What is "Nova Roma"?

[Epictetus]

Does anyone know what exactly this "Nova Roma" organisation is? I've known of its existence for some time, but to be honest I still haven't figured out what exactly it does or what the goals are. Is it a micronation? Is it some social, educational or reenactment organisation?

I've seen it mentioned here a few times so hope someone may be familiar with it.

http://www.novaroma.org/

[Jona Lendering]

Does anyone know what exactly this "Nova Roma" organisation is?

They once approached me to cooperate, but as I cannot really subscribe to the aim of the organization ("Dedicated to the restoration of classical Roman religion, culture and virtues"), I declined. No reintroduction of slavery, warfare, and gladiatoral contests for me. I prefer my democratic middle class family values of a peaceful, long, healthy life. Trade and cooperation are more efficient ways to get rich, you know, than war and conquest.

The site also claims to aim at "the restauration of the foundations of Western civilization" - which they believe are in Rome. This does not look like they really know a lot about history (more...), and that conclusion is corroborated by their statement that you do not have to become pagan when you join, because Nova Roma is not interested in the religion of its members. Unfortunately, this illuminated point of view is not really Roman: at least, the worshippers of Bacchus will have been surprised to read this, not to mention the Jews, worshippers of Isis, and Christians. Religion was one of the core aspects of Romanness.

Whatever they are, they want to restore an ancient Rome that is not really Roman.

[Epictetus]

Yeah, I keep getting the feeling that something was not quite right. When I first saw it some years ago I thought it was some sort of social experiment using the Roman republican system for governance and thought it was an interesting idea. But the more I looked, the less comfortable I was with it.

I guess I wasn't satisifed with what I read about it. Also I'm a fairly practical person, and I couldn't get a grasp of what exactly they did.

It wasn't easy for me to answer the questions of what they did, how they did it, and why they were doing it.

[Narukami]

Unfortunately, this illuminated point of view is not really Roman: at least, the worshippers of Bacchus will have been surprised to read this, not to mention the Jews, worshippers of Isis, and Christians. Religion was one of the core aspects of Romanness.

That is an interesting point.

I would have thought that loyalty to the Emperor, to the "civic" religion of Rome, was more important than what god or gods a person worshiped.

This is not to say that religion did not play an important part in Roman culture, but the incompatibility comes not from the Romans but from the various monotheistic religions which would not or could not find accommodation with Rome's polytheism. The Romans seem to have been rather tolerant of other religions so long as the adherents paid due respect to the Roman civic religion.

If Amonhotep's experiment with monotheism had succeeded, that is found favor with the Egyptian people and survived, would that have changed the religion of the Greeks and Romans or would it have been just another "Eastern" oddity the Romans tolerated but did not understand or support?

I do take your point about the Nova Roma group (the SCA with political ambitions) -- and your Lost Legacy link is very interesting. Another book looking for a English language publisher?

:wink:

Narukami

[Medusa Gladiatrix]

As far as I understand it they want to form a virtual nation, call it "micronation". I know some people who are members of that "organization" and what I heard from them is that the main issues is politics. There are offices like consul etc. and they keep quarreling over these things instead of dedicating themselves to the study of ancient Rome or doing reenactment. Some people I know dropped out of "Nova Roma" because of that. Also their religion are the old deities of Rome so they can give believing Christians a hard time.

[Jona Lendering]

Unfortunately, this illuminated point of view is not really Roman: at least, the worshippers of Bacchus will have been surprised to read this, not to mention the Jews, worshippers of Isis, and Christians. Religion was one of the core aspects of Romanness.

That is an interesting point. ... The Romans seem to have been rather tolerant of other religions so long as the adherents paid due respect to the Roman civic religion.

You phrase it better than I do; perhaps I should have said something like "Taking part in the state cult was a core aspect of being Roman."

[M. Demetrius]

I was pretty thoroughly discouraged from joining by one of their upper echelon fellows. I read their Constitution, in which is a statement that says, in paraphrase, "nothing shall be done that would be insulting to the Roman deities." I asked if simply not believing in them would be considered an insult, and was told flatly, "Yes, it would". I thanked them for their time and exited the group. No illusion of tolerance there, friends, make no mistake about that.

[Jona Lendering]

I thanked them for their time

Remarkably polite.

[Narukami]

Reminds me of a scene from the film Spartacus.

Gracchus and Caesar are exiting the Senate House

Gracchus: Let's make an old fashioned sacrifice for Glaberus' success, hmmm...
Caesar: I thought you had reservations about the gods.
Gracchus: Privately I believe in none of them, neither do you. Publicly I believe in them all. Greetings Marcus...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AU61Wy5 ... re=related

Fast Forward to 4:20 for the quote.

The ancient Romans cynical? No, just practical and pragmatic to a fault.

:wink:

Narukami

[M. Demetrius]

Of course, that's just a movie, and while it fits our sensibilities, I am not so sure that "most Romans" didn't believe in their religion. Even soldiers carried their Lararia on campaign. The things considered non-essentials would be discarded or left at home, don't you think?

[Narukami]

Absolutely right.

I'm just poking a little fun and being troublesome. :oops:

I do think the ancient Romans were both practical and pragmatic, to a fault, perhaps more so than any other people I can think of. However, I think many of them (and perhaps the majority) did take their religious beliefs seriously. Take for example the mystery cult favored by the legionaries -- Mithras. As Goldsworthy tells us "... its adherents bound by solemn oaths not to reveal its practices. One result of this is that we have only the sketchiest idea of its doctrines and rituals." (The Complete Roman Army p113)

On the other hand there is Marcus Crassus. "Prosecuted for sleeping with a Vestal Virgin - a particularly sacrilegious crime - he could protest that he had only seduced the woman in order to snap up her property, and be believed." (Rubicon p136)

Perhaps, as Orwell put it, some animals are more equal than others.

Ah history -- Black & White and lots of Gray... :?

:wink:

Narukami

[M. Demetrius]

Ah history -- Black & White and lots of Gray

In low enough light, either one can look black...it's when the light is turned up that the true colors begin to show, right?

I wonder how many members are active in NR these days?