This topic contains 68 replies, has 1 voice, and was last updated by Anonymous 4 years, 2 months ago.
March 7, 2016 at 2:31 pm #3171
I do not agree with you. An example: We have a Rogator, he is pretty good and impartial, fair fulfills his duties. But due to the fact that he is an honest and principled Rogator, someone wants to remove him. All what needed to do bad man is to ask his friend (who has the same nomen as that of a Rogator) to participate in the elections. In this case, according to this rule of law, the Rogator will be removed. Thus, the rule of law makes it possible to manipulate the electoral process. Thus, a Rogator may be removed, and in its place may be supplied by another Rogator, who will be biased.March 7, 2016 at 2:44 pm #3172
True. Haven’t thought about that. Makes sense. Your previous suggestion seems like a good alternative.March 7, 2016 at 3:47 pm #3173
Maybe "family" should be changed to "domus" or the same "nomen-cognomen," which would indicate the same family?March 7, 2016 at 3:53 pm #3175
Anonymousquote Lucius Vitellius Triarius:
That would only work if kinsmen were obligated to have the same Nomen-Cognomen. People could simply prefer to use another cognomen then their brothers/sisters/uncles/nephews because either they use cognomen as the ancients used it primitively (as a Nickname) or they are not patrilinially kinsmen (and prefer to keep it traditional) or any other reason.
Resuming, notion of kinship today is not patrilinial but revolves around the Ego (as in, we consider people kin independant of the side of the family they come from) so we cant really use a roman notion of Nomen-Cognomen = Family. And I don’t think it good to force kinsmen to use the same Cognomen (since they might want to found their own line inside their Gens).March 8, 2016 at 4:54 pm #3234
"I) Election of the following magistrates and positions:"
Since here in item "e" and "f" you state things besides elections, you should put in the header "Powers" instead of "Election of the following magistrates" and specify in the individual items when talking of elections or else the article doesnt make sense.March 8, 2016 at 5:10 pm #3236
Regarding the Tribus, I thought it would be more geographicly specific then this. In a way, the Tribus themselves are not geographic, they are random but existing unspecificly in an area (as in, you can’t really tell what is the sole geographical area of Tribus Cornelia for example). If you’re going to go regional, why not make Tribus that actually have a regional base? As in a Tribus or two for the Iberian Peninsula, some Tribus for different german regions, a Tribus just for Italy, a Tribus for Greece, etc. It breaks a bit the idea of not alienating the Tribus from geography (because in the end you are still alienating them from geography.
Regarding the continental distribution, is this subject to revision depending on the size of the citizenry in each place? Because as of now almost all of the Tribus are in North America and in Europe and that is understandable Today because Today there are hardly any cultores or romans in any other part of the world, but as that changes are there any steps to create new Tribus?
It wouldn’t really be that hard to geographicly base the Tribus, since wikipedia gives us easy access to a bunch of regional maps and we could simply define it based on where the citizenry is most concentrated (for example, regions in Sarmatia would probably need to be better divided since they are the majority of our citizenry.)
Just my view on the matter. I found the Tribus System rather weak.March 9, 2016 at 12:22 am #3242
Your concerns are certainly valid. In creating this system there are a few challenges to keep in mind:
- i) We have no official provinces, and the provinces we will make are likely to change. Such a system would naturally lend itself to the tribe system.
- ii) Our population is still small, for example, Victor, you represent most of South America. This makes it hard to sub-divide regions into smaller units. Dividing things further at this time could unfairly advantage some regions with low populations while putting others such as Sarmatia at a disadvantage.
This system is intended to grow with the Roman Republic. This is why this legislation was not placed in the bylaws. It is easy to change this lex and I expect the Senate to revisit this tribe distribution semi-regularly. In the future I would love for the Roman Republic to have thousands of citizens and with tribes dedicated to small subdivisions of countries and large cities, that would be ideal. This said, there is some historical rationale for this current continental distribution. That "other organization" did have some tension between Europeans and North Americans. North Americans dominated that other organization and this affected places such as Sarmatia. They were ignored. This current system, with its weaknesses, prevents this issue as North America has the same amount of influence as Europe. Europe can’t just be ignored and vice-versa.
Bottomline, in the future, as we grow I hope this will evolve into regions smaller than a continent. But we need the population to support such division.
BrutusMarch 9, 2016 at 12:32 am #3245
Good to know it’s a possibility Brute. We have to live on our means, right? I can understand that, no problem ^^March 11, 2016 at 12:51 am #3320
Just a small correction, my Gens name is Atia Victrix.
Also, I propose that every citizen that entered in the Kalends of March be admitted to the Ordo Patricius (besides those that signed the declaration). I don’t think it really makes much sense to have a small number of Founding Families in the month that the organization was founded lol Just my opinion though. (I’d actually be a bit more reckless and say everyone who entered in March could get the honors, although I can imagine most people would think that would take away the glamour of the Ordo lol I think it makes more sense for the Patrician families to gradually be outnumbered by the Plebian Families over time simply because of natural growth instead of making them artificially small to simulate an elite. That would also make it rather unnecessary to add other families in the Ordo for some time)March 11, 2016 at 1:32 am #3322
The typo with your gens is corrected, apologies!
Regarding the Ordo Patricius. I will defer to the Comitia Curiata to see what their view is on this matter. I imagine the Ordo Patricius growing as the organization grows. You could argue they are more disserving. Some citizens who signed up on the Kalends might not end up being active. By keeping the Ordo Patricius small now, it allows us to include other active citizens who signed up later in the month as the organization grows. Also, I do think taking the time to sign the declaration and in many cases participate in the discussion of its contents should be noted in some manner.
Lastly, we need some Plebeians around to establish the Tribunes and the Plebeian order as a whole. The Tribunes actually hold a significant role as a check on the power of many offices and as a general advocate for the non-political facets of the community. This isn’t the case with some other organizations, but it is the case here. By limiting the candidates to this office by limiting the Plebeian order, we weaken the overall balance of power. This isn’t finalized, but I imagine we will see elections of the Consuls, Praetors within the next 3-4 weeks, followed by the Tribunes in late April or early May. So having 50% of the population non-plebeian could present a problem. Even with the limited Ordo Patricius system proposed we still have approx. 1:5 ratio of patricians to plebeians.
I’m curious to see what Triari and Scaura think on this matter.
BrutusMarch 11, 2016 at 1:41 am #3324
I just want to make a note saying that I would like to remain a plebeian, at least for the time being.
CatoMarch 11, 2016 at 1:45 am #3326
Thanks for the swift correction and also the swift answer Brute!
Regarding the merits of individual Patricii, I understand your point. I guess it’s just my over-simplified way of thinking lol I understand the Patrician order as simply being the descendants of the Patres Patriae, the founding fathers. I don’t really see inherent virtue in the title itself or anything of the sort. Most probably the Ordo would end up shrinking on its own after a while, after the inactive people start leaving (which is normal). It would also end up shrinking because in all subsequent months people would enter (hopefully) and fill in the Plebian file.
I think there are two perfectly valid ways of seeing it. Either the title ‘patrician’ is given in accordance to virtue, as you seem to see amice, and in which case should certainly be much restricted and given only to people who showed their worth as a mark of distinction; Or it is simply a constatation of a fact (the ‘You came here first’ fact). To this second scenario there’s a pretty simple way of going about it, as you showed yourself in other Leges: Simply make a clause stipulating that the Patrician order would stop being able to vote or be voted as Tribunes etc when they become less a certain percentage of the population. That way, Patricians would be able to take part in the magistrates that would later on be reserved for Plebes while the Plebian population is low. It’s basicly making the distinction between the orders appear Naturally, instead of artificially. But if it is too much work or outright undesirable (because of a preference to a ‘virtue oriented’ patrician order) I’m perfectly fine with that, just putting up another possibility that I personally find attractive ^^ Basicly, our "City" would be a patrician city (in other words, a Republic made up of the families that first started it) and little by little would be made small in comparison to the newcomers. In that sense, the descendants of the first families could truly say with pride that they are ‘patricians’, because that would be the same as saying "My family was part of those families that started it all"
Just something to think about ^^March 11, 2016 at 12:48 pm #3350
Regarding Triarii suggestion of making the patricians that signed the document ’emeriti’, Im not quite sure if I think that’s the most appropriate. From what I know (and maybe it is because it is a modern development) an ’emeritus’ is a former detainer of the title, that by ‘merit’ still can be spoken of as if he was of the title. I think the more accurate terminology would b to call the signers Patres Patriae, the Founding Fathers. My two centsMarch 11, 2016 at 1:03 pm #3351
Just read with the censor lex. I agree with everything on it except the part on the Mos Maiorum being defined by the Senate and Censors, for obvious reasons (my proposal regarding the Mos Maiorum).March 11, 2016 at 3:29 pm #3356
Anonymousquote Gaius Atius Victor:
I’m not so sure that any special designation should be applied. If people are interested, they can always just read the Declaration. The Pater Patriae designation should be reserved for use much later on, when a real candidate with many many years of dedication and service can be identified. Remember, there were only like 3 in antiquity, and that was over centuries and millions of Romans throughout the generations..March 11, 2016 at 3:35 pm #3357
I thought all the patriarchs that founded Rome were known as that, hence the word Patri-cius (Descendants of the Fathers/Patres). Afterwards it ending up being used also to refer to some few remarkable people who in a way made Rome ‘anew’. But I imagine I can be wrong, I don’t know enough of Roman History to say so with confidence.March 11, 2016 at 4:18 pm #3359
According to Livy, Cicero was the first to use the phrase pater patriae in describing Marius as the "Father of the Fatherland." Pliny states that Cicero was the first person to ever have the title conferred upon them by the Senate. Next, Augustus refused it. The second to accept the title was Iulius Caesar. Romulus was then honored with the title for the establishment of Rome, and Marcus Furius Camillus for the Republic, then it became an Imperial do-dad title to boost the egos and long titles of the Roman Empire, basically rendering it worthless. If it is anything, it is an Imperialist propaganda tag conferred upon emperors for their own ego requirements.
A more appropriate title would probably be pater or parens, which mean something completely different.March 11, 2016 at 4:34 pm #3361
Thanks for the reference, Triari! Then Pater makes more sense, truly.March 11, 2016 at 4:49 pm #3363
In my opinion, in this aspect, that’s all right with the law. Brutus quite correctly understood the legal nature of these terms. The fact is that "patres" (first 100 persons) and "pater patriae" are in a certain sense honorary titles, "patricii" – it is estate. So, these are two completely different categories of concepts.
If those who signed the declaration (i.e. Founders), will be called "fathers", still the question arises about whether they will apply to any estate. At the same time, the law assumes only two (basic) class. Based on the principle of historical authenticity, it is impossible to give a person the title of "father" and fit it into the plebeian estate. But as discussed law deals specifically with the estates, it is he has to establish that, to what estate are those who signed the declaration. Victor, following your logic, should be separately stipulate that persons who have signed the declaration, bestowed the honorary title of "father" (then I would agree with you). (((=
Brutus well done, the law has been prepared correctly.March 11, 2016 at 4:53 pm #3364
If it overcomplicates things it could be wiser to simply ignore the whole matter and just call the signers patricii, without any distinction. Hell, the signers already get their distinction by having their name on the Declaration, I don’t think anymore is necessary (although if others disagree It’s fine by me too).March 11, 2016 at 5:13 pm #3367
My dear friend, the easiest and simplest way is not always the right way. We have to go the right way. In the end, it depends on our actions is to be properly laid the foundation of the Roman Republic. Your question is quite true and justified, however, in a sense, they go beyond the discussion of draft document.
However, the right to resolve this situation, it is necessary to establish that the persons who signed the declaration received the honorary title of "Pater"/"Mater". And because of the presence of this honorary title these same individuals are ranked as to the order of the patricians. That would be the most historically grounded and right.March 11, 2016 at 6:06 pm #3369
That could certainly work as well, amice. We could simply define the signers as Patres and founders of the Patrician Order (being, of course, part of the founded order). That way, it would simply be a courtesy title.March 11, 2016 at 8:06 pm #3379
I just read Brutus message. I obviously hurried with praise. ((((= Now everything is exactly confused.
With all due respect, I wish to note that the best would be to stick to the original version of the document. But now everything has been turned upside down. What it is now proposed by Triarius and Brutus is something very far from the historical authenticity. It is necessary to to clearly understand distinguish between two concepts: "class" and "title" (honorary title).
"Ordo Patricii Emeritus" – this concept is used in the sense of honorary title. But it’s no class, no title. It generally has no connection with history.
Moreover, this approach entails some problems. For example, my wife became a patrician because I patrician. I do not pay taxes, but she paid. Does she lose her status? If not, the number of patrician families still will not change, that is, new sites are not free. Put patrician status, depending on the payment of taxes is historically unreliable. Saving patrician status never depended on any monetary criterion.
It would be right to do so:quote :March 11, 2016 at 8:20 pm #3381
Ordo Patricii – is estate. Belonging to this estate should be inherited and does not depend on any other criteria. Because otherwise, the patricians transformed from estate in a just carriers of title. In addition, this title will be an obstacle to participation in elections (Con. Pl.) and engage in a number of posts (Pleb. offic.). Simply put, this will be an onerous title (more minuses than pluses) and not belonging to the noble estate.March 12, 2016 at 11:48 pm #3402
One question I have is, if they are going to close everything up tomorrow, when will the CP get its attention?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.