Page 1 of 3

Expats from Nova Roma

PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 9:28 am
by Q Valerius
Are you an expat from Nova Roma? Do you have qualms with the place? Why did you leave? What's your story? What were you looking for? Did you find it, but changed your mind? Or were you looking for something different? Please do share! I'm very eager to learn.

If you feel like you cannot publicly name names, that's fair. I would very much like to know what happened if you don't mind sending me a PM, but if you still are uncomfortable, feel free to merely allude to what happened without naming anyone. But by my honor, verified by carissimus Aldus Marius and M. Horatius (Horatianus?), I swear that no one would find out.

I recently joined Nova Roma, after years of thinking about it, hearing stories from the initial group that left there and joined here. Nova Roma has come along way, I can vouch for that much, but my purpose, as should everyone's there, is to make it better. And thus any faults or flaws I'd love to know to tackle in the future.

Thank you all so much for indulging me,

Quintus Valerius

PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 2:42 pm
by Marcus Tullius Ioannes
I am in the procees of joining Nova Roma (I am on probation). So, I would also appreciate any comments or thoughts about it, like Q. Valerius.

I have read enough to gather that there was a significant parting of the ways some time ago, and confess I find the political aspects rather daunting. Politics was, of course, of great importance in ancient Rome, as any follower of Cicero must know, but I am primarily interested in other aspects of the Roman Way.

Oh, yes.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 9:01 pm
by Aldus Marius
Salvete, amici Romani,

My story is very public, and becoming more so; I've posted significant bits of it here in several places, and Nova Roma has since acquired the maturity and perspective to ask me to write it up for their Wiki. My Pages there are under Annales-->Cat:Nova Roma History-->Cat:Rixa Fimbriana (Nova Roma); or you can search the site directly for "The Fimbria Controversies". It's not done by a long shot, and it'll be a while before I can resume, but there's enough in there to figure out part of what got me so upset.

Here, I'll just go into the major thematic and cultural features and differences, to the extent that I can speak on them accurately after six years' absence and ten months' reacquaintance.

The Societas Via Romana was conceived as an educational institution. Nova Roma aspires to become a sovereign Roman nation: the Roman Republic Reborn, the ultimate re-creation and revival of ancient Roman civilisation, law and lifeways. In particular, it exists to re-establish the public (State) religion; for this reason alone it needs at least enough land, and enough hold over it, to serve as a center for worship of the Roman Gods. For a state religion, one needs a state. For public worship, one needs public institutions. Thus the quest for sovereignty and recognition.

This aspect has been de-emphasised (officially) quite a bit in recent years; but it's still in their mission statement, still in their "corporate consciousness", and it's still humming in the background of almost everything else they do. Their prides, their griefs, their worries, their hangups stem chiefly from the deep need to be taken Seriously. This basic insecurity has not diminished appreciably over the years. It explains a lot of other things about the group, and why things over there flare up the way they so often do.

Given the difference in purpose, there is also a difference in style or approach--one great enough to make NR stick out like a lone cactus in a pine forest to the rest of the Roman world. Simply put, Nova Roma is insular, almost to the point of isolationism. You will find no links on their site to other Roman groups, unless they are spinoffs of or allied with Nova Roma itself, or were founded by Nova Romans. (That's how we got on there.)

They tend to want to sequester their members. I'm on their newbie List and already had one good scare: the Provincial governor of California made a point of the undesireability of recruiting probati (new Cives) from other groups if there are still former Nova Romans to be coaxed back into the fold, lest any outside influence cause significant deviation from, and undue stress upon, Nova Roman organisational culture. (I'm hoping I just massively misunderstood what he said, but that's what he said...mi Valeri, could you go have a look at [newroman], Message #2496, and tell us what you think?) Maybe that was just the one magistrate, but I got the impression NR was worried about people being "off-message"--even if the message is good, word-of-mouth advertising.

The flip side of being isolationist is the delusion of self-sufficiency. I have to call it that, there's no gentler term that would be accurate. For most of its existence, Nova Roma didn't seem to think it needed the rest of the historical-reconstructionist movement, Roman-era or otherwise. It is still not especially receptive to ideas from other groups, no matter how much longer those groups have been in existence or how much more effectively they've been conveying Rome to the public. And I have been told in all seriousness, by good people whom I respect, that the NR Wiki will one day be the premier source of information about all aspects of the life and history of the Roman Republic. I look at the "Recent Changes" list; note the disparity between the plenitude of articles about internal affairs and the paucity of those about almost anything else; and emit a long, shuddering sigh. A noble aim, to be sure; but starting from so far behind...? Who's going to write those articles...and hasn't ancient Rome been covered much better, for much longer, in many other places on the Web?

To the truly bold and enterprising among you, all this must sound like an opportunity. I believe it is. I think, if enough good people go in, stay in, and rise to positions of respect and influence without losing their energy or their ideas, Nova Roma will continue to improve from the inside. But I will not gloss over the difficulty of the task. NR has proven highly-resistant to such change. It is taking place--slowly, modestly, by increments. But it has taken some really hard knocks and the combined efforts of every reform-minded individual and alliance over the last decade to achieve even that. Too many good people have burned themselves out in that Place. She's a heartbreaker, that new Republic. To me, it's a wonder that NR has survived itself.

Let me note that there are now plenty of other things to do in NR besides politics. The emphasis and atmosphere are still highly political; but a Civis can acquire dignitas through activity in various sodalitates, through the Academia Thules, through reenactments and other live gatherings. Working on the Wiki will get you positive vibes (I'm gettin' 'em!). Their few but undaunted Latinists are always looking for backup. And you may find activity at the Provincial level to be more satisfying, because it's not as much of a worm-wrestle as involvement with the central workings of the organisation, and it's more directly beneficial to fellow Romans-in-Spirit. Nova Roma *is* doing more outreach now, though I'm not sure it quite knows what to do with the results! >({|;-)

I must say I'm pleased to see this thread. Early on, when the Board was first launched, I'd get PMed by newbies every time someone mentioned Nova Roma, because there was no central place to share our experiences from there. I asked about starting a topic called "Nova Roma Survivors' Network"; but this was not received well because it was feared it would degenerate into one long rant, even with me moderating. (I was a just-plain-Sodalis then.) The consensus was that we simply had better things to talk about, and other things to do. But I think our own identity and "organisational culture" are strong enough now that we, like NR, can look realistically at that group and learn from it, without worrying that it's going to swallow us up.

In amicitia et fide,

PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 7:21 pm
by C. Cornelius Rufus
I am a "tax"-paying and voting citizen of Nova Roma for a while now. I rarely post to any of the lists but keep up with the summaries daily.

I joined NR originally because I have historical interests about ancient Rome and was looking primarily for a place with lots of good, detailed information that was hard to find in one place.

My first impression was that NR was a micro-national role-playing group and I thought that would be interesting and allow me to learn by putting myself into "character." Alas, I quickly learned that the serious Nova Romans actually believe they are the real thing, Religio Romano and all, and to be really frank that seems a bit bizarre to me.

Though I am a devout Christian, I have no problem with those who practice the religio or any other faith for that matter. But when it became apparent that they were serious and not role-playing (they are serious aren't they?) then I kind of felt like I had wandered into a mosque or Buddhist temple somewhere and started waving around a Crucifix and shouting Christian pieties. To me, even though there are other Christians at NR, it is the religious aspects that I find off-putting. That is not a slam against the faith or religious practices of anyone--it's just my own personal reaction and I would be lying if I didn't admit that it makes me uncomfortable.

In addition to the religious aspects of NR--or maybe because of it--I get a sense that they don't REALLY want to let in the "riff-raff" who might dilute the "purity" of their organization. I think that is a major hurdle that they may not be able to overcome. Casual interest does not seem to be welcome there as it is here. No matter what they hope to achieve I don't think there will ever be a signficant segment of the population who believe/practice the Religio Romano and that will always put a serious damper on their recruitment efforts. There are many (like me) who are interested in learning ABOUT the ancient religions, but few who want to PRACTICE them.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 4:37 pm
by Marcus Tullius Ioannes
I recently received an email from Nova Roma saying "farewell" and asking me to relate why I had left. However, I had not left, and do not know why I received the email. I was thinking of applying again, but if the primary focus is on the practice of the Religio Romana, and if it is such an insular micro-nation, I don't think it is for me. Thanks to all for the information.

Religiones atque Invocati

PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 9:52 pm
by Valerius Claudius Iohanes
Salvete sodales omnes -

Caius Cornelius Rufus, speaking of Nova Roma, brought up something that I go through in a bit different fashion - Should one enter a site or place devoted to worship, even if one knows one doesn't belong? Cornelius Rufus noster gets an uneasy feeling in the cyber-presence of the Religionists of Nova Roma (me too, occasionally, even as a guest); but I also get that feeling at the Catholic and Episcopalian Churches I irregularly attend. So I've had to think it through several times and, if anyone's interested, this is what my own mental congress has had to say:

My inner idealist says, Sure, go in, unless you're definitely barred; if not barred, you have the right; in addition, they should be educated about me and people like me!

My sad old native self says, It's always like this anyway, wherever you go, Iohannes - no room at any inn - so will it really make much difference? If they proselytize too zealously, you can always practice saying "No" politely; and

My nascent Stoic self says, It is a matter of indifference here in the material world - so, at least for education's sake, go ahead. But conduct yourself with respect, both for their virtues and for your own.

Hardly heroic, but reasonable.

- Valete, amici.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:08 am
by C. Cornelius Rufus
Good advice amici, which I attempt to practice. However, I feel that Nova Roma will forever limit itself to a infinitesimally small cult by following the path they are on. Recent activity on the NR Main List only reinforces that feeling as there seems to be a tide in favor of making the Religio Romana even more dominant than it currently is. I currently participate as merely an inquisitive observer even though I am as much a citizen and assidui as anyone else at NR. Now don't get me wrong--I think they have the right to do as they please and I can take it or leave it. But I am a very thick-skinned and tolerant person unlike most of the rest of the world. :lol:

Gaius Cornelius Rufus


PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 7:18 am
by Quintus Servilius Priscus
What is going on in NR at this time is why for the first time in over six years I did not run for a Office. I've been a Scriba, a Provincial Governor, Diribitor, and
Tribunus Plebis. Now I am taking a break from NR(at least as an Office holder) for a while. This way I can concentrate on the SVR.

Quintus Servilius Priscus

PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 3:47 pm
by Horatius Piscinus
Salvete Cai Rufe et Sodales omnes

I am one of those who left Nova Roma before the founding of SVR, rather infamously on the Ides of March 2001. I was Tribunus Plebis at the time and joined with a third of the Senate and with provincia Britannia in departing.

After twice serving as Consul in SVR, as Pontifex Maximus and Rector twice, as Augur and Flamen Cerealis, as Curator now, and elsewhere as a Praeceptor teaching on the religio Romana at Academia Thules, I was asked by members and by former members to rejoin Nova Roma. I did so in June 2005.

Since returning to Nova Roma I have received the honor of becoming Flamen Carmentis and most recently I was named a Pontifex. Last year I served once more as a Tribunus Plebis and was named a Senator. Next year I shall be Consul Maior in Nova Roma. Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus.

It has at times been an interesting relationship between SVR and Nova Roma. The atmosphere of each is so different that SVR has for some become a haven from all of the disputes seen in Nova Roma's past. Some in Nova Roma see SVR as a rival organization seeking to steal away their members. While other active members of Nova Roma see SVR as a model of what they'd like Nova Roma to become more like. Nova Roma was originally set up to become a religious organization, or something more. The cofounders of Nova Roma now struggle to have their creation adhere to their narrow vision, while the vast majority of Nova Romans are moving on to develop their own civitas. One difference is that in SVR we have always sought to have newer members enter into the leadership positions in order to keep SVR fresh and to prevent the burn-out experienced by magistrates in Nova Roma. That is not an easy task as most of us in SVR tend to be apolitical in the Societas, where Nova Roma seems to revolve entirely around its internal politics. But the early leaders of SVR all took it for granted that SVR would evolve over time rather than adhere to some vision written in stone.

On the religio Romana in Nova Roma, that is a complex matter. The religio was misused in the past for internal political disputes. Accusations flew that political opponents were blasheming against the Gods. Claims were made that Christians should not be allowed to hold offices. There is even a group, a very minor group, that advocates expelling any who are not practitioners of the religio Romana. Well, first, only about half of those who join Nova Roma do so out of an interest in the religio Romana. Disputes over the religio has caused a greater proportion of practitioners to depart than non-practitioners. So the reality is that less than half of Nova Romans have any interest in the religio Romana, fewer still practice the religio, and of those that do, they are split between the traditionalist-fundamentalists and the cultores Deorum. The Nova Roma Senate is now composed by over half who are Christian or secularists, while the practitioners of the religio Romana in the Senate are divided into two camps. I would characterize the struggle between them to be one of depoliticizing the religio in Nova Roma - as each side accuses the other of doing - and returning the focus of the religio in Nova Roma back onto the religious tradition embodied in the religio Romana. They also dispute what exactly is that religious tradition. In the past Christian Senators generally avoided involvement in such disputes between practitioners of the religio. That has now changed in this month of December and I think we shall see some changes in the coming year on how the religio Romana is administered in Nova Roma and on how it shall be projected as a religious tradition.

There are other tensions, rivalries, animosities in Nova Roma that go back some time. I find it interesting, having returned, at how such now play out on the public lists without all of the crudeness seen in the past. One thread currently on their main list concerns Christians and Pagans. It has at times been antagonistic, and both sides seem to take the occasional offense, but in general it has been relatively respectful - compared to past disruptions in Nova Roma. This is only a seasonal tension that arrives along with Saturnalia and Christmas. The way it has gone gives me some hope that Nova Roma could eventually find a way for its Christian citizens and the cultores Deorum to live peacefully together. If not in Nova Roma, where its citizens share an interest in Roma antiqua, then where else could cultores Deorum find a place of tolerance? Tensions on other issues, and some rivalries as well, I see melting away as magistrates are begining to join together on common goals. After ten years, Nova Roma is beginning to mature, just as one wise old wolfian centurion once told them that they would.

One thing that Nova Romans do not seem to understand well, and which may become a problem in SVR if we should not remain open to it, is that both Nova Roma's civitas and SVR's societas are part of a much larger community of enthusiasts for Roma antiqua. Memebership in SVR and NR and TRW and other groups all overlap. We are not rival groups, just different from one another in subtle ways. There are also university groups, and professional groups devoted to Roma antiqua. Instead of separate, isolated groups we ought to realize by now in what all we share and see ourselves more as neighborhoods within a common community.

In short, I see some hope for Nova Roma, and if that is possible then it will make a better community for all enthusiasts in Roma anatiqua to share.

Valete optime

De Religiosis

PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 7:48 pm
by Valerius Claudius Iohanes
Valerius Claudius Iohanes M. Moravio Piscino Horatiano sal. plurimam dicit.

Moravii Piscine, it is good to hear from you again. While not a Nova Roman, I recently joined the Nova Roma list and have been following the recent spate of arguments - those NR cives ARE a bit testy, I should say.

I must ask a favor, a quick explication: In NR's religious context, how does a "Traditionalist-fundamentalist" of the Religio (as you call him) differ from a "Cultor Deorum"? Is it a matter of office? Of being NR-centric rather than more universally Religious?

Et tu quoque, vade in pace deorum.

PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:06 pm
by cepasaccus
cepasaccus omnibus s. d.

Horati, I am one of these interested in Roman antiquity and hence also in Roman religion. For these I am here. What seems strange to me is the importance of offices/positions (mostly in NR). It seems strange to me just because I can't understand the importance of offices and because in my opinion these offices and this artificial state are not necessary (or even helpful) for the Roman religion to exist. (Rationale on request.)

Btw. what is TRW?


PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:06 am
by Tiberius Dionysius Draco
Salvete omnes,

Interesting post, Piscinus, I always like to get a better view on NR from one who has been (and still is) in touch with NR. Especially when concerning differences and similairities between us. I am interested to see how they will mature further.

cepasaccus wrote:Btw. what is TRW?

I think that would be



PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 3:47 am
by Aldus Marius
Salvete iterum, amici!

Yes, "TRW" stands for The Roman Way Society, most of whose members are in Austin and San Antonio, Texas. Other Texans, Oklahomans, even Kansans participate, and TRW both invites and is invited by reenactor units from Arkansas, New Mexico and anywhere else a Romano-Texan could be talked into driving to.

Because the bulk of us (I'm sort of a guest-member, a peregrinus if you will) live in the southern plains region of the US, several of us from NR, TRW and the SVR have been brainstorming a joint gathering with representatives from all three organisations, possibly to take place late next spring. This can work; nearly everyone who wants to come so far is already a member of at least two of these societies. And because our region is host to some of the North American continent's most dramatic weather, we have informally tagged our meeting "The Tornado Alley Roman Rally"! If I don't make any other long trips all year, I am definitely planning to attend that one. Wish us luck, fellowship, and lots of photo ops! >({|:-D

In amicitia et fide,

PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 6:48 am
by Horatius Piscinus
Salve Cepasaccus

cepasaccus wrote:Horati, I am one of these interested in Roman antiquity and hence also in Roman religion. For these I am here. What seems strange to me is the importance of offices/positions (mostly in NR). It seems strange to me just because I can't understand the importance of offices and because in my opinion these offices and this artificial state are not necessary (or even helpful) for the Roman religion to exist. (Rationale on request.)

I agree with you. Some in Nova Roma do not. They see the religio Romana as a State religion alone, and thus claim that there needs to be a state in order to have a religio Romana. That is their rationale for creating this "State-like" organization. They have it backwards. What became a state religion for Roma antiqua grew out of the customs and practices that are the religio Romana. You don't really need pontifices, and certainly not consules, in order to offer worship to the Gods.

Iohanes, there is a group who pose themselves as traditionalists, who come across as the worst sort of fundamentalists, condemning any others who do not agree with them as though blasphemers against the Gods. They insist that any who practice in the religio as sacerdotes must adhere to their view on reestablishing blood sacrifices. They keep changing criteria to prevent others from being made sacerdotes. They oppose women being made pontifices again, as NR has had women pontifices in the past. They have posed themselves without any real rationale as the religious authority over all who claim to practice the religio Romana, whether members of NR or not. And the reality is that for all they sputtering about what is proper or not, they really do not know a lot about the religio Romana, its institutions, its history, or its traditions.

One point of contention, which goes back a ways, certain of the "fundamentalists" have claimed that one need not believe in the Gods in order to practice the religio. In fact they are very suspiscious of anyone who does profess a belief in the Gods. I do not question in what a person may think the Gods to be. Some I know think of Them only in terms of being archetypes in the human psyche. Others believe them to be human personifications of the forces of Nature. Myself, I do not see Them as beings such as you or I. Mostly I think of Them as my ancestral spirits, and some higher deities, maybe not as beings like us but living entities nevertheless. Belief in the Gods is not the result of a rational process. I would say that it is something that comes more from experience, and often an irrational reaction to our experiences. But, I also believe that belief in the Gods is essential in worshipping the Gods. Otherwise performing rites, mumbling Latin prayers, going through the motions of practice without sincere belief is only superstitio at best, and something sinister and repulsive if done purposefully.

Cultores Deorum are those who see in the tradition of the religio Romana a spiritual path for themselves to follow. It involves practice in a Roman manner of ritual, but not so rigidly adhered to as the fundamentalists insist. The cultores Deorum look more upon the Numa tradition than imperial excess, where simple and sincere worship is exemplified over extravegance. It involves examination of one's values by looking at those examples held up to us in Roman legends. For many of us it involves contemplating philosophy and also something of mysticism. The Numa tradition is that part of the Roman tradition closest to the origin of the religio Romana from an ecstatic tradition. It is not the same as shamanism, but an emphasis is placed on direct experience of the Gods by the individual, without a priestly intermediary, in an ecstatic experience that can only come from ritual.

So I suppose one might say that for the fundamentalist Roman ritual is the desired result, as they place so much emphasis on the need to do this properly, while for the cultores Deorum ritual is only the beginning, and the experience that grows out of ritual is that which is most desirable.

Vale et vade in pace Deorum

PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 9:46 pm
by cepasaccus
cepasaccus Horatio s d

Horatius Piscinus wrote:So I suppose one might say that for the fundamentalist Roman ritual is the desired result, as they place so much emphasis on the need to do this properly, ...

Isn't the need to do the ritual properly the Roman way? The need to prevent any disturbance, the need to restart in case of disturbance and the need to execute a ritual as the ancestors did - even when the ritual is not understood, the need for prayers in contractual style. But this need of the perfect ritual did probably not prevent the believe in the gods and goddesses.



PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 4:05 am
by Aldus Marius
Salvete iterum, amici Romani,

My own practice is multitraditional, to put it mildly; Christ at my center, but plenty of Roman, Andean and Amerindian Entities peering over our shoulders. I didn't create this situation; but I don't run anybody off Who will give me half a listen, or Who's got a little wisdom, a little insight that I can take home in my duffel. I think They are simply curious as to what that old Marius is up to; hopefully I've been an interesting ride.

But, since I am on speaking terms with purt' near Everybody, and like it that way, and cannot remain so if I get all dogmatic, I've grown my own set of questions, accommodations and resolutions. And one thing has become very clear to me, at least, as both an anthropologist by training and a "mystic" of sorts in practice: There is very often a great difference between what the Gods (anybody's Gods) ask of men, and what men might offer Them.

The reasons for this have more to do with men than with Gods. Societies across time have agreed that it is good and even necessary to make offerings to Gods, to commune with Them in some fashion, to set aside sacred time and/or space for Them, or to be perhaps a bit more formal with Them than with human beings. But the specific days, acts, sacrifices and rituals by which we express this vary with the culture. Some of the old Gods in some cultures were offered the heads or hearts of captured enemies. Did those Gods Themselves demand this...or was it simply a function of how people related to their Gods in those places and times?

As far as I know, the Gods of Rome have not normally granted anyone knowledge by direct revelation. King Numa was very much the exception, and of course Apollo had His oracles, and I'm thinking something got said in the rites of the ecstatic and mystery traditions. But did the Gods Themselves decree aching exactitude in ritual? Or did men, priests, simply deem it more fitting than a more casual approach? If it was a human idea, that doesn't make it part of some horrid conspiracy; people decided these things, most often, out of respect. I think they genuinely meant well. But in laying out specifics, even a few at a time over hundreds of years, they tended to constrain the practice of subsequent generations, until the ritual itself could be mistaken for the encounter, and any encounter outside of ritual was suspect.

This phenomenon is hardly exclusive to the Religio Romana. Just ask the Catholics...or the Hebrews. There are wonderful mystic and ecstatic traditions in both of these faiths. There have also been protracted episodes, lasting for centuries, of square-filling. ("Fancy robes...check. Idled farmhands...check. Something burning...check.") I think almost any spiritual path (or, really, any human undertaking) can get caught in this sort of thinking. Indeed, it's just easier for most human beings to understand and attempt to follow a set of rules than it is for them to try to grasp the spirit of a thing.

So, to bring this back on-topic, we have Nova Romans trying to formulate rules for all cultores deorum to abide by...and the almost-certainty of failure because, (a), the rest of us have our own ways of relating to the Gods; (b) we (and They) seem to like it that way; and (c), as the Gods Themselves are well-aware but NR's Collegium Pontificium seemingly is not, practice without some kind of faith is next to meaningless.

Mea sententia. As I've mentioned, I'm no dogmatist. Whatever's working for you and your concept of Deity is jake with me. >({|:-)

In amicitia et fide,

duel citizenship

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:52 pm
by Gaius Iulius Tabernarius
I am a citizen of nova roma and despite the bad blood between the societies via romana and nova roma. It is my intention to be an active member of both. For me both organizations have common purpose and therefore are natural allies or at least helping one helps both.

specifically I joined the society because nova roma has no BBS forum and my limited experience with the e-mail lists was almost overwhelming, ( I don't have nearly enough time to read through all of that.)

so I am looking to engage in lively discussion with fellow Romans, and perhaps learning more about the roman way in the process.

I'd like to think that over time, people who consider themselves roman in any capacity will have a sort of commonality that exceeds specific membership to one organization.

after all Romans worrying about their specific faction as apposed to being roman led to Rome's eventual fall.

Glory daze...(RANT)

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 9:05 pm
by Aldus Marius
Salve, Gai Iuli, and Welcome!

...and my apologies in advance for what follows. It is not directed at you. As I've said many times in many places, I'm rather fond of our dual Citizens; they are some of our best people. Marcus Horatius is one. Quintus Servilius another. Marcus Octavius, yet a third. Servilius and Octavius have Admin access to this Board. Octavius hosts the site. Piscinus part-owns it. Moravia Aurelia is NR Propraetor of my Province, and a founder of TRW; a dual Citizen of those two groups, and the SCA besides. I'm not about to pull a Sertorius and exclude all Novaromani from my presence; I'd be slitting my own throat if I did. You are welcome here, and you are valued. My thoughts below are from somewhere, somewhen, and something else.

> I'd like to think that over time, people who consider themselves roman in any capacity
> will have a sort of commonality that exceeds specific membership to one organization.

*sighs deeply*

...See, that's where the neo-Roman (or Roman living-history, or...) movement was before Nova Roma rose to prominence.

I've been walking the Roman Way since just after the Gulf War. In a time when there were only two reenactor Legions in the entire United States, one on the East Coast and one on the West, I was an associate member of one and the entire Texas garrison of the other. Not to mention all the Roman fun I made for myself for seven years before Nova Roma was ever born. I've been hanging around people who live and breathe their history since I was six years old. And everywhere I have been has understood that people coming into their Romanitas, by whatever means, is a Good Thing for all of us. Every Legion, drama troupe, gladiator school, scholar, Latinist, archaeologist, creative writer, SCAdian and RenRat I have had dealings with since the summer of 1991 (see partial list at the Outpost) has understood this, and worked with the individual and with other Roman societies to further everyone's Roman experience.

So of course I got all excited to hear that there were fellow Ro-maniacs in the world, coming together for the first time in this New Republic. I'd never been a Roman in a batch. I had so much I wanted to share. So what did they do with me...? --Spent three years trying to tell me I wasn't "Roman" enough. Ex-friggin-cuse me???

That, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with Nova Roma. As far as they're concerned as an organisation, if you're not a Nova Roman you're not a Roman--period. So many just-plain-Citizens in that place understand things the same way I do: that Romans are rare, that we are precious, that "we must hang together or we shall surely hang separately", that anything we do to help each other helps the movement as a whole. Mons Aventinus was founded by a wise Novaromanus on that premise. But on the official level, I'm still waiting to hear anyone over there refer to any non-NR member as a Citizen of Rome. That is the toxic waste with which the only industrial-sized recreation of Rome has poisoned the well for the rest of the latter-day Roman world.

Do I sound angrier than I did towards the beginning of this thread? A lot has happened since then, and a lot more good people have been hurt by it on all sides of the endless argument. Their shenanigans have cost us a good Curator. And they've made a liar out of me; I've been telling friends for three years, at some risk to those friendships, that enough has changed, that NR is worth a second look...and they still chew up their good people, their Senate still thinks I'm some rutting seditionist to be reluctantly "forgiven" (have I told you about that?), and it seems they haven't learned a thing after all.

I do believe I've found my rage. God(s) bless us all; we're gonna need it...

In fide,

Gaio Iulio Tabernario

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 10:47 pm
by Valerius Claudius Iohanes
Iterum salve, Gaii Iulii Tabernarii -

despite the bad blood between the societies via romana and nova roma. It is my intention to be an active member of both.

Bene est. It's a hopeful stance.

Dii Immortales auxilium nobis ferant; valeantque omnes Romani boni animi.

SVR and NR

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 11:31 pm
by Gaius Iulius Tabernarius
To Aldus Marius

well all I have to say is I am hopeful that in the future some or all of the inconsistencies or backwardness that may have driven such a wedge through SVR and NR will be overcome.

my thought is that being and ideal roman is the same thing as being an ideal person. most Romans, (particularly in the late imperial period) where quite far from ideal which of course facilitated its downfall to a sizable extent.

roman ideals fit the way I think so I consider myself roman, and as I have found the via romana quite helpful in improving the quality of my life I of course advocate others to adopt as much or it as they are willing.

I am mildly disturbed that nowadays I can go to the mall and be horrified by roving hordes of vandals and Goths (slight chuckle) but I have to go online to find Romans, it seams we are that rare.

But hey nova roman is as far as I know a republic, so here is hoping the majority are or will become as I am accepting and open to anyone who remotely appreciates Rome to whatever extent they see fit.

after all I'm not some kind of extremist or something.

anyway my biggest concern for the future of nova roma is that they seam to be very small and inactive. I mean I had to look for something like nova roman in order to find it for one, and since joining I haven't really done anything, I tried the e-mail list then unsubscribed because I couldn't deal with all of the traffic. as I am not at a point in my life where I have the time or energy to devote to positions of a more political or industrious nature there really isn't a lot for me to do.

still when my busy schedule allows I will delve more deeply into it, as of now I enjoy spending my free time on internet forums and this seemed especially attractive.

(right now in New England where I live its freezing and miserable out so in winter I spend a lot of time inside)

Oh an let me add, whether or not you ever plan to become a citizen of nova roman again, I consider you every bit of a citizen as I am.

Like I indicated you are a roman if you act like one, wearing toga's and chatting about philosophy is just icing on the cake.

and woe to anyone who tries to spread the via romana to barbarous places, well lets just say I am a vocal proponent of roman ideals on my many internet wanderings. ... 0#M1847005 ... ml?page=97

cynics are ok, regular people not so much. Don't get me started on the Goths, Wiccans, and Christian fundamentalists!

We have... ideological issues that are near impossible to overcome, (I have tried)

To Valerius Claudius Iohanes

Thank you, I am hoping it will go well. I have an affinity for working with disparate groups and perhaps with time I might be able to do something helpful in that regard.