio Maximo omnibusque sal.

> I saw nothing wrong with it. If I was in violation
> of the constitution the
> Tribune never said.

Precisely so: anything which is not vetoed is to be
considered constitutional.

Moreover, it was generally the rule in Rome that
public business which was done in a technically
incorrect way was nonetheless valid, e.g. if a
magistrate convened an assembly without taking the
auspices, any new magistrates elected at that assembly
were still true magistrates despite the omission of
the auspices.



___________________________________________________________
Moving house? Beach bar in Thailand? Win 10k with Yahoo! Mail to make your dream a reality.
Get Yahoo! Mail http://uk.mail.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30034 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2004-11-10
Subject: Re: THE COMITIA POPULI TRIBUTA IS CALLED
A. Apollonius Cordus Q. Cassio Calvo omnibusque sal.

I hope you don't mind me replying publicly, since by
accident your message ended up public itself.

> What I do need to know is will this law be sent to
> both comitia or
> just the CPT?

As the tribune has said, the comitia populi tributa is
the one which has been called, so my suggestion would
be to treat it as being voted in that assembly only.

If, in spite of all common sense and rational
argument, the voting has to be done simultaneously in
both assemblies, it will be no difficulty for the
rogatores simply to count the same set of ballots
twice: once counting all of them, the second time
excluding the patricians. This will give the results
as if both assemblies had been in session at the same
time without you having to put the same text up twice
on the website.

But as I've said, there's no earthly reason why it
should come to that.



___________________________________________________________
Moving house? Beach bar in Thailand? Win 10k with Yahoo! Mail to make your dream a reality.
Get Yahoo! Mail http://uk.mail.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30035 From: Q. Caecilius Metellus Date: 2004-11-10
Subject: Re: THE COMITIA POPULI TRIBUTA IS CALLED
Salve Tribune Fauste,

> Excuse me, but you are mistaken.

I believe that it is you, Fauste, who is mistaken. Let me explain....

It is my understanding that you believe the lack of veto of a given item by
a tribune (or anyone else so empowered) makes an action constitutional. I
(and I cannot emphasize this word enough) strongly disagree. What happens
is that something simply "slides under the radar." I would submit that,
just because something slides under the radar on one or any number of
occasions, does not mean that it should be ignored when it is clearly
recognized on the screen.

In your defense, it is your submission that because both the Lex Salicia de
Convocatione Comitiorum and the Lex Arminia de Ratione Comitiorum Plebis
Tributorum went without tribunician intercessio, acting in a manner similar
to their's is constitutional. To repeat my point above, I disagree, on the
same grounds as I put forth above.

> So, a law that rules the procedures of the Comitia Populi
> goes to the Comitia Populi. Very simple. However, if -
> perhaps - a patrician think offended to voting in a measure
> that can be used for a Plebiscite, feel free to not vote.

About this: I agree, a law about the proceedures of the Comitia Populi
Tributa should go to the Comitia Populi Tributa, just as one about the
Comitia Plebis should go the the Comitia Plebis. What you propose here is a
lex which crosses a boundary: the one which seperates the Comitia Plebis
from the Comitia Populi. What would be better, and constitutional, would be
to propose two leges, one to each of the two aforenamed comitia, strictly
dealing with the respective comitia. That would be upholding the
constitution, and that would get me to shut up.

Caecilius Metellus

PS -- About the Leges Saliciae: Had I then been a voting citizen as I am
now, I would have spoken as vehemently about them as I am about this, and
similarly with the Lex Arminia.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30036 From: Q. Caecilius Metellus Date: 2004-11-10
Subject: Re: THE COMITIA POPULI TRIBUTA IS CALLED
Q. Caecilius Metellus Postumianus Pompeiae Minuciae-Tiberiae Straboni
salutem plurimam dicit

Salve, Pompeia Strabo,

> A couple of comments below. Uhem....I hope it is okay for me
> to comment; I realize that I am a patrician, but I would like
> to see the best for all, nonetheless, so I'll say a few
> things in testudo formation :)

There are patricians in the Comitia Populi Tributa; every patrician is a
part of it. Why, in the name of Iuppiter, would I object to comment? I am
an open-minded guy; opinions are good to hear, I think, usually (unless we
happen to be talking about job interviews, in the case of some).

> But, nonetheless it is 'still there' and being that the
> Constitution is the highest ruler of legislation, our 'Ace of
> Spades' it might be prudent for the good Tribune to present
> this as two separate comitia calls, to satisfy the
> constitutional language suggesting he needs to, technical and
> somewhat nonconsensual to current laws as it may be.

Precisely. Had the Tribune done this, the only thing I would have said
would have been my support of the lex in both Comitia. But he has not.

> Quite
> frankly, as the Tribune had indicated, the CPT has been an
> open venue for the Tribune to work through if it is full of
> plebians, I never questioned this myself, although I've read
> the constitution more than once :) and this lex proposal a few times.

Indeed. But only when passing leges which regard the people on the whole,
which has been the bulk of the legislation (from my recollection) passed by
Tribunes through the Comitia Populi.

> You do realize, and likely I'm just refreshing your memory
> Metellus, that at one point the Tribune's legislation had
> binding authority over all the people (I'll fish for the lex
> if you like)...the notion that they were in this comitia or
> that went out the window....so 'legally and technically' our
> constitution is an applicable, techinically legal stumbling
> block to the manner in which Tribune Faustus' proposals are
> presented in NR.

As a matter of fact, tribunician legislation is still binding on all the
people. There is but one case in which it is not binding on all the people,
that being when it regards the internal workings of the plebeian assembly.
In that case, and only that case, is it only applicable to the plebeians,
and only when they are organized into tribes as a strictly plebeian assembly
(i.e., the Comitia Plebis).

> And speaking of this 'forced' legislation, it amended the
> Language of the Lex Moravia de Suffragiis in Comitia Plebis
> Tributa which stipulated that Tribunes must take auspices.

And in fact, with the purpose of this law, I do not disagree. However, I am
infuriated that a tribune, who is bound by an oath to the Gods to protect
and defend the Constitution, violated that very same constitution by putting
a lex defining the internal workings of one comitia before another comitia.
This is where my dissent is.

Let me be clear (for those just chiming in, as I believe you, Pompeia
Strabo, already understand this): I do not disagree with the legislation
itself; it is the method by which the Tribune is attempting to pass the
legislation with which I disagree, and about which I am infuriated.

Vale Bene,

Quintus Caecilius Metellus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30037 From: Emilia Curia Finnica Date: 2004-11-10
Subject: LUDI PLEBEII days 6 and 7
EMILIA CURIA FINNICA AEDILIS PLEBIS QUIRITIBUS SPD,

The semifinal fights of Munera took place on Tuesday, again reported by
C. Curius Saturninus. Munera will exceptionally continue for a one day
longer with the exciting final fight. Today is the first day of Ludi
Plebeii Quiz, a simple and fun quiz for everyone!

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

DAY 6
-Munera (Semi-Finals)

DAY 7
-Ludi Plebeii Quiz, Rules and Quiz 1

Subscribe to the events of the festival:
-Ludi Circenses

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

DAY 6


----------


MUNERA
November 9th

Semi-Finals:

Now it is a new day, or more precisely, a new evening. I have spent
this day also at the theatre and enjoyed Munera semifinal-fights. Today
I was there with some friends you don't know, they are provincials with
whom my father has had some trade connections. You should have seen
their amazement of the grandiose festival we are enjoying here, after
today's events they just could not stop talking about how wonderful
things they had seen. This reminds me, that when you recieve my letter,
you will have to reply to it and tell me about wonders of Athens and
all the other places you have been visiting.

Today the weather was a bit colder than yesterday and in the morning
there was some slight rain, but well before noon the sky was bright
again and Sun shone warming up everyone's mind and body. The theatre
was again as full as it can be. The crowd was noisy, and I suspect that
the hot wine that was sold outside the theatre had also something to do
with it. Still I didn't notice any troublemaking, it seemed that the
sunny day and the fact that we are in the middle of this festival has
just washed away troubles and hardships of everyday life from
everyone's mind. I could not resist the temptation to buy some hot wine
and some honey-cakes for myself, and how delicious they were! The
provincials from North would have liked to have some meat along with
them, you see how rustic they are? But I didn't let this obvious lack
of urbanitas to depress me on such a fine day.

The opening ceremonies were the usual, provincials hadn't seen them
before in such luxorious way, but for me and you they weren't anything
special. Finally it was the time for the first fight to begin.

Fight 1
Sponsor: Titus Aurelius Ursus
Gladiator: Arkos
Type: Murmillo

Sponsor: Marca Arminia Maior Fabiana
Gladiator: Verecunda of the Cherusci
Type: Retiarius

The first fight would be between Arkos, the murmillo, sponsored by
Titus Aurelius Ursus and Verecunda, the retiarius, sponsored by noble
lady Marca Arminia Maior Fabiana. Before the fight started, I had
searched for some of our usual acquintances, you know whom I mean, to
ask about the latest rumours and some tips for betting. And, of course,
I did not place any bets myself, I'm not like you, but these were for
the provincials, who surely loved betting. In any case, the reason I
tell this, is that I learned some very extraordinary news: Verecunda,
the Germanic warrior, is a woman. First when L told me this, I just
didn't belive him at first, but L assured me that this is the case and
that she had fought yesterday with a gear that had concealed this fact,
but that today she would use a gear that would leave no doubts. And L
was correct, when Arkos and Verecunda entered the arena, there was no
doubt left. At this moment I also started to believe those who say that
we should be careful with the tribe of Cherusci!

As I wrote you yesterday, Arkos is not usual sort of Murmillo, but a
faster and lighter one. The wound in the left hand of Arkos didn't
seemed too bad, and certainly didn't slow him down. It also became
apparent that yesterday's fights wounds on Verecunda did not slow her
down a bit, in fact the opposite was the case. Perhaps her speed was
improved also by abandoning the extra-heavy gear she used yesterday for
this lighter one.

Verecunda had to be fast also, as she was the attacking fighter as
retiarius should always be, now against a fast murmillo. At first Arkos
concentrated in defence to see if Verecunda had any particular weakness
in the handling of the net. She was well trained, I could not spot any
weakness in her skills and her movement was superb. Arkos also was good
on the movement, he never stopped for a moment.

After some time a probing fight like this had been going on, and the
crowd was getting warmer while shouting their support for their
favourite, Verecunda did her first real offensive. She had been holding
the net from a particular corner all the time, and I had wondered if
that was her weakness with using the net. When the fighters had moved
into position, where Arkos had just jumped left to avoid the net,
Verecunda did not finish the net throw she was seem to be executing,
but instead of this, she very skillfully changed her grip of the net
and turned it another way around without stopping for a moment. And the
reason for this was that she had a metal weight on the one corner of
the net, and by throwing this weighted side around the right leg, the
weight flew around it and trapped it. As Arkos was jumping leftwards at
the same time, his right foot was already off the ground. Immediately
Verecunda pulled her net, and this caused Arkos to lose his balance.
Verecunda let the net and Arkos go, and grabbed her dagger to her free
hand. Arkos fell to the ground, and tried to free himself from the net,
while jumping up and trying to get his scutum to protect him. Verecunda
dashed forwards with the trident raised and shattered the scutum
useless. Trident also stuck to the scutum, so Verecunda had a long
dagger against the gladius of Arkos.

The fighters stood face to face and made a couple of feint moves to
check each other. It seemed that Arkos had hurt his foot or leg in the
falling, and he did not move that quickly as in the first stages of the
fight. Arkos also had not managed to free his leg from the net, and he
had to take into notice where the net was at each moment. The crowd
cheered and shouted their support.

Arkos had still his upper hand in the situation with better armour and
longer blade of his sword. So he decided to try to attack and after
feint move ran forwards. Verecunda was surprised but not taken by the
surprise, and with amazing swiftness changed the dagger from right to
left hand and jumped rightwards. This surprised Arkos, who had no time
to change his direction, and his left unprotected side was now
voneurable. Verecunda managed to cut a deep would to his left arm and
side. Arkos turned quickly and tried to hit Verecunda with his gladius,
but Verecunda anticipated this and drpped on to her knees and changed
the dagger to her right hand and  while jumping up, drove the dagger
straight to the throat of Arkos. Blood flooded out from Arkos' throat
and he fell to the ground and after few short moments he was dead.

Writing it here down like this makes Arkos seem less skillful than
Verecunda, but the truth is that I could not ever say which of them was
more skillful, it was the chance of the battle that decided the fate of
Arkos, not the lack of skills. Crowd was roaring their support, and
even those who had betted for Arkos, didn't seem to be too
disapppointed. What a fighter Verecunda is!

Fight 2
Sponsor: Quintus Salix Cantaber Uranicus
Gladiator: Diogenes Pugilator
Type: Retiarius

Sponsor: Aulus Minicius Iordannes Pompeianus
Gladiator: Cassius
Type: Retiarius

The second fight of the day was between Diogenes Pugilator, a retiarius
sponsored by Quintus Salix Cantaber Uranicus and Cassius, also a
retiarius and sponsored by Aulus Minicius Iordannes Pompeianus. Two
retiarii fighting against each other, the fight promised to be
difficult as neither was capable of strong defence and both had long
tridents. This was something that the provincials, with whom I was
there, had never seen before.

The fight started by crowd cheering to Diogenes Pugilator, whose right
leg was clearly injured from the yesterdays fight. Cassius was also
injured, but with milder wounds to his right upper arm and left side.
Yet both fighters moved well and used their nets cleverly trying to
catch the opponent and avoided getting caught.

One particular set of movements in this battle of nets catched my eyes
and I wish to describe it to you. It started by Cassius making attempt
to throw the net over the head of Diogenes Pugilator. Diogenes
Pugilator managed to avoid this, but was forced to bend heavily to
right. Cassius tried to use this opportunity to hit Diogenes Pugilator
with his trident. By doing this he opened his own defences and gave the
still rightwards bent Diogenes Pugilator possibility to roll over and
kick the trident holding hand of Cassius, who almost lost his grip of
the trident, but managed still to throw his net to trap the legs of
Diogenes Pugilator. Diogenes Pugilator was very lucky not to get mixed
up with the net, and managed to continue his rolling to get few feet
away from Cassius. Cassius saw this and grabbed his net and during this
Diogenes Pugilator was back on his feets again. Now the both fighters
were again facing each other like nothing had been happening. This
shows very well the amount of skill both retiarii had, nothing seemed
to get them upset or unfocused and I was starting to wonder that how
long the fight would last with fighters as these.

Shortly after this masterful display of skills of both of the fighters
something unusual and frightening happened. At the clear blue sky there
was a horrendous thunder which lasted some moments. Then it stopped as
fastly as it had begun. The crowd was shaken, and even the fighters
stopped their fight. However after some moments had passed, the crowd
started to speak and to make noise again, altough now discussing about
what had just happened. In the arena both fighters stood amazed and
tried to figure out what they were supposed to do now. Diogenes
Pugilator was first to gain his senses and after waken up attention
from Cassius, started to attack. Cassius was too scared or too amazed
about the thunder, and could not get himself together again. So
trapping finally to the net seemed easy for Diogenes Pugilator and he
used his trident efficiently and fastly to inflict small wounds
everywhere on Cassius' body. Eventually Cassius was unarmed and
Diogenes Pugilator did not want to kill him as killing a defenceless
fighter would have not been anything sensible to do, there would have
been no honour in it. The crowd supported this decision and Diogenes
Pugilator was announced as winner through divine intervention. Crowd
got its confidence back and at the end of the days fights Diogenes
Pugilator and Verecunda paraded at the arena clapping their weapons to
arouse even more cheering from the crowd and to excite them for the
tomorrows final fight.

What a strange fight was this last one today, maybe Jupiter himself
wanted to show his support for Diogenes Pugilator, who knows!

Tomorrow I will write the last pages of this letter to you and include
there the final fight of this Munera.

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*


----------


LUDI PLEBEII QUIZ
November 10th - 14th
SUBSCRIPTIONS TO EACH QUIZ ACCEPTED WITHIN 48 HOURS TIME INTERVAL

To find this same information have a look at:
http://www.insulaumbra.com/aediles/emiliacuria/index_ple_quiz.html

--------------

-Rules follow this edictum:

EDICTUM AEDILICIUM IX - LUDI PLEBEII QUIZ 2757

1. The quiz "Ludi Plebeii Quiz" is held during Ludi Plebeii, November
4th - 17th 2004 and open to all the citizens of Nova Roma. The task of
the contest is to answer to multiple choice questions. During the Ludi
Plebi there will be five quizzes published. The person(s) with the
highest score on each quiz will be acknowledged as the winner of that
day's quiz contest.

2. The quiz is open to single participants or to groups composed of a
maximum of 5 citizens. Each participant or group of participants can
participate with just one subscription per one quiz. It isn't allowed
to be a member of a group and participate as a individual at the same
time. The answers to multiple choice questions must be given with the
correct alphabeth for that answer.

3. Each subscription must have the following facts about the
participant(s): Nova Roman name, real name, Nova Roman Province, age
and e-mail address. Each subscription must have the subject ”Ludi
Plebeii Quiz” and an answer to at least one question of the day’s quiz
and the number of the quiz.

4. Answers to the quiz questions must be posted by e-mail to Arnamentia
Moravia Aurelia to arnamentia_aurelia@... [arnamentia_aurelia AT
yahoo DOT com]. Answers will be accepted for each quiz for a 48 hour
interval after the quiz is posted. Answers received more than 48 hours
after the quiz is posted will not be accepted. Answers to the quiz
questions must not be posted to the mailing list. Anyone posting
answers will be disqualified from that quiz and any answers received
after such a posting may not be counted.

5. Each quiz will be published on the Plebian Aedilean website
http://www.insulaumbra.com/aediles/emiliacuria/index_ple_quiz.html with
a notice of the quiz posted to the main list
(Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com) by Plebeian Aedile Emilia Curia Finnica or
her designated representative. Answers to each quiz and winners will be
published, too, after 48 hours after each quiz by Plebeian Aedile
Emilia Curia Finnica or her designated representative.

6. The multiple choice questions will be judged by giving 0-1 points
each, 1 point for each correct answer. The questions are written by Cn.
Equitius Marinus or his presentative and the answers will be judged by
Arnamentia Moravia Aurelia. All decisions of the judges are final.

Given on November 10 2757, in the year of Consulship of Cn. Salix Astur
and Cn. Equitius Marinus

--------------

-Quiz 1 - November 10th

1. What did the Lex Canuleia passed in 445 BCE make possible?
a. It allowed plebians to own land in their own right, independent of
patrician patronage.
b. It allowed patricians and plebians to marry one another.
c. It permitted plebians to run for Consul.
d. It allowed plebians to take public auspices.

2. What did the Lex Hortensia passed in 287 BCE make possible?
a. It allowed plebians in the Ordo Equester.
b. It allowed plebians to run for Curule magistracies.
c. It permitted plebians in the Comitia Curiata.
d. It made binding plebicites possible, where it became possible for
the plebeians to pass laws in the Concilium Plebis which were binding
on the Patricians.

3. What plebeian magistrates were first elected in 494 BCE?
a. Aedilis Plebis
b. Tribunis Plebis
c. Both Aedilis Plebis and Tribunis Plebis
d. Praetoris Plebis

4. What were the three original tribes of Rome?
a. Ramnes, Tities, and Luceres
b. Fabia, Clustuminia, and Lemonia
c. Fabia, Camillia, and Pollia
d. Shadrak, Mishak, and Abednego

5. During the time of the Kings of Rome, what was the title of the
leader of each tribe?
a. Praetor
b. Tribune
c. Aedile
d. Legate

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*


----------


LUDI CIRCENSES
November 15th - 17th
SUBSCRIPTIONS ACCEPTED UNTIL NOVEMBER 12TH!

An entrant who wishes to participate in the Ludi Circenses must send a
subscription to Quintus Caecilius Metellus Postumianus at
jonlr@.... Each subscription must bear the subject header
"Ludi Circenses" and include the following information:

A. His/her name in Nova Roma;
B. The name of his/her driver;
C. The name of his/her chariot;
D. His/her tactics for the Quarter and Semifinals;
E. His/her tactics for the Finals;
F. The name of his/her "factio" or team (Albata, Praesina, Russata, or
Veneta);
G. Dirty actions against another factio in a specific round
(quarter-final, semi-final, or final) and amount of sesterces paid in
support of it (an entrant does not have to pay sesterces to commission
a dirty action, but doing so increases the chances of success);
H. Defence against dirty actions in a specific round (quarter-final,
semi-final, or final) and amount of sesterces paid in support of it (an
entrant does not have to pay sesterces to defend against a dirty
action, but doing so decreases the chances of success of the dirty
action);
I. If sesterces from multiple entrants are pooled to take a dirty
action or defend against a dirty action, the subscription of each
entrant of the pool must so indicate.

For more specific information about dirty actions and tactics, have a
look at the RULES at:
http://www.insulaumbra.com/aediles/emiliacuria/index_ple_circenses.html

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

Valete,

Emilia Curia Finnica
Scriba Araniae Academia Thules ad Studia Romana Antiqua et Nova
Aedilis Plebis

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30038 From: Flavius Vedius Germanicus Date: 2004-11-10
Subject: Re: THE COMITIA POPULI TRIBUTA IS CALLED
Salvete,

Here's what the Constitution says on the particular point of who gets to
make its rules:

"...only the comitia plebis tributa shall pass laws governing the rules
by which it shall operate internally." (paragraph III.C.)

That seems pretty clear-cut to me; how do you interpret it differently,
to say that the Comitia Populi can pass laws governing how the Comitia
Plebis operates? Interpretation is one thing; you're completely
inverting its meaning.

To say "that's the way we've done it all year" is simply inadequate;
just because something has been done incorrectly in the past, does not
mean that one cannot set things to rights _now_.

Besides, what's the big deal about calling the Comitia Plebis at the
same time as the Comitia Populi? Why are the Tribunes getting so
defensive? It seems a very simple and eloquent solution to a very simple
problem.

As far as _why_ each Comitia isn't free to alter the rules by which the
others meet, this was not exactly done out of caprice. It was done to
prevent a subset of the population (for example, the Plebeians) from
usurping power. To take a somewhat over-the-top example, if those
restrictions were removed, it would be possible for the Comitia Plebis
to enact a law saying that the other Comitiae could only vote on items
that it had previously approved! While such a thing would have been
unthinkable in Roma Antiqua, it has been pointed out time and again that
we modern Nova Romans are suffering from a lack of ingrained respect for
the Mos Maiorum. Our Constitution is our bulwark against such abuses.

Please, oh Tribunes. You are pledged to uphold the Constitution-- not
only those parts of it that meet with your approval. The solution I have
offered should be a no-brainer; this resistence to following the
Constitution as written is frankly baffling.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30039 From: quintuscassiuscalvus Date: 2004-11-10
Subject: Re: THE COMITIA POPULI TRIBUTA IS CALLED
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Apollonius Cordus"
<a_apollonius_cordus@y...> wrote:
> A. Apollonius Cordus Q. Cassio Calvo omnibusque sal.
>
> I hope you don't mind me replying publicly, since by
> accident your message ended up public itself.
>
> > What I do need to know is will this law be sent to
> > both comitia or
> > just the CPT?
>
> As the tribune has said, the comitia populi tributa is
> the one which has been called, so my suggestion would
> be to treat it as being voted in that assembly only.
<snipped>

>it will be no difficulty for the
> rogatores simply to count the same set of ballots
> twice: once counting all of them, the second time
> excluding the patricians. This will give the results
> as if both assemblies had been in session at the same
> time without you having to put the same text up twice
> on the website.

Logically it makes no sense for a Plebian to vote for a lex in one
comitia and then vote against the same lex in another so I don't see
a problem with your scenario. I just needed to know if he intended
in light of some objections to a Lex that applies to the Plebian as
well as the Populi being voted upon in only one comitia if he
intended to also call the CplebT to order as well so I can have the
cista up and running.

Vale,

Calvus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30040 From: fabruwil Date: 2004-11-10
Subject: Re: LUDI PLEBEII days 6 and 7
Damn...

Anyone want to steal some art from Sicily? I have to make back my
losses on those dogs that were slaughtered in the arena!

- T Aurelius Ursus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30041 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2004-11-10
Subject: Re: THE COMITIA POPULI TRIBUTA IS CALLED
---P. Minucia Tiberia Q. Caesili Metelle S.P.D.

My comments below


In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Q. Caecilius Metellus"
<postumianus@g...> wrote:
> Q. Caecilius Metellus Postumianus Pompeiae Minuciae-Tiberiae
Straboni
> salutem plurimam dicit
>
> Salve, Pompeia Strabo,
>
> > A couple of comments below. Uhem....I hope it is okay for me
> > to comment; I realize that I am a patrician, but I would like
> > to see the best for all, nonetheless, so I'll say a few
> > things in testudo formation :)
>
> There are patricians in the Comitia Populi Tributa; every
patrician is a
> part of it. Why, in the name of Iuppiter, would I object to
comment? I am
> an open-minded guy; opinions are good to hear, I think, usually
(unless we
> happen to be talking about job interviews, in the case of some).

Pompeia: Hey, we'll do lunch sometime. I've gotten heck for less :)
>
> > But, nonetheless it is 'still there' and being that the
> > Constitution is the highest ruler of legislation, our 'Ace of
> > Spades' it might be prudent for the good Tribune to present
> > this as two separate comitia calls, to satisfy the
> > constitutional language suggesting he needs to, technical and
> > somewhat nonconsensual to current laws as it may be.
>
> Precisely. Had the Tribune done this, the only thing I would have
said
> would have been my support of the lex in both Comitia. But he has
not.
>
> > Quite
> > frankly, as the Tribune had indicated, the CPT has been an
> > open venue for the Tribune to work through if it is full of
> > plebians, I never questioned this myself, although I've read
> > the constitution more than once :) and this lex proposal a few
times.
>
> Indeed. But only when passing leges which regard the people on
the whole,
> which has been the bulk of the legislation (from my recollection)
passed by
> Tribunes through the Comitia Populi.

Pompeia: Actually, I have been thinking further on this issue; and
a Tribune of the Plebs is the Tribune of all the people. Granted he
is of the Plebian order, but he does serve as the advocate of those
who rely on him for appeal, and he serves as the peoples' 'loyal
opposition' to the curule magistrates. Historically and today.
Granted, the Plebians have the privilege of voting him in, and this
technically is an internal working, in the most concrete sense.
But, being that he represents large numbers of patricians, as well
as plebians and ordo equaestores in his promulgation of legislation,
application of intercessio, entertainment of citizen appeals (from
all orders) it is in the interests of all citizens that the voting
protocols of this very important guardian of Roman justice be
proper, and most efficiently representative of the wishes of the
plebians, for the maximum benefit of us all. So in this mindset, I
have migrated away from the "technical" position of thought, to
looking at the whole picture, which includes how very broadspectrum
the role of the Tribune was historically, and is today in NR, in
terms of effecting us all.
>
> > You do realize, and likely I'm just refreshing your memory
> > Metellus, that at one point the Tribune's legislation had
> > binding authority over all the people (I'll fish for the lex
> > if you like)...the notion that they were in this comitia or
> > that went out the window....so 'legally and technically' our
> > constitution is an applicable, techinically legal stumbling
> > block to the manner in which Tribune Faustus' proposals are
> > presented in NR.
>
> As a matter of fact, tribunician legislation is still binding on
all the
> people. There is but one case in which it is not binding on all
the people,
> that being when it regards the internal workings of the plebeian
assembly.

Pompeia: Ahh, but amice, I am saying that there were no exceptions
to that rule at one point...his legislation was not exclusive in any
case; it was legally binding, and equally legally binding, period.
And, upon deeper examination, "internal working" could be
a "Robert's Rules of Order" at a contio of the Plebian Assembly, not
any decision which affects all citizens, as I see it.

> In that case, and only that case, is it only applicable to the
plebeians,
> and only when they are organized into tribes as a strictly
plebeian assembly
> (i.e., the Comitia Plebis).

Pompeia: See above.
>
> > And speaking of this 'forced' legislation, it amended the
> > Language of the Lex Moravia de Suffragiis in Comitia Plebis
> > Tributa which stipulated that Tribunes must take auspices.
>
> And in fact, with the purpose of this law, I do not disagree.
However, I am
> infuriated that a tribune, who is bound by an oath to the Gods to
protect
> and defend the Constitution, violated that very same constitution
by putting
> a lex defining the internal workings of one comitia before another
comitia.
> This is where my dissent is.

Pompeia: Let me ask for some clarification here, if I may..when it
comes to proposing legislation which convolutes the sacredness of
the Tribune office by making him take auspices, and hamstrings his
historical power to protect the people (not an internal working but
something, again, conceivably affecting us all) you merely 'do not
disagree'....

But when a Tribune proposes legislation which produces a much more
efficient and accurate electorial determination of true wishes of
the Plebs in regard to Tribunes, yet, realizing that this effects us
all and not just the Plebian assembly, and so runs it through the
CPT and not the CP, you are 'infuriated'?

Forgive me, but I think he would have been rejecting his role of
protection and defence of the constitution by running soley through
the CP. And personally, I would be more infuriated at the removal
of his potestas, rather than an interpretive technicality...a
technicality which really, shortchanges the needs of all of us, and
so, on that basis, is not congruent with the 'spirit' of protection
of the constitution or the people it is written to serve.
>
> Let me be clear (for those just chiming in, as I believe you,
Pompeia
> Strabo, already understand this): I do not disagree with the
legislation
> itself; it is the method by which the Tribune is attempting to
pass the
> legislation with which I disagree, and about which I am infuriated.

Pompeia: Give the matter a bit more thought, amice. I am not saying
that the language is 'not there', but it's rote and technical
interpretation does not, to me serve the purpose of meeting the
needs of all the people. And when our constitution, in one small
area, has been proven through two years of legislations to be a
crack in the mirror of the peoples' wishes, it is time to omit that
small bit of the constitution and not two years of progress,
progress augmented and approved by the people.

It is like the law which cited as a transgression 'failure to have
hitching posts outside a store for customers' horses'...something
like that. This was in the Criminal Code of Canada atleast when I
was a kid (and if you say we rode horses back then, I will *not
EVER* have lunch with you :)) So, to satisfy the law...do we make
Walmart attach hitching posts, even though we drive V6's? or do we
maybe just rub out that part of the Criminal code which no longer
applies......

Vale bene,
Pompeia
>
> Vale Bene,


>
> Quintus Caecilius Metellus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30042 From: Flavius Vedius Germanicus Date: 2004-11-10
Subject: Re: THE COMITIA POPULI TRIBUTA IS CALLED
Salve,

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "pompeia_minucia_tiberia"
<pompeia_minucia_tiberia@y...> wrote:
>
> It is like the law which cited as a transgression 'failure to have
> hitching posts outside a store for customers' horses'...something
> like that. This was in the Criminal Code of Canada atleast when I
> was a kid (and if you say we rode horses back then, I will *not
> EVER* have lunch with you :)) So, to satisfy the law...do we make
> Walmart attach hitching posts, even though we drive V6's? or do we
> maybe just rub out that part of the Criminal code which no longer
> applies......

Neither... you get the legislature to repeal the law. Happens all the
time in the US with outdated laws.

Not that I think the current state of affairs, where each comitia has
control over its own procedures, should no longer apply. I think those
rules are still important, for reasons I outlined in my previous
email. But that's hardly as anachronistic as the example you cite...

Vale,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30043 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2004-11-10
Subject: Re: THE COMITIA POPULI TRIBUTA IS CALLED
---Salve Flavius Vedius Germanicus et Salvete Omnes:


(snip)
>
> pompeia_minucia_tiberia@y...> wrote:
> >
> > It is like the law which cited as a transgression 'failure to
have
> > hitching posts outside a store for customers'
horses'...something
> > like that. This was in the Criminal Code of Canada atleast when
I
> > was a kid (and if you say we rode horses back then, I will *not
> > EVER* have lunch with you :)) So, to satisfy the law...do we
make
> > Walmart attach hitching posts, even though we drive V6's? or do
we
> > maybe just rub out that part of the Criminal code which no
longer
> > applies......
******************

F. Vedius Germanicus wrote:
>
> Neither... you get the legislature to repeal the law. Happens all
the
> time in the US with outdated laws.

***********

Pompeia respondeo: Yes, and whenever you get around to it. It is
not totally inplausible to suggest that there are many more
priorities which might prohibit the immediate attention to such an
obvious, legal obsolecense.
***********

F. Vedius Germanicus wrote:
>
> Not that I think the current state of affairs, where each comitia
has
> control over its own procedures, should no longer apply. I think
those
> rules are still important, for reasons I outlined in my previous
> email. But that's hardly as anachronistic as the example you
cite...
*******************

Pompeia Respondeo: That, is a matter of opinion, Flavius Vedius. I
have given my legal rationale in what influences my opinion in a
couple of previous posts. I am still unclear as to your legal
rationale for justifying such a technical and literal translation
and application of one line of the constitution (repeated three
times for each comitia) . Beyond what appears to be a determined
personal commitment to such rote and concrete interpretation and
application, even when it speaks against the will of the people, as
evidenced by legal precedent here in NR and historical modalities, I
do not know. I believe, with due respect, that you are 'splitting
hairs', again, the reasons for which I remain steadfastly unclear.
***************

Valete,
Pompeia

>
> Vale,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30044 From: Stephen Gallagher Date: 2004-11-10
Subject: Re: THE COMITIA POPULI TRIBUTA IS CALLED
Salve Caecilius Metellus

HERE HERE!!!

Unconstitutional is still unconstitutional no matter how many people miss or ignore it.

I also missed the part in the Nova Roma constitution that says the Tribunes, individually or as a group are infallible.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus



----- Original Message -----
From: Q. Caecilius Metellus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 3:50 PM
Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] Re: THE COMITIA POPULI TRIBUTA IS CALLED


Salve Tribune Fauste,

> Excuse me, but you are mistaken.

I believe that it is you, Fauste, who is mistaken. Let me explain....

It is my understanding that you believe the lack of veto of a given item by
a tribune (or anyone else so empowered) makes an action constitutional. I
(and I cannot emphasize this word enough) strongly disagree. What happens
is that something simply "slides under the radar." I would submit that,
just because something slides under the radar on one or any number of
occasions, does not mean that it should be ignored when it is clearly
recognized on the screen.

In your defense, it is your submission that because both the Lex Salicia de
Convocatione Comitiorum and the Lex Arminia de Ratione Comitiorum Plebis
Tributorum went without tribunician intercessio, acting in a manner similar
to their's is constitutional. To repeat my point above, I disagree, on the
same grounds as I put forth above.

> So, a law that rules the procedures of the Comitia Populi
> goes to the Comitia Populi. Very simple. However, if -
> perhaps - a patrician think offended to voting in a measure
> that can be used for a Plebiscite, feel free to not vote.

About this: I agree, a law about the proceedures of the Comitia Populi
Tributa should go to the Comitia Populi Tributa, just as one about the
Comitia Plebis should go the the Comitia Plebis. What you propose here is a
lex which crosses a boundary: the one which seperates the Comitia Plebis
from the Comitia Populi. What would be better, and constitutional, would be
to propose two leges, one to each of the two aforenamed comitia, strictly
dealing with the respective comitia. That would be upholding the
constitution, and that would get me to shut up.

Caecilius Metellus

PS -- About the Leges Saliciae: Had I then been a voting citizen as I am
now, I would have spoken as vehemently about them as I am about this, and
similarly with the Lex Arminia.


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/

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

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30045 From: Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus Date: 2004-11-11
Subject: Happy Birthday USMC
Salvete,

The day is nearly over but I want to wish all fellow Marines in Nova
Roma a happy 229th birthday! Happy birthday Marinus and all other
Marines here in Nova Roma, both former and active. (once a Marine,
always a Marine. There is no such thing as an ex-Marine.) I'm sure
there are others here besides the two of us. Happy birthday to you all
and join me in a toast to the Corps! (and esp to those in action as we
speak)

Semper Fi,

Palladius
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30046 From: nefer_seba Date: 2004-11-11
Subject: Hi from a new member
Hi,
I have just joined the group and would like to introduce myself. I am
a student living in Vancouver, Canada. I started out majoring in
Classical Studies but later on changed my major. I am also very
interested in Egyptian history. Unfortunately my university did not
start offering any classes on history of ancient Egypt until this
year. I am interested pretty much anything to do with ancient history
and am very much looking forward to the group interaction.

Lyana

____
http://nefer-seba.net/
aut viam inveniam aut faciam
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30047 From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) Date: 2004-11-11
Subject: Re: Hi from a new member
Salve Lyana,

A hearty welcome to this list and Nova Roma. It is great to see
another Canadian in our group! Please take your time to explore
around and do not hesitate to ask for any help you might need. NR
though well organized can be quite a learning curve when getting
started. There are many here who will be glad to answer any
questions or address concerns you may have in your orientation.
There is no need to be shy about asking questions; like they say in
my field, the only silly questions are the ones that are not asked!

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "nefer_seba" <Lyana.Munk@n...>
wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I have just joined the group and would like to introduce myself. I
am
> a student living in Vancouver, Canada. I started out majoring in
> Classical Studies but later on changed my major. I am also very
> interested in Egyptian history. Unfortunately my university did
not
> start offering any classes on history of ancient Egypt until this
> year. I am interested pretty much anything to do with ancient
history
> and am very much looking forward to the group interaction.
>
> Lyana
>
> ____
> http://nefer-seba.net/
> aut viam inveniam aut faciam
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30048 From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) Date: 2004-11-11
Subject: Re: Happy Birthday USMC
Salvete omnes,

I am afraid I'm not an American citizen and thus not one of the few
but I'll wish the USMC a great 229th anniversary anyway. I have
heard how tough the program can be and not that many make it so I
deduce that the NR citizens here who are members certainly have a
lot of classical Stoicism in their blood to have been or still in
the Corps. Happy anniversary! Now a toast of "wine" in the Roman
tradition.

Respectfully,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus




--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus
<bcatfd@t...> wrote:
> Salvete,
>
> The day is nearly over but I want to wish all fellow Marines in
Nova
> Roma a happy 229th birthday! Happy birthday Marinus and all other
> Marines here in Nova Roma, both former and active. (once a Marine,
> always a Marine. There is no such thing as an ex-Marine.) I'm sure
> there are others here besides the two of us. Happy birthday to you
all
> and join me in a toast to the Corps! (and esp to those in action
as we
> speak)
>
> Semper Fi,
>
> Palladius
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30049 From: Lucius Arminius Faustus Date: 2004-11-11
Subject: The Comitia Populi Tributa text revised
Salvete, roman people of the quirites,

This is a corrected version of the text will be sent to the Comitia Populi Tributa - and only to Comitia Populi Tributa according Lex Salicia and Lex Arminia - already approved by the Comitia and unvetoed and used many times will all Jurisprudence - orders us, magistrates.

The law is one for just one Comitia, and will be voted as a sole, according NR laws, as I have explained many times on ML.

It is very important to notice that we are having a political struggle caused by wrong interpretations of NR Constitution by some citizens, interpretations flawed, because they creates paradoxes with laws already approved, unvetoed and in use by NR magistrates. Well, according to Lex Arminia Equitia de Imperio, one of the atributions of the potestas of a magistrate is to interpret NR law, as it was done on the Ancient.

I - as the presiding magistrate under my Tribunicia Potestas - understand that according to NR Constitution, Lex Salicia and Lex Arminia, on this case, Comitia Populi Tributa, and sole the Comitia Populi Tributa must be called. Since the Comitia is done under my ´auspices´ - althought the term is not correct in the case of Tribunicia Potestas, besides even the romans used sometimes the concept as a administrative extrapolation - I again declare that I am following the procedures ordered to me by NR Constitution and laws, and the interpretation besides it - although a good exercise of roman studies - aren´t the official procedures to be followed.

I hope the question is resolved. Surely, the Contio exists to do this, discussion, and the last word will be given by the voting of the Comitia. I just make a warning: One thing is not agreeing, other thing is accusing lack of constitutionally. I urge responsability of the citizens on the using of their right of expression.

Again I put myself to service the of the Republic to answer - again if necessary - all questions.

The Contio will be suspended all day on 13th november (Nefastus Publicus).
The Contio ends on the opening of the Cista, 14th November, 0:00 Rome Time.

The voting starts 14th November, 0:00 Rome Time
The voting ends 28th November, 23:59 Rome Time

On this Comitia Populi Tributa all citizens are called to vote the following law proposal:

1. Lex Arminia de Ratione Comitiorum Plebis et Populi Tributorum

On this call, quirites, let me express my deepest gratitude and thanks to citizen A. Apolonius Cordus by all his hard work that made this proposal possible. This law is intended to merge and correct all texts of the Comitia laws.


Valete bene in pacem deorum,

L. Arminius Faustus TRP






************************************
TEXT OF THE LAW PROPOSAL STARTS HERE
************************************


Lex Arminia de ratione comitiorum plebis et populi tributorum


This law is intended to bring Nova Roma closer to the Ancient Way of voting and to unify the current legislation of voting on the Comitia. This law replaces the lex Moravia de suffragiis in comitia plebis tributa et ratione comitiorum plebis tributorum, the lex Fabia de ratione comitiorum populi tributorum, the lex Arminia de ratione comitiorum plebis tributorum, the lex Arminia de potestate tribunicia ad comitia convocanda, the lex Arminina de suffragiis in comitiis tributiis, and the lex Salicia de tribunicia comitiorum convocatione. It regulates the procedures to be observed in the comitia plebis tributa (herein called the concilium plebis) and in the comitia populi tributa (herein called the comitia tributa).




I. Who May Convene The Comitia


A. A consul may convene the comitia tributa.


B. A praetor may convene the comitia tributa.


C. A dictator may convene the comitia tributa.


D. A tribunus plebis may convene the concilium plebis to legislate concerning the internal procedures of the concilium plebis and to elect magistrates of the plebs.


E. A tribunus plebis may convene the concilium plebis for any purpose if the plebs constitutes 90% or more of the population, or otherwise may convene the comitia tributa.

i. Between the first and the last day of June and again between the first and the last day of December every year the censores, or whatever magistrates shall be responsible for the album civium, shall announce:

a. the total number of full citizens;
b. the total number of patrician full citizens;
c. the ratio between those two numbers (i.e. the number of patricians divided by the number of citizens).

ii. If the number described in E.i.c is greater than 0.1, the tribunus plebis may convene the comitia tributa.

iii. If the number described in E.i.c is equal to or less than 0.1, the tribunus plebis may convene the concilium plebis.

iV. When the Tribune convene the comitia tributa, all other procedures not described by this or any other law are the same of the concilium plebis convening.


F. The magistrate who convenes the comitia shall be referred to as the presiding magistrate, if the Comitia was called with auspices taken, the presiding magistrate will be the holder of the Comitia auspices.




II. Whether And How The Auspices Shall Be Taken


A. A magistrate possessing Curule Dignitatis (called curule magistrate), wishing to convene the comitia tributa may take the auspices or arrange for the auspices to be taken on his behalf in whatever manner is laid down in law, and shall be liable to any penalties laid down in law for failing to observe the proper procedures for the taking of auspices.


B. A tribunus plebis wishing to convene the comitia tributa or the concilium plebis shall not take auspices or have auspices taken.




III. How The Comitia Shall Be Convened


A. The presiding magistrate may convene the comitia by making a public announcement in whatever public fora are established for public announcements.


B. In this announcement he shall state:

i. the names of any candidates for office, the office for which they are running, and their dates of citizenship;

ii. the full text of any leges or plebiscita to be proposed;

iii. the name of anyone to be tried or anyone that has appealed to the Comitia, and the details of the charges against him (each defendant and each charge shall be listed and voted upon separately);

iv. the dates on which contiones (public discussions regarding the agenda of the comitia) may take place;

v. the dates on which voters may vote;

vi. any additional instructions concerning the meeting of the comitia.


C. The presiding magistrate is responsible for ensuring, as far as possible and with the assistance of the censores, that any candidates for office are legally qualified to stand for election to that office.

D. Any revision of the text of the law can be send to NR forum until 12 hours before the Cista start.


IV. When Contiones And Voting May Occur, And How Meetings May Be Obstructed


A. The announcement of the convention of the comitia (described in III.A & III.B) must be made at least 72 hours before the first day of voting.

i. A magistrate capable of calling the comitia may add itens and the agenda of a Comitia already called, if there is time available until the begging of the voting, following the procedures of this law. However, the presiding magistrate will be only the first one who called the Comitia. Any problem ou doubt about entering new itens during the Contio will be solved by the decision of the presiding magistrate.

B. Between the day of the announcement and the first day of voting, a contio can be held on every day on which it is proper for a contio to be held. The Contio can start since the issuing of the calling.


C. Veto or other forms of legal obstruction may occur up to the beginning of voting. Once voting has begun, no one shall obstruct the vote.

i. Veto or other forms of legal obstruction may be used either to cancel the meeting of the comitia in its entirety, or to remove any election, legislative proposal, or trial from the agenda of the meeting.

ii. Veto or other forms of legal obstruction may not be used to remove a candidate from an election, or a section from a legislative proposal, or any other part of an item.


D. Obnuntiatio or other forms of religious obstruction may occur up to the beginning of voting. Once voting has begun, no one shall obstruct the vote.

i. Obnuntiatio or other forms of religious obstruction may not cancel the meeting of the comitia or remove any item from its agenda, but may postpone the beginning of voting until the next comitial day after the day on which voting would otherwise have begun.

ii. If the beginning of voting is postponed in this way, the end of voting shall be postponed to allow at least the same number of days of voting as would previously have occurred.


E. At least 120 hours of voting must be allowed, except that if the comitia is meeting to hear a trial at least 198 hours of voting must be allowed.

F. For an appeal to the Comitia Populi, the procedures of time for starting the voting above on this law will change. Due to the urgency of the appelation voting, a Tribune (due to the lack of auspices) can call the Comitia to start imediately. In this case, the Cista will start as soon as possible after the call, as soon as the magister aranearius is able to create and announce the opening. However, at least 120 hours of voting must be allowed.




V. How Votes May Be Cast


A. The censores shall issue to each citizen who may vote a unique voter-code. Only votes marked with valid voter-codes shall be counted.

i. No vote cast by a patrician shall be counted in the concilium plebis.


B. In consultation with the magistrates responsible for counting votes, the magister aranearius shall create a cista (a secure web-based form to allow voters to vote directly through the Nova Roma website).

i. The cista shall deliver to the magistrates responsible for counting votes a record of each vote, marked with the voter's voter-code, order (patrician or plebeian), and desired votes.

ii. The cista shall give the voter a record of his votes.


C. Alternative procedures for voting may be enacted by law in addition to the web-based cista.


D. Each ballot shall offer the following options:

i. For each candidate for public office, each voter may either mark the candidate 'yes (vti rogas)' or leave him unmarked.

ii. For each legislative proposal, each voter may vote either 'yes (vti rogas)' or 'no (antiqvo)'.

iii. For each charge against a defendant, each voter may vote either 'condemn (condemno)' or 'absolve (absolvo)'.


E. When the agenda for the meeting includes an election for public office, each ballot shall carry the following direction: 'you may vote for as many candidates as you wish, but you are advised to vote only for those candidates you strongly support'.


F. If more than one vote is cast carrying the same voter-code, only the last vote cast shall be counted.




VI. How Votes For Election Shall Be Counted


A. Votes shall be grouped by tribe.

i. For each tribe, the candidates shall be listed by the number of 'yes' votes they receive from voters in that tribe.

ii. The candidate who receives most 'yes' votes (ties being broken according specific law. If there is no law specifically available about ties, the ties will be broken randomly) shall be the first preference of that tribe, and so on.

iii. Any candidate who receives no 'yes' votes in that tribe shall not be listed in that tribe's preference-list.

iv. Any tribe which contains no 'yes' votes at all shall be considered void.


B. The threshold for election is as follows:

i. For 1 vacancy, one half of the tribes (not counting void tribes);

ii. For 2 vacancies, one third of the tribes (not counting void tribes);

iii. For 3 vacancies, one quarter of the tribes (not counting void tribes);

iv. For 4 vacancies, one fifth of the tribes (not counting void tribes);

v. For 5 vacancies, one sixth of the tribes (not counting void tribes);

vi. For 6 vacancies, one seventh of the tribes (not counting void tribes);

vii. For 7 vacancies, one eighth of the tribes (not counting void tribes);

viii. For 8 vacancies, one ninth of the tribes (not counting void tribes);

ix. ... and so on. These numbers must not be rounded up or down.


C. Votes shall be counted in several rounds. The first round shall proceed as follows.

i. Assign each tribe to the candidate at the top of its preference-list.

ii. Calculated the threshold as in VI.C.

iii. Count the total value of each candidate's tribes. Each tribe has a value of 1.

iv. If a candidate meets the threshold he is elected. If more than one candidate meets the threshold, all are elected, in the order of the number of tribes they have, up to the number of vacancies available. Ties are broken according specific law. If there is no law specifically available about ties, the ties will be broken randomly.

v. If no candidate meets the threshold, the candidate with the lowest number of tribes is eliminated. Ties are broken according specific law. If there is no law specifically available about ties, the ties will be broken randomly.

vi. Once a candidate or candidates have been elected, or a candidate has been eliminated, the round ends. If there are still vacancies to be filled, another round begins.


D. All further rounds shall proceed as follows.

i. If a candidate was elected in the previous round, calculate the new value of each of his tribes in the following way:
a. First, calculate the total value of all the tribes being redistributed;
b. Subtract the threshold;
c. Divide by the total value of all the tribes being redistributed;
d. For each tribe, multiply by the previous value of that tribe.

ii. Having calculated the new value of each of his tribes, redistribute them all (see v).

iii. If more than one candidate was elected in the previous round, start with the one who was elected first, calculate the new value of each of his tribes, then do the same for the next candidate who was elected, and so on for all the candidates who were elected. Then redistribute all their tribes (see v).

iv. If a candidate was eliminated in the previous round, do not change the values of his tribes, but redistribute them (see v) with the same values as they had in the previous round.

v. When redistributing tribes, assign each tribe to the candidate at the top of its preference-list (not counting any candidates who have already been elected or eliminated). Any tribes which have no further preferences become void.

vi. Calculate the threshold again. Take the number of vacancies as whatever number there were to begin with, regardless of whether any vacancies have been filled in previous rounds; but adjust the total number of tribes to account for tribes which have become void (see v).

vii. Count the total value of each candidate's tribes.

viii. If a candidate meets the threshold he is elected. If more than one candidate meets the threshold, all are elected, in the order of the number of tribes they have, up to the number of vacancies available. Ties are broken according specific law. If there is no law specifically available about ties, the ties will be broken randomly.

ix. If no candidate meets the threshold, the candidate with the lowest number of tribes is eliminated. Ties are broken according specific law. If there is no law specifically available about ties, the ties will be broken randomly.

x. Once a candidate or candidates have been elected, or a candidate has been eliminated, the round ends. If there are still vacancies to be filled, another round begins.




VII. How Votes For Legislation Shall Be Counted


A. Votes shall be grouped by tribe.

i. Each tribe shall vote 'yes' to the proposal if more voters in that tribe voted 'yes' than voted 'no'.

ii. Each tribe shall vote 'no' to the proposal if more voters in that tribes voted 'no' than voted 'yes'.

iii. Ties are broken according specific law. If there is no law specifically available about ties, the ties will be broken randomly.

iv. Any tribe which contains no 'yes' or 'no' votes at all shall be considered void.


B. The proposal shall be passed if more tribes vote 'yes' to the proposal than vote 'no'.




VII. How Votes For Trial and Appelation Shall Be Counted


A. Votes shall be grouped by tribe.

i. Each tribe shall vote to condemn if more voters in that tribe voted 'condemn' than voted 'absolve'.

ii. Each tribe shall vote to absolve if more voters in that tribe voted 'absolve' than voted 'condemn'.

iii. Tied tribes shall vote to absolve for trial, and condemn for appelation.

iv. Any tribe which contains no 'condemn' or 'absolve' votes at all shall be considered void.


B. The defendant or appellant shall be condemned if 18 or more tribes vote to condemn; otherwise he shall be absolved."


VIII. How The Results Shall Be Announced


A. The magistrates responsible for counting votes shall deliver the results to the presiding magistrate no more than 96 hours after the end of voting.

B. Only the votes of the tribes shall be delivered to the presiding magistrate; the votes of individuals shall remain secret.

C. The presiding magistrate shall announce the results no more than 48 hours after he receives it from the magistrates responsible for counting votes. He shall announce the results in the same fora as those where he originally announced the meeting of the comitia.

D. The presiding magistrate can pass the right to announce the results to another magistrate able to call the Comitia.


**********************************
TEXT OF THE LAW PROPOSAL ENDS HERE
**********************************



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30050 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2004-11-11
Subject: Test
...just a test...I'm having trouble with this skuttlebucket of an
excuse for a comp and I'm just testing :)

Po
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30051 From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia Date: 2004-11-11
Subject: Re: Hi from a new member
---Salve !

Welcome to Nova Roma!
I am also from Canada.

Pompeia

In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "nefer_seba" <Lyana.Munk@n...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I have just joined the group and would like to introduce myself. I
am
> a student living in Vancouver, Canada. I started out majoring in
> Classical Studies but later on changed my major. I am also very
> interested in Egyptian history. Unfortunately my university did
not
> start offering any classes on history of ancient Egypt until this
> year. I am interested pretty much anything to do with ancient
history
> and am very much looking forward to the group interaction.
>
> Lyana
>
> ____
> http://nefer-seba.net/
> aut viam inveniam aut faciam
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 30052 From: Gnaeus Equitius Marinus Date: 2004-11-11
Subject: Re: Happy Birthday USMC
Salvete Quirites, et salve Deci Iuni,

Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus wrote:

> Salvete,
>
> The day is nearly over but I want to wish all fellow Marines in Nova
> Roma a happy 229th birthday! Happy birthday Marinus and all other
> Marines here in Nova Roma, both former and active. (once a Marine,
> always a Marine. There is no such thing as an ex-Marine.)

Thank you Palladi. For your good wishes and for your service to the
Corps we both know and love so well.

I was privileged to spend a few hours yesterday evening in the company
of a group of Marines of all ages. It was a fine evening.

> Semper Fi,

Semper Fidelis Marine. And best wishes to all Veterans on this
Veterans' Day. That wish goes out to all veterans, of whatever nation,
represented here in Nova Roma.

Valete Quirites,

-- Marinus