Romae Viri - A Few Loose Ends

[phil]

Here are a few extracts from Romae Viri I'm having trouble with. I could really use some help with them.

Romulus has built his city, populated it from bandits and shepherds from his refuge, and has now asked the neighbours for the right to marry their women. The neighbours are less than sympathetic in their reply:
ludibrium etiam additum "Cur non feminis quoque asylum aperuistis? Id enim compar foret conubium."
adding with derision "Why did you not also open your asylum to women? That indeed would have been an equal marriage". I don't get the last bit. Have I translated it right? They're treating the Romans as a laughing-stock, and I don't get the joke.

Shortly after, Romulus disappears in a puff of smoke.
Orta enim inter patres et plebem seditione, in contionem processit Iulius Proculus, iureiurando adfirmans visum a se Romulum augustiore forma, eundemque praecipere, ut seditionibus abstinerent et rem militarem colerent; futurum, ut omnium gentium domini exsisterent.
When an insurrection arose between the commoners and the nobles, into the meeting strode JP, swearing an oath that he had seen Romulus, looking spiffing, and that he had ordered the same thing, (i.e.) that they might settle down, and attend to military matters; and that in the future the masters of all races would appear. Did I get eundem right? Does it refer to the thing that JP orders? And I'm not sure about that last bit about the masters of all races. Sounds a bit Doctor Who.

Moving right along, now Tullus Hostius is king, and at the end of the Battle of the Triplets:
Iam singuli supererant, sed nec spe nec viribus pares. Alter erat intactus ferro et geminata victoria ferox, alter fessum vulnere, fessum cursu trahebat corpus. Nec illud prolium fuit. Romanus exsultans male sustinentem arma Curiatium conficit, iacentem spoliat.
By now, one (triplet) each survived, but equal neither in spirit nor strength. One was uninjured, sword-wise, and fierce with the twin victories, the other dragged himself, exhausted by a wound and exertion. It wasn't much of a fight. Is this bit right? illud? The exultant Roman... and then something about someone is holding up the weapons of the Curiatiuses, badly, and conficere has too many meanings, which doesn't help, when I'm already confused! And the thing in the accusative is holding something up, but he's dead, so how can he? He robs the chap lying there.

Looking forward to your help!

Phil

[adrianus]

The insult. You are scum. Best find scummy women. Our women are respectable. Scram, scum!
Ecce injuriam. Velut sentina estis. Aptior vobis sentina femina. Benè eductae mulieres nostrae. Fuge, faex!

futurum, ut omnium gentium domini exsisterent
[so] that they might emerge [as] masters of all nations in the future.

Romanus exsultans malè* sustinentem arma Curiatium conficit, iacentem spoliat.
Exultantly, the Roman kills the Curiatius viciously bearing arms and despoils/strips the one lying down.

*malè = wickedly or clumsily! (as you like) // "saevè" aut "ineliganter" ut velis

[modus.irrealis]

Orta enim inter patres et plebem seditione, in contionem processit Iulius Proculus, iureiurando adfirmans visum a se Romulum augustiore forma, eundemque praecipere, ut seditionibus abstinerent et rem militarem colerent; futurum, ut omnium gentium domini exsisterent.
When an insurrection arose between the commoners and the nobles, into the meeting strode JP, swearing an oath that he had seen Romulus, looking spiffing, and that he had ordered the same thing, (i.e.) that they might settle down, and attend to military matters; and that in the future the masters of all races would appear. Did I get eundem right?

Since "eundem" is masculine, it can't be what he ordered, and since "praecipere" otherwise wouldn't have an explicit subject (and my impression is that in Latin the infinitive in the infintive+accusative construction normally has an explicit subject), I would take it to refer to Romulus, "and that the same man ordered that..." Also, since it's the present infinitive, I don't think it's as accurate to have "had ordered."

futurum, ut omnium gentium domini exsisterent
[so] that they might emerge [as] masters of all nations in the future.

I read this as "futurum [esse], ut..." = "[he said] it would happen that (they would emerge...)", so just basically equivalent to the future infinitive, which "exsisto" seems to lack.

[adrianus]

I read this as "futurum [esse], ut..." = "[he said] it would happen that (they would emerge...)", so just basically equivalent to the future infinitive, which "exsisto" seems to lack.

I'd say you're right. It isn't necessary to say "in the future".
Tecum concurro. Non necesse est ut anglicè "in the future" dicamus.