Salve Apolloni Corde,

Thank you very much for your views and comments about this movie. I
had some foreign students in from the university last night who
espied that DVD on my coffee table and most of them had seen the
movie. We had a good discussion about its authenticy and I was able
to pass on your views and comments. To make a long story short the
conversation went from the pros and cons of latina girls to Roman
Britain and the conversation went on for about 45 minutes.
Some of them will be checking out NR.

Meanwhile I'll put your missive in my documents. Once again your
time and effort in addressing this is much appreciated!

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus






--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Apollonius Cordus"
<a_apollonius_cordus@y...> wrote:

> A. Apollónius Cordus Q. Lanió Paulínó omnibusque sal.
>
> > .... Now I am sure there
> > were many
> > errors from costumes to the exact time frame (452
> > AD) but I thought
> > the Roman legions were gone quite sometime before
> > that.
>
> Military forces had been withdrawn from Britain bit by
> bit over the course of the fourth and fifth centuries,
> though occasionally there were crises in Britain which
> would prompt the emperor to send more troops back,
> usually temporarily as expeditionary forces. About 407
> a general, known as Constantine III, launched a revolt
> from Britain, crossing into Gaul to try to become
> emperor and probably taking much of the British
> garrison with him. Then in 409 there seems to have
> been an anti-Roman revolution in Britain: possibly
> this was a revolt against Constantine by British
> loyalists supporting the legitimate emperor Honorius,
> but, if we take Zosimus at his word, it seems rather
> to have been a revolt against the whole concept of
> Roman rule by a group which seeked to set up one or
> more independent British states. A little later
> someone in Britain wrote to Honorius to ask him to
> send Roman troops to Britain, but in 410 he replied
> saying that he could not spare the troops and advising
> the Britons to take up arms in their own defence. The
> fact that his letter was addressed to the cities and
> peoples of Britain rather than to the governor or any
> other legitimate authority suggests that Roman rule
> had entirely collapsed or had been entirely overthrown
> by this stage.
>
> Roman troops never formally evacuated Britain -
> presumably they either stayed and 'went native' or
> else left, or were kicked out or killed, during the
> upheavals of 409-10; probably some of each. There are
> a couple of different time-frames for Arthur, if one
> wants to regard him as a historical figure, but
> neither of them put him around 452 - that's about a
> generation too early. The two possible dates for his
> death are c.515 and c.537. By that time it had been
> about two generations since Britain was part of the
> Roman empire, so the idea that Arthur was a Roman
> general is, on either of the two standard sets of
> dates, untenable. It's usually an idea put about by
> people who find it impossible to believe that the
> uncivilized Britons could have produced a leader worth
> composing ballads about and that therefore he must
> have been a Roman. Of course most scholars prefer to
> regard Arthur as unhistorical in any case; but if one
> is going to regard him as historical, it's best to
> regard him as British rather than Roman.
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!

http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Salvete Omnes,

Having seen 'King Arthur', I can say I wasn't impressed. My biggest
gripe about it was the total demonising of the Saxons. I know you
have to have some Good vs Evil, but I didn't think it worked that
well here. It doesn't fit that they are portrayed as the bad guys.

And what was that ending about? So he's beaten the Saxons and
Britain remains Celtic? That makes even less sense.

This has probably got nothing to do with the original point of this
thread, but it's nice to talk about this with people who don't look
at me blankly when I point out such things.

valete

Salvius


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael
Kelly)" <mjk@d...> wrote:

>
> Salve Apolloni Corde,
>
> Thank you very much for your views and comments about this movie.

I

> had some foreign students in from the university last night who
> espied that DVD on my coffee table and most of them had seen the
> movie. We had a good discussion about its authenticy and I was

able

> to pass on your views and comments. To make a long story short the
> conversation went from the pros and cons of latina girls to Roman
> Britain and the conversation went on for about 45 minutes.
> Some of them will be checking out NR.
>
> Meanwhile I'll put your missive in my documents. Once again your
> time and effort in addressing this is much appreciated!
>
> Regards,
>
> Quintus Lanius Paulinus
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Apollonius Cordus"
> <a_apollonius_cordus@y...> wrote:
> > A. Apollónius Cordus Q. Lanió Paulínó omnibusque sal.
> >
> > > .... Now I am sure there
> > > were many
> > > errors from costumes to the exact time frame (452
> > > AD) but I thought
> > > the Roman legions were gone quite sometime before
> > > that.
> >
> > Military forces had been withdrawn from Britain bit by
> > bit over the course of the fourth and fifth centuries,
> > though occasionally there were crises in Britain which
> > would prompt the emperor to send more troops back,
> > usually temporarily as expeditionary forces. About 407
> > a general, known as Constantine III, launched a revolt
> > from Britain, crossing into Gaul to try to become
> > emperor and probably taking much of the British
> > garrison with him. Then in 409 there seems to have
> > been an anti-Roman revolution in Britain: possibly
> > this was a revolt against Constantine by British
> > loyalists supporting the legitimate emperor Honorius,
> > but, if we take Zosimus at his word, it seems rather
> > to have been a revolt against the whole concept of
> > Roman rule by a group which seeked to set up one or
> > more independent British states. A little later
> > someone in Britain wrote to Honorius to ask him to
> > send Roman troops to Britain, but in 410 he replied
> > saying that he could not spare the troops and advising
> > the Britons to take up arms in their own defence. The
> > fact that his letter was addressed to the cities and
> > peoples of Britain rather than to the governor or any
> > other legitimate authority suggests that Roman rule
> > had entirely collapsed or had been entirely overthrown
> > by this stage.
> >
> > Roman troops never formally evacuated Britain -
> > presumably they either stayed and 'went native' or
> > else left, or were kicked out or killed, during the
> > upheavals of 409-10; probably some of each. There are
> > a couple of different time-frames for Arthur, if one
> > wants to regard him as a historical figure, but
> > neither of them put him around 452 - that's about a
> > generation too early. The two possible dates for his
> > death are c.515 and c.537. By that time it had been
> > about two generations since Britain was part of the
> > Roman empire, so the idea that Arthur was a Roman
> > general is, on either of the two standard sets of
> > dates, untenable. It's usually an idea put about by
> > people who find it impossible to believe that the
> > uncivilized Britons could have produced a leader worth
> > composing ballads about and that therefore he must
> > have been a Roman. Of course most scholars prefer to
> > regard Arthur as unhistorical in any case; but if one
> > is going to regard him as historical, it's best to
> > regard him as British rather than Roman.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___________________________________________________________
> > ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
> http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Salvete Omnes,

I'm obviously more Roman because I live about an hour away from
where Constantine the Great was proclaimed Emperor.

How's that for a tenuous "I'm more Roman" link?

valete

T. Octavius Salvius


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael
Kelly)" <mjk@d...> wrote:

>
> > And now, let's not start yet another "I'm more roman than you"
> thread,
> > please :)
> >
> > vale
> >
> > DCF
> > --
> Salvete omnes,
>
> LOL, just as well, leaves me out! My ancient heritage and kingdom
> were the peat bogs of Donegal.
>
> Regards,
>
> Quintus Lanius Paulinus

Salvete T. Octavi Salvi et omnes,

I see what you are saying; still is my theory though that movies
about Rome, both good and bad tend to attract the masses' interest
in Rome far easier than a tough book on Latin grammar or ancient
history.

It was movies like the Robe, Ben Hur, Scipio Africanus and Spartacus
that helped stimulate my early interest in Rome. They were awful as
being good historical references but they encouraged me to hit the
books and find out what really happened. I hope pictures like,
Gladiator, King Arthur, Troy, and Alexander will likewise do the
same to the youngsters of the new generations coming up. Just
sparking a conversation like the one we are having now is a big plus
in my opinion.

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus










--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "t_octavius_salvius" <fin37@h...>
wrote:

>
> Salvete Omnes,
>
> Having seen 'King Arthur', I can say I wasn't impressed. My

biggest

> gripe about it was the total demonising of the Saxons. I know you
> have to have some Good vs Evil, but I didn't think it worked that
> well here. It doesn't fit that they are portrayed as the bad guys.
>
> And what was that ending about? So he's beaten the Saxons and
> Britain remains Celtic? That makes even less sense.
>
> This has probably got nothing to do with the original point of

this

> thread, but it's nice to talk about this with people who don't

look

> at me blankly when I point out such things.
>
> valete
>
> Salvius
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Quintus Lanius Paulinus

(Michael

> Kelly)" <mjk@d...> wrote:
> >
> > Salve Apolloni Corde,
> >
> > Thank you very much for your views and comments about this

movie.

> I
> > had some foreign students in from the university last night who
> > espied that DVD on my coffee table and most of them had seen the
> > movie. We had a good discussion about its authenticy and I was
> able
> > to pass on your views and comments. To make a long story short

the

> > conversation went from the pros and cons of latina girls to

Roman

> > Britain and the conversation went on for about 45 minutes.
> > Some of them will be checking out NR.
> >
> > Meanwhile I'll put your missive in my documents. Once again your
> > time and effort in addressing this is much appreciated!
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Quintus Lanius Paulinus
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Apollonius Cordus"
> > <a_apollonius_cordus@y...> wrote:
> > > A. Apollónius Cordus Q. Lanió Paulínó omnibusque sal.
> > >
> > > > .... Now I am sure there
> > > > were many
> > > > errors from costumes to the exact time frame (452
> > > > AD) but I thought
> > > > the Roman legions were gone quite sometime before
> > > > that.
> > >
> > > Military forces had been withdrawn from Britain bit by
> > > bit over the course of the fourth and fifth centuries,
> > > though occasionally there were crises in Britain which
> > > would prompt the emperor to send more troops back,
> > > usually temporarily as expeditionary forces. About 407
> > > a general, known as Constantine III, launched a revolt
> > > from Britain, crossing into Gaul to try to become
> > > emperor and probably taking much of the British
> > > garrison with him. Then in 409 there seems to have
> > > been an anti-Roman revolution in Britain: possibly
> > > this was a revolt against Constantine by British
> > > loyalists supporting the legitimate emperor Honorius,
> > > but, if we take Zosimus at his word, it seems rather
> > > to have been a revolt against the whole concept of
> > > Roman rule by a group which seeked to set up one or
> > > more independent British states. A little later
> > > someone in Britain wrote to Honorius to ask him to
> > > send Roman troops to Britain, but in 410 he replied
> > > saying that he could not spare the troops and advising
> > > the Britons to take up arms in their own defence. The
> > > fact that his letter was addressed to the cities and
> > > peoples of Britain rather than to the governor or any
> > > other legitimate authority suggests that Roman rule
> > > had entirely collapsed or had been entirely overthrown
> > > by this stage.
> > >
> > > Roman troops never formally evacuated Britain -
> > > presumably they either stayed and 'went native' or
> > > else left, or were kicked out or killed, during the
> > > upheavals of 409-10; probably some of each. There are
> > > a couple of different time-frames for Arthur, if one
> > > wants to regard him as a historical figure, but
> > > neither of them put him around 452 - that's about a
> > > generation too early. The two possible dates for his
> > > death are c.515 and c.537. By that time it had been
> > > about two generations since Britain was part of the
> > > Roman empire, so the idea that Arthur was a Roman
> > > general is, on either of the two standard sets of
> > > dates, untenable. It's usually an idea put about by
> > > people who find it impossible to believe that the
> > > uncivilized Britons could have produced a leader worth
> > > composing ballads about and that therefore he must
> > > have been a Roman. Of course most scholars prefer to
> > > regard Arthur as unhistorical in any case; but if one
> > > is going to regard him as historical, it's best to
> > > regard him as British rather than Roman.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ___________________________________________________________
> > > ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
> > http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

QFabiusMaxmi@... wrote:


I have many female friends here in NR, and some have made excellant magistrates. But unless one of them could kick my ass in unarmed combat I doubt I'd hire them as warehouse guards.


Perhaps you would like to hire my martial arts teacher, who, when two men tried to attack her, one using a knife, sent both men to the hospital. She was unharmed. The only weapon she used was her body and she's only five feet tall.

Maxima Valeria Messallina


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! � Try it today!

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

A. Apollónius Cordus Ser. Equitió Trojánó amícó
omnibusque sal.

Thanks for the explanation of customizable code - so
it sounds like you've already covered one of my 'would
like's (though frankly it's more like a 'would be very
grumpy about the absence of' for me!).

I see from looking back at the archives that the
current conversation did, as you say, start with
Cornélius Tiberius' message; what I had in mind was
the short and not unrelated conversation from 31930
onwards. I'd just come back from holiday, so I was
reading two weeks' worth of messages all at once, and
in my mind the two conversations got spliced together
- but, checking, I see that there was an interval of a
couple of days between the two.

Nonetheless I'm glad to see I wasn't the only person
to see the similarity - our mutual friend Cató replied
to Cornélius saying, "That's an appealing idea
primarily because we would then no longer be in
submission to the whims or restrictions of Yahoo! and
their vast evil machinery but would instead me in
complete control of the format and rules which would
apply".

And that's my main point, really - it would be a shame
to go ahead with a change of format without making
sure that we avoid moving to another environment where
the civility or incivilty of our discourse will be
limited by rules imposed from outside. (This isn't to
say we shouldn't have rules, of course, merely that we
should be free to make our own.) I'd like to see this
on the 'would like' list at the very least, and
ideally the 'must have' list.





___________________________________________________________
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

"Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly)" <mjk@...> wrote:

Salvete T. Octavi Salvi et omnes,

I see what you are saying; still is my theory though that movies
about Rome, both good and bad tend to attract the masses' interest
in Rome far easier than a tough book on Latin grammar or ancient
history.

It was movies like the Robe, Ben Hur, Scipio Africanus and Spartacus
that helped stimulate my early interest in Rome. They were awful as
being good historical references but they encouraged me to hit the
books and find out what really happened. I hope pictures like,
Gladiator, King Arthur, Troy, and Alexander will likewise do the
same to the youngsters of the new generations coming up. Just
sparking a conversation like the one we are having now is a big plus
in my opinion.

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus


Salve Quintus Lanius Paulinus

I have to agree completely. Movies about Rome may not be good history lessons, but they definitely stir interest. I remember being pleasantly surprised to see historical books on Rome, as well travel books to Rome, suddenly appear at my local bookstore within a few weeks after the release of "Gladiator."

Vale

Maxima Valeria Messallina


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! � What will yours do?

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

I look forward to the post....

Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus <hermeticagnosis@...> wrote:Salve GJC Cornelianus -

Not to worry: Compatibility matters above all other considerations! It
must be accessible to *all* Citizens, which means it must be *at least
* as universally compatible as Yahoo currently is. In the next day or
so I will be posting the updated list of things we have come up with so
far.

Vale
- Troianus

On Jan 9, 2005, at 5:57 PM, Gn. Julius Caesar Cornelianus wrote:

>
>
> We must make sure all will be able to access this new forum setting
> that is being discussed. While some of us may have better PC's than
> others and more flexibility or even differing connections and ISP's we
> should not change unless every active cive is able to utilize the new
> setting.
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


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.




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.

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

A. Apollónius Cordus T. Octávió Salvió amícó
omnibusque sal.

I haven't seen the film, but I can imagine the sort of
moral simplification which must have been involved.
But if one is going to pick a 'good' side and a 'bad'
side, it's worth bearing in mind that it was the
Saxons who were invading and occupying a foreign
country.

As for the ending, I guess it does seem odd that the
Saxons were beaten at the end (did they really end the
film after the battle of Mt. Badon? The most dramatic
bits of the Arthurian tradition all happen after that
point int he story!), but that's not a cinematic
invention. In the traditional story of Arthur, the
battle at Mt. Badon puts a stop to the Saxon threat
for the rest of Arthur's life.

And there's sound history there too: the few reliable
literary sources record that there was a decisive
victory against the Saxons around the last decade of
the fifth century, which was followed by peace with
the Saxons (though not among the various British
kingdoms) for a generation. The archaeological record,
though rather difficult to interpret, seems to back up
that story. The Anglo-Saxons did win in the end, of
course, but not in the lifetime of Arthur, if he ever lived.





___________________________________________________________
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Paulla corva Apolloni Corde omnibusque sai:

'Customizable backend code' refers to the ability for us to alter the
programming code that would run the mailing list/forum program to suit
our needs.

You got me to thinking that it would be nice for the mailing list
program to be able to function as both a bulletin board AND a mailing
list--so that people could have the option of reading information
according to threads as well as in order of posting.

Marine--Point well taken about the possibility of increasing population
and what that will do to mailing list activity.

This issue makes me wonder whether, at that time, the main list would
become impractical, and we would need to consider dividing up into the
provincial lists for general conversation, several smaller, more local
lists, reserving the main list for things like general announcements
and matters pertaining to discussions of proposed legislation and
political candidacies.

Or perhaps natural attrition might occur in which, after a certain
point, the list membership stops growning because its volume has
reached critical mass.

On an academic level, part of me would be interested to see what would
happen, should this occur; the other part of me agrees that it would be
wise to take corrective measures as soon as we can.

erm, sorry for the babbling.

Paulla corva Gaudialis

=====
Chantal
Chantal's LiveJournal
http://aerden.livejournal.com
"Yesterday, it worked.
Today, it is not working.
Windows is like that."

Gaius Popillius Laenas Quiritibus salutem plurimam dicit.

I hereby appoint the following citizens as my accensi for the current
consular period, with all the obligations and privileges prescribed
by the Laws of Nova Roma:


Aulus Apollonius Cordus
Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus
Gnaeus Iulius Caesar

They shall not be required to make any kind of oath.

Given a.d. IV ides Ian. in the Consulship of Fr. Apulus Caesar and G.
Popillius Laenas

Here is one example:

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php

Going to that link change all the different forum breakdowns to say the Main List, provincial, and sodalitas, etc.

Entering the "Roman Empire forum, http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?act=SF&f=2& , you can see all the different threads and some labelled "pinned" which I assume are similar to "sticky's" which in this case would be similar to posting reminders of elections and voting schedule or for candidates for XYZ etc. This particular example I am not sure has Private Messages which is the forum version of private emails. This would eleviate people like me the trouble of posting publicly emails meant to be private. Though I still have issues with them in some ways.

You can also up top look up members and has an option to e-mail them. Also not sure if its been mentioned but you can in some if not all forums check for an e-mail to be sent to you when a thread has a new post made to it or if you receive a private message....

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]

Salve Cordus et salvete omnes -

On Jan 10, 2005, at 2:05 PM, A. Apollonius Cordus wrote:
> A. Apollónius Cordus Ser. Equitió Trojánó amícó omnibusque sal.
>
> Thanks for the explanation of customizable code - so
> it sounds like you've already covered one of my 'would
> like's (though frankly it's more like a 'would be very
> grumpy about the absence of' for me!).

Wouldn't want a grumpy Cordus!
From what I've seen, a "View Unread Messages" option is available.
Press it and all threads containing material you haven't read yet
appear. The threads appear in chronological order of their creation.
Click any thread, and all unread messages within that thread then
appear, also in chronological order.
Would this be acceptable to you?
>
> I see from looking back at the archives that the
> current conversation did, as you say, start with
> Cornélius Tiberius' message; what I had in mind was
> the short and not unrelated conversation from 31930
> onwards.

I didn't respond to that one simply because merely grumbling about
Yahoo doesn't actually change anything. When Cornelius Tiberius
started discussing practical considerations, I dove right in.
Practical makes sense to me.

> I'd just come back from holiday, so I was
> reading two weeks' worth of messages all at once, and
> in my mind the two conversations got spliced together
> - but, checking, I see that there was an interval of a
> couple of days between the two.

Similar idea - "Let's consider moving" - but for different reasons.
However, you'll be happy to hear that dialogue will be aided by a
change, as well: We set the rules, not Yahoo, not anyone, just Nova
Roma.
>
> Nonetheless I'm glad to see I wasn't the only person
> to see the similarity - our mutual friend Cató replied
> to Cornélius saying, "That's an appealing idea
> primarily because we would then no longer be in
> submission to the whims or restrictions of Yahoo! and
> their vast evil machinery but would instead me in
> complete control of the format and rules which would
> apply".

Here's the interesting thing: All Message Boards/Forums/Bulletin Boards
have after-the-fact Moderation. You cannot prevent a member from
posting *anything*, you can only delete it after it appears. So those
who have been crying "Censorship!" will get their way: It may be
deleted after a short time by a zealous Moderator, but there's no
preventing someone from having their say.

To prevent Spam, we will have to limit Posting to Members Only, & we
*will* be setting rules, so it won't be absolute Chaos - but the
formats we're liking the best so far do not allow for screening of
Posts. Only deletion after the fact.
>
> And that's my main point, really - it would be a shame
> to go ahead with a change of format without making
> sure that we avoid moving to another environment where
> the civility or incivilty of our discourse will be
> limited by rules imposed from outside. (This isn't to
> say we shouldn't have rules, of course, merely that we
> should be free to make our own.) I'd like to see this
> on the 'would like' list at the very least, and
> ideally the 'must have' list.
>
Then you'll be happy to hear that you're likely to get your wish!
The Message Board/Forum/Bulletin Board format is looking good at this
point, and many of those have no external rules imposed on users.
Well, you can't do anything blatantly *illegal*, but that's about it.
No rules about manners or such - that's all up to us.

Vale
- Troianus
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
> http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Salve A. Apollonius Cordus et al

I must admit that I loved the film and now own a copy of it.
Anything that puts Rome before the public is good in my humble
opinion. The members of the RR will be impressed that its
the "Christians" (in name only) that are seen as bad and most of
the "good" guys are Pagan of one type or another.

I HOPE that the reason they ended the film where they did is for a
SEQUEL.

AAC "The Anglo-Saxons did win in the end, of course, but not in the
lifetime of Arthur, if he ever lived."

Would they not only be the Saxons until AFTER they won and co-
mingled with the native Britons and after the other Germanic peoples
the Angles and the Jutes arrived? ( I know that they were all
invading at about the same time but it took some time to go from
being Saxon,or Angle or something else to being Anglo-Saxon, yes?)

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
A Celtic-Barvarian (Irish-German)
and adopted Roman


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Apollonius Cordus"
<a_apollonius_cordus@y...> wrote:

> A. Apollónius Cordus T. Octávió Salvió amícó
> omnibusque sal.
>
> I haven't seen the film, but I can imagine the sort of
> moral simplification which must have been involved.
> But if one is going to pick a 'good' side and a 'bad'
> side, it's worth bearing in mind that it was the
> Saxons who were invading and occupying a foreign
> country.
>
> As for the ending, I guess it does seem odd that the
> Saxons were beaten at the end (did they really end the
> film after the battle of Mt. Badon? The most dramatic
> bits of the Arthurian tradition all happen after that
> point int he story!), but that's not a cinematic
> invention. In the traditional story of Arthur, the
> battle at Mt. Badon puts a stop to the Saxon threat
> for the rest of Arthur's life.
>
> And there's sound history there too: the few reliable
> literary sources record that there was a decisive
> victory against the Saxons around the last decade of
> the fifth century, which was followed by peace with
> the Saxons (though not among the various British
> kingdoms) for a generation. The archaeological record,
> though rather difficult to interpret, seems to back up
> that story. The Anglo-Saxons did win in the end, of
> course, but not in the lifetime of Arthur, if he ever lived.
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!

http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Salve A. Apollonius Cordus et al

I must admit that I loved the film and now own a copy of it.
Anything that puts Rome before the public is good in my humble
opinion. The members of the RR will be impressed that its
the "Christians" (in name only) that are seen as bad and most of
the "good" guys are Pagan of one type or another.

I HOPE that the reason they ended the film where they did is for a
SEQUEL.

AAC "The Anglo-Saxons did win in the end, of course, but not in the
lifetime of Arthur, if he ever lived."

Would they not only be the Saxons until AFTER they won and co-
mingled with the native Britons and after the other Germanic peoples
the Angles and the Jutes arrived? ( I know that they were all
invading at about the same time but it took some time to go from
being Saxon,or Angle or something else to being Anglo-Saxon, yes?)

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
A Celtic-Barvarian (Irish-German)
and adopted Roman


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Apollonius Cordus"
<a_apollonius_cordus@y...> wrote:

> A. Apollónius Cordus T. Octávió Salvió amícó
> omnibusque sal.
>
> I haven't seen the film, but I can imagine the sort of
> moral simplification which must have been involved.
> But if one is going to pick a 'good' side and a 'bad'
> side, it's worth bearing in mind that it was the
> Saxons who were invading and occupying a foreign
> country.
>
> As for the ending, I guess it does seem odd that the
> Saxons were beaten at the end (did they really end the
> film after the battle of Mt. Badon? The most dramatic
> bits of the Arthurian tradition all happen after that
> point int he story!), but that's not a cinematic
> invention. In the traditional story of Arthur, the
> battle at Mt. Badon puts a stop to the Saxon threat
> for the rest of Arthur's life.
>
> And there's sound history there too: the few reliable
> literary sources record that there was a decisive
> victory against the Saxons around the last decade of
> the fifth century, which was followed by peace with
> the Saxons (though not among the various British
> kingdoms) for a generation. The archaeological record,
> though rather difficult to interpret, seems to back up
> that story. The Anglo-Saxons did win in the end, of
> course, but not in the lifetime of Arthur, if he ever lived.
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!

http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Salve Consuls et al

Would it be possible and legal to obtain the mailing lists of the
various Journals on Ancient History and the student lists of
university and colleges departments of Classics for membership
recruitment purposes?

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy P. Gallagher"
<spqr753@m...> wrote:

>
> Salve Consuls et al
>
> Would it be possible and legal to obtain the mailing lists of the
> various Journals on Ancient History and the student lists of
> university and colleges departments of Classics for membership
> recruitment purposes?
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

Salve Tiberi Galeri,

I am not sure I understand the question fully.

I do not think publishers or Universities would share these lists with
us because of the privacy policies they most likely have in place.

The sharing would not be illegal per se, just in violation of the
policies these groups have set up and have communicated to their
subscribers and students.

Vale,

G. Popillius Laenas
Consul

Salve Consul

I am sure there are some Journal lists that are for sale. You are probability right on the colleges list though.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

----- Original Message -----
From: gaiuspopilliuslaenas<mailto:ksterne@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 4:05 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Membership



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>, "Timothy P. Gallagher"
<spqr753@m<mailto:spqr753@m>...> wrote:
>
> Salve Consuls et al
>
> Would it be possible and legal to obtain the mailing lists of the
> various Journals on Ancient History and the student lists of
> university and colleges departments of Classics for membership
> recruitment purposes?
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

Salve Tiberi Galeri,

I am not sure I understand the question fully.

I do not think publishers or Universities would share these lists with
us because of the privacy policies they most likely have in place.

The sharing would not be illegal per se, just in violation of the
policies these groups have set up and have communicated to their
subscribers and students.

Vale,

G. Popillius Laenas
Consul





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

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

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

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



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

Salvete Omnes,

> Would they not only be the Saxons until AFTER they won and co-
> mingled with the native Britons and after the other Germanic

peoples

> the Angles and the Jutes arrived? ( I know that they were all
> invading at about the same time but it took some time to go from
> being Saxon,or Angle or something else to being Anglo-Saxon, yes?)

Well, they're called "Anglo-Saxon" for convenience really. The
Angles and the Saxons made up the largest proportion of invaders and
settlers from the area that is now Southern Denmark down to
Flanders. There were four major groups, Angles, Saxons, Jutes and
Freisians. They all settled into different areas of the country and
formed their own independant kingdoms. This is still reflected in
place names today eg "East Anglia", "Essex" and "England" itself
(incidently, it's not known why it came to be known as England when
there were more Saxons present than Angles).

The native Celts were pushed into what is now Wales and Cornwall,
which is why they still retain a seperate language and culture.

There then followed a long period of the larger Kingdoms (Wessex,
Mercia and Northumbria) annexing the smaller ones and expanding
across the country.

I can't recall reading about any Celtic war against this invasion
(but then I haven't done much reading about this), possibly because
the very first Anglo-Saxons to arrive were invited by native
warlords to fight in their armies as mercenaries.

> >
> > I haven't seen the film, but I can imagine the sort of
> > moral simplification which must have been involved.
> > But if one is going to pick a 'good' side and a 'bad'
> > side, it's worth bearing in mind that it was the
> > Saxons who were invading and occupying a foreign
> > country.

Just as the Romans had done.

> >
> > As for the ending, I guess it does seem odd that the
> > Saxons were beaten at the end (did they really end the
> > film after the battle of Mt. Badon? The most dramatic
> > bits of the Arthurian tradition all happen after that
> > point int he story!), but that's not a cinematic
> > invention. In the traditional story of Arthur, the
> > battle at Mt. Badon puts a stop to the Saxon threat
> > for the rest of Arthur's life.

It would be hard to put a stop to that sort of threat in that way,
since it wasn't actually an 'invasion' as we know it, more a
migration of Germanic peoples. It couldn't really be stopped for the
same reasons that the Vikings couldn't be stopped by the Anglo-
Saxons years later.

They end the film just after some kind of battle (Lancelot dies in
it, if that's any help), where the 'evil' Saxons display some of the
worst tactics I've ever seen.


valete

Salvius

Salvete omnes,

Actually there was one short scene in the movie which was a little
subtle but more reflective of modern times. We have all heard the
term WASP - white-anglo-saxon-protestant and know of the reputation
of that group and lets say its less than racially open minded,
especially in the era of Social Darwinism. Well there is a scene
where the Saxons just sacked a village and one big lout is about to
sexually assualt a celtic woman. The chief tells the warrior to not
touch her and never get involved like that with people of other
races. An argument occurs and the chief spits the guy apart like a
melon then looks down at the greatful woman and orders her killed.
Beginnings of the pure race ideas?

Well I did not mind seeing the Saxons portrayed as bad guys. Far
more often than not it is the Romans who are portrayed as such. I
recommend this movie to our Pontifex Maximus Cassius since a few
posts of his last year expressed some dismay about the bad way
Romans were portrayed!


Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus
















--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "t_octavius_salvius" <fin37@h...>
wrote:

>
> Salvete Omnes,
>
>
> > Would they not only be the Saxons until AFTER they won and co-
> > mingled with the native Britons and after the other Germanic
> peoples
> > the Angles and the Jutes arrived? ( I know that they were all
> > invading at about the same time but it took some time to go from
> > being Saxon,or Angle or something else to being Anglo-Saxon,

yes?)

>
> Well, they're called "Anglo-Saxon" for convenience really. The
> Angles and the Saxons made up the largest proportion of invaders

and

> settlers from the area that is now Southern Denmark down to
> Flanders. There were four major groups, Angles, Saxons, Jutes and
> Freisians. They all settled into different areas of the country

and

> formed their own independant kingdoms. This is still reflected in
> place names today eg "East Anglia", "Essex" and "England" itself
> (incidently, it's not known why it came to be known as England

when

> there were more Saxons present than Angles).
>
> The native Celts were pushed into what is now Wales and Cornwall,
> which is why they still retain a seperate language and culture.
>
> There then followed a long period of the larger Kingdoms (Wessex,
> Mercia and Northumbria) annexing the smaller ones and expanding
> across the country.
>
> I can't recall reading about any Celtic war against this invasion
> (but then I haven't done much reading about this), possibly

because

> the very first Anglo-Saxons to arrive were invited by native
> warlords to fight in their armies as mercenaries.
>
>
> > >
> > > I haven't seen the film, but I can imagine the sort of
> > > moral simplification which must have been involved.
> > > But if one is going to pick a 'good' side and a 'bad'
> > > side, it's worth bearing in mind that it was the
> > > Saxons who were invading and occupying a foreign
> > > country.
>
> Just as the Romans had done.
>
> > >
> > > As for the ending, I guess it does seem odd that the
> > > Saxons were beaten at the end (did they really end the
> > > film after the battle of Mt. Badon? The most dramatic
> > > bits of the Arthurian tradition all happen after that
> > > point int he story!), but that's not a cinematic
> > > invention. In the traditional story of Arthur, the
> > > battle at Mt. Badon puts a stop to the Saxon threat
> > > for the rest of Arthur's life.
>
> It would be hard to put a stop to that sort of threat in that way,
> since it wasn't actually an 'invasion' as we know it, more a
> migration of Germanic peoples. It couldn't really be stopped for

the

> same reasons that the Vikings couldn't be stopped by the Anglo-
> Saxons years later.
>
> They end the film just after some kind of battle (Lancelot dies in
> it, if that's any help), where the 'evil' Saxons display some of

the

> worst tactics I've ever seen.
>
>
> valete
>
> Salvius

Does being part Spanish, French and Italian constitute as being more
Roman considering Spain and France were under Roman rule for
hundreds of years?

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "t_octavius_salvius" <fin37@h...>
wrote:

>
> Salvete Omnes,
>
> I'm obviously more Roman because I live about an hour away from
> where Constantine the Great was proclaimed Emperor.
>
> How's that for a tenuous "I'm more Roman" link?
>
> valete
>
> T. Octavius Salvius
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Quintus Lanius Paulinus

(Michael

> Kelly)" <mjk@d...> wrote:
> >
> > > And now, let's not start yet another "I'm more roman than you"
> > thread,
> > > please :)
> > >
> > > vale
> > >
> > > DCF
> > > --
> > Salvete omnes,
> >
> > LOL, just as well, leaves me out! My ancient heritage and

kingdom

> > were the peat bogs of Donegal.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Quintus Lanius Paulinus

Salvete Omenes,



"And what was that ending about? So he's beaten the Saxons and
Britain remains Celtic? That makes even less sense."


Lately many authors seem to believe that was Arthur�s most important accomplishment. Whether or not there was a real historical figure that �Arthur� was based on, or he is a compilation of many different figures both real and imagined, the recent attitude, at least in Literature, is that he was able to fend off the �barbarian� hordes of Saxons for a generation, thereby allowing the Romano-British population to flourish for a short time. Granted this is primarily in fictitious works of Bradley, Cornwell, Stewart, and many others, but my understanding is that any attempt to write about the character �King Arthur� is purely an exercise in fiction anyway.

Valete,
Gallus Cassius Augurius

t_octavius_salvius <fin37@...> wrote:

Salvete Omnes,

Having seen 'King Arthur', I can say I wasn't impressed. My biggest
gripe about it was the total demonising of the Saxons. I know you
have to have some Good vs Evil, but I didn't think it worked that
well here. It doesn't fit that they are portrayed as the bad guys.

And what was that ending about? So he's beaten the Saxons and
Britain remains Celtic? That makes even less sense.

This has probably got nothing to do with the original point of this
thread, but it's nice to talk about this with people who don't look
at me blankly when I point out such things.

valete

Salvius


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael
Kelly)" <mjk@d...> wrote:

>
> Salve Apolloni Corde,
>
> Thank you very much for your views and comments about this movie.

I

> had some foreign students in from the university last night who
> espied that DVD on my coffee table and most of them had seen the
> movie. We had a good discussion about its authenticy and I was

able

> to pass on your views and comments. To make a long story short the
> conversation went from the pros and cons of latina girls to Roman
> Britain and the conversation went on for about 45 minutes.
> Some of them will be checking out NR.
>
> Meanwhile I'll put your missive in my documents. Once again your
> time and effort in addressing this is much appreciated!
>
> Regards,
>
> Quintus Lanius Paulinus
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Apollonius Cordus"
> <a_apollonius_cordus@y...> wrote:
> > A. Apoll�nius Cordus Q. Lani� Paul�n� omnibusque sal.
> >
> > > .... Now I am sure there
> > > were many
> > > errors from costumes to the exact time frame (452
> > > AD) but I thought
> > > the Roman legions were gone quite sometime before
> > > that.
> >
> > Military forces had been withdrawn from Britain bit by
> > bit over the course of the fourth and fifth centuries,
> > though occasionally there were crises in Britain which
> > would prompt the emperor to send more troops back,
> > usually temporarily as expeditionary forces. About 407
> > a general, known as Constantine III, launched a revolt
> > from Britain, crossing into Gaul to try to become
> > emperor and probably taking much of the British
> > garrison with him. Then in 409 there seems to have
> > been an anti-Roman revolution in Britain: possibly
> > this was a revolt against Constantine by British
> > loyalists supporting the legitimate emperor Honorius,
> > but, if we take Zosimus at his word, it seems rather
> > to have been a revolt against the whole concept of
> > Roman rule by a group which seeked to set up one or
> > more independent British states. A little later
> > someone in Britain wrote to Honorius to ask him to
> > send Roman troops to Britain, but in 410 he replied
> > saying that he could not spare the troops and advising
> > the Britons to take up arms in their own defence. The
> > fact that his letter was addressed to the cities and
> > peoples of Britain rather than to the governor or any
> > other legitimate authority suggests that Roman rule
> > had entirely collapsed or had been entirely overthrown
> > by this stage.
> >
> > Roman troops never formally evacuated Britain -
> > presumably they either stayed and 'went native' or
> > else left, or were kicked out or killed, during the
> > upheavals of 409-10; probably some of each. There are
> > a couple of different time-frames for Arthur, if one
> > wants to regard him as a historical figure, but
> > neither of them put him around 452 - that's about a
> > generation too early. The two possible dates for his
> > death are c.515 and c.537. By that time it had been
> > about two generations since Britain was part of the
> > Roman empire, so the idea that Arthur was a Roman
> > general is, on either of the two standard sets of
> > dates, untenable. It's usually an idea put about by
> > people who find it impossible to believe that the
> > uncivilized Britons could have produced a leader worth
> > composing ballads about and that therefore he must
> > have been a Roman. Of course most scholars prefer to
> > regard Arthur as unhistorical in any case; but if one
> > is going to regard him as historical, it's best to
> > regard him as British rather than Roman.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___________________________________________________________
> > ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
> http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

---------------------------------
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 - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.

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

Salvete Claudia Iulia et Omnes,

I'm not really big on technical terms myself and for the most part,
had no clue in what your questions were asking o_O. But I know they
have much information about them on their website and even have a
"Support" forum on there where you can talk with the people who run
the whole thing. Prehaps they can answer your questions? The URL is
www.proboards.com I only brought up proboards because they are simple
and free, but I know there are plenty more out there with much better
quality.

Thank you Troianus for sending me all of the convo regarding the
e-mail change. I would like to address something I saw people
questioning. I noticed something about people having to join NR before
they know exactly what it's all about. Well on Forums or Message
Boards there is a "guest" feature which allows people who don't have
an account for the forum to come onto the forum and discuss with
people on there. So people would be able to ask acutal Nova Romans
about NR before they actually join it.

People are also worried about advertisement with Yahoo and such as
addressed in the first e-mail regarding this change. Well, once people
find us on Yahoo, and join the lists, how many actually stay as active
members? They become irritated with the confusion with the mail lists
and unsubscribe becoming inactive members. So what I'm trying to say
is, although a forum won't get us as many people to join, it will get
us actual active members rather then inactive ones. A forum may even
bring in more traffic. I know of quite a few forums out there that
have a Roman slant to then and if we simply go onto those forums and
mention the NR forum, I'm sure many people would think of joining.

Valete,
Gn. Scribonius Scriptor

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 16:26:08 -0000, Susan Davis <futabachan@...> wrote:
>
>
> > We could use proboards. They are free and fairly easy to use.
>
> Do they gateway to email? How many servers do they have, and in how
> many different data centres in different locations? How much
> bandwidth do their ISP connections have? What sort of high
> availability engineering have they done? How long have they been in
> business, what sort of revenue do they have coming in, and what risk
> does Nova Roma face of them going out of business?
>
> > I would be willing to go and set up the forums and then pass the
> > "admin" position on to whomever is to be incharge of such a thing. So
> > what do you all think?
>
> I think that all of the above questions need to be answered before we
> take such a step. While a better user interface (i.e. threading)
> would be nice, this list is the backbone of Nova Roma, and if it
> fails, Nova Roma is in trouble. Accordingly, we need to select an
> extremely robust solution, and any replacement for Yahoo needs to be
> at least as reliable over the long haul.
>
> Vale,
> Claudia Iulia
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

It would if it weren't for the fact that I can get to Hadrian's wall
in about 20 minutes.

Salvius still reigns supreme ;-)

vale

T. Octavius Salvius

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Chris" <jojobean20@h...> wrote:
>
> Does being part Spanish, French and Italian constitute as being
more
> Roman considering Spain and France were under Roman rule for
> hundreds of years?
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "t_octavius_salvius"
<fin37@h...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Salvete Omnes,
> >
> > I'm obviously more Roman because I live about an hour away from
> > where Constantine the Great was proclaimed Emperor.
> >
> > How's that for a tenuous "I'm more Roman" link?
> >
> > valete
> >
> > T. Octavius Salvius
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Quintus Lanius Paulinus
> (Michael
> > Kelly)" <mjk@d...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > And now, let's not start yet another "I'm more roman than
you"
> > > thread,
> > > > please :)
> > > >
> > > > vale
> > > >
> > > > DCF
> > > > --
> > > Salvete omnes,
> > >
> > > LOL, just as well, leaves me out! My ancient heritage and
> kingdom
> > > were the peat bogs of Donegal.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Quintus Lanius Paulinus

Salve,

The chief tells the warrior to not

> touch her and never get involved like that with people of other
> races. An argument occurs and the chief spits the guy apart like a
> melon then looks down at the greatful woman and orders her killed.
> Beginnings of the pure race ideas?

I'd forgotten about that scene, a rare one that I liked. I was
supporting the Saxons through the film, but then I usually do
support the bad guys anyway. There's something about the evil
characters, they're much deeper and more interesting.

I doubt it's the beginning of the pure race idea, that came much
later. I'll bet it's in the film just to hammer it home how nasty
the Saxons are.

I suppose the Romans have taken a beating in cinema over the years,
but I still didn't like the portrayal of the Saxons. At least the
Romans have 'Gladiator' to compensate.

vale

Salvius

Bummer! Oh well, guess you can't win all the time on heritage
merits. LoL


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "t_octavius_salvius"
<fin37@h...> wrote:

>
> It would if it weren't for the fact that I can get to Hadrian's wall
> in about 20 minutes.
>
> Salvius still reigns supreme ;-)
>
> vale
>
> T. Octavius Salvius
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Chris"

<jojobean20@h...> wrote:

> >
> > Does being part Spanish, French and Italian constitute as

being

> more
> > Roman considering Spain and France were under Roman

rule for

> > hundreds of years?
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "t_octavius_salvius"
> <fin37@h...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Salvete Omnes,
> > >
> > > I'm obviously more Roman because I live about an hour

away from

> > > where Constantine the Great was proclaimed Emperor.
> > >
> > > How's that for a tenuous "I'm more Roman" link?
> > >
> > > valete
> > >
> > > T. Octavius Salvius
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Quintus Lanius

Paulinus

> > (Michael
> > > Kelly)" <mjk@d...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > And now, let's not start yet another "I'm more roman

than

> you"
> > > > thread,
> > > > > please :)
> > > > >
> > > > > vale
> > > > >
> > > > > DCF
> > > > > --
> > > > Salvete omnes,
> > > >
> > > > LOL, just as well, leaves me out! My ancient heritage and
> > kingdom
> > > > were the peat bogs of Donegal.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Quintus Lanius Paulinus

Salve,

Well, you could go to(I hesitate to say it here even though I'm a
member there)the SVR site.
It would give you an idea what can be done. If you do go to look, be
advised there are several sections not visible to non-member's.

Vale,

Quintus Servilius Fidenas

DCF (ave, frate') is from Roma and perhaps is the most Roman of us.
Donegal, huh? Interesting! I love "The fighting Prince of Donegal" (a WD
movie)...

Valete bene

Alectus


-------Messaggio originale-------

Da: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Data: 01/11/05 00:10:20
A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Oggetto: [Nova-Roma] Re: salve


Bummer! Oh well, guess you can't win all the time on heritage
merits. LoL


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "t_octavius_salvius"
<fin37@h...> wrote:

>
> It would if it weren't for the fact that I can get to Hadrian's wall
> in about 20 minutes.
>
> Salvius still reigns supreme ;-)
>
> vale
>
> T. Octavius Salvius
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Chris"

<jojobean20@h...> wrote:

> >
> > Does being part Spanish, French and Italian constitute as

being

> more
> > Roman considering Spain and France were under Roman

rule for

> > hundreds of years?
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "t_octavius_salvius"
> <fin37@h...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Salvete Omnes,
> > >
> > > I'm obviously more Roman because I live about an hour

away from

> > > where Constantine the Great was proclaimed Emperor.
> > >
> > > How's that for a tenuous "I'm more Roman" link?
> > >
> > > valete
> > >
> > > T. Octavius Salvius
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Quintus Lanius

Paulinus

> > (Michael
> > > Kelly)" <mjk@d...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > And now, let's not start yet another "I'm more roman

than

> you"
> > > > thread,
> > > > > please :)
> > > > >
> > > > > vale
> > > > >
> > > > > DCF
> > > > > --
> > > > Salvete omnes,
> > > >
> > > > LOL, just as well, leaves me out! My ancient heritage and
> > kingdom
> > > > were the peat bogs of Donegal.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Quintus Lanius Paulinus

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
What would our lives be like without music, dance, and theater?
Donate or volunteer in the arts today at Network for Good!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pkgkPB/SOnJAA/Zx0JAA/wWQplB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->


Yahoo! Groups Links








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

Salve gensmate Salvius,

> And what was that ending about? So he's beaten the
> Saxons and Britain remains Celtic? That makes even

<less sense.

I know. I didn't like that movie either. It seemed
more like they made a movie and named the characters
after King Arthur mythology in order to get more
people to go see it. And it worked. But anything is
better than First Knight, where I was embarrassed for
Richard Gere's bad acting...

Vale,
Diana Octavia


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

Salvete, Roman People of the quirites,

I will be absent for the following one or two weeks, on travel. This time, all praetorian duties will be carried by my excelent colleague and friend M. Iulius Perusianus.

Valete bene in pacem deorum,
L. Arminius Faustus PR


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador do Yahoo! agora.

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

A. Apollónius Cordus Paullae Corvae Gaudiálí
omnibusque sal.

> This issue makes me wonder whether, at that time,
> the main list would
> become impractical, and we would need to consider
> dividing up into the
> provincial lists for general conversation, several
> smaller, more local
> lists, reserving the main list for things like
> general announcements
> and matters pertaining to discussions of proposed
> legislation and
> political candidacies.

I think that's actually happening already. Although
there are sometimes interesting non-political
conversations in this forum, it's nothing like the
water-cooler of general chat which you see in the
archives from the early years. I think this may be
part of the reason so many people perceive a 'problem'
with this list - they expect it to be a place where
members of the community hang around to exchange
pleasantries and talk about the weather.

A community of about 200 (taxpayers) or about 175
(people who voted in the last election) or even of
about 75 (people who write in this forum at least once
every couple of months) is too big to have a single
list like that. Almost all the casual 'how's the
weather?' conversations I have are by private e-mail,
and almost all the 'did you see that TV programme?'
and 'did you know the Romans put fish up their noses?'
[NB - not true!] conversations I have are on smaller
lists, including provincial ones, and in person.

I think that's a good thing, especially the fact that
many provinces are now sufficiently active and lively
that they're like the main list was in the early days.
That shows real progress in getting Nova Róma off the
internet and into the grass roots (forgive the odd
metaphor). This list is now primarily for discussing
things which affect the *whole* community, principally
national politics. That's perfectly healthy, as long
as people can accept it as a good thing and stop
complaining that the list is full of politics. Of
course it's full of politics - everything else is
going on elsewhere. Maybe we ought to stop calling it
the 'main list' and change its address from
'nova-roma@' to something like 'forumromanum@' so that
newcomers don't get the idea that this is where we
come to socialize.

So I think you're quite correct in your analysis, but
I don't think there's any need for "corrective
measures". It's a natural and healthy process. It's
not that this list is becoming more politicized and
driving out other types of activity, it's just that
other types of activity have gone to other fora where
they're more at home - provincial lists,
topic-specific lists, face-to-face meetings, private
e-mail, and so on. The only problem is caused when
this list is perceived by outsiders as, and indeed
presented to outsiders as, the 'main' forum of Nova
Róma, which it simply isn't any longer.





___________________________________________________________
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

A. Apollónius Cordus Ser. Equitió Trojánó amícó
omnibusque sal.

> From what I've seen, a "View Unread Messages"
> option is available.
> Press it and all threads containing material you
> haven't read yet
> appear. The threads appear in chronological order
> of their creation.
> Click any thread, and all unread messages within
> that thread then
> appear, also in chronological order.
> Would this be acceptable to you?

Sounds absolutely fine. The phrase 'customizable
back-end code' makes it sound like one would have to
be a professional computer programmer to make it do
that, but I presume that's not so?

> Similar idea - "Let's consider moving" - but for
> different reasons.
> However, you'll be happy to hear that dialogue will
> be aided by a
> change, as well: We set the rules, not Yahoo, not
> anyone, just Nova
> Roma.

Sounds ideal. :)





___________________________________________________________
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

A. Apollónius Cordus T. Octávió Salvió amícó
omnibusque sal.

> I can't recall reading about any Celtic war against
> this invasion
> (but then I haven't done much reading about this),
> possibly because
> the very first Anglo-Saxons to arrive were invited
> by native
> warlords to fight in their armies as mercenaries.

There are two reasons for that. The first is that
modern scholarship has tended consistently to ignore
the post-Roman Britons as uninteresting and unworthy
of study. I was taught at school, and I expect you
were too, that Britain was ruled by the Romans, then
the Romans left, and then the Anglo-Saxons came. The
implication, of course, is that in between the
departure of the Romans and the arrival of the
Anglo-Saxons there was no one here - just a big sign
on the cliffs of Dover saying 'To Let', and
whitewashed windows with old peeling posters saying
'Last Few Weeks! Everything Must Go!'.

This is slowly being remedied as a growing - though
still small - number of academics are revealing the
very strong evidence that the post-Roman 'native'
population of Britain had a rich and interesting
culture and political organization which was quite
distinct from both Roman and Anglo-Saxon, rather than
just the shuffling remnants of a decayed Roman
province. In the south-east, where the Anglo-Saxons
first settled, this culture lasted scarcely one
generation, if we accept the traditional dating of the
first Anglo-Saxon arrivals between 425 and 443; and
maybe that's why academia (traditionally based in the
south-east, of course) has tended to ignore it; but in
the north and west - not just Wales and Cornwall but
the Marches, the Midlands, and most of the North
including the lowlands of Scotland - it lasted much
longer, in some places up to 200 years.

The other reason you may not have heard about it is
that the primary sources are few and not famous.
Gildas is the only really reliable one. He was a monk
writing in the late sixth century, and the members of
his generation were the children of those Britons who
had fought the Anglo-Saxons in those battles which
came to be associated with Arthur. He himself refers
to the battle of Mt. Badon as the decisive defeat of
the Saxons which dispelled the threat until the time
when he was writing - in other words, for his whole
lifetime. It didn't repel the Saxons from the whole
island, of course - they were firmly established in
East Anglia, Kent and Sussex, and Northumbria
(including parts of Yorkshire). The Anglo-Saxon
chronicle, understandably, doesn't mention any of
this, and it's debatable whether its records for this
period are reliable at all, but it does record battles
and sieges, so at least we can say that the later
Anglo-Saxons believed that there had been fighting
against the Britons around the time when Gildas says
the Britons had been fighting them.

> > > I haven't seen the film, but I can imagine the
> sort of
> > > moral simplification which must have been
> involved.
> > > But if one is going to pick a 'good' side and a
> 'bad'
> > > side, it's worth bearing in mind that it was the
> > > Saxons who were invading and occupying a foreign
> > > country.
>
> Just as the Romans had done.

Yes. Invading other people's homelands wasn't among
the Romans' most laudable pastimes.

> > > As for the ending, I guess it does seem odd that
> the
> > > Saxons were beaten at the end (did they really
> end the
> > > film after the battle of Mt. Badon? The most
> dramatic
> > > bits of the Arthurian tradition all happen after
> that
> > > point int he story!), but that's not a cinematic
> > > invention. In the traditional story of Arthur,
> the
> > > battle at Mt. Badon puts a stop to the Saxon
> threat
> > > for the rest of Arthur's life.
>
> It would be hard to put a stop to that sort of
> threat in that way,
> since it wasn't actually an 'invasion' as we know
> it, more a
> migration of Germanic peoples. It couldn't really be
> stopped for the
> same reasons that the Vikings couldn't be stopped by
> the Anglo-
> Saxons years later.

Well, the literary and the archaeological evidence all
suggests that the Saxon occupation of territory, which
had been advancing westward fairly steadily throughout
the fifth century, came to a halt near the end of that
century and remained static for around 50 years. It
may be that this wasn't entirely the result of British
military successes, but Gildas (and there is really no
reason for him to be lying about it) makes it pretty
clear that there were British military successes and
that the most famous one was immediately followed by a
cessation of Anglo-Saxon territorial expansion for the
next fifty years or so. This isn't disputed even by
the many scholars who reject Arthur as a fantasy. And
remember that the Vikings *were* stopped by military
action, hence the fact that we all know who Alfred the
Great was.

I rather think calling it a migration is a little like
calling the Roman invasion or the Norman conquest a
migration. Archaeology and literary evidence from both
British and Anglo-Saxon sides confirm that there were
battles, captures of towns, sacks, pillaging, and the
rest. In other words, people fought and killed each
other. That's what distinguishes an invasion from a
migration. Certainly there *was* a migration going on,
just as there were Visigoths and Ostrogoths and
Vandals and Bergundians and Alemanni and so on
migrating into the rest of the Roman or ex-Roman
world; but those migrations, which were met with armed
resistance by the Romans, are generally called
'invasions', and there's no reason not to use the same
word for what the Anglo-Saxons were doing.

> They end the film just after some kind of battle
> (Lancelot dies in
> it, if that's any help), where the 'evil' Saxons
> display some of the
> worst tactics I've ever seen.

I suppose it just goes to show that one can be evil
without being a genius; which just leaves us to wonder
whether one can be a genius without being evil... :)





___________________________________________________________
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

In a message dated 1/10/05 11:02:01 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
violetphearsen@... writes:

Perhaps you would like to hire my martial arts teacher, who, when two men
tried to attack her, one using a knife, sent both men to the hospital. She was
unharmed. The only weapon she used was her body and she's only five feet
tall.



When we were teaching "Impact" self defense techniques, we had a blind woman
enroll.

Because of her heightened perciption she overcame the aural displacement
that usually effects
beginners. If you spoke within her striking distance she could target your
throat fairly well.
You don't expect a blind woman to do a sword strike to the throat, so she
won a far amount
of her fights with our "muggers"

Speaking of woman warriors, I saw Electra today. Garner is in the best
shape of her life, and her technique has really improved. She actually now looks
like a Karate-Ka and her moves reflect that.

Q. Fabius Maximus


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

Salvete Omnes,

This is getting very interesting. Just as Cordus says, there is a
big gap between the Romans leaving and the Saxon arriving that is
just never looked into.

From what I gather there was no individual Romano-Celtic "State", if
we can use that word, but the combination of the local and the Roman
traditions remained for a while after the Legions departed.



This isn't disputed even by

> the many scholars who reject Arthur as a fantasy. And
> remember that the Vikings *were* stopped by military
> action, hence the fact that we all know who Alfred the
> Great was.

That's certainly true, but there were two 'prongs' to the Viking
invasion as well as to the Saxon invasion. Saxon and Viking
armies were present and battling the natives, but there were also
the settlers who remained in Britain regardless of how their 'side'
was doing in war. It's much harder to remove the settlers than to
remove the armies.

>
> I rather think calling it a migration is a little like
> calling the Roman invasion or the Norman conquest a
> migration. Archaeology and literary evidence from both
> British and Anglo-Saxon sides confirm that there were
> battles, captures of towns, sacks, pillaging, and the
> rest. In other words, people fought and killed each
> other. That's what distinguishes an invasion from a
> migration. Certainly there *was* a migration going on,
> just as there were Visigoths and Ostrogoths and
> Vandals and Bergundians and Alemanni and so on
> migrating into the rest of the Roman or ex-Roman
> world; but those migrations, which were met with armed
> resistance by the Romans, are generally called
> 'invasions', and there's no reason not to use the same
> word for what the Anglo-Saxons were doing.

I would dispute this because of the nature of the invasion. Yes
armies were raised and sent to Britain, but normal Anglo-Saxons also
went. They remained there and more kept coming despite any Anglo-
Saxon military losses. The continued Anglo-Saxon presence and the
fact that they did rather well in Britian is almost totally apart
from military factors.

Is there not a word that means half-invasion and half-migration?
Invgration, for example?

> > They end the film just after some kind of battle
> > (Lancelot dies in
> > it, if that's any help), where the 'evil' Saxons
> > display some of the
> > worst tactics I've ever seen.
>
> I suppose it just goes to show that one can be evil
> without being a genius; which just leaves us to wonder
> whether one can be a genius without being evil... :)

You wonder how these people can be seen as a threat, never mind
evil, when they do the classic martial trick of dividing up your
army and sending bits of it at a time through a mist-covered gate.
ANYONE, military minded or not, can see that has 'Trap' written all
over it.


valete

T. Octavius Salvius

Tiberius;

I have no wish to fight with you since we have cooperated so fully in
the past. However, your opinions are just that -- your opinions, and
they are not mine. You did things in your way which I did not always
agree with, but you were the Editor, and so I held my tongue. An
Editor, in my view, is responsible for the material that is printed in
the organ which he edits. Certain laws and behavior on the part of the
Pontiffs in NR makes it advisable, again in my view, to limit such
articles until a way can be found to stop the bitternes which always
results from such and to protect those responsible from wild actions
against them. Tis is not to mention the bitterness on this list that
usually results. I have been very straight-forward in my verbal ideas
and my actions, but I am now, as a Candidadte, being threatened with a
charge of "blasphemy" for those same ideas, before the people have a
chance to speak.

------This is exactly the reason for my policies as stated.-------

You begged me last year to stand in your place, and I have done so.
Don't you think that I have the right and responsibility to do the same
job within my determinations that you did and let the people decide the
issues?? Apparently, those of the Religio, or at least some of them, do
not, since already they have begun to move behind my back to get what
"they" want, determining that "they" know better than the Citizens of
Nova Roma. That tendency bothers me, and I think it should bother every
Novan Roman who does not wish to be under the thumb of the CP. By the
way, that's just my opinion, and a free election will indicate if it
goes any farther than just my own view.

I did not intend to stand for this Magistry again until asked as I was
last year. In response to that request, I have made my arrangements and
have announced my Candidacy before the people of Nova Roma, as well as
my policies open and before all. I am perfectly willing to let the
people decide, but no-one will now beg me off this commitmet through
back-alley tactics. There may well be a way for me to modify my
policies, but the attacks on me from those Pontiffs and others of the
Religio have determined that they have no consideration for my concerns,
they have twisted my words and ignored my reasoning, dodging around them
because, I would suppose, that they might be a tad difficult to answer
in a straight-forward way. So, I feel that I must come to the people
with a renewed effort to allow them to make the choice, in order to get
a fair hearing, rather than from those of the Religio, who have up to
now not been willing to do so.. For if the Religio wins this one Nova
Roma, in my opinion, will become a Religious Oligarchy, and will no
longer be a viable place for those not of the Religio. Such has been
the stated goal of at least one of the Pontiffs for years.

This above and the apparent disagrement between the Pontiffs about the
elements of the Religio, and thier willingness to fight bitterly in
public over those differences give me pause to have anything to do with
the Religio save to respect it as any other religion, which I defy
anyone to indicate that I have not been faithful to do. I respect the
Religio, but those who administer it in some cases is another concern.

I have stated this repeatedly both here and on the Peace List, but my
ideas and concerns have not been appreciated.

So, in my view, the question lies with the Citizens of Nova Roma and
their vote, and - perhaps, just perhaps - the possibility of the
Pontiffs taking my concerns seriously and asking rather than telling me
what to do, may be a distant reality. A long time ago when I first came
before the people as a Candidate, I described myself as an Opinionated,
Bullheaded, Stubborn, Tempermental Old Man with a Bad Attitude, and
everyone said," oh NO!!!! That can't be!!!!" Well it is, and when I am
told that I can't do something, or I mustn't do something, because of
someone else's opinion, or than my opinions are not worthy of
consideration, by someone half my age, then I get upset, and when I get
upset, I get really stubborn. Taking action against me in secret and
behind my back upsets me as well.

So, I say this to everyone who has any interest -- Everyone is entitled
to his or her own opinion, but that does not necessarily mean that I
must agree with you or you with me. Everyone is entitled to their own
concerns. I have made the commitment to the people of Nova Roma to
stand for the Magistry of Editor of the "Aquila" at the invitation of
the Senior Consul and a trusted ProConsul. Without those invitations I
should not have considered this Magistry. However, I have committed to
this action and having done so I will so stand, and I shall leave it to
the people of Nova Roma to consider my past efforts and my worth for the
task. I hope that those of the Religio will do the same.

Very Respectfully;

Marcus Minucius-Tiberius Audens

Command is a matter of wisdom, integrity, humanity, courage and
dicipline.

Sun Tzu -- "The Art of War"

Salva Paulla Corva Gaudialis et salvete omnes -

On Jan 10, 2005, at 2:21 PM, Chantal Gaudiano wrote:
> Paulla corva Apolloni Corde omnibusque sai:
> 'Customizable backend code' refers to the ability for us to alter the
> programming code that would run the mailing list/forum program to suit
> our needs.
>
Keep in mind though that even if the format we choose is customizable
we would still need to find a Citizen able to actually write it for us!
We're all volunteer, and don't have a big budget to splurge on a web
designing firm. In fact, we don't have *any* budget for such an
expense, so it all has to be done "in house".

> You got me to thinking that it would be nice for the mailing list
> program to be able to function as both a bulletin board AND a mailing
> list--so that people could have the option of reading information
> according to threads as well as in order of posting.
>
That would be a fairly tall order - I'm not sure if it can be done.

> Marine--Point well taken about the possibility of increasing population
> and what that will do to mailing list activity.
>
Yes, it's just going to keep growing.

> This issue makes me wonder whether, at that time, the main list would
> become impractical, and we would need to consider dividing up into the
> provincial lists for general conversation, several smaller, more local
> lists,

They aren't really "more local", but: Yes, we can keep subdividing it
into smaller Lists. That will just mean that those who try to follow
it all onsite will have to visit yet another different site. It will
also make following a thread a little easier, but not by much. In
short, it will only buy us a little time.

> reserving the main list for things like general announcements
> and matters pertaining to discussions of proposed legislation and
> political candidacies.
>
That's already happening - though it's "NR Announcements" and "NRLaw"
that already have separate Lists. Next, we should probably spin off
"NR Politics" onto its own List.

> Or perhaps natural attrition might occur in which, after a certain
> point, the list membership stops growning because its volume has
> reached critical mass.
>
That may already be happening. Out of 2,516 Citizens only 806
subscribe to the Main List. Since few of those 806 post anything, I
can only suspect most people have it set at "no mail" and just check in
on site periodically. You don't sign up for something unless you're
interested, so I can only assume they find the volume of mail excessive
already so they are picking and choosing which threads to actually
follow.

> On an academic level, part of me would be interested to see what would
> happen, should this occur; the other part of me agrees that it would be
> wise to take corrective measures as soon as we can.
>
Thank you!

> erm, sorry for the babbling.
>
Your input is appreciated.

> Paulla corva Gaudialis
>
Vale et valete
- S E M Troianus
> =====
> Chantal
> Chantal's LiveJournal
> http://aerden.livejournal.com
> "Yesterday, it worked.
> Today, it is not working.
> Windows is like that."
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Salve Audens,

<A long time

> ago when I first came
> before the people as a Candidate, I described myself
> as an Opinionated,
> Bullheaded, Stubborn, Tempermental Old Man with a
> Bad Attitude, and
> everyone said,

Since I know that you are indeed a strong character, I
am sure that you can appreciate a bit of honesty. I
would say not say any of the above about you, but I
would certainly call you long-winded. I would prefer
reading Cliff Notes versions of your emails.

The best of luck to you in the elections. If/when you
win, I'm sure that you'll do a fine job as you did
last year as well as in 1999 when I first joined Nova
roma.

Vale,
Diana Octavia


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

Salve, Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus; salvete, omnes.

On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 05:02:35AM -0500, Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus wrote:
>
> Oh, I'll agree that the decree has a "chilling effect", but it needs to
> be made clear that an article couldn't result in banishment. Besides,
> an Editor would check the facts before printing anything - and if it's
> factual, it isn't "Blasphemy".

I'm afraid that the common-sense approach is not codified in the
decretum; unless we ignore the law in favor of custom (i.e., the Mos
Maiorum), it does not apply. "Factual" has no legal effect; if something
is factual but contravenes the letter of the decretum, it is blasphemy.


Valete,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Acta est fabula, plaudite!
The play is over, applaud!
-- Suetonius, "Vitae Caesarum". Said to have been emperor Augustus' last words.

Caius Minucius Scaevola A. Apolloni Corde salutem plurimam dicit.

On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 12:08:53PM +0000, A. Apollonius Cordus wrote:
>
> A community of about 200 (taxpayers) or about 175
> (people who voted in the last election) or even of
> about 75 (people who write in this forum at least once
> every couple of months) is too big to have a single
> list like that. Almost all the casual 'how's the
> weather?' conversations I have are by private e-mail,
> and almost all the 'did you see that TV programme?'
> and 'did you know the Romans put fish up their noses?'
> [NB - not true!] conversations I have are on smaller
> lists, including provincial ones, and in person.

What do you mean, "NOT TRUE"? Isn't that the main reason that people
join Nova Roma, i.e. a quantity discount on nasally-insertable eels?
Sure, some odd people have experimented with flounder and even
barracuda, but in my opinion, that's entirely too daring a departure and
totally unsupported by the classical literature.

... And though Sir Francis Bacon will allow the Eel's life to be but ten
years, yet he, in his History of Life and Death, mentions a Lamprey,
belonging to the Roman emperor, to be made tame, and so kept for almost
threescore years; and that such useful and pleasant observations were
made of this Lamprey, that Crassus the orator, who kept her, lamented
her death; and we read in Doctor Hakewill, that Hortensius was seen to
weep at the death of a Lamprey that he had kept long, and loved
exceedingly.
-- From Izaak Walton's "The Compleat Angler"

See? See? The *eel*, always the eel! Novaromani - stand for what's
right! Snort your eels proudly!


(This message brought to you by the Snitz Cracker company and the letter
'Q'. When spending time with your loved ones, remember to pause for a
Snitz.)


Vale,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Ex ungue leonem.
You know the lion from its claw.
-- N/A

Honored Consul;

In regard to contacting Universities, the Sodalitas Egressus is
currently working on a proposal to present to the Consuls called "Go
Roman." The purpose of this proposal is to begin in a systematic way to
introducing Nova Roma to these colleges, and providing a path for the
University to join NR, and to develop various college sodlitas within
NR. At least that is the proposal in the rough.

Further, in Nova Britanna, the appointed Cultural Scriba has contacted a
number of Univerities and Colleges in that Provincia in order to list
for the citizens there, all Roman cultural activities available in the
Province. Those Citizens enrolled on the Provincia List:

NovaBritannia@yahoogroups.com

receive notifications of these activities as a part of the provincia
cultural exchange.

Very Respectfully;

Marcus Minucius-Tiberius Audens

Command is a matter of wisdom, integrity, humanity, courage and
dicipline.

Sun Tzu -- "The Art of War"

G. Equitius Cato Ti. Galerio Paulino M. Municio-Tiberio Audens
quiritibusque S.P.D.

Salvete omnes.

I wanted to make perfectly clear that in suggesting that Senator
Marcus Audens allow religion or politics to be discussed in
the "Aquila", I by no means and under no circumstances intend any
such articles to be of the "pro/con" type.

I would only suggest that the Senator consider allowing articles
which would delve into the historic roots of both of these
institutions: something more like what I have been attempting to do
with the calendar daily, not foster arguments over any issue of
validity.

This is precisely why I used the example of the meaning
of "Agonalia"; it is something that, until Caecilius Metellus
brought up a divergent view, I had not investigated. Once I was
made aware of this, I looked more carefully and found the further
information, which I then posted. I learned something, I shared it,
and hope that anyone, practitioner or non, would in the future do
the same. I have found the posting of the calendar to be of immense
interest --- at least to myself --- and (to be honest) fun. And
that would be the purpose of any articles in the "Aquila".

I hope this makes my position clearer.

Valete bene,

Cato

> I am not sure I understand the question fully.
>
> I do not think publishers or Universities would
> share these lists with
> us because of the privacy policies they most likely
> have in place.

I don't know about actually getting the lists from
these organisations, but certainly the Roman Society
must allow paid inserts, because every time they send
me anything it has a load of flyers included as well
as the official information. It would cost us,
though, to get something in to that sort of mailing,
and we'd have to make sure that what we sent out was
as glossy and exciting as all the other leaflets.

Livia





___________________________________________________________
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

G. Equitius Cato C. Minucio Scaevolae quiritibusque S.P.D.

Salve Minucius Scaevola et salvete omnes.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@c...>
wrote:

>"Factual" has no legal effect; if something is factual but
>contravenes the letter of the decretum, it is blasphemy.

CATO: This is, purely and simply, ridiculous. Not the fact that
you're saying it, Minucius Scaevola, but the fact that it is true.
The idea that an investigation into a practice or opinion of the
ancients, and discussion of that factually-based, resource-supported
practice or opinion, could end up with a citizen of the res publica
being charged with *anything* is totally incomprehensible.

Take for instance, Cicero's "De Divinatione". Cicero, one of the
greatest Romans who ever walked the Forum, made it very clear
throughout his book that he had absolutely no faith whatsoever in
divination of any kind, be it entrails (xii.28 - xvii.41), lightning
(xviii.42 - xxi.49), "portents" (xxii.49-50), the casting of lots
(xli.84-87), astrology (xlii.87-xlvii.99), etc. He dismisses them
all. He even rejects the idea that the omnipresence and the
providence of the divine guarantee the validity of divination
(xlix.101-liii-109). So here we have the most Roman of Romans
disputing one of the pillars of the religio. Yet he still remained
an augur for his entire life and fulfilled the required orthopraxy.

If Marcus Tullius Cicero became a citizen of Nova Roma, and issued
these statements, would he be charged with blasphemy under the
current decretum? Who among us would dare look him in the face and
claim that obedience to the blasphemy decretum makes us "more Roman"
than him? Is the stifling of intellectual discussion, even if it
involves religion of any kind, an approach the Romans would support?

I know the old argument: they lived in a homogeneous society, etc.,
etc., etc. Well, we live in a generally Judeo-Christian society,
yet the use of the Name of Jesus as an expletive is common and
widespread even among non-Christians. That is a violation of the
law of God as understood by Christians ("Thou shalt not take the
Name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him
guiltless that taketh His Name in vain." - Exodus 20.7, KJV), yet
somehow no-one is getting thrown in jail or exiled because of it.

The Religio Romana must be upheld and honored in the res publica; to
do ANYTHING else would be to strike at the roots of the state. The
religio publica must be fostered, nourished, and expanded to
encompass the daily life of the res publica. The religioni privatae
of our citizens must be unhindered and utterly secure from
incursions by the state. Cannot we do these things without the fear
of being charged with blasphemy --- without the spectre of a
decretum hanging over our heads like the Sword of Damocles?

I ask you, citizens, to think carefully about this.

Valete bene,

Cato

A. Apollonius Cordus Ser. Equitio Trojano Paullae
Corvae Gaudiali omnibusque sal.

Another thing has just occurred to me about all this.
I've been assuming that there would be some way, in
this proposed new set-up, for users to choose to have
all messages sent to them as e-mails rather than
having to go to the website to read.

Would this still be possible? It's how I have mine set
up at the moment, and I very much prefer it that way.





___________________________________________________________
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Salve Cordus -

Would having all Posts sent as individual mails be possible?
I don't know. I'm putting it down as a "Desired Feature" on my list,
not as a "Necessary Feature".
I happen to like it that way too - I almost never go to the YahooGroups
website, since I have everything forwarded.
Therefore, it's a "Desired" feature I'm going to strongly push for.
It's very convenient, and having a "View Unread Posts" feature isn't
quite the same thing (though that's down as a "Necessary Feature",
since more people view threads on site).
Once we agree on a list of features we'll start looking at what's
available, and see if we can have it.
I'll also have to check with some of our resident computer geniuses to
see if anyone has the skills to customize things the way we want.

Vale
- Troianus

On Jan 11, 2005, at 3:10 PM, A. Apollonius Cordus wrote:

>
> A. Apollonius Cordus Ser. Equitio Trojano Paullae
> Corvae Gaudiali omnibusque sal.
>
> Another thing has just occurred to me about all this.
> I've been assuming that there would be some way, in
> this proposed new set-up, for users to choose to have
> all messages sent to them as e-mails rather than
> having to go to the website to read.
>
> Would this still be possible? It's how I have mine set
> up at the moment, and I very much prefer it that way.
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
> http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

All forums I've used have had boxes you check when you post to a subject to have a notification sent when there are new posts but not the actual post itself sent to you. So this is where the pros/cons of this comes in. I don't know how one can set these up in different ways but if it is possible I would like to carry over some of the benefits of yahoo to a forum setting while taking advantage of the pros of forums...

"A. Apollonius Cordus" <a_apollonius_cordus@...> wrote:A. Apollonius Cordus Ser. Equitio Trojano Paullae
Corvae Gaudiali omnibusque sal.

Another thing has just occurred to me about all this.
I've been assuming that there would be some way, in
this proposed new set-up, for users to choose to have
all messages sent to them as e-mails rather than
having to go to the website to read.

Would this still be possible? It's how I have mine set
up at the moment, and I very much prefer it that way.





___________________________________________________________
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


---------------------------------
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 - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn more.

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

Gaius Modius Athanasius S.P.D.

Very good points Cato, I commend you on your reasoning. This is why I
believe that the Religio Romana is the primary purpose of Nova Roma, and should
remain as the primary focus of Nova Roma. This does not mean that everyone in
Nova Roma should have their own altar and make offerings to the Gods; I am
NOT insinuating this at all.

We talk of virtue, and how virtue is important. There has been talk last
year of placing standards upon senators, in line with the virtues as
illustrated on the website. Nova Roma has a duty, pietas, to support the Religio
Romana. To place the Religio Romana in a position that is anything other than
that of primacy is contrary to the virtue of dutifulness.

The example that Cato gave about Cicero is an excellent point. Cicero
didn't really believe in divination, but he followed the traditions of augury as
an augur, and fulfilled his duty to the Republic. He did not advocate the
abolishment of the Religio simply because he did not believe in divination. I
am also fairly confident that he did not get along with all of the pontifices
either.

I am not advocating for a fundamentalist state, nor am I advocating that
everyone believe in the Gods of Rome. What I am advocating for is for the
Religio Romana to maintain its primacy of place, and that the magistrates,
senators, and priests of Nova Roma keep in mind that the Religio Romana is essential
to the future of Nova Roma. Otherwise, why don't we all just go and join
the SCA. I came to Nova Roma because of the Religio Romana, and I stay because
of the Religio Romana. I didn't join Nova Roma to be in a Religio sodalitas.

Valete;

Gaius Modius Athanasius
Flamen Pomonalis, Pontifex, et Augur

In a message dated 1/11/2005 2:09:10 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
mlcinnyc@... writes:

The Religio Romana must be upheld and honored in the res publica; to
do ANYTHING else would be to strike at the roots of the state. The
religio publica must be fostered, nourished, and expanded to
encompass the daily life of the res publica. The religioni privatae
of our citizens must be unhindered and utterly secure from
incursions by the state. Cannot we do these things without the fear
of being charged with blasphemy --- without the spectre of a
decretum hanging over our heads like the Sword of Damocles?

I ask you, citizens, to think carefully about this.

Valete bene,

Cato





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

Citizens of Nova-Roma;

I come before you again today to announce that as a result of my being
threatened ( informaion imparted to me by another) with "religious
blasphemy" today by certain Pontiffs, I have, with several advisors,
worked our way through a methodology which perhaps will allow me to
withdraw the "Aquila" limitation on Religious Articles.

---The system is in place ready to activate and I await only a final
comment to make the announcement and withdraw the limitation.---

There will essentially be a Pontiff overseeing the review and approval
of such documents, and the College of Pontiffs will be allowed one
"opinion" (and only that) to any such given material which will be
channeled through the "Aquila" Asst. Editor For Religio Elements.

This is as far as I am prepared to go. I am the current Editor
Commentarorum (Brevis) and if elected to the position that I am
Candidating for I will be the Editor for the year. As the Editor, I and
only I will have the final say on what goes into the "Aquila." If this
is unsatisfactory, to the CP, or any member therein, then I would
respectfully suggest that you put your own Candidate up for the office.

The unacceptable insults and threats that I have been forced to listen
to today have only been relieved by the attention of my very good
friends. They know who they are, so I do not have to name them. My
deepest thanks for standing by me in a situation that would have tried
the patience of a rock!!!!

Very Respectfully;

Marcus Minuius-Tiberius Audens

Command is a matter of wisdom, integrity, humanity, courage and
dicipline.

Sun Tzu -- "The Art of War"

Salve Marce Audens, et salvete Quirites,

MarcusAudens@... writes:

[...]

> There will essentially be a Pontiff overseeing the review and approval
> of such documents, and the College of Pontiffs will be allowed one
> "opinion" (and only that) to any such given material which will be
> channeled through the "Aquila" Asst. Editor For Religio Elements.

This is a good solution to something that might have become a difficult
problem. Thank you for applying it. I hope it proves satisfactory to all
concerned.

Vale, et valete,

-- Marinus

Q Fabius Maximus SPD

Salvete

>Take for instance, Cicero's "De Divinatione". Cicero, one of the
>greatest Romans who ever walked the Forum, made it very clear
>throughout his book that he had absolutely no faith whatsoever in
>divination of any kind, be it entrails (xii.28 - xvii.41), lightning
>(xviii.42 - xxi.49), "portents" (xxii.49-50), the casting of lots
>(xli.84-87), astrology (xlii.87-xlvii.99), etc. He dismisses them
>all. He even rejects the idea that the omnipresence and the
>providence of the divine guarantee the validity of divination
>(xlix.101-liii-109). So here we have the most Roman of Romans
>disputing one of the pillars of the religio. Yet he still remained
>an augur for his entire life and fulfilled the required orthopraxy.

Exactly. Perhaps some of our leading citizens could take this to heart?

And he NEVER says he doesn't believe, just that he has doubts.
He covers his bottom after every statement.

It is as Bill Cosby said: "You can cry to the depths of the ocean you
do not believe in an almighty being, but if the ground shakes, you are going to look up!"

>If Marcus Tullius Cicero became a citizen of Nova Roma, and issued
>these statements, would he be charged with blasphemy under the
>current decretum? Who among us would dare look him in the face and
>claim that obedience to the blasphemy decretum makes us "more Roman"
>than him? Is the stifling of intellectual discussion, even if it
>involves religion of any kind, an approach the Romans would support?

First off Tullius never made such statements in public. What do you think, De Divinatione was required reading by school kids?

Second, Tullius was an exemplary Roman. He would not think or speak of
disparagingly the Gods in public. Not that he did not have doubts. But tradition was very important to him, and it eventually cost him his life.

>I know the old argument: they lived in a homogeneous society, etc.,
>etc., etc. Well, we live in a generally Judeo-Christian society,
>yet the use of the Name of Jesus as an expletive is common and
>widespread even among non-Christians. That is a violation of the
>law of God as understood by Christians ("Thou shalt not take the
>Name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him
>guiltless that taketh His Name in vain." - Exodus 20.7, KJV), yet
>somehow no-one is getting thrown in jail or exiled because of it.

I cannot believe you are missing the point here. You come across as such a smart guy. We are an oasis from Judo-Christianity and Islam.
Thus we were founded, and thus we remain. I would never force a Christian outside Nova Roma to bow down to my beliefs, I can get enough remarks when I say I'm polytheistic outside without doing any of that, but I don't need them here in the oasis.

>Cannot we do these things without the fear
>of being charged with blasphemy --- without the spectre of a
>decretum hanging over our heads like the Sword of Damocles?
>
>I ask you, citizens, to think carefully about this.

Well of course. But problem is you didn't keep your religion private,
you seem to think you have to trumpet it, every chance you get.
While you seem to glorify in this freedom of yours, you keep daring the College to do something about your statements when they are issued in public. Why is this? You said private. So why are you public?
If I didn't know better, I'd think you are trying to bait the college
into doing something. Nah, that can't be it.

Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus

M. CALIDIVS GRACCHVS Q. LANIO PAVLINO S.P.D.

SALVE QVINTE,

Donegal? Not a bad heritage at all!! Lol!! And every bit as ancient
too!! Hope your keeping well old friend, please say "SALVE" SERAPIO
for me?

VALE

GRACCHVS
CIVIS PROVINCIAE HIBERNIAE

TVVS IN SODILICIO RES PVBLICA ROMANAE





--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael
Kelly)" <mjk@d...> wrote:

>
> > And now, let's not start yet another "I'm more roman than you"
> thread,
> > please :)
> >
> > vale
> >
> > DCF
> > --
> Salvete omnes,
>
> LOL, just as well, leaves me out! My ancient heritage and kingdom
> were the peat bogs of Donegal.
>
> Regards,
>
> Quintus Lanius Paulinus

Citizens of Nova Roma;

Having received the message from the Support Staff that I was waiting
for,

==================

I now formally withdraw my former "Aquila" Restrictions to Religio
Elements.

==================

Anyone having any items for the "Aquila" which fall within the area of
"Religio Copy" please send it to "Aquila's" Asst. Editor for Religio
Elements, Pontiff Modius Athanasios.

I would further comment that this very convoluted and drawn-out effort
was made necessary by Religio Pontiffs who were quck to threaten the use
of the "blasphemy club" for every area in which they do not see an
immediate solution. Had it not been for Censor Quintillianus and
Pontiff Troianus who were willing to ask a simple question, "why are you
concerned??" this would have erupted again into an extremely unpleasant
"you did this -- I did not" taffy-pul where no one wins.

Modius and I have exchanged our comments and for my very special circle
of friends who stood by me in this most embarrassing and very unpleasant
interlude, I thank them once again. For those who initiated the
accusations, threats and went behind my back to attempt to prevent my
standing for this post, Pontiffs all, you disappoint me, and you have,
in my humble view and memory, dealt your Religio a heavy blow, in that I
will never look at the Religio in just the same way again.

I appeal to the College of Pontiffs, those who have proven themselves to
be interested in Nova Roma, to consider strongly to rid itself of the
"blasphemy club" before it does more real damage to your Religio, and
bring those of your Pontiffs, who use it, under some kind of control,
not to mention the potential damage to Nova Roma.

========================

Now that the Religio problem has been dealt with, perhaps I will be
permitted to again address the Citizens of Nova Roma, without
interuption, in regard to my Candidacy.

The elements of the January issues that I mentioned previously, are now
fully ready for delivery to the printer. I am waiting only for the 20th
of January to roll around. My reason, of course, for waiting are the
Citizens of Nova Roma. Today, by my desk calendar, is the 11th of
January. Those of you who have something to say about ancient Rome, I
urge you to say it with a story, poem, article, book report, etc. Be a
contributing part of Nova Roma's beginning and growing literary efforts,
and give yourself that neat little lift that says,"I have contributed to
Nova Roma!!!!!" I am always so pleased when Citizens make that effort
to move Nova Roma forward in some small way.

As always you have my Best Wishes, and I ask not for your vote, but
rather for your consideration. for in my view, your Nova Roma vote is
like your opinions, and your concerns. It is yours, and the most that
any Candidate, or anyone else for that matter, can ask for, is your
generous consideration.

Very Respectfully;

Marcus Minucius-Tiberius Audens
Candidate
Editor Commentianorum

Command is a matter of wisdom, integrity, humanity, courage and
dicipline.

Sun Tzu -- "The Art of War"

G. Equitius Cato Q. Fabio Maximo quiritibusque S.P.D.
Salve Quintus Maximus et salvete omnes.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, QFabiusMaxmi@a... wrote:
> Q Fabius Maximus SPD
> Exactly. Perhaps some of our leading citizens could take this to
heart?
>
> And he NEVER says he doesn't believe, just that he has doubts.
> He covers his bottom after every statement.

CATO:

"Then let dreams be rejected along with the rest. Speaking frankly,
superstition, which is widespread among the nations, has taken
advantage of human weakness to cast its spell over the mind of
almost every man. This same view was stated in my treatise De Natura
Deorum; and to prove the correctness of that view has been the chief
aim of the present discussion. For I thought that I should be
rendering a great service both to myself and to my countrymen if I
could tear this superstition up by the roots. But I want it
distinctly understood that the destruction of superstition
does not mean the destruction of religion. For I consider it the
part of wisdom to preserve the institutions of our forefathers by
retaining their sacred rites and ceremonies. Furthermore, the
celestial order and the beauty of the universe compel me to confess
that there is some excellent and eternal Being, who deserves the
respect and homage of men..." (Cicero, De Divinatione lxii)


So Cicero states explicitly that he does not believe in the
rationale behind the practice of divination by dreams, or by means
of "the rest" either --- in fact, he considers it a "superstition"
worthy only of being torn up "by the roots". But, as I said before,
he remained an augur and performed the "sacred rites and ceremonies"
precisely because they were an important part of the heritage of the
res publica; and he also recognizes that religion, in general, is
worthy of belief. The orthopraxic, NOT orthodoxic, nature of the
religio romana is made exquisitely clear.

My point, Quintus Maximus, which you apparently missed, is that if
he wrote these things in a post in the Forum of Nova Roma, I am
afraid that he would start receiving threats of having charges of
violating the blasphemy decretum thrown at him for showing
disrespect or "dishonor" to a fundamental part of the religio, that
is, divination/augury. In Nova Roma, I could actually be poking
around in the liver of a ram but if I *said* something about it
being useless in the Forum, I could be charged for not "honoring"
the religio --- even while in the midst of an augury. Is this
really the mindset of the ancients? Is this something of which we
should be proud? No, and again, no.

Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judaea, himself refused to
condemn a man accused of being a criminal based solely on religious
grounds; he specifically disallowed any such consideration in a
court of Roman judgement.

The correct forms and practices of the religio are absolutely and
completely necessary. BELIEF in the religio is absolutely and
entirely UN-necessary. On any level, by any citizen, at any time.

I have said that I have come to recognize the seriousness and
importance of the faith of practitioners of the religio. And I am
still learning this; presenting the calendar daily has acquainted
(or re-acquainted) me with some of the most fascinating and
interesting bits of Roman history and lore ever. I would love to
try to help practitioners expand and nourish the religio publica,
because it is an inheritance which falls to all of us as citizens.
I do not presume to try to define the religio itself in its private
form, because it is not my place as one who does not practice it.
But that does not mean I cannot defend its public face, protect its
public worship, nourish its public growth. I should be able to do
so --- AND to make mistakes and be corrected, gently, with an eye to
my intentions --- without the fear of exile or loss of citizenship.

The blasphemy decree is a poorly-thought-out attempt to bring people
into some kind of orthodoxy, directly contrary to the practice of
the ancients. The blasphemy decretum may or may not be
Constitutional under Nova Roman law, but the blasphemy decretum is
most definitely NOT Roman.

Vale et valete,

Cato

Gaius Modius Athanasius A. Apollonio Cordo salutem dicit

Ah.... you win some, you loose some. The Gods must have different plans for
me, I can accept that :)

Vale;

Gaius

In a message dated 1/9/2005 2:39:03 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
a_apollonius_cordus@... writes:

In particular I was very surprised that Modius
Athanasius was eliminated from the consular elections
in the very first round, but thankfully he's not one
to be put off from trying again, and I hope we'll see
him in high office next year.





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

Salve Gracchus my friend,

Great to hear from you again! Manivs Constaninvs Serapio keeps tabs
on this list and I know he'll be glad to hear from you!

Regards!

QLP





--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "MARCVS CALIDIVS GRACCHVS"
<cybernaut911@y...> wrote:

>
> M. CALIDIVS GRACCHVS Q. LANIO PAVLINO S.P.D.
>
> SALVE QVINTE,
>
> Donegal? Not a bad heritage at all!! Lol!! And every bit as

ancient

> too!! Hope your keeping well old friend, please say "SALVE"

SERAPIO

> for me?
>
> VALE
>
> GRACCHVS
> CIVIS PROVINCIAE HIBERNIAE
>
> TVVS IN SODILICIO RES PVBLICA ROMANAE
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Quintus Lanius Paulinus

(Michael

> Kelly)" <mjk@d...> wrote:
> >
> > > And now, let's not start yet another "I'm more roman than you"
> > thread,
> > > please :)
> > >
> > > vale
> > >
> > > DCF
> > > --
> > Salvete omnes,
> >
> > LOL, just as well, leaves me out! My ancient heritage and

kingdom

> > were the peat bogs of Donegal.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Quintus Lanius Paulinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, QFabiusMaxmi@a... wrote:

> Q Fabius Maximus SPD
>

> I cannot believe you are missing the point here. You come across

as such a smart guy. We are an oasis from Judo-Christianity and
Islam.

I am not sure why if find your messages so provoking though I will
attest that I do not have a personal crusade or vendetta against you
or even your philosophies. I would hazard a guess that you state
openly what others remain quiet about though they accept these views
just the same. I would like to bring up a point for discussion.

> Thus we were founded, and thus we remain. I would never force a

Christian outside Nova Roma to bow down to my beliefs, I can get
enough remarks when I say I'm polytheistic outside without doing any
of that, but I don't need them here in the oasis.

I would posit that oasis as true tolerance of any religion, not
generally found in the macro world though I would be very interesting
in hearing alternative views. However, I would like to hear
from the citizenry the comparison of this statement:

> I would never force a Christian outside Nova Roma to bow down to my

beliefs

and the following statement from the standard public oath of office:

"On my honor as a Citizen of Nova Roma, and in the presence of the
Gods and Goddesses of the Roman people and by their will and favor,
do I accept the position of..."

This statement of oath affirms the presense, will, and favor of the
gods. Is this claim not personally false for one who does not
practice the Religio privata and/or does it not force the non-
polytheist *inside* of NR to "bow down" in principle?

I make no determination or have any desire to provoke, only I ask for
public opinion on this.

Vale et valete,

-- L.F. Graecus

Salve Omne,

I just had a problem sending an email to our Censor's office. Is there
another email address I should try. My last attempt was rejected :( Thanks
for your time and help.

Vale,
Prima Ritulia Nocta

G. Equitius Cato L. Fidelio Graeco quiritibusque S.P.D.

Salve Fidelius Graecus et salvete omnes.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L.F. Graecus" <nexus909@h...>
wrote:

> This statement of oath affirms the presense, will, and favor of

the gods. Is this claim not personally false for one who does not

> practice the Religio privata and/or does it not force the non-
> polytheist *inside* of NR to "bow down" in principle?

CATO: And this, Fidelius Graecus, is exactly the philosophical
mistake that Fabius Maximus is drawn towards: that there is a
necessity for BELIEF inherent in the Religio Romana. The religio
requires no personal belief whatsoever; there is no orthodoxy in
it. The religio, to satisfy the requirements needed to safeguard
the state, need only be followed in orthopraxy, i.e., by rites and
ceremonies.

Because we live in a society which is in some ways an inheritor of
the "triumph" of Christianity over other religions in the West; and
because Christianity is both orthodoxic and orthopractic in nature,
we sometimes assume that all religion must be; this assumption leads
us to the further assumption that all religions require personal
belief to be both effective and affective. Both of these
assumptions are absolutely incorrect.

Fidelius Graecus, do you cover your mouth when you cough? Cover
your mouth when you yawn? Say "God bless you" or some other such
nicety when someone sneezes? All three of these are based in the
religious belief that unless you do so, either your soul will escape
your body or an evil spirit will enter it. These three actions are,
to one who no longer believes in the original cause for their
performance, simply orthopractic; nevertheless, they are so much a
part of our cultural inheritance that not to do so is considered
impolite.

If you are a Christian, and do not believe that evil spirits are
waiting to hop in when you yawn, are you offending the Christian God
when you cover your mouth while yawning? No. You have adopted an
orthopractic method of maintaining politesse in our society based
upon mutually-accepted norms, regardless of its non-Christian
religious source.

In ancient Rome, the religio was so much a part of life that it was
not remarkable or a source of mystery: everyone knew what you were
supposed to do and when you were supposed to do it (or the pontiffs
and magistrates told you). And it was done, whether or not it was
believed (see the whole Cicero thing). It maintained public order,
a sense of continuity, and (if you believed) the favor of the Gods
towards the state.

You ascribe a faith-based mindset to a non-faith-based religious
system. If a Christian or other non-practitioner takes the oath of
office as a magistrate of Nova Roma, then it is not, under any
circumstances, cause to give anyone a reason to question their
private faith; that faith is between them and whatever God or Gods
they may believe in and worship in their religio privata. To put it
bluntly, it's none of your business how anyone chooses to
rationalize or justify their religio privata with the religio
publica of the state. The only thing that matters is that the
orthopraxy of the religio publica be maintained.

This does NOT, in any way, denigrate those who actually believe in
the religious tenets of the religio romana; those who practice the
religio have as deep and serious a faith as any non-practitioner ---
maybe even more, considering that this is one of the very few places
religio practitioners can call "home", which is one of the very few
points that Fabius Maximus made with which I agree.

So. Do not think of the religio in terms of your own private
understanding of what faith is and what a religion may or may not
require. The religio is orthopractic, not orthodoxic. To put a
different spin on it, think of it as the ANTI-Lutheran religion:
justification by works alone.

Vale et valete,

Cato

Salve L.F. Graecus -

On Jan 12, 2005, at 12:31 AM, L.F. Graecus wrote:
> "On my honor as a Citizen of Nova Roma, and in the presence of the
> Gods and Goddesses of the Roman people and by their will and favor,
> do I accept the position of..."
>
> This statement of oath affirms the presense, will, and favor of the
> gods. Is this claim not personally false for one who does not
> practice the Religio privata and/or does it not force the non-
> polytheist *inside* of NR to "bow down" in principle?
>
There are actually several different Theological answers to this.

For those who accept the Early Christian notion that the Gods exist but
are actually Demons, they would obviously not be able to take our Oath
of Office in good conscience.

Likewise those who claim there is One God and all other gods are false,
and any claim of other gods existing being to them considered
blasphemous - those people could not take our Oath either, as it would
be a "sin" for them to do so.

Some may consider it to be a minor sin, at most - one that can be
"Forgiven" in Confession or the like. They take the Oath out of Nova
Roma but feel guilty about the Pagan aspects; however, they wouldn't
take the Oath if they didn't feel they could be absolved of that "Sin".

Then there are those who accept a literal interpretation of the Bible's
statement "Thou shalt have no other gods before me". An interpretation
becoming more popular these days takes this at face value: There are
other gods (potentially) but one must not consider one of them to be
higher than "Number One". They have no problem with our Oath: It does
not elevate any of the Gods above their Number One God, so they can
take the Oath with a clear conscience.

Others take a different view: To them the Gods don't exist, so they are
literally nothing; therefore (to them) it is saying quite literally In
the presence of Nothing by the will and favour of Nothing - a nonsense
phrase, a null meaning with no sin in it. It's a variant of how an
Atheist can swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth so
help them God: It is meaningless to them, given the nonexistence (in
their opinion) of the being in whose name it is being sworn. "Nothing"
can't be offended, nor can "Nothing" be an offense.

There various shades of Grey, too: Like claiming the Gods are mere
concepts and not actual Deities; a monotheist with this outlook can
take the Oath in good conscience too, since to them the Civic Gods are
merely Virtues and such grammatically personified - poetic license, if
you will. Their One God cannot possibly be offended by showing respect
to a (poetically) personified Justice, for example, since (to them)
Justice is something that flows from their God.

There are many such rationalizations that I've heard over the years,
applied to other situations but equally applicable here.

Vale
- S E M Troianus

Salve Cordus -

On Jan 11, 2005, at 7:16 AM, A. Apollonius Cordus wrote:
> A. Apollónius Cordus Ser. Equitió Trojánó amícó
> omnibusque sal.
>
>> From what I've seen, a "View Unread Messages"option is available.
>> Press it and all threads containing material you haven't read yet
>> appear. The threads appear in chronological order of their creation.
>> Click any thread, and all unread messages within that thread then
>> appear, also in chronological order.Would this be acceptable to you?
>
> Sounds absolutely fine. The phrase 'customizable
> back-end code' makes it sound like one would have to
> be a professional computer programmer to make it do
> that, but I presume that's not so?

Oh, the Customizable Yada-Yada is so programmer types can make it do
non-standard things, like perhaps creating a "mail new posts to
subscriber" option, so we can get everything in the mail like you and I
do now.

The "View Unread Posts" feature is standard, on some types of message
boards - no customizing needed for that.
>
>> Similar idea - "Let's consider moving" - but for different reasons.
>> However, you'll be happy to hear that dialogue will
>> be aided by a change, as well: We set the rules, not Yahoo, not
>> anyone, just Nova Roma.
>
> Sounds ideal. :)

Thought you might like that! ;-)
Deciding just what those local rules will be is of necessity going to
be a whole different dialogue. We'll save that for later. For now,
we're just putting together a list of features we'd like a future
Message Centre to have.
I'll be posting an updated edition of that list soon - unfortunately I
got distracted by events elsewhere in NR, so I have some catching up to
do.

Welcome back!

Vale bene
- Troianus
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
> http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

In a message dated 1/12/2005 12:31:40 AM Eastern Standard Time, "L.F. Graecus" <nexus909@...> writes:

>"On my honor as a Citizen of Nova Roma, and in the presence of the
>Gods and Goddesses of the Roman people and by their will and favor,
>do I accept the position of..."
>
>This statement of oath affirms the presense, will, and favor of the
>gods. Is this claim not personally false for one who does not
>practice the Religio privata and/or does it not force the non-
>polytheist *inside* of NR to "bow down" in principle?
>
>

I don't believe there is persecution here, but we should expect our magistrates to acknowledge our religion. It goes with the postion. We do not force them to carry out rituals, they may chose a pontifice to help them.
That said I do know Xtians who resigned from NR rather then say the oath. It is each man's choice.

Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus

Lucius Apollonius Clement Gaio Equitio Cato S.P.D.

According to Pierre Grimard, in his book "L'Empire Romain", the term
"superstitiones" has a precise meaning.

He says "[...] superstitiones, c'est a dire des croyances et des pratiques
que ne garantissaient pas la religion des ancetres, ni les livres sacres
de la Sybylle, ni ceux des augures, ni l'autorite du Pontifex Maximus".

According to him the term 'superstitiones' designates the rites and
beliefs which are not officially guaranteed by the ancestors of Rome, the
sacred books of the Sybylle, the augurs or the Pontifex Maximus himself.

Among those superstitiones, Pierre Grimard explains that Augustus forbid
the veneration of Isis within Rome and soften the rites dedicated to
Cybele.

Gaius Equitius, don't take me wrong, I fully understand your arguments and
I agree with the idea you are expressing but I think there is a
possibility that Cicero's use of the word 'superstiones' might refer to
foreign beliefs rather than to the Roman ones. It would therefore be wrong
to translate it to the English word 'superstition'.

Salve,

Lucius Apollonius Clement.

>
> G. Equitius Cato Q. Fabio Maximo quiritibusque S.P.D.
> Salve Quintus Maximus et salvete omnes.
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, QFabiusMaxmi@a... wrote:
> > Q Fabius Maximus SPD
> > Exactly. Perhaps some of our leading citizens could take this to
> heart?
> >
> > And he NEVER says he doesn't believe, just that he has doubts.
> > He covers his bottom after every statement.
>
> CATO:
>
> "Then let dreams be rejected along with the rest. Speaking frankly,
> superstition, which is widespread among the nations, has taken
> advantage of human weakness to cast its spell over the mind of
> almost every man. This same view was stated in my treatise De Natura
> Deorum; and to prove the correctness of that view has been the chief
> aim of the present discussion. For I thought that I should be
> rendering a great service both to myself and to my countrymen if I
> could tear this superstition up by the roots. But I want it
> distinctly understood that the destruction of superstition
> does not mean the destruction of religion. For I consider it the
> part of wisdom to preserve the institutions of our forefathers by
> retaining their sacred rites and ceremonies. Furthermore, the
> celestial order and the beauty of the universe compel me to confess
> that there is some excellent and eternal Being, who deserves the
> respect and homage of men..." (Cicero, De Divinatione lxii)
>
>
> So Cicero states explicitly that he does not believe in the
> rationale behind the practice of divination by dreams, or by means
> of "the rest" either --- in fact, he considers it a
> "superstition"
> worthy only of being torn up "by the roots". But, as I said
> before,
> he remained an augur and performed the "sacred rites and
> ceremonies"
> precisely because they were an important part of the heritage of the
> res publica; and he also recognizes that religion, in general, is
> worthy of belief. The orthopraxic, NOT orthodoxic, nature of the
> religio romana is made exquisitely clear.
>
> My point, Quintus Maximus, which you apparently missed, is that if
> he wrote these things in a post in the Forum

Salve Prima Ritulia Nocta!

Please send it to my private address above!

>Salve Omne,
>
>I just had a problem sending an email to our Censor's office. Is there
>another email address I should try. My last attempt was rejected :( Thanks
>for your time and help.
>
>Vale,
>Prima Ritulia Nocta

--

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

Gaius Modius Athanasius S.P.D.

Yes, the Religio Romana is Orthopraxic and does not demand belief; respect
yes, belief no. Belief is simply an attitude towards something. You don't
have to believe in the Gods to be a magistrate, but you have to make an oath
to them. Additionally, while there is no one compelling citizens of Nova Roma
to believe in the Gods there are many citizens who do believe in the Gods.
Just because a religion is orthopraxic (vs. orthodoxic) does not mean that
belief is not common.

Within Catholicism, for example, a person is compelled to believe in the
doctrines taught by the Church. If a person does not believe in these doctrines
then they are cut off from the sacraments (ie., excommunicated) either by
decree or ipso facto. This is not the case within the Religio Romana. You can
still attend a rite of offering, and pray to the Gods even without belief
and you will suffer no excommunication. But respect should be maintained at
all times; this is were the orthopraxy comes into use.

In closing, keep in mind that while orthopraxy does not mandate belief, many
people do believe in the Gods and worship them with their heart as well as
their mind.

Valete;

Gaius Modius Athanasius
Flamen Pomonalis, Pontifex, et Augur

In a message dated 1/12/2005 3:28:44 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
mlcinnyc@... writes:

CATO: And this, Fidelius Graecus, is exactly the philosophical
mistake that Fabius Maximus is drawn towards: that there is a
necessity for BELIEF inherent in the Religio Romana. The religio
requires no personal belief whatsoever; there is no orthodoxy in
it. The religio, to satisfy the requirements needed to safeguard
the state, need only be followed in orthopraxy, i.e., by rites and
ceremonies.





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

Salve Cato.

I am not so certain that using the example of Cicero actually helps
your case against the Blasphemy Decretum.

Cicero was a man who marched Roman citizens to their deaths in a
squalid pit in contravention of all norms of behaviour because as
Consul he had determined that this departure from the mos maiorum
was necessary to protect the state.

If we did pluck Cicero from the past and dropped him into Nova Roma
and explained that, rightly or wrongly, the Blasphemy Decretum had
been introduced because the Collegium had decided that despite its
un-historic nature the decretum was necessary in their view to
protect the Religio in circumstances that were not the norm for the
Religio in its historic context (i.e. the Religio operating as you
say in the midst of non-Religio macro environment), then he would
recognize the dilemma that had faced him.

Cicero was also of course famous for opening his mouth and uttering
some witticism that subsequently dropped him into hot water, so he
equally would probably not be shocked that something he said had
landed him in trouble.

I will be away for a few days and unable to respond, so my silence
in response to any reply should not be equated to anything other
than the lack of a computer :)

Vale
Caesar

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gaiusequitiuscato"
<mlcinnyc@y...> wrote:

>
> G. Equitius Cato L. Fidelio Graeco quiritibusque S.P.D.
>
> Salve Fidelius Graecus et salvete omnes.
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L.F. Graecus" <nexus909@h...>
> wrote:
> > This statement of oath affirms the presense, will, and favor of
> the gods. Is this claim not personally false for one who does not
> > practice the Religio privata and/or does it not force the non-
> > polytheist *inside* of NR to "bow down" in principle?
>
>
> CATO: And this, Fidelius Graecus, is exactly the philosophical
> mistake that Fabius Maximus is drawn towards: that there is a
> necessity for BELIEF inherent in the Religio Romana. The religio
> requires no personal belief whatsoever; there is no orthodoxy in
> it. The religio, to satisfy the requirements needed to safeguard
> the state, need only be followed in orthopraxy, i.e., by rites and
> ceremonies.
>
> Because we live in a society which is in some ways an inheritor of
> the "triumph" of Christianity over other religions in the West;

and

> because Christianity is both orthodoxic and orthopractic in

nature,

> we sometimes assume that all religion must be; this assumption

leads

> us to the further assumption that all religions require personal
> belief to be both effective and affective. Both of these
> assumptions are absolutely incorrect.
>
> Fidelius Graecus, do you cover your mouth when you cough? Cover
> your mouth when you yawn? Say "God bless you" or some other such
> nicety when someone sneezes? All three of these are based in the
> religious belief that unless you do so, either your soul will

escape

> your body or an evil spirit will enter it. These three actions

are,

> to one who no longer believes in the original cause for their
> performance, simply orthopractic; nevertheless, they are so much a
> part of our cultural inheritance that not to do so is considered
> impolite.
>
> If you are a Christian, and do not believe that evil spirits are
> waiting to hop in when you yawn, are you offending the Christian

God

> when you cover your mouth while yawning? No. You have adopted an
> orthopractic method of maintaining politesse in our society based
> upon mutually-accepted norms, regardless of its non-Christian
> religious source.
>
> In ancient Rome, the religio was so much a part of life that it

was

> not remarkable or a source of mystery: everyone knew what you were
> supposed to do and when you were supposed to do it (or the

pontiffs

> and magistrates told you). And it was done, whether or not it was
> believed (see the whole Cicero thing). It maintained public

order,

> a sense of continuity, and (if you believed) the favor of the Gods
> towards the state.
>
> You ascribe a faith-based mindset to a non-faith-based religious
> system. If a Christian or other non-practitioner takes the oath

of

> office as a magistrate of Nova Roma, then it is not, under any
> circumstances, cause to give anyone a reason to question their
> private faith; that faith is between them and whatever God or Gods
> they may believe in and worship in their religio privata. To put

it

> bluntly, it's none of your business how anyone chooses to
> rationalize or justify their religio privata with the religio
> publica of the state. The only thing that matters is that the
> orthopraxy of the religio publica be maintained.
>
> This does NOT, in any way, denigrate those who actually believe in
> the religious tenets of the religio romana; those who practice the
> religio have as deep and serious a faith as any non-practitioner --

-

> maybe even more, considering that this is one of the very few

places

> religio practitioners can call "home", which is one of the very

few

> points that Fabius Maximus made with which I agree.
>
> So. Do not think of the religio in terms of your own private
> understanding of what faith is and what a religion may or may not
> require. The religio is orthopractic, not orthodoxic. To put a
> different spin on it, think of it as the ANTI-Lutheran religion:
> justification by works alone.
>
> Vale et valete,
>
> Cato

G. Equitius Cato L. Apollonio Clement S.P.D.

Salve Apollonius Clement.

Cool. Something new to investigate :-)

I would say that when he refers to each of these throughout the
book, he makes it seem as if he is referring to *all* instances of
the practices, in every country (that he's heard of) and in every
religion (ditto) --- including Rome. Earlier (vi.9) Quintus has
defined divination as "the fore-telling and the fore-seeing of those
things which are thought to happen by chance". Quintus deals at
length with natural divination in dreams and draws on Greek and
Roman literature and history (xviii.34 - xix.37). He draws on
instances of disaster in Roman history when the signs were ignored
to demonstrate the validity of the augur's art (xv.25 - xvii.30).
He points out that all the great states of history have made use
of "skillful" divination and Quintus draws examples from Athenian,
Spartan and Roman history. In particular he discusses the use of the
Sybilline books, the learned interpretation of omens and augury in
Roman history and life (xliii.95 - xlviii.109).

So Roman history is used extensively to support Quintus' arguments
in favor of divination; it would only be reasonable that Cicero
includes Roman practices in his dismissal --- but now I'm more
determined to find out :-)

Vale bene,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Lucius Apollonius Clement"
<lucius.apollonius@y...> wrote:

>
> Lucius Apollonius Clement Gaio Equitio Cato S.P.D.
>
> According to Pierre Grimard, in his book "L'Empire Romain", the

term

> "superstitiones" has a precise meaning.
>
> He says "[...] superstitiones, c'est a dire des croyances et des

pratiques

> que ne garantissaient pas la religion des ancetres, ni les livres

sacres

> de la Sybylle, ni ceux des augures, ni l'autorite du Pontifex

Maximus".

>
> According to him the term 'superstitiones' designates the rites and
> beliefs which are not officially guaranteed by the ancestors of

Rome, the

> sacred books of the Sybylle, the augurs or the Pontifex Maximus

himself.

>
> Among those superstitiones, Pierre Grimard explains that Augustus

forbid

> the veneration of Isis within Rome and soften the rites dedicated

to

> Cybele.
>
> Gaius Equitius, don't take me wrong, I fully understand your

arguments and

> I agree with the idea you are expressing but I think there is a
> possibility that Cicero's use of the word 'superstiones' might

refer to

> foreign beliefs rather than to the Roman ones. It would therefore

be wrong

> to translate it to the English word 'superstition'.
>
> Salve,
>
> Lucius Apollonius Clement.